ἌΡΗ Ἰο θῖο. ἕω 
 okies! csi 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 
 
 httos://archive.org/details/criticalexegetico6meye 
 
ΚΡ ταν νον 
 PNK bh ἐδ ἢ 
 F git. eM Ἂν, 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ‘ a ih: 
 
 
 
 o τὰ 5 
 
 ee 
 

 
CRITICAL AND EXEGHTICAL 
 
 HAND-BOOK 
 
 THE EPISTLE 10 THE ROMANS 
 
 BY 
 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tx.D. 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 
 Rey. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A., AND REV. EDWIN JOHNSON, B.A. 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 
 
 WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
 
 TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS 
 10 AND 12 DEY STREET 
 
 5 1884 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
 By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 In Dr. Dickson’s General Preface to the English Translation of Meyer’s 
 Commentary on the New Testament, which is placed at the beginning 
 of the volumes on the Epistle to the Romans, the following sentences 
 descriptive of its character are found. ‘‘ In estimating the character and 
 value of Dr. Meyer’s work, it is essential that we should always bear in 
 mind the precise standpoint from which it is written. That is simply 
 and solely the standpoint of the exegete, who endeavours in the exercise 
 of his own independent judgment to arrive, by the use of the proper 
 means, at the historical sense of Scripture. His object is not to seek 
 support for the doctrines, nor does he bind himself or regulate his 
 operations by the definitions or decisions, of any particular church. 
 On the contrary, he reaches his results by a purely exegetical process, 
 and places them, when so found, at the disposal of the Church.’’ In 
 other words, his Commentary is what an exegetical commentary ought 
 to be. For this reason, the introduction of this work, a few years since, 
 to the knowledge of English and American students of the New Testa- 
 ment who had no acquaintance with the language in which it was origi- 
 nally written, was an event of much significance in the progress of Bibli- 
 cal learning. In our own country, by reason of the peculiar circum- 
 stances of our history, the study of Theology began, and for a long 
 period was carried forward, almost wholly on the doctrinal and philo- 
 sophical side. A few scholars, indeed, like Moses Stuart and Josiah W. 
 Gibbs, investigated the Scriptures in the purely exegetical way, and thus 
 became leaders in the right path. But itis only within the last quarter 
 of a century that such investigation has made its great advasce move- 
 ment among us and assumed for itself its proper relative position. That 
 the effect of German scholarship in this department of study has been 
 greatly beneficial to our Theology cannot be questioned. It has tended 
 directly and strongly to the end of bringing us to the immediate, fair- 
 minded, intelligent examination of the New Testament words, and to 
 the interpretation of them, as the thing of primary importance, according 
 
iv PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 to strict grammatical and linguistic principles. No better example of the 
 right method of explaining and commenting has ever been presented to 
 the student than that which Meyer has given. He was eminently fitted, 
 both by his learning and his spirit, to be an interpreter of the Apostolic 
 writings, and, like all candid and large-hearted seekers after the truth, 
 he entered more fully into the possession of its treasures as the years of 
 his life moved onward. The knowledge and influence of such a commen- 
 tator’s writings are of peculiar value in the study of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, in the atmosphere of which our theological thinking needs 
 continually to be brought to measure and adjust-itself by the true prin- 
 ciples of interpretation. 
 
 The design of the publishers of the present edition of Meyer’s work 
 is to place it within the reach of the largest possible number of theo- 
 logical students and ministers, in order that the influence of its profound 
 scholarship, its true methods, its honest truth-seeking purpose, its relig- 
 ious spirit and its manly confidence in Christianity may be most widely 
 extended. The commentary is printed in full and precise accordance 
 with the English Translation—except that, in many instances, references 
 to authorities and to Greek writers are transferred from the page to foot- 
 notes—and by an arrangement with the English publishers. The 
 translation of this volume was made, as indicated on the title-page, by 
 the Rev. John C. Moore and the Rev. Edwin Johnson; the work of 
 the former covering the first eight chapters, and that of the latter 
 the remainder of the Epistle. The translation, it is believed, has com- 
 mended itself to those who have used it since its first publication. The 
 Rev. Dr. William P. Dickson, of the University of Glasgow, was the 
 superintending editor of the work when this portion of it was pre- 
 pared, and the entire translation, so long as his editorship continued, 
 was reviewed and revised by him, As the Commentary on the Romans 
 was the first of the series which was published, Dr. Dickson introduced 
 it by aGeneral Preface. This preface it has been thought proper to omit 
 in this edition, inasmuch as the principal facts connected with Meyer’s 
 life, which it contained, have been already stated in the volume on the 
 Acts, edited by Dr. Ormiston, and because the Commentary is now so 
 much better known than when it was first issued in Edinburgh, that such 
 introductory words seem to be scarcely necessary. The Topical Index at 
 the end of the volume has been prepared by the Rev. G. F. Behringer, 
 of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a general supervision of 
 the work, while passing through the press. 
 
 As to my own share in the present volume, as American Editor, I may 
 be permitted to say a few words. The limitations of the volume have 
 allowed me to add only about eighty pages of annotations. Within so 
 
 
 
PREFACE BY ΤῈ AMERICAN EDITOR. Vv 
 
 small a space it was manifestly impossible to consider with fulness or 
 freedom all the points of interest which the Epistle presents, or even to 
 set forth and establish by arguments the view which I hold of its character, 
 its design and purpose, its line of thought, its circle of doctrinal teach- 
 ing’, or what, if the expression may be allowed me, I may call its peculiar 
 Paulinism. The discussion of these and other questions would demand 
 -avolume, which I hope that, at some future time, I may be able to 
 prepare. All that I have attempted to do, at present, is to give some 
 brief notes, at the close of each chapter, upon words or sentences re- 
 specting which it has seemed to me that suggestions might be helpful 
 towards a true understanding of the Apostle’s meaning. In connection 
 with the setting forth of this meaning, I have occasionally raised the 
 inquiry whether Paul intended to declare a particular doctrine in a 
 particular verse or passage, and have sometimes endeavored to show 
 that he had no such intention. But I have not deemed it to be within 
 my sphere in these annotations—a sphere which is purely exegetical— 
 to affirm or to deny that any such doctrine belonged to the Pauline 
 system. For this reason, also, as well as because the book 1s intended, 
 as the English editor says in his Preface, for the professional scholar, 
 who can endure in a writer some views with which he may not himself 
 agree, I have not considered it necessary to discuss any doctrinal 
 opinions to which Meyer has incidentally given expression in his re- 
 marks upon points with which they have no vital and essential con- 
 nection. I have purposely made but few references in the notes to 
 commentators and writers upon the Epistle. As I have long been en- 
 gaged in the work of theological instruction in the department of New 
 Testament Greek, it will not be supposed, I trust, that the omission is 
 due to any want of reading the works of such writers, or of acknowledg- 
 ment of what I have gained in my studies from their views or thoughts. 
 Occasional allusions to some of the most recent authors appeared to me 
 not inappropriate, but the limited space at my command rendered it im- 
 practicable to mention names, as Meyer himself has done so constantly 
 and abundantly. The edition of Meyer’s work on the Epistle which was 
 published about two years since by Dr, Bernhard Weiss has been referred 
 to somewhat frequently, because it gives—where he differs from Meyer, 
 as well as where he adds his assent to what Meyer had said—the views of 
 the scholar who is, at present, perhaps more prominent than any other, 
 in this line of studies, in Germany. It is a matter of satisfaction to me 
 that in some important points, respecting which my own opinions were 
 formed many years ago, I find myself confirmed by the words of this 
 very able writer. In some cases mentioned in my notes, on the other 
 hand, where I am constrained to take a position opposite to his, I hope 
 
-- 
 
 ΥἹ PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 that the reasons presented may be regarded as not unworthy of serious 
 consideration. Ina number of these cases I have the pleasing con- 
 sciousness of standing with Meyer himself. 
 
 If the few pages which I have inserted in this volume shall prove to 
 be helpful to any students of the Pauline writings—especially, if they 
 shall te viewed as, in any measure, deserving of a place in such near 
 connection with the words and thoughts of a commentator whom I have 
 long held in so much honour, I shall be glad to have had the privilege 
 of associating my name, even in the most unpretending way, with his, 
 as his work goes forth for a wider circulation among the clergy and 
 the members of Theological Schools in our country. To those who have 
 been connected with the Divinity School of Yale College during the 
 past twenty-six years,—in whose life and work I have a personal and 
 most friendly interest, —I commend the volume in all its parts. 
 
 Timotny Dwieut, 
 Yair Cotiecs, February 18, 1884. 
 
 Norz.—In my own annotations, the edition of Meyer’s work by Weiss is com- 
 monly referred to as Weiss ed. Mey. The letters T. R. are used to designate 
 the Textus Receptus. The references to Winer’s Grammar are tuo the American 
 translation. Imay state that, for the convenience of students, I have inserted 
 the numbers of the pages of the American translations of both Buttmann’s and 
 Winer’s Grammars, wherever Meyer has cited these works in his notes, In 
 regard to other abbreviations, see page xxiv. 
 
 The reader will allow me to correct one or two errors, which were accident- 
 ally overlooked by me in revising the proof-sheets of my notes. In the first 
 line of page 75, ““ οἰκονόμους), so etc.” should be read, instead of *‘oix). So ete.” 
 In the seventh line of page 79, for ‘‘ Gal. iii.”” read Gal. vy. On page 108, Note 
 XX., line 7, for ‘*to the approving’ read ‘‘of the approving.’’ Page 254, line 
 3, for ‘‘ ver. 20’’ read “ἐν. 20,” and page 255, line 2, for ‘‘ vv. 12-19” read “ἐν. 
 12-19,” and at the end of Note LXXIII. read “ver. 20’ for “‘ ver. 19." On 
 the other hand, on page 294, line 15 of Note LXXXVI., for ‘* v. 25” read “ ver. 
 25.’’ On page 289, Note LXXVII. in the last two lines let the words “ first” 
 and ‘‘ second” exchange places. These cases include all, I think, which are 
 of any importance and which the reader will, without trouble, adjust for 
 himself, PD, 
 
PREFACE 
 
 SPECIALLY WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ENGLISH 
 EDITION. 
 
 Ir cannot but be of great importance in the interests of a thorough, 
 sure, and comprehensive knowledge, that the results of progressive 
 effort and research in the wide domain of the sciences should be 
 mutually exchanged and spread from people to people, and from tongue 
 to tongue. In this way of a living fellowship of mind, penetrating to 
 the farthest limits of civilization, the various scientific peculiarities of 
 national development and culture are necessarily more and more elevated 
 into common property as regards their excellences, while their several 
 defects and shortcomings are reciprocally compensated and supplied ; and 
 thus the honest efforts and labours of individuals, pressing forward in com- 
 mon towards a deeper and clearer knowledge, are at once encouraged by 
 their mutual respect and stimulated by a generous rivalry. Especially, 
 and in an eminent degree, does this hold true within the sphere devoted 
 to the highest object of human effort—the sphere of scientific theology. 
 To the cultivation of this science, in accordance with its healthy life 
 springing from the Divine Word and with its destination embracing time 
 and eternity, belongs inan eminent sense the noble vocation of applying 
 every gift received from God freely and faithfully to the service of the 
 great whole—the building up of His kingdom. In its view the nations 
 with their various characteristic powers, capacities, and tongues, are 
 members of the one body, to which they are to hail each other as 
 belonging in the fellowship of the one Head, which is Christ, and of the 
 one Spirit, whose motions and influences are not restrained by any limits 
 of nation or of Janguage. 
 
 From this point of view it cannot but be in every sense a matter for 
 congratulation that in our day more than formerly those literary works 
 of German theology, which have on their native soil obtained a fair 
 position in the literature of the science to which they relate, should by 
 translation into the English tongue have that more extended field opened 
 
ὙΠ] PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 
 
 up to them, whose only limit is the ever-increasing diffusion and prev- 
 alence of that language in both hemispheres. Thus German theological 
 labor goes forth into the wide world ; becomes at home in distant lands 
 and in a foreign dress ; communicates what has been given to it, in 
 order, by the mutual working of the Spirit, to receive in its turn from 
 abroad ; stimulates so far as in it lies, in order that it may itself find 
 stimulus and furtherance, instruction and correction ; and in all this lends 
 its aid, that the divided theological strivings of the age and the various 
 tendencies of religious national character may be daily brought closer 
 together, and united in the eternal focus of all genuine science, which 
 is truth and nothing but truth—and in the realin of theology the high- 
 est truth of all, that of divine revelation. 
 
 In the transplanting of the literary products of German theology to 
 the soil of the English language the well-known publishing house of the 
 Messrs. T. & T. Clark, of Edinburgh, have earned special distinction ; 
 and their efforts, supported by select and able professional scholars, have 
 already found, and continue increasingly to find, an appreciation cor- 
 responding to their merits both in British and American circles, I have 
 therefore readily and willingly given my consent to the proposal of the 
 above-mentioned honorable publishers to set on foot and to issue an 
 English translation of my Commentary on the New Testament ; and 
 with no less readiness have my esteemed German publishers, Vanden- 
 hoeck and Ruprecht in Gittingen, declared their agreement to it. I 
 earnestly wish that the version thus undertaken, the first portion of 
 which is given to the public in the present volume, may not fail to 
 receive, in the field of the English language and of the science which it 
 represents, an indulgent and kindly reception, such as, during a long 
 series of years, has been accorded to the German work by the German 
 theological public. And if I venture to couple with this wish some 
 measure of a hope corresponding to it, Iam induced to do so simply 
 by the fact that even in the German idiom these works have already 
 found their way, in no inconsiderable numbers, both to England and 
 America. 
 
 Respecting the object and intention of my Commentaries no special 
 explanation is needed, since, in point of fact, these are obvious on the 
 face of them. They aim at exactly ascertaining and establishing on due 
 grounds the purely historical sense of Scripture. This aim is so clear 
 and so lofty, that all the produce of one’s own thoughts and subjective 
 speculation must fall entirely into the background, and must not be 
 allowed to mix up anything of its own with what objectively stands 
 forth in the revelation of the New Testament and simply seeks to be 
 understood just as itstands. For exegesis is a historical science, because 
 
PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION, ΙΧ 
 
 the sense of Scripture, the investigation of which is its task, can only be 
 regarded and treated as an historical fact; as positively given, it can 
 only be known, proved, established, and set forth so as to be clearly and 
 surely ynderstood, by the positive method of studying the grammar, the 
 usus loguendi, and the connection in detail as well as in its wider and 
 widest sense. Exegetical research therefore cannot regard any defini- 
 tions of the doctrinal system ofa Church as binding or regulative for its 
 operations, as if forsooth, in cases where the Confession has spoken, its 
 duty were to seek only what it was ὦ priori directed to seek, and there- 
 upon to find only what it so seeks. No! it is just when perfectly 
 unprejudiced, impartial, and free—and thus all the more consciously 
 and consistently guided simply and solely by those historically given 
 factors of its science —that it is able with genuine humility to render to 
 the Church, so far as the latter maintains its palladium in the pure Word 
 of God, real and wholesome service for the present and the future. 
 Unhappily the Church of Rome, by its unchangeable tradition beyond 
 the pale of Scripture, and now completely by its Vaticanum, has refused 
 to receive such service in ali points affecting its peculiar doctrine. But 
 with the Evangelical Church it is otherwise. ΠΟΛ ΟΝ deep may be 
 the heavings of conflicting elements within it, and however long may be 
 the duration of the painful throes which shall at last issue—according to 
 the counsel of God and when His hour has come—in a happier time for 
 the Church when men’s minds shall have attained a higher union, the pure 
 word of Scripture, in its historical truth and clearness and in its world- 
 subduing divine might, disengaged from every addition of human 
 scholasticism and its dividing formulae, must and shall at length become 
 once more a wonderful power of peace unto unity of faith and love. 
 The Evangelical Church bears inalienably in its bosom the Word as the 
 living and imperishable leaven of that final development. 
 
 Such is the ideal goal, which the scientific exposition of Scripture, 
 while it desires nothing else than to elucidate and further the true his- 
 torical understanding of Scripture, may never lose sight of in regard to 
 the Church, which is built on the Word. But how limited is the meas- 
 ure of the attainments and of the gifts conferred upon the individual ! 
 and how irresistibly must it impel him, in the consciousness of his 
 fragmentary contributions, to the humbling confession, ‘‘ Not as though 
 Thad already attained !’’? Nevertheless let each strive faithfully and 
 honestly, according to what has been given to him, for that noble goal 
 in the field of Scripture-science, in firm assurance that God can bless 
 even what is little and be mighty in what is weak. And so may the 
 gracious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ accompany my hum- 
 ble labors on His Word, as they are now going forth in the dress of 
 
Σ PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 
 
 another language to far distant brethren, with the blessing on which 
 all success depends, that they may conduce to the knowledge of His 
 Truth, to the service of His Church, and to the glory of His Holy 
 Name. 
 Dr. HEIN. AUG. WILH. MEYER, 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH. 
 Hannover, March, 1873. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE GERMAN EDITION. 
 
 Forry years have now elapsed since my Commentaries on the New 
 Testament were first given to the public. The first edition of the first 
 volume-—the weak commencement—appeared in January, 1832. A 
 scientific work, which has passed through a long course of development 
 and still continues that course, has always a history—a biography—of 
 its own, which of course is intimately interwoven with that of its author. 
 Yet in this retrospect I can only be filled with praise and thanksgiving 
 to the divine grace ; of myself I have nothing to say. The indulgence 
 of friendly readers, which I have experienced so long, will not, I hope, 
 fail to be still extended to me, when my day’s work is drawing to its end. 
 
 This fifth edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is 
 based—as was of course to be expected, and may be inferred from the 
 increase in the number of the sheets—on a new and careful revision of 
 the fourth edition, which was issued in 1865. This enlargement— 
 although in particular instances much has been abridged or even deleted 
 —could not be avoided, if on the one hand the more recent publications 
 relating to the Epistle were to meet with due attention,’ and if on the 
 
 1 T could not take into consideration the treatise of Dr. Eklund : “ σάρξ vo- 
 cabulum, quid ap. Paulum significet,’’ Lund, May, 1872, which, cautiously pro- 
 ceeding by a purely exegetical method, in the definition of the ethical side of 
 that notion arrives substantially at the explanation of Augustine and Luther— 
 a result, nevertheless, in which I am still precluded from concurring, as regards 
 the Epistle to the Romans, by the contrast of σώρξ and νοῦς, as well as that of 
 σώρξ and the moral ἐγώ in ch, vii.—I must here also make supplementary 
 mention of Hilgenfeld’s dissertation ** Petrus in Rom und Johannes in Kl. Asien” 
 (Zeitschrift, 1872. 3); in it he declares himself in favor of the nearly contem- 
 porary martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome as a historically accredited fact, 
 and, ἃ5 1 must still even after the doubts of Lipsius assume, with just reason, 
 even as respects its independence of the Simon legend.—During the very 
 printing of this Preface there have come into my hands the two dissertations 
 by Harmsen, who defends the reference of the doxology in ix. 5 to God, and 
 Hilgenfeld, who maintains the genuineness of chapters xv, and xvi, (in the 
 latter’s Zeitschrift, 1872. 4). 
 
xi PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. 
 
 other hand the general plan of the book—according to which it has to 
 provide along with the exposition itself a critical view of the interpreta- 
 tions contrasting with it, and so of the detailed history of the exegesis 
 —was to be preserved. 
 
 But on what portion of the New Testament could the Jabour and 
 troubie—which are being continually renewed, wherever exegetical sci- 
 ence conscientiously strives to reach its pure and clear historic aim—be 
 less spared than on this, the grandest and richest in contents of all the 
 Apostle’s letters? Especially at the present time. The Epistle to the 
 Romans still stands forth as a never silent accuser confronting the Ro- 
 man ecclesiasticism, which has strained to the uttermost spiritual arro- 
 gance in the dethroned head, and Loyolist submissiveness in the mem- 
 bers, of its hierarchy (perinde ac si essent cadavera) ; it is still the stead- 
 fast divine charter of the Reformation, as formerly our Luther found 
 mainly in it the unyielding fulerum by the aid of which he upheaved 
 the firmly-knit Roman structure from its old foundations, Amidst the 
 vehement and pretentious conflicts, which continually surround us in the 
 field of evangelic belief, we still have in this Epistle—just because it sets 
 clearly before us the pure apostolic Gospel in its deepest and most com- 
 prehensive scope—the clearest and most prominent criterion for the rec- 
 ognition of what belongs to the pith and marrow of the Confession, in 
 order that we may distinguish with steadfast eye and conscience that 
 which is essential from all the fleeting, temporary, controversial or 
 scholastic forms, with which it has become connected and interwoven 
 through the historical relations of ecclesiastical symbols ; a distinction, 
 to which even the Introduction to the Formula Concordiae, although 
 this most of all bears the theological impress of the time, significantly 
 enough points, and which better meets the exigencies of the restless 
 present than the overbearing cry—recklessly transcending limit or meas- 
 ure—after unity of doctrine, which yet does not remove or even so 
 much as conceal the dissensions among the criers themselves. The 
 unity which they desire—were it uniformly established, as it were in the 
 Jump, for ad/ doctrinal definitions of the Confession—would be Roman, 
 and the very negation of truth and truthfulness in the church, because 
 it would be contrary to the freedom of conscience in the understanding 
 of Scripture, which has its ground and support, its standard and 
 limit, and the holy warrant of its upright confidence, not beyond the 
 pale of Scripture, but iz it, and in it alone. 
 
 Let us only advance with clearness along the straight path of pure 
 historical exegesis, in virtue of which we have always to receive what 
 Scripture gives to us, and never to give to it aught of our own. Other- 
 wise we run a risk of falling into the boundless maze of an interpreta- 
 
PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. xill 
 
 tion of Scripture at our own pleasure, in which artificial and violent ex- 
 pedients are quickly enough resorted to, with a view to establisn results 
 which are constructed from foregone premisses, and to procure doctrines 
 which are the creations—obtruded on Scripture—of a self-made world of 
 thought and its combinations. Exegetes of this sort—whose labours, 
 
 
 
 we may add, are usually facilitated by a lack of sure and thorough phi- 
 lological culture,’ and of needful respect for linguistic authorities—have 
 the dubious merit of provoking refutation more than others do, and 
 thereby indirectly promoting the elucidation of the true sense of Script- 
 ure. Yet they may, as experience shows, attain fora time an influence, 
 especially over younger theologians who have not yet reached the stead- 
 iness and soberness of mature exegetic judgment, by the charm of nov- 
 elty and of a certain originality, as well as of a dialectic art, which veils 
 wits mistakes so that they they are not at once recognized—an influence 
 under which good abilities are misled and learn to be content with ex- 
 tracting from the words of Scripture a meaning which, originating from 
 their own presuppositions, belongs really to themselves. Indeed, if 
 such a mode of handling Scripture, with its self-deceptions and with its 
 often very singular caprices, could become dominant (which, looking to 
 the present state and progress of science, 1 do not reckon possible), 
 there would be reason to fear that gradually the principle of Scripture 
 authority, which preserved in its full objectivity is the aegis of the 
 evangelical churches, would become ¢lusory. All the worse and more 
 confusing is it, when such an exegesis employs as the organ of present- 
 ing and communicating its views a mode of expression, the quaint 
 drapery of which hinders us from clearly discerning the substance of 
 the meaning lying beneath it, and in fact frequently permits the effort 
 
 1 We theologians are far too much given to neglect a comprehensive and 
 precise knowledge of the Greek grammar. If the exegete of the present day 
 supposes himself adequately furnished with such a Grammar as that of Rost 
 (whose memory, as my former Gymnasial teacher, I gratefully revere) he is 
 mistaken ; it is no longer sufficient. We ought not to overlook the progress of 
 philology in the field of the classics, but should be diligent in turning to ac- 
 count, for the New Testament, whatever the contributions of the present day 
 furnish. Otherwise we neglect an eminently important part of our duty. I 
 cannot but here recommend very urgently to the theologian, in the interest of 
 pure exegesis, the second edition of Kiithner’s Large Grammar (in two parts, 
 1869-1872)—to which my citations will always henceforth refer—as the most 
 complete and most solid work on the structure of the Greek language regarded 
 from the present standpoint of science. This entirely remodelled edition isa 
 glorious monument of thorough and comprehensive erudition, and of clear and 
 ripe familiarity with the genius of the language of classic Hellenism. 
 
ΧΙΥ PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. 
 
 of translating it into current forms of speech, which cannot mislead, to 
 be attended with but dubious success.’ 
 
 For the critical remarks the part of the editio octava of Tischendorf’s 
 New Testament, which inciudes the present Epistle, was in good time 
 to be turned to account. As it deviates in many cases from the edztio 
 septima, and this diversity is partly due to a modification of the critical 
 principles adopted, I have deemed it advisable to specify not merely the 
 readings of the octava, but also those of the septima. The one I have 
 indicated by Tisch. (8), the other by Zwsch. (7); but where the two 
 editions agree, I put merely Tisch. 
 
 With confidence then in God, who sits as Ruler and knows how to 
 guide all things well, this work is left to make its way once more into 
 the much agitated theological world. May He ward off harm, so far 
 as it contains what.is erroneous, and grant His blessing, so far as it may* 
 minister to the correct, unstinted, and undisguised understanding of His 
 revealed Word. 
 
 Dr. MEYER. 
 Hannover, 24th July, 1872. 
 
 1 In presence of such wretched evils of style we may be allowed to recall the 
 simple rule, which the epigrammatist bids the rhetoricians (Andthol. Pal. xi. 
 144, 5 f.) lay to heart : 
 
 Nov - aa ὭΣ AG ny? aa , ee 
 ἁνοὺν UTOKELOUGAL VEL τοῖς YPAUUATL Kas φράσιν αὐτῶν 
 
 εἶναι κοινοτέραν, ὥστε νοεῖν ἃ λέγεις. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 
 
 [For Commentaries, and collections of Notes, embracing the whole New 
 Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 
 The following list includes works which deal with the Apostolic or the Pauline 
 Epistles generally, or which treat specially of the Epistle to the Romans, 
 Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a few exceptions, 
 been excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own account, they 
 have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. 
 Several of the older works named are of little value ; others are chiefly doctri- 
 nal or controversial. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed 
 by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended 
 denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted. + marks the 
 date of the author’s death, ο. = circa, an approximation to it. | 
 
 ApBariaRD (Peter), { 1142, Scholastic : Commentariorum super 8. Pauli Episto- 
 lam ad Romanos libri v. [Opera.] 
 Axxstus [or ΗΑΤ ΕΒ] (Alexander), { 1565, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Disputationes 
 in Epistolam ad Romanos, cum P. Melancthonis praefatione. 
 8°, Vitemb. 1553. 
 ALEXANDER Natalis. See Norn (Alexandre). 
 Autine (Jacobus), { 1679, Prof. Theol. at Gréningen : Commentarius theoreti- 
 co-practicus in Epistolam ad Romanos. [Opera. ] 2°, Amstel. 1686. 
 AMBIANENSIS (Georgius), { 1657, Capuchin monk at Paris : Trina Pauli theologia 
 . . Seu omnigena in universas Pauli epistolas commentaria exegetica, 
 tropologica et anagogica. 29, Paris. 1649-50. 
 AMBROSIASTER [or Psrupo-AmBrostus], ¢. 380, generally identified with Hilarius 
 the Deacon: Commentarius in Epistolas xiii. B. Pauli. [Ambrosii 
 Opera. ] 
 AnsELMus [or Hervevus], c. 1100: Enarrationes in omnes 8. Pauli Epistolas. 
 2°, Paris. 1533. 
 Aquinas (Thomas), + 1274, Scholastic : Expositio in omnes Epistolas 8. Pauli. 
 2°, Basil. 1475 al. 
 ArBorevs (Joannes), ο. 1550, Prof. Theol. at Paris: Commentarius in omnes 
 
 Pauli Epistolas. 29, Paris. 1553. 
 AnreEtius (Benedictus), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne: Commentarii in omnes 
 Epistolas 1). Pauli, et canonicas, 2°, Morgiis, 1683. 
 
 Baupur (Friedrich), + 1627, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg : Commentarius in 
 omnes Epistolas apostoli Pauli. . . (Separately, 1608-1630). 
 
 49, Francof. 1644 al. 
 
 Baumeartren (Sigmund Jakob), { 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des 
 
 Briefes Pauli an die Romer. 4”, Halae, 1749. 
 BaumGarten-Crustus (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: 
 Commentar zum Rémerbrief. 8°, Jena, 1844. 
 
 Berpa Venerabilis, { 735, Monk at Jarrow : Expositio in Epistolas Pauli [a Ca- 
 tena from the works of Augustine, probably by Florus Lugdunensis, 
 ὁ. 852], et In Epistolas septem catholicas liber. [Opera.] 
 
XV1 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Breen (Jean-Théodore), Τὺ. C. Prof. of Or. Lang. at Louvain : Commentarius 
 in Epistolam ὃ. Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lovani, 1854. 
 Brrr (Joseph Agar), A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 
 London, 1877. 
 3ELSHAM (Thomas), { 1829, Unitarian minister in London: The Epistles of 
 Paul the Apostle translated, with an exposition and notes. 
 49 Lond. 1822. 
 BrENECKEE (Wilhelm), { 1837, retired Hamburg merchant : Der Brief Paulian die 
 
 Romer erlautert ; 8°, Heidelb. 1831. 
 Translated... . 8°, Lond. 1854, 
 Bispine (August), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Mimster: Exegetisches Handbuch zu 
 den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 8°, Minster, 1854-8 al, 
 
 Borume (Christian Friedrich), { 1844, Pastor at Lucka near Altenburg : Epis- 
 tola Pauli ad Romanos Graece cum commentario perpetuo. 
 
 8°, Lips. 1806. 
 
 Brats (Etienne de), ο. 1680, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Epistolae Pauli ad Roma- 
 
 nos analysis paraphrastica cum notis. 4°, Salmurii, 1670. 
 Brent (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgard : Commentarius in Epistolam ad 
 Romanos. 2°, Francof. 1564 al. 
 
 Brown (David), D.D., Prof. Theol. Free Church College, Aberdeen : Commen- 
 tary on the Epistle to the Romans, embracing the last results of crit- 
 icism. 12°, Glasg. 1860. 
 Brown (John), D.D., { 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to the United Presbyterian 
 Church, Edinburgh : Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul. . . 
 
 to the Romans. 8°, Edin. 1857. 
 
 Bruno, ¢ 1101, Founder of the Carthusian Order: Commentarius in Omnes 
 Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1509. 
 Bucer (Martin), ¢ 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : Metaphrasis et enarratio 
 in Epistclam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Basil. 1562. 
 BuGENHAGEN (Johann), { 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Interpretatio 
 Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Hagenoae, 1523. 
 BuiwinceEr (Heinrich), { 1575, Pastor at Ziirich : Commentarii in omnes Epis- 
 tolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1537 al. 
 
 Casetanvs [Tommaso da Vio], ¢ 1534, Cardinal : Epistolae 5. Pauli et aliorum 
 apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae et juxta sensum literalem 
 enarratae. 20 Venet. 1531 al. 
 
 Catrxtus (Georg), { 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositiones litterales in 
 Epistolas ad Romanos, ad Corinthios priorem et posteriorem, ad Ga- 
 latas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonienses 
 
 . et ad Titum. 40. Helmstadii, 1664-66. 
 
 Cavin [CHAvvin] (Jean), { 1564: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Pauli apos- 
 toli atque etiam Epistolam ad Ebraeos ; necnon in Epistolas canoni- 
 cas, 2°, Genevae, 1551 al. 
 
 Caretus [CappEt] (Louis), ¢ 1658. See Acts. 
 
 Jarpzov (Johann Benedict), { 1803, Prof. Theol. and Greek at Helmstadt : 
 Stricturae theologicae et criticae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos... . 
 
 8°, Helmstad. 1758. 
 
 Casstoporus (Magnus Aurelius), + 563, Chancellor of the Ostrogoth empire : 
 Complexiones in Epistolas apostolorum, in Acta etin Apocalypsim quasi 
 brevissima explanatione decursas. . . . 8°, Florent. 1721 al. 
 
 Catartno (Ambrogio), See Porrrt (Lanzelotto), 
 
 Cuatmers (Thomas), D.D., { 1847, Principal of F. C. College, Edinburgh : 
 Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 
 
 12°, Glasg. 1842 al. 
 
 Curysostomus (Joannes), + 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homiliae in Epis- 
 tolas Pauli. [Opera.] 
 
 Cuyrrarus [or Kocuuare] (David), { 1600, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Epistola 
 Pauli ad Romanos, brevi ac dialectica dispositione partium et gram- 
 matica declaratione textus . . . explicata. 80 ἢ. p: 1699. 
 
 CiauDE (Jean), + 1687, Minister at the Hague: Commentaire 51} ]’Epitre aux 
 Romains. [Oeuvres. ] 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. ΧΥΪΙ 
 
 Conrarrt (Gaspare), ¢ 1542, Cardinal: Scholia in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.] 
 29, Paris. 1571 al. 
 ContzEn (Adam), + 1618, Jesuit at Mentz: Commentaria in Epistolam 8. Pauli 
 
 ad Romanos. 2°, Colon. 1629. 
 ConyBEARE (William John, M.A.), Howson (John Saul), D.D.: Life and Epis- 
 tles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852 al. 
 
 Cox (Robert), M.A., P. C. of ‘Stonehouse, Devon: Horae Romanae, or an at- 
 tempt to elucidate St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by an original 
 
 translation, explanatory notes, and new divisions, 8°, Lond. 1824. 
 Cramer (Johann Andreas), ¢ 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Der Brief Pauli an die 
 Romer aufs neue tibersetzt und ausgelest. 4° Leip. 1784. 
 
 Cretu (Johann), ¢ 1633, Socinian teacher at Cracow ; Commentarius in Epis- 
 tolam Pauli ad Romanos, ex praelectionibus ejus conscriptus a Jona 
 
 Schlichtingio.... 8°, Racov. 1636. 
 CrucicEr [CREUZINGER] (Kaspar), { 1548, Pastor at Leipzig : Commentarius in 
 Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Vitemb. 1567. 
 
 Date (John) : Analysis of all the Epistles of the New Testament. 12° Oxf. 1652. 
 Damascrnvs (Joannes), { 754, Monk at S. Saba: Ex universa interpretatione 
 J. Chrysostomi excerpta compendiaria in Epistolas S, Pauli. [Opera.] 
 Dewirzscx (Franz), Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Briefan die Rémer aus dem grie- 
 chischen Urtext in das hebriische uebersetzt und aus Talmud und 
 
 Midrasch erliutert. 8°, Leip. 1870. 
 Dickson (David), { 1662, Prof. Theol. at Glasgow and Edinburgh : Expositio ana- 
 lytica omnium apostolicarum Epistolarum. .. . 40, Glasg. 1645. 
 and Analytical Exposition of all the Epistles. 2°, Lond. 1659. 
 Drersce (August), Prof. in the Univ. at Bonn: Adam und Christus. Rom. V. 
 12-21 8° Bonn, 1871. 
 
 Drev (Louis de), + 1642, Prof. in the Walloon College at Leyden : Animadver- 
 siones in Epistolam ad Romanos. Accessit spicilegium in reliquas 
 
 ejusdem apostoli, ut et catholicas epistolas. 4°, Lugd, Bat. 1646. 
 Dionysius Carruustanus [Denys DE Rycxenn], { 1471, Carthusian monk: Elu- 
 cidissima in divi Pauli Epistolas commentaria. 8°, Paris. 1531. 
 
 Epwarps (Timothy), M.A., Vicar of Okehampton, Devon: Paraphrase, with 
 
 critical annotations on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with 
 
 an analytical scheme of the whole. 40. Lond. 1752. 
 
 Est [Estrus] (Willem Hessels van), + 1613, R. C. Chancellor of Douay : In 
 omnes beati Pauli et aliorum apostolorum Epistolas commentarius. 
 
 2°, Duaci, 1614-16, al. 
 
 Ewap (Georg Heinrich August), Prof. Or. Lang. at Géttingen ; Die Sendschrei- 
 
 ben des Apostels Paulus tibersetzt und erklirt. 8°, Gotting. 1857. 
 
 Ewsrank (William Withers), M.A., Incumbent at Everton: Commentary on the 
 
 Kpistle of Paulto the Romans. . . 8°, Lond. 1850-51. 
 
 Faber Stapulensis (Jacobus) [Jacques Lefevre dEtaples], { 1536, resident at 
 Nerac : Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli... 2°, Paris. 1512 al. 
 
 Farrar (F. W.), Canon of Westminster: The Life and Works of St. Paul. 
 Lond. 1879. 
 Faye (Antoine de la), { 1616, Prof. at Geneva : Commentarius in Epistolam ad 
 Romanos. 8°, Genevae, 1608. 
 Feit (Joun), + 1686, Bishop of Oxford : A Paraphrase and annotations upon all 
 the Epistles of St. Paul, by Abraham Woodhead, Richard Allestry and 
 Obadiah Walker. Corrected and improved by Dr. John Fell. [First 
 
 issued anonymously in 1675.] 8°, Lond. 1708. 
 FrrmMe (Charles), + 1617, Principal of Fraserburgh College: Analysis logica in 
 Epistolam ad Romanos. 12°, Edin. 1651 αἱ. 
 Frervus [Wiztp] (Johannes), { 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: Exegesis in 
 Epistolam Paulli ad Romanos, 8°, Paris. 1559. 
 FrevarDEnt (Francois), ¢ 1612, Franciscan preacher at Paris : Commentarius in 
 Epistolam ad Romanos. 8°, Paris. 1599. 
 
 Fuart (Johann Friedrich von), ¢ 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen 
 
aw x 
 Ais 
 i> 
 ἢ 
 
 XVill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 iiber den Brief Pauli an die Rémer, herausgegeben yon Ch. D. F. Hoff- 
 mann. 8°, Tubing. 1825. 
 
 Frorus Lugdunensis, c. 852. See Brpa. 
 Forsrs (John),-LL. D., Prof. of Oriental Languages at Aberdeen: Analytical 
 commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought 
 : by the aid of parallelism. 8°, Edinb. 1868. 
 FrirzscHk (Karl Friedrich August), { 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Pauli ad 
 Romanos Epistola. Recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit. 
 8°, Halis, 1836-43. 
 Fromonp (Libert), + 1653, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain : Commentarius in om- 
 nes Epistolas Pauli apostoli et in septem canonicas aliorum aposto- 
 lorum epistolas. 2°, Lovan. 1663 al, 
 
 GaaniKEe (Jean de), { 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Brevissima et 
 facillima in omnes divi Pauli et canonicas epistolas scholia. 
 8°, Paris. 1543 al. 
 GerHarD (Johann), { 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes posthumae in 
 Epistolam ad Romanos, cum Analectis Jo. Ernesti Gerhardi. 
 4°, Jenae. 1666 al. 
 Girrorp (E. H.), Rector of Much Hadham; Introduction, Commentary, and 
 Critical Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. III. of Bible Com- 
 mentary, edited by F. C. Cook, Canon of Exeter. Lond. 1881. 
 GxiéckLEeR (Conrad} : Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Rémer erklirt. 
 8°, Frankf.-a.-M. 1834. 
 GoveEt (F.) Prof., in the Theol. Faculty at Neuchatel : Commentaire sur 1 Epitre 
 aux Romains. 8°, Paris. 1879-80. 
 {Translated by A. Cusin, Edinburgh, 1881.] 
 Gomar (Frangois), + 1641, Prof. Theol. at Gréningen: Analysis et explicatio 
 Epistolarum Pauli ad Romanos, Gal. Philipp. Coloss. Philem. He- 
 braeos. [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1644. 
 Grare (Ed.): Ueber Veranlassung und Zweck des Rémerbriefes. 
 Freiburg, 1881. 
 GRONEWEGEN (Henricus), + 1692, Minister at Enkhuizen : Vytleginge van den 
 Zendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4° Gorinchem, 1681. 
 GUALTHER [WALTHER] (Rudolph), + 1586, Pastor at Zurich: Homiliae in om- 
 nes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1599. 
 GuILu1Aup (Claude), + 1550, Theological Lecturer at Autun : Collationes in om- 
 nes Epistolas Pauli. 4°, Lugd. 1542 al. 
 
 Haxpane (Robert), of Airthrey, { 1842 : Exposition of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, with remarks on the Commentaries of Dr. Macknight, Prof. 
 
 Tholuck, and Prof. Moses Stuart. 12°, Lond. 1842 al. 
 Haymno, + 853, Bishop of Halberstadt [or Remierus] : Commentarius in Epis- 
 tolas S. Pauli. 20 Paris, 1556. αἱ. 
 Hemminec [or Hemmincsen] (Niels), + 1600, Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Com- 
 mentarius in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Lips. 1572 al. 
 
 HemseEn (Johann Tychsen), + 1830, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen: Der Apostel 
 Paulus, sein Leben, Wirken, und siene Schriften herausgegeben von 
 
 F. Luecke. 8°, Gotting. 1830. 
 HenGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. in Leyden: Interpretatio Epistolae 
 Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1854-9. 
 
 Herveus Dotensts, ὁ. 1130, Benedictine. See ANSELMUS. 
 Hesuustvs (Tilemann), + 1588, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Commentarius in 
 
 omnes Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Lips. 1605. 
 Hipstep (Johann), + 1681, Prof. in Gymnasium at Bremen: Collationes phi- 
 lologicae in Epistolam ad Romanos. 40, Bremae, 1675. 
 Hopas (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton : Commentary on the Epis- 
 tle to the Romans. 80, Philadelphia, 1835 al. 
 
 Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die 
 Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht. 
 111. Theil. Brief an die Rémer, 8°, Nérdlingen, 1868. 
 HonstEn (C.) : Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus. Rostock, 1868. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. ἘΠ 
 
 Hueco ΡῈ S. Vicrorg, {1141, Monk at Paris : Quaestiones circa Epistolas Pauli. 
 
 [Opera. ] 
 Hyveritus [GERHARD] (Andreas), +1564, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarii 
 in Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Tiguri, 1583, 
 
 Jarno (Georg Friedrich) : Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief 
 an die Rémer nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erliutert. 
 
 8°, Hildesheim, 1858-9. 
 
 JoweErr (Benjamin), M.A., Master of Balliol College, Oxford : The Epistles of 
 
 St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, with critical notes 
 
 and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1855. 
 
 JUSTINIANI [GrusTINIANI] (Benedetto), + 1622, 5. J. Prof. Theol. at Rome : Ex- 
 planationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas [e¢ in omnes catholicas]. 
 
 2°, Lugd. 1612-21. 
 
 KisTEeMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), { 1834, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Miinster : Die 
 
 Sendschreiben der Apostel (und die Apocalypse), ttbersetzt und erklart. 
 
 8°, Minster, 1822-3. 
 
 Kurx (Heinrich), + 1840, R. Ὁ. Prof. Theol. at Miinich : Commentar iiber des 
 
 Apostel Pauli Sendschreiben an die Romer. 8°, Mainz, 1830. 
 
 Knicut (Robert) : A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle 
 
 to the Romans. 8°, Lond. 1854. 
 
 KtosrerMann (August), Prof. in the Univ. at Kiel: Korrekturen zur bisherigen 
 
 Erklairung des Rémerbriefes, Gotha, 1868. 
 
 K6énuner (Wilhelm Heinrich Dorotheus Eduard), c. 1850, Prof. Theol. at Got- 
 tingen : Commentar zu dem Briefe des Paulus an die Rémer. 
 
 8°, Darmst. 1834. 
 
 Krenu (August Ludwig Gottlob), + 1855, Prof. Pract. Theol. at Leipzig: Der 
 
 Brief an die Romer ausgelegt. 8°, Leip. 1849. 
 
 Lanrranc, + 1089, Archbishop of Canterbury : Commentarii in omnes 1). Pauli 
 Epistolas. [Opera.] 
 
 Lariwe (Cornelius ἃ) [VAN DEN STEEN], + 1637, 8. J. Prof. of Sacred Scripture 
 at Louvain ; Commentaria in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas. 
 
 2°, Antwerp. 1614 εἰ al. 
 
 Launay (Pierre de), Sieur dela Motte : Paraphrase et exposition sur les Epistres 
 de 8. Paul. 40. Saumur et Charenton, 1647-50. 
 
 Lrevwen (Gerbrand van), + 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: Verhandeling 
 van den Sendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 40 Amst. 1688-99. 
 
 Lewin (Thomas), M.A.: The Life and Epistles of 5. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851. 
 
 Limsorcy (Philipp van), + 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com- 
 mentarius in Acta Apostolorum et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad 
 Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711. 
 
 Livermore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Epistle of Paul to the 
 Romans, with a commentary and revised translation, and introductory 
 essays. 12°, Boston, 1855. 
 
 Locke (John), + 1704. See Ganarrans. 
 
 Lomparvus (Petrus), + 1160, Scholastic: Collectanea in omnes Epistolas D. 
 
 Pauli ex. SS. Patribus. 20 Paris. 1535 al. 
 Lucut (H.): Uber die beiden letzten Kapitel des Rémerbriefes. Eine Kritische 
 Uutersuchung. 8°, Berlin, 1871. 
 
 Macxrnicut (James), D.D., + 1800, Minister at Edinburgh : A new literal trans- 
 lation . . . of all the apostolical Epistles, with a commentary and 
 
 notes, philological, critical, explanatory and practical . . . 
 40, Edin. 1795 αἱ. 
 Mater (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar iiber den Brief 
 Pauli an die Romer. 8°, Freiburg, 1847, 
 Mancoup (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Der Rémerbrief und die Anfinge 
 der Rémischen Gemeinde. Eine kritische Untersuchung. 1866. 
 Also, Der Rémerbrief und seine geschichtliche Voraussetzungen, 1884, 
 Marburg. 
 
ΧΧ EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Martyr (Peter) [Vermicr1], + 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg : In Epistolam ad 
 
 Romanos commentarii .. . 2°, Basil. 1558, al. 
 Meurine (H. J. F.): Der Brief Pauli an die Rémer uebersetzt und erklirt. 
 
 8°, Stettin, 1859. 
 
 ΜΈΓΑΝΟΗΤΗΟΝ (Philipp), + 1560, Reformer : Adnotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad 
 
 Romanos, et Corinthios. . . 4°, Basil, 1522. — Commentarii in Ep. 
 Pauli ad Romanos. 8° Argent. 1540.—Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos 
 scriptae enarratio... 8°, Vitemb. 1556 al. 
 
 MetvittzE (Andrew), + 1622, Principal of St. Mary’s College, St.Andrews : Com- 
 mentarius indivinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos .. . 
 
 8°, Edin. 1849. 
 
 Momma (Willem), + 1677, Pastor at Middelburg : Meditationes posthumae in 
 
 Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas. 8°. Hag. Com. 1678. 
 
 Morison (James), D.D. Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow: An 
 
 exposition of the Ninth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 8°, 
 
 Kilmarnock, 1849. And A critical exposition of the Third chapter... 
 
 8°, Lond. 1866. 
 
 Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Prae- 
 
 lectiones in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Cum ejusdem versione 
 
 Latina, locorumque quorundam N. T. difficiliorum interpretatione. 
 
 Ed. J .T. S. Holzapfel. 8°, Lips. 1794. 
 Muscuuws [or Mevsstin] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: In Epis- 
 tolam ad Romanos commentarius. 2°, Basil. 1555 al. 
 
 Nruisen (Rasmus), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen ; Der Brief Pauli an die Romer 
 
 entwickelt ... 8°, Leip. 1849. 
 
 Norn, (Alexandre) [Narauis], + 1724, Dominican teacher of Church History 
 at Paris : Expositio litteralis et moralis in Epistolas D. Pauli. 
 
 2°, Paris. 1710. 
 
 Oxcumentus, c. 980, Bishop of Tricca ; Commentaria in Acta Apostolorum, in 
 omnes Pauli Epistolas, in Epistolas catholicas omnes... . 
 
 2°, Veronae, 1532 al. 
 
 OurraMaRE (Hugues), Minister at Geneva: Commentaire sur ]’Epitre aux 
 
 Romains. [I—V. 11.] 8°, Geneve, 1843. 
 OricEenrs, + 254, Catechete at Alexandria: Fragmenta in Epistolas Pauli 
 [Opera. 
 Osorio (Jeronymo), { 1580, Bishop of Sylvas : In Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos 
 libri quatuor. [Opera.] 2°, Romae, 1592. 
 
 Parevus [or WAENGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commen- 
 tarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 4°. Francof. 1608 al. 
 Pautus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), { 1851. See Gaxarrans. 
 Prrz (Thomas Williamson), D.D., Vicar of Luton : Annotations on the apos- 
 tolical Epistles, designed chiefly for the use of students of the Greek 
 text. 8°, Lond. 1848-52. 
 Prxiacius, c. 420, British monk : Commentarii in Epistolas 8. Pauli. [Hierony- 
 mi Opera. 7 
 Priniprr (Friedrich Adolph), Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Commentar tber den 
 Brief an die Romer. 8°, Erlangen and Frankf. 1848-52. 
 [Translated from the 3d ed. by J. 5. Banks. Edinburgh, 1879.] 
 Pricquieny (Bernardin) [Brrnarpinus A Prconro], Cistercian monk: Epistolarum 
 Pauli triplex expositio, cum analysi, paraphrasi et commentariis. 
 20 Paris. 1703. 
 Porritt (Lanzelotto) [Amprocio CaTartno], + 1553, Archbishop of Conza : Com- 
 mentarius in omnes divi Pauli et alias septem canonicas Epistolas. 
 2°, Romae, 1546 al. 
 Posseitt (August), c. 1715, Pastor at Zittau: Richtige Erklirung der EHpistel 
 Pauli an die Romer... 40. Zittau, 1696, 
 Prmasivus, c. 550, Bishop of Adrumetum : Commentaria in Epistolas Pauli. 
 [Bibl. Max. Patrum, X.] 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, XX1 
 
 Przrezcov or PrzypKowsky (Samuel), + 1670, Socinian teacher: Cogitationes 
 sacrae ad omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 
 
 : 2°, Eleutheropoli [Amstel.], 1692. 
 
 Purpvue (Edward), M.A. : A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a 
 revised translation. 8°, Dubl. 1855. 
 
 Pyuz (Thomas), D.D., + 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A Paraphrase, with some notes 
 on the Acts of the Apostles and on all the Epistles of the New Tes- 
 tament. 8°, Lond. 1725 al. 
 
 QuistorP (Johann), + 1648, Superintendent at Rostock : Commentarius in omnes 
 Epistolas Paulinas. 4°, Rostoch, 1652. 
 
 Rasanus Maurus, { 856, Archbishop of Mentz: Enarrationum in Epistolas B. 
 Pauli libri triginta. [Opera.] 
 Rampacn (Johann Jakob), + 1735, Superintendent in Giessen: Ausfiihrliche 
 und griindliche Erklirung der Epistel Pauli an die Romer. 
 4°, Bremae, 1738. 
 Introductio historico-theologica in Ep. P. ad Romanos, cum Martini 
 Lutheri Praefatione variis observationibus exegeticis illustrata. 
 8°, Halae, 1727. 
 RetcHe (Johann Georg), Prof. Theol. in Gottingen: Versuch einer ausfiihr- 
 lichen Erklirung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer, mit historischen 
 Einleitungen und exegetisch-dogmatischen Excursen. 
 8°, Gotting. 1833-4. 
 Commentarius criticus in Novum Testamentum, quo loca graviora et 
 difficiliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur. 
 Tom. 1.-- Π|. Epistolas Paulinas et catholicas continentes. 
 40 et 8°. Gétting. 1853-62. 
 REITHMAYR (Franz Xaver), + 1871, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Munich : Commentar 
 zum Briefe an die Romer. 8°, Regensburg, 1845. 
 Remicius (of Auxerre), +899. See Haymo. 
 Roxuock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh : Analysis 
 dialectica in Pauli apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos... 
 80 Edin. 1594 al. 
 Rorue (Richard), Prof. Theol. in Heidelberg: Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung 
 
 der Paulinischen Stelle Romer V. 12-21. 8°, Wittenberg, 1836. 
 Riicxerr (Leopold Immanuel), c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar tiber 
 den Brief an die Romer. 8°, Leip, 1831. 
 
 Sapatrer (A.): L’Apotre Paul. Esquisse d’une histoire de sa pensée. 
 
 : Paris, 1881. 
 
 SADOLETO (Jacopo), + 1547, Cardinal : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 
 
 8°, Venet. 1536 al. 
 
 SatmEron (Alphonso), + 1585, Jesuit: Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli. 
 (Opera. ] 
 
 Sanpay (William), Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham: The Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans. In Vol. Il. of New Testament Commentary for English Read- 
 ers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 
 
 ‘ London. 
 
 Scuarr (Philip), Prof. in Union Theol. Sem. New York: A Popular Commen- 
 tory on the New Testament by English and American Scholars. Vol. II, 
 The Epistle to the Romans, By Profs. Philip Schaff and Matthew B. 
 Riddle. New York, 1882. 
 
 ScHxiicHtine (Jonas), + 1664. See Cretn (Johann). 
 
 Scumrp (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Commentarii in Epis- 
 tolas Pauli ad Romanos, Galatas et Colossenses, una cum paraphrasi 
 epistolae prioris ad Corinthios, utriusque ad Thessalonicenses, prioris 
 ad Timotheum, epistolae ad Philemonem et cantici Mariae. [Pre- 
 viously issued separately. ] 49, Hamb. 1704. 
 
 Scumip (Christian Friedrich), + 1778, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Annotationes 
 in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, philologicae, theologicae et criticae. 
 
 8°, Lips. 1777. 
 
Xxli EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Scuott (Theodor): Der Rémerbrief seinem Endzweck und seinem Gedanken- 
 
 gang nach ausgelegt. 8°, Erlangen, 1858. 
 SepuLius Scotus Hiberniensis, c. 800?: In omnes 8. Pauli epistolas collec- 
 taneum. 2°, Basil. 1528, 
 
 SemueR (Johann Salomon), + 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Paraphrasis Epistolae 
 
 Pauli ad Romanos cum notis et translatione vetusta. 8°, Halis, 1769. 
 
 SreLNEcceR (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. in Leipzig: In omnes Epistolas 
 
 Pauli apostoli commentarius plenissimus. 2°, Lips. 1599. 
 
 Suepp (William G. T.), Prof. Theol. in New York: A Critical and Doctrinal 
 Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 
 
 New York, 1879. 
 
 SHuTTLEWorRTH (Philip Nicholas), D.D., Bishop of Chichester: A Paraphrastic 
 
 translation of the apostolical Epistles, with notes. 8°, Oxf. 1829 al. 
 
 SiapE (James), + 1860, Rector of West Kirby : Annotations on the Epistles ; 
 
 being a continuation of Mr. Elsley’s Annotations. 8°, Lond. 1824 al. 
 
 Soro (Domingo de), { 1560, Prof. Theol. at Salamanca : Commentarius in Epis- 
 
 tolam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Antverp. 1550, 
 SpENER (Philipp Jakob), + 1705, Provost at Berlin: Auslegung des Briefes an 
 die Rémer aufs neue herausg. von H. Schott. 8°, Leip. 1859 al. 
 STEINHOFER (Friedrich Christoph), + 1761 : Erklarung des Epistel Pauli an die 
 Romer ; mit einem Vorwort von J. T. Beck. 8°, Tiibing. 1851. 
 Srencet (Liborius), +1835, R.C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar tiber 
 den Brief des Paulus andie Rémer.. . 8°, Freiburg, 1836. 
 
 SrEenEeRsEN (Stener Johannes), + 1835, Prof. of Church History at Christiania : 
 Epistolae Paulinae perpetuo commentario illustratae. Vol. I. Ep. ad 
 
 Rom. Voll, 11. Ill. Epp. ad Corinth. IV. Ep. ad Galat. 
 8°, Christiania, 1829-34. 
 Sruart (Moses), + 1852, Prof. of Sacred Literature at Andover : A Commentary 
 on the Epistle to the Romans, with a translation and various excur- 
 SUSse60 8°, Andover, 1832 al. 
 
 Taytor (John), D.D., + 1761, Minister at Norwich : A Paraphrase with notes on 
 the Epistle to the Romans: to which is prefixed a Key to the apos- 
 tolic writings. 49, Lond. 1746 al. 
 
 Trrrot (Charles Hughes), D.D., Bishop, Edinburgh : The Epistle to the 
 Romans, with an introduction, paraphrase and notes. 8°, Lond. 1828. 
 
 Turoporetvs, { ὁ. 458, Bishop of Cyrus : Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epis- 
 tolas. [Opera, et. ] 2°, Lond. 1636. ᾿ 
 
 Turoporus, + 429, Bishop of Mopsuestia: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli. 
 [Fragments in the Catenae, collected by Fritzsche : Theodori Mops. 
 Commentaria in N. T. 1847. From Galatians to Philemon, in a Latin 
 translation, incorporated in Rabanus Maurus. ] 
 
 THeopHyLactus, 6. 1070, archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: in Ὁ. Pauli Epis- 
 tolas commentarius Graece et Latine cura A. Lindselli.. . 
 
 2°, Lond. 16386 al. 
 
 Tuouuck (Friedrich August Gottreu), Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des 
 Briefes Pauli an die Rémer, nebst fortlaufenden Ausziigen aus den 
 exegetischen Schriften der Kirchenviter und Reformatoren. 8°, Berl. 
 1824 al.—Translated by the Rey. Robert Menzies, D.D. 
 
 8°, Edin. 1842. 
 
 Tr (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : De Sendbrieven van Paullus 
 
 aan de Romeinen en Filippensen, ontleedt, verklaardt en betoogt. 
 4°, Haarlem, 1721. 
 
 Commentarius in quatuor Pauli Epistolas, nempe priorem ad Corin- 
 thios, Ephesios, Philippenses, ac Colossenses, 49, Amstel. 1726. 
 
 TIrELMANN (Franz), 1553, Provincial of Capuchins at Rome: Elucidatio in 
 omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 8°, Antwerp, 1532 al. 
 
 ToLEetus [Francisco DE ToLEpo], + 1596, 8. J. Cardinal: Commentarius et an- 
 notationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 40, Romae, 1602 al. 
 
 Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Biblical Interpretation at 
 New York: The Epistle to the Romans, in Greek and English. With 
 an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1853, 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Xxill 
 
 Turretini (Jean-Alphonse), + 1737, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: In Pauli ad 
 Romanos Epistolae capita priora xi, praelectiones criticae, theologicae 
 et concinnatoriae. 4°, Lausannae, 1741. 
 
 Umeretrt (Friedrich Wilhelm Karl), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Der 
 Brief an die Rémer, auf dem Grunde des Alten Testaments ausgelegt. 
 8°, Gotha, 1856. 
 
 VareEn (August), + 1684, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Paulus evangelista Roma- 
 
 norum succincta divinissimae . . . Epistolae ad Romanos analysi et 
 
 exegesi repraesentatus. 8°, Hamb. 1696. 
 
 VauGHAN (Charles John), D.D., Master of the Temple : St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
 Romans, with notes. 8°, Camb. 1857.—Third edition, enlarged. 
 
 8°, Lond. and Camb. 1870. 
 
 Virrinca (Kempe), + 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker; Verklaringe over de agt 
 
 eerste capittelen van de Brief Paulli aan de Romeinen. Ἢ 
 
 40. Franek. 1729. 
 
 ΟΣ ΚΑ (Gustav) : Die neutestamenlichen Briefe, geschichtlich im Zusammen- 
 
 hang erklirt. Band I. Paulus Rémerbrief, Die ilteste Text deutsch 
 
 und im Zusammenhang erklirt. Mit dem Wortabdruck der Vatican- 
 
 ischen Urkunde. Ziirich, 1875. 
 
 Vorst (Koonrad), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in omnes 
 
 Epistolas apostolicas, exceptis secunda ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad 
 
 Philemonem et ad Ebraeos. 49, Amstel. et Harder. 1631. 
 
 Watrorp (William), 1 1850, Pastor at Uxbridge: Curae Romanae : notes on the 
 Epistle to the Romans. 12°, Lond. 1846. 
 Werncart (Johann Friedrich), Pastor at Grossfahnern, Gotha : Commentarius 
 perpetuus in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos. [£#tIn decem Apostoli 
 Pauli epistolas, quas vulgo dicunt epistolas minores.] 8°. Gothae, 1816. 
 Werynicu (Georg), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarii in Epistolas 
 
 Pauli. 4°, Lips. 1620. 
 Wetter (Jakob), + 1664, Chief Chaplain at Dresden : Adnotationes in Episto- 
 lam Pauli ad Romanos. . . collectae opera Jo. Schindleri. 
 
 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654. 
 Wreseter (Karl): Der Abschnitt des Rémerbriefs vii. 7-25, exegetisch und 
 
 biblisch-theologisch erklirt. Greifswald, 1875. 
 Witter (Andrew), + 1621, Prebendary of Ely : Hexapla, that is, a sixfold com- 
 mentarie upon the most divine Epistle . . . to the Romanes. 
 
 2°, Lond, 1620. 
 
 Witson (Thomas), c. 1620, Minister at Canterbury : A Commentary on the 
 
 most divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 4°, Lond. 1614 al. 
 
 Wryzer (Julius Friedrich), + 1845, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Adnotationes ad 
 
 loca quaedam Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 40, Lips. 1835. 
 
 Wrrticu (Christoph), + 1687, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Investigatio Epistolae ad 
 
 Romanos . . . una cum paraphrasi, 49, Lugd. Bat. 1685. 
 WoopHEAp (Abraham). See Frxu (John). 
 
 ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). +1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Paraphrastische 
 Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer. 8°, Gotting. 1786. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 al., etal. = and others ; and other passages ; and other editions. 
 
 ad. or in loc., refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the 
 particular passage. 
 
 ef. = compare. 
 
 comp. = compare, ‘‘Comp. on Matt. iii. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com- 
 mentary on the passage. So also ‘‘See on Matt. 111. 5.” 
 
 codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the 
 
 ι usual letters, the Sinaitic by &. 
 
 min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are 
 individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, 
 as 33, 89. 
 
 Rec. or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir). 
 
 lc. = loco citato or laudato. 
 
 ver. = verse, vv. = verses. 
 
 f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16f. means verses 16 and 17. vy. 16 ff. means 
 verses 16 and two or more following. 
 
 vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the 
 usual abridged forms. Εἰς. Syr. = Peshito Syriac ; Syr. p. = Philox- 
 enian Syriac. 
 
 Pp. pp. = page, pages. 
 
 .g. = exempli gratia. 
 
 c. = scilicet. ; 
 
 N. T. =New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament. 
 
 A. Υ. = The Authorized English Version of the New Testament. 
 
 R. V. = The Revised English Version of the New Testament. 
 
 .R. V. = The American Appendix to the Revised English Version of the N. T. 
 
 T.A. = καὶ τὰ λοιπά. ; 
 
 he colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which 
 
 a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transi- 
 tion to the statement of another’s opinions. 
 
 . . . . indicates that words are omitted. 
 
 The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their 
 usual English names and abbreviations. Eccles. = Ecclesiasticus. 3 
 Esd., 4 Esd. (or Esr.) = the books usually termed 1st and 2d Esdras. 
 
 The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter, 
 etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally 
 used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H. 
 Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics. 
 Roman numerals in small capitals are used to denote beoks or other 
 internal divisions (as Thuc. iv) ; Roman numerals in large capitals 
 denote volumes (as Kiihner, IT.). 2 
 
 The references to Winer’s and Buttmann’s N. T. Grammars, given in brackets 
 thus [E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Prof. Thayer's 
 English translations of these works. 
 
THE 
 
 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 § 1. Skercn or THE APosTLn’s LIFE. 
 
 : On AUL, who received this Roman name, according to Jerome, 
 
 Catal. 5—and from Acts xiii. 9, this view seems the most 
 probable —en occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus 
 the Roman Proconsul of Cyprus, but was at his circumcision 
 named TINY? was the son of Jewish parents belonging to the 
 tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5), and was born at Tarsus ®* (Acts ix. 
 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3), ἃ πόλις μεγάλη καὶ εὐδαίμων (Xen. Anab. i. 2, 23) of ancient 
 renown, founded according to the legend by Perseus, in Cilicia. The year 
 of his birth is quite uncertain (A.p. 10-15 2) ; but it is certain that he was 
 of Pharisaic descent (see on Acts xxiii. 6), and that his father was a Roman 
 citizen (see en Acts xvi. 37). He therefore possessed by birth this right of 
 citizenship, which subsequently had so important a bearing on his labours 
 and his fate (Acts xxii. 27 f.). Of his first youthful training in his native 
 city, where arts and sciences flourished (Strabo, xiv. 5, 18, p. 673), we 
 know nothing ; but it was probably conducted by his Pharisaic father in 
 entire accordance with Pharisaic principles (Phil. iii. 5 ; Gal. i. 14), so that 
 the boy was prepared for ἃ Pharisaic rabbinical school at Jerusalem. While 
 yet in early youth (Acts xxii. 3, xxvi. 4, comp. vil. 58 ; Gal. i. 14 ; Tholuck, 
 
 
 
 
 overeame Elymas as the little David over- 
 came Goliath. 
 
 1 See the particulars on Acts xiii. 9. 
 2 Since beth names were generally cur- 
 
 rent, every attempt to explain their mean- 
 ing in reference to ovr Paul is utterly 
 arbitrary—from that of Augustine, accord- 
 ing to whom he was called Saw as persecutor 
 (as Saul persecuted David), and Paulus as 
 praedicator (namely, as the minimus apos- 
 tolorum, 1 Cor. xy. 9), down to Umbreit’s 
 play on the word “}5 (the made one, 
 created anew) in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1852, p. 377 f., and Lange’s fancy that the 
 Apostle was called the Jittle, because he 
 
 3 Not at Gischala in Galilee, according to 
 the statement of Jerome, de Vir. ill. 5 
 (comp. also what he says on Philem. 23), 
 which cannot be taken into consideration 
 after the Apostle’s own testimony (see 
 especially Acts xxii. 3), unless with Krenkel 
 (Paulus ad. Ap. d. Heiden, 1869, p. 215) we 
 distrust the accounts of the Book of Acts 
 even in such a point lying beyond the scope 
 of its dogmatic tendency. 
 
2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 364 #.; also in his Vermischte Schr. I. p. 274 
 ff.) he was transferred to Jerusalem, where he had perhaps even then rela- 
 tives (Acts xxiii. 16), though there is no evidence that the entire family 
 migrated thither (Hwald). He entered a training-school of Pharisaic theol- 
 ogy, and became a rabbinic pupil of the universally honoured (Acts ν. 34) 
 Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 8), who, notwithstanding his strict orthodoxy (Light- 
 foot, ad Matt. p. 33), shows himself (Acts v. 34 ff.) a man of wise modera- 
 tion of judgment.’ In accordance with a custom, which was rendered nec- 
 essary by the absence of any regular payment of the Rabbins and was very 
 salutary for their independence (see on Mark vi. 3, and Delitzsch, Handwer- 
 kerleben zur Zeit Jesu,* 1868, V.), the youthful Saul combined with his rab- 
 binical culture the learning of a trade—tentmaking (Acts xviii. 3)—to 
 which he subsequently, even when an apostle, applied himself in a way 
 highly honourable and remarkably conducive to the blessing of his official 
 labours, and for that reason he felt a just satisfaction in it (Acts xviii. 3, xx. 
 34; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 7 ff. ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 6, xii. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 8, xii. 
 13). At the feet of Gamaliel he of course received an instruction which, as to 
 form and matter, was purely rabbinic ; and hence his epistles exhibit, in 
 the mode in which they unfold their teaching, a more or less distinct rab- 
 binico-didactic impress. But it was natural also that his susceptible and 
 active mind should not remain unaffected by Hellenic culture, when he 
 came into contact with it; and how could he escape such contact in Jerusa- 
 lem, whither Hellenists flocked from all quarters under heaven? This 
 serves to explain a dilettante * acquaintance on his part with Greek literary 
 works, which may certainly be recognized in Acts xvii. 28, if not also in 
 1 Cor. xv. 33 (Tit. i. 12); and which, perhaps already begun in Tarsus, may 
 have been furthered, without its being sought, by his subsequent relations of 
 intercourse with Greeks of all countries and of all ranks. It is impossible to 
 determine how much or how little of the virtues of his character, and of the 
 acuteness, subtlety, and depth of lofty intellect which he displayed as apos- 
 tle, he owed to the influence of Gamaliel ; for his conversion had as its re- 
 sult so entire a change in his nature, that we cannot distinguish—and we 
 should not attempt to distinguish—what elements of it may have grown out 
 of the training of his youth, or to what extent they have done so. We can 
 only recognize this much in general, that Saul, with excellent natural gifts, 
 
 1 See traits of the mild liberality of senti- 
 ment, which marked this grandson of the 
 celebrated Hillel, quoted from the Rabbins 
 in Tholuck, /.c. p. 378. The fact that never- 
 theless the youthful Saul developed into a 
 zealot cannot warrant any doubt, in opposi- 
 tion to Acts viii. 34 ff.,as to his having been 
 Gamaliel’s pupil (such as Hausrath ex- 
 presses, neut. Zeitqgesch. ΤΙ. p. 419 ff.). 
 
 2 The exaggerations of the older writers 
 (see e.g. Schramm, de sTUPENDA eruditione 
 Pauli, Herborn. 1710) are pure inventions of 
 fancy. So too is Schrader’s opinion, that 
 Paul had by Greek culture prepared him- 
 
 self to be a Jewish missionary, a prose- 
 lytizer. It cannot even be proved that he 
 formed his diction on the model of particu- 
 lar authors, such as Demosthenes (K6ster 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 305 ff.). The 
 comparisons instituted with a view to es- 
 tablish this point are too weak and general. 
 How many similar parallels might be col- 
 lected, e.g. from Plato, and even from the 
 tragedians ! On the whole the general re- 
 mark of Jerome, at Gal. iv. 24, is very ap- 
 propriate: ‘* P. scisse, licet non ad perfectum, 
 literas saeculares.”” 
 * Translation pub. by Funk & Wagnalls. 
 
SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 3 
 
 with the power of an acute intellect, lively feelings, and strong will, was, 
 under the guidance of his teacher, not merely equipped with Jewish theo- 
 logical knowledge and dialectic art, but had his mind also directed with 
 lofty national enthusiasm towards divine things ; and that, however deeply 
 he felt sin to be the sting of death (Rom. vii. 7 ff.), he was kept free (Phil. 
 iii. 6) from the hypocritical depravity which was at that time prevalent 
 among Pharisees of the ordinary type (Schrader, II. p. 23 ff.; comp. also 
 Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 265). Nevertheless it is also certain that the mod- 
 eration and mildness of the teacher did not communicate themselves to the 
 character of the disciple, who, on the contrary, imbibed in a high degree 
 that prevailing rigour of Pharisaism, the spirit of which no Gamaliel could 
 by his individual practical wisdom exorcise. He became a distinguished 
 zealot for the honour of Jehovah and the law (Acts xxii. 3), as well as for 
 Pharisaic principles (Gal. i. 14), and displayed all the recklessness and vio- 
 lence which are wont to appear, when fiery youthful spirits concentrate all 
 their energies on the pursuit of an idea embraced with thorough enthusiasm. 
 His zeal was fed with abundant fuel and more and more violently inflamed, 
 when the young Christian party growing up in Jerusalem became an object 
 of hostility as dangerously antagonistic to the theocracy and legal orthodoxy 
 (comp. Acts vi. 13, 14), and at length formal persecution broke out with the 
 stoning of Stephen. Even on that occasion Saul, although still in a very 
 subordinate capacity, as merely a youth in attendance,’ took a willing and 
 active part (Acts vill. 1, xxii. 20) ; but soon afterwards he came forward on 
 his own account as a persecutor of the Christians, and, becoming far and 
 wide a terror to the churches of Judaea (Gal. i. 22 f.), he raged against the 
 Christians with a violence so resolute and persistent (Acts xxii. 3 f., XXxvi. 
 10 ff.), that his conduct at this time caused him ever afterwards the deepest 
 humiliation and remorse (1 Cor. xv. 8, 9; Gal. i. 18 ; Eph. ni. 8; Phil. 11]. 
 6; comp. 1 Tim. i. 13). Yet precisely such a character as Saul—who, full 
 of a keen but for the time misdirected love of truth and piety, devoted with- 
 out selfish calculation his whole energies to the idea which he had once em- 
 braced as his highest and holiest concernment—was, in the purpose of God, 
 to become the chief instrument for the proclamation and extension of the 
 divine work, of which he was still for the moment the destructive ad- 
 versary. A transformation so extraordinary required extraordinary means. 
 Accordingly when Saul, invested with full powers by the Sanhedrin (Acts 
 ix. 1, xxvi. 9), was carrying his zealous labours beyond the bounds of Pales- 
 tine, there took place near Damascus (35 A.D.) that wonderful appearance to 
 him of the exalted Jesus in heavenly glory (see on Acts ix. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
 xv. 8) which arrested him (Phil. 111. 12), and produced no less a result than 
 that Saul—thereby divinely called, and subsequently favoured with an in- 
 ward divine revelation of the Son of God? (see on Gal. i. 15 f.)—gradually 
 
 1Not as a married man or already a sent the Gospel of Paul as having originated 
 widower, of about thirty years of age, from the intrinsic action of his own mind, 
 (Ewald, Hausrath); comp. on Acts vii. 58. and the event at Damascus as a visionary 
 2The attempts of the Tiibingen school picture drawn from his own spirit, are 
 (especially of Baur and Holsten) to repre- noticed and refuted at Acts ix., and by 
 
 ‘ 
 
4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 became, under the further guidance of the divine Spirit and in the school of 
 his own experiences so full of trial, the Apostle, who by the most extensive 
 and most successful proclamation of the Gospel, especially among the Gen- 
 tiles, and by his triumphant liberation of that Gospel from the fetters of 
 Mosaism on the one hand and from the disturbing influences of the current 
 theosophic speculations on the other, did more than all the other apostles— 
 he, the Thirteenth, more than the Twelve, who had been called in the first 
 instance for the δωδεκαφύλον of Israel (Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 10). His con- 
 version was completed through Ananias, who was directed to him by means 
 of an appearance of Christ (Acts ix. 10 ff.); and, having been baptized, he 
 at once after a few days, in the resolute consciousness of his spiritual life 
 transformed with a view to his apostolic vocation (Gal. i. 16), preached in 
 the synagogues of Damascus Jesus’ as being the Son of God (Acts x. 19 f.). 
 For all half-heartedness was foreign to him ; now too he was, whatever he 
 was, thoroughly, and this energetic: unity of his profound nature was now 
 sanctified throughout by the living spirit of Christ. His apostolic labours at 
 Damascus, the birthplace of his regenerate life, lasted three years, inter- 
 rupted however by a journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17), the object of which most 
 probably was to make merely a preliminary and brief trial of his ministry in 
 a foreign field.? 
 
 Persecution on the part of the Jews—which was subsequently so often, 
 according to the Divine counsel, the salutary means of extending the sphere 
 
 Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1870, 1. 
 Compare generally Dorner, Gesch. αἱ. prot. 
 Theol. p. 829 ff. 
 
 1 The chief facts in the life of Jesus could 
 not but have been already known to him 
 in a general way, whilst he was actively 
 opposing the Christians at Jerusalem; but 
 now, for the first time, there dawned upon 
 him the saving knowledge of these facts and 
 of their ἐγ, and his constant intercourse 
 with believers henceforth deepened more 
 and more this saving knowledge. ‘Thus, 
 following the living historical tradition 
 within the circle of Christianity under the 
 influence of the Christ revealed in him, he 
 became the most important witness for the 
 history of Jesus apart from’ the Gospels. 
 Comp. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, I. Ὁ. 36 ff.; also 
 Hiausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. 11. p. 457. But 
 that he had seen Christ Himself, cannot be 
 inferred from 2 Cor. vy. 16; see on that 
 passage. 
 
 2 Schrader, Kéllner, Kohler (Adfassungen 
 α΄. epistol. Schr. p.43f.), Riickert, and Schott 
 on Gal. 1.6., Holsten, D6éllinger, Krenkel, 
 and others, think that Paul withdrew im- 
 mediately after his conversion to a neigh- 
 bouring desert of Arabia, in order to pre- 
 pare himself in retirement for his calling. 
 Compare also Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. I. 
 p. 455. This view is decidedly at variance 
 
 with Acts ix. 19, 20, where the immediate 
 public teaching at Damascus, a few days 
 after the conversion, receives very studious 
 prominence. But we should only have to 
 assume such an inconsistency with the pas- 
 sage in Acts, in the event of that assumed 
 object of the Arabian journey being eme- 
 getically deducible from the Apostle’s own 
 words in Gal. i. 17, which, however, is by no 
 means the case. Luke, it is true, makes no 
 mention at all of the Arabian journey ; but 
 for that very reason it is highly improbable 
 that it had as its object asilent preparation 
 for his official work. For in that case the 
 analogous instances of other famous teach- 
 ers who had prepared themselves in the 
 desert for their future calling (Ex. xxiv. 18, 
 xxxiv. 28; Deut, ix. 9; 1 Kings xix. 8), and 
 the example of John the Baptist, and even 
 of Christ Himself, would have made the 
 fact seem too important either to have re- 
 mained wholly unknown to Luke, or to 
 have been passed over without notice in 
 his history ; although Hilgenfeld and Zeller 
 suppose him to have omitted it intentionally. 
 On the other hand, we cannot suppose that 
 the sojourn in Arabia extended over the 
 whole, or nearly the whole of the three 
 years (Eichhorn, Hemsen, Anger, Ewald, 
 Laurent, and olderexpositors). See gener- 
 ally on Gal. i. 17. 
 
SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 5 
 
 of the Apostle’s labours—compels him to escape from Damascus (Acts ix. 
 19-26 ; 2 Cor. xi. 32 f.); and he betakes himself to the mother-church of 
 the faith on account of which he has suffered persecution in a foreign land, 
 proceeding to Jerusalem (A.D. 38), in order to make the personal acquaint- 
 ance of Peter (Gal. i. 18). At first regarded by the believers there with dis- 
 trust, he was, through the loving intervention of Barnabas (Acts ix. 27 f.), 
 admitted into the relation of a colleague to the Apostles, of whom, however, 
 only Peter and James the brother of the Lord were present (Gal. i. 19). 
 His first apostolic working at Jerusalem was not to last more than fifteen 
 days (Gal. i. 18); already had the Lord by an appearance in the temple 
 (Acts xxii. 17 ff.) directed him to depart to the Gentiles ; already were the 
 Hellenists resident in the city seeking his life; and he therefore withdrew 
 through Syria to his native place (Acts ix. 30; Gal. i. 20). Here he seems to 
 have lived and worked wholly in quiet retirement, till at length Barnabas, 
 who had appreciated the greatness and importance of the extraordinary man, 
 went from Antioch, where just at that time Gentile Christianity had estab- 
 lished its first church, to seek him out at Tarsus, and brought him thence 
 to the capital of Syria ; where both devoted themselves for a whole year 
 (A.D. 43) without interruption to the preaching of the Gospel (Acts xi. 25, 
 26). We know not whether it was during this period (see Anger, temp. rat. 
 p. 104 ff.), or during his sojourn in Cilicia (see Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 440, 
 ed. 3), that the Apostle became the subject of that spiritual ecstasy and 
 revelation which, even after the lapse of fourteen years, continued to be re- 
 garded by him as so extremely remarkable (2 Cor. xii. 2-4). 
 
 But the great famine was now approaching, which, foretold at Antioch 
 by the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem, threatened destruction to the 
 churches of Judaea. On this account the brethren at Antioch, quite in the 
 spirit of their new brotherly love, resolved to forward pecuniary aid to Ju- 
 daea ; and entrusted its transmission to Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 27-80). 
 After the execution of this commission (A.p. 44), in carrying out which 
 however Saul at least cannot have gone all the way to Jerusalem (see on 
 Gal. ii. 1), the two men were formally and solemnly consecrated by the 
 church at Antioch as apostles to the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 1-3); and Saul now 
 undertook—at first with, but afterwards without, Barnabas—his missionary 
 journeys so fruitful in results. In the course of these journeys he was wont, 
 where there were Jews, to attempt the fulfilment of his office in the first in- 
 stance among them, in accordance with what he knew to be the divine 
 order (Rom. i. 16, xv. 8 ff.), and with his own deep love towards his nation 
 (Rom. ix. 1 ff.); but when, as was usually the case, he was rejected by the 
 Jews, he displayed the light of Christ before the Gentiles. And in all va- 
 riety of circumstances he exhibited a vigour and versatility of intellect, an 
 acuteness and depth, clearness and consistency, of thought, a purity and 
 steadfastness of purpose, an ardour of disposition, an enthusiasm of effort, 
 a wisdom of conduct, a firmness and delicacy of practical tact, a strength 
 and freedom of faith, a fervour and skill of eloquence, a heroic courage 
 amidst dangers, a love, self-denial, patience, and humility, and along with 
 all this a lofty power of gifted genius, which secure for the Saul whom 
 
 
 
 
 
0 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Christ made His chosen instrument the reverence and admiration of all 
 time.’ 
 
 In accordance with the narrative of Acts, three? missionary journeys of 
 the Apostle may be distinguished; and in the description of these we may 
 insert the remaining known facts of his history. 
 
 (1.) On his consecration as Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul went along with 
 Barnabas the Cyprian, and -with Mark accompanying them as apostolic ser- 
 vant, first of all to the neighbouring Cyprus; where, after his advance from 
 Salamis to Paphos, his work was crowned by a double success—the humilia- 
 tion of the goetes Elymas, and the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Pau- 
 lus (Acts xiii. 6-12). Then Pamphylia, where Mark parted from the apos- 
 tles (xiii. 13), Pisidia and Lycaonia became in turn fields of his activity, in 
 which, together with Barnabas, he founded churches and organized them 
 by the appointment of presbyters (xiv. 23). At one time receiving divine 
 honours on account of a miracle (xiv. 11 ff.), at another persecuted and 
 stoned (xiii. 50, xiv. 5, 19), he, after coming down from Perga to Attalia, 
 returned to the mother-church at Antioch. 
 
 While Paul and Barnabas were here enjoying a quiet sojourn of some du- 
 ration among the brethren (Acts xiv. 28), there came down from Judaea 
 Pharisaic Christians jealous for the law, who required the Gentile converts 
 to submit to circumcision as a condition of Messianic salvation (Acts xv. 1; 
 Gal. ii. 4). It was natural that this demand should encounter a decided 
 opponent in the highly enlightened and liberal-minded Paul, whose lively 
 assurance of the truth, resting on revelation and upheld by his own experi- 
 ence, could tolerate no other condition of salvation than faith in Christ; 
 and in consequence both he and the like-minded Barnabas became entangled 
 in no small controversy (Acts xv. 2). The dispute involved the fundament- 
 al essence and independent standing of Christianity and the whole freedom 
 of a Christian man, and was therefore of such importance that the church 
 at Antioch, with a view to its settlement, deputed their most influential 
 men, Paul, who also received a revelation for this purpose (Gal. ii. 2), and 
 Barnabas along with some others (Paul also took Titus with him, Gal. ii. 1), 
 to proceed to Jerusalem (fourteen years after the Apostle’s first journey 
 thither, A.p, 52), and there discuss with the apostles and elders the points 
 
 1CGomp. Holsten, 1.56. Hvang. d. Paul. u. 
 Petr. Ὁ. 88 ff.; Luthardt, d. Ap. Pail. e. Le- 
 bensbild, 1869; Krenkel, Paul. ἃ. Ap. d. Hei- 
 den, 1869; Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. TI. 
 1872; Grau, Hntwickelungsgesch. αἱ. neutest. 
 Schriftth. 1871, Il. p. 10f.; also Sabatier, 
 Uapotre Paul, esquisse Mune histoire de sa 
 pensée, Strasb. 1870. Still the history of the 
 spiritual development of the Apostle can- 
 not be so definitely and sharply divided in- 
 to periods as Sabatier has tried todo. See, 
 against this, the appropriate remarks of 
 Gess, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 159 ff. The 
 motive power and unity of all his working 
 lay in his inward fellowship with Christ, 
 
 with His death and resurrection—in the 
 subjective living and moving in Christ, and 
 of Christ in him. Comp. Grau. /.c. p. 15 ff. 
 2 The supposition that there were other 
 chief journeys, which, it is alleged, are left 
 unnoticed in the Acts (Schrader), is quite 
 incompatible with the course of the history 
 as there. given. He must, however, have 
 made many subordinate journeys, for the 
 Book of Acts is far from giving a complete 
 account of his labours, as is clearly shown 
 by various intimations in the Epistles. For 
 example, how many journeys and events 
 not noticed in the Acts must be assumed in 
 connection with 2 Cor. xi. 14 ff. ? 
 
~ 
 
 SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. γ 
 
 in dispute. And how happy was the result of this so-called Apostolic Coun- 
 cil! Paul laid the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles before the 
 church, and the apostles in particular, with the best effect (Gal. ii. 2, 6); 
 and, as to the point of circumcision, not even his apostolic associate Titus, a 
 Gentile, was subjected to the circumcision demanded by members of the 
 church who were zealous for the law. With unyielding firmness Paul con- 
 tended for the truth of the Gospel. The apostles who were present—James 
 the brother of the Lord, Peter and John—approved of his preaching among, 
 and formally recognized him as Apostle to, the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 1-10); and 
 he and Barnabas, accompanied by the delegates of the church at Jerusalem, 
 Judas Barsabas and Silas, returned to Antioch bearers of a decree (Acts xv. 
 28-30) favourable to Christian freedom from the law, and important as a 
 provisional measure for the further growth of the church (Acts xvi. 4 f.), 
 though not coming up to that complete freedom of the Gospel which Paul 
 felt himself bound to claim, and for this reason, as well as in virtue of his 
 consciousness of independence as Apostle to the Gentiles, not urged by him 
 in his Epistles. Here they prosecuted afresh their preaching of Christ, 
 though not always without disturbance on the part of Jewish Christians, so 
 that Paul was compelled in the interest of Christian freedom openly to op- 
 pose and to admonish even Peter, who had been carried away into dissimu- 
 lation, especially seeing that the other Jewish Christians, and even Barna- 
 bas, had allowed themselves to be tainted by that dissimulation (Gal. ii. 11 
 ff.).. Paul had nevertheless the welfare of his foreign converts too much at 
 heart to permit his wishing to prolong his stay in Antioch (Acts xv. 36). 
 He proposed to Barnabas a journey in which they should visit those con- 
 verts, but fell into a dispute with him in consequence of the latter desiring 
 to take Mark (Acts xv. 37-39)—a dispute which had the beneficial conse- 
 quence for the church, that the two men, each of whom was qualified to fill 
 a distinct field of labour, parted from one another and never again worked 
 in conjunction. 
 
 
 
 (2.) Paul, accompanied by Silas, entered on a second missionary journey 
 (A.D. 52). He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the Christian 
 life of the churches (Acts xv. 41) ; and then through Lycaonia, where at 
 Lystra (see on Acts xvi. 1) he associated with himself Timothy, whom he 
 circumcised—apart however from any connection with the controversy as to 
 the necessity of circumcision (see on Acts xvi. 3)—with a view to prevent 
 his ministry from causing offence among the Jews. He also traversed Phry- 
 gia and Galatia (Acts xvi. 6), in the latter of which he was compelled by 
 bodily weakness to make a stay, and so took occasion to plant the churches 
 there (Gal. iv. 135). When he arrived at Tvoas, he received in a vision by 
 night a call from Christ to go to Macedonia (xvi. 8 ff.). In obedience to 
 this call he stepped for the first time on the soil of Europe, and caused 
 Christianity to take permanent root in every place to which he carried his 
 ministry. For in Macedonia he laid the foundation of the churches at Phi- 
 lippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts xvi. 12 ff., xvii. 1 ff., 10 4f.); and then, 
 driven away by repeated persecutions (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 1 f., i. 6)—but 
 leaving Silas and Timothy behind in Beroea (Acts xvii. 14)—he brought to 
 
8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Christ His first-fruits even in Athens, where he was treated by the philoso- 
 phers partly with contempt and partly with ridicule (Acts xvii. 16 ff.). 
 But in that city, whence he despatched Timothy, who had in the mean- 
 while again rejoined him, to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 1 ff.), he was unable 
 to found a church. The longer and more productive was his labour in 
 Corinth, whither he betook himself on leaving Athens (Acts xviii. 1 ff.). 
 There, where Silas and Timothy soon joined him, he founded the church 
 which Apollos afterwards watered (1 Cor. 111. 6, 10, iv. 15, ix. 1); and for 
 more than a year and a half (Acts xviii. 11, 18; a.p. 53 and 54)—during 
 which period he received support from Macedonia (2 Cor. xi. 9), as he had 
 previously on several occasions from the Philippians (Phil. iv. 15 f.)—over- 
 came the wisdom of the world by the preaching of the Crucified One (1 Cor. 
 ii. 1 ff.). The relation here formed with his fellow-craftsman Aquila (Acts 
 xviii.1 ff.), who as a Roman emigrant was sojourning with his wife Priscilla 
 in Corinth, could not fail to exercise essential influence on the Christian 
 church at Rome (Rom. xvi. 3). In Corinth he wrote also at this time the 
 first of his doctrinal Epistles preserved to us—those to the Thessalonians. 
 Corinth was the terminus of his second missionary journey. From Corinth 
 he started on his return, not however taking a direct course, but first mak- 
 ing by way of “Zphesus (whither he brought Aquila and Priscilla with him) 
 a journey to Jerusalem to attend a festival (Acts xvili. 18-22; a.p. 55), 
 whence, without prolonging his stay, he returned to the bosom of the 
 Syrian mother-church. But he did not remain there long (Acts xviii. 23); 
 his apostolic zeal soon impelled him to set out once more. 
 
 (3.) He made his third missionary tour through Galatia and Phrygia, 
 strengthening the churches which he had founded from town to town (Acts 
 Xviii. 23); and traversed Asia Minor as far as Hphesus, where for nearly 
 three years (A.D. 56-58) he laboured with peculiar power and fervour and 
 with eminent success (Acts xix. 1-xx. 1), although also assailed by severe 
 trials (Acts xx. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 32, comp. 2 Cor. 1. 8). This sojourn of the 
 Apostle was also highly beneficial for other churches than that at Ephesus; 
 for not only did he thence make a journey to Corinth, which city he now 
 visited for the second time (see on 2 Cor. introd. § 2), but he also wrote 
 towards the end of that sojourn what is known to us as the First Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, receiving subsequently intelligence of the impression made 
 by it from Timothy, whom he had sent to Corinth before he wrote, as well 
 as from Titus, whom he had sent after writing it. The Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians was also issued from Ephesus. He was impelled to leave this city by 
 his steadfast resolution now to transfer his labours to the far West, and in- 
 deed to Rome itself, but before doing so to revisit and exhort to steadfast- 
 ness in the faith his Macedonian and Achaean converts (Acts xix. 21, xx. 2), 
 as well as once more to go to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 31). Accordingly, after 
 Demetrius the silversmith had raised a tumult against him (Acts xix. 24 ff.), 
 which however proved fruitless, and after having suffered in Asia other se- 
 vere afflictions (2 Cor. i. 8), he travelled through Macedonia, whither he 
 went by way of Troas (2 Cor. ii. 12). And here, after having been joined 
 by both Timothy and Titus from Corinth, Paul wrote the Second Kpis- 
 
SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 9 
 
 tle to the Corinthians. He then remained three months in Achaia (Acts xx. 
 3) where he issued from Corinth—which he now visited for the third time 
 (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1)—his Epistle to the Romans. Paul now regards his 
 calling in the sphere of labour which he has hitherto occupied as fulfilled, 
 and is impelled to pass beyond it (2 Cor. x. 15 f.); he has preached the 
 Gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyria (Rom. xv. 19, 23); he desires to go 
 by way of Rome to Spain, as soon as he shall have conveyed to Jerusalem a 
 collection gathered in Macedonia and Greece (Rom. xv. 28 ff.). But it 
 does not escape his foreboding spirit that suffering and tribulation await 
 him in Judaea (Rom. xy. 30 ff.). 
 
 The Apostle’s missionary labours may be regarded as closed with this last 
 sojourn in Achaia ; for he now entered on his return journey to Jerusalem, 
 in consequence of which the capital of the world was to become the closing 
 scene of his labours and sufferings. Hindered solely by Jewish plots from 
 sailing directly from Achaia to Syria, he returned once more to Macedonia, 
 and after Easter crossed from Philippi to Troas (Acts xx. 3-6), where his 
 companions, who had set out previously, awaited him. Coming thence to 
 Miletus, he bade a last farewell with touching fervour and solemnity to the 
 presbyters of his beloved church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 ff.) ; for he was firmly 
 convinced in his own mind, filled as it was by the Spirit, that he was going 
 to meet bonds and afflictions (xx. 23). At Tyre he was warned by the 
 Christians not to go up to Jerusalem (xxi. 4); at Caesarea Agabus an- 
 nounced to him with prophetic precision the approaching loss of his free- 
 dom (xxi. 10 ff.), and his friends sought with tears to move him even now 
 to return ; but nothing could in the least degree shake his determination to 
 follow absolutely the impulse of the Spirit, which urged him towards 
 Jerusalem (xx. 22). He went thither (4.p. 59) with heroic self-denial and 
 yielding of himself to the divine purpose, in like manner as formerly the 
 Lord Himself made His last pilgrimage to the Jewish capital. Arriving 
 there shortly before Pentecost—for his object was not only to convey to the 
 brethren the gifts of love collected for them, but also to celebrate the 
 national festival, Acts xxiv. 17—he was induced by James and the pres- 
 byters to undertake immediately on the following day, for the sake of the 
 Judaists, a Nazarite vow (xxi. 17 ff.). But, while it was yet only the fifth 
 day of this consecration (see on Acts xxiv. 11), the Asiatic Jews fell upon 
 him in the temple, accusing him of having, as an enemy of the law and the 
 temple, brought Gentiles with him into the holy place ; and they would 
 have killed him, had not the tribune of the fort Antonia rescued him by 
 military force from their hands (xxi. 28-34). In vain he defended himself 
 before the people (Acts xxii.), and on the following day before the Sanhedrin 
 (xxiii. 1-10) ; but equally in vain was a plot now formed by certain Jews 
 who had bound themselves by an oath to put him to death (xxiii. 11-22) ; 
 for the tribune, when informed of it, had the Apostle conducted imme- 
 diately to the Procurator Felix at Caesarea (xxiii. 28-35). Felix was base 
 enough, in spite of Paul’s excellent defence, to detain him as a prisoner for 
 two years, in the expectation even of receiving a bribe ; and on his depart- 
 ure from the province, from a wish to gratify the Jews, left the Apostle to 
 
10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 be dealt with by Porcius Festus his successor (summer, A.D. 61), Acts xxiv. 
 Even from the more equitable Festus, before whom the Jews renewed their 
 accusations and Paul the defence of his innocence, he did not receive the 
 justice that was his due ; wherefore he found himself compelled to make a 
 formal appeal to the Emperor (xxv. 1-12). Before this date however, whilst 
 living in the hope of a speedy release, he had written at Caesarea his Epis- 
 tles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (which are usually assigned to 
 the Roman captivity) ; see on Eph. introd. ὃ 2. His appeal, notwithstand- 
 ing the unanimously favourable opinions pronounced regarding him (Acts 
 xxvi.) after his solemn defence of himself before King Agrippa II. and his 
 sister (xxv. 13 ff.), was necessarily followed by his transference from Caesarea 
 to Rome. During the autumn voyage, on which he was accompanied by 
 Luke and Aristarchus, danger succeeded danger, after the Apostle’s wise 
 warnings were despised (Acts xxvii. 10, 11, 21) ; and it was only in conse- 
 quence of his advice being afterwards followed (Acts xxvii. 80-36) that all 
 were saved and, after the stranding of their vessel at Malta, happily landed 
 to pass the winter on that island. In the following spring he saw Rome, 
 though not—as it had been so long his earnestly cherished wish to visit it 
 (Rom. i. 10 ff.)—as the free herald of the Gospel. Still he there enjoyed 
 the favour—after receiving a custodia militaris—of being permitted to dwell 
 in his own hired house and to continue without interruption his work of in- 
 struction among all who came to him, This mild imprisonment lasted two 
 full years (from the spring of 62) : and as at this time his intrepid fidelity 
 to his office failed. not to make oral proclamation of the kingdom of God 
 (Acts xxviii. 80, 51 ; Phil. i. 12 ff.), so in particular the Hpistle to the Philip- 
 pians, which emanated from this time of captivity, is a touching proof of 
 that fidelity, as well as of the love which he still received and showed, of the 
 sufferings which he endured, and of the resignation and hope which alter- 
 nated within him. This letter of love may be called his swan’s song. The 
 two years’ duration of his further imprisonment did not decide his cause ; 
 and it does not make his release by any means self-evident,’ for Luke re- 
 ports nothing from this period respecting the progress of the Apostle’s trial. 
 But now all at once we lose all trustworthy accounts bearing on the further 
 course of his fate; and only thus much can be gathered from the testi- 
 monies of ecclesiastical writers as historically certain, that he died the death 
 of a martyr at Rome under Nero, and nearly at the same time* as Peter 
 suffered crucifixion at the same place. See the testimonies in Credner, Hin. 
 I. p. 318 ff. ; Kunze, praecip. Patrwm testim., quae ad mort. P. spect., Gott. 
 
 
 
 Rome—as, following Baur and others, Lip- 
 sius, Chronol. d. Rdm. Bischéfe, 1869, and 
 Quellen d. Rom. Petrussage, 1872, and Gun- 
 
 1 Τῇ opposition to Stélting, Beitr. z. Haxeg. 
 d. Paul. Br. p. 195. 
 2 Whether Peter suffered martyrdom 
 
 somewhat earlier than Paul (Ewald), or 
 some time later, cannot be made out from 
 Clement, Cor. I. 5, any more than from 
 other sources. Moreover this question is 
 bound up with that as to the place and 
 time of the composition of the First Epistle 
 of Peter. But that Peter never came to 
 
 dert in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1869, p. 306 ff., 
 seek to prove (see the earlier literature on 
 the question in Bleek’s Hinleitung, Ὁ. 562)— 
 cannot, in view of the church tradition, be 
 maintained. The discussion of this question 
 in detail belongs to another place. 
 
SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 11 
 
 1848 ; and generally Baur, Pavlus, I. p. 243 ff. ed. 2; Wiescler, p. 547 ff. ; 
 Otto, Pastoralbr. Ὁ. 149 ff. ; from the Catholic point of view, Déllinger, 
 Christenth. und Kirche, p. 79 ff. ed. 2. 
 
 The question however arises, Whether this martyrdom (beheading) was 
 the issue of his trial at that time (Petavius, Lardner, Schmidt, Eichhorn, 
 Heinrichs, Wolf, de altera Pauli captivit. Lips. 1819, 1821, Schrader, Hem- 
 sen, K6lner, Winer, Fritzsche, Baur, Schenkel, de Wette, Matthies, Wieseler, 
 Schaff, Ebrard, Thiersch, Reuss, Holtzmann, Judenth. ει. Christenth. p. 549 f., 
 Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Otto, Volckmar, Krenkel, and others, including 
 Rudow, Diss. de argumentis historic., quibus epistolar. pastoral. origo Paul. 
 impugnata est, Gott. 1852, p. 6 ff.), or of a second Roman captivity, as has 
 been assumed since Eusebius (ii. 22) by the majority of ancient and modern 
 writers, including Michaelis, Pearson, Hinlein, Bertholdt, Hug, Heiden- 
 reich, Pastoralbr. II. p. ὁ ff., Mynster, hl. theol. Schr. p. 291 f., Guericke, 
 Bohl, Abfassungsze. d. Br. an Timoth. u. Tit., Berl. 1829, Ὁ. 91 ff., Kohler,? 
 Wurm, Schott, Neander, Olshausen, Kling, Credner, Neudecker, Wiesinger, 
 Baumgarten, Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 11. i. p. 386 ff., Bleek, Déllinger, Sepp, 
 Gams, ὦ. Jahr d. Martyrertodes d. Ap. Petr. u. Paul. 1867, Ewald, Huther, 
 and others. Since the testimony of Eusebius, /.c., which is quite of a gen- 
 eral character, confessedly has reference merely to a tradition (λόγος Eyer), 
 which was acceptable to him on account of 2 Tim. iv. 16 f., the historical 
 decision of this question turns on the statement of Clemens Romanus.? He 
 says, according to Dressel’s text,? 1 Cor. 5: Διὰ ζῆλον καὶ ὁ ἸΤαῦλος ὑπομονῆς 
 βραβεῖον ὑπέσχεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθεὶς, λιθασθεῖς. ἹΚῆρυξ γενόμενος 
 ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιο- 
 σύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν, καὶ μαρτυρῇσας 
 Οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, 
 ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. This passage, it is thought, indicates 
 clearly enough that Paul before his death, passing beyond Italy, had reached 
 the farthest limit of the West, Spain,‘ and that therefore a second Roman 
 
 ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων. 
 
 718). The variations however of the dif- 
 ferent revisions of the text, whichis only 
 
 1 Who, curiously enough, further assumes 
 a third and fourth captivity. 
 
 2 Nothing at all bearing upon our question 
 can be derived from the testimony of 
 Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Euseb. ii. 
 25, to which Wiesinger still attaches weight. 
 It merely affirms that Peter and Paul having 
 
 "come to Italy, there taught, and died as 
 martyrs. Comp. Caius ap. Eus. 1. 6... Iren. 
 Haer. iii. 1; Tertull. Scorp. 15, praescr. 36; 
 and even the κήρυγμα Πέτρου (Clem. Strom. 
 vi. 5). These testimonies do not in the least 
 suggest the idea of a second presence in 
 Rome. 
 
 8 Dressel follows the recension of Jacob- 
 son (Oxon. 1838, and 2d ed. 1840), who col- 
 lated Cod. A anew, and carefully rectified 
 its text of the Epistle first issued by Patri- 
 cius Junius (Oxon. 1633), followed substan- 
 tially in that form by Cotelerius (Paris 1672), 
 and then amended by Wotton (Cantabr. 
 
 preserved, and that in a very faulty form, 
 in Cod. A, do not essentially affect the pres- 
 ent question. Even the form in which 
 Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 105 ff., and in the 
 Stud, κι. Krit. 1870, Ὁ. 135 ff.) gives the text 
 of the passage in Clement on the basis of 
 Tischendorf’s reproduction of Cod. A, is 
 without influence on our question. This 
 holds true also with respect to the latest 
 critical editions of the Clementine Epistles 
 by Hilgenfeld (V. 7. extra canonem, 1866, I.), 
 by Lightfoot (S. Clement of Rome. The two 
 Ppistles, ete. 1869), andby Laurent (Clem. 
 Rom. ad Cor. epistula, ete. 1870). 
 
 4 So also Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 620 ff. ed. 3, 
 who supposes that, when Paul heard in 
 Spain of the horrors of the Neronian perse- 
 cutions, he hurried back to Rome to bear 
 witness for Christianity ; that there he was 
 
12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 imprisonment must be assumed. See especially Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, 
 p- 51 ff. ; Huther, Pastoralbr. Hinl. p. 32 ff. ed. 3; Lightfoot 1.6., who un- 
 derstands by τέρμα τ. 6. Gades. In opposition to this view we need not seek 
 after any different interpretation of τὸ τέρμα τ. δύσεως 3 Whether it may be 
 taken to signify the western limit appointed to Paul (Baur, Schenkel, Otto)— 
 which certainly would be very meaningless—or the line of demarcation be- 
 tween East and West (Schrader, Hilgenfeld, apost. Vater, p. 109) ; or even 
 the centre of the West (Matthies). But it is to be observed :—1st. That the 
 language generally bears a highly rhetorical and hyperbolical character, and, 
 were it only for this reason, it is very hazardous to interpret the ‘‘limit of 
 the West” (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) with geographical accuracy. And is ποῦ 
 even the immediately preceding δικαίοσ. διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον a flourish of 
 exaggeration? 2d. Clement does not speak of East and West from his 
 own Roman standpoint, but, as was most naturally accordant with the 
 connection and design of his statement, from the standpoint of Paul, into 
 whose local relations he in thought transports himself. While the Apostle 
 laboured in Asia, he was in the Hast: then he passed over to Greece, and 
 thus had become, from his Oriental point of view, a herald also in the West. 
 But in the last crisis of his destiny he came even to the far West, as far as 
 Rome : and for this idea how naturally, in the midst of the highly coloured 
 language which he was using, did the expression ἐπὲ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών 
 suggest itself ! It could not have been misunderstood by the readers, because 
 people at Corinth could not but énow the place where Paul met hisdeath. 3d. 
 "Er? τῶν ἡγουμένων denotes (in allusion to Matt. x. 18) the rulers generally, be- 
 fore whom Paul gave testimony concerning Christ (μαρτυρήσας), after he had 
 reached this τέρμα τῆς δύσεως. If the latter denotes Rome, then we may without 
 hesitation, on historical grounds, conclude that the rulers are those Roman 
 magistrates before whom Paul made his defence in Rome. But if Spain 
 should be the ‘‘ goal of the West,” we should find ourselves carried by the 
 μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμ. to some scene of judicial procedure in Spain ; and 
 would it not in that case be necessary to assume a sojourn of the Apostle 
 there, which that very trial would render ‘specially memorable ? But how 
 opposed to such a view is the fact, that no historical trace, at all certain, is 
 preserved of any church founded by Paul in Spain! For the testimonies to 
 this effect adduced by Gams, Hirchengesch. v. Spanien, p. 26, Sepp, Gesch. 
 der Ap. p. 314, ed. 2, and others, contain nothing but traditions, which 
 have merely arisen from the hypothetical Spanish journey of Paul. And to 
 say with Huther that the Apostle had travelled (ἐλθών) to Spain, but had not 
 laboured there, is to have recourse to an explanation at variance with the in- 
 trinsic character of Paul himself and with the context of Clement. Besides, 
 according to Rom. xv. 23 f., Paul desired to transfer his ministry, that was 
 accomplished in the East, to Spain. 4th. If ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τ. δύσεως ἐλθών was 
 intended to transport the reader to Spain, then it would be most natural, 
 since οὕτως sums up the previous participial clauses, to transfer the ἀπηλλάγη 
 
 arrested, placed once more on trial, and the Book of Acts itself, at i. 8, points by 
 condemned to death. According to Ewald way of anticipation to the Spanish journey. 
 
SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 19 
 
 tov κόσμου also to Spain; for just as this ἀπηλλ. 7. x. is manifestly correlative 
 to the δικαιοσύνην διδάξ. ὅλον τ. κόσμον, 80 εἰς τ. ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη Corresponds 
 with the ἐπὶ τ. so that Paul, starting from the τέρμα 
 τ. δύσεως, Which he has reached, and where he has borne his testimony 
 before the rulers, enters on his journey to the holy place. It is only, there- 
 fore, when we understand Jtaly as the western limit, that the language of 
 Clement is in harmony with the historical circumstances of the case.’ See, 
 moreover, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. ad Cor. 1. p. 129, and Chronol. d. rém. Bis- 
 chéfe, p. 163 ff. It cannot withal be overlooked that in the so-called Epist. 
 Clem. ad Jacobum, c. 1, there is manifestly an echo of our passage, and yet 
 Rome alone is designated as the final goal of the Apostle’s labours : τὸν éodu- 
 evov ἀγαθὸν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσαι βασιλέα, μέχρισ ἐνταῦθα TH “Ῥώμῃ γενόμενος, 
 
 τέρμα τ. δύσεως K.T.A. ; 
 
 εοβουλήτῳ διδασκαλίᾳ σώζων ἀνθρώπους, αὐτὸς τοῦ νῦν βίου βιαίως τὸ ζὴν μετήλλαξεν. 
 After this the conjecture of Wieseler (and Schaff, Hist. of Apost. Church, 
 p- 342), who, instead of ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα, as given by Junius, would read ὑπὸ 
 τὸ τέρμα, and explain it ‘‘before the supreme power of the West,” is un- 
 necessary. It is decisive against this view that Jacobson, as well as 
 Wotton, found ἐπὶ in the Cod. A, and that Tischendorf likewise has attested 
 the existence of καὶ ἐπὶ as beyond doubt. But, besides, Wieseler’s expe- 
 dient would not be admissible on grounds of linguistic usage, for τέρμα in 
 the sense assumed is only used with ἔχειν ; see Eur. Suppl. 617, Or. 1848, 
 Jacobs. ad Del. epigr. p. 287. From the very corrupt text of the Canon 
 Muratorii,? nothing can be gathered bearing on our question, except that 
 
 1 Tf we render μαρτυρήσας martyrium pas- 
 sus (Credner, Lange, and older writers), this 
 result comes out the more clearly, since at 
 all events Paul died in Rome ; along with 
 which indeed Déllinger further finds in ἐπὶ 
 τῶν ἥγουμ. an evidence for the year 67 that 
 has been the traditional date since Euse- 
 bius, Chron. (comp. also Gams, Jahr d. 
 Martyrertodes, etc.; and Sepp, 1.6. p. 379), 
 when Nero was absent and the Prefecis 
 ruled in Rome. See his Christenth vw. 
 Kirche, p. 101, ed. 2. Against that chrono- 
 logical determination, see generally Bax- 
 mann, dass Petr. u. Paul nicht am 29. Junius 
 67. gemartert worden sind, 1867. 
 
 2The passage in question runs, ‘‘ Acta 
 autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro 
 sunt. Lucas optime Theophile comprindit 
 (comprehendit), quia sub praesentia ejus 
 singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote pas- 
 sionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed profec- 
 tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficis- 
 centis.” Wieseler conjectures that after 
 proficiscentis the word omittit has been left 
 out ; that semote means: at a separate place, 
 viz.not in the Acts of the Apostles, but in 
 the Gospel, xxii. 31-33. A very forced con- 
 jecture, with which nevertheless Volkmar 
 (in Credner’s Gesch. d. Kanon, p.343) agrees, 
 supposing that a non has dropped out after 
 
 proficiscentis. Credner, 1.6. p. 155 f., con- 
 jectured semofa (namely loca, which is sup- 
 posed to refer to John xxi. 18 ff., and Rom. 
 xv. 24), and thene¢ instead of sed. Otto, p. 
 154, would read sic e¢ instead of sed ; mak- 
 ing the meaning: ‘‘consequently (sic) he 
 declares openly, that just as (wi eZ) in his 
 absence the martyrdom of Peter took place, 
 so likewise (sic e¢) the journey of Paul,” ete. 
 But how much must we thus introduce into 
 the semote/ Laurent alters into: ‘ semota 
 passione... et profectione,” ete. Various 
 suggestions are made by others ; see Ewald, 
 Jahrb. VIL. p. 126, whose own procedure is 
 the boldest. Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Krit. d. 
 N. 7T., p. 42, thinks that the author has 
 “ quessed”’ the martyrdom of Peter and the 
 Spanish journey of Paul from the abrupt 
 close of the Acts of the Apostles. Such a 
 theory should have been precluded by the 
 “evidenter declarat,’ for which indeed 
 Ewald would read ‘‘ evidenter decerpit” or 
 “decollat.” If we must resort to conjecture 
 (and it is necessary), it seems the simplest 
 course, instead of ef semote, to insert id 
 semotam, and then instead of sed, et. This 
 would yield the sense: as this circumstance 
 (id), viz. the writing down only what took 
 place in his presence, evidently explains the 
 exclusion (semotam) of the passion of Peter ana 
 
14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the author was already acquainted with the tradition of the journey to 
 Spain afterwards reported by Eusebius; not, that he wished to refute 
 it (Wieseler, Ὁ. 536). On the other hand, Origen (in Euseb. 111. 1: 
 τί δεῖ περὶ Παύλου λέγειν ἀπὸ 'ΤἹερουσαλὴμ μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ιλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκότος τὸ 
 εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ὕστερον ἐν τῇ Ῥώμη ἐπὶ Νέρωνος μεμαρτυρηκότος) 
 tacitly excludes the Spanish journey. The tradition regarding it arose very 
 naturally out of Rom. xv. 24 (Jerome: ‘‘ad Italiam quoque et, ut dpse 
 scribit, ad Hispanias—portatus est”), and served as a needed historical basis 
 for the explanation of 2 Tim., acquiring the more general currency both on 
 this account and because it tended to the glorification of the Apostle. It 
 is further worthy of attention that the pseudo-Abdias, in his Historia Apos- 
 tolica, ii. 7, 8 (in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. p. 452 ff.), represents the execution as 
 the issue of the captivity reported in the Acts. Had this author been a be- 
 liever ina liberation, as well as in a renewed missionary activity and 
 second imprisonment, he would have been the last to refrain from bringing 
 forward wonderful reports regarding them. Substantiaily the same may be 
 said of the Acta Petri et Pauli in Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. Ὁ. 1 ff. 
 
 
 
 Nole.—If we regard the Epistles to Timothy and Titus—which, moreover, stand 
 or fall together—as genuine, we must take, as Eusebius in particular has done 
 with reference to 2 Tim., the tradition of the Apostle’s liberation from Rome 
 and of a second captivity there as an historical postulate,! in order to gain the 
 room which cannot otherwise be found for the historical references of those 
 Epistles, and the latest possible time for their other contents. But the more 
 defective the proof of the second imprisonment is, the more warranted remain 
 the doubts as to the genuineness of these Epistles, which arise out of their own 
 contents ; while in virtue of these doubts the Epistles, in their turn, cannot 
 themselves be suitably adduced in proof of that captivity. Besides, it cannot 
 be left out of view that in all the unquestionably genuine Epistles which Paul 
 wrote during his imprisonment, every trace of the previously (Rom. xv, 24) 
 cherished plan of a journey to Spain has vanished ; and that in the Epistle to 
 the Philippians, which was certainly not written till he was in Rome (i. 25 f., 
 ii. 24), he contemplates as his further goal in the event of his liberation, not 
 the far West, but Macedonia, or in other words a return to the Kast. From 
 Acts xxiii. 11, however, no evidence can be adduced against the Spanish 
 journey (as Otto contends), because in this passage there is no express mention 
 of a last goal, excluding all further advance. 
 
 of the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. 
 On both of these occasions the author 
 accordingly thinks that Luke was not pres- 
 ent, and thereby the fact that he has 
 omitted them in his book is explained. 
 
 1 This isthe ground assumed by the latest 
 expositors of the Pastoral Epistles, who 
 maintain their genuineness, Wiesinger and 
 Huther; whilst Rudow, again, in the al- 
 ready mentioned Dissert. 1852, only rejects 
 the First Ep. to Timothy (comp. Bleek), and 
 
 calling in question a second captivity, as- 
 cribes the Second Ep. to Timothy to the 
 first imprisonment, and the Ep. to Titus to 
 the sojourn at Ephesus. So also Otto, with 
 respect to the two last-named Epistles ; 
 but he regards the First Ep. to Timothy as 
 aletter of instruction for Timothy in view 
 of his mission to Corinth, consequently as 
 nearly contemporaneous with the Ep. to 
 Titus. See, in opposition to Otto, Huther 
 on the Pastoral Epistles, Introd. ed. ὃ. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 15 
 
 ὃ 2. Tae Curistran Cuurcn AT Rome.' 
 
 That the Christian Church in Rome had been in existence for a consider- 
 able time when Paul wrote to it, is clear from 1: 8-18 and xiii. 11, 15; and 
 that it was already a church formally constituted, may be gathered from 
 the general analogy of other churches that had already been long in exists 
 ence, from xii. 5 ff., and less certainly from xvi. 5. Especially may the 
 existence of a body of presbyters, which was essential to church organiza- 
 tion (Acts xiv. 23), be regarded as a matter of course. In the Acts of the 
 Apostles the existence of the Church is presupposed (xxviii. 15) as something 
 well known ; and the author, who follows the thread of his Apostle’s biog- 
 raphy, had no occasion to narrate its origin or development. 
 
 The origin of the Roman Church cannot therefore be determined with 
 certainty. It is not incredible that even during the lifetime of Jesus faith 
 in Him had taken root, in individual cases, among the Roman Jews (comp. 
 Clem. Recogn. i. 6). For among the pilgrims who flocked to the festivals at 
 Jerusalem from all countries Romans also were wont to be present (Acts ii. 
 10), and that too in considerable numbers, because the multitude of Jews in 
 Rome had since the time of Pompey become extraordinarily great (see Philo, 
 leg. ad. Caj. Il. p. 568; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11, 1), in- 
 cluding Jews directly from Palestine (prisoners of war, see Philo, /.c.),-of 
 whom. a large portion had-attained-to freedom, the rights of citizenship, and 
 even wealth. Is it unlikely that individual festal pilgrims from Rome, im- 
 pressed by the words and works of Jesus in Jerusalem, carried back with them 
 to.their homes the first seeds of the-faith ? To this view it cannot-be-objected 
 (as by Reiche), that Christianity~did-not..spread. beyond the bounds of 
 Palestine until after the miracle of Pentecost ; for there is mention, in fact, 
 in Matt. x. of the official missionary activity of the Apostles, and in Acts 
 viii. 1 ff. of that of emigrants from Jerusalem. If the former and the latter 
 did not labour in foreign lands until a subsequent period, this by no means 
 excludes the possibility of the conversion of individual foreigners, partly 
 Jews, partly proselytes, who became believers in Jerusalem. It is further prob- 
 able that there were some Romans among the three thousand who came over 
 to the Christian faith at the first Pentecost (Acts 11. 10) ; at least it would 
 be very arbitrary to exclude these, who are expressly mentioned among the 
 witnesses of what occurred at Pentecost, from participation in its reswlis. 
 Lastly,it_is probable that the persecution-which broke out with the stoning 
 of Stephen drove some Palestinian Christians to take refuge even in the 
 distant capital of the world, distinguished by its religious toleration, and in 
 fact inclined to Oriental modes of worship (Athenaeus, Deipnos. I. p. 20 B., 
 calls it ἐπιτομὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης, and says: καὶ yap ὅλα τὰ ἔθνη ἀθρόως αὐτόθι 
 
 1 See Th. Schott, α΄. Rémerbriefs. Endzweck ἰ. Krit. 1867, p. 627 ff. ; comp. also Grau, 2. 
 u. Gedankengang nach, Erl. 1858; Mangold, Hinfiihr. in ἃ. Schriftth. N. T., Stuttg. 1868, 
 d. Réimerbr. u. d. Anfinge ἃ. rém. Gem. and his Entwickelungsgesch. d. neut. Schriftth. 
 Marb. 1866; Wieseler in Herzog’s Eneyht. TI. 1871, p. 102 ff.; Sabatier, 7?apdire Paul, 
 XX. p. 583 ff. (1866) ; Beyschlag in the Stud. 1870. 
 
16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 For that this dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem was not 
 confined to-Samariaand_Judaea (an objection here urged by Reiche and 
 K6llner), is proved by Acts xi. 19, where emigrants are mentioned who had 
 gone_as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. And how easily might some find 
 their way even to Rome, seeing that the brisk maritime intercourse between 
 these places and Italy afforded them opportunity, and seeing that they 
 might expect to find admittance and repose among their countrymen in 
 Rome, who were strangers to the fanatical zeal of Palestine. But although, 
 in consequence of the constant intercourse maintained by the Jews at Rome 
 with Asia, Egypt, and Greece, and especially with Palestine (Gieseler, 
 Kirchengesch. I. § 17), various Christians may have visited Rome, and _vari- 
 ous. Jews from Rome may have become Christians, all.the influences hitherto 
 mentioned could not establish a Christian congregational life in Rome. In- 
 dividual Christians were there, and certainly also Christian fellowship, but 
 still no organized church. ΤῸ plant such a church, there was needed, as is 
 plain from the analogy of all other cases of the founding of churches with 
 which we are acquainted, official action on the part of teachers endowed 
 directly or indirectly with apostolic authority. 
 
 Who the founder of the Roman congregational life was, however, is utterly 
 unknown. The Catholic Church names the Apostle Peter; concerning 
 whom, along with the gradual development of the hierarchy, there has been 
 a gradual development of tradition, that he came to Rome in the second 
 year, or at any rate about the beginning of the reign of the Emperor 
 Claudius (according to Gams, A.D. 41), to overcome Simon Magus, and re- 
 mained there twenty-five years (Gams : twenty-four years and an indefinite 
 number of days), till his death, as its first bishop. See Eusebius, Chron. (in 
 Mai’s Script. vet. nov. coll. VII. p. 876, 378) ; and Jerome, de vir. ill. 1.1 
 But that Peter in the year 44, and at the date of the apostolic conference in 
 the year 52, was still resident in Jerusalem, is evident from Acts xil. 4, xv. 
 7, and Gal. ii. 1 ff. From Acts xii. 7 a journey to Rome cannot be in- 
 ferred.? Further, that still later, when Paul was living at Ephesus, Peter 
 had not been labouring in Rome, is evident from Acts xix. 21, because Paul 
 followed the principle of not interfering with another Apostle’s field of 
 labour (Rom. xv. 20 ; comp. 2 Cor. x. 16) ; and, had Peter been in Rome 
 
 ΄ 
 συνῴκισται . 
 
 explained an old inscription as referring to 
 Simon Magus. Comp. also Uhlhorn, d. 
 
 1 See generally, Lipsius, α. Quellen d. Rom. 
 Petrussage, Kiel, 1872. As to the way in 
 
 which that tradition, the germs of which 
 are found in Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. 
 H. #. ii. 25), gradually developed itself into 
 the complete and definite form given above, 
 see Wieseler, chronol. Synops. p. 571; regard- 
 ing the motley legends connected with it, 
 see Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 341, ed. 2; con- 
 cerning the unhistorical matter to be elim- 
 inated from the report of Jerome, see 
 Huther on 1 Peter, Introd.; comp. Credner, 
 Kinl. 11. p. 882. The alleged presence of 
 Simon in Rome is probably the mere prod- 
 uct of a misconception, by which Justin, 
 Apol. i. 26 (comp. Irenaeus, Haer. i. 23), 
 
 Homil. τι. Recogn. αἰ. Clem. p. 378 ἔν; Moller in 
 Herzog’s Encykl. X1V. p. 392 ff.; Bleek, p.563 f. 
 
 2 Even if Peter had actually, in the course 
 of his foreign travels (1 Cor. ix. 5), visited 
 Rome once in the time of Claudius (comp. 
 on Acts xii. 17), which Ewald (apost. Zeit. 
 p. 606 f. ed. 8.) concedes to ecclesiastical 
 tradition, not calling in question even a 
 meeting with Simon Magus there, yet we 
 cannot regard this as involving the founda- 
 tion of the Roman church and the episcopal 
 position. Otherwise Paul would have in- 
 truded on anotherlabourer’s field. See the 
 sequel. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 1? 
 when Paul wrote to the Romans, he would have been saluted by the latter 
 before all others; for the numerous salutations in ch. xvi. presuppose an 
 accurate acquaintance with the teachers who were then in Rome. Peter 
 cannot have been labouring in Rome at all before Paul himself was brought 
 thither, because the former, as Apostle to the Jews, would have brought 
 Christianity into closer contact with the Jewish population there than is 
 apparent in Acts xxviii. 22. It is even in the highest degree improbable 
 that Peter was in Rome prior to the writing of the Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians—the only one which was certainly written by Paul in Rome—or at the 
 time of its being written ; for it is inconceivable that Paul should not in 
 this letter have mentioned a /fellow-Apostle, and that one Peter, especially 
 when he had to complain so deeply of being forsaken as at Phil. ii. 20. 
 Consequently the arrival of Peter in Rome, which was followed very soon 
 by his execution—and which is accredited by such ancient and strong tes- 
 timony (Dionysius of Corinth, in Euseb. ii. 25; Caius, in Euseb. ii. 25 ; 
 Origen, in Euseb. iii. 1; Irenaeus; Tertullian, etc.) that it cannot be in 
 itself rejected—is to be placed only towards the end of Paul's captivity, sub- 
 sequent to the composition of the Epistle to the Philippians. If, therefore, 
 the tradition of the Roman Church having been founded by Peter—a view 
 disputed even by Catholic theologians like Hug, Herbst, Feilmoser, Klee, 
 Ellendorf, Maier;-and Stengel, who however are vehemently opposed by 
 Windischmann, Stenglein, Reithmayr, and many others’—must be en- 
 tirely disregarded (although it is still defended among Protestants by Ber- 
 tholdt, Mynster, and Thiersch), it is on the other hand highly probable, that 
 a Christian church was founded at Rome only subsequent to Paul’s trans- 
 ference of his missionary labours to Europe ; since there is no sort of indi- 
 cation, that on his first appearance in Macedonia and Achaia he anywhere 
 found a congregation already existing. He himself in fact stood in need of 
 a special direction from Christ to pass over to Europe (Acts xvi. 9 f.) ; and 
 so another official herald of the faith can hardly before that time have pen- 
 etrated as far as Italy. But, when Paul was labouring successfully in 
 Greece, it was very natural that apostolic men of his school should find 
 motive and occasion for carrying their evangelic ministry still further west- 
 
 
 
 1 Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, Ὁ. 95 ff. 
 ed. 2, still seeks to support it on the usual 
 grounds, and in doing so starts from the 
 purely fanciful ἃ priori premiss, that the 
 Roman Church must have been founded by 
 an Apostle, with the equally arbitrary con- 
 clusion: ‘‘and that Apostle can only have 
 been Peter.” He gives to the twenty-five 
 years’ duration of the Petrine episcopatus a 
 curious round-about interpretation, accord- 
 ing to which the episcopate is made to 
 mean merely ecclesiastical dignity in gen- 
 eral; see p.317. The passage of Dionysius 
 of Corinth in Euseb. ii. 25 is misinterpreted 
 by him.—It ill accords with the Roman epis- 
 copate of Peter that in Euseb. iii. 2, and 
 Trenaeus, iii. 8, Zinws is expressly named as 
 
 the jirst Roman bishop; and in fact in the 
 Constit. ap. vii. 46, 1, it is said that he was 
 appointed by Paul; while Peter only nom- 
 inated the second bishop (Clemens) after the 
 death of Linus. According to this state- 
 ment Peter had nothing to do with the 
 founding of the Roman episcopate, and 
 neither Paul nor Peter was bishop in Rome. 
 On the whole it is to be maintained that no 
 Apostle at all was bishop of a church. The 
 apostolate and the presbyterate were two 
 specifically distinct offices in the service of 
 the Church. In Rome especially the succes- 
 sion of bishops can only be _ historically 
 proved from Xystus onward (οὐ. 125) ; see 
 Lipsius, J. ¢. 
 
 WH 
 
 / 
 
18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. , 
 
 -ward,—to the capital of the Gentile world. The expulsion of the Jews 
 from Rome under Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25 ; Acts xviii. 2) served, under 
 Divine guidance, as a special means for this end. Refugees to the neigh- 
 bouring Greece became Christians, Christians of the Pauline type, and then, 
 on their return to Rome, came forward as preachers of Christianity and 
 organizers-of-a-church. We have historical confirmation of this in the 
 instance of Aquila and Priscilla, who emigrated as Jews to Corinth, dwelt 
 there with Paul for upwards-of-a—year-and-a-half,and at the date of our 
 Epistle had again settled in Rome, where they appear, as previously in 
 Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), according to Rom. xvi. 3 as teachers and_ the pos- 
 sessors of a house where the Roman church assembled.’ It is probable that 
 others also, especially among the persons mentioned in ch. xvi., were in 
 similar ways led by God ; but it is certain that a chief place among the 
 founders of the church belongs to Aquila and Priscilla ; since among the 
 many who are greeted by Paul in the 16th chap. he presents to them the 
 Jirst salutation, and that with a more laudatory designation than is accorded 
 to any of the others. 
 
 Christianity, having taken root in the first instance among the Jews, found 
 the more readily an entrance among the Gentiles in Rome, because the pop- 
 ular heathen religion had already fallen into a contempt inducing despair 
 both among the cultivated and uncultivated classes (see Gieseler I. i. § 11- 
 14 ; Schneckenburger, newtest. Zeitgesch. p. 59 f.; Holtzmann, Judenthumu. 
 Christenthum, Ὁ. 305 ff.). Hence the inclination to Monotheism was very 
 general ; and the number of those who had gone over to Judaism was very 
 great (Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. ; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, Hist. v. 5 ; Seneca, in 
 Augustine, de civ. Dei, vii. 11 ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3, 5). How much at- 
 tention and approval, therefore, must the liberal system of religion, elevated 
 above all the fetters of a deterrent legal rigour, as preached by Aquila and 
 other Pauline teachers, have met with among the Romans dissatisfied with 
 heathenism ἢ From the description of most of the persons named in ch. xvi., 
 from the express approval given to the doctrine in which the Romans had been 
 instructed, xvi. 17, vi. 17, and even from the fact of the composition of the 
 letter itself, inasmuch as not one of the now extant letters of the Apostle is 
 directed to a non-Pauline church, we may with certainty infer that Pauline 
 Christianity was preponderant in Rome ; and from this it is a further neces- 
 sary inference that a very important part of the Roman church consisted of 
 Gentile- Christians. This Gentile-Christian part must have been the prepon- 
 derating one, and must have formed its chief constituent element (in opposi- 
 tion to Baur, Schwegler, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Volkmar, 
 Reuss, Lutterbeck, Thiersch, Holtzmann, Mangold, Grau, and Sabatier), 
 
 1 That this married pair came to Corinth, 
 not as Christians, but as still Jews, and were 
 there converted to Christianity through 
 Paul, see on Acts xviii. 1,2. Comp. Reiche, 
 J. p. 44 f.; Wieseler, 1.6. p. 586.—Moreover, 
 that the Christians, (Jewish-Christians) res- 
 ident in Rome were driven into exile along 
 with other Jews by the edict of Claudius, 
 
 can neither be proved nor yet controverted 
 from the well-known passage in Sueton. 
 Claud. 25 (see on Acts xviii. 1); for at that 
 time the Christian body, which at all events 
 was very small and isolated, was not yet 
 independent, but still united with the Jew- 
 ish population. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME, 19 
 
 since Paul expressly and repeatedly designates and addresses the Romans in 
 general as belonging to the ἔθνη (i. 6, 18, xi. 18) ; and asserts before them 
 the importance of his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles (xv. 15 f., i. 5 ; comp. 
 xvi. 4, 26). Comp. Neander, Gesch. ἃ. Pflanzung, etc., ed. 4, p. 452 ff., 
 Tholuck, Philippi, Wieseler, Hofmann. Indeed, we must presume, in ac- 
 cordance with the apostolic agreement of Gal. ii. 7 ff., that Paul would not 
 have written a doctrinal Epistle to the Romans, especially one containing 
 his entire gospel, if the church had been, in the main, a church of the περι- 
 τομὴ and not of the axpofvoria.’ Even ch. vii. 1, where the readers are de- 
 scribed as γινώσκοντες νόμον, as well as the numerous references to the Old 
 Testament, and proofs adduced from it, are far from attesting the predomi- 
 nance of Jewish Christianity in Rome.? They are fully explained, when we 
 recollect that in the apostolic age all Christian knowledge was conveyed. 
 through the channel of the Old Testament (xvi. 26) ; that an acquaintance 
 with the law and the prophets, which was constantly on the increase by their 
 being publicly read in the assemblies (comp. on Gal. iv. 21), was also to be 
 found among the Gentile-Christians ; and that the mingling of Jews and 
 Gentiles in the churches, even without a Judaizing influence being exerted 
 on the latter (as in the case of the Galatians), could not but tend to further 
 the use of that Old Testament path which Christian preaching and knowl- 
 edge had necessarily to pursue. The grounds upon which Baur (in the 
 Tubing. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 144 ff., 1857, p. 60 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 
 343 ff. ed. 2 ; also in his Christenth. ἃ. drei erst. Jahrb. p. 62 ff. ed. 2 ; see 
 also Volkmar, d. Rém. Kirche, p. 1 ff.; Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 
 411) seeks to establish the preponderance of Jewish Christianity will be dealt 
 with in connection with the passages concerned ; as will also the defence of 
 that preponderance which Mangold has given, while correcting in many re- 
 spects the positions of Baur. The middle course attempted by Beyschlag, 
 lec. p. 640—that the main element of the church consisted of native Roman 
 proselytes to Judaism, so that we should regard the church as Gentile- Ohris- 
 tian in its lineage, but as Jewish- Christian in its habits of thought—is unsupport- 
 ed by any relevant evidence in the Epistle itself, or by any indication in par- 
 ticular of a previous state of proselytism. 
 
 But even if there was merely a considerable portion of the Christian church 
 at Rome consisting of those who had been previously Jews (as, in particular, 
 xiv. 1 ff. refers to such), it must still appear strange, and might even cast a 
 doubt upon the existence of a regularly organized church (Bleek, Beitr. p. 
 55, and Hinl. p. 412 ; comp. Calovius and others), that when Paul arrives 
 
 i By this Epistle he would have gone be- 
 yond the line laid down by him for his own 
 field of labour (comp. 2 Cor. x. 13 ff.), and 
 would have interfered in the sphere not 
 assigned to him—the Apostleship to the Jews. 
 
 3 Even in the Epistle of Clement, written 
 in the name of the Roman Church, with its 
 numerous O. T. references, the Gentile- 
 Christian and Pauline element of thought 
 predominates, although there is a manip- 
 
 ulation of Pauline views and ideas in ac- 
 cordance with the ‘Christian legalism” 
 (Ritsch], altkath. K. p. 274 ff.) of a later 
 period. Comp. Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. Ep. 
 ad Vor. pr. 1855; and Mangold, p. 167 ff. I 
 cannot agree with Wieseler and others that 
 this Epistle was written before the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, but with Ritschl and 
 others assign it to the time of Domitian ; 
 comp. Cotelerius. 
 
20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 as a prisoner in Rome, and wishes to acquaint himself with the Jewish com- 
 munity there, the leaders of the latter make no mention of a Christian con- 
 gregation at Rome, but evince merely a superficial cognizance of the Christian 
 sect in general (Acts xxviii. 22). But the Jewish leaders are here speaking 
 as officials, and, as such, are not inclined without special immediate occasion 
 to express their views before the captive stranger as to the position of the 
 Christian body which existed in Rome itself. A designation of the Christian 
 sect generally in accordance with its notorious outward reputation—such as 
 might bring it into suspicion—is enough for them ; but as to the precise 
 relation in which this sect stands to them in Rome itself they do not feel them- 
 selves called upon to say anything for the present, and, with discreet reserve, 
 are therefore wholly silent respecting it. This narrative therefore of Acts is 
 neither to be regarded as a fiction due to the tendency of the author (Baur, 
 Zeller, Holtzmann), nor to be explained, arbitrarily and inadequately, by 
 the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius (Olshausen), which had induced 
 the Roman Jewish-Christians to separate themselves entirely from the Jews, 
 so that on the return of the latter from exile the former remained unnoticed 
 by them. Neither is it to be accounted for, with Neander—overlooking the 
 peculiar character of Jewish religious interests—by the vast size of the me- 
 tropolis ; nor, with Baumgarten, by the predominance of the Gentile-Chris- 
 tians there ; nor yet, with older writers, by the hypothesis—unjust and inca- 
 pable of proof—that the Roman Jews acted a dishonest and hypocritical part 
 on the occasion. Not dishonesty, but prudence and caution are evinced in 
 their conduct (comp. Schneckenburger, Philippi, Tholuck, Mangold), for 
 the explanation of which we do not require, in addition to what they them- 
 selves express in ver. 22, to assume any special outward reason, such as that 
 they had been rendered by the Claudian measure more shy and reserved (Phi- 
 lippi ; comp. Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 588, ed. 3) ; especially seeing that there 
 is no just ground for referring the words of Suetonius, ‘‘ Judaeos impulsore 
 Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit” (Claud. 25), to disputes between 
 Jews and Christians relative to the Messiahship of Jesus, contrary to the 
 definite expression ‘‘ tumultuare.” ὦ 
 
 We may add that our Epistle—since Peter cannot have laboured in Rome 
 before it was written—is a fact destructive of the historical basis of the Papacy, 
 
 1 The Chrestus of Suetonius was a Jewish 
 agitator in Rome, who was actually so 
 called. See on Acts xviii. 2, and Wieseler, 
 p. 585. Every other interpretation is fanci- 
 ful, including even the one given above, 
 which is adopted by the majority of mod- 
 ern writers, among others by Baur, Holtz- 
 mann, Keim, Grau,and Mangold. Thiersch 
 is peculiar in adding to it the groundless 
 assertion, that ‘“‘the disturbances arose 
 through the testimony of Peter to the Mes- 
 siah in Rome, but that Peter had again 
 left Rome even before the expulsion of the 
 Jews by Claudius.’? Groundless is also the 
 opinion of Philippi, that, if Chrestus is to be 
 taken as an agitator, he must have beena 
 
 pseudo-Messiah. 'The pseudo-Messiahs ap- 
 peared much later. But after the analo- 
 gies of Judas and Theudas, other insur- 
 gents are conceivable enough—enthusiasts 
 for political freedom and zealots. Bey- 
 schlag, p. 652 ff., likewise taking Chrestus 
 as equivalent to Christus, infers too rashly, 
 from the passage in Suetonius, that the 
 Roman Church was chiefly composed of 
 proselytes, who, when the native -born 
 Jews were expelled, remained behind. 
 Miircker (Lehre von der Erlis. nach d. 
 Réimerbr. Meining, 1870, p. 3) rightly rejects 
 the interchange of the names Chrestus and 
 Christus. 
 
OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 21 
 
 in so far as the latter is made to rest on the founding of the Roman church 
 and the exercise of its episcopate by that Apostle. For Paul the writing of 
 such a didactic Epistle to a church of which he knew Peter to be the founder 
 and bishop, would have been, according to the principle of his apostolic in- 
 dependence, an impossible inconsistency. 
 
 ὃ 3. Occasion, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.’ 
 
 Long before writing this epistle (ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, xv. 23) the Apostle had 
 cherished the fixed and longing desire (Acts xix. 21) to preach the Gospel 
 in person at Rome (i. 11 ff.)—in that metropolis of the world, where the 
 flourishing of Christianity would necessarily exert an influence of the utmost 
 importance on the entire West ; and where, moreover, the special relation — 
 in which the church stood to the Apostle through its Pauline founders and 
 teachers, and through the many friends and fellow-labourers whom he pos- 
 sessed in the city (ch. xvi.), claimed his ardent and loving interest. His 
 official labours in other regions had hitherto prevented the carrying out of 
 this design (i. 13, xv. 22). Now indeed he hoped that he should soon 
 accomplish its realization ; but, partly because he wished first to undertake 
 his collection-journey to Jerusalem (xv. 23-25), and partly because Spain, 
 and not Rome (xv. 24-28), was to be the goal of his travels to the West, a 
 lengthened sojourn in Rome cannot have formed part of his plan at that 
 time. Accordingly, in pursuance of his apostolic purpose with reference to 
 the Roman church, he could not but wish, on the one hand, no longer to 
 withhold from it at least such a written communication of his doctrine, which 
 he had so long vainly desired to proclaim orally, as should be suitable to 
 the church’s present need ; and on the other hand, by this written com- 
 munication to pave the way for his intended personal labours in such fitting 
 manner as to render a prolonged stay there unnecessary. This twofold de- 
 sire occasioned the composition of our Epistle, for the transmission of which 
 the journey of the Corinthian deaconess Phoebe to Rome (xvi. 1) afforded 
 an opportunity which he gladly embraced. He could not fail to possess a 
 sufficient acquaintance with the circumstances of the church, when we con- 
 sider his position towards the teachers saluted in ch. xvi., and the eminent 
 importance of the church itself—of whose state, looking to the active inter- 
 course between Corinth and Rome, he was certainly thoroughly informed— 
 as well as the indications afforded by ch. xii. xiv. xv. That the Epistle was 
 called forth by special communications made from Rome itself (possibly by 
 Aquila and Priscilla) is nowhere apparent from its contents ; on the con- 
 trary, such a view is, from the general nature of the contents, highly im- 
 probable. Of all the Apostle’s letters, our present Epistle is that which has 
 least arisen out of the necessity of dealing with special caswal circumstances. 
 According to Baur, the readers, as Jewish Christians (imbued also with 
 erroneous Ebionite views), gave rise to the letter by their opposition to Paul, 
 in so far, namely, as they saw in Paul’s apostolic labours among the Gentiles 
 
 1 See, besides the works quoted in § 2, Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeilschr. 1868, p. 38 ff. , 
 
22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 a detriment to the Jews, contrary to the promises given to them by God, 
 and therefore asserted the national privileges of their theocratic primacy in 
 an exclusive spirit as opposed to the universalism of the Pauline teaching. 
 Comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeit. I. p. 285 ff. ; Volkmar, 1.6. p. 7 ff. ; 
 and also Reuss, Gesch. d. NV. T. ὃ 105 ff. ed. 4. In this view the Epistle is 
 made to assume a specifically polemic character, which it manifestly has not 
 (how very different in this respect the Ep. to the Galatians and those to the 
 Corinthians !) ; it is assumed that the Church was a Jewish-Christian one ; 
 and an importance, too great in relation to the whole, and indefensible 
 from an exegetical point of view,*is attached to the section, chs. ix.—xi. 
 (even in Baur’s second edition, which contains on this point a partial retrac- 
 tation), while, on the other hand, the two last chapters have to be sacrificed 
 to critical doubts that have no foundation. In no other Pauline Epistle is 
 the directly polemical element so much in the background ; and where it 
 does find expression, it is only for the moment (as in xvi. 17—20),—a sure 
 proof that it was least of all the concrete appearance and working of Anti- 
 paulinism which the Apostle had occasion in this Epistle to oppose. 
 Against that enemy he would have waged a very different warfare, as is 
 shown in particular in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, so nearly 
 allied in its contents. Nor is that enemy to be discovered in the weak in 
 faith of xiv. 1 ff. Ofcourse, however, Paul could not present his Gospel other- 
 wise than in antagonism to the Jewish righteousness of works and arrogance, 
 which it had already overcome and would continue to do so ; for this an- 
 tagonism belonged to the essence of his Gospel and had to assert itself, 
 wherever there was Judaism—only in various forms and degrees according 
 to the given circumstances—and therefore at Rome as well. The view of 
 Thiersch (Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 166), that Paul desired to elevate the 
 Jewish Christian church, which had consisted of the simple followers of 
 Peter, from their still somewhat backward standpoint to more enlarged 
 views, rests on the erroneous opinion that Peter had laboured in Rome. 
 
 The object of our Epistle, accordingly, was by no means the drawing up of 
 a systematic doctrinal system in general (see, against this view, Késtlin 
 in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 68 ff. ; Grau, Hntwickelungsgesch. 
 If. p. 114) ; but it is not on the other hand to be restricted more 
 specially than by saying: Paul wished to lay before the Romans in 
 writing, for their Christian edification (i. 11, xvi. 25), his evangelic doc- 
 trine—the doctrine of the sole way of salvation given in Christ—viewed 
 in its full, specific character as the superseding of Judaism, in such a way 
 as the necessities and cireumstances of the church demanded, and as he would 
 have preached it among them, had he been present in person (i. 11). The mode 
 in which he had to accomplish this was determined by the circumstance, 
 that he deemed it necessary for his object fully to set forth before the 
 
 
 
 1 Baur previously, after his dissertation Huther’s Zweck u. Inhalt ἃ. 11 ersten Kap. a. 
 in the 772d. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, found even the Rémerbr. 1846, p. 24f. Baur, in his Chris- 
 principal theme of the whole Epistle in chs. tenth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 62 ff. ed. 2, has 
 ix.-xi., for which chs. i—viii. only serve modified his view on this point. 
 as introduction. See against this view 
 
OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE, 23 
 
 Roman church, in a manner proportioned to the high importance of its 
 position, this Gospel as to which his disciples had already instructed them, 
 in the entire connection of its constituent fundamental principles. In no other 
 letter has he done this so completely and thoroughly ;? hence it is justly 
 regarded as a grand scheme of his whole teaching,* in the precise form 
 which he held to be suitable for its presentation to the Romans. How much 
 he must have had this at heart ! How much he must have wished to erect 
 such a complete and abiding memorial of Ais Gospel in the very capital of 
 the Gentile world, which was to become the Antioch of the West! Not 
 merely the present association of Jews and Gentiles in the church, but, gen- 
 erally, the essential relation in which according to the very Pauline teach- 
 ing, Christianity stood to Judaism, required him to subject this relation in 
 particular, viewed in its strong antagonism to all legal righteousness, to an 
 earnest and thorough discussion. This was a necessary part of his design ; 
 and consequently its execution, though on the whole based on a thoroughly 
 didactic plan, nevertheless assumed, in the presence of the given points of an- 
 tagonism, partly an apologetic, partly a polemic form, as the subject required ; 
 without however any precise necessity to contend against particular doctri- 
 nal misconceptions among the Romans, against divisions and erroneous views, 
 such as had appeared, for example, among the Galatians and Corinthians ; 
 or against a Judaistic leaven brought with them by the Jews and Jewish- 
 Christians who had returned to Rome (comp. Grau). The actual dangers | 
 for the moment in the Church were more of a moral than a dogmatic char- 
 acter—a remark which applies also to the opposition between the Gentile 
 Christians strong in faith, and the scrupulous Jewish Christians—and have 
 merely given occasion to some more special notices (xiii. 1 ff. ; xiv. 1 ff.), 
 and hints (xvi. 1 ff.) in the hortatory portion of the Epistle. The Judaistic 
 opponents of Pauline Christianity had not yet penetrated as far as Rome, and 
 were not to arrive there till later (Ep. to the Philippians). It was therefore 
 an untenable position when even before the time of Baur, who assumed the 
 object of the Epistle to be the systematic and radical refutation of Jewish 
 exclusiveness, its aim was very frequently viewed as that of a polemic against 
 Jewish arrogance, which had been specially aroused on account of the calling 
 of the Gentiles (Augustine, Theodoret, Melanchthon, Michaelis, Eichhorn, 
 Schmidt, Flatt, Schott, and others). The same may be said of the hypoth- 
 esis that Paul wished, in @ conciliatory sense, to obviate minunderstandings 
 between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Hug). There is no evidence in 
 
 1 Against which Hofmann unjustifiably 
 urges amo μέρους and ws ἐπαναμιμνήσκων 
 ὑμᾶς ἴῃ xv. 15. See on that passage. 
 
 2 So completely, that we can well enough 
 understand how this Ep. could become the 
 basis of Melanchthon’s loci communes. 
 
 3 Comp. Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. Il. Ὁ. 
 514 ff. Observe, at the same time, that 
 though the Epistle deals very much with 
 legal notions, this does not arise from its 
 being destined for the Romans to whom 
 
 Paul had become a Roman (Grau, 1.6. p: 
 113), but from the very nature of the Pau- 
 line Gospel in general, and is therefore 
 found 6... also in the Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians. 
 
 4 Comp. van Hengel, who assumes that 
 Paul desired to instruct the Romans how lo 
 refute the subtleties of the Jews with reference 
 to the calling of the Gentiles, and to free 
 them from errors and doubts thence aris+ 
 ing. . 
 
24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the Epistle of actual circumstances to justify any such special definitions of 
 its object ; and even from xvi. 20 it cannot be assumed that Judaistic 
 temptation had already begun (as Grau thinks). The comprehensiveness of 
 the object of our Epistle—from which, however, neither the combating of 
 Judaism, which arose naturally and necessarily out of the nature of the 
 Pauline Gospel, nor (seeing that the futwre coming forward of his opponents 
 could not be concealed from the Apostle) the prophylactic design of it, may 
 be excluded—has been justly defended by Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, 
 Reiche, Kéllner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Wieseler, Hausrath and others. Comp. 
 Ewald, p. 317 f. Along withit, however, Th. Schott (comp. also Mangold, 
 Riggenbach, Sabatier) has assumed a special personally apologetic purpose on 
 the part of the Apostle ;! namely that, being now on the point of proceed- 
 ing with his Gentile mission-work in the far West, Paul wished to gain for 
 his new labours a fixed point of support in the Roman church,’ and on this 
 account wished to instruct the Romans as to the significance and justifica- 
 tion of the step, and to inspire them with full confidence regarding it, for 
 which reason he exhibits to them in detail the nature and principles of 
 his work. Against this view it may be urged, in general, that Paul no- 
 where gives expression to this special purpose, though the announcement of 
 it would have been of decided importance, both for his own official interests 
 and for the information of the Roman church (they could not read it 
 between the lines either in the preface, vv. 1-15, or in the conclusion, xv. 
 14-44) ; and in particular, that the Apostle’s intention of visiting the 
 Romans only in passing through, without making a lengthened sojourn, is in- 
 compatible with the assumed purpose which he is alleged to have formed 
 regarding the church. Moreover, a justification on so great a scale of the 
 Gentile mission would presuppose not a Gentile-Christian, but a Jewish- 
 Christian, church and its requirements. Hence Mangold, holding the same 
 view that the Epistle contains a justification of the Gentile apostleship, has 
 the advantage of consistency in his favour ; his theory is nevertheless based 
 on the unsatisfactory ground adopted by Baur, namely, that the Church was 
 Jewish-Christian. See, further, Beyschlag, 1.6, p, 686 ff., and especially 
 Dietzsch, Adam. u. Christus, p. 14 ff. 
 
 1 Hofmann also makes the object of the 
 Apostle personal. Paul assumes it to be 
 a matter of surprise in Rome that he, the 
 Apostle of the Gentiles, should have hither- 
 to always kept aloof from the world’s 
 capital, and even now had not come to it. 
 It might seem as if the church, that had 
 arisen without his aid, had no interest for 
 him; or as if he were afraid to proclaim 
 the message of salvation in the great 
 eentre of Gentile culture. This twofold 
 erroneous notion he was especially desirous 
 to refute. Asa proof how far he was from 
 being thus afraid, he sets forth what in 
 his view the message of salvation was, etc., 
 etc. Thus he might hope that the church 
 
 in the metropolis of the world would be 
 just as steady a point of support for his 
 ministry in the farthest West, as if it had 
 been founded by himself. In this way, 
 however, assumptions and objects are as- 
 signed to the Epistle which are not ex- 
 pressed in it, but are imputed to it on the 
 ground of subordinate expressions, as will 
 be shown in the exposition. 
 
 2 Compare also Sabatier, 2’apétre Paul, p. 
 160 f., who at the same time affirms of the 
 “στα Πα missionaire :” dont ambition était 
 aussi vaste que le monde. According to 
 Sabatier, Paul gives down to chap. Vili. 
 the defence of his doctrine, and in chaps. 
 ix.-xi. that of his apostleshap. 
 
OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. ra) 
 
 As to contents, our Epistle, after the salutation and introduction (i. 1-15), 
 falls into two main portions, a theoretical and a hortatory, after which 
 follows the conclusion (xv. 14—-xvi. 27). The theoretic portion (i. 16—xi. 36) 
 bears its theme at the outset, i. 16, 17: “ Righteousness before God, for 
 Jews and Gentiles, comes from faith.” Thereupon is established, in the 
 first place, the necessity of this plan of salvation, as that which the whole 
 human race required, Gentiles and Jews alike, because the latter also, even 
 according to their own law, are guilty before God, and cannot attain to 
 righteousness (i. 17-ili. 20). The nature of this plan of salvation is then 
 made clear, namely, that righteousness really and only comes from faith ; 
 which is especially obvious from the justification of Abraham (111. 21—iv. 25). 
 The blessed results of this plan of salvation are, partly the blissful inward 
 condition of the justified before God (vy. 1-11); partly that justification 
 through Christ is just as universally effective, as Adam’s fall was once uni- 
 versally destructive (v. 12-21) ; and partly that true morality is not only not 
 endangered by the manifestation of grace in Christ, but is promoted and 
 quickened by it (chap. vi.), and made free from the fetters of the law (vii. 
 1-6). This last assertion demanded a defence of the law, as that which is 
 in itself good and holy, but was abused by the sinful principle in man, 
 against his own better will, to his destruction (vii. 17-25)—a sad variance 
 of man with himself, which could not be removed through the law, but only 
 through Christ, whose Spirit produces in us the freedom of the new divine 
 life, the consciousness of adoption, and assurance of future glory (ch. viii.). 
 From the lofty description of this blessed connection with Christ, Paul now 
 suddenly passes to the saddening thought that a great part of that very 
 Jewish people, so signally favoured of God, has rejected the plan of redemp- 
 tion ; and therefore he develops at length a Theodicy with regard to the 
 exclusion, apparently irreconcilable with the divine promises, of so many 
 members of the theocracy from the attainment of salvation in Christ (chs. 
 ix.-xi.). The hortatory portion (chs. xii.-xv. 13) gives the essentials of the 
 Pauline ethical system, partly in the form of general exhortations (xii. 
 1-21; xiii. 8-14), and partly in some special discussions which were 
 deemed necessary in the circumstances of the Romans (xiii. 1-7, xiv. 1—xv. 
 13). The conclusion comprises in the first place—corresponding to the in- 
 troduction (i. 8-15)—personal explanations with regard to the Apostle’s in- 
 tended journey by way of Rome to Spain (xv. 14-33) ; then the recom- 
 mendation of Phoebe (xvi. 1 ff.) and salutations (xvi. 3-16) ; a warning with 
 a closing wish (xvi. 17-20) ; some supplementary salutations with a second 
 closing wish (xvi. 21-24) ; and finally, a concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27). 
 
 “ This Epistle is the true masterpiece of the N. T., and the very purest 
 Gospel, which is well worthy and deserving that a Christian man should not 
 only learn it by heart, word for word, but also that he should daily deal with i 
 as with the daily bread of men’s souls, For it can never be too much or too welt 
 read or studied ; and the more it is handled the more precious it becomes and 
 the better it tastes,”—Luther, Preface. 
 
20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS. 
 
 ὃ 4, PLAcE AND TIME OF CoMPOSITION.—GENUINENESS OF' THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Since the Apostle, when he composed his letter, was on the point of con- 
 veying to Jerusalem the proceeds of a collection made in Macedonia and 
 Achaia (xv. 25-27), and intended to journey thence by way of Rome 
 to Spain (xv. 28, comp. Acts xix. 21), we are thus directed to his last 
 sojourn—of three months—in Achaia, Acts xx. 3. His purpose was to 
 cross over directly from Achaia to Syria in order to reach Jerusalem, 
 but he was led, owing to Jewish plots, to take quite a different route, 
 namely, back through Macedonia (Acts xx. 3). This change in the plan of 
 his journey had not been made when he wrote his Epistle ; otherwise he 
 would not have failed to mention in ch. xv.—where he had at vv. 25 and 31 
 very immediate inducement to do so—a circumstance so remarkable on ac- 
 count of its novelty and importance. We justly infer therefore—even apart 
 from the fact that the composition of swch an epistle presupposes a some- 
 what lengthened and quiet abode—that it was written before Paul again de- 
 parted from Achaia. Although Luke mentions no particular city as the 
 scene of the Apostle’s three months’ residence at that time, still it is, ὦ 
 priori, probable that he spent at least the greater part of the time in 
 Corinth. For Corinth was the principal church of the country, and was in 
 the eyes of the Apostle pre-eminently important and precious on account of 
 his earlier labours there. But our attention is also directed to Corinth by 
 the passages 1 Cor. xvi. 1-7, 2 Cor. ix. 4, xii. 20-xili. 3, from which it is 
 plain that, on his journey down from Macedonia to Achaia, Paul had 
 chosen that city as the place of his sojourn, where he wished to complete 
 the business of the collection, and from which he would convey the money 
 to Jerusalem. Now, since the recommendation of the deaconess Phoebe 
 from the Corinthian seaport Cenchreae (xvi. 1, 2), as well as the salutation 
 from his host Gaius (xvi. 28, comp. with 1 Cor. i. 14), point to no other 
 city than Corinth, we may, beyond all doubt, abide by it as the place of 
 writing, and not with Dr. Paulus (de orig. ep. P. ad Rom. paralip. Jen. 
 1801, and Rémerbrief, p. 231), on account of xv. 19 (see on that passage) put 
 forward a claim on behalf of a town in Illyria. Theodoret has admirably 
 proved in detail its composition at Corinth. 
 
 The time of composition accordingly falls in a.p, 59, when Paul regarded 
 his ministry in the East as closed, and (see xv. 19, 23) saw a new and vast 
 scene of action opened up to him in the West, of which Rome should be the 
 centre and Spain the goal. 
 
 The genuineness is decisively attested by the testimonies of the orthodox 
 church (the first express and special quotations from it are found in Irenaeus, 
 Haer. iii. 16, 3, 9, while previously there are more or less certain echoes of 
 its language or traces of its use),! as well as of the Gnostics Basilides, Val- 
 entinus, Heracleon, Epiphanes, and Theodotus ; and there is not a single 
 
 
 
 1 Clem. Cor. i. 385; Polyearp, ad Phil. 6; Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Euseb. 
 Theoph. ad Autol. i. 20, iii. 14; letter of the Vays 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. Ale 
 
 trace that even the Judaizing heretics, who rejected the authority of the 
 Apostle, at all rejected the Pauline authorship of our Epistle. In order to 
 warrant any doubt or denial of its authenticity, therefore, the most cogent 
 internal grounds would need to be adduced ; and in the utter absence of 
 any such grounds, the worthless scruples of Evanson (Dissonance of the four 
 generally received Evangelists, 1792, p. 259 ff.) and the frivolities of Bruno 
 Bauer could find no supporters. The Epistle bears throughout the lively 
 original impress of the Apostle’s mind, and his characteristic qualities, in its 
 matter and its form ; is the chief record of Ais Gospel in its entire connec- 
 tion and antagonism ; and is therefore also the richest original-apostolic 
 charter and model of all true evangelical Protestantism. The opinion of 
 Weisse (philosoph. Dogm. I. p. 146), which ultimately amounts to the sug- 
 gestion of a number of interpolations as interwoven throughout the Epistle 
 (see his Beitr. 2. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 28 ff.), rests simply 
 on a subjective criticism of style, which has discarded all weight of external 
 evidence. 
 
 The originality of the Epistle extends also to its language, the Greck, in 
 which Paul dictated it to Tertius." The note of the Syrian Scholiast on the 
 Peshito, that Paul wrote his letter in Zatin—a theory maintained also, but 
 for a polemical purpose, by Hardouin, Salmeron, Bellarmine, Corn. ἃ Lapide, 
 and others—is based merely upon a hasty inference from the native language 
 of the readers. Its composition in Greek however corresponds fully, not 
 only with the Hellenic culture of the Apostle himself, but also with the 
 linguistic circumstances of Rome (see Credner’s Hin/. I. p. 383 f.; Bern- 
 hardy, Griech. Literat. ed. 2, p. 483 ff.), and with the analogy of the rest of 
 the ancient Christian writings addressed to Rome (Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, 
 et al.). 
 
 That the two last chapters are genuine and inseparable parts of the Epistle, 
 see in the critical remarks on ch, xv. 
 
 1 The reason why Paul himself did not in his apostolic position. In this, when he 
 usually write his Epistles is to be sought, had to enter on written communication, 
 not in a want of practice in the writing of instead of the oral preaching for which he 
 Greek—which is a supposition hardly rec- was called, friendly and subordinate hands 
 oncilable with his Hellenic culture—but were at his service. Comp. on Gal. vi. 11. 
 
28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους. 
 
 The simplest and most ancient superscription is ; πρὸς ἹΡωμαίους, in ABC δ, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1. Ἰησοῦ X.] Tisch., following B, reads Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ against decisive 
 testimony.—In ver. 7 ἐν ‘Poy, and in ver. 15 τοῖς ἐν Ρώμῃ, are wanting in G. 
 Born; and on ver. 7 the scholiast of cod. 47 remarks: τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ovre ἐν τῇ 
 ἐξηγήσει, οὔτε Ev τῷ ῥητῷ μνημονευει (Who? probably the codex, which lay before 
 the copyist). This quite isolated omission is of no critical weight ; and is in 
 no case to be explained by the very unnatural conjecture (of Reiche) that Paul 
 in several Epistles (especially in that to the Ephesians) addressed the readers 
 simply as Christians, and that then the place of residence was inserted by the 
 copyists in accordance with the context or with tradition. In ver. 7 the omis- 
 sion might be explained by the reading ἐν ἀγάπῃ which G and a few other 
 authorities give instead of ἀγαπητοῖς ; but, since τοῖς ἐν ‘P. is wanting in ver. 15 
 also, another unknown reason must have existed for this. Perhaps some 
 church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public read- 
 ing, may have, for their own particular church-use, deleted the extraneous desig- 
 nation of place, and thus individual codices may have passed into circulation 
 without it. Riickert’s conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies 
 without the local address to be sent to other churches, assumes a mechanical 
 arrangement in apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and 
 which seems even opposed by Col. iv. 16. — Ver. 8. ὑπέρ] A BC D* K, δὲ, min., 
 Dam, read περί, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 adopted : justly, on account of the preponderant attestation, since both prep- 
 ositions, though ὑπέρ less frequently (Eph. i. 16; Phil.i. 4), were used for the 
 expression of the thought (in opposition to Fritzsche). — Ver. 13. The less 
 usual position τινὰ καρπόν (Elz. κ. τ.) is established by decisive testimony ; 
 as also ὁ Θεὸς γάρ (Elz. ὁ. y. 0.) in ver. 19; and δὲ καί (Elz. τὲ καὶ) in ver, 27, 
 although not on equally strong authority.—Instead of οὐ θέλω in ver. 13, D* E 
 G, It. and Ambrosiaster read οὐκ οἴομαι. Defended by Rinck. But the very 
 assurance already expressed in vv. 10, 11 might easily cause the οὐ θέλω to seem 
 unsuitable here, if due account was not taken of the new element in the prog- 
 ress of the discourse contained in rpoeféunv.—After εὐαγγ. in ver. 16 τοῦ Χρισ. 
 τοῦ (Elz.) is omitted on decisive authority ; πρῶτον, however, which Lachmann 
 has bracketed, ought not to be rejected on the inadequate adverse testimony of 
 BG, Tert. as it might seem objectionable along with πιστεύοντι (not so in 11. 9 
 f.).— Ver. 24. The καί is indeed wanting after διό in A BC δὲ, min., Vulg. Or. 
 al. ; but it was very easily passed over as superfluous ; comp. ver. 26; ii. 1. 
 Nevertheless Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have deleted it. — ἐν ἑαυτοῖς Lachm., and 
 Tisch. read ἐν αὐτοῖς following ABC D* &, min. But how frequently was 
 
CHAP a. re 
 
 the reflexive form neglected by the copyists. It occurred also in ver. 27 (B K). 
 — Ver. 27. appevec] B D* G, 73, Or. Eus. Oee. read ἄρσενες. Adopted by 
 Lachm. Fritzsche and Tisch. (7). Since two different forms cannot be sup- 
 poses to have been used in the same verse, and in that which follows ἄρσενες 
 ἐν ἄρσεσι 15 undoubtedly the true reading (only A* δὲ, min., and some Fathers 
 reading uniformly dp. ἐν ἀῤῥ.), we must here adopt the fore dpoerec almost 
 invariably used in the N. T. (only the Apocal. has 4(/.).— Ver. 29. πορνείᾳ] 
 wanting after ἀδικ. in A BC K Νὰ, min., and several vss. and Fathers. 
 Deleted by Lachm. Fritzsche, and Tisch., and rightly so ; it is an interpolation 
 introduced by those who did not perceive that the naming of this vice was not 
 again appropriate here. It was writtenin the margin, and introduced at dif- 
 ferent places (for we find it after πονηρίᾳ also, and even after κακίᾳ), so that it 
 in some instances even supplanted zornpia.—The placing of κακίᾳ immediately 
 after ἀδικίᾳ (Lachm. on weak authority), or according to A δὲ, Syr., after πονηρίᾳ, 
 (Tisch. 8), is explained by the aggregation of terms of a similar kind.—Ver. 31. 
 After ἀστόργους Elz. and Scholz read ἀσπόνδους, which Mill condemned, and 
 *Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted. It is wanting in A Β D* E G and &*, 
 Copt. Clar. Germ. Boern. and several Fathers. It is found before ἀστόργ. in 
 17, 76, Theophyl. Taken from 2 Tim, iii. 3. — Ver. 32. After ἐπιγνόντες, D ΕἸ 
 Bas. read οὐκ ἐνόησαν, and G, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν. That death isthe wages of sin—this 
 Christian doctrinal proposition seemed not at all to correspond with the natural 
 knowledge of the Gentiles.—Instead of αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ Kai συνευδοκοῦσι B 
 reads αὐτὰ ποιοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦντες ; so Lachm. in margin. This 
 arose from the fact, that εἰσίν was erroneously taken for the chief verb in the 
 sentence’; or else it was a consequence of the introduction of οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, which 
 in other witnesses led to the insertion of γάρ or δὲ after ob μόνον. 
 
 Vv. 1-7.—The Apostolic salutation. 
 
 Ver. 1. Παῦλος] See on Acts xiii. 9. [See Note I. p. 72.1 ---- δοῦλος. 
 evayy. Θεοῦ is the exhaustive statement of his official dignity, proceeding 
 from the general to the particular, by which Paul earnestly—as dealing 
 with the Church of the metropolis of the world, which had as yet no person- 
 al knowledge of him—opens his Epistle as an official apostolic letter; with- 
 out, however, having in view therein (as Flatt thinks) opponents and calum- 
 niators of his apostleship, for of the doings of such persons in Rome the 
 Epistle itself contains no trace, and, had such existed, he would have set 
 forth his dignity, not only positively, but also at the same time negatively 
 (comp. Gal. i. 1). — In the first place Paul describes by δοῦλος ’I. X. [See 
 Note II. p. 73.]—his relation of service to Christ, as his Ruler, whose servant 
 he is, and that in general (comp. on Phil. i. 1), just as the Old Testament 
 my TAY expresses the relation of service to Jehovah, without marking off 
 in itself exclusively any definite class, such as the prophetic or the priestly 
 (see Josh. 1. 1, xiv. 7, xxii. 4; Judg. ii. 8; Ps. cxxxii_10; comp. Acts xvi. 
 17). This relation of entire dependence (Gal. i. 10; Col. iv. 12) is then 
 specifically and particularly indicated by κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, and for this reason 
 the former δοῦλος "I. X. cannot be rendered merely in general Christi cultor 
 (so Fritzsche), which is inadequate also at 1 Cor. vii. 22; Eph. vi.6. Paul 
 was called to his office, like all the earlier Apostles; he did not arrive at it 
 
90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 by his own choice or through accidental circumstances. For the history of 
 this divine calling, accomplished through the exalted Christ Himself, see 
 Acts ix. (xxii. 26), and the remarks thereon. This κλητός presented itself 
 so naturally to the Apostle as an essential element *in the full description 
 of his official position which he meant to give (comp. 1 Cor. i. 1), that the 
 supposition of a side-glance at uncalled teachers (Cameron, Gléckler) seems 
 very arbitrary. — ἀφωρισμένος εἰς ebayy. Θεοῦ] characterizes the κλητὸς ἀπόστολος 
 more precisely: set apart (definitely separated from the rest of mankind) for 
 Gods message of salvation, to be its preacher and minister (see on Eph. iii. 
 7). The article before evayy. elsewhere invariably given in the N. T., is 
 omitted here, because Paul views the message of God, of which he desires 
 to speak, primarily under its qualitative aspect (comp. also van Hengel and 
 Hofmann). Concrete definiteness is only added to it gradually by the 
 further clauses delineating its character. This mode of expression implies 
 a certain festal tone, in harmony with the whole solemn character of the 
 pregnant opening of the Epistle: for a@ gospel of God, which He promised 
 before, ete. Still we are not to understand, with Th. Schott, a work of 
 proclamation, since εὐαγγ. is not the work of conveying a message, but the 
 message itself. Θεοῦ is the genitive subjecti (auctoris), ver. 2, not objects 
 (Chrysostom). See on Marki. 1. It is God who causes the message of 
 salvation here referred to, which is His λόγος (Acts x. 36), to be proclaimed ; 
 comp. xv. 16; 2'Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. il. 2, 8, 9; 1 Pet. iv. 17. The desig- 
 nation of Apostle to the Gentiles is involved in ἀφωρ. εἰς eb. O. though not 
 expressed (against Beza and others). Further, since ἀφωρ. is parallel with 
 the previous κλητός, it is neither to be explained, with Toletus and others, 
 including Olshausen, by Acts xiii. 2, nor with Reiche, Ewald, and van Hen- 
 gel (following Chrysostom and others) by Gal. i. 15, comp. Jer. 1. 5; but 
 rather by Acts ix. 15 (σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς), comp. xxvi. 16 ff. The setting apart 
 took place as a historical fact in and with his calling at Damascus. Entire- 
 ly different is the mode of presenting the matter in Gal. i. 15, where ἀφορίσας 
 μὲ ἐκ κοιλ. μητρ. as the act of predestination in the counsel of God, is placed 
 before the καλέσας, as the historically accomplished fact. The view of Dru- 
 sius (de sectis, 11. 2, 6) and Schoettgen (comp. Erasmus and Beza), which 
 Dr. Paulus has again adopted, viz. that Paul, in using the word ἀφωρ.;, al- 
 ludes to his former Pharisaism (‘‘the true Pharisee in the best sense of the 
 word”), is based on the Peshito translation (see Grotius), but is to be re- 
 jected, because the context gives no hint of so peculiar a reference, for 
 which also no parallel can be found in Paul’s other writings. 
 
 Ver. 2. A more precise description of the character of this εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ, 
 according to its concrete peculiarity, as far as ver. 5 inclusive, advancing 
 and rising to a climax under the urgent sense of the sacredness of his office, 
 which the Apostle has frankly to assert and to establish before the church of 
 the metropolis of the world, personally as yet unknown to him. — ὃ προεπηγγεί- 
 λατο «.7.A.| How natural that the Apostle with his Old Testament training 
 should, in the light of the New Testament revelation which he had re- 
 
 1 See Weiss in the Jahrd. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 97 ff. 
 
CHAP. τὶ, Ὁ: 4 Bal 
 
 ceived, first of all glance back at the connection divinely established in the 
 history of salvation between the gospel which he served and ancient proph- 
 ecy, and should see therein the sacredness of the precious gift entrusted | 
 to him ! To introduce the idea of an antithetic design (‘‘ ut invidiam novi- 
 tatis depelleret,” Pareus, Estius, Grotius and others, following Chrysostom 
 and Theophylact) is quite arbitrary, looking to the general tenor of vv. 1-7. 
 The news of salvation God has previously promised (προεπηγγείλατο, 2 Cor. 
 ix. 5; Dio Cass. xlii. 32) through His prophets, not merely in so far as these, , 
 acting as the organs of God (αὐτοῦ), foretold the Messianic age, with the 
 dawn of which the εὐαγγέλιον, as the ‘‘publicum de Christo exhibito prae- 
 conium” (Calovius), would necessarily begin, but they foretold also this 
 praeconium itself, its future proclamation. See x. 18, xv. 21; Isa. xl. 1 ff., 
 xlii. 4, lit. 1 ff.; Zeph. iii. 9; Ps. xix. 5, Ixviii. 12; Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It 
 is the less necessary therefore to refer 6, with Philippi and Mehring, to the 
 contents of the gospel. —rav προφητῶν] is not to be limited, so as either to in- 
 clude merely the prophets proper in the narrower sense of the word, or to 
 go back—according to Acts iii. 24, comp. xiii. 20—only as far as Samuel. 
 The following ἐν γραφαῖς dy. suggests, on the contrary, a reference to all 
 who in the O. T. have prophesied the gospel (even Moses, David and others 
 not excluded); comp. Heb. 1. 1. — ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαισ] Not : in the holy Script- 
 ures (80 most expositors, even Fritzsche), in which case the article must 
 have been used; but qualitatively: in holy writings. The divine promises 
 of the gospel, given through the prophets of God, are found in such books 
 as, being God’s records for His revelations, are holy writings. Such are 
 the prophetic writings of the O. T.; thus designated so as to lay stress on 
 their qualitative character. Ina corresponding manner is the anarthrous 
 γραφῶν προφητικῶν to be understood in xvi. 26. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4.1 We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view 
 which treats τοῦ γενομένου. . . . νεκρῶν, and vv. 5, 6, as parentheses, be- 
 cause we have to deal with intervening clauses which accord with the 
 construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526 
 [E.T. 565]. — περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] [See Note III. p. 73.] ‘‘ Hoc refertur ad illud 
 quod praecessit εὐαγγέλιον ; explicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona 
 nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel, 
 Flatt, Reiche, Kéllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit, Th. 
 Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the 
 one hand, that περί is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable 
 word that precedes it ; and on the other that evayy., frequently as it is used 
 with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with περί in the N. T.;2 and 
 still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in 
 ver, 2 appears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of περί with 
 ὃ xpoernyy., is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Riickert, Fritzsche, 
 
 1 Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. would have only needed to repeat the eis 
 1871, p. 502 ff. εὐαγγέλιον With rhetorical emphasis, in order 
 3 Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul then to add the object in the genitive (τοῦ 
 could not have added the object of his di- υἱοῦ a.), Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. Ὁ. ᾿ 
 Vine message otherwise than by wept. He 315. 
 
32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following 
 Theodoret ; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine 
 previous promise of the gospel referred ; consequently, the person concerning 
 whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we 
 may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previously promised 
 the gospel in any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who 
 was to come and to be revealed ; otherwise his προεπαγγέλλεσθαι εὐαγγέλιον 
 would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object. — τοῦ 
 γενομένου down to νεκρῶν describes under a twofold aspect (κατά) the evalted 
 dignity of Him who had just been designated by τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ : (1) κατὰ 
 σάρκα, He entered life as David’s descendant ; (2) κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγίωσ., He was 
 powerfully instated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless ὁ υἱὸς 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, in the words περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (not αὑτοῦ), is not by any means 
 to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah 
 (Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp. also Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
 p. 424 ; and Pfleiderer, /.c.), because this is opposed to the constant usage 
 of the Apostle, who never designates Christ as υἱὸς Θεοῦ otherwise ὁ than 
 from the standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by rev- 
 elation (Gal. 1. 16) of the metaphysical Sonship (viii. 3, 32 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Col. 
 i. 13 ff.; Phil. 11. 6 ff. a/:) ; and the hypothesis of a modification having 
 taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Ké6llner ; see, on the other hand, 
 Rickert) is purely fanciful. Here also the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is conceived in the 
 metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father, 
 like Him in substance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is 
 the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accom- 
 plishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was necessary for this 
 accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,— 
 and these essential modal definitions are now added to the υἱοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, --- 
 as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born κατὰ σάρκα, and indeed of the seed of 
 David,’ and yet (2) to be actually instated κατὰ πνεῦμα, as that which, 
 although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other 
 men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These 
 two parallel clauses are placed in asyndetic juxtaposition, whereby the 
 second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Mes- 
 sianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance.* Not per- 
 ceiving this, Hofmann fails to recognize the contrast here presented between 
 the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used κατὰ πνεῦμα δὲ 
 ὁρισθέντος in the second clause. — κατὰ σάρκα] in respect of flesh ; for the Son 
 of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifesta- 
 tion was that of a materially human person. Comp. ix. 5 ; 1 Tim. ii. 46 ; 
 
 iPet iy 18 se hi, τι Roms sy. δ; Cor πο ἢ iar δ. Το 
 
 1 Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff.; the two main epochs in the history of the 
 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 309. Son of God, as they actually occurred and 
 2 But at the same time the idea of ‘‘ an ac- had been already prophetically announced. 
 commodation to the Jewish-Christian mode 3 See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. ad Pind. 
 
 of conception ” (Holsten, z. Hv. Paul. u. Petr. Exe, I., de Asynd., p. 275. 
 p. 427), is not to be entertained. Paul giyes 
 
CHAP: T., 35.4: 99 
 
 the σάρξ belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the ψυχή 
 as the principle of the animal life of man ; but this sensuous side of His 
 nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not 
 σαρκικός (vii. 14), and ψυχικός (1 Cor, 11. 14), in the ethical sense, like all 
 ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was( capable 
 -of-being |} tempted (Heb. ii. 18 ; iv. 15). Although in this way His body 
 was ἃ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός (Col. i. 22), yet He did not appear ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτίας, 
 but ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. vill. 2). “Withreference to His fleshly 
 nature, therefore, 7.6. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon, 
 He was born (γενομένου, comp. Gal. iv. 4), of the seed (as descendant) of 
 David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the 
 promised Messiah (6 πὸ χα 6 5! Ps: exxxa. 110+ Matt’ xxi. 42) John 
 vii. 42 ; Acts xili. 23 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8). In this expression the ἐκ σπέρματος 
 Δαυΐδ is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David 
 (comp. Acts ii. 30, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος), as even the genealogical tables in 
 Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of 
 Mary ;* and Jesus Himself, in John v. 27 (see on that passage), calls Him- 
 self in contradistinction to His Sonship ef God, son of a mai, in which case 
 the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood. 
 It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer ἐκ σπ. Δαν. to Mary (‘‘ex 
 semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melanchthon ; comp. also Philippi), 
 especially since Paul nowhere (not even in viii. 3, Gal. iv. 4) indicates the 
 view of a supernatural generation of the bodily nature of Jesus,” even apart 
 from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no 
 means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjustifiable, to pro- 
 nounce the metaphysical divine Sonship without virgin birth as something 
 inconceivable * (Philippi). —There now follows the other, second mode in 
 which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz. 
 
 
 
 
 1 Τὴ opposition to Hofmann, (Weissaq. w. 
 Erfill. ΤΙ. p.49 (comp. the Erlangen Zeiischr. 
 1868, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the 
 sense of the words in such a way as to con- 
 vey the meaning that Christ appeared as 
 one belonging to the collective body which 
 traces its descent back to David. But in fact 
 it is simply said that Christ was Born of the 
 seed of David. The reading γεννωμένον (in 
 min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a 
 correct gloss; and Hofmann himself grants 
 (heil. Schrift N. T., in loc.) that γίγνεσθαι ἐκ 
 here signifies descent by virth. And even 
 if γενομένου be taken as meaning: who ap- 
 peared, who came (comp. on Mark i. 4; Phil. 
 ii. 7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to 
 the σπέρμα of David remains the same. He 
 camé κατὰ σάρκα of the seed of David, and 
 that in no other way than through His birth. 
 This remark holds good also against other 
 obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts 
 in his Schriftzew. 11. 1, Ὁ. 113; in his hei. 
 Schr. N. T. he adheres substantially to his 
 
 earlier view (‘‘ come of the race which called 
 itself after David, because tracing its descent 
 to his ancestry”). No, the σπέρμα of David 
 is nothing else than his semen virile, out (ex) 
 of which, transmitted (comp, ἀπό, Acts xiii. 
 23) through the male line from yevea to yevea 
 (Matt. i. 6 ff.), at length the Son of God 
 κατὰ capka—Christ, the David’s son of prom- 
 ise—was born. See besides, against Hof- 
 mann, Rich. Schmidt, 7.c.—Because Christ 
 was ἐκ σπέρματος of David, He might also 
 Himself be called σπέρμα of David, in the 
 same way as He is called in Gal. iii. 16 
 σπέρμα “ABpadu ; and He is so called Matt. 
 j.1. Comp. further on ἐκ σπέρματος, in the 
 sense of fatherhood, Soph. 0. C. 214: τίνος 
 εἶ σπέρματος... πατρόθεν. 
 
 3 Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 328 ; Rich. Schmidt, 
 Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff. ; Pfleiderer, /.c. 
 
 3 This opinion rests on a premiss assumed 
 ἃ priori, on an abstract postulate, the pro- 
 priety of which it is impossible to prove. 
 Comp. on Matt. i, 18, ποία. 
 
84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 with reference to the spirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism 
 between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ay., apparent even in the position of the 
 two elements, forbids us to understand κατὰ πν. dywo. as denoting the pre- 
 supposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to 
 the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another 
 preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps διά with the accusative 
 (comp. the διό, Phil. 11. 9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann 
 has discovered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His 
 life, «was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding 
 the view taken of ἐν δυνάμει in connection with this, see the sequel. ‘Ayiw- 
 σύνη, in Paul’s writings as well as in the Sept. (in Greek authors and in the 
 other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means foliness 
 (2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Ps. χουν 6, xevii. 12, exliv. 5), not sanctiji- 
 cation (as rendered by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others, 
 including Gléckler and Schrader). So also in 2 Mace. iii. 12. The genitive 
 is the gen. qualitatis,’ and contains the specific character of the πνεῦμα. This 
 πνεῦμα ἁγιωσ. 18, In contradistinction to the σάρξ, the other side of the being 
 of the Son of God on earth ; and, just as the σάρξ was the outward element 
 perceptible by the senses, so is the πνεῦμα the inward mental element, the 
 substratum of His νοῦς (1 Cor. ii. 16), the principle and the power of His 
 INNER life, the intellectual and moral ‘‘ Ego” which receives the communi- 
 cation of the divine—in short, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of Christ. His πνεῦμα also 
 was human (Matt. xxvii. 50 ; John xi. 33, xix, 30)—altogether He was an 
 entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T. 
 teaching—but it was the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person ; 
 not excluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. 
 pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical υἱότης 
 Θεοῦ, or—according to the Johannine type of doctrine—the seat and the 
 organ of the Adyoc, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as 
 also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (John iii. 34 ; 
 Acts 1. 23; 2 Cor. iii. 17). Consequently the πνεῦμα of Christ, although 
 human (comp. Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits, 
 because essentially filled with God, and thereby holy, sinless, and full of 
 divine unpolluted life, as was no other human πνεῦμα ; and for this reason 
 His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation πνεῦμα 
 ἁγιωσύνης, t.e. spirit full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression, 
 which is not to be abated to the stwdium sanctitatis (van Hengel), must, 
 seeing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ, 
 absolutely preclude our understanding it to refer to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον," the 
 third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1 Tim. iii. 
 16, or in Heb. ix. 14. Nevertheless, the majority of commentators, since 
 Chrysostom, have so explained it ; some of them taking it to mean : 
 “secundum Sp. S. ei divinitus concessum” (Fritzsche ; comp. Beza, Calixtus, 
 
 
 
 1 Hermann, ad Viger, pp. 887, 891 ; Ktihner, 588, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, in so far as it produces 
 Tale 90. holiness. 
 2 This is called in the Zest. ΧΙ]. Patr. p. 3 
 
~ 
 r 
 € 
 
 9 
 
 CHAP. I., 3, 4. 
 
 Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck, and others),' some referring it to the miraculous 
 working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret) or to the bestowal of the Spirit which 
 took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
 Estius, Béhme, and others). Since the contrast between σάρξ and πνεῦμα 
 is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the 
 bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the 
 interpretation which refers the words to the divine natwre (Melanchthon, 
 Calovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take ἁγιωσύνη, 
 as equivalent to θεότης (Winzer) ; others adduce in explanation of πνεῦμα 
 the here irrelevant πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, John iv. 24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshav- 
 sen, Maier, Philippi); others take the expression as substantially equiv- 
 alent to the Johannine λόγος (Riickert, comp. Reiche, ‘‘the principle of 
 His higher essence’), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian con- 
 ception. The correct interpretation is substantially given by Kéllner, de 
 Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 93), and 
 Mehring. Comp. Hofmann (‘‘spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a con- 
 dition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. wu. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49, 
 who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also in- 
 cluded.* — ὁρισθέντος] The translation of the Vulgate, gui praedestinatus est, 
 based on the too weakly attested reading προορισθέντος (a mistaken gloss), 
 drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are 
 now properly forgotten. Ὁρίζειν, however, with the double accusative, , 
 means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Acts x. 42 ; 
 comp. Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7: σὲ θεὸν ὥρισε δαίμων), nor is the 
 meaning different here.* For although Christ was already the Son of God 
 before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4), 
 nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, 
 after the humiliation that began with His birth (Phil. ii. 7 f.), instating into 
 the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship ; whereby also, as its necessary , 
 consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was 
 legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement 
 was the resurrection, as the transition to His δόξα ; comp. on Acts xiii. 33 ; 
 and ἐποίησε in Acts ii. 86. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence 
 with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, 
 κριθέντος ; and that of Luther: ‘‘shewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is errone- 
 
 1 Comp. also Zeller in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1842, 
 p. 486. In his view (2 Cor. iii. 17), the πνεῦμα 
 is the element of which the higher person- 
 ality of Christ consists. According to Baur, 
 Paulus 11. Ὁ. 375, it is the Messianic spirit, 
 the intrinsic principle constituting the me 
 
 siahship of Christ. According to Holsten, 2s. 
 
 Ev. ἃ. Paul. u. Petr. Ὁ. 425, it is in itself a 
 transcendent pneumatic force, which produces 
 the ἁγιωσύνη, a radiance of the divine πνεῦμα 
 ἅγιον. 
 
 2 A more accurate and precise definition 
 of the idea may be found in Weiss, did. 
 Theol. p. 313; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 105f. ; 
 
 Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 
 169, 503 f. 
 
 3 But not in the sense: destined to become 
 something, as Hofmann thinks: nor gener- 
 ally, in the sense: qui destinatus est, but 
 rather: qui constitutus est (was instated). 
 For otherwise the aorist participle would be 
 unsuitable, since it must necessarily indi- 
 eate an act following the γενομένου, ete. ; 
 whereas the divine destination would be 
 prior to the birth. Consequently, were that 
 sense intended, it must have been, as in 
 Acts x. 42, ὡρισμένου. 
 
Oe THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ous: ‘‘ separated,” namely from all men. — ἐν δυνάμει] Not : through omnip- 
 otence (Umbreit), but : mightily (Luther), forcibly ; for this installation of 
 the Son of God as Son of God was ὦ work of divine power, which (see what 
 follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead. 
 Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the char- 
 acteristic quality in which the ὁρισμός took place. On ἕν, as paraphrase of 
 the adverb (Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. ἐν δὺν. is 
 not, with Melanchthon, Schoettgen, Pareus, Sebastian Schmid, and others, 
 including Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Holsten, Hof- 
 mann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (as the mightily powerful 
 Son of God) ; for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special pred- 
 icate of the Son of God,! but, in contradistinction to the ἐκ σπερμ. Aav. κατὰ 
 σάρκα, upon the divine Sonship in itself ; of which Sonship He was indeed the 
 hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with 
 glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, ἐν δυνάμει, even 
 when rightly connected with ὁρισθ., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophy- 
 lact, to be taken as ‘‘per virtutem, i.e. per signa et prodigia” (Calovius, 
 comp. Grotius) ; nor with Fritzsche: οὐ οἱ daté; for Paul himself defines 
 the how of the mighty ὁρισμός by : ἐξ ἀναστ. νεκρῶν. This, namely, was the 
 causal fact, by virtue of which that ὁρισμός was accomplished ; for by the res- 
 urrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4), accom- 
 plished in point of fact His instating declaration : Thou art my Son, this day, 
 ete., Acts xiii. 33. Paul might accordingly have written διά, but ἐκ is more 
 expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On 
 ἐκ, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281 [E. T. 3827] ; 
 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 550 ἢ. The temporal explanation, since or after 
 (Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmapyr ; 
 comp. Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring) is to be rejected, because the raising up 
 of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through 
 the majesty of the Father (vi. 4), powerfully instated the Son, in the Son’s 
 position and dignities ; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preach- 
 ing, Acts i. 22, ii. 24 ff., xiii. 30, xvii. 31 f., xxvi. 23 ; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 3 ff. Weare not to take the expression ἐξ avaor. vexp., a8 is often done, 
 for ἐξ avaor. ἐκ vexp., the second ἐκ being omitted for the sake of euphony : 
 but it must be viewed as a general designation of the category (νεκρῶν, see on 
 Matt. 11. 20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the personal 
 
 rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point. 
 
 1 As if only a change of His attributes was 
 concerned, or the transition into the full 
 reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer). 
 The question concerned the installation of 
 the Son of God as such, as it were His en- 
 thronization, which had not taken place 
 previously, but was accomplished by the 
 resurrection with a mighty power. By 
 means of the latter He received—as the Son 
 of God, which from the beginning and even 
 in the days of His flesh He really was—a de 
 
 Comp. xvii. 32. 
 
 Facto instatement, which accomplished 
 itself in a way divinely powerful. What 
 accrued to Him thereby, was not the full 
 reality (see viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4), but the fuil 
 efficiency of the Son of God; because He 
 was now exalted above all the limitations 
 of the state of His κένωσις (Phil. ii.; 2 Cor. 
 viii. 9); comp. 6.5. Vi. 9; xi. 33 f.; v. 10; 2 
 Cor--xiii. 4; and numerous other passages. 
 The Son was now the κύριος πάντων, had the 
 name above every name, etc., etc. 
 
᾿ CHAP. ΤΣ, (Os ὃ. 
 So, also, de Wette, Hofmann ; comp. Philippi, who however, following 
 Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that 
 our resurrection is involved in that of Christ. — The following ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 is in apposition to τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in v. 3 ; not necessary in itself, but in keep- 
 ing with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the 
 Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in vv. 3, 4. — Ob- 
 serve, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ 
 in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office. 
 Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ 
 there is not a trace in the whole Epistle.’ 
 
 Ver. 5. To the general τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, which designates Christ as the | 
 Lord of Christians in general, Paul now adds the special relation in which 
 he himself stands to this common κύριος. He entertained too lively a con- 
 sciousness of the bliss and dignity of that relationship, not to set it forth 
 once more (comp. ver. 1) in this overflowing salutation ; this time, however, 
 with closer reference to the readers, in accordance with his definite character 
 as Apostle of the Gentiles.-— Vv. 5, 6 are not to be enclosed in a paren- 
 thesis ; and only a comma should be placed after ver. 6. — δέ οὐ] through 
 whom, denotes nothing else than the medium ; nowhere, not even in Gal. i. 
 1, the causa principalis. The view of the Te occe is, as Origen rightly per- 
 poe that he had received grace and apostleship through the mediation 
 of Christ, through whom God called him at Damascus. Regarding Gal. i. 
 1, see on that passage. — ἐλάβομεν] He means himself alone, especially since © 
 in the address he specifies no joint author of the letter ; not however—as 
 Reiche, following Estius and many others, aa el at the plural out of 
 modesty (in the solemnity of an official epistolary greeting ?), but rather 
 (comp. iii. 9) in accordance with the custom, very common among Greek 
 authors, of speaking of themselves in the plural of category (Kriiger, § 61, 
 a: Kuliner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 46). This is, no doubt, to be fered pee 
 to the conception ‘‘T and my equals ;” but this original conception was in 
 course of use entirely lost. The opinion, therefore, that Paul here includes 
 along with himself the other apostles (Bengel, van Hengel) is to be all the 
 more rejected as unsuitable, since the subsequent ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν points 
 to Paul himself alone as the Apostle of the Gentiles. To understand Paul’s 
 official assistants as included (Hofmann) is forbidden by the subsequent 
 ἀποστολήν, Which does not mean mission in general, but, as invariably in the 
 N. T., specially apostleship. — χάριν x. ἀποστολὴν] grace (generally) and (in 
 ΕΠ ἢ apostleship. [866 Νοίο ΤΥ. p. 74.1] Χάρων is to be understood, not 
 merely of pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Tholuck, 
 Olshausen, and others), or of the extraordinary apostolic gifts of grace (Theo- 
 doret, Luther, and others, including Flatt and Mehring) ; for such special 
 references must be demanded by the context ; but on the contrary gener- 
 ally of the entire divine grace, of which Paul was made partaker through 
 Christ, when he was arrested by Him at Damascus in his career which was 
 hateful to God (Phil. iii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv, 10), converted, enlightened (Gal. i. 
 
 1 Comp. Gess, von d. Pers. Chr. Ὁ. 56. 
 
98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 16), and transferred into the communion of God’s beloved ones and saints. 
 The special object (Gal. i. 16) and at the same time the highest evidence of 
 this χάρις which he had received, was his reception of the arocroA#,’ and 
 that for the Gentile world. Others find here a ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (Chrysostom, 
 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Glass, Rich. Simon, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, 
 Boéhme, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others : χάριν ἀποστολῆς. This might cer- 
 tainly be justified in linguistic usage by the explicative καί 37 but it arbitra- 
 rily converts two elements, which taken separately yield a highly appropri- 
 ate sense, into one, and fails to recognize—what is involved in the union of 
 the general and the particular—the fulness and force of the discourse 
 moving the grateful heart. This remark applies also against Hofmann, 
 according to whom the Apostle terms one and the same vocation ‘‘a@ grace 
 and a mission ;” in which view ἀποστ. is erroneously rendered (see above), 
 and in consequence thereof-eie-trax. π. is then joined merely to χάρ. kK. ἀπι; 
 and not also to ἐλάβ. --- εἰς ὑπακ. xiot.] Object of the ἐλάβ. χάρ. x. ἀποστ. : in 
 order that obedience of faith may be produced, i.e. in order that people may sub- 
 jett-themselves to the faith, in order that they may become believing. [See 
 Note V. p. 75.] Comp. xvi. 26; Acts vi. 7; 2 Cor. x. 5f. ; 2 Thess. i. 8. 
 To take πίστις for doctrina jfidei (Beza, Toletus, Estius, Bengel, Heumann, 
 Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others), is altogether 
 contrary to the linguistic usage of the N. T., in which πίστις is always swb- 
 jective faith, although often, as in the present instance, conceived of object- 
 ively as a power. Comp. xvi. 26; Gal. i. 23. The activity of faith in 
 producing works (Reithmayr), however, is not contained in the expression. 
 The πίστις is, according to Paul, the conviction and confidence (assensus and 
 Jfiducia) regarding Jesus Christ, as the only and perfect Mediator of the 
 divine grace, and of eternal life, through His work of atonement. Faith 
 alone (to the exclusion of works) is the causa apprehendens of the salvation 
 promised and obtained through Christ ; but, because it transfers us into 
 living and devoted fellowship with Him, altogether of a moral character, 
 it becomes the subjective moral power of the new life regenerated through 
 the power of the Holy Spirit—of the life iz Christ, which, however, is the 
 necessary consequence, and never the ground of justification. See Luther's 
 Preface.—The genitive πίστεως, in accordance with the analogy of the 
 expressions kindred in meaning ὑπακοὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 2 Cor. x. 5, and 
 ὑπακ. τῆς ἀληθείας in 1 Pet. i. 22, necessarily presents itself (comp. Acts vi. 7 ; 
 
 Rom. x. 16 ; 2 Thess. i. 8 ; also 2 Cor. ix. 13) as denoting that to which the 
 obedience is rendered ; not (Grotius, following Beza) the causa efficiens : 
 ‘Cut Deo obediatur per fidem,” in which explanation, besides, the ‘‘ Deo” 
 is arbitrarily introduced.* Hofmann is also wrong in taking the genitive 
 
 1 Augustine aptly remarks: “ Gratiam 3 So also van Hengel, on the ground of 
 cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem _ passages like ν᾿ 19; Phil. ii. 12, where how- 
 non cum omnibus communem habet.’’ ever the sense of obedience fo God results 
 Comp. Bengel: “‘ Gratia et singularis gratiae from the context; and Ernesti, Urspr. d. 
 mensura apostolis obtigit.”’ Stinde, Il. p. 281 ff., who urges against our 
 
 2 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 850; Nigelsbach, view that it makes ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ su- 
 z. Ilias, iii. 100. perfluous. But the glory of Christ is pre- 
 
CHAP. 1.; 6. 39 
 
 πίστεως as eperegetical (an obedience consisting in faith). —év πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] 
 is to be joined with εἰς ὑπακ. πίστεως, beside which it stands ; the ἔθνη, however, 
 are not all nations generally, inclusive of the Jews (so most expositors, in- 
 cluding Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Fritzsche, Baur), but, in accordance with 
 the historical destination’ of the Apostle (Gal. i. 16 ; Acts ix. 15, xxvi. 17 
 f.), and in consequence of the repeated prominence of his calling as Gentile 
 Apostle in our letter (ver. 18, xi. 13, xv. 16), all Gentile nations, to which 
 also the Romans belonged (Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann and others) ; and these regarded not 
 from a geographical point of view (Mangold, p. 76), but from a popular one, 
 as Ὁ ; which precludes us from thinking—not as to a section, but at any 
 rate as to the mass, of the Roman congregation—that it was Jewish-Christian. 
 This his apostolic calling for the Gentiles is meant by Paul in all passages 
 where he describes the ἔθνη as the object of his labours (Gal. 1. 16, ii. 2, 8, 
 9; Eph. iii. 1, 8; Col. 1. 27; 1 Thess. 11. 16).—inép τοῦ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ] 
 belongs, in the most natural connection, not to aap... . . ἀποστ. (Riickert) 
 or to δ ov . . . - ἔθνεσιν (de Wette, Mehring, Hofmann), but to εἰς ὑπακοὴν 
 : . ἔθνεσιν ; ‘‘in order to produce obedience to the faith among all 
 Gentile nations for the sake of (for the glorifying of, comp. Acts v. 41 ; Phil. 
 i. 18) His name.” Acts ix. 15, xv. 26, xxi. 13; 2 Thess. 1. 12, serve to 
 illustrate the matter referred to. The idea of wishing to exclude the glori- 
 fying of his own name (Hofmann) is not for a moment to be imputed to the 
 Apostle. He would have needed a very special motive for doing 80. L 
 Ver. 6. Application of the contents of ver. 5 to the relation in which 
 the Apostle stood to his readers, whereby he indicates how he is officially 
 entitled to address them also, teaching, exhorting, and so forth — ἐν οἷς ἐστε 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ I. X.] To be written thus, without a comma after ὑμεῖς, with 
 Heumann, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Hofmann, and Bisping : 
 among whom also are ye called (ones) of Jesus Christ. Among the Gentile © 
 nations the Roman Christians were, like other Gentile-Christian churches, 
 called of the Lord ; amidst the Gentile world, nationally belonging to it (in 
 opposition to Mangold’s mere geographical interpretation), they also shared 
 this high distinction. The reference of the καὶ to Paul (Th. Schott), and 
 consequently the interpretation : as J, so also ye, is erroneous, because the 
 Apostle has asserted concerning himself something far higher than the mere 
 Christian calling. The common interpretation of κλητοὶ ᾽Ι. X. as an address 
 (so too Riickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring) makes the ἐν οἷς 
 ἐστε k. ὑμ. quite a meaningless assertion ; for Bengel’s suggestion for meet- 
 ing the difficulty, that ἐν οἷς has the implied meaning : among which con- 
 verted nations, is purely arbitrary. — Since the calling (to the Messianic salva- 
 tion ; see on Gal. i. 6 ; also 1 Cor. vii. 17) is invariably ascribed by Paul to 
 God (viii. 30, ix. 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 
 14), we must explain it, not as : called by Christ (Luther, Riickert, Mehring, 
 
 cisely the lofty end of all ὑπακούειν τῇ πίστει. § 127; what Schmidt urges in opposition, in 
 Where it takes place, it is acknowledged Rudelbach’s Zeitschi'. 1849, 11. p. 188 ff. is 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord, Phil. ii. 11. untenable. 
 
 1 Comp. Usteri, p. 281; Weiss, bid/. Theol. 
 
40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Hofmann, and others), but as : called (by God) who belong to Christ (so Eras- 
 mus, Beza, Estius, and most modern commentators, also Winer, p. 183 
 [Ε΄ T. 195]). The genitive is possessive, just as in the analogous τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς 
 αὐτοῦ in Matt. xxiv. 31. With the substantive nature of κλητός (comp. Butt- 
 mann, neut. Gr. p. 147 [E. T. 169]) the genitive by no means admits mere- 
 ly the interpretation which points to the calling subject, as in 2 Sam. xv. 
 11 ; 1 Kingsi. 41,49 ; Zeph. i. 7 ; but admits of very different references, 
 as 6.0. in Homer, Od. xvii. 386, κλητοί ye βροτῶν are not those called by mor- 
 tals, but those who are called among mortals (genitive totius). 
 
 Ver. 7. Now for the first time, brought by ver. 6 nearer to his readers, 
 Paul passes from the throng of the great intervening thoughts, ver. 2 ff., in 
 which he has given full and conscious expression to the nature and the dignity 
 of his calling, to the formal address and to the apostolic salutation. — πᾶσι 
 x.7.A.]| directs the letter to all beloved of God who are in Rome, etc., and there- 
 fore to the collective Roman Christian church, Phil. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 y Col. 1. 
 1),* but not, as Tholuck thinks,” at the same time also to those foreign Chris- 
 tians who were accidentally staying in Rome, for against this view ver. 8, 
 in which ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν can only refer to the Romans, is decisive. The 
 πᾶσι would be self-obvious and might have been dispensed with, but in this 
 Epistle, just because it is so detailed and is addressed to a great church 
 still far away from the Apostle, πᾶσι carries with it a certain diplomatic 
 character. Similarly, though from other grounds, Phil. i. 1. —ayaryr. Θεοῦ, 
 κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] Characteristic special analysis of the idea ‘‘ Christians” in 
 accordance with the high privileges of their Christian condition. For, as 
 reconciled with God through Christ, they are beloved of God (v. 5 ff., viii. 
 39 ; Col. iii. 12); and, as those who through the divine calling to the Mes- 
 sianic salvation have become separated from the κόσμος and consecrated to 
 God, because members of the new covenant of grace, they are called saints ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. i. ἢ. This saintship is produced through the justification of 
 the called (viii. 30), and their accompanying subjection to the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. i. 30). De Wette erroneously interprets : ‘‘ those 
 who are called to be saints.” So also Baumgarten-Crusius. The calling 
 always refers to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom. But that the 
 ἁγιότης is to be understood in that Christian theocratic sense after the analogy 
 of the Old Testament wap, and not of individual moral holiness (Pareus, 
 Toletus, Estius, Grotius, Flatt, Gléckler, de Wette, and others), is plain 
 from the very fact, that αἱ Christians as Christians are ἅγιοι. ---- χάρις. . .. 
 εἰρήνη] See Otto, in the Jahrb. f. ἃ. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Χάρις is the 
 disposition, the subjective feeling in God and Christ, which the Apostle 
 wishes to be entertained towards and shown to his readers ; εἰρήνη is the 
 actual result, which is produced through the manifestation of the χάρις : 
 
 1 With these parallels before us, it is un- stood inno relation whatever to the church. 
 reasonable to ask why Paul does not desig- The ὄντες ἐν ᾽᾿Ρώμῃ «.7.A. are the church, and 
 nate the readers as achurch. Bengel and it is to the churches that he has written 
 van Hengel are of opinion that no regular where he does not write to specified per- 
 congregational bond was as yet in exist- Sons. 
 ence. Th. Schott thinks that Paul as yet 2 Comp. Turretin, Wolf, and Bohme. 
 
CHAP, 115. 8. 41 
 
 grace and salvation ( ΟΥ̓), the latter in every aspect in which it presents it- 
 self as the Christian issue of the χάρις. Comp. Melanchthon. The specifi- 
 cally Christian element in this salutation’ lies in ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς. . . . 
 Xpiorov. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i. 2; 1 Thess. 
 fee ae hressy si) 1 1.1. Tim, 18's 2° Dim, 16, Ses) Wise ae 4. Phivlennis 8) 
 The special rendering of εἰρήνη, peace, which, following Chrysostom and 
 Jerome, the majority, including Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Um- 
 breit, and others retain (the higher peace which is given, not by the world, 
 but by the consciousness of divine grace and love, see especially Umbreit, 
 p- 190 ff.), must be abandoned, because χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη represent the general 
 epistolary χαίρειν (Acts xv. 23; James i. 1), and thus the generality of the 
 salutation is expressed in a way characteristically Christian. —xarfp ἡμῶν 
 means God, in so far as we, as Christians, are His children through the 
 υἱοθεσία (see on Gal. iv. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15). — καὶ κυρίου] ¢.e. καὶ ἀπὸ κυρίου, not, 
 as Gléckler, following Erasmus, takes it, ‘‘and the Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ,” for against this view stands the decisive fact that God is 
 never called our and Christ’s Father ; see also Tit. 1. 4 : 2 Tim. i. 2. The 
 formal equalization of God and Christ cannot be certainly used as a proof 
 (as Philippi and Mehring contend) of the divine nature of Christ—which, 
 however, is otherwise firmly enough maintained by Paul—since the different 
 predicates πατρός and κυρίου imply the different conceptions of the causa 
 principalis and medians. For this purpose different prepositions were not 
 required ; comp. on Gal. i. 1. 
 
 Vv. 8-15. First of all the Apostle now—as under various forms in all his 
 epistles, with the exception of that to the Galatians (also not in 1 Timothy 
 and Titus)—expresses with thanksgiving towards God his pious joy at the 
 faith of his readers ; and then assures them of his longing to be with them 
 and to labour among them personally. The thanksgiving is short, for it 
 relates to a church not only personally unknown to him, but also far 
 removed from the sphere of labour which he had hitherto occupied ; but 
 the expression of it is in accordance with the position of the church in the 
 metropolis of the world. 
 
 Ver. 8. Πρῶτον μὲν] [See Note VI. p. 75:] Tothat, which Paul desires jirst 
 of all to write, there was meant to be subjoined something further, possibly by 
 ἔπειτα δέ. But, amidst the ideas that now crowd upon him, he abandons this 
 design, and thus the μέν remains alone. Comp. iii. 2; and on Actsi. 1; 1 
 Cor. xi. 18.2— τῷ Θεῷ μου] οὗ εἰμὶ, ᾧ καὶ AaTpeiw, Acts xxvii. 23 ; comp. 1 Cor. 
 i. 4; Phil. i. 3, iv. 19; Philem. 4.— διὰ "Iyood Χριστοῦ] These words—to be 
 connected with εὐχαριστῶ, not with μου, as Koppe and Gléckler think, 
 against which vii. 25 and Col. 111. 17 are clearly decisive-—contain the medi- 
 ation, through which the εὐχαριστῶ takes place. The Apostle gives thanks 
 not on his own part and independently of Christ, not dv’ ἑαυτοῦ, but is con- 
 scious of his thanksgiving being conveyed through Jesus Christ, as one who is 
 present to his grateful thoughts ; inso far, namely, as that for which he thanks 
 
 
 
 1 Regarding Otto’s attempted derivation 2 Schaefer, ad Dem. IY. p. 142; Hartung, 
 of it from the Aqaronic benediction, see on 1 Partikel, If. p. 410. 
 Cor. i. 3. 
 
42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 God is vividly perceived and felt by him to have been brought about through 
 Christ. Comp. on Col. iii. 17 ; Eph. v. 20. Thus Christ is the mediating 
 causal agent of the thanksgiving. To regard Him as its mediating presenter 
 (Origen, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Hofmann) cannot be 
 justified from Paul’s other writings, nor even by Heb. xiii. 15. Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia well observes : tov Χριστοῦ ταύτης ἡμῖν τῆς εὐχαριστίας τὴν αἰτίαν 
 παρασχομένου. --- ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] quite simply : your faith (on Christ) ; the 
 praiseworthy character of the πίστις is only set forth by the conteat (καταγγέλλ. 
 ἐν ὅλῳ τ. x.) afterwards. Everywhere one hears your faith openly spoken of. 
 Comp. xvi. 19. Observe how this flattering expression of the Apostle and 
 the thanksgiving coupled with it, as also the στηριχθῆναι k.t.A., In vv. 11, 12, 
 point to the church not as Jewish-Christian, but as Pauline. Mangold’s 
 reference to Phil. i. 15-18, in opposition to this inference, leaves out of view 
 the quite different personal sitwation under which the latter was written. 
 Comp. on Phil. i. 18, note. — ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κόσμῳ] a popular hyperbole, but how 
 accordant with the position of the church in that city, towards which the 
 eyes of the whole world were turned! Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8. It is, more- 
 over, obvious of itself, that the subjects of the καταγγέλλειν are the believers. 
 As to the unbelievers, see Acts xxvili. 22. 
 
 Ver. 9. Tap| The pith of the following proof of the assurance conveyed in 
 ver. 8 lies in ἀδιαλείπτως, not in the desire to come to Rome, which is not 
 subjoined till ver. 10 (Th. Schott). The interest felt by the Apostle in the 
 Romans, which was so vivid that he wnceasingly remembered them, etc., 
 had even now urged him to his εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ k.7.A. —pdprue . . . . Θεὸς] 
 The asseveration in the form of an oath (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 81 ; Phil. 1. 
 8) is intended solemnly to strengthen the impression of what he has to say ; 
 viewed with reference to the circumstance which might readily excite sur- 
 prise, that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, had never yet laboured in the 
 church—which nevertheless was Pauline—of the capital of the Gentile 
 world. See vv. 10-13. The hypothesis of ‘‘ iniguos rumores,” that had 
 reached his ears from Rome (van Hengel), is unnecessary and unsupported 
 by any trace in the letter. — ᾧ λατρεύω x.7.2.] added to strengthen the assev- 
 eration with respect to its sacred conscientiousness : to whom I render holy 
 service in my spirit, i.e. in my moral self-consciousness, which is the living 
 inner sphere of that service.t| This ἐν τῷ πν. μου, on which lies the practical 
 stress of the relative clause, excludes indeed all λατρεύειν of a merely exter- 
 nal kind, exercising itself in works, or even impure ; but is not intended 
 to suggest a definite contrast to this, which would here be without due 
 motive. It is rather the involuntary expression of the profoundly vivid 
 Seeling of inward experience. The Apostle knows and feels that the depths 
 of his innermost life are pervaded by his λατρεύειν. Comp. ᾧ λατρεύω. . .. 
 ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, in 2 Tim. i. 3; also Heb. xii. 28. Τὸ πνεῦμα pov cannot 
 be the Holy Spirit (Theodoret),? but Paul bore the witness of that Spirit in 
 
 1 Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. α΄. Stinde, ΤΙ. p. 89 stowed on the Apostle (nov). See, against 
 f.; see also on John iv. 23. this view, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. Ὁ. 
 2 Holsten also (z. Hv. d. Pail. u. Petr. Ὁ. 33 ff. 
 886) understands it of the Holy Spirit as 4e- 
 
CHAP UT MOS AR τον 43 
 
 his own spirit (viii. 16 ; ix. 1). — ἐν τῷ evayy. τ. υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] in the gospel of his 
 Son, which I preach, defend, etc. That is the great sphere to which He is 
 called in the service of God, in the consciousness of which he is impelled by 
 an inward necessity to devote to his readers that fervent sympathy of which 
 he assures them. Grotius and Reiche think there is an implied contrast to 
 the λατρεία ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, Which however is quite foreign to the connection. 
 Can we think of a side-glance at the Jewish style of teaching—when the 
 discourse breathes only love and warmth of affection ?— ὡς ἀδιαλ.] ὡς does not 
 stand for ὅτε (as following the Vulgate, the majority, including Fritzsche, 
 think), but expresses the manner (the degree). God is my witness, how un- 
 ceasingly, etc. Comp. Phil. i. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 10; Acts x. 
 28 ; Calvin ; Philippi ; van Hengel.’ The idea of modality must be every- 
 where retained, where ὡς takes the place of ὅτι. 3 --- pv. bu. ποιοῦμ. | make men- 
 tion of you, viz. in my prayers. See ver. 10. Comp. Eph. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 3 ; 
 1 Thess. i. 2. 
 
 Ver. 10. Πάντοτε. . . δεόμενος] annexes to ὡς ἀδιαλ. the more precise defini- 
 tion: in that (so that) I always (each time) in my prayers request. ἐπί, which 
 is to be referred to the idea of definition of time (Bernhardy, p. 246), indi- 
 cates the form of action which takes place. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph. 
 i. 16; Philem. 4 ; Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 576]. -- εἴπως ἤδη ποτέ] if perhaps 
 at length on some occasion. For examples of ἤδη, already (Baeumlein, Part. 
 p- 138 ff.), which, comparing another time with the present, conveys by the 
 reference to something long hoped for but delayed the idea at length, see 
 Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 238 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607 ; comp. Phil. iv. 10, 
 and the passages in Kypke. Th. Schott incorrectly renders πάντοτε, under 
 all circumstances, which it never means, and ἤδη πότε as if it were ἤδη viv or 
 ἄρτι. The mode of expression by εἵπως implies somewhat of modest fear, 
 arising from the thought of possible hindrances. * — εὐοδωθήσομαι] 7 shall have 
 the good fortune. The active εὐοδοῦν is seldom used in its proper signification, 
 to lead well, expeditum iter praebere, as in Soph. O. C. 1487; Theophr. de 
 caus. pl. v. 6, 7; LXX. Gen. xxiv. 27, 48; the passive, however, never 
 means via recta incedere, expeditum iter habere, but invariably (even in Prov. 
 Xvil. 8) metaphorically: prospero successu gaudere.* Therefore the explana- 
 tion of @ prosperous journey, which besides amounts only to an accessory 
 modal idea (Beza, Estius, Wolf, and many others following the Vulgate and 
 Oecumenius ; including van Hengel and Hofmann), must be rejected, and 
 not combined with ours (Umbreit). — ἐν τῷ θελ. τ. Ccoi|in virtue of the will 
 of God ; on this will the εὐοδωθ. causally depend. 
 
 Ver. 11. ᾿Επιποθῶ] not valde cupio, but denoting the direction of the long- 
 ing. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2; Phil. i. 8. — χάρισμα πνευματικόν] Paul calls that, 
 which he intends to communicate tothe Romans through his longed-for per- 
 sonal presence among them (ἰδεῖν ; comp. Acts xix. 21, xxviii. 20) @ spiritual 
 
 1 See also Ellendt, Zex. Soph. IT. p. 1000. 4See Herod. vi. 73; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 8 John 
 2 See the passages in Heindorf, ad Plat. 2; LXX. 2 Chron. xiii. 12; Ps. i. 8, and fre- 
 Hipp. maj. p. 281, Jacobs. ad Ach. Tat. p. 566. quently ; Ecclus. xi. 16, xli. 1; Tob. iv. 19, v. 
 $Comp. xi. 14; and on Phil. iii. 11; 1 16; Test. XII. Patr. p. 684. 
 Mace. iv. 10. 
 
44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 gift of grace ; because in his apprehension all such instruction, comfort, joy, 
 strengthening, etc., as are produced by means of his labours, are regarded not 
 as procured by his own human individuality, but as a result which the πνεῦμα 
 ἅγιον works by means of him—the gracious working of the Spirit, whose organ 
 heis. While it was highly arbitrary in Toletus, Bengel, Michaclis, and others 
 to refer the expression to the apostolic miraculous gifts—against which the 
 εὐαγγελίσασθαι in ver. 15 is conclusive—it was a very gratuitous weakening of 
 its force to explain it (as is done by Morus, Rosenmiiller, Kéllner, Maier, Th. 
 Schott) as a gift referring to the (human) spirit ; ‘‘a gift for the inner life,” 
 Hofmann. In such an interpretation the specifically. Christian point of 
 view (1 Cor. xii. 4 ; comp. εὐλογία πνευματική, Eph. i. 9) is left out of account ; 
 besides, πνευματικόν would imply nothing characteristic in that case ; for 
 that Paul did not desire to communicate any gifts of another sort, 6.0. 
 external, would be taken for granted. — The expression 7... χάρ. is 
 modest (μετριάζοντος, Oecumenius). Note also the arrangement by which the 
 words are made to stand apart, and this delicate τι, the substantial χάρισμα, 
 and the qualifying πνευματικόν, are brought into the more special promi- 
 nence.’ — εἰς τὸ στηρ. ὑμᾶς) Object of the intended communication of such a 
 gift ; that ye may be established, namely, in the Christian character and life. 
 [See Note VII. p. 75.]. See ver. 12; comp. Acts xvi. 5; Rom. xvi. 25; 
 1 Thess. 11. 2. The στηρίξαι is conceived as being divinely wrought by 
 means of the Spirit, hence the passive expression ; it was to be accomplished 
 however, as Paul hoped, through him as the instrument of the Spirit. Man- 
 gold, p. 82, has, without any ground in the text, assumed that this estab- 
 lishment has reference to ‘‘ their abandoning their Jewish-Christian scruples 
 regarding the mission to the Gentiles,” whereas ver. 12 rather testifies to the 
 Pauline Christianity of the Romans. This remark applies also against 
 
 Sabatier, p. 166, who understands ‘‘une conception de l’évangile de Jésus 
 plus large et plus spirituelle.” 
 
 Ver. 12. Τοῦτο dé ἐστι] This, however, which I have just designated as my 
 longing (namely, ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἵνα. στηριχθ. ὑμᾶς) means, thereby I intend to 
 say nothing else than, etc. By this modifying explanation, subjoined with 
 humility, and expressed in a delicate complimentary manner (Erasmus puts 
 the matter too strongly, ‘‘ pia vafrities et sancta adulatio”), Paul guards 
 himself, in presence of a church to which he was still a stranger, from the 
 possible appearance of presumption and of forming too low an estimate of 
 the Christian standpoint of his readers.* — συμπαρακληθῆναι) must be under- 
 
 1On μεταδιδόναι τινί τι (instead of τινί 
 τινος), comp. 1 Thess. ii. 8; Tob. vii. 9; 2 
 Maee. i. 35. So sometimes, although sel- 
 dom, in classic authors, Herod. viii. 5, ix. 34; 
 Xen. Anab. iv. 5, 5; Schaef. Aelet. Ὁ. 21; 
 Kdiihner, IT. i. p. 295. 
 
 2 The delicate turn which he gives to the 
 matter is this: ‘‘ fo see you, in order that I,” 
 οἷο. means nothing more than “to be 
 quickened along with and among you,’ ete. 
 Consequently συμπαρακλ. is parallel to the 
 
 ἰδεῖν; for both infinitives must have the same 
 subject. If συμπαρακλ. κιτιλ. had been 
 meant to be merely a delicate explanation 
 of στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς (the wswal exposition 
 after Chrysostom), then ἐμέ must neces- 
 sarily have been added to συμπαρακλ. Gro- 
 tius aptly says: “᾿συμπαρακλ. regitur ab 
 ἐπιποθῶ." The true interpretation is given 
 also by Bengel and Th. Schott; comp. 
 Olshausen, Ewald, and Hofmann, who erro- 
 neously imputes to me the common view. 
 
CHAP. I.,. 13. 45 
 
 stood not, with the Peshito, Vulgate, Valla, Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, de 
 Dieu, and many others, including Koppe and Ewald, in the sense of comfort 
 or of refreshment (Castalio, Grotius, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Bbhme)—which 
 it would be necessary that the context should call for, as in 1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 
 2 Thess. ii. 17, but which it here forbids by the general ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, iva x.7.A. 
 
 —but in the quite general sense of Christian encouragement and quicken- 
 
 ing. The ovu.—however is not to be explained by ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐμαυτόν ; on the 
 
 contrary, the ἐν ὑμῖν renders it necessary that Paul alone should be con- 
 
 ceived as the subject of συμπαρακληθῆναι. He desires to be quickened among 
 
 the Romans (ἐν ὑμῖν) at the same time with them, and this by the faith com-_ 
 mon to both, theirs and his, which should mutually act and react in the 
 
 way of the Christian sympathy that is based on specific harmony of faith. 
 
 That the readers are not the subject of the συμπαρακλ. (Fritzsche, van Hen- 
 
 gel) is certain from ἐν ὑμῖν, which, if it meant 77 animis vestris (van Hengel), 
 
 would be a perfectly superfluous addition. — The compound συμπαρακλ. occurs 
 
 only here in the N. T., and is not found in the LXX. or Apocr. :} --- ἐν ἀλ- 
 
 λήλοις πίστις, More significant of the hearty character of the faith than ἡ ἀλ- 
 
 λήλων πίστις, is the faith of both viewed in its mutual identity, so that the 
 
 faith which lives in the one lives also in the other. — ὑμῶν te καὶ ἐμοῦ] placed 
 
 in this order with delicate tact. 
 
 Ver. 13. My longing towards you has often awakened in me the purpose 
 of coming to you, in order also among you, ete. Paul might have placed a 
 καί before zpoef., but was not obliged to do so (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
 objection); and he has not put it, because he did not think of it. The dis- 
 course proceeds from the desire (ver. 11) to the purpose, which is coming 
 nearer to realization. Hence it is the less necessary to transfer the weight 
 of the thought in ver. 13 to the clause expressive of purpose (Mangold), — 
 ov θέλω δὲ tip. ayv.] The Apostle lays stress on this communication. 
 Comp. on xi. 25. The δὲ is the simple μεταβατικόν. --- καὶ ἐκωλ. ἄχρι τοῦ 
 δεῦρο] is a parenthesis separated from the structure of the sentence, so 
 that iva attaches itself to προεθ. 220. rp. i. The καὶ, however, is not to 
 be taken as adversative, as K6llner still thinks (see, in opposition to this, 
 Fritzsche), but as the simple and marking the sequence of thought, which 
 here (comp. John xvii. 10) intervenes parenthetically. For the view which 
 makes it still dependent on ὅτι, so that it introduces the second part of 
 what the readers are to know (Hofmann), is precluded by the following 
 clause of purpose, which can only apply to that resolution so often formed. 
 — δεῦρο] used only here in the N. T. as a particle of time, but more fre- 
 quently in Plato and later authors; see Wetstein. That by which Paul had 
 been hitherto hindered, may be seen in xy. 22; consequently it was neither 
 by the devil (1 Thess. ii. 18) nor by the Holy Spirit (Acts xvi. 6 f.). Gro- 
 tius aptly observes (comp. xv. 22): ‘‘ Magis urgebat necessitas locorum, in 
 quibus Christus erat ignotus.” — iva τινὰ καρπὸν x... | is entirely parallel in 
 sense with ἵνα re μεταδῶ x.7.2. in ver. 11, and it is a gratuitous refining on 
 the figurative καρπόν to find specially indicated here the conversion of unbe- 
 
 1 But see Plat. ep. p. 555 A; and Polyb. vy. 83, 3, 
 
“40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 lievers beyond the range which the church had hitherto embraced (Hofmann) ; 
 comp. also Th. Schott, and even Mangold, who takes the Apostle as an- 
 nouncing his desire to take in hand the Gentile mission also among his read- 
 ers, so that the καρπός would be Gentiles to be converted. No; by καρπόν 
 Paul, with a complimentary egotism flattering to the readers, describes that 
 which his personal labours among the Romans would have effected—conse- 
 quently what had been said without metaphor in ver. 11—aceording toa 
 current figure (John iv. 36, xv. 16; Phil. i. 22; Col. i. 6), as harvest-fruit 
 which he would have had among them, and which as the produce of his 
 labour would have been his (ideal) possession among them. But in this view 
 the literal sense of ἔχειν (comp. vi. 21 f.) is not even to be altered by tak- 
 ing it as consequi (Wolf, Kypke, Koppe, Ké6llner, Tholuck, and others). 
 To postpone the having the fruit, however, till the last day (Mehring) is 
 quite alien to the context. —Kxafo¢ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Aout ἔθν.] as also among the re- 
 maining nations, i.e. Gentiles (see on ver. 5), namely, I have fruit. In the 
 animation and fulness of his thought Paul has inserted twice the καὶ of 
 comparison, inasmuch as there was present to his mind the twofold concep- 
 tion: (1) ‘‘among you also,’ as among ;” and (2) ‘‘ among you, as also among.” 
 So frequently in Greek authors.? There is therefore no grammatical reason 
 for commencing the new sentence with καθώς (Mehring), nor is it in ac- 
 cordance with the repetition of the ἐν. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. Fuller explanation regarding the previous iva τινὰ καρπ. σχῶ 
 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, καθὼς καὶ ἐν τ. λοιπ. ἔθνεσιν. — Respecting BapBapos 
 (ὄνομα τὸ οὐχ ᾿Ελληνικόν, Ammonius), which, according to Greek feeling and 
 usage, denotes generally all non- Greeks (Plat. Polit. p. 262 D)—all who were 
 strangers to Greek nationality and language—see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 100 
 f.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 6, 1. How common it was to designate all 
 nations by thus dividing them into ‘EAA. x. βάρβ.. seein Wetstein and Kypke, 
 with examples from Philo in Loesner, p. 248. Of course the Hellenes in- 
 cluded the Jews also among the βάρβαροι (a view which is attributed even to 
 Philo, but without sufficient ground), while the Jews in their turn applied 
 this designation to the Hellenes. See Grimm on 2 Mace. ii. 21, p. 61. Now 
 it may be asked : did Paul include the Romans among the "EAAnvec or among 
 the βάρβαροι ? The latter view is maintained by Reiche and K6llner, follow- 
 ing older writers ; the former is held by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Kypke, and 
 others, and the former alone would be consistent with that delicacy which 
 must be presumed on the Apostle’s part, as in fact, since Hellenic culture 
 
 1That the ‘“ you”? must mean the Roman 
 Christians, and not the still wnconverted 
 Romans (Th. Schott), is clearly shown by 
 all the passages, from ver. 8 onward, in 
 which the ὑμεῖς occurs; and especially by 
 the ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν ᾿ῬΡώμῃ in ver.15. As regards 
 their nationality, they belong to the cate- 
 gory of Gentiles. Comp. xi. 13, xvi. 4; Gal. 
 ii. 12, 14; Eph. iii. 1. But if Paul is the 
 Aposile of the Gentiles, the Gentiles already 
 converted also belong to his apostolic 
 sphere of labour, as 6... the Colossians and 
 
 Laodiceans, and (vy. 5, 6) the Romans. 
 Schott is compelled to resort to very forc- 
 ed suggestions regarding ἐν ὑμῖν and ὑμῖν, 
 especially here and in ver. 15; as also Man- 
 gold, who can only find therein a geograph- 
 ical designation (comp. Hofmann: ‘“‘ he 
 addresses them as a constituent portion of 
 the people of Rome’), Comp. on ver. 15. 
 
 2 See Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 153; Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 457 Εἰ ; Winer, p. 
 409 [E. T. 440]. 
 
CHART T?, ΤᾺΣ 15. 47 
 
 had become prevalent in Rome, especially since the time of Augustus, the 
 Roman community was regarded from the Roman point of view as separated 
 from the barbaria, and only nations like the Germans, Scythians, etc., were 
 reckoned to belong to the latter.’ But the following σοφοῖς te καὶ ἀνοήτοις, as 
 also the circumstance that the Romans, although they separated themselves 
 from the barbarians (Greek authors included them among these, Polyb. v. 
 104, 1, ix. 37, 5, Krebs and Kypke in loc.), are nowhere reckoned among the 
 Hellenes or designated as such, make it evident that the above question is to 
 be entirely excluded here, and that Paul’s object is merely to set forth gener- 
 ally his obligation as Apostle of the Gentiles in its wniversality. This he 
 does in the form of a twofold division, according to nationality, and accord- 
 ing to condition of culture, so that the thought which he would express is : ; 
 Tam in duty bound to a// Gentiles, without distinction of their nationality or 
 of their culture ; therefore I am ready, to you also, ete. — ὀφειλέτης] Paul re- 
 gards the divine obligation of office, received through Christ (ver. 5), as the 
 undertaking of a debt, which he has to discharge by preaching the Gospel 
 among all Gentile nations.’— οὕτω] so, that is, in accordance with this relation, 
 by which I am in duty bound to the "EAAyo τ. x. BapB., to the cod. τ. κ. 
 avoft. It does not refer to καθώς, ver. 13, which is dependent on the pre- 
 ceding καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, but gathers up in itself the import of “Βλλησι. . .. εἰμι: 
 80 then, ita, sie igitur.* Bengel well says : ‘‘ est quasi ephiphonema et illatio 
 a toto ad partem insignem.” — The οὕτω τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον (86. ἐστί) is to be 
 translated : accordingly, the inclination on my part |lit. the on-my-part ineli- 
 nation] 8, so that τὸ belongs to πρόθυμον, though the expression τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ 
 πρόθυμον, is not substantially different from the simple τὸ πρόθυμόν μου, but 
 only more significantly indicative of the idea that Paul on his part was will- 
 ing, etc. Comp. on Eph. i. 15. He says therefore : in this state of the case 
 the inclination which exists on his side is, to preach to the Romans also. At the 
 same time κατ᾽ ἐμὲ is purposely chosen out of a feeling of dependence on a 
 higher Will (ver. 10), rather than the simple τὸ πρόθυμόν μου, instead of 
 which τὸ ἐμοῦ πρόθυμον would come nearer to the expression by κατ᾽ ἐμέ." 
 The above connection of τὸ... . . πρόθυμον is adopted by Seb. Schmid, 
 Kypke, Reiche, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring, and others. So 
 also Th. Schott, who however takes οὕτω in a predicative sense ; as does 
 likewise Hofmann : Thus the case stands as to the fact and manner of the in- 
 clination on my part. This however is the less appropriate, because ver. 14 
 contains, not the mode, but the regulative basis of the προθυμία of ver. 15. 
 If τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ be taken by itself, and not along with πρόθυμον, there would re- 
 sult the meaning : there is, so far as I am concerned, an inclination ; comp. 
 de Wette. But, however correct in linguistic usage might be τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, 
 
 1 Comp. Cicero, de fin. ii. 15, “non solum 4 On the substantival πρόθυμον, in the 
 Graecia et Italia sed etiam omnis bar- sense of προθυμία, comp. 3 Mace. vy. 26; Plat. 
 baria.” Leg. ix. p. 859 B; Eur. Med. 178 ; Thue. iii. 
 
 2 Comp. inreference to this subject, Acts 89, 8; Herodian, viii. 3, 15. 
 
 XXvi.17f.; Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 16. 5 See Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 278; Mat- 
 
 3 See Hermann, ad Luc. de hist. conscr. Ὁ. thiae, p. 734. 
 161; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 807 [E. T. 357]. 
 
48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 which would here yield the sense pro mea virili, as in Dem. 1210, 20, the 
 πρόθυμον without a verb would stand abruptly and awkwardly, because not 
 the mere copula ἐστί, but ἐστί in the sense of πάρεστι, adest, would require to 
 be supplied. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Rickey Kollner, Baumgar- 
 ten-Crusius, take τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ as a periphrasis for ἐγώ, sd that πρόθυμον must be 
 taken as the predicate (Ion my part am disposed). Without sanction from 
 the wsus loquendi; what is cited by KG6llner from Vigerus, p. 7 f., and by 
 Tholuck, is of a wholly different kind. The Greek would express this mean- 
 ing by τὸ γ᾽ ἐμὸν πρόθυμον. "--- καὶ ὑμῖν] as also included in that general obliga- 
 tion of mine ; and not: although ye belong to the σοφοί (Bengel, Philippi), 
 which the text does not suggest. But τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ is added with emphasis, 
 since Rome (‘‘ caput et theatrum orbis terrarum,” Bengel) could Jeast of all 
 be exempted from the task assigned to the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hof- 
 mann erroneously holds (comp. Mangold, p. 84) that Paul addresses the 
 readers by ὑμῖν, not in their character as Christians, but as Romans, and that 
 εὐαγγελίσασθαι Means the preaching to those still wnconverted ; comp. Th. 
 Schott, p. 91. No, he addresses the Christian church in Rome, to which he 
 has not yet preached, but wishes to preach, the tidings of salvation, which 
 they have up to the present time received from others. As in every verse, 
 from the 6th to the 18th, so also here the ὑμεῖς can only be the κλητοὶ 1. X., 
 ver. 6 f., in Rome.? 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. Transition to the theme (οὐ yap ἐπαισχ. τ. evayy.), and the 
 theme itself (δύναμις. . . . ζήσεται). 
 
 Ver. 16. Tap] Paul confirms negatively his προθυμία. . . . εὐαγγελίσασθαι; 
 for which he had previously assigned a positive motive. — ov γὰρ ἐπαισχ. T. 
 evayy.| Written, no doubt, with a recollection of what he had experienced 
 in other highly civilized cities (Athens, Corinth, Ephesus), as well as, gen- 
 erally, in reference to the contents of the Gospel as a preaching of the eross 
 (1 Cor. i. 18).° Hence the negative form of the expression, as in contrast with 
 the feeling of shame which that experience might have produced in him, as 
 if the Gospel were something worthless, through which one could gain no 
 honour and could only draw on himself contempt, mockery, etc. Comp. 2 
 Tim. i. 12. — ἐπαισχύνομαι (Plat. Soph. p. 247, D ; 2 Tim. i. 8), and αἰσχύνομαι, 
 with accusative of the object : see Kitihner, II. i. p. 255 f.; Bernhardy, p. 
 113. — δύναμις yap Θεοῦ ἐστιν] Ground of the οὐκ ἐπαισχ. τ. ebayy. Power of God 
 
 genitive of the subject) is the Gospel, in so far as God works by means of the 
 message of salvation. By awaking repentance, faith, comfort, love, peace, 
 joy, courage in life and death, hope, etc., the Gospel manifests itself as poaer, 
 as a mighty potency, and that of God, whose revelation and work the Gospel is 
 
 1Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 533 A. 
 
 2 See besides, against Mangold, Beyschlag 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 642 f. 
 
 3 From his own point of view, viz. that 
 the church in Rome was Jewish- Christian, 
 Mangold, p. 98 f., suggests theocratic scru- 
 ples on the part of the readers regarding 
 the Apostle’s universalism. An idea incon- 
 sistent with the notion conveyed by émacx., 
 
 and lacking any other indication whatever 
 in the text; for the subsequent Ἰουδαίῳ τε 
 πρῶτον «.7.A. cannot have been designed 
 cautiously to meet such doubts (see, on the 
 other hand, ii. 9); but only to serve as ex- 
 pressive of the objective state of the case as 
 regards the historical order of salvation, in 
 accordance with the doctrinal development 
 of principles which Paul has in view. 
 
CHAPS Τὶ 17. 49 
 (hence τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, xv. 16 ; 2Cor. xi. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2). Comp. 1 Cor. 
 i. 18, 94. The expression asserts more than that the Gospel is ‘‘a powerful 
 means in the hand of God” (Riickert), and is based on the fact that it is the 
 
 living self-manifestation and effluence of God, as ῥῆμα Θεοῦ (Eph. vi. Le 
 
 Paul knew how to honour highly the message of salvation which it was his 
 oftice to convey, and he was not ashamed of it. 
 
 but the message itself. — εἰς σωτηρίαν] Working of this power of God : unto 
 salvation, consequently with saving power. And what salvation is here meant, 
 was understood by the reader ; for σωτηρία and σώζεσθαι are the standing ex- 
 pressions for the eternal salvation in the Messianic kingdom (comp. ζήσεται, ver. 
 
 Here also, as in vv. 1, 9, . 
 τὸ evayy. is not the work or business of conveying the message (Th. Schott), ἢ 
 
 17), the opposite of ἀπώλεια (Phil. i. 28 ; comp. θάνατος, 2 Cor. ii. 16). Comp. 
 generally, James i. 21, τὸν λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. ΑΒ to 
 how the Gospel works salvation, see ver. 17. --- παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι] shows ! 
 
 to whom the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. [See Note VIII. p. 
 76.| Faith is the condition on the part of man, without which the Gospel 
 cannot be to him effectually that power ; for in the unbeliever the causa ap- 
 prehendens of its efficacy is wanting. Comp. ver. 17. Melanchthon aptly 
 says : ‘‘ Non enim ita intelligatur haec efficacia, ut side calefactione loquere- 
 mur : ignis est efficax in stramine, etiamsi stramen nihil agit.” — παντί gives 
 emphatic prominence to the wniversality, which is subsequently indicated in 
 detail. Comp. iii. 22. —’Iovdaiw te πρῶτον x. “Βλληνι] τε. . . . καὶ denotes 
 the equality of what isadded.' πρῶτον expresses the priority ; but not merely 
 in regard to the divinely appointed order of szccession, in accordance with 
 which the preaching of the Messiah was to begin with the Jews and thence 
 extend to the Gentiles, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, 
 and many others, including Olshausen, van Hengel and Th. Schott, have 
 understood it ; but in reference to the jirst claim on the Messianic salvation 
 in accordance with the promise, which was in fact the ground of that external 
 order of succession in the communication of the Gospel. So Erasmus, Calo- 
 vius, and others, including Reiche, Tholuck, Riickert, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
 Philippi, Ewald, Hofmann. That this is the Pauline view of the rela- 
 tion is plain from iii. 1 f. ; ix. 1 ff. ; xi. 16 ff. ; xv. 9; comp. John iv. 22; 
 Matt. xv. 24; Acts xiii. 46. The Jews are the viol τῆς βασιλ., Matt. viii. 
 12. ---“Ἑλληνι] denotes, in contrast to ’Iovdaiw all Non-Jews. Acts xiv. 1; 1 
 Cor. x. 32 al. 
 
 Ver. 17 illustrates and gives a reason for the foregoing affirmation : δύναμις 
 Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτ. π. τ. πιστ., Which could not be the case, unless δικαιοσύνη 
 Θεοῦ κ.τ.2. [See Note IX. p. 76.] — δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ] That this does not denote, 
 as in iii. 5, an attribute of God,* is plain from the passage cited in proof 
 
 1 See Hartung, Partikell, I. p. 99; Baeum- 
 lein, Part. Ὁ. 225. 
 
 2It has been understood as the truthful- 
 ness of God (Ambrosiaster) ; as the justitia 
 Det essentialis (Osiander); as the justitia 
 distributiva (Origen, and several of the 
 older expositors, comp. Flatt) ; as the good- 
 
 ness of God (Schoettgen, Semler, Morus, 
 Krehl); as the justifying righteousness of 
 God (Mircker). According to Ewald it is 
 the divine righteousness regarded as power 
 and life-blessing, in the goodness of which 
 man may and must fully participate, if he 
 would not feel its sting and its penalty. 
 
50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 from Hab. ii. 4, where, by necessity of the connection, ὁ δίκαιος must denote 
 the person who is in the state of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Comp. iii. 21 ff. It 
 must therefore be an ethical relation of man that is meant ; and the genitive 
 Θεοῦ must (otherwise in Jas. i. 20)’ be rendered as the genitive of emanation 
 from, consequently : rightness which proceeds from God, the relation of being 
 right into which man is put by God (i.e. by an act of God declaring him 
 righteous).? This interpretation of the genitive as gen. originis, acutely and 
 clearly set forth anew- by Pfleiderer,* is more specially evident from iii. 23, 
 where Paul himself first explains the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and that by 
 δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, Which is turned in ver. 26 to the active 
 form : δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως 3 Comp. ver. 30, viii. 33, according to which 
 the genitive appears equivalent to ἐκ Θεοῦ (Phil. iii. 9), in contrast to the 
 ἐμή and ἰδία δικαιοσύνη (Rom. x. 8), and to the δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν (Luke xii. 15). 
 The passage in 2 Cor. v. 21 is not opposed to this view (as Fritzsche thinks) ; 
 see in loc. ; nor are the expressions δικαιοῦσθαι ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ (ili. 20), and 
 παρὰ Θεῷ (Gal. iii. 11), for these represent a special form under which the 
 relation is conceived, expressing more precisely the judicial nature of the 
 matter. Hence it is evident that the interpretation adopted by many 
 modern writers (including Kéllner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Umbreit), following 
 Luther : ‘‘ righteousness before. God,” although correct in point of substance, 
 is unsuitable as regards the analysis of the genitive, which they take as geni- 
 tive of the object. This remark applies also against Baur, who (Paulus, II. 
 p. 146 ff.) takes the genitive objectively as the δικαιοσύνη determined by the 
 idea of God, adequate to that idea ; whilst in his newtest. Theol. p. 134, he 
 prefers to take the genitive subjectively: the righteousness produced through 
 God, i.e. ‘‘the manner in which God places man in the adequate relation to 
 Himself.”—The following remarks may serve exegetically to illustrate the 
 idea of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Which in the Gospel is revealed from faith :—Since 
 God, as the holy Lawgiver and Judge, has by the law imposed on man the 
 task of keeping it entirely and perfectly (Gal. iii. 10), He can only receive 
 and treat as a δίκαιος who is such, as he should be—as one normally guiltless 
 and upright, who should be so, therefore, habitwally—the person who keeps 
 the whole law ; or, in other words, only the man who is perfectly obedient 
 to the law can stand to God in the relation of δικαιοσύνη. Such perfection 
 however no man could attain ; not merely no Gentile, since in his case the 
 natural moral law was obscured through immorality, and through dis- 
 obedience to it he had fallen into sin and vice ; but also no Jew, for natural 
 desire, excited by the principle of sin in him through the very fact of legal 
 prohibition, hindered in his case the fulfilment of the divine law, and ren- 
 
 Comp. Matthias on iii. 21: a righteousness, Wette, Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 186]; Winzer 
 such as belongs to God, consequently, ‘‘a de vocid. δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, et δικαιοῦν in ep. 
 righteousness which exists also inwardly ad Rom. p. 10); Bisping, van Hengel, Er- 
 
 and is in every respect perfect.” nesti, Urspr. ἃ. Stinde, I. p. 153; Mehring ; 
 
 1 Where whatis meant is the rightness re- also Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 
 quired by God, which man is supposed to 627); Holsten, z. Hu. ἃ: Paul. u. Petr. p. 
 realize through exerting himself in works. 408f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 380f.; Rich. 
 
 2 Comp. Chrysostom, Bengel, and others, Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 10. 
 including Riickert, Olshausen, Reiche, de 3 In Hilgenfeld@’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 168 ff. 
 
CHAP ἡ 17, δὶ 
 
 dered him also, without exception, morally weak, a sinner and object of the 
 divine wrath. If therefore man was to enter into the relation of a righteous 
 person and thereby of a future participator in the Messianic blessedness, it 
 was necessary that this should be done by means of an extraordinary divine 
 arrangement, through which grace and reconciliation should be imparted 
 to the object of wrath, and he should be put forward for the judgment of 
 God as righteous. This arrangement has been effected through the sending 
 of His Son and His being given up to His bloody death as that of a guiltless 
 sacrifice ; whereby God’s counsel of redemption, formed from eternity, has 
 been accomplished,—objectively for all, subjectively to be appropriated on 
 the part of individuals through faith, which is the ὄργανον ληπτικόν. And, 
 as this plan of salvation is the subject-matter of the Gospel, so in this Gospel 
 that which previously, though prefigured by the justification of Abraham, 
 was an unrevealed μυστήριον, namely, righteousness from God, is revealed 
 (ἀποκαλύπτεται), inasmuch as the Gospel makes known both the accomplished 
 work of redemption itself and the means whereby man appropriates the 
 redemption, namely, fwith in Christ, which, imputed to him as righteousness 
 (iv. 5), causes man to be regarded and treated by God out of grace and 
 δωρεάν (111. 24) as righteous (δίκαιος), so that he, like one who has perfectly 
 obeyed the law, is certain of the Messianic bliss destined for the δίκαιοι. ἢ 
 The so-called obedientia Christi activa is not to be included in the causa 
 meritoria of the divine justification ; but is to be regarded as the fulfilment 
 of a preliminary condition necessary to the death of Jesus, so far as the jus- 
 tification of man was objectively based on the latter ; without the complete 
 active obedience of Christ (consequently without His sinlessness) His passive 
 obedience could not have been that causa meritoria (2 Cor. v. 21). — ἀποκα- 
 λύπτεται) is revealed ; for previously, and in the absence of the Gospel, the 
 δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ Was and is something quite hidden in the counsel of God, the 
 
 1 Justification is simply imputative, an 
 actus forensis, not inherent, and therefore 
 not a gradual process, as Romang anew 
 maintains, but produced by the imputation 
 of faith. The new moral life in Christ is 
 the necessary consequence (Rom. vi. 8), so 
 that regeneration comes after justification— 
 a divine order of salvation inconsistent 
 with all Osiandrian views. See Ritschl, in 
 the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 795 ff., 
 altkath. Kirche, p. 76 ff. The regenerate lifeis 
 neither a part (Baumgarten-Crusius) nor the 
 positive side (Baur) of justification, the con- 
 ception of which is not to be referred either 
 to the consciousness of liberation from guilt 
 given with conversion (Schleiermacher) ; or 
 to the unity of forgiveness with the éins¢ill- 
 ing of love (Marheineke) ; or to an anticipa- 
 tion of the judgment of God on faith in respect 
 to the divine dife which develops itself from 
 it as its fruit (Rothe, Martensen, Hundesha- 
 gen, and others, including Tholuck on vy. 9, 
 and Catholics like Déllinger, see on iy. 8)--- 
 
 so that, with regard to its truth, it would 
 have to be made dependent on sanctijica- 
 tion (Nitzsch), or the dying out of sin (Beck), 
 and so forth,—or to the establishment of 
 the new sanctified humanity in the person of 
 Christ (Menken-Hofmann). The Form. Cone., 
 p. 687, rightly warns: ‘‘ne ea quae fidem prae- 
 cedunt et ea quae eam sequuntur articulo de 
 justificatione, tanquam ad justificationem 
 pertinentia, admisceantur.”” Respecting 
 the sensus forensis of justification, which is 
 by no means a product of medizyal scholas- 
 ticism (in opposition to Sabatier, p. 263), 
 comp. Kd6stlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 
 1856, p. 89 ff.; and in its purely exegetical 
 aspect, especially Wieseler on Gal. ii. 16, 
 Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zet/schr. 1872, p. 
 161 ff., and Weiss, 0id/. Theol. §112. We may 
 add that with Luther’s doctrine of justifica- 
 tion Zwingli substantially concurs. See, for 
 defence of the latter (against Stahl), Ritschl, 
 Rechtfert. u. Verséhnung, 1870, I. p. 165 ff. 
 
52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 knowledge of which is first given in the Gospel (comp. xvi. 25; Acts 
 xvii. 30). The prophecies of the Old Testament were only preparatory and 
 promissory (ver. 2), and therefore were only the means of introducing the 
 evangelical revelation itself (xvi. 26). The present is used, because the 
 Gospel is conceived of in its continuous proclamation. Comp. the perfect, 
 mepavépwrat, iii, 21, and on the other hand the historical aorist φανερωθέντος 
 in xvi. 26. Through the ἀποκάλυψις ensues the φανεροῦσθαι, through the 
 revelation the being manifest as object of knowledge. — ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν] 
 may not be connected with δικαίοσ. (Luther, Hammond, Bengel, Koppe, 
 Riickert, Reiche, Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring, and others), but rather—as 
 the only arrangement which the position of the words admits without arbi- 
 trariness—with ἀποκαλύπτεται. So also van Hengel and Hofmann ; comp. 
 Luke ii. 85. The δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, namely, is revealed in the Gospel ἐκ 
 πίστεως, inasmuch as in the Gospel faith on Christ is made known as the subjec- 
 tive cause from which righteousness comes. Thus the Gospel, as the ῥῆμα τῆς 
 πίστεως (x. 8) and λόγος τῆς καταλλαγῆς (2 Cor. v. 19), makes the divine right- 
 eousness become manifest from faith, which it in fact preaches as that 
 which becomes imputed ; for him who does not believe the ἀκοὴ πίστεως 
 (Gal. ili. 2), it leaves this δικαιοσύνη to remain a locked-up unrevealed bless- 
 ing. But it isnot merely ἐκ πίστεως, but also εἰς πίστιν ; to faith (comp. 2 Cor. 
 ii. 16). Inasmuch, namely, as righteousness is revealed in the Gospel from 
 faith, faith is aimed at, i.e., the revelation spoken of proceeds from faith, 
 and is designed to produce faith. This sense, equivalent to ‘‘ wt jfides 
 habeatur,” and rightly corresponding alike with the simple words and the 
 context, is adopted by Heumann, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Nielsen, and 
 van Hengel. It is not ‘‘ too meaningless” (de Wette), nor ‘‘ saying pretty 
 nearly nothing” (Philippi); but is on the contrary emphatically appropriate 
 to the purpose of representing faith as the Fuc totum (‘‘ prora et puppis,” 
 Bengel, comp. Baur, II. p. 161).} Therefore εἰς πίστιν is not to be taken as 
 equivalent to εἰς τὸν πιστεύοντα, for the believer (Oecumenius, Seb. Schmid, 
 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Reiche, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr, 
 Maier, and Philippi), a rendering which should have been precluded by 
 the abstract correlative ἐκ πίστεως. Nor does it mean : for the furtherance 
 and strengthening of faith. (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 1, 11. p. 644. Pott., 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and 
 others, including Kéllner ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, Klee, and Stengel ; 
 for the thought : ‘‘from an ever new, never tiring, endlessly progressive 
 faith” (Ewald) * is here foreign to the connection, which is concerned only 
 with the great fundamental truth in its simplicity ; the case is different 
 in 2 Cor. iii. 18. Quite arbitrary, moreover, was the interpretation : ‘‘ ex 
 Jide legis in fidem evangelit” (Tertullian).* Finally, to take πίστιν as faith- 
 JSulness, and to understand πίστις εἰς πίστιν in the sense of faith in the 
 Saithfulness of God (Mehring), is to introduce what is neither in the words 
 
 1 See also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 629 f. 3 Comp. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret : 
 Comp. vi. 19; 2 Cor. ii. 16. δεῖ yap πιστεῦσαι Tots προφήταις, Kat de 
 
 % Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungst. p. 7, 116, ἐκείνων εἰς THY τοῦ εὐαγγελίου πίστιν 
 and Umbreit. ποδηγηθῆναι, Zeger, and others. 
 
CHAP. I., 18: 53 
 
 nor yet suggested by the context. Ewald in his Jahrb. LZ. yp. 87 ff., inter- 
 prets : faith in faith, the reference being to the faith with which man meets 
 the divine faith in his power and his good will (?). But the idea of ‘‘ faith 
 from beneath on the faith from above,” as well as the notion generally of 
 God believing on men, would be a paradox in the N. T., which no reader 
 could have discovered without more clear and precise indication. After 
 ἐκ πίστ. every one could not but understand εἰς πίστ. also as meaning human 
 faith ; and indeed everywhere it is man that believes, not God. — καθὼς 
 γέγραπται] represents what has just been stated, δικαιοσύνη. . . . πίστιν, as 
 taking place in accordance with a declaration of Scripture, consequently 
 according to the necessity of the divine counsel of salvation. He who from 
 faith (on Christ) is righteous (transferred into the relation of the δικαιοσύνη 
 Θεοῦ) shall live (be partaker of the Messianic eternal life). This, as the 
 Messianic sense intended to be conveyed by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1. 21) 
 in the prophetic words, Hab. ii. 4, ‘‘ the righteous shall by his faithfulness * 
 live” (attain the theocratic life-blessedness), is recognized by Paul, and ex- 
 pressed substantially in the language of the LXX., rightly omitting the μου, 
 which they inaccurately add to πίστεως. In doing so Paul might, in ac- 
 cordance with the Messianic reference of the passage, connect ἐκ πίστεως 
 (1N}1383)—seeing that on this causal definition the stress of the expression 
 lies—with ὁ δίκαιος ; because; if the life of the righteous has πίστις as its 
 cause, his δικαιοσύνη itself can have no other ground or source. That he has 
 really so connected the words, as Beza and others rightly perceived (see 
 especially Hélemann, de justitiae ex fide ambab. in V. T. sedibus, Lips. 1867), 
 and not, as most earlier expositors have supposed (also de Wette, Tholuck, 
 Delitzsch, on Hab. /.c., Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, 
 and Hofmann, ἐκ πίστ. ζήσεται, is plain from the connection, according to 
 which it is not the life ἐκ πίστ., but the revelation of righteousness ἐκ rior. that 
 is to be confirmed by the Old Testament. The case is different in Heb. x. 38. 
 See further, generally, on Gal. iii. 11.—The δέ is, without having any 
 bearing on the matter, adopted along with the other words from the LXX. 
 Comp. on Acts ii. 17. A contrast to the unrighteous who shall die (Hof- 
 mann) is neither here nor in Hab. ii. 4 implied in the text. 
 
 Vv. 18-32. [See Note X. p. 77.] Proof of ver. 17 deduced from experience, 
 and that in the first instance with respect to Gentile humanity (the proof in 
 regard to the Jews begins at ch. ii.). 
 
 Ver. 18. This great fundamental proposition of the Gospel, ver. 17, is / 
 proved (yap) agreeably to experience, by the fact that, where there is no 
 πίστις, there is also no ἀποκάλυψις of righteousness, but only of the wrath of 
 God. ‘‘ Horrendum est initium ac fulmen,” Melanchthon, 1540. — ἀποκαλύπ- 
 terat] Emphatically placed, in harmony with the ἀποκαλ. in ver. 17, at the 
 beginning. -- ὀργὴ Θεοῦ] The antithesis of δικαίοσ. Θεοῦ, ver. 16. The ὀργὴ 
 of God is not to be explained with several of the Fathers (in Suicer), Eras- 
 
 1 This faithfulness, in the prophet’s sense, trustful self-surrender to God. Comp. Um- 
 the MW, and the πίστις inthe Christian  breit, p. 197. 
 sense, have the same fundamental idea, 
 
δ4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 mus, and many later authorities, as poena divina, which is nothing but a 
 rationalizing interchange of ideas, but rather in the proper literal sense : 
 wrath, an affection of the personal God, having a necessary connection with 
 His love. The wrath of God, the reality of which is indisputable as the 
 very presupposition of the work of atonement, is the love of the holy God 
 (who is neither neutral nor one-sided in his affection), for all that is good in 
 its energy as antagonistic to all that is evil.1 See on Matt. iii. 7; Eph. ii. 
 3. —4a7’ οὐρανοῦ) is neither to be connected with ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, as Beza, Estius, 
 and many others hold, nor with the bare Θεοῦ (Mehring), but, as the order of 
 the words and the parallel definition ἐν αὐτῷ in ver. 17 require, belongs to 
 ἀποκαλύπτεται ; SO that heaven, the dwelling-place and throne of God (comp. 
 on Matt. vi. 9), is designated as the place from which the ἀποκάλυψις of 
 the ὀργὴ Θεοῦ issues. ‘‘ Majestatem irati Dei significat,” Bengel. The reve- 
 lation of righteousness takes place ἐν εὐαγγελίῳ, ver. 17, as something spirit- 
 ually brought home to the consciousness through the medium of the Gospel ; 
 but that of the divine wrath descends from heaven, manifested as a divine 
 matter of fact ; by which description, however, the destructive character of 
 this working of divine power is not expressed (Th. Schott), although it is 
 in fact implied in the entire context. But what revelation of divine wrath is 
 meant? Paul himself supplies the information in ver. 24 ff., in which is 
 described what God in His sufficiently well-grounded (vv. 19-238) wrath did 
 (παρέδωκεν αὐτούς). God’s wrath therefore is revealed from heaven in this 
 way, that those who are the objects of it are given up by God to terrible 
 retribution in unchastity and all vice. Against this interpretation (comp. 
 Mehring), which is adopted also by Tholuck, Weber (vom Zorne Gottes, p. 
 89), and Th. Schott, it cannot be objected, with Hofmann, that Paul must 
 have written ἀπεκαλύφθη ; for he here in fact expresses the general proposi- 
 tion of experience, to which the concrete historical representation subse- 
 quently shall correspond ; the divine aziom is placed first (present), and 
 then the history of it follows (aorist). . Irrelevant is also the objection of 
 Philippi, that ἀποκαλύπτειν always denotes a supernatural revelation. For 
 ἀποκαλύπτειν means to reveal what was previously unknown, what was veiled 
 from our cognition, so that it now becomes manifest ; and, in reference to 
 this, it is a matter of indifference whether the revelation takes place in a 
 natural or in asupernatural manner.? The mode of revealing is not indicated 
 in the word itself, but in the context ; and hence according to the connec- 
 tion it is used also, as here, of a revelation in fact, by which a state of things pre- 
 viously unknown comes to our knowledge (Matt. x. 26; Luke ii. 35 ; 2 Thess. ii. 
 3, 6, 8). Moreover, even according to our interpretation, a divine revelation 
 is meant, by which there is certainly brought to light a μυστήριον, namely, 
 the connection of the phenomenon with the divine ὀργή. According to 
 
 1 The idea of the divine ὀργή is diamet- 
 rically opposed to every conception of sin 
 as anecessity interwoven with human de- 
 velopment. Even Lactantius has aptly re- 
 marked, de ira Dei, v.9: “51 Deus non iras- 
 citur impiis et injustis, nec pios justosque 
 diligit ; in rebus enim diversis aut in ut- 
 
 ramque partem moveri necesse est, aut in 
 neutram.” 
 
 2 In this case it cannot make any differ- 
 ence whether (God is or is not the revealing 
 subject, as is most plainly seen from Matt. 
 qa bly 
 
CHAP. 1., 18. 55 
 
 others, Paul means the inward revelation of the divine wrath, given by 
 means of reason and conscience (Ambrosiaster, Wolf, and others, including 
 Reiche and Gléckler), in support of which view they appeal to ver. 19. 
 But, on the contrary, ax’ οὐρανοῦ requires us to understand an ἀποκάλυψις 
 cognizable by the senses ; and ver. 19 contains not the mode of the manifesta- 
 tion of wrath, but its moving cause (διότι). Others hold that the ἀποκάλυψις 
 of the divine wrath has come through the Gospel (‘‘ continens minas,” Grotius), 
 and that ἐν αὐτῷ is to be again supplied from ver. 17. So Aquinas, Bellar- 
 mine, Corn. ἃ Lapide, Estius, Grotius, Heumann, Semler, Morus, Béhme, 
 Benecke, Maier ; comp. Umbreit, who includes also the Old Testament. It 
 is decisive against this view that az’ οὐρανοῦ, just because it is parallel to 
 ἐν αὐτῷ in ver. 17, lays down a mode of manifestation quite different from 
 ἐν αὐτῷ. Had the latter been again in Paul’s mind here, he would have 
 repeated it with emphasis, as he has repeated the ἀποκαλύπτεται. Others hold 
 that the manifestation of wrath at the general judgment is meant (Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Toletus, Limborch, Koppe, 
 Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald). The present, considered in itself, might 
 be chosen in order to express a vivid realization of the future, or might be 
 accounted for by the ἐν αὐτῷ, which, it is alleged, is to be again mentally 
 supplied (Ewald) ; but the former explanation is to be rejected on account 
 of the preceding purely present ἀποκαλ. in ver. 17 ; and against the latter 
 may be urged the very fact, that ἐν αὐτῷ is not repeated. Had this been the 
 meaning, moreover, the further course of the exposition must have borne 
 reference to the general judgment, which it by no means does ; and there- 
 fore this interpretation is opposed to the connection, as well as unwarranted 
 by i. 5 (where the mention of the revelation of judgment belongs to quite a 
 different connection) ; and not required by the idea of ἀποκαλύπτειν itself, 
 since that idea is adequately met by the divine matter-of-fact revelation of 
 wrath here intended (see above), and besides, the word is repeated inten- 
 tionally for rhetorical effect. Lastly, while others have contented themselves 
 with leaving the ἀποκάλυψις here in its entire generality (Olshausen, Tholuck ; 
 comp. Calovius), and thus relieved themselves from giving any explanation 
 of it, the reference to the religion of the O. T. (Bengel and Flatt) seems 
 entirely arbitrary and groundless, and the interpretations which apply it to 
 evils generally affecting the world as an expression of the divine wrath (Hof- 
 mann), or to the external and internal distress of the time (Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius), are too general and indefinite, and thereby devoid of any concrete 
 import in keeping with the text. —éri πᾶσ. ἀσέβ. x. adix. ἀνθρ.] contains the 
 hostile direction (comp. Dem. 743, 22) of the ἀποκαλύπτεται . . .. οὐρανοῦ : 
 against every ungodliness and immorality of men, which, etc. ’AcéBeca and 
 ἀδικία ' are distinguished as irreligiousness and immorality, so that both describe 
 the improbitas, but under different aspects, in reference to the fear of God 
 and to the standard of morals ; hence the former, as involving the idea of 
 impiety, is the stronger expression.?, That the distinction between them is 
 
 1 Plat. Prot. Ὁ. 823 ἘΠ: Xen. Cyr. viii. 8, 7; 2 Comp. Dem. 548, 11: ἀσέβημα, οὐκ ἀδίκημα 
 Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 48. μόνον. 
 
δ0 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 not to be understood, with Kéllner, following Theophylact, Grotius, Calo- 
 vius, Wolf, and many others, as profanitas in Deum and injuria in proximum, 
 is proved by the following ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχ. ---- τῶν τ. ἀλήθ. ἐν ἀδικ. Katey. | who 
 keep down the truth through immorality, do not let it develop itself into 
 v power and influence on their religious knowledge and their moral condition. 
 The article (quippe qui) introduces that characteristic of the ἀνθρώπων, not 
 yet more precisely defined, which excites the divine wrath. Rightly in the 
 Vulgate : corwm qui. See Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 134]. It may be paraphras- 
 ed: ‘‘of those, I mean, who.” Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 7, 13. 
 Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks : ‘‘ veritas in mente nititur et urget, sed 
 homo eam impedit.” This is the peculiar, deeply unfortunate, constant 
 self-contradiction of the heathen character.’ On κατέχειν, to hinder, comp. 2 
 Thess. 11. 6 ; Luke iv. 42 ; 1 Macc. vi. 37.525 Against the interpretation of 
 Michaelis, Koppe, and Baur, who take κατέχειν here as meaning to possess (1 
 Cor. vil. 80 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10), ‘‘ who possess the truth-in anrighteousness, who 
 know what God’s will is, and yet sin,” ver. 21 is decisive, where the contin- 
 uous possession of the truth is negatived by ἐματαιώθησαν . . . καρδία ; where- 
 fore also it cannot be rendered with Melanchthon and van Hengel : who 
 hold the truth in the bondage of immorality (vii. 6 ; Gen. xxxix. 20, xlii. 19). 
 The ἀλήθεια is correctly interpreted in the sense of divine truth generally ; 
 the mode of revelation, in which it is presented to man’s knowledge, is fur- 
 nished by the context, here, by ver. 19 f., as the truth apparent by natural 
 revelation in the works of God ; not therefore in the sense of the doctrine of 
 the Gospel, which is hindered in its diffusion by Jews and Gentiles (Ammon, 
 comp. Ewald). —év ἀδικία) instrumental. To make it equivalent to ἀδίκως 
 (Reiche, following Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Raphel, and others ; 
 comp. ἐν δυνάμει in ver. 4) arbitrarily deprives the representation of an ele- 
 ment essential to its fulness and precision, and renders it tame ; for it is 
 self-evident that the κατέχειν τ. ἀλ. is unrighteous or sinful, but not so much 
 so that it takes place through sin. — Finally, it is to be noted that Paul, 
 in ἀνθρώπ. (correlative of Θεοῦ) τῶν τ. ἀλήθ. ἐν ἀδικ. Katey., expresses himself 
 quite generally, making apparent by ἀνθρώπ. the audacity of this God-oppos- 
 ing conduct ; but he means the Gentiles, as is indicated even by ἐν ἀδικίᾳ 
 (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1), and as is confirmed beyond doubt by the continuation 
 of the discourse in ver. 19 ff. Koppe supposed that Paul meant the Jews 
 especially, but included also the Gentiles ; Benecke, that he speaks of the 
 whole human race in general, which view Mehring specially defends. But 
 the peculiar character of what is contained in vy. 21-82 shows that the Jews 
 are to be entirely excluded from the description which is carried on to the 
 end of the chapter. It is not till ch. ii. 1 that the discourse passes over to 
 them, and makes them suddenly see themselves reflected in the Gentile 
 mirror, 
 
 Ver. 19. Διότι] propterea quod—only to be separated by a comma from the 
 foregoing—specifies more precisely the causal relation, on account of which the . 
 
 1Comp. Nigelsbach, Homer. Theol. I. Ὁ. 2 Plat. Phaed. Ὁ. 117 C; Soph. #7. 754; 
 ΤΠ ἘΠ Pind. Jsthm. iii. 2, and Dissen in loc. 
 
CHAPS 1.5719, 57 
 wrath of God comes upon such men, etc. (ver. 18). They keep down the 
 truth through immorality ; if they did so out of ignorance, they would be 
 excusable : but they do not do so out of ignorance, and therefore God’s wrath 
 is manifested against them. This view of the connection is suggested by the 
 literal meaning of διότι itself, and confirmed by εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογ. 
 Comp. Hofmann. So also Fritzsche, who, however, takes διότε as equivalent 
 to yap, as does also Philippi,—a use of it that never occurs, not even in Acts 
 xviii. 10. This linguistically erroneous interpretation of διότε condemns also 
 the view of Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, and Reithmayr, who discover here 
 the proof, that the Gentiles keep down the truth by immorality ; or (so Th. 
 Schott) that Paul rightly describes them as κατέχοντες κιτ.Δ. No; for the 
 very reason that they have the γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Which renders them iénexrcus- 
 able, does the wrath of God go forth against the κατέχοντες ; ver. 18. —rd 
 γνωστὸν tov Θεοῦ] that which is known concerning God, not: that which is 
 knowable concerning God, a signification which, though adopted by Origen, 
 Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, 
 Grotius, Wolf, Koppe, Riickert, Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, 
 Ewald, Umbreit, Mehring, Hofmann, and others, is never conveyed by γνωστός 
 in the N. T. or in the LXX. and Apocrypha, though it frequently occurs in 
 classic authors.’ In all the places where it occurs in the Scriptures, as also, 
 though less frequently, in the classics,? it means quod notum est (Vulgate), 
 and is therefore equivalent to γνωτός or γνώριμος, also in Acts iv. 16 ; Eccles. 
 xxi. 7. The opposite: ἄγνωστος, Acts xvii. 23. Comp. Luther, 1545: 
 “das (nicht : dass) man weiss, das (nicht : dass) Gott sei.” That which is 
 known of God excludes that which needed a special revelation to make it 
 known, as in particular the contents of the Gospel ; the former is derived 
 from the general revelation of nature. If we should take γνωστόν as know- 
 able, the assertion of the Apostle would be incorrect without some limiting 
 qualification ; for the positively revealed belonged to that which was know- 
 able, but not to that which was known of God,* into which category it was 
 brought only through special revelation, which it would otherwise not have 
 needed. —év αὐτοῖς] i.e. in their consciousness, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, 11. 15. 
 Comp. Gal. i. 16. The explanation inter ipsos, which Erasmus and Grotius 
 (both referring it arbitrarily to the Gnosis of the philosophers among the 
 Gentiles), K6llIner and Baumgarten-Crusius give, is to be rejected for this 
 reason, that αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε, compared with νοούμενα καθορᾶται, points to a 
 manifestation of the γνωστόν τοῦ Θεοῦ which is inward, although conveyed 
 through the revelation of nature. — ἐφανέρωσε] God—and this subject is 
 
 
 
 1 See the passages from Plato quoted by 
 Ast, Zex. I. p. 401; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 
 502; Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. T. 361; comp. 
 ἄγνωστος, which in Plato invariably means 
 unknowable. 
 
 2Xen. Cyr. vi. 3, 4: Arrian. pict. ii. 20, 
 4; Aesch. Choeph. 702; Beck, Antiatt. p. 87, 
 25: 
 
 3 Which, however, is not to be trans- 
 formed, with Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, 
 and others, into the subjective scientia Dei 
 
 —which has no precedent in usage, is un- 
 suitable to the following φανερόν ἐστι, and 
 is not to be supported even by the LXX. 
 Gen. ii. 9; in which passage, if the text be 
 not corrupted, τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστόν 
 καλοῦ κ. πονηροῦ must be rendered : the tree 
 by which they were to learn what is known 
 of good and evil, 7.e. by which they were to 
 become aware of that which they—by the 
 very enjoyment—had known of good and 
 evil. 
 
58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 again named with emphasis—ias laid it clearly before them, made it lie 
 openly before their view as an object of knowledge. Comp. on the matter 
 itself Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 26 f. ; 1 Cor. i. 21. 
 
 Ver. 20 f. Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα. . . . θειότης] Giving a reason for, and explain- 
 ing, the previous ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε. --- τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ] His invisible 
 things, the manifold invisible attributes, that constitute His nature. [See 
 Note XI. p. 77.] Paul himself explains it afterwards by ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις 
 καὶ θειότης ; therefore it is not actiones Dei invisibiles (Fritzsche ; comp. 
 Theodoret). —vootyeva καθορᾶται] through the works are scen becoming dis- 
 cerned ; νοούμενα Aefines the manner in which the καθορᾶται takes place, 
 otherwise than through the senses (the νοεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὄμμασι θεωρεῖν, Plat. 
 Rep. p. 529 B), in so far as it is effected by means of mental discernment, by 
 the agency of intelligent perception. The καθορᾶται forms with ἀόρατα a strik- 
 ing oxymoron, in which the compound selected for that purpose, but not 
 elsewhere occurring in the N. T., heightens still further the idea conveyed 
 by the simple form.*— τοῖς ποιήμασι] embraces all that God as Creator has 
 produced, but does not at the same time include His governing in the world 
 of history, as Schneckenburger thinks, Beitr. p. 102 f.; for NWN, with 
 which ποίημα corresponds (LXX. Eccles. iii. 11, vii. 18, al.), is the formal 
 expression for God’s works of creation ; as also Paul himself, in Eph. ii. 10, 
 describes the renewing of man as analogous to creation. It is only of the 
 works of creation that the Apostle could assert what he here says, especially: 
 Since, moreover, τοῖς ποιήμασι, by means of 
 the works, contains the instrumental definition appended to νοούμενα καθορᾶται, 
 ἀπὸ κτίσ. κόσμου cannot be taken in a causal sense (see Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 
 9107), as the mediwm cognoscendi (so' Luther and many others, including 
 - Calovius, Pearson, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Morus, and Reithmayr), but 
 only in the sense of temporal beginning : since the creation of the world 
 they are so perceived. —# Te ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ div. x. θειότης] A more precise 
 definition of the previous τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. ’ Aidsoc, everlasting, belongs to 
 both substantives ; but «ai annexes the general term, the category, of which 
 the δύναμις is a species. See Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 80. Its relation to the 
 preceding τέ consists in its completing the climax and cumulation, for 
 which τέ prepares the way. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 98. Hofmann is un- 
 supported by linguistic usage in inferring from the position of τέ, that ἀΐδιος 
 is not meant to apply also to θειότης. It is just that position that makes 
 ἀΐδιος the common property of both members (see especially Hartung, /.c. p. 
 116 f.), so that, in order to analyze the form of the conception, we may again 
 supply ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ after καὶ. The θειότης is the totality of that which 
 
 as he adds ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου. 
 
 1Comp, Xen. Cyr. iii. 8, 31: εἰ yao. . 
 ἡμᾶς οἱ πολέμιοι θεάσονται. . . . πάλιν καθο- 
 Pind. Pyth. ix. 45. : 
 On the oxymoron 
 itself, comp. Aristotle, de mundo, 6, p. 399, 
 21. Bekk: ἀθεώρητος ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων 
 θεωρεῖται (ὃ θεός). 
 
 2Not merely to νοούμενα (Hofmann), 
 which is closely bound up with καθορᾶται as 
 
 ρῶντες ἡμῶν TO πλῆθος. 
 
 οἷσθα.. .. εὖ καθορᾷς. 
 
 showing the manner of it, so that both 
 together are defined instrumentally by tots 
 ποιήμασι. On νοεῖν, aS denoting the intel- 
 lectual animadvertere in seeing (Hom. 124. A. 
 599, in the inverse position: τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν 
 ἐνόησε), comp. Nigelsb. z. Jdias, Ὁ. 416, ed. 3; 
 Duncan, ed. Rost, p. 787. 
 
 3 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 48 B.; 
 Schaefer, Poet. gnom. p. 73; Schoemann, 
 
CHAP. I., 20. 59 
 God is as a Being possessed of divine attributes, as Aeov,—the collective sum 
 of the divine realities.! This comprehensive sense must by no means be lim- 
 ited. The eternal power—this aspect of His θειότης which comes into prom- 
 inence at first and before all others—and the divinity of God in its collect- 
 ive aspect, are rationally perceived and discerned by means of His works. 
 Arbitrary is the view of Reiche, who holds that Paul means especially 
 wisdom and goodness, which latter Schneckenburger conceives to be intended ; 
 and also that of Hofmann (comparing Acts xvii. 29; 2 Pet. i. 4), that the 
 spiritual nature of the divine being is denoted. We may add that Rickert 
 holds the strange view, that θειότης, which could not properly be predicated 
 of God, is only used here by Paul for want of another expression. It might 
 be and was necessarily said of God, as being the only adequate comprehensive 
 expression for the conception that was to be denoted thereby. For analo- 
 gous references to the physico-theological knowledge of God, see Wetstein, 
 and Spiess, Logos spermaticos, 1871, Ὁ. 212. The suggestion of Philo as the 
 
 ge 
 Apostle’s scource (Schneckenburger) is out of the question. Observe 
 
 further how completely, in our passage, the transcendental relation of God to ~ 
 
 the world—the negation of all identity of the two—lies at the foundation 
 of the Apostle’s view. It does not exclude the immanence of God in the 
 world, but it excludes all pantheism. See the passages from the Ὁ. T. dis- 
 cussed in Umbreit. —ei¢ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολ.] has its logically correct ref- 
 erence to the immediately preceding τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα . . . . θειότης, and there- 
 fore the parenthesis, in which Griesbach and others have placed τὰ yap ἀόρ. 
 . . νον θειότης, must be expunged. The εἰς cannot be said of the result, as 
 Luther, and many others, including Reiche, K6llner, de Wette; Riickert, 
 Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, Ewald, following the Vulgate (fa ut sint 
 inexcusabiles), have understood it ; for the view, which takes it of the pur- 
 pose, is not only required by the prevailing usage of εἰς with the infinitive? 
 (see on 2 Cor. viii. 6), but is also more appropriate to the connection, because 
 the καθορᾶται is conceived as a result effected through God’s revelation of 
 Himself (ver. 19), and consequently the idea of the divine purpose in εἰς τὸ 
 εἶναι k.7.A. ig not to be arbitrarily dismissed. Comp. Erasmus (‘‘ne quid 
 haberent,” etc.), Melanchthon (‘‘ propter quas causas Deus,” ete.), Beza, Calvin 
 (“ὧν hoe ut’), Bengel, and others. But Chrysostom, even in his time, ex- 
 pressly opposes this view (comp. also Oecumenius), and at a later period it 
 
 ad 75. p. 325 f.; also Winer, 
 559]. 
 10n the difference between this word 
 
 p. 520) [ἘΞ 1 Appropriately rendered in Vulgate by d- 
 vinitas. 
 
 2 Kis, with an infinitive having the article, 
 
 and θεότης (Col. ii. 9), which denotes Deitas, 
 Godhead, the being God, see Elsner, Odss. p 
 6, and Fritzsche in foc. Van Hengel has er- 
 roneously called in question the distinction. 
 In Wisd. xviii. 9, namely, ὁ τῆς θειότητος 
 νόμος is not the law of the Godhead, but the 
 law whose nature and character is divinity 
 —of a divine kind; and in Lucian, de 
 Calumn. 17, ἡ Ηφαιστίωνος θειότης is the di- 
 vinity of Hephaestion, his divine quality. 
 In Plutarch θειότης very frequently occurs. 
 
 is not used in a single passage, of the Epistle 
 to the Romans in particular, in any other 
 than a ¢elic sense. Seei. 11, iii. 26, iv. 11, 16, 
 18, vi. 12, vii. 4, 5, viii. 29, xi. 11, xii. 2, 3, xv. 
 8, 18,16. Far too hastily de Wette terms this 
 interpretation in our passage senseless, 
 and Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with him. 
 Tholuck calls it grammatical terrorism. 
 Hofmann recognizes the telic view as the 
 true one in all cases where εἰς is used with 
 the infinitive. 
 
00 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 became a subject of contention between the Lutherans and the Reformed. 
 See Calovius. The view, which interprets it of the result, hesitates to admit 
 the conception of a divine decree, under which Paul places the inexcusable- 
 ness of men ; and yet not only may this stand to the perception of God from 
 His works which has existed since the beginning in the relation of result, 
 but, in accordance with the thoroughly Scriptural idea of destiny (comp. 
 6.0. V. 20), it must stand to it in the relation of that decree. In this con- 
 nection, which inserts the results in the divine counsel, the inexcusableness 
 of man appears as telically given with the self-manifestation of God. Ver. 21, 
 as in general even ver. 18, contains the perverse conduct of men manifesting 
 itself in the course of human history, on account of which God, who foresaw 
 it, has in His natural self-manifestation made their inexcusableness His aim. 
 Inexcusable they are intended to be ; and that indeed on account of the fact, 
 that, although they had known God (namely from that natural revelation), they 
 have not glorified Him as God. — διότι] as in ver. 19, only to be separated by 
 a comma from what precedes : inexcusable on this account, because. [See 
 Note XII. p. 78,]—yvévrec] not : cum agnoscere potwissent (Flatt, Nielsen ; 
 also as early as Oecumenius) ; nor yet : although they knew God, so that it 
 would be contemporaneous with οὐχ . .. . ἐδόξασαν. So Philippi and van 
 Hengel ; also Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. Ὁ. 846. They had attained the 
 knowledge from the revelation of nature (for to this, according to vv. 19, 
 20, we must refer it, and not, with Rickert, to the history in Genesis of the 
 original revelation), but only actu directo, so far as that same sclf-manifesta- 
 tion of God had presented itself objectively to their cognition ; the actus 
 reflecus remained absent (comp. Delitzsch, Ὁ. 347), and with them who 
 keep down the truth ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, ver. 18, the issue was not to the praise of 
 God, ete. ; so that γνόντες is thus previous to the οὐχ. . . . ἐδόξασαν. Paul 
 sets forth the historical emergence of that for which they were inexcusable. 
 They had known God, and yet it happened that they did not praise Him, 
 etc. —ovy ὡς Θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ niyap.| It would have been becoming for them 
 to have rendered to God as such, agreeably to His known nature, praise and 
 thanks ; but they did neither the one nor the other. Regarding ὡς in the 
 sense : according to the measure of His divine quality, comp. on John 1. 14. 
 The praising and thanksgiving exhaust the notion of the adoration, which 
 they should have offered to God. —aawv ἐματ. ἐν τοῖς διαλ. αὐτῶν] but they 
 were frustrated in their thoughts (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 20), so that the concep- 
 tions, ideas, and reflections, which they formed for themselves regarding 
 the Deity, were wholly devoid of any intrinsic value corresponding with the 
 truth. Comp. Eph. iv. 17. The ματαιότης is a specific attribute of heathen- 
 ism. Jer. ii. 5; 2 Kings xvii. 5; Ps. xciv. 11. Comp. also Acts xiv. 15 ; 
 Judith νἱ. 4. -- καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη x.7.A.] forms a climax to the foregoing. Comp. 
 Eph. iv. 18, i. 18. Their heart that had been rendered by the ἐματαιώθησαν 
 unintelligent, incapable of discerning the true and right, became dark, 
 completely deprived of the light of the divine ἀλήθεια that had come to 
 them by the revelation of nature. καρδία, like 32, denotes the whole internal 
 scat of life, the power which embraces all the activity of reason and will 
 within the personal consciousness. Comp. on Eph, i. 18 ; Delitzsch, p. 250. 
 
CHAP. I., 22, 23. 61 
 
 To take ἀσύνετος here in a proleptic sense (see on Matt. xii. 18) is quite inap- 
 propriate, because it destroys the climax. Comp. moreover on ἀσύνετος, 
 Wisd. xi. 15; as also on the entire delineation of Gentile immorality, ver. 
 20 ff. ; Wisd. xiiixv. This passage as a whole, and in its details, pre- 
 sents unmistakable reminiscences of this section of the book of Wisdom.’ 
 Without reason Tholuck argues against this view. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. In a false conceit of wisdom (comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff.) this took 
 place (viz. what has just been announced in ἐματαιώθησαν . . « καρδία), and 
 what a horrible actual result it had !— The construction is independent, no 
 longer hanging on the διότε in ver. 21 (Gléckler, Ewald); the further 
 course of the matter is described. While they said that they were wise (comp. 
 1 Cor. iii. 21), they became foolish. Comp. Jer. x. 24 f. This becoming 
 foolish must be understood as something sel/-incwrred—produced through 
 the conceit of independence—as is required by the description of God’s 
 retribution on them in ver. 24 ; therefore the ‘‘ dirigente Deo,” which Grotius 
 understands along with it in accordance with 1 Cor. i, 21, is here foreign to 
 the connection. The explanation of Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
 others, including Usteri : ‘‘ they have shown, themselves as fools,” is erroneous, 
 because the aorist passive in ver. 21 does not admit of a similar rendering. 
 —For examples of φάσκειν, dictitwre, in the sense of unfounded assertion 
 (Acts xxiv. 9, xxv. 19; Rev. 11. 2), see Raphel, Xenoph. and Kypke. 
 Comp. Dem. Phil. i. 46, iii. 9 ; Herodian, ii. 12, 9. Their pretended 
 wisdom was a μάταιος δοξοσοφία, Plat. Soph. p. 231 B. We may add that 
 this definition is not aimed at the Gentile philosophers, who came much later, 
 and in fact did not do what is declared in ver. 23 (comp. Calvin), but gen- 
 erally at the conceit of wisdom (1 Cor. i. 21), which is necessarily connected 
 with an estrangement from divine truth, and from which therefore idolatry 
 also, with its manifold self-invented shapes, must have proceeded. For 
 heathenism is not the primeval religion, from which man might gradually 
 have risen to the knowledge of the true God, but is, on the contrary, the 
 result of a falling away from the known original revelation of the true 
 God in His works. Instead of the practical recognition and preservation 
 of the truth thus given comes the self-wisdom rendering them foolish, 
 and idolatry in its train. —«al ἤλλαξ. «.7.2.] and they exchanged the maj- 
 esty of the imperishable God for a likeness of an image of a perishable man, 
 etc., i.e. instead of making, as they ought to have done, the glory of the 
 eternal God manifested to them in the revelation of nature—W7) 133, i.e. 
 His glorious perfection (ver. 20)—the object of their adoration, they chose 
 for that purpose what was shaped like an image of ὦ perishable man, etc. 5 
 comp. Ps. cvi. 20; Jer. ii, 11. The ἐν (comp. Ecclus. vii. 18) is instru- 
 mental, as is elsewhere the simple dative (Herod. vii. 152 ; Soph. Niob. fr. 
 400, Dind.) : thereby, that they made and adored such an ὁμοίωμα, and on 
 the other hand rejected the glory of God, which they ought to have wor- 
 shipped. Comp. LXX. Ps. 1.6. ; ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι 
 μόσχου." Itis not mere similarity, but conformity with the object of compari- 
 
 1 See Nitzsch in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1850, 2 On the genitive εἰκόνος comp. also 1 Mace. 
 Ῥ. 387 ; Bleek in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1858, Ὁ. 8401, ἢ]. 48; Rev. ix: 7; and on ὁμοίωμα itself in 
 
 7 
 < 
 
62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 son concerned as agreeing therewith in appearance.'— καὶ rerewv. k. τετραπ. K. 
 épz.| No doubt as Paul, in using ἀνθρώπου, thought of the forms of the 
 Hellenic gods, so in zerevv. «.7.4. he had in his mind the Egyptian worship 
 of animals (Ibis, Apis, serpents).? We may add that, like the previous 
 φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the genitives πετεινῶν x.7.A. are dependent on εἰκόνος, not on 
 ὁμοιώματι (van Hengel), which is less natural and not required by the singu- 
 lar εἰκόνος, that in fact refers to each particular instance in which a man, 
 birds, etc. were copied for purposes of divine adoration by means of statues 
 and other representations. 
 
 Ver. 24. Wherefore (as a penal retribution for their apostasy) God also gave 
 them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. [See Note XIII. p. 78.] καὶ, 
 also, indicates the giving up as a thing corresponding to the guilt, Comp. 
 on Phil. 11. 9. ---ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. τ. x. αὐτ.] contains that, in which they were in- 
 volved, i.e. the moral condition in which they were found when they were 
 given up by God to impurity. Comp. ver. 27 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; Bernhardy, p. 
 209. The instrumental rendering (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Gléckler, and 
 Krehl) is unnecessary, because the immediate literal sense of év is quite suf- 
 ficient, and the former is less suitable as to sense, since it conveys something 
 which is obvious of itself. — παρέδωκεν) expresses the real active giving up 
 on the part of God. The favourite explanation of it by εἴασε, so often resort- 
 ed to since Origen and Chrysostom, is nothing but a rationalizing gloss at 
 variance with the literal meaning. To the Apostle God is the living God, 
 who does not passively permit the retributive consequences of fidelity or of 
 apostasy—thus, as it were, letting them run their course, as an artificer does 
 with his wheel work—but Himself, everywhere active, pervades and effect- 
 ively develops the arrangements which He has made. If then God has so 
 arranged that man by apostasy from Him should fall into moral impurity, 
 and that thus sin shall be punished by sin (and this connection of sin with 
 sin is in accordance both with experience and Scripture, Is. vi.10 ; Job viii. 
 4; Ps. lxix. 28, lxxxi. 13 ; Mark iv. 12), this arrangement can only be car- 
 ried out in reality through the effective action of its originator ; and God 
 Himself must give up the apostates unto impurity, inasmuch as it is by His 
 doing that that moral connection is in point of fact accomplished.* Con- 
 sequently, if the understanding of παρέδωκεν in its strictly proper and posi- 
 tive meaning is quite in keeping with the universal agency of God, in His 
 physical and moral government of the world, without, however, making 
 God appear as the author of sin, which, on the contrary, has its root in the 
 
 the sense of likeness, v. 14, vi. 5, viii. 3; 
 Phil. ii. 7; Ecclus. xxxvili. 28 ; 2 Kings xvi. 
 
 Dougtaeus, Anal. 69, p. 102, Grotius and 
 Wetstein. 
 
 10; Isa. xl. 18; 1 Sam. vi. 5; Plat. Phaedr. 
 p. 250 A; Parm. Ὁ. 182 D. 
 
 1 See also Holsten, z. Hv. des Paul. u. Petr. 
 p. 440; Pfleidererin Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. Ὁ. 
 523 f. 
 
 2 Philo. Leg. ad. Caj. p. 566, 570. For 
 passages from profane authors respecting 
 the folly (at which the $@aprod here also 
 points) of image-worship, see especially 
 
 3Comp. Acts vii. 42; Rom. ix. 19; also 
 2 Thess. ii. 11 f.; and the rabbinical passages 
 quoted by Schoettgen, especially from Pirke 
 Aboth, c. 4: ‘‘Festina ad praeceptum ijeve 
 tanquam ad grave, et fuge transgressionem; 
 praeceptum enim trahit praeceptum ct 
 transgressio transgressionem : quia merces 
 praecepti praeceptum est, et transgressionis 
 transgressio. 
 
CHAP. I., 24. 63 
 
 ἐπιθυμίαι τ. kapd., We must reject as insufficient the privative interpretation * 
 that became current after Augustine and Oecumenius, which Calovius has 
 adopted in part, and Riickert chanel Comp. Philippi, who thinks of the 
 withdrawal of the Divine Spirit and its results, though in the sense of a posi- 
 tive divine infliction of punishment. This withdrawal, through which man 
 is left in the lurch by God, is the immediate negative precursor of the rapé- 
 δωκεν (Eeclus. iv. 19). Reiche thinks that Paul here avails himself, with more 
 or less consciousness of its being erroneous, of the general view of the Jews 
 regarding the origin of the peculiar wickedness of the Gentiles (Ps. ΠΣ 
 18 ; Prov. xxi. 8; Ecclus. iv. 19; Wisd. x. 12, xiii. 1; Acts vii. 42) 5 an 
 that this representation of moral ae avity asa divine ἐπ ετ is to be Ἢ 
 tinguished from the Christian doctrinal system of the Apostle. But how very 
 inconsistent it is with the character of Paul thus consciously to bring forward 
 what is erroneous, and that too with so solemn a repetition (vv. 26, 28) And 
 is it not an arrangement accordant with experience, that apostasy from God 
 is punished by an ever deeper fall into immorality ? Can this arrangement, 
 made as it is by God ‘‘ justo judicio” (Calvin), be carried out otherwise than 
 by God? Analogous are even heathen sayings, such as Aesch. Agam. 764 
 ff., and the heathen idea of the θεοβλάβεια." But just as man, while his 
 fidelity is rewarded by God through growth in virtue, remains withal free 
 and does not become a virtuous machine ; so also he retains his freedom, 
 while God accomplishes the development of His arrangement, in accordance 
 with which gin is born of sin. He gives himself up (Eph. iv. 19), while he 
 is given up by God to that tragic nexus of moral destiny ; and he becomes 
 no machine of sin, but possesses at every moment the capacity of μετάνοια, 
 which the very reaction resulting from the feeling of the most terrible mis- 
 ery of sin—punished through sin—is designed to produce. Therefore, on the 
 one hand, man always remains responsible for his deterioration (ver. 32, ii. 6, 
 iii. 5, vii. 14) ; and, on the other, that punishment of sin, in which the teleo- 
 logical law of the development of evil fulfils itself, includes no contradiction 
 of the holiness of God. For this reason the view of Kéllner—that the Apos- 
 tle’s idea is to be separated from its Jewish and temporal form, and that we 
 must assume as the Christian truth in it, that the apostasy of men from God 
 has brought them into deepest misery, as certainly as the latter is self-inflict- 
 ed—is a superfluous unexegetical evasion, to which Fritzsche also has re- 
 course. — ἀκαθαρσίαν] spurcitia, impurity, and that lustful (comp. Gal. v. 19 ; 
 Eph. iv. 19 ; Col. iii. 5), as is plain from the following context ; not gen- 
 erally : ‘all action and conduct dishonouring the creaturely glory of man” 
 (Hofmann). The τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι may be taken either as the genitive of the 
 purpose : that they might be dishonoured (Riickert, Philippi, van Hengel), 
 
 1 Τῷ is at bottom identical with the per- 
 missive rendering. Therefore Chrysostom 
 not only explains it by εἴασεν, but illustrates 
 the matter by the instance of a general who 
 leaves his soldiers in the battle, and thus 
 deprives them of his aid, and abandons 
 them to the enemy. Theodoret explains 
 
 it: τῆς οἰκείας προμηθείας ἐγύμνωσε, and em- 
 ploys the comparison of an abandoned ves- 
 sel. Theophylact illustrates the παρέδωκεν 
 by the example of a physician who gives 
 up a refractory patient (παραδίδωσιν αὐτὸν 
 τῷ ἐπὶ πλέον νοσεῖν). 
 
 2 Comp. also Ruhnken, ad Vellej. ii. 57, 8. 
 
64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 or as the genitive of more precise definition depending on ἀκαθαρσ. (impurity 
 of the becoming dishonoured, t.e. which consisted therein ; so Fritzsche, Winer, 
 Tholuck, and de Wette). The latter’ is the more probable, partly because 
 the ἀτιμάζεσϑαι «.7.A. already constitutes the impurity itself, and does not 
 merely attend it as a result ; and partly on account of the parallel in ver. 
 28, where ποιεῖν x.7.A. is likewise eperegetical. ἀτιμάζεσϑαι is not however the 
 middle, whereby the αὐτοπαϑές would be expressed, for which there is no 
 empirical usage, but the passive: that their bodies were dishonoured among 
 themselves, mutually. This ἐν ἑαυτοῖς refers to the persons (αὐτῶν, not to be 
 written αὑτῶν), not asserting that the ἀτιμάζεσϑαι takes place on themselves, 
 which is in fact already conveyed by τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν," but rather based on 
 the nature of participation in unchastity, according to which they bring one 
 on the other reciprocally the dishonouring of the body. In this personal reci- 
 procity of those who practise unchastity with each other lies the character- 
 istic abominableness of the dishonouring of the body ; and this point is des- 
 ignated by ἐν ἑαυτοῖς more expressly, because in contrast to non-participating 
 third persons, than it would have been by ἐν aaagaow.* —The vices of un- 
 chastity, which moreover are still here referred to quite generally (it is other- 
 wise in ver. 26 f.), and not specially as unnatural, according to their dis- 
 graceful nature, in whatever forms they may have been practised, are specifi- 
 cally heathen (in fact, even partially belonging to the heathen ecultws), as a 
 consequence of apostasy from the true God (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5). As they 
 again prevail even among Christians, wherever this apostasy spreads through 
 unbelief, they must verify even in Christendom their heathen nature, and, 
 along with the likewise essentially heathen πλεονεξία, pre-eminently exclude 
 from the salvation of the Messiah (Eph. v. 5 f.; Col. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f.). 
 —With ἀτιμάζ. τ. σώμ. compare the opposite, 1 Thess. iv. 4, where τὸ ἑαυτοῦ 
 σκεῦος must be explained of the body as the vessel of the Ego proper. 
 
 Ver. 25. Οἵτενες μετήλλαξαν κ.τ.}.} as those who exchanged, etc. In this de- 
 scription of the character of those who are given up, attached to ver. 24, 
 Paul makes once more apparent the motive which determined God to give 
 them up. The words are a renewed tragic commentary (comp. vv. 22, 238) 
 on the διό, ver. 24. On ὅστις, guippe qui, which brings up the class to which 
 one belongs, and thereby includes the specification of the reason, see Her- 
 mann, ad Soph. Oed. R. 688 ; Matthiae, p. 1073. Hofmann erroneously 
 makes a relative protasis begin with οἵτινες, with which then διὰ τοῦτο x.7.A., 
 ver. 26, would be connected by way of apodosis : them, who exchanged, etc., 
 God has therefore given up. This would not be inconsistent with αὐτούς in 
 ver. 26, which would then be resumptive ; but the very praise of God, in 
 which ver. 25 terminates, and still more the concluding ἀμήν, which can only 
 indicate the end of the sentence (comp. ix. 5, xi. 86 ; Gal. i. 5 ; Eph. iii. 
 
 1See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 280 f. [E. T. semet ipsis. With the reading ἐν αὐτοῖς we 
 
 268]. 
 
 2 Hofmann refers the reading which he 
 follows, ἐν αὐτοῖς, to the σώματα, but ex- 
 plains this: the body of each person in 
 himself ; consequently, as if the expression 
 were ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, and that in the sense in 
 
 should rather render it simply: in order 
 that among them (i.e. in their common inter- 
 course) their bodies should be dishonoured. 
 Such was to be the course of things among 
 them. 
 
 3 Kiihner ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 20. 
 
CHAP. I., 25. 65 
 
 21), ought to have decidedly precluded such a forced intermixture of sen- 
 tences, which is not to be justified by subtleties. — The compound μετήλλ. 
 (exchanged) is more significant than ἤλλαξαν (changed) in ver. 23. — τὴν ἀλήϑ. 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ] to be taken entirely in harmony with the expression τὴν δόξαν τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ in ver. 23; therefore τοῦ Θεοῦ is to be taken as genitive of the subject : 
 the truth of God, the true divine reality,* so as to make it in point of actual 
 meaning, though not in the abstract form of the conception, identical with : 
 “true God” (Luther, and most expositors, including Riickert, de Wette, 
 Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel). It is differently rendered by 
 Wolf, whom Kdllner follows: the truth revealed to the Gentiles by God. 
 Reiche and Mehring (following Pareus, Camerarius, Estius, Seb. Schmid, 
 and Cramer) take it as the true knowledge of God, so that Θεοῦ would be geni- 
 tive of the object. Compare Piscator, Usteri, and Glickler, who understand 
 by it the original consciousness of God. Opposed to these views is the exact 
 parallel in which ver. 25 stands to ver. 23, so that τοῦ Θεοῦ ought not to be 
 taken without necessity as having a different reference in the two verses. 
 τὴν ἀλήϑ. τ. Θεοῦ is explained concretely by τὸν κτίσαντα in the second half of 
 the verse. — ἐν τῷ ψεύδει] with the lie ; ἐν as in ver. 23. By this Paul means, 
 in contrast to τὴν ἀλήϑ. τ. Θεοῦ (but otherwise than in iii. 7), the false 
 gods, which are κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the ψεῦδος in conereto, the negation of the truth 
 of God. Comp. on 1 Cor. viii. 4 f., x. 20. Grotius has aptly said: ‘‘ pro 
 Deo vero sumserunt imaginarios.” ?— καὶ ἐσεβάσϑησαν. . . . κτίσαντα] More 
 precise explanation of the first clause of the verse. — ἐσεβ. k. éAatp.| The 
 former is general (coluerunt), the latter took place through sacrifices, and 
 other definite rites and services; hence Paul designates his own specific 
 service of God in ver. 8 by λατρεύω. σεβάζομαι, in Homer : to be afraid of (Ll. 
 vi. 167, 417), is employed in the later Greek like σέβομαι in the sense to 
 revere, Orph. Arg. 550, Aq. Hos. x. 5. In the N. T. it only occurs here. — 
 τῇ κτίσει] Corresponding with the verb standing next to it, so that the ac- 
 cusative is to be supplied with éceB. See Matthiae, ὃ 428, 2. — παρὰ τ. κτί- 
 σαντα] in the sense of comparison: prae creatore, in which case the context 
 alone decides whether the preference of the one before the other is only 
 relative, or whether it excludes the latter altogether (see on Luke xviii. 14 ; 
 and van Hengel on our passage). The second case is that which occurs 
 here, in accordance both with the nature of the case, seeing that the Gen- 
 tiles did not worship the Creator at all, and with the immediate connection 
 (μετήλλαξαν. . . . ἐν τῷ ψεύδε). The sense therefore substantially amounts 
 to praeterito creatore (Hilary), or relicto creatore (Cyprian), i.e. they honoured. 
 the creature and not the Creator, whom they ought to have honoured. 
 Theophylact says aptly, with reference to the comparative παρά : ἐκ τῆς ovy- 
 κρίσεως τὸ ἔγκλημα ἐπαίρων. So in substance also Beza, Estius, and others, 
 including Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Krehl, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel. The relative interpretation : 
 
 
 
 1 Not ‘the truth, which God Himself 48)" of His δόξα. 
 (Hofmann) ; but that, which God is in true 2 Comp. Is. xliv. 20; Jer. iii. 10, xiii. 25, 
 reality. Thatis just the adequate substance xvi. 19, αἰ. ; Philo, vit. Mos. p. 678 C, 679 A. 
 
66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 more than the Creator (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Ammon, 
 Riickert, and others), is therefore in point of fact erroneous. The contra 
 ereatorem, which Hammond, Koppe, Flatt, Fritzsche, and Mehring find 
 here, may likewise be traced to the sense of comparison,’ but has against it 
 the fact, that in the whole context Paul presents the matter in the light of 
 a μετάλλαξις, of an exchanging the true for the false, not of hostility to the 
 true. From that point of view the Gentiles have worshipped the creature, 
 and not the Creator. Quite parallel is rap’ ἐκεῖνον in Luke, xviii. 14, Lachm. 
 — The doxology : who is praised, })12, not : celebrandus (comp. on Eph. i. 
 3; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Mark xiv. 61), for ever! Amen,—is a natural effusion of 
 deeply-moved piety, called forth by the detestable contrast of the Gentile 
 abominations just described, without any further special design (Koppe : 
 ‘‘ne ipse in majestatem divinam injurius videri possit :)) comp. Tholuck). 
 Vv. 26. 27. Διὰ τοῦτο] Beginning an independent sentence (against Hof- 
 mann, see on ver. 25), refers to the description οἵτινες. . . . 
 tained in ver. 25. The giving up is set forth once more (comp. ver. 24, διό) 
 as the punishment of apostasy, and now indeed with such increasing force 
 of delineation, that out of the category which is kept quite general in ver. 
 24 unnatural sensual abominations are specially adduced. — εἰς πάϑη ἀτιμίας] 
 Genitive of quality.? Parallel to the passions of a disgraceful character is 
 εἰς ἀκαϑαρσίαν in ver. 24; comp. Col. iii. 5; but the stronger expression 
 here selected prepares the way for the following description of a pecul- 
 iarly abominable form of vice. Still the wnnatural element is not implied 
 in πάϑη ἀτιμίας itself (Hofmann: they are a dishonouring, not merely 
 of the body, but of ““ hwmanity’’), since morally dishonouring passions are 
 the agents, not only in the case of unnatural, but also in that of natural 
 unchastity.* — The expressions ϑήλειαι and ἄρσενες, their females and their 
 males, not γυναῖκες and ἄνδρες, are chosen because the predominant point 
 of view is simply that of sex; Reiche thinks: out of contempt, because 
 the words would also be used of beasts; but in fact, such unnatural 
 things are foreign to the very beasts. Besides, the words are used even 
 of the gods (Homer, 71. viii. 7, and frequently). — rv φυσικὴν χρῆσιν) of 
 their sex, not: of the male, which is unsuitable to the vice indicated. 
 Regarding χρῆσις in the sense of sexual use, see Wetstein and Kypke, also 
 Coray, ad Heliodor. Aeg., p. 31.4—That ὁμοίως δὲ καί after the preceding 
 τέ makes the latter an anakoluthon, is commonly assumed, but altogether 
 without foundation, because in τὲ γάρ the τέ does not necessarily require any 
 
 κτίσαντα COn- 
 
 Schoettgen, Hor. in loc.) was the so-called 
 Lesbian vice, λεσβιάζειν (Lucian, D. Mer. 5. 
 
 1See Bernhardy, p. 259; Winer, p. 377 
 [E. T. 404]; and the passages from Plato in 
 
 Ast. 1.65. III. p. 28. 
 
 2 Comp. on πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in ver. 4, and 
 Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 21. 
 
 3 Respecting τὲ yap, namgue, for... 
 indeed (vii. 7 ; 2 Cor. x. 8), see Hermann, σα 
 Soph. Trach. 1015; Hartung, I. p. 115; Klotz, 
 ad Devar. p. 749 ff. 
 
 4 How very prevalent among the Gentiles 
 (it was found also among the Jews, see 
 
 1), women with women abusing their sex 
 (tribades, in Tertullian jvrictrices), see Sal- 
 masius, foen. Trapez. Ὁ. 143 f., 152 f. ; and the 
 commentators on Ael. V. ZZ. iii. 19. Comp. 
 the ἑταιρίστριαι in Plat. Symp. Ὁ. 191 EH, and 
 the ἀσέλγεια τριβακή in Luc. Amor. 28; and 
 see Ruhnken. ad Tim. p. 124, and generally 
 Rosenbaum, Gesch. d. Lustseucheim Alterth. 
 ed. 2, 1845. 
 
CHAP. I., 28. 67 
 
 correlative. See Klotz 1.5. If it were put correlatively, we should have 
 in ὁμοίως δὲ καί the other corresponding member really present (as is actually 
 the case, e.g. in Plat. Symp. p. 186 E), which however would in that case 
 inappropriately stand out with greater emphasis and weight than the former.’ 
 The reading ré (instead of dé) in Elz., as well as the entire omission of the 
 particle (C, min., Origen, Jerome), is a too hasty emendation. 
 Stronger than the simple form.? Such a state is the πυροῦσϑαι in 1 Cor. 
 vii. 9. Moreover, Paul represents here not the heat that precedes the act of 
 unchastity, but that which is kindled in the act itself (κατεργαζόμενοι . . 
 
 arrohauBdvovtec). — ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι] whilst they, males on males, performed the 
 (known, from ver. 26) wnseemliness. On the emphatic juxtaposition of dpe. 
 ἐν ἄρσ. comp. generally Lobeck, ad Aj. 522, and in particular Porphyr. de 
 abstin. iv. 20 ; and Wetstein in loc. On κατεργάζεσϑαι, which is used both of 
 evil (ii. 9, vii. 9, xv. 17 1.) and good (v. 8, xv. 18; Phil. ii. 12), but which, 
 as distinguished from ἐργάζεσϑαι, always expresses the bringing to pass, the 
 accomplishment, comp. especially ii. 9, and van Hengel thereon ; 1 Cor. v. 
 3; 2 Cor. vii. 10, and the critical remarks thereon. On ἀσχημ. see Gen. 
 χχχίν. 7. --- τὴν ἀντιμισϑίαν «.7.A.] The aberration, which Paul means, see in 
 vy. 21-23, 28 ; it is the aberration from God to idols, not that implied in the 
 sexual perversion of the divine order (Hofmann), which perversion, on the con- 
 trary, is brought by διό in ver. 24, and by διά τοῦτο in ver. 26, under the 
 point of view of penal retribution for the πλάνη. By the recompense for the 
 πλάνη Paul does not at all mean that the men ‘‘ have that done to them by 
 their fellows, which they themselves do to theirs” (Hofmann), but rather, in har- 
 mony with the connection of cause and effect, the abominable wnnatural 
 lusts just described, to which God has given up the Gentiles, and thereby, 
 in recompensing godlessness through such wicked excesses (ver. 18), re- 
 vealed His ὀργή. Therefore also ἣν ἔδει is added, namely, in accordance 
 with the necessity of the holy divine order. See vv. 24, 26, 28. On ἀντι- 
 μισϑία comp. 2 Cor. vi. 13 ; Clem. Cor. Il. 1. It occurs neither in Greek 
 authors, who have the adjective ἀντίμισϑος (Aesch. Suppl. 273), nor in the 
 LXX. or Apocrypha. —év ἑαυτοῖς] on themselves mutually (ἐν ἀλλήλοις), as in 
 ver. 24. It enhances the sadness of the description. For a number of pas- 
 sages attesting the prevalence of unchastity between man and man, espe- 
 cially of paederastia among the Gentiles, particularly the Greeks (it was for- 
 bidden to the Jews in Lev. xviii. 22), see Becker, Charikl. I. p. 346 ff. ; 
 Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29; Bernhardy, Griech. Lit. ed. 2, p. 50 ff. 
 Moreover, Bengel aptly observes regarding the whole of this unreserved ex- 
 posure of Gentile unchastity : ‘‘ In peccatis arguendis saepe scapha debet 
 
 
 
 ἐξεκαύϑησαν] 
 
 1 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Polit. p. 270 D, Rep. 
 p. 867 C; Dissen. ad Pind. Ol. viii. 56; 
 Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. p. 199. Hof- 
 mann thinks that with ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ x.7.A. 
 the argument ascends fo the greater danger 
 Sor the continuance of the human race. But 
 that is a purely imported thought. The 
 Apostle’s point of view isthe moral ἀτιμία, 
 which, in the case of female depravity, 
 
 comes out most glaringly. And therefore 
 Paul, in order to cast the most tragic light 
 possible on these conditions, puts the brief 
 delineation of female conduct in the fore- 
 ground, in order then symmetrically to 
 subjoin, with ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ, the male vice as 
 the second part of the filthy category. 
 
 2 Comp. Alciphr. iii. 67; ἐξεκαύθην els ἔρωτα. 
 
08 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 scapha dici. Pudorem praeposterum ii fere postulant, qui pudicitia 
 carent. . . . Gravitas et ardor stili judicialis proprietate verborum non 
 violat verecundiam, ” Observe, nevertheless, how the Apostle delineates 
 the female dishonour in less concrete traits than the male. He touches the 
 matter in ver. 26 briefly and clearly enough, but with delicate avoidance of 
 detailed description. 
 
 Ver. 28. From the previous exclusive description of the sensual vice of 
 the Gentiles, Paul now proceeds to a summary enumeration of yet other 
 vices to which they had been given up by God in punishment of their apos- 
 tasy. —xa¥ac]| is not causal, but guemadmodum. The giving them up was 
 something corresponding to their disdainful rejection of the knowledge of 
 God, proportionate as punishment. — οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν] they deem God not worth 
 (1 Thess. 11. 4) ; ob γὰρ ἀγνοίας, ἀλλὰ μελέτης εἶναι φησὶ τὰ τολμήματα, Chrysos- 
 tom. — ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει] Their γνῶναι τὸν Θεόν, derived from the revelation 
 of nature (ver. 21), ought to have been brought by cultivation to an ἐπιγνῶ- 
 vat, that is, to a penetrating and living knowledge of God (see on Eph. i. 
 17 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12) ; thus they would have attained to the having God ἐν 
 ἐπιγνώσει ; but they would not, and so became τὰ ἔϑνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν, 
 1 Thess. iv. 5; Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; Acts xvii. 30. On ἔχε ἐν with 
 an abstract noun, which represents the object as appropriated in the action, 
 so that it is possessed in the latter (here in ἐπιγνῶναι), comp. Locella, ad Xen. 
 Eph. p. 255. Similar is ἐν ὀργῇ ἔχειν, and the like, Kriiger on Thucyd. ii. 8, 
 Ὁ, -- εἰς ἀδόκ. νοῦν] An ingenious paronomasia with οὐκ édoxiu., to set forth 
 the more prominently the recompense, to which the emphatically repeated ὁ 
 Θεός also contributes : as they did not esteem God worthy, etc., God gave 
 them up to an unworthy, reprobate νοῦς (the collective power of the mind’s 
 action in theoretic and moral cognition.)’ The rendering judicii expers 
 (Beza, Gléckler and others) is opposed to the genius of the language, even 
 as Bengel turns it, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 280, defines it. The ἀδόκιμον of 
 the νοῦς is its blameworthiness according to an objective moral standard, but 
 does not express the mode of thinking which they themselves must condemn 
 among one another (Th. Schott ; comp. Hofmann), which is neither to be 
 taken by anticipation from ver. 32, nor extracted from jj. — ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ 
 καϑήκοντα] to do what is not becoming, what is not moral. Comp. 3 Macc. iv. 16. 
 The Stoical distinction between καϑῆκον and κατόρϑωμα Paul has not thought 
 of (as Vitringa conceives). The infinitive is epexegetical : so that they do. 
 The participle with μή indicates the genus of that which is not seemly (Baeum- 
 lein, Partik. p. 296) ; τὰ ov καϑέήκοντα (comp. Eph. v. 4), would be the wn- 
 seemly. The negative expression is correlate to the ἀδόκιμος νοῦς. 
 
 Vv. 29-31. Πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ] a more precise definition of ποιεῖν 
 τὰ μὴ καϑήκ. : as those who are full of every unrighteousness (ver. 18). This is 
 the general statement, and all the points subsequently introduced are its 
 several species, so that μεστοὺς φϑόνου and then ψιϑυριστὰς «.7.2. are appositions 
 
 1 Comp. on vii. 23, and Kluge in the Jahrb. not determine the ethical conduct in accord- 
 f. D. Th. 1871, p. 829. The νοῦς is ἀδόκιμος ance withit. 
 when, not receptive for divine truth, it does 
 
CHAP, τὴν 9. οἷς 69 
 
 to πεπληρ. π. adix. Similar catalogues of sins are 2 Cor. xii. 30; Gal. v. 19 
 ff.; Eph. v. 3f.; 1 Tim. i. 9 f.; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff. — πονηρίᾳ: . κακίᾳ] ma- 
 lignity (malice), comp. Eph. iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Tit. {Π|..8΄. . vileness 
 (meanness), the latter, in Aristotle and other writers, opposed to ἀρετή, and 
 translated in Cicero, Tusc. iv. 15, 34, by vitiositas. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 8. — 
 φόνου] Conceived here as the thought which has filled the man, the μερμηρίζειν 
 φόνον, Homer, Od. xix. 2, comp. Acts ix. 1. On the paronomasia with 
 φϑόνου comp. Gal. v. 21. The latter is just the σημεῖον φύσεως παντάπασι 
 πονηρᾶς, Dem, 499, 21. — κακοηϑείας] malicious disposition, whose peculiarity 
 it is ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ὑπολαμβάνειν τὰ πάντα (Aristotle, Fhet. ii. 18). As the con- 
 text requires a special vice, we may not adopt, with Erasmus, Calvin, and 
 Homberg, the general signification perversitas, corruptio morum (Xen. Cyn. 
 xiii. 16 ; Dem. 542, 11; Plat. Rep. p. 348 D).1— ψεϑυρ. whisperers, tale- 
 bearers, consequently secret slanderers (Dem. 1358, 6) ; but κατάλαλοι, calum- 
 niators, detractors generally, not precisely open ones (Theophylact, Kéllner, de 
 Wette, and others). Comp. ψιϑυρισμούς te καὶ καταλαλιάς, Clem. Cor. i. 35. 
 The construction of καταλάλους as an adjective with y.3vp (Hofmann), must be 
 rejected, because none of the other elements has an adjectival definition an- 
 nexed to it, and because καταλάλ. would not add to the notion of ψιϑυρ. any- 
 thing characteristic in the way of more precise definition. ψιϑυρ would be 
 better fitted to form a limiting definition of καταλ. But in 2 Cor. xii. 20 
 also, both ideas stand independently side by side. — ϑεοστυγεῖς] hated by 
 God, Deo odibiles (Vulgate). This passive rendering of the word which be- 
 longs especially to the tragedians (Pollux, i. 21), so that it is equivalent to 
 Θεῷ ἐχϑαιρόμενος (comp. Soph. Aj. 458), is clearly attested by the wsus 
 loquendi as the only correct one.? Since no passage whatever supports the 
 active signification, and since even Suidas and Oecumenius clearly betray 
 that they knew the active meaning adopted by them to be a deviation from 
 the usage of the ancient writers,’ we must reject, with Koppe, Riickert, 
 Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hofmann, the in- 
 terpretation, Dei osores, that has been preferred by the majority since the 
 time of Theodoret.* Even the analogous forms that have been appealed to, 
 ϑεομισῆς, βροτοστυγῆς (Aesch. Choeph. 51, Prom. 799), are to be taken as 
 
 1 See regarding the word generally Hom- 
 berg, Parerg. Ὁ. 196 ; Kypke, 11. Ὁ. 155 f. 
 
 2See Eurip. JVroad. 1213, Cycl. 395, 598, 
 Neophr. ap. Stob. sevm. 20, p. 172. Comp. 
 θεοστύγητος in Aesch. Choeph. 635, Fritzsche 
 in loc., and Wetstein. 
 
 3 Suidas says: Θεοστυγεῖς θεομίσητοι, οἱ ὑπὸ 
 Θεοῦ μισούμενοι καὶ οἱ Θεὸν μισοῦντες: παρὰ δὲ 
 τῷ ἀποστόλῳ θεοστυγεῖς οὐχὶ οἱ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισοῦ- 
 μενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μισοῦντες τὸν Θεόν. Oecume- 
 nius: Θεοστυγεῖς δὲ οὐ τοὺς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισουμέ- 
 νους, οὐ γὰρ αὐτῷ τοῦτο δεῖξαι πρόκειται νῦν, 
 ἀλλὰ τοὺς μισοῦντας Θεόν. These negative 
 definitions, which both give, manifestly 
 point to the use of the word in other 
 
 authors, from which Paul here departs. It ° 
 
 is doubtful whether Clement, Cor. I. 35, 
 
 where thereis an echo of our passage, had 
 in view the active or the passive sense of 
 θεοστυγεῖς. He uses indeed the evidently 
 active θεοστυγία, but adds at the close of 
 the list of sins: ταῦτα οἱ πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ 
 τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν. Chrysostom does not 
 express his opinion regarding the word. 
 
 4 The Dei osores was taken to refer to the 
 heathen vice of wrath against the gods con- 
 ceived as possessing human passions. See 
 Grotius and Reiche. Others have under- 
 stood it variously. Tholuck thinks of ac- 
 cusers of providence,.Promethean characters; 
 Ewald, of dlasphemers of God; Calvin, of 
 those who have a horror of God on account 
 of His righteousness. Thus there is intro- 
 duced into the general expression what the 
 
20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 passives, and therefore testify against the active interpretation.’ Comp. 
 ϑεοβλαβής, stricken of God, Herod. viii. 137, al. In particular, ϑεομισής is 
 quite the same as ϑεοστυγῆς the opposite of ϑεοφιλής, beloved of God.? The 
 accentuation ϑεοστύγης, approved of even by Grotius and Beza, to distinguish 
 it from the passive ϑεοστυγής, is nothing but an ancient (Suidas) unsupported 
 fiction.* _— God-hating is expressed by μισόϑεος, Lucian, Tim. 35, Aesch. Ag. 
 1090 ; comp. φιλόϑεος, God-loving. The adoption, nevertheless, of the active 
 sense was occasioned by the consideration : ‘‘ut in passivo positum dicatur, 
 nulla est ratio, quum P. hic homines ex vitiis evidentibus reos faciat,” Cal- 
 vin ; but even granting a certain unsuitableness in the passive sense, still 
 we should not be justified in giving an explanation contrary to the usus 
 loquendi ; we should be obliged to abide by the view that Paul had mixed 
 up a less suitable term among the others. But this objection is diminished, 
 if we take ϑεοστ., in accordance with the idea of divine holiness, as a char- 
 acteristic designation of infamous evil-doers in general. So Fritzsche, and 
 also Philippi.* And it vanishes altogether, if, leaving the word in its strict 
 signification, hated of God, we recognize in it a summary judgment of moral 
 indignation respecting all the preceding particulars ; so that, looking back on 
 these, it forms a resting point in the disgraceful catalogue, the continuation 
 of which is then carried on by ὑβριστὰς x.7.A. According to Hofmann, 
 ϑεοστυγ. is an adjective qualifying ὑβριστάς. But we do not see why precisely 
 this single point " in the entire catalogue, insolence (the notion of which is 
 not to be arbitrarily heightened, so as to make it denote ‘‘the man-despiser 
 who treads upon his fellows”), among so many particulars, some of them even 
 worse, should be accompanied by an epithet, and one, too, of so extreme 
 severity. — The continuation begins with a threefold description of se/f-eral- 
 tation, and that in a descending climax. Regarding the distinction between 
 ὑβρισταί, the insolent (qui prae superbia non solum contemnunt alios, sed 
 etiam contumeliose tractant, comp. 1 Tim. i. 13), ὑπερήφανοι, the proud (who, 
 proud of real or imaginary advantages, despise others), and ἀλαζόνες (boast- 
 ers, swaggerers, without exactly intending to despise or insult others with 
 their vainglory), see Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 73 1.5 If ὑπερηφ. be taken 
 as adjective with the latter (Hofmann), then the vice, which is invariably and 
 intrinsically immoral,’ would be limited merely to a particular mode of it. 
 
 context gives no hint of. This applies also 
 to Luther’s gloss: ‘‘the real picureans, 
 who live asif there were no God.” 
 
 1 Evenin Clem. Hom. i. 12, there is nothing 
 whatever in the connection opposed to the 
 passive rendering of θεοστυγεῖς. 
 
 2See Plat. Rep. p. 612 E, Huth. p. 8 A; 
 Dem. 1486, ult. ; Arist. Ran. 443. Comp. 
 θεῷ μισητοί, Wisd. xiv. 9; and, as regards 
 the idea, the Homeric ὅς κε θεοῖσιν ἀπέχθηται 
 μακάρεσσιν, Od. κ. 74. . 
 
 3 See Buttmann, II. p. 371, Winer, p. 53 [E. 
 T. 53]. 
 
 4Comp. Plat. Zegg. viii. p. 838 B: θεο- 
 
 “lo... . καὶ αἰσχρῶν αἴσχιστα, 
 
 5 For neither καταλάλ. nor ὑπερηῷ. are to 
 be taken as adjectives. See on those 
 words. Hofmann seems to have adopted 
 such a view, merely in order to gain anal- 
 ogies in the text for his inappropriate treat- 
 ment of the objectionable θεοστυγεῖς as an 
 adjective. 
 
 ὁ Comp. Grotius and Wetstein ; on ἀλας, 
 especially Ruhnk. ad. Tim. p. 28, Ast, ad. 
 Theophr. Char. 28. 
 
 7 See Xen. Mem. i. 7, 1 ff., where ἀλαζονεία 
 is the antithesis of ἀρετή. It belongs to 
 the category of the ψεύδεσθαι, Aesch. adv. 
 Ctesiph. 99; Plat. Lys. p. 218 Ὁ. Compare 
 also 2 Tim. 111. 2; Clem. Cor. I. (35, 
 
CHAP. 1., 32. 71 
 
 — ἐφευρ. κακῶν] devisers (Anacr. xli. 8) of evil things, quite general ; not to 
 be limited to things of lwawry, with Grotius ; nor, with Hofmann, to evils 
 which they desire to do to others.'— dovvérove| irrational, unreflecting, who, 
 in what they do and leave undone, are not determined by the σύνεσις, by 
 morally intelligent insight. Luther rightly says: ‘‘Mr. Unreason going 
 rashly to work [Hans Unvernunft, mit dem Kopfe hindurch].” So also 
 Eccles. xv. 7. The rendering devoid of conscience (according to Suidas) de- 
 viates from the proper signification of the word. — ἀσυνϑέτους] makes a par- 
 onomasia with the foregoing, and means, not wnsociable (Castalio, Tittmann, 
 Ewald, comp. Hofmann), for which there is no warrant of usage, but cove- 
 nant-breakers.2 On ἀστόργ. (without the natural affection of love) and ἀνελεῆμ 
 (unmerciful), see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69.— The succession of the accumu- 
 lated particulars is not arranged according to a systematic scheme, and the 
 construction of such a scheme leads to arbitrary definition of the import of 
 individual points ; but still their distribution is so far in accordance with 
 approximate categories, that there are presented :— 1st, The general 
 heathen vices, πεπληρωμένους . . . . κακίᾳ ; 2nd, dispositions inimical to 
 others, μεστοὺς . . . . κακοηϑείας, and calumniatory speeches, ψιϑυρ., καταλάλ.. ; 
 both series concluding with the general θεοστυγεῖς ; then, drd, The arrogant 
 character, ὑβριστὰς... . ἀλαζόνας ; and finally, 4th, A series of negative 
 particulars (all with @ privative), but headed by the positive, general ἐφευρ. 
 κακῶν. This negative series portrays the want of dutiful affection in family 
 life (γον. ἀπειϑ.), of intelligence (ἀσυνέτ.), fidelity (aovvd.), and love, 
 (ἀστόργ-.. ave2..), consequently the want of every principle on which moral 
 action is based. [See Note XIV. p. 78.] 
 
 Ver. 32. Oirwec] quippe qui, of such a character, that they, cannot be the 
 specification of a reason, as in ver. 25, and cannot consequently be intended 
 to repeat once more the laying of the blame on themselves, since ver. 32 
 merely continues the description of the wickedness. It rather serves to 
 introduce the awful completion of this description of vice; and that in 
 such a way, that the Gentile immorality is brought clearly to light as an 
 opposition to knowledge and conscience, and is thereby at the last very evi- 
 dently shown to be wholly inexcusable (comp. 11]. 1). --- τὸ δικαίωμα τ. Θεοῦ] 
 i.e. that which God as Lawgiver and Judge has ordained ; what He has deter- 
 mined, and demands, as right.* Paul means the natural law of the moral 
 consciousness (ii. 15), which determines : ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες K.T.A. 
 This ὅτι «.7.A. therefore is not to be treated as a parenthesis. — ἐπεγνόντες] 
 although they have discerned (comp. on ver. 28), not merely γνόντες ; but so ἡ 
 much the greater is the guilt. — ϑανάτου] What in the view of the heathen 
 was conceived of as the state of punishment in Hades (comp. Philippi and 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 277), which was incurred through vice and crime, Paul 
 designates, in accordance with the truth involved in it (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 
 330 D), from his standpoint as ϑάνατος, and by this he means eternal death 
 
 1 Comp. 2 Mace. vii. 21, and the passages also Dem. 388, 6. 
 from Philo in Loesner; also Tacit. Ann. iy. 3Comp. Kriiger on Zhuc. i. 41, 1; and 
 11, and Virg. Aen. ii. 161. see on Vv. 16. 
 
 2 Jer. iii. 8,10 f.; Suidas, Hesychius ; see 
 
72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (comp. 2 Thess. i. 8) ; not temporal (Bengel, van Hengel, Mehring) ; or 
 execution (Grotius, Hofmann) ; also not indefinitely severe punishments,’ the 
 misery of sin, and so forth (so even Fritzsche and de Wette). — συνευδοκ. τοῖς 
 πράσσ.] they are consenting with them that do them (comp. Luke xi. 48 ; Acts 
 viii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 12; 1 Macc. i. 60; 2 Macc. xi. 24. They not only do 
 those things, but are also in their moral judgment (so wholly antagonistic to 
 conscience has the latter become in the abandonment unto which God has 
 decreed them, ver. 28) in agreement with others who so act. Bengel well 
 remarks : ‘‘ pejus est συνευδοκεῖν ; nam qui malum patrat, sua sibi cupiditate 
 abducitur,” etc., and how sharply are we otherwise ourselves accustomed to 
 see and judge the mote in the eye of another! (Matt. vii. 3). This cli- 
 max’ to the description of immorality, moreover, is neither to be referred 
 with Grotius and Baumgarten-Crusius to the philosophers, who approved of 
 several vices (paederastia, revenge, etc.) or regarded them as adiaphora ; 
 nor with Heumann and Ewald to the magistrates, who left many crimes 
 unpunished and even furthered them by their own example ; but, in har- 
 mony with the quite general delineation of Gentile depravity, to be taken 
 as a general feature marking the latter, which is thus laid bare in the deep- 
 est slough of moral perversity. — The πράσσοντες and πράσσουσι are more com- 
 prehensive than the simple ποιοῦσιν (do), designating the pursuit of these 
 immoralities as the aim of their δου νιν. ὃ 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EprtTor. 
 
 I. Ver. 1. Παῦλος. 
 
 The view of the origin of the name Paul advocated by Meyer in his Introduc- 
 ‘tion to the Epistle, § 1, and in his notes on Acts xiii. 9—that it was received 
 on occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus—is also given by Olshausen, 
 Ewald, and some others, but it is rejected by most writers of recent times, and 
 by Weiss in his edition of Meyer's work. Weiss holds that it is rendered 
 improbable by the fact that the name is mentioned in the Acts three verses 
 earlier than the statement of the conversion of the proconsul. It may be 
 questioned whether this argument can be regarded as having, in itself, special 
 or decisive force. But, when the manner of introducing the new name into 
 the narrative is considered, as related both to the preceding and following con- 
 text, it will be observed that there is nothing, except what may easily be a mere 
 accidental juxtaposition of words to favor the derivation suggested ; while, on the 
 other hand, there is, in addition to the improbability that the Apostle would 
 have adopted a name from one of his converts, a noticeable absence of any such 
 indication that he did thus adopt it, as might naturally be expected if the his- 
 torian had intended to convey this idea. It seems better, therefore, to hold 
 
 that the Apostle had two names : one connected with his Hebrew origin, and 
 the other with his Roman citizenship. 
 
 1Melanchthon says well against this 2 The climax lies necessarily in ἀλλὰ Kat 
 view : ‘“‘P. non loquitur de politica guber- (in opposition to Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 6). 
 natione, quae tantum externa facta punit : 3 See on John iii. 20. Comp. Rom. ii. 3, 
 
 verum de judicio proprio in cujusque con- vii. 15, xiii. 4 ; Dem. de cor. 62: τί προσῆκον 
 scientia intuente Deum.” ἣν ἑλέσθαι πράττειν κ. ποιεῖν. 
 
NOTES. 16) 
 
 II. δοῦλος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
 
 The word δοῦλος involves two ideas—that of belonging to a master, and that 
 of service as a slave. As connected with the latter idea, the δοῦλος is in a 
 δουλείᾳ, which answers to our conception of slavery ; as connected with the 
 former, though he may, indeed, be in this condition, yet he also may not be. 
 When speaking of Christian disciples, Paul always uses the word in the former 
 sense. To his view, the believer, so far as his work and life are concerned, 
 passes at his conversion out of the state of δουλεία into that of ἐλευθερία. The 
 only slavery is that of sin. The service of Christ is perfect freedom. Whether 
 the word is here used as referring to official position or with a more general 
 meaning, cannot be determined with absolute certainty. As we find it, how- 
 ever, when employed in connection with the names of individual persons, 
 always applied to those who had some special work as teachers or ministers, 
 and as in most of the places where it is thus applied it occurs in the opening 
 salutations of the Apostolic letters, it seems probable that it carries with it the 
 official reference. Yet this reference must be regarded as quite general (as 
 Meyer says), and the idea of the word—as when used of the private Christian 
 —is that of wholly belonging to Chriss. 
 
 TI. Ver. 3. περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 The following points must be regarded as established by the manifest 
 parallelism of the clauses: (a) that two things are declared respecting the Son, 
 one on the σώρξ side of his nature, and the other on the πνεῦμα side ; the πνεῦμα 
 being, thus, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son’s own spirit, and dy. being a 
 characteristic or descriptive genitive ; (b) that the former of these two things 
 is his descent from David and birth in the line of David’s family, while the lat- 
 ter is designated by ὁρισθέντος---δυνάμει. That σάρξ, as used in the former state- 
 ment, does not, in itself, exclude the idea of a descent from David so far as the 
 human πνεῦμα is concerned, is evidenced by the common representation, in the 
 Pauline Epistles (as well as the other N. T. writings), of Jesus as a complete 
 man, and by the fact that there is nothing in the contrast of this particular 
 sentence which necessarily contradicts the general representation. That there 
 is nothing of this character is clear, because the contrasted πνεῦμα here may 
 refer to the divine nature in Christ as distinguished from his human nature ; 
 and if, on the other hand, it is interpreted as referring to his human spirit, the 
 statement of the clause must be understood as made with reference to it,—and 
 as declaring what was true of it,—only after the resurrection. It must be 
 admitted, however, that the phrase ‘‘ according to the flesh’’ may be employed 
 here, as often in the case of similar expressions in common speech, to call 
 attention to the physical origin, without making prominent—though, indeed, 
 it does not deny—the human-spiritual descent ; and thus that the mere use of 
 this phrase cannot properly be considered as decisive proof that the human 
 nature is contrasted with the divine, and that πνεῦμα must refer to the divine 
 nature, 
 
 The fact, however, that the contrast is thus filled out to greater fulness, 
 and its introduction is more satisfactorily accounted for ; that the expression 
 πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is not only a peculiar one, which would not be expected when 
 speaking of men, but one haying a near affinity to πνεῦμα ἅγιον, the name given to 
 the Divine Spirit ; and that Paul elsewhere exalts Christ above all other beings 
 
74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 except God, or even gives him Divine exaltation, must be regarded as strongly 
 pointing to the conclusion that something more is intended by the word than 
 the mere ‘‘éow ἄνθρωπος, which receives the communication of the divine,” 
 and that to the writer’s mind there was in Christ a peculiar divine element of 
 nature, by virtue of and in accordance with which he was constituted Son of 
 God with power by his resurrection. 
 
 In respect to ὁρισθέντος, Meyer has satisfactorily shown that it is equivalent 
 to qui constitulus est, The verb carries with it the idea of marking as bya 
 boundary, and so, when connected with the matter of office, position, etc., of 
 constituting, appointing, in which sense it is used in Acts x. 42, xvii. 31. It is 
 -evident, however, that the Apostle does not mean to affirm that Christ was 
 constituted Son of God, in connection with his resurrection, in any such sense 
 as would involve the declaration that he was not Son of God before this. 
 Such a declaration would be clearly opposed to the Pauline doctrine, as 
 exhibited in all his Epistles. Moreover, the constituting did not consist sim- 
 ply in a demonstrating or proving him to be Son of God to the view of men. 
 This idea is neither presented in the participle itself, nor in any other words 
 of the sentence. That the writer, however, in sucha statement, would not 
 fail to set forth the precise sense in which he designed to use the word, is 
 altogether probable. If we connect ἐν δυνάμει with υἱοῦ Θεοῦ we have such an 
 explanatory phrase which meets the demands of the case and accords with 
 New Testament teaching. Otherwise there is none. We may regard this as 
 the true construction, therefore, rather than that which is favored by Meyer 
 (with whom de Wette, Godet, Alford, Gifford, Shedd, and others agree), 
 although the possibility of the latter must undoubtedly be admitted. It was by 
 the resurrection that Christ was made Son of God with power, as he had not 
 been in his earthly condition and as born of the seed of David. Weiss ed. 
 Mey. agrees with this view. 
 
 IV. Ver. 5. χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν. 
 
 The explanation of these words is to be sought, (a) in connection with such 
 passages as Rom. xii. 6-8; Eph. iii. 7-12; Gal. 11. 9; Rom. xii. 3; xv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 
 10. From these passages it is evident, that, in addition to his conception of di- 
 vine grace as bestowed upon all believers, and as lying at the basis of their 
 Christian life, Paul had the thought of a special impartation of this grace to 
 individual men, for the purpose of fitting them for various offices and duties. 
 In his own case, it had been given in such measure and manner as to qualify 
 him to be a preacher of the Gospel, an apostle, a missionary to the Gen- 
 tiles rather than the Jews, a founder of churches in regions into which others 
 had not previously entered. It is also to be sought, (b) in connection with 
 passages such as Gal. iv. 2, in which aword of amore specific character is 
 added by καί to one that is more general, the design of the addition being to 
 point the reader to that particular application of the general word which is, 
 at the time, in the writer’s mind. The form of expression in such cases is not 
 precisely a hendiadys (as if in this verse, e.g. the words were equivalent to 
 χάριν ἀποστολῆς ; but the latter word is nevertheless explanatory, and carries 
 with it the principal thought. As the writer says of the heir of an estate in 
 Gal. iv. 2, that, in his minority, he is under guardians (ἐπιτρόπους, the general — 
 word), and [i.e.to mark more particularly the relation tothe point in hand] 
 
NOTES. ie 
 
 guardians in the matter of property (οἰκονόμους). So here he declares of him- 
 self, that he had, through Jesus Christ, received grace, and, specially, the gift of 
 and qualification for the apostolic office. The striking similarity in the main 
 thought of this verse and that of xv. 15, 16 can scarcely fail to be noticed as 
 confirming this view of the meaning here, It is this particular and peculiar 
 gift of grace, on which the Apostle founds his claim to address and admonish 
 the Gentile churches. 
 V. Ver. 5. εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως. 
 
 That Meyer is correct in his explanation of these words, as against the view 
 of Calvin, Hofmann, Godet, and others, including Weiss ed. Mey., who regard 
 πίστεως as gen. appos., obedience which consists in faith, and that of Sanday, Shedd, 
 and others, who hold it to be a gen. subj. obedience which springs from faith, is 
 proved by the fact that in all other cases, where ὑπακοῇ is used ina similar way, 
 the gen., whether denoting a person or thing, is objective, and also by the 
 fact that where a kindred expression is employed having the kindred verb 
 ὑπακούειν, the object and not the source, of the obedience is referred to. Philippi, 
 de Wette, Alford, Gifford, Olshausen, Schaff, Beet, and others agree with Meyer, 
 Godet and Weiss claim that faith is never in N. T. conceived of objectively 
 as a power, and hence that Meyer’s view has no foundation. But this claim 
 can hardly be substantiated, in view of Acts vi. 7 ; Gal. i. 23 (cf. Gal. 111. 2, 5; 
 2 Tim. iv. 7). The correctness of Meyer’s opinion, that πίστις here means 
 subjective faith, and not doctrina fidei or the gospel, is admitted by the larger 
 part of the best modern commentators. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether 
 faith is ever used in N. T. as having the sense of the faith, i.e. the system of 
 Christian doctrine, and certain that it does not ordinarily have this meaning. 
 The probability against this sense of the word is, therefore, exceedingly 
 strong in this and all similar cases. 
 
 VI. Ver. 8. πρῶτον μέν. 
 
 The second point of the introductory passage, which is indicated by his use 
 of πρῶτον as in the writer’s mind, is his desire to visit the readers. He is led, 
 however, in the progress of his sentences, to bring out this desire in a gram- 
 matical subordination to the expression of his thankfulness for the widespread 
 knowledge of their Christian life, and, thus, to abandon his original design of 
 introducing it by a δεύτερον or ἔπειτα. The presentation, in such ἃ grammat 
 ically subordinate way, of thoughts which are logically co-ordinate with others 
 already expressed, belongs to the epistolary style as distinguished from that of 
 a formal treatise, and is especially characteristic of the style of the Pauline 
 letters. 
 
 VII. Ver. 11. εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς. 
 
 This verb is found again in xvi. 25 ;—at the beginning, thus, and the end 
 of the letter. It indicates what the Apostle hoped might be the result of a per- 
 sonal visit to the readers, if he should be permitted to make such a visit, and 
 also what he thought of as the great blessing which God was able to bestow 
 upon them. As this letter was apparently written in order that it might bea 
 kind of representative of himself, until the hoped-for visit should be accom- 
 plished, we can scarcely doubt that in the idea of this verb is to be found 
 the final purpose of his writing. However fully the epistle has the doctrinal 
 
76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 character, it was designed to accomplish a practical result—namely, to estab- 
 lish and strengthen the Roman believers in the Christian life. This, and not 
 the mere knowledge of true doctrine, was what he desired as the fruit of his 
 labors (ver. 13), and by reason of this he expected to be encouraged when he 
 saw the evidence of their faith (ver. 12), as, at the same time, he trusted that 
 they would be encouraged by the manifestation of his own. 
 
 VIII. Ver. 16. παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. 
 
 What the Apostle means by the word παντί is manifest from that which he adds 
 at the end of the sentence —to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. The same thing 
 is seen in ii. 9, 10, iii. 9, 19 ; cf. iii. 22, 23, 29; iv. 16; cf. iv. 11, 12; that is, in 
 all those passages (from the beginning to the end of his direct argument for his 
 doctrine of justification), in which the relations of the faith system and the 
 legal system are set forth, in their contrast with each other, by the use of this 
 word. It is of all men as distinguished from Jews only, and not of all men as 
 opposed to all with the exception of a certain portion or number, that he 
 speaks in his discussion of the method of salvation. The Pauline universalism 
 finds its opposite in the limitations of Judaism. According to the latter, jus- 
 tification is confined to those who are born into the Jewish nation, or are 
 united with it as proselytes ; according to the former, it is open to men every- 
 where, Gentiles equally with Jews,—to all who believe, without regard to na- 
 tional distinctions or boundaries. 
 
 IX. Ver. 17. δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ x.7.A. 
 
 Ver. 17 may be regarded as containing in itself the subject of the Epistle, or 
 the proposition which the writer undertakes to establish and defend: ight- 
 eousness is by faith. This proposition, however, isnot presented in an indepen- 
 dent and formal way. On the contrary, it is made, through the γάρ at the 
 beginning of the verse, to be a proof that the gospel is the power of God unto 
 salvation to every believer ; and this latter statement, again, through the γάρ 
 by which it is introduced, is brought forward as the ground of the writer’s 
 declaration, that he is not ashamed of the gospel. The form of expression in 
 the 17th verse is naturally affected by this manner of its introduction, and hence 
 we have the words as they stand: A (or the) righteousness of God is revealed 
 in it [the gospel] as proceeding from faith. The argument which follows, 
 however, is directed to the end of proving the truth of the proposition in its 
 simplest statement. 
 
 The interpretation of ἐκ πίστεως as denoting the subjective source or cause from 
 which righteousness comes is proved to be correct, (a) from the fact that this 
 verse stands in the relation above described to the entire discussion of the 
 Epistle, which is upon righteousness by faith ; (Ὁ) from the meaning of ἐκ πίστεως 
 in the confirmatory passage cited, in the latter part of the verse, from 
 O. T. ; (ὦ from the use of διὰ πίστεως in the parallel passage, iii. 21, 22 ; (d) 
 from the fact that Paul in several places employs the expression δικαιοσύνη 
 ἐκ πίστεως (e.g. ix. 30, x.6; cf. Gal. v. 5) in this sense, but mever in any 
 other. The explanation of εἰς πίστιν, on the other hand, is suggested by the 
 mode of arguing adopted by the writer (see Note X. also). The phenomena of 
 the case are as follows: The proposition presented in ver. 17 is proved by 
 showing that the only other doctrine supposable--namely, that of justification 
 
NOTES. 77 
 
 by works—cannot be maintained. This negative proof is evidently completed 
 at iii. 20. The only thing remaining to be done, at that point, is, accordingly, 
 to repeat the original proposition, as having been already established. There is, 
 in fact, such a repetition in iii. 21, 22, as we must admit from the striking simi- 
 larity, both in the thought and expression of those verses, to what is found in 
 i. 17. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the Apostle intended to restate, in the 
 later verses, what he had said in the earlier ones, and that, if so, the two must 
 throw light upon each other. As we examine the passages, however, we 
 find that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ occurs in both ; that πεφανέρωται of the latter answers 
 to ἀποκαλύπτεται of the former ; that dia πίστεως corresponds with ἐκ πίστεως ; 
 and that γωρὶς νόμου suggests the idea of ἐν αὐτῷ: This being so, the proba- 
 bility becomes overwhelming that εἰς τοὺς πιστεύοντας answers to εἰς πίστιν 
 so far as to give us the author’s meaning in the latter phrase. The πίστις of 
 1.17 is, accordingly, that which is in the minds and hearts of the persons re- 
 ferred to in 111. 22, and that which makes them οἱ πιστεύοντες It is that in 
 them to which the revelation of righteousness comes and the offer of justifica- 
 tion is presented. 
 
 X. Ver. 18. ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ Θεοῦ. 
 
 The discussion, which is entered upon at the 18th verse and continued as far 
 as iii. 20, assumes as athing admitted by both parties to the controversy, that 
 there is a method by which men can be justified. It also assumes that, if 
 there is such a method, it must be either in the line of faith or in that of works. 
 These things being granted at the outset, it was evidently necessary for the 
 Apostle only to prove that justification is not by works, in order to the estab- 
 lishment of the proposition that it is by faith. It is this indirect course which 
 he takes in his argument—the direct proof being, in this part of the Epistle, 
 left entirely without consideration. The negative argument is divided into 
 two sections, the first having reference to the Gentiles, the second to the Jews. 
 This division is connected with the defence of the doctrine as against Judais- 
 tic views, for, whatever opinion we may have as to the design or character of the 
 Epistle, it cannot be doubted that the discussion takes hold upon the great 
 question between the Pauline and Jewish Christianity. 
 
 XI. Ver. 20. τὰ ἀόρατα κ.τ.λ. 
 
 Evidently the invisible things are the everlasting power and divinity men- 
 tioned afterward. The evidence for the existence of God here presented is 
 that which the visible creation furnishes to the mind. The creation proves 
 a creator with power adequate to produce it, i.e. an omnipotent creator ; om- 
 nipotence carries with it the proof of the other divine attributes ; and thus 
 the things that are made are, and ever since the beginning of time have been, 
 bearing witness to God—a witness which is clearly understood, so soon as the 
 νοῦς is directed to it and it is intelligently considered (νοούμενα). In this way 
 the knowledge of God was manifested from the first, and is manifest still, to 
 the Gentile nations ; and because of this fact, their turning away to idolatry is 
 due, not to a want of revelation of the truth, but to a repressing of the truth, 
 (κατεχόντων ver. 18), and a preventing it from having its legitimate influence 
 upon their minds, through their own unrighteousness. 
 
8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 XII. Ver. 21. διότι--ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐματαιώθησαν. 
 
 διότι justifies and confirms the preceding word, ἀναπολογήτους, and the two 
 following verbs set forth the attitude which, as the natural and legitimate re- 
 sult of knowing God, they should have held toward Him: they should have 
 glorified Him for what He is in Himself, and have had thankfulness to Him for 
 what He had given to them. Neither of these things had they done, but —the 
 very opposite of this—they had turned away to the worship of idols. This 
 turning to idolatry is set forth in ἐματαιώθησαν x.t.4., as the result of the vain 
 and empty speculations (διαλογισμοῖς) into which they were led by reason of 
 wilfully preventing (ἐν ἀδικίᾳ) the knowledge of God from having its true influ- 
 ence upon their thoughts, and of the consequent darkness and folly in which 
 they were involved. Weiss ed. Mey. denies any immediate connection be- 
 tween ἐματαιώθησαν and the use of μάταια as employed in O. T. of idols, such as 
 Meyer and many others hold, and regards it as pointing only to the fact that 
 they directed their thoughts, not to the highest object of all thought, the true 
 God, but to earthly things. He thus accords substantially with the view ex- 
 pressed above. 
 
 XIII. Ver. 24. διὸ παρέδωκεν κ. τ. A. 
 
 The evidence that there is no justification by works for the Gentiles, but 
 rather a revelation of wrath, is presented by a mere setting forth of the works 
 which characterize them. For such works there can be nothing but condemna- 
 tion. In his unfolding of the heathensins, the writer lays the foundation of all 
 in idolatry (vv. 18-23), and then brings forward other evils as the result of this. 
 These other evils he divides into two sections—(1) the sins of impurity 
 (vv. 24-27), and (2) all other sins (vv. 28-32). Among these other sins, 
 it is noticeable that the first specific one is πλεονεξία, covetousness (ἀδικία, 
 πονηρία, and κακία, having a general character). The relation of all sin among 
 the Gentiles to idolatry, and the development of idolatry on the side of impu- 
 rity and of covetousness, seem to have been prominent before the mind of Paul, 
 as we find him connecting them elsewhere. He also presents these latter evils 
 as the two chief and distinguishing evils of the heathen nations. The paral- 
 lelizing of impurity, in the first of the two sections here, with sins of every 
 other sort, as if in one great class, in the second, is very suggestive. It is 
 noticeable, also, that these multitudinous evils which spring from idolatry are 
 presented before the reader as arising from it in the way of a divine judgment : 
 God gives over these who thus voluntarily abandon the truth respecting Him- 
 self, to the consequences in moral action of their own chosen errors. 
 
 XIV. Ver. 29-31. ἀδικία---ἀνελεήμονες, 
 
 That there is no designed arrangement according to a definite classification 
 in vv. 29-31, is rendered altogether probable by the following considerations : 
 (a) in the midst of a series of words which designate particular kinds of evil- 
 doers, we find general words applicable to all evil-doers, θεοστογεῖς, ἐφευρέτας 
 κακῶν. [The explanation of the former of these by Meyer, as a general word 
 closing the list which conveys the idea of hostility, and of the latter as a positive 
 opening the negative series (with ἀ privative), seems quite unsatisfactory, be- 
 cause θεοστυγεῖς, on the one hand, is as truly inclusive of the words which im- 
 
NOTES. 79 
 
 mediately follow it, as of those which precede, and ἐφ. κακ., on the other, is 
 not peculiarly related in its signification to the compound words which it is 
 supposed to introduce] ; (0) the arrangement within the individual classes is 
 not so accurate as such a purposed classification would 681] for ; e.g. the words 
 from φθόνου to κακοηθείας ; (0) in other cases, where similar lists of words are 
 found, there are difficulties of the same character in the supposition of any 
 such formal division, e.g. Gal. 111. 22, 23; Heb. xi. 36, 37 ; (d) these accumulations 
 of descriptive terms generally occur (as here, and in Heb. l.c.), in parts of the 
 author’s discourse where he is rising towards the climax of his thought, and 
 also towards the highest point of feeling—that is, in just those places where he 
 would be least disposed to classify with care. All these lists of this character 
 are, doubtless, to be explained as accumulations for rhetorical effect. In this 
 way, rather than in any other, we may account in the present instance, not 
 only for the insertion of general words, as indicated above, but also for the 
 succession of negative compounds at the end, the force of which, as the apos- 
 tle uttered them one after another when dictating to his amanuensis, can be 
 easily appreciated. 
 
80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER AE 
 
 Ver. 5. After ἀποκαλ. D*** K L &**, min., and several versions and 
 Fathers, including Or., read xai, which is adopted by Mill, Wetst. Matth. and 
 Fritzsche.! Against it is the greatly preponderant authority of the uncials, 
 and the suspicion of having been added by way of relief to the accumulation 
 of genitives. — Ver. 8. μέν after ἀπειθ. is wanting in B D* G &*, and is omit- 
 ted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), but was easily psssed over from inattention as 
 seeming superfluous. —The order ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (thus also Lachm. and Tisch.) 
 is decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before véuov, which Elz. and Fritzsche 
 read both times, but which Lachm. and Tisch. both times omit, is wanting 
 in A Β Ὁ E (which however has it in the first case) G 8, 31, 46, Damasc, ; and 
 betrays itself in the general form of the saying as inserted in order to denote 
 the Mosaic law. — Ver. 14, ποιῇ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ποιῶσιν, following A B 
 8, min., Clem. Or. Damasc. (D* G have ποιοῦσιν). The plural is an amend- 
 ment suggested by the context. — Ver. 16. Instead of ὅτε Lachm. following A and 
 some Fathers, has 7. ; an interpretation ; as is also ἐν 7 ἡμέρᾳ in Β. — Ver. 17. 
 εἰ δέ] The too weakly attested Recepta ide or ἰδέ is either a mere copyist’s error, 
 or an alteration to get rid of the supposed anakoluthon. See Reiche, Comm. 
 crit. 
 
 Ver. 1.—ch. iii. 20. Having shown, ch. i. 18-32, in the case of the Gen- 
 tiles, that they were strangers to the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Paul now, ΟἿ. 11.--111, 20, 
 exhibits the same fact with reference to the Jews, and thus adduces 
 the second half of the proof as to the universal necessity of justification by 
 faith. [See Note XV. p. 105.] Naturally the Apostle was chiefly concerned 
 with this second half of the proof, as the ἀδικία of heathenism was in itself 
 clear ; but we see from ch. ii. that the detailed character of that deline- 
 
 ation of Gentile wickedness was intended at the same time as a mirror for 
 degenerate Judaism, to repress all Jewish conceit. Comp. Mangold, p. 102. 
 
 Ver. 1. Διό] [See Note XVI. p. 105.] refers back to the main tenor of the whole 
 previous exposition (vv. 18-82), and that indeed in its more special aspect as 
 setting forth the moral condition of heathenism in respect to its imexcusable- 
 ness. This reference is confirmed by the fact, that ἀναπολόγητος εἶ is said 
 with a manifest glancing back to i. 20 ; it is laid down by Paul as it were 
 as a finger-post for his διό. The reference assumed by Reiche, Fritzsche, 
 Krehl, de Wette, and older writers, to the proposition in ver. 32, that the 
 rightful demand of God adjudges death to the evil-doers ; or to the cog- 
 nizance of that verdict, in spite of which the Gentiles were so immoral 
 
 1 Defended also by Philippi and Reiche, pearing not to receive more precise defini- 
 Comm. crit., who thinks that the καί has tion. See on the other hand yan Hengel. 
 been rejected on account of amoxadA. ap- 
 
CHAP, ΕΣ. Ἢ. 81 
 
 (Philippi, Baur, Th. Schott, Hofmann, Mangold), has against it the fact 
 that this thought formed only a subsidiary sentence in what went before ; 
 whereas here a new section begins, at the head of which Paul very naturally 
 has placed a reference, even expressly marked by ἀναπολόγητος, to the entire 
 section ending with ver. 32, over which he now throws once more a retro- 
 spective glance. The connection of ideas therefore is : ‘‘ wherefore,” i.e. on 
 account of that abomination of vice pointed out in vv. 18-82, ‘‘ thou art in- 
 excusable,” ete. ; ‘‘for”—to exhibit now more exactly this “wherefore” — 
 wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, because thou doest the 
 same thing. In other words : before the mirror of this Gentile life of sin all 
 excuse vanishes from thee, O man who judgest, for this mirror reflects thine 
 own conduct, which thou thyself therefore condemnest by thy judgment. A 
 deeply tragic de te narratur / into which the proud Jewish consciousness 
 sees itself all of a sudden transferred. A proleptie use of διό (Tholuck) is 
 not to be thought of ; not even γάρ is so used in the N. T. (see on John iv. 
 44), and διό neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere. —6 ἄνϑρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων] 
 Just as Paul, i. 18, designated the Gentiles by the general term ἀνϑρώπων, 
 and only brought forward the special reference to them in the progress of 
 the discourse ; so also he now designates the Jews, not as yet by name (see 
 this first at ver. 17), but generally by the address ἄνϑρωπε, which however 
 already implies a trace of reproach (ix. 20);! while at the same time he 
 makes it by his πᾶς ὁ κρίνων sufficiently apparent that he is no longer speak- 
 ing of the class already delineated, but is turning now to the Jews con- 
 trasted with them ; for the self-righteous judging respecting the Gentiles as | 
 rejected of God? was in fact a characteristic of the Jews. Hence all the more 
 groundless is the hasty judgment, that this passage has nothing whatever to: 
 do with the contrast between Jews and Gentiles (Hofmann). Comp. ver. 
 17 ff. And that it is the condemning κρίνειν which is meant, and not the: 
 moral capacity of judgment in general (Th. Schott) and its exercise (Hof- 
 mann) (comp. on Matt. vii. 9), follows from the subsequent κατακρίνεις more: 
 precisely defining its import. Consequently the quite general interpreta- 
 tion (Beza, Calovius, Benecke, Mehring, Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 
 416) seems untenable, as well as the reference to the Gentiles as the judging 
 subjects (Th. Schott), or to all to whom i. 32 applied (Hofmann), or even 
 specially to Gentile authorities (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oc- 
 cumenius, Cajetanus, Grotius).°—év 6] either instrumental : thereby, that, 
 equivalent to ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (Hofmann) ; or, still more closely corresponding to: 
 the τὰ yap αὐτὰ πράσσεις : in which thing, in which point. Comp. xiv. 22. 
 The temporal rendering : eodem tempore quo (Kollner, Reithmayr), arbi- 
 trarily obscures the moral identity, which Paul intended to bring out. The: 
 κατακρίνεις however is not facto condemnas (Estius, van Hengel), but the , 
 judgment pronounced upon the other is a condemnatory judgment upon thy- — 
 self, namely, because it applies to thine own conduct. On the contrast be- 
 
 1 Luke xii. 14; Plat. Prot. p.330D, Gorg. and many other passages. 
 p. 452 B, and the passages in Wetstein, 3 Regarding the nominative as further ethi- 
 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. Ὁ. 164. calepexcgesisof thevocative,see Bernhardy, 
 3 Midr. Tillin f. 6, 3; Chetubb. f. 8,3: p. 67, Buttmann, Newt. Gr. Ὁ. 123. [E. T. 141.] 
 
82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tween ἕτερον and σεαυτόν comp. ver. 21; 1 Cor. x. 24, 29; Gal. vi. 4; Phil. 
 ii. 4. -- τὰ αὐτά] the same sins and vices, not indeed according to all their 
 several concrete manifestations, as previously described, but according to 
 their essential moral categories ; see vv. 17-24. Comp. on the idea John 
 vill, 7. — ὁ κρίνων) with reproachful emphasis. 
 
 Ver. 2. Oidayev] Paul means to pronounce it as in his own view and that of 
 his readers an undoubted truth (comp. iii. 19), that the judicial decision which 
 God will one day pronounce, etc. The δέ carries on the discourse, and the 
 entire sentence forms the propositio major to what is now (ver. 3) to be 
 proved, namely, that the person judging (the Jew), who yet makes himself 
 guilty of wickedness similar to the things (τὰ τοιαῦτα) in question, deceives 
 himself if he thinks to escape the true judgment of God (ver. 5). Thus τὸ 
 κρίμα ' τ. Θεοῦ has the emphasis of contrast with that human judgment so 
 inconsistent with their own conduct. The predicate of being κατὰ ἀλήϑειαν 
 ἐπὶ τοὺς κιτ.λ. belongs not to the latter, but to the divine κρίμα. Th. Schott 
 erroneously emphasizes πράσσοντας, dislocating the clear train of thought, as 
 if Paul were treating of the truth that the Gentile’s knowledge of what was 
 right would not shield him from sin and condemnation. Hofmann also 
 introduces a similar confusion. — κατὰ ἀλήϑειαν] contains the standard, in 
 accordance with which the judgment of God is pronounced against the τὰ 
 τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες : in accordance with truth, so that it is, without error or 
 partiality, entirely adequate to the moral condition of these subjects. Ra- 
 phel, Kéllner, Krehl, Mehring, and Hofmann take it as equivalent to ἀληϑῶς, 
 really (4 Macc. v. 15 ; and in Greek writers), so that the meaning would 
 be : it is iv reality issued over them. But it could not be the object of the 
 Apostle to remind them of the reality of the divine judicial sentence, which 
 was under all circumstances undoubted and undisputed, so much as of its 
 truth, for the sake of the Jews who fancied that that judgment would con- 
 demn the Gentiles, but would spare the descendants of Abraham as such, 
 and on account of their circumcision and other theocratic privileges ; by 
 which idea they manifestly denied the ἀλήϑεια of the κρῖμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, as if it 
 were an untrue false sentence, the contents of which did not correspond to 
 the existing state of the facts. 
 
 Ver. 3. Antithesis of ver. 2, ‘‘That God judges evildoers according to 
 truth, we know (ver. 2) ; but judgest thou (in the face of that proposition) 
 that thou shalt . . . . escape?” This would indeed be at variance with the 
 ἀλήϑεια of the judgment. Comp. Matt. iii. 7; and the passages from pro- 
 fane writers in Grotius. The non-interrogative rendering of vv. 3, 4 (Hof- 
 mann) is not called for by the connection with the assertive declaration in 
 ver. 5 ; it weakens the lively force of the discourse, and utterly fails to suit 
 the ἢ in ver. 4, so prevalent in double questions. — τοῦτο] preparing with 
 emphasis (here : of surprise) for the following ὅτε σὺ éxd. «.7.A.; Bernhardy, 
 p. 284. — σὺ] Thou on thy side, as if thou madest an exception ; opposed 
 to the Jewish self-conceit (Matt. iii. 7 ff.; Luke iii. 7 f.). The emphasis is 
 
 1 Not κρίμα. With Lachmannit is to be 418. Lipsius is of a different opinion as 
 accentuated κρῖμα ; see Lobeck, Paralip. p. regards the N. T. (grammat. Unters, Ὁ. 40 f.). 
 
CHAP? ΤΙΣ, 45 δὲ 83 
 
 not on Θεοῦ (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others). — ἐκφεύξῃ] not : through 
 acquittal (Bengel),* but inasmuch as thou shalt not be subjected to the κρῖμα 
 of God, but shalt on the contrary escape it and be secure afar off from it. 
 Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 26, vii. 35 ; 1 Thess. v. 3 ; Heb. ii. 83. According to 
 the Jewish illusion only the Gentiles were to be judged (Bertholdt, Christol. 
 p- 206 ff.), whereas all Israel were to share in the Messianic kingdom as its 
 native children (Matt. viii. 12). 
 
 Ver. 4. [See Note XVII. p. 106.] Or—in case thou hast not this illusion— 
 despisest thou, etc. The ἢ draws away the attention from the case first put as 
 a question, and proposes another ; vi. 3 ; 1 Cor. ix. 6, and often elsewhere.? 
 —The despising the divine goodness is the contemptuous unconcern as to its 
 holy purpose, which produces as a natural consequence security in sinning 
 (Eccles. v. 5 f.).— τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστ.] πλοῦτος, as designation of the 
 ‘‘abundantia et magnitudo” (Estius), is a very current expression with the 
 Apostle (ix. 23, xi. 38); Eph. i. 7, ii. 4, 7, iii. 16 ; Col. i. 27), but is nota 
 Hebraism (Ps. v. 8, Ixix. 17 a/.), being used also by Greek authors ; Plat. 
 Huth. p. 12 A, and see Loesner, Ὁ. 245.— χρηστότητος] is the goodness of God, 
 in accordance with which He is inclined to benefit (and not to punish). 
 Comp. Tittmann’s Synon. p. 195. —avoyy and μακροϑ.. patience and long- 
 suffering—the two terms exhausting the one idea—denote the disposition 
 of God, in accordance with which He indulgently tolerates the sins and de- 
 lays the punishments.* ---- ἀγνοῶν] inasmuch as it is unknown to thee, that ete. 
 By this accompanying definition of the καταφρονεῖς the (guilty) folly of the 
 despiser is laid bare as its tragic source. Bengel says aptly : ‘‘miratur 
 Paulus hancignorantiam.” The literal sense is arbitrarily altered by Pareus, 
 Reiche, de Wette, Maier, and others, who make it denote the not being «will- 
 ing to know, which it does not denote even in Acts xvii. 23 ; Rom. x. 3; 
 by K6élner, who, following Grotius, Koppe, and many others, holds it to 
 mean non considerans ; and also by Hofmann : ‘‘to perceive, as one ought.” 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 34. — ἄγει] of ethical incitement by influencing the will.‘ 
 But it is not to be taken of the conatus (desires to urge), but of the standing 
 relation of the goodness of God to the moral condition of man.*° This re- 
 lation is an impelling to repentance, in which the failure of result on the part 
 of man does not cancel the act of the ἄγει itself.° 
 
 Ver. 5. A vividly introduced contrast to the preceding proposition ὅτε τὸ 
 χρηστὸν... . ἄγει ; not a continuation of the question (Lachmann, following 
 Koppe and others ; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), but affirmative (by 
 which the discourse becomes far more impressive and striking) as a setting 
 forth of the actual position of things, which is brought about by man 
 through his impenitence, in opposition to the drawing of the divine kind- 
 ness ; for the words can only, in pursuance of the correct interrogative ren- 
 dering of ver. 3, be connected with ver. 4, and not also (as Hofmann holds) 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Dem. 602, 2, Aristoph. Vesp. 157 al. 4 Plat. Rep. Ὁ. 572 D, al. See Kypke and 
 2 Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 132. Reisig, ad. Soph. O. C. 253. Comp. viii. 14. 
 3See Wetstein, and the passages from δ Therefore no predestination to damna- 
 
 the Fathers in Suicer, Zhes. II. p. 994. tion can be supposed. 
 Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 194. 6 Comp. Wisd. xi. 23; Appian. ii. 63. 
 
84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 with ver. 3. — κατά] in accordance with ; in a causal sense. Comp. on Phil. 
 iv. 11. On oxdnp x. ἀμεταν. kapd. comp. Acts vii. 31. It is correlative with 
 the previous εἰς μετάνοιαν. --- ϑησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν] Wolf aptly says: ‘ in- 
 nuitur.... irae divinae judicia paulatim coacervari, ut tandem universa 
 promantur.”? The purposely chosen word glances back to the previous τοῦ 
 πλούτου k.T.2. and σεαυτῷ, to thyself, heightens the tragic nature of the foolish 
 conduct that redounds fo one’s own destruction ; comp. ΧΙ]. 2. — ἐν ἡμέρᾳ opy. } 
 not to be taken with Luther, Beza, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Estius, and 
 many others as in diem irae (Phil. 1. 10 ; Jude 6; Tob. iv. 9), belongs to 
 ὀργήν : which breaks out on the day of wrath. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13. Re- 
 garding the repetition of ὀργῆς after ὀργήν Bengel correctly remarks : ‘‘ dev- 
 νότης Sermonis magna vi.” Whose wrath, is self-evident, without its being 
 necessary to connect ὀργής with Θεοῦ (Hofmann), which is forbidden by the 
 intervening ἀποκαλ. and by the previous absolutely put ὀργήν. The article 
 was not required by ἡμέρᾳ on account of the genitive definitions ; 1 Cor. vi. 
 2; Eph. iv. 30 ; Phil. i. 6, a/.2— Paul characterizes the day of judgment, 
 and with what powerful emphasis! by an accumulation of genitives and 
 weighty expressions, with reference to the fate of the bad as ἡμέρα ὁργῆς, but 
 with reference to its general destination (afterwards ver. 6 ff. to be further 
 carried out in detail) for good and bad as a day aroxad δικαιοκρισ. τ. Θεοῦ, 1.6. 
 on which God’s righteous judgment (which until then remains hidden) is re- 
 vealed, publicly exhibited. With the exception of passages of the Fathers, 
 such as Justin, de resurr. p. 223, δικαιοκρισία occurs only in an unknown 
 translation of Hos. vi. 5 (where the LXX. read κρίμα) and the Test. XII. 
 Patr. p. 547 and 581. 
 
 Ver. 6. Compare Ps. Ixii. 13; Prov. xxiv. 12; analogies from Greek 
 writers in Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 214. — κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ] 1.6. according 
 as shall be commensurate with the moral quality of his actions. [See Note 
 XVIL. p.106.] On this, and on the following amplification down to ver. 16, 
 it is to be observed :—(1) Paul is undoubtedly speaking of the judgment of 
 the world, which God will cause to be held by Christ, ver. 16; (2) The 
 subjects who are judged are Jews and Gentiles, ver. 9 ff., consequently all 
 men, ver. 16. The distinction, as to whether they are Christians or not, is 
 left out of view in this exposition, as the latter is partly intended to intro- 
 duce the reader to a knowledge of the necessity of justification by faith 
 (down to iii. 20) ; and it is consequently also left out of view that judgment 
 according to works cannot result in bliss for the unbelievers, because there 
 is wanting to them the very thing whose vital action produces the works in 
 accordance with which the Judge awards bliss, namely, faith and the 
 accompanying regeneration. (8) The standard of the decision is moral action 
 and its opposite, vv. 6-10 ; and this standard is really and in fact the only 
 one, to which at the last judgment all, even the Christians themselves, shall 
 
 1Comp. Calovius; and see Deut. xxxii. see Alberti, Obss. p. 297; Mtinthe itn doc., 
 83-85; Prov. i. 18, ii. 7; Ecclus. iii. 4. For from Philo: Loesner, p. 246. 
 passages of profane writers, where θησαυρός 2 Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 125] ; Kiihner, IL. 
 and θησαυρίζειν are used to express the accu- 1, p. 524. 
 mulation of evils, punishments, and the like, 
 
ΘΕΆ ΤΟ: δῦ 
 
 be subjected, and by which their fate for eternity shall be determined, 
 Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31 ff.; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7 ff.; Eph. vi. 8 ; Col. iii. 
 24; Rev. ii. 23, xx. 12, xxii. 12. But (4) the relation of moral action in 
 the case of the Christian to the jides salvifica, as the necessary effect and 
 fruit of which that action must be demanded at the judgment, cannot, for 
 the reason given above under (2), be here introduced into the discussion. 
 (5) On the contrary, the law only (in the case of the Jews the Mosaic, in the 
 case of the Gentiles the natural), must be presented as the medium of the 
 decision, ver. 12 ff.; a view which has likewise its full truth (compare what 
 was remarked under (3) above), since the Christian also, because he is to 
 be judged according to his action, must be judged according to law (compare 
 the doctrine of the tertius legis usus), and indeed according to the πλήρωσις 
 τοῦ νόμου introduced by Christ, Matt. v.17. Comp. xxv. 31 ff.; Rom. ΧΙ]. 
 8-10,—although he becomes partaker of salvation, not through the merit of 
 works (a point the further development of which formed no part of the 
 Apostle’s general discussion here), but through faith, of which the works 
 are the practical evidence and measure.* Accordingly the ‘‘phrasis legis” 
 (Melanchthon) is indeed to be recognized in our passage, but it is to be 
 apprehended in its full truth, which does not stamp as a mere theoretic 
 abstraction (Baur) the contrast, deeply enough experienced by Paul him- 
 self, between the righteousness of works and righteousness of faith. It is 
 neither to be looked upon as needing the corrective of the Christian plan of 
 salvation ; nor as an inconsistency (Fritzsche) ; nor yet in such a light, that the 
 doctrine of justification involves a partial abrogation of the moral order of the 
 world (Reiche), which is, on the contrary, confirmed and established by it, 
 iii. 31. But our passage yields nothing in favour of the possibility, which 
 God may grant to unbelievers, of turning to Christ after death (Tholuck), 
 or of becoming partakers of the salvation in Christ in virtue of an exercise 
 of divine power (Th. Schott): and the representation employed for that 
 purpose,—that the life of faith is the product of a previous life-tendency, 
 and that the épya perfect themselves in faith (Luthardt, Tholuck),—is erro- 
 neous, because incompatible with the N. T. conception of regeneration as a 
 new creation, as a putting off of the old man, as a having died and risen 
 again, as a being begotten of God through the Spirit, etc., ete. The new 
 life (vi. 4) is the direct opposite of the old (vi. 19 ff.). The possibility 
 referred to is to be judged of in connection with the descensus Christi ad 
 inferos, but is irrelevant here. 
 
 Ver. 7. To those, who by virtue of perseverance in morally-good work 8061; to 
 obtain glory and honour and immortality, eternal life sc. ἀποδώσει. Conse- 
 quently καθ᾽ trou ἔργου ἀγαθ. contains the standard, the regulative principle, 
 by which the seeking after glory, honour, ete. is guided, and ἔργου ἀγαϑοῦ," 
 
 1 Τῷ is rightly observed by Calovius: 2 The singular without the article indi- 
 “secundum opera, i.e. secundum testimo- cates the thing in abstracto ; the rule is for 
 nium operum,” is something different every given case: perseverance in good work. 
 from ‘‘ propter opera, i.e. propter meritum The idea that the work of redemption is re- 
 operum.” Comp. Apol. Conf. A, art.3,and ferred to (Mehring, in accordance with 
 Beza in loc. Phil. i. 6), so that ὑπομ. ἔργ. ay., Would be 
 
86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 which is not with Beza to be connected with δόξαν, is the genitive of the 
 object to which the ὑπομονή refers (1 Thess. i. 8 ; Polyb. iv. 51, 1; Theophr. 
 Char. 6, 1) 3 while δόξαν x. τιμὴν k. ἀφϑαρσ. is an exhaustive description of the 
 future salvation according to its glorious appearing (2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Matt. 
 xiii. 43), according to the honour united with it (for it is the prize of vic- 
 tory, 1 Cor. ix. 25; Phil. mi, 14; 2 Tim. ν. 8... dames i. 124 1 Pet. v.4; 
 the joint heirship with Christ, viii. 17, the reigning along with Him, 2 
 Tim. ii. 12), and according to its imperishableness (1 Cor. xv. 52 ff.; Rev. 
 xxi. 4; 1 Pet. i. 4). Paul presents the moral effort under a character thus 
 specifically Christian, just because he can attribute it only to Christian Jews 
 and Gentiles ; and hence he is only able to give his description of this first 
 half of the subjects of future judgment, notwithstanding the generality of 
 his language, in the Christian form, in which alone it really takes place. 
 In keeping with this is also the ζωὴν αἰώνιον, t.e. eternal life in the kingdom 
 of the Messiah, v. 21, vi. 22 f.; Gal. vi. 8. The above construction of the 
 words is already followed by Theophilus, ad. Autol. i. 20, ed. Wolf, and by 
 most expositors, including Tholuck, Rickert, K6llner, de Wette, Olshausen, 
 Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Umbreit. The objection raised against it by 
 Reiche and Hofmann, that according to the analogy of ver. 6 ka trou. ἔργ. 
 ay. must contain the standard of the ἀποδώσει, and cannot therefore belong 
 to ζητοῦσι, is untenable, because xa’ trou. ἔργ. ay., though attached to 
 ζητοῦσι, nevertheless does contain (indirectly) the standard of ἀποδώσει ; so 
 that there remains only an immaterial difference, which however is in fact 
 very consonant to the lively versatility of the Apostle’s thought. Still less 
 weight attaches to the objection, that to seek glory and honour is not in 
 itself a praiseworthy thing ; for the moral tenor of the ζητεῖν δόξαν κ.τ.λ. 
 (comp. Matt. vi. 33 ; John v. 44) is most definitely assured by καϑ’ trop. 
 ἔργ. ay. Utterly unfounded, in fine, is the objection of clumsiness (Hof- 
 mann) ; the symmetrical fulness of vv. 7, 8, has a certain solemnity about 
 it. Reiche and Hofmann, following Oecumenius,’ Estius, and others, arrange 
 it so that to δόξαν. x. τιμ. kK. ἀφϑαρσίαν they supply ἀποδώσει, Whilst ζητοῦσι 15 to 
 be combined with ζωὴν αἰών. and regarded as an apposition or (Hofmann) 
 reason assigned to τοῖς μέν, Πα ka ὑπομ. ἔργ. ay. is the standard of ἀποδώσει. 
 Substantially so also Ewald, No syntactic objection can be urged against 
 this rendering; but how tamely and heavily is the ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰών. subjoined ! 
 Paul would have written clearly, emphatically, and in harmony with the 
 contrast in ver. 8: τοῖς. . . . ἀγαϑοῦ ζωὴν αἱ. ζητοῦσι δόξαν κ. τιμ. K. abd. 
 Ver. 8. Τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριϑείας] sc. οὖσι : paraphrase of the substantive idea, to 
 be explained from the conception of the moral condition as drawing its 
 origin thence (comp. iii. 26 ; iv. 12, 14; Gal. iii. 10; Phil. i. 17, al.). 
 
 equivalent to ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, ought to have 
 been precluded by the parallel in ver. 10. 
 Comp. ver. 2. ‘ 
 
 1 To ὑπερβατὸν οὕτω τακτέον' τοῖς καθ᾽ ὑπο- 
 μονὴν ἔργον ἀγαθοῦ ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἀπο- 
 δώσει δόξαν καὶ... . ἀφθαρσίαν. But there 
 is no ground whatever for the assumption 
 of a hyperbaton, in which Luther also has 
 
 entangled himself. Very harshly Bengel, 
 Fritzsche, and Krehl separate tots καθ᾽ 
 ὑπομον. ἔργου ay. from what follows, and 
 supply οὖσι; and then take δόξαν. 
 ζητοῦσι aS apposition to Tots... . ἔργον, 
 but make ζωὴν ai. likewise dependent on 
 ἀποδώσει. 
 
CHAP, ἘΠῚ 8. 87 
 
 See Bernhardy, Ὁ. 288 f. Comp. the use of υἱοί and τέκνα in Eph. ii. 2. 
 We are precluded from taking (with Hofmann) ἐκ in a causal sense (in con- 
 sequence of ἐριϑεία), and as belonging to are. κιτ.λ. by the καί, which would 
 here express the idea, unsuitable to the connection : even.’ This καί, the 
 simple and, which is not however with Hofmann to be interpreted as if 
 Paul had written μᾶλλον or τοὐναντίον (‘instead of seeking after eternal life, 
 rather,” etc.), clearly shows that τοῖς dé ἐξ ἐριϑείας is to be taken by itself, as 
 it has been correctly explained since the time of the Vulgate and Chrysos- 
 tom. —épdeia] is not to be derived from ἔρις or ἐρίζω, but from éputoc, a 
 hired labourer,* a spinner ; hence ἐρεϑεύω, to work for hire (Tob. 11. 11), then 
 also : to act selfishly, to lay plots. Compare ἐξερεϑεύεσϑαι, Polyb. x. 25, 9, 
 and ἀνεριϑεύτος (without party intrigues) in Philo, p. 1001 E. ἐριϑεία has 
 therefore, besides the primary sense of work for hire, the twofold ethical 
 signification (1) mercenary greed ; and (2) desire of intrigue, pursuit of par- 
 tisan courses ; Arist. Pol. v.2f. See Fritzsche, Hxzewrsus on ch. 11. ; regard- 
 ing the composition of the word, see on 2 Cor. xii. 20. The latter significa- 
 tion is to be retained in all passages of the N. T. 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 
 20; Phil. i. 16, ii. 3; James iii. 14, 16.—oi ἐξ ἐριϑείας are therefore the 
 intriguers, the partisan actors ; whose will and striving are conducive not to 
 the truth (for that in fact is a power of an entirely different kind, opposed 
 to their character), but to immorality, wherefore there is added, as further 
 characterizing them: καί ἀπειϑοῦσι. Compare Ignatius, ad Philad. 8, 
 where the opposite of ἐριϑ. is the χριστομάϑεια, 1.6. the discipleship of Christ, 
 which excludes all selfish partisan effort. Haughtiness (as van Hengel 
 explains it), and the craving jor self-assertion (Mehring and Hofmann) are 
 combined with it, but are not what the word itself signifies. The intepre- 
 tation formerly usual : qui sunt ex contentione (Vulg.), those fond of strife 
 (Origen, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, 
 Calvin, etc.), which was understood, for the most part as those rebelling 
 against God, is based partly on the erroneous derivation from épic, partly on 
 the groundless assumption that in the other passages of the N. T. the sense 
 of quarrelsomeness is necessary. Since this is not the case, Reiche’s conject- 
 ure is irrelevant, that the vulgar usus loguendi had erroneously derived the 
 word from ἔρις and had lent to it the corresponding signification. Kéllner 
 explains it rightly as partisanship, but gratuitously assumes that this was a 
 special designation for ‘‘ godless character” in general. So in substance also 
 Fritzsche : ‘‘homines neguam.” The very addition, further describing 
 these men, καὶ ἀπειϑοῦσι. . . . ἀδικίᾳ, quite allows us to suppose that Paul 
 had before his mind the strict and proper meaning of the word partisanship ; 
 and it is therefore unwarrantable to base the common but linguistically 
 erroneous explanation on the affinity between the notions of partisanship and of 
 contentiousness (Philippi). The question to be determined is not the cate- 
 gory of ideas to which the épvdetew belongs, but the definite individual idea 
 which it expresses. —opy7 «. ϑυμός] sc. ἔσται. In the animation of his 
 
 1 Baeuml. Partik. Ὁ. 150, also Xen. Afem. i. Dem. 1313, 6; LXX. Is. xxxvili. 19. See 
 8, 1. Valck. ad Theocr. Adoniaz. p. 373. Com- 
 3 Tomer, xviii. 550, 560; Hesiod, ἔργ. 600f.: pare συνέριθος frequent in Greek authors. 
 
88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 description Paul has broken off the construction previously followed. ° To 
 connect these words with what follows (Mehring) disturbs unnecessarily 
 the important symmetry of the passage. On the distinction between the 
 two words, see Tittman’s Synon. p. 131 ff. ϑυμός : vehement passion, in Cic. 
 Tuse. iv. 9, 21 rendered excandescentia, here, as also in Gal. v. 20, Eph. iv. 
 31, Col. iii. 8, Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, often also in the O. T. and the Apoc- 
 rypha, made known by its combination with ὀργή, and by its being put last 
 as the more vehement, as the holy divine wrath.* 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. Emphatic recapitulation of vv. 7 and 8, inverting the order, 
 and in addition, giving special prominence to the universality of the retri- 
 bution. The placing the penal retribution first gives to this an aspect the 
 more threatening and alarming, especially as the terms expressing it are now 
 accumulated in one breath. — ϑλέψις x. στενοχωρία] Tribulation and anguish, 
 se. ἔσται. The calamity is thus described as pressing upon them from with- 
 out (ϑλίψις), and as felt inwardly with the sense of its being beyond help 
 (orevox.), Vili. 85 ; 2 Cor. iv. 7, vi. 12 ; compare LXX. Is. xxx. 6 ; Deut. 
 Xxvili. 58. — ἐπὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν avdp.|] denotes not simply ‘‘ upon every man” 
 (so even Philippi), but ‘‘ wpon every soul which belongs to a man” who practises 
 evil. The ψυχή is thereby designated as that which is affected by the dim. 
 x. otevoy. (Acts ii. 43 5 Matt. xxvi. 28, al.) ; comp. Winer, p. 147 [E. T. 
 156]. It is the part which feels the pain.? — πρῶτον] Quite as ini. 16. The 
 Jews, as the people of God, in possession of the revelation with its prom- 
 ises and threatenings, are therefore necessarily also those upon whom the 
 retribution of judgment—not the reward merely, but also the punishment 
 —has to find in the jirst instance its execution. In both aspects they have 
 the priority based on their position in the history of salvation as the theo- 
 cratic people, and that as certainly as God is impartial. ‘‘ Judaei particeps 
 Graecus,” Bengel. The Jewish conceit is counteracted in the first clause 
 by ’Iovdaiov te πρῶτον, im the second by καὶ “Ἕλληνι, and counteracted with 
 sternly consistent earnestness. The second πρῶτον precludes our taking the 
 first as ironical (Reiche). — εἰρήνη] welfare, by which is intended that of the 
 Messiah’s kingdom, as in viii. 6. It is not materially different from the 
 ἀφϑαρσία and ζωὴ αἰώνιος of ver. 7 ; the totality of that which had already 
 been described in special aspects by δόξα and τιμή (comp. on ver. 7). — Re- 
 garding the distinction between épyaf. and κατεργαζ. (works and brings to 
 pass) see on i. 27. ; 
 
 Ver. 11. Ground assigned for vv. 9 and 10, so far as concerns the "Iovd. 
 mp. Kk. Ἕλλην. --- προσωποληψία] Partial preference from personal considera- 
 tions. See on Gal. ii. 6. Melancthon : ‘‘ dare aequalia inequalibus vel 
 inequalia aequalibus.” The ground specified is directed against the Jew- 
 ish theocratic fancy. Comp. Acts x. 34 f. ; Ecclus. xxxii. (xxxv.) 15. 
 
 Ver. 12. Assigns the ground in point of fact for the proposition con- 
 tained in ver. 11, in special reference to the future judgment of condemna- 
 tion.* — ἀνόμως] 1.6. without the standard of the law (without having had it). 
 
 1 Compare Isoc. xii. 81: ὀργῆς κ. θυμοῦ 2 See Ernesti, Urspr. d, Siinde, II. p. 101 ff. 
 μεστοί. Herodian, viii. 4, 1: ὀργῆ «. θυμῷ 2 Only in reference to the judgment of 
 
 χρώμενος. Lucian, decalumn, 28, al. condemnation, because the idea of a Messi- 
 
CHAP, TI.5 19. 89 
 
 [See Note XIX. p. 107.] Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 21; Wisd. xvii. 2. Those whose 
 sins were not transgressions of the Mosaic law (but of the moral law of 
 nature), the sinful Gentiles, shall be transferred into the penal state of 
 eternal death without the standard of the law, without having their con- 
 demnation decided in accordance with the requirements of a νόμος to which 
 they are strangers. The ἀπολοῦνται, which is to set in at the final judgment, 
 not through natural necessity (Mangold), is the opposite of the σωτηρία, i. 
 16, of the ζήσεται, 1. 17, of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ii. 7, of the δόξα x.7.2., ii. 10 ; 
 comp. John iii. 15 ; Rom. xiv. 15; 1 Cor. i. 18. This very ἀπολοῦνται 
 should of itself have precluded commentators from finding in the second 
 ἀνόμως an element of mitigation (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius), as 
 if it was meant to exclude the severity of the law. The immoral Gentiles 
 may not hope to remain unpunished on account of their non-possession of 
 the law ; punished they shall be independently of the standard of the law. 
 This is the confirmation of the ἀπροσωποληψία of God on the one side, in re- 
 gard to the Gentiles.—The καί before ἀπολ. is the also of a corresponding 
 relation, but not between ἀνόμως and ἀνόμως, as if Paul had written καὶ avon. 
 ἀπολ., but between ἥμαρτον and aod. : as they have sinned without law, so 
 shall they also perish without law. In this way ἀνόμως retains the emphasis 
 of the specific how. Compare the following. The praeterite ἥμαρτον is 
 spoken from the standpoint of the time of the judgment. — καὶ ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ 
 x.t.A.] This gives the other aspect of the case, with reference to the Jevs, 
 who do not escape the judgment (of condemnation) on account of their 
 privilege of possessing the law, but on the contrary are to be judged by 
 means of the law, so that sentence shall be passed on them in virtue of 7 
 (see Deut. xxvii. 26; comp. John vy. 46). --- ἐν νόμῳ] Not on the law 
 (Luther), which would be εἰς νόμον, but the opposite of ἀνόμως: with the law, 
 é.€. In possession of the law, which they had as a standard,’ Winer, Ὁ. 361 
 [E. T. 386]. On νόμος without the article, used of the Mosaie law, see 
 Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 123]. So frequently in the Apocrypha, and of partic- 
 ular laws also in classical writers. To question this use of it in the N. T. 
 (van Hengel, Th. Schott, Hofmann, and others) opens the way for artificial 
 and sometimes intolerable explanations of the several passages. — κρειϑήσ.] 
 an unsought change of the verb, suggested by διὰ νόμου. 
 
 Ver. 13 proves the correctness of the proposition, so much at variance 
 with the fancy of the Jews, ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ νόμου kpvdjoovrar.—The 
 placing of vv. 13-15 in a parenthesis, as after Beza’s example, is done by 
 Grotius, Griesbach, and others, also by Reiche and Winer, is to be reject- 
 ed, because ver. 13, which cannot be placed in a parenthesis alone (as 
 Koppe and Mehring do), is closely joined with what immediately precedes, 
 and it is only in ver. 14 that an intervening thought is introduced by way 
 
 anic bliss of unbelievers was necessarily 1 This opposition does not extend beyond 
 foreign to the Apostle; as indeed in vv. 7 the νόμον μὴ ἔχειν and νόμον ἔχειν, ver. 14. 
 and 10 he was under the necessity of de- Therefore ἐν νόμῳ is ποῦ : within the law as 
 
 scribing those to whom Messianic bliss was the divine order of common life (comp. iii. 
 to be given in recompense, in terms of a 19) as Hofmann takes it. 
 Christian character. 
 
90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS, 
 
 of illustration. The parenthesis is (with Baumgarten-Crusius) to be limit- 
 ed to vv. 14, 15, as is done also by Lachmann. See on ver. 16. — οἱ axpoa- 
 vai] A reference to the public reading of the Thorah on the Sabbath. 
 Comp. Acts xv. 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 14; John xii. 34; Josephus, Ant. v. 1, 
 26, v. 2, 7. The substantive brings out more forcibly than the participial 
 form of expression would have done the characteristic feature : those, whose 
 business is hearing.’— παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ] ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ 111. 20, according to God's 
 judgment. 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; Winer, p. 869 [E. T. 395).— δικαιω- 
 dno.) They shall be declared as righteous, normal. See oni.17. This οἱ ποιη- 
 ταὶ νόμου δικαιωϑήσονται is the general fundamental law of God who judges 
 with righteousness (Gal. iii. 12) ; a fundamental law which required to be 
 urged here in proof of the previous assertion ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ v. κριϑήσ. 
 Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. ὃ 87. How in the event of its being impossible 
 for aman to be a true ποιητὴς νόμου (ili. 9 ff.) faith comes in and furnishes 
 a δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως, and then how man, by means of the καινότης ζωῆς (vi. 
 4) attained through faith, must and can fulfil (viii. 4) the law completed 
 by Christ (the νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς, Vili. 2), were topics not belong- 
 ing to the present discussion. Compare on ver. 6. ‘‘ Haec descriptio est 
 justitia legis, quae nihil impedit alia dicta de justitia fidei,” Melanchthon. 
 Vv. 14-16. The οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωϑήσονται just asserted did not require 
 proof with regard to the Jews. But, as the regulative principle of the last 
 judgment, it could not but appear to need proof with regard to the Gentiles, 
 since that fundamental rule might seem to admit of no application to; those 
 who sin ἀνόμως and peri®h ἀνόμως. Now the Gentiles, though beyond the pale 
 of the Mosaic law and not incurring condemnation according to the standard 
 of that law, yet possess in the moral law of nature a certain substitute for 
 the Mosaic law not given to them. It is in virtue of this state of things 
 that they present themselves, not as excepted from the above rule οἱ ποιηταὶ 
 νόμου δικαιωϑ., but as subjected to it ; namely, in the indirect way that they, 
 although ἄνομοι in the positive sense, have nevertheless in the natural law 
 a substitute for the positive one—which is apparent, as often as Gentiles 
 do by nature that which the positive Mosaic law not given to them enjoins. 
 The connection may therefore be paraphrased somewhat thus: ‘* With 
 right and reason I say: the doers of the law shall be justified ; for as to the 
 case of the Gentiles, that ye may not regard them as beyond reach of that rule, 
 it is proved in fact by those instances, in which Gentiles, though not in possession 
 of the law of Moses, do by nature the requirements of this law, that they are the 
 law unto themselves, because, namely, they thereby show that its obligation stands 
 written in their hearts,” ete. It is to be observed at the same time that Paul 
 does not wish to prove a justification of the Gentiles really occurring as a 
 result through the fulfilment of their natural law—a misconception against 
 which he has already guarded himself in ver. 12,—but he desires simply to 
 establish the regulative principle of justification through the law in the case 
 of the Gentiles, Real actual justification by the law takes place neither 
 among Jews nor Gentiles ; because in no case is there a complete fulfil- 
 
 1 Compare Theile, ad Jac. i. 22, p. 76. 
 
CHAP. 117 14. 91 
 
 ment, either, among the Jews, of the revealed law, or, among the Gentiles, 
 of the natural law—which in fact is only a substitute for the former, but 
 at the same time forms the limit beyond which their responsibility and 
 their judgment cannot in principle go, because they have nothing higher 
 (in opposition to Philippi, who refers to the πλήρωμα νόμου, xiii. 10).—The 
 connection of thought between ver. 14 and what precedes it has been very 
 variously apprehended. According to Koppe (compare Calvin, Flatt, and 
 Mehring) vy. 14-16 prove the condemnation of the Gentiles asserted in 
 ver. 12, and ver. 17 ff. that of the Jews ; while ver. 13 is a parenthesis. 
 But, seeing that in the whole development of the argument γάρ always re- 
 fers to what immediately precedes, it is even in itself an arbitrary proceed- 
 ing to make ὅταν γάρ in ver. 14, without any evident necessity imposed by 
 the course of thought, refer to ver. 12, and to treat ver. 13, although it 
 contains a very appropriate reason assigned for the second part of ver. 12, 
 as a parenthesis to be broken off from connection with what follows ; 
 and decisive against this view are the words ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων in ver, 15, 
 which place it beyond doubt that vv. 14-16 were not intended as a proof 
 of the ἀπολοῦνται in ver. 12. Philippi regards ver. 14 as establishing only 
 the first half of ver. 18 : ‘‘ not the hearers of the law are just before God, 
 for even the Gentiles have a law, 2.96. for even the Gentiles are ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ 
 νόμου." But we have no right to exclude thus from the reference of the 
 γάρ just the very assertion immediately preceding, and to make it refer to 
 a purely negative clause which had merely served to pave the way for this 
 assertion. The reference to the negative half of ver. 18 would only be 
 warranted in accordance with the text, had Paul, as he might have done, 
 inverted the order of the two parts of ver. 13, and so given to the negative 
 clause the second place.’ And the less could a reader see reason to refer 
 the yap to this negative clause in the position in which the Apostle has 
 placed it, since ver. 14 speaks of Gentiles who do the law, by which the 
 attention was necessarily directed, not to the negative, but to the affirma- 
 tive, half of ver. 13 (οἱ ποιηταὶ «.t.4.).2 Such a mode of presenting the 
 connection is even more arbitrary than if we should supply after ver. 13 
 the thought : ‘‘and therewith also the Gentiles” (K6llner and others), which 
 however is quite unnecessary. Our view is in substance that given already 
 by Chrysostom (οὐκ ἐκβάλλω τὸν νόμον, φησὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντεῦϑεν δικαιῶ τὰ ἔϑνη), 
 Erasmus, and others ; more recently by Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6ll- 
 ner, Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, van Hengel, 
 Ewald, Th. Schott, though with very various modifications. 
 
 Ver. 14. “Ὅταν] quando, supposes a case which may take place at any 
 time, and whose frequent occurrence is possible, as ‘‘eventus ad experi- 
 entiam revocatus” (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 689) : in the case if, 80 often as. — 
 yap| introducing the proof that the proposition of ver. 13 also holds of the 
 
 1 Only thus—but not as Paul has actually Hofmann, who, substantially like Philippi, 
 placed it—could the negative clause be re- takes vy. 14-16 as a proof, that in the matter 
 garded as the chief thought, for which Phi- of righteousness before God nothing can depend 
 lippi is obliged to take it, p. 54 f. 3d ed. on whether one belongs to the number of those 
 
 * These reasons may also be urged against who hear the law read to them. 
 
92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Gentiles. See above. — ἔϑνη] not to be understood of the Gentiles collectively, 
 to which Reiche, de Wette, K6llner, Philippi refer it—for this must have 
 been expressed by the article (against which view neither ix. 30 nor iii. 29, 
 nor 1 Cor. i. 23, is to be adduced), and the putting of the case ὅταν. . . . 
 ποιῇ With respect to the heathen generally would be in itself untrue—but 
 Paul means rather Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs. — τὰ μὴ νόμον 
 ἔχοντα) they who have not the law ; a more precise definition bearing on the 
 case, and bringing forward the point on which here the argument turns. 
 See Winer, Ὁ. 127 [E. T. 139]. Observe the distinction between μὴ νόμον 
 ἔχ. and νόμον μὴ ἔχ. The former negatives—while the contrast of the φύσει 
 floats before the mind—the possession of the law, instead of which they 
 have merely a natural analogue of it ;* the latter negatives the possession 
 of the law, which és wanting to them, whilst the Jews have it. — dice: τὰ τοῦ 
 γόμου ποιῇ] Most expositors uphold this connection, including Riickert, 
 2d ed. Onthe other hand Bengel and Usteri join φύσει to μὴ vou. ἔχοντα, 
 but thus make it superfluous and even unsuitable, and deprive it of all 
 weight in the connection, especially as the word φύσις has here no other 
 sense ‘than nativa indoles, i.e. the original constitution given with existence, 
 and not moulded by any extraneous training, culture, or other influence 
 beyond the endowments of nature and their natural development (comp. on 
 Eph. ii. 8) ; φύσει : ‘quia natura eorum ita fert,” Stalb. ad Plat. Phaedr. 
 p-. 249. The dative denotes the mediating cause. And that it is the 
 moral prompting of conscience left to itself, which Paul means by φύσει in con- 
 trast to the divine leading of the law, is plain from ver. 15. The φύσει ποιεῖν 
 lies beyond the sphere of positive revelation and its promptings, leadings, 
 etc. It takes place in virtue of an indoles ingenita, not interventu disciplinae 
 divinae formata, so that the thought of an operation of grace or of the 
 Logos taking place apart from Christ is quite foreign to this passage, and 
 its affirmation is not in harmony with the truncus et lapis of the Formula 
 Concordiac.* — τὰ τοῦ νόμου] what belongs to the law, i.e. its constituent ele- 
 ments, its precepts. Paul does not say simply τὸν νόμον ; for he is thinking 
 not of Gentiles who fulfil the law as @ whole, but of those who in concrete 
 cases by their action respond to the particular portions of the law concerned. 
 Compare Luthardt 1.6. p. 409. The close relation, in which the ποιεῖν τὰ 
 τοῦ νόμου here stands to ποιηταὶ νόμου in ver, 13, is fatal to the view of Beza, 
 Joh. Cappell., Elsner, Wetstein, Michaelis, Flatt, and Mehring, who ex- 
 plain it as quae lex facit, namely, the commanding, convincing, condemn- 
 ing, Οἵα. --- ἑαυτοῖς εἰσὶ νόμος] They are the law unto themselves, i.e. their 
 moral nature, with its voice of conscience commanding and forbidding, 
 supplies to their own Ego the place of the revealed law possessed by the 
 Jews. Thus in that ποιεῖν they serve for themselves as a regulator of the 
 conduct that agrees with the divine law.* Observe further that here, 
 where the participle stands without the article—consequently not οἱ νόμ. μὴ 
 
 1 Compare Stalb. ad Plat. Crit. p. 47 Ὁ. 3 For parallels (Manil. vy. 495, a/.: ipse δὲ δὲ 
 
 2 See the later discussions of dogmatic lex est, Arist. Nicom. iv. 14: νόμος ὥνἑαυτῷ 
 writers as to this point in Luthardt, v. freien αἰ.) see Wetstein ; compare also Porph, ad 
 Willen, p. 366 ff. Mare. 25, p. 304. 
 
ΘῊΡ ΡΣ ΣΤΈΓΟΣ 95 
 
 ἔχοντες (as previously τὰ μὴ. . . . &yovra)—it is to be resolved by since they, 
 because they ; which however does not convey the idea: because they are 
 conscious of the absence of the law (as Hofmann objects), but rather : be- 
 cause this want occurs in their case. See Buttmann’s nevt. Gr. Ὁ. 301 
 [E. T. 306]. The resolution by although (Th. Schott) is opposed to the 
 connection ; that by while (Hofmann) fails to convey the definite and logical 
 meaning ; which is, that Gentiles, in the cases indicated by ὅταν «.r.A. 
 would not be ἑαυτοῖς νόμος, if they had the positive law.—The οὗτοι com- 
 prehends emphatically the subjects in question.’ 
 
 Ver. 15. Oirivec x.7.4.] quippe qui. See on i. 25. The οὗτοι of ver. 14 
 are characterized, and consequently the ἑαυτοῖς εἰσὶ νόμος, just asserted, is 
 confirmed : being such as show (practically by their action, ver. 14, make it 
 known) that the work of the law is written in their hearts, wherewithal their 
 conscience bears joint witness, ete. —That ἐνδείκνυνται should be‘understood of 
 the practical proof which takes place by the. ποιεῖν τὰ τοῦ νόμου (not by the 
 testimony of conscience, Bengel, Tholuck) is required by the σὺν in συμμαρ- 
 τυρούσης, Which is not a mere strengthening of the simple word (Kd6llner, 
 Olshausen ; comp. Tholuck, following earlier expositors ; see, on the other 
 hand viii. 16, ix. 1), but denotes the agreement of the internal evidence of 
 conscience with the external proof by fact.2 It is impossible to regard the 
 ἐνδείκνυνται as taking place on the day indicated in ver. 16 (Hofmann), since 
 this day can be no other than that of the last judgment. See on ver. 16. 
 -- τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου] The work relating to the law, the conduct corresponding 
 to it, fulfilling it. The opposite is ἁμαρτήματα νόμου, Wisd. 11. 12. Com- 
 pare on Gal. ii. 16. The singular is collective (Gal. vi. 4), as a summing up 
 of the ἔργα τ. νόμου (111. 20, 28, ix. 32 ; Gal. 11. 16, 11. 2, 5, 10). Compare 
 τὰ tov νόμου above. This stands written in their hearts as commanded, as 
 moral obligation,*® as ethical law of nature. — γραπτόν) purposely chosen with 
 reference to the written law of Moses, although the moral law is ἄγραφος. ἡ 
 
 ! 
 
 1 Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 568; Buttmann 1.6. p. 
 262 f. 
 
 2 Where συμμαρτυρεῖν appears to be equiv- 
 alent to μαρτυρ., it is only an apparent equiv- 
 alence; there is always mentally implied an 
 agreement with the person for whom wiiness 
 is borne, as é.g. Thue. viii. 51,2; Plat. Zipp. 
 Maj. p. 282 B: συμμαρτυρῆσαι δέ σοι ἔχω ὅτι 
 ἀληθῆ λέγεις, if that is meant is not a testi- 
 mony agreeing with others (as Xen. Hist. Gr. 
 Vii. -1, 2, iii. 3, 2), or, as here, one that agrees 
 with a thing, aphenomenon, a proof by fact, 
 or the like. Compare Isoc. p. 47 A. In the 
 passage, Plat. Legg. iii. p. 680 D, ξυμμαρτυρεῖν 
 is expressly distinguished from μαρτυρ ; for, 
 after the τῷ σῷ λόγῳ ἔοικε μαρτυρεῖν preced- 
 ing, the vai: ξυμμαρτυρεῖ yap must mean: he 
 is my joint-witness, whose evidence agrees 
 with what I say. If the reference of συμ. 
 in our passage to the proof by fact be not 
 adopted, then αὐτοῖς would need be sup- 
 plied ; but wherefore should we do so? Ac- 
 
 cording to Tholuck συμ. indicates merely 
 the agreement of the person witnessing 
 with the contents of his testimony. This 
 is never the case, and would virtually de- 
 prive the συμ. of all significance. 
 
 8 This inward law is not the conscience it- 
 self, but the regulative contents of the con- 
 sciousness of the conscience ; consequently, 
 if we conceive the latter, and with justice 
 (in opposition to Rud. Hofmann, Lehre vom 
 Gewissen, 1866, p. 54, 58 f.), as presented in 
 the form of a syllogism, it forms the sub- 
 ject of the major premise of this syllogism. 
 Comp. Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 136 f. 
 
 4Plato, Legg. Ὁ. 481 B, Thue. ii. 87, 3, 
 and Kriiger, in loc. p. 200; Xen. Mem. iv. 
 4, 19; Soph. Ant. 450; Dem. 317, 23, 689, 22; 
 Dion. Hal. vii. 41). Compare Jer. xxxi. 33; 
 Heb. viii. 10, and the similar designations 
 among the Rabbins in Buxtorf, Lea Talm. 
 p. 852, 1849. 
 
94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 The supplying of ὄν serves to explain the adjective, which is used instead 
 of the participle to denote what continues and is constant.’— συμμαρτυρούσης 
 αὐτῶν συνειδήσεως, καὶ μεταξὺ x«.7.A.] while they make known outwardly by 
 their action that the ἔργον of the law is written in their hearts, their inner 
 moral consciousness accords with it ; namely (1), in reference to their own, 
 personal relation : the testimony of their own consciences ; and (2), in regard 
 to their mutual relation : the accusations or vindications® that are carried on 
 between Gentiles and Gentiles (μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων) by their thoughts, by their 
 moral judgments. This view of the sense is required by the correlation of 
 the points αὐτῶν and μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων placed with emphasis in the foreground 
 (μεταξὺ occurring in Paul’s writings only here, and therefore all the more 
 intentionally chosen in this case) ; so that thus both the personal individual 
 testimony of conscience (αὐτῶν) and the mutual judgment of the thoughts 
 (μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων), are adduced, as accompanying internal acts, in confirma- 
 tion of the ἐνδείκνυνται. The Gentiles, who do the requirement of the law, 
 practically show thereby that that requirement is inscribed on their hearts ; 
 and this is attested at the same time, so far as concerns the actors themselves, 
 by their (following) conscience, and, so far as concerns their relation to other 
 Gentiles, by the accusations or the vindications which they reciprocally practise 
 in their moral thoughts, the one making reflections of a condemnatory or of 
 a justifying nature on the other.* The prominence thus given to αὐτῶν and 
 μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, and the antithetical correlation of the two points, have been 
 commonly misunderstood (though not by Castalio, Storr, Flatt, Baumgar- 
 ten-Crusius), and consequently κ. μετ. ἀλλ. τῶν διαλογ. κιτ.2. has been taken 
 merely as an explanatory description of the process of conscience, in which the 
 thoughts accuse or vindicate one another (i.e. one thought the other) ; so that 
 ἀλλήλων is referred to the thoughts, and not, as is nevertheless required by 
 the αὐτῶν standing in contradistinction to it, to the ἔϑνη. This view ought 
 even to have been precluded by attending to the fact that, since συμμαρτ. 
 
 . . συνειδήσεως Must, in harmony with the context, mean the approving 
 conscience [See Note XX. p. 108.], what follows cannot well suit as an exposi- 
 tion, because in it the κατηγορούντων preponderates. Finally, it was an arbi- 
 trary expedient, rendering μεταξὺ merely superfluous and confusing, to 
 separate it from ἀλλήλ., and to explain the former as meaning at a future 
 time, viz. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ x.T.A. (Koppe), or between, at the same time (Kollner, 
 Jatho). 
 
 Ver. 16 has its connection with what goes before very variously defined. 
 While Ewald goes so far as to join it with ver. 5, and regards everything 
 intervening as a parenthesis, many, and recently most expositors, have con- 
 nected it with the immediately preceding cuypapr. . . . . ἀπολογ. ; in which 
 
 1 Compare Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. i. 
 5,1; Symp. 4, 25. See the truly classic de- 
 scription of this inner law, and that as di- 
 vine, in Cicero, de Repubdl. iii. 23; of the 
 Greeks, comp. Soph. 0. 7. 838 ff., and Wun- 
 der, 27 loc. 
 
 2 The καί added to the 7 is based on the 
 
 view taken of the moral state of the Gen- 
 tiles, that the κατηγορεῖν forms the rule. See 
 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126. 
 
 3 Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 277: “Τὸ 
 is testified by the conscience, which teaches 
 them to judge the quality of their own and 
 others’ actions.” 
 
CHAP, 11.,.16. 95 
 
 case, however, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ cannot be taken for εἰς ἡμέραν (Calvin), nor the pres- 
 ent participles in a future sense (Fritzsche), since, in accordance with the 
 context, they are contemporary with ἐνδείκνυνται. And for that very reason 
 we must reject the view, which has been often assumed, that Paul suddenly 
 transports himself from the present into the time of the judgment, when 
 the exercise of conscience in the Gentiles will be specially active, and that 
 for this reason he at once adds ἐν ἡμέρᾳ x.t.A. directly without inserting a 
 καὶ τοῦτο μάλιστα, OY καὶ τοῦτο γενήσεται, Or the like (Riickert, Tholuck, de 
 Wette, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit ; comp. Estius). The 
 supposition of such an illogical and violent leap of thought in so clear and 
 steady a thinker as Paul is thoroughly arbitrary and wholly without analogy. 
 Moreover, the simple temporal self-judgment of the Gentiles fits into the + 
 connection so perfectly, that Paul cannot even have conceived of it as an 
 anticipation of the last judgment (Mehring). Quite an incorrect thought, 
 repugnant to ver. 12 and to the whole doctrinal system of the Apostle, is 
 obtained by Luthardt (v. freien Willen, p. 410 f.), when, very arbitrarily 
 joining it only with ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων, he discovers here the hope ‘that to 
 such the reconciling grace of Christ shall one day be extended.” This is 
 not confirmed by ver. 26. <A relative natural morality never in the N. T. 
 supplies the place of faith, which is the absolutely necessary condition of 
 reconciling grace. Compare iii. 9, 22, vil. 14 ff. αἱ. Lastly Hofmann, who 
 formerly held a view similar to Luthardt’s (see Schriftbew. I. p. 669), now 
 connects ἐν ἡμέρᾳ x.t.A. to ἐνδείκνυνται in such a way, that he explains ver. 
 16 not at all of the final judgment, but, in contrast even to the latter, of 
 every day on which God causes the Gospel to be proclaimed among the Gentiles ; 
 every such day shall be for all, who hear the message, a day of inward judg- 
 ment ; whoever believingly accepts it, and embraces salvation, thereby 
 proves that he himself demands from himself what the revealed law enjoins 
 on those who possess it. This interpretation, which would require us to 
 read with Hofmann κρίνει (the present) instead of κρινεῖ, is as novel as it is 
 erroneous. For the expressions in ver. 16 are so entirely those formally 
 used to denote the last judgment (comp. on ἡμέρᾳ 1 Cor. 1. 8, v. 5 ; 2 Cor. 1. 
 14 al. ; on κρινεῖ, vv. 2, 3, 5, 111. 6 al. ; on Θεός as the judge, 111. 6, xiv. 10, 
 12, al. ; on τὰ κρυπτά, 1 Cor. iv. 5; on διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ X. 2 Cor. v. 10; Acts 
 xvii. 31) that nothing else could occur to any reader than the conception 
 of that judgment, which moreover has been present to the mind since 
 ver. 2, and from which even κατὰ τὸ evayy. μου does not draw away the at- 
 tention. Every element in Hofmann’s exposition is subjectively introduced, 
 so that Paul could not have wrapped up the simple thought, which is sup- 
 posed to be expressed in so precious a manner, in a more strange disguise 
 —a thought, moreover, which is here utterly irrelevant, since Paul has to 
 do simply with the natural law of the Gentiles in its relation to the revealed 
 νόμος of Judaism, and apart as yet from all reference to the occurrence of 
 -their conversion ; and hence also the comparison with Heb. iv. 12 is here 
 out of place. The proper view of the passage depends on our treating as a 
 parenthesis, not (with Winer and others) vv. 138-15, but with Lachmann, vv. 
 14, 15. This parenthetical insertion is already indicated as such by the fact, 
 
96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 that the great judicial proposition previously expressed : οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου 
 ᾿ δικαιωϑήσονται is in vv. 14, 15 proved only with reference to a part of man- 
 kind, with regard to which it might seem possibly doubtful : it is required 
 by the circumstance, that without it ἐν ἡμέρᾳ has no proper logical reference 
 whatever ; and lastly, it is confirmed by the consideration that, if it is 
 adopted, the whole is wound up not with an illustration having reference to 
 the Gentiles, but—and how emphatically and solemnly !—with the leading 
 thought of the whole discussion.1\— τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν avdp.] The hidden things 
 of men, 1.6. everything in their inner or outer life which does not come to 
 the knowledge of others at all, or not according to its moral quality. This 
 special characteristic of the judgment is given with reference to ver. 13, inas- 
 much as it is just swch a judging that is necessary for, and the preliminary 
 to, the realization of what is affirmed in ver. 19. -- κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλ. μου] con- 
 tains, according to the wswal view, the accordance of the assertion κρινεῖ ὁ 
 Θεός τὰ κρυπτὰ τ. ἀνϑρ. διὰ 1. Xp. with the Apostle’s official proclamation of 
 salvation. But the fact that God will judge, etc., was so universally known 
 and so entirely undoubted, that the addition in that sense would have been 
 in the highest degree superfluous ; and indeed the μου in that case would 
 have no significance bearing on the matter, since no one proclaiming the 
 Gospel could call in question that truth. We must therefore explain it, 
 with Pareus, Calovius, and many others, including Umbreit and Hofmann, 
 as referring to the manner of the κρινεῖ. Paul was so certain of the sole 
 truth of the Gospel committed to him (xvi. 25 ; Eph. iv. 20 f.) which he 
 had by revelation of God (Gal. i. 11 f.) that he could not but be equally 
 certain that the future judgment would not be held otherwise than according 
 to his Gospel, whose contents are conceived as the standard of the sentence. 
 In that same Gospel he knew it to be divinely determined, to whom the 
 στέφανος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, the eternal life and its δόξα, or on the other hand its 
 opposite, eternal ἀπώλεια, should be awarded by the judge. But he knew 
 at the same time the axiom announced in ver. 13, with which ver. 16 con- 
 nects itself, to be not at variance therewith (comp. iii. 31) ; as indeed on 
 the contrary, it is just in the Gospel that perfection in the fulfilment of the 
 law is demanded, and accordingly (see ch. vi. 8, xiii. 8 ff.) the judicial rec- 
 ompense is determined conformably to the conduct, viii. 4; 2 Cor. v. 10; 
 Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9f. ; Gal. v. 19-23. On μου Calvin’s note sufiices : 
 swum appellat ratione ministerii, and that, to distinguish it from the preach- 
 ing not of other apostles, but of false, and especially of Judaizing teachers. 
 Comp. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. The mistaken view is held by Origen, 
 Jerome, and other Fathers,*? that Paul meant by Ais Gospel that of Luke. — 
 διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xp.| AS He is the Mediator of eternal salvation, so also itis He 
 who is commissioned by God to hold the judgment. Comp. Acts xvii: 30, 
 Sit ἢ (ΟΝ. ov; Γ᾽ ΟἿΣ. ν᾿ 10 ala John ν. 27.6 Math, socve ol: 
 Vv. 17-24. The logical connection of this ‘‘ oratio splendida ac vehemens” 
 
 1 There is therefore the less reason for which was copied into the text at the wrong 
 assuming with Laurent that ver. 16 wasa___ place. 
 marginal note of the Apostle on yer. 13, 2 See Fabricius, Cod. apocr. p. 371 f. 
 
CHAP. 11., 17-20. oF 
 
 (Estius), introduced once more in lively apostrophe,’ with what precedes is 
 to be taken thus: Paul has expressed in vv. 13-16 the rule of judgment, 
 that not the hearers but the doers of the law shall in the judgment be jus- 
 tified. He wishes now vividly to bring home the fact, that the conduct of 
 the Jews, with all their conceit as to the possession and knowledge of the 
 law, is in sharp contradiction to that standard of judgment. The dé and 
 the emphatic σύ are to be explained from the conception of the contrast, 
 which the conduct of the Jews showed, to the proposition that only the 
 doers δικαιωϑήσονται. As to the construction of vv. 17-23, the common as- 
 sumption of an anakoluthon, by which Paul in ver. 21 abandons the plan 
 of the discourse started with ei, and introduces another turn by means of 
 οὖν" is quite unnecessary. The discourse, on the contrary, is formed with 
 regular and logically accurate connection as protasis (vv. 17-20) and apo- 
 dosis, namely thus: But if thou art called a Jew, and supportest thyself on 
 the law, etc., down to ver. 20, dost thou (nterrogative apodosis, vv. 21, 22), 
 who accordingly (οὖν, in accordance with what is specified in vv. 17-20) 
 teachest others, not teach thyself? Stealest thou, who preachest against stealing ὃ 
 Committest thou adultery, who forbiddest adultery? Plunderest thou temples, 
 who abhorrest idols? These questions present the contrast to the contents of 
 the protasis as in the highest degree surprising, as something that one is at 
 a loss how to characterize—and then follows in ver. 23, with trenchant pre- 
 cision, the explanation and decision regarding them in the categorical 
 utterance : Thou, who boastest thyself of the law, dishonourest God by the trans- 
 gression of the law, a result which is then in ver. 24 further confirmed by a 
 testimony from the O.T. Ver. 23 also might indeed (as commonly explained) 
 be taken as a question ; but, when taken as declaratory, the discourse pre- 
 sents a form far more finished, weighty and severe. Paul himself, by 
 abandoning the participial expression uniformly employed four times pre- 
 viously, seems to indicate the cessation of the course hitherto pursued. Ac- 
 cording to this exposition of the connection, in which it must not be over- 
 looked that the force of the οὖν in ver. 21 is limited solely to the relation of the 
 ὁ διδάσκων ἕτερον and the following participles to what has been said before,* 
 we must reject the view of Benecke, Gléckler, and Hofmann that the apo- 
 dosis only begins with ver. 23, but in ver. 21 f. there is a continuation of 
 the hypothetical protasis—an idea which cannot be tolerated, especially at 
 the beginning of the new form of discourse (the antithetical), without rep- 
 etition of the ei. Paul would have written εἰ οὖν ὁ διδάσκων κ.τ.. (compare 
 Baeumlein, Partiz. p. 178). Th. Schott erroneously finds in ἐπαναπαύῃ and 
 kavyaoa the apodosis, which is then explained. 
 
 Vy. 17-20 contain the protasis, whose tenor of censwre (called in question 
 
 1To the Jews, not to the Jewish-Chris- 
 tians. Respecting the composition and 
 character of the Roman congregation noth- 
 ing can be inferred from this rhetorical form 
 of expression. Comp. Th. Schott, p. 188 f. 
 
 2 See Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 569], Buttmann, 
 Dp. 331 [E. T. 386]. 
 
 5 This is the well-known epanaleptic οὖν, 
 
 gathering up and resuming what had been 
 said previously. Regarding the frequency 
 of its use also in Greek writers to introduce 
 the apodosis, especially after a lengthened 
 protasis, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 22 f.; 
 Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 718. Comp. Bengel on 
 Wary ale 
 
98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 without ground by Th. Schott and Hofmann) reveals itself at first gently, 
 but afterwards, ver. 19 f., with greater force.—’ Τουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ] if thou art 
 named ‘‘ Jew.” This was the theocratic title of honour opposed to heathen- 
 “ism (Τ᾿ 1, see Philo, Alleg. I. p. 55 B, de plant. Noé, p. 233 A). Comp. 
 Rev. ii. 9. So much the less therefore is ἑπονομάζ. to be here understood of 
 a surname (Bengel). Full effect is given to the compound in classic writers 
 aiso by the notion of name-giving, imposing the name.’ Van Hengel arbitra- 
 rily imports the idea: pro veteri nomine (Israelitarum) novwm substituens. 
 — énavarain τῷ νόμῳ] acquiescis, thow reliest (Mic. ili. 11; 1 Mace. viii. 12 ; 
 see Wetstein) on the law, comp. John v. 45, as if the possession and knowl- 
 edge of it were to thee the guarantee of salvation. The rest, of not being 
 obliged jirst of all to scek what God’s will is (Hofmann), cannot be meant ; 
 since such a seeking cannot be separated from the possession of the law, 
 but is on the contrary directed to that very law (see ver. 18). But in the 
 law the Jew saw the magna charta of his assurance of salvation. Ue relied 
 upon it. —év Θεῷ] As being the exclusive Father and Protector of the 
 nation. Comp. Gen. xvii. 7; Is. xlv. 25; Jer. xxxi. 33. Observe the 
 climax of the three points in ver. 17. The ἐν with καυχ. (2 Cor. x. 15; 
 Gal. vi. 13), a verb which in Greek authors is joined with ἐπί or εἰς or the 
 accusative, denotes that, wherein the xavy. rests, according to the analogy 
 of χαίρειν, τέρπεσϑαι év.2— Ver. 18, τὸ ϑέλημα)] Kar’ ἐξοχήν. Whose will it 
 was, that was to be obeyed on the part of man, was obvious of itself. Comp. 
 on ὄνομα Acts v. 41. — δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέρ. Thou approvest the excellent. Re- 
 specting the lexical correctness of this rendering comp. on Phil. i. 10. Its 
 correctness in accordance with the connection is plain from the climactic re- 
 lation, in which the two elements of ver. 18 must stand to each other. 
 ‘“Thou knowest the will of God and approvest (theoretically) the excellent” 
 —therewith Paul has conceded to the Jews all possible theory of the ethical, 
 up to the limit of practice. Others, taking δοκιμάζειν as to prove, explain τὰ 
 διαφέροντα as meaning that which is different ; and this either (comp. Heb. 
 v. 14) of the distinction between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Estius, Grotius and others, including Reiche, Riickert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, 
 Krehl, Philippi, van Hengel, Th. Schott), or that which is different from the 
 will of God, i.e. what is wrong, sinful (Clericus, Gléckler, Mehring, 
 Hofmann ; compare Beza). But, after: γινώσκεις τὸ ϑέλημα, how tame and 
 destructive of the climax is either explanation! The Vulgate rightly ren- 
 ders: ‘‘probas utiliora.” Compare Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, 
 Flatt, Ewald. — κατηχούμ. ἐκ τ. νόμου] Being instructed out of the law (through 
 the public reading and exposition of it in the synagogues, comp. ἀκροάται, 
 ver. 13), namely as to the will of God, and as to that which is excellent. 
 —Vv. 19, 20 now describe, with a reference not to be mistaken (in oppo- 
 sition to Th. Schott and Hofmann) to the Jewish presumption and disposition 
 to proselytize (Matt. xxili. 15), the influence which the Jews, in virtue of 
 their theoretic insight, fancied that they exercised over the Gentiles. The 
 
 1 See Plat. Crat. Ὁ. 397 E, Ὁ. 406 A ; Phaedr. Polyb. i. 29, 2; comp. Gen. iv. 17, 25 f. 
 p. 2388 A.al.; Xen. Oec. 6,17; Thue. ii. 29, 3; 2 Bernhardy, p. 211; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 408, 
 
CHAP: Deel 22) 99 
 
 accumulated asyndetic designations of the same thing lend lively force to 
 the description. They are not to be regarded with Reiche as reminiscences 
 from the Gospels (Matt. xv. 14; Luke xx. 32, 11. 32) ; for apart from the 
 fact that at least no canonical Gospel had at that time been written, the 
 figurative expressions themselves which are here used were very current 
 among the Jews and elsewhere. See, 6.0. Wetstein on Matt. xv. 14. Ob- 
 serve, further, that Paul does not continue here with the conjunctive «at, 
 but with the adjunctive τέ, because what follows contains the conduct de- 
 termined by and dependent on the elements of ver. 18, and not something 
 independent.*— ceavriv ὁδηγ. x.t.4.] that thow thyself for thy part, in virtue 
 of this aptitude received from the law, etc. πέποιϑα, accompanied by the 
 accusative with the infinitive, occurs only here in the N. T., and rarely in 
 Greek authors (Aesch. Sept. 444). — παιδευτὴν x.t.4.] trainer of the foolish, 
 teacher of those in nonage.? —7iv μόρφωσιν τ. γνώσ. Kk. τ. ἀλήϑ] the form of 
 knowledge and of the truth. Inthe doctrines and precepts of the law, re- 
 ligious knowledge and divine truth, both in the objective sense, attain the 
 conformation and exhibition (Ewald : ‘‘embodiment”) proper to them, 6.6. 
 corresponding to their nature (hence τὴν μόρῳ.), so that we possess in the 
 law those lineaments which, taken collectively, compose the σχηματισμὸς 
 (Hesychius) of knowledge and truth and thus bring them to adequate in- 
 tellectual cognizance. Truth and knowledge have become in the law 
 ἔμμορφος (Plut. Num. 8, Mor. Ὁ. 428 F), or μορφοειδής (Plut. Mor. p. 735 A). 
 Paul adds this ἔχοντα τὴν μόρῳ. τ. yv. κ. τ. aA. asan illustrative definition (ué 
 qui habeas, etc.) to all the points previously adduced ; and in doing so he 
 places himself entirely at the Jewish point of view (comp. Wisd. xxiv. 82 ff.), 
 and speaks according to their mode of conception ; hence the view which 
 takes μόρῳ. here as the mere appearance (2 Tim. iii. 5), in contrast to the 
 reality, is quite erroneous (in opposition to τινές in Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
 Pareus, Olshausen). Even Paul himself could not possibly find in the law 
 merely the appearance of truth (iii. 21, 31).° 
 
 Vv. 21, 22. Apodosis interrogating with lively indignation. See gen- 
 erally, and respecting οὖν, above on vv. 17-24. The form of the questions 
 is expressive of surprise at the existence of an incongruity somuch at variance 
 with the protases, ver. 17 f.; it must have been in fact impossible. So also 
 in 1 Cor. vi. 2.—Dost thou, who teachest others accordingly, not teach thine own 
 self? namely, a better way of thinking and living than thou showest by thy 
 conduct.*— The following infinitives do not include in themselves the idea 
 of δεῖν or ἐξεῖναι," but find their explanation in the idea of commanding, which 
 is implied in the finite verbs.°—6 βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς) Thou, 
 who abhorrest idols, dost thou plunder temples? This is necessarily to be 
 
 1 Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. TI. p. 790. trast (comp. LXX. Ps. 1. 16 ff.; Ignat. Hph. 
 
 2 Comp. Plat. Pol. x. p. 598 C: παῖδάς τε καὶ 15) from Greek and Rabbinical authors may 
 ἄφρονας. be seen in Wetstein. 
 
 3 On μόρφωσις compare Theophrastus h. 5 See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 753 f. 
 pl. iii. 7, 4, and διαμόρφωσις in Plut. Mor. p. 6 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 1, Anab. 
 1023 C. v. 7, 84: Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 846 B; 
 
 4 Analogous passages expressing this con- © Wunder, ad Soph. O, C. 837. 
 
100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 understood of the plundering of idols’ temples (with Chrysostom, The- 
 ophylact,’ Clericus, Wetstein, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
 Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring (Riickert indecisively) ; as isrequired by the anti- 
 thetic relation in which ἱεροσυλεῖς stands to the βδελυσσόμ. τὰ εἴδωλα. ‘Thou 
 who holdest all contact with idols as a detestable pollution—dost thou 
 lay plundering hands on their temples?” Abhorrence of idols and (not, it 
 might be, temple-destruction, Deut. vil. 25, but greedy) temple-plunder- 
 ing ?—Paul could not have placed at the close of his reproachful questions 
 a contrast between theory and practice more incisively affecting Jewish feel- 
 ing. That robbery of temples actually occurred among the Jews, may just- 
 ly be inferred from Acts xix. 37, but especially from Josephus, Andtt. iv. 8, 
 10.° It is differently explained by Pelagius, Pareus, Toletus, Grotius, Heu- 
 mann, Michaelis, Cramer, Reiche, Gléckler, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, 
 and Hofmann, who understand it of robbing the Jewish temple by the em- 
 bezzlement or curtailment of the temple-moneys and sacrifices (for proofs of 
 this crime, see Josephus, Antt. viii. 3, 5 f.), by withholding the temple 
 tribute, and the like.* Luther, Calvin, Bengel, and others, including Morus, 
 Flatt, Kéllner, and Umbreit, interpret it, with still more deviation from the 
 proper sense, as denoting the ‘‘ profanatio divinae majestatis” (Calvin) gen- 
 erally. Compare Luther’s gloss, ‘‘ Thou art a robber of God ; for it is 
 God’s glory which all who would be holy through works take from Him.” 
 Such unjustifiable deviations from the literal sense would not have been re- 
 sorted to, if attention had been directed on the one hand to the actual unity 
 of the object in the whole of the antitheses, and on the other to the appro- 
 priate climax : theft, adultery, robbery of idols’ temples. 
 
 Ver. 23 gives to the four questions of reproachful astonishment the de- 
 cisive categorical answer. See above on vv. 17-24. [See Note XXI. p. 108.] 
 — διὰ τῆς παραβ. τ. νόμου] To this category belonged especially the ἱεροσυ- 
 λεῖν ; for in Deut. vii. 25 f. the destruction of heathen statues is enjoined, 
 but the robbery of their gold and silver is repudiated. — τὸν ϑεὸν ἀτιμάζεις] 
 How ? is shown in ver. 24. —rdv ϑεὸν] who has given the law. 
 
 Ver. 24. For confirmation of his τὸν ϑεὸν ἀτιμάζεις Paul subjoins a Script- 
 ure quotation, namely Is. lii. 5, in substance after the LXX., not the far 
 more dissimilar passage Ezek. xxxvi. 22 f. (Calvin, Ewald, and others), 
 which, according to Hofmann, he is supposed to express according to the 
 Greek translation of Is. 7.6. ‘‘more convenient” for him. But he applies 
 
 1 Theophylact (whom Estius follows) very 
 properly refers the ἱεροσυλεῖς to the temples 
 of idols, but limits it to the taking away of 
 the ἀναθήματα. His exposition, moreover, 
 aptly brings out the practical bearing of 
 the point: ἱεροσυλίαν λέγει THY ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν 
 ἀνατιθεμένων τοῖς εἰδώλοις, καὶ γὰρ εἰ καὶ ἐβδε- 
 λύσσοντο τὰ εἴδωλα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τῇ φιλοχρηματίᾳ 
 τυραννούμενοι ἥπτοντο τῶν εἰδωλικῶν ἀναθημά- 
 των δι᾽ αἰσχροκερδίαν. 
 
 3.Πὴ6 objection urged by Reiche and van 
 Hengel, that ἱεροσυλεῖν always refers to tem- 
 ples which the speaker really looks upon as 
 
 holy places, is irrelevant for this reason,that 
 Paul was obliged to take the word, which 
 he found existing in the Greek, in order to in- 
 dicate temple-robbery, while he has al- 
 ready sufficiently excluded the idea that the 
 temples themselves were sacred in his eyes 
 by τὰ εἴδωλα. 
 
 3See also Rabbinical passages in Do- 
 litzsch’s Hebrew translation, p. 77. 
 
 4 Compare Test. Χ 17. Patr. Ὁ. 578. 
 
 5 Olshausen thinks that avarice, as inward 
 idolatry, is meant. 
 
GH APs LE) eae 101 
 
 the quotation in such a way that he makes it his own by the yap not found in 
 the original or the LXX.; only indicating by καϑὼς γέγραπται at the close, 
 that he has thus appropriated a passage of Scripture. Hence καϑὼς yéy. is 
 placed at the end, as is never done in the case of express quotations of Script- 
 ure. The historical sense ’ of the passage is not here concerned, since Paul 
 has not quoted it as a fulfilled prophecy, though otherwise with propriety 
 in the sense of iii. 19. — dv’ ὑμᾶς] i.e. on account of your wicked conduct. — 
 βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσι) among the Gentiles, inasmuch, namely, as these in- 
 fer from the immoral conduct of the Jews that they have an unholy God 
 and Lawgiver, and are thereby moved to blaspheme His holy name. Comp. 
 Clement, Cor. I. 47. 
 
 Ver. 25. Having in vv. 17-24 (not merely taken for granted, but) thrown 
 a bright light of illumination on the culpability of the Jews in presence of 
 the law, Paul now briefly and decisively dissipates the fancy of a special 
 advantage, of which they were assured through cirewmeision. ‘* For 
 cireumeision indeed, the advantage of which thou mightest perchance urge 
 against this condemnation, is useful, if thou doest the law ; but if thou art a 
 ’ transgressor of the law, thou hast as circumcised no advantage over the uncircum- 
 cised.”’ — γάρ therefore annexes a corroboration of the closing result of vv. 
 23, 24, and does so by excluding every advantage, which the Jew trans- 
 gressing this law might fancy himself possessed of, as compared with the 
 Gentile, in virtue of circumcision. Stat sententia! in spite of thy circum- 
 cision ! Hofmann is the less justified, however, in taking the μέν elliptically, 
 with the suppression of its antithesis,? since against its correspondence with 
 the immediately following dé no well-founded logical objection exists. — 
 περιτομῇ] circumcision, without the article. It is not however, with K6llner 
 and many others, to be taken asa description of Judaism generally ; but 
 definitely and specially of cirewmcision, to which sacrifice of the body—con- 
 secrating men to membership of the people of God (Ewald, Alterth. p. 127), 
 and meant to be accompanied by the inner consecration of moral holiness 
 (see on ver. 28)—the theocratic Jewish conceit attributed the absolute value 
 of a service rendering them holy and appropriating the Abrahamic promises. 
 — ὠφελεῖ] seeing that it transfers into the communion of all blessings and 
 promises conferred by God on His covenant people ; which blessings and 
 promises, however, are attached to the observance of His law as their con- 
 dition (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.; Lev. xviii. 5 ; Deut. xxvii. 26 ; Gal. v. 3), so that 
 circumcision points at the same time to the new covenant, and becomes a 
 sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith (see oniv. 11). This how- 
 ever the Apostle has not yet in view here [See Note XXII. p. 108. ]. — ἐὰν vow. 
 κιτ.}.} Not on the presupposition that, but rather, as also the two following 
 ἐάν : in the case that, Winer, p. 275[E. T. 293]. — ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν] Has be- 
 come now, has lost, for thee, every advantage which it was designed to 
 secure to thee over the uncircumcised, so that thou hast now no advantage 
 
 1 Τῦ refers to God’s name being dis- 2 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 414, and gener- 
 honoured through the enslaying of the ally Baeumlein, Part. p. 163. 
 Jews by their tyrants. 
 
 «- 
 
102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 over the latter, and art, just as he is, no member of God’s people. Paul con- 
 ceives of the latter as a holy people, like the invisible church of God, in 
 which the mortua membra of the people have no part.1— γέγονεν] Present 
 of the completed action ; vii. 2; xiv. 23 ; John xx. 23. 
 ethical result, which takes place. 
 
 Ver. 26. Interrogative inference of the corresponding inverse relation, 
 drawn from ver. 25. — ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ] referring to the concrete ἀκρόβυστος 
 understood in the previous ἀκροβυστία. ---τὰ δικαιώματα τ. νόμου φυλ.1 The 
 same as τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιεῖν in ver. 14, as also the following τ. νόμον τελοῦσα of 
 ver. 27.° A ‘‘perfect, deep inner” fulfilment of the law (Philippi), is a 
 gratuitous suggestion, since there is no modal definition appended. Paul 
 means the observance of the Mosaic legal precepts (respecting δικαιώματα 
 comp. on i. 32 and y. 16), which in point of fact takes place when the 
 Gentile obeys the moral law of nature, ver. 14 f. -- εἰς περιτ. λογισϑήσεται] 
 will be reckoned as cireumeision (εἰς in the sense of the result, see ix. 8 ; 
 Acts xix. 27; Is. xl. 17; Wisd. ix. 6; Theile, ad Jac. p. 188). The 
 Suture is not that of the logical certainty (Mehring and older expositors), or 
 of the result (Hofmann), which latter sense would be involved in a form of 
 expression corresponding to the yéyove ; but the glance of the Apostle ex- 
 tends (see ver. 27) to the last judgment. To the uncircumcised person, who 
 observes what the law has ordained, ¢.e. the moral precepts of the law, shall 
 one day be awarded the same salvation that God has destined, subject to 
 the obligation of fulfilment of the law, for those who through circumcision 
 are members of His people. As to the thought comp. Matt. viii. 11, ili. 9 ; 
 1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 6. The reference to proselytes of the gate (Philippi) 
 is not only arbitrary, but also incorrect, because the text has in view the 
 pure contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision, without any hint 
 of an intermediate stage or anything analogous thereto. The proposition is 
 to be retained in its unlimited expression. The mediation, however, which 
 has to intervene for the circumcised as well as for the uncircumcised, in 
 order to the procuring of salvation through faith, is still left unnoticed here, 
 and is reserved for the subsequent teaching of the Epistle. See especially 
 ch. iv. 
 
 Ver. 27. is regarded by most modern expositors, including Rickert, 
 Reiche (undecidedly), Kéllner, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Philippi, Lachmann, 
 Ewald, and Mehring, as a continuation of the question, so that οὐχί is again 
 understood before κρινεῖ. But the sequence of thought is brought out 
 
 It is the emergent 
 
 1 ΠῚ 6 same idea is illustrated concretely 
 by R. Berechias in Schemoth Rabb. f. 138, 13: 
 “Ne haeretici et apostatae et impii ex Is- 
 raelitis dicant: Quandoquidem circumcisi 
 sumus, ininfernum non descendimus. Quid 
 agit Deus S.B.? Mittit angelum et prae- 
 putia eorum attrahit, ita ut ipsi in infernum 
 descendant.’’ See other similar passages in 
 Hisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. 11. p. 339 f. 
 
 2 See Winer, p. 188 [E. T. 145]. 
 
 3 roy νόμον τελεῖν Means, as in James ii. 8, 
 
 to bring the law into execution. It is only dis- 
 tinguished from φυλάσσειν and τηρεῖν νόμον 
 by its representing the same thing on its 
 practical side, so far as the law is accom- 
 plished by the action which the law de- 
 mands. Comp. Plat. Legg. xi. p. 926 A, xii. p. 
 958 D; Xen. Cyr. viii. 1, 1; Soph. Aj. 528; 
 Lucian. @. Morte Peregr. 33. On the whole, 
 τελεῖν frequently answers to the idea pa- 
 trare, facere. (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 804.) 
 
CHAP, 11., 28, 29. 103 
 much more forcibly, if we take ver. 27 as affirmative, as the reply to the 
 question contained in ver. 26, (as is done by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, 
 Bengel, Wetstein, and others ; now also by Tholuck, de Wette, van Hengel, 
 Th. Schott, Hofmann). In this case the placing κρινεῖ first. conveys a 
 strong emphasis ; and καί, as often in classic authors’ is the simple and, 
 which annexes,the answer to the interrogative discourse as if in continua- 
 tion, and thus assumes its affirmation as self-evident.* And the natural un- 
 circumcision, if it fulfils the law, shall judge, i.e. exhibit in thy full desert of 
 punishment (namely, comparatione sui, as Grotius aptly remarks),* thee, who, 
 ete. Compare, on the idea, Matt. xii. 41 ; the thought of the actual direct 
 judgment on the last day, according to 1 Cor. vi. 2, is alien to the passage, 
 although the practical indirect judgment, which is meant, belongs to the 
 future judgment-day. —7 ἐκ φύσεως axpoB.| The uncireumeision by nature, ὁ. 6. 
 the (persons in question) uncircumcised in virtue of their Gentile birth. 
 This ἐκ φύσεως, which is neither, with Koppe and Olshausen, to be connected 
 with τὸν νόμ. τελ., nor, with Mehring, to be taken as equivalent to ἐν σαρκί, 
 is in itself superfluous, but serves to heighten the contrast διὰ yp. x. περιτ. 
 The idea, that this ἀκροβυστία is ἃ περιτομὴ ἐν πνεύματι, must (in opposition to 
 Philippi) have been indicated in the text, and it would have no place in the 
 connection of our passage ; see ver. 29, where it first comes in. —rév διὰ 
 γράμμ. K. περιτ. παραβ. νόμου] who with letter and cirewmeision art a trans- 
 gressor of the law. διά denotes the surrounding circumstances amidst which, 
 z.e. here according to the context : in spite of which the transgression takes 
 place.* Compare iv. 11, xiv. 20 ; Winer, p. 355 [E. T. 380].. Others take 
 διά as instrumental, and that either: διὰ νόμου... . προαχϑείς (Oecumenius ; 
 comp. Umbreit) or: ‘‘occasione legis,” (Beza, Estius, and others ; comp. 
 Benecke), or: ‘‘who transgressest the law, and art exhibited as such by the 
 letter,” etc. (K6lner). But the former explanations introduce a foreign 
 idea into the connection ; and against Kélner’s view it may be urged that 
 his declarative rendering weakens quite unnecessarily the force of the con- 
 trast of the two members of the verse. For the most natural and most 
 abrupt contrast to the wneirewmeised person who keeps the law is he, who 
 transgresses the law notwithstanding letter and circumcision, and is conse- 
 quently all the more culpable, because he offends against written divine 
 direction (ypayy.) and theocratic obligation (cepcr.). 
 
 Vy. 28, 29. Proof of ver. 27. For the true Judaism (which is not exposed’ 
 to that κρινεῖ) resides not in that which is external, but in the hidden world of 
 the internal. — ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ] 1.6. ὃς ἐν τῷ φ. ἐστι : > for he is not a Jew, who is 
 80 openly, 7.e. not he who shows himself to be an Ιουδαῖος in external visible 
 
 1 Thiersch, § 354, 5 b.; Kiihner, ad Xen. 
 Mem. ii. 10, 2. 
 
 2 Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 880. 
 
 3 Not so, that God in judging will apply 
 the Gentile obedience of the law as a stand- 
 ard for estimating the Jewish transgression 
 of it (Th. Schott), which is gratuitously 
 introduced. The standard of judgment re- 
 mains the law of God (ver. 12f.); but the 
 
 example of the Gentile, who has fulfilled it, 
 exposes and practically condemns the Jew 
 who has transgressed it. 
 
 4 Th. Schott arbitrarily: who with the 
 possession of the law and circumcision does 
 not cease to be a transgressor and /o pass for 
 such. 
 
 δ᾽ See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 116. 
 
104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 exhibition (in profession, circumcision, dress, ceremonial service, and the 
 like) is a genuine, aAndivéc, "Iovdaiog answering to the idea.’ The second 
 half of ver. 28, in which ἐν σαρκί forms an apposition to ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, more 
 precisely defining it, is to be taken as quite parallel. — Ver. 29 is usually 
 rendered : But he who is a Jew in secret (scil. is a true Jew), and circumeision 
 of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter (scil. is true cirewmcision.) But 
 against this view it may be urged that ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ is so completely par- 
 allel to the 6 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ in ver. 28, that a different mode of connection 
 cannot but seem forced. Hence the following construction and exposition 
 result more naturally (comp. Luther, Erasmus, and others ; also Fritzsche) : 
 But he is a Jew (in the true sense) who is so in secret (in the invisible inner 
 life), and (instead of now saying, in parallel with ver. 98 : ἡ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ 
 περιτομή, Paul defines both the ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ and the true spiritual mean- 
 ing of περιτομῇ More precisely, and says) cirewmeision of the heart resides (the 
 ἐστί to be supplied) in the spirit, not in the letter.* Stripped of figure, περι- 
 τομὴ καρδίας is: the separation of all that is immoral from the inner life ; 
 for circumcision was accounted even from the earliest times as σύμβολον 
 ἡδονῶν ἐκτομῆς (Philo). The uncircumcised heart is ἀμετανόητος, ver. 5. — 
 ἐν πνεύματι) is the power, im which the circumcision of the heart finds its 
 causal ground, namely, in the Spirit, 1.6. in the Holy Spirit, through whose 
 - power it takes place, not in the letter, which effects the outward circum- 
 cision by its commandment. In true Judaism also the Holy Ghost is the 
 divine active principle (comp. vii. 14). So much the less reason is there 
 for making πνεύμα in our passage mean the true Jewish public spirit proceed- 
 ing from God (de Wette, comp. Tholuck), or the spirit of the law, in con- 
 trast to its outward observance (van Hengel, who wrongly urges the ab- 
 sence of the article); or the new life-principle in man, wrought in him by the 
 Spirit of God (Riickert, comp. Luther’s gloss) ; on the contrary, the πνεῦμα 
 is to be left as the objective, concrete divine πνεῦμα, as the Holy Spirit 
 in the definite sense, and as distinguished from the spiritual conditions and 
 tendencies which He produces. The correct and clear view is held by Gro- 
 tius, Fritzsche, and Philippi ; compare Hofmann. Others, as Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius (Chrysostom and Theophylact express them- 
 selves very indefinitely), Erasmus, Beza, Toletus, Heumann, Morus, Rosen- 
 miiller, Reiche, Mehring, take πνεῦμα as meaning the spirit ef man. But 
 that the circumcision of the heart takes place in the spirit of man, is self- 
 evident ; and the similar contrast between πνεῦμα and γράμμα, vii. 6 and 2 
 Cor. iii. 6, clearly excludes the reference to the human spirit. — oi] of which, 
 is neuter, and refers to the entire description of the true Jewish nature in 
 
 1 See Matthiae, p. 1533, Buttman, newt. Gr. 
 p. 335 f. [E. T. 392]. 
 _ 2 Ewald, who likewise follows our con- 
 struction in the first clause of the verse, 
 takes in the second half of it καρδίας as pred- 
 icate : and circumcision is that of the heart. 
 But in that case, since περιτομή in itself 
 would be the ¢rwve circumcision, we should 
 expect the article before it. 
 
 3 See Lev. xxvi. 41; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; 
 Jer. iv. 14, ix. 26 ; Ez. xliv.7; compare Phil. 
 111. 3; Col. ii. 11; Acts vii.51; Philo, de Sac- 
 rif. Ὁ. 58: περιτέμνεσθε τὰς σκληροκαρδίας, τόδε 
 ἐστι τὰς περιττὰς φύσεις τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἃς ai 
 ἄμετροι τῶν παθῶν ἔσπειράν τε καὶ συνηύξησαν 
 ὁρμαὶ καὶ ὃ κακὸς ψυχῆς γεωργὸς ἐφύτευσεν, 
 ἀφροσύνη, μετὰ σπουδῆς ἀποκείρεσθε. See also 
 Schoettgen, Hor. p. 815. 
 
NOTES. 105 
 
 ver. 29. The epexegetical relative definition bears to it an argumentative 
 relation : id quod laudem suam habet etc. οὗ ye would be still more em- 
 phatic. To interpret it as masculine with reference to ’Iovdaioc (Augustine, 
 Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and many others ; including Reiche, Riickert, 
 KG6llner, de Wette, Olshausen, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, and 
 Hofmann ; compare van Hengel) is, especially seeing that Paul has not 
 written ὧν, as in iii. 8 (Schoem. ad Js. p. 243), a very unnecessary violence, 
 which Grotius, who is followed by Th. Schott, makes still worse by twist- 
 ing the construction as if the ἐστίν of ver. 28 stood immediately before οὗ (dz 
 is not the evident Jew, etc., whose praise, etc). As is often the case in classic 
 authors, the neuter of the relative belongs to the entire sentence.'—6é ἔπαινος] 
 2.€. the due praise (not recompense). See on 1 Cor. iv. 5. Compare, on the 
 matter itself, John v. 44, xii. 48. Oecumenius rightly says : τῆς γὰρ κρυπτῆς 
 καὶ ἐν καρδία περιτομῆς οὐκ ἔσται ἐπαινέτης ἄνϑρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐτάζων καρδίας Kat 
 νεφροὺς Θεὸς. Compare the δόξα Θεοῦ ill. 23. This praise is the holy satis- 
 faction of God [His being well-pleased], as He has so often declared it to the 
 righteous in the Scriptures.—Observe how perfectly analogous ver. 28 f. in 
 its tenor of thought is to the idea of the invisible church, Compare on ver. 
 25. 
 
 Notes py ΑΜΈΒΙΟΑΝ Eprror. 
 
 XV. Ver. 1—ch. 111. 20. 
 
 It may be said, with Meyer, that Paul ‘‘adduces here the second half of the 
 proof as to the wniversal necessity of justification by faith,’’ or, rather, as to the 
 fact that there is no justification by works, which fact carries with it this uni- 
 versal necessity. This second half of the proof is that with which the Apostle 
 chiefly concerns himself, not only because the unrighteousness of the Gentiles 
 was more plainly manifest, but also because the Jewish party would readily ad- 
 mit that this unrighteousness excluded the Gentiles from justification—while, on 
 the other hand, this party would not easily acknowledge the same thing, and 
 make the same admission, respecting themselves. It is for this reason that 
 he approaches the declaration of the fact as related to the Jews more gradually, 
 and with more careful preparation of the way, than he had done in the other 
 ease. He begins his argument in the most general form, and only at the 17th 
 verse does he make the direct application to the Jews of what has previously 
 been said. 
 
 XVI. Ver. 1 ff. διὸ ἀναπολόγητος el, K.7.A. 
 
 The argument in the first verses may be considered in two aspects. (1) 
 With reference to the main thoughts, ver. 2 contains the major premise; the 
 judgment of God is against those who habitually commit such sins as are 
 charged upon the Gentiles in the first chapter; ver. 1b.c. contains the minor 
 premise : the person who condemns others (in the case supposed) habitually 
 commits these sins; ver. la., we must conclude, therefore, that this person, 
 whoever he may be, will be condemned at the Divine judgment. The ar- 
 gument, as thus indicated, is complete and decisive ; and the conclusion must 
 be of universal application, unless some way of escape from the general rule 
 
 1 See especially Richter, de anac. gr. linguae, § 28; Matthiae, II. p. 987 f. 
 
106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 of the divine government can be discovered for the particular man in question. 
 But is there any such way? If so, it must be either on the man’s side, because 
 of some special privilege appertaining to himself as distinguished from others, 
 or on God’s side, because of His goodness, which is so great that it will forbear 
 to inflict the penalty. The question as to these two suppositions is raised in 
 the following verses: the former in ver. 3, and the latter in ver. 4. To the 
 former a negative answer is implied in the mode of presenting the question. 
 To the latter is added a detailed proof of the negative, which extends from 
 ver, 5 to ver. 16. The omission of a similar full statement as connected with 
 ver. 3 is to be explained from the desire on the part of the author to defer it 
 until after he should have applied his general reasoning to the Jews ; and, ac- 
 cordingly, we find it set forth in vv. 25-29. (2) With reference to the grammat- 
 ical connection and the sequence of the sentences. διό, whetheritisto be regarded 
 as referring to i. 32 (with de Wette, Alford, and others), or to the main idea of 
 i. 18-32 (with Meyer), brings the new affirmation respecting πῶς ὁ κρίνων into 
 close connection with the statements of the preceding chapter. Hence it is, 
 that the order of thought is changed throughout ; the minor premise, as given 
 above, being introduced as a proof of this affirmation, and the major premise 
 placed in an independent sentence. According tothe grammatical connection, 
 the thought proceeds as follows: On the foundation of what is said in the 
 first chapter, the man who condemns another must be declared to be without 
 excuse, for in condemning the other he condemns himself, since he does the 
 same things ; and we know that the judgment of God is against all who do 
 these things, 
 
 XVII. Ver. 4. 7---καταφρονεῖς. 
 
 This verse—as in some other cases in Paul’s writings, eg. Gal. ii. 17— 
 seems to unite two sentences (one interrogative and the other declarative), in 
 one; here, the question and its answer. The answer is found in the word 
 καταφρονεῖς, and is further developed in ver. 5. The verb of the question is 
 suggested by the context. Dost thou rely upon, or trust to, the riches of God’s 
 goodness to set thee aside from the rules of His general administration? To 
 do so, while continuing in the sins described, is a treating his goodness with 
 contempt (not recognizing even its object and purpose, which is to lead to re- 
 pentance, and not to further wrong-doing), and a laying up for the final day a 
 greater measure of divine wrath. 
 
 XVHUI. Ver. 6. ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. 
 
 The question as to the consistency of this statement with the doctrine of 
 salvation by faith hasbeen unnecessarily raised by some writers. The Apostle 
 is here speaking only of the legal system, and discussing the matter of jus- 
 tification by works. On the legal system men are rewarded according to 
 their works, When they sin, therefore, there is no hope of justification. 
 He does not return to the matter of faith until iii. 21. This verse and its con- 
 text are sometimes used as an argument against the view which holds that the 
 heathen may have a probation hereafter, on the ground that they do not have 
 a fair opportunity of obtaining salvation in this life. The argument rests, 
 however, upon a misapprehension as to what the view in question necessarily 
 involves. By having a fair opportunity, in the sense in which this term is 
 
NOTES. 107 
 
 employed, is not meant such an opportunity on the legal system. Both parties 
 alike may admit Paul’s teaching to be, that all men—the heathen nations as 
 well as others—have light enough to make their condemnation, on that system, 
 just. But anew system, through the mercy of God, has been introduced—one 
 of faith and forgiveness ; and it is claimed by advocates of the opinion alluded 
 to, that the question arises, in view of this fact, whether if, in His abound- ᾿ 
 ing goodness, God has thus opened to sinners, who had put themselves 
 beyond all hope from law, a new way of entrance into His kingdom, it is not, 
 by reason of that very goodness, probable that He will give all men alike the 
 knowledge of this wonderful way—that He will grant such knowledge and the 
 opportunity to use it for the end in view—hereafter, in case, for wise reasons 
 of His own, He does not grant it here, Will He not give the unenlightened and 
 the enlightened among mankind an equal possibility under the light of the faith- 
 ‘system? To this question this section of the Epistle, having reference only to 
 works, gives no answer. Arguments against this view, when thus under- 
 stood, may be drawn from other N. T. passages, or from the general indications 
 of N. T. teaching, but not from these verses, 
 
 XIX. Ver. 12. ἀνόμως--ἐν νόμῳ. 
 
 That ἀνόμως and ἐν νόμῳ refer to the Mosaic law must be regarded as al- 
 together probable, (a) Because the immediately preceding context presents 
 before us the division of mankind into Jews and Gentiles. The close con- 
 nection of this verse with vy. 9, 10, through the γάρ which opens it and that 
 which opens ver. 11, shows that the same division is intended here. The 
 point of difference between the two, however, was the possession or non-pos- 
 session of the Mosaic law. (Ὁ) Because ri τοῦ νόμου (ver. 14) clearly refers to 
 the requirements of the law of Moses. This being so, the contrast of the verse 
 naturally suggests the same law as intended by μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα. (c) Because 
 the thing which the Jews rested upon (ver. 17), and gloried in (ver. 23), was 
 not law, but the law of Moses, (d) Because, in the contrast presented in 
 vv, 25, 27, the keeping τόν νόμον (cf. τοῦ νόμου, ver. 26) is placed in opposition 
 to transgression νόμου. For the force of the contrast, νόμου must be regarded 
 as the same with τοῦ νόμον. (6) Because it is wholly unlikely that the writer 
 meant a different thing by παραβάσεως τὸυ νόμου in ver, 23 and παραβάτης [παρα- 
 βάσεως] νόμον, only two verses afterward. The former expression, however, 
 evidently refers to the Mosaic law. (f) Because circumcision, as a distin- 
 guishing mark of the Jews, was connected with the law of Moses. When 
 therefore practising what νόμος requires is declared to be essential to the en- 
 joyment of any advantage from this distinction, νόμος must mean this partic- 
 ular law. (4) Because all the kindred words throughout the entire passage, 
 περιτομή, γράμμα, ᾿Ιουδαῖος, point to this law as in the mind of the author. (ἢ) 
 Because the doctrine of justification by works which Paul was here proving 
 to be untrue was, as held by the Jewish party, connected with the law of Moses. 
 Throughout these verses (12-29), accordingly, wherever νόμος occurs (with the 
 possible exception of the last instance in ver. 14), it must be understood as 
 the same with ὁ νόμος ;—this word being used as a kind of proper name (cf. 
 Winer, p. 123). 
 
 The true position with regard to this word seems to be this : that, whether 
 with or without the article, it means the Mosaic law, in all cases in Paul’s 
 
108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Epistles, except a very insignificant number in which either the necessities of 
 the sentence itself, or the unquestionable indications of the context, prove, 
 beyond a doubt, that it does not have this meaning. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey., Bp. Lightfoot, and some other recent writers oppose the 
 view above stated, and hold that νόμος without the article denotes any positive 
 law, or positive law in the abstract. Their presentation of the matter appears 
 unsatisfactory and their arguments inconclusive ; and it seems scarcely too 
 much to say, with Meyer, that their view ‘‘ opens the way for artificial and 
 sometimes intolerable explanations.’’ The question can be properly settled by 
 a careful examination of all the cases where the word occurs, Such an ex- 
 amination, it is believed, will confirm, at every step, the position taken in 
 this note. 
 
 XX. Ver. 15. συμμαρτυρούσης--- ἀπολογουμένων. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey.—though denying the position of Meyer, that the context 
 shows the reference to be to the approving conscience—objects to the view 
 against which Meyer is arguing, that such a wavering of judgment (as the 
 application of μετ. ἀλλ, doy. x.T.A. to the process of conscience in the individu- 
 al man implies), would tend rather to render doubtful, than to prove the ex- 
 istence of an objective rule or standard in the heart. The Apostle, however, 
 does not speak of such a wavering of judgment, as Weiss supposes, but to the 
 approving or condemning judgment which the particular case may call for. 
 Weiss also holds that κατηγούντων x.T.A. is not to be joined with λογισμῶν as 
 forming a second gen. abs. clause, but as an attributive phrase—there 
 being but one gen. abs. clause, in which συμμαρτυρούσης is united both 
 with ovveid. and with Aoy. Holsten takes the same view, but Godet, with 
 reason, objects to this construction as forced. Godet, Alford, Shedd, Schaff 
 (Pop. Comm.), Philippi, agree with de Wette and others in holding that ἀλλη- 
 λῶν refers to λογισμῶν. ‘* There takes place, as it were, a dialogue between the 
 thoughts, one accusing, the other acquitting’’ (Phil.). The argument for this 
 view is, that the other parts of the description seem to be limited to the indi- 
 vidual soul in itself, and not to refer to any relations to others. The emphatic 
 position of μεταξὺ ἀλλ, and the suggestion of contrast with αὐτῶν are the strong 
 points favoring Meyer’s explanation. 
 
 XXI. Ver. 23. ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι. 
 
 The change in the form of expression in this clause, as compared with those 
 which precede, does not, indeed, prove Meyer’s view of the verse, as a categor- 
 ical answer, to be correct, but it suggests that it may be; and the sentence 
 gains in emphasis and force, if explained in this way. 
 
 XXII. Ver. 25. περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ. 
 
 ὠφελεῖ carries back the thought to the emphatic σύ of ver. 3, and in sub- 
 stance, though not in form, confirms the negative answer to the question of that 
 verse. While admitting that there is a certain advantage connected with cir- 
 cumcision [to be more fully explained at a later point], provided the cir- 
 cumcised person fulfils the requirements of the law, the Apostle denies to 
 the Jew, so long as the law is not fulfilled, any such favored position as he 
 
NOTES. 109 
 
 was prone to claim with respect to the judgment and the application of the rules 
 of the Divine administration. The ydp, which opens this verse, connects it with 
 the statement implied in ver. 23—namely, that condemnation will rest upon 
 those who thus dishonour God, no matter how much they may glory in the law, 
 for circumcision will avail nothing while they commit such sins. 
 
110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 2. μὲν γάρ] Lachm. following B D* E G, min. vss., Chrys. Aug. reads 
 μέν. The yap was easily lost in consequence of its seeming unnecessary, and 
 of the recollection of i. 8 ; but is supported by 1 Cor. xi. 18.—Ver. 9. προεχόμεθα] 
 D* G 31, Syr. Erp. Chrys. ms. Theodoret have προκατέχομεν (or κατέχ.) περισσὸν, 
 and, with several other authorities, omit οὐ πάντως. This προκατ. περισσ. is an 
 erroneous gloss ; and the omission of οὐ πάντως is explained by its being no 
 longer suitable after the adoption of τί οὖν προκατέχομεν περισσόν ; see Reiche, 
 Comm. crit, — Ver. 11. In important codices the article is wanting before 
 συνίων and ἐκζητῶν. But see LXX. Ps. xiv. 2.—Ver. 22. καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας] is 
 wanting in A BC P 8%, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Erp. Clem. Or. Cyr. Aug. Deleted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But when we consider that a gloss on εἰς πάντας was 
 quite unnecessary, and on the other hand that καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας was equally un- 
 necessary to complete the sense, we may assume that the twice repeated πάντας 
 may have even at a very early date occasioned the omission of καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας. 
 —Ver. 25. τῆς xiot.] τῆς 18 wanting in C* D* F G δὲ, min., and several Fathers 
 (A and Chrys. omit the whole διὰ τ. zior.). Suspected by Griesb., and deleted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch. Still the omission of the article might easily occur if 
 the copyist, as was natural, glanced back at διὰ πίστ., ver. 22.—Ver. 26. πρὸς 
 ἔνδειξ.1 Following A B Ο D* P &, min., we should read with Lachm. and 
 Tisch. πρὸς τὴν évderE. The article was passed over in accordance with ver. 25. 
 - Ἰησοῦ is wanting in F G 52 It.; and is expanded in other authorities (Χριστοῦ 
 ᾽Ιησοῦ, or τοῦ κυρίου ju. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Notwithstanding the preponderating 
 testimony in its favour, it is properly deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7. Sup- 
 plied from looking back to ver. 22.—Ver. 28. yap] Elz. and Tisch. 7. read οὖν, 
 against very preponderating testimony, by which also the arrangement δικ. 
 πίστ. ἄνθρωπον (Elz.: π. 6. a.) is confirmed. Since according to the different 
 modes of apprehending the connection, the emendation might be οὖν as well 
 as γάρ, external attestation only can here be regarded as decisive.—Ver. 29. 
 The reading μόνων (so Tisch. 7. instead of μόνον) is insufficiently attested by B, 
 min. and Fathers ; and arose easily out of the context.—odyi καί] Elz.: οὐχὶ δὲ 
 καί, against decisive testimony. The δὲ was easily introduced into the text by 
 the contrast, whether the two questions might be taken separately, or togeth- 
 er as one —éreizep] A BC D** 8, min., Clem. Or. Cyr. Didym. Damasc. : εἴπερ. 
 Recommended by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily 
 may the ἐπείπερ only occurring here in the N. T., and therefore unfamiliar to 
 the copyists, have been exchanged for the familiar eizep! 
 
 Vy. 1,’2. As an inference (οὖν) from 11. 28, 29, the objection might now 
 be made from the Jewish standpoint against the Apostle, that he quite 
 
 1 On chap. iii. see Matthias, emeget. gramme), Hanau 1851; and the same author’s 
 Abhandlung tiber vv. 1-20 (a school -pro- work: das dritte Kap. ἃ. Br.an ἃ. Rém., 
 
CHAPEL ΠΩ: 111 
 does away with the advantage of Judaism and the benefit of circumcision. 
 This objection he therefore raises in his own person, in order to remove it 
 himself immediately, ver. 2 ff. — τὸ περισσὸν x.t.A.] [See Note XXIII. p. 146.] 
 the superiority * of the Jew, ὁ.6. what he has as an advantage over the Gen- 
 tile, the Jewish surplus. The following ἢ (or, to express it in other words) 
 τίς ἡ ὠφέλ. τ. περιτ. presents substantially the same question in a more spe- 
 
 , cific form, — x02] Much, namely, is the περισσόν of the Jew or the benefit 
 
 of circumcision.* The neuter comprehends the answer to both ; and it 
 must not therefore be said that it applies only to the first question, leaving 
 the second without further notice. It is moreover clear from what pre- 
 cedes and follows, that Paul meant the περισσόν not in a moral, but in a ~ 
 theocratic sense ; comp. ix. 4 f.— «ara πάντα τρόπον] in every way (Xen. 
 Anab. vi. 6, 30), in whatever light the matter may be considered.’ It is an 
 undue anticipation to take the expression as hyperbolical (Reiche), since we 
 do not know how the detailed illustration, which is only begun, would be 
 further pursued. — πρῶτον] first of all, yirstly, it is a prerogative of the Jew, 
 or advantage of circumcision, that, etc. The Apostle consequently begins 
 to illustrate the πολύ according to its individual elements, but, just after 
 mentioning the first point, is led away by a thought connected with it, so 
 that all further enumeration (possibly by εἶτα, Xen, Mem. iii. 6, 9) is dropped 
 [See Note XXIV. p. 146.] and not, as Grotius strangely thinks, postponed to 
 ix.4. Compare oni. 8 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18. As the μέν was evidently meant to be 
 followed by a corresponding δέ, it was a mere artificial explaining away of 
 the interruption of -the discourse, to render πρῶτον praecipue (Beza, Calvin, 
 Toletus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Koppe, Gléckler, and others ; compare 
 also Hofmann : ‘‘ before all things”), or to say with Th. Schott that it indi- 
 cates the basis from which the πολύ follows. — ὅτι ἐπιστ. τ. λόγια τ. Θεοῦ] that 
 they (the Jews) were entrusted with the utterances of God, namely, in the holy 
 Scriptures given to them, devoutly to preserve these λόγια as a Divine treas- 
 ure, and to maintain them for all ages of God’s people as their and their 
 children’s (comp. Acts ii. 39) possession. On the Greek form of expression 
 πιστεύομαί τι (1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. 11. 7), see Winer, p. 244 [E. T. 260]. —ra 
 λόγια τ. Θεοῦ] eloguia Dei. [See Note XXV.p. 146.] That by this general ex- 
 pression (γρησμοὺς αὐτοῖς ἄνωϑεν κατηνεχϑέντας, Chrysostom), which always 
 
 ein exeg. Versuch, Cassel 1857; James Mori- 
 son, A critical exposition of the Third Chap- 
 ter of St. Paul’s Epistie to the Romans, Lond. 
 1866. 
 
 1 Matt. v. 47, xi. 9; Plat. Ap. S. p. 20 C. 
 Lucian. Prom. 1; Plut. Demosth. 3. 
 
 2 This answer is ‘he Apostle’s, not the re- 
 ply of a Jew asserting his περισσόν, whom 
 Paul then interrupts in ver. 4 with μὴ γένοιτο 
 (Baur in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 69)—a 
 breaking up of the text into dialogue, 
 which is neither necessary nor in any way 
 indicated, and which is not supported by 
 any analogy of other passages. According 
 to Mehring, Paul has written ver. 2, and in 
 
 fact onward to ver. 8, as the sentiments of 
 a Jew to be summarily dealt with, who in 
 πρῶτον had it in view to enumerate yet 
 further advantages, but whose mouth was 
 closed by ver. 9. The unforced exposition 
 of the successive verses does not permit 
 this view ; and ii. 25-29 is not at variance 
 with ver. 2, but, on the contrary, leaves 
 sufficiently open to the Apostle the recog- 
 nition of Jewish privileges, which he begins 
 to specify ; comp. ii. 25and ix. 4 f. 
 
 3 See examples in Wetstein. The oppo- 
 site: κατ᾽ οὐδένα τρόπον, 2 Macc. xi. 31; 
 Polyb. iv. 84, 8, viii. 27, 2. 
 
112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 receives its more precise definition from the context (Acts vii. 38 ; Heb. v. 
 12; 1 Pet. iv. 11),’ Paul means here κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the Messianic prophetic ut- 
 terances, is shown by ver. 3, where the ἀπιστία of the Jews leaves no room 
 for mistake as to the contents of the λόγια. Compare ai érayyedia, ix. 4. 
 These λόγια τ. Θεοῦ are contained not merely in the prophets proper (Acts iii. 
 24), but even in the Pentateuch (covenant with Abraham, the promise of 
 Moses) ; yet the law is not meant, nor even jointly included (Matthias), 
 against which ver. 3 testifies. Just as little is there meant: all making 
 known of God in the history of salvation (Hofmann), which is too general, 
 and is extended by Hofmann even to the New Testament revelations. 
 
 Ver. 3. Not an objection to the preceding [See Note XXVI. p. 147.], but @ 
 guarantee of the ἐπιστεύϑ. τὰ λόγια τ. Θεοῦ just mentioned, as something that 
 has not been cancelled and revoked through the partial unbelief of the peo- 
 ple. ‘‘ For how? what is the case?* If some refused the faith, will their un- 
 
 belief make void the faithfulness of God ?” will it produce the effect that God 
 shall now regard the promises once committed to the Jews as void, and 
 Himself as no longer bound to His word therein pledged? The ἠπίστησαν 
 and the ἀπιστία are by the context necessarily referred to the λόγια τ. Θεοῦ 5 
 the unbelief of a part of the Jews in the promises manifested itself, namely, 
 by their rejecting the Messiah who had appeared according to the promise. 
 So in substance also Matthias, who nevertheless apprehends the notion of 
 ἀπιστ. as unfaithfulness towards what was entrusted to them, which the révec¢ 
 did not use for the purpose of letting themselves be led thereby to Christ. 
 But ἀπιστεῖν and ἀπιστία (even in 2 Tim. ii. 13) mean specifically throughout 
 the N. T. (see in this Epistle iv. 20, xi. 20, 23 ; compare Morison, p. 23) un- 
 belief not unfaithfulness, although Hofmann also ultimately comes to adopt 
 this notion. This remark also applies against the supposition of Kéllner, de 
 Wette, Mehring, and older writers, that Paul meant the wnfaithfulness (the 
 disobedience) of the Jews in the times before Christ.* Such a view is opposed to 
 the context ; and must not the idea, that the earlier breaches of covenant on 
 the part of the Jews might possibly annul the λόγια, have been wholly 
 strange to Paul and his Jewish readers, since they knew from experience 
 that, even when the Jews had heaped unfaithfulness upon unfaithfulness, 
 God always committed to them anew, through His prophets, the promises 
 of the Messiah? In the mind of the Apostle the idea of the πάρεσις τῶν 
 
 1 Compare the passages from the Septua- 
 gint in Schleusner, 7hes. III. p. 464, from 
 Philo in Loesner, p. 248; and see especially 
 Bleek on Hed. 11. 2, p. 114 f. 
 
 2 Regarding the classic use of λόγια, proph- 
 ecies, see Kriiger on Thuc. ii. 8, 2, and gen- 
 rally Locella, αα Xen. Hph. Ὁ. 152f. The 
 word is not a diminutive form (Philippi, 
 who finds in it the usual brevity of oracular 
 utterances), but the neuter form of λόγιος. 
 The diminutive conception, little utterances, 
 is expressed not by λόγιον, but by λογίδιον 
 Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E. This applies also in 
 opposition to Morison. 
 
 3 τί yap ; compare Phil. i. 18. Elz., Ben- 
 gel, and Lachm. place the sign of interroga- 
 tion after τινές. Van Hengel follows them, 
 also Th. Schott and Hofmann. It is impos- 
 sible to decide the question. Still even in 
 classic authors, the τί yap; standing alone 
 is frequent, “‘ubi quis cum alacritate qua- 
 dam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,” 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 2; Jacobs. ad Del. 
 epigr. vi. 60; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 73 1. 
 
 4 Especially would τίνες be quite unsuita- 
 ble, because it would be absolutely untrue. 
 All were disobedient and unfaithful. See 
 ver. 9 ff. 
 
CHAP. III., 4. 118 
 προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων was fixed (ver. 25; Acts xvii. 30). Therefore we 
 cannot understand (with Philippi) unbelief in the promises shown in the 
 period before Christ to be here referred to. But according to the doctrine 
 of faith in the promised One who had come, as the condition of the Mes- 
 sianic salvation, the doubt might very easily arise: May not the partial 
 unbelief of the Jews since the appearance of Christ, to whom the λόγεα re- 
 ferred, possibly cancel the divine utterances of promise committed to the 
 nation? Notwithstanding the simple and definite conception of ἀπιστεῖν 
 throughout the N. T., Hofmann here multiplies the ideas embraced so as to 
 include as well disobedience to the law as unbelief towards the Gospel and 
 unbelief towards the prophetic word of promise—a grouping together of 
 very different significations, which is the consequence of the erroneous and 
 far too wide sense assigned to the λόγια τ. Θεοῦ. -- τὴν πίστιν τ. Θεοῦ] The gen- 
 itive is necessarily determined to be the genitive of the subject, partly by 
 ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν, partly by ver. 4, and partly by Θεοῦ δικαιοσ. in ver. 5. There- 
 fore : the jides Dei in keeping the Ady:a, keeping His word, in virtue of which 
 He does not abandon His promises to His people.t| Compare 2 Tim. ii. 13, 
 and the frequent πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 18; 2 Cor. i. 18 al.—Observe 
 further that Paul designates the unbelievers only by τινές, some, which is not 
 contemptuous or tronical (Tholuck, Philippi ; compare Bengel), nor intended 
 as a milder expression (Grotius), but is rather employed to place in a stronger 
 light the negation of the effect under discussion ; and, considering the relative 
 import of τινές, it is not at variance with the truth, for although there were 
 many (τινές καὶ πολλοί ye, Plat. Phaed. p. 58 D), still they were not all. 
 Compare xi. 17, and on 1 Cor. x. 7; Kriiger, § 51, 16, 14. 
 
 Ver. 4. [See Note XXVII. p. 147.] Let it not be (far be it)! but God is 
 to be truthful, 1.6. His truthfulness is to be the actual result produced 
 (namely, in the carrying out of His Messianic plan of salvation), and every 
 man a liar. To this it shall come ; the development of the holy divine 
 economy to this final state of the relation between God and men, is what 
 Paul knows and wishes. — μὴ γένοιτο] The familiar formula of negation by, 
 which the thing asked is repelled with abhorrence, corresponding to the 
 τ (Gen. xliv. 17; Josh. xxii. 29; 1 Sam. xx. 2), is used by Paul par- 
 ticularly often in our Epistle, elsewhere in Gal. ii. 17, iii. 21, 1 Cor. vi. 15, 
 always in a dialectic discussion, In the other writings of the N. T. it oc- 
 curs only at Luke xx. 16, but is current in later Greek authors.? — γενέσϑω] 
 not equivalent to φανερούσϑω, ἀποδεικνύσϑω (Theophylact), but the historical 
 result which shall come to pass, the actual Theodicée that shall take place. 
 This indeed in reality amounts to a φανεροῦσϑαι, but it is expressed by yw- 
 
 1 Τὸ is the fides, qua Deus promissis stat, be moved by that ἀπιστία τινων to become 
 
 notin reality different from the idea of the 
 ἀληϑής in ver. 4. The word πίστις, however, 
 is selected as the correlative of ἀπιστία. De- 
 spite the Jewish ἀπιστία it continues the 
 case, not that God has been πίστος (in that, 
 namely, He has spoken among the people, 
 Hofmann thinks), but that He is πίστος, in 
 that, namely, He does not allow Himself to 
 
 likewise ἄπιστος, which He would be if He 
 left His own λόγια committed to the Jews 
 unfulfilled. He will not allow this case of 
 the annulling of His πίστις to occur. Com- 
 pare 2 Tim. ii. 13. 
 
 3 Raphel, Arrian. in loc.; Sturz, de dial: 
 Al. p. 204, 
 
114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ἔσϑω, according to its objective reality, which demonstrates itself. In that 
 which God (and man) does, He becomes actually what according to His 
 nature He is. — πᾶς δὲ av p. ψεύστ.] By no means unessential (Riickert), or 
 merely a concomitant circumstance (Th. Schott), is designed, and that all 
 the more forcibly without a preceding μέν, to appropriate the ἀλήϑεια 
 exclusively to God, in contrast to ἠπίστ. τινες, ver. ὃ, outbidding this τινές by 
 πᾶς. Every man is a liar, if he does not perform the service to which he 
 has become bound, as is brought to light in the case of the τινές by their 
 ἀπιστία, Since as members of the people of God they had bound themselves 
 to faith in the divine promises. That Paul had Ps. exvi. 11 in view 
 (Calvin, Wolf, and many others) is the more doubtful, seeing that he im- 
 mediately quotes another passage. —oérac¢ ἂν dix. κ.τ.2.} Ps. li. 6 exactly 
 after the LXX. Independently of the more immediate connection and 
 sense of the original text, Paul seizes on the type of the relation discussed 
 by him, which is involved in the words of the Psalm, in the form in which 
 they are reproduced by the LXX.’ and that in the sense : that thow mayest 
 be justified, i.e. acknowledged as faultless and upright, in thy words, and pre- 
 vail (in substance the same as the previous δικαιωθῇς) when thou disputest, 
 namely, with men against whom thou defendest and followest out thy right. 
 From this second clause results that πᾶς dé ἄνϑρ. ψεύστης. The exact appro- 
 priateness of this view in the connection is decisive against the explanation 
 commonly adopted formerly after the Vulgate and Luther, and again pre- 
 ferred by Mehring, which takes κρίνεσϑαι as passive (when thou art subjected 
 to judgment).* -- ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου] 1.6. in that which thou hast spoken. And 
 that is the category to which those λόγια belong, as to which the Apostle has 
 just repelled the idea that God will not keep them on account of the ἀπιστία 
 of the τινές and will thereby prove untrue. The sense ‘‘ in sententia ferenda,” 
 when thou passest a sentence (Philippi), cannot be taken out of ἐν r.Ady. σου, 
 since God is not represented as judge, but as litigant, over whom the justi- 
 fying judicial decision is pronounced. The view of Hofmann is also er- 
 roneous : that it denotes the accusations, which God may bring against men. 
 For the text represents God indeed as the party gaining the verdict and 
 prevailing, but not as the accuser preferring charges ; and the λόγοι, in re- 
 spect of which He is declared justified, point back so directly to the λόγια 
 in ver. 2, that this very correlation has occasioned the selection of the par- 
 ticular passage from Ps. li. — νικᾶν, like vincere, used of prevailing in a 
 process ; compare Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 17; Dem. 1436, 18 al. The opposite : 
 ἡττᾶσϑαι: --- On ὅπως (here in order that in the event of decision) see Hartung, 
 Partikell. 11. p. 286, 289 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 685. 
 
 1 The inaccuracies in the translation of 
 the LXX. must be candidly acknowledged ; 
 ‘still they do not yield any essential differ- 
 ence of sense from the idea of the original 
 ‘text. These inaccuracies consist in NDIA 
 (insons sis) being rendered in the LXX. by 
 νικήσης, and JWDWI (cum judicas) being 
 translated ἐν τῷ κρίνεσϑαί oe, 
 
 2 On the use of the middle, to dispute with, 
 compare LXX. Job ix. 3, xiii. 19, and other 
 passages in Schleusner, Thes. 11]. p. 885 f. 
 This use has been properly maintained by 
 Beza, Bengel, and others; also Matthias, 
 Tholuck, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Hof- 
 mann, and Morison. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 1; 
 Matt. v. 40. 
 
OHAP. TIT. ὃς, 0; 115 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. In vv. 3 and 4 it was declared that the unbelief of a part of 
 the Jews would not make void the truthfulness of God, but that, on the 
 contrary, the latter should be triumphantly justified. But how easily might 
 this be misconstrued by a Jew of the common type as a pretext for his im- 
 
 morality : ‘‘the unrighteousness of man in fact brings out more clearly the 
 
 righteousness of God, and therefore may not be righteously punished by 
 God !” To preclude this misconception and false inference, which ‘so ab- 
 ruptly run counter to his doctrine of universal human guilt, and to leave no 
 pretext remaining (observe beforehand the τί οὖν ; προεχόμεϑα in ver. 9), 
 Paul, having in view such thoughts of an antagonist, proposes to himself and 
 his readers the question : ‘‘ But if our unrighteousness show forth the right- 
 ecousness of God, what shall we say (infer)? Is God then unrighteous, who 
 inflicteth wrath?” And he disposes of it in the first instance by the categor- 
 ical answer (ver. 6) : No, otherwise God could not be judge of the world. 'The 
 assumption, that this question is occasioned really and seriously by what goes 
 before, and called forth from the Apostle himself (Hofmann), is rendered 
 untenable by the very addition κατὰ ἄνϑρωπον λέγω. ---ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν] Quite 
 general : our unrighteousness, abnormal moral condition. To this general 
 category belongs also the ἀπιστία, ver. 3. * Paul has regarded the possible 
 Jewish misconception, the notion of which occasions his question, as a gen- 
 eral, but for that reason all the more dangerous inference from vv. 3 and 4, 
 in which the words ἀδικία and δικαιοσύνη are suggested by the passage from 
 the Psalms in ver. 4. — ἡμῶν] is said certainly in the character of the ἄδικοι 
 in general, and stands in relation to the πᾶς δὲ ἄνϑρωπος ψεύστης in ver. 4. 
 But as the whole context is directed against the Jews, and the application 
 to these is intended in the general expressions, and indeed expressly made 
 in ver. 19, Paul speaks here also in such a way that the Jewish conscious- 
 ness, from which, as himself a Jew, he speaks, lies at the bottom of the 
 general form of his representation. — The protasis ei. . . . συνίστησι is a con- 
 cessum, which is in itself correct (ver. 4) ; but the inference, which the Jew- 
 ish self-justification might draw from it, is rejected with horror. Observe 
 in this protasis the emphatic juxtaposition ἡμῶν Θεοῦ ; and in the apodosis 
 the accent which lies on ἄδικος and τὴν ὀργήν. --- Θεοῦ δικαιοσ. συνίστησι) proves 
 God’s righteousness (comp. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4, vii. 11 ; Gal. 11. 18 ; Susann. 
 61; frequently in Polyb., Philo, etc.) ; makes it apparent beyond doubt, that 
 God is without fault, and such as He must be. The contrast to ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν 
 requires δικαίοσ. to be taken thus generally, and forbids its being explained 
 of a particular attribute (truth: Beza, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, and others ; 
 goodness: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Rosenmiiller), as well as its be- 
 ing taken in the sense of i. 17 (van Hengel). —The τί ἐροῦμεν (3 Esr. viii. 
 82) is used by Paul only in the Epistle to the Romans (iv. 1, vi. 1, vii. 7, viii. 
 31, ix. 14, 30).1— μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφ. τ. ὀργήν] [See Note XXVIII. p. 147. }. 
 
 This question? is so put that (as in ver. 3) a negative answer is expected, 
 
 since Paul has floating before his mind an impious objection conceived of 
 
 1 Compare, however, generally on such Aesch. Pers. 1013, Dissen, σα Dem. de cor. p. 
 questions arousing interest and enlivening 346 f. 
 the representation, Blomfield, Gloss. in 2 After μή, ἐροῦμεν is not again to be un- 
 
116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 κατὰ ἄνϑρωπον. Hence : God is not unrighteous then, who dealeth wrath? 
 This in opposition to Riickert and Philippi, who make the questioner ex- 
 pect an affirmative answer, which can never be the case. In those passages 
 in Greek authors, where an affirmative reply notwithstanding follows, it in- 
 variably does so contrary to the expectation of the questioner ; see Kiihner, 
 ΤΙ. 2, p. 1024. ἄδικος, prefixed with emphasis, is, on account of its relation 
 to ὁ ἐπιφ. τ. ὀργήν, to be understood in the strict judicial signification wn- 
 righteous, which is confirmed by vv. 6 and 7.2 The article with the parti- 
 ciple indicates the relation as well-known ; and τὴν ὀργήν (Sin.* adds αὐτοῦ) 
 denotes the wrath definitely conceived of as judicial, inflicted at the judg- 
 ment.*— Kata ἄνϑρωπον λέγω] To preclude his being misunderstood, as if 
 he were asking εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία judy... . μὴ ἄδικος x.7.A. from his own enlight- 
 ened Christian view, Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this aecord- 
 ing toa human standard * after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite 
 apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the 
 idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in ac- 
 cordance with mere human reason. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 8; Gal. iii. 15 ; 
 Soph. Aj. 761: κατ’ ἄνϑρωπον φρονεῖ. “41 say this just as an ordinary man, 
 not under the influence of the divine Spirit, may well say it.” Respecting 
 the expression κατὰ dv3p., which is capable according to the context of great 
 variety of meaning, compare Fritzsche in loc. It is wrongly inferred from 
 κατὰ avdp. λέγω that the question μὴ ἄδικος x.7.A. was meant to receive an 
 affirmative answer, because asa negative query it would not be κατὰ ἄνϑρ. 
 (see Philippi). But this view overlooks the fact that the whole thought, 
 which is implied in the question calculated though it is for a negative reply, 
 —the thought of the unrighteousness of God in punishing—can in fact 
 only be put into expression κατὰ ἄνϑρωπον ; in the higher Christian insight 
 a conception so blasphemous and deserving of abhorrence can find neither 
 place nor utterance. The apology however, involved in κατὰ ἄνϑρ. λέγω, 15 
 applicable only to what goes before, not to what follows, to which Mehring, Th. 
 Schott and Hofmann refer it. This is the more obvious, since what imme- 
 diately follows is merely a repudiating μὴ γένοιτο, and the ἐπεί «.r.4., which 
 assigns the ground for this repudiation, is by no means an idea outside the 
 range of revelation, the application of which to a rational inference, and one 
 too so plainly right, cannot transfer it to the lower sphere of the κατὰ ἄνϑρ. 
 λέγειν. -- Ver. 6. ἐπεί] gives the ground of the μὴ γένοιτο ; for (if the God 
 who inflicts wrath is unrighteous) how will it be possible that He shall judge the 
 world? 'The future is to be left in its purely future sense, since it refers to 
 a future act taking place at any rate, as to which the only difficulty would 
 be to see how it was to be accomplished, if, etc. On ἐπεί, for otherwise, see Butt- 
 
 
 
 derstood, and then ἄδικος x.7.A. to be taken Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 159; Baeumlein, 
 as a question ensuing thereon (Mangold, p. p. 302 f. 
 
 106). A breaking up of the construction 2 For examples of ἐπιφέρειν used to ex- 
 without due ground. Compare, rather, ix. press the practical infliction of wrath or 
 14, a passage which in form also is perfectly punishment, see Raphel, Polyb.; Kypke, I. 
 parallel to this one. p. 160. 
 
 1See Hermann, ad Viger, p. 789, 810; 3 Compare Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 15. 
 
 4 Bernhardy, p. 241. 
 
OHAP: 111,, ἢ. Lay 
 
 mann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 808 [E. T. 8697. κρινεῖ has the emphasis. — τὸν κόσμον is 
 to be taken, with most expositors, generally as meaning all mankind (com- 
 pare ver. 19). To be judge of the world and yet, as ἐπιφέρων τ. dpy., to be 
 ἄδικος, is a contradiction of terms ; the certainty that God is the former 
 would become an impossibility if He were the latter. Compare Gen. xviii. 
 25. Koppe, Reiche, Schrader, Olshausen, and Jatho, following older author- 
 ities, take it only of the Gentile world (xi. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 82): “Τὴ that 
 case God could not punish even the Gentile world for its idolatry, since it is 
 only in contrast therewith that the true worship of God appears in its full 
 value” (Reiche). But, in this explanation, the very essential idea : ‘‘ since 
 
 . appears” has first of all to be imported, an expedient which, in pres- 
 ence of the simplicity and clearness of our view, cannot but seem arbitrary. 
 Even the following proof, ver. 7 f., does not present a reference directly to 
 the judgment of the Gentiles. The argument itself rests on the premiss that 
 God can carry out the judgment of the world only as One who is righteous in 
 His decreeing of wrath. The opposite would be impossible, not only sub- 
 jectively, in God Himself (Th. Schott), but also objectively, as standing in 
 contradiction to the notion of a world-judgment. Sce ver. 7 ἢ. This 
 proposition however is so perfectly certain to the consciousness of faith, out of 
 which Paul asserts it, that there is no ground either for complaining of the 
 weakness of the proof (Riickert), or for reading the thoughts that form the 
 proof between the lines (Fritzsche and Mehring, with varying arbitrariness) ; 
 the more especially as afterwards, in ver. 7, a still further confirmation of the 
 ἐπεί. . . . κόσμον follows. 
 
 Ver. 7 f. The ἐπεὶ πῶς ὁ κρινεῖ Θεὸς τ. κόσμ. receives its illustrative confirma- 
 tion ; for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous and never- 
 theless is to judge the world, every ground for judging man as a sinner 
 must be superseded by the circumstance already discussed, viz. that His 
 truth has been glorified by man’s falsehood (ver. 4 f.) ; and (ver. 8) as to 
 the case of man himself, there would result the principle directly worthy of 
 condemnation, that he should do evil in order that good might come. 
 Comp. Th. Schott, and in substance also Hofmann and Morison. The ar- 
 gument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put (ἐπεί from ver. 6) 
 the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd 
 consequences. (See this, as early as Chrysostom.) Another view is that 
 of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Riickert, K6ll- 
 ner, Tholuck, Philippi, and Umbreit, that the objection of ver. 5 is here am- 
 plified. But it is quite as arbitrary and in fact impossible (hence Philippi 
 resorts to the violent expedient of putting in a parenthesis not only xara 
 ἄνϑρ. λέγω, but also «μὴ γένοιτο... . κόσμον), with the reference of γάρ, to 
 overleap entirely ver. 6, as it is strange to make the discourse so completely 
 abrupt and to represent the Apostle as making no reply at all to the first 
 part of the alleged amplification of the objection (to ver. 7), and as replying 
 to the second part (ver. 8) only by an anathema sit! (ὧν τ. xp. ἔνδ. 2.). 
 Against the view of Reiche, who, following Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and 
 Flatt, thinks that the Gentile is introduced as speaking in ver. 7 (compare 
 Olshausen), we may decisively urge the close connection therewith of ver. 
 
118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 8, where Paul includes himself also, but does not ‘‘take speech in hand again” 
 (Reiche). See besides on τὸν κόσμον, ver. 0. --- ἀλήϑεια and ψεύσματι are terms 
 chosen in reference to ver. 4, because the question proposed in ver. 5 was 
 in fact suggested by that verse ; but they represent, as ver. 5 proves, the 
 ideas of δικαιοσύνῃ and ἀδικία ; hence: the moral truth, i.e. the holy right- 
 -eousness of God (see on John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; Phil. iv. 8), and the moral 
 ‘ Falsehood, i.e. the immorality (Rey. xxii. 15), wickedness of man.’— érepio- 
 σευσεν εἰς τ. δόξ. αὐτοῦ] has abounded richly to His glory, that is, has shown 
 itself in superabundant measure, which redounds to His glory. The stress 
 of this protasis lies on ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι. --- The aorist denotes the result of 
 the having abounded, which subsists at the day of judgment (realized as 
 present by ri . . . . κρίνομαι) as up to that point accomplished fact. — ἐτῇ 
 namely, after that assumed result has occurred. —xayé] emphasizing the 
 contradictory relation to the contents of the protasis, according to which 
 this ἐγώ seems actually to have deserved something of God : even I (Baeum- 
 lein, Partik. p. 150) who have notwithstanding glorified God through my 
 ψεύσμα. So in substance (‘‘ just I” according to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 837) 
 also Tholuck and Morison ; compare Philippi: ‘‘ even J still.” There lies in 
 the expression something of boldness and defiance ; but it is not equivalent 
 to καὶ αὐτός, Or αὐτός ἐγώ, to the meaning of which Th. Schott and Hofmann 
 ultimately bring it (‘‘even personally still”). Wemay add that this first 
 person, individualizing just like the preceding one (ἐν τ. ἐμῷ ψ.), of course 
 represents the sinner in general (with an intended application to the Jevs, 
 see on ver. 5 f.), and not the Apostle himself, as Schrader and Fritzsche 
 think. Against this latter theory it is decisive that κρίνομαι after ver. 6 
 must indicate, not the judgment of enemies, but necessarily the divine act 
 of judging. — ὡς duapr.| as a sinner, not ‘as a Gentile” (Reiche, Mehring, 
 and others.) — Ver. 8. καὶ μή] Before μή we must again supply τί 
 should we not, etc. Respecting ri μή, quidni, see Hartung, Partikell. 11. 
 p- 162. Accordingly, as καί continues the question, only a comma is to be 
 placed after κρίνομαι. ---- As regards the construction, Paul has dropped the 
 plan of the sentence begun with καὶ μή (and why should we not do evil, etc.), 
 being led away from it by the inserted remark, and has joined ὅτι ποιήσωμεν 
 in direct address (let us do) to the λέγειν, so that ὅτι is recitative. But on 
 account of this very blending there is no necessity either to make a paren- 
 thesis or to supply anything.? Many erroneous attempts have been made 
 by commentators (see the various explanations in Morison) to bring out an 
 unbroken construction, as e.g. the supplying of ἐροῦμεν or some such word 
 after μή (Erasmus, Calvin, Wolf, Koppe, Benecke, and others, also van 
 
 : and why 
 
 Hengel). 
 
 1 Those who take ver. τ f. as spoken in 
 the person of the Gentile (see especially 
 Reiche) explain the ἀλήϑεια Θεοῦ of the true 
 religion (how entirely opposed to ver. 4!), 
 ψεύσματι Of idolatry, and ἁμαρτωλός as Gen- 
 tile. 
 
 2For similar attractions (compare es- 
 pecially Xen. Anad. vi. 4,18)in which the 
 
 Even the expedient of Matthias is untenable.* 
 
 The same may 
 
 discourse is interrupted by an intervening 
 clause,and then continued in aregimen de- 
 pendent on the latter and no longer suit- 
 able to the beginning, see Hermann ad 
 Viger. Ὁ. 745, 894 ; Bernhardy, p. 464; Dissen, 
 ad Dem. de cor. Ὁ. 846, 418; Kriiger, gramm. 
 Unters. Ὁ. 457 Τῇ. 
 
 3 He brings forward the modal definition : 
 
CHAP. III., 8. 119 
 be said of that of Hofmann, who supplies an ἐστίν after καὶ μή, and renders: 
 ‘“ Why does it not happen to me according to that, as (καϑώς) we are slandered,” 
 etc. But if it is quite gratuitous to supply ἐστί, it is still more so to make 
 this ἐστί equivalent to γίνεταί μοι. Besides the negation, which, according 
 to our construction, harmonizes with the deliberative sense, would neces- 
 sarily be not μή but od, since it would negative the reality of the εἶναι under- 
 stood (1 Cor. vi. 7 ; Luke xix. 23, xx. 5 al.). The correct view is held also 
 by Winer and Buttmann (p. 235, 211), Philippi and Morison. — καϑὼς 
 βλασφημ.} as we (Christians) are calumniated, namely, as if we did evil in 
 order that, etc. Then the following καὶ καϑὼς . .. . λέγειν contains the 
 accusation, current possibly in Rome also, that the Christians were in the 
 habit of repeating this maxim even as a doctrinal proposition. As to the 
 distinction between φημί (to assert) and λέγω, compare on 1 Cor. x. 15. 
 What may have occasioned such slanders against the Christians? Certainly 
 their non-observance of the Mosaic law, to which they ventured to deem 
 themselves not bound, in order to gain eternal life by the grace of God 
 through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, which was an offence to 
 the Jews. The plural is not to be referred to Paul alone, which would 
 be arbitrary on account of the preceding singular; the Christians are 
 conceived as Pauline (comp. Acts xxi. 21) ; and on the part of Jews and 
 Judaizers (τινές, certain people, as in 1 Cor. xv. 12) are slanderously and 
 falsely (for see v. 20, vi. 1, 15 ff.) accused of doing evil that good might come 
 (might ensue as result). Under this general category, namely, the calumni- 
 ators reduced the bearing of the Christians, so far as the latter, without 
 regulating their conduct by the Mosaic law, were nevertheless assured, and 
 professed, that they should through faith in Christ obtain the divine bless- 
 ings of salvation. That general accusation was an injurious abstract infer- 
 ence thence deduced. — ὧν] i.e. of those, who follow this principle de- 
 structive of the whole moral order of God. They form the nearest logical 
 subject. With just indignation the Apostle himself, having a deep sense 
 of morality, makes us feel in conclusion by ὧν τὸ κρῖμα x.7.2. how deserving 
 of punishment is the consequence, which, if God be regarded as an unright- 
 eous judge of the world, must ensue for moral conduct from the premiss that 
 God is glorified by the sin of men. The reference of ὧν to the slanderers 
 (Theodoret, Grotius, Tholuck, Mehring, Hofmann) is unsuitable, because it 
 separates the weighty closing sentence from the argumentation itself, and 
 makes it merely an accessory thought. —7d κρῖμα] The definite judicial 
 
 ὡς ἁμαρτωλός as the main element; thenthe text. With this artificial interpretation, 
 
 modality of the κρίνομαι opposed to this is 
 Kal μὴ καϑὼς βλασφημ. K.T.A.: ““ Why thenam 
 even I still judged like a sinner, and not 
 rather according to that, which we are 
 slanderously reported of, and which some 
 affirm that we say: namely, according to 
 this, Let us do evil, that good may come?” 
 Instead of saying : καὶ μὴ ὡς ποιήσας τὰ ἀγαϑά, 
 Paul, in the indignation of excited feeling, 
 gives to the thought which he had begun 
 the different turn which it presents in the 
 
 we must remember that Paul would have 
 written καὶ οὐ instead of καὶ μή, since it is an 
 objective relation that is here in question 
 (compare Col. ii. 8 a@.); that instead of 
 καϑώς we should have expected the repeti- 
 tion of the ὡς ; and that the notion of κρίνειν, 
 as it prevails in the connection (compare 
 also the following τὸ κρῖμα), does not suit 
 the assumed thought, ὡς ποιήσας τὰ ἀγαϑά, 
 Comp. also Morison, p. 79, 
 
120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 sentence, decree of punishment at the last judgment. — ἔνδικον] accordant 
 with justice, rightful. Compare Heb. 11. 2. Frequently used in classic 
 writers. 
 Ver. 9. When Paul, in vv. 6-8, has defended the righteousness of God as 
 decreeing wrath (ver. 5) in the face of the proposition, correct in itself, 
 that human sin turns out to God’s glory, he has thereby also deprived the 
 sinner of all the defence, which he might derive from the misapplication of 
 that proposition. This position of the case, as it results from vv. 6-8 (οὗν), 
 she now expresses, and that in the lively form of an interrogation, here accom- 
 panied by a certain triumph : What then? Are we in the position to apply a 
 defence for ourselves? We cannot therefore with most expositors (including 
 Tholuck, Philippi, Bisping) assume that Paul here reverts to ver. 1. — That 
 the punctuation should not be τί οὖν προεχόμεϑα ; as It is given by Oecu- 
 menius, 1, Koppe, Th. Schott) is plain from the answer, which is not οὐδὲν 
 πάντως, but οὐ πάντως. And that in adopting the general inclusive form 
 Paul speaks from the standpoint of the Jewish consciousness, and not in 
 the person of the Christians (Hofmann), is apparent from the context both 
 before (see vv. 8, 5, 7) and after (‘Iovdaiove te καὶ "EAA., and see ver. 19). — 
 τί οὖν] sc. ἐστί (Acts xxi. 22; 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26), what takes place then? how 
 is then the state of the case? Compare vi. 15, xi. 7; frequent in classical 
 writers ; comp. on vv. 3, 5. — προεχόμεϑα] Do we put forward (anything) in 
 our defence? Is it the case with us, that’ something serves us as a defence, 
 that can secure us against the punitive righteousness of God? προέχειν, 
 which in the active form means to hold before, tohave in advance, to bring 
 Jorward, and intransitively to be prominent, also to excel (see Wetstein, also 
 Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 24), has in the middle simply the signification 
 to hold before oneself, to have before oneself, either in the proper sense, e.g. of 
 holding forth spears for defence (Hom. 71. xvii. 355), or of having oxen in 
 front (Od. 111. 8), or of holding in front the ram’s head (Herod. ii. 42), etc., 
 or in the ethical sense : to put forward, πρόσχημα ποιεῖσϑαι, to apply something 
 Sor one’s own defence, as in Soph. Ant. 80: σὺ μὲν τάδ᾽ ἂν rpobyor, Thue. 1. 
 140, 5 and Kriiger im loc., and also Valckenaer, ad. fr. Callim. p. 227.7 
 This sense of the word is therefore rightly urged by Hemsterhuis, Venema, 
 Koppe, Benecke, Fritzsche (‘‘ utimurne praetextu ?”), Krehl, Ewald, Mor- 
 ison; compare also Th. Schott. This explanation is the only one war- 
 ranted by linguistic usage,* as well as suited to the connection (see above). 
 
 1 More frequent in Greek writers is the ject be self-evidently implied in the idea it- 
 
 form προΐσχεσϑαι, in this sense, as 6.0. Thue. 
 1, 26, 3. Compare also πρόφασιν προΐσχεσϑαι, 
 Herod. vi. 117, viii. 3; Herodian, iv. 14, 3; 
 Dem. in Schol. Hermog. p. 106, 16: προΐσ- 
 χεσϑαι νόμον. 
 
 2 Also adopted by Valck. Schol. in Lue. p. 
 258.  Stillhe would read προεχώμεϑα and take 
 τί οὖν mpoex. together. But the absolute 
 position of mpoex., which has been made an 
 objection to our explanation (Riickert, 
 Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi, Hofmann), 
 does not affect it, since all verbs, if the ob- 
 
 self, may be used so that we can mentally 
 supply a τί (Winer, p. 552 [E. T. 593 1.1). And 
 the subjunctive, which van Hengel also re- 
 gards as necessary with our view, is not re- 
 quired ; the indicative makes the question 
 more definite and precise (Winer, p. 267 
 [E. T. 284]). Ewald. likewise: reads τί οὖν 
 προεχώμεϑα (Subjunctive); but expunges 
 yap afterwards, and takes οὐ interroga- 
 tively, ‘‘ What shall we now put forward in 
 defence ? did we not already, at the outset, 
 prove altogether that Jews,” etc. But the 
 
CHAP. III., 9. 121 
 The most usual rendering (adopted by Tholuck, K6éllner, de Wette, Riickert, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Baur, Umbreit, Jatho and Mangold) is that 
 of the Peshito and Vulgate (praecellimus eos?), and of Theophylact : 
 ἔχομέν τι πλέον. . . . Kat εὐδοκιμοῦμεν οἱ ᾿Τουδαῖοι, ὡς τόν νόμον Kai τὴν περιτομὴν 
 Compare Theodoret: τί οὖν κατέχομεν περισσόν; Philippi: ‘‘ Have 
 we any advantage for ourselyes?’ and now also Hofmann (who held 
 the right view formerly in his Schriftbew. I. p. 501) : ‘‘Do we raise our- 
 selves above those, upon whom God decrees His judgment of wrath ?” 
 But the mere usus loguendi, affording not a single instance of the middle 
 employed with the signification antecellere, raising oneself above, surpassing, 
 or the like, decisively condemns this usual explanation in its different mod- 
 ifications.1 And would not the answer ov πάντως, in whatever sense we take 
 it, so long as agreeably to the context we continue to understand as the 
 subject the Jewish, not the Christian ee (as Hofmann takes it), be at variance 
 with the answer πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον given in ver. 2? The shifts of ex- 
 positors to escape this inconsistency (the usual one being that Paul here 
 means subjective advantages in respect of justification, while in ver. 2 he 
 treats of objective theocratic advantages) are forced expedients, which, not 
 at all indicated by any clause of more precise definition on the part of Paul 
 himself, only cast suspicion on the explanation. Wetstein, Michaelis, 
 Cramer, Storr, and recently Matthias, take zpoey. as the passive : are sur- 
 passed: [See Note XXIX. p. 148.] ‘‘ Stand we (at all) at a disadvantage ? 
 Are we still surpassed by the Gentiles ?”? But how could this question be 
 logically inferred from the foregoing without the addition of other thoughts ? 
 And in what follows it is not the sinful equality of the Gentiles with the 
 Jews, but that of the Jews with the Gentiles which is made conspicuous. 
 See also ver. 19. Mehring, in thorough opposition to the context, since 
 not a single hint of a transition to the Gentiles is given, makes the question 
 (comp. Oecumenius, 2), and that in the sense ‘‘ Are we at a disadvantage ?” 
 be put into the mouth even of a Gentile. — οὐ πάντως] Vulgate : nequaquam ; 
 Theophylact : οὐδαμῶς. This common rendering (compare the French poiné 
 de tout) is, in accordance with the right explanation of προεχόμεϑα, the only 
 proper one. The expression, instead of which certainly πάντως οὐ might 
 have been used (1 Cor. xvi. 12), is quite analogous to the οὐ πάνυ, where it 
 means in no wise,’ so that the negative is not transposed, and yet it does 
 
 δεξάμενοι. 
 
 omission of γάρ is only supported by D*. 
 Van Hengel despairs of a proper explana- 
 tion, and regards the text as corrupt. 
 
 1 Reiche (and similarly Olshausen) retains 
 the same exposition in his exegetical Com- 
 mentary; but takes προεχ. as passive, are 
 preferred, referring in support of his view 
 to Plut. de Stoic. contrad. 13 (Mor. p. 1038 C), 
 where, however, in τοῖς ἀγαϑοῖς πᾶσι ταῦτα 
 προσήκει kar’ οὐδὲν προεχομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Atos, 
 the meaning of’this προεχομένοις is becoming 
 surpassed. In his Commentar. crit. I. p. 
 26 ff., he has passed over to the linguis- 
 tically correct rendering praetexerc, but un- 
 
 derstands nevertheless the first person of 
 Paul himself, and that in the sense: ‘“‘ num 
 Judaeis peccandé praetextum porrigo ?” But 
 the middle means invariably to hold some- 
 thing (for protection) before oneself; as 
 προφασίζομαι also, by which Hesychius prop- 
 erly explains the word, always refers to 
 the subject, which excuses iése/f by a pre- 
 text. 
 
 2 Compare Xen. Ando. iii. 2,19; Plut. Mor. 
 p. 1038 Ὁ. 
 
 3 Asin Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 11; Anabd.i. 8.143 
 Herodian; vi. 5,11; Dem. OJ. iii. 21; Plat. 
 Lach. Ὁ. 189 C; Lucian, Tim. 24 (see Har- 
 
122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 not cancel the idea of the adverb, but on the contrary is strengthened by 
 the adverb. By this means the emphatic affirmation, which would have 
 been given by the πάντως alone, is changed into the opposite.’ Compare 
 Winer, p. 515 f. [E. T. 554 1.1. The comparison with 5- (Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 334) [E. T. 389] is utterly foreign, since the expression is a pure 
 Greek one.? The explanation, on which van Hengel also insists : not alto- 
 gether, not in every respect (Grotius, Wetstein, Morus, Flatt, Kéllner, Mat- 
 thias, Umbreit, Mehring, and Mangold), as in 1 Cor. v. 10, fails to tally with 
 the true explanation of προεχόμεϑα and the unrestricted character of the fol- 
 lowing proof. — προῃτιασάμεϑα] namely, not just from ver. 5 onward (Hof- 
 mann), but, in accordance with the following ’Iovdeiove τε κ. “Βλληνας, in 11. 1 
 ff. as to the Jews, and ini. 18 ff. as to the Gentiles.* It is therefore as ini. 5 and 
 frequently elsewhere, the plural of the author, not : we Christians (Hofmann). 
 As to the construction, πάντας may either be joined as an adjective to ’Iovd. 
 τ. κι "EAA., or as a substantive to the infinitive, in either case expressing 
 the idea of all collectively, nemine excepto. The latter mode of connection is 
 preferable, because it gives a more marked prominence to the idea of total- 
 ity, which harmonizes with the following vv. 10-12. Hence : we have before 
 brought the charge against Jews and Gentiles, that all, etc. Comp. Hofmann 
 and Morison. There is elsewhere no instance of the compound προαιτ. ; 
 the Greeks use προκατηγορεῖν. ---- ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι] They are—while still unre- 
 generate, a more precise definition that is self-evident—all wnder sin, an ex- 
 pression denoting not merely a state of sin in general, but moral dependence 
 on the power of sin. Compare vii. 25; Gal. ili. 22. But if this be the case 
 with Jews and Gentiles (not merely on the Gentile side), then the Jew, after 
 the way of escape indicated in ver. 5 has been cut off by vv. 6-8, has no 
 defence left to him as respects his liability to punishment any more than 
 the Gentile.* Accordingly the idea of liability to punishment is not yet ex- 
 pressed in ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι, but is meant only to be inferred from it. 
 
 Vv. 10-18. Conformity with Scripture of the charge referred to, ’Iovdaiove 
 τε καὶ "Ελλην. πάντ. ὑφ᾽ ἀμ. εἶναι, so far (ver. 19) as this charge cuts off from 
 the Jews every προέχεσϑαι of ver. 9. — The recitative ὅτε introduces citations 
 from Scripture very various in character, which after the national habit 
 (Surenhusius, καταλλ. thes. 7) are arranged in immediate succession. They 
 
 _are taken from the LXX., though for the most part with variations, partly 
 
 tung, Partikell, II. p. 87). Those passages 
 where ov πάνυ negatives with a certain sub- 
 
 p. 146, ed. 3; Duncan, Lex. Hom. ed. Rost, 
 p. 888. Compare οὐδὲν πάντως, Herod. v. 
 
 tlety or ironical turn (not quite, not just), are 
 not cases here in point; see Schoemann, ad 
 Is. Ὁ. 276. 
 
 1 Bengel: ‘‘Judaeus diceret πάντως, at 
 Paulus contradicit.” 
 
 2 Compare Theognis, 305, Bekker : οἱ κακοὶ 
 ov πάντως (by NO Means) κακοὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς 
 γεγόνασιν. Hp. ad Diogn. 9: 
 ἐφηδόμενος. (Dy NO Means rejoicing) τοῖς 
 Per- 
 fectly similar is also the Homeric οὐ πάμπαν, 
 decidedly not ; see Nagelsbach on the Jliad, 
 
 οὐ πάντως 
 
 ἁμαρτήμασιν ἡμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεχόμενος. 
 
 84, 65. 
 
 8 Paul however does not say Gentiles and 
 Jews, but the converse, because here again, 
 as in previous cases where both are group- 
 ed together (in the last instance ii. 9 f.), he 
 has before his mind the divine historical 
 order, which in the very point of sinfulness 
 tells against the Jew the more seriously. 
 
 4For statements of Greek writers re- 
 garding the universality, without any ex- 
 ception, of sin, see Spiess, Logos spermat, p. 
 220 f. 
 
CHAP. 1Π1., 10-18. 123 
 due to quotation from memory, and partly intentional, for the purpose of 
 defining the sense more precisely. The arrangement is such that testimony 
 is adduced for—t1st¢, the state of sin generally (vv. 10-12) ; 2nd, the practice 
 of sin in word (vv. 13, 14) and deed (vv. 15-17) ; and 3rd, the sinful sowrce 
 of the whole (ver. 18). More artificial schemes of arrangement are not to 
 be sought (as e.g. in Hofmann), not even by a play on numbers.’— οὐκ ἔστι 
 δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἰς] There exists not a righteous person (who is such as he ought 
 to be), not even one. Taken from Ps. xiv. 1, where the Sept. has ποιῶν 
 χρηστότητα instead of δίκαιος ; Paul has put the latter on purpose at once, in 
 accordance with the aim of his whole argument, prominently to characterize 
 the ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι as a want of δικαιοσύνη. Michaelis regards the words as 
 the Apostle’s own, ‘under which he comprehends all that follows.” So also 
 Eckermann, Koppe, Kéllner, and Fritzsche. But itis quite at variance 
 with the habit of the Apostle, after using the formula of quotation, to pre- 
 fix to the words of Scripture a summary of their contents ; and this suppo- 
 sition is here the more improbable, seeing that the Apostle continues in 
 ver. 11 in the words of the same Psalm, with the first verse of which our 
 passage substantially agrees.?— Ver. 11 is from Ps. xiv. 2, and so quoted, 
 that the negative sense which results indirectly from the text in the Hebrew 
 and LXX. is expressed by Paul directly : there exists not the understanding 
 one (the practically wise, ὁ.6. the pious one; see Gesenius, Thes. 8. Ὁ. 051): 
 there exists not the seeker after God (whose thoughts and endeavors are direct- 
 ed towards God, Heb. xi. 6, and see Gesenius, 8. Ὁ. 01). The article de- 
 notes the genus as a definite concrete representing it. Compare Buttmann’s 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 253 f. [E. T. 295] * — ἐκζητ. 1 stronger than the simple form ; com- 
 pare 1 Pet. i. 10 ; very frequent in the LXX. — Ver. 12. From Ps. xiv. 3 closely 
 after the LXX. ἐξέκλιναν, namely from the right way, denotes the demor- 
 
 - 
 
 alization (see Gesenius, 8. Ὁ. 1D), as does also ἠχρειώϑησαν, NIN : they 
 
 have become useless, corrupt, good for nothing, ἀχρεῖοι (Matt. xxv. 30); 
 Polyb. i. 14, 0, 1. 48, 9. The following ποιῶν χρηστότητα is correlative. 
 This ἅμα (altogether) ἠχρειώϑ. has still πάντες for its subject. — ἕως ἑνός] The 
 ovk ἔστιν holds as far as to one (inclusively), so that therefore not one is ex- 
 cepted. Compare Jud. iv. 16. Hebraism, see Ewald, Lehrb. § 217, 3. 
 The Latin ad wnum omnes is similar. — Ver. 13 as far as ἐδολ. is from Ps. v. 
 10, and thence till αὐτῶν from Ps. ΟΧ]. 4, both closely after the LXX.*— 
 τάφος ἀνεῳγμ. ὁ Adp. ait.] Estius : ‘‘Sicut sepulcrum patens exhalat tetrum 
 
 1 According to Hofmann the first and 
 second parts consist each of seven proposi- 
 tions. Thus even the conclusion of ver. 12, 
 οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός, is to bereckoned as a 
 separate proposition ! How all the parallel- 
 ism of Hebrew poetry is mutilated by such 
 artifices ! 
 
 2 Regarding οὐδὲ els see on 1 Cor. vi. 5, and 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. Ὁ. 214 D. 
 
 3 Onthe idea, whichis also classical, of sin 
 as folly, see Nigelsbach, Hom. Theol. VI. 2. 
 The form συνίων, 580 accentuated by Lach- 
 
 mann ; compare Buttmann, I. p. 543), or 
 συνιὼν (though the former is the more 
 probable ; compare Winer, p. 77 f. [E. T. 81], 
 also Ellendt, Zex. Soph. Il. p. 768), is the 
 usual one in the Sept. (instead of συνιείς, 
 Ps. xxxiii. 15). Ps. xli. 1; Jer. xxx. 12; 
 2 Chron. xxxiy. 12 δέ αἱ. 
 
 4The MSS. of the LXX. which read the 
 whole passage vv. 13-18 at Ps. xiv. 8, have 
 been interpolated from our passage in 
 Christian times. See Wolf, Cur. on ver. 10. 
 
124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ac pestiferum foetorem, ita ex ore illorum impuri, pestilentes noxiique 
 sermones exeunt.” Comp. Pelagius, Bengel, Tholuck, Mehring, and Hof- 
 mann. But it is more in harmony with the further description, as well as 
 the parallel in Jer. v. 16 (where the quiver of the Chaldeans is compared 
 with an open grave), to find the comparison in the point that, when the 
 godless have opened their throats for lying and corrupting discourse, it is 
 just as if a grave stood opened (observe the perfect) to which the corpse 
 ought to be consigned for decay and destruction.’ So certainly and una- 
 voidably corrupting is their discourse. Moreover λάρυγξ, which is here to 
 be taken in its original sense (as organ of speech, not equivalent to φάρυγξ, 
 the gullet) is more forcibly graphic than στόμα, representing the speech as 
 passionate crying. Compare λαρυγγίζειν, Dem. 3823, 1, and λαρυγγισμός, of 
 crying lustily. — ἐδολιοῦσαν] they were deceiving. The imperfect denotes 
 what had taken place as continuing up till the present time ; and on this 
 form of the third person plural, of very frequent occurrence in the LXX., 
 see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 60; Ahrens, Dial. 11. p. 304, I. p. 237. —id¢ ἀσπίδων] 
 The poison of asps, a figure for the insidiously corrupting.?—Ver. 14 is from 
 Ps. x. 7, taken freely from the LXX., who however with their πικρίας devi- 
 ate from the Hebrew 411), because they either read it otherwise or trans- 
 lated it erroneously. — πικρία, figurative designation of the hateful nature. 
 Comp. Eph. iv. 31; Acts vill. 23; James 11], 14 ; see Wetstein.—Vv. 1ὅ-- 
 17 are from Is. lix. 7, 8, quoted freely and with abbreviations from the 
 LXX. — év ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν] Where they go, is desolation (fragments TW) and 
 misery, which they produce. — ὁδὸν εἰρ. οὐκ ἔγν.] 1.6. a way on which one 
 walks peacefully (the opposite of the ὁδοί, on which is σύντριμμα. κ. ταλαιπ.), 
 they have not known (2 Cor. v. 21), it has remained strange to them.—Ver. 
 18 is from Ps. xxxvi.1. The fear of God, which would have preserved 
 them from such conduct and have led them to an entirely different course, 
 is not before their eyes. ‘‘ There is objectivity ascribed to a condition 
 which is, psychologically, subjective.” Morison. 
 
 Ver. 19. The preceding quotations (‘‘in quibus magna est verborum 
 atrocitas,” Melanchthon) were intended to prove that Jews and Gentiles are 
 collectively under the dominion of sin (ver. 9); but how easily might it be 
 imagined on the part of the conceited Jews* that the above passages of 
 Scripture (of which those in vv. 10, 11 and 12, taken from Ps. xiv., really 
 refer originally to the Gentiles, to Babylon), however they might affect the 
 Gentiles, could have no application to themselves, the Jews, who had no 
 need therefore to take them to themselves, as if they also were included in 
 the same condemnation. Such a distinction, however, which could only 
 promote a self-exaltation and self-justification at variance with the divine 
 purpose in those declarations of His word, they were to forego, seeing that 
 everything that the Scripture says has its bearing for the Jews. The 
 
 1 The metaphorical representation in 2 See similar passages in Alberti, Odss. p. 
 classical passages, in which, e¢.g., the 301. 
 Cyclops is termed ζῶν τύμβος (Anth. Pal. xiv. 3 See especially Eisenmenger’s entdecktes 
 
 109, 3), or the vultures ἔμψυχοι τάφοι (Gor- Judenthum, I. Ὁ. 568 ff. 
 gias, ap. Longin. 3), is not similar. 
 
CHAP, III., 19. 125 
 Apostle therefore now continues, and that with very emphatic bringing out 
 of the ὅσα in the first half of the verse and of the πᾶν and πᾶς in the second : 
 we know however (as in 11. 2) that whatsoever the law saith, it speaketh to those 
 that are in the law, consequently that the Jews may not except themselves 
 from the reference of any saying in Scripture. —éca] whatsoever, therefore 
 also what is expressed in such condemnatory passages as the above, with- 
 out exception. — ὁ νόμος] in accordance with its reference to vv. 10-18, is 
 necessarily to be taken here as designation of the O. 7. generally (comp. 1 
 Cor. xiv. 21; John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 ; 2 Macc. ii. 18); not, with Hun- 
 nius, Calovius, Balduin, and Sebastian Schmid, of the law in the dogmatic 
 sense (comp. Matthias); or of the Mosaie law, as Ammon and Gléckler, Th. 
 Schott and Hofmann take it, confusing in various ways the connection.’ 
 So also van Hengel, who quite gratuitously wishes to assume an enthymeme 
 with a minor premiss to be understood (bué the law condemns all those sin- 
 ners). The designation of the Ὁ. T. by 6 νόμος, which forms the first, and 
 for Israel most important, portion of it, was here occasioned by τοῖς ἐν τῷ 
 νόμῳ, t.e. those who are in the law as their sphere of life. — λέγει. . .. λαλεῖ] 
 All that the law says (materially, or respecting its contents, all λόγοι of the . 
 law), it speaks (speaks out, of the outward act which makes the Adyo: be 
 heard, makes known through speech) to those who, etc. Comp. on John 
 vill. 48 ; Mark i, 34; 1 Cor. ix. 8, xii. 3. The dative denotes those to 
 whom the λαλεῖν applies (Kriiger, ὃ 48, 7, 18). Those who have their state 
 of life within the sphere of the law are to regard whatsoever the law says as 
 addressed to themselves, whether it was meant primarily for Jews or Gentiles. 
 How this solemnly emphatic quaecungue heaps wpon the Jews the Divine 
 sentence of ‘‘ guilty,” and cuts off from them every refuge, as if this or 
 that declaration did not apply to or concern them ! — ἵνα πᾶν στόμα κ.τ.λ.] 
 in order that every mouth (therefore also the Jew) may be stopped (Heb. xi. 33; 
 Ps. evii. 42; Job v. 16; and see Wetstein), etc. This, viz. that no one_ 
 shall be able to bring forward anything for his justification, is represented 
 in iva—which is not ita ut—as intended by the speaking law, ὁ.6. by God 
 speaking in the law. Reiche unjustly characterizes this thought as absurd 
 in every view and from every standpoint ; the ἵνα πᾶν κ.τ.2. does not an- 
 nounce itself as the sole and exclusive end, but on the contrary, without 
 
 1 According to Hofmann (compare his 
 Schriftbeweis, I. p. 623 f.; so too, in sub- 
 stance, Th. Schott) the train of thought is : 
 after ver. 9 ff. the only further question 
 that could be put is, whether anything is 
 given to Christians that exempts them from 
 the general guilt and punishment. The 
 law possibly? No, “they know that this 
 law has absolutely (ὅσα) no other tenor than 
 that which it presents to those who belong to 
 iis domain, for this purpose, that the whole 
 world, in the same extent in which itis under 
 sin, must in its own time (this idea being con- 
 veyed by the aorists φραγῇ and γένηται), 
 when it comes to stand before God its Judge, be 
 
 dumb before Him and recognize the justice of 
 His condemning sentence.” This interpreta- 
 tion, obscuring with a far-fetched in- 
 genuity the plain sense of the words, and 
 wringing out of it a tenor of thought to 
 which it is a stranger, is a further result of 
 Hofmann’s having misunderstood the zpoe- 
 χόμεϑα in ver. 9,and having referred it, as 
 also the subsequent προῃτιασάμεϑα, to the 
 Christians as subject, an error which neces- 
 sarily deranged and dislocated for him the 
 entire course of argument in vv. 9-20. At 
 the same time it would not be even histor- 
 ically true that the law has absolutely no 
 other tenor, ete. 
 
126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 negativing other and higher ends, merely expresses one single and special 
 teleological point, which is however the very point which the connection 
 here required to be cited. The time to be mentally supplied for φραγῇ and 
 γένηται is the future generally reckoned from the present of λαλεῖ, not that 
 of the jinal judgment, which does not harmonize with the thought in ver. 9 
 to which the series of Scripture testimonies in vv. 10-18 is appended. — 
 ὑπόδικος] punishable, κατάκριτος, ἀπαῤῥησίαστος, Theophylact; frequently used 
 by classic writers, but elsewhere neither in the N. T. nor in the LXX. or 
 Apocrypha. — τῷ Θεῷ ] belongs, not to φραγῇ (Matthias), but, after the man- 
 ner of the more closely defining parallelism, merely to ὑπόδικ. γένηται : to 
 God, as the Being to whom the penalty is to be paid.’ — γένηται] The result 
 which is to manifest itself, as in ver. 4. — πᾶς ὁ κόσμος] quite generally (ver. 
 9); comp. Eph. ii. 8. And if Paul has described’ this generality (comp. 
 also ver. 23) thus ‘‘insigni figura et verborum emphasi” (Melancthon), the 
 ‘result extending to all humanity is not contradicted by the virtue of indi- 
 viduals, such as the patriarchs ; for from the ideal, but at the same time 
 legally true (comp. Gal. iii. 10), standpoint of the Apostle this virtuousness 
 is still no δικαιοσύνη (but only a minor degree of the want of it), and does 
 not therefore form an exception from the category of the ὑπόδικον εἶναι τῷ 
 Θεῷ. See ver. 20. Though different as respects degree, yet all are affected 
 ᾿ and condemned by the declarations quoted ; every one has a share in this 
 corruption. ὃ 
 
 Ver. 20. [See Note XXX. p. 148.] Διότι] propterea quod, i. 19, not prop- 
 terea (Beza, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Tholuck), is to be divided from the pre- 
 ceding only by a comma, and supplies the objective reason of that iva x.7.A. 
 of the law : because the relation of righteousness will accrue to no flesh from 
 works of the law. For if δικαιοσύνη should come from works of the law, the 
 law would in fact open up the way of righteousness, and therefore that iva 
 πᾶν x.T.A. would not be correct.* As to πᾶσα σάρξ, equivalent to πᾶς ἄνϑρωπος, 
 but conveying the idea of moral imperfection and sinfulness in presence of 
 God, see on Acts 11. 17 ; 1Cor. i. 20 ; and compare generally on Gal. ii. 16. 
 That with regard to the Gentiles Paul is thinking of the natural law (Gi. 14) 
 
 1The opposite is ἀναίτιοσ ἀϑανάτοισιν, 
 Hesiod, ἔργ. 825, and ϑεοῖς ἀναμπλάκητος, 
 Aesch. Agam. 352. Comp. Plat. Zeqg. viii. 
 p. 816 B: ὑπόδικος ἔστω τῷ βλαφϑέντι, p. 868 
 D, 11, p. 9832; Dem. 518, 8 al. 
 
 2 From the poetic tenor of the passage 
 ἵνα πᾶν «.7.A. Ewald conjectures that it re- 
 produces a passage from the O. T. that is 
 now Jost. But how readily may it be con- 
 ceived that Paul, who was himself of a 
 deeply poetic nature, should, in the vein of 
 higher feeling into which he had been 
 brought by the accumulated words of 
 psalm and prophecy, spontaneously ex- 
 press himself as he has done! That ὑπόδι- 
 «kos does not again occur in his writings, 
 matters not; ἔνδικος also in ver. 8 is not 
 again used. 
 
 3 Compare Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, II. 
 p. 152 f. 
 
 4 According to Hofmann, in pursuance 
 of his erroneous interpretation of ver. 19, 
 διότι «.7.A. is Meant to contain the speci- 
 fication of the reason “‘ why the word of the 
 law was published to the Jews for no other ob- 
 ject, than that the whole world might be pre- 
 cluded from alt objection against the condemnr- 
 ing sentence of God.” Compare also Th. 
 Schott. But Paul has not at all expressed 
 in ver. 19 the thought ‘for no other object ;”’ 
 he must in that case, instead of the simple 
 ἵνα which by no means excludes other ob- 
 jects, have written μόνον ἵνα, or possibly eis 
 οὐδὲν εἰ μὴ ἵνα, or in some other way con- 
 veyed the non-expressed thought. 
 
CHAP. III., 20. 127 
 cannot be admitted, seeing that in the whole connection he has to do with 
 the law ef Moses. But neither may the thought be imported into the pas- 
 sage with reference to the Gentiles : ‘‘if they should be placed under the 
 Jaw and should have ἔργα νόμου" (Riickert, comp. Philippi and Mehring), 
 since, according to the context, it is only with reference to the Jews (ver. 19) 
 that the question is dealt with as to no flesh being righteous—a general re- 
 lation which, as regards the Gentiles, is perfectly self-evident, seeing that 
 the latter are ἄνομοι, and have no ἔργα νόμου in the proper sense whatever. — 
 Respecting ἔργα νόμου," works in harmony with the law of Moses, the ἔργα 
 being the prominent conception, works which are fulfilments of its precepts, 
 comp. on ii. 156. Moreover that it is not specially the observance of the 
 ritual portions of the law (Pelagius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Semler, Ammon), 
 but that of the’ Mosaic law in general which is meant, is clear partly from 
 the expression itself, which is put without limitation, partly from the con- 
 textual relation of the clause to what goes before, and partly from the fol- 
 lowing διὰ yap νόμου k.t.A., from which the ethical law is so far from being 
 excluded,’ that it is on the contrary precisely this aspect of the νόμος which 
 is specially meant. — ob δικαιωϑῆσ.] See oni. 17. The future is to be un- 
 derstood either of the moral possibility, or, which is preferable on account 
 of iii. 20, purely in the sense of time, and that of the futwre generally: ‘‘In 
 every case in which justification (1.6. the being declared righteous by God) 
 shall occur, it will not result from,” etc., so that such works should be the 
 causa meritoria. The reference to the future judgment (Reiche) is contro- 
 verted by the fact that throughout the entire connection justification is re- 
 garded as a relation arising immediately from faith, and not as something 
 to be decided only at the judgment. See ver. 21 ff. and chap. iv. For 
 
 this reason there is immediately afterwards introduced as the counterpart of ., 
 
 the δικαιοσύνη, which comes directly from faith, the ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας, which 
 comes directly from the law. It is certain, moreover, that in οὐ δικαιωϑ. 
 x.T.2. Paul had Ps. cxliii. 2 in view, but instead of πᾶς ζῶν he put πᾶσα 
 σάρξ aS more significant for the matter in hand. — Jn what sense now shall 
 no one from works of the law become righteous before God, i.e. sach that God 
 looks upon him as righteous ?* Not in the sense that perfect compliance 
 with the law would be insufficient to secure justification, against which the 
 fundamental law of the judge : of ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωϑήσονται (11. 18), would 
 be decisive ; but in the sense that no man, even with an outwardly faultless 
 observance of the law (comp. on Phil. iii 6), is in a position to offer to it 
 that full and right obedience, which alone would be the condition of a jus- 
 
 1 For ἔργων νόμου cannot be taken as daw 
 of works, as Miarcker uniformly wishes. 
 Comp. on ii. 15. 
 
 2 Paul always conceives the law as an un- 
 divided whole (comp. Usteri, p. 36), while 
 he yet has in his mind sometimes more the 
 ritual, sometimes more the moral, aspect 
 of this one divine νόμος, according to his 
 object and the connection (Ritschl, αἰέ- 
 kathol. K. p. 78). Comp. on Gal. ii. 16. 
 
 3In opposition to Hofmann, who in his 
 Schriflo. I. p. 612 urges the ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ 
 against the imputative sense of the passive 
 δικαιοῦσϑαι, see Wieseler on Gal. p. 192 f. 
 It is quite equivalent to παρὰ τ. Θεῷ, judice 
 Deo, Gal. iii. 11. See generally the thor- 
 ough defence of the sensus forensis of 
 δικαιοῦσϑαι in the N. T., also from classic 
 authors and from the O. T. in Morison, p. 
 163 ff. 
 
128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tification independent of extraneous intervention ; in fact, it is only through 
 _the law that man comes to aclear perception and consciousness of his moral 
 imperfection by nature (his unrighteousness). See Luther’s preface. That 
 this was the Apostle’s view, is proved by the reason which follows : διὰ yap 
 νόμου x.t.A. See, besides, especially chs. vii. and viii.; Gal. iii. 10. There 
 is here no mention of the good works of the regenerate, which however are 
 only the fruits of justification, ch. vi. viii. 2 ff.; Eph. ii. 10 al. Comp. 
 Philippi and Morison. — διὰ yap νόμου ἐπίγν. ἀμ. The law, when it places its 
 demands before man, produces in the latter his first proper recognition of his 
 moral incongruity with the will of God. ‘‘ With these words Paul strikes 
 at the deepest root of the matter,” Ewald. Respecting yap Calvin’s note is 
 sufficient : ‘‘ a contrario ratiocinatur. . . . quando ex eadem scatebra non 
 prodeunt vita et mors.” The propriety of the argument however rests on 
 the fact that the law does not at the same time supply the strength to con- 
 quer sin (viii. 3), but stops short at the point of bringing to cognition the 
 ‘‘interiorem immunditiem ” which it forbids; ‘‘ hance judicat et accusat 
 coram Deo, non tollit,”” Melanchthon. It is different in the case of civil laws, 
 which are designed merely to do away with the externa scelera, and to judge 
 the works in and for themselves, xiii. 3 ff. 
 
 Vv. 21-30. [See Note XXXI. p. 149.] Paul has hitherto been proving that 
 all men are under sin, and guilty before God. This was the preparatory por- 
 tion of the detailed illustration of the theme set forth in ch. i. 17; for be- 
 fore anything else there had to be recognized the general necessity of a 
 δικαιοσύνη not founded on the law—as indeed such a legal righteousness has 
 shown itself to be impossible. Now however he exhibits this δικαιοσύνη pro- 
 vided from another souree—the righteousness of God which comes from 
 faith to all without distinction, to believing Jews and Gentiles. Hofmann 
 rejects this division, in consequence of his having erroneously taken προε- 
 χόμεϑα in ver. 9 as the utterance of the Christians. He thinks that the 
 Apostle only now comes to the conclusion, at which he has been aiming 
 ever since the fifth verse: as to what makes Christians, as distinguished 
 from others, assured of salvation. 
 
 Ver. 21.1 Νυνί is usually interpreted here as a pure adverb of time (‘‘ nostris 
 temporibus hac in parte felicissimis,” Grotius). So also Tholuck, Reiche, 
 Riickert, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Winzer, Reithmayr, Philippi, van 
 Hengel, Mehring, Th. Schott, and others. But since what precedes was 
 not given asa delineation of the past, there appears here not the contrast 
 between two periods, but that between two relations, the relation of depend- 
 ence on the law and the relation of independence on the law (διὰ νόμου. . . . 
 χωρὶς νόμου). Hence with Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, Fritzsche, 
 de Wette, Matthias, and Hofmann, we render : but in this state of the case.* 
 — χωρὶς νόμου] placed with full emphasis at the beginning as the opposite of 
 διὰ νόμου, belongs to πεῴφαν. Aptly rendered by Luther: ‘‘ without the ac- 
 
 
 
 1 See Winzer, Comm. in Rom. iii. 21-28, Part. p. 95; Ellendt, Zea. Soph. ΤΙ. p. 181. 
 Partic. Τ. and TI. 1829. Compe vil) 17: ἘΞ Cor: vy. 11. xis 18) Σ1Π[ 15: 
 
 2 See regarding this dialectic use of the  al.,; 4 Macc. vi. 33, xiii.38. By Greek authors 
 νῦν Hartung, Partikell. II. Ὁ. 25; Baeuml. νυνί is not thus used, only νῦν. 
 
CHAP. III., 22. 129 
 cessory aid of the law,” 1.6. so that in this revelation of the righteousness of 
 God the law is left out of account. Reiche’ joins it with δικαιοσ. : ‘‘ the 
 righteousness of God as being imparted to the believer without the law, 
 without the Mosaic law helping him thereto.” Compare also Winzer, 
 Klee, Mehring. But apart from the coactior constructio, with which Estius 
 already found fault, we may urge against this view the parallel of διὰ 
 νόμου, ver. 20, which words also do not belong to ἐπέγνωσις duapr. but to 
 the verb to be supplied. — πεφανέρωται] is made manifest and lies open to view, 
 so that it presents itself to the knowledge of every one ; the present of the 
 completed action, Heb. ix. 26. The expression itself presupposes the pre- 
 vious κρυπτόν (Col. 111. 3 f.; Mark iv. 22), the having been hidden, in accord- 
 ance with which the righteousness of God has not yet been the object of ex- 
 perimental perception. To men it was an unknown treasure. The mode of 
 the πεφανέρωται however consists in the δικαίοσ. Θεοῦ having become actwal, 
 having passed into historical reality, and having been made apparent, which 
 has been accomplished without mixing up the law as a co-operative factor 
 
 ‘in the matter. —japrop. ὑπὸ τ. vou. Kk. τ. προφ.}] An accompanying charac- 
 teristic definition of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, so far as the latter is made manifest : 
 being witnessed, ete. If it is thus the case with regard to it, that in its πεφ- 
 avépwra it is attested by the witness of the law and the prophets, then this 
 precludes the misconception that the δικαιοσύνη revealed χωρὶς νόμου is oppos- 
 ed or foreign to the O. T., and consequently an innovation without a back- 
 ground in sacred history. Comp. xvi. 26 ; John v. 39. ‘‘ Novum testa- 
 mentum in vetere latet, vetus in novo patet,” Augustine. In this case we are 
 not to think of the moral requirements (Th. Schott), but of the collective Mes- 
 sianic types, promises and prophecies in the law and the prophets, in which is 
 also necessarily comprised the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as that which is necessary to 
 participation in the Messianic salvation. Comp. i. 2, 111. 2; Acts x. 43, 
 Xxviii. 23 ; Luke xxiv. 27 ; from the law, the testimony of Abraham, iv. 3 ff. 
 and the testimonies quoted in x. 6 ff. — Observe further that μαρτυρουμ. has 
 the emphasis, in contrast to γωρίς, not ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου (Bengel, Fritzsche and 
 others). We may add Bengel’s apt remark : ‘‘ Lex stricte (namely, in χωρὶς 
 νόμου) et late (in ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου) dicitur.” 
 
 Ver. 22. A righteousness of God, however, (mediated) through faith in Jesus 
 Christ. On δέ, with the repetition of the same idea, to be defined now 
 however more precisely, the δικαιοσυνη Θεοῦ; (not merely δικαιοσύνη, as Hof- 
 mann insists contrary to the words) ; comp. ix. 30. See on Phil. ii. 8. — 
 The genitive I. X. contains the object of faith* in accordance with prevail- 
 
 1 Following Augustine, de grat. Chr. 1, 8, 
 and de spir. et. lit. 9, Wolf, and others. 
 
 “fides, quae auctore Jesu Christo Deo 
 habetur” (Berlage). Against this view we 
 
 2 This view of the genitive is justly ad- 
 hered to by most expositors. It is with 
 πίστις aS With ἀγάπη, in which the object is 
 likewise expressed as well by the genitive 
 as by eis. Nevertheless, Scholten, Rauwen- 
 hoff, van Hengel, and Berlage (de formulae 
 Paulinae πίστις 1. Χριστοῦ signif., Lugd. B. 
 1856) have recently taken it to mean the 
 
 may decidedly urge the passages where the 
 genitive with πίστις is a thing or an abstract 
 idea (Phil. i. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Acts iii. 16 ; 
 Col. ii. 12); also the expression πίστις Θεοῦ 
 in Mark xi. 22, where the genitive must 
 necessarily be that of the object. Comp. 
 the classical expressions πίστις ϑεῶν and 
 the like. See besides Lipsius, Rechtfer- 
 
130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ing usage (Mark xi. 22; Acts iii. 16; Gal. 11. 16, 20, iii: 22; Eph. iti. 12, 
 iv. 13; Phil. iii. 9; James ii.1). The article before διὰ rior. was not need- 
 ed for the simple reason that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is without it. Therefore, and 
 because the point at issue here was not the mode of becoming manifest, but 
 the specific characterizing of the righteousness itself that had become mani- 
 fest, neither διὰ rior. (Fritzsche, Tholuck) nor the following εἰς πάντας x.7.2. 
 (de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Winer, Mehring and others) is to be made 
 dependent on redavépwra. — εἰς πάντας x. ἐπὶ π. τ. πιστ.] scil. οὖσα. The 
 expression is an earnest and significant bringing into prominence of the uni- 
 versal character of this δικαιοσύνη διὰ rior. ᾽1. X.: which is for all, and upon 
 all who believe. Both prepositions denote the direction of aim, in which the 
 δικαιοσύνη presents itself, though with the special modification that under 
 the εἰς lies the notion of destination (not ‘‘ the immanent influx,” Reithmayr), 
 under the ἐπί that of extending itself over all. On the peculiar habit, which 
 the Apostle has, of setting forth a relation under several aspects by different 
 prepositional definitions of a single word, see Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 418] ; 
 compare generally Kiihner II. 1, p. 475 f. While recent expositors (includ- 
 ‘ing Riickert, Reiche, Kollner, de Wette) have often arbitrarily disregarded 
 the distinction in sense between the two prepositions,” and have held both 
 merely as a strengthening of the idea a// (‘‘ for all, for all without exception,” 
 Koppe), the old interpreters, on the other hand, forced upon the εἰς and ἐπί 
 much that has nothing at all in common with the relation of the prepositions ; 
 e.g. that εἰς x. applies to the Jews and ἐπὶ 7. to the Gentiles.*—oi: yap ἐστι διαστ. | 
 Ground assigned for the πάντας τ. mist. ‘‘ For there is no distinction made, 
 according to which another way to the δικαιοσύνῃ Θεοῦ would stand open for 
 a portion of men, perchance for the Jews,” and that just for the reason that 
 (ver. 23) all have sinned, ete. 
 
 Ver. 929.. “Ἡμαρτον] [See Note XXXII. p. 149.] The sinning of every man 
 is presented as an historical fact of the past, whereby the sinful state is 
 produced. The perfect would designate it as a completed subsisting fact. 
 Calvin, moreover, properly remarks that according to Paul there is nulla 
 justitia ‘‘ nisi perfecta et absoluta,” and ‘‘ si verum esset, nos partim operibus 
 justificari, partim Dei gratia, non valeret hoc Pauliargumentum.” Luther 
 aptly observes : ‘‘ They are altogether sinners, etc., is the main article and 
 the central point of this Epistle and of the whole Scripture.” — καὶ torep. | 
 They have sinned, and in consequence of this they lack, there is wanting 
 to them, etc. This very present expression, as well as the present participle 
 
 tigungsl. Ὁ. 109 f.; Weiss, δὲδί. Theol. p. rison, p. 229 ff.) have already done. After 
 
 335. 
 
 1 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. 4, 25. 
 
 2 For in none of the similar passages are 
 the prepositions synonymous. See iii. 20, 
 xi. 86; Gal. i.1; Eph. iv. 6; Col. i. 16. See 
 also Matthias and Mehring in /oc. The lat- 
 ter, following out his connection πεφανέρ., 
 explains: ‘‘ manifested fo all men and for 
 all believers.” But it is arbitrary to take 
 τοὺς πιστεύοντας as defining only the second 
 πάντας, aS Morus and Flatt (see also Mo- 
 
 the emphatic δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίέσ- 
 Tews the πιστεύειν is so much the specific 
 and thorough mark of the subjects, that 
 τοὺς πιστεύοντας must define the πάντας in 
 both instances. 
 
 3 Thus Theodoret, Oecumenius, and many 
 others, who have been followed by Bengel, 
 Bohme, and Jatho (and conversely by Mat- 
 thias, who explains ἐκ and eis in i. 17 in the 
 same way). 
 
CHAP. III., 23. ; 131 
 
 δικαιούμενοι, Ought to have kept Hofmann from understanding πάντες of all 
 believers ; for in their case that ὑστερεῖσϑαι no longer applies (v. 1 f., viii. 1 @/.), 
 and they are not δικαιούμενοι but δικαιωϑέντες ; but, as becoming believers, they 
 would not yet be πιστεύοντες. --- τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ] The genitive with ὑστερεῖσϑαι 
 (Diod. Sic. xviii. 71 ; Joseph. Antt. xv. 6, 7) determines for the latter the sense 
 of destitui. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237. Comp. on 1 Cor. i. 7. They lack 
 the honour which God gives,’ they are destitute of the being honoured by 
 God, which would be the case, if the ἥμαρτον did not occur ; in that 
 case they would possess the good pleasure of God, and this, regarded 
 as honour, which they would have to enjoy from God : the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 Comp. ii. 29 ; John xii. 43, compared withv. 44. Kd6llner’s objection to this 
 view, which first offers itself, of τ. Θεοῦ as the genitive auctoris, which is 
 also held by Piscator, Hammond, Grotius, Fritzsche, Reiche, de Wette, 
 Tholuck, and others, following Chrysostom (comp. Philippi), that it is not 
 the fault of men if they should not have an honour, which proceeds from God, 
 is of no weight ; since it certainly is the fault of men, if they render it im- 
 possible for a holy God to give them the honour which proceeds from Him. 
 Moreover, Kéllner’s own explanation : honour before God (quite so also Cal- 
 vin ; and comp. Philippi), which is said according to the analogy of human 
 relations, in point of fact quite coincides with the above view, since in fact 
 honour before God, or with God (Winzer), is nothing else than the honour 
 that accrues to us from God’s judgment. Comp. Calvin : ‘‘ita nos ab hu- 
 mani theatri plausu ad tribunal coeleste vocat.”” Accordingly, the genitive 
 is here all the less to be interpreted coram, since in no other passage (and. 
 especially not in δικαίοσ. Θεοῦ, see on i. 17) is there any necessity for this 
 interpretation. This last consideration may also be urged against the inter- 
 pretation of others : gloriatio coram Deo; ‘‘non habent, unde coram Deo 
 glorientur,” Estius. So Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, Wolf, Koppe, Rosen- 
 miiller, Reithmayr, and others. It is decisive against this view that in all 
 passages where Paul wished to express gloriatio, he knew how to employ 
 the proper word, καύχησις (ver. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 14, viii. 24 al). Others, 
 again, following Oecumenius (Chrysostom and Theophylact express them- 
 selves too indefinitely, and Theodoret is altogether silent on the. matter), 
 explain the δόξα τ. Θεοῦ to mean the glory of eternal life, in so far as God 
 either has destined it for man (Gléckler), or confers it upon him (Boéhme, 
 comp. Morison) ; 07 in so far as it consists in partaking in the glory of God 
 (Beza, comp. Bengel and Baumgarten-Crusius). Mehring allows a choice 
 between the two last definitions of the sense. But the following δικαιούμενοι 
 proves that the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ cannot in reality be anything essentially dif- 
 ferent from the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and cannot be merely future, Utterly erro- 
 neous, finally, is the view of Chemnitz, Flacius, Sebastian Schmid, Calovius,” 
 
 1The genitive τ. Θεοῦ cannot, without God,” i.e. the glory of personal holiness. 
 arbitrariness, be explained otherwise than 2 He takes δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ as “‘ gloria homini 
 was done in the case of δικαιοσύνη τ. Θεοῦ. a Deo concessa in creatione ;” this gloria 
 In consequence of his erroneous exposition having been the divine image, which we 
 “of δικαίοσ. τ. Θεοῦ (see on i. 17), Matthias forfeited after the fall. 
 understands here “ glory such as is that of 
 
132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Hasaeus, Alting, Carpzov, Ernesti, recently revived by Riickert, Olshausen, 
 . and Mangold, that the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ is the image of God ; ““α godlike δόξα," 
 as Riickert puts it, and thus gets rid of the objection that δόξα is not synon- 
 ymous with εἰκών. But how arbitrarily is the relation of the genitive thus 
 defined, altogether without the precedent of a similar usage (2 Cor. xi. 2 is 
 not a case in point)! That the idea of the image of God is not suggested 
 by anything in the connection is self-evident, since, as the subsequent 
 δικαιούμενοι x.T.2. abundantly shows, it is the idea of the want of righteous- 
 ness that is under discussion. Hofmann and Ewald have explained it in the 
 same way as Riickert, though they take the genitive more accurately (a δόξα 
 such as God Himself possesses). The latter’ understands ‘‘the glory of 
 God which man indeed has by creation, Ps. viii. 8, but which by sin he 
 may lose for time and eternity, and has now lost.” Compare Hofmann: 
 ‘¢ Whatsoever is of God has a share, after the manner of a creature, in the 
 glory of God. If this therefore be not found in man, the reason is that he 
 has forfeited the relation to God in which he was created.” - But even apart 
 from the fact that such a participation in the glory of God has been lost 
 already through the fall (v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22), and not for the first time 
 through the individual ἥμαρτον here meant, it is decisive against this exposi- 
 tion that the participation in the divine δόξα nowhere appears as an original 
 blessing that has fallen into abeyance, but always as something to be conferred 
 only at the Parousia (v. 2 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12) ; as the συνδοξασϑῆναι with Christ 
 (vili. 17 f.; Col. 111. 4) ; as the glorious κληρονομία of God (comp. also 2 
 Tim. iv. 8 ; 1 Pet. v. 4); and consequently as the new blessing of the future 
 αἰών (1 Cor. ii. 9). That is also the proleptic ἐδόξασε in viii. 30, which how- 
 ever would be foreign to the present connection. 
 
 Ver. 24. Δικαιούμενοι] [See Note XXXIII. p. 149.] does not stand for the 
 finite tense (as even Riickert and Reiche, following Erasmus, Calvin and 
 Melanchthon, think) ; nor is, with Ewald, ver. 23 to be treated as a paren- 
 thesis, so that the discourse from the accusative im ver. 22 should now 
 resolve itself more freely into the nominative, which would be unnecessarily 
 harsh. But the participle introduces the accompanying relation, which here 
 comes into view with the ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ, namely, that of the 
 mode of their δικαίωσις : so that, in that state of destitution, they receive justi- 
 Jication in the way of gift. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘repente sic panditur 
 scena amoenior.” The participle is not even to be resolved into καὶ δικαιοῦν- 
 ται (Peshito, Luther, Fritzsche), but the relation of becoming justified is 
 to be left in the dependence on the want of the δόξα Θεοῦ, in which it is con- 
 ceived and expressed.*— δωρεάν] gratuitously (comp. v. 17, and on the 
 adverb in this sense Polyb. xviii. 17, 7; 1 Macc. x. 33; Matt. x. 8; 2 Thess. 
 iit. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7) they are placed in the relation of righteousness, so that 
 
 1 Similarly already Melanchthon: ‘ gloria 
 Dei, i.e. luce Dei fulgente in natura incor- 
 
 quam Deus approbat.” 
 2 Against the Osiandrian misinterpreta- 
 
 rupta, seu ipso Deo carent, ostendente se et 
 accendente ardentem dilectionem et alios 
 motus legi congruentes sine ullo peccato.”’ 
 Previously (1540) he had explained : ‘‘ gloria, 
 
 tions in their old and new forms see Me- 
 lanchthon, Znarr. on ver. 21; Kahnis, Dogm. 
 I. p. 599 ff.; and also Philippi, Glaubenslehré, 
 IV. 2, p. 247 ff. 
 
CHAP. III., 25. 133 
 this is not anyhow the result of their own performance ; comp. Eph. ii. 8 ; 
 Tit. iii. ὅ. --- τῇ αὐτοῦ yap. διὰ τῆς ἀπολ. τῆς ἐν X. ᾽1.1 in virtue of His grace . 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This redemption is that which 
 Jorms the medium of the justification of man taking place gratuitously 
 through the grace of God. By the position of the words τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, 
 the divine grace, is, in harmony with the notion of δωρεάν, emphasized pre- 
 cisely as the divine, opposed to all human co-operation ; comp. Eph. ii. 8. 
 In ἀπολύτρωσις * the special idea of ransoming (comp. on Eph. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. vi. 
 20 ; Gal. iii. 13) is not to be changed into the general one of the Messianic 
 liberation (vill. 23 ; Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. i. 14, iv. 30; and see Ritschl in 
 the Jahrb. 7. ἃ. Theol. 1863, p. 512) ; for the λύτρον or ἀντίλυτρον (Matt. xx. 
 28 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6) which Christ rendered, to procure for all believers remis- 
 sion of guilt and the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, was His blood, which was the atoning’ 
 sacrificial blood, and so as equivalent accomplished the forgiveness of sins, 
 2.6. the essence of the ἀπολύτρωσις. See ver. 25; Eph.i. 7; Col. i. 14; 
 Heb. ix. 15 ; comp. on Matt. xx. 28; 1 Cor. vi..20 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor. 
 v. 21. Liberation from the sin-prineiple (from its dominion) is not the 
 essence of the ἀπολύτρωσις itself,* but its consequence through the Spirit, if it 
 is appropriated in faith (viii. 3). Every mode of conception, which refers 
 redemption and the forgiveness of sins not to a real atonement through the 
 death of Christ, but subjectively to the dying and reviving with Him guar- 
 anteed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch, Hofmann, 
 and others, with various modifications), is opposed to the N. T.—a mixing 
 up of justification and sanctification. * — ἐν X. ’Ιησοῦ] 1.6. contained and rest- 
 ing in Him, in His person that has appeared as the Messiah (hence the 
 Χριστῷ is placed first), To what extent, is shown in ver. 25.—Observe 
 further that justification, the causa efficiens of which is the divine grace (rq 
 αὐτοῦ χάριτι), is here represented as obtained by means of the ἀπολύτρωσις, 
 but in ver. 22 as obtained by means of faith, namely, in the one case object- 
 ively and in the other subjectively (comp. ver. 25). But even in ver. 22 the 
 objective element was indicated in πίστ.᾽Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and in ver. 24 f. 
 both elements are more particularly explained. 
 
 Ver. 25.1— dv προέϑεζο x.t.4.| whom God has openly set forth for Himself.* 
 This signification, familiar from the Greek usage,® is decidedly to be 
 adopted on account of the correlation with εἰς ἔνδειξιν κ.τ.λ. (Vulgate, Pela- 
 gius, Luther, Beza, Bengel and others ; also Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, 
 
 1 Comp. Plut. Pomp. 24, Dem. 159, 15. 
 2 Lipsius, Pechtfertiqungsl. p. 147 f. 
 3 Comp. on ver. 26; also Ernesti, Hthik ἃ. 
 
 up to view as ἱλαστήριον. In Greek authors 
 the word προτίϑεσϑαι is specially often used 
 to express the exhibition of dead bodies 
 
 Ap. P.p.-27 f. 
 
 4 See on ver. 25f. Ritschl,in the Jahrb. f. 
 Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 500 ff.; Pfleiderer in 
 Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 177 ff.; the 
 critical comparison of the various explana- 
 tions in Morison, p. 268 ff. 
 
 § Which has been done by the erwcifixion. 
 Compare the discourse of Jesus where 
 He compares Himself with the serpent of 
 Moses, John iii. Christ has been thus hed 
 
 (Kriiger on Thue. ii. 34, 1; Stallbaum, ad 
 Plat. Phaed. p. 115 E.). Weare not to sup- 
 pose however that ¢his usage influenced 
 the Apostle in his choice of the word, since 
 he had Christ before his eyes, not as a dead 
 body, but as shedding His blood and dying. 
 
 ὁ Herod. iii. 148, vi. 21; Plat. Phaed. Ὁ. 115 
 E; Eur. Alc. 667 ; Thue. ii. 84, 1, 64, 3; Dem. 
 1071, 1; Herodian, viii. 6, 5; also in the 
 xXx. 
 
184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Tholuck, Hofmann and Morison) ; and not the equally classic signification : 
 to propose to oneself, adopted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Toletus, Pareus, de Dieu, Elsner, Heumann, Bohme, Flatt and Fritzsche 
 (i. 13; Eph. i. 9; 3 Mace. 11. 27): ‘‘ quem esse voluit Deus piaculare sacri- 
 ficium,” Fritzsche.’ In that case an infinitive must have been required ; 
 and it was with the publicity of the divine act before the whole world that 
 the Apostle was here concerned, as he has already indicated by redavépwra 
 in ver. 21. Matthias explains it : whom He caused to be openly made known, 
 to be preached. But the classical use of προτίϑημι, in the active and middle, 
 in the sense of promulgare is here foreign, since it refers to the summoning . 
 or proclamation of assemblies * or to the promulgation of laws. Besides the 
 ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης Of God rests, in fact, not on the preaching of the atoner, 
 but on the work of atonement itself, which God accomplished by the προέ- 
 Seto K.T.A. — God’s own participation therein (for it was His ἱλαστήριον, willed 
 and instituted by Himself) which is expressed by the middle, is placed be- 
 yond question by the εἰς ἔνδειξιν κ.τ.λ., and decisively excludes Hofmann’s 
 conception of the death of Christ as a befalling. Compare on ver. 26, — 
 ἱλαστήριον] is the neuter of the adjective ἱλαστήριος, used as a substantive, and 
 hence means simply erpiatorium in general, without the word itself convey- 
 ing the more concrete definition of its sense. The latter is supplied by the 
 context. Thus, for example, in the LXX. (in the older profane Greek the 
 word does not occur) the lid of the ark of the covénant, the Kapporeth, as 
 the propitiatorium operculum, is called τὸ ἱλαστήριον (see below), which des- 
 ignation has become technical, and in Ex. xxv. 17 and xxxvii. 6 receives 
 its more precise definition by the addition of ἐπίϑεμα. They also designate 
 the ledge (choir) of the altar for burnt offerings, the WY, (Ez. xliii. 15, 17, 
 20) in the same way, because this place also was, through the blood of rec- 
 onciliation with which it was sprinkled, and generally as, an altar-place, 
 a place of atonement. When they render D3 in Amos ix. 1 (knob) by ἱλασ- 
 τήριον, it is probable that they read N33. See generally Schleusner, Thes. 
 Ill. p. 108 f. The word in the sense of offerings of atonement does not oc- 
 cur in the LXX., though it is so used by other writers, so that it may be 
 more specially defined by ἱερόν or ϑῦμα.5 Even in our passage the context | 
 makes the notion of an atoning sacrifice (comp. Lev. xvii. 11) sufficiently 
 clear by ἐν τ. αὐτοῦ αἵματι ; compare Pfleiderer 1.6. p. 180. The interpreta- 
 
 1.Ewald has in the translation predestined, 
 but in the explanation exhibited. Van Hen- 
 gel declares for the latter. 
 
 2 Soph. Ant. 160, and Hermann in loc.; 
 Lucian, Vecyom. 19, and Hemsterhuis in 100.» 
 Dion. Hal. vi. 15 a/.; see Schoem. Comit. Ὁ. 
 104; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 266 f. 
 
 3 Thus in Dio Chrys. Orat. xi. 1, p. 355 
 Reiske : ἱλαστήριον ᾿Αχαιοὶ τῇ ᾿Αϑηνᾷ τῇ Ἰλιάδι, 
 where a votive gift bears this inscription, 
 and is thereby indicated as an offering of 
 atonement, as indeed votive gifts generally 
 fall under the wider idea of offerings 
 (Ewald, Alterth. Ὁ. 96; Hermann, gottesd. 
 
 Alterth. § 25, 1); again in Nonnus, Dionys. 
 xiii. p. 883: ἱλαστήρια (the true reading in- 
 stead of ἱκαστήρια) Topyots. 4 Mace. xvii. 
 22: διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐκείνων καὶ τοῦ 
 ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ [The article is, critically, un- 
 certain; but at all events the blood is con- 
 ceived as atoning sacrifice-blood ; comp. 
 ver. 19.] ϑανάτου αὐτῶν. Hesych.: ἱλαστήριον" 
 καϑάρσιον. Comp. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 487, 
 where λωφήϊα ἱερά is explained by ἐξιλασ- 
 τήρια ; also the corresponding expressions 
 for sacrifices, σωτήριον (Xen. Anabd. ili. 2, 93 
 v. 1,1; LXX. Ex. xx. 24); καϑάρσιον (Herod. 
 i. 35; Aeschin. p. 4, 10) ; καϑαρτήριον (Poll. 1. 
 
CHAP! ΤΙ. 20: 135 
 tion expiatory sacrifice is adopted by Chrysostom (who at least represents 
 the ἱλαστήρ. of Christ as the antitype of the animal offerings), Clericus, Bos, 
 Elsner, Kypke, and others, including Koppe, Flatt, Klee, Reiche, de Wette, 
 K6lner, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Messner and Ewald ; Weiss (bibl. Theol. p. 
 324) is in doubt between this and the following explanation.’ Others, as 
 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Usteri and Gléckler, keep with the Vulgate 
 ( propitiationem) and Castalio (placamentum), to the general rendering : means 
 of propitiation. So also Hofmann (comp. Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 338 f.), com- 
 paring specially 1 John iv. 10, and σωτήριον in Luke ii. 30; and Rich. 
 Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 84 ff. But this, after the προέϑετο which points 
 to a definite public appearance, is an abstract idea inappropriate to it (as 
 ‘* propitiation”), especially seeing that év . . αἵματι belongs to προέϑετο, 
 and seeing that the view of the death of Jesus as the concrete propitiatory 
 offering was deeply impressed on and vividly present to the Christian con- 
 sciousness (Eph. v. 2; 1 Cor. v. 7 ; Heb. ix. 14, 28; 1 Pet. i. 19; Johni. 
 29, xvii. 19 al.). Origen, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, 
 Pareus, Hammond, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others,’ have 
 rendered ἱλαστήριον in quite a special sense, namely, as referring to the can- 
 opy-shaped cover suspended over the ark of the covenant (see Ewald, Alterth. 
 p. 164 ff.), on which, as the seat of Jehovah’s throne, the blood of the sac- 
 rifice was sprinkled by the high priest on the great day of atonement (Ex. 
 xxv. 22 ; Num. vii. 89; Lev. xvi. 13 ff. ;? and which therefore, regarded as 
 the vehicle of the divine grace,‘ typified Christ as the atoner.® That the 
 Kapporeth was termed ἱλαστήριον is not only certain from the LXX.° (Ex. 
 xxv. 18, 19, 20, xxxi. 7 al.), but also from Heb. ix. 5, and Philo (οὐδ. Mos. 
 p- 668, Dand # ; de profug. p. 465 A), who expressly represents the covering 
 of the ark as a symbol of the ἵλεω δυνάμεως of God. Compare also Joseph. 
 
 32); χαριστήριον (Xen. Cyr. iv. 1,2; Polyb. 
 xxi. 1, 2); εὐχαριστήριον (Polyb. v. 14, 8). 
 Compare also such expressions as ἐπινίκια 
 Sve; and see generally Schaefer, ad Bos. 
 Fill. p. 191 ff. 
 
 1 Hstius also explains victimam . .. propi- 
 tiatoriam, but yet takes ἱλαστ, as masculine. 
 It was already taken as masculine (propitia- 
 tor) in the Syriac (compare the reading 
 propitiatorem in the Vulgate) by Thomas 
 Aquinas and others; also Erasmus (in his 
 translation), Melanchthon and Vatablus ; 
 more recently also by Vater, Schrader, 
 Reithmayr and van Hengel. But to this it 
 may be objected that there is no example 
 of ἱλαστήριος used with reference to persons. 
 This remark also applies against Mehring, 
 who interprets powenful for atonement. 
 Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 584, and similarly Man- 
 gold properly retain the rendering . expia- 
 tory offering ; and even Morison recognizes 
 the sacrificial conception of the ‘‘ propitia- 
 tory,” although like Mehring he abides in 
 substance by the idea of the adjective. 
 
 2 Also Olshausen, Tholuck (ed. 5), Philippi, 
 
 Umbreit, Jatho, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f 
 Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 247, and altkathol. 
 Kirche, p. 85; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p. 
 273; Delitzsch on Heb. p. 719, and in the il- 
 lustrations to his Hebrew translation, p. 79; 
 Miarcker, and others. 
 
 3 Keil, Arch. I. § 84, and generally Lund, 
 Jiid. Heiligth. ed. Wolf, p. 37 ff. 
 
 4See Bahr, Symbolik, 1. p. 387 ff ; Hengs- 
 tenberg, Awthent. des Pentateuches, Il. p. 
 642; Schulz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 205. , 
 
 5 So also Funke, in the Stud. τι. AKvrit. 1842, 
 p. 214 f. The old writers, and before them 
 the Fathers, have in some instances very 
 far-fetched points of comparison. Calo- 
 vius, ¢.g., specifies five: (1) quoad causam 
 efficientem ; (2) quoad materiam (gold and 
 not perishable wood—divine and human 
 nature); (3) quoad numerum (only one) ; 
 (4) quoad objectum (all); (5) quoad usum 
 et finem. 
 
 6 The LXX. derived the word Kapporeth, 
 in view of the idea which it represented, 
 from 455, condonavit. Comp. also the Vul- 
 gate (‘‘ expiatorium”’). 
 
136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Antt. iii. 6, 5. There is consequently nothing to be urged against this expla- 
 nation, either as respects the wsws loquendi or as respects the idea, in accord- 
 ance with which Christ, the bearer of the divine glory and grace, sprinkled 
 with His own sacrificial blood, would be regarded as the antitype of the 
 Kapporeth. But we may urge against it : (1) that τὸ ἱλαστήρ. does not stand 
 with the article, as in the Sept. and Heb. ix. 5, although Christ was to be des- 
 ignated as the realized idea of the definite and in fact singly existing 1153 
 (τὸ ἀληϑινὸν ἱλαστήριον, Theodoret) ; (2) that even though the term ἱλαστήριον, 
 as applied to the cover of the ark, was certainly familiar to the readers from 
 its use by the LXX., nevertheless this name, in its application to Christ, 
 would come in here quite abruptly, without anything in the context prepar- 
 ing the way for it or leading to it ; (8) that προέϑετο would in that case be 
 inappropriate, because the ark of the covenant, in the Holy of Holies, was 
 removed from the view of the people ; (4) that, if Christ were really thought 
 of here as D195, the following εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ would be 
 inappropriate, since the 0153 must have appeared rather as the ἔνδειξις of 
 the divine grace (comp. Heb. iv. 16) ; (5) and lastly, that the conception of 
 Christ as the antitype of the cover of the ark is found nowhere else in the 
 whole N. T., although there was frequent opportunity for such expression ; 
 and it is therefore to be assumed that it did not belong to the apostolic modes 
 of viewing and describing the atoning work of Christ./ Moreover, if it is ob- 
 jected that this interpretation is unsuitable, because Christ, who shed His own 
 blood, could not be the cover of the ark sprinkled with foreign blood, it ison 
 the other hand to be remembered that the Crucified One sprinkled with His 
 own blood might be regarded as the cover of the ark with the same propri- 
 ety as Christ offering His own blood is regarded in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews as High Priest. If, on the other side, it is objected to the interpre- 
 tation expiatory offering (see Philippi), that it does not suit προέϑετο because 
 Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice to God, but God did not present Him 
 as such to humanity, the objection is untenable, since the idea that God 
 has given Christ to death pervades the whole N. T.—not that God has there- 
 by offered Christ as a sacrifice, which is nowhere asserted, but that He has 
 set forth before the eyes of the universe Him who is surrendered to the world 
 by the very fact of His offering Himself as a sacrifice in obedience to the 
 Father’s counsel, as such actually and publicly, namely, on the cross. An 
 exhibition through preaching (as Philippi objects) is not to be thought of, 
 but rather the divine act of redemption which took place through the sacri- 
 ficial death on Golgotha. — διὰ τῆς πίστεως] may be connected either with 
 προέϑετο (Philippi, following older writers) or with ἱλαστήριον (Riickert, 
 Matthias, Ewald, Hofmann, Morison, and older expositors). The latter is 
 the right construction, since faith, as laying hold of the propitiation, is the 
 very thing by which the ἱλαστήριον set forth becomes subjectively effective ; 
 but not that whereby the setting forth itself, which was an objective fact 
 independent of faith, has been accomplished. Hence: as ὦ sacrifice pro- 
 
 
 
 Φ. 
 1 Even had no one believed on the Cruci- view of the divine: πρόγνωσις could not 
 fied One—a contingency indeed, which in really occur—He would still have been set 
 
CHAP. III., 25. 137 
 ducing the ἱλάσκεσϑαι through faith. Without faith the ἱλαστήριον would not 
 be actually and in result, what it is in itself ; for it does not reconcile the 
 unbeliever. —iv τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι] belongs to προέϑετο «.7.A. God has set 
 forth Christ as an effectual expiatory offering through faith by means of His 
 
 lUlood ; 1.6. in that He caused Him to shed His blood, in which lay objectively 
 
 the strength of the atonement. Observe the position of αὐτοῦ : “quem 
 
 | proposuit ipsius sanguine.” Kriiger, ὃ 47, 9, 12. Comp. xi. 11 ; Tit. iii. 
 5; 1 Thess. ii. 19 ; Heb. ii. 4 αἱ. Comp. ver. 24. Still ἐν τ. air. αἷμ. is not 
 to be joined with ἱλαστήριον in such a way as to make it the parallel of 
 διὰ τ. πίστ. (Wolf, Schrader, Kéllner, Reithmayr, Matthias, Mehring, Hof- 
 mann, Mangold, and others) ; for εἰς ἔνδειξιν «7.2. requires that ἐν τ. air. αἵμ. 
 shall be the element defining more closely the divine act of the προέϑετο κ.τ.λ., 
 by which the divine righteousness. is apparent ; wherefore also ἐν. τ. abt aip. 
 is placed immediately before εἰς ἔνδειξιν «.7.2., and not before ἱλαστήριον 
 (against Hofmann’s objection). Other writers again erroneously make ἐν 
 νον νον, αἵματι dependent on πίστεως (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Seb. Schmid, and 
 others ; also Koppe, Klee, Flatt, Olshausen, Tholuck, Winzer, and Morison), 
 joining διὰ τ. rior. likewise to ἱλαστήριον : through faith on His blood. In that 
 case ἐν would not be equivalent to εἰς, but would indicate the basis of faith 
 (see on Gal. iii. 26) ; nor can the absence of the article after πίστ. be urged 
 against this rendering (see on Gal. 1.6.}.: but the ἐν τῷ air. αἵμ. becomes in 
 this connection much too subordinate a point. Just by means of the shedding 
 of His blood was the setting forth of Christ for a propitiatory offering accom- 
 plished ; in order that through this utmost, highest, and holiest sacrifice of- 
 fered for the satisfaction of the divine justice—through the blood of Christ— 
 that justice might be brought to light and demonstrated. From this connec- 
 tion also we may easily understand why ἐν τῷ air. αἵμ., which moreover, fol- 
 lowing ἱλαστήριον, was a matter of course, is added at all ; though in itself un- 
 necessary and self-evident, it is added with all the more weight, and in fact 
 with solemn emphasis. For just in the blood of Christ, which God has not 
 spared, lies the proof of His righteousness, which He has exhibited through 
 the setting forth of Christ as an expiatory sacrifice ; that shed blood has at 
 once satisfied His justice, and demonstrated it before the whole world. 
 On the atoning, actually sin-effacing power of the blood of Christ, according 
 to the fundamental idea of Lev. xvii. 11 (compare Heb. ix. 22), see v. 9 ; 
 Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Acts xx. 28; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; Rev. v. 9 al. ; 2 Cor. 
 v. 14, 21; Gal. iii. 18 al. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. Ὁ. 270 ff., 584 f. 
 Reiche considers that διὰ τῆς riot. should be coupled with δικαιούμ., and 
 ὃν. - - - ἱλαστ. should be a parenthesis, whilst ἐν τ. air. αἷμ. is to be co- 
 
 forth as a propitiatory offering, though this 
 offering would not have subjectively ben- 
 efited any one. 
 
 1This ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι secures at all 
 events to the Apostle’s utterance the con- 
 ception of a sacrifice atoning, ὁ.6. doing 
 away the guilt, whichever of the existing 
 explanations of the word ἱλαστήριον We may 
 adopt. This also applies against Rich. 
 
 Schmidt 7.c., according to whom (comp. 
 Sabatier, p. 262 f.) the establishment of the 
 ἱλαστήριον consisted in God actually passing 
 sentence on sin itself in the flesh of His 
 Son, and wholly abolishing it as an object- 
 ive power exercising dominion over hu- 
 manity—consequently in the destruction of 
 the sin principle. Regarding viii. 3 see on 
 that passage. 
 
138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ordinated with the διὰ τ. rior. But by this expedient the discourse is only 
 
 rendered clumsy and overladen. —ei¢ ἔνδειξ. τ. dix. αὐτοῦ] purpose of God in 
 
 the rpoédero . The δικαιοσύνη is righteousness, as is required by 
 
 the context (διὰ τ. πάρεσιν . . . . ἐν TH ἀνοχῇ τ. Θεοῦ), not : truth (Ambro- 
 
 siaster, Beza, Turretin, Hammond, Locke, Béhme), or goodness (Theodoret, 
 
 Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Reiche, also Tittmann, 
 
 Synon. p. 185)—significations which the word never bears. It does not 
 
 even indicate the holiness (Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Klaiber, Neander, Gurlitt 
 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 975 ; Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 146 ff.) ; 
 
 or the righteousness, including grace (Ritschl) ; or generally the Divine moral 
 order of justice (Morison) ; or the self-equality ef God in His bearing (Hof- 
 mann) ; but in the strict sense the opposite of ἄδικος in ver. 5, the judicial 
 (more precisely, the punitive) righteousness (comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde. 
 
 I. p. 169 ff.), which had to find its holy satisfaction, but received that sat- 
 isfaction in the propitiatory offering of Christ, and is thereby practically. 
 demonstrated and exhibited. On ἔνδειξις, in the sense of practical proof, 
 
 comp. 2 Cor. viii. 24, and on εἰς Eph. ii. 7: Following ver. 
 
 26, Chrysostom and others, including Krehl and Baumgarten-Crusius, take 
 it unsatisfactorily as justifying righteousness. Anselm, Luther, Elsner, 
 
 Wolf, and others, also Usteri, Winzer, van Hengel, and Mangold, hold that 
 it is, as in ver. 21, the righteousness, that God gives. On the other hand, 
 
 see the immediately following εἰς... . δίκαιον. ---- διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν K.T.A.] on 
 account of the passing by of sins that had previously taken place, i.e. because He 
 had allowed the pre-Christian sins to go without punishment, whereby His 
 righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured,’ and therefore came to 
 need an ἔνδειξις for men.? Thus the atonement accomplished in Christ be- 
 came the ‘‘ divine Theodicée for the past history of the world” (Tholuck), 
 
 and, in view of this ἔνδειξις, that πάρεσις ceases to be an enigma. — πάρεσις, 
 
 which occurs only here in the N. T.* ; erroneously explained by Chrysostom 
 as equivalent to νέκρωσις, is distinguished from ἄφεσις in so far as the omis- 
 sion of punishment is conceived in πάρεσις as a letting pass (ὑπεριδών, Acts 
 xvii. 80 ; comp. xiv. 16), in ἄφεσις (Eph. i. 7; Col. 1. 14) as a letting free. 
 
 Since Paul, according to Acts 1.6., regarded the non-punishment of pre- 
 Christian sins as an ‘‘ overlooking” (comp. Wisd. xi. 28), we must consider 
 the peculiar expression, πάρεσις, here as purposely chosen. Comp. παριέναι, 
 
 Ecclus. xxiii. 2. If he had written ἄφεσις, the idea would be, that God, 
 
 instead of retaining those sins in their category of guilt (comp. John xx. 
 
 23), had let them free, i.e. had forgiven them.* He has not forgiven 
 
 do 6 Wien 
 
 ἵνα ἐνδείξηται. 
 
 1 Compare J. Miiller, v. α. Stinde, 1. p. 352, 
 ed, 5. 
 
 2 The explanation that “ διά here indicates 
 that, whereby the δικαιοσύνη manifests it- 
 self ’’ (Reiche ; so also Benecke, Koppe, and 
 older expositors) is incorrect, just because 
 Paulin all cases (even in viii. 1land Gal. iv. 
 13) makes a sharp distinction between διά 
 with the accusative and with the genitive. 
 This interpretation has arisen from the er- 
 
 roneous conception of δικαιοσύνη (as good- 
 ness or truth). 
 
 3 See however Dionys. Hal. vii. 37 ; Phalar. 
 Epist. 114; Xen. de praef. eg. 7, 10; and 
 Fritzsche én doc. ; Loesner, p. 249. 
 
 4 Τῇ ἄφεσις the guilt and punishment are 
 cancelled ; in πάρεσις both are tacitly or ex- 
 pressly left undealt with, but in their case 
 it may be said that ‘‘ométtance is not acquit- 
 tance.” For the idea of forgiveness ἄφεσις 
 
“OMAP. ΠῚ 2D: 139 
 them, however, but only let them go unpunished (comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 10), 
 neglevit. The wrath of God, which nevertheless frequently burst forth 
 (comp. i. 17 ff.) in the ages before Christ over Jews and Gentiles (for Paul, 
 in his perfectly general expressions, has not merely the former in view), 
 was not an adequate recompense counterbalancing the sin, and even in- 
 creased it (i. 24 ff.) ; so that God’s attitude to the sin of the time before 
 Christ, so long as it was not deleted either by an adequate punishment, or 
 by atonement, appears on the whole.as a letting pass (comp. Acts xiv. 16) and 
 overlooking. As the correlative of πάρεσις, there is afterwards appropriately 
 named ἀνοχή (comp. 11. 4), not χάρις, for the latter would correspond to 
 ἄφεσις, Eph. i. 7. —The pre-Christian sins are not those of individuals prior 
 to their conversion (Mehring and earlier expositors), but the sum of the 
 sins of the world before Christ. The ἱλαστήριον of Christ is the epoch and 
 turning-point in the world’s history (comp. Acts xvii. 30, xiv. 16.) —év τῇ 
 ἀνοχῇ τ. Θεοῦ] in virtue of the forbearance (tolerance, comp. ii. 4) ef God,? 
 contains the ground which is the motive of the πάρεσις. It is not to be at- 
 tached to προγεγ. (Oecumenius, Luther, and many others ; also Riickert, 
 Gurlitt, Ewald, van Hengel, Ritschl, and Hofmann), which would yield the 
 sense with or ‘‘during the forbearance of God.” Against this view we may 
 urge the very circumstance that the time when the sins referred to took 
 place is already specified by προγεγονότων, and expressed in a way simply 
 and fully corresponding with the contrast of the viv καιρός that follows, as 
 well as the special pertinent reason, that our mode of connecting ἐν τ. ἀνογῇ 
 τ. Θ. with διὰ τ. πάρεσιν x.t.A. brings out more palpably the antithetical re- 
 lation of this πάρεσις to the divine δικαιοσύνη. Moreover, as avoy4 is a moral 
 attribute, the temporal conception of év is neither indicated nor appropriate. 
 What is indicated and appropriate is simply the use, so common, of ἐν in 
 the sense of the ethical ground. Reiche connects ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τ. Θεοῦ with 
 εἰς évd. τ. δικ. αὐτ., Making it co-ordinate with the διὰ. ‘the 
 δικαιοσύνη Showed itself positively in the forgiveness of sins, negatively in 
 the postponement of judgment.” Incorrect, on account of the erroneous 
 explanation of διά and δικαιοσ. thus necessitated.—Our whole interpretation 
 of the passage from διὰ τ. πάρεσιν to Θεοῦ is not at variance (as Usteri thinks) 
 with Heb. ix. 15 ; for, if God has allowed pre-Christian sins to pass, and 
 then has exhibited the atoning sacrifice of Christ in proof of His righteous- 
 ness, the death of Christ must necessarily be the λύτρον for the transgres- 
 sions committed under the old covenant, but passed over for the time being. 
 But there is nothing in our passage to warrant the reference to the sins of 
 the people of Jsrael, as in Heb. 1.6. (in opposition to Philippi). 
 
 - 
 - AapT.: 
 
 and ἀφιέναι alone form the standing mode 
 of expression in the N. T. And beyond 
 doubt (in opposition to the view of Luther 
 and others, and recently Mangold) Paul 
 would here have used this form, had he in- 
 tended to convey that idea. The πάρεσις is 
 intermediate between pardon and punish- 
 ment. Compare Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. 
 Th. 1863, p. 501. 
 
 1 Paul writes Θεοῦ, not again αὐτοῦ, be- 
 cause he utters the διὰ τὴν mapeow.... 
 Θεοῦ from his own standpoint, so that the 
 subject is presented objectively. Comp. Xen. 
 Anab.i. 9,15. But even apart from this the 
 repetition of the noun instead of the pro- 
 noun is of very frequent occurrence in all 
 Greek authors, and also in the N. T. (Winer, 
 p. 186 [E. T. 144]). 
 
140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ver. 26. Πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν] Resumption of the εἰς ἔνδειξιν in ver. 25, and 
 that without the δέ, ver. 22 (comp. on Luke i. 71); while εἰς is exchanged 
 for the equivalent πρός unintentionally, as Paul in ver. 30, and also frequent- 
 ly elsewhere (comp. on Eph. i. 7 and Gal. ii. 16) changes the prepositions.’ 
 The article, however (see the critical notes), serves to set forth the definite, 
 historically given ἔνδειξις, which is in accord with the progress of the repre- 
 sentation ; for Paul desires to add now with corresponding emphasis the 
 historical element ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ not previously mentioned. The resumption 
 is in itself so obvious, and also in such entire harmony with the emphasis 
 laid upon the ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ as the chief point, that for this very 
 reason the interpretation of Riickert and Gurlitt (comp. Beza), which joins 
 πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν κιτ.. With διὰ τ. πάρεσιν. . . . Θεοῦ, and takes it as the 
 aim of the πάρεσις or the ἀνοχή (Baumgarten-Crusius ; comp. Hofmann and 
 Th. Schott), at once falls to the ground. Mehring, rendering πρός in ref- 
 erence to or in view of, understands the δικαιοσύνη in ver. 26 to mean imputed 
 righteousness, and finds the ἔνδειξις of the latter, ver. 26, in the resurrection 
 of Jesus ; but a decisive objection to his view is that Paul throughout gives 
 no hint whatever that his expressions in ver. 26 are to be taken in any other 
 sense than in ver. 25 ; and a reference to the resurrection in particular is 
 here quite out of place ; the passage goes not beyond the atoning death of 
 Christ. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι «.7.2. Cannot stand in an epexegetical relation to the 
 previous εἰς ἔνδειξεν x.7.2. because that ἔνδειξις has in fact already been doubly 
 expressed, but now the further element καὶ δικαιοῦντα «.t.A. is added, which 
 first brings into full view the teleology of the ἱλαστήριον. εἰς τὸ εἶναι x.7.A. 18 
 therefore the definition presenting the final aim of the whole affirmation 
 from ὃν προέϑετο to καιρῷ. It is its keystone : that He may be just and justi- 
 Sying the believers, which is to be taken as the intended result (comp. on ver. 
 4): in order that, through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, arranged in this way and 
 for this ἔνδειξις, He may manifest Himself as One who is Himself righteous, 
 and who makes the believer righteous (comp. ἱλαστήρ. διὰ τ. πίστεως, ver. 25). 
 He desires to be both, the one not without the other. The εἶναι however is 
 the being in the appearance corresponding to it. The ‘ estimation of the 
 moral public” (Morison) only ensues as the consequence of this. Regarding 
 Tov éx πίστ. comp. On οἱ ἐξ ἐριϑείας, ii. 8. The αὐτόν however has not the 
 force of ipse or even alone (Luther), seeing it is the subject of the two predi- 
 cations δίκαιον κ. δικαιοῦντα ; but it is the simple pronoun of the third person. 
 Were we to render with Matthias and Mehring®* καὶ δικαιοῦντα : even when He 
 justifies, the «ai would be very superfluous and weakening ; Paul would have 
 said δίκαιον δικαιοῦντα, or would have perhaps expressed himself pointedly by 
 δίκαιον κ. δικαιοῦντα ἀδίκους ἐν πίστεως "I. Observe further that the justus et jus- 
 tificans, in which lies the summum paradoxon evangelicum as opposed to the 
 O. T. justus et condemnans (according to Bengel), finds its solution and its 
 harmony with the Ο. T. in τὸν ἐκ πίστεως (see chap. iv., i. 17). The Roman 
 Catholic explanation of inherent righteousness (see especially Reithmayr) is 
 here the more inept. It is also to be remarked that according to vy. 24-26 
 
 1Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 475 f. 2 They are joined by Ernesti, Hihik ἃ. Ap. P. p. 32. 
 
 ‘ 
 
CHAP. III., 2%. 141 
 grace was the determining ground in God, that prompted Him to permit the 
 atonement. He purposed thereby indeed the revelation of His righteousness ; 
 but to the carrying out of that revelation just thus, and not otherwise, 
 namely, through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, He was moved by His own χάρις. 
 Moreover the ἔνδειξις of the divine righteousness which took place through the 
 atoning death of Christ necessarily presupposes the satisfactio vicaria of the 
 Hofmann’s doctrine of atonement (compensation) * does not per- 
 mit the simple and—on the basis of the O. T. conception of atoning sacrifice 
 —historically definite ideas of vv. 25, 26, as well as the unbiassed and clear 
 representation of the ἀπολύτρωσις in ver. 24 (comp. the λύτρον ἀντί, Matt. 
 Xx. 28, and ἀντίλυτρον, 1 Tim. 11. 6) to subsist alone with it. On the other 
 hand these ideas and conceptions given in and homogeneously pervading the 
 entire N. T., and whose meaning can by no means be evaded, exclude the 
 theory of Onin: not merely in form but also in substance, as a deviation 
 evading and explaining away the N. T. type of doctrine, with which the 
 point of view of a ‘‘ befalling,” the category in which Hofmann invariably 
 places the death of Jesus, is especially at variance. And Faith in the aton- 
 ing death has not justification merely ‘‘in its train” (Hofmann in loe.), but 
 justification takes place subjectively through faith (vv. 22, 25), and indeed in 
 such a way that the latter is reckoned for righteousness, iv. 5, consequently 
 immediately (ἐξαίφνης, Chrysostom). 
 
 Ver. 27. Paul now infers (οὖν) from vv. 21-26—in lively interchange of 
 question and answer, like a victor who has kept the field—that Jewish 
 boasting (not human boasting generally, Fritzsche, Krehl, Th. Schott) is 
 excluded.? [See Note XXXIV. p. 149.] The article indicates that which 
 
 ἱλαστήριον. 
 
 1**Tn consequence of man’s having allowed 
 himself to be induced through the working 
 of Satan to sin, which made him the object 
 of divine wrath, the Triune God, in order 
 that He might perfect the relation consti- 
 tuted by the act of creation between Him- 
 self and humanity into a complete fellow- 
 ship of love, has had recourse to the most 
 extreme antithesis of Father and Son, which 
 was possible without self-negation on the 
 part of God, namely, the antithesis of the 
 Father angry at humanity on account of 
 sin, and of the Son belonging in sinlessness 
 to that humanity, but approving Himself 
 under all the consequences of its sin even 
 unto the transgressor’s death that befell 
 Him through Satan’s agency ; so that, after 
 Satan had done on Him the utmost which he 
 was able to do to the sinless One in conse- 
 quence of sin, without obtaining any other 
 result than His final standing the test, the 
 relation of the Father to the Son was now 
 a relation of God to the humanity begin- 
 ning anew in the Son—a relation no longer 
 determined by the sin of the race spring- 
 ing from Adam, but by the righteousness 
 of the Son.”” Hofmann in the Zi. Zeitschr. 
 1856, p. 179 f. Subsequently (see espec. 
 
 Schriftb. ΤΙ. 1, p. 186 ff.) Hofmann has sub- 
 stantially adhered to his position. See the 
 literature of the entire controversy car- 
 ried on against him, especially by Philippi, 
 Thomasius, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Schneider, 
 Weber, given by the latter, vom Zorne 
 Gottes, p. xliii. ff. ; Weizsicker in the Jahrb. 
 7. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 154 ff. It is not to 
 the ecclesiastical doctrine, but to Schleier- 
 macher’s, and partially also Mencken’s sub- 
 jective representation of it, that Hofmann’s 
 theory, although in another form, stands 
 most nearly related. Comp. on ver. 24: 
 and for a more detailed account Ritschl, 
 Rechtfertigung und Versdhnung, 1870, I. p. 
 569 ff., along with his counter-remarks 
 against Hofmannat p. 575 ff. As to keeping 
 the Scriptural notion of imputed right- 
 eousness clear of all admixture with the 
 moral change of the justified, see also Kést- 
 lin in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 
 105 ff., 118 ff., Gess, in the same, 1857, p. 679 
 ff., 1858, p. 718 ff., 1859, p. 467 ff. ; compared 
 however with the observations of Philippi 
 in his Glaubenslehre, iv. 2, p. 237 ff., 2nd edi- 
 tion. 
 
 2 Hofmann’s misconception of ver. 9 still 
 affects him, so astto make him think here 
 
142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 is known, and has been before mentioned (ii. 17 ff.), looking back to vv. 9 
 and 1. --- ποῦ] As it were, seeking that which has vanished from the sphere 
 of vision, Luke viii. 25; 1 Cor. i. 20, xv. 55; 1 Pet. iv. 18; 2 Pet. iii, 4; 
 also frequently used thus by classic writers. — The καύχησις is not the object 
 of boasting (Reiche), which would be καύχημα, but the vaunting itself, which 
 is presented with vivid clearness as that which no longer exists. — ἐξεκλείσ- 
 Sy] οὐκ ἔτι χώραν ἔχει, Theodoret. — διὰ ποίου νόμου :] 561]. ἐξεκλείσϑη, not 
 δικαιούμεϑα, which Mehring, following Michaelis, wholly without logical 
 ground wishes to be supplied. The exclusion, namely, must necessarily 
 have ensued through a /aw no longer allowing the καύχησις ; but through 
 what sort of a law ? of what nature is it? Is it one that demands works ὃ 
 No, but a law of faith. In these attributes lies the ποιότης of the law, which 
 is the subject of inquiry. This cannot have the quality of the Mosaic law, 
 which insists upon works, but thereby fosters and promotes the parade of 
 work-righteousness (ii. 17) ; it must, on the contrary, be a law that requires 
 faith, as is done by the Christian plan of salvation, which prescribes the 
 renunciation of all merit through works, and requires us to trust solely in 
 the grace of God in Christ. The Christian plan of salvation might be in- 
 cluded under the conception of a νόμος, because the will of God is given in 
 it by means of the Gospel (comp. 1 John iii. 23), just as in the O. T. revela- 
 tion by means of the Mosaic law. And the expression was necessary in the 
 connection, because the question διὰ ποίου νόμον ; required both the old and 
 new forms of the religious life to be brought under the one conception of 
 νόμος. Therefore the literal sense of νόμος remains unchanged, and it is 
 neither doctrine (Melanchthon and many others) nor religious economy. 
 Comp. ix. 31. 
 
 Ver. 28 gives the ground of the οὐχί «.7.2. — λογιζόμεϑα] οὐκ ἐπὶ ἀμφιβολίας 
 λέγεται (Theodore of Mopsuestia) : censemus, we deem, as in 11. 3, viii. 18 ; 
 2 Cor. xi. 5. The matter is set down as something that has now been 
 brought between Paul and his readers to a common ultimate judgment, 
 whereby the victorious tone of ver. 27 is not damped (as Hofmann objects), 
 but is on the contrary confidently sealed. —ricre:| On this, and not on 
 δικαιοῦσϑαι (Th. Schott, Hofmann), lies the emphasis in accordance with the 
 entire connection ; χωρὶς ἔργ. νόμου is correlative. Paul has conceived oy. 
 y. dix. together, and then placed first the word which has the stress’; compare 
 the critical observations. The dative denotes the procuring cause or medi- 
 um, just like διὰ πίστεως. Bernhardy, p. 101 f. The word ‘‘ alone,” added 
 by Luther—formerly an apple of discord between Catholics and Lutherans 
 (see the literature in Wolf)—did not belong to the translation as such,’ but 
 is in explanation justified by the context, which in the way of dilemma ‘‘ cuts 
 off all works utterly” (Luther), and by the connection of the Pauline doc- 
 trinal system generally, which excludes also the fides formata.? All fruit 
 of faith follows justification by faith ; and there are no degrees in justifica- 
 
 of Christian καύχησις. Comp., for the right “* only through faith.” 
 
 view, especially Chrysostom. 2 See Form. Conc. Ὁ. 585 f., 691. Comp. on 
 1 Luther has not added itin Gal. ii. 16, Gal. ii. 16, Osiander in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche 
 
 where the Niirnberg Bible of 1483 reads Theol. 1863, p. 703 f. ; Morison in loc. 
 
CHAP, III., 29, 30. 143 
 
 tion.’— χωρὶς ἔργ. νόμου] Without the co-operation therein of works of the 
 law (ver. 20), which, on the contrary, remain apart from all connection with 
 it. Comp. ver. 21. — On the quite general ἄνϑρωπον, a man, comp. Chrysos- 
 tom : τῇ οἰκουμένῃ τὰς ϑύρας ἀνοίξας τῆς σωτηρίας, φησὶν, ἄνϑρωπον, τὸ κοινὸν τῆς 
 φύσεως ὄνομα ϑείς. See afterwards περιτομὴν. . .. καὶ ἀκροβυστ., ver. 30. 
 Comp. Gal. ii. 16. 
 
 Ver. 29. Or—in case what has just been asserted in ver. 28 might still be 
 doubted—is it only Jews to whom God belongs? and not also Gentiles ? He 
 must, indeed, have only been a God for the Jews, if He had made justifica- 
 tion conditional on works of the law, for in that case it could only be 
 destined for Jews,* insomuch as they only are the possessors of the law. 
 Consequently vv. 29, 30 contain a further closing thought, crowning the 
 undoubted accuracy of the confidently expressed λογιζόμεϑα κ.τ.}. in ver. 28. 
 The supplying of a predicative Θεός (Hofmann, Morison, and earlier expos- 
 itors) is superfluous, since the prevailing usage of εἶναί τίνος is amply suf- 
 ficient to make it intelligible, and it is quite as clear from the context that 
 the relationship which is meant is that of being God to the persons in 
 question.—How much the ναὶ καὶ ἐϑνῶν, said without any limitation whatever 
 —in their case, as with ᾿Ιουδαίων, God is conceived as protecting them, and 
 guiding to salvation—run counter to the degenerate theocratic exclusive- 
 ness.* But Paul speaks in the certain assurance, which had been already 
 given by the prophetic announcement of Messianic bliss for the Gentiles, 
 but which he himself had received by revelation (Gal. 1. 16), and which the 
 Roman church, a Pauline church, itself regarded as beyond doubt. 
 
 Ver. 30 is to be divided from the previous one merely by a comma. Re- 
 garding ἐπείπερ, whereas (in the N. T. only here) introducing something 
 undoubted, see Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 786 ; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 842 
 f.; Baeumlein, p. 204.—The unity of God implies that He is God, not merely 
 of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles ; for otherwise another special Deity 
 must rule over the Gentiles, which would do away with monotheism. — ὃς 
 δικαιώσει] who shall (therefore) justify. This exposition contains that which 
 necessarily follows from the unity of God, in so far as it conditions for both 
 parties one mode of justification (which however must be χωρὶς ἔργων, ver. 
 28). For Jewsas well as for Gentiles He must have destined the way of 
 righteousness by faith as the way of salvation. The future is neither put 
 for δικαιοῖ (Grotius, and many others), nor to be referred with Beza and 
 Fritzsche to the time of the final judgment, nor to be taken as the future of 
 inference (Riickert, Mehring, Hofmann), but is to be understood as in ver. 
 20 of every case of justification to be accomplished. Erasmus rightly says, 
 ‘‘Respexit enim ad eos, qui adhuc essent in Judaismo seu paganismo.”— 
 The exchange of ἐκ and διὰ is to be viewed as accidental, without real dif- 
 ference, but also without the purpose of avoiding misconception (Mehring). 
 Comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 8 ; Eph. 11. 8. Unsuitable, especially for the impor- 
 
 1 Comp. Riggenbach (against Romang) in they would cease to be Gentiles. 
 - the Stud. τ. Krit. 1868, p. 227 ff. 3See on Matt. iii. 9, and in Eisenmen- 
 2 Not for the Gentiles also, unless they ρου entdeckt. Judenth. I. Ὁ. 587 f. 
 become proselytes to Judaism, whereby 
 
144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 tant closing thought, is the view of Calvin, followed by Jatho, that there 
 is an irony in the difference : ‘‘ Si quis vult habere differentiam gentilis a 
 Judaeo, hanc habeat, quod ille per fidem, hic vero ez fide justitiam con- 
 sequitur.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wetstein, Bengel, Hofmann, and 
 others explain it by various other gratuitous suggestions : van Hengel is 
 doubtful—The interchange of πίστεως and τῆς rior. (from faith through the 
 faith), in which the qualitative expression advances to the concrete with the 
 article, is also without special design, as similar accidental interchanges 
 often occur in parallel clauses (Winer, p. 110 [E. T. 1167). ὁ 
 
 Ver. 31—iv. 24. The harmony of the doctrine of justification by faith with 
 the law, illustrated by what is said in the law regarding the justification of 
 Abraham.—The new chapter should have begun with ver. 31, since that 
 verse contains the theme of the following discussion. If we should, with 
 Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bengel, and many others, including 
 Flatt, Tholuck, Kélner, Riickert, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit, and Meh- 
 ring, assume that at iv. 1 there is again introduced something new, so that 
 Paul does not carry further the νόμον ἱστῶμεν, v. 31, but in iv. 1 ff. treats of 
 a new objection that has occurred to him at the moment, we should then 
 have the extraordinary phenomenon of Paul as it were dictatorially dismiss- 
 ing an objection so extremely important and in fact so very naturally suggest- 
 ing itself, as νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν x.t.A., merely by an opposite assertion, 
 and then immediately, like one who has not a clear case, leaping away to 
 something else. The more paradoxical in fact after the foregoing, and 
 especially after the apparently antinomistic concluding idea in ver. 30, the 
 assertion νόμον ἱστῶμεν must have sounded, the more difficult becomes the 
 assumption that it is merely an anticipatory declaration abruptly interposed 
 (see especially Philippi, who thinks it is enlarged on at viii. 1 ff.); and the 
 less can ver. 20, διὰ y. νόμου ἐπίγνωσις auapt. be urged as analogous, since 
 that proposition had really its justification there in what preceded. Accord- 
 ing to Th. Schott, νόμος is not meant to apply to the Mosaic law at all, but 
 
 1 Bengel : ‘“‘ Judaci pridem in fide fuerant; 
 gentiles fidem ab illis recens nacti erant.” 
 Comp. Origen. Similarly Matthias: in the 
 case of the circumcised faith appears as the 
 ground, in that of the uncircumcised as the 
 means of justification; ἐκ mor. signifies: 
 because they believe,dca τ. πίστ: if they be- 
 lieve. In the case of the circumcised faith 
 is presupposed as covenant-faithfulness. 
 Comp. also Bisping. According to Hof- 
 mann, Paul is supposed to have said in the 
 ease of the circumcised in consequence of 
 faith, because these wish to become right- 
 eous in consequence of legal works ; but in 
 the case of the uncircumcised dy means of 
 faith, because with the latter no other pos- 
 sible way of becoming righteous was con- 
 ceivable. In the former instance faith is the 
 preceding condition ; in the latter the faith 
 existing for the purpose of justification 
 (therefore accompanied by the article) is 
 
 the means, by which God, who works it, 
 helps to righteousness. This amounts toa 
 subjective invention of subtleties which 
 are equally incapable of proof as of refuta- 
 tion, but which are all the more groundless, 
 seeing that Paul is fond of such inter- 
 changes of prepositions in setting forth the 
 same relation (comp. ver. 25 f., and on 2 Cor. 
 iii. 11, and Eph. i. 7). How frequent are 
 similar interchanges also in classic authors | 
 Moreover, in our passage the stress is by 
 no means on the prepositions (Hofmann), 
 but on περιτομήν and ἀκροβυστίαν. And as 
 to the variation of the prepositions, Augus- 
 tine has properly observed (de Spir. et lit. 
 
 _ 29) that this interchange serves non ad 
 
 aliquam differentiam, but ad varietatem locu- 
 tionis. Comp. on ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῦν (here 
 said of Jews) also of Gentiles, Gal. iii. 8; 
 Rom. ix. 30, and generally i. 17. 
 
 » 
 
CHAP. ΤΠ 31. 145 
 
 to the fact that, according to ver. 27, faith is a νόμος, in accordance with 
 which therefore Paul, when making faith a condition of righteousness, as- 
 cribes to himself not abrogation of the law, but rather an establishment of 
 it, setting up merely what God Himself had appointed as the method of 
 salvation. The discourse would thus certainly have a conclusion, but by a 
 jugglery’ with a word (νόμος) which no reader could, after ver. 28, under- 
 stand in any other sense than as the Mosaic law. Hofmann explains sub- 
 stantially in the same way as Schott. He thinks that Paul conceives to 
 himself the objection that in the doctrine of faith there might be found a 
 doing away generally of all law, and now in opposition thereto declares that 
 that doctrine does not exclude, but includes, the fact that there is a divine 
 order of human life (2). 
 
 Ver. 31. (See Note XXXY. p. 150.) Οὖν] The Apostle infers for himself 
 from his doctrine of .justification ἐκ πίστεως... .. χωρὶς ἔργων vouov—just 
 discussed—a possible objection and reproach : Do we then make away with 
 the law (render it invalid) through faith ὃ — νόμον] emphatically put first, and 
 here also to be understood neither of the moral law, nor of every law in 
 general, nor of the entire O. T., but, as is proved by the antithesis between 
 νόμος and πίστις and the reference as bearing on ver. 28, of the Mosaic law. 
 Comp. Acts xxi. 28, Gal. iv. 21 f. — διὰ τῆς riot. | ὁ.6. thereby, that we assert 
 faith as the condition of justification. — νόμον ἱστῶμεν] Not : we let the law 
 stand (Matthias), but : we make it stand, we produce the result that it, so 
 far from being ready to fall, in reality stands upright (βεβαιοῦμεν, Theodoret) 
 in its authority, force, and obligation. Comp. 1 Macc. xiv. 29, 11. 27 ; Ec- 
 cles. xliv. 20-22. This ἱστάνειν of the law, whereby there is secured to it sta- 
 bility and authority instead of the καταργεῖσϑαι, takes place by means of (see ch. 
 iv.) the Pauline doctrine demonstrating and making good the fact that, and 
 the mode in which, justification by the grace of God through faith is already 
 taught in the law, so that Paul and his fellow teachers do not come into antag- 
 onism with the law, as if they desired to abolish and invalidate it by a new 
 teaching, but, on the contrary, by their agreement with it, and by proving 
 their doctrine from it, secure and confirm it in its position and essential 
 character. — The νόμον ἱστῶμεν, however, is so little at variance with the 
 abrogation of the law as an institute of works obligatory in order to the becom- 
 ing righteous, which has taken place through Christianity (x. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 
 7; Gal. iii.; Rom. vii. 4; Gal. ii. 19; Col. ii. 14), that, on the contrary, 
 the law had to fall in this aspect, in order that, in another aspect, the same 
 law, so far as it teaches faith as the condition of the δικαιοσύνη, might be by 
 the gospel imperishably confirmed in its authority, and even, according to 
 Matth. v. 17, fulfilled. For in respect of this assertion of the value of faith 
 the law and the gospel appear one. —If the νόμον ἱστῶμεν and its relation 
 to the abrogation of the law be defined to mean that ‘‘ from faith proceeds 
 the new obedience, and the love develops itself, which is the πλήρωμα νόμου,. 
 xiii. 10” (Philippi ; comp. Riickert, Krehl, Umbreit, Morison), as Augus-. 
 
 1This objection in no way affects the very ποίου placed along with it requires the 
 question διὰ ποίον νόμου, yer. 27 (in opposi- general notion of νόμου. 
 tion to Hofmann’s objection), where the 2 Comp. Weiss, Lidl. Theol. p. 333. 
 
146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tine, Melanchthon, who nevertheless mixes up with it very various elements, 
 Luther, Calvin, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, and others assumed (comp. also 
 Apol. C. A. p. 88, 223), the further detailed illustration of ch. iv. is quite 
 as much opposed to this view, as it is to the interpretations which conceive 
 the law as pedagogically leading to Christ (Grotius, Olshausen), or as fulfilled 
 in respect of its object, which is justification by faith (Chrysostom, Oecume- 
 nius, Theophylact, and others.’) In the case of the two latter views, faith 
 appears as something added to the law, which is just what Paul combats in 
 ch. iv. On the form ἱστῶμεν, from ἱστάω, see Matthiae, p. 482, Winer, p. 75 
 [E. T. 78]. Still the ἱστάνομεν, recommended by Griesbach and adopted by 
 Lachmann and Tischendorf, has preponderant attestation (so also 8* ; but 
 x** has ἱστῶμεν), which is here decisive (in opposition to Fritzsche), espe- 
 cially when we take into account the multitude of other forms in MSS. (στά- 
 vouer, ἵσταμεν, συνιστῶμεν, συνιστάνομεν et al.). 
 
 Notres py AMERIcAN EDIToR. 
 
 XXIII. Ver..1. τὸ περισσόν. 
 
 τὸ περισσόν is the superiority of the Jew over the Gentile, which was con- 
 nected with the old covenant, and ἡ ὠφέλεια the advantage which circumcision 
 gave, as the sign of this superiority. To the Judaistic party of the Apostle’s 
 day the position taken in ii, 25-29 would naturally seem to deny any superi- 
 ority whatever ; and thus the objection was sure to arise, at this point, which 
 the Apostle now proceeds to meet. He explains that the Jew stands at an ad- 
 vantage in many points, which are summed up, indeed, in the possession of the 
 O. T. Scriptures—and that this is the true meaning of that in which they 
 gloried ; but that, in the matter of justification by works before God, they 
 were on the same level with the Gentiles. All alike must fail of such justi- 
 fication, because all alike had sinned. 
 
 XXIV. Ver. 2. πρῶτον piv γὰρ x.t.A. 
 
 The explanation given by Meyer of the omission of other points which would 
 naturally follow the first is undoubtedly correct—that the writer was led away 
 from his original intention by the question of ver. 3. We may believe, how- 
 ever, that he did not return to the plan of enumerating the other advantages, 
 after concluding the line of thought in vv. 3-8, because he felt that the one 
 ‘mentioned really involved in itself all the rest. 
 
 XXV. Ver. 2. τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 The oracles of God, in the sense here intended, are the O. T. Scriptures, 
 viewed as containing the covenant of God with its law and promises, and not 
 merely the Messianic prophetic utterances, The argument for the latter 
 reference, which is founded on a supposed necessity of giving to ἀπιστία and 
 
 190 yap ἤϑελεν 6 νόμος, τουτέστι τὸ δικαιῶσαι τελειοῖ: ὁμοῦ yap τῷ πιστεῦσαι τίνα δικαιοῦται; 
 ἄνϑρωπον, οὐκ ἴσχυσε δὲ ποιῆσαι, τοῦτο ἡ πίστις Theophylact. 
 
 aa 
 
NOTES. 147 
 
 ἀπιστεῖν the sense of unbelief, is, as Weiss also intimates, unsound ; the contrary, 
 being proved, as he says, by 2 Tim. ii. 13, The entire view of Meyer with 
 regard to these words in this and the following verse is, as de Wette well re- 
 marks, altogether opposed to the Apostle’s standpoint in these verses, which 
 is outside of the Christian system, and to the connection with the preceding 
 and following contéxt, in which the transgressions of the law on the part of 
 the Jews, and the judgment of God on purely legal principles, are under dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 XXVI. Ver. 3. τί γὰρ εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες ; 
 
 The more probable view of this verse is, that the Apostle anticipates a 
 question which might be pressed by an opponent in the discussion—namely, 
 does not this statement, that the Jews have the O. T., involve the admis- 
 sion of all that they claim (cf. σύ, ii. 3), for, surely, the want of faithfulness to 
 the covenant on the part of some will not destroy God’s fidelity to His promise. 
 To this latter point (ver. 3) he replies by the emphatic μὴ γένοιτο, which involves 
 two elements—a negative answer to the question, and an utter rejection of the 
 thought as abhorrent to right feeling. It is to the second of these two elements 
 that ver. 4, with its Psalm-quotation, attaches itself. In a similar way, at ver. 
 5, he again supposes a question suggesting itself from the other party: If, as 
 is implied in ver. 4, God’s righteousness is even rendered conspicuous by their 
 unrighteousness, does it not show injustice in God to inflict a penalty on those 
 who thus contribute to His glory? ΤῸ this question he replies with the same 
 emphatic phrase, and attaches to the first of its two elements (see above), the 
 following verses, which contain a confirmation of the negative. Such a posi- 
 tion would do away with all Divine judgment, and would lead to the pernicious 
 and untenable doctrine, that we may do evil that good may come. 
 
 XXVIII. Vv. 5, 6. μὴ γένοιτο. --- κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. 
 
 μὴ γένοιτο is used by Paul only in the Epistles of the same section and class 
 to which this Ep. belongs (Rom., Gal., Cor.). It always has the meaning given 
 in the preceding note, and the connection of the following words with it may 
 vary in different cases, as it does in this context. κατὰ ἄνθρωπον also occurs 
 only in these Epistles—everywhere meaning, after the manner of a man outside 
 of the Divine sphere. The particular signification, within the limits of this gen- 
 eral sense, is determined in each instance by the context. 
 
 XXVIII. Ver. 5. μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεός. 
 
 The Apostle is not to be regarded, in this passage (vv. 1-8), as introducing 
 an opponent into his discourse, as if in a dialogue, or directly quoting his 
 language. The form of the question in ver. 5, μὴ ἄδικος x.7.4. is clear evidence 
 of this, for the objector would have put the inquiry in the form which looks 
 for an affirmative answer, and not, as here, for a negative one. On the other 
 hand, he carries forward his entire argument in his own person, and formulates 
 for himself the objections, difficulties, or questions which, as he conceives, 
 might be presented. 
 
148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 XXIX. Ver. 9. mane ὩΣ 
 
 The explanation of προεχόμεθα, to which Meyer here refers, has in its favor 
 the fact that the passage from Plutarch may be cited as justifying it, while no 
 passage is found sustaining the interpretation given by Tholuck, de Wette, and 
 others, or, where the verb stands without an obj. accusdtive, that given by 
 Meyer himself. Every other argument which the case affords, however, seems 
 to bear against this explanation--are we surpassed. (a) There is nothing in 
 the preceding context, or in the position which Paul maintains anywhere, to 
 suggest such a question. (b) His entire course of reasoning from ii. 1 onward 
 is intended to show that the Jew is ona level with the Gentile in respect to 
 justification by works, not that he stands on a lower position. (c) The follow- 
 ing verses do not harmonize with this view of the word. They do not set 
 forth the proof that the Gentiles are not better than the Jews, but that the 
 Jews are not better than the Gentiles. (d) Such a question would not readily 
 come from the Jewish side. (e) Ver. 19 shows that in vv. 10-18 he had 
 special reference to the Jews, and that his object in this passage is the same as 
 that which he had in view in the previous chapter. This explanation, which 
 is. adopted in R. V. by the English revisers, must, accordingly, be rejected. 
 The view of Meyer must also be set aside. Τὸ hasno greater support from 
 usage than that of de Wette and A. V. Indeed, it is less difficult to suppose 
 that the writer uses the middle voice of this verb, after the analogy of many 
 other verbs, in the simple active sense, or, with Grimm and Philippi, as mean- 
 ing have we an advantage for ourselves, than that he fails to insert τι, which is 
 called for by Meyer's view, and could so easily have been expressed. More- 
 over, the following context is not suited to the question, Do we put forward 
 anything in our defence (as Weiss ed. Mey. also agrees), while it is precisely 
 adapted to the question, Have we any advantage or superiority? The American 
 revisers have rightly favored this latter explanation (R. V., Appendix). The 
 objection made by Meyer to this view of the word, that it is at variance with 
 ver. 2, is without force, since, after showing that the possession of the O. T., 
 though giving the Jews a superiority to the Gentiles in a certain degree, did not 
 place them at any advantage in respect to the matter in discussion (i.e. the 
 escaping the divine condemnation), it was most natural that the question 
 should be renewed, Do the Jews have any real advantage in this vital point ὃ 
 The view of Godet, that the verb means are we sheltered, seems to accord 
 neither with usage nor with the context. 
 
 XXX. Ver. 20. διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, «.7.A. 
 
 This verse is grammatically connected with the preceding, as Meyer explains. 
 At the same time, the first part of the verse contains what is, in substance, a 
 statement of the result of the foregoing argument, i. 18-iii. 19—namely, that 
 from works of the law there is no justification for any one. This negative re- 
 sult being reached, the positive conclusion follows without proof (see note on 
 i. 17 above) in ver. 21 ff. The second part of the verse adds a confirmation of 
 this negative statement, by pointing to the fact that the law leads to a full 
 knowledge of sin—thus, to a very different end from justification. The author 
 does not dwell on this latter point, as it is outside of the line of his present 
 thought todo so. His purpose is answered here by the mere presentation of it. 
 
 ἂν 
 
NOTES. 149 
 
 XXXI. Ver. 21. νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη k.T.A, 
 
 In vv. 21, 22, the proposition of i. 17 15 repeated, as ΠΟῪ established. γάρ of 
 the last clause of ver. 22 introduces this clause as connected with πάντας τοὺς 
 πιστ.---αἰϊ, for there is no distinction, and then ver. 23 is added in immediate 
 connection with this ; there is no distinction, for (yap, ver. 23) all sinned, etc. 
 These clauses, in their relation to each other and to the entire preceding argu- 
 ment, clearly show, that the distinction referred to is that between Jews and 
 Gentiles, and that all means Jews as well as Gentiles, as opposed to Gentiles only. 
 Vy. 23-26 are subordinate to vy. 21, 22 through these two particles (yap) ; never- 
 theless, in these verses the writer incidentally and easily passes to a more full 
 statement—almost a definition—of justification by faith. They constitute in 
 one aspect, therefore, a very important part of this passage in which the origi- 
 nal proposition is repeated. 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 23. πάντες yap ἥμαρτον. 
 
 This verb is translated in A. V. and R. V. have sinned. The aor. is to be ex- 
 plained from the standpoint taken by the author :—the sinning is a thing defi- 
 nitely past when the question of their present position before God is raised. 
 Dr. Charles Hodge says on this word, as here used, ‘‘ The idea that all men 
 now stand in the posture of sinners before God might be expressed either by 
 saying all have sinned (and are sinners), or all sinned. The latter is the form 
 adopted by the Apostle.’’ Cf., however, his view of the same verb and tense 
 in v. 12. 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 24. δικαιούμενοι x.7.A. 
 
 δικαιούμενοι is, viewed grammatically, a circumstantial participle connected with 
 ὑστεροῦνται. According to the underlying thought, this word, with the following 
 context, brings out the only method of justification for all who have sinned. 
 In the explanation of the method thus given, we find (a) the gratuitous char- 
 acter of the justification, δωρεάν ; (Ὁ) the origin of it (here expressed, indeed, 
 by the dat. instrum.) τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι ; (c) the objective means, διὰ τῆς ἀπολ ; (d) 
 the subjective means, διὰ πίστεως ; (e) the relation to it of Christ’s sacrifice, 
 προέθετο ἱλαστήριον ἐν τῷ abt. αἵματι ; (f ) the reason for this sacrifice, εἰς ἔνδειξιν 
 τῆς Ou, κιτ.λ ; (g) the final purpose, εἰς τὸ εἷναι--- Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 XXXIV. Ver. 27. ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις. 
 
 Two points should be noticed here. (1) The glorying alluded to in the pre- 
 vious part of the Epistle is that of the Jews concerning the advantageous po- 
 sition which they claimed for themselves as related to the judgment of God. 
 This glorying, therefore, must be that which is intended by ἡ καύχησις of this 
 verse. (2) The question which is raised and answered respecting this glory- 
 ing is introduced by the particle οὖν. It is, accordingly, suggested to the writ- 
 er’s mind as a natural result of the immediately preceding verses (21-26). 
 In view of these points, we must hold that Meyer’s understanding of this verse 
 and those which follow (28-30) is correct, and that we have here an inference 
 or corollary from the proposition, vv. 21, 22. This proposition, being estab- 
 lished, carries with it the exclusion of all such Jewish boasting. Godet’s expla- 
 nation, which makes vv. 27-31 a proof of the harmony of justification by 
 
150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 faith with the true meaning of the law (vv. 27, 28 showing that the gospel ex- 
 cludes justification by works, as vv. 9-20 had already shown that the law ex- 
 cluded it), is contrary to the indications of the passage as stated above, and is 
 so artificial as to render it improbable. Weiss ed. Mey. agrees with Fritzsche 
 and Schott in referring the καύχησις to ““ human glorying in general.’’ But this 
 view is at variance with the points indicated above, 
 
 XXXY. Ver. 31. νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν k.7.A. 
 
 We may determine the meaning and connection of this verse by the obser- 
 vation of certain facts in the case. (1) νόμου, as here found, immediately fol- 
 lows νύμου of ver. 28 (vv. 29, 30 being merely a proof of the statement of ver, 
 28). The reference in the two cases must, therefore, be to the same law. In 
 the former verse, however, inasmuch as it is connected with ἔργων and contrast- 
 ed with πίστει, νόμου means the Mosaic law. The view of Hofmann, therefore 
 (with whom, on this point, Weiss ed. Mey. apparently agrees), that the refer- 
 ence in ver, 31 is to ‘‘a divine order in human life,’’ must be rejected. Hof- 
 mann argues for his view from νόμου of ver. 27, but the word is evidently there 
 used in a peculiar sense, for the special purposes of that verse. Moreover, as 
 νόμου has there a connection with faith as well as with works (the one economy or 
 system being contrasted with the other), the question of ver. 31, had this sense 
 been intended, would hardly have been presented with νόμον only ; it would 
 have asked as to the doing away with any divine ordering, or all idea of divine 
 ordering. (2) The next chapter discusses the case of Abraham; that is, it 
 presents the proof of justification by faith which is derived from the fact that 
 this was the system involved in the covenant with the father of the Jewish 
 people. This is the same argument for the Pauline doctrine which is brought 
 forward in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. vy. 6-10. The first half of 
 this fourth chapter (vv. 3-12) corresponds very closely with Gal. iii. 6, 7, and 
 the second half, ver. 13 ff. with Gal. iii. 8-10. Following the more general 
 argument (i. 18—iii. 30) we have, therefore, that which comes from the older 
 Scriptures ; and between the two this verse is inserted. This position of the 
 new question and its answer indicates that they are designed by the writer to 
 be in the direct line of his argument, and thus that they open the way for 
 the fourth chapter. The view of Shedd, Hodge, Philippi, Morison, and others, 
 that the question has reference to a nullification of the law in its moral obli- 
 gation, or that the Apostle’s reply defends the faith-system from the charge of 
 having an antinomian tendency, is accordingly excluded. This view of these 
 writers is also rendered improbable by the fact alluded to by Meyer, that, if it 
 be adopted, we must regard the Apostle as having raised an objection of a very 
 serious character, which he dictatorially dismisses with no proof of his neg- 
 ative answer. 
 
CHAP, IV., 1: 151 
 
 CHARTER LY. 
 
 Ver. 1. ’ABpadu . . . εὑρηκέναι] Lachm. and Tisch. (8) read εὑρηκ. ᾿Αβρ. τὸν 
 προπάτορα ἡμῶν, which Griesb. also approved. This position of the words has 
 indeed preponderant attestation (AC DE FG δὲ, min., Copt. Arm, Vulg. It. 
 and several Fathers), but may be suspected of being a transposition intended to 
 connect κατὰ σάρκα with τὸν πατέρα ju., as in fact this construction was prev- 
 alent among the ancients. προπάτορα (Lachm.) though attested by A B C* &, 
 5, 10, 21, 137, Syr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers, appears all the more proba- 
 bly a gloss, since πατέρα here is not used in a spiritual sense as it is afterwards 
 in vv. 11, 12, 17, 18. — Ver. 11. περιτομῆς] Griesb. recommended περιτομῆν, which 
 however is only attested by A. C*, min., Syr. utr. Arm. and some Fathers ; and 
 on account of the adjoining accusatives very easily slipped in, especially in 
 the position after ἔλαβε. --- καὶ αὐτοῖς] καί is wanting in A B &*, min. Ar. pol. 
 Vulg. ms. Orig. in schol. Cyr. Damase, Condemned by Mill and Griesb., 
 omitted by Lachm., and Tisch. (8). But after the final syllable NAIJ the καί, 
 not indispensable for the sense, was very easily overlooked. On the other hand 
 the ground assumed for its addition, by Reiche, that ‘‘ the copyists would not 
 have the Jews altogether excluded,” cannot be admitted as valid, because in 
 fact the Jews are immediately after, ver. 12, expressly included. — The article 
 before δικαιοσύνην, which Tisch, (8) has omitted, has preponderant attestation. 
 Its omission is connected with the old reading (A) εἰς δικαιοσύνην (comp. ver. 9, 
 v. 3). Ver. 12. τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβ. πίστ.]. The reading τῆς πίστ. τῆς ἐν τ. ἀκροβ., 
 recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Scholz, lacks the authority of most 
 and the best uncials, and seems a mechanical alteration after ver. 11. The 
 article τῇ however is, with Tisch. in accordance with decisive testimony, to be 
 deleted, and to be regarded as having been likewise introduced from ver. 11 (not 
 as omitted after ver. 10, as Fritzsche thinks). — Ver. 15. od yap] A B C &*, min., 
 Copt. Syr. p. (in margin), Theodoret, Theophyl. Ambr. Ruf. read ov δέ. 
 Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. (8), An 
 alteration, occasioned by the contrast on failing to perceive the appropriateness 
 of meaning in the ydp. — Ver. 17. ἐπίστευσε] F G and some vss. and Fathers 
 read ἐπίστευσας (so Luther). The κατέναντι οὗ «.7.2. was still regarded as belong- 
 ing to the passage of Scripture. — Ver. 19. οὐ] Wanting in A BC 8, 67**, 93, 
 137, Syr. Erp. Copt. Chrys. Damasc. Julian. Condemned by Griesb. and 
 deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), But this omission of the od, as well as the 
 very weakly attested ὡς and licet, manifestly arose from incorrectly having re- 
 gard here to Gen. xvii. 17 (as is done even by Buttmann, new. Gr. p. 305 f. 
 [E. T. 355 f.] and Hofmann). See the exegetical remarks. — ἤδη] Wanting in 
 B FG 47 et. al. and several vss, and Fathers, Bracketed by Lachm. deleted by 
 Fritzsche and Tisch. It is to be regarded as an addition, which suggested it- 
 self very easily, whereas there would have been no reason for its omission. 
 
152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ver. 1. οὖν] Accordingly, in consequence of the fact that we do not abro- 
 gate the law through faith, but on the contrary establish it.' This οὖν 
 brings in the proof to be adduced from the history of Abraham (‘ confir- 
 matio ab exemplo,” Calvin), for the νόμον ἱστῶμεν just asserted (iii. 31), in the 
 form of an inference. For if we should have to say that Abraham our father 
 has attained anything (namely, righteousness) κατὰ σάρκα, that would presup- 
 pose that the law, which attests Abraham’s justification, in nowise receives 
 establishment διὰ τῆς πίστεως (111. 31). Hence we have not here an objection, 
 but a question proposed in the way of inference by Paul himself, the an- 
 swer to which is meant to bring to light, by the example of Abraham, the 
 correctness of his νόμον ior. [See Note XXXVI. p.173.] His object is not to 
 let the matter rest with the short and concise dismissal of the question in iii, 
 31, but to enter into the subject more closely ; and this he does now by at- 
 taching what he has further to say to the authoritatively asserted, and in 
 his own view established, νόμον ἱστάνομεν in the form of an inference. More- 
 over, the whole is to be taken as one question, not to be divided into two 
 by a note of interrogation after ἐροῦμεν ; in which case there is harshly and 
 arbitrarily supplied to εὑρηκέναι (by Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Wetstein, 
 and Michaelis) δικαιοσύνην, or at least (van Hengel) the pronoun ἐΐ represent- 
 ing that word, which however ought to have been immediately suggested 
 by the context, as in Phil. iii. 12.? In the affirmation itself ’Ap. is the sub- 
 ject (quid dicemus Abrahamum nactum esse?). Th. Schott, by an unhappy 
 distortion of the passage, makes him the object (‘‘ why should we then say that 
 we have gained Abraham in a fleshly, natural sense for our ancestor 55) This 
 misconception should have been precluded by attending to the simple fact, 
 that in no passage in our Epistle (and in other Epistles the form of expres- 
 sion does not occur) does the τί in τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν mean why. Hofmann, who 
 had formerly (Schriftb. II. 2, p. 76 ff.) apprehended it in substance much 
 more correctly, now agrees with Schott in so far that he takes τέ οὖν ἐροῦμεν 
 as a question by itself, but then explains ᾿Αβραάμ likewise as the object, so 
 that the question would be, whether the Christians think that they have found 
 Abraham as their forefather after the flesh? ‘The origin of the church of 
 God, to which Christians belong, goes back to Abraham. Jn fleshly fashion 
 he is their ancestor, if the event through which he became such (namely, 
 the begetting of Isaac) lie within the sphere of the natural human life ; in 
 spiritual fashion, on the other hand, if that event belong to the sphere of 
 the history of salvation and its miraculous character, which according to 
 the Scripture (comp. Gal. iv. 28) is the case.” This exposition cannot be 
 disputed on linguistic grounds, especially if, with Hofmann, we follow 
 Lachmann’s reading. But it is, viewed in reference to the context, errone- 
 ous. For the context, as vv. 2, 3 clearly show, treats not of the contrast 
 
 1 Observe, in reference to ch. iv. (with 
 jii. 31), of what fundamental and profound 
 importance, and how largely subject to 
 controversy, the relation of Christianity to 
 Judaism was in the Apostolic age, particu- 
 larly in the case of mixed churches. The 
 
 minute discussion of this relation, there 
 fore, in a doctrinal Epistle so detailed, can- 
 not warrant the assumption that the church 
 was composed mainly of Jews, or at least 
 (Beyschlag) of proselytes. 
 
 2 Comp. Nagelsbach on J/. 1, 76, 302, ed. 3. 
 
CHAP ATV, sil. 
 
 between the fleshly and the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in the case of 
 Christians, but of the justification of the ancestor, as to whether it took place 
 κατὰ σάρκα or by faith. Moreover, if ’A8p. was intended to be the object, 
 Paul would have expressed himself as unintelligibly as possible, since in vv. 
 ' 2, 3 he in the most definite manner represents him as the subject, whose ac- 
 ‘tion is spoken of. If we take Hofmann’s view, in which case we do not at 
 all see why the Apostle should have expressed himself by εὑρηκέναι, he would 
 have written more intelligibly by substituting for this the simple εἶναι, so 
 that ᾿Αβρ. would have been the subject in the question, as well as in what 
 follows. Finally the proposition that Abraham, as the forefather of believ- 
 ers as such, Was so not κατὰ σάρκα, Was so perfectly self-evident, both with 
 reference to the Jewish and the Gentile portion of the Ἰσραὴλ Θεοῦ, that Paul 
 would hardly have subjected it to discussion as the theme of so earnest a 
 question, while yet no reader would have known that in κατὰ σάρκα he was 
 to think of the miraculous begetting of Isaac. For even without the latter 
 Abraham would be the προπάτωρ of believers κατὰ πνεῦμα, namely, through 
 his justification by faith, ver. 9 ΠῚ ---- τ. πατέρα ju.) ‘‘fundamentum conse- 
 quentiae ab Abrahamo ad nos,” Bengel. Comp. ver. 11 f. ἡμῶν however 
 (comp. James ii. 21) is said from the Jewish standpoint, not designating 
 Abraham as the spiritual father of the Christians (Reiche, Hofmann, Th. 
 Schott), a point that is still for the present (see ver. 11) quite out of view. 
 ---κατὰ σάρκα] [See Note XXXVII. p. 174] is, following the Peshito, with 
 most expositors to be necessarily joined to ebpyx.; not, with Origen, Ambro- 
 siaster, Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Toletus, 
 Calvin, whom Hofmann, Th. Schott, Reithmayr, Volkmar in Hilgenfeld’s 
 Zeitschr. 1862, p. 221 ff., follow, to τ. πατέρα ju. (not even although Lach- 
 mann’s reading were the original one); for the former, and not the latter, 
 needed the definition. Abraham has really attained righteousness, only not 
 κατὰ σάρκα, and ἐξ ἔργων in ver. 2 corresponds to the κατὰ σάρκα. Besides with 
 our reading the latter connection is impossible. — The σάρξ on its ethical 
 side 1 is the material-psychic human nature as the life-sphere of moral weak- 
 ness and of sinful power in man, partly as contrasted with the higher intel- 
 lectual and moral nature of the man himself, which is his πνεῦμα along with 
 the νοῦς (i. 9, vii. 18, 25, and see on Eph. iv. 23), and partly as opposed to 
 the superhuman divine life-sphere and its operation, as here ; see the se- 
 quel. Hence κατὰ σάρκα is: conformably to the bodily nature of man in ac- 
 cordance with its natural power, in contrast to the working of divine grace, 
 by virtue of which the εὑρηκέναι would not be κατὰ σάρκα, but κατὰ πνεῦμα, 
 because taking place through the Spirit of God. Comp. on John iii. 6. 
 
 1 The most recent literature on this sub- 
 ject: Ernesti, Urspr.d Stinde, I. p. ΤΊ f£.; 
 Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, 3; Hahn, 
 Theol. ἃ: N. Test. 1. p. 426 ff. ; Delitzsch, 
 Psychol. p. 374 ff.; Holsten, Bedeutung des 
 Wortes capéim N. Test. 1855, and Hy. d. Paul. 
 u. Petr. p. 365 ff. ; Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 
 1857, p. 96 ff.; and Meut. Theol. Ὁ. 142f.; 
 Wieseler on Gal. p. 443 ff. ; Beck, Lehrwiss. 
 
 § 22 ; Kling in Herzog’s Zncyhi. TV. p. 419 ff.; 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. Ὁ. 557 ff.; Weber, 
 vom Zorne Gottes, p. 80 ff.; also Ritschl, 
 altkath. Kirche, p. 66 ff.; Luthardt, vom freien 
 Willen, Ὁ. 394 ff.; Rich. Schmidt, Pazilin. 
 Christol. 1870, p. 8 ff. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 93; 
 Philippi, Glaudensl. III. p. 207 ff., and the 
 excursus thereon, Ὁ. 231 ff., ed. 9. For the 
 earlier literature see Ernesti, p. 50, 
 
154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Since the épya are products of the human phenomenal nature and conditioned 
 by its ethical determination, not originating from the divine life-element, 
 they belong indeed to the category of the κατὰ σάρκα, and ἐξ ἔργων is the cor- 
 relative of κατὰ σάρκα (wherefore also Paul continues, ver. 2, εἰ yap ᾽Αβρ. ἐξ 
 ἔργων k.7.2.), but they do not exhaust the whole idea of it, as has often been 
 assumed, following Theodoret (κατὰ σάρκα τὴν ἐν ἔργοις, λέγει, ἐπειδήπερ διὰ 
 τοῦ σώματος ἐκπληροῦμεν τὰ ἔργα), and is still assumed by Reiche. KdOllner, 
 limiting it by anticipation from ver. 4, holds that it refers to the human 
 mode of earning wages by labour. Entirely opposed to the context, and also 
 to the historical reference of ver. 3, is the explanation of cirewmcision (Pela- 
 gius, Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, Estius, and others ; including Koppe, Flatt, 
 Baur, and Mehring) which Riickert also mixes up, at the same time that he 
 explains it of the ἔργοις. Philippi also refers it to both. — On εὑρηκ., adep- 
 tum esse, comp. εὑρεῖν κέρδος, Soph. E17. 1297, ἀρχήν, Dem. 69,1. The middle 
 is still more expressive, and more usual ; see Kriiger, § 52, 10, 1, Xen. ii. 1, 
 8, and Kiihner in loc. The perfect infinitive is used, because Abraham is 
 realized as present ; see ver. 2. 
 
 Ver. 2. The question in ver. 1 contained the negative sense, which had 
 therefore necessarily to be limited by κατὰ σάρκα : ‘* We may not assert that 
 Abraham has obtained anything according to the flesh.” The reason for 
 this is now assigned (yap) : ‘‘ For, assuming that Abraham has been justified 
 by works” (as was the Jewish opinion),’ ‘‘he has cause for boasting,” namely, 
 that he has attained righteousness through his actions, but he has not this 
 ground of boasting with respect to God (as if his justification were the 
 divine act), since, namely, in the case supposed it is not God to whom he 
 owes the justification, but on the contrary he has himself earned it, and God 
 would simply have to acknowledge it as a human self-acquirement. God 
 has not, in that supposed case, done anything for him, on account of which 
 he might thus boast with regard to God as his justifier ; for ἡ τῶν ἀγαϑῶν 
 ἔργων πλήρωσις αὐτοὺς στεφανοῖ τοῦς ἐργαζομένους, τὴν δὲ τ. Θεοῦ 
 φιλανϑρωπίαν ov δείκνυσιν, Theodoret. Comp. also Chrysostom, Oecu- 
 menius, and Theophylact. Thus for the proper understanding of this 
 difficult passage (Chrysostom : ἀσαφὲς τὸ εἰρημένον) we must go back to the 
 explanation of the Greek expositors, which is quite faithful both to the 
 words and the context. Comp. on vv. 3, 4. This interpretation, now 
 adopted also by Tholuck (comp. Reithmayr and Th. Schott), has especially 
 this advantage, that ἐδικαιώϑη is not taken otherwise than in the entire 
 development of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, not therefore as somewhat indefinite and 
 general (‘‘ justus apparuit,” Grotius), in which case it would remain a ques- 
 tion by whom Abraham was found righteous (Riickert, Philippi ; comp. 
 Beza and others ; also Grotius and Koppe, and, with trifling variation, de 
 Wette, likewise Spohn in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1843, p. 429 ff., Volkmar, and 
 others, That Abraham was justified with God was known to no Jew other- 
 
 ΤῊ the Talmud it is even inferred from 2; Beresch. rabba f. 57,4. Comp. the pas- 
 Gen. xxvi. 5 that Abraham kept the whole sages from Philo quoted by Schnecken- 
 law of Moses. Kiddusch f. 82,1; Joma f. 28, burger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 185. 
 
CHAP. IV., 2. 155, 
 wise,’ and no reader could in accordance with the entire context understand 
 ἐδικαιώϑη Otherwise, than in this definite sense, consequently in the solemn 
 absolute sense of the Apostle (in opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 
 35). The only question was, whether ἐξ ἔργων or ἐκ πίστεως. If we suppose 
 the former case, it is indeed for Abraham worthy of all honour, and he may 
 boast of that which he has himself achieved, but with reference to God, as 
 if He had justified him, he has no ground for boasting.* Observe besides, 
 that πρὸς is used not in the sense of ἐνώπιον, coram (Hofmann : over against), 
 or apud (Vulgate), but in accordance with the quite common usage of ἔχειν 
 with the object of the thing (to have something to do, to say, to boast, to 
 ask, to censure, etc.), and with specification of the relation of reference to 
 some one through πρός twa. The opposite of ἔχειν καύχημα πρός is ἔχειν 
 μομφὴν πρός, Col. iii. 18. The special mode of the reference is invariably 
 furnished by the context, which here, in accordance with the idea of 
 δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Suggests the notion that God is the bestower of the blessing 
 meant by καύχημα. To that the ἔχειν καύχημα of Abraham does πού refer, if 
 he was justified by works. In the latter case he cannot boast of himself : 
 Reiche and Fritzsche, following Calvin, 
 Calovius, and many others, have discovered here an incomplete syllogism. 
 [See Note XXXVIII. p. 174], in which ἀλλ᾽ ob πρὸς τ. Θεόν is the minor 
 premiss, and the conclusion is wanting, to this effect : ‘‘Si suis bene factis 
 Dei favorem nactus est, habet quod apud Deum glorietur. . .. ; sed non 
 habet, quod apud Deum glorietur, quum libri s. propter θην, non propter 
 pulchre facta eum Deo probatum esse doceant (ver. 3)... . ; non est 
 igitur Abr. ob bene facta Deo probatus,” Fritzsche.* Forced, and even 
 contrary to the verbal sense ; for through the very contrast ἀλλ᾽ ov π. τ. Θ. 
 the simple xaiyyua is distinguished from the καύχημα πρὸς τ. Θεόν, as one that 
 takes place not πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Paul must have written : ἔχει καύχημα πρὸς 
 τὸν Θεόν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ (Or ἀλλὰ μὴν) οὐκ ἔχει. Mehring takes ἀλλ᾽ ov πρὸς τὸν Θεόν as a 
 question: ‘‘Tf Abraham has become righteous by works, he has glory, but 
 has he it not before God?” But in what follows it is the very opposite of 
 the affirmation, which this question would imply, that is proved. If the 
 words were interrogative, ἀλλὰ μή must have been used instead of ἀλλ᾽ οὐ (but 
 yet not before God?) Hofmann, in consequence of his erroneous exposition of 
 ver. 1, supposes that Paul wishes to explain how he came to propose the ques- 
 tion in ver. 1, and to regard an answer to it as necessary. What is here 
 involved, namely, is nothing less than a contradiction between what Chris- 
 tians say of themselves (when they deny all possibility of becoming righteous 
 
 ὁ Θεὸς με ἐδικαίωσε, Θεοῦ; τὸ δῶρον. 
 
 1Comp. Eccles. xliy. 19 ff.; Mamnass. 8; 
 Joseph. Antt. xi. 5, 7; Eisenmenger, entdeckt. 
 Judenth. I. p. 322, 343. 
 
 2 Van Hengel places a point after καύχ., 
 and takes ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς τ. Θεόν as an inde- 
 pendent sentence, in which he supplies se- 
 cundum literas sacras, making the sense: 
 “Atqui gloriandi materiam Deum Abra- 
 hamo denegare videmus in libris sacris.” 
 But that is, in fact, not there. Against my 
 
 own interpretation in the 1st ed. (making 
 ei... . ἐδικαιώϑη the question, and then 
 ἔχει. . . . Θεόν the answer negativing it) 
 see Philippi. The «i must be the dialectic 
 if. 
 
 3 50 ἴῃ substance also Kraussold in the 
 Stud. τι. Krit. 1842, p. 783; Baur in the Theol. 
 Jahrb. 1857, p. 71; Koéstlin in the Jahrd. f. 
 Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 92. 
 
156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 by their own actions), and what holds good of ‘‘an Abraham,” the father of 
 the people of God. Τί the latter has become righteous through his own 
 action, he has glory, and by this very cirewmstance his ancestorship is dis- 
 tinguished from that of all others. But then the Scripture teaches that 
 what God counted worthy in Abraham was his faith, and it is therefore 
 clear that the glory which he has, if he has become righteous by works, is 
 no glory in presence of God, and consequently is not jitted to be the basis of his 
 position in sacred history. This is a chain of ideas imported into the pas- 
 sage ; instead of which it was the object of the Apostle himself merely to 
 set forth the simple proposition that Abraham was not justified by works, 
 and not at all to speak of the mode in which the Christian ancestorship of 
 the patriarch came to subsist. —xabyyua (comp. on Phil. 1. 26, ii. 16) is 
 throughout the N. T. materies gloriandi ; as also in the LXX. and Apoc- 
 rypha ; although in classic authors’ it also occurs as the equivalent of 
 καύχησις, gloriatio. In Gal. vi. 4, also, it is joined with ἔχειν. 
 
 Ver. 3. I am right in saying : ob πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, for Scripture expressly de- 
 rives the justification of Abraham from his faith, not from his works, and 
 indeed as something received through imputation ; so that he consequently 
 possesses, not the previously supposed righteousness of works, but the 
 righteousness of faith as a favour of God, and has ground for boasting of 
 his righteousness in reference to God. That righteousness by works he would 
 have earned himself. Comp. ver. 4. The emphasis lies on ἐπίστευσε and 
 ἐλογίσϑη, not on τῷ Θεῷ (Mehring). See ver. 4 f. The passage quoted is 
 Gen. xv. 6, according to the LXX., which renders the active 72UM) by the 
 passive κ. ἐλογίσϑη. In the Hebrew what is spoken of is the faith which 
 Abraham placed in the divine promise of a numerous posterity, and which 
 God put to his account as righteousness, 1? 7%, ὁ.6. as full compliance with 
 the divine will insact and life; comp. on Gal. ili. 6. Paul however has not 
 made an unwarrantable use of the passage for his purpose (Riickert), but has 
 really understood δικαιοσύνη in the dogmatic sense, which he was justified in 
 doing since the imputation of faith as NPT¥ was essentially the same judi- 
 cial act which takes place at the justification of Christians. This divine 
 act began with Abraham, the father of the faithful, and was not essentially 
 different in the case of later believers. Even in the πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ on the 
 part of Abraham Paul has rightly discerned nothing substantially different 
 from the Christian πίστις (compare Delitzsch on Gen. /.c.), since Abraham’s 
 faith had reference to the divine promise, and indeed to the promise which 
 he, the man trusted by God and enlightened by God, recognized as that 
 which embraced in it the future Messiah (John viii. 56). Tholuck, because 
 the promise was a promise of grace, comes merely to the unsatisfactory view 
 of “ἃ virtual parallel also with the object of the justifying faith of Chris- 
 tians.” Still less (in opposition to Neander and others) can the explanation 
 of the subjective nature of faith in general, without the addition of its spe- 
 cific object (Christ), suffice for the conception of Abraham as the father of all 
 believing in Christ ; since in that case there would only have been present 
 
 1 Pind. Jsthm. y. 65; Plut. Ages. 31. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 4, 5. ΤῸ 
 
 in him a pre-formation of faith as respects its psychological quality gener- 
 ally, and not also in respect of its subject-matter, which is nevertheless the 
 specific and distinguishing point in the case of justifying faith. — We may 
 add that our passage, since it expresses not a (mediate) isswing of right- 
 eousness from faith, but the imputation of the latter, serves as a proof of 
 justification being an actus forensis ; and what the Catholic expositors 
 (including even Reithmayr and Maier) advance to the contrary is a pure 
 subjective addition to the text." | It is well said by Erasmus : that is im- 
 puted, ‘‘ quod re persolutum non est, sed tamen ex imputantis benignitate pro 
 soluto habetur.” 2 Instead of the καί in the LXX., Paul, in order to put the 
 ἐπίστ. with all weight in the foreground, has used δέ, which does not other- 
 wise belong to the connection of our passage. — εἰς dix.] Comp. 11. 26. [See 
 Note XXXIX. p. 174.]—On the passive ἐλογίσϑη see Bernhardy, p. 341 ; 
 Kiihner, II. 1, p. 105. 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. These verses now supply an illustration of ver. 3 in two general 
 contrasted relations, from the application of which—left to the reader—to the 
 case of Abraham the non-co-operation of works (the χωρὶς ἔργων, ver. 6) in 
 the case of the latter’s justification could not but be clear. — δέ] is the sim- 
 ple μεταβατικόν. --- τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ] to the worker, here, as the contrast shows, 
 with the pregnant sense : to him who is active in works, of whom the épya 
 are characteristic. Luther aptly says: ‘‘ who deals in works.” —6 μισϑός] 
 i.e. the corresponding wages (comp. ii. 29), justa merces. The opposite : 
 ἡ δίκη, merita poena; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. 1. 8, 90. --- οὐ λογίζ. κατὰ 
 χάριν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα] [See Note XL. p. 175.] Comp. Thue. ii. 40, 4: 
 οὐκ ἐς χάριν ἀλλ᾽ ἐς ὀφείλημα τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀποδώσων. The stress of the contrast 
 lies on «. χάρ. and κ. ὀφείλ., not in the first part on λογίζεται (Hofmann), 
 which is merely the verb of the Scripture quotation in ver. 3, repeated for 
 the purpose of annexing to it the contrast that serves for its illustration. 
 Not grace but debt is the regulative standard, according to which his wages 
 are awarded to such an one ; the latter are not merces gratiae, but merces 
 debiti. As in Abraham’s case an imputation κατὰ χάριν took place (which 
 Paul assumes as self-evident from ver. 3) he could not be on ἐργαζόμενος ; the 
 case of imputation which occured in relation to him is, on the contrary, to be 
 referred to the opposite category which follows : but to him that worketh not, 
 but believeth on Him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as right- 
 eousness. Looking to the exact parallel of vv. 4 and 5, the unity of the cate- 
 gory of both propositions must be maintained ; and ver. 5 is not to be re- 
 garded as an application of ver. 4 to the case of Abraham (Reiche), but as 
 likewise a locus communis, under which it is left to the reader to classify the 
 case of Abraham in accordance with the above testimony of Scripture. 
 Hence we cannot say with Reiche : ‘the μὴ ἐργαζόμενος and ἀσεβής is Abra- 
 ham.”* On the contrary, both are to be kept perfectly general, and ἀσεβής 
 
 1 Not even with the exception of Déllinger ness. Comp. however on i. 17, note. 
 (Christenth τι. K. p. 188, ed. 2), who says that 2 Comp. also Philippi im Joc., and Hoele- 
 God accounts the principle of the new free mann, de justitiae ex fide ambabus in V. T. 
 obedience (the faith) as already the whole ser- sedibus, 1867, p. 8 ff. 
 vice to be rendered, as the finished righteous- 3 ἀσεβής in his view is an allusion to the 
 
158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 is not even to be weakened as equivalent to ἄδικος, but has been purposely 
 selected (comp Vv. 6), in order to set forth the saving power of faith? by as 
 strong a contrast as possible to δικαιοῦντα. --- ΟΠ. πιστεύειν ἐπί τινα, expressing 
 faith in its direction towards some one, comp. ver. 24; Acts ix. 42, xi. 17; 
 Wisd. xii. 2. 
 
 Vv. 6-8. Accordance (καθάπερ) of ver. 5 with an assertion of David, ‘that 
 great and revered Messianic authority. That it is only what is said in ver. 
 5 that is to be vouched by David’s testimony, and consequently that the 
 quotation forms only an accessory element in the argument, appears from its 
 being annexed by καθάπερ, from the clear intended relation in which ᾧ ὁ 
 Θεὸς Aoy. dix. appears to Aoy. ἡ. πίστ. avr. εἰς dix. Ver. 5, as well as χωρὶς ἔργων 
 to τῷ μὴ ἐργαζ. in the same verse, and from the fact that Paul immediately, 
 in ver. 9, returns to Abraham. Vv. 6-8 cannot therefore be regarded as a 
 second example of justification from the O. T. (Reiche and many others), or 
 even as the starting-point of the reply to the question of ver. 1 (Hofmann). 
 This is forbidden by the proper conception of νόμος in 111. 31, in accordance 
 with which Paul could only employ an example from the daw : and such an 
 example was that of Abraham, Gen. xv., but not that of David. —iéye τ. 
 μακαρ.} asserts the congratulation ; μακαρισμός 065 not mean Olessedness, not 
 even in Gal. iv. 15, see in loc.?—doyiterar δικαιοσύνην] Here δικαιοσύνην is 
 conceived directly as that, which God reckons to man as his moral status. 
 The expression λογίζεσθαί τινί ἁμαρτίαν is perfectly analogous. In the classics 
 λογίζεσθαί τινί τι is also frequently met with. — γωρὶς ἔργων] belongs to 
 λογίζεται. For, as David represents the λογίζεσθαι δικαιοσύνην as the forgive- 
 ness of sins, it must be conceived by him as ensuing without any participa- 
 tion (111. 21) of meritorious 1007}8. ---- μακάριοι κ.τ.}.}] Ps. xxxii. 1, 2 exactly 
 after the LX X. — ἐπεκαλύφθ. The amnesty under the figure of the covering 
 over of sin. Comp. Augustine on Ps. l.c., ‘‘Si texit Deus peccata, noluit 
 animadvertere ; si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire.”” Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8.— 
 ov μὴ λογίσηται) will certainly not impute. It refers to the future generally, 
 without more precise definition,* not specially to the jinal judgment (de 
 Wette). 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. From the connection (καθάπερ, ver. 6) of this Davidic μακαρισ- 
 μός With what had previously been adduced, vv. 3-5, regarding Abraham, 
 
 earlier idolatry of Abraham, reported by 
 Philo, Josephus, and Maimonides, on the 
 ground of Joshua xxiy. 2. This was also 
 the view of Grotius, Wetstein, Cramer, 
 
 Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and Koppe; comp. ἢ 
 
 also Dollinger, Christenth u. K. Ὁ. 197, ed. 
 2. The rabbins have a different tradition, 
 to the effect that Abraham demolished the 
 idols of his father Terah, etc. ; see EHisen- 
 menger, evtdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 490 ff., 941. 
 
 1 Consequently subjective faith is meant, 
 not its objective ground, the righteousness 
 of Christ, i.e. according to the Form. Conc. 
 p. 884 f., the active and passive obedience of 
 Christ, which is ‘‘applied and appropriated” 
 to us through faith. The merit of Christ al- 
 
 ways remains the causa meritoria, to which 
 we are indebted for the imputation of our 
 faith. But the apprehensio Christi, which is 
 the essence of justifying faith, must not be 
 made equivalent to the apprehensus Christus 
 (Calovius; comp. Philippi). The former 
 is the subjective, which is imputed; the 
 latter the objective, on account of which the 
 imputation by God takes place. The For- 
 mula Concordiae in this point goes ulira quod 
 scriptum est. 
 
 2 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 591 D; Aristot. Rhet. 
 i. 9, 4. 
 
 3 Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. C. 858; Hartung, 
 Partikell, I, p. 156 f. 
 
CHAP: IV., Ll. 159 
 
 it is now inferred (οὖν) that this declaration of blessedness affects, not the 
 circumcised as such, but also the uncircumcised [See Note XLI. p. 175] ; for 
 Abraham in fact, as an wneirewmcised person, was included among those 
 pronounced blessed by David. — ἐπὶ τ. repit.] The verb obviously to be sup- 
 plied is most simply conceived as ἐστέ (the μακαρισμός extends to etc. ; comp. 
 ii. 9; Acts iv. 33 et al.). Less natural is λέγεται from ver. 6 (Fritzsche) ; 
 and πίπτει (Theophylact, Bos) is arbitrary, as is also ἦλθεν (Oecumenius), and 
 ἔρχεται (Olshausen). Comp. ver. 13, and see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 120 f. 
 [E. T. 136 f.]. — ἐπὶ τ. περιτ. x.7.4.] to the cireumeised, or also to the uncirewm- 
 cised ὃ The καί shows that the previous ἐπὲ τ. zepit. is conceived as exclusive, 
 consequently without a μόνον. ---- λέγομεν γάρ x.t.2.] In saying this, Paul can- 
 not wish first to explain, quite superfluously, how he comes to put such ques- 
 tions (Hofmann), but, as is indicated by λέγομεν, which lays down a prop- 
 osition as premiss to the argument that follows, he enters on the proof (yap) 
 from the history of Abraham for the καὶ ἐπὶ τ. ἀκροβ. which is conceived as 
 affirmed. The present denotes the assertion pointing back to ver. 3 as con- 
 tinuing : for our assertion, our proposition is, etc. The plural assumes the 
 assent of the readers. The emphasis however is not on τῷ ’Afp. (Fritzsche, 
 de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Philippi, and others), which Paul 
 would have made apparent by the position of the words ὅτι τῷ ’Afip. ἐλογίσθη 5 
 nor on ἐλογίσθη, which in that case would necessarily have a pregnant mean- 
 ing not indicated in the whole connection (as a pure act of grace, indepen- 
 dent of external conditions) ; but on ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην (and thus pri- 
 marily on πίστις brought together at the end, by which the import of ver. ὃ, 
 ἐπίστευσε . . . . δικαιοσύνην, is recapitulated. — πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη) The prop- 
 osition, that to Abraham, etc., is certain ; consequently the point at issue is 
 the question quomodo, viz. under what cirewmstances as to status (whether in 
 his circumcision, or whilst he was still uncircumcised) that imputation of 
 his faith to him for righteousness took place.’ Hofmann places the first 
 mark of interrogation after πῶς οὖν, so that the second question is supposed 
 to begin with ἐλογίσθη. But without sufficient ground, and contrary to the 
 usage elsewhere of the interrogative πῶς by Paul, who has often put τί οὖν 
 thus without a verb, but never πῶς οὖν. We should in such case have to un- 
 derstand ἐλογίσθη ; but this word, according to the usual punctuation, is 
 already present, and does not therefore need to be supplied. — οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀκροβ.] scil. ὄντι. The imputation in question took place as early as 
 Gen. xv. ; circumcision not till Gen. xvii. ; the former at least fourteen 
 years earlier. 
 
 Ver. 11. [See Note XLII. p. 176.] An amplification of the οὐκ ἐν repir., 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀκροβ. viewed as to its historical bearings, showing namely the re- 
 lation of Abraham’s circumcision to his δικαιοσύνη, and therefore only to be 
 separated by a comma from ver. 10. ‘‘ And he received a sign of cirewmeision 
 as seal (external confirmation, 1 Cor. ix. 2, and see on John iii. 33) of the 
 righteousness of faith (obtained through faith, vv. 3, 5), which he had in un- 
 
 1 Respecting the form of the discourse, ma, cujus altera parte rejecta alteram 
 Erasmus aptly observes: ‘‘ Praeter interro- evincit. Nullum enim argumentandi genus 
 gationis gratiam multum lucisaddit dilem- _ vel apertius vel violentius.” 
 
100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 circumcision.” That τῆς ἐν τ. ἀκροβ. is not to be connected with δικαιοσ. 
 (Riickert, Reiche) is plain from the following context (πιστευόντων dv ἀκρο- 
 βυστίας ver. 11, and τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβ. πίστεως ver. 12). The genitive περιτομῆς 
 is usually taken as that of apposition: the sign consisting in circumeision. 
 But in that case the article could not be omitted before σημεῖον (the absence 
 of it drove van Hengel to the reading περιτομῆν, which Hofmann also pre- 
 fers),' since the concrete, historically definite sign would here be meant 
 (compare 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. ii. 14 eal.). Itis therefore to be rendered : 
 And ὦ sign, which took place through cireumeision, a signature which was 
 given to him in the fact that he was circumcised, he received as seal, etc. 
 The genitive is thus to be taken simply as completing the notion of σημεῖον, 4.e. 
 as defining it more precisely as respects its modal expression. Observe at the 
 same time the dislocation in the order of the words, which brings into em- 
 phatic relief the idea of the σημεῖον. According to Gen. xi. 17 circumcision 
 was the sign of the covenant? which God made with Abraham. But with 
 correct dogmatic consistency Paul represents it as the significant mark 
 which had been the seal of the righteousness by faith, since in that covenant 
 what God promised was the Messianic κληρονομία (Gen. xv. 5, 18), and 
 Abraham on his part rendered the faith (Gen. xv. 6) which God imputed to 
 him for righteousness. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν k.t.4.] im order that he might be, 
 ete., contains the divinely appointed aim of the σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτ. k.T.A. 
 This telic rendering is grammatically necessary (see oni. 20), as more in 
 keeping with the biblical view * and with the importance of the matter, 
 than the ecbatic explanation καὶ οὕτως ἐγένετο πατήρ, Which has been justly 
 abandoned of late. — πατέρα πάντων τῶν riot. δ ἀκροβ.1 The essence of this 
 spiritual fatherhood is the identity of the relation forming the basis of the 
 sacred historical connection of all believers with the patriarch without in- 
 tervention of circumcision—a relation which began with Abraham justified 
 through faith whilst still uncircumcised. Thus the Jewish conception of 
 the national-theocratic childship of Abraham is elevated and enlarged by 
 Paul (comp. Matt. iii. 9; John viii. 37, 39), into the idea of the purely 
 spiritual-theocratic childship, which embraces, not Jews and proselytes as 
 such, but the believers as such—all uncircumcised who believe, and (ver. 12) 
 the believing circumcised. For Abraham’s righteousness through faith was 
 attained, when as yet there was no distinction between circumcised and un- 
 circumcised ; and to this mode of becoming just before God, independent 
 of external conditions, Christianity by its δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως leads back 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Hofmannexplains: and (8 ὦ sign he re- 
 ceived circumcision, as seal (apposition to 
 one.) In that case περιτομήν must have had 
 the article (John vii. 22; otherwise in ver. 
 23). For to take λαμβάνειν περιτομήν as 
 equivalent to περιτέμνεσϑαι is forbidden by 
 σημεῖον, With which the περιτομή can be cor- 
 relative only as asubstantive conception. 
 
 2 Τῇ the Talmud also it is presented as 
 the sign and seal of the covenant. See 
 Schoettgen and Wetstein. To the formula- 
 
 ty of circumcision belonged the words: 
 “ Benedictus sit, qui sanctificat dilectum ab 
 utero, et signum (KS) posuit in arne, et 
 filios suos sigillavit (DNM) stgno foederis 
 sancti." Berachoth ἢ. 13, 1. 
 
 36 γὰρ τῶν ὅλων ϑεὸς προειδὼς ws Peds, ws 
 ἕνα λαὸν ἐξ ἐϑνῶν καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀϑροίσει καὶ διὰ 
 πίστεως αὐτοῖς τὴν σωτηρίαν παρέξει, ἐν τῷ πα- 
 τριάρχῃ ABp. ἀμφότερα προδιέγραψε, Theodo- 
 ret. 
 
CHAP, Iv., 12. 161 
 again, and continues it. — dv ἀκροβ.] with foreskin, although they are un- 
 circumcised.’ — εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι x.t.2.] is taken by many, including Tholuck 
 and Philippi, as a parenthetical illustration of εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα K.T.A. 
 But as we can attach εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι κιτ.λ. Without violence or obscurity to 
 πιστευόντων, there is no necessity for the assumption of a parenthesis (which 
 is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and 
 Hofmann). Nevertheless εἰς τὸ λογισθ. is not : who believe on the fact, that 
 to them also will be imputed (Hofmann), for the object of faith is never ex- 
 pressed by εἰς with a substantival infinitive ;? but, quite in accordance with 
 the telic sense of this form of expression (as in the εἰς τὸ εἶναι previously) : 
 who believe (on Christ) in order that (according to the divine final purpose 
 ruling therein) to them also, ete. —xai αὐτοῖς] to them also, as to Abraham 
 himself ; τὴν δικαιοσύνην expresses the righteousness which is under dis- 
 cussion, that of faith. 
 
 Ver. 12. The construction carries onward the foregoing πατέρα πάντων 
 and father’ of circumcision, i.e. father of cireumcised persons (not of all 
 circumcised, hence without the article). And in order to express to what 
 circumcised persons this spiritual fatherhood of Abraham belongs, Paul adds, 
 by way of more precise definition : for those (dativus commodi, comp. Rev. 
 xxi. 7; Luke vii. 12) who are not merely circumcised (comp. ii. 8), but also 
 walk in the footsteps, etc. With this rendering (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others ; including Ammon, 
 Béhme, Tholuck, Klee, Riickert, Benecke, Reiche, Gléckler, K6llner, de 
 Wette, Philippi, and Winer) it must be admitted (against Reiche and K6llner, 
 whose observations do not justify the article) that τοῖς is erroneously repeated 
 before στοιχοῦσι. [See Note XLIII. p. 176.] Paul wnsuitably continues 
 with ἀλλὰ καί, just as if he had previously written an οὐ μόνον τοῖς. AS any 
 other rendering is wholly inadmissible, and as καὶ τοῖς cannot be an inver- 
 sion for τοῖς καί (Mehring), we are driven to the assumption of that errone- 
 ous insertion of the article, as a negligence of expression. The expression 
 in Phil. i. 29 (in opposition to Fritzsche) would be of the same nature only . 
 in the event of Paul having written τοῖς. 
 . τοῖς στοιχοῦσι k.7.A. Others take τοῖς οὐκ for οὐ τοῖς (as 387, 
 80, Syr. Arr. Vulg. Slav. and several Fathers read as an emendation), thus 
 making a distinction to be drawn here not between merely circumcised and 
 unbelieving Jews, but between Jews and Gentiles (ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς κ.τ.}.). So 
 Theodoret, Luther, Castalio, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader (Grotius is doubt- 
 ful). But such an inversion is as unnatural (comp. ver. 16) as it is unpre- 
 cedented (it is an error to refer to ii. 27; 1 Thess. i. 8) ; and how strange 
 it would be, if Paul should have once more brought forward the fatherhood 
 
 ἘΠΩ͂Ν Σ 
 
 «ον οὗ μόνον τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς, 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ. 
 
 1 Comp. on ii. 27, Barnab. Lp. 13: τέϑεικα 
 σεπατέρα ἐϑνῶν τῶν πιστευόντων δι᾽ ἀκροβυστίας 
 τῷ κυρίῳ. 
 
 2 Not even in ver. 18. And Acts xv. 11, to 
 which Hofmann appeals as an analogous 
 passage, tells directly against him, because 
 there the construction of the infinitive ob- 
 tains in the usual way, that the subject of the 
 
 governing verd is understood, as a matter of 
 course, with the infinitive. Comp. Hofmann 
 himself above on ver. 1 ; Kriiger, ὃ 55, 4, 1. 
 Besides the result, according to Hofmann’s 
 interpretation, would be an awkward 
 thought, not in keeping with the faith of 
 Abraham. 
 
162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 as to the believing Gentiles, but should have left that relating to the Jews 
 
 altogether without conditioning definition! Hofmann (comp. also his 
 Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 82) understands περιτομῆς, after the analogy of ὁ Θεὸς τῆς 
 δόξης K.T.A., as the genitive of quality (‘‘a father, whose fatherhood is to be 
 designated according to cirewmeisedness ;” as a circumcised person he has begot- 
 ten Isaac, etc.) ; then assumes in the case of τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον the 
 suppressed antithesis to complete it, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ πίστεως ; and finally explains 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχ. aS a Supplementary addition, while he takes ἀλλὰ καὶ to 
 mean not but also, but also however. A hopeless misinterpretation ! For, 
 as genitive of quality, περιτομῆς must have had the article (comp. Acts vii. 
 2; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 17 αἷ.), and every reader must have understood περι- 
 τομῆς in conformity with πάντων κ.τ.}., ver. 11, as a specification whose father 
 Abraham further is. The reader could all the less mentally supply after 
 τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτ. a Suppressed contrast, since the expressed contrast follows im- 
 mediately with ἀλλὰ καί ; and for that reason, again, it could occur to no one 
 to understand this ἀλλὰ καί in any other sense than elsewhere after negations, 
 namely, but also, not also however. (How inappropriate is Hofmann’s cita- 
 tion of Luke xxiv. 22, where no negation at all precedes !) Wieseler’s at- 
 tempt (in Herzog’s Hncyklop. XX. p. 592) is also untenable, since he imports 
 into τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτ. μόνον the sense : ‘‘ who do not make circumcision the ev- 
 clusive condition of salvation,” and likewise renders ἀλλὰ καί also however ; thus 
 making Paul indicate (1) the Jewish Christians who were not rigid partisans 
 of the law (such as were to be found in Palestine especially), and (2) the 
 Pauline Jewish Christians. — τοῖς ἔχνεσι x.7.A.] Who so walk (see on Gal. v. 
 25) that they follow the footsteps which Abraham has left behind through his 
 faith manifested in his uncircumcised condition, 7.e. who are believers after 
 the type of the uncircumcised Abraham, The dative, commonly taken as 
 local, is more correctly, in keeping with the other passages in which Paul 
 uses the dative with στοιχεῖν (Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16 ; Phil. iii. 16), interpret- 
 ed in the sense of the norm. 
 
 Ver. 13. Ground assigned for the foregoing, from εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα 
 onwards. ‘‘The father of all believing Gentiles and Jews ;” for it was 
 not the law, but the righteousness of faith, that procured for Abraham or his 
 seed the promise of possessing the world. [See Note XLIV. p. 177.] Had 
 the law been the agent in procuring that promise, then the Jews, as posses- 
 sors of the law, would be the children of Abraham who should receive what 
 was promised ; as it is, however, it must be the believers, no matter whether 
 Jews or Gentiles, since not the law has been at work, but on the contrary 
 the righteousness of faith. — διὰ νόμου] [See Note XLV. p. 177] through the 
 agency of the law, is not to be arbitrarily limited (Piscator, Calovius, 
 and others : per justitiam legis ; Pareus and others : per opera legis) ; for, 
 as the Mosaic law’ was not yet even in existence, it could in no way procure 
 the promise. Hence it is not to be rendered with Grotius : ‘‘ sb conditione 
 observandi legem Mosis,” because διὰ δικαίοσ. πίστ. does not admit of a cor- 
 
 1 For to this διὰ νόμου must be referred brought under the wider conception of the 
 (see ver. 14 ff.) not to circumcision, which is law (Mehring), 
 
CHAP. Iv., 138. 163 
 
 responding interpretation. — ἡ ἐπαγγελία] scil. ἐστι. The supplying of this 
 (usually : ἐγένετο) is quite sufficient ; comp. on ver. 9. The relation is real- 
 ized as present. — ἢ τῷ σπέρμ. αὐτοῦ] neither to Abraham nor to his seed, ete. 
 With ἢ τῷ σπέρμ. ait. Paul takes for granted that the history of the promise 
 in question is known ; and whoare meant by the σπέρμα under the Messianic 
 reference of the promise cannot, according to the context (see especially ver. 
 11), be doubtful, namely the believers, who are the spiritual posterity of 
 Abraham (ix. 6 ff.; Gal. iv. 22 ff.); not Christ according to Gal. iii. 16 
 (Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Olshausen); but also not the descendants of 
 Abraham proper (van Hengel). —70 κληρ. ait. εἶναι κόσμου] Epexegesis of ἡ 
 ἐπαγγελία." The αὐτόν, referring to Abraham, is so put not because ἢ τ. σπ. 
 αὐτοῦ is only incidentally introduced (Riickert), but because Abraham is 
 regarded as at once the father and representative of his σπέρμα included 
 with him in the promise. — κόσμου] The inheritance of the land of Canaan, 
 which God promised to Abraham for himself and his posterity (Gen. xii. 7, 
 xiil. 14, 15, xv: 18, xvii. 8, xxii. 17 ; comp. xxvi. 3 ; Ex. vi. 4), was in the 
 Jewish Christology taken to mean the universal dominion of the Messianic the- 
 ocracy, Which was typically pointed at in these passages from Genesis.* The 
 idea of Messianic sovereignty over the world, however, which lies at the bot- 
 tom of this Jewish particularistic conception, and which the prophets in- 
 vested with a halo of glory,* is in the N. T. not done away, but divested of 
 its Judaistic conception, and raised into a Christological truth, already 
 presented by Christ Himself (comp. Matt. v. 5) though in allegoric form 
 (Matth. xix. 28 ff.; Luke xxii. 30; Matt. xxv. 21). Its necessity lies in 
 the universal dominion to which Christ Himself is exalted (Matt. xxviii. 18 ; 
 John xvii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 9 ff.; Eph. iv. 10 a/.), and in the glorious fellowship 
 of His believers with Him. Now as the idea of this government of the 
 world, which Christ exercises, and in which His believers (the spiritual 
 children of Abraham) are one day to participate, was undeniably also the 
 ideal of Paul (viii. 17 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12), it is arbitrary to 
 take κόσμου here otherwise than generally, and either to limit it to the sphere 
 of earth (Koppe, Kéllner, Maier), or to explain it as relating to the dominion 
 of the Jews over the Gentile world (van Hengel), or the reception of all peo- 
 ples into the Messianic kingdom (Beza, Estius, and others) or Messianic bliss 
 generally (Wetstein, Flatt, comp. Benecke aud Gléckler), or the spiritual 
 dominion of the world (Baumgarten-Crusius), as even Hengstenberg does : 
 ‘“the world is spiritually conquered by Abraham and his seed ” (Christol. 1. 
 p. 49). The interpretation which takes it to mean the extension of the 
 spiritual fatherhood over all nations (Mehring) would only be possible in the 
 absence of ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, and would likewise be set aside by the firmly 
 established historical notion of the ΤΠ). The κληρονόμον εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου Of 
 believers is realized in the new glorious world (ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, Matt. 
 xix. 28, comp. Rom. viii. 18, 2 Pet. iii. 18) after the Parousia ; hence the 
 Messianic kingdom itself and all its δόξα, as the completed possession of 
 
 1 See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 518, and ad Xen. dum dedit coelum et terram,” Tanchuma, p. 
 Anab. ii. 5, 22. 165, 1, and see Wetstein. 
 2“ Abrahamo patri meo Deus possiden- 3 Comp. Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 225 ff. 
 
104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 salvation promised to believers, is designated by the theocratic technical 
 term κληρονομία (see on Gal. 111. 18). — διὰ dix. rior. ] Since the νόμος was not 
 the procurer of the promise, but Abraham was righteous through faith (ver. 
 3), the δικαιοσύνη πίστεως must necessarily have been that which procured the 
 promise (moved God to grant it), See ver. 14. It is true that the promise 
 in question was given to Abraham prior to his justification by faith (Gen. xii. 
 7, ΧΙ. 14 f.); but it was renewed to him subsequently (xv. 18, xvii. 8); hence 
 we must assume that here Paul had only these latter passages in view. 
 
 Vv. 14-17. Proof of the antithesis ov διὰ νόμου. . . . ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ. I Ver. 
 -13, conducted not historically (as in Gal. ii. 13 ff.), but dogmatically, ὦ 
 priori, from the nature of the law, from which results the opposite of the 
 latter, the πίστις, as cause of the κληρονομία. 
 
 Ver. 14. Here also νόμος is not (as Flatt and others take it) the moral law 
 (to which however the saying may certainly be applied), but the law of 
 Moses, viewed in excluding antithesis to the πίστις. By οἱ ἐκ νόμου, ‘‘ those 
 of the law” (Luther), are meant those who belong to the law, are as such 
 subjected to it ; consequently the Jews at all events, but just so far as they 
 are not believers, not belonging to the ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Gal. yi. 16). The 
 opposite : οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, 111. 26, Gal. 111, 7. That they wish to attain to the 
 κληρονομία by the way of the law, is true in itself, but is not expressed in the 
 mere οἱ ἐκ νόμου (in opposition to Hofmann). —kexévwrar ἡ πίστις k.t.2.] then 
 faith is made void and the promise done away, i.e. faith is thereby rendered 
 inoperative and the promise of no effect. If it be true that to be subject to 
 the law is the condition of obtaining the possession of the world, nothing 
 further can be said either of a saving power of faith (comp. 1 Cor. i. 17), or 
 of the validity of the promise (comp. 111. 31, Gal. iii. 17). And why not ? 
 Because (ver. 15) the law, to which in accordance with that protasis the 
 κληρονομία would be appended, has an operation so entirely opposed to the 
 essence of faith (which trusts in the divine χάρις) and of the promise (which 
 is an emanation from this χάρις), (comp. ver. 16), that it brings about the 
 divine wrath, since its result is transgression. On this ground (διὰ τοῦτο, ver. 
 16) because the law worketh wrath, its relation to the κληρονομία, laid down 
 in ver. 14, cannot exist ; butron the contrary the latter must proceed from 
 faith that it may be according to grace, etc., ver. 16.—The πίστις is the 
 Christian saving faith, of which Abraham’s faith was the beginning and 
 type, and the ἐπαγγελία is the Divine promise of the κληρονομία, given to 
 Abraham and his seed, ver. 13. 
 
 Ver. 15. On the connection see above. The assigning of a reason (yap) 
 has reference to the previous κεκένωται ἡ πίστις K. KaTHpY. ἡ. Etayy., Which are 
 closely connected (see ver. 16), and not merely to the κατήργ. ἡ éxayy. (Chry- 
 sostom, Fritzsche, Mehring, and others). The law produces wrath. It is the 
 divine wrath that is meant, not any sort of hwman wrath (against the judg- 
 ment of God, as Melanchthon thought). Unpropitiated, it issues forth on 
 the day of judgment, ii. 5 ff., iii. 5, ix. 22; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6 5 Col. iii. 6 al.; 
 Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 16 ; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p. 826 f.— οὗ yap οὐκ 
 ἔστι νόμος κ.τ.}.1 [See Note XLVI. p. 177.] Proof of the proposition that 
 the law worketh wrath: jor where the law is not, there is not even (οὐδέ) 
 
CHAP, TV., 16, 17%. 165 
 
 transgression, namely, which excites the wrath of God (the Lawgiver). This 
 short, terse and striking proef—which is not, any more than the three 
 previous propositions introduced by γάρ, to be reduced to a ‘‘ justifying 
 explanation” (Hofmann), or to be weakened by taking οὐδέ to mean ‘‘ just as 
 little’ (Hofmann)—proceeds ὦ causa ad effectum ; where the cause is want- 
 ing (namely, παράβασις), there can be no mention of the effect (ὀργή). This 
 negative form of the probative proposition includes—in accordance with the 
 doctrine of the Apostle elsewhere regarding the relation of the law to the 
 human ἐπιθυμία (Rom. vii. 7 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 56; Gal. 111. 19 al.), which is 
 kindled on occasion of the law by the power of sin which exists in man— 
 the positive counterpart, that, where the law is, there is also transgression. 
 Paul however expresses himself negatively, because in his mind the negative 
 thought that the fulfilment of the promise is not dependent on the law still 
 preponderates ; and he will not enter into closer analysis of the positive 
 side of it—viz., that faith is the condition—until the sequel, ver. 16 ff. 
 Observe moreover that he has not written οὐδὲ ἁμαρτία, which he could not 
 assert (ver. 13), but οὐδέ παράβασις, as the specific designation of the ἁμαρτία 
 in relation to the Jaw, which was the precise point here in question. Comp. 
 li. 28, 25, 27, v. 14; Gal. 11. 18, 111. 19. Sins without positive law (ver. 13) 
 are likewise, and indeed on account of the natural law, ii. 14, objects of the 
 divine wrath (see i. 18 ff.; Eph. ii. 3); but sins against a given law are, in 
 virtue of their thereby definite quality of transgression, so specifically and 
 specially provocative of wrath in God, that Paul could relatively even deny 
 the imputation of sin when the law was non-existent. See on ver. 13. 
 
 Ver. 16 f. Διὰ τοῦτο] Inference from ver. 15, consequently from the 
 wrath-operating nature of the law, on account of which it is so utterly in- 
 capable of being the condition of the κληρονομία, that the latter must on the 
 contrary result from the opposite of the law—from faith, etc. Comp. on 
 ver. 14 f. This conclusion is so evident and pertinent that it required only 
 the incomplete, but thus all the more striking expression : ‘ therefore of 
 Suith, in order that according to grace,” to the end that, etc. — ἐκ πίστεως] 
 scil. οἱ κληρονόμοι εἰσί, according to ver. 14. The supplying, by Fritzsche and 
 others, of ἡ ἐπαγγελία γίνεται or ἐγένετο from ver. 13 is forbidden by the con- 
 trast in which ἐκ πίστ. stands to ἐκ νόμου, ver. 14. — ἵνα κατὰ χάριν] The pur- 
 pose of God in ἐκ πίστεως : ‘in order that they might be so by way of grace,” 
 not by way of merit. Comp. ver. 4 and δωρεάν 111. 24. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν 
 x.7.A.| contains now in turn the divine purpose,’ which prevails in the κατὰ 
 χάριν. They shall be heirs by way of grace ; and why by way of grace? In 
 order that the promise may be sure, i.e. may subsist in active validity as one 
 to be realized (the opposite of κατήργηται, ver. 14) for the collective posterity 
 (i.e. for all believers, see v. 11, 18), not for those alone, who are such out of the 
 law (not solely for believers who have become so out of the legal bond of 
 Judaism), but also for those who ure such out of the faith of Abraham,’ i.e. 
 
 1 Here also the peculiar deeper scope of 2 ἐν riot. ᾿Αβραάμ. goes together (in oppo- 
 the view given is often left unnoticed, and sition to Fritzsche, who has conceived the 
 cis τὸ εἶναι 15 taken as inference; so that, ete. σπέρματι to be supplied as before ’ABp., and 
 See on the other hand on i. 20, made the genitive ᾿Αβραάμ dependent on it), 
 
100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 whose Abrahamic kinship is based on Abraham’s faith, the uncircumcised 
 believers.! If anything else than χάρις (such as ὀφείλημα) were the reason 
 determining God to confer the κληρονομία, then both halves of the σπέρμα, in 
 their legal imperfection, would be unsecured with respect to the promise. 
 As it is, however, believing Jews as also believing Gentiles have in the 
 divine χάρις the same guarantee that the κληρονομία shall be imparted to 
 them ἐκ πίστεως. --- ὅς ἐστι Twat. πάντ. ἡμῶν] reiterated (comp. vv. 11, 12) 
 solemn setting forth of the fatherhood of Abraham for all (πάντων) believers 
 (ἡμῶν), which was indeed the pith and fundamental idea of the entire argu- 
 ment (since ver. 9) ; there is therefore no new point raised here (Hofmann), 
 but this fatherhood of the patriarchin the history of salvation, already 
 clearly laid down, is summarily expressed afresh, in order (ver. 17), after 
 the insertion of a testimony from Scripture, to present it, by means of 
 κατέναντι ov k.T.4., in its holy, divine guarantee and dignity. — ὅτε πατέρα 
 πολλῶν x.T.A.| Gen. xvii. 5, closely after the LXX.; therefore ὅτι, for, which 
 in the original text specifies the reason of the name Abraham, is repeated 
 by Paul without any special bearing on his connection, simply as forming 
 part of the words of Scripture. — πατέρα πολλῶν é6v.] Aptly explained, in 
 the sense of the Apostle, by Chrysostom and Theophylact : ob κατὰ φυσικὴν 
 In this spiritual sense—which the 
 passage of Scripture expresses typically—he is constituted by God as father 
 of many nations (in so far, namely, as all believers from among the Jews 
 and all Gentile peoples are to be, in the history of salvation, his spiritual 
 σπέρμα), i.e. appointed, and thus made so.* Even the original text cannot 
 have meant by 0°14 merely the twelve tribes of Israel (Hofmann). It means 
 the posterity of Abraham, in so far as Gentile peoples also shall be sub- 
 jected to it. The Israelite tribes would be Ὁ... ---- κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστ. Θεοῦ] 
 is connected, after the parenthesis (καθὼς . . . . ce), With ὃς ἐστε πατὴρ πάντ. 
 ἡμῶν. To get rid of the parenthesis by supposing a suppressed intervening 
 thought (Philippi), or an asyndeton, as if it were καὶ κατέναντι k.T.A. (Van 
 Hengel), is a harsh and arbitrary course ; while it is impossible to regard 
 κατέναντι κ.τ.2. as explanation of the καθὼς γέγραπται (Hofmann), because 
 καθὼς yéyp. can only be taken as the quite common (occurring thirteen times 
 in our Epistle) simple formula for quoting a Scripture proof, and not as: 
 ‘in harmony with the Scripture passage.” —xarévavte, equivalent to the 
 classical κατεναντίον, means over against (Mark xi. 2, xii. 41 ; Luke xix. 30), 
 i.é. here: in presence of (κατενώπιον), coram, as after the Heb. frequently in 
 the LXX. and Apocrypha.* The attraction is to be resolved into : 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, κατέναντι ov ἐπίστευσε : coram Deo, coram quo credidit.4 Quite anal- 
 
 ΄ ᾿ S " ᾿ , , 
 συγγένειαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οἰκείωσιν πίστεως. 
 
 κατέναντι 
 
 since it is not Jews and Christians, but Jew- 
 ish and Gentile believers who are placed side 
 by side, and in the latter the faith of Adra- 
 ham (comp. ver. 10) is the characteristic. 
 
 1 Theophylact : παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι, τουτέστι 
 πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν" οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐκ νόμου, 
 τουτέστι τοῖς ἐμπεριτόμοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἀκρο- 
 βύστοις, οἵτινές εἰσι σπέρμα ᾿Αβραὰμ. ἐκ πίστεως 
 αὐτῷ γενηϑέντες. 
 
 2 Compare Heb. i. 2; 1 Mace. x. 65, xiv. 34; 
 Hom. Od. xv. 258, 11. vi. 800; Plat. Theaet. 
 p. 169 E; Pind. OJ. xiii. 21. 
 
 8. See Biel and Schleusner. 
 
 4 The coram, in presence of, is neither to 
 be explained ad exemplum (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact and others), nor 
 “according to the will’ (Reiche, Krehl and 
 others), nor “according to the judgment” 
 
CHAP. Iv.,.17. 167 
 ogous are such passages as Luke i. 4, wept ὧν κατὴ χήθης λόγων, Instead of περὶ 
 τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν katyy., Matt. vii. 2 al.’ So also rightly Philippi and Hof- 
 mann ;? comp. Miircker. The mode of resolving it adopted by most com- 
 mentators (Thomas Aquinas, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius, 
 Estius, and others ; also Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6llner, Fritzsche, . 
 Ewald, van Hengel, Buttmann) : κατέναντι Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσε, is at least at 
 variance with the wsval mode of attraction, since the attraction of the rela- 
 tive, which, not attracted, would stand in the dative, has no precedent in 
 the N. T., and even in Greek authors very seldom occurs. * Finally, the ex- 
 planation which takes κατέναντι οὗ as equivalent to κατέναντι τούτου, ὅτι, and 
 the latter as equivalent to ἀνθ᾽ οὗ, propterea quod, and in accordance with, 
 which Θεοῦ «.7-2. is then taken as genitive absolute (‘‘ whilst God, who quick- 
 eneth the dead, calleth also to that which is not, as though it were present,” 
 Mehring), is wrong just because κατέναντε has not the sense supposed, — τοῦ. 
 ζωοπ. τ. νεκροὺς, καὶ x.7.A.] Distinguishing quality of God as the Almighty, 
 selected with practical reference to the circumstances of Abraham (vv. 
 18-21) : ‘‘who quickeneth the dead and ealleth the non-evistent as though it 
 were,” and certainly, therefore, can quicken the decayed powers of procrea- 
 tion, and dispose of generations not yet in existence. A reference to the 
 offering of Isaac, whom God could make alive again (Erasmus, Grotius, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, and Mangold), is so foreign to the connection that it 
 would have required definite indication. The ζωοποιεῖν τοὺς νεκρούς 18. a 
 formal attribute of the almighty God. 1 Sam. ii. ὁ ; Wisd. xvi. 13 ; Tob. 
 xiii. 2; comp. Deut. xxxii. 9. See also John: v5-21 ΣΦ Cor. i, ἢ: 1 "Tim. 
 vi. 13. Origen, Ambrosiaster, Anselm, erroneously hold that the νεκροί are, 
 spiritually dead, a view which the context must have rendered necessary + 
 comp. Olshausen, who holds that wor. and «ad. indicate typically the 
 spiritual awakening and the new birth ; also Ewald, who will have the ap- 
 plication made to the revivifying of the dead Gentiles into true Christians. 
 - καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα] 1.6. ‘who utters His disposing decree over that 
 
 (Riickert, Kéllner, Fritzsche, Maier, Um- 
 breit and others), nor ‘‘ vi atque potestate 
 divina” (Koppe), nor “before the omnis- 
 cience of God” (Olshausen), but is to be left 
 without any modifying explanation. Abra- 
 ham is realized as present, just as he stands, 
 πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν face to face with the God 
 who had appeared to him, and has become 
 a believer in conspectu Det. This vivid reali- 
 zation of the believing patriarch, as if he 
 were standing there as father of us all be- 
 fore the face of God, just as formerly in 
 that sacred moment of history, is a plastic 
 form of presentation which, inaptly con- 
 demned by Hofmann, quite accords with 
 the elevated and almost poetic strain of the 
 following words. It also fully warrants 
 the coupling of κατέναντι «.7.A. With ὃς ἐστι 
 πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν ; it is unnecessary to seek 
 a connection with ὅτε πατέρα... τέϑεικά σε, 
 either with Bengel, who compares Matt. 
 
 ix. 6,or with Philippi, who, thereby getting 
 rid of the parenthesis, inserts after τέϑεικά 
 σε the thought: “and as such he has been 
 appointed.” 
 
 1 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luce. Ὁ. 1775 
 Schmid in the Tvib. Zeitschr. 7. Theol. 1831, 
 2, p. 137 ff.; Winer, p. 155 f. [B. T. 164] ; 
 comp. on Acts xxi. 16. 
 
 2 Who, nevertheless, in consequence of 
 his incorrect view οἵ καϑὼς γέγραπται, pro- 
 fesses to illustrate the κατέναντι thus: ** At 
 that time, when he believed, he stood face to 
 face with God as Him who quickeneth the 
 dead, etc.; and by the fact, that God has 
 shown Himself to be just the same as Him 
 before whom he then stood, it has so come ta 
 pass, that he is now before Him, the Sather of 
 us all.” 
 
 3 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 5, Gramme 
 II. 2, p. 914. 
 
108 _THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 which does not exist, equally as over the existing.” What a lofty expression of 
 all-commanding power! And how thoroughly in harmony with the then 
 position of Abraham ! For as he stood before God and believed (Gen. xv. 
 
 6), God had just showed to him the stars of heaven, with the promise οὕτως 
 ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα cov! So that God hereby issued his potent summons (so 
 shall it be!) to something that was not (the σπέρμα of Abraham) as though 
 it had been. This explanation (followed also by Riickert and Philippi) is 
 perfectly faithful to the sense of the words, and as muchin harmony with 
 the vividly realized situation of Abraham, as it is appropriate to the paral- 
 lelism ; for the latter is climactic, leading from the νεκροῖς to the τὰ μὴ dvra. | 
 καλεῖν like δ», does not here mean to name Hofmann, (comp. Loesner and 
 Benecke), which would refer to the name of father pronounced by God, and 
 have in view the divine knowledge, but on the contrary, correlative with the 
 mighty ζωοποιεῖν τ. vexp. (comp. δυνατός ver. 21), it denotes the call of the 
 
 Ruler, which He issues to that which is subject to His power. Comp. Ps. 
 1. 1; Is. xl. 26 ;* ὡς is the simple as of comparison. Parallels in point are 
 found in Philo, de Jos. p. 544 C, where it is said of the force of imagination, 
 
 that it pictures τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα ; and Artemidor. i. 53, p. 46, ed. Rigalt. 
 
 where it is said of the painter, that he represents τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. Paul 
 could also have, like Clement, Cor. 11. 1, used ra οὐκ ὄντα (the non-exist- 
 
 ent, Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 3), as the contradictory antithesis of τὰ ὄντα (comp. 
 
 also Plat. Rep. p. 476 E); but the negation is conceived subjectively, from 
 
 the standpoint of the subject who calls : he calls the things, which he knows 
 as non-existent, as if they were.? Still what Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 37 f., 
 
 deduces from τὰ μὴ évra—that that which enters into historical existence was 
 not previously an absolute nothing, but an object of divine knowledge—is 
 based on the common conception of καλεῖν in the sense of creative activity, 
 
 which is erroneous. No doubt καλεῖν, as is well known, often denotes the 
 ereating call of God (Isa. xxii. 12, xli. 4, xIviii. 18 ; 2 Kings viii. 1 ; Wisd. 
 
 xi. 25; Philo, de creat. prine. Ὁ. 728 B, where τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν is further 
 defined by εἰς τὸ εἶναι ; comp. de Opif. p. 13 E). In this case we should 
 have to think by no means of the historical act of creation out of nothing 
 (Piscator, Estius and others), but rather, on account of the present participle, 
 
 either of the continuous creative activity (Kéllner), or (better still on ac- 
 
 count of the parallel of Cwor.) of an abiding characteristic of God generally, 
 
 from which no time is excluded. But this whole interpretation of καλεῖν is 
 set aside here by ὡς ὄντα. For ὡς cannot be taken for εἰς (Luther, Wolf, 
 
 and others), because an use so utterly isolated in the N. T. is in itself very im- 
 
 probable, and because, where ὡς stands in classic authors in the sense of εἰς, it 
 
 1 Quite contrary to the context Erasmus, 
 Ch. Schmid, Koppe ana Bohme take cadetvin 
 the dogmatic sense. And yet even Fritzsche 
 and Mangold have gone over to this ex- 
 planation: “ hominesnondum in lucem edi- 
 tos ad vitam aeternam invitat.”” Van Hengel 
 takes καλεῖν as arcessere, and τὰ μὴ ὄντα that 
 which is of no account (see on 1 Cor. i. 28), so 
 that the sense would be: ‘‘ quaecunque nul- 
 
 lius numeri sunt arcessivit (to the childship 
 of Abraham), quasi sint in pretio.” But this 
 peculiar interpretation of μὴ ὄντα and ὄντα 
 must have been specifically suggested by 
 the context, especially as it strips off the 
 whole poetical beauty of the expression. 
 
 2 Comp. Xen. Anabd. iv. 4, 15, and Kiihner 
 in loc. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278. 
 
CHAP. IV., 19-21. 169 
 
 is only so used in reference to persons,’ or, at the most, where what is personal 
 is represented by neuter objects. Some desire ὡς ὄντα to be taken for ὡς ἐσό- 
 μενα (de Wette), or as a summary expression for εἰς τὸ εἶναι ὡς ὄντα (Reiche, 
 K6llner, Tholuck, de Wette, Bisping), but these expedients are arbitrary in 
 themselves, and, in the case of the latter especially—seeing that ὄντα would 
 have to be taken in the sense of the result, as only adjectives are elsewhere 
 used (see on Matt. xii. 43, and Breitenbach, ad. Xen. Oec. 4, '7)—é¢ would 
 only be superfluous and confusing. 
 
 Vv. 18-21. More particular setting forth of this faith of Abraham, ac- 
 cording to its lofty power and strength. Εἶδες πῶς τίθησι καὶ τὰ κωλύματα καὶ 
 τὴν ὑψηλὴν τοῦ δικαίου γνώμην πάντα ὑπερβαίνουσαν, Chrysostom. 
 
 Ver. 18. Ὃς] Parallel to the ὅς ἐστι «.7.2. ver. 10 ; therefore only a comma 
 or a colon need be put after ὡς ὄντα. --- ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι] on hope, is the basis of the 
 éxiot. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 10 ; frequent in Greek authors. See also Tit. i. 2. 
 Abraham’s faith was opposed to hope (παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα, frequent in classical 
 writers) in its objective reference, and yet not ἀνέλπιστος, but rather based on 
 hope in its subjective reference, —a significant oxymoron. — εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι k.7.A. | 
 Rightly Luther : in order that he might be. Comp. Riickert, Tholuck, 
 Philippi. It contains the end, ordained by God, of the érior., thus ex- 
 hibiting Abraham’s faith in its teleological connection with the divine de- 
 cree, and that in reference to the word of God, ver. 17 ; hence, it is less in 
 harmony with the context to take εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι x.t.A. as the purpose of 
 Abraham. Ver. 11, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν k.7.A. is quite analogous. Following 
 Beza, many writers (including even Reiche, K6llner, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Krehl, Mehring, Hofmann, take εἰς τὸ γεν. as the object of ézior.; quite 
 contrary to the usage of the N. T. ; see on ver. 11. Here, as in every case 
 previously, the object of faith (the divine promise) is quite self-evident. 
 The view which explains it of the consequence (B6hme, Flatt, Fritzsche, 
 following older writers) for καὶ οὕτως ἐγένετο, is linguistically erronéous (see 
 on i. 20), and quite at variance with the tenor of the discourse; for’ in vv. 
 19-21 the delineation of the faith itself is still continued, so that at this stage 
 the result (it is introduced in ver. 22) would be quite out of place. — κατὰ 
 τὸ eipnu.| belonging to γενέσθαι k.7.A., not to ἐπίστευσε (Hofmann, in accord- 
 ance with his incorrect view of εἰς τὸ .7.A.). —ottwc] What is meant by 
 this, Paul assumes to be familiar to his readers ; and therefore the corre- 
 sponding part is by no means wanting. Β' G and several Fathers (also Vulg. 
 ms.) have after cov the addition : ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἡ ἄμμος τῆς 
 θαλάσσης. The first half only is a proper gloss ; the καὶ ἡ ἄμ. τ. θαλ. does not 
 lie in the οὕτως, Gen. xv. 5, but is imported from Gen. xii. 16. 
 
 Vv. 19-21 are still dependent on ὅς, completing the description of the 
 believing Abraham : and (who), because he was not weak in faith, regarded not 
 his own dead body.* Theophylact has properly expressed the meiosis in μὴ 
 
 
 
 ἀσθ. : μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει, ἀλλ᾽ ἰσχυρὰν αὐτὴν ἔχων. By μή the ἀσθεν. is neg- 
 
 1 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 853; ῬΟΡΡο, αὐ dead. Therefore vevexp. without the article. 
 Thuc. ΤΠ. 1, p. 318 ff. Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 6,1; Stall- 
 
 2 See Doderlein, philolog. Beitr. Ὁ. 303 ff. baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 573 A. 
 
 3 i.e. his own body: which was one already 
 
170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 atived from the point of view of the subject. Comp. on ver. 17. — οὐ 
 κατενόησε] [See Note XLVII. p. 178.] he did not fix his attention thereon. 
 Comp. Heb. iii. 1, x. 24 ; Luke xii. 24 ; Judith x. 14. This remark is no 
 historical blunder inconsistent with Gen. xvii. 17 (de Wette ; comp. 
 Riickert), but is quite in harmony with the account given in Gen. xv. 5, 6, 
 where, immediately after the divine promise οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου it is 
 said: καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Ap. τῷ Θεῷ. This (and not what is related in 
 *Gen. xvii. 17) is the fact which Paul here exhibits in greater detail, inas- 
 much as he depicts the καὶ ἐπίστευσε of Gen. 1.6.. in its strength at first neg- 
 atively (in the non-consideration of bodily obstacles) and then positively. 
 The immediately decided faith of Abraham in Gen. xv., to which Paul here 
 refers, is not inconsistent with the subsequent hesitation, Gen. xvii. (the 
 account of which, moreover, belongs to another author) ; the latter is a 
 wavering which may easily be understood from a psychological point of 
 view. Comp. the doubt of the Baptist as tothe Messiahship of Jesus, Matt. 
 xi. 2 ff. —vevexpwpévov and νέκρωσις conveying the idea of decrepitude with 
 reference to the powers of procreation and of conception respectively. 
 Comp. Heb. xi. 12; Kypke, II. p. 164. — ἑκατονταέτης x.7.4.] although so 
 advanced in years that he might naturally have regarded, etc., yet he did 
 
 not do so. The ποὺ is the circiter in approximate statements of number ; 
 Herod. i. 119; vii. 5; Diog. L. viii. 80. Comp. Xen. Oe. 17, 3. Not 
 used by Paul elsewhere. Abraham was then ninety-nine years old. See 
 
 Gen. xvii. 1, 17, xxi. 5. ‘*‘ Post Semum nemo centum annorum generasse 
 Gen. xi. legitur,”” Bengel.’—- Observe, as to καὶ τ. véx., that the negation ob 
 κατένοησε extends to both the objects of the sentence. Hofmann’s objection 
 to our reading,’? and his declaration that instead of καί we should expect 
 οὐδέ are erroneous.* The νέκρωσις is the deadness of the womb attested as 
 having already set in at Gen. xviii. 11. Was Sarah still to become a 
 mother é« πολιᾶς γαστρός (Pind. Pyth. iv. 98) !— εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν κ.τ.λ.] 
 [See Note XLVIII. p. 178.] The negative proposition in ver. 19 is, in the 
 first place, still more specially elucidated, likewise negatively, by εἰς. . . . 
 ἀπιστία (dé, the epexegetical autem), and then the positive opposite relation is 
 subjoined to it by ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεδυν. κιτ.Δ. In the former negative illustrative 
 clause the chief element giving the information is εἰς τ. ἐπαγγ. τ. Θεοῦ, Which 
 is therefore placed first with great emphasis: ‘‘but with regard to the 
 promise of God he wavered not incredulously, but waxed strong in faith,” etc. 
 
 1 With regard to the children subsequent- 
 ly begotten with Keturah, Gen. xxv. 1 ff., 
 the traditional explanation, already lying 
 
 2 With the reading without ov (see the crit. 
 remarks) the thought conveyed is: and 
 without having been weak in faith he regarded, 
 
 at the foundation of Augustine, de Civ. D. 
 Xvi. 28, is sufficient, viz. that the power of 
 begetting, received from God, continued 
 after the death of Sarah.—On ἑκατονταέτης 
 comp. Pind. Pyth.iv. 503. According to the 
 uncertain canon of the old grammarians 
 (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 406 f.) it ought to 
 have been written here as an oxytone (so 
 Lachmann) because it is the predicate of a 
 person. Comp. Kiihner, I. p. 420. 
 
 etc., but did not become doubtful in respect to 
 the promise of God, ete. Comp. Hofmann. 
 But μὴ acd. τ. riot. would thus be super- 
 fluous, and even logically unsuitable in re- 
 lation to ver. 20. Simply and clearly Paul 
 would only have written : καὶ κατενόησε μὲν 
 τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα κ.τ.λ. εἰς δὲ THY ἐπαγγ. K.T.A. 
 
 3 5606 Winer, p. 460 [E. T. 493 f.]; Butt- 
 mann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 315 [E. T. 868 f.]. Comp. 
 also Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. vi. 10, not. crit. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 19-21. Tt 
 
 Since in this way the discourse runs on very simply and suitably to the 
 sense, it is unnecessary to resort to the more awkward suggestion, that 
 Paul already begins the antithetic statement with dé (however, see Hartung, 
 Partikell. 1. p. 171), to which nevertheless he has again given the emphasis 
 of contrast through the negative and positive forms (Philippi, who, how- 
 ever, admits our view also; comp. Tholuck and others). In no case, 
 however, can it be said, with Riickert, that Paul wished to write. εἰς 
 δὲ τ. ἐπαγγ. τ. Θεοῦ ἐπίστ. μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, but that his love for antitheses 
 induced him to divide the idea of ἐπίστ. into its negative and positive 
 elements, and that therefore εἰς should be referred to the ἐπίστ. at first 
 thought of. De Wette (comp. Krehl) conjectures that, according to the 
 analogy of πιστεύειν εἰς, εἰς is the object of duexp. It is the quite usual im 
 regard to, as respects; see Winer, p. 371 [E. T. 9971]. ---- διακρίνεσθαι] To 
 waver, the idea being that of a mental struggle into which one enters, xiv. 
 23 ; Matt. xxi. 21; Acts x. 20; see Huther on James i. 6. This usage is 
 so certain in the N. T., that there is no need to translate, with van Hengel : 
 non contradixit, referring to Gen. xvii. 17 ff., in which case τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ is 
 supposed to mean : ‘‘quanquam in animo volvebat, quae diffidentiam inspi- 
 rarent.” Such a thought is foreign to the connection, in which everything 
 gives prominence to fwith only, and not to a mere resignation. —rq ἀπιστίᾳ, 
 is instrumental, in the sense of the producing cause, but τῇ πίστει, on 
 , account of the correlation with ἀσθεν. τῇ πίστει in ver. 19, is to be taken as 
 the dative of more precise definition, consequently : he wavered not by means 
 of the unbelief (which in such a case he would have had), but became strong 
 as respects the faith (which he had). Hofmann’s explanation is erroneous, 
 because not in keeping with the ἀσθεν. τ. πίστ. above. He takes τῇ πίστει as 
 causal : by faith Abraham was strengthened ‘to an action in harmony with 
 the promise and requisite for its realization.” 'This addition, which can 
 hardly fail to convey a very indelicate idea, is a purely gratuitous impor- 
 tation. — ἐνεδυναμώθη] became strong, heroic in faith ; passive. Comp. Aq. 
 Gen. vii. 20 : ἐνεδυναμώθη τό ὕδωρ. Heb. xi. 84; Acts ix. 82 ; Eph. vi. 10; 
 LXX. Ps. 1. 7: ἐνεδυναμώθη ἐπὶ τῇ ματαιότητι αὐτοῦ. In Greek authors the 
 word does not occur. — δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ] while he gave God glory, and* 
 was fully persuaded (xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12) that, ete. The qaorist participles 
 put the διδόναι δόξαν x.7.2. not as preceding the ἐνεδυναμώθη, or as presupposed 
 in it, but as completed simultaneously with it (comp. on Eph. i. 5). — διδόναι 
 δόξαν (33 112) τῷ Θεῷ denotes generally every act (thinking, speaking or 
 doing) that tends to the glory of God (Josh. vii. 19; Jer. xiii. 16 ; Esr. x. 
 11; Luke xvii. 18; John ix. 24; Acts xii, 23) ; and the context supplies 
 the special reference of its meaning. Here: by recognition of the divine 
 omnipotence (not cireumcisione subeunda, as van Hengel thinks), as is shown 
 by what follows, which is added epexegetically. ‘‘Insigne praeconium 
 fidei est, gloriam Deo tribuere,” Melanchthon. The opposite : 1 Johnv. 10. 
 — ἐπήγγελται] in a middle sense, Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 262]. 
 
 1The evidence against καί is too weak. the δοὺς δόξ. τ. ©. Oecumenius has aptly re- 
 Without it tAnpod, would be subordinated to marked on πληροφ.: οὐκ εἶπε πιστεύσας, 
 
‘ 
 
 172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ver. 22. Result of the whole disquisition, emphatically pointing back to 
 ver. 3 (ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην). ---- διὸ Kai] on which account also-(i. 24), 
 namely because Abraham believed so strongly as is described in vv. 18-21. 
 — The subject of ἐλογίσθη (it was reckoned) is self-evident, viz. the believing. 
 Comp. Niigelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 60, ed. 3. 
 
 Vv. 23-25. Relation of the Scripture testimony as to Abraham’s justifi- 
 cation to the justification of Christians by faith ; with which the proof for 
 the νόμον ἱστῶμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως (111. 81) is completed. — dr? αὐτόν] on his ac- 
 count, in order to set forth the mode of his justification. Then, corresponding 
 thereto : dv’ ἡμᾶς. Comp. Beresch R. 40, 8-: ‘‘Quicquid scriptum est de 
 Abrahamo, scriptum est de filiis ejus.” On the idea generally comp. xiv. 
 4; 1 Cor. ix. 10, x. 6, 11; Gal. 111. 8.— μέλλει λογίζεσθαι) namely the πισ- 
 tevev, Which, in accordance with the divine ordination, is to be reckoned 
 to us Christians (wéAAer),—to us, as those who believe on Him that raised up 
 Jesus. μέλλει (Comp. on vill. 13) is therefore not to be taken for ἔμελλε, 
 (Béhme, comp. Olshausen), but contains what God has willed, which 
 shall accomplish itself continwously as to each concrete case (not for the first 
 time at the judgment, as Fritzsche thinks) where Christ is believed on. 
 The ἡμεῖς, i.e. the community of believers (not however conceived as becon- 
 ing such, as Hofmann supposes), are the constant recipients of the fulfilment 
 of that which was once written not merely for Abraham’s sake but also for 
 theirs. —roi¢ πιστεύουσιν] not : who from time to time become believing (Hof- 
 mann), which is not consistent with ἡμᾶς, but : quippe qui credunt. The 
 ἐπὶ τὸν éyeipavta x.7.A. that is added then points out the specific contents, 
 which is implied in the μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, for the πιστεύειν that has not yet 
 been more precisely defined. In and with this faith we have constantly the 
 blessing of the λογίζεσθαι divinely annexed to it. Comp. viii. 1. And the 
 ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα K.T.A. (Comp. X. 9) is purposely chosen to express the charac- 
 ter of the faith, partly on account of the necessary analogy with ver. 17,’ 
 and partly because the divine omnipotence, which raised up Jesus, was at 
 the same time the strongest proof of divine grace (ver. 25). Regarding ἐπί, 
 comp. on ver. 5. — παρεδόθη] standing designation for the divine surrender of 
 Christ, surrender wnto death (viii. 32), perhaps after Is. liii. 12. It is at the 
 same time self-surrender (Gal. ii. 20 ;, Eph. v. 2), since Christ was obedient 
 to his Father. — διὰ τὰ παραπτ. ἡμῶν on account of our sins, namely, that they 
 might be atoned for by the ἱλαστήριον of Jesus, iti. 24 f., v. 8 f. — διὰ τὴν 
 τ΄ δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν) on account of our justification, in order to accomplish on us 
 the judicial act of transference into the relation of δικαιοσύνη. Comp. v. 18. 
 For this object God raised Jesus from the dead ;? for the resurrection of 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐμφατικώτερον. It corresponds with the gians (comp. also Gerhard in Calovius) took 
 
 full victory of the trial of the patriarch’s 
 faith at the c/ose of its delineation. 
 
 1But in point of fact to ‘‘believe on 
 Christ’ and to “‘ believe on God who raised 
 Christ,” are identical, because in both cases 
 Christ is the specific object. 
 
 2 Compare Weiss, idl. Theol. p. 329. For 
 the view which the older Reformed theolo- 
 
 of the state of the case as an acquittal from 
 our sins, Which was accorded to Christ and 
 to us with Him through His resurrection, 
 see Ritschl, Rechifertigung und Verséhnung, 
 I. p. 288 f. According to Beza, Christ could 
 not have furnished the atonement of our 
 sins, if He had not, as the risen victor, van- 
 quished death. But the case is rather 
 
NOTES. 173 
 the sacrificed One was required to produce in men the JSaith, through which 
 alone the objective fact of the atoning offering of Jesus could have the ef- 
 fect of δικαίωσις subjectively, because Christ is the ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως, 
 ili. 25, Without His resurrection therefore the atoning work of His death 
 would have remained without subjective appropriation ; His surrender διὰ 
 Ta παραπτ. ἡμῶν would not have attained its end, our justification. Comp. 
 especially 1 Cor. xv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 20 f., xv.; 1 Pet. i. 21. Moreover the 
 two definitions by διά are not two different things, but only the two aspects 
 of the same exhibition of grace, the negative and the positive ; of which, 
 however, the former by means of the parallelism, in which both are put in 
 juxtaposition, is aptly attributed to the death as the objective ἱλαστήριον, and 
 the latter to the resurrection, as the divine act that is the means of its ap- 
 propriation.*  Melanchthon has well said: « Quanquam enim praecessit 
 meritum, tamen ita ordinatum fuit ab initio, ut tunc singulis applicaretur 
 cum fide acciperent.” The latter was to be effected by the resurrection of 
 Jesus ; the meritwm lay in His death, but the raising Him up took place for 
 the δικαίωσις, in which His meritwm was to be realized in the faithful. Comp. 
 vill. 34. Against the Catholic theologians, who referred du. to sanctification 
 (as Maier, Bisping, Dillinger, and Reithmayr still do), see Calovius. Nor 
 is intercession even (viii. 34) to be introduced into διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν 
 (Calvin and others ; also Tholuck and Philippi), since that does not take 
 place to produce the δικαιοσύνη, but has reference {0 those who are already 
 justified, with a view to preserve them in the state of salvation ; consequently 
 the δικαίωσις of the subjects concerned precedes it. 
 
 Notts spy American Eprror. 
 
 XXXVI. Ver. 1. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι ᾿Αβραὰμ κατὰ σάρκα; 
 
 It seems better to regard this question as involving an objection or difficulty 
 anticipated by the Apostle as arising from the other side. If the doctrine of 
 faith establishes the law in its truest meaning and follows out the line cf the 
 O. T., it was natural to ask from the Judaistic standpoint, What can we hold that 
 Abraham gained according to the flesh, i.e, in the sphere to which works belong? 
 To this question, as taken up into the Apostle’s discourse and presented in his 
 own language, the answer is, Nothing—nothing, that is, in respect to the great 
 matter under consideration, The question implies this answer, and the fol- 
 lowing verses confirm it. Weiss ed. Mey., indeed, declares this to be an arbi- 
 trary assumption, and maintains that a question involving such a negative 
 
 conceived as the converse: Christ could 
 not have risen, if His death had not expi- 
 ated our sins. In this way Christ has not 
 merely died ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, but has also been 
 raised again (2 Cor. ν. 15); without His sav- 
 ing power, however, having been in itself 
 conditioned only by the resurrection (to 
 which, in the main, the views of Ottinger 
 and Menken ultimately come). 
 
 1 The reference to the fellowship with the 
 
 death of Christ, whereby believers have 
 died to their former life, and with His res- 
 urrection as an entrance into a new state 
 of life no longer conditioned by the flesh 
 (see Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 74), 
 is inadmissible ; because it does not corre- 
 spond to the prototype of Abraham, which 
 determines the entire representation of 
 justification in this chapter. 
 
174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 could not be derived from iii. 31, because in that verse there is no indication 
 of anything calling for it. But is an assumption arbitrary which enables us 
 to connect with this verse the following context in a natural and a simple way, 
 and saves the necessity of giving to γάρ, as Weiss does, the sense (very uncom- 
 mon, if ever found in the N. T. in such sentencés) of namely, or indeed? And as 
 for iii. 31, there was surely, to the Jewish mind, if not to the mind of the mod- 
 ern commentator, a suggestion in the claim of that verse of a depreciation of 
 the glory of Abraham, and just such a suggestion as might call for and occasion 
 the entire course of reasoning which fills this fourth chapter. 
 
 XXXVII. Ver. 1. κατὰ σάρκα. 
 
 The words κατὰ odpxa, whether we read εὑρηκέναι after ἡμῶν, with T. R. Meyer, 
 Godet, ete., or after ἐροῦμεν, with Tisch., Weiss, etc., are probably to be connected 
 with that verb (so Meyer, Weiss). The question considered in the next verses 
 is, not whether he gained anything, but whether he gained anything κατὰ σάρκα. 
 R. V. text makes according to the flesh qualify forefather. A. R. V. joins the 
 phrase with the verb. The text of Westcott and Hort omits εὑρηκέναι altogether, 
 with B and 47. The meaning, then, is, What shall we say of Abraham our 
 forefather according to the flesh? This text is recognized in R. V. marg. 
 
 XXXVIIT. Ver. 2. εἰ γάρ ᾿Αβραὰμ κ.τ.λ. 
 
 After all the discussion of this verse, and the various attempts made to ex- 
 plain it, the view of Calvin, Hodge, etc. seems to be the most satisfactory 
 that can be offered. The only serious objection to it is that which Meyer sug- 
 gests—that the words πρὸς θεόν occur only after ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, instead of being in- 
 serted after ἔχει καύχημα of the preceding clause. But when we consider that, 
 if this view be adopted, we have a simple and complete proof of the negative 
 answer which is suggested by ver. 1; that we have the O. T. argument for 
 the Pauline doctrine introduced, ina most natural way, as starting from the 
 question of that verse; and that the writer may have placed the words πρὸς 
 θεόν where they are, because the following verses were to direct attention to 
 God's accounting of faith as righteousness,—while they would easily be carried 
 back by the reader’s mind to the previous clause also, inasmuch as glorying 
 before God is manifestly in the line of thought,—this objection loses much of 
 its force, and must be regarded as overbalanced by the other considerations. 
 
 XXXIX. Ver. 3. ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 
 
 The meaning of the phrase ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην is rendered clear, (a) by 
 the passages in which Paul uses this verb (with εἰς) with reference to other 
 subjects than the one here under consideration, Rom. ii. 26, ix. 8 (οἵ, Acts 
 xix, 27) ; (Ὁ) by the passages in which he uses the same verb with ὡς, Rom. 
 vili. 86; 1 Cor. iv. 1. (cf. Rom. vi. 11, a kindred passage, although ὡς is 
 omitted) ; (c) by the passages in which the verb occurs, with either of the two 
 prepositions, in the LXX. (εἰς, 1 Kings i. 13; Job xli. 23; Ps. ev. 31; Isa. 
 RI 15 KO 10; ΧΙ 17: Iuam. iva 2: ΗΙῸΒ. νἷὖ ρ- ὡς θη. χΧεσὶ Ὁ: 90" 
 xli. 20; Ps. xliii. 22 ; Isa. v. 28, xxix. 16, xl. 15; Dan. iv. 32; Amos vi. 5); (d) 
 by kindred passages in the Apoc. books (with εἰς, Wisdom of Sol. ii. 16, ix. 6 ; 
 1 Mace. ii. 52—with ὡς, Eccl. xxix. 6). The comparison of these passages 
 
NOTES. 178 
 
 proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the phrases ἐλογίσθη εἰς and ἐλ. ὡς are sub- 
 stantially equivalent to each other. They differ only as our expressions : to 
 count a person for a wise man, and to count him asa wiseman. To urge, as 
 some have done, that εἰς σωτηρίαν, εἰς μετάνοιαν, ete., sometimes, in other con- 
 nections, mean, that they might be saved, etc., has no force. We have here a 
 peculiar phrase, used by many of the Scripture writers. They all employ it 
 with asingle and definite meaning. They never, when using it, give the telic 
 sense to the preposition. If they do not give it this sense where there isno 
 reference to the case of Abraham, the conclusion is irresistible that they do 
 not where there is such a reference. When Abraham believed, therefore— 
 such is the Apostle’s statement—his faith was reckoned to him by God for, i.e. 
 as if it were, actual righteousness. Faith is not-actual righteousness, but, 
 in view of the provision made by the grace of God for the forgiveness of sins, 
 it is accounted as if it were: compare ii. 26, where the uncircumcision of the 
 Gentile, in the supposed case, is reckoned as circumcision, though actually it 
 is not circumcision. Faith, in the Christian system, is thus accepted of God 
 in the place of the perfect righteousness which, on the legal method, was 
 required for justification ; and the man who believes is declared right before 
 the Divine tribunal—all obstacles on the governmental side having been 
 removed by the sacrifice of Christ (cf. 111. 24-26). It may be noticed, also, 
 that in no passage in Paul’s writings, or in other parts of the N. T. where 
 λογίζεσθαι εἰς, or the verb alone, is used, is there a declaration that anything 
 belonging to one person is imputed, accounted, or reckoned to another (the 
 use of the kindred verb éAAdya (Philem. 18) constituting no proper excep- 
 tion), or a formal statement that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. 
 It is the believer's own faith—as it was in the case of Abraham—which is 
 reckoned to him. 
 
 XL. Ver. 5. λογίζεται---εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 
 
 The parallelism of vv. 4 and 5 would call for the words οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ 
 ὀφείλημα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ χάριν at the end of verse 5, instead of those which are found 
 there. The substitution of these latter words is easily accounted for as arising 
 from the inserted πιστεύοντι «,7.A., and also as designed to meet the thought of 
 the following verse ; and even more easily, on account of the fact that the sub- 
 stituted words carry with them, also, the idea of those whose place they fill. 
 
 XLI. Ver. 9. ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗν οὗτος k.T.2. 
 
 The question suggested here is the one which naturally follows after the 
 preceding context. If justification is shown in the O. T. to be by faith, 
 because Abraham was thus justified, how far does it extend? Is it limited 
 to the circumcision, or does it reach out to the uncircumcision also? The 
 question is suitably put in this form, because Abraham was, in the course of 
 his life, in both conditions ; and it can be readily answered by noticing the 
 fact, that he is spoken of in the history as having had his faith accounted to 
 him for righteousness while he was yet uncircumcised. | 
 
 In the manner of introducing the question of this verse, a peculiarity of 
 Paul’s style may be observed. The allusion to David is not for the purpose of 
 bringing forward a second example, but only (as Meyer also says) to give a 
 confirmation from David’s words of what is established by the single example 
 
176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 of Abraham. This passage concerning David’s macarism, therefore, is paren- 
 thetical as related to the main line of thought. But here, as in other places in 
 his epistles, when the Apostle returns, at the end of the parenthesis, to the 
 direct course of the argument, he remains, in his phraseology, under the 
 influence of what he has just before been saying. A striking instance of this 
 may be seen in v. 18, 19, comp. with v. 15-17. Here it may be noticed in the 
 words μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος. 
 
 XLII. Ver. 11. εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα, «.7.A. 
 
 In vv. 11, 12 we find a correspondence with Gal. iii. 7. The grammatical 
 connection with the immediately preceding context is different, indeed, in the 
 two passages, and consequently the presentation of the thought in its details is 
 also different. But the central point in relation to the reasoning is the same. 
 In both cases we have—in substance here, and formally in Gal.—the conclusion 
 which follows from the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. If he re- 
 ceived his justification by this means, all believers (whether Gentiles or Jews) 
 may likewise receive it. In Gal. this thought is expressed by saying that 
 those who have faith (and they only) are sons of Abraham ; in these verses, 
 by saying, that Abraham is the father of all who have faith. 
 
 XLITI. Ver. 12. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν. 
 
 Westcott and Hort suppose τοῖς to be a ‘‘ primitive error [the original read- 
 ing not having been rightly preserved in any existing document] for αὐτοῖς." 
 Alford says, ‘‘ The inversion of the article appears to be in order tu bring out 
 more markedly” the two ideas—‘‘who are not only of ἐκ mepit., but also of 
 ototy.” Shedd, with a similar thought apparently, regards the second arti- 
 cle as employed for the purpose of more emphatically calling attention to the 
 added characteristic. Godet considers the first τοῖς as a pronoun, but the 
 second as a simple definite article: ‘‘those who are not only of the circum- 
 cision, but, at the same time, dhe (individuals) walking, οἷο. Weiss ed. Mey. 
 suggests that the true explanation may be in the fact, that here also, as in 
 ver, 11, the essential condition to a sharing in what Abraham had is a similar 
 faith to his—to those who are not only circumcised, but—also in this case, 
 only to those who walk, etc. Philippi says, ‘‘It is to be borne in mind that 
 negligences of expression occur in the most practised and correct writers.”’ 
 rifford supposes that the Apostle himself, or his amanuensis, or one of the 
 earliest transcribers of the Epistle, inserted a superfiuous article. The expla- 
 nation of Godet appears fanciful, and is contrary to all the probabilities of the 
 case. That of Weiss involves, to say the least, a very unusual form of express- 
 ing the supposed idea. That of Alford and Shedd assumes an emphasis which 
 can hardly be proved to inhere in the repeated article. The Greeks did not, 
 apparently, adopt this course to secure emphasis, and it is doubtful whether 
 any such design on the part of the writer would have been suggested to the 
 reader’s mind by the repetition, The textual conjecture of Dr. Hort (W. & H.) 
 may be an ingenious one, but has no external support. It seems better to 
 hold, with Meyer, de Wette, etc., that the article is erroneously repeated, or, as 
 Winer and Philippi say, that there is here an instance of negligence of style. 
 The irregularity may, very probably, be explained in connection with the fact 
 that Paul was not writing, but dictating. 
 
NOTES. aire 
 
 XLIV. Ver. 13. οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία K.T.A. 
 
 At ver. 13 the thought—although, here again, the grammatical connection 
 and the manner of introducing the new point are different—turns to what in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians is presented in 111]. 8-10. The O. T. proof 
 for justification by faith, as founded on the case of Abraham, rests not 
 only upon the fact that he was justified in this way, but also upon the 
 peculiarity of the promise which was given tohim. The argument in Galatians 
 is this: The promise was a promise of blessing ; those who are of the law are 
 under a curse, and hence cannot be sharers in the blessing ; consequently the 
 men who receive the fulfilment of the promise must be believers, and only 
 believers. In the passage before us, it is changed somewhat by reason of the 
 exigencies of the context, but, in substance, it is the same. The promise is 
 here described in its relation to Abraham—that he should be heir of the 
 world ; in Galatians, in its relation to his believing successors—that all the 
 nations should be blessed in him. Of this promise it is said that it did not 
 come to Abraham through the law, but through faith, and the proof presented 
 is (like that in Galatians), that the law works toward a result opposite to the 
 one indicated in the promise— namely, toward wrath, and not blessing. The 
 experience of the fulfilment of the promise, therefore, could not be secured to 
 any—much less to all the true seed of Abraham (both Jews and Gentiles), if it 
 were attainable only through the law. On the other hand, it is and can be 
 made sure only through faith. 
 
 ΧΙ. Ver. 13. διὰ νόμου. 
 
 That νόμος, in vy. 138, 14, means the Mosaic law is evidenced, (a) by the fact 
 that, when the Apostle presents in ver. 15 the proof of the statement which he 
 makes respecting νόμος in ver. 14, he uses the words ὁ νόμος. In order to the 
 completeness of this proof, the two expressions must refer to the same thing ; 
 (b) by the parallelism, in its main thought, of this passage with Gal. iii. 
 8-10. The proof there offered (ver. 10) requires the same correspondence 
 between the two which is demanded here; (c) by the contrast, in the verses 
 which immediately follow, both here and in Galatians, between faith and the 
 law—where the reference is clearly to the law of Moses ; (d) by the fact that 
 in Gal. iii. 18—where a similar statement is found to that of ver. 14 here, 
 and νόμου is used—the preceding verse to which this statement is subordinate 
 has ὁ νόμος, and is in the midst of a surrounding context which deals especially 
 with the position and effect of that particular law which the Jews knew. 
 Meyer holds that νόμος of the last clause of ver. 15 also means the Mosaic 
 law—where the law is not, ete.—and this is very probably, though not certainly, 
 the true explanation. If, however, this be not the meaning, the peculiar form 
 of expression—with the negative—must be regarded as indicating the more 
 universal sense, where there is no law. 
 
 XLVI. Ver. 15. οὐδὲ παράβασις. 
 
 παράβασις, παραβάτης, and παραβαίνω, refer to that particular sort of sin or 
 wrong which consists in transgression of positive or revealed or written law. The 
 use of the first of these words here, therefore, shows that Paul certainly did 
 not mean by νόμος of this verse any law whatever, whether revealed law or the 
 law of nature, This view of the meaning has been held by some writers, but 
 
178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 is quite indefensible. ‘‘Transgression,’’in the Pauline language, always pre- 
 supposes the existence of revealed or positive law. The evidence respecting 
 the use of these words may be seen by examining the passages in which they 
 occur: παραβαίνω, Matt. xv. 2,3; Acts 1. 25; 2 John 9 (T. R.); παραβάτης, 
 Rom. ii. 25, 27; Gal. ii. 18 ; James ii. 9, 11; παράβασις, Rom. ii. 23, iv. 15, v. 
 Π1: ΘᾺ τὴν. 19): iam) in. 18. Elebiii2r πχ 10. 
 
 ΧΙ]. Ver. 19. οὐ κατενόησεν. 
 
 In opposition to the view of Meyer, who adopts οὐ, T. R. (see his critical 
 remarks at the beginning of the chapter), W. & H., Tisch., Treg., Weiss, Godet, 
 and others, omit it. Weiss ed. Mey. claims that Meyer’s explanation of the 
 negative μῇ before ἀσθενήσας, as being from the point of view of the subject, is 
 to be rejected because Abraham cannot be regarded as reflecting on the char- 
 acter of his faith, and that a rhetorical meiosis, such as is supposed by Mey, 
 Philippi, and others (following Theophylact), would certainly have been 
 expressed with οὐκ. The μῦ, he thinks, can only deny such an ἀσθενεῖν as 
 apparently would be necessarily united with karevinoev ; and hence he holds 
 that the οὐ before the last mentioned verb cannot have been in the original 
 text. As against Meyer’s view respecting μή Weiss seems to be correct, but it 
 is doubtful whether his own positive position can be maintained. Can we not, 
 with Winer, p. 486, account for μὴ (if we read οὐ κατενόησεν), as Introducing a 
 supposition or conception which is to be denied? Philippi claims, on the 
 other hand, that the od cannot be dispensed with, because the subjoined δέ 
 (ver. 20) would, in that case, have required the insertion of μέν after κατενόησεν. 
 Buttm. (p. 356), however, shows that while μέν would be demanded ina 
 classical writer, there is more looseness of usage in the case of Paul and the 
 other N. T. authors. The attempt to determine on absolute grounds that the 
 one or the other reading must, of necessity, be adopted seems to be vain, and 
 the question must be decided according to the probabilities of the case, both 
 external and internal. The external evidence undoubtedly favors the omission 
 of od. The internal argument is more evenly balanced, but the connection 
 with ver. 18, in which Abraham is represented as resting his belief upon hope 
 in God, where there seemed to be no ground for hope on the human side, and 
 the fact that Gen. xvii. 17 is the passage in the O. T. narrative to which the 
 language of the verse is most nearly conformed, may be regarded as, on the 
 whole, confirming the evidence of the oldest mss. If οὐ is omitted, μὴ ἀσθενῆσας 
 may be translated, with R. V. and Weiss, without being weakened [or weak] in 
 faith, or, perhaps better, with Buttm. (cf. Godet), not being weak, etc. —the clause, 
 as Godet expresses it, ‘‘ controlling all that follows,” as if a sort of negative cause. 
 The former rendering is exposed, in some degree, to the objection presented 
 by Meyer, that the clause thus becomes superfluous. He holds, however (see 
 his note), that this is the true rendering of the text, if read without οὐ, and 
 presents the objection as an argument against that text. 
 
 XLVIII. Ver. 20. εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. 
 
 Tf οὐ is omitted before κατενόησεν, dé is to be explained as equivalent to on the 
 other hand, or yet; although he considered the facts which made the result 
 promised seem impossible, he yef was so far from wavering through unbelief, 
 that he was even strengthened, ete. 
 
CHAP. V. 179 
 
 CHAPTER: Vc 
 
 Ver. 1. ἔχομεν] Lachm. (in the margin), Scholz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (8) read 
 ἔχωμεν, following A B¥ C Ὁ K L δ, min., several vss. (including Syr. Vulg. 
 It.) and Fathers. But this reading,’ though very strongly attested, yields a 
 sense (lef us maintain peace with God) that is here utterly unsuitable ; because 
 the writer now enters ona new and important doctrinal topic, and an exhortation 
 at the very outset, especially regarding a subject not yet expressly spoken of, 
 would at this stage be out of place.'| Hence the ἔχομεν, sufficiently attested by 
 B** §** F G, most min., Syr. p. and some Fathers, is to be retained ; and the 
 subjunctive must be regarded as having arisen from misunderstanding, or 
 from the hortatory use of the passage. — Ver. 2. τῇ πίστει] wanting in BD EF 
 G, Aeth. It. ; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (7), as also by Ewald. Following 
 ver, 1, it is altogether superfluous ; but this very reason accounts for its omis- 
 sion, which secured the direct reference of εἰς τ. yap. ταύτ to mpooay. The gen- 
 uineness of τῇ πίστει is also attested by the reading ἐν τῇ πίστει (So Fritzsche) 
 in A 8** 93, and several Fathers, which points toa repetition of the final letters 
 of éoyjxawEN,—Ver. 6. After ἀσθενῶν preponderating witnesses have ἔτι, which 
 Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have adopted. A misplacement of the ἔτι before 
 yap, because it was construed with ἀσθενῶν, along with which it came to be 
 written. Thus ἔτει came in twice, and the first was either mechanically allowed 
 to remain (A C D* δ), or there was substituted for it εἴγε (B), or εἰς τί (F G), or 
 εἰ yap. The misplacement of the ἔτε came to predominate, because a Church- 
 lesson began with Χριστός. -- - Ver. 8. ὁ Θεός, which a considerable number of 
 witnesses have before εἰς ἡμᾶς (so Tisch. 7) is wanting in B. But as the love 
 of Christ, not that of God, appeared from ver. 7 to be the subject of the dis- 
 course, ὁ Θεός was omitted. — Ver 11. καυχώμενοι] F G read καυχῶμεν ; L, min., 
 and several Fathers καυχώμεθα. Also Vulg. It. Arm. Slav. express gloriamur, 
 An erroneous interpretation. See the exegetical remarks, — Ver. 12. The sec- 
 ond ὁ θάνατος is wanting in DE F G62, It. Syr. p. Aeth. and most Fathers, also 
 Aug. In Syr. with an asterisk; Arm. Chrys. Theodoret place it after διῆλθεν. 
 Tisch. (7) had omitted it. But as the word has preponderant testimony in its 
 favour, and as in order to the definiteness of the otherwise very definitely ex- 
 pressed sentence it cannot be dispensed with, if in both halves of ver, 12 the 
 relation of sin and death is, as is manifestly the design, to be expressly put for- 
 ward, ὁ θάνατος, omitted by Tisch., must be defended. Its omission may have 
 arisen from its apparent superfluousness, or from the similarity between the 
 final syllables of av@p6IIOYS and OavaTOS. — Ver. 14. μή] is wanting in 62, 63, 
 67**, Or. and others, codd. in Ruf, and Aug., and is declared by Ambrosiaster 
 
 1 This even, in opposition to the opinion vero non videtur.”? Hofmann also has not 
 of Tisch. (8), that on account of the weighty been able suitably to explain the ἔχωμεν 
 testimony in its favour ἔχωμεν cannot be which he defends. See the exegetical re- 
 rejected, ‘‘ nisi prorsus ineptum sit ; ineptum marks. 
 
180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 to be an interpolation. But it is certified partly by decisive testimony in its 
 favour ; partly by the undoubted genuineness of the cai; and partly because 
 the μή apparently contradicts the erroneously understood ἐφ᾽ © (in quo) πάντες 
 ἥμαρτον in ver. 12. See Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 39 fi. — Ver. 16. ἁμαρτῆ- 
 σαντος] DE F 6, 26, 80, and several vss. and Fathers read ἁμαρτήματος, which 
 Griesb. recommended. A gloss occasioned by the antithesis ἐκ πολλ. wapar- 
 Twpatov. — Ver. 17. τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι] So also Lachm. and Tisch. 
 (8) following BC KL P 8, vss., and Fathers, But ἃ F ἃ read ἐν ἑνὶ παραπτ., 
 Ὁ E ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ παραπτ. 47, Or. ἐν ἑνὸς παραπτ. The original reading was most prob- 
 ably the simplest, ἐν évi παραπτ., which, though not most strongly, is neverthe- 
 less sufficiently attested (also recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. (7), 
 because from it the rise of the other variations can be very naturally explained. 
 By way of more specific indication in some cases, the article was added (D E), 
 in others ἑνί was changed into ἑνός (47, Or.). But, seeing that in any case the 
 sense was quite the same as in the τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτ. read in ver. 15, this was 
 at first written alongside asa parallel, and then taken into the text. 
 
 ConTENTS.—Paul has hitherto described the δικαιοσίνη ἐκ πίστεως in respect 
 of its necessity (i. 18-iii. 21); of its nature (111. 21-30); and of its relation 
 to the law (ili. 31-iv. 25). He now discusses the blessed assurance of salvation 
 secured for the present and the future to the δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως (ver. 1-11); 
 and then—in order clearly to exhibit the greatness and certainty of salvation 
 in Christ, more especially in its divine world-wide significance as the blissful 
 epoch-forming counterpart of the Adwmite ruin—he presents us with a de- 
 tailed parallel between this salvation and the misery which once came through 
 Adam (vv. 12-19), and was necessarily augmented through the law (vv. 20, 
 21). 
 
 Ver. 1.’ Οὖν draws an inference from the whole of the preceding section, 
 iii, 21—-iv. 25, and develops the argument in such a form that δικαιωθέντες, 
 following at once on διὰ τήν δικαίωσιν ἡμ., heads the sentence with triumph- 
 ant emphasis. What a blessed-asswrance of salvation is enjoyed by believers 
 in virtue of their justification which has taken place through faith, is now 
 to be more particularly set forth ; not however in the form of an exhortation 
 (Hofmann, in accordance with \the reading ἔχωμεν) ‘‘to let our relation to 
 God be one of peace” (through a life of faith), in which case the emphasis, 
 that obviously rests in the first instance on δικαίωθ. and then on εἰρήνην, is 
 taken to lie on διὰ τοῦ κυρίου iu. ᾽1. X. — εἰρήνην ἔχ. π. τ. Θεόν] [See Note 
 ¢ XLIX. p. 220.] He who is justified is no longer in the position of one to 
 | whom God must be and is hostile (ἐχθρὸς Θεοῦ, ver. 9 f.), but on the con- 
 trary he has peace (not in a general sense contentment, satisfaction, as Th. 
 
 Schott thinks) in his relation to God. This is the peace which consists in 
 the known objective state of reconciliation, the opposite of the state in which 
 \one is subject to the divine wrath and the sensus irae. With justification 
 this peace ensues as its immediate and abiding result.? Hence δικαιωθέντες 
 
 . . ἔχομεν (comp. Acts ix. 31; John xvi. 83). And through Christ (διὰ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 On vy. 1-8 see Winzer, Commentat. Lips. 1869, p. 3 ff. 
 1832. On the entire chapter St6lting, Bei- 2 Comp. Dorner, die Rechtfert. durch den 
 trage 2. Hxegese ἃ. Paul. Briefe, Gottingen, Glauben, p. 12 f. 
 
CHAP. V., 2. 181 
 τοῦ κυρίου k.T.A.) as the εἰρηνοποιός is this pacem obtinere (Bremi, ad Isoer. 
 Archid. p. 111) procured ; a truth obvious indeed in itself, but which, in 
 consonance with the strength and fulness of the Apostle’s own believing ex- 
 perience, is very naturally again brought into special prominence here, in 
 order to connect, as it were, triumphantly with this objective cause of the 
 state of peace what we owe to it respecting the point in question, ver. 2. 
 There is thus the less necessity for joining διὰ τοῦ κυρίου x.t.A. with εἰρζνην 
 (Stélting); it belongs, like πρὸς τ. Θεόν, in accordance with the position of 
 ἔχομεν, to the latter word. — πρὸς (of the ethical relation, Bernhardy, p. 265), 
 as in Acts il. 47, xxiv. 16.1 It is not to be confounded with the divinely 
 wrought inward state of mental peace, which is denoted by εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ in 
 Phil. iv. 7; comp. Col. iii. 15. The latter is the subjective correlate of the 
 objective relation of the εἰρήνη, which we have πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; although in- 
 separably combined with the latter. 
 
 Ver. 2. A’ οὗ καὶ x.7.A.] Confirmation and more precise definition of the 
 preceding διὰ. . Ἴησου X. The καί does not merely append (Stélting), 
 but is rather the ‘‘also” of corresponding relation, giving prominence pre- 
 cisely to what had here an important practical bearing i.e. as proving the 
 previous διὰ κυρίου «.7.A. Comp. ix. 24; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Phil. iv. 10. The 
 climactic interpretation here (Kéllner: ‘‘a heightened form of stating the 
 merit of Christ ;’ comp. Riickert) is open to the objection that the προσαγωγὴ 
 εἰς τ. yap. is not something added to or higher than the εἰρήνη, but, on the 
 contrary, the fowndation of it. If we were to take καὶ. . . . καί ἴῃ the sense 
 ‘“as well. . . . as” (Th. Schott, Hofmann), the two sentences, which are 
 not to be placed in special relation to iii. 23 would be made co-ordinate, 
 although the second is the consequence of that which is affirmed in the first. 
 —riv προσαγωγήν] the introduction,? Xen. Oyrop. vii. 5, 45 ; Thuc. i. 82, 2; 
 Plut. Mor. p. 1097 Εἰ, Lucian, Zeux. 6 ; and see alsoon Eph. 11. 18. Through 
 Christ we have had our introduction to the grace, etc., inasmuch as He 
 Himself (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18) in virtue of His atoning sacrifice which re- 
 moves the wrath of God, has become our προσαγωγεύς, or, as Chrysostom 
 aptly expresses it, μακρὰν ὄντας προσήγαγε. In this case the preposition διά, 
 which corresponds with the διά in ver. 1, is fully warranted, because Christ 
 has brought us to grace in His capacity as the divinely appointed and di- 
 vinely given Mediator. Comp. Winer, p. 354 f. [E. T. 378 f.]. — Τὸ τ. προσαγ. 
 ἐσχήκ. belongs εἰς τ. χάριν ταύτην ; and τῇ πίστει, by means of faith, denotes the 
 
 1 Comp. Herodian, viii. 7, 8: ἀντι πολέμου 
 μὲν εἰρήνην ἔχοντες πρὸς ϑεούς. Plat. Pol. v. 
 p. 465 Β: εἰρήνην πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ ἄνδρες 
 ἄξουσιν ; Legg. xii. p. 955 B; Ale. 7. p. 107, 
 
 "D; Xenoph. and others. 
 
 2 Προσαγωγή ought not to be explained as 
 access (Vulg. accessum, and so most inter- 
 preters), but as leading towards, the mean- 
 ing which the word always has (even in 
 Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12). See Xen. ἐ.6.. τοὺς ἐμοὺς 
 φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῆς. Polybius uses 
 it to express the bringing up of engines 
 against a besieged town, ix. 41, 1, xiv. 10, 
 
 9 ; comp. i. 48, 2; the bringing up of ships to 
 the shore, x. i. 6; the bringing of cattle into 
 the stall, xii. 4, 10. In Herod. ii. 58 also the 
 literal meaning is: a leading up, carrying 
 up in solemn procession. Tholuck and van 
 Hengel have rightly adopted the active 
 meaning in this verse (comp. Weber, vom 
 Zorne Gottes, p. 816); whilst Philippi, Um- 
 breit, Ewald, Hofmann (comp. Mehring) 
 abide by the rendering ‘ access.” Chrysos- 
 tom aptly observes on Eph. ii. 18: οὐ yap 
 ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν προσήλθομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ 
 προσήχϑημεν. 
 
189 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 subjective medium of τ. προσαγ. ἐσχήκαμεν. On the other hand, Oecumenius, 
 Bos, Wetstein, Michaelis, Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius take τ. rpocaywy. ab- 
 solutely, in the sense of access to God (according to Reiche as a figurative 
 mode of expressing the beginning of grace), and εἰς τὴν yap. ταῦτ. as belong- 
 ing to τῇ πίστει. In that case we must supply after zpocoay. the words πρὸς 
 τ. Θεόν from ver. 1 (Eph. ii. 18, 111. 12) ; and we may with Bos and Michae- 
 lis explain προσαγωγή by the usage of courts, in accordance with which 
 access to the king was obtained through a rpocaywyetc, sequester (Lamprid. 
 in Alex. Sev. 4). But the whole of this reading is liable to the objection 
 that πίστις εἰς τὴν χάριν would be an expression without analogy in the N. T. 
 --- ἐσχήκαμεν] Not : habemus (Luther and many others), nor nacti sumus et 
 habemus (most modern interpreters, including Tholuck, Riickert, Winzer, 
 Ewald), but habuimus, namely, when we became Christians. So also de Wette, 
 Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Hofmann. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 9, ii. 13, vil. 5. 
 The perfect realizes as present the possession formerly obtained, as in Plat. 
 Apol. p. 20 Ὁ, and-see Bernhardy, p. 879. --- εἰς τὴν yap. ταῦτ. The divine 
 grace of which the justified are partakers ἡ is conceived as a field of space, into 
 which they have had (ἐσχήκαμεν) introduction through Christ by means of 
 faith, and in which they now have (ἔχομεν) peace with God. — ἐν ἡ ἑστήκαμεν] 
 does not,refer to τῇ πίστει (Grotius), but to the nearest antecedent, τὴν χάριν, 
 which is also accompanied by the demonstrative : in which we stand. The 
 joyful consciousness of the present, that the possession of grace once en- 
 tered upon is permanent, suggested the word to the Apostle. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 1; 1 Pet. v. 12. —xat καυχώμεθα] [See Note L. p. 221.] may be regarded 
 as a continuation either of the last relative sentence (ἐν ἡ ἑστήκ., 80 van 
 Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, Stélting), or of the previous one (δ οὗ καὶ x.7.A.), 
 or of the principal sentence (εἰρήν. ἔχομεν). The last alone is suggested by 
 the context, because, as ver. 3 shows, a new and independent element in the 
 description of the blessed condition is introduced with kai καυχώμεβθα. --- 
 καυχᾶσθαι expresses not merely the idea of rejoicing, not merely ‘‘the inward 
 elevating consciousness, to which outward expression is not forbidden” 
 (Reiche), but rather the actual glorying, by which we praise ourselves as 
 privileged (‘‘ what the heart is full of, the mouth will utter”). Such is its 
 meaning in all cases. — On ἐπί, on the ground of, i.e. over, joined with kavy., 
 comp. Ps. xlviii..6 ; Prov. xxv. 14; Wisd. xvii. 7 ;. Ecclus. xxx. 2. No 
 further example of this use is found in the N. T.? It is therefore unneces- 
 sary to isolate καυχώμεθα, so as to make ἐπ’ ελπίδι independent of it (iv. 18 ; 
 so van Hengel). Comp. on the contrary, the σεμνύνεσθαι ἐπί τινε frequent in 
 Greek authors. The variation of the prepositions, ἐπί and in ver. 3 ἐν, is 
 
 1 For to nothing else than the grace ex- ogy.—The demonstrative ταύτην implies 
 
 perienced in justification can εἰς τ. xap. τ. be 
 referred in accordance with the context 
 (δικαιωϑέντες)---ηαοῦ to the blessings of Chris- 
 tianity generally (Chrysostom and others, 
 including Flatt and Winzer; comp. 
 Riickert and Kéllner); not to the Gosped 
 (Fritzsche) ; and not to the εἰρήνη (Mehring, 
 Stolting), which would yield a tame tautol- 
 
 something of triumph. Compare Photius. 
 The joyful consciousness of the Apostle is 
 still full of the high blessing of grace, 
 which he has just expressed in the terms 
 δικαίωσις and δικαιωϑέντες. 
 
 2 But see Lycurgus in Beck. Anecd. 275, 4; 
 Diod. S. xvi. 70; and Kiihner, II. 1, p. 436. 
 
CHAP. V., 3, 4. 188. 
 not to be imputed to any set purpose ; comp. on iii. 20 ; iii. 25 f. al. —The 
 δόξα τ. Θεοῦ is the glory of God, in which the members of the Messiah’s 
 kingdom shall hereafter participate. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; John xvii. 22, 
 also viii. 17 ; Rev, xxi. 11 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; and see Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 376. 
 The reading of the Vulg.: gloriae jfiliorum Dei, is a gloss that hits the right 
 sense. Reiche and Maier, following Luther and Grotius, take the genitive 
 as a genit. auctoris. But that God is the giver of the δόξα, is self-evident and 
 does not distinctively characterize it. Riickert urges here also his exposition 
 of iii. 23; comp. Ewald. But see on that passage. _Flatt takes it as the 
 approval of God (iii. 23), but the ἐλπίδι, pointing solely to the glorious future, 
 is decisive against this view. It is aptly explained by Melanchthon : ‘‘ quod 
 Deus sit nos gloria sua aeterna ornaturus, i.e. vita aeterna et communicatione 
 sui ipsius.”” ; 
 
 Vv. 3, 4.7 Οὐ μόνον δέ] 501]. καυχώμεθα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ. --- ἐν ταῖς 
 θλίψ.7 of the tribulations (affecting us), as commonly in the N. T. ἐν is con- 
 nected with καυχᾶσθαι (ver. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 15; Gal. vi. 13). Comp. Senec. 
 de prov. iv. 4: ‘‘gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter quam fortes 
 milites bellis triumphant.” As to the ground of this Christian καύχησις, see 
 the sequel. On the thing itself, in which the believer’s victory over the 
 world makes itself apparent (viii. 35 ff.), comp. 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 9 ; Matt. 
 v. 10, 12 ; Acts v. 41; 1 Pet. iv. 12 1. Observe further, how with the joy- 
 ful assurance of ample experience the triumphant discourse proceeds from 
 the ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης, as subject-matter of the καυχᾶσθαι, to the direct opposite 
 (ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν), which may be likewise matter of glorying. Others 
 (Gléckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, St6lting) erroneously render ἐν as in, which 
 the contrast, requiring the object, does not permit, since ἐν τ. 64. is not oppos- 
 ed to the ἐν ἡ in ver. 2. — ὑπομονῇν] endurance,* namely, in the Christian 
 faith and life. Comp. ii. 7 ; Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. Paul lays down the ἡ 
 θλίψις ὑπομ. κατεργάζ. unconditionally, because he is speaking of those who 
 have been justified ἐκ πίστεως, in whose case the reverse cannot take place 
 without sacrifice of their faith. — δοκιμήν] triedness, 2 Cor. ii. 9, viii. 2, ix. 
 13 ; Phil. ii. 22, ‘‘ quae ostendit fidem non esse simulatam, sed veram, vivam 
 et ardentem,” Melanchthon. ‘Triedness is produced through endurance (not 
 made known, as Reiche thinks) ; for whosoever does not endure thereby be- 
 comes ἀδόκιμος. There is here no inconsistency with Jamesi. 3. See Huther. 
 — ἐλπίδα) namely, τῆς δόξης τ. Θεοῦ, as is self-evident after ver. 2. _The hope, 
 it is true, already exists before the δοκιμῆ ; nevertheless, the more the Chris- 
 tian has become tried, the more also will hope (which the ἀδόκιμος loses) con- 
 
 1Seea climax of description, similar in 
 point of form in the Tractat. MW 9, 15 
 (see Surenh. III. 309): ‘‘ Providentia parit 
 alacritatem, alacritas, innocentiam, inno- 
 centia puritatem, puritas abstinentiam, ab- 
 stinentia sanctitatem, sanctitas modestiam, 
 modestia timorem, timor sceleris pieta- 
 tem, pietas spiritum sanctum, et spiritus 
 sanctus resurrectionem mortuorum.” In 
 contrast with this, how fervent, succinct, 
 
 and full of life is the climax in our passage ! 
 For other chains of climactic succession, 
 see Vili. 29 ff., x. 14 ff. ; 2 Pet. i. 5 ff. 
 
 3 Examples of the usage (ver. 11, viii. 23, 
 ix. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 19) may be seen in Kypke, 
 II. p. 165 ; Vigerus. ed. Herm. Ὁ. 543; Heind. 
 and Stallb. ad Phaed. p. 107 B. Comp. 
 Legg. vi. p. 752 A; Men. p. 71 B. 
 
 3‘*In ratione bene considerata stabilis 
 et perpetua permansio,” Cic. de inv. li. 54, 
 
184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 sciously possess him. Comp. Jamesi. 12. Hope is therefore present, and 
 yet withal is produced by the emergence of the δοκιμή, just as faith may be 
 present, and yet be still further produced through something emerging 
 (John ii. 11).1— Observe further, how widely removed from all fanatical 
 pride in suffering is the reason assigned with conscious clearness for the 
 Christian καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι in our passage. In it the ἐλπίς is uniformly 
 meant and designated as the highest subjective blessing of the justified person, 
 who is assured of the glorious consummation (not in ver. 3 f. as conduct and 
 only in ver. 2 as blessing, as Hofmann thinks).’ 
 
 Ver. 5. Ἢ δὲ ἐλπίς] not, ‘‘ the hope thus established” (Oecumenius, Olshau- 
 sen, Stélting), but, in accordance with the analogy of the preceding ele- 
 ments, and without any excluding limitation, the hope (of glory), as such, 
 consequently the Christian hope. This deceives no one who has it. It is 
 self-evident, and the proof that follows gives information as to the fact, that 
 this is uttered in the consciousness and out of the inward assurance of real 
 living justification by faith.* — οὐ καταισχύνει] maketh not ashamed, i.e. ““ ha- 
 bet certissimum salutis (of the thing hoped for) exitum,” Calvin, as will be 
 shown at the judgment. ““ Spes erit res,” Bengel. Comp. ix. 33 ; Ecclus. 
 li. 10 ; Bar. vi. 39 ; Ps. xxii. 6. Comp. also Plat. Conv. p. 183 ἘΠ, λόγους 
 Polit. p. 268 Ὁ ; Dem. 314, 9. The expression 
 of triumphant certainty in the present is not to be removed by changing it 
 into the futwre (Hofmann, who would read καταισχυνει). --- ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ 
 x.T.A.] Ground of ἡ δὲ ἐλπίς ob καταισχ. The divine love,‘ effectually present 
 in the heart through the Holy Spirit, is to the Christian consciousness of 
 faith the sure pledge that we do not hope in vain and so as to be put to 
 shame at last, but that God will on the contrary fulfil our hope. Θεοῦ is 
 the genitive of the subject ; the love of God to us (so most expositors follow- 
 ing Origen, Chrysostom, and Luther), not of the object : love to God (Theo- 
 doret, Augustine, Anselm, and others ; including Klee, Gléckler, Umbreit, 
 Hofmann, Stélting), which appears from ver. 8, as incorrect.* Comp. viii. 
 39 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. As respects the justified, the wrath of God has given 
 place to His Jove, which has its presence in them through the Spirit, its 
 dwelling and sphere of action in believing hearts ; and thus it is to them, 
 like the Spirit Himself, ἀῤῥαβών of the hoped-for δόξα, 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5. — 
 ἐκκέχυται) Figure for abundant, living effective communication (Acts ii. 17, 
 x. 45). The idea of abundance is already implied in the sensuous image of 
 outpouring, but may also, as in Tit. iii. 6, be specially expressed.* — ἐν ταῖς 
 καρδίαις] denotes, in accordance with the expression of the completed fact, 
 the being spread abroad in the heart (motus in loco). Comp. LXX. Ps. xlv. 
 2. — διὰ πνεύματος κ.τ.λ.} Through the agency of the Spirit bestowed on us, 
 
 καὶ ὑποσχέσεις καταισχύνας. 
 
 1 Comp. Lipsius, Recht ογ 1 γεηρϑῖ., p. 207 f. 
 
 2 Comp. the ἡδεῖα ἐλπίς, Which ἀεὶ πάρεστι, 
 in contrast to the ζῆν μετὰ κακῆς ἐλπίδος in 
 Plato, Rep. p. 331 A. 
 
 3 Comp. Diisterdieck in the Jahrb. 7. D. 
 Th. 1870, p. 668 ff. 
 
 #As is well said by Calovius: ‘‘ quae 
 charitas effusa in nobis non qua inhaesionem 
 
 subjectivam, sed qua manifestationem et qua 
 éffectum vel sensu ejusdem in cordibus 
 nostris effusum.’? Comp. Melanchthon 
 (against Osiander). 
 
 5 Among Catholics this explanation of ac- 
 tive love was favoured by the doctrine of 
 the justitia infusa. 
 
 δ. Comp. generally Suicer, 7hes. I. p. 1075. 
 
CHAP. V., 6. 185 
 who is the principle of the real self-communication of God, the divine love 
 is also poured out ii our hearts ; see viii. 15, 16 ; Gal. iv. 6. 
 
 Ver. 6. Objective actual proof of this ἀγάπῃ τ. Θεοῦ, which through the 
 Spirit fills our hear. Comp. as to the argument viii. 39. ‘‘ Mor Christ, 
 when we were yet wea, at the right time died for the wngodly.” -- - ἔτι] can in 
 no case belong to ἀπέθανε (Stdlting), but neither does it give occasion for 
 any conjecture (Fritzsche : 7 τί). Paul should perhaps have written : ἔτι 
 yap ὄντων qu. ἀσθενῶν Χριστός k.7.A., OF : Χριστὸς yap ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι 
 k.t.A. (hence the second ἔτε in Lachmann) ; but amidst the collision of em- 
 phasis between ἔτε and the subject both present to his mind, he has ex- 
 pressed himself inexactly, so that now ἔτι seems to belong to Χριστός, and 
 yet in sense necessarily belongs, as in ver. 8, to ὄντων x.t.2.1 To get rid of this 
 irregularity, Seb. Schmid, Oeder, Koppe, and Flatt have taken ἔτει as insuper, 
 and that either in the sense of adeo (Koppe, also Schrader), which however 
 it never means, not even in Luke xiv. 26 ; or so that a “for further, for 
 moreover” (see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 119) introduces a second argument for ἡ 
 δὲ ἐλπὶς ov καταισχ. (Flatt, also Baumgarten-Crusius). Against this latter 
 construction ver. 8 is decisive, from which it is clear that vv. 6-8 are meant 
 to be nothing else than the proof of the ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ. On ἔτι itself, with the 
 imperfect participle in the sense of tune adhuc, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. 
 p- 698. It indicates the continued existence, which the earlier condition 
 still had.? — dvtav ἡμ. ἀσθενῶν] when we were still (ἔτι) without strength, still 
 had not the forces of the true spiritual life, which we could only receive 
 through the Holy Ghost. The sinfulness is purposely described as weakness 
 
 1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 503 E: ἔτι δὴ ὃ τότε 
 παρεῖμεν νῦν λέγομεν ; Ὁ. 863 D: οἱ δ᾽ ἔτι τούτων 
 μακροτέρους ἀποτείνουσι μισϑούς (Where ἔτι 
 ought to stand before μακρ.). Achill. Tat. 
 ν. 18 : ἐγὼ δὲ ἔτι coi ταῦτα γράφω παρϑένος, and 
 see Winer, p. 515 LE. T. 553). Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 333 f. [E. T. 389] ; and Fritzsche 
 in loc. Van Hengel decides in favour 
 of the reading with the double ἔτι (Gries- 
 bach, Lachmann, see the critical remarks) ; 
 he thinks that Paul had merely wished to 
 say: ἔτι yap X. κατὰ καιρ. ὑπ. ἀσεβ. ἀπέϑ., but 
 had in dictation for the sake of clearness 
 inserted after Χριστός the words ὄντων ἡμῶν 
 ἀσϑ. ἔτι. Mehring also follows Lachmann’s 
 reading. He thinks that Paul intended to 
 write, with emphatic repetition of the ἔτι: 
 ἔτι yap Χριστὸς, ἔτι ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέϑανε, but 
 interrupted the sentence by the insertion 
 of ὄντων ἡμ. aod. Ewald, holding ei yap or 
 εἴγε to be the original (see critical remarks) 
 and then reading ἔτι after ἀσϑενῶν, finds in 
 ver. 9 the apodosis of ver. 6, and takes vv. 
 7,8 as a parenthesis. Comp. also Usteri, 
 Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 119. Th. Schott also follows 
 the reading εἰ yap (and after aod: ἔτι), but 
 finds the apodosis so early as ver. 6, by 
 supplying after aod. ἔτι : ἀπέϑανε ; whereas 
 
 Hofmann (in his Schriftbew. II. Ὁ. 347), fol- 
 lowing the same reading, like Ewald, made 
 ver. 9 fill the place of the apodosis, but now 
 prefers toread ἔτι at the beginning as well 
 as also after ἀσϑενῶν, and to punctuate 
 thus: ἔτι γ. Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσϑενῶν, ἔτι 
 κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπ. ἀσεβ. ἀπέϑ. With this read- 
 ing Hofmann thinks that the second ἔτι be- 
 gins the sentence anew, so that with 
 Χριστὸς ἀπέϑανεν an ἔτι stands twice, the 
 first referring to ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσϑενῶν, and 
 the second to ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν. But itis self- 
 evident that thus the difficulty is only 
 doubled, because ἔτει would both times be 
 erroneously placed, which would yield, es- 
 pecially in the case of the second ἔτι, ἃ 
 strange and in fact intolerable confusion, 
 since there would stand just beside it a 
 definition of time (κατὰ καιρόν), to which 
 nevertheless the word elsewhere, so fre- 
 quently used with definitions of time, is 
 not intended to apply—a fact which is not 
 to be disguised by subtleties. Marcker 
 also would read ἔτι twice, but render the 
 first ἔτι ‘* moreover,’ which, however, 
 would be without reference in the text. 
 
 3 Baeumlein, p. 118; Schneider, ad Plat. 
 Rep. Ὁ. 449 Ο. 
 
180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (need of help), in order to characterize it as the motive for the love ef God 
 interfering to save. The idea of disease (Theodoret : τῇ; ἀσεβείας περικειμένων 
 τὴν νόσον ; comp. Theophylact, Umbreit, and others), or that of minority 
 (van Hengel), is not suggested by anything in the context. — κατὰ καιρόν] 
 may either (1) be rendered according to the time, according to the nature of 
 the time, so that with Erasmus, Luther, Flacius, Castalio, Pareus, Seb. 
 Schmid, also Schrader and Th. Schott, it would have to be connected with 
 ἀσθ. ;1 or (2) it may belong to ὑπὲρ ἀσεβ. ἀπέθανε, and mean, in, accordance 
 with the context, either at the appointed time (Gal. iv. 4), as it is here taken 
 usually, also by de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Maier, Baumgarten-Crusius ; 
 or (3) at the proper time (see Kypke) ;? the same as ἐν καιρῷ, ἐς καιρόν, ἐπὶ 
 καιροῦ ; Phavorinus : κατὰ τὸν εὔκαιρον Kk. προσήκοντα καιρόν ; and so the bare 
 καιρόν (Bernhardy, p. 117), equivalent to καιρίως, the opposite of ἀπὸ καιροῦ 
 and παρὰ καιρόν. In the jirst case, however, x. x. would either assign to the 
 ἀσθ. an inappropriate excuse, which would not even be true, since the ἀσθένεια 
 has always obtained since the fall (ver. 13) ; or, if it was meant directly to 
 disparage the pre-Christian age (Flacius, ‘‘ ante omnem nostram pietatem,” 
 comp. Stélting and Hofmann), it would characterize it much too weakly. 
 In the second case an element not directly occasioned by the connection 
 (proof of God’s love) would present itself. Therefore the ἐν interpre- 
 tation alone : at the right time (so Ewald and van Hengel) is to be retained. 
 The death of Jesus for the ungodly took place at the proper season, because, 
 had it not taken place then, they would, instead of the divine grace, have 
 experienced the final righteous outbreak of divine wrath, seeing that the 
 time of the πάρεσις, 111. 25, and of the ἀνοχή of God had come to an end. 
 Comp. the idea of the πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν, Eph. i. 10; Gal. iv. 4. Now or 
 never was the time for saving the ἀσεβεῖς ; now or never was the καιρὸς δεκτός, 
 2 Cor. vi. 2; and God’s love did not suffer the right time for their salvation 
 to elapse, but sent Christ to die for them the sacrificial death of atonement. * 
 
 — ὑπέρ] for, for the benefit of * 
 the object of Christ’s death. 
 
 1Comp. Stdlting: “conformably to the 
 time,” i.e. as it was suitable for the time, 
 namely, the time of ungodliness. Similarly 
 Hofmann, ‘‘in consideration of the time,” 
 which was atime of godlessness, ‘* without 
 the fear of God on the part of individuals 
 making any change thereon.” 
 
 2 Comp. Pind. Jsthm. ii. 32; Herod. i. 30; 
 Lucian, Philops. 21; LXX. Is. lx. 22; Job v. 
 16 5 xxxix. 18; Jer. v. 24. 
 
 3 According to my former explanation of 
 the passage the meaning would be, that, if 
 Christ had appeared and died later, they 
 would have perished unredeemed in their 
 ἀσϑένεια, and would have had no share in 
 the act of atonement. But this view is un- 
 tenable; because Paul cannot have looked 
 on the divine proof of love, given in the re- 
 deeming death of Christ, otherwise than in 
 
 So in all passages where there is mention of 
 Luke xxii. 19, 20; Rom. viii. 32, xiv. 15; 1 
 
 a quite general light, 8.6. as given to all 
 mankind, as it appears everywhere in the 
 N. T. since John iii. 16. Comp. Philippi, 
 with whose view I now in substance con- 
 cur, although in κατὰ καιρόν, by explaining 
 it as ‘‘ seasonably,”’ I find more directly an 
 element of the dove, which the context pro- 
 poses to exhibit. 
 
 4 Comp. Eur. Ale. 701: μὴ ϑνῆσκ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦδ᾽ 
 ἀνδρὸς οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ πρὸ σοῦ, ph. A. 13889; Soph. 
 Trach. 705; Aj. 1290; Plat. Conv. p. 179 Β: 
 ἐϑελήσασα μόνη ὑπὲρ TOD αὑτῆς ἀνδρὸς ἀποϑα- 
 very; Dem. 690, 18; Xen. Cyr. vii. 4, 9 f.; 
 Isoer. iv. 77; Dio. Cass. xiv. 18; Ecclus. 
 XXix. 15: ἔδωκε yap THY ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ σοῦ ; 
 2 Mace. vi. 28, vii. 9, viii. 21; comp. also 
 Ignatius, σα Rom. 4: ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἀποϑνήσκω. 
 Comp. the compound ὑπερϑνήσκειν with 
 genit., so frequent especially in Euripides. 
 
CHARS ὙΦ ἢ .8: 187 
 Cor, ts 9. (ΟΣ. γα 14s Gal. “anh isis) Ephs wis) 1 Whess. νον θ 10.5.1 
 Tim, ii. 6; Tit. ii. 14.1. That Paul did not intend by ὑπέρ to convey the 
 meaning instead of, is shown partly by the fact, that while he indeed some- 
 times exchanges it for the synonymous? περί (Gal. i. 4, like Matt. xxvi. 20 ; 
 Mark xiv. 25), he does not once use instead of it the unambiguous ἀντί 
 (Matt. xx. 28), which must nevertheless have suggested itself to him most 
 naturally ; and partly by the fact, that with ὑπέρ as well as with περί he 
 puts not invariably the genitive of the person, but sometimes that of the 
 thing (ἁμαρτιῶν), in which case it would be impossible to explain the prepo- 
 sition by instead of (viii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 3). It is true that he has certainly 
 regarded the death of Jesus as an act furnishing the satisfactio vicaria, as is 
 clear from the fact that this bloody death was accounted by him as an expi- 
 atory sacrifice (iii. 25; Eph. v. 2; Steiger on 1 Pet. p. 342 f.), comp. 
 ἀντίλυτρον in 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; but in no passage has he expressed the substitu- 
 tionary relation through the preposition. On the contrary his constant con- 
 ception is this : the sacrificial death of Jesus, taking the place of the pun- 
 ishment of men, and satisfying divine justice, took place as such im com- 
 modum (ὑπέρ, περί) of men, or—which is the same thing—on account of their 
 sins (in gratiam), in order to expiate them (περί or ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν). This we 
 hold against Flatt, Olshausen, Winzer, Reithmayr, Bisping, who take ὑπέρ 
 as loco. That ὑπέρ must at least be understood as loco in Gal. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor. 
 v. 14 (notwithstanding ver. 15); 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Riickert, Fritzsche, Phi- 
 lippi), is not correct. See on Gal. 1.6. and 2 Cor. Jc. ; Philem. 13 is not 
 here a case in point. —dce3év] Paul did not write ἡμῶν, in order that after 
 the need of help (ἀσθενῶν) the unworthiness might also be made apparent ; 
 ἀσεβῶν is the category, to which the ἡμεῖς have belonged, and the strong ex- 
 pression (comp. iv. 5) is selected, in order now, through the contrast, to set 
 forth the more prominently the divine love in its very strength. 
 
 Vv. 7, 8. Illustrative description (γάρ) of this dying ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν as the 
 practical demonstration of the divine love (ver. 8). Observe the syllogistic 
 relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 ; which is apparent through the emphatic ἑαυτοῦ. 
 — Scarce, namely, for a righteous man (not to mention for ἀσεβεῖς) will any one 
 die. This very contrast to the ἀσεβεῖς completely shuts out the neuter inter- 
 pretation of δικαίου (‘‘ pro re justa,” Melanchthon, comp. Olshausen, Jerome, 
 Erasmus, Annot., Luther). On account of the same contrast, consequently 
 because of the parallel between ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ and ὑπὲρ δικαίου, and because 
 the context generally has to do only with the dying for persons, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ 
 also is to be taken not as neuter,* but as masculine ; and the article denotes 
 the definite ἀγαθός who is in question in the case concerned. Since, moreover, 
 an essential distinction between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός * is neither implied in the 
 
 
 
 1See also Ritschl in the Jahrb. fiir 
 Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 242. 
 
 2 Bremi ad Dem. Οἱ. iii. 5, p. 188, Goth. 
 
 3 Koster also in the Stud. u. Kvrit. 1854, p. 
 312, has taken both words as neuter: 
 “hardly does one die for others for the 
 sake of their (mere) right; sooner at all 
 events for the sake of the manifestly good, 
 
 which they have.” 
 
 4 Comp. on the contrary Matt. v. 45; 
 further, ἀνὴρ ἀγαϑὺὸς x. δίκαιος in Luke xxiii. 
 50; ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία x. δικαία x, ayady in Rom, 
 Vii. 12; ὃ δίκαιος ἡμῖν ἀναπέφανται ὧν ἀγαϑός 
 τε καὶ σοφός, Aesch. Sept. 576; Eur. Hipp. 
 427 ; Thes. fr. viii. 2. 
 
188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 context, where on the contrary the contrast to both is ἀσεβῶν and ἁμαρτωλῶν, 
 nor is in the least hinted at by Paul, no explanation is admissible that is 
 based on an essential difference of idea in the two words ; such as that τοῦ 
 ἀγαθοῦ should be held to express something different from or higher than 
 Jixaiov. Therefore the following is the only explanation that presents itself 
 as comformable to the words and context: After Paul has said that one 
 will hardly die for a righteous man, he wishes to add, by way of confirma- 
 tion (γάρ), that cases of the undertaking such a death might possibly occur, and 
 expresses this in the form : for perhaps for the good man one even takes it wpon 
 him to die. Thus the previously asserted ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται, although 
 one assents to it viv et aegre, is yet said with reason,—it may perhaps occur. 
 Paul has not however written τοῦ δικαίου in the second clause of the verse, 
 as he might have done, but introduces τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, and prefixes it, In order 
 now to make still more apparent, in the interest of the contrast, the category 
 of the quality of the person for whom one may perhaps venture this self- 
 sacrifice. This is substantially the view arrived at by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, in the Paraphr., Beza, Calvin (‘‘rarissimum sane 
 inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo mori quis sustineat guamquam 
 allud nonnunquam accidere possit”), Castalio, Calovius, and others ; recently 
 again by Fritzsche (also Oltramare and Reithmayr) ; formerly also by Hof- 
 mann (in his Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 348). It has been wrongly alleged that it 
 makes the second half of the verse superfluous (de Wette) and weakening 
 _ (K6lner and Riickert) ; on the contrary, in granting what may certainly 
 ' now and again occur, it the more emphatically paves the way for the con- 
 trast which is to follow, that God has caused Christ to die for quite other 
 persons than the δικαίους and ayaotc—for us sinners. Groundless also is the 
 objection (of van Hengel), that in Paul’s writings the repeated τὶς always 
 denotes different subjects ; the indefinite ric, one, any one, may indeed even 
 here represent in the concrete application different subjects or the same. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20. And, evenif δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ be regarded as two 
 distinct conceptions, may not the second ric be the same with the first ? But 
 the perfect accordance with the words and context, which is only found in 
 the exposition offered, shuts out every other. Among the explanations thus 
 excluded, are: (1) Those which take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as neuter, like the render- 
 ing of Jerome, Erasmus, Annot. (‘‘bonitatem”), Luther, Melanchthon (‘‘ pro 
 bona et suavi re, i.e. incitati cupiditate aut opinione magnae utilitatis”), 
 and more recently Riickert (‘‘for the good, i.e. for what he calls his highest 
 good”), Mehring (‘‘ for for his own advantage some one perhaps risks even life”) ; 
 now also Hofmann (‘‘ what is én itself and really good... . a moral value, 
 for which, when it is endangered, one sacrifices life, in order not to let it 
 perish”’). — (2) Those explanations which indeed take τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ properly as 
 masculine, but yet give self-invented distinctions of idea in reference to 
 δικαίου : namely (a), the exposition, that ὁ ἀγαθός means the benefactor : hardly 
 does any one die for a righteous man (who stands in no closer relation to him) ; 
 Sor for his benefactor one dares perchance (out of gratitude) to die. So Flacius,’ 
 
 1 Clav. I. Ὁ: 693. ‘* Vix accidit, ut quis eo tamen, gué alicut valde est utilis, forsitan 
 suam vitam profundat pro justissimis ; pro mori non recuset.”’ 
 
CHAPS γον co 189 
 
 Knatchbull, Estius, Hammond, Clericus, Heumann, Wolf, and others ; in- 
 cluding Koppe, Tholuck, Winer, Benecke, Reiche, Gliéckler, Krehl, Maier, 
 Umbreit, Bisping, Lechler, and Jatho. They take the article with ἀγαθοῦ 
 as: the benefactor whom he has, against which nothing can be objected 
 (Bernhardy, p. 315). But we may object that we cannot at all see why 
 Paul should not have expressed benefactor by the very current and definite 
 term εὐεργέτης ; and that ἀγαθός must have obtained the specific sense of be- 
 neficence (as in Matt. xx. 15 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3, 4, al. ap. Dorvill. ad Charit. 
 p. 722; and Tholuck 7x loc. from the context—a want, which the mere ar- 
 ticle cannot supply (in opposition to Reiche). Hence, in order to gain for 
 ἀγαθός the sense beneficent in keeping with the context, δίκαιος would have to 
 be taken in the narrower sense as just (with Wetstein and Olshausen), so as 
 to yield a climax from the just man to the benevolent (who renders more than 
 the mere obligation of right binds him to do).’ But in ver. 8 there is no 
 reference to ἀγαθός in the sense assumed ; and the narrower sense of δίκαιος 
 is at variance with the contrasting ἁμαρτωλῶν in ver. 8, which demands for 
 dix precisely the wider meaning (righteous). Besides the prominence which 
 Paul intends to give to the love of God, which caused Christ to die for sin- 
 ners, while a man hardly dies for a δίκαιος, is weakened just in proportion 
 as the sense of δίκαιος is narrowed. The whole interpretation is a forced 
 one, inconsistent with the undefined τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ itself as well as with the en- 
 tire context. — (ὦ) No better are the explanations which find in τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ 
 a greater degree of morality than in δικαίου, consequently a man more worthy 
 of haying life sacrificed for him. So, but with what varied distinctions ! 
 especially Ambrosiaster (the δίκαιος is such ezercitio, the ἀγαθός natura), Ben- 
 gel (dix. homo innowius, ὁ ἀγαθός, omnibus pietatis numeris absolutus. ... Vv. δ. 
 pater patriae), Michaelis, Olshausen, K6llner (δέκ. : legally just, ἀγαθ. : per- 
 fectly good and upright), de Wette dix. : irreproachable, aya. : the noble), 
 Philippi and Th. Schott (both substantially agreeing with de Wette), 
 also van Hengel (dix. : probus coram Deo, i.e. venerabilis, dya9. : bonus in 
 hominum oculis, i.e. amabilis), and Ewald, according to whom δέκ. is he 
 ‘‘who, in a definite case accused unto death, is nevertheless innocent in 
 that particular case,” while the ἀγαθός is “πο, who not only in one such in- 
 dividual suit, but predominantly in his whole life, is purely useful to others 
 and guiltless in himself 1.) 5 comp. St6lting, who finds in dix. the honest up- 
 right man, and in ἀγαθός him whom we personally esteem and love. But all 
 these distinctions of idea are artificially created and brought in without any 
 hint from the context.* — On τάχα, fortasse, perhaps indeed, expressing possi- 
 
 1 An apt illustration of this would be 
 Cicero, de off. iii. 15: “51 vir bonus is est, 
 
 ff., also rightly recognizes this; but ex- 
 plains the second half, contrary to the 
 
 qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, 
 recte justum virum, bonwm non facile re- 
 periemus.” 
 
 2 Ewald supposes an allusion to cases like 
 these in 1 Sam. xiv. 45, xx. 17; but that it is 
 also possible, that Paul might have in view 
 Gentile examples that were known to him- 
 self and the readers. 
 
 3 Kunze, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1850, p. 407 
 
 words, as if the proposition were expressed 
 conditionally (εἰ καί), ‘for if even some one 
 lightly ventures to die for the good man, 
 still however God proves his love,” ete. 
 Comp. Erasm. Paraphr.—Miircker explains 
 itin the sense of one friend dying for an- 
 other ; and suggests that Paul was thinking 
 of the example of Damon and Pythias. 
 
190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 bility not without doubt, comp. Xen. Anab. v. 2, 17; Philem. 15 ; Wisd. 
 xiii. 6, xiv. 19. In classic authors most frequently τάχ᾽ ἄν. --- καὶ τολμᾷ] 
 etiam sustinet, he has even the courage,’ can prevail upon himself, audet. The 
 καί is the also of the corresponding relation. In presence of the good man, 
 he ventures also to die for him. — We may add, that the words from ὑπὲρ yap 
 τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ down to ἀποθανεῖν are not to be put (with Lachmann) in a paren- 
 thesis, since, though they form only a subordinate confirmatory clause, they 
 cause no interruption in the construction. — Ver. 8. δέ] Not antithetical 
 (‘‘such are men, but such is God,” Mehring), as if the sentence began with 
 ὁ δὲ Θεός, but rather carrying it onward, namely, to the middle term of the 
 syllogism (the minor proposition), from which then the conclusion, ver. 9, 
 is designed to result. — συνίστησι] proves, as in iii. 5. The accomplished fact 
 of the atoning death is conceived according to its abiding effect of setting 
 forth clearly the divine love ; hence the present. The emphasis indeed - 
 lies in the first instance on συνίστησι (for from this proof as such a further 
 inference is then to be drawn), but passes on strengthened to τὴν ἑαυτοῦ be- 
 cause it must be God’s own love, authenticating itself in the death of Christ, 
 that gives us the assurance to be expressed in ver. 9. God Himself, out of 
 His love for men, has given Christ to a death of atonement ; iii. 24, viii. 
 32; Eph. ii. 4 ; 2 Thess. 11, 16 ; John 11. 16 ; 1 John iv. 10e¢ al. To find 
 in τ. ἑαυτοῦ ἀγαπ. the contrast to owr love towards God (Hofmann ; comp. 
 on ver. 5) is quite opposed to the context, which exhibits the divine demon- 
 stration of love in Christ’s deed of love. That is the clear relation of ver. 
 8 to ver. 6 f., from which then the blessed inference is drawn in ver. 9. 
 Hence we are not to begin a new connection with συνίστησι δέ κ.τ.λ. (Hofmann, 
 ‘*God lets us know, and gives us to experience that He loves us ; and this 
 He does, because Christ,” etc.). The ὅτε cannot be the motive of God for His 
 συνίστησι K.T.A., since He has already given Christ out of love ; it is meant on 
 the contrary to specify the actual ground of the knowledge of the divine proof 
 of love (=ei¢ ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, comp. on 2 Cor. i. 18 ; John ii. 18). --- εἰς ἡμᾶς] 
 belongs to ovvior. — ἔτι ἁμαρτ. ὄντ. ἡμ.} For only through the atoning death 
 of Christ have we become δικαιωθέντες. See ver. 9. 
 
 Ver. 9. To prove that hope maketh not ashamed (ver. 5), Paul had laid 
 stress on the possession of the divine love in the heart (ver. 5) ; then he had 
 proved and characterized this divine love itself from the death of Christ 
 (vv. 6-8) ; and he now again infers, from this divine display of love, from 
 the death of Christ, that the hoped-for eternal salvation is all the more as- ~ 
 sured to us. — πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον] The conclusion does not proceed a minori ad 
 majus (Estius and many, including Mehring), but, since the point now turns 
 on the carrying out of the divine act of atonement, ὦ majori (vv. 6-8) ad 
 
 minus (ver. 9). — πολλῷ μᾶλλον] expresses the enhancement of certainty, as 
 in vv. 15-17 : much less therefore can it be doubted that, etc. ; viv stands in 
 reference to ἔτε ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν in ver. 8. — σωθησόμεθα ἀπὸ τ. ὀργῆς] we 
 
 shall be rescued from the divine wrath (1 Thess. i. 10 ; comp. Matt. iii. 7), 
 
 1 Respecting τολμᾶν see Wetstein, who Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 B; Monk, 
 properly defines it: “ quidpiam grave in ad Hur. Alc. 284; Jacobs in Addit. ad Athen. 
 animum inducere et sibiimperare.’”’ Comp. p. 309 f. 
 
CHAP. V., 10. 191 
 
 so that the latter, which issues forth at the last judgment (ii. 5, iii. 5), does 
 not affect us. Comp. Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621] ; Acts ii. 40. This negative 
 expression for the attainment of the hoped-for δόξα renders the inference 
 more obvious and convincing. For the positive expression see 2 Tim. iv. 
 18, — δέ αὐτοῦ] 1.6. through the operation of the exalted Christ, ἐν τῇ ζωῇ 
 αὐτοῦ, ver. 10. — Faith, as the ληπτικόν of justification, is understood as a 
 matter of course (ver. 1), but is not mentioned here, because only what has 
 been accomplished by God through Christ is taken into consideration. If 
 faith were in the judgment of God the anticipation of moral perfection (but 
 see note on i. 17), least of all could it have been left unmentioned. Observe 
 also how Paul has justification in view asa wnity, without different degrees 
 or stages. 
 
 Ver. 10. More special development (yap, namely) of ver. 9. — ἐχθροί] 
 namely, of God, as is clear from κατηλλ. τῷ Θεῷ. But it is not to be taken in 
 an active sense (hostile to God, as by Riickert, Baur, Reithmayr, van Hengel, 
 ‘Mehring, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1868, p. 515 f. ; Weber, 
 com Zorne Gottes, p. 293, and others ; for Christ’s death did not remove the 
 enmity of men against God, but, as that which procured their pardon on 
 the part of God, it did away with the enmity of God against men, and there- 
 upon the cessation of the enmity of men towards God ensued as the moral 
 consequence brought about by faith. And, with that active conception, 
 how could Paul properly have inferred his 70/4 μᾶλλον x.t.2., since in point 
 of fact the certainty of the σωθησόμεθα is based on our standing in friendship 
 (grace) with God, and not on our being friendly towards God ? Hence the + 
 passive explanation alone is correct (Calvin and others, including Reiche, 
 Fritzsche, Tholuck, Kreh, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Philippi, Hof- 
 mann : enemies of God, i.e. those against whom the holy θεοσεχθρία, the ὀργῇ 
 of God on account of sin, is directed ; θεοστυγεῖς, i. 80 3 τέκνα ὀργῆς, Eph. ii. 
 3. Comp. xi. 28; and see on Col. i. 21.’ This does not contradict the 
 ἀγάπη Θεοῦ praised in ver. 8 (as Riickert objects), since the very arrange- 
 ment, which God made by the death of Jesus for abandoning His enmity 
 against sinful men without detriment to His holiness, was the highest proof 
 of His love for us (not for our sins). — Consequently κατηλλάγημεν and 
 καταλλαγέντες must also be taken not actively, but passively : reconciled with 
 God, so that He is no longer hostile towards us, but has on the contrary, on 
 account of the death of His (beloved) Son, abandoned His wrath against 
 us, and we, on the other hand, have become partakers in His grace and’ 
 favour ; for the positive assertion (comp. ver. 1 f.), which is applicable to all 
 believing individuals (ver. 8), must not be weakened into the negative and 
 general conception ‘‘ that Christians have not God against them” (Hofmann). 
 See on Col. i. 21 and on 2 Cor. v. 18. Tittmann’s distinction between 
 διαλλάττειν and καταλλάττειν (see on Matt. v. 24) is as arbitrary as that of 
 Mehring, who makes the former denote the outward and the latter the in- 
 ward reconciliation.* — ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ) by His life ; more precise specification 
 
 . 1 Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeit- 2 Against this view, comp. also Philippi’s 
 schr. 1872, p. 182. Glaubenslehre, Il. 2, p. 270 ff. 
 
. 
 
 192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 of the import of δ αὐτοῦ in ver. 9 ; therefore not ‘‘cum vitae ejus simus 
 participes” (van Hengel, comp. Ewald). The death of Jesus effected our 
 reconciliation ; ali the less can His exalted 7ife leave our deliverance unfin- 
 ished. The living Christ cannot leave what His death effected without final 
 success. This however is accomplished not merely through His intercession, 
 viii. 84 (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius), but also through His whole work- 
 ing in His kingly office for His believers up to the completion of His work 
 and kingdom, 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. 
 
 Ver. 11. Οὐ μόνον δέ] Since καυχώμενοι cannot stand for the finite tense (as, 
 following Luther, Beza, and others, Tholuck and Philippi still would have 
 it) ov μόνον dé cannot be supplemented by σωθησόμεθα (Fritzsche, Krehl, 
 Reithmayr, Winer, p. 329, 543 [E. T. 351, 583], following Chrysostom), so 
 as to make Paul say : we shall be not only saved (actually in itself), but also 
 saved in such a way that we glory, etc. Moreover, the present καυχᾶσθαι 
 could not supply any modal definition at all of the future σωθησόμεθα. No, 
 the participle καυχώμ. compels us to conceive as supplied to the elliptical οὐ 
 μόνον dé (comp. on ver. 3) the previous participle καταλλαγέντες (Koller, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann ; formerly also Fritzsche) ; every other ex- 
 pedient is arbitrary. This supplement however, according to which the 
 two participles answer to each other, is confirmed by the concluding refrain : 
 dv ov νῦν τ. καταλλ. ἐλάβ., which is an echo of the καταλλαγέντες understood 
 with οὐ μόνον δέ. Accordingly we must render : not merely however as recon- 
 ciled, but also as those who glory, etc. Thus the meaning is brought out, 
 that the certainty of the σωθήσεσθαι ἐν τ. ζωῇ αὐτοῦ (ver. 10) is not only based 
 on the objective ground of the accomplished reconciliation, but has also 
 subjectively its corresponding vital expression in the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν τῷ θεᾷ 
 x.T.A., in which the lofty feeling of the Christian’s salvation reveals itself.— 
 ἐν τῷ Θεῷ] Luther’s gloss is apt: ‘‘that God is ours, and we are His, and 
 that we have in all confidence all blessings in common from Him and with 
 Him.” That is the bold and joyful triwmph of those sure of salvation. — 
 διὰ τ. κυρίου κ.τ.2.1] This glorying is brought about through Christ, because 
 He is the author of our new relation to God ; hence: dv οὗ viv τ. καταλλ. 
 ἐλάβ. The latter is that κατηλλάγημεν of ver. 10 in its subjective reception 
 which has taken place by faith. —viv is to be taken here (differently from 
 ver. 9) in contrast, not to pre-Christian times (Stélting), but to the future 
 glory, in reference to which the reconciliation received in the present time 
 (continuing from the conversion of the subjects of it to Christ) is conceived 
 as its actual ground of certainty. 
 
 Vv. 12-19. Parallel drawn between the salvation in Christ and the ruin that 
 has come through Adam. {See Note LI. p. 221.] — πἰπὼν, ὅτι ἐδικαίωσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ 
 Χριστὸς, ἀνατρέχει ἐπὶ τὴν pilav τοῦ κακοῦ, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὸν θάνα- 
 
 1 Most arbitrary of all is the view of Meh- 
 ring, that ov μόνον δέ refers back to ἐν τῇ 
 ζωῇ αὐτοῦ ; and that Paul would say: not 
 merely on the /ife of Christ do we place our 
 hope, but also onthe fact that we now 
 glory in our unity with God(?). Th. Schott 
 
 refers it to σωϑησόμεϑα, but seeks to make 
 καυχώμενοι Suitable by referring it to the 
 entire time, in which the salvation is still 
 future, as if therefore Paul had written: 
 οὐ μόνον δέ σωϑησόμεϑα, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν, OF ἐν TO 
 νῦν καιρῷ καυχώμεϑα. 
 
 s 
 
ΘΈΓΑΙΡ. V.,, 19. 199 
 τον, καὶ δείκνυσιν ὅτε ταῦτα τὰ dbo δ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Addu, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν 
 κόσμον. . . . . καὶ αὖ de ἑνὸς ἀνῃρέθησαν ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Theophylact ; 
 comp. Chrysostom, who compares the Apostle here with the physician who 
 penetrates to the sowrce-of the evil. Thus the perfect objectivity of the sal- 
 vation, which man has simply to receive, but in no way to earn, and of 
 which the Apostle has been treating since chap. i. 17, is, by way of a grand 
 conclusion for the section, set forth afresh in fullest light, and represented 
 in its deepest and most comprehensive connection with the history of the 
 world. The whole μυστήριον of the divine plan of salvation and its history 
 is still to be unfolded before the eyes of the reader ere the moral results 
 that are associated with it are developed in chap. vi. 
 
 Ver. 12." Διὰ τοῦτο] Therefore, because, namely, we have received through 
 Christ the καταλλαγή and the assurance of eternal salvation, ver. 11. The 
 assumption that it refers back to the whole discussion from chap. i. 17 
 (held by many, including Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Holsten, 
 Picard) is the more unnecessary, the more naturally the idea of the καταλ- 
 λαγή itself, just treated of, served to suggest the parallel between Adam 
 and Christ, and the δέ οὗ τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν in point of fact contains 
 the summary of the whole doctrine of righteousness and salvation from i. 
 
 17 onward ; consequently there is no ground whatever for departing, as to 
 διὰ τοῦτο, from the connection with what immediately precedes.? This re- 
 
 mark also applies in opposition to Hofmann (comp. Stélting and Dietzsch), 
 who refers it back to the entire train of ideas embraced in vv. 2-11. A re- 
 capitulation of this is indeed given in the grand concluding thought of 
 ver. 11, that it is Christ to whom we owe the reconciliation. But Hofmann 
 quite arbitrarily supposes Paul in διὰ τοῦτο to have had in view an evhorta- 
 tion to think of Christ conformably to the comparison with Adam, but to 
 have got no further than this comparison. — ὥσπερ] There is here an ἀναντα- 
 πόδοτον as in Matt. xxv. 14 ; and 1 Tim. i. 3. The comparison alone is ex- 
 pressed, but not the thing compared, which was to have followed in an 
 apodosis corresponding to the ὥσπερ. The illustration, namely, introduced 
 in vv. 13, 14 of the ἐφ᾽ ¢ πάντες ἥμαρτον now rendered it impossible to add 
 the second half of the comparison syntactically belonging to the ὥσπερ, and 
 
 1 See Schott (on vv. 12-14) in his Opusc. I. 
 p. 313 ff. ; Borg, Diss. 1839 ; Finkhin the Τ᾽. 
 Zeitschr. 1830, 1, p. 126 ff. ; Schmid in the 
 same, 4, p. 161 ff.; Rothe, newer Versuch 6. 
 Auslegung d. paul. Stelle Rom. v. 12-21, 
 Wittemb. 1836; J. Miiller, v. ἃ. Svinde, II. p. 
 481, ed. 5; Aberle in the ¢heol. Quartalschr. 
 1854, Ὁ. 455 ff.; Ewald, Adam τι. Christus 
 Rom. vy. 12-21, in the Jahrb. 7. bibl. Wis- 
 sensch. II. p. 166 ff. ; Picard, Hssai exégét. sur 
 Tom. vy. 12 ff. Strassb. 1861; Hofmann, 
 Schriftbew. I. Ὁ. 526 ff.; Ernesti, Urspr. d. 
 Stinde, Il. Ὁ. 184 ff.; Holsten, z. Hv. ἃ. Paul. 
 u. Petr. p. 412 ff. ; Stdlting, Zc. p. 19 ff. ; 
 Kloépper in the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 496 ff. ; 
 Dietzsch, Adam u. Christus Rom. v. 12 ff., 
 Bonn 1871. Compare also Lechler’s apost. 
 
 Zeit. p. 102 ff. 
 
 3 The close junction with yer. 11 is main- 
 tained also by Klépper, who unsuitably 
 however defines the aim of the section, vy. 
 12-21, to be, to guard the readers against ἃ 
 timid littleness of faith, as though, notwith- 
 standing justification, they were still with 
 reference to the future of judgment not 
 sure and certain of escaping the divine 
 wrath ; a timid mind might see in the tribu- 
 lations anticipations of that wrath, ete. 
 But how far does the entire confession of 
 vy. 1-11 stand elevated above all such little- 
 ness of faith! In the whole connection 
 this finds no place whatever, and receives 
 therefore in vy. 12-21 not the slightest men-. 
 tion or reference. 
 
194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 therefore the Apostle, driven on by the rushing flow of ideas to this point, 
 from which he can no longer revert to the construction with which he 
 started, has no hesitation in dropping the latter (comp. generally Buttmann’s 
 neut. Gr. p. 331 [E. T. 386] ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1097), and in subsequently 
 bringing in mere/y the main tenor of what is wanting by the relative clause 
 attached to ’Addéu: ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in ver. 14. This ὅς. ... 
 μέλλ. 18 consequently the substitute for the omitted apodosis, which, had it 
 not been supplanted by vv. 13, 14, would have run somewhat thus : so also_ 
 through one man has come righteousness, and through righteousness life, and 80 
 life has come to all. Calvin, Flacius, Tholuck, Kéllner, Baur, Philippi, 
 Stdlting, Mangold, Rothe (who however without due ground regards the 
 breaking off as intended from the outset, in order to avoid sanctioning the 
 Apokatastasis) find in ὅς ἐστι τύπ. τ. μέλλ., in ver. 14, the resumption and 
 closing of the comparison,’ not of course in form, but in substance ; com- 
 pare also Melanchthon. According to Riickert, Fritzsche (in his commen- 
 tary), and de Wette, Paul has come, after vv. 13, 14, to reflect that the, 
 comparison begun involved not merely agreement but also diserepancy, and 
 has accordingly turned aside from the apodosis, which must necessarily 
 have expressed the equivalence, and inserted instead of it the opposition in 
 ver. 15. This view is at variance with the entire character of the section, 
 which indeed bears quite especially the stamp of most careful and acute 
 premeditation, but shows no signs of Paul’s having been led in the progress 
 of his thought to the opposite of what he had started with. According to 
 Mehring, ver. 15, following vv. 13, 14 (which he parenthesises) is meant to 
 complete the comparison introduced in ver. 12, ver. 15 being thus taken 
 interrogatively. Against this view, even apart from the inappropriateness 
 of taking it as a question, the ἀλλ᾽ in ver. 15 is decisive. Winer, p. 503 
 [E. T. 570] (comp. Fritzsche’s Conject. p. 49), finds the epanorthosis in 
 πολλῷ μᾶλλον, ver. 15, which is inadmissible, because with ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ in ver. 
 15 there is introduced the antithetical element, consequently something else 
 than the affirmative parallel begun in ver. 19. Others have thought that 
 vv. 13-17 form a parenthesis, so that in ver. 18 the first half of the compar- 
 ison is resumed, and the second now at length added (Cajetanus, Erasmus, 
 Schmid, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Heumann, Ch. Schmid, Flatt, and 
 Reiche). Against this view may be urged not only the unprecedented 
 length, but still more the contents of the supposed parenthesis, which in 
 fact already comprehends in itself the parallel under every aspect. In ver. 
 18 f. we have recapitulation, but not resumption. This much applies also 
 against Olshausen and Ewald. Others again have held that ver. 12 contains 
 the protasis and the apodosis completely, taking the latter to begin either 
 with καὶ οὕτως (Clericus, Wolf, Gléckler), or even with καὶ διά (Erasmus, 
 Beza, Benecke), both of which views however are at variance with the par- 
 allel between Adam and Christ which rules the whole of what follows, and 
 
 1The objection of Dietzsch, p. 43, that bring forward a very definite special state- 
 τύπος asserts nothing real regarding the ment regarding the typical relation which 
 second member of the comparison, is un- he now merely expresses in general terms. 
 satisfactory, since Paul is just intending to 
 
CHAPS γι} he. 195 
 
 are thus in the light of the connection erroneous, although the former by 
 no means required a trajection (καὶ οὕτως for οὕτω καί). While all the ex- 
 positors hitherto quoted have taken ὥσπερ as the beginning of the first 
 member of the parallel, others again have thought that it introduces the 
 second half of the comparison. So, following Elsner and others, Koppe, who 
 after διὰ τοῦτο conceives ἐλάβομεν καταλλαγὴν δ αὐτοῦ supplied from ver. 11 ; 
 so also Umbreit and Th. Schott (for this reason, because we σωθησόμεθα ἐν 
 τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ, Christ comes by way of contrast to stand just as did Adam). 
 Similarly Mircker, who attaches διὰ τοῦτο to ver. 11. These expositions are 
 incorrect, because the wniversality of the Adamite ruin, brought out by 
 ὥσπερ k.T.4., has no point of comparison in the supplied protasis (the expla- 
 nation is d/ogical) ; in Gal. iii. 6 the case is different. Notwithstanding van 
 Hengel (comp. Jatho) thinks that he removes all difficulty by supplying 
 ἐστί after διὰ τοῦτο ; while Dietzsch, anticipating what follows, suggests the 
 supplying after διὰ τοῦτο : through one man life has come into the world. — δὲ 
 ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου] through one man, that is, δ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος, ver. 16. A 
 single man brought upon all sin and death ; ὦ single man also righteousness 
 and life. The causal relation is based on the fact that sin, which previously 
 had no existence whatever in the world, only began to exist in the world (on 
 earth) by means of the first fall. ve, so far as the matter itself is con- 
 cerned (Ecclus. xxv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Barnab: Hp. 12), 
 might as well as Adam be regarded as the εἷς ἄνθρ. ; the latter, because he 
 sinned as the first man, the former, of whom Pelagius explained it, because 
 she committed the first transgression. Here however, because Paul’s object 
 is to compare the One man, who as the bringer of salvation has become the 
 beginner of the new humanity, with the One man who as beginner of the old 
 humanity became so destructive, in which collective reference (comp. Hof- 
 mann’s Schriftbew. I. p. 474) the woman recedes into the background, he has 
 to derive the entrance of sin into the world from Adam, whom he has in 
 view in dv ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21 f., 45 f. This is also the 
 common form of Rabbinical teaching.? — ἡ ἁμαρτία] not : sinfulness, habitus 
 peceandi (Koppe, Schott, Flatt, Usteri, Olshausen), which the word never 
 means ; not original sin (Calvin, Flacius, and others following Augustine) ; 
 but also not merely actual sin in abstracto (Fritzsche : ‘‘nam ante primum 
 facinus patratum nullum erat facinus’”), but rather what sin is according to 
 its idea and essence (comp. Hofmann and Stélting), consequently the deter- 
 mination of the conduct in antagonism to God, conceived however as a force, 
 as a real power working and manifesting itself—exercising its dominion— 
 in all cases of concrete sin (comp. ver. 21, vi. 12, 14, vii. 8, 9, 17 al.). 
 This moral mode of being in antagonism to God became existent in the 
 human world through the fall of Adam, produced death, and spread death 
 over all. Thus our verse itself describes the ἁμαρτία as a real objective 
 power, and in so doing admits only of this explanation. Compare the not 
 substantially different explanation of Philippi, according to which the 
 
 1 Not merely came to light as known sin 2 See Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. IL. 
 (Schleiermacher, Usteri). See Lechler, p. pisit. 
 104, 
 
196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 actual sin of the world is meant as having come into the world potentialiter 
 through Adam ; also Rothe, who conceives it to refer to sin as a principle, 
 but as active ; and Dietzsch. — On εἰς τ. κόσμον, which applies to the earth 
 as the dwelling-place of mankind (for in the universe generally sin, the devil, 
 was already in existence), comp. Wisd. ii. 24, xiv. 14; 2 John 7 ;.Clem. 
 Oor. 1. 3; Heb. x. 5. Undoubtedly sin by its entrance into the world 
 came into human nature (Rothe), but this is not asserted here, however de- 
 cisively our passage stands opposed to the error of Flacius, that man 1s 
 in any way as respects his essential nature ἁμαρτία." -- The mode in which 
 the fall took place (through the devil, John viii. 44 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3) did not 
 here concern the Apostle, who has only to do with the mischievous effect 
 of it, namely, that it brought ἁμαρτία into the world, etc. —xai διὰ τ. ἁμαρτ. 
 ὁ θάνατος] scil. εἰς τ. κόσμον εἰσῆλθε. The θάνατος is physical death (Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, Augustine, Calovius, Reiche, Fritzsche, Maier, van Hengel, 
 Képper, Weiss, and many others), viewed as the separation of the soul 
 from the body and its transference to Hades (not as ‘‘ citation before God’s 
 judgment,” Mehring), with which however the conception of the φθορά and 
 ματαιότης Of the κτίσις in ch. viil., very different from the θάνατος of men, 
 must not be mixed up (as by Dietzsch), which would involve a blending of 
 dissimilar ideas. The interpretation of bodily death is rendered certain 
 by ver. 14 as well as by the considerations, that the text gives no hint 
 of departure from the primary sense of the word; that the reference 
 to Gen. ii. 17, 111. 19 could not be mistaken by any reader ; and that on 
 the basis of Genesis it was a universal and undoubted assumption both 
 in the Jewish and Christian consciousness, that mortality was caused 
 by Adam’s sin.* Had Paul taken θάνατος in another sense therefore, he 
 must of necessity have definitely indicated it, in order to be understood. * 
 This is decisive not only against the Pelagian interpretation of spiritual 
 death, which Picard has repeated, but also against every combination what- 
 ever—whether complete (see especially Philippi and Stélting), or partial—of 
 bodily, moral (comp. νεκρός, Matt. viii. 22), and eternal death (Schmid, 
 Tholuck, Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr ; 
 Riickert undecidedly) ; or the whole collective evil, which is the consequence 
 of sin, as Umbreit and Ewald explain it ; compare Hofmann : ‘‘all that 
 runs counter to the life that proceeds from God, whether as an occurrence, which 
 puts an end to the life wrought by God, or as a mode of existence setting in 
 with such occurrence.” As regards especially the inclusion of the idea of 
 
 
 
 
 
 ready before the fall, only not having yet 
 attained to objective manifestation. 
 
 1 Compare Holsten, zum Hv. d. Paul. u. 
 Petr. p. 418: who thinks that the unholi- 
 
 ness lying dormant in human nature first - 
 
 entered actually into the visible world as a 
 reality in the transgression of Adam ; also 
 Baur, neut. Theol. p. 191, according to whom 
 the principle of sin, that from the beginning 
 had been émmanent in man, only came forth 
 actually in the παράβασις of the first parent. 
 In this way sin would not have come into the 
 world, but must have been in the world al- 
 
 2 See Wisd. ii. 24; John viii. 44; 1 Cor. xv. 
 21; Wetstein and Schoettgen, im /loc.; and 
 Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenthum, Il. Ὁ. 
 81 f. Compare respecting Eve, Ecclus. 
 Xxy. 24. 
 
 3 This remark holds also against Mau in 
 Pelt’s theol. Mitarbd. 1838, 2, who understands 
 the form of life after the dissolution of the 
 earthly life. 
 
ΘΗ ΡΟ ΩΣ ΤΩΝ 
 moral death (the opposite of the spiritual ζω), the words θάνατος and 
 ἀποθνήσκειν are never used by Paul in this sense ; not even in vii. 10 (see in 
 loc.), or in 2 Cor. ii. 16, vii. 10, where he is speaking of eternal death.’ The 
 reference to spiritual death is by no means rendered necessary by the con- 
 trast of δικαιοσ. ζωῆς in ver. 18, comp. ver. 213 since in fact the death 
 brought into the world by Adam, although physical, might be contrasted 
 not merely in a Rabbinical fashion, but also generally in itself, with the Cay 
 that has come through Christ ; for to this ¢w# belongs also the life of the 
 glorified body, and it is a life not again subject to death. — καὶ οὕτως) and 
 in such manner, i.e. in symmetrical correspondence with this connection 
 between the sin that entered by one man and the death occasioned by it. 
 Fuller explanation is then given, by the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, respecting the 
 emphatically prefixed εἰς πάντας, to whom death, as the effect of that first 
 sin of the One, had penetrated. Since οὕτως sums up the state of the case 
 previously*expressed (comp. e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17) any further 
 generalization of its reference can only be arbitrary (Stélting : ‘‘ through 
 sin”). Even the explanation : ‘‘in virtue of the causal connection between 
 sin and death” (Philippi and many others) is too general. The οὕτως, in 
 fact, recapitulates the historical state of the case just presented, so far as it 
 specifies the mode in which death has come to al/, namely, in this way, that 
 the One sinned and thereby brought into the world the death, which conse- 
 quently became the lot of all. — διῆλθεν] came throughout (Luke v. 15). 
 This is the progress of the εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε in its extension to all indi- 
 viduals, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπ. [see Note LIL. p. 222], which in contrast to the δι᾿ 
 ἑνὸς ἀνθρ. is put forward with emphasis as the main element of the further de- 
 scription, wherein moreover διΐλθεν, correlative to the εἰσῆλθε, has likewise em- 
 phasis. On διέρχεσθαι εἴς twa comp. Plut. Alcib. 2. Compare also ἐπί τινα in 
 Hz. v. 17 and Ps. Ixxxvii. 17. More frequent in classic authors with the simple 
 accusative, as in Luke xix. 1. — ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον)" [see Note LIII. p. 222], 
 on the ground of the fact that, i.e. because, all sinned, namely (and for this the 
 momentary sense of the aorist is appropriate’) when through the One sin 
 entered into the world. Because, when Adam sinned, αὐ men sinned in and 
 with him, the representative of entire humanity (not : ‘‘evemplo Adami,” 
 Pelagius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), death, which came into the world 
 
 vy. 15. It is mere empty arbitrariness in 
 Thomasius 1.6. p. 316, to say that our ex- 
 planation is grammatically unjustifiable. 
 Why so? Stélting (comp. Dietzsch) objects 
 to it that then ὁ ϑάνατος διῆλϑεν must also 
 be taken in the momentary sense. But 
 
 2 
 
 this by no means follows, since ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντ. 
 
 1Τὴ 2 Tim. i.10 ϑάνατος is used in the 
 sense of efernal death, which Christ (by His 
 work of atonement) has done away; the 
 opposite of it is ζωή καὶ ἀφϑαρσία, which He 
 has brought to light by His Gospel. Not 
 less is Eph. ii. 1 to be explained as meaning 
 eternal death. 
 Neverthe- 
 
 2 The most complete critical comparison 
 of the various expositions of these words 
 may be seen in Dietzsch, p. 50 ff. 
 
 8 Hofmann erroneously holds (Schriftbew. 
 Zc.) that the imperfect must have been used. 
 What is meant is in fact the same act, 
 which in Adam’s sin is done by all, not 
 another contemporaneous act. Comp. 2 Cor. 
 
 ne. is a special relative clause. 
 less even that ὃ ϑάνατ. διῆλϑ. is Not some- 
 thing gradually developing itself, but a 
 thing done in and with the sin of the One 
 man. Zhis One has sinned and has become 
 liable to death, and thereby ai/ have be- 
 come mortal, because Adam’s sin was the 
 sin of ail. 
 
198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 through the sin that had come into it, has been extended to ail in virtue of 
 this causal connection between the sin that had come into existence through 
 Adam and death. Ali became mortal through Adam’s fall, because this 
 having sinned on the part of Adam was a having sinned on the part of all ; 
 consequently τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, ver. 15. Thus it is 
 certainly on the ground of Adam that all die (ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, 
 1 Cor. xv. 22), because, namely, when Adam sinned, all sinned, all as ἁμαρτωλοὶ 
 κατεστάθησαν (ver. 19), and consequently the death that came in through his 
 sin can spare none. But itisin a linguistic point of view erroneous, accord- 
 ing to the traditional Catholic interpretation after the example of Origen, 
 the Vulgate, and Augustine (Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Klee ; not Stengel, 
 Reithmayr, Bisping, and Maier ; but revived by Aberle), to take ἐφ᾽ ¢ as 
 equivalant to ἐν @, in quo 5011. Adamo, as also Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and 
 others do ; compare Irenaeus, Haer. v. 16, 3. The thought which this expo- 
 sition yields (‘‘omnes ille unus homo fuerunt,” Augustine) is essentially 
 correct, but it was an error to derive it from ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, since it is rather to be 
 derived from πάντες ἥμαρτον, and hence also it is but arbitrarily explained 
 by the sensuous notion of all men having been in the loins (Heb. vii. 9, 10) 
 of Adam (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Augustine). Chrysostom gives in general 
 the proper sense, though without definitely indicating how he took the ἐφ’ 
 ᾧ : ““τί δέ ἐστιν ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον 3 ἐκείνου πεσόντος καὶ οἱ μὴ φαγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 ἐύλου γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνον πάντες θνητοί." So also substantially Theophylact, 
 though explaining, with Photius, ἐφ᾽ © as equivalant to ἐπὶ τῷ ᾿Αδάμ. The 
 right view is taken by Bengel (‘‘ quia omnes peccarunt. . . . Adamo pee- 
 cante’) ; Koppe (‘‘ipso actu, quo peccavit Adamus”’), Olshausen, Philippi, 
 Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 126, 369, and Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 590, HI. p. 308 f. ; 
 comp. also Klépper.' The objection that in this way the essential defini- 
 ition is arbitrarily supplied (Tholuck, Hofmann, Stélting, Dietzsch, and 
 others) is incorrect ; for what is maintained is simply that more precise 
 definition of ἥμαρτον, for which the immediate connection has necessarily 
 prepared the way, and therefore no person, from an unprejudiced point of 
 view, can speak of ‘‘an abortive product of perplexity impelling to arbi- 
 trariness” (Hofmann). Nor is our view at variance with the meaning of 
 οὕτως (as Ernesti objects), since from the point of view of death having been 
 occasioned by Adam’s sin (οὕτως) the universality of death finds its explana- 
 tion in the very fact, that Adam’s sin was the sin of all. Aptly (as against 
 Dietzsch) Bengel compares 2 Cor. v. 14: εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανε, ἄρα οἱ 
 πάντες ἀπέθανον (namely, Christo moriente) ; see on that passage. Others, 
 and indeed most modern expositors (including Reiche, Riickert, Tholuck, 
 Fritzsche, de Wette, Maier, Baur, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Mehring, 
 Hofmann, Stélting, Thomasius, Mangold, and others), have interpreted 
 ἥμαρτον of individual sins, following Theodoret : ob yap διὰ τὴν τοῦ προπάτορος 
 
 1 Who, although avoiding the direct ex- 
 pression of our interpretation, nevertheless 
 in substance arrives at the same meaning, 
 p. 505: ‘‘All however sinned, because 
 Adam’s sin penetrated to them, inasmuch 
 
 ‘ 
 
 as God punished the fault of Adam so 
 thoroughly that his sin became shared by 
 all his descendants.’’ For Kl6pper properly 
 explains the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ defining the relation as 
 imputation of Adam’s sin to all. 
 
ΘΕΆ ΒΕ τ ole. 199 
 ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἕκαστος δέχεται τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅρον. [See Note LIV. 
 Ῥ. 224.] Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 263 ; Mircker/l.c. p.19. But the tak- 
 ing the words thus of the universal having actually sinned as cause of the 
 universal death (see other variations further on) must be rejected for the sim- 
 ple reason, that the proposition would not even be true : and because the 
 view, that the death of individuals is the consequence of their own 
 actual sins, would be inappropriate to the entire parallel between Adam 
 and Christ, nay even contradictory to it. For as the sin of Adam brought 
 death to all (consequently not their own self-committed sin), so did the 
 obedience of Christ (not their own virtue) bring life to all. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 22. This objective relation corresponding to the comparison re- 
 mains undisturbed in the case of our exposition alone, inasmuch as ἐφ᾽ ¢ 
 πάντ. ἥμαρτ. Shows how the sin of Adam necessarily brought death to ail. 
 To explain ἥμαρτον again, as is done by many, and still by Picard and 
 Aberle : they were sinful, by whichis meant original sin (Calvin, Flacius, 
 Melanchthon in the Hnarr.: ‘‘omnes habent peccatum, scilicet pravita- 
 tem propagatam et reatum”), or to import even the idea poenam Iluere 
 (Grotius), is to disregard linguistic usage ; for ἥμαρτον means they have 
 sinned, and nothing more. This is acknowledged by Julius Miiller (ὁ. d. 
 Siinde, II. Ὁ. 416 ff. ed. 5), who however professes to find in ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 7. jp. 
 only an accessory reason for the preceding, and that in the sense : ‘‘ as then” 
 all would besides have well deserved this severe fate for themselves by their actual 
 sins. Incorrectly, because ἐφ ᾧ does not mean ‘‘ as then” or ‘‘as then also” 
 (i.e. ὡς καί) ; because the statement of the reason is by no means made ap- 
 parent as in any way merely secondary and subjective, as Neander and Mess- 
 ner have rationalised it, but on the contrary is set down as the single, com- 
 plete and objective ground ; because its alleged purport would exercise an 
 alien and disturbing effect on the whole development of doctrine in the pas- 
 sage ; and because the sense assigned to the simple ἥμαρτον (this severe fate 
 they would have all moreover well merited) is purely fanciful. Ernesti takes 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ not of the objective ground, but as specifying the grownd of thinking 
 80, ἴ.6. the subjective ground of cognition : ‘‘ about which there can be no doubt, 
 in so far as all have in point of fact sinned ;” this he holds to be the logical 
 
 1 Namely, in respect to the many millions 
 of children who have not yet sinned. The 
 reply made to this, that Paul has had in 
 view only those capable of sin (Castalio, Wet- 
 stein, Fritzsche, and others) is least of all 
 applicable in the very case of this Apostle 
 and of the present acutely and thoroughly 
 considered disquisition, and just as little is 
 an appeal to the disposition to sin (Tholuck) 
 which children have (Paul says plainly 
 ἥμαρτον.) This way out of the difficulty 
 issues in an exegetical self-deception.—He 
 who seeks to get rid of the question re- 
 garding children must declare that it is not 
 here raised, since the passage treats of the 
 human race as a whole (comp. Ewald, Jahrb. 
 VI. p. 182, also Mangold, p. 118 f.) This 
 
 would suffice, were the question merely of 
 universal sinfulness; for in such a case 
 Paul could just as properly have said 
 πάντες ἥμαρτον here, with self-evident refer- 
 ence to all capable of sin, as in iii. 23. 
 But the question here is the connection be- 
 tween the stn of all and the dying of all, in 
 which case there emerges no self-evident 
 limitation, because all, even those still in- 
 capable of peccatum actuale, must die. 
 Thus the question as to children still re- 
 mains, and is only disposed of by not taking 
 ἥμαρτον in the sense of having individually 
 sinned ; comp. Dietzsch, p. 57 f. This also 
 applies against Stdlting, according to whom 
 Paul wishes to show that sin works death 
 in the case of all sinners without exception. 
 
200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ground for the οὕτως «.7.2. But, as there is no precedent of usage for this 
 interpretation of ἐφ᾽ ¢ (Phil. i. 12 is unjustifiably adduced), Ernesti is com- 
 pelled to unite with ἐφ᾽ ᾧ vv. 13 and 14 in an untenable way. See on ver. 
 13 f., remark 1, and Philippi, Glaubensl. III. Ὁ. 222 ff. ed. 2. — Respect- 
 ing ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, which is quite identical with ἐφ᾽ οἷς, we have next to observe as 
 follows : It is equivalent to ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, and means on the ground of the fact 
 that, consequently in real sense propterea quod,’ because (dieweil, Luther), of 
 the causa antegressa (not jinalis), as also Thomas Magister and Favorinus have 
 explained it as equivalent to διότι. So in the N. T. at 2 Cor. v. 4 and Phil. 
 iii. 12.2 Rothe (followed by Schmid, bib]. Theol. p. 260) has taken it as : 
 “‘under the more definite condition, that” (ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὥστε), so that individual 
 sins are the consequence of the diffusion of death through Adam’s sin over 
 mankind. But this view is wholly without precedent in the usus loquendi, 
 for the very frequent use of ἐφ᾽ 6, wnder the condition, that (usually with the 
 infinitive or future indicative), is both in idea and in practice something 
 quite different ; see Kiihner, 11. 2, p. 1006. Ewald formerly (Jahrb. II. p. 
 171), rejecting the second 6 θάνατος, explained : ‘‘ and thus there penetrated 
 to all men that, whereunto all sinned,” namely death, which, according to Gen. 
 ii. 17, was imposed as punishment on sin, so that whosoever sinned, sinned 
 so that he had to die, a fate which he might know beforehand. ‘In this 
 way the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ would (with Schmid and Glickler, also Umbreit) be taken cf 
 the causa jinalis* and the subject of διῆλθεν (τοῦτο) would be implied in it. 
 But, apart from the genuineness of ὁ θάνατος, which must be defended, there 
 still remains, even with the explanation of ἐφ᾽ 6 as final, so long as ἥμαρτον 
 is explained of individual actual sins, the question behind as to the truth of 
 
 ἐξηρτήσω σαυτοῦ κ. ἐποίησας εἶναι σούς. See 
 further Josephus, Antt. i. 1, 4: ὃ ὄφις 
 
 1 Baur also, II. Ὁ. 202 (comp. his neutest. 
 Theol. Ὁ». 138), approves the rendering δὲ- 
 
 cause, but foists on this because the sense: 
 “which has as its presupposition.” Thus it 
 should be understood, he thinks, also in 2 
 Cor. vy. 4 and Phil. iii. 12; and thus Paul 
 proves from the universality of death the 
 universality of sin. See, in opposition to 
 this logical inversion, Ernesti, p. 212 ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Theophilus, ad Aufol. ii. 40, ed. 
 Wolf: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἴσχυσε ϑανατῶσαι αὐτούς (e- 
 cause he was unable to put them to death), 
 Diod. Sic. xix. 98: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ.. . .. τὸ μὲν μεῖζον 
 καλοῦσι ταῦρον, τὸ δὲ ἔλασσον μόσχον (because 
 they call the greater a bull, etc.); just so 
 ἐφ᾽ ots, Plut. @e Pyth. orac. 29. Favorinus 
 quotes the examples: 
 εἰργάσω, and ἐφ᾽ ols τὸν νόμον ov τηρεῖς, 
 κολασϑήση. Thomas Magister cites the ex- 
 ample from Synesius ep. 73: ἐφ᾽ & Τεννάδιον 
 ἔγραψεν (propterea quod Gennadium accu- 
 sasset, comp. Herm. ad Viger. p. 710). An- 
 other example from Synesius (in Devarius, 
 ed. Klotz, p. 88) is: ἐφ᾽ οἷς yap SexodvSov εὖ 
 ἐποίησας (on the ground of this, that, i.e. be- 
 cause thou hast done well to Secundus) 
 ἡμᾶς ἐτίμησας, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ols οὕτω γράφων τιμᾷς, 
 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν κλοπὴν 
 
 συνδιαιτώμενος τῷ. τε ᾿Αδάμῳ καὶ TH γυναικὶ 
 φϑονερῶς εἶχεν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς (propterea quod) αὐτοὺς 
 εὐδαιμονήσειν ὠέτω πεπεισμένους τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 Antt. xvi. 8, 2: 
 παϑεῖν, ἐφ᾽ ois ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν, 
 προλαμβάνοντες μόνον. 
 
 3 Of a similar nature are rather such pas- 
 sages as Dem. 518, 26; ἕν yap μηδέν ἐστιν, ἐφ᾽ 
 ᾧ τῶν πεπραγμένων οὐ δίκαιος ὧν ἀπολωλέναι 
 φανήσεται [upon the ground of which he will 
 not seem worthy, ete.) ; de cor. 114 (twice) ; 
 as well as the very current use of ἐπὶ τούτῳ, 
 propterea (Xen. Mem. i. 2, 61) of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ 
 τούτῳ, for this very reason (Dem. 578, 26; 
 Xen. Cyr. ii. 8, 10), ete.; and further, such 
 expressions as ἐπὶ μιᾷ δή ποτε δίκῃ πληγὰς 
 ἔλαβον (Xen. Cyr. i. 3, 16), where ἐπί with 
 the dative specifies the ground (Kiihner, II. 
 1, p. 436). 
 
 4Xen. Cyr. vill. 8, 24: οὐδέ ye Speravy- 
 φόροις ἔτι χρῶνται, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ Κῦρος αὐτὰ ἐποιήσατο, 
 111. 8, 36, ὑπομιμνήσκειν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς τε ἐτρεφόμεϑα, 
 Thue. i. 134, 1, a@/.; and see especially Wisd. 
 11. 23. 
 
 παραγγέλμασι. καὶ τὸ δικαίως 
 
 ry a 
 αυτοι 
 
ΘΈΓΑΙΡ Veyube. 201 
 the proposition, since not all, who die, have actually sinned ; and indeed 
 the view of the death of all having been caused by the actual sins of all is 
 incompatible with what follows.’ See also Ernesti, p. 192 ff. ; comp. his 
 Eithik. d. Ap. P. p. 16 1. Moreover the telic form of expression itself would 
 have to be taken only in an improper sense, instead of that of the necessary, 
 but on the part of the subjects not intended, result, somewhat after the idea 
 of fate, asin Herod. 1. 68 : ἐπὶ κακῷ ἀνθρώπου σίδηρος ἀνεύρηται. Subsequently 
 (in his Sendschr. d. Ap. P.) Ewald, retaining the second ὁ θάνατος, has as- 
 sumed for ἐφ᾽ ᾧ the signification, so far as (so also Tholuck and van Hengel) ; 
 holding that by the limiting phrase ‘‘ so far as they all sinned,” death is thus 
 set forth the more definitely as the result of sin, so that ἐφ᾽ 6 corresponds to 
 the previous οὕτως. But even granting the not proved limiting signification 
 of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (which ἐφ᾽ ὅσον elswhere has, xi. 13), there still remain with this 
 interpretation also the insurmountable difficulties as to the sense, which 
 present themselves against the reference of ἥμαρτον to the individual sins. 
 Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. I. p. 529 f.) refers ἐφ᾽ ᾧ to ὁ θάνατος, so 
 that it is equivalent to οὗ παρόντος : amidst the presence of death ; making 
 the emphasis to lie on the preposition, and the sense to be: ‘‘ death was 
 present at the sinning of all those to whom it has penetrated ; and it has not been 
 invariably brought about and introduced only through their sinning, nor always 
 only for each individual uho sinned.” Thus ἐπί might be justified, not indeed 
 in a temporal sense (which it has among poets and later prose writers only 
 in proper statements of time, as in Homer, 71. viii. 529, ἐπὶ yuri), but per- 
 haps in the sense of the prevailing cireumstance, like the German ‘‘ bei” [with, 
 amidst? (see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 484). But apart from the special tenor of the 
 thought, which we are expected to extract from the bare ἐφ᾽ ῴ, and which 
 Paul might so easily have conveyed more precisely (possibly by ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἤδη 
 παρόντι OY ov ἤδη παρόντος), this artificial exposition has decidedly against it 
 the fact that the words ἐφ᾽ © πάντες ἥμαρτον must necessarily contain the ar- 
 gumentative modal information concerning the preceding proposition κ. οὕτως 
 εἰς πάντας ἀνῃρώπους ὁ θάν. διῆλθεν, Which they in fact contain only when our 
 
 view is taken.° 
 
 1 Along with which it may be observed 
 that there is the less warrant for mentally 
 supplying, in the contrasted propositions 
 on the side of salvation, a condition corre- 
 sponding to the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ π. ἥμαρτ. (Mangold: 
 ἐὰν πάντες πιστεύσωσιν, Which is implicitly 
 involved in λαμβάνοντες, ver. 17), the more 
 essential this antitypical element would be. 
 
 2 So also Dietzsch has taken it, in sub- 
 stantial harmony with Hofmann, less arti- 
 ficially, but not more tenably: amidst the 
 presence of death. He thinks that the Apos- 
 tle desires to emphasize the view that 
 death, originating from the One, is and pre- 
 vails in the world, quite apart from the 
 sinning of individuals ; that independently 
 of this, and prior to it, the universal do- 
 minion of death springing from Adam is 
 already in existence. But with what 
 
 They must solve the enigma which is involved in the mo- 
 
 strange obscurity would Paul in that case 
 have expressed this simple and clear idea ! 
 How unwarranted it is to attach to his 
 positive expression the negative significa- 
 tion (apart from, independently of)! With 
 just as little warrant we should have to 
 attach to the πάντες, since inno case could 
 it include the children who have not yet 
 sinned, a limitation of meaning, which yet 
 it is utterly incapable of bearing after the 
 cis πάντας ἀνϑρώπους just said. The exposi- 
 tion of Dietzsch, no less than that of Hof- 
 mann, is a laboriously far-fetched and 
 mistaken evasion of the proposition clearly 
 laid down by Paul : ‘‘ because they all sinned,” 
 namely, when through one man sin came 
 into the world and death through sin. 
 
 3 This applies equally against the similar 
 exposition of Thomasius (Chr. Pers. κι. 
 
202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 mentous οὕτως of that clause ; and this enigma is solved only by the state- 
 ment of the reason : because all sinned, so that the θανάσιμος ἁμαρτία of Adam 
 was the sin ef all, Against Hofmann, compare Philippi’s Glaubensl. III. p. 
 221 f. ed. 2. 
 
 Remark 1, The Rabbinical writers also derived universal mortality from the 
 fall of Adam, who represented the entire race in such a way that, when Adam 
 sinned, all sinned. See the passages in Ammon, Opusc. nov. p. 72 ff. Even 
 perfectly righteous persons are ‘‘comprehensi sub pcena mortis’’ (R. Bechai in 
 Cadhackemach ἢ. 5, 4). It may reasonably be assumed therefore that the doc- 
 trine of the Apostle had, in the first instance, its historical roots in his Jew- 
 ish (comp. Ecclus. xxv. 23 ; Wisd. ii. 23 f.; xiv. 14) and especially his Rabbin- 
 ical training, and was held by him even prior to his conversion ; and that in 
 his Christian enlightenment he saw no reason for abandoning the proposition, 
 which on the contrary he adopted into the system of his Christian views, and 
 justified by continuing to assert for it in the development of the divine plan 
 of redemption the place which is here assigned to it, as even Christ Himself 
 traces death back to the fall (John viii. 44). Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22 : ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ 
 πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, on Which our passage affords the authentic commentary. 
 We may add that, when Maimonides is combating (More Nevoch. iii. 24) the 
 illusion that God arbitrarily decrees punishments, there has been wrongly 
 found in the dogmatic proposition adduced by him, “‘ non est mors sine peccato, 
 neque castigatio sine iniquitate,” the reverse of the above doctrine (see espe- 
 cially Fritzsche, p. 294). The latter is on the contrary presupposed by it. 
 
 Remark 2. That Adam was created immortal, our passage does not affirm, 
 and 1 Cor. xv. 47 contains the opposite. But not as if Paul had conceived 
 the first man as by his nature sinful, and had represented to himself sin as a 
 necessary natural quality of the σάρξ (so anew Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. II. p. 
 470), but thus : if Adam had not sinned in consequence of his self-determina- 
 tion of antagonism to God, he would have become immortal through eating of 
 the tree of life in Paradise (Gen. 111. 22), As he has sinned, however, the 
 consequence thereof necessarily was death, not only for himself, seeing that 
 he had to leave Paradise, but for all his posterity likewise.! From this conse- 
 quence, which the sin of Adam had for ail, it results, in virtue of the neces- 
 sary causal connection primevally ordained by God between sin and death, by 
 reasoning back ab effectu ad causam, that the fall of Adam was the collective 
 fall of the entire race, in so far as in fact all forfeited Paradise and therewith 
 incurred death. — If ἐφ᾽ 6 πάντες ἥμαρτον be explained in the sense of individual 
 actual sins, and at the same time the untenableness of the explanation of Hof- 
 mann and Dietzsch be recognized, it becomes impossible by any expedients, 
 such as that of Rothe, I. p. 314, ed. Schenkel, to harmonize the view in our 
 passage with that expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 47; but, if it be referred to the fall 
 of Adam, every semblance of contradiction vanishes. 
 
 Ver. 19 1. Demonstration, that the death of all has its ground in the sin of 
 
 Werk. I. p. 316 f.), amidst the presence of impossibility, which Finckh also presents. 
 which relation (ᾧ as neuter). As if pre- 1Comp. Jul. Miiller, dogmat. Abhandl. 
 viously a “‘ relation’? had been expressed, 1870, p. 89 f. Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. Ὁ. 
 and not a concrete historical fact! Weisse 994. 
 
 took ἐφ᾽ ᾧ even as although, —a linguistic 
 
a 
 
 CHAP, V., 13: 203 
 
 Adam and the causal connection of that sin with death. This argument, 
 conducted with great conciseness, sets owt from the undoubted historical 
 certainty (it is already sufficiently attested in Gen. iv.—vi.) that during the 
 entire period prior to the law (ἄχρι νόμου = ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ μέχρι Μωΐσέως, ver. 14) 
 there was sin in humanity ; then further argues that the death of individuals, 
 which yet has affected those who also have not like Adam sinned against a 
 positive command, cannot be derived from that sin prior to the law, because 
 in the non-existence of law there is no imputation ; and allows it to be thence 
 inferred that consequently the death of all has been caused (ἐφ᾽ ὦ πάντες ἡμαρτον) 
 by the sin of Adam (not by their individual sins). Paul however leaves 
 this inference to the reader himself ; he does not expressly declare it, but 
 instead of doing so he says, returning to the comparison begun in ver. 12 : 
 ὃς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, for in that death-working operation of Adam’s 
 sin for all lay, in fact, the very ground of the typical relation to Christ. 
 Chrysostom aptly says : εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος τὴν ῥίζαν ἔσχε, νόμου δὲ οὐκ 
 ὄντος ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται, πῶς ὁ θάνατος ἐκράτει ; ὅθεν δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὴ ἡ 
 ἁμαρτία ἡ τῆς τοῦ νόμου παραβάσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνη τῆς τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ παρακοῆς, αὕτη ἣν ἡ 
 πάντα λυμαινομένη. Καὶ τίς ἡ τούτου ἀπόδειξις 3 τὸ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου πάντας ἀποθ- 
 νήσκειν" ἐβασίλευσε γὰρ κιτ.2. Compare Oecumenius. —aypz νόμου] [See Note 
 LY. p. 224] ἐ.6. in the period previous to the giving of the law, comp. ver. 
 14; consequently not during the period of the law, ἕως ὁ νόμος ἐκράτει," Theodo- 
 ret ; comp. Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. — ἐλλογεῖται] 
 preserved nowhere else except in Boeckh, Jnscript. I. p. 850 A, 35, and Phi- 
 lem. 18 (text ree.), but undoubtedly meaning : is put to account (consequent- 
 ly equivalent to λογίζεται, iv. 4), namely, here, according to the context, Sor 
 punishment, and that on the part of God ; for inthe whole connection the sub- 
 Ject spoken of is the divine dealings in consequence of the fall. Hence we are 
 neither to understand ab judice (Fritzsche), nor ; by the person sinning ; so Au- 
 gustine, Ambrosiaster, Luther, (‘then one does not regard the sin ”) Melanch- 
 thon (*‘non accusatur in nobis ipsis,”) Calvin, Beza, and others, including 
 Usteri, Riickert, J. Miiller, Lipsius, Mangold, and Stélting (‘there 
 the sinner recognizes not his sin as guilt”), whereby a thought quite 
 irrelevant to the argument is introduced. —j) ὄντος νόμου] without the 
 evistence of the law ; νόμος, as previously ἄχρι νόμου, meaning the Mosaic law, 
 and not any law generally (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and many others, in- 
 cluding Hofmann), as ἁμαρτία already points to the divine law. Comp. iv. 
 15. The proposition itself : ‘‘ Sin is not imputed, if the law is absent,” is set 
 down as something universally conceded, as an aviom ; therefore with repeti- 
 tion of the subject (in opposition to Hofmann, who on account of this 
 repetition separates ἁμαρτία dé «.7.2. from the first half of the verse and 
 attaches it to what follows), and with the verb in the present. The propo- 
 sition itself, inserted as an intervening link in the argument with the 
 metabatic δέ, without requiring a preceding μέν, which Hofmann is wrong 
 
 1 As is well known, Peyrerius (Praead- law given to Adam in Paradise ; and found 
 amitae s. exercitat. exeg. in Rom. vy. 12-14, thus a proof for his Preadamites. 
 Amst. 1655) referred the νόμου here to the 
 
 - 
 
204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS. 
 
 in missing (see Dietzsch and Kihner, II. 2, p. 814), has its truth as well as 
 its more precise application in the fact, that in the absence of law the 
 action, which in and by itself is unlawful, is no transgression of the law 
 (iv. 15), and cannot therefore be brought into account as such. That Paul 
 regarded the matter in this light, and had not, as Hofmann thinks, sinning 
 generally, ‘‘as it was one and the same thing in the case of all,” in view 
 apart from the sins of individuals, is plain also from καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτ. 
 ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσ. "Addu, in ver. 14. His thought is : If the death. 
 of men after Adam had been caused by their own sin, then in the case of 
 all those who have died during the period from Adam till the law, the sin 
 which they have committed must have been already reckoned to them as 
 transgression of the law, just as Adam’s sin was the transgression of the 
 positive divine command, and as such brought upon him death ; but this 
 is inconceivable, because the law was not in existence. In this Paul leaves 
 out of consideration the Noachian commands (Gen. ix.), as well as other 
 declarations of God as to His will given before the law, and likewise 
 individual punitive judgments, such as in the case of Sodom, just because 
 he has only the strict idea of real and formal legislation before his mind, 
 and this suggests to him simply the great epochs of the Paradisaic and 
 Sinaitic legislations. A view, which does not subvert the truth of his 
 demonstration, because mankind in general were without law from Adam 
 until Moses, the natural law, because not given positively, remaining out of 
 the account ; it makes the act at variance with it appear as sin (ἁμαρτία), 
 but not as παράβασις νόμου, which as such ἐλλογεῖται. ---- Ver. 14. ἀλλ᾽] at, yet, 
 although sin is not put to account in the absence of the law. It intro- 
 duces an apparently contradictory phenomenon, confronting the ἁμαρτία οὐκ 
 ἐλλογεῖται κιτ.}. ; One, however, which just proves that men have died, not 
 through their own special sin, but through the sin of Adam, which was put 
 to their account. — ἐβασίλευσεν] prefixed with emphasis : death has not per- 
 chance been powerless, no, it has reigned, 1.6. has exercised its power 
 which deprives of life (comp. vv. 17-21). Hofmann (comp. also Holsten, 
 Aberle, and Dietzsch) finds in the emphatic ἐβασ. the absolute and abiding 
 dominion, which death has exercised independently of the imputation of 
 sins (ἀλλὰ being taken as the simple but), ‘‘ just as a king, one by virtue of 
 his personal position once and for all entitled to do so, exercises dominion 
 over those who, in virtue of their belonging to his domain, are from the 
 outset subject to him.” But no reader could educe this qualitative definite 
 sense of the βασιλεύειν, with the highly essential characteristic elements 
 ascribed to it, from the mere verb itself ; nor could it be gathered from the 
 position of the word at the head of the sentence ; on the contrary, it must 
 unquestionably have been expressed (by érupdvvevoev possibly, or τυραννικῶς 
 ἐβασίλευσεν) seeing that the subsequent καί (even over those, etc.) does not 
 indicate a mode of the power of the (personified) death, but only appends 
 the fact of its dominion being without exception. — μέχρι Moic. | equivalent 
 to ἄχρι νόμου in ver. 13. <A distinction of sense between μέχρι and ἄχρι is 
 (contrary to the opinion of Tittmann, Synon. p. 33f.) purely fanciful. See 
 Fritzsche, p. 3808 ff. and van Hengel in loc. 
 
 
 
 Ν 3 Ν Ν Ἂς e Ζ 
 καὶ ETL τοὺς μὴ αἀμαρτσανταςΓ 
 
CHAP. Vien ae 205 
 x.T.4. | even over those * who have not sinned like Adam, that is, have not like 
 him transgressed a positive divine command. [See Note LVI. p. 224.] Even 
 these it did not spare. It is erroneous with Chrysostom (but not Theodoret 
 and Theophylact) to connect ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι x.7.A. With ἐβασίλ."5 Erroneous 
 for this reason, that Paul, apart from the little children or those otherwise 
 incapable of having sin imputed, whom however he must have indicated 
 more precisely, could not conceive at all (iii. 23) of persons who had not 
 sinned (μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντες Without any modal addition more precisely defining 
 it), and a limitation mentally supplied (sine lege peccarunt, Bengel) is purely 
 fanciful. The καί, even, refers to the fact that in the period extending from 
 Adam till Moses, excluding the latter, positively given divine commands 
 were certainly transgressed by individuals to whom they were given, but it 
 was not these merely who died (as must have been the case, had death been 
 brought on by their own particular sins); it was also those,’ who ete. Their 
 sin was not ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώμ. τῆς παραβ. Addu (ἐπί used of the form, in which 
 anything occurs, see Bernhardy, p. 250); they did not sin in such a way, 
 that their action was of like shape with the transgression of Adam, ‘‘ quia non 
 habebant ut 1116 vevelatam certo oraculo Dei voluntatem,” Calvin. For other 
 definitions of the sense see Fritzsche, p. 316, and Reiche, Commentar. crit. 
 I. p. 45 ff. Reiche himself explains it of those who have transgressed no 
 command expressly threatening death. So also Tholuck. But this peculiar 
 limitation is not suggested by the context, in which, on the contrary, it is 
 merely the previous μὴ ὄντος νόμου which supplies a standard for determining 
 the sense of the similarity. According to Hofmann καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς down to 
 ‘Addu is meant to be one and the same with the previous ἀπὸ Αδὰμ μέχρι 
 Moicéac, inasmuch as a transgression similar to that of Adam could only 
 then have occurred, ‘‘zhen God placed a people in the same position in which 
 Adam found himself, when he received a divine command on the observance or 
 transgression of which his life or death depended.” This misconception, spring- 
 ing from the erroneous interpretation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, is already ex- 
 cluded by καί," as well as, pursuant to the tenor of thought, by the fact 
 that in the pre-legal period in question all those, who transgressed a com- 
 mand divinely given to them by way of revelation, sinned like Adam. 
 Their sin had thereby the same moral form as the act of Adam; but not only 
 had they to die, but also (κα those who had not been in that condition of 
 sinning. Death reigned over the latter also.—The genitive with ὁμοιώμ. is 
 not that of the subject (Hofmann), but of the object, as in i. 23, vi. 5, viii. 3 ; 
 the sins meant are not so conceived of, that the παράβασις of Adam is homo- 
 
 1 βασιλεύειν with ériis a Hebraism Sy. Hengel). Both classes are included in the 
 
 Compare Luke i. 33, xix. 14; 1 Sam. viii. 9, 
 11; 1 Macc. i. 16. 
 
 2 So Finckh again does, following Castalio 
 and Bengel: “quia illorum eadem atque 
 Adami transgredientis ratio fuit.... ie. 
 propter reatum ab Adamo contractum.”’ 
 
 3 Consequently the two classes, formed by 
 Paul, are not to be so distinguished that 
 the one shall embrace men before Noah, 
 and the other the Noachian race (van 
 
 whole period from Adam till Moses. 
 
 4 Which necessarily assumes a class of 
 sinners in the pre-legal period, whose sin 
 was homogeneous with that of Adam. 
 This also, in opposition to Mangold, p. 121, 
 and Dietzsch, p. 98; according to whose 
 and Hofmann’s definition of the sense, 
 Paul ought either to have omitted the καί 
 altogether, or to have inserted it before 
 ἀπὸ Adam. 
 
΄ 
 
 206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 geneously repeated in them, but so that they are, as to their specific nature, 
 of similar fashion with it, and consequently belong to the same ethical cate- 
 gory. They have morally just the same character. As to ὁμοίωμα see on i. 
 23. - ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος] who—to educe now from vv. 13, 14 the result 
 introduced in ver. 12, and so to return to the comparison there begun—is 
 type of the future (Adam). 'Theophylact correctly paraphrases: ὡς yap 
 ὁ παλαιὸς ᾿Αδὰμ πάντας ὑποδίκους ἐποίησε τῷ οἰκείῳ πταίσματι (by bringing upon 
 them death), καίτοι μὴ πταίσαντας, οὕτως ὁ Χριστὸς ἐδικαίωσε πάντας, καίτοι μὴ 
 δικαιώσεως ἄξια ποιήσαντας. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 45. Koppe, following 
 Bengel, takes μέλλ. as neuter (of that, which should one day take place), and ὅς 
 for 6. Thisagreement of the relative with the following substantive would 
 perhaps be grammatically tenable ;’ but seeing that ᾿Αδάμ immediately pre- 
 cedes it, and that the idea of Christ being ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ is a Pauline idea 
 (1 Cor. 1.4.), it is quite unjustifiable to depart from the reference of the ὅς to 
 Adam ; and equally so to deny to the μέλλων its supplement from the imme- 
 diately preceding ’Addy, and to take it as ‘‘ the man of the future” (Hofmann), 
 which would nevertheless yield in substance the same meaning. — τύπος] 
 type, so that the μέλλων is the anti-type (1 Pet. 11. 21). The type is always 
 something historical (a person, thing, saying), which is destined, in ac- 
 cordance with the divine plan, to prefigure something corresponding to it in 
 the future,—in the connected scheme of sacred historical teleology, which is 
 to be discerned from the standpoint of the antitype. Typical historical 
 parallels between Adam and the Messiah (so that the latter is even ex- 
 pressly termed the last Adam) are found also in Rabbinical authors ,? and 
 are based in them on the doctrine of the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων.) Paul based 
 this typology of his on the atoning work of Christ and its results, as the 
 whole discussion shows ; hence in his present view Christ as the μέλλων 
 ᾿Αδάμ is not still to come, but is already historical.* For this reason how- 
 ever ὁ μέλλων may not, with Fritzsche and de Wette, be referred to the last 
 coming of Christ; but must be dated from the time of Adam, in so far, 
 namely, as in looking back to the historical appearance of Adam, Christ, as 
 its antitype, és the future Adam (comp. ὁ ἐρχόμενος). 
 
 Remark 1. Those who refer ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον to the proper sins of indi- 
 viduals, or even to the principle of the duaptia dwelling in them, ought not to 
 find, as Baumgarten-Crusius, Umbreit, and Baur still do, the proof for the 
 πάντες ἥμαρτον in ver. 13 f. for how in the connection of the passage could any 
 proof for the universality of sin be still required? Certainly just as little as in 
 particular for the fact, that, with death already existing in the world (Dietzsch), all 
 individuals have sinned. Consistently with that reference of the ἐφ᾽ 6 π. ἥμαρτον 
 there must rather have been read from ver. 13 f. the proof for this, that the 
 
 1 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 708; Heind. ad 3 Compare the passages in Eisenmenger, 
 
 Phaedr. p. 279. 
 
 2 E.g. Neve Schalom f. 160, 2: ‘‘Quemad- 
 modum, homo primus fuit primus in pec- 
 cato, sic Messias erit ultimus ad auferen- 
 dum peccatum penitus ;” Weve Schalom 9, 9: 
 Adamus postremus est Messias.”’ 
 
 entdeckt. Judenth. 11. Ὁ. 819, 823 ff. 
 
 4 Comp. Chrysostom; also Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia: ὥσπερ δι᾽ ἐκείνου (Adam) τῶν 
 χειρόνων ἡ πάροδοσ ἐγένετο, οὕτω διὰ τούτου τῆς 
 τῶν κρειττόνων ἀπολαύσεως τὴν ἀφορμὴν 
 ἐδεξάμεϑα, 
 
CHAP. V., 13. 207 
 
 death of all results from the proper sins of all. But how variously has this 
 demonstration been evolved! Either: although sin has not until Moses been impu- 
 table according to positive law, yet each one has brought death upon himself by his sin 
 (ver. 14), which proves the relative imputation thereof. So de Wette. Or: although 
 sin, which even from Adam till Moses was not lacking, be not imputed by a human 
 judge in the absence of positive law, yet the reign of death (ver. 14) shows that God 
 has imputed the pre-Mosaic sins. So Fritzsche. Or: in order to show ‘in Adamo 
 causam quaerendam esse, cur hominwm peccata mors secuta sit,” Paul declares that 
 death has reigned over all from Adam till Moses, whether they sinned like Adam, 
 or differently. So van Hengel ; comp, also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 264. Or: not 
 even in the period from Adam till Moses was sin absent ; but the clear proof to the 
 contrary is the dominion of death in this period. So Baur, and with a substantially 
 similar view of the mode of inference ab effectu ad causam,! Rothe also. But 
 however it may be turned, the probative element has first of all to be read into 
 the passage ; and even then the alleged proof (ver. 14) would only be a reason- 
 ing backwards from the historical phenonenon in ver. 14 to the cause asserted by - 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ π. ἥμαρτ., and consequently a mere clumsy argument in a circle, which 
 again assumes the assertion to be proved—id quod erat demonstrandum—in 
 the phenomenon brought forward in ver. 14; and moreover utterly breaks 
 down through the proposition that sin is not imputed in the absence of law. 
 Ewald, in his former view (Jahrb. IT.), rightly deduces from ver. 14: conse- 
 quently it only appears the more certain, that death propagated itself to them only by 
 means of Adam's,” but attributes to this inference, consistently with his view 
 of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ π. hu., the sense : ‘that they all sinned unto death just in the same way as, 
 and because, Adam had sinned unto it.’’? In his latter view (Sendschr. ἃ. Ap. P.) 
 he supposes that in connection with ἐφ᾽ 6 πάντες ἥμαρτον the possible doubt 
 may have arisen, whether it was so certain that death had come upon those oldest 
 men from Adam iill Moses in consequence of their sins ? which doubt Paul prop- 
 erly answers in ver, 13 f., thereby all the more corroborating the truth. But 
 the emergence of a doubt is indicated by nothing in the text; and that doubt 
 indeed would have been dissipated by the very fact that those men were dead, 
 which does not prove however that they died on account of their sins. Thus 
 also the matter would amount to a reasoning inacircle. According to Tho- 
 luck the argument is: that death has passed upon all through the disposition to 
 death (?) introduced in Adam, and not through their own sins, is plain from the fact, 
 that pre-Mosaiec sin, through not positively threatened with death, as in the case of 
 Adam and in the law, was nevertheless placed under its dominion.’’ Only thus, he 
 holds, is the logical relation between the clauses apparent. In general this is 
 right ; but by this very circumstance Tholuck just attests the correctness of 
 our explanation of ἥμαρτον, namely, that it is not meant of individual sin. The 
 caution which he inserts against this inference, namely, that Paul regards the 
 actual sins ‘‘ only as the relatively free manifestations of the hereditary sinful 
 substance,” is of no avail, seeing that they remain always acts of individual 
 freedom, even though the latter be only relative, while the argument in our 
 passage is such that the individual’s own sins, as cause of death, are eacluded. 
 Ernesti joins ἁμαρτία δὲ «.7.A. with ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κιτ.λ.: “since indeed all have sinned, 
 but sin is not placed to account,’’ etc. The dy... . κόσμῳ standing in 
 the way, he enclosesin a parenthesis. But why this parenthesis? The πάντες 
 
 1 According to the correlation of the ideas sin and death, comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 188, 
 
΄ 
 
 208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ἥμαρτον, in the sense of iii, 23, needed no proof; and it could not occur to 
 any one to date sin only from the epoch of the law. The dy... . κόσμῳ 
 acquires its pertinent significance when, as an essential element in the syllo- 
 gistic deduction, it is closely united with the axiom ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογ. K.7.A. 
 attached to it, and is not set aside in a parenthesis as if it might equally well 
 have been omitted. According to Holsten the argument turns on the fact that 
 objective sin entered the world through Adam, and death along with it ; thus 
 death has passed upon all because all were sinners (in the objective sense)—a 
 diffusion by means of one over the whole, which is illustrated by the thought 
 that, while sin was in the world until the law, this sin could not, in the ab- 
 sence of law, be imputed as subjective guilt ; but death became ruler, in accord- 
 ance with the objective divine law of the universe, with a tyrannical power 
 not conditioned by the subjects of its rule, even over those who were indeed 
 (objectively) sinners, but not (subjectively) transgressors like Adam. MHolsten 
 has certainly in this way avoided the error of making universal death condi- 
 tioned by the subjective sin of the individuals ; but he has done so by means 
 of a distinction between objective and subjective sins, which is so far from 
 being suggested by the text, that it was just through Adam that the subjective 
 sin, joined with the consciousness of guilt, entered the world, and therefore the 
 divine action, in decreeing death upon sin, could not be conceived as indiffer- 
 ent to the subjectivity. Hofmann—who sees in Gdyps .. . . κόσμῳ a [very un- 
 necessary] ground assigned for the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 7. ἥμαρτον, upon which there follows 
 in ἁμαρτία δὲ κ.τ.λ. a declaration regarding death in the pre-legal period, ac- 
 cording to which this could not have been caused by the sinning of that pe- 
 riod, seeing that on the contrary the latter took place when death was already 
 present—confuses the entire exposition of the passage, and by his artificial 
 rendering of ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον makes the understanding of it impossible. In 
 general the entire history of the interpretation of our passage shows that when 
 once the old ecclesiastical explanation of ἐφ᾽ 6 (this however taken as propterea 
 quod) πάντες ἥμαρτον is regarded as the Charybdis to be shunned at all hazards, 
 the falling into the Scylia becomes unavoidable. Even Klépper, in attributing 
 to πάντες ἥμαρτον the underlying thought that Adam’s sin penetrated to all, 
 and Dietzsch, by his simplifying and modification of Hofmann’s exposition, 
 have not escaped this danger, 
 
 Remark 2. Since Paul shows from the absence of imputation (ἐλλογεῖται) in 
 the absence of law, that the death of men after Adam cannot have been occa- 
 sioned by their own individual sins, but only by Adam’s, in which all were 
 partakers in virtue of their connection with him as their progenitor, he must 
 have conceived that Adam’s sin brought death not merely to himself but also 
 at the same time to all by way of imputation ; and therefore the imputatio peccati 
 Adamiticit in reference to the death, to which all are subjected, certainly results 
 from our passage as a Pauline doctrine. But as to original sin (not however as 
 to its condemnableness in itself), the testimony of our passage is only indirect, 
 in so far, namely, as the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, according to its proper explana- 
 tion and confirmation in ver. 13 f., necessarily presupposes in respect to 
 Adam’s posterity the habitual want of justitia originalis and the possession of 
 concupiscence. 
 
 Remark 3. The view of Julius Miiller as to an original estate and original 
 fall of man in an extra-temporal sphere (comp. the monstrous opinion of 
 
CHAP. V., 15. 209 
 Benecke, p. 109 ff., andin the Stud. ει. Krit. 1832, p. 616 ff.) cannot be reconciled 
 with our passage and its reference to Gen. iii.! See Ernesti, p. 247 ff., and 
 among dogmatic theologians, especially Philippi, III. p. 92 ff.; and (against 
 Schelling and Steffens) Martensen, § 93, p. 202 ff. ed. 2. 
 
 Ver. 15. But not as is the trespass, so also is the gift of grace. (See Note 
 LVIL. p. 225.) Although Adam and Christ as the heads of the old and new 
 humanity are typical parallels, how different nevertheless are the two facts, 
 by which the former and the latter stand to one another in the relation of 
 type and antitype (on the one side the παράπτωμα, on the other the χάρισμα) 
 —different, namely (εἰ γὰρ κ.τ.2.}, by the opposite effects? issuing from those 
 two iacts, on which that typical character is based. The question is not as_ 
 to the different measure of efficacious power, for this extends alike in both 
 cases from one to all ; but as to the different specific kind of effect ; there 
 death, here the rich grace of God—the latter the more undoubted and cer- 
 tain (πολλῷ μᾶλλον), as coming after that deadly effect, which the παράπτωμα 
 had. ‘‘ For if (εἰ purely hypothetical) through the trespass of one the many 
 died, much more has the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man Jesus 
 Christ become abundant to the many.” On τὸ παράπτωμα comp. Wisd. x. 1. 
 The contrast is τὸ χάρισμα, the work of grace, i.e, the atoning and justifying 
 act of the divine grace in Christ,* comp. ver. 17 ff. — οἱ πολλοί] the many, 
 namely, according to ver. 12 (comp. ver. 18), the collective posterity of 
 Adam. It is in substance certainly identical with πάντες, to which Mehring 
 reverts ; but the contrast to the εἷς becomes more palpable and stronger by 
 the designation of the collective mass as οἱ πολλοί. Grotius erroneously 
 says: ‘‘fere omnes, excepto Enocho,” which is against vv. 12,18. Sucha 
 unique, miraculous exception is not taken into consideration at all in this 
 mode of looking at humanity as such on a great scale. Erroneous also is 
 the view of Dietzsch, following Beck, that oi πολλοί and then τοὺς πολλούς 
 divide mankind into two classes, of which the one continues in Adamite cor- 
 ruption (?) while the other is in Christ raised above sin and death. This 
 theory breaks down even on the historical aorist ἀπέθανον and its, accord- 
 ing to ver. 12, necessary reference to the physical death which was given 
 with Adam’s death-bringing fall for all, so that they collectively (including 
 also the subsequent believers) became liable to death through this παράπ- 
 τωμα. See on ver. 12. It is moreover clear from our passage that for the 
 explanation of the death of men Paul did not regard their individual sin as 
 
 1 Nor with the N. T. generally, which 
 teaches an extra-temporal mode of exist- 
 ence only in the case of Christ. The extra- 
 temporal condition and fall supposed by 
 Miiller are not only outside of Scripture, but 
 at variance with it. 
 
 3 This contrast forbids the taking ἀλλ᾽ 
 
 ouK... . χάρισμα interrogatively (Mehring 
 and earlier expositors), and so getting rid 
 of the negation. 
 
 3 The unhappy and happy consequences 
 respectively of the παράπτωμα and the 
 
 χάρισμα are not included in these concep-. 
 tions themselves (in opposition to Dietzsch). 
 
 Nor is παράπτωμα to be so distinguished. 
 from παράβασις, that the former connotes the 
 
 unhappy consequences (Grotius, Dietzsch). 
 
 On the contrary, the expressions are popu- 
 
 lar synonyms, only according to different 
 
 Jigures, like fall (not falling away) and tres- 
 
 pass. Comp. on παράπτ. Ez. xiv. 13, xv. 8, 
 
 XViii. 24, 26, iii. 20; Rom. iv. 25, xi. 11; 2Cor. 
 
 γ. 19; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. ii. 1 e¢ αἱ. 
 
210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 the causa efficiens, or even as merely medians ; and it is a meaning gratui- 
 tously introduced, when it is explained : ‘‘ the many sinned and found death, 
 like the one Adam,” (Ewald, Jahrb. II., van Hengel and others). — πολλῷ 
 μᾶλλον] as in ver. 9, of the logical plus, i.e. of the degree of the evidence as 
 enhanced through the contents of the protasis, multo potius. ‘If Adam’s 
 fall has had so bad an universal consequence, much less can it be doubted 
 that,” etc. For God far rather allows His goodness to prevail than His se- 
 verity ; this is the presupposition on which the conclusion rests. Chrysos- 
 tom has correctly interpreted 7. μᾶλλ. in the logical sense (πολλῷ yap τοῦτο 
 εὐλογώτερον), aS does also Theodoret, and recently Fritzsche, Philippi, Tho- 
 luck (who however takes in the quantitative plus as well), van Hengel, Man- 
 gold, and Klépper. The quantitative view (Theophylact : οὐ τοσοῦτον μόνον, 
 ‘dno, ὠφέλησεν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὅσον ἔβλαψεν ὁ ᾿Αδάμ ; also Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, 
 Calovius and others ; and in modern times Riickert, Reiche, K6llner, Rothe, 
 Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Hofmann, and Dietzsch) is opposed 
 to the analogy of vv. 17, 18 ; and has also against it the consideration, that 
 the measure of punishment of the παράπτωμα (viz. the death of all) was already 
 quantitatively the greatest possible, was absolute, and therefore the meas- 
 ure of the grace, while just as absolute (εἰς τοὺς πολλούς), is not greater still 
 than that measure of punishment, but only stands out against the dark 
 background of the latter all the more evidently in its rich fulness.’ — ἡ χάρις 
 τ. Θεοῦ x. ἡ δωρεά] the former, the grace of God, richly turned towards the 
 many, is the principle of the latter (ἡ δωρεά = τό χάρισμα in ver. 15, the gift of 
 justification). The δωρεά is to be understood κατ’ ἐξοχήν, without supplying τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ ; but the discourse keeps apart with solemn emphasis what is cause and 
 what is effect. —év χάριτι... Χριστοῦ is not with many expositors (in- 
 cluding Rothe, Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Hofmann, 
 and Dietzsch) to be joined with ἡ δωρεά (the gift, which is procured through 
 the grace of Christ), but with Fritzsche, Riickert, Ewald, van Hengel, and 
 others, to be connected with érepiocevoe (has become abundant through the grace 
 of Christ)—a construction which is decisively supported, not indeed by the 
 absence of the article, since ἡ δωρεά ἐν χάριτι might be conjoined so as to 
 form one idea, but by the reason, that only with this connection {πὸ τῷ... 
 παραπτώματι in the protasis has its necessary, strictly correspondent, correla- 
 tive in the apodosis. The divine grace and the gift. have abounded to the 
 many through the grace of Christ, just as the many died through the fall 
 
 1 The way would have been logically pre- means tenable. For even in the case of 
 
 ‘pared for the quantitative plus by the hypo- 
 thetical protasis only in the event of that 
 which was predicated being in the two 
 clauses of a similar (not opposite) kind ; in 
 the event therefore of its having been possi- 
 ble to affirm a salutariness of the παράπτωμα 
 in the protasis. Comp. xi. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 9, 
 Ii; Heb; ix. 13'f.; xii. 9) 25. The main ob- 
 jection which Dietzsch (following Rothe) 
 raises against the interpretation of the 
 logical plus, on the ground that we have here 
 two historical realities before us, is by no 
 
 two facts which have taken place, the one 
 may be corroborated and inferred from 
 the other, namely, as respects its certainty 
 and necessity. If the one has taken place, it 
 as by so much the more evident that the other 
 also has taken place. The historical reality ἡ 
 of the one leaves all the less room for 
 doubt as to that of the other. The second 
 does not in this case require to be some- 
 thing still future, especially if it be an oc- 
 currence, which does not fall within the 
 range of sensuous perception. 
 
CHAP. Vi, 16. 211 
 
 of Adam. The χάρις Inoot Χριστοῦ is—as the genitive-relation naturally. sug- 
 gests of itself, and as is rendered obviously certain by the analogy of ἡ χάρις 
 τ. Ocov—the grace of Jesus Christ, in virtue of which He found Himself 
 moved to accomplish the ἱλαστήριον, in accordance with the Father’s decree, 
 and thereby to procure for men the divine grace and the δωρεά. It is not 
 therefore the favour in which Christ stood with God (Luther, 1545) ; nor the 
 grace of God received in the fellowship of Christ (van Hengel) ; nor is it the 
 steadily continued, earthly and heavenly, redeeming efficacy of Christ's grace ἢ 
 (Rothe, Dietzsch). Comp. Acts xv. 11; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Gal. i. 6 ; Tit. iii. 
 6 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8, xiii. 13. The designation of Christ : τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἴ. 
 X., is occasioned by the contrast with the one man Adam. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 21; 1 Tim. ii. 5. To describe the divine glory of this One man (Col. 
 i. 19) did not fall within the Apostle’s present purpose ; but it was known 
 
 to the reader, and is presupposed in His χάρις (John i. 64). — τῇ τοῦ] ““ arti- 
 culi nervosissimi,” Bengel. — εἰς τοὺς πολλούς] belongs to ἐπερίσσ. The πολ- 
 
 dot are likewise here, just as previously, all mankind (comp. πάντας ἀνθρώπους, 
 ver. 18). To this multitude has the grace of God, etc., been plentifully im- 
 parted (εἰς τ. π. ἐπερίσσευσε, comp. 2 Cor. i. 5), namely, from the objective 
 point of view, in so far as Christ’s act of redemption has acquired for all the 
 divine grace and gift, although the subjective reception of it is conditioned 
 by faith. See on ver. 18. The expression ἐπερίσσευσε (he does not say 
 merely ἐγένετο, or some such word) is the echo of his own blessed experi- 
 ence, 
 
 Ver. 16. Continuation of the difference between the gift of grace and the 
 consequence of the fall, and that with reference to the causal origination on 
 either side in a numerical aspect.’ — And not as through one, who has sinned, 
 so is the gift, i.e. it is not so in its case—the state of the case there is the very 
 reverse—as if it were occasioned δὲ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσ. (like death through Adam). 
 The dv ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσ. indicates the unity of the person and of the accom- 
 plished sinful act ; comp. Stélting. Beyond the simple ἐστί after δώρημα noth- 
 ing is to be supplied (so also Mangold), because the words without supple- 
 ment are quite in accordance with the Greek use of ὡς," and yield an appro- 
 priate sense, whereas none of the supplements that have been attempted are 
 suggested by the context. It has been proposed, e.g. after auapr. to supply 
 θάνατος εἰςῆλθεν (Grotius, Estius, Koppe), or τὸ κρῖμα or κατάκριμα (Bengel, 
 Klee, Reiche, Kéliner) ; or after ὡς : τό (Beza), which is indeed impossible, 
 but is nevertheless resorted to even by de Wette : ‘‘and not like that which 
 originated through one that sinned, so is the gift,” and Tholuck : ‘‘the gift 
 has a different character from that which has come through the one man. sin- 
 ning.” Comp. Philippi, who like Riickert and Dietzsch supplies merely 
 ἐγένετο after duapr. (and then after dwp.: éori),—-which however still yields 
 
 1 Dietzsch takes it differently, finding the justification—an intermingling to be avoid- 
 progress of the argument in this, that at ed throughout the entire train of thought 
 the end.a state of life adequate to the divine in our passage ; comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgen- 
 law may be established. This view how-  feld’s Zeitschr. 1872, Ὁ. 167. 
 ever rests on an erroneous exposition of 2 Bernhardy, p. 352, Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 δικαίωμα (see below), and generally on an Sympos. Ὁ. 179 BE. 
 erroneous mixing up of sanctification with 
 
212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. — 
 
 no complete sentence, since the ἐγένετο is without a subject. The correct view 
 in substance is taken by Rothe, Ewald, and van Hengel ; while Fritzsche 
 still calls in the aid of a supplement after ἁμαρτ. (τὸ παράπτωμα ἐγένετο) ; 
 and Hofmann even wishes mentally to supply to καὶ... . δώρημα from what 
 precedes, to which it is attached, εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν as predicate ;* 
 whereas Mehring puts his rendering, which erroneously makes it a question 
 (comp. on ver. 15), in this form : ‘‘ And ought not the gift to be, as it was 
 through one that sinned?” — τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρῖμα x.t.2.] 56. ἐστί ; explanation of 
 the point of difference previously specified : For the judicial sentence redounds 
 From a single one to a sentence of condemnation, but the gift of grace from many 
 trespasses to a sentence of justification. —76 κρῖμα] quite general : the sentence 
 which God pronounces as judge ; comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7. For the kind of sentence, 
 which this shall prove to be in the concrete result, is indicated only by the 
 following εἰς κατάκριμα. The explanation which refers it to the divine an- 
 nouncement contained in Gen. ii. 17 (Fritzsche, Dietzsch) is erroneous, be- 
 cause the latter is a threat, and not ἃ κρῖμα ; and because the act of Adam 
 must have already preceded the κρῖμα. Others understand by it the sentence 
 of punishment pronounced against Adam, which has become a sentence of 
 punishment (sentence of death) against his posterity (κατάκριμα) (Reiche, 
 Riickert, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Hofmann) ; 
 but wrongly, because they thus neglect the pointed interchange of κρῖμα and 
 κατάκριμα, and in εἰς κατάκριμα place the stress on the condemned subject, 
 which however is not even mentioned. Linguistically erroneous is the view 
 of Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, and others, that τ. κρῖμα is the guilt. Nor does it 
 mean the state of being finally adjudged (Stélting). Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, 
 and van Hengel hold the right view ; while Rothe, with unnecessary refin- 
 ing and gratuitous importation, takes τὸ μέν and τὸ dé by themselves as sub- 
 ject, κρῖμα and χάρισμα as predicates (‘‘the one effect is a righteous judg- 
 ment. . . . the other on the contrary a gift”). Dietzsch still more breaks 
 up the sentence, making κρῖμα and χάρισμα appositions, the former to τὸ μέν, 
 and the latter to τὸ δέ. — ἐξ ἑνός] has, like ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτ. afterwards, 
 the chief emphasis ; ἑνός is masculine on account of the previous δ ἑνὸς 
 ἁμαρτῆσ., not neuter (παραπτώματος), 88. Rothe, Mehring, Dietzsch, Stélting 
 and others think. This masculine however does not necessitate our taking 
 πολλῶν also as masculine (Hofmann), which would in itself be allowable 
 (comp. on 2 Cor. 1. 11), but is here opposed by the consideration that Paul 
 would have @xpressed the personal contrast to ἐξ ἑνός more symmetrically and 
 thoughtfully by the bare ἐκ πολλῶν. The Vulgate gives the right sense’: 
 *‘er multis delictis.” —£| points to the motive cause, producing the event 
 from itself : forth from one; see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 399. Just in the same 
 way the second éx. — εἰς κατάκριμα] sc. ἐστί, as in the first half of the verse,? 
 
 1 Τῦ would runthus: ‘‘ The.gift has not so 
 accrued abundantly to the many and passed 
 over to them, as was the case when such a be- 
 stowal ensued through one that sinned.” 
 This supplement is already guarded against 
 by the fact that κ. οὐχ down to δώρημα is the 
 obvious parallel of οὐχ ὡς +. παραπτ. down 
 
 to χάρισμα, and hence, like the latter, may 
 not be supplemented further than by ἐστί. 
 Any other course is arbitrary and artificial. 
 
 2In consequence of the way in which 
 Hofmann has supplemented the first half 
 of the verse, we should now take, in the 
 one instance, ἐξ ἐνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα εἰς τοὺς 
 
CHAP, V5: 172 213 
 ‘‘ut una cum praesentibus praeterita tamquam eadem in tabella repraesent- 
 et,” van Hengel. One was the cause (moving the divine righteousness) 
 that the judgment of God presents itself in the result as a punitive judgment 
 (namely, that on account of the sin of one all should die, ver. 12) ; many 
 sins [see Note LVIII. p. 225], on the other hand, were the cause (moving 
 the divine compassion) that the gift of grace results in concreto as a judg- 
 ment of justification. In the one case an wnity, in the other a multiplicity, 
 was the occasioning cause. In the second clause also, following the analogy 
 of κρῖμα in the first, τὸ χάρισμα is conceived of generally and abstractly ; the 
 χάρισμα redounds in the concrete case εἰς δικαίωμα, When God, namely, for- 
 gives the many sins and declares their subjects asrighteous. δικαίωμα, Which 
 is not, with Dietzsch, to be understood in the sense of the right framing of 
 life through sanctification of the Spirit—a view contrary to linguistic usage 
 and the context—is here also (comp. i. 32, 11. 26, vill. 4 ; Luke i. 6; Heb. 
 ix. 1,10 ; Rev. xv. 4; frequently in LXX. and Apocr., see Schleusner, Thes. 
 IL. p. 167 f.), according to its literal signification, in itself nothing else than 
 judicial determination, judicial sentence ; but it is to be taken here in the 
 Pauline sense of the divine δικαιοῦν, hence : the sentence defining righteousness, 
 the ordinance of God in which He completes the δικαίωσις as actus judicialis, 
 the opposite of κατάκριμα. Condition of righteousness (Luther and others), 
 ‘“the actual status of being righteous” (Hofmann), would be represented by 
 δικαιοσύνη ; satisfaction of justice, compensation of justice (Rothe, Mehring 
 following Calovius, and Wolf), in accordance with which idea it may even 
 designate punishment in classical usage (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 864 E), it might 
 mean (Aristot. Hth. Nic. v. 7, 17: ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος), but never does 
 so in Biblical usage, to which this special definition 01 the sense is foreign. 
 Paul could convey the sense declaration as righteous, verdict of justification, 
 the more appropriately by δικαίωμα, since in Bar. ii. 17 the word is also sub- 
 stantially thus used (δώσουσι δόξαν x. δικαίωμα τῷ κυρίῳ, IN Hades they shall 
 not praise God and declare Him righteous). Compare also 2 Sam. xix. 28 ; 
 Jer. xi. 20; Prov. viii. 20; Rev. xv. 4, and xix. 8.1 The right view is 
 taken by Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, 
 van Hengel, Holsten, Klépper, and Pfleiderer ; Riickert (also Maier) abides 
 by means of justification, following merely the form of the word without 
 empirical proof, while de Wette is undecided, and Stélting, without prece- 
 dent from linguistic usage (comp. above Luther and Hofmann), understands 
 the state of justification into which the state of grace (the γάρισμα) has passed. 
 These two conceptions however exclude any idea of succession, and are con- 
 current. — The addition ζωῆς in D. Vulg. is a correct gloss ; comp. ver. 18. 
 
 Ver. 17. The τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλ. παραπτ. εἰς δικαίωμα, just asserted in 
 contrast to the κατάκριμα proceeding from One, has now the seal of conjfirma- 
 
 πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν ἃ5 predicate to 
 τὸ κρῖμα; and in the other instance, ἐκ 
 πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα εἰς τοὺς 
 πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν as predicate to 
 τὸ xapioua,—notwithstanding that in both 
 eases a definition with εἰς is already given 
 by Paul himself. How enigmatically and 
 
 misleadingly he would have written ! 
 
 1 Where τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων are the 
 divine verdicts of justification, which the 
 saints have received. The pure byssus is 
 their symbol. Compare Ewald, Joh. Schr. 
 in loe. p. 330. Diisterdieck understands it 
 otherwise (righteous acts). 
 
214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tion (γάρ) impressed on it through the triumphant certainty of the reign of 
 life, which must belong to the recipients of the δικαίωμα in the approaching 
 completion of the kingdom through the One Jesus Christ all the more un- 
 doubtedly, since the παράπτωμα of the One Adam brought death to reign. 
 The effect of the second One (the Adam μέλλων) in the direction of salvation 
 cannot in fact remain behind the effect which proceeded from the first One 
 in the direction of destruction. On this rests the evidence of the blissful 
 assurance, which with πολλῳ μᾶλλον stands forth as it were from the gloom 
 of the death previously described (comp. vv. 15, 9). The view that ver. 17 
 adduces the proof of the first half of ver. 16 being really proved by its second 
 half (Hofmann), is to be rejected for this very reason, that the demonstra- 
 tion in ver. 16 is so full and clear in itself, especially after ver. 15, that there 
 is no longer any necessity for receiving proof of its probative power, and no 
 reader could expect this. It is quite arbitrary in Rothe, especially looking 
 to the regular continuation by yap, to take ver. 16 as a parenthesis, and to 
 attach ver. 17 to ver. 15. For other views of the connection see Dietzsch, 
 who, in accordance with his own unsuitable rendering of δικαίωμα, finds here 
 the inner righteous condition of life verified by the final reign of life as its 
 outward manifestation. — διὰ τοῦ ἑνός] through the medium of the One, is 
 added, although ἐν ἑνὶ παραπτώματι had been already said (see the critical 
 remarks), in order to prepare the way with due emphasis for the διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς 
 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ of the apodosis. Comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 7. — πολλῷ μᾶλλον] 
 Here also, as in ver. 15, the logical plus, the far greater certainty and evidence. 
 -- οὶ λαμβάνοντες] not those who believingly accept (Bengel, Rothe, van Hen- 
 gel, and others), but simply the recipients. [See Note LIX. p. 226.] The 
 present participle denotes the presence of the time of grace introduced by 
 Christ, which stands in the middle between the former reign of death and 
 the reign of life in the blissful future and determines the subjects of the lat- 
 ter ; comp. ver. 1]. -- τὴν περισσείαν] the abundant fulness (comp. 11. 4) of 
 grace, referring to ἐπερίσσευσε in ver. 15. — τῆς yap κ. τ. δωρεᾶς] distinguished, 
 as in ver. 15. But the emphasis of the description, climactic in the enthusi- 
 asm of victory, lies in the first instance on χάριτος, and then, as it advances, 
 on δικαιοσύνης, in contrast to the former tragic παράπτωμα. ---- τῆς diKatoc.] 15 
 that, in which the δωρεά consists. The whole characteristic description of 
 the subjects by οἱ. . . . λαμβάνοντες already implies the certainty with 
 which one may reckon in the case of those, who are honoured to receive 
 such abundance, on the final βασιλεύειν ἐν ζωῇ through Christ. — ἐν ζωῇ βασιλ- 
 evoovor] The word βασιλ. itself, and more especially the future, renders it 
 certain that the futwre Messianic ζωή is here meant ; in which, as the oppo- 
 site of the θάνατος, the pardoned and justified shall have the joint-dominion 
 of the new world (viii. 21), the κληρονομία and its δόξα (viii. 17), under Christ 
 the Head (1 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 12), in whose final manifestation 
 their life shall be gloriously manifested (Col. iii. 3 f.) Observe, further, 
 that in the apodosis Paul does not say ἡ ζωή βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τοὺς . ... . λαμβά- 
 vovrac in accordance with the protasis, but appropriately, and in harmony 
 with the active nature of the relation, ¢.e. of the future glorious liberty of 
 the children of God, places the subjects actively in the foreground, and 
 
CHAP. Y.,' 18. 215 
 
 affirms of them the reigning in life. — The ’Iycot Χριστοῦ is added as if in 
 triumph, in contradistinction to the unnamed but well-known εἷς, who occa- 
 sioned the dominion of death. Finally, we should not fail to notice how in 
 this passage the glance proceeds from the status gratiae (λαμβάνοντες) back- 
 ward to the status irae (ἐβασίλευσε), and forward to the status gloriae (βασιλ- 
 εὑσουσι). 
 
 Ver. 18 f. Summary recapitulation of the whole parallel treated of from 
 ver. 12 onwards, so that the elements of likeness and unlikeness contained 
 in it are now comprehended in one utterance. Συλλογίζεται ἐνταῦθα τὸ πᾶν, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia. The emergence of the ἄρα οὖν now ushering in the 
 conclusion, as well as the corresponding relation of the contents of ver. 18 f. 
 to the indication given by ὃς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in ver. 14, carries us 
 back to ver. 12; not merely to ver. 16 f. (de Wette, Fritzsche) ; or merely 
 to vv. 15-17 (Hofmann, Dietzsch). The right view is taken by Philippi, 
 Ewald, Holsten. — ἄρα οὖν] conclusive : accordingly then,’ in very frequent 
 use by the Apostle (vii. 3, 25, vili. 12, ix. 16, 18, xiv. 12, 19; Gal. vi. 10; 
 Eph. 11. 19 οὐ a/.), and that, contrary to the classical usage,’ at the beginning 
 of the sentence. For the necessary (contrary to Mehring’s view) completion 
 of the two sentences, which are in the sharpest and briefest manner com- 
 pressed as it were into a mere exclamation (Ewald), it is sufficient simply 
 to supply : res cessit, it has come, ἀπέβη (Winer, p. 546 [E. T. 587]), or ἐγένετο 
 (Grotius). See Buttmann’s newt. Gr. p. 338 [E. T. 394]. As zt therefore has 
 come to a sentence of condemnation for all men through One trespass, so also it 
 has come to justification of life (which has for its consequence the possession 
 of the future Messianic life, comp. ver. 21; John v. 28, 29) jor all men 
 through One justifying judgment. The supplying of τὸ κρῖμα ἐγένετο to the 
 first, and τὸ χάρισμα ἐγένετο to the second half (so Fritzsche and Riickert), 
 considering the opposite sense of the two subjects, renders the very com- 
 pressed discourse somewhat singular. — δ ἑνὸς δικ.} through one judicial 
 verdict (see on vv. 16, 19), namely, that which was pronounced by God on 
 account of the obedience of Christ rendered through His death. In strict 
 logic indeed the δικαίωμα, which is properly the antithesis of κατάκριμα (as in 
 ver. 16), should not be opposed to παράπτωμα ; but this incongruity of a 
 lively interchange of conceptions is not un-Pauline (comp. ver. 15). And 
 it is thoroughly unwarranted to assign to δικαίωμα here also, as in ver. 16, 
 significations which it has not ; such as actual status of being righteous (Hof- 
 mann, Stélting), fulfilment of right (Philippi, Mangold), making amends 
 (Rothe), righteous deed (Holsten), righteous life-condition of Christ (Dietzsch), 
 with which a new humanity begins, act of justification (Tholuck), virtuous- 
 ness (Baumgarten-Crusius), obedience (de Wette), and the like—definitions, 
 in which for the most part regard is had to the act of the death of Jesus 
 partly with and partly without the addition of the obedientia activa (comp. 
 also Klépper), while Fritzsche explains it of the incarnation and humilia- 
 
 1"Apa, “od internam potius causam cy; Baeumlein, p. 85; comp. Kiihner, II. 
 spectat,” οὖν, ‘‘magis ad externam,”’ p. 857. 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p.717. Comp. p. 178. The 2 Herm. ad Antig. 628, ad Viger. p. 823. 
 apa serves specifically for dialectic accura- 
 
210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tion of Christ (Phil. ii. 5, 8) as His rectefactum. Ewald interprets rightly : 
 “through One righteous sentence ;” so also van Hengel and Umbreit. 
 This alone is permitted by ver. 16. It is the One declaration of what is now 
 of right, that is, the judicial verdict of the being reconciled, which took place 
 on the part of God, on the ground of Christ’s sacrificial death—the conse- 
 quence therefore, of His ὑπακοή rendered in death—and which so far may 
 appear as the antithesis to the fall of Adam with the same right as in ver, 
 15 the grace and gift were adduced as the contrast to that fall. To take 
 the ἑνός as masculine (Vulgate, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, 
 Calvin, and many others, including Tholuck, Fritzsche, Nielsen, Picard, 
 Klépper, Philippi, and Hofmann), is, seeing that no article is annexed, 
 unwarranted according to the analogy of the immediate context, vv. 17, 19 ; 
 or Paul would have only expressed himself in a way liable to be misunder- 
 stood (how differently in ver. 16 ἢ. Equally unwarranted is it to conceive 
 the verb to be supplied in the apodosis as in the future (Philippi, Dietzsch). 
 The judicial verdict is given and has redounded once and for ever to justifi- 
 cation of eternal life for all ; that is the great historical fact of salvation, 
 which Paul has in view and sets forth as a concrete event (not under the 
 point of view of a timeless abstraction, as Rothe thought) without con- 
 sidering how far it is now or in the future appropriated through faith by 
 the subjects.—In both halves of the verse πάντες ἄνθρωποι is simply all men, 
 asin ver. 12. At the same time it must be noted that in the second half 
 the relation is conceived in its objectivity. On the part of God it has come 
 to justification for al/ ; thus the case stands objectively ; the subjective attain- 
 ment of this universal justification, the realization of it for the individuals, 
 depends upon whether the latter believingly apprehend the δικαίωμα for their 
 own subjective δικαίωσις, or unbelievingly reject it. This dependence on a 
 subjective condition, however, did not belong to the scope of our passage, 
 in which the only object was to set forth the all-embracing blessed objec- 
 tive consequence of the ἕν δικαίωμα, in contrast to the all-destructive 
 objective consequence of the ἕν παράπτωμα. Hence just as little can any- 
 thing be deduced from our passage as from xi. 32 in favour of a final 
 ἀποκατάστασις. The distinction imported by Hofmann and Lechler : that 
 πάντες ἄνθρωποι means all without distinction, and πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, on the 
 other hand, all without exception, the swum total of mankind, is purely 
 fanciful ; πάντες means omnes, nemine excepto, alike whether the substantive 
 belonging to it, in accordance with the connection, has or has not the 
 article (‘‘articulus, cum sensus fert additus vel omissus, discrimen sen- 
 tentiae non facit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 519). Only when the article 
 stands before πάντες (consequently οἱ πάντες ἄνθ.) does the distinction emerge, 
 that we have to think of ‘‘ cunctos sive universos, i.e. singulos in unum 
 corpus colligatos” (Ellendt, p. 521) ; comp. Kriiger, ὃ 50, 11, 12 ; Kihner, 
 II. 1, p. 545. 
 
 Ver. 19. This final sentence, assigning a reason, now formally by the 
 recurrence of the ὥσπερ points back to ver. 12, with which the whole chain 
 of discourse that here runs to an end had begun. [See Note LX. p. 226.] 
 But that which is to be established by γάρ is not the how of the parallel com- 
 
CHAP A Ve, we: RAG, 
 parison, which is set forth repeatedly with clearness (in opposition to 
 Rothe), but the blissful conclusion of that comparison in ver. 18 : εἰς 
 δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, upon which what is now expressed in ver. 19 impresses the 
 seal of certainty. Dietzsch thinks that the purport, which is kept general, 
 of ver. 18 is now to be established from the personal life, But the right 
 interpretation of δικαίωμα and of δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται is opposed to this © 
 view. -- - ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθ. of πολλοί] [See Note LXI. p. 227.] The many 
 were set down as sinners; for according to ver. 12 ff. they were indeed, 
 through the disobedience of Adam, put actually into the category of sinners, 
 because, namely, they sinned in and with the fall of Adam. Thus through 
 the disobedience of the one man, because all had part in it, has the position of 
 all become that of sinners. The consequence of this, that they were subjected 
 to punishment (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact and others), were 
 treated as sinners (Grotius, Flatt, B6hme, Krehl and others), and the like, is 
 not here expressly included, but after the foregoing is obvious of itself. 
 Fritzsche (comp. Koppe and Reiche) has : through their death they ap- 
 peared as sinners.‘ On the one hand this gratuitously imports something 
 (through their death), and on the other it does violence to the expression 
 κατεστάθ., which denotes the real putting into the position of sinners, where- 
 by they de facto came to stand as sinners,* peccatores constituti sunt (James 
 iv. 4; 2 Pet. i. 8; Heb. v. 1, viii. 3; 2 Macc. xv. 2; 3 Macc. yoy Lelie 
 Rep. p. 564 A ; Conv. p. 222 B ; examples from Xenophon in Sturz, Il. p. 
 610), as is required by the ruling normal clause ἐφ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον in ver. 12. 
 The Apostle might have written ἐγενήθησαν (as Dietzsch explains the kazeor.), 
 but he has already in view the antithesis δίκαιοι καταστ., and expresses himself 
 in conformity to it ; hence also he does not put πάντες (which might have 
 stood in the first clause), but οἱ πολλοί. --- διὰ ὑπακοῆς] through obedience. 'The 
 death of Jesus was κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν His obedience to the will of the Father, Phil. 
 ii, 8; Heb. v. 8. But this designation is selected as the antithesis to the 
 παρακοή of Adam, and all the more certainly therefore it does not here mean 
 “the collective life-obedience” (Lechler, comp. Hofmann, Dietzsch and 
 others), but must be understood as the deed of atonement willed by God 
 (ver. 8 ff.), to which we owe justification, and the ethical premiss of which 
 on Christ’s side is righteousness of life, although Hofmann improperly 
 rejects this view as a groundless fancy.—dixatot κατασταθήσονται] shall be placed 
 in the category of righteous. The future refers® to the future revelation of 
 
 1 ὅ0 also Julius Miiller, v. d. Siinde, IT. Ὁ. 
 485, ed. 5, evading the literal sense: “the 
 many have become declared (as it were 
 before the divine judgment-seat) as sinners 
 through the disobedience of the one man 
 (as the determining initial point of sinful 
 development), by the fact, that they have 
 been subjected to death.” See on the 
 other hand Hofmann, who properly urges 
 that they did not become sinners only 
 along with their dying, but immediately 
 through Adam’s disobedience. But the 
 how of their doing so is infact just the ἐφ᾽ 
 
 ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, according to our concep- 
 tion of these words. 
 
 2 Dietzsch should not have raised the ob- 
 jection that it ought to have been εἰς 
 ἁμαρτωλούς, OF ἐν ἁμαρτωλοῖς. See generally 
 Kiihner, II. 1, p. 274. 
 
 3 Corresponding to the βασιλεύσουσι in 
 ver. 17, and hence not to be explained in a 
 mere general way of the certain expecta- 
 tation or conviction (Mehring), as Hof- 
 mann also takes it in the sense of μέλλει 
 Aoyigerdar, iv. 24. Comp. on the other 
 hand ii. 13, 16; and see on Gal. v. 5. 
 
218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 glory after the resurrection (Reiche, Fritzsche, Klépper) ; not to the fact 
 that the multitude of believers is conceived of as not yet completed, and 
 consequently the justifying of them is chiefly regarded as a succession of 
 cases to come (comp. 111. 20, 30). The how of the δίκαιοι κατασταθ. cannot be 
 found in an actual becoming righteous, as result of the divine work of grace, 
 at the close of the saving process (Dietzsch), which would offend against the 
 whole context since ver. 12, and anticipate the contents of ch. vi. In truth 
 the mode which Paul had in view is beyond doubt, after the development 
 of the doctrine of justification in chs. iii.‘iv. God has forgiven believers 
 on account of the death of Christ, and counted their faith as righteousness, 
 Thus the obedience of the One has caused that at the judgment the πολλοί 
 shall by God’s sentence enter into the category of the righteous,’ as the dis- 
 obedience of the One had caused the πολλοί to enter the opposite. In both 
 cases the causa meritoria is the objective act of the two heads of the race 
 (the sin of Adam—the death of Christ), to whom belong the πολλοί on both 
 sides ; while the subjective mediating cause is the individual relation to those 
 acts (communion in Adam’s fall—faith). It is a mistake therefore to quote 
 this passage against the Protestant doctrine of justification (Reithmayr and 
 Bisping), as if the making righteous were designated as sanctification. 
 But we are not entitled to carry the comparison between Adam and Christ 
 further than Paul himself has done. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. The comparison between Adam and Christ is closed. But 
 in the middle between the two stood the law! [See Note LXII. p. 227.] 
 How therefore could Paul leave unnoticed the relation of the law to both, 
 the relation of this essential intervening element in the divine plan of sal- 
 vation, the continuity of which was not to be hindered by the law, but, on 
 the contrary, advanced to its blissful goal? The mention of it presented 
 itself necessarily to him, especially after the utterance already contained in 
 ver. 13, even without our thinking of an opponent’s objection,’ or, at least, of 
 persons who fancied that they must themselves furnish something in order 
 to secure for themselves eternal life (Hofmann) ; but it cannot be regarded 
 as the proper goal of the entire discussion (Th. Schott), which would not at 
 all correspond to so succinct an indication. — παρεισῆλθεν] there came in 
 alongside (of the ἁμαρτία, which had already come in, ver. 12) into the 
 world.* The notion of secrecy (Vulgate : subintravit, comp. Erasmus, 
 Annot., Send.) is not implied in παρά in itself, but would require to be sug- 
 gested by the context, as in Gal. ii. 4; Pol. i. 7, 3; i. 8, 4; ii. 55, 3 (where 
 λάθρᾳ stands along with it) ; comp. παρεισάγω, παρεισδύω, παρεισφέρω k.T.A., 
 which likewise receive the idea of secrecy only from the context. But this 
 
 1 Consequently not through any internal 
 communication or infusion of the moral 
 quality of righteousness ; comp. Ddllinger, 
 Christenthum u. K. p. 200 f. 190, ed. 2. See 
 on the other hand K6stlin in the Jahrb. 7. 
 D. Theol. 1856, p. 95. Déllinger erroneously 
 explains κατασταϑήσ. : ‘established in right- 
 eousness.”” 
 
 2So even Cyril and Grotius ; compare 
 
 Mangold. The latter finds here a proof of 
 the preponderantly Jewish- Christian char- 
 acter of the readers. But with as little 
 right as it might be found in Gal. iii. 
 
 3 See Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 651; and van 
 Hengel in loc. Comp. Philo in Loesner, p. 
 252, especially de temul. p. 263 C, where 
 παρεισελϑεῖν ἐῶσα Means juxta se intrare 
 sinens. On the idea comp. Gal. iii. 19. 
 
CHAP. V., 20, 21. 219 
 
 is not at all the case here, because this idea would be at variance with the 
 solemn giving of the law (Gal. ili. 19 ; Acts vii. 53), and the reverence of 
 the Apostle for it (Rom. vii. 12 ff.). Reiche, Rothe, Tholuck, Riickert, and 
 Philippi import the idea that the law is designated as an accessory insti- 
 tution, or its coming in as of subordinate importance in comparison with 
 that of sin (Hofmann), as an element not making an epoch (Weiss, Dietzsch), 
 It was not such, Gal. iv. 24, nor is this sense implied in the word itself. 
 Linguistically incorrect (for παρεισέρχ. does not mean coming in between, 
 but coming in alongside) is the view of others : that it came in the middle 
 between Adam (according to Theodoret and Reithmayr, Abraham) and 
 Christ (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Usteri, Ewald, Bis- 
 ping, and others). Nor does παρεισῆλθεν mean: it came in in opposition 
 thereto, i.e. in opposition to sin (Mchring). Such a reference must nec- 
 essarily have been implied, as in Gal. ii. 4, in the context, but would be out 
 of place here on account of the following ἵνα «.7.2., which Mehring inap- 
 propriately takes as painful irony. Finally that παρά means obiter, ad tem- 
 pus (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius ἃ Lapide) isa pure fancy. — iva 
 πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτ.] in order that the transgression might be increased. [See 
 Note LXIII. p. 227.] The παράπτωμα can only be intended in the sense in 
 which the reader must have understood it in virtue of the preceding text, 
 ver. 15 ff., therefore of the Adamite transgression. This was the concrete 
 destructive evil, which existed in the world as the beginning of sin and the 
 cause of universal death. By the law, however, it was not to be abolished 
 or annulled, but on the contrary (observe the prefixing of πλεονάσῃ) it was 
 to be increased, i.e. to obtain accession in more and more παραπτώμασι. If 
 therefore τὸ παράπτωμα is not to be taken collectively (Fritzsche, de Wette, 
 van Hengel, and others) just as little is iva πλεονάσῃ to be rationalized so 
 that if may be interpreted Jogice, of greater acknowledgment of sin (Grotius, 
 Wolf, Nielsen, Baur), or of the consciousness of sin (J. Miller), since the 
 corresponding ὑπερεπερίσσ. cannot be so taken ; nor so, that iva is to be ex- 
 plained as ecbatic (Chrysostom, and several Fathers quoted by Suicer, Thes. 
 I. p. 1454, Koppe, Reiche), which is never correct, and is not justified by 
 the groundless fear of a blasphemous and un-Pauline idea (Reiche). Comp. 
 Gal. 111. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56 ; and generally oni. 34. Augustine (in Ps. cii. 
 c. 15) rightly says by way of describing the intervening aim referred to : 
 ‘‘non crudeliter hoc fecit Deus, sed consilio medicinae ;... . augetur 
 morbus, crescit malitia, quaeritur medicus et totum sanatur.” — παράπτωμα 
 and ἁμαρτία are not certainly distinguished as Tittmann, Synon. p. 47, de- 
 fines ; nor yet, as Reiche thinks, simply thus, that both words indicate the 
 same idea only under different figures (this would be true of παράπτωμα and 
 ἁμάρτημα) ; but in this way, that τὸ παράπτωμα invariably indicates only the 
 concrete sin, the sinful deed ; while ἡ ἁμαρτία may have as well the concrete 
 (as always when it stands in the plural, comp. on Eph. ii. 1) as the abstract 
 sense. It has the latter sense in our passage, and it appears purposely 
 chosen. For if the Adamite transgression, which was present in the world 
 of men as a fact and with its baneful effect, received accession through the 
 law, so that this evil actually existing in humanity since the fall increased, 
 
220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the sum total of sin in abstracto, which was among men, was thereby en- 
 larged ; the dominion of sin became greater, both extensively and intensively 
 (comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 73). Therefore the discourse pregresses 
 thus : οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, and then ἐβασίλ. ἡ ἁμαρτία. ---- oi] where, local, 
 of the domain, where etc. This field is generally the world of men, in which, 
 however, the increase in sin here meant came from the people of the law, from 
 Israel ; but without the sphere of the οὗ being limited to the latter, since 
 immediately, in ver. 21, he brings forward the wniversal point of view as it 
 prevails throughout the section (in opposition to Hofmann). The temporal 
 rendering : when (Grotius, de Wette, Fritzsche, Stélting) is likewise lin- 
 guistically correct (time being represented wnder the aspect of space, comp. 
 ag’ ov and the like), but less in harmony with the analogous passages, iv. 
 15 ; 2 Cor. 11. 17 (οὐ. . . . éxei). — ὑπερεπερίσσ. | it became over-great, supra 
 modum redundavit. The ἐπλεόνασεν had to be surpassed. Comp. 2 Cor. 
 vil. 4; 1 Tim. i. 14; Mark vii. 37; ὃ Thess. i. 3. But that it had sur- 
 passed itse/f (Hofmann), is a definite reference gratuitously introduced. 
 The two correlative verbs are related simply as comparative and superlative. 
 — iva ὥσπερ x.t.2.| in order that, just as (formerly) sin reigned in virtue of 
 death, so also (divine) grace should reign by means of righteousness unto eternal 
 life through Jesus Christ our Lord. This is the whole blessed aim of the 
 ὑπερεπερίσσ. ἡ χάρις. Rothe incorrectly desires to treat οὗ δὲ. . . . χάρις as 
 a parenthesis. This proposition is in fact so essential, that it is the nec- 
 essary premiss for the opening up of that most blessed prospect. See more- 
 over Dietzsch. —év τῷ θανάτῳ] not unto death (Luther, Beza, Calvin, and’ 
 many others), nor yet in death as the sphere of its rule (Tholuck, Philippi), 
 but instrumentally, corresponding to the antithesis διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν 
 αἰώνιον (which belong together). Sin has brought death into the world 
 with it, and subjected all to death (ver. 12), ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον ; thus sin 
 exercised its dominion in virtue of death. This dominion however has 
 given way to the dominion of grace, whose rule does not indeed 
 abolish death, which having once entered into the world with sin has 
 become the common lot of all, in itself, but accomplishes its object all the 
 more blissfully, in that it confers a righteousness redounding to everlasting 
 life." And grace exercises this bliss-bringing rule through the merit of its 
 personal Mediator (πρόξενος, Chrysostom) Christ, who has earned it for men 
 through His expiatory death. The full triwmphant conclusion, διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (comp. vii. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 57 al.) belongs to the 
 entire thought ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ. . . . ζ. αἰώνιον, upon which it impresses 
 the seal. Here, also, the δικαιοσύνη is the righteousness of faith (not of life). 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XLIX. Ver. 1. ἔχομεν. 
 
 The textual question of this verse is one of extreme difficulty. That the 
 weight of external authority is in favor of ἔχωμεν cannot be doubted. But it is 
 
 17The pregnant sense, which Hofmann, seeks to apply analogically here also (comp. 
 on ver. 14, attributes to the βασιλεύειν, and Dietzsch), is here least of all appropriate. 
 
NOTES. 221 
 
 equally beyond doubt that the internal argument points toward the indicative. 
 The remark of Godet is justified by an examination of what the advocates of 
 the other reading have brought forward in its support: ‘‘ No exegete has been 
 able satisfactorily to account for this imperative suddenly occurring in the 
 midst of a didactic development.’”? The Apostle seems clearly, in these verses, 
 to be presenting the blessed consequences of the doctrine which he has estab- 
 lished by argument. That, in such a presentation, he should state the first of 
 these consequences (or, indeed, the second and third also), only in the form of 
 an exhortation to lay hold upon it, is, though not impossible, contrary to all 
 probability. 
 
 L. Ver. 2. καὶ καυχώμεθα. 
 
 καί, as Meyer holds, is to be connected with ἔχομεν of ver.1. There are three 
 consequences of justification by faith, which the Apostle mentions in the first 
 half of the chapter (1-i1): peace with God, joy in hope of the future glory, 
 and joy in present tribulations, These are the main points of the section, and 
 are set forth in co-ordinate sentences. The other parts of the passage are subor- 
 dinate: dv od... ἑστήκαμεν of ver, 2 to the statement of ver. 1, and vy. 3b-11 to ver. 
 3a. The cause or ground of the believer's rejoicing in tribulations is, that he 
 knows that, ina certain way and by acertain process, they lead to the confirma- 
 tion of his hope of the future. Tribulation works out the result for him of stead- 
 fast endurance ; this, in its turn, the result of ‘‘triedness” [dox:uy apparently 
 does not mean probation (proving), as Τὺ. V., but approval, or the condition of one 
 who, having been tested and tried, has stood the test δη 15 approved] ; and this 
 tested and approved character, again, naturally and necessarily strengthens hope 
 —which hope is one that does not disappoint the man who-has it. The founda- 
 tion of the confidence that it will not prove disappointing is the greatness of the 
 love of God. This greatness is exhibited and proved in vv. 6-8, and the conclu- 
 sion resting upon it—that the Divine love will, beyond all doubting, bring to its 
 end that which it has, by the provision of a reconciliation through Christ, so 
 wonderfully begun—is declared and emphatically repeated in vy. 9-11. 
 
 LI. Ver. 12. διὰ τοῦτο «.7.A. 
 
 The second section of this chapter (12-19) presents another blessed conse- 
 quence of the proof that justification is by faith: namely, that in this doc- 
 trine we have a universal system of salvation—not limited to one nation as 
 was the law, but open to all nations alike. In order to the setting forth of 
 this universality in an impressive way, the parallelism with the case of Adam is 
 introduced. As evil came from him, not to one section of mankind, but to all 
 sections, so it is with the blessings from Christ. To Paul's mind this univer- . 
 sality and ‘‘ world-wide significance’ was the glory of Christianity. It was 
 natural, therefore, that he should give it special prominence, and should pre- 
 sent it to his readers, as he does in this long paragraph, as standing over 
 against or equalling all the other and special results to which he had just 
 referred. To suppose that he here turns to consider the subject of original 
 sin, for the purpose of enunciating fully the true doctrine concerning it, is 
 to misapprehend the writer’s design. It is also to suppose that from the out- 
 break of the joyous feeling ofa full heart, in the preceding verses, he suddenly 
 turns to the darkest and saddest side of human history, and then, after writing 
 afew statements respecting it, leaves it entirely, to discuss another and quite 
 
R22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 different matter. We must believe that the introduction of Adam and his rela- 
 tion to the world is altogether in the way of illustration, and is of secondary 
 importance, as compared with the main object in view. This being the char- 
 acter of the passage, we can readily see how the writer should have limited 
 himself—as we find that he does—to the one point which he had in mind, 
 and should not have cared to express himself, with definiteness or fulness, as 
 to the entire doctrine of the relation of Adam’s sin to the condemnation of 
 his posterity. That there is a consequential connection between that sin and 
 the condemnation, it was necessary to his purpose to state. But it was by 
 no means necessary to explain, in all its details, the mode of this connection. 
 
 LIT. Ver. 12. εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. 
 
 With reference to πάντας, see note on page 76. The fact there mentioned re- 
 specting the use of this word in the course of the argument (i. 18-iv. 25), ren- 
 ders it altogether probable that ‘all men’’ here means all, without national lim- 
 itations, rather than all without the exception of any single individual. <A 
 writer is to be interpreted according to the thought which he is manifestly de- 
 veloping. The thought of the Apostle, for the setting forth of which he wrote 
 his Epistle, is that righteousness is by faith for every one, whether Jew or Gen- 
 tile. ‘This proposition he has proved, and he is now declaring, with joy, that 
 its truth involves universality of blessing.. What is this universality but that 
 which includes Gentiles as well as Jews ? 
 
 1.111. Ver. 12. πάντες ἥμαρτον. 
 
 The aorist tense in this verb seems to require explanation. Neither here 
 nor in 111. 23 and ii. 12, is it to be regarded as equivalent to the perfect or 
 present. In this case it carries back the thought to the time of Adam’s sin. 
 But in what sense all men are declared to have sinned when he did is not 
 determined by the mere fact that the aorist is used. The writer may be intend- 
 ing to state an actual participation in the first sin, or he may be expressing 
 himself ina figurative or semi-figurative way. That the former of these sup- 
 positions is not true is rendered probable by the acknowledged independence 
 on the part of each man of the sins of hisancestors. All admit that aman isin 
 no literal sense, either physically or morally, one with his remotest forefather 
 next this side of Adam. If no such union exists with the last but one in the 
 ascending series, we naturally conclude that there is none with the last. 
 This conclusion may not, indeed, be a necessary one. It is not. But it is so 
 probable, that it may set us on an inquiry as to whether some other explana- 
 tion cannot be found, which will relieve us of this difficulty ; and, if such an 
 explanation is discovered, it may give the weight of a strong presumption in its 
 favor. The usage of Paul in employing the aorist, and the indications of the 
 passage, point to the discovery. Of the view in question, Dr. Charles Hodge 
 fitly says, ‘‘ Even on the extremest realistic assumption that humanity as such 
 is an entity, the act of Adam was not the act of all men. His sin was an in- 
 telligent act of self-determination ; but an act of rational self-determination 
 is a personal act. Unless, therefore, all men as persons existed in Adam, it is 
 impossible that they acted his act. To say that a man acted thousands of 
 years before his personality began does not rise even to the dignity of a con- 
 tradiction : it has no meaning at all. It is a monstrous evil to make the Bible 
 
NOTES. 223 
 
 contradict the common sense and common consciousness of men ” (Comm. p. 
 236). The view adopted by Hodge himself, with others of similar theological 
 opinions, gives to the verb the meaning ‘‘ were accounted as sinners ;’’ that is, 
 all men were regarded and treated as sinners on account of Adam’s offence, 
 although they, in no actual sense, participated init. He was their represen- 
 tative, and they are subjected to penal evils because their representative sinned. 
 This explanation is not only exposed to the objection that it contravenes our 
 ordinary ideas of justice—an objection which, if not absolutely fatal, at least 
 throws a strong presumption against it, andimpels us to search for some more 
 reasonable account of the meaning—but is also inconsistent with the uni- 
 versal sense of the verb [Gen. xliii. 9, xliv. 32; 1 Kings i. 21, the only pas- 
 sages which are even claimed as exceptions, not being properly applicable 
 to the case in hand], and is directly contradicted by what is said in vy. 18, 
 19. Dr. Shedd, who favors the view of actual participation, says of this mode 
 of interpreting the words, ‘‘The clause is introduced to justify the infliction 
 of death upon all men. But it makes an infliction more inexplicable, rather 
 than less so, to say that it is visited upon those who did not commit the sin 
 that caused the death, but were fictitiously and gratuitously regarded as if 
 they had.” (Comm. on Rom. p. 125.) The reader may be referred to the 
 commentaries of these two writers, opposing each other, for a satisfactory 
 refutation of the views of both. We are led, accordingly, by the failure of 
 the literal explanation, to ask for another. And here we notice that Paul 
 repeatedly uses the aorist tense in a semi-figurative or figurative sense, in cases 
 analogous to the present. In the next chapter, vv. 4, 6, 8, he says that he and 
 his Christian readers were buried with Christ, that their old man was crucified 
 with Him, that they died with Him. Gal. ii. 20, he declares that he had 
 been crucified with Christ. In passages like these he does not mean that the 
 Roman believer, who became a Christian perhaps many years after the death 
 of Jesus, was actually put on the cross with Him and participated in His dy- 
 ing. He means, simply, that by reason of his becoming a believer, and when- 
 ever he does so, any person is, ipso facto, so closely united with Jesus that itis as 
 if he had been actually placed upon His cross. In a similarsense, the posterity 
 of Adam sinned in his sin. As their individual sins were, in some way, 2 
 consequence of his sinning, and his sin, thus, in some way set the course of 
 things sin-ward, they are said—though having no actual share in the commit- 
 ting of his act, and not born, even for many centuries after his time—to 
 have sinned when he did. It is as if they had actually done so. That 
 this mode of representing the matter was especially adapted to the case before 
 us is clear from the fact that the object which the Apostle has in view is to 
 compare Adam, and the results which flowed from his act, with Christ and 
 those which are derivedfrom Him. Here, therefore—beyond most other places 
 in his letters—the impulse to centralize all in the two, in this figurative way, 
 must have affected him. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews represents 
 Levi as participating in Abraham’s payment of tithes to Melchizedek, since he 
 was then in the loins of Abraham. Being a more careful writer, in such 
 minor points, than Paul, and leaving less to be supplied by the reader’s mind, 
 he adds to his statement that the sharing of the descendant in his ancestor’s 
 act was only a ‘‘so to speak’? sharing. The participation of Adam's descend- 
 ants in the committing of Adam’s sin was, after a similar sort, a figurative 
 participation. 
 
294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 LIV. Ver. 12. ἥμαρτον. 
 
 So, likewise, Weiss ed. Mey., who properly says that the words cannot, unless 
 arbitrarily, be understood of anything except the individual sins of individual 
 men. Healso justly holds that, when interpreted in theright way, vv: 13, 14, 
 which some commentators regard as favoring the other views, afford no such 
 evidence as is claimed. In respect to the objection urged by Meyer (and by 
 many writers who explain the verb here as referring to actual sinning in Adam, 
 or as having the sense were regarded as sinners) against the reference to individual 
 sins, that ‘‘all’’ includes the millions of children who have died without commit- 
 ting actual sin (i.e.in infancy), Weiss says that this objection overlooks the 
 fact that Paul enters upon this whole matter only in order to develop the anal- 
 ogy between Adam and Christ. by showing that sin and death come from the 
 former, as righteousness and life from the latter. As certainly, therefore, as 
 the Apostle has in mind only such as are capable of appropriating to them- 
 selves the salvation which is provided, so certainly he is thinking only of those 
 in whose case actual sinning can be predicated. To these suggestions might 
 well have been added that the right understanding of the word all (see note 
 viii.) as meaning all without national limitations, and not all without excep- 
 tion of any individuals (even infants), deprives this objection of Meyer’s of all 
 force. The Apostle had no thought of the ‘“ millions of ἜΣΟΝΒΕ Sema in 
 
 what he here says of Adam and Christ. “Ὁ. Uild re, . tg. ef Sak 
 
 LY. Ver. 13. ἄχρι νόμου. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. holds that νόμου of this verse means a law, but admits it to 
 be evident that, in both instances of its occurrence, it designates not any law 
 whatever (whether written or on the conscience), but one of the same char- 
 acter with the Mosaic. He admits, also, that the period referred to is that 
 which preceded the giving of the Mosaic law. The manifestly parallel expres- 
 sion in ver. 14 (from Adam until Moses) makes this admission necessary, so far, 
 at least, as the first instance is concerned. Not only this, it also shows that 
 the probability is very strong against the view of Weiss, and in favor of under- 
 standing by ἄχρι νόμου until the law (i.e. of Moses). A similar strong probabil- 
 ity in the case of μὴ ὄντος νόμου is indicated by the contrast between ver. 13b and 
 ver. 14. But whatever may be said as to the possibility that the second νόμου 
 may mean any positive law, the connection of these verses and the Pauline 
 usage everywhere renders it clear that it does not mean any law whatsoever— 
 whether given by revelation or by the light of nature. 
 
 LVI. Ver. 14. ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτῆσαντας x.T.A. 
 
 The view of Meyer is, that Paul had in his thought two classes of persons 
 living between Adamand Moses—namely, those to whom positive divine com- 
 mands were given, and those (the great majority indeed) to whom no such com- 
 mandscame. The former class, in sinning, transgressed as Adam did; the 
 latter did not sin in this way. Yet even over the latter death reigned. This 
 view is a perfectly legitimate one, so far as the use of καί is concerned ; but 
 Weiss objects to it, with some reason, on the ground that the Apostle seems to 
 characterize the entire ante-legal period as without positive law, and certainly 
 the numbers who had such law were insignificant. The opinion that Paul re- 
 
NOTES. 225 
 
 fers here to infants, which has been held by many in former times, is rightly 
 rejected by almost all the best commentators of recent date (Meyer, de Wette, 
 Tholuck, Philippi, Godet, Alford, Weiss, and others). That there is no such 
 reference is manifest, (a) from the fact that the words are not adapted to de- 
 scribe infants. If infants actually participated in Adam’s sin, or were one with 
 him, they are not those who did not sin after the likeness of his trangression ; 
 (b) from the fact that, as the infants of the time indicated, differed, as to the 
 matter under consideration, in no respect from all other infants, there could be 
 no occasion for designating them as a class of persons of that period especially ; 
 (c) from the fact that the reasoning of the Apostle in these verses (13, 14) 
 neither requires nor is strengthened by such a reference ; (d) from the fact that 
 the contrast between παράβασις and ἁμαρτία indicates an intention on the part 
 of the writer, in saying that these persons did not sin in the way of transgres- 
 sion, to convey the idea that they did actually sin in some other way. But 
 this is not true of infants. The words refer either to all, or (as Meyer says) 
 to some men who lived in the ante-legal period, and they describe them as sin- 
 ning against the law of nature, and not, as Adam did, against a revealed com- 
 mand of God. More probably the reference is to all in those ages of the world. 
 
 LVII. Ver. 15. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα K.7.A. 
 
 That the Apostle turns aside, at this point, to introduce a parenthetical pas- 
 sage, is evident. He takes up the thought of ver. 12 again in vv. 18,19. The 
 design of vv. 15-17 is to show that the correspondence between Adam and 
 Christ is not complete in every sense. The statement that it is not thus com- 
 plete is made in ver, 15 a, and repeated, in substance, in ver. 16a. The proof 
 of its truth is contained in 15) and 16b. As the two verses are connected by 
 καί, and as the language in the second clauses of the verses does not, necessarily 
 or even probably, convey the same idea (as that of the first clauses does), we 
 may hold that these second clauses are intended~to indicate two points in 
 which the exact correspondence fails. But, while we can proceed thus far 
 with great confidence, the decision of the question as to what the two points 
 are is ἃ matter of much difficulty, and commentators have offered many expla- 
 nations. The most satisfactory view is the following: that, in ver. 15, the 
 difference in the character of the results is set forth—death in the one case, 
 life in the other (cf. also ver. 17), and in ver. 16, the difference in the principles 
 of the divine action, or, as it were, in the causes of the results—justice on the 
 one hand, and superabounding mercy on the other. 
 
 LVIII. Ver. 16. ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων. 
 
 These words have been erroneously translated by many writers, as if they 
 followed δικαίωμα, and the meaning were justification from many offences. The 
 correspondence of the two clauses, on the other hand, clearly proves that they 
 have the same relation to the thought which the words ἐξ ἑνός have. As the 
 latter expression qualifies the statement by pointing out the occasioning cause 
 —the judgment (which might have been favorable or unfavorable), became as 
 the result of one sin a condemnatory judgment; so the former expression 
 
 answers a similar purpose—the free gift (which might have been in one form 
 or another), became, as the result of many offences, a gift of justification. The 
 abounding of sins, which had put men beyond all possible hope of legal jus- 
 
226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tification, was the occasioning cause of the introduction of the wonderful plan 
 of forgiveness and salvation by faith, provided in Christ. 
 
 LIX. Ver. 17. οἱ τὴν περῤισσείαν-----λαμβώνοντες. 
 
 That of λαμβάνοντες means, not those who believingly accept, but simply the 
 recipients—the idea being rather of the more passive, than the more active 
 reception—is proved by the parallelism in the expressions of this verse with 
 those of ver. 15. The parallelism seems to be complete, excepting that what 
 is made the subject in the first of the clauses in ver. 15 becomes the object 
 (i.e., as involved in the predicate) here, and the predicate of ver. 15 the sub- 
 ject here ; and, in the second clauses, the opposite change takes place. οἱ 
 πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον thus answers to ὁ θώνατος ἐβασίλευσεν ; and so εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς 
 ἐπερίσσευσεν corresponds with οἱ τὴν περισσείαν.. . λαμβάνοντες. The λαμβάνειν 
 is that which is involved in the very fact of the περισσεύειν, and not that which 
 consists in a subjective and willing acceptance. The persons designated by of 
 λαμβάνοντες are the same with οἱ πολλοί of vv. 15, 19, and the same with πάντες 
 ἄνθρωποι of ver. 18. The subject treated of in this chapter is, not the mode 
 of appropriating the justification provided in Christ, or the acceptance of it 
 by faith on the part of the individual, but the happy results which belong to 
 it as a system, as contrasted with the legal system. 
 
 LX. Ver. 19. ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς K.T.A. 
 
 It is evident that ver. 19 (γάρ) gives the ground and proof of the statement 
 of ver. 18. Condemnation comes upon all men by means of one offence, 
 because all men κατεστάθησαν ἁμαρτωλοὶ by means of the disobedience of the 
 one. The verb καθιστάναι 15 used in only one other passage in the Pauline 
 Epp. (Titus 1, 5), where it means to appoint to office. This is the common sig- 
 nification of the word in the N. T. It is used in this sense, however, only in 
 cases where the meaning is plainly indicated by the thought. Here this mean- 
 ing is altogether inappropriate. [The suggestion that to appoint is equivalent, 
 in such a case, to to regard (Hodge), involves the confounding of two different 
 notions.] We are turned, therefore, to another signification of the word, of 
 which we find instances both in the classics and in the N. T.—namely to make or 
 render, in the active voice ; to become or be, in the passive (cf. James iii. 6, iv. 4; 
 2 Pet. 1. 8). This sense being given to the verb brings it into harmony with 
 ἥμαρτον of ver, 12. The two verses, accordingly, declare that condemnation 
 comes upon all by means of Adam’s sin, because all by means of his sin them- 
 selves become sinners—the verbs being thrown into the past tense in the 
 same manner, and for the same reason, as in ver. 12. The declaration of the 
 Apostle, accordingly, is that the sin of Adam is the occasioning cause of the 
 death of all, because, and by means of the fact that it is the occasioning cause 
 of their sinning. A consequential relation between his sin and their sins is thus 
 declared. But even here, where the matter is presented more fully than in 
 the earlier part of the passage, this relation is not explained with definiteness 
 as to its precise character. (See Note LI. above.) It will be noticed that the 
 writer uses in every case (except ver. 16), either the instrumental dative or the 
 instrumental preposition (διά) ; thus showing that his idea was of an occasioning 
 as distinguished from an efficient cause. ἐξ, which can signify the former, is mani- 
 festly to be explained by did, which cannot signify the latter. 
 
NOTES. R22 
 
 LXI. Ver. 19. οἱ πολλοί. 
 
 That of πολλοί and πάντες are co-extensive in meaning is placed beyond 
 doubt by vv. 18,19. The former expression only brings out more definitely 
 the contrast with the one. That the two expressions, as used on the two sides 
 of the comparison, are equally universal, is clear from the entire passage. The 
 idea that the all on the one side are all who belong to Christ as his chosen and 
 willing followers, while the all on the other are all the posterity of Adam— 
 and thus, in the former case, a more limited number is spoken of than in the 
 latter—is without foundation. 
 
 LXII. Ver. 20. νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν. 
 
 νόμος in this place, again, is made by Weiss ed. Mey. and others to mean 
 a law, but yet one which corresponds in character with the Mosaic. The in- 
 correctness of this view is indicated by two facts, which may be observed by 
 the reader. (1) This verse is, in a sense, the foundation of the thought of the 
 next two chapters. The Apostle, in the development of this thought, raises 
 two questions, one in vi. 1, and the other in vii. 7. These two questions, as 
 the language clearly indicates, are connected with and suggested by the words 
 here employed : vi. 1, corresponding with the clause od . . . χάρις, and vii. 7 
 with νόμος... παράπτωμα. In vii. 7 ff., however, the reference is confessedly 
 to the Mosaic law (ef. also vii. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, of the next preceding passage). 
 (2) The passage (Gal. iii. 19), which is more strikingly similar to this verse 
 than any other in the Pauline Epp., and in which, as it can scarcely be ques- 
 tioned, the Apostle had in mind a thought answering to that here expressed, 
 has ὁ νόμος, and certainly refers to the law of Moses. It may also be added 
 that the connection of this verse with vy. 13, 14, where the words ‘‘ until 
 Moses” show what law was under consideration, confirms the argument 
 founded upon these two facts. 
 
 LXIIT. Ver. 20. ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα. 
 
 The design or purpose here referred to is not the primary or chief design. 
 The lawgiver gives the law that it may be obeyed. But it is ὦ design, i.e. an 
 intervening (Meyer) or intermediate, secondary, one. The law in its actual re- 
 sults was, as it were, taken up into the Divine providential plan or arrangement, 
 and made an occasion for the abounding of grace in the opening of the new 
 way to justification and life. 
 
228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἐπιμένωμεν] approved by Mill, Griesb. and others; adopted by 
 Lachm. Tisch. and Fritzsche. The Recepta is ἐπιμενοῦμεν, contrary to decisive 
 evidence (A B D E F G, min.); also contrary to K P δὲ, min., which have 
 ἐπιμένομεν. Brought into conformity with épovwev.—Ver. 11. After μέν Elz. 
 has εἶναι against preponderating evidence. Supplementary addition, which is 
 also variously placed. Notwithstanding Tisch. (8) has adopted it, but before 
 νεκρούς, following B C δ, —7@ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν also, which Elz. has after ’Ijcov, is, 
 according to decisive testimony, not genuine (an ascetic addition). — Ver, 12. 
 ὑπακ. ταῖς ἐπιθῇ. αὐτοῦ] so also Lachm, and Tisch. following A B C* δὲ, min., 
 and most vss. and Fathers. DEF ἃ Clar. Boern. Iren. Tert. Vict. tunun., 
 have ὑπακούειν αὐτῇ. Preferred by Rinck, and adopted by Scholzand Fritzsche. 
 The reading of Elz. : ὑπακ. αὐτῇ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ has least evidence. The 
 most strongly attested imax. ταῖς ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ appears to have been the original. 
 From it the trax. αὐτῇ arose through αὐτῇ being marginally annexed to ταῖς 
 ἐπιθ. αὐτ. as a gloss, to render it apparent, that in the case of the lusts of the 
 body the ἁμαρτία (original sin) was to be understood. This gloss was adopted 
 partly instead of τ. ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ (so ὑπακ. αὐτῇ arose); and partly along with τ. 
 ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ, which latter course occasioned a connecting ἐν, and gave rise to 
 the Recepta. — Ver. 15. ἁμαρτῆσομεν] A BC DE KL PS, min. and Clem. 
 have ἁμαρτῆσωμεν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and 
 Fritzsche, and rightly on account of the decisive evidence in its favour. — Ver. 
 21, τὸ γὰρ τέλος] Lachm. reads τὸ μέν yap τέλος in agreement with B D* EF G δὲ 
 § 73, Syr. p. Theodoret. Rightly : how easily might the μέν solitarium be lost 
 under the hands of unskilled copyists! Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 313 
 [E. T. p. 365.] 
 
 Chs. vi.—viii. Moral results from the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. Chapter vi. shows 
 how it, so far from furthering immorality, on the contrary excludes the lat- 
 ter from the Christian state, and for the first time rightly establishes, pro- 
 motes, and quickens true morality. Chap. vii. shows the same in relation 
 to the law ; and ch. viii. sets forth the blessed condition of those who as 
 justified are morally free. [See Note LXIV. p. 252.] 
 
 Ch. vi. 1-14. Continuance in sin in order that grace may abound—that is a 
 thing utterly opposed to the fellowship with Christ, into which we are brought by 
 baptism ; for we are thereby rendered dead unto sin, and translated into a new 
 
 17Thus Paul certainly passes over from 
 the field of the gaining salvation to that of 
 its moral preservation; but not, as Th. 
 Schott thinks, with a view to show the non- 
 necessity of the faw for the latter and so to 
 Justify his acting as Apostle to the Gentiles. 
 In ch. vi. the law in fact is mentioned not 
 
 as unnecessary, but as the contrast to the 
 state of grace (ver. 14 f.); and ch. vii. is oc- 
 cupied with something far loftier than its 
 non-necessity. Of the justification of his 
 apostolic working among the Gentiles, and 
 of its bearing on the law, the Apostle says 
 nothing. 
 
CHAP. VI.,. 159: 229 
 
 moral life. Correspond therefore (vv. 12-14) to this new relation (your ideal, 
 ver. 14) by your conduct. 
 
 Ver. 1. Oiv] In consequence of what is contained in v. 20, 21. — With 
 ἐπιμένωμεν x.t.A. Only Paul proposes to himself, as a possible inference from 
 - what he had just said ‘‘de pleonasmo gratiae” (Bengel), the problem, whose. 
 solution in the negative was now to be his further theme—a theme in itself 
 of so decisive an importance, that it does not require the assumption of a Jew- 
 ish- Christian church (Mangold) to make it intelligible. On the introduction 
 in interrogative form by τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. Ὁ. 346 
 (τί οὖν φημὶ δεῖν 3). As however the ‘‘ what shall we say then ?” inquires after 
 a maxim in some sort of way to be inferred, the deliberative ‘‘ shall we con- 
 tinue ete. ?” could at once follow directly, without any need for supplying 
 before it a repeated ἐροῦμεν, or μὴ ἐροῦμεν ὅτι, and for taking ἐπιμένωμεν in a 
 hortatory sense (van Hengel, Hofmann). — ἐπιμένειν τῇ auapr., to continue in 
 sin, not to cease from it. Comp. xi. 22 f.; Col. i. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 16 ; Acts 
 xiii. 48 5 Xen. Hell. 111. 4, 6 ; Oec. 14, 7: ἐπιμένειν τῷ μὴ ἀδικεῖν. 
 
 Ver. 2. My γένοιτο] Let it not be (see on iil. 4), namely, that we continue in 
 sin. — οἵτινες] as those who, contains the reason (of the πῶς ἔτι x.7.4.). See 
 oni. 25. The relative clause is put first with rhetorical emphasis, in order 
 at once to make the absurdity of the maxim plainly apparent.'— ἀπεθάν. τ. 
 duapt.|. [See Note LXV. p. 252.] The dying to sin, which took place by 
 baptism (see ver. 3), is the abandonment of all life-communion with it experi- 
 enced in himself by the convert (Col. ii. 20; Gal. ii. 19, vi. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 
 24). Comp. Theodoret : ἠρνήθης, φησὶ, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ νεκρὸς αὐτῇ γέγονας. 
 This moral change, which has taken place in him, has put an end to the de- 
 termining influence of sin over him ; in relation to it he has ceased to be still 
 in life. Similar is the Platonic conception in Macrob. Somn. Seip. i. 18 : 
 ‘mori etiam dicitur, cum anima adhuc in corpore constituta corporeas ille- 
 cebras philosophia docente contemnit et cupiditatum dulces insidias reli- 
 quasque omnes exuit passiones.” Michaelis, Cramer, Storr, Flatt, Nitzsch 
 (de diser. revelat. ete. Il. p. 233) take the sense to be : we who on account of 
 sin have died (with Christ), i.e. who have to regard ourselves as if, on ac- 
 count of sin (or Nitzsch: ‘‘ad eripiendam peccati vim mortiferam”), we 
 had ourselves endured what Christ suffered. But in this view the main 
 point ‘‘ with Christ” is arbitrarily imported ; and see ver. 11. — πῶς] denotes 
 the possibility which is negatived by the question. The having died to sin, 
 and the living in it (as the life-element, comp. Gal. ii. 20), are mutually ex- 
 clusive. — ¢jcouev] purely future. How is it possible that we shall be living: 
 in it (in its fellowship) still (ἔτ), namely, at any future time whatever 
 after the occurrence of that ἀπεθάνομεν ὃ The very weakly attested reading 
 preferred by Hofmann, ζήσωμεν, is only a case of mechanical conformity with 
 ἐπιμένωμεν in ver. 1. 
 
 Ver. 3. Ἢ] or, if this (ver. 2) should still appear doubtful.? Comp. vii. 1. 
 —dayvoeite] presupposes an acquaintance with the moral nature of baptism ; 
 
 1 Comp. Kiihner, IT. 5, p. 1104; Bernhardy, 2 See Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 61; Baeum-- 
 p. 299. lein, Partik, p. 182. 
 
230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 it must in fact have been an experimental acquaintance. With this 
 knowledge, how absurd would be that ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ ! Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2. 
 — ὅσοι] all we who, not stronger than οἵτινες, but put differently ; not char- 
 acterizing, but designating the whole collectively. —iBanticOnjuev εἰς X. I. εἰς 
 τὸν θάν x.7.A.] we, who were baptized in reference to Christ Jesus’ (we who 
 through baptism became those specifically belonging to Him), were baptized 
 in reference to His death ; i.e. we were brought through our baptism into the 
 fellowship of His death ; so that we have a real share ethically in His death, 
 through the cessation of all our life for sin. Theodore of Mopsuestia : τὸ 
 βάπτισμα κοινωνοὺς ποιεῖ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ambrosiaster : ‘‘ cum bap- 
 tizamur, commorimur Christo ;’ Bengel : ‘‘perinde est, ac si eo momento 
 Christus pro tali homine, et talis homo pro Christo pateretur, moreretur, 
 sepeliretur.” This interpretation, namely of the spiritual fellowship produc- 
 ed through baptism (prepared for by the repentance and πίστις that preceded 
 baptism, accomplished by the baptism itself, Gal. iii. 27 ; Col. ii. 11 f. ; Tit. Π|. 
 5), is required by the context in ver. 2 (ἀπεθάνομεν), ver. 4 (συνετάφημεν) and ver. 
 5f. It is therefore not the idea of imitation (Reiche, Kéllner, following Grotius 
 and others), but that of the dying along with (συσταυροῦσθαι, ver. 6 ; Gal. 11. 
 20 ; comp. 2 Cor. v. 14) unto which, 1.6. in order to the accomplishment of 
 which in us, we were baptized. The efficient cause of this fellowship of 
 death is the divine grace, which forgives sin and grants the Holy Spirit to 
 him who becomes baptized ; the means of this grace is baptism itself ; the 
 appropriating cause is faith, and the causa meritoria the death of Christ.? 
 Observe here also, however, that the spheres of justification and sanctification 
 are not intermixed. The justified person becomes sanctified, not the converse. 
 In baptism man receives forgiveness of sins through faith (comp. Acts ii. 38, 
 xxii. 16); justified by which he also becomes partaker of the virtue of the 
 Holy Spirit in the sacrament unto new life (Tit. iii. 5). ‘‘ Liberationem a 
 reatwu peccati vel justificationem consequitur liberatio a dominio peccati, ut 
 justificati non vivant peccato, sed peccato mortui Domino,” Calovius. Com- 
 pare ἀπελούσασθε, ἡγιάσθητε 1 Cor. vi. 11, and the remarks thereon. The Jlat- 
 ter is the fellowship in dying and living with Christ, which is accomplished 
 
 1 Banricew eis never means anything else 
 than to baptize in reference to, in respect to ; 
 and the more special definitions of its im- 
 port are furnished simply by the context. 
 Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. x. 2; Gal. 
 “11. 27.—On eis X. Ἰησοῦν comp. Acts ii. 38, 
 viii. 16, xix. 5. Undoubtedly the name 
 * Jesus’? was named in baptizing. But the 
 conception of becoming immersed into Christ 
 (in Riickert and others, and again in Weiss, 
 bibl. Theol. p. 343) is to be set aside, and is 
 not to be supported by the figurative ex- 
 pression in Gal. iii. 27. The mystic char- 
 acter of our passage is not produced by so 
 vague a sensuous conception,—which more- 
 over has all the passages against itin which 
 βαπτίζειν is coupled with ὄνομα (Matt. 
 XXViili. 19; Acts ii. 38, x. 48, xix. 5; 1 Cor. i. 
 
 13)—but is based simply on the ethical con- 
 sciousness of that intimate appertaining to 
 Christ, into which baptism translates its re- 
 cipients. 
 
 2 Namely as the atoning death (v. 6, 19, 21), 
 the appropriation of which shall be at- 
 tended with the saving effect of a new life 
 belonging to Him, 2 Cor. v. 14,15. If this 
 death thus becomes “ the end, once for all ex- 
 istent, of the relation of the world to God as 
 determined by sin” (Hofmann), that is the 
 divinely willed ethical result, which faith ob- 
 tains from the ἱλαστήριον, inasmuch as the 
 believer realizes his being dead to the 
 power of sin with Christ, who in His expia- 
 tory death underwent the killing power of 
 sin and therewith died to that power (vy. 
 9, 10). Comp. ver. 10 f. 
 
CHAP. VI., 4. 231 
 
 in baptism by the operation of the Spirit ; see on Gal. iil. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 
 13 ; Acts xix. 2 f.; Weiss, bid/. Theol. p. 345 f. But it is of course obvious 
 that the idea of the baptism of children was wholly foreign to this view of 
 the Apostle based on experience. ; 
 Ver. 4. An inference from ver. 3, by which the impossibility indicated in 
 ver. 2is now made completely evident. — Buricd with Him therefore (not 
 merely dead with Him, but, as the dead Christ was buried in order to rise 
 again, buried with Him also) were we, in that we were baptized into His death. 
 [See Note LXVI. p. 252.] The recipient of baptism, who by his baptism 
 enters into the fellowship of death with Christ, is necessarily also in the act 
 of baptism ethically buried with Him (1 Cor. xv. 4), because after baptism 
 che is spiritually risen with Him. In reality this burial with Him is not a 
 moral fact distinct from the having died with Him, as actual burial is dis- 
 tinct from actual dying ; but it sets forth the fulness and completeness of 
 the relation, of which the recipient, in accordance with the form of baptism, 
 so far as the latter takes place through κατάδυσις and ἀνάδυσις (see Suicer, 
 Thes.), becomes conscious successively. The recipient—thus has Paul figura- 
 tively represented the process—is conscious, (a) in the baptism generally : 
 now am I entering into fellowship with the death of Christ, εἰς τὸν θάνατον 
 αὐτοῦ βαπτίζομαι ; (b) in the immersion in particular: now am I becoming 
 buried with Christ ; (ὦ and then, in the emergence : now I rise to the new 
 life with Christ. Comp. on Col. ii. 12. — εἰς τὸν θάνατον] is necessarily, after 
 ver. 3, to be joined with διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσμ., in which case, since one can say 
 βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς τι, the connecting article was not required (comp. on Gal. iii. 
 26 ; Eph. iii. 18) ; consequently : through baptism unto death. tis not how- 
 ever specially the death of Christ that is again meant, as if αὐτό were again an- 
 nexed ; but the description is generalized, agreeably to the context, ina way 
 that could not be misunderstood. Whosoever, namely, as Paul has just set 
 forth in ver. 3, has been baptized unto the death of Christ, has in fact thereby 
 received baptism unto death ; i.e. sacha baptism that, taken away by it from 
 his previous vital activity, he has become one belonging to death, one who 
 has fallen under its sway. This however is just that relation of moral death, 
 which, in the concrete, is the fellowship of the death of Christ. The con- 
 nection with: συνετάφ., in which εἰς τ. θάνατον is sometimes referred to the 
 death of Christ (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and sometimes to the death 
 of sin (Calovius, Wolf, Winzer, Progr. 1881), is erroneous, for this reason, 
 that whosoever is buried does not come into death, but és in it already ; and 
 hence ‘‘ The becoming buried into death” would yield quite an incongruous 
 conception. This also applies against the expedient tried by Hofmann of 
 making θάνατος here the death-state of Christ, unto which we were given up. 
 Even in this view that incongruity continues :? but after ver. 3 θάνατος can 
 
 1 This cannot be got rid of by any artifi- the Lord, even regarded as a state, oc- 
 eial turns (ike that of Hofmann: ‘“ His curred at that great moment when He cries 
 burial removed Him from the sphere of sin His τετέλεσται and departs; and in nowise 
 expiated through His death ... . whereby has He been translated into the ϑάνατος 
 His existence in the world of sin came to a through His burial. 
 complete close’). Certainly the ϑάνατος of 
 
232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 only be again death simply, not state of death (asif Paul could not have con- 
 veyed that sense by εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, or εἰς τοὺς νεκρούς, OF in some other suitable 
 way). Observe, moreover, how Paul here also, since he has the bodily res- 
 urrection of Christ in view,’ mentions specially the correlative of the burial 
 that preceded it. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 4. — iva] purpose of the συνετάφημεν 
 . .. . θάνατον, and this statement of purpose has the chief importance, cor- 
 responding to the πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ in ver. 2. — διὰ τῆς δόξ. τ. πατρός] 
 through the majesty of the Father was the resurrection of Christ brought 
 about. The δόξα, 1123, the glorious collective perfection of God, certainly 
 effected the raising of Jesus chiefly as omnipotence (1 Cor. vi. 14 ; 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 4; Eph. i. 19 f.) ; but the comprehensive significance of the word— 
 selected with conscious solemnity, and in highest accordance with the glo- 
 rious victory of the Son—is not to be curtailed on that account (in opposi- 
 tion to Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors). According to 
 the invariable representation of the N. T. (od is the raiser of Jesus (iv. 24, 
 viii. 11; Acts ii. 24, 31 ff. et al. ; see on Johni. 19) ; but yet the δόξα of 
 God does not in this case any more than elsewhere in the N. T. denote 
 God Himself.? Erroneously however Theodoret, Theophylact, and several 
 Fathers explain: διὰ τ. δόξ. τ. πατρ., τουτέστι διὰ τῆς οἰκείας θεότητος. Lin- 
 guistic usage admits as in itself allowable the view of Castalio and Carpzov : 
 ‘‘in paterna gloria resurrexit,” so that διά would be used of the state ; to 
 which also van Hengel inclines. But, had Paul desired to express a relation 
 corresponding to the ἐν «aw. ζ. in the apodosis, he must have inserted ἐν 
 also ; since the conception of the raising of Jesus through the Father was 
 one of so solemn importance, and all the more appropriate here, since 
 believers also owe their moral resurrection-life to the Father of Christ (Eph. 
 ii. 10 αἴ.) ; it is in fact the life of regeneration. Besides, the paterna gloria 
 was attained by Christ only through His ascension. See on Luke Xxiv. 26. 
 - ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς] in a new (moral) constitution of life ;* a stronger way of 
 bringing out the idea of καινότης, than ἐν ζωῇ καινῇ would be, for which it 
 
 does not stand (in opposition to Grotius, Koppe, Reiche, and others). See 
 Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 236]. Comp. vil. 6. According to van Hengel ζωῆς 
 is the genitive of apposition : ‘‘in novo rerum statu, gui vita est.” But this 
 
 qui vita est is self-evident ; and therefore the emphasis must remain upon 
 This newness is the ethical analogue of the new state in which 
 Christ was alive from the dead, conceived in contrast to the παλαιότης which 
 prevailed prior to baptism. Comp. ver. 8. 
 
 Ver. 5. Confirmatory elucidation (γάρ) of the previous iva ὥσπερ «.T.A. — 
 
 καινότητι. 
 
 152,6. His resurrection as respects the buried 
 body ; so that the latter no longer remained 
 in the grave, but came forth thence living 
 and immortal. That the body of Christ 
 “vanished” and ‘‘made room’ for a new 
 pneumatic body (Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul u. 
 Petr. p. 138), is an unsuitable conception, 
 seeing that the pneumatic body must neces- 
 sarily have been assumed even in death, 
 and independently of the burial of the old 
 
 body. Thus the resurrection of Jesus 
 would be nothing else than the change of 
 body that took place in death. 
 
 2 Langer, Judenth. in Paldst. p. 210 ff. 
 
 3 τὴν καινὴν πολιτείαν THY κατὰ τὸν παρόντα 
 βίον, ἐκ τῆς τῶν τρόπων γινομένην. Ὅπον γὰρ ὃ 
 πόρνος γένηται σώφρων καὶ ὃ πλεονέκτης ἐλεήμων 
 καὶ ὃ τραχύς ἥμεμος, καὶ ἐνταῦϑα ἀνάστασις γέ- 
 γονεν, Chrysostom. 
 
CHAP ΥὙἹΙΙ; ὃ: 233 
 
 σύμφυτος, Which in classic authors usually means innate, naturally belonging to 
 (see the passages from Plato in Ast, Lev. IIT. p. 313, Eur. Andr. 955 ; comp. 
 2 Mace. iii. 22), is here grown together (Theophr. de caus. plant. v. 5, 23 
 LXX. Zech. xi. 2; Amos ix. 14). This figurative expression represents the 
 most intimate union of being, like our coalescent with anything (qui or quod 
 coaluit cum aliqua re).’ In the classics συμφυής is the more usual form for 
 this idea, especially with yiveofa:,? Hence : For, if we have become (through 
 baptism, vv. 3, 4) such as are grown together with that which is the likeness of 
 Lis death (comp. on i. 23), ὁ.6. persons, to whose nature it inseparably. be- 
 longs to present in themselves that which resembles His death, so also shall 
 we be grown together with the likeness of His resurrection. On ὁμοίωμα comp. 1. 
 23, v. 14, viii. 3. The rendering of σύμφυτοι by complantati (Vulgate, 
 Luther), in connection with which Chrysostom, Origen, Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, and others explain the figure of the 
 plant by the fruits of the ethical burial, is linguistically incorrect, as if the 
 word came not from cvudio, but from συμφυτεύω. 5 The interpretation en- 
 grafted (Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Klee) is likewise with- 
 out linguistic evidence, and does not suit the abstract τῷ ὁμοιώματι. ----τῷ 
 ὁμοιώμ. τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ] ἐ.6. the condition corresponding in similarity of 
 form to His death, which has specifically and indissolubly become ours. 
 This ethical conformity with His death, however, the growing together with 
 which took place through our baptism, is just that moral death to sin, vv. 
 3, 4, in which the spiritual communion in death with Christ consists. — τ. 
 ou. τ. θ. a. isto be joined with σύμόυτοι (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Beza, Cal- 
 vin, Estius, Koppe, Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, Olshausen, de Wette, Phi- 
 lippi, and others ; now including Hofmann). Others however take it as the 
 dative of the instrument, and supply τῷ Χριστῷ to σύμφυτοι : ‘for, if we have 
 entered into close union with Christ through the ὁμοίωμα of His death,” etc. So 
 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Fritzsche, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, 
 Baur, van Hengel, and Reithmayr ; also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 344. Never- 
 theless it is arbitrary to separate τῷ ὁμ. from oid. yey., seeing that it stands 
 beside it and ina structural respect presents itself most naturally with it, 
 and also as belonging to it yields a very appropriate sense ; and on the other 
 hand to attach to ciu¢. a word which Paul has not put in, and which he 
 must have put in, if he would not lead his readers astray. Still more mis- 
 taken is the view of Bisping, that ciud. belongs to τοῦ θανάτ. αὐτοῦ, and that 
 τῷ ὁμοιώμ. Comes in between them instrumentally. Hofmann has rightly 
 abandoned this tortuous interpretation, which he formerly followed.*-— 
 ἀλλὰ καί] but also. ἀλλά, for the speedy and more emphatic introduction of 
 the contrasted element, as frequently also in the classics, at the head of the 
 apodosis ; see on 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Col. il. ὅ. ---- τῆς ἀναστάσεως] cannot, in keep- 
 ing with the protasis, depend directly upon the σύμφυτοι to be again under- 
 
 1 Plat. Phaedr. p. 246 A; Aesch. Ag. and ἀφύτευτος, Xen. Oec. 20, 22. 
 
 Klausen én loc. Ὁ. 111. 4 Comp. on the right connection Cyril, 
 2 Plato, Soph. p. 247 Ὁ, Tim. p. 45 D, p. 88 Catech. iii. 12; and even Martyr. Ignat. 5: 
 A; Plut. Lycurg. 25. ἐμαυτὸν. . . . σύμφυτον ϑέσϑαι τῷ τοῦ 
 
 3 (ΟΡ. φυτευτός, Plat. Zep. p. 510 A, VavaTov αὐτοῦ ὁμοιώματι. 
 
| 
 
 234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 stood (Erasmus, Calvin, and others ; including Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, 
 and Krehl), but only upon the τῷ ὁμοιώματε to be supplied (Beza, Grotius, 
 Estius, and many others ; including Winzer, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Maier, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, and Hofmann), so that when 
 completed it would run : ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ σύμφυτοι 
 ἐσόμεθα. The former view 15 indeed likewise unobjectionable grammatically, 
 for σύμφυτοι may also stand with the genitive ;’ but the latter is suggested 
 by the context, and presents itself easily enough and without harshness. 
 Further, ‘it is self-evident, after ver. 4, that in τ. dvaor. we are not to think 
 of the resurrection of our body (Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, 
 Oecumenius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and others ; comp. also Ewald), or of this 
 as included (Koppe and Klee). — ἐσόμεθα] receives its only correct interpreta- 
 tion from its relation to, and bearing on, the clause expressive of the 
 purpose, va... . ἐν καιν. ¢. περιπ. in ver. 4, according to which it must 
 express the necessarily certain.? Compare πῶς ἔτι Choouev ver, 2. The 
 sense of willing (‘‘ut reviviscamus curabimus,” Fritzsche) is not suggested 
 by the connection ; nor is that of a swmmons (Olshausen, Riickert, and 
 older expositors) ; but it is rather the expression of what shall certainly be 
 the case, as the consequence of the σύμφυτοι γεγόν. τῷ ὁμοιώμ, τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ 
 assumed as real in the protasis ; 6 cannot be otherwise; with the having 
 become σύμφυτοι this ἔσεσθαι is given , with that fact having begun and taken 
 place is posited this further development, which necessarily attaches itself 
 thereto. 
 
 Ver. 6. Τοῦτο γινώσκοντες] Definition to τῆς ἀναστάσ. ἐσόμεθα, which objective 
 relation is confirmed by the corresponding experimental conscious knowledge 
 (comp. εἰδότες in ver. 9) : since we know this ; not a mere continuation of the 
 construction instead of κ. τοῦτο γινώσκομεν (Philippi), as the participle is 
 never so used, not even in ch. ii. 4 ; nor yet to be conceived as in the train 
 of the ἐσόμεθα (Hofmann), as if Paul had expressed himself by some such 
 word as ὥστε, or with the telic infinitive (γνῶναι). Respectitig τοῦτο see on ch, 
 11. 8.— ὁ rad. ju. avOp.| 1.6. our old ego—our personality in its entire sinful 
 condition before regeneration (John iii. ὃ ; Tit. 111. 5). Comp. Eph. iv. 22 ; 
 Col. iii. 9. From the standpoint of the καινότης πνεύματος, constituting the 
 Christian self-consciousness, the Christian sees his pre-Christian ethical per- 
 sonality as his old self no longer to be found in life, as the person which he 
 had formerly been. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 173; Eph. ii. 10. — συνεσταυρώθη] 
 namely, when we were baptized and thereby transplanted into the fellowship 
 of death. See on vv. 3, 4. This special expression of the being killed with 
 Him is selected simply because Christ was slain on the cross ; not as Grotius 
 and others, including Olshausen, hold : ‘‘ quia sicut per crucem non.sineg 
 gravi dolore ad exitum pervenitur, ita illa natura (the old man) sine dolore 
 non extinguitur.” Compare Umbreit. The simple iva xarapy. is not at all in 
 keeping with this far-fetched reference, which is not supported by Gal. 
 ii, 19 f. ; but just as little with the reference to the disgrace of crucifixion 
 
 1 Plat. Phil. Ὁ. 51 D, Def. p. 418 C, Bern- 2 Matthiae, Ὁ. 1122; Kiibner, Il. 1, p. 148, - 
 hardy, p. 171. ed. 2, 
 
OHAP. Wiesel. 230 
 
 (Hofmann). —iva xatapy.] Design of the ὁ rad. ἡμ. ἄνθρ. συνεστ. : in order 
 that the body of sin might be destroyed, i.e. the body belonging to the power of sin, 
 ruled by sin.! [See Note LXVII. p. 253.] Comp. vii. 24. The old man 
 had such a body ; and this σῶμα was to be destroyed, put out of existence 
 by the crucifixion with Christ ; consequently not the body in itself, but in 
 so far asit is the sin-body, becoming determined by sin. in its expressions 
 of life to sinful πράξεσι (viii. 13). The propriety of this interpretation 
 appears from vv. 7, 12, 18, 23. Comp. on Col. ii. 11. If we explain it 
 merely of ‘‘ the body as seat or organ of sin,” the idea would not in itself be 
 un-Pauline, as Reiche thinks ; for the σῶμα would in fact appear not as the 
 soliciting agent of sin (not as the σάρξ), but as its vehicle, in itself morally 
 indifferent, but serving sin as the organic instrument of its vital activity 
 (see Stirm in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1834, 3, p. 10 ff.) ; but καταρ- 
 γηθῇ is decisive against this view. For this could neither mean destroyed, 
 annihilated, because in fact even the body of the regenerate is a σῶμα τ. 
 duaptiac in the sense assumed (ver. 12) ; nor even evacuaretur (Tertullian, 
 Augustine), rendered inactive, inoperative, partly because then the idea of 
 σάρξ would be assigned to σῶμα, and partly because it is only the conception 
 of the destruction of the body which corresponds to the conception of cruci- 
 fixion. Others take the corpus peccati jiguratively ; either so, that sin is 
 conceived under the figure of a body with significant reference to its being 
 crucified (so Fathers in Suicer, Thes. 11. p. 1215, Piscator, Pareus, Castalio, 
 Hammond, Homberg, Calovius, Koppe, Flatt, and Olshausen ; also Reiche, 
 conceiving sin asa monster) ; or, similarly to this mode of apprehending it, 
 in such a way as to find the sense: ‘‘the mass of sin,” τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν διαφορῶν 
 μερῶν πονηρίας συγκειμένην. . . . κακίαν, Chrysostom. So Ambrosiaster, 
 Pseudo-Hieronymus, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Grotius, 
 Estius, Reithmayr, and others; so also Calvin, who however takes the 
 corpus peccati as a designation of the natural man itself, which is a massa, 
 cx peccato conflata. Philippi also ultimately comes to the massa peccatt, 
 which is conceived as an organism having members, as σῶμα ; so likewise 
 Jatho and Julius Miiller, v. d. Siinde, I. p. 460, ed. 5 ; also Baur (‘‘as it 
 were the substance of sin”). But all these interpretations are at variance 
 partly with the Pauline wsws loguendi in general, and partly with ver. 12 in 
 particular, where ἐν τῷ θνητῷ bu. σώματι by its reference to our passage con- 
 firms our view of the σῶμα. The right view is held substantially by Theo- 
 doret, Theophylact 2, Bengel, and others, including Tholuck, Kéllner, de 
 Wette, Riickert, Fritzsche, Maier, Nielsen, Hofmann, and Weiss ; whereas 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, and also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 113, convert 
 σῶμα into the idea of state of life. — τοῦ μηκέτι Sova. «.7.2.] ““ finem abolitionis 
 notat,” Calvin. The sin, which is committed, is conceived as a ruler to 
 whom service is rendered. See John viii. 34. 
 
 Ver. 7. Establishment of the τοῦ μηκέτι δουλ. ἡμ. τῇ. au. by the general prop- 
 osition : whosoever is dead, is acquitted from sin. — ὁ arofav.| is explained by 
 
 1 Τῷ is self-evident that Paul might have Saying τῆς ἁμαρτίας. He might even have © 
 said also τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, as in Col. ii. 11. written merely ἡ σάρξ, but τὸ σῶμα was 
 But his whole theme (ver. 1) suggested his givenin the immediate context (συνεσταυρ.). 
 
236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 many of ethical death. So Erasmus, Calovius, Homberg, Bengel, and others, 
 including Koppe, Flatt, Gléckler, Olshausen, Tholuck (who regards sin as 
 creditor), de Wette (‘‘ whosoever has died to sin, he—alone—is acquitted 
 from sin”), Rothe, Krehl, Philippi (whosoever is ethically dead, over him , 
 has sin lost its right to impeach and to control, just as Bengel explains it), 
 also van Hengel, Jatho, and Miircker. But neither the nature of the general 
 proposition, which forms in fact the major premiss in the argument, and of 
 which only the application is to be made (in the minor proposition) to ethi- 
 cal dying ; nor the tavtological relation, which would result between subject 
 and predicate, can permit this explanation. The conception of ethical dying 
 recurs only in the sequel, and hence σὺν Χριστῷ is added to ἀπεθάνομεν in ver. 
 8, so that Paul.in this development of his views draws a sharp distinction 
 between the being dead in the spiritual (vv. 6, 8) and in the ordinary sense. 
 We must therefore explain ver. 7 as a general proposition regarding death 
 in the ordinary sense, and consequently regarding physical death (so rightly 
 Hofmann), but not specially of the death by ereeution, through which sin is 
 expiated (Alethaeus, Wolf, and others : with this view they compare δεδικ., 
 the juristic expression : he is justified ; see Michaelis’ note) ; for any such 
 peculiar reference of the still wholly unrestricted ἀποθανών is forbidden by 
 the very generality of the proposition, although for δεδικαίωται passages might 
 be cited like Plat. Legg. Il. p. 934 Β ; Aristot. Hth. v. 9. —dedux. ἀπὸ τ. ay. ] 
 [See Note LXVIIIL. p. 253.] ‘‘ The dead person is made just from sin,” i.e. he 
 is in point of fact justified and acquitted from sin, he is placed by death in 
 the position of a δίκαιος, who is such thenceforth ; not as if he were now 
 absolved from and rid of the guilt of his sins committed in life, but in so 
 Sar as the dead person sins no more, no longer δουλεύει τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, from whose 
 power, as from a legal claim urged against him during his life in the body, 
 he has been actually released by death as through a decree of acquittal.’ 
 Just for this reason has Paul added ἀπὸ τῆς duapriac-(comp. Acts xiii. 38 ; 
 Eccles. xxvi. 29; Test. XII. patr. p. 541), which would have been quite 
 superfluous, had he taken δεδικαίωται justus constitutus est, in the dogmatic 
 sense of his doctrine of justification. {he proposition itself, moreover, is an 
 axiom of the popular traditional mode of view, which Paul uses for his purpose 
 as admitted. This axiom has also its relative truth, and that partly in so far 
 as the dead person has put off the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός With which he committed 
 his sins (Col. ii. 11), partly in so far as with death the dominion of law over 
 the man ceases (vii. 1), and partly in so far as in death all the relations are 
 dissolved which supplied in life the objects of sinning.? For the discussion 
 of the question as to the absolute truth of the proposition, in its connection 
 
 1 Comp. Késtlin in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche 
 Theol. 1856, p. 98f.; Th. Schott, p. 260, and 
 Hofmann; also Baur, newt. Theol. Ὁ. 161 f.; 
 Delitzsch, Illustrations to his Hebrew ver- 
 sion, p. 84. 
 
 2 The Greek expositors—who already give 
 substantially our explanation—have con- 
 fined themselves to this point. Chrysostom : 
 ἀπήλλακται TO λοιπὸν τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν νεκρὸς 
 
 κείμενος, Theodoret : τίς γὰρ ἐϑεάσατο πώποτε 
 ἢ γάμον ἀλλότριον διορύττοντα, ἢ 
 μιαιφονίᾳ τὰς χεῖρας φοινίττοντα κιτιλ. Me- 
 lanchthon compares the proverb: νεκρὸς οὐ 
 δάκνει, Beza the saying of Anacreon : ὃ νεκρὸς 
 οὐκ ἐπιϑυμεῖ, Grotius that of Aeschylus: 
 οὐδὲν ἄλγος ἅπτεται νεκρῶν, Comp. Soph. 0. C. 
 955. 
 
 νεκρὸν 
 
CHAP. VI., 8.:- 23% 
 
 with Biblical anthropology and eschatology, there was no occasion: at all 
 here,’ where it is only used as an auxiliary clause, and ex concesso. Comp. 
 1 Pet. iv. 1. Usteri mistakenly explains it : by death man has suffered the 
 punishment, and thus expiated his guilt. For that Paul does not here ex- 
 press the Jewish dogma: ‘‘death as the punishment for sin eapiates the 
 guilt of sin” (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth, 11. Ὁ. 283 f.) is proved 
 partly by the irrelevancy of such a sense to the context (γάρ) ; and partly 
 by its inconsistency with the doctrines of the Apostle as to justification by 
 faith and as to the judgment, according to which death cannot set free from 
 the guilt-obligation of sin. Ewald makes a new idea be brought in at ver, 
 7: ‘*Even in common life, in the case of one who is dead, the sins of his 
 previous life cannot be further prosecuted and punished, he passes for justi- 
 fied and acquitted of sin... . 3; if in addition sin as a power has been bro- 
 ken by Christ (ver. 9 f.), then we may assuredly believe,” etc., ver. 8. But 
 γάρ in ver. 7 indicates its connection with what goes before, so that it is only 
 with the dé in ver. 8 that a new thought is introduced. Besides, we should 
 expect, in the case of the assumed course of thought, an οὖν instead of the 
 δέ in ver. 8. Finally, it is not clear how that rule of common law was to 
 serve as a joint ground for the faith of becoming alive with Christ. 
 
 Ver. 8 f. Carrying onward the discussion by the metabatic dé; and there- 
 by passing from the negative side of the having died with Christ as proved 
 in personal consciousness (τοῦτο γενώσκοντες, ver. 6) in. vv. 6, 7, to its positive 
 side, which is likewise exhibited as based on the consciousness of faith 
 (πιστεύομεν). ‘‘ But if we have died (according to vv. 6, 7) with Christ, we 
 believe that we shall also live with Him, since we know,” etc. etc. — πιστεύ- 
 ouev] expresses, not confidence in the divine aid (Fritzsche), or in the divine 
 promise (Baumgarten-Crusius), or in God not leaving His work of grace in 
 us unfinished (Philippi) ; but simply the being convinced of our συζήσομεν αὐτῷ ; 
 in so far, namely, as the having died with Christ is, seeing that He has 
 risen and dieth no more, in the consciousness of faith the necessary premiss, 
 and thus the ground for belief as to our becoming alive with Him. If the 
 former, the ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ, be true, we cannot doubt the latter. — 
 συζήσομεν αὐτῷ] must necessarily be understood, in accordance with the pre- 
 ceding and following context (ver. 11), of the ethical participation in the 
 new everlasting life of Christ. Whosoever has died with Christ is now also 
 of the belief that his life, ὁ.6. the positive active side of his moral being and 
 nature, shall be a fellowship of life with the exalted Christ ; that is, shall 
 be able to be nothing else than this. This communion of life is the ἐν 
 Χριστῷ and Χριστὸν ἐν ἡμῖν εἶναι. In the full consciousness of it Paul says : ζῶ 
 δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός (Gal. ii. 20). At the same time it is not 
 to be explained as if an ἀεί or the like stood beside συζήσομεν (without fall- 
 ing away), as is done by Tholuck ; compare Theophylact. Others, in 
 opposition to the context, hold that what is meant is the future participa- 
 tion of Christians in the bliss of the glorified Saviour (Flatt, Reiche, Maier, 
 
 1 Compare Melanchthon: ‘‘Ceterum hoc omni aeternitate horribilia peccata facere, 
 sciamus, diabolos et omnes damnatos in quia sine fine irascuntur Deo,” etc. 
 
238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 following Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, and Heumann) ; and 
 others still, at variance alike with the definiteness and unity of the sense, 
 interpret it of the earthly moral and the eternal blessed life together (Sebas- 
 tian Schmid, Béhme, Rosenmiiller ; and not rejected by de Wette). The 
 reference or joint-reference to the future glory is not required either by the 
 future, which, on the contrary, demands the same rendering exactly as 
 ἐσόμεθα in ver. 5, nor by πιστεύομεν (see above). —iedédrec, ὅτι κ.τ.1..] since we 
 know, that, etc. Were we, namely, obliged to fear that Christ is still sub- 
 ject to the power of death,’ that His life is not a perfected life, in that case 
 we should lack the adequate secure ground of faith for that πιστεύομεν κ.τ.λ. 
 The being assured that Christ liveth eternally and dieth no more (Acts xiii. 
 34), lends to our faith in our own moral communion of life with Him its 
 basis and firm footing ; without that knowledge this faith would be want- 
 ing in that which gives it legitimacy and guarantee. For who can cherish 
 the conviction that he stands in that holy communion of resurrection-life 
 with Christ, if he should be compelled to doubt whether his Lord, though 
 indeed risen, might not again fall a victim to death? This thought would 
 only keep us aloof from that faith and make it a moral impossibility for us, 
 since it would set before us the prospect of a similar perishing of the new 
 life which we had gained. Hofmann, who makes a new sentence begin with 
 εἰδότες, Which is to continue till ver. 11, might have been warned against 
 doing so by the absence of a particle (οὖν) ; and should have been decisively 
 precluded from it by the tortuous way in which, if ver. 10 is set aside ina 
 parenthesis, it is necessary to obtain a forced regimen for the passage. — 
 θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι kvp.| no longer dependent on ὅτι, but an independent and 
 therefore all the more emphatic repetition of the important thought : death 
 is no longer Lord over Him, has no more power over Him, such asit once had 
 at the crucifixion. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25. 
 
 Ver. 10. Proof of the θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει. ---- ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανε] ὃ is in 
 any case the accusative of the object. But whether Paul conceived it as: 
 for as to what concerns His death (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. Ὁ. 84 ; Frotscher 
 and Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. 6, 12 ; Matthiae, p. 1063), or what, i.e. the 
 death which He died (so Rickert, Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi ; see Bern- 
 hardy, p. 106 f.; comp. on Gal. ii. 20) cannot be determined, since both 
 renderings suit the correct interpretation of what follows. Yet the latter, 
 analogous to the expression θάνατον θανεῖν, is to be preferred as the more 
 simple, and as uniform with Gal. 11. 20. —74 ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθ.] the relation of 
 the dative is to be determined from νεκροὺς τῇ ἀμ. in ver. 11 ; therefore it 
 can be nothing else than what is contained in ἀπεθάν. τῇ du. in ver. 2 
 (comp. Hofmann), namely : he is dead to sin (dative of reference), ¢.e. His 
 dying concerned sin ; and indeed so that the latter (mamely the sin of the 
 
 of Jesus. 
 
 1 Death had become lord over Him, because 
 in obedience to God (Phil. ii. 6 ff.) Christ 
 had subjected Himself to its power, so that 
 He ἐσταυρώϑη ἐξ ἀσϑενείας (2 Cor. xiii. 4). 
 The κυριεύειν of death over Him was there- 
 fore a thing willed by God (vy. 8-10), and 
 realized through the voluntary obedience 
 
 See John x. 18; Matt. xx. 28. 
 
 2 Not a parenthetical intervening clause 
 (Hofmann), which is appropriate neither to 
 the essential importance of the sentence in 
 the train of thought, nor to the application 
 which it receives in ver. 11. 
 
CHAPAAVIn la. 239 
 
 world, conceived as power) has now, after He has suffered death on account 
 of it, become without influence upon Him and has no more power over Him ; 
 He submitted Himself to its power in His death, but through that death He 
 has died to its power.* So also have we (ver. 11) to esteem ourselves as dead 
 to sin (νεκροὺς τῇ du.), as rescued from its grasp through our ethical death 
 with Christ, in such measure that we are released from and rid of the influ- 
 ence of this power antagonistic to God. The close accordance of this view 
 of τῇ du. ἀπέθ. with the context (according to vv. 11 and 2) is decisive against 
 the explanations of the dative deviating from it, such as : ad expianda pec- 
 cata (Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, Michaelis, and others including Olshausen) ; 
 or : ad expianda tollendaque peccata (Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Fritzsche, Phi- 
 lippi) ; or : én order to destroy the power of sin (Chrysostom, Beza, Calvin, 
 Bengel, and others, including Ewald and Umbreit). Riickert, Kéllner, and 
 de Wette wish to abide by an indefinite reference of the death of Jesus to sin 
 as the remote object ; but this simply explains nothing, and leaves only a 
 Jormal parellelism remaining. — ἐφάπαξ] for once, with emphasis, excluding 
 repetition, once for all. Comp. Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10 ; Lucian, Dem. 
 ene. 21. — ζῇ τ. Θεῷ] vivit Deo, namely so, that now in His estate of exalta- 
 tion, after He has through His death died to the power of sin, His life 
 belongs to God, i.e. stands to God in the relation of being dependent on, and of 
 being determined by, Him. The contrast to the preceding yields the excluding 
 sense. Christ’s earthly life, namely, was also a ζῆν τῷ Θεῷ, but was at the 
 same time exposed to the death-power of human sin, which is now no longer 
 the case, inasmuch as His life rescued from death is wholly determined by 
 the fellowship with God. This latter portion of the verse belongs also to 
 the proof of ver. 9, since it is in fact just the (exclusive) belonging to God 
 of Christ’s life, that makes it certain that death reigns no longer over Him ; 
 as ζῶν τῷ Θεᾷ he can no longer be παθητός (Acts xxvi. 23), which He previ- 
 ously was, until in obedience to God ἐξ ἀσθενείασ He was crucified (2 Cor. 
 xiii. 4). 
 
 Ver. 11. Application of ver. 10 to the readers.—Although in ver. 10 
 there was no mention of a λογίζεσθαι on the part of Christ, we are not, with 
 Griesbach and Koppe, to break up the discourse by the punctuation : οὕτω 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε κ-.τ.. (comp. on the contrary Luke xvii. 10).—Aecording- 
 ly reckon ye yourselves also (like Christ) as dead, etc. λογίζεσθε, namely, con- 
 taining the standard by which they are to apprehend their moral life-posi- 
 tion in its reality, is not, with Bengel and Hofmann, to be taken as indica- 
 tive, but rather, seeing that here the discourse passes over to the second per- 
 son and proceeds in exhortation in ver. 12 ff., with the Vulgate, Chrysostom 
 and Luther, as imperative. —év Xp. ’I.] These words, which Riickert, K6ll- 
 ner, de Wette, and others quite arbitrarily join merely with ζῶντας δὲ τ. Θεῷ, 
 belong to both portions of the summons ; and do not mean per Christum 
 
 1 Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 55, upon Himself, in the death of the cross, 
 justly insists that Christ for His own person the curse of the law; after which human 
 died to sin, but further on (p. 59), ends in sin had now no longer any power over Him, 
 finding an ideal, not a real relation. But Compare on ver. 3. . 
 
 He died really to sin, inasmuch as He took 
 
 ᾿ 
 
940 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (Grotius and others, including Fritzsche), but denote rather the specific ele- 
 ment, in which the being dead and living take place, namely, in the ethical 
 bond of fellowship, which is just the εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ. 
 
 Ver. 12 f. Οὖν] in consequence of this λογίζεσθε, for the proof of it in the 
 practice of life. For this practice the λογίζεσθαι x.7.A. is meant to be the reg- 
 ulative theory. The negative portion of the following exhortation corre- 
 sponds to the νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ in ver. 11 ; and the positive contrast ἀλλὰ 
 k.t.2. to the ζῶντας δὲ τῷ OG. — μὴ βασι}. With this nothing sinful is ad- 
 mitted (comp. Chrysostom) ; but on the contrary the influence of the (per- 
 sonified) sin, conquering the moral ego, is entirely forbidden,’ as the whole 
 connection teaches. — ἐν τῷ θνητῷ i. σώμ.] ἐν simply indicates the seat and 
 sphere, in which the forbidden dominion would take place (not by means ef, 
 as Th. Schott thinks). As to θνητῷ, every explanation is to be avoided 
 which takes the word in any other sense than the ordinary one of mortal 
 (comp. viii. 11), because it has no other signification (see all the examples 
 in Wetstein), and because the context contains nothing at all in favour of 
 giving any other turn to the notion of the word. We must reject therefore 
 the opinion that it is equivalent to νεκρῷ, as taken in the cthical sense : dead 
 for sin (Turretin, Ch. Schmidt, Ernesti, Schleusner, Schrader, and Stengel). 
 Directly affirmed of the body, the mortality could not but be understood 
 by every reader quite definitely as the physical. The purpose of the epithet 
 however must manifestly result from the relation ef motive, in which the 
 mortality of the body stands to the prohibition of the reign of sin in the 
 body. And the more precise definition of this motive is to be derived from 
 the previous νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ Θεῷ. If we are convinced, 
 namely, that we are dead for sin and alive for God ; if we account ourselves 
 as those who have put off the ethical mortality (ὡς ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας, ver. 18), 
 then it is an absurdity to allow sin to reign in the body, which in fact is 
 mortal. This quality stands in a relation of contradiction to our immortal 
 life entered upon in the fellowship of Christ, and thus the dominion, for 
 which we should deliver over our body to sin, would prove that we were 
 not that for which, nevertheless, in genuine moral self-judgment, we have 
 to take ourselves ; since in fact the mortal life of the body, if we yield it to 
 the government of sin, excludes the immortal Christian life described in ver. 
 11. Hofmann imports more into the passage than its connection with ver. 
 11 suggests ; namely the double folly, that such an one should not use the 
 power, which the life of Christ gives him over the mortal body and there- 
 with over sin ; and that he should permit himself to be entangled in the death 
 to which his body falls a victim, while he possesses a life of which also his 
 body would become joint-participant. This is a fine-spun application of the 
 true interpretation. Different is the view of KG6llner (comp. Calvin : “ per 
 contemtum vocat mortale”), that it is here hinted how disgraceful it is to 
 make the spirit subordinate to sin, which only dwells in the perishable body ; 
 and of Grotius : ‘‘de vita altera cogitandum, nec formidandos labores haud 
 
 1 But Luther’s gloss is good: ‘‘ Mark, the they do not follow.’’ Comp. the carrying 
 saints have still evil lustsin the flesh, which out of the idea in Melanchthon. 
 
CHART ὙΠ 12: 241 
 
 sane diuturnos” (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret ; so also on the whole 
 Reiche). But the context contains neither a contrast between body and 
 spirit, nor between this and the other life. Flatt thinks that Paul wished 
 to remind his readers of the brevity of sensual pleasure ; comp. Theophylact. 
 But how little would this be in keeping with the high standpoint of the 
 moral sternness of the Apostle! According to others, Paul desired to re- 
 mind them warningly of the destructiveness of sin, which had brought death 
 on the body (de Wette, Krehl, Nielsen, Philippi, also Maier). But this 
 point of view as to destructiveness is remote from the connection, in which 
 the pervading theme is rather the wnswitableness of the dominion of sin to 
 the communion of death and life with Christ. Others still explain it va- 
 riously.1— σώματι] body, as in ver. 6 ; not a symbolic expression for the en- 
 tire ego (Reiche, following Ambrosiaster and various early expositors) ; nor 
 yet body and soul, so far as it is not yet the recipient of the Spirit of God 
 (Philippi) ; for even in all such passages as viii. 10, 13, 23 ; xii. 1 σῶμα re- 
 tains purely its signification body. But sin reigns in the body (comp. on ver. 
 6), so far as its material substratum is the σάρξ (Col. 11. 11), which, with its 
 life-principle the ψυχή, is the seat and agent of sin (vii. 18 ff. a/.). Hence 
 the sinful desires are its desires (αὐτοῦ), because, excited by the power of sin 
 in the flesh, they are at work in the body and its members (vil. 5, 23 ; Col. 
 iii, 5). Sin aims at securing obedience to these desires through its dominion 
 in man. Consequently εἰς τὸ imax. τ. ἐπιθ. ait. implies the—according to 
 ver. 11 absurd—tendency of the allowing sin to reign in the mortal body, 
 which the Apostle forbids. — μηδέ] also especially not (as e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8). — 
 raptotavete| present, i.e. place at the disposal, at the service. Matt. xxvi. 53 ; 
 Acts xxiii. 24; 2 Tim. ii. 15 ; Athen. iv. p. 148 B; Lucian, ὦ. Mar. 6, 2; 
 Diod. Sic. xvi. 79 ; Dem. 597. pen. —7d μέλη ὑμῶν] your members, which sin 
 desires to use as executive organs, tongue, hand, foot, eye, etc. The mental 
 powers and activities, feeling, will, understanding, are not included (in op- 
 position to Erasmus, Reiche, Philippi, and others) ; but Paul speaks con- 
 ceretely and graphically of the members, in reference to which the mental ac- 
 tivities in question are necessarily presupposed. Comp. Col. iii. 5. —éria 
 ἀδικίας] as weapons of immorality, with which the establishment of immorali- 
 ty is achieved. The ἁμαρτία is conceived as a ruler employing the members 
 of man as weapons of warfare, wherewith to contend against the government 
 of God and to establish ἀδικία (opposite of the subsequent δικαιοσύνης). It 
 injures the figure, to which ver. 23 glances back, to explain ὅπλα (comp. 53) 
 instruments, as is done by many (including Riickert, Kéllner, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Krehl, Fritzsche, de Wette, and Ewald), a meaning which it indeed 
 frequently bears in classic Greek since Homer,* but never in the N. T. 
 Comp. especially 2 Cor. vi. 7, x. 4. — παραστήσατε] the aorist here following 
 
 1 Olshausen connects thus: ‘‘ let not the But, had Paul desired to set forth the moral 
 sin manifesting itself in your mortal body death through the adjective by way of mo- 
 reign in you.”’ In that case Paul must have tive, he must then have written, after ver. 
 repeated the article after az. According 11, ἐν τῷ νεκρῷ ὑμῶν σώματι, which after 
 to Baur there lies in ϑνητῷ the idea : *‘ whose what goes before would not have been 
 mortality can only remind you of that, liable to any misconception. 
 which it even now is as νεκρὸν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ." 2 See Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 844. 
 
242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 2 
 the present (comp. Bernhardy, p. 393), marking the immediateness and ra- 
 pidity of the opposite action which has to set in. It stands to παριστάνετε in 
 a climactic relation. See Winer, p. 294 [E. T. 314], Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 158. — 
 ἑαυτούς] yourselves, your own persons, and specially also your members, etc. — ὡς 
 éx vexp. ζῶντας] as those that are alive from the dead (risen), i.e. those who have 
 experienced in themselves the ethical process of having died and attained 
 to the resurrection-life with Christ. Only thus, in the sense of the moral 
 renovation discussed in vv. 2-11—not in the sense of Eph. ii. 1 (Philippi 
 and older expositors)—can it be explained agreeably to the context, especial- 
 ly as ὡς corresponds to the λογίζεσθε x.7.A. In ver. 11. This ὡς, guippe, with 
 the participle (as in xv. 15, and very frequently), expresses, namely, the re- 
 lation of the case, in which what is demanded is to appear to the readers as 
 corresponding to their Christian state, which is described as life from the 
 dead.1— τῷ Θεῷ] belonging to God, as in vv. 10, 11. 
 
 Ver. 14. Not the ground and warrant for the exhortation (Hofmann), in 
 which case the thought is introduced, that obedience is dependent on the 
 readers ; but an encouragement to do what is demanded in vv. 12, 13, through 
 the assurance that therein sin shall not become lord over them, since they 
 are not in fact under the law, but under grace. Comp. the similar encour- 
 agement in Phil. ii. 13. In this assurance lies a ‘‘ dulcissima consolatio,” 
 Melanchthon, comp. Calvin. They have not to dread the danger of failure. 
 Understood as an expression of good confidence, that they would not allow 
 sin to become lord over them (Fritzsche), the sentence would lack an ele- 
 ment assigning an objective reason, to which nevertheless the second half 
 points. Heumann, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Umbreit take the future 
 imperatively, which is erroneous for the simple reason that it is not in the 
 second person (Bernhardy, p. 378). — ov yap ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον (Gal. iv. 21), ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὑπὸ χάριν : For not the law but divine grace (revealed in Christ) is the power 
 under which you are placed. [See Note LXIX. p. 253.] This contrast, accord- 
 ing to which the norm-giving position of the law is eveluded from the Chris- 
 tian state (it is not merely the superfluousness of the law that is announced, as 
 Th. Schott thinks), is the justification of the encouraging assurance pre- 
 viously given. Had they been wnder the law, Paul would not have been 
 able to give it, because the merely commanding law is the δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίαις 
 (1 Cor. xv. 56), and accumulates sins (v. 20), in which reference he intends 
 
 1The ὡς is not the ‘‘ ike’ of comparison 
 (Hofmann, who, following Lachmann, pre- 
 fers with A BC & the ὡσεί, which does not 
 elsewhere occur in the writings of Paul), 
 but the ‘“‘ as” of the quality, in which the 
 subjects have to conceive themselves. 
 Comp. Wunder, ad Soph. Trach. 394, p. 94; 
 Kiihner, Il. 2, p. 649. According to Hof- 
 mann the comparative ὡσεί is only to ex- 
 tend to ἐκ νεκρῶν (and ζῶντας to be predica- 
 tive): as living persons like as from the 
 dead. But such a mere comparison would 
 be foreign to the whole context, according 
 to which Christians are really alive (with 
 
 Christ) from the dead, and paralyzing the 
 pith of the view, which does not lie in a 
 quasi, but ina languam. The Vulgate ren- 
 ders correctly: ‘‘tanquam ex mortuis vi- 
 ventes.”? He who participates ethically in 
 the resurrection-life of the Lord és alive 
 From death, but not alive as if from death ; 
 just as little is he as if alive from death. 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia rendered the ὡσεί, 
 which he read, in the latter sense; refer- 
 ring it to ἐκ vexp. ζῶντας together, and ex- 
 plaining the meaning to be that, previous to 
 the actual resurrection, only ἡ κατὰ τὸ 
 δυνατὸν μίμησις is required. 
 
CHAP” σας, D916; 243 
 
 to discuss the matter still further in ch. vii. But they stand under a quite 
 different power, under grace ; and this relation of dependence is quite caleu- 
 lated to bring to the justified that consecration of moral strength, which 
 they require against sin and for the divine life (v. 21 ; vi. 1 8). ‘‘ Gratia 
 non solum peccata diluit, sed ut non peccemus facit,” Augustine. 
 
 Vv. 15-28. This οὐκ εἶναι ὑπὸ νόμον, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ χάριν does not therefore give us 
 freedom tosin. From the oi γάρ. . . . χάριν, namely, the inference of free- 
 dom to sin might very easily be drawn by immoral Christians (comp. ver. 
 1), which would be exactly the reverse of what the Apostle wished to estab- 
 lish by that proposition (du. iu. οὐ κυρ. ver. 14). Paul therefore proposes to 
 himself this possible inference and negatives it (ver. 15), and then gives in 
 ver. 16 ff. its refutation. Accordingly vv. 15-23 form only an ethico-polem- 
 ical preliminary to the positive illustration of the proposition, ‘‘ ye are not 
 under the law, but under grace,” which begins in ch. vii. 
 
 Ver. 15. [See Note LXX. p. 254.]| Τί οὖν] sc. ἐστε ; what is then the state 
 of the case? Comp. iii. 9. Shall this Christian position of ours be misused 
 for sinning ?—With the reading ἁμαρτήσομεν the sense would be purely fu- 
 ture: shall we sin? will this case occur with us? But with the proper 
 reading ἁμαρτήσωμεν Paul asks : Are we to sin? deliberative subjunctive as in 
 ver. 1. To the ἐπιμένωμ. τ. duapt. in ver. 1 our ἁμαρτήσωμεν stands related as 
 a climax ; not merely the state of perseverance in sin, but every sinful action 
 is to be abhorred ; the former from the pre-Christian time, the latter in the 
 Christian state of grace. — 6rv οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑπὸ νόμον x.t.2.] emphatic repetition. * 
 
 Ver. 16. Paul begins the detailed illustration of the μὴ γένοιτο with an 
 appeal to the consciousness of his readers, the tenor of which corresponds 
 to the saying of Christ : ‘‘ No man can serve two masters.” This appeal 
 forms the propositio major ; the minor then follows in ver. 17 f., after which 
 the conclusion is obvious of itself.—‘‘ Know ye not, that, to whom ye yield 
 yourselves as slaves for obedience, ye are slaves of him whom ye obey?” Here 
 the emphasis is not on ἐστε (slaves ye are in reality, as de Wette and others 
 think), or even on the relative clause ᾧ ὑπακούετε (Hofmann), but, as is re- 
 quired by the order of the words, and the correlation with παριστ. ἑαυτούς, 
 on δοῦλοι. [See Note LXXI. p. 254.] Whosoever places himself at the dispo- 
 sal of another for obedience as a slave, is no longer free and independent, 
 but is just the slave of him whom he obeys. — παριστάνετε] The present, as 
 expressing the general proposition which continues to hold good.*—@ 
 ὑπακούετε] whom ye obey (erroneously rendered by Reiche and Baumgarten- 
 Crusius : have to obey). By this, instead of the simple αὐτοῦ or τούτου, the 
 relation of subjection, which was already expressed in the protasis, is once 
 more vividly brought into view : that ye are slaves of him, whom ye, in con- 
 sequence of that παριστάνειν ἑαυτοὺς δούλους to him, obey. The circumstantial- 
 ity has a certain earnestness and solemnity. If ye yield yourselves as slaves 
 for obedience, then ye are nothing else than slaves in the service of him 
 whom ye obey. The less reason is there for attaching εἰς ixax. to the apo- 
 
 1 Bornemann, ad@ Xen. Mem. iv. 3, 17, 2 See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 115. 
 Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. XXxXix.) 
 
244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 dosis (Th. Schott, Hofmann). — ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας] sc. δοῦλοι.) Respecting the 
 disjunctive ἤτοι, wut sane, found nowhere else in N. T., see especially Klotz, 
 ad Devar. Ὁ. 609, Baeumlein, Partik. Ὁ. 244. It lays strong emphasis on 
 the first alternative. Very frequently thus used in Greek authors. Comp. 
 Wisd. xi. 18. --- εἰς θάνατον] result, to which this relation of slavery leads. 
 The θάνατος cannot be physical death (Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel), since 
 that is not the consequence of individual? sin (see on y. 12), and is not 
 averted from the δοῦλος ὑπακοῆς [See Note LXXII. p. 254] ; nor is it, either 
 generally, the misery of sin (de Wette), or specially spiritual death, alien- 
 ation from the true ζωή, an idea which Paul never conveys by θάνατος ; but 
 rather, seeing that θάνατος, as is more precisely indicated in ver. 21, and is 
 placed beyond doubt by the contrast of ζωὴ αἰώνιος, must be conceived as the 
 τέλος of the bondage of sin ; eternal death (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
 others, including Riickert, Reithmayr, and Tholuck). Comp. i. 32. This 
 is not at variance with the antithesis εἰς δικαιοσύνην, which is not to be taken 
 (as in ver. 13) in the sense of moral righteousness (Philippi and others) ; for 
 this is not the result, but is itself the essence of the δοῦλον εἷναι ὑπακοῆς (comp. 
 v. 19), since ὑπακοῇ, in contradistinction to the ἁμαρτία, is obedience to the 
 divine will. On the contrary δικαιοσύνη, antithetically correlative with the 
 θάνατος, must be conceived as the jinal result of that δοῦλον εἶναι ὑπακοῆς, and 
 apply to the time of final perfection in the αἰὼν μέλλων, when the faithful, 
 who have not relapsed into the service of sin, but in their faith have been 
 servants of obedience, on account of the death of Christ δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται, 
 v. 19. It is therefore the righteousness which is awarded to them in the 
 judgment.* Tf it were the righteousness of faith even now attained (Th. 
 Schott), ὑπακοῆς would need to be taken, with Schott, of becoming a believer 
 (i. 5), which is contextually inadmissible, since what is spoken of is the 
 state of grace already existing (ver. 15), in which service is rendered to the 
 obedience of God only, and not to sin. In accordance with the misconcep- 
 tions of Hofmann, already noticed in detail (see above), there results as his 
 sense of the whole: ‘‘ 70 whom ye place yourselves as servants at his disposal, 
 ye are servants for the purpose of obedience ; ye are so to him whom ye obey, ser- 
 vants either—for there is no third alternative—awho act contrary to their master’s 
 will and thereby merit death, or such as live in obedience and are therefore right- 
 
 1 Consequently servants of sin, who are 
 serviceable to that which is sin ; and then: 
 servants of obedience, who are in the service 
 of the opposite of ἁμαρτία, in the service of 
 divine obedience. Hofmann erroneously 
 takes the genitives as genitives of quality 
 (servants who sin and who obey) ; see Winer, 
 p. 222 [E. T. 237]. What reader could, after 
 δοῦλοι (comp. John viii. 34), have stumbled 
 on this singular relation of quality ; the as- 
 sumption of which ought to have been pre- 
 cluded by vv. 17, 20. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 19. 
 
 2 Philippi here observes, with the view of 
 including bodily death also in the idea, that 
 it “15 personally appropriated and merited 
 
 by the individual through his own act.” 
 This is not Pauline, and is at variance with 
 the true interpretation of the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες 
 ἥμαρτον in y. 12. It is not with death as it 
 is with the atonement, which is objectively 
 there for all, but must be appropriated by 
 something subjective. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22. 
 Moreover, such personal appropriation 
 would be inconceivable in the case of all 
 children dying without actual sin. 
 
 3 K6stlin has also justly directed atten- 
 tion in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 
 127, to the sensus forensis of δικαιοσύνη in our 
 passage. 
 
CRAP Va Lt. 245 
 
 cous in the presence of their master.” What kind of a θάνατος, and in what 
 sense δικαιοσύνη is meant, is supposed accordingly to be self-evident. And 
 by the following thanksgiving, ver. 17, the Apostle is alleged ‘‘as it were half 
 to take back” his question, Whether they do not know etc., so that the me- 
 dium of transition to ver. 17 is ‘‘ why yet still the question?” A series of 
 gratuitously imported fancies. 
 
 Ver. 17. Propositio minor. [See Note LXXIII. p. 255.] — χάρις dé τῷ Θεῷ, 
 ὅτι] animated expression of piety ; ‘‘ardor pectoris apostolici,” Bengel. 
 Comp. vii. 25. — ὅτε ἦτε δοῦλοι τ. du., ὑπηκ. K.7.2.] ἦτε has emphasis : that ye 
 were slaves of sin (that this condition of bondage is pdst), etc. Comp. Eph. 
 v. 8. The prefixing of ἦτε, and the non-insertion of a μέν, clearly prove 
 that this is the true interpretation, and not that, by which the main idea is 
 discovered in the second half: ‘‘ non Deo gratias agit, quod servierint pec- 
 cato, sed quod, qui servierint peccato, postea obedierunt evangelio,” Gro- 
 tius. In that case μέν at least would be indispensable in the first clause. 
 The mode of expression is purposely chosen, in order to render more forcibly 
 apparent their earlier dangerous condition (whose further delineation in 
 ver. 19, moreover, points to the former heathenism of the readers). — ἐκ 
 καρδίας] οὐδὲ yap ἠναγκάσθητε, οὐδὲ ἐβιάσθητε, ἀλλ᾽ ἑκόντες μετὰ προθυμίας ἀπέστητε, 
 Chrysostom. Comp. Job viii. 10; Mark xii. 30; Wisd. viii. 21 al. ; 
 Theocr. xxix. 43; also ἐκ θυμοῦ, ἐξ εὐμενῶν στέρνων, and similar phrases in 
 Greek writers. The opposite : ἐκ βίας. --- εἰς ὃν raped. tin. διδ. May either 
 be resolved : τῷ τύπῳ τῆς διδ., εἰς ὃν παρεδ., with Chrysostom and others, 
 including Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Tholuck, de Wette, Fritzsche, Winer, 
 and Philippi ; * 
 tim. τῆς διδ., ὃν raped. 1.6. ὃς Taped. ὑμῖν (see Castalio and Grotius on the pas- 
 sage, Kypke, Il. p. 167, Ewald and Hofmann). It is decisive in favour of the 
 first mode of resolution that ὑπακούειν εἰς τι 15. never equivalent to ὑπακούειν 
 τινί ; 2 while to take ὑπηκούσατε absolutely either in the sense of the obedience 
 of faith, i. 5 (Ewald), or in that of absolute obedience (‘‘as obedient servants 
 in contrast to sinful ones,” Hofmann), is inadmissible, because ὑπηκούσατε 
 in its antithetical correlation with δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας needs a more. precise 
 definition. And this it has precisely in εἰς ὃν παρεδόθ. «.7.A., which cannot 
 therefore indicate whereunto (Ewald and Hofmann) the ὑπακούειν has taken 
 place,—an artificial far-fetched expedient, which is wrung from them, in 
 order to get instead of obedience towards the doctrine obedience as effect 
 of the doctrine (comp. Matt. xii. 41, where however μετενόησαν stands by 
 its side, which is in fact of itself a complete conception). The τύπος διδαχῆς, 
 εἰς ὃν raped. is usually (and still by Hofmann) understood of Christian doc- 
 trine generally, so far as it is a definite, express form of teaching. But 
 since the singular expression τύπος does not thus appear accounted for, and’ 
 since the Roman church was undoubtedly planted through the preaching 
 of Pauline Christianity, which is certainly a particular type, different from 
 
 or: εἰς τ. τύπ. τῆς διὸδ., εἰς ὃν Taped. (aS in iv. 17) ; ΟΥ̓: εἰς τ. 
 
 1 See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 138, Conject. Ὁ. obey in reference to something, to be obedi- 
 34; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 177. ent in a matter. Reiche’s judgment of 
 
 2In the passages quoted by Kypke from these passages is erroneous. See on 2 Cor. 
 Greek authors ὑπακούειν eis τι means to ii. 9. 
 
246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Judaistic forms of Christian teaching and in various points even contrast- 
 ing with these, it is preferable to understand by it the distinct expression 
 which the Gospel had received through Paul, consequently the doctrinal 
 form of his Gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25), in opposition to anti-Paulinism (Riickert, 
 ed. 1, de Wette, comp. Philippi). This εἰς ὃν raped, is decisive in favour of 
 the interpretation ‘‘form of doctrine” in an objective sense, and against the 
 subjective explanation : image of the doctrine, which is impressed on the 
 heart (Kypke). Following Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, Calvin, 
 Grotius, Calovius, and many others, Reiche (as also Olshausen, Reithmayr 
 and Krehl) take τύπος in the sense of exemplar, ideal which the doctrine holds 
 up, consequently in that of the ethical rule, which as model of life is con- 
 tained in the Gospel (diday).1 This is in harmony neither with the ὑπακούειν 
 nor with the εἰς ὃν raped. Unsuitable to the former is also the interpreta- 
 tion of Beza and others, to which Tholuck inclines, that the evangelical 
 doctrine is ‘‘ quasi instar typi cujusdam, cw? veluti immittamur, ut ejus fig- 
 urae conformemur.” Van Hengel understands ὑπηκοίσατε in the sense of 
 obedience toward God, and εἰς as quod attinet at ; Paul in his view says : 
 ‘‘obedivistis Deo ad sequendam quam profiteri edocti estis doctrinae for- 
 mam.” This form of doctrine, to which the Romans were directed at the 
 founding of their church, had been, he conceives, probably more Judaistic 
 than purely Pauline. But against the absolute interpretation of ὑπηκούσ. 
 see above ; while the assumption of a τύπος διδαχῆς not truly Pauline is ir- 
 reconcilable with the expression of thanksgiving, and is not supported by 
 Phil. i. 15, a passage which is to be explained from the peculiar situation 
 of the Apostle. We may add that Paul aptly specializes the éraxef—which 
 was set forth in the major, in ver. 16, quite generally (as obedience to God 
 in general)—at the subsumption in the minor, ver. 17, as obedience to his 
 Gospel. — παρεδόθ.] τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ βοήθειαν αἰνίττεται, Chrysostom. The refer- 
 ence to God, which is also to be observed for the passives in ver. 18, is 
 plain from χάρις τῷ OcH. That it is not to be taken as middle (to yield them- 
 selves, so Fritzsche) is shown by the same passives in ver. 18. Παραδίδωμι 
 either with the dative or with cic, in the sense of delivering over to the dis- 
 posal and power of another, is very current everywhere in Greek literature 
 (Judith x. 15 ; Rom. i. 26; Xen. Hell. 1, 7, 3; Dem. 515, 6, 1187, 5) ; but 
 whether in a hostile sense or not, is conveyed not by the expression itself, 
 but simply by the context. To the expression itself the abolition of one’s 
 own self-determination is essential. So also here. The Christian has at 
 his conversion ceased to be sui juris, and has been given over to the morally 
 regulative power of the Gospel.? 
 
 Ver. 18. ‘‘But, freed from sin, ye have become servants of righteous- 
 ness.” This is not to be regarded as the conclusion from the two premisses, 
 vv. 16, 17 (Riickert, Reiche), because οὖν is not used, and because substan- 
 
 1§o0 probably Chrysostom took it, who Rep. p. 412 B: ot τύποι τῆς παιδείας, p. 397 C: 
 explains ὁ τύπος τ. διδαχῆς by opdas ζὴν Kat τύπῳ τῆς λέξεως, Jamblichus /.c. 23: τὸν τύπον 
 μετὰ πολιτείας ἀρίστης. Soalso Theophylact. τῆς διδασκαλίας, 1500. Antid. 186: ὃ τύπος τῆς 
 
 2On τύπος διδαχῆς comp. Jamblichus, de φιλοσοφίας, 
 Pythag. vit. 16: τῆς παιδεύσεως ὁ τύπος, Plat. 
 
CHAP. VI.,, 19. 249 
 
 tially the same thought was already contained in ver. 17. Paul rather ex- 
 presses once more the happy change in his readers just described ; and does 
 so in a thoughtfully chosen antithetical form, no longer however dependent 
 on ὅτι, but independent and thus more emphatic (hence a colon is, with 
 Lachmann, to be inserted before ἐλευθ.). But he leaves the reader to draw 
 for himself the conclusion, namely : this μὴ γένοιτο is therefore fully justified. 
 — The δέ is the autem of continuation ; the transition, however, is not from 
 activity (ὑπηκούσατε) to passiveness (Hofmann, comp. Th. Schott), for the 
 latter is already given in παρεδόθητε, but from the state of the case expressed 
 in ver. 17 to a striking specification, in a more precise form, of the revolution 
 in the relation of service, which was accomplished in them. — ἀπὸ τ. ἁμαρτ. 
 that is, from the relation of slavery to it. — ἐδουλ. τῇ δικαιοσ.} ye have been 
 placed in the slave-relation to righteousness ; a representation of the complete 
 dependence on the moral necessity of being righteous, implied in conversion, 
 On the dative comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19 ; Tit. ii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 19. This slavery, 
 where the δικαιοσύνη is the mistress, 15 consequently the true moral freedom 
 (ἐλευθεροπρεπὲς δὲ ἡ ἀρετή, Plat. Ale. 1. p. 185 C.). Comp. the similar para- 
 dox in 1 Cor. vii. 22. 
 
 Ver. 19. Paul had, in vv. 16-18, represented the idea of the highest 
 moral freedom—in a form corresponding indeed with its nature as a moral 
 necessity (‘‘ Deo servire vera libertas est,” Augustine), but still borrowed 
 from human relations—as δουλεία. He now therefore, not to justify himself, 
 but to induce his readers to separate the idea from the form, announces 
 the fact that, and the reason why, he thus expresses himself regarding the 
 loftiest moral idea in this concrete fashion, derived from an ordinary human 
 relation. J speak (in here making mention of slavery, vv. 16-18) what is 
 human (belonging to the relations of the natural human life) on account of 
 the (intellectual) weakness of your flesh, i.e. in order thereby to come to the 
 help of this your weakness. [See Note LXXIV. p. 255.] For the setting 
 forth of the idea in some such sensuous form is the appropriate means of 
 stimulating and procuring its apprehension in the case of one, whose knowl- 
 edge has not yet been elevated by divine enlightenment to a higher plat- 
 form of strength and clearness released from such human forms. Respecting 
 ἀνθρώπινον see the examples in Wetstein. It is the antithesis of θεῖον, Plat. 
 Rep. p. 497 C. The expression κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω in ch. iii. 5 is in sub- 
 stance equivalent, since ἀνθρώπινον also necessarily indicates the form and 
 dress employed for the idea, for whose representation the Apostle has 
 uttered what is human. The σάρξ, however, ὁ.6. the material human nature 
 in its psychical determination, as contrasted with the divine pneumatic in- 
 fluence (comp. on iv. 1), is weak for religious and moral discernment, as well 
 as for good (Matt. xxvi. 41) ; hence the σοφία σαρκική (2 Cor. 1. 12) is foolish- 
 ness with God (1 Cor. iii. 19). Others, taking it not of intellectual weak- 
 ness, but of moral weakness, refer it to what follows (Origen, Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Hammond, Wetstein, and others, in- 
 cluding Klee, Reithmayr, and Bisping), in the sense: “1 do not demand 
 what is too hard (ἀνθρώπ., comp. 1 Cor. x. 13) ; for although I might re- 
 quire a far higher degree of the new obedience, yet I require only the same 
 
 
 
248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 as ye have formerly rendered to sin.”? But the following ὥσπερ. . . . οὕτω 
 introduces not the equality of the degree, but, as is plain from ver. 20, only 
 the comparison in general between the former and the present state. Be- 
 sides, the demand itself, which by this interpretation would only concern 
 a lower stage of Christian life, would be inappropriate to the morally ideal 
 character of the whole hortatory discourse, which is not injured by the con- 
 crete figurative form. This remark also applies to the dismembering ex- 
 planation of Hofmann (comp. Th. Schott), who makes ἀνθρώπινον λέγω form 
 a parenthesis, and then connects διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τ. σαρκὸς ὑμῶν with édov- 
 λώθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, 80 that the thought would be : the weakness of our in- 
 born nature gives occasion that our translation into the life of righteousness 
 is dealt with as an enslavement thereto, while otherwise it would be simply 
 restoration to the freedom of doing our own will ; according to this weak- 
 ness what is right is not done freely of itself, but in the shape of a service. 
 But how could Paul have so degraded the moral loftiness of the position of 
 the dovdwhévtec τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ! To him they were indeed the δουλωθέντες τῷ 
 Θεῷ (ver. 22), and in his estimation there was nothing morally more exalted 
 than to be δοῦλος Θεοῦ, as Christ Himself was. The Christian has put on 
 Christ in this respect also (Gal. ili. 27), and lives in the spirit of the holiest 
 freedom (2 Cor. iii. 17 f.) ; his subjection to the service of δικαιοσύνῃ has not 
 taken place on account of his inborn nature incapacitating him for moral 
 freedom (as though it were a measure of compulsion) ; but on the contrary 
 he has put off the morally weak old man, and so he lives as a new creature 
 —hby means of the newness of the spirit, and in virtue of his communion 
 in the resurrection-life of Christ—in the condition of righteousness, which 
 Paul has here under the designation of bondage, accommodating himself by 
 the ordinary human expression to the natural weakness of the understanding, 
 brought into contrast with the having been freed from sin. — ὥσπερ γάρ x.7.A.] 
 Practical assigning of a reason for the proposition just affirmed ἀνθρωπίνως 
 in ver. 18, in the form of a concrete demand. In opposition to Hofmann, 
 who (at variance with his own interpretation of xiii. 6 !) declares it impos- 
 sible to clothe the assigning of a reason in the dress of an exhortation, see 
 Bauemlein, Partik. p. 86. Heb. xii. 3 (see Delitzsch) is to be taken in the 
 same way ; comp. Jamesi. 7 ; and sceon 1 Cor. 1. 26. Hence : for, as ye have 
 placed your members at the disposal, etc., so now place, etc. Since the discourse 
 proceeds indeed in the same figurative manner, but yet so that it now as- 
 sumes the hortatory form, ἀνθρώπινον. . . . σαρκὸς ὑμῶν is not to be put in a 
 parenthesis, but with Fritzsche, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, to be separated 
 from ὥσπερ by a period. —rj ἀκαθαρσίᾳ x. τῇ ἀνομίᾳ] The two exhaust the 
 notion of ἁμαρτία (ver. 13), so that ἀκαθ. characterizes sin as morally defiling 
 the man (see on i. 24), and ἀνομ. (1. John iii. 4) as a violation of the divine 
 law.” — εἰς τὴν ἀνομ.] on behalf of antagonism to law, in order that it may be 
 established (in facto). The interpretation εἰς τὸ ἐπιπλέον ἀνομεῖν, Theophylact 
 (so also Oecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, Kéllner, Ewald, and 
 
 1 50. also probably Theodoret: τῇ φύσει σώματι κινούμενα πάϑη. 
 μετρῶ τὴν παραίνεσιν" olda γὰρ τὰ ἐν τῷ ϑνητῷ 2 See Tittmann, Synon. Ὁ. 48. 
 
ν᾿ CHAP. VI., 20-22. 249 
 
 others), is, in its practical bearing, erroneous, since it is only the yielding 
 of the members to the principle of ἀνομία that actually brings the latter 
 into a concrete reality. — εἰς ἁγιασμόν] in order to attain holiness (1 Cor. i. 80 ; 
 1 Thess. iv. 3 f. 7 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13), moral purity and consecration to God. 
 To be an ἅγιος in mind and walk—that goal of Christian development—is 
 the aim of the man, who places his members at the disposal of δικαιοσύνη as 
 ruler over him. The word ἁγιασμός is found only in the LXX., Apocr. and 
 in the N. T. (in the latter it is always holiness, not sanctification,’ even in 
 1 Tim. ii. 15 ; Heb. xii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 2), but not Greek writers.? ‘Ayaopdy 
 stands without the article, because this highest moral goal is conceived of 
 qualitatively. 
 
 Vv. 20-22. [See Note LXXV. p. 255.] With γάρ Paul does not introduce 
 an illustration to ver. 19 (Fritzsche), but rather—seeing that ver. 20 through 
 οὖν in ver. 21, as well as through the correlative antithesis in ver. 22, must 
 necessarily form a connected whole in thought with what follows till the 
 end of ver. 22—the motive for complying with what is enjoined in ver. 19 ; 
 and that in such a way, that he first of all prepares the way for it by ver. 20, 
 and then in ver. 21 f., leading on by οὖν, actually expresses it, equally impres- 
 sively and touchingly, as respects its deterrent (ver. 21) and inviting (ver. 
 22) aspects. The fact that he first sets down ver. 20 for itself, makes the 
 recollection which he thus calls up more forcible, more tragic. Observe also 
 the emphasis and the symmetrical separation of the several words in ver. 20. 
 — thet. ἦτε τῇ δικαιοσ.Ἴ Ye were free in relation to righteousness, in point of 
 fact independent of its demands, since ye were serving the opposite ruler 
 (the ἁμαρτία). Οὐδὲ yap διενέμετε τῆς δουλείας τὸν τρόπον τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ TH ἁμαρ- 
 Tid, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλως ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεδίδοτε τῇ πονηρίᾳ, Chrysostom. A sad truth based on 
 experience ! not a flight of irony (Koppe, Reiche, Philippi, and others), but 
 full of deep moral pain. — Ver. 21. οὖν] in consequence of this freedom. — 
 τίνα. . .. ἐπαισχύνεσθε is with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, Beza, 
 Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Winer, 
 Reiche (but see below), Fritzsche, Jatho, and Hofmann, (but see below)— 
 in harmony with the punctuation of the tert. rec.—to be regarded as 
 one connected question [See Note LXXVI. p. 256], so that the reason to 
 be given for replying in the negative sense to this question is then con- 
 tained in τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος ; namely, thus: what fruit, now, had 
 ye then (when ye were still in the service of sin, etc., ver. 20) of things, 
 on account of which ye are now ashamed ? i.e. ye had then no fruit, no moral 
 gain, etc., and the proof thereof is: for the final result of them (those 
 things) is death. What leads at last to death, could bring you no moral 
 gain. For the grammatical explanation ἐκείνων is to be supplied before ἐφ᾽ 
 οἷς (which in fact is perfectly regular, Winer, Ὁ. 149 [E. T. 158]), and to 
 this the ἐκείνων in the probative clause refers. Regarding éraoy. ἐπί tive, 
 to be ashamed over anything (not merely of the being put to shame by the 
 
 1 Τὴ opposition to Hofmann, on ver. 22. Spirit. Comp. Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 82. 
 But to the Christian consciousness it is 2In Dion. Hal. i. 21, it is a false reading, © 
 self-evident that holiness canonly be at- as also in Diod. iy. 39. 
 tained under the influence of the Holy 
 
250 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 fact of something not proving to be what we thought it, as Th. Schott weakens 
 the sense) comp. Xen. Hell. v. 4, 33 : ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ φιλίᾳ αἰσχυνθῇς, Plat. Rep. 
 Ῥ. 896 C: οὐκ. αἰσχυνεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ μιμήσει, LXX. Is. xx. 5, 120i 
 Mace. iv. 31; also Dem. 426, 10. Reiche makes the double mistake of 
 very arbitrarily referring ἐφ᾽ οἷς to καρπόν, which is to be taken collectively ; 
 and of explaining καρπὸν ἔχειν as meaning to bring forth fruit (which would 
 be κ. ποιεῖν, φέρειν), so that the sense would be: ‘‘what deeds, on account 
 of which ye are now ashamed, proceeded from your service of sin ἢ) Hof- 
 mann, resolving the expression into ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅ viv ἐπαισχύνεσθε, wishes 
 to take ἐπί in the well-known sense of addition to, so that Paul asks : ‘‘ what 
 fruit had ye then over and above those things of which ye are now ashamed ?” 
 those things being the former disgraceful enjoyments, with which they now 
 desired to have nothing further todo. But how could the reader think of 
 such enjoyments without any hint being given by the text ? And how arbi- 
 trary in this particular place is that interpretation of ἐπί, especially when the 
 verb itself is compounded with ἐπί, and that in the sense : to be ashamed 
 thereupon, and accordingly indicates how ἐφ᾽ οἷς is to be resolved and proper- 
 ly understood !! Many others (Syriac, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, 
 Carpzoy, Koppe, Tholuck undecidedly, Riickert, KélIner, de Wette, Ols- 
 hausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Philippi, Reithmayr, 
 Ewald, van Hengel, and Th. Schott) end the question with τότε, so that ἐφ᾽ 
 οἷς viv ἐπαισχ. becomes the answer, of which again τὸ γὰρ τέλ. ἐκ θάν. is the 
 proof : ‘‘what sort of fruit had ye then? Things (ye had as fruit) ef which 
 ye are now ashamed ; for the end of them is death.” Kaprév is likewise regard- 
 ed as a figurative description either of gain or reward (‘‘ignoble and perni- 
 cious joys and pleasures,” Ewald), or of actions, which are the penal conse- 
 quence of reprobate sentiments. But fatal to all this explanation, which 
 breaks up the passage, is the antithesis in ver. 22, where the having of fruit, 
 not its guality, is opposed to the preceding ; if Paul had inquired in ver, 21 
 regarding the quality of the fruit, he must have used in ver. 22 some such 
 expression as νυνὶ di... . τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν. Besides, we 
 cannot well see why he should not have written either τίνας καρπούς or ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
 and ἐκείνου ; he would by annexing the plurals, though these were in them- 
 selves admissible on account of the collective nature of καρπός, have only ex- 
 pressed himself in a fashion obscure and misleading. Finally, it is to be 
 observed that he never attributes καρπόν or καρπούς to immorality ; he attrib- 
 utes to it ἔργα (Gal. v. 19), butuses καρπός only of the good ; he speaks of 
 the καρπὸς του πνεύματος, Gal. v. 22 ; of the καρπὸς τοῦ φῶτος, Eph. v. 9 ; of the 
 καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, Phil. i. 11 ; of the καρπ. ἔργου, Phil. i. 22 ; comp. Rom. i. 13; 
 in fact he negatives the idea of καρπός in reference to evil, when he describes 
 the ἔργα τοῦ σκότους as ἄκαρπα, Eph. v. 11 ; comp. Tit. iii. 14. With this type of 
 conception our interpretation alone accords, by which in the question τίνα 
 καρπὸν k.T.A. (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18) there is contained the negation of καρπὸς in 
 
 1 See generally on ἐπί with the dative, as tion, Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 486, aud with αἰσχύν. 
 specifying the ground with verbs of emo- 11. 2, p. 381, rem. 6. 
 
CHAPA VIE}: 20: 251 
 
 the service of sin, the ἄκαρπον εἶναι. The most plausible objection to our 
 explanation is this, that in accordance with it ἐφ᾽ οἷς viv ἐπαισχ. becomes merely 
 an incidental observation. But an incidental observation may be of great 
 weight inits bearing on the matter in hand. It is so here, where it contains 
 a trenchant argumentative point in favour of replying in a negative sense to 
 the question. Calvin aptly says: ‘‘non poterat gravius exprimere quod 
 volebat, quam appellando eorum conscientiam et quasi in eorum persona 
 pudorem confitendo.” Compare also Chrysostom. — ἐκείνων] neuter: those 
 things, on account of which ye are now ashamed, the pre-Christian sins and 
 vices. Bengel well remarks : ‘‘ remote spectat praeterita.”’ — θάνατος] death, 
 i.e. the eternal death, whose antithesis is the ζω αἰώνιος, ver. 23; not the 
 physical (Fritzsche), comp. on ver. 16. — The μέν before γάρ (see the crit. 
 remarks) does not correspond to the following dé ; on the contrary, we must 
 translate : for the end indeed (which however excludes every fruit) is death. 
 Ver. 22. νυνὶ dé x.7.A.] But now (ye are no longer without fruit, as formerly ; 
 no, now) ye possess your fruit unto holiness, so that its possession has as its 
 consequence holiness for you (εἰς consecutive). The ἁγιασμός is consequently 
 not the fruit (the moral gain) itself, which they already have (that would also 
 be at variance with οὕτω viv mapacr. .... εἰς ἁγιασμόν in ver, 19), but the 
 state, which the ἔχειν of their fruit shallin future bring about. The fruit itself 
 —and καρπός is to be taken, quite as in ver. 21, as ethical product—is con- 
 sequently the new, Christian morality (comp. the καινότης ζωῆς in ver. 4), the 
 Christian virtuous nature which belongs to them (ὑμῶν), and the possession 
 of which leads by the way of progressive development to holiness. — τὸ δὲ 
 τέλος ζωὴν αἰών.) as the final result however (of this your fruit) eternal life in 
 the kingdom of Messiah. This possession is now as yet an ideal one (viii. 
 24). Hofmann erroneously takes τὸ δὲ τέλος adverbially (1 Pet. iii. 8 ; comp. 
 on 1 Cor. xv. 24), which is impossible after ver. 21, in accordance with 
 which the word must here also be the emphatic substantive, the jinale of the 
 καρπός ; hence also ζωὴν αἰώνιον is dependent not on εἰς (Hofmann), but on 
 éyere. — The circumstance, moreover, that Paul in ver. 22 says δουλωθ. τῷ Θεῷ 
 while in ver. 18 he has said ἐδουλ. τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, is rightly illustrated by 
 Grotius : ‘‘ qui bonitati rebusque honestis servit, et Deo servit, quia Deus 
 hoc semper amavit et in evangelio apertissime praccepit.” Comp. xii. 2. 
 And precisely therein lies the true freedom, 1 Pet. ii. 16 ; John viii. 36. 
 Ver. 23. Ta ὀψώνια] the wages. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 7; Luke iii. 14. ᾿᾽Οψό- 
 viov κυρίως λέγεται TO τοῖς στρατιώταις Tapa τοῦ βασιλέως δεδομένον σιτηρέσιον, The- 
 ophylact.? The plural, more usual than the singular, is explained by the 
 various elements that constituted the original natural payments, and by the 
 coins used in the later money wages. — The wages which sin gives stands in 
 reference to ver. 13, where the ἁμαρτία is presented as a ruler, to whom the 
 subjects tender their members as weapons, for which they receive their 
 allowance ! — θάνατος] as in ver. 22. — τὸ δὲ χάρισμα τ. Θεοῦ] Paul does not say 
 τὰ ὀψώνια here also (‘‘ vile verbum,” Erasmus), but characterizes what God 
 
 1 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 414, Winer, 2 Comp. Photius, 367. See Lobeck, ad 
 p. 534 f. [E. T. 575). Phryn. p. 420. 
 
2d2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 gives for wages as what it is in its specific nature—a gift of grace, which is 
 no ἀντιταλαντεύεσθαι (Theodoret). Τὸ the Apostle, in the connection of his 
 system of faith and doctrine, this was very natural, even without the sup- 
 position of any special design (in order—it has been suggested—to afford no 
 encouragement to pride of virtue or to confiding in one’s own merit). — ἐν 
 Χριστῷ x.7.A.] In Christ is the causal basis, that the χάρισμα τ. Θεοῦ is eter- 
 nal life ; a triumphant conclusion as in v. 21 ; comp. Vili. 39. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. 
 LXIV. Ver. 1. ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. 
 
 To make the defence of his doctrine as the truth complete, the Apostle was 
 obliged, not only to establish it by direct proofs, but also to meet the objec- 
 tions which might naturally arise. There were two of these-which he must 
 have often encountered, and which, in this Ep., he anticipates and answers. 
 The first is the one presented in all ages against the ‘doctrine—namely, that it 
 tends toward immorality. As justification does not rest upon works, as for- 
 giveness is always ready for the sinner who trusts in Christ, and as the abound- 
 ing of sin causes grace to abound still more, will not the believer be careless 
 about sinning, and even disposed to continue in sin? The second objection 
 was peculiar to the age when the Judaistic views were held and the relation of 
 the Jews to the old covenant was still pressed—namely, did not the doctrine 
 of faith, which excluded all unbelieving Jews from salvation, involve unfaith- 
 fulness of God to His promises given to His peculiar people? The Apostle con- 
 siders the first of these objections in chaps. vi.—viii., and the second in chaps. 
 ix.-xi. He limits himself to the two, because he regarded them, probably, as 
 containing in substance the sum of what could be urged against the faith- 
 system. 
 
 LXV. Ver. 2. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. 
 
 The aorist tense points to the time of entrance upon the Christian life. 
 According to the doctrine of faith, the relation of the man to sin terminates at 
 the moment of conversion. He dies, so far forth as sin is concerned, at that 
 moment. Hence it is contrary to the very idea of the doctrine, that he should 
 continue to live insin. This thought is emphatically repeated in ver. 3 ff. , as 
 connected with the figure of burial and resurrection, and with that of cruci- 
 fixion. It will be observed that Paul is considering the doctrine, and presenting 
 the evidence that it does not tend towards immorality, and not describing 
 ordinary experience. The ideal of Christian living involves dying absolutely to 
 the old life, as soon as the new one begins. In ver, 12 f. he exhorts the 
 readers to live in accordance with the ideal standard. 
 
 LXVI. Ver. 4. συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ. 
 
 It does not seem to be necessary to regard συνετάφημεν as referring to bap- 
 tism by immersion. It may be that the thought of burial, being naturally 
 suggested by that of death, is added only for the purpose of emphasis. It is 
 clear, however, that, if it has this reference, the use of the verb is more fully 
 and satisfactorily accounted for, and not improbably, to say the least, there is 
 an allusion to this mode of baptizing. 
 
yr 
 
 NOTES. 253 
 
 LXVI. Ver. 6. τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 The explanation of τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας given by Meyer seems to be the most 
 natural and satisfactory one. ‘The body, according to the view of Paul, is evi- 
 dently not evil in itself. On the other hand, it is an instrument which may be 
 used either in the service of sin or of God. As the man dies to sin without 
 dying in the ordinary sense, so his body is destroyed, so far forth as it be- 
 longs to sin and is given up to its control, without being actually destroyed. 
 This view makes the words correspond with the thought or phraseology of the 
 Apostle elsewhere (cf. vv. 12, 13, also vii. 24, ete.). It also brings ἁμαρτία, as 
 no other explanation does, into accordance with the use of the word through- 
 out this section of the Epistle—sin being, in many instances, evidently per- 
 sonified as a master (cf. e.g. vi. 12, 13, 16, vii. 14, 17, 23). 
 
 LXVUI. Ver. 7. δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 Godet, who holds the same view of ver. 7 with Meyer, says that “ δικαιοῦσθαι 
 signifies, in this connection, to be free from blame in case of disobedience 
 to be legally entitled not to obey;’ and he adds that the meaning of the 
 Apostle is, ‘‘ One who is dead, no longer having a body to put at the service of 
 sin, is now legally exempted from carrying out the wishes of that master, who 
 till then had freely disposed of him. Suppose a dead slave : it will be vain 
 for his master to order him to steal, to lie, or to kill. He will be entitled to 
 answer, My tongue, hands, and feet no longer obey me. How, then, could he 
 be taken to task for refusing to serve?” Gifford, Beet, Sanday, and others, 
 among the most recent commentators, regard ἀποθανών as having the physical 
 sense. Gifford views the sentence as containing ‘‘the general maxim, that 
 death puts an end to all bondage.’’ Beet says that δικ. here means to make 
 righteous. ‘* Death separates a man even from his sins. The thief and the 
 murderer will steal and killno more. By death they have been forcibly made 
 righteous. The statement of this ver. is implied in a still wider one, viz., that 
 death separates a man completely from his former life. Whatever he was be- 
 fore, by death he ceases to be.” Sanday renders by ‘‘absolved,’’ and adds, 
 ‘«The dead man is no longer liable to have the charge of sin brought against 
 him.” 
 
 LXIX. Ver. 14. οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον. 
 
 The question, What is the meaning of the words not under the law ? may be 
 answered by noticing the connection with the next preceding (v. 20), and the 
 next following (vii. 1-6) statements in respect to the law. V. 20 presents the law 
 as causing the offence to abound ; vii. 1-6 sets forth the same idea substantially 
 (cf. esp. ver. 5). The pointing of both alike is toward a kindred sense here. 
 Moreover, the connection in thought (whatever may be said of the immediate 
 grammatical sequence of the sentences), between this verse and vii. 1, shows 
 the writer’s conception to be, that the lordship of sin ceases for the believer 
 because that of the law ceases ; that the latter ceases because the man, through 
 his union with Christ, dies, so far as the law is concerned ; and that, thus dy- 
 ing, the man serves sin as a slave no longer, but serves a new master with 
 newness of spirit. The reference in this verse is, therefore, to the legal system, 
 as working naturally towards the dominion of the sin-power. The develop- 
 ment of the thought suggested by these words is suspended, by reason of the 
 
254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 question of ver. 15, until the seventh chapter. It is there presented in the first 
 ‘six verses, which by their statements and expressions lead to the inquiry of 
 vii. 7, founded upon the earlier part of ver. 20. That this view of vi. 14 makes 
 it anticipate the thought of chap. vil. and renders vi. 15-23 substantially, or 
 at least in a sense, parenthetical, is, when the progress of the discourse is 
 rightly apprehended, no valid objection to it. The Apostle arrests his thought 
 for the moment, as it occurs to him that the same question may be asked in 
 view of what he is saying, which was raised in the first verse. 
 
 LXX. Ver. 15. τί civ; ἁμαρτήῆσωμεν k.T.A. 
 
 On ver. 15 Philippi says : ‘‘ As from the doctrine of grace abounding through 
 sin abounding, v. 20, the inference might be drawn that it is good to continue 
 in sin that grace may be multiplied, so the statement of 14b might awaken 
 the idea that with freedom from the law license is given to sin. This idea 
 the Apostle repels with the utmost energy. But yet he does not here so much 
 develop the inner psychological impossibility of the legal state fostering and 
 furthering righteousness, and of the state of grace fostering and furthering 
 sin, as rather again remind of a matter-of-fact relation into which his readers 
 through faith in the gospel have entered. As baptism into Christ’s death me- 
 diates the death of the old and the rising of the new man (ver. 3 ff.), so is 
 freedom from the law, in point of fact, a bondage to righteousness, the domin- 
 ion of grace afreedom from sin.’’ ‘This is the correct view of the passage, 
 and thus there is a certain parallelism between these verses and ver. 1 ff., al- 
 though the relation to sin and righteousness is set forth by a new fieure” inet 
 of slavery and freedom, instead of that of dying and living. 
 
 LXXI. Ver. 16. δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. holds that the emphasis is not on δοῦλοι alone (as Meyer 
 maintains), but also on the relative clause, as indicated by the repetition of 9, 
 and by the following alternative. The idea conveyed, accordingly, is that the 
 man is a slave of the one master or the other, and also that the particular 
 slavery, by reason of the very fact that the man surrenders himself in obedi- 
 ence to one only, is exclusive of any other. Both of these suggestions are 
 probably contained in the words, but the principal emphasis is on δουλοι, and, 
 indeed, this word carries in itself the thought of entire and exclusive sur- 
 render. 
 
 LXXII. Ver. 16. ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον. 
 
 Weiss regards θάνατος here as meaning physical death. Godet, Gifford, and 
 others urge against this view, as Meyer does, that this death befalls the ser- 
 vants of righteousness. But Weiss answers that physical death, when, as in 
 the case of these, there is a resurrection to eternal life, ceases to be the punish- 
 ment of sin. Where there is no such awakening, however, it becomes eternal 
 death, and so there is nothing in the word which contradicts the idea that 
 obedience to sin leads to the latter. Godet holds that the meaning is, ‘‘death 
 in the sense of moral corruption, and consequently of separation from God 
 here and hereafter.” Beet says, ‘‘the death of body and soul;’ Gifford, 
 «‘eternal death ;’ Shedd, ‘‘ death physical, spiritual, and eternal.” Hodge 
 says, ver. 16, ‘‘ spiritual and eternal ;’ ver. 21, ‘‘death of the soul, final and 
 
NOTES. 205 
 
 hopeless perdition.” The argument for Weiss’s view here is much weaker than 
 it is for the same view in vv. 12-19. 
 
 LXXIII. Vv. 17, 18. χάρις τῷ Θεῷ ὅτι ἧτε δοῦλοι k.7.A. 
 
 _ The thought of vy. 17, 18 seems to be involved in the contrast of ἦτε δοῦλοι 
 ‘the ἀμ. and ἐδουλώθητε τῇ Six.—as if the form of the sentence were the follow- 
 ing: ‘‘that your slavery to sin is a thing of the past [this is the force of the 
 emphatic ἦτε], and that, having yielded obedience from the heart to that form 
 of teaching whereunto you were delivered [i.c. the Pauline gospel, with its 
 doctrine of grace and faith], and being thereby made free from sin as a master, 
 you came into [the aorist tenses pointing to the time of conversion] the rela- 
 tion of bond-servants to righteousness.” As there must be service to one or 
 the other, and as the former service is ended in the case of the believer, and 
 the new one begun, the Christian doctrine, which teaches this, cannot en- 
 courage sin. It must, on the other hand, direct the man who accepts it—as 
 in vv. 19, 20—to present his members for service to righteousness, now that 
 he has become a Christian (and to do it at once and once for all), as fully and 
 without reserve as, in his former life, he presented them to sin; and how 
 fully he did this he may know from his own experience, for, when he was the 
 slave of sin, he was altogether free as related to righteousness (ver. 19). 
 
 LXXIV. Ver. 19. ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός. 
 
 ἀνθρώπινον corresponds substantially with κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, and refers to the 
 figures of slavery and freedom derived from ordinary human life, which are 
 used to describe the relations to sin and righteousness, διὰ τ. ἀσῇ, τ. σαρκός 
 probably refers to the intellectual, not the moral, weakness of the readers, and 
 is to be explained in connection with the thought that we must represent 
 moral and spiritual ideas in earthly figures, or with Meyer's suggestion that 
 ‘‘the σάρξ, as the material human nature in its psychical determination, is weak 
 for religious discernment.’’ The reference to moral weakness, which Weiss 
 ed. Mey., Godet, and some other recent writers favor, does not seem to be well 
 founded. That the suggestion of the figure of bondage comes, as Godet con- 
 jectures, from the feeling sometimes arising in the Christian mind that perfect 
 righteousness is an exacting and harsh master, and that it is employed, on the 
 other hand, as Weiss intimates, because of the tendency to press Christian 
 freedom even to libertinism, are suppositions of which no hint whatever is 
 found in the context. The Apostle is only presenting the idea of bondage as 
 showing that the man who comes under the new master cannot remain in the 
 service of the old one. These writers connect the words with what precedes. 
 The view of those writers, who make them refer to moral weakness, but connect 
 them with the following sentence, is sufficiently answered in Meyer’s remarks. 
 
 LXXV. Ver. 21. τίνα οὖν κἄρπον κ.τ.λ. 
 
 The turn of thought is at ver. 21, ver. 20 being connected (see note LXXII1.) 
 with ver. 19. This connection is not disproved by what Meyer suggests. The 
 οὖν of ver. 21 shows, indeed, that the Apostle is led to present the question of 
 that verse by his thought of their former condition, which is refcrred to in the 
 words of ver. 20, as, also, it is in vv. 17,19. But the question itself turns the 
 
256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 reader’s mind to the matter of results, giving this prominence as a new point. 
 If the intention of the writer had been to make vy. 20-23, through the γάρ of 
 ver, 20, a ground of the exhortation of ver. 19—this ground being the issues 
 on the two sides—he would more naturally have omitted the οὖν altogether, 
 and arranged the construction in vv. 20, 21 as we find it in ver. 22. The pres- 
 ence of οὖν (ver. 21), therefore, is rather an argument for, than against, uniting 
 ver. 20 with ver. 19. The mere fact that ver. 22 is antithetical in its form of 
 expression to ver. 20, does not, it may be added, prove their immediate con- 
 nection, for this antithesis is found in the entire thought of the paragraph. 
 Weiss ed. Mey. favors the connection of ver. 20 with ver. 19, as Meyer himself 
 did in one of his earlier editions. 
 
 LXXVI. Ver. 21. τίνα οὖν. . . ἐπαισχύνεσθε; 
 
 Westcott and Hort and Tregelles place the interrogation mark after éracy., 
 as Meyer does. Weiss ed. Mey. (and so Godet) agrees with Tischendorf in 
 placing it after τότε. The considerations presented by Meyer are forcible, and 
 we may regard the arrangement favored by him as the more probable one. 
 The possibility of the other, however, cannot be denied. R. V. and A. V. both 
 read according to Meyer’s view. 
 
CHAP. VII. 257 
 
 CHAPTER. Vil; 
 
 Ver. 6. ἀποθανόντες] Elz. reads ἀποθανόντος, which was introduced as a con- 
 jecture by Beza, without critical evidence, solely on account of some misunder- 
 stood words of Chrysostom (see Mill, Bengel, Appar., and especially Reiche, 
 Comment. crit. I. p. 50 ff.). The ἀποθανόντες, adopted by Griesb. Matth. Lachm. 
 Scholz, and Tisch., following Erasmus and Mill, is the reading inABCK L 
 P SN, min., and’ most vss. and Fathers. D EF G Vulg. It. codd. in Ruf. and 
 Latin Fathers read τοῦ θανάτου. Preferred by Reiche. But especially when 
 we consider its merely one-sided attestation (the Oriental witnesses are want- 
 ing), it seems to be a gloss having a practical bearing (see ver. 5) on τοῦ νόμου 
 which has dispossessed the participle regarded as disturbing the construction. — 
 Ver. 13. γέγονε] Lachm. and Tisch. (8), following A B C Ὁ E P 8, 47, 73, 80, 
 Method. Damase. read ἐγένετο. Some Latin codd. have est. IF G have no verb 
 at all. With the preponderance, thus all the more decisive, of the witnesses 
 which favour ἐγένετο, it is to be preferred, — Ver. 14. σαρκικός The σάρκινος 
 adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, and Tisch. is attested by ABCDEFG 
 N*, min., and several Fathers. For this reason, and because the ending κός was 
 easily suggested by the preceding πνευματικός, as in general σαρκικός Was more 
 familiar to the copyists (xv. 27 ; 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 11) than 
 σάρκινος (2 Cor. iii. 3), the latter is to be assumed as the original reading. — Ver. 
 17. οἰκοῦσα] Tisch. (8) reads ἐνοικοῦσα, which would have to be received, if it 
 were attested in more quarters than by B 8. — Ver. 18. ody εὑρίσκω] A BC κα, 47, 
 67**, 80, Copt. Arm. Procl. in Epiph. Method. Cyr. codd. Gr. ap. Aug. have 
 merely οὔ. Approved by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But if there 
 had been a gloss, the supplement would have been παράκειται. The omission 
 on the other hand is explained by the copyist’s hurrying on from OYX to the 
 OY at the beginning of ver, 19. — Ver. 20. θέλω ἐγώ] Since ἐγώ is wanting in ΒΟ 
 DEF G, min., Arm. Vulg. It. and several Fathers, but is found in 219, Clem. 
 after τοῦτο, in Chrys. before οὐ ; and since it is, according to the sense and the 
 analogy of vv. 15, 19, inappropriate, it has rightly been deleted by Lachm. and 
 Fritzsche, and is to be regarded asa mechanical addition from what immediately 
 follows. If ἐγώ were original (and had been omitted in accordance with 
 vv. 15, 19), it must have had the emphasis of the contrast, which however it 
 has not. — Ver. 25. εὐχαριστῶ] Lachm. and Tisch. read χάρις, which Griesb. also, 
 approved of, following B and several min., vss, and Fathers, Fritzsche reads 
 χάρις δέ in accordance with C**, 8**, min., Copt. Arm. and Fathers. Both 
 are taken from the near, and, in the connection of ideas, analogous vi. 17 (not 
 edyap. from i. 8). The reading ἡ χάρις τ. Θεοῦ (Ὁ E and some Fathers), or 
 ἡ x. τ. κυρίου (F G), is manifestly an alteration, in order to make the answer 
 follow the preceding question. 
 
 Vv. 1-6. The Christian is not under the Mosaic law; but through his 
 fellowship in the death of Christ he has died to the law, in order to belong to the 
 Risen One and in this new union to lead a life consecrated to God. 
 
258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. ° 
 
 Ver. 1.’ Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε] Paul certainly begins now the detailed illustration, 
 still left over, of οὐ γάρ ἐστε, vi. 14 ; but he connects his transition to it with 
 what immediately precedes, as is clear from the nature of ἢ (comp. vi. 3). 
 
 [See Note LXXVII. p. 289.] Nevertheless the logical reference of ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε 
 is not to be sought possibly in the previous τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, with which the 
 following κυριεύει is here correlative (Reiche), since that κυρίῳ has in fact no 
 essential importance at all and is for the progress of the thought immaterial ; 
 but rather in the leading idea last expressed (ver. 22), and established (ver. 
 23), namely, that the Christian, freed from the service of sin and become the ser- 
 vant of God, has his fruit to holiness, and, as the final result, eternal life. 
 This proposition could not be truth, if the Christian were not free from the 
 law and did not belong to the Risen Christ instead, etc., vv. 1-6. — ἀδελφοί] 
 address to the readers collectively (comp. i. 18), not merely to the Jewish 
 Christians (Toletus, Grotius, Estius, Ch. Schmidt, and others, including 
 Tholuck and Philippi), because in that case an addition must have been 
 made excluding Gentile Christians, which however is so far from being con- 
 tained in γινώσκουσι, especially when it is without the article, that in the 
 case of Christians generally the knowledge of the O. T.. was of necessity to 
 be presupposed ; see below. This applies also against Hofmann’s view, 
 that Paul, although avoiding a specific express designation, has in view that 
 portion of his readers, which had not been capable of the misconception 
 indicated in ver. 15. This limitation also—and how easily could the adroit 
 author of the Epistle have indicated it in a delicate way !—cannot be de- 
 duced either from ddeAgot or from γινώσκουσι k.7.2. — γενώσκ. yap vou. A. | jus- 
 tifies the appeal to the readers’ own insight : for 1 speak to such as know 
 the law. We may not infer from these parenthetical words, or from vv. 4-6, 
 that the majority of the Roman congregation was composed of Jewish- Chris- 
 tians ;* for, looking to the close connection subsisting between the Jewish 
 and Gentile-Christian portions of the Church, to the custom borrowed 
 from the synagogue of reading from the Old Testament in public, and to 
 the necessary and essential relations which evangelical instruction and 
 preaching sustained to the Old Testament so that the latter was the basis 
 from which they started, the Apostle might designate his readers generally 
 as γινώσκοντες τὸν νόμον, and predicate of them an acquaintance with the law. 
 Comp. on Gal. iv. 31. The less need is there for the assumption of a pre- 
 vious proselytism (de Wette, Beyschlag, and many others), with which 
 moreover the ἀδελφός addressing the readers in common is at variance ; comp. 
 1. 13, viii. 12, x. 1, xi. 23, xii. 1, xv. 14, 30, xvi. 17. —6 vduoc] not every 
 law (Koppe, van Hengel) ; nor the moral law (Glickler) ; but the Mosaic, 
 and that in the usual sense comprehending the whole ; not merely of the 
 law of marriage (Beza, Toletus, Bengel, Carpzov, Chr. Schmidt ; comp. 
 
 1 On the entire chapter, see Achelis in the we should not be able at all to see why 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 670 ff. Paul should have specially noticed it. 
 
 2On the contrary, the inference would But as converted Gentiles the readers had be- 
 -be: If the Church had been a Jewish- Chris- come acquainted with the law. This also 
 tian one, the γινώσκειν νόμον would in its applies against Holtzmann, Judenth. u. 
 ease have been so entirely self-evident, that Christenth, Ὁ. 783. 
 
CHAP. VII., 2. 259 
 
 Olshausen). This is required by the theme of the discussion generally, and 
 by the foregoing γινώσκ. y. νόμ. λαλῶ in particular. — τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] is not to 
 be connected with ὁ νόμος (Hammond, Clericus, Elsner, and Mosheim), but 
 belongs, as the order of the words demands, to xvpieber. — ἐφ᾽ ὅσον yp. ζῇ] Hor 
 so long time as he liveth (éxi as in Gal. iv. 1 in the sense of stretching over a 
 period of time,’ the (personified) law is lord over the man who is subjected to 
 it (τοῦ avOp.). That 6 ἄνθρωπος is the subject to ζῇ, is decided by vv. 2, 3, 4. 
 By the assumption of ὁ νόμος as subject (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Vat- 
 ablus, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Koppe, and Flatt), in which case ζῇ is sup- 
 posed to signify viget or valet (in spite of vv. 2, 3), the discourse is quite 
 disarranged ; for Paul is not discussing the abrogation of the law, but the 
 fact that the Christian as such is no longer under it. Nor do vv. 2, 3 re- 
 quire ὁ νόμος as subject, because the point there illustrated is, that the death 
 of the man (not of the law) dissolves the binding power of the law over 
 him.? The proposition in vi. 7 is similar, and presupposes this thought. 
 To take ζῆν as equivalent to ζῆν ἐν σαρκί (‘‘so long as the man continues to 
 lead his old natural life, he is a servant of the law,” Philippi, also Umbreit), 
 is quite opposed to the context : see ζῶντε and ζῶντος in vv. 2, 8, with their 
 antitheses. The emphasis, moreover, is not on ζῇ (Hofmann), but, as is 
 shown by the very expression écov, on ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον, for the entire time, 
 that he lives ; it does not lose its power over him sooner than when he dies ; 
 so long as he is in life, he remains subject to it. If this is attended to and 
 there is not introduced a wholly irrelevant ‘‘ on/y so long as he liveth,” the 
 thought appears neither trivial nor disproportionate to the appeal to the lega 
 knowledge of his readers. For there is a peculiarity of the νόμος in the fact, 
 that it cannot have, like human laws, merely temporary force, that it cannot 
 be altered or suspended, nor can one for a time be exempted from its con- 
 trol, etc. No, so long as man’s life endures, the dominion of the νόμος over 
 him continues.’ Nor is the proposition incorrect (because that dominion 
 ceases in the case of the believer, Philippi) ; for it simply contains a general 
 rule of law, which, it is self-evident, refers to the ἄνθρωπος ἔννομος as such. 
 If the Jew becomes a Christian, he dies as a Jew (ver. 4), and the rule in 
 question is not invalidated. 
 
 Ver. 2. [See Note LXXVIII. p. 289.] Concrete illustration of the propo- 
 sition in ver. 1, derived from the relation of the law to marriage and 
 its dissolution, which in the woman’s case can only take place through the 
 death of the husband, so that it is only after that death has occurred that 
 she may marry another. This example, as the tenor of the following text 
 shows (in opposition to Hofmann), is selected, not because the legal ordi- 
 nance in question was in its nature the only one that Paul could have 
 employed, but because he has it in view to bring forward the union with 
 Christ, which takes place after the release from the law, as analogous to ὦ 
 
 1 See Bernhardy, p. 252; Comp. Niigels- Tare. Ps. 1xxxviii. 6 in Wetstein on ver. 3. 
 bach, 2. Zias, ii. 299, ed. 3, Ast, Ler. Plat. I. 3 Comp. Th. Schott, p. 267; Nofmann 
 p. 768. formerly held the right view (Schriftbew. ΤΙ. 
 
 2Comp. Schabb. ἢ. 151, 2: “postquam 1, p. 352). 
 mortuus est homo, liber est a praeceptis ;”’ 
 
260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 new marriage, and does so in ver. 4. The illustration is only apparently 
 (not really ; Usteri, Riickert, and even Umbreit in the Stud. εν. Krit. 1851, 
 p. 643) awkward, in so far namely as the deceased and the person released 
 from the law through the event of death are represented in it as different. 
 This appearance drove Chrysostom and his followers to adopt the hypothesis 
 of an inversion of the comparison ; thus holding that the /aw is properly 
 the deceased party, but that Paul expressed himself as he has done out of 
 consideration for the Jews (comp. Calvin and others), whereas Tholuck 
 contents himself with the assumption of a (strange) pregnancy of expression 
 which would include in the one side the other also ; and Umbreit regards 
 “the irregularity in the change of person” as unavoidable. But the sem- 
 blance of inappropriateness vanishes on considering καὶ ὑμεῖς in ver. 4 (see 
 on that passage), from which it is plain that Paul in his illustration, ver. 2f., 
 follows the view, that the death of the husband implies (in a metaphorical 
 sense by virtue of the union of the two spouses in one person, Eph. v. 28 ff.) 
 the death of the woman also as respected her marriage relation, and con- 
 sequently her release from the law, so far as it had bound her as a ὕπανδρος 
 γυνῇ to her husband, so that she may now marry another, which previously she 
 could not do, because the law does not cease to be lord over the man before he is 
 dead. So in substance also Achelis /.c. Consequently ver. 2 f. is not to be 
 taken allegorically, but properly and concretely ; and it is only in ver. 4 that 
 the allegorical application occurs. It has been allegorically explained, either 
 so, that the wife signifies the soul and the husband the sin that has died with 
 Christ (Augustine, comp. Olshausen) ; 07, that the wife represents humanity 
 (or the church) and the husband the law, to which the former had been 
 spiritually married (Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, including Klee, 
 Reiche, and Philippi). But the former is utterly foreign to the theme of 
 the text; and the latter would anticipate the application in ver. 4. — 
 iravdpoc| viro subjecta, married ; also current in later Greek authors, as in 
 Polyb. x. 26,°3, Athen. ix. p. 888 C ; in the N. T. only here.’— τῷ ζῶντε 
 ἀνδρί] to her (τῷ) living husband. ζῶντι has the emphasis, correlative to the 
 ἐφ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ in ver. 1. On δέδεται comp. 1 Cor. vii. 27. — νόμῳ] by the 
 law. For by the law of Moses the right of dismissing the husband was not 
 given to the wife.? Paul however leaves unnoticed the case of the woman 
 through divorce ceasing to be bound to her husband (Deut. xxiv. 2);* regard- 
 ing the matter, in accordance with his scope, only in such a way as not 
 merely seemed to be the rule in the majority of cases, but also harmonized 
 with the original ordinance of the Creator (Matt. xix. 8). — κατήργηται ἀπὸ τ. 
 νόμου τ. avdp.| [See Note LXXIX. p. 289.] that is, with respect to her hith- 
 erto subsisting subordination under the law binding her to her husband she is 
 absolved, free and rid of it. See on Gal. v. 4. The Apostle thus gives 
 expression to the thought lying at the basis of his argument, that with the 
 decease of the husband the wife also has ceased to exist as respects her 
 
 1 See Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Ael. N. A. 3 Kiddusch. f. 2, 1: ‘“‘Mulier possidet se 
 111. 42. ipsam per libellum repudit et per mortem 
 2 Michaelis, Mos. R. § 120; Saalschiitz, p. mariti.”’ 
 806 f. 
 
CHAP. VII., 3, 4. 261 
 
 legal connection with him ; in this legal relation, from which she is fully 
 released, she is no longer existent. Comp. on ἀπό 2 Cor. xi. 3. She is still 
 there, but no longer as bound to that law, to which she died with the death 
 of her husband ; comp. ver. 6. The joining of ὁ νόμος with the genitive of 
 the subject concerned (frequent in the LXX.) is very common also in classic 
 authors. Th. Schott, following Bengel, erroneously takes τ. dvdp. as geni- 
 tive of apposition ; the law being for the wife embodied in the husband. 
 The law that determines the relation of the wife to the husband is what is 
 intended, like ὁ νόμος ὁ περί τοῦ ἀνδρός ; see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 287. 
 
 Ver. 3. *Apa οὖν] See on v. 18. — γρηματίσει) she shall (formally) bear the 
 name. See Acts xi. 26.1 The futwre corresponds to the following : ἐὰν 
 γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ] Uf she shall have become joined to another husband (as wife). 
 Comp. Deut. xxiv. 2; Ruth i. 12; Judg. xiv. 20; Ez. xvi. 8, xxiii. 4. 
 It is not a Hebraism.? —a7d τοῦ νόμου] from the law, so far, that is, as it 
 binds the wife to the husband. From that bond she is now released, ver. 
 2. — τοῦ μὴ εἶναι κ.τ.λ.} Not amore precise definition (Th. Schott) ; nor yet a 
 consequence (as wswally rendered), which is never correct, not even in Acts 
 vil. 19 (see Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 845 ff.) ; but rather: in order that she 
 be not an adulteress. That is the purpose, involved inthe divine legal ordi- 
 nance, of her freedom from the law. 
 
 Ver. 4. Ὥστε] does not express the ‘‘ agreement” or the ‘‘ harmony” with 
 which what follows connects itself with the preceding (Hofmann), as if 
 Paul had written οὕτως or ὁμοίως. It is rather the common itaque (Vulgate), 
 accordingly, therefore, consequently, which, heading an independent sentence, 
 
 . draws an inference from the preceding, and introduces the actual relation 
 which results from vv. 1-3 with respect to Christians, who through the 
 death of Christ are in a position corresponding with that of the wife. This 
 inference lays down that legal marriage relation as type. — καὶ ὑμεῖς} ye also, 
 like the wife in that illustration quoted in vv. 2, 3, who through the death 
 of her husband is dead to the dominion of the law. In this, in the first 
 instance: (for the main stress falls on εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι x.7.A.), lies the point of 
 the inference ; analogously with the case of that wife Christians also are 
 dead to the law through the death of Christ, because, in their spiritual 
 union with Him, they have suffered death along with Him. Van Hengel 
 takes καὶ ὑμεῖς in the sense : ye also, like other Christians, which, however, 
 since ver. 4 begins the application of what had previously been said of the 
 woman, is neither in harmony with the text nor rendered necessary by the 
 first person καρποφορ. --- ἐθανατ. τῷ νόμῳ] ye were rendered dead to the law,* so 
 
 1 Plut. Mor. 148 D; Polyb. v. 27, 2, 5, xxx. expected on the part of Judaists from the 
 
 2, 4. converted Gentiles (Acts xy.). As the argu- 
 2See Kypke, I. p. 170; Kiihner, IJ. 1, p. ment advances, the language of the Apostle 
 384. becomes communicative, so that he includes 
 
 3 This is expressed from the Jewish-Chris- himself with his readers, among whom he 
 tian consciousness, nevertheless it includes makes no distinction. Compare viii. 15; 
 indirectly the Gentile-Christians also; for Gal. iii. 14, iv. 6. By our passage therefore 
 without perfect obedience to the law no the readers are not indicated as having 
 man could have attained to salvation, been, as respects the majority, Jews or at 
 wherefore also obedience to the law was least proselytes. 
 
262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 that over you as dead persons it rules no longer (ver. 1). The dative as in 
 vi. 2, 10. The passive (not ye died) is selected, because this (ethical) death 
 of Christians is fellowship with the death of Christ, which was a violent 
 one. Therefore : διὰ τοῦ σώμ. τ. X.| by the fact, that the body of Christ was 
 put to death. The conception of the participation of believers (as respects 
 their inner life and its moral self-consciousness) in the death of their Lord, 
 according to which the putting to death of their Master included their own put- 
 ting to death, is justly assumed by Paul, after ch. vi., as something present 
 to the consciousness of his readers, and therefore views deviating from this 
 (e.g. that διὰ τ. σώμ. τ. X. applies to the atoning sacrificial death, which did 
 away the dominion of the law) are to be rejected as here irrelevant, and 
 not in keeping with the proper sense of é@avar. For that ἐθανατ. τ. νόμῳ is 
 meant to be a mild expression for ὁ νόμος ἐθανατώθη, ἀπέθανεν ὑμῖν (Koppe 
 and Klee, following Calvin, Grotius, and others, also several Fathers ; 
 comp. on ver. 2), is an assumption as gratuitous, as is a ‘‘contraction of 
 the thought and expression,” which Philippi finds, when he at the same time 
 introduces the conception of the putting to death of the law through the 
 body of Christ, which is here alien. — εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ] [See Note 
 LXXX. p. 290.] inorder to become joined to another (than the law)—this is the 
 object which the é@avar. τ. νόμῳ «.7.A. had, and thereby the main point in the 
 declaration introduced by ὥστε, parallel to the τοῦ μῇ εἶναι. k.t.A. in ver. 3. 
 Paul apprehends the relation of fellowship and dependence of the Chris- 
 tian’s life to Christ—as he had prepared the way for doing so in vy. 2, 3, 
 and as was in keeping with his mode of view elsewhere (2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. 
 v. 25 ff.)—under the image of a marriage connection in which the exalted 
 Christ is the husband of His Church that has become independent of the 
 law by dying with Him. --- τῷ ἐκ vexp. ἐγερθ.} apposition to ἑτέρῳ, in sig- 
 nificant historical reference to διὰ τ. cou. τ. X. For if Christ became through 
 His bodily death our deliverer from the law, we cannot now belong to Him 
 otherwise than as the Risen One for anew and indissoluble union. The 
 importance of this addition in its bearing on the matter in hand lies in the 
 καινότης ζωῆς (vi. 38, 11, 18, 22) which, on the very ground of the ethical 
 communion with the Risen One, issues from the new relation. Certainly 
 the death of Christ appears here ‘‘as the end of a sin-conditioned state of 
 the humanity to be united in Him” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 354) ; 
 but this great moral epoch has as its necessary presupposition just the vi- 
 carious atoning power of the ἱλαστήριον which was rendered in the death of 
 Jesus ; it could not take place without this and without the faith appropri- 
 ating it, iii. 21 ff. ; v. 1 ff. — wa καρποφ. τ. Θεῷ] The aim not of ἐκ νεκρῶν 
 ἐγερθέντε (Koppe, Th. Schott, Hofmann), but rather—because the belonging 
 to is that which conditions the fruit-bearing—of the γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ, TO 
 éx vexp. éy., consequently the final aim of the ἐθανατ. τῷ νόμῳ. There is here 
 (though van Hengel and others call it in question, contrary to the clear 
 connection) a continuation of the figure of marriage with respect to its 
 Sruitfulness (Luke i. 42 ; Ps. exxvii. 8, Symm. and Theod. Ps. xci. 15). 
 The morally holy walk, namely, in its consecration to God is, as it were, the 
 fruit which issues from our fellowship of life with Christ risen from the 
 
CHAP, VII., d, 263 
 
 dead as from a new marriage-union, and which belongs in property to God as 
 the lord-paramount of that union (the supreme ruler of the Messianic the- 
 ocracy) ; the bringing forth of fruit takes place for God. The opinion of 
 Reiche and Fritzsche that καρποῴ. taken in the sense of the fruit of marriage 
 yields an undignified allegory (the figure therefore is to be taken as bor- 
 rowed from a field or a tree, which Philippi, Tholuck, and Reithmayr also 
 prefer) is untenable, seeing that the union with Christ, if regarded as a mar- 
 riage at all, must also necessarily, in accordance with its moral design, be 
 conceived of as a fruitful marriage." 
 
 Ver. 5. Confirmation of the iva καρποφ. τ. Oe. That we should bring 
 forth fruit to God, I say with justice ; for formerly under the law we bore 
 fruit to death, but now (ver. 6) our position is quite different from what it 
 was before. — ὅτε ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί] This is the positive and characteristic 
 expression for the negative : when we were not yet made dead to the law. 
 Then the oaps—the materially human element in us, in its psychically de- 
 termined antagonism to the Divine Spirit and will—was the life-element in 
 which .we moved. Comp. vill. 8f.; 2 Cor. x. 3. We are ἐν τ. σώματι, 1 
 Cor. v. 3 (2 Cor. xii. 2), even after we have died with Christ, because that 
 is an ethical death ; but for that very reason we are now, according to the 
 holy self-consciousness of the new life of communion with the Risen One, no 
 longer ἐν τ. σαρκί ; and our body, although we still as respects its material 
 substance live in the flesh (Gal. ii. 20), is ethically not a σῶμα τῆς σαρκός any 
 more, Col. ii. 11. The interpretation of Theodoret : τῇ κατὰ νόμον πολιτείᾳ 
 (so also Oecumenius), though hitting the approximate meaning of the mat- 
 ter, has its inaccurate arbitrariness exposed by the reason assigned for it : 
 σάρκα yap τὰς TH σαρκί δεδομένας νομοθεσίας ὠνόμασε, τὰς περὶ βρώσεως κ. πόσεως. 
 The description ἐν τῇ σαρκί must supply the ethical conception which corre- 
 sponds with the contents of the apodosis. Therefore we may not render with 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia : when we were mortal (the believer being no longer 
 reckoned as mortal) ; but the moral reference of the expression requires at 
 least a more precise definition of the contents than that the existence of the 
 Christian had ceased to be an existence locked up in his inborn nature (Hofmann). 
 -- τὰ ral. τῶν ἁμαρτ.} the passions through which sins are brought about, of 
 which the sins are the actual consequence. On παθήματα compare Gal. v. 24, 
 and παθή, i. 26. They are the passive excitations (often used by Plato in 
 contrast to ποιήματα), which one experiences (zdcyer). Comp. esp. Plat. 
 Phil. p. 47 C. —ra διὰ τ. νόμου] se. ὄντα, which are occasioned by the law ; How ὃ 
 see vv. 7, 8. It is erroneous in Chrysostom and Grotius to supply φαινόμενα. 
 Comp. rather 1 Cor. xv. 56. — ἐνηργεῖτο] were active, middle, not passive 
 (Estius, Gléckler), which would be contrary to Pauline usage. See 2 Cor. i. 
 6, iv. 12 ; Eph. iii. 20 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Col. i. 29 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. τ, 
 
 fod 
 
 7. The Greeks have not this use of the middle. — ἐν τ. μέλ. ἡμ.} in our 
 
 1 This view is the one perfectly consistent view: καὶ ἐπειδὴ συνάφειαν κ. γάμον τὴν εἰς τὸν 
 with the context, and should not be super- κύριον προσηγόρευσε πίστιν, εἰκότως δείκνυσι 
 seded by the prudery of modern canons of kal τὸν τοῦ γάμον καρπόν. Comp. Theo- 
 taste (Fritzsche terms it jejunam et obscoe- phylact. 
 nam). Theodoret already has the right 
 
264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 members (as in ver. 23 and vi. 13) they were the active agent. — εἰς τὸ καρποφ. 
 τ. θανάτῳ] This is the tendency (the parallel iva καρποφ. τ. Θεῷ in ver. 4 is de- 
 cisive here against the interpretation, everywhere erroneous, of the conse- 
 quence) which the passions of sin, in their operation in our members, had 
 with us: that we should bring forth fruit unto death, that is, divested of 
 figure : that we should lead a life falling under the power of death. The stb- 
 ject ἡμᾶς is supplied, as often along with the infinitive, * naturally and easily 
 from the immediately preceding ἡμῶν (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 10 ; 2 Thess. 
 iii. 9 ; Heb. ix. 14). There is therefore the less reason to depart from 
 the mode of conception prevailing in ver. 4, and to understand the παθήματ 
 
 as the fruit-bearing subjects (Hofmann ; comp. Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, 
 and others), in which case there is imported the conception that the occur- 
 rence is something foreign to the man himself (Hofmann). The θάνατος 
 personified as the lord-paramount opposed to τῷ Θεῷ in ver. 4, is not physical 
 (Fritzsche) but eternal death, vi. 21, 28, which is incurred through sinful 
 life. The xaprog. however retains here the figure of the fruit of marriage, 
 namely, according to the context, of the marriage with the law (ver. 4), 
 which is now dissolved since we have died with Christ. Comp. Erasmus, 
 Paraph.: ‘ex infelici matrimonio infelices foetus sustulimus, quicquid nas- 
 ceretur morti exitioque gignentes.” In Matt. xii. 39 the conception is dif- 
 ferent. But comp. James i. 15. 
 
 Ver. 6. κατηργ.} See on ver. ὃ. --- ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχ.] dead (see ver. 4) 
 to that (neuter) wherein we wereheld fast. So also Fritzsche and Reiche in 
 his Comm. crit. The construction is consistent and regular, so that τούτῳ is 
 to be understood before ἐν 6 (Winer, p. 149 f. [E. T. 158 f.]). That where- 
 in we were held fast (as in a prison), is self-evident according to the text ; 
 not as the government of sin (van Hengel, Th. Schott), or as the σάρξ (Hof- 
 mann), but as the daw, in whose grasp we were. Comp. Gal. ili. 28. Were 
 we with the majority (including Riickert, de Wette, Kéllner, Krehl, Philip- 
 pi, Maier, Winer, Ewald, Bisping, and Reithmayr) to take ἐν » as masculine 
 (and how unnecessarily !), the ἀποθανόντες as modal definition of xarnpy. 
 would have an isolated and forlorn position ; we should have expected it 
 behind νυνὶ dé. — ὥστε δουλεύειν κ.τ.}.} actual result, which has occurred 
 through our emancipation from the law : so that we (as Christians) are ser- 
 viceable in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter ; that is, so that our 
 relation of'service is in a new definite character regulated by spirit, and not 
 in the old constitution which was regulated by literal form. That the dov- 
 λεύειν in καινότης πνεῦμ. Was a service of God, was just as obvious of itself to 
 the consciousness of the readers, as that in παλαιότης γράμμ. it had been a 
 service of sin (vi. 20.) On account of this self-evident diversity of reference 
 no definition at allisadded. On the οὐ inthe contrast (not 7) see Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 300 [E. T. 849].—év indicates the sphere of activity of the δουλεύειν, 
 and is to be understood again along with rad.; comp. ii. 29. The qualita- 
 tively expressed πνεύματος, Meaning in concrete application the Holy Spirit as 
 the efficient principle of the Christian life, and the qualitative γράμματος, 
 
 1 Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6, 10; Anab. ii. 1, 12. 
 
CHAP. VII., 7-13. 265 
 
 characterizing the law according to its nature and character as non-living 
 and drawn up in letters, are the specifically heterogeneous factors on which 
 the two contrasted states are dependent. The παλαιότης---ἶπ accordance with 
 the nature of the relation in which the law, presenting its demands in the 
 letter but not inwardly operative, stands to the principle of sin in man—was 
 necessarily sinful (not merely in actual abnormality, as Rothe thinks ; see 
 ver. 7 ff., and comp. on vi. 14) ; just as on the other hand the καινότης, on 
 account of the vitally active πνεῦμα, must also necessarily be moral. Where 
 this is contradicted by experience and the behaviour of the Christian is im- 
 moral, there the πνεῦμα has ceased to operate, and a καινότης πνεύματος is in 
 fact not present at all. Paul however, disregarding such abnormal phenom- 
 ena, contemplates the Christian life as it is constituted in accordance with 
 its new, holy, and lofty nature. If it is otherwise, it has fallen away from 
 its specific nature and is a Christian life no longer. [See Note LXXXI. 
 p. 290. ] 
 
 Vv. 7-13. How easily might the Jewish Christian, in his reverence for 
 the law of his fathers, take offence at ver. 5 (τὰ διὰ τ. νόμου) and 6, and draw 
 the obnoxious inference, that the law must therefore be itself of immoral 
 nature, since it is the means of calling forth the s¢n-affections, and since 
 emancipation from it is the condition of the new moral life! Paul therefore 
 proposes to himself this possible inference in ver. 7, rejects it, and then on to ver. 
 13 shows that the law, while in itself good, is that which leads to acquaintance 
 with sin, and which is misused by the principle of sin to the destruction of men. 
 
 Paul conducts the refutation, speaking throughout in the first person sin- 
 gular (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 12, xiii. 11). This mode of expression, differing 
 from the μετασχηματισμός (see on 1 Cor. iv. 6), is an ἰδίωσις ; comp. Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia on ver. 8: τὸ ἐν ἐμοὶ ὅτε λέγει, TO κοινὸν λέγει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
 and Theophylact on ver. 9: ἐν τῷ οἱ κείῳ δὲ προσώπῳ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν 
 λέγει. Thus he declares concerning himself what is meant to apply to every 
 man placed under the Mosaic law generally, in respect of his relation to that law 
 —tefore the turning-point in his inner life brought about through his con- 
 nection with that law, and after it. The apostle’s own personal experience, 
 so far from being thereby excluded, everywhere gleams through with pecul- 
 iarly vivid and deep truth, and represents concretely the universal experi- 
 ence in the matter. The subject presenting itself through the ἐγώ is there- 
 fore man in general, in his natural state under the law, to which he is bound, as 
 not yet redeemed through Christ and sanctified through the spirit (for 
 which see chap. viii.) ; without, however, having been unnaturally hardened 
 by legal righteousness or rendered callous and intractable through despising 
 the law, and so estranged from the moral earnestness of legal Judaism. 
 Into this earlier state, in which Paul himself had been before his conversion, 
 he transports himself back, and realizes it to himself with all the vividness 
 and truth of an experience that had made indelible impression upon him ; 
 and thus he becomes the type of the moral relation, in which the as yet un- 
 regenerate Israelite stands to the divine law. ‘‘ He betakes himself once 
 more down to those gloomy depths, and makes all his readers also traverse 
 them with him, only in order at last to conclude with warmer gratitude that 
 
266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 he is now indeed redeemed from them, and thereby to show what that 
 better and eternal law of God is which endures even for the redeemed,” 
 Ewald. Augustine (prop. 45 in ep. ad Rom. ; ad Simplic. i. 91 ; Conf. vii. 
 21), in his earlier days, acknowledged, in harmony with the Greek Fathers 
 since Irenaeus, that the language here is that of the wnregenerate man ,; 
 though later, in opposition to Pelagianism (especially on account of vv. 17, 
 18, 22 ; see Retract. i. 23, 26, ii. 3; 6. duas ep. Pel. 1. 10 ; ¢. Faust. xv. 8), 
 he gave currency to the view that the ‘‘ 7” is that of the regenerate. In this 
 he was followed by Jerome, who likewise held a different opinion previ- 
 ously ; and later by Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza (not by Bucer and 
 Musculus), Chemnitz, Gerhard, Quenstedt and many others, more, however, 
 among Protestant than among Catholic commentators (Erasmus says of 
 him: ‘‘dure multa torquens ;” and see especially Toletus). On the other 
 hand, the Socinians and Arminians, as also the school of Spener, returned 
 to the view of the Greek Fathers, which gradually became, and has down 
 to the present day continued, the dominant one. See the historical elucida- 
 tions in Tholuck and Reiche ; also Knapp, Ser. var. arg. p. 400 ff. The 
 theory that Paulis speaking simply of himself and exhibiting his own experi- 
 ences (comp. Hofmann), must be set aside for the simple reason, that in that 
 case the entire disquisition, as a mere individual psychological history (7-13) 
 and delineation (ver. 14 ff.), could have no general probative force what- 
 ever, which nevertheless, from the connection with what goes before and 
 follows (viii. 1), itis intended to have. Others, like Grotius, who correctly 
 referred it to the state anterior to regeneration, and among them recently 
 Reiche in particular, represent Paul as speaking in the person of the Jewish 
 people as a people.’ But, so far as concerns vv. 7-13, it is utterly wntrue that 
 the Jewish nation previous to the law led a life of innocence unacquainted 
 with sin and evil desire ; and as concerns ver. 14 ff., the explanation of the 
 double character of the ‘‘I,” if we are to carry out the idea of referring it 
 to the nation, entangles us in difficulties which can only force us to strange 
 caprices of exegesis, such as are most glaringly apparent in Reiche. 
 Fritzsche also has not consistently avoided the reference of the ‘‘I” to the 
 people as such, and the impossibilities that necessarily accompany it, and, in 
 opposition to the Augustinian interpretation, has excluded, on quite insuf- 
 ficient grounds, the apostle himself and his own experience. Paul, who had 
 himself been a Jew under the law, cowld not describe at all otherwise than 
 from personal recollection that unhappy state, which indeed, with the lively 
 and strong susceptibility of his entire nature and temperament, he must 
 have experienced very deeply, in order to be able to depict it as he has done. 
 Testimonies regarding himself, such as Phil. iii. 6, cannot be urged in oppo- 
 sition to this, since they do not unveil the inward struggle of impulses, etc. 
 Similarly with Paul, Luther also sighed most deeply just when under the 
 distress of his legal condition, before the light of the gospel dawned upon 
 him, and he afterward lamented that distress most vividly and truly. 
 
 1 Jerome on Dan. had already remarked: enumerat persona sua, quod et apostolum 
 “Peccata populi, quia unus e populo est, in ep. ad Rom. fecisse legimus.” 
 
CHAP. VII., 7-138. 267 
 
 Philippi has rightly apprehended the ‘‘ I” coming in at ver. 7 as that of the 
 unregenerate man ; but on the other hand, following the older expositors, 
 has discovered from ver. 14 onward the delineation of the regenerate state 
 of the same ‘‘ I,” 1—a view inconsistent in itself, opposed to the context 
 (since Paul does not pass on to the regenerate till viii. 1), and, when ap- 
 plied to the details, impossible (see the subsequent exposition). Hammond 
 very truly observes : ‘‘ Nihil potest esse magis contrarium affectioni animé 
 hominis regenerati, quam quae hic in prima persona Ego exprimuntur.” 
 Still Umbreit, in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1851, p. 633 ff., has substantially reverted, 
 as regards the entire chapter, to the Augustinian view, for which he espe- 
 cially regards ver. 25 (αὐτὸς ἐγώ) as decisive ; and no less have Delitasch (see 
 especially his Psychol. p. 387 ff.) ; Weber, v. Zorne Grottes, p. 86 ; Thoma- 
 sius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, 1. p. 275 f. ; Jatho ; Krummacher in the Stud. τι. 
 Krit. 1862, p. 119 ff. ; and also Luthardt, o. freien Willen, p. 404 f., adopted 
 this view with reference to ver. 14 ff. Hofmann, who in his Schriftbew. 
 I. p. 556 to all appearance, though he is somewhat obscure and at variance 
 with himself (see Philippi, p. 285 f., and Glaubenslehre, 111. p. 243), had 
 returned to the pre-Augustinian interpretation, in his VY. 7΄., hampers amore 
 clear and candid understanding of the passage by the fact that, while he 
 decidedly rejects the theory that the ‘‘I” of ver. 7 is that of the unregen- 
 erate man, he at the same time justly says that what is related of that “I” 
 (which is that of the apostle) belongs to the time which lay away beyond his 
 state as a Christian ; and further, by the fact, that he represents vv. 14-24 
 as spoken from the same present time as ver. 25, but at the same time leaves 
 the enigma unsolved how the wretched condition described may comport 
 with that present ; and in general, as to the point in question about which 
 expositors differ, he does not give any round and definite answer. For if 
 Paul is to be supposed, according to Hofmann, in ver. 14 ff., not to treat of 
 the natural man, and nevertheless to depict himself in the quality of his 
 moral state apart from his life in Christ, we cannot get rid of the contradic- 
 tion that the “Τ᾽ is the regenerate man apart from his regeneration, and of 
 the obscuring and muffling up of the meaning thereby occasioned. The 
 view which takes it of the unregenerate is followed by Julius Miiller, Nean- 
 der, Nitzsch, Hahn, Baur, Tholuck, Krehl, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, 
 Th. Schott, Ernesti, Lipsius, Mangold, Messner (Lehre der Ap. p. 220), and 
 many others, including Schmid, δὶ δι, Theol. 11. p. 262; Gess, ὁ. ὦ. Pers. 
 Chr. p. 338 ; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 97 ; Kahnis, Dogm. 1. 
 p. 595; the anonymous writer in the Erlangen Zeitschr, 1863, p. 877 ff. ; 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol. ὃ 95 ; Miircker, p. 23; Grau, Hntwichelungsgesch. 11. p. 
 126. The just remark, that the apostle depicts the future present of the 
 state (Th. Schott) does not affect this view, since the future state realized as 
 present was just that of the wregenerate Israelite at the preliminary stage of 
 
 1 Comp. Calovius on ver. 14: “* Postquam jam sit et justificatus.” See also Calvin on 
 legem divinam yindicavit vel pravae con- ver. 14: ‘“‘ Exemplum proponit hominis re- 
 cupiscentiae omnem culpam transscriben- generati, in quo sie carnis reliquiae cum 
 dam docuit, ejus vim sese etiamnum expe- _lege Domini dissident, ut spiritus ei libenter 
 riri ingemiscit apostolus, etiamst renatus obtemperet.”’ 
 
208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 moral development conditioned by the law. Compare Ritschl, altkath. 
 Kirche, p. 70 f. ; Achelis,’/.c. p. 678 ff. ; Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul u. Petr. 
 p. 406. 
 
 Ver. 7. [See Note LXXXII. p. 290.] Ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία ;] Is the law sin? a 
 something, whose ethical nature is immoral? Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 
 46 ; Winzer, Progr. 1832, p. 5 ; also Fritzsche, Riickert, de Wette, Tholuck, 
 and Philippi. For the contrast see ver. 12, from which it at once appears 
 that the formerly current interpretation, still held by Reiche and Flatt, 
 ‘originator of sin” (διάκονος ἁμαρτίας, Gal. 11. 17), is, from the connection, 
 erroneous ; as indeed it would have to be arbitrarily imported into the word, 
 for the appeal to Mic. i. 5 overlooks the poetical mode of expression in that 
 passage. The substantive predicate (comp. viii. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, al.) is 
 more significant than an adjectival expression (ἁμαρτωλός), and in keeping 
 with the meaning of the remonstrant, whom Paul personates. The question 
 is not to be supposed preposterous, setting forth a proposition without real 
 meaning (Hofmann), since it is by no means absurd in itself and, as an ob- 
 jection, has sufficient apparent ground in what precedes.—After ἀλλά" we 
 are no more to understand ἐροῦμεν again (Hofmann) than before ὁ vou. ἁμαρτ.; 
 for which there is no ground (it is otherwise at ix. 30). On the contrary, 
 this ἀλλά, but, bringsin the real relation to sin, as it occurs in contrast to that 
 inference which has just been rejected with horror : ἁμαρτία μὲν οὐκ ἔστι, 
 φησὶ, γνωριστικὸς δὲ ἁμαρτίας, Theophylact. —riv dy. οὐκ ἐγνων, εἰ μὴ ὃ. νόμου] 
 [See, with reference to the development of thought in vy. 7-13, Note 
 LXXXIII. p. 291.] Sin Ihave not become acquainted with, except through the 
 law. The ἁμαρτία is sin as an active principle in man (see vv. 8, 9, 11, 19, 
 14), with which I have become experimentally acquainted only through the law 
 (comp. the subsequent οὐκ ἤδειν), so that without the intervention of the law 
 it would have remained for me an unknown power ; because, in that case 
 (see the following, and ver. 8), it would not have become active in me through 
 the excitement of desires after what is forbidden in contrast to the law. The 
 τὴν du. οὐκ. tyv., therefore, is not here to be confounded with the ἐπίγνωσις 
 du. in 111. 20, which in fact is only attained through comparison of the moral 
 condition with the requirements of the law (in opposition to Krehl) ; nor 
 yet is it to be understood of the theoretic knowledge of the essence of sin, 
 namely, that the latter is opposition to the will of God (Tholuck, Philippi ; 
 comp. van Hengel and the older expositors), against which view ver. 8 (χωρὶς 
 νόμου ἁμαρτ. νεκρά) and ver. 9 are decisive. The view of Fritzsche is, how- 
 ever, likewise erroneous (see the following, especially ver. 8) : I should not 
 have sinned, ‘‘cognoscit autem peccatum, qui peccat.” —oix ἔγνων is to be 
 rendered simply, with the Vulgate : non cognovi. The sense : J should not 
 
 1 Who transfers the personal experience ing off, and that so accurately, a definite 
 of the apostle, so far as it is expressed in period in Paul’s life. We may add that 
 ver. 14 ff., to the last stage of his Pharisaism, Achelis has aptly and clearly set aside the 
 consequently to a period shortly before his interpretation of the regenerate in the case 
 conversion. But we have not sufficient of the several features of the picture 
 data in the text andinthe history formark- sketched by Paul. : 
 
CHAP: ὙΠ ὃ. 409 
 have known, would anticipate the following clause, which assigns the reason. 
 The νόμος is nothing else than the Mosaic law, not the moral law generally 
 in all forms of its revelation (Olshausen) ; for Paul is in fact declaring his 
 own experimental consciousness, and by means of this, as it developed 
 itself under Judaism, presenting to view the moral position (in its general 
 human aspect) of those who are subject to the law of Moses. — τῆν te yap 
 ἐπιθ. «.7.A.| for the desire (after the forbidden) would in fact be unknown to 
 me, if the law did not say, Thou shalt not covet. The reason is here assigned 
 for the foregoing : ‘‘ with the dawning consciousness of desire conflicting 
 with the precept of the law, I became aware also of the principle of sin 
 within me, since the latter (see vv. 8, 9) made me experimentally aware of 
 its presence and life by the excitement of desire in presence of the law.” 
 What the law forbids us to covet (Ex. xx. 17 ; Deut. v. 21), was no con- 
 cern of the apostle here, looking to the universality of his representation ; 
 he could only employ the prohibition of sinful desire generally and in itself, 
 without particular reference to its object. —Onré. . . yap, for. . . indeed, 
 comp. i. 26 ; it is not to be taken elimactically (van Hengel), as if Paul had 
 written καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἐπιθ. or οὐδὲ yap τὴν ἐπιθ. 76. To the τε, however, corre- 
 sponds the following δέ in ver. 8, which causes the chief stress of the sen- 
 tence assigning the reason to fall upon ver. 8 (Stallb. ad Plat. Polit, p. 
 270 D) ; therefore ver. 8 is still included as dependent on yap. Respecting 
 the imperative future of the old language of legislation, see on Matt. 1. 21. 
 
 Ver. 8. Aé] placing over against the negative declaration of ver. 7 the 
 description of the positive process, by which the consciousness of desire of 
 ver. 7 emerged : but indeed sin took occasion, etc. In this ἀφορμήν placed 
 first emphatically, not in ἡ ἁμαρτία (Th. Schott), lies the point of the rela- 
 tion. — ἡ ἁμαρτία] as in ver. 7, not conceived as κακοδαίμων (Fritzsche) ; nor 
 yet the sinful activity, as Reiche thinks ; for that is the result of the ἐπιθυμία 
 (Jas. i. 5), and the sin that first takes occasion from the law cannot be an 
 action.—For examples of ἀφορμὴν λαμβ., to take occasion, see Wetstein and 
 Kypke. The principle of sin took occasion, not, as Reiche thinks, received 
 occasion ; for it is conceived as something revived (ver. 9), which works, — 
 διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς] through the command, namely, the οὐκ ἐπιθυμ. of ver. 7. This 
 interpretation is plainly necessary from the following κατειργάσατο k.t.A. 
 Reiche, following De Dieu and several others, erroneously (comp. Eph. ii. 
 15) takes ἐντολή as equivalent to νόμος. We must connect διὰ τ. évt. with κα- 
 τειργ. (Riickert, Winzer, Benecke, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Umbreit, 
 van Hengel, and Hofmann), not with ἀφορμ. λαβ. (Luther and many others 
 including Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen, Philippi, Maier, and Ewald), be- 
 cause ἀφορμ. λαμβάνειν is never construed with διὰ (frequently with ἐκ, as in 
 Polyb. 111. 82. 7, iii. 7. 5), and because ver. 11 (dv αὐτῆς améxr.) and ver. 13 
 confirm the connection with xareypy. — κατειργ. ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθ.] it brought 
 about in me all manner of desire. Respecting κατεργάζ., see oni. 27. Even 
 without the law there is desire in man, but not yet in the ethical definite 
 
 1 οὐκ ἥδειν, Tshould not know, more definite ΤΙ. 1, p. 175 f. Comp. also Stallb. ad Plat, 
 and confident than οὐκ ἂν ἤδειν, See Kiihner, Symp. Ὁ. 190 Ὁ, 
 
270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 character of desire after the forbidden, as ἐπιθυμία is conceived of according 
 to ver. 7; for as yet there is no prohibition, and consequently no moral 
 antithesis existing to the desire in itself (‘‘ ignoti nulla cupido,” Ovid, A. A. 
 397), through which antithesis the inner conflict is first introduced. Avery 
 desire is, in accordance with the quite general οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, to be left with- 
 out limitation. Vo desire (as respects category) was excluded. <A reference 
 to the desires, which the state of civilization joined with a positive legisla- 
 tion calls forth (de Wette), is foreign to the connection. Comp. Prov. ix. 
 17. — χωρὶς yap νόμου ἁμαρτία νεκρά] 86. ἐστι, not ἦν (Beza, Reiche, Krum- 
 macher), just because the omission of the verb betokens a general proposi- 
 tion : for without the law, i.e. if it do not enter into relation with the law,’ 
 sin, the sinful principle in man, is dead, i.e. not active, because that is want- 
 ing, by which it may take occasion to be alive. The potentiality of the 
 nitimur in vetitum is indeed there, but, lacking the veto of the νόμος (τοῦ τὸ 
 πρακτέον ὑποδεικνύντος καὶ TO ov πρακτέον ἀπαγορεύοντος, Theodoret), can ex- 
 hibit no actual vital activity ; it does not stir, because the antithesis is 
 wanting. Hence the law becomes the δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 1 Cor. xv. 56, 
 though it is not itself τοῦ παρανομεῖν παραίτιος (Chrysippus in Plut. de Stoie Rep. 
 33). Erroneous is the view held by Chrysostom, Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, 
 and others, that νεκρά implies the absence of knowledge of sin (οὐχ οὕτω γνώρι- 
 μος). The νόμος is here, as throughout in this connection, the Mosaic law, 
 which contains the ἐντολή (vv. 7, 9, 13). That this may be and is misused 
 by the principle of sin, in the way indicated, arises from the fact, that it 
 comes forward merely with the outward command (thou shalt, thou shalt not), 
 without giving the power of fulfilment ; comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungstl. 
 p. 63 ff. And the analogous application, which the general proposition ad- 
 mits of to the moral law of nature also, is indeed self-evident, but lies here 
 aloof from the apostle’s sphere of thought. 
 
 Ver. 9. But I was once alive without the law. ἐγὼ δὲ, the antithesis of 
 ἁμαρτία ; ἔζων," antithesis of νεκρά ; νόμου, just as in ver. 8. ---- ἔζων] The sense 
 is, on account of the foregoing (νεκρά) and the following (ἀπέθανον, ver. 10) 
 contrast, necessarily (in opposition to Reiche and van Hengel) to be taken 
 as pregnant; but not with the arbitrary alteration, videbar mihi vivere 
 (Augustine, Erasmus, Pareus, Estius), or secwrus eram (Luther, Melanchthon, 
 Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Krumma- 
 cher), thus representing Paulas glancing at his Pharisaic state, in which 
 the law had not yet alarmed him,—a view which is at variance with the 
 words themselves and with the antitheses, and which is certainly quite in- 
 admissible historically in the case of a character like Paul (Gal. i. 14, iii. 
 23 ; Phil. iii. 6), who could testify so truly and vividly of the power of 
 
 1 According to Krummacher, indeed, the ἐντολής. In this way people read between 
 
 simple χωρὶς νόμου is held to mean: without 
 knowing and laying to heart the significance 
 of the law, which extends to the most se- 
 eret motions, and condemns them. ‘The 
 dawning of this significance on the con- 
 sciousness is then held to be ἐλϑούσης τῆς 
 
 the lines whatever they conceive to be 
 necessary. 
 
 2On the forms ἔζων and ἔζην, which are 
 both classical, see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 
 738 ; Kiihner, I. p. 829. 
 
CHAP, VIT-,. 9) 271 
 
 sin and of the curse of the law. No, Paul means the death-free (ver. 10) 
 life of childlike innocence (comp. Winzer, Ὁ. 11; de Wette and Ewald in 
 loc. ; Umbreit in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1851, p. 687 f. ; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, 
 I. p. 101 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 287 ; also Delitzsch), where—as this state of 
 life, resembling the condition of our first parents in Paradise, was the 
 bright spot of his own earliest recollection ’—the law has not yet come to 
 conscious knowledge, the moral self-determination in respect to it has not 
 yet taken place, and therefore the sin-principle is still lying in the slumber 
 of death. Rightly explained already by Origen : πᾶς yap ἄνθρωπος ἔζη χωρὶς 
 νόμου ποτὲ, ὅτε παιδίον ἦν, and by Augustine, 6. duas ep. Pelag. i. 9. This is 
 certainly a status securitatis, but one morally indifferent, not immoral, and 
 not extending beyond the childhood unconscious of the évroa4. Hence, in 
 the apostle’s case, it is neither to be extended till the time of his conversion 
 (Luther, Melanchthon, etc.), nor even only till the time of his having per- 
 ceived that the law demands not merely the outward act, but also the in- 
 ward inclination (Philippi and Tholuck)—which is neither in harmony with 
 the unlimited γωρὶς νόμου (Paul must at least have written χωρὶς τῆς ἐντολῆς), 
 nor psychologically correct, since sin is not dead up to this stage of the 
 moral development. From this very circumstance, it is clear also that the 
 explanation of those is erroneous, who, making Paul speak in the name of 
 his nation, are compelled to think of the purer and more blameless life of 
 the patriarchs and Israelites before the giving of the law (so Grotius, Turretin, 
 Locke, Wetstein, following several Fathers, and recently Reiche ; comp. 
 Fritzsche).—The pregnant import of the ἔζων lies in the fact that, while the 
 sin-principle is dead, man has not yet incurred eternal death (physical death 
 has been incurred by every one through Adam’s sin, v.12) ; this being 
 alive is therefore an analogue—though still unconscious and weak, yet 
 pleasingly presenting itself in the subsequent retrospect—of the true and 
 eternal ζωή (comp. Matt. xviii. 3) which Christ (comp. ver. 24 f.) has pro- 
 cured through His atoning work. The theory of a pre-mundane life of the 
 pre-existent soul (Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 190 1.) is a Platonism 
 forced on the apostle (comp. Wisd. viii. 20, and Grimm in loc.) in oppo- 
 sition to the entire N. T. —éoboye δὲ τῆς évtod.| but when the command, 
 namely, the οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις of the Mosaic law, had come, i.e. had become pres- 
 ent to my consciousness. To the person living still in childlike innocence 
 the ἐντολή was absent ; for him it was not yet issued ; it had not yet presented 
 itself. Comp. on Gal. iii. 23. Reiche, consistently with his view of the 
 dying of the personal Ego is meant: ‘‘so 
 
 1 Comp. Mimnerm. ii. 3: πήχνιον ἐπὶ 
 
 χρόνον ἄνϑεσιν ἥβης Τερπόμεϑα πρὸς ϑεῶν εἰδότες 
 οὔτε κακὸν Οὔτ᾽ ἀγαϑόν. This recollection 
 every one may have in looking back on the 
 history of his own morallife ; and even the 
 realization of the moment, at which the 
 life of childlike innocence took its end, is 
 
 by no means inconceivable (as Hofmann | 
 
 objects). A dogmatic judgment cannot ὦ 
 priori be pronounced respecting such psy- 
 chological experiences in the inner life. 
 Hofmann himself declares that a living and 
 
 long as this Ego was not confronted by the 
 command, it continued in the life given to it 
 by God its Creator, which really deserved, as 
 such, to be called alife.’’ But how the look- 
 ing back, which our passage expresses, to 
 this former life differs essentially and 
 materially from the recollection of that of 
 childlike innocence, is not clear tome. That 
 ἔζων is, at any rate, the lost paradise of the 
 individual inner history. 
 
272 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 entire section, explains it, as does also Fritzsche, of the historical Mosaic 
 legislation. — ἀνέζησεν) is by most modern commentators rendered came to 
 life. So Tholuck, Riickert, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 Maier, and Hofmann. But quite contrary to the wsus loquendi (Luke xv. 
 24, 32; Rom. xiv. 9; Rev. xx. 5), in accordance with which it means : 
 came again to life. See also Nonnus, Joh. v. 25: αὖτις ἀναζήσωσιν, Where (in 
 opposition to the view of Fritzsche) αὖτις is added according to a well- 
 known pleonasm ; comp. ἐπαναζώσει, reviviscet, Dial. Herm. de astrol. i. 10, 
 42; respecting the case of ἀναβλέπω, usually cited as analogous, see on 
 John ix. 11.’ So, too, ἀναζωόω in Aquila and Symmachus means reviviscere 
 facio. See Schleusner, Thes. I. p, 219. And also the frequent classical 
 ἀναβιῶ and ἀναβιώσκομαι always mean to come to life again; Plat. Rep. p. 
 614 B; Polit. p. 2725; Lucian, Q. hist. 40: ἀνεβίουν ἀποθανών, Gall. 18. 
 Comp. ἀναβίωσις, 2 Mace. vii. 9. It is therefore linguistically correct to ex- 
 plain it, with the ancients, Bengel, and Philippi: sin lived again (revivit, 
 Vulgate) ; but this is not to be interpreted, with Bengel, following Augus- 
 tine and others : ‘‘ sicut vixerat, cum per Adamum intrasset in mundum” 
 (comp. Philippi), because that is foreign to the context, inasmuch as Paul 
 sets forth his experience as the expression of the experience of every 
 individual in his relation to the law, not speaking of humanity as a whole. 
 The ἀνέζησεν, which is not to be misinterpreted as pointing to a pre-mun- 
 dane sin (Hilgenfeld), finds its true explanation, analogously to the 
 ἀναβλέπω in John ix. 11, in the view that the ἁμαρτία, that potentiality of sin 
 in man, is originally and in its nature a living power, but is, before the 
 ἐντολῇ comes, without expression for its life, νεκρά ; thereupon it reswmes 
 its proper living nature, and thus becomes alive again. Comp. van Hengel : 
 “(6 sopore vigorem recuperavit.” 
 
 Ver. 10. ᾿Απέθανον] correlative of ἀνέζησεν, antithesis of ἔζων. It is neither 
 to be understood, however, of physical nor of spiritual death (Semler, BOhme, 
 Riickert ; comp. Hofmann and others), but, as the contrast εἰς ζωήν requires, 
 of eternal death. .This was given with the actual sin brought about through 
 the sin-principle that had become alive ; the sinner had incurred it. Paul, 
 full of the painful recollection, expresses this by the abrupt, deeply tragic 
 ἀπέθανον. ---- ἡ εἰς ζωῆν] sc. οὖσα, aiming at life. For the promise of life (in 
 the Messianic theocratic sense, Lev. xviii. 5 ; Deut. v. 33; Gal. 11. 12), 
 which was attached to the obedience of the Mosaic law generally, applied 
 also to the ἐντολή. --- εὑρέθη] was found, proved and showed itself in the ac- 
 tual experimental result ; comp. Gal. 11. 17 ; 1 Pet.i.7. Chrysostom has well 
 said : οὐκ εἶπε" γέγονε θάνατος, οὐδὲ ἔτεκε θάνατον, ἀλλ᾽ εὑρέθη, τὸ καινὸν καὶ 
 παράδοξον τῆς ἀτοπίας οὕτως ἑρμηνεύων, καὶ τὸ πᾶν εἰς τῶν ἐκείνων (Of Men) περι- 
 τρέπων κεφαλήν. --- αὕτη haec. To be written thus, and not αὐτῇ, ipsa (Bengel 
 and Hofmann), after the analogy of ver. 15 f.,19 f. It has tragic emphasis. 
 Comp. on Phil. i. 22. 
 
 1 Generally, the citation of other verbs in which ἀναζῆν means merely to come to 
 compounded with ava, in which the latter life, especially as the analogy of the clas- 
 means not again, but wp, aloft (and that is, sical ἀναβιοῦν is against it. This remark 
 
 in fact, the case with very many), has no applies also against Hofmann’s citations. 
 probative force. Passages should be quoted 
 
CHAP. VII., 11-13. 273 
 
 Ver. 11. Illustration of this surprising result, in which ἡ ἁμαρτία, as the 
 guilty element, is placed foremost, and its guilt is also made manifest by 
 the διὰ τῆς ἐντολ. placed before ἐξηπάτ. Sin has by means of the commandment 
 (which had for its direct aim my life) deceived me, inasmuch as it used it 
 for the provocation of desire. An allusion to the serpent in Paradise is 
 probable, both from the nature of the case, and also from the expression 
 (LXX. Gen. iii. 13). Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2. But such an allusion would be 
 inappropriate, if it were ‘‘the struggle of the more earnest Pharisaism” (Phi- 
 lippi), and not the loss of childlike innocence, that is here described. As 
 to the conception of the ἐξηπάτησε (sin held out to me something pernicious 
 as being desirable), comp. Eph. iv. 22, Heb. 111. 18.— ἀπέκτεινεν) like ἀπέθανον 
 in ver. 10. 
 
 Ver. 12. Ὥστε] The result of vv. 7-11.—6 μὲν νόμος] The contrast for 
 which μέν prepares the way was intended to be: ‘‘but sin has to me re- 
 dounded unto death through the law, which in itself is good.” This fol- 
 lows in ver. 13 as regards substance, but not as regards form. See on ver. 13. 
 — The predicates—ayioc (holy, as-God’s revelation of Himself, ver. 14 ; 2 
 Mace. vi. 28, 28), which is assigned to the Mosaic law generally, and ἁγία, 
 δικαία (just, in respect to its requirements, which are only such as accord 
 with the holiness), and ἀγαθή (excellent, on account of its salutary object), 
 which are justly (comp. Acts vii. 38) attributed to the évroA7/—exhaust the 
 contents of the opposite of ἁμαρτία in ver. 7. They are acewmulated on ἡ 
 ἐντολή, because the latter had just been specially described in ver. 7 ff. as 
 that which occasioned the activity of the sin-principle. 
 
 Ver. 13. Paul has hardly begun, in ver. 12, his exposition of the result 
 of vy. 7-11, when his train of thought is again crossed by an inference 
 that might possibly be drawn from what had just been said, and used 
 against him (comp. ver. 7). He puts this inference as a question, and now 
 gives in the form of a refutation of it what he had intended to give, accord- 
 ing to the plan begun in ver. 12, not in polemical form, but in a sentence 
 with δέ that should correspond to the sentence with μέν. --- ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία] 
 86. ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος. Altogether involved is the construction adopted by 
 Luther, Heumann, Carpzoy, Ch. Schmidt, Bohme, and Flatt: ἀλλὰ ἡ 
 ἁμαρτία διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ por κατεργαζομένῃ (ἣν) θάνατον, iva φανῇ ἁμαρτία. ----Ἶνα 
 φανῇ k.7.A.| in order that it might appear as sin thereby, that it wrought death 
 Jor me by means of the good. ἵνα introduces the aim, which was ordained by 
 God for the ἡ du. ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος. This purposed manifestation (φανῇ has 
 the emphasis) of the principle of sin in its sinful character served as a nec- 
 essary preparation for redemption,—a view, which represents the psycho- 
 logical history of salvation as a development of the divine μοῖρα. --- ἁμαρτία 
 is certainly shown to be the predicate by its want of the article and the par- 
 allel ἁμαρτωλός in the second clause. The predicate attributed to the daw in 
 ver. 7 is appropriated to that power to which it belongs, namely, sin. 
 Ewald : that it might be manifest, how sin, ete. But ἁμαρτία, because it 
 would thus be the sin-principle, must have had the article, and the ‘‘ how” 
 is gratuitously imported. — ἵνα γένηται x.t.A.] Climactic parallel (comp. on 2 
 Cor. ix. 3; Gal. iii. 14) to iva φανῇ κ.τ.1., in which γένηται is to be taken of 
 
274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the actual result ; see on iii. 4. The repetition of the subject of γένηται (ἡ 
 ἁμαρτία), and of the means employed by it (διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς), may indeed be 
 superfluous, because both are self-evident from what goes before ; but it 
 conveys, especially when placed at the close, all the weightier emphasis of 
 a solemnly painful, tragic effect. The less, therefore, is ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τ. ἐντολ. 
 to be separated from γένηται, and regarded as the resumption and comple- 
 tion of ἡ ἁμαρτία (86. ἐμοὶ ἐγ. θάνατος) ; in which view there is assigned to the 
 two clauses of purpose a co-ordinate intervening position (Hofmann), that 
 renders the discourse—running on so simply and emphatically—quite unnec- 
 essarily involved. καθ᾽ ixepB., in over-measure, beyond measure. Comp. 1 
 Cor. xii. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17; Gal. i. 18; and see Wetstein. — διὰ τῆς 
 évtod. | by means of the commandment, which ἀγαθὸν it applied so perniciously ; 
 a pregnant contrast. — Observe the pithy, climactic, sharply and vividly 
 compressed delineation of the gloomy picture. 
 
 Vy. 14-25. Proof not merely of the foregoing telic sentence (Th. Schott), 
 but of the weighty main thought μὴ γένοιτο" ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία. ‘‘ For the law 
 is spiritual, but man (in his natural situation under the law, out of Christ) is 
 of flesh and placed under the power of sin ; against the moral will of his 
 better self, he is carried away to evil by the power of the sinful principle 
 [See Note LX XXIV. p. 292.] 
 
 Ver. 14. οἴδαμεν] ‘Qoavei ἔλεγεν ὡμολογημένον τοῦτο x. δῆλόν ἐστι, Chrysostom. 
 Comp. ii. 2, iii. 19. Τὸ 15 not to be written οἶδα μέν (Jerome, Estius, Semler, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Hofmann, Th. Schott), since the following δὲ would 
 only correspond logically with the μέν, if Paul, with a view to contrast the 
 character of the daw with his own character (so Hofmann), had said : oida 
 yap, ὅτι ὁ μὲν νόμος K.T.2.; Or, In case he had desired to contrast his character 
 with his knowledge (so Schott) : oida μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ., σάρκινος δί εἰμι, OY eipi δὲ 
 σάρκινος, omitting the ἐγώ, which is the antithesis of the νόμος. ---- πνευματικός 
 obtains its definition through the contrasted σάρκενος. Now σάρξ is the ma- 
 terial phenomenal nature of man opposed to the divine πνεῦμα, animated 
 and determined by the ψυχή (comp. on iy. 1, vi. 19), and consequently 
 σάρκινος (of flesh) affirms of the ἐγώ, that it is of such a non-pneumatic nature 
 So πνευματικός must affirm regarding the law, that dts essence 
 
 dwelling in him.” 
 
 and quality.’ 
 (not the form in which it is given, according to which it appears as γράμμα) 
 is divine = spiritual: its essential and characteristic quality is homogeneous 
 with that of the Holy Spirit, who has made Himself known in the law. 
 For believers no proof of this was needed (οἴδαμεν), because the νόμος, as 
 νόμος Θεοῦ, must be a holy self-revelation of the Divine Spirit ; comp. ver. 12 ; 
 Acts vii. 38. Jn consequence of this pneumatic nature the law is certainly 
 διδάσκαλος ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας πολέμιος (Chrysostom), and its tenor, rooting in 
 
 will and the law ineffectual (ver. 14 ff., viii. 
 8), and—in the case of the regenerate—to 
 react against the Holy Spirit. Thus the 
 σάρξ itself is opposed to God, and has eyil 
 lusts and works, not in virtue of the 
 
 1 Not merely direction of life (Ernesti, 
 Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 77 ff.). Least of allis 
 this rendering sufficient here, looking to the 
 strength of the expression σάρκινος. Not, 
 however, as though the σάρξ in itself were 
 
 evil, something o7'tginally evil; but it is the 
 seat of the sin-principle, by which it is used 
 as its organ to make through it the moral 
 
 necessity of its nature, but as the seat and 
 tool of the sin-principle. 
 
\ CHAP. VII., 14: R275 
 the Divine Spirit, is only fulfilled by those who have the πνεῦμα (Tholuck, 
 with Calovius, joining together different references), as indeed the neces- 
 sary presupposition is that it θείῳ ἐγράφη πνεύματι (Theodorct), and the con- 
 sequence necessarily bound up with its spiritual nature is that there subsists 
 no affinity between the law and death (Hofmann) ; but all this is not con- 
 veyed by the word itself, any more than is the impossibility of fulfilling the 
 law’s demands, based on its pneumatic nature (Calvin: ‘‘ Lex coelestem 
 quandam et angelicam justitiam requirit”). Following Oecumenius 2, and 
 Beza, others (including Reiche, Kéllner, and de Wette) have taken πνεῦμα 
 of the higher spiritual nature of man (i. 9 ; Matt. xxvi. 41), and hence have, 
 according to this reference, explained πνευματικός very variously. .g. 
 Reiche : ‘‘in so far as it does not hinder, but promotes, the development 
 and expression of the πνεῦμα ;’ de Wette : ‘of spiritual tenor and charac- 
 ter, in virtue of which it puts forward demands which can only be under- 
 stood and fulfilled by the spiritual nature of man.” So too, substantially, 
 Riickert. But vv. 22, 25 show that πνευματικός characterizes the law as νόμος 
 Θεοῦ ; consequently the πνεῦμα is just the divine, which the natural man, who 
 knows and has nothing of the Spirit of God, resists in virtue of the hete- 
 rogeneous tendency of his σάρξ. --- ἐγὼ dé] but 1, i.e. according to the ἐδίωσις 
 pervading the entire section : the man, not yet regenerate by the Holy Spirit, 
 in his relation to the Mosaic law given to him,—the still unredeemed ἐγώ, who, 
 in the deep distress that oppresses him in the presence of the law, ver. 24, 
 For the subject is in vv. 14-25 necessarily the 
 as previously gave 
 
 sighs after redemption. 
 same—and that, indeed, in its unredeemed condition ' 
 its psychological history prior to and under the law (hence the preterites in 
 vv. 7-13), and now depicts its position confronting (dé) the pneumatic nature 
 of the law (hence the presents in ver. 14 ff.), in order to convey the informa- 
 tion (γάρ), that not the law, but the principle of sin mighty in man himself, 
 has prepared death for him. It is true the situation, which the apostle thus 
 exhibits in his own representative Ego, was for himself as an individual one 
 long since past ; but he realizes it as present and places it before the eyes 
 like a picture, in which the standpoint of the happier present in which he 
 now finds himself renders possible the perspective that lends to every feat- 
 ure of his portrait the light of clearness and truth. — σάρκινος made of flesh, 
 consisting of flesh, 2 Cor. iii. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 1.2 The signification fleshy, 
 corpulentus, Polyb. xxxix. 2. 7, is here out of place. It is not equivalent to 
 the qualitative σαρκικός, fleshly (see Tittmann’s Synon. p. 23), that is, affect- 
 ed with the quality that is determined by the σάρξ. The cdpxcvoc, as the 
 expression of the substance,* is far stronger ; and while not including the 
 negation of the moral will in man (see ver. 15 ff., 22, 25), indicates the σάρε 
 
 
 
 1 Ewald: “ He speaks, if possible even more 
 than previously, from the standpoint of one 
 not yet redeemed, who finds himself face to 
 face with the law merely as a simple man, 
 and consequently as still lacking all higher 
 light and heavenly aid.’’—In fact, if all that 
 follows can be asserted of the regenerate 
 person, “the regenerate man would thus be 
 
 also the wnregenerate . Baur, in the theol. 
 Jahrb. 857, Ὁ. 192 ; neut. Theol. Ὁ. 148. 
 
 2 Comp. Plat. Leg. x. p. 906 C; Theocrit. 
 xxi. 66; LXX.2 Chron. xxxii. 8; Ezek. xi. 19, 
 xxxvi. 26; Addit. Esth. iv. 8: βασιλέα σάρ- 
 KLVOYV, 
 
 5. Comp. Holsten, z. Hv. des Paul. u. Petr. 
 p. 397. 
 
276 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 —that unspiritual, material, phenomenal nature of man, serving by way of 
 vehicle for sin—as the element of his being which so preponderates and ren- 
 ders the moral will fruitless, that the Apostle, transporting himself into his 
 pre-Christian state, cannot—in the mirror of this deeply earnest, and just as 
 real as it was painful, self-contemplation—set forth the moral nature of the 
 natural man otherwise than by the collective judgment, I am of flesh ; the 
 σάρξ, my substantial element of being, prevails on me to such an extent that 
 the predicate made of flesh cleaves to me as if to a nature consisting of mere 
 σάρξ. This is the Pauline τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν (John 11]. 6). 
 The Pauline τὸ yeyevv. ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστίν follows in chap. viii. 
 Since the σάρξ is the seat of the sin-principle (see ver. 18, comp. ver. 23), 
 there is connected with the σάρκινος also the πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτ., sold, 
 as a slave, under the (dominion of) sin 7.e. as completely dependent on the 
 power of the sin-principle’ as is a serf on the master to whom he is sold : 
 ἡ πρᾶσις δοῦλον πάντως ποιεῖ TOV πεπραμένον ὑπὸ τὴν τῆς ὑπηρεσίας καθιστάμενον 
 ἀνάγκην, Theodore of Mopsuestia. Comp. 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25; 2 Kings 
 xvii. 17; 1 Mace.i. 15. The passive sense of πεπραμ. finds its elucidation in 
 ver. 23. πιπράσκεσθαι, in Greek authors (Soph. 77. 251; Dem. 1304. 8; 
 Lucian, Asin. 32) with τινί (comp. also Lev. xxv. 39; Deut. xxviii. 68 ; 
 Isa. 1. 1 ; Baruch iv. 6), is here coupled with ὑπὸ (comp. Gal. iv. 3) for the 
 more forcible indication of the relation. Compare πιπράσκειν εἰς τὰς χεῖρας, 
 1 Sam. xxiii. 7; Judith vii. 25 ; and on the matter itself, Seneca, de brev. 
 vit. 3. 
 
 Ver. 15 elucidates and assigns the reason of this relation of slavery. 
 “* For what I perform Iknow not,” 1.6. it takes place on my part without 
 cognition of its ethical bearing, in the state of bondage of my moral reason. 
 Analogous is the position of the slave, who acts as his master’s tool without 
 perceiving the proper nature and the aim of what he does. Augustine, 
 
 1 These very predicates, as strong as pos- 
 sible, expressed without limitation, and in 
 contrast to πνευματικός, Should have pre- 
 cluded men from explaining it of the regen- 
 erate man, of the condition in the state of 
 grace. Paul woudd have been speaking in 
 defiance of his own consciousness (vi. 14, 
 22, viii. 2). See, moreover, Achelis, p. 681 
 ff. Theodoret has the true view: τὸν πρὸ 
 τῆς χάριτος ἄνϑρωπον εἰσάγει πολιορκούμε- 
 νον ὑπὸ τῶν παϑῶν' σαρκικὸν γὰρ καλεῖ τὸν 
 μηδέπω τῆς πνευματικῆς ἐπικουρίας 
 τετυχηκότα. Τὺ ἰβ true that there are, in 
 the case of the regenerate man also, ‘in 
 natura carnali reliquiae prioris morbi” 
 (Melanchthon), and flesh and spirit are at 
 warfare in him (viii. 5, Gal. v. 17); but he 
 is not capxwos as opposed to πνευματικός, 
 and nota slave sold to sin, else he must have 
 fallen back again from his regenerate state. 
 Very characteristic is the distinction, that 
 in the case of the regenerate man the con- 
 flict is between flesh and spirit (i.e. the Holy 
 
 Spirit received by him); but in that of the 
 unregenerate man, between the flesh and 
 his own moral reason or vovs, which latter 
 succumbs, whilst in the regenerate the vic- 
 tory in the conflict may and must fall to 
 the Spirit. Comp. on Gal. v. 17; also Baur, 
 Paul. Wl. p. 158 f. All who have taken the 
 subject in our passage to be the man al- 
 ready redeemed have necessarily fallen into 
 the error (especially apparent in the case of 
 Krummacher) of confounding the struggle 
 between flesh and Spirit in the case of the 
 regenerate person, with that described in 
 our passage in the case of the still unre- 
 generate man, who is not yet able to oppose 
 the πνεῦμα, but only his own too weak νοῦς, 
 to the power of sin in the flesh. From this 
 error they should have been deterred by 
 the very circumstance that in the entire 
 passage (how wholly different in viii. 2 f. ἢ) 
 Paul is quite silent regarding the πνεῦμα as 
 a power opposed to the σάρξ and the ἁμαρ- 
 Tia, 
 
CHAPS Vila, a6. ate 
 
 Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Gléckler, Reiche, and 
 Reithmayr, erroneously take γινώσκω as I approve, which it never means, not 
 even in’ Matt. vil. 23; John x. 14+ 1 Cor. viii. 3; Rom. x: 19; 2’ Tim. 
 li. 19; Ps. i. 6; Hosea viii. 4 ; Eccles. xviii. 27. Hofmann’s view, how- 
 ever, is also incorrect, that the cognition is meant, ‘‘which includes the 
 object in the subjectivity of the person knowing,” so that the passage denies that 
 the work and the inner life have anything én common, In this way the idea 
 of the divine cognition, whose object is man (Gal. iv. 9 ; Matt. xii. 28), is 
 extraneously imported into the passage. — ob γὰρ ὃ θέλω κ.τ.1.1 The proof of 
 the ὁ κατεργ. ov γινώσκω. For whosoever acts in the light of the moral cogni- 
 tion does not, of course, do that which is hateful to him following his 
 practical reason (6 μισῶ), but, on the contrary, that towards which his 
 moral desire is directed (ὃ θέλω). The person acting without that cognition, 
 carried away by the power of sin in him, does not pursue as the aim of his 
 activity (πράσσει, comp. on 1. 89) that which in the morally conscious state 
 he would pursue, but, on the contrary, does (ποιεῖ) what in that state is 
 abhorrent to him.’ The ethical power of resolution, which decides for 
 the good, is inactive, and man does the evil that he abhors. Paul conse- 
 quently ascribes to the unregenerate man also the moral wish,? which he 
 has in rational self-determination ; but he denies to him the action corre- 
 sponding thereto, because his moral self-determination does not come into 
 exercise in the state of his natural bondage, but he is, on the contrary, 
 hurried away to the performance of the opposite. His θέλειν of the good 
 and his μισεῖν of the evil are not, therefore, those of the regenerate man, be- 
 cause the new man, in virtue of the holy πνεῦμα, emerges from the conflict 
 with the σάρξ as a conqueror (against Philippi) ; nor yet the weak velleitas 
 of the schoolmen (Tholuck, Reithmayr, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) ; but a 
 real, decided wishing and hating (comp. ver. 16), which present, indeed, 
 for the moral consciousness the theory of self-determination, but without 
 the corresponding result in the issue. The “I” in θέλω and μισῶ is con- 
 ceived according to its moral self-consciousness, but in πράσσω and ποιῶ, 
 according to its empiric practice, which runs counter to the self-determina- 
 tion of that consciousness. Reiche, in consistency with his misconception 
 of the entire representation, brings out as the pure thought of ver. 1 : 
 ‘‘the sinful Jew, as he appears in experience and history, does the evil 
 which the Jew free from sin, as he might and should have been, does not 
 approve.” As profane analogies of the moral conflict meant by Paul, comp. 
 Epict. Enchir. ii. 26. 4 : ὃ μὲν θέλει (ὁ ἁμαρτάνων) ov ποιεῖ, καὶ ὃ μὴ θέλει ποιεῖ 5 
 Eur. Med. 1079 : θυμὸς δὲ κρείσσων (stronger) τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων, and the 
 familiar ‘‘video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor” (Ovid, Met. vii. 19). 
 See also Wetstein, and Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 228 f. 
 
 Ver. 16. Not an incidental inference (Riickert), but an essential carrying 
 
 1 The μισῶ must not be weakened, as ¢.g. thardt, v. freien Willen, p. 405), is perfectly 
 by Th. Schott, who makes it equivalent to foreign to the expression, especially in its 
 ov ϑέλω in ver. 16. close connection with yer. 14, and is a pure 
 
 2For the idea that this ϑέλειν hasonly  <tmportation. 
 come to exist through regeneration (Lu- 
 
278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 on of the argument, from which then ver. 17 is further inferred. For the 
 relation of the ἐγώ to the law is in fact the very aim of the section (see ver. 
 25). — ὃ ov θέλω] whereto I am unwilling, for in fact I hate it, ver. 15. By 
 οὐ the θέλειν is turned into its opposite. Comp. Baeuml. Partik. p. 278 ; 
 Ameis on Homer, Odys. 111. 274. -- σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ, ὅτι καλός] since indeed 
 the law also desires not what I do. My conduct, therefore, so far as my 
 desire is opposed to it, appears, according to this contradiction, as a proof 
 that I coneur with the law, that it is beautiful, i.e. morally good ; the moral 
 excellence which the law affirms of itself (e.g. Deut. iv. 8) I also agree with 
 it in acknowledging ; in point of fact, I say yes to it. Comp. also Philippi 
 and Hofmann. The wswal view : I grant to the law, that, etc., overlooks the 
 συν, and the reference of the τῷ νόμῳ to συν (1 say with). We may add that 
 Chrysostom, in loc., has appropriately directed attention to the οἰκεία 
 εὐγένεια Of the moral nature of man. 
 
 Ver. 17. Nuvi δέ] does not introduce a minor proposition attaching itself 
 with a ‘‘but now” (Reithmayr and Hofmann)—a view which is unsuitable 
 to the antithetical form of the expression ; nor is it to be taken, with 
 Augustine, as ‘‘nune in statu gratiae ;” but it is the quite common and, in 
 Paul’s writings especially, very frequent as it is, however (see on iii. 21), 
 that is, in this actual state of the case, however ; namely, since my θέλειν, not- 
 withstanding my conduct, is not opposed to the law, but on the contrary 
 confirms it. In connection with this view οὐκέτε also is not, possibly, 
 temporal, ‘* pointing back to a time in which it was otherwise with the 
 speaker” (Hofmann), namely, to what is related in vv. 7-11, but logical, as 
 in ver. 20, xi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 18. What is indicated by νυνὶ dé stands to ἐγὼ 
 katepy. αὐτό in an excluding relation, so that after the former there can be no 
 mention of the latter. It is the dialectic non jam, non item (Bornemann ad 
 Xen. Cyr. i. 6, 27 ; Winer, p. 547 f. [E. T. 618]; comp. Ellendt, Zea. 
 Soph. 11. p. 432). — ἐγώ] with emphasis : my personality proper, my self- 
 consciousness, which is my real, morally wishing Ego. It is not this “1 
 that performs the evil (αὐτό, ἐ.6. ὃ ob θέλω, ver. 16), but the principle of sin, 
 which has its dwelling-place in me (the phenomenal man), enslaving my 
 better—but against its power too weak—will, and not allowing it to attain ac- 
 complishment. That ἐν ἐμοί is not, like ἐγώ, to be taken of the moral self-con- 
 scious ‘‘J,” is affirmed by Paul himself in ver. 18. But it is erroneous to 
 infer, from what he here says of the ἐγώ, the necessity of the explanation in 
 the sense of the regenerate person (see especially Calvin and Philippi) ; for 
 if the power practising the evil be not the ‘‘I,” but the potentiality of sin, 
 this accords perfectly with the state of the σαρκικός, ψυχικός (1 Cor. ii. 14), 
 ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν πεπραμένος (ver. 14), consequently of the unregenerate, in 
 whom sin rules, and not the grace and power of the Holy Spirit leading the 
 moral Ego to victory. In the regenerate man dwells the Spirit (viii. 8 ; 
 Gal. v. 16 f. ; 1 Cor. 111. 16), who aids the ‘‘I” in conquering the sin-power 
 of the flesh (viii. 13 ff. ; Gal. v. 24). 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 608 B. Theaet. p. 199 553; Eur. Zippol. 265; Sturz, Lew. Xen. IV. 
 C, Phaed. p. 64B; Soph. Aj. 271, Ocd. R. p. 158. 
 
CHAP, VIL, 18; 19. 279 
 
 Ver. 18. Basing of the ἀλλ᾽ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία in ver. 17 on the human 
 (not : Christian) experimental consciousness of the ἔμφυτον κακόν (Wisd. xii. 
 10). --- τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου] More precise definition to ἐν ἐμοί, by which 
 it is designated, in order to make the meaning clear beyond all doubt, ac- 
 cording to its aspect of self-verification here meant ; and the latter is ex- 
 pressly distinguished from that of the moral self-consciousness, conveyed 
 by the ἐγώ in ver. 17. — That good, that is, moral willing and doing, conse- 
 quently the opposite of ἁμαρτία, has its abode in the σάρξ of man, 1.6. in his 
 materio-physical phenomenal nature (comp. on ver. 14),’ is negatived by 
 οὐκ οἰκεῖ. . . . ἀγαθόν, and this negation is then proved by τὸ yap θέλειν k.T.A. 
 If the σάρξ, namely, were the seat of the moral nature, so that the will of the 
 moral self-consciousness and that residing in the σάρξ harmonized, in that 
 case there would be nothing opposed to the carrying out of that moral ten- 
 dency of will ; in that case, besides the willing, we should find also in man 
 the performance of the morally beautiful (τὸ καλόν, ‘‘ quod candore morali 
 nitet,” van Hengel). On the identity of the καλόν and the ἀγαθόν, accord- 
 ing to the Greek view of morality, see Stallb. ad Plat. Sympos. p. 201 C. — 
 παράκειταί μοι] lies before me (Plat. Tim. p. 69 A, Phil. p. 41 Ὁ ; 2 Mace. iv. 
 4)—a plastic expression of the idea: there is present in me. Paul presents 
 the matter, namely, as if he were looking around in his own person, as in a 
 spacious sphere, to discover what might be present therein. There he sees 
 the θέλειν (τὸ καλόν) immediately confronting him, before his gaze ; but his 
 searching gaze fails to discover (οὐχ εὑρίσκω) the κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλόν. The 
 performance of the good, therefore, is something not characteristic of the 
 natural man, while that θέλειν of the moral ‘‘I” is present with him. 
 “* Tonge a me abest,” says Grotius aptly in explanation of the reading οὐ se. 
 παράκειται, With which, however, οὐχ εὑρίσκω is perfectly equivalent in sense ; 
 so that to render the latter ‘‘I gain it not, 1.6. Ican not” (Estius, Kypke, 
 Flatt, Tholuck, and K6llner), or, ‘‘it is to me unattainable” (Hofmann), is 
 inconsistent with the correlative παράκειταί μοι, as well as the εὑρίσκω in ver. 
 21. Theodoret has rightly noted the ground of the οὐχ εὑρίσκω : acbevd... . 
 περὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἑτέραν ἐπικουρίαν (namely, that of the Holy Spirit) οὐκ ἔχων. 
 But the ἐγώ, which has the willing, can not at all be the καινὸς πνευματικὸς 
 ἄνθρωπος (against Philippi), whose θέλειν is the ‘‘ fide promptitudo” (Calvin), 
 because that ἐγώ, clogged by the sinful power of the flesh, is naked and 
 void of the κατεργάζεσθαι. The latter is the simple to bring about, to bring 
 into execution (see on i. 27) ; and if, in order to interpret it appropriately of 
 the regenerate person, it be made to mean, fo live quite purely (Luther), or 
 the ‘‘implere gua decet alacritate” (Calvin), or the act which is in harmony 
 with the will sanctified by the Spirit of God (Philippi), these shades of mean- 
 ing are purely imported. 
 
 Ver. 19. Proof of τὸ δὲ κατεργ. τὸ καλὸν οὐχ εὑρίσκω in ver. 18. For the good 
 that I desire I do not ; but the evil that I desire not, that I pursue. Respect- 
 
 1 Jul. Miiller, I. p. 458, ed. 5, wrongly life.” See against this especially vv. 15, 25. 
 takes it here as morally indifferent, ‘‘ of the viii. 3 ff. Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, Paw. 
 collective phenomenal reality of human Christol. p. 14. 
 
280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ing the interlocking of the relative and main clauses, see Winer, p. 155 
 [E. T. 164]. 
 
 Ver. 20. From this follows, however, the very proposition to be proved, 
 ver. 17, that it is not the moral 8617, but the sin-principle in man, that per- 
 forms the evil. —ov θέλω] as in ver. 16. 
 
 Vv. 21-23. Result from vv. 14-20. 
 
 Ver. 21. Among the numerous interpretations of this passage, which 
 Chrysostom terms ἀσαφὲς εἰρημένον, and the exposition of which has been 
 given up as hopeless by van Hengel and Riickert, the following fall to be 
 considered :'—(1) τὸν νόμον taken generally as rule, necessity, and the like : 
 “7 find therefore for me, who am desirous of doing the good, the rule, the una- 
 voidably determining element, that evil lies before me ;” so that it is substan- 
 tially the ἕτερος νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι, Ver. 28, that is here meant. So, in the 
 main, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and others, including 
 Ammon, Boehme, Flatt, Kéllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Nielsen, 
 Winer, Baur, Philippi, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 3879, Umbreit, 
 Krummacher, Jatho, and the latest Catholic expositors, Reithmayr, Maier, 
 and Bisping. But it is fatal to this view, that ὁ νόμος, in accordance with 
 the entire context, can be nothing else than the Mosaic law, since a defini- 
 tion altering this wonted reference of the meaning is not appended, but is 
 only introduced in ver. 23 by the addition of érepov ; further, that ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ 
 κακὸν παράκειται is not a relation that presents itself in idea as a νόμος, but, on 
 the contrary, as something empirical, asa phenomenon of fact ; and lastly, 
 that we should have to expect τὸν νόμον, in that case, only before ὅτι. (2) 
 τὸν νόμον understood of the Mosaic law : ‘‘ I find therefore in me, who am de- 
 sirous of doing the law, (namely) the good, that evil lies before me.” According 
 to this view, consequently, τὸ καλόν is in apposition with τ. νόμον, and ὅτι 
 x.T.A. is the object of εὑρίσκω. So, in substance, Homberg, Bos, Knapp, Ser. 
 var. arg. Ὁ. 389, Klee, Bornemann in Luc. Ὁ. |xvii, Olshausen, Fritzsche, 
 and Krehl. But after what goes before (vv. 15-20), it is inconsistent with 
 the context to separate ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν ; and, besides, the appositional view 
 of τὸ καλόν is a forced expedient, feebly introducing something quite super- 
 fluous, especially after the τὸν νόμον prefixed with full emphasis. (3) τὸν 
 νόμον likewise taken of the Mosaic law, and ὅτι taken as because: ‘‘ I find 
 therefore the law for me, who am disposed to do the good, because evil lies before 
 me; i.e. I find therefore that the law, so far as I have the will to do what 
 is good, is by my side concurring with me, because evil is present with me 
 (and therefore I need the law as συνήγορον and ἐπιτείνοντα τὸ βούλημα, see Chry- 
 sostom). So substantially the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theophylact (εὑρίσκω 
 ἄρα τὸν νόμον συνηγοροῦντά μοι, θέλοντι μὲν ποιεῖν τὸ καλὸν, μὴ ποιοῦντι 
 δὲ, διότι ἐμοὶ παράκειται τὸ κακόν) ; comp. also Origen, Theodore οὐ Mopsues- 
 tia, Oecumenius (less clearly Theodoret), Hammond, Bengel, Semler, Mo- 
 rus, and my own second edition. But the idea, which according to this 
 view would be conveyed by the dative τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ «.7.2., ust have been 
 
 1 Leaving out of account Reiche’s misinterpretation as to a double ‘‘I”’ of Jewish 
 humanity. 
 
CHAP, ΥἹῸΣ: 281 
 more definitely and expressly indicated than by the mere dativus commodi ; 
 moreover, this explanation does not harmonize with the apostle’s purpose 
 of summing up now, as the result of his previous view, the whole misery, 
 in which the natural man sees himself when confronted with the law ; 
 see vv. 22-25. Hofmann also, modifying his earlier similar view 
 (Schriftbew. I. p. 549), now understands under τ. νόμον the Mosaic 
 law, and takes ὅτε in the sense of because, but τὸ καλόν, as predicate 
 to τ. νόμον, the dative as depending on τὸ καλόν, and ποιεῖν, which is 
 supposed to be without an object, as belonging to θέλ. The speaker 
 thus declares what he recognizes the law as being, ‘‘namely, as that which 
 to him, who is willing to do, is the good ;” and he finds it so, ‘‘ because the 
 evil is at hand to him ;” when he ‘‘ comes to act,” the evil is there also, and 
 presents itself to him to be done ; which contradiction between the thing 
 willed and the thing lying to his hand makes him perceive the harmony be- 
 tween his willing and the law, so that, namely, he ‘‘zould be doing what he 
 wills, if he were doing that which the law commands.” This extremely tortu- 
 ous explanation, which first of all imports the nucleus of the thought which 
 is supposed to be expressed so enigmatically, breaks down at the very out- 
 set by its assumption that ποιεῖν is meant to stand without object (when I 
 come to act !), although the object (comp. vv. 15-20) stands beside it (τὸ 
 καλόν) and according to the entire preceding context necessarily belongs to it, 
 —a statement as to which nothing but exegetical subjectivity can pronounce 
 the arbitrary verdict that it is ‘‘ growndless prejudice.” } (4) Ewald’s attrib- 
 utive reference of τὸ κακόν to the law is utterly erroneous : ‘“ I find therefore 
 the law, when I desire to do what is beautiful, how it lies at hand to me as the 
 evil.” Paul assuredly could not, even in this connection, have said τὸ κακόν 
 of the divine law after vv. 12, 14; comp. ver. 22. (5) Abandoning all 
 these views, I believe that τὸν νόμον is to be understood of the Mosaic law 
 and joined with τῷ θέλοντι, that ποιεῖν is to be taken as infinitive of the pwr- 
 pose (Buttmann, p. 224, ἘΠ. T. 261), and ὅτε «.7.4. as object of εὑρίσκω (comp. 
 Esr. 11. 26) : ‘‘7t results to me, therefore, that, while my will is directed to the 
 law in order to do the good, the evil lies before me.” What deep wretched- 
 ness! My moral will points to the law in order to do the good, but the 
 evil is present with me in my fleshly nature, to make the θέλειν void ! 
 What I will, that I cannot do.* In connection with this view, observe : (a) 
 
 1 Th. Schott does not indeed commit the 
 mistake of separating ποιεῖν from τὸ καλόν, 
 but he introducesin another way what is 
 not in the text : “1 find the law for me, who 
 am willing to do good, such an one as leaves 
 the matter on the footing, that to me, etc.” 
 
 2The objections urged against my ex- 
 planation are yery unimportant. It is said, 
 in particular, that the inversion τὸν νόμον 
 τῷ ϑέλοντι is harsh (Delitzsch), forced (Phi- 
 lippi), strange and meaningless (Hofmann). 
 But it is not harsher than the numerous per- 
 fectly similar hyperbata found in all classic 
 authors (comp. 6... Xen. Mem. i. 6. 18, where 
 the Sophists are termed τὴν σοφίαν οἱ πωλοῦν- 
 
 tes, Plat. Apol. p. 89 C: ὑμᾶς οἱ ἐλέγχοντες, 
 Herod. vii. 184: τὰς καμήλους τοὺς ἐλαύνοντας, 
 Thue. vi. 64.5: ταῦτα τοὺς ξυνδράσοντας, and 
 Poppo iz loc. ; also Kiihner, Gramm. 11. 1, 
 p. 5382); and so far from being meaningless, 
 the inverted arrangement, very appropri- 
 ately to the sense, lays a great emphasis up- 
 on τὸν νόμον. For the νόμος, as the divine 
 record of the καλόν, in contrast to the κακόν 
 which lies in man, has the stress, which 
 does not rest upon ϑέλοντι (Hofmann). Ob- 
 serve how the idea of thc law is prominent 
 and pervading down to the end of the chap- 
 ter, and then again in viii. 2 ff. Least of all 
 in the case of suchan extremely difficult pas- 
 
282 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 That the position of the words τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοί serves, without any 
 harshness, to set forth τὸν νόμον emphatically, just as often also in classical 
 writers the substantive with the article is emphatically prefixed to the par- 
 ticiple with the article, on which it depends (see Ktihner ad Xen. Mem. 10 ὲ 
 18 ; Bornemann and Kiihner ad Anab. v. 6, 7 ; Kriiger, § 50, 10. 1 ; Bern- 
 hardy, p. 461) ;—(0) That θέλειν with the accusative as object of the will- 
 ing, 1.6. of the moral striving and longing, of desire and love, is particu- 
 larly frequent in the LXX. (see also Matt. xxvii. 43 and the remark there- 
 on) ; compare here, especially, Isa. v. 24: οὐ yap ἠθέλησαν τὸν νόμον κυρίου. 
 (c) Finally, how aptly the συνήδομαι γὰρ τῷ νόμῳ x.7.2. in the illustrative 
 clause that follows, ver. 22, harmonizes with the τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοί 5 
 while the subsequent βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον x.7.2., In ver. 23, answers to the 
 ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται. [See Note LXXXYV. p. 294.]—The dative τῷ θέλοντι 
 ἐμοί is that of the ethical reference: Adeprehendo mihi, experience proves it 
 tome. Comp. εὑρέθη μοι, ver. 10.7 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. Antithetical illustration of ver. 21. — συνήδομαι τ. νόμῳ τ. Θεοῦ] 
 The compound nature of the verb is neither to be overlooked (as by Beza and 
 others, including Riickert and Reiche), nor to be taken as a strengthening 
 of it (Kéllner), or as apud animum meum laetor (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius, de Wette, Tholuck, and Philippi). It means: I rejoice with, which 
 sense alone consists with linguistic usage.? By this, however, we .are not to 
 understand the joy over the law, shared with others (van Hengel and others)— 
 an idea here foreign to the connection ; nor yet the joyful nature of taking 
 part in the law (Hofmann), whereby the necessary conception of joy in com- 
 mon falls away ; but rather: I rejoice with the law of God, so that its joy 
 (the law being personified) is also mine. It is the agreement of moral sym- 
 pathy in regard to what is good. Comp. on σύμφημι in ver. 16. So also 
 συμπενθεῖν τινι, συναλγεῖν τινι, K.T.A. ; Similarly συλλυπούμενος, Mark iii. 5. 
 Rightly given in the Vulgate : ‘‘condelector legi (not lege) Dei.” Comp. 1 
 Cor. xiii. 6 : συγχαίρει τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. The Mosaic law is described as νόμος Θεοῦ 
 (genit. auctoris) in contrast to the ἕτερος νόμος, which is the law opposed to 
 God. — κατὰ τ. ἔσω ἄνθρ.]͵ The rational and moral nature of man, deter- 
 mined by conscience (ii. 15), is, as the inward man, distinguished from the 
 outward man that appears in the body and its members.* ὁ νοῦς in its con- 
 
 sage should people suppose that they may 
 dismiss a linguistically unassailable explana- 
 tion by vague and merely dogmatical ob- 
 jections. 
 
 1 Hom. Od. xxi. 304: οἵ δ᾽ αὐτῷ πρώτῳ κακὸν 
 Soph. Aj. 1144: ᾧ φϑέ- 
 
 O. R. BAG: δυσμενῆ yap 
 Oed. C. 970: οὐκ ἂν 
 Plat. 
 
 εὕρετο οἰνοβαρείων. 
 yu’ ἀν οὐκ ἄν εὗρες. 
 καὶ βαρὺν σ᾽ εὕρηκ᾽ ἐμοί. 
 ἐξεύροις ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτίας ὄνειδος οὐδέν. 
 Rep. p. 421 ἘΞ ; Eur. Jon. 1407. 
 
 2 Plat. Rep. p. 462 E; Dem. 519..10, 579. 
 19; Soph. Qed. C. 1398; Eur. Med. 186; 
 Sturz, Lex. Xen. 1V. p. 184; Reisig, Lnarr. 
 Soph. Oed. C. 1398. 
 
 3It is erroneous to discover in the ex- 
 pression the designation of the regenerate 
 
 man (Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Calovius, 
 Krummacher, and others), or to say (as 
 Delitzsch does) that Paul means the higher 
 better self produced or liberated by the 
 grace of the discipline of the law (Psychol. 
 p. 380). The unregenerate man _ also, 
 whether the law have already taken him 
 into its training or not, has the ἔσω ἄνϑρω- 
 mos, and the connection alone must decide 
 whether the ἔσω avi3pwros of the passage 
 relates to the redeemed or the unredeemed. 
 The inner man is that which receives the 
 Spirit and grace (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. 
 iii. 16), and not the work of these. The 
 latter is the new man (Eph. ii. 10, iv. 24). 
 In our passage the entire connection de- 
 
CHAP. VII., 22, 23. 283 
 trast to σάρξ designates the same thing @ potiori ; see on Eph. iii. 16, 2 Cor. 
 iv. 16 ; also 1 Pet. iii. 4, and Huther in loc. Philo (p. 5383, Mang.) terms 
 it ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ. [See Note LXXXVI. p. 294.]— βλέπω] Here also 
 Paul represents himself as a spectator of his own personality, and as such he 
 sees, etc. —érepov] a law of another nature, not ἄλλον. Comp. ver. 4, and on 
 Gal. 1. 6. —év τοῖς μέλεσί μοῦ] sc. ὄντα, correlative, even by its position, with 
 Fritzsche and Hofmann join ἐν τοῖς μέλ. μου avtiotpat.,* 
 whereby, however, the importance of the added elements ἀντίστρατ. x.7.A. 15 
 more subordinated to the ἐν τ. μέλ. μου, and the symmetry of the discourse 
 unnecessarily disturbed ; comp. below, τῷ ὄντε ἐν τοῖς μέλ. pov. The mem- 
 bers, as the instruments of activity of the σάρξ, are, seeing that the σάρξ it- 
 self is ruled by sin (vv. 18, 25), that in which the power of sin (the dictate 
 of the sin-principle, ὁ νόμος τῆς duapr.) pursues its doings. This activity in 
 hand, eye, ete. (comp. vi. 13, 19), is directed against the dictate of the 
 moral reason, and that with the result of victory ; hence the figures drawn 
 from war, ἀντίστρατ. and also αἰχμαλωτ. ---- ΤῊ. νόμος τοῦ vodc—in which the 
 genitive is neither to be taken as that of the subject (Fritzsche : ‘quam 
 mens mea constituit ;’ comp. Hofmann, ‘‘ which man gives to himself”), 
 nor epexegetically (Th. Schott), but locally, corresponding to the ἐν τοῖς μέλ. 
 pov—is not identical with the νόμος τ. Θεοῦ in ver. 22 (Usteri, Kéllner, Ol- 
 shausen, and others), just because the latter is the positive law of God, the 
 law of Moses ; but itis the regulator of the συνήδεσϑαι τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ (ver. 22), 
 implied in the moral reason and immanent in the νοῦς. As to νοῦς, which is 
 here, in accordance with the connection, the reason in its practical activity, 
 the power of knowledge in its moral quality as operating to determine the 
 moral will,” see Stirm in the Tiib. Zeitschr, 1834, 3, p. 46 ff. ; Beck, dé. 
 
 κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνϑρωπον. 
 
 cides that it is the ἔσω ἄνϑρωπος of the wn- 
 regenerate man which is meant, in his re- 
 lation to the law; to him also belongs, as 
 respects his moral “1 (although this is 
 quite arbitrarily denied by Philippi, follow- 
 ing Melanchthon, and many others), the 
 συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ τ. Θεοῦ (Comp. ii. 15), and 
 it must belong to him, since the sinful 
 nature has its seat and home in the σάρξ, 
 vy. 18, 25, as the antithesis οἵ. the νοῦς. 
 This does not indeed consist with the as- 
 sumption that it is precisely the higher 
 powers of the natural man that by nature 
 are at diametrical variance with God and 
 His law (form. Cone. p. 640 f.), but it 
 nevertheless rests on an exegetic basis. 
 Comp. on Eph. iii. 16. The σάρξ, however, 
 with the power of sin dwelling in it, over- 
 powers the voids so that it becomes in 
 bondage, darkened, and in the activity 
 of its conscience blunt and perverted; 
 hence it requires renewal (xii. 2): comp. 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 95. There remains, 
 therefore, the necessity for redemption of 
 the whole natural man, as also his incapac- 
 ty for self-attainment of salvation; and it 
 
 is an error to see in that contradiction to 
 the Formula Concordiae aught to shake the 
 Pauline doctrine of atonement and justi- 
 fication by faith alone (Delitzsch). De- 
 litzsch brings against me the charge of 
 being un-Lutheran and unbiblical. The 
 latter I must deny; the former does not 
 affect me as exegete, since as such I haye 
 only to inquire what is exegetically 7ight or 
 wrong. Philippi, p. 807, ed. 3, note, quotes 
 against me authorities (of very various 
 kinds) which as such prove nothing; and 
 reminds me of the position of investigation 
 astothe ideaof the σάρξ. I may be trusted 
 to possess some acquaintance with the po- 
 sition of such investigations, including 
 even those which the respected theologian 
 has not embraced in his quotations and to 
 some extent could not yet do so. 
 
 1 Compare Th. Schott, who however ren- 
 ders ἐν: in the power of my members. 
 
 2 Consequently the morally willing faculty 
 of the human πνεῦμα. Comp. (against Hol- 
 sten) Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, 
 p. 165 f.; Kluge J.c, 
 
284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Seelenl. p. 49 ff. ; Delitzsch, p. 179 ; Kluge in the Jahrb. 7. D. Th. 1871, Ὁ. 
 327. The form νοός belongs to the later Greek. See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 
 455. --- καὶ αἰχμαλ. x.t.2.] and makes me prisoner-of-war to the law of sin (makes 
 me subject to the power of the sin-principle) which is in my members. The 
 μὲ does not denote the inner man, the νοῦς (Olshausen), for it, regarded in 
 itself, continues in the service of the law of God (ver. 25) ; but the appar- 
 ent man, who would follow the leading of the νοῦς. He it is, for the con- 
 trol of whom the law of sin contends with the moral law. The former con- 
 quers, and thereby, while the moral law has lost its influence over him, 
 makes him its prisoner-of-war (Luke xxi. 24; 2 Cor. x. 5) ; so that he is 
 now—to express the same idea by another figure—rerpapévoc ὑπὸ τ. 
 ver. 14,—a trait of the gloomy picture, which likewise does not apply to 
 the condition of the redeemed, Vili. 2. —76 νόμῳ τῆς duapz. | is identical with 
 the νόμος that was previously, without more precise definition, called ἕτερος 
 γόμος. Instead, namely, of saying: ‘‘ and made.me Zfs prisoner,” Paul char- 
 acterizes—as he could not avoid doing in order to complete the antithesis 
 —the victorious law, not previously characterized, as that which it is, and 
 Says : alyyas. we τ. νόμῳ duapt. Here τ. duapr. is the genitivus auctoris ; τ. 
 νόμῳ, however, is not instrumental (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), 
 but can only be taken as the dative of reference (Commodi). The observa- 
 tion τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου, emphatically added to make the disgrace more 
 palpably felt, obviates the misconception that a power different from the 
 ἕτερος νόμος was meant. [See Note LXXXVII, p. 295.] We must dismiss, 
 therefore, the distinctions unsupported by evidence that (following Origen, 
 Jerome, and Oecumenius, but not Ambrosiaster) have been attempted : 6... 
 recently by Kéllner, who thinks that the ἕτερος νόμος means the demands of 
 the sensuous nature, so far as they manifest themselves in individual cases 
 as bodily lusts, while the νόμος τ. duapr. is the sensuous nature itself con- 
 ceived as a sinful principle ; or by de Wette, who thinks that the former is 
 the proneness to sin which expresses itself in the determinableness of the 
 will by the sensuous nature, while the latter is the same proneness, so far as 
 it conflicts with the law of God, and by the completed resolution actually en- 
 ters into antagonism thereto (comp. Umbreit) ; or by Ewald (comp. also 
 Grotius and van Hengel), who thinks that Paul here distinguishes two pairs 
 of kindred laws : (1) the eternal Jaz of God, and alongside of it, but too weak 
 in itself, the law of reason ; and (2) the law of desire, and along with it, as 
 still mightier, the law of sin. Similarly also Delitzsch, Reithmayr, and 
 Hofmann. The latter distinguishes the law of sin from the law in the mem- 
 bers, in such a way that the former is prescribed by sin, as the lawgiver, to 
 all. those who are subject to it ; the /atter, on the contrary, rules in the bod- 
 ily nature of the individual, as soon as the desire arises in him.*— aiyparo- 
 
 ἁμαρτίαν, 
 
 1 Calovius gives the right view: “ Lex 
 membrorum et lex peccati idem sunt, ut e 
 verbis apostoli (ev) τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ 
 ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μουν liquet.’? The 
 clear words themselves do not convey, 
 moreover, the distinction between the pro- 
 
 duced and the producer (Delitzsch) ; but, 
 on the contrary, the law of sin coincides 
 completely with the law of the members, 
 as already Augustine perceived, de nupt. 
 et concup. i. 30: ‘‘captivantem sub lege pec- 
 cati, h. 6. sub se ipsa.”” Comp. also Theo- 
 
CHAP. VII., 24. 285 
 τίζω belongs to the age of Diodorus, Josephus, etc. (αἰχμαλωτεύω is still 
 later).? 
 
 Ver. 24. The marks of parenthesis in which many include vv. 24, 25, 
 down to ἡμῶν, or (Grotius and Flatt) merely ver. 25 down to ἡμῶν, should be 
 expunged, since the flow of the discourse is not once logically interrupted. 
 -ταλαίπωρος x.7.2.] The oppressive feeling of the misery of that captivity 
 finds utterance thus. Here also Paul by his ‘‘I” represents the still wnre- 
 deemed man in his relation to the law. Only with the state of the Jatter, 
 not with the consciousness of the regenerate man, as if he ‘‘ as it were’? were 
 crying ever afresh for a new Redeemer from the power of the sin still re- 
 maining in him (Philippi), does this wail and cry for help accord. The 
 regenerate man has that which is here sighed for, and his mood is that 
 which is opposite to the feeling of wretchedness and death, v. 1 ff., viii. 1 ff. ; 
 being that of freedom, of overcoming, of life in Christ, and of Christ in 
 him, of peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, of the new creature, to which old 
 things have passed away. Comp. Jul. Miiller, νυ. d. Side, I. p. 458 f., 
 ed. 5. The objection of Reiche, that Paul would, according to this view, 
 speak of himself while he was thinking of men of quite an opposite frame 
 of mind, is not valid ; for that longing, which he himself had certainly felt 
 very deeply in his pre-Christian life, and into whose painful feelings he 
 transports himself back all the more vividly from the standpoint ef his bliss- 
 Sul state of redemption,* could not but, in the consistent continuation of the 
 idiosis, be here individualized and realized as present through his ἐγώ. And 
 this he could do the more unhesitatingly, since no doubt could thereby be 
 raised in the minds of his readers regarding his present freedom from the 
 ταλαιπωρία over which he sighs. Reiche himself, curiously encugh, regards 
 ver. 24 as the cry for help of Jewish humanity, to which ‘‘a redeemed one 
 replies” in viii. 1; ver. 25, standing in the way, being a gloss ! -- ταλαίπ. 
 ἐγὼ ἄνϑρ. Nominative of exclamation : O wretched man that IT am! See 
 Kuhner Wed op. 4 Winer, p. ΤΙ [E. ΤΠ. 189 -- ταλοΐπ. Rev. ΤΠ ΠΣ 
 very frequent in the tragedians: Plat. Huthyd. p. 802 B; Dem. 548. 12, 
 425. 11. --- ῥύσεται] Purely future. In the depth of his misery the longing 
 after a deliverer asks as if in despair: who will it be? —ékx τοῦ σώματος τ. 
 ϑανάτου τούτου] τούτου might indeed grammatically be joined to σώματος 
 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, including Olshausen, 
 Philippi, Hofmann, and Th. Schott), since one may say, τὸ σῶμα τ. ὃ. τοῦτο ; 
 but the sense is against it. For that which weighs upon him, namely, the 
 
 dore of Mopsuestia, who declares himself 
 expressly and decidedly against the inter- 
 pretation of our passage as pointing to 
 Sour laws. 
 
 1 See Thom. Mag. Ὁ. 23 ; Lobeck ad Phryn. 
 p. 442. 
 
 2 This applies also against Delitzsch’s as- 
 sertion, that the very form of this lamen- 
 tation shows that it proceeds from the 
 breast of a converted person. How nat- 
 ural is it, rather, that Paul should repre- 
 sent the redemption, as he had himself ex- 
 
 perienced it, and whose triumphant bliss 
 he bore in his own bosom, as the object of 
 the longing and sighing of the still unre 
 deemed! And who can assert that he him- 
 self sighed otherwise, before Christ laid 
 hold on him? Thus we here listen to the 
 echo of what was once forced from his 
 own breast. Where such sighing occurs, it 
 is not the state of grace of the converted, 
 but merely the operation of the so-called 
 gratia praeveniens (comp. the Erlangen 
 Zeitschrift, 1864, 6, p. 378 ff.). 
 
286 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 being dependent on the body as captive of the law of sin, lies in the fact 
 that the body belongs to this death, i.e. to the death ineurred by sin (which 
 is not physical, but eternal death, comp. ver. 10 ff.), consequently to this 
 shameful death, as its seat ;* not in the fact that this relation takes place in 
 the present body, or in a present time posited with the quality of the 
 earthly body. [See Note LXXXVIII. p. 295.] If the words of the person 
 who exclaims should amount to no more than ‘‘ the hopeless wish to get rid 
 of the body, in which he is compelled to live,” without expressing, however, 
 the desire to be dead (Hofmann), they would yield a very confused concep- 
 tion. Moreover, by postponing the pronoun, Paul would only have ex- 
 pressed himself very unintelligibly, had his meaning been hoe corpus mortis, 
 and not corpus mortis hujus (Vulgate). Comp. Acts v. 20, xili. 26. The 
 correct explanation therefore is : ‘‘ Who shall deliver me, 80 that I be no longer 
 dependent on the body, which serves as the seat of so shameful a death ?” or, in 
 other words : ‘‘ Who shall deliver me out of bondage under the law of sin into 
 moral freedom, in which my body shall no longer serve as the seat of this shameful 
 death 2” Comp. viii. 9, vi. 6, vii. 5, 10 ff. ; Col. 11. 11. With what vivid and 
 true plastic skill does the deeply-stirred emotion of the apostle convey this 
 meaning ! underneath which, no doubt, there likewise lies the longing 
 ‘‘after a release from the sinful natural life” (Th. Schott). In detail, τίς μὲ 
 ῥύσεται corresponds with the αἰχμαλωτίζ. μὲ τῷ νόμῳ τῆς du. in ver. 23; ἐκ 
 τοῦ σώμ. with the τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου in ver. 23 ; and τούτου denotes the 
 death as occasioned by the tragic power of sin just described also in ver. 
 23 ; the genitive relation is the same asin vi. 6. The rendering ‘ mortal 
 body” is condemned by the close connection of τούτου with Yavarov, whether 
 (inconsistently enough with the context, see vv. 23, 25, vill. 1, 2) there be 
 discovered in the words the longing for death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
 phylact, Erasmus, Pareus, Estius, Clericus, Balduin, Koppe, and others), 
 or, with Olshausen (introducing what is foreign to the argument), the long- 
 ing ‘‘only to be redeemed from the mortal body, i.e. from the body that 
 through sin has become liable to perish, so that the Spirit may make it alive.” 
 Finally, as in vi. 6, so also here, those explanations are to be rejected 
 which, in arbitrary and bold deviation from the Pauline usage, take σῶμα 
 not of the human body, but as ‘‘mortifera peccati massa” (Calvin, Cappel, 
 Homberg, Wolf) ; or: ‘‘the system of sensual propensities (σῶμα), which 
 is the cause of death” (Flatt) ; or: ‘‘death conceived as a monster with a 
 body, that threatens to devour the ἐγώ" (Reiche). 
 
 Ver. 25. Not Paul himself for himself alone, but, as is shown by the fol- 
 lowing dpa οὖν x.7.A., the same collective ‘‘I” that the Apostle has person- 
 ated previously, speaks here also—expressing, after that anguish-cry of 
 longing, its feeling of deep thankfulness toward God that the longed-for 
 deliverance has actually come to it through Christ. There is not change of 
 person, but change of scene. Man, still unredeemed, has just been bewail- 
 ing his wretchedness out of Christ ; now the same man is in Christ, and 
 gives thanks for the bliss that has come to him in the train of his cry for 
 
 1 Comp. Ex. x. 17 : περιελέτω ἀπ΄ ἐμοῦ τὸν ϑάνατον τοῦτον. 
 
“ 
 
 CHAP, VII., 25. 287 
 help. —enyapiord τ. Θεῷ] For what? is not expressed, quite after the 
 manner of lively emotion; but the question itself, ver. 24, and the dva’I. X., 
 prevent any mistake regarding it. [See Note LXXXIX. p. 296.] — διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ] αἰτίου ὄντος τῆς εὐχαριστίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ" αὐτὸς yap, φησὶ, κατώρϑωσεν 
 ἃ ὁ νόμος οὐκ ἠδυνήϑη" αὐτός μὲ ἐῤῥύσατο ἐκ τῆς ἀσϑενείας τοῦ σώματος, ἐνδυναμώσας 
 αὐτὸ, ὥστε μηκέτι τυραννεῖσϑαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Theophylact. Thus, to the 
 apostle Christ is the mediator of his thanks,—of the fact itself, however, 
 that he gives thanks to God, not the mediator through whom he brings his 
 thanks to God (Hofmann). Comp. on i. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 57; Col. iil. 17 ; 
 similar is ἐν ὀνόματι, Eph. v. 20. — dpa οὖν] infers a concluding summary of 
 the chief contents of vv. 14-24, from the immediately preceding εὐχαριστῶ 
 .... ἡμῶν. [See Note XC. p. 296.] Seeing, namely, that there lies in the 
 foregoing expression of thanks the thought: ‘‘it is Jesus Christ, through 
 whom God has saved me from the body of this death,” it follows thence, 
 and that indeed on a retrospective glance at the whole exposition, ver. 
 14 ff., that the man himself, out of Christ—his own personality, alone and 
 confined to itself—achieves nothing further than that he serves, indeed, 
 with his νοῦς the law of God, but with his σάρξ is in the service of the law 
 of sin. It has often been assumed that this recapitulation does not connect 
 itself with the previous thanksgiving, but that the latter is rather to be 
 regarded as a parenthetical interruption (see especially Riickert and 
 Fritzsche); indeed, it has even been conjectured that dpa oiv .. . . ἁμαρτίας 
 originally stood immediately after ver. 23 (Venema, Wassenbergh, Keil, 
 Lachmann, Praef. p. X, and van Hengel). But the right sense of αὐτὸς ἐγώ 
 is thus misconceived. It has here no other meaning than ἢ myself, in the 
 sense, namely, J for my own person, without that higher saving intervention, 
 which I owe to Christ.!. The contrast with others, which αὐτός with the 
 personal pronoun indicates (comp. ix. 3, xv. 14 ; Herm. ad. Vig. p. 79 ; 
 Ast, Ler. Plat. I. p. 317), results always from the context, and is here 
 evident from the emphatic διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and, indeed, so that the 
 accent falls on αὐτός. Overlooking this antithetic relation of the “7 my- 
 self,” Pareus, Homberg, Estius, and Wolf conceived that Paul wished to 
 obviate the misconception as if he were not speaking in the entire section, 
 and from ver. 14 onwards in particular, as a regenerate man ; K6llner 
 thinks that his object now is to establish still more strongly, by his own 
 feeling, the truth of what he has previously advanced in the name of hu- 
 manity. Others explain : ‘(just I,” who have been previously the subject of 
 discourse (Grotius, Reiche, Tholuck, Krehl, Philippi, Maier, and van 
 Hengel ; comp. Fritszche : ‘‘ipse ego, qui meam vicem deploravi,” and 
 
 1S0 also, substantially, Hofmann and 
 Th. Schott; comp. Baur, Reithmayr, Bis- 
 ping, Mircker, and Delitzsch, p. 383. 
 Wrongly interpreted by Thomasius, I. p. 
 278 : according to my Ego proper. The αὐτὸς 
 ἐγώ, is, in fact, at the same time the subject 
 of the second clause. 
 
 3 ΤΆ is maintained without due reason by 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 91 A, that if 
 
 αὐτός stand before the personal pronoun (as 
 here), the /atter has the emphasis, and vice 
 versa. The striking vivacity of Greek dis- 
 course has not bound itself down so me- 
 chanically. Comp. Bremi ad Dem. Phil. 
 I. 24, p. 128; Herm. Opuse. I. Ὁ. 322 ff. In 
 the particular cases the connection must 
 decide, 
 
288 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ewald) ; which is indeed linguistically unobjectionable (Bernhardy, p. 
 290), but would furnish no adequate ground for the special emphasis 
 which it would have. Others, again, taking αὐτός as equivalent to ὁ αὐτός 
 (see Schaefer, Melet. p. 65 ; Herm. ad Soph. Antig. 920, Opusc. I. p. 332 f.; 
 Dissen ad Pind. p. 412) : ego idem: ‘cui convenit sequens distributio, qua 
 videri posset unus homo in duos veluti secari,” Beza. So also Erasmus, 
 Castalio, and many others ; Klee and Riickert. But in this view also the 
 connection of ἄρα οὖν «.7.4. with the foregoing thanksgiving is arbitrarily 
 abandoned ; and the above use of αὐτός as synonymous with ὁ αὐτός, is 
 proper to Ionic poetry, and is not sanctioned by the N. T. Olshausen, 
 indeed, takes ait. ἐγώ as I, the one and the same (have in me a twofold 
 element), but rejects the usual view, that dpa. . . . ἁμαρτίας is a recapitula- 
 tion of ver. 14 ff., and makes the new section begin with ver. 25 ;1 so that, 
 after the experience of redemption has been indicated by εὐχαριστῶ x.T.2., 
 the completely altered inner state of the man is now described ; in which 
 new state the νοῦς appears as emancipated and serving the law of God, and 
 only the lower sphere of the life as stillremaining under the law of sin. 
 But against this view we may urge, firstly, that Paul would have expressed 
 himself inaccurately in point of logic, since in that case he must have 
 written : 
 Θεοῦ ; secondly, that according to vv. 2, 3, 9 ff. the redeemed person is en- 
 tirely liberated from the law of sin ; and lastly, that if the redeemed person 
 remained subject to the law of sin with the σάρξ, Paul could not have said 
 οὐδὲν κατάκριμα K.T.A. in ver. 1; for see vv. 7-9. Umbreit takes it as : even 
 I; a climactic sense, which is neither suggested by the context, nor in keep- 
 ing with the deep humility of the whole confession. — doviebw νόμῳ Θεοῦ] in 
 so far as the desire and striving of my moral reason (see on ver. 23) are 
 directed solely to the good, consequently submitted to the regulative 
 standard of the divine law. At the same time, however, in accordance 
 with the double character of my nature, I am subject with my σάρξ (see on 
 ver. 18) to the power of sin, which preponderates. (ver. 23), so that the 
 direction of will in the νοῦς does not attain to the κατεργάζεσϑαι. 
 
 ἄρα οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ TH μὲν σαρκὶ δουλεύω νόμῷ ἁμαρτίας, TH δὲ νοὶ νόμῳ 
 
 Remark 1. The mode in which we interpret vv. 14-25 is of decisive impor- 
 tance for the relation between the Church-doctrine of original sin, as more ex- 
 actly expressed in the Formula Concordiae,? and the view of the apostle ; inas- 
 much as if in ver. 14 ff. it is the wnredeemed man under the law and its disci- 
 pline, and not the regenerate man who is under grace, that is spoken of, then 
 Paul affirms regarding the moral nature of the former and concedes to it what 
 the Church-doctrine decidedly denies to it ’—comparing it (Form. Cone. p. 661 
 
 1 The section is also made to begin with 
 ver. 25 by Th. Schott and Hofmann; the 
 former with apa οὖν. and the latter with 
 εὐχαριστῶ. But it is only with οὐδὲν κατάκρι- 
 μα that the new scene opens, of which the 
 ery of thanksgiving, ver. 25, was only a 
 previous glimpse broken off again by ἄρα οὖν 
 αὐτὸς ἐγώ K.T.A. 
 
 2 Τῦ employs our passage (see p. 660) for 
 
 the inference: ‘‘Si autem in beato ap. 
 Paulo et aliis venatis hominibus naturale 
 vel carnale liberum arbitrium etiam post 
 regenerationem legi divinae repugnat, quanto 
 magis ante regenerationem legi et voluntati 
 Dei rebellabit et inimicum erit.” 
 
 3 Comp. Jul. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, 11. p. 
 238 Ε΄, ed. 5. 
 
NOTES. 289 
 
 f.) with a stone, a block, a pillar of salt—in a way that cannot be justified (in 
 opposition to Frank, Theol. d. Concordienformel, I. p. 138 f.). Paul clearly as- 
 cribes to the higher powers of man (his reason and moral will) the assent to 
 the law of God ; while just as clearly, moreover, he teaches the great dispro- 
 portion in which these natural moral powers stand to the predominance of the 
 sinful power in the flesh, so that the liberum arbitrium in spiritualibus is wanting 
 to the natural man, and only emerges in the case of the converted person (viii. 
 2). And this want of moral freedom proceeds from the power of sin, which is, 
 according to ver. 8 ff., posited even with birth, and which asserts itself in op- 
 position to the divine law. 
 
 Remark 2. How many a Jew in the present day, earnestly concerned about 
 his salvation, may, in relation to his law, feel and sigh just as Paul has here 
 done ; only with this difference, that unlike Paul he cannot add the εὐχαριστῶ 
 τῷ Θεῷ K.T.A. 1 
 
 Norres py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 LXXVII. Ver. 1. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε k.1.A. 
 
 On this point Philippi says : ‘In the nature of things, 7 usually relates to the 
 subject immediately preceding ; but there is no logical necessity for this. The 
 point of connection may also lie farther back, provided that there is sufficient 
 reason for this, and that it is obvious to the reader. But here this is actually 
 the case. The proposition vi. 14 might, as vi. 15 shows, lie open to a danger- 
 ous misconstruction. This must first of all be repelled. After this is done in 
 vi. 16-23, the Apostle returns, according to intention, to vi. 14, in order to 
 expand the sentiment of that verse more fully, and defend it against the doubts 
 that might arise.” He allows, however, the connection suggested by Meyer, 
 if the necessity is felt of thus formally connecting with what immediately pre- 
 cedes. Whatever may be said upon this matter, it cannot be doubted that 
 these early verses of ch. vii. are united in thought to vi. 14. Weiss ed. Mey. 
 holds vi. 15-23 to be a development of the first half of vi. 14, and vii. 1-6 of 
 the second half of that verse. 
 
 LXXVIII. Ver. 2. 7 γὰρ ὕπανδρος γύνη k.t.A. 
 
 The illustration here given is adopted, as we may suppose, because it pre- 
 sents a case to which that of the Christian is analogous—namely, where, with- 
 out actually dying, a person dies, or is as it were put to death, so far as the 
 law is concerned. νόμος, in all cases of its occurrence in these verses, refers to 
 the Mosaic law—unless it be at the end of ver. 2, where the addition of the 
 genitive, τοῦ ἀνδρός, may determine its meaning to be ‘‘the legal power with 
 which the husband isinvested’’ (Godet). But probably, even in this instance, 
 it means the Mosaic law, so far as thislaw relates to the husband, or that pro- 
 vision of it which bears on the marriage bond, 
 
 LXXIX. Ver. 2. κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός. 
 
 The view of Meyer that κατήργηται has a sense corresponding to ἐθανατώθητε 
 of ver. 4, (though Weiss ed. Mey. holds that this is an undue pressing of the 
 word), seems to be justified by the point of the illustration. The adoption of 
 this view, which naturally carries with it also Meyer’s view of καὶ ὑμεῖς of ver. 
 
290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 4, gives a far simpler and more natural explanation of the καί of that phrase 
 than the one which Weiss resorts to, namely, you also, like all who, according to 
 this analogy, are released from a legal obligation. κατήργηται means, destroyed so 
 far as she is related to the law, and thus freed from it. 
 
 LXXX. Ver. 4. εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ. 
 
 The point of the analogy is simply the termination of relations to the old 
 state. In respect to this there is a strict parallelism between the believer and 
 the married woman whose case is’supposed. The other elements of the illus- 
 tration, with which the Apostle deals in a measure for the purpose of emphasis, 
 are of secondary importance, and hence the correspondence so far as these are 
 concerned is not to be pressed, and the search for exactness will be vain. No 
 confident judgment can be pronounced as to whether the Apostle had definitely 
 in mind a ‘first husband’ in the case of the Christian, or, if so, whether it 
 was sin or the law; and, for the same’reason, it cannot be decided with 
 certainty whether the figure of marriage is continued, as Meyer supposes, in 
 καρποφορήσωμεν. Among the most recent commentators, Godet says of this verb, 
 ‘* By this expression he unmistakably continues and completes the figure which 
 he began, namely, that of marriage.’’ while Weiss ed. Mey. claims that the 
 finding a continuance of the figure in the word is the result only of an ar- 
 tificial mode of interpreting. ‘The true view lies, doubtless, between the two— 
 that it may be continued, and may not, 
 
 LXXXI. Ver. 6. ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. 
 
 The expressions used in vv. 5, 6 anticipate, on the one hand, the thought 
 which is brought out later in this chapter (see vv. 22, 23), and, on the other 
 hand, carry the mind of the reader back to the preceding chapter (see vv. 4, 6, 
 18, etc.). This fact indicates the close connection of these six verses with 
 what goes before, and also confirms the probability, derived from other 
 parts of the two chapters, as well as from chap. viii. that the writer is pursuing 
 a single line of thought throughout this entire section of the Epistle (chapters 
 vi, 1-viii. 39). 
 
 LXXXII. Ver. 7 ff. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; 
 
 At this point the Apostle takes up the second of the two questions men- 
 tioned in a previous note, which are naturally suggested by v. 20—the verse 
 in connection with which the present section of the Epistle (vi.—viii.) is intro- 
 duced. If the doctrine of justification by faith does not directly lead to con- 
 tinuance in sin, does it not involve the view of the divine (Mosaic) law which 
 makes that law ‘‘a something, whose ethical nature is immoral?” In the im- 
 mediate sequence of thought and grammatical connection, however, the ques- 
 tion arises out of what is said of the law in vv. 5, 6—odv pointing to those 
 verses. The answer to the question is presented in the same form as in Vi. 2 ; 
 but the proof confirming the negative is set forth in a less direct way. In tho 
 confirmatory passage containing this proof, vv. 7-13, there are several ele- 
 ments : In the order of succession, (a) the statement that the law is not sin, but 
 the means of the knowledge of sin; (Ὁ) the way by which it becomes the 
 means to this end ; (c) the condition of the man to whom the law comes, both 
 
NOTES. 291 
 
 before and after its coming ; (d) sin, not the law, is the sinful thing, as made 
 manifest by the fact that it uses the holy law asa means to bring about its 
 ownends. Jn the order of importance, as related to the question of ver. 7, a 
 and d are of primary consequence, and d contains the positive statement 
 which is in direct contrast with the negative in the phrase μὴ γένοιτο ; band 6, 
 however, are further developed, and brought into special prominence in vv. 14— 
 23, and the writer thus shows that they involve thoughts of especial interest 
 
 in his discussion. 
 XEON νυν  ἼΞ15: 
 
 With respect to the development of the thought in vv. 7-13, the following 
 points may be noticed: (1) ἀλλώ, of ver. 7, evidently does not express the 
 absolute contrast, which is commonly set forth in such sentences by the use 
 of this word after a negative particle. Possibly the Apostle, in using it, may 
 have had in mind the thought of the 13th verse, and have supposed that the 
 reader would adjust the relations of the passage properly when he should have 
 reached that verse. In Gal. iv. 8, ἀλλά contrasts with the idea of the sonship 
 into which the readers had been brought (see the preceding verses), that of 
 desiring and turning to a new bondage. Yet the latter idea is not found in 
 the clause which is opened by the ἀλλά, but in a succeeding one introduced by 
 πῶς. This and similar passages, though not in exact correspondence with the 
 case here presented, may serve to illustrate the freedom of Paul’s method of 
 writing in reference to such words. The 8th verse here, with its δέ, belongs in 
 close connection with the clauses from ἀλλά to ἐπιθυμήσεις of ver. 7, and fills 
 out to completeness the thought of those clauses. Ver. 8, however, anticipates 
 in substance the idea of ver. 13.—(2) Meyer seems to be correct in holding that. 
 the meaning of οὐκ ἔγνων 15. I did not know—pointing to the Apostle’s own 
 history—and not 1 should not have known. The reference, also, is, as Meyer 
 says, to the consciousness of sin as a power and active principle. This is 
 clearly indicated by the following verses. The meaning of οὐκ ἤδειν, on the 
 other hand, is probably, though not certainly, equivalent to οὐκ dv ἤδειν (only, 
 “‘more definite and confident,’ Mey.). It seems not improbable, also, that the 
 Apostle may have intended to carry the ἤδειν back to a time antecedent to the 
 ἔγνων, and thus have meant J should not have known—except the law had said 
 (so Godet), rather than I should not know—except the law said (so Mey., Weiss 
 ed. Mey., etc.). Holsten, Gifford, and some others prefer to give to ἤδειν, as 
 to ἔγνων, the simple force of the indicative—TI did not know. ἐπιθυμία and οὐκ 
 éxOuunoerc manifestly have a more extended reference than is given in Exod. 
 xx. 17, though the latter words are, doubtless, quoted from that passage. That 
 the law produces conviction of sin—in the ordinary sense of this phrase—is 
 not the direct and immediate statement of this and the following verses ; but 
 this idea is, nevertheless, suggested, and vv. 14-23 present the condition and 
 experience of one who is under such conviction.—(3) The meaning of ἀπέθανον, 
 θάνατος, ἔζων, etc., is discovered by observing the fact that a new paragraph 
 begins with ver. 7; also, that, in this paragraph, the state of the man under the 
 power of sin asa controlling master is set forth; and that, in ver. 24, this 
 state is apparently described by the word θάνατος. The indications, thus, are 
 that neither physical nor eternal death is referred to in this word, but spiritual 
 death. This view is, also, given by Weiss ed. Mey., in opposition to Meyer, 
 who understands by it eternal death. When the Apostle says, 1 died, accord- 
 
292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ingly, he means that he passed into this state of spiritual death, whereas, 
 during the period referred to in ἔζων, he had been in the opposite condition. 
 As the verb ἀνέζησεν, ver. 9, however, means came to life again, and not simply 
 came to life—and thus vexpa does not involve the idea of an actually dead con- 
 dition, as if there were and had been no existence of the sin-principle, but 
 only of an inactive condition (dormant, ‘‘ exhibiting,” as Meyer says, ‘‘no 
 vital activity’), it seems probable that he has in mind, in the living and dy- 
 ing, the absence and presence not so much of sin, in every sense, as of sin in 
 its working power and inthe manifestation of that power to his consciousness. 
 The time indicated by ἔζων... . πότε is the time previous to this manifesta- 
 tion (the time of ‘‘ childlike innocence” (Mey.), which, in some cases, may be 
 extended beyond the limits of early childhood, if the knowledge of the divine 
 law does not immediately after that period come,to the soul. In Paul’s own 
 experience, it ended when he began to understand the significance of the 
 Mosaic law, to which νόμος in all instances throughout the passage, from ver. 
 7 to ver. 20, refers.—(4) It must be admitted—as Weiss ed. Mey., also allows 
 —that, in ver. 10, the contrast between εἰς ζωήν and εἰς θάνατον points to the 
 idea of eternal death following upon, and in a sense involved in, spiritual 
 death as before the writer’s mind. Yet even there this idea is suggested only 
 secondarily, the primary reference being to the spiritual condition which has 
 already begun.—(5) The 12th verse is introduced, through ὥστε, as the result 
 and conclusion of the preceding verses, and the 13th asa question which 
 might be suggested by this conclusion in its reference to what goes before. 
 These verses, however, in their main thought, contain what might naturally 
 have followed the question of ver. 7, and, as Meyer says, they answer to one 
 another as if ver. 13 were opened by the particle dé, corresponding with μέν of. 
 ver. 12.—(6) By reason of the manner in which, in the progress of his sen- 
 tences, the Apostle is led to introduce ver. 13, the 14th and ffg. verses are made 
 to be a proof (γάρ) of μὴ yév. ἀλλὰ ἣ ἁμαρτία. These verses present in themselves, 
 however, a further development of the thought suggested by ἐγὼ ἀπέθανον, and 
 carry the man forward in his experience under the power and conviction of sin 
 (vy. 14-23) to the turning point of his life (vv. 24, 25). They thus give, in 
 substance, a part of the answer to the question of ver. 7. 
 
 LXXXIV. Vv. 14-23. 
 
 That the passage from ver. 14 to ver. 23 refers to the unregenerate man, and 
 not the regenerate, is proved by the following considerations. (a) The most 
 prominent words of a descriptive character are appropriate to the former, but 
 are wholly inappropriate to the latter. (1) In ver. 14 the correct textual read- 
 ing is undoubtedly σάρκινος, which is a stronger word than σαρκικός, as Meyer 
 shows, and signifies made out of flesh—the adjectives in ἐνὸς having this mean. 
 ing. By his first sentence, accordingly, Paul declares the “Τ᾽ to be so thor- 
 oughly carnal as to justify the expression made of the evil principle. 'The regen- 
 erate person is not in this condition. (2) The next succeeding clause, in 
 similarly emphatic language, pronounces him to be sold under sin. The 
 thought is, unquestionably, of a being sold as a slave to a master who has 
 complete dominion and ownership. This thought is confirmed and established 
 by the following verses. The Christian, however, as the Apostle repeatedly says, 
 is free from such complete dominion. (3) Ver, 21 presents the general rule or 
 
NOTES. 293 
 
 the uniform experience of the life of the person under consideration as this : 
 that when he desires to do what is good, evil is present with him ; and yer. 23 
 declares, as the evidence that such is the rule, the fact that the law in the mem- 
 bers (the appetites and passions) overpowers the law of the mind and brings the 
 man into captivity to itself. But thisis neither the uniform experience nor the 
 general rule of the regenerate life. The true Christian may sometimes yield 
 to temptation and fall into sin; he may even become σαρκικός. But he is 
 never σάρκινος ; he is never sold under sin as an absolute slave ; comp. ch. vi. 
 The δοῦλος ἁμαρτίας is not a Christian. (Ὁ) The words, which seem, at the first 
 view of them, to favor a reference to the regenerate person, are easily recon- 
 ciled with the other reference, when the passage is carefully examined. It 
 may be noticed, (1) that the ἐγώ may be ruled over by two masters and in- 
 volves two elements. The two masters are sin, and righteousness or God ; the 
 two elements are the conscience and the passions, the better and worse side of 
 the man. These two elements are always in the ἐγώ, but may, either of them, 
 be more or less active, or, on the other hand, more or less dormant. When 
 the man becomes convinced of sin, and is roused to a vigorous struggle to free 
 himself from its power—and it is of such a condition that the Apostle is here 
 speaking—he finds the two elements in conflict with each other. But he isso 
 far under the dominion of the sin which holds him as a slave, that he does, 
 not what his better nature wishes, but what it abhors. There is a desire, 
 which accords with the demand of conscience and thus with the law of God, 
 hut the opposite force is too strong. The ruling power accomplishes its own 
 will. (2) As the ἐγώ is thus conceived of for the purpose which the writer has 
 in mind, we are not to understand the ἐγώ, in vv. 17, 20, as the man in a regen- 
 erate state, and the ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία as the lingering remains of sin 
 abiding with him ; but the ἐγώ is the entire man, who is at one time occupied 
 and ruled over, as a domain, or as a slave, by ἁμαρτία, and at another by δικαιο- 
 σύνη. ‘The Apostle is setting forth the power of sin, and the consciousness of 
 it in his own experience. To this end he adopts this method of representa- 
 tion. Sin governs him completely in his unregenerate condition. It is this — 
 master, taking up its abode with him and in him, which overcomes all his 
 better desires and impulses, defeats all his efforts, wars against his conscience, 
 and, whenever he wishes to do good, brings him into captivity to evil. So ex- 
 ceedingly sinful is it, and such is its deadly effect.—As these two points are 
 observed, it will be seen that such words as θέλω, μισῶ, οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι., 
 are properly applicable to the unregenerated man awakened to the conscious- 
 ness of sin, and are used consistently with the object which the Apostle has in 
 view. (c) The progress of thought in chaps. vii. and viii. is reconciliable only 
 with the reference of vy. 14-23 tothe unregenerate. If we do not hold that viii. 
 1 and the following verses refer to the regenerate person as such, we must either 
 suppose that they describe him in some higher stage of development, either in 
 this world or in heaven, which is contradicted by the very first words of those 
 verses—the language being simply those who are in Christ Jesus; or that there 
 is an entirely new section opened with the eighth chapter, which cannot be 
 accepted because of the manifest connection of this chapter with the seventh 
 and the striking similarity in phraseology. Butif viii. 1 ff. describes the re- 
 generate as such, and from the turning point of conversion, vii. 14-23 must set 
 forth the condition previous to this great change. (d) The most natural, not 
 to say the necessary, interpretation of αὐτός, vii. 25, is that it means in and of 
 
294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 myself, as apart from Christ. If this be the true explanation, however, the 
 words connected with it show that the state described in vv. 14-23 is the state 
 apart from Christ, and before the deliverance through Him is gained, 
 
 LXXXY. Ver. 21. εὑρίσκω τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι k.T.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. rejects the explanation which Meyer gives of these words, 
 and says that nothing can be adduced sufficient to sustain such an artificial | 
 construction as it involves. He adopts substantially—and this seems quite 
 clearly to be the correct view of the sentence—the interpretation given by 
 Luther, de Wette, and most others, making τὸν νόμον mean the constant rule of 
 experience. The objections urged by Meyer against this view are without real 
 force. The ὅτι clause involves, in opposition to his statement, ‘‘a definition’’ 
 of the νόμος, so far as to account for its use in a sense different from that which 
 it has in other cases in the context. The position of νόμον after εὑρίσκω is the 
 natural position, and the placing of τῷ θέλοντι «.7.A. before ὃτι for the purposes 
 of emphasis does not require the placing these words also before τὸν νόμον. 
 Finally, the suggestion that ὅτε... παράκειται 15 not a νόμος, but ““ something 
 empirical, a phenomenon of fact,” furnishes no argument, for the calling such 
 8. uniformly occurring experience a law or rule is allowable for any writer. As 
 Weiss remarks, however, this νόμος is by no means to be identified with the 
 ἕτερος νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι Of Ver. 23. The grounds for rejecting the other views 
 alluded to by Meyer are presented, with sufficient fulness, in his notes. If 
 νόμος in this sentence is, thus, to be regarded as not referring to the Mosaic 
 law, it is because the indications of the sentence manifestly require another 
 meaning ; and the exception to the general usage with respect to this word, 
 which is here presented, accords with the statement made in a previous note. 
 
 LXXXVI. Ver. 22. κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. 
 
 The ἔσω ἄνθρωπος is, as Meyer holds, substantially the same with the νοῦς. 
 It is, says Godet, “‘ the organ with which the human soul is endowed to per- 
 ceive the true and good, and to distinguish them from the bad and false ;’’ to 
 approve, we may add, the former. It is that side of the ego which sympathizes 
 with the law of God (comp. Weiss), and answers to the moral sense or con- 
 science. That it does not necessarily or probably mean, in this passage, 
 either the moral sense under the guidance and control of the Divine Spirit, as 
 in the regenerate person, or ‘‘the new man,” ὁ καινὸς dvOpwroc,—that, on the 
 other hand, it has, in all probability, no such signification, is proved by all the 
 considerations, already presented, which show that Paul is speaking through- 
 out the entire passage of the unregenerate, and also by the fact, alluded to in 
 Meyer's foot-note, *p. 282 that the expression ‘‘inner man,” asit occurs in other 
 places (see 2 Cor, iv. 16 ; Eph. iii. 16), denotes ‘‘ that which receives the Spirit 
 and grace, and not the work of these” which is the new man. The argument 
 derived from the fact that νοῦς is contrasted with σάρξ in v. 25, which is urged 
 by some writers as proof that both this word and ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρ. refer to the re- 
 generate, has no decisive force. The question in that verse depends wholly 
 on what the contrast intended is; and this question is answered by the other 
 emphatic contrast of the verse, which is implied in αὐτὸς ἐγώ. When rightly 
 viewed, therefore, the 25th verse, so far from establishing what is claimed by 
 
NOTES. 295 
 
 these writers, confirms the opposite. Godet says, ‘‘ We must beware of con- 
 founding the inward man with the new man,” and Dr. Gifford, in the Speaker's 
 Comm., after remarking that “10 is now admitted by all candid and competent 
 interpreters that this expression is not in itself equivalent to the new man,” 
 very fitly adds, “that the context only can decide whether the inward man is 
 regarded as in his natural or his regenerate state.’ This is the true position. 
 The context, however, determines the former state to be the one referred to. 
 
 The closing words of Meyer's foot-note, already mentioned, are omitted by 
 Weiss in his recent edition of Meyer, doubtless because they seemed to have 
 only a personal reference and a passing importance. But they are worthy of 
 preservation in this American edition, as indicating the character of the au- 
 thor and the great and true work as a biblical interpreter which he did ; and 
 also, mutatis mutandis, as having a wide application. ‘‘ Delitzsch,’’ he says, 
 ‘brings against me the charge of being un-Lutheran and unbiblical. The 
 latter I must deny ; the former does not affect me as ewegele, since as such 1 
 have only to inquire what is exegetically right cr wrong. Philippi quotes 
 against me authorities (of very various kinds) which as such prove nothing ; 
 and reminds me of the position of investigation as to the idea of the σάρξ. I 
 may be trusted to possess some acquaintance with the position of such inves- 
 tigations, including even those which the respected theologian has not em- 
 braced in his quotations, and to some extent could not yet do so,” The fact 
 that Meyer was able to say—as the principle of his working—what he does in 
 answer to Delitzsch, shows his great superiority as an exegetical scholar ; and 
 his words might well be made a motto for all rising scholars in this depart- 
 ment. What he says of Philippi, on the other hand, will find a response in 
 the experience of every widely read student who has been drawn by theologi- 
 cal enemies into controversy. 
 
 LXXXVII. ver, 22, 23. 
 
 The question as to the number of laws alluded to in these verses, which has 
 divided commentators—whether there are three or four—may be answered by 
 observing two facts which the several clauses present ; (1) that, whereas the 
 Apostle, in designating the law of God, of the mind, and of sin, uses the geni- 
 tive of the author or of possession, he describes the ἕτερον νόμον, on the other 
 hand, as a law in the members, using the local preposition ; (2) that, in the 
 latter part of ver. 23 he states, respecting the law of sin, that it is the one which 
 is in the members (τῷ ὄντι k.7.A.). These facts seem to make it evident that the 
 ἕτερος νόμος and the νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας are the same thing, and that three laws 
 only are spoken of—namely, the law of God, the law of the mind, and the law 
 of sin which is in the members. 
 
 LXXXVIII. Ver. 24. ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου. 
 
 The construction of τούτου with σώματος is justly objected to by Meyer, on the 
 ground that ‘the sense is against 10. The liability to misunderstanding on 
 the part of the reader, which would have arisen from the position of the pro- 
 noun after θανάτου, had this been the writer’s idea, is also alluded to by him, 
 and is urged by Godet, Weiss, and others, Philippi, on the contrary, says that 
 the latter argument rests on a very precarious canon, inasmuch as “a writer 
 often intends a particular definite collocation of words, without reflecting that 
 
296 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 for the reader it may be ambiguous.’’ He claims, moreover, that, θάνατος not 
 being the subject of thought in vv. 14-24, and vy. 10 ff. being too remote, the 
 reference must be to the body which is spoken of as the seat of ἁμαρτία. To 
 this it may be answered that, although the word θάνατος does not occur in vy. 
 14-23, the condition described in those verses is that of spiritual death con- 
 sciously realized by the ego, and realized in such a way and degree as naturally 
 to make him cry out for deliverance : who shall deliver me from the body of this. 
 death—i.e. so far forth as it is given up to this dreadful condition and this ter- 
 rible master. The man, under conviction of sin, and seeing his own efforts to 
 free himself from its dominion to be fruitless and hopeless, is in an agony of 
 desire to find some helper who shall thus rescue him, but knows not whither 
 to turn until Christ is revealed to his mind. 
 
 LXXXIX. Ver. 25. χάρις τῷ Θεῷ διὰ "Inoov Χριστοῦ. 
 
 The textual reading ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ in this verse, though manifestly, as 
 Meyer says in his critical notes at the beginning of the chapter, an alteration 
 of the true text, may be regarded not only as arising from the desire to give an 
 answer to the preceding question, but also as suggesting the idea which was in 
 the Apostle’s mind in connection with the deliverance—namely, that it was 
 through the great gift of the grace of God in the person of Jesus Christ. For 
 this the man, as he is brought to know the help and the helper for whose ap- 
 pearance he has despairingly cried out, gives thanks to God through Christ. 
 
 XC. Ver. 25. dpa οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ . . . . ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 ἄρα οὖν introduces a concluding summary (as Meyer says) of the chief con- 
 tents of vv. 14-23. Its position after the first clause of the verse does not in- 
 dicate that the condition of the man described in the following words is his 
 condition subsequent to the time of his deliverance through Christ. On the 
 contrary, the emphatic αὐτός, as already stated in previous notes, proves that 
 itis not so. The true explanation of the matter seems to be this :—that the 
 Apostle, according to his purpose and plan, carries forward the experience of 
 the man to the time of conversion ; that vv. 24 and 25a describe the passing 
 to the new life, the last step of the old and the first of the new; and that 
 then, in a single sentence, he looks back and reviews the unregenerate state as 
 preparatory to a setting forth of the opposite character of the regenerate con- 
 dition in the next chapter. In order that he may not break the close con- 
 nection, and thus the rhetorical force of vv. 24, 25a, he defers writing the 
 words of 250 until after he has given in 25a the statement of what, in point of 
 time, actually follows the experience which they describe. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 297 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Ver. 1. After Ἰησοῦ Elz. has μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα, 
 which, following Mill, Griesb. and subsequent critics have expunged. The 
 words are wanting either entirely, or at least as to the second half, in a pre- 
 ponderance of codd., vss., and Fathers, and are an old inapposite gloss from 
 ver. 4. — Ver. 2. we] BF G δὰ, Syr. Tert. Chrys. have ce, which Tisch. 8. has 
 adopted. Repetition in copying of the preceding syllable. —Ver. 11. διὰ τὸ 
 ἐνοικοῦν αὑτοῦ πνεῦμα] So Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 
 7., following Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel. The Recepta, again adopted by 
 Tisch, 8., is διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος. The witnesses (for an accurate 
 examination of which see Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 54 ff.) are so divided, 
 that there is on neither side a decisive preponderance, although, besides A and 
 ©, Nalso supports the genitive. The thought of itself, also, equally admits 
 either reading. A decision between them can only be arrived at through the 
 circumstance that the passage came to be discussed in the Macedonian con- 
 troversy, wherein the Macedonians accused the orthodox of having falsified the 
 ancient codices, when the latter appealed to the Recepta and asserted that it 
 stood inall theancient codd. See Maxim. Dial c. Maced. 3. in Athanas. Opp. I, 
 p. 452. This charge, though retorted by the orthodox on the Macedonians, is 
 worthy of credit, because διὰ τὸ «.7.A. already predominates in Origen and the 
 oldest vss. (also Syr. Vulg.) ; consequently that assertion of the orthodox appears 
 erroneous. ‘The Recepta, indeed, is found in Clem. Strom. IL. p. 344, Commel. 
 545. Pott.; but this single trace of its high antiquity loses its weight in opposi- 
 tion to the here specially important vss. and Origen (also Tert. and_Iren.), and 
 in the face of these bears the suspicion of orthodox alteration having been 
 wrought on the text of Clement. It is possible, however, that even long pre- 
 vious to the Macedonian controversy the questions and disputes respecting the 
 Holy Spirit may have occasioned now and again the changing of διὰ TO K.T.A into, 
 διὰ τοῦ κιτ.2. At all events, the dogmatic interest attached to both readings is 
 too great and too well attested to admit of διὰ τοῦ κ.τ.λ. being referred, with 
 Bengel and Fritzsche, to a mere error in copying. In the controversy the geni- 
 five only (as introducing a relation different from that obtaining with the pre- 
 vious abstracts dv’ ἁμαρτίαν and διὰ δικαιοσύνην) must have been welcome to the 
 orthodox in defending the personality of the πνεῦμα. Among modern commen- 
 tators, Riickert, Reiche, Philippi, van Hengel, and Hofmann have declared for 
 the accusative; whilst de Wette, Krehl, Tholuck, and also Ewald, adopt the 
 genitive. — Ver. 13. τοῦ σώμ. DEF G, Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, gives both 
 readings) al. read τῆς σαρκός, which Griesb. recommended. An interpretation 
 in the sense of the preceding. — Ver. 14. εἰσιν viol Θεοῦ] Since among the un- 
 cials A CD E 8 read υἱοὶ Θεοῦ εἰσ., while B F G have υἱοί εἰσιν Θεοῦ (so Lachm. 
 and Tisch.), we must regard the Recepta as at all events too weakly attested, 
 The preference belongs, however, to υἱοί εἰσιν Θεοῦ, because the omitted εἰσίν 
 (it is absent also in the Sahid.) would be more easily inserted again at the be- 
 ginning or end than in the middle. — Ver. 23. καὶ αὐτοὶ τήν ἀπ. τ. πν. ἔχ. Ke ἡμεῖς 
 αὐτοί] So Elz. The variations are very numerous. The readings to be taken 
 
298 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 into account, besides the Recepta, are—(1) καὶ αὐτοὶ τ. ἀπαρχ. τοῦ πνεύμ. ἔχ. καὶ 
 αὐτοί : so B, Meth. Tisch. 7. ;—(2) κ. ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ τ. ἀπαρχ. τ. πν. ἔχ. αὐτοί : so D 
 FG, Ambros. Fritzsche ;—(3) κ᾿ αὐτοὶ τ. ἀπ. τ. wv. ἔχ: [ἡμεῖς] καὶ αὐτοί : so Lachm. 
 and, without bracketing ἡμεῖς, Tisch. 8., following ἃ Ο δὲ, min. Copt. Dam. 
 The first of the three seems to have been the original reading ; ἡμεῖς is an ad- 
 dition by way of gloss, which was written, in some cases, immediately beside 
 the first καὶ αὐτοί (thus arose the reading of Fritzsche), and in Some cases only 
 beside the second, thus producing the reading of A C δὲ, as well as the Recepta. 
 With the reading of Fritzsche the second καί disappeared, because, after the in- 
 sertion of ἡμεῖς had taken place in the first part, the subsequent καὶ αὐτοί was 
 no longer taken analeptically, and therefore καί was found to be merely confus- 
 ing. The reading αὐτοὶ of τ. ἀπ. τ. πν. ἔχ. kK. ἡμεῖς αὐτοί has so exceedingly 
 weak attestation, that on that very ground it ought (against Bengel and Rinck) 
 to be rejected. — viofeciav] wanting in D F G, codd. ot It. Ambrosiaster. But 
 how easily it came to be omitted, when the viofecia was viewed as something 
 already possessed !— Ver, 24. τί καῇ B** EF G, Syr. Vulg. codd. of It. and some 
 Fathers have only 7i. So Lachm. But the very absence of need for the καί 
 occasioned its omission. — Ver. 26. τῇ ao9.] Approved by Griesb., adopted also 
 by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Scholz have ταῖς ἀσθενείαις, against deci- 
 sive testimony. The sing. is also supported by τῆς δεήσεως in F G, which is an 
 explanatory addition to τῇ ἀσθεν. Comp. Ambros. ; ‘‘ infirmitatem nostrae ora- 
 tionis.’’ The plural was substituted for the collective singular.—The reading 
 προσευξώμεθα (Griesb. and others have προσευξόμεθα) is decisively attested.— 
 After ὑπερεντυγχ. Elz. and Scholz have ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which, following A BDEFG 
 δὲ ΚΔ]. Arm. and Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. have expunged. A defining ad- 
 dition. — Ver. 28. After συνεργεῖ Lachm. reads ὁ Θεός, in accordance with A B, 
 Or. It was readily believed that, on account of ver. 27 and 29, tavra must be 
 understood as accusative and God as subject. — Ver. 34. μᾶλλον dé καί] Lachm. 
 and Tisch.«8. have only μᾶλλ. δὲ, in accordance with A BC δὲ, min. vss. and 
 Fathers. But between JE and Ey. the seemingly unmeaning καί was easily 
 overlooked and omitted.—The omission of the second καὶ (behind the first ὅς) 
 is less strongly attested by A C δὰ, and may be sufficiently explained by non- 
 attention to the emphasis of the thrice-used word, — Ver. 36. ἕνεκα] According 
 toABDEGL 8 17. al. ἕνεκεν is, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz, to 
 be substituted. See LXX. Ps. xliv. 23. — Ver. 37. τοῦ ἀγαπ. D Τὶ F G, vss, and 
 Fathers read τὸν ἀγαπήσαντα, which has against it the Oriental witnesses, and 
 seems to be an alteration in accordance with an erroneous exposition of τ. dyaz. 
 τ. Χριστοῦ iniver. 35 (see the exegetical remarks on that passage). — Ver. 38. οὔτε 
 éveot. οὔτε μέλλ., οὔτε δυνάμει. So also Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz. 
 But Elz. has οὔτε δυνάμ., οὔτε ἐνεστ. οὔτε μελλ. Against greatly preponderating 
 evidence. A transposition, because δυν. seemed to belong to the category of 
 ἀρχαί. The evidence in favour of οὔτε δυνάμ., moreover, is so decisive and so 
 unanimous, that it cannot, with Fritzsche, be regarded as an addition from 
 1 Pet. 111. 22, 1 Cor. xv. 24, or Eph. i. 21. Tholuck, Philippi, and Ewald reject 
 these words. But their different position in different witnesses is quite ex- 
 plained by supposing that their place behind μελλ., as well as their general 
 isolation, were regarded as surprising and confusing. 
 
 Chap. viii. Happy condition of manin Christ. — The certainty of salvation, 
 which is represented in chap. v. 1 f. as the effect of justification by faith, 
 
CHA Bey ΠΥ ΤΕ Ls 299 
 
 appears here as brought about through the moral freedom attained in Christ. 
 We see from this, that Paul conceived of faith not otherwise than as pro- 
 ducing this freedom ; so that faith is not only that which appropriates the 
 atonement, but also the continuous subjective source and motive power of 
 the divine life up to the final attainment of bliss. See Luther’s Preface, 
 also his utterances quoted by Ritschl, Rechtfert u. Verséhnung, I. Ὁ. 142 ff., 
 180 f. 
 
 Vv. 1-11.' Accordingly, the Christian is aloof from all condemnation, because 
 heis free from the law of sin—a result which the Mosaic law could not accomplish, 
 but which God has accomplished through Christ. Yet he must live according to 
 the Spirit, and not accordiny to the flesh; for the latter works death, but the 
 Jormer life. 
 
 Ver. 1. “Apa] draws an inference from the shang geval preceding αὐτὸς 
 ἐγώ. . . . ἁμαρτίας. If J, for my own person, left to myself, am subject 
 indeed with the reason to the law of God, but with the flesh to the law of 
 sin, then it follows that now, after Christ (as deliverer from the law of sin, 
 ver, 2) has interposed, there is no condemnation, etc. This inference, and 
 not that one must be in Christ, in order to get rid of every condemnation (Hof- 
 mann), is indicated by ydp in ver. 2 as a matter of fact that has become his- 
 torical. It is arbitrary to seek a connection with anything more remotely 
 preceding (Hofmann, Koppe, Fritzsche, Philippi, and Bisping, with eiya- 
 ριστῶ. . . . ἡμῶν in vii. 25 ; according to Bengel, Knapp, and Winzer, with 
 vii. 6) ; but to suppose in ἄρα ‘‘a forestalling of the following yap” (Tho- 
 luck), is linguistically just as mistaken as in the case of διό in ii. 1. More- 
 over, the emphasis is not upon viv, but on the prefixed οὐδέν : no condemna- 
 tion therefore, none is now applicable, after that αὐτὸς ἐγώ x.7.4. has been 
 changed through Christ, ete. This applies against Philippi’s objection, that, 
 according to our conception of the connection, viv should have been placed 
 at the beginning. But the objection, that Paul must have continued with 
 δέ instead of ἄρα, is removed by the observation that in the αὐτὸς ἐγώ, prop- 
 erly, understood, really lies the very premiss of the altered relation. — viv] 
 temporally, in contrast to the former state of the case. Comp. vil. 6. [See 
 Note XCI. p. 345.] Philippi erroneously holds dpa viv as equivalent to dpa 
 ovv—which it never is—being forced thereto by the theory that the regen- 
 erate person is the subject of discussion in chap. vii. 14 ff. Hofmann’s 
 view, however, that viv contrasts the present with the future αἰών (even now, 
 during the life in the flesh), is also incorrect. Nothing in the context sug- 
 gestsit, and it must have been expressed in some such way as by ἤδη, or by 
 a defining addition. — οὐδὲν κατάκριμα] se. ἐστι : no sentence of condemnation 
 (ver, 16), whereby God might deny them eternal life, affects them. The 
 reason see in ver. 2. — τοῖς ἐν X.’I.] i.e. to those in whose case Christ is the 
 element, in which they are (live and move). The same in substance, but 
 different in the form of the conception, is πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ ἔχειν and Χριστὸς ἐν 
 ὑμῖν in vv. 9, 10. 
 
 1 On vv. 1-11 see Winzer, Progr. 1828.— ματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, see Overbeck in Hil- 
 On ver. 3, particularly the words ἐν ὁμοιώ- genfeld’s Zeitschr. 1869, p. 178 ff. 
 
900 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ver. 2.1 [See, with reference to several words and phrases in vv. 2-11, 
 Note XCIIL. p. 346.] Hor the law of the Spirit leading to life delivered me in 
 Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. Yor the right explanation, it is to 
 be observed—(1) The νόμος τ. ἀμ. x. Tod Fav. necessarily, in view of the con- 
 nection, receives the definition of its meaning from chap. vii. 28, 20, as 
 indeed ἦλευϑ. answers to the αἱχμαλωτίζ. in ver, 23. For this very reason 
 neither the moral law (Wolf) nor the Mosaic law (Pareus, de Dieu, Semler, 
 Bobhme, Ammon, and Reiche) can be meant ; the latter cannot, for the fur- 
 ther reason that, after vii. 7, 12, 16, Paul could not thus name the Mosaic 
 νόμος here, as Chrysostom has already urged. It is rather the law in our 
 members, the power of sin in us, which, according to vii. 24, comp. vii. 10, 
 13, is at the same time the power of (eternal) death (καὶ τοῦ Gavdrov), that is 
 meant. The éwo are one power, and both genitives are genitives of the sub- 
 ject, so that sin and death are regarded as ruling over the man. — (2) Since 
 the νόμος τ. du. x. τ. Sav. cannot be the Mosaic law, so neither can the con- 
 trasted νόμος τ. πν. τῆς ζωῆς be the Christian plan of salvation, like νόμος riot. 
 in iii, 27, but it must be an inward power in the mai by which the law of 
 sin and death is rendered powerless. It is not, however, the νόμος τοῦ νούς 
 (which had become strengthened through Christ), as, following older ex- 
 positors, Morus, Kéllner, and Schrader think ; because, on the one hand, 
 γοῦς and πνεῦμα are specifically different, and if Paul had meant the law of 
 the νοῦς, he must have so designated it, as in vii. 23; and, on the other 
 hand, there would result the utterly paradoxical idea, that the law of reason 
 (and not the divine principle of the πνεῦμα) makes man morally free. The 
 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ζωῆς is rather the Holy Spirit, who, working inwardly in the 
 Christian (ver. 5), procures to him eternal life (comp. 2 Cor. iil. 6) ; and ὁ 
 νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωής is the ethically regulative government exercised by 
 the πνεῦμα (not the Spirit Himself, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Maier, and Th. Schott understand it, but His ruling power). — év X. ’I.] 
 On account of ver. 3, to be connected neither with τῆς ζωῆς (Luther, Beza, 
 and others, including Béhme, Klee, Ewald, and Hofmann), nor with τοῦ 
 πνεύμ. (Flatt ; Tholuck : ‘‘the sphere, in which the Spirit of life operates”), 
 nor with νόμος (Semler, Reiche), nor with ὁ νόμ. τ. wv. τ. ζ. (Calvin, K6llner, 
 Glickler, Krehl, and others), but with ἠλευϑέρωσε. So Theodoret, Erasmus, 
 Melanchthon, Vatablus, and others, including Riickert, Olshausen, de 
 Wette, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, and Bisping. Jn Christ, the 
 law of the Spirit has made us free ; for owt of Christ this emancipating ac- 
 tivity could not occur (comp. John viii. 86) ; but in the fellowship of life 
 with Him, in the being and living in Him (ver. 1), the deliverance which 
 has taken place has its causal ground. The view which takes it of the ob- 
 jective basis that is laid down in the appearance and work of Christ, is un- 
 suitable, because the discourse treats of the subjective ethical efficacy of the 
 Spirit, which has the εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ as the necessary correlative. — 7Aevs. | 
 
 1 Τῇ vy. 2,3, we have one of the passages the Son of God would have appeared as man, 
 that are decisive in opposition to the affirm- had man not become sinful. See generally 
 ative answer which men have often at- Julius Miiller, dogm. Abh. pp. 66 ff., 89 f. 
 tempted to give to the question, whether 
 
CHAP. ὙΠ. ὃς 901 
 
 aorist. For it isa historical act, which resulted from the effusion of the 
 Spirit in the heart. The progressive sanctification is the further develop- 
 ment and consequence of this act. 
 
 Ver. 3. An illustration justifying the ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ ἠλευϑ. «.7.A., Just 
 asserted, by a description of the powerfully effective actual arrangement, 
 which God has made for the accomplishment of what to the law was impos- 
 sible. —7rd γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου is an absolute nominative, prefixing a judg- 
 ment on the following κατέκρινε κιτ.3. ‘‘ For the impossible thing of the 
 law—God condemned,” etc. That is, God condemned sin in the flesh, which 
 was a thing of impossibility on the part of the law. See Kriiger, § 57. 10, 12. 
 Comp. also Heb. viii. 1, and on Luke xxi. 6 ; Wisd. xvi. 17 ; Kithner, II. 1, 
 
 p- 42. It could only be accusative, if we should assume a general verb (like - 
 ἐποίησε) out of what follows, which would, however, be an arbitrary course — 
 
 (in opposition to the view of Erasmus, Luther, and others). The prefixing 
 τ. y. ἀδύν. τ. v. has rhetorical emphasis, in contrast with the ἐν X. ’I. in ver. 2.? 
 
 On the genitive, comp. Epist. ad Diogn. 9 : τὸ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως, what - 
 
 our nature could not do. By a harsh hyperbaton Th. Schott takes a sense out 
 of the passage, which it does not bear : because the impotence of the law became 
 still weaker through the flesh. Erroneous is also Hofmann’s view : ‘‘ the 
 impotence of the law lay or consisted therein, that it was weak through the flesh.” 
 The abstract sense of ‘‘ powerlessness,” or incapacity, is not borne by τὸ ἀδύνατον 
 at all ; but it indicates that which the subject (here the νόμος) is not in a po- 
 sition for, what is impossible to it. See especially Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 295 
 E; comp. 9. 22; Xen. Hist. i. 4.6: ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως δυνατοῦ, t.e. from 
 what the city is in a position to tender. Moreover, since the words taken 
 independently, with Hofmann, would only contain a preparatory thought 
 for what follows, Paul would not have had asyndetically ὁ Θεός, but must 
 have proceeded by a marking of the contrast, consequently with ὁ dé Θεός ; 
 so that these words, down to κατὰ πνεῦμα in ver. 4, would still have been in 
 connection with γάρ. And even apart from this, the supplying of the sub- 
 stantive verb would at most only have been indicated for the reader in the 
 event of the proposition having been a general one with ἐστί " understood, 
 and consequently if ἀσϑενεῖ, and not ἠσϑένει, were read. —év ᾧ jot. διὰ τ, 
 capk.] because it was weak (unable to condemn sin) through the flesh, as is de- 
 scribed in chap. vii. On ἐν 6, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 4; John xvi. 30 ; Winer, 
 p. 362 [E. T. 387]. It is our causal in that ; dia τ. σαρκ. is the cause bringing 
 about the ἠσϑένει : through the reacting influence of the flesh, vii. 18 ff. — ὁ Θεὸς 
 τὸν ἑαυτοῦ x.7.2.] God has, by the fact that He sent. His own Son in the likeness 
 (see on i. 23) of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, condemned sin in the Jlesh, 
 that is, ‘‘God has deposed sin from its rule in the σάρξ (its previous sphere 
 of power), thereby that He sent His own Son into the world in a phenome- 
 nal existence similar to the sinful corporeo-psychical human nature.” — The 
 participle πέμψας is not an act that preceded the κατέκρινε (Hofmann, referring 
 
 1 Comp. Dissen, ad. Pind. Pyth. iv. 152. Hofmann, ἣν would not be a mere copula, 
 
 2 Like ver. 1. Paul would have written but would mean sifum erat, constitit in. 
 intelligibly: τὸ yap ἀδύνατ. τοῦ vou. ἐν τούῳ: Miircker, Ὁ. 25, nevertheless agrees with 
 ἣν ὅτι ἠσϑένει ; especially as, according to Hofmann. 
 
302 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 it to the supernatural birth) ; on the contrary, God has effected the κατάκρι- 
 σις in and with the having sent the Son. Respecting this use of the aorist 
 participle, comp. on Acts i. 24 ; Eph. i. 5 ; Rom. iv. 20. — ἑαυτοῦ] strength- 
 ens the relation to ἐν ὁμ. σ. au., and so enhances the extraordinary and ener- 
 getic character of the remedial measure adopted by God. Comp. ver. 32. 
 We may add, that in the case of ἑαυτοῦ, as in that of πέμψας (comp. Gal. iv. 
 4) and ἐν ὁμ. o. au. (comp. Phil. ii. 7), the conception of the pre-existence 
 and metaphysical Sonship of Christ is to be recognized (in opposition to 
 Hofmann) ; so that the previous μορφὴ Θεοῦ; forms the background, although, 
 in that case, the supernatural generation is by no means a necessary presup- 
 position (comp. on i. 3 f.)’— év ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας] in the likeness of sin- 
 Sul flesh ; ἁμαρτ. is the genitive of quality, as in vi. 6. He might indeed 
 have come ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, Phil. ii..6. But no : God so sent His own Son, that 
 He appeared in a form of existence which resembled the fleshly human nature 
 affected by sin. The ἐν indicates in what material mode of appearance God 
 caused His sent Son to emerge. He came in flesh (1 John iv. 2), and was 
 manifested in flesh (1 Tim. iii. 16). Yet He appeared not in sinful flesh,’ 
 which is otherwise the bodily phenomenal nature of allmen. Moreover, His 
 appearance was neither merely bodily, without the ψυχή (Zeller), which, on 
 the contrary, necessarily belongs to the idea of the σάρξ ; nor docetic (Krehl ; 
 comp. Baur’s Gesch. d. 3. erst. Jahrh. p. 310), which latter error was already 
 advanced by Marcion ; but it consisted of the general bodily material of 
 humanity, to which, however, in so far as the latter was of sinful quality, 
 it was not equalized, but—because without that quality—only conformed. 
 
 Comp: Phil. (7; Heb. 11.14, iv. 15. 
 
 1 See generally, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, 
 I. p. 235 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 317. 
 
 2In which, however, the idea is not con- 
 veyed, that, like a sacrifice, He was loaded 
 with the sin of others (Reiche), which was the 
 case only in His death, not at His sending. 
 Holsten, following the precedent of Genna- 
 dius in Cramer’s Cat. p. 123, has erroneous- 
 ly apprehended the σάρξ of Christ as having 
 been really σάρξ ἁμαρτίας, and as having thus 
 had the objective principle of ἁμαρτία, 
 which in his case, however, neither attained 
 to subjective consciousness nor to subject- 
 ive act. See Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. κι. Petr. 
 p. 486 ff.; comp. also Hausrath, newt. 
 Zeitgesch. 11. p.481f. Butif this was the con- 
 ception which Paul had, what was the ex- 
 pression ἐν ὁμοιώματι meant for? Init lies the 
 very negation of the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας--οὔ the 
 σάρξ, therefore, so far as it had the quality 
 of sin. What Holsten advances in explana- 
 tion of this expression is forced and irrele- 
 vant, as if it were precisely the reality of 
 the being affected by sin that is affirmed. 
 Comp. against this, Sabatier, l’apdtre Paul, 
 p. 285.—Overbeck, along with various ap- 
 propriate remarks in opposition to Holsten, 
 
 The contrast presupposed in the 
 
 comes nevertheless likewise to the conclu- 
 sion that ἐν ὁμοιώματι bears, not a negative, 
 but an affirmative relation to the σὰρξ 
 ἁμαρτίας, although the ἁμαρτία of the σάρξ 
 of Christ never in His case became conscious 
 παράβασις. But that the Son of God was 
 sent in sinful flesh—which, according to 
 Pfleiderer also (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 
 1871, p. 523), is assumed to be implied in our 
 passage as an ethical antinomy—would be 
 a paradox opposed to the entire New Tes- 
 tament, which Paul could by no means 
 utter (2 Cor. vy. 21); and which, in fact, he 
 with marked clearness and precision guards 
 against by saying, not ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτίας, but 
 ἐν ὁμοιώματι o. ἁμ., and that in contrast to 
 the quality of the σάρξ of all others, of 
 which he had just predicated by ἐν ᾧ ἠσϑένει 
 διὰ τῆς σαρκός a POWer 50 antagonistic to 
 God. That paradox would have run: ἐν 
 σαρκὶ μὲν ἁμαρτίας, χωρὶς δὲ παραβάσεως. See 
 also Zeller in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1870, p. 
 801 ff., who rightly comes to the conclusion 
 that the capé of Christ was of like nature to 
 the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, in so far as the latter was 
 a σάρξ, but of wnlike nature, in so far as it 
 was affected by sin. 
 
CHAP. ΠΥ ΠῚ 7 3. 803 
 specially chosen expression is not the heavenly spirit-nature of Christ 
 (Pfleiderer)—to which the mere ἐν σαρκί, or ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνϑρώπου, as in Phil. 
 ii. 7, would have corresponded—but rather holy unsinfulness.—The fol- 
 lowing x. περὶ duapr. adds to the How of the sending (ἐν du. cape. ἁμαρτ.) 
 the Wherefore. The emphasis is accordingly on περί : and for sin, on αὐ- 
 count of sin,—which is to be left in its generality ; for the following κατέ- 
 κρινε x.7.A. brings out something special, which God has done with reference 
 to the ἁμαρτία by the fact that He sent Christ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. We are there- 
 fore neither to refer περὶ ἁμαρτ., which affirms by what the sending of the 
 Son was occasioned, exclusively to the expiation (Origen, Calvin, Melanch- 
 thon, and many others, including Koppe, Béhme, Usteri ; comp. Baum- 
 garten-Crusius), in which case ϑυσίαν (Lev. vii. 37 al. ; Ps. xl. 6; Heb. x. 
 6, 18) was supplied ; nor, with Theophylact, Castalio, and others, also 
 Maier and Bisping, exclusively to the destruction and doing away of sin. 
 It contains rather the whole category of the relations in which the sending of 
 Christ was appointed to stand to human sin, which included therefore its 
 expiation as well as tne breaking of its power. The latter, however, is 
 thereupon brought into prominence, out of that general category, by xaré- 
 κρινε κιτ.. as the element specially coming into view. Hilgenfeld, in his 
 Zeitschr. 1871, p. 186 f., erroneously, as regards both the language and the 
 thought (since Christ was the real atoning sacrifice, ili. 25), makes καὶ περὶ 
 duapt., Which latter he takes in the sense of sin-offering, also to depend on 
 ἐν ὁμοιώματι. ---- κατέκρινε τ. ἀμ. This condemnation of sin (the latter conceived 
 as principle and power) is that which was impossible on the part of the law, 
 owing to the hindrance of the flesh. It is erroneous, therefore, to take it 
 as: ‘‘ He exhibited sin as worthy of condemnation” (Erasmus, de Dieu, Ecker- 
 mann), and: ‘‘ He punished sin” (Castalio, Pareus, Carpzov, and others, in- 
 cluding Koppe, Riickert, Usteri ; comp. Olshausen, and KG6stlin in the 
 Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 115). Lmpossible to the law was only swch, 
 a condemnation of sin, as should depose the latter from the sway which it 
 had hitherto maintained ; consequently : He made sin forfeit its dominion. 
 This de facto judicial condemnation (a sense which, though with different 
 modifications in the analysis of the idea conveyed by xaréxp., is retained by 
 Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Valla, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Bengel, 
 Reiche, K6llner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Baur, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Umbreit, 
 Ewald, and others) is designated by κατέκρινε, without our modifying its 
 verbal meaning into interfecit (Grotius, Reiche, Gléckler, and others), in 
 connection with which Fritzsche finds this death of the ἁμαρτία presented 
 as mors imaginaria, contained in the physical death of Christ. Various ex- 
 positors, and even Philippi, mix up the here foreign idea of atonement (‘‘ to 
 blot out by atoning”’) ; comp. also Tholuck and Hofmann. The expres- 
 
 1See, against this, also Rich. Schmidt, 
 Paul. Christol. p. 49 ff. He, however, takes 
 πέμψας likewise (comp. Hofmann) as prior 
 to the xaréxpive, holding that the latter, 
 which took place through the death of 
 Christ, had for its immediate object the σάρξ 
 and sin only asa mediate object. The mean- 
 
 ing, in his view, is: ‘‘ God has pronounced 
 sentence on the flesh, and therewith at the 
 same time on the sin dwelling in it.’? The de- 
 struction of Christ's flesh is thus an act of 
 universal significance, by which the flesh in 
 general, and therewith also sinitse/f, has 
 been condemned, But the text clearly and 
 
804 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 sion κατέκρινε is purposely chosen in reference to κατάκριμα in ver. 1, but de- 
 notes the actual condemnation, which consisted in the dominion of the 
 ἁμαρτία being done away,—its power was lost, and therewith God’s sentence 
 was pronounced upon it, as it were the staff broken over it. Comp. on 
 John xvi. 11 ; and see Hofmann’s Schriftb. 11. 1, p. 355, and Th. Schott, 
 p. 286. Yet Hofmann now discovers God’s actual condemnation of sin 
 (‘‘ the actual declaration that it is contrary to what is on His part rightful, 
 that it should have man like a bond-serf under its control”) in the eman- 
 cipation of those who are under sin by bestowal of the Spirit,—a view by 
 which what follows is anticipated, and that which is the divine aim of the 
 κατέκρινε is included in the notion of it.—Observe further the thrice-repeated 
 ἁμαρτία ; the last alone, however, which personifies sin as a power, has the 
 article. — ἐν τῇ σαρκί] belongs to κατέκρ., not to τὴν du. (Bengel, Ernesti, 
 Michaelis, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, and Hofmann), because it is not said τὴν ἐν 
 τ. o., and because this more precise definition, to complete the notion of the 
 object, would be self-evident and unimportant. But God condemned sin 
 in the flesh: for, by the fact that God’s own Son (over whom, withal, sin 
 could have no power) appeared in the flesh, and indeed περὶ ἁμαρτίας, sin has 
 ‘lost its dominion in the substantial human nature (hitherto ruled over by it). 
 The Lord’s appearance in flesh, namely, was at once, even in itself, for sin 
 the actual loss of its dominion as a principle ; and the aim of that appear- 
 ance, tepi-auaptiac, Which was attained through the death of Christ, brought 
 upon sin that loss with respect to its totality. Thus, by the two facts, God 
 has actually deprived it of its power in the human σάρξ ; and this phenom- 
 enal nature of man, therefore, has ceased to be its domain. Hofmann, 
 without reason, objects that τ. duapr. must in that case have stood before 
 κατέκρινε. ‘The main emphasis, in fact, lies on κατέκρινε τ. duapt., to which 
 then ἐν τ. σαρκί is added, with the further emphasis of a reference to the 
 causal connection. Many others take ἐν τ. σαρκί as meaning the body of 
 Christ ; holding that in this body put to death sin has been put to death at 
 the same time (Origen, Beza, Grotius, Reiche, Usteri, Olshausen, Maier, 
 Bisping, and others) ; or that the punishment of sin has been accomplished 
 on His body (Heumann, Michaelis, Koppe, and Flatt). But against this it 
 may be urged, that plainly ἐν τ. σαρκί corresponds deliberately to the pre- 
 vious διὰ τ. σαρκός ; there must have been αὐτοῦ used along with it. Comp. 
 Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 160f. 
 
 Ver. 4. The purpose which God had in this κατέκρ. τ. du. ἐν τ. σ. Was: in 
 order that (now that the rule of sin which hindered the fulfilment of the law 
 has been done away) the rightful requirement of the law miyht be fulfilled, etc. 
 — τὸ dix. τ. νόμου] Quite simply, as in i. 32, 11. 26 (comp. also on v. 16, and 
 Kriiger on Thue. i. 41. 1): what the law has laid down as its rightful de- 
 mand. The singular comprehends these collective (moral) claims of right 
 as a unity." Others, contrary to the signification of the word, have taken 
 
 expressly assigns, not the flesh, but τὴν material sphere, the act of the κατακρίνειν τὴν 
 ἁμαρτίαν, as the immediate object of κατέ- auapr. has taken place. 
 
 kptve, SO that an impartial exegesis can only 1 Many of the older dogmatic exegetes 
 discover in ἐν τῇ σαρκί, where, i.e. in what (see especially Beza, Calvin, Calovius, and 
 
CHAP. VIII., 4. 305 
 it as justificatio (Vulg.) understanding thereby sometimes the making right- 
 cous as the aim of the law, which desires sinlessness (Chrysostom and his 
 followers, including Theodore of Mopsuestia), sometimes the satisfaction of 
 justice (Rothe ; comp. on v. 10). Kdéllner, following Eckermann, makes it 
 the justifying sentence of the law: ‘that the utterance of the law, which de- 
 clares asrighteous, and thus not only frees from the punishment of sin, but 
 secures also the reward of righteousness, might be fulfilled on us, if we,” 
 ete. Substantially so (duc. = sententia absolutoria), Fritzsche, Philippi, and 
 Ewald (‘‘ the verdict of the law, since it has. condemnation only for the sin- 
 ners, and good promises for the remainder, Deut. xxviii. 1-14”). But against 
 this it may be urged, first, that δικαίωμα τ. νόμου, because the genitive is a 
 rule-prescribing subject, cannot, without urgent ground from the context, 
 be taken otherwise than as demand, rightful claim (comp. also Luke i. 6 ; 
 Heb. ix. 1, 10; LXX. Num. xxxi. 21) ; secondly, that vv. 3, 4 contain the 
 proof, not for οὐδὲν κατάκριμα in ver. 1, but for ver. 2, and consequently 
 ἡμῖν must be the counterpart of the state of bondage under the law 
 of sin and death (ver. 2)—the counterpart, however, not consisting in the 
 freedom from punishment and the certainty of reward, but in the morally 
 free condition in which one does what the law demands, being no longer 
 hampered by the power of sin and death, so that the fulfilment of the 
 δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου is the antithesis of the ἁμαρτία so strongly emphasized pre- 
 viously ; thirdly, that τοῖς μὴ . . . πνεῦμα is not the condition of justifica- 
 tion (that is faith), but of the fulfilment of the law ; and finally, that in ver. 
 7, τῷ yap νόμῳ τ. Θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ yap δύναται is manifestly the coun- 
 terpart of τὸ duc. τ. νόμου πληρωϑῇ In Ver. 8. --- πληρωθῇ] asin Matt. i. 1 ; 
 Acts xiv. 26; Rom. xiii. 8 ; Gal. v. 14, al. Those commentators who take 
 δικαίωμα as sententia absclutoria take πληρ. as may be accomplished on us (ἐν 
 ἡμῖν). -- ἐν ἡμῖν] Not: through us, nor yet: in us, which is explained as 
 either : in our life-activity (de Wette), or as referring to the inward fulfill- 
 ing of the law (Reiche, Klee, and Hofmann), and to the fact that God 
 fulfils it 7 man (Olshausen ; comp. Tholuck) ; but, as shown by the fol- 
 lowing τοῖς... περιπατοῦσιν k.T.2. : on us, 580 that the fulfilling of the law’s 
 demand shall be accomplished and made manifest in the entire walk and conver- 
 sation of Christians. This by no means conveys the idea of merely outward 
 action (as Hofmann objects), but includes also the inner morality accordant 
 with the law.’ Regarding this use of ἐν, see Bernhardy, p. 211 f. ; Winer, p. 
 361 [E. T. 386]. The passive form (not : wa πληρώσωμεν) is in keeping with 
 the conception that here the Jaz, and that so far as it must be fuljilled, stands 
 out in the foreground of the divine purpose. The accomplishment of its 
 moral requirement is supposed to present itself as realized in the Christian, 
 and that ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου of ver. 8 is assumed to be thereby remedied. — 
 
 Cite, 
 
 Wolf in Joc.) have explained The demand of 
 the law, and the mode of its fulfilment, 
 contrary to the context (since what is here 
 spoken of is the proper morality of the 
 Christian as emancipated), in such a way 
 that the law’s demand is to be understood 
 as well of the punishments which it would 
 
 require for transgression, as of the perfect 
 obedience which it desires to have ; Christ 
 having fulfilled both by His double obedi- 
 ence in our stead, so that the demand of 
 the law is fulfilled in us (by imputation). 
 1Comp. Ernesti Hthik ἃ. Ap. P. p. 69 f. 
 
306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα K.T.A.] quippe qui ambularemus, etc. These words give neg- 
 atively and positively the specific moral character, which is destined to be 
 found in Christians, so far as the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in 
 them. The μὴ is here, on account of the connection with iva, quite according 
 torule ; Bacumlein, Partik. p. 387 1. In what that fulfilment manifests itself 
 (Hofmann) Paul does not say,’ but he announces the moral regulative that 
 is to deternine the inward and outward life of the subjects. He walks ae- 
 cording to the flesh, who obeys the sinful lust dwelling in the σάρξ (vii. 18) ; 
 and he walks according to the Spirit, who follows the guidance, the impelling 
 and regulating power (ver. 2), of the Holy Spirit. The one excludes the 
 other, Gal. v. 16. To take πνεῦμα without the article (which, after the nature 
 of a proper noun, it did not all need), in a subjective sense, as the pneumatic 
 nature of the regenerate man, produced by the Holy Spirit (see esp. Harless 
 on Eph. ii. 22, and van Hengel)—as it is here taken, but independently of 
 the putting the article, by Bengel, Riickert, Philippi, and others, following 
 Chrysostom—is erroneous. See on Gal. v. 16. It never means, not even 
 in contrast to σάρξ," the ‘‘ renewed spiritual nature of man” (Philippi), but 
 the sanctifying divine principle itself, objectively, and distinct from the hu- 
 The appeal to John 111. 6 is erroneous. See on that passage. 
 
 Ver. 5. The apostle regards the description just given, τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα 
 «.T.4., aS too important not to follow it up with a justification corresponding 
 with its antithetical tenor, This he bases on the opposite φρονεῖν of the sul 
 jects, according to their opposite moral quality, so that the emphasis lies, 
 not upon ὄντες and φρονοῦσιν (Hofmann, ‘‘ as the being of the Ego is, so is 
 also its mental tendency”’), but, as shown by the antithesis οἱ dé «.7.4., simply 
 The ὄντες might be entirely omitted ; and ¢po- 
 vovow is the predicate to be affirmed of both parties, according to its differ- 
 ent purport in the two cases. — οἱ κατὰ σ. ὄντες] A wider conception (they 
 who are according to the flesh) than oi xk. o. repix. The latter is the manifes- 
 tation in life of the former. — τὰ τῆς σ. gpov.| whose thinking and striving are 
 directed to the interests of the flesh (the article τῆς. σ. makes the σάρξ objective 
 as something independent) ; so that thus, according to vii. 21 ff., the fulfil- 
 ment of the law is at variance with their efforts. Comp. on ¢pov., Matt. xvi. 
 23 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Col. iii. 2; Plat. Rep. p. 505 B ; 1 Macc. x. 20. 
 
 Ver. 6. A second γάρ. The former specified the reason (ver. 5), this 
 second is explicative (namely) ; asimilar repetition and mutual relation of yap 
 being common also in Greek authors. Comp. xi. 24 ; see on Matt. vi. 32, 
 xviil. 11 ; and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 840 ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 856. — The 
 striving of the flesh, namely (comp. νοῦς τῆς σαρκός in Col. ii. 18), tends to 
 bring man to (eternal) death (through sin), but the striving of the Holy Spirit 
 to conduct him to (eternal) life and blessedness (of the Messianic kingdom). 
 The explanation : the striving . . . has death as its consequence (Rickert, de 
 
 
 
 man πνεῦμα. 
 
 On κατὰ σάρκα and κ. πνεῦμα. 
 
 1This would have required the objective of dependence is given in the text. See 
 
 negation, since the negation would attach 
 to κατὰ σάρκα. In Plut. Lyc. 10, 19 (in oppo- 
 sition to Hofmann), the negation stands 
 along with the participle, and the relation 
 
 Hartung, Partikell. ΤΙ. p. 182. 
 
 2 Observe that in ver. 10 the contrast is 
 not σάρξ, but cHua—in opposition to Pflei- 
 derer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 177. 
 
CHAP. VIEL, “7-9: 30% 
 
 Wette, and many others), isright as to fact (comp. vi. 21), but fails to bring 
 out the personifying, vivid form of the representation, which, moreover, 
 does not permit us to introduce the analytic reflection, that the enmity 
 against God is the desire of the flesh ‘‘of itself,” and that it is death ‘on 
 account of God” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 563). That death is God’s penal 
 decree, is true ; but this thought does not belong here, where it is simply 
 the destructive effort of the σάρξ itself that is intended to be conveyed, and 
 that indeed, in accordance with the prevailing concrete mode of descrip- 
 tion, as a conscious effort, a real φρονεῖν, not as an impulse that makes the Ego 
 its captive (Hofmann), since the same predicate φρόνημα applies to the caps 
 as well as to the πνεῦμα. On εἰρήνη, blessedness, comp. ii. 10. Understood 
 in the narrower sense (peace with God), it would yicld a hysteronproteron, 
 which Fritzsche actually assumes. 
 
 Ver. 7. Διότι] propterea quod, introduces the reason why the striving of the 
 flesh can be nothing else than death, and that of the Spirit nothing else than 
 life and blessedness : for the former is enmity against God, the source of life ; 
 comp. Jas. iv. 4. The establishment of the second half of ver. 6 Paul leaves 
 out for the present, and only introduces it subsequently at vv. 10, 11, in 
 another connection of ideas.—The ἔχϑρα εἰς Θεόν has its ground assigned 
 by τῷ y. νόμῳ τ. O. οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, Of Which τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός is still the 
 subject (not ἡ σάρξ, as Hofmann quite arbitrarily supposes) ; and the inward 
 cause of this reality based on experience is afterwards specified by οὐδὲ yap 
 δύναται (for it is not even possible for it). — δύναται) namely, according to its 
 unholy nature, which maintains an antagonistic attitude to the will of God. 
 This does not exclude the possibility of conversion (comp. Chrysostom), 
 after which, however, the σάρξ with its φρόνημα 15 ethically dead (Gal. v. 24). 
 Comp. vi. 6 ff. 
 
 Ver. 8. Aé] is not put for οὖν (Beza, Calvin, Koppe, and others ; comp. 
 also Riickert and Reiche), but is the simple μεταβατικόν (autem), which, after 
 the auxiliary clauses τῷ y. νόμῳ... . δύναται, leads over to a relation correspond- 
 ing to the main proposition τὸ gp. τ. σάρκ. ἔχϑρα εἰς Θεόν, and referring to the 
 persons in the concrete. The propriety of this connection will at once be 
 manifest if ray. νόμῳ. . . δύναται be read more rapidly (like a parenthesis). 
 According to Hofmann, the progress of thought is now supposed to 
 advance from the condemnation of sin to the freedom from death. But such 
 a scheme corresponds neither with the preceding, in which sin and death 
 were grouped together (vv. 2, 6), nor with what follows, where in the first 
 instance there is no mention of death, and it is only in ver. 10 f. that the 
 special point is advanced of the raising from the dead. — ἐν σαρκί] is in sub- 
 
 stance the same as κατὰ σάρκα in ver. 5; but the form of the conception is τ᾿ 
 
 those who are in the flesh as the ethical life-element, in which they subsist, 
 and which is the opposite of the εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι in ver. 9, and ἐν Χριστῷ in 
 ver. 1. Comp. on vii. 5. The one excludes the other, and the former, as 
 antagonistic to God, makes the ἀρέσαι Θεῷ (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 15, iv. 1) an 
 impossibility. 
 
 Ver. 9. Antithetic (ye on the other hand) application of ver. 8 to the 
 readers, — εἴπερ] To take this word as guandoquidem, with Chrysostom and 
 
308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 others, including Olshausen, is not indeed contrary to linguistic usage, since, 
 like εἰ in the sense of ἐπεί (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195), εἴπερ also is used 
 in the sense of ἐπείπερ (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 26). But in the 
 present instance the context does not afford the smallest ground for this 
 view ; on the contrary, the conditional signification : if certainly, if other- 
 wise (see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 528; Baeuml. Partik. p. 202), is perfectly 
 suitable, and with it the following antithetic εἰ dé corresponds. It con- 
 veys an indirect incitement to self-examination. We may add that Paul 
 might also have written εἴγε without changing the sense (in opposition 
 to Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834). See on 2 Cor. v. 3; Gal. iii. 4 5 
 Eph. 111. 2. — οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν] That is, has the seat of His presence and activity 
 inyou. The point of the expression is not the constantly abiding (‘‘ stabile 
 domicilium,” Fritzsche and others ; also Hofmann) ; in that case it would 
 have needed a more precise definition (see, on the contrary, the simple ov« 
 ἔχει that follows). Respecting the matter itself and the conception, see 
 1 Cor: iii. 16, vi. 17, 19; 2 Tim. i. 14; John xiv. 23.1 The ἐν rvetipars, 
 which is not to be taken as ‘‘ in the spiritual nature” (Philippi), and the mv. 
 Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν b wiv said with a significant more precise definition of πνεῦμα, 
 stand towards one dnother in an essential mutual relation. The former is 
 conditioned by the latter ; for if the Spirit of God do not dwell in the 
 man, He cannot be the determining element in which the latter lives. Com- 
 pare the Johannine: ‘‘ye in me, and I in you.” According to Hofmann, 
 the relation consists in the Spirit being on the one hand,” ‘‘as active life- 
 ground,” the absolutely inward, and on the other “as active ground of all 
 life,” that which embraces all living. This, however, is a deviation from the 
 specific strict sense of the πνεῦμα, which, in accordance with the context, 
 can only be that Holy Spirit who is given to believers ; and the concrete 
 conception of the apostle receives the stamp of an abstraction. — εἰ δέ 
 τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ «.7.A.] Antithesis of εἴπερ. . . ὑμῖν, rendering very 
 apparent the necessity of that assumption. ‘‘ Jf, on the other hand, any one 
 have not the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him,” is not in communion 
 of life with Christ, is not a true Christian ; for αὐτοῦ refers to Christ, not to 
 God (van Hengel). Moreover, it is not the non-Christians, but the seeming- 
 Christians (comp. 1 John iv. 13), who are characterized as those who have 
 not the Spirit. —avetua Χριστοῦ] (comp. Phil. i. 19 ; 1 Pet. i. 11) is none 
 other than the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God. He is so called because the 
 exalted Christ really communicates Himself to His own in and with the 
 Paraclete (John xiv.), so that the Spirit is the living principle and the 
 organ of the proper presence of Christ and of His life in them.? Comp. on 
 maCor., 11616 5° Gals di) 20)i1v.6 phy iis We ΘΌΙΜΕΙ Ὁ Acts avin ens 
 That this, and not perchance the endowment of Christ with the Spirit 
 (Fritzsche), is the view here taken, is clearly proved by the following εἰ δὲ 
 
 1Comp. also Ey. Thom. 10: πνεῦμα Θεοῦ I. p. 268. 
 ἐνοικεῖ ἐν τῷ παιδίῳ τούτῳ. See passages from 2 Bengel: “‘testimonium illustre de sancta 
 Rabbinic writers on the dwelling of the ‘Trinitate ejusque oeconomia in corde 
 Holy Spirit in man, quoted by Schoettgen, _fidelium.”’ 
 p. 527; Hisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum, 
 
CHAP. Viti, 5.10; 309 
 
 Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 346. The designation of 
 the Holy Spirit by πν. Χριστοῦ is purposely selected in order to render very 
 conspicuous the truth of the οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ. Kéllner wrongly lays down 
 a distinction between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ ; making 
 the former the highest πνεῦμα, the source and perfection of all πρεῦμα, and 
 the latter the higher God-resembling mind that was manifested in Christ. 
 But a distinction between them is not required by vv. 10, 11 (see on that 
 passage), and is decisively forbidden by Gal. iv. 6, compared with Rom. 
 vili. 14-16. We cannot even say, therefore, with Umbreit : ‘the Spirit of 
 Christ is the medium, through which man obtains the Spirit of God ;” nor, 
 with van Hengel, who compares Luke ix. 55: ‘‘si vero quis Spiritum, qui 
 Christi est, cum eo non habet communem,” with which Paul would here be 
 aiming at the (alleged) Judaism of the Romans. 
 
 Ver. 10. The contrast to the foregoing. ‘‘ Whosoever has not the Spirit of 
 Christ, is not His ; if, on the other hand, Christ (i.e. πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, see on 
 ver. 9) 7s im you,” then ye enjoy the following blissful consequences :—(1) 
 Although the body is the prey of death on account of sin, nevertheless the 
 Spirit is life on account of righteousness, ver. 10. (2) And even the mor- 
 tal body shall be revivified by Him who raised up Christ from the dead, 
 because Christ’s Spirit dwelleth in you, ver. 11.—Vv. 10 and 11 have been 
 rightly interpreted as referring to life and death in the proper (physical) 
 sense by Augustine (de. pece. merit. et rem. i. 7), Calvin, Beza, Calovius, 
 Bengel, Michaelis, Tholuck, Klee, Flatt, Riickert, Reiche, Gléckler, Usteri, 
 Fritzsche, Maier, Weiss 1.6. p. 872, and others. For, jirst, on account of 
 the apostle’s doctrine regarding the connection between sin and death (v. 
 12) with which his readers were acquainted, he could not expect his τ᾿ σῶμα 
 νεκρ. Ov au. to be understood in any other sense ; secondly, the parallel be- 
 tween the raising up of Christ from death, which was in fact bodily death, 
 and the quickening of the mortal bodies does not permit any other view, 
 since ζωοπ. stands without any definition whatever altering or modifying 
 the proper sense : and lastly, the proper sense is in its bearing quite in har- 
 mony with the theme of ver. 2 (which is discussed in vv. 3-11): for the 
 life of the Spirit unaffected by physical death (ver. 10), and the final reviv- 
 ification also of the body (ver. 11), just constitute the -highest consumma- 
 tion, and as it were the triumph, of the deliverance from the law of sin 
 and death (ver. 2). These grounds, collectively,’ tell at the same time 
 against the divergent explanations : (1) that in vv. 10, 11 it is spiritual 
 death and life that are spoken of ; so Erasmus, Piscator, Locke, Heumann, 
 Ch. Schmidt, Stolz, Béhme, Benecke, Kéllner, Schrader, Stengel, Krehl, 
 and van Hengel. (2) That ver. 10 is to be taken in the spiritual, but ver. 
 11 in the proper sense ; so Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 
 1 They do not permit, moreover, any such 
 widening of the idea, as Philippi and Hof- 
 mann give to it. The former declares death 
 to be, like the σῶμα itself, spiritual-bodily ; 
 as such itis even now the overruling princi- 
 ple, inhabiting soul and body. According 
 
 to Hofmann, the body is meant as in that 
 death-condition which only finds its conc/u- 
 sion in dying, but in virtue of all this there 
 is already present that, which makes the 
 body incapable of being a manifestation of 
 true life. 
 
510 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Grotius, Koppe, Olshausen, Reithmayr, and others ; de Wette unites the 
 moral and physical sense in both verses, comp. also Nielsen and Umbreit ; see 
 the particulars below. — νεκρόν] With this corresponds the ϑνητά in ver. 11. 
 It conveys, however, the idea ‘‘ conditioni mortis obnoxium” (Augustine) more 
 forcibly, and so as vividly to realize the certain result—he is dead !—a pro- 
 lepsis of the final fate, which cannot now be altered or avoided. Well is 
 it said by Bengel: ‘‘magni vi; morti adjudicatum deditumque.” Our 
 body is a corpse! Analogous is the ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέϑανον in vii. 10, though in that 
 passage not used in the sense of physical death ; comp. Rev. iii. 1.1. The 
 commentators who do not explain it of physical death are at variance. And 
 how surprising the diversity ! Some take vexp. as a favourable predicate, 
 embracing the new birth = ϑανατωϑὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (So With linguistic Inaccu- 
 racy even on account of δέ au., Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, and with various modifications, also Erasmus, Raphel, Grotius, 
 Locke, Heumann, Béhme, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, and Miircker ; 
 comp. van Hengel, ‘‘mortui instar ad inertiam redactum”). Others take 
 it as: miserable by reason of sin (Michaelis, Koppe, Kéliner), comp. de 
 Wette : ‘Even in the redeemed there still remains the sinful inclination as 
 source of the death, which expresses its power ;” Krehl as: ‘‘ morally 
 dead ;” Olshausen : ‘Snot in the glory of its original destiny ;” Tholuck : 
 in the sense of vii. 10 f., but also ‘‘ including in itself the elements of moral 
 life-disturbance and of misery.”” Since, however, it is the bedy that is just 
 spoken of, and since δ ἁμαρτίαν could only bring up the recollection of the 
 proposition in vy. 12, every view, which does not understand it of bodily 
 death, is contrary to the context and far-fetched,’ especially since ϑνητά in 
 ver. 11 corresponds to it. — δ ἁμαρτίαν] The ground : on account of sin, in 
 consequence of sin (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 419), which is more precisely known 
 from v. 12. Death, which has arisen and become general through the en- 
 trance of sin into the world, can be averted in no case, not even in that of 
 the regenerate man. Hence, even in his case, the body is νεκρόν δ ἁμαρτίαν. 
 But how completely different is it in Ais case with the spirit! Τὸ vend, 
 namely, in contrast to the σῶμα, is necessarily not the transcendent (Holsten) 
 or the Holy Spirit (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, and others) ; 
 nor yet, as Hofmann turns the conception, the spirit which we now have 
 when Christ is in us and His righteousness is ours; but simply our hu- 
 man spirit, i.e. the substratum of the personal self-consciousness, and as 
 
 
 
 such the principle of the higher cognitive and moral activity of life as 
 directed towards God, different from the ψυχή, which is to be regarded as 
 the potentiality of the human natural life. The faculty of the πνεῦμα is the 
 νοῦς (vii. 25), and its subject the moral Ego (vii. 15 ff.), That the spirit of 
 those who are here spoken of is filled with the Holy Spirit, is in itself a 
 correct inference from the presupposition εἰ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, but is not im- 
 
 1 Also ἔμψυχον νεκρόν, Soph. Ané. 1167 ; 
 Epict. /7. 176 : ψυχάριον εἶ βαστάζον νεκρόν. 
 
 2Even though it be explained with 
 Ewald, referring to vi. 2 ff., ‘‘ dead on ac- 
 count of sin, in order that the latter should 
 
 not again rule.’’ Comp. van Hengel: “ ne 
 peccati principio serviat.”” But how gratui- 
 tously is this negative sense imported into 
 the positive expression ! 
 
CHAP. VIET. , 11; 811 
 
 plied in the word τὸ πνεῦμα, as if this meant (Theodoret and de Wette) the 
 human spirit pervaded by the Divine Spirit, the pneumatic essence of the 
 regenerate man. That is never the case ; comp. on ver. 16. — ζωή] i.e. life 
 is his essential element ; stronger than ζῇ, the reading of F. G. Vulg. and 
 mss. of the It. Comp. vii. 7. With respect to the spirit of the true Chris- 
 tian, therefore, there can be no mention of death (which would of necessity 
 be eternal death) ; comp. John xi. 26. He is eternally alive, and that διὰ 
 δικαιοσύνην, on account of righteousness ; for the eternal ζωή is based on the 
 justification thes has taken place for Christ’s sake and is appropriated by 
 faith. Riickert, Reiche, Fritzsche, Philippi (comp. also Hofmann), fol- 
 lowing the majority of ancient expositors, have properly taken δικαιοσύνην 
 thus in the Pauline-dogmatic sense, seeing that the moral righteousness of life 
 (Erasmus, Grotius, Tholuck, de Wette, Klee, and Maier) because never 
 perfect (1 Cor. iv. 4; Phil. iii. 9, a/.), can never be ground of the ζωή. If, 
 however, διὰ δικαιοσύνην be rendered : for the sake of righteousness, ‘‘ in order 
 that the latter may continue and rule” (Ewald, comp. van Hengel), it 
 would yield no contrast answering to the correct interpretation of νεκρὸν δι᾽ 
 du. It is moreover to be noted, that as δ’ duapr. does not refer to one’s 
 own individual sin (on the contrary, see on ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, Vv. 12), so 
 neither does διὰ δικαιοσύνην refer to one’s own rightéousness. — Observe, 
 further, the fact that, and the mode in which, the δικαιοσύνη may be lost 
 according to our passage, namely, if Christ is not in us,—a condition, by 
 which the moral nature of the δικαιοσύνη is laid down and security is guard- 
 ed against. 
 
 Ver. 11. According to ver. 10, there was still left one power of death, 
 that over the body. Paul now disposes of this also, and hence takes up 
 again, not indeed what had just been inferred (Hofmann, in accordance 
 with his view of τὸ πνεῦμα, ver. 10), but the idea conditioning it, εἰ δὲ X. ἐν 
 bu. ; not, however, in this form, but, as required by the tenor of what he 
 intends to couple with it, in the form : εἰ dé τ. wv. τοῦ éyerp. "I. ἐκ νεκρ. οἰκεῖ 
 ἐν ὑμῖν. In substance the two are identical, since the indwelling of the 
 Divine Spirit in us is the spiritual indwelling of Christ Himself in us. See 
 on ver. 9.—The δέ, therefore, simply carries on the argument, namely, from 
 the spirit which is ζωή (ver. 10), to the quickening that is certain even in 
 the case of the mortal body (for observe the position of the καῦ. The 
 apostle’s inference is: ‘‘The Spirit who dwelleth in you is the Spirit of 
 Him that raised up Jesus ; consequently God will also, with respect to your 
 bodies, as Awelling-places of His Spirit, do the same as He has done in the 
 case of Christ.” The self-evident presupposition in this inference is, that 
 the Spirit of God dwelt in Jesus during His earthly career (Luke iv. 1, 14, 
 
 18; Acts i. 2; John iii, 34, xx. 99). --- ζωοποιήσει] Not ἐγερεῖ, but the 
 correlate of ζωή ver. 10 (comp. ver. 6), and counterpart of νεκρόν and ϑνητά, 15 
 purposely selected. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22. — ϑνητά] What he had previ- 
 
 ously expressed proleptically by νεκρόν, he here describes according to the 
 reality of the present by ϑνητά. Observe, moreover, that Paul leaves out of 
 view the fate of those still living at the Parousia. Their change is not included 
 in the expression ζωοποιήσει (Hofmann), a view which neither the sense of 
 
512 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the word (comp. iv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 36 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; John v. 21) nor 
 the correlation with ἐγείρας permits. But to the readers’ consciousness of 
 faith it was self-evident from the analogy of what is here said to them with 
 reference to the case of their being already dead at the Parousia ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 51 ; 2 Cor. v. 2-4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15-17.—On the interchange of ’Ijcovv 
 and τὸν Χριστόν Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘ Appellatio Jesw spectat ad ipsum ; 
 Christi refertur ad nos ;” for Jesus as Christ is destined to be the archetype 
 for believers even in an eschatological respect. — διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν K.7.2.] on 
 account of His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Observe the emphatic prefixing 
 of the αὐτοῦ relating to God. How could God, the Raiser up of Christ, who 
 was the possessor of His Spirit, leave the bodies of believers, which are the 
 dwelling-places of the same Spirit, without quickening ? The more char- 
 acteristic ἐνοικοῦν (previously it was only οἰκεῖ) is a climax to the representa- 
 tion.—KOllner’s explanation may serve to exemplify the conception of our 
 passage in an ethical sense (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others) : ‘‘So will 
 He who raised up Jesus from the dead bring to life also your bodies that 
 are still subject to death (sin and misery), that is, ennoble also your sensuous 
 nature and so perfect you entirely.” But even apart from this arbitrary inter- 
 pretation given to the simple ϑνητά (which ought rather with van Hengel to 
 be interpreted : ‘‘quamquam mortalia ideoque minoris numeri sunt”), how 
 diffuse and verbose would be the whole mode of expressing the simple 
 thought ! How utterly out of place this dualism of the representation, as if 
 the divine work of the moral revivification of the body were something inde- 
 pendent, alongside of and subsequent to that of the spirit! See, moreover, 
 generally on ver. 10,and the appropriate remarks of Reiche, Commentar 
 crit. I. Ὁ. 62 ff. Lastly, according to de Wette’s combination of the two 
 senses—the moral and the physical—the thought is : ‘‘This death-over- 
 coming Spirit of God shall destroy more and more the principle of sin and 
 death in your bodies, and instead of it introduce the principle of the life- 
 bringing Spirit into your whole personality, even into the body itself,”’— 
 a thought which opens up the prospect of the future resurrection or change 
 of the body. But the resurrection will be participated in by all believers 
 at once, independently of the development noticed in our passage, by which 
 their bodies would have first to be made ripe for it ; and even the change of 
 the living at the Parousia is, according to 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff., not a process 
 developed from within outwardly, but a result produced in a twinkling 
 from without (at the sound of the last trumpet),—a result, which cannot be 
 the final consequence of the gradual inward destruction of the principle of 
 sin and death, because in that case all could not participate in it simultane- 
 ously, which nevertheless is the case, according to 1 Cor. xv. 51. Notwith- 
 standing, this view, which combines the spiritual and bodily process of 
 glorification, has been again brought forward by Philippi, according to 
 whom what is here meant is the progressive merging of death into life, which 
 can only be accomplished ' by the progressive merging of sin into the righteous- 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ΤΆ it be attempted to apply this view to of application to all those to whom no 
 the different subjects concerned, the ab- time is afforded between their conversion 
 surdity is encountered, that itis incapable and their death, or between their conver- 
 
CHAPS ὙΠῚΠ 1. 18: 313 
 
 ness of life, and of the σῶμα into the πνεῦμα (ἢ). The simple explanation of 
 the resurrection of the body is rightly retained by Tholuck, Umbreit, Hof- 
 mann, Weiss, and others ; whilst Ewald contents himself with the indcter- 
 minate double sense of eternal life beginning in the mortal body. 
 
 Vv. 12-17. Accordingly we are bound not to live carnally, for that brings 
 death ; whereas the government of the Spirit, on the other hand, brings life, be- 
 cause we, as moved by the Spirit, are children of God, and as such are sure of . 
 the future glory. 
 
 Ver. 12. "Apa οὖν] Draws the inference not merely from ver. 11, but from 
 the contents closely in substance bound up together of vv. 10, 11. ‘‘Since 
 these blissful consequences are conditioned by the Spirit that dwelleth in 
 us, we are not bound to give service to the flesh.” That has not deserved 
 well of us !—oi τῇ σαρκὶ. . . ζῆν] In the lively progress of his argument, 
 Paul leaves the counterpart, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι, Tov κατὰ πνεῦμα ζῆν, Without 
 direct expression ; but it results self-evidently for every reader from ver. 13. 
 [See Note XCIII. p. 848.] — τοῦ «. σ. ζῆν] in order to live carnally. This would 
 be the aim of our relation of debt to the flesh, if such a relation existed Ξ 
 we should have the carnal mode of life for our task. Fritzsche thinks that 
 it belongs to ὀφ. : ‘‘Sumus debitores non carni obligati, nempe debitores 
 vitae ex carnis cupiditatibus instituendae ;” so also Winer, p. 306 [E. T. 
 326]. But in Gal. v. 3 Paul couples it with the simple infinitive ; as in 
 Soph. Aj. 587, Eur. Rhes. 965. Since he here says τοῦ ζῆν that telic view is 
 all the more to be preferred, by which the contents of the obligation (so 
 Hofmann) is brought out as its destination for us. The édea conveyed by 
 κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν is that of being alive (contrast to dying) according to the rule 
 and standard of σάρξ, so that σάρξ is the regulative principle. The more pre- 
 cise and definite idea : carnal bliss (Hofmann), is not expressed. We should 
 note, moreover, τῇ capx? with the article (personified), and κατὰ σάρκα with- 
 out it (qualitative), ver. 5. 
 
 Ver. 13. Reason for ver. 12—‘ for so ye would attain the opposite of your 
 destination, as specified in vv. 10, 11.” The μέλλειν (comp. iv. 24) indicates 
 the ‘‘certum et constitutum esse secundum vim (divini) fati.” Ellendt, Lez. 
 Soph. IL. p. 72. --- ἀποϑνήσκειν] The opposite of the Cof in ver. 10 f. ; conse- 
 quently used of the being transferred into the state of eternal death ; and 
 then ζήσεσϑε in the sense of eternal life (see ver. 17). Comp. vil. 10, 24, viii. 
 6,10. This dying does not exclude the resurrection of the body (Riickert), 
 but points to the unblissful existence in Hades before (Luke xvi. 28) and 
 after (comp. Matt. x. 28) the judgment. If it were true that Paul did not 
 believe in a resurrection for unbelievers, he would stand in direct antago- 
 nism to John v. 28 f.; Acts xxiv. 15; Matt. v. 29 f., x. 28; and even 1 
 Cor. xv. 24 (see on that passage). Here also Philippi combines bodily, spir- 
 itual, and eternal death ; but see above, on Rom. v. 19. And here it may 
 be specially urged against this view, that the dying and living are assigned 
 purely to the region of the future. Oecumenius aptly says : τὸν ἀϑάνατον 
 
 sion and the Parousia, for the develop- yields an idea which would even ἃ priori, 
 ment of the alleged spiritual-bodily process _ in the generality in which Paul would haye 
 of glorification. This exposition, therefore, expressed it, lack truth. 
 
914 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ϑάνατον ἐν τῇ γεέννῃ. --- πνεύματι] 1.6. by means of the Holy Spirit, comp. vv. 4, 
 5, 6, 9, and the following πνεύματι Θεοῦ ; Consequently here also not sub- 
 jective (Philippi and others: ‘‘ pneumatic condition of mind’’). — τὰς 
 πράξεις τοῦ cou. | The practices (tricks, machinations, see on Col. iii. 9 ; Luke 
 xxiii, 51 ; Acts xix. 18 ;’ which the body (in accordance with the νόμος ἐν τοῖς 
 μέλεσι, Vil. 23) desires to carry out. These we make dead (ϑανατοῦτε), when 
 the Ego, following the drawing of the Holy Spirit, conquers the lusts that 
 form their basis ; so that they do not come to realization, and are reduced 
 to nothing. Σῶμα is not used here for σάρξ (Reiche and others) ; Paul has 
 not become inconsistent with his own use of language (Stirm in Tiib. 
 Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 11), but has regarded the (in itself indifferent) σῶμα as 
 the executive organ of the sin, which, dwelling in the σάρξ of the body, 
 rules over the body, and makes it the σῶμα ἁμαρτίας (vi. 6), if the Spirit does 
 not obtain the control and make it His organ. The term πράξεις, further 
 used by Paul only in Col. 111. 9 (not ἔργα), is purposely selected to express the 
 evil conception, which Hofmann (‘‘ acts”) without any ground calls in ques- 
 tion. It is frequently used thus by Greek authors, as also πράγματα. --- Το 
 alternating antithesis is aptly chosen, so that in the two protases living and 
 putting to death, in the apodoses death and life, stand constrasted with one 
 another. 
 
 Ver. 14. Reason assigned for the ζήύσεσϑε. “ὁ For then ye belong, as led 
 by God, to the children of God (for whom the life of the Messianic king- 
 dom is destined, ver. 17 ; Gal. iv. 7). Theodore of Mopsuestia : δῆλον οὖν 
 ὅτι οἱ τοιοῦτοι τὴν μακαρίαν ζωὴν παρὰ τῷ ἑαυτῶν πατρὶ ζήσονται. --- ἄγονται] i.e. are 
 determined in the activity of their inward and outward life. Comp. ii. 4 ; 
 Gal. v. 18; 2 Tim. iii. 6. 5 The expression is passive (hence the dative), 
 though without prejudice to the freedom of the human will, as ver. 13 
 proves. ‘‘ Non est enim coactio, ut voluntas non possit repugnare : trahit 
 Deus, sed volentem trahit,”’ Melanchthon. — vioi Θεοῦ] Thus Paul elevates the 
 hallowed theocratic conception, ix. 5, to the purely moral idea, which is real- 
 ized in the case of those who are led by the Divine Spirit (which is granted 
 only to those who believe in Christ, Gal. iii. 26). The οὗτοι is therefore not 
 unemphatic (Hofmann)—which would make it quite superfluous—but has 
 an excluding and contrasting force (these and no others, comp. Gal. iii. 7). 
 Next to it υἱοὶ has the stress (hence its position immediately after οὗτοι, see 
 the critical remarks), being conceived already as in contrast to δοῦλοι, see ver. 
 15. The υἱοὶ Θεοῦ are those who have been justified by faith, thereby law- 
 fully received by Him into the fellowship of children with a reconciled 
 Father (ver. 15), governed by the Holy Spirit given unto them (comp. Gal. 
 iv. 6), exalted to the dignity of the relation of brethren to Christ (ver. 29). 
 and sure of the eternal glory (of the inheritance). For a view of the rela- 
 tion in question under its various aspects in Paul, John, and the Synoptics, 
 see on John i. 12. 
 
 1Dem. 126. 22); Polyb. ii. 7, 8, ii. 9. 2, iv. Ο΄. 254 (Reisig, Hnarr. Ὁ. LXI.) ; Plat. Phaed. 
 8. 3, v. 96.4; and Sturz, Zea. Xen. III. p. p. 94 E: ἄγεσϑαι ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ σώματος παϑημά- 
 646. των. 
 
 2 Soph. Ant. 620: ὅτῳ φρένας ϑεὸς ayer, Oed. 
 
CHAP. Vill., 1. 315 
 
 Ver. 15 assigns the ground for ver. 14 in application to the readers, 
 For ye received not, when the Holy Spirit was communicated to you, ὦ spirit 
 of bondage, that is, a spirit such as is the regulating power in the state of 
 slavery." This view of the genitive (Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi) is 
 required by the contrast ; because the viodecia, when the Spirit is given, is 
 already present, having entered, namely, through faith and justification 
 (Gal. iv. 6). Hence it cannot, with others (Kéllner, Riickert, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Hofmann, Reithmayr, following Theodore of Mopsuestia and 
 others), be taken as the genitive of the effect (who works bondage). This 
 also holds against Lipsius, Rechtfertigungslehre, p. 170. — πάλιν εἰς φόβον] 
 again to fear, conveys the aim of the (denied) ἐλάβ. πν. δουλ., so that πάλιν, 
 as its very position shows, gives a qualification, not of ἐλάβ., but of εἰς 
 963. : “‘in order that ye should once more (as under the law working 
 wrath) be afraid.” — πνεῦμα υἱοϑεσ. | i.e. a spirit which, in the state of adoption, 
 is the ruling principle. Ὑἱοϑεσία is the proper term for adoption (ϑέσϑαι υἱόν, 
 Plat. Legg. xi. Ὁ. 9929 Ο ; Arr. An. i. 23..11) ; see Grotius and Fritzsche, 
 in loc. ; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 64. 15 ; comp. on Gal. iv. 5 ; also Weiss, 
 bibl. Theol. p. 340. Therefore not sonship in general (the Patristic υἱότης), 
 as is the view of the majority ; it is rightly rendered in the Vulgate : 
 “ adoptions filiorum ,;” it does not represent believers as children of God by 
 birth, but as those who by God’s grace (Eph. i. 5-8) have been assumed into 
 the place of children, and as brethren of Christ (ver. 29). Those thus 
 adopted receive the Spirit from God, but are not begotten to sonship through 
 the Spirit (Hofmann) ; comp. Weiss, J.c.—The repetition of ἐλάβετε 
 πνεῦμα has a certain solemnity. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Phil. iv. 17. —év 6] 
 in whom, as in the element that moves our inner life. Comp. on 1 Cor. 
 xii. 3; Eph. ii. 18. -- κράζομεν] we ery, the outburst of fervid emotion in 
 prayer. Comp. on Gal. iv. 6. The transition to the first person takes place 
 without special intention, under the involuntary pressure of the sense of 
 fellowship. —’AGBa] See on Mark xiv. 36, and Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 20. 
 From the three passages, Mark, /.c., Gal. iv. 6, and our present one, it may 
 be assumed that the address 838 was transferred from the Jewish into the 
 Christian prayers, and in the latter received the consecration of special 
 sanctity through Christ Himself, who as Son thus addressed the Father. 
 This ᾿Αββᾶ gradually assumed the nature of a proper name; and thus it 
 came that the Greek-praying Christians retained the Chaldee word in a 
 vocative sense as ὦ proper name, and further, in the fervour of the feeling 
 of sonship, added along with it the specifically Christian address to the 
 Father, using the appellative ὁ πατήρ in the appositional nominative (Kiihner, 
 
 1 Πνεῦμα Sova. is therefore what the Holy position of mind such as one has in slavery 
 Spirit received is not. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 7. (childhood).” Vy. 14, 16 ought to have 
 Altogether contrary to the context, Gro- precluded such a view. Chrysostom, The- 
 tius, Michaelis, and others understand odoret, and others understood it directly 
 affectus servilis, taking it consequently not of τὸ γράμμα τοῦ νόμου ὡς παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος 
 of the objective spirit, but subjectively ; as do μὲν δοϑὲν, δούλους δὲ μᾶλλον ἁρμόζον, Theoph- 
 also Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de ylact. Comp. Oecumenius : τὸν πνευματικὸν 
 Wette, with whom Philippi agrees : “ἃ dis- φησὶ νόμον. 
 
316 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 II. 1, p. 42) ; so that the ‘‘ Abba, Father,” now became fixed.* It has been 
 frequently supposed (and is still by Riickert, Reiche, and Kéllner) that 
 Paul added ὁ πατήρ by way of explanation. But against this view it may be 
 urged, that in passages so full of feeling as Rom, viii. 15 and Gal. iv. 6, an 
 interpretation—and that too of a word which, considering the familiarity 
 with Jewish modes of expression in the churches of Rome and Galatia, 
 undoubtedly needed no explanation, and was certainly well known also 
 through the evangelistic tradition as the form of address in prayer that 
 had flowed from the mouth of Jesus—seems unnatural and out of place. 
 Besides, in all three instances, in Mark* and Paul, uniformly the mere ’ABBa 
 ὁ πατήρ is given without any formula of interpretation (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε or the like) 
 being added. Other views—destitute, however, of all proof—are : that the 
 custom which insinuating children have of repeating the father’s name is 
 here imitated (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Gro- 
 tius) ; or that the emphasis affectus (Erasmus) is here expressed (either view 
 would be possible only in the event of the passage standing as ᾿Αββᾶ, 
 "ABBa) ; or even that it is meant to signify the Fatherhood of God for Jews 
 and Gentiles (Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Estius, and others). With our 
 view Philippi is substantially agreed. Against the objections of Fritzsche, 
 who regards ὁ πατήρ as an explanatory addition grown into a habit, see on 
 Gal. iv. 6. — The Father-name of God in the Old Covenant (Ex. xx. 2; 
 Isa. Ixiii. 16; Hos. xi. 1; Jer. iii. 19, xxxi. 9) only received the loftiest 
 fulfilment of its meaning in the New Covenant through the viodecia accom- 
 plished in Christ. ὃ 
 
 Ver. 16. More precise information respecting the preceding ἐν ᾧ κράζ. 
 "ABBA ὁ π. ----ὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα K.7.A.]| Not He, the Spirit (Hofmann, inappro- 
 priately comparing ver. 21 and 1 Thess. iii. 11) ; but, since αὐτός in the 
 casus rectus always means ipse, the context supplying the more special 
 reference of the sense : ¢pse spiritus, that is, Himself, on His own part, the 
 (received) Spirit testifies with our spirit ; He unites His own testimony that 
 we are children of God withthe same testimony borne by our spirit, which 
 (1 Cor. ii. 11) is the seat of our self-consciousness. —In συμμαρτ. the σὺν 
 and its reference to τ. wv. ju. are not to be neglected, any more than in ii. 
 15, ix. 1, as the Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, and Fathers, also Koppe, 
 Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, and others have done. Paul dis- 
 tinguishes from the subjective self-consciousness : Jam the child of God, 
 the therewith accordant testimony of the objective Holy Spirit : thow art 
 the child of God! The latter is the yea to the former ; and thus it comes 
 that we cry the Abba ἐν τῷ πνεύματι. Our older theologians (see especially 
 Calovius) have rightly used our passage as a proof of the certitudo gratiae in 
 opposition to the Catholic Church with its mere conjectura moralis. Comp. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Τῦ was owing simply to the provincial 
 dialect of Palestine that SIN and not IN 
 wasused. Alberti, Tholuck, and Olshausen 
 think it due to the former having a more 
 childlike (lisping) sound. Other precarious 
 views may be seen in Wolf, Cur. ; Light- 
 
 foot, Hor. p. 654 f. 
 
 2In Mark xiv. 386 the expression is put 
 into the mouth of Jesus from a later age. 
 See 27 106. 
 
 3 Comp. Umbreit, p. 287 f. ; Schultz, alt- 
 test. Theol. IT. Ὁ. 98. 
 
CHAP. WirTt., 7; 317 
 Eph. i. 18, iv. 80; 1 John iii. 24, iv. 18. At the same time, it is also a 
 clear dictum probans against all pantheistic confusion of the divine and the 
 human spirit and consciousness, and no less against the assertion that Paul 
 ascribes to man not a human πνεῦμα, but only the divine πνεῦμα become sub- 
 jective (Baur, Holsten), Against this view, see also Pfleiderer, in Hilgen- 
 feld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 162 f., who nevertheless, at p. 177 f., from our 
 passage and chap. viii. generally, attributes to the apostle the doctrine that 
 in the Christian the real divine πνεῦμα has become the proper human one, * 
 and vice versa ; comp. on ver. 26. Against the Fanatics Melanchthon truly 
 observes, that the working of the Spirit in the believer begins “ praelucente 
 voce evangelii.” — τέκνα] The term children, expressive of greater tender- 
 ness, called forth by the increasing fervour of the discourse.1 Comp. 
 ver. 21. The aspect of the legal relation (of the υἱοϑεσία) at the same time 
 recedes into the background. Comp. Phil. ii. 15. 
 
 Ver. 17. From the truth of the filial relation to God, Paul now passes 
 over by the continuative δέ to the sure blissful consequence of it,—and that 
 indeed in organic reference to the ζήσεσϑε promised in ver. 13. — From our 
 childship follows necessarily our feirship. Comp. Gal. iv. 7. Both are to 
 be left perfectly general, without supplying Θεοῦ, since it is only what fol- 
 lows that furnishes the concrete, more precise definition, in which here the 
 general relation is realized. — κληρονόμοι Θεοῦ] The inheritance, which God 
 once on a time transfers to His children as their property, is the salvation 
 and glory of the Messianie kingdom. Comp. iv. 14. God is, of course, in 
 this case conceived not as a dying testator, but as the living bestower of His 
 goods on His children (Luke xv. 12). However, the conclusion (ver. 17) 
 forbids us to disregard the idea of inheritance, and to find only that of the 
 receiving possession represented (in opposition to van Hengel). — σύγκληρ. δὲ 
 Χριστοῦ) Not something greater than κληρον. Θεοῦ, on the contrary in sub- 
 stance the same, but specifically characterized from the standpoint of our fel- 
 lowship with Christ, whose co-heirs we must be as κληρον. Θεοῦ, since, having 
 entered into sonship through the υἱοϑεσία, we have become Christ’s brethren 
 (ver. 29). Moreover, that Paul has here in view, not the analogy of the 
 Hebrew law of inheritance that conferred a man’s intestate heritage only on 
 sons of his body, if there were such, but that of the Roman law (Fritzsche, 
 Tholuck, van Hengel ; see more particularly on Gal. iv. 7), is the historical- 
 ly necessary supposition, which can least of all seem foreign or inappropri- 
 ate in an epistle to the Romans. — συμπάσχ.] [See Note XCIV. p. 349.] 
 Whosoever, for the sake of the gospel, submits to suffering (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 
 24), suffers with Christ ; 1.6. ue has actual share fn the suffering endured by 
 Christ (1 Pet. iv. 13), drinks the same cup that He drank (Matt. xx. 22 f.). 
 Comp. on 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Phil. iii. 10 ; Col. i. 24. This fellowship of suffer- 
 
 
 
 1 Hofmann incorrectly imports the idea called τέκνον, simply because vids was the 
 
 that υἱός emphasizes the connection of life, 
 and τέκνον the descent ; hence Christ is not 
 called τέκνον, but only vids. This view is 
 demolished by the fact that, precisely in 
 virtue of His descent as the μονογενής and 
 πρωτότοκος, Christ is the vids. He is not 
 
 prophetic and historical designation of the 
 Messiah consecrated by ancient usage. In 
 fact, the LXX. render promiscuously 13 as 
 
 well as 3” (which Hofmann compares) 
 sometimes by υἱός and sometimes by τέκνον. 
 
318 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ing Paul regards as that which must be presupposed in order to the attain- 
 ment of glory, of participation in the δόξα of Christ (εἴπερ, as in ver. 9) ; not 
 indeed as meritum, or pretium vitae aeternae, but as obedientia propter ordi- 
 nem a Deo sancitum, Melanchthon. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 11 f. This conviction 
 developed itself, especially under the external influence of the circumstances 
 of an age fruitful in persecution, just as necessarily and truly out of the in- 
 ward assurance that in the case of Jesus Himself His suffering,’ willed by 
 God, and undertaken and borne in obediencé to the Father, was the condi- 
 tion of His glory (Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. ii. 6 ff., a/.), as it in its turn became 
 a rich spring of the enthusiasm for martyrdom. Olshausen (comp. also Phi- 
 lippi) mixes up an element which is here foreign : ‘‘ participation in the con- 
 flict with sin in themselves and in the world.” Even without introducing 
 this element foreign to the word itself, the συμπάσχειν, as the presupposition 
 involved in the joint-heirship, has its universal applicability, based not 
 merely on the general participation of all in the suffering of this time, but 
 especially also on the relation of the children of God to the ungodly world 
 (comp. John vii. 7, xv. 18 f., xvii. 14). — ἵνα καὶ συνδοξ.} in order to be also 
 glorified with Him ; dependent not on συγκληρ. (Tholuck), but on συμπάσχ.; 
 the divine final aim of which, known to the sufferer, it subjoins. 
 
 Vv. 18-31.? Grounds of encouragement for the συμπάσχειν iva x. συνδοξ. --- 
 Namely, (1) The future glory shall far outweigh the present sufferings, vv. 
 18-25. — (2) The Holy Ghost supports us, vv. 26, 27.— (8) Generally, all 
 things must serve for good to those who love God, vv. 28-81. [See Note, 
 on the connection of thought in vv. 18-25, XCV. p. 349. ] 
 
 Ver. 18. [See, on several words and phrases in vv. 18-25, Note XCVI. p. 
 350.] Λογίζομαι] I reckon, as in 111. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5; Phil. 111. 18. In the 
 singular we are not to discover a turn given to the argument, as if the apos- 
 tle found it necessary to justify himself on account of the condition εἴπερ 
 curacy. (Hofmann). Just as little here as in the case of πέπεισμαι in ver. 
 38. He simply delivers his judgment, which, however, he might have ex- 
 pressed with equal propriety in a form inclusive of others, as subsequently 
 he has written οἴδαμεν (ver. 22). Such changing of the person is accidental 
 and without any special design, especially as here he does not say ἐγὼ yap 
 Aoyil., OY λογίζομαι yap αὐτὸς ἐγώ, or Otherwise give himself prominence. A 
 certain Jlitotes, however, lies (not indeed in the singular, but) in the use of 
 λογίζομαι itself, which really contains an οἷδα and a πέπεισμαι. --- οὐκ a&ta} not 
 of equal importance, not of corresponding weight ; they are unimportant. On 
 πρός, in comparison with, in relation to, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 471 1 : οὐδενὸς 
 ἄξιός ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, Protag. p. 356 A ; Winer, p. 378 [E. T. 405]. 
 On οὐκ ἄξιόν ἐστι itself, however, in the sense : non operae pretium est, sce 
 
 1 Here also set forth by Hofmann under mann, in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1863, 
 the aspect of treatment encountered by Him p. 25 ff. ; Zahn, in the same, 1865, p. 511 ff. ; 
 at the hands of the enemies of the work of Graf, in Heidenheim’s Vierteljahrssch?. 1867, 
 salvation. 3; Engelhardt, in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, 
 
 2 See, on the section about the groaning Ῥ. 48 ff. (against Frommann) ; and against 
 of the creature, K6ster, in Stud. κι. rit. 1862, Engelhardt, see Frommann in the same 
 p. 755 ff.; M. Schenkel, von d. Seu*zen der Zeitschrift, 1872, Ὁ. 33 ff. 
 
 Creatur (Schulprogr. Plauen), 1862; From- 
 
CHAP απὸ 5. 1: 319 
 
 Kithner, ad Xen. Anad. vi. 5.18.1 On the subject-matter, see especially 2 
 Cor. iv. 17. —rov viv καιροῦ] of the present time-period. [866 Note XCVII. 
 Ῥ. 351.] The νῦν καιρός marks off from the whole αἰὼν οὗτος (see on Matt. xii. 
 32) the period then current, which was to end with the approaching Parousia 
 (assumed as near in xiii. 11, 12, 1 Thess. iv. 17, 1 Cor. vii. 29, and in the 
 entire N. T.), and was thus the time of the crisis. — μέλλ. δόξ. aro. | μέλλου- 
 σαν (see on ver. 13) is, as in Gal. iii, 23, prefixed with emphasis, correlative 
 with the foregoing νῦν. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 22; Plat. Rep. p. 572 Bi: καὶ 
 πάνυ δοκοῦσιν ἡμῶν ἐνίοις μετρίοις εἶναι. See Stallbaum in loc. — ἀποκαλ.} Name- 
 ly, at the Parousia, when the δόξα which is now hidden (in heaven, comp. 
 Col. 111. 3 f. ; 1 Pet. i. 4) is to be revealed. — εἰς ἡμᾶς] on us, 80 that we are 
 those, upon whom (reaching unto them) the ἀποκάλυψις takes place. Comp. 
 Acts xxviii. 6. The δόξα comes to us, therefore, from without (with Christ 
 descending from heaven ; comp. Col. iil. 4 ; Phil. iii. 21; Tit. 11. 13) ; but 
 is not conceived as having already begun inwardly and then becoming ap- 
 parent outwardly (in opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 206). 
 
 Ver. 19. Τάρ] introduces, from the waiting of the creation (to whose 
 groaning that of Christians thereupon joins itself in ver. 23) for this glori- 
 ous consummation, a peculiar confirmation, couched in a poetic strain, of 
 the fact that the ἀποκάλυψις τῆς δόξης is really impending ; and thus lends 
 support to the comforting certainty of that future manifestation, that is, to 
 the element involved in the emphatically prefixed μέλλουσαν ; comp. Calo- 
 vius, Fritzsche, de Wette, Krehl, Reithmayr, and Bisping. From Origen 
 and Chrysostom down to Hofmann, there has usually been discovered here 
 a ground assigned for the greatness of the glory. But this is neither con- 
 sistent with the emphatic prominence of μέλλουσαν, nor with the subsequent 
 ground itself, which proves nothing as to the greatness of the δόξα, but 
 stands to the indubitableness of the latter, otherwise firmly established and 
 presupposed, in the relation of a sym pathetic testimony of nature.” Least of 
 all can γάρ introduce a ground of the apostle’s belief for his own λογίζομαι 
 κιτ.λ. (van Hengel). According to Philippi, what is to be established is, 
 that the δόξα is not already present, but only future, which, however, even 
 taking into account human impatience, was quite self-evident. For the 
 nearness of the δόξα (Reiche), just as before it was not expressly announced 
 in the simple μέλλουσαν, the sequel affords no proof, since the element of 
 speediness is not expressed. — 7) ἀποκαραδοκία] The verb καραδοκεῖν (Xen. Mem. 
 iii. 5, 6, frequent in Euripides) strictly means : to expect with uplifted head, 
 then to expect generally, to long for (Valck. ad Herod. vii. 168 ; Loesner, Obss. 
 p. 256 f.); and xapadoxia means expectatio (Prov. x. 28 ; Aq. Ps. XXXviil. 7). 
 The strengthened (Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 582; Tittmann, Synon. p. 106 ff.) 
 ἀποκαραδοκεῖν (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 7. 26; Polyb. xvi. 2. 8, xviii. 31. 4, 
 xxii. 19. 83; Aq. Ps. xxxvi. 7; Alberti, Gloss. p. 106 fi.) and ἀποκαραδοκία 
 (only elsewhere in Phil. i. 20) is the waiting expectation (not anwious expec- 
 
 1 Comp. Dem. 300 wit. ; Polyb. iv. 20. 2. hace enim spes nostra tantae est certitudinis, ut 
 2The train of thought may therefore, confirmetur totius naturae ad eundem Jjinem 
 expressed in Latin, be paraphrased some- nostrum tendentis eapectatione suspiriisque. ὧς 
 
 what thus: “τὴν μέλλουσαν κιτιλ, inguam, 
 
320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tation, as Luther has it) that continues on the strain till the goal is attained. 
 See especially Tittmann, l.c. ; Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opuseul. Ὁ. 150 ff. 
 Without warrant, Loesner, Krebs, Fischer, de vit. Lex. p. 128 f., and others, 
 including Riickert, Reiche, and van Hengel, have refused to recognize the 
 strengthening element of ἀπό, already pointed out by Chrysostom and Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia, although Paul himself gives prominence to it repeated- 
 ly in ἀπεκδέχ. (comp. vv. 23, 25 ; 1 Cor. i. 7; Gal. v.53 Phil. iii. 20). — 
 τῆς κτίσεως) Genitive of the subject. The waiting of the κτίσις is with rhe- 
 torical emphasis brought into prominence as something independent. See 
 Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 236]. ‘H κτίσις means—(1) actus creationis ; so i. 20, 
 corresponding to the classic usage in the sense of establishment (Pind. Ol. 
 18. 118 ; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 13), founding (Polyb., Plut., and others), plant- 
 
 ing, etc. — (2) The thing created, and that (a) where the context supplies no 
 limitation, quite generally like our creation, Mark x. 6, xiii. 19 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; 
 Judith xvi. 14; Wisd. ii. 6, a.; and (Ὁ) where the context does limit it, in 
 amore or less special sense, as in Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23 (of that portion of 
 the creation, which consists of mankind), Col. i. 15, Heb. iv. 13 (of every 
 individual creature) ; comp. i. 25, viii. 39 ; also καινὴ κτίσις in 2 Cor. v. 17, 
 Gal. vi. 15. Since, then, the absolute ἡ κτίσις must receive its limitation of 
 sense simply from the connection, the question is, What does the text in 
 our passage exclude from the meaning of τῆς κτίσεως ? There are plainly ex- 
 cluded not only the angelic and demoniac kingdom (see ver. 20), but also 
 Christians collectively, as is clear from vv. 19, 21, and 23, where the Chris- 
 tians are different from the κτίσις, and even opposed to it, so that they cannot 
 be regarded (according to the view of Frommann) as forming a partial con- 
 ception, embraced also in the κτίσις. But is the non-Christian portion of hu- 
 manity to be excluded also? If not, it must be meant either along with 
 something else, or else alone. If the former, then Paul, seeing that irra- 
 tional nature at any rate remains within the compass of the idea, would 
 have included under one notion this nature and the Jewish and heathen 
 worlds, which would be absurd. But if non-Christian humanity alone be 
 meant, then—(1) we should not be able to see why Paul should have 
 chosen the term κτίσις, and not have used the definite expression κόσμος, 
 which is formally employed for that idea elsewhere in his own writings and 
 throughout the N. T. Besides, the absolute κτίσις nowhere in the entire N. T. 
 means non-Christian mankind (in Mark xvi. 15 and Col. i. 28, πάσῃ stands 
 along with it); and, indeed, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (Mark) and πᾶσα κτίσις (Col.) 
 mean nothing else than the whole ercation and every creature, and in these 
 cases it is purely the context that shows that created men are meant, while 
 at the same time it is self-evident ex adjuncto (for the discourse concerns the 
 preaching of the gospel to the κτίσις) that Christians are not to be under- 
 stood. (2) The hostile attitude of the then existing κόσμος towards the 
 Christian body would cause the assertion respecting it of a sympathetic and, 
 as it were, prophetic yearning for the manifestation of the children of God 
 
 1 Frommann unjustifiably appeals to 2 Cor. vii. 7. See, on the contrary, also Zahn, /.c. 
 p. 516 f., and Engelhardt, p. 49. j 
 
CHAR? VIET. 7:19: 321 
 
 to seem a curious paradox, which, moreover, as a truth, in the case of 
 the Jews and Gentiles, would rest on quite a different foundation, namely, 
 the expectation of the Jewish Messianic kingdom, and on the other hand, 
 the yearning dream of a golden age. (8) Again, the expressions in ver. 
 20 are of such a character, that they in no way make us presuppose in the 
 writer such a conception of humanity subjected through sin to the ϑάνατος 
 as Paul had, but allow us just to think of the κτίσις as having fallen a prey 
 to the lot of mortality, not by its own free action, but innocently, and 
 by outward necessity ; the apostle would not have left the ϑάνατος unmen- 
 tioned.* (4) Further, the hope of attaining to the freedom of the glory 
 of the children of God (ver. 21) was only left to the κόσμος, in so far as it 
 should be converted to Christ ; but ver. 21, in point of fact, merely asserts 
 that on the entrance of that glory the κτίσις is to be glorified also, without 
 touching, in regard to mankind, on the condition of conversion—which as- 
 suredly Paul least of all would have omitted. (5) Finally, Paul expected 
 that, previous to the entrance of the Parousia, the fulness of the Gentiles and | 
 all Israel would become christianized (xi. 25, 26), and had to shape his concep- 
 tion, therefore, in such a way as to make humanity, taken asa whole, belong to 
 the υἱοῖς Θεοῦ When the manifestation of the kingdom should appear. And 
 as to that, ver. 21 decidedly forbids the connecting of the notion of mankind 
 with ἡ κτίσις. -- There remains, therefore, as the definition of the notion of 
 ἡ κτίσις in accordance with the text : the collective non-rational creation, ani- 
 mate and inanimate, the same which we term in popular usage ‘‘ all nature” 
 (comp. Wisd. v. 18, xvi. 24, xix. 6), from which we are accustomed to ex- 
 clude intelligent beings. In view of the poetically prophetic colouring of 
 the whole passage, the expressions of waiting, sighing, hoping, of bondage 
 and redemption, excite the less surprise, since already in the Ὁ. T. instances 
 of a similar prosopopoeia are very common (Deut. iv. 34 ; Ps. xix. 2, Ixviii. 
 1 Rena On ΟΝ 10: ἹΕΡῚ᾿ di. do Σἰν 8. ivi 12's Ezek.) xa) 15°; Habe 
 11 ; Bar. iii. 84 ; Job xii. 7-9, αἴ.) ; and Chrysostom very aptly remarks : 
 ὥστε δὲ ἐμφαντικώτερον γενέσϑαι Tov λόγον, Kai προσωποποιεῖ τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα τοῦτον 
 ἅπερ καὶ οἱ προφῆται ποιοῦσιν, ποταμοὺς κροτοῦντας χερσὶν εἰσάγοντες K.T.A. Comp. 
 Oecumenius and Theophylact. The idea of the glorification of all nature 
 cannot be accounted wnpauline, for the simple reason that it is clearly ex- 
 pressed in our passage ; and because, moreover, as being connected with 
 the history of the moral development of humanity according to Gen. iii. 
 17 f., and necessarily belonging to the idea of the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων (Matt.. 
 xix. 28 ; Actsiii. 21; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ff.; Rev. xxi. 1), it may be least of alli 
 disclaimed in the case of Paul, since it emanates from the prophets of the Old 
 Testament (Isa. xi. 6 ff.; Ezek. xxxvii.; Isa. Ixy. 17, lxvi. 15 comp. Ps. 
 cii. 27 ; and see Umbreit, p. 291 ff.), and has thence passed over into the 
 Rabbinical system of doctrine.* The above interpretation, therefore, of the 
 
 1An antinomy of two different concep- 367 ff., 824 ff.; Schoettgen, Hor. II. pp. 71, 76, 
 tions as to the origin of death (Frommann, 117 ff.; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 214; Corrodi,. 
 1872, p. 53) is certainly not to be found in Chiliasm. I. p. 876 ff.; Ewald, ad Apocal. p.. 
 Paul’s writings. See ony. 12; 1 Cor. xy. 47 ff. 307 f.; Delitzsch, Hridut. 2. 8. Hebr. Uebers. ps 
 
 2 See Hisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. 11. Ὁ. 37, 
 
O22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 κτίσις has been rightly adopted—only that the intelligent creatures have not 
 in all cases been expressly or exclusively separated from it (e.g. Theodoret 
 includes also the ἀόρατα, angels, archangels, etc., as Origen previously, and 
 Erasmus and ‘others subsequently, have also done)—by the majority of ex- 
 positors, following most of the Fathers (in the first instance Irenaeus, Haer. 
 v. 82. 1), by Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Melanchthon, Calvin, Cornelius ἃ 
 Lapide, Balduin, Estius, Grotius, Cocceius, Calovius, Calixtus, Seb. Schmid, 
 Wolf, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Tholuck, Klee, Usteri (in Stud. 
 u. Krit. 1832, p. 835 ff., and Lehrbegr. ed. 4 and 5, pp. 373, 399 ff.), 
 Riickert, Benecke, Schneckenburger, Reiche, Gléckler, de Wette, Neander, 
 Nielsen, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, Ewald, Umbreit, Bisping, Lechler, 
 apostol. Zeitalt. p. 143, Delitzsch, Ruprecht in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1851, p. 
 214 ff., Zahn, Mangold, Hofmann, and Engelhardt ; comp. also M. Schenkel 
 and Graf. Among these, however, are several who, like Luther, Beza, 
 and also Fritzsche, wish to understand it too narrowly, merely of the inani- 
 mate creation,—a limitation not given in the text, and moreover antipro- 
 phetic (Tertullian, ad Hermog. 10); while, on the other hand, Kéllner, with 
 whom Olshausen agrees, takes it too widely of all created things generally. 
 See, against this, the textual limitation explained above. If, however, in 
 accordance with the above, the removal of intelligent beings from the com- 
 pass of the κτίσις must be regarded as decided, the decision is fatal to the 
 view of others, who, following the example of Augustine, explain ἡ κτίσις as 
 mankind ; and that either in the quite comprehensive sense of mankind col- 
 lectively (in the state of nature), as, following older expositors especially 
 scholastic and Roman Catholic, Déderlein, Gabler, Ammon, Keil (Opuse. 
 Ῥ. 207), Grimm (de οὐ vocabuli κτίσ., Lips, 1812), Schulthess (evangel. Belehr. 
 ib. d. Erneuer, d. Nat., Zurich 1833), Geisler (in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 
 1835, Jan. p. 51 ff.), Schrader, Krehl, van Hengel, Frommann, and others 
 do ; or, with exclusion of the Christians, in the sense of mankind still uncon- 
 verted, as Augustine himself suggested,? by which again, however, many 
 understood specially the unconverted Gentiles (Locke, Lightfoot, Knatch- 
 bull, Hammond, Semler, and Nachtigall), and various others the unconverted 
 
 1So Wetstein, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ja- 
 tho, and Késter ; formerly (in eds. 1, 2, 3) 
 also Usteri, following Schleiermacher. 
 2 His entire exposition (see Hxpos. quar. 
 _propas. ex ep. ad. Rom. 53) runs thus :—“‘ Sic 
 intelligendum est, ut neque sensum dolendi 
 et gemendi opinemur esse in arboribus et 
 -oleribus et lapidibus et ceteris hujuscemodi 
 creaturis (hic enim error Manichaeorum 
 est) ; neque angelos sanctos vanitati sub- 
 _jectos esse arbitremur: sed omnem creatu- 
 ram in ipso homine sine ulla calumnia cogi- 
 temus. ... Omnisautem est etiam in hom- 
 ine, et spiritualis et animalis et corporalis, 
 quia homo constat spiritu et anima et cor- 
 pore. Ergo creatura revelationem filiorum 
 Dei exspectat, quicquid nunc in homine la- 
 borat et corruptioni subjacet. Erant enim 
 
 adhue credituri, qui etiam spiritu subjace- 
 pant laboriosis erroribus. Sed ne quis puta- 
 ret, de ipsorum labore tantum dictum esse, 
 adjungit etiam de iis, qui jam crediderant. 
 Quamquam enim spiritu, i.e. mente, jam 
 
 .servirent legi Dei: tamen, quia carne servi- 
 
 tur legi peccati, quamdiu molestias et sollic- 
 itationes mortalitatis nostrae patimur, ideo 
 addit dicens : Von solwm, ete. (ver. 23). Non 
 solum ergo ipsa, guae tantummodo creatura 
 dicitur in hominibus, qui nondum credide- 
 runt, et ideo nondum in filiorum Dei numerum 
 constitutt, congemiscit ac dolet: sed etiam 
 nosmet ipsi, gui credimus et primitias Sp. ha- 
 bemus, quia jam spiritu adhaeremus Deo 
 per fidem, ef ideo non jam creatura, sed filii 
 Dei appellamur,” ete. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 20, 21. 320 
 Jews (Cramer, B6hme, and Gersdorf). Others have even explained it of 
 Christians collectively, as the new creature (Vorstius, Deyling, Nésselt, Soci- 
 nians and Arminians). And just as little can κτίσις be equivalent to ψυχή 
 (Miircker) or to σάρξ, and be supposed to designate the creaturely element in 
 the regenerate (Weissbach in the Sédchs. Stud. I. p. 76 ff., and Zyro in the 
 Stud. τι. Krit. 1845, 2, 1851, p. 645 ff.). Compare also, regarding the vari- 
 ous expositions, M. Schenkel, p. 9 ff.; and against the view which takes it 
 of mankind, Engelhardt, ἰ.6. ---- τὴν ἀποκάλ. τ. υἱῶν τ. Θεοῦ] The event, the 
 blissful catastrophe, whereby the sons of God become manifest as such (in 
 their δόξα). How exalted the dignity in which they here appear above the 
 κτίσις | Bengel: ‘‘ad creaturam ex peccato redundarunt incommoda ; ad 
 creaturam ex gloria filiorum Dei redundabit recreatio.” The κτίσις, in virtue 
 of its physical connection with that ἀποκάλυψις, shall be a partaker in the 
 blissful manifestation. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. Ground of this longing. —7q@ ματαιότ.] Prefixed with em- 
 phasis : vanitati, to nothingness. The substantive (Pollux, vi. 134) is no 
 longer found in Greek authors, but frequently in the LXX. (as in Ps. xxxix. 
 6). See Schleusner, 7168. III. p. 501. It indicates here the empty (i.e. as 
 having lost its primitive purport, which it had by creation) quality of being, 
 to which the κτίσις was changed from its original perfection. — irerayn] was 
 subjected, was made subject to, as to a ruling power formerly unknown to it. 
 This historical fact (aorist) took place in consequence of the fall, Gen, iii. 
 17.1. The reference to an original ματαιότης, introduced even by the act of 
 creation (Theodoret, Grotius, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, and 
 Késter), is historically inappropriate (Gen. i. 31), and contrary to οὐχ 
 ἑκοῦσα, ἀλλὰ K.t.A., Which supposes a previous state not subject to the par. 
 Further, since the ὑποτάξας is subsequently mentioned, the interpretation 86 
 subjecit (Fritzsche) is thereby excluded. —oiy ἑκοῦσα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τ. ὑποτάξ] 
 This must occasion their expectation all the more ; for their subjection is at 
 variance with their original state and the desire of immunity founded 
 thereon, and it took place ‘invita et repugnante natura” (Calvin, namely, 
 through the guilt of human sin), on account of the subjector (διά with the accusa- 
 tive, comp. on John vi. 57), that is, because the counsel and will of the sub- 
 jecting God (the contrast to one’s own non-willingness) had to be thus 
 satisfied.2. The idea of another than God in τὸν ὑποτάξ. (Knatchbull and 
 Capellus : Adam, Chrysostom, Schneckenburger, Bisping, and Zahn : 
 man ; Hammond and others, quoted by Wolf: the devil) is forbidden by 
 the very absence of a defining statement, so that the subject is assumed as 
 well known. According to Gen. iii. 17, it was indeed man through whose 
 guilt the subjection ensued ; but God was the subjector (ὁ iroragac). — ἐπ’ 
 
 1Comp. Beresh. rabb. f. 2, 3: “ Quamvis the connection and construction proceed 
 
 ereatae fuerint res perfectae, cum primus 
 homo peccaret, corruptae tamen sunt, et 
 ultra non redibunt ad congruum statum 
 suum, donec veniat Pherez, ἢ. 6. Messias.”’ 
 See also Zahn, Ὁ. 582. 
 
 2The marks of parenthesis before οὐχ 
 and after ὑποτ. are to be expunged, since 
 
 without a break. This applies also agains* 
 Frommann, who assigns to this parenthe- 
 sis merely the object of explaining the pas- 
 sive ὑπετάγη. Ewald puts ina parenthesis 
 the entire verse, thus making ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι con- 
 nect itself with ἀπεκδέχεται. But for this 
 there appears likewise no reason. 
 
924 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ἐλπίδι ὅτι K.7.A.] on hope (iv. 18) that, etc., may be joined either with trordé. 
 (Origen, Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, and others, in- 
 cluding Ch. Schmidt and Olshausen) or with ὑπετάγη. The latter conjunc- 
 tion brings out more forcibly the ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ; for this contains a new element 
 by way of motive for the expectation of nature. ἐπί, spe proposita, indicates 
 the condition which was conceded in the ὑπετάγη, as it were, the equivalent 
 provisionally given for it, Acts ii. 24.'— ὅτι] that, object of the hope (Phil. 
 1. 20 ; not nam, as it is taken by most expositors, who join ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι with 
 ὑποτάξ ; among others by Schneckenburger, Breitrdg. Ὁ. 122, who assigns 
 as his reason, that otherwise the αὐτῇ ἡ κτίσις could not be repeated. But 
 that repetition is necessitated by the emphasis of the similarity of the rela- 
 tion, which αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις has over-against the children of God, for which 
 reason Paul did not write ὅτε καὶ ἐλευϑερωϑήσεται (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
 objection). Besides, the purport of the ἐλπίς had necessarily to be stated, in 
 order to give the ground of the expectation of the κτίσις as directed precisely 
 to the manifestation of the sonsof God. 'The indefinite ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι would sup- 
 ply a motive for its expectation of deliverance in general, but not for its 
 expectation of the glory of the children of God. This apples also against 
 Hofmann, who refers ὅτι «.7.”., as statement of the reason, to the whole preced- 
 ing sentence, whereby, besides, the awkward idea is suggested, that the sub- 
 jection took place on account of the deliverance to be accomplished in the 
 future ; it had, in fact, an entirely different historical ground, well known 
 from history, and already suggested by the διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξ., namely, the im- 
 plication of the κτίσις in the entrance of sin among mankind. — kai αὐτῇ ἡ 
 κτίσις] et ipsa creatura, that is, the creature also on its part, not merely the 
 children of God. There is simply expressed the similarity ; not a climax 
 (even), of which the context affords no hint. — τῆς φθορᾶς] Genitive of appo- 
 sition : from the bondage that consists in corruption. See ver. 39. Incor- 
 rectly paraphrased by Kéllner : ‘‘from the corruptible, miserable bondage.” 
 At variance with this is ver. 20, according to which τ. φθ0. cannot be made an 
 adjective ; as is also the sequel, in which τὴν ἐλευθ. corresponds to τῆς 
 δουλείας, and τῆς δόξης τ. τέκν. τ. Θεοῦ to the τῆς φϑορᾶς. The φϑορά (antith- 
 esis = ἀφϑαρσία, ii. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 42-50) is the destruction, that develops 
 itself out of the ματαιότης, the κατάλυσις opposed frequently in Plato and 
 others to the γένεσις (Phaed. P. 95 E; Phil. p. 55 A; Lucian, A. 19). 
 Comp. on Gal. vi. 8. It is not the φϑορά in the first instance that makes the 
 state of the κτίσις a state of bondage, as Hofmann apprehends the genitive ; 
 but the existing bondage is essentially such, that what is subjected to it is 
 liable to the fate of corruption. —eic τ. éAevd.] is the state, to which the 
 κτίσις Shall attain by its emancipation. An instance of a genuine Greek 
 pregnant construction. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 822; Winer, p. 577 
 [E. T. 621]. — τῆς δόξης τ. τ. τ. O.] Likewise genitive of apposition : into 
 the freedom which shall consist in the glory of the children of God, i.e. in a 
 glory similar thereto (by participation in it) ; not, as Hofmann thinks : 
 which the glory of the children of God shall have brought with it. Τί with 
 
 1 Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 18, and Kiihner in doc.; Ast, Lex Plat. I. Ὁ. 767; Bernhardy, p. 250. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 22. 329 
 
 Luther and many others, including Béhme and K6llner, τῆς δόξης be treated 
 as an adjective : ‘‘to the glorious freedom,” we should then have quite as 
 arbitrary a departure from the verbal order, in accordance with which τῶν 
 τέκν. belongs most naturally to τῆς δόξ., as from the analogy of the preceding 
 τῆς δουλ. τῆς φϑορᾶς. The accumulation of genitives, τ. δόξης K.7.A., has a 
 certain solemnity ; comp. ii. 5 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. iv. 13, al. — Observe, 
 further, how Paul has conceived the catastrophe, of which he is speaking, 
 not as the destruction of the world and a new creation, but, in harmony 
 with the prophetic announcements, especially those of Isaiah (Isa. xxxv., 
 Ixy. 17, Ixvi. 22),’ as a transformation into a more perfect state. The 
 passing away of the world is the passing away of its form (1 Cor. vii. 31), 
 by which this transformation is conditioned, and in which, according to 2 
 Pet. iii. 10, fire will be the agent employed. And the hope, the tenor of 
 which is specified by ὅτι «.7.2., might, in connection with the living personi- 
 fication, be ascribed to all nature, as if it were conscious thereof, since the 
 latter is destined to become the scene and surrounding of the glorified chil- 
 dren of God. But that ἐλπίς does not pertain to mankind, whose presenti- 
 ment of immortality, by means of its darkened original consciousness of 
 God (Frommann), does not correspond to the idea of ἐλπίς ; comp., on the 
 contrary, Eph. ii. 12 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18. If, on the other hand, the Gentile 
 hope, cherished amidst the misery of the times, as to a better state of 
 things (according to poets: the golden age of the Saturnia regna), were 
 meant as an image of fhe Christian hope (Késter), then Paul would have 
 conceived the ἐλευϑερωϑήσεται as conditioned by the future conversion of the 
 Jentiles. But thus the ἐλπίς would amount to this, that the Gentiles 
 should become themselves children of God, which is inconsistent with ver. 19. 
 There, and likewise in ver. 21, the sons of God are the third element, for 
 whose transfiguration the κτίσις waits, and from whose glorification it hopes, 
 in ver. 21, that the latter shall benefit ἐΐ a/so—the «riouwep—through participa- 
 tion therein ; and be to it also deliverance and freedom from its hitherto 
 enduring bondage. Thisis applicable only to the παλιγγενεσία (see on Matt. 
 xix, 28) at the Parousia. 
 
 Ver. 22. Proof, not of the ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως (Philippi), which is 
 much too distant, and whose goal remains quite unnoticed here ; nor yet of 
 the δουλεία τῆς φϑορᾶς (Zahn), which was not the point of the foregoing 
 thought at all; but of what was announced by ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι, ὅτε x. ἀ. ἡ κτ. 
 ἐλευϑερωϑήσεται κιτ.2Δ. For if that hope of glorious deliverance had not been 
 left to it, ald nature would not have united its groaning and travailing wntil 
 now. This phenomenon, so universal and so unbroken, cannot be conduct 
 without an aim ; on the contrary, it presupposes as the motive of the pain- 
 ful travail that very hope, towards whose final fulfilment it is directed.* 
 
 4 
 
 1Comp. Zahn, p. 537; Schultz, attest. back as probative to the thought τῇ yap 
 Theol. 11. p. 227. ματαιότητι K.T.A, in ver. 20; and gives as the 
 2 Consequently the element of proof does sense of the argument: “ὃ The Christian 
 not lie in οἴδαμεν, but in the ὅτι πᾶσα x.7.A., would not speak of a subjection of the creature 
 introduced as wellknown. This in opposi- under vanity, if he looked upon its present €x 
 tion to Hofmann, who refers οἴδαμεν yap k.7.A. istence as one satisfied in itselfand this world 
 
326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 The οἴδαμεν (comp. ii. 2, iii. 19, vii. 14) is sufficiently explained as an appeal 
 to the Christian consciousness, in which the view of nature stands in con- 
 nection with the curse of βίη. The perfectly superfluous assumption, that 
 the apostle had a book before him containing a similar deduction (Ewald), 
 is suggested by nothing in the text. — In συστενάζει and ovvediver the σὺν is not 
 a mere strengthening particle (Loesner, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, and K6ll- 
 ner), but, on the contrary (comp. Beza), finds its natural reference in πᾶσα, and 
 denotes ‘‘gemitum et dolorem communem inter se partium creaturae,” Es- 
 tius.?. Calvin, Pareus, Koppe, Ewald, and Umbreit, following Oecumenius, 
 have indeed referred σὺν to the groaning being in common with that of the 
 children of God ; but against this view ver. 23 is decisive, and the refer- 
 ence to men generally, with whom the κτίσις sighs (Fritzsche), is foreign to 
 the context. Fritzsche, without due reason, asserts the want of linguistic 
 usage in favour of our view. For it is unquestionable that, in accordance 
 with the usage of analogous verbs, συστενάζειν may denote the common sigh- 
 ing of the elements comprised in the collective πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις among them- 
 selves * (comp. Eph. iv. 16 : πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον, comp. i. 21 ; Plat. 
 Legg. iii. p. 686 B: ἐπεὶ γενομένη ye ἡ τότε διάνοια καὶ συμφωνήσασα εἰς ἕν, Dem. 
 516. 7: συνοργισϑεὶς ὁ δῆμος, 775. 18 : συνταράττεται πᾶς 6 τῆς πόλεως κόσμος). 
 That concrete examples of that nature cannot be quoted, is not decisive 
 against it, since συστενάζειν (Eur. Jon. 935, comp. ovoréverv, Arist. Eth. ix. 
 11) and also συνωδίνειν (Eur. Hel. 727 ; Porphyr. de abst. iii. 10) are only 
 extant in a very few passages. Comp. generally Winer, de verb. compos. II. 
 p. 21f. Just the same with συναλγεῖν, Plat. Rep. p. 462 D, and συλλυπεῖσϑαι 
 p. 462 E. —ovrediver] Not an allusion to the WWD an (Reiche), because 
 the dolores Messiae (see on Matt. ii. 3) are peculiar sufferings, that shall 
 immediately precede the appearance of the Messiah, whilst the travail of 
 nature has continued since as early as Gen. iil. 17 (ver. 20). But the jigure 
 is the same in both cases—that of the pains of labour. ΑἸ] nature groans 
 and suffers anguish, as if in travail, over-against the moment of its deliver- 
 ance. The conception of the ddivew is based on the fact that the painful 
 struggling of the κτίσις is directed towards the longed-for change, with the 
 setting in of which the suffering has accomplished its end and ceases. 
 Comp. John xvi. 21. —aype τοῦ νῦν] that is, up to the present moment ; so 
 incessantly has the sighing continued. Formerly Frommann imported the 
 thought : until now, when the revelation of the true goal in Christ has taken 
 place ; see, against this, Zahn, p. 524 f. However, Frommann has now 
 corrected his view. Hofmann erroneously takesit as : now still, in contrast 
 
 to the future change. 
 
 as the best world.” Butit could not at all be 
 an object to prove that relation of ματαιότης 
 (who can be supposed to have doubted it ἢ); 
 but it was an object to prove the ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι 
 ὅτι «.7.A.3 this is the punctum saliens, which 
 is then further brought out in ver. 23 ff. 
 1This consciousness is the necessary 
 premiss of the Christian idea of the Palin- 
 genesia of the universe at the end of history, 
 
 Comp. rather Phil. i. 5. 
 
 The point of beginning of 
 
 Matt. xix. 28. Hence Frommann is in error 
 in discovering in the above οἴδαμεν the over- 
 throw of our explanation of κτίσις. 
 
 250 already Theodore of Mopsuestia : 
 βούλεται δὲ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι TUL POVws ἐπιδείκνυται 
 τοῦτο πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. 
 
 3 Comp. also Nagelsbach, z. Zlias, Ὁ. 193, 
 ed. 3. 
 
CHAPS VIL 23. 327 
 
 the sighing and travailing is that ὑπετάγη in ver. 20. Comp. also ἕως τοῦ νῦν 
 in Matt. xxiv. 21. Now still would be ἔτι viv, 1 Cor. iii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 23. Climax of the foregoing proof that the ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι, ὅτε «.7.2. of the 
 κτίσις, ver. 21, is well founded. ‘‘ Otherwise, indeed, we Christians also 
 would not join in that sighing.” — οὐ μόνον δὲ] scil. πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις στενάζει. ---- 
 What follows must be read: ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύ- 
 ματος ἔχοντες, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν. See the critical 
 remarks. But wealsoon our part, though we possess the first-fruits of the Spirit, 
 sigh likewise in ourselves. —thv axapy. τ. πνεύμ.] τ. wv. is the partitive geni- 
 tive, as is involved in the very meaning of ἀπαρχή. Comp. xvi. 5 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 20, xvi. 15 ; Jas. i. 18 ; and all the passages of the LXX. and Apocr., 
 where ἀπ. stands with the genitive of the thing, in Biel and Schleusner.? 
 By the possessors, however, of the ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ πνεύματος, are not exclusively 
 meant the apostles, who at Pentecost had received the first outpouring of 
 the Spirit, and among whom Paul includes himself on account of his mirac- 
 ulous conversion (Origen, Oecumenius, Melanchthon, Grotius, and others). 
 He means rather the Christians of that age generally, since in fact they—in 
 contrast to the far greater mass of mankind still unconverted, for whom, 
 according to Joel iii. 1, the receiving of the Spirit was still a thing of the 
 future (xi. 25 ff.)—were in possession of that, which jirst had resulted from 
 the communication of the Spirit, and which therefore stood related to the 
 collective bestowal as the daybreak. So, on the whole, Erasmus, Wetstein, 
 Morus, Reiche, K6llner, de Wette, Olshausen, Késter, and Frommann.? 
 Paul does not say simply τὸ πνεῦμα ἔχοντες, but, in the lofty feeling of the 
 privilege,* which he discovered in the earlier calling and sanctification of 
 the then Christians : τὴν ἀπαρχ. τ. rv. ἔχ. 5 ‘Seven we, though favoured so 
 pre-eminently that we possess the jirst-fruit gift of the Spirit, cannot re- 
 frain from sighing likewise.” This we remark in opposition to the oft- 
 repeated objection, that it was not an element of importance whether they 
 had received the πνεῦμα at the first or a few years later ; and also in oppo- 
 sition to the quite as irrelevant objection of Hofmann, that the conception 
 of a measure of the Spirit to be given forth by degrees is nowhere indicated. 
 This conception has no place here, and the Spirit is one and the same ; 
 but if, in the first instance, only a comparatively small portion of mankind 
 has received it, and its possession in the case of the remaining collective 
 body is still in abeyance, this serves to constitute the idea of an ἀπαρχῇ in 
 relation to the whole body. Nevertheless, the sense : best gift of the Spirit 
 (Ch. Schmidt, Rosenmiiller), is not conveyed by τ. ἀπαρχήν, because that 
 must have been suggested by the context, and also because Paul could not 
 have regarded the later communication of the Spirit as less vaiuable. 
 Further, the sense of a merely provisional reception of the Spirit, taking 
 
 1Comp. Herod. i. 92; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 2See also Miiller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 
 806 D; Dem. 164. 21; Thue. iii. 58. 3; Soph. + 1871, p. 618. 
 Trach. 758; Eur. Or. 96; Phoen. 864; Jon. 8 This is certainly no “ stde-glance at other 
 
 402; also ἀπαρχὴ τῆς σοφίας, Plat. Prot. p. Christians’? (as Philippi objects), which 
 343 A; and ἀπαρχαὶ ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας, Plut. would be both a far-fetched and a disturb- 
 Mor. ἡ. 172 C. ing element. 
 
828 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 place, as it were, on account, in contrast to the future full effusion in the king- 
 dom of heaven (Chrysostom and other Fathers, in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 423 ; 
 Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Estius, Calovius, Semler, Flatt, Tholuck, Philippi, 
 and Bisping ; comp. also Pfleiderer), is not contained in ἀπ. τ. rv., because 
 Paul, had he wished to speak here of a preliminary reception in contrast to 
 the future plenitude, must necessarily, in accordance with the connection, 
 have so spoken of that of the viobecia or δόξα, not of the Spirit, and because 
 a full effusion of the Spirit at the Parousia is nowhere taught in the N. T. 
 The Spirit already received, not a new and more perfect reception of it in 
 the future αἰών, by its quickening activity leads to and conditions the eternal 
 ζωή, in which God is then all in all (1 Cor. xv. 28). Others, again, make 
 τ. πν. an epexegetical genitive of apposition ; the Spirit as first-fruits, namely, 
 of the state of glory. So Bengel, Keil, Opuse., Winer, p. 495 [E. T. 531], 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, Riickert, Maier, Hofmann, Zahn, and En- 
 gelhardt ; comp. also Flatt. But however Pauline the idea may be (2 Cor. 
 i. 22, v. 3; Eph. i. 14 ; comp. Rom. ii. 5), it would, when thus expressed, 
 be liable to be misunderstood, since the readers were accustomed to find in 
 the genitive with ἀπαρχή nothing else than that, of which the latter is a 
 portion ; and how intelligibly Paul might have expressed himself, either in 
 accordance with 2 Cor. l.c. and Eph. 1.6. by τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα, or by τ. ἀπ. (seil. 
 τῆς υἱοϑεσ.) ἐν τῷ πνεύμ. ! This applies, at the same time, against Fritzsche, 
 who takes τοῦ πνεύμ. as genitive of the subject, and the jirst gifts of the Spirit 
 as in contrast to the σωτηρία which the Spirit will give to us in the αἰὼν μέλλων. 
 Against this it may also be urged that the Holy Ghost is not described in 
 the N. T. as the Giver of eternal life (not even in such passages as 2 Cor. i. 
 22, v. 5; Eph. i. 14, iv. 30; Gal. vi. 8). It 15: God who, in like manner as 
 He calls and justifies, confers also the eternal δόξα (ver. 30). The Spirit 
 operates to eternal life by His government (ver. 2), and is the ground (ver. 
 11) and pledge (ἀῤῥαβών) of that. life ; but He does not give it.!— καὶ αὐτοί] 
 Repeated and placed along with ἐν ἑαυτοῖς with earnest emphasis : οὗ ipsi in 
 nobis tpsis. The latter is not equivalent to ἐν ἀλλήλοις (Schulthess and 
 Fritzsche), but denotes, in harmony with the nature of the deep, painful 
 emotion, the inward sighing of the sti// longing of believers ; which suffers, 
 is silent, and hopes, but never complains, being assured of the goal that 
 shall be finally reached. Hofmann incorrectly would join x. αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς 
 with ἔχοντες. But this would leave the καί, which, according to the common 
 connection with orevag., has its appropriate correlative in the sighing of the 
 κτίσις, Without a reference. For, when Hofmann sets it down as the object 
 of the καί to emphasize personal possession on the part of the Christians in 
 contrast to the future participation of the κτίσις, there is thus forced on this 
 καί the meaning of already ; and this all the more arbitrarily, since καὶ 
 αὐτοί just precedes it in the quite common sense of οὗ ipsi,* and its emphatic 
 
 1 Hence also the expression used by Lu- brought out, however, in the Larger Cate- 
 ther, in the explanation of the third article chism. 
 in the Smaller Catechism, does not accord 2 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 151; Breitenbach, 
 with the New Testament mode of expres- ad Xen. Hell. iii. 1. 10. 
 sion. The sense in which he meant it is 
 
CHAP. VIII., 24. 999 
 
 repetition is very appropriate to the lively emotion of the discourse. — 
 υἱοϑεσ. ἀπεκδὲχ.} whilst we wait for the adoption of children. It is true, 
 believers have already this blessing (ver. 15), but only as inward relation 
 and as divine right, with which, however, the objective and real state does 
 not yet correspond. Thus, looked at from the standpoint of complete real- 
 ization, they are only to receive υἱοϑεσίαν at the Parousia, whereupon the 
 ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τ. Θεοῦ and their δόξα ensues. Comp. also Matt. v. 9, 45 ; 
 Luke vi. 15. In like manner the δικαιοσύνη is a present possession, and also 
 one to be entered on hereafter. Comp. on v. 19; and see on Gal. v. 5; 
 Col. iii. 3 f. Luther incorrectly joins viodec. with orevat., which, with an ac- 
 cusative, means to bemoan or bewail something.’— τὴν ἀπολ. τ. σώμ. ἡμ.} ep- 
 exegesis : (namely) the redemption of our body from all the defects of its 
 earthly condition ; through which redemption it shall be glorified into the 
 σῶμα ἄφϑαρτον similar to the glorified body of Christ (Phil. iii. 21 ; 2 Cor. v. 
 2 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 51), or shall be raised up as such, in case of our not sur- 
 viving till the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 42 ff.). So, in substance (τοῦ cou. as 
 gen. sudj.), Chrysostom and other Fathers (in Suicer, Z’hes. I. Ὁ. 4638), Beza, 
 Grotius, Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and most modern expositors. On the 
 other hand, Erasmus, Clericus, and others, including Reiche, Fritzsche, 
 Krehl, and Ewald, take it as : redemption from the body. This is linguis- 
 tically admissible (Heb. ix. 15) ; we should thus have to refer it, not to 
 death, but to deliverance from this earthly body through the reception of the 
 immortal and glorious body at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 51. But in that 
 case Paul must have added to τοῦ σώματ. ἡμῶν a qualitative more precise 
 definition, as in Phil. iii. 21. 
 
 Remark.—If we adopt the common reading (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπ. τ. TY. 
 ἔχοντες, καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ k.t.A.), Which Ewald and Umbreit follow, while Rickert, 
 Philippi, Tholuck, and Hofmann declare themselves in favour of, ours (see the 
 erit. remarks), αὐτοὶ... ἔχοντες is understood, either as meaning the Chris- 
 tians of that age generally, and καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοί the apostles (Kéllner, following 
 Melanchthon, Wolf, and many others), or Paul alone (Koppe, Reiche, Umbreit, 
 and many others) ; or, the former is referred to beginners in Christianity, and 
 the latter to those who have been Christians for a longer time (Gléckler) ; or, 
 both (the latter per analepsin) are referred to the apostles (Grotius), or to the 
 Christians (Luther, Beza, Calvin, Klee, Maier, Koster, and Frommann). The 
 interpretation referring it tothe Christians is the only right one; so that 
 ἡμεῖς brings into more definite prominence the repeated subject. The ἔχοντες, 
 without the article, is fatal to every reference to subjects of two sorts. 
 
 Ver. 24. τῇ yap ἐλπ. ἐσώϑ.] Ground of the υἱοϑεσίαν arexd., so far as the 
 υἱοθεσία is still object of expectation ; for in hope we were made partakers of 
 salwation. The dative, ‘‘non medii, sed modi” (Bengel), denotes that to which 
 the ἐσώϑ. is to be conceived as confined (Winer, p. 202) [E. T. 215], and τῇ 
 ἐλπ. is prefixed with the emphasis of the contrast of reality ; for ‘‘sic libe- 
 rati sumus ut adhuc speranda sit haereditas, postea possidenda, et ut ita 
 
 1 Soph. Ant. 873; Oed. C. 1668; Dem. 690. 18; Eur. Suppl. 104; and often elsewhere. 
 
990 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 dicam, nunc habemus jus ad rem, nondum in re,” Melanchthon. Comp. 
 Tit. iii. 7; Col. iii. 81. Following Chrysostom, others (recently Riickert, 
 K6llner, and de Wette) take the dative in an instrumental sense : by hope— 
 thus assuming that Paul characterizes faith, the proper medium of salvation, 
 as hope. Incorrectly, because in general Paul specifically distinguishes faith 
 and hope (1 Cor. xiii’ 13),* while he always bases salvation only on faith, 
 from which hope thereupon proceeds (comp. Col. i. 27) ; and here espe- 
 cially, as is shown by what follows, he brings into prominence the definite 
 conception of hope, which as δόξα μελλόντων (Plat. Legg. I. p. 644 C) rests in 
 the προσδοκία ἀγαϑοῦ (Plat. Def. p. 416 A). Hofmann also takes τῇ ἐλπ. in 
 the sense of the means, but so that it shall signify the benefit hoped for, the 
 object of the waiting, which God has offered to us in the word, by which we 
 were converted to faith (Col. i. 5). Thus, however, the thought that we 
 have been saved by hope (instead of by faith, Eph. ii. 8) isset aside only by 
 the insertion of parenthetical clauses. And in Col. i. 5, the blessing hoped 
 for, heard of through preaching, is set forth as the ground, not of conver- 
 sion or salvation, but of love.—éAmic δὲ «.7.2. . . . ἀπεκδεχ.] is a deduction 
 from τῇ ἐλπ. éowd., closing the first ground of encouragement, and meaning 
 substantially : ‘' the nature of hope, however, involves our patiently waiting 
 Sor.” — βλεπομένῃ] But a hope (dé μεταβατικόν) that is seen, t.e. whose object* 
 lies before the eyes (comp. on the objective ἐλπίς, Col. 1. 5; 1 Tim. i. 1; 
 Heb. vi. 18; Thue. iii. 57. 4 ; Lucian, Pisce. 3; Aeschin. ad Ctesiph. 100). 
 Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 18. — τί καὶ ἐλπίζει .] Why doth he still hope for it? By καί 
 is indicated the—in the supposed case groundless—accession of hope to 
 sight (1 Cor. xv. 29). Comp. generally, on this strengthening use of the 
 καί, etiam, in lively interrogation, Klotz, ad Devar. p. 633 f., and on 1 Cor. 
 l.c. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ ewm visione non est spe opus.” 
 
 Ver. 25. A’ ὑπομ.} With patience, perseveringly. Heb. xii. 1 ; Kiihner, II. 
 1, p. 418.—The indicative ἀπεκδεχ., which is not, with Estius, Koppe, 
 K6llIner, and others, to be taken as exspectare debemus, does not announce 
 the virtuous operation (Grotius), but simply the sitwation, which the circum- 
 stance that we hope without seeing involves. The ethical position assigned 
 to us is, that we patiently wait for the object of our hope. 
 
 Ver. 26. The second ground of encouragement (see on vv. 18-31), con- 
 nected with the immediately foregoing by ὡσαύτως. ---- τὸ πνεῦμα] The objec- 
 tive Holy Spirit. See vv. 16, 23, and what follows, where the activity of the 
 πνεῦμα is described as something distinct from the subjective consciousness. 
 K6lner incorrectly takes it (comp. Reiche) as : the Christian life-element ; 
 and van Hengel : ‘‘ fiduciae sensus a. Sp. 5. profectus.” — συναντιλ.1 The 
 
 1 See even Melanchthon, who rightly ob- 
 serves: ‘‘Differunt autem fides et spes. 
 quia fides in praesentia accipit remissionem 
 
 peccatorum ... sed spes est exsnectatio 
 Suturae liberationis.” Faith precedes the 
 latter. 
 
 2 The progress of thought is simple: ‘If 
 we hope for what we see not, then the mat- 
 ter stands with us, (1) on ¢he footing, that 
 
 we with patience wait ; but likewise (2) on 
 the footing, that the Spirit helps us.’”? The 
 ὡσαύτως, pariter ac, itidem (see generally 
 Kiihner, 11. 1, Ὁ. 564), introduces a symmet- 
 rical corresponding relation, which is added 
 on the divine side to our waiting. Comp. 
 Mark xiv. 31; 1 Tim. vy. 25; Tit. ii. 6; Plat., 
 Symp. p. 186 ἘΠ, al.; 2 Macc. xy. 39; 8 Mace. 
 Vi. 33. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 26. 991. 
 συν must neither be neglected (as by many older expositors, also Olshausen), 
 nor regarded as a mere strengthening adjunct (Riickert and Reiche). Beza 
 gives the right explanation : ad nos laborantes refertur.” He joins His ac- 
 tivity with our weakness, helps it. See Luke x. 40; Ex. xviii. 22; Ps. 
 Ixxxviil. 22. — 7H ἀσϑενείᾳ ἡμῶν] Not specially weakness in prayer (Ambrosi- 
 aster and Bengel), for in what follows there is specified only the particular 
 mode of the help, which the Spirit renders to us in our infirmity. It is there- 
 fore to be left general : with owr weakness, —so far, namely, as in that wait- 
 ing for final redemption adequate power of our own for ὑπομονή fails us. — 
 τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξ. «.T.A.| Reason assigned, by specifying how the Spirit, ete. ; 
 in prayer, namely, He intercedes for us. —On τό, see Winer, p. 103 {Es @: 
 109]. It denotes what of praying comes into question in such a position. 
 Comp. Kriiger, Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 17. — τί προσευξ. καϑὸ δεῖ] what we ought to 
 pray for according as it is necessary, in proportion (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 12; 1 
 Pet. iv. 13) tothe need. The latter is the subsequently determining clement ; 
 it is not absolutely and altogether unknown to us what we ought to ask, but 
 only what it is necessary to ask according to the given circumstances. Usually 
 καϑὸ dei is taken in reference to the form of asking, like πῶς in Matt. x. 19 ; 
 but thus the distinctive reference of the meaning of καϑὸ, prout (comp. Plat. 
 Soph. p. 267 Ὁ ; Baruchi. 0) isneglected. Chrysostom rightly illustrates 
 the matter by the apostle’s own example, who ὑπὲρ τοῦ σκόλοπος τοῦ δεδομένου 
 αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ (2 Cor. xii.) had prayed for what was not granted him. 
 According to Hofmann, καϑὸ det connects itself with οὐκ οἴδαμεν, so that the 
 thought would be : ‘‘ we do not so understand as it would be necessary.” Pht 
 how much too feeble in this connection would be the assertion of a mevtly 
 insufficient knowledge !— imepevrvyyaver] i.e. ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, He applies 
 Himself for our benefit (counterpart of xi. 2), namely τῷ Θεῷ, which ad- 
 dition is read by Origen. The double compound is not elsewhere preserv- 
 ed, except in the Fathers, but it is formed after the analogy of ὑπεραποκρίνο- 
 μαι, ὑπεραπολογέομαι, and many other words. The superlative rendering of 
 it (Luther : ‘‘ He intercedes for us the best’) is improbable, since ἐντυγχάνει 
 does not already express the notion of that which is much (ν. 20) or trium- 
 phant (viii. 37 ; Phil. ii. 9), or the like, which would admit of enhance- 
 ment. — στεναγμ. ἀλαλήτοις] i.e. thereby that He makes unutterable sighs, sighs 
 whose meaning words are powerless to convey. The idea therefore is, that 
 the Holy Spirit sighs unutterably in our hearts (ver. 27), and thereby inter- 
 cedes for us with God, to whom, as heart-searcher, the desire of the Spirit 
 sighing in the heart is known. It was an erroneous view, whereby, follow- 
 ing Augustine, 7). VI. on John ii., most expositors, who took τὸ rv. rightly 
 as the Holy Spirit, held the στεναγμ. ἀλαλ. to be unutterable sighs which the 
 man, incited by the Spirit,’ heaves forth. The Spirit Himself (comp. also 
 
 former. 
 
 1 According to Philippi: ‘the sanctified 
 human spirit,” whose sighing is traced back 
 to its ultimate origin, the Spirit of God 
 Himself. In the cordial marriage of the 
 Spirit of God with that of man, there takes 
 place, as it were (?), an incarnation of the 
 
 This mysticism is not in harmony 
 with the N. T., which always distinguishes 
 clearly and specifically between the Holy 
 Spirit and the human spirit, as in ver. 16. 
 This applies also against Pfleiderer in Hil- 
 genfield’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 178 f.; who thinks 
 
332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 Hofmann) must sigh, if He is to intercede for us with sighs, and if God is to 
 understand the φρόνημα of the Spirit (ver. 27) ; although the Spirit uses the 
 human organ for His sighing (comp. the counterpart phenomenon of 
 demons speaking or crying out of men), as He likewise does elsewhere for 
 His speaking, Matt. x. 20. See also on Gal. iv. 6. The tongue is anal- 
 ogously, in the case of speaking with tongues, the organ of the Spirit who 
 speaks. The necessary explanation of the πνεῦμα as meaning the Holy 
 Spirit, and the fact that the sighs must be His sighs, overturn the ration- 
 alizing interpretations of Reiche : ‘‘ Christian feeling cherishes, indeed, 
 the quiet longing in the heart, and therewith turns, full of confidence, to 
 God, but nevertheless does not permit itself any inquisitive wishes to- 
 wards him ;” and of Kéllner: ‘‘The Spirit gained in Christ . . . works 
 in man that deep and holy emotion in which man, turned towards God 
 in his inmost feeling, cannot, in the fulness of the emotion, express his 
 burden in words, and can only relieve his oppressed heart by silent groan- 
 ings.” A mere arbitrary alteration of the simple verbal sense is to be 
 found in the view to which Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and 
 others have recourse, that the Spirit is here the χάρισμα εὐχῆς, in virtue of 
 which the human soul sighs. Comp. Theodoret, who thinks that Paul 
 means not τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ πνεύματος, but τὴν δεδομένην τοῖς πιστεύουσι χάριν" 
 ὑπὸ γὰρ ταύτης διεγειρόμενοι κατανυττόμεϑα, πυρσευόμενοι προϑυμότερον προσευχό- 
 μεϑα κιτ.Δ. The question whether, moreover, ἀλαλ. should, with Beza, 
 Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, Flatt, Gléckler, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Tgeithmayr, van Hengel, Késter, and others, be rendered unexpressed,’ i.e. 
 duinb, not accompanied with words, or, with the Vulgate and the majority 
 of commentators, inexpressible (for the expression of whose meaning words 
 are insufficient), is decided by the fact that only the latter sense can be 
 proved by linguistic usage, and it characterizes the depth and fervour of the 
 sighing most directly and forcibly.’ 
 
 Ver. 27. Ὁ épevy. τὰς xapd.| Traditionally hallowed (1 Sam. xvi. 7; 
 1 Kings viii. 89 ; Ps. vii. 10; Prov. xv. 11; Jer. xvii. 9 f.), description of 
 God, bearing on the subject in hand ; for it is in the heart, as in the central 
 laboratory of the personal self-conscious life (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 
 254), that the praying Spirit sighs, Gal. iv. 6. — ὅτι) Not for, as many think, 
 including Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, Ewald, and Umbreit. 
 What follows in fact conveys no real ground, since God would in every case 
 know the purpose of the Spirit, and to take ojde in the pregnant sense : 
 understands and hears (so Riickert, following Calvin), is utterly unjustifiable, 
 
 that owr spirit is to be distinguished from fold spirit in our passage a twofold form 
 
 the divine Spirit dwelling in us only in such 
 a way, that the two stand related merely as 
 the form to the real contents of self-con- 
 sciousness. In cases such as our passage, 
 according to his view, the Ego knows itself 
 in objective consciousness as furnished 
 with the Divine Spirit, without feeling itself 
 to be so in the subjective consciousness. 
 In this way there is substituted for the two- 
 
 and activity of the Christian consciousness, 
 which the plain words do not permit. 
 
 1 As ἄῤῥητος may be used ; but not ἀμύϑη- 
 τος, Which always means, unulteradble, un- 
 speakable. 
 
 2\Comp. jalso, 2)\Cor, 1x. 455, 1 Pet-si. 8: 
 Anth. Pal. ν. 4 (Philodem. 17); Theogn, 422 
 (according to Stob. Se77, 36, p, 216). 
 
CHAP. VIIL., 28. 333 
 
 especially after ὁ ἐρευν. «.7.A. The ὅτι is rather thaf, annexed by way of 
 explanation : that He, namely. Comp. Grotius, Estius, Benecke, Reiche, 
 Fritzsche, Maier, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Reithmayr, van 
 Hengel, and Hofmann. See on Phil. i. 27, ii. 22, al. —xata Θεόν] This, ex- 
 plained by Origen ‘‘ secundum divinitatem,” does not mean : on the instiga- 
 tion of God (Tholuck, appealing improperly to 1 Cor. xii. 8), but : in accord- 
 ance with God, .6. so as God desires it, κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ, Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 9,10; 4 Macc. xv. 2; Plat. Apol. pp. 22 A, 23 
 B. The sense : in pursuance of the Divine disposal, more common in classic 
 usage (see Wetstein on the passage, and Valcken. ad Herod. iii. 153), is here 
 foreign. Béhme, Reiche, and Fritzsche render it before God, with God (‘in 
 Deum quasi conversus”). This is indeed justifiable from a linguistic point 
 of view (Bernhardy, p. 240), comp. Wisd. v. 1, Eccles. xxxiv. 6 ; but how 
 superfluous and unsuited to the emphasis of the prominent position assigned 
 toit ! With the emphasis on κατὰ Θεόν it cannot appear strange that Paul 
 has not written κατ᾽ αὐτόν, but has rather named the subject. Comp. Xen. 
 Mem. i. 3. 2: εὔχετο δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ϑεοὺς, . . . ὡς τοὺς ϑεοὺς κάλλιστα εἰδότας 
 k.7.4.. The omission of the article, which does not render the expression 
 adverbial (against Hofmann), establishes in the case of Θεός no difference of 
 sense (Winer, p. 115 f. [E. T. 122]). — ὑπὲρ ἁγίων] for saints, without the 
 article because qualitative ; ‘‘ sancti sunt et Deo propinqui et auxilio digni, 
 pro quibus intercedit,” Bengel. On évrvyy. ὑπέρ τινος, to pray for any one, 
 see Bihr on Plut. ΠΡ p. 89. 
 
 Ver. 28. Third ground of encouragement ; comp. on ver. 26. — οἵδαμεν δέ] 
 It is known to us, however (as in ver. 22). This δέ is not : on the other hand, 
 however, in contradistinction to the sighing discussed since ver. 22, as Hof- 
 mann thinks—a reference, that must have been marked in some way or 
 other (at least by the stronger adversative ἀλλά). It is the usual μεταβατικόν, 
 and carries us from the special relation discussed in ver. 26 f. over to a gen- 
 eral one, the consciousness of which must finally place the good courage of 
 the believer on a footing all the more sure. — τοῖς ἀγαπ. τ. Θεόν] the dative 
 of communion. Paul characterizes as lovers of God (κατ᾽ éoy.) the true 
 Christians (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9, iii. 8; Eph. vi. 24 ; Jas. 1. 12), as is plain 
 from τοῖς κατὰ x.7.2.1— πάντα] everything, i.e., according to the context, al/ 
 destined events, even those full of pain not excepted (ver. 35). On the 
 thought, comp. Plat. Rep. p. 613 A.— συνεργεῖ] works along with, that is, 
 contributes ; βοηϑεῖ, Hesychius. See Wetstein. The σὺν does not refer to 
 the common working together of the elements contained in πάντα (comp. 
 ver. 22), but to the idea of the fellowship in which he who supports necessari- 
 ly stands to him who is supported. Comp. on ver. 26. — εἰς ἀγαϑόν] indefi- 
 nitely : for good ; it works beneficially. Comp. Theogn. 161; Hom. 7]. x. 
 102 ; Plat. Rep. l.c.; Eccles. xxxix. 27; Rom. xiii. 4. Reiche erroneously 
 takes it as: ‘‘the good of the Christians, their eternal welfare.” In that 
 
 1 In this very description of the Christian Wofmann finds a retrospective glance at y. 
 estate there is implied a ground of conviction 1 ff., but only by means of his incorrect 
 of the οἴδαμεν, the certainty of which is view of ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, Υ. 5. 
 thereupon still more precisely explained. 
 
304 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 case, the article at least must have been used as in xiv. 16 ; and some wit- 
 nesses in reality add it. Bengel has the right view : ‘‘in bonwm, ad glorifi- 
 cationem wsque” (ver. 90). ---- τοῖς κατὰ πρόϑ. κλητοῖς ovow] [See Note XCVIII. 
 p. 852.] These words may mean either (οὖσιν as predicate, joining on) : ‘‘ since 
 they are the called according to His purpose” (so Hofmann), or (taking τοῖς in 
 conjunction with οὖσιν), as to those who (quippe qui, i.e. since they indeed) are 
 the called according to His purpose. So usually ; and this latter is the true ren- 
 dering, because otherwise οὖσιν would be put not only quite superfluously, but 
 also in a way very liable to misconception, since it would occur to every 
 reader, at the first glance, to join τοῖς with οὖσιν. Had Paul meant what Hof- 
 mann thinks he did, he would have written simply τοῖς κ. π. κλητοῖς without 
 οὖσιν, or possibly οἵτινές εἰσιν οἱ x. π. kAntot. — Respecting the idea itself, there is 
 causally involved in the relation of being the called according to His purpose 
 (for the emphasis rests on κλητοῖς), the certainty that to them all things, etc. ; 
 for otherwise that high distinction, which God has conferred upon them 
 according to the purpose of His grace, would be vain and fruitless, which 
 is impossible (ver. 30). The πρόϑεσις here meant is the free decree formed 
 by God in eternity for imparting bliss to believers through Christ (ix. 11 ; 
 ΠΡ τ ΠῚ 11509. Dim. 19's Eyph?'1;'' 9). Tn aecordance: with: that 
 decree, the call of God to the Messianic salvation through the preaching of 
 the gospel (x. 14 ; 2 Thess. il. 14) has gone forth to those comprehended 
 in that decree. Therefore, when Paul terms the Christians κλητοί, it is self- 
 evident that in their case the call has met with success (1 Cor. i. 24), conse- 
 quently has been combined with the converting operation of the divine 
 grace,—without the latter, however, being found in the word itself, or the 
 word being made equivalent to ἐκλεκτοί." Christians are at the same time 
 κλητοί, ἐκλεκτοί (ix. 11), ἅγιοι x.7.4.3 but the significations of these predicates 
 correspond to different characteristic qualities of the Christian state. Con-_ 
 sequently, just as it was quite a mistaken view to interpret πρόϑεσις of the 
 personal self-determination of the subjects (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 others), so also it was an unbiblical and hazardous distinction (see against 
 this, Calovius) to put the called κατὰ πρόϑεσιν in contrast with those who 
 are called μὴ κατὰ πρόϑ. (Augustine, Estius, Reithmayr, and others). Weiss 
 aptly observes, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 79: ‘‘ Election and 
 calling are inseparable correlative ideas ; where the one takes place, there 
 the other takes place also ; only we cannot take cognizance of the former 
 as an act before all time and within the divine mind, while the latter 
 becomes apparent as a historical fact.”” Comp. also his bibl. Theol. p. 386 f. 
 
 Vv. 29, 30. More detailed development and expression of τοῖς x. πρόϑ. KA. 
 as a continued confirmation of the οἴδαμεν, ὅτι κιτ.2. ‘‘ For this di- 
 vine plan of salvation advancing from the πρόθεσις to the κλῆσις, leads the Chris- 
 tian safely and surely to the δόξα ;” hence it is not conceivable that anything 
 whatever, in opposition to this plan, should exercise other than a beneficial 
 influence upon them (ver. 81 ff.). — προέγνω] foreknew, namely, as those who 
 should one day, in the way of the divine plan of salvation, become σύμμορφοι τῆς 
 
 
 
 . 
 οὖσιν, 
 
 1 Comp. Lamping, Pauli de praedest. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 40 f. 
 
CHAP. ΕΠ 29, 30; 33D 
 
 εἰκόνος τ. υἱοῦ adrov.’ [See Note XCIX. p. 352.] That this character, in which 
 they were foreknown by God, presupposes the subjection to faith (the ὑπακοὴ 
 πίστεως 1. 5), was self-evident to the Christian reader. Erasmus aptly re- 
 marks : ‘‘ Non temere elegit Deus quos elegit, novit suos multo antequam vo- 
 caret.” The text merely gives the terminus of the πρὸ in προέγνω and προώρισε 
 quite indefinitely, namely : before their calling. More precise definitions, 
 therefore (¢.g. that of Tholuck : ‘‘ before the foundation of the world,” though 
 in itself correct, Eph. i. 4, iii. 11), should not be here given. The taking of 
 the πνοέγνω in the sense of prescience, demanded by the signification, of the 
 word, has been followed (though with various, and in part very arbitrary, 
 attempts to supply that, as which the persons concerned were foreknown by 
 God) by Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Theophy- 
 lact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Paraphr., Toletus, Calovius, and others, including 
 Reiche, Neander, Tholuck, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel, Hahn, 
 Ewald, Weiss, and others. The question whether this exposition or the other 
 of the pre-election (Calvin and others, including Riickert, Usteri, Kéllner, 
 de Wette, Fritzsche, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Lamping), is the true 
 one, cannot be got rid of by mixing up the two conceptions (Umbreit) ; 
 nor is it to be decided by dogmatic presuppositions, but simply by the 
 usage of the language, in accordance with which zpoy. never in the N. T. 
 (not even in xi, 2, 1 Pet. i. 20) means anything else than to know beforehand 
 (Acts xxvi. 5 ; 2 Pet. iii. 17; Judith ix. 6 ; Wisd. vi. 13, viii. 8, xviii. 6). 
 Comp. Philippi in Joc., and his Glaubenslehre, IV. 1, p. 117 ff., ed. 2. That 
 in classic usage it ever means anything else, cannot be at all proved.? Comp. 
 An appeal is made to the familiar use of 
 γινώσκ. in the sense of judicial cognizance, or even of other resolutions and 
 decisions (Herod. iv. 25, i. 74, 78; Thuc. iv. 30, iii. 99, and many other 
 instances). But, in the first place, it is never in this sense joined with the 
 accusative of the person without an infinitive ; and secondly, there is no 
 such precedent of usage for the compound προγινώσκειν, current as it was 
 in Greek authors ; for the few passages in which it means to take fore- 
 thought about something (Thuc. ii. 64.5; Xen. Cyr. ii. 4, 11, with a very 
 doubtful reading) are not suitable for comparison, either as regards the 
 sense, or as respects the union with the personal accusative in our pas- 
 sage. The incorrectness of this explanation is confirmed, moreover, by 
 the analogy of the following clauses, which always add another and 
 different idea to the one preceding. The right interpretation remains, 
 therefore : praecognovit (Vulg. = praescivit), which, however, is neither to be 
 altered, with Augustine, Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, and others, into appro- 
 bavit jam ante, to which view also Tholuck and Riickert incline (see on vii. 
 
 also πρόγνωσις and προγνωστικός. 
 
 the object of the προέγνω (Weiss 1.6. Ὁ. 74 f., 
 and bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 385). Bengel well re- 
 marks on συμμόρφους x.7.A.: ‘ Hic est char- 
 
 1 This filling up of the idea of προέγνω is 
 implied, namely, in what follows. If God 
 has destined them beforehand to a future 
 
 fashioning in the likeness, etc., He must 
 also have already known them beforehand 
 as those who should one day be thus fash- 
 ioned. Consequently we are not to under- 
 stand the predisposition to love (ver. 28) as 
 
 acter praecognitorum et glorificandorum. 
 
 2See, on the contrary, Hom. Cer. 258; 
 Xen. Ap. 30; Plat. Rep. p. 426 C; Theaet. p. 
 203 D; Tim. Ὁ. 70 C; Eur. Hipp. 1072; Dem, 
 861. 13; Lucian, Prom. 20, 
 
336 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 15) ; nor to be taken, with Hofmann, in that sense of γινώσκειν which obtains 
 in 1 Cor. viii. 3, xiii. 12, Gal. iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 19 (an appropriating cogni- 
 zance of what is akin and homogeneous, according to Hofmann). |The latter, 
 to which also Delitzsch ultimately comes, Psychol. p. 39,’ is incorrect, 
 because in accordance with it the πρόγνωσις would be a relation of com- 
 munion already entered into actively by God, which would necessarily 
 include the προορισμός, and consequently exclude the latter as a special 
 and accessory act. For to suppose that Paul, with προέγνω and προ- 
 dpe, does not mean two acts following each other in succession, but 
 asserts the former of the persons, and the latter of the character ascribed to 
 them (Hofmann), is wholly groundless in presence of the clearly progressive 
 description of the apostle. The right view, since faith is the subjective 
 ground of salvation, is that held by Calovius and our older dogmatists : 
 ἐς quos eredituros praevidit vel suscepturos vocationem.” Τὺ 15 God's being aware 
 in His plan, by means of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to 
 salvation, He knows whom He has to destine thereto. Comp. on xi. 2. —xai 
 προώρισε] them He destined also beforehand. To what? συμμόρφ. τῆς etx. τ. vi. 
 abt. : to be conformed to the image of His Son, i.e. to be such as should present 
 the image of His Son in their conformation. From the following εἰς τὸ εἶναι 
 x.t.2. it is plain that Paul here means the same which in ver. 23 he has des- 
 ignated as υἱοθεσίαν, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, Consequently the glory 
 to which God has predestined them, the state of the μέλλουσα δόξα (ver. 18), 
 so far as this shall be the same (even in respect of the glorified body, Phil. 
 iii. 21, 1 Cor. xv. 49) as that which the exalted Christ has. Comp. 2 Cor. 
 iii. 18, 1 John iii. ὃ. The fellowship in suffering (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
 and others) is here remote. What Paul has in view must be the same as he 
 denotes in ver. 30 by ἐδόξασε, consequently the conformitas gloriae. This 
 very thought of the entire glorious appearance, which he means, has sug- 
 gested the vivid expression συμμόρφ. τ. εἰκόνος ; wherefore we are not, with 
 
 
 
 Chrysostom (ὅπερ γὰρ ὁ μονογενὴς ἦν φύσει, τοῦτο Kai αὐτοὶ γεγόνασι κατὰ χάριν), 
 Theophylact, Bengel, and others, to refer it to the present υἱοθεσίαᾳ. Theo- 
 doret has the right view. The conformity of the inner being is not con- 
 veyed in the expression (Hofmann understands it as ineluded), but is the 
 moral presupposition of the glory meant. — σύμμορφος (Lucian, Amor. 39), in 
 Phil. iii. 21 with the dative, here with the genitive. See Bernhardy, p. 171 ; 
 Kithner, II. 1, p. 996. --- εἰς τὸ εἶναι x.t.4.] Not an inferential clause (see on 
 i. 20), but—as the very notion of προώρ. embraces the purpose—the jinal aim 
 of προώρ. συμμόρφ. x.7.2. Nor is the main thought contained in ἐν πολλ. 
 ἀδελφ., as de Wette very arbitrarily supposes ; but, on the contrary, Paul 
 contemplates Christ as the One, to whom the divine decree referred as to its 
 jinal aim. Christ was to fulfil His lofty commission not merely by standing 
 in the relation of His glory to the Father as the μονογενής, but by being the 
 First-born among many brethren, i.e. among many who through Him, the 
 essential and primordial Son of God, should, as adopted υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, and conse- 
 
 1 Comp. Calvin: the πρόγνωσις is an “ adop- vit ;”’ this notitia being dependent a dene- 
 tio, qua filios suos a reprobis semperdiscre- placito of God. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 31-39. 337 
 
 quently in so far as his brethren, have attained to the same δόξα of sharing 
 the possession of the dignity and privilege (Col. i. 18) of the First-born.* 
 Comp. also Heb. i. 6, and Liinemann 7m loc. — ἐκάλεσε] Like κλητοῖς in ver. 
 28. For those who despised the invitation to salvation conveyed to them 
 through the preachers of the gospel did not belong to the called, whom 
 God προέγνω and προώρισε ; the following τούτους κ. dix. also presupposes that 
 the calling has been attended with the result of the ὑπακοὴ πίστεως. Comp. 
 on ver. 28. Hence the divine saving grace is to be conceived as working by 
 means of the word on those who become called, namely, in opening and pre- 
 paring the heart for the reception of the word,? Acts xvi. 14 ; Phil. i. 6, 29 ; 
 John vi. 44. God has fore-known those who would not oppose to his gra- 
 cious calling the resistance of unbelief, but would follow its drawing ; 
 thereafter He has fore-ordained them to eternal salvation ; and when the 
 time had come for the execution of His saving counsel, has called them, ete. 
 (ver. 30). With the κλῆσις begins the execution of the προορισμός, in accord- 
 ance with the πρόγνωσις ; and the subjects concerned are, in contrast to the 
 multitude standing outside of this divine process of salvation, the ἐκλεκτοί 
 (ver. 33). — ἐδικαίωσεν} Justification is consequently the sole ground of the 
 glorifying ; sanctification is added to it, in order that the justified may 
 attain that goal in the way that God desires. — ἐδόξασε] Justification, as a 
 divine act of imputation, is really (not merely ideally or in principle, in 
 opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 48 f.) accomplished ; but the glorification 
 falls to the future (ver. 21, v. 2, and constantly in N. T. ; comp. also 1 Cor. 
 li. 7, Rom. ix. 23). Notwithstanding, the qaorist neither stands for the 
 Suture nor for the present (in opposition to Kéllner ; see Herm. ad Viger. p. 
 746) ; nor does it express anywhere in the N. T. a habit, as Flatt thinks— 
 against which view, in the present instance, the analogy of the preceding 
 aorists is decisive ; but it represents the de facto certainly future glorification 
 as so necessary and certain, that it appears asif already given and completed 
 with the ἐδικαίωσεν. ‘Whom He has justified, them He has—viewing the 
 relation from its final aim—therewith also glorified.”* In order thus to place 
 the glorification on the same platform of certainty with the προέγνω, προώρισε, 
 ἐκάλεσε, and édix., Paul selected the proleptic aorist. On the other hand, the 
 triumphant flow of the great chain of thought and the thoroughly Pauline 
 boldness of expression (comp. on Eph. ii. 5) are misapprehended, if the act 
 be regarded as accomplished only in the decree of God (Grotius, Reiche, and 
 Umbreit) ; or if the expression be referred to the glory of God possessed ‘‘ at 
 Jirst only inwardly and secretly” (Hofmann), or to ‘‘repute with God” 
 (Miircker), or to the bestowal of grace and υἱοθεσία here below (Chrysostom and 
 his followers, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, and Erasmus), to which also van 
 Hengel adheres, appealing to John xii. 28. 
 
 Vv. 31-39. Inference from vv. 29, 30. So, then, the Christian has to fear 
 nothing that might be detrimental to his salvation ; but on the contrary he is, 
 with the love of God in Christ, assured of that salvation. —'This whole passage 
 
 
 
 1Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. 11. p. 214, Julius Miiller, dogmat. Abhandl. 264 ff. 
 ed. 2. 3 See Herm. ad Viger. p. 747; Kiihner, 11. 
 2 Comp. Luthardt, v. Freien Willen, Ὁ. 427 ; 1, p. 142. 
 
998 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 is (observe the logical relation of ὅτε in ver. 29, and οὖν in ver. 31) a commen- 
 tary on ver. 28. And what acommentary ! ‘‘Quid unquam Cicero dixit 
 grandiloquentius ?” Erasmus on ver. 35. Comp. Augustine, de doctr. vhr. 
 iv. 20. A sublime ὄγκος τῆς λέξεως (Arist. Rhet. iii. 6) pervades the whole, 
 even as respects form. 
 
 Ver. 31. What shall we therefore say (infer thence) with respect to these 
 things (vv. 29, 30) ?— εἰ ὁ Θεὸς x.7.A.] Herewith begins a stream of trium- 
 phant questions and answers (on to ver. 87) which contains what we say. — 
 The ὁ Θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν briefly sums up the divine guardianship according to 
 the tenor of vv. 29, 30. --- τίς xa? ἡμῶν 3] a question not of challenge (Hof- 
 mann), with which the following does not accord, but of the sure, already 
 triumphant certainty that all hostile power must be unsuccessful and harm- 
 less for us. On εἶναι κατά τινος, comp. Ecclus. vi. 12 ; Wisd. iv. 6 ; Plut. 
 Nic. 21 ; and onthe contrast of ὑπὲρ and κατά, 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 
 
 Ver. 32. The answer to the foregoing question,’ likewise interrogative, 
 but with all the more confidence. —écye] quippe qui, He, who indeed, brings 
 into prominence causally the subject of what is to be said of him by πῶς κ.τ.λ." 
 This causal clause is with great emphasis prefixed to the πῶς «.7.A., of which 
 it serves as the ground (the converse occurs 6.0. in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 14 ; 
 Aristoph. Ran. 789).— τοῦ ἰδίου] full of significance, for the more forcible 
 delineation of the display of love. A contrast, however, to the υἱοὺς θετούς 
 (Theophylact, Pareus, Wetstein, Tholuck, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Fritzsche, Philippi) is not implied in the text. Comp., rather, vill. 3: τὸν 
 ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν. --- οὐκ ἐφείσατο] Comp. xi. 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 4, 5; fre- 
 quent also in classic authors. ‘‘ Deus paterno suo amori quasi vim adhibuit,” 
 Bengel. The prevalence of the expression, as also the fact that Paul has 
 not written τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ, makes the assumption of an allusion to 
 Gen. xxii. 12 seem not sufficiently well founded (Philippi, Hofmann, and 
 many older commentators). The juxtaposition of the negative and positive 
 phrases, οὐκ ἐφ., ἀλλ᾽. . . mapéd., enhances the significance of the act of 
 love. On παρέδωκεν (unto death), comp. iv. 25. σὺν αὐτῷ : with Him who, 
 given up for us, has by God’s grace already become ours. Thus everything 
 else stands to this highest gift of grace in the relation of concomitant accessory 
 gift. — πῶς οὐ χὶ καὶ] how is it possible that He should not also with Him, etc. ? 
 The καὶ belongs, ποῦ to πῶς οὐχί (Philippi), but to σὺν αὐτῷ : comp. 111. 29 ; 
 1 Cor. ix. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 19. The inference is ὦ majori ad minus. ‘‘ Minus 
 est enim vobis omnia cum illo donare, quam illum nostri causa morti tra- 
 dere,” Ambrosiaster. Comp. Chrysostom. —7ré πάντα] the whole, of what He 
 has to bestow in accordance with the aim of the surrender of Jesus ; that is, 
 not ‘‘ the universe of things” (Hofmann), the κληρονομία of the world, which is 
 here quite foreign, but, in harmony with the context, vv. 26-30: the col- 
 
 1 That question no longer required a cor- 
 roboration (Hofmann) after ver. 28 ff. Be- 
 sides, Paul would have expressed this 
 meaning by γάρ. Regarding the frequent 
 ~use of γέ to introduce the answer in classic- 
 cal Greek, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 292 f.; El- 
 
 lendt, Zex. Soph. I. p. 347; Baeumlein, 
 Partik. Ὁ. 62; Kiihner, 11. 2, p. 734. 
 
 2See Baeumlein, Partik. p. 57 f.; Borne- 
 mann, ad Xen, Symp. iv. 15; Maetzn. ad Ly- 
 Curd. P. 228. 
 
CHAP. 'VIII., 99: 999 
 lective saving blessings of His love shown to us in Christ. This certainty 
 of the divine relation toward us, expressed by πῶς x.7.4., excludes the possi- 
 bility of success on the part of human adversaries. 
 
 Ver. 33 ff. It isimpossible that this σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν yapioera Should 
 be frustrated, either on the side of God, with whom no accusation of His 
 elect can have the result of their condemnation (ver. 33, down to κατακρίνων 
 in ver. 34), or on that of Christ, whose death, resurrection, etc., afford the 
 guarantee than nothing can separate us from His love (ver. 34, Χριστὸς ὁ 
 ἀποθανών, on to ver. 36). In the analysis of this swelling effusion we must 
 return to the method for which Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other 
 Fathers paved the way, and which Erasmus followed : namely, that to the 
 question τίς ἐγκαλέσει x.7.2. the answer is : 
 then follows, moulded in similar form to that answer, the expression, pass- 
 ing over from God to Christ, Χριστὸς. 
 that after δικαιῶν, and also after ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, only a colon is to be inserted. 
 Who shall raise accusation against the elect of God? Answer, in a boldly tri- 
 umphant counter-question, — God is the justifier, whe the condemner ? (there is, 
 consequently no one there to condemn, and every accusation is without re- 
 sult ! Comp. Isa. 1. 8). Andas regards Christ: Christ is He that has died, 
 yea rather also has risen again, who also is at the right hand of God, who also 
 intercedes for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? This view 
 (followed also by van Hengel, but by Hofmann only with respect to the 
 first portion as far as κατακρίνων), though abandoned by nearly all modern 
 expositors,’ is corroborated by its entire accordance with the sense, by the 
 harmony of the soaring rhetorical form, and by its freedom from those insu- 
 perable difficulties which beset the modes of division that differ from it. 
 [See Note C. p. 353.] Of the latter, two in particular fall to be considered. 
 1. Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, includ- 
 ing Ammon, Tholuck, Flatt, Fritzsche, Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald, 
 take Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν as affirmative answer to τίς ἐγκαλέσει x.7.A. 3 then τίς ὁ κατα- 
 κρίνων a8 anew question, and as the affirmative answer thereto : Χριστὸς ὁ 
 ἀποθανὼν κ.τ.λ., thus: Who shall accuse, ete.? God is the justifier (conse- 
 quently no accuser shall succeed). Who is the condemner? Christ is He that 
 has died, ete. (so that He cannot, therefore, condemn us in judgment), 
 But against this view it may be urged, (a) that Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν and τίς ὁ κατα- 
 κρίνων are, as regards both substance (δικαιῶν and κατακριν.) and form (Paul 
 has not written τίς κατακρινεῖ to correspond with τίς ἐγκαλέσει), correlative, 
 and therefore may not, without arbitrariness, be separated ; (>) that in ver. 
 34 Christ is not at all described as a judge, which would be in keeping with 
 
 Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν" τίς ὁ κατακρίνων ; and 
 
 . ἡμῶν" τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει κ.τ.}. 3 SO 
 
 1The difficulty started by Philippi, that 
 corresponding to the tis ἐγκαλ. κατὰ ἐκλ. Θεοῦ 
 in ver. 33, there is introduced, with the ris 
 ne. xwp. «.7.A. Of ver. 85, a question for 
 which nothing prepares the way, and which 
 is not answered in the foregoing ver. 34—is 
 incorrect in itself, since the answer to this 
 question is certainly yielded by ver. 34; and 
 it mistakes, moreover, the truly Zyric char- 
 
 acter of the magnificent passage. Tholuck’s 
 objections, as also those of Hofmann, re- 
 garding the second half (from Χριστὸς ὃ 
 ἀποϑανών onwerds), are quite unimportant. 
 The latter lays particular stress on the fact 
 that Paul has not added ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν to ἀποϑαν- 
 ov. As if that purpose of the amo}. were 
 not perfectly self-evident, especially amidst 
 such a vehement flight of the discourse ! 
 
940 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the 6 κατακρίνων, but, on the contrary, as redeemer and intercessor ; (ὦ) that, 
 if τίς ἐγκαλέσει is at once disposed of by Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν, it must he already 
 quite self-evident that there can be no κατακρίνων, and consequently τίς ὁ 
 κατακ, as a new question, would be something superfluous and out of keeping 
 with so compressed an utterance of emotion ; (d) and, finally, that in the 
 entire context thereis no mention of the last judgment. 2. The theory, 
 that came into vogue after Augustine, doctr. Chr. 111. 3, and Ambrosiaster 
 (adopted in modern times by Koppe, Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, de Wette, and Maicr, also by Griesbach and Lachmann ; 
 Tholuck is undecided), consists in supplying ἐγκαλέσει with Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν, and 
 taking it as a question, and dealing in a corresponding manner with Χριστὸς 
 . ἡμῶν also: Who shall accuse? Shall God do so, who justifies? Who 
 shall condemn? Shall Christ do so, who has died, etc.? But against this view 
 it suffices to urge the decisive reason, that to conceive of God as accuser (be- 
 fore Christ) is destitute of scriptural analogy, and could not at all have oc- 
 curred to the apostle. Hofmann takes Χριστὸς. . . évtvyy. ὑπὲρ ju. asa question 
 with two dissimilar relative adjuncts, of which the first declares how it was possi- 
 ble, after the question τίς ὁ xaraxp., to subjoin the further question, whether it 
 might not be feared with regard to Christ that He should condemn where 
 God acquits ; while the second shows the impossibility of such a fear. But 
 this artificial interpretation, in connection with which the first and second 
 καὶ (see the critical remarks) are condemned as not genuine and this con- 
 demnation is acutely turned to account, fails, so far as the substance is con- 
 cerned, on the very ground that the thought of its being possible perhaps 
 for Christ to condemn where God acquits would be an absurd idea, which 
 could not occur to a Christian consciousness ; and, so far as form is con- 
 cerned, on the ground that the second relative clause is annexed to the first 
 with entire similarity, and therefore does not warrant our explaining it, as 
 if Paul, instead of ὃς καὶ ἐντ., should have written ἀλλὰ καὶ évr. —In detail, 
 observe further : The designation of Christians in ver. 33 as ἐκλεκτοὶ Ocov is 
 selected as having a special bearing on the matter, and renders palpable at 
 once the fruitlessness of every ἔγκλησις ; while Θεός coming immediately after 
 Θεοῦ has rhetorical emphasis. — κατὰ ἐκλ. Θεοῦ] i.e. against those whom God 
 has chosen 1 out of the κόσμος (John xvii. 6) to be members of His Messianic 
 peculiar people to be made blessed for Christ’s sake, according to His eter- 
 nal decree (Eph. i. 4) ; comp. on ver. 30. This is the Christian conception 
 (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9) of the Old Testament ἐκλεκτ. (Ps. cv. 48, evi. δ; Isa. 
 xlii. 1, Ixv. 9; Wisd. iii. 9, a/.). The elect constitute the Israel of God, 
 Gal. vi. 16. Regarding the genitive Θεοῦ (ἐκλ. is used quite as a substan- 
 tive ; comp. Col. iii. 12 ; Matt. xxiv. 31 αἱ.), see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 31 ; 
 Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 1135. The absence of the article (comp. ver. 27) in the 
 case of ἐκλ. Θεοῦ brings out the quality of the persons. —The predicates of 
 Christ in ver, 34—under which His death is to be conceived as an atoning 
 death, His rising again as having taken place διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν (iv. 25), 
 
 1 Against Hofmann, who (Schriftbew. I. p. 223 f.) calls in question the reference to others, 
 non-elect, see on Eph. i. 4. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 33. 841 
 
 and His being αὐ the right hand of God as personal participation in the gov- 
 ernment of the world (Eph. i. 20, Col. iii, 1, αἰ. ; comp. also Dissen, ad 
 Pindar. Fragm. xi. 9) in the heavenly dwelling-place of the Father's glory 
 (see on Matt. vi. 6)—exclude the possibility of any one separating us from 
 the love of Christ. For, as regards His past, He has proved by His death 
 the abundance of His love (v. 6 f. ; Eph. iii. 18 f.), and this demonstra- 
 tion of His love has been divinely confirmed by His resurrection ; and as 
 regards His present, through His sitting at the right hand of God He possesses 
 the power to do for His own whatever His love desires, and through His 
 intercession He procures for them every protection and operation of grace 
 from the Father (Heb. vii. 25, ix. 24; 1 Johnii. 1). But this intercession 
 (comp. ver. 26 f.) is the continuous bringing to bear of His work of atone- 
 ment, completed by His ἱλαστήριον, on the part of Christ in His glory with 
 the Father ; which we are to conceive of as real and—in virtue of the elori- 
 fied corporeity of the exalted Christ, as also in virtue of the subordination 
 in which He even as σύνθρονος stands to the Father—as request properly so 
 called (évrevéic) through which the ‘‘continwus quasi vigor” (Gerhard) of 
 redemption takes place. Comp. John xiv. 16. There has been much dog- 
 matic and philosophical explaining away of this passage on the part of sys- 
 tematists and exegetes. Some apt observations are to be found in Diister- 
 dieck on 1 John ii. 1, who nevertheless, without assigning his exegetical 
 grounds, Calls in question that the intercession is vocalis οἵ oralis. As such, 
 however, it must be conceived, because it is made by the glorified God-man ; 
 though the more special mode in which it takes place is withdrawn from 
 the cognizance of our earthly apprehension. Comp. Philippi, Glaubens!. 
 IV. 2, p. 336, ed. 2. -- μᾶλλον δὲ is the imo vero, vel potius, by which the 
 speaker amends his statement (see on Gal. iv. 9) ; for what would Christ’s 
 having died have been of itself ? how could it have been to us the bond and 
 the security of His love against all distresses, ete., ver. 35 f., if the divine 
 resurrection had not been added to it ? Paul therefore appends to the bare 
 ἀποθανών, by way of correction : imo vero etiam resuscitatus, in which the καί, 
 also, signifies : non solum mortuus, sed etiam resusc, ; comp. Eph. v. 11. It 
 is thus clear that (contrary to Hofmann’s view) this καί was quite essential 
 and indispensable ; for it was not the ἀποθανών itself, but its having been 
 mentioned alone and without the resurrection belonging to it, that needed 
 correction. It is, moreover, self-evident that all this application of the cor- 
 rective expression is here merely of a formal nature, serving to bring into 
 marked prominence the two elements in their important correlation. —T he 
 ὃς καὶ occurring twice has a certain solemnity. — Ver. 35. ric] Paul puts the 
 question by ric, not τί, in conformity with the parallel τίς ὁ κατακρίνων. The 
 circumstance that he subsequently specifies states and things, not persons— 
 which, however, naturally suggest themselves to the conception of the 
 reader—cannot lead any one astray, least of all in such a bold flight of 
 rhetoric. - ard τῆς ἀγάπ. τ. Χριστοῦ] Most expositors take τοῦ X. (comp. Eph. 
 iii. 19) as genitive of the subject, and rightly, because this view was alr Δαν 
 prepared for by ver. 34 (in which the great acts of Christ’s love toward us 
 are specified), and is confirmed by ver. 87 (διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπ. ἡμᾶς), and by ver. 
 
342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 39, where the ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ comes in the place of the ἀγάπη τοῦ 
 X. This excludes the interpretation of others, who understand it of the love 
 to Christ (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Majus, Heumann, Morus, Kollner, 
 and Ewald). Kd6llner’s objections to our view do not touch its true sense, 
 since the point in question is not a possible interruption of the love of Christ 
 to us, nor yet the hindering of our access to it (Philippi), but a possible sep- 
 aration from the love of Christ (that helps to victory, ver. 37) through hin- 
 drances intervening between it and us, which might nullify its manifestation and 
 operation upon us and might thus dissolve our real fellowship with it.’ It was 
 therefore very unwarranted in de Wette (comp. Calvin, Riickert, and Tho- 
 luck), to convert, in accordance with v. 5, the love of Christ into ‘‘the joy- 
 ful feeling of being loved by Christ,” which ver. 37 does not permit, where 
 manifestly the aid of the exalted Christ, who has loved us (comp. Matt. 
 Xxvill. 20 ; Phil. iv. 13), is meant. 
 
 Ver. 36. The marks of parenthesis are to be expunzed because the con- 
 struction is unbroken, and ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τούτ. πᾶσιν in ver. 87 refers to ver. 35 and 
 ver. 86. On the accumulation of designations that follows, comp. 2 Cor. 
 vi. 4 f. ; and on the so frequently repeated 7, Xen. Mem. i. 1. 7, Soph. 0. Ὁ. 
 251! By way of scriptural proof for the most extreme element mentioned, 
 for ἡ μάχαιρα, Paul quotes a passage, in accordance with which even the 
 slaying sword has here its place already prophetically indicated beforehand. 
 In Ps. xliv. 23 (quoted exactly from the LXX.), where the historical mean- 
 ing refers to the daily massacres of Jews in the time of the Psalmist (in an 
 age after the exile, but not solate as the Maccabean), he recognizes a type 
 of the analogous fate awaiting the Christian people of God, as their sacred- 
 historic destiny. Κατάλληλος τοῖς προκειμένοις ἡ μαρτυρία" ἐκ προσώπου yap 
 ἀνδρῶν εἴρηται τὸν αὐτὸν ἐσχηκότων σκοπόν, Theodoret. Therein lies the justiji- 
 cation of this typical view. But since our passage specially mentions only 
 the being put to death and the slaying, we have no right to make the refer- 
 ence which Paul gives to them extend, with Hofmann, to the treatment in 
 general which the Christians should have to experience, instead of leaving 
 it limited to μάχαιρα.---ὗτι] for. A part of the quotation, without relevant 
 reference to the connection in our passage. 
 
 
 
 évexev cov] There is no reason 
 whatever for departing, with Kéllner (comp. Hofmann), from the reference 
 of the original text to God, and referring σοῦ to Christ. For, in the first 
 place, the probative point of the quotation does not lie in ἕνεκεν ood (but in 
 Gavar. and ἐλογ. ὡς πρόβ. od.); and in the second place, the very massacres of 
 the Christians took place on account of God, because they continued faithful 
 to Him in Christ, while the denial of Christ would have been a denial of 
 God, who had sent Him. Hence martyrdom was regarded as a δοξάζειν 
 θανάτῳ τὸν Θεὸν (John xxi. 19), — ὅλην τὴν ἡμ.1 Not quotidie (Castalio, Gro- 
 
 1 The tribulations, etc., are, forsooth, not act upon us. Philippi introduces a foreign 
 
 something which might form a wall of sep- 
 aration between us and the love of Christ, 
 such as they might produce perhaps in hu- 
 man fellowship—so that the affection of 
 any one should be unable toreach us or 
 
 element, when he holds that the tribula- 
 tions might seem to us signs of the divine 
 wrath, and thus mislead us into unbelief in 
 the existence of the divine love. 
 
4 
 CHAP. VIII., 37-39. 948 
 
 tius, and Gléckler); Paul follows the LXX., who thus translate pin-53, 
 It means : the whole day (comp. x. 21; Isa. Ixii. 6; Ex. x. 15; 1 Sam. 
 xix. 24; 1 Mace. v. 50) are we murdered, so that at every time of the day 
 murder is committed upon us (now on this one, now on that one of us); it 
 ceases not the livelong day. And this is the consequence of the fact, that we 
 have been counted (aorist) as sheep for the slaughter, reckoned like sheep des- 
 tined for slaughter. 
 
 Ver. 37. But in allthis—namely, what is specified in vers. 35 and 386—we 
 conquer, etc. This ἀλλὰ does not break off an incomplete sentence (Hof- 
 mann), but is rather the simple antithetic at, but, whatever sufferings and 
 dangers may await us. — imepvix.] We gain a victory that is more than victory ; 
 we are over-victorious. Luther well renders : ‘‘ weovercome far.” Comp. v. 
 20. It does not involve more than this ; neither the easiness of the victory 
 (Chrysostom, Theophylact), nor the ‘‘in eruce etiam gloriamur” (Beza), 
 which is rather the consequence of this victory ; for a sublime testimony to 
 the latter, see 2 Cor. iv. 8-11. In the ancient Greek ὑπερνικ. is not extant, 
 but it occurs in Socr. H. £. iii. 21, Leo Tact. xiv. 25, although in a deroga- 
 tory sense (νικᾶν μὲν καλόν, ὑπερνικᾶν δὲ ἐπίφθονον). Nevertheless there is con- 
 tained in our passage also a holy arrogance of victory, not selfish, but in the 
 consciousness of the might of Christ. —0d.a τοῦ ἀγαπ. ἡμᾶς] He who hath 
 loved us is the procurer of this our victory, helps us to it by His power. 
 Comp. esp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. That it is not God (Chrysostom, Estius, Grotius, 
 Bengel, and others, including Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen, and van Hengel) 
 that is meant, but Christ (Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, 
 and Hofmann), follows, not indeed from Phil. iv. 13, but from the necessary 
 reference to τίς qu. yop. ἀπὸ τ. ay. τ. X. in ver. 35 ; for ver. 87 contains the 
 opposite of the separation from the love of Christ. — ayazjc.] denotes the act 
 of love κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, which Christ accomplished by the sacrifice of His 
 life. This reference was self-evident to the consciousness of the readers. 
 Comp. v. 6 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. v. 2, 20. 
 
 Vy. 38, 39. Paul now confirms what he had said in ver. 37 by the enthu- 
 siastic declaration of his conviction that no power, in whatever shape it 
 may exist or be conceived of, ete. For the singular πέπεισμαι there is as 
 little necessity for seeking a special reason (Hofmann, ¢.g., thinks that Paul 
 wished to justify the confidence with which he had expressed ver. 37) as in the 
 case of λογίζομαι in ver. 18, especially as ver. 37 contains only the simple as- 
 sertion of a state of fact, and not a how of that assertion. —The following 
 expressions (θάνατος «.7.A.) are to be left in the generality of their sense, 
 which is, partly in itself and partly through the connection, beyond doubt ; 
 every arbitrary limitation is purely opposed to the purpose of declaring 
 everything—everything possible—incapable of separating the believers from 
 the love of God in Christ. Hence : οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωή : neither death nor 
 life, as the two most general states, in which man can be. We may die or 
 live : we remain in the love of God. The mention of death jirst was 
 occasioned very naturally by ver. 36. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. iii. 22. 
 Grotius (following Chrysostom and Jerome, ad Aglas. 9) imports the idea : 
 ‘“metus mortis ; spes vitae,” which Philippi also regards as ἃ ‘‘ correct para- 
 
 
 
944 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 phrase of the sense.” — οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαί] Neither angels (generally) nor 
 (angelic) powers (in particular). dyy. is, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, Fritzsche, Hofmann, and others, to be understood 
 of good angels, because the wicked are never termed ἄγγελοι without some 
 defining adjunct (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Cor. xii. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 4; comp. Jude 
 6). The objection repeated by Reiche (who, with Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Toletus, Grotius, Estius, and others, understands it of wicked angels), that 
 an attempt on the part of the good angels to separate Christians from God 
 is inconceivable, does not hold, since, according to Gal. i. 8, the case of 
 such an attempt falling within the sphere of possibility could certainly be 
 —not believed, but—conceived ex hypothesi by Paul. Theophylact already 
 aptly says: οὐχ ὡς τῶν ἀγγέλων ἀφιστώντων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλὰ 
 καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν τὸν λόγον τιθείς. Against the view that ἄγγ. denotes good and 
 wicked angels (Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, and van Hengel), the linguistic usage 
 is likewise decisive, since according to it the absolute ayy. signifies nothing 
 else than simply good angels. Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 9. --- ἀρχαί] obtains, 
 through its connection with ayy., its definite reference to particular powers 
 in the category of angels—those invested with power in the angelic world. 
 Paul recognizes a diversity ' of rank and power in the angelic hierarchy (of 
 the good and the wicked), and finds occasion, especially in his later epistles, 
 to mention it (Col. i. 16 ; Eph. i. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. vi. 12 ; Col. ii. 
 15) ; without, however (comp. on Eph. i. 21), betraying any participation in 
 the fluctuating definitions of the later Jews.? Olearius, Wetstein, Loesner, 
 Morus, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 460, refer apy. to human 
 ruling powers ; van Hengel to ‘‘ principatus guoslibet.” Against these its con- 
 nection with ayy. is decisive, because no contrast issuggested of non-angelic 
 powers. Just as little, because without any trace in the text, are we to 
 understand with Hofmann the ἀρχαί, in contrast to the good God-serving 
 ἄγγελοι, as spirits ‘‘ that in sehf-will exercise a dominion, with which they do not 
 live to the service of God,” i.e. as evil spirits. —obre ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα] 
 neither that which has setin nor that which is future. Comp. 1 Cor. 111. 22. 
 Quite general, and not to be limited to sufferings (Vatablus, Grotius, Flatt, 
 and others). éveor., however, does not absolutely coincide with the idea 
 things present (as it is usually taken), which is in itself linguistically possible, 
 but is never the case in the N. T. (see on Gal. i. 4) ; but it denotes rather 
 what is in the act of having set in, has already begun (and μελλ. that, the 
 emergence of which is still future). So, according to Gal. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. iii. 
 22, vil. 26 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2. Aptly rendered by the Vulgate: ‘‘instantia.” 
 Comp. Lucretius, i. 461: ‘‘ quae res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur,”” — 
 οὔτε δυνάμεις] nor powers ; to be left in its utmost generality, personal and im- 
 personal (Hofmann arbitrarily limiting it to the latter). The common inter- 
 pretation, angelic powers, would be correct, if its position after ἀρχαί were 
 right ; but see the crit. remarks. The incongruity of the apparent isolation of 
 
 1 Τὴ opposition to Hofmann, who without 2 See, respecting these definitions, Barto- 
 any reason denies this (Schriftbew. I. 347). locci, Bibl. rabb. I. p. 267 ff.; Eisenmenger, 
 See Hahn, Theol. N. 7. I. 282 ff.; Philippi, entdecktes Judenthum, 11. Ὁ. 370 ff. 
 
 Glaubens!. ΤΙ. 307 ff., ed. 2. 
 
NOTES. 345 
 
 this link vanishes on observing that Paul, in his enumeration, twice arranges 
 the elements in pairs (θάνατος. . . ἀρχαῖ), and then twice again in threes (viz. 
 obte ἐνεστ. οὔτε μέλλ. οὔτε δυνάμ., and οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος οὔτε τίς κτίσις ἑτέρα), 
 and the latter indeed in such a way, that to the two that stand contrasted 
 he adds a third of a general character. — οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος] neither height 
 nor depth ; likewise without any alteration or limitation of the quite general 
 sense of the words. No dimension of space can separate us, etc. Arbitrary 
 definitions are given : heaven and hell or the nether world (Theodoret, Bengel, 
 Wetstein, Michaclis, Klee, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and Hofmann) ; 
 heaven and earth (Fritzsche ; comp. Theophylact, Morus, and Flatt) ; the 
 height of bliss and the depth of misery (Koppe) ; spes honorum and metus 
 ignominiae (Grotius, Rosenmiiller) ; sapientia haereticorum and communes 
 oulgi errores (Melanchthon) ; neque altitudo, ex qua quis minaretur praecipt- 
 tium, neque profundum, in quo aliquis minaretur demersionem (Thomas 
 Aquinas, Anselm, Estius).—oire τίς κτίσις ἑτέρα] nor any other created thing 
 whatever, covers all not yet embraced in the foregoing elements ; and thus 
 the idea of ‘‘ nothing in the world in the shape of a creature” is fully exhausted. 
 The attempt to bring the collective elements named in their consecutive 
 order under definite logical categories leads to artificialities of exposition, 
 which ought not to be applied to such enthusiastic outbursts of the moment. 
 — Instead of τῆς ay. τοῦ Χριστοῦ (ver. 35), Paul now says, τῆς dy. τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς 
 ἐν X. Ἴ., not thereby expressing something different, but characterizing the 
 love of Christ (toward us) as the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. The 
 love of Christ, namely, is nothing else than the love of God Himself, which 
 has its seat and place of operation in Christ. God is the original fountain, 
 Christ the constant organ and mediating channel of one and the same love ; 
 so that in Christ isthe love ef Ged, and the love of Christ is the love of God 
 in Christ. Comp, νυ, 6, 8. 
 
 Notes spy American Eprror. 
 XCI. Ver. 1. οὐδὲν dpa viv κατάκριμα k.T.A. 
 
 ἄρα νῦν Meyer affirms, as against Philippi, never to be equivalent to dpa οὖν. 
 This position seems to be correct. Here, at least, it may be confidently held 
 that viv has the temporal sense, referring to the state following the interven- 
 tion of Christ which is alluded to in vii. 25. To what is there said, as con- 
 nected with what precedes it (also summed up in 25)), dpa points, and draws 
 from it the declaration of this verse asaninference. The progress of the thought 
 and its connection with the foregoing context, thus, show what is in the au- 
 thor’s mind. The deliverance through Christ is from the condition described 
 in vii. 14-23 ; that condition is one in which, whatever may be the better im- 
 pulses or the interior conflict, the man is uniformly and hopelessly subjected 
 as a slave to sin as his master. It is from the power and dominion of this mas- 
 ter that Christ frees him. Through the aid of this Divine helper he ceases to be 
 a δοῦλος ἁμαρτίας, and becomes ἐλεύθερος. The fact that he is thus free, accord- 
 ingly, isthe ground of the fact that there is for him now no condemnation. This 
 view of the meaning is confirmed by the following verses. The reason given in 
 ver. 2 for this statement of ver. 1, that there is no condemnation, is that ‘*‘ the law 
 
940 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 of the Spirit freed me (or thee) from the law of sin ;” i.e. that the man has pass- 
 ed out of the control of sin into a new and opposite condition, And the aorist 
 tense ἠλευθέρωσεν declares that this change was wrought at the time indicated 
 in vii. 25a. Ver. 4 ff. also set forth, (1) the idea of a fulfilling of the require- 
 ments of the law in the case of those who come under the controlling influence 
 of the new principle ; (2) the fact that, where this new principle thus gains 
 control, the ‘‘mind’’ is wholly turned towards the things of the Spirit, which 
 are the exact opposite to those of the flesh ; and (3) the declaration that if a 
 man has this ‘‘mind’’—though his bodily part remains still subject to death 
 on account of sin—his spiritual part is already possessed of life because of 
 righteousness. The entire context, therefore, points in one direction and to 
 one conclusion. The same general thought is brought out in Gal. v. 18 ff., 
 where the statement that, in case we are led by the Spirit, we are not under 
 the law [i.e. its condemnation], is founded upon an enumeration of the fruits 
 of the Spirit, against which the law has no condemnatory judgment to pro- 
 nounce. ‘The man has ceased to sin, having been made free, and hence can- 
 not be condemmed. 
 
 It must be borne in mind here, as in chap. vi., that the Apostle is in this en- 
 tire section of the Epistle discussing an objection to his doctrine—that it tends 
 to sin,—and is showing that there is no such tendency. When he describes 
 the state of the man who has become a Christian, therefore, he naturally pre- 
 sents it in accordance with the ideal involved in the doctrine. In the realiza- 
 tion of this ideal there is and must be a complete change of masters and govern- 
 ing principles at the turning-point of life. All before this is under sin ; all 
 after this under Christ, the Spirit, righteousness. The doctrine is thus com- 
 pletely vindicated, when it is exhibited in its true light. That individual hu- 
 man experience does not always answer to this ideal is plainly admitted by the 
 Apostle in the fact that, immediately after these verses, he exhorts the Chris- 
 tian readers to conform their lives to the doctrine, ver. 12 (cf. vi. 12, Gal. v. 
 25). But whether the individual believer does thus live or not, the legitimate 
 tendency of the doctrine itself is the same; and, wherever he does not, the 
 same exhortation, and this only, is the one to be given. 
 
 XCII. Ver. 2-11. 
 
 In the passage extending from ver. 2 to ver. 11 the following points may be 
 noticed. (a) The connection of ἐν Xp. ᾿Ιησοῦ (ver. 2) with ἠλευθέρωσεν, which 
 is favored by Meyer, is to be preferred. Meyer founds this view of the con- 
 struction upon ver. 3. Weiss, in his ed. of Mey., inserts, in place of ‘ver. 3,”’ 
 “the manifest reference to τοῖς ἐν Xp. Inc. ver. 1.’’ We may properly include 
 both of the verses alluded to, and also vii. 25a, in the argument, for this 
 verse has a close relation to them all, and they all support this understanding 
 of the sentence. (Ὁ) The textual reading oe after ἠλευθ. is placed by West. and 
 Hort. (as by Tisch., 8th ed.) in the text. They indicate doubts, however, re- 
 specting its genuineness, and in their ‘‘Notes on Select Readings,’’ after 
 presenting the facts of the case, they say, ‘‘The distribution of documents, 
 combined with internal evidence, favors the omission of both pronouns ;” 
 adding the remark (comp. Meyer), ‘‘ce, a very unlikely reading, is probably only 
 an early repetition of—ce.” [i.e. from ἠλευθέρωσε.]. Weiss ed. Mey., on the 
 other hand, seems to regard the substitution of we for ce by a copyist as readily 
 
NOTES. 347 
 
 to be supposed, by reason of the J and me of the preceding context. The con- 
 nection of the verse with the preceding context certainly favors strongly the 
 reading je, as compared with ce. But, while it must be admitted that this fact 
 might have induced a copyist to change the text from ce to με, ἃ careful obser- 
 vation of the progress of the thought will lead rather to the conviction that the 
 Apostle himself wrote με, as still bringing forward his own personality. (c) 
 The law of sin and of death, from which the man is freed, is the same law which 
 is mentioned at the end of vii. 23, to whose power he was always brought into 
 captivity before the deliverance. The addition of τοῦ θανάτου is suggested by 
 vii. 24. (d) The sense in which κατέκρινε (ver. 3) is to be understood must be 
 determined (1) by the force of the verb itself ;—it is a judicial word, and hence 
 we must find in it this element ; (2) by ἐν τῇ σαρκί, which qualifies the verb ;— 
 this denotes the sphere within which the condemnation was effective ; (3) by 
 τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου ;—this phrase, being appositional with the sentence of 
 which κατέκρινε is the leading verb, shows that the condemnation referred to is 
 one which the law could not accomplish ; (4) by ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός ;— 
 these words contain the ground of this inability of the law; (5) by the fact 
 that throughout the entire passage from vii, 14 to this point ἁμαρτία is con- 
 ceived of in the light of a master and lord. Sin is declared in this verse, 
 therefore, to be condemned, not in the ordinary meaning of the word, but in a 
 peculiar one. In the ordinary sense, the law could condemn it. It could pro- 
 nounce judgment and secure the infliction of penalty. To this end there was 
 no weakness of the law through the flesh. But in the sense of a judicial deposing 
 of sin from its lordship, and of excluding it from the domain where it had held 
 sway, the Mosaic law had no power of condemnation. It was hopelessly weak 
 as related to the accomplishment of this result, because of that element of 
 man’s nature over which sinruled. It could reveal the will of God and demand 
 righteousness, but, by reason of what is set forth in vii. 14-23, could do no 
 more. This practical, or as Meyer calls it de facto, condemnation is, according- 
 ly, what was in the writer’s mind. (6) The means by which God effected 
 what the law had not been able to accomplish was the sending of his Son ἐν 
 ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. In the former of these two phrases 
 the genitive ἁμαρτίας is not to be explained, with Meyer, as a gen. of quality, 
 but, with Weiss ed. Mey., as expressing the relation of sin as amaster. In the 
 latter phrase the same idea is probably suggested, and thus the preposition, 
 which is indefinite in itself, is to be taken, not as involving the thought of an 
 offering for sin, but as referring to the destruction of sin’s power. As Weiss 
 justly remarks, these verses speak of sin only with respect to this point. The 
 Son was sent ἐν σαρκί (as Meyer also says), but not ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτίας, only ἐν 
 ὁμοιώμ. σαρκ. ἅμ. He was sent with reference (περί) to sin in different senses, 
 but here the attention of the reader is confined to the one sense indicated by the 
 context. Meyer, on the other hand, holds that in περὶ dy. is contained the 
 whole category of the relations in which Christ stood to sin. (f) In accordance 
 with all that has been said, and with all the indications of the passage, δικαίωμα, 
 ver. 4, must be interpreted as meaning ordinance, requirement, ““ what the la~ lays 
 down as its rightful demand ’’ (Meyer). The end in view of the condemnation 
 is the fulfilment of this demand. This verse, accordingly, confirms the view 
 of the preceding verse which has been stated, and, in its turn, has its own true 
 meaning indicated and established by what the former verse declares. (g) In 
 ver. 7b the ground on which is founded the affirmation that the mind of the flesh 
 
948 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 is enmity against God is set forth in the words, ‘‘for it does not subject itself 
 to the law of God ;” and then this latter statement is strengthened by the 
 clause ‘‘for not even can it do so.”’ This ov δύναται and similar phrases else- 
 where are not to be regarded as stating anything respecting the ability or ina- 
 bility of the will, as a faculty, to rid itself of the dominion of sin. What is 
 said here is only that the mind of the flesh cannot subject itself, etc. It can- 
 not, because a thing cannot be its opposite. If the man, in the exercise of his 
 will, submits to God, the mind of the flesh, ipso facto and at that moment, 
 ceases to exist. (h) Vv. 10, 11 state what is already secured for the Christian 
 while he lives on earth, according to the proper idea of the doctrine of justifica- 
 tion by faith, and what will be realized hereafter, Already in this life, so far 
 as the πνεῦμα is concerned, there is ζωή because of righteousness, but neverthe- 
 less the body is dead. Hereafter the body of the believer is to share in the 
 ζωή, and thus the work of the deliverer from the power of sin is to be completed. 
 That δικαιοσύνη here means conformity to right, and not righteousness by faith, 
 is indicated by the context, even from the beginning of this section. Weiss 
 ed. Mey. recognizes this, rejecting the view of Meyer. νεκρόν clearly reiers to 
 physical death (comp. θνητά, ver. 11), and the sentence is put in this form for the 
 purpose of contrast with (a7) :—the spirit is life, the body is dead. So far as 
 relates to the matter of time, the death of the body is, for the living man, a 
 thing of the future. Meyer takes the sentence proleptically. Weiss regards it 
 as said from the standpoint of the end of life, when the result which Christ 
 accomplishes for us here is made manifest. The view of Meyer seems more 
 correct, for the declaration with regard to the spirit (as shown by the preced- 
 ing verses) has reference to what is before the end. (i) With respect to the 
 manner of the ζωοποιεῖν, or the view which we are to regard the Apostle as 
 holding concerning the resurrection, it is to be remarked that his most full 
 and distinct utterance on this subject is found in 1 Cor. xv. Expressions of a 
 more general nature, like the present—at least those written so soon after- 
 wards—must be explained, in their minuter points, by that chapter. Evident- 
 ly Paul did not look for a literal resurrection of the earthly body. (j) As to 
 the textual reading in ver. 11, it must be admitted that the thought of the pre- 
 ceding verses points strongly towards 614 τὸ ἐνοικοῦν... πνεῦμα. The fact, also, 
 which is urged by many, that the Spirit is not represented in the N. T. as the 
 instrumental agent in the resurrection, favors the same text. In a case where 
 the external evidence is so nearly evenly divided as itis here, the evidence 
 derived from the passage itself may properly have great weight. Tisch. 8th 
 ed., West. and Hort, R. V., adopt the genitive reading ; W. & H. and R. V., 
 however, record the other in the margin. Tregelles, Alford, Godet, Weiss, 
 Gifford, and others prefer the accusative reading. 
 
 XCIII. Ver. 12. dpa οὖν ὀφειλέται ἐσμέν k.7.A. 
 
 The remarks of Meyer on this verse are evidently correct. It may be added, 
 (a) that the statement of the former part of the verse involves and (though the 
 thought is expressed only on the negative side) is equivalent in substance to 
 an exhortation to the readers to make their living correspond with the ideal 
 indicated (see preceding notes) ; and (b) that the cause of the omission of the 
 positive part (but to the Spirit, ete.) is undoubtedly the same which we 
 discover in many other instances—namely, that the writer is led away by his 
 
NOTES. 349 
 
 desire to introduce the proof of the negative part, and, after this has been 
 presented, regards the positive as suggested with sufficient clearness for his 
 
 purpose. 
 
 XCIV. Ver. 17. εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν iva καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν. 
 
 The connection both of the clauses and the thought is very close from ver. 12 
 to ver. 17a. But a new thought is evidently suggested in ver. 170. ‘‘We 
 are heirs, if we suffer,” etc. To this new thought the entire passage vy. 18-39 
 is attached. It may be noticed, as connected with 17b, that iva seems to ex- 
 press the end in view which belongs to the very idea of συμπάσχομεν, rather 
 than that which alone moves the man thus to suffer: Jf we move on inthat course 
 of suffering in union with Christ which looks, as it also leads, to a union with Him in 
 glory. It may also be remarked that εἴπερ assumes the condition as a fact, and 
 although the position of Hermann ad Viger. p. 834, referred to by Grimm and 
 many commentators, may be admitted—that this particle is used ‘* de re, quae 
 esse sumitur, sed in incerto relinquitur utrum jure an injuria sumatur’’— 
 yet in the N. T. it is found almost universally (if not, indeed, without any 
 exception in cases where it is not joined with some other particle), as it is 
 here, in suppositions which are clearly regarded by the writer as justly assumed. 
 As in ver. 9 he takes it for granted, since they are Christians, that the readers 
 (ὑμεῖς) have the Spirit of God dwelling in them—and considers himself justified 
 in so taking it,—so here he presents a condition which, as he holds, will nat- 
 urally be fulfilled by the followers of Christ to whom he was writing. For the 
 use of εἴπερ comp. ver. 9, also Rom. iii. 30 (where some texts read ἐπείπερ), 
 1 Cor. viii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 3 (where Tisch. and W. & Hort read εἴγε); 2 Thess. i. 6 ; 
 1 Pet. ii. 3 (when 8* A B read εἰ)δ. With ἄρα it occurs in 1 Cor. xv. 15, where 
 dpa conveys the idea of in the case supposed in the preceding context. In that 
 case it may be justly held that the dead are not raised. 
 
 XCV. Ver. 18 ff. 
 
 The relation of vv. 18-39 to ver. 170 is correctly given by Meyer. The pas- 
 sage sets forth three grounds of encouragement to endure the sufferings which 
 are toend in the glory. The first of these is connected with the future and 
 with hope. The other two relate to the present life. Weiss ed. Mey. objects 
 to this view on the ground that ver. 17 does not contain an exhortation. It does 
 not, indeed, inform, but it does by way of suggestion and through its close union 
 with ver. 18. That the latter verse is introduced as a reason for something 
 which precedes it, is evident from the γάρ with which it opens. That the 
 particular thing to which it refers is the entire clause, συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ 
 συνδοξασθῶμεν, is indicated by the fact that it compares the sufferings with the 
 glory. That the reference is to this clause as suggesting an exhortation we must 
 hold, because there is no proof given in the verse of the only fact stated in ver. 
 17b—namely, that we are God's heirs and Christ’s fellow-heirs if, or only if, we 
 suffer, ete. Weiss admits that this fact, considered in itself, is not established 
 by ver. 18, but regards the verse as proving that, whereas the suffering might 
 seem to be inconsistent with that fatherly love of God on which our confidence 
 in the final consummation of our salvation must depend, there was, nevertheless, 
 to the mind of Paul, no such inconsistency. To any inconsistency of this sort 
 or any difficulty likely to arise in connection with it, however, there is no 
 
 a 
 
800 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 allusion in ver. 18 or the verses which follow ; the first clearly manifest sug- 
 gestion of such an idea being found near the close of the chapter, and in what 
 must be considered as another paragraph, —at vy. 35, 36. 
 
 According to Godet, ‘‘Paul seemed, in the previous verses, to assume that 
 the work had already reached its goal, and that nothing remained but to pass 
 into glory.’’ The words of 170 are added to remove this possible misapprehen- 
 sion of his meaning, and in connection with them he is led to ““ develop two 
 ideas,”’ ver. 18 ff. : (1) ‘‘the world’s state of misery in its present condition 
 demonstrated by the groaning of the creation, by that of believers themselves, 
 and by that of the Holy Spirit,” and (2) the certainty, notwithstanding all, of 
 the future glory, But this view seems less simple, natural, and accordant with 
 the progress of the thought, and must be rejected. 
 
 XCVI. Ver. 18-25. 
 
 The relation of the verses in this passage is indicated by the repeatedly 
 occurring γάρ. (a) Ver. 19 is introduced as a confirmation of ver. 18. Meyer 
 thinks it is intended to prove the certainty suggested by the emphatic μέλλουσαν ; 
 but, though this participle has a prominence by reason of its position, it does 
 not apparently contain the main thought of the verse—which is, that the 
 glory, which is certainly to be revealed, far outweighs the present sufferings. It 
 is, then, the greatness of the glory, rather than its indubitableness, which we 
 must regard as in the Apostle’s mind in ver. 18 also. If even the κτίσις (the 
 entire irrational creation) is patiently waiting for the revelation of this 
 glory, with earnest expectation, it must be something with which “the light 
 afflictions which are but for a moment” can bear no comparison. (0) Vv. 20, 21 
 give the ground of the fact that the κτίσις thus waits with expectation—namely, 
 because its original subjection to the law of decay was accompanied by a hope 
 for itself of future deliverance from the bondage of corruption, and of participa- 
 tion in the freedom therefrom which belongs to the glorified state of the chil- 
 dren of God. (c) Ver. 22 presents a proof of the statement of vv. 20, 21. This 
 statement is not that the κτίσις was subjected to vanity, but that it was thus 
 subjected in hope. The view of Meyer, at this particular point, must, therefore, 
 be correct, The ever-continued sighing for deliverance indicates the hope of 
 it. (d) With regard to ver. 23, however, it seems better, with Weiss ed. Mey., 
 to hold that its connection is with ver, 18, and that it has a sort of parallelism 
 with ver. 19, than, with Meyer, to make it a climax of the proof of the ἐπ᾽ 
 ἐλπίδι of ver. 20. From ver. 19 to ver. 22 the waiting expectation of the κτίσις 
 is presented and explained. The similar longing and waiting of the children 
 of God themselves is now set forth. We who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, 
 Paul says, groan within ourselves, waiting out the completeness of our adoption, 
 the redemption of the body. This, which has been already alluded to in 
 vy. 10, 11, as not yet accomplished, but as the promise of the future, is the 
 final consummation of that which Christ works out for us through the deliver- 
 ance referred to in vii. 25. The body is redeemed from the power of sin, 
 which causes its death, and is made free from the bondage of corruption. (e) 
 Ver. 24 adds a reason for ‘‘ our” groaning and looking forward ; that the salva- 
 tion which ‘‘ we’’ gained as we entered the Christian life was a salvation in 
 hope, and not in the actual experience of all that it involves. By this word 
 **hope,” the thought is brought into a correspondence with the idea of hope as 
 
NOTES. 351 
 
 predicated of the κτίσις ; and the two together give the double proof, not simply 
 of the cerlainty, but of the greatness of that which awaits the sons of God. 
 (f) Having thus developed his thought, the Apostle turns, at the close of the 
 paragraph, to an inference which includes within itself an exhortation. If our 
 condition is one of hopeful expectation of a glory which we do not yet realize, 
 we may well wait for it with a steadfast endurance under whatever sufferings 
 we may be called to experience. 
 
 XCVITI. Vv. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 
 
 As regards the individual words and phrases of the passage, the following 
 points may be noticed : (4) τοῦ viv καιροῦ does not necessarily indicate that the 
 Parousia was, to the Apostle’s thought, near at hand, but may imply this, and is 
 entirely consistent with any statements of the Epistles which convey this idea. 
 The evidence for or against the view that he had this thought must, however, 
 be sought elsewhere. (Ὁ) εἰς ἡμᾶς. This form of expression shows, not that 
 the revelation of the glory is to ws or in us, but that it finds its end—terminates, 
 as it were—inus. Hence we have, also, in ver. 19 the revelation of the sons of 
 God. R. V. renders ‘‘ to us-ward.’’ Godet says, ‘‘in and for us.” (0) ἀποκαρα- 
 δοκία, ἀπεκδέχεται. There is here a personifying of the κτίσις so far that the 
 imperfection and perishableness seen everywhere in nature, which suggest the 
 idea of, and seem to demand, an answering perfection, are conceived as a 
 longing desire and earnest hope for this completeness. (ὦ) That the explana- 
 tion of κτίσις given by Meyer is the right one is satisfactorily proved by the ar- 
 suments and suggestions presented in his note. (e) ματαιότητι refers to thes 
 perishableness alluded to above, or the law of decay to which all things in the 
 natural world are subject. The subjection, however, is not a hopeless and 
 perpetual one. (jf) dv. Tisch. (8) reads. with δὲ D* F G, διότι, and Weiss 
 ed. Mey. regards this as probably the original text, the first syllable having 
 subsequently been omitted by reason of the occurrence of the same letters at 
 the end of the next preceding word, ἐλπίδι. If we read διότι we must, and if ὅτι 
 we may, translate because. It is apparently, however, much more in the Apos- 
 tle’s line of thought here to state the contents of the hope—namely, thal there 
 will be a deliverance, than to declare this fact as a ground of the affirmation 
 that there was a subjecting in hope. This being the case, and the external evi- 
 dence being strong for ὅτε (A BC Ὁ. E K LP, etc.), it seems better to adopt 
 this reading with W. & Hort, and to translate, as R. V. text, that. The other text 
 and rendering are, however, properly recognized by R. V. in the margin. (q) 
 That δόξης is not equivalent to an attributive adjective belonging to ἐλευθερίαν 
 (A. V. the glorious liberty), is clear not only from the universal usage of the N. T., 
 but also because of the δουλείας τῆς φορᾶς which precedes. 'The genitivesin both 
 cases, it may be added, are not gen. of apposition (the bondage which consists 
 in corruption, etc.),as Meyer holds, but rather gen. of possession or the gen. 
 indicating that the bondage and freedom appertain to the corruption and glory. 
 The contrast between φηορᾶς and δόξης, and the connection with ματαιότητι and 
 ἐλπίδι of the previous clause, make it evident that φθορά, as here used, corre- 
 sponds substantially with ματαιότης. (ἢ) αὐτοί τὴν ἀπαρχὴν Tov πνεύματος ἔχοντες. 
 The view of Meyer with reference to these words must be rejected, because 
 there seems to be no occasion for thus referring to the first believers in distine- 
 tion from others ; because we do not find this idea expressed elsewhere by 
 
352 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 similar words ; and because there is nothing in the context to suggest such an 
 interpretation. The context, on the other hand, suggests the thought of the 
 perfected condition connected with the δόξα. The first-fruit of this perfec; 
 tion is the gift of the Spirit bestowed already upon the Christian. The evident 
 connection in thought between this verse and vv. 10, 11 renders it almost 
 certain that this is the true meaning, and that the genitive πνεύματος is apposi- 
 tional. (i) vio#ecia in connection with ἀπεκδεχ is used in a peculiar sense. 
 It does not here designate the adoption which takes place at the beginning of 
 the Christian life (cf. ver. 15 ; also Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph, i. 5), but the full realization 
 of what that adoption involves in itself and brings to the soul in the future. (j) 
 The word ἀπολύτρωσις is used, apparently, because, in the passage to which this 
 paragraph is attached (vii. 25-viii. 17), the Apostle has set forth the effects of 
 Christ’s work of deliverance, together with their present limitations. In the 
 redemption from the power of sin, the body participates latest. Death is the 
 last enemy destroyed (1 Cor. xv. 26). (k) τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν] The aorist tense 
 points to the time of conversion (vii. 25), and ἐλπίδι denotes the respect in 
 which salvation was then secured. The dative, as Winer and Meyer express 
 the idea of it, ‘‘ designates the sphere to which the predicate is to be conceived 
 as confined.”” In hope, not by hope, is thus the meaning. So the Amer. Ap- 
 pendix to R. V., as against the rendering of R. V. text. That this is the cor- 
 rect view is indicated (1) by the fact that this clause is introduced as account- 
 ing for our longing desire for a future completeness. We have this longing 
 because we have thus far attained full salvation only in hope ; (2) by the 25th 
 verse, which refers to us as having something before us not yet realized, and 
 accordingly as being still within the region of hope and expectation ; (3) by the 
 parallelism of ver, 23 with vy. 21, 22, which is connected with this word ; (4) 
 by the fact alluded to by Meyer and others, that, while Paul represents us as 
 saved by faith, he does not represent us as saved by hope. 
 
 XCVIII. Ver. 28. τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς. 
 
 These words are added as confirming the statement of the earlier part of the 
 verse. The purpose of God is placed at the foundation of the assurance that 
 all things do, and must, work together for good to those who love Him. The 
 strength of the assurance is the certainty (vv. 29, 30) that God’s purpose 
 will be carried out. The persons whom He foreknew and predestinated He 
 will glorify at the end. No sufferings or afflictions can prevent the result, or 
 issue in final evil. The doctrine of predestination, so far as it is alluded to 
 here, is not presented for its own sake, as if the Apostle would set it forth in 
 detail ; it is introduced incidentally, and as subordinate to the main thought 
 which is expressed in ver. 28a. It will be noticed, also, that it is introduced— 
 as, indeed, it is generally by the N. T. writers who refer to it at all—at the 
 point where it gives encouragement to the believer. If he believes and loves 
 God he may have all hope and confidence, for his eternal life rests on the pre- 
 destinating purpose. The presentation of it where it burdens the mind with 
 difficulties and throws it into doubts belongs to post-apostolic times. 
 
 XCIX. Ver: 28. προέγνω. 
 
 That προέγνω has a different meaning from προώρισεν is proved not only by 
 the fact that they occur, as different words, in the same sentence, but also by 
 the manifest intention of the Apostle to move on from step to step in a progress 
 
NOTES. 353 
 
 from the first beginning to the final consummation. This progressive devel- 
 opment of the sentence, moreover, shows that what is indicated by προέγνω pre- 
 cedes in the order of sequence that to which zpodp. refers. Meyer maintains 
 that προέγνω never in the N. T. means anything else than to know beforehand, 
 and affirms, also, the impossibility of proving that in classic usage it ever has 
 any other signification. But, whether this view is pressed to an absolute nega- 
 tive or not, both common usage and the facts of vv. 29, 30 render it altogether 
 probable that foreknow is the meaning here. Before the adoption of His plan 
 of creation, God foreknew what persons under the circumstances and con- 
 ditions involved in the plan would love Him. These persons He—even by and 
 with the adoption of the plan —predestinated to be conformed to the image of 
 His Son. In the development of the plan He calls and justifies them, and, at 
 the end, He will give them the glory of the sons of God. The successive parts 
 of the fulfilment which are accomplished in the present or the future are all 
 earried by the Apostle’s form of expression into the past (see the aorist tenses 
 throughout), since he desired to gather them up into and centre them all in the 
 eternal purpose. 
 
 CG. Vv. 33-35. Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν x.T.A. 
 
 The explanation of these clauses given by Meyer, following Erasmus and 
 the Greek fathers, is, as Dr. Gifford says, ‘‘the only one that fully preserves 
 the simplicity, freedom, and vigor of this loftiest flight of Christian elo- 
 quence.’’ Meyer’s arguments for this explanation and against others are 
 sufficient, Among the very recent commentators, however, Godet and Weiss 
 object to this view and adopt that of Luther, Calvin, and others, mentioned in 
 Meyer’s note. Godet’s objections are the following : (1) The question : who 
 will condemn, cannot be the reproduction, negatively, of the question, who will 
 accuse, To this may be answered : It is not such areproduction ; it is a part 
 of the reply to that question. The thought, presented apart from the inter- 
 rogative form, is this: If no one can condemn when God justifies, there will 
 appear no accuser to bring any charge against those for whom God’s justifying 
 judgment is sure. (2) A then would be indispensable in the questions, who 
 shall condemn and who shall separate. But why indispensable? It might have 
 been inserted, had such been the desire of the writer. But, when we consider 
 the form of the sentence, ‘‘ God is the one who justifies, who is the one who 
 condemns?” the insertion cannot be deemed necessary. Indeed, such an 
 insertion would weaken the force of the two abruptly contrasted clauses, (3) 
 The question, who shall separate, finds its answer in ver. 99 : nothing shall 
 separate, and hence cannot express the conclusion of what precedes. The more 
 correct view of ver. 39, or of vv. 35b-39, however, is that they do not so much 
 answer the question of ver. 35a, as unfold the negative which is involved in it. 
 These verses add no new idea to that which ver. 35a has already suggested. (4) 
 This question, who shall separate, is followed by an enumeration of the sufferings 
 which are calculated to separate the believer from his Saviour, and thus we are 
 prohibited from regarding this question as a conclusion. The reply to this is 
 very simple. They may be “calculated,” indeed, thus to separate him ; he 
 may be apprehensive that they will ; but the declaration of the Apostle is that 
 they actually will not, and this is the very conclusion involved in the question, 
 “who shall separate us?’ Weiss, on the other hand, calls the explanation 
 unnatural, and says that it forees a meaning upon what, when taken in a 
 
354 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 natural and simple way, would not suggest it. It seems difficult to understand, 
 however, in what manner Paul could have expressed himself more simply and 
 naturally, if he had desired to bring the two clauses into a contrasted paral- 
 lelism with each other, than by writing these words, Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν" τίς ὁ 
 κατακρίνων; Why, in case he wished to make the latter question parallel with τίς 
 ἐγκαλέσει (as Weiss holds), did he take pains to put it in a form which corre- 
 sponds, not with this phrase, but with the other? The course adopted might, 
 at the least, mislead the reader. Paul must have known, it would seem, that it 
 probably would mislead him. 
 
(oh) 
 Cr 
 οι 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Ver. 3. The verbal order ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγώ (recommended by Griesb., 
 adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.) receives preponderant attestation from A B Ὁ 
 E F G, min., vss., and Fathers; as also from δὰ, reading εἶναι before aval. 
 Erroneously attached to ηὐχόμην, αὑτὸς ἐγώ became placed before avai, (Elz.). 
 —Ver. 4. ai διαθῆκαι] B DE F G,min., Vulg., with several Fathers, read 7 
 διαθήκη, which Lachm, has adopted. An alteration, because the plural was 
 understood of the Old and New Test. (Gal. iv. 24), and yet the latter could not 
 be considered as a privilege of the Jews. — Ver. 11. κακόν] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 read φαῦλον, according to A B δὲ, min., Or. Cyr. Damase. Rightly; the more usual 
 opposite of ἀγαθόν easily intruded. — Ver. 15, The order τῷ Movcei yap is 
 decidedly to be received, with Lachm. and Tisch., following BDEFG%. 
 The Recepta τ. y. M. isa mechanical alteration. — Ver. 16. éheodvto¢] A B* Ὁ E 
 EGP &, 39, read ἐλεῶντος ; so Lachm. and Tisch. But since in no other pas- 
 sage of the N, T. is éAedw, the form belonging to the κοινή (see Etym. M. 327. 30), 
 to be found ; and in ver. 18 only D* F G have ἐλεῶ instead of ἐλεεῖ (and yet in 
 both places Paul doubtless used one form) ; it is most probable that Q instead 
 of OY was merely an early copyist’s error, which, as the form -aw was actually 
 in existence, became diffused, and also induced in some Codd. the alteration 
 éAed in ver, 18 (so Tisch. 7). — Ver. 27. κατάλειμμα] A Β &* Eus, read ὑπόλειμμα ; 
 so Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; see LXX. Isa. x. 22. — Ver. 28. ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, 
 ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον] is wanting in A Β &*, 29", 47*, 67**, Syr. Aeth. Erp. ~ 
 Copt. Eus. Damasc. Aug. It certainly bears the suspicion of being an addition 
 from the LXX. ; but its deletion, which Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have carried out, 
 is precluded by the ease with which it was possible for transcribers to turn 
 from συντέμνων at once to συντετμημένον. --- Ver. 31. The second δικαιοσύνης is 
 wanting in A BD EG δὲ, 47, 67**, 140, Copt. It. Or. and several Fathers, and 
 is marked with an obelus in F. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the 
 omission admits of no sense accordant with the context. See the exeg. notes. 
 The weight of the omitting codd. is much diminished by the counter-testimony 
 of ancient vss. (including Syr. and Vulg.) and of most Greek Fathers. The 
 omission itself might easily, from the frequent recurrence of the word in vy. 
 30, 31, occur through a homoeoteleuton, which led, in the first instance, to the 
 disappearance of the words εἰς νόμ. δικαιοσύνης (they are still absent from 2 
 min.), followed by their incomplete restoration. — Ver. 32. νόμου] Wanting in 
 AB F αὶ δὰ", min., Copt. Vulg., and several Fathers. Rightly deleted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch. A defining addition. —The γάρ after προσέκοψαν, which is 
 wanting in AB D* FG &* 47*, Copt. It. Vulg. ms, Goth. Ambr. Ruf. Dam. 
 (and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), is simply a connective insertion. — 
 Ver. 33. πᾶς] has preponderant evidence against it, and must, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch., be struck out. An addition from x, 11, where it stands in all the 
 witnesses. 
 
356 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 Chap. ix.-xi.’ [See Note CI. p. 396.] On the non-participation hitherto of 
 the greater part of the Jews in the Christian plan of salvation ; and specially 
 (a) the lamentation over this (ix. 1-5) ; (Ὁ) the Theodicée on its account, (ix. 
 6-29) ; (ὦ the fault thereof, which rests upon the Jews themselves (ix. 80-- 
 33 and x. 1-21) ; (d) the consolation in reference to this (xi. 1-32), with 
 final giving glory to God (xi. 33-36). Paul could not do otherwise, he must 
 still settle this great problem ; this is inevitably demanded by all that had 
 gone before. For if the whole previous treatise had as its result, that only 
 believers were the recipients of the promised salvation, and if nevertheless 
 the Messianic promise and destination to salvation had their reference in 
 the first place (comp. i. 16) to the Israelites, concerning whom, however, 
 experience showed that they were for the most part wibelieving (comp. John 
 1. 11), this contradictory relation thus furnished an enigma, which Paul, with 
 his warm love for his people, could least of all evade, but in the solution of 
 which he had on the contrary to employ all the boldness and depth of his clear 
 insight into the divine plan of redemption (Eph. iii. 4 ff.). The defence of the 
 efficacy of hisGentile apostleship (Th. Schott, and in another way Mangold and 
 Sabatier) is not the object of the section—that object Paul would have known 
 how to meet directly—but such a defence results indirectly from it, since we 
 see from the section how fully the apostle had recognized and comprehended 
 his place in connection with the divine plan of salvation. The problem itself, 
 the solution of which is now taken in hand by the apostle, was sufficiently 
 serious and momentous to be treated with so much detail in this great and 
 instructive letter to the important mixed community of the world’s capital, 
 which, however, does not thereby appear to have been a Jewish-Christian 
 one, : 
 
 Vy. 1-3.°} The new section is introduced without connection with the 
 foregoing, but in a fervent outburst of Israelitish patriotism, the more sorrow- 
 ful by contrast with the blessedness of the Christian previously extolled and 
 so deeply experienced by the apostle himself. This sorrow might be deemed 
 incredible, after the joyous triumph which had just been exhibited. Hence 
 the extremely urgent asseveration with which he begins’: truth I speak in 
 Christ, that is, in my fellowship with Christ ; ἐν X. is the element, in which 
 his soul moves. Just so Eph. iv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 17, xii. 19. 
 The explanation adopted by most of the older commentators (especially 
 Joh. Capellus, Clericus, Locke), and by Nésselt, Koppe, Béhme, Flatt, 
 Reiche, Kéllner, and others, of ἐν in the sense of adjuration, is a perfectly 
 
 1 On this section, see Nésselt in his Opuse. 
 I. p. 141 ff.; Beck, Vers. 6. pnewmatisch her- 
 meneutischen Entwickel. d. neunten Kap., 
 ete., Stuttg. 1833; Steudel in the vib. 
 Zeitschr. 1836, I. p. 1 ff.; Baur, ἐδ. III. p. 59 ff.; 
 Haustedt in Pelt’s Mitarbeiten, 1838, 3; 
 Meyer, ἐδ. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 240 ff.; 
 Krummacher, Dogma von der Gnadenwanhl, 
 Duisb. 1856, p. 142 ff. (though less for the 
 purpose of strict scientific exegesis) ; Weiss, 
 Pridestinationstehre d. Ap. P.in the Jahrb. 7. 
 
 Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 54 f.; Lamping, Pauli 
 de praedest. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 127 ff.; 
 Beyschlag, @d. Paulin. Theodicee Rom. ix.-xi., 
 1868 ; also Th. Schott and Mangold. — Ac- 
 cording to Weisse’s criticism, based on 
 style, the whole section, chap. ix.-xi., 
 would be an interpolation ; according to the 
 view on which Baur proceeds (see Introd. 
 § 3), the three chapters would be the chie/ 
 portion of the whole epistle. 
 
 2 On vy. 1-5, see Winzer, Progr. Lips. 1882. 
 
CHAP, ΤᾺ 1-3. 357 
 
 arbitrary departure both from the manner of the apostle, who neyer swears 
 by Christ, and also from Greek usage, which would have required πρός 
 with the genitive (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 448 ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 647) ; 
 and cannot at all be justified from Matt. v. 84, LXX. Jer. v. 7, Dan. xii. 7, 
 Rev. x. 6, because in these passages duview expressly stands beside it. — οὐ 
 ψεύδομαι] πρότερον δὲ διαβεβαιοῦται περὶ ὧν μέλλει λέγειν" ὅπερ πολλοῖς ἔθος ποιεῖν. 
 ὅταν μέλλωσί τι λέγειν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀπιστούμενον (comp. e.g. Acts xxi. 21), 
 καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ σφόδρα ἑαυτούς εἰσι πεπεικότες, Chrys. Compare 1 Tim. ii. 7. Con- 
 versely, Lys. iv. 12 : ψεύδεται x. οὐκ ἀληθῇ λέγει. ---- συμμαρτ. μοι τῆς ovvetd. μου] 
 ground assigned for the οὐ ψεύδ. : since with me (agreeing with my express 
 assurance) my conscience gives testimony. Compare 11, 15, viii. 16. —év πνεύμ. 
 ἁγίῳ] is by no means to be connected with τῆς συνειδ. μου (Grotius and sev- 
 eral others, Semler, Ammon, Vater: ‘‘conscientia a Spiritu sancto guber- 
 nata’’), because otherwise τῆς would not be wanting ; but either with οὐ 
 ψεύδομαι (Cramer, Morus, Nosselt, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winzer, 
 Reiche, Kéllner, Fritzsche ; of whom, however, only Winzer and Fritzsche 
 take it not as an oath, but as equivalent to ὡς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ὧν), or—which 
 is the nearest and simplest—with συμμαρτ. (Beza, Béhme, Tholuck, Riick- 
 ert, de Wette, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, and others). Com- 
 pare Matt. xxii. 48 ; Luke ii. 27 ; Mark xii. 36 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3. The testimony 
 of his conscience, Paul knows, is not apart from the πνεῦμα that fills him, but 
 “‘Spiritu sancto duce et moderatore” (Beza) in ἐμαύ πνεῦμα. And thus the 
 negative ov peid. receives its sacred guarantee through a concurrent testi- 
 mony of the conscience ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, as the positive ἀλήθ. λέγω had 
 received it through ἐν Χριστῷ. This very appropriate symmetry dissuades 
 us from joining συμμαρτ. μοι k.t.2. to ἀλήθ. λέγω, 50 that οὐ ψεύδ. would be 
 only ‘thrown in between” (Hofmann). — ὅτι λύπη «.7.2.] that, etc. A comma 
 only preceding. Over what is this sorrow? Over the exclusion of a great 
 part of the Jews from the Messianic salvation. With tender forbearance 
 Paul does not express this, but leaves it to be gathered by the reader from 
 what follows, in which he immediately, by γάρ, assigns the ground for the 
 greatness and continuance of his sorrow. — ηὐχόμην] I would wish, namely, 
 if the purport of the wish could be realized to the advantage of the Israel- 
 ites. Comp. on Gal. iv. 20, where also no ἄν is annexed. But van Hengel 
 takes it of a wish which had actually arisen in the mind of Paul amidst 
 his continual sorrowfulness. So also Hofmann: the wish had entered 
 his mind, though but momentarily. But a thing so incapable of being ful- 
 filled he can scarce have actually wished ; he would only wish it, if it were 
 capable of being fulfilled ; this is expressed by ηὐχόμην, and that without ἄν, 
 as a definite assurance ; comp. on Acts xxv. 22; Gal. iv. 20 ; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 187 [E. T. 217] ; Kiithner, II. 1, p. 178. On the wish itself, 
 comp. Ex. xxxii, 89..-- ἀνάθεμα] or, in the Attic form, ἀνάθημα," in Greek 
 writers (also Luke xxi. 5 ; 2 Mace. ii. 13, et al.) a votive offering, corre- 
 sponds frequently in the LXX. to the Hebrew 01M, and means something 
 devoted to God without redemption (Lev. xxvii. 28) ; then—in so far as such 
 
 1 Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 249, 445, and Paralip. p. 391 ff. 
 
358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 a thing was devoted to the divine wrath, and destined to destruction (see 
 Ewald, Alterth. p. 101 ff.)—something abandoned to destruction ; a curse- 
 offering. Sointhe N. T. See Gal. i. 8,9, 1 Cor. xii. 3, xvi. 22, which 
 passages at the same time prove that the (later) special sense of D7, as 
 denoting the Jewish curse of excommunication, is not to be here introduced. 
 The destruction, to which Paul would fain yield himself on behalf of his 
 brethren, is not to be understood of ὦ violent death (Jerome, Limborch, 
 Elsner, and others, also Michaelis, Nésselt, Flatt), but, as ἀπὸ τ. X. renders 
 necessary, of the everlasting ἀπώλεια. It has been objected that the wish 
 must thus be irrational (Michaelis : ‘‘a frantic prayer”) ; but the standard of 
 selfish reflection is not suited to the emotion of unmeasured devotedness 
 and love out of which the apostle speaks. Groundlessly, and contrary to 
 Paul’s usage elsewhere, Hofmann weakens the positive notion of the ex- 
 pression into the negative one of the being excluded from Christ. This ele- 
 ment is implied in ἀπὸ τοῦ X. as the specific accompanying relation of the 
 ἀνάθεμα. Bengel well remarks that the modulus ratiocinationum nostrarum 
 as little comprehends the love of the apostle, as does a little boy the animos 
 heroum bellicorum. — αὐτὸς ἐγώ] belonging to εἶναι by attraction (Kiihner, 11. 
 2, p. 596) : I myself, I, as far as my own person is concerned. Comp. on vii. 
 25. Paul sees those who belong to the fellowship of his people advancing 
 to ruin through their unbelief ; therefore he would fain wish that he himself 
 were a curse-offering, if by means of this sacrifice of his own self he could 
 only save the beloved brethren. The contrast, with reference to which αὐτὸς 
 ἐγώ is here conceived, lies therefore in ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελῴ. μου, Whose unhappy 
 state appears already in vv. 1, 2 so sad in the eyes of the apostle ; not in 
 the duty of the apostle’s calling (Th. Schott) ; and least of all in a ‘‘nescio 
 quis alius” (Fritzsche). Theodoret and Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom) 
 refer back to vill. 39 (I myself, whom nevertheless nothing can separate, 
 etc.) ; but this lies too far off. Van Hengel (after Krehl) : ‘‘Ipse ego, qué 
 me in Christi communione esse dizi.” But ἐν X. in the previous instance was 
 merely an accessory definition. — ἀπὸ τοῦ X.] away from Christ, separated 
 from Him. Comp. 2 Thess. i. 9; Gal. v. 4; 2 Cor. v. 6, xi. 8; Lev. 
 XXvil. 29 ; and see generally, Nagelsbach on J/ias, p. 188, ed. 3 ; Ameis on 
 Hom. Od. Anh. =, 525 ; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 277 [E. T. 322]. Christ is not 
 conceived as author of the ἀνάθ. (Nésselt, Morus, Flatt, and others) ; for ἀπὸ 
 (comp. Ley. xxvii. 29) does not stand for ὑπό, which latter Ὁ E G actually 
 read in consequence of this erroneous view. — ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφ. μοῦ] ὑπέρ is 
 here also not instead of (Riickert, Tholuck, Olshausen, and many others), but 
 Jor the advantage of, for their deliverance. Grotius aptly paraphrases : ‘‘ Si 
 ea ratione illos ad justitiam veram et ad aeternam salutem possem per- 
 ducere.” — κατὰ o.] subjoined, without the connective of the article, as a 
 familiar accessory definition, which blends with the principal word into a 
 single notion. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 18 ; Eph. ii. 11, vi. 5. Moreover, there 
 lies in the addition τ. ovyy. u. x. σ. already something conveying with it the 
 wish of love, and that from the natural side ; the theocratic grounds for it 
 follow, ver. 4 ff. 
 
 Ver. 4. Οἴτινες «.7.2.] quippe qui, who indeed ; a description—assigning the 
 
CHAP, IXx., 4. 359 
 
 motive for what is said in ver. 3—of the ἀδελφῶν κατὰ . . . σάρκα according 
 to their theocratic privileges, and first of all by significant designation ac- 
 cording to their ancient and hallowed (Gen. xxxii. 28, xi. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 21 
 f. ; Phil. iii. 5 ; John i. 48) national name ᾿Ισραηλῖται. To the latter are 
 then attached the relative definitions, which are threefold (dv... dv... ἐξ 
 ὧν) ; the first of them embraces siz particulars connected by kai,—purely 
 sacred-historical divine benefactions. —7 υἱοθεσία] the adoption. They are 
 those adopted by God into the place of children, which must of course be 
 understood, not in the Christian (chap. viii.) but in the old theocratic sense, 
 of their adoption, in contradistinction to all Gentile peoples, to be the people 
 of God, whose Father is God. Comp. Ex. iv. 22 ff., xix. 5; Deut. xiv. 1, 
 xxxii. 6 ; Hos. xi. 1, et al. In the viodecia of the N. T. (see on viii. 15), the 
 specific essence of which is the reconciliation obtained for Christ’s sake, 
 there has appeared the antitype and the completion of that of the O. T. — 
 καὶ ἡ δόξα) The fivefold καί lends an emphatic weight to the enumeration. ἡ 
 δόξα is the glory κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, i.e. WT 23 (Ex. xxiv. 16, xl. 34, 35 ; 1 Kings 
 viii. 10, 11; Ezek. i. 28 ; Heb. ix. δ), the symbolically visible essential com- 
 munion of God, as it was manifested in the wilderness as a pillar of cloud 
 and fire, and over the ark of the covenant ; the same as 123, of which the 
 Rabbins maintained (erroneously, according to Lev. xvi. 2) that it had hov- 
 ered as a cloud of light continually over the ark of the covenant. See 
 Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 311. But ἡ δόξα is not the ark of the covenant itself 
 (Beza, Piscator, Hammond, Grotius), for in 1 Sam. iv. 22 the ark of the 
 covenant is not called ‘‘the glory of Israel,” but this is only predicated of it. 
 Others understand the whole glory of the Jewish people in general (De Dieu, 
 Calovius, Estius, Semler, Morus, Béhme, Benecke, K@llner, Gléckler, 
 Fritzsche, Beck). Incorrectly, since it is merely individual privileges that 
 are set forth. — αἱ διαθῆκαι] not the tables of the law (Beza, Piscator, Pareus, 
 Toletus, Bglduin, Grotius, Semler, Rosenmiiller), which it cannot denote 
 either in itself or on account of the following νομοῦ. nor yet the O. and 
 NV.T. (Augustine, Jerome, Calovius, and Wolf, in accordance with Gal. iv. 
 24), which would be entirely unsuitable in respect of the N. T. ; but the 
 covenants concluded by God with the patriarchs since Abraham. Compare 
 Wisd. xviii. 22 ; Ecclus. xliv. 11 ; 2 Macc. viii. 15 ; Eph. ii. 12. —% νομο- 
 Gecia] The (Sinaitic) giving of the law. This is ‘“‘una et semel habita per: 
 Mosen ;” but the ‘‘testamenta frequenter statuta sunt,” Origen. There is no 
 ground for taking it, with others (including Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche), 
 not of the act, but of the contents, like νόμος (why should not Paul have 
 written this ?). Certainly, he who has the νομοθεσία has also the νόμος ; but 
 on that account the two significations are to be kept distinct even in places 
 like 2 Mace. vi. 23. The giving of the law was a work (comp. Plat. Legg. 
 vi. p. 751 Β : μεγάλου τῆς νομοθεσίας ἔργου ὄντος), by which God, who Himself 
 was the νομοθέτης, had distinguished the Israelites over all other peoples. — 
 ἡ λατρεία] the cultus κατ’ ἐξοχήν, the service of Jehovah in the temple. Comp. 
 Heb. ix. 1. It corresponds to the vouof., in consequence of which the λατρεία 
 came into existence ; just as the following ai ἐπαγγελίαι (κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the col- 
 lective Messianic promises) is correlative to the ai διαθῆκαι, on Which the érayy. 
 
360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 were founded. The chiasmus in this order of sequence (comp. Bengel) is not 
 accidental ; but αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι is intentionally put at the end, in order that 
 now, after mention of the fathers, to whom in the first instance the promises 
 were given, the Promised one Himself may follow. 
 
 Ver. 5.! Now, after that first relative sentence with its six theocratic dis- 
 tinctions, two other relative clauses introduce the mutually correlative per- 
 sons, on whom the sacred-historical calling of Israel was based and was to 
 reach its accomplishment. — oi πατέρες] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who 
 are per eacellentiam the patriarchs, Ex. iii. 13, 15, iv. 5; Acts ili. 13, vil. 
 32. —xal ἐξ ὧν κ.τ.2.1 The last and highest distinction of the Israelites : 
 and from whom Christ descends, namely, according to the human phenomenal 
 nature, as a human phenomenon, apart from the spiritually-divine side of His 
 personality, according to which He is not from the Jews, but (as υἱὸς Θεοῦ 
 κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, i. 4) is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Regarded in the light of His 
 supernatural generation, He would be also κατὰ σάρκα of God. Comp. Clem. 
 Oor. 1. 89. : ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος ᾿Τησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. On the article τὸ x. o., 
 see Heind. ad Gorg. p. 228 ; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 84 [E. T. 95 6.1. The καὶ 
 before ἐξ ὧν forbids the refer ence of the latter to οἱ πατέρες. --- ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάν- 
 των Θεὸς evdoy. εἰς τ. αἰῶνας] This passage, which has become of dogmatic 
 importance, has received two different leading interpretations, by the side 
 of which yet a third way, namely, by taking to pieces the relative sentence, 
 came to be suggested. (1) The words are referred (placing a comma after 
 σάρκα) to Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever.” So, substantially, Ire- 
 naeus (Haer. iii. 16. 8), Tertullian (adv. Praw. § 18, p. 2101, ed. Seml.), 
 Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, and later Fathers ; Luther, Eras- 
 mus, Paraphr., Flacius, Calvin, Beza, and most of the older expositors ; and 
 of the later, Michaelis, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Klee, Usteri, Benecke, Ols- 
 hausen, Nielsen, Reithmayr, Maier, Beck, Philippi, Bisping, Gess, Krum- 
 macher, Jatho, Hahn, Thomasius, Ebrard, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss, Didi. 
 Theol. p. 306, Delitzsch, and others; in a peculiar fashion also, Herm. 
 Schultz (see below) ; de Wette is undecided. (2) The words are regarded 
 (placing a period after σάρκα, as do Lachm. and Tisch.) as a dowology to God, 
 isolated from the foregoing : ‘‘ Blessed for ever be the God who is over all.” 
 So none of the Fathers (as to those erroneously adduced by Wetstein, see 
 Fritzsche, p. 262 ff.*), at least not expressly ; but Erasmus in his Annot., 
 
 1 See on ver. 5, Herm. Schultz, in the 
 Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1868, p. 462 ff., 
 
 πάντων, that Christ is designated as natu- 
 raliter Deus. 
 
 -where also a list of the earlier literature is 
 
 given; Grimm, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 
 1869, p. 311 ff. Among the English oppo- 
 nents of the Unitarians there is to be es- 
 pecially noted, in defence of the orthodox 
 explanation, Smith, Scripture Testimony to 
 the Messiah, 1847, ed. 4, 11. p. 370 ff. 
 
 2 So also the Catech. Racov. 159 f. But, in 
 “its view, since there are not two Gods, 
 “qui natura sit Deus” cannot be under- 
 stood. Conversely, Flacius infers from ἐπὶ 
 
 3 Yet the non-reference to Christ is in- 
 directly implied in Ignatius, 7678. inter- 
 pol. 5 (οὐκ αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός κ.τ.λ.), 
 and Phil. interpol. 7. Thereference to God 
 is also found ina fragment ascribed to Diod- 
 orus, in Cramer, Caten. p. 162, where it is 
 said: ἐξ αὐτῶν φησιν ὃ Χριστός. Θεὸς δὲ ov 
 μόνον αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ κοινῇ ἐπὶ πάντων ἐστι Θεός. 
 In the Arian controversies our passage was 
 not made use of. But at a later period it 
 was triumphantly made available against 
 
CHAP. IX., 5. 901 
 Wetstein, Semler, Stolz, and several others, and recently Reiche, Kéllner, 
 Winzer, Fritzsche, Gléckler, Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, van Hengel, and, 
 though not fully decided, Riickert.*| Now the decision, which of the two 
 leading interpretations fits the meaning of the apostle, cannot be arrived at 
 from the language used,” since, so far as the words go, both may be equally 
 correct [See Note CII. p. 396.] ; nor yet from the immediate connection, 
 since with equal reason Paul might (by no means : must, against which is 
 the analogy of ver. 8 ; and the divine in Christ did not belong here, as in i. 
 8, necessarily to the connection) feel himself induced to set over-against the 
 human side of the being of Jesus its divine side (as ini. 3), or might be de- 
 termined by the recital of the distinctions of his nation to devote a doxology 
 to God, the Author of these privileges, who therefore was not responsible 
 for the deeply-lamented unbelief of the Jews ; just as he elsewhere, in pe- 
 culiar excited states of piety, introduces a giving glory to God (i. 25; 2 
 Cor. xi. 81 ; Gal. i. 5; comp. 1 Tim. i. 17). Observe, rather, with a view 
 to a decision, the following considerations : Although our passage, referred 
 to Christ, would term Him not ὁ Θεός, but (who is God over all) only Θεός pre- 
 dicatively (without the article), and although Paul, by virtue of his essential 
 agreement in substance with the Chiistology of John, might have affirmed, 
 just as appropriately as the latter (i. 1), the predicative Θεός (@f divine essence) 
 of Christ, because Christ is also in Paul’s view the Son of God in a meta- 
 physical sense, the image of God, of like essence with the Father, the agent 
 in creation and preservation, the partaker in the divine government of the 
 world, the judge of all, the object of prayerful invocation, the possessor of 
 divine glory and fulness of grace (i. 4, x. 12 ; Phil. ii. ὁ ; Col. Deel a) it al 
 9 ; Eph. i. 20 ff. ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4, viii. 9) ; yet Paul has never * 
 
 the Arians. Thus Oecumenius, 6.5. ex- placed after σάρκα. Such prepositional 
 
 claims: ἐνταῦθα λαμπρότατα Θεὸν τὸν Χριστὸν 
 ὀνομάζει ὃ ἀπόστολος" αἰσχύνθητι τρισάθλιε 
 *Apeie, ἀκούων παρὰ Παύλου δοξολογούμενον τὸν 
 Χριστὸν Θεὸν ἀληθινόν ! Comp. Theophylact ; 
 also Proclus, de fide, p. ὅ8, who says gener- 
 ally of our passage: παρείσδυσιν συκοφαντίας 
 ἀποστειχίζει τοῖς φιλολοιδόροις. In Cyril of 
 Alexandria this passage is insisted on in 
 opposition to the assertion of Julian, that 
 only John calls Christ God; whilst the 
 πρακτικά of the Synod of Ephesus make no 
 reference to it, which is, however, care- 
 fully done in the Synod of Antioch. See 
 the passages in question in Tisch. 8, who 
 also observes that, among the codd. C. L. 5, 
 47, place a full stop after σάρκα. 
 
 1 See also Baur, II. p. 231; Zeller, in the 
 Theol. Jarb. 1842, p. 51; Ribiger, Christol. 
 Pau. p. 26 f. ; Beyschlag, Christol. p. 210. 
 
 2As van Hengel has attempted, who 
 starts from the idea that the contrast to, be 
 
 thought of in τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (according to ᾿ς 
 
 him: ‘‘non quatenus spiritus divini parti- 
 ceps erat’) excludes a wider antithesis, and 
 therefore a point must necessarily be 
 
 definitions with the accusative of the ar- 
 ticle τό or τά (see also Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 272) 
 certainly denote a complete contrast, 
 which is either expressly stated (ase.g. Xen. 
 Cyr. ν. 4, 11, viv τὸ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ οἴχομαι, τὸ δ᾽ 
 ἐπὶ σοὶ σέσωσμαι : Plat. Min. p. 820C; Rom. 
 xii. 5, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς), or may be self-evident 
 from the context, asi. 15, xii. 18, and very 
 frequently in the classics. The latter would, 
 however, be the case in our passage ac- 
 cording to the ancient ecclesiastical expo- 
 sition, inasmuch as the contrast obviously 
 implied in τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would permit us 
 mentally to supply a τὸ κατὰ πνεῦμα as sug- 
 gesting itself after ὁ ὦν, That self-evident 
 negative antithesis: non quoad spiritum, 
 would thus have in ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός k,7.A, 
 its positive elucidation. = 
 
 3 Not even in 2 Thess. i. 12 (in opposition 
 to Hofmann’s invention), or in Eph. y. 5. 
 As regards the Pastoral Epistles, if they 
 actually denominated Christ Θεός, this 
 would be one of the signs of a post-apos- 
 το]. epoch. But not once do they do this. 
 The most specious passage is still Tit. ii. 13, 
 
362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 used the express Θεός of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the 
 Alexandrian form of conceiving and setting forth the divine essence of 
 Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic termin- 
 ology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of 
 Christ ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ ; see, in 
 opposition to such obscure and erroneous intermingling of ideas, Rich. 
 Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 149 ff. John himself calls the divine nature 
 of Christ Θεός only in the introduction of his Gospel, and only in the closest 
 connection with the Logos-speculation. And thus there runs through the 
 whole N. T. a delicate line of separation between the Father and the Son ; 
 so that, although the divine essence and glory of the latter is glorified with 
 the loftiest predicates in manifold ways, nevertheless it is only the Father, 
 to whom the Son is throughout subordinated, and never Christ, who is act- 
 ually called God by the apostles (with the exception of John i. 1, and the 
 exclamation of Thomas, John xx. 28)—not even in 1 Johnv. 20. Paul, 
 particularly, even where he accumulates and strains to the utmost expressions 
 concerning the Godlike nature of the exalted Christ (as Phil. 11. 6 ff. ; Col. 
 1. 15 ff., ii. 9), does not call Him Θεός, but sharply and clearly distinguishes 
 Him as the κύριος from Θεός, even in x. 9, 1 Cor. xii. ὃ (in opposition to 
 Ritschl, Altkath. K. p. 79 f.). The post-apostolical period (and not at all 2 
 Pet. i. 1, see Huther) first obliterated this fine line of separation, and often 
 denominated Christ Θεός, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, and the like. So, 6...» already several 
 of the Ignatian epistles in the shorter recension (not those ad Magnes., ad 
 Philadelph., ad Trall., not even chap. vii.) and the so-called second epistle— 
 not the first —-of Clement, nor the epistle of Polycarp. In the closest inter- 
 nal connection herewith stands the fact, that in the properly apostolical writ- 
 ings (2 Pet. iii. 18 does not belong to them, nor does Heb. xiii. 21) we never 
 meet with a doxology to Christ in the form which is usual with doxologies to 
 God (not evenin 1 Pet. iv. 11) ; therefore, in this respect also, the present pas- 
 sage would stand to the apostolic type in the relation of a complete anomaly.’ 
 Besides the insuperable difficulty would be introduced, that here Christ would 
 be called not merely and simply Θεός, but even God over all, and consequently 
 would be designated as Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ, which is absolutely incompatible 
 with the entire view of the N. T. as to the dependence of the Son on the 
 Father (see Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 157 ff. ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 457 ff.), 
 and especially with passages like viii. 84 (ἐντυγχάνει), 1 Cor. iii. 23, viii. 6, 
 xi. 8, Eph. iv. 5, 6, and notably 1 Cor. xv. 28. Accordingly, the doxology 
 of our passage cannot be referred to Christ, but must be referred to God ; 
 
 respecting which, however, Huther is in the 
 right, and Philippi, Glaubenslehr. 11. p. 208, 
 ed. 2, is incorrect. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, ds is to 
 be read, with Lachm. and Tisch. ; on Tit. i. 4 
 even Philippi desires to lay no particular 
 stress ; it has, in fact, no bearing whatever on 
 our passage, any more than Col. ii. 2 (see 
 an loc.). 
 
 1 There certainly occurs at chap. ii. in 
 Clement, the expression τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ 
 
 (i.€. τοῦ Θεοῦ), Where we are not to correct 
 it into μαθήματα, with Hilgenfeld. This ex- 
 pression, however, is fully explained, with- 
 out Christ being named Θεός, from the 
 Pauline view: Θεὸς ἣν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον 
 καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, 2 Cor. τ. 19. 
 
 3 The doxology in xvi. 27 does not refer 
 to Christ. 2 Tim. iv. 18 certainly refers to 
 Christ ; but this is just one of the traces of 
 post-apostolic composition. 
 
CHAP. ΚΝ ὃς 363 
 although Philippi continues of opinion that the former reference has ail in its 
 favor and nothing against it. On the other hand, Tholuck (see also Schmid, δ]. 
 Theol. 11. p. 540, ed. 2) does more justice to the objections against the old 
 ecclesiastical interpretation, which Messner also, Lehre d. Ap. Ὁ. 236 f., prefers, 
 but only with a certain diffidence ; whilst Herm. Schultz (comp. Socinus, in 
 Calovius, p. 153) comes ultimately to a lower acceptation of the notion of Θεός, 
 which is meant not metaphysically, but only designates the fulness of power 
 committed toChrist for behoof of His work, and excludes neither dependence and 
 coming into being, nor beginning and end. Against the latter suggestion it 
 may be decisively urged, that thus characteristics are attached to the notion 
 Θεός, which, compared with the current Pauline mode of expression, directly 
 annul it, and make it interchangeable with κύριος, as Paul uses it of Christ 
 (Eph. iv. 5, 6; Phil. 11. 11; 1 Cor. vill. 6, and many other passages). See, 
 in opposition to it, also Grimm. If we suppose the quite singular case here 
 to occur, that Paul names Christ God, yea God over all, we need not shrink 
 from recognizing, with the orthodox interpreters, an expression of the fact 
 that Christ is not nuneupative, but naturaliter God (Flacius, Clav. IL. p. 187). 
 (3) Another way, that of taking to pieces the relative clause, was suggested 
 by Erasmus, who proposed to place the point (as in Cod. 71) after πάντων 
 (in which Locke, Clark, Justi, Ammon, Stolz, Grimm, /.c., and in de Johann. 
 Christol. indole Paulinae compar. p. 75 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, Ernesti, 
 Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 200 ff., and Miircker follow him), so that gud est super 
 omnia (or omnes) refers to Christ (comp. Acts x. 36), and then the doxology 
 to God follows. But how intolerably abrupt is this !—not merely the brief 
 description given of Christ, but also the doxology itself, which with 6 ὧν ἐπὶ 
 πάντων loses its natural connection with the preceding. Again, with this 
 separation would disappear the motive for Paul’s not having put εὐλογ. in the 
 Jirst place, as usually (comp. 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. 1. 3 ; also the doxologies in 
 the LXX). This motive is, namely, the emphasis which Θεός obtains by the 
 characteristic description ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων (the God who is over all).* Still more 
 disjointed and halting the language becomes through the punctuation of 
 Morus (who, however, concurs in referring the whole to Christ): ὁ dv ἐπὶ 
 πάντων, Θεὸς, evdoy. εἰς τ. ai.2 Why Reiche, whom Krehl and van Hengel 
 have followed, although rightly referring the whole to God, has adopted this 
 punctuation (He who is over all, God, be praised for ever), we cannot perceive ; 
 
 1 With emphasis, too, in the LXX. Ps. 
 Ixviii. 20, κύριος ὁ Θεός appears to be prefixed 
 to εὐλογ. Yet the translator must have had 
 793 twice in the original text. 
 
 2 Otherwise Hofmann (comp. his Schrift 
 bew. I. Ὁ. 144; also Kahnis, Dogmat. I. Ὁ. 453 
 
 from the result, that Paul hasnamed Christ 
 ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, This artificial abate- 
 ment is thus brought out by Hofmann: he 
 takes ἐπὶ πάντων asin contradistinction to 
 ἐξ ὧν, and Θεός as in contradistinetion to 
 κατὰ σάρκα, after which arbitrary analysis 
 
 f.): Paul predicates ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων of 
 Christ, and then causes Θεὸς εὐλογ. eis τ. 
 αἰῶν. to follow as a second predicate. But if 
 we once believe that the sentence must be 
 referred to Christ, itis in any case far more 
 in keeping with the emotional flow of the 
 language to leaye the whole unbroken, 
 without making an artificial abatement 
 
 the twofold antithetic sequence of thought 
 is supposed to be: “116 who supremely rules 
 over all has come forth out of this people, and, 
 in respect of the self-transmitting human cor- 
 poreal nature, there has come forth out of this 
 people He whois God.” As though Paul had 
 written: ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων TO κατὰ 
 σάρκα, ὃ ὧν Meds εὐλογητὸς εἰς τ. αἰῶνας, GESS. 
 
364 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, taken independently, forms in fact, according to a 
 quite customary manner of expression, one phrase, so that Θεός is not with- 
 out the article. Comp. 1 Cor. ili. 7; Kiihner, II. ὃ 464, 8, ὁ. Finally, 
 Grotius (not also Schoettgen, as Schultz states) would consider Θεός as not 
 genuine, and would refer ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ π. εὐλ. to Christ, to whom ‘‘laus et honor 
 debetur supra omnes, i.e. etiam supra Abrah., Isaac. et Jacob.” But that 
 Θεός is not wanting in the Peshito, as Grotius maintains, is decisively settled 
 (see Koppe), and the witnesses who actually omit it (edd. of Cyprian, and 
 Hilary, Leo once, Ephraem) are much too weak and doubtful ; see Bengel, 
 Appar. crit. in loc. Quite arbitrary is the conjecture of Sam. Crell (Arte- 
 monius) : ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ K.T.A. — ἐπὶ πάντων] neuter. The limitation which takes 
 it as masc. (Syr., Beza, Grotius, Socinus, Justi, Hofmann, and others), in 
 which case it is by some held to apply to men generally, by others to the 
 patriarchs,’ must have been presented by the context ; but it is not at all 
 suggested by anything, not even in the reference of the sense, which 
 Fritzsche introduces : ‘‘ qui omnibus hominibus prospicit Deus, ut male 
 credas Judaeos ab eo destitutos esse, etc.’’ —éri indicates the relation of the 
 rule over all things.? God is the παντοκράτωρ, 2 Cor. vi. 18 ; often in the 
 Apocalypse, ὁ μόνος δυνάστης ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων x.7.A., 1 Tim. 
 vi. 15, 16. 
 
 Vy. 6-13. First part of the Theodicée: God’s promise, however, has not be- 
 come untrue through the exclusion of a part of the Israelites ; for it applies only 
 to the true Israelites, who are such according to the promise, which is confirmed 
 from Scripture. 
 
 Ver. 6. Having in vv. 4, 5 adduced the great divine prerogatives of his 
 people, and given honour to God for them, as his Israelitish sympathies 
 impelled him to do,* his thought now recurs to that utterance of grief in 
 vv. 2, 3, over-against which (dé) he now proposes to justify the God of his 
 people. [See Note CIII. p. 399.] Quite unnecessarily Lachmann has put 
 vv. 3-5 in a parenthesis. — οὐχ οἷον δὲ, ὅτι] Goes not mean : but it isnot possi- 
 ble that (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Homberg, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Morus, 
 Bohme, Rosenmiiller, Benecke, Ewald) ; for in that case ὅτε would not be 
 allowable, but the infinitive must follow (Matthiae, ὃ 479 ; Kriiger, § 55. 3. 
 1) ; moreover as Calvin has rightly observed, οἷόν re would be found, at least 
 according to the invariable usage (4 Macc. iv. 7; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 3, vil. 
 7, 22 ; and Bornemann, in loc. ; de Rep. Ath. ii. 2; Mem. iv. 6. 7; Thue. 
 vii. 42; 8; Soph. Prd. 918; Ὁ: C. 2420; Ast. Ler. Plat. II. p. 425), 
 instead of which scarcely an uncertain example (as Gorgias, pro Palam, in 
 Wetstein) is forthcoming of the simple οἷον without τέ, whilst the masculine 
 οἷός εἰμι (without τέ) is frequent (see Schémann, ad Js. Ὁ. 465 ; Weber, Dem. 
 Aristocr. p. 469 ; Kihner, 11. 2, p. 702. 580). It is rather to be explained 
 by the very current usage in later Greek (Lennep. ad Phalar. p. 258 ; 
 
 1 Van Hengel assumes that the Zsraelites 3 And yet Hofmann terms the words ὁ ὧν 
 and patriarchs and Christ are intended. ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός «.7.A., taken as a doxology, 
 
 2See Lobeck, ad Herodian. p. 474, ad an uncalled-for, and aimless, insufferable in- 
 Phryn. pp. 164, 174; Babr, ad Plut. Ale. Ὁ. terruption. Psychologically, a very unjust 
 162. judgment. 
 
CHAP. IX., 6. 365 
 
 Fritzsche on our passage) of οὐχ οἷον with a following finite tense ; (¢.g. οὐχ 
 οἷον ὀργίζομαι in Phryn. p. 872, and the passages from Polybius in Schweig- 
 hiiuser, p. 403). According to this usage, the attracted οἷον is not to be re- 
 solved, with Hermann, ad Viger. p. 790, into τοῖον οἷον, because the following 
 verb does not suit this, but with Fritzsche into τοιοῦτον ὅτι : the matter zs not 
 of such a nature, that. But since Paul has here expressed 671, he caanot have 
 conceived it as contained in οἷον : in reality he has fallen into a mixing up of 
 two kindred modes of expression—namely, of οὐχ οἷον with a finite tense, 
 and oby ri, i.e. οὐχ ἐρῶ ὅτι.: Without this intermingling he would have 
 written οὐχ οἷον dé ἐκπέπτωκεν ; but consequent on this intermingling he wrote 
 οὐχ οἷον δὲ, bre éxt., Which accordingly may be analyzed thus : οὐ τοῖον δὲ 
 λέγω. οἷον ὅτι, I do not speak of a thing of such kind, as (that is) that. So also 
 substantially Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 319 [E. T. 372 f.], and previously, by 
 way of suggestion, Beza. The deviation from Greek usage into which Paul 
 has fallen renders also necessary this solution, which deviates* from the 
 analysis of the Greek οὐχ οἷον δὲ ἐκπέπτ. (without ὅτι) ; and we have here, 
 amongst the many solecisms falsely ascribed to the apostle, a real one. Ob- 
 serve, moreover, the strength of the negation implied in οὐχ οἷον ; for this 
 affirms that the lament of the apostle was to be somethiag quite other than a 
 lament over the frustration of the divine word. According to Hofmann, . 
 ηὐχόμην is to be again supplied to οὐχ οἷον, and ὅτε to be taken as because,* so 
 that thus Paul would deny that he had for that wish the grownd which is 
 named is ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν x.t.A. This is—independently of the arbitrariness of 
 the insertion of 7iy6uyv—incorrect, just because the thought that this ηὐχόμην 
 could have had that grownd would be an absurd thought ; for it would sup- 
 pose a fact, which is inconceivable as a motive of the wish. — ἐκπέπτωκεν] has 
 fallen out of its position, i.e. fallen through, become unavailing, without re- 
 sult. So διαπίπτειν, Josh. xxi. 45; Judith vi. 9; and πίπτειν, Josh. xxiii. 
 14 ; both in use also among the Greeks ; comp. ἐκβάλλεσθαι, Dissen, ad 
 Pind. Nem. xi. 30. The opposite is μένειν, ver. 11. Comp. also 1 Cor. xiii. 
 8. — 6 λόγος τ. Θεοῦ] namely, not the Dei edictum (ver. 28) as to the bestowal 
 of blessing only on the election of the Israelites, as Fritzsche, anticipating, 
 would have it, but generally the promise given by God to the Israelites, by 
 which the assurance of the Messianic salvation is obviously intended. This 
 sense the context yields generally, and especially by ἐξ ov ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ k. o., 
 ver. 5, without our having exactly to think of Gen. xii. 3, where the promise 
 is to Abraham (Th. Schott). — ob yap πάντες x.7.2.] for not all who spring 
 from Israel, not all υἱοὶ Iopaga (ver. 27), are Israelites (Israel’s children, ac- 
 cording to the divine idea), so as to be all destined to receive the salvation 
 promised to the Israelites. Comp. Gal. iv. 29, vi. 16. The jirst ᾿Ισραήλ is 
 
 1See Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet. Ὁ. 128; Hengel proposes to resolve the expression 
 Hartung, Partikell. 11. Ὁ. 153 f. ; Kiihner, IT. thus : τοιόνδε λέγων, οἷον τοῦτό ἐστιν, οὐ λέγω 
 
 2, p. 800 f. ὅτι, 
 
 2 Fritzsche prefers to assume a constructio 3 Comp. also Erasmus, Castalio, Reith- 
 πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, so that Paul has  mapyr. 
 written ὅτι because in οὐχ οἷον δέ lies the 4 See Plut. Τὴ. Gracch. 21; Ael. V. H. iv. 
 
 essential meaning : sed multwin abest.—Van 7; Kypke, II. p. 173 f. 
 
366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the name of the patriarch ; the second, instead of which the old reading 
 ᾿Ισραηλῖται (Ὁ). Chrys.) contains a correct gloss, is the name of his people (xi. 
 2, 7, 26, al.). Mistaking the subtle emphatic character of this mode of ex- 
 pression, Hofmann, in spite of the clear oi és, takes the first Ἴσρ. also as a 
 name of the people, so that the sense would be : the wnity of the people is 
 something other than the swm of its members. To oi ἐξ ’Iop. corresponds 
 σπέρμα ’ABp., ver. 7. 
 
 Ver. 7. Nor yet, because they are descendants of Abraham, are they all (his) 
 children.—Before οὐδ᾽ a colon only is correct, because the discourse proceeds 
 continuously, annexing denial to denial. — εἰσί] The subject is that of the 
 previous clause, οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. The τέκνα of Abraham, as significantly con- 
 trasted with the mere bodily descendants (σπέρμα), are those destined by 
 God to receive the promised salvation. Comp. Matt. 111. 9; John viii. 33, 
 39; Justin, 6. Tryph. 44. That it is not God’s children that are to be 
 understood (although they ae such), as, after Theodoret and several others, 
 Glicker afresh takes it, is manifest from the foregoing parallel οὗτοι ᾿Ισραῆλ, 
 and from the fact that it is not till afterwards that τέκνα τ. Θεοῦ are spoken 
 of.—Wrongly, but in consequence of his erroneous understanding of the 
 ὅτι, ver. 6, Hofmann regards οὐδ᾽ ὅτι εἰσὶ om. ’ABp. as the negation of a 
 second ground of the ηὐχόμην, so that then a new sentence begins with 
 πάντες τέκνα. This view the obvious correlation of οὐδ᾽. . . τέκνα with the 
 preceding οὐ yap πάντες x.t.A. should have precluded. — After ἀλλ᾽ we are 
 not to supply γέγραπται or οὕτως ἐῤῥέθη, Which would be quite arbitrary ; but 
 the saying in Gen. xxi. 12, which is well known to the reader as a saying of 
 God, is subjoined unaltered and immediately (comp. Gal. iii. 11, 12 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 27) without a καθὼς γέγραπται (xv. 3; 1 Cor. i. 81) or the like being 
 introduced, or the second person being altered into the third ; simply be-- 
 cause it is taken for granted that the saying is one well known. — ἐν Ἴσ. κληθῇ. 
 σοι σπέρμα] closely after the LXX., which renders the original literally. In 
 the original text we read YM 1? NYP? pY3: through Isaac posterity 
 shall be named to thee, i.e. through Isaac ‘ will come to pass to thee, that 
 posterity of thine shall have the status and the name of the ozépua’Afp. 
 (comp. Heb. xi. 18) ; the descendants of Isaac (consequently not the Ish- 
 maelites) shall be recognized as thy posterity (and therewith as the heirs of 
 the divine promise).! But the apostle has otherwise apprehended the sense of 
 the passage according to its typical reference ; for it is evident from the rela- 
 tion of ver. 9 to ver. 8, that he limited that saying to the person of Isace him- 
 self, who (not Ishmael) was the promised child of Abraham, and thus repre- 
 sented in himself the character of the true posterity of Abraham accounted 
 as such by God. Hence, in the sense of the apostle: ‘‘ In the person of Isaac 
 will a descendant be named to thee ;” i.e., Isaac will be he, in whose person 
 the notion ‘‘ descendant of Abraham” shall be represented and recognized, 
 
 1 According to Hofmann, the sense is: quire pry? pv3, and in the Greek τῷ 
 “The race, whose ancestor Abraham is ὀνόματι (isa. xiii. 7) or (xlviii. 1) ἐπὶ τῷ 
 assumed to be, shall bear Isaae’s name.” ὀνόματι Ἰσαάκ. 
 
 This sense would, instead of pista, re- 
 
CHAPS Ex. 9. 367 
 
 Paul finds in this divine declaration the idea enunciated (ver. 8), that not 
 on bodily descent (which was also the case with Ishmael), but on divine 
 promise (which was the case with Isaac, ver. 9), the true sonship of 
 Abraham is founded. Usually (not by Philippi and Ewald, who concur 
 with our view) the passage is understood, conformably to the historical 
 sense of the original, not of the person of Isaac, but of his posterity ; which, 
 because Isaac himself was the son of promise, represents the true descend- 
 ants of Abraham according to the promise. But to this posterity all 
 Israelites certainly belonged, and it would therefore be inappropriate to set 
 them down, by virtue of their extraction from Isaac, as the type of the true 
 sonship of Abraham, when the very claim to that sonship, resting upon 
 bodily descent, is to be withdrawn from them. The person of Isaac himself, 
 as contrasted with Ishmael, was this type,which was thereupon repeated 
 in Jacob, as contrasted with Esau (in their persons), vv. 10-13. Chry- 
 sostom aptly indicates the reference to Isaac himself : διὰ yap τοῦτο εἶπεν" 
 ἐν Ἴσ. kA. σ. σπ.,) ἵνα μάθης, ὅτι οἱ τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ γεννώμενοι τῷ κατὰ TOV 
 Ἰσαὰκ, οὗτοι μάλιστά εἰσι τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ᾽ πῶς οὖν ὁ Ἰσαὰκ ἐγεννήθη ; 
 οὐ κατὰ νόμον φύσεως, οὐδὲ κατὰ δύναμιν σαρκὸς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν 
 ἐπαγγελίας. --- κληθήσεται] ποηυϊγα ίξι».} The opinion of Reiche, that καλ. 
 denotes to call out of nothing (see on iv. 7), which it signifies also in Gen. 
 xxi. 12, so that the sense would be: ‘‘In the person of Isaac a descendant 
 will be imparted to thee,” is erroneous, because that saying of God was 
 uttered after the birth of Isaac. — σοι] Dative of ethical reference. —roi7’ 
 ἔστιν] This purports, thereby the idea is expressed. Rightly Grotius : ‘‘ Hacc 
 vox est explicantis ὑπόνοιαν latentem, quod W717 dicitur Hebraeis.” — τέκνα 
 τ. Θεοῦ] Paul characterizes the true descendants of Abraham, who are not so 
 from bodily generation, as God’s children, that is, as such descendants of the 
 ancestor, whose Abrahamic sonship is not different in the idea of God from 
 that of sonship to Him, so that they are regarded and treated by God as His 
 children. —ra τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγ.} might mean : the promised children (so van 
 Hengel) ; for the promised child of Abraham was Isaac (ver. 9), whose birth 
 was the realization of a promise, (and so Hofmann takes it). But that Paul 
 had the conception that Isaac was begotten by virtue of the divine promise, is 
 evident from Gal. iv. 23 (see in loc.), and therefore the genitive (as also pre- 
 viously τῆς σαρκός) is to be taken causatively: the children of Abraham who 
 originate from the divine promise, who are placed in this their relation of 
 sonship to Abraham through the creative power of the divine promise, 
 analogously to the begetting of Isaac ; ἡ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἰσχὺς ἔτεκε τὸ παιδίον, 
 Chrysostom. — λογίζεται] by God. Comp. iv. 3, ὅ. --- εἰς σπέρμα] that is, as 
 an Abrahamic posterity. See ver. 7. To understand Gentiles also, is here 
 foreign to the context (in opposition to Beyschlag); see vv? 9-13, Abra- 
 hams race is treated of, to which not a// who descend from him are without 
 distinction reckoned by God as belonging. 
 
 Ver. 9. Proof of the foregoing ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. ‘‘The chil- 
 dren of promise, I say, for a word of promise is that which follows: about this 
 
 1 See Winer, p. 571 f. [E. T. 615]; Eur. 1160. 625, and Pflugk in loc. 
 
908 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 time, etc.” Hence, therefore, we see that not the bodily descent, but the 
 divine promise, constitutes the relation of belonging to Abrahain’s father- 
 hood. The quotation is freely put together from Gen. xviii. 10 and 
 xviii. 14, after the LXX. — To κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, as this time (namely, 
 of the next year), corresponds ‘11 j{2 in the original (comp. 2 Kings iv. 
 16, 17; Gen. xvii. 21), which is to be explained :as the time revives, that 
 is, when the time (which is now a thing of the past and dead) returns to 
 life ; not with Fritzsche : in the present time (of the next year), which 
 suits the words of the LXX.,—where, by way of explanation, the classical 
 εἰς ὥρας, over the year, is added,—but not the Hebrew. See Gesenius, Thes. 
 I. p. 470 ; Tuch and Knobel on Gen. xviii. 10. On the whole promise, 
 comp. Hom. Od. xi. 248 f., 295. 
 
 Ver. 10. A fresh and still more decisive proof (for it might be objected 
 that, of Abraham’s children, Sarah’s son only was legitimate) that only the di- 
 vine disposal constituted the succession to Abraham which was true and valid ' 
 in the sight of God. Comp. Barnab. 138. The more definite notion of 
 promise, which was retained in the preceding, is here expanded into the 
 more general one of the appointment of the divine will as made known. — οὐ 
 μόνον δέ] See generally on v. 3. What is supplied must be something that 
 is gathered from the preceding, that fits the nominative ‘PeBéxca, and that 
 answers as regards sense to the following ἐῤῥέθη αὐτῇ. Hence, because τῇ 
 Σάῤῥᾳ precedes, and with ἀλλὰ καί another mother’s name is introduced, we 
 must supply, as subject, not Abraham (Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Reithmayr, 
 van Hengel ; comp. also Hofmann, who however thinks any completing 
 supplement useless), but Σάῤῥα ; and moreover, not indeed the definite λόγον 
 ἐπαγγελίας εἶχεν or ἐπηγγελμένη ἦν (Vatablus, Fritzsche, Winer, Krehl, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius), but the more general λόγον or ῥῆμα Θεοῦ εἶχεν, Which 18 
 suitable to the subsequent éppé077 , as well as to the contents of the sayings 
 adduced in vv. 12, 13: ‘‘ But not only had Sarah a saying of God, but also 
 Rebecca, etc.” ‘We must therefore throw aside the manifold arbitrary sup- 
 plements suggested, some of which are inconsistent with the construction, 
 not suiting the nominative ‘Pef., as e.g. : ‘‘non solum id, quod jam diximus, 
 documentum est ejus, quod inferre volumus ; Rebecca idem nos docet” (so 
 Grotius, also Seb. Schmid, Semler, Ch. Schmid, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, and 
 several others ; comp. Tholuck and Philippi) ; or: τοῦτο ἣν (Riickert, de 
 Wette), so that the nominative Ῥεβ. forms an anacoluthon, and the period be- 
 gun enters with ver. 11 upon quite another form (how forced, seeing that vv. 
 11 and 12 in themselves stand in perfectly regular construction !). It is only 
 the semblance of an objection against our view, that not Sarah, but Abraham, 
 received the word of promise, ver. 9 ; for Sarah was, by the nature of the 
 case, and also according to the representation of Genesis, the co-recipient 
 of the promise, and was mixed up in the conversation of God with Abraham 
 in reference to it (Gen. xviii. 13-15) ; so that Paul, without incurring the 
 charge of contradicting history, might have no scruple in stating the con- 
 trast as between the mothers, as he has done. — ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα] Who had 
 cohabitation of one (man), the effect of which was the conception of the twin 
 children. The contextual importance of this addition does not consist in 
 
 & 
 
CHAP το. ty 12: 369 
 ἡ 
 
 its denying that there was a breach of conjugal fidelity, but in its making 
 palpably apparent the invalidity—for the history of salvation—of bodily 
 descent. She was pregnant by one man, and yet how different was the 
 divine determination with respect to the two children !— ἐξ ἑνός] mascu- 
 line, without anything being supplied ; for "Ic. τ. 7. ju. is in apposition. 
 κοίτῃ, couch, bed, often Ywarriage bed (Heb. xiii. 4), is found seldom in the 
 classical writers,’ with whom εὐνῇ and λέχος often have the same sense, eu- 
 phemistically used as equivalent to concubitus, but frequently in the LXX. 
 See Schleusner, Thes. III. p. 847. Comp. Wisd. iii. 19, 16. — τοῦ πατρ. gy. | 
 from the Jewish consciousness ; for the discourse has primarily to do with 
 the Jews. Comp. iv. 1. If Isaac were to be designated as the father of 
 Christians (Reiche, Fritzsche), the context must have necessarily and defi- 
 nitely indicated this, since believers are Abraham’s (spiritual) children. We 
 may add that Ic. τοῦ πατρ. ἡμῶν is not without a significant bearing on the 
 argument, inasmuch as it contributes to make us feel the independence of 
 the determination of the divine will on the theocratic descent, however 
 legitimate. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. Although, forsooth, they were not yet born, and had not done any- 
 thing good or evil, in order that the purpose of God according to election 
 might have its continued subsistence, not from works, but from Him who calls, i 
 was said to her, etc. [See Note CIV. p. 9599. 1-- μήπω] not οὔπω, because the 
 negative relation is intended to be expressed subjectively, that is, as placed 
 before the view of God and weighed by Him in delivering His utterance.’ 
 —The subject (αὐτῶν) to the participles is not expressed, according to a well- 
 known classical usage (Matthiae, ὃ 563 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 17), 
 but it would be self-evident to the reader from the history familiar to him, 
 that the twins of Rebecca were intended ; Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 589]. — The 
 sentence expressive of purpose, iva. . . καλοῦντος, is placed with emphasis be- 
 fore ἐῤῥέθη, and therefore not to be placed in a parenthesis. —iva] introduces 
 the purpose which God had in this, that, notwithstanding they were not yet 
 born, etc., He yet gave forth already the declaration of ver. 12. LHe thereby 
 purposed, namely, that 1718 vesolve—conceived in the mode of an election made 
 amongst men—to bestow the blessings of the Messianic salvation should subsist, 
 etc.—7 κατ᾽ ἐκλογ. πρόθεσις] can neither be so taken, that the ἐκλογῇ precedes 
 the πρόθεσις in point of time (comp. viii. 28), which is opposed to the nature 
 of the relation, especially seeing that the πρόθεσις pertains to what was ante- 
 cedent to time (see on viii. 28) ; * nor so that the ἐκλογή follows the πρόθεσις, 
 
 1 Eur. Med. 151, Hippol. 154; not Anacr. 
 23, see Valck. Schol. 11. p. 594. 
 
 2 See Winer, p. 450 [E. T. 483 f.] ; Baeum- 
 lein, Partik. p. 295. Comp. Xen. Cy7. iii, 1. 37. 
 
 3 Taken by Beck in a rationalistic sense: 
 “The fundamental outline which serves as 
 a standard for the temporal training of the 
 ἐκλογή, and pervades their temporal devel- 
 opment in all its parts’. 
 
 4 Since the divine πρόθεσις is antecedent to 
 time (Eph. iii. 11 ; 2 Tim. i. 9), as is also the 
 ἐκλογή (Eph. i. 4; and see Weiss, did. Theol. 
 
 § 126), we cannot, with Beyschlag, p. 38,. 
 understand it of the plan developing itself 
 in history, pertaining to the history of God's 
 kingdom, as God forms it inthe calling of 
 Abraham and executes it up to the apostolic 
 present. Mistaken also is van Hengel’s 
 view, according to which the κατ᾽ ἐκλογ. 
 πρόθ is to be limited to the determination 
 of choice respecting the two brothers, and 
 μένῃ to the abiding realization of it in the 
 posterity of both sides, while οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, add’ 
 ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος is supposed to be a gloss. 
 
370 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 whether it be regarded as the act of its fulfilment (Reiche) or as its aim 
 (Krehl). These latter interpretations might certainly be justified linguisti- 
 cally (see Kiihner, I. 1, pp. 412, 413), but they would yield no specific pecu- 
 liarity of the act of the πρόθεσις. Yet, since κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν must be the char- 
 acteristically distinctive mark of the purpose, it cannot by any means dec- 
 note : the resolution adopted in respect of an election (Grotius, Riickert) ; 
 but it must be apprehended as an essential inherent of the πρόθεσις, expressing 
 the model character of this divine act : the purpose according to election, 1.6. 
 the purpose which was so formed, that init an election was made. The πρόθεσις 
 would have been no πρόθ. κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, no ‘‘propositum Dei electivwm” 
 (Bengel), if God had resolved to bless all without exception. 1118 resolve to 
 vouchsafe the Messianic blessedness did not, however, concern all, but those 
 only who were to be comprehended in this very resolve (by virtue of His 
 πρόγνωσις, Vili. 29), and who were thereby, by means of the πρόθεσις itself, 
 chosen out from the rest of men (xi. δ), and thus the πρόθεσις was no other 
 than ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις (comp. Bengel, Flatt, Tholuck, Beck, Fritzsche, 
 Philippi, Lamping). In a linguistic aspect κατ’ éxdoy. (frequently in 
 Polybius, see Raphel) comes under the same category with the well-known 
 expressions Κατὰ κράτος, Ka? ὑπερβολήν κιτ.λ.} Comp. xi. 21; 1 Tim. vi. ὃ. 
 But it is incorrect to alter, with Carpzov, Ernesti, Cramer, BOhme, Ammon, 
 Rosenmiiller, the signification of ἐκλ., and to explain ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλ. πρόθ. as 
 ἃ propositum Dei liberwm.” For, as election and freedom are in themselves 
 different conceptions, so in those passages which are appealed to (Joseph. 
 Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14; Psalt. Sal. ix. 7), ἐκλ. is none other than electio ; and 
 especially in the N. T. ἐκλογή, ἐκλέγεσθαι, and ἐκλεκτός are so statedly used for 
 the dogmatic sense of the election to salvation, that no alteration can be ad- 
 mitted. In general, Hofmann has rightly understood it of the quality, which 
 the purpose has from the fact that God chooses ; along with which, however, 
 he likewise transposes the notion of the ἐκλογή into that of the free act of will, 
 ‘‘which has its presupposition only in the chooser, not on the side of the 
 chosen.” This anticipates the following, which, moreover, joins itself not 
 to ἐκλογή, but to the abiding of the κατ᾽ ἐκλ. πρόθεσις ; hence ἐκλογῆ must 
 be left in its strict verbal sense of election. The ἐκλογή may in and by itself 
 be even an unfree act of will ; its freedom does not lie in the notion in itself, 
 but it is only to be inferred mediately from what is further to be said of the 
 μένειν of the κατ᾽ ἐκλ. πρόθεσις, Vid. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων k.7.2. — μένῃ] The opposite 
 of ἐκπέπτωκεν, ver. 6.2 It is the result aimed at in such a declaration as God 
 caused to be given to Rebecca before the birth of her two sons : His purpose 
 according to election is meant to remain unchangeable, etc., so much He 
 would have to be settled in His giving that declaration. — οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων k.7.A. | 
 is by most joined, through a supplied οὖσα, to πρόϑεσις τ. Θεοῦ ;° by Fritzsche 
 
 1 Bornem. ad Cyrop.i. 4. 23; Bernhardy, αὐτῇ. But this last has already its defining 
 
 wp. 241. clause in μήπω «.7.A., and that a clause 
 2 Comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 8, 24; Eurip. Jph. after which οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων x.7.A., annexed 
 ‘T. 959; Werod. iv. 201. to the ἐῤῥέθη αὐτῇ as a definition of mode, 
 
 3Tuther, however, with whom agree would be something self-evident and su- 
 Hofmann and Jatho, connects with ἐῤῥέθη + perfluous. Hofmann insists, quite ground- 
 
CHAP. EN elk} Te 371 
 
 regarded even as a supplementary definition to κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, in which he is 
 followed by Lamping, as though Paul had written ἡ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων κιτ.Δ. But 
 for rejecting the natural and nearest connection with μένῃ there is absolutely 
 no ground from the sense which thus results : the elective resolution must 
 have its abiding character not on account of works, which the subjects concerned 
 would perform, but on account of God Himself, who calls to the Messianic salva- 
 tion. Accordingly, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων «.7.2. is a causal specification annexed to 
 the—in itself independent—yévy, namely, of its objective actual relation 
 (hence οὖ, not μή), and should be separated from μένῃ by a comma (Paul 
 might more formally have written : καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων κ.τ.2.). Hence the 
 objection that μένειν ἐκ is not found is of no importance, since μένῃ ia 
 itself stands absolutely, and é« is constantly employed in the sense of by vir- 
 tue of, by reason of. See Bernhardy, p. 230; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 551.? 
 — On the form ἐῤῥέθη, which, instead of the Recepta ἐῤῥήθη, is to be adopted 
 with Lachmann and Tischendorf, following the preponderance of testimony, 
 in all passages in Paul, see on Matt. v. 21, and Kiihner, I. p. 810 f.—The 
 quotation is Gen. xxv. 23, closely following the LXX. ; ὅτι forms no part of 
 it, but is recitative. In the connection of the original text, ὁ μείζων and ὁ ἐλάσσ., 
 the greater and the smaller, refer to the two nations represented by the elder 
 and younger twin sons, of which they were to be ancestors ; and this pre- 
 diction was /fuljilled first under David, who conquered the Edomites (2 Sam. 
 viii. 14) ; then, after they had freed themselves in the time of Joram (2 
 Kings vill. 21), under Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7; 2 Chron. xxv. 11) and 
 Uzziah (2 Kings xiv. 22 ; 2 Chron, xxvi. 2), who again reduced them to 
 slavery ; and lastly, after they had once more broken loose in the time of 
 Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 17 ; according to 2 Kings xvi. 6, they had merely 
 wrested the port of Elath from the Jews), under Johannes Hyrcanus, who 
 completely vanquished them, forced them to be circumcised, and incorpo- 
 rated them in the Jewish state (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9. 1). Paul, however, has 
 in view, as the entire context vv. 10, 11, 13 evinces, in ὁ μείζ. and τῷ ἐλάσσ., 
 Esau and Jacob themselves, not their nations ; so that the fulfilment of the 
 δουλ. is to be found in the theocratic subjection into which Esau was reduced 
 through the loss of his birthright and of the paternal blessing, whereby the 
 theocratic lordship passed to Jacob. But inasmuch as in Gen. 1.6. the two 
 brothers are set forth as representatives of the nations, and their persons and 
 their destiny are not consequently excluded,—as, indeed, the relation indi- 
 cated in the divine utterance took its beginning with the brothers them- 
 selves, by virtue of the preference of Jacob through the paternal blessing 
 
 lessly, that, according to the ordinary 
 connection of οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων «.7.A., instead of 
 οὐκ, μή must have been used. On account 
 of the following ἀλλ᾽ «.7.A., on which the 
 main stress is meant to be laid, οὐκ, even 
 in a sentence expressing purpose, is quite 
 in its place. See Buttm. Weut. Gr. Ὁ. 302, 
 8 [Εἰ. T. 852]. The negation adheres to the 
 ἐξ ἔργων, see Kiihner, IL. 2, p. 747 f. 
 
 1 This characteristic designation of God 
 as ὁ καλῶν makes it apparent that the at- 
 
 tainment of the salvation entirely depends 
 on Him. 
 
 3. Not essentially different from our view 
 is that of Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi, who 
 regard οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων «.7.A. asasubjoined def- 
 inition of the whole final clause : “* And this 
 indeed was not to be effected by virtue ot 
 works, ete.’ (Philippi). But Riickert in- 
 correctly explains it, as though the passage 
 Tan μένῃ μὴ ἐξ ἔργ. K.7.A, 
 
372 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (Gen. xxvii. 29, 37, 40),—the apostle’s apprehension of the passage, as he 
 adapts it to his connection, has its ground and its warrant, especially in 
 view of similar hermeneutic freedom in the use of Ὁ. T. expressions. — ὁ 
 μείζων and τῷ ἐλάσσ. have neither in the original nor in Greek the significa- 
 tion: the first-born and the second-born, which indeed the words do not 
 denote ; but Esau, who is to come to birth first, is regarded as the greater 
 of the twins in the womb, and Jacob as the smaller. 
 
 Ver. 13. ‘‘ This utterance (ἐῤῥέθη) took place in conformity with the ex- 
 pressly testified (in Mal. i. 2, 3, freely cited from'the LXX.) love of God 
 towards Jacob and abhorrence of Esau.” Thus, that utterance agrees with 
 this. But just like Paul, so the prophet himself intends by ᾽Τακώβ and "Head, 
 not the two nations Israel and Edom, but the persons of the two brothers ; 
 God loved the former, and hated the latter (and therefore has exalted Israel 
 and destroyed Edom).—The qaorists are, in the sense -of the apostle—as the re- 
 lation of καθὼς yéyp. to the preceding, imparting information respecting the 
 subjective ground of the divine declaration in ver. 12, shows—to be re- 
 ferred to the love and abhorrence entertained towards the brothers before 
 their birth, but are not to be understood of the de facto manifestation of love and 
 hatred by which the saying of Gen. xxv. 23 had been'‘in the result confirmed 
 (van Hengel). ᾿Ἐμίσησα, moreover, is not to have a merely privative sense as- 
 cribed to it : not to love, or to love less (as Fessel, Glass, Grotius, Estius, and 
 many, including Noésselt, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Beck, Maier, Beyschlag), 
 which is not admissible even in Matt. vi. 24, Luke xiv. 26, xvi. 13, John 
 xii. 25 (see, against this and similar attempts to weaken its force, Lamping) ; 
 but it expresses the opposite of the positive ἠγάπ., viz. positive hatred. See 
 Mal. i. 4. And as that love towards Jacob must be conceived of as com- 
 pletely independent of foreseen virtues (ver. 11), so also this hatred towards 
 Esau as completely independent of foreseen sins (in opposition to the Greek 
 Fathers and Jerome on Mal. i.). Both were founded solely on the free elec- 
 tive determination of God ; with whom, in the necessary connection of that 
 plan which He had freely adopted for the process of theocratic develop- 
 ment, the hatred and rejection of Esau were presupposed through their op- 
 posite, namely, the free love and election of Jacob to be the vehicle of the 
 theocracy and its privileges, as the reverse side of this love and choice, 
 which the history of Edom brought into actual relief. 
 
 Vv. 14-18. [See Note CV. p. 400.] Second part of the Theodicée: God 
 does not deal unrighteously, in that His πρόθεσις according to election is to have 
 its subsistence, not ἐξ ἔργων, but ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος; for He Himself main- 
 tains in the Scripture His own freedom to have mercy upon or to harden whom 
 He will.—This reason has probative force, in so far as it is justly presupposed 
 in it, that the aziom which God expresses respecting Himself is absolutely 
 worthy of Him. Hence we are not, with Beyschlag, to refer the alleged 
 injustice to the fact that God now prefers the Gentiles to the Jews, which is 
 simply imported into the preceding text, and along with which, no less gra- 
 tuitously, the following receives the sense: ‘‘the Jews have indeed become 
 what they are out of pure grace ; this grace may therefore once again be directed 
 towards others, and be withdrawn from them” (Beyschlag). 
 
CHAP. IX., 14-16. 919 
 
 Ver. 14. A possible inference, unfavourable to the character of God, from 
 vy. 11-13, is suggested by Paul himself, and repelled. —p7 ἀδικ. rapa τῷ 
 Θεῷ ;} but is there not unrighteousness with God? Comp. the question in iii. 
 5. παρὰ, with qualities, corresponds to the Latin in. See Matthiae, ὃ 588. 
 6. Comp. i. 11. 
 
 Ver. 15. Reason assigned for the μὴ γένοιτο, not for the legitimacy of the 
 question μὴ ἀδικία π. τ. Θ. (Mangold, p. 184), so that the opponent's language 
 continues, until it ‘‘culminates in the audacious exclamation of ver. 19.” 
 Tép after μὴ γένοιτο always relates to this. Bengel rightly remarks on yap : 
 ‘Nam quod asserimus, Dei assertum est irrefragabile.” —76 Mois. y. (see 
 critical remarks) brings into strong relief the venerated recipient of the word, 
 which makes it appear the more weighty (comp. x. 5, 19). The citation is 
 Ex. xxxili. 19, verbally following the LXX. (which would have more closely 
 translated the Heb. by ἐλεῶ ὃν ἂν ἐλεήσω κ.τ...).} In the original tert it is an 
 assurance by God to Moses of His favour now directly extended towards 
 him, but expressed in the form of a divine aviom. Hence Paul, following 
 the LXX., was justified in employing the passage as a scriptural statement 
 of the general proposition : God’s mercy, in respect of the persons con- 
 cerned, whose lot it should be to experience it, lets itself be determined 
 solely by His own free will of grace: ‘‘Z will have mercy upon whosoever is 
 the object of my mercy ;” so that I am therefore in-this matter dependent on 
 nothing external to myself. This is the sovereignty of the divine compas- 
 
 sionating will. Observe that the futwre denotes the actual compassion, ful- | 
 
 filling itself in point of fact, which God promises to show to the persons 
 concerned, towards whom He stands in the mental relation (ἐλεῶ, present) of 
 pity. The distinction between ἐλεῶ and οἰκτείρω is not, as Tittmann, Synon. 
 p. 69f., defines it, that ἐλ. denotes the active mercy, and oixr. the compas- 
 sionate kindness, but that the same notion misereri is more strongly expressed 
 by olxr. See Fritzsche. Comp. Plat. Huthyd. p. 288 Ὁ : ἐλεήσαντέ pe καὶ 
 οἰκτείραντε. The latter denotes originally bewailing sympathy, as opposed 
 to μακαρίζειν (Xen. Anab. ili. 1.19). Comp. οἶκτος (to which ὀδυρμός, Plat. 
 Rep. iii. p. 387 D, corresponds), οἰκτίζω, οἰκτρός x.7.A. On the form οἰκτειρήσω, 
 see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 741. --- ὃν ἂν] The av is that everywhere usual with 
 the relative in the sense of ewngue. Hence conditionally expressed : if to 
 any one 1 am gracious, etc. See generally Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 293 f. ; 
 Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 119. Consequently, not merely the mercy in itself, 
 but also the determination of those who should be its objects, is designated 
 as a free act of God, resting on nothing except on His elective purpose, and 
 affecting the persons according to it ; for the emphasis lies in the relative 
 clause on the repeated ὃν ἄν, as ἄν generally has its place after the emphatic 
 word. 
 
 Ver. 16. Paul now infers from this divine word the doctrine implied in 
 it of the causality of the divine redemption. —ov τοῦ θέλοντος] 86. ἐστί. 
 Accordingly, therefore, it (the participation in that which has just been des- 
 
 1 Even thus ἐλεήσω would be future indic- Xen. Apol. 16; Poppo, ad Cyrop. ii. 1. 18; 
 ative, not subjunctive (in opposition to Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 61.5 Ὁ. 
 Fritzsche’s criticism). See Bornemann, ad 
 
914 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ignated in the divine utterance as ἔλεος and οἰκτιρμός) is not of him that 
 wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who is merciful ; it depends not on 
 the striving and urgent endeavour of man, but on the will of the merciful 
 God.’ The relation of the genitive is: pencs. See Bernhardy, p. 165; 
 Kiihner, II. 1, p. 316 f. —rpéyev, a figurative designation of strenuously 
 active endeavour, borrowed originally from the competitive races (1 Cor. ix. 
 24). Comp. Gal. ii. 2, v. 7; Phil. 11. 16; also in the classical writers. 
 Incorrectly, Reiche (following Locke and others) thinks that θέλοντος was 
 probably chosen with reference to the wish of Abraham to instal Ishmael, 
 and of Isaac to instal Esau, in the heirship ; and rpéy. with reference to the 
 fruitless running in of Esau from the chase (Theophylact understands it of 
 his running off to the chase). For Paul, in fact, draws an inference with 
 his dpa οὖν only from the divine utterance issued to Moses ; and hence we are 
 not even to conjecture, with van Hengel, a reference to Pharaoh’s hasty 
 pursuit of the Israelites. Not on the runner himself depends the successful 
 struggle for the prize (in opposition to Reiche’s objection), but he, whom 
 God has chosen to obtain it, now on his part so runs that he does obtain it. 
 Consequently the conception is, that man by his τρέχειν never meritoriously 
 acquires the divine favour ; but, fulfilling the predetermination of God, he, 
 in the power of the grace already received, demeans himself conformably to it ; 
 hence Paul, in another place, where the context suggests it, exhorts to the 
 τρέχειν (1 Cor. ix. 24). Beck’s opinion, that θέλειν and τρέχειν are here 
 intended not in the moral sense, but metaphysically and juridically, is noth- 
 ing but an exegetically groundless deviation from the simple and clear mean- 
 ing of the words. —r. ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ"] to be taken together. Had Paul intend- 
 ed τ. ἐλεοῦντος as independent, and Θεοῦ as an apposition, he would have only 
 weakened the antithetic emphasis by the very superfluously added Θεοῦ (in 
 opposition to Hofmann). 
 
 Ver. 17. Tap] Establishment of this doctrine e contrario,’ as the inference 
 of ver. 18 shows.— ἡ γραφή] for in it God speaks ; comp. Gal. 111. 8, 22. —ro 
 Φαραώ] Paul has selected two very striking contemporaneous and historically 
 connected examples, in ver. 15 of election, and here of rejection. The quo- 
 tation is Ex.’ix. 16, with a free and partly intentional variation from the 
 LXX. -- ὅτι] does not form part of the declaration, but introduces it, as in 
 ver. 12. --- εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] brings the meaning into stronger relief than the 
 ἕνεκεν τούτου of the LXX. : for this very purpose (for nothing else). Comp. 
 xill. 6; 2 Cor. v. 6, vii. 11; Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8.— é&#yepd oe] The 
 
 guage of Scripture to Pharaoh testifies,— 
 what is said in ver. 16 thus receives a further 
 
 1The proposition in the generality with 
 which it is expressed forbids the assump- 
 
 tion of a particular reference to Jsrael (Bey- 
 schlag), whose moral and religious endeay- 
 our (ver. 21) hinders not the right of God’s 
 world-ruling majesty to open the heart of 
 the Gentiles for the gospel, and not that of 
 the Jews. 
 
 2 The counterpart of that ἔλεος is, namely, 
 the divine hardening ; and if this likewise 
 presents itself as dependent only on the 
 divine determination of will,—as the lan- 
 
 serjptural confirmation from the correlative 
 counterpart. Beyschlag also recognizes a 
 reasoning 6 contrario, but sees in Pharaoh 
 the type of Israel, unto whom the Gospel 
 has not merely remained strange, but has 
 tended to hardening. Thus in this type 
 “the present exchange of 7déle between 
 Israel and the Gentile world is illustrated in 
 a terrible manner.” This change of 76le is 
 imported. 
 
CHAP. ΤΣ 1%: 375 
 
 LXX. translates PUVILN by διετηρήθης, 1.6. vivus servatus es, and so far, 
 leaving out of view the factitive form of the Hebrew word (to which, how- 
 ever, a reading of the LXX. attested in the Hexapla with διετήρησά ce corre- 
 sponds), correctly in the historical connection (see Ex. ix. 15). Paul, 
 however, expands the special sense of that Hebrew word to denote the whole 
 appearance of Pharaoh, of which general fact that particular one was a 
 part ; and he renders the word according to this general relation, which 
 lies at the bottom of his view, and in reference to’ which the active form 
 was important, by : I have raised thee up, that is, caused thee to emerge ; thy 
 whole historical appearance has been brought about by me, in order that, 
 ete. Comp. the current use of ἐγείρειν in the N. T., as in Matt. xi. 11, xxi~ 
 11; John vii. 52, οὐ al.; Ecclus. x. 4; 1 Mace. iii. 49 ; and the Hebrew 
 DiI. So, in substance, Theophylact (εἰς τὸ μέσον ἤγαγον), Beza, Calvin, 
 Piscator, Bengel, and various others, including Reiche, Olshausen, Riickert, 
 Beck, Tholuck, Philippi ; formerly also Hofmann ; comp. Beyschlag : ‘I 
 have allowed thee to arise.” The interpretation : civum te servavi (Vorstius, 
 Hammond, Grotius, Wolf, and many, including Koppe, Morus, Béhme, 
 Rosenmiiller, Nésselt, Klee, Reithmayr), explains the Hebrew, but not the 
 expression of the apostle ; for Jas. v. 15 ought not to have been appealed 
 to, where the context demands the sense of ‘‘ erigere de lecto graviter decum- 
 bentem.” Yet even now Hofmann compares Jas. v. 15, and explains 
 accordingly : I have suffered thee to rise from sickness. But this would only 
 be admissible, provided it were the sense of the original text, which was 
 assumed by Paul as well known ; the latter, however, simply says : 7 allow 
 thee to stand for the sake of, etc. (comp. Knobel, in loc.), with which also 
 the LXX. agrees. Others explain : I have appointed thee to be king (Flatt, 
 Benecke, Gléckler). Others : I have stirred thee up for resistance (Augus- 
 tine, Anselm, K6éllner, de Wette, Fritzsche, Maier, Bisping, Lamping, comp. 
 Umbreit), as ἐγείρειν and ἐξεγείρ. denote, in classical usage, to incite, both in 
 a good and bad sense ; comp. 2 Macc. xiii. 4 ; Hist. Sus. 45. But these 
 special definitions of the sense make the apostle say something so entirely | 
 different both from the original and from the LXX., that they must have © 
 been necessitated by the connection. But this is not the case ; not even in 
 respect to the view of Augustine, etc., since in ver. 18 ὃν δὲ θέλει, σκληρύνει 
 is not inferred from the verbal sense of ἐξήγ. ce, but from the relation of the 
 ὅπως K.T.A. to the ἐξηγειρά σε (εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο evinces this),—a relation which 
 would presuppose a hardening of Pharaoh on the part of God, and for the 
 reader who is familiar with the history (Ex. iv. 21, vii. 3, xi. 10, xiv. 4, 
 et al.), actually presupposes it. — ὅπως ἐνδείξ. «.7.2.] namely, by means of thy 
 final overthrow ; not : by means of the leading out of Israel (Beyschlag), 
 against which is ἐν coi. —évdeif] may show, may cause to be recognized in 
 thy case. Comp. ili. 25 ; Eph. ii. 7 ; 1 Tim. i. 16. — δύναμιν] LXX.: ἰσχύν. 
 With Paul not an intentional alteration, but another reading according 
 to the Hexapla (in opposition to Philippi). — dvayy.| might be thoroughly 
 published. Comp. Luke ix. 60 ; Plat. Protag. p. 317 A; Pind. Nem. v. 5 ; 
 
 1“ Deus Pharaonem a se profectum dicit eique hance impositam esse personam.” 
 
910 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Herodian, i. 15. 3, ii. 9. 1; Plutarch. Camill. 24. —7d ὄνομά μου] As naming 
 Him who has shown Himself so mighty in the case of Pharaoh. For the 
 opposite, see ii. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 1.—év πάσῃ τῇ γῇ}] im the whole earth; a 
 result, which in the later course of history (comp. Eusebius, praep. ev. ix. 
 29), especially was fulfilled in the dispersion of the Jews and the spread of 
 Christianity, and continues to be fulfilled. The explanation : in the whole 
 land (van Hengel), is less in keeping with the tendency of the original text 
 than the all-comprehensive destination of this great judgment of God. 
 
 Ver. 18. Result from vv. 15-17. — σκληρύνει] Opposite of ἐλεεῖ, not merely 
 negative like οὐκ ἐλεεῖ (Bengel), but positive : He hardens him, makes him 
 thereby incapable of being a σκεῦος ἐλέους (ver. 23). Such an one becomes 
 σκληρός τε καὶ ἀμετάστροφος (Plato, Crat. p. 407 D), oka. καὶ ἀπειθής (Plato, 
 Locr. p. 104 C), in amoral respect.1 Comp. Acts xix. 9 ; Heb. iii. 8, 13, 
 15, iv. 7 3 oxAnpoxapdia, Matt. xix. 8; Mark xvi. 14; Rom. ii. Ὁ." Vv. 19 
 ff. prove that all warping or alteration of this sense of the word is errone- 
 ous ; that the suggestion, e.g., in Origen and several Fathers, in Grotius, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Klee, Maier, and others, that only the divine permission is 
 intended (comp. Melanchthon : ‘‘Indurat, i.e. sinit esse durum, nec con- 
 vertit eum’), is erroneous ; and equally erroneous is the interpretation 
 duriter tractat (Carpzov, Semler, Cramer, Ernesti, Schulthess, Haeg. Forsch. 
 II. p. 186 ; comp. Beck, p. 75 f.), which is contrary to the signification of 
 the word (also in the LXX. Job xxxix. 16).* Evidence to the same effect 
 is supplied by the twofold representation given of the hardening of Pharaoh 
 in Exodus, where it appears partly as self-produced (viii. 15, 32, ix. 34 ; 
 comp. 1 Sam. vi. 6), partly as effected by God (iv. 21, vii. 3, ix. 12, x. 20, 
 27, xi. 10). Of these two ways of regarding the matter, however, Paul, 
 suitably to his object, has expressly adopted the latter ; Pharaoh hardened 
 by God is to him the type of all who obstinately withstand the divine coun- 
 sel of salvation, as Israel does. In opposition to Beck’s evasive expedients, 
 see Lamping. On the hardening itself Olshausen remarks :—(1) That it 
 presupposes already the beginnings of evil. 
 (2) Thatit is not an aggravation 
 But Pharaoh’s history 
 (3) That the total hardening is an expression of simple 
 penal justice, when sin has become sin against the Holy Ghost. But in that 
 case there could be no mention of a ὃν θέλει. The clear and simple sense 
 of the apostle is, that it depends on the free determination of God’s will 
 whether to bless with His saving mercy, or, on the other hand, to put into 
 
 But this is at variance with 
 ὃν θέλει and ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος, Ver. 21. 
 of sin, but a means of preventing its aggravation. 
 is against this. 
 
 1For an analogous pagan conception, d. Stinde, p. 113 ff. 
 
 comp. especially Euripides, in Lycurgus 
 adv. Leocr. Ὁ. 198 (§ 92): 
 
 ὅταν yap ὀργὴ δαιμόνων βλάπτῃ τινά, 
 
 τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ πρῶτον ἐξαφαιρεῖται φρενῶν 
 
 τὸν νοῦν τὸν ἐσθλὸν, εἰς δὲ τὴν χείρω τρέπει 
 
 γνώμην, ἵν᾽ εἰδῇ μηδὲν ὧν ἁμαρτάνει. 
 See also Rubnken, ad Vell. Paterc. ii. 57, p. 
 265 ff. 
 
 2 See also Soph. 41. 13840, Trach. 1250; Lo- 
 
 beck, ad Aj. p. 884; from the O. T., Umbreit 
 
 3 In Job, 1.6., ἀπεσκλήρυνε, LXX., is said of 
 the ostrich, which renders hard, i.e. makes 
 hardy, its young ones. Comp. Leon. Tarent. 
 11; Athen. I. p. 24 D; Theophr. C. pi. iii. 16, 
 2,v. 15. 6. Such is also the meaning of 
 ἀποσκληρόω. The sense of the original 
 (ΠΡ ΤΠ) is not decisive. The LXX. has 
 understood it as ἀπεσκληρ. Comp. Lamping, 
 p. 188 f. 
 
CHAP. Ix., 18. 377 
 that spiritual condition, in which aman can be no object of His saving 
 mercy (but rather of His ὀργή only). Accordingly, the will of God is here 
 the absolute will, which is only in the ἐλεεῖ a will of grace, and not also in 
 the σκληρύνει (in opposition to Th. Schott). Of the style and manner in 
 which the older dogmatic interpreters have here introduced qualifying 
 clauses in the interests of opposition to absolute predestination, the devel- 
 opment of the matter by Calovius may serve as an example. He main- 
 tains, that when it is said that God hardens, this is not to be taken ἐνεργητι- 
 κῶς or effective, but (1) συγχωρητικῶς, propter permissionem ; (2) ἀφορμητικῶς, 
 propter oceasionem, quam ex 115, quae Deus agit, sumunt reprobi ; (8) éyxara- 
 λειπτικῶς, Ob desertionem, quod gratia sua deserat reprobos ; (4) παραδοτικῶς, 
 ob traditionem in sensum reprobum et in ulteriorem Satanae potestatem. 
 But Philippi’s suggestion of the immanent /aw which the divine freedom 
 carries within itself,—according to which God will have mercy upon him 
 who acknowledges His right to have mercy on whom He will, and to harden 
 whom He will; and will harden him who denies to Him this right, —will only 
 then come into consideration by the side of what Paul here says, when (see 
 remarks after ver. 33) we are in a position to judge of the relation of our 
 passage and the connection that follows it to the moral self-determination 
 of man, which the apostle teaches elsewhere ; seeing that no further guiding 
 hint is here given by Paul, and, moreover, that immanent law of the divine 
 freedom, as Philippi himself frankly recognizes, is not at all here expressed. 
 For now the apostle has been most sedulously and exclusively urging 
 nothing but the complete independence of the divine willing in ἐλεεῖν and 
 oxAnpoverv,’ which the Form. Cone. p. 821 does not duly attend to, when it 
 “maintains that Paul desired to represent the hardening of Pharaoh as an 
 example of divine penal justice. Not ‘‘ut eo ipso Dei justitiam declararet,” 
 has Paul adduced this example, although it falls historically under this 
 point of view, but asa proof of the completely ree se!f-determination of God 
 to harden whom He will. Accordingly, the hardening hererappears by no 
 means, as has been lately read between the lines, ‘‘ as ὦ consequence of pre- 
 ceding conceited self-righteousness” (Tholuck), or ‘‘ such as the man himself has 
 willed it” (Th. Schott), or conditioned by the divine standard of holiness 
 confronting human sin (Weiss), or with an obvious presupposition of human 
 self-determination (Beyschlag). Elsewhere the hardening may be adjudged 
 as a punishment by God (Isa. vi. 9 ff. ; Ps. lxix. 28 ; see Umbreit, p. 310 
 f.), but not so here. The will of God, which in truth can be no arbitrary 
 pleasure, is no doubt holy and just ; but it is not here apprehended and 
 set forth under this point of view, and from this side, but in reference to its 
 independence of all human assistance, consequently in accordance with its 
 absolute ascitas, which is to be retained in its clear precision and without 
 any qualifying clause to the words ὃν θέλει ἐλεεῖ," and must not be obscured 
 by ideas of mediate agency that are here foreign. 
 
 
 
 1 Observe that in ὃν θέλει the emphasis 
 falls on θέλει, not—as in ver. 15, where av 
 was added—on ov. In the second clause 
 this emphatic ov θέλει is then repeated, on 
 which occasion δέ (again, on the other hand) 
 
 brings out the corresponding symmetry of 
 the relative definition on both sides (Har- 
 tung, Partik. I. Ὁ. 168 f.). 
 
 2 Hofmann rightly remarks: the ἐλεεῖν is 
 designated as an act, whose object one is, in 
 
378 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Vv. 19-21. Third part of the Theodicée : But man is not entitled to dis- 
 pute with God, why He should still jind fault. For his relation to God is as 
 that of the thing formed to its former, or of the vessel to the potter, who has 
 power to fashion out of a single lump vessels to honour and dishonour. 
 
 Ver. 19. An objection supposed by the apostle (comp. xi. 19) which might 
 be raised against ver. 18, not merely by a Jew, but generally. — οὖν] in pur- 
 suance of the ὃν dé θέλει σκληρύνει. ---- ἔτι] logical, as iniii. 7, and frequently : 
 If He hardens out of His own determination of will, why does He still find 
 Fault? That fact surely takes away all warrant from the reproaches which 
 God makes against hardened sinners, since they have been hardened by the 
 divine will itself, to which no one yet offers opposition (with success). —7@ 
 yap Bova. x.r.4.] ground assigned for the question, τί ἔτι μέμφ. --- ἀνθέστηκε] 
 Who withstands? whereby, concretely, the irresistibility of the divine decree 
 is set forth. The divine decree is exalted above any one’s opposition. Accord- 
 ing to the present opinion of Hofmann (it was otherwise in the Schriftbevw. I. 
 p. 246 f.), the opponent wishes to establish that, if the words ὃν θέλει, σκλη- 
 pover be correct, no one may offer opposition to that which God wills,’ and there- 
 fore God can in no one have anything to censure. But thus the thought of 
 the question τίς ἀνθέστηκε would be one so irrational and impious (as though, 
 forsooth, no sinner would be opposed to God), that Paul would not even have 
 had ground or warrant to have invented it as an objection. That question 
 is not impious, but tragic, the expression of human weakness in presence of 
 the divine decree of hardening. — On the classical βούλημα (more frequently 
 βούλευμα), the thing willed, i.e. captum consilium (only here in Paul), see van 
 Hengel, Lobeck, ad Aj. 44. Comp., as to the distinction between βούλομαι 
 and θέλω (Eph. i. 11), on Matt. i. 19. 
 
 Ver. 20. Μενοῦνγε] Imo vero, here not without irony : Yea verily, O man 
 (11. 1), who art thou (quantulus es) who repliest against God? See on Luke xi. 
 28 ; also Ast, Lev. Plat. Il. p. 808. On σὺ τίς εἶ, comp. xiv. 4 ; Plato, Gorg. 
 Ῥ. 452 B: σὺ δὲ. . . τίς εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε ; Paul does not give arefutation of the ri 
 ἔτι μέμφ., but he repudiates the question as unwarranted ; ‘ abrumpit quaesti- 
 onem” (Melanchthon), and that wholly from the standpoint of the entirely 
 unlimited divine omnipotence, on which he has placed himself in the whole 
 of the present connection, and consistently with that standpoint. —6 ἀντα- 
 moxpw.| For in τί ἔτει... ἀνθέστ. there is contained an oppositional reply, 
 namely, to God's finding fault, not to the saying of Scripture, ver. 17 (Hof- 
 mann), which the apostle’s present train of thought has already left behind. 
 On the expression, comp. Luke xiv. 6 ; Judg. v. 29 ; Job xvi. 8, xxxii. 12. 
 The word is not found in the Greek writers. But ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι, says Paul, 
 as little belongs to man against God, as to the thing formed belongs the 
 question addressed to its former: Why hast thou made me thus (as 1 am) ? 
 
 virtue of the fact that God wills to make him its {Widerpart] does not correspond with suf- 
 object. Just so it stands with the σκληρύνειν, ficient definiteness to the notion of ἀνθέστη- 
 by which God fulfils His own will in the κε, Since the latter everywhere signifies the 
 person concerned, without haying his real and active resistere. So alsoin Paul 
 action and character as a ground of deter- (xii. 2; Gal. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 13). Comp. 
 mination in the matter. Soph. Fragm. 234; Dindorf : πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγκην 
 1The general expression ‘ opposition” οὐδ᾽ "Ἄρης ἀνθίσταται Plato, Symp. p. 196 Ὁ. 
 
CHAP. IX., 21. 919 
 
 This comparison is logically correct (in opposition to Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 269), 
 since the tertium comparationis generally is the constituting of the quality. 
 As the moulder produces the quality of the vessel formed by him according 
 to his own free will, so God constitutes the moral quality (fitted for blessed- 
 ness or not so) of men as He will. Only when it is maintained that the 
 comparison with the thing formed must properly refer only to the first for- 
 mation of men, and not to the subsequent ethical moulding of those created 
 (as in Pharaoh’s case, whom God hardened), can its logical correctness be 
 denied. But Paul wrote in a popular form, and it is to do him injustice to 
 press his simile more than he himself, judging by the tenor of the entire 
 connection, would have it pressed. Gléckler (following Pareus) finds in 
 μὴ ἐρεῖ κιτ.λ. and ver. 21 an argumentatio a minore ad majus: ““Τῇ not even in 
 the case of an effigy can such a question be addressed to its former, how 
 much less can man, etc.” But this also is to be quite laid aside, and we 
 must simply abide by the conception of a simile, since that question on the 
 part of the thing formed cannot certainly be conceived as really taking 
 place, and since the simile itself is of so frequent occurrence in the O. T., 
 that Paul has doubtless employed it by way of reminiscence from that source. 
 see Isa: xxix. 16, xlv..9; Jer. xvii. 6 5. Wisd. xv..% ; Eeclus. xxxvi. 13: 
 Vv. 21-23 also show that Paul sets forth God Himself under the image of 
 the potter. According to Hofmann, the sense of the question resolves it- 
 self into a complaint over the destiny, for which the creature is created by 
 God. But the contextual notion of ποιεῖν is not that of creation, but that of 
 preparation, adjustment (vv. 21, 22), correlative to the making of the potter, 
 who does not create his vessels, but forms and fashions (πλάσαντι) them thus 
 or thus ; and οὕτως simply specifies the mode of the making : in such shape, in 
 such a kind of way, that I have not issued from thy hands as one of another 
 mould. Comp. Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 465]. It is the τρόπος of the ποιεῖν, 
 which presents itself in the result. 
 
 Ver. 21. “H] The sense, without an interrogation, is: Unless perhaps the 
 potter should not have power over his clay (τοῦ πηλοῦ), to make (ποιῆσαι, the in- 
 finitive of more precise definition,) etc. Comp. Wisd. xv. 7. —é« τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
 gupdu.| The φύραμα (comp. on xi. 16 ; 1 Cor. v. 6) is the lump of the πηλός, 
 mixed with water and kneaded, out of which the potter makes the different 
 vessels, In the application of the simile, the same lump denotes human 
 nature in and by itself, as it is alike in all with its opposite moral capabili- 
 ties and dispositions,’ but not yet conceived of in its definite individual 
 moral stamp. Out of this, like the potter out of the clay-dough which is 
 susceptible of various moulding, God—who does not merely ‘‘ allow to come 
 into being” the different moral quality of individuals, in order then to fulfil 
 on them the ἐλεεῖν or σκληρύνειν which He will (Hofmann), but effectively 
 produces it—makes partly such as are destined to stand in honour (namely, 
 as partakers of the Messianic glory), partly such as are to stand in dishonour 
 
 1 This massa is by Augustine onesidedly muntur in gratiam, and the vessels εἰς ἀτιμίαν 
 viewed as “‘peccalo originali infecta, cor- those which ad luendum debitum relinquun- 
 rupia damnationique obnoxia,”’ so that then tur. 
 the vessels eis τιμήν are those which assu- 
 
3880 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (namely, through the eternal ἀπώλεια). Comp. vv. 22, 238. See also 2 Tim. 
 ii. 20, 21. The former is the effect of His ἐλεεῖν, as in the case of Moses ; 
 the latter that of His σκληρύνειν, as in the case of Pharaoh. Much too gen- 
 eral and rationalizing, in opposition to the text, is van Hengel’s view, that 
 the figure refers generally to the ‘‘inexplicabiles divini rerum humanarum 
 regiminis rationes ;” and Beyschlag’s view amounts to the same thing : 
 ‘out of the material of the human race (?) which is at His disposal as it 
 continues to come into existence, to stamp individuals with this or that histor- 
 ical destination” (?). — εἰς τιμήν] This is the destination of the vessel ; it is 
 either to be honoured, so that it has τιμήν (as e.g. a sacred vase), or is to expe- 
 rience the opposite, so that ἀτιμία cleaves to it (as e.g. an utensil destined to 
 foul use). — Observe the purposely-chosen arrangement of the words: the jux- 
 taposition of οὐκ ἔχει (or lacks), the juxtaposition of ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ 
 (although τοῦ πηλ, belongs to ἐξουσ. ; comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 332, 
 [E. T. 387]) and the prefixing of εἰς τιμήν. 
 
 Vv. 22-29. Mourth part of the Theodicée : God, full of long-suffering, has 
 borne with vessels of wrath, in order withal to make known His glory on vessels 
 of mercy, as which He has also called us Christians both out of the Jews and out 
 of the Gentiles. Comp. on vv. 22, 23 ; Wisd. xil. 20, 21. These two kinds 
 of σκεύη are necessarily the same as those meant in ver. 21 (in opposition to 
 Weiss, p. 66 f., and bid1. Theol. Ὁ. 383). This is shown by the retention of 
 σκεύη, aS well as by the attributes κατηρτισμένα and ἃ προητοίμασεν correspond- 
 ing to the ποιῆσαι of ver. 21, just as εἰς ἀπώλειαν aptly corresponds to the εἰς 
 ἀτιμίαν, and εἰς δόξαν to the εἰς τιμήν, ver. 21. The former vessels as κατηρ- 
 τισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν are necessarily oxeby ὀργῆς, for the divine ὀργή and ἀπώλεια 
 are correlates, which suppose one another. But the guilt, whichis supposed 
 by the notion of ὀργῆ, is, in the entirely consistent connection of our pas- 
 sage, presented—hby the καταρτίζειν which precedes the guilt, and in virtue 
 of which God has made them such as they are and not otherwise—as the 
 consequence of the moral development conditioned by this previous prepa- 
 ration. Weiss fails to recognize the onesidedness of the mode of view here 
 necessarily intended and boldly carried out by the apostle, which will not, 
 moreover, bear the attempts of Hofmann to explain it away, or those of 
 Beyschlag to twist the notion ; the latter least of all, on the subjective 
 ground that the strictly understood notion of σκεύη ὀργῆς is incapable of fulfil- 
 ment, which at the absolute standpoint of the text it is not. 
 
 Ver. 22 f. forms a conditional interrogative sentence, the apodosis of 
 which is not expressed, but is gathered from the context, viz. : Wilt thou still 
 
 beable to venture the ivraroxpivecba τῷ Θεῷ of ver. 20 f. ὃ Must thou not utterly 
 become dumb with thy replies? Comp. on John vi. 61; Acts xxiii. 9 ; 
 Luke xix. 41.’ This aposiopesis with εἰ δὲ corresponds perfectly to our : but 
 how if, etc. It is to be translated : ‘‘ But how if God, although minded to 
 manitest His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much long- 
 suffering vessels of wrath, which are nevertheless adjusted for destruction, in 
 
 1See also Calvin and Calovius, in Joc. ; Fritzsche, Conject. p. 80; Hartung; Partikell. 
 ΤΙ. p. 212; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. Ὁ. 297. 
 
CHAP? 1X;,,) 22. 381 
 
 order also to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He 
 has prepared beforehand for glory?” Paraphrased, the sense is: ‘‘ But if God, 
 notwithstanding that His holy will disposes Him not to leave un manifested His 
 wrath and His power, but practically to make them known, has nevertheless 
 hitherto, full of long-suffering, endured such as are objects of His wrath, and 
 spared them from the destruction, to incur which they are nevertheless constituted 
 and fitted like a vessel by the potter—endured them and spared them not merely 
 as a proof of such great long-suffering towards them, but also with the purpose 
 in view of making known, during the period of this forbearance, the fulness of 
 His glorious perfection in respect to such as are objects of His mercy, whom He, 
 as the potter fashions a vessel, has prepared beforehand, and put in order for 
 eternal glory,—how, in presence of that self-denying long-suffering of God 
 towards vessels of wrath, and in presence of this gracious purpose, which He 
 withal, at the same time, cherishes towards the vessels of mercy, must any 
 desire to dispute with God completely depart from thee !’—in detail the 
 following points are to be observed : δὲ is neither equivalent to οὖν, nor re- 
 sumptive, but the simple μεταβατικόν, making the transition to something 
 Surther, namely, from the previous dismissal of the objector to the refutation 
 which puts him to shame.’ Tholuck (comp. also Weiss, Reithmayr, and 
 others) takes it antithetically, so that the sequence of thought would be : 
 1 assert this as God’s absolute right against you, if you choose to take 
 your stand on the point of right ; but how if God has not so much as even 
 dealt thus, ete. ?” But such an interpretation, which would require the 
 contrast to be much more strongly marked than by the mere δὲ, is at vari- 
 ance with the retention in the sequel of the figurative cxein and their pre- 
 paredness ; because it is thence evident, that what Paul had previously said 
 concerning the freedom of God to prepare men of different character and 
 destiny like potters’ vessels, he by no means intended to cancel, as if God 
 had not thus dealt. Θέλων is, with Fritzsche, Philippi, Lamping, and 
 several others, to be resolved by although, because only thus is there yielded 
 the logically correct preparation for the notion of πολλὴ μακροθυμία, which is 
 a self-denying one ; the θέλειν ἐνδείξασθαι x.7.2. is the constant essential char- 
 acteristic of the holy God, and yet He has borne, etc. The analysis : because 
 God willed (so most, including de Wette, Riickert, van Hengel), yields the 
 sense that God has, in order thereupon to issue all the more evidently a penal 
 judgment, endured patiently, etc. ; but this would not amount to a πολλὴ 
 μακροθυμία, but in fact to a delay occasioned by an ungodlike motive, and 
 having in view the heaping up of wrath. Unworthy of God, and only ren- 
 dered possible by the importation of parenthetical thoughts, is the sense 
 which Hofmann educes : God has not so borne with those men, that He 
 would first sce how it would be with them, in order then to deal with them 
 accordingly ; but He has done so with the will already withal firmly settled, 
 to prove, ete. That negative and this already firm settlement of will are 
 read between the lines. —Oé/uv is placed at the head of the sentence, in 
 
 1 Hofmann asserts, with singular dogma- to a stronger reply. Why not? It intro- 
 tism, that the metabatic δὲ (Hartung, I. p. duces a new point (Bauemlein, p. 90). 
 165) is not fitted to introduce the transition 
 
382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 order by contrast the more forcibly to prepare the mind for the notion for 
 which it is intended to prepare, that of the μακροθυμία. 
 what is possible to Him, what He is in a position to do. Comp. viii. 3, τὸ 
 ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. Xen. Hell. i. 4. 18, τοῦ τῆς πόλεως δυνατοῦ. As to the 
 matter itself, see 3 Macc. ii. 6. The aorist ἤνεγκεν does not refer to the long 
 forbearance with Pharaoh (Chrysostom, de Wette, and most) ; the reference 
 to him has been already concluded with ver. 18 ; but Paul intends generally 
 the time hitherto (which will in like manner run on under this divine long- 
 suffering up to the Parousia), when God has still restrained the will of His 
 holiness, and has not yet accomplished the destruction of the objects of His 
 wrath, which He will do for the first time in judgment. The σκεύη ὀργῆς, 
 without the article, vessels of wrath, denotes not some, but such σκεύη gen- 
 erally,’ qualitatively understood, namely, vessels which are prepared (ver. 
 20 f.) to experience God’s wrath on themselves, to be the objects of it. 
 The effect of this wrath, which will go forth at the judgment, is everlasting 
 destruction ;? hence κατηρτ. εἰς ἀπώλ., adjusted for destruction (not ‘‘ripe for 
 destruction,” as Weiss and Hofmann explain), serves to bring the μακροθυμία 
 into still clearer relief, which is not that which waits for the self-decision of 
 human freedom (Beyschlag), especially for amendment (in opposition to 
 Bengel, Tholuck, and others), but that which delays the penal judgment 
 (comp. on Luke xviii. 7), the prolongatio irae, Jer. xv. 15, et al. [See 
 Note CVI. p. 401.] The passage ii. 4 f. is no protest against this view, 
 since the apostle does not there, as in the present passage, place himself at 
 the standpoint of the absolute divine will. The subject who has adjusted 
 those concerned for ἀπώλεια is God ;* and any saving clause whereby the 
 passive sense is made to disappear, or the passive expression—which, after 
 ver. 20 f., not even a certain refinement of piety is to be suggested as un- 
 derlying—is made to yield the sense that they had adjusted themselves for 
 destruction, or had deserved it (see Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, and many ; also Steudel, Olshausen, 
 Reithmayr, Beck, Hofmann, and Krummacher), is opposed to the literal 
 meaning and to the context (ver. 21). See also Lamping, p. 213. Hof- 
 mann’s interpretation especially : ‘‘who had advanced to that point, and 
 found themselves therein,” is wrecked on his incorrect explanation of τί pe 
 ἐποίησας οὕτως, ver. 20. In καὶ iva k.t.A., καί is also, introducing, in addition 
 to the object involved in the previous ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ, that accessory ob- 
 ject which God had in view in enduring the vessels of wrath in reference to 
 vessels of mercy (the use of the genit. ἐλέους corresponds to that of ὀργῆς, ver. 
 
 Τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ is 
 
 1 And that so that both kinds of vessels 
 exist among Jews and Gentiles (see ver. 
 24); in opposition to van Hengel, who 
 thinks that the vessels of wrath represent 
 only the Jewish people; comp. also Weiss 
 and others. 
 
 2 Hahn, Theol. ἃ. N. 7.1. p. 166 f., errone- 
 ously refers the ὀργή and the ἀπώλεια to 
 time, aS opposed to eternity. The employ- 
 ment of εἰς δόξαν in contrast is decisive 
 
 against this view. Comp. Ritschl, De tra 
 Dei, p. 15. This remark also applies against 
 Beyschlag, p. 57, who thinks that I change 
 notions pertaining to the history of God's 
 kingdom into abstract dogmatic ones. As 
 though the everlasting ἀπώλεια and the ever- 
 lasting δόξα were not precisely the issues of 
 that kingdom’s history ! 
 
 3Comp. also Estius and Lechler, apost. 
 Zeit. Ὁ. 128. 
 
CHAP: DXi  5: 999 
 
 22). Besides His great long-suffering towards those, He would also make 
 known how rich in glory He was towards these. For had He not so 
 patiently tolerated the σκεύη ὀργῆς, but already caused the penal judgment 
 to set in upon them (which is to be thought of as setting in along with the 
 Parousia, not antecedently to this, like the destruction of Jerusalem), He 
 would have had no space in which to make known His glory on σκεύεσιν 
 ἐλέους. [See Note CVII. p. 401.] But this purpose was to be served ex- 
 actly by that long period of forbearance, during which such σκεύη as were 
 prepared beforehand by God for-eternal δόξα should through their calling 
 (ver. 24) be led to Christ, and thereby the fulness of the divine glory should 
 be made known in respect to them ; which making known is matter of fact 
 (Eph. iii. 10). In τῆς δόξ. αὐτοῦ, the context directs us to think of the 
 divine majesty in relation to its beneficent glory, its glory in the bestowal of 
 blessing ; but εἰς δόξαν, as the opposite of εἰς ἀπώλ., denotes the everlasting 
 Messianic glory (viii. 21, 30). The verbs ἑτοιμάζειν and καταρτίζειν are not as 
 different from one another as evistence (Dasein) is from mode of existence 
 (Sosein),—an assertion of Hofmann’s as incorrect as it is devoid of proof,— 
 but ἑτοιμάζειν also denotes to constitute qualitatively, to prepare in the cor- 
 responding quality (1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 10; Philem. 22; Matt. iii. 3 5 
 Luke i. 17, ii. 81; John xiv. 2, e¢ al.). Comp. here especially 2 Tim. ii. 
 21. Against such an error the well-known reflexive use of ἑτοιμάζειν ἑαυτόν 
 (Rev. viii. 6, xix. 7) should have warned him, as well as the equivalent use 
 of the middle (1 Mace. v. 11, xii. 27, and very frequently in the classics). 
 It is solely with a viéw to variety and illustration that Paul uses for the 
 same notion the two verbs, of which Hofmann rationalizes the ἑτοιμάζειν to 
 mean : ‘that it is God who has caused those who attain to glory to come in- 
 to being for the end of possessing the glory, to which they thereupon attain 
 by the fact that He pours forth His own upon them.” Nor is there any- 
 thing peculiar to be sought behind the change from passive to active ; the 
 transition to the active was more readily suggested by the thought of the 
 activity of love. The προ in προητοίμασεν is not to be disregarded (see on 
 Eph. ii. 10) ; nor is it to be referred to the time before birth, nor to the 
 aeterna electio (the latter is the act of God, which before time preceded the 
 praeparatio) ; but to the fact that God has so previously fashioned the σκεύη 
 ἐλέους, before He makes known His glory on them (just as the potter fash- 
 ions the vessel), that is, has constituted in them that ethical personality, 
 which corresponds to their destination to obtain eternal δόξα through Christ.’ 
 In ἐπὶ the act of making known is contemplated as extending over the men, 
 who are its objects. If, with Beza and Fritzsche (Conject. p. 29; not 
 abandoned in his Comment. p. 843 f., but placed alongside of the ordinary 
 mode of connection), we should make καὶ iva γνωρίσῃ x.7.2, dependent, if not 
 
 1 Thus the προετοιμάζειν, to prepare before- Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 40, amounts, who rep- 
 hand, is to be understood according to the resents God as haying eternally before Him 
 context (vy. 21, 22), in the real sense, there- ‘the whole future state of the facts as to the 
 fore, of actual constituting, as previously decision” of the subjects, and dealing ac- 
 κατηρτ., and notin the sense of the mere cordingly. Comp, Matt, xxy. 34, 41; 2 Tim. 
 predestination in the divine counsel (Phi- 11.21; Eph, ii. 10. 
 lippi), to which also the explanation of 
 
984 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 simply on κατηρτισμένα (Riickert), yet on κατηρτ. εἰς ἀπώλειαν (so also Bey- 
 schlag), in which case καὶ would have to be taken most simply as and, the 
 entire balance of the discourse would be deranged, inasmuch as the impor- 
 tant thought καὶ iva γνωρίσῃ «.7.2., On which the whole sequel depends, 
 would be subordinated to a mere secondary definition. The centre of 
 gravity of the argument lies in the bearing with the vessels of wrath on the 
 part of the divine long-suffering ; and therzof in ver. 23 there is brought 
 forward an explanation glorifying God, which is added in respect to the 
 The connection above referred to would also certainly yield a 
 severity of thought, a rigour of telic view, which, granting all the boldness 
 of deduction with which Paul follows out the idea of predestination, yet 
 finds nothing further in accord with it in the whole treatise ; the thought, 
 namely, that God has made ready the σκείῃ ὀργῆς for destruction, in order, 
 through the effect of the contrast,* the more fully to make known His glory in 
 the σκεύεσι ἐλέους. ---- Τῦ is further to be remarked, (1) That the interrogative 
 conditional sentence forming an aposiopesis terminates with ver. 23, and is 
 not (with Fritzsche) to be extended to ver. 24, since all that follows from 
 ver. 25 onward belongs to the topic started in ver. 24. (2) That we are not, 
 following Reithmayr and older commentators with Philippi,* to supply a 
 second εἰ between καί and iva in ver. 23, and to assume that Paul had intended 
 at the close of ver. 23 to say, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς, but that he at once directed 
 his glance at the concretes, and therefore wrote οὖς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς instead 
 Thereby a rambling and confusion in the presenting of 
 his thoughts is, quite unnecessarily, imputed to the apostle, which would be 
 very glaring, particularly in a dialectic passage so stamped throughout with 
 clearness, definiteness, and precision as the present. Similarly,’ but still 
 
 , “ὴ 7 1 
 σκεύη ἐλέους. 
 
 of ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς. 
 
 1 Beyschlag incorrectly objects, that thus 
 the notion of long-suffering is deprived of 
 
 sistent interpolation, with an elastic inter- 
 pretation of the strict notions conveyed by the 
 
 its value ; for it isno more such, if it is ex- 
 ercised not for the sake of its objects, but 
 for the love of others. This does not take 
 account of the fact that Paul has certainly 
 expressed with sufficient definiteness, by his 
 καί before ἵνα, that he is speaking only of 
 an aim which subsisted along with others, 
 not of that which took place alone. 
 
 2 Beyschlag here pushes to the utmost 
 his explanation from the history of God’s 
 kingdom, in order to obtain the very oppo- 
 site of this rigour: “Τῇ God now drives the 
 Jewish people through hardening towards 
 destruction, He does certainly no more 
 towards them than what they have richly 
 deserved (?); but, at the same time, by 
 breaking the brittle shell of Judaism, in 
 which the gospel has germinated (?), He 
 turns the same to account for the unfet- 
 tered adoption of the Gentile world, and 
 brings in, along with the day of judg- 
 ment (Ὁ on Israel, the day likewise (Ὁ) of the 
 glorification of the community chosen (?) 
 by Him out of all the world.’ This is con- 
 
 words. 
 
 8 Τὴ regard to my explanation, Philippi 
 stumbles especially at the fact that Paul 
 has not written ἐπὶ πλείονα σκεύη ἐλέους. 
 But the apostle has in truth the two kinds 
 of σκεύη in view solely according to their 
 quality ; the opposition thought of by him 
 is purely qualitative ; a numerical compar- 
 ison did not concern him. Had God ποῦ 
 been so long-suffering towards vessels of 
 wrath, He would not have been able to 
 make known how richin glory He was 
 towards men of an opposite sort—towards 
 vessels of grace. The reflection is not con- 
 cerned with how many of one and the other 
 class were in reality extant; but with the 
 fact that God, with His long-suffering exer- 
 cised in spite of His holy will towards the 
 first category, had purposed at the same 
 time the making known of His δόξα respect- 
 ing the second category. Philippi’s doubt, 
 still expressed in the third edition, touches 
 Fritzsche’s exposition, but hardly mine. 
 
CHAP. IX., 24, 25. 
 
 99 
 
 more confusedly, Tholuck. The language in vv. 22, 23 is condensed and 
 
 rich in thought, but runs on according to plan and rule in its form. (8) 
 The apodosis (which on our understanding is not expressed) is not to be 
 found in ver, 23, because this would only be possible by arbitrarily supplying 
 hoe fecit, or the whole preceding chief sentence. So Ewald : ‘so He did that 
 also, in order that He might make known, on the other hand, the riches of 
 His glory, etc. ;” so also Th. Schott and Hofmann. — With our explanation 
 agree substantially Calvin, Grotius, and several others ; including Winer, 
 Ῥ. 530 [E. T. 570] ; Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 200 ; Lamping and 
 van Hengel, whilst Umbreit educes something which has no existence in the 
 passage, as though it ran: . GAN ἤνεγκεν x.t.A. (He 
 has, on the contrary, endured, etc.). 
 
 Ver. 24. [See Note CVIII. p. 401.] Not a confirmation of the design of 
 the divine endurance expressed in ver. 23 (Hofmann), but as the continu- 
 ation of the relative construction most readily suggests, the conerete more 
 precise designation of those intended by σκεύη ἐλέους, and that for the confirma- 
 tion of what was said of them by ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν. The καί denotes what 
 is added to this προητοίμ. ἑ. δ. : as which σκεύη He has also called us to this 
 glory of the Messianic kingdom. — otc] attracted by ἡμᾶς into the same gen- 
 der. See Bernhardy, p. 302; Winer, p. 156 f. [E. T. 166]. The relative 
 after an interrogative sentence has the emphasis of an οὗτος γάρ (Kiihner, ad 
 Xen. Mem. i. 2. 64) ; but the masculine is first introduced here, not in the 
 preceding relative sentence (against Hofmann’s objection), because the 
 neuter expression ἃ προητοίμ. was required by the conformity with the cor- 
 relate κατηρτισμένα. ---- ov μόνον x.t.A.]| Therefore without preference of the 
 Jews. ‘‘Judaeus credens non est eo ipso vocatus, guod Judaeus est, sed 
 vocatus est ex Judacis,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 25. Of the καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν" it is shown that it is in accordance with (ὡς) a 
 divine prophetic utterance. The ἐξ ’Iovdaiwy required no confirmation from 
 prophecy ; but the other statement required it the more, inasmuch as it was 
 exactly the Gentiles who had become believing that had been introduced 
 as σκεύη ἐλέους, in place of the Jews who had remained unbelieving. — 
 
 comp. Mark i. John vi. 45 ; Acts vii. 42. 
 
 εἰ δὲ ἔθελεν ὁ Θεὸς. 
 
 2 5 
 
 ἐν τῷ Ὥσ.] in libro. Hosene : 
 
 The passage Hos. i 5 (the citation varies both from the LXX. and the: 
 
 original text) treats of the idolatrous people of the ten tribes, to whom God 
 announces pardon and renewed adoption as the people of God. The apostle 
 recognizes in this pardon the type of the reception of the Gentiles to salva- 
 tion, and consequently, as its prophetically Messianic sense, a prediction of 
 the calling of the Gentiles ; and from this point of view, which has its war- 
 
 1 According to Hofmann (comp. his JWeis- 
 sag.u. Erp. 11. Ὁ. 215, and Schriftbew. 1. p. 251), 
 Paul has referred the quotation to the Jew- 
 ish people, in so far, namely, as it was 
 called out of free grace, according to which 
 the bestowal of grace promised by Script- 
 ure appears as an act of God not founded 
 on the condition of the subjects. But this 
 after the immediately preceding ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ 
 
 ἐθνῶν is quite inadmissible, as it is also for- 
 bidden by the transition to Jsrael, which 
 first appears in ver. 27. Very rashly, Hof- 
 mann terms the establishing of the typi- 
 cally prophetic reference to the Gentiles 
 an “idle talk.” Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 10, with 
 Wiesinger and Huther thereon. See also 
 on xX. 20. The simply correct view is 
 already given by Chrysostom. 
 
386 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 rant in the likeness of category to which the subjects belong (comp. Heng- 
 stenberg, Ohristol. I. p. 251), he has also introduced the deviations from the 
 words of the original and of the LXX., transposing the two parallel sen- 
 tences, and rendering the thought ἐρῶ τῷ οὐ λαῷ pov κ.τ.. (UXX.) by καλέσω 
 «.T.A., because the divine κλῆσις of the Gentiles loomed before him as the 
 Messianic fulfilment of the saying. Yet we are not thereby justified in 
 understanding καλέσω and κληθήσονται, ver. 26, immediately in the sense of 
 vocation (Fritzsche) ; for καλεῖν τινά τι, to call any one to something, is without 
 linguistic warrant, and the departure thus assumed from the original and 
 from the LXX. would be unnecessary, and would amount to a mechanical 
 proceeding. On the contrary, καλεῖν is to be left in its ordinary significa- 
 tion to name (comp. Hos. 1. 6) ; the divine naming, however, as ‘‘ my people, 
 my beloved,” of which the Gentiles were previously the very opposite, is in 
 point of fact none other than just their calling to Messianic salvation, in con- 
 sequence of which they are then named also from the human side υἱοὶ Θεοῦ 
 ζῶντος (ver. 26), and are therewith recognized according to the theocratic 
 status which they have obtained. The vivid thought laid hold of the ex- 
 pression καλέσω the more readily, since in this word to cal] and to name form 
 a single notion. Accordingly we must translate : J will name that which is 
 not my people, my people; and her who is not beloved, beloved. Both expres- 
 sions refer in the original to the significant names of a son (DY x) and of a 
 daughter (WIT) x) of the prophet, which he had been directed to give 
 them as symbolically significant of the rejection of the people, Hos. i. 6-9. 
 —On the οὐ standing beside the noun with the article, where the denial 
 refers to a concrete definite subject, see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 276. 
 
 ‘Ver. 26. Hos. ii. 1 (almost literally from the LXX., i. 10) is joined to the 
 former passage, so that both are regarded as forming one connected decla- 
 ration. Often so in Rabbinical usage, even when the passages belong to 
 different writers. See Surenhusius, καταλλ., p. 464. 45. — καὶ ἔσται] ™), 
 and it (the following) will come to pass. Comp. Acts. ii. 21. These words 
 are included in those of the prophecy (see also the LXX.), and therefore a 
 colon is not to be placed after καί, as though they were the apostle’s (Hof- 
 mann and others).—These words also treat, in Hosea himself, of the theo- 
 cratic restoration of the exiled people of the kingdom of Ephraim, so that 
 ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ov denotes Palestine, whither the outcasts were to return (not the 
 place of exile, as Hengstenberg, I. p. 248, and others think). But Paul 
 recognizes the antitypic fulfilment, as before at ver. 25, in the calling of the 
 Gentiles, who, previously designated by God as not His people, become now, 
 in consequence of the divine calling, sons of the living (true) God. Sce on ver. 
 25. But in this sense of Messianic fulfilment, according to Paul, the τόπος 
 οὗ ἐῤῥέθη αὐτοῖς x.r.2. cannot be Palestine, as itis in the historical sense of the 
 prophet ; nor yet is it ‘‘the communion of saints” (de Wette, comp. Baum- 
 garten-Crusius : ‘‘the ideal state, the divine kingdom”), nor the ‘‘ coetus 
 Christianorum, ubi diu dubitatum est, an recte gentiles reciperentur” 
 \(Fritzsche) ; but simply—and this is also the ordinary explanation—the local- 
 
 1 For analogous examples of οὗ after ἐν τ, τόπῳ, see Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. 182. 
 
OHAP: IX. 27,28. 387 
 
 aty of the Gentiles, the Gentile lands. There, where they dwelt, there they, 
 called by God to the salvation of the Messiah, were now named sonseof the 
 true God ; and there, too, it had been before said to them: Ye are not my 
 people ! in so far, namely, as this utterance of rejection was the utterance 
 of God, which, published to the Gentiles, is conceived, in the plastic spirit 
 of poetry, as resounding in all Gentile lands. To suppose the locality with- 
 out significance (Krehl), is inconsistent with its being so carefully designated. 
 And to take ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ, with Ewald, not in a local sense at all, but in 
 that of instead that, even if it agree with the Hebrew (comp. Hitzig), can- 
 not be made to agree with the Greek words. The LXX. understood and 
 translated WS DIP locally, and rightly so. 
 
 Vv. 27, 28. If Paul has, in vv. 25, 26, shown ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν to be based 
 on prophecy, he now begins, seeing that the accepted Gentiles have taken 
 the place of the excluded Jews, also to adduce prophetical evidence of the 
 exclusion of the greater part of Israel. —dé] leads over to another prophet,’ 
 who prophesies something further, and that concerning Israel: ‘‘ But 
 Esaias cries respecting Israel, etc.” --- κράζει] Of the loud crying, and there- 
 with peculiarly impassioned, profoundly moved, and urgent call of the 
 speaker, comp. Acts xxiii. 6, xxiv. 21; John vii. 28, 37, xii. 44, i. 15. — 
 ὑπέρ] Like περί, in respect of} as, since Demosthenes, frequently with verbs 
 of saying. The quotation is Isa. x. 22 f., not quite closely following the 
 LXX., and with a reminiscence (ὁ ἀριθμ. τ. υἱῶν Iop.) of Hos. ii. 1. — τὸ 
 ὑπόλειμμα ow09.| The remnant concerned (with emphatic accentuation, i.e. not 
 more than the remnant) will be saved , that is, in the sense of the apostle : 
 out of the countlessly great people only that small number which remains after 
 the rejection of the hardened mass will attain to the Messianic salvation.2 With 
 
 1 Only this view agrees with the connec- 
 tion, since the prophet Hosea was previous- 
 ly cited by name, and now another is like- 
 wise introduced by name. Therefore we 
 are not to say, with van Hengel, that by δέ 
 the prophet is placed in contradistinction 
 to God Himself speaking. But Hofmann’s 
 opinion, that the position of ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἴσρ. 
 (for Paul has not placed ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ Ἴσρ. 
 first) proves that ver. 25 refers to Israel, is in- 
 eorrect; because, if ver. 25 did not refer to 
 the Gentiles, Paul would have had no rea- 
 son for here adding ὑπὲρ τ. Iop., since in 
 the very passage under citation Israel is ex- 
 pressly named. The train of thoughtis: (1) 
 Hosea gives the divine prediction respect- 
 ing the not-God’s-people (respecting the 
 Gentiles), VV. 25, 26; (2) but Zsaiah utters a 
 prophecy which contains information re- 
 specting the relation of Zsrael to the recep- 
 tion of salvation. Thus both prophets estab- 
 lish what was said in ver. 24, οὐ μόνον ἐξ 
 ᾿Ιουδαίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ cOvOv,—namely, Llosen 
 the καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, and Isaiah the οὐ μόνον ἐξ 
 Thus the emphasis in yer. 27 
 lies primarily on Heaias δέ, whose prophecy, 
 
 ᾿Ιουδαίων. 
 
 differing from the oracle of Hosea, is to be 
 introduced by the significant κράζει ὑπὲρ τ. 
 Ἴσρ. Paraphrase somewhat thus: But 
 Isaiah, what do we hear from him? We 
 hear the cry respecting Jsrael, etc. 
 
 3 Hofmann misinterprets the passage in 
 Isaiah, making it to mean that the whole 
 people Israel, which shall return, be it never so 
 numerous, is called a ‘‘remnant,’’ for the 
 reason that it has come out of a severe time 
 of distress. In correspondence with this 
 sense, the passage, which is incorrectly 
 translated by the LXX. (because they have 
 ἐὰν γένηται, and add αὐτῶν to κατάλειμμα), is 
 held to be rightly understood by Paul: 
 “that the remnant which obtains salvation is 
 one with the people, of which the case is sup- 
 posed, that it is then as numerous as the sand 
 by the sea.” Against this it may be urged 
 
 (1) that 13 33W? INW according to the con- 
 
 text (comp. also vii. 3) cannot mean : the 
 return of the people will be the return 
 of a remnant, so that the latter would be 
 the people itself, but only: a remaining 
 part (not the mass) will return in the people, 
 
388 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 this understanding Paul employed the translation in the LXX.—not verb- 
 ally exact, but corresponding to the Messianic reference—of 23” by σωθήσε- 
 ται (which they understood of the deliverance by a return into Palestine) in 
 the Messianic sense. In Isaiah the word refers to the return to God, és con- 
 verted, of which the Messianic σώζεσθαι is just the consequence. . 
 
 Ver. 28. The Hebrew runs: ‘238 T¥IN2 772 3 APIs Aww yn 70.953 
 yIs-03 21) My NX TM. Hetirpation is decided,} streaming justice 
 (i.e. penal justice) ; for extirpation and decision (penal decision) the Lord 
 Jehovah Zebaoth makes (i.e. is on the point of executing) in the midst of the 
 whole earth (on Zion). The LXX. did not understand these words, and 
 translated them incorrectly (on how they came to do so, see Fritzsche, also 
 Maier, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 190 f.). This cannot be denied ; nor 
 are we, with Olshausen, to attempt to conceal or smooth over the fact by 
 arbitrary interpretation of the Hebrew. Paul has nevertheless felt no 
 scruple in abiding by their translation with a few unimportant deviations, 
 since its sense is not less suitable than that of the original to the connection 
 and object which the declaration here subserves. The words, as Paul has 
 them, mean: ‘‘ For utterance-accomplishing and (as matter of fact, through 
 a speedy execution of it) short-cutting in righteousness (is He) ; for a short- 
 cut utterance (i.e. a saying in which the whole penal decision is summarily 
 included) will the Lord bring to pass on the earth.” In reference to single 
 expressions, remark : (1) λόγον, which belongs to both participles, is neither 
 deeree (usually so taken, but this is not its meaning), nor matter of fact 
 (Beza, Melanchthon, Castalio, Calvin, Koppe, Reithmayr, formerly also 
 Hofmann, Weissag. αν. Hrf. 11. p. 213, and various others), which it never 
 denotes with Paul, nor reckoning,*? which, in connection with ποιεῖν, would 
 be contrary to idiom, but dictwm, an utterance, which He has delivered ; 
 and this indeed, in the first clause of the verse, which expresses the execu- 
 tive justice of God in general, is to be understood quite generally ; comp. 
 rasmus, Paraphr. : ‘‘ quicquid dixit, plene praestet et quidem compendio.” 
 In the second clause, on the other hand, which adduces proof of that gen- 
 
 i.e. among the people,—the rest not. (2) 
 The LXX. have understood the original 
 
 Job xv. 1), and because ΓΟ ἽΝ is understood 
 with Drechsler contrary to the context, 
 
 substantially with perfect correctness, 
 inasmuch as, instead of writing word 
 for word τ. κατάλ. σωθήσ. ἐν αὐτοῖς, they 
 give the explanation: τ. κατάλ. αὐτῶν 
 σωθήσ. (3) Paul follows the LXX. in this, only 
 passing over the self-understood αὐτῶν. 
 That the LXX. render Wi by γένηται, and 
 Paul writes ἢ instead, is entirely unessen- 
 tial. 
 
 1 According to Hofmann, AT must be 
 not predicate, but adjective : ‘“‘ an end-mak- 
 ing, which actually and truly makes an end,” 
 which permits no further extension of the 
 present state of the world; such an end- 
 making will bring in the state of righteous- 
 ness as with the force of waves. IJncor- 
 rectly, because thus 7) is made to con- 
 tain something which is not in it (even at 
 
 and unsuitably to the figurative How 
 (comp. Vili. 7, xxviii. 15, 18). : 
 
 2 So now Hofmann, omitting (see critical 
 notes) the words ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ" ὅτι λόγον συν- 
 τετμὴμ. The λόγον ποιεῖν is supposed to be 
 the appointment of an accounting, which is 
 designated by συντελεῖν as a settlement of ac- 
 count, and by συντέμνειν as an abridged pro- 
 cess of accounting. The notion of holding a 
 reckoning is certainly expressed in the 
 Greek writers by the familiar phrases λό- 
 γον λαμβάνειν, ὑπὸ τὸν λόγον ἄγειν, λόγον αἰτεῖν 
 etc., but not by λόγον ποιεῖν, which has 
 quite other significations, and in which 
 λόγος never means reckoning. Besides, συν- 
 τέμνειν With λόγον demands for the latter, 
 according to constant usage, the significa- 
 tion of speech, saying. 
 
GCHAR. Ὑχὸν 20. 389 
 eral description of God with the concrete case, the occurrence of which is 
 predicted, the divine saying of ver. 27, delivered through the prophet, is in- 
 tended. (2) συντέμνειν, used of something that is said (speeches, answers, 
 and the like), like συναιρεῖν, never denotes in Greek anything else than to 
 cut short,’ and it is therefore inadmissible to depart from this signification 
 of the συντομία λόγων (Plato, Phaedr. p. 267 B). We must, however, observe 
 that in συντέμνων this ““ comprising in short” must be ὦ matter of fact, con- 
 sisting in the short summary despatch of the matter (comp. LXX. Isa, xxviil. 
 22; Eur. hes. 450), like our ‘‘cut it short ;” while, on the other hand, 
 συντετμημένον (perfect) refers to the concise, short, and stern style in which 
 the saying itself is conceived (τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται !).2 Passages in which 
 συντέμνειν denotes ovagtake and the like (as Soph. Ant. 1090) have no bearing 
 on the present one. Woither are we to adopt what Tholuck reads into it, 
 that God will accomplish the promise delivered in Isa. x. 20, 21, only with 
 great limitation of the number of the people, which would, besides, be not at 
 all suitable to the perfect participle συντετμημένον. Moreover, the LXX. 
 cannot have meant λόγον of the word of promise, but, according to the sense 
 of the original, only of the penal judicial declaration. (9) ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ does 
 not stand for the righteousness of faith (Fritzsche), but is to be referred, ac- 
 cording to the context, as in the Hebrew, to the judicial righteousness of 
 God. (4) The participles συντετ. and συντέμνων require only ἐστί to be sup- 
 plied.* See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 776 ; Bernhardy, p. 470 ; Kiihner, 11. 
 1, p. 37. And (5) as respects the argumentative force of the γάρ, it lies in 
 the fact that, if God causes such a penal judgment to be issued on Israel, 
 the part of the people remaining spared, which obtains salvation, can only 
 be the ὑπόλειμμα out of the mass, that which remains over. Incorrectly Hof- 
 mann, in accordance with his erroneous interpretation of vv. 27, 28, ex- 
 plains : So long as this present world-period endures, Israel’s final salvation 
 might remain in suspense ; ‘‘ but Jehovah leaves it not on this footing, He makes 
 an end and settles accounts with the world, and the remnant which is then Israel's 
 people returns to Him and attains to salvation.” 
 
 Ver. 29. Since the preceding prophecy was not introduced by καθώς or ὡς, 
 we must here punctuate καὶ, καθὼς προείρηκεν Ἡσαΐας, εἰ μὴ x.T.A., 50 that Paul 
 adopts as his own‘ the words of Isa. i. 9 (closely following the LXX.): 
 
 1 Plato, Protag. p. 334 D, Zp. 3, Ὁ. 318 B; 
 Aeschines, p. 32. 23; Euripides, Jph. A. 
 1249, Acol. fr. v. 2; Lucian, bis. accus. 28 ; 
 Soph. jfragm. 411, Dind.; 2 Macc. x. 10; 
 Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 1180. 
 
 2The Vulgate has, with literal correct- 
 ness, rendered brevians and breviatum, Van 
 Hengel abides by this signification, but as- 
 sumes as the sense of συντέμνων : de ipsa 
 tamen minatione nonnihil detrahens, so that 
 God, in virtue of His righteousness, does 
 not reject all, but saves a small part, con- 
 sisting of the less refractory ; συντετμημένον 
 he then makes dependent on moujoer: “ fa- 
 ciet, ut dictum suum incisum sit, i.e. ut mina- 
 tio sua plerosque tantum Judacorum attin- 
 
 gat, de ea detrahens ad salutem pauciorum.” 
 But so συντέμνειν would amount to the 
 sense of subjecting something in part to de- 
 duction ; but it is not employed thus of 
 speeches, but only of things, Thue. viii. 45. 2 
 τήν τε μισθοφορὰν ξυνέτεμεν), Xen. Hier. iv. 9, 
 (τὰς δαπάνας συντέμνειν). 
 
 3 The subject, God, is here understood of 
 itself according to the following context, 
 so that it is unnecessary to parenthesize 
 
 ὅτι... ποιήσει in order to gain κύριος as 
 subject, as van Hengel artificially pro- 
 poses. 
 
 4 To supply an apodosis (Philippi: οὕτω καὶ 
 νῦν ἔχει) is therefore completely superfluous, 
 and consequently arbitrary. 
 
990 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS. 
 
 “ And, as Isaiah has prophesied, if the Lord of Zebaoth had not left behind to 
 us ὦ seed (in the sense of the apostle, this is that very ὑπόλειμμα of ver. 27, 
 which, like seed out of which new fruit grows, preserves and continues the 
 true people of God), we should have become as Sodom, and like to Gomorrah ;” 
 the whole nation (by exclusion from Messianic salvation) would have with- 
 out exception perished (fallen unto ἀπώλεια). ---- προείρ.] Not to be under- 
 stood, with Baumgarten-Crusius and van Hengel, following Erasmus, Beza, 
 Calvin, Grotius, Michaelis, and others: has said at an earlier place, for local 
 specifications of this kind are quite unusual in quotations with Paul, and 
 here such reference would be without significance. It is used in the pro- 
 phetic sense ; the prophet has said of the fate of the people in Ais time, with 
 a forecast of its corresponding fate in the present time, what holds good 
 of Israel's present ; the mass of its people is hardened by divine judgment, 
 and forfeits salvation, and only a holy σπέρμα is left to it.~— ὡς Tou. | Two 
 modes of conception are intermixed : become like, and become as, LXX., Hos. 
 iv. 6; Ezek. xxxiil. 2; Fritzsche, ad Marc. Ὁ. 140 f. Compare the classical 
 connection of ὅμοιος and ὁμοίως With ὡς and ὥσπερ. 
 
 Vv. 30-33. [See Note CIX. p. 402.] The blame of their exclusion rests 
 upon the Jews themselves, because they strove after righteousness not by faith, but 
 by works ; they took offence at Christ. Observe how Paul here ‘‘ with the 
 fewest words touches the deepest foundation of the matter” (Ewald). 
 
 Vv. 30, 31. From the preceding prophecies, ver. 25 ff. (not with particular 
 regard to ver. 16, as de Wette), Paul now, in order to prepare the transition 
 to the διατί; ὅτι κ.τ...,) ver. 32, draws the historical result, and that in the 
 form of question and answer : ‘‘ What shall we say then ? (we shall say) that 
 Gentiles, they who strove not after righteousness, have obtained righteous- 
 ness, but righteousness which proceeds from faith ; while Israel, on the 
 contrary, in spite of its endeavour after the law which justifies, has not 
 attained to this law.” Others take 67: . . . ἔφθασε to be a question, namely 
 either : ‘‘ What are we to say to the fact, that Gentiles, etc.?” So, following 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia and others, Heumann, Flatt, Olshausen, also Morus, 
 who takes ὅτι as because. Or: ‘‘ What are we therefore to say? Are we to 
 say that Gentiles, etc. Ὁ) So Reiche, who is then compelled to consider du. 
 δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστ. aS an answer inserted as in a dialogue, and to see in ver. 32 
 the ‘‘removal of the ground of the objection by a disclosure of the cause of 
 the phenomenon, which has now no longer anything surprising init.” But 
 Reiche’s view is to be rejected, partly on the ground that the insertion of a 
 supposed answer, dx. δὲ τ. ἐκ 7., is a makeshift and unexampled in Paul’s 
 writings ; partly because ὅτε. . . ἔφθασε, even with the exclusion of dvx. δὲ 
 τ. ἐκ π., contains complete Pauline trwth, and consequently does not at all 
 resemble a problematic inquiry, such as Paul elsewhere introduces by τί 
 ἐροῦμεν, and then refutes as erroneous (see iv. 1). This, too, in opposition to 
 Th. Schott, who, taking τί οὖν... δικαιοσύνην; as a single independent 
 question (What shall we now say to the fact, that Gentiles, etc.), then finds 
 
 1Comp. on προείρ., Acts i. 16; Plato, Rep. p. 619 C; Lucian, Jov. Frag. 30; Polyb. 
 
 vi. 3. 2. 
 
CHAP. IX., 31, 32. 891 
 
 the answer in δικαιοσύνην δὲ ἐκ πίστεως, but afterwards, no less strangely than 
 groundlessly, proposes to connect διατί immediately, no punctuation being 
 previously inserted, with the proposition ᾿Ισραὴλ δὲ K.7.A. Finally, it is 
 decisive against Heumann and others, that the answer of ver. 82, ὅτε οὐκ K.T.A., 
 does not concern the Gentiles at all (see ver. 30). — ἔθνη] Gentiles (comp. ii. 
 14), not the Gentiles as a collective body. | On the part of Gentiles righteous- 
 ness was obtained, ete. — τὰ μὴ διώκ.} They, whose endeavour (for they had 
 not a revelation, nor did they observe the moral law) was not directed towards 
 becoming righteous, they obtained righteousness, but—and hereby this 
 paradox of sacred history is solved—that which proceeds from faith. In 
 the first two instances duc. is used without any special definition from the 
 Christian point of view ; the latter only comes to be introduced with the 
 third dcx. — δὲ] comp. iii. 22 ; Phil. ii. 8. —On the figurative διώκειν, borrow- 
 ed from the running for the prize in the racecourse, as also on the correlate 
 καταλαμβάνειν, comp. Phil. iii, 12-14; 1 Cor. ix. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 11, 12; 
 Ecclus. xi. 10, xxvii. 8 ; on διώκειν δικαιοσύνην, Plato, Rep. p. 545 A. Ob- 
 serve the threefold δικαιοσύνην, as in ver. 31 the repetition of νόμον δικαιοσ. 
 The whole passage is framed jor pointed effect : ‘‘ Vehementer auditorem 
 commoyet ejusdem redintegratio verbi. . . quasi aliquod telum saepius 
 perveniat in eandem partem corporis.” <Auet. ad Herenn. iv. 28. 
 
 Vv. 31,1 32. Israel, on the contrary, striving after the law of righteousness, 
 has (in respect to the mass of the people) not attained to the law of righteous- 
 ness. —véuov dixaoc.] The law affording righteousness. Quite erroneous is 
 the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Bengel, Heu- 
 mann, that it isa hypallage for δικαιοσύνην νόμου ; and that of Riickert and 
 Kollner is arbitrary, that Paul, in his effort after brevity and paradox, has 
 used a condensed phrase for τὸν νόμον ὡς νόμον δικ. On the contrary, the jus- 
 tifying law isin both instances (comp. δικαιοσύνην, ver. 80) to be left with- 
 out any more precise concrete definition, and to be regarded as the ideal 
 (comp. also Fritzsche and Philippi), the reality of which the Israelites strove 
 by their legal conduct to experience im themselves (to possess), but did not obtain. 
 The justifying law | this is the idea, which they pursued, but to the reality 
 they remained strangers. Ii, finally, we chose, with many others (including 
 Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Kéllner, Krehl, de Wette), to understand the 
 first νόμ. dix. of the historical Mosaic lao, and thesecond of Christianity, 
 διώκων would be opposed to us ; for this, according to ver. 30, expresses not 
 the endeavour to fulfil the law, but the endeavour fo possess the law, as, indeed, 
 οὐκ ἔφθασε εἰς must correspond to κατέλαβε in ver. 30, and therefore must sim- 
 ply denote non pervenit (Vulg.), not : non praevenit (Erasmus, Estius, Ham- 
 mond, and others, including Ewald and Jatho). Comp. on Phil. iii. 16. 
 The reading of Lachmann, εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασε, which Hofmamn follows, is ex- 
 plained by the latter : Israel was set upon fulfilling a law which teaches what is 
 right (διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης), but did not thereby succeed, did not become 
 
 1 Ver. 31, although belonging to the an- dent proposition, because thus more em- 
 swer to the τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, and therefore phatic, and because διατί, ver. 32, refers 
 regarded by many as still dependent on ὅτι, only to ver. 31. 
 is nevertheless better taken as an indepen- 
 
392 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ἔννομος (εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασε) ; because the law remained for it, like a 
 shadow, ever only near, but unattainable, thus Israel had not at all come 
 to have its standpoint generally in a law and to live in it, neither in that of the 
 Old Testament, which it sought to follow, nor in that of the New Testament, 
 on which it turned its back. An entirely subjective artificial complication 
 of ideas, with invented accessories, and not even historically correct, since 
 in fact the Israelites stood and lived only too much ἐν νόμῳ and as ἔννομοι, 
 but could not withal attain to the νόμος δικαιοσύνης. This δικαιοσύνης 
 is the tragic point of the negative counter-statement, and hee is indis- 
 pensable in the text. — διὰ τί] se. εἰς νόμον dix. οὐκ ἔφθασεν ; answer : bre οὐκ ἐκ 
 For, had they started from faith in their striv- 
 ing, they would have obtained in Christianity the realization of their en- 
 deavour, the νόμον δικαιοσύνης ; through faith in Christ, to whom the law al- 
 ready points (iii. 31, x. 5 ff. ; John v. 46), they would have become right- 
 eous, and would thus in the gospel have really attained what floated before 
 them as an idea, the justifying law. — ὡς ἐξ ἔργ.) ὡς can neither denote a 
 hypocritical conduct (Theophylact), nor preswmed works (Fritzsche), nor 
 quasi (van Hengel, following the Vulgate) ; for, indeed, the Jews really set 
 out from the works of the law in their endeavour. On the contrary, it 
 means : Because their διώκειν was in the way, in which a διώκειν starting from 
 works is constituted ; the (perverted) kind and quality of the endeavour? is 
 designated, comp. 2 Cor. ii. 17; John i. 14. The ἐξ ἔργ. is by ὡς brought 
 into fuller relief ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 757 £. — προσέκοψαν x.7.2]| without 
 γάρ (see critical remarks), but thus coming in all the more strikingly : they 
 stumbled, etc. ; that is the fatal fact, which befell them in their διώκειν, and 
 caused that they οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως x.t.A. Had they not stumbled at the stone of 
 stumbling, they would have entered on the right line of endeavour ἐκ πίστεως, 
 instead of their perverted one ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. 
 
 πίστεως. 80. ἐδίωξαν νόμον δικ. 
 
 The simple appropriateness, 
 clearness, and force, with which the προσέκοψαν x.7.A. is thus introduced, 
 must exclude the connection with ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (Lachmann), fol- 
 lowed also by Th. Schott (‘‘ but, as could not but happen in consequence of 
 works, came to ruin on the stone of stumbling”). The λίθος προσκόμματος, 
 the stone on which one stumbles (trips), is Christ, in so far as oceasion for un- 
 belief is taken at his manifestation (especially at His death on the cross, 1 
 Cor. i. 23). Comp. Luke ii. 34 ; 1 Pet. ii. ¥, 8. The figure is in perfect 
 correspondence with the conception of the διώκειν, and was perhaps selected 
 in anticipation of the passage of Scripture to be adduced. Aptly, moreover, 
 Theophylact remarks : λίθ. προσκ. x. πέτρα σκανδ. ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους καὶ THE ἐκβάσεως 
 τῶν ἀπιστησάντων ὠνόμασται ὁ Χριστός" αὐτὸς γὰρ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν θεμέλιος καὶ ἑδραίωμα 
 ἐτέθη. 
 
 Ver. 83. This προσέκοψαν τῷ λίθῳ τ. προσκ. ensued—and this is the θεία μοῖρα 
 
 1 ΠῸ this, according to the real sense, οἵ διώκειν can be supplied. Hofmann has, 
 
 Philippi’s explanation amounts; taking as, 
 however, of the sudjective conception of the 
 διώκοντες, equivalent to ws φθησόμενοι x.7.A. 
 This is inadmissible, because, as with ἐκ 
 πίστ., 80 also with ἐξ ἔργων, only the notion 
 
 in consistency with his erroneous under- 
 standing of ver. 31, extorted from the 
 words the sense, “‘ that Israel fancied itself to 
 be in the position of a doing, by virtue of 
 which ti was in pursuit of the law of God.” 
 
CHAP. IX., 33. 393 
 
 herein—in conformity with the prophetic declaration, according to which 
 Christ is laid as the stone of stumbling in Israel (ἐν Σιών, as the theocratic seat 
 of the people), and faith on Him would have been that very thing which 
 would have preserved them from the forfeiture of salvation.—Isa. xxviii. 16 
 and viii. 14 are blended into one declaration, with a free but pertinent va- 
 riation both from the original and also from the LXX. With Jsaiah, in the 
 Jirst passage, the theocracy—the kingdom of Jehovah,’ whose sacred basis 
 and central seat is the temple—is the stone laid by God ;.and in the second, 
 God Himself is the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence for His ene- 
 mies. But Paul (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6-8) justly perceives in the passages proph- 
 ecies of the Messiah (as do also the Rabbins), and, in connection with the Messi- 
 anic character, of all the glory and triumph of the theocracy, the fulfiller of 
 which is the Messiah. — 6 aor. ἐπ. αὐτῷ] he who relies on Him, in the Messi- 
 anic fulfilment : he who believes on Christ. Comp. x. 11; 1 Tim. i. 16; 1 
 Pet. ii. 6 ; Luke xxiv. 25. Christ, the object of faith, is conceived of as 
 He to whom faith adheres as its foundation (comp. Bernhardy, p. 250) ; 
 there is therefore no need of the circumlocution : ‘‘fidem im Deo ponit 
 Christo fretus” (van Hengel). See also on Matt. xxvii. 42, and comp. ἐλπί- 
 Cew ἐπί, xv. 12. We may add that πᾶς, if it were the genuine reading, 
 would not have the emphasis ; but the latter lies upon ὁ πιστεύων, as the op- 
 posite of προσκόπτειν. --- καταισχυνθήσεται)] The LXX. have this verb (καταισ- 
 χυνθῇ), apparently deviating from the original text, Isa. xxviii. 16, where 
 probably they have merely given an inaccurate translation of WM, accord- 
 ing to the approximate sense, and have not adopted another reading, namely 
 wa” (Reiche, Olshausen, Hofmann).—In the sense of the Messianic fulfil- 
 ment of the saying, ‘‘ he will not be put to shame” means, ‘‘ he will not for- 
 Jett the Messianic salvation.” Comp. on v. 5. 
 
 Remarx,—The contents of ix. 6-29, as they have been unfolded by pure ex- 
 egesis, certainly exclude, when taken in and by themselves, the idea of a decree 
 of God conditioned by human moral self-activity, as indeed God’s absolute activ- 
 ity, taken as such by itself, cannot depend on that of the individual. On the 
 other hand, a fatalistic determinism, the ‘‘tremendum mysterium” of Calvin, 
 which, following the precedent of Augustine, robs man of his self-determination 
 and free personal attitude towards salvation, and makes him the passive ob- 
 ject of divine sovereign will, may just as little be derived as a Pauline doctrine 
 from our passage. It cannot be so, because our passage is not to be considered 
 as detached from the following (vv. 30-33, chap. x. xi.); and because, gener- 
 ally, the countless exhortations of the apostle to obedience of faith, to steadfast- 
 ness of faith and Christian virtue, as well as all his admonitions on the possi- 
 bility of losing salvation, and his warnings against falling from grace, are just 
 so many evidences against that view, which puts aside the divine will of love, 
 and does away the essence of human morality and responsibility. See also, 
 against the Calvinistic exposition, Beyschlag, p. 2 ff. If we should assume, 
 with Reiche and Kdllner, Fritzsche and Krehl, that Paul, in his dialectic 
 
 1 See the varying interpretations in Gesenius, Drechsler, Hofmann. The latter under- 
 stands the house of David. 
 
994 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ardour, has allowed himself to be carried away into self-contradiction,! we 
 should thus have a self-contradiction so palpable, and yet so extremely grave 
 and dangerous in a religious and ethical aspect, making the means of grace il- 
 lusory, and striking so heavily at the Christian moral idea of divine holiness 
 and of human freedom,—that we should least of all suppose this very apostle 
 to be capable of it; for, on the one hand, his penetration and his dia- 
 lectic ability well might, just as, on the other hand, his apostolic illumina- 
 tion in particular, and the clearness and depth of his own moral experience 
 must, have guarded him against it. But this affords no justification of 
 the practice which has been followed by those of anti-predestinarian views 
 from the time of Origen and Chrysostom (see Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 
 14 ff.) until now (see especially Tholuck on vv. 16-18, 20-22, and also Weiss, 
 ib.; comp. Gerlach, letzte Dinge, 1869, p. 159), of importing into the clear 
 and definite expressions of the apostle in this place, and reading be- 
 tween the lines, the moral self-determination and spontaneity of man as the 
 correlate factor to the divine volition.? On the contrary, a correct judgment 
 of the deterministic propositions of vv. 15-23 lies in the middle between the 
 adinission, which is psychologically and morally impossible, of a self-contradic- 
 tion, and the importation, which is exegetically impossible, of conceptions of 
 which the apostolic expression is the stark opposite—somewhat as follows. 
 Seeing that the mode of the concurrence, so necessary in the moral world, of 
 the individual freedom and spontaneity of man on one side, and the absolute 
 self-determination and universal efficiency of God on the other, —which latter, 
 however, as such by no means lacks the immanent law of holiness (against 
 the objection of Beyschlag, p. 20),—is incomprehensible by human reflection, so 
 long, that is, as it does not pass out of the sphere of the Christian fundamental 
 
 1 Fritzsche, IT. p. 550: ‘“‘ Melius 5101 Pau- 
 lus consensisset, si Aristotelis, non Gamali- 
 elis alumnus fuisset.” 
 
 27This practice of importing is obvious, 
 among the Greek Fathers, especially in 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, and among 
 modern theologians since the precedent of 
 Arminius (see Beyschlag, p. 9 ff.), but espe- 
 cially in Tholuck’s paraphrase of the pas- 
 sages in question. Thus he paraphrases, 
 6... ver. 17: “ον greatly this is the case, 
 is shown according to Scripture in Pharaoh, 
 of whom, in spite of his running against the 
 divine will, it is said, ete.” Again, in ver. 
 18: “Τῆι God executes His decree of 
 mercy on those who desire to become blessed 
 through mercy [ὃν θέλει 1], and hardens those 
 who in their resistance reject such decree 
 of grace” [ὃν θέλει]. It is self-evident that, 
 with such importations and alterations of 
 the sense, no text is any longer sufficiently 
 safe from the subjectivity of its interpreter. 
 See, against such methods, the in the main 
 apt observations of Baurin the Theol. Jahrb. 
 1857, Ὁ. 196 ff., and in his V. 7. Theol. Ὁ. 182 
 ff. Lechler also, Apost. Zeit. Ὁ. 122 ff., 
 passes an unprejudiced and correct judg- 
 ment; whilst Weiss, by the mediating sug- 
 
 gestion that God may determine, according 
 to His unlimited will, to what condition He 
 will annex His grace, can by no means avail 
 against the clearness and definiteness of 
 the text; and Hofmann, by the intermin- 
 gling of rationalizing attempts to explain 
 the details, cannot remove the difficulties. 
 Philippi (Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 113) rightly 
 leaves the absolute divine freedom in the 
 bestowal of salvation, as Paul dwells on it, 
 intact, and connects with this result the 
 solution which is disclosed by Paul himself 
 in reference to that, at first sight, one-sided 
 theory at the close of this very chapter, and 
 in chap. x.and xi. The doctrine of election 
 of Schleiermacher pours unbiblical notions 
 into the mould of biblical expressions, and 
 finishes with a general apokotastasis ; whilst 
 in the Hegelian school, to which evil is a 
 necessary element in the absolute process, 
 the positive fundamental doctrines of the 
 gospel as to sin, grace, regeneration, and 
 reconciliation with God, when they are 
 thought to be raised at all to their notion 
 [Begriff], find no longer a place. For the 
 history of doctrine in modern times here 
 concerned, see Luthardt, vom freien Willen, 
 p. 366 ff, 
 
CHAP. IX., 33. 3995 
 view into the unbiblical identity-sphere of the pantheistic view, in which indeed 
 freedom has no place at all;! as often as we treat only one of the {wo truths : 1 
 ες God is absolutely free and all-efficient,” and ‘‘ Man has moral freedom, and 
 is, in virtue of his proper self-determination and responsibility as liberwm 
 agens, the author of his salvation or perdition,’’ and carry it out in a consistent 
 theory and therefore in a one sided method, we are compelled to speak in such 
 a manner, that the other truth appears to be annulled. Only appears, however ; for, 
 in fact, all that takes place in this case is a temporary and conscious withdraw- 
 ing of atlention from the other. In the present instance Paul found himself in 
 this case, and he expresses himself according to this mode of view, not merely 
 in a passing reference, vv. 20, 21 (Beyschlag), but in the whole reasoning of vy. 
 6-29. In opposition to the Jewish conceit of descent and of works, he desired 
 to establish the free and absolute sovereign power of the divine will and action, 
 and that the more decisively and exclusively, the less he would leave any ground 
 for the arrogant illusion of the Jews, that God must be gracious to them. The 
 apostle has here wholly taken his position on the absolute standpoint of theA 
 theory of pure dependence upon God, and that with all the boldness of clear 
 consistency ;> but only until he has done justice to the polemical object 
 which he has in view. He then returns (see vv. 30 ff.) from that abstraction to 
 the human-moral standpoint of practice, so that he allows the claims of both 
 modes of consideration to stand side by side, just as they exist side by side 
 within the limits of human thought. The contemplation—which lies beyond 
 these limits—of the metaphysical relation of essential interdependence between 
 the two,—namely objectively divine, and subjectively human, freedom and ac- 
 tivity of will,—necessarily remained outside and beyond his sphere of view ; 
 as he would have had no occasion at all in this place to enter upon this prob- 
 lem, seeing that it was incumbent upon him to crush the Jewish pretensions 
 with the one side only of it—the absoluteness of God. The fact that, and the 
 extent to which, the divine elective determination is nevertheless no “ delectus 
 militaris,” but is immanently regulated in God Himself by His holiness, and 
 consequently also conditioned by moral conditions on the human side, does / 
 not enter into his consideration at all for the moment. It is introduced, how- 
 ever, in ver. 30 ff., when the one-sided method of consideration temporarily 
 pursued, is counterbalanced, and the ground, which had been given up for a 
 while in an apologetic interest to the doctrinal definition of an absolute decree, 
 
 is again taken away. Comp.also Beck l. 6. and Baur, neut. Theol. Ὁ. 182 fi. 
 But when Beyschlag places chap. ix. under (he point of view, that the discus- 
 sion therein relates not to a decree, antecedent to time, for men’s everlasting salva- 
 tion or perdition, but only to their adoption or non-adoption into the historical 
 kingdom of God (thus into Christianity), and that of the Jews and Gentiles as 
 the two groups of mankind, not of individual men, and when he finds the true 
 key of exposition in this view; his idea cannot be justified by the simple ex- 
 
 1 To say nothing at all of the modern ma- 
 terialism (Vogt, Moleschott, Biichner, and 
 others), according to which spirit is replac- 
 ed by the exertion of force in brain-sub- 
 stance, nerve-material, change of matter, 
 and in material substrata generally. See on 
 it, and its relation to theology, Rosenkranz 
 in Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1864, p. 225 ff. 
 
 2TIle says by no means only how God 
 could proceed without violating a claim of 
 right (Julius Miiller, ὁ. ἃ. Stinde, I. Ὁ. 514, 
 ed. 5), but how He does proceed. Older ex- 
 positors have also endeayoured to help 
 themselves with this problematic paraphra- 
 sis. See, ¢.g., Flacius, Clay. II. p. 387. 
 
396 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 egesis of chap. ix., and without anticipating the contents of chap. x. and xi. ; 
 and the difficulty in principle, which is involved in the entirely free self-deter- 
 mination of the divine will, remains—while it is transferred to the sphere of 
 the action of God in the historical government of the world—even thus unremoved. 
 
 Nores py AMERICAN EprITor. 
 
 CI. Chaps. ix.-xi. 
 
 In chapters ix.-xi. the second main objection to the doctrine of justification by 
 faith is considered —namely, that, by reason of the rejection of all unbelieving 
 Jews which it involves, it contradicts the promises of God and His covenant with 
 His chosen people. The preceding section (vi.—vili.) has reference to an objec- 
 tion of ageneral character ; this section refers to one that arises from the Jewish 
 standpoint and belongs in the sphere of the thought and controversy of the time 
 when the Epistle was written. (See Note LXIV.) Accordingly we find the Apos- 
 tle, as he turns to the discussion of this difficulty, proceeding in a similar course 
 to that which he takes in ch. ii. He prepares the way carefully—in this case, 
 by a declaration of his affection for and sympathy with the Jews as his own 
 countrymen—for the statement of the true view of the covenant and promises 
 which they had fatally misinterpreted. This declaration is repeated, in sub- 
 stance, at the opening of chs. x. and xi.—a fact which shows the delicacy of the 
 task which he was now undertaking. There are in this section three principal 
 subdivisions, which correspond very nearly with the arrangement of the 
 chapters ; only that the second one begins at ix. 30, instead of x.1. The sub- 
 ject of these divisions is given in Meyer’s note introductory to the chapters. 
 The final purpose of the Apostle is to show that in this darkest and most mys- 
 terious part, as it might seem, of God’s administration of the world, the end in 
 view was mercy and blessing to all—Jews and Gentiles alike. The sumntation 
 of the whole, as it were, is in the exclamation of wonder and praise, x1. 33-36. 
 As everywhere in the Epistle, so even in this portion of it, Paul’s mind is filled 
 with a sense of the infinite goodness of God, and with joy in the thought of 
 the jree salvation which was designed for men of all nations, and was finally to 
 be extended to all. 
 
 CII. Ver. 5. ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὺς εὐλογητός k.T.A. 
 
 Meyer admits that these words may be interpreted as referring to Christ, and 
 thus makes the question concerning them one of probabilities. The unpreju- 
 diced investigator of the meaning will accept the latter position, as well as the 
 former. He will also admit that they may refer to God, even though beliey- 
 ing, for himself, that they have reference to Christ. The grounds on which 
 Meyer rests his view—that the words are a doxology to God—are substantially 
 the same with those presented by other advocates of that understanding of the 
 clause. They are the following : (1) that Paul does not, elsewhere, apply the 
 name Θεός to Christ ; (2) that some passages in his Epistles (e.g. 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 
 Eph. iv. 5, 6) make a marked distinction between Christ and ὁ ἐπὶ πώντων Θεός 
 or Θεός ; (3) that doxologies to Christ are not found in the writings of the 
 Apostles ; (4) that εὐλογητός is not used of Christ in the N. T. 
 
 To the first of these arguments it is answered : (a) that Christ is called Θεός 
 by Paul in Acts xx. 28 ; Tit. ii. 13 (some also hold the same view with respect 
 
NOTES. 39% 
 
 to Col. ii. 2; Eph. v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12), [to which, however, reply is made that 
 such an interpretation of the passage in Acts is founded on a wrong text, and 
 of the one in the Ep. to Titus on a wrong construction] ; (b) that, even admit- 
 ting that there is no such use of Θεός elsewhere in Paul's Epistles, he may have 
 given this name to Christ in a single instance, as John does in only one or two 
 cases, though he employs the word Θεός (referring to God) quite as many times 
 as does Paul in proportion to the extent of his writings [but to this, also, a reply 
 is made that John uses the word in connection with the Logos idea pecul- 
 iar to his writings, and that the calling Christ God over all is incompatible with 
 the N. T. view of the dependence of the Son on the Father].—To the second 
 argument it is answered, that the distinction made in the verses alluded to is 
 not inconsistent with the application of the name Θεός to Christ here. He may 
 be Θεός and ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός in His own nature and in Himself ; and yet, as 
 distinguished from the Father and as related to the work of redemption 
 (Eph. iv. 3 ff., through the expressions, one body, one hope, one faith, one bap- 
 tism, turning the reader’s thought to this work], He may be called κύριος, 
 while the Father is described as Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ ravTwv.—In an- 
 swer to the third argument, instances are pointed out where doxologies refer to 
 Christ : e.g., as some maintain, 1 Pet. iv. 11; as most writers admit, 2 Tim. iv. 
 18 ; and, beyond question, 2 Pet. 111. 18; Rev. i, 6, v. 18. [Reply, however, is 
 made with regard to the first of these cases, that, when the verse is properly 
 explained, the reference to God becomes clear, and with regard to all the others, 
 that they occur in non-apostolic writings].—The fourth argument is answered 
 by calling attention to the fact that the number of instances in which the word 
 εὐλογητός occurs (only four others in Paul’s Epp. and seven in the entire Ν. T.) 
 is too small to afford any such evidence of usage as to exclude the possibility 
 of employing it with reference to Christ. 
 
 On the other side, the following points are urged by those who regard the 
 words as descriptive of Christ : (1) That, inasmuch as Χριστός immediately pre- 
 cedes ὁ dv at the opening of this clause, it is the most natural and simple ex- 
 planation of the sentence to make these words refer to Xp. as an antecedent. 
 This argument has been pressed by some authors beyond its legitimate force ; 
 and the affirmation, as thus understood, has been denied. Itis believed, how- 
 ever, that the greater simplicity of this construction, unless overborne by 
 other considerations, will be admitted by all as favoring, at least in some de- 
 gree, the reference to Christ. (2) That τὸ κατὰ σάρκα suggests a contrast, and 
 that the expression, rather than the omission, of that which forms the other 
 side of the contrast is to be expected—some claim that it is demanded. To 
 this argument, even in the milder form of stating it, a reply is offered, (a) by 
 calling attention to cases where the antithesis is omitted—one such case ocecur- 
 ring only two verses earlier than that which contains this clause ; (Ὁ) by saying 
 that there is an implied antithesis, which answers the demands of the case here, 
 of another sort than that suggested by interpreting these words of Christ— 
 namely, the relation of Christ in his redemptive work to all men, as contrasted 
 with his membership as a man in the Jewish race ; and (c) on van Hengel’s 
 part, by declaring that τὸ κατὰ capxa, according to the usage of Greek writers, 
 requires a period afterit, and cannot be followed by such an antithetical clause. 
 This position of van Hengel’s, however, is not defended by most others, and it 
 seems to be untenable. If itis abandoned, the case stands thus with respect 
 to κατὰ σάρκα. This phrase naturally suggests to the reader’s mind an anti- 
 
398 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 thetical statement. There is a certain antecedent probability that this state- 
 ment would be made in words by the author, and not left to be supplied in the 
 thought of the reader. If the clause ὁ ὦν x.r.2. is regarded as descriptive of 
 Christ, the author gives such an expression of the contrast ; otherwise he does 
 not. That which is expressed in these words, as thus explained, is the antithe- 
 sis adapted to the Apostle’s purpose, which is to set forth the honor put upon 
 the Israelites by God. κατὰ σάρκα, therefore, points towards this construction 
 of the sentence. —(3) That the position of εὐλογητός in the clause is the right 
 and natural one if the words are descriptive of Christ, but not so if adoxology 
 to Godis intended. This word, it is claimed, is in all instances of doxologies of 
 this character throughout the Scriptures placed at the beginning of the sentence 
 (the case in LXX. Ps. Ixvii. 20, which is sometimes cited, forming no proper 
 exception) ; and not only this, but it is affirmed also that it is of the very nature 
 of such a sentence that this should be the arrangement. It is maintained, in 
 answer to this argument, that the entire matter of the order of words ina 
 Greek sentence is dependent on emphasis ; and that while, in ordinary doxo- 
 logical sentences, the doxological word is designed to be emphatic, this is not 
 necessarily the case ; and furthermore, that it is not so in this particular sen- 
 tence. The fact that God is over all is suggested by the previously-mentioned 
 blessings ; and,—as this is the natural suggestion, —when the thought turns from 
 an enumeration of His gifts to Himself as their author and source, ruling over 
 all, the words describing Him must be most emphatic. It is denied, however, 
 by advocates of the reference to Christ, that the Scriptural writers varied their 
 usage respecting the doxological word, whatever emphasis might appertain to 
 the subject of the sentence; and it is added that, if the subject in this 
 clause*had been designed to be made so much more prominent than the word 
 of blessing as to necessitate its holding the first position, it would have been 
 placed in the dative, τῷ ὄντι ἐπὶ πάντων OeG@—a mode of expression which 
 would have prevented all misunderstanding.—(4) That the use of the words ὁ 
 Ov ἐπὶ πάντων is readily accounted for if the writer wished to set forth the 
 glory and exaltation of Christ, but is not so well adapted to express the idea of 
 the superintending providence of God as connected with the blessings be- 
 stowed upon the Jewish people. Some other expression for the latter idea 
 would have been more appropriate. It is claimed by some, also, that if the 
 Apostle had desired to introduce an ascription of praise to God with reference 
 to the gifts which had just been mentioned, he would have glorified Him for 
 His goodness, and not for His controlling providence or power. —(5) 'That a dox- 
 ology to God is out of place here, at the close of a passage which is a lamenta- 
 tion over the lapse of the Jews. To this, however, it is answered that there is 
 here, not a lamentation, but an enumeration of privileges and distinguishing 
 honors, and for these it was most natural to praise God, who in His sovereignty 
 had ordered it thus.—(6) That this interpretation was given by the Christian 
 Fathers, or the great majority of them, It is claimed on the other side, how- 
 ever, that the Fathers are not so unanimous as has been supposed ; that many 
 of them simply adopted that view of an ambiguous passage which agreed with 
 their doctrinal opinions ; that as exegetes they do not in many or most cases 
 deserve special regard—their qualifications in this respect being often moder- 
 ate and their interpretations sometimes fanciful or even absurd. The English 
 Revisers of the Auth. Ver. of the N. T. seem to have given much weight to the 
 views of the Fathers respecting this clause, for, in recording other explanations, 
 
NOTES. 399 
 
 they refer to them as represented by ‘‘ some modern interpreters’’—words which 
 are not elsewhere used in their marginal notes. 
 
 The strength of the argument for the reference of the words to Christ lies in 
 the fact that each phrase and element of the clause indicates a probability, as 
 connected with itself, that this is the true explanation. That of the argument 
 for the other view—that they are a doxology to God—is centred, mainly or 
 wholly, in the fact that Paul uses the word Θεός in only one or two other in- 
 stances (as affirmed by the advocates of this view, in no other instance), as 
 descriptive of Christ. When, however, it is borne in mind that the apostolic 
 writers, by reason of the very work to which they were consecrated—the per- 
 suading men to become reconciled to God through Christ—were naturally led 
 to speak of Christ almost wholly as in his mediatorial office and as man, the 
 force of the alleged fact is very largely diminished. It is believed that it can- 
 not sustain the weight of the opposing considerations, and that the interpreta- 
 tion which applies the word to Christ must be adopted as the more probable 
 one. 
 
 The construction of the words which places a period after πάντων has less 
 ground for acceptance than that which makes the whole a doxology, for by it 
 all supposed justification for placing εὐλογητός after the subject is taken away, 
 and the words which are regarded as alluding to the superintending providence 
 of God—and thus as connecting the ascription of praise with the statement of 
 the privileges—are removed from the doxological sentence. 
 
 A full discussion of this matter cannot be presented within the limits here 
 allowed. The object of this note is to set forth, in outline, the considerations 
 urged by the two parties, and to indicate what conclusion the probabilities of 
 the case may lead us to adopt. The reader will find in the Journal of the 
 (American) Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881 an extended 
 paper on the subject by Professor Ezra Abbot, defending with great learning 
 and ability the view which refers the words as a doxology to God, and in the 
 same Journal a paper advocating the other view by the writer of this note. 
 The latter paper was prepared on a somewhat different plan from Prof. 
 Abbot's, and is much shorter, but was designed to give a full and fair presenta- 
 tion of the case. It may be added, that Weiss, in his edition of Meyer's work, 
 rejects the view of Meyer and adopts the opposite one, applying the words to 
 Christ. 
 
 CIII. Ver. 6. οὐκ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν K.T.A. 
 
 The explanation of these words and of their connection with vv. 2, 3, which 
 is given by Meyer, is to be accepted. As related to the main thought and 
 progress of discussion in the Epistle, this verse may be regarded as carrying 
 with it the declaration, that the doctrine of faith which the Apostle defends 
 does not involve in itself any failure of God’s promises to His people. In this 
 way he meets, at the beginning of the section, the objection or difficulty which 
 made the writing of these chapters necessary. 
 
 CIV. Ver. 11. μήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ φαῦλον. 
 
 The object of these words is evidently to show that God’s choice in such 
 cases is not made in dependence on, and after, human action. It is, on the 
 other hand, determined before such action, That the passage refers to an 
 
400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 election to salvation in Jacob’s case and a non-election in that of Esau cannot 
 be proved, for the context does not necessitate the giving of this meaning 
 to the illustrative example, and we are nowhere informed in the Scriptures that 
 Hsau failed of salvation. That Esau and his descendants were not placed by 
 God in the historic line of the spiritual plan is evident, but nothing beyond 
 this. Dr, Shedd, following Calvin, Augustine, and some others, holds that while 
 these two children had as yet no actual sin, they had original sin as being 
 descendants of Adam. They were not innocent, he says, because salvation to 
 which one of them was elected presupposes sin and condemnation. Having 
 already a physical and psychical existence in the mother’s womb, they became 
 subject to the divine decision, and this decision was for eternal life for one of 
 the two, not for the other. That they had such a physical and psychical exist- 
 ence he founds upon Heb. vii. 10.—the only N. T. passage cited. This passage 
 states that Levi was in the loins of his great-grandfather, but can scarcely be 
 understood as affirming that he had a psychical and physical life when Mel- 
 chisedek met Abraham. Of the only action assigned to Levi by the verse, also, 
 it is said that it was action in a figurative sense. The bearing of Levi's ex- 
 perience therefore on original sin, or on the innocent condition of Jacob and 
 sau just before birth, does not seem to be more decisive than does that of the 
 context here or the O. T. history on the eternal future of the two. Godet re- 
 marks, in his annotations on these verses: ‘‘In speaking of Jacob and Esau, 
 either as men or as nations, neither Genesis, nor Malachi, nor St. Paul has 
 eternal salvation in view ; the matterin question is the part they play regarded 
 from the theocratic standpoint.” The view of Godet is favored by all the in- 
 dications which the passage and the relation of these chapters to the plan of the 
 Epistle afford. 
 
 CV. Ver. 14, μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ ; 
 
 The evidence that God’s plan involves selection, which is furnished by the 
 cases occurring in the earliest stage of its development, having been given, the 
 Apostle now proceeds to consider the question whether such selection shows 
 injustice on God’s part. This question, like similar ones arising in previous 
 chapters from the opposite side in the discussion (e.g. vi. 1, vii. 7, cf. vi. 15), is 
 introduced by τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; itis answered by μὴ γένοιτο ; and the negative is 
 then proved. The proof, in this case, consists of two points: (1) An argument 
 addressed to those on the Jewish standpoint :—the O. T., in what it says re- 
 specting Moses and Pharaoh, declares that God acts in this way. A represen- 
 tation of God, however, which is found in the O. T., the Jew must admit to 
 be consistent with justice. To this extent it is an argumentum ad hominem. 
 (2) The dealing of God with all in the way of long-suffering and mercy is ir- 
 reconcilable with such an idea of Him as the question suggests. His benevo- 
 lence establishes the fact of Hisrighteousness. This argument is equally adapt- 
 ed to the minds of all, Gentiles or Jews. It is prefaced, in vv. 19-21, by a 
 passage which is designed to rebuke the presumption of the objector and ex- 
 press the shocked feeling of the Christian mind at the presentation of the 
 question. That this is the true view of these three verses, and that they are 
 not strictly a part of the proof, is indicated by the fact that they are not neces- 
 sary to the argument, and, also, by the additional fact that no valid argument 
 can be drawn for the justice of God in relation to the destiny of immortal and 
 
NOTES. 401 
 
 intelligent creatures from the right which the potter has to fashion lifeless clay 
 according to his arbitrary will. It is evident, accordingly, as this paragraph 
 (vv. 14-29) is carefully examined, that the main point in the writer’s mind is the 
 goodness of God —long-suffering even towards those who are rejected. This 
 fact may well be borne in mind in interpreting the statement with regard to 
 Pharaoh. In connection with the same statement the primary reference of the 
 entire section to nations, and not to individuals, should be remembered. The 
 same thing is worthy of consideration as we inquire as to the meaning of spe- 
 cial words in the 22d verse. 
 
 CVI. Ver, 22. ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ. 
 
 The view of Meyer that μακροθυμία here means the prolongatio irae, and not 
 that which waits for the self-decision of human freedom, is justly rejected by 
 Weiss, who says that the latter idea is evident from the very nature of the case, 
 and is distinctly declared by Paul in ii. 4. Godet also calls attention to the 
 fact that this human self-decision is brought forward in the next following 
 context, ver. 30 ff. Weiss further holds, as against Meyer, that σκεύη ὀργῆς does 
 not denote the vessels which are prepared to experience God’s wrath on them- 
 selves—to serve for a manifestation of His wrath, which, especially in connec- 
 tion with ver. 21, would require ox. εἰς ὀργῆν, but vessels which appertain to, 
 i.e. have fallen under His wrath, i.e. through their own acts. κατηρτισμένα he 
 regards as to be taken in an adjective sense, ready, ripe for (so also Godet). He 
 refers, as a proof that it does not mean prepared or fitted by God, to the variation 
 from the construction ἃ προητοίμασεν of the next verse, which is apparently in- 
 tentional. The observation of such points as these makes evident the weak- 
 ness of the supports on which the more extreme views of individual election, 
 as connected with these verses, rest. Individual election is an inference from 
 what is said in the chapter, rather than a distinct declaration of any of its 
 words, 
 
 CVII. Ver. 23. iva γνωρίσῃ K.T.A. 
 
 The relation of ver. 23 to ver. 22 is as given by Meyer. The vessels of wrath 
 are borne with in mercy and long-suffering to give them opportunity for repent- 
 ance, bnt there is also an additional purpose—namely, that God may make 
 known the riches of His glory (i.e. in the manifestation of it in mercy and 
 blessing) to the vessels of mercy. This view does not involve the idea that 
 God’s design of good for the vessels of mercy is of secondary importance ; but 
 only that their good is, in the matter of His dealing with the vessels of wrath, 
 a thing secondary to His purpose with reference to the latter class. The ex- 
 planation of this second design by supposing the Apostle to mean that, if 
 penal judgment had come upon the σκεύῃ ὀργῆς without such delay, no time 
 would have been open for the exhibition of merey to the σκεύη ἐλέους, is not 
 necessary, though it may be not improbable. A thought somewhat similar to 
 this, though connected with a different subject and a different class of persons, 
 may be found in Heb. xi. 39, 40. 
 
 CVIII. Ver. 24. οὖς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν: κ.τ.1. 
 
 The Apostle now declares the vessels of mercy to be called of God not merely 
 from among the Jews but also the Gentiles. Three points may be noticed : 
 
402 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (1) that he again expressly sets forth the division into the two classes which 
 have been so prominent throughout the Epistle, and the union of which makes 
 the πάντες of Whom he thinks; (2) that in the words ’lovd. «.7.A, and also in 
 the proof-passages cited from the O. T. in the following verses, the national, 
 and not the individual, reference of the thought is manifested ; (8) that the 
 course of God’s action and the sovereignty of His plan with regard to the 
 Jews (and now, at the end, the Gentiles also), in the historic development of the 
 spiritual system are the things set forth in the entire passage vv. 6-29. This 
 is true of what is said of Sarah and Rebecca and their children (comp. also 
 Gal. iv. 24 ff.) ; of God’s word to Moses, also, and to Pharaoh ; of the potter 
 and the clay ; of the vessels of wrath, and of the call of Gentiles and Jews who 
 are vessels of mercy. This view gives unity to this chapter as related to the 
 two which follow, and also as related to the whole doctrinal part of the Epistle. 
 Paul is not discoursing upon a series of doctrines, as if in a treatise on The- 
 ology, but is discussing a single subject of vital interest, at the time, in con- 
 nection with the controversy between Judaistic views and the Pauline Chris- 
 tianity ; and he follows the course of his thought steadily and undeviatingly 
 through the proofs and the objections and difficulties. Everywhere the uni- 
 versal and national ideas are prominent. 
 
 CIX. Ver. 30. 
 
 At ver. 30 we have the reason of the lapse of the Jews introduced. This 
 reason is stated briefly, at first, vv. 30-33, and then, after a few words of the 
 same general character with those at the opening of this chapter, it is develop- 
 ed more fully x. 3-21. In presenting the reason for the lapse, however, he 
 adds at the beginning a word (as was natural because of the preceding context) 
 respecting the ground of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The fact which has 
 been referred to as connected with the sovereign and independent choice of 
 God is now traced to its source in human action. The Jews failed because 
 they did not submit themselves to God’s method of justification. 
 
CEVA sek, le. 403 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἡ before πρός is wanting according toa large preponderance of ey- 
 idence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A hasty grammatical emendation, 
 as ἐστίν before εἰς is supplied in Elz. — αὐτῶν] Elz: τοῦ ᾿Ισραῇλ, against deci- 
 sive evidence. With ver. 1 a church-lesson begins. — Ver. 3. After ἰδίαν, δικαιοσ- 
 ὕνην is wanting in A Β Ὁ E P, min., and several versions (including Vulg.) and 
 Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. But the very emphasis of the thrice-occurring 
 word, so obviously intended (comp. ix. 30}, speaks for its originality ; and how 
 easily the omission of the second δικαιοσύνην might arise, as that of a supposed 
 quite superfluous repetition !— Ver. 5. αὐτοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : αὐτῇ, ac- 
 cording to A B &*, 17, 47, 80, Copt. Arm. Vulg. Germ. Damasc. Ruf. But this 
 would involve that, with the most of these, and with yet other witnesses, the 
 preceding αὐτά should be omitted, as also Tisch. 8. has done. However, both 
 αὐτῇ and the omission of αὐτά appear like an emendatory alteration, since the 
 context contains no reference for αὐτά and αὐτοῖς. In the same light we must 
 also regard the reading ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου (instead of τὴν dix. . 
 ὅτι), as Tisch. 8. has it, in A ΤῊ δὲ Ἐς and some min., Vulg., and some Fathers. 
 — Ver. 15. εἰρήνην, τῶν evayy.] is wanting in A B C δὲ", min., Copt. Sah. Aeth. 
 Clem. Or. Damasc. Ruf, Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Copyist’s omis- 
 sion, through the repetition of. eiayy. If it had been interpolated from the 
 LXX. (Isa. 111. 7), ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης would have been written instead of the mere 
 εἰρήνης. The article before ἀγαθά is, with Lachm., on decisive evidence to be 
 omitted, although it is also wanting in the LXX.— Ver. 17. Θεοῦ] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8 : Χριστοῦ, according to B C D* E &*, min., several vss., Aug. Pel. Am- 
 brosiast. There is no genitive at all in F G, Boern. Hilar. But how readily 
 this omission might suggest itself by a comparison of ver. 8! Χριστοῦ, how- 
 ever, appears to be a more precise definition of the sense of the divine ῥῆμα, the 
 expression of which by ῥ. Θεοῦ is found already in Syr. and Clem. — Ver, 19. 
 The order 'Ἴσρ. ov« ἔγνω is supported by decisive evidence ; Elz; οὐκ ἔγνω Ἰσρ. 
 
 Vv. 1-18. More particular discussion of the guilt of the Jews specified in ix. 
 32 ; introduced (vv. 1, 2) by a reiterated assurance of the most cordial interest 
 in their salvation. 
 
 Ver. 1. ’AdeAgoi] Address to the readers, expressive of emotion. Comp. 
 1 Cor, xiv. 20 ; Gal. iii. 15. — μέν] without a corresponding dé ; the thought 
 following in ver. 3 loomed before the apostle, as standing in the relation of 
 opposition to his heartfelt interest, of which the solicitude thus remained 
 unfulfilled through the perverted striving after righteousness of the people. 
 --- εὐδοκία] does not denote the wish, the desire (Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, and many, including Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, 
 Olshausen), It may mean pleasure, delight (Bengel : ‘‘lubentissime auditu- 
 rus essem de salute Israelis ;’ comp. Philippi), Matt. 111. 17, xi. 265 or 
 
404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 goodwill (Phil. 1. 15, 11.13), 1.6. propensa animi voluntas. See generally 
 Fritzsche. The latter signification is that most immediately suggested by 
 the connection here ; comp. van Hengel, ‘‘ benevola propensio.” It is indeed 
 the intention of the will (Hofmann), but conceived of and designated as the 
 being well-disposed of the heart, as it was such.—rpoc τὸν Θεὸν is joined to ἡ 
 δέησις, hence there was no need of the (not genuine) article (Acts viii. 24 ; 
 Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 135]) ; to the connection with ἐστί to be understood, 
 εὐδοκία would not be suitable. Hence: The goodwill of my heart and my 
 petition to God are on their behalf towards this end, that they might obtain 
 salvation ; σωτηρία is the goal which my εὐδοκία wishes for them, and my 
 prayer entreats for them. In this view ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν belongs so necessarily 
 to the completeness of the thought, that we are not to assume a tacit con- 
 trast to a κατά (Hofmann). The article before δέησις represents, accord- 
 ing to the context, the personal pronoun (ἡ ἐμὴ 6.); Winer, p. 103 [E. T. 
 108]; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 515. —On the distinction between δέησις and προσ- 
 εὐχή, petition and prayer, see on Eph. vi. 18. Bengel aptly remarks : 
 ‘* Non orasset Paulus, si absolute reprobati essent.” 
 
 Ver. 2. Reason assigned why ἡ εὐδοκία... εἰς σωτηρίαν. ---- ζῆλον Θεοῦ] zeal 
 for God. Comp. Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; Gal. i. 14; John ii. 1753 1 Macc. 
 ii. 58. This their zeal makes them worth that interest of my heart. —ov κατ᾽ 
 ἐπίγνωσιν) knowledge is not that, according to the measure of which they are 
 zealous for God. We must here again (comp. on i. 28) note the composite 
 expression ; for the Jews were not wanting in γνῶσις generally, but just in 
 the very point, on which it depended whether their γνῶσις was the right 
 and practically vital ἐπίγνωσις. 
 
 Ver. 3. Confirmatory elucidation of οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν : ‘for else they © 
 would not, unacquainted with the divine righteousness (see on i. 17), have 
 insisted on their own righteousness, and striven against the divine.” This 
 is just the actual proof that their zeal for God is wanting in knowledge. — 
 ἀγνοοῦντες] does not mean any more than at ii. 4, 1 Cor. xiv. 38,’ anything 
 else than not knowing ; Reiche, de Wette, Tholuck, Ewald, and several 
 others : misapprehending ; Hofmann : overlooking. The guilt of this not- 
 knowing Paul does not further enter into, not so much (comp. Acts ili. 17, 
 xvii. 30) from mild forbearance (Rickert and others), but because he had 
 simply nothing else than the οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν to explain. — τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιο- 
 σύνην] τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, THY ἐξ ἔργων ἰδίων καὶ πόνων κατορθουμένην, Theophylact. 
 Comp. Phil. iii. 9, and see on i. 17. — στῆσαι] stabilire, to make valid. Comp. 
 ii. 31 ; Heb. x. 9. -- - ὑπετάγησαν] The dix. Θεοῦ is conceived of as a divine 
 ordinance, to which one subjects oneself (through faith). The sense is not 
 that of the passive, as viii. 20, but that of the middle, as in viii. 7, xiii. 1, 
 and frequently, expressing the obedience. As to the subject-matter, comp. 
 προσέκοψαν K.T.A., IX. 32. 
 
 Ver. 4. Hor the validity of the law has come to an end in Christ, in order 
 that every believer may be a partaker of righteousness. Herewith Paul, for the 
 
 1 In the classical passages also, which are Dem. 151. 7, e¢ al.), the sense of not know is 
 adduced for the signification misapprehend to be maintained. 
 (as Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 25, 29, Cyr. iv. 1. 16; 
 
CHAP: χα 5. 405 
 
 further confirmation of what was said in ver. 3, lays down the great prin- 
 ciple of salvation, from the non-knowledge of which among the Jews that 
 blinded and perverted striving after righteousness flowed. — Τέλος νόμου, 
 which is placed first with great emphasis, is applied to Christ, in so far as, 
 by virtue of His redemptive death (Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), the divine dispensa- 
 tion of salvation has been introduced, in which the basis of the procuring 
 of salvation is no longer, as in the old theocracy, the Mosaic νόμος, but faith, 
 whereby the law has therefore ceased to be the regulative principle for the 
 attainment of righteousness.’ Only this view of τέλος, end, conclusion (adopt- 
 ed after Augustine by most of the modern expositors), is conformable to 
 what follows, where the essentially different principles of the old and new 
 δικαιοσύνῃ are stated. For its agreement with the doctrinal system of the 
 apostle, see vii. 1 ff. [See Note CX. p. 421.] Contrary to the meaning of the 
 word τέλος (even in 1 Tim. i. 5), and contrary to the inherent relation of 
 what follows, Origen, Erasmus, Vatablus, Elsner, Homberg, Estius, Wolf, 
 Ch. Schmidt, Jatho, and several others, take it as : fulfilment of the law 
 (‘‘quicquid exigebat lex moralis praestitit perfectissime,” Calovius), which 
 many dogmatic expositors understood of the satisfactio activa, or of the activa 
 and passiva together (Calovius). Linguistically faultless, but at the same 
 time not corresponding to the connection, is the interpretation of Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact, Melanchthon, Beza, Michaelis, and others, that the object 
 
 _and aim of the law was the making men righteous, and that this was accom- 
 plished through Christ ; or (Theodoret, Toletus, Vorstius, Grotius, Wetstein, 
 Loesner, Heumann, Klee, Gléckler, Krummacher), that Christ was called 
 the object and aim of the Jaw, because everything in the law, as the παιδαγω- 
 γὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Gal. iii, 24), led up to Him ; ‘‘quicquid praecipiat, quic- 
 quid promittat, semper Christum habet pro scopo,” Calvin. Observe fur- 
 ther, that Χριστός must be the definite historical person that appeared in Jesus, 
 and not the promised Saviour generally, without regard to whether and in whose 
 person He appeared (Hofmann), an abstraction which would have been im- 
 possible to Paul, particularly here, where all righteousness is traced back 
 only to definite faith in contrast to works—as impossible as is the reference 
 combined with it, of νόμος to any law whatever, no law has validity any 
 longer, if the promised Saviour be at hand. See, in opposition to this, im- 
 mediately below, ver. 5 ff. — εἰς δικαίοσ. παντὶ τῷ rior. | aim, for which Christ 
 is the end of the law : in order that every one who believes may obtain right- 
 eousness. The principal stress lies on πίστ., as the opposite of that which 
 the law required in order to righteousness ; see vv. 5, 6, iii. 21 ff. 
 
 Ver. 5. Now follows, as far as ver. 10, the proof of ver. 4, and that from 
 Moses himself. — γράφει τὴν 6ix.] writes concerning righteousness, John i. 46 ; 
 Hermann, ad Hur. Phoen. 574. As to the use of the present tense, comp. the 
 frequent λέγει in scriptural citations, — The passage introduced by the reci- 
 tative ὅτι is Lev. xviii. 5, almost exactly after the LXX. Comp. Neh. ix. 
 
 1 The πλήρωσις τοῦ νόμου, Matt. v. 17, does which Christ has freed from its limitations. 
 not conflict with the present passage. For See on Matt. d.c. Comp. also Lipsius, 
 the ideal, purely moral import of the law Rechtfert. p. 85 ff. 
 cannot be annulled, and it is exactly this 
 
400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 29; Ezek. xx. 21; Gal. iii. 12. — αὐτά] refers in the original, and so also 
 here, to the προστάγματα Θεοῦ, which Paul supposes as well known ; but the 
 principal stress lies upon ποιήσας : he who shall have done them, so that thus 
 Moses exhibits the doing as the condition of the attainment of ζωή (which is 
 referred by Paul not to the happy and prosperous life in Palestine, but to its 
 antitype, the Cw αἰώνιος). --- ἐν αὐτοῖς] i.e. by the fact, that they are fulfilled. 
 
 Vv. 6-8. [See Note CXI. p. 421.] The righteousness which comes from 
 faith is personified (comp. Heb. xii. 5), so that the following words of 
 
 Moses, in which Paul recognizes an allegorically and typically prophetic descrip- © 
 
 tion of this righteousness, appear as its self-description. An increasing anima- 
 tion, and indeed triumphant tone in the representation, which thus intro- 
 duces over-against that dark background (ver. 5) the bright picture the 
 more immediately in concrete vividness. Hofmann artificially imports the 
 antithesis, that the righteousness of the law is found only in a description of the 
 lawgiver, but the righteousness of faith itself speaks as one existing and present. 
 There is the less room for this supposition, since vv. 6 ff. are also Mosaic 
 expressions. But that Paul actually regarded the words of Moses as a pro-- 
 
 phetical testimony to the nature of the righteousness of faith, is an opinion — 
 
 sanctioned only by a minority of expositors (Augustine, de nat. et grat. 83 ; 
 Bucer, Balduin, Calovius, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen, 
 Benecke, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Umbreit). The majority, 
 on the other hand, assume that Paul only clothed his own thoughts in the 
 words of Moses, and used the latter asa suitable substratum for the formeré 
 So Tholuck, Flatt, Riickert, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi: ‘‘a holy and 
 charming play of the Spirit of God upon the word of the Lord ;” van Hen- 
 gel and several others, as formerly Chrysostom, Luther,* Beza, Calvin, Cor- 
 
 nelius ἃ Lapide ; Bengel : ‘‘ suavissima parodia.” But against this view is” 
 d bo) fo) 
 
 the fact that ver. 5 begins with γάρ a demonstration of the τέλος νόμου Χριστός, 
 of which ver. 5 contains only the one, and vv. 6-8 the other, side ; both 
 sides, however, unite their probative force in Μωῦσῆς yap γράφει. Therefore 
 it is quite wrong (see esp. Riickert, Philippi) to look upon ἡ δὲ ἐκ mor. δικ. 
 as the opposite to Μωῦΐσῆς, and to suppose that the parallel would be more 
 sharply drawn if Paul had said : But Christ speaks thus, etc. No, dé places 
 the righteousness of faith in opposition to the previously mentioned δικαιο- 
 σύνη ἡ ἐκ Tov νόμου ; and for these two modes of righteousness the testimony 
 of the lawgiver himself is introduced by Motojc yap γράφει. ‘* For Moses 
 writes of the righteousness of the law, ete.; but the other kind of right- 
 eousness, the righteousness of faith, says (in the same Moses) thus, ete.” 
 The Μωῦσ. y. yp. thus holds good not only for ver. 5, but also covers vv. 6-8 ; 
 therefore the absence of a formula of quotation before ver. 6 is no valid 
 argument against our view. This applies likewise against Hofmann, accord- 
 ing to whom that, which the righteousness of faith speaks, is intended to 
 recall Deut. 1.6. ;? in such a way, however, that the word of which Moses 
 
 1 Luther, on Deut. /.c., says that Paul has, 2 Hofmann arrives at the sense: ‘* What 
 abundante spiritu, taken occasion from Israel could not say in respect of the re- 
 Moses against the justitiarios velut novumet vealed law of God, after possessing it, that 
 proprium tegtum componendi. should he, to whom the righteousness of 
 
 [Δ 
 
 lL 
 
CHAP. X., 6058, 407 
 speaks is related to that which the righteousness of faith means, as the O. T. 
 T. to the N. T.,’ and thus the former is a prediction of the latter. Ground- 
 less is the further objection, that Paul nowhere else thus mixes up a 
 biblical passage with comments. For we are acquainted with comments in 
 the style of the Midrash in Paul’s writings (ix. 8; Gal. iii. 16, iv. 28, 24) ; 
 and that they are here interspersed is unessential, and was very naturally sug- 
 gested by the opposed ava. εἰς τ. οὐρανόν and kara. εἰς τ. ἄβυσσον. In con- 
 clusion, we must further observe that, if Paul had given the biblical words 
 only as the clothing of his own representation, yet we should have to assume, 
 and that for the very sake of the honesty of the apostle (which Philippi 
 thinks endangered by our view), that he actually found in the saying the 
 typical reference to the righteousness of faith ; even the holy ‘ play” upon— 
 words of the Spirit can be no erroneous play. Theodoret took the right 
 view : διδάσκει πάλιν νόμου καὶ χάριτος τὴν διαφορὰν, Kal, ἀμφοτέρων εἰσάγει 
 Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘‘utriusque justitiae 
 imaginem Moses ipse depinxit.” Comp. also Hofmann, Weissag. wu. 1777. 11. 
 p. 217. The Mosaic declaration itself is Deut. xxx. 12-14, with free devia- 
 tions bearing on his object, from the original and the LXX. Moses has 
 there said of the commandment of God to Israel to fulfil His law (for the 
 passage speaks of nothing else according to its historical sense) in ver. 11, 
 that this commandment does not transcend the sphere of what is capable of 
 accomplishment, nor does it lie at strange distance ; and he then adds, ver. 
 12 ff., in order more precisely to depict this thought : Jt is neither in heaven 
 nor beyond the sea, so that one must first ascend to the former or sail over the 
 latter (comp. Bar. iii. 29, 30) to fetch it, that one may hear and do it ; rather 
 is it quite near, in the mouth and in the heart (and in the hands, an addition of 
 LXX., and in Philo) ; that is, the people itself carries it in its mouth, and 
 it is stamped upon its heart, in order that they may accomplish it ὑπ»). 
 Paul finds here a type, and therewith an indirect prophecy, of the demand 
 which the righteousness of faith presents, entirely different from that ποιεῖν 
 which is demanded by the righteousness of the law, inasmuch as the righteous- 
 ness of faith forbids only unbelief in reference to Christ, as though He had not 
 come from heaven, or had not risen from the dead, and directs men, on the other: 
 hand, to the word of faith, which, through its preachers, is laid in their mouth 
 and heart. 'The sum and substance of this typically prophetic sense is there- 
 fore : ‘* Benot unbelieving, but believing ;”? and here the grand historical points, 
 to which faith as well as unbelief relate, could not be brought into relief more ] 
 definitely and significantly * than by means of the Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν and ἀνα- 
 
 Μωΐσέα τὸν νομοθέτην διδάσκαλον. 
 
 faith speaks, not think in respect of the re- 
 vealed and perfect Saviour.” But how 
 eould Paul, without any indication what- 
 ever, have expected of the reader that he 
 should infer, from mere reminiscence of 
 the Mosaic words, the point of the thought 
 intended, that what the one could not, the 
 others should not? 
 
 1 But for this purpose Hofmann employs 
 an incorrect reference and understanding 
 of ὅτι, ver. 9. 
 
 2 The allegorical and typical signification 
 of the apostle finds its correct logical point 
 of connection in the fact that every one 
 who, instead of bearing the ῥῆμα of God in 
 his mouth and in his heart, asks, Who will 
 ascend into heaven for us, and bring it to 
 us? puts a question of unbelief. 
 
 3 For he who thinks that one must ascend 
 into heaven to bring Christ down, Cenies 
 thereby that Christ has come in the flesh ; 
 and he who supposes that one must de- 
 
408 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 yayeiv (in opposition to Tholuck’s objection). According to Fritzsche (comp. 
 Calovius), the sense meant is : no one can become righteous through works, 
 ‘« faciendo et moliendo,” vv. 6, 7 ; for in fact one must otherwise have been 
 able—since the becoming righteous rests upon the incarnation, death, and 
 resurrection of Christ—to ascend into heaven in order to bring Him down, 
 or to descend into the lower world in order to bring Him up ; but (ver. 8) 
 after that salvation has been obtained by Christ, we are to have faith only. 
 But in this case, vv. 6, 7 would surely be a warning from the mouth of the 
 righteousness of faith against a facere et moliri, which would be of quite 
 another kind thanthat of the righteousness of the law, and which even would 
 have included in abstracto, as a presupposition, this very faith in the incarna- 
 tion, death, and resurrection of Christ. Still less can we, with Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and several others (comp. also Reithmayr, 
 Philippi, and Krummacher), find in vv. 6, 7 the denial of the difficulty, and 
 then in ver. 8 the assurance of the facility, of becoming righteous. For 
 against this view is the fact, in the first place, that in what Paul subjoins, 
 ver. 9 ff., nothing at allis said of difficulty and facility ; secondly—and this 
 is decisive—the fact that vv. 5-8 is to be a proof founded on Moses of the 
 statement, τέλος νόμου Χριστός ; but it isevident, that not from the facility of 
 the Christian δικαιοσύνη, but from its being essentially different from the old 
 (the latter resting on doing, the former on faith), it follows that with Christ, 
 the Mediator of the new δικαιοσύνη, the νόμος must have reached its end. 
 This, too, in reply to Knapp, Ser. var. arg. II. p. 558 f., who, besides the 
 erroneous point of view of difficulty and facility, reads otherwise between 
 the lines the most essential. points of his interpretation. See, on the other 
 hand, van Hengel, who, however, on his side assumes that Paul desired 
 “‘arocare” unsettled Jewish Christians ‘‘a salutis duce longe quaerendo, quum 
 quisque, qui Christi communione utatur, per fidem in Deo positam possideat, quod, 
 at ex legis alicujus observatione, sie etiam aliunde afferri non possit.” The con- 
 nection with ver. 4 likewise tells against this view, as does also the circum- 
 stance that, if only the longe quaerere were the conception presented, it would 
 not be easy to see why Paul should have inserted at all his explanations τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι 
 «.t.4., and why he should not have retained in ver. 7 the words of the LXX. : 
 τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης. --- μὴ εἴπης ἐν τ. Kapd. σου] LXX. : 
 λέγων, Heb. TON, wherein, according to the connection (‘‘It is not in 
 heaven that one might speak,” etc.), the forbidding sense indirectly lies. 
 This Paul expresses directly, because his quotation is severed from the con- 
 nection of the original ; and he adds ἐν τ. καρδ. σου, because unbelief has its 
 seat in the heart, and the expression ‘‘to speak in the heart” (as Ps. xiv. 1 ; 
 Matt. iii. 9; Rev. xviii. 7) was very current in the mention of unholy 
 thoughts and dispositions (Surenhusius, καταλλ., Ὁ. 479). — τίς ἀναβ. εἰς τ. ovp. | 
 Who will ascend into heaven? In the sense of the apostle, the inquiry is one 
 
 scend into the lower world to bring Christ an impossibility—namely, an ascent into 
 up from the dead, denies that He arose from heaven, or a descent into the lower world— 
 ‘the dead. This likewise against Hofmann, would be requisite. Therein lies the folly, 
 p. 436, according to whom it is only meant as if that which we have were at unattain- 
 ‘to be said, that in order to produce Christ, able distance. 
 
CHAP. X., 6-8. 409 
 not expressive of a wish (‘‘utinam quis sit, qui nos ec longinquo in viam salu- 
 tis ducat,” van Hengel), nor yet of despair, but—correlative of that τῷ πισ- 
 τεύοντι in ver. 4, and opposed to the ὁ ποιήσας, ver. 5—the inquiry of unbelief, 
 which holds the appearance of Christ from heaven, ¢.e. His incarnation, as 
 not having taken place, and as an impossibilty. Therefore Paul adds the 
 Midrashistic interpretation : that expresses, that signifies : in order to bring 
 Christ down—this is the object, which is implied in ἀναβήσεται εἰς τ. obp., and 
 by its addition Paul thus contributes a more precise explanation of the ques- 
 tion (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε : scilicet), namely, as respects its tendency, as respects that at 
 which itaims.*. Thus more exactly defined, the question would presuppose, 
 that he who puts it does not believe that Christ has come out of the heavenly 
 world and has appeared in the flesh (comp. viii. 8), ἐν ὁμοιώματε ἀνθρώπων 
 (Phil. ii. 6, 7; comp. 1 John iv. 2).2. Following Melanchthon, Castalio, 
 Calvin, and others, Reiche thinks that unbelief in regard to the session of 
 Christ on the right hand of God is meant. But if there were here a prohibi- 
 tion of the desire to behold with the eyes this object of faith (Reiche), the 
 second question, which nevertheless is manifestly quite parallel, would be 
 highly inappropriate ; for then an existence of Christ in the ἄβυσσος would of 
 necessity be an object of faith, which yet it is not at all. Nor could we see 
 why Paul should have said καταγαγεῖν in ver. 6, since the matter would in fact 
 turn only on a seeing of Christ in heaven. Moreover, Paul, considering the 
 freedom with which he handles this passage from Moses, would have trans- 
 posed the two questions, in order to avoid the glaring historical prothysteron 
 which occurs, if the first question refers to the session of Christ at the right 
 hand of God, to which van Hengel also refers it. According to Glickler, 
 the question, Who will go up into heaven ? means to ask, Who will accom- 
 plish redemption ? for the ascension was a necessary requisite for the Media- 
 tor ; and therefore τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι signifies : this would mean to deny the ascension 
 of Christ. Consistently, Gléckler then understands the second question as, 
 Who will (voluntarily) go into death ? this would mean to deny the death of 
 Christ. But by this necessarily consistent view of ver. 7 the whole exposi- 
 
 1 Many others (Erasmus, Calvin, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, Bengel, Usteri, Riickert, Glockler, 
 ete.) regard τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι as the ground of the 
 prohibition, and that in the sense: that is 
 just as much as, etc. So also Philippi: 
 “Righteousness is for me as distant and 
 high as if it were in heaven and I must fetch 
 it down from thence;.. . that is just as 
 muchas if thou wouldest bring down Christ 
 from heayen, as if thou didst deny that He 
 has already come down from heaven and 
 become man; and afterward, ver. 7: 
 that is just as much as to deny that He has 
 already risen from the dead. But it is in- 
 appropriate to conceive of righteousness 
 itself as the imagined distant (and to-be- 
 fetched) object, because righteousness 
 itself is speaking, and because Paul names 
 Christ Himself as the object to be fetched. 
 Inappropriate, too, is the idea of allowing 
 
 righteousness in any way to be represented 
 as found in Hades, and brought up thence, 
 from whence Christ, indeed, has not 
 brought it with Him. To this connection 
 belongs van Hengel’s view: ‘‘Haec quae- 
 rere nihil aliud est quam Christum indigne 
 tractare, tanguam 6 locis remotis, at salutis 
 auctor sit,in terram revocandum.’’ In this 
 case the Christum indigne tractare is im- 
 ported. Further, it makes absolutely no 
 difference to the sense of τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, whether 
 it is written divided (Lachm., Tisch.) or 
 united (τούτεστιν, Hofmann). The codd, 
 yield no certain basis ; see Lipsius, gramm. 
 Unters. Ὁ. 181 ff. Τοῦτο is the subject, and 
 ἔστι the copyla of that which is to be pred- 
 icated epexegetically of the subject. 
 
 2 The Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν presupposes the 
 certainty of the personal pre-existence. 
 Comp. Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 50. 
 
410 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 tion is overthrown. For ver. 9 proves that ver. 7 refers to the resurrection 
 of Christ ; nor did unbelief, in truth, deny the death of Christ, but took 
 offence at it. Like Gléckler, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 102 7., has essen- 
 tially misunderstood both verses, and Riickert the question of ver. ἢ. -- 
 ἢ τίς καταβ. εἰς τ. aB.;] The colon after 7 is to be omitted. The question 
 is, in the sense of the apostle, likewise a question of wnbelief, and that in 
 reference to the fact and the possibility of the reswrrection of Christ ἐκ 
 νεκρῶν (ἷ.6. out of Scheol, ἄβυσσος). The LXX., following the original, has : 
 τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς TO πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ; But Paul, in his typical refer- 
 ence to Christ, had sufficient cause and liberty, from the standpoint of the 
 historical fulfilment, to put expressly, instead of πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, even 
 without reflecting that the springs of the sea lie in the lowest depth of the 
 earth (see Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 112), the familiar contrast to heaven, εἰς τ. 
 ἄβυσσον, (Job xi. 8 ; Ps. cvii. 26, cxxxix. 8 ; Amos ix. 2; Ecclus. xvi. 18, 
 xxiv. 5). For Christ is the object of justifying faitb, not merely as He who 
 came from heaven, but also as He who descended into Hades, and came up 
 again thence, and rose from the dead.’ — ἀλλὰ τί réyer;| But what says it (the 
 righteousness of faith) ? An unexact contrast to μὴ εἴπῃς, ver. 6, as though 
 previously the negation had stood with λέγει, ver. 6 (οὐχ οὕτω λέγει" εἰπὲ 
 x.t.2.). The interrogative form serves ‘‘ad attentionem excitandam,” Dissen, 
 ad Dem. decor. p. 186, 347. 
 Epexegesis of ἐγγύς cob ἐστιν. ---- τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι «.7.2.] This ῥῆμα, so designated by 
 the righteousness of faith, signifies the word of faith. The genitive τ. rior. 
 is genit. objecti (comp. Acts xx. 82; Heb. v. 18 ; Eph. i. 18, vi. 15; Gal. 
 iii. 2). Note here the two articles ; for that ῥῆμα intended by the righteous- 
 ness of faith is not generally “(ὦ word of faith,” whose contents desire to be 
 believed as historical reality (as Hofmann takes it), but the definite specific 
 kipvywa, Whose entire summary contents are faith in Jesus Christ ; comp. 
 vv. 4, 9 ff., i. 5, 17. — xyptocouer] we preachers of the gospel. ' 
 Ver. 9. Not a statement of the contents of the ῥῆμα," but assigning the 
 ground of the immediately previous τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσ. 
 The force of the argument lies in the fact that, in respect of the ῥῆμα pub- 
 lished by its preachers, confession and faith (mouth and heart) must be con- 
 sentaneous in order to obtain salvation, which is what Moses also means of 
 the ῥῆμα (ver. 8). — ὁμολ. ἐν τ. στόμ. σου] corresponds to ἐν τῷ στόμ. cov (ἐστι) 
 
 Comp. Gal. iv. 80. --- ἐν τῳ στόμ. σ. K. ἐν τ. κ. on] 
 
 in ver. 8, as afterwards πίστ. ἐν τ. καρδ. σου to ἐν τ. καρδ. cov In ver. 8. — κύριον 
 as Lord (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 3, viii. 6 ; Phil. ii. 11). ‘‘In hac appellatione 
 est summa fidei et salutis,” Bengel. It refers to the question τίς ἀναβ. εἰς τ. 
 
 1 The descensus Christi isin any case the 
 undoubted presupposition, which led Paul to 
 substitute the words of our passage for 
 those of the original. The passage has 
 therefore more probative force in favour of 
 that doctrine than Giider, Lehre von der 
 Erschein. Christi unter ἃ. Todten, p. 20 f., is 
 willing to accord to it. 
 
 2 So van Hengel and others. But by τῆς 
 πίστεως the ῥῆμα in yer. 8 is already com- 
 
 pletely defined. 
 
 3 Which is not with Hofmann to be 
 leaped over, so that ὅτι refers to ἐγγύς cov τὸ 
 ῥῆμά ἐστι, and introduces the reason why itis 
 that we have this word so near, in the mouth 
 and in the heart. Hofmann strangely ob- 
 jects to the view taken above, that not 67, 
 but yap, must then have been used. Why 
 so? 
 
CHAP. X., 10-12. 411 
 
 οὖρ., ver. 6 ; for the whole acknowledgment of the heavenly κυριότης of 
 Jesus as the σύνθρονος of God is conditioned by the acknowledgment of the 
 preceding descent from heaven, the incarnation of the Son of God ; viii. 3 ; 
 Gal. iv. 4 ; Phil. ii. 6, e¢ al. — ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν] corresponds to the question 
 of ver. 7. — σωθήσῃ] corresponds to ζήσεται in ver. 6, but characterizes the 
 latter, according to the doctrinal system of the apostle (i. 16, v. 9, 10, ef a/.), 
 as a deliverance from destruction to the Messianic salvation. — The confes- 
 sion of the mouth (of high essential importance for the relations of every 
 time, and peculiarly of that time !) and faith in the heart are not separate 
 things, as though one without the other had as its consequence the σωτηρία, 
 but they are mutually dependent requisites. Comp. Knapp, p. 565 ff. — 
 The resurrection of the Lord here appears, as suggested by ver. 7, and accord- 
 ing to iv. 25 quite justly, as the object of that faith which makes blessed. 
 Without it, His death would not be the atoning death, 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18, 
 nor would He Himself be the Son of God, i. 4. 
 
 Ver. 10. Elucidation of ver. 9. With rior. and ὁμολ. Jesus is not to be 
 supplied as subject (Hofmann), which is not even in accordance with the 
 linguistic usage of the N. T., for 1 Tim. iii. 16 has a singular poetical style ; 
 but the contents of the faith and of the confession are understood, according 
 to ver. 9, entirely of themselves. ‘‘ With the heart, namely (yap), one believes 
 unto righteousness, but with the mouth confesses unto salvation.” In the style 
 of Hebrew parallelism the thought is thus expressed : ‘‘ With the faith of 
 the heart is united the confession of the mouth to the result that one obtains 
 righteousness and salvation.” The righteousness obtained through faith 
 would, forsooth, fall to the ground again, and would not be attended by 
 salvation, if faith had not the vital force to produce confession of the mouth 
 (which speaks out of the fulness of the heart) ; see Matt. x. 832; comp. 2 
 Cor. iv. 18. We have thus here no merely formal parallelism, but one 
 framed according to the actual relation of the dispensation of salvation ; 
 and in this case, moreover, Paul observes the genetic sequence in καρδίᾳ. . . 
 στόματι, because he is now no longer dependent on ver. 8. 
 
 Ver. 11. Now, after that grand proposition : τέλος νόμου Χριστός k.7.A. (ver. 
 4), has been proved from Moses himself (vv. 5-8), and this proof has re- 
 ceived its confirmatory discussion (vv. 9, 10), Paul brings forward, as if for 
 the solemn sealing of all this, once more that weighty word of Scripture which 
 he has already adduced in ix. 33. But this scriptural saying (Isa. xxviii. 
 
 16) now receives, with the object of closely connecting with it what is fur- 
 ther to follow, the significant addition of the wniversal element πᾶς (perhaps 
 already with a regard to Joel iii. 5), which indeed is found neither in the 
 LXX. nor in the Hebrew ; but in the unlimited ὁ πιστεύων in Isaiah, ground 
 and justification for its appearance was found to the apostle’s mind, since 
 he had the sacred historical fulfilment of the prophecy before his eyes, and 
 therein its more particular definitive character. 
 
 Ver. 12. Elucidation of rac. — οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστ. "Iovd. τε καὶ "EAA.| In te- 
 spect, namely, to the bestowal of blessing on the believing, ver. 11. Comp. 
 iii. 22. — For the Lord of allis one and the same. This κύριος is Christ [See Note 
 CXIL. p. 423.] (Origen, Chrysostom, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Béhme, Tholuck, 
 
412 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hofmann, and several others), 
 the αὐτός of ver. 11, and the κύριος of ver. 18, who is necessarily identical 
 with this αὐτός. Were God intended (Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and 
 many, including Ammon, Reiche, Kéllner, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, 
 Krummacher), it would in fact be necessary first to suggest the Christian 
 character of the demonstration (as Olshausen : ‘‘God in Christ’’). — κύριος 
 πάντων] comp. Phil. ii. 11; Acts x. 86; Rom. xiv. 9. --- πλουτῶν] comp. 
 Eph. ii. 8: ‘‘Quem nulla quamvis magna credentium multitudo exhaurire 
 potest,” Bengel. Jn what He was rich, the Christian consciousness under- 
 stood of itself ; it is contained also in the previous καταισχυνθήσεται and in 
 the subsequent cwfjoerar,—namely, in grace and salvation. Comp. ν. 15, xi. 
 33, and on 2 Cor. xiii. 19. --- εἰς πάντας] for all, for the benefit of all. See 
 Bernhardy, p. 219 ; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 85. — The calling upon Christ, who 
 nowhere in the N. T. appears as identical with the Jehovah of the O. T. (in 
 opposition to Philippi), is not the worshipping absolutely, as it takes place 
 only in respect of the Father, as the one absolute God ; but rather worship 
 according to that relativity in the consciousness of the worshipper, which is 
 conditioned by the relation of Christ to the Father (whose Son of like nature, 
 image, partner of the throne, mediator and advocate on behalf of men, etc., 
 He is). This is not imported as an Origenistic gloss (Philippi), but is nec- 
 essarily founded on the dependence and subordination in which even the 
 glorified God-man Christ, in virtue of His munus regiwm, stands in relation 
 to the Father ; see on 1 Cor. iii. 23, xi. 3, xv. 28." He who calls upon 
 Christ is conscious that he does not call upon Him as the absolute God, but 
 as the divine-human Representative and Mediator of God exalted to the 
 divine glory, in whom God’s adequate revelation of salvation has been given. 
 To the mediatorial relation of Christ Hofmann also reverts. Comp. on Phil. 
 Tt O de: Cor. τ τις 
 
 Ver. 18. Ground assigned for εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλ. αὐτόν, ver. 12, and 
 that with words of Scripture from Joel iii. 5. This passage (LXX. ii. 32, 
 closely following the LXX.) treats of the coming in of the Messianic era ; 
 hence Paul might refer κυρίου, which in the original points to God, justly 
 to Christ, who has appeared in the name of God, and continually rules as 
 His Representative and Revealer, and Mediator, whose name was now the 
 very specific object of the: Christian calling on the Lord. That Paul 
 writes not airot, but κυρίου, is from no particular motive (against Hofmann) ; 
 he simply reproduces the words of Scripture, which he presumes to be 
 well known and makes his own. 
 
 Vv. 14-21. [See Note CXIII. p. 423.] In order to realize this calling up- 
 on the Lord, proclaimers of the gospel had of necessity to be sent forth ; 
 nevertheless all did not obey the gospel ; in which case neither does this 
 excuse avail, that they had not heard the preaching (ver. 18) ; nor that, 
 that Israel did not recognize the universality of the preaching (ver. 19 ff.). 
 
 1 Comp. Lticke, de invocat. J. Chr., Gott. garded by the Apostle as valid in New 
 1843. Testament times, for those, and those only, 
 
 5 According to Hofmann, the promise who place their confidence of salvation on Jesus 
 attached to the calling on Jehovah isre- and thus call on Him. 
 
CHAPS RA 14. 413 
 
 Thus, following up 1-13, there is still further set forth the people’s own guilt 
 in their exclusion. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. Introduction : In order now that men should call on the name of 
 the Lord, it is necessary that they should have been believing, hearing, preaching, 
 and that the sending forth of preachers should have taken place, which send- 
 ing forth also the Scripture prophesies. The object of this introduction is 
 not already to cut off every way of escape from the Jews (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, and several others, including Kéllner), for this is spoken of for 
 the first time in ver. 18 ff. ; but the necessity of the evangelical ἀποστολή is 
 Jirst of all to be established generally, in order then to make the disobedience of 
 the Jews stand out with the force of contrast. Grotius and Michaelis see in 
 vv. 14, 15 a Jewish objection, which alleges that the gospel had not been 
 preached to all the Jews in the world, etc. ; Paul then answers in ver. 16 ff. 
 But how unsuitably he would have answered ἢ Must he not, before every- 
 thing else, make good—what he only brought in at ver. 18—that all Jews 
 had heard the announcement of the gospel? The objection here assumed is 
 made by Paul himself in ver. 18. — oiy|draws an inference from ver. 13 : How 
 shall they accordingly (in pursuance of the requirement of ἐπικαλεῖσθαι contained 
 in ver. 13) call on, etc. ? On the future of ethical possibility, see Winer, p. 262 
 [E. T. 279]. Important codd. and Lachm. have, instead of the futures, the 
 deliberative subjunctive aorists : How should they, etc.? The attestation in the 
 case of the different verbs of which Tisch. 8. likewise reads the subjunctive 
 forms, although he retains instead of ἀκούσωσιν the future form ἀκούσονται, is 
 so unequal, that we can come to no decision. Comp. generally Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 734 . The subject to ἐπικαλέσονται x.t.4. is those who, according 
 to the passage of Scripture in ver. 13, shall attain to salvation through 
 calling on the name of the Lord ; that to κηρύξουσιν and ἀποστάλ., the κηρύσ- 
 covrec. The impersonal rendering (Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Cru- 
 sius, Philippi, van Hengel, and several others) has against it the fact that 
 κηρύξ. has not the same general subject as the foregoing verbs. —el¢ ὃν οὐκ 
 éxior.| Him, on whom they have not become believing ; see Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
 p- 92 [E. T. 105]. — πῶς δὲ πιστεύσουσιν κ.τ.}.} Rightly the Vulg. : ‘‘ Quomodo 
 credent δὲ, quem non audierunt.” οὗ is not an adverb of place (Hofmann) ; 
 for thus after εἰς ὅν the symmetry of the discourse would only be hetero- 
 geneously disturbed. Nor can it denote de guo (Luther, Castalio, and many, 
 including Philippi and van Hengel), since ἀκούειν τινός in the sense of ἀκ. 
 περί τινος, without a participle annexed, is entirely foreign both to the 
 N. T. and to Greek prose (Xen. Mem. 111. 5. 9 is a case of attracted gen- 
 itive) ; and in Homer only, Od. iv. 114, is the solitary instance of it found.! 
 Just as little is the object, i.e. the contents of the preaching heard, meant by 
 ov, Which would rather be expressed by ὃν (Eph. iv. 21) ; but rather the 
 speaking subject, who is listened to as he from whom the discourse proceeds 
 (Mark vi. 20, vii. 14 ; Luke ii. 46, e¢ al. ; Winer, p. 187[E.T. 199] ), Christ 
 being in this case conceived of as speaking through His preachers (see the 
 
 1See Kiihner, Il. 1, p. 309; Buttmann, and neut. Gr. Ὁ. 144 f. [E. T. 166]. Comp. 
 
 Progr. tib. ad. syntakt. Verbind. der Verba the Homeric πυνθάνεσθαί τινος, equivalent to 
 ἀκούειν and ἀκροᾶσθαι, Potsd. 1855, pp. 7,12, περί τινος (Nagelsbach, Jiias, p. 104, ed. 3). 
 
414 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 following) ; comp. Eph. ii. 17. On the general thought, comp. Plat. Rep. 
 p. 827 Ο ; ἢ καὶ δύναισθ᾽ ἂν, ἢ δ᾽ ὃς, πεῖσαι μὴ ἀκούοντας; --- χωρὶς Knpioo. | with- 
 out their having a preacher, apart from a preacher. Comp. Tittmann, 
 Synon. p. 95 ; who, however, wrongly explains, οὐ πιστεύσαντες τῷ κηρύσσοντι. 
 - ἀποσταλῶσι)] Whence? διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ, ver. 17, informs us.—The form 
 of the argument is a sorites, and its conclusion : The appointment of evan- 
 gelical heralds is the first condition in order to bring about the calling upon 
 the Lord. This retrograde sorites thus leads us back to the source ; and of 
 the ἀποστολῇ thus suggesting itself as primarily necessary, the prophetic con- 
 Jirmation from Isa. 111. 7 (not closely after the LXX.) is then given. This 
 **dulcissimum dictum” (Melanchthon), because it speaks of the message of 
 blissful liberation from exile, therein possesses the Messianic character, as 
 concerning the restoration of the theocracy ; and therefore is legitimately’ 
 understood by Paul—in connection with the Messianic idea and its historical 
 fulfilment—as a prophecy of the evangelical preachers. These preach sal- 
 vation (DI Dw, meaning in Isaiah also not merely peace, but the theocratic 
 saving deliverance), preach good (2.0) ; that is, still more generally, omne 
 quod felix faustumque est, which is to be received through Christ, the accom- 
 plisher of the divine dominion. That the Rabbins also understood the 
 passage in a Messianic sense, and in what way, see Wetstein.—The opposite 
 of the poetical : how pleasant are the feet (i.e. how welcome the arrival), etc., 
 atu. 15; Actsv. 9; Neh. 1. 15.? 
 
 Ver. 16. ’AA2’] contrast to the prophetic saying of ver. 15 : But—notwith- 
 standing that accordingly the blessed sending forth of messengers of salva- 
 tion did not fail to take place—all did not obey the message of salvation, all did 
 not submit to the requirement (of faith), which the glad news concerning Mes- 
 siah and His kingdom placed before them ; comp. 1. 5, xvi. 26 ; 2 Thess. i. 8. 
 - With Theodore of Mopsuestia, who takes ἀλλ᾽ οὐ «.7.A. as a question (comp. 
 Theodoret), Reiche thinks that 447’... . evayy. is an opponent’s objection, 
 which Paul accordingly repels by the passage from Isaiah. Against this view 
 the presence of the following yap would not be decisive—it would rather be 
 quite in its proper place in the reply (Herm. ad Viger. p. 829 ; Hartung Par- 
 tikell. I. p. 473 £.)—but vv. 18 and 19 (comp. xi. 1, 11), to which Reiche ap- 
 peals, testify directly against it, because there λέγω is found. Fritzsche, 
 following Carpzov, refers οὐ πάντες to the Gentiles, of whom, however, al- 
 though van Hengel also understands them to be intended in vv. 14, 15, 
 nothing is said in the whole context ; hence it is not to be even taken quite 
 generally (Hofmann), but is to be referred textually to the Jews, of whom so 
 many, notwithstanding that the lovely feet of the messengers of salvation 
 came to tread amongst them, yielded no result. The negative expression 
 for this multitude is a /itotes, forbearing, but making it felt quite tragically 
 enough, that the opposite of οὐ πάντες should have been found. Comp. iii. 
 3: ἠπίστησάν τινες. --- γάρ] prophetic confirmation of the sad phenomenon (οὐ 
 πάντες k.T.A.), Which thus, as already predicted, enters into the connection of 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. IT. p. 292. Expl. Pind. p. 281; Wunder, ad Soph. EH. 
 2 See Schaefer, ad Hur. Or. 1217 ; Boeckh, 1357 f. p. 120. 
 
GHAR x4 17, 415 
 divine destiny, and is not an accidental occurrence. This Hofmann misap- 
 prehends, extending the reference of the γάρ to the following ἄρα ἡ πίστις 
 k.T.4., Which is impossible on account of the dpa commencing a new sentence, 
 since Paul has not written εἰ γὰρ Ἡσαΐας λέγει κ.τ.. . . . ἄρα ἡ πίστις K.T.A., 
 whereby to these latter words would fall the definition of the citation, as 
 Hofmann thinks. —In the lament of the author of Isa. liii. 1 (closely follow- 
 ing the LXX., even with the κύριε added by them) over the unbelief of his 
 time in the prophetic preaching (ἀκοή, see on Gal. 111. 2), Paul sees—and on 
 account of the Messianic character of the entire chapter justly—a prophecy 
 of the Jewish unbelief of Christian times in the Christian preaching. Comp. 
 John xii. 38. Following Syr., Calovius, and others, Umbreit and Heng- 
 stenberg, Christol. II. p. 307, take ἀκού as the thing heard, i.e. ‘‘that which 
 is announced to us through the word of God (by revelation).” But the very 
 following ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς Shows, that Paul did not wish to be understood 
 as meaning the divine communication which the preacher received, but 
 the preaching of that word heard by the listeners. The historic aorist cor- 
 responds closely to ὑπήκουσαν. We may add that Theophylact rightly re- 
 marks : τὸ τίς ἀντὶ τοῦ σπάνιοι κεῖται ἐνταῦθα" τουτέστιν ὀλίγοι ἐπίστευσαν. 
 
 Ver. 17. Inference from the prophetic passage, with the view of substan- 
 tially recapitulating what was said in ver. 14, and then pursuing the sub- 
 ject in ver. 18. — ἀκοῇ] the same as in ver. 16, the announcement, which is 
 heard ; comp. on John xii. 38. From this comes faith ; the heard preach- 
 ing of the gospel brings about in men’s minds faith on Christ ; but preaching 
 18 brought about by God’s behest (Luke iii. 2; Matt. iv. 4; Heb. xi. 3), set to 
 work by the fact that God commands preachers to their office. Rightly 
 have Beza, Piscator, Semler, Cramer, Fritzsche, Gléckler, Tholuck, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius so understood ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. For the ordinary interpretation 
 of it, also followed by Hofmann, as the preached word of God, is incorrect 
 for this reason, that according to it ῥῆμα Θεοῦ in point of fact would not be 
 different from ἀκού ; and this ῥῆμα Θεοῦ does not point back to ver. 8, but 
 to ἀποσταλῶσι in ver. 15, as the remaining contents of the verse show, so that 
 the signification saying obtains textually the more precise definition of its 
 sense as behest. But when dxo/#’ has been taken in two different senses in 
 ver. 16 and ver. 17, so that in ver. 16 it signifies the preaching, but in ver. 
 17 the hearing (Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, according to whom the preach- 
 ing is to be analyzed into its two elements, the hearing and the word of 
 God, comp. Tholuck) ; or when in διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ, instead of ““ God’s 
 word,” divine revelation has been substituted (Reiche, van Hengel, comp. 
 Olshausen, who explains it as equivalent to διὰ πνεύματος Θεοῦ) : these are 
 just makeshifts in order to separate the incorrectly assumed notion of ῥῆμα 
 Θεοῦ from that of axo7.°—How could Paul infer also ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ 
 
 1 That ἀκοή may denote hearkening, listen- 
 ing to, is undoubted. See Plato, Theaet. p. 
 142 Ὁ ; Diod. xix. 41. But more usually it 
 denotes, even in the classics, either the 
 Jaculty of hearing, or, as here, the thing 
 heard, Comp. on Gal. iii. 2. 
 
 2 In which they cannot succeed, however, 
 
 for ἐξ ἀκοῆς in fact could not be a hearken- 
 ing in the abstract, but only the hearkening 
 to the word of God (the gospel). Soalso, the 
 thing heard would be even in itself the word 
 of God ; therefore we are not to explain, 
 with van Hengel: ‘tid vero, quod auditum 
 est, debetur patefactiont divinae.” 
 
410 ‘ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 | 
 Jrom Isaiah? Certainly not from the mere address κύριε, but rather from 
 the whole attitude of the prophet towards God, as it is expressed in κύριε 
 . .,. jov,—an attitude in which the prophet stands as the servant and am- 
 bassador of God, so that God thus appears as He on whose saying, 7.e. on 
 whose command, the ἀκοή is preached. 
 
 Ver. 18. A perhaps possible exculpation for the Jews is suggested by Paul 
 as a spontaneous objection, and that in the form of a question to be negatived, 
 and is then repelled with words from Scripture. ‘‘ But I ask : Was it then 
 in any way not possible for them to come to faith ἐξ ἀκοῆς ? The preaching 
 surely did not remain unheard by them, surely did not fail to come at all to 
 their ears Ὁ) The correct view is simply and clearly given by Chrysostom. 
 Incorrectly Hofmann : After Paul has introduced the prophet as speaking, 
 he leaps over to the saying something himself, which that prophetic saying 
 suggests to him. Against this may be urged, (1) that not here for the first 
 time, but already in ver. 17, it is Paul who speaks ; (2) that he, in placing 
 himself in contradistinction to the prophet, must have written not merely 
 ἀλλὰ λέγω, but ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ λέγω 3 (8) that ἀλλὰ A. is not to be taken, with Hof- 
 mann, ‘‘ Well! then I say,” since in that case ἀλλά would have the sense of 
 agreement or concession (see Baeumlein, Partik. Ὁ. 16), which is suitable 
 neither here nor in ver. 19.} The ἀλλά isthe quite customary ἀλλά of objection, 
 which is made by oneself or in the name of the opponent ; Baeumlein, p. 13. 
 — On the following question : Surely it cannot be that they have not heard? 
 observe that οὐκ is closely joined to ἤκουσαν, expressing the opposite of 
 ἤκουσαν (Baeumlein, Ὁ. 277 f. ; Winer, p. 476 [E. T. 511] ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 
 4, xi. 22), and that the interrogative μή supposes the negative answer : by no 
 means has it remained unheard by them, which negation of the οὐκ ἤκουσαν im- 
 plies the assertion of the ἤκουσαν. --- ἤκουσαν] se. τὴν ἀκοήν. The subject is 
 those who remained unbelieving (οὐ πάντες ὑπήκ., ver. 16), by whom Paul 
 certainly means the Jews, although without expressing it directly and exclu- 
 sively. The reference to the Gentiles (Origen, Calvin, Fritzsche, and others, 
 including van Hengel and Krummacher) is quite foreign to the connection ; 
 comp. on ver. 15. —pevovvye| imo vero.” See on ix. 90. --- αὀἰς πᾶσαν k.7.A.] 
 from Ps. xix. 5 (close after the LXX.), where the subject spoken of is the 
 universally diffused natural revelation of God ; Paul clothes in these 
 sacred words the expression of the going forth (ἐξῆλθεν, aor.) everywhere of 
 the preaching of the gospel. Comp. Justin, 6. Tryph. 42, Apol. i. 40.—6 
 φθόγγος αὐτῶν] their sound, the sound which the preachers (to these, accord- 
 ing to the connection, αὐτῶν refers, which in the psalm refers to heaven, the 
 handiworks of God, day and night) send forth while they preach. In the 
 LXX. it is a translation of D3), which some have understood, with Luther, 
 as their measuring line (comp. Hupfeld), some, and rightly so, according 
 to the parallelism, with the LXX., Symm., Syr., Vulg., and most exposi- 
 
 1 Hofmann appeals without pertinence to μενοῦνγε ἐπὶ λύσει κέχρηται,. .. λύων Td 
 
 Hartung, II. p. 35. Forthe proinde in chal- ζητούμενον. Comp. on the μὲν οὖν intro- 
 lenges or exclamations is here entirely ducing a correcting answer, Hermann, ad 
 heterogeneous. Viger. p. 845; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 1261; 
 
 2 Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly says: τὸ Kiihner, IT. 2, Ὁ. 711. 
 
OWA PH Χο 193 417 
 
 tors, as their sound. — The answer μενοῦνγε k.t.A. (in which, moreover, Paul 
 does not adduce the passage from the Psalms as a quotation) confutes the οὐκ 
 ἤκουσαν very forcibly, because it argues ὦ majori, and even applies to all the 
 Jews of the dispersion. But the conclusion that, according to our present 
 passage, the gospel had at that time actwally penetrated everywhere (even 
 to China, America, etc.), is simply anarrant mistake, contrary to the nature 
 of the popularly poetical expression, although, in imitation of the older 
 commentators, renewed by Léhe (υ. d. Kirche, p. 34 ff.), and Pistorius in 
 the Luther. Zeitschr. 1846, 11. p. 40. The universal extension of the gospel 
 (comp. Col. i. 6, 23; Clem. Cor. i. 5) set on foot by the apostles on a suffi- 
 ciently large scale, is continually in course of development. Comp. xi. 25, 26. 
 
 Ver. 19. A further possible exculpation,’ introduced in emphatic con- 
 formity with the preceding, and the repelling of it by means of scriptural 
 declarations down to ver. 91. On ἀλλά Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly ob- 
 serves : πάλιν ἑτέραν ἀντίθεσιν ἐπάγει. --- μὴ ᾿Ισραὴλ, οὐκ ἔγνω :] surely it did 
 not remain unknown to the Israelites 5 The ‘‘it” to be supplied with ἔγνω 
 (see Niigelsbach, 2. Ilias, p. 120, ed. 3) is: ὅτι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξελεύσεται ὁ 
 φθόγγος αὐτῶν κιτ.Δ. This universal destination of the preaching of Christ 
 expressed in ver. 18 must have been known by the Jews, for long ago Moses 
 and also Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles — Isaiah 
 likewise, the refractory spirit of opposition thereto of the Jews (vv. 20, 21). 
 This reference of οὐκ ἔγνω alone (followed also by de Wette, Fritzsche, and 
 Tholuck) flows purely in accordance with the text from what immediately 
 precedes, and is at the same time naturally in keeping with the contents of 
 the corresponding biblical passages ; for the conversion of the Gentiles and 
 the universality of Christianity are one ; since the former was prophesied to 
 the Jews, the latter could not be unknown to them ; and they could not 
 therefore allege as the excuse for their unbelief : We did not know that 
 Christianity is destined for the whole of humanity—the less could they do 
 so, since Isaiah places before them the true source of their unbelief in their 
 own spirit of resistance. The view of the passage which comes substantially 
 nearest to ours, is that of Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Piscator, 
 Pareus, Toletus, Calovius, Turretine, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Benecke, 
 Kollner, Ewald (comp. Tholuck), who supply with οὐκ ἔγνω : that the Gospel 
 would pass over from the Jews to the Gentiles. So Pelagius and Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia: τὸ τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν προσειλῆφθαι εἰς τὴν εὐσέβειαν. But this is wrong, 
 in so far as the object to be supplied is not purely borrowed from the preced- 
 ing, but is already in part anticipated from what follows. Beza has vaguely 
 and erroneously supplied Dewm with ἔγνω ; Reithmayr, on the other hand, 
 thinks no object is to be supplied ; while others imagine the gospel to be the 
 object (‘‘ Have they not learnt to know the gospel, in order to be able to 
 believe in it 2). So Chrysostom, Vatablus, Gomarus, Hammond, Estius, 
 
 1 The correctness of which would in turn indicates a climax of the increasing urgency 
 weaken the blamableness pointed out in οἵ the question, and which is the more natu- 
 ver. 18. Comp. Chrys. rally suggested to Paul,since he has already 
 
 3 Those previously meant (in opposition to in view a prophecy directed to the people: 
 Hofmann) are here expressly named—which ἰη contrast to the Gentiles (ver. 21). 
 
418 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 and several others, including Riickert, Olshausen, van Hengel, Beyschlag, 
 Mangold, and, with a peculiar turn, Philippialso ; similarly Hofmann and 
 others, taking up the following πρῶτος (see below). In that case—against 
 which there is no objection in itself —yy "IppajA οὐκ ἔγνω would be so com- 
 plete a parallel to μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν in ver. 18, that here, as there, the gospel 
 would have to be supplied. But as this is by no means necessary (in oppo- 
 sition to Hofmann)—since it fully satisfies the symmetry of the discourse, if 
 in both instances ἀλλὰ λέγω has its reference to what immediately precedes— 
 so it is directly opposed by the fact, that the following reply beginning with 
 πρῶτος would not be suitable. For if we were to assume that Paul has 
 given an indirect answer (‘‘ when he shows that the Gentiles believe, he says : 
 How should not, could not /srael have believed, if it had willed ?” Olsh.), 
 this would only be a makeshift, in which the answer would appear the more 
 unsuitable in proportion to its indirectness, and still leave open the possi- 
 bility of the οὐκ ἔγνω. Or if we were to suppose with Riickert, that the 
 thought is : ‘‘ Want of knowledge is not the cause, but God is now putting 
 into penal execution what He has threatened, and is allowing salvation to 
 pass over to the Gentiles, in order thereby to convert the Jews to a better 
 disposition,” the point of the ἔγνω would not be entered into at all, and 
 moreover, the essential part of the interpretation would simply be supplied 
 by the reader. This objection is at the same time valid against van Hengel, 
 according to whom it is to be made to appear from the following prophetic 
 quotations that Israel had indeed known, but had shamefully despised, the 
 gospel. Orif, finally, with Philippi, we are to say that the passages from 
 the prophets contained not a refutation, but a substantiation, of the fact that 
 verily Israel’ had rejected the gospel (which rejection lies in οὐκ ἔγνω), this 
 would be inconsistent with the interrogative form with μή (comp. on iil. 5), 
 which necessarily presupposes the denial? of the οὐκ ἔγνω (consequently the 
 ‘affirmative : ἔγνω). In entire deviation from the views just given, Reiche 
 thinks that ᾿Ισραήλ is accusative, and Θεός to be supplied as subject. ‘‘ Did 
 not God recognize Israel for His people? How could He permit it to be so 
 blinded and hardened ?” Itis decisive against this view, that to supply 
 “Θεός as subject, especially after ver. 18, is highly arbitrary, and that the 
 following passages of Scripture would be quite inappropriate. — πρῶτος] not 
 in the sense of πρότερος (which, regarded by itself, might indeed be the case 
 according to the context ; see on Johni. 15); but, since Moses is quoted, 
 
 1 Philippi paraphrases: “15. it conceiv- 
 .able that Israel precisely, the chosen people 
 of God, did not recognize the Messianic 
 σωτηρία destined in an especial manner 
 for it, or the preaching thereof, while yet 
 ‘the Gentiles attained to this knowledge?’ 
 “The adduced passages from the prophets 
 show now that there was by no means any 
 cause of wonder over this fact, for thus exact- 
 Ty it had been predicted in the divine word, 
 —namely, that the Gentiles would accept, 
 “put Israel would reject, the salvation.” 
 
 2 Philippi, indeed, in eds. 2 and 3, pro- 
 
 poses, in the event of the denial of the ques- 
 tion being retained,— which, however, he 
 does not concede,—the expedient, that then 
 the prophetic passages might serve to prove 
 that the fact of the prophecy, which ap- 
 peared in itself incredible, had nevertheless 
 occurred in correspondence therewith. 
 But the contents of this thought would be 
 invented, not gathered from the language ; 
 and self-contradictory besides, for the no 
 would be involved in the question, and in 
 πρῶτος «.7.A. the yes, which had yet oc- 
 curred in accordance with prophecy. 
 
CHAPARS, ΡΟ 91. 419 
 with whom the testimony of God in the O. T. begins : at the first (who in 
 Scripture comes forward in opposition to this) speaks Moses. Of the later 
 testimonies of Scripture, Paul then contents himself with adducing only the 
 bold divine utterances of Isaiah. Theodore of Mopsuestia well gives it : 
 εὐθὺς Moivofce. Wetstein, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Hofmann, connect πρῶτος 
 with οὐκ ἔγνω. But the supposed sense : ‘‘ Did not Israel first learn to know 
 it (the gospel)?” or, as Hofmann expresses it : ‘‘ Was it possibly to stand in 
 such a position, that Israel did not obtain the jirst experience of it ?” must have 
 been expressed without μή." --- ἐγὼ παραζ. «.t.A.] Deut. xxxii. 21, almost 
 exactly after the LXX. God there, in the song of Moses, threatens the 
 idolatrous Israelites, that He on His part (ἐγώ) will bless a Gentile people, and 
 thereby incite the former to jealousy and to wrath, as they had incited Him 
 by their worship of idols. Paul recognizes in this—according to the rule of 
 the constancy of the divine ways in the history of the development of the 
 theocracy—a type of the attaining of the Gentiles to participation in the 
 communion of God’s people, whereby the jealousy and wrath of the Jews 
 will be excited. —é7w’ οὐκ ἔθνει] DY ΣΕ in respect to a not-people ; for only 
 the people of God was the real one, the people corresponding to the divine 
 idea of a people ; every other is the negation of this idea. Comp. ix. 25 ; 
 1 Pet. ii. 10. On the connection of οὐ with nouns, cancelling the notion 
 objectively, see Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 129; Grimm on 2 Mace. iv. 18. 
 Often found in Thucydides (Kriiger on i. 197. 4). On ἐπί, over, on the 
 ground, that is, on account of, comp. Demosthenes, 1448. 4: παροξυνθέντων ἐπὶ 
 τῷ γεγενημένῳ, Polyb. iv. 7, ὅ. ---- ἀσυνέτῳ] τί γὰρ “Ελλήνων ἀσυνετώτερον ξύλοις 
 καὶ λίθοις προσκεχηνότων ; Theophylact. Comp. i. 21. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. Aé] marking the transition to another prophet, as at ix. 27. 
 -- ἀποτολμᾷ κ. λέγει] is emboldened and says. The latter is the immediate 
 consequence of the former ; hence here not a Hebraizing mode of expression 
 for the adverbial notion (he freely speaks out), but ἀποτολμ. is absolute (Hom. 
 Il. x. 232, xii. 51, et al.).* —aroroAua]| ἐβιάσατο γυμνὴν εἰπεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ 
 Yet the prophet of bold speech is 
 represented as present, as previously Moses in λέγει. The citation is Isa, xv. 
 1, freely from the LXX., and with undesigned transposition of the two 
 parallel clauses. According to its historical sense, the passage refers to the 
 Jews* who had become apostate from God through immorality and idolatry, 
 on whose behalf the prophet has just begged for grace, to which entreaty 
 
 
 
 κινδυνεῦσαι ἢ ἀποσιωπῆσαι, Theophylact. 
 
 1 By taking πρῶτος with ἔγνω, there would 
 result the quite preposterous sense of the 
 question: Surely it is not possibly the case 
 that Israel first remained unacquainted 
 with it? i.e. that the Israelites were the 
 first to whose knowledge the gospel had 
 not come? Hofmann groundlessly refers 
 to Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 214 [E. T. 248], 
 and explains as though ov« did not qualify 
 ἔγνω, but πρῶτος, as though consequently 
 Paul had said: μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐ πρῶτος ἔγνω; 
 This would be: Surely Israel has not expe- 
 rienced it only in the second place (the Gen- 
 
 tile world in the first)? With strange incor- 
 rectness, Hofmann says that, according to 
 our way of taking πρῶτος, εἶπεν should stand 
 instead of λέγει. Moses speaks and writes 
 (ver. 5) stidd at this day as πρῶτος in the Ο. T. 
 
 2 Comp. Winer, p. 437 f. [E. T. 468 (1. 
 Buttmann, Ὁ. 249 [E. T. 290]; and see 
 Maetzner, ad Antiph. Ὁ. 173; Hom. 72. i. 92: 
 θάρσησε καὶ nida μάντις. 
 
 3 Not to the Gentiles (Calvin, Vitringa, 
 Philippi). See, on the other hand, Delitzsch 
 on Isa, 
 
420 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Jehovah begins His answer by reminding them how He had given Himself 
 to be found, and revesled Himself with prevenient undeserved kindness to 
 the faithless people. But in the apostate Israel, which was in fact sunk 
 into an idolatrous condition (see esp. Isa. xiv. 6, xv. 3 ff.), and in the re- 
 lation to it which Jehovah here affirms of Himself, Paul sees a typical repre- 
 sentation of the Gentile world, which (as ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, Eph. ii. 12) did 
 not concern itself about God, but to which God has given Himself to be 
 found, and (epexegetic parallel) to be recognized in His self-revelation 
 (through the gospel). The Gentiles have accepted this prevenient divine 
 compassion, but Israel in its obstinate apostasy has resisted it ; hence Paul 
 continues in ver. 21 with πρὸς δὲ τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ λέγει. The latter clearly indi- 
 cates that Paul really found in ver. 20 the prophetic reference to the Gen- 
 tile world (of which Israel is the opposite) ; and not, as Hofmann with strict 
 adherence to the historical sense of the original supposes, the frwitlessness 
 of the divine long-suffering towards Israel, which justifies God’s dealing if He 
 now rests not until He has requited its disobedience. According to this inter- 
 pretation, πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραήλ would have been already said in ver. 20, against 
 which view ver. 21 testifies. — εὑρέθην] not : “1 have allowed myself to be 
 found” (Reiche and others), but : 7 have been found. On the sense, comp. 
 Acts xvii. 27; and on the connection of etp. and ἐμφ. éyev., Wisd. i. 1 f. 
 The aorists are, in the sense of the apostle, to be understood of that which 
 
 has taken place in the Christian present. — τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ éxepwor.| who inquired 
 not of me, namely, respecting revelation ; comp. Ezek. xx. 1 ; Dem. 1072. 
 12. — Ver. 21. πρός] not adversus (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Toletus, 
 
 Grotius, Cramer, Koppe), since in itself—without a more special indication 
 of the text which would yield the hostile sense—it denotes only the simple 
 placing in contrast. Hence, either : in reference to Israel (Estius, Wolf, Ch. 
 Schmidt, and others, including Tholuck, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi), 
 like Heb. i. 7, 8, Luke xii. 41, xx. 19 ; or, ‘‘ in the case of Israel He declares” 
 (K6lner, Riickert, Ewald, and others, following Luther and Vulg.). The 
 former view, which is adopted also by van Hengel, is to be preferred jor this 
 reason, that dé introduces a contrast, not with those to whom the previous 
 passage was directed, but with those to whom it refers in respect of its fig- 
 urative application. — λέγει] Isaiah, namely. That he speaks in the name 
 of God, is understood of itself. — ὅλην τὴν ἡμέρ.} the whole day, like viii. 36. 
 Expresses the wnremitting nature of the love. — dre. κ. ἀντιλέγοντα] present 
 participle, denoting the continuance of the conduct. ἀντιλέγ. is not to be 
 explained, with Grotius, Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and most, as to be 
 refractory, which it does not mean, but to contradict. The Jews—although 
 God stretched out His saving hands towards them from early morning till 
 evening (comp. Prov. i. 24)—are disobedient, and say : We will not ! Comp. 
 Matt. xxiii. 37 ; Tit. ii. 9 ; 3 Macc. ii. 28; Lucian. D. M. xxx. 3; and see 
 on John xix. 12. Also in Achilles Tatius, v. 27 (in opposition to Kypke and 
 Fritzsche), ἀντιλέγειν is conceived as contradiction ; as also ἀντιλογία, Heb, 
 xii. 3. Note how opposed the passage is to absolute predestination, and 
 particularly to the Calvinistic ‘‘ voluntas beneplaciti et signi.” 
 
 
 
NOTES. 421 
 
 Norrs py American Eprror. 
 CX. Ver. 4. τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστός. 
 
 That Meyer’s view of τέλος is correct is shown both by the preceding and 
 by the following context. The idea of the Apostle in ix. 30-32, and in the 
 third verse of this chapter, is that of two opposite and mutually exclusive 
 systems. The same is true of vv. 5 ff. In these verses he is not discussing 
 the matter which is under consideration in Gal. iii. 23 ff., but that which 
 is noticed in Gal. iii. 11, 12. According to the plan adopted, indeed, and 
 the line of argument pursued, he introduces the point ina different place 
 and connection in the two Epistles. But the point itself is the same. The 
 law-system and the faith-system are, in their very nature, contrary to each 
 other. That which lies at the foundation in the one case is doing: in the 
 other, it is believing. It will be observed, also, that the same passage from the 
 O. T. (Levit. xviii. 5)is cited here which appears in Gal. iii. 12. The thought 
 connected with τέλος must, accordingly, be this: When Christ, who brings in 
 the completeness of the faith-system, enters upon His work, the law-system is 
 ended and excluded. Hence, also, it follows that the Jews, in holding to the 
 law-system, fail of righteousness, which comes only by faith. 
 
 The connection, in this underlying idea, between the present passage and 
 Gal. iii. 11 ἔς, has also an important bearing on the meaning of νόμου in this 
 verse. In Gal. iii. the fact that ὁ νόμος, which must mean the Mosaic law, occurs 
 both in ver. 10 and ver. 12, together with the fact that the proof given of the 
 subjection of those who are ἐξ ἔργων νόμου to a curse is the declaration of the 
 O. T., that every man who does not continue in all the things which are written 
 in the book of the law (τοῦ νόμου) is‘accursed, makes it manifest that νόμου and 
 τοῦ νόμου are intended by the writer to refer to the same thing. If, however, 
 this is true in the corresponding verses in the letter to the Galatians, it must 
 be admitted to be true also in the verses now before us, for we find here the 
 same principal thought confirmed by the same O. T. passage, and not only so, 
 but we find the cited words, which in the original refer to the Mosaic law (i.e. 
 6 νόμος), used as giving Moses’ description of the δικαιοσύνη νόμου. 
 
 That παντί in this verse has the same sense with that mentioned in Note 
 VIII., p. 76, is evident from the words ᾿Ιουδαίου τε καὶ “EAAnvoc of ver 12 (comp. 
 πάντας, ver, 12, πᾶς, vv. 11, 13), and also from yy, 18-21. 
 
 Ox Vive 090: 
 
 The citation here is from Deut. xxx. 11-14. There can be no doubt that this 
 passage, as if occurs in the O. T., refers to the law of Moses, and declares to 
 the people that, inasmuch as that law had been clearly set before their minds, 
 the fulfilment of its duties was a thing close at hand for them in their daily 
 living. It is applied, however, by Paul to the faith-system, as descriptive of 
 its distinguishing peculiarity in contrast with the law-system. In connection 
 with this fact the following points may be noticed. (a) The writer allows him- 
 self to use an O. T. citation in a sense different from the primary sense of the 
 original. That there was a secondary meaning in the passage quoted, which 
 answers to the one brought out by the Apostle, is indicated only by the fact 
 that he employs the words as he does, (Ὁ) In his peculiar use and application 
 
422 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 of the words, the Apostle changes the original expressions so far as to adapt 
 them more fully to his purpose: e.g. ‘‘who shall descend into the abyss,’’ 
 instead of ‘‘ who shall go over the sea for us.’’ (0) He also adds explanatory 
 words which are connected with his application of the passage, and, in the in- 
 stance just mentioned, such explanatory words as seem to indicate plainly his 
 object in altering the original. (d) He does not, however, formally declare that 
 Moses describes the righteousness of faith in this language, but simply appro- 
 priates the words of Moses for the purpose of setting forth the description of it. 
 The passage serves, thus, to show the freedom which the writer exercises in 
 the matter of quotation, and its phenomena, with those which kindred passages 
 present, must be fairly considered in any examination or discussion of the 
 question as to the use made by N. T. writers of words from the ΘΟ. T. 
 
 In the attempt to determine the precise thought which the Apostle intends to 
 express by τίς ἀναβήσεται K.T.A., aS he makes the words descriptive of faith, we 
 must observe: (1) That the main design of the introduction of the passage is 
 to set forth the contrast with the law-system. The central idea, thus, is be- 
 lieving as opposed to doing. (2) That the questions τίς κ.τ.λ. in the O. T. verses 
 refer to the difficulty and remoteness of the thing in question, as if it must be 
 brought to us from heaven, or from beyond the sea, in order to our hearing or 
 doing it. (3) That, in the use of the citation by Paul, we must look for the 
 second idea (2) as well as the first (1), if we would reach the full significance 
 of it to his mind. He denies, in the earlier and negative part, that the faith- 
 system involves the necessity of any great or impossible work, and affirms, in 
 the positive part, the simple demand for believing. (4) The explanation of the 
 added words, to bring Christ down from heaven, or up from the dead, is most readi- 
 ly suggested by the fact that, as connected with the system of faith, His de- 
 scent to this world and resurrection from the dead accomplished the two great 
 things which were essential to be done. These two things have been already 
 accomplished, and the Christian has only to accept them by faith. The un- 
 derstanding of these questions, therefore, as questions of unbelief, as Meyer 
 and some others explain them, is unnecessary, and also contrary to the 
 indications of the passage. Meyer urges that vv. 9 ff. suggest nothing of diffi-~ 
 eulty and facility. This suggestion is made, however, by the ἐγγὺς k.7.4. of ver. 
 8 in contrast with μὴ εἴπῃς . . . τίς κιτ.}.. of ver. 6 (comp. the verses in Deut.), and 
 is carried over, without further repetition of it, into vv. 9 ff. He also presses, 
 as if decisive, the fact that vv. 5-8 are designed to be ‘‘a proof, founded on 
 Moses, of the statement τέλος νόμου Χριστός, and that the force of the proof 
 depends on the essential difference between the faith δικαιοσόνη and that of the 
 law, and not on the facility of the former. No doubt it does thus depend on 
 the difference. But in the investigation of the τίς questions we are consider- 
 ing not the central idea of the passage alone, but the cause for introducing certain 
 words. These words, which are in the negative part of what is said, contain 
 something more than the mere foundation thought of that part, i.e. not doing. 
 They refer to the not doing a particular thing, and the point to be determined 
 is why this particular thing is mentioned. Meyer himself is compelled to 
 give an answer to this inquiry, and to say that the words imply a denial that 
 Christ has come in the flesh. There is no hint of such a denial, however, in 
 any simple application of the O. T. verses, and no necessary suggestion of it 
 in anything which the Apostle says. 
 
NOTES. 423 
 
 CXII. Ver. 12. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων. 
 
 That κύριος here refers to Christ cannot be considered certain. That this 
 reference is probable, however, must be admitted, because we find the same 
 word in ver. 9 as the predicate in the confession Jesus is Lord ; because it 
 occurs here in a sentence introduced for the purpose of proving that every one, 
 whether Jew or Gentile, who believes on Him, will not be ashamed ; because 
 with the idea of calling upon this κύριος, which is presented in the last clause 
 of the verse, is connected the idea of believing, ver. 14 ; and because the hear- 
 ing, which is intimated to be the necessary antecedent condition to believing, 
 is said in ver. 17 to come through the word of Christ [Χριστοῦ is the true 
 reading in that verse]. 
 
 The remark of Meyer (who accepts the reference of κύριος to Christ), that 
 *«the calling upon Christ —who nowhere in the N. T. appears as identical with 
 the Jehovah of the O. T.—is not the worshipping absolutely, as it takes place 
 only in respect of the Father, as the one absolute God ; but rather worship ac- 
 cording to that relativity in the consciousness of the worshipper, which is con- 
 ditioned by the relation [i.e. of ‘dependence and subordination’ of Christ 
 to the Father,” is not suggested by anything in this chapter or verse. What- 
 ever foundation may be claimed for it must be discovered elsewhere. Alford, 
 on the other hand, affirms that ‘‘there is hardly a stronger proof, or one more 
 irrefragable by those who deny the Godhead of our Blessed Lord, than the 
 unhesitating application to Him of the name and attributes of Jehovah,’’ 
 
 CXIII. Ver. 14-21. 
 
 The verses from ix. 30 to x. 13 set forth directly the cause of the failure of the 
 Jews. Vy. 14-21 show that, as related to this cause, they were without excuse. 
 The cause is their failure to accept and adopt the way of righteousness which 
 God has provided—righteousness by faith. The only two excuses for this fail- 
 ure, which they could present, were, fist, that they had not heard of the faith 
 system, and secondly, that, having heard it, they bad found it to be a system so 
 inconsistent, in respect to its universality, with the teachings of the O. T. 
 Scriptures as to render it natural for them to reject it. Both of these points 
 are considered, and the Apostle gives, in citations from the O. T., a denial of 
 each of them. The Jews had heard, since the messengers had gone forth far 
 and wide. The prophets, and even Moses, had pointed to the ingathering of 
 the Gentile nations, and also to the disobedience and gainsaying of the Jews. 
 But, after they had heard, they had not yielded to God’s method, vv. 16-18; 
 and, notwithstanding they had known, they would not accept and believe, vv. 
 19-21. To these verses, as Meyer also says, a prefatory passage, vv. 14, 15, is 
 prefixed, which allows that there would be an excuse were there no preachers 
 sent forth by the Lord to proclaim tie truth. The form and phraseology of 
 vv. 14, 15 are determined by the preceding verses, out of which they naturally 
 spring in the progress of the sentences. But in relation to the main line of 
 the thought, they open a new paragraph. 
 
424. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Ver. 1. After τ. λαὸν αὐτοῦ, A D* 8** and some Fathers have ὃν προέγνω. 
 So Lachm. in brackets. An addition from ver. 2. — Ver. 2. After ᾿Ισραήλ Elz. 
 has λέγων, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 3. τὰ θυσιαστ.} Elz.: καὶ τὰ θυσ., 
 against so important witnesses, that «ai would appear a connective addition. 
 Comp. the LXX. — Ver. 6. The addition in Elz., εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις" 
 ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον, is wanting in AC DEF GP 8%, 47, Copt. Sah. 
 Arm. Vulg. It. Dam. Rufin., and all the Latin Fathers. An old interpolation 
 (found already in B L &**, Syr. Arr. Chrys.), with a view to the completion of 
 the proof ; rejected by Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm. ; 
 adopted, indeed, by Tisch. 7, but again omitted in ed. 8; after Beza, Bengel, 
 Matthiae, Rinck, defended most thoroughly by Fritzsche and Reiche (in opp. 
 to his Commentary) in the Comment. Crit. I. p. 68 ff. But considering the pre- 
 ponderance of the opposing testimony, the completely superfluous character of 
 the proposition in the argument, and the anomalous form in which the words 
 appear in the principal Codex which contains them (B: εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι 
 χάρις" ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστι» χάρις), and also the other variations in detail 
 (see Tisch. 8), the defences of them are not convincing. See also van Hengel. 
 The argument for retaining them, on the ground that an interpolator would 
 have framed them more closely in conformity with the first half of the verse, 
 is weakened by the fact that very ancient authorities have éoriv instead of yive- 
 ται also in the first half of the verse. — Ver, 7. τοῦτο] Elz.: τούτου, against de- 
 cisive evidence. An emendation in accordance with the usual construction. — 
 Ver. 13. γάρ] Lachm., Tisch. 8: δέ, according to A B P δὲ, min. Syr. Copt. 
 Damase. Theodoret. ms. ; C has οὖν ; Aeth. utr. no particle. With such divided 
 testimony, δέ is the best supported, and to be preferred ; it came to be glossed by 
 more definite particles. — μέν] is wantingin D E F G, min., which was occasioned 
 by the apparent absence of reference for the μέν. Lachm., Tisch. 8: μὲν οὖν, 
 according to A B C P &, Copt., which has therefore the external attestation de- 
 cidedly in its favour, but is to be explained from the fact that the unrelated 
 μέν was glossed by οὖν (a new sentence was commenced with ἐφ᾽ ὅσον) ; therefore 
 these authorities indirectly pass over to the side of the otherwise weakly ac- 
 credited Recepta. — Ver. 17. τῆς ῥίζης καί] This καί is wanting in Β Ο δὲ», Copt. 
 Omitted by Tisch. 8 ; but how easily it might be suppressed, owing to the ho- 
 moeoteleuta ! In D* F G, codd. It. ν΄, τῆς ῥίζης is also wanting from the like 
 cause. — Ver. 19. κλάδοι] So Rinck, Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 8, according to de- 
 cisive testimony. But Elz. and Tisch. 7 have οἱ κλάδοι, the article being me- 
 chanically introduced in imitation of τῶν κλάδων, vv. 17, 18. Were oi original, 
 and had it been desired through its omission to designate the τινὲς τῶν κλάδων 
 in ver. 17 (Matth., Fritzsche), it would have more readily occurred to the me- 
 chanical tendency of copyists to insert τινές instead of of. — Ver. 20. ὑψηλοφρόνει) 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8: ὑψηλὰ φρόνει, according to AB δ. Resolution of the 
 word—which is only found besides in 1 Tim. vi. 17—into its elements in con- 
 
CHAP ἘΠῚ 425 
 
 formity with xii. 16. — Ver. 21. μήπως] is wanting in A BCP δ, min., Copt. 
 Damase. Ruf. Aug. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch, 8. But the offence which 
 was taken partly at the apparent unrelatedness of μήπως (which is therefore 
 exchanged in Or. for πόσῳ μᾶλλον and πόσῳ πλέον), partly at the following 
 future, readily induced the omission. For φείσηται, which Elz. has instead of 
 φείσεται, is very feebly supported by evidence, and has manifestly come in in 
 accordance with the original μήπως ; wrongly defended anew by Rinck. See 
 | the exegetical notes ; comp. also Beng. Apparat. Crit. — Ver. 22. In the second 
 clause Lachm, and Tisch. have, instead of ἀποτομίαν, ἀποτομία, and instead of 
 χρηστότητα, χρηστότης Θεοῦ ; the former according to A BC δὲ, 67**, Or. Da- 
 mase. ; the latter according to A B C D* (8 has χρηστότητος Θεοῦ), 67**, Arm. 
 Or. Eus. Damasce. Rightly; the common reading is a hasty grammatical 
 emendation. Θεοῦ, too, bears, in its belonging to the reading ypyordr7c, the 
 stamp of genuineness. — Ver. 25. παρ᾽ éavt.] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: ἐν éuvr., 
 according to A B, Damasc. The latter is to be preferred (παρ᾽ éavr. was intro- 
 duced through a comparison of xii. 16), and it explains, too, the origin of the 
 bare ἑαυτοῖς in F G; for by the omission of the N the preposition would easily 
 come to be dropped. — Ver. 30. ὑμεῖς] Elz., Scholz: καὶ ὑμεῖς, against decisive 
 evidence. — Ver. 31. Before ἐλεηθ. B D* 8, Copt. Dam. have viv ; so Lachm. 
 in brackets, and Tisch, 8. Inappropriate addition, arising from misconception, 
 instead of which some min. have ὕστερον. --- Ver. 32. τοὺς πάντας. Instead of 
 the first τ. 7., D. Ir. et al. have τὰ πάντα, and FG πάντα. Also. Vulg. It. ex- 
 press the neuter, which, however, is taken from Gal. iii. 22. 
 
 Contents :—After the humiliation hitherto expressed, there now fol- 
 lows the consolation in respect to the exclusion of a large part of Israel. (1) 
 God has not cast off His people, but has allowed a part of them, according 
 to a gracious election, to attain to salvation, and has hardened the remain- 
 der, vv. 1-10. (2) Yet God wills not their final destruction ; nay, their un- 
 belief subserves the salvation of the Gentiles, and their conversion will have 
 yet more happy consequences. This is matter for hope, and the Gentile 
 Christians may not therefore give way to self-exaltation, vv. 11-24. (9) 
 For the hardening of a portion of the people will last no longer than until 
 the whole of the Gentiles have become Christians ; and then Israel will ob- 
 tain salvation, vv. 25-32. How unfathomable are the riches, wisdom, and 
 knowledge of God! To Him be glory ! vv. 33-36. 
 
 Ver. 1. Λέγω οὖν] [See Note CXTYV. p. 458] corresponds to the twofold ἀλλὰ 
 λέγω, X. 18, 19, but so, that now this third interrogative λέγω is introduced 
 in an inferential form. In consequence, namely, of what had just been clear- 
 ly laid down in x. 18 ff., as to the guilt of resistant Israel in its exclusion 
 from salvation in Christ—over-against the Gentiles’ acceptance of it—the 
 difficult question might arise : Surely God has not cast off His people? Surely 
 it is not so tragic a fate, that we must infer it from that conduct of the 
 people ?* Paul states this question, earnestly negatives it, and then sets 
 
 1 Namely, as a divine measure of retri- ing off from Himself is not viewed as the 
 bution taken in consequence of their spirit cause (against this is x. 21), but as the penal 
 of resistance to the message of salvation consequence, of the disdaining God’s loving 
 preached to them. The divine act of cast- will. 
 
420 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 forth the real state of the matter. The opinion of Hofmann, that the apos- 
 tle starts this question because the scriptural passages x. 18 ΤῈ, show that it is to 
 be negatived, is the consequence of his incorrect interpretation of those script- 
 ural sayings, and is confuted by the fact that the negation is first given and 
 supported in what follows, not drawn from what precedes, but made good by 
 a quite different scriptural proof, ver. 2. — μὴ ἀπώσατο K.t.4.| Comp. Ps. xciv. 
 14, xcv. 8 ; 1 Sam. xii. 32 ; on the form, see Winer, p. 86 [E. T. 90]. Reiche 
 thinks, but erroneously, that the question is not expressed sharply enough, 
 and that ἅπαντα is to be supplied. ᾿Απώσατο has in truth the emphasis, and 
 is placed first on that account ; so that Paul’s simple idea is, that the casting 
 off of God’s peopie, exclusion from the divine decree of the bestowal of sal- 
 vation, recall of this destination to salvation, may not be inferred from what 
 has gone before. Rightly, too, Bengel remarks : ‘‘ Ipsa populi ejus appella- 
 tio rationem negandi continet.” This ratio negandi is then, in ver. 2, addi- 
 tionally strengthened by ὃν zpoéyvw. — The μὴ γένοιτο expresses horror at the 
 ἀπώσατο, not at the λέγω (van Hengel), as though Paul had written simply 
 ἀπώσατο Without μή. --- καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ «.t.A.] For I also, etc., expresses the motive 
 for μὴ γένοιτο! ~For Paul, as a true Israelite of patriotic feeling, cannot, in 
 virtue of his theocratic self-esteem, admit that ἀπώσατο, but can only repel 
 the suggestion with abhorrence. Comp. de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 A peculiar proof of the οὐκ ἀπώσατο was yet to follow. Usually it is thought 
 that Paul proves the negation by his own example, since he in truth was not 
 cast off. So also Philippi. But apart from the consideration, that the ex- 
 ample of a single elected one, however highly favoured,’ would be far from 
 convincing, we see no reason why Paul should have added ἐκ σπέρμ. ’ Afp., 
 φυλ. Βενίαμ. ; Moreover, it appears from ver. 2, where he defines the negation, 
 emphatically reiterates it, and then confirms it from Scripture, that he did 
 not intend till ver. 2 to adduce the argument against the ἀπώσατω, which he 
 had only provisionally rejected in ver. 1. Without the least indication from 
 the text, Hofmann introduces into κ. ἐγώ the reference : Even I, the apostle 
 entrusted with the calling of the Gentile world (which is supposed to imply a 
 sealing of the sacred historical call of Israel) ; even I, as once upon a time ὦ 
 persecutor, deserving of rejection. —éx σπέρμ. ᾿Αβρ., ova. Beviay.| added, in 
 order to exhibit the just and genuine privileges of his birth. Comp. Phil. 
 iii. 5 ; Acts xiii. 21; Test. XII. Patr. p. 746 ἢ. The tribe of Benjamin was 
 in truth, along with that of Judah, the theocratic core of the nation after 
 che exile. 7 Wis. vids) 9: 
 
 Ver. 2. Ὃν προέγνω] An element which renders the impossibility of ἀπώσατο 
 at once palpable ; comp. ver. 29. Others take it as a limiting definition, 
 τὸν A. αὐτοῦ ὃν tp. being understood of the spiritual people of God destined to 
 the Christian salvation (Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and 
 others, including Heumann, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Gléckler). But 
 against this view it is decisive that τ. λαὸν avr. in ver. 1, without any limi- 
 tation, denotes the Jewish nation, and consequently Paul himself would now 
 
 1 Theodore of Mopsuestia asks: πῶς yap πίστει σεμνυνόμενον καὶ περὶ ταύτης διδάσκειν 
 olov... τε ἣν ἀπώσασθαι τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑπισχνουμενον ἑτέρους ; 
 
CHAP OAR 9: 427 
 
 completely disarrange the point in question; the whole chapter has for its 
 subject, not the spiritual Israel, but the fate of the nation in respect to the 
 salvation of Messiah. Hence, too, we are not to supply, with Philippi, p. 
 554, after ὃν προέγνω the limitation: as seminary of the spiritual σπέρμα. --- 
 The sense of προέγνω has been understood as variously as in viii. 29, but is to 
 be taken just as there : God knew His people as such beforehand, before it 
 actually existed ; that is to say, it was to Him, to whom the whole future 
 development of sacred history was present in His pretemporal counsel and 
 plan, known and certain : Jsrael is my peculiar people! And consequently 
 God cannot have afterwards rejected Israel ; for this would in truth pre- 
 suppose that which is inconceivable with God (comp. Acts xv. 18), and 
 irreconcilable with the ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ (Heb. vi. 17), namely, 
 that he had been deceived in His προέγνω ; comp. ver. 30 ff. ΤῸ suppose 
 the qualitas mala of the people as that which God foreknew (van Hengel) is 
 inadmissible, for the reason that πρόγνωσις must be the premiss of the 
 προορίζειν of the people of God (comp. viii. 29) ; hence, too, it is not to be 
 objected, with Hofmann,’ against our view, that God would surely have 
 been able to foresee the fact that, and the time when, His people would 
 cease to be His people. — ἢ οὐκ oidare x.7.2., down to ver. 4, adduces a proof 
 for οὐκ ἀπώσατο from an historical example of Scripture, according to which 
 a case analogous to the present of the resistance of the people to God had 
 once occurred, but God has made the declaration that He had (not indeed 
 cast off His people, but) reserved to Himself, in the midst of the depravity of 
 the mass, a number of faithful ones. So (ver. 5) too now there has taken 
 place, not a rejection of the people, but rather a gracious election out of the 
 people. [See Note CXYV. p. 458]. — ἐν ’Hiia] belongs to ri λέγει, but is not : 
 de Elia (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Castalio, Calovius, and 
 others), which would be linguistically erroneous, but : in the passage treat- 
 ing of Elias. Comp. Thue. i. 9. 8, where ἐν τοῦ σκήπτρου ἅμα τῇ παραδόσει 
 εἴρηκεν means : at the passage, where he (Homer) treats of the yielding of the 
 sceptre, he has said, etc. Very prevalent is this mode of quotation in Philo, 
 and also in the Rabbinical writings (Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 493.) Comp. 
 also Mark xii. 26 ; Luke xx. 37, but not Heb. iv. 7. —é¢ ἐντυγχ. τ. ©. κατὰ 
 τ. Ἰσραήλ] dependent on οὐκ οἴδατε, as a more precisely defining parallel of 
 ἐν "HA. τί λέγει ἡ yp. Comp. Luke vi. 4, xxii. 61; Acts xi. 16, xx. 20, δὲ 
 al. ; Goller and Kriiger on Thue. i. 1. 1. On ἐντυγχάνειν (viii. 27, 34 ; 
 Heb. vii. 25), with dative of the person concerned (frequently in Plutarch, 
 Polyb., Lucian, etc.), comp. Acts xxv. 24; Wisd. viii. 21, xvi. 28. On 
 κατά (accusing), comp. 1 Macc. viii. 32 ; 2 Mace. iv. 36. 
 
 Ver. 3. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14, freely from the LXX.—dzéxr.] The Israel- 
 ites, namely, under Ahab and Jezebel. 1 Kings xviii. 4, xili. 22. — κατέσ- 
 καψ.] have thoroughly destroyed, have razed. Comp. Soph. Phil. 986 : Τροίαν 
 
 . κατασκάψαι. Eur. Hee. 22 (of the domestic altar) ; Dem. 361. 20 ; Plut. 
 
 1 Who also here (comp. on viii. 29) takes This would amount to the notion of the 
 προέγνω as an act of the will, by which God προετοιμάζειν in the divine decree (comp. 
 has beforehand constituted Israel what it, Eph. ii. 10). 
 in accordance therewith, actually became. 
 
428 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Popl. 10; 2 Mace. xiv. 38 (τὸ θυσιαστήριον). ---- τὰ θυσιαστ. On the plural, 
 as the temple in Jerusalem was the place exclusively destined for worship, 
 the view of Estius suffices : ‘‘ Verisimile est, Eliam loqui de altaribus, quae 
 passim in excelsis studio quodam pietatis Deo vero erecta fuerant ; maxime 
 postquam decem tribus regum suorum tyrannide prohibitae fuerunt, ne 
 Jerusolymam ascenderent sacrificii causa. Quamvis enim id lege vetitum 
 esset [see Lev. xvil. 8, 9; Deut. ΧΙ]. 13, 14] ac recte fecerint Ezechias et 
 Josias, reges Judae, etiam ejusmodi aras evertendo, tamen impium erat eas 
 subvertere odio cultus Dei Israel.” Comp. Grotius, also Keil, on the books 
 of Kings, p. 262, Archdol. I. § 89. — ὑπελείφθ. μόνος] in the sense of Elias: 
 alone of the prophets ; but according to the application designed by the 
 apostle, as ver. 4 shows : as the only one of Thy faithful. But in this case 
 we are not to assume, as Hofmann and others wish to do, that Paul, in order 
 to suggest this sense, has transposed the original order of the two clauses of 
 the verse—which is rather to be regarded as accidental ; and this, consider- 
 ing the freedom of citation otherwise used, we need the less hesitate about, 
 since Paul could not, even in the original order, see the reference of the 
 verse which was in his thoughts to be excluded. — On ζητεῖν τ. uy. τινος, 
 to seck after one’s life, see on Matt. ii. 20. 
 
 Ver. 4. ᾿Αλλά] But, although Elijah complained that he had been left 
 sole survivor. —6 χρηματισμός] the divine oracular utterance (replying to this 
 accusation). Found here only in N. T. (in the Apocrypha, 2 Mace. ii. 4, 
 xi. 17) ; but see Diod. Sic. i. 1, xiv. 7, and Suicer, Zhes. II. p. 1532 ; and 
 respecting χρηματίζω, on Matt. ii. 12. --- κατέλιπον κ.τ.}.} 1 Kings xix. 18, 
 with free deviation, bearing on his object, both from the LXX. and from 
 the original. It means: I have left remaining, so, namely, that they are 
 not slaughtered with the rest. Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 3. 5: ὀκτῶ μόνους 
 κατέλιπον (superstites, vivos reliquerunt) ; 1 Macc. xiii. 4. Hofmann incorrect- 
 ly takes κατέλ. as the third person plural, having the same subject as ἀπέκ- 
 tevvav. A groundless departure from the Hebrew text and from the LXX., 
 according to which God is the subject. And it is God who has guided and 
 preserved those who remained over. — ἐμαυτῷ] 1.6. to myself as my property, 
 and for my service, in contrast to the idolatrous abomination. — οἵτινες «.T.A. | 
 ita comparatos ut, οἷο. --- γόνυ] Not a knee has been bowed by them ; 
 hence the singular, comp. Phil. ii. 10. -- τῇ Βάαλ] Dative of worship. Bern- 
 hardy, p. 86. Comp. xiv. 11. The Phoenician divinity bya, the adoration 
 of which was very widely diffused (Keil, § 91) amongst the Jews, especial- 
 ly under the later kings, though not of long subsistence (see Ewald, Alterth. 
 p- 304), is most probably to be regarded as the sun-god (Movers, Phénicier, 
 I. p. 169 ff. ; J. G. Miiller in Herzog’s Hncyklop. I. p. 639 f.), not as the 
 planet Jupiter (Gesenius in the Hall. Encyklop. VII. p. 384 ff.). It is re- 
 markable—seeing that bya (according to different local and ritual forms 
 also in the plural) is a masculine noun—that in the LXX. and in the Apoc- 
 rypha it has sometimes, and most frequently, the masculine article (Num. 
 xxii. 41; Judg. ii. 13; 1 Kings xvi. 31, δέ al.), sometimes the feminine 
 (Zeph. i. 4 ; Hos. ii. 8; 1 Sam. vii. 4; always in Jer. ; Tob. i. 5, οὐ al.). 
 That the LXX. should have thought Ὁ. to be of the common gender, and 
 
 
 
ΘΕΓΑΙΡ: KI. 15. 429 
 
 to denote also Astarte (Reiche), is not probable for this reason, that in the 
 LXX. not merely are the masculine Baal and Astarte often mentioned to- 
 gether (Judg. ii. 13, x. 6, et al.), but also the feminine Baal and Astarte (1 
 Sam. vii. 4). The view that the feminine article was assigned to Βάαλ con- 
 temptuously (Gesenius, in Rosenmiiller’s Repert. I. p. 139), as also Tholuck 
 and Ewald, Alterth. p. 302, assume, finds no sufficient support—seeing that 
 ΡΞ was a very well known divinity—in the feminine designation of idols 
 unknown to them in the LXX. at 2 Kings xvii. 30, 31 ; cannot be justified 
 by comparison of the Rabbinical designation of idols as ni ; and cannot 
 be made good in the particular passages where the LXX. has the masculine 
 or the feminine. To refer the phenomenon solely to an opinion of the LXX., 
 who held 933 to be the name of a god and also that of a goddess, and there- 
 fore, according to the supposed connection, used now the masculine and 
 now the feminine article,—the latter particularly, where the word occurs 
 along with ΠῚ» (Fritzsche), as in Judg. ii. 13, x. 6, 1 Sam. vii. 4,—is 
 improbable in itself (because of the wnity of the Hebrew name), and cannot 
 be maintained even in passages like Judg. ii. 7, 2 Kings xxi. 3 (comp. with 
 1 Sam. xii. 10 ; Hos. 11. 10, 15), without arbitrariness. An historical reason 
 must prevail, and it appears the most feasible hypothesis that Baal was con- 
 ceived as an androgynous divinity (Beyer, ad Selden. de Diis Syr. p. 273 f., 
 Wetstein, Koppe, Olshausen, Philippi), although more precise historical 
 evidence is wanting. The feminine article has been also explained by sup- 
 plying a substantive (εἰκόνι by Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and 
 others ; στήλῃ by Glass, Estius ; θρησκείᾳ by Cramer ; even δαμάλει by Dru- 
 sius, after Tob. i. 5, but see Fritzsche on Tob.) ; but this is both erroneous 
 and arbitrary, because at least the expression must have run τῇ τοῦ Βάαλ, 
 since 22 has always the article. This linguistic incongruity van Hengel 
 avoids only by the precarious conjecture that ἡ Baad signifies the column of 
 Baal, and ὁ Βάαλ the god Baal.—We have to remark, moreover, that the 
 LXX. have in our passage the masculine article ; but Paul, acquainted with 
 the use also of the feminine article, has, in quoting from memory, changed 
 the article. According to Fritzsche and Ewald, he had found τῇ in his copy 
 of the LXX. ; but τῇ is now found only in more recent codd. of the LXX., 
 into which it has found its way merely from our passage. 
 
 Ver. 5. In this way, corresponding to this Old Testament historical 
 precedent, therefore (in order to make the application of vv. 8, 4), there 
 has been (there has come into existence, and actually exists—perfect) also in 
 the present time, in consequence of an election made out of grace, a remnant, 
 namely, a small part taken out of the hardened mass of the people, 7.e. the 
 comparatively insignificant number of believing Jews, whom God’s grace has 
 chosen out of the totality of the people. It is related to the latter as a re- 
 mainder (Herod. i. 119 ; 2 Kings xix. 4) to a whole, from which the largest 
 part is removed (vv. 3, 4, ix. 27, 29), notwithstanding Acts xxi. 90, The 
 point of comparison is the notion of the λεῖμμα in contrast to the remaining 
 mass; the latter in the typical history has perished, but in the antitypical 
 event has forfeited saving deliverance. — κατ᾽ ἐκλ. yap.| opposed to the pre- 
 sumption in reference to works of the Jewish character ; hence, too, the 
 
480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 emphatic declaration in ver. 6. It is to be connected not. with λεῖμμα as its 
 more precise definition (Hofmann), but with γέγονεν as its mode. This is 
 evinced by the following εἰ δὲ χάριτι, sc. γέγονεν, Where χάριτι is equivalent 
 to the κατ᾽ ἐκλογ. χάριτος. 
 
 Ver. 6. This thought is not merely by the way and incidental (Koppe, 
 Riickert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Maier, and others), but it belongs essentially 
 to the development of the apostle’s thought to set forth the mode accord- 
 ing to which λεῖμμα γέγονε, not only positively (κατ᾽ ἐκλ. yap.), but also nega- 
 tively (ovx ἐξ épy.); because he then, in ver. 7, goes on to argue: ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ 
 Ἰσραήλ κ.τ.λ., Which ἐπιζητεῖν, in fact, took place exactly ἐξ ἔργων, ix. 32. — 
 εἰ δὲ χάριτι] but if through grace, sc. λεῖμμα γέγονε. ---- οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων] As previ- 
 ously the individuals who compose the λεῖμμα are conceived as the objects 
 of the divine grace, through which they belong to the λεῖμμα ; so are they 
 also (not the people generally, as Hofmann takes it) conceived in this con- 
 trasted negative statement as the subjects, who do not owe it to legal works 
 that in them is present the λεῖμμα composing the true community of God. 
 On the logical οὐκέτι, see on vii. 17. Of ἐξ ἔργων there can be nothing more 
 said. — ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις x.t.A.] because (otherwise) grace ceases to be grace (namely, 
 if ἐξ ἔργων λεῖμμα yéyove)—since in truth ‘‘gratia nisi gratis sit, gratia non 
 est,” Augustine. Ἢ χάρις is the definite grace, which has made the election, 
 and γίνεται (not equivalent to éor/) means : it ceases, in its concrete manifes- 
 tation, to become, i.e. to show itself as, that (comp. on Luke x. 18, et al.) 
 which according to its nature it is. Positively expressed: it becomes what 
 according to its essence it is not ; it gives up its specific character. 
 
 Ver. 7. Τί οὖν] infers the reswlt from vv. 5 and 6. Since a λεῖμμα has 
 been constituted according to the election of grace, and therefore not possi- 
 bly from the merit of works : accordingly Israel (as regards the mass) has 
 not obtained that which it strives after (namely, δικαιοσύνη, as is known from 
 ix. 80 ff.)—for it strives, in fact, ἐξ toywv—the election, on the other hand, 
 namely, that chosen λεῖμμα, has obtained it (for they were the objects of the 
 divine χάρις) ; but the rest were hardened. In this manner the true state of 
 the case is now set forth, in contrast to ἀπώσατο, without its being necessary 
 on this account to refer τέ οὖν to the whole preceding vv. 2-6 (de Wette, 
 Fritzsche, Philippi, and others) ; since the reference to vv. 5, 6 is quite 
 sufficient, and quite in keeping with the logical progression. Reiche (comp. 
 Lachm., who places a note of interrogation after ri οὖν and after ἐπέτυχεν) 
 makes the question extend to ἐπέτυχεν, to which question of wonder Paul 
 then answers by ἡ δὲ ἐκλ. κιτ.2. But the futility of Israel’s endeavour has 
 already been long (ix. 31, 32) known to the reader, and is therefore not ap- 
 propriate as the subject of such a question. Hofmann also takes ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ 
 .-. . ἐπέτυχεν asa question, but in the sense whether that which Israel has 
 not obtained is the same thing as that to which its quest and striving tends 
 (namely, its own righteousness) ? To the self-evident negation of this ques- 
 tion dé then relates in the sense of nevertheless, and after the second ἐπέτυχεν 
 there is to be supplied, not ὃ ἐπιζητ. ᾿Τσραῇλ, but merely ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ (namely, 
 to be, out of grace, the people of salvation). This complete distortion of 
 the sense falls to the ground from the very fact, that for the second ἐπέτυχεν, 
 
CHAR. ΧῚ 8. 451 
 
 since ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ 18 not appended, no other object can be thought of without 
 the greatest arbitrariness than that of the first ἐπέτυχεν, namely ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ 
 Ἰσραήλ, ; and also, as respects the contents of the question, from the consid- 
 eration, that if we should not be able to say that Israel has not obtained 
 that for which it strove, this would stand in contradiction to the universal 
 Pauline dogma of the impossibility of righteousness by the law. — ἐπιζητεῖ 
 does not denote the zealous pursuit (Fritzsche, Philippi), but its direction, 
 correlative to ἐπέτυχεν. See on Matt. vi. 33 ; Phil. iv. 17. By the present, 
 the continuance of the endeavour is admitted.—The τοῦτο (on the accusative 
 instead of the customary genitive, see Matthiae, ὃ 328 ; Ellendt, Lez. Soph. 
 II. p. 861) has tragic emphasis : even this it has not reached, — ἡ δὲ ἐκλογῇ] 
 that is, here ‘‘reliquiae illius populi, quas per gratiam suam Deus elegit,” 
 Estius. Comp. the use of περιτομή, etce., Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 469.—The 
 πώρωσις, hardening (not blinding, as Hofmann thinks ; see on 2 Cor, iii. 14), 
 is the making unsusceptible in understanding and will as respects the ap- 
 propriation of salvation in Christ. Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 78 ; Winzer,; 
 Progr. 1828, p. 8. The subject who hardens is God. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 14, 
 and on ix. 8. 
 
 Ver. 8. This ἐπωρώθησαν ensued in conformity with that which stands 
 written, etc. That which is testified of the hardening of the people in the 
 time of Isaiah, and as early as that of Moses, has its Messianic fulfilment 
 through the hardening of the Jews against the gospel, so that this hardening 
 has taken place καθὼς γέγραπται κ.τ.3. This prophetic relation is groundlessly 
 denied by Tholuck and Hofmann. The agreement denoted by καθ. yéyp. is 
 just that of prophecy and fulfilment according to the divine teleology. 
 Comp. Matt. xv. 7.—In the citation itself, Isa. xxix. 10 (as far as κατανύξ.) 
 and Deut. xxix. 3 (not Isa. vi. 9) are combined into one saying, and quoted 
 very freely from the LXX. Deuteronomy /.c. has after ἀκούειν : ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας 
 ταύτης, hence ἕως τῆς σήμ. ἡμ. belongs to the quotation ; and the words καθὼς 
 - + + ἀκούειν must πού be put in a parenthesis, as Beza, Wolf, Griesbach, and 
 others have done. — ἔδωκεν] He gave! not mere permission (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and many). — πνεῦμα κατανύξεως] Heb. WIA 1, i.e. a spirit 
 producing stupefaction, which is obviously a daemonic spirit. Comp. 2 Cor, 
 iv. 4; Eph. ii. 3. Elsewhere the LXX. translate T0777 by ἔκστασις (Gen. 
 ii. 21, xv. 12), or θάμβος (1 Sam. xxvi. 12), or ἀνδρόγυνον (Prov. xix. 15). 
 They gave the approximate sense of the word differently according to the 
 connection. But that they understood κατάνυξις actually as stupefaction, in- 
 toxication, is clear from Ps. lx. 5, where they have rendered noyaA fen 
 intovicating wine, by οἶνον κατανύξεως. See in general, Fritzsche, Eze. p. 
 508 ff. This sense of κατάνυξις is explained by the use of κατανύσσεσθαι, com- 
 pungi, in the LXX. and the Apocrypha to express the deep, inward para- 
 lyzing shock caused by grief, fear, astonishment, etc., whereby one is stupe- 
 fied and as if struck by a blow (Schleusner, 7168. III. p- 256 ; comp. on 
 Acts ii. 87). In classical Greek neither the substantive nor the verh is found. 
 We may add that every derivation is erroneous, which does not go back to 
 
 1 LXX. Isa. xxix. 10: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως. 
 
432 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 νύσσειν (comp. νύξις, Plut. Mor. p. 930 F) ; nor is it admissible (since Paul 
 certainly knew that κατάν. expressed ITN) to seek explanations which 
 depart from the notion of N21. Soeg. Calvin: ‘‘ Spiritum vocat .. . 
 compunctionis, ubi scilicet quaedam fellis amaritudo se prodit, imo etiam 
 Juror in respuenda veritate.”” Similarly Luther (‘‘an embittered spirit’) and 
 Melanchthon. Chrysostom, indeed (and Theophylact), hits the thing itself 
 rightly : κατάνυξιν ἐνταῦθα τὴν περὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἕξιν τῆς ψυχῆς φησὶ THY ἀνιάτως 
 ἔχουσαν καὶ ἀμεταθέτως, but his analysis of the word : κατανυγῆναι γὰρ οὐδὲν 
 ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ τὸ ἐμπαγῆναι ποῦ καὶ προσηλῶσθαι, is arbitrarily far- 
 fetched. — τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν] A fatally pregnant oxymoron. The genit. is that 
 of the aim : eyes, in order that they may not see, etc. Linguistically correct 
 is also the rendering of Grotius : eyes of not-seeing, i.e. ‘‘oculos ad viden- 
 dum ineptos,” Fritzsche, comp. Philippi and van Hengel. But the former 
 view corresponds better at once to the original text (LXX. οὐκ ἔδωκε. . . 
 ὀφθαλμοὺς βλέπειν Kk. ὦτα ἀκούειν), and to the telic τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν, ver. 10. 
 Comp. Isa. vi. 9, 10; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 27. — ἕως τ. σήμ. ἡμέρ.] 
 belongs to the whole affirmation ἔδωκεν κ.τ.Δ. Thus interruptedly God dealt 
 with them. The glance at a future, in which it was to be otherwise (Hof- 
 mann), is here (comp. ver. 10) still quite remote. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. A further Scripture proof of érwpéyjcav,’ and that from Ps. 
 lxix. 23, 24, quoted with free deviation from the LXX. The composer of 
 this psalm is not David (in opposition to Hengstenberg, Hiivernick), but 
 some one of much later date ; a circumstance which we must judge of anal- 
 ogously to the expression of Christ, Matt. xxii. 43. The suffering theo- 
 crat of the psalm is, as such, a type of the Messiah, and His enemies a type 
 of the unbelieving Jews ; hence Paul could find the fulfilment of the pas- 
 sage in the πώρωσις of the latter. Consequently, in pursuance of this typi- 
 cal reference, the sense in which he takes the words is as follows: ‘‘ Let 
 their table become to them for (let it be turned for them into, comp. John xvi. 
 20) a snare, and for a chase, and for a trap, and (so) for a retaliation ;” 4.e., 
 while they feast and drink securely and carelessly at their well-furnished table,? 
 let the fate of violence overtake them unawares, just as wild beasts are surprised 
 in a snare, and by the capture of the chase, and by a trap ; and so must 26- 
 taliation alight upon them for that which they have done (in rejecting, 
 namely, faith on Christ). But what violent calamity is meant, the sequel 
 expresses, namely : ‘‘ Darkened must their eyes become, that they may not see,” 
 1.6. they must become spiritually blinded, incapable of discerning the truth 
 of salvation ; and finally the same thing under another figure: ‘‘ And 
 bend their back always,” denoting the keeping them in bondage, and that, 
 in the sense of the apostle, the spiritual bondage of the unfree condition 
 of the inner life produced by the répworc.2 The hardening, therefore, 
 
 1 With the simple καί, and, to take which 
 climactically (Hofmann) is justified neither 
 by the name of David nor the contents of 
 the passage. It would place a quite un- 
 called-for emphasis on Δαυΐδ (even David). 
 
 2 To conceive of the ¢ad/e as an outspread 
 coverlet (Gesenius, Zhes. III. p. 1417, Hof- 
 
 mann) in which they entangle themselves, 
 is to come very unnecessarily and arbitrari- 
 ly to the aid of the boldness of the poetical 
 expression. 
 
 3 Those who have found in ver. 9 the 
 destruction of Jerusalem predicted (Mi- 
 chaelis, after Grotius, Wetstein, and many), 
 
CHAPS ἈΠ ΠΕ: 433 
 which Paul recognizes as predicted in the passage, does not lie in ἡ τρά- 
 πεζὰ αὐτῶν (Fritzsche),—which is not to be explained ‘‘of the law and its 
 works, which was Israel’s food” (Philippi, following older expositors, also 
 Tholuck),—but in γενηθήτω εἰς παγίδα x.7.A., and is more precisely indicated 
 in ver. 10. The express repetition in ver. 10 of the becoming blinded, already 
 designated in ver. 8, forbids our explaining the prophetic images in vv. 9, 
 10 generally as representations of severe divine judgments like Pharaoh’s over- 
 throw, in which case the specific point of the citation would be neglected 
 (in opposition to Hofmann). — καὶ εἰς θήραν] stands neither in the Hebrew nor 
 in the LXX. ; but θήρα means chase, not net (Tholuck, Ewald), to establish 
 which signification the solitary passage Ps. xxxv. 8, where the LXX. render 
 NW inexactly by θήρα, cannot suffice. It often means booty (van Hengel) 
 in the LXX. and in classical Greek ; but this is not appropriate here, where 
 the ‘‘ becoming for a booty” is said not of such as men, but of the τράπεζα. 
 This shall be turned for them into a chase, so that they, in their secure feast- 
 ing, become like to the unfortunate object of the chase, which is captured 
 by the hunter.*— σκάνδαλον) corresponding primarily to the classical σκαν- 
 δάληθρον, the stick set in a trap (Schol. Ar, Ach. 687), is frequently in the 
 LXX. (see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 38), and so also here, the translation of 
 wp, snare, by which we must therefore abide.—ayrazédoua is not found in 
 classical Greek, but often in the LXX. and Apocrypha, Luke xiv. 12. — καὶ 
 Tov νῶτον k.7.2.] is to be taken, according to the context, as the expression 
 of the idea of hardening (represented as a bending together under the yoke 
 of spiritual servitude), not, with Fritzsche, of rendering miserable through 
 the withdrawal of the Messianic salvation. 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 290. 
 
 Ver. 11.* At this point begins the teleological discussion respecting the 
 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν, ver. 7. See the contents above. — λέγω οὖν] quite as 
 in ver. 1 : [ask therefore, attaching it by way of inference to the ἐπωρώθησαν 
 just supported by Scripture. [See Note CXVI. p. 459.] — μὴ éxracay, iva πέσ.] 
 But their stumbling had not the aim (ordained by God) that they should fall? 
 ἦ.6., by the fact of their stumbling at Christ (ix. 32, 33), and refusing faith 
 to Him, has the divine purpose not aimed at their everlasting ἀπώλεια ? 
 
 On the masculine ὁ νῶτος, see 
 
 This emphasis on πέσωσι (come to be prostrate) involves the climactic relation 
 to ἔπταισαν (to stumble), 
 makes the question express nothing further than : 
 Israel suffered had been its own aim ? 
 
 
 
 a relation which Hofmann loses sight of when he 
 whether the fall which 
 Photius aptly remarks : τὸ πταῖσμα 
 Others 
 
 a Pee Ge A j ; ᾿ πρό της owe , 
 αὐτῶν οὐχὶ εἰς κατάπτωσιν τέλειαν γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ μόνον οἷον ὑπεσκελίσθησαν. 
 
 so as to refer τράπεζα to the Passover meal, 
 for the celebration of which the Jews were 
 in Jerusalem at the very time the city was 
 invested (Josephus Bell. Jud. vi. 9. 3, 4), or 
 even (Grotius) to the altar in the temple; 
 and those who have regarded ver, 10 (καὶ 
 Tov νῶτον K.T.A.) aS a prophecy of the servi- 
 tude of the Jews to Rome (so some of the 
 Fathers) ; could not have given an explana- 
 tion more opposed in sense to the connec- 
 
 tion. 
 
 1 How very often θήρα, θηρᾶν and θηρᾶσθαι 
 are used also in classical Greek in the fig- 
 urative sense, see in Dorvill, ad Charit. p. 
 539; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. p. 143. 
 
 2 On vv. 11-33, see Luthardt, Lehre von d. 
 letzten Dingen, Ὁ. 106 ff.; von Oettingen, 
 Synagogale Elegik des Volks Israels, 1853, p. 
 133 ff. 
 
434 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 have found the point of the question not purely in the climax of the two 
 figurative verbs, but in definitions mentally supplied, which, however, as 
 such, cannot be admitted. So, in particular, Augustine and many : only 
 in order that they should fall, as though it ran μόνον iva, as Umbreit still 
 takes it (comp. Hofmann) ; further Melanchthon : ‘‘non sic impegerunt 
 Judaei, ut in tota gente nemo sit salvandus,” as though it ran iva πάντες ; and 
 yet further, Ewald : ‘‘that they might purely in accordance with the divine 
 design, and therefore without their freedom and their own will, fall into sin 
 and into destruction,” as though it ran iva ἐξ ἀνάγκης, or the like. We must 
 simply abide by the view, that πταίειν is a figure for the taking offence at 
 Christ which refuses faith, and πίπτειν a figure for the being involved in 
 everlasting destruction ; comp. Heb. iv. 11, Ecclus. ii. 7. In the former 
 the latter was not present as the aim of God’s purpose. — On ἔπταισαν, comp. 
 the proverb : μὴ δὶς πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν λίθον πταίειν, Polyb. xxxi. 19. 5, xxxi. 20, 
 1; and on the sense of moral stumbling, Jas. ii. 10, iii. 2; 2 Pet. 1. 10; 
 Eur. Aeg. fr. 11. 1 : πταίσαντ᾽ ἀρετὰν ἀποδείξασθαι. The subject is the λοιποί of 
 ver. 7, the mass of the people not belonging to the ἐκλογή. ---- τῷ αὐτῶν raparr. | 
 through their fault consisting in the refusal of faith, through their offence. 
 Παραπτ. does not refer to πέσωσι (Reiche, Tholuck, and several others),— 
 which the emphatic sense of πέσ. forbids ; but in substance that πταῖσμα is 
 meant, which is morally characterized by means of παράπτωμα as delictum 
 (so rightly Vulg.) as ἁμαρτία (comp. John xvi. 9), according to its stated fig- 
 urative designation (comp. also iv. 25, v. 15). Quite against the usage of 
 the N. T., Tholuck renders : defeat (Diod. xix. 100). --- τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] se. 
 yéyovev. That through the despising of the Messianic salvation on the part 
 of the Jews its attainment by the Gentiles was effected—this experience 
 Paul had learnt to recognize as that which it actually was, as the way which 
 the fulfilment of the divine arrangement, i. 16, took. Comp. Matt. xxi. 43, 
 xxii. 9; Acts xiii. 46, xxviii. 28. --- εἰς τὸ παραζ. αὐτούς] aim; comp. Calo- 
 vius : ‘‘Assumtio novi populi directa fuit ad veteris provocationem ad 
 aemulationem, ut nempe Israelitae . . . seria aemulatione irritati, et ipsi 
 doctrinae ev. animos suos submitterent.” Comp. x. 19. With this εἰς τὸ 
 παραζ. avt., exactly the counterpart of iva πέσωσι is expressed. 
 
 Ver. 12. Aé] μεταβατικόν, leading over from what has been said in ver. 11 
 to a very joyful prospect thereby opened into the future. — The conclusion 
 is a ‘‘ felici effectu causae pejoris ad feli:ciorem effectum caysae melioris.” 
 — πλοῦτος] for the Gentile world (κόσμος) became enriched with the σωτηρία 
 (ver. 11), through the παράπτωμα of the Jews. — τὸ ἥττημα abt. πλοῦτ. ἐθνῶν] 
 and their overthrow riches for Gentile peoples. Parallel to the foregoing. [See 
 Note CXVII. p. 459.] — ἥττημα] is not found in the old Greek, but only in 
 the LXX. Isa. xxxi. 8, and 1 Cor. vi. 7 ; it is, however, equivalent to the 
 classical ἧττα, which is the opposite of νίκη, ! and, corresponding to the 
 signification of ἡττᾶσθαι, profligari, vinci, means clades, both in its proper 
 sense, and also generally : succumbing, decline (comp. Dem. 1466, 23, ἦττα 
 τῆς προαιρέσεως), loss suffered (1 Cor. vi. 7), getting the worse.? Here the 
 
 1 Plato, Lach. Ὁ. 196 A, Legg. i. p. 638 A; 2 See Perizon. ad Ael. V. H. ii. 25. 
 
 Dem. 1486.3; Xen. ΟὟ}. iii. 1. 19, 20. 
 
ΘΕ ΡΠ 12: 435 
 proper signification is to be retained, and that, as the contrast of τὸ πλήρωμα 
 requires, in a numerical respect. So now also Tholuck, likewise Mangold. 
 Through the fact that a part of the Jews was unbelieving, the people has 
 suffered an overthrow, has, like a vanquished army, been weakened in num- 
 bers, inasmuch, namely, as the unbelieving portion by its unbelief practi- 
 cally seceded from the people of God. Comp. Vulg.: ‘‘diminutio eorum ;” 
 Luthardt : ‘“‘loss in amount.” If it be explained as : loss of the Messianic 
 salvation, which they have suffered (Fritzsche and others),’ or : the loss which 
 the kingdom of God has suffered in their case (Philippi, comp. Kahnis, Dogm. 
 I. p: 573), the former is not appropriate to the contrast of πλήρωμα, and the 
 latter introduces the reference to the kingdom of God, as that which has 
 suffered the detriment, the more unwarrantably, inasmuch as the genit. 
 αὐτῶν is expressed. The threefold αὐτῶν is to be taken with the like refer- 
 ence as the genitive of the subject, and applies in each instance to the people 
 Israel as a whole (whose collective guilt also is the παράπτωμα), in contrast 
 to the κόσμος and the é@v7—which likewise is not preserved in Philippi’s view. 
 This very circumstance, and more decisively the utter absence of linguistic 
 proof, tells also against the traditional usual rendering, according to which 
 τὸ ἥττημα is Supposed to signify the minority : ‘‘paucitas Judaeorum creden- 
 tium” (Grotius). So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, 
 Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and many others, including Reiche, Olshausen, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Bisping, Reithmayr ; comp. Ewald : ‘their 
 remaining behind.” --- πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν] se. πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν γενήῆσε- 
 tat; how much more their becoming full, that is, how much more will it issue 
 in the enrichment of the Gentiles with the Messianic salvation, if the Jews, 
 after the defeat which they have suffered, shall again be reinstated to their 
 plena copia, so that they will then again in their full amount (ver. 26), as 
 an integral whole, belong to the people of God,—which will take place 
 through the conversion of all Israel to Christ (not would, as Luther has it).* 
 The ἥττημα αὐτῶν is then compensated, and the πλήρωμα αὐτῶν brought in, 
 which, moreover, may take place even with a continuance of the διασπορά. 
 On πλήρωμα generally, see Fritzsche, I. p. 469 ff. Comp. on Eph. i. 10. 
 The numerical reference of the πλήρωμα αὐτῶν is suggested by the correlative 
 τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν in ver. 25 ; and in so far the view which takes it of 
 the full number of the Jews (Theodoret : πάντες πιστεύσαντες μειζόνων ἀγαθῶν 
 ‘cacw ἀνθρώηοις ἐγένοντο ἂν πρόξενοι, 80 most) is correct. Comp. Ewald : 
 “their full admission, supplying what is wanting.” With this Umbreit 
 raixes up at the same time ‘‘ the fulfilment of their predestination ;” whilst 
 van Hengel sees in the πλήρ. air., not absolutely the full number, but only 
 the collective body of those destined by God to conversion, which, however, 
 
 1S0 also de Wette; similarly Ruckert: 
 “the loss of their original dignity and glory 
 as the people of God ;’’ and Hofmann: ‘‘ their 
 
 2 Philippi also explains vy. 12 and 15 not 
 of an ‘actual, but only of ἃ possible 
 πρόσληψις Of Israel (p. 554). Vv. 13, 14 are 
 
 hurt, in that they, by virtue of their unbelief, 
 are not what they should be.”” Comp. Koll- 
 ner and Gléckler. Among the older inter- 
 preters, Calvin: ‘‘ Diminutio honoris sui, 
 qui fuerant populus Dei gloriosus.” 
 
 not in favour of this, where Paul has in 
 view the intermediate time until the final 
 πρόσληψις Of the πλήρωμα; and ver. 26 is 
 decisive against it. 
 
450 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 is not expressed, but is supplied by the reader. The various views corre- 
 spond to the varying explanations of ἥττημα. So e.g. Fritzsche : the fulness 
 of Messianic salvation, which they will possess ; Philippi: the filling up 
 —which takes place through their conversion—of the blank in the king- 
 dom of God which arose through their unbelief ;? Riickert, K6llner : the 
 restoration of Israel to its befitting position ; Hofmann : the status, in 
 which they are fully and entirely that which they ought to be (qualitative). 
 Luthardt also takes the correct view. 
 
 Vv. 18, 14. [See Note CXVIII. p. 460.] Not a parenthetical thought 
 (Reiche), but the connection with the preceding and following is : ‘‘ πόσῳ 
 μᾶλλον τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν I say: but you precisely, the Gentile Christians,— 
 who might think that my office belongs only to you and the Gentiles, and 
 that the conversion of the Jews lies less in my vocation,—you? I hereby make 
 to know (ὑμῖν λέγω), that I, as apostle of the Gentiles, etc. ; for (motive) the 
 conversion of the Jews will have the happiest consequence (ver. 16). -- τοῖς ἔθνε- 
 ow] to the (born) Gentiles, denotes, as an apposition to ὑμῖν, the readers ac- 
 cording to their chief constituent element, in virtue of which the Christian 
 Gentile body is represented in them ; comp. i. 138. Observe that Paul does 
 not write τοῖς δὲ ἔθνεσιν ἐν ὑμῖν λέγω, aS though he intended only a Gentile 
 Sraction of the otherwise Jewish-Christian community (in opposition to Man- 
 gold). In contradistinction to his readers, the Jews, although his flesh, are 
 to him third persons, whom he, as apostle of the Gentiles, might mediately 
 serve. Baur fails to recognize this, I. p. 871. — ἐφ᾽ ὅσον] not temporal (quam- 
 diu, Matt. ix. 15 ; 2 Pet. i. 13), but : im quantum, in as far as I, etc. Comp. 
 Matt. xxv. 40 ; Plato, Rep. p. 268 B; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 68. Just so εἰς ὅσον 
 and καθ᾽ ὅσον. ---- μέν] as so often in Paul without a corresponding dé. But 
 we see from the following that the train of ideas passing before his mind 
 was this: ‘‘I seek indeed, so far as I am one who has the commission of 
 Apostle to the Gentiles (observe the emphatic éyé, in which a noble self- 
 consciousness is expressed), to do honour to my office, but I have in view 
 withal (for see x. 1, ix. 2, 3) to incite my kinsmen to emulation, etc.” — 
 εἴπως} whether in any way. The practical honouring of the office, which 
 consists in a true discharge of it, is an acting, whereby the desired attain- 
 ment is attempted, see on 1. 10; Phil. iii. 11; Acts xxvii. 12; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 220 [E. T. 256]. Less in accordance with the text—since the 
 very εἵπως παραζ. x.7.A presupposes an actual δοξάζειν (2 Thess. ii. 1; John xii. 
 28).—Reiche and Ewald (after Grotius and many others, including Flatt) 
 take it as : 7 boast, hold my office something high and glorious. Hofmann, 
 indeed, understands an actual glorification, but conditioned by ei πῶς k.T.A., 
 so that the latter is not whether possibly, but if possibly. From this the illog- 
 ical relation of present and future which thus arises* must deter us (Paul 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Melanchthon: ‘‘Complementum — Jews. 
 integrae ecclesiae convertendae ex semine 3 Hofmann adduces as an example Xen. 
 Abrahae.’’ Similarly Origen. Anab. iv. 7.3. But such passages are of a 
 2 According to the reading ὑμῖν δέ (see quite different kind (see Brunck, ad Arist, 
 the critical notes). This δέ forms a con- Plut. 1064; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Ὁ. 251); 
 trast with the perspective just opened by and tothe necessary connection expressed 
 moo. μᾶλλ. τ. πλήρ. αὐτῶν in favour of the in them of the consequence with the con- 
 
CHAP: *XI., 15: 437 
 
 must have used the future δοξάσω). --- παραζ. and σώσω] future indicative, like 
 a 10! Onadca, comp.-1 Tim. iv. 16.51 Cor, vil: 16, 1x. 22.) The, enclitie 
 pov standing before the noun cannot be emphatic (van Hengel), but repre- 
 sents, at the same time, the dative of interest (whether I shall perhaps rouse 
 tome my flesh to jealousy), like 1 Cor, ix. 27, Phil. ii. 2, Col. iv. 18, e¢ a/., 
 and frequently in classical Greek. —airév] refers to those intended by the 
 collective τὴν σάρκα. Σάρκα δὲ εἰπὼν γνησιότητα καὶ φιλοστοργίαν ἐνέφηνε, Theo- 
 phylact. Theodoret quite erroneously thinks that Paul wished to intimate 
 a denial of spiritual fellowship. On the contrary, πλέον αὐτοὺς οἰκειοίμενος 
 (Oecumenius), he says μ. τ. σάρκα, which is like τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα, 
 ix. 3, but more strongly significant. Gen. xxxvii. 27; Judg. ix. 2; 2 Sam. 
 v. 1. Comp. Isa. lviii. 7. Note the modesty of the expression τινάς, which, 
 however, was suggested by the experience of the difficulty of the conversion 
 of the Jews ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 22. 
 
 Ver. 15. By way of inference, like ver. 12 ; γάρ assigns a motive for vv. 
 13, 14. — ἀποβολή, casting away; Plato, Legg. xii. Ὁ. 493 E. 944 C; Aq. 
 Prov. xxviii. 94. By this is meant their exclusion from the people of God 
 on account of their unbelief, and the opposite of it is their πρόσληψις, recep- 
 tion in addition (Plato, Theaet. p. 210 A), by which they, having become 
 believing, are adopted by God into the fellowship of His people. The view 
 of ἀποβολῇ as loss (Acts xxvii. 22; Plato, Phaed. p. 75 E; Lach. p. 195 E ; 
 Plut. Sol. 7) is less suitable to this contrast (in opposition to the Vulg., 
 Luther, Bengel, and others, including Philippi, who understands the loss, 
 which the kingdom of God hes suffered in their case). — καταλλαγὴ κόσμου] in 
 so far, namely, as the converted portion of the Gentiles has attained to δικαι- 
 οσύνη through faith, and is no‘longer subjected to the ὀργή of God ; and 
 therewith reconciliation of the Gentile world with God has begun. Comp. v. 
 11. Itis amore precise definition of the notion expressed in ver. 12 by 
 πλοῦτος κόσμου. --- ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρ.] 1.6. life, which proceeds from the dead (namely, 
 when these arise). [See Note CXIX. p. 460.] The πρόσληψις of the still un- 
 converted Jews, Paul concludes, will be of such a kind (τίς, not τί, is his 
 question), will be of so glorious a character (comp. Eph. i. 18), that it will 
 bring with it the last most blessed development, namely, the life beginning 
 with the resurrection of the dead in the αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων, the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, which 
 has the awakening from death as its causal premiss. Hence Paul does not 
 say ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν (as Philippi objects) ; for his glance is already pass- 
 ing beyond this event to its blessed consequence. The transformation of the 
 living is included in this last development (1 Cor. xv. 51), which is here des- 
 ignated ὦ potiori ; comp. viii. 11. The conclusion of the apostle does not, 
 however, rest on Matt. xxiv. 14 (Reiche after Theodoret), but on the fact of 
 the καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, whose most blissful final development (as it, according 
 to Paul, must necessarily be occasioned by the blissful opposite of the azo- 
 oan) can be none other than the blessed resurrection-life which will set in 
 with the Parousia (Col. iii. 3, 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 14 ff.). The view which takes 
 
 dition, the “if in any way” (possibly), which  Kiihner, ad Xen. lc. and Gramm. II. 1, p. 
 would make the condition problematic, 120. 
 would be wholly unsuitable. Comp. also 
 
438 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ζωὴ ἐκ vexp. in the proper sense has been held by Origen, Chrysostom, Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Anselm, Erasmus, Toletus, Semler, Reiche, 
 Glickler, de Wette, Nielsen, Fritzsche, Riickert, Reithmayr, Bisping, Hof- 
 mann, Beyschlag, and others. Approaching it, but taking the resurrection 
 by way of comparison, stands the view of Ewald: ‘‘The final completion of 
 all history down to the last day, and like the very resurrection itself, which 
 is expected on this day.” Luthardt, too, is substantially in the right, tak- 
 ing, however, νεκρῶν in the ethical sense : from the dead Israel the new bodi- 
 ly life of glorification will proceed. <A heterogeneous mode of viewing the 
 contrasts, for which the text affords no support. The non-literal interpreta- 
 tion of the ‘‘ futura quasi resurrectio ex mortuis”” (Melanchthon), 7.e. of the 
 ‘“novitas vitae ex morte peccati”’ (Estius ; so in substance Calvin, Hunnius, 
 Calovius, Vorstius, Bengel, Carpzov, Ch. Schmidt, Cramer, Bohme, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, Maier; also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 129 ; 
 Krummacher, p. 172 1. ; and Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 574), is to be set aside on 
 the ground that then nothing higher than the xaraAAayf (and it must be 
 something far higher) would be expressed,’ but only its ethical consequence 
 in the activity of life. Olshausen, too, understands it primarily of the spir- 
 itual resurrection, yet thinks that the notion ‘‘ plays into the bodily resurrec- 
 tion” (?). Umbreit finds spiritual and bodily revival from death conjoined. 
 Others explain the expression metaphorically, as designating swmmum gaudi- 
 um (Grotius after Oecumenius) or summa felicitas (Hammond, Koppe, K6ll- 
 ner). Comp. Theophylact (aze:pa ἀγαθά), Beza, Flatt, van Hengel, and now, 
 too, Tholuck, who recurs to the general thought of the most important posi- 
 tion in the history of the divine kingdom to be occupied by converted Israel. 
 But interpretations of such a non-literal character must be necessitated by 
 the context ; whereas the latter by the relation, in accordance with the 
 connection, of ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν to the quite proper καταλλ. κόσμου requires us to 
 abide by the literal sense. Hence we are not to understand, with Philippi, 
 at once both the extensive diffusion of the kingdom of God, and a subjec- 
 tive revivification of Christendom, which had again become dead, ‘‘ and 
 thus ὦ glorious flourishing time for the church on earth.” So, again, Auberlen 
 supposes a charismatic life of the church, and depicts it with the colours of 
 the palingenesia of the golden age. No such ideas are here expressed ; and 
 it would have been peculiarly necessary to indicate more particularly the 
 dead state into which Christendom was again to fall, especially after the κα- 
 ταλλαγὴ κόσμου already including within itself spiritual revival. And by no 
 means is the supposed flourishing time (the time of worship (!) Auberlen 
 calls it, as opposed to the present time of preaching) compatible with the 
 nearness of the Parousia (xiii. 14 ; 1 Cor. vii. 29, et al.), with the ἀνάγκη im- 
 mediately preceding it (1 Cor. vii. 26 ; Matt. xxiv. 29), and with the rovy- 
 pia of the last period (on Gal. 1. 4). 
 
 Ver. 16. Aé] continuative ; but this πρόσληψις, how well it corresponds to 
 the character of holiness, which has been associated with the people of 
 
 1 Calvin’s excuse: ‘‘Nam etsi una res deris,’’ only shows the baldness of this 
 est, verbis tamen plus et minus inest pon- interpretation. 
 
CHAP. ΧΊΣ, 16. 439 
 Isracl from its origin till now ἘΣ The two figures are parallel, and set forth 
 the same thought. [See Note CXX. p. 401. ] --- ἀπαρχή] obtains the genitival 
 definition to be mentally supplied with it through τὸ φύραμα, just as in the 
 second clause ἡ ῥίζα is the root of the κλάδοι. The ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ φυράματος is 
 known from Num. xv. 19-21 to be a designation of the jirst of the dough ; 
 that is, from every baking, when the dough was kneaded, a portion was to 
 be set aside and a cake to be baked therefrom for the priests.* 
 as the first portion devoted to Jehovah from the whole, was designed to 
 impart the character of its consecration to the remainder of the lump. The 
 article with φύραμα denotes the lump of dough concerned, from which the 
 ἀπαρχῆ is separated ; hence ὅλον did not require to be expressed (in opposi- 
 tion to Hofmann’s objection). Grotius and Rosenmiiller take τ. dip. to be 
 the corn destined for the baking, and ἀπαρχή to be the first-/ruits. But (ix. 
 21) φύραμα always denotes a mass mixed (with moisture or otherwise), par- 
 ticularly a kneaded one, and is in the LXX. (Ex. xii. 34) and in Paul (1 Cor. 
 v. 6, 7; Gal. v. 9) the standing expression for dough. Estius, Koppe, 
 K6lner, Olshausen, Krehl rightly take it so, but nevertheless understand by 
 ἀπαρχή the sacred first-fruits (comp. Ex. xxiii. 10) which were employed for 
 φύραμα. But in that case ἀπαρχή obtains a genitival definition not presented 
 by the text ; and this can the less be approved, since ἀπαρχὴ φυράματος, in 
 fact, was the stated expression from Num. /.c. This applies also against 
 Hofmann, who likewise explains the ἀπαρχή as the firstling-sheaf, but con- 
 siders the φύραμα to be the dough worked up from the harvest-fruit generally. 
 —The figure is correctly interpreted, when by ἡ ἀπαρχή we understand the 
 patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and by τὸ φύρ. the whole body of the 
 people, to whom the character of holiness—of consecration in property to 
 God—passed over from the former. With the holiness of the πατέρες, ix. 
 4-13 (in accordance with which we are not here to think of Abraham alone), 
 is given also the holiness of the theocratic people, their posterity, according 
 to the divine right of covenant and promise. Comp. ix. 4, 5. But this 
 holiness, which Paul looks upon, as respects the national whole, in the light 
 of a character indelebilis, is not the inner moral, but (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 14) 
 the theocratic legal holiness (‘‘ quod juribus ecclesiae et promissis Dei frui 
 possint,” Calovius). The expression is taken of the patriarchs by Chry- 
 sostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, 
 Bengel, and others, including Koppe, Tholuck, KG6liner, Olshausen, 
 Fritzsche, Philippi, Maier, de Wette, Krehl, Umbreit, Ewald, Reithmayr, 
 Hofmann (though the latter thinks only of Abraham). This is correct, be- 
 cause the second figure (εἰ δὲ ῥίζα «.7.2.) is capable of no other interpretation 
 (see below ; but to explain the two figures differently, as Toletus and Stolz,? 
 Reiche and Ruckert,* Gléckler, Stengel, Bisping, van Hengel, after Theo- 
 
 This ἀπαρχή, 
 
 1 See Philo, de sac. hon. II. p. 232; Jose- 
 phus, Antt. iv. 4. 4 ; Saalschutz, WW. RP. Ὁ. 347 ; 
 Keil, Archdol. I. § 71; and the Rabbinical 
 
 ofthe nation. The second figure they sup- 
 pose to denote our first parents and their 
 posterity. So, too, van Hengel. 
 
 prescriptions in Mischn. Surenh. Ὁ. 289 ff. 
 
 2 Toletus and Stolz suppose the ἀπαρχή 
 to be the Jews who first accepted Christian- 
 ity, and the φύραμα to be the remaining part 
 
 8In substance like Toletus and Stolz. 
 On the first figure Reiche remarks : “ As the 
 whole, whereof a firstling gift is consecrat- 
 ed to God, is something excellent, worthy 
 
440 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret,’ have in manifold ways arbitrarily done, 
 issimply a violation of the parallelism.? This holds also against the inter- 
 pretation of the Jews who have become believing, and of the remaining mass of 
 the people (Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Anselm, Toletus, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, 
 Reiche, Riickert, Bisping). — ἡ ῥίζα and οἱ κλάδοι are the patriarchs and their 
 theocratic bodily descendants, the Jews. As the ἀπαρχή, is related to the 
 φύραμα, so is the ῥίζα to the κλάδοι ; comp. on the latter, Menander, 711: 
 ἄκαρπός ἐστιν οὗτος ἀπὸ ῥίζης κλάδος. The divergent interpretation, which 
 may deserve to be considered in opposition to this usual one, is, that the ῥίζα 
 is the first primitive or mother church consisting of the believing Jews, and 
 that the κλάδοι are the Jews, in so far as they in virtue of their national posi- 
 tion were primarily called thereto. This exposition (substantially in Cor- 
 nelius ἃ Lapide, Carpzov, Schoettgen ; Semler and Ammon suppose οἱ κλάδοι 
 to be the Gentile Christians), is still considered possible by de Wette. Τί is, 
 however, unsuitable ; for the (natural) κλάδοι must have proceeded from the 
 ῥίζα, roust have their origin from it (comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 25, xl. 15), and the 
 broken-off branches (ver. 17) must have earlier belonged to the pif{a,—which 
 is not the case, if ῥίζα is the Christian mother-church of which they were 
 never κλάδοι. The true theocracy (the olive tree, comp. Jer. xi. 16 ; Hos. 
 xiv. 7; Zech. iv. 11 ; Neh. viii. 15) did not begin in the Christian mother- 
 church (as its root), but in the patriarchs, and Christ Himself was κατὰ σάρκα 
 from this sacred root, Matt. 1: 1 1. In this view itis clear that the un- 
 believing Jews, in so far as they rejected Christ, ceased thereby to belong 
 to the true people of God, and fell away from their root. They were now— 
 after the light, and with it judgment, had come into the world (John iii. 19) 
 —broken-off branches, apostate children of Abraham (John viii. 37, 39, 40), 
 children of the kingdom who were to be cast out (Matt. viii. 12). Comp. 
 the figure of the vine in John xv. See also Rom. ix. 6 ff. 
 
 Vv. 17-24.° In pursuance of the figure, a warning to the Gentile Christians 
 against self-presumption, and an exhortation to humility, down to ver. 24. 
 -- τινές] some, a portion of the branches ;* comp. on 111, 38. — ἐξεκλάσθ. were 
 broken off (Plat. Rep. p. 611 D), κλάω being the proper word for the breaking 
 of the young twigs (κλάδοι) ; Theophrastus, ὁ. pl. i. 15.1. They were broken 
 off on account of their unfitness for bearing. — σὺ δέ] individualizing address 
 to each Gentile Christian. — ἀγριέλ. ὧν] although being of the wild olive. ἀγρ. 
 This view is assured by 
 linguistic usage,° and necessary ; for the traditional interpretation : ‘‘ oleaster, 
 
 is here an adjective, like ἐκ τῆς aypteAaiov, ver. 24. 
 
 of God, or by the very offering of itis de- 
 clared to be such, so is also the Jewish 
 people through the fact, that a part of it 
 has been received into God’s fellowship, 
 ᾿ declared to be a noble people, worthy to 
 be wholly accepted, so soon as it only ful- 
 fils the conditions.” 
 
 1 Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret 
 explain the ἀπαρχή of Christ, and the ῥίζα of 
 the patriarchs ; while Origen interprets doth 
 figures as referring to Christ. 
 
 2 The identity of the thought expressed 
 
 by a twofold figure is also confirmed by 
 the fact, that in what follows Paul pursues 
 only the one figure, and entirely drops the 
 first. 
 
 3 On vv. 17, 18, see Matthias in the Stud. 
 u. Krit. 1866, p. 519 ff. 
 
 4 Without indicating the great multitude 
 of them, in order not to promote Gentile- 
 Christian self-exaltation (ver. 18). 
 
 5 Erye. 4, in Anthol. ix. 287: σκυτάλην 
 ἀγριέλαιον, Theoer. xxv. 255; see Jacobs, 
 Delect. Epigr. Ὁ. 33; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 376. 
 
CHAP. ἈΠ 17. 441 
 4.6. surculus oleastri,” is as arbitrary as the apology for the expression when 
 so explained, on the ground that Paul wished to avoid the prolivity of the 
 distinction between tree and branch, is absurd (in opposition to Hofmann), 
 inasmuch as he would only have needed to employ the genitive instead of 
 the nominative, and consequently to write not a word more, if he wished to 
 be thus sparing. The opinion of Reiche, Rickert, Kéllner, Philippi, Krehl, 
 Ewald, van Hengel—that the collective body of the Gentiles is conceived as 
 an entire tree—is inappropriate to the relation portrayed by the figure, because 
 the ingrafting of the Gentiles took place at first only partially and in single 
 instances, while the σύ addressed cannot represent heathendom as a whole, 
 and is also not appropriate to the figure itself, because in fact not whole 
 trees, not even quite young ones (in opposition to de Wette), are ingrafted 
 either with the stem, or as to all their branches ; besides, ver. 24 contra- 
 dicts this opinion. Matthias also takes the right view. —év αὐτοῖς] may 
 grammatically be equally well understood as among them (the branches of the 
 noble olive tree generally)—so Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and many others, 
 including Riickert, Fritzsche, Nielsen, Tholuck, Philippi, Maier, Reithmayr, 
 Hofmann—or as : in the place of the broken-off branches (Chrysostom, Beza, 
 Piscator, Semler, and others, including Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, 
 Olshausen), which, however, would have to be conceived of, not as ordina- 
 rily, in locum, but in loco eorum (Olshausen has the right view). The first 
 rendering is preferable, because it corresponds to the notion of the συγκοινω- 
 voc. [See Note CXXI. p. 461.] — τῆς ῥίζης x. τ. πιότ. τ. ἐλ.] of the root (which 
 now bears thee also among its own branches, ver. 18) and fatness which 
 now goes jointly to thee) of the olive tree. On the latter, comp. Judg. Le Os 
 The assumption of a hendiadys (of the fat root) (Grotius and others) is 
 groundless and weakening.’ The sense without figure is : ‘¢ Thou hast at- 
 tained to a participation in holy fellowship with the patriarchs, and in the 
 blessings of the theocracy developed from them,”—both which the unbe- 
 lieving Jews have forfeited.— Has Paul here, ver. 17 ff., had in view the pro- 
 cess, really used in the East, of strengthening to renewed fertility olive trees by 
 
 grafting scions of the wild olive upon them 2? Answer : The suhject- matter, which 
 he is setting forth, required not at all the figure of the ordinary erafting of 
 the noble scion on the wild stem, but the converse, namely, that of the in- 
 grafting of the wild scion and its ennoblement thereby. The thing thus re- 
 ceiving illustration had taken place through the reception of Gentile members 
 into the theocracy ; and the thing that had taken place he was bound to rep- 
 resent (figuratively depict) as it had taken place. ‘‘Ordine commutato res 
 magis causis quam causas rebus aptavit,” Origen. But that, while doing 
 this, he had before his mind that actual pomological practice, and made 
 reference to it (Matthias : in order to exhibit the παραζηλωθῆναι of the unbe- 
 
 1 τῆς πιότητος Would only represent the ad- 
 jectival notion, if xac—omitted by B C ἐδ τ 
 Copt. Dam.—were not genuine, as Buttmann 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 366, pronounces 
 it. Tisch. 8omitsit. But D* F Gand Codd. of 
 It. omit τῆς ῥίζης καί (manifestly through a 
 copyist’s error) ; therefore τῆς ῥίζης without 
 
 καί appears as an incomplete restoration. 
 
 2 See Columella, v. 9. 16; Pallad. xiv. 53; 
 Schulz, Zeit. ἃ. Héchsten, V. p. 88; Michae- 
 lis, orient. Bibl. X. p. 67 ff., and note, p. 129; 
 Bredenkamp in Paulus, Memorad. 11. p. 149 
 i. 
 
442 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 lieving Jews, ver. 13), is not to be assumed for this reason, that here, 
 conformably to the following καὶ συγκοινωνὸς «.7.., there is conceived as the 
 object of the ingrafting the ennobled fertilization of the graft itself ; where- 
 as, in the practice referred to, the ingrafted scion was not to receive the fat- 
 ness from the noble tree, not to become fertilized, but to fertilize ; for 
 ‘“foecundat sterilis pingues oleaster olivas, et aude non novit munera, ferre 
 docet,” Palladius. 
 
 Ver. 18. μὴ κατακ. τῶν κλάδ.] Boast thyself not against (comp. Jas. 11. 13, iil. 
 14; also in the LXX., not in classical Greek) the branches. These are not 
 the broken-off branches, of which he has just been speaking (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, and many others, including de 
 Wette, Riickert, Ewald), but, according to vv. 16, 17, the branches of the 
 olive tree generally (of which some have been broken off) ; without figure, 
 therefore ; the people Israel, but by no means merely those now composing 
 the non-Christian Israel (Hofmann). The latter, because the Christian Is- 
 raelites also still belonged to the branches of the olive tree, must, as well as 
 the broken-off κλάδοι, have been more precisely designated (against which 
 Hofmann urges subtleties) ; moreover, the following warning would not be 
 suitable to the broken-off ones, because they no longer stand in any connec- 
 tion with the root. The κλάδοι standing on the root of the patriarchs are 
 the Israelites, whether believing or unbelieving ; but under the broken-off 
 ones, which are therefore no longer borne by the root, we are to think not 
 generally of all those Jews who at the time had not yet become believers in 
 Christ (vv. 13, 14)—otherwise the apostolic mission to the Jews would in 
 truth have no meaning (in opposition to Hofmann’s denial of this distinc- 
 tion)—but only of those who had rejected the Christ preached to them (Acts 
 XXVili. 23, 24), and therefore were already no longer in living communion 
 with the patriarchal root, excluded in God’s judgment from the theocracy 
 borne by this root (ix. 7, 8). Hence, too, we are not, with Fritzsche, to 
 think in τῶν κλάδων merely of the converted Jews, as indeed to give a particu- 
 lar warning against pride towards Jewish- Christians was foreign here to the 
 object of the apostle. — εἰ dé κατακ. x.7.A.] But if the case occur, that thou 
 boastest against them, then know, reflect : it is not thow who bearest, ete. ; 
 without figure : Thy theocratic position is not the original theocratic one, 
 but only a derived one, proceeding from the patriarchs and imparted to thee, 
 conditioned by the relation into which thou hast entered towards them ; 
 thou therefore standest likewise only in the relation of a branch to the root, 
 which is borne by the latter, and not the converse, and which may not 
 therefore bear itself proudly towards its fellow-branches, as though it were 
 something better. In these words there lies a warning hint beforehand of 
 the possibility which Paul afterwards, vv. 21, 22; definitely expresses. —The 
 ov σὺ τ. pit. βαστ κιτ.}. is to be taken declaratively. See Winer, p. 575 
 [E. T. 619] ; Buttmann, Ὁ. 338 [E. T. 395]. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 16. The 
 Jact itself is quite independent of the case supposed in εἰ x.7.A., but it is 
 brought to mind. 
 
 Ver. 19. Οὖν] therefore ; since this reason (οὐ σὺ τὴν pilav k.t.A.) forbids thee 
 κατακαυχᾶσθαι, thou wilt have something else to allege. — ἐξεκλ. x.7.A. | branches 
 
 
 
CHAP. XI., 20-23. 443 
 were broken off (see critical notes), in order that I, etc, This iva ἐγώ has the 
 stress of arrogant self-esteem, which, however, is not to be extended also to 
 κλάδοι " forming the simple subject, and not even standing in the first place 
 (Hofmann : ‘‘branches which were so are broken off”). [See Note CXXI. 
 p. 462. | 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. By καλῶς Paul admits the fact ; but in what follows he points 
 out its cause, as one which must prevent haughtiness, and inspire fear and 
 anxiety respecting the duration of the state of grace ; assigning the reason 
 in ver. 21. — καλῶς] Good! recte ais.— The τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ and τῇ πίστει placed 
 first with emphatic warning means : on account ef unbelief, ete. Comp. 
 ver. 30. See on Gal. vi. 12. —éornxac| thow standest, namely, as a branch 
 upon the olive tree. As the figure is present, both before and afterwards, 
 it is opposed to the context to take ἕστηκ. absolutely, as the opposite of πίπ- 
 τειν (vv. 11, 22, xiv. 4; Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Philippi—the latter 
 doubtfully). — ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, to be haughty (1 Tim. vi. 17), is foreign to classi- 
 cal Greek, which has μεγαλοφρονεῖν ; yet see scholion on Pind. Pyth, ii. 91 : 
 ὑψηλοφρονοῦντα καὶ καυχώμενον κατακάμπτει ὁ θεός. The adjective ὑψηλόφρων is 
 found in the classics in a good sense : high-spirited. — φοβοῦ) ‘‘ timor oppo- 
 nitur non fiduciae, sed supercilio et securitati,” Bengel. Secure haughti- 
 ness fears not the possible loss. — τῶν κατὰ φίσιν] those according to nature, 
 not ingrafted. — μήπως οὐδὲ σ. geic.] to be referred to the underlying con- 
 ception : it is to be feared * (Winer, pp. 469 f., 442 [E. T. 504, 474] ; Baeum- 
 lein, Partik. p. 288 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. TI. p. 335). The future is more defi- 
 nite and certain than the subjunctive.* At the same time the specially cho- 
 sen mode of expression with proc (Paul does not say directly οὐδὲ σοῦ 
 φείσεται, as Lachmann reads) is sufficiently mitigating and forbearing. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. An exhortation inferred from ver. 21, and corresponding to 
 μὴ ὑψηλοφρόνει, ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ in ver. 20. — Behold, therefore, the goodness and the 
 severity of God, how both divine attributes present themselves before thee 
 side by side. That ypyor. and azor. should be without the article is, on ac- 
 count of the following Θεοῦ ἢ being anarthrous, quite regular, and does not 
 entitle us artificially to educe (as Hofmann does) the sense of ‘‘ @ goodness” 
 (which is here exhibited), etc. According to the correct reading (see the 
 
 1 Were we to read, with the Rec., οἱ κλά- 
 δοι, the article would have to be taken δεικ- 
 τικῶς of the branches concerned, not the 
 collective branches, from the haughty stand- 
 point of the opponents, as Philippi holds. 
 The simple καλῶς of the apostle does not 
 suit this. 
 
 2Demosth. 998. 24; Plat. Phil. Ὁ. 25 B; 
 Eur. Or. 1216; Lucian, Deor. Jud. 10. 
 
 3 Observe, however, that μήπως x.7.A. iS 
 not an actual formal apodosis (in opposition 
 to van Hengel’s difficulty, by which he sees 
 himself compelled to adopt Lachmann’s 
 reading) ; that, on the contrary, a formal 
 apodosis, as frequently along with condi- 
 tional protases (see Winer, p. 556 [E. 'T. 598] ; 
 Buttmann, p. 330 [E. T. 385 f.]), is by anacolu- 
 
 thon suppressed, and instead of it the fear 
 μήπως k.T.A. is independently introduced, in 
 keeping with the emotional vividness of the 
 discourse. Consequently : ‘‘ Yor if God has 
 not spared the natural branches, . . . He will, 
 I am apprehensive, also not spare thee.” 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 199 E, rightly 
 observes that the suppression of the apo- 
 dosis after a conditional protasis has mini- 
 mum offensionis in familiari colloquio.” 
 And such we have heré, vy. 19-21. 
 
 4 See Hermann, ad Zl. 992, Aj. 272, Med. p. 
 857, Elmsl. ; Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Rep. p. 451 
 A; Hartung, Partikell. ΤΙ. p. 140. 
 
 5 Comp. Elwert, Quaest. ad philolog. sacr., 
 Tiib. 1860, p. 7 f. 
 
444 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 critical notes), a point is, with Lachmann, to be placed after ἀποτομίαν Θεοῦ 3 
 and with the following nominatives, ἀποτομία and χρηστότης Θεοῦ, ἐστί is to be 
 supplied τ᾿ ‘‘ Towards the fallen there is severity, but towards thee (directed to 
 thee) goodness.” The fallen are the Jews who have refused to believe,—so 
 designated, because they are conceived as branches broken off and thereby 
 Jallen from the tree. Comp, ἕστηκας, ver. 20. In allusion to this, the severity 
 of God is also designated as ἀποτομία (only here in the N. T., but see on 2 
 Cor. xiii. 10: Kypke, II. p. 179 ; Grimm on Wisd. v. 21). This reference 
 to the figure, which certainly pervades the whole representation, it is arbi- 
 trary to deny (de Wette, Fritzsche). — ἐὰν ἐπιμείν. τῇ χρηστότ.] if thou shalt 
 abide (see on vi. 1) by the goodness, i.e. if thou shalt not have separated thyself 
 Srom the divine goodness (through apostasy from faith), but shalt have re- 
 mained true to it; comp. Acts xiii. 43. Rightly, therefore, as respects 
 the mode of the ἐπιμένειν τ. yp., Clemens Alex. Paedag. I. p. 140 Pott: τῇ 
 εἰς Χριστὸν πίστει. But it is erroneous, because contrary to the context (for 
 the emphasis lies on éxmeiv., and τῇ χρηστότ. is but the repetition of the di- 
 vine attribute just mentioned) and un-Pauline, to take χρηστότης, with 
 Fritzsche, following Ch. Schmidt, in the sense of human rightness. of conduct 
 (ii. 12). Comp. rather on ypyorér., 11. 4, and on Eph. ii. 7; also Tit. 111. 
 A, —érei καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ}] for otherwise thow also (like those broken-off 
 branches) shalt be cut off. The threatening tenor of the discourse suggests 
 unsought the stronger word ἐκκοπ., which is also in ver. 24 retained of the 
 wild olive tree. — Since κἀκεῖνοι " δὲ «.7.A. does not depend on the condition 
 previously to be supplied with ἐπεί, but has its own conditional sentence, a 
 point is to be placed (in opposition to Hofmann) after ἐκκοπ. ; and with 
 κἀκεῖνοι δέ anew sentence, still further repressing Gentile self-exaltation, must 
 be begun, which wsval punctuation Lachmann, ed. maj., has again adopted : 
 And those, too, if they shall not have persisted in unbelief, will be grafted in, 
 —whereby the reception into the true divine community (vv. 25, 31) is fig- 
 uratively depicted. The καί puts the ἐκεῖνοι on a parallel to the ingrafted 
 wild olive branches (ver. 17.) — δυνατὸς γάρ] if, namely, the cause has ceased 
 to exist, on account of which God had to break off these branches, the power 
 of God (comp. iv. 21, xiv. 4) leaves no doubt, etc. In πάλιν the concep- 
 tion is, that by the ingrafting their restoration to their previous condition is 
 accomplished. Comp. Winer, p. 576 [E. T. 620].—We may notice that this 
 is a probative passage for the possibility of forfeiture of the state of grace, 
 for the conversio resistibilis and for reiterabilitas gratiae, and also against ab- 
 solute predestination. 
 
 Ver. 24. Tap] does not serve to assign the reason of δυνατὸς x.t.A., so that 
 the ability of God for that reingrafting would be popularly illustrated from 
 the facility of this process as according to nature (the ordinary view). 
 
 1 ΠῸ assume epexegetic nominatives αὖ- tence. 
 olute (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. v. 48), with 2 Such, with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, 
 Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 829 [E. T. 384], is Tisch., according to a large preponderance 
 inappropriate, because the appended ἐὰν of evidence, is to be the reading, instead of 
 ἐπιμείν. K.7.A. can no longer be dependent on καὶ ἐκεῖνοι. 
 ἰδέ, but presupposes an independent sen- 
 
CHAP. RTs 20. 445 
 [See Note CXXIII. p. 463.] Against this it may be decisively urged, that 
 —apart from the difficulty which experience attests in the conversion 
 of unbelieving Jews—the power of God is the correlative, not of that which 
 is easy, but precisely of that which is difficult, or which humanly speak- 
 ing appears impossible Gv. 21, xiv. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Rom: ix. 22; 
 Matt. xix. 26 ; Luke i. 37, ef al.), and that πόσῳ μᾶλλον, as a designation 
 of greater easiness, must have found in the context a more precise expla- 
 nation to that effect, if it was not intended to express generally, as else- 
 where (comp. Philem. 16, and the similar use of πολλῷ μᾶλλον), the greater 
 degree of probability or certainty. Rightly, therefore, have Winzer, Progr. 
 1828, Reiche, Philippi, and Tholuck, referred the γάρ to the main thought 
 of the previous verse, to ἐγκεντρισθήσονται. Yet they should not have taken 
 this yap as purely co-ordinate with the preceding yap, but—as must always 
 be done with two such apparently parallel instances of yap—as explicative 
 (see on vill. 6) namely, so that after the brief ground assigned for ἐγκεντρισ- 
 θήσονται (δυνατὸς κ.τ.1.), the same is now yet more fully elucidated in regard 
 to its certainty, and by this elucidation is still further confirmed. To this 
 the confirmatory reference to ἐγκεντ. in Hofmann substantially amounts. — 
 σύ) Gentile-Christian. — ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν. . . ἀγριελ.} out of the wild olive, 
 which is so according to nature, which by nature has grown a wild olive. 
 — rapa φύσιν) for the grafting, as an artificial proceeding, alters the natural 
 development, and is so far contrary to nature (i. 26). The interposition of 
 éfexor. brings out more markedly the contrast between κατὰ φύσιν and παρὰ 6. 
 Very violently the simple words are twisted by Hofmann as follows : ἀγριε- 
 λαίου is in apposition to ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν 3 while for the latter there is to be 
 borrowed from ἀγριελαίου the more general notion of the olive tree, and ἡ κατὰ 
 φύσιν is the tree, which isso for the branch ina natural manner. — εἰς καλλιέλ.] 
 into a (not the) noble olive tree. The word is also found in Aristotle, Plant. 
 1. 6, in contrast to aypiéA. — οὗτοι] the Jews who have refused to believe. 
 — οἱ κατὰ φύσιν] se. bvrec,’ those according to nature. In what respect they are 
 so, the context exhibits, namely, as the original branches of the holy olive tree, 
 whose root the patriarchs are, ver. 16. — τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλ.] for they have originally 
 grown upon it, and then have been cut off from it ; hence it is still their 
 own olive tree. 
 
 Vv. 25-82. [See Note CXXIV. p. 463.] The formal and unconditional 
 promise of the collective conversion of the Jews, and the confirmatory proof 
 of this promise, now follow down to ver. 82. — yap] introduces the corrobo- 
 ration of the previous ἐγκεντρισθήσονται : ‘‘ they shall be grafted in, I say ; for 
 be it not withheld from you,” etc. — ov θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν] not a mere formula 
 of announcement generally (Riickert), but always of something important, 
 
 1 Fritzsche takes ot as the relative ot: through the punctuation οὗτοι, ot κατὰ φύσιν 
 
 how much more shall these be grafted into 
 the olive tree, who, according to nature, 
 shall become grafted into their own olive 
 tree! Superfluous in itself,—and what dif- 
 fuse and unwieldy circumstantiality of ex- 
 pression! Hofmann has nevertheless ac- 
 ceded to this reading of οἵ, in which case, 
 
 (sc. ἐγκεντρισθήσονται) ἐγκεντρισθήσονται TH 
 ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ, nothing is gained. How simply 
 and clearly would the thought thus artifi- 
 cially made out have been expressed, if 
 Paul had only left out that alleged relative 
 οἵ! 
 
440 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 which Paul desires to be specially noticed, i. 13 ; 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1; 2 Cor. 
 i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 18. That which is addressed, under the fervent addition 
 of the ἀδελφοί embracing all readers, is the whole church, although it stands 
 before the apostle’s eyes such as it was, namely, in its predominantly Gen- 
 tile-Christian character. Comp. vv. 13, 28, 80. —70 μυστήριον) has not in 
 the N. T. the sense in which profane writers speak of mysteries (something 
 mysterious in itself, comprehensible only by the initiated, and to be con- 
 cealed from the profane). But it signifies that which, undiscerned by men 
 themselves, has been made known to them by divine ἀποκάλυψις, and always refers 
 to the relations and the development of the Messianic kingdom (Matt. xiii. 
 11). Thus it frequently denotes with Paul the divine counsel of redemp- 
 tion through Christ,—as a whole, or in particular parts of it,—because it 
 was veiled from men before God revealed it (Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7-10 ; 
 Eph. iii. 83-5). Whether the contents of a mystery have already become 
 known through the preaching of the gospel, may be gathered from the 
 scope of the particular passages. That, however, which Paul here means 
 by μυστήρ., is something the ἀποκάλυψις of which he is conscious of having 
 received by divine illumination (just as in 1 Cor. xv. 51), and he declares it 
 as a prophet ἐν ἀποκαλύψει (1 Cor. xiv. 6, 30) ; without presupposing that 
 the church, personally still strange to him, was already acquainted with 
 the peculiar point of doctrine, as is evinced by iva μὴ ἦτε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς Φρόν. 
 He desires, namely, by a disclosure of the μυστήριον, to take care that his 
 readers, from their Gentile-Christian standpoint, should not, under a mis- 
 apprehension of the divine counsel, hold for truth their own views on the 
 exclusion of the Israelitish people, and therewith be wise in themselves (ἐν 
 éavr., see the critical notes), 7.6. in their own judgment (comp. Jas. 11. 4). 
 What Luther has : ‘‘ that ye be not proud” (comp. Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
 Calovius), is not directly expressed, but is rightly pointed out by Theodorct 
 as ἃ consequence. Comp. Isa. ν. 21 ; Soph. 171. 1055 Γ΄ --- ὅτι x.7.4.] Contents 
 of the μυστήρ., namely, the duration of the hardening of Israel, which will 
 not be permanent. — πώρωσις] See on ver. 7. —az7d μέρους] is to be con- 
 nected with γέγονεν, not, as by Estius, Semler, Koppe, Fritzsche, contrary 
 to the construction, with τῷ Ἰσραήλ. Hardening has partially befallen the 
 people, in so far as οὐ πάντες ἠπίστευσαν" πολλοὶ yap ἐξ ἐκείνων ἐπίστευσαν (The- 
 odoret). Comp. xv. 15. It is therefore to be understood extensively (comp. 
 οἱ λοιποί, ver. ἢ 3 τινές, ver. 17), not intensively, as Calvin takes it (attaching 
 it to πώρωσις) : guodammodo, which was intended to soften the severity of 
 the notion. So taken, it would not modify the conception, but alter it 
 (ver. 7 ff.). K6llner finds in ἀπὸ μ. the statement of a single ground of the 
 divine arrangement, leaving it undecided whether other reasons, and what, 
 were in the mind of the apostle : on the one part the hardening had been de- 
 creed by God over Israel only for the end, that first, etc. But in that case 
 ἀπὸ μ. must have referred to an expressed ἵνα or the like. The temporal 
 view, ‘‘ for ὦ while” (Hofmann), is here as contrary to usage.as in 2 Cor. 1. 
 
 
 
 1 See on μύειν and μυστήρ., Creuzer on Plotin. de Pulcr. Ὁ. 857 f. ; Lennep. Htymol. Ὁ. 4415 
 comp. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 85 ff. ΄ 
 
CHAP. XI., 25. 447 
 14, ii. 5. Paul would have known how to express this sense possibly by 
 τὸ νῦν, or by the classical «τέως. ---- γέγονεν] from whom ? is known from ver. 8. 
 ---ἀχρις οὗ] usque dum intraverit. 'Then—when this shall have taken place 
 —the hardening of Israel shall cease. Calvin’s ita ut is intended, in spite 
 of the language, to remove the idea of a terminus ad quem ; and for the same 
 reason Calovius and others employ much artifice in order to bring out the 
 sense, that down to the end of the world the partial hardening will endure, 
 and therefore, too, the partial conversion, but on/y that which is partial. — 
 τὸ πλήρ. τῶν ἐθνῶν] In opposition to Gusset, Wolfburg, and others named by 
 Wolf, also Wolf himself, Michaelis, Olshausen, Philippi, who understand 
 only the complementum ethnicorum serving to make up for the unbelieving 
 Jews (‘‘the recruitment from the Gentiles,” Michaelis), the wswsloguendi is not 
 decisive ; for according to usage that, with which something else is made 
 full, might certainly be expressed by the genitive with πλήρωμα (Mark viii. 20, 
 and see on Mark vi. 43 ; comp. Eccles. iv. 6). But how enigmatically, and 
 ina manner how liable to misapprehension, would Paul have indicated the sup- 
 posed thought, instead of simply and plainly writing τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐκ 
 τῶν ἐθνῶν ! especially as already, in ver. 12, the analogous expression τὸ πλή- 
 ρωμα αὐτῶν was used in the sense of ‘‘ their full number.” Fritzsche also 
 finds too little : caterva gentilium, so that only a great multitude is meant. 
 Comp. on Eph. iii. 19. We must observe the correlation of ἀπὸ μέρους. . . 
 πλήρωμα... πᾶς : apart of [srael is hardened, until the Gentiles collec- 
 tively shall have come in, and, when that shall have taken place, then ail 
 Israel will be saved. The conversion of the Gentiles ensues by successive 
 stages ; but when their fotality shall be converted, then the conversion of 
 the Jews in their fotality will also ensue ; so that Paul sees the latter— 
 which up to that epoch certainly also advances gradually in individual cases 
 —ensuing, after the full conversion of the Gentiles, as the event complet- 
 ing the assemblage of the church and accomplishing itself probably in rapid 
 development.’ All this, therefore, before the Parousia, not by means of it. 
 Comp. on Acts ili. 20. The expression τὸ πλήρωμα τ. ἐθνῶν is therefore to be 
 taken numerically: the plena copia of the Gentiles (of whom in the first in- 
 stance only a fraction has come and is coming in), their full number. Rightly 
 Theophylact : πάντες, but with arbitrary limitation he adds: οἱ προεγνωσμέ- 
 Just so, in substance, Augustine, Oecumenius, and many others, 
 including even van Hengel : ‘‘plenus numerus gentilium, guotquot compre- 
 hendebant proposita Dei,” comp. Krummacher : ‘only the eect among the 
 Gentiles.” The collective multitude of the Gentiles in the strict sense Hof- 
 
 
 
 vot ἐθνικοί. 
 
 1 There would have been nooffencetaken of the grand things in the perspective 
 
 at the full sense of the πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν, as 
 well as of the correlate πᾶς Ἰσραήλ, ver. 26, 
 and there would have been no occasion to 
 seek artificial limitations of the fulness of 
 these notions, had it been sufficiently con- 
 sidered that Paul is speaking apocalyptically, 
 in virtue of his prophetic contemplation of 
 the last sacred-historical development be- 
 fore the Parousia. The prophet (comp. e.g. 
 Acts ii. 17, xi. 28) contemplates and speaks 
 
 opened to his view in the bulk and summa- 
 rily, without being answerable for such ut- 
 terances according to strict mathematical 
 precision. By a restrictive explaining away 
 and modification of these utterances the 
 prophetic character and spirit suffers a vio- 
 lence foreign to it, against which the sim- 
 ple and clear words do not cease to offer 
 resistance, 
 
448 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 mann seeks to get rid of, by making τὸ πλήρωμα serve only to emphasize the 
 fact that τὰ ἐθνη is to be thought of ‘‘in the full compass of the notion,” so 
 that by τὸ πλήρ. τ. ἐθνῶν no other full amount is intended than that which 
 would be expressed by τὰ ἔθνη itself. Thus there would result as the sense : 
 until no people of the Gentile world is any longer found outside the church. 
 This is decidedly at variance with ver. 12, and with the whole context 
 down to its evident concluding verse (ver. 32), according to which not the 
 peoples as such (in the lump, as it were), but all persons who compose them, 
 must be the subjects of the entrance into the church and of the divine mercy. 
 The above interpretation is a process of rationalizing, artificial and far- 
 fetched, and contrary to the language and the context, by interpreting 
 what is said of the individuals as applying to the nations ; just as Beyschlag, 
 p. 75, understands the two great groups of mankind to be thought of here 
 and in ver. 26. — εἰσέλθῃ} namely, into the community prefigured by the 
 holy olive tree, z.e. into the people of God. There is not yet mention of 
 the kingdom of Messiah ; its establishment is later. The passage Col. i. 13 is 
 wrongly employed with a view to supply εἰς τ. βασιλ. Θεοῦ. See in loc. 
 
 Ver. 26 f. Kai οὕτω] And so, namely, after the πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν shall have 
 come in. The modal character of the οὕτω therefore lies in the succession of 
 time conditioning the emergence of the fact (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 28), as it also 
 in the classics, in the sense of so then, embraces what has been previously 
 said.’ Theodoret rightly says : τῶν yap ἐθνῶν δεξαμένων τὸ κήρυγμα πιστεύσουσι 
 κἀκεῖνοι, and that, according to ver. 11, under the impulse of powerful em- 
 ulation. We may add that this great final result is brought into more im- 
 portant prominence, if we take καὶ οὕτω «.7.4. independently, than if we 
 make it form part of the statement dependent on 67 (Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf, Fritzsche, Ewald, Hofmann, and others). — πᾶς Ἰσραήλ] This notion, 
 so definitely expressed, of the totality of the people isin no way to be lim- 
 ited ; the whole of those are intended, who, at the time that the fulness of 
 the Gentiles shall have come in, will compose Israel. Add Israelites who up 
 to that time shall be still unconverted, will then be converted to salvation, 
 so that at that term entire Israel will obtain the saving deliverance ; but 
 comp., as to the quite unlimited expression, the remark on ver. 25. Lim- 
 itations from other interests than that of exegesis have been suggested : 
 such as that the spiritual Israel, Gal. vi. 16, is meant (Augustine, Theodoret, 
 Luther, Calvin,? Grotius, and others, including Krummacher) ; or only the 
 
 1See Schweighaiuser, Lex. Herod. Il. p. 
 167 ; Thucyd. iii. 96.2; Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 6; 
 Dem. 644, 18, 802. 20. Hofmann, in connec- 
 tion with his incorrect explanation of ἀπὸ 
 μέρους, ver. 25, refers οὕτω to the temporal 
 limitation of the Jewish hardening ; through 
 the fact that the latter took place in the 
 fir'st instance only and thus inits time ceases, 
 there is given to the people the possibil- 
 ity (?), ete. In this way this definitely pro- 
 phetic eement, which lies in the καὶ οὕτω 
 joined to what immediately precedes, is re- 
 moved, and resolved into something entire- 
 
 ly self-evident ! 
 
 2** Heo Israelis nomen ad totum Dei pop- 
 ulum extendo, hoc sensu: Quum gentes in- 
 gressae fuerint, simul et Judaei ex defecti- 
 one se ad fidei obedientiam recipient, atque 
 ita complebitur salus totus Israelis Dei, 
 quem ex utrisque colligt oportet.”—The Re- 
 formers were induced to depart from the 
 literal sense of the apostle, not by exegeti- 
 eal, but by dogmatic considerations, and 
 also by their bad opinion of Jewish depray- 
 ity (‘a Jew or Jewish heart is as hard as 
 stock, stone, iron, or devil, so as in no way to 
 ¢ 
 
CHAP. XI., 26. 449 
 select portion of the Jews (Calovius, Bengel, and several others, including 
 Olshausen : ‘‘all those members of the Israelitish people who from the be- 
 ginning belonged to the true λεῖμμα} ; or that πᾶς is to be taken compara- 
 tively only of the greater number, of the bu/k (Oecumenius, Wetstein, Riickert, 
 Fritzsche, Tholuck). To this comes in substance also Hofmann’s explana- 
 tion : ‘‘that the people, as a people, will be converted ;” but πᾶς ᾿Ισραῆλ is, 
 in fact, not ‘‘ Zsrael as a whole,” but rather the entire Israel, as is also meant 
 in 2 Chron. xii. 1 and in all O. T. passages, in contrast to ἀπὸ μέρους, ver. 
 25. Comp. πᾶς οἶκος Ἴσρ., Acts 11. 36, πᾶς ὁ λαὸς Ἰσρ., and the like. This 
 also against Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 404. — σωθήσεται) will be saved, unto Mes- 
 sianic salvation, by their conversion to Christ. — καθὼς yéyp.] For πᾶς Ἴσρ. 
 owlfo. Paul finds a Seripture warrant,’ not merely a substratum for his own 
 
 be moved,” etc., Luther, 1548, who passed a 
 milder judgment at an earlier period). Still 
 the literal interpretation remained predom- 
 inant amongst the Reformed through the in- 
 fluence of Beza; and through Calixtus and 
 Spener it became so again in the Lutheran 
 Church, in which it had even at an earlier 
 period asserted its claims, through Hunnius, 
 Balduin, and others, in spite of Luther’s 
 authority. Melanchthon held simply by 
 the statement (see his Hnarratio, 1556) : ‘* fu- 
 turum esse ut swbinde usque ad finem mun- 
 di aliqui ex Judaeis convertantur.”” The 
 modest addition which he made at an ear- 
 lier period (1540), of a possible universal 
 conversion of the Jews, is not found in 
 this, his last exposition of the epistle. Fol- 
 lowing Luther, Calovius also explains it 
 only of a successive conversion of the Jews, 
 which is gradually to ensue up to the end 
 of the world, so that there is merely meant 
 a magnus numerus still to be converted. 
 So, too, others in Calovius, and now also 
 Philippi (p. 557 ff.) joins them: Israel is 
 partially hardened until the entrance of the 
 pleroma of the Gentiles; and in this way, 
 namely, that out of the only partially har- 
 dened people a great assemblage of believing 
 ones is continually being formed until the end 
 of the days, will the entire Israel properly 
 aimed at by the O. T. divine word, accord- 
 ing to the prophetic passage, be saved. It 
 is self-evident that thus all the elements 
 which form the points properly so called 
 of this interpretation are forced upon the 
 text, and the result is an historical process 
 recognizable by any one, concerning which 
 it is not easy to see how Paul could in- 
 troduce it asa μυστήριον.---ΟἹ the history 
 of the exposition of this passage, see, more- 
 over, Calovius, p. 190 ff., and Luthardt. 
 
 1 Not, however, as though Paul had de- 
 rived his prophecy from Isa. l.c., for the ὅτι 
 πώρωσις ... καὶ οὕτω he could not derive 
 
 thence. Rather has he—after having ἐν 
 ἀποκαλύψει recognized the declared μυστή- 
 ptov—now also recognized an O. T. proph- 
 ecy in reference to that constituent of it 
 which is contained in πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται ; 
 this, therefore, pertains no longer to the 
 ἀποκάλυψις, by which the μυστήριον itself 
 was disclosed to him, but is to be as- 
 cribed to his own apprehension of the 
 meaning of Seripture. The Messianic 
 prophecy of Isa. lix. 20, 21 (also with the 
 Rabbins a solemn Messianic utterance ; see 
 Schoettg. Hor. Il. pp. 71, 187), refers merely 
 to the Israelites turning from apostasy, and 
 appears therefore incapable of warranting 
 πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται. We have, however, 
 to observe that, according to the apostle’s 
 view and exposition in ver. 17 ff., it is only 
 those who reject Christ among the Jews who 
 have fallen away from the true theocracy 
 (from the olive tree); consequently, if 
 these are converted, entire Israel is recon- 
 ciled, because they who remained and do 
 remain in the theocracy are those who 
 have accepted and accept the preaching of 
 Christ—of whom the σωτηρία is therefore 
 self-evident. This mode of apprehending 
 the quotation, corresponding to the con- 
 textual view of the state of the matter, ex- 
 eludes the far-fetched and artificial expe- 
 dient which Fritzsche offers, when he 
 brings out from the anarthrous ἀσεβείας, 
 and from τὰς ἁμαρτίας having the article 
 (aliqua peccata—all’ sins), the result that in 
 the first half only the eect Israelites, but in 
 the second the entire people, are meant.— 
 Following Calvin and others, Glockler 
 again believes that ver. 27 is borrowed 
 from Jer. xxxi. 31-34; but this must be re- 
 jected, because καὶ αὕτη... διαθήκη 
 stands in Isa. lix. 21, while ὅταν «.7.A. stands 
 literally in Isa. xxvii. 9. Philippi also 
 thinks that the contents of the passage in 
 Jeremiah floated before the mind of the 
 
450 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ideas (Tholuck), in Isa. lix. 20, 21 (not quite closely after the LXX., and, 
 from ὅταν onwards, with a bringing in of xxvil. 9; see Surenhus. καταλλ. 
 p. 503 1.) ; to the prophetic sense of this passage the future salvation of all 
 Israel corresponds as result. — ἐκ Σιών] for from God will the deliverer come ; 
 the theocratic central-point and dwelling-place of the divine kingdom is the 
 holy mount of Zion. Comp. Ps. xiv. 7, 1111. 7, et al. See also ix. 33. The 
 LXX. have, following the original, ἕνεκεν Σιών 15, i.e. for Zion). Our ἐκ 
 Σιών is a variation of memory, occasioned by the reminiscence of other passages 
 (comp. Ps. xiv. 7, liti. 7, ex. 2) ; for évexev 3. would have been quite as 
 suitable to the apostle’s purpose (in opposition to Reiche, Fritzsche, van 
 Hengel) ; hence to discover intentional reasons for this deviation (Philippi : 
 in order to bring into stronger relief the claim of the people as contrasted 
 with the Gentiles) is groundless. Nor was this deviation more convenient 
 (Hofmann) for the apostle, namely, in order to designate Christ’s place of 
 manifestation ; but it involuntarily on his part found its way into the 
 citation freely handled. — ὁ ῥυόμενος] 1.6. not God (Grotius, van Hengel), 
 who first emerges in ver. 27, but the Messiah. In the Heb. we find Oxy, a 
 deliverer, without the article, by which, however, no other is intended. 
 The future coming of the deliverer which is here predicted is, in the sense 
 of the fulfilment of this prophecy, necessarily that whereby the πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴλ 
 σωθήσεται Will be effected ; consequently not the Parousia, because the con- 
 version of all Israel must be antecedent to this, but rather that specially 
 efficacious se/f-revelation of Christ in the preaching of His gospel (comp. Eph. 
 ii. 17), to be expected by the future, whereby He will bring about that 
 final sacred-historical epoch of the people, the conversion of its totality. 
 Erroneously, however, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Beza have 
 supposed it predicted that Elijah or Enoch would appear before the end of 
 the world as converter of the Jews. —droorp. ἀσεβ. ἀπὸ Ἴακ.} He will turn 
 away, i.e. (comp. Bar. iii. 7 ; 1 Macc. iv. 58) remove, do away with impieties 
 from Jacob, By this, in the sense of the apostle, is meant the atoning, 
 reconciling work of the Messiah (comp. John i. 29: αἵρων τ. ἁμαρτ), which 
 He will accomplish in Israel by its conversion. Hence there follows, as the 
 -eorrelative to this in ver. 27, the forgiveness of sins on the part of God, pro- 
 cured through Him, and that as the actually saving essence of the covenant, 
 which the people possesses from God.* Compare the original text, which, 
 however, instead of κ. ἀποστρ. ἀσεβ. ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ has 2Ρ}}3 pws "aw, and for 
 those turning from apostasy in Jacob. Paul, however, because following gen- 
 erally in this quotation the LXX., retains also its deviation from the orig- 
 inal text, but not as if this could have been more welcome to him for his 
 object, for in that respect he might have just as well made use of the words 
 of the original. —aizy] points to the following (comp. 1 John v. 2), so that 
 the sense of ver. 27 is: ‘‘ And when I shall have forgiven their sins, this, this 
 remission of sins conferred by me, will be my covenant to them, i.e. they will 
 
 sapostle. If this were the case, why should rejection of the people of God (ver. 1), the 
 he not have cited this well-known leading covenant of God with them now subsists 
 passage in reference to the new covenant? _inits entire fulfilment! 
 
 1 How happy a final result! Instead of a 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ. 2%. 451 
 
 therein have from me the execution of my covenant.” Both in the orig- 
 inal and in the LXX. airy points to the following, in which the words of 
 the covenant (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐμὸν. . . . οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόμ. K.T.A.) are ad- 
 duced ; but instead of them, Paul, for the object which he has in view, 
 puts ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι x.7.2. from Isa. xxvii. 9, where likewise a preceding dem- 
 onstrative (τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ) points forward to ὅταν. Hence we 
 may not, with others (including Kéllner and Hofmann), refer αὕτη to the 
 preceding, in which case ἀποστρ. ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἴακ. is supposed to point to the 
 moral conversion, and aged. τ. ἁμαρτ. ait. to the forgiveness, on the ground of 
 which that conversion takes place (see Hofmann). According to this view, 
 the essence of the covenant would lie in sanctification, not in reconciliation, 
 which would be conceived rather as antecedent to the covenant,—a view 
 which runs counter to the N. T. doctrine (Matt. xxvi. 26 ; Heb. ix. 15 ff., 
 x. 29, xii. 24, xiii. 20).—7 rap’ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη) The covenant which proceeded 
 Sromme, which was made on my part. See Bernhardy, p. 255 f. ; Fritzsche, 
 ad Mare. p. 182 f. ; van Hengel, in loc. 
 
 Remarn.—The conversion of entire Israel promised by Paul as a μυστήριον re- 
 vealed to him, has not yef taken place ; for the opinion, that the promise had 
 been fulfilled already in the apostolic age through the conversion of a great 
 part of the people (comp. Euseb. H. FE. 111. 35 ; Judaizantes in Jerome ; Grotius, 
 Limborch, Wetstein), is set aside, notwithstanding Acts xxi. 20, by the literal 
 meaning of πᾶς ᾿Ισραῆλ and of πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν. The fulfilment is to be re- 
 garded as still future, as the last step in the universal extension of Christianity upon 
 earth. In respect of time no more special definition can be given, than that the 
 conversion of the totality of the Gentiles must precede it ; whence only this is 
 certain, that it is still a time very distant. Paul has certainly viewed the matter 
 as near, seeing that he conceived the Parousia itself to be near (not merely, 
 perhaps, its possible, but its actual emergence—in opposition to Philippi),—a 
 conception which was shared by him with the whole apostolical church, al- 
 though it remained without the verification of the event, as this was conceived of. 
 But the promise of the conversion of the people of Israel is not on that account 
 itself to be regarded as one, the fulfilment of which is no longer to be hoped for, 
 —as though, with the non-verified conception of the time of the event, the event 
 itself should fall to the ground (Ammon, Reiche, Kéllner, Fritzsche) ; for it is 
 the fact in itself, and not the epoch of it, which is disclosed by the Apostle as 
 part of the μυστήριον which was revealed to him ; and therefore this disclosure 
 rested on the ἐποκάλυψις received, not on individual opinion and expectation. 
 The duration of time until the Parousia was not subject-matter of revelation, 
 Acts i. 7, and the conception of it belongs, therefore, not to that in the apos- 
 tolic teaching which has the guarantee of divine certainty, but to the domain 
 of subjective hope and expectation, which associated themselves with what 
 was revealed, —a distinction which even Philippi does not reject. The latter, 
 however, endeavours to remove from the category of error the apostolic expec- 
 tation of the nearness of the Parousia, because it was not cherished with that 
 divine certainty ; but cannot thereby prevent it, where it is presupposed so 
 definitely, as e.g. xiii. 11, or is expressed so unconditionally, as e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 
 51, 52, from being characterized by an unprejudiced mind as a human error, 
 which did not, however, exclude occasionally other moods, as in 2 Cor, v. 8, 
 
452 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Phil. i. 23. Of such human mistakes and vacillations, which lie outside the 
 range of revealed truth, that truth is independent (against Hoelemann, neue 
 Bibelstud, p. 232 ff., and others).—We may further notice that our passage 
 directly controverts the Ebionitish view, now renewed in various quarters (Chr. 
 A. Crusius, Delitzsch, Baumgarten, Ebrard, Auberlen, and others ; expositors 
 of the Apocalypse), of an actual restoration of Israel to the theocratic kingdom 
 in Canaan, as to be expected on the ground of prophetic predictions (Hos. ii. 
 2,16 ff., 111. 4, 5; Isa. xi. 11, xxiv. 16, chap. lx. ; Jer. xxxiv. 33, eal.). Israel 
 does.not take in the church, but the church takes in Israel ; and whenever 
 this occurs, Israel has in the true sense again its kingdom and its Canaan. 
 Comp. Tholuck on ver. 25 ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 576 δ, ; Hengstenberg, Christol. 
 I. p. 256 ; and see especially Bertheau, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, 
 p. 353 ff. 
 
 Ver. 28 ff. Yet a final summary gathering up of the sacred-historical 
 relation of Israel to God, and (vv. 29-32) discussion of it ; in which, how- 
 ever, the reference, bearing on the apostle’s object, to the statement καὶ 
 οὕτω πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴλ σωθήσεται does not require the parenthesizing of καθὼς γέγραπται 
 «.T.A. (Ewald), asin ver. 28 the substantive verb is easily and obviously 
 supplied.—The unbelieving Israelites as such are the subject (αὐτῶν, ver. 27). 
 --- κατὰ τὸ evayy.] The relation is thereby designated, according to which 
 they are ἐχθροί. [See Note CXXYV. p. 464.] The gospel was preached to 
 them ; but they rejected it, in which relation they are hated of God. In 
 conformity with the message of salvation, which reached them, but was 
 despised by them (comp. ver. 25), they must necessarily be ἐχθροί ; since in 
 fact, not accepting the d:cacocivy proffered in the gospel, they remained under 
 the wrath of God (ver. 7). According to the context, we must think of the 
 ἀπείθεια Of the Jews, ver. 30 ; and therefore neither of their exclusion from 
 the gospel (Fritzsche), nor even of the diffusion of the latter (Riickert). — 
 ἐχθροί] not my enemies (Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, Semler, and others), nor 
 yet enemies of the gospel (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Michaelis, Morus, 
 Rosenmiiller). That, on the contrary, Θεῷ (see on Gal. iv. 16) is to be sup- 
 plied, as Θεοῦ with ἀγαπητοί, is evident generally from the connection with 
 vv. 27 and 29 ; and that ἐχθροί is to be explained not in an active (Olshausen, 
 van Hengel, Ritschl, and older interpreters), but in a passive sense (to whom 
 God is hostile), is shown by the contrast of ἀγαπητοί. Comp. on v. 10. -- δὲ 
 ὑμᾶς] for your sake, because you are thereby to attain to salvation, ver. 11. — 
 κατὰ τὴν éxA,| is usually taken : as fellow-members of the nation elected to be 
 the people of God ; comp. ver. ἢ. But é«Aoyf/—differently from the προέγνω, 
 ver. 2—has already been clearly defined in vv. 5, 7 as the elect λεῖμμα, and 
 hence, with Ewald, is here also to be taken in this sense. Consequently : 
 in conformity with the fact, however, that among them is that elect remnant. 
 This believing ἐκλογῇ is the living testimony of the undying love of God 
 towards the people. Comp. ver. ὅ. --- διὰ τοὺς πατ.] for the fathers’ sake. 
 Calvin aptly remarks : ‘‘ Quoniam ab illis propagata fuerat Dei gratia ad 
 posteros, secundum pacti formam : Deus tuus et seminis tui ;” comp. ver. 
 16; Lukei. 54, 55. 
 
 Ver. 29. Confirmation of the second half of ver. 28 by the axiom: ““ Un- 
 
 
 
CHAP. XI., 30-32. 453 
 
 repented, and so subject to no recall, are the displays of grace and (especially) 
 the calling of God.” The application to be made of this general proposition 
 is : Consequently God, who has once made this people the recipient of the 
 displays of His grace and has called them to the Messianic salvation, will 
 not, as though He had repented of this, again withdraw His grace from 
 Israel, and leave and abandon His calling of Israel without realization. — 
 On ἀμεταμέλητος, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 10. 
 
 Vv. 30, 31. Tap] not referable to ver. 28 (Hofmann), introduces that, 
 which, according to the economy of salvation under the divine mercy, will 
 emerge as actual proof of the truth of ver. 99. --- ἠπειθήσατε] have refused obe- 
 dience, which came to pass through unbelief. For the elucidation of this, see 
 1. 18 ff. — vvv dé] contrast to the time before they become Christian (ποτέ), 
 Eph. ii. 8. — ἠλεήθητε] For the reception into Christianity with its blessings 
 is, as generally, so in particular over-against the preceding ἠπειθήσατε, on 
 God’s part solely the work of mercy. —7q τούτων ἀπειθ. | through the disobedi- 
 ence of these; for they are ἐχθροὶ dv ὑμᾶς, ver. 28. Comp., besides, vv. 11 f., 
 15, 19 f. The non-compliance of the Jews with the requirement of faith in 
 the gospel brought about the reception of the Gentiles. The latter, the con- 
 verted Gentiles, are individualized by the address to the Gentile-Christian 
 community of the readers (ὑμεῖς). ---- ἠπείθησαν] namely, through rejection of 
 the gospel. —r@ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει) is, on account of the parallelism, to be joined 
 to the following (iva x.7.A.), and the dative to be taken in the sense of medi- 
 ate agency, like τῇ τούτ. ἀπειθ. : in order that through the mercy that befell you 
 (which may excite them to emulation of your faith, ver. 11) mercy should 
 also accrue to them. The position of τ. ip. ἐλ. before the introductory 
 conjunction is for the sake of emphasis ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7; Gal. iv. 10, 
 et al. ; Winer, p. 522 [E. T. 561]. Hence the parallelism is not to be 
 sacrificed by placing a comma after ἐλέει. Nevertheless such is the 
 course followed—and with very different views of the dative, arbitra- 
 rily departing from the datival notion in τῇ τούτ. ἀπειθείᾳ---ν the Vulgate 
 (‘‘in vestram misericordiam’’), Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, 
 Wolf, Morus, Lachmann, Gléckler, Maier, Ewald (‘‘so these also became 
 now disobedient alongside of [bei] your mercy”), Buttmann in the Stud. wu. 
 Krit. 1860, p. 867 (‘‘in favour of your mercy, that you might find mercy”), 
 and others. —iva] the divinely ordained aim of the ἠπείθησαν. On the em- 
 phatic ὑμετέρῳ in the objective sense, see Winer, p. 145 [E. T. 153] ; Kiihner, 
 If. 1, p. 486. 
 
 Ver. 32. Establishment of ver. 30 f., and that by an exhibition of the 
 universal divine procedure, with the order of which that which is said in ver. 
 31 of the now disobedient Jews and their deliverance is incorporated. Thus 
 ver. 32 is at once the grand summary and the glorious key-stone—impelling 
 once more to the praise of God (ver. 33 ff.)—of the whole preceding section 
 of the epistle.’— σνγκλείω εἰς : to include in (2 Macc. v. 5, comp. Luke v. 6), 
 has, in the later Greek (Diod. Sic. xix. 19, comp. xx. 74, frequently in Poly- 
 
 
 
 1‘“*Note this prime saying, which con- ness, and alone exalts God’s mercy, to be 
 demns all the world and man’s righteous- obtained through faith” (Luther's gloss). 
 
454 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 bius), and in the LXX. (after the Heb, V20 with 2), also the metaphorical 
 sense : to hand over unto or under a power which holds as it were in ward. 
 Comp. on Gal. iii, 22, 28. Correspondent, as regards the notion, is παρέ- 
 δωκε, i. 24. The compound expression strengthens the meaning ; it does not 
 denote simul (Bengel and others).—The effective sense is not to be changed, 
 which has been attempted by taking it sometimes as declarative (Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Zeger, Glass, Wolf, Carpzov, Wetstein, Ch. 
 Schmidt), sometimes as permissive (Origen, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, and 
 many others, including Flatt and Tholuck). — εἰς ἀπείθ. towards God ; see 
 vv. 30, 81. — τοὺς πάντας] Of Gentiles (ὑμεῖς) and Jews (oiror) Paul has pre- 
 viously spoken ; hence oi πάντες now comprises the totality, namely all Jews 
 and Gentiles jointly and severally,— ‘‘ cunctos s. universos, i.e. singulos in 
 unum corpus colligatos,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 521. Comp. on the 
 subject-matter, iii. 9, 19 ; Gal. iii. 22. So necessarily also the following 
 rove πάντας. The view which understands only the two masses of Jews and 
 Gentiles, these two halves of mankind in the gross (usually so taken recently, 
 as by Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, Weiss), cannot suit the compre- 
 hensive τ. πάντας (as if it were equal to τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους), since it is by no 
 means appropriate to the mere number of two, but only to their collective sub- 
 jects. Not even the Jewish ἐκλογή, vv. 7, 28, is to be excepted (Maier, van 
 Hengel), because its subjects were also before their conversion sinners (iii. 
 23), and therefore subjected to the power of disobedience towards God ; for 
 the συνέκλεισε . . . ἀπειθείαν points back, in the case of each single member 
 of the collective whole, to the time before conversion and wntil conversion. 
 If we should desire to refer οἱ πάντες merely to the Jews (van Hengel by way 
 of a suggestion, and Hofmann), who are meant as ὦ people in their collective 
 shape (consequently not in all individuals ; see Hofmann), the close relation- 
 ship between ver. 30 and ver. 31 would be opposed to it, since the reference 
 of γάρ merely to the apodosis in ver. 31 is quite arbitrary ; and, indeed, the 
 bold concluding thought in ver. 32 possesses its great significance and its 
 suitableness to the following outburst of praise, simply and solely through 
 its all-comprehensive contents. And even apart from this, τοὺς πάντας in fact 
 never denotes : them as a collective whole, as a people,’ but, as universally (in 
 1 Cor. ix. 22, x. 17; 2 Cor. v. 14; Phil. τι. 21; comp. Eph. iv. 13; 2 Macc. 
 xi. 11, xii. 40, e¢a/., and in all the classical writers) all of them, as also only 
 in this sense does the suitable emphasis fall on the repetition in the apodosis, 
 —iva τ. π. ἐλεήσῃ] in order that He may have mercy upon all. This divine 
 purpose Paul saw to be already in part attained,—namely, in the case of all 
 already converted ; but its general fulfilment lay, to his view, in the devel- 
 opment of the future on to the great terminus expressed in ver. 25 f. We 
 may observe that our passage is at variance not merely with the decretum. 
 reprobationis (‘‘ hance particulam universalem opponamus tentationi de par- 
 ticularitate . . .; non fingamus in Deo contradictorias voluntates,” 
 Melanchthon), but also with the view (Olshausen, Krummacher, and older 
 
 
 
 1 οἱ πάντες has, as is well known, the sense of im ali in the case of numbers. See 
 Kriiger, § 50. 11. 13; Ktihner, IT. 1, p. 545. 
 
CHAP. XI., 33. 455 
 expositors) that Paul means the collective body of the elect. See rather ver. 
 25 f. The ἀποκατάστασις is not, however, to be based on our passage for 
 this reason, that the universality of the divine purpose of redemption (comp, 
 1 Tim. ii. 4), as well as the work of redemption having taken place for the 
 justification of all (ver. 18), does not exclude its final non-realization in part 
 through the fault of the individuals concerned,’ and cannot do away with 
 either the applicability of the purpose-clause exhibited in principle and 
 summarily in prophetic fashion (comp. remark on ver. 25), nor with the 
 divine judgment on final concrete self-frustrations of the counsel of salva- 
 tion. And this the less, because such misinterpretations of the universal- 
 istic axiom are opposed by the apostle’s doctrine of election as a sure cor- 
 rective. There has been incorrectly discovered in such general expressions 
 a want of consistency on the part of Paul, namely, ‘‘ undeveloped outlines of 
 a liberal conception” (Georgii in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 25). 
 
 Ver. 33. [See Note CXXVI. p. 464.] The great and holy truth containing 
 the whole divine procedure in preparing bliss (ver. 82),—with which Paul 
 now arrives at the close of his entire development of doctrine in the epistle, 
 —compels first an enraptured expression of praise to God from his deeply- 
 moved heart, before he can commence the exhortations, which he then 
 (chap. xii.) purposes to subjoin. —é βάθος] θαυμάζοντός ἐστιν ἡ ῥῆσις, οὐκ 
 εἰδότος τὸ πᾶν, Chrysostom. — The depth is an expression of great fulness and 
 superabundance, according to the very prevalent mode of expressing also in 
 the classics greatness of riches by βάθος πλούτου." By this sense we are here 
 to abide, just because πλούτου, is added, and without deriving the ex- 
 pression from the conception of subterranean treasure-chambers (van 
 Hengel) ;* and we are not to find in it the sense of wnsearchableness 
 (Philippi), which is not expressed even in 1 Cor. ii. 10, Judith viii. 14, and 
 is not required by the following ὡς ἀνεξ. «.7.A., since this rather characterizes 
 the βάθος σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως from the point of view of human knowledge, to 
 which it must necessarily be unfathomable, but in a peculiar relation. In 
 its reference to σοφίας κ. γνώσεως, namely, βάθος is the depth of wisdom, ὁ.6. the 
 fulness of wisdom, which is acquainted with the nature and the connection 
 of its objects not superficially, but exhaustively and fundamentally, and is 
 therefore incomprehensible by human judgment.* — πλούτου] is either re- 
 garded as opening the series of genitival definitions of βάθος : Odepth (1) 
 of riches, and (2) of wisdom, and (3) of knowledge of God (so Origen, Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Flatt, Tholuck, 
 K6llner, de Wette, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, Hofmann, Man- 
 
 1 Comp. Gerlach, α΄. letzten Dinge, p. 154 
 ff. ; Schmid, in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1870, 
 
 3 This idea might have been precluded 
 by the fact that the expression βάθος κακῶν 
 
 p. 133. 
 
 3 Soph. Aj. 130, and Lobeck, in loc. but 
 comp. with Ellendt, I. p. 286, βαθὺς πλοῦτος 
 (Ael. V. 77. iii. 18), βαθὺ πλουτεῖν (Tyrt. iti. 
 6), βαθύπλουτος, very rich (Aesch. Suppl. p. 
 549, Crinag. 17), βαθυπλούσιος (Poll. iii. 109). 
 Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 232; Blomfield, 
 Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 471. 
 
 (Eur. Hel. 310) and the like are used. 
 
 4 See on βάθος and βαθύς, as applying to 
 mental depth (Plat. Theaet. p. 183 E; Poly- 
 bius, XxXvii. 10. 3, vi. 24. 9, xxi. 5. 5), Dissen, 
 ad Pind. Nem. ἵν. 7, Ὁ. 396; Blomfield, αὐ 
 Aesch. Sept. 578; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 
 252. Comp. βαθύφρων, Pind. Nem. vii. 1; 
 Plut. Sol. 14; βαθύβουλος, Aesch: Pers. 188. 
 
480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 gold, and others) ; or the two other genitives are subordinated to πλούτου 
 (Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Wolf, Koppe, Reiche, van 
 Hengel, and others), in which case, however, 340. πλούτ. is not to be re- 
 solved into deep riches, but is to be taken: O depth of riches in wisdom as 
 well as in knowledge of God; comp. Col. ii. 2; Rom. ii. 4. The decision 
 between these two suppositions is given by what follows, of which ὦ βάθος 
 ... Θεοῦ is the theme. As vv. 33, 34 describe the σοφία and γνῶσις, and vv. 
 35, 86 the πλοῦτος Θεοῦ, the former view, which also primarily and most 
 naturally presents itself, is to be preferred. Tlovroc, however, is usually 
 understood of the divine riches of grace (comp. 11. 4, x. 12 ; Eph. i. 7, 11. 7) ; 
 see ver. 82. To this ver. 35 aptly corresponds ; and see x. 12. But since no 
 genitival definition is appended, we must content ourselves simply with the 
 sense of the word itself : how superabundantly rich is God! Phil. iv. 19. 
 Comp. Riickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hofmann. — Σοφία and γνῶσις are cer- 
 tainly to be distinguished (comp. on Col. ii. 3), but popularly, so that the 
 former, the more general, is the wisdom of God (comp. xvi. 27; Eph. iii. 
 10), ruling everything in the best way for the best end ; while the latter, 
 the more special, is the knowledge pertaining to it ο all relations, and thus 
 especially of the means which He therein employs, of the methods which 
 He has therein to take. To the latter—the yvaou—are to be referred ai ὁδοὶ 
 αὐτοῦ, i.e. His measures, modes of procedure, ai οἰκονομίαι, Chrysostom (comp. 
 Heb. iii. 10, Acts xiii. 10, according to the Heb. 717, and also to classical 
 usage) ; to the former—the cogia—belong τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ, 1.6. decisions, re- 
 solves formed, according to which His action proceeds (comp. Zeph. 111. 8 5 
 Wisd. xii. 12), as He, e¢.g., has decided, according to ver. 32, that all should 
 be disobedient, in order that all might find mercy. On account of the 
 deep σοφία of God His κρίματα are unsearchable for men, etc. — ἀνεξερεύνητος, 
 unsearchable, is found only in Heraclitus as quoted in Clement and Sym- 
 machus, Prov. xxv. 8, Jer. xvii. 9, Suidas ; ἀνεξιχνίαστος, untraceable (Eph. 
 iii. 8), οὗ μηδ᾽ Lyvoc ἐστὶν εὑρεῖν (Suidas), corresponds to the metaphorical ὁδοί, 
 Comp. Job v. 9, ix. 10, xxxiv. 24; Manass. 6 ; Clement, ad Cor. ee 
 Ver. 34. Paul, by way of confirming his entire exclamation in ver, 33 
 (not merely the second half), continuing by γάρ, adopts the words of Isa. 
 xl. 13 (almost quite exactly after the LXX.) as his own. Comp. 1 Cor. 1]. 
 16 ; Judith viii. 18, 14 ; Wisd. ix. 17 ; Ecclus. xviii. 2 ff—The first half 
 has been referred to γνῶσις, the second to the σοφία (Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Wetstein, Fritzsche), and rightly so. Paul goes back with his three ques- 
 tions upon the γνῶσις, to which the νοῦς, the divine reason as the organ of 
 absolute knowledge and truth, corresponds ;* upon the σοφία, which has no 
 σύμβουλος ; and (ver. 85) upon the πλοῦτος, from which results the negation 
 of τίς προέδωκεν κιτ.3. Philippi is opposed to this view, but can at the same 
 time (similarly van Hengel and Hofmann) only bring out in a very far- 
 fetched and indirect manner the result, that ver. 35 also sets forth the divine 
 wisdom and knowledge (so far, namely, as the latter is not bound from 
 without). — τίς σύμβ. αὐτοῦ éyév.| Who has become his adviser, His counsel- 
 
 1 Comp. Kluge in the Jahro. 7. D. Theol. 1871, Ὁ. 324 ff. 
 
CHAP. {᾿, 35, 86. 45Y 
 giving helper? ‘‘ Scriptura ubique subsistit in eo, quod Dominus voluit et 
 dixit et fecit ; rationes rerum universalium singulariumve non pandit ; de 
 iis, quae nostram superant infantiam, ad aeternitatem remittit fideles, 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 9 55...) Bengel. For parallels in Greek writers, see Spiess, Logos Sper- 
 imat. p. 240. 
 
 ' Ver. 35. Description of the βάθος πλούτου by words which are moulded 
 after Job ΧΙ. 3, according to the Hebrew, not according to the LXX. (xli. 
 .11), whose translation is quite erroneous.’— καὶ avrarod. αὐτῷ] and will it 
 be recompensed again to Him? With whom does the case occur, that he has 
 previously made a gift to God, and that a recompense will be made to him 
 in return for it ? Change of construction by καὶ... αὐτῷ, here occasioned 
 by the Heb. D2wN). But for the Greek usage, comp. Bernhardy, p. 304 ; 
 Kihner, IT. 2, p. 936. 
 
 Ver. 36 does not apply to all the three foregoing questions (Hofmann), 
 but simply the last of them is established by the connective ὅτε (for truly) as 
 regards its negative contents: ‘‘ No one has beforehand given to God,” 
 etc.—All things are from God (primal cause), in so far as all things have 
 proceeded from God’s creative power ; through God (ground of mediate 
 agency), in so far as nothing exists without God’s continuous operation ; for 
 God (final cause), in so far as all things serve the ends of God (not merely : 
 the honour of God, as many think). Comp. 1 Cor. vill. 6 ; Col. 1. 16; 
 Heb. ii. 10. These passages speak quite against the opinion, that in the 
 present passage the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit (Olshausen, Philippi, 
 Thomasius, Jatho, Krummacher, following Ambrosiaster, Hilary, Toletus, 
 Estius, Calovius, and others) is expressed—a view which is also quite remote 
 from the connection.* The context speaks simply of God (the Father), to 
 whom no one can have given anything beforehand, etc., because He, as 
 Bengel aptly expresses it, is Origo et Cursus et Terminus rerum omnium. 
 This may be recognized by the exegesis that has the deepest faith in Script- 
 ure without any rationalistic idiosyncrasy, as the example of Bengel him- 
 self shows. With reason neither Chrysostom, nor Oecumenius, nor Theo- 
 phylact,* neither Erasmus, nor Melanchthon, nor Calvin, nor Beza have 
 expressed any reference to the Trinity in their explanations ; but Augus- 
 tine has this reference, against which also Tholuck, Hofmann, and Gess (Ὁ. 
 
 1 Τὴ the LXX. Isa. xl. 14, Cod. A, as also relation. This observation is not meant 
 
 ὃς, has our words, but certainly through in- 
 terpolation from the present passage. <Ac- 
 eording to Ewald, Paul probably found 
 them in his copy of the LXX. just after Isa. 
 xl. 13. 
 
 2 With the same warrant, or, in other 
 words, with the same arbitrariness, the 
 Trinity might be found, with Origen, in ver. 
 33; and in particular, πλούτου might be re- 
 ferred to the Father, σοφίας to the Son 
 (Luke xi. 49), and γνώσεως to the Holy Spirit 
 (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11); in consistency with 
 which, moreover, the βάθος, belonging to 
 all three elements, might have been ex- 
 plained of the mystery of the Trinitarian 
 
 to sound like ‘* Gnostic mockery” (Philippi) ; 
 such is far from my intention. That the 
 doctrine of the Trinity (that of the New 
 Testament, namely, which is Subordination) 
 was vividly before the consciousness of the 
 apostle, no unprejudiced person denies ; 
 but herve he has neither stated not hinted at 
 it, as the third element εἰς αὐτόν shows suf- 
 ficiently in and by itself, for all things can 
 have their ¢edic reference to none other than 
 to the Father or (Col. i. 16) to the Son. 
 
 3 Theodoret argues from the first two 
 statements the equality of the Father and 
 the Son; he says nothing concerning the 
 Spirit. 
 
458 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 d. Pers. Chr. p. 158) have been sufficiently unbiassed to declare themselves. 
 — dv αὐτοῦ] God is mediate cause of all things by His upholding and ruling. 
 Comp. Heb. ii. 20. To refer, with others, this statement to creation (Theo- 
 phylact : ὁ ποιητὴς πάντων ; comp. ecumenius, Riickert, Fritzsche), would 
 fail to bring out at least any popular distinction from ἐξ αὐτοῦ, and—which 
 is decisive against such reference—that would be affirmed of the Father 
 which pertains to the Son (Col. 1. 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; John i. 3). Theo- 
 doret rightly remarks : αὐτὸς τὰ γεγονότα διατελεῖ κυβερνῶν. ---- εἰς αὐτόν] All 
 things serve Him (comp. Heb. ii. 10) as their ultimate end. This is explained 
 by Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Fritzsche of the upholding (συνέχονται éme- 
 στραμμένα πρὸς αὐτόν). On the whole, comp. what Marcus Antoninus, iv. 238, 
 says of φύσις : ἐκ σοῦ πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα, and Gataker in loc. — ἡ 
 δόξα] 86. εἴη; as at xvi. 27 : the befitting glory. Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21. 
 
 Notts By AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 CXIV. Ver. 1. λέγω οὖν, μὴ ἀπώσατο k.T.A. 
 
 Having presented in ch. ix. the fact that the promise and covenant of God were 
 consistent with a lapse and rejection of the Jews and, also, with making all de- 
 pendent on faith, and in ch. ix. 30-x. 21 the cause of the lapse and its inex- 
 cusableness, the Apostle now raises the question whether the rejection thus 
 occasioned involved in itself an entire casting off of the chosen people. Did 
 the nation stumble to the end that it should utterly fall? This thought he re- 
 pudiates as abhorrent to his holy feeling, and especially to his Jewish national 
 sentiment. How can God reject forever His people whom He foreknew? Can 
 the προέγνω fail to be realized in the δοξάζειν, in any and every part of God’s 
 spiritual plan, from the beginning with Abraham to the final consummation ? 
 (Compare viii. 29.) This cannot be. The losses and failures must be partial and 
 temporary, but the end will show the depth of the riches both of wisdom and. 
 knowledge. 
 
 Tov λαὸν αὐτοὺ refers to the nation, not to individuals, and thus accords with 
 the preceding chapters, as well as with all that follows, as showing that the na- | 
 tional reference is the primary, if not the exclusive one throughout the entire 
 section. Ὅν προέγνω is not a limitation of λαόν, which would, as Meyer says, 
 make the Apostle disarrange completely the point in question. The careful 
 observation of the progress of thought makes it evident that what the Apostle 
 means to declare is, that though, as in the time of Elijah, there has been a 
 great falling away and the remnant only holds fast, yet God does not forget 
 His promise. His gifts and calling are without repentance. The nation is 
 beloved for the fathers’ sake. 
 
 CXV. Ver. 2. οὐκ οἴδατε x.t.A. 
 
 The particle 7 here, asin other similar instances (cf. vi. 3, vii. 1), introduces 
 a confirmatory proof of what precedes by presenting the only alternative in the 
 case ; and οὐκ οἴδατε indicates that this cannot be thought of as true. The facts 
 of the Israelitish history in the time of Elijah were too familiar to the readers 
 to whom the writer especially refers for him to suppose, for a moment, that 
 
NOTES. 459 
 
 they were notin their minds. But, if they were thus in mind, they must make 
 the great fact evident that God keeps His hold upon the nation as His own, 
 however many of its individual members may turn away from His service and 
 Himself. The selected few receive the blessing, and pass it on to a better age. 
 It is not, however, the salvation of the individuals making up this chosen few 
 which constitutes the chief thought of the passage ; but, as Godet has well ex- 
 pressed it, ‘the indestructible existence of a believing remnant at all periods 
 of their history, even in the most disastrous crises of unbelief.” This secur- 
 ing such a remnant involves the fact of an election of grace. As Weiss ed. 
 Mey. remarks, we have in κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν an added thought, not 
 essential to the proof of ver. 2. It recalls what was said in ix. 11, and sug- 
 gests with regard to the λεῖμμα what was true in the case of Jacob and Esau. 
 The selection has been manifest through all the history. It has made the 
 progress of the Divine plan of redemption an unbroken one in its course. But 
 it has never in a single instance been due to works in any degree more than it 
 was in the beginning. It is God’s favour that has made it, and so, as He has 
 never forgotten His people, He never will utterly reject them. 
 
 CXVI. Ver. 11. λέγω οὖν, μὴ ἔπταισαν iva πέσωσιν ; 
 
 The subject of ἔπταισαν may be the λοιποί (ver. 8), or it may be the nation which, 
 as a whole, stumbled in their being hardened. The general subject through- 
 out the chapter and the αὐτῶν in the phrase πλήρωμα αὐτῶν point toward the 
 latter view. ‘The same view is favored by vy. 25-28. On the other hand, the 
 fact that of λοιποί is the nearest subject to which the word can refer in the con- 
 text, and that the verb itself is plural, while ἐπέτυχεν is singular in ver. 7, 
 where the nation is mentioned by its collective name, suggest the other ex- 
 planation. Though the particular idea of the sentence will be modified, in 
 some degree, according as this point is determined, the main, thought of the 
 passage will be substantially the same—namely, that this stumbling was not 
 to the end of a final and remediless fall of the Jews, but to the end of securing 
 salvation for the Gentiles,and of bringing, through what should be accomplished 
 for them, a reacting influence upon the chosen nation itself, which should 
 lead it also to salvation, Probably the nation is to be regarded as the subject 
 of the verb. 
 
 The view of some writers, following Augustine, that the meaning is, Did 
 they stumble merely that they should fall? Was there not some further design? 
 must be rejected, with Meyer, because there is no ‘merely’ in the text, and 
 also because it loses sight of the emphatic contrast between πέσωσιν, as denoting 
 absolute final fall, and ἔπταισαν, referring to a temporary lapse. 
 
 OXVII. Ver. 12. τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν — τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν. 
 
 That αὐτῶν in these phrases refers to the Jews as ἃ nation, and not to the 
 individuals among them, or the portion of the people who were hardened, seems 
 to be proved by the words connected with it. The ἥττημα, as contrasted with the 
 πλήρωμα, is the loss or diminishing which is occasioned by, and involved in, 
 the ἔπταισαν, and the παράπτωμα. [This is the fundamental idea, even if we 
 give to ἥττημα, with Meyer, the sense of clades—as, not improbably, we should. | 
 The nation suffered a disaster or loss in this unbelief and rejection of the 
 
400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 λοιποί, and its numbers are made full (πλήρωμα) when all believe (ver. 26). The 
 same thing is indicated by ver. 15, and also by vv. 16 ff. This reference of αὐτῶν 
 (cf. also παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς, ver. 11, τὴν σάρκα μου, ver. 14, πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους 
 τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ, γέγονεν, ver. 25) favors strongly the view that the subject of ἔπταισαν, 
 also, is the nation, and that the Apostle conceives of the nation as stumbling 
 in the action of the unbelieving part of it. πλήρωμα here, and probably in all 
 cases in the N. T., means that by which something is made full. 
 
 The plan of God is stated in ver. 11 in relation to the first stages of its de- 
 velopment and influence ; in ver. 26 in respect to its consummation ; in vy. 
 31, 32 in its grand sweep and its purpose of mercy for all. It is declared to be 
 the Divine plan in vy. 11, 12, and the declaration is confirmed in vy. 13 ff. by 
 setting forth the fact that, as the divinely commissioned apostle to the Gen- 
 tiles, Paul was himself laboring in the line of this plan and for the accomplish- 
 ment of it. 
 
 CXVIII. Ver. 13. ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. 
 
 That δέ is the correct reading here (rather than T. R. yap) is rendered prob- 
 able, not only by the external evidence (see Meyer’s textual note at the begin- 
 ning of the chapter), but also by the progress of the thought of the passage. 
 yap was, not improbably, introduced because the sentence was supposed to state 
 a reason for the prominence given to the Gentiles in the preceding verse. But 
 the writer is making a transition (see Note CXVII.) from the statement of the 
 Divine plan, to the statement of his own course of working in the line of that 
 plan, and δέ is thus the particle which is appropriate to the clause. The verse 
 being introduced in this way, its general bearing on the previous verses will be 
 the same, whether we read μὲν οὖν after ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, or μέν only. If, however, we 
 read μέν, λέγω is probably to be translated say: And I say to you who are Gen- 
 tiles, that inasmuch, ete., while if the reading μὲν οὖν is adopted, λέγω may mean 
 speak: But I speak to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch, then, ete., I glorify, ete. 
 The emphasis is evidently on ὑμῖν, and, in case we read with οὖν, the attention 
 of the readers is called to the fact that what is said (though referring to the 
 Jews) is addressed to them as Gentiles ; and they are then, in an independent 
 sentence, reminded that in all his labors for the Gentile nations he has the good 
 of his own also in view. I glorify my office as an apostle of the Gentiles, he 
 says, by so directing my efforts that, if by any means possible, I may provoke 
 the Jews to emulation. 
 
 CXIX. Ver. 15. ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν. 
 
 In the attempt to determine what the Apostle has in mind in the use of these 
 words, the following points may be noticed; (1) The form of expression in the 
 verse indicates that ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν is something beyond καταλλαγῆ. (2) The same 
 thing is indicated by ver. 12. (3) The chapter evidently carries forward the 
 development of the plan of salvation until all nations, Gentiles and Jews 
 alike, are saved. (4) The last thing in the progress of the plan is the bring- 
 ing in of all the Jews. (5) The representation of the N. T. seems to be that, 
 when the plan is accomplished, the end will come. (6) The view of the Apostle 
 in the eighth chapter, vv. 11, 23, and in 1 Cor. xv. 23 ff., is that, at the end, 
 the resurrection takes place, and that this is introductory to the consummation 
 of blessedness for those who are saved. These indications of Paul’s thought 
 
NOTES. 461 
 
 in these verses of the present chapter, and in the other passages alluded to, 
 point very strongly, as it must be admitted, towards the view advocated by 
 Meyer (that ζωὴ refers to the ζωὴ αἰώνιος in the αἰὼν μέλλων, beginning, in its 
 most blessed development, with the resurrection of the dead) as the right one. 
 At the same time, the fact that ver. 12 does not necessarily, in the πολλῶ μᾶλλον 
 clause, suggest anything more than a larger measure of what is referred to in 
 the πλοῦτος of the previous clause, and that the writer is evidently highly rhe- 
 torical in the whole passage, makes it doubtful whether the considerations above 
 mentioned can be insisted upon with as much confidence as they might be 
 under other circumstances. 
 
 ΟΧΧ. Ver. 16. εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία, K.T.A. 
 
 This verse is regarded by some writers as belonging with those which pre- 
 cede it. Tisch. makes it close the paragraph which begins with ver. 11. 
 Westcott and Hort make a half-paragraph begin with ver. 17. Meyer regards 
 the dé as continuative, and gives the verse a special relation to πρόσληψες which 
 precedes. The thought of the paragraph opening with ver. 11 seems, however, 
 to be brought to its natural conclusion in ver. 15, while that of this verse has a 
 closer connection with what follows, ef. vv. 24, 28, 29. In preparation for what 
 he is to say to the Gentiles (that they should not boast, etc.), and for his dec- 
 laration that all Israel shall be saved, as well as for the purpose of arresting 
 attention, he places the words of this verse, with emphasis, at the beginning of 
 the new paragraph. The paragraphs of the chapter are as follows: Vv. 1-10, 
 God has not cast off His people—a remnant is reserved and is kept in the en- 
 joyment of the blessing, when the main part of the nation proves unfaithful. 
 —Vv. 11-15. The stumbling of the nation through this unfaithfulness is not, 
 in the Divine plan, to the end of a complete and final fall, but in order that 
 salvation may go out to the Gentiles, and may react in its power from them 
 upon the Jews. — Vv. 16-24. The Gentiles should not glory over the Jews be- 
 cause of this temporary stumbling, whereby the Jews have become secondary 
 in a sense to them (rejected, even, for their benefit), for, as the branches are 
 holy when the root is holy, God can restore the Jews.—Vv. 25-32. 'This resto- 
 ration will take place when the appointed time shall come ; and thus the en- 
 tire plan will be manifest, as arranged with a merciful end in view for all, 
 Jews and Gentiles alike. — Vv. 33-36. An exclamation of praise and wonder 
 in the thought of this marvellous plan. 
 
 CXXI. Ver. 17. ἐνεκεντρίσῆης ἐν αὐτοῖς. 
 
 Meyer admits that ἐν may, grammatically, be understood as equivalent to in 
 loco (eorum). Weiss ed. Mey., on the other hand, claims that this is very doubt- 
 ful. That it is impossible to give the preposition this sense can scarcely be 
 affirmed, but it must be admitted that it is much more in accordance with 
 general usage in such cases to assign to it the meaning among. The context, 
 when rightly interpreted, favors the same view. Accordingly, αὐτοῖς does not 
 refer to τινες, i.e. the broken-off branches in whose place the Gentiles were 
 grafted, but to the κλάδοι in general. The conception of the writer is of the 
 Jewish nation as a tree, from whose life some branches have been cut off, but 
 which remains a living tree because the root (and therefore all the branches, 
 
462 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 whether few or many, which have a vital connection with the root) has true 
 life. Into this living tree, and among its remaining natural and living branch- 
 es, the wild branch is grafted, and thus draws life from the root. That the 
 wild branch is inserted in the place of the cut-off branches is an incidental 
 thought, rather than the main one of the passage. The main thought (comp. 
 also the previous verses) is that, in connection with the cutting off, the inser- 
 tion of the branches from the wild olive is accomplished ; that the union of 
 the wild olive with the life of the good tree is made, thus, both possible and 
 actual. The Gentiles, however, should not glory over the Jews (the natural 
 branches of the tree), because for their ingrafting the tree had lost some part 
 of its outgrowth, since all the source of their life, which comes through the 
 ingrafting, is derived from the tree’s root. The life-force and the blessing are 
 received by the Gentile through the Jew, and not by the Jew through the Gen- 
 tile. The spiritual plan moves from the Abrahamic covenant downward, and 
 from the Israelitish nation outward. 
 
 CXXII. Ver. 19. ἐξεκλάσθησαν κλάδοι iva x.T.A. 
 
 The external evidence here is decisive in favour of κλάδοι as the true reading, 
 rather than οἱ κλάδοι. The indication of this fact is that the writer does not 
 refer in this word to τῶν κλάδων of ver. 18, but that, on the contrary, in that 
 verse he is speaking of the branches in general, while here those that were 
 broken off are specially alluded to. Two reasons are presented in the two 
 verses, and in those which immediately follow, for the bidding which is given 
 to the Gentiles, not to boast against the Jews :—first, because the Gentiles owed 
 
 _everything to their incorporation into the spiritual body of which the Jewish 
 fathers were the beginning (ver. 18; see also note CXXI.); and secondly, 
 because for both parties alike the continuance in the spiritual body and the 
 final reception of the blessing were dependent wholly on faith (ver. 19 ff.). 
 The second reason is, however, set forth in a more indirect manner than the 
 first. The Apostle supposes that, on the presentation of the first reason, the 
 Gentile replies, ‘‘ Even if I am thus dependent on the Jewish root, certain 
 branches (κλάδοι) were broken off that I might be grafted in, and I may glory on 
 this account.” ΤῸ this the answer is immediately given, They were, indeed, thus 
 broken off, but it was only because of their unbelief, and all alike must stand 
 upon faith. If the Gentile fails in this, he will be cut off asthe Jew was. If 
 the Jew returns to this, he will be again received as the Gentile has been re- 
 ceived. It will.be even a thing of less difficulty to restore the natural branches 
 to their own tree, than it has been to ingraft into the tree the branches which 
 were wholly foreign to it, and which belonged to an olive wild by nature. 
 
 The paragraph commencing with ver. 16 and continuing as far as ver. 24, ac- 
 cordingly, by its peculiar figure of the olive tree, into which the wild branch is 
 grafted ; by the special words employed in the unfolding of the figure, (e.g. the 
 root, the fatness passing from the root to the branches, the cutting off and 
 grafting into the tree which keeps throughout its entire vital force, the restora- 
 tion of the severed branches) ; and, particularly, by the use of οἱ κλάδοι, vv. 16, 
 18, as contrasted with κλάδοι, ver. 19, τινες τῶν κλάδων, ver. 17, confirms the 
 view, which the other parts of the chapter, each of them in and for itself, es- 
 tablish, that the writer is speaking of the Israelitish nation and its place in the 
 spiritual plan. 
 
NOTES. 463 
 
 CXXTII. Ver, 24. πόσῳ μᾶλλον ---- ἐνκεντρισῆήσονται. 
 
 Meyer objects to the explanation of πόσῳ μᾶλλον which makes it designate 
 greater easiness of a restoration of the natural branches than of an ingrafting of 
 the wild shoots, (1) on the ground that experience testifies to the extreme diffi- 
 culty of converting unbelieving Jews, and (2) because the power of God, is 
 correlative not of that which is easy, but of that which is difficult. But, as 
 Weiss ed. Mey. urges in reply, the Apostle’s words do not refer to the conver- 
 sion of unbelieving Jews, but the reingrafting of those who have become 
 believing, and the argument is presented from the standpoint of human judg- 
 ment—if the one thing is less difficult than the other, we may readily believe 
 thatit will be done. Paul is merely setting before the man who boasts against 
 the Jew, on the ground that the latter has been cast off, a consideration which 
 might appeal forcibly to his mind,—the greater easiness, etc. Meyer’s view of 
 the verse involves giving to yap the explicative sense namely, which is improb- 
 able (according to N. T. usage) where the ordinary meaning for will satisfy the 
 conditions of the sentence ; and, in addition to this, it makes ver. 24 a mere 
 unfolding of the certainty of ἐνκεντρισθήσονται of the 23d verse, which certainty 
 is again declared as the revelation of a μυστήριον in ver. 25. By this threefold 
 repetition of the idea of certainty, with little or no advance in the thought re- 
 specting it, the force and emphasis of the final presentation of it in ver. 25 is 
 diminished, The ordinary view (which is also favoured by Weiss) is therefore 
 to be adopted with reference both to πόσῳ μᾶλλον, and to the relation of ver. 
 24 as a reason justifying δύνατος k.T.A. 
 
 CXXIV. Ver. 25, 26. πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους--- σωθήσεται. 
 
 The Apostle here states—as a proof (γάρ) of ἐγκεντρισθήσονται of ver. 23—the 
 μυστήριον Which had been given to him to make known. This pvorjpcov in- 
 volves the entire plan of God with reference to Jews and Gentiles, which 
 has been spoken of throughout the chapter, with its final and glorious consum- 
 mation. Hardening has partially befallen Israel until the fulness of the Gen- 
 tiles shall have entered in, and then all Israel isto be saved. The fulness of the 
 Gentiles and all Israel are expressions which show, at the end of the entire doc- 
 trinal discussion, what has been manifested at its beginning and in its progress 
 —that the universalism of the Apostl¢ is that which includes all nations ; that 
 πάντες means Gentiles as well as Jews, as contrasted with one of the two parties 
 only. 
 
 TAnpwwa—meaning that by which the ἔθνη are made full—must, it would 
 seem, have reference to the idea of nwmber, and this numerical idea is not lim- 
 ited by any word except ἐθνῶν. Ide, in like manner, is limited only by ᾿Ισραήλ. 
 In the phrases themselves, accordingly, we have universality with respect both 
 to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Does the Apostle declare, then, in these 
 verses, that every individual Gentile and Jew will, at the time indicated, be in- 
 cluded inthe church of God? This view, which Meyer holds, is certainly 
 favored by the phraseology which is employed in the statement of the 
 pevornpiov. A degree of doubt, however, is occasioned by the fact that, in the 
 previous part of the chapter, the writer has reference to nations as a whole, 
 and not to individuals. Still, it must be borne in mind that the expressions 
 have a universal character which goes beyond any other words of the chapter, 
 
404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 and hence the burden of proof falls upon one who would deny to them absolute 
 universality of meaning. The reference is to the last times, evidently, and no 
 affirmation is made as to the salvation of all men of allages. This subject 
 does not even come before the writer’s mind in this passage. He is speaking 
 of a different matter, which had a vital and important bearing on his argu- 
 ment for his doctrine of justification, and which concentrated all his present 
 interest on itself. The doctrine of universal salvation, as now understood, 
 like the doctrine of the election or reprobation of individuals, is not directly 
 alluded to in this section of the Epistle (chaps. ix.-xi.). If discovered at all, 
 they are discovered by inference from what is said on another universalism 
 and another election and rejection. It need scarcely be said, that there is 
 nothing in these chapters which disproves the doctrine of individual election, 
 or which proves the actual restoration or salvation of all, But the teaching of 
 Paul with reference to both of these subjects is to be sought for in other parts 
 of his writings where he expresses himself more directly respecting them, and 
 in his whole theological system as discovered by an examination of all his 
 epistles. 
 
 CXXV. Ver. 28. κατὰ piv τὸ εὐαγγέλιον k.T.A. 
 
 The subject of εἰσίν, to be supplied in this verse, is regarded by Meyer and 
 many others as the unbelieving Israelites, the lapsed portion of the people. 
 More probably, as in yer. 11, it is the entire people who stumble and have a 
 hardening ἀπὸ pépovc in the lapse of the great majority. The nation, in its re- 
 lation to the gospel, is in the ἐχθρὸς condition, so far as the rejection referred 
 to in the previous verses and paragraphs is concerned ; but, in relation to the 
 election of the nation made by God and recognized in His covenant, it is be- 
 loved. If éxdoyf is to be explained, with Meyer and Ewald, as meaning the 
 elect remnant (cf. ver. 7)—which view Weiss ed. Mey. rejects—the expla- 
 nation of the entire verse will be, that the nation is ἐχθρός so far as related to 
 the λοιποί (ver. 8), but ἀγαπητός as related to the 2είμμα (ver. 5.). ἐχθροί is, 
 doubtless, to be explained as having a passive sense, and is connected, in its 
 idea, with the various words suggesting the thought of casting off, etc. Ver. 
 29 adds a confirmation of the last clause of ver. 28, which is founded upon the 
 unchangeable purpose of God. He will not be unfaithful to His covenant and 
 promises. The seeming rejection of His chosen people will be only for a time, 
 and for a merciful end, vv. 30-32. 
 
 CXXVI. Ver. 33-36. 
 
 This exclamation of praise to God evidently has reference to and arises out 
 of the thoughts of this chapter primarily. As this chapter, however, is only 
 the closing part of the section ix.—xi., it reviews, as it were, all that has been 
 said from ix. 1. onward. It must be explained, accordingly, as praise to God 
 for His wonderful plan of mercy for all, even in the shutting up of all under 
 sin (vv. 30-32). In this darkest part of His administration of the world His 
 love and goodness manifest themselves. The words of the passage are chosen 
 as referring to the plan. Σοφία is, thus, the wisdom which forms the plan, 
 κρίματα are the judgments or decisions which the wisdom makes in its forma- 
 tion, ἀνεξεραύνητα describes the κρίματα, and consequently the wisdom, as un- 
 
NOTES. 465 
 
 searchable to human powers. γνῶσις, on the other hand, is the knowledge 
 which knows the ways (ὁδοί) of carrying out the plan decided upon, which, in 
 their turn, are beyond the ability of man to trace from the beginning to the 
 end. Ver. 34 is probably a passage quoted from the O. T. as expressing the 
 two thoughts corresponding with σοφία and γνῶσις, and confirming ἀνεξεραύνητα 
 and ἀνεξιχνίαστοι (34a answering to cog. and avegep., and 34b to yv. and ἀνεξίχν.). 
 Πλούτου is, thus, to be taken as connected with both σοφίας and γνώσεως : O 
 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge. Ver. 35, contain- 
 ing the third part of the O. T. quotation, carries back the thought, at the end, 
 to the πλούτου. Who has been able to give to Him, the possessor of this wealth 
 of wisdom and knowledge, so as to claim in return a recompense for his gift? 
 This seems to be the simplest and most natural explanation of the verses and 
 words. It must be admitted, however, that Meyer's view (held also by many 
 others), which makes πλούτου an independent word parallel with oog. and yv., 
 may be correct. 
 
400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER: Xt. 
 
 Ver. 2. Instead of the imperatives, which Tisch. also defends, Lachm. has, . 
 what Griesb. already approved : συσχηματίζεσθαι and μεταμορφοῦσθαι, according 
 to A B** Ὁ FG, min. Theoph. ‘The preponderating evidence of the codd. is 
 in favour of the infinitives, while that of the vss. (Vulg. It. Syr. etc.) and Fathers 
 is in favour of the imperatives. But, since the frequent practical use of the pre- 
 cept in the direct paraenetic form of expression at any rate suggested—espe- 
 cially considering the closely similar pronunciation of the infinitives and imper- 
 atives—the writing of the latter rather than the former, the infinitive reading 
 is to be preferred, which Salso supports by reading μεταμορφοῦσθαι, although it 
 has συσχηματίζεσθε. --- ὑμῶν] is wanting in A B D* FG, 47, 67*, Copt. Clem. Cypr. 
 Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. The preponderance of evidence, as well as the 
 circumstance that ὑμῶν very readily suggested itself to mechanical copyists for 
 repetition from ver. 1, justifies the omission. — Ver. 5. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : τό, 
 according to A B D* ΟΡ 8, 47*, Antioch. Damasc. Rightly ; τὸ dé καθ᾽ εἷς, not 
 being understood, was exchanged with ὁ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς, as the antithesis of οἱ πολλοί. 
 — Ver. 11. τῷ καιρῷ] So Griesb., after Erasm. 2, Steph. 3, Mill, and others. But 
 KErasm. 1, Beza, Elz., Matth., Lachm., Scholz, Tisch., and Rinck have τῷ κυρίῳ. 
 The former is found in D* F G, 5, and Latin Fathers; the latter in A B D** 
 ELP 8, and most min. vss. and Greek Fathers. See the accurate examination 
 of the evidence in Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 70 ff., who decides for κυρίῳ, and in 
 Tisch. 8. Κυρίῳ is certainly the oldest and most diffused reading. Neverthe- 
 less, if it were original, we cannot well see why καιρῷ should have been substi- 
 tuted for it ; for δουλ. τῷ κυρίῳ is a very usual Pauline thought (Acts xx. 19 ; 
 Eph. vi. 7; Rom. xiv. 18, xvi. 18; Col. iii. 24, e¢ a/.), and would suit our passage 
 very well. It would be far easier to take exception to καιρῷ than to κυρίῳ (as 
 in xiii. 11, instead of καιρόν, the reading κύριον is already found in Clement), 
 especially as the principle itself, τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύειν, might readily seem some- 
 what offensive to a prejudiced moral feeling. Hardly can κυρίῳ, considering its 
 great diffusion, be a mere copyist’s error (in opposition to Fritzsche). — Ver. 
 13. χρείαις D* F G, Clar. Boern. codd. Lat., in Rufinus and some Latin 
 Fathers : μνείαις (defended by Mill). Its origin is due to the reverence for 
 martyrs: ‘‘lectio liturgica pro tempore ficta,” Matth.—Ver. 17. ἐνώπιον] 
 At* has ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐνώπιον. EF G, Arm. Goth. Vulg. and several 
 Fathers : οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον. Ascetic amplification, after 
 Ῥτον. ili. 4; 2 Cor. viii. 21.— Instead of πάντων Lachm, has τῶν, according 
 to A** D* F G, min. It. Harl. Guelph. Tol. Tert. Lucif. Probably, however, 
 this was connected with that amplification. — Ver. 20. ἐὰν οὖν] A B P δὲ, min. 
 Copt. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Bas. Dam.: ἀλλὰ ἐὰν (so Lachm. and Tisch. 8), D* 
 F G, min. Goth.: ἐών, which is to be preferred, with Griesb. ; the other 
 readings aim at furnishing a connection. 
 
CHAP. XII., 1. 467 
 
 THE SECOND, OR PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE. ἢ 
 
 Ver. 1 f. General exhortation to sanctification. [See Note CXXVII. p. 482. ] 
 - οὖν] drawing an inference, not from the whole dogmatic part of the 
 epistle, beginning with i. 16 (Calvin, Bengel, and many others, including 
 Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, Philippi, Hofmann),—as also in Eph. iv. 1 and 
 1 Thess. iv. 1, the οὖν which introduces the practical portion is not to be 
 taken so vaguely,—but from xi. 35, 36, where the riches of God were de- 
 scribed as, and shown to be, imparted apart from merit. This connection 
 is, on account of διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμ. τ. Θεοῦ, More readily suggested and simpler 
 than that with ver. 32 (Riickert, Fritzsche, and several others). — διὰ τῶν oikr. 
 τ. Θεοῦ] by means of the compassion of God, reminding you of it. Just so διά 
 in xv. 30, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. x. 1. The exhortation, pointing to the com- 
 passion of God, contains the motive of thankfulness for compliance with it. 
 ** Qui misericordia Dei recte movetur, in omnem Dei voluntatem ingreditur,” 
 Bengel. —On οἰκτιρμοί, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 68 ff. On the singular, 
 comp. Pind. Pyth. i. 85 ; Eccles. v. 6; Bar. il. 27; 1 Macc. iii. 44. The 
 plural conforms, indeed, to 0°, but is conceived according to the Greek 
 plural usage of abstract nouns (see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 15 f. ; Maetzner, ad 
 Lycurg. p. 144 1.) : the compassions, i.e. the stirrings and manifestations of 
 compassion. — παραστῆσαι) selected as the set expression for the presenting of 
 sacrificial animals at the altar ; Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 22 ; Lucian, de sacrif. 13 ; 
 and see Wetstein and Loesner, p. 262. Paul is glancing at the thank-offer- 
 ing (διὰ τ. οἰκτιρμ. τ. O.), and raises the notion of sacrifice to the highest 
 moral idea of self-surrender to God ; comp. Umbreit, p. 343 ff. — τὰ σώματα 
 ὑμῶν] not, on account of the figure of sacrifice, instead of ὑμᾶς αὐτούς (80 
 usually ; still also Philippi), as if σῶμα might denote the entire person, con- 
 sisting of body and soul (but comp. on vi. 12). Onthe contrary, the apostle 
 means quite strictly : your bodies, reserving the sanctification of the νοῦς for 
 ver. 2, so that the two verses together contain the sanctification of the whole 
 man distributed into its parts,—that of the outer man (set forth as the offer- 
 ing of a sacrifice), and that of the inner (as a renewing transformation). 
 Fritzsche also takes the correct view ;? comp. Hofmann. Other peculiar 
 references of τ. σώμ. tu. (Kéllner : ‘‘ the sensuous nature of man, which 
 draws him to sin ;” Olshausen : ‘‘in order to extend the idea of Christian 
 sanctification down even to the lowest potency of human nature’) are not 
 
 1 See Pet. Abr. Borger, Dissertatio de parte 
 epistolae ad Rom. paraenetica, Lugd. Bat. 
 1840.—The subdivision of what follows into 
 ἠθικά (Chap. Xii.), πολιτικά (Chap. xiii.), and 
 ἱερατικά (chap. xiv. f.) is, considering the 
 miscellaneous character of the contents, 
 an untenable formal scheme (in opposition 
 to Melanchthon, Beza, and others). Paul 
 proceeds from the general to the partic- 
 ular, and vice versd. 
 
 2 The ordinary objection brought against 
 this view in its literal fidelity, that the body 
 
 could not be sacrificed to God without the 
 soul, is just in itself, but does not exclude 
 the supposition that Paul might formaily 
 separate the bodily self-sacrifice and the 
 spiritual renewal. He passes from the or- 
 ganism of the bodily life, in which the inner 
 is made manifest, over to the latter ; comp. 
 1 Cor. vii. 84, In passages also of the Greek 
 writers, in which σῶμα is apparently used 
 for the personal pronoun (as Eur. Alc. 647 ; 
 see Brunck in loc.), σῶμα is simply body. 
 Comp. also Soph. 0. C. 355, et al. 
 
408 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 indicated by the text. The following τ. λογικ. λατρ. is not opposed to our 
 view ; for, in truth, bodily self-sacrifice is also an ethical act, 1 Cor. vi. 20. 
 Comp. on the subject-matter, vi. 13, 19. —Ovciav ζῶσαν] as a sacrifice which 
 lives. For the moral self-offering of the body is the antitypical πλήρωσις of 
 the ritual sacrificial-service, in which the sacrifice dies ; whereas that ethical 
 sacrifice is no doubt also connected with dying, as to sin namely, in the 
 sense of vi. 2, vii. 4 ff., Col. ii, 20, ili. 5, Gal. 11. 19, but it is precisely out 
 of this death that the being alive here meant proceeds, which has van- 
 quished death (Gal. ii. 20, et al.). Such a sacrifice is also, in the eminent 
 sense of antitypical fulfilment, ayia (as pure and belonging to God in an 
 ethical relation) and εὐάρεστος τῳ Θεῷ (comp. Eph. v. 2). That τ. Θεῷ is not, 
 
 with Estius, Bengel, and Koppe, to be connected with zapaor., is shown by 
 its very position, as well as by the superfluous character of a τ. Θεᾷ with 
 παραστ.--- Passages from Porphyry, Hierocles, Philo, Josephus, and the 
 Rabbins, in which likewise moral devotion to God is set forth as self-sacri- 
 fice, see in Wetstein and Koppe. On the asyndeton, as strengthening the 
 force of the predicative notion, in ay., evap. τ. Θ., comp. Nigelsbach, z. Ilias, 
 
 p. 50, ed. 8. -- τὴν Aoy. Aatp- ὑμ.} accusative of epexegesis,—an appositional 
 definition, and that, indeed, not to the mere θυσίαν (to the notion of which 
 the wider notion of λατρείαν does not correspond), but to the whole παραστῆ- 
 σαι k.T.A., containing, respecting this whole act of presenting offering, the 
 judgment, what it ought to be; see Winer, p. 496 [E. T. 533] ; Kiihner, IT. 
 1, p. 248 f. Luther aptly remarks : ‘‘ the which is your reasonable service.” 
 λατρεία] service of worship, as in John xvi. 2. See on that passage. Comp. 
 
 ix. 4. λογικός, rational (1 Pet. ii. 2; Plato, Loer. Ὁ. 99 E, 102 E ; Polyb. 
 
 xxv. 9. 2), is not in contrast to ζῶα ἄλογα (Theodoret, Grotius, Koppe, and 
 many others), which at most would only be to be assumed if λατρεία were 
 equivalent to θυσία, but generally to the ceremonial character of the Jewish 
 and heathen worship,—designating the λατρεία here meant as ὦ spiritual ser- 
 vice, fulfilling itself in moral rational activity,—of which nature the opus 
 operatum of the Jewish and heathen cultus was not. The Test. XII. Patr. 
 
 p. 547 calls the sacrifice of the angels λογικὴν κ- ἀναίμακτον προσφοράν. On the 
 idea, comp. John iv. 24; Rom. i. 9; Phil. iii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Athenag. 
 
 Teg. 18. Melanchthon : ‘‘ Cultus mentis, in quo mens fide aut coram in- 
 tuetur Deum, et vere sentit timorem et laetitiam in Deo.” The opposite is” 
 the character of mechanical action, the ἄλογος τριβὴ καὶ ἐμπειρία (Plat. Gorg. 
 
 p. 501 A). 
 
 Ver. 2. Infinitives (see the critical notes) : συσχηματίζεσθαι, to become like- 
 shaped, and μεταμορφοῦσθαι, to become transformed. The two verbs stand in 
 contrast only through the prepositions, without any difference of sense in the 
 stem-words. [See Note CXXVIII. p. 483.] Comp. the interchange of 
 μορφή and σχῆμα in Phil. ii. 7, also the Greek usage of σχηματίζειν and μορφοῦν, 
 which denote any kind of conformation according to the context (Plut. Mor. 
 Ῥ. 719 Β : τὸ μεμορφωμένον καὶ ἐσχηματισμένον, Eur. Iph. T. 292 : μορφῆς σχή- 
 
 1Gomp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 519; Nagelsbach, z. J. iii. 51; Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ῥ. 134 
 ΓΕ}. T. 153]. 
 
CHAP. XIT..2. 469 
 
 ματα). Here of moral conformation, without requiring us to distinguish 
 μορφή and σχῆμα as inner and outer engel, Philippi), or as appearance to 
 others and one’s own state in itself (Mofmann).’ On the interchange of the 
 infinitive of the aorist (παραστῆσαι) and present, comp. on vi. 10. ---- τῷ αἰῶνι 
 τούτῳ] to the present age, running on the Parousia, NVI Ὁ» (see on Matt. 
 xii. 32), the character (ethical mould) of which is that of immorality (Eph. 
 ii. 2; Gal. i. 4 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4, et al.). συσχηματίζεσθαι is also found in rheto- 
 ricians with the dative (as also 1 Pet. i. 14), instead of with πρός or εἰς. --- 
 τῇ ἀνακαιν. τ. νοός] whereby the μεταμορῴ. is to be effected : through the renewal 
 of the thinking power (νοῦς here, according to its practical side, the reason In 
 its moral quality and activity ; see on vii. 23; Eph. iv. 23). It needs this 
 renewal in order to become the sphere of operation for the divine truth of 
 salvation, when it, under the ascendency of ἁμαρτία in the σάρξ, has become 
 darkened, weak, unfree, and transformed into the ἀδόκιμος νοῦς (i. 28), the 
 νοῦς τῆς σαρκός (Col. ii. 18). Comp. on vii. 23. And this renewal, which 
 the regenerate man also needs on account of the conflict of flesh and spirit 
 which exists in him (viii. 4 ff. ; Gal. v. 16 ff.) through daily penitence (Col. 
 iii. 10 ; 2 Cor. vii. 10 ; 1 Thess. v. 22, 23), is effected by means of the life- 
 element of faith (Phil. iii. 9 ff.), transforming the inner man (Eph. iii. 16, 
 17 ; 2.Cor. ν. 17), under the influence ef the Holy Spirit, Eph. iv. 28, 24 ; 
 Tit. iii. 5. This influence restores the harmony in which the νοῦς ought to 
 stand with the divine πνεῦμα ; not, however, annulling the moral freedom 
 of the believer, but, on the contrary, presupposing it ; hence the evhorta- 
 tion: to be transformed (passive). As to the ἀνά in avaxacv., see on Col. ii. 
 10. -- εἰς τὸ doxeu. | belongs not merely to ἀνακαίνωσις τ. νοὸς ὑμ. as its direction 
 (Hofmann), but (comp. Phil. i. 10 and on Rom. i, 20) specifies the aim of 
 the μεταμορφ. τ. ἀνακ. τ. v. ὑμῶν. To the man who is not transformed by the 
 renewal of his intellect this proving—which is no merely theoretical busi- 
 ness of reflection, but is the critical practice of the whole inner life—forms 
 no part of the activity of conscience. Comp. Eph. v. 10. The sense : to 
 be able to prove (Riickert, K6llner), is as arbitrarily introduced as in ii. 18. 
 He who is transformed by that renewal not merely can do, but—which Paul 
 has here in view as the immediate object of the μεταμορφοῦσθαι x.7.2.—actually 
 does the δοκιμάζειν, and has thereby the foundation for a further moral de- 
 velopment ; he does it by means of the judgment of his conscience, stirred 
 and illuminated by the Spirit (2 Cor. 1. 12). On τὸ θέλημα Θεοῦ, what 18 
 willed by God, comp. Matt. vi: 10; Eph. v. 17, vi. 6; Col. i. 9; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 3. — τὸ ἀγαθὸν k. εὐάρ. x. τέλ.] is, by the Peshito, the Vulgate, Chrysos- 
 tom, and most of the older interpreters, also by Riickert and Reiche, united 
 adjectivally with τὸ θέλ. But as εὐάρ. would thus be unsuitable to this, we 
 must rather (with Erasmus, Castalio, and others, including Tholuck, Flatt, 
 Kéllner, de Wette, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann) 
 approve the swbstantival rendering (as apposition to τὸ θέλ. τ. Θεοῦ) : that 
 which is good and well-pleasing (to God) and perfect. The repetition of the 
 
 1 According to the latter supposed dis- _ that ver. 1 contains how the Christian should 
 
 tinction, Hofmann hits upon the arbitrary stand towards God, and ver. 2 how he should 
 definition of the relation of vg to ver.2, . present himself to those who surround him. 
 
 2 
 
410 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 article was the less necessary, as the three adjectives used substantively 
 exhaust one notion (that of moral good), and that climactically.* 
 
 Ver. 3. The exhortation now passes on fo single duties, amongst which that 
 of humility and modesty, generally (vv. 3-5), and in respect of the individ- 
 ual χαρίσματα in particular (vv. 6-8), is the first—the first, too, compliance 
 with which was indispensable to a prosperous life of the church. And Paul 
 must have known how very necessary this same injunction was in the Ro- 
 man community. [See Note CXXIX. p. 483.]— γάρ] for. The special re- 
 quirement which he is now to make serves in fact by way of confirmation to 
 the general exhortation of ver. ἢ. As to λέγω in the sense of enjoining, see on 
 11. 22. - διὰ τῆς yap. τῆς δοθ. μοι] Paul does not command δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, but by 
 means of, i.e. in virtue of the divine grace bestowed on him. It is thus that he 
 characterizes—and how at once truly and humbly! (1 Cor. xv. 10)—his 
 apostleship. Comp. xv. 15; 1 Cor. 111. 10; Eph. 11. 7, 8. This χάρις was 
 given to him (μοῦ), not in common with Christians generally (ὑμῖν. ver. 6). 
 —ravtl . . . ὑμῖν] to every one in your community ; none among you is to be 
 exempt from this exhortation ; not : to every one who thinks himself to be 
 something among you (Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius). — μὴ ὑπερῴρον. K.7.A. | 
 not loftily-minded ought the Christian to be, going beyond the standard-rule of 
 that disposition which is conformable to duty (παρ᾽ 6 δεῖ op.) ; but his disposition 
 should be such as to have wise discretion (1 Pet. iv. 7) for its aim (comp. Hom. 
 11. xxiii. 305 : εἰς ἀγαθὰ φρονέων, Eur. Phoen. 1135 : εἰς μάχην φρονεῖν). Par- 
 onomasia. Comp. Plat. Legg. x. p. 906 B: σωφροσύνη μετὰ φρονήσεως, Eur. 
 Heracl. 388: τῶν φρονημάτων... τῶν ἄγαν ὑπερφρόνων ; and see Wetstein. 
 — ἑκάστῳ ὡς] ἑκάστῳ Aepends on ἐμέρισε (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5, vil. 17, and on 
 Rom. xi. 31), not on λέγω (Estius, K6llner)—which view makes the already 
 said ravri . . . ὑμῖν to be once more repeated, and, on the other hand, de- 
 prives ἐμέρισε of its essential definition. ‘Q¢ designates the scale according to 
 which each one ought φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, and this scale is different in 
 persons differently furnished with gifts, so that for one the boundary, be- 
 yond which his φρονεῖν ceases to be εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, is otherwise drawn than 
 it is for another. The regulative standard, however, Paul expressly calls the 
 measure of faith, which God has assigned. This is the subjective condition 
 (the objective is the divine χάρις) of that which every one can and ought 
 to do in the Christian life of the church. According, namely, as faith in 
 the case of individual Christians is more or less living, practical, energetic, 
 efficacious in this or that direction,—whether contemplative, or manifest- 
 ing itself in the outer life, in eloquence and action, etc.,—they have withal 
 to measure their appointed position and task in the church. He, there- 
 fore, who covets a higher or another standpoint and sphere of activity in 
 the community, and is not contented with that which corresponds to the 
 measure of faith bestowed on him, evinces a wilful self-exaltation, which is 
 without measure and not of God—not that spirit wherein the Christian 
 μετριοφροσύνη consists, the φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, ἑκάστῳ ὡς K.T.A. The πίστις 
 is therefore to be taken throughout in no other sense than the ordinary 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Winer, p. 121 [E. T. 127 6.1; Dissen, σὰ Dem. de cor. Ὁ. 373 f. ; Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 528. ἡ 
 
CHAP. XII., 4-8. 471 
 
 one : faith in Christ, of which the essence indeed is alike in all, but the in- 
 dividually different degrees of strength (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 2), and peculiari- 
 ties of character in other respects (vv. 4 ff.), constitute for individuals the 
 μέτρον πίστεως in quantitative and qualitative relation. Comp. Eph. iv. 7. 
 This likewise holds in opposition to Hofmann, who with violence separates 
 μέτρ. πίστεως from ἐμέρισε, and takes it as an accusative of apposition, like 
 τὴν λογικ. λατρείαν ἡμῶν, ver. 1; holding πίστεως to be the genitive of quality, 
 which distinguishes the measure within which the thinking of the Christian 
 is confined, from that which the natural man sets up for himself. Comp., 
 in opposition to this strange separation, 2 Cor. x. 13, and in opposition to 
 this artificial explanation of the genitive, 2 Cor. x. 13 ; Eph. iv. 7, xiii. 16." 
 
 Vv. 4, 5 ff. Motive for compliance with the previous exhortation.—For the 
 prevalence of the parallel between a human body and a corpus sociale (1 Cor. 
 xii.) also among the ancients, see Grotius and Wetstein. —ra δὲ μέλη πάντα 
 K.7.2.] ὁ.6. but the members, all of them, have different activity ; thus, e.g., the 
 eyes another than the ears, the feet another than the mouth. Wrongly van 
 Hengel takes the expression, as though οὗ πάντα were the reading, so that 
 only some—namely, those we possess in pairs—would be meant, not all. — 
 oi πολλοί] the many, i.e. the multiplicity of Christians taken together, in op- 
 position to the unity of the body which they compose. Comp. v. 15.— ἐν 
 Χριστῷ] The common element in which the union consists ; out of Christ we 
 should not be ἕν σῶμα, but this we are in Him, in the fellowship of faith and 
 life with Christ. He 7s the Head (Eph. i. 22, 23, iv. 15; Col. i. 18, 11. 19), 
 —a relation which is understood of itself by the consciousness of faith, but 
 is not denoted by ἐν Χριστῷ (as if this meant on Christ), as Koppe, Rosenmiil- 
 ler, and older interpreters hold. — τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς} but in what concerns the in- 
 dividual relation. In good Greek it would be τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕνα (see on Mark xiv. 
 19, and Bernhardy, p. 329; Kiihner, Il. 1, p. 414) ; but «af εἷς, in which 
 κατά has quite lost its regimen, is a very frequent solecism in the later Greek 
 writers (Mark, 1.6. ; John viii. 9 ; 3 Macc. v. 34).? Td καθ᾽ εἷς is groundlessly 
 condemned by Fritzsche as ‘‘commentitia formula.” If καθ᾽ εἰς and ὁ καθ᾽ 
 εἷς were in use (and this was the case), it follows that τὸ καθ᾽ εἷς might be 
 just as well said as τὸ xa? ἕνα (comp. τὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν and the like, Matthiae, 
 ὃ 283 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 272). See also Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 26 f. [E. T. 
 80]. 
 
 Vv. 6-8. In the possession, however, of different gifts. This ἔχοντες δὲ χα- 
 ρίσματα x.7.4. corresponds to τὰ δὲ μέλη πάντα οὖ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πρᾶξιν, Ver. 4.— 
 As regards the construction, the view adopted by Reiche, de Wette, and 
 Lachmann makes ἔχοντες a participial definition of ἐσμεν, ver. 5 ; according- 
 ly, εἴτε προφητείαν and eite διακονίαν depend on ἔχοντες as a specifying appo- 
 sition to χαρίσματα ; whilst the limiting definitions κατὰ τὴν avai. τ. πίστ., ἐν 
 τῇ διακ., ἐν "τῇ διδασκ., ἐν TH TapakA. K.T.A. are parallel to the κατὰ τὴν χάριν dof. 
 ἡμῖν, and with εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων the discourse varies, without however becom- 
 
 1Plat. Theaet. p. 161 E: μέτρῳ... τῆς 2 See Lucian Soloec. 9, and Graev. in loc. ; 
 αὐτοῦ σοφίας. Soph. 2]. 229: μέτρον κακότητος. Thom. Mag. p. 483; Wetstein on Mark, /.c. ; 
 Eur. Jon, 354: ἥβης μέτρον. Pind. Isthm. i. Winer, p. 234 [E. T. 249]. 
 87 : κερδέων μ. 
 
472 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ing directly hortatory. Comp. also Riickert. But usually κατὰ τὴν ἀναλ. τ. 
 πιίστ., ἐν τῇ διακ. k.7.2., are regarded as elliptical hortatory sentences, whilst 
 ἔχοντες is by some likewise attached to the foregoing (Theodoret, Erasmus, 
 Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Tholuck, 
 Reithmayr), and with others ἔχοντες begins a new sentence (so Olshausen, 
 Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, following 
 Beza). The wswal construction is the only correct one (in which, most suit- 
 ably to the progressive dé, a new sentence commences with ἔχοντες), because, 
 under the mode followed by Reiche and de Wette, the alleged limitations 
 ἐν Th διακ., ἐν τῇ διδασκ., and ἐν τῇ παρακλ. either express nothing, or must be 
 taken arbitrarily in a variety of meaning different from that of the words 
 with which they stand ; and because ἐν ἁπλότητι, ἐν σπουδῇ, and ἐν ἱλαρότητι, 
 ver. 8, are obviously of a hortatory character, and therefore the previous ex- 
 pressions with ἐν may not be taken otherwise. By way of jilling up the 
 concise maxims thrown out elliptically, and only as it were in outline, it is 
 sufficient after κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογ. τ. riot. to supply : προφητεύωμεν, after ἐν τῇ 
 διακονίᾳ : ὦμεν, after ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ : ἔστω, the same after ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει 3 
 and lastly, after the three following particulars, ἐν ἁπλότητι «.7.4., the im- 
 peratives of the corresponding verbs (μεταδιδότω «.7.A.). Comp. the similar 
 mode of expression in 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11. — χαρίσματα] denotes the different 
 peculiar aptitudes for the furtherance of Christian life in the church and of 
 its external welfare, imparted by God’s grace through the principle of the 
 Holy Spirit working in the Christian communion (hence πνευματικά, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 1). On their great variety, amidst the specific unity of their origin from 
 the efficacy of this Spirit, see esp. 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff.—Paul here mentions by 
 way of example (for more, see 1 Cor. xii.), in the first instance, four of such 
 χαρίσματα, namely: (1) προφητεία, the gift of theopneustic discourse, which 
 presupposes ἀποκάλυψις, and the form of which, appearing in different ways 
 (hence also in the plural in 1 Cor. xiii. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 20), was not ecstatic, 
 like the speaking with tongues, but was an activity of the νοῦς enlightened 
 and filled with the consecration of the Spirit’s power, disclosing hidden 
 things, and profoundly seizing, chastening, elevating, carrying away men’s 
 hearts, held in peculiar esteem by the apostle (1 Cor. xiv. 1). Comp. on 1 
 Cor. xii. 10. Further, (2) διακονία : the gift of administration of the external 
 affairs of the church, particularly the care of the poor, the sick, and strangers ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28, where the functions of the diaconia are termed ἀντιλή- 
 were. Acts vi. 1 ff. τ Phil.ai.d’ 1 Tim, 12 8°12); 1 Petsive ἢ ΠΟΤ Ἐν 
 The service of the diaconate in the church, which grew out of that of the 
 seven men of Acts vi., is really of apostolic origin : Clem. Cor. I. 42, 44 ; 
 Ritschl, althath. Kirche, p. 359; Jul. Miiller, dogmat. Abh. p. 560 ff. (8) 
 The διδασκαλία, the gift of instruction in the usual form of teaching directed 
 to the understanding (ἐξ οἰκείας διανοίας, Chrysostom, ad 1 Cor. xii. 28), see 
 on Acts xiii. 1; Eph. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xiv. 26. It was not yet limited toa 
 particular office ; see Ritschl, p. 350 f. (4) παράκλησις, the gift of hortatory 
 and encouraging address operating on the heart and will, the possessor of which 
 probably connected his discourses, in the assemblies after the custom of the 
 synagogue (see on Acts xiii. 15), with a portion of Scripture read before the 
 
 
 
CHAP. XII., 6-8. 473 
 
 people. Comp. Acts iv. 36, xi. 28, 24; Justin, Apol. I. c. 67.—xard τὴν 
 avai. τ. rict.| Conformably to the proportion of their faith the prophets have 
 to use their prophetic gift, 1.6. (comp. ver. 3) [See Note CXXX. p. 484] : 
 they are not to depart from the proportional measure which their faith has, 
 neither wishing to exceed it nor falling short of it, but are to guide them- 
 selves by it, and are therefore so to announce and interpret the received 
 ἀποκάλυψις, as the peculiar position in respect of faith bestowed on them, ac- 
 cording to the strength, clearness, fervour, and other qualities of that faith, 
 suggests—so that the character and mode of their speaking is conformed to 
 the rules and limits, which are implied in the proportion of their individual 
 degree of faith. In the contrary case they fall, in respect of contents and 
 of form, into a mode of prophetic utterance, either excessive and over- 
 strained, or on the other hand insufficient and defective (not corresponding 
 to the level of their faith). The same revelation may in fact—according to 
 the difference in the proportion of faith with which it, objectively given, 
 subjectively connects itself—be very differently expressed and delivered. 
 ἀναλογία, proportio, very current (also as a mathematical expression) in the 
 classics (comp. esp. on κατὰ τ. dvadoy. Plato, Polit. p. 257 B, Loer. p. 95 B ; 
 Dem. 262. 5), is here in substance not different from μέτρον, ver. 3; comp. 
 Plato, Tim. p. 69 Β : ἀνάλογα καὶ Ebuperpa. Hofmann groundlessly denies 
 this (in consequence of his incorrect view of μέτρον πίστεως, ver. 3), yet like- 
 wise arrives at the sense, that prophetic utterance must keep equal pace with 
 the life of faith. Paul might, in fact, have written συμμέτρως τῇ πίστει, and 
 would have thereby substantially expressed the same thing as κατὰ τ. ἀναλ. 
 τ. πίστ. OF ἀναλόγως τ. π. The old dogmatic interpretation * (still unknown, 
 however, to the Greek Fathers, who rightly take τ. πίστεως subjectively, of 
 the fides qua creditur) of the regula δὶ (πίστις in the objective sense, fides 
 quae creditur), i.e. of the conformitas doctrinae in scripturis (see esp. Calovi- 
 us), departs arbitrarily from the thought contained in ver. 3, and from the 
 immediate context (κατὰ τ. yap. τ. dof. ἡμῖν), and cannot in itself be justified 
 by linguistic usage (see on i. 5). It reappears, however, substantially in 
 Flatt, Klee, Gléckler, Kéllner, Philippi (‘‘to remain subject to the norma 
 et regula fidei Christianae”), Umbreit, Bisping, although they do not, like 
 many of the older commentators, take prephecy to refer to the explanation 
 of Scripture. — ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ] If it be the case that we have diaconia (as ya- 
 pioua), let us be in our diaconia. The emphasis lies on ἐν. He who has the 
 gift of the diaconia should not desire to have a position in the life of the 
 church outside of the sphere of service which is assigned to him by this en- 
 dowment, but should be active within that sphere. That by διακονία is not in- 
 tended any ecclesiastical office generally (Chrysostom, Luther, Reithmayr, 
 Hofmann), is shown by the charismatic elements of the entire context. 
 On εἶναι ἐν, versari in, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 15; Plato, Prot. p. 317 C, Phaed. 
 p- 59 A ; Demosth. 301. 6, οἵ al. ; Kriiger, ad Dion. Hist. p. 269, 70. — εἴτε 
 ὁ διδάσκων] Symmetrically, Paul should have continued with εἴτε διδασκαλίαν 
 
 1 Comp. Luther’s gloss: ‘ All prophecy, Christ as the only consolation, however 
 which leads to work and not simply to valuable itis, is nevertheless not like faith.” 
 
474 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (se. ἔχοντες), as A actually reads. Instead of this, however, he proceeds in 
 such a way as now to introduce the different possessors of gifts in the third 
 person, and therefore no longer dependent on the we implied in ἔχοντες. 
 The change of conception and construction may accordingly be thus exhib- 
 ited : ‘‘ While, however, we have different gifts, we should, be it prophecy 
 that we have, make use of it according to the proportion of our faith,—be 
 it diaconia that we have, labour within the diaconia,—tbe it that it is the 
 teacher, (he should) be active within the sphere of teaching, etc.” After ὁ 
 διδάσκων, simply ἐστί is to be supplied : ἐγ it, viz. one charismatically gifted, 
 is the teacher. The apostle, in the urgent fulness of ideas which are yet to 
 be only concisely expressed, has lost sight of the grammatical connection ; 
 comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 331 [E. T. 386]. Hofmann’s expedient, that 
 here cite. . . eire are subordinated to the preceding ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, and ὁ 
 διδάσκων and ὁ παρακαλῶν are to be taken as a parenthetical apposition to the 
 subject of the verb to be supplied (‘‘ be it that he, the teacher, handles teach- 
 ing,” etc.), is an artificial scheme forced upon him by his incorrect view of 
 διακονία, and at variance with the co-ordinated relation of the first two cases 
 of εἴτε. ; 
 
 Ver. 8. Ὁ μεταδιδοὺς x.7.A.] [See Note CXXXI. p. 484.] The detailed 
 exposition with εἴτε ceases as the discourse flows onward more vehemently, 
 but the series of those charismatically endowed is continued, yet in such a way 
 that now there are no longer mentioned such as possess ἃ χάρισμα for a def- 
 inite function in the church, but such as possess it generally for the activity 
 of public usefulness in the social Christian life. Hence, because with ἐν ἀπλό- 
 τητι k.T.A. the continuance of the exhortations is indicated, we are to place 
 before ὁ μεταδιδοὺς not a full stop, but a comma, or, better, a colon. The 
 reference of these last three points to definite ministerial functions (such as 
 that ὁ μεταδιδ. is the diaconus who distributes the gifts of love ; ὁ προϊστάμ. the 
 president of the community, bishop or presbyter ; ὁ ἐλεῶν he who takes charge 
 of the sick) is refuted, first, by the fact that the assumed references of μεταδιὸ, 
 (according to Acts iv. 85, we should at least expect διαδιδούς) are quite inca- 
 pable of proof, and indeed improbable in themselves ; secondly, by the con- 
 sideration that such an analysis of the diaconal gift would be out of due 
 place, after mention had been already made of the διακονία as a whole ; and 
 thirdly, by the consideration that the position of the προϊστάμενος, as the 
 presbyter, between two diaconal functions, and almost at the end of the 
 series, would be unsuitable. But if we should wish to explain προϊστάμ. as 
 guardian of the strangers (my first edition ; Borger), there is an utter want of 
 proof both for this particular feature of the diaconia and for its designation by 
 προϊστάμ. (for the προστάτης at Athens, the patron of the metoeci, was some- 
 thing quite different ; Hermann, Staatsalterth. §115. 4). — ὁ μεταδιδούς] he 
 who imparts, who exercises the charisma of charitableness by imparting of 
 his means to the poor. Eph. iv. 28 ; Luke iii. 11. To understand the im- 
 parting of spiritual good (Baumgarten-Crusius), or this along with the other 
 (Hofmann), receives no support from the context, especially seeing that the 
 spiritual imparting has already been previously disposed of in its distinctive 
 forms. —év arAér.| in simplicity, therefore without any selfishness, without 
 
CHAP! ΤΙ Ὁ, 47 
 
 boasting, secondary designs, etc., but in plain sincerity of disposition. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 13, and the classical collocations of ἁπλοῦς καὶ 
 ἀληθής, and. K. γενναῖος k.t.A. On the subject-matter, comp. Matt. vi. 2 ff. — 
 ὁ προϊστάμενος] the president, he who exercises the χάρισμα of presiding over 
 others as leader, of directing affairs and the like (comp. προΐστασθαι τῶν πραγ- 
 μάτων, Herodian, vii. 10, 16), consequently one who through spiritual 
 endowment is ἡγεμονικὸς καὶ ἀρχικός (Plato, Prot. p. 852 B). This χάρισμα 
 προστατικόν had to be possessed by the presbyter or ἐπίσκοπος for behoof of 
 his work (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28) ; but we are not to understand it as apply- 
 ing to him exclusively, or to explain it specially of the office of presbyter, 
 as Rothe and Philippi again do,’ in spite of the general nature of the con- 
 text, while Hofmann likewise thinks that the presbyter is meant, not as 
 respects his office, but as respects his activity. What is meant is the category 
 of charismatic endowment, under which the work destined for the presby- 
 ter falls to be included. —év σπουδῇ] with zeal ; it is the earnest, strenuous 
 attention to the fulfilment of duty, the opposite of φαυλότης. --- ὁ ἐλεῶν] he 
 who is merciful towards the suffering and unfortunate, to whom it is his 
 χάρισμα to administer comfort, counsel, help. —év iAapér.] with cheerful, 
 Sriendly demeanour, 2 Cor. ix. 7, the opposite of a reluctant and sullen 
 carriage.*— Observe, further, that ἐν ἁπλότ., ἐν σπουδῇ, and ἐν ἱλαρότ. do not 
 denote, like the preceding definitions with ἐν, the sphere of service within 
 which the activity is to exert itself, but the quality, with which those who 
 are gifted are to do their work ; and all these three qualities characterize, 
 in like manner, the nature of true σωφρονεῖν, ver. 3. 
 Vy. 9-21. Hvhortations for all without distinction, headed by love! 
 Ver. 9. Ἢ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκρ.] se. ἔστω [See Note CXXXII. p. 485.] The sup- 
 plying of the imperative (comp. ver. 7), which is rare in the classical 
 writers (Bernhardy, p. 331; Kiihner, Il. 1, p. 37), cannot occasion any 
 scruple in this so briefly sketching hortatory address. ἀνυπόκριτος is not 
 found in classical Greek, but it occurs in Wisd. v. 19, xviii. 16, 2 Cor. vi. 
 6, 1 Tim. i. 5, 2 Tim. i. 5, Jas. iii. 12, 1 Pet. i. 22. Antoninus, viii. 5, has 
 the adverb, like Clem. Cor. II. 12. — The absolute ἡ ἀγάπη is always love 
 towards others (see esp. 1 Cor. xiii.), of which φιλαδελφία is the special form 
 having reference to Christian fellowship, ver. 10. As love must be, so must 
 be also faith, its root, 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 5. —The following participles 
 and adjectives may be taken either together as preparing for the εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς 
 dik. in ver. 14, and as dependent on this (Lachm. ed. min.) ; or, as corre- 
 ‘ sponding to the personal subject of ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκρ. (so Fritzsche), see on 2 
 Cor. i. 7 ; 07, finally, by the supplying of ἐστέ as mere precepts, so that after 
 avuréxp. there should be placed a full stop, and another after διώκοντες in ver. 
 13. So usually ; also by Lachmann, ed. maj., and Tischendorf. The latter 
 view alone, after ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκρ. has been supplemented by the imperative 
 of the substantive verb, is the natural one, and correspondent in its concise 
 mode of expression to the whole character stamped on the passage ; the 
 
 1 So also Jul. Miiller, Dogmat. Abh. p. 582. 
 2 Comp. Xen. Alem. ii. 7. 12: ἱλαραὶ δὲ ἀντὶ σκυθρωπῶν. 
 
476 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 two former modes of connection exhibit a formal interdependence on the 
 part of elements that are heterogeneous in substance. — ἀποστυγοῦντες]} abhor- 
 ring. The strengthening significance of the compound, already noted by 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, has been ground- 
 lessly denied by Fritzsche ; it is quite appropriate in passages like Herod. 
 ii. 47, vi. 129; Soph. Oed. C. 186, 691 ; Eur. Jon. 488 ; Parthen. Hrot. 8. 
 - τὸ πονηρόν and τῷ ἀγαθῷ are to be taken generally of moral evil and good ;* 
 abhorrence of the one and adherence to the other form the fundamental 
 moral character of unfeigned love. The evil and good which are found in 
 the object of love (Hofmann) are included, but not specially meant. Comp. 1 
 Cor. xiii. 6. 
 
 Ver. 10. TH φιλωδελφ.] In respect of (in point of) brotherly love (love 
 towards fellow-Christians, 1 Thess. iv. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 1 ;1 Pet. 1. 22; 2 Pet. 1. 
 7). On its relation to ἀγάπη, comp. generally Gal. vi. 10. — φιλόστοργοι] fond- 
 ly affectionate ; an expression purposely chosen, because Christians are brothers 
 and sisters, as the word is also in classical Greek the usual one for family af- 
 fection. Comp. also Cicero, ad Att. xv. 17. — τῇ τιμῇ] in the point of moral 
 respect and high estimation. — προηγούμενοι) not : excelling (Chrysostom, Morus, 
 K6llner), nor yet: anticipating (Vulgate, Theophylact, Luther, Castalio, 
 Wolf, Flatt), but, in correspondence with the signification of the word : 
 going before, as guides, namely, with conduct that incites others to follow, 
 Without the support of usage Erasmus, Grotius, Heumann, Koppe, and 
 Hofmann take προηγεῖσθαι as equivalent to ἡγεῖσθαι ὑπερέχοντας (Phil. 11. 3), 
 se ipso potiores ducere alios, which would be denoted by ἡγεῖσθαι πρὸ ἑαυτῶν 
 ἄλλ. (Phil. ii. 8). In Greek it does not elsewhere occur with the accusative, 
 but only with the dative (Xen. Cyr. ii. 1, 1; Arist. Plut. 1195 ; Polyb. 
 xii. 5. 10) or genitive of the person (Xen. Hipp. 4. 5 ; Herodian, vi. 8. 6 ; 
 Polyb. xii. 18. 11) ; with the accusative only, as in Xen. Anab. vi. 5, 10, 
 προηγ. ὁδόν. 
 
 Ver. 11. Τῇ σπουδῇ] in respect of zeal, namely, for the interests of the Chris- 
 tian life in whatever relation. — τῷ mv. Céovrec] seething, boiling in spirit, the 
 opposite of ὀκνηροὶ τῇ σπουδῇ ; hence τῶ πνεύμ. is not to be understood of the 
 Holy Spirit (Oecumenius and many others, including Holsten, Weiss), but 
 of the human spirit. Comp. Acts xviii. 25. That this fervent excitement 
 of the activity of thought, feeling, and will for Christian aims is stirred up 
 by the Holy Spirit, is obvious of itself, but is not of itself expressed by τῷ 
 πνεύματι. Zéw of the mental aestware is also frequent in the classics.’—7@ 
 καιρῷ dov2..| consigns—without, in view of the whole laying out of the dis- 
 course as dependent on ἡ ἀγάπη avurdxp., ver. 9, requiring a connective dé 
 (against van Hengel)—the fervour of spirit to the limits of Christian pru- 
 dence, which, amidst its most lively activity, yet in conformity with true 
 love, accommodates itself to the cirewmstances of the time,* with moral discretion 
 
 1 Plato, Rep. iv. Ὁ. 440 C, Phaedr. Ὁ. 251 B; model! 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff. ; Phil. iv. 12,135 1 
 Soph. Qed. C. 435; Eur. Hee. 1055; and Corhive 11 fi vill. 15: Acts! xx. 80) ΞῊΓ 9, 
 Fflugk in loc. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. xxi. 23 ff. To the δουλεύειν τῷ καιρῷ, in the 
 IX. p. 203; Dorville, ad Charit. p. 233. noble sense here meant, belongs also the 
 
 2 How much was Paul himself inthismat- having as though one had not, etc., in 1 Cor. 
 ter, with all his fervour of spirit, a shining vii. 29 ff. 
 
CHAP. XII., 12-16. 4γὴ 
 does not aim at placing itself in independence of them or oppose them with 
 headlong stubbornness, but submits to them with a wise self-denial (1 Cor. 
 xiii. 4-8). Comp. on the dova. τῷ καιρῷ (tempori servire, Cicero, ad Div. ix. 
 17, Tuseul. tii. 27. 66) and synonymous expressions (καιρῷ λατρεύειν, τοῖς Karp. 
 ἀκολουθεῖν), Which are used in a good or bad sense according to the context, 
 Wetstein and Fritzsche in loc. ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 261. On the 
 ‘thing itself, see Cic. ad Div. iv. 6: ‘‘ad novos casus temporum novorum 
 consiliorum rationes accommodare.” [See Note CXXXIII. p. 485. | 
 
 Ver. 12. In virtue of hope (of the future δόξα, v. 2) joyful. The dative de- 
 notes the motive (Kiihner, 11. i. p. 380). — τῇ 0A. brou. | in the presence of tribu- 
 lation holding out, remaining constant in it. On the dative, comp. Kiihner, 
 lc. Ὁ. 385. Paul might have written τὴν θλῖψιν ὑπομ. (1 Cor. xii. 7 ; 2'Tim. 
 ii. 19; Heb. x. 32, et al., and according to the classical use); he writes, 
 however, in the line of formal symmetry with the other expressions, the 
 dative and then the absolute ὑπομέν. (Matt. x. 22 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Jas. v.11; 
 1 Pet. ii. 20). —r. προσευχῇ προσκ.] perseveringly applying to prayer, Col. iv. 
 ὃ: Actsii. 14. 
 
 Ver. 13. Having fellowship in the necessities’ of the saints (comp. xv. 27), 
 z.e. 80 conducting yourselves that the necessities of your fellow- Christians may be 
 also your own, seeking therefore just so to satisfy them. Comp. on Phil. iv. 
 14. The transitive sense: communicating (still held by Riickert and Fritzsche, 
 following many of the older interpreters), finds nowhere, at least in the 
 N. T., any confirmation (not evenin Gal. vi. 6). The ἅγιοι are the Christians 
 in general, not specially those of Jerusalem (Hofmann), who are indicated in 
 xv. 25, but not here, by the context. — τὴν φιλοξ.} studying hospitality. 
 Comp. Heb. xiii. 3 ; 1 Pet. iv. 9. A virtue highly important at that time, 
 especially in the case of travelling, perhaps banished and persecuted, Chris- 
 tian brethren. Comp. also 1 Tim. v. 10 ; Tit. i. 8. That those in need of 
 shelter should not merely be received, but also sought out, belongs, under 
 certain circumstances, to the fulfilment of this duty, but is not expressed by 
 διώκοντες (as Origen and Bengel hold).? ; 
 
 Ver. 14. Τοὺς διώκ. ὑμ.]} who persecute you (in any respect whatever). The 
 saying of Christ, Matt. v. 44, was perhaps known to the apostle and here 
 came to his recollection, without his having read however, as Reiche here 
 again assumes (comp. on ii. 19), the Gospels. 
 
 Ver. 15. Χαίρειν] ἐ.6. χαίρειν ὑμᾶς dei, infinitive, as a briefly interjected ex- 
 pression of the necessary behaviour desired. See on Phil. iii. 16. On the 
 subject-matter, comp. Ecclus. vii. 34. Rightly Chrysostom brings into 
 prominence the fact that κλαίειν κ.τ.λ., γενναίας σφόδρα δεῖται ψυχῆς, ὥστε TO 
 εὐδοκιμοῦντι μὴ μόνον μὴ φθονεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνήδεσθαι. 
 
 Ver. 16. These participles are also to be understood imperatively by sup- 
 
 1 ΠῚ 6 reading μνείαις yields no sense, 
 although Hofmann commends it and seeks 
 to acquire for it, by a comparison of Gal. ii. 
 10and Phil. i. 4, the sense of renderings of 
 assistance, which is a linguistic impossibility. 
 Yet even Theodore of Mopsuestia wished to 
 assign to this reading, which is found in 
 
 some copies, the sense: ὅτι δίκαιον ὑμᾶς 
 μνημονεύειν πάντοτε τῶν ἁγίων. 
 
 2Comp. ix. 830; ἀρετὴν διώκειν, Plato, 
 Theaet. p. 176 Β ; τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκειν and the 
 like, Eeclus. xxvii. 8, e¢ αἰ. ; ἀδικίαν διώκειν, 
 Plat. Rep. p. 545 B. 
 
\ 
 
 478 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 plying ἔσεσθε (comp. on ver. 9), and not to be joined to ver. 15, nor yet to 
 μὴ γίνεσθε φρόν. παρ᾽ ἑαυτ. --- τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλ. φρονοῦντες] characterizes the loving 
 harmony, when each, in respect to his neighbour (εἰς, not ἐν as in xv. 5), has 
 one and the same thought and endeavour. Comp. generally xv. 5 ; Phil. il. 
 2, iv. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. According to Fritzsche, τὸ αὐτό refers to what 
 follows, so that modesty is meant as that towards which their mind should be 
 mutually directed. But thus this clause of the discourse would not be inde- 
 pendent, which is contrary to the analogy of the rest. — μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦν- 
 τες] not aiming at high things,—a warning against ambitious self-seeking. 
 Comp. xi. 20; 1 Tim. vi. ἢ. -- τοῖς τἀπεινοῖς] is neuter (Fritzsche, Reiche, 
 Kéllner, Gléckler, de Wette, Baumgarten Crusius, Borger, Reithmayr, 
 Philippi, Maier, Bisping, following Beza and Calvin): being drawn onward 
 by the lowly ; i.e. instead of following the impulse to high things, rather 
 yielding to that which is humble, to the claims and tasks which are pre- 
 sented to you by the humbler relations of life, entering into this impulse 
 towards the lower strata and spheres of life, which lays claim to you, and 
 following it. The ταπεινά ought to have for the Christian a force of attrac- 
 tion, in virtue of which he yields himself to fellowship with them (συν), and 
 allows himself to be guided by them in the determination of his conduct. 
 Thus the Christian holds intercourse, sympathetically and effectively, in the 
 lower circles, with the poor, sick, persecuted, etc.; thus Paul felt himself 
 compelled to enter into humble situations, to work as a handicraftsman, to 
 suffer need and nakedness, to be weak with the weak, etc. With less 
 probability, on account of the contrast of τὰ ὑψηλά, others have taken τοῖς 
 rare. as masculine,—some of them understanding ταπεινός of inferior rank, 
 some of humble disposition, some blending both meanings—with very dif- 
 ferent definitions of the sense of the whole, e.g. Chrys. : εἰς τὴν ἐκείνων εὐτέλειαν 
 κατάβηθι, συμπεριφέρου, μὴ ἁπλῶς τῷ φρονήματι συνταπεινοῦ, ἀλλὰ Kai βοήθει καὶ 
 χεῖρα ὀρέγου x.7.A.3; similarly Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others ; Grotius 
 (comp. Ewald): ‘‘modestissimorum exempla sectantes;” Riickert (comp. 
 van Hengel) : ‘‘let it please you to remain in fellowship with the lowly ;” 
 Olshausen : Christianity enjoins intercourse with publicans and sinners in 
 order to gain them for the kingdom of Christ : Hofmann: ‘‘ to be drawn 
 into the host of those who occupy an inferior station and desire nothing 
 else, and, as their equals, disappearing amongst them, to move with them 
 along the way in which they go.” —ovvaray.] has not in itself, nor has it 
 here, the bad sense: to be led astray along with, which it acquires in Gal. 
 li. 13, 2 Pet. iii. 17, through the context. —dpédvimot παρ᾽ éavt.] wise accord- 
 ing to your own judgment Comp. Prov. iii. 7; Bernhardy, p. 256 f. One 
 must not fall into that conceited self-sufficiency of moral perception, whereby 
 brotherly respect for the perception of others would be excluded. Simi- 
 lar, but not equivalent, is ἐν ἑαυτ., xi. 25. 
 
 Vv. 17-19. The participles—to be supplemented here as in ver. 16—are 
 not to be connected with μὴ γίνεσθε φρόν. παρ᾽ éavt. — μηδενί] be he Christian 
 
 1 Certainly not here, for the discourse concerns the relations of Christians to one another 
 (not to those who are without), : 
 
CHAP. XII., 17-19. A479 
 
 or non-Christian. Opposite : πάντων ἀνθρώπων. The maxim itself taught 
 also by Greek sages, how opposed it was to the ἀδικεῖν τῷ ἀδικοῦντι Of common 
 Hellenism (Hermann, ad Soph. Philoct. 679 ; Jacobs, ad Delect. Epigr. p. 
 144 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 49 B, ad Phileb. p. 49 D) and to Phari- 
 saism (see on Matt. v. 43) ---- προνοούμενοι] reminiscence from the LXX., 
 Prov. iii. 4. For this very reason, but especially because otherwise an entirely 
 unsuitable limitation of the absolute moral notion of καλά would result, 
 ἐνώπιον K.T.A. 18 not to be joined to καλά (Ewald, Hofmann) ; it belongs to 
 προνοοῦύμ. Comp. 2 Cor. vill. 21; Polycarp, ad Phil. 6. Before the eyes of all 
 men—so that it lies before the judgment of all—taking care for what is good 
 (morality and decency in behaviour). Verbs of caring are used both with 
 the genitive (1 Tim. v. 8) and with the accusative (Bernhardy, p. 176), which 
 in the classics also is very frequently found with προνοεῖσθαι. Rightly 
 Theophylact remarks on ἐνώπ. πάντων ἀνθρ. that Paul does not thereby ex- 
 hort us to live πρὸς κενοδοξίαν, but ἵνα μὴ παρέχωμεν Kal ἡμῶν ἀφορμὰς τοῖς Bov- 
 λομένοις, he recommends that which is ἀσκανδάλιστον κ. ἀπρόσκοπον. --- εἰ δυνατὸν, 
 τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν μετὰ κ.τ..] to be so punctuated. For if the two were to be joined 
 together (‘‘as much as it is possible for you,” Gléckler), the injunction 
 would lose all moral character. Still less are we to suppose that εἰ δυνατόν 
 belongs to the preceding (Erasmus, Cajetanus, Bengel), which indeed ad- 
 mits of no condition. Grotius’ view is the correct one : ‘‘omnium amici 
 este si fieri potest ; si non potest utrimque, certe ex vestra parte amici este,” 
 so that εἰ δυνατόν allows the case of objective impossibility to avail (how often 
 had Paul himself experienced this !) ; τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν (adverbially: as to what 
 concerns your part, that which proceeds from you ; see generally on i. 15, 
 and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 225) annuls any limitation in a subjective 
 respect, and does not contain a subjective limitation (Reiche), since we for 
 our part are supposed to be always and in any case peaceably disposed, so 
 that only the opposite disposition and mode of behaviour of the enemy can 
 frustrate our subjective peaceableness. — ἀγαπητοί] urgent and persuasive. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 14, xv. 58 ; Phil. ii. 1, iv. 1. — ἀλλὰ δότε κ.τ.}. The con- 
 struction changes, giving place to a stronger (independent) designation of 
 duty. See Winer, p. 535 [E. T. 575].1 Give place to wrath (κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, that 
 of God), z.e. forestall it not by personal revenge, but let it have its course and 
 its sway.” The morality of this precept is pased on the holiness of God ; 
 hence, so far as wrath and love are the two poles of holiness, it does not 
 exclude the blessing of our adversaries (ver. 14) and intercession for them. 
 The view, according to which τῇ ὀργῇ is referred to the divine wrath (comp. 
 v. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 16)—as the absolute ἡ χάρις is the divine favour and grace 
 (comp. v. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10, ii. 16)—is rightly preferred by most interpreters 
 from the time of Chrysostom down to van Hengel, Hofmann, Delitzsch ; 
 for, on the one hand, it corresponds entirely to the profane (Gataker, ad 
 Anton. p. 104 ; Wetstein in loc.) and Pauline (Eph. iv. 27) use of τόπον (or 
 
 1 Comp. here especially Viger. ed. Herm. Sohar, p. 95: “ Homo non debet properare, ut 
 p. 469. vindictam sumat (comp. μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦν- 
 
 2 Quite analogous to the sense and se- τες); melius est, si vindictam committit alii” 
 quence of thought of our verse is Synops. (Deo), comp. ἀλλὰ δότε τόπ. τῇ ὀργῇ. 
 
480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 χώραν) diddvai—which primarily denotes to make place for any one (Luke xiv. 
 
 9), then to give any one full play, time and opportunity for activity (Eph. l.c., 
 
 comp. Eccles. xiii, 21, xix. 17, xxxvili. 12, xvi. 14; Philo in Loesner, Ὁ. 
 
 263) ; and on the other hand it is most appropriate to the following Script- 
 ural proof. Non-compliance with the precept occasions the ὀργίζεσθαι καὶ 
 ἁμαρτάνειν, Eph. iv. 26. Comp. on the thought 1 Pet. ii. 23 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 
 
 15, 16. Others interpret it of one’s own wrath,? which is not to be allowed to’ 
 break forth. So de Dieu, Bos, Semler, Cramer, and Reiche : ‘‘ Wrath pro- 
 duces terrible effects in the moment of its ebullition ; give it time, and it 
 passes away.” The Latin use* of irae spatiwm dare agrees indeed with 
 this interpretation, but not the Greek use of τόπον διδόναι --- not even in the 
 well-known expression in Plutarch (de ira cohib. p. 462) that we should not 
 even in sport διδόναι τόπον to anger, ὁ.6. give it full play, allow it free course. 
 
 Since this ‘‘ giving way to wrath” (justly repudiated by Plutarch as highly 
 dangerous) cannot be enjoined by Paul, he must have meant by τ. ὀργῇ the 
 divine wrath. For the interpretation given by others of the wrath of an 
 enemy, which one is to give place to, to go out of the way of (Schoettgen, 
 
 Morus, Ammon), must be rejected, since this, although it may be linguis- 
 tically justified (Luke xiv. 9; Judg. xx. 86), and may be compared with 
 Soph. Ant. 718 (see Schneidewin Zn loc.) and with the Homeric εἴκειν θυμῷ, 
 yet would yield a precept, which would be only a rule of prudence and not 
 a command of Christian morals. This applies also in opposition to Ewald : 
 to allow the wrath of the other to expend itself, which, as opposed to personal 
 revenge, has no positive moral character (it is otherwise with Matt. v. 39) ; 
 not to mention that the injury, the personal avenging of which is forbidden, 
 by no means necessarily supposes a wrathful offender. — yéyp. yap] Deut, 
 xxxii. 35, freely as regards the sense, from the Hebrew (to me belongs revenge 
 and requital), but with use of the words of the LXX., which depart from 
 the original (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω), and with the addition of λέγει 
 κύριος. The form of this citation, quite similar to that here used, which 
 is found in Heb. x. 30, cannot be accidental, especially as the characteristic 
 ἐγὼ avrarod. recurs also in the paraphrase of Onkelos (Οὐκ SIN). But 
 there are no traces elsewhere to make us assume that Paul made use of On- 
 kelos ; and just as little has the view any support elsewhere, that the writer of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews followed the citation of Paul (Bleek, Delitzsch), 
 Hence the only hypothesis which we can form without arbitrariness 
 is, that the form of the saying as it is found in Paul and in Heb. x. 30 had 
 
 1 Yet it must be admitted, that either of 
 the two other explanations (see below) 
 would not be opposed to the sense of the 
 following passage of Scripture, if only one 
 of them were otherwise decidedly correct. 
 
 2So Zyro in a peculiar manner in the 
 Stud. τι. Krit. 1845, p. 891f. : *‘ Give place to 
 wrath, when it comes and seeks to get pos- 
 session of your mind,and go from it (éurn 
 your back uponit).” This would be psycho- 
 logically inappropriate (for wrath isin man, 
 
 an emotion which indeedis stirred up from 
 without, but does not come thence, comp. 
 Eph. iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; John xi. 33, 38), and 
 at the same time how strange in point of 
 expression ! 
 
 3 Livy ii. 56, viii. 832 ; Seneca, de ira, iii. 39. 
 Comp. especially Lactantius, de Jra, 18: 
 “ Ego vero laudarem, si, cum fuisset tratus, 
 dedisset irae suae spatium, ut, residente per 
 antervallum temporis animi tumore, haberet 
 modum castigatio.”’ 
 
CHAP. XII., 20-21. 481 
 at that time acquired currency {1 the manner of a formula of warning which 
 had become proverbial, and had influenced the rendering in the paraphrase 
 of Onkelos. The λέγει κύριος Paul has simply added, as was frequently done 
 (comp. xiv. 11) with divine utterances ; in Heb. x. 30 these words are not 
 genuine. 
 
 Ver. 20. Without οὖν (see the critical notes), but thus the more in conform- 
 ity with the mode of expression throughout the whole chapter, which pro- 
 ceeds for the most part without connectives, there now follows what the 
 Christian—seeing that he is not to avenge himself, but to let God’s wrath 
 have its way—has rather to do in respect of his enemy.—The whole verse is 
 borrowed from Prov. xxv. 21, 22, which words Paul adopts as his own, 
 closely from the LXX. — ψώμιζε] feed him, give him to eat. See on 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 1 ; Grimm on Wisd. xvi. 30. The expression is affectionate. Comp. 
 2 Sam. xiii. 5; Bengel: ‘‘manu tua.” Kccles. vii. 32. — ἄνθρακας πυρὸς 
 σωρεύσ. ἐπὶ τὴν κεφ. αὐτοῦ] figurative expression of the thought : painful shame 
 and remorse wilt thou prepare for him. So, insubstance, Origen, Augustine, 
 Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, Bengel, and others, 
 including Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, 
 Olshausen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Reithmayr, Bisping, Borger, van Hengel, 
 Hofmann ; comp. Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 568 f. Glowing 
 coals are to the Oriental a figure for pain that penetrates and cleaves to one," 
 and in particular, according to the context, for the pain of remorse, as here, 
 where magnanimous beneficence heaps up the coals of fire. Comp. on the 
 subject-matter, 1 Sam. xxiv. 17 ff. See the Arabic parallels in Gesenius in 
 Rosenmiiller’s Repert. I. p. 140, and generally Tholuck in loc. ; Gesenius, 
 Thesaur. I. p. 280. Another view was already prevalent in the time of 
 Jerome,* and is adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Photius, Beza, Camerarius, Estius, Grotius, Wetstein, and others, 
 including Koppe, Béhme, Hengstenberg (Awthent. d. Pentat. II. p. 406 
 f.),—namely, that the sense is : Thou wilt bring upon him severe divine pun- 
 ishment. Certainly at 4 Esr. xvi. 54 the burning of fiery coals on the head 
 isan image of painful divine punishment ; but there this view is just as cer- 
 tainly suggested by the context, as here (see esp. ver. 21) and in Prov. /.c., the 
 context is opposed to it. For the condition nisi resipiscat would have, in the 
 first place, to be quite arbitrarily supplied ; and how could Paul have con- 
 ceived and expressed so wnchristian a motive for beneficence towards 
 enemies ἢ The saving clauses of expositors regarding this point are fanci- 
 ful and quite unsatisfactory. 
 
 Ver. 21. Comprehensive summary of vv. 19, 20.—‘‘ Be not overcome (carried 
 
 1 Not for softening (from the custom of 2**Carbones igitur congregabis super 
 
 softening hard meats by laying coals upon 
 the vessel), as Glockler, following Vorstius 
 and others, thinks, nor for inflaming to love 
 (Calovius and others). The Jesuit Sanctius 
 (see Cornelius ἃ Lapide in loc.) even found 
 in the figure an indication of the blush of 
 shame. So again Umbreit, p. 353; comp. 
 also van Hengel. 
 
 caput ejus, nonin maledictum et condem- 
 nationem, wt plerique existimant, sed in cor- 
 rectionem et poenitudinem,’’ Jerome. 
 
 3 Augustine, Propos. 71: “‘ Quomodo quis- 
 quam diligit eum, cui propterea cibum 
 et potum dat, ut carbones ignis congerat 
 super caput ejus, si carbones ignis hoe 
 loco aliquem grayem poenam significant?” 
 
482 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 away to revenge and retaliation) by evil (which is committed against thee), 
 but overcome by the good (which thou showest to thine enemy) the evi/,” bring- 
 ing about the result that the enemy, put to shame by thy noble spirit, ceases 
 to act malignantly against thee and becomes thy friend. ‘‘ Vincit malos per- 
 tinax bonitas,” Seneca, de benef. vil. 31. Comp. de ira, il. 32 ; Valer. Max. 
 iv. 2,4. On the other hand, Soph. £7. 308 f. : ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς | ἸΠολλή ’or 
 ἀνάγκη κἀπιτηδεύειν κακά. We may add the appropriate remark of Erasmus 
 on the style of expression throughout the chapter : ‘‘ Comparibus membris et 
 incisis, similiter cadentibus ac desinentibus sic totus sermo modulatus est, ut 
 nulla cantio possit esse jucundior,” 
 
 Norrs py AMERICAN EDrror. 
 
 CXXVILI. Ver. 1. παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς. 
 
 Whether we hold with Meyer or not, that the immediate connection of this 
 verse through the particle οὖν is with xi. 35, 36, there can be little doubt that 
 the Apostle intends to place the practical section of the Epistle over against the 
 doctrinal section, and to found upon the latter the first and comprehensive ex- 
 hortation of the opening verses of this 12th chapter. The exhortation is 
 pressed upon the readers by the mercies of God, which are set forth in ch. xi., 
 but. which are also manifested in the progress and development of that plan 
 of salvation whose central doctrine is justification by faith. 
 
 The explanation which Meyer gives of the contents of the exhortation is to 
 be accepted, because it meets satisfactorily the demands of the case, and be- 
 cause the appeal to the readers thus to consecrate themselves to God, both in 
 the outer and inner man, is the most natural outgrowth of the preceding 
 chapters. In those chapters the doctrine had been exhibited in its universality 
 of blessing for all men, and in its universality of influence throughout the 
 life of each man—tending to make every one who should receive it into his 
 heart die to sin and live to holiness, and promising to every one at the end 
 not only life for the spirit, but complete redemption for the body also. The 
 objection urged against this view, which Meyer notices in his foot-note, is 
 answered fully by him, and it is unnecessary to modify what he says, even as 
 far as Weiss ed. Mey. does, so that ver. 2 is regarded as making the renewal of 
 the νοῦς the means of the παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα. As Meyer expresses it, Paul 
 formally separates the two. The objection, that τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν is opposed 
 to such a separation, is not well founded, for this phrase is used with especial ref- 
 erence to the external and ceremonial offerings of the Jewish system, and hence 
 is especially suited to this part of the exhortation. Philippi objects that the 
 different tenses (aorist and present) are inconsistent with the parallelizing of the 
 two verses, but the aorist in ver. 1 is easily accounted for as connected with 
 the figure of offering a sacrifice—a single and definite act. In fact, the de- 
 mand of the Christian teaching is as truly to renew the mind at once and by a 
 single act, as it is to devote the body, or, as Philippi would say, the entire self, 
 thus immediately to God. Theaccount given above of the use of the aorist, 
 therefore, is probably the true one. 
 
NOTES. 483 
 
 CXXVIII. Ver. 2. cvoynuarifecbe—perapogotobe. 
 
 That Greek authors never used the words σγῆμα and μορφή, or their com- 
 pounds, in the same sense, it may be difficult to affirm. The tendency of 
 language is to some degree of freedom in such cases. It seems evident, how- 
 ever, that they have different meanings at the foundation, and in their ordi- 
 nary use ; and there is, apparently, no reason for denying that the Apostle inten- 
 tionally employs the two words, in this place, because he desires to express 
 two different shades of thought. Indeed, the fact that we find the two verbs, 
 instead of one, and that their peculiarities of signification, as distinguished 
 from each other, give additional force and emphasis to the entire sentence, ren- 
 ders it probable that such was his intention. 
 
 CXXIX. Vv. 3-8. 
 
 These verses are subordinated to vv. 1, 2. Some writers regard ydp as 
 explicative (e.g. Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, Shedd) ; others as causal (e.g. 
 Meyer, Godet, Gifford, Beet). Probably the latter view is correct, and the pre- 
 cise relation of thought expressed by the yap is this :—I give the exhortation 
 to complete consecration of the whole man to God, because it involves in it- 
 self, and leads to the fulfilment of, all the particular duties of the Christian 
 life which I have to urge upon you as members of the Christian church in 
 Rome. The particle is grammatically, indeed, confined in its force to the 
 single verse in which it stands, but in the writer’s mind it extended, no doubt, 
 over all that follows. 
 
 The first of the specific exhortations is contained in these six verses. That 
 it relates to modesty and humility, as Meyer says, is evident. There is, how- 
 ever, such a prominence given to the matter of gifts and offices cf the spiritual 
 life, that we must regard the Apostle as having a special reference, in what he 
 says, to humility with respect to these. To the end of securing that proper 
 and modest estimation of oneself which is a part of true Christian living, the 
 limitation of oneself, in a Christian way, within the sphere of the divinely- 
 assigned gifts, is essential, The ‘‘regulative standard’’ for this due estimate 
 is mentioned in the words ὡς ὁ Θεὸς ἐμέρισεν μέτρον πίστεως, to Which κατὰ τὴν 
 ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως (ver, 6) corresponds, as is made evident by the connection 
 in thought of the verses throughout the paragraph. The explanation of the 
 meaning of μέτρον πίστεως is rightly given in Meyer’s note. Paul seems evi- 
 dently in many places to look upon faith as developing its vital force in differ- 
 ent lines—as, for example, here, in the qualification for special works and the 
 exercise of special gifts, and, in ch. xiv., in the matter of Christian knowledge 
 (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 1 ff.) as related to conscientious scruples. One man, thus, has 
 “faith” to be a prophet, another has ‘‘faith’’ to ‘eat all things,’ and ‘‘ what- 
 soever is not of ‘faith’ is sin.” Paul himself had “faith” to be an Apostle to 
 the Gentiles in the regions where others had not preached, just as he had 
 ‘‘orace given to him’’ for this end. This was his χάρισμα ; that is, it was that 
 for which the particular development of the life-principle of Christianity with- 
 in his mind and soul fitted him. It was his duty to have a sober-minded judg- 
 ment of himself in accordance with this fact (σωφρονεῖν), and not to go beyond 
 this (ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ dpoveiv). And so with other men. Compare what 
 Paul says of himself, 2 Cor. x. 13 ff. 
 
 The fourth and fifth verses give a ground for the bidding of ver. 3, and, at 
 
484 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the same time, carry on the thought, by way of transition, to vv. 6-8. The 
 reason for the sober-minded estimate of oneself, as here stated, is that the 
 church is an organism, like the human body, wherein it is for the good, and 
 even the life, of the whole that the several members should have different 
 functions. But, inasmuch as this is so, those who have particular gifts (ver. 
 6 ff.) should devote themselves to the exercise of those gifts. 
 
 XXX, Ver. 6. κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως. 
 
 The argument presented by Meyer with regard to the construction of these 
 words seems decisive. They are to be connected with προφητεύωμεν, which is 
 supplied in thought. Weiss. ed. Mey., who, asalso Tisch. 8, favors the uniting 
 of the entire clause with ἔσμεν of ver. 5, urges against this view, that the pro- 
 phetic gift was conditioned upon a divine inspiration and impulse, not upon 
 faith, and that faith, though a necessary antecedent to the reception of the gift, 
 is not the energizing force in it. These two things are true, no doubt, but this 
 fact is not inconsistent with an exhortation to the prophet, such as is here given, 
 All the gifts are bestowments of the grace of God—the prophetic gift more 
 exclusively so, perhaps, than any other, in so far as it involves an immediate 
 and momentary inspiration ;—but they are all alike (this one, as well as the 
 others) bestowed according to what the Apostle here means by the μέτρον πίσ- 
 τεως, and they are to be used as they are bestowed. The προφήτης, like the 
 διδάσκαλος, or the διάκονος, should move within the sphere of that which the 
 χάρις and the πίστις had qualified him for, and should not, by reason of a 
 ὑπερφρονεῖν, reach out beyond it. The unity of the entire paragraph indicates 
 this to be the thought of the writer, and, as it does this, it determines both the 
 construction and the meaning of these particular words (κατὰ k.7.A.). 
 
 The view of this phrase which makes it mean according to the proportion, 
 analogy, rule of faith (faith being taken in the sense of truths to be believed or 
 a system of doctrine), is neither required by the word ἀναλογίαν, nor consistent 
 with Paul’s use of πίστις, nor harmonious with any of the parallel phrases (ἐν 
 τῇ διακονίᾳ, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, x.T.A.), Dor suggested by anything in the context, 
 nor within the line of the thought of ver. 3, to which vy. 6-8 are subordinate 
 ‘as giving special applications of what it suggests. 
 
 That ἀναλογία answers in idea to μέτρον is satisfactorily shown by Meyer, and 
 hence the fact of the selection of a new word in this verse, which has been 
 urged by some writers, cannot be considered an objection of any weight against 
 that interpretation which makes the words equivalent to each other. 
 
 CXXXI. Vv. 7, 8. εἴτε 6 διδάσκων k.7.A. 
 
 There can be no doubt, it would seem, that the one who teaches and the one 
 who exhorts belong in that ‘‘ teaching”’ class of which the prophet is a member, 
 and, by reason of his special inspiration, an exalted member. On the other 
 hand, it may be regarded as probable that the ‘‘ giver’’ and the one who ‘“‘ shows 
 mercy” are in a kindred sphere with the διάκονος, as distinguished from the 
 sphere of the διδάσκαλος. That the latter, however, are officials in the church 
 is not to be inferred from any such general relationship of work. (1) There is 
 no evidence that there was such a multiplication of offices in the small and 
 scattered Christian bodies at this early period, (2) The probabilities in the 
 
NOTES. 485 
 
 case are altogether against any such condition of things. No such offices are 
 alluded to even in the latest of the Pauline Epistles—no offices, indeed, except 
 that of ἐπίσκοπος or πρεσβύτερος and that of διάκονος, unless possibly that of 
 widows. The context has no suggestion of offices in the technical sense, but 
 only in the sense in which gifts involve offices. (3) The exhortation on which 
 the paragraph depends is addressed to all the members of the church, and has 
 reference, accordingly, to gifts which any one among them might have. (4) 
 The two words kindred with διώκονος are separated by a word of a different 
 sort (προιστώμενος), and one which has a closer relation with διδώσκαλος. (5) 
 These two words are, in themselves, not adapted to the description of church 
 officials :-τομεταδιδούς meaning giving or imparting, as of what belongs to the 
 giver, rather than distributing, as of what belongs to the Christian company, 
 and ἐλεῶν being, in its natural and ordinary use, characteristic of individuals. 
 The fact that the participle προισταμένους is employed, in 1 Thess. v.12, as de- 
 scriptive of persons who, also, ‘‘ labor among you and admonish you,” and προεσ- 
 τῶτες, in 1 Tim. y. 17, in speaking of certain elders, cannot be regarded as evi- 
 dence that here, where the word is used independently, it designates elders ; 
 —especially considering the position which it has between two other words, 
 whose relation (if, indeed, there is any such relation at all) is with an entirely 
 different office. It may be held, rather, that the use of the participle in 1 Tim. 
 iii. 4, where it is applied to the ἐπίσκοπος, i.e. the πρεσβύτερος, with reference to 
 his presiding over his own family, is a proof that, in itself, it has no such 
 technical signification. 
 
 CXXXII. Ver. 9. ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος. 
 
 The transition here is not from offices and official duties to the duties of all 
 members of the Church, but from that due estimate of oneself, which leads 
 the Christian to move in the line of his own gifts and qualifications as one of 
 a body (for the common benefit of which all are to work), to the suggestion 
 of varied lines of action to which love, as the uniting principle of the common 
 life of the body, would naturally lead. Hence we find the exhortation, let love 
 (i.e. love to one another, not here meaning love to God) be without hypocrisy, 
 placed at the beginning. This is followed by the wogds abhorring, etc. If 
 there be a guileless love which joins itself to an abhorrence of whatever is evil 
 and an ardent attachment to whatever is good, there is preparation in the man 
 for each and every one of the works of the Christian life which are mentioned 
 in the following verses. 
 
 CXXXIITI. Ver. 11. τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. 
 
 Meyer (see his critical notes at the beginning of the chapter) adopts the 
 reading καιρῷ on internal grounds. The external evidence, however, is very 
 strong for κυρίῳ, and this reading is now generally adopted. (So also Weiss 
 ed. Mey., and Westcott and Hort). The insertion of so general and compre- 
 hensive a duty as ‘serving the Lord’’ in the midst of a series of such special 
 and individual matters is an argument against κυρίῳ not lightly to be set aside. 
 Such an insertion seems more improbable in a ease like this, than the somewhat 
 similar insertions of general words in i, 29-32 and elsewhere. Serving the op- 
 portunity, the occasion or critical season, on the other hand, is a suggestion most 
 appropriate as following and modifying the other two exhortations of the verse. 
 
480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 It has been objected to by de Wette and others, on the ground that it savors of 
 worldly policy, rather than Christian morality, but when we observe what the 
 Apostle has in mind, we find no foundation for this statement. It belongs 
 both to Christian duty and to the highest Christian wisdom for the man who 
 is not sluggish in respect to zeal, but fervent in spirit, to serve the occasion so 
 far as to temper and direct his zeal by what it demands. The remark of de 
 Wette, that the Christian may and should make use of time and opportunity, 
 but should not serve it, is true, if serve be understood in a particular sense, but 
 not so if it be taken in another sense. That other sense, given by Meyer in 
 his note, is undoubtedly the one which Paul had in mind if he wrote καιρῷ. 
 The textual question, therefore, lies between the external and the internal evi- 
 dence, which are here opposed to each other. Generally, no doubt, the exter- 
 nal authorities must decide in such cases. |; 
 
CHAP. XIII., 1-7. 487 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἀπό] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ὑπό, which Griesb. also approved, accord- 
 ing to preponderant evidence. But ἀπό also retains considerable attestation 
 (D* E* F G, min., Or. Theodoret, Dam.), and may easily have been displaced 
 by a ὑπό written on the margin from the following. After οὖσαι Elz. has ἐξουσίαι, 
 which, according to a preponderance of evidence, has been justly omitted 
 since Griesb. as a supplement ; and τοῦ also before the following Θεοῦ is too 
 feebly attested. — Ver. 3. τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ, ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ] commended by Griesb., 
 adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche, according to AB D* F GP 8, 6. 67**, 
 several vss., and Fathers. But Elz., Matth., Scholz have τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργων, ἀλλὰ 
 τῶν κακῶν. A presumed emendation in case and number. — Ver. 5. ἀνάγκη ὑπο- 
 τάσσεσθαι] D K F G, Goth. It. Guelph. Ir. have merely ὑποτάσσεσῆε. Com- 
 mended by Griesb. A marginal gloss, as the reading ἀνάγκη (or ἀνάγκῃ) ὑποτάσ- 
 σεσῇε (Lect. 7, 8, Aug., Beda, Vulg. : necessitate subditi estote ; so Luther) plainly 
 shows. — Ver. 7. οὖν] is wanting in A B D* δὲ, 67**, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. ms. 
 Tol. Damase. Cypr. Aug. Ruf. Cassiod. Omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche. 
 Rightly ; for there was no ground for its omission, whereas by its insertion the 
 logical connection was established. — Ver. 9. After κλέψεις Elz. has οὐ ψευδομαρ- 
 τυρῆσεις, against decisive evidence. Inserted with a view to completeness. — ἐν 
 τῷ] bracketed by Lachm., is wanting in B F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. 
 But its striking appearance of superfluousness might so readily prompt its 
 omission, that this evidence is too weak. — Ver. 11. The order 467 ἡμᾶς is deci- 
 sively supported. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Yet the latter has instead 
 of ἡμᾶς : ὑμᾶς, according to A BO P &*, min. Clem., which, however, appeared 
 more suitable to εἰδότες and more worthy of the apostle. — Ver. 12. καὶ ἐνδυσ. 
 Lachm. and Tisch. : ἐνδυσ. δέ, which also Greisb. approved, according to impor- 
 tant witnesses ; but it would be very readily suggested by the preceding adver- 
 sative connection. 
 
 Vv. 1-7." The proud love of freedom of the Jews (see on John viii. 33; 
 Matt. xxii. 17), and their tumultuary spirit thereby excited, which was 
 peculiarly ardent from the time of Judas Gaulonites (see Acts v. 37 ; Jose- 
 phus, Ant. xviii. 1. 1) and had shortly before broken out in Rome itself 
 (Suetonius, Claud. 25 ; Dio Cassius, lx. 6 ; see Introd. ὃ 2, and on Acts 
 xvii. 2), redoubled for the Christians—among whom, indeed, even the Gen- 
 tile-Christians might easily enough be led astray by the Messianic ideas 
 (theocracy, kingdom of Christ, freedom and κληρονομία of believers, etc.) 
 into perverted thoughts of freedom and desires for emancipation (comp. 1 
 Cor. vi. 1 ff.)--the necessity of civil obedience, seeing that they, as confess- 
 ing the Messiah (Acts xvii. 6, 7), and regarded by the Gentiles as a Jewish 
 
 
 
 1 For good practical observations on this passage, see Harless, Staat u. Kirche, 1870. 
 
488 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 sect, were much exposed to the suspicion of revolutionary enterprise. The 
 danger thus lay, not indeed exclusively (Mangold, Beyschlag), but primari- 
 ly and mostly, on the side of the Jewish-Christians, not on that of the Gen- 
 tile-Christians, as Th. Schott, in the interest of the view that Paul desired 
 to prepare the Roman church to be the base of operations of his western 
 mission to the Gentiles, unhistorically assumes. And was not Rome, the 
 very seat of the government of the world, just the place above all others 
 where that danger was greatest, and where nevertheless the whole Christian 
 body, of the Jewish as well as of the Gentile section, had to distinguish it- 
 self by exemplary civil order? Hence we have here the—in the Pauline 
 epistles unique—detailed and emphatic inculcation of obedience towards the mag- 
 istracy, introduced without link of connection with what precedes, as a new 
 subject.1. Baur, I. p. 384 f., thinks that Paul is here combating Hbionitic 
 dualism, which regarded the secular magistrate as of non-divine, devilish 
 As if Paul could not, without any such antithesis, have held it to 
 be necessary to inculcate upon the Romans the divine right of the state- 
 authority ! Moreover, he would certainly not merely have kept his eye upon 
 that dualism in regard to its practical manifestations (Baur’s subterfuge), 
 but would have combated it in principle, and thereby have grasped it at the 
 root.—The partial resemblance, moreover, which exists between vv. 1-4 
 and 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14 is not sufficient to enable us to assume that Peter made 
 use of our passage, or that Paul made use of Peter’s epistle ; a view, which 
 has been lately maintained especially by Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 416 ff., 
 and in the Stud. ει. Krit. 1865, 4; see, on the other hand, Huther on 1 Pet. 
 Introd. ὃ ὃ. Paul doubtless frequently preached a similar doctrine orally 
 respecting duty towards the heathen magistracy. And the power of his 
 preaching was sufficiently influential in moulding the earliest ecclesiastical 
 language, to lead even a Peter, especially on so peculiar a subject, involun- 
 tarily to echo the words of Paul which had vibrated through the whole 
 Compare the creative influence of Luther upon the language of 
 the church. 
 
 Ver. 1. Πᾶσα ψυχῇ] In the sense of every man, but (comp. on ii. 9) of man 
 conceived in reference to his soul-nature, in virtue of which he consciously 
 feels pleasure and displeasure (rejoices, is troubled, etc.), and cherishes 
 corresponding impulses. 
 every soul, which at once brings into prominence the universality of the duty. 
 Comp. Acts ii. 43, iii. 23; Rev. xvi. 3. [See Note CX XXIV. p. 500. ] — é&ov- 
 σίαις brepex.| magistrates high in standing (without the article). 
 
 origin. 
 
 church. 
 
 There lies a certain pathos in the significant : 
 
 ὑπερεχ. (see 
 
 -1Tt is vain to seek for connections, when 
 Paul himself indicates none. Thus, e.g., we 
 are not to say that the mention of private 
 injuries leads him to speak of behaviour 
 towards the heathen magistracy (Tholuck 
 and older expositors). He does not in fact 
 represent the latter as hostile. Arbitrarily al- 
 so Th. Schott (comp. Borger) thinks that the 
 discourse passes from subordination under 
 God, to whom belongs vengeance, to sub- 
 
 ordination under the executors of the divine 
 ἐκδίκησις. AS though Paul in xii. 19 could 
 have thought of such an éxdikynots! Just as 
 arbitrary, without any hint in the text, is 
 the view of Hofmann: Paul makes the tran- 
 sition from the social life ef men in general 
 to their conduct in political organization, 
 which also belongs to the good, wherewith one 
 is to overcome the evil. 
 
CHAP RTE. 9: 489 
 
 Wisd. vi. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim. ii. 2; 2 Mace. iii. 11) is added, in order 
 to set forth the ὑποτάσσ. --- ὑπέρ and ὑπό being correlative—as corresponding 
 to the standpoint of the magistracy itself (comp. the German : hohe Obrig- 
 keiten) ; the motive of obedience follows.— There is no magistracy apart 
 Jrom God expresses in general the proceeding of all magistracy whatever from 
 God, and then this relation is still more precisely defined, in respect of those 
 magistracies which exist in conereto as a divine institution, by ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμ. 
 εἰσίν." Thus Paul has certainly expressed the divine right of magistracy, 
 which Christian princes especially designate by the expression ‘‘ by the grace 
 of God” (since the time of Louis the Pious), And ai δὲ οὖσαι, the extant, 
 actually existing, allows no exception, such as that possibly of tyrants or 
 usurpers (in opposition to Reiche). The Christian, according to Paul, ought 
 to regard any magistracy whatever, provided its rule over him subsists de 
 Jacto, as divinely ordained, since it has not come into existence without the 
 operation of God’s will; and this applies also to tyrannical or usurped 
 power, although such a power, in the counsel of God, is perhaps destined 
 merely to be temporary and transitional. From this point of view, the 
 Christian obeys not the human caprice and injustice, but the will of God, 
 who—in connection with His plan of government inaccessible to human in- 
 sight—has presented even the unworthy and unrighteous ruler as the οὖσα 
 ἐξουσία, and has made him the instrument of His measures. Questions as to 
 special cases—such as how the Christian is to conduct himself in political 
 catastrophes, what magistracy he is to look upon in such times as the οὖσα 
 ἐξουσία, as also, how he, if the command of the magistrate is against the 
 command of God, is at any rate to obey God rather than men (Acts v. 29), 
 etc.—Paul here leaves unnoticed, and only gives the main injunction of 
 obedience, which he does not make contingent on this or that form of con- 
 stitution.? By no means, however, are we to think only of the magisterial 
 office as instituted by God (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others), but 
 rather of the magistracy in its concrete persons and members as the bearers 
 of the divinely ordained office. Comp. oi ἄρχοντες, ver. 8, and vv. 4, 6, 7 ; 
 Dion. Hal. Antt. xi. 32 ; Plut. Philop. 17 ; Tit. iii. 1; also Martyr. Polye. 
 10.—Observe, moreover, that Paul has in view Gentile magistrates in con- 
 ereto ; consequently he could not speak more specially of that which Chris- 
 tian magistrates have on their part to do, and which Christian subjects in 
 their duty of obedience for God and right’s sake are to expect and to require 
 from them, although he expresses in general—by repeatedly bringing for- 
 ward the fact that magistrates are the servants of God (vv. 3, 4), indeed 
 ministering servants of God (ver. 6)—the point of view from which the dis- 
 tinctively Christian judgment as to the duties and rights of magistrate and 
 subject respectively must proceed. 
 
 Ver. 2. "Qore| Since it is instituted by God. —é ἀντιτασσ.] Note the cor- 
 relation of ἀντίτασσ., ὑποτασσ., and τεταγμ. The latter stands in the middle. 
 — ἑαυτοῖς] Dativus incommodi: their resistance to the divinely-ordained 
 
 1Comp. Hom. 71. ii. 204 ff., ix. 38,98 ; Soph. 3 Comp. Jul. Miiller, dogmat. Abh. p. 651. 
 Phii. 140, et al.» Xen. Rep. Lac. 15. 2. 
 
400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 \ 
 magistracy will issue in their own self-destruction ; comp. ii. 5; 1 Cor. xi. 
 29. According to Hofmann (who in his Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 448, even im- 
 ported a contrast to τῷ κυρίῳ, as in Xiv. 6, 7), ἑαυτοῖς is to be viewed as in 
 contrast to the Christian body as such; the punishment to be suffered is a 
 judgment which lights on the doers personally, and is not put to the account 
 of their Christian standing. This explanation (‘‘ they have to ascribe the pun- 
 ishment to themselves solely”) is incorrect, because it obtrudes on the text a 
 purely fictitious antithesis, and because the apostle lays down the relation 
 to the magistracy quite generally, not from the specific point of view of Chris- 
 tian standing, according to which his readers might perhaps have supposed 
 that they had become foreign to the political commonwealth. Had this 
 comprehensive error in principle been here in Paul’s view, in how entirely 
 different a way must he have expressed what he intended than by the single 
 expression ἑαυτοῖς, into which, moreover, that alleged thought would have 
 first to be imported !— κρῖμα] a judgment, is understood of itself, according 
 to the connection, as a penal judgment. Comp. ii, 2, 3, 11. 8; 1 Cor. xi. 
 29; Gal. v. 10; Mark xii. 40. From whom they will receive it, is decided 
 by the fact that with οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες, according to the context, τῇ Tov Θεοῦ 
 διαταγῇ is again to be supplied. It is therefore a penal judgment of God, as 
 the executors of which, however, the ἄρχοντες are conceived, as ver. 3 proves. 
 Consequently the passage does not relate to eternal punishment (Reiche and 
 others), but to the temporal punishment which God causes to be inflicted 
 by means of the magistrates. Philippi prefers to leave κρῖμα without more 
 special definition (comp. also Riickert) ; but against this is the considera- 
 tion, that ver. 3 can only arbitrarily be taken otherwise than as assigning 
 the ground of what immediately precedes. 
 
 Ver. 3. Oi yap... . κακῷ} Ground assigned for ἑαυτοῖς κρῖμα λήψονται. ---τῷ 
 ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ] The good work and the evil work? are personified. We are not 
 here to compare ii. 7 or ii. 15 (Reiche, de Wette). — φόβος] ὦ terror, i.e. for- 
 midandi.* — δὲ] the simple μεταβατικόν. The proposition itself may be either 
 interrogatory (Beza, Calvin, and others, including Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 Ewald, Hofmann), or as protasis in categorical form (see on 1 Cor. vii. 18, 
 and Pflugk, ad Hur. Med. 386). So Luther and others, including Tholuck 
 and Philippi. The former is more lively, the latter more appropriate and 
 emphatic, and thus more in keeping with the whole character of the adjoin- 
 ing context. — ἔπαινον] praise, testimony of approbation (which the magistrate 
 
 1 For if resistance to the ἐξουσία were not 
 to draw the divine punishment after it, the 
 relative position of rulers and subjects 
 would necessarily be such, that in good be- 
 haviour people would have to stand in fear 
 of them (which would in fact annul the di- 
 vine ordinance) ; the converse, however, is 
 the case with them, viz., they are a terror 
 to evil deeds. The γάρ consequently estab- 
 lishes neither, generally, the duty of obedi- 
 ence to the magistracy (Philippi), nor the 
 sense imported by Hofmann into ἑαυτοῖς. If 
 the bearers of magisterial power were a 
 
 terror to good works, the maxim of resist- 
 ance (to obey God rather than men) would 
 assert its right, and we should have to say 
 with Neoptolemus in Soph. Philoct. 12385 
 (1251): ξύν τῷ δικαίῳ τὸν σὸν ov ταρβῶ φόβον. 
 
 3 Beyond the work, and to the intention, 
 the prerogative of the magistrate does not 
 extend. Comp. Harless, /.c. 
 
 8 For examples of the same use, see 
 Kypke, Il. p. 188. Comp. Lobeck, Paralip. 
 p. 513; just so the Latin timor, e.g. Propert. 
 111. 5. 40. 
 
CHAP.) ΧΎΠΙΣ 4. 491 
 
 is wont to bestow ; see also Philo, Vit. WM. i. p. 626 ΟἹ ; not any more than 
 in ii. 29, 1 Cor. iv. 5, reward (Calvin, Loesner, and others). Grotius rightly 
 remarks : ‘‘Cum haee scriberet Paulus, non saeviebatur Romae in Chris- 
 tianos.” It was still the better time of Nero’s rule. But the proposition 
 has a general validity, which is based on the divinely-ordained position of 
 the magistracy, and is not annulled by their injustices in practice, which 
 Paul had himself so copiously experienced. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 14. 
 
 Ver. 4. Θεοῦ... ἀγαθόν] Establishment of the preceding thought—that 
 the well-doer has not to fear the magistrate, but to expect praise from him 
 —by indicating the relation of the magistracy to God, whose servant (διά- 
 Kovoc, feminine, as in xvi. 1; Dem. 762. 4, and frequently) it is, and to the 
 subjects, for whose benefit (defence, protection, blessing) it is so. The coi is 
 the ethical relation of the Θεοῦ διάκον. ἐστι, and εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν adds the more 
 precise definition. —ov yap εἰκῇ] for not without corresponding reason (fre- 
 quently so in classical Greek), but in order actually to use it, should the 
 case require. —r7v μάχαιρ. φορεῖ] What is meant is not the dagger, which 
 the Roman emperors and the governing officials next to them were accus- 
 tomed to wear as the token of their jus vitae et necis (Aurel. Vict. 13 ; Gro- 
 tius and Wetstein i loc.) ; for μάχαιρα, although denoting dagger = παρα- 
 ξιφός in the classics,’ means in the N. T. always sword, vill. 35, according to 
 Xen. 7. eg. xii. 11 (but comp. Kriiger, Xen. Anab. 1. 8. 7), differing by its 
 curved form from the straight ξίφος ; and also among the Greeks the bear- 
 ing of the sword (Philostr. Vit. Ap. vii. 16) is expressly used to represent that 
 power of the magistrates. They bore it themselves, and in solemn proces- 
 sions it was borne before them. See Wolf, Cur. On the distinction be- 
 tween φορέω (the continued habit of bearing) and φέρω, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p- 585. — Θεοῦ yap διάκ. x.7.A.] ground assigned for the assurance οὐκ eixy 
 τ. μ. φ., in which the previously expressed proposition is repeated with em- 
 phasis, and now its penal reference is appended. — ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν k.T.A. | 
 avenging (1 Thess. iv. 6 ; Wisd. xii. 12 ; Ecclus. xxx. 6 ; Herodian, vii. 4. 
 10 ; Aristaenet. i. 27) in behalf of wrath (for the execution of wrath) for 
 him who does evil. This dative of reference is neither dependent on ἐστίν, 
 the position of which is here different from the previous one (in opposition 
 to Hofmann) nor on εἰς ὀργήν (Flatt) ; it belongs to ἔκδικος εἰς dpy. Big ὀργήν 
 is not ‘‘ superfluous and cumbrous” (de Wette),* but strengthens the idea. 
 We may add that our passage proves (comp. Acts xxv. 11) that the abo- 
 lition of the right of capital punishment deprives the magistracy of a power 
 which is not merely given to it in the O. T., but is also decisively confirmed 
 in the N. T., and which it (herein lies the sacred limitation and responsi- 
 bility of this power) possesses as God’s minister ; on which account its ap- 
 plication is to be upheld as a principle with reference to those cases at law, 
 where the actual satisfaction of the divine Nemesis absolutely demands it, 
 
 1See Spitzmer on Hom. JJ. xviii. 597; EN* 1.3. 4. et al. Chrys. Theodoret, before 
 Duncan, Lew. ed. Rost, p, 715. ἔκδικος, Which Rinck approves, is to be ex- 
 2 The same opinion gave rise to the omis- plained by an incorrect restoration of the 
 sion of els opy. in D* FG, 177. e¢ al. Clar. dropped-out word. 
 Boern. And the fact that it is found in 
 
402 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 while at the same time the right of pardon is still to be kept open for 
 all concrete cases. The character of being unchristian, of barbarism, etc., 
 does not adhere to the right itself, but to its abuse in legislation and practice. 
 Ver. 5. The necessity of obedience is of such a character, that it is not 
 merely externally suggested (by reason of the punishment to be avoided), 
 but is based also on moral grounds ; and these two considerations are ex- 
 hibited by διό as the result of all that has been hitherto said (vv. 1-4). It 
 is clear, accordingly, that ἀνάγκη is not specially the moral necessity, but is to 
 be taken generally, as it is only with the second διά that the moral side of 
 the notion is brought forward. — da τὴν ὀργήν] on account of the magistrate’s 
 wrath, ver. 4.—dia τὴν ovveid.] on account of one’s own conscience, διὰ τὸ 
 πληροῦν τὰ προσήκοντα, Theodoret. It is with the Christian the Christian con- 
 science, which as such is bound by God’s ordinance. Hence 1 Pet. 1]. 13: 
 διὰ τὸν κύριον. Aptly Melanchthon : ‘‘ Nulla potentia humana, nulli exer- 
 citus magis muniunt imperia, quam haec severissima lex Dei : necesse est 
 obedire propter conscientiam.” Both definitions given with διά belong, 
 however, to ἀνάγκη (se. ἐστί), Which bears the emphasis, like Heb. ix. 23. 
 Ver. 6. Hor on this account you pay taxes—this is the confirmation of ver. 5, 
 Srom the actually subsisting payment of taxes ; yap retains its sense assigning 
 a reason, and the emphatic διὰ τοῦτο (from this ground) is exactly in accord- 
 ance with the context : ὅτε ob μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν 
 ἀνάγκη ἐστίν ὑποτάσσεσθαι. At the basis of the argument lies the view, that 
 the existing relation of tax-paying is a result of the necessity indicated in ver, 
 5, and consequently the confirmation of it. If διὰ τοῦτο be referred to vv. 
 14: ‘‘ut magistratus Dei mandatu homines maleficos puniant, proborum 
 saluti prospiciant,” Fritzsche (comp, Calvin, Tholuck, de Wette, Borger), 
 ver. 5 is arbitrarily passed over. It follows, moreover, from our passage, 
 that the refusal of taxes is the practical rejection of the necessity stated in 
 ver. 5. Others take τελεῖτε as imperative (Heumann, Morus, Tholuck, Klee, 
 Reiche, K6lIner, Hofmann). Against this the γάρ, which might certainly 
 be taken with the imperative (see on vi. 19), is not indeed decisive ; but 
 Paul himself gives by his οὖν, ver. 7, the plain indication that he is passing 
 for the first time in ver. 7 to the language of summons, which he now also 
 introduces, not with the present, but with the aorist. — καί] also denotes the 
 relation corresponding to ver. 5. It is not ‘a downward climax” (Hofmann : 
 ‘‘even this most external performance of subjection’’), of which there is no 
 indication at all either in the text or in the thing itself. The latter is, 
 on the contrary, the immediate practical voucher most accordant with the 
 experience of every subject. —reAeire] Paul does not in this appeal to his 
 readers’ own recognition of what was said in ver. 5 (the summons in ver, 7 is 
 opposed to this), but to what subsists as matter of fact. — λειτουργοὶ yap Θεοῦ 
 x.7.4.| justifies the fundamental statement, expressed by διὰ τοῦτο, of the act- 
 ual bearing of the payment of taxes : for they are ministering servants of God, 
 persevering in activity on this very behalf (on no other). The thought in ver. 
 4, that the magistracy is Θεοῦ διάκονος, is here by way of climax more precisely 
 defined through λειτουργοί (which is therefore prefixed with emphasis) ac- 
 cording to the official sacredness of this relation of service, and that conform- 
 
CHAP! XIII.,,7. 493 
 
 ably to the Christian view of the magisterial calling. Accordingly, those 
 who rule, in so far as they serve the divine counsel and will, and em- 
 ploy their strength and activity to this end, are to be regarded as persons 
 whose administration has the character of a divinely consecrated sacrificial 
 service, a priestly nature (xv. 16 ; Phil. 11. 17, et al.). This renders the prop- 
 osition the more appropriate for confirmation of the διὰ τοῦτο «.7.4., which 
 is a specifically religious one. — λειτουργοὶ Θεοῦ] is predicate, and the subject 
 is understood of itself from the context : they, namely magisterial persons (οἱ 
 ἄρχοντες). Incorrectly as regards linguistic usage, Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen 
 take προσκαρτ. to be the subject, in which case certainly the article before 
 the participle would be quite indispensable (Reiche erroneously appeals to 
 Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14). — εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] Telie direction not of Aecrovpy. (Hof- 
 mann), but of προσκαρτ. : for this very object, by which is meant not the ad- 
 ministration of taa-paying (Olshausen, Philippi, and older interpreters), but 
 the just mentioned λειτουργεῖν τῷ Θεῷ, in which vocation, so characteristic- 
 ally sacred, the magistracy is continually and assiduously active, and the 
 subject gives toit the means of being so, namely, taxes. Thus the payment 
 of taxes is placed by Paul under the highest point of view of a religious con- 
 scientious duty, so that by means of it the divine vocation of the magistracy 
 to provide a constantly active sacrificial cultus of God is promoted and facili- 
 tated. If εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο Was to be referred to the administration of taxes, this 
 would not indeed be ‘‘ nonsensical” (Hofmann), but the emphatic mode of 
 expression αὐτὸ τοῦτο would be without due motive, nor could we easily per- 
 ceive why Paul should have selected the verb προσκαρτ., Which expresses the 
 moral notion perseverare. The reference of it to the nearest great thought, 
 λειτουργοὶ x.T.A., excludes, the more weighty and appropriate that it is, any 
 other reference, even that of Hofmann, that αὐτὸ τοῦτο points back to the same 
 proposition as διὰ rovro.—Instead of εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, Paul might have said αὐτῷ 
 τούτῳ (xil. 12) ; he has, however, conceived προσκαρτ. absolutely, and given 
 with εἰς the definition of its aim, Comp. on the absolute προσκαρτερεῖν, Num. 
 xiii. 20 ; Xen. Hell. vii. 5, 14. 
 
 Ver. 7. Hortatory application of the actual state of the case contained in 
 vv. 5, 6 : perform therefore your duties to all (comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 8), ete. 
 —a brief summary (ἀπόδοτε. . . gerd.) and distributive indication of that 
 which is to be rendered to all magisterial persons generally (πᾶσι), and to in- 
 dividuals in particular (tax officers, customs officers, judicial and other 
 functionaries), both really (φόρος, τέλος) and personally (φόβος, τιμῆ). [See 
 Note CXXXV. p. δ01. 1 --- πᾶσι] to be referred to magistrates, not to all men 
 generally (Estius, Klee, Reiche, Gléckler, comp. also Ewald) ; this is mani- 
 festly, from the whole connection—and especially from the following speci- 
 fication, as also from the fact that the language only becomes general at 
 ver. 8—the only reference in conformity with the text. — τῷ τὸν φόρον] se. 
 ἀπαιτοῦντι, Which flows logically from ἀ πόδοτε πᾶσι τ. 6g. (Winer, p. 548 
 [E. T. 590]; Buttmann, p. 338 [E. T. 8967), and is also suitable to τ. φόβον 
 and +. τιμήν ; for, in fact, the discourse is concerning magistrates, who— 
 and that not merely as respects the notions of that time—do certainly, in ac- 
 cordance with their respective positions of power and performances of service, 
 
404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 demand fear and honour. — φόρος and τέλος are distinguished as taxes (on per- 
 sons and property) and customs (on goods). See on Luke xx. 22. — φόβος, 
 τιμή, fear (not merely reverence), veneration. The higher and more power- 
 ful the magisterial personages, the more they laid claim, as a rule, to be 
 Seared ; otherwise and lower in the scale, at least to be honowred with the 
 respect attaching to their office. 
 
 Vv. 8-14. General exhortation, to love (vv. 8-10), and to a Christian walk 
 generally (vv. 11-14). 
 
 Ver. 8. Mydevi μηδὲν ὀφείλετε] negatively the same thing, only generally re- 
 JSerred to the relation to everybody—and therewith Paul returns to the general 
 duty of Christians—which was before said positively in ver. 7 : ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι 
 τὰς ὀφειλάς. By this very parallel, and decisively by the subjective nega- 
 tions, ὀφείλετε is determined to be imperative: ‘‘ Leave toward no one any 
 obligation unfulfilled, reciprocal love excepted,” wherein you neither can, nor 
 moreover are expected, ever fully to discharge your obligation. The inex- 
 haustibility of the duty of love, the claims of which are not discharged, but 
 renewed and accumulated with fulfilment, is expressed. Comp. Origen, 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Beza, Grotius, 
 Wetstein, Bengel (‘‘ amare debitum immortale”), and many others, includ- 
 ing Tholuck, Riickert, Reithmayr, de Wette, Philippi, Ewald, Umbreit, 
 Hofmann. The point lies in the fact that, while ὀφείλετε applies to those ex- 
 ternal performances to which one is bound (‘‘ obligatio civilis,” Melanch- 
 thon), in the case of the ἀγαπᾶν it means the higher moral obligation, in vir- 
 tue of which with the guotidie solvere is connected the semper debere (Origen). 
 The objections of Reiche to the imperative rendering quite overlook the fact, 
 that with εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλ. ay. the ὀφείλετε again to be supplied is to be taken 
 not objectively (remain owing mutual love !), but subjectively, namely, from 
 the consciousness of the impossibility of discharging the debt of love. But 
 Reiche’s own view (so also Schrader, following Heumann, Semler, Koppe, 
 Rosenmiiller, B6hme, Flatt, and by way of suggestion, Erasmus), that 49. is 
 indicative: ‘‘all your obligations come back to love,” is decidedly incor- 
 rect, for oi must then have been used, as 6... in Plato’s testament (Diogenes 
 Laert. iii. 48) : ὀφείλω δ᾽ οὐδενὶ οὐδέν. The passages adduced on the other 
 hand by Reiche from Wetstein are not in point, because they have μή with 
 a participle or infinitive. Fritzsche (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and Krehl) : 
 Be owing no one anything ; only ‘‘ mutwum amorem vos hominibus debere cen- 
 sete.” Thereby the whole thoughtfulness, the delicate enamel of the pas- 
 sage, is obliterated, and withal there is imported an idea (censete) which is 
 not there. — ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπ. x.7.2.| A summons to unceasing compliance with 
 the command of love having been contained in the preceding εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλῇ- 
 Aove ἀγαπᾶν, Paul now gives the ground of this summons by setting forth the 
 high moral dignity and significance of love, which is nothing less than the 
 fulfilment of the law. Comp. Gal. v. 14; Matt. xxii. 34 ff. —7rov ἕτερον] 
 belongs to ἀγαπῶν : the other, with whom the loving subject has to do (comp. 
 11.1, 21 4/1 Cor: iv: 6, vi. 1; xiv. 17; Jas: iv. 12; δὲ οἱ). . Incorrectly Hof- 
 mann ὁ holds that it belongs to νόμον : the further, the remaining law. For 
 
 1 Who objects with singular erroneousness to the ordinary connection with ayar., 
 
ΘΕΆ, ΠῚ: 9: 495 
 the usage of ἕτερος and ἄλλος in the sense of otherwise existing (see thereon 
 Kriiger, Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2; Niigelsbach, 2. Ilias, p. 250 1.) is here quite in- 
 applicable ; Paul must at least have written καὶ τὰς ἕτερας ἐντολάς (comp. 
 also Luke xxiii. 32 ; Plato, Rep. p. 357 C, and Stallbaum in loc.). But most 
 intelligibly and simply he would have written τὸν πάντα νόμον, as in Gal. v. 
 14. It is impossible to explain the singular ὁ ἕτερος collectively (with an ir- 
 relevant appeal to Rost, § 98, B. 8. 5) ; ἕτερος νόμος could only be another 
 (second) law (comp. Rom. vii. 23), and ὁ ἕτερος v., therefore, the definite 
 other of two ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. δ48. -- πεπλήρωκε] present of the completed 
 action, asin ii. 25 ; in and with the loving there has taken place (comp. on Gal. 
 v. 14) what the Mosaic law prescribes (namely, in respect of duties towards 
 one’s neighbour, see vv. 9, 10 ; inasmuch as he who loves does not commit 
 adultery, does not kill, does not steal, does not covet, etc.). But though 
 love is the fulfilment of the law, it is nevertheless not the subjective cause 
 of justification, because all human fulfilment of the law, even love, is in- 
 complete, and only the complete fulfilment of the law would be our right- 
 eousness. Rightly Melanchthon: ‘‘ Dilectio est impletio legis, item est 
 justitia, si id intelligatur de idea non de tali dilectione, qualis est in hac 
 vita.” 
 
 Ver. 9. ᾿Ανακεφαλαιοῦται] συντόμως καὶ ἐν βραχεῖ τὸ πᾶν ἀπαρτίζεται τῶν ἐντολῶν 
 τὸ ἔργον, Chrysostom. But ἀνα is not to be neglected (is again comprised ; 
 see on Eph. i. 10), and is to be referred to the fact that Lev. xix. 18 recapitu- 
 lates, summarily repeats, the other previously adduced commands in reference 
 to one’s neighbour. Comp. Thilo, ad Cod. Apoer. p. 223.— The arrange- 
 ment which makes the jifth' commandment follow the siath is also found in 
 Mark x. 19, Luke xviii. 20 (not in Matt. xix. 18), Jas. ii. 11, in Philo, de 
 decal., and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vi. 16. The LXX. have, accord- 
 ing to Cod. A, the order of the Masoretic original text ; but in Cod. B the 
 sixth commandment stands immediately after the fourth, then the seventh, 
 and afterwards the fifth ; whereas at Deut. v. 17, according to Cod. B, the 
 order of the series is: six, five, seven in the LXX., as here in Paul. The 
 latter followed copies of the LX X. which had the same order. The deviations 
 of the LXX. from the original text in such acase can only be derived from a 
 diversity of tradition in determining the order of succession in the decalogue, 
 not from speculative reasons for such a determination, for which there is no 
 historical basis.? — On ἀγαπ. ὡς ἑαυτόν," see on Matt. xxii. 39. 
 
 that Paul would surely (!) have written o 
 yap τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπῶν τὸν νόμον πεπλήρ. AS 
 though the very order 6 ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον 
 
 tion of man and woman according to the order 
 of creation is earlier than that of man and 
 man, ete. An arbitrarily invented reason, 
 
 were not the most common of all (viii. 38, 
 τ 1 1 Cor. ii. 9; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 28, e¢ al.)! 
 Quite as common is the use of νόμος without 
 the article for the (comp. ver. 10) Mosaic 
 law ; see on ii. 12. 
 
 1 Reckoning according to the Lutheran 
 mode of division. 
 
 2 This also against Hofmann, who thinks 
 that the order of succession in our passage 
 might be founded on the fact that the rela- 
 
 which indeed must have occasioned the 
 transposition of the fourth commandment 
 to a place after the sixth. 
 
 3 Of the reading σεαυτόν (Lachm., Tisch.), 
 although preponderantly attested, we must 
 judge asin Gal. v. 4. In the Greek writers 
 also the emendation ceavr. is very frequent- 
 ly found in the codd. instead of ἑαυτ., where 
 by the latter the second person is meant. 
 See especially Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 4. 9. 
 
496 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 Ver. 10. Since all, that the law forbidsus to do to our neighbour, is 
 morally evil, Paul may now summarily conclude his grounding of the com- 
 mandment of love, as he here does. — ἐργάζεσθαι with τινί τι instead of τινά τι 
 is also found, though not frequently, in the Greek writers ; comp. 2 Mace. 
 xiv. 40; Eur. Hee. 1085 and Pflugk in loc.; Kithner, 11. 1, p. 277.— πλήρωμα 
 νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη] ὁ yap ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκε, Ver..8. Other inter- 
 pretations of πλήρωμα (“14 quod in lege summum est,” Ch. Schmidt,. 
 Rosenmiiller ; ‘‘ plus enim continet quam lex, est everriculum omnis injus- 
 titiae,”” Grotius ; see on the other hand Calovius) are opposed to the con- 
 text. Comp. Gal. v. 14, where the point of. view of the fulfilment of the 
 law by love is still more comprehensive. Observe, moreover, that πλήρωμα 
 is not equivalent to πλήρωσις, but in the love of one’s neighbour that whereby 
 the law is fulfilled has taken place and is realized.—The commentary on this 
 point, how love works no ill to one’s neighbour, is given by Paul in 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 4-7. 
 
 Ver. 11. For compliance with the preceding exhortation to love, closing 
 with ver. 10, Paul now presents a further weighty motive to be pondered, 
 and then draws in turn from this (vv. 12 ff.) other exhortations to a Chris- 
 tian walk generally. —xai τοῦτο] our and that, 1.6. and indeed, especially as 
 you, etc. It adds something peculiarly worthy of remark—here a further 
 motive particularly to be noted—to the preceding. Sce on this usage, 
 prevalent also in the classics (which, however, more frequently use καὶ ταῦτα), 
 Hartung, I. p. 146; Baeumlein, Partik. Ὁ. 147. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 6, 8 ; 
 Eph. ii. 8 ; Phil. i. 28 ; Heb. xi. 12. That to which here τοῦτο points back 
 is the injunction expressed in ver. 8, and more precisely elucidated in vv. 
 8-10, μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε, εἰ μὴ κιτ.Δ. The repetition of it is represented by 
 τοῦτο, So that thus εἰδότες attaches itself to the injunction which is again 
 present in the writer’s conception, and hence all supplements (Bengel and 
 several others, ποιεῖτε ; Tholuck, ποιῶμεν) are dispensed with. The connec- 
 tion of τοῦτο with εἰδότες (Luther, Gléckler) complicates the quite simple lan- 
 guage, as is also done by Hofmann, who makes τὸν καιρόν the object of τοῦτο 
 εἰδότες, and brings out the following sense : ‘‘and having this knowledge of 
 the time, that, or, and so knowing the time, that.” Even in Soph. Ὁ. T. 377? 
 καὶ ταῦτ᾽ is simply and indeed ; the use of τοῦτο as absolute object is irrelevant 
 here (see Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kiihner, I. 1, p. 266), because τοῦτο in the 
 sense of in such a manner would necessarily derive its more precise contents 
 from what precedes. That which Hofmann means, Paul might have express- 
 ed by x. τοῦτο eid. τοῦ καιροῦ : Kithner, II. 1, p. 298, --- εἰδότες] not consider- 
 antes (Grotius and others), but : since you know the (present) period, namely, 
 in respect of its awakening character (see what follows). — ὅτε ὥρα x.7.A.] 
 Epexegesis of εἰδότ. τὸν καιρόν : that, namely, it is high time that we finally 
 (without waiting longer, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 600) should wake out of 
 sleep. ἤδη does not belong to ὥρα, but to ἡμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου éy., and by ὕπνος is 
 denoted figuratively the condition in which the true moral activity of life is 
 bound down and hindered by the power of sin. In this we must observe with 
 
 1 Hofmann (citing ver. 42) professes to ever, makes no remark upon the καὶ ταῦτ᾽ of 
 have compared Wunder in doc., who, how- the passage, p. 18, ed. 3. 
 
CHAP. .XIIT,,: 11, 49% 
 what right Paul requires this ἐγερθῆναι ἐξ ὕπνου of the regenerate (he even in- 
 cludes himself). He means, forsooth, the fw// moral awakening, the ethical 
 elevation of life in that jinal degree, which is requisite in order to stand 
 worthily before the approaching Son of man (see immediately below, viv yap 
 k.T.A.); and in comparison with this the previous moral condition, in which 
 much of a sinful element was always hindering the full expression of life, 
 appears to him still as ὕπνος, which one must finally lay aside as on awaken- 
 ing out of morning slumber. The Christian life has its new epochs of 
 awakening, like faith (see on John ii. 11), and love to the Lord (John xiv. 
 28), and the putting on of Christ (ver. 14). This applies also in opposition 
 to Reiche, who, because Christians were already awakened from the ethical 
 sleep, explains ὕπνος as an image of the state of the Christian on earth, in 80 
 Jar as he only at first forecasts and hopes for blessedness,—quite, however, 
 against the Pauline mode of conception elsewhere (Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Thess. 
 v. 6 ff.; comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 34). — viv γὰρ κιτ.λ.1 Proof of the preceding 
 ὦρα k.t.A. The viv is related to ἤδη not as the line to the point (Hofmann, 
 following Hartung), but as the objective Now to the subjective (present in con- 
 sciousness); comp. on the latter, Baeumlein, Purtik. p. 140 ff. νῦν is related 
 to ἄρτι (comp. on Gal. 1. 10) as line to point. — ἡμῶν] Does this belong to the 
 adverb ἐγγύτερον (Beza, Castalio, and others, including Philippi, Hofmann), 
 or to ἡ σωτηρία (Luther, Calvin, and others, following the Vulgate)? The 
 former is most naturally suggested by the position of the words ; the latter 
 would allow an emphasis, for which no motive is assigned, to fall upon ἡμῶν. 
 — 7 σωτηρία] the Messianic salvation, namely, in its completion, as introduced 
 by the Parousia, which Paul, along with the whole apostolical church, 
 regarded as near, always drawing nearer, and setting in even before the decease of 
 the generation. Comp. Phil. iv. 5 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; see also Weiss, bibl. Theol. 
 p. 426. Not recognizing the latter fact,—notwithstanding that Paul brings 
 emphatically into account the short time from his conversion up to the 
 present time of his writing (viv),\—commentators have been forced to very 
 perverted interpretations ; e.g. that deliverance by death was meant (Photius 
 and others), or the destruction of Jerusalem, a fortunate event for Chris- 
 tianity (Michaelis, following older interpreters), or the preaching among the 
 Gentiles (Melanchthon), or the inner σωτηρία, the spiritual salvation of Chris- 
 tianity (Flacius, Calovius, Morus, Flatt, Benecke, Schrader, comp. Glickler). 
 Rightly and clearly Chrysostom says: ἐπὶ θύραις γὰρ, φησὶν, ὁ τῆς 
 Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia : σωτηρίαν δὲ ἡμῶν 
 But the nearer 
 the blessed goal, the more wakeful and vigilant we should be. — ἢ ὅτε ἐπιστ.] 
 
 κρίσεως ἕστηκε καιρός. 
 καλεῖ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἐπειδὴ τότε τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἀπολαύομεν σωτηρίας. 
 
 1 νῦν, as well as ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν and ἡ σωτηρία, 
 the latter in the final-historical sense, is to be 
 left textually in the clearand definite literal 
 meaning, in contradistinction to which 
 inexact and vacillating generalizations of 
 the concrete relation expressed by Paul, 
 which mix up the nearness of ¢ime with the 
 ethical approach, appear inadmissible. 
 This applies also against Hofmann, accord- 
 
 ing to whom the expectation of the near 
 return of Christ is not found at all in the 
 Epistle to the Romans (see Hofmann on 
 Col. p. 181); and Paul is here supposed to 
 say that salvation came near to them, at the 
 time when they became believers through the 
 very fact of their becoming believers (Ὁ), but 
 that now, after that they are believers (Ὁ), tt 
 stands so much (Ὁ) the nearer to them. 
 
498 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 than when we became believers ; 1 Cor. ili. 5, xv. 2; Gal. ii. 16; Mark xvi. 
 16 ; Acts xix. 2, and frequently. 
 
 Ver. 12. To ὕπνος corresponds here as correlate ἡ νύξ, 1.6. the time before the 
 Parousia, which ceases, when with the Parousia the day arrives. νύξ and ἡμέρα 
 are accordingly figures for the αἰὼν οὗτος and μέλλων, and ἡμέρα is not equivalent 
 to σωτηρία (de Wette), but the day brings the σωτηρία. [See Note CXXXVL. p. 
 502.] Comp. Heb. x. 25. — The image is appropriate ; for in regard to the 
 knowledge, righteousness, and glory which will havea place in the future 
 αἰών, this approaching blessed time will be related to the imperfect present 
 time as day to night. Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly remarks : ἡμέραν καλεῖ 
 τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίας καιρόν. . . νύκτα δὲ τὸν πρὸ τούτου χρόνον. ---- 
 mpoéxowev| not : is past (Luther), but : has made progress, processit (see Gal.i. 
 14; Lukeii. 52 ; 2 Tim. ii. 46 ; Lucian, Soloee. 6 ; Joseph. Bell. iv. 4. 6), so 
 that the day is no longer distant. It is very possible that Paul conceived 
 to himself the time of the approach of the Parousia as the time of twilight, 
 with which conception both the preceding ὥρα ἡμᾶς ἤδη κ.τ.λ. and the follow- 
 ing ἀποθώμεθα aptly agree. — ἀποθώμεθα] as one puts off garments, This way of 
 conceiving it (in opposition to Fritzsche and Hofmann) corresponds to the 
 correlate ἐνδυσώμεθα, comp. on Eph. iv. 22. The ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, i.e. the 
 works, whose element, wherein they are accomplished, 7s darkness (comp. 
 Eph. v. 11), the condition of spiritual want of knowledge and of the domin- 
 ion of sin, are regarded as night-clothes, which the sleeper has had on, and 
 which he who has risen is now to put off. — ἐνδυσώμεθα] of the putting on of 
 arms (ὅπλα, as vi. 138), which in part are drawn on like garments. Comp. 
 Eph. vi. 11 ; 1 Thess. v. 8.—rov φωτός] not glittering arms (Grotius, Wet- 
 stein), but in contrast to τοῦ σκότους : arms (i.e. dispositions, principles, 
 modes of action) which belong to the element of (spiritual) light, which one has 
 as πεφωτισμένος by virtue of his existence and life in the divine truth of sal- 
 vation. tov φωτός, has the spiritual sense, as also previously τοῦ σκότους, as 
 being in the application of that which was said of the νύξ and ἡμέρα ; but the 
 metaphorical expressions are selected as the correlates of νύξ and juépa. — The 
 Christian is a warrior in the service of God and Christ against the kingdom 
 of darkness. Comp. Eph. vi. 11, 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 7, x. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8; 1 
 um. 1.08 homey, 1324 
 
 Ver. 13.° Ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ] as one walks in the day (when one avoids everything 
 unbecoming). This in a moral sense, Paul desires, should be the ruling 
 principle of the Christian, who sees the day already dawning (ver. 12). — 
 εὐσχημόνως] becomingly, 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 35, xiv. 40. It is moral 
 decorum of conduct. — κώμοις «.7.2.] The datives are explained from the no- 
 tion of the way and manner in which the περιπατεῖν, i.e. the inner and outward 
 conduct of life, ought not to take place (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 382), namely, 
 
 1Incorrectly Luther: ‘‘ than when we 
 believed it.’ He appears, with Erasmus, to 
 
 tine’s eye and heart on his opening the 
 Bible, decided him, already prepared by 
 
 have thought of the belief, that salvation 
 was to be obtained under the law, by works. 
 2 For profane analogies, see Gataker, ad 
 Anton. p. 58. 
 3 This verse, which once struck Augus- 
 
 the preaching of Ambrose, to final repent- 
 ance andto baptism. Confess. viii. 12, 28 f. 
 See Bindemann, d@. heil. Augustinus, I. p. 
 281 f. 
 
CIPAP. KITT L4y 499 
 
 not with revellings (κώμοις 3 see respecting this, on Gal. v. 21; Welker in 
 Jacobs, Philostr. i. 2, Ὁ. 202 ff.) and carousals (comp. Gal. v. 21), ete. The 
 local view (Philippi) is less in keeping with the particulars mentioned, and 
 that of dativus commodi (Fritzsche, comp. van Hengel) less befits the figura- 
 tive verb. — κοίταις ] congressibus venereis (comp. on ix. 10), Wisd. 111. 13, and 
 see Kypke, II. p. 185. — ἀσελγείαις] wantonness (especially of lust). See Titt- 
 mann, Synon. Ὁ. 151.*— ζύλῳ] jealousy (1 Cor. i. 11, 111. 3) ; neither anger 
 (Fritzsche, Philippi, and others), which is not denoted by ζῆλος (not even 
 in 1 Cor, iii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Gal. v. 20), nor envy (Photius, Luther, and 
 others), which is less in accordance with the preceding (κοίτ. x. aoeAy.), 
 whilst strife and jealousy follow in the train of the practice of lust.—The 
 three particulars adduced stand in the internal connection of cause and effect. 
 
 Ver. 14. Ἐνδύσασθε τ. κύρ. "I. Xp.] This is the specifically Christian 
 nature of the εὐσχημόνως περιπ. But the expression is figurative, signifying 
 the idea: Unite yourselves in the closest fellowship of life with Christ, so that 
 you may wholly present the mind and life of Christ in your conduct. In 
 classical Greek also ἐνδύεσθαί τινα denotes to adopt any one’s mode of sentiment 
 and action. See Wetsteinand Kypke. But the praesens efficacia Christi (see 
 Melanchthon) is that which distinguishes the having put on Christ from the 
 adoption of other exemplars. Comp. Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 94 ; Col. iii. 
 12; and on the subject-matter, viii. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 17; Photius in Oecu- 
 menius : πῶς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐνδυτέον ; εἰ πάντα ἡμῖν αὐτὸς εἴη, ἔσωθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν 
 φαινόμενος. Observe further, that the having put on Christ in baptism was 
 the entrance into the sonship of God (Gal. iii. 27), but that in the further 
 development of the baptized one each new advance of his moral life (comp. on 
 ver. 11) is to be a new putting on of Christ ; therefore it, like the putting 
 on of the new man, is always enjoined afresh.? — καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς x.t.2. | and make 
 not care of the flesh unto lusts, i.e. take not care for the flesh to such a degree, 
 that lusts are thereby excited. By μὴ the πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι εἰς ἐπιθ. together is 
 forbidden, not (as Luther and many) merely the εἰς ἐπιθ., according to which 
 the whole sentence would resolve itself into the two members : τῆς σ. πρόνοιαν 
 μὲν ποιεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ μὴ εἰς ἐπιθ. In that case μὴ must have stood after ποιεῖσθε 
 (see xiv. 1} ; for ἃ transposition of the negation is not to be assumed in any 
 passage of the N. T. — τῆς σαρκός] is emphatically prefixed, adding to the put- 
 ting on of the Lord previously required, which is the spiritwal mode of life, 
 that which is to be done bodily. The σάρξ is here not equivalent to σῶμα (as 
 is frequently assumed ; see on the other hand Calovius and Reiche), but is 
 that which composes the material substance of man, as the source and seat of 
 sensuous and sinful desires, in contrast to the πνεῦμα of man with the νοῦς. Paul 
 purposely chose the expression, because in respect of care for the body he 
 wishes to present the point of view that this care nourishes and attends to 
 the σάρξ, and one must therefore be on one’s guard against caring for the 
 latter in such measure that the lusts, which have their seat in the σάρξ, are 
 excited and strengthened. According to Fritzsche, Paul absolutely forbids 
 the taking care for the σάρξ (he urges that σάρξ must be libidinosa caro). But 
 
 1 On the sense of the plural,see Lucian, 2 Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 186 f. 
 Amor, 21; ἵνα μηδὲν ἀγνοῇ μέρος ἀσελγείας. 
 
500 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 to this the expression πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθε is not at all suitable. The flesh, so 
 understood, is to be crucified (Gal. v. 24), the body as determined by it is to 
 be put off (Col. ii. 11), its πράξεις are to be put to death (Rom, viii. 18), be- 
 cause its φρόνημα is enmity against God and productive of death (viii. 6, 7). 
 The σάρξ is here rather the living matter of the σῶμα, which, as the seat of 
 the ἐπιθυμίαι, in order to guard against the excitement of the latter, ought 
 to experience a care that is to be restricted accordingly, and to be subordi- 
 nated to the moralend (comp. on σάρξ, 1 Cor. vii. 28, xv. 50 ; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 
 11, vii. 1, 5, xii. 7 ; Gal. ii. 20, iv. 13, 14), In substance and in moral 
 principle, the ἀφειδία σώματος (Col. 11. 28) is different from this. Chrysostom 
 aptly observes : ὥσπερ yap ov τὸ πίνειν ἐκώλυσεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μεθύειν, οὐδὲ τὸ γαμεῖν, 
 ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀσελγεῖν, οὕτως οὐδὲ τὸ προνοεῖν τῆς σαρκὸς, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἰς ἐπιθυμίας, οἷον τὸ 
 τὴν χρείαν ὑπερβαίνειν. Moreover it is clear in itself, that Paul has added the 
 second half of ver. 14 in view of what is to be handled in chap. xiv., and 
 has thereby prepared the way for a transition to the latter. 
 
 Norres spy AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 CXXXIV. Vv. 1, 2. πᾶσα ψυχὴ . . . . ὑποτασσέσθω k.T.A. 
 
 Meyer supposes that Paul in the use of πᾶσα ψυχῆ conceives of ‘‘man in 
 reference to his soul-nature, in virtue of which he consciously feels pleasure and 
 displeasure, etc., and cherishes corresponding impulses.” Weiss ed. Mey. de- 
 nies this, and claims that the expression is employed because the thought turns 
 here from duties of the common life of the Christian body to those of the in- 
 dividual life (the ψυχῇ being the seat of the individuality of the man). Godet 
 ‘thinks it is connected with the idea that the obligation referred to is not one 
 arising from the spiritual life of the believer, but belonging to the psychical life, 
 which is common to al] mankind. The use of the expression elsewhere, how- 
 ever, shows that no such special sense is required, and it is much more proba- 
 ble that the meaning is every soul, as equivalent to every man. (Comp. iii. 20 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 29; cf. also ii. 9). So Philippi, Riickert, de Wette, Shedd, and others. 
 
 Meyer, and Weiss apparently agrees with him in this point, holds that ὑπερε- 
 χούσαις refers to the higher authorities. The exhortation has its greatest em- 
 phasis, no doubt, with reference to these, but the participle is apparently in- 
 tended to designate all magistrates. ‘To all such, according to their station (cf. 
 ver. 7), the Roman Christian is bidden to submit himself. The different words 
 connected with the root of τάσσω are especially noticeable in this and the fol- 
 lowing verses : ὑποτασσέσῃω, τεταγμέναι, ἀντιτασσόμενος, διαταγῇ. 
 
 αἱ δὲ οὖσαι refers to the then existing authorities, but suggests the same thing 
 as relating to all times and places. Civil government is ordained of God. 
 It should be recognized and obeyed by the subject of it as Divinely instituted. 
 The Apostle is not discoursing or philosophizing on civil government, however, 
 as if for the sole purpose of unfolding its true theory. He is in the midst of 
 practical exhortations which bear upon the daily living of his readers. Conse- 
 quently he moves in his expressions within the sphere of their life ; calling 
 attention to the actual magistrates under whom they were placed, to the func- 
 tions which these magistrates exercised, to the powers which they possessed, to 
 the duties and obligations owed to them, to the evil of resisting their authority, 
 
Ν 
 
 NOTES. 501 
 
 What he says, accordingly, is to be interpreted (and to receive its proper 
 limitations also) in view of this fact. The opinion entertained by some writers, 
 that he denies here the right of revolution, is entirely without foundation. 
 There is no reference to this subject in the passage. This right, if it exists 
 under any circumstances, is like that of self-defence, and the discussion of the 
 question of its existence is altogether outside of the sphere of his present 
 thought. In like manner, there is no ground in these verses for the idea that 
 Paul declares capital punishment to be a right whose exercise by the supreme 
 magistracy, in the case of certain crimes, should be continued during all ages. 
 He simply refers to the power to inflict it as possessed by the government under 
 which the readers lived, and as one ground of fear in case they did evil. A 
 reference of this character added impressiveness to the suggestions of duty 
 which he was giving for their guidance. But there was no occasion to go beyond 
 this, and to announce the Divine will for other and distant times. The deci- 
 sion of such questions, appertaining to the welfare of society and the methods 
 of administration, is left to the enlightened Christian mind under the general 
 influence of Christian truth. 
 
 The exhortation here given to obey civil magistrates [as, also, those given 
 elsewhere to wives and slaves, that they should yield obedience to their hus- 
 bands and masters] was, doubtless, pressed by the Apostle with special earnest- 
 ness, because of the doctrine of Christian equality which he had so emphati- 
 cally preached. His converts and all who entered the new life were in danger 
 of carrying this doctrine of equality into the sphere of social and family rela- 
 tionships, and thus not only of falling into error, but of bringing reproach 
 upon the Church and endangering the success of the cause. The understand- 
 ing of all such practical directions in his Epistles, having reference to matters 
 within this sphere, is to be influenced by this circumstance. The same direc- 
 tion may have a deeper meaning or a greater emphasis in one age than in 
 another, though it may not lose all force in any age. It.may, possibly, have 
 great significance at an earlier period, and at a later one have even none 
 at all, Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 5 f. as illustrating this point and presenting an in- 
 stance of practical advice or commands, which no Christian thinks of as literally 
 applicable to the ordinary life of to-day. Another instance is found in1 Tim. 
 111. 2, where the writer says that a bishop or elder should not marry a second 
 time (i,e. after the death of his first wife). 
 
 CXXXV. Ver. 7. ἀποδότε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς, K.T.A. 
 
 This verse is commonly regarded(so Meyer) as belonging with those which 
 precede it, and πᾶσι is supposed to mean all magistrates. Weiss ed. Mey. (with 
 Reiche and others) connects it with ver. 8 ff. as a positive exhortation, to which 
 ver. 8 answers as a negative. πῶσι, thus, refers to allmen. The most correct 
 and satisfactory view may be that it is a transition verse, taking hold both of 
 what goes before and what follows. The words custom and tribute are especially 
 appropriate to the relation of the reader to the officers of state. Fear and honour, 
 on the other hand, have no such limited application. The meaning is proba- 
 bly this : Pay to all men their dues, whether these be tribute and custom, as to 
 the civil authorities, or honour and fear or reverence, as to any who may deserve 
 such respect. And then, passing to the new paragraph, the writer adds, Owe 
 no man anything, except the debt which, though you are always paying it, can 
 
502 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 never be fully paid. In these words there is an implied exhortation to love all, 
 and a reason for this is found in the next clause: ὁ yap ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον 
 πεπλήρωκεν. That νόμον ἴπι this sentence, ver. 8, means the Mosaic law is evident 
 from the fact that the proof (ver. 9) of its fulfilment is the fulfilling of the 
 commands of the law of Moses. As νόμος stands on both sides of ver. 9 (vv. 8, 
 10), and in immediate and necessary connection with it, it must refer to the 
 same thing which is distinctly presented in that verse. 
 
 CXXXVI. Ver. 12. ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικεν. 
 
 This compound sentence, together with the verse which precedes it, is intro- 
 duced as an additional and special reason for giving heed to the words of ex- 
 hortation already presented. Upon the thought which it expresses, however, 
 is founded, also, the urgent appeal of the following verses to lay aside the 
 works of darkness and to put on the armour of light. That the idea which it 
 suggests is not that of the approach of the end of the earthly life for the in- 
 dividual believer, but that of the nearness of the Parousia, is admitted by 
 most of the recent commentators, That the latter idea, if found in all the 
 phrases used in the passage, gives a significance and impressiveness to the 
 words, which otherwise they cannot have, is beyond question. That the same 
 is the case with other passages of a similar character, wherever they occur in 
 the Pauline Epistles, is also true. That such forms of expression as occur in 
 1 Cor, xv. 51, 52 and 1 Thess. iv. 15-17 are not easily explained except as in- 
 volving this idea, will be evident to any one who considers how strange, or 
 even impossible, it would be fora writer, having the ordinary view of the 
 second coming which characterizes men of our own age, to use them in ad- 
 dressing his fellow-Christians :—After those who have died shall have been 
 raised from the dead, we who survive to the coming of the Lord shall be caught 
 up in the clouds for a meeting with the Lord ; and, while the dead are thus to 
 be raised, we shall be changed. The time of the Parousia was distinctly de-' 
 clared by Christ (Acts i. 7) to be outside of the limits of the Divine communi- 
 cation to the Apostles. They were left, therefore, to the judgments and expec- 
 tations of their own minds. Indeed, it seems to have been God’s method in all 
 matters of prophecy to reveal to His messengers the things which were to take 
 place in the future, but to reserve within His own knowledge the date of their 
 occurrence. 
 
 The genitive ἡμῶν in ver. 11, by reason of its position in the sentence, is 
 probably to be regarded as depending on ἐγγύτερον. The emphasis of this and 
 the other expressions is very marked. The brief, critical season ; the hour has 
 already come to awake ; nearer to us now is the end than when we first be- 
 lieved ; the night is far on ; the day is at hand ; let us put off what belongs to 
 the darkness and put on what belongs to the light ; let us live as if already in 
 the day ; let us take to ourselves the spirit and character and life-principle of 
 the Lord, whom we are to meet at His coming. How impressively the words 
 must have sounded, as Paul uttered them, and how powerfully they must have 
 moved the Roman believers, if the full establishment of the kingdom seemed 
 to their thought a thing of the near future. And with what force and earnest- 
 ness must these phrases, following each other in rapid succession, have filled 
 the exhortations, which had just been given, to love all men and do every 
 duty, of the Christian life, consecrating body and mind alike to God. 
 
CHAP, XIV. 503 
 
 CHAPTER, XUv.. 
 
 Ver. 3. καὶ 6] Lachm. and Tisch: ὁ δέ, according to A BC D* &* 5. Clar. 
 Goth. Clem. Damase. Mechanical repetition from ver. 2. --- Ver, 4. δυνατὸς yap 
 ἐστιν] ABC D* FG δὲ have δυνατεῖ γάρ (commended by Griesb., adopted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch.) ; D*** Bas. Chrys. : δύνατος yap (so Fritzsche). The origi- 
 nal is certainly duvarei yap ; for δυνατέω is found elsewhere in the N. T. only in 
 2 Cor. xiii. 3, and was there also in codd. exchanged for more current and bet- 
 ter known expressions — ὁ Θεός] A Β C* P &, Copt. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Aeth. 
 Aug. et al. - ὁ κύριος (So Lachm. and 'Tisch.), the origin of which, however, is 
 betrayed by dominus ejus in Syr. Erp. It was here (at ver. 3 the connection 
 furnished no occasion for it) written on the margin as a gloss, and supplanted 
 the original ὁ Θεός. --- Ver. 5.] Instead of ὃς μέν, AC P 8*, Vulg. codd. of It. 
 Goth. and some Fathers have ὃς μὲν yap ; so Lachm. (bracketing ydp, however) 
 and Tisch. 8. But the testimony in favour of the mere ὃς μέν is older, stronger, 
 and more diffused ; as is frequently the case, yap was here awkwardly inserted 
 to connect the thought. — Ver. 6. καὶ 6 μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ] 15 
 wanting in A Β ΟἹ DEF GX, 23. 57, 67.** Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambro- 
 siast. Pel. Aug. Jer. al. Lat. ; Chrys. and Theodoret have it in the text. Con- 
 demned by Mill, omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly, since the evidence 
 for omission is so decisive, and since the interpolation was so very readily sug- 
 gested by the sense of a want of completeness in the passage, in view of the 
 following contrast, that the explanation of the omission from homoeoteleuton 
 (Riickert, Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Philippi, Tischendorf, and 
 several others)—however easily it might have been occasioned thereby (espe- 
 cially as καί before ὁ ἐσθίων, which Elz. has not, is undoubtedly genuine)—appears 
 nevertheless insufficient. Among the oldest witnesses, Syr. is too solitary in 
 its support of the words not to suggest the suspicion of an interpolation in the 
 text of the Peshito. — Ver. 8. ἀποθνήσκωμεν) Lachm. both times has ἀποθνήσκομεν, 
 according toA DEF GPmin. But Paul has in no other place ἐάν with pres. 
 indic. (in Gal. i. 8 only K and min. have the indic.), and how easily might a 
 slip of the pen take place here !— Ver. 9. Before ἀπέθανε Elz. and Scholz have 
 καί, against decisive testimony.— Afler ἀπέθανε Elz. has καὶ ἀνέστη (which is 
 wanting in A BC &*, Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers), and afterwards, instead 
 of ἔζησεν, ἀνέζησεν (against largely preponderating evidence). Further, F G, 
 Vulg. Boern. Or. Cyr. (twice) Pel. Ambr. Fulgent. have not ἔζησεν at all, although 
 they have ἀνέστη (therefore ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστην ; D Εἰ, Clar. Germ. Ty. Gaud. have 
 even ἔζῃσε κ. ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη, but D** L P S** Syr. p. and several Fathers : 
 ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη k. ἔζησε. The origin of all these variations is readily explained 
 from ἀπέθανε καὶ ἔζησεν (Lachm. and Tisch.), the best attested, and for that very 
 reason, among the many differences, to be set down as original. First ἔζησεν 
 was glossed by ἀνέστη, comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14. Thus there arose, through the 
 adoption ‘of the “gloss instead of the original word, the reading ἀπέθανε καὶ 
 ἀνέστη ; and by the adoption of the gloss along with the original word, in some 
 
δ04 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 cases ἀπέθανε x. ἔζησε x. ἀνέστη, in some cases ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη κ. ἔζησεν (so 
 
 Matth.) —whence there then arose, by an accidental or designed repetition of 
 the AN, the ἀπέθ. x. ἀνέστη κ. ἀνέζησεν of the Recepta (very feebly attested, and 
 diffused by Erasmus). Finally, the transposition ἔζησε κ᾿ ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη 
 
 was formed, after ἀπέθανε x. ἀνέστη was already read, by mistaken criticism, in- 
 asmuch as there was a desire to restore the original ἔζησε, but the non. genuine- 
 ness of ἀνέστη was as little known as the proper place for ἔζησε, and hence the 
 latter, explained of the earthly life of Jesus, was placed before a7é0. — Ver. 10- 
 
 Χριστοῦ] A B C* Ὁ E FG δὰ and several vss. and Fathers: Θεοῦ. So Lachm. 
 
 and Tisch., also Fritzsche. Rightly ; Χριστοῦ was introduced from the preced- 
 ing, and perhaps also (comp. Rufinus) through comparison of 2 Cor. v. 10. — 
 Ver. 12. δώσει] Lachm. : ἀποδώσει, according to B D* F G 39. Chrys. But this 
 compound is the usual expression with Adyov. — Ver, 14. αὐτοῦ] Elz. : ἑαυτοῦ, 
 
 instead of αὐτοῦ (see exegetical notes). So again Tisch. 8, but only according 
 to B C &, Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. A reflexive more precise definition. — Ver. 
 
 15. dé] Lachm. and Tisch. : γάρ, which Griesb. also commended, according to 
 decisive testimony. — Ver. 18. Instead of the Rec. ἐν τούτοις, Lachm. and Tisch. 
 
 have ἐν τούτῳ, according to A BC D* F G P &*, δ. Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Ruf. 
 
 Aug. But the Rec., sufficiently attested by D*** Τὸ L 8**, and almost all min., 
 
 Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. Theodoret, Tert., is the more to be defended, since év 
 τούτῳ might very easily have intruded through the immediately preceding ἐν 
 πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. It was less likely that τούτῳ should be converted into τούτοις on 
 account of the plurality of the particulars contained in ver. 17. The latter is 
 rightly retained by Beng. Matth. Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and various 
 others. — Ver. 19, didkapev] The reading διώκομεν, adopted by Tisch. 8, although 
 in A BF GLP, is an old error of the pen, attested by no version, aban- 
 doned rightly also by Lachm. ed. maj. (in the ed. min. he had adopted it, written 
 dpa, and taken the sentence interrogatively). — After ἀλλῆλ. 1) Τὸ F G, Vulg. It. 
 
 and a few Fathers have φυλάξωμεν. A supplement. — Ver. 21. ἢ oxavd. ἢ ἀσθ.] 
 omitted by Tisch. 8, is wanting in A C 67.** Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. and some 
 Fathers, including Origen. The former is suspicious as an addition from ver. 
 
 13, the latter as a gloss. However, in the case of synonyms, one or the other 
 was often omitted, as e.g., in ver. 13, πρόσκομμα (and therewith 7) is wanting in 
 B, and the evidence in favour of omission is not here sufficiently strong to con- 
 demn the words. Instead of προσκ. ἢ oxavd. ἢ ἀσθ., δὰ has merely λυπεῖται, a 
 
 gloss in itself correct according to ver. 15. — Ver. 22. After πίστιν Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8 have ἦν, according to A Β Ο &, Copt. Ruf. Aug. Pel. A double 
 writing of IN, or explanatory resolution, to which the weight of evidence of al- 
 
 most all vss. and Greek Fathers especially is opposed. — On the doxology, xvi. 
 
 25-27, not belonging to the end of chap. xiv., see critical notes on chap. xvi. 
 
 As elsewhere (Acts xv. 1, 5 ; Gal. iii. 1 ff. ; Col. ii. 16 ff.), so there were 
 even in the predominantly Gentile-Christian community at Rome, among 
 the Jewish- Christian minority? belonging to it, persons who sought still to 
 retain the standpoint of pre-Christian legalism. But these Jewish-Christians 
 in Rome had not, as elsewhere, come forward as the defenders of circum- 
 cision, or generally in an aggressive anti-Pauline attitude. Hence Paul 
 
 1 Comp. Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Writ. 1867, p. 645. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 505 
 
 speaks of them in so forbearing and mild a way, and keeps direct polemics 
 entirely in the background. They were men not of hostile, but only of 
 prejudiced minds, whose moral consciousness lacked the vigour to regard 
 as unessential a peculiar asceticism, according to which they ate no flesh (ver. 
 2), and drank no wine (ver. 21), and still held to the observance of the Jewish 
 Jeast-days (ver. 5), passing judgment withal, as is usually the case with 
 men of a separatist bias, on those who were more free, but only earning the 
 contempt of these in return. In presence of this asceticism, and in respect 
 of its main feature, namely, abstinence from flesh and wine, the question 
 arises : Was it based generally (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, 
 Calovius, and many others, including Reiche and K6llner) on the Mosaie- 
 Jewish ordinances respecting meat and drink ? 07, in particular (Clement 
 of Alexandria, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Michaelis, Anm., Flatt, Neander, 
 Reithmayr, Tholuck, Philippi), on the dread of heathen sacrificial flesh and 
 sacrificial wine (comp. the apostolic decrees, Acts xv.) ? or on both (Eras- 
 mus, Toletus, and others, including Riickert, Borger, de Wette) ? Against 
 the jirst of these three possibilities it may be urged that vv. 2 and 21 do 
 not allow us to assume any limitation of the abstinence at all, but require it 
 to be understood of flesh and wine generally ; while, on the other hand, 
 the law does not forbid all flesh and docs not forbid wine at all, and the 
 Rabbins forbid only the flesh slaughtered by the Goyim and the wine of 
 the Goyim (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. 11. pp. 616 ff., 620 ff.). To 
 assume now, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, that those 
 persons had abstained from all flesh jor the reason that they might not be 
 blamed by the others on account of their despising swine’s flesh, or from 
 contempt towards the Gentiles (τινές in Theodoret), would be completely 
 arbitrary, indeed opposed to the text ; for they themselves were on one 
 side the censurers, on the other the despised, ver. ὃ. Against the second 
 opinion, that the abstinence in question referred only to the flesh offered in 
 sacrifice to idols (Acts xv.) and the wine of libation (see Mischn. Surenh. IY. 
 pp. 369, 984 ; Eisenmenger, /.c. p. 621), it may be urged that the whole 
 section contains not a word on the sacrificial character of the flesh and wine, 
 while yet we are bound to conclude from 1 Cor. viii. and x. that Paul would 
 not have passed by this essential aspect of the matter without touching on 
 it and turning it to account. Hence also the third view, which combines 
 these, cannot be approved. In fact, the Jewish-Christian abstinence in 
 question appears rather to be a supra-legal anxiety, such as was nothing rare in 
 Judaism at that time (Philo, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. viii. fin. ; Josephus, Vit. 
 2,3 ; Grotius on ver. 2 ; Ritschl, in the theol. Jahrb. 1855, p. 353), under the in- 
 fluence of Hssenic principles (see Ritschl, althath. K. pp. 184, 187). It appears 
 certainly as an ἐθελοθρησκεία, brought over from Judaism into Christianity 
 by persons of Essenic tendencies, and fostered by the ethics of Christianity, 
 which combated the flesh.* By its adherents, however, among the Jewish-Chris- 
 
 1 Respecting the Apostle Matthew, Cle- of the Lord, Augustine, ad Faust. xxii. 3, 
 ment of Alexandria, Paedag. ii. 1, p. 174 relates that he had used neither flesh nor 
 Pott., informs us that he ate only yegeta- wine. Comp. Hegesippus in Eusebius ii. 
 _ bles no flesh; and of James, the brother 23, Butsee Ritschl, p. 224f. The Peter of 
 
506 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tians of Rome at that time, it was not maintained in opposition to justification 
 by faith, but was so practised without pretentiousness and polemics (and 
 in particular without separation from a common table with the Gentile 
 Christians), that the wisdom of the apostolic teaching deemed it inappro- 
 priate to enter into special conflict with such a remnant of an Essenic ’Iov- 
 δαΐζειν, or to speak of it otherwise than with the most cautious forbearance. 
 Baur, I. p. 381 ff., declares those persons to be Hbionite Christians (accord- 
 ing to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 15, the Ebionites abstained from all use of 
 flesh, because flesh originated from generation ; see Ritschl, p. 205). But 
 against this view it may at once be urged,’ that complete abstinence from 
 wine on the part of the Ebionites is nowhere expressly attested ; and fur- 
 ther, that, if the weak brethren at Rome had been persons who regarded 
 the use of jlesh as on principle and absolutely sinful, as was the case with 
 Ebionitism, Paul would not have expressed himself so mildly and tolerantly 
 respecting an error which would have been fundamental, dualistic as it 
 was and opposed to justification by faith. Moreover, the Ebionites date 
 only from the destruction of Jerusalem (see Uhlhorn, d. Homil. wu. Recogn. d. 
 Clem. p. 387 ff.); hence the Roman weak brethren could only be termed 
 Ebionitic in so far as their abstinence had the same root with the asceticism 
 of the Ebionites, viz. Essenism. That among the numerous Roman Jews, 
 who had arrived as prisoners of war from Palestine, there were various 
 Essenes who thereafter became Christians, cannot be subject to any well- 
 founded doubt (comp. Ritschl, p. 233 f.). And the less reason is there to 
 call in question not merely the Ebionitic, but also the Hssenic, root of the 
 phenomenon (Th. Schott). To refer it to the general interest of world-deny- 
 ing holiness does not suffice for the explanation of the several passages, and 
 in ‘particular does not explain the observance of days and the impure char- 
 acter which was attributed to the use of flesh (ver. 14). Hence, too, we 
 are not, with Hofmann, to abide by the mere general conclusion, that doubt 
 prevailed as to whether it was compatible with the holiness of the church 
 of God to use such food as man had not assigned to him from the beginning, 
 and as the Christian should jor this very reason rather dispense with than 
 enjoy for the sake of good cheer. Thus the matter would amount to an odd 
 theoretic reflection, without any connection with historical concrete ante- 
 cedent relations,—a view with which we can the less be content, since the 
 observance of days cannot exegetically be got rid of as a point which had 
 likewise occasioned dispute (see on ver. 5). Eichhorn takes the weak 
 brethren to be earlier, mostly Gentile-Christian adherents of ascetico-philo- 
 sophic, chiefly Neo-Pythagorean principles. There was certainly at that time 
 diffused among the Gentiles, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean 
 philosophy, an abstinence quite analogous to that Jewish one, as we know 
 from Senec. Hp. 108, Porphyr. De abstin., and others (see Grotius on ver. 2, 
 and Reiche, II. p. 463 f.); but, on the other hand, that view is at variance 
 partly with ver. 5 (comp. Col. ii. 16, 17), partly with xv. 8, 9, where Paul 
 
 
 
 the Clementines also practises this absti: may be derived from Essenism (the ordi- 
 nence. nary view, ably defended by Ritschl in op- 
 1 Whether the Ebionites of Epiphanius position to Schliemann) or not. 
 
CHAP: XTVasals 507 
 
 sedulously brings into view the theocratic dignity of the Jes, while he bids 
 the Gentiles praise God on account of grace—which is most in harmony with 
 the view that the despised weak ones are to be sought among the former. 
 It may be also conjectured ὦ priort that our ascetics, if they had arrived at 
 their habit by the path of philosophy, would hardly have behaved them- 
 selves in so passive and unpretentious a manner and have. been merely re- 
 garded by Paul just as weak ones.’ We may add that vv. 5, 6 do not jus- 
 tify us in assuming two parties among the Roman weak brethren, so that the 
 κρίνοντες ἡμέραν παρ᾽ ἡμέραν, ver. 5, are to be distinguished from the λάχανα 
 ἐσθίοντες, ver. 2,—the former as the stricter and probably Palestinian, the 
 latter as the freer and probably Hellenistic, Jewish-Christians (so Philippi). 
 As the observance of the feast days, especially of the Sabbaths, was essen- 
 tially bound up with the Essenic tendency, the assumption of such a sepa- 
 ration cannot be justified exegetically (from the κρίνει). Just as little is 
 there exegetical ground for the view that the community addressed and in- 
 structed in xiv. 1 ff. is notified as being Jewish-Christian in its main com- 
 position ; whereas xy. 1 ff. betrays a Gentile- Christian minority, which had 
 been more exclusive and intolerant towards the weak than the great body 
 of the church, the relation of whom to the weak the apostle has in view 
 in chap. xiv. (Mangold, p. 60 ff.) 
 
 Vv. 1-12. Suminons to brotherliness towards the weak ones (ver. 1). First 
 point of difference between the two parties, and encouragement in relation to it 
 (vv. 2-4). Second point of difference, and encouragement in relation to tt (ver. 
 5). The right point of view for both in their differences (ver. 6), and reason 
 assigned for it (vv. T-9) ; reproof and disallowance of the opposite conduct (vv. 
 10-12). 
 
 Ver. 1. Aé] passing over from the due limitation of care for the flesh (xiii. 
 14) to those who, in the matter of this limitation, pursue not the right course, 
 but one springing from weakness of faith. —rdv ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει] [See 
 Note CXXXVII. p. 522.] That πίστις here also denotes faith in Christ, is 
 self-evident ; the infirmity, however, is not conceived of—according to the 
 general πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Mark ix. 23; 1 Cor. xiii. 2)—in a general 
 sense and without any more precise character, but, in conformity with the 
 context (see vv. 2, 14, 22, 23), as a want of that ethical strength of faith, in 
 virtue of which one may and should have, along with his faith, the regu- 
 lative principle of moral conviction and certainty corresponding to its nature 
 and contents. In this more definite and precise sense those ascetics were 
 weak in faith. Had they not been so, the discernment of conscience and 
 assurance of conscience, analogous to faith, would have enabled them to be 
 
 
 
 1 Against Eichhorn’s view also, as it seems 
 to me, the passage in Origen militates : ὅρα 
 δὲ καὶ τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ αἰτίου τῆς τῶν ἐμψύχων 
 ἀποχῆς τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν ἐν 
 ἡμῖν ἀσκητῶν. ᾿Εκεῖνοι μὲν γὰρ διὰ τὸν περὶ 
 ψυχῆς μετενεσωματουμένης μῦθον ἐμψύχων ἀπέ: 
 χονται,.. ἡμεῖς δὲ κἂν τὸ τοιοῦτο πράττωμεν, 
 ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸ, ἐπεὲ ὑπωπιάζομεν τὸ σῶμα καὶ 
 δουλαγωγοῦμεν k.7.A. (c. Cels. 4), where Origen 
 
 distinguishes expressly the Pythagorean 
 abstinence as something fundamentally 
 (ideally) different from the Christian, and 
 traces the latter to an idea, which quite 
 merited the lenient treatment of the apos- 
 tle and makes the continuance of this as- 
 eeticism in the Christian Church very 
 readily intelligible. 
 
508 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 free from doubt and scruple in respect to that which, in the life of faith, 
 was right or wrong, allowable or not allowable, and to act accordingly ; 
 and consequently, in particular, to raise themselves above the adiaphora as 
 such, without prejudice and ethical narrowness. It is therefore evident that 
 the ἀσθένεια τῇ πίστει Carries with it defectiveness of moral γνῶσις, but this does 
 not justify the explaining of πίστις as equivalent to γνῶσις (Grotius and others), 
 or as equivalent to doctrine believed (Beza, Calvin). — προσλαμβάνεσθε] take to 
 you, namely, to the intercourse of Christian brotherly fellowship. The oppo- 
 site would be an ἐκκλεῖσαι θέλειν (comp. Gal. iv. 17), whereby they, instead of 
 being attracted, might be forced to separation. So in substance, Erasmus, 
 Grotius, Estius, Semler, Reiche, K6llncr, Fritzsche, Riickert, de Wette, 
 Tholuck, Philippi, Hofmann, etc. But others take it as : interest yourselves 
 in him, ‘‘of furthering, helpful support” (Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom), 
 which, however, προσλαμβάνεσθαί twa does not mean. Acts xxviii. 2 is ap- 
 pealed to, where, however, προσλ. is to take to oneself,—a meaning which is 
 here also required by προσελάβετο, ver. 3, as wellas by xv. 7, comp. also xi. 15. 
 — μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις dtahoy. | not to judgings of thoughts. [See Note CXXXVIII. 
 p- 523.] διακρίσεις διαλογ. is a result, which in the case of the enjoined προσ- 
 λαμβ. rust not be come to, so that thus μὴ εἰς διακρ. διαλ. Contains a negative 
 more precise definition of προσλαμβάνεσθε, in the sense, namely : not in such a 
 manner that the προσλαμβάνεσθαι, which you bestow on the weak, isswes in 
 judgments passed on the thoughts. Those persons formed their ideas under 
 the influence of conscience ; such scruples should be indulgently treated by 
 the stronger, and criticisms passing judgments on them should not be insti- 
 tuted, whereby the προσλαιιβάνεσθαι would be abused. Thus διάκρισις, diju- 
 dicatio, retains its usual signification (Heb. v. 14 ; 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; Plato, Legg. 
 vi. p. 765 A, xi. p. 997 B; Lucian, Herm. 69) ; and διαλογισμός likewise 
 (Matt. xv. 19 ; Mark vii. 21 ; Luke ix. 46, etal. ; Rom. 1. 21 ; 1 Cor. iii. 20). 
 Nothing is to be supplied, but εἰς is simply to be taken in the sense of the 
 result (as just previously εἰς ἐπιθ., ΧΙ]. 14), not even as wsque ad (Reiche). 
 Substantially in agreement with this view of dvaxpic. διαλογ. are Chrysostom, 
 Grotius, and others, including Kéllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Reithmayr, Fritzsche, Krehl, Tholuck, Hofmann, likewise Reiche, who, 
 however, makes the prohibition apply to both parties, which is opposed to 
 the text, since the exhorted subject is the church, in contradistinction to its 
 weak members, while the weak alone are the object of the exhortation. Au- 
 gustine aptly, Propos. 78 : ‘‘non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi 
 ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur.” Others 
 take διακρίσεις as doubts, which are not to be excited in the thoughts of the 
 weak. So Luther, Bengel, Cramer, Ernesti, Morus, BGhme, Ammon, Flatt, 
 Klee, Olshausen, Philippi, Umbreit. But διάκρισις never means doubt,’ and 
 therefore is not to be explained with Ewald, who takes the words as an ad- 
 dition by way of exclamation : ‘‘ may it not come from doubts to thoughts ! 
 may such an one not become uncertain in his conscience!” Following the 
 
 1 Neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere in distinction; as also in Oecumenius on 
 Greek. Theodoret on ver. 22 f. is appealed ver. 20. 
 to, but there διάκρισις is to be taken as 
 
CHAP, XIV., 2-4, 509 
 
 Vulgate, Beza, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Toletus, Estius, Glickler, and oth- 
 ers, διάκρ. has also been explained as dispute, which is not unfrequently its 
 meaning in the classics (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 768 A ; Polybius, xviii. 11. 3). 
 But dispute’ concerning thoughts would be at least far from clearly expressed 
 by the mere genitive (instead of περὶ dcadoy.) ; and the notion disceptatio 
 (ζήτησις, συζήτησις) is nowhere denoted in the Ν. T. by διάκρισις. Riickert 
 takes it as separation: ‘‘ But be on your guard lest the consequence thereof 
 may possibly be this, that thoughts and sentiments are severed, become more 
 abruptly parted.” Διάκρισις may certainly bear this meaning (Job xxxvii. 
 16 ; Plato, Phil. p. 82 A) ; but in that case the article must have stood be- 
 fore διαλογ., and the climactic sense (more abruptly) would be gratuitously 
 imported. 
 
 Ver. 2. More particular discussion of the subject, and in the first place, 
 exhibition of the first point of difference between the two parties. — ὃς μέν] without 
 a corresponding ὃς dé, instead of which there is at once put the definite ὁ δὲ 
 ἀσθ. : theone (i.e. the strong) believes, etc. ; but the weak, etc. Comp. Kiihner, 
 ad Xen. Anabd. ii. 3. 15 ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 507. —mioreber φαγεῖν πάντ᾽ 
 may mean : he is convinced that he may eat all things, so that the notion ἐξεῖναι 
 is implied in the relation of the verbal notion to the infinitive (Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 753f.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 2385 [E. T. 278 f.]) ; so Tholuck, 
 Borger, and older interpreters. But more agreeable to the τῇ πίστει, ver. 1, 
 and to the contrast ὁ ἀσθεν., is the rendering : he has the confidence, the assur- 
 ance of faith, to eat all things ; Winer, p. 302 [E. T. 322]. Comp. Dem. 866. 
 1, and generally Kriiger, ὃ 61. 6. 8. To supply ὥστε (van Hengel) is in ac- 
 cordance with the sense, but unnecessary. — λάχανα] excludes, according to 
 the connection, αὐ use of flesh, not merely that of Levitically unclean ani- 
 mals, or of flesh sacrificed to idols, or on feast and fast days,— limitations 
 of which nature are introduced by most interpreters (including Reiche, 
 K6llner, Neander, Tholuck, Philippi). The weak in faith eats no flesh, but 
 vegetables are his food. Comp. Wieseler in Herzog’s Eneyklop. XX. p. 595. 
 [See Note CXXXIX. p. 524. ] 
 
 Ver. 3. Prohibition for each of the two parties. [See Note CXL. p. 524. ] 
 The self-consciousness of strength misleads into looking down with contempt 
 on the weak ; the narrowness of weakness is unable to comprehend the free 
 thinking of the strong one, and judges it. —xpvétw| defined by the connec- 
 tion as a condemning judgment, pronouncing against the true Christian char- 
 acter, as in ii. 1 and frequently. — ὁ Θεὸς yap «.7.A.] ground assigned for μὴ 
 κρινέτω 3 hence αὐτόν is to be referred to τὸν ἐσθίοντα (i.e. him who eats all 
 things), not with Reiche (following Calvin and others) to both, the strong 
 and the weak, against which ver. 4 is also decisive. — προσελάβετο] has 
 taken him to Himself, namely, into His fellowship (comp. ver. 1) through 
 Christ ; not : into His house as servant (see on ver. 4), as Vatablus, Reiche, 
 and Hofmann hold. —In ὁ Θεὸς yap «.7.2. is contained the contrariety to God 
 of this κρίνειν, and its consequent impiety ; and 
 
 Ver. 4 then adds what a presumptuous intermeddling such a κρίνειν is. In 
 this the emotion rises to an animated apostrophe, addressed to the weak in 
 Suith who passes judgment, not to both parties, as Reiche and Tholuck think; 
 
δ10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 for κρίνων corresponds to the κρινέτω of ver. 8. ---- σὺ τίς ei] comp. ix. 20. It 
 discloses the presumption, without however standing in the relation of 
 apodosis to the preceding ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν προσελάβετο (Hofmann), which is no- 
 wise indicated and is forbidden by the fact that the following relation of 
 domestic slave points to Christ as Master. — ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην] who is not in 
 thy domestic service,’ butin that of another. This otheris Christ (see ver. 6), 
 not God, who is rather distinguished from the master by δυν. yap κ.τ.λ. -- τῷ 
 ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ] to his own master. The dative denotes the relation of subordination to 
 the interest of the ἔδιος κίριος (Bernhardy, p. 85). His own master, and no 
 other, is interested therein ; whence the incompetence of the κρίνειν is 
 obvious. — The figurative standing and falling is either explained of standing 
 Jirm (Ps. i. 4 ; Luke xxi. 36), and of being condemned (causa cadere) in the 
 divine judgment (Calvin, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and 
 others, including Reiche, Kéllner, Borger, Tholuck, Philippi), or, asin 1 Cor. 
 x. 12, of continuance and non-continuance in the state of true Christian faith 
 and life. So in substance, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Toletus, Bengel, 
 Semler, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Fritzsche, Riickert, Maier, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Umbreit, van Hengel, Hofmann. The use of πίπτειν 
 would not tell against the former (Hofmann), for it would have its warrant 
 as contrast to the σώζεσθαι in the divine judgment figuratively set forth by 
 the standing; * but the second explanation is to be preferred, partly because 
 the unwarranted κρίνειν denied to the more free the possession of a right 
 Christian frame of life, partly because of the following δυνατεῖ yap k.t.A. 
 For to make to stand in the judgment, 1.6. without figure, to acquit and pro- 
 nounce righteous,® is not the work of divine power, but of grace. But accord- 
 ing to His power (against Reiche’s objection to this, see Eph. ii. 20) God 
 effects an inner strengthening, so that the Christian stands in that which is 
 good, and even he who thinks more freely does not succumb to the dangers 
 to which the nature of his Christian faith and life is exposed by the very 
 fact of his freer principles, but perseveres in the true Christian state. For 
 this Paul looks to God’s power, and promises it. When Tholuck, on the 
 ground of the reading ὁ κύριος finds the thought, that the Judge will even find 
 out sufficient reasons for exculpation, this is a pure importation into the text. 
 δυνατεῖ] See on 2 Cor. xiii. 3. Comp. Clem. Hom. i. 6. 
 
 Ver. 5. Second point of difference, as is evident from the contents them- 
 selves, and in particular from the general laying out of the representation, 
 which is quite similar in form to ver. 2. Hence we are not here to find, 
 
 1 οἰκέτης is nowhere else found in Paul; 
 in the N. T. it occurs in Luke xvi. 13, Acts 
 x. 7, 1 Pet. ii. 18. It is a more restricted 
 notion than δοῦλος : the οἰκέτης is a house- 
 servant (Dem. 1859 wit. ; οἰκέτης διάκονος), 
 more closely bound to the family than 
 other slaves ; hence: οἰκέτας τε καὶ δούλους, 
 Plat. Legg. vi. p. 763 A, comp. ix. p. 853 E. ; 
 80, too, οἰκέτις, housemaid,; both together, 
 οἰκετεία, domestics. The fact that these 
 words are used in the classics also of the 
 members of the family themselves (as Xen. 
 
 Anab., iv. 5. 35, vi. 1), is here irrelevant 5 
 but see Wesseling, ad Herod. p. 621. 
 
 2 Soph. Trach. 84, and see Ellendt, Lex. 
 Soph. ΤΠ. p. 568. 
 
 3 Not, according to the mediate turn, de- 
 parting from the preceding and hence un- 
 warranted, which Philippi now gives to 
 the sense of the figurative expression: to 
 uphold in judgment, so far as God upholds 
 in that which is good, which alone subsists 
 in the judgment. 
 
CHAP. XIV., 5. 511 
 4 
 
 with Hofmann (who defends the reading ὃς μὲν yap), merely the first member 
 of a chain of thought which is intended to make good the correctness of 
 the proposition δυνατεῖ γὰρ x.t.4.,'—so that Paul does not pass over to another 
 controverted point. [See Note CXLI. p. 524.] The fact that he does not 
 thereupon enter at length on the question of days, but returns immediately 
 in ver. 6 to the question of food, indicates that the latter formed in the 
 church the controversy most prominent and threatening in an ascetic point of 
 view.” Moreover, what he had said on the point of food might so readily of 
 itself find its application in an analogous manner to the question of days, 
 that an entering into equal detail in regard to both points was not required. 
 — κρίνει ju. παρ᾽ ἡμ.} he sets his judgment on day before day, 1.6. he is for 
 preferring one day to another, so that he esteems one holier than another. 
 This refers to the Jewish feast and fast days® still observed by the weak in 
 faith. The classical ἡμέρα rap’ ἡμέραν, in the sense alternis dichus,* does not 
 apply here (in opposition to Fritzsche, who imports into our passage the 
 notion that the people had ascetically observed, in addition to the Sabbath, 
 the second and fifth days of the week). Of so surprising a (pharisaical, Luke 
 XVili. 12) selection of days there is no single trace in the Epistles to the 
 Galatians (not even ἡμέρας, iv. 10) and Colossians, and hardly would it have 
 met with such lenient treatment at Paul’s hands. But the Jewish observance 
 of days, continued under Christianity, so naturally agrees with the Essenic- 
 Jewish charactcr of the weak in faith generally, that there is no sufficient 
 ground for thinking, with Ewald, of the observance of Sunday (at that time 
 not yet generally established), and for seeing in vv. 5 and 6 only an evample 
 illustrating the preceding, and not areal point of difference (comp. Hof- 
 mann).° — κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν] not omnem diem judicat diem (Bengel, Philippi), 
 but corresponding to the first half of the verse : he declares himself for each 
 day, so that he would have each esteemed equally holy, not certain days before 
 others. — ἕκαστος «.7.2.] Here too, as in the case of an adiaphoron, no more 
 than in ver. 2, an objective decision, who is or is not in the right ; but 
 rather for both parties only the requisite injunction, namely, that each should 
 have a complete assurance of faith as to the rightness of his conduct, without 
 which persuasion the consciousness of the fulfilment of duty is lacking, and 
 consequently the adiaphoron becomes sinful (vv. 20, 28). —xAnpod.| Comp. 
 iv. 21.— ἐν τ. ἰδίῳ voi] i.e. in the moral consciousness of his own reason (vii. 
 23), therefore, independently of others’ judgment, assured in himself of the 
 motives of action. 
 
 1This was in fact only an auxiliary 
 sentence, which, as obvious in itself, might 
 have been omitted. Were the reading ὃς 
 μὲν yap correct, Paul would be introducing 
 that which he has to say of the second 
 matter of controversy, in the form of a 
 confirmation of that which is just adduced 
 respecting the jirst. 
 
 2 Tt must have been a matter of practical 
 offence, especially at the agapae. 
 
 3 Comp. Col. ii. 16; Gal. iv. 10. To think 
 merely of fast days (Mangold, comp. Weiss, 
 
 bibl. Theol. p. 414) is an arbitrary limitation, 
 without any ground in the text. 
 
 4 Bernhardy, p. 258; Lobeck, ad Aj. 475. 
 
 5 On κρίνειν τι, in the sense of to declare 
 oneself for something, i.e. aliquid probare, 
 eligere, comp. Aesch. Agam. 471 (κρίνω δ᾽ 
 ἄφϑονον ὄλβον), Suppl. 393 (kpive σέβας τὸ πρὸς 
 ϑεῶν) ; Plat. Rep. p. 899 E; Xen. Hell. i. 7. 
 11; Isocr. Paneg. 46. On παρά in the sense 
 of preference, Xen. Mem. i. 4. 14, and Kiihner 
 inloc. ; but in Soph. Aj. 475, rap’ ἦμαρ ἡμέρα 
 is (in opposition to Valckenaer, Schol. II. Ὁ. 
 
δ12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Ver. 6. The right point of view, according to which each must have his 
 own full persuasion, expressed not imperatively, but indicatively, as the 
 Christian axiom in these matters, which conditions and regulates that πληρο- 
 gopia. — ὁ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν κ.τ.}.} he who directs his carefulness to the day, 
 exercises this carefulness in his interest for the Lord, namely, in order thereby 
 to respond to his relation of belonging to the Lord. Τὴν ἡμέρ. with the 
 article denotes textually the day concerned, that which comes into consider- 
 ation conformably to the kpivecy ἡμέραν rap’ ἡμέραν, not the day as it happens 
 (Hofmann). By κύριος most understand God, others (as Estius, Riickert, 
 K6llner, Fritzsche, Philippi) Christ. The former appears to be correct, on 
 account of eiyap. yap τ. Θεῷ ; but the latter 7s correct, on account of ver. 9. 
 The absence of the article is not at variance with this.’— κυρίῳ ἐσθίει] using 
 his Christian freedom in regard to the use of flesh in the interest of the Lord, 
 which definite ethical direction of his ἐσθίειν he attests by his εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ 
 Θεῷ therein. [See Note CXLII. p. 526.] This refersto the prayer at table, 
 and, as is also the case with the subsequent ciy. τ. Θ., not to that offered 
 after the meal (Hofmann), but to that before it ; comp. Matt. xv. 36, xxvi. 
 26; Acts xxvii. 35; 1 Cor. x. 30, xi. 24; 1 Tim. iv. 4. The thanksgiving 
 to God, consecrating the partaking of food, presupposes the conviction that 
 one does the ἐσθίειν in the capacity of belonging to Christ, and conformably” 
 to this specific relation ; for anything that is opposed to Christ the Christian 
 cannot thank the Mather of Christ. — καὶ ὁ μὴ ἐσθ. «.7.2.] The opposite of the 
 preceding point (the observance of days) Paul has not added (see critical 
 notes), because he has not at the beginning of ver. 6 planned his language 
 antithetically ; and it is only on the mention of the second more important 
 point that the conception of the opposite occurs to him, and he takes it up 
 also. To append the antithesis also to the first clause of the verse, was 
 indeed not necessary (Philippi) ; but neither would it have been confusing 
 (Hofmann), especially as the selecting of days and its opposite, as well as 
 the eating and not-eating, were for those respectively concerned equally 
 matters of conscience. —kvpiw οὐκ ἐσθίει] for the Lord he refrains from the eating 
 (of flesh), persuaded that this abstinence tends to serve the interest of Christ. 
 --καὶ εὐχαρ. τῷ Θεῷ] That which was previously conceived as the reason (γάρ) 
 is here conceived as the consequence (καί) ; and so he utters his thanksgiving 
 table-prayer to God, namely, for the other, vegetable food, which forms 
 the meal to be enjoyed by him. He is enabled to do so by the conviction 
 that his οὐκ ἐσθίειν has its holy ethical reference to the Lord. 
 
 Vv. 7-9. Proof for the threefold κυρίῳ, ver. 6, and that generally from 
 the whole subjective direction of the life of Christians towards Christ. Paul does 
 not mean the objective dependence on Christ (Riickert, Reiche, Ernesti, 
 Urspr. d. Siinde, ΤΙ. p. 19), because it would not prove what was said in ver. 
 6, but would only establish the obligation thereto. — ἑαυτῷ ζῇ] so that he 
 believes that his life belongs to himself, that he lives for his own interest and 
 aims. 2 Cor. v. 15. Comp. the passages in Wetstein and Fritzsche. The 
 
 
 
 153 ff.) to be otherwise understood; see ἘΠῚ. 1828; Gramm. p. 118 [E. T. p. 124]; 
 Lobeck ad Joc. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 573. 
 1 See Winer, de sensu vocum κύριος ct ὁ κύρ., 
 
CHAP. χαν.» ὃ; 10 513 
 dative is thus to be taken in the ethically telic sense, and so, too, in ἑαυτῷ 
 ἀποθνήσκει ; for also the dying of the Christian—in so ideal a manner is Paul 
 conscious of the moral power and consecration of fellowship of life with 
 Christ—is a moral act (Bengel : ‘‘eadem ars moriendi, quae vivendi,” in the 
 relation of belonging to Christ, in which the Christian at death feels and 
 knows that he has stood with his life, and is now also to stand in his dying. 
 Such is the conscious ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκειν, Rev. xiv. 13. Comp. Phil. i. 20; 
 Rom. viii. 38. — Ver. 8 contains the positive counterpart, proving the nega- 
 tive contents of ver. 7, and is likewise to be understood as a subjective 
 relation. — On τὲ γὰρ. τέ, for aswell . . . as also, see Hartung, Partikell. 
 I. pp. 88, 115 ; Baeumlein, Part. p. 219. — τοῦ κυρίου ἐσμεν] the Lord’s prop- 
 erty are we. This now derives the swm of the entire specifically Christian 
 consciousness from its previously adduced factors.—In the threefold emphat- 
 ic τῷ κυρίῳ (τοῦ κυρίου) observe the ‘‘divina Christi majestas et potestas ” 
 (Bengel), to which the Christian knows himself to be completely surren- 
 dered. 
 
 Ver. 9. Objective historical relation, on which this subjective attitude 
 towards Christ, ver. 8 (ἐάν τε οὖν x.7.A), is founded.— ἔζησε] became alive, to 
 be understood of the resurrection life. Comp. Rev. ii. 8, xx. 4,5 ; Rom. v. 
 10 ; 2 Cor. iv. 10. The aorist denotes the setting in of the state ; Kiihner, 
 ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.18. Wrongly Olshausen (so also Schrader) thinks that 
 the earthly life of Jesus is meant, so that there occurs a hysteron proteron ; 
 in which view he overlooks, first, that the mutual reference of the two ele- 
 ments in protasis and apodosis is only formal,’ and secondly, that it was 
 not Jesus’ life and death, but rather His death and life (resurrection), which 
 led to His attainment of the heavenly κυριότης. Comp. viii. 34, vi. 9, 10 ; 
 Phil. ii, 8, 9; Luke xxiv. 26; Matt. xxviii. 18.—ia] destination in the 
 divine counsel. This aimed, in the death and resurrection of Christ, at the 
 establishment of His munus regium, and that over the dead (in Scheol, Phil. 
 ii. 10) and living ; hence Christians are conscious of belonging to Him in 
 living and dying (ver. 8). Unsuitably to ἔζησεν, since the raising up of the 
 Lord is certainly, in the apostle’s view, the work of God (i. 4, iv. 24, vi. 4, 
 viii. 11, and many other passages), Hofmann sees in iva Christ's own purpose 
 expressed. 
 
 Ver. 10. Σὺ dé] discloses the contrast to the κυριότης of Jesus. — The first 
 σύ addresses the weaker, the second the freer Christian, as is clear from ver. 
 3. —ydp| justifies the censure of presumption which lies in the preceding 
 questions : for all, etc., and therefore in both cases thou as well as he. — 
 παραστησ., we shall stand before; ‘‘stare solent, quorum causa tractatur,”’ 
 
 ! Paul, namely, does not say: Christ died, 
 in order that He might be Lord over the 
 dead, and lived, in order that he might be 
 Lord over the living; but He died and be- 
 came alive (both together had the end in 
 view), in order that He might rule over dead 
 and living (both together). Fritzsche also, 
 although rightly understanding ἔζησε of the 
 resurrection life, urges the mutual refer- 
 
 ence of ἀπέϑανε and νεκρῶν, and of ἔζησε 
 and ζώντων : By the death of Jesus, God de- 
 sired to make known that He was Lord over 
 the dead, and by the new /ife of Christ, that 
 He was Lord over the diving. But this 
 merely declarative view is quite arbitrary ; 
 moreover, the ζωή in ἔζησε would be quite 
 another than the ζωή of the ζώντων. 
 
514 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Grotius ; Acts xxvi. 6 ; Matt. xxv. 33.—7r6 βήμ. τ. Θεοῦ (see critical notes) : 
 for God will cause the judgment to be held (John v. 22) by Christ (ii. 16 ; 
 Acts x. 42, xvii. 31). So the judgment-seat upon which Christ will sit (2 
 Cor. v. 10 ; Polyearp, ad Phil. 6 ; Matt. xxv. 31) is God’s.—Note how deci- 
 sive is the testimony of such passages against any limitation of the univer- 
 sality of the final judgment.’ 
 
 Ver. 11. Scripture proof for the πάντες παραστησόμεθα x.7.A., ver. 10. The 
 point of its bearing on the matter lies in the universality, as is clear from the 
 reference of πᾶν and πᾶσα, ver. 11, to πάντες above, ver. 10. Thus the 
 proposition of ver. 10, πάντες yap «.t.A.—although in and by itself it re- 
 quired no scriptural proof—receives, nevertheless, a hallowed confirmation, 
 which makes the injustice of the previously censured judging and despising 
 the more apparent, because it encroaches on the universal final judgment of 
 God.—The citation is Isa. xlv. 23, quoted very freely with deviations, partly 
 of memory, partly intentional, from the LXX., and abbreviated. In Isaiah, 
 God certifies upon His oath that all men (including the Gentiles) shall ren- 
 der to Him adoring homage. This divine utterance—Messianic, because 
 promising the universal triumph of the theocracy—is here taken by Paul in 
 the light of that highest jinal historical fulfilment which will take place at 
 the judgment of the world. — ζῶ ἐγώ] Instead of κατ᾽’ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, as the 
 LXX. following the Hebrew have it, Paul uses, by a variation of memory, 
 a frequently-occurring verbal formula of the divine oath: ‘38 ‘DN (Num. 
 xiv, 21, 28; Deut. xxxu. 40, ef af. >: Dan. xii, 7+ Ruth ii, 15. ΠῚ ΠΡ 
 12).—Aéyer κύριος] is added by Paul according to the elsewhere familiar 
 O. T. formula. Comp. xii. 19. — ὅτι] that, because in ζῷ ἐγώ is involved the 
 assurance on oath, that, etc. Comp. 2 Chron. xviii. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 44 ; 
 Judith xi. 7 and Fritzsche in loc. — ἐμοί] tome, asthe Judge (so in the sense 
 of the apostle) for homage and submission. — ἐξομολογ. τ. Θεῷ] Aeparting from 
 the LXX., which, following the Hebrew, has ὀμεῖται πᾶσα yA. τὸν Θεόν, for the 
 reading of Cod. A of the LXX. (also δὲ on the margin), ἐξομολογήσεται instead 
 of ὀμεῖται, was probably—seeing that the Septuagint has very frequently 
 undergone similar alterations of the text from N. T. citations—first intro- 
 duced from our passage, and not a reading which Paul found in his copy of 
 the LXX. (Fritzsche), as is too rashly inferred from Phil. ii. 11. The vari- 
 ation itself is—as was allowed by the freedom in the handling of Messianic 
 proof-passages—intentional, because Paul required, instead of the oath of 
 x0d, a more general conception, which, however, lies at the basis of that 
 special conception ; for the swearing is the actual acknowledgment and 
 glorification of God as the Judge. The correct explanation is : and every 
 tongue shall praise God (as the Judge), and therewith submit to His judi- 
 cial authority—parallel in sense to ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ. ἐξομολογεῖσθαι with 
 the dative always denotes to praise (xv. 9 ; Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke x. 21 ; fre- 
 quently in the LXX. and Apocrypha, see Biel and Schleusner, s.v.): it only 
 denotes to confess, as in later Greek, with the accusative of the object, Matt. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 This applies also in opposition to Ger- 16, iii.6; 2 Cor. vy. 10; Gal. vi. 7 ff.; Acts 
 lach, d. letzten Dinge, p. 108 ff. Comp. i. 6, Xvii. 31. 
 
CHAP. XIv., 12-14. 515 
 
 iii. 6; Jas. v. 16; Tob. xii. 22. Hence the explanation of Er. Schmid, 
 Reiche, Kéllner, following Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, is erro- 
 neous : to confess sins, which would only then be admissible if the parallel- 
 ism obviously suggested the supplying of τὰς ἁμαρτίας. --- With the reading 
 τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ver. 10, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Philippi, have found in 
 τῷ Θεῷ a proof for the divinity of Christ. There would rather be implied 
 the idea, that it is God, whose judgment Christ is entrusted by the Father 
 to hold ; and this thought is contained also in the reading τ. β. τ. Θεοῦ, 
 ver. 10. 
 
 Ver. 12. What follows from the preceding (from πάντες yap . . . onward). 
 — The emphasis is neither on περὶ ἑαυτοῦ (so usually) nor on τῷ Θεῷ (Phi- 
 lippi), but on the ἕκαστος for that purpose prefixed, which corresponds to the 
 emphatic πάντες, πᾶν, πᾶσα, vv. 10, 11 ; hence it alone bears the stress, not 
 sharing it with rep? ἑαυτ. and τῷ Θεῷ (Hofmann). Hach of us, none excepted, 
 will respecting himself, etc. How at variance with this, therefore, to judge 
 or to despise, as though one were not included in the subjection to this our 
 universal destiny of having to give a personal account to God ! — δώσει] 
 purely future in sense, like the preceding futures. 
 
 Vv. 138-23. Christians ought not, therefore, mutually to condemn one another, 
 but rather to have the principle of giving no offence, ver. 13. Further eluci- 
 dation of this principle, and exhortations to compliance with it. 
 
 Ver. 13. Μηκέτι (no more, as hitherto) ἀλλήλους κρίνωμεν is deduced (οὖν) from 
 ἕκαστος ἡμῶν K.T.A. 3 but κρίνωμεν here refers, as ἀλλήλ. shows, to both parties. 
 [See Note CXLIII. p. 526. ] — κρίνατε] antanaclasis : the same word, in order 
 to make the contrast striking (for to the κρίνειεν which is against one’s duty 
 that which is in accordance with duty is opposed), is repeated, but with the 
 modification of reference and of sense, that it addresses the freer Christians 
 (for it was they who gave the offence), and means in general : let this be 
 your judgment, your moral maxim in this point. [See Note CXLIV. p. 526. 
 On the infinitive with the article after a preparatory demonstrative,.comp. 
 2 Cor. ii. 1.’— πρόσκομμα and σκάνδαλον : both quite synonymous in the 
 metaphorical sense : moral stumbling-block, an occasion for acting contrary 
 to conscience. But τιθέναι refers to the original proper sense of the two 
 words. Comp. on ix. 32, 33, xi. 9; LXX. Lev. xix. 14. Judith v. 1. The 
 twofold designation is an earnest and exhaustive expression of the idea ; 
 hence to attempt a real distinction between the synonyms, which differ only 
 figuratively (stone . . . trap), is arbitrary. 
 
 Ver. 14. [See Note CXLV. p. 527.] Discussion of the preceding injunction, 
 giving information regarding it. Paul grants, namely, in principle, that the 
 freer brethren are right, but immediately adds an exception which arises in 
 practice, and, in assigning the reason for this addition, declares (ver, 15) the 
 not attending to the exception a proof of want of love. — καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρ. 
 'T.] More precise definition of the preceding oida. — ἐν κυρ.} 1.6. in my fellow- 
 ship with the Lord ; οὐκ apa ἀνθρωπίνης διανοίας ἡ ψῆφος, Chrysostom. — κοινόν] 
 
 1 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 9. 1, and see Haase in loc. ; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Qec. 14. 10. 
 
516 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 corresponding to the βέβηλον of the Greeks : profane, ἀκάθαρτον (Chrysostom), 
 Acts x. 14, 28, xi. 8; Heb. x. 29. Thus the eating of flesh was held to be 
 unholy and unclean, and therefore a thing at variance with the holiness of 
 a Christian’s position. Comp. Ezek. xlii. 20 ; 1 Macc. i. 47, 62. — dv αὐτοῦ] 
 Since the reflexive αὑτοῦ (with the rough breathing) is generally doubtful in the 
 N.T. (comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 97 f. [E. T. 111]}), and here the personal 
 αὐτοῦ (with the soft breathing) is quite sufficient and appropriate in sense, the 
 latter is to be preferred (Bengel, Matthaei, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 7, Hof- 
 mann) ; not, however, to be referred to Christ (Theodoret, Bisping, Jatho, 
 and others), but to be explained : through itself, i.e. through its nature. Ind’ 
 αὐτοῦ" is thus implied the objectively existing uncleanness, in contrast (see below) 
 to that which subjectively accrues per accidens. On account of the laws relat- 
 ing to food of the O. T., Olshausen thinks that the thought of the apostle 
 is intended to affirm that ‘‘ through Christ and His sanctifying influence the 
 creation has again become pureand holy.” This arbitrary importation of a 
 meaning (followed by Bisping) is overthrown by the very circumstance that 
 the abstinence of the Roman ascetics was by no means founded on the law 
 —which did not in fact forbid the use of flesh generally—but was of a supra- 
 legal Essenic character. Moreover, Paul was clear and certain, so far as 
 - concerns the O. T. laws of food, that they had outlived the time of obliga- 
 toriness appointed for them by God, and were abolished by God Himself, 
 inasmuch as in Christ the end of the law had come, and the temporary di- 
 vine institute had given place to the eternal one of the gospel as its fulfil- 
 ment, Matt. v. 17. Comp. on x. 4; Col. ii. 16 ff. ; also on Acts x. 15, 16. 
 —ei μή] not equivalent to ἀλλά, but nisi, which, without taking δὲ αὐτοῦ 
 also into account, applies merely to οὐδὲν κοινόν. Comp. on Matt. xii. 4 ; 
 Gal. 11. 16. — ἐκείνῳ κοινόν] ἐκ. with emphasis, as in 2 Cor. x. 18, Mark vii. 
 15, 20, and very frequently in John. The uncleanness is in such a case sub- 
 jective, coming into existence and subsisting actually for the individual 
 through the fettered condition of his own conscience. 
 
 Ver. 15. Tap] According to this reading critically beyond doubt (see the 
 critical notes), which, however, Philippi, on account of the sense, regards 
 as ‘‘absolutely untenable,”—the apostle specifies the reason, why he has ex- 
 pressly added the exception εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζ. x.7.A. The γάρ belonging to the 
 principal sentence is, according to a very prevalent usage (see Baeumlein, 
 Partik. p. 85), taken into the prefixed accessory sentence, so that the argu- 
 mentative thought is: ‘‘not without good moral ground 6101 say: εἰ μὴ 
 
 . κοινόν ; for it indicates a want of love, if the stronger one has not re- 
 gard to this relation towards the weaker.” — διὰ βρῶμα] on account of food, 
 #.e. because of a kind of food, which he holds to be unclean and sees thee 
 eat. —Avreira] not : is injured, which would consist in the ἀπόλλυσθαι (Phi- 
 lippi, contrary to N. T. usage), but of moral afjliction, i.e. vexation of con- 
 science, which is occasioned by the giving of ἃ σκάνδαλον (ver. 19). Analogous 
 is Eph. iv. 30. [See Note CXLVI. p. 527.] To understand it of the making 
 reproaches on account of narrow-mindedness (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Ewald), 
 is gratuitously to import the substance of the thought, and does not corre- 
 spond to the connection (vv. 13, 14, 20, 21). — οὐκέτι κατὰ ἀγάπ. περιπατεῖς] 7.e. 
 
CHAP. XIV., 10. 517 
 in that case thou hast ceased to bear thyself conformably to love. This is the 
 actual state of things which subsists, when what is expressed in the protasis 
 occurs ; the λυπεῖται, namely, is conceived as the fault of the subject addressed.* 
 On εἰ. . - οὐκέτι, comp. vii. 20, xi. 6 ; Gal. 111. 18. To take the apodosis 
 interrogatively (Hofmann), is—considering the definite character, quite in 
 keeping with the context of the λυπεῖται which is occasioned by the offence 
 given—quite unwarranted, and does not suit the words.*— The ἀπόλλυε is 
 the possible result of the λυπεῖται : destroy him not, bring him not into de- 
 struction, namely, through his being seduced by thy example to disregard 
 his conscience, and to fall out of the moral element of the life of faith into 
 the sinful element of variance with conscience. That we are to explain it 
 of the eternal ἀπώλεια, is clear from ὑπὲρ οὗ X. ἀπέθανε ; for in order to re- 
 demption from ¢his Christ offered up His life—therefore thou oughtest not 
 to thrust back into ἀπώλεια thy (so dearly bought) brother through the 
 loveless exercise of thy free principles. Comp. 1 Cor. viii, 11, 12. ‘Ne 
 pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 16. Μὴ βλασφημείσθω] namely (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 12), 
 through your fault. —ipov τὸ ἀγαθόν] your good κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 1.6. ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, ver. 17. [See Note CXLVIL. p. 528.] So also Ewald and Umbreit. 
 It is the sum of the μέλλοντα ἀγαθά, Heb. ix. 11, x. 1. How easily it might - 
 come to pass that a schism, kept up by means of condemnation and con- 
 tempt, on account of eating and drinking, might draw down on that jewel 
 of Christians—the object of their whole endeavour, hope, and boast—calum- 
 nious judgments at the hands of unbelievers, as if maxims respecting eat- 
 ing and drinking formed that on which the Christian was dependent for 
 attaining the blessing of the kingdom! In opposition to the context in 
 ver. 17, following the Fathers (in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 14), de Wette holds 
 that faith is meant ;* Luther, Calovius, and others, including Philippi : the 
 gospel ; Origen, Pelagius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, 
 including Flatt, Borger, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Reithmayr, Maier, Bisping, with irrelevant appeal to 1 Cor. x. 30: Chris- 
 tian freedom ; van Hengel generally : quod in vobis Romanis bonum est ; bet- 
 ter Hofmann : that which, as their essential good, gives Christians the advan- 
 tage over non-Christians,—a view, however, which leaves the precise defini- 
 
 
 
 1 Note that the presents λυπεῖται and περι- 
 πατεῖς COincide in time, as indeed the two 
 regarded practically coincide in reality. 
 For that, which causes to the weak one dis- 
 tress of conscience διὰ βρῶμα, is simply the 
 unsparing conduct of the strong one no 
 longer under the guidance of love. 
 
 2 According to Hofmann, οὐκέτι «.7.A. 15 
 designed simply to submit to the person 
 addressed the question whether he really al- 
 lows himself to be induced—through the weak- 
 ness of his fellow- Christian in falling into con- 
 cern on account of a particular food—to alter 
 his conduct so as to behave with a want of love. 
 Jn that case, the apostle must at least have 
 
 expressed himself by the future περιπατήσεις 
 (wilt thou then no longer behave in con- 
 formity with love ὃ), or by ϑέλεις περιπατεῖν, 
 or, most clearly, because implying a negative 
 answer: μὴ οὐκέτι κ. ay. περιπατήσης (thou 
 wilt not thus cease, etc.?); comp. x. 18; 1 
 Cor. ix. 4. 
 
 3 Among the Fathers, Chrysostom’s view 
 is very vacillating and indefinite: 7 τὴν πίσ- 
 τιν φησὶν, ἢ τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐλπίδα τῶν ἐπάϑλων, 
 THY ἀπηρτισμένην εὐσέβειαν: μὴ χρῶ κακῶς 
 τελειότητί σου, μηδὲ ποίει ταύτην βλασφημεῖσ- 
 ϑαι. Theodoret explains definitely of faith ; 
 so also Photius. 
 
518 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tion of the notion unsettled. With ὑμῶν, Paul, after having previously ad- 
 dressed a single party in the singular, turns to all ; hence we are not, with 
 Fritzsche, to think in jy. of the strong believers only (and in βλασφ. of the 
 weak believers). Note, further, the emphasis of the prefized ὑμῶν (comp. 
 Phil. iii. 20): the possession belonging to you, to you Christians, which 
 you must therefore all the more guard against slander from without. 
 
 Ver. 17. Motive for complying with the μὴ βλασφημ. x.7.A., with reference 
 to the contents of the possible slander. — ἡ βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ] is not anywhere 
 (comp. on Matt. 111. 2, vi. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 20 ; Col. i. 13), and so is not here, 
 anything else than the Messiah’s kingdom, the erection of which begins with 
 the Parousia,* belonging not to the αἰὼν οὗτος, but to the αἰὼν μέλλων (1 Cor. 
 vi. 9, 10, xv. 24, 50; Gal. v.21; Eph. v. 5 5 Col. iv. 11; 1 Thess. ti. 12°; 
 2 Thess. i. 5) ; not therefore the (invisible) church, the regnum gratiae, or 
 the earthly ethical kingdom of God (Reiche, de Wette, Philippi, Lipsius, fol- 
 lowing older expositors), res christiana (Baumgarten-Crusius), and the like. 
 “¢ The Messianic kingdom is not eating and drinking ;” 4.e., the essential char- 
 acteristic of this kingdom does not consist in the principle that a man, in 
 order to become a member of it, should eat and drink this or that or every- 
 thing without distinction, but in the principle that one should be upright, 
 ete. Less accurate, and, although not missing the approximate sense, readily 
 liable to be misunderstood (see Calovius), is the view of the Greek Fathers, 
 Grotius, and many others : the kingdom of God is not obtained through, etc. 
 Comp. on John xvii. 3. [See Note CXLVIII. p. 529.]— βρῶσις, eating, i.e. 
 actus edendi, different from βρῶμα, food, ver. 15 (comp. Tittmann, Synon. Ὁ. 
 159), which distinction Paul always observes (in opposition to Fritzsche) ; 
 see on Col. ii. 16. --- δικαιοσύνη x. εἰρήνη) can, according to the entire context 
 (comp. esp. ver. 15), and specially according to ver. 18 (δουλεύων τῷ X.) and 
 ver. 19 (τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης), be taken only in the moral sense, and therefore as 
 ethical wprightness and peace (concord) with the brethren ; not in the dog- 
 matic sense: righteousness and peace (of reconciliation) with God (Calvin, 
 Calovius, and many others, including Riickert, Tholuck, and Philippi ; de 
 Wette blends the two meanings). But that these virtues presuppose faith 
 in Christ as the soil from which they sprang, and as the fundamental prin- 
 cipium essendi of the kingdom, is self-evident from the whole connection, 
 — χαρὰ ἐν πνεύμ. ay.] forms one phrase. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 6. It is the holy 
 joyfulness, the morally glad frame of heart which has its causal basis and sub- 
 sistence in the Holy Spirit, who rules in the Christian ; comp. Gal. v. 22, 
 also Phil. iv. 4. It is present even in tribulation, 2 Cor. vi. 10, and does not 
 yield to death, Phil. ii. 17. The transitive explanation of the joy which the 
 Christian diffuses over others (Grotius, Koppe, Reiche, and others) is sup- 
 ported neither by the simple word nor by N. T. usage elsewhere. 
 
 Ver. 18. Not an explanation, why he has mentioned by name these three par- 
 ticulars, as those in which the kingdom consists (Hofmann), but a confirma- 
 tion of the contents of ver. 17 ; and how greatly must this confirmation have 
 conduced to the recommendation and support of the precept μὴ βλασφημ. 
 
 1 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
 
ΟΠ Ps XLV.5, 19; 20: 519 
 
 x.t.A. Of ver. 16 as established by ver. 17 !— ἐν τούτοις] (see the critical 
 notes) refers to the just mentioned three great moral elements. He who in 
 these (not therefore possibly in βρῶσις and πόσις, and the like unspiritual 
 things) serves Christ, etc. On ἐν with δουλεύειν, denoting its moral life- 
 sphere, comp. vii. 0. ---εὐάρεστ. τ. Ocg] ‘‘testimonium, quod expresse adfir- 
 mat bona opera renatorum placere Deo,” Melanchthon. — δόκεμος τοῖς avOp. | 
 approved by men ; such is the relation according to its moral nature,—a fact 
 not annulled by abnormal manifestations, in which misapprehension, perver- 
 sion of the moral judgment, and the like are at work. ‘‘ Paulus hic de sin- 
 cero judicio loquitur,” Calvin. 
 
 Ver. 19. Hxhortation, inferred from the doctrinal proposition, ver. 17 ; 
 not a guestion (Buttmann). — τὰ τῆς eip.| what belongs to peace, composes the 
 substance of peace, not different in matter of fact from’r7v εἰρήνην. See Bern- 
 hardy, p. 325 f.; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 280. — τῆς οἰκοδομῆς] figurative designa- 
 tion of perfecting (here active) in the Christian life. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 8, xiii. 
 10 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 4. According to the context in each case, the individual, 
 as here, or the church, or the whole Christian body, is a building of God 
 (of which Christ is the foundation, 1 Cor. iii. 11 ; Eph. ii. 20, 21), on which 
 the work of building is to proceed until the Parousia. — εἰς ἀλλήλ.] οἰκοδομεῖτε 
 el¢ τὸν éva, 1 Thess. v. 11. 
 
 Ver. 20. Prohibition of the opposite of τὰ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλ. --- 
 κατάλυε) pull down. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 1; Gal. 11. 18; Matt. xxvi. 61.— τὸ 
 ἔργον Tov Θεοῦ] here, according to the context, the building of God, by which, 
 however, is represented not what is mentioned in ver. 17 (the δικαιοσύνη κ.τ.λ. 
 so Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius) ; nor yet the faith of one’s fellow-Chris- 
 tian (Theodoret, Reiche) or his eternal salvation (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact) ; nor all blessings vouchsafed through Christ (K6llner, comp. 
 Borger) ; but, according to ver. 15, the Christian as such, in so far as his 
 Christian life, his Christian personality, is God’s work (viii. 29, 30 ; 2 Cor. 
 v. 17; Eph. ii. 10). Aptly Estius says : ‘‘fratrem, quem Deus fecit fide- 
 lem.” Accordingly, what was expressed in ver. 15 by μὴ ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε, ὑπὲρ 
 ov X. ἀπέθανε, is here expressed by μὴ κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τ. Θεοῦ ; but it is dif- 
 ferently conceived and presented, in such a way that the brother is thought 
 of there in his relation of redemption to Christ, here in his relation of spirit- 
 ual origin to God. The importance of the latter conception is rightly point- 
 ed out by Calovius: ‘‘non levis est culpa, sed horribilis θεομα χία, opus Dei 
 destruere.” — πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ κ.τ.}.} the same thought as in ver. 14, repeat- 
 ed in order to enter further into the μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος. ‘* All (all food) in- 
 deed is clean (not immoral to enjoy in and by itself), bué it is sinful for the 
 man who eats amidst offence,” who nevertheless uses a food, although he experi- 
 ences moral offence in the using it—so that he thus against his conscience imi- 
 tates the freer Christian. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9, 10. This reference of the 
 ethical dative τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ διὰ προσκ. ἐσθ. to the weak in faith (Chrysostom, 
 Luther, Beza, Carpzov, Semler, and others, including Riickert, K6llner, 
 
 1 50 δόκιμος in all N. T. passages (not: however prefers the reading δοκίμοις in B 
 worthy, esteemed, and the like); see Butt- G* 77 (a copyist’s error). 
 mann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 368, who 
 
520 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Philippi, Tholuck, Hofmann) is confirmed by the parallel in vv. 13, 14, and 
 admirably suits the connection, inasmuch as ἀλλὰ «.7.2. unfolds the way and 
 manner in which ἕνεκεν βρώματος destruction may befall the work of God. 
 Hence we must reject the explanation (Pelagius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, 
 including Reiche, de Wette, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Fritzsche, Reith- 
 mayr, Krehl, Umbreit, van Hengel) of the strong in faith, who acts wrongly in 
 eating under offence given, i.e. although to the offence of the weak. For in 
 that case we should have here no reference at all relevant to the κατάλυσις of 
 the ἔργον τ. Θεοῦ, but only the vague remark that it is wrong to eat to the 
 offence of others. — ἀλλὰ] after μέν ; see Vigerus, ed. Herm. Ὁ. 536; Har- 
 tung, Partikell. 11. p. 403 f. ; Baeumlein, p. 170. -- κακόν] not hurtful (Riick- 
 ert), nor yet bad in the sense of what is not good for him (Hofmann), but sin- 
 ful, the ethical contrast of καθαρά. The subject (it) is to be understood of 
 itself from what precedes, namely τὸ καθαρόν, the pure in itself. Others 
 supply πᾶν (Reiche), τὸ βρῶμα (Grotius), τὸ ἐσθίειν (Riickert), τὸ πάντα φαγεῖν 
 (Fritzsche, Philippi). Hofmann also renders incorrectly, as though it ran, 
 κακὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίειν. ---- διά] ἃ5 ἴῃ ii. 97. ὁ 
 
 Ver. 21. Maxim for the strong in faith, which results from the preceding 
 ἀλλὰ κακόν κ.τ.}.: ‘It is excellent, morally right and good, to eat no flesh, and 
 to drink no wine, and (generally) to do nothing whereby thy brother takes offence,” 
 etc. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 13. On μὴ, as joined to the infinitive with the 
 article, see Bacumlein, p. 296. The article belongs only to μὴ day. kp. With 
 the second μηδέ, the general ποιεῖν is simply to be supplied! (Winer, p. 542 
 [E. T. p. 583] ; Buttmann, p. 336 [E.T. 393]), and ἐν @ also refers back to 
 the eating of flesh and drinking of wine. Riickert and Kéllner (following 
 Luther, Grotius, Flatt) are mistaken in holding that καλόν is to be taken com- 
 paratively, and that the comparison lies in ἐν ᾧ «.7./.; in which case we should 
 have very arbitrarily to assume that the apostle,instead of following it up with 
 an ἤ «.7.2. (see on Matt. xviii. 8), had been led away from the construction. 
 According to Hofmann, we should read μηδὲ ἕν. But this would in fact 
 denote, not, as Hofmann thinks, nor yet anything at all, but neque unum, or 
 ne unum quidem (see on 1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Johni. 3), which would be unsuitable 
 here. Quite unfounded withal is the objection against the reading "ἐν ᾧ, 
 that προσκόπτειν with évis not elsewhere found ; for προσκόπτει is to be taken 
 by itself (absolutely), and ἐν ¢ means whereby, as ἐν is also to be understood 
 in Ecclus. xxx. 13; see Fritzsche on Heclus. Ὁ. 167. On the absolute προσ- 
 κοπτ. comp. Ecclus. xxxiv. 17, xiii. 23, also John xi. 9, 10. — The following 
 threefold designation of the same thing, namely, of the giving occasion for 
 conduct opposed to conscience (comp. ver. 18), is explained by the urgency 
 of the sorrowful thought. — ἀσθενεῖ] not : becomes weak, but, as it always 
 denotes : is weak, 7.e. morally powerless to withstand temptation and to 
 follow his moral conviction,—not different in substance from the two pre- 
 ceding figurative designations already employed in ver. 13.—Further, that 
 
 1The zeugmatic breviloquence, which mer onward among the Greek writers (see 
 leaves the reader to supply, after special Nagelsbach, 2. Zlias, Ὁ. 179, ed. 3). Comp. 
 notions (such as φαγεῖν and πιεῖν here), a generally, Kriiger, § 62. 3. 
 more general word, is found also from Ho- 
 
CHAP. XIV., 22, 23. 521 
 
 in ver. 21 not a merely problematic extension of abstinence is expressed, as 
 those suppose who hold the abstinence on the part of the weak not to refer 
 to all flesh, and to refer to wine either not at all, or only to the wine of 
 libation (see introd. to the chapter, and on ver. 2), is evident from ver. 2, 
 where abstinence from ail flesh is expressed ; and hence here, alongside of 
 the μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα, the μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον admits of no other conclusion than that 
 the weak in faith drank no wine, but held the use of it likewise (see ver. 14) 
 to be defiling. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις] [See Note CXLIX. p. 530.] may be viewed 
 cither concessively (Luther, Beza, and many others, including Scholz, Tischen- 
 dorf, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Hofmann) or interrogatively (Calvin, Grotius, 
 Calovius, and most moderns). Comp. on xiii. 3. The latter (already in 
 ‘Oecumenius, and probably also Chrysostom) corresponds better to the increas- 
 ing animation of the discourse. Paul hears, as it were, how the strong in 
 faith opposes him with an ἐγὼ πίστιν ἔχω, and he replies thereto : Thou hast 
 faith? Thou partakest of the confidence of faith grounded on Christ, re- 
 specting the allowableness of the eating and drinking (vv. 2, 21), which is 
 here in question ?—Have it for thyself (ἀρκείτω cov τὸ συνειδός, Chrysostom) 
 before God, so that God is the witness of thy faith, and thou dost not make 
 a parade of it before men to the offence of the weak. ‘‘ Fundamentum verac 
 prudentiae et dissimulationis,” Bengel. —éye] not : thou mayest have it 
 (Reiche), which deprives the imperative expression of its force. — κατὰ ceav- 
 τόν] for thyself alone ; see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 414." --- μακάριος. . . κατακέκριται 
 forms a twofold consideration, which must influence the strong one not to 
 abuse his strong faith to the prejudice of the weaker ; namely, (1) he has in 
 truth on his side the high advantage, which is expressed by μακάριος. 
 δοκιμάζει ; on the other hand, (2) the danger is great for the weak one, if he 
 through the example of the strong one is tempted to a partaking contrary 
 to his conscience (ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος k.7.A.). How shouldest thou not content 
 thyself with that privilege, and spare this peril to the weak ! On the formal 
 mutual relation of «piv., diaxpiv., and xaraxpiv., comp. 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32, 
 where, however, the definition of the sense is not as here. — μακάριος] for the 
 Messianic blessedness, which has been acquired for him through Christ, does 
 not become lost to him through conscientious doubts in the determining of 
 his action. — κρίνων] not equivalent to κατακρίνων, as, since Chrysostom, most 
 interpreters think ; against which the climax κρίνων, διακρινόμενος, κατακέκριται 
 is decisive. It means: he who does not hold judgment upon himself, i.e. he 
 who is so certain of his conviction, that his decision for this or that 
 course is liable to no self-judgment ; he does not institute any such 
 judement, as the anxious and uncertain one does. —év ᾧ δοκιμάζει] 
 that which he approves, i.e. ‘agendum eligit” (Estius). Luther aptly ren- 
 ders: in that which he accepts.2— Ver. 23: But he who wavers (δια- 
 xpiv., qui dubius haeret., see on iv. 20), as to whether, namely, the eating is 
 really allowed or not, is, if he shall have eaten, condemned, eo ipso (comp. on 
 
 1 Comp. Heliodorus, vii. 16: κατὰ σαυτὸν 2 Comp. 2 Mace. iv. 3; Dem. 1881.6; Plato, 
 ἔχε kat μηδενὶ φράζε, also the classical αὐτὸς Legg. p. 579 C; Diod. Sic. iv. 7 
 ἔχε, keep it for thyself. 
 
522 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 xii. 8 ; John iii. 18) Mable to the divine penal judgment, the opposite of μακά- 
 ρίος ; comp. ἀπόλλυε, ver. 15. The matter is apprehended from the point of 
 view of morally ideal strictness. Actual self-condemnation (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Grotius, and others, including Hofmann) would have required a 
 more precise designation. — ὅτε οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως sc. ἔφαγε. --- πᾶν δὲ k.T.A.] May 
 be still connected with ὅτε : because he ate not from faith, but all, that comes 
 not from faith, is sin. If itis taken independently, however, the sense.is more 
 emphatic. In the conclusion, which proves the κατακέκριται, πᾶν δὲ. .. 
 duapt. ἐστίν is the major, and οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως sc. ἔφαγε the minor premiss. — 
 πίστις is here also none other than faith according to its moral quality (‘‘ con- 
 scientiam informans et confirmans,” Bengel), 7.e. faith in Christ, so far as it 
 brings with it the moral confidence as to what in general, and under given 
 circumstances, is the right Christian mode of action. Respecting the con- 
 duct of the Christian, Paul lays down the axiom which regulates it gener- 
 ally, and more especially in adiaphora, that all which does not proceed from 
 that confidence of faith as the moral spring of action is sin ; to express a 
 moral fundamental law beyond the Christian sphere of life, is foreign to his 
 intention. Hence it was an alien proceeding to draw from the present 
 expression, indirectly or directly,—in disregard of the natural law of con- 
 science (ii. 14, 15),—the inference that the works and even the virtues of ΄ἡ 
 unbelievers were all of them sins (Augustine, 6. Julian. iv. 3, et. al.; Luther ; 
 Form. Cone. Ὁ. 700 ; Calovius, and others). Very correctly Chrysostom : 
 ταῦτα δὲ πάντα περὶ τῆς προκειμένης ὑποθέσεως εἴρηται τῷ Παύλῳ, ov περὶ πάντων. 
 But against the abuse of this passage, as though it made all accountability 
 dependent only on subjective moral conviction,’ see Jul. Miiller, von d. 
 Siinde, I. p. 285, ed. 5 ; comp. also Delitzsch, Psychol. I. Ὁ. 139, 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 CXXXVII. Ver. 1. τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει. 
 
 ΤῊΘ use of the word πίστις here is kindred to that in xii. 3, though the 
 special application is not the same. It is evident that the writer’s thought is 
 not of the strength or weakness of the principle of trust in Christ in itself con- 
 sidered, but as viewed in its relation to questions of conscience and practice. 
 As faith develops itself to its full measure in the soul, its natural result is to 
 give intelligence and Christian freedom in all points belonging to the sphere of 
 the adiaphora. Faith is not knowledge ; but it manifests itself on the side of 
 knowledge, so that as the believer grows in his faith he comes more and more 
 to understand (if, indeed, the faith-growth is a legitimate one) that the adia- 
 phora are not in themselves wrong. The man who has the fulness of faith 
 knows that, as there is no idol-god, there can be no polluting influence in 
 meats taken from animals which have been sacrificed to idols, and that, as the 
 earth with all that it furnishes for the support of life belongs to God, no food 
 can be unclean in itself. Hence we find the Apostle speaking of himself, in 
 
 1 Τῇ this view, the objective will of God would have been exempted from responsi- 
 would cease to be the standard of account- bility. 
 ability. The bloody deed of Sand, e2.g., 
 
at 
 
 NOTES. 523 
 
 ver. 14, as knowing and being persuaded in the Lord Jesus of this truth re- 
 specting meats, and, in 1 Cor. viii. 1 ff., of all who had fully received his 
 teaching as having knowledge of the nothingness of εἴδωλα. Paul’s conception 
 of faith, thus, is that of the vital and all-pervading force of the Christian’s life, 
 which not merely secures him justification and becomes the source of holy liv- 
 ing, but gives him true understanding in questions of duty and fitness for his 
 special work, to which he is called of God. Weiss ed. Mey. holds that the 
 weakness of faith here spoken of consists in such a fear that salvation may 
 easily be lost as leads one anxiously to avoid, or painfully to do, things which 
 are irrelevant to its attainment, in order that it may not be forfeited. If this 
 be accepted as the true explanation, and not improbably it should be, we must 
 still hold that, as this weakness gives way to growing strength, the knowledge 
 which removes the fear enters the mind, and thus the increase of faith gives 
 the man power to do what he shrank from doing before. That such fear and 
 weakness sometimes arose in the apostolic age from the remaining influence of 
 old beliefs (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7) is not to be doubted, but we cannot affirm that 
 they did in every individual case. That they were always attended by con- 
 scientious scruples was natural or even necessary. 
 
 CXXXVIII. Ver. 1. μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν. 
 
 The meaning of this expression, though so uncertain as to preclude any ab- 
 solute affirmation respecting it, seems to be indicated by the following points. 
 (@) προσλαμβάνεσῆε is addressed to the ‘‘strong’”’ party, i.e. those who are free 
 from the weakness referred to. This is evident, because the subject of the 
 verb is contrasted with the object. It must be the ‘‘not weak’’ who are to 
 receive the ‘‘weak.” Nor will it be otherwise if, with Meyer, we say ‘‘the ex- 
 horted subject is the church, in contradistinction to the weak members ;” for 
 the church, as thus contradistinguished, is the strong party. That this is the cor- 
 rect view is confirmed by the fact that in Gal. v. 13 ff. (where Paul, not im- 
 probably, has the same general subject of thought in his mind) and 1 Cor. 
 viii.—x. the exhortations are mainly addressed to this party in their relation to 
 the other. If, however, the demand is made of the strong in faith, that they 
 should take to their kindly fellowship their weaker brethren, it would seem 
 probable that whatever words are added as bearing upon the purpose of the 
 reception must describe what the strong are to do, or are to avoid doing, re- 
 specting the condition of the weak. (Ὁ) μὴ εἰς «.7.2., as indicating the purpose, 
 sets forth also, as Meyer remarks, a negative more precise definition of the 
 verb. The reception to fellowship, that is, was to be a reception μὴ x.r.A. 
 The words διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν imply, therefore, an unkindly attitude towards 
 the weak party, and the most natural suggestion is that the unkindness, if 
 manifested, would consist in some action bearing upon their thoughts or feel- 
 ings. (0) The primary idea of διαλογισμός is a thinking through or over as with 
 one’s self, or in one’s own mind. Hence it comes to mean, in the plural, 
 speculations or reasonings. This primary idea is apparently suggested directly 
 or indirectly in most, if not indeed ali, of the N. T. passages where it occurs. 
 It is thus adapted to express that mental state which, in connection with ques- 
 tions such as are here under consideration, is described by our word scruples. 
 (d) διάκρισις does not seem to derive from its corresponding verb the meaning 
 doubts. Of the other possible significations, it is probable that decision or 
 
524 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 judgment is the one here intended, because διάκρισις in the two other cases 
 where it occurs in the N. T. (1 Cor. xii. 10 ; Heb. v. 14) has this meaning or 
 the one which lies at the basis of it; and because a dispute or discussion 
 respecting the subject of the scruples would not, in itself, be necessarily other- 
 wise than beneficial. The impropriety or undesirableness of it would depend 
 on the spirit in which it was carried on. On the other hand, the passing of 
 condemnatory judgments could not but be evil.—The probabilities as to the 
 sense of each of the two words and the indications of the two clauses of the 
 verse as related to each other, accordingly, combine together in favour of the 
 explanation, not for the purpose of passing judgments upon their scruples. Such a 
 purpose would be contrary to kindly fellowship. 
 
 CXXXIX. Ver. 2. ὃς μὲν πιστεύει k.T.A. 
 
 That πιστεύει means here not believes that he may, but has faith to, eat all things, 
 is clear from the ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει οὗ ver. 1, and from the ἐκ πίστεως Of Ver. 
 23. There seems to be no reason discoverable from the chapter to lead us to 
 the belief that any limitation should be put upon the language used in this 
 verse ; and hence we may hold, with Meyer, that the weak man is represented 
 as refusing all meats, and not merely all ceremonially unclean meats, or all flesh 
 sacrificed to idols. The extreme cases are taken for the purpose of emphasis. 
 
 CXL. Ver. 3. ἐξουθενείτω --- κρινέτω. 
 
 After setting forth the condition of the two parties, as represented by two 
 supposed cases, the bidding appropriate to each is given. The one who is free 
 from scruples must not have contempt for the Christian brother who is under 
 bondage to them ; and the latter must not judge or condemn the former. The 
 grounds for the command are added : because God has accepted as His own 
 the one on whom judgment is passed ; because, being the servant of God, he 
 is responsible to God only ; and because the subjects referred to are such as 
 involve no sin, provided the man is fully persuaded in his own mind—he may 
 live to the Lord equally whether he eats or declines to eat. 
 
 CXLI. Ver. 5. ὃς μὲν yap κρίνει ἡμέραν K.T.A. 
 
 Tisch. (8) adopts γάρ. Treg. Alf. reject it. W. & Hort place it in brackets. 
 The commentators generally, with Meyer, do not accept it as belonging to the 
 text. If it is read, the passage respecting ‘‘days” is evidently introduced in a 
 subordinate way, as an illustrative proof of what is said concerning the matter 
 of eating, or, according to Hofmann, of the sentence δυνατεῖ. . . αὐτόν (ver. 4). 
 Tf, on the other hand, γάρ is omitted, there is a certain parallelism between 
 this verse and ver. 2. The fact alluded to by Meyer, however,—that there is 
 only a passing reference to this subject, while the other matter fills the whole 
 remaining portion of the chapter,—makes it evident that the observance or 
 non-observance of days was a thing of secondary importance to the Apostle’s 
 present thought. The main point is the question of meats. 
 
 We may infer from Gal. iv. 10 and Col. ii. 16, which are apparently kindred 
 in thought to this verse, that the days here referred to were those observed by the 
 Jews. Meyer regards them as including both feast and fast days. Weiss ed. 
 Mey. would limit them to the latter. There seems, however, to be no sufficient 
 
NOTES. 525 
 
 ground for this limitation. The different attitude which Paul takes in the 
 three Epistles does not show that he is thinking of different observances. It 
 is perfectly explicable without this supposition. He is here, as in the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, addressing the church members with regard to 
 their private and social life in these matters. They were holding different 
 opinions, as connected with the stronger or weaker measure of their faith, and 
 were passing judgments privately on actions and scruples. Under such cir- 
 cumstances he could write calmly—telling them that the questions of this class 
 were not of vital importance ; that the kingdom of God was not eating and 
 drinking, but righteousness ; that, whether one should eat all things or vegeta- 
 bles only, he would neither gain nor lose anything at the day of final judgment; 
 that there was no sin in freedom ; that freedom in such things was even the high- 
 est and normal state for the intelligent believer ; but that, as some believers 
 were still under the bondage of conscientious scruples, the rule of the Christian 
 society should be, here as it was everywhere, love to the brethren. Each one 
 should, for himself, see that he was, before acting, fully persuaded in his own 
 mind. Each one should, in his relations to others, be animated by the spirit 
 of Christ. There should be no condemnation of the strong by the weak, and 
 no contempt of the weak on the part of the strong, In the case of the Galatian 
 and Colossian churches, on the contrary, there was quite a different condition of 
 things. In Galatia, he saw his converts, under the influence of teachers who 
 bitterly opposed his doctrine, moving away from the freedom of the gospel to 
 the bondage of Judaistic views. At Colossae, there were men who insisted upon 
 these observances as essential to the highest life, in connection with the idea 
 of matter as the source of evil. The truth of Christianity was, thus, involved by 
 reason of the assaults of dangerous and insinuating enemies. He was com- 
 pelled to arouse his unthinking followers by the sound of alarm, and to bid 
 them claim independence for themselves as related to the judgment or de- 
 mand of any who would condemn them. But the subject of controversy was 
 the same in all cases. The difference was only in the position of the adversa- 
 ries, and, consequently, of the Apostle himself. 
 
 The bearing of this verse upon the observance of the Christian Sunday is 
 discussed by many writers. The following points may be noticed in a candid 
 and impartial examination of this question. (a) The primary, and probably 
 exclusive direct reference of the words, as related to the differences in the 
 churches addressed by Paul, was to Jewish, not to Christian observances. 
 (b) An agreement respecting the latter, connected with a difference respecting 
 the former, is conceivable. (0) The writer may possibly, therefore, have had 
 no intention of including the Christian Sunday among the days whose 
 observance or non-observance might be left to the individual judgment. 
 (d) On the other hand, the contrast in the words of the verse is between 
 esteeming one day above another and esteeming every day alike. The 
 universality of the expression is noticeable. (e) No command is given by 
 the Apostle in any of his Epistles with reference to the Christian Sunday, 
 and no reference is made to it except in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. (7) The mode of 
 dealing with the general subject of ‘‘days” must be considered. Is it prob- 
 able or improbable that Paul would have written as he did in the three Epis- 
 tles, if the error of the Sabbath-observers had been simply, or mainly, an error 
 in keeping the seventh day instead of, or in addition to, the first? The deter- 
 mination of these points and their adjustment in relation to one another are 
 
526 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 necessary to a decision. The decision when made, will not in itself settle the 
 question as to the grounds or the proper character of Sunday-observance, but 
 it must find its place in the main argument on that question. What Paul’s 
 view of the matter was is an important element in the discussion as to whether 
 the Christian Sunday depends on, and finds its inviolable Divine ordinance in; 
 the Fourth Commandment. The question in its wider range, however, extends 
 beyond this point of the relation of the Christian institution to the Mosaic 
 Law. 
 CXLII. Ver. 6. ὁ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ ἐσθίει K.7.A. 
 
 Paul recognizes the fact that both the eater and the non-eater take the course 
 of action which they follow with that regard for the Lord and their duty to 
 Him, which animates the Christian in everything. Whether he lives or dies, 
 it is not for himself, but for Christ. It is to be observed here, (a) that κυρίῳ 
 refers to Christ, because the believer, according to the Pauline phraseology, is 
 δοῦλος (here οἰκέτης, ver. 4) Χριστοῦ, and because Χριστός is used in ver. 9 with 
 manifest reference to κυρίῳ (comp. also κυριεύσῃ, ver. 9). (2) that living and dy- 
 ing are mentioned, as in viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, as the two extremes between 
 which everything elge must be included :—if for Christ in these, for Him in all 
 things ; (3) that the proof on which he rests his statement that both parties act 
 with true regard to the Lord’s service is, that they each of them offer the prayer 
 of thanksgiving for that which they eat ; (4) that the use of the words no man liv- 
 eth to himself (ver. 7), which is often made in public discourse, as meaning that 
 the Christian, according to the law of his life, should live for others, is not jus- 
 tified by the thought of the passage. Living for others is a teaching of Chris- 
 tianity, but not of these words. 
 
 CXLIM. Ver. 13. μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλήλους κρίνωμεν. 
 
 The immediate connection of οὖν is (as Meyer also says) with ἕκαστος x.7.A. of 
 ver. 12. In the progress of the thought, however, it may be regarded as intro- 
 ducing a conclusion from all that has been said. As the Christian is not his” 
 brother-Christian’s servant, but Christ’s ; as the one who eats the meats and 
 the one who does not both act in devotion to the common Master ; and as the 
 judgment of God is to decide all questions at the end, the duty of the two par- 
 ties is to refrain from judging each other. The two words ἐξουθενεῖν and κρίνειν 
 are here included in κρίνωμεν, because the ἐξουθ. is really a κρίνειν. 
 
 CXLIV. Ver. 13. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο κρίνατε μᾶλλον, K.T.A. 
 
 From the negative exhortation yyk . .. . κρίν., Which is addressed to both 
 parties, and in which he also includes himself, Paul turns immediately to a 
 positive one directed to the ‘‘strong’’ section only. The remainder of the 
 chapter appeals to them ; bidding them resolve to put no hindrance in the way 
 of the Christian life and progress of the weak, and setting forth reasons why 
 they should follow the bidding. These reasons, which, in the earnestness and 
 natural flow of the thought, are not presented in carefully arranged succession, 
 are the following : (1) that the weak will be ‘grieved τ (2) that the one for 
 whom Christ died and in whose life is God’s work may be thus injured or 
 even destroyed ; (3) that the danger of this injury and loss is occasioned for the 
 sake of what is not essential to the kingdom of God, but is comparatively 
 unimportant. 
 
NOTES. 527 
 
 CXLY. Vv. 14-23. 
 
 The doctrine of Paul on the subject of the ἀδιάφορα, as indicated in these 
 verses, involves the following points. (a) There is no real ground for con- 
 scientious scruples in such matters. He distinctly declares himself to be of the 
 strong and free party. As living in the sphere of Christ, and taught by Him, 
 he is persuaded, he even knows that nothing is unclean in and through itself. 
 (b) The man who has this knowledge and persuasion (i.e. this faith to eat all 
 things) is to be called happy, and may rightly for and by himself enjoy his 
 freedom before God. (c) The man who is not fully persuaded, i.e., who thinks 
 a certain thing to be unclean, willdo wrong if he eats. His subjective state 
 makes the action wrong, not in itself, but for him. (d) The strong, as they are 
 brought into relations with the weak, must not insist upon the exercise of that 
 liberty which they may indulge in private, because Christian love must help 
 and not hinder or harm the weak. (e) The principle of action in all such matters 
 must be love. 
 
 It is evident, however, that Paul did not hold the view that the Christian 
 body should always limit its opinions, or its acts, by the limitations of those 
 among its members whose knowledge and faith, in the sense here indicated, are 
 at the lowest point. He asserts most definitely and emphatically the rights of 
 the individual conscience. ‘* Why is my liberty judged by another man’s con- 
 science,” 1 Cor. x. 29. He affirms that conscientious scruples of the class 
 referred to belong to and are occasioned by imperfect Christian knowledge. 
 Growth in faith will remove them. Freedom from them is a blessedness. If 
 they do not exist, they are not to be originated by anxious questioning (comp. 
 1 Cor. x. 25-27). He expresses apprehension in the case of those who are fall- 
 ing back into them (Gal. iv. 11), that his labour for their conversion and Chris- 
 tian life has been in vain. He boldly advocates freedom against the Judaistic 
 party. Ina word, he preaches the Pauline Gospel. 
 
 No interpreter can understand the Apostle’s whole doctrine, who does not 
 take both sides of the matter into his consideration. No body of Christian 
 believers, it may be added, can fulfil the apostolic injunction so long as the 
 men of freedom respecting the indifferent things are alone called upon to obey 
 its voice, and cease to despise their weaker brethren, The weaker party must 
 also do what has often been forgotten in later times, as it was in Paul’s day— 
 cease to condemn those who are raised, through faith and knowledge, into the 
 understanding that none of these things are unclean in themselves, but that 
 they are so only to him who thinks them to be so. 
 
 CXLVI. Ver. 15. εἰ γὰρ. . .. ὁ ἀδελφὸς λυπεῖται. 
 
 λυπεῖται evidently is not the same word as ἀπόλλυε, but the connection of 
 the sentences shows that it must be either equivalent to that verb or must de- 
 note something in the line of its meaning. It cannot, therefore, be the mere 
 feeling of pain that another person does something which we regard as wrong. 
 It must involve an injury to our Christian life, of greater or less moment. 
 Whether, however,—this being admitted,—Avreiv is to be regarded (with 
 Philippi and others) as directly conveying the idea to injure, or (with Weiss ed 
 Mey.) as pointing to it more indirectly, in that the weaker person, being led 
 on by the example of the strong, is thrown into much internal conflict and 
 sorrow, is more difficult todetermine. The comparison of this expression with 
 
§28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 9, 10, 11, 12, where there is much similarity in language to the 
 present passage, though indeed a reference to a different subject, would sug- 
 gest the latter idea. Comp. especially συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος oikodopn- 
 θήσεται εἰς TO. . . ἐσθίειν and τύπτοντες αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ὠσθενοῦσατ". 
 
 OXLVIL. Ver. 16. μὴ βλασφημείσθω οὖν ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. 
 
 The similarity of the entire passage to what is found in 1 Cor. viii. suggests 
 that the reference in τὸ ἀγαθόν is to the “liberty” of the strong party. This 
 explanation, which is favored by many writers (so Fritzsche, Tholuck, Godet, 
 Gifford, and others), is rejected by Meyer, Weiss ed. Mey., Hofmann, de Wette, 
 Alford, Philippi, and others. The last mentioned writers, however, differ in 
 their views, as to what the good thing referred to is (see Meyer’s note). The 
 objections urged against the reference to liberty seem to have no real founda- 
 tion. They are the following : (a) That the plural ‘‘ you’’ being used here, in- 
 stead of the singular as in ver 15, shows that the writer is addressing the whole 
 church, and not the strong party. But it should be noticed, (1) that the plural 
 is used in ver. 13 in addressing this party, and (2) that the whole church is 
 nowhere spoken of throughout the entire chapter except with the use of the 
 first person plural. (Ὁ) That the emphatic position of ὑμῶν indicates a ref- 
 erence to the church. But the position of ὑμῶν is altogether consistent with a 
 designed prominence given to the strong party in contrast with the weak. Paul 
 was exhorting the strong with respect to that which belonged to them alone. 
 Comp. the emphatic ov, ver. 22. (ὁ) That the reading ἡμῶν found in D and 
 some later authorities, also in the Peshito, indicates the same reference. But 
 ἡμῶν simply unites the writer with the persons to whom he directs his remarks, 
 and is just as applicable to the free party as it is to the whole body of believers. 
 Comp. ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοί xv. 1, 1 Cor. xv. 52, and other passages, where Paul refers 
 to a class of persons and adds himself to them by the use of the ‘*communi- 
 cative we.’’ Moreover, this reading may have been, at the most, what some 
 copyist thought to be the Apostle’s meaning, and may have been due to an 
 error on his part as to what that meaning was. (d) That the verb βλασφημείσθω 
 points to reproaches of unbelievers against the church. It is to be admitted 
 that the verb often has this reference, but that it may be used of believers 
 also, is beyond doubt. It is thus used in 1 Cor. x. 30, where Paul is speaking 
 of a matter kindred to that which is alluded to here. The argument derived 
 from that passage as proving the same sense in this place is a very strong one. 
 (e) That ver. 17 favors the interpretation of ὑμῶν as meaning all the church 
 members. Not so, it may be answered, when the force of ver. 17 is rightly un- 
 derstood. As, in 1 Cor. viii. 8, the Apostle urges, as a reason why the strong 
 party should not allow their liberty to become a stumbling-block to the weak, 
 the fact that food will not commend (or present) us before the Divine judgment- 
 seat ; so here he presses the same thing on the ground that the kingdom of 
 God does not consist in eating and drinking. (f) That τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (ver. 18) 
 shows that the βλασφημία is that of unbelievers. But there is neither any 
 statement by the writer, nor any decisive evidence, that ἀνθρώποις means only 
 unbelievers, and, if it does, there is no evidence that the 18th verse has any 
 force except as confirming the declaration of ver. 17, or, in other words, that 
 it has an immediate connection with yer. 16 of such a sort as to have any bear- 
 ing whatever on the question under consideration. It is worthy of notice that 
 
NOTES. 529 
 
 there is no allusion to unbelievers anywhere else in the chapter, but, on the 
 other hand, that all the other suggestions of every sort have reference to the 
 two parties of believers in their relation to each other. When we take this fact 
 into view, and at the same time the insufficiency of the counter arguments, 
 the parallelism of the expressions in the passage in the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians must be allowed its full weight. This parallelism and the natural- 
 ness of the interpretation when the verse and the context are considered by them- 
 selves, render the reference of τὸ ἀγαθόν to the liberty of the strong party alto- 
 gether probable. 
 
 CXLVIII. Ver. 17. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν 7 βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ k.7.A. 
 
 Meyer claims that the kingdom of God here, and everywhere else, signifies 
 “nothing else than the Messiah’s kingdom, the erection of which begins with 
 the Parousia, belonging not to the αἰὼν οὗτος, but to the aidv μέλλων." Weiss 
 ed. Mey. admits that this is the ordinary meaning of the phrase in Paul's 
 writings, but he denies that the reference here is to the kingdom as established 
 hereafter. It is, rather, to the essential idea of the kingdom, which is not 
 such that a man must eat and drink this or that in order to participate in it. 
 The view of Weiss is more nearly correct. The vital element of the kingdom 
 is not eating and drinking, but righteousness. The atmosphere of the king- 
 dom is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For those whose 
 life isin this atmosphere the minor questions pertaining only to the physical 
 life (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 13a) are insignificant. 
 
 In regard to the words δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη, on the other hand, Meyer seems 
 to have the right view as compared with Weiss. The latter, with Riickert, 
 Tholuck, Philippi, Shedd, and others, holds that dix. here means dix. ἐκ πίσ- 
 τεως and refers to justification, and that εἰρ. means reconciliation with God. 
 The ordinary sense of dk. is more appropriate to the context and the chapter 
 —conformity to what one ought to be and do. The context also points to 
 peace with one another, rather than peace with God, as the idea in the writer's 
 mind. Comp. vv. 18,19. It is certainly more natural to use the form of ex- 
 pression found in ver. 18, ὁ δουλεύων Χριστῷ ἐν τούτῳ oY τούτοις, if the words 
 have the latter meaning. The whole chapter, also, has reference to actions 
 and relations to the Christian brethren. It is not sufficient to urge, as counter- 
 balancing the force of these suggestions, that the Apostle is stating what the 
 essence of God’s kingdom consists in ; for though the things which are funda- 
 mental to that kingdom are justification and reconciliation, yet, in a true and 
 proper sense, the essence of the kingdom is righteousness of life and peace, 
 which is the fruit of love. Weiss objects that love is not mentioned, but it is 
 plainly suggested in the use of εἰρήνη, and the circumstances of the case called 
 especially for the mention of this particular manifestation of love. 
 
 The words γαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ have been made an objection to the refer- 
 ence of dix. and εἰρήνη favored by Meyer. It is affirmed that this joy is not an 
 active virtue, but a mere condition subjective to the individual mind. In 
 answer to this, however, it may be said that joy may here be referred to as 
 both the origin of and the attendant upon the state of Christian peace, or that 
 it may be mentioned as one of the chief fruits of the Spirit in connection with 
 the others, although it is not intended to have precisely the same application. 
 The strongest argument for the other view is that connected with this ex- 
 
530 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 pression. But everything else points so decidedly towards Meyer’s expla- 
 nation, that it is to be regarded—not, indeed, as certain—but as the more 
 probable of the two. Godet, Gifford, Beet, Sanday, Hofmann, and others 
 among the most recent writers agree substantially with Meyer. Grimm Lex. 
 N. T. is doubtful. Both views are united by de Wette. If Meyer’s explanation 
 is adopted, the righteousness and peace are (as he also says himself) those of 
 the Christian life ;—having faith in Christ as the soil from which they spring 
 
 CXLIX. Vv. 22, 23. σὺ πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις, K.T.A. 
 
 (1) Meyer, with whom, among recent commentators, Godet, Weiss ed. Meyer, 
 Philippi, and some others agree, rejects 7v. He supposes it to be occasioned by 
 a double writing of the last two letters of πίστιν, or to have been added as ex- 
 planatory. Philippi regards it asa paraphrastic gloss. Godet decides against its 
 insertion on the ground that the ancient versions generally do not favour it, and 
 that it is not in keeping with the context. Weiss thinks thatif it had been gen- 
 uine, we should have found τὴν πίστιν in the text, and not πίστιν. The external 
 evidence is admitted to be favourable to its insertion, and it is adopted by Treg. 
 Tisch. (8), W. & Hort. With ἣν the sentence is certainly affirmative ; without jv 
 it is probably so, though possibly interrogative. R. V. accepts ἣν as the true 
 reading. (2) πίστιν, by reason of the connection of thought throughout the 
 chapter, must mean faith in the sense and application of the word suggested 
 in vv. 1,2. (9) κατὰ σεαυτόν. The emphasis is evidently upon these words, 
 This, however, does not prove that the sole purpose of the sentence is to for- 
 bid the pressing of one’s freedom in the presence and to the injury of the 
 weak. The following clauses, as well as the wording of this clause itself, make 
 it probable that, along with this idea, itis also implied that the strong may retain 
 and enjoy and exercise the freedom of his faith when he is ‘‘ by himself,’ and 
 “before God” only. (4) μακάριος is referred by Meyer to the fact that ‘the 
 Messianic blessedness [i.e. in the established Messianic kingdom] does not 
 become lost to him through conscientious doubts.’’ But, more probably, it re- 
 fers to the present happiness, which the believer who is not troubled by such 
 doubts in the sphere of the adiaphora must necessarily have. (5) The expla- 
 nation given by Meyer of ὁ μὴ κρίνων. . . . δοκιμάζει is undoubtedly correct, 
 The man asks no questions for conscience’ sake (1 Cor. x. 25) before the action, 
 and subjects himself to no self-judgment in and after it. As he practically ap- 
 proves it (δοκιμάζει), so he has no inward doubt that it is right. He has faith 
 for ‘all things.” (6) On the other hand, the one who doubts is condemned, 
 provided he eats. He moves forward to action before he is inwardly ready for 
 it. διακρίνεσθαι is here used in the same sense as in Matt. xxi. 21. As Godet 
 says, ‘‘Conscience has not yet reached oneness with itself; hence the term 
 diaxpir, to be divided into two men, the one of whom says yes, the other no.” 
 κατακέκριται refers apparently to God's judgment (Meyer says, ‘‘is liable to the 
 divine penal judgment’), but does not carry with it the idea that the person 
 will, necessarily, be a subject of eternal condemnation. (7) ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως. 
 The reason of the condemnation is because the eating, in the case supposed, 
 does not originate in, have its source in, faith. The man eats all things (ver. 
 2) while he has faith only to eat vegetables. (8) wav δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία 
 ἐστίν. πίστις in this clause is to be understood in the sense in which it is used 
 throughout the chapter. The interpretation of the clause is determined by 
 
NOTES. 531 
 
 this fact. Paul is speaking of the action of Christians in the region of the 
 adiaphora, and of this only. The explanation which applies the words to all 
 actions and life, and which even makes them apply to unbelievers, declaring 
 that everything which they do is sin because they do not believe in Christ, is 
 founded on a misapprehension of what the Apostle’s purpose is. He has no 
 reference to this matter, nor indeed to anything beyond the limits of the 
 chapter. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 CHAP TER Ve; 
 
 Various writers formerly, from the days of Semler,® disputed, not that Paul 
 was the author of chap. xv. and xvi. (as to the doxology, xvi. 25-27, see, how- 
 ever, the critical notes on chap. xvi.), but that chap. xv. and xvi. along with chap. 
 i.-xiv. compose one epistle. Semler himself thought that Paul had given to the 
 bearers of the letter—of which Phoebe was not the bearer—a list, which they 
 might exhibit, of the teachers whom they were to visit on their journey by way 
 of Cenchreae (where Phoebe dwelt) and Ephesus (where Aquila dwelt), and to 
 whom they were to hand a copy of the letter. This list was in his view chap. 
 xvi., of which, however, vv. 25-27 had their original place after xiv. 23 (which 
 also Paulus, Griesbach, Flatt, Eichhorn assumed) ; and chap. xy. was an open 
 letter to those same teachers, with whom the travellers were to confer respect- 
 ing the contents.—Paulus (de originib. ep. ad Rom., Jen. 1801, and in his Kom- 
 mentar, z. Gal. τι. Rom. 1831, Introd.) held chap. xv. to be an appended letter 
 for those who were enlightened, and chap. xvi. to have been a separate leaf for 
 the bearer of the letters, with commendations to the overseers of the church and 
 commissions to those whom they were particularly to greet from Paul. Gries- 
 bach (curae in hist. text. Gr. epp. P. p. 45, and in his Opuse. ed. Gabl. vol. 11. p. 
 63 ; comp. in opposition to him, Gabler himself in the Preface, p. xxiv.), 
 whom in the main Flatt followed, saw in chap. xv. an appendix for the further 
 discussion of the last subject, subjoined after the conclusion of the letter, while 
 chap. xvi. consisted originally of various appended leaflets. A similar hypoth- 
 esis was constructed by Eichhorn (Hinleit. 111. p. 232 ff.), who, however, re- 
 garded xvi. 1-20 as not belonging to Rome at all, but as a letter of commen- 
 dation for Phoebe, probably destined for Corinth, but taken along with her to 
 Rome. Among all the grounds by which these varied assumptions have been 
 supported, there are none which are valid, not even those which appear the 
 least to rest on arbitrary assumption. For the statement that Marcion did not 
 read chap. xv. and xvi. amounts to this, that he, according to his fashion 
 (see Hahn, d. Hv. Marcion’s, p. 50 ff.), excised them.® See, besides, Nitzsch 
 in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1860, I. p. 285 ff. Further, that Tertullian, c. 
 
 1 Comp. Lucht, 7b. α΄. beiden letzt. Kap. ἃ. | —which dissecuit cannot denote a mere mu- 
 
 Rémerbriefs, eine krit. Unters., Berlin 1871. 
 
 2 Keggemann, praes. Semler de duplici ep. 
 ad kom. appendice, Wal. 1767, and afterwards 
 in Semler’s Paraphrase, 1769. See in oppo- 
 sition to him, Koppe, He. II. p. 400 ff., ed. 
 Ammon, Flatt, and Reiche. 
 
 3 Origen on xvi. 25: “‘Caput hoe (viz. xvi. 
 25-27) Marcion, a quo scripturae evange- 
 licae et apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de 
 hac epistola penitus abstulit ; et non solum 
 hoe, sed et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum est (xiv. 
 23): omne autem, quod non ex fide est, pec- 
 eatum est, usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit,” 
 
 lilation (Reiche and others), but must be 
 equivalent in sense to the preceding abstu- 
 lit. The validity of this testimony cannot 
 be overthrown by the silence of Epipbanius 
 on this omission of Marvcion, as a merely 
 negative reason against it. Marcion’s stum- 
 bling-blocks, as regards chap. Xv., were 
 probably vv. 4 and 8 in particular. Alto- 
 gether Marcion allowed himself to use 
 great violences to this epistle, as he, for ex- 
 ample, extruded x. 5-xi. 32; Tertullian, c. 
 Mare. ν. 14. Comp. generally, Hilgenfeld, in 
 the Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1855, iii. p. 426 ff. 
 
CHAP: XV. 533 
 
 Marc. v. 14, designates the passage xiy. 10 as to be found in clausula of the 
 epistle, is sufficiently explained from the fact that he is arguing ayainst Marcion 
 and hence refers to his copy. Comp. also Rénsch, d. N. 7. Tertullian’s p. 350. 
 Again, the repeated formulae of conclusion before the final close of the letter 
 (xvi. 20, 24 ; xv. 33 is merely the concluding wish of a section) are most readily 
 and naturally understood from the repeated intention of the apostle actually 
 to conclude ; which was to be done first of all at xvi. 16, but was frustrated 
 through the intrusion of the further observation ver. 17 ff., and was deferred till 
 ver. 20, after which, however, some further commissions of greeting were in- 
 troduced (vv. 21-23), so that not until ver. 24 did the last wish of blessing— 
 and now, for the complete conclusion of the whole, the ample doxology, vv. 
 25-27—finish the epistle. Most plausible are the two difficulties felt in refer- 
 ence to chap. xvi.; namely, (1) that Paul would probably not have had so many 
 acquaintances in Rome, where he had not yet been at all, as he greets in chap. 
 Xvi., especially seeing that, in the epistles subsequently written from Rome, he 
 mentions none of them ; and (2) that Aquila and Priscilla could hardly at that 
 time have been in Rome (xvi. 3), because they not long before were still dwell- 
 ing in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and were at a later period likewise in Ephesus 
 (2 Tim. iv. 19). This has been regarded as the most serious difficulty by Am- 
 mon (Praefat. p. 24)—who held chap. xvi. to bea letter of commendation written 
 by the apostle for Phoebe to Corinth after the imprisonment at Rome—and re- 
 cently by Dav. Schulz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 609 ff.), Schott (Isag. p. 249 
 ff.), Reuss (Gesch. d. h. Schrift. § 111), Ewald, Laurent, Lucht. Schulz regards 
 chap. xvi. as written from Rome to Ephesus ; while Schott’s judgment is as 
 follows: ‘‘Totum cap. xvi, compositum est fragmentis diversis! alius enjusdam 
 epistolae brevioris (maximam partem amissae), quam Paulus Corinthi ad coe- 
 tum quendam Christianum in Asia Minori versantem dederat, ita ut qui schedu- 
 las singulas haec fragmenta exhibentes sensim sensimque deprehendisset, 
 continua serie unum adijiceret alteri.’’ Neuss (so also Hansrath and Sabatier) 
 sees in xvi. 1-20 a letter with which Phoebe, who was travelling to Ephesus, was 
 entrusted to the church there ; while Ewald (comp. Mangold, also Ritschl in 
 the Juhrb. f. 1). Theol. 1866, p. 352) cuts out only vv. 3-20, but likewise regards 
 this portion as having originally pertained to an epistle of the apostle to the 
 Kphesians, which, according to ver. 7, was written trom the Roman captivity ; 
 as, indeed, also Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 31 ff.) extracts from vy. 1-24 a special 
 commendatory letter for Phoebe, written by the apostle’s own hand to the Ephe- 
 sians, assuming at the same time marginal remarks ;” and Lucht assigns the 
 commendation of Phoebe, and the greetings by name in vv. 3-6, to a letter to 
 the Ephesians, but the greetings following in ver. 7 ff. to the editor of the 
 Epistle to the Romans. But (1) just in the case of Rome it is readily con- 
 ceivable that Paul had many acquaintances there, some of whom had come 
 from Asia and Greece, and had settled in Rome, whether permanently or tem- 
 porarily (several perhaps as missionaries) ; while others, like Aquila, had been 
 banished as Jews under Claudius, and then had returned as Pauline Christians. 
 (2) It is by no means necessary that Paul should have known the whole of those 
 
 1 These being vv. 1-16, vv. 17-20, vv. 21-24, than vy. 21, 23, 24. See, in opposition, 
 VV. 25-27. Ritschl, /.c.. and Lucht, p. 22 f.—Weisse 
 2 And that to such an extent, that of the would have chap. xvi. together with chap. 
 16th chapter nothing further is supposed to ix.-xi. directed to Ephesus. 
 have been written by Paul for the Romans 
 
04 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 saluted by sight ; how many might, though personally unknown, be saluted by 
 him! (3) The fact that Paul at a later period, when he himself was a prisoner 
 in Rome and wrote thence (in my judgment, the Epistle to the Philippians here 
 alone comes into consideration ; see Introd. to Eph. and Col.; the Pastoral 
 Epistles, as non-apostolic, must be disregarded), does not again mention any 
 one of those here saluted, may have arisen from the altered circumstances of 
 the time ; for between the composition of the epistle to Rome and the apostle’s 
 sojourn in Rome there lies an interval of three years, during which the major- 
 ity of those referred to might have obtained other places of destination. 
 Besides, the salutation which Paul in the Episile to the Philippians offers to 
 others (iv. 22) is merely a quite summary one. (4) There exists no ground at 
 all for denying that Aquila and Priscilla might, after the writing of our First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor.,xvi. 19), have returned from Ephesus to 
 Rome and have informed the apostle of their sojourn and activity there. (5) 
 The greeting from all churches in ver, 16 is suitable enough for an epistle ad- 
 dressed to the church of the capital city of the empire ; and the first-fruits of Asia, 
 ver. 5, was everywhere a distinguishing predicate, so that it does not presuppose 
 one living precisely in Ephesus.!_ (6) Were vy. 3-20 a portion cast adrift of an 
 epistle to the Ephesians, or even a separate small letter to the Ephesians, it 
 would not be easy to see how it should have come precisely to this place; it must 
 have from the outset lost every trace of the tradition of its original destination to 
 such an extent, that no occasion was found even afterwards, when an epistle to 
 the Ephesians was already in ecclesiastical use, to subjoin it to that epistle. 
 From all this there just as little remains any sufficient ground for severing, in 
 opposition to all testimony, chap. xvi., as there is for severing chap. xv., having 
 otherwise so close an external and internal connection with chap. xiv., from the 
 Epistle to the Romans, and giving up the unity of the latter as handed down. 
 Tt was reserved at last for the criticism of Baur to contest the apostolic origin 
 of chap. xy. xvi. (in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, and Paulus, I. p. 394 ff., ed. 2 ; 
 comp. also in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 4, p. 493 ff. ; Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. 
 p. 123 ff. ; Volkmar, in the theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 321 ff., and Rém. Kirche, 1857, 
 p. 3). Baur finds in the last two chapters a making of advances towards the 
 Jewish Christians,? such as does not suit the tenor of the rest of the epistle. 
 In this view he objects particularly to vv. 3, 8, 14 in chap. xv.; vv. 9-12 isa 
 mere accumulation of Bible passages to pacify the Jewish Christians ; ver. 15 
 is irrelevant, ver. 20 no less so; the statement of ver. 19: from Jerusalem to 
 Illyricum, is unhistorical, derived from a later interest ; vv. 22, 23 do not agree 
 with i. 10-13; vv. 24, 28, intimating that Paul intended to visit the Romans 
 only on his route to Spain, are surprising ; vv. 25, 26 have been taken by the 
 writer from the epistles to the Corinthians for his own purpose, in order to win 
 over the Jewish Christians ; the long series of persons saluted in chap. xvi.— 
 a list of notabilities in the early Roman church—was intended to afford proof 
 that Paul already stood in confidential relations to the best known members of 
 the church, in connection with which several names, among them the συγγενεῖς 
 
 1 Comp. besides, onthe arguments num- the apostle a softening and soothing counter- 
 bered 1-5, van Hengel, II. p. 783 ff. poise in favor of the Judaists, and in the 
 
 2The two chapters are supposed, for- interests of unity... The 15th chapter is 
 sooth, to belong to a Pauline writer, “ who, supposed to have its original in 2 Cor, x. 
 in the spirit of the author of the book of Acts, 13-18.—Hilgenfeld has not adhered to Baur’s 
 wished to oppose to the sharp anti-Judaism of view. 
 
CHAP. XV. 530 
 
 of the apostle as well as Aquila and Priscilla, and their characterization are sus- 
 picious ; vv. 17-20 are unsuitably placed, and without characteristic colouring ; 
 the position of the final doxology is uncertain ; the entire complaisance towards 
 the Jewish Christians conflicts with Gal. i. and ii. But this same (so-called) 
 ’ ecomplaisance (according to Volkmar, ‘‘ with all manner of excuses and half com- 
 pliments’’) is assumed utterly without ground, especially seeing that Paul had 
 already in an earlier passage expressed so much of deep and true sympathy for 
 his people (comp. ix. 1 ff., x. 1, 2, xi. 1, 2, 11 ff., οἱ al.) ; and whatever else is 
 discovered to be irrelevant, unsuitable, and unhistoric in the two chapters is 
 simply and solely placed in this wrong light through the interest of suspicion ; 
 while, on the other hand, the whole language and mode of representation are so 
 distinctively Pauline, that an interpolation so comprehensive would in fact 
 stand unique, and how singular, at the same time, in being furnished with such 
 different conclusions and fresh starts! See, further, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1837, p. 308 ff. ; Delitzsch in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1849, p. 609 ff. ; Th. Schott, 
 p. 119 f& ; Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 598 f. ; Mangold, p. 67 ff. ; 
 Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 41 ff.—Nevertheless Lucht, l.c., 
 has once more come into very close contact with Baur, in proposing the hy- 
 pothesis that the genuine epistle of Paul, extending to xiv. 23, existed in an 
 incomplete state ; that thereupon, one hand, summing up the main points of 
 the epistle in the (un-Pauline) doxology, added the latter after xiv. 23 ; while 
 another further continued the theme broken off at xiv. 23, and subjoined an 
 epilogue, along with greetings, tothe Romans. In this way two editions arose, of 
 which one (A) contained chap. i.—xiv. and xvi. 25-27; while the other (B) con- 
 tained chap. i.-xiv. and xy. 1-16, 24; A and B were then supplemented from 
 one another. That which Paul himself had appended after xiv. 23, was removed 
 from it by the Roman clergy, and laid up in their archives (out of consideration 
 for the ascetics, namely); but subsequently it, along with fragments of an 
 epistle to the Ephesians, which had also been placed in the archives, had been 
 worked in by the composer of chap. xv. and xvi. This entire hypothesis turns 
 upon presuppositions and combinations which are partly arbitrary in them- 
 selves, and partly without any solid ground or support in the detailed exegesis. 
 
 Ver. 2. After ἕκαστος Elz. has γάρ, against decisive witnesses. — Ver. 4. Instead 
 of the second προεγράφη, BC DE F G δ , 67**, 80, most vss., and several Fa- 
 thers have ἐγράφη. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche. 
 Rightly ; the compound is an intentional or mechanical repetition. — Not 
 so strongly attested (though by A B C*L δ) is the διά repeated before τῆς 
 παρακλ in Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. 8, which, since the article again follows, 
 became easily added. — Ver. 7. ὑμᾶς] Elz. : ἡμᾶς, against AC D**, EF GL &, 
 min., most vss., and several Fathers. A correct gloss, indicating the reference 
 of ὑμᾶς to the Jewish and Gentile Christians. — Ver. 8, yap] approved by 
 Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Fritzsche have δέ ; 
 against which the evidence is decisive. Moreover, λέγω dé is the customary 
 form with Paul for more precise explanation, and hence also slipped in here. — 
 γεγενῆσθαι Lachm. : yevéofa:, according to B C* D* FG, Arm. Ath. But how 
 readily one of the two syllables TE might be passed over, and then the familiar 
 (comp. also Gal, iv. 4) γενέσθαι would be produced!—Ver. 11. After πάλιν 
 Lachm, has λέγει, according to B D E F G, 1, and several vss. ; manifestly an 
 addition in accordance with ver, 10. --- ἐπαινέσατε] Lachm. and Tisch. : ἐπαινε- 
 odtwoav, according to ABC DE 8, 39, Chrys. ms. Dam, Both readings are 
 
556 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 also found in the LXX., and may be borrowed thence. The circumstance that 
 after αἰνεῖτε the forin ἐπαινέσατε, as more conformable, readily offered itself, 
 speaks in favour of ἐπαινεσάτωσαν. --- Ver. 15, ἀδελφοί] is wanting indeed in A B 
 C &*, Copt. Aeth. Cyr. Chrys. Ruf. Aug. (omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), 
 and stands in 3, 108, after μέρους ; but why should it have been added? On 
 the other hand, its omission was readily suggested, since it had just appeared 
 for the first time in ver. 14, and since it seemed simply to stand in the way of 
 the connection of ἀπὸ μέρ. ; hence also that transposition in 3, 108. — Ver. 17. 
 καύχησιν) Rightly Lachm. and Tisch. : τὴν καύχησιν. The reference of the pre- 
 ponderantly attested article was not understood. — Ver. 19. ἁγίου] So A Ὁ Ὁ 
 10 F G, min., and most vss. and Fathers. Adopted also by Griesb , Lachm., 
 and Scholz, But Elz. (so also Matth., Fritzsche, Tisch. 8), in accordance with δὲ 
 and D** L P, most min., Syr. Chrys. and others, has Θεοῦ. In B, Pel. Vigil. 
 there is merely πνεύματος. So Tisch. 7. Since there is absolutely no reason why 
 dy. or Θεοῦ should have been omitted or altered, probably the simple πνεύματος 
 is the original, which was only variously glossed by dy. and Θεοῦ. --- Ver. 20. 
 φιλοτιμούμενον | Lachm. : φιλοτιμοῦμαι, according to B D* F GP. To facilitate the 
 construction, — Ver. 22. τὰ πολλά] BD EF G: πολλάκις, so Lachm. An inter- 
 pretation in accordance with i. 13. — Ver. 23. πολλῶν] Tisch. 7: ἱκανῶν, accord- 
 ing to Β Ὁ, 37, 59, 71, Dam. A modifying gloss, according to an expression 
 peculiarly well known from the book of Acts, — Ver. 24. After Σπανίαν Elz. and 
 Tisch. 7 have ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, which is omitted by Griesb., Lachm., and 
 Tisch. 8. A contrast to ver. 22, written at the side, and then introduced, but 
 rejected by all uncials except L 8**, and by all vss. except Syr. p. ; attested, 
 however, among the Fathers by Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, and 
 preserved in nearly all the cursives. This old interpolation occasioned the 
 insertion of an illustrative γάρ after ἐλπίζω (so Elz., Tisch., and also Lachm.), 
 the presence of which also in principal witnesses (as A B C δὲ), in which ἐλεύσ. 
 xp. ὑμ. is wanting, does not point to the originality of these words, but only to 
 avery early addition and diffusion of them, so that in fact those witnesses 
 represent only a half-completed critical restoration of the original text, whilst 
 those which omit both (as F G) still contain the original text or a complete 
 purification of the text. —Instead of ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, Lachm. and Tisch. 7 have ἀφ᾽ 
 ὑμῶν, according to D E F G, min., which presents itself as genuine, and is ex- 
 plained by ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν on account of the passive. B has ἀπὸ tov. —Ver. 29. 
 Χριστοῦ] Elz. : τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ X., against decisive evidence. A gloss. — Ver. 
 31. διακονία Lachm. : dwpodopia, according to B D* F G, which, however, Paul, 
 considering the delicacy of designation here throughout observed, can hardly 
 have written ; it appears to be an explanation. — The repetition of iva before 7 
 διακ. (in Elz.) is, according to A B C D* F G &*, 80, justly also omitted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch. — Instead of ἡ εἰς Lachm. has 7 ἐν, according to B D* F G, 213. 
 Both prepositions are suitable to the sense ; but the omission of the article in 
 the majority of witnesses enables us to perceive how ἡ ἐν arose. This omission, 
 namely, carried with it the alteration of εἰς into ἐν (66, Chrys. really have 
 merely ἐν), and then 7 ἐν arose through an only partial critical restoration. — 
 Ver. 32. ἐλθω] A Ο &8*, Copt. Arm. Ruf. : ἐλθών with omission of the subse- 
 quent καί. Too weakly supported ; an emendation of style, yet adopted by 
 Tisch. 8. —Instead of Θεοῦ, B has κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (so Lachm.); DE F G, It. : 
 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ; 8*: Ἰησοῦ Xp. But the apostle never says dui Oeaju. Χριστοῖ';, 
 but always ὃ. 0.. Geo (comp. i. 10; 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1, viii. 5, efal.), as 
 
ΠΕΡῚ το, cl: 537 
 throughout he uses θελῆμα constantly of God, when there is mention of His 
 omnipotence, or gracious will ; where said of Christ, the θελήμα is for him only 
 the moral will (Eph. v. 17). Hence those readings are to be regarded as un- 
 suitable glosses after vv. 29, 30. — καὶ cuvavar, ὑμῖν} has been omitted by Lachm. 
 on the authority of B only, in which he is followed by Buttmann. From 1. 12 
 συμπαρακληθῆναι would have been employed as an addition, and not ovvavar. ; 
 D E have ἀναψύξω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν (2 Tim. i. 16). — Ver. 33. The omission of the ἀμήν 
 (bracketed by Lachm.) is too weakly attested. 
 
 Vv. 1-13.! More general continuation of the subject previously treated : 
 Exhortation to the strong to bear with the weak, according to Christ's example (vv. 
 1-4); a blessing on concord (vv. 5, 6); and a summons to receive one another as 
 brethren, as Christ has received them, Jews and Gentiles (vv. 7-12). Blessing 
 (ver. 13). 
 
 Ver. 1. Connection: To the preceding exposition of the perniciousness of 
 the eating indicated in xiv. 23, Paul now subjoins the general obligation,* 
 which is to be fulfilled by the strong, over against (δέ) that imperilling of 
 the weak. The contrast of δυνατοί and ἀδύνατοι is just as in chap. xiv. ; the 
 τῇ πίστει of more precise definition in xiv. 1 is so fully understood of itself 
 after the preceding discussion, that we have here no right either to general- 
 ize the contrast (Hofmann : of the soundness and frailty of the Christian 
 state of the subjects generally), or to single out the δυνατοί as a peculiar extreme 
 party which in their opposition to the weak had gone further and had de- 
 manded more than the remaining members of the church who did not be- 
 long to the weak (Mangold, employing this interpretation in favour of his 
 view as to the Jewish-Christian majority of the church, as if the δυνατοί had 
 been a Gentile-Christian minority). Against this, ἡμεῖς is already decisive, 
 whereby Paul, in agreement with xiv. 14, 20, has associated himself with 
 the strong, making his demand as respects its positive and negative portions 
 the more urgent. — τὰ ἀσθενήματα) the actual manifestations, which appear as 
 results of the ἀσθενεῖν τῇ πίστει (xiv. 1). The word is not found elsewhere. 
 These imbecillitates are conceived as a burden (comp. Gal. vi. 2) which the 
 strong take up and bear from the weak, inasmuch as they devote to them, in 
 respect to these weaknesses, patience and the helpful sympathy (2 Cor. ΧΙ: 
 29) of ministering love.* Thus they, in themselves strong and free, become 
 
 1 According to Lucht, p. 160 ff., the entire 
 passage vy. 1-3 is post-apostolic, not merely 
 in the mode of its presentation, but also in 
 that ofits view. In comparison with chap. 
 xiv., all is delineated too generally and ab- 
 stractly ; the example of Christ has in no 
 other place been applied by Paul as it is 
 here in vv. 3-7; the citations are after the 
 manner of a later point of view; the argu- 
 ment in vv. 9-12 is not free from Jewish- 
 Christian prejudices, ete. All of them 
 grounds, which do not stand the test of an 
 unprejudiced and unbiassed explanation of 
 details—evil legacies from Baur’s method 
 of suspicion. 
 
 2 In opposition to Hofmann, who, assign- 
 
 ing to the concluding verses of the epistle 
 (xvi. 25-27) their place after xiv. 28, places 
 ὀφείλομεν in connection with τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ 
 «.7.A., XVi. 253 See ON XVI. 25-27. 
 
 3 βαστάζειν can the less indicate, as the 
 subjects of the present exhortation, per- 
 sons who were distinct from those ad- 
 dressed by προσλαμβάνεσϑε, xiv. 1 (Man- 
 gold), because in fact προσλαμβ. recurs in 
 ver. 7. How frequently does Paul give 
 different forms to the same injunctions! 
 Mangold also lays an incorrect stress on 
 the δέ, with which chap. xv. opens, as 
 though, according to our view, οὖν should 
 have been used. 
 
538 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 servants of the weak, as Paul was servant of all, 1 Cor. ix. 19, 22. — μὴ éav- 
 τοῖς ἀρέσκειν] not to please ourselves (1 Cor. x. 33); ‘‘quemadmodum solent, 
 qui proprio judicio contenti alios secure negligunt,” Calvin. This is moral 
 selfishness. 
 
 Ver. 2. εἰς τὸ ayad.] for his benefit. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 38; 1 Thess. ii. 4. 
 A more special definition thereof is πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, in order to build up, to 
 produce Christian perfection (in him). See on xiv. 19. According to 
 Fritzsche, εἰς τὸ ἀγαθ. is in respect of what is good, whereby immoral men- 
 pleasing is excluded. But its exclusion is understood of itself, and is also 
 implied in πρὸς οἰκοδομήν. On the interchange of εἰς and πρός, comp. ili. 25, 
 26. 
 
 Ver. 3. Establishment of this duty by the pattern : for Christ also, ete. — 
 ἀλλὰ, καθὼς K.7.A.| but, as it is written, the reproaches of those reproaching 
 thee fell on me. After ἀλλά a comma only is to be placed, and nothing is to 
 be supplied, neither sii displicuit with Erasmus, nor fecit with.Grotius and 
 others, nor éyévero (Borger) and the like. Had Paul desired to express him- 
 self in purely narrative form, he would have written instead of σέ : Θεόν, 
 and instead of ἐμέ : αὐτόν. But he retains the scriptural saying, which he 
 adduces, literally, enhancing thereby the direct force and vivacity of the 
 discourse. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 31; Winer, 534, 556 [E. T. pp. 574, 599].— 
 The passage is Ps. lxix. 10 (literally after the LXX.), where the suffering 
 subject is a type of the Messiah (comp. xi. 9 ; John ii. 17, xv. 25, xix. 28). 
 —That the reproaches of the enemies of God fell on Christ, i.e. that the enemies 
 of God vented their fury on Christ, proves that Christ was bent on pleasing 
 not Himself (for otherwise He would have abstained from taking these His 
 sufferings upon Himself ; comp. Heb. xii. 2, 3, Phil. ii. 6-8), but men, in- 
 asmuch as He in order to their redemption surrendered Himself, with full 
 self-renunciation of His αὐτάρκεια, to the enmity against God of His adver- 
 Jalvin and others: ‘‘Ita se Domino devovisse, ut descinderetur 
 animo, quoties sacrum ejus nomen patere impiorum maledicentiae videret,” 
 so that the idea of self-denying devotion to the cause of God (so also de Wette 
 and Philippi) is expressed. But according to the connection, it is the de- 
 votion of Christ, not for the cause of God, but for the salvation of humanity 
 (see ver. 2), into fellowship of suffering with which He entered, that is to 
 be proposed as an example. Comp. Matt. xx. 28. — ὀνειδισμός belongs to 
 later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. 
 
 Ver. 4. In 0. 7. words Paul had just presented the example of Christ as 
 an encouragement, and not without reason: for all that was previously 
 written, etc. This reason’ might, in truth, cause the example of Christ set 
 before them to appear all the more inviting and involving the more sacred 
 obligation to follow it. — προεγράφη] προ clearly obtains its definition through 
 
 saries. 
 
 1 Even if the closing verses of chap. xvi. 
 had their critically correct position at the 
 end of chap. xiv., we still could not, with 
 Hofmann, put the yép in our passage into 
 relation to the designation of God contained 
 in those concluding verses. This—even apart 
 from the fact that xvi. 25-27 is an inde- 
 
 pendent doxology—would be impossible on 
 account of the already interposed vy. 2 and 
 3, and after the καϑὼς γέγραπται just preced- 
 ing (to which every reader must have re- 
 ferred the προεγράφη, ver. 4). Comp. 1 Cor. 
 Kewl 
 
GEAR RVs 539 
 
 the ἡμετέραν in the second clause, prefixed with emphasis ; hence: all that 
 
 yas written before us, before our time,’ by which is meant the collective con- 
 tents of the O. T. Wrongly, therefore, Reiche and Hofmann think that it 
 refers to the Messianic oracles written before their fulfilment. On didack. comp. 
 2 Tim. 111. 16. — διὰ τῆς brow. x. τ. παρακλ. τ. yp.| through the perseverance and 
 the comfort which the Scriptures afford to us. That τ. ὑπομ. is to be connected 
 with τῶν ypag. (in opposition to Melanchthon, Grotius, Ammon, Flatt, van 
 Hengel, and others), is clear from the fact, that otherwise τ. ὑπομ. would 
 stand severed from the connection, as well as from ver. 5: ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομ. 
 k. τ. παρακλ. The ὑπομονή is here also, according to ver. 3, and conformably 
 to the connection with παράκλησις, self-denying endurance in all sufferings 
 (see on v. 3), opposed to ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσκειν ; and the γραφαί are conceived as 
 ““ministerium spiritus” (Melanchthon). Incorrectly Hofmann understands 
 the ὑπομονὴ τ. ypad. as the waiting upon Scripture (namely, upon that which 
 stands written in it), upon its fulfilment. Thus there is substituted for the 
 notion of ὑπομονή that of ἀποκαραδοκία (vill. 19), or ἀναμονή (Symmachus, Ps. 
 XXXvill. 8, Ixx. 6), which even in 2 Thess. iii. 5 it by no means has (see 
 Liinemann) ; and how strangely would the only once used τῶν ypad. be forced 
 into two entirely different references of the genitive !— τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν de- 
 notes having the hope (i.e. the definite and conscious Christian hope of the 
 Messianic glory) : forto promote the possession of this blessed hope by means 
 of patience and comfort in Christians, is the object for which the contents of 
 the O. T. were written for the instruction of Christians. Accordingly 
 neither is ἔχωμ. to be taken as teneamus, with Beza and others ; nor is ἐλπ., 
 with Reiche and others, of the object of hope. Against the latter (see on Col. 
 i. δ) militates the fact that ἐλπίδα ἔχειν never denotes anything else than the 
 subjective spem habere. Acts xxiv. 15 ; 2Cor. x. 15; Eph. ii. 12 ; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 13 ; 1 John iil. 3, οὐ al. ; Wisd. iii. 18 ; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 28; Polyb. i. 
 59. 2. Comp. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 70. But that the ἐλπίς refers to the 
 conversion of the world of nations is a misunderstanding of Hofmann’s, which 
 is connected with his erroneous reference of yap, ver. 4 (see on ver. 4). It is 
 the hope of eternal salvation which, warranted and fostered by the influence 
 of Scripture imparting patience and consolation, can and should merge and 
 reconcile all separate efforts of αὐταρέσκεια, which divide men, into the mu- 
 tual unanimity of Christian sentiment. Comp. Eph. iv. 3, 4. 
 
 Ver. 5. Aé] leading over to the wish that God may grant them the concord 
 which it was the design of the previous exhortation, vv. 1-4, to establish.— 
 The characteristic designation of God as the author of the perseverance and 
 of the consolation,* is intended not merely to supply an external connection 
 with ver. 4, but stands in an internal relation to the following τὸ αὐτὸ ¢po- 
 νεῖν, Since this cannot exist if men’s minds are not patient and consoled, ¢ 
 that they do not allow themselves to be disturbed by anything adverse in 
 
 1The compound is then followed (see patientiae et consolationis auctor est, quia 
 critical notes) by the simple expression,—a utrumque cordibus nostris instillat per 
 frequent interchange also in the classics ; Spiritum suum ; verbo tamen suo velut in- 
 see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B. strumento ad id utitur.” 
 
 2 Calvin aptly remarks: ‘‘ Solussane Deus 
 
~ 
 
 540 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the like effort which must take place in their mutual fellowship (ἐν ἀλληλ.). 
 Through this identity (τὸ αὐτό, comp. on xii. 16) of purpose and endeavour 
 there exists in a church ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μία, Acts iv. 32.1— κατὰ X. ᾽1.] 
 conyormably to Christ. Either Christ is conceived as the regulative ideal of 
 the frame of mind, according to which each is to adjust himself for his part 
 in the common τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ; or: according to the will of Christ (comp. 
 John xvii. 21), like κατὰ Θεόν, viii. 27. The first is to be preferred, since the 
 model of Christ, ver. 8 (comp. ver. 7), is still the conception present to the 
 apostle’s mind. Comp. Col. ii. 8; Phil. 11. 5 ; κατὰ κύριον, 2 Cor. xi, 1%, is 
 somewhat different. 
 
 Ver. 6. ᾽ν ἑνὶ στόματι] By this the preceding ὁμοθυμαδόν is not explained 
 (Reiche)—which is an impossible notion—but ὁμοθ. specifies the source of 
 the ἐν ἑνὶ or., and is to be closely joined with it : wnuanimously with one 
 mouth, not : unanimously, with one mouth. It is otherwise, e.g., with Dem. 
 147. 1 : ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης, where the explanatory addition has a place. 
 If God is so praised, that each is led by the like disposition to the like ut- 
 terance of praise, then all dissension is removed, and the unanimity of the 
 fellowship has found in this σύμφωνος ὑμνῳδία (Theodore of Mopsuestia) its 
 holiest expression. On ἐν ἑνὲ στόματι (instrumental), comp. the classical 
 ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος, Plato, 640 C, p. 864 A ; Legg. i. p. 634 E; Rep. Anthol. xi. 
 . 159. — τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ..} belongs simply to πατέρα, not also to Θεόν in opposi- 
 tion to Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Riickert, Reiche, Tholuck (7%), 
 Fritzsche), and «ai adds epexegetically the specific more precise definition. 
 [See Note CL. p. 558.] So throughout with this description of God habit- 
 ually used by the apostles, as 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31; Eph.i.3; Col. 1. 8. 1 
 Pet. i. 8. This is clear from the passages, in which with zar. the genitive 
 (Ἰησοῦ X.) is not subjoined, as 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. v. 20; Col. i. 17; Jas. 
 i. 27, iii. 9. See on 1Cor. v. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Eph. i. 3. It ought not to 
 have been objected, that the form of expression must either have been τὸν 
 Θεὸν ἡμῶν κ. πατέρα I, X. or τὸν Θεὸν τὸν rar. "I. X. Either of these would be 
 the expression of another idea. But as Paul has expressed himself, τόν binds 
 the conceptions of God and ‘‘ Father of Christ” into unity.” Rightly Theo- 
 doret : ἡμῶν Θεὸν ἐκάλεσα τὸν Θεὸν, τοῦ δὲ κυρίου πατέρα. 
 
 Ver. 7. Δι6] in order, namely, that this object, ver. 6, may be attained, 
 that its attainment may not be hindered on your part.* — προσλαμβ.} See on 
 xiv. 1. That not the strong alone (Hofmann), but doth parties, and thus the 
 readers collectively, are addressed, and that subsequently ὑμᾶς refers to both 
 (not merely or principally to the Gentile-Christians, as Riickert and Reiche 
 think), follows from ἀλλήλους ; and see vv. 8, 9. — προσελάβετο] ‘‘ stbi sociavit,” 
 Grotius. ‘Comp. xiv. 8. -- εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ} belongs to προσελάβ. ὑμᾶς, beside 
 which it stands, and to which, in accordance with vv. 8, 9 ff., it is alone 
 suitable. Hence it isnot to be connected with προσλαμβ. ἀλλήλ. (Chrysostom, 
 
 1 On the form Sy, instead of the older 3TIofmann incorrectly (in accordance 
 Attic Soim, see Lobeck, αὐ Phryn. p. 346; with his incorrect reference of ver. 1 ff. to 
 Kiihner, I. p. 644. xvi. 25-27) renders: “for the sake of the 
 
 2 Comp. Dissen ad Dem. decor. p. 373f. ; hope,’’ which you may learn from Scripture. 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1.19, ad Anabd. ii. 2.8. 
 
CHAPS XV.5"0; 9. 541 
 
 Oecumenius, Erasmus, and others); and just as little with the latter imme- 
 diately, but with προσελάβ. ὑμᾶς only mediately (as Hofmann splits the refer- 
 ence). But it means: that God might be thereby glorified, not: ‘ut ali- 
 quando divinae gloriae cum ipso simus (sitis) participes,” Grotius (so also 
 Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Klee, Benecke, Gléckler), which is condemned by 
 vv. 8, 9 ff. as opposed to the context. Comp. Phil. 11. 11; Eph. i. 12. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. A more precise explanation—which furnishes a still more defi- 
 respecting ὁ Χριστὸς 
 
 
 
 nite motive for compliance with the προσλαμβ. ἀλλ. 
 προσελάβ. iu. εἰς δόξ. Θεοῦ, first in respect of Jewish-Christians (ver. 8), and 
 then of Gentile-Christians (ver. 9), and that in such a manner that the con- 
 nection of the former with Christ appears as the fulfilment of their theocratic 
 claim, but that of the latter as the enjoyment of grace ;—a distinction so set 
 forth, not from the Jewish-Christian narrowness of the author (Lucht), but 
 designedly and ingeniously (comp. xi. 28, 29), in order to suggest to the 
 Gentile-Christians greater esteem for their weaker Jewish brethren,’ and 
 humility. — λέγω yap] Lmean, namely, in order more particularly to explain 
 myself respecting the προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς x.7.A.; otherwise in xii. 3. But 
 comp. 1 Cor. i. 12; Gal. iv. 1, v.16. Frequently thusin the Greek writers. 
 — διάκονον yeyev. περιτ. } διάκ. has emphasis, in order to bring out the original 
 theocratic dignity of the Jewish - Christians. [See Note CLI. p. 558.} 
 Christ has become minister of the circumeised ; for to devote His activity to 
 the welfare of the Jewish nation was, according to promise, the duty of 
 His Messianic office. Comp. Matt. xx. 28, xv. 94. --- ὑπὲρ ἀληθ. Θεοῦ] more 
 particularly explained at once by what follows ; hence : for the sake of the 
 truthfulness of God, in order to justify and to demonstrate it through the 
 realization of the hallowed promise given to the fathers ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 20. 
 Thus the προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς in respect of the Jewish-Christians redounded εἰς 
 δόξαν Θεοῦ; but it redounded to this quite otherwise in respect of the Gen- 
 tile- Christians, ver. 9. -- ὑπὲρ ἐλέους] contrast to ὑπὲρ ἀληθ. Θεοῦ, ver. 8 : on 
 behalf of mercy, i.e. for mercy, which God has evinced towards them by His 
 making them joint partakers in redemption. The references of ὑπέρ in the 
 two cases are thus not alike. —dofdca, ordinarily understood as dependent 
 on λέγω, may neither denote : have praised ἴ namely, at their adoption), as 
 Reiche, Riickert, de Wette, Bisping would explain it, which not merely 
 introduces an irrelevant idea, but also runs counter to the usage of the aorist 
 infinitive (even 2 Cor. vi. 1, see in loe.); nor: have to praise (Tholuck, 
 Philippi, and most), for there is no mention of a duty according to the par- 
 allelism of the two verses, since λέγω γάρ has not here the sense of command- 
 ing (see on xii. 3, ii. 22); nor, finally, is it an infinitive without reference to 
 time (I say, that the Gentiles praise), as Winer, p. 311 f. [E. T. p. 332], and 
 Fritzsche, after the Vulgate, Luther, and others, take it, which would have 
 required the present infinitive, because λέγω does not here express the notion 
 
 1The contrast of Jewish and Gentile our passage to the supposed editor of the 
 Christianity is so essentially and radically epistle (Lucht), who has worked up the 
 connected with the difference respecting Pauline portion of the letter, following xiv. 
 the use of food, that it is wholly groundless 23, into conformity with a later, entirely 
 to ascribe the treatment of that contrast in altered state of things. 
 
δ43 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 of willing, hoping, and the like (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 749), but simply 
 that of affirming with statement of the object. Moreover, the qorist infinitive 
 necessarily leads to this, that δοξάσαι is parallel to the preceding βεβαιῶσαι, 
 and consequently is not governed by λέγω at all, but is connected with εἰς τὸ, 
 as Castalio and Beza have rightly perceived ; comp. also Bengel (‘‘ glorifi- 
 carent”) and van Hengel. Hence: ‘‘in order that He might ratify the 
 promises of the fathers, but that the Gentiles, on behalf of mercy, might praise 
 God.” The former, namely, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας Θεοῦ εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι k.T.A., Was the 
 proximate design of Christ’s having become minister of the circumcised; and 
 the more remote design, which was to be attained through the passing of 
 salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (comp. Gal. iii. 14), consisted in 
 this, that on the other hand the Gentile should praise God on account of mercy. 
 Incorrectly, Hofmann takes δοξάσαι as optative: Paul wishes that the Gen- 
 tiles, etc. In this way the εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ, ver. 7, would be something which 
 was still only to set in, although it had set iv long ago (comp. ix. 24, 25, and 
 see xv. 16-24). Without ground, Hofmann imports into the simple τὰ ἔθνη 
 the idea of ‘* the Gentile world as a whole ;” it can in fact according to the 
 context denote only the Gentile portion of those, whom Christ προσελάβετο 
 εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ. --- Observe, moreover, how logically correct is the contrast 
 of ὑπὲρ ἀληθ. and ὑπὲρ ἐλέους (in opposition to Olshausen, Fritzsche); for 
 although God had promised the future πρόσληψις of the Gentiles also (in the 
 prophets), He nevertheless cannot have promised it to the Gentiles themselves, as 
 He has given the Messianic promise to the Jews themselves and chosen them for 
 His people, in accordance with which, He, by virtue of His truthfulness, was 
 bound to His word, and consequently the Jews, not the Gentiles, were de jure 
 the children in terms of the covenant and heirs of the kingdom ; comp. ix. 
 4,5; Acts ili. 25; see also Weiss, bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 897. --- καθὼς yéyp.] This 
 praising by the Gentiles takes place in conformity with (as a fulfilment of) 
 Ps. xviii. 50, which passage is quoted after the LXX. The historical sub- 
 ject of the passage, David, is a type of Christ ; hence neither the Gentile- 
 Christian (Fritzsche), nor the apostle of the Gentiles as the organ of Christ 
 (Hofmann, comp. Reiche), nor any messenger of salvation generally to the 
 Gentile world (Philippi), is inthe sense of the apostle the subject of the 
 fulfilment of the prophecy, but only Christ can be so. The latter says to 
 God that He, as present among the Gentiles (whom He has made His own 
 through their conversion), will magnify Him. This, however, is a plastic 
 representation of the praise of the Gentiles themselves, which in fact takes place 
 ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου ᾽Τησοῦ and δ αὐτοῦ (Col. 111. 17). Comp. already Augustine: 
 «(ΠῚ per me confitebantur gentes.” Bengel aptly says : ‘‘ Quod in psalmo 
 Christus dicit se facturum, id Paulus gentes ait facere ; nempe Christus 
 Sacit in gentibus, Heb. 11. 12.” --- διὰ τοῦτο] included as a constituent part of 
 the citation, but without reference to the matter in hand in Paul’s text. — 
 ἐν ἔθνεσι) to whom He, through the Spirit, by means of the preaching of the 
 gospel has come, and has placed them in communion with Himself.—As to 
 ἐξομολογ. With the dative, comp. on xiv. 11. It presupposes, as well as ψαλῶ 
 and the corresponding verbs, vv. 10, 11, the divine ἔλεος, which had been 
 vouchsafed to the Gentiles, as motive. 
 
CHAP. XV., 10-12%. 543 
 
 Ver. 10. Πάλῳ] Again, namely, in another passage containing the same 
 thing. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 20 ; Matt. iv. 7, v. 89. -- λέγει] se. ἡ γραφή, which 
 is to be taken from γέγραπται, ver. 9. —The passage is Deut. xxxii. 43, 
 closely following the LXX., who, however, probably following another 
 reading (Y2)-N8 in Kennicott), deviate from the Hebrew.’ 
 
 Ver. 11. Ps. cxvii. 1 (closely following the LXX., but see the critical 
 notes) contains a twofold parallel summons to the praise of God, addressed 
 to all Gentile peoples.? In this case αἰνεῖν and ἐπαινεῖν are not different in 
 degree (Philippi), but only in form, like praise and bepraise [loben and 
 beloben|. 
 
 Ver. 12. Isa. xi. 10, with omission of ἐν rip ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ after ἔσται, literally 
 after the LXX., who, however, translate the original inaccurately. The 
 latter runs: ‘* And it comes to pass at that day, that after the root-shoot of 
 Jesse, which stands as a banner of peoples (DDL D3) Gentiles shall inquire. ””* 
 But the words of the LXX., as Paul has quoted them, run as follows: 
 ‘* There shall be the root-shoot of Jesse and (i.e. and indeed, explanatory) He 
 who arises (raises himself) to rule over Gentiles ; on Him shall Gentiles hope.” 
 This passage and its entire connection are Messianic, and that indeed in so 
 far as the idea is therein expressed, that the promised descendant of David, 
 the ideal of the theocratic king, will extend His kingdom over Gentiles also, 
 and will be the object of their desire (according to the LXX. and Paul: of 
 their believing hope). This prophecy likewise Paul sees fulfilled through 
 the magnifying of the divine mercy by the already converted Gentiles (vv. 
 7, 9). Observe that ἐθνῶν and ἔθνη are without the article, and hence do not 
 denote ‘‘the Gentile world” (Hofmann). —7 ῥίζα is here, according to the 
 Heb. WWW, the root-shoot ; comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 22; Rev. v. 5, xxii. 6; 1 
 Mace. i. 10; Eccles. xl. 15. He is the root-shoot of Jesse, because Jesse is 
 the root from which He springs, as the ancestor of the Messianic king, 
 David, Jesse’s son, sprang from it. This descendant of Jesse is the Messiah 
 (comp. Isa. xi. 1, lili. 2), who (according to the original text) is a banner for 
 peoples, and consequently their leader and ruler. Christ has entered on this 
 dominion at His exaltation, and He carries it out by successive stages 
 through the conversion of the Gentiles. — ἐπ’ αὐτῷ] of the resting of hope upon 
 
 1 The original, according to the present 
 reading, does not mean : “ Rejoice, ye tribes, 
 His people’ (de Wette and others ; comp. 
 Luther: “ all ye who are His people”), since 
 Ὁ Δ cannot denote the tribes of the Jewish 
 
 sages where it is so found, is not joined with 
 the accusative, but either: is joined with 
 the dative (7)—as Ps. lxxxi. 2—or stands 
 absolutely (Ps. xxxii. 11). 
 
 2The Messianic fulfilment of this sum- 
 
 people ; but, as the Hiphil 1}°}47 allows, 
 either with the Vulgate: “ laudate, gentes, 
 populum ejus’ (so Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 272, 
 and Umbreit, p. 358; comp. Kamphausen, 
 Lied Mos. p.219f.); or: “make to shout for 
 Joy, ye Gentiles, His people,” which, however, 
 does not fit the connection ; or (with Aquila 
 and Theodotion, comp. Hofmann), Shout 
 for joy, ye Gentiles, ye who are His peopie. 
 The latter is to be preferred, because 
 ry in the sense of Kal, in the few pas- 
 
 mons is recognized by Paul in the mag- 
 nifying of God on the part of the Gentiles 
 converted to Christ from all nations. This 
 fulfilment he looks upon already as present 
 (for see ver. 7), not merely as a fact of the 
 Suture, * when the Gentile world as aunited 
 whole’ magnifies God (Hofmann). 
 
 3 See Umbreit in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1835, p. 
 553, and the explanation in reference 
 thereto, p. 880 f.; Drechsler and Delitzsch. 
 in loc. 
 
δ44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Him,’ 1 Tim. iv. 10, vi. 17 ; LXX. Isa. xlii. 4. Comp. πιστεύειν én’ αὐτῷ, ix. 
 33, x. 11. The contents of the hope is the attainment of eternal salvation, 
 which will be fulfilled in them at the Parousia. 
 
 Ver. 13. As vv. 1-4 passed into a blessing (vv. 5, 6), so now the hortatory 
 discourse, begun afresh in ver. 7, passes into a blessing (dé), which forms, 
 at the same time, the close of the entire section (from chap. xiv. onwards). 
 — ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος) God, who produces the hope (of eternal glory), namely, 
 through His Spirit ; see the closing words of the verse. This description 
 of God (comp. on ver. 5) attaches itself formally to ἐλπιοῦσιν, ver. 12,” but 
 rests upon the deeper substantive reason, that the becoming filled with joy- 
 fulness and peace here wished for is not possible without having hope as its 
 basis, and that, on the other hand, this becoming filled produces the rich in- 
 crease of hope itself (εἰς τὸ περίσσ. k.7.2.). — πάσ. χαρᾶς x.7.2.] with all, i.e. with 
 highest joyfulness.* χαρά and εἰρήνη (peace through concord), as xiv. 17. — 
 ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν) in the believing, to which without χαρά and εἰρήνη the fruits 
 would be wanting, and without which no χαρά and εἰρήνη could exist. 
 Comp. xiv. 17. — εἰς τὸ mepicc. «.t.2.] Aim of the πληρῶσαι k.7.2. : in order 
 that ye, in virtue of the power (working in you) of the Holy Spirit, may be 
 abundant in hope, may cherish Christian hope in the richest measure (comp. 
 LCor xvivos τ νη: Phila: 9 Col: ἢν 
 
 Vv. 1433.4 The apostle has now come to an end with all the instructions 
 and exhortations, which he intended to impart to the Romans. Hence he 
 now adds, up to ver. 33, an epilogue (which, however, he then follows up in 
 chap. xvi. with commendations, greetings, etc.). [See Note CLI. p. 558. | 
 In this epilogue, which in substance corresponds to the introduction, i. 8-16, 
 and by no means applies only to the section respecting the weak in faith 
 (Melanchthon, Grotius), but to the whole epistle, he testifies his good confi- 
 dence towards the readers, and justifies his in a partial degree bold writing by his 
 Gentile-apostolic calling (vv. 14-16) and working (vv. 17-21), which latter had 
 also been usually the hindrance to his coming personally to Rome (ver. 22). 
 This observation leads him to his present plan of travel, the execution of 
 which will bring him, in the course of his intended journey to Spain, to 
 Rome, after he has been at Jerusalem (vv. 23-29). For this impending jour- 
 ney he finally begs the prayers of the Romans on his behalf (vv. 80-85), and 
 then concludes with a blessing (ver. 33). 
 
 Ver. 14. Πέπεισμαι δέ] but I am of the conviction ; viii. 38, xiv. 14. The 
 δέ is the simple μεταβατικόν, leading over to the concluding portion of the 
 epistle. — καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγώ] et ipse ego ; comp. on vii. 25. The apostle is, inde- 
 pendently of the general advantageous estimation in which the Roman 
 
 1 Hemsterh. ad Xen. Eph. p. 128. 
 2 An attachment which, since ὑμᾶς then 
 addresses the church, does not suit the view 
 
 historically correct, but also incorrect 
 statements, and, on the whole, a non- 
 Pauline tendency. The parallels with pas- 
 
 which holds the latter to be a -Jewish- 
 Christian one (Mangold). 
 
 3 Comp. Theile, ad Jac. p. 8; Wunder, ad 
 Soph. Phil. 141 f. 
 
 4 According to Lucht, vv. 14-33 contain 
 much that is Pauline and various matters 
 
 sages in the Epistles to the Corinthians are 
 to be explained simply by dependence on 
 the latter, etc. ; p. 185 ff. These are self- 
 deceptions of a fanciful criticism, against 
 which it is vain to contend. 
 
CHAPS IVa LO. 545 
 church stood with others (i. 8), also for his own personal part of the convic- 
 tion, ete. The emphasis lies on αὐτός. If the thought were : ‘‘ even I, who 
 have hitherto so unreservedly exhorted you” (Philippi, comp. de Wette, 
 Fritzsche, and older interpreters), ἐγώ would have the emphasis (comp. κἀγὼ 
 αὐτός, Acts x. 26) ; but καὶ αὐτός corresponds entirely to the following καὶ 
 αὐτοί, et ipsi, i.e. even without first of all requiring injluence, exhortation, etc., 
 on the part of others. Comp. afterwards καὶ ἀλλήλους. Thus, accordingly, 
 Paul denotes by κ. αὐτὸς ἐγώ the autonomy of his judgment, but with a subtle 
 indication of the judgment of others as coinciding therewith. Comp. Ben- 
 gel: ‘“‘Non modo alii hoe de yobis existimant.” Paul intends therewith 
 to obviate the idea as if he for his part judged less favourably of the church, 
 with reference to the fact, not that he had written this letter generally 
 (Hofmann), but that he had written it in part τολμηρότερον. This is 
 shown by the contrast, ver. 16. --- ἀγαθωσύνης] goodness, excellence generally 
 (that you also of yourselves are very excellent people), not equivalent to χρηστότης 
 (as Thom. Mag. p. 391 states), not even in Gal. v. 22. Comp. 2 Thess. i. 11 ; 
 Eph. v. 9; Eccles. ix. 18. The word is not found in the Greek writers. — 
 The three predicates, μεστοί x.7.2., advance in co-ordination from the general 
 to the particular. — καὶ ἀλλήλ.] also to admonish you among one another, with- 
 out having need fora third, who should admonish you. On νουθετεῖν, in 
 which the notion of its being well-meant, though not involved in the word 
 of itself, is given by the connection or (as in Isocr. de pace, 72) by express 
 contrast, see on 1 Cor. xiv. 14, Eph. vi. 4. Paul does not express in this verse 
 something more than he strictly means (Reiche), but that which he really be- 
 lieves of the Roman church, taken as ὦ whole ; at which favourable convic- 
 tion he—apart from the universally-diffused good report of the church (i. 8) 
 —has arrived by means of experiences unknown to us, and perhaps also in 
 virtue of his feeling assured that he might draw from the individuals and 
 influential persons with whom he was acquainted a conclusion respecting 
 the whole. But the fact that he does express it,—this commendation, —rests 
 on his apostolic truth, and on that wisdom of teaching which by good and 
 real confidence attracts a zeal of compliance. 
 
 Ver. 15. More boldly, however (than so good a confidence appears to im- 
 ply), 1 wrote to you in part, ete. ‘* Quasi dicat : σπεύδοντα καὶ αὑτὸν ὀτρύνω,"" 
 Grotius. — τολμηρότερον] adverbially.* The comparative sense is not to be ob- 
 literated (Bernhardy, p. 433 ; Winer, p. 228 [E. T. p. 243]), but may not 
 be derived from the lesser right of the apostle? to write to a church not founded 
 by bim (Hofmann); comp. Bengel, who introduces the further idea : ‘‘ cum 
 potius ipse venire deberem.” It must, in fact, especially seeing that the more 
 precise definition ἀπὸ μέρους is added, be necessarily a specification of the 
 
 1 Thue. iv. 126. 3; Polyb. i. 17. 7; Lucian, 
 Icarom. 10. 
 
 2 This lesser right is assumed quite with- 
 out warrant. Paul certainly wrote to 
 other churches of Gentiles not founded by 
 him (Colossians, Laodiceans); and how 
 could he, as the apostle of the Gentiles, be of 
 opinion that he thereby was taking any 
 
 special liberty 2 He had to glorify his office 
 (xi. 13), in doing which his care for all 
 churches (2 Cor. xi. 28) certainly suggested 
 no limitation of epistolary intercourse to 
 such ashe himself had founded, as if it were 
 a boldness in him needing excuse, when he 
 also wrote to others. 
 
546 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 mode, expressing the how of the ἔγραφαᾳ. The repetition of ἀδελφοί flows from 
 the earnestness of feeling. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, 11 ; Gal. v. 11, 13; Jas. 
 v. 7, 9, 10. — ἀπὸ μέρους) belongs not merely to τολμ. (‘‘ paulo liberius,” 
 Grotius, following the Peshito), but, as its position shows, to τολμ. ἔγραψα 
 together : partly, i.e. in particular places, 1 wrote more boldly. This refers 
 to passages like vi. 12 ff., 19, vill. 9, xi. 17 ff., xii. 3, xiii. 3 ff., 18, 14, xiv. 
 3, 4, 10, 18, 15, 20, xv. 1, etal. In ἀπὸ μέρους is implied the contrast, that 
 he has not written τολμηρότερον all that he has written (comp. xi. 25 ; 2 Cor. 
 i. 14), but only a part thereof. Hofmann has now exchanged his earlier 
 incorrect view, ‘‘ provisionally and in the meantime” (Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 95), 
 for another also incorrect (similarly Th. Schott), namely piecemeal, in con- 
 trast to a complete exposition of Christian truth, thus equivalent to ἐκ μέρους, 
 1 Cor. xiii. 10 (not also in 1 Cor. xii. 27). Besides, this arbitrarily import- 
 ed contrast would suit no Epistle less than the Epistle to the Romans, which 
 treats the whole gospel in the most complete manner. According to Lucht, 
 the expression in this passage is only the product of a post-apostolic effort 
 to wipe away the ‘‘bad impression” of the epistle on the highly esteemed 
 church, which had in fact been founded by Peter (comp. Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia). —d¢ ἐπαναμ. ὑμᾶς] as again reminding you,’ i.e. in the way and 
 manner of one who reminds you, etc.? — διὰ τὴν χάρ.] 1.6. in order to comply 
 with the apostolic office, with which God has favoured me. See ver. 16. 
 Ver. 16. Εἰς τὸ εἶναι x.7.A.] Specification of the object aimed at in τὴν 
 δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τ. Θεοῦ. --- λειτουργόν] Comp. on xiii. 6. Paul sets forth the 
 service of his apostolic office, in the consciousness of its hallowed dignity, 
 not merely as a public οἰκονομία (Ewald ; ‘‘ steward of the people”), but as 
 a priestly service of offering, in which Ἰησοῦ X. expresses the λειτουργός as or- 
 dained by Christ. That Christ should be conceived of as He to whom the offering 
 is presented (Reiche), is contrary to the conception of offering, which always 
 refers to God as the receiver of it. Comp. xii. 1; Eph. v. 2; Phil. ii. 17. 
 But neither is Christ to be conceived of (as by Bengel and Riickert) as high 
 priest (a conception not of Paul, but rather of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 and applying to Christ as the sole Atoner, in which case the idea of inferior 
 
 1JIn opposition to Baur’s erroneous ex- church as yet strange to the apostle and 
 
 planation of ἐπαναμ., “further therein to re- 
 mind,” and its reference to what follows, 
 see Mangold, p.69, who, however, on his 
 part, in virtue of the assumption of the 
 Jewish-Christian character of the church, 
 limits the ἀπὸ μέρους arbitrarily to those 
 portions of the epistle (especially chap. ix. 
 and x.) in which, in the interest of the 
 Gentile-Christian apostolate, Jeewish-Chris- 
 tian pretensions had been combated. It is 
 just such entirely doctrinal discussions as 
 chap. ix. x. which answer least to the 
 character of τολμηρότερον, which presup- 
 poses the ready possibility of offence being 
 given. The exculpation implied in ver. 
 15is not calculated for a Jewish-Christian 
 church (Mangold, p. 72), but rather fora 
 
 held in very good repute, towards which 
 he felt himself not in a like relation as 
 e.g. to the Galatians and Corinthians, but in 
 one more delicate and calling for more for- 
 bearance. Artfully and gently, too, is the 
 ὡς ἀναμιμν. κιτιλ. added, as if what was 
 written τολμηρότερον was only meant to bea 
 help to their memory. ᾿Ανάμνησις δ᾽ ἐστὶν 
 ἐπιῤῥοὴ φρονήσεως ἀπολειπούσης, Plat. Legg. Vv. 
 p. 732 B. 
 
 2See Bernhardy, p. 476; Buttmann, newt. 
 Gr. p. 263 [E. T. 307] ; Kiihner, IT. 2, Ὁ. 649f. ; 
 1 Thess. ii. 4; Heb. xiii. 17. ἐπαναμ. denotes 
 in memoriam revocare. See Plat. Legg. iii. 
 p. 688 A; Dem. 74. 7. Comp. ἐπανάμνησις, 
 Dion. Hal. het. x. 18. Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia : els ὑπόμνησιν ἄγειν ὧν μεμαϑήκατε, 
 
CHAPURVi, his 547 
 
 priests is out of place), but as Lord and Ruler of the church, who has ap- 
 pointed His apostle, i. 5. Lucht oddly thinks that the writer did not vent- 
 ure to call Paul, in consequence of his disputed position, ἀπόστολος, but only 
 λειτουργός. --- εἰς τὰ ἔθνη] in reference to the Gentiles ; for these, as converted 
 by the apostle, are to form the offering to be presented.—In the sequel, 
 ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ evayy. τ. Θεοῦ Contains the more precise explanation of λεετουργ. 
 T. X., and ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν K.7.A. that of εἰς τὰ ἔθνη 3 hence 
 the latter belongs not to ἱερουργ. (Th. Schott, Hofmann), but to what pre- 
 cedes, and is not (with Buttmann) to be omitted on the authority of B. — 
 iepoupy. τὸ evayy. τ. Θεοῦ] in priestly fashion administering the gospel of God, 
 z.e. ‘‘administrans evang. a Deo missum hominibus, eoque ministerio velut 
 sacerdotio fungens,” Estius ; comp. Chrysostom, Erasmus, and most older 
 interpreters, also Riickert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi. This 
 usage of iepovpy. is confirmed by passages like Herodian. v. 3. 16 ; Joseph. 
 Antt. vi. 6. 2; also by 4 Mace. vii. 8, where ἰδίῳ αἵματι is to be connected 
 with ἱερουργοῦντας τὸν νόμον (in opposition to Hofmann, who will not admit 
 the priestly notion in the word), not with ὑπερασπίζοντας (see Grimm, Handb. 
 p- 829 f.).* Without warrant, Hofmann insists on adhering to the concep- 
 tion of ‘‘ administering holy service.” The gospel is not indeed the offering 
 (Luther and others), which is presented, but the divine institute, which is 
 administered—is in priestly fashion served——-by the presenting of the offer- 
 ing. As to ebayy. Θεοῦ, see on i. 1.— ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν] the offering of 
 the Gentiles, 1.6. the offering which the Gentiles are, Heb. x. 10 ; Eph. v. 
 2. The Gentiles converted, and through the Spirit consecrated as God’s 
 property, are the offering which Paul, as the priest of Jesus Christ, has 
 brought to God. Observe, however, the stress laid on the prefixed γένηται : 
 in order that there may prosper (see on this use of γίνεσθαι as regards offer- 
 ings, Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 9), in accordance with which εὐπρόσδ. is 
 then attributive (as well-pleasing), and ἁγίασμ. é. mv. dy. is subordinated to the 
 latter as its ground : sanctified through the Holy Spirit, which is received 
 through the gospel in baptism, Gal. iii. 2, 5; Tit. ii. 5; Eph. v. 26. A 
 contrast to the ceremonial consecration of the Levitical offerings. Comp. 
 po Ma be 
 
 Ver. 17. [See Note CLIII. p. 559.] How readily might what was said in 
 ver. 16 carry with it the appearance of vain self-boasting !_ To obviate this, 
 the apostle proceeds : [have accordingly (in pursuance of the contents of ver. 
 16) the boasting (τὴν καύχησιν, see the critical notes) in Christ Jesus in respect of 
 my relation to God; 1.6... my boasting is something which, by virtue of my con- 
 nection with Christ (whose λειτουργός Lam, ver. 16), in my position towards God 
 (for 1 administer God’s gospel as an offering priest, ver. 16), properly belongs 
 tome. The ἔχω is prefixed with emphasis : it does not fail me, like a some- 
 thing which one has not really as a possession but only ventures to ascribe to 
 himself ; then follows with ἐν X. ’I. and τὰ mp. τ. Θ., a twofold more pre- 
 cisely defined character of this ethical possession, excluding everything sel7- 
 
 1 Comp. Suicer, Thes. 5. v. ; Kypke in loc.; Joseph. Antt. viii. 4. 5: tepovpyia, 4 Macc. 
 also ἱερουργός, Callim. jv. 450; ἱερούργημα, iv. 1; Plat. Legg. p. 774 E; Pollux, i. 29. 
 
ὅ48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ish.* Accordingly, we are not to explain as though ἐν X. ’I. bore the main 
 stress and it ran ἐν Χριστῷ οὖν τὴν καύχησιν ἔχω κ.τ.λ. (which is Fritzsche’s 
 objection to the reading τὴν xaty.); and καύχησις is neither here nor else- 
 where equivalent to καύχημα (materies gloriandi), but is gloriatio (comp. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 31), and the article marks the definite self-boasting concerned, which Paul 
 makes (vv. 16, 18). Reiche connects ἐν X. with τ. καύχησιν, so that τὸ καυ- 
 χᾶσθαι ἐν Χ. is to be explained as the boasting onself of Christ (of the aid of 
 Christ). Comp. also Ewald. Admissible linguistically, since the construc- 
 tion καυχᾶσθαι ἐν (Vv. 3, li. 17, 23 ; Phil. ili. 3) allowed the annexation with- 
 out the article ; but at variance with the sequel, where what is shown is not 
 the right to boast of the help of Christ (of this there is also in ver. 16 no 
 mention), but this, that Paul wil] never boust himself otherwise than as 
 simply the instrument of Christ, that he thus has Christ only to thank for 
 the καυχᾶσθαι, only through Him is in the position to boast. — τὰ πρὸς τ. Θεόν] 
 Comp. Heb. ii. 17, v. 1. Semler and Riickert take the article in a limiting 
 sense: at least before God. But the ‘‘ at least” is not expressed (τά ye zp. τ. 
 Θ., or πρός γε τ. O., OY Ta mp. τ. Θ. ye), and Paul has indeed actually here and 
 elsewhere frequently boasted before men, and with ample warrant, of his 
 sacred calling.—We may add that this whole assertion of his calling, vv. 
 17-21, so naturally suggested itself to the apostle, when he was on the 
 point of extending his activity to Rome and beyond it to the extreme west 
 of the Gentile world, that there is no sufficient ground for seeking the oeca- 
 sion of it in the circumstances and experiences of the Corinthian church at 
 that time (so especially Riickert, comp. also Tholuck and Philippi); espe- 
 cially since it is nowhere indicated in our epistle (not even in xvi. 17), that 
 at that time (at a later epoch it was otherwise, Phil. i. 15 ff.) anti-Pauline 
 efforts had occurred in Rome, such as had emerged in Corinth. See 
 Introd. § 3. 
 
 Ver. 18. Negative confirmation of what is asserted in ver. 17. The cor- 
 rect explanation is determined partly by the connection, to be carefully 
 observed, of οὐ with katecpy., partly by the order of the words, according to 
 which ov κατειργάσατο must have the emphasis, not Χριστός (Theodoret and 
 others, including Calovius, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Tholuck). Hence : ‘‘for 
 I will not (in any given case) embolden myself to speak about any of those things 
 (to boast of anything from the sphere of that) which Christ has not brought 
 about through me, in order to. make the Gentiles obedient to Him, by means of 
 word and work.” That is, affirmatively expressed : for I will venture to let 
 myself be heard only as to such things, the actual fulfilment of which has taken 
 place by Christ through me, etc. ; I will therefore never pride myself on any- 
 thing which belongs to the category of those things, which have not been put 
 into execution by Christ through me.* This would be an untrue speaking of 
 
 1 Not exactly specially ‘‘the conscious- 
 ness of superior knowledge or singular 
 spirituality,’>’ Hofmann. Comp. generally 
 1 Cor. xv. 10. 
 
 2 The objection of Hofmann: ‘‘ The non- 
 actual forms no collective whole, as a 
 constituent element of which a single thing 
 
 might be conceived,” is a mere empty 
 subtlety. Had Paul, ¢.g., boasted that 
 Christ had wrought many conversions 
 through him when he wasin Athens, he 
 would have spoken about something which 
 would have been a single instance out of 
 the category of the non-actual, namely, of 
 
CHAP. XV., 19. 549 
 results, as if the Lord had brought them about through me—which neverthe- 
 less had not taken place. — εἰς ὑπακ. ἐθνῶν) namely, through the adoption of 
 faith in Him ; comp. i. ὅ. --- λόγῳ x. ἔργῳ] applies to carecpy . 
 
 Ver. 19. In virtue of what powers Christ, by means of word and work, 
 has wrought through the apostle as His organ : 
 —this refers back to ἔργῳ ; (2) ἐν duv. xveiuatoc,—this applies to λόγῳ and 
 ἔργῳ together, and is co-ordinated to the above ἐν δυν. σημ. Kk. τερ, not subor- 
 dinated, as Beza, Glickler, and others think, whereby the language would 
 lose its simplicity and half of its import (the δύναμις πνεύμ. would pass into 
 the background). According to Hofmann, who reads in ver. 20 φιλοτιμοῦ- 
 μαι (see the critical notes), a new sentence is meant to begin with λόγῳ κ. 
 ἔργῳ, the verb of which would be φιλοτιμοῦμαι. This yields, instead of the 
 simple course of the language, a complicated structure of sentence which is 
 in nowise indicated by Paul himself, as he has not written ἐν λόγῳ x. ἔργῳ 
 (conformably to the following). Besides, the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι by word and 
 deed (thus the preaching through deeds), would be a modern conception 
 foreign to the N. T. The ἔργα accompany and accredit the preaching (John 
 x. 88, xiv. 11), but they do not preach. Comp. Luke xxiv. 19; Acts vil. 
 22; 2 Cor. x. 11. If φιλοτιμοῦμαι is to be read, then with Lachmann ὦ new 
 sentence is to be begun with ver. 20, so that all that precedes remains as- 
 signed to the efficiency of Christ, which is not the case with the view of 
 Hofmann, although it is only in entire keeping with the language of hu- 
 mility which Paul here uses. The genitives are those of derivation : power which 
 went forth from signs and wonders (which Paul, as instrument of Christ, has 
 performed), and power, which went forth from the (Holy) Spirit (who was 
 communicated to the apostle through Christ) upon the minds of men. Comp. 
 on ἐν δυν. πνεύμ., 1 Cor. ii. 4, ὅ. --- σημεῖα x. τέρατα] not different in sub- 
 stance ; both miracles, both also denoting their significant aspect. See 
 Fritzsche, p. 270 f. The collocation corresponds to the Heb. D923 NINs, 
 hence usually (the converse only in Acts ii. 22, 48, vi. 8, vil. 36, comp. 11. 
 19) σημεῖα stands first, and where only one of the two words is used, it is 
 always σημεῖα, because NNS was the striking word giving more immediately 
 the character of the thing designated. Contrary to the constant usage of 
 the N. T., Reiche understands not outward miraculous facts, but mental 
 miracles, which the preaching of the gospel has produced in the hearts of 
 the newly-converted. Even 2 Cor. xii. 12 is not to be thus understood ; 
 see in loc. Miracles belonged to the σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου (2 Cor. l.c.), hence 
 there is already of itself motive enough for their mention in our passage, 
 
 . ἐθνῶν. 
 
 (1) ἐν δυνάμ. σημείων κ. τερ.; 
 
 and there is no need for the precarious assumption of ἃ reference to pseudo- 
 apostolic jugglers in Rome (Ewald). —év δυνάμ. πνεύμ. ay.| is related, not 
 “awkwardly” (Hofmann), to ὧν οὐ κατειργ. Χριστός ; for Christ has, for the 
 sake of His working to be effected through the apostle (dv ἐμοῦ), given to 
 
 that which Christ has not wrought. The converting the Gentiles. But thus, through 
 
 view of Hofmann himself amounts to the 
 sense, that the apostle wished to set aside 
 all his own, which was not a work of Christ 
 performed through him, with the object of 
 
 the contrast of his own and the work of 
 Christ, the emphasis would be transposed, 
 resting now on Χριστός, asif it ran ὧν οὐ 
 Χριστὸς κατειργάσατο δι᾽ ἐμοῦ, 
 
ὅδ0 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 him the Spirit. Very unnecessarily, and just as inappropriately,—since 
 ὥστε must comprise all the preceding elements,—Hofmann forces ἐν δυν. rv. 
 ay., by means of an hyperbaton, into special connection with ore. — ὥστε 
 «.t.A.| Result, which this working of Christ through Paul has had in refer- 
 ence to the extension of Christianity. — ἀπὸ, Ἱερουσ.} From this spot, where 
 Paul first entered the apostolical fellowship, Acts ix. 26 ff. (he had already 
 previously worked three years, including the sojourn in Arabia, at Damas- 
 cus; see on Gal. i. 17, 18), he defines the terminus a quo, because he intends 
 to specify the greatest extension of his working in space (from south-east to 
 north-west).'— καὶ κύκλῳ] enlarges the range of the terminus a quo: and round 
 about, embracing not merely Judaea, but, in correspondence to the magni- 
 tude of the measure of length, Arabia and Syria also. Of course, however, 
 κύκλῳ is not included in the dependence on ἀπό, but stands in answer to the 
 question Where? inasmuch as it adds to the statement from whence the 
 working took place, the notice of the local sphere, which had been jointly 
 affected by that local beginning as its field of action : from Jerusalem, and 
 in a circuit round, Paul has fulfilled the gospel as far as Illyria. Flacius, 
 Calovius, Paulus, Gléckler, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, 
 refer κύκλῳ to the are which Paul described in his journey from Jerusalem 
 by way of Syria, Asia, Troas, Macedonia, and Greece to Illyria. According 
 to this, κύκλῳ would specify the direction in which he, starting from Jerusa- 
 lem, moved forward. So also Hofmann. This direction would be that of 
 acurve. But κύκλῳ never denotes this, and is never merely the opposite of 
 straight out, but always cirewmcirea (comp. Judith i. 2; Mark iii. 34, vi. 6, 
 36; Luke ix. 12; Rev. iv. 6; very frequently in the Greek writers) ; and 
 the addition ‘‘and in the are of a cirele,” would have been very superfluous 
 and indeed like an empty piece of ostentation, seeing that in truth the 
 straight direction from Jerusalem to Illyria passes for the most part through 
 water. No reason also would be discoverable for Paul’s adding the καί, and 
 not merely writing κύκλῳ, in order to express : from Jerusalem in ὦ circular 
 direction as far as Illyria. — μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ι1λλυρ.] The idea that Paul, as has 
 recently been for the most part assumed, did not get to Illyria αὐ all, but only 
 to the frontier of this western region during a Macedonian by-journey, throws 
 upon him an appearance of magnifying his deeds, for which the silence of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, furnishing, as it does, no complete narrative, supplies 
 no warrant. Now, since in ver. 23 Illyria may not, without arbitrariness, 
 be excluded from the regions where he has already laboured, because this 
 country would otherwise have still afforded scope for labour, we must as- 
 sume that Paul had really made an intermediate journey to Illyria. From 
 what starting-point, cannot indeed be shown ; hardly so soon as Acts xviii. 
 
 4 
 
 11, but possibly during the journey mentioned in Acts xx. 1-3 (see Anger, 
 
 1Yet he does not say ‘‘from Arabia’ 
 (Gal. Z.c.), because it was very natural for 
 him significantly to place the beginning at 
 that spot where all the other apostles had 
 begun their work and the apostolic church 
 itself had arisen—in doing which, however, 
 he, by adding καὶ κύκλῳ, does nothing to the 
 
 prejudice of history. The less is there to 
 be found in ἀπὸ Ἵερουσ. an inconsistency 
 with the statements of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians. This in opposition to Lucht, 
 who sees also in μέχρι τ. Ἴλλυρ. an incorrect 
 statement, and attributes to both points a 
 special design. 
 
~ 
 
 CHAPS XV, Oe eT. 551 
 
 temp. rat. p. 84); so that his short sojourn in Illyria took place not long before 
 his sojourn in Achaia, where he at Corinth wrote the Epistle to the Romans. 
 Tit. iii. 12 can only be employed in confirmation of this by those who as- 
 sume the authenticity of the Epistle to Titus, and its composition thus 
 early (see Wieseler, Philippi). — πεπληρωκέναι τὸ evayy. τ. X.| have brought to 
 Fulfilment (comp. Col. i. 25) the gospel of Christ. This πληροῦν has taken 
 place in an extensive sense through the fact that the gospel is spread abroad 
 everywhere from Jerusalem to Illyria, and has met with acceptance. Anal- 
 ogous is the conception : ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἠύξανε, Acts vi. 7, ΧΙ]. 24, xix. 
 20. So long as the news of salvation has not yet reached its full and des- 
 tined diffusion, it is still in the course of growth and increase ; but when 
 it has reached every quarter, so that no place any longer remains for the 
 labour of the preacher (ver. 23), it has passed from the state of growing in- 
 crease into the full measure of its dimensions. This view of the sense is alone 
 strictly textual (see ver. 23), while closely adhering to the literal significa- 
 tion of etayy., which denotes the message itself, not the act of proclamation 
 (Th. Schott, Mangold) ; and hence excludes the many divergent interpre- 
 tations, namely: (1) That of Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, de Wette, 
 Riickert, in substance also Kéllner, Tholuck, van Hengel, and permissively, 
 Reiche, that ehayy. is equivalent to munus praedicandi evang. which it does 
 not mean ; similarly Ewald ; the executed commission of preaching. (9) 
 That of Luther, Flacius, Castalio, and others: ‘‘that I have fulfilled every- 
 thing with the gospel,” which is opposed to the words as they stand, although 
 repeated by Baur. (3) That of Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, includ- 
 ing Reiche and Olshausen : πληρ. τὸ ebayy. denotes completely to proclaim 
 the gospel. But the ‘‘ completely” would in fact have here no relevant 
 weight at all (such as at Acts xx. 27) ; for that Paul had not éncompletely 
 preached the gospel, was understood of itself. Others arbitrarily take it 
 otherwise still, e.g. Calvin : ‘‘praedicationem ev. quasi supplendo diffundere ; 
 coeperunt enim alii priores, sed ipse longius sparsit ;” Krehl: that I have 
 put the gospel into force and validity ; Philippi: that I have realized the 
 gospel, have introduced it into life (the gospel appearing as empty, before 
 it is taught, accepted, understood) ; Hofmann, with comparison of the not 
 at all analogous expression πληροῦν τὸν νόμον : the message of salvation 
 misses its destination, if it remain wnproclaimed—whereby πληροῦν would be 
 reduced simply to the notion of kypiccev.—The whole of the remark, ver. 
 19 f., connected with ver. 24, is to be explained, according to Baur, I. p. 
 307, simply from the intention (of the later writer) to draw here, as it were, 
 a geographical line between two apostolic provinces, of which the one must 
 be left to Peter. In opposition to swch combinations, although Lucht still 
 further elaborates them, it is sufficient simply to put into the scale the al- 
 together Pauline character and emotional stamp of the language in vv. 19-33, 
 in its inner truth, simplicity, and chasteness. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. But prosecuting it as a point of honour to preach in this way, 
 the οὕτω is now first negatively stated : not where Christ was named, then 
 positively : but, agreeably to the word of Scripture, etc. Hence οὐχ ὅπου, not 
 ὕπου οὐκ. ---- φιλοτιμ.} Aependent on με, ver. 19. On φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, to prosecute 
 
ὅδῳ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ΤῸ THE ROMANS, 
 anything so that one seeks one’s honour in it, comp. 2 Cor. v. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 
 11 ; see Wetstein and Kypke. This full signification (not merely the more 
 general one : zealously to prosecute) is to be maintained in ail passages, in- 
 cluding the classical ones, and admirably suits the context. The matter 
 was a special point of honour with the apostle in his working ;* 2 Cor. x. 15, 
 10. --- ὠνομάσθη] His name, as the contents of confession, has been named, 
 namcly, by preachers and confessors. See ver. 21.—iva μὴ x.t.4.] 1.6... in 
 order not simply to continue the work of conversion already begun by oth- 
 ers. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10. The reason why Paul did not desire this, lay in 
 the high consciousness of his apostolie destination (Acts xxvi. 17, 18), accord- 
 ing to which he recognized the greatest and most difficult work, the found- 
 ing of the church, as the task of the apostle, and found his apostolie honour in 
 the solution of this task.” Others, as Reiche, specify as the reason, that he 
 had sought on account of his freer system of doctrine to avoid polemical 
 controversies. This would be a principle of practical prudence, correspond- 
 ing neither to the apostolical idea, nor to Paul’s magnanimous character in 
 following it out. — καθὼς yéyp.| Isa. 111. 15, closely cited after the LXX., 
 who took WS in each case as masculine. The passage runs according to 
 the original: ““ What was never told to them, they see; and what they have 
 never heard, they perceive ;” and the subject is the hings, who become dumb 
 before the glorified Servant of God, not the nations (Hengstenberg, Christol. 
 II. p. 305 ; Philippi). But the actual state of the case—seeing that, along 
 with the kings, their peoples also must see the glory of the Servant of God 
 allowed the apostle here to put the nations as the subject, the Gentile- 
 peoples, to whom, through him, the Servant of God as yet unknown to them 
 is made known, ὁ.6. Jesus Christ, in whom the Messianic fulfilment of that 
 prophetic idea concerning the Servant of God, as the ideal of Israel, had ap- 
 peared realized.* — περὶ αὐτοῦ] addition of the LXX.— ὄψονται) they shall see, 
 namely mentally, in knowledge and faith, it (that which the preaching now 
 brings before them). — οὗ οὐκ axyx.] namely, the news of Him (the gospel). 
 -- συνήσουσι] shall understand it (this news). Comp. Matt. xiii. 28, xv. 10. 
 Ver. 22. Διό] because, namely, my apostolic mode of working, just de- 
 scribed (vv. 20, 21), did not yet permit me to depart from the districts 
 mentioned, inasmuch as there was still work to do in founding. [See Note 
 CLIV. p. 560.] Comp. Beza: ‘‘dum huc et illuc avocor, interpellatus et 
 ita prohibitus.” Incorrectly Bengel, Reiche, and others : because in Rome 
 the foundation was laid by others. Ver. 23 is decisive against this. — τὰ 
 πολλά] more than πολλάκις, 1. 13 (πολλά) : in the most cases (πλεῖστα, Plat. 
 
 
 
 1QLucht here conceives the writer to be to Spain. But to address /etters to a church 
 
 dependent even on a mistaken understand- 
 ing of 2 Cor. x. 15, 16. 
 
 2 The objection of Baur, ii. p. 399, that in 
 truth, if this had been really Paul’s princi- 
 ple, the Epistle to the Romans itself would 
 stand in contradiction to it, is invalid, 
 since that principle referred only to his 
 working as present in person; whence he 
 thought of visiting the Romans only as δια- 
 πορευόμενος (ver. 24), on his intended journey 
 
 of a Pauline stamp, which had nevertheless 
 been founded by others, such as, in fact, he 
 wrote to the Colossians and Laodiceans, 
 was not excluded by the above principle, 
 the point of which was rather the personat 
 presence at the founding of churches, and the 
 oral proclamation of salvation. 
 
 3 Comp. Schultz, alttestam. Theol. 11. Ὁ. 
 268 ff. 
 
CHAP. XV., 23, 24. 553 
 Hipp. maj. p. 281 B), as a rule, not ‘so often” (Th. Schott), The Vulgate 
 renders correctly : plerwmque.' Paul has had other hindrances also, but 
 mostly sach as had their ground in the above regulative principle of his 
 working. Hofmann understands évexorr. of eaternal hindrances ; so that Paul 
 means that he, even if he would, could not come otherwise than in pursu- 
 ance of that principle, to Rome (whither that principle did not lead him), 
 This is at variance with the following νυνὶ δὲ «.7.A., Which in μηκέτι τόπον 
 ἔχων ἐν τ. KA. τ. expresses the removal now of the hindrance meant by éve- 
 kort. — τοῦ ἐλθεῖν] genitive dependent on the verb of hindering. See Borne- 
 mann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 20; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 845. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24.? But since Ihave now no longer room (scope, %.e. opportunitatem, 
 see on xii. 19 ; Kypke, I. p. 190) in these regions (from Jerusalem to Illyria, 
 ver. 19). Paul had in all these countries founded churches, from which 
 Christianity was now spreading through other teachers, and especially 
 through his own disciples, over the whole ; and consequently he considered 
 his apostolic calling to be fulfilled in respect of the region mentioned, His 
 further working was to belong to the far west, where Christ was not yet 
 named ; hence he meditated, in the next instance, transferring his activity 
 in founding churches to Spain—a design, indeed, which Lucht denies that 
 the apostle entertained, and imputes it to a later conception of his task, in 
 accordance with which the plan of a journey to Spain was invented. Prob- 
 ably the comprehensive maxim, that he had no longer a sphere of activity 
 where Christianity might be planted at the principal places of a district by 
 his personal exertions, was connected with the expectation of the nearness 
 of the Parousia, before which the πλήρωμα of the Gentiles, and in conse- 
 quence of this also all Israel, had to be brought in (xi. 25). — ἐπιποθίαν] not 
 summum desiderium (Beza), but see on iv. 11. The word is not found else- 
 where ; but comp. ἐπιπόθησις, 2 Cor. vii. 7.— τοῦ ἐλθεῖν] genitive dependent 
 on ἐπιποῦ. --- ἀπὸ πολλ. ἐτ.] now for many years ; comp. Luke viii. 438. —a¢ 
 ἄν] simulatque, so soon as. See on 1 Cor. xi. 34; Phil. 11. 28. It is a more 
 precise definition to what follows, not to the preceding ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς (Hof- 
 mann), because otherwise Paul must have had in mind the plan of the journey 
 to Spain for many years, which cannot be supposed either in itself or on ac- 
 count of Acts xvi. 9. This applies also against Tischendorf in his 8th edi- 
 tion. — Σπανίαν] The usual Greek name is ᾿Ιβηρία (Herod. i. 163 ; Strabo, 
 iii. 4. 17, p. 166), but Σπανία (although in the passages in Athenaeus and 
 Diodorus Siculus the variation ‘Ioravia is found) was probably also not rare, 
 and that asa Greek form (Casaubon, ad Athen. p. 574). The Roman form 
 
 1 See Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 427; Ast,ad results. To parenthesize ἐλπίζω γὰρ... ἐμ- 
 Piat. Legg. p. 62 f. πλησϑῶ (Lachmann, followed by Buttmann, 
 
 2 With the omission of ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
 after Sraviav, and of yap after ἐλπίζω (see 
 the critical notes), the course of the passage 
 flows on simply, so that νυνὶ δὲ, ver. 23, is 
 connected with ἐλπίζω, and all that inter- 
 venes is parenthetical. If ἐλεύσ. πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
 only be struck out and the yap be retained, 
 with Lachmann, Hofmann, Tischendorf, 8, 
 a striking interruption of the construction 
 
 1.6. Ὁ. 252 [E. T. 294], comp. also Hofmann) is 
 not suitable to the contents of the continua- 
 tion, ver. 25. Ewald extends the parentheses 
 from ἐλπίζω yap even tO λειτουργῆσαι αὐτοῖς. 
 ver. 27. But considering the entirely calm 
 tenor of the whole passage, the probability 
 of such large parentheses, with all their in- 
 termediate clauses, is just asslight as the 
 probability of an anacoluthia (Tisch. 8). 
 
501 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 was ‘Ioravia (1 Macc. viii. 3). Itis the entire Pyrenaean peninsula. See 
 Strabo, l.c.—That this project of a journey to Spain was not executed, see 
 Introd. § 1. Primasius aptly remarks: ‘‘ Promiserat quidem, sed dispen- 
 sante Deo non ambulavit.” Already at Acts xx. 25 a quite different certain- 
 ty was before the apostle’s mind, and in his captivity he no longer enter- 
 tained that plan of travel, Philem. 22, Phil. ii. 94. -- διαπορευόμ.] ‘‘ quia 
 Romae jam fundata est fides,” Bengel. —ag’ ὑμῶν] (see the critical notes) : 
 JSrom you away. — προπεμφθ. ἐκεῖ] Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 2 Cor. 1. 16, and on 
 Acts xv. 8. As was his wont on his apostolical journeys, Paul hoped (‘‘ quasi 
 pro jure suo,” Bengel) to obtain an accompaniment on the part of some be- 
 longing to the church from Rome to Spain, by which we must understand an 
 escort all the way thither, since Paul would without doubt travel by sea from 
 Italy to Spain, the shortest and quickest way. ἐκεῖ, in the sense of ἐκεῖσε, 
 according to a well-known attraction. See John xi. 8, e a/., and on Matt. 
 11. 22. ἀπὸ pép.] ‘‘non quantum vellem, sed quantum licebit,” Grotius. 
 It is a limitation out of compliment. Comp. Chrysostom. But the reservation 
 of later complete enjoyment (Hofmann) is an idea imported : πρῶτον denotes im 
 the first place (before I travel further), as Matt. vi. 38, vii. 5, vill. 21, and 
 frequently. — ἐμπλησθῶ] of spiritual satisfaction through the enjoyment of 
 the longed-for personal intercourse (ὑμῶν). The commentary on this is 
 given at i. 12. 
 
 Ver. 25. Νυνὶ dé] is not, like the above νυνὶ dé (ver. 23), to be regarded as 
 resumptive, as Buttmann and Hofmann, in consequence of the reading ἐλπίζω 
 γάρ, ver. 24, take it,—a view with which what was previously said of the 
 journey to Spain by way of Rome does not accord,’ and the passage itself 
 assumes a very stiff, contorted form. Observe, rather, that the first νυνὶ δέ, 
 ver. 23, was said in contrast to the past (ἐνεκοπτόμην x.t.A.), but that the 
 second νυνὶ dé, ver. 25, commencing a new sentence, is said in contrast to 
 the promised future. ‘‘So I design and hope to do (as stated in ver. 24) : 
 but at present a journey to Jerusalem is incumbent upon me ; after its ac- 
 complishment, I shall then carry out that promised one by way of Rome to 
 Spain (ver. 28).” This νυνὶ dé is more definite than if Paul had said, ‘‘ but 
 beforehand” (which Hofmann with this view requires) ; for he thinks that 
 now he is just on the point of travelling to Jerusalem, whereas ‘‘ but beforehand” 
 would admit a later term of the πορεύομαι. ---- διακονῶν τοῖς ay.| in service for 
 the saints (Christians in Jerusalem), consequently not delaying the Romano- 
 Spanish journey in his own interest. The present participle (not future, as 
 Acts xxiv. 17, and see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab, vii. 7. 17) designates the 
 very travelling itself as part of the service.* — The intention, ascribed to the 
 apostle, of protecting himself in rear by the collection-journey, before he 
 passed into the far west (Th. Schott), is a purely gratuitous assumption. 
 
 1Comp. Hom. Z/. xi. 452; Kypke, II. p. would otherwise at this time see himself destin- 
 
 191. ed andimpelled.” This is certainly not ex- 
 2 Hofmann imports the connection: The pressed. 
 participial sentence, ver. 23, is intended to 3See Markland and Matthiae, ad Hur. 
 
 express, ‘‘ under what circumstances Paw is Suppl. 154; Heindorf, ad Phaed. Ὁ. 249 f.; 
 now setting out on a journey to Jerusalem,” Dissen, ad Pind. p. 81. 
 instead of coming to Rome, whither he 
 
” 
 
 CHA PAV P20. ce δὺῦ 
 
 Ver. 26. More precise information respecting the διακονῶν τοῖς ay. : ““Ρία.- 
 cuit enim Macedonibus,” etc. On εὐδόκ., they have been pleased, comp. Luke 
 xii. 82 5 1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i. 15; Col. 1.19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8. — κοίνων, rivd 
 ποιήσ. «.T.A.| to bring about a participation, in reference to the poor, i.e. to 
 make a collection for them. The contributor, namely, enters into fellowship 
 with the person aided, in so far as he κοινωνεῖ ταῖς χρείαις αὐτοῦ, Xil. 13 3 κοι- 
 νωνία is hence the characteristic expression for almsgiving, without, however, 
 having changed its proper sense communio into the active one of communica- 
 tion ; ‘‘honesta et aequitatis plena appellatio,” Bengel. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 
 13; Heb. xiii. 16. The added τινὰ, of some sort or other, corresponds to the 
 freedom from constraint, and the consequent indefiniteness, of the amount 
 to be aimed at. On the collection itself, see 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff. ; 2 Cor. viii. 
 9; Acts xxiv. 17. — τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ay.| the poor among the saints at Jeru- 
 salem. These were thus not all of them poor. Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 
 290. Of the community of goods there is no longer a trace in Paul. Phi- 
 lippi incorrectly holds that the πτωχοὶ τῶν ἁγίων are the poor saints generally. 
 Since the genitive is in any case partitive (even in the passages in Matthiae, 
 § 320, p. 791), the expression must at least have been τοὺς (not τῶν) ἐν 
 Ἵερουσ. 
 
 Ver. 27. Information, why they did so, by way of more precisely defining 
 the mere εὐδόκησαν previously expressed." ‘* They have been pleased, namely, 
 to do it, and (this is the added element) their debtors they are.”—The Gentiles 
 have acquired a share (ἐκοινώνησαν) in the spiritual possession of the Chris- 
 tians of Jerusalem (αὐτῶν), in so far as the mother church of Christianity was 
 in Jerusalem, so that thus the spiritual benefits of Christianity, which in 
 the first instance were destined for and communicated to the Jews and sub- 
 sequently passed over also to the Gentiles, have been diffused from Jerusa- 
 lem forth over the Gentile world (which march of diffusion so begun con- 
 tinues), as indeed in Antioch itself the first church of Gentile Christianity 
 was founded from Jerusalem (Acts xi. 20). — τοῖς πνευματικ) for the benefits 
 of Christianity (faith, justification, peace, love, hope, etc.) proceed from the 
 Holy Spirit, are ra τοῦ πνεύματος δῶρα : comp. on Eph. 1. 3. — τοῖς σαρκικοῖς] 
 for the earthly possessions concern the material and physical phenomenal na- 
 ture of man, which is his bodily form of existence. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11. 
 — The conclusion is a majori, which they have received, ad minus, with which 
 they are under obligation to requite it. Comp. Chrysostom. By λειτουργῆ- 
 σαι, Paul places the almsgiving of love under the sacred point of view of a 
 sacrificial service (see on xili. 6, xv. 16), which is performed for the benefit 
 of the recipients. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 12; Phil. ii. 30, ii. 25. — That further, 
 as Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, and many, including Riickert and Olshau- 
 sen, assume, Paul intended ‘‘ courteously and gently” (Luther) to suggest 
 to the Romans that they should likewise bestow alms on those at Jerusalem, 
 is very improbable, inasmuch as no reason is perceivable why he should not 
 have ventured on a direct summons, and seeing, moreover, that he looked 
 upon the work of collection as concluded, ver, 25. Without any particular 
 
 1‘ Ast egregia ἀναφορὰ simul cum ἐπανορϑώσει,"" Grotius. 
 
556 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 design in view (Th. Schott thinks that he desired to settle the true relation 
 between the Gentile Christians and the apostle to the Gentiles), he satisfies 
 merely his own evident and warm interest. 
 
 Ver. 28. Τοῦτο] This work of service for Jerusalem. —k. σφραγισ. K.T.A. | 
 and when I shall have sealed to them this fruit, i.e. shall have confirmed the 
 produce of the κοινωνία, ver. 26, to them, secured it as their property. 
 σφραγίζ. in the jigurative sense : to confirm, to ratify (see on John iii. 33) ; 
 for by delivery of the moneys they were, on the part of the apostle, con- 
 firmed to the recipients as the fruit collected for them, after the manner of 
 the law of possession, as with seal impressed. The expression chosen has a 
 certain solemnity ; the apostle is moved by the thought that with the close of 
 the work of love to which he refers he was to finish his long and great 
 Jabours in the East, and was to take in hand a new field in the far West. 
 In these circumstances, an unusual thoughtful expression for the concluding 
 act offers itself naturally. But that which Fritzsche finds in it (rendering 
 of an account and other formalities) neither lies in the simple figurative 
 word, nor was it doubtless intended by Paul, considering his apostolical dig- 
 nity. Others take σφραγισ. in the proper sense, either thus: ‘‘when I have 
 brought over the money to them, sealed” (Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, 
 Estius), which, however, the words do not express at all, and how paltrily 
 unapostolic the thought would be! or, referring αὐτοῖς to the Greek 
 Christians (so already Theodoret) : ‘‘ when I have made them secure with letter 
 and seal respecting the right delivery of their collection” (Gléckler, and so 
 already Michaelis), against which, apart from the unsuitableness of the 
 sense, it is decisive that αὐτοῖς brooks no other reference than αὐτῶν and 
 αὐτοῖς, ver. 27 (comp. τοῖς ἁγίοις,. ver. 25). This also against Reithmayr, 
 who brings out even a depositing for the almsgivers in God's treasury ! 
 
 Ver. 29. Paul is convinced that his advent to the Romans will not be 
 without rich blessing from Christ ; he will bring with him a fulness (copia, 
 see on Eph. iii. 19) of Christ’s blessing. On the matter itself, comp. i. 11. 
 ἐν is to be explained : furnished with. See Bernhardy, p. 209, and on 1 
 Cor. iv. 21. Quite contrary to the words, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Calvin, 
 and others: ‘‘ Scio me . vos inventurum repletos omnibus donis spir- 
 itualibus,” Estius. — ἐρχόμενος with the same verb ἐλεύσομαι ; see Kiihner, 
 II. 2, p. 656, and ad Xen. Mem. iv. 2.21. Comp. on 1 Cor, ii. 1; Phil. 11. 2. 
 
 Vv. 80, 81. Even now (comp. Acts xx. 22, 23, xxi. 10 ff.) Paul antici- 
 pates that persecutions await him in Judaea on the part of the unbelieving 
 
 
 
 1 The act of handing over itself, namely, 
 was the σφραγίς of the collection for the 
 recipients. Before the delivery the moneys 
 were indeed destined for them, but not yet 
 de facto assured to them as property on the 
 part of the apostle, the bearer. Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia well explains the σφραγισάμ. 
 by ἀποκομίσας καὶ δεδωκώς, and adds, by way 
 of assigning the reason: εἰ yap καὶ τῇ γνώμῃ 
 τῶν δεδωκότων τέλειος ἣν ὃ καρπός, ἀλλὰ TH 
 χρείᾳ ἀτελὴς, οὔπω δεξαμένων ὧνπερ οὖν ἕνεκεν 
 ἐδόϑη. Without any ground in the text, 
 
 Hofmann introduces bearers appointed on 
 the part of the church, whom the apostle 
 himself conducts to Jerusalem, thereby 
 designating the gift to the recipients as one 
 destined for them with his knowledge and will, 
 Hofmann’s objection, that the interpreta- 
 tion given above rather suggests that it 
 should be termed an wnsealing than a seal- 
 ing, is a cavil running counter to the figu- 
 rative usage elsewhere of o¢payigew and 
 σφραγίς, and which might just as aptly be 
 applied to Hofmann’s own explanation. 
 
CHAP! XV.; ΘΝ °33. 557 
 
 (ἀπειθούντων, inobedientium, who refuse the ὑπακοὴ πίστεως ; comp. xi. 30, 31 ; 
 John iii. 36 ; Acts xiv. 2) ; but even on the part of the Palestinian Christians 
 (τ. ἁγίοις), he is not sure of a good reception for his διακονία, because he, the 
 anti-Judaic apostle (comp. x. 21 ; Acts xxi. 21),had set on foot and conduct- 
 ed a Gentile-Christian collection. Hence the addition of the exhortation 
 (παρακαλῶ) to the readers, subjoined by the continuative δέ, and how urgent 
 and fervent! — διά] belonging to παρακ. : by means of amoving reference to 
 Christ, as xii. 1, 2 Cor. x. 1.— The ἀγάπη τοῦ πνεῦμ. is the love wrought by the 
 Holy Spirit (Gal. v. 22) ; ἐξ Paul calls in specially by way of inciting his 
 readers to compliance. — συνάγων. μοι ἐν ταῖς rpocevy.| to contend along with 
 me in the prayers which you make, hence : in your prayers. A very correct 
 gloss is ὑμῶν (after tpocevy.) in codd. and vss.; not one disfiguring the sense, 
 as Reiche thinks, who explains : in my prayer. So also Ewald. Paul 
 might certainly, according to the sympathy of the fellowship of love, claim 
 the joint striving of the readers in /is prayers ; but ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, which would 
 otherwise be superfluous, points most naturally to the conclusion that the 
 προσευχαί are those of the readers ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 11; Col. iv. 19. The 
 ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν is closely, and without the article, attached to ταῖς 
 προσευχαῖς (similarly to προσεύχεσθαι ὑπέρ, Col. i. 9, et al.): in the prayers 
 which you address to God for me (for my welfare). Fervent prayer is a striv- 
 ing of the inner man against the hostile or dangerous powers, which it is 
 sought to avert or overcome, and for the aims, which it is sought to attain. 
 Comp. on Col. l.c. —iva ῥυσθῶ ἀπὸ x.7.4.| Aim of the joint striving : in order 
 that I may be delivered from, etc. See on Matt. vi. 18. It did not pass into 
 fulfilment ; even now the counsel of his Lord, Acts ix. 16, was to be accom- 
 plished. — 7} diak. μου ἡ εἰς ‘Tepove.| my rendering of service destined for Jerusa- 
 lem. See vv. 25, 26. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1. 
 
 Vv. 382, 33. "Iva] Aim of ver. 31, and so jinal aim of συναγωνίσασθαι κ.τ.λ., 
 ver. 30. Comp. Gal. iv. 5. —év χαρᾷ] in joyfulness.’ But as a prisoner he 
 came to Rome, whither the will of God (διὰ θελήμ. Θεοῦ) led him, neverthe- 
 less, otherwise than it had been his desire (comp. i. 10). — συναναπαύσωμαι] 
 refresh myself with you, namely, through the mutual communication of faith, 
 of inward experiences, of love, of hope, ete. Comp. συμπαρακληθῆναι, i. 12. 
 —In the closing wish, ver. 33, the designation of God as ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, 
 the God who brings about peace, was the more naturally suggested, as 
 the forebodings of the opposite of εἰρήνη which he was going to encounter 
 had just been before the apostle’s mind. Hence we have neither to assume a 
 reference to the differences in xiv. 1 ff. (Grotius and others), nor to take 
 εἰρήνη of the peace of reconciliation, v. 1 (Philippi), or in the wide sense of 
 salus (Fritzsche). Comp. rather 1 Cor. xiv. 33 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 
 9 ; Rom. xvi. 20: 1 Thess. v. 28. 
 
 
 
 110 would even with the reading ἐλϑών follows, belong to this word, beside which 
 (see the critical notes), which Hofmann it stands, not to cvvavam (Hofmann.) 
 
558 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. ᾿ 
 
 ΝΟΤΕΒ ΒΥ AMERICAN Eprtor. 
 CL. Ver. 6. τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἶ. Xp. 
 
 That this phrase may mean the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot 
 be questioned. Meyer urges against this interpretation the cases in which 6 
 Θεὺς καὶ πατῆρ Occurs with no genitive following. These cases may be regarded 
 as having weight, although it may, perhaps, be claimed that a genitive is sug- 
 gested to the mind in every such instance. Wieseler urges that in cases where 
 καί is omitted (as Rom. 1. 7, 1 Cor. 1. 3) πατῇρ is evidently appositional and ex- 
 planatory, showing how God is related to the defining genitive ; and Ellicott 
 presses the fact that, inasmuch as God is an absolute word and Father a relative 
 one, it is more natural to connect the genitive with the one only which needs it. 
 These considerations, when taken together, favor very strongly the view which 
 makes τοῦ κυρίου "I. X. depend on πατέρα, and not also on Θεόν. 
 
 CLI. Vv. 8, 9. λέγω yap... γεγενῆσθαι x.7.A. 
 
 If γεγενῆσθαι is the correct textual reading, as it probably is, the construction 
 of δοξάσαι as parallel with βεβαιῶσαι and dependent on εἰς τό, which is favoured 
 by Meyer, seems to be the one most accordant with the language. The more 
 common view, however, regards do£., like yeyev., as dependent on λέγω. Weiss 
 (who, however, reads γενέσθαι) calls Meyer’s construction artificial. On the 
 contrary, the parallelism in form of the two verbs, doé. and βεβ., as distin- 
 guished from yeyev., and the fact that Paul’s representation elsewhere is that 
 Christ came in the line of the Jews to benefit also the Gentiles, comp. Gal. 
 iii. 13, 14 (see also xi, 12 ff.), make this the simplest and most natural con- 
 struction of the passage. The verse is introduced (γάρ) as a ground of the pre- 
 ceding statement. It thus explains who are meant by ἡμᾶς of ver. 7, and con- 
 sequently indicates that, in the use of ἀλλήλους of that verse, Paul had in mind 
 the division between Jews and Gentiles in the church as, approximatively at 
 least, answering to that between the weak and strong parties. 
 
 Whether there is an intentional contrast between ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας and ὑπὲρ 
 ἐλέους is uncertain, but not improbably this is the case. It was on behalf of 
 God’s truth, and in fulfilment of the promises, that Christ appeared among and 
 for the Jews. Though the declarations of the O. T. foreshadowed blessings 
 also for the Gentiles, the relation of the spiritual plan to them was, in a 
 certain peculiar sense and degree, a matter more completely of mercy. 
 
 CLII. Vv. 14-33. 
 
 In this passage, as Meyer remarks, we find the conclusion or epilogue of the 
 epistle ; the Pauline letters generally having both an introductory and a conclud- 
 ing section, each consisting of a few verses and being of a more or less general 
 character. In this case, the conclusion is partly apologetic, and partly expres- 
 sive of his desire and purpose with respect to visiting Rome. In both parts, 
 but especially in the latter, there is a correspondence with the introductory 
 passage, i. 8-15. In that passage he first expresses his thanks to God in view 
 of their Christian position and advance in faith ; here, again, his apology is 
 occasioned by his conviction that they have made such progress in knowledge 
 and goodness as to be able to dispense with his admonitions. The apology 
 
NOTES. 559 
 
 which he presents, however, justifies his boldness in writing, in parts of the 
 epistle, by the special commission which he hasfrom God. This commission he 
 sets forth with greater minuteness than we find in almost any other place, and 
 thus, as mentioned in a former note, we get the idea which he had of χάρις as 
 employed in such cases, His χάρισμα, as stated, also, in that note, was to be a 
 minister of Christ to the Gentiles in regions where Christ had not been named. 
 The second thought of the introduction—his long-cherished wish to see the 
 Roman Christians which he had been prevented from accomplishing thus far, 
 but hoped that he might now at last realize—is only presented more definitely 
 in these verses, both as to the past and the future. 
 
 CLIIT. Ver. 17 ff. ἔχω οὖν τὴν καύχησιν κ.τ.λ. 
 
 These verses, so far as the main thought is concerned, serve only to define 
 more precisely the Apostle’s mission and work, as giving him the right to ad- 
 dress the church as he does. In their grammatical connection they are founded, 
 as an inference or conclusion, on the statement of ver. 16. The position of 
 éyw indicates (as Meyer says) a special emphasis, which is connected with the 
 manner in which, in the progress of the sentences, the thought is brought out. 
 Paul claims that he has, as something which properly appertains to him, the 
 glorying to which he gives expression,—but it isa glorying in Christ Jesus, 
 and not in anything which Christ has not wrought by his means. The con- 
 struction of the following sentences is peculiar and somewhat involved. yap 
 of ver. 18 confirms the declaration that his boasting is in (not outside of) 
 Christ Jesus. The confirmatory words are put in the negative form, but they 
 suggest also the corresponding positive. With that suggested positive, the 
 connection of ὦστε κιτ.. becomes free of difficulty. Christ has accomplished 
 through me results, to the end of bringing about obedience to faith among the 
 Gentiles, by means of my teaching and working accompanied by miracles and 
 the power of the Divine Spirit ; and this, moreover, so far that I have com- 
 pleted the work of preaching the gospel from Jerusalem and the region around 
 it to Hlyricum, always making it my special aim not to preach where there had 
 been preachers before me, and thus not to build upon foundations laid by 
 another. 
 
 In regard to the individual words and phrases of this passage the following 
 points may be noticed. (1) καύχησις denotes not the ground of glorying (καύχημα), 
 but the glorying itself. This the Apostle declares to belong to him rightfully. 
 (2) ob yap τολμήσω. If he had ventured beyond these things, the boasting in 
 Christ would not have been thus rightfully his. (9) λόγω and épyw are so far 
 correlative with ἐν duv. tv. dy., ἐν δυν. σημ. Kk. τεράτ., that the latter words ac- 
 company in each case the former, (4) κύκλῳ is to be connected with Ἵερουσ. (so 
 Meyer and many others), and not with Ἰλλυρ. It refers to the circuit, whether 
 smaller or larger, around Jerusalem, where Paul’s first labours in the gospel were 
 put forth, not to a circuit which he made in his work of preaching from 
 Jerusalem to Illyria. (5) πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. It seems unnecessary to 
 adopt Meyer’s explanation of these words, as if, so long as the gospel has not 
 reached every place, it has not attained the full measure of its dimensions, but 
 is only in a state of growth and increase. It would appear to be according to 
 the natural usage of any language to make the gospel, in such a sentence, 
 
 “ΤΣ, 
 
 equivalent to the preaching of the gospel ; and the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι of ver. 20 
 
560 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 favours such a sense in this case. (6) φιλοτιμούμενον is regarded by Meyer as 
 having here its strict and full meaning, making it a point of honour, and this is, in 
 all probability, the correct view. (7) οὐκ ὅπου. The corresponding affirmative 
 ἀλλὰ ὅπου K.7.2. is found in ver, 21, not in form, but substantially —the construc- 
 tion being changed to introduce a citation from the O. T. (comp. 1 Cor, i. 31 
 and other passages). 
 
 CLIV. Ver. 22. διὸ καὶ ἐνεκοπτόμην K.T.A. 
 
 The reason of the ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο of i. 13 is here given, or rather the 
 main reason, for Meyer has probably the right explanation of τὰ πολλά, in most 
 cases, plerumque, for the most part. 'There were other hindrances, but the chief 
 one, and the one ordinarily standing in his way, was the labour which he had 
 to perform before reaching the limits next eastward of Italy. Now, however, 
 this hindrance was removed, because the work was done. 
 
 The view which Paul had as to the completion of the work of preaching the 
 gospel from Jerusalem to the western boundary of Illyria, and the outlook 
 towards the regions beyond which seemed to bring the remainder of that 
 preaching (which was to be, in the largest sense, the πληροῦν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), so 
 near, suggest two things respecting the state of his thought. (1) He must, ap- 
 parently, have regarded the gospel as ‘‘made known’’ in a large region of 
 country, when churches had been founded in a few of the more prominent 
 places within its limits. There were many parts of the different provinces 
 which he had visited, as he well knew, where no sound of the Divine message 
 had been heard. (2) When we consider the light as compared with the dark- 
 ness, at the time of his writing these words, and think how great was the 
 latter and how small the former, it would seem as if he must have expected 
 some great Divine manifestation, or the Parousia itself, at an early date,—as if 
 only such an expectation as this could have enabled him to write with such a 
 feeling, that the work had been accomplished in the east, and would so soon be 
 accomplished even in the farthest west. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 801 
 
 CHAPTER XVI 
 
 Ver. 3, Πρίσκαν] Elz. : Πρίσκιλλαν, against decisive evidence. After Acts 
 xviii. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 19 (Elz), — Ver. 5. ᾿Ασίας] Elz. has ᾿Αχαΐας, against almost 
 equally decisive evidence ; but it is defended by Ammon and de Wette on the 
 testimony of the Peshito, and because 1 Cor, xvi. 15 might certainly give occa- 
 sion for changing ’Ay. into’Ac. But the reading ’Ay. might readily also have 
 come into the text through the mere marginal writing of the parallel passage 
 1 Cor. 1.6., especially if it was considered that Paul wrote his letter in Achaia ; 
 hence the greatly preponderant external attestation in favor of ’Ac. retains its 
 validity. — Ver. 6. ὑμᾶς] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 8, according to A Ὁ C* 8* min. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. But Elz., Scholz, 
 Tisch. 7, Fritzsche have ἡμᾶς. Since Paul in the context sends greeting to 
 persons who stood in a peculiar relation lo himself, and thereby the alteration 
 of ὑμᾶς into ἡμᾶς was very easily suggested, the more does the external evidence 
 turn the scale in favour of ὑμᾶς, especially as the reading ἐν ὑμῖν in D EF G, 
 Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambrosiast. attests the original εἰς ὑμᾶς (of which it is an inter- 
 pretation). — Ver. 7. οὗ. . . yéyov] DE FG: τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ. Gloss, following 
 on a mistaken reference of the relative to ἀποστόλοις. --- Ver, 14. The order of 
 the names : Ἑρμῆν, ΠΠατρόβαν, ‘Epudv (so Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche) is 
 rendered certain by A B C D* F GPS, min. vss. Ruf. —Ver. 16. πᾶσαι] is 
 wanting in Elz., but is justly adopted by Griesb., following Mill, and by later 
 editors on decisive evidence, and because it might easily give offence. —- Ver, 
 18. καὶ εὐλογίας] is wanting in DE FG, min. It. Omitted through the homoeo- 
 teleuton. — Ver. 19. ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν] The ordinary reading of τό before ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν has the 
 greatest preponderance of evidence against it. Lachm. and Tisch. : ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν 
 οὖν χαίρω as A BC L PS*, min. Dam. Ruf. read. Rightly : the sequence of the 
 words in the Recepta (ya/pw οὗν first) is the ordinary one. — After ver. 20, ἀμήν 
 in Elz. is condemned by decisive. testimony. — Ver. 21. ἀσπάζονται] Decisive 
 witnesses have ἀσπάζεται. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., 
 and Fritzsche. The plural came to be introduced on account of the plurality 
 of persons. — Ver. 24 is wanting entirely in A BC 8, 5, 137; Copt. Aeth. Vulg. 
 ms.- Harl.* Ruf. ; it is found after ver. 27 in P, 17, 80, Syr. Arm. Aeth, Erp. 
 Ambrosiast. Omitted by Lachm, and Tisch. 8; rejected also by Koppe and 
 Reiche, who think that it is an interpolated repetition of the benediction, ver, 
 20, which, after the transference of vv. 25-27 to the end of chap. xiv., was 
 added in order not to leave the epistle without a conclusion. But the witnesses 
 for omission are precisely those which have the doxology vy, 25-27 in the ordi- 
 nary place, either merely in this place (as B C δὲ, 137), or likewise also after chap. 
 xiv. (as A P, 5); and the witnesses for the transposition of the verse to the end 
 are likewise not those, which have the doxology merely after chap. xiv. or not 
 at all. Hence we may with safety conclude that ver. 24 was omitted or trans- 
 posed for the reason that copyists stumbled partly at the fact that Paul, contrary 
 to his manner elsewhere, should have joined a blessing and a doxology together, 
 
562 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 and partly at least at the circumstance that he should have placed the latter 
 after the former (all other epistles conclude with the blessing). 
 
 On the doxology, vv. 25-27. This is found (1) at the end of chap. xvi., in ΒΟ 
 D* E δὲ, 16, 66,1 80, 137, 176, codd. in Ruf. codd, in Erasm. Syr. Erp, Copt. 
 Aeth. Vulg. ms. and ed. Clar. Germ. Ruf. Ambrosiast. Pel. and the other 
 Latin Fathers. (2) It is found at the end of chap. xiv. in Τὶ and almost all min. ;" 
 further, in the Greek lectionaries, the Arab. vss., in polyglots, Syr. P. Goth. (?) 
 Slav. ms. and ed. codd. in Ruf. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oecum. 
 Theodu]. (9) It is found at both places in A P, 5, 17, 109, lat. Finally (4), it 
 is not found at all in D***? F G (where, however, after chap. xiv. a gap of six 
 lines is left), codd. in Erasm. codd. in Jerome,? Marcion. See the complete 
 examination of the evidence in Reiche, comm. crit., and Tisch. 8, also Lucht, 
 p. 49 ff. — Among the critics and exegetes, (1) the ordinary position in chap. xvi. 
 has been maintained by the Complut. Erasm. Steph. Beza (ed. 3-5), Calvin, 
 Bengel, Koppe, Bohme, Rinck, Lachmann, Kéllner, Scholz, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
 Riickert, Reithmayr, Philippi, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, and 
 others. (2) The position after xiv. 23 has been approved by Grotius, Mill, 
 Wetstein, and Semler, following Beza (ed. 1 and 2) ; Griesbach and Matthiae re- 
 moved it to that place in their critical texts ; and Morus, Paulus, Eichhorn, 
 Klee, Schrader, Hofmann, Laurent, and others agree thereto. (3) The verses 
 were rejected as spurious by Schmidt, Hinl. in’s N. 7. p. 227, Reiche, Krehl, 
 Lucht.—Now the questionis:; Is the dowology genuine? and if it is, has it its 
 original position at the close of chap. xiv. or of chap. κυνὶ. Ὁ Weanswer: I. The dox- 
 ology is genuine. For (a) the witnesses for entire omission are, as against the 
 preponderance of those who have it in one of the two passages or in both, 
 much too weak, especially as the transposition and double insertion are very 
 capable of explanation (see below). (b) The language and the entire character 
 of it are highly Pauline,—a fact which even opponents must admit, who ac- 
 cordingly assume its compilation out of Pauline phrases.4 (0) The contents of 
 it admirably suit the entire contents of the epistle. (d) The internal reasons 
 adduced against it by its assailants are completely untenable. It is maintained 
 (see especially Reiche, and comp. Lucht) : (α) That at each place, where the 
 doxology appears, it is unsuitable. But it appears as disturbing the connec- 
 tion only after xiy. 23, and it is not at all unsuitable after chap. xvi., where 
 it rather, after the closing wishes more than once repeated, forms with 
 great appropriateness and emphasis the main conclusion which now actually 
 ensues. (3) That it has not the simplicity of the Pauline doxologies, is pom- 
 pous, overloaded, etc. It is certainly more bulky and laboured than others ; 
 but no other Pauline doxology stands at the end of an entire epistle where the 
 
 1A transcript of the first Erasmian edi- 
 tion, which, however, has on the margin the 
 observation, that ἐν τοῖς παλαίοις ἀντιγράφοις 
 this doxology stands at the end of chap. 
 
 xiv. 
 2In D, namely, the doxology from the 
 Jirst hand stands after chap. xvi., but the 
 emendator indicates it as to be deleted, 
 without assigning it to the end of chap. xiy. 
 3 Jerome on Eph. iii. 5: “Qui yolunt 
 prophetas non intellexisse, quod dixerint 
 . illud quoque, quod ad Rom. in plerisque 
 
 codd. invenitur, ad confirmationem sui dog- 
 matis trahunt legentes: ei autem, qui 
 potest vos roborare, etc.” But that already 
 before Marcion the doxology was wanting in 
 codd., there is no certain trace. 
 
 4Un-Pauline constituent elements and 
 modes of representation, which Lucht be- 
 lieves are to be found generally in the two 
 last chapters, have no existence in reality ; 
 the grounds of offence are disposed of by 
 the exposition. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 563 
 
 great power of thought in the writing concentrated itself in feeline—no other 
 at the end of a section, the purport and importance of which can be compared 
 with that of the entire Epistle to the Romans. Hence it can by no means 
 appear strange that such a doxology has obtained the character of overflowing 
 fulness from the whole recollection of what had been written,—a collective 
 recollection which, so far from being fitted to beget in a rich and lively dispo- 
 sition only an ordinary and plain thanksgiving to God, is fitted rather to pro- 
 duce an outpouring of fervor and fulness of thought, under the influence of 
 which the interest of easy expression and of simple presentation falls into the 
 background. (y) That the whole conception is uncertain, many expressions 
 and combinations are obscure, unusual, even quite unintelligible ; and (0) that 
 the conjunction of ebayy. μου καὶ τ. κήρυγμα "I, X. is un-Pauline and unsuitable ; 
 as is in like manner φανερωθέντος, which verb is never used by Paul of the utter- 
 ances of the prophets,—groundless occasions of offence, which are made to disap- 
 pear by a correct explanation. On such internal grounds Reiche builds the 
 hypothesis, that in the public reading the merely epistolary last two chapters were omit- 
 ted ; that the public reading thus ended at xiv. 23 ; and the doxology spoken at the end 
 of that reading was written first on the margin, afterwards also in the teat, consequently 
 after xiv. 23, whence copyists, on recognizing its unsuitable position, removed it to the 
 end of the epistle. It is thus the work of an anagnostes, who compiled it clumsily 
 from Pauline formulas, and that in imitation of the conclusion of the Epistle of Jude. 
 In opposition to this whole view, it is particularly to be borne in mind: (1) 
 that the assumption that only the doctrinal part of the epistle was publicly 
 read is a pure fancy, and is as much at variance with the high reverence for 
 what was apostolic, as with the circumstance that, according to the lection- 
 aries, these very chapters xv. and xvi. consist wholly of sections for reading ; 
 (2) that at least xv. 1-13 would have been included in the reading, and the 
 doxology must thus have obtained its place after xv. 13 ; (3) that the presumed 
 custom of uttering a doxology when the reading of an apostolic writing was 
 finished, does not at all admit of proof ; (4) that a Pauline doxology would have 
 been chosen for imitation more naturally than that of Jude 24, 25, as indeed, 
 conversely, Jude 1.6. would more naturally presuppose an acquaintance with 
 our passage ; (5) that τὸ edayy. μου was not at all suitable to the person of an 
 anagnostes ; and indeed an imitative reader was hardly in the position and 
 mood to pour forth an expression of praise in so overflowing a gush, and 
 thereby in anacoluthic construction. But when Lucht refuses a Pauline char- 
 acter to the doxology, in respect not merely of form and diction, but also of 
 the thought which it contains, and recognizes in it a gnosticizing and concil- 
 iatory stamp, this judgment rests on misinterpretations in detail and on pre- 
 suppositions, which lie altogether outside the range of the N. T., along with a 
 recourse to the rejection of the genuineness not merely of the Pastoral epistles, 
 but also of the so-called epistles of the captivity.—II. The position of the dowolo- 
 gy after xvi, 24 is the original one. For (a) the external witnesses for this view 
 are preponderant, not indeed in number, but in value. See above, and com- 
 pare Gabler, Praef. ad Griesb., Opusc. Ὁ. 24. (b) Its position at the end of 
 chap xvi. was quite fitted to excite offence and to occasion a transposition, 
 partly because no other epistle of the apostle concludes with a doxology ; partly 
 
 ΤῊ the Comment. crit. p. 116, Reiche is of opinion that it may have been added “ἃ 
 homine privato, qui ingenio suo indulgeret.”’ 
 
564 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 because here even the usual formal conclusion of an epistle (the apostolical 
 blessing) immediately precedes ; partly because ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι seemed specially to 
 refer back to the section respecting the weak in faith. The latter point was 
 decisive at the same time as to the place to which—the connection between 
 chap. xiv, and xy. as a unity being far from sufficiently appreciated—the dox- 
 ology was referred, namely after xiv. 23, where there is the last direct men- 
 tion of the weak, while xy. 1 then turns directly to the strong. Several other 
 defenders of the ordinary position (see especially Koppe, Hue. II. p. 404 ; Gab- 
 ler, l.c. p. 26; Bertholdt, Hinleit. VI. ὃ 715; Hug, Hinl. 11. p. 397, with whom 
 Reithmayr agrees) thought, indeed, that the omission of at least chap. xvi. in the 
 reading of the letter had occasioned the beautiful and weighty doxology, which 
 it was desired should not be excluded from the reading, to be placed after chap. 
 xiv.—not after chap. xv., either (Bertholdt, Hug) because chap. xv. has already 
 a conclusion, or because the supposed reference of στηρίξαι to the weak in faith 
 pointed out that place. But the whole supposition that an integral portion of 
 the epistle was omitted in reading is entirely incapable of being established. 
 Not more plausible is the theory to which Rinck has recourse (comp. already 
 Zeger and Bohme): ‘‘ In codd. ex recensione Marcionis perscriptis librarios, ipso 
 forlasse Marcione auctore, clausulam ex fine epistolae assuisse, et postguam quod dee- 
 rat a correctoribus suppletum esset, alios hane clausulam iterasse, alios hine, alios 
 iline, alios utrimque ejecisse” (Lucubr. crit. p. 135). Marcion himself and his 
 disciples rejected (Origen, interpr. Ruf.), indeed, the doxology on account of its 
 contents (see especially ver. 26, διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν) ; but the orthodox 
 certainly did not concern themselves with Marcionitic copies ; indeed, Ori- 
 gen says expressly, that in the copies ‘‘quae non sunt a Marcione temerata,” 
 the doxology is found differently placed either after chap. xiv. or after 
 chap. xvi. Ewald, regarding vy. 3-20 as the fragment of an epistle to the 
 Ephesians, believes that a reader somewhere about the beginning of the 
 second century observed the heterogeneous character of that portion, but then 
 excised too much, namely chap. xy. and xvi. Such acopy, in his view, Marcion 
 had ; but now that chap. xiv. was without a proper conclusion, at least the 
 doxology xvi, 25-27 came to be appended thereto by other copyists. But apart 
 from the above opinion respecting vy. 3-20 in itself (see, in opposition to it, 
 the critical notes on chap. xv.), it would not be at all easy to see why they 
 should not have removed merely vv. 3-20 from the copies, and why, instead of 
 this, chap. xvi. should have been entirely excised, and even chap. xv. in addi- 
 tion. To explain this, the smaller importance of this chapter—which, more- 
 over, is assumed without historical warrant—does not suffice.—Further, if the 
 genuineness of the doxology itself, as well as its customary position, isto be 
 esteemed assured, it follows at the same time from what we have said (1) in re- 
 spect of the duplication of the doxology after chap. xiv. and xvi. in critical au- 
 thorities, that it proceeds from those who, while aware of the difference as to 
 the place of the words, were not able or did not venture to decide respecting 
 the original position, and hence, taking the certain for the uncertain, inserted 
 the words in both places ; (2) in respect of the entire omission in authorities, that 
 it is the work of an old precarious criticism, which drew from the uncertain 
 position the conclusion of non-genuineness, along with which there operated 
 the consideration that the doxology was unsuitable after xiv. 23 as interrupt- 
 ing the connection, and after xvi. 24 as having its place even after the con- 
 cluding wish. 
 
CHAP. XVI., 1-4. 565 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Recommendation (συνίστημι, comp. 2 Cor. ν. 12, et al. }" of Phoebe, 
 who is held to be the bearer of the epistle,—a supposition which there is 
 nothing to contradict. In the twofold predicate, ἀδελῴ. ἡμῶν (our, 1.6. my 
 and your Christian sister) and οὖσαν διάκ. x.7.4., there lies a twofold motive, 
 a more general and a more special one, for attending to the commendation. 
 — διάκονον] feminine, as Dem. 762. 4 : διάκονον, ἡ τις ἐχρῆτο. The designa- 
 tion by the word διακόνισσα, not used in classical Greek, is found only sub- 
 sequently, as frequently in the Constitutt. apost. See, on these ministrae, as 
 they are called in Pliny, Hp. x. 97, the female attendants on the poor, sick, 
 and strangers of the church, Bingham, Orig. I. pp. 341-866 ; Schoene, 
 Geschichtsforsch. iib. εἰ. kirchl. Gebr. WI. p. 102 ff. ; Herzog, in his Eneykl. 
 Ill. p. 368 ἢ. Very groundlessly Lucht, because this service in the church 
 was of later date (but comp. xii. 7; Phil. i. 1), pronounces the words 
 
 
 
 οὖσαν. . . Keyyp. not to belong to Paul, and ascribes them to the supposed 
 editor. Respecting the χῆραι, 1 Tim. v. 9, see Huther in loc. — Keyypeai 
 
 eastern port of Corinth, on the Saronic Gulf. See Wetstein. Comp. on 
 Acts xvill. 18. —iva αὐτὴν, x.7.2.| Aim of the commendation. —év κυρίῳ] 
 characterizes the προσδέχεσθαι as Christian ; it is tobe no common service 
 of hospitality, but to take place in Christ, i.e. so that it is fulfilled in the 
 fellowship of Christ, in virtue of which one lives and moves in Christ. 
 Comp. Phil. ii. 29. — ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων] either : as it is becoming for saints (Chris- 
 tians) to receive fellow-Christians (so ordinarily), or: ‘‘ sieut sanctos excipi 
 oportet,” Grotius, Chrysostom. The former (so also Fritzsche and Philippi) 
 is the correct explanation, because most naturally suggesting itself, as modal 
 definition of the action of receiving. — καὶ yap αὐτῇ] nam et ipsa, for she also on 
 her part (not αὕτη haec). — προστάτις] adirectrix, protectress.2 She became (i.e. 
 se praestitit Kithner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4) a patrona multorum through the 
 exercise of her calling. Paul might, indeed, have written παραστάτις, cor- 
 responding to παραστῆτε ;* but he selects the word which is conformable to 
 her official position, and more honourable. — καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐμοῦ} and of myself, 
 my own person (see on vii. 25). Historical proof of this cannot be given. 
 Perhaps Paul had once been ill during a sojourn with the church of Cen- 
 chreae. 
 
 Vy. 3-16. The apostle’s salutations. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. Πρίσκα (2 Tim. iv. 19) is not different from Πρίσκιλλα ; comp. 
 on Acts xviii. 2.— Her husband* Aquila was a native of Pontus (Acts 
 xviii. 1), and Reiche incorrectly conjectures that he was called Pontius 
 Aquila, which name Luke erroneously referred to his native country ;° for, 
 
 1See Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 488; 
 Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 63, p. 154. 
 
 ponderant Christian activity and estimation 
 were on her side. Hence here, where both 
 
 2 Lucian, bis accus. 29; Dio Cass. xlii. 39 ; 
 Dindorf, Soph. O. C. 459, and Praef. ad 
 Soph. p. LX1.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 271. 
 
 3 Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 82; Soph. Trach. 891, 
 Oed. C. 559; comp. ἐν νόσοις παραστάτις, 
 Musonius, in Sfob. jl. p. 416, 43. 
 
 4That Paul names the wife first, isnot to 
 be regarded as accidental. Probably the pre- 
 
 are saluted (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 19), the prece- 
 dence of the wife,—a distinction for which 
 in 1 Cor. xvi. 19, where both salute, no ocea- 
 sion was given. On the precedence given 
 to the wife in Acts xviii. 18, see in loc. 
 
 5 Aquila also, the translator of the Bible, 
 was, as is well known, from Pontus (Sinope). 
 
566 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 looking to the close connection in which Aquila stood with Paul, and Paul 
 again with Luke, a correct acquaintance with the matter must be presumed 
 in the latter. This married couple, expelled from Rome as Jews under 
 Claudius, had been converted at Corinth by Paul (see on Acts xviii. 1), had 
 then migrated to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 26 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), are now again 
 in Rome, but, according to 2 Tim. iv. 19, were at a later period once more 
 in Ephesus. —év Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) Distinctive character of συνεργούς ; for la- 
 bour for the gospel lives and moves in Christ as its very element. Comp. 
 vv. 9, 12. —Ver. 4. The marks of parenthesis are to be. omitted, because 
 the construction is not interrupted. — οἵτενες «.7.A.] Note the peculiar grounds 
 assigned (quippe qui) for this and several following greetings. — ὑπέρ] not 
 instead of, but Jor, in order to the saving of my life. — τὸν ἑαυτ. τράχηλ. ὑπέθ- 
 nav | have submitted their own neck, namely, under the executioner’s axe. In 
 the absence of historical information we can just as little decide with cer- 
 tainty on the question whether the expression is to be taken literally, that is, 
 of a moment when they were to be actually executed but in some way or 
 other were still saved, or (so the expositors) jiguratively, of the incurring 
 of an extreme danger to life—as on the question where the incident referred to 
 took place ? whether at Ephesus, Acts xix. ? or 2 Cor. i. 8? or at Corinth, 
 Acts xviii. 6 ff.? or elsewhere ? or, generally, in the midst of labour and 
 tribulation shared with Paul? Wetstein, Heumann, and Semler think of 
 bail (ixéOyxav' would then be : they gave pledge; see Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 
 468). Possibly ; but the nearest conception which offers itself as the words 
 stand is that of τραχηλοκοπεῖν (Plut. Mor. p. 398 Ὁ), whether it be thought 
 of as a reality or as a figure. The latter, however, is, as being said of both, 
 the most probable. The readers knew what was meant. —rév ἐθνῶν] On 
 account of this sacrifice for me, the apostle of the Gentiles. The notice con- 
 templates the inclusion of the Roman church, which in fact was also a Gen- 
 tile church. 
 
 Ver. 5. Καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ oix. abr. ἐκκλ.] and the church which is in their house. 
 Considering the size of Rome, it may be readily conceived that, besides the 
 full assembly of the collective church, particular sectional assemblies were 
 also formed, which were wont to meet in the houses of prominent members 
 of the church. Such a house was that of Aquila and Priscilla, who had also 
 in Ephesus given their dwelling for a similar object, 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; Col. iv. 
 15 ; Philem. 2. Such house-churches are related therefore to the collective 
 community, to which, as such, the epistles are directed, simply as the part, 
 which has in addition its own special greeting, to the whole. Others (fol- 
 lowing Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc., with Koppe, Flatt, Klee, 
 Glickler) hold that the inmates of the household are intended. An arbitrary 
 assumption of an unexampled hyperbole in the use of ἐκκλησία. That all 
 the following saluted persons, up to ver. 12, were members of the house- 
 church of Aquila and Prisca (Hofmann), is an arbitrary assumption, which is 
 rendered very improbable by the repeated ἀσπάσασθε, forming in each case a 
 fresh beginning. —’Ezaiverov'| Unknown like all the following down to ver. 
 
 1 On the accentuation of the name, as well gramm. Unters. p. 30. The name itself is 
 as that of "Epagros, ver. 22, see Lipsius, also frequently found in the Greek writers. 
 
CHAPS ἘΥΠ ὁ. ἡ: 567 
 15, but see the note on ῬῬοῦφον, ver. 13. The traditions of the Fathers made 
 most of them bishops and martyrs (see Justiniani, Comm., and Braun, Sel. 
 sacr. i, 2. 29 ff.), and the Synopsis of Dorotheus places most of them among 
 the seventy disciples. That Epaenetus had come to Rome with Aquila and 
 Prisca (Hofmann), is very precariously conjectured from his being mentioned 
 immediately after that couple. — ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Ασ. εἰς Χ.] jirst-fruits of Asia 
 (partitive genitive, see on viii. 23) in reference to Christ, i.e. that one of the 
 Asiatics, who had first been converted to Christ."—’Ac. is the western por- 
 tion of Asia Minor, as in Actsii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. 1.8. 
 
 Ver. 6. How far Mary had toiled much for the Romans (εἰς ὑμᾶς), was as well 
 known to the readers and to the apostle himself, who awards to her on that 
 account the salutation of acknowledgment and commendation, as it is un- 
 known to us. It may have happened abroad (as van Hengel and others 
 think) or in Rome itself through eminent loving activity, possibly in a 
 special emergency which was now past (hence not xom@, but the aorist). 
 Reiche refers éxor. to activity in teaching, for which, however, since the text 
 annexes no definition (asin 1 Tim. v. 17), and since-Mary is not more specially 
 known, there is no reason, and generally, as respects public teaching (1 Cor. 
 xiv. 34, 35), little probability. On eic, comp. Gal. iv. 11. 
 
 Ver. 7. Ἰουνίαν] is taken by Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, including 
 Reiche, as feminine (Junia, who is then to be regarded probably as the wife 
 or sister of Andronicus) ; but by most of the more recent expositors as a 
 masculine name, Junias, equivalent to Junianus (therefore to be accented 
 [See Note CLV. p. 581.] No decision can be arrived at, although 
 the following description, ver. 7 (in opposition to Fritzsche), commends the 
 the latter supposition. — συγγενεῖς} is explained by many (including Reiche, 
 de Wette, Hofmann) as member of the same race or people (according to ix. 
 3). But the explanation kinsmen isto be preferred, partly because the word 
 itself, without other definition in the context, immediately points to this 
 (Mark vi. 4 ; Acts x. 24, et al.); partly because it is only in this sense that 
 it has a significance of special commendation ; especially as in Rome there 
 were many Jewish-Christians, and hence one does not see how the epithet 
 was to be something characteristic in the particular case of those named, if 
 it signified only kindred in the sense of belonging to the same people. We 
 know too little of the apostle’s kindred (comp. also Acts xxiii. 16), to reject 
 this explanation on account of vv. 11, 21, or to venture to employ it in 
 throwing suspicion on the genuineness of the chapter (Baur). But Reiche’s 
 reason—that Andronicus and Junias are expressly designated as Jews, 
 because it would just be non-Jews who were saluted—is quite futile, since 
 the nationality of those previously saluted is unknown to us, and Aquila and 
 Prisca were likewise Jews.” Just as groundlessly, Hofmann thinks that in 
 
 *Tovviac). 
 
 1 With the reading ἀπαρχὴ τῆς "Axatas, it be affected. Not less forced would be the 
 
 Was necessary, in order not to fall into 
 variance with 1 Cor. xvi. 15, to take ἀπαρχή, 
 as a first-fruit, one of the first converted, — 
 certainly an explanatory makeshift, which 
 weakens greatly the significance of the 
 notice, and by which 1 Cor. l.c. would also 
 
 combination, by which we should regard 
 Epaenetus as an inmate of Stephanas’ 
 house, who had been converted at the same 
 time with him (Tholuck, yet only permis- 
 sively, following older interpreters). 
 
 2 Probably Mary also—the name already 
 
568 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 an epistle to the Gentile-Christian church the kinsmen of the apostle would 
 be Jews. This is purely arbitrary, and yields, besides, for the designation 
 of the persons intended an element, which, in the case of the actual relatives 
 of the Jewish-Christian apostle, is quite obvious of itself, and the mention 
 of which, moreover, in presence of the Gentile-Christians, would have been 
 somewhat indelicate.—Where and in what manner they had been imprisoned 
 with Paul,’ is, owing to the incompleteness of the information in the book 
 of Acts (comp. on 2 Cor. vi. 5), entirely unknown. Clement, 1 Cor. v., 
 states that Paul had seven times borne fetters. Ewald, in connection with 
 his view that we have here a fragment of an epistle to the Ephesians, as- 
 sumes that Andronicus and Junias, while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, lay 
 at the same time confined in Ephesus ; and Lucht perceives only the anach- 
 ronism of a forger. —érionuot ἐν τ. ἀποστ.] ἐπίσημος, like insignis, a vox media 
 (comp. Matt. xxvii. 16), here in the good sense: distinguished, i.e. most honour- 
 ably known by the apostles.? So Beza, Grotius, and others, including Koppe, 
 Flatt, Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, and 
 rightly ; for ἀπόστολος is-used by Paul only in 1 Cor. xv. 7 in the wider 
 sense (comp. Acts xiv. 4, 14), nevertheless even there with such restriction 
 that James and the twelve are included in the reference. Hence we must 
 not, especially considering our entire ignorance of the two persons, explain, 
 with Origen, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, and many others, 
 including Tholuck, ΚΠ που, Riickert, Reithmayr, Ewald, distinguished among 
 the apostles (in other words distinguished apostles). That Andronicus and 
 Junias were held in peculiar honour by the apostles, does not exclude their 
 repute with the Christians generally, but rather points, for their especial 
 commendation, to closer relations which they had with the apostles. Lucht 
 misinterprets the expression oi ἀπόστ. of the original apostles in contrast to 
 Paul. — πρὸ ἐμοῦ} That they had been converted exactly at Pentecost (Grotius, 
 Koppe), is just as little capable of proof, as that they had been the first 
 preachers of the gospel in Rome (Wolf). — γεγόνασιν ἐν X.] not : became 
 apostles in Christ (Reithmayr, following Origen), but: became Christians, 
 entered the fellowship of Christ, attained to the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι. They were 
 thus ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί (Acts xxi. 16). ‘‘Venerabiles facit aetas, in Christo 
 maxime,” Bengel. On γίνεσθαι ἕν, see Nigelsbach, 2. Ilias, p. 295, ed. 3 3 
 
 ~ 
 
 comp. on Phil. 11. 7. 
 
 points to this—was a Jewess; indeed, in the service of Christ, their commander-in- 
 
 Epaenetus himself appears to have been a 
 Jew (against Hofmann), since he is charac- 
 terized generally as the first-fruits of Asia, 
 not as ἀπαρχὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν of this country, 
 and according to history, the Christian 
 first-fruits of a country inhabited also by 
 Jews were, as a rule, Jews. Comp. Acts 
 XViil. 6, xxviii. 24 ff. 
 
 1 The expression itself places the relation 
 of their captivity under the figurative con- 
 ception of captivity in war (vii. 23; 2 Cor. 
 x. 5; Eph. iv. 8). Comp. Lucian, Asin. 27; 
 Photius, 121. p. 183, 8. As the Christians, 
 and peculiarly the teachers and overseers 
 
 chief, are συστρατιῶται amongst one another 
 (see on Phil. ii. 85, Philem. 2), so also are 
 they, in captivity with one another, ovvary- 
 μάλωτοι (see on Col. iv. 10, Philem. 23). An 
 arbitrary play of interpretation occurs in 
 Hofmann: those whom Christ has won from 
 the world and made His own, just as the 
 apostle himself. Aptly Chrysostom points 
 out the fellowship of suffering with Paul, 
 implied in συναιχμάλ, as the most glorious 
 crown of these men. 
 
 2 Comp. Eur. Hec. 379: ἐπίσημος ἐν βροτοῖς, 
 Iippol. 103; Polyb. x. 8. 8, xy. 84. 3; Lucian, 
 mere. cond. 28. 
 
Ἀ 
 
 CHAP. XVI., 8-13. 569 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. ᾿Αμπλιᾶν] the abbreviated ᾿Αμπλιάτον, as codd., vss., and Fathers 
 actually read, a name which (in form like Donatus, Fortunatus, etc., see 
 Grotius) was frequent ; see Gruter, Jnd. — ἐν κυρίῳ] gives to the ayaz. μ. the 
 specific Christian character ; comp. on ver. 2. —r. συνεργ. ἡμῶν] ἡμῶν refers, 
 since Paul speaks always of himself in the singular here, to the readers along 
 with himself, comp. ver. 1, not to those named in vv. 8-8(van Hengel). He 
 was probably a stranger who was at this time in Rome, and united his activity 
 with that of Roman Christians towards the extension and furtherance of the 
 gospel, whereby he was a fellow-labourer of the apostle and of the readers. 
 — The name Στάχυς : Inser. 268. 
 
 Ver. 10. Apelles (comp. Hor. Sat. I. v. 100) is not to be confounded with 
 the celebrated Apollos (Acts xviii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 12, iil. 4), as Origen, Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, and others have done. Whether he was a 
 freedman remains an open question, owing to the frequency of the name, 
 which also occurs of freedmen. — τὸν δόκιμον ἐν X.] 1.6. the tried Christian. 
 Christ, the personal object of his believing fidelity, is conceived as the ele- 
 ment wherein he is approved. Comp. φρόνιμος ἐν X., 1 Cor. iv. 10, and 
 similar passages. —rod¢ ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοθοίλου] those of the people (perhaps : 
 slaves) of Aristobulus, comp. 1 Cor. i. 11. That Paul means the Christians 
 among them, is self-evident ; in the similar salutation, ver. 11, he adds it 
 Aristobulus himself was therefore no Christian ; unless he (so 
 Grotius) had been already dead, in which case he might have been a Chris- 
 tian. 
 
 Vy. 11, 12. Narcissus is by Grotius, Michaelis, and Neander, held to be 
 the powerful freedman of Claudius (Suet. Claud. 28 ; Tacit. Ann. xi. 29 ff., 
 xii. 57). It is possible, although Narcissus, according to Tacitus, Ann. xii. 
 1, was already dead (see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 371 ff.). A decision, however, 
 cannot be arrived at ; but, considering the frequency of the name, the sus- 
 picion of anachronism (Lucht) is groundless.—The three women, ver. 12, 
 perhaps deaconesses, are otherwise unknown. Note how Persis is distin- 
 guished above the two previously named women ; as also how delicately 
 Paul has not added μον, after τὴν ἀγαπητῆν, as with the men’s names, vv. 8, 
 
 redundantly. 
 
 9, although he means Ais sentiment of love towards Persis. Observe, also, 
 the distinction between κοπιώσας (present) and ἐκοπίασεν. The particular cir- 
 cumstances of the case are unknown to us. 
 
 Ver. 13. Rufus may be the son of Simon of Cyrene, Mark xv. 21. Comp. 
 The fact that in Mark, who probably wrote in Rome, the man is as- 
 
 sumed to be well known, would agree with the eulogy here : τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν 
 
 in loe. 
 
 κυρίῳ, the elect one in the fellowship of the Lord, i.e. who is distinguished as a 
 Christian.! For if these words denoted merely the Christian,‘‘ who in fel- 
 lowship with the Lord is chosen to blessedness” (Reiche), they would not 
 
 1 On ἐκλεκτός, exquisitus, in the sense of 
 excellens (comp. 1 Tim. y. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 4; 2 
 John i. 13; Wisd. iii. 14; Bar. iii. 30), be- 
 cause it is just the selected that is wont to 
 be the eminently qualified, see Schleusner, 
 Thes. ΤΙ. p. 289. But IWofmann explains as 
 if it ran τὸν ἐκλεκτόν μου ; whois to me ὦ choice 
 
 Christian brother; he calls the ordinary in- 
 terpretation unapostolic (wherefore ?), and 
 groundlessly appeals to τὴν ἀγαπητήν, ver. 
 12. In the case of the latter the loving sub- 
 ject is, according to a very common usage, 
 self-evident. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 —as is, nevertheless, the case with all the remaining predicates—express a 
 special element of commendation. —xai ἐμοῦ] pregnant, delicate, and grate- 
 ful hint of the peculiar love and care which Paul (where and how, is entirely 
 unknown’) had enjoyed at her hands. Comp. ver. 2 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Phi- 
 lem. 11 ; and see on 1 Cor. i. 2. 
 
 Vy. 14, 15. Hermas was not, as already Origen declared him to be, the 
 composer of the book ὁ ποιμήν," which, according to the Canon Muratorianus, 
 is said to have been composed by a brother of the Roman bishop Pius I., 
 and in any case belongs to no earlier period than the second century. —k. τ. 
 σὺν αὐτῷ adeAg.] It is possible, but on account of the more general designa- 
 tion deviating from ver, 5, not probable, that those named here as well as in 
 ver. 15 were members, well known to the apostle, of two ἐκκλησίαι in Rome 
 (so Hofmann), according to which view by the brethren with them would be 
 meant the remaining persons taking part in these assemblies, for the most part 
 doubtless unknown to him. Τῦ is possible also that some other Christian as- 
 sociations unknown to us (Fritzsche and Philippi think of associations of 
 trade and commerce) are intended. We have no knowledge on this point. 
 Reiche thinks of two mvission-societies. But πάντες, ver. 15, points to a con- 
 siderable number, and there is no trace in the Book of Acts of so formal and 
 numerous mission-societies ; they were doubtless still foreign to that period, 
 Probably also Paul would have given some thoughtful indication or other of 
 this important characteristic point.—The whole of the names in vv. 14, 15 
 are found in Gruter and elsewhere.—Julia appears to have been the wife of 
 Philologus ; the analogy of the following Νηρέα κ. τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ makes it 
 less probable that the name denotes a man (Julias, comp. on ver. 7). 
 
 Ver. 16. The series of greetings which Paul has to offer from himself is 
 concluded. But he now desires that his readers should also exchange greet- 
 ings among ene another, reciprocally, and that with the loving sign of the 
 holy kiss. The subject of this greeting is thus every member of the church 
 himself, who kisses another (see on 1 Cor. xvi. 20), not Paul, so that meo 
 nomine should be supplied (Bengel, Koppe). This is forbidden by ἀλλήλους. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. lc. ; 2Cor. xiii. 12; Justin, Ap. i. 65. The case is otherwise 
 with 1 Thess. v. 26 (see Liinemann in loc.). The ancient custom, especially in 
 the East, and particularly among the Jews, of uniting a greeting witha kiss, 
 gave birth to the Christian practice of the ἅγιον φίλημα (1 Pet. v. 14),° termed 
 ἅγιον, because it was no profane thing, but had Christian consecration, ex- 
 pressing the holy Christian-fellowship of love.* — πᾶσαι) From many churches 
 
 1 Hofmann entertains the conjecture, 
 which isin no way capable of proof, that 
 Rufus lived with his mother in Jerusalem 
 when Paul himself sojourned there; and 
 that then Paul dwelt in the house of the 
 mother, and enjoyed her motherly care.— 
 If, again, the demonstration of love in- 
 tended fallsin a da/er period of the apostle’s 
 life, his expression in our passage is the 
 more courteous ; hence it by no means re- 
 quires the above precarious combination. 
 
 2 The critical discussions as to this work, 
 
 quite recently conducted by Zahn, and 
 Lipsius in particular, have no bearing here. 
 3 φίλημα ἀγάπης ; Const. ap. ii. 57. 12, viii. 
 5: τὸ ev κυρίῳ φίλημα, Tertullian, de orat. 
 
 5. 
 "4: osculum pacis. 
 
 4 That Paul actually desires that-the re- 
 ciprocal greeting by a kiss on the part of 
 all should take place after the reading of 
 the epistle, ought not to have been disput- 
 ed (Calvin, Philippi). A ceremony indeed 
 he does not desire ; but he summons not 
 merely to dove, but to the kiss of love. 
 
CHAP. XVI., 17. δῚ1 
 
 greetings had been doubtless entrusted to the apostle for the Romans, since 
 he had certainly not previously withheld from them his project of travelling 
 to Rome (perhaps also, of writing thither beforehand). Concerning the 
 rest, What Erasmus says holds good: ‘‘ Quoniam cognovit omnium erga 
 Romanos studium, omnium nomine salutat.”” The wniversal shape of the ut- 
 terance by no means justifies us in pronouncing this greeting not to be the 
 apostle’s, and deriving it from 1 Cor. xvi. 19, 20 (Lucht) ; it rather corre- 
 sponds entirely to that cordial and buoyant consciousness of fellowship, in 
 which he did not feel himself prompted narrowly to examine his swmmary 
 expression. Others arbitrarily limit πᾶσαι to the Greek churches (Grotius), 
 or simply to the churches in Corinth and its ports (Michaelis, Olshausen, and 
 others), or at least to those in which Paul had been (Bengel). 
 
 Vv. 17-20. A warning, added by way of supplement, against the errone- 
 ous teachers who were then at work. This very supplementary position 
 given to the warning, as well as its brevity, hardly entering at all into the 
 subject itself (comp. on the other hand, the detailed treatment in chap. xiv. 
 xv. of a less important contrast), evinces that Paul is not here speaking, as 
 Wieseler, following older interpreters, holds, against such as already were 
 actually making divisions in Rome. We would have treated so dangerous an 
 evil in the doctrinal connection of the epistle and at length, not in such a 
 manner as to show that it only occurred to him at the close to add a warn- 
 ing word. Hence this is to be regarded as directed against an evil possibly 
 setting in. Doubtless he was apprehensive from the manifold experience 
 acquired by him, that, as elsewhere (comp. Gal. iii. 6, 11 ff. ; Col. ii. 8 ff. ; 
 Phil. iii. 2 ff., 18,19 ; 2 Cor. xi. 13 ff.), so also in Rome, Jewish zealots for 
 the law* might arise and cause divisions in their controversy with Pauline 
 Christianity. This occasioned his warning, from which his readers knew to 
 what kind of persons it referred,—a warning, therefore, against danger, such 
 as he gave subsequently to the Philippians also (Phil. iii.), to whom the 
 evil must have been all the nearer. Paul might, however, the more readily 
 consider it enough to bring in this warning only supplementarily and briefly, 
 since in Rome the Gentile-Christian element was the preponderant one, and 
 the mind of the church in general was so strongly in favour of the Pauline 
 gospel (vv. 19, 20, vi. 17), that a permanent Judaistic influence was at pres~ 
 ent not yet to be apprehended. How, notwithstanding, an anti-Pauline 
 doctrinal agitation took place later in Rome, see Phil. i. 15 ff. Moreover, 
 the precautionary destination of our passage, and that in presence of the 
 greatness of the danger, is sufficient to make us understand its contents and 
 expression as well as its isolated position at the close. At least there does 
 not appear any necessity for setting it down as an original constituent por- 
 
 
 
 1 The brief indications, vv. 17,18, donot But this view does not satisfy the concrete 
 suggest philosophical Gentile - Christians traits in vv. 17,18, 20. See the correct in- 
 (Hammond, Clericus), but (see or ver. 18) terpretation already in Chrysostom and 
 Judaizers, against whom Paul offers his Theodore of Mopsuestia. The latter says: 
 warning. Hofmann prefers to abide by λέγει δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων, οἱ ἁπαν- 
 the generality of the warning, whether the ταχόσε περιϊόντες τοὺς ἀπὸ ἐϑνῶν πιστεύ- 
 troubles might be of Gentile originormight οντας τῆς νομικῆς ἔχεσϑαι παρατηρήσεως πείϑειν 
 arise from doctrines of Jewish legalism. ἐπειρῶντο. 
 
572 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tion of an epistle addressed to a church founded by Paul himself, namely, 
 to the church of the Ephesians (Ewald, Lucht). 
 
 Ver. 17. Σκοπεῖν] to have in view, in order, namely, to guard against 5 
 comp. βλέπετε, Phil. iii. 2; but σκοπεῖν speculari, is stronger, comp. also 
 Phil. iii. 17. --- τὰς διχοστ.] [See Note CLVI. p. 582.] comp. Gal. v. 20; 1 
 Mace. iii. 29.1. The article denotes those anti-Pauline divisions and offences, 
 oxdvdada,—i.e. temptations to departure from the true Christian faith and 
 life, well known to the readers,—which at that time arose in so many quarters 
 in Pauline churches, and might readily threaten the Romans also. — éxkai- 
 yare ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν] turn away from them, shun them, go out of their way. Comp. 
 1 Pet. ii. 11s) Ps} yexix., 102 + Becluss xxi 1 Thucyd: τς 19: ay ΠΙΌΤΘ 
 usually with the accusative. Grotius rashly concludes: ‘‘ non fuisse tune 
 conventus communes aut presbyterium Romae ; alioquin voluisset tales ex- 
 communicari.” Paul rather counsels a rule of conduct for each individual 
 member of the church, leaving the measures to be adopted on the part of 
 the church, in case of necessity, to the church-government there (which was 
 one regularly organized, in opposition to Bengel, see xii. 6 ff.). The disturb- 
 ers, besides, against whom they are warned, are in fact viewed not as members 
 of the church, but as intruders from without. Comp. Acts xv. 1; Gal. ii. 
 4.—The reference to the doctrine received certainly implies a church having 
 Pauline instruction, but not exactly one founded by Paul himself (Ewald), 
 like that at Ephesus. Comp. vi. 17 ; Col. i. 23. 
 
 Ver. 18. Reason assigned for the injunction of ver. 17. -- οἱ τοιοῦτοι] ““ δὲ 
 tales ; notatur substantia cum sua qualitate,” Bengel. — οὐ dova.] Note the 
 position of the negation ; the thought is : to the Lord they refuse service, but 
 their own belly they serve. Thereby they belonged to the category of the 
 ἐχθροὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τ. Xp., Phil. iii. 18.—On τῇ.κοιλίᾳ δουλεύειν, τῇ 
 γαστρὶ δουλεύειν abdomini servire (Seneca, de benef. vii. 26), asa designation of 
 selfishness, bent only on good cheer in eating and drinking, comp. on Phjl. 
 iii. 19 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 416. For this object the sectaries sought 
 to make use of the influence and following which they obtained. Comp. 
 Lucian, de morte Peregr. 11 ff. Behind their teaching, although this was 
 not itself of an Epicurean nature (Hofmann), there lurked, hypocritically 
 concealed, the tendency to epicurean practice. — διὰ τῆς χρηστολ. K. ebdoy.] by 
 means of the kind (having a good-natured sound) and fair-set language, which 
 they hold.?, The two words characterize contents (ypyoro2.) and form (evA.) 5 
 hence it is preferable to take εὐλογ. in the above signification than in the or- 
 dinary one of praise, extolling (Philippi). Comp. Luther : stately language. 
 — τῶν ἀκάκων] of the guileless (Heb. vii. 26), who themselves have nothing 
 evil in their mind, and are prepared for nothing evil.*—The assertion that 
 Paul appears too severe in the accusation of his opponents (Riickert) cannot 
 be made good. He writes from long and ample experience. 
 
 1 Dem. 423. 4; Plat. Legg. i. p. 680 A ; Dion. εὐλογία, language finely expressed (here: 
 
 Hal. viii. 72. fine phrases), Plat. Rep. p. 400 D; Lucian, 
 2On χρηστολ. comp. Jul. Capitol. vit. Per- Lexiph. 1; Aesop. 229. 
 tin. 13; Eustath. p. 1437, 53, and the classi- 3 See Wetstein én doc. ; Ruhnken, ad Tim. 
 
 cal λόγοι χρηστοί, λέγειν χρηστά x.7.A.; on  p.56; Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 342. 
 
ὉΙΕΠΑΙ ΒΡ. ΤΠ τοῦς 573 
 
 Ver. 19. Not a second ground assigned for, or justification of, the 
 warning of ver. 17 (Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi ; comp. also Reithmayr 
 and Hofmann) ; for this use of a second really co-ordinated γάρ is nowhere 
 to be assumed in the N. T. See, on the contrary, on viii. 6. Nor is it to 
 be taken, with Fritzsche : ‘‘nam vos innocentibus qui facile decipiuntur 
 hominibus annumerandos esse, ex eo intelligitur, quod vos Christo obedientes 
 
 - esse nemo ignorat ;” for the latter is exactly the opposite of ready liability 
 
 to seduction. Nor with Riickert : for the general diffusion of the news 
 that you are such good Christians will soon bring those men to Rome, that 
 they may sow their tares ; which is not expressed. Nor yet again with 
 Calvin and others, Reiche, and Kéllner: for you are indeed good Chris- 
 tians, whereat I rejoice ; but I desire, etc.—against which the expression, 
 especially the want of μέν and the presence of οὖν, is decisive. In order to 
 a correct understanding, one should note the emphatically prefixed ὑμῶν, 
 which stands in correlation—and that antithetic—with τῶν ἀκάκων. Hence 
 (as also Philippi admits, comp. van Hengel) : ‘‘ not without reason do I 
 say : the hearts of the guileless ; for you they will not lead astray, because 
 you do not belong to such as the mere ἄκακοι, but distinguish yourselves so 
 much by obedience (towards the gospel), that this has become universally 
 known ; respecting you therefore (here, too, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν stands first emphatically ; 
 see the critical notes) I rejoice,’ yet desire that you may be wise and pure,” 
 —a delicate combination of warning with the expression of firm confidence. 
 Strangely, Lucht, comparing Acts xx. 29, assigns ver. 19 to an epistle to 
 the Ephesians. — εἰς τὰ ἀγαθ.] in reference to the good, which you have to do. 
 By this general expression Paul means specially fidelity towards the pure 
 gospel. —akepaiove εἰς τὸ κακόν] pure in reference to evil, so that you keep 
 yourselves unmixed with it, free from it. Comp. Phil. ii. 15, Matt. x. 16; 
 and see respecting ἀκεραῖος generally, Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 18. 
 
 Ver. 20. Encouraging promise ; hence συντρίψει is not with Flatt to be 
 taken as optative, contrary to linguistic usage, nor is the erroneous gloss 
 of the reading συντρίψαι (A, 67**, Theodoret, Oec., Jer., Ambros., Rup.) to 
 be approved.—Paul regards the sectaries, because they are servants not of 
 Christ, but of their belly (ver. 18), as organs of Satan (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15) ; 
 hence his figurative expression of the thought, founded on Gen. iii. 15: 
 ‘*The God of peace will grant you (when the authors of division appear 
 amongst you) shortly the complete victory over them.”—As Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης 
 (pacificus) God appears in contrast to those ποιοῦντες τὰς διχοστασίας (ver: 17). 
 Comp. on xv. 33.—The bruising of Satan and treading him under feet takes 
 place in God’s power; hence ὁ Θεὸς x.t.A. Comp. 1 Mace. iii. 22 (and 
 Grimm in loc.), iv. 10, et al. —1 χάρις κιτ.}.1 The grace of our Lord, ete. ; 
 
 ’ 
 therewith, as with the usual concluding blessing of his epistles, Paul would 
 
 
 
 1 Τῇ the reading of the Recepta defended 41.9; Schaefer, ad Bos. Hill. p. 277; Kiihner, 
 
 by Hofmann, χαίρω οὖν τὸ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, χαίρειν 
 would not have to be supplied after τό (as 
 Hofmann very oddly thinks); but τὸ ἐφ᾽ 
 ὑμῖν 86. ὄν would, according to a well-known 
 usage (see Bernhardy, p. 329; Kriiger, § 68. 
 
 II. 1, p. 434), be a more precise definition to 
 χαίρω :1 rejoice, as to what concerns you. 
 In this case, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν would be by no means 
 dependent on the notion χαίρω, but the 
 latter would stand absolutely. 
 
Die: THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 close. But he has as yet delivered no special greetings from those around 
 him at Corinth, whether it be that they are now for the first time entrusted 
 to him, or that he now for the first time observes that he has not yet mentioned 
 them in what precedes (as after ver. 16). This induces him now further to 
 add vy. 21-23 after the conclusion already written down in ver. 20; then 
 to repeat the above blessing in ver. 24 ; and finally, after recalling anew all 
 which he had delivered to the Romans, in a full outburst of deeply moved 
 piety to make the doxology, vv. 25-27, the final close of the entire letter. 
 
 Ver. 21. Τιμόθ.] It may surprise us that he is not brought forward at the 
 head of the epistle as its joint writer (as in 2 Cor. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 
 1; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1), since he was at that time with Paul. But it 
 is possible that he was absent just when Paul began to compose the epistle, and 
 hence the apostle availed himself in the writing of it of the hand of a more 
 subordinate person, who had no place in the superscription (ver. 22) ; it is 
 possible also that the matter took this shape for the inward reason, that 
 Paul deemed it suitable to appear with his epistle before the Roman church, 
 to which he was still so strange, in all his unique and undivided apostolic 
 authority. — Λούκιος] Not identical with Luke, as Origen, Semler, and others 
 held ;? but whether with Lucius of Cyrene, Acts xiii. 1, is uncertain, Just 
 as little can it (even after Lucht’s attempt) be ascertained, whether ‘Idowy is 
 the same who is mentioned in Acts xvii. 5. Σωσίπατρος may be one with 
 Σώπατρος, Acts xx. 4; yet both names, Σωσίπ. and Σώπ., are frequently 
 found in the Greek writers. —ovyyeveic] as vv. 7, 11. Why it should be 
 reckoned ‘‘more than improbable” (Hofmann) that Paul had at that time 
 three kinsmen in Rome (vv. 7, 11), and three in his neighbourhood at the 
 time of writing, it is not at all easy to see. 
 
 Ver. 22. Tertius, probably an Italian with whom the readers were ac- 
 quainted, was at that time with Paul in Corinth, and wrote the letter, which 
 the apostle dictated to him. The view that he made a fair copy of the apos- 
 tolic draught (Beza, Grotius) is the more groundless, since Paul was wont to 
 dictate his epistles (1 Cor. xvi. 21; Gal. vi. 11 ; Col. iv. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 
 17). In his own name Tertius writes his greeting ; for it was very natural 
 that, when he called the apostle’s attention to his personal wish to send a 
 greeting, his own greeting (which Grotius and Laurent, without sufficient 
 ground, relegate to the margin) would not be dictated by the apostle, but 
 left to himself to express. In ver. 23, Paul again proceeds with his dicta- 
 tion. Quite groundlessly, Olshausen (following Eichhorn) thinks that Paul 
 wrote the doxology immediately after ver. 20, and did so on a small sepa- 
 rate piece of parchment, the other blank side of which the scribe Tertius 
 used, in order to write on it in his own name vv. 21-24. But how incon- 
 testably ὁ συνεργός pov, ver. 21, points to Paul himself !— év κυρίῳ] To be 
 referred to dox.; the Christian salutation, offered in the consciousness of 
 living fellowship with Christ. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 
 
 Ver. 23. Τάϊος] Perhaps the same who is mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 14 ; it 
 
 1 Considered probable also by Tiele in the the name of the bishop of Cenchreae ap- 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 758. ff.—In the Con- pointed by Paul. 
 stitt. ap. vil. 46. 2, Lucius is mentioned as 
 
CHAP. XVI., 24. 575 
 
 may at the same time be assumed, that the person mentioned in Acts xx. 4 
 (not also he who appearsin Acts xix. 29) is not a different one, against which 
 the circumstance that he was of Derbe is no proof. But considering the great 
 frequency of the name (see also 3 John 1 ; Constitt. ap. vil. 46. 1 ; Martyr. 
 Polyc. 22), no decision can be given. Origen: ‘‘ Fertur traditione majorum, 
 quod hic Cajus fuit episcopus Thessalonicensis ecclesiae,” — ξένος, guest- 
 Sriend, is in the Greek writers not merely the person entertained, but also, as 
 here, the entertainer.' Paul lodged with Caius, as during his first sojourn in 
 Corinth with Aquila, and then with Justus (Acts xviii. 1-7). — καὶ τῆς ἐκκλ. 6A. | 
 Whether this be a reference to the circumstance that Caius gave his house for 
 the meetings of the church (Grotius), or to the fact that, while the apostle 
 lodged with him, there were at the same time very numerous visits of persons 
 belonging to the church of Corinth, whom Caius hospitably received, —a view 
 which corresponds better to the thoughtfully chosen designation—in any case 
 ξένος does not stand to τῆς ἐκκλ. ὅλ. In the same strict. relation as to μου. 
 Comp. ver. 18, τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ. If the lodging of those coming from 
 abroad (Hofmann, following Erasmus and others) were meant, τῆς ἐκκλ. ὅλης 
 would have been understood of the collective Christian body, and the 
 hyperbolical expression would appear more jesting than thoughtful. Comp. 
 rather on ἡ ἐκκλησία ὕλη, 1 Cor. xiv. 238, also v. 11, xv. 22. Nor is the ex- 
 pression suitable to the Roman church, in so far, namely, as Paul converted 
 many of its members during their exile (Miircker), because it would be too 
 disproportionate. — [Ἔραστος] Different from the one mentioned in Acts xix. 22 
 and 2 Tim. iv. 20 ; for the person sending greeting here was not, like Timo- 
 thy, atravelling assistant of the apostle, but administrator of the city-chest, 
 city-chamberlain in Corinth (arcarius civitatis, see Wetstein) ; unless we 
 should assume—for which, however, no necessity presents itself—that he 
 had given up his civic position and is here designated according to his for- 
 mer office (Pelagius, Estius, Calovius, Klee, and others, comp. also Reiche). 
 For another, but forced explanation, see Otto, Pastoralbr. Ὁ. 55. The 
 name Erastus was very frequent. The less are we, with Lucht, to discover 
 an error in Acts xix. 22 and 1 Tim iv. 20. Grotius, moreover, has rightly 
 observed : ‘‘ Vides jam ab initio, quamquam paucos, aliquos tamen fuisse 
 Christianos in dignitate positos.” Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26 ff. — Respecting 
 Quartus absolutely nothing is known. Were ἀδελφός a brother according to 
 the flesh, namely of Erastus, Paul would have added αὐτοῦ (comp. ver. 15) ; 
 hence it is to be understood in the sense of Christian brotherhood, and to be 
 assumed that the relations of this Quartus suggested to the apostle no more 
 precise predicate, and were well known to the readers. 
 
 Ver. 24. In 2 Thess. iii. 16, 18, the closing blessing is also repeated. 
 Wolf aptly observes : ‘‘Ita hodienum, ubi epistola vale dicto consummata 
 est, et alia paucis commemoranda menti se adhuc offerunt, scribere solemus : 
 vale iterum.” 
 
 Vv. 25-27. [See Note CLVII. p. 582.] Asa final complete conclusion, 
 we have now this praising of God, rich in contents, deep in feeling (perhaps 
 
 1 See Sturz, Lew. Xen. III. p. 218; Duncan, ed. Rost. p. 799. 
 
576 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 added by the apostle’s own hand), in which the leading ideas contained in 
 the whole epistle, as they had already found in the introduction, i. 1-5, 
 their preluding keynote, and again in xi. 33 ff. their preliminary doxological 
 expression, now further receive, in the fullest unison of inspired piety, their 
 concentrated outburst for the ultimate true consecration of the whole. No 
 one but Hofmann, who assigns to these three verses their place after xiv. 23 
 (see the critical notes), could deny that they form a dowology at all. Accord- 
 ing to him, τῷ dé δυναμένῳ is to be connected with ὀφείλομεν, xv. 1, and to be 
 governed by this verb (thus: to Him, who is able. . . we are debtors, etc.). 
 This is, however, nothing less than a monstrosity of exegetical violence, 
 and that, first, because the verses carry on their front the most immediate 
 and characteristic stamp of a doxology (comp. especially Jude 24, 25), in 
 which even the ἀμήν is not wanting (comp. ix. 5, xi. 86) ; secondly, because 
 the fulness and the powerful pathos of the passage would be quite dispropor- 
 tionate as a preparatory basis for the injunction that follows in xv. 1, and 
 would be without corresponding motive ; thirdly, because in ver. 25 ὑμᾶς 
 stands, but in the supposed continuation, xv. 1, ἡμεῖς, which is an evidence 
 against their mutual connection ; and lastly, because the δέ, xv. 1, stands 
 inexorably in the way. This dé, namely, cou:d not be the antithetic dé of the 
 apodosis and after participles, especially after absolute participles (Klotz, ad 
 Devar. Ὁ. 872 ff. ; Kiithner, IT. 2, p. 818 ; Baeumlein, Partih. pp. 92 f., 94), 
 but only the reswmptive (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 815 ; Baeumlein, p. 97) ; and 
 then Paul must have written not ὀφείλομεν dé, but either αὐτῷ dé ὀφείλομεν, 
 which αὐτῷ would reassume the previously described subject, or he must 
 have put his dé in ver. 27 along with μόνῳ σοφῷ Oem, and therefore some- 
 what thus : μόνῳ δὲ σοφῷ Θεῷ. . . ὀφείλομεν. 
 
 Ver. 25. Στηρίξαι] to make firm and stedfast. Luke xxii. 32 ; Rom. i. 11 ; 
 1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17, ef al. The description of God by τῷ δυναμένῳ 
 ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι corresponds to the entire scope of the epistle. Comp. i, 11 
 (in opposition to Lucht). —ipac] ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας, 1 Thess. 111, 18. — κατὰ τὸ 
 ebayy. μου] is closely connected with στηρ. (to strengthen in respect of my gos- 
 pel), so that we are not to supply in jide (Koppe, de Wette, van Hengel) or 
 the like (Reiche : ‘‘in the religious and moral life,”) ; but the sense is not 
 different from στηρ. ἐν τῷ ebayy. pov (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 17; 2 Pet. 1. 12), 
 namely: so to operate upon you that you may remain stedfastly faithful to 
 my gospel, and not become addicted to doctrines and principles deviatir s 
 from it. More far-fetched is the explanation of others (taking κατά in the 
 sense of the rule) ; ‘‘ so to strengthen you, that you may now live and act accord- 
 ing to my gospel” Kéllner (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck) ; or (κατά of the regulative modal character) : after 
 the fashion of my gospel (Hofmann).—The expression τὸ ebayyéA. μου, the 
 gospel preached by me, cannot, secing that in Rome Pauline Christianity was 
 in the ascendant, be accounted, on an impartial consideration of the apostol- 
 ic consciousness, and in comparison with ii. 16 (see also 2 Thess. 11. 14 5 2 
 Tim. ii. 8; Gal. ii. 2), as in itself surprising, least of all when we attend to 
 the added : καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This, namely, far from aiming at 
 a conciliatory comparison with the preaching of the other apostles (Lucht), is 
 
CHAP. XVI., 25. ΟΥ̓͂Ν 
 
 amore precise definition of τὸ εὐαγγ. μου, proceeding from the humble piety 
 of the apostle. As he wrote or uttered the latter expression, he at once 
 vividly felt that Ais gospel was withal nothing else than the preaching which 
 Christ Himself caused to go forth (through him as His organ) ; and by making 
 this addition, he satisfies his own principle : οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω λαλεῖν τι ὧν ov 
 κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς Ov ἐμοῦ λόγῳ. x. ἔργῳ, Xv. 18. Comp. on the thought, 
 Eph. ii. 17 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 3. This Awmility, amidst all the boldness in other 
 respects of his apostolic consciousness, suggested itself the more to his heart, 
 because in connection with a praise of God. With this view of the genitive 
 agree substantially Riickert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Ewald. The more usual explanation: the preaching concerning Christ 
 (Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including K6llner, Tholuck (%), 
 Reithmayr, Philippi), yields after τὸ evayy. μου somewhat of tautology, and 
 forfeits the thoughtful correlation between μου and ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The 
 personal oral preaching of Christ Himself during His earthly life (Grotius, 
 Wolf, Koppe, Béhme, Hofmann), to which Paul never expressly refers 
 in his epistles (not even in Gal. v. 1) is not to be thought of. — κατὰ ἀποκά- 
 λυψιν μυστηρ. k.T.A. | co-ordinated to the preceding κατὰ. . . Χριστοῦ, and like- 
 wise dependent on στηρίξαι. In the exalted feeling of the sublime dignity of 
 the gospel, in so far as he has just designated it as the κήρυγμα φγ Jesus Christ, 
 the apostle cannot leave the description of its character without also desig- 
 nating it further according to its grand and sacred contents (not according to 
 its novelty, as Hofmann explains, which lies neither in the text nor in the 
 connection), and that with a theocratic glance back upon the primitive counsel 
 of salvation of God : as revelation of ὦ secret kept in silence in eternal times (comp. 
 Col. i. 26 5 Eph. iii. 9, 1. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 7). Note the bipartite character of 
 the designation by the twofold κατά, according to which Paul sets forth the 
 gospel, (1) ratione subjecti, as his gospel and κήρυγμα of Christ, and (2) ratione 
 objecti, as the revelation of the primitive sacred mystery. —'The second κατά is 
 to be taken quite like the first (comp. Col. ii. 8) ; but Paul designates the 
 divine decree of the redemption of the world* as μυστήριον (comp. generally on 
 xi. 25), in so far as it, formed indeed by God from eternity (hidden in God, 
 Eph. iii. 9), and in the fulness of time accomplished by Christ, was first 
 disclosed* through the gospel, i.e. laid open to human contemplation (Eph. 
 ii. 4, 8, 9, vi. 19) ; hence the gospel is the actual ἀποκάλυψις of this secret. 
 The article was not requisite with ἀποκ., since the following genitive has no 
 article, and, besides, a preposition precedes (Winer, p. 118f. [E.T. p. 125] ; 
 comp. 1 Pet. i. 7). But μυστηρίου, if it was to be in itself the definite secret, 
 must have had the article (Eph. iii. 3, 9 ; Col. i. 26) ; hence we must explain 
 “‘ ofa secret,” so that it is only the subsequent concrete description which 
 
 1 The bestowal of blessing on the Gentiles preaching of the gospel (i. 17; Gal. iii. 23) is 
 (Eph. iii. 6) is an essential feature of the meant according to the context, and not 
 contents of the μυστήριον ; but to refer the “ mihi data patefactio” (van Hengel), which 
 latter in our passage to this alone (Beza, Paul elsewhere, when he means it, actually 
 Bengel, Philippi, Tholuck, and others), is expresses. Comp. Gal. i. 16; Eph. iii, 3; 1 
 not justified by the context. Cor, ii. 10; Eph. iii, 5; Gal. i. 12. 
 
 * This disclosure made to men through the 
 
578 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 expresses «what secret is meant : ‘in respect to the revelation of a secret, which 
 was kept silent in eternal times, but now has been brought to light,” etc. Among 
 the carying explanations, the only one linguistically correct is that of Fritzsche 
 (comp. Kéllner, Riickert, Tholuck, and Philippi), who makes κατὰ ἀποκ. μυστ. 
 dependent not merely on στηρίξαι, but on τῷ dé δυναμ. ὑμᾶς oryp. taken 
 together, and takes κατά as in consequence of, thus namely : ‘‘ qui potest vos 
 corroborare in. . . secundum patefactionem arcani, h. 6. postquam facta est 
 patefactio arcani, ὁ. q. ἐπεὶ ἀπεκαλύφθη μυστήριον 1) more exactly Riickert, 
 Philippi, Tholuck : in correspondence with the revelation, etc. But no neces- 
 sity exists for taking κατά here in another sense than previously, (as e.g. 
 there is such a necessity, obviously, with κατ᾽ ἐπιταγῆν immediately below) ; 
 on the contrary, after the words, ‘who is in a position to strengthen you 
 in respect of the gospel,” the idea ‘‘ secundum patefactionem arcani ” would 
 be superfluous and self-evident, and therefore the weighty mode of its ex- 
 pression would be without motive and turgid. It would be otherwise if 
 κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν κ.τ.}. were intended to establish not the ability of God, but 
 His willingness. Incorrectly, in fine, Olshausen and older expositors think 
 that τὸ γεγενημένον should be supplied : ‘‘ which preaching has taken place 
 through revelation of a secret,” etc. This Paul would have known how to 
 say properly, had he meant it. — χρόνοις aiwy.| Period in which the ceory. took 
 place ; Acts viii. 11, xiii. 20; Josh. ii. 20 ; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. p. 218]; 
 Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 386. From the very beginning down to the time of the 
 N. T. proclamation reach the χρόνοι αἰώνιοι, which are meant and popularly 
 so designated. Bengel: ‘‘tempora primo sui initio aeternitatem quasi prae- 
 viam attingentia.” Comp. 2 Tim.i. 9 ; Tit.i. 2. As at almost every word 
 of the doxology, Lucht has taken offence at the expression χρόνοις αἰων. 
 And Reiche incorrectly understands the course of eternity down to the time of 
 the prophets. For by ἀποκάλ. μυστηρ. κ.τ.Δ. Paul wished to designate the 
 New Testament gospel (κήρυγμα ᾽Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ), which therefore had not been 
 preached before Christ ; but he thinks of the prophetical predictions as the 
 means used (ver. 26) for the making it known, and justly, since in them the 
 publication has not yet taken place, but there is contained merely the still 
 obscure preindication and preparatory promise (i. 2) which were only to 
 obtain their full and certain light through the far later ἀποκάλυψις of the 
 mystery, and consequently were to serve as a medium of faith to the preach- 
 ing which announces the secret of salvation. Comp. Weiss, bib/. Theol. p. 
 293. Suggestively Bengel remarks; ‘‘ V. T. est tanquam horologium in suo 
 cursu tacito ; N. T. est sonitus et pulsus aeris.” The si/ence respecting the 
 secret was first put an end to by the preaching of the N. T., so that now the 
 φανέρωσις Came in its place ; and up to that time even the prophetic language 
 was, in reference to the world, as yet a si/ence, because containing only ovve- 
 σκιασμένως (Theodoret) what afterwards (‘‘a@ complemento,” Calovius) was to 
 become through the evangelical preaching manifest, brought clearly to light 
 
 1 The fashion, in which he professes to Thus, 6... xpov. αἰων. is held to refer to the 
 explain the separate elements from a Gnos- Gnostic aeons, σεσιγημ. to the Gnostic Sige, 
 tic atmosphere, is so arbitrary as to place "διὰ γραφ. προφητ. to the γνῶσις of allegorical 
 itself beyond the pale of controversy. explanation of Scripiure. 
 
CHAP. XVI., 26. 579 
 (comp. i. 19, ui. 21°;*Col. iv. 4 31 Pet: 1. 10, 11,205 Tit. 1:2, 3 ;°2 Tim. 
 110}. 
 
 Ver. 26. Contrast of χρόνοις aiwv. σεσιγ. --- But which has been made mani- 
 Sest in the present time, and by means of prophetic writings, according to the 
 commandment of the eternal God, in order to produce obedience of faith, has been 
 made known among all nations. In this happy relation of the present time, 
 with regard to that which the χρόνοι αἰώνιοι lacked, how powerful a motive 
 to the praise of God ! — φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν] Comp. Col. 1. 26, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη, 
 in the same contrast ; but here the stress lies, in contradistinction to the 
 immediately preceding σεσιγημ. On φανερωθ. Reiche’s observation, that the 
 φανέρωσις is never attributed to the prophets, is not at all applicable ; for it 
 is not in fact ascribed to the prophets here, and φανερωθ. is not even con- 
 nected with διὰ ypad. προφ., which re’ undoubtedly assigns to the following 
 participle γνωρισθ." The mystery has, namely, in the Christian present been 
 clearly placed in the light, has been made an object of knowledge (comp. on 
 i. 19), a result obviously accomplished through the gospel (comp. Col. i. 26; 
 Tit. i. 3); and with this φανέρωσις, in and by itself, there was connected in 
 further concrete development the general publication of the secret, as it is 
 more precisely designated by διά te γραφῶν. γνωρισθ. This general 
 publication was, namely, one which took place (1) by means of prophetic 
 writings (comp. i. 2), inasmuch as, after the precedent of Jesus Himself 
 (John v. 39 ; Matt. v. 17 ; Luke xxiv. 27, 44), it was brought into connec- 
 tion with the prophecies of the O. T. testifying beforehand (1 Pet. i. 11), 
 the fulfilment of the same was exhibited, and they were employed as a proof 
 and confirmation of the evangelical preaching (comp. also Acts xvii. 11), 
 and generally as a medium enabling the latter to produce knowledge and 
 faith. (2) It took place at the command of God (x. 17; Tit. i. 3), whose 
 servants (i. 9) and stewards of His mysteries (1 Cor, iv. 1). the apostles are, 
 conscious of His command (Gal. i. 1, 15). (8) It was made in order to pro- 
 duce obedience towards the faith (comp. oni. 5), and that (4) among all nations. 
 — τοῦ αἰωνίου Θεοῦ] αἰων. is not a faint allusion to χρόνοις αἰωνίοις (Reiche) ; 
 but stands in a very natural and apt relation of meaning thereto, since it is 
 only as eternal (Baruch iv. 8, 22 ; Hist. Susann. 42) that God could dispose 
 of the eternal times and of the present, so that what was kept silent in the 
 
 1 Τέ 15. wanting indeed in D E 34, 87, Syr. 
 Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. Vulg. Clar. 
 
 κατ᾽ in versions (Syr. Erp. Aeth.). 
 2 This, too, against Hofmann, who makes 
 
 Germ. Chrys. and some Latin Fathers ; but 
 this is to be regarded as a hasty deletion, 
 occasioned by the fact that, without precise 
 consideration of the sense and of the fol- 
 lowing connection, διὰ ypad. προφ. was 
 mechanically attached to φανερωϑ. as near- 
 est in position, and the necessity in point of 
 construction for its belonging to γνωρισϑ., 
 widely separated by the intervening notices, 
 was not perceived. In order. thereupon to 
 supply the want of connection between the 
 two participles, which arose through the 
 omission of the τέ, an e¢ was inserted before 
 
 διὰ γραφ. προφ. be added to νῦν by means 
 of τέ, in the sense of ‘just as also.’ But the 
 τέ must have added to the viv something 
 homogeneous, supplementing (Baeumlein, 
 Partik. Ὁ. 211; Kiihner, 11. 2, p. 787), not a 
 notion dissimilar to it. Generally, it would 
 not be easy to see why Paul should not 
 have placed his τέ only after κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, 
 and thereby have given to the second par- 
 ticipial sentence—which, according to Hof- 
 mann’s explanation, follows without con- 
 necting particle—a connecting link in con- 
 formity with the sense. 
 
580 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 former should be made known in the latter. — εἰς 7. τ. ἔθνη] Consequently 
 the publication was not confined to the Jews, but was accomplished among 
 all Gentile peoples ; comp. i. 5. As to εἰς of the direction, comp. John viii. 
 26, and see on Mark i. 39, xiv. 9. 
 
 Ver. 27. Μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ X.| to be closely connected (without 
 acomma after Θεῷ) : to the through Jesus Christ only wise God, i.e. to the 
 God who through Christ has shown Himself as the alone wise, so wise, that in 
 comparison with Him this predicate can be applied to no other being (comp. | 
 Luke xviii. 19 ; John xvii. 3; 1,Tim. vi. 15, 16, i. 17 ; 2 Macc. 1. 25), the 
 absolutely wise.’ The connection : ‘‘to the alone wise God be the glory 
 through Christ” (Pesch., Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, 
 Morus, van Hengel, and several others), is inadmissible because of ©, which 
 indeed is omitted by Beza and Grotius after the Complut. edition, but is 
 critically so certified (it is wanting merely in B) that it can only appear to 
 have been omitted with a view to relieve the construction ; although Riick- 
 ert also sees himself forced to omit it, and Ewald (comp. Miircker, p. 8), 
 while retaining the 4, so translates as if it ran ᾧ διὰ ’I. X. ἡ δόξα. Thus, 
 too, Hofmann connects the words, seeking through the dative μόνῳ σοφᾷ 
 Θεῷ to bring them into government with ὀφείλομεν, xv. 1 (see on vv. 25-27). 
 Instances of such a prefixing of parts of sentences having an emphasis before 
 the relative are found, indeed, in the Greek writers ;* yet in the N. T. we 
 have no passage of this kind (wrongly Hofmann adduces 1 Pet. iv. 11, Heb. 
 xiii. 21, as bearing on this) ; and it would not be easy to perceive any spe- 
 cial reason why Paul should have so uniquely laid stress on διὰ "I. X. — The 
 description of God, begun on the side of His power, in ver. 25, passes over 
 at the conclusion of the doxology into the emphasizing of His wisdom, to 
 which the representation of the gospel as ἀποκάλυψις μυστηρίου. . . γνωρισ- 
 θέντος involuntarily led him in a very natural process of thought ; for so long 
 as the mystery was covered by silence, the wisdom of God in its highest 
 potency was not yet brought to light,—a result which took place by the 
 very means of that ἀποκάλυψις. Comp. xi. 32-34. This at the same time 
 applies against Reiche, who believes μόνῳ σοφῷ to be unsuitable here and to 
 be taken from Jude 25 var. (the spurious addition σοφῷ, Jude 25, as also in 
 1 Tim. i. 17, has manifestly flowed from our passage). — διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ] 
 i.e. through the appearance and the whole work of Jesus Christ. Thereby God 
 caused Himself to be practically recognized as the alone wise. Comp. xi. 
 33 ff. ; Eph. iii. 8 ff. Similarly, in Jude 25, διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ «.7.2. is con- 
 nected, not with the following δόξα, but with the preceding σωτῆρι ἡμῶν. 
 Too narrowly, Fritzsche limits διὰ ’I. X., in accordance with Col. ii. 3 (but 
 see im loc.), to the contents of His teaching. It is precisely the facts which 
 bring to light the wisdom of the divine measures in the execution of the 
 plan of redemption through Christ,—the death and the resurrection and 
 exaltation of Jesus (iv. 24, 25, viii. 34, et al.), that form the sum and sub- 
 stance of the conception of our διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ---- ᾧ] In the lively pressure 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. Plato, Phaedr. Ὁ. 278 D; Diog. baum, ad Plat. Phaedr. pp. 238 A, 868 A; 
 Laert. 1. 12; Philo, demiqr. Abr. I. Ὁ. 457. 4. comp. on Acts i. 2. 
 2 Schaefer, App. ad Dem. TY. p. 462; Stall- 
 
NOTES. 581 
 
 of the great intermediate thoughts connected with the mention of the gos- 
 pel, vv. 24, 25, the syntactic connection has escaped the apostle. Not tak- 
 ing note that τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ and the resumptive μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ are still with- 
 out their government, he adds, as though they had already received it at 
 the beginning of the over-full sentence (through γάρις dé τῷ δυναμένῳ κ.τ.λ. 
 or the like), the expression—still remaihing due—of the praise itself by 
 means of the (critically certain) relative, so that now the above datives are 
 left to stand as anacoluthic. Comp. Acts xxiv. 5, 6, and the remark thereon. 
 See also Winer, p. 528 [E. T. p. 567] ; Buttmann newt. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 293]. 
 Others, indeed, think that Paul allowed himself to be induced by the inter- 
 mediate thoughts to turn from the doxolgy to God at first designed, and to 
 direct the tribute of praise to Christ instead, the Mediator and Revealer of 
 the wisdom of God, so as thereby mediately to praise God Himself. See 
 especially Philippi, also Reithmayr, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Tholuck 
 (doubtfully). Such doxologies as if to God, are found addressed to Christ 
 doubtless in Heb. xiii. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 18, Rev. 1. 6, and later in Clement δέ 
 al., but in the really apostolical writings nowhere at all (see on ix. 5) ; and 
 that Paul here still, even after the intermediate observations, retained the 
 idea of praising God, so that that ᾧ must accordingly be referred not to 
 Christ, but to God, is quite clearly proved by the resumptive μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ. 
 For a formally quite similar anacoluthon' in the doxology, see Martyr. Polye. 
 20 : τῷ δυναμένῳ πάντας ἡμᾶς εἰσαγαγεῖν ἐν TH αὐτοῦ χάριτι κ. δωρεῷ εἰς THY αἰώνιον 
 αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν διὰ τοῦ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ μονογενοῦς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα, τιμὴ; 
 κράτος, μεγαλωσύνη εἰς αἰῶνας. --- ἡ δόξα] sc. εἴη, not ἐστί, according to 1 Pet. 
 iv. 11 (Hofmann), where the connection is different and ἔστεν must be writ- 
 ten (Lachm.), and its emphasis is to be noted. The article designates the be- 
 Jitting honour, as in xi. 36, 
 
 Nores py AMERICAN EDITor. 
 CLY. Ver. 7. ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. 
 
 The two explanations mentioned by Meyer in his note being alike possible, it 
 cannot be determined with certainty whether Andronicus and Junias are here 
 called apostles or not. As we have no mention of them elsewhere, however, and 
 as the title of apostle, when applied to others than the Twelve, was apparently 
 limited to a very few of the leading men in the Church, such as Barnabas and 
 James, the Lord’s brother, it seems probable that the interpretation which 
 Meyer gives to the words should be adopted. If the two were “ apostles,”’ 
 the person whose name in the accusative is ᾿Ιουνίαν could not have been a 
 woman, as there is no reason to believe that a woman ever had this title. 
 The nominative must, in this case, be ᾿Ιουνεᾶς. : If they were not themselves 
 apostles, but were most honorably known by the apostles, the nominative cor- 
 responding to ’Iovviav may be either masculine or feminine. That these two 
 persons were relatives of Paul is, perhaps, not to be confidently affirmed ; but 
 
 1 For the suggestion that in this passage simply a violent and very unsuitably devis- 
 from the Martyr. Polyc. τῷ δυναμ. is depend- ed evasion. Dressel has the unbiassed and 
 ent on the preceding ἐκλογάς (Hofmann) is correct punctuation. 
 
582 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 from the word that is used, it would seem not improbable that this was the 
 fact. 
 
 CLVI. Ver. 17. τοὺς τὰς διχοστασίας. . . . ποιοῦντας. 
 
 There are two noticeable points connected with these words and those 
 which surround them, which may have an important bearing on the true 
 understanding of the passage. (1) The articles with διχοστασίας and σκάνδαλα, 
 the addition to those words of παρὰ τὴν διδαχήν κ.τ.}., and the words in ver, 18 
 descriptive of the persons alluded to, indicate that Paul has in mind op- 
 posers of his doctrine. This being the case, and the date of the Epistle being 
 near to the dates of those addressed to the Galatians and Corinthians, it 
 must be regarded as probable that the references in all the letters are to 
 teachers and adversaries of the same general class. The question may be 
 raised, however, whether the words of ver. 18 do not appear more character- 
 istic of such adversaries as they were a few years later ; and if such isthe fact, 
 this verse may have some relation to the time of the writing of the present 
 chapter as compared with the rest of the Epistle. See, however, Meyer’s notes 
 on vy. 17-20. (2) The fact that the whole subject of such adversaries and 
 their influence is passed over with so brief a reference shows that they could 
 not have, as yet, wrought any considerable evil in the Roman church. Meyer 
 thinks, and this may be the correct view, that they had not yet actually 
 appeared at Rome. It was not unnatural that tendencies of this sort should 
 have manifested themselves in some small beginnings, or, if they had not, that 
 the Apostle should have apprehended their existence and eyil effects in the 
 future. The presence of such an exhortation in the chapter is not inconsistent 
 with the Pauline authorship of it. 
 
 CLVII. Ver. 25 ff. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι k.7.A. 
 
 This final doxology is Pauline in its character and forms an appropriate close 
 to the Epistle. It gathers into itself (as Meyer also says) some of the funda- 
 mental thoughts on which the Epistle rests : that his gospel and the preach- 
 ing of Jesus Christ were for the establishment and confirmation in the Chris- 
 tian life of the readers, στηρίξαι (comp. i. 11 and note) ; that the revealed mys- 
 tery was so far contained in the writings of the prophets that when pro- 
 claimed now, it could be made manifest by their means ; that the end of the 
 preaching and the revelation, as related to the apostolic mission assigned to 
 him, was obedience to faith among the Gentiles ; that the whole plan and its 
 outworking belonged to the marvellous wisdom of the one God. But these 
 thoughts are wrought into a single truly characteristic Pauline sentence—ex- 
 pressing praise to God, and, at the same time, showing the desire of his heart 
 that God would strengthen the Roman church in the truth and in the true way 
 of living. 
 
ΠΡ JUN Tes" 
 
 A. 
 
 ABRAHAM, justified by faith, 152, 172 
 according to the flesh, 152-175 ; 
 the promise unto, 162, 177; his 
 promise of fatherhood, 166; an ex- 
 ample of faith, 168-178 ; receiving 
 righteousness, 172; his descendants, 
 366 seq. 
 
 Adam, and sin, 193 seq.; death 
 through, 198 seq.; created mortal, 
 202. 
 
 Adiaphora, The Law of, 522, 530. 
 
 Adoption, 315 ; waiting for the, 329. 
 
 Adultery, 261. 
 
 Analogy of faith, 472, 484. 
 
 Ananias, 4. 
 
 Anathema, 357 seq. 
 
 Andronicus, 567 seq., 581. 
 
 Animal worship, 62. 
 
 Apostleship, 37, 74, 581. 
 
 Apostolic salutation, 29. 
 
 Aquila, 565 seq. 
 
 Asceticism, Jewish, 505 seq. 
 
 Assurance, of salvation, 180 ; of son- 
 ship, 316. 
 
 Atonement of Christ, 134-141 ; for 
 our sins, 172; for the ungodly, 
 185-190 ; its ethical result, 230. 
 
 Authorship of Chapters xv. and Xvi., 
 532 seq. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baal, 428 seq. 
 
 Baptism, into Christ’s death, 230 seq., 
 252. 
 
 Barbarians, The, 46. 
 
 Barnabas, 5; his controversy with 
 ΡΠ - 
 
 Benevolence, Apostolic, 5 ; in Provi- 
 dence, 333 ; to the poor, 555 seq. 
 Blessings, implored, 544, 557, 573, 
 
 575. 
 Blood of Christ, The, 137 ; atones, 190. 
 Boasting in vain, 141, 149. 
 Body, The human, 310 seq. ; 
 cation of, 467 seq., 482. 
 Brotherly Love, 476. 
 
 C. 
 
 Called of Christ, 39; as Christians, 
 40 ; of God, 335. 
 
 sanctifi- 
 
 Calvin, and the decrees, 393 seq. 
 Capital Punishment, 501. 
 
 Charity, the gift of, 474; to the 
 brethren, 477. 
 Children of God, 314 seq.; receiving 
 
 heirship, 317, 849; in ‘truth, 366 
 seq. 
 
 Christ, His two natures, 31, 73 ; the 
 Holy Spirit in, 35 ; His resurrection 
 from the dead, 36; thanksgiving 
 through, 41; His obedience, 52; 
 the propitiator, 134-140 ; His sacri- 
 fice, 172 ; secures peace ‘and rejoic- 
 ing, 181 ; dies for the ungodly, 185- 
 190 ; His obedience, 217, 227 ; union 
 with, 233; the Deliverer, 286 seq., 
 296 ; frees from condemnation, 299 
 seq., 345; His person and nature, 
 301 seq.; and His heirs, 317, 349 ; 
 Divinity of, 360 seq., 396 seq; 
 the corner-stone, 393; the end of 
 the law, 405, 421; descent into 
 Hades, 410; as Lerd, 411, 423 ; the 
 head, 471 ; the Lord and judge, 513 ; 
 pleased not Himself, 538; a minister 
 of the circumcised, 541 ; 
 praised through, 580 seq. 
 
 Christians, how called, 40 ; how slan- 
 dered, 119 ; bound unto righteous- 
 ness, 248; not under the Mosaic 
 law, 257 seq.; belong to Christ, 258 
 seq.; married to Christ, 261 seq., 
 290 ; delivered from fear, 316, 337 ; 
 heirs of Christ, 317, 349; conquering 
 through Christ, 343; inseparable 
 from Christ, 343 seq.; their mutual 
 relations, 471 ; to be zealous, 476 ; 
 adapting themselves in service, 477, 
 485; to be charitable and hospitable, 
 477 ; harmonious and self-sacrific- 
 ing, 478 ; loving and forgiving, 479 
 seq.; and their enemies, 481; to 
 obey the civil authorities, 489 seq. ; 
 to pay tribute, 492 seq.; to perform 
 all duties, 493 seq.; to walk worthi- 
 ly,496 seq. ; to for bear with the w eak, 
 507 seq., 522 seq., 537 seq.; forbid- 
 den to judge one another, 510 seq., 
 524 seq., 515, 519 seq. 526 ; living for 
 Christ, 512 seq., 526 seq.; accounta- 
 ble to God, 515 ; not to give offence, 
 
 God is ~ 
 
584. 
 
 515, 526 seq.; to follow after peace, 
 519; to be in harmony, 540 seq.; 
 helping one another, 555 seq.; to 
 practise hospitality, 565; to be 
 wise and good, 571 seq. 
 
 Church, The, in the family, 566. 
 
 Church Invisible, The, 103-105. 
 
 Churches founded by Paul, 550, 553. 
 
 Circumcision, for Christians, its bear- 
 ing on the law, 101, 108; its ben- 
 efits, 111, 146 ; by faith, 143 ; asign 
 of the covenant, 160, 176. 
 
 Clement, Epistle of, 19. 
 
 Coals of fire, 481. 
 
 Colossians, Wpistle to the, 10. 
 
 Commandments fulfilled in love, 495. 
 
 Communism, none in Paul, 555. 
 
 Concord, prayer for, 539sseq. 
 
 Condemnation, through Adam, 215, 
 226; none in Christ, 299 seq., 345 
 seq., 339 seq., 353. 
 
 Confession of Faith, 410 seq. 
 
 Conscience, of the Gentiles, 92-94. 
 
 Consecration of man to God, 470 seq., 
 483. 
 
 Contentiousness, 87. 
 
 Conversion of Jews, 445, 448 seq., 463. 
 
 Corinthians, First Epistle to the, 8. 
 
 Council, Apostolic, 7. 
 
 Creator, The, 58 ; dishonoured by the 
 Gentiles, 65. 
 
 Creation, 58 ; longing for deliverance, 
 320; and the fall of man, 323; to 
 be delivered, 324. 
 
 ΤΣ 
 
 Death, physical, 196 seq., 222 seq., 
 309 seq.; ethical, 236 seq., 253 ; re- 
 leasing from sin, 253; eternal, 244 
 seq., 264, 272; its power over the 
 body, 311 seq., 348. . 
 
 Deaconesses, 565, 569. 
 
 Decrees, Divine, 60, 378 seq., 393 seq. 
 
 Desire, begotten by sin, 269 seq. 
 
 Descent into Hades, 410. 
 
 Destructiveness of Sin, 241. 
 
 Determinism, 393. 
 
 Diaconate, The, 472, 484 seq. 
 
 Disobedience, of Adam, 216 seq. 
 
 Divinity of Christ, 360 seq., 396 seq., 
 ald. 
 
 Divorce, 260. 
 
 Doxology, to God in Christ, 360 seq.., 
 396 seq; the closing, 562 seq., 576 
 seq. 
 
 Duties, to be fulfilled, 493 seq. 
 
 E. 
 
 Ebionites, 506. 
 Edification, 538. 
 Election, 334 seq., 352 seq., 356 seq., 
 
 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 365 seq., 372 seq., 378 seq., 393 seq.» 
 399 seq., 429 seq., 453 seq. 
 
 Encouragement, in the Spirit, 330 
 seq. ; in God’s will, 333 
 
 Endurance, 183. 
 
 Enjoyments, immoral, 250. 
 
 Enmity against God, 307. 
 
 Epaenetus, 566 seq. 
 
 Ephesians, Epistle to the, 10. 
 
 Epicureanism, 572. 
 
 Epilogue, 544, 558. 
 
 Errorists, A warning against, 571 seq., 
 582. 
 
 Ksau, and his birthright, 371 seq. 
 
 Essenes, 506. 
 
 Eternal Life, 86 ; the gift of God, 251 
 seq. ; for righteousness’ sake, 311. 
 
 Kurope, receives the Gospel, 7. 
 
 Evil, to be punished, 88 ; for the sake 
 of good, 119 ; to be abhorred, 475, 
 485 ; overcome by good, 481, 482. 
 
 Exegesis, true, 283, 295. 
 
 Exhortation, The gift of, 472, 484 seq. 
 
 Experience, 183 ; constant rule of, 282, 
 294 ; and conversion, 296. 
 
 F. 
 
 Faith, 25; apprehending salvation, 
 88 ; obedience to, 39; as a condi- 
 tion, 49, 85 ; aimed at by the gospel, 
 52; begetting life, 53; securing 
 righteousness, 129-141 ; alone jus- 
 tifies, 142 ; imputed, 156 seq., 174 ; 
 illustrated in Abraham, 168-171, 
 178; unto righteousness, 172 ; jus- 
 tifies, 180; its righteousness, 406 
 seq., 421 seq. ; of the heart, 411 ; 
 conditions of, 413; its measure, 
 470, 483; analogy of, 472, 484; a 
 weak, 507 seq., 522 seq. ; towards 
 the weak brethren, 521, 530. 
 
 Fall, The, of man, 323. 
 
 Family Religion, 566. 
 
 Fear, removed, 337 seq. 
 
 Fellowship, social, 43; spiritual, of 
 Christ, 230, 262 seq., 308, 499 seq.; 
 practical, 555 seq.; commended, 
 565. 
 
 First-fruits, 439. 
 
 Flesh, The, its striving, 306 ; its rule, 
 313; to be crucified, 500; absti- 
 nence from, 505 seq., 516 seq., 519 
 seq., 527 seq. 
 
 Forbearance with the weak, 507 seq., 
 522 seq., 537 seq. 
 
 Foreknowledge of God, 334 seq., 426 
 seq., 458 seq. 
 
 Forgiveness of sins, 133-140; pro- 
 duces happiness, 158. 
 
 Formula Concordiae, The, and origi- 
 nal sin, 288 seq. 
 
 Freedom, 73; under the law, 243, 
 
TOPICAL) INDEX. 
 
 954 ; from sin, 246, 264 seq.; the cry 
 for, 286, 295; moral, 285 seq.; from 
 condemnation, 299 seq., 345. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaius, or Caius, 575. 
 
 Galatians, Epistle to the, 8. 
 
 Gamaliel, 2. 
 
 Gentiles, The, 46; Paul’s relation to, 
 47 ; forsaking God, 60, 78 ; are in- 
 excusable, 60 ; conceited in wisdom, 
 61; abandoned by God, 64, 68; 
 
 perverting the truth, 65; worship- ; 
 
 ping the creature, 66; their moral 
 condition, 80 ; how judged, 89-94 ; 
 their relation to law and conscience, 
 90-93 ; called of God, 385 seq., 401, 
 434 ; hear and accept the Gospel, 
 420, 423 ; grafted on the theocratic 
 tree, 441 seq., 460 seq.; their uni- 
 versal salvation, 447, 463; should 
 praise God’s mercy, 542 seq., 558; 
 hope in the Messiah, 543; to be- 
 lieve in the Gospel, 579, 582. 
 
 Gifts of Grace, 338; diversity of, 471 
 seq., 484. 
 
 Glorified with Christ, 318, 336 seq., 
 900 seq. 
 
 God, Knowledge of, 57; through 
 creation, 58 ; His power and divini- 
 ty, 59; His punishment of immoral- 
 ity, 62 ; as Judge, 94seq.; his good. 
 ness despised, 83; faithfulness of, 
 112 seq.; a righteous judge, 115; 
 His glory, 132; justifying the be- 
 liever, 140; quickening the dead, 
 167 ; His great love to man, 343 seq. ; 
 deals righteously, 372 seq., His soy- 
 ereignty, 373 seq., 378 seq.; His rela- 
 tion to man, 378 seq.; His forbear- 
 ance, 380 seq.; His goodness and 
 severity, 443 seq.; great mercy of, 
 453 ; wisdom and knowledge of, 455 
 seq., 464; the source of all, 457; 
 the author of consolation and perse- 
 verance, 539; to be glorified, 540, 
 558 ; praised by the Gentiles, 542, 
 seq., 558; His power to overcome 
 Satan, 573 ; 15 praised, 575 seq., 580 
 seq., 582. 
 
 Gospel, The, as the power of God, 
 48 ; produces faith, 52, 413 ; its joy- 
 ful message, 414 ; not obeyed by all, 
 414; proclaimed to the Jews, 417 
 seq.; refused by them, 420, 423 ; 
 proclaimed to the Gentiles, 420, 423; 
 conveys a blessing, 556 ; obedience 
 to the, 573; is the preaching of 
 Christ, 577 seq.; to produce obedi- 
 ence, 579 seq. 
 
 Government, Civil, obedience to the, 
 488 seq., 500 seq.; its divine author- 
 
 
 
 585 
 
 ity, 489 seq.; ground of obedience 
 to the, 492. 
 
 Grace, through Christ, 37 ; for special 
 offices, 74 ; its outcome in man, 41 ; 
 in righteousness, 157 ; assures God’s 
 promise, 165; abundantly given, 
 209; and the law, 219 seq., 227; 
 continuance in, 229, 252 ; sovereign 
 in God’s will, 373 seq.; as saving 
 power, 429 seq.; may be forfeited, 
 444 ; implored, 575. 
 
 ἘΠ 
 
 Hades, 410. 
 
 Happiness through forgiveness, 158 ; 
 upon the faithful, 159, 175 ; through 
 faith, 182 ; in Christ, 298 seq. 
 
 Harmony, commended, 478. 
 
 Heart-belief, 411. 
 
 Hermas, 570. 
 
 Holiness, its fruit, 251. 
 
 Holy Spirit, The, 35; and justifica- 
 tion, 40; gifts of social fellowship, 
 43; of love, 184; helping man, 330 
 seq. ; renews the mind, 469; in 
 righteousness, 518. 
 
 Homage to God, 514, 
 
 Hope, 183, 184 ; saved by, 329 seq. ; 
 joyful in, 477. 
 
 Hospitality, commended, 477, 565. 
 
 Humility, 470, 483, 478; Paul’s lan- 
 guage of, 549. 
 
 Ue 
 
 Idolatry, 60, 78. 
 
 Idols’ temples, plundered, 100. 
 
 Immersion, 252. 
 
 Immorality, punished, 62; ends in 
 death, 250. 
 
 Imputation, of Righteousness, 141, 
 156-158, 161, 174; through faith, 
 172 ; of sin, 203. 
 
 Infants, mortality and salvation of, 
 199 seq., 224; their relation to 
 “Adam’s sin, 205, 209, 224. 
 
 Innocence, pre-Mosaic, 271 seq. 
 
 Intercession, by the Spirit, 331; by 
 Christ, 341. 
 
 Inward Man, The, 283, 294. 
 
 Tsaac, and his posterity, 366 seq. 
 
 Israelites, The true, 859 seq. ; not 
 cast away, 426 seq., 458 seq.; a rem- 
 nant of, faithful, 428 seq., 452. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jacob and God’s promises, 371 seq. 
 
 Jerusalem, The Church at, 555 seq. 
 
 Jews, The, their expulsion from 
 Rome, 18; their conduct before 
 Paul, 20 ; strangers to God’s right- 
 eousness, 80 ; their treatment of the 
 law, 96 seq. ; their life previous to 
 
586 
 
 the law, 266 seq.; a remnant saved, 
 388 seq. ; their exclusion, self-im- 
 posed, 390 seq., 402; their guilt, 
 403 seq.; having zeal without 
 knowledge, 404 ; and righteousness, 
 404 seq. ; receive the Gospel, 417 
 seq. ; reject the Gospel, 420, 423 ; 
 their treatment of God’s prophets, 
 427 seq.; hardened because of 
 unbelief, 430 seq. ; as a spiritual 
 tree, 441 seq., 461 seq.; as fallen, 
 444; their universal conversion, 
 445 seq., 453 seq., 463 seq. ; not 
 cast otf, 426 seq., 458 seq.’; their 
 restoration, 463 seq. 
 
 Joy, in Christ, 192, 414 ; the spirit of 
 the kingdom, 518. 
 
 Judaism, True, 103, 359 seq. ; not 
 cast off, 426, 458 seq. 
 
 Judgment Day, The, 84. 
 
 Judgments of God, 55 ; judicial, 82 ; 
 revealed on the last day, 84, 94 ; in 
 righteousness, 116 seq. ; upon the 
 Jews, 432 seq. 
 
 Judgments, self-righteous, 81. 
 
 Junias, 567, 581. 
 
 Justification by faith, imputative, 51 ; 
 universal, 76; Paul’s argument as 
 to, 77 ; by the law, 90, 126, 148 ; by 
 grace, 132, 149 ; by faith alone, 142; 
 assured to Abraham and to all 
 Christians, 172 ; not sanctification, 
 173 ; its blessedness, 180 ; its con- 
 
 sequences, 221; the ground of 
 glorification , 337. 
 
 τ 
 
 Kiss, The holy, 570 seq. 
 ‘Knowledge of sin, 268, 291 seq. 
 
 L 
 
 Law, The Moral, and sin, 89; and 
 the Gentiles, 90 ; and the Jews, 96 
 seq. ; and circumcision, 101, 107, 
 108 ; fulfilled in righteousness, 102 
 seq. ; established through faith, 
 145, 150 ; working wrath, 164, 177 ; 
 its relation to sin and grace, 218 
 seq., 227 ; the life of sin, 270 seq. ; 
 is holy, 273 ; is spiritual, 272 seq. ; 
 its moral excellency, 278 ; a rule of 
 experience, 282, 294; the end of, 
 405, 421 ; fulfilled in love, 495 seq. 
 
 Law, The Mosaic, not binding, 258 ; 
 and marriage, 260; not immoral, 
 265 seq., 290; man’s relation to, 
 265 seq. 
 
 Law, Natural, 90. 
 
 Letter, serving the, 264 seq. 
 
 Liberty, Christian, the law of, 509 seq., 
 515 seq., 520 seq., 524 seq., 526 seq., 
 530 seq. 
 
 
 
 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 Life, with Christ, 237 sey. ; eternal, 
 250 seq. ; pre-mundane, 271 seq. ; 
 of the world, 306 seq. ; of Chris- 
 tians, 307. 
 
 Logos, The, 34. 
 
 Long-sutiering of God, 380 seq., 400 
 seq., 420. 
 
 Love, for the good, 475, 485 ; exhor- 
 tation to, 494 ; the fulfilment of the 
 law, 495 seq. 
 
 Love of Christ, to the Christian, 344 
 seq. 
 
 Love of God, 184, 334 seq. ; assured 
 through Christ’s death, 185; all- 
 comprehensive, 343 seq. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mankind under sin, 120 seq., 130, 
 275 seq. 
 
 Man, unregenerate, 275 seq., 292 seq.; 
 in misery, 285; his relation to 
 God, 378. 
 
 Marriage, 259, 289; how dissolved, 
 260 seq. 
 
 Mary, saluted, 567. 
 
 Messianic Kingdom, enlarged, 435 ; 
 to be glorified, 438 ; its fulness, 447 
 seq. ; drawing near, 497 seq. ; not 
 eating and drinking, 518 seq., 529 
 seq. 
 
 Messianic Sovereignty, 163 ; promises 
 Of, 959. 
 
 Mind, Renewal of the, 469. 
 
 Miracles, Apostolic, 549 seq. 
 
 Modesty, 470, 483 seq. 
 
 Morality, a standard of, 84; its rela- 
 tion to faith, 85 ; promoted by right- 
 eousness, 228 seq., 252 ; Christian, 
 251 ; demanded, 305 seq. ; exhorta- 
 tion to, 498 seq. 
 
 Mortality, universal, 198 seq. 
 
 Mosaic Law, The, not binding, 258 ; 
 and marriage, 260 seq.; not im- 
 moral, 265 ; man’s relation to the, 
 265 seq. 
 
 Moses and righteousness, 406 seq., 
 421 seq. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nature, under sin, 324 seq.; to be 
 glorified, 325. 
 
 O. 
 
 Obedience, active and passive, 51 ; to 
 God, 245 seq., 399 seq, ; to the gos- 
 pel, not universal, 414 seq. ; civil, 
 487 seq., 500 seq.: of Christians, 573. 
 
 Observance of days, 511; of Sunday, 
 511 seq., 524 seq. 
 
 Omniscience of God, 332 seq. 
 
 Oracles of God, 111, 146. 
 
 Original Sin, 205-209, 288 seq. 
 
TOPICAL INDEX. 587 
 
 ἘΣ: 
 
 Paederastia, 67. 
 
 Pantheism, excluded, 59. 
 
 Parousia, 451 ; drawing near, 497 seq. ; 
 expected by Paul, 560. 
 
 Partisanship, 87. 
 
 Passions, Evil, 263. 
 
 Patience, 183 ; in hope, 330. 
 
 Paul, his birth and parentage, 1 ; his 
 names ; 72 ; education and occupa- 
 pation, 2; Pharisaism and conver- 
 sion, 3; apostolic labors, 4 ; ecstat- 
 ic vision, 5 ; first missionary jour- 
 ney, 6 ; second missionary journey, 
 7; third missionary journey, ὃ ; 
 experience at Jerusalem, 9 ; impris- 
 onment at Rome, 10; martyrdom, 
 11 ; sojourn in Spain, 12 ; origin of 
 this tradition, 14 ; theory of a sec- 
 ond captivity, 14 ; his teaching, 23 ; 
 apostleship, 29, 72; called through 
 grace, 37 ; in sorrow over the Jews, 
 357 ; wishes himself accursed, 358 ; 
 his interest in their salvation, 403 
 seq. ; glorifying his office, 436 seq., 
 460 ; justifies his boldness, 545 seq. ; 
 exalts his office, 546 seq., 559; 
 glories in Christ, 547 seq. ; works 
 miracles, 549 seq.; his preaching 
 circuits, 550 seq., 560 ; as a founder 
 of churches, 550, 553 ; contemplates 
 ajourney to Spain, 553; asks for 
 prayers, 557 ; salutes the saints, 569 
 seq. ; warns against false teachers, 
 571 seq., 582 ; dictates this Epistle, 
 574; concludes with a Doxology, 
 575 seq., 582. 
 
 Peace, 41 ; through justification, 181 ; 
 the spirit of the Kingdom, 518; im- 
 plored, 557, 573. 
 
 Perseverance, 85. 
 
 Peter, 16 ; his arrival in Rome, 17. 
 
 Pharaoh, as God’s instrument, 376 seq. 
 
 Philemon, 10. 
 
 Philippians, Epistle to the, 10. 
 
 Phoebe, 565. 
 
 Plan of salvation, God’s, 456 seq. 
 
 Popes, succession of, 17 ; against the 
 Scriptures, 20. 
 
 Prayer, help in, 331; persevering in, 
 477 ; for others, 557. 
 
 Preaching, the necessity of, 413 seq. ; 
 heard everywhere, 416 ; of Christ, 
 the mystery revealed, 577 seq. ; to 
 produce obedience, 579 seq. 
 
 Predestination, 334 seq., 352 seq., 356 
 seq., 365 seq., 399 seq., 372 seq., 
 378 seq., 393 seq., 444 seq., 453 seq. 
 
 Presumption, warned against, 440 seq., 
 462. 
 
 Pride, spiritual, warned against, 443. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Priscilla, 565 seq. 
 
 Probation, after death, 85. 
 
 Promises of God, 165, 364 seq.; faith- 
 fully kept, 458 ; fulfilled in Christ, 
 541 ; encouraging, 573. 
 
 Prophecy, of the O. T., 52 ; fulfilled, 
 387 seq., 411, 543, 551 seq., 579 seq. ; 
 the gift of, 472. 
 
 Proselytes of the Gate, 102. 
 
 Providence, benevolent, 333 seq., 352 
 seq. 
 
 Punishment of sin, 71 ; in righteous- 
 ness, 115, 147. 
 
 Punishment, temporal, 490. 
 
 Ri. 
 
 Rabbis, Jewish, and Adam’s sin, 202. 
 
 Rebecca, and her sons, 370 seq. 
 
 Reconciliation, through Christ’s death, 
 192. 
 
 Redemption in Christ, 133. 
 
 Remnant, A faithful, 429 seq., 452. 
 
 Renovation, Moral, 242, 264, 469. 
 
 Reprobacy, 68, 430 seq. 
 
 Resolution, The power of, 277. 
 
 Restoration, Future, 448 seq., 463 seq. 
 
 Resurrection, of Christ, 232, 341; 
 moral, of man, 232, 312; with Christ, 
 237. 
 
 Revenge, Personal, 
 forbidden, 481. 
 
 Revolution, the right of, 501. 
 
 Righteousness, 25 ; not an attribute of 
 God, 49; a relation of man, 50 ; 
 how procured, 51; of faith and 
 works, 85 ; the fulfilling of the law, 
 102 seq. ; not possessed under the 
 law, 122 seq.; through faith in 
 ‘Christ, 129-141 ; imputed, 140, 156 
 seq., 174; a sign of the covenant, 
 160, 176 ; through Christ’s obedi- 
 ence, 219; promotes morality, 228 
 seq., 252; moral, 244; obligatory 
 upon Christians, 248 seq., 255 seq.; 
 cives eternal life, 311, 348 ; not ac- 
 complished by the Jews, 391 seq. ; 
 their efforts for, 404 seq. ; as the 
 end of the law in Christ, 405 seq., 
 421 seq.; the essence of Christ’s 
 kingdom, 515 seq. , 529 seq. 
 
 Rome, The church at, 15 ; its founder, 
 15 ; constituent members, 18, 258 ; 
 praised by Paul, 544, 573. 
 
 Rome, The city of, 16. 
 
 Romans, The, 46. 
 
 Romans, Epistle to the, 9; against the 
 Papacy, 20 ; occasion of, 21 ; object 
 of, 22; contents of, 25; place and 
 time of composition, 26 ; genuine- 
 ness of, 26; its address, and when 
 omitted, 28, 40. 
 
 unlawful, 479 ; 
 
588 TOPICAL 
 
 8. 
 
 Sabbath, The Christian, 511 seq., 524 
 seq. 
 
 Sacrifice, Self-, 467 seq., 482. 
 
 Saints saluted, 569. 
 
 Saintship, how produced, 40. 
 
 Salutation, Apostolic, 29 ; 
 saints, 569 ; by kissing, 570. 
 
 Salvation, apprehended by faith, 38 ; 
 its true meaning, 49 ; its universal- 
 ity, 192 ; its occasioning cause, 212 
 seq., 225seq. ; through Christ, 215 ; 
 by hope, 329 seq. ; made certain, 
 337 seq. ; its cause in God, 374 ; free 
 and universal, 412 ; conditions of, 
 413 seq. ; to be enlarged in scope, 
 437 seq., 460 seq. ; universal, 445 
 seq., 463 seq. ; through God’s mer- 
 cy, 453 seq.; fulness of, 455 seq., 
 464 ; drawing near, 497 seq. ; the 
 comfort of, 539. 
 
 Sanctification, 467 seq., 482. 
 
 Sarah, and her son, 368 seq. 
 
 Satan, to be bruised, 573 seq. 
 
 Scriptures, The Holy, a source of com- 
 fort, 539. 
 
 Selfishness, condemned, 538. 
 
 Selt-seeking, condemned, 478, 572. 
 
 Servants of righteousness, 246. 
 
 Sin, and the law, 89, 219 seq., 227 ; 
 
 to the 
 
 universal, 123, 130,149 ; knowledge, © 
 
 128 ; how forgiven, 133, 140; none 
 without law, 165 ; universal through 
 Adam, 193 seq., 222 seq. ; imputed, 
 203 seq. ; original, 205 seq. ; dying 
 to, 229, 252; destroyed, 234 seq., 
 253 ; not to reign, 239 ; its destruc- 
 tiveness, 241; its wages, 251 ; be- 
 gets desire, 269; dead without the 
 law, 270 seq. ; its power, 274 seq.; 
 active in man, 280; its bondage, 
 286 ; condemned in the flesh, 303. 
 
 Slaves, and Slavery, 73 ; to immoral- 
 ity, 243 seq. 
 
 Soul-conflict, 274 seq., 292 seq. 
 
 Soul, Sanctification of the, 467 seq., 
 482, 
 
 Spain, 553. 
 
 Spiritual Light, dawning, 498. 
 
 Spirit, serving the, 264 seq. ; the law 
 of the, 300; its striving, 306 ; im- 
 parted, 315 ; testifying within man, 
 316 ; communicated, 327. 
 
 Stumbling-blocks, 516 seq., 526 seq., 
 519 seq. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Suffering, for Christ’s sake, 317 seq., 
 349 seq., 342 seq. ; holding out in, 
 477. 
 
 Subordination of Christ, 457. 
 
 ie 
 
 Taxes, to be paid, 492 seq. 
 
 Teaching, The gift of, 473, 484 seq. 
 
 Tertius, 574. 
 
 Thanksgiving, 
 food, 512. 
 
 Thessalonians, Epistle to the, 8. 
 
 Timotheus, 574. 
 
 Tribulation, 183. 
 
 Trinity, The Doctrine of the, 457. 
 
 Truth hindered by immorality, 56. 
 
 U. 
 
 Unbelief of man, 112, 147. 
 
 Unchastity, 64, 66. 
 
 Union with Christ, 233, 262 seq., 
 471, 499 seq. 
 
 expressed, 42; for 
 
 Vis 
 Vanity, the creation subject to, 323 
 seq. 
 Vengeance, belongs to God, 479 seq. 
 Victory, with God, 338. 
 
 WA 
 
 Wickedness, universal, 122 seq. 
 
 Will of God, The, 334 seq. ; discern- 
 ed, 469. 
 
 Will, The human, enslaved, 281. 
 
 Wine, abstinence from, 505 seq., 516 
 seq., 019 seq., 527 seq. 
 
 Wisdom, human and false, 61. 
 
 Word of God, The, begetting faith, 
 415 ; preached everywhere, 416 seq. 
 
 Works, 85 ; of the law, 126, 148; do 
 not justify, 142, 154; not the cause 
 of election, 430. 
 
 World, The, longing for redemption, 
 320 seq. 
 
 Wrath of God, The, 54; why visited 
 upon men, 57; foretold, 88; in 
 righteousness, 116 ; worked by the 
 law, 164, 177; removed, 190, 191; 
 exhibited after long-suffering, 381 
 seq., 401 seq. ; not to be hindered, 
 479. 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zeal, without knowledge, 404 ; for the 
 Christian life, 476. 
 

 

 

 
 ν 7 ῃ Ὁ ᾿ 
 Yi ᾿ τ 1 
 Re es 
 ἡ ὃν 
 
 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ςξς 
 
 « 
 
 = ¢ 
 a 
 J ἜΣ 
 
 
 
 ων \* 
 i 
 -~—| --—— = 
 
 —_ 
 > 
 ἕως 
 
 © 
 Pe 
 
 i 
 
 ere: 
 
 ay 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 PRINTEDINU.S.A.