^\\EUNIVER% ^ 
 
 I ti^<ri i 
 
 I 3 
 
 
 
 ^lOSANCEl^, 
 
 ^l-UBRARYO^ 
 
 i? 
 
 1 I . ' & & 
 
 Mil s 
 
 ^EUNIVERS/^. ^IOS-
 
 ^OF-CAIIFO^ ^\\E-UNIVER% 
 
 ** S~^ ^ .. * lg g 
 
 SOJIWD-JO^ 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 I 
 
 
 ea 
 
 => 
 
 
 * ^1 1(T- tt<xT- 
 
 9 1/U 9 I li^Ng 1 

 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 CHAELES HODGE. 
 
 J-ROFESSOR IB THB THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PR1NCETOH. 
 
 NEW EDITION, 
 REVISED, AND IN GREAT MEASURE REWRITTEN. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 ALFRED MARTIEN, 
 
 21 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET. 
 
 1877.
 
 Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by 
 WILLIAM 8. & ALFRED MARTIEN, 
 
 In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States, in and for 
 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
 
 *? 
 
 
 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 WHEN Paul and the other apostles were called to enter upon 
 their important duties, the world was in a deplorable and yet 
 most interesting state. Both Heathenism and Judaism were in 
 the last stages of decay. The polytheism of the Greeks and 
 Romans had been carried to such an extent as to shock the 
 common sense of mankind, and to lead the more intelligent 
 among them openly to reject and ridicule it. This scepticism 
 had already extended itself to the mass of the people, and 
 become almost universal. As the transition from infidelity to 
 superstition is certain, and generally immediate, all classes of 
 the people were disposed to confide in dreams, enchantments, 
 and other miserable substitutes for religion. The two reigning 
 systems of philosophy, the Stoic and Platonic, were alike insuf- 
 ficient to satisfy the agitated minds of men. The former 
 sternly repressed the best natural feelings of the soul, incul- 
 cating nothing but a blind resignation to the unalterable course 
 of things, and promising nothing beyond an unconscious exist- 
 ence hereafter. The latter regarded all religions as but different 
 forms of expressing the same general truths, and represented 
 the whole mythological system as an allegory, as incomprehen- 
 sible to the common people, as the pages of a book to those 
 who cannot read. This system promised more than it could 
 accomplish. It excited feelings which it could not satisfy, and 
 thus contributed to produce that general ferment which existed 
 at this period. Among the Jews, generally, the state of things 
 was hardly much better. They had, indeed, the form of true 
 religion, but were in a great measure destitute of its spirit. 
 The Pharisees were contented with the form : the Sadducees 
 were sceptics; the Essenes were enthusiasts and mystics. Such 
 being the state of the world, men were led to feel the need of 
 some surer guide than either reason or tradition, and some
 
 4 UiTBODUCTION. 
 
 better foundation of confidence than either heathen philosophers 
 or Jewish sects could afford. Hence, when the glorious gospel 
 was revealed, thousands of hearts, in all parts of the world, 
 were prepared, by the grace of God, to exclaim, This is all our 
 desire and all our salvation. 
 
 The history of the apostle Paul shows that he was prepared 
 to act in such a state of society. In the first place, he was 
 born, and probably educated in part, at Tarsus, the capital of 
 Cilicia; a city almost on a level with Athens and Alexandria, 
 for its literary zeal and advantages. In one respect, it is said 
 by ancient writers to have been superior to either of them. In 
 the other cities mentioned, the majority of students were 
 strangers, but in Tarsus they were the inhabitants themselves.* 
 That Paul passed the early part of his life here is probable, 
 because the trade which he was taught, in accordance with the 
 custom of the Jews, was one peculiarly common in Cilicia. 
 From the hair of the goats, with which that province abounded, 
 a rough cloth was made, which was much used in the manufac- 
 ture of tents. The knowledge which the apostle manifests of 
 the Greek authors, 1 Cor. xv. 33, Titus i. 12, would also lead 
 us to suppose that he had received at least part of his education 
 in a Grecian city. Many of his characteristics, as a writer, 
 load to the same conclusion. He pursues, far more than any 
 other of the sacred writers of purely Jewish education, the 
 logical method in presenting truth. There is almost always a 
 regular concatenation in his discourses, evincing the spontane- 
 ous exercise of a disciplined mind, even when not carrying out 
 a previous plan. His epistles, therefore, are far more logical 
 than ordinary letters, without the formality of regular disserta- 
 tions. Another characteristic of his manner is, that in discuss- 
 ing any question, he always presents the ultimate principle on 
 whicli the decision depends. These and similar clmract.'ristics 
 of this itpostlc are commonly, and probably with justice, 
 asci'ilj.'d partly to his turn of n>ind, and partly to his early 
 education. "\Ve learn from the Scriptures themselves, that the 
 Holy Spirit, : n employing men as his in^tru:::cms in convoying 
 truth, did nut ci:-inge their mental habits; he did not make 
 Jews write liku Greeks, or force all into the same mould. Each 
 
 * Str&bo, Lib. 14, chap. ft.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 retained his own pectiliarities of style and manner, and, there- 
 fore, whatever is peculiar to each, is to be referred, not to his 
 inspiration, but to his original character and culture. While 
 the circumstances just referred to, render it probable that the 
 apostle's habits of mind were in some measure influenced by his 
 birth and early education in Tarsus, there are others (such as 
 the general character of his style) which show that his residence 
 there could not have been long, and that his education was not 
 thoroughly Grecian. We learn from himself, that he was prin- 
 cipally educated at Jerusalem, being brought up, as he says, at 
 \he feet of Gamaliel. (Acts xxii. 3.) 
 
 This is the second circumstance in the providential prepara- 
 tion of the apostle for his work, which is worthy of notice. As 
 Luther was educated in a Roman Catholic seminary, and tho- 
 roughly instructed in the scholastic theology of which he was 
 to be the great opposer, so the apostle Paul was initiated into 
 all the doctrines and modes of reasoning of the Jews, with 
 whom his principal controversy was to be carried on. The 
 early adversaries of the gospel were all Jews. Even in the 
 heathen cities they were so numerous, that it was through them 
 and their proselytes that the church in such places was founded. 
 We find, therefore, that in almost all his epistles, the apostle 
 contends with Jewish errorists, the corrupters of the gospel, by 
 means of Jewish doctrines. Paul, the most extensively useful 
 of all the apostles, was thus a thoroughly educated man ; a man 
 educated with a special view to the work which he was called to 
 perform. We find, therefore, in this, as in most similar cases, 
 that God effects his purposes by those instruments which he 
 has, in the ordinary course of his providence, specially fitted 
 for their accomplishment. 
 
 In the third place, Paul was converted without the interven- 
 tion of human instrumentality, and was taught the gospel by 
 immediate revelation. " I certify you, brethren," he says to 
 the Galatians, "that the gospel which was preached of me, was 
 not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I 
 taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." These cir- 
 cumstances are important, as he was thus placed completely on 
 a level with the other apostles. He had seen the Lord Jesus, 
 and could therefore be one of the witnesses of his resurrection;
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 he was able to claim the authority of an original inspired 
 teacher and messenger of God. It is obvious that he laid great 
 Btress upon this point, from the frequency with which he refers 
 to it. lie was thus furnished not only with the advantages of 
 his early education, but with the authority and power of an 
 apostle of Jesus Christ. 
 
 His natural character was ardent, energetic, uncompromising, 
 and severe. How his extravagance and violence were subdued 
 by the grace of God, is abundantly evident from the modera- 
 tion, mildness, tenderness, and conciliation manifested in all his 
 epistles. Absorbed in the one object of glorifying Christ, he 
 was ready to submit to any thing, and to yield any thing neces- 
 sary for this purpose. He no longer insisted that others should 
 think and act just as he did. So that they obeyed Christ, he 
 was satisfied ; and he willingly conformed to their prejudices, 
 and tolerated their errors, so far as the cause of truth and 
 righteousness allowed. By his early education, by his miracu- 
 lous conversion and inspiration, by his natural disposition, and 
 b^ the abundant grace of God, was this apostle fitted for his 
 work, and sustained under his multiplied and arduous labours. 
 
 ORIGIN AND CONDITION OP THE CHURCH AT ROME. 
 
 One of the providential circumstances which most effectually 
 contributed to the early propagation of Christianity, was the 
 dispersion of the Jerrs among surrounding nations. They were 
 widely scattered through the East, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, 
 Greece, and Italy, especially at Rome. As they were permitted, 
 throughout the wide extent of the Roman Empire, to worship 
 God according to the traditions of their fathers, synagogues 
 were every where established in the midst of the heathen. The 
 apostles, being Jews, had thus always a ready access to the 
 people. The synagogues furnished a convenient place for regu- 
 lar assemblies, without attracting the attention or exciting the 
 suspicion of the civil authorities. In these assemblies they 
 were sure of meeting not only Jews, but the heathen also, and 
 precisely the class of heathen best prepared for the reception 
 of the gospel. The infinite superiority of the pure theism of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures to any form of religion known to the 
 ancients, could not fail to attract and convince multitudes among
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 the pagans, wherever the Jewish worship was established. Such 
 persons became either proselytes or "devout," that is, worship- 
 pers of the true God. Being free from the inveterate national 
 and religions prejudices of the Jews, and at the same time con- 
 vinced of the falsehood of polytheism, they were the most sus- 
 ceptible of all the early hearers of the gospel. It was by converts 
 from among this class of persons, that the churches in all the 
 heathen cities were in a great measure founded. There is 
 abundant evidence that the Jews were very numerous at Rome, 
 and that the class of proselytes or devout persons among the 
 Romans was also very large. Philo says (Legatio in Caium, 
 p. 1041, ed. Frankf.) that Augustus had assigned the Jews a 
 large district beyond the Tiber for their residence. He accounts 
 for their being so numerous, from the fact that the captives car- 
 ried thither by Pompey were liberated by their masters, who 
 found it inconvenient to have servants who adhered so strictly 
 to a religion which forbade constant and familiar intercourse' 
 with the heathen. Dion Cassius (Lib. 60, c. 6) mentions that 
 the Jews were so numerous at Rome, that Claudius was at 
 first afraid to banish them, but contented himself with forbid- 
 din** their assembling together. That he afterwards, on account 
 
 o o o * 
 
 of the tumults which they occasioned, did banish them from the 
 city, is mentioned by Suetonius (Vita Claudii, c. 25,) and by 
 Luke, Acts xviii. 2. That the Jews, on the death of Claudius,, 
 .returned to Rome, is evident from the fact that Suetonius and 
 Dion Cassius speak of their being very numerous under the fol- 
 lowing reigns ; and also from the contents of this epistle, espe- 
 cially the salutations (chap. 16) addressed to Jewish Christians.. 
 That the establishment of the Jewish worship at Rome had 
 produced considerable effect on the Romans, is clear from the ; 
 statements of the heathen writers themselves. Ovid speaks of 
 the synagogues as places of fashionable resort ; Juvenal (Satire- 
 14) ridicules his countrymen for becoming Jews ;* and Tacitus? 
 
 * Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem, 
 Nil prseter nubes, cceli numen adorant: 
 Nee distare putant humana carne suillam, 
 Qua pater abstinuit, mox et prseputia ponunt 
 Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 
 Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus,. 
 Tradidit arcane quodcunque volumine Moses, &o:
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (Hist. Lib. 5, ch. 5*) refers to the presents sent by Roman 
 proselytes to Jerusalem. The way was thus prepared for the 
 early reception and rapid extension of Christianity in the impe- 
 rial city. When the gospel was first introduced there, or by 
 whom the introduction was effected, is unknown. Such was the 
 constant intercourse between Rome and the provinces, that it is 
 not surprising that some of the numerous converts to Christian- 
 ity made in Judea, Asia Minor, and Greece, should at an early 
 period find their way to the capital. It is not impossible that 
 many, who had enjoyed the personal ministry of Christ, and 
 believed in his doctrines, might have removed or returned to 
 Rome, and been the first to teach the gospel in that city. Still 
 less improbable is it, that among the multitudes present at Jeru- 
 salem at the day of Pentecost, among whom were " strangers 
 of Rome, Jews and proselytes," there were some who carried 
 back the knowledge of the gospel. That the introduction of 
 Christianity occurred at an early period, may be inferred not 
 only from the probabilities just referred to, but from other cir- 
 cumstances. When Paul wrote this epistle, the faith of the 
 Romans was spoken of throughout the world, which would seem 
 to imply that the church had already been long established. 
 Aquila and Priscilla, who left Rome on account of the decree 
 of Claudius banishing the Jews, were probably Christians before 
 their departure; nothing at least is said of their having been 
 converted by the apostle. He found them at Corinth, and 
 being of the same trade, he abode with them, and on his 
 departure took them with him into Syria. 
 
 The tradition of some of the ancient Fathers, that Peter was 
 the founder of the church at Rome, is inconsistent with the 
 statements given in the Acts of the Apostles. Trenanis (Ilferes. 
 III. 1) says, that " Matthew wrote his gospel, while Peter and 
 Paul were in Rome preaching the gospel and founding the 
 church there." And Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. 2 Claudii; *;iys, 
 "Peter having founded the church at Antioch, departed for 
 Rome, preaching the gospel." Both these statements are incor- 
 rect. Peter did not found the church at Antioch, nor did he 
 
 * Pessimus quisque, apretis religionibus patriis, tribute et stipes illuc con- 
 ferebat, uric austse Judseorum res.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 and Paul preach together at Rome. That Peter was not at 
 Rome prior to Paul's visit, appears from the entire silence of 
 this epistle on the subject; and from no mention being made of 
 the fact in any of the letters written from Rome by Paul during 
 his imprisonment. The tradition that Peter ever was at Rome, 
 rests on very uncertain authority. It is first mentioned by 
 Dionysius of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century, 
 and from that time it seems to have been generally received. 
 The account is in itself improbable, as Peter's field of labour 
 was in the East, about Babylon ; and as the statement of Diony- 
 sius is full of inaccuracies. He makes Peter and Paul the 
 founders of the church at Corinth, and makes the same asser- 
 tion regarding the church at Rome, neither of which is true. 
 He also says that Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at the 
 same time at Rome, which, from the silence of Paul respecting 
 Peter, during his last imprisonment, is in the highest degree 
 improbable.* History, therefore, has left us ignorant of the 
 time when this church was founded, and the persons by whom 
 the work was effected. 
 
 The condition of the congregation may be inferred from the 
 circumstances already mentioned, and from the drift of the 
 apostle's letter. As the Jews and proselytes were very numer- 
 ous at Rome, the early converts, as might be expected, were 
 from both these classes. The latter, however, seem greatly to 
 have predominated, because we find no such evidence of a ten- 
 dency to Judaism, as is supposed in the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 Paul no where seems to apprehend that the church at Rome 
 would apostatize, as the Galatian Christians had already done. 
 And in chapters 14 and 15, his exhortations imply that the 
 Gentile party were more in danger of oppressing the Jewish, 
 than the reverse. Paul, therefore, writes to them as Gentiles 
 (chap. i. 13,) and claims, in virtue of his office as apostle to the 
 Gentiles, the right to address them with all freedom and author- 
 ity (xv. 16.) The congregation, however, was not composed 
 exclusively of this class; many converts, originally Jews, were 
 included in their numbers, and those belonging to the other 
 
 * See Eichhorn's Einleitung, Vol. III. p. 203, and Neander's Geschichte der 
 Pflanzung, &c. p. 456.
 
 10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 class wero more or less under the influence of Jewish opinions. 
 The apostle, therefore, in this, as in all his other epistlea 
 t addressed to congregations similarly situated, refutes those 
 doctrines of the Jews which were inconsistent with the gospel, 
 and answers those objections which they and those under their 
 t influence were accustomed to urge against it. These different 
 elements of the early churches were almost always in conflict, 
 both as to points of doctrine and discipline. The Jews 
 insisted, to a greater or less extent, on their peculiar privileges 
 and customs; and the Gentiles disregarded, and at times 
 despised the scruples and prejudices of their weaker brethren. 
 The opinions^ of the Jews particularly controverted in this 
 epistle are, 1. That connection with Abraham by natural 
 descent, and by the bond of circumcision, together with the 
 observance of the law, is sufficient to secure the favour of God. 
 2. That the blessings of the Messiah's reign were to be con- 
 fined to Jews and those who would consent to become prose- 
 lytes. 3. That subjection to heathen magistrates was incon- 
 sistent with the dignity of the people of God, and with their 
 duty to the Messiah as King. 
 
 There are clear indications in other parts of Scripture, as 
 well as in their own writings, that the Jews placed their chief 
 dependence upon the covenant of God with Abraham, and 
 the peculiar rites and ordinances connected with it. Our 
 Saviour, when speaking to the Jews, tells them, " Say not, 
 We have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you, that 
 God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abra- 
 ; ham," (Luke iii. 8.) It is clearly implied in this passage, that 
 j the Jews supposed that to have Abraham as their father 
 e was sufficient to secure the favour of God. The Rabbins 
 taught that God had promised Abraham, that his descendants, 
 though wicked, should be saved on account of his merit. 
 Justin Martyr mentions this as the ground of confidence of the 
 Jews in his day. "Your Rabbins," he says, "deceive them- 
 selves and us, in supposing that the kingdom of heaven is pre- 
 pared for all those who are the natural seed of Abraham, even 
 though they be sinners and unbelievers." (Dialogue with 
 i Trypho.) They were accustomed to say, " Great is the virtue 
 of circumcision; no circumcised person enters hell." And one
 
 INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 of their standing maxims was, "All Israel hath part in eternal 
 life."* 
 
 The second leading error of the Jews was a natural result 
 of the one just referred to. If salvation was secured by con- 
 nection with Abraham, then none who were not united to their 
 great ancestor could be saved. There is no opinion of the Jews 
 more conspicuous in the sacred writings, than that they were 
 greatly superior to the Gentiles ; that the theocracy and all its 
 blessings belonged to them ; and that others could attain even 
 an inferior station in the kingdom of the Messiah only by 
 becoming Jews. 
 
 The indisposition of the Jews to submit to heathen magis- 
 trates, arose partly from their high ideas of their own dignity, 
 and their contempt for other nations ; partly from their erro- 
 neous opinions of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom, and 
 partly, no doubt, from the peculiar hardships and oppressions 
 to which they were exposed. The prevalence of this indisposi- 
 tion among them is proved by its being a matter of discussion 
 whether it was even lawful to pay tribute to Caesar ; by their 
 assertion that, as Abraham's seed, they were never in bondage 
 to any man; and by their constant tumults and rebellions, 
 which led first to their banishment from Rome, and finally to 
 the utter destruction of their city. The circumstances of the 
 church at Rome, composed of both Jewish and Gentile con- 
 verts ; surrounded by Jews who still insisted on the necessity 
 of circumcision, of legal obedience, and of connection with the 
 family of Abraham, in order to salvation; and disposed on 
 many points to differ among themselves, sufficiently account for 
 the character of this epistle. 
 
 TIME AND PLACE OP ITS COMPOSITION. 
 
 There are no sufficient data for fixing accurately and cer- 
 tainly the chronology of the life and writings of the apostle 
 Paul. It is therefore, in most cases, only by a comparison of 
 various circumstances, that an approximation to the date of the 
 principal events of his life can be made. With regard to this 
 
 * See Raymundi Martini Pugio Fidei, P. III. Disc. 3, o. 16. Pococke's Mis- 
 cellanea, p. 172, 227. Witsii Miscellanea, P. II. p. 653. Michaeli's Introduc- 
 tion to the New Testament, Vol. III. p. 93.
 
 12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 epistle, it is plain, from its contents, that it was written just aa 
 Paul was about to set out on his last journey to Jerusalem. In 
 the fifteenth chapter he says, that the Christians of Macedonia 
 and Achaia had made a collection for the poor saints in Jeru- 
 salem, and that he was on the eve of his departure for that city 
 (ver. 25.) This same journey is mentioned in Acts xx., and 
 occurred most probably in the spring (see Acts xx. 16) of the 
 year 58 or 59. This date best suits the account of his long 
 imprisonment, first at Cesarea, and then at Rome, of four years, 
 and his probable liberation in 62 or 63. His subsequent labours 
 and second imprisonment would fill up the intervening period 
 of two or three years, to the date of his martyrdom, towards 
 the close of the reign of Nero. That this epistle was written 
 from Corinth, appears from the special recommendation of 
 Phebe, a deaconess of the neighbouring church, who was pro- 
 bably the bearer of the letter (chap. xvi. 1 ;) from the saluta- 
 tions of Erastus and Gaius, both residents of Corinth, to the 
 Romans (chap. xvi. 23;) compare 2 Tim. iv. 20, and 1 Cor. 
 
 1. 14 ; and from the account given in Acts xx. 2, 3, of Paul's 
 journey through Macedonia into Greece, before his departure 
 for Jerusalem, for the purpose of carrying the contributions of 
 the churches for the poor in that city. 
 
 AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 That this epistle was written by the apostle Paul, admits of 
 no reasonable doubt. 1. It, in the first place, purports to be 
 his. It bears his signature, and speaks throughout in his name. 
 
 2. It has uniformly been recognised as his. From the apostolic 
 age to the present time, it has been referred to and quoted by a 
 regular series of authors, and recognised as of divine authority 
 in all the churches. It would be requisite, in order to disprove 
 its authenticity, to account satisfactorily for these facts, on the 
 supposition of the epistle being spurious. The passages in the 
 early writers, in which this epistle is alluded to or cited, are 
 very numerous, and may be seen in Lardner's Credibility, 
 Vol. II. 3. The internal evidence is no less decisive in its 
 favour, (a) In the first place, it is evidently the production of 
 a Jew, familiar with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of the Old Testament, because the language and style are
 
 INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 such as no one, not thus circumstanced, could adopt ; and be- 
 cause the whole letter evinces such an intimate acquaintance 
 with Jewish opinions and prejudices, (b) It agrees perfectly in 
 style and manner with the other epistles of this apostle, (c) It 
 is, in the truth and importance of its doctrines, and in the eleva- 
 tion and purity of its sentiments, immeasurably superior to any 
 uninspired production of the age in which it appeared. A com- 
 parison of the genuine apostolic writings with the spurious pro- 
 ductions of the first and second centuries, affords one of the 
 strongest collateral evidences of the authenticity and inspiration 
 of the former, (d) The incidental or undesigned coincidences, 
 as to matters of fact, between this epistle and other parts of the 
 New Testament, are such as to afford the clearest evidence of 
 its having proceeded from the pen of the apostle. Compare 
 Rom. xv. 25 31 with Acts xx. 2, 3, xxiv. 17, 1 Cor. xvi. 14, 
 2 Cor. viii. 1 4, ix. 2, Rom. xvi. 21 23 with Acts xx. 4, Rom. 
 xvi. 3, et seqq. with Acts xviii. 2, 18 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, &c., 
 (see Paley's Horse Paulinse.) 4. Besides these positive proofs, 
 there is the important negative consideration, that there are no 
 grounds for questioning its authenticity. There are no discre- 
 pancies between this and other sacred writings ; no counter 
 testimony among the early Fathers; no historical or critical 
 difficulties which must be solved before it can be recognised as 
 the work of Paul. There is, therefore, no book in the Bible, 
 and there is no ancient book in the world, of which the authen- 
 ticity is more certain than that of this epistle. 
 
 ANALYSIS OP THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The epistle consists of three parts. The first, which includes 
 the first eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of the doc- 
 trine of justification and its consequences. The second, embrac- 
 ing chs. ix. xi., treats of the calling of the Gentiles, the rejec- 
 tion and future conversion of the Jews. The third consists of 
 practical exhortations and salutations to the Christians at Rome. 
 
 THE FIRST PART the apostle commences by saluting the Roman 
 Christians, commending them for their faith, and expressing his 
 desire to see them, and his readiness to preach the gospel at 
 Rome. This readiness was founded on the conviction that the 
 gospel revealed the only method by which men can be saved, 
 viz., by faith in Jesus Christ, and this method is equally appli-
 
 14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cable to all mankind, Gentiles as well as Jews, chap. i. 1 17. 
 Paul thus introduces the two leading topics of the epistle. 
 
 In order to establish his doctrine respecting justification, he 
 first proves that the Gentiles cannot be justified by their own 
 works, chap. i. 18 39 ; and then establishes the same position 
 in reference to the Jews, chs. ii. iii. 1 20. Having thus shown 
 that the method of justification by works is unavailable for 
 sinners, he unfolds that method which is taught in the gospel, 
 chap. iii. 21 31. The truth and excellence of this method he 
 confirms in chs. iv. and v. The obvious objection to the doc- 
 trine of gratuitous acceptance, that it must lead to the indulgence 
 of sin, is answered, and the true design and operation of the law 
 are exhibited in chs. vi. and vii.; and the complete security of 
 all who confide in Christ is beautifully unfolded in chap. viii. 
 
 In arguing against the Gentiles, Paul assumes the principle 
 that God will punish sin, chap. i. 18, and then proves that they 
 are justly chargeable both with impiety and immorality, because, 
 though they possessed a competent knowledge of God, they did 
 not worship him, but turned unto idols, and gave themselves up 
 to all kinds of iniquity, chap. i. 19 32. 
 
 He commences his argument with the Jews by expanding the 
 general principle of the divine justice, and especially insisting 
 on God's impartiality by showing that he will judge all men, 
 Jews and Gentiles, according to their works, and according to 
 the light they severally enjoyed, chap. ii. 1 16. He shows that 
 the Jews, when tried by these rules, are as justly and certainly 
 exposed to condemnation as the Gentiles, chap. ii. 17 29. 
 
 The peculiar privileges of the Jews afford no ground of hope 
 that they will escape being judged on the same principles with 
 other men, and when thus judged, they are found to be guilty 
 before God. All men therefore are, as the Scriptures abun- 
 dantly teach, under condemnation, and consequently cannot be 
 justified by their own works, chap. iii. 1 20. 
 
 The gospel proposes the only method by which God will 
 justify men a method which is entirely gratuitous ; the condi- 
 tion of which is faith ; which is founded on the redemption of 
 Christ; which reconciles the justice and mercy of God; hum- 
 bles man; lays the foundation for an universal religion, and 
 establishes the law, chap. iii. 21 31.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 The truth of this doctrine is evinced from the example of 
 Abraham, the testimony of David, the nature of the covenant 
 made with Abraham and his seed, and from the nature of the 
 law. He proposes the conduct of Abraham as an example and 
 encouragement to Christians, chap. iv. 1 25. 
 
 Justification by faith in Christ secures peace with God, pre- 
 sent joy, and the assurance of eternal life, chap. v. 1 11. The 
 method, therefore, by which God proposes to save sinners, is 
 analogous to that by which they were first brought under con- 
 demnation. As on account of the offence of one, sentence has 
 passed on all men to condemnation ; so on account of the right- 
 eousness of one, all are justified, chap. v. 12 21. 
 
 The doctrine of the gratuitous justification of sinners cannot 
 lead to the indulgence of sin, because such is the nature of union 
 with Christ, and such the object for which he died, that all who 
 receive the benefits of his death, experience the sanctifying 
 influence of his life, chap. vi. 1 11. Besides, the objection in 
 question is founded on a misapprehension of the effect and design 
 of the law, and of the nature of sanctification. Deliverance 
 from the bondage of the law and from a legal spirit is essential 
 to holiness. When the Christian is delivered from this bondage, 
 he becomes the servant of God, and is brought under an influ- 
 ence which effectually secures his obedience, chap. vi. 12 23. 
 
 As, therefore, a woman, in order to be married to a second 
 husband, must first be freed from her former one, so the Chris- 
 tian, in order to be united to Christ, and to bring forth fruit 
 unto God, must first be freed from the law, chap. vii. 1 6. 
 
 This necessity of deliverance from the law, does not arise 
 from the fact that the law is evil, but from the nature of the 
 case. The law is but the authoritative declaration of duty; 
 which cannot alter the state of the sinner's heart. Its real 
 operation is to produce the conviction of sin (vs. 7 13,) and, 
 in the renewed mind, to excite approbation and complacency in 
 the excellence which it exhibits, but it cannot effectually secure 
 the destruction of sin. This can only be done by the grace of 
 God in Jesus Christ, chap. vii. 7 25. 
 
 Those who are in Christ, therefore, are perfectly safe. They 
 are freed from the law ; they have the indwelling of the life- 
 giving Spirit : they are the children of God ; they are chosen,
 
 16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 called, and justified according to the divine purpose ; and they 
 are the objects of the unchanging love of God, chap. viii. 1 39. 
 
 THE SECOND PART of the epistle relates to the persons to 
 whom the blessings of Christ's kingdom may properly be offered, 
 and the purposes of God respecting the Jews. In entering upon 
 this subject, the apostle, after assuring his kindred of his affec- 
 tion, establishes the position that God has not bound himself to 
 regard as his children all the natural descendants of Abraham, 
 but is at perfect liberty to choose whom he will to be heirs of 
 his kingdom. The right of God to have mercy on whom he 
 will have mercy, he proves from the declarations of Scripture, 
 and from the dispensations of his providence. He shows that 
 this doctrine of the divine sovereignty is not inconsistent with 
 the divine character or man's responsibility, because God 
 simply chooses from among the undeserving whom he will as 
 the objects of his mercy, and leaves others to the just recom- 
 pense of their sins, chap. ix. 1 24. 
 
 God accordingly predicted of old, that he would call the 
 Gentiles and reject the Jews. The rejection of the Jews was 
 on account of their unbelief, chs. ix. 25 33, x. 1 5. The 
 two methods of justification are then contrasted for the purpose 
 of showing that the legal method is impracticable, but that the 
 method proposed in the gospel is simple and easy, and adapted 
 to all men. It should, therefore, agreeably to the revealed 
 purpose of God, be preached to all men, chap. x. 6 21. 
 
 The rejection of the Jews is not total ; many of that genera- 
 tion were brought into the church, who were of the election of 
 grace, chap. xi. 1 10. Neither is this rejection final. There 
 is to be a future and general conversion of the Jews to Christ, 
 and thus all Israel shall be saved, chap. xi. 11 36. 
 
 THE THIRD or practical part of the epistle, consists of direc- 
 tions, first, as to the general duties of Christians in their vari- 
 ous relations to God, chap, xii.; secondly, as to their political 
 or civil duties, chap, xiii.; and thirdly, as to their ecclesiastical 
 Duties, or those duties which they owe to each other as mem- 
 bers of the church, chs. xiv. xv. 1 13. 
 
 The epistle concludes with some account of Paul's labours 
 and purposes, chap. xv. 14 33, and with the usual saluta- 
 tions, chap. xvi.
 
 A COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THIS chapter consists of two parts. The first extends to> 
 the close of ver. 17, and contains the general introduction to- 
 the epistle. The second commences with ver. 18, and extends 
 to the end of the chapter: it contains the argument of the- 
 apostle to prove that the declaration contained in vs. 16, 17 r 
 that justification can only be obtained by faith, is true with* 
 regard to the heathen. 
 
 ROMANS I. 117. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THIS section consists of two parts. The first from vs. 1 to T 
 inclusive, is a salutatory address ; the second, from vs. 8 to 17,. 
 is the introduction to the epistle. Paul commences by an- 
 nouncing himself as a divinely commissioned teacher, set apart 
 to the preaching of the gospel, ver. 1. Of this gospel, he says,, 
 1. That it was promised, and of course partially exhibited in> 
 the Old Testament, ver. 2. 2. That its- great subject ->raa 
 Jesus Christ, ver. 3. Of Christ he says, that he was, as to his 
 human nature, the Son of David ; but as to his divine nature, 
 the Son of God, vs. 3, 4. From this Divine Person he had 
 received his office as an apostle. The object of this office was 
 to bring men to believe the gospel ; and it contemplated all 
 2 (17)
 
 18 ROMANS I. 1. 
 
 nations as the field of its labour, ver. 5. Of course the Romans 
 were included, ver. 6. To the Roman Christians, therefore, 
 he wishes grace and peace, ver. 7. Thus far the salutation. 
 
 Having shown in what character, and by what ri;_ r lit he ad- 
 dressed them, the apostle introduces the subject of his letter 
 by expressing to them his respect and affection. He thanks 
 God, not only that they believed, but that their faith was uni- 
 versally known and talked of, ver. 9. As an evidence of his 
 concern for them, he mentions, 1. That he prayed for them 
 constantly, ver. 9. 2. That he longed to see them, vs. 10, 11. 
 3. That this wish to see them arose from a desire to do them 
 good, and to reap some fruit of his ministry among them, as 
 well as among other Gentiles, vs. 12, 13. Because he was 
 under obligation to preach to all men, wise and unwise, he was 
 therefore ready to preach even at Rome, vs. 14, 15. This 
 readiness to preach arose from the high estimate he entertained 
 of the gospel. And his reverence for the gospel was founded 
 not on its excellent system of morals merely, but on its efficacy 
 in saving all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, ver. 16. 
 This efficacy of the gospel arises from its teaching the true 
 method of justification, that is, the method of justification by 
 faith, ver. 17. It will be perceived how naturally and skil- 
 fully the apostle introduces the two great subjects of the 
 epistle the method of salvation, and the persons to whom it 
 may properly be offered. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. Paul, a servant of Jeus Christ, called an apostle. 
 Agreeably to the ancient mode of epistolary address, the 
 .-apostle begins with the declaration of his name and uliice. It 
 <was his office which gave him the right to address the believers 
 At Rome, and elsewhere, with that tone of authority which per- 
 vades all his epistles. Speaking as the messenger of Christ, 
 he spake as he spake, as one having authority, and not as an 
 ordinary teacher. 
 
 The origin-.il name of the apostle was Saul, ;-xu: demanded. 
 Hi- is first called Paul in Acts xiii. 9. As this change of his 
 name is mentioned in the paragraph which contains the account 
 of the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus,
 
 ROMANS I. 1. 19 
 
 some have supposed that the name was assumed in compliment 
 to that distinguished convert. This supposition does not seem 
 to accord with the apostle's character, and is, on other grounds, 
 less probable than either of the two following. First, as it was 
 not unusual, among the Jews, to change the name of a person 
 in consequence of some remarkable event, as in the case of 
 Abraham and Jacob, Gen. xvii. 5, xxxii. 8; or when he was 
 advanced to some new office or dignity, Gen. xli. 45, Dan. i 
 6, 7 ; so that a new name is sometimes equivalent to a new 
 dignity, Kev. ii. 17, it may be supposed that the apostle re- 
 ceived the name of Paul, when called to the office of an apostle. 
 This supposition is favoured by the consideration that he 
 received the name soon after he entered upon the public exer- 
 cise of his apostleship, and by the fact that Simon was called 
 Cephas when called to be an apostle, John i. 42, Matt. x. 2, 
 and that James and John were called Boanerges, Mark iii. 17. 
 Hence Theophylact says that it was in order that even in this 
 matter, he should not be behind the very chief of the apos- 
 tles, that Saul was called Paul. Second, as it was very com- 
 mon for those Jews who had much intercourse with the hea- 
 then to bear two names, one Jewish and the other Greek or 
 Roman, which names were sometimes entirely distinct, as Hillel 
 and Pollio, sometimes nearly related as Silas and Silvan us, it is 
 very probable that this was the case with the apostle. He 
 was called Saul among the Jews, and Paul among the Gentiles ; 
 and as he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, the latter name 
 became his common designation. As this change was, however, 
 made or announced at an epoch in the apostle's history, Acts 
 xiii. 9, the two explanations may be united. "The only sup- 
 position," says Dr. J. A. Alexander, in his comment on 
 Acts xiii. 9, "which is free from all these difficulties, and 
 .affords a satisfactory solution of the facts in question, is, that 
 this was the time fixed by Divine authority for Paul's manifes- 
 tation as Apostle of the Gentiles, and that manifestation was 
 made more conspicuous by its coincidence with the triumph 
 over a representative of unbelieving and apostate Judaism, and 
 the conversion of an official representative o.f Rome, whose 
 name was identical with his own apostolic title." 
 
 In calling himself a servant (bondsman) of Jesus Christ, he
 
 20 ROMANS I. 1. 
 
 may have intended either to declare himself the dependant and 
 worshipper of Christ, as all Christians are servants (slaves) of 
 Christ, Eph. vi. 6; or to express his official relation to the 
 Church as the minister of Christ. This is the more probable 
 explanation, because, in the Old Testament rnrn 12? is a com- 
 mon official designation of any one employed in the immediate 
 service of God, Joshua i. 1, xxiv. 29, Jer. xxix. 19, Isaiah 
 xlii. 1 ; and because in the New Testament we find the same 
 usage, not only in the beginning of several of the epistles, as 
 "Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ," Phil. i. 1. 
 "James, the servant of God and of Jesus Christ," James i. 1. 
 "Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ," 1 Peter i. 1; 
 but also in other cases where the word 8ou),oi; is interchanged with 
 oidxovot; minister. Comp. Col. i. 7, iv. 7, 12. It is, therefore, 
 a general official designation of which, in the present case, 
 apostle is the specific explanation. "Apostolatus ministerii est 
 species." Calvin. It has also been properly remarked, that 
 as the expression, servant of Christ, implies implicit obedience 
 and subjection, it supposes the Divine authority of the Redeemer. 
 That is, we find the apostle denying that he was the servant of 
 men, rejecting all human authority as it regards matters of faith 
 and duty, and yet professing the most absolute subjection of 
 conscience and reason to the authority of Jesus Christ. 
 
 x^roc dTroaroAoc, called an apostle. Paul was not only a 
 servant of Christ, but by Divine appointment an apostle. This 
 idea is included in the word x/ty'roc, which means not only 
 called, but chosen, appointed; and the xtfjocs, or vocation, as 
 weil of believers to grace and salvation, as of the apostles to 
 their office is uniformly ascribed to God or Christ; see Gal. 
 i. 1, 1 Cor. i. 1, Tit. i. 1, Gal. i. 15. As the immediate call of 
 Christ was one of the essential requisites of an apostle, Paul 
 means to assert in the use of the word xyty'roc that he was 
 neither self-appointed nor chosen by men to that sacred office 
 
 The word dnoarotoz occurs in its original sense of messenger 
 in several cases in the New Testament. John xiii. 16, oux Ion 
 TO~J xe/jt^avroz abrbv. Phil. ii. 25, 'Enaypo 
 djv d faooTokov. Comp. iv. 18. In 2 Cor. viii. 23, 
 Paul speaking of the brethren who were with him, calls them 
 Ixzfyotatv; roitrearcv says Chrysostom, &ro
 
 ROMANS I. 1, 21 
 
 S. Theophylact adds, xa2 izipoTovrftsv?^. Our 
 translators, therefore, are doubtless correct in rendering this 
 phrase, messengers of the churches. As a strict official desig- 
 nation, the word apostle is confined to those men selected and 
 commissioned by Christ himself to deliver in his name the 
 message of salvation. It appears from Luke vi. 13, that the 
 Saviour himself gave them this title. "And when it was day, 
 he called his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also 
 he named apostles." If it be asked, why this name was 
 chosen? it is perhaps enough to say, that it was peculiarly 
 appropriate. It is given to those who were sent by Christ 
 to perform a particular service, who were therefore properly 
 called messengers. There is no necessity to resort for an 
 explanation of the term, to the fact that the word rnbffi mes- 
 senger, was applied sometimes to the teachers and ministers of 
 the synagogue, sometimes to plenipotentiaries sent by the San- 
 hedrim to execute some ecclesiastical commission. 
 
 The apostles, then, were the immediate messengers of Christ, 
 appointed to bear testimony to what they had seen and heard. 
 "Ye also shall bear witness," said Christ, speaking to the 
 twelve, "because ye have been with me from the beginning." 
 John xv. 26. This was their peculiar office; hence when 
 Judas fell, one, said Peter, who has companioned with us all 
 the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, must be 
 ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Acts i. 21. 
 To be an apostle, therefore, it was necessary to have seen 
 Christ after his resurrection, 1 Cor. ix. 1, and to have a 
 knowledge of his life and doctrines derived immediately from 
 himself. Without this no man could be a witness, he would 
 only report what he had heard from others, he could bear no 
 independent testimony to what he himself had seen and heard. 
 Christ, therefore, says to his disciples, after his resurrection, 
 "Ye shall be my witnesses," Acts i. 8, and the apostles 
 accordingly constantly presented themselves in this character. 
 Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, xiii. 31. " We are witnesses," said Peter, 
 spo iking of himself and fellow-apostles, "of all things which 
 he did, both in the land of Judea, and in Jerusalem." Acts 
 x. 39. When Paul was called to be an apostle, the Saviour said 
 to him. u I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make
 
 22 ROMANS I. 1. 
 
 thee a minister and a witness of these things which thou hast 
 seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." 
 Acts xxvi. 16. We accordingly find, that whenever Paul was 
 called upon to defend his apostleship, he strenuously asserted 
 that lu> was appointed not of men nor by man, but by Jesus 
 Christ : and as to his doctrines, that he neither received them 
 of man, neither was he taught them, but by revelation of Jesus 
 Christ. Gal. i. 12. 
 
 As the testimony which the apostles were to bear related to 
 all that Jesus had taught them, it was by preaching the gospel 
 that they discharged their duty as witnesses. Hence Paul 
 ; Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gos- 
 pel." 1 Cor. i. 17. To the elders of Ephesus he said, "I 
 count not my life dear unto me, so that I might finish my 
 course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the 
 Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God." Acts 
 xx. 24. 
 
 To give authority to this testimony the apostles were inspired, 
 and as religious teachers infallible. John xiv. 26, xvi. 13. 
 They had the power of working miracles, in confirmation of 
 their mission. Matt. x. 8, and the Acts of the Apostles passim. 
 This power they could communicate to others by the laying 
 on of their hands. Acts ix. 15, 17, 18, xix. 6. This is 
 what is meant by giving the Holy Ghost, for the apostles 
 never claimed the power of communicating the sanctifying 
 influences of the Spirit. Nor was the power of giving the 
 Spirit, in the sense above-mentioned, peculiar to them, for we 
 read that Ananias a disciple, was sent to Paul that he might 
 receive the Holy Ghost. Acts ix. 17. The apostles seem also 
 to have had the gift of "discerning spirits," 1 Cor. xii. 10, 
 and of remitting sins. John xx. 28. They ordained presbyters 
 over the congelations gathered by their ministry, Acts xiv. 
 -'\. \f. ; :md exercised a gf-noral jurisdiction over the churches. 
 1 Cor. v. 35, 2 Cor. x. ',. , 11, 1 Tim. i. 20. The apos- 
 tles, therefore, were the immedia; messengers of Jesus Christ, 
 sent to declare his gospel, endued with the Holy Spirit, render- 
 ing them infallible as t'-.iniers, and investing them with mira- 
 culous powers, and clothed with peculiar prerogatives in the 
 an 1 government of the Church.
 
 ROMANS I. 2. 23 
 
 It is in explanation of his apostolic office, and in the further 
 assertion of his divine commission that Paul adds, d.< 
 eC <&J7^Aw $oD, separated unto the gospel of Grod. 
 is to limit off, to separate, to select from among others. It is so 
 used in Levit. xx. 24, 26, "I am the Lord your God, which 
 have separated you from other people." In the same sense, in 
 Gal. i. 15, " when it pleased God, who separated me from my 
 mother's womb;" that is, who singled me out, or chose me. It 
 is obvious, therefore, that the apostle here refers to his appoint- 
 ment by God to his office. In Acts xiii. 2, it is said, " Separate 
 (d(fOf)lffars] unto me Barnabas and Saul," where a separation 
 not to the ministry, much less to the apostleship, but to a special 
 mission is referred to. Paul's designation to office was neither 
 of man, nor by man. Gal. i. 1. The words e/c ^jo:ffiho\>, unto 
 the gospel, express the object to which he was devoted when thus 
 separated from the mass of his brethren ; it was to preach the 
 gospel. The divine origin of the gospel is asserted in calling 
 it the gospel of Grod. It is the glad annunciation which God 
 makes to men of the pardon of sin, of restoration to his favour, 
 of the renovation of their nature, of the resurrection of the 
 body, and of eternal life. 
 
 VERSE 2. Which he promised afore. That is, the gospel 
 which Paul was sent to preach, was the same system of grace 
 and truth, which from the beginning had been predicted and 
 partially unfolded in the writings of the Old Testament. The 
 reason why the apostle here adverts to that fact probably was, 
 that one of the strongest proofs of the divine origin of the 
 gospel is found in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The 
 advent, the character, the work, the kingdom of the Messiah, 
 are there predicted, and it was therefore out of the Scriptures 
 that the apostles reasoned, to convince the people that Jesus is 
 the Christ ; and to this connection between the two dispensa- 
 tions they constantly refer, in proof of their doctrines. See 
 ch. iii. 21, iv. 3, ix. 27, 33, x. 11, 20. Comp. Luke xxiv. 44. 
 John xii. 16, Acts x. 43. 
 
 By his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. As in Scripture the 
 term rcpo^y-r^-, Heb. a^s, is applied to any one who spake by 
 inspiration as the ambassador of God and the interpreter of his 
 will ; Trooyrj-iov here includes all the Old Testament writers,
 
 24 ROMANS I. 3. 
 
 whether prophets in the strict sense of the term, or teachers, Dr 
 historians. Meyer indeed insists that the line of the prophets 
 begins with Samuel, according to Acts iii. 24 "all the prophets 
 from Samuel, and those who follow after," and therefore that 
 the earlier writers of the Old Testament are not here included. 
 But Moses was a prophet, and what is here expressed by the 
 words "his prophets," is explained by the phrase "the law and 
 the prophets," in ch. iii. 21. 
 
 By the Holy Scriptures must of course be understood, those 
 writings which the Jews regarded as holy, because they treated 
 of holy things, and because they were given by the inspiration 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 VERSE 3. Concerning his Son. These words are either to be 
 connected with suarrehov, the gospel concerning his Son; or 
 with TrposTnj-fl-zttaTO, which he promised concerning his Son. 
 The sense in either case is much the same. As most com- 
 mentators and editors regard the second verse as a parenthesis, 
 they of course adopt the former construction ; but as there is 
 no necessity for assuming any parenthesis, the natural gram- 
 matical connection is with Tzpos-xrjfftiXaTO. The personal object 
 of the ancient promises is the Son of God. 
 
 It is a well known scriptural usage, that the designations 
 employed in reference to our Lord are sometimes applied to 
 him as a historical person, God and man, and sometimes exclu- 
 sively to one or the other of the two natures, the divine and 
 human, which enter into the constitution of the theanthropos. 
 Thus the term Son designates .the Logos in all those passages 
 in which he is spoken of as the Creator of all things ; at other 
 times it designates the incarnate Logos; as when it is said, 
 "the Son shall make you free." Sometimes the same terra is 
 used in the same passage in reference first to the incarnate 
 Word, and then to the Word as the second person of the 
 Trinity. Thus in Heb. i. 2, it is said, " Hath spoken unto us 
 by his Son, (the historical person, Jesus Christ,) by whom (the 
 eternal Word) he made the worlds." So here, "concerning his 
 Son," means the Son of God as clothed in our nature, the Word 
 made flesh ; but in the next clause, " declared to be the Son 
 of God," the word Son designates the divine nature of Christ. 
 In all cases, Inwever, it is a designation implying participation
 
 ROMANS I. 3. 25 
 
 of the divine nature Christ is called the Son of God because 
 he is consubstantial with the Father, and therefore equal to him 
 in power and glory. The term expresses the relation of the 
 second to the first person in the Trinity, as it exists from 
 eternity. It is therefore, as applied to Christ, not a term of 
 office, nor expressive of any relation assumed in time. He was 
 and is the Eternal Son. This is proved from John i. 1 14, 
 where the term uioz is interchanged with Xbfoz. It was the 
 Son, therefore, who in the beginning was with God, who was 
 God, who created all things, in whom was life, who is the light 
 of men, who is in the bosom of the Father. In John v. 17 31, 
 Christ calls himself the Son of God, in a sense which made him 
 equal to the Father, having the same power, the same author* 
 ity, and a right to the same honour. In John x. 29 42, Christ 
 declares God to be his Father in such a sense as to make him- 
 self God, one with the Father ; and he vindicates his claim to 
 this participation of the divine nature by appealing to his 
 works. In Col. i. 13 IT, he is said as Son to be the image of 
 the invisible God, the exact exemplar, and of course the revealer 
 of the Divine nature; the Creator of all things that are in 
 heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible. In Heb. 
 i. 4 6, the title Son is adduced as proof that he is superior to 
 the angels, and entitled to their worship. He is therefore 
 called God's proper Son, tdioz, Rom. viii. 32, (comp. -arepa 
 tdtov e/ej's rbv &eov, John v. 18 ;) his own Son, iauroy, Rom. 
 viii. 3; his only begotten Son, //ovc^s^c, John i. 14, 18, iii. 
 16, 18, 1 John iv. 9. Hence giving, sending, not sparing this 
 Son, is said to be the highest conceivable evidence of the love 
 of God, John iii. 16, Rom. viii. 32, 1 John iv. 9. The histo- 
 rical sense of the terms ^o^oc, ecxwv, u.'oc, ~P(OTOTOXOZ, as 
 learned from the Scriptures and the usus loquendi of the apos- 
 tolic age, shows that they must, in their application to Christ, 
 be understood of his Divine nature. 
 
 Who was made of the seed of David. As ^wopae, from the 
 assumed theme fivto^ to beget, signifies to begin to be, to come 
 into existence, it is often used in reference to descent or birth, 
 f-svofjtsvou Ix fwwzoz, Gal. iv. 4 ; ^c ef^d-^rz rsxva, 1 Pet. 
 iii. 6. "Made of the seed of David," is therefore equivalent 
 to ''born of the seed of David." That the Messiah was to be
 
 26 ROMANS I. 4. 
 
 of the family of David, was predicted in the Old Testament, and 
 affirmed in the New. Isa. xi. 1, Jer. xxiii. 5, Matt. xxii. 45, 
 John vii. 4:2, Acts xiii. 23. 
 
 The limitation xara odftxa, according to the flesh, obviously 
 implies the superhuman character of Jesus Christ. Were he a 
 mere man, it had been enough to say that he was of the seed 
 of David ; but as he is more than man, it was necessary to limit 
 his descent from David to his human nature. That the word 
 ffdpz here means human nature is obvious both from the scrip- 
 tural usage of the word, and from the nature of the case. See 
 John i. 14, Rom. ix. 5, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John iv. 2, 3. It is 
 not the flesh or body, as opposed to the soul, but the human, as 
 opposed to the divine nature, that is intended. Neither does 
 adp here mean the purely material element with its organic 
 life, the fffo/jta and <puyfi, to the exclusion of the Tri^v/^a, or 
 rational principle, according to the Apollinarian doctrine, but 
 the entire humanity of Christ, including " a true body and a 
 reasonable soul." This is the sense of the word in all the 
 parallel passages in which the incarnation is the subject. As 
 when it is said, "The Word was made flesh," John i. 14; or, 
 "God was manifested in the flesh," 1 Tim. iii. 16. These are 
 explained by saying, "He was found in fashion as a man," 
 Philip, ii. 8. The word therefore includes everything which con- 
 stitutes the nature which a child derives from its progenitors. 
 
 VERSE 4. Declared to be the Son of Grod. The word bni'&v 
 means, 1. To limit, or bound, and, in reference to ideas, to 
 define. 2. To determine. Luke xxii. 22, Acts ii. 23. Heb. 
 iv. 7. 3. To appoint, or constitute. Acts x. 42. 6 wptff/ievoz 
 bxb TO~J frzo'j xn'.rr^ ^oivrrov xat ^ZXOMV. Acts xvii. 31. This last 
 sense is given by some fevr commentators to batad-evToz in this 
 passage. The apostle would then say that Christ was appointed, 
 or constituted the Son of God, by or after his resurrection. 
 But this is inconsistent with what he elsewhere teaches, viz 
 that Christ was the Son of God before the foundation of the 
 world, Col. i. 15. As shown above, Son of God is not a 
 title of office, but of nature, and therefore Christ cannot be said 
 to have been constituted the Son of God. This interpretation 
 also would involve the latter part of the verse in great difficul- 
 ties. Hence even those commentators who most strenuously
 
 ROMANS 1. 4. 27 
 
 insist on adhering to the signification of words, are constrained, 
 ex necessitate loci, to understand bfxa&s^o^ here declaratively, 
 or in reference to the knowledge of men. That is, when 
 Christ is said to be constituted the Son of God, we are not to 
 understand that he became or was made Son, but was, in the 
 view of men, thus determined.* 
 
 The Vulgate reads, qui praedestinatus est, which version 
 is followed by most of the Roman Catholic interpreters, and by 
 Grotius. This rendering is probably founded on the reading, 
 Xpoopla&svTOZ, which, although old, has little evidence in its 
 favour. Neither is the sense thus expressed suited to the con- 
 text. Christ was not predestinated to be the Son of God. He 
 was such from eternity. 
 
 With power; zoursaTi, says Theophylact, cbro r^c du^du-w^ 
 r&v ar/jfjtsitav <Zv ~oizc ; Theodoret also understands these 
 words to refer to the miracles which Jesus, by the power of 
 the Holy Ghost, wrought in confirmation of his claim to be 
 the Son of God. The former of these commentators takes 
 v owd[j.t, xa-rd xvsZfia, ^ dvaardaewz, as indicating three 
 distinct sources of proof of the Sonship of Christ. He was 
 proved by his miraculous power, by the Holy Spirit either as 
 given to him, or as by him given to his people, (the latter is 
 Theophylact's view,) and by his resurrection, to be the Son 
 of God. But the change of the prepositions, and especially 
 the antithetical structure of the sentence, by which xard 
 xv>fj.a is obviously opposed to xard adpxa, are decisive objec- 
 tions to this interpretation. Others propose to connect iv 
 dovdfjLSt with yfou, Son in power, for powerful Son; a more 
 common and more natural construction is to connect them with 
 bp'.a&svTOZ) proved, or declared with power, for powerfully, 
 effectually proved to be the Son of God. He was declared 
 with emphasis to be the Son of God, ita ut ejus rei plenissima et 
 certissima sit fides. Winzer. 
 
 * Es bleibt daher, says De Wette, nichts Qbrig, als den Gedanken des 
 Bestimmen modalisch, d. h. in Beziehung, auf die menschliche Erkenntniss, zu 
 nehmen. Much to the same purpose Fritzsche says, Fuerit enim Christus, ut 
 mit, ante mundum Dei filius, hoc certe apparet, eum inter mortales iis demum 
 rebus talem a Deo constitutum esse, sine quibus eum esse Dei filium homi- 
 nes cognoscere non potuissent, velut reditu ex inferis.
 
 28 ROMANS I. 4 
 
 According to the Spirit of holiness. As just remarked, these 
 words are in antithesis with xata adpxa; as to the flesh he was 
 the Son of David, as to the Spirit the Son of God. As <ra ( o 
 means his human nature, 7rvey/a can hardly mean anything 
 else than the higher or divine nature of Christ. The word 
 may be taken in this sense in 1 Tim. iii. 16, idixtuofrrj 
 t, justified by the Spirit, i. e. he was shown to be just, 
 his claims were all sustained by the manifestations of his divine 
 nature, i. e. of his divine power and authority. Heb. ix. 14, 
 DC dea -vz'jfJLaroz aiwviou, who with an eternal Spirit offered 
 himself unto God. 1 Pet. iii. 18 is a more doubtful passage. The 
 genitive &.fuaa{>vrfi is a qualification of -vvjiia, Spirit of holiness; 
 the Spirit whose characteristic is holiness. This expression 
 seems to be here used, to prevent ambiguity, as Holy Spirit is 
 appropriated as the designation of the third person of the 
 Trinity. As the word holy often means august, venerandus, so 
 artaiffvvy expresses that attribute of a person which renders him 
 worthy of reverence ; Tri/ei^/a b.fiuxj'jvr^ is, therefore, Spiritus 
 summe venerandus, the $or^c> divine nature, or Godhead, 
 which dwelt in Jesus Christ ; the Logos, who in the beginning 
 was with God, and was God, and who became flesh and dwelt 
 among us. That TTV&/JLO. does not here mean the spiritual state 
 of exaltation of Christ, is plain; first, because the word is 
 never so used elsewhere ; and, secondly, because it is inconsis- 
 tent with the antithesis to xard odpxa. Those who understand 
 the phrase "Spirit of holiness" to refer to the Holy Spirit, 
 either, as before remarked, suppose that the apostle refers 
 to the evidence given by the Spirit to the Sonship of Christ. 
 hence Calvin renders xara xvsvfjta per Spiritum; or they 
 consider him as appealing to the testimony of the Spirit as 
 given in the Scriptures. ' Christ was declared to be the Son 
 of God, agreeably to the Spirit.' To both these views, how- 
 ever, the same objection lies, that it destroys the antithesis. 
 
 e^ cu/aordkjcwc vexftatv, is rendered by Erasmus, Luther, and 
 others, after the resurrection from the dead. It was not until 
 Christ had risen that the evidence of his Sonship was complete, 
 or the fulness of its import known even to the apostles. But it 
 is better suited to th > context, and more agreeable to the Scrip- 
 ture, to consider the resurrection itself as the evidence of his
 
 ROMANS I. 4. 29 
 
 Sonsliip. It was by the resurrection that he was proved to be 
 the Son of God. " God," says the apostle, "will judge the world 
 in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof 
 he hath given assurance unto all, in that he hath raised him 
 from the dead." Acts xvii. 31. The apostle Peter also says, 
 that " God hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrec- 
 tion of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 Pet. i. 3. Comp. iii. 21, 
 Acts xiii. 35, xxvi. 23, 1 Cor. xv. 20. In these and many 
 other passages the resurrection of Christ is represented as the 
 great, conclusive evidence of the truth of all that Christ taught, 
 and of the validity of all his claims. If it be asked how the 
 resurrection of Christ is a proof of his being the Son of God, 
 it may be answered, first, because he rose by his own power. 
 He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take 
 it again. John x. 18. This is not inconsistent with the fact 
 taught in so many other passages, that he was raised by the 
 power of the Father, because what the Father does the Son 
 does likewise; creation, and all other external works, are 
 ascribed indifferently to the Father, Son, and Spirit. But in 
 the' second place, as Christ had openly declared himself to be 
 the Son of God, his rising from the dead was the seal of God 
 to the truth of that declaration. Had he continued under the 
 power of death, God would thereby have disallowed his claim 
 to be his Son ; but as he raised him from the dead, he publicly 
 acknowledged him ; saying, Thou art my Son, this day have I 
 declared thee such. " If Christ be not risen, then is our preach- 
 ing vain," says the apostle, "and your faith is also vain. But now 
 is Christ risen, and become the first fruits of them that slept." 
 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. These words are in apposition with 
 rou uloo afcou of the third verse ; " his Son, Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." All the names of Christ are precious to his people. 
 He is called Jesus, Saviour, because he saves his people from 
 their sins. Matt. i. 21. The name Christ, i. e. Messiah, 
 Anointed, connects him with all the predictions and promises 
 of the Old Testament. He is the anointed prophet, priest, and 
 king, to whom all believing eyes had been so long directed, and 
 on whom all hopes centred. He is xupto^ faajv our Lord. 
 This word indeed is often used as a mere term of respect, 
 equivalent to Sir, but as it is employed by the LXX. as the
 
 30 ROMANS I. 5. 
 
 common substitute of Jehovah, or rather as the translation of 
 si"!*, in the sense of supreme Lord and possessor, so it is in 
 the New Testament applied in the same sense to Christ. He is 
 our Supreme Lord and possessor. \Ve belong to him, and his 
 authority over us is absolute, extending to the heart and con- 
 science as well as to the outward conduct ; and to him every 
 knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the 
 glory of God the Father. He, then, who in this exalted sense 
 is our Lord, is, as to his human nature, the Son of David, and 
 as to his Divine nature, the Son of God. 
 
 VERSE 5. Through whom we have received grace and apostle- 
 shiji. As it was of the utmost importance that Paul's authority 
 as an apostle should be acknowledged in the Church, he here 
 repeats the assertion that he received his office immediately 
 from Jesus Christ, whose exalted character as the Son of God 
 and our supreme Lord he had just declared. Though oi ov 
 properly means through whom, by whose instrumentality, the 
 preposition must here be taken in a more general sense as indi- 
 cating the source from whom. Comp. Gal. i. 1, oca 
 rr//of. Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. i. 9. The words y6.i>& xat d-o 
 may either be taken together and rendered the favour of the 
 apostleship, or each word may be taken separately. Then 
 jf^/'.'C refers to the kindness of God manifested to the apostle 
 in his conversion and vocation. ' Through whom we received 
 (/race, favour in general, and specially, the apostleship.' 
 
 Unto the obedience of faith. These words express the object 
 of the apostleship; xia-rswz is either the genitive of apposition, 
 "obedience which consists in faith;" or it is the genitive of the 
 source, "obedience which flows from faith;" or it is the geni- 
 tive of the object, "obedience to faith," i. e. to the gospel. In 
 favour of the last interpretation reference may he made to 
 2 Cor. x. 5. $ u-axoy roO X(HOTO~J ; 1 Pet. i. '2'2, tj faaxor, Ti 
 'j./.r t 'H'.az, obedience to the truth. See Gal. i. 23, Acts vi. 7, Jude 
 iii. for examples of the use of x'urciz in this objective sense. The 
 subjective sense, however, of the word -;Vrrr~ in the New Testa- 
 ment is so predominant that it is safest to retain it in this pas- 
 sage. The obedience of faith is that obedience which consists in 
 faith, or of which faith is the controlling principle. The design 
 of the apostleship was to bring all nations so to believe in Christ
 
 ROMANS I. 6. 31 
 
 ^ 
 
 the Son of God that they should be entirely devoted to his ser- 
 vice. The sense is the same if xiarti; be taken objectively, un- 
 derstood however not of the gospel, but of the inward principle 
 of i'aith to which the nations were to be obedient. Among all 
 nations. The apostles were not diocesans restricted in jurisdic- 
 tion to a particular territory. Their commission was general. 
 It was to all nations. If these words are connected with we re- 
 ceived, they express directly the extent of the apostle's mission, 
 'We have received a mission among all nations.' If, as is much 
 more natural on acccount of their position, they are connected 
 with the immediately preceding words, they express the same 
 idea indirectly; his office was to promote obedience to the faith 
 among all nations. For his name. That is for the sake of 
 [u~fj] his name or glory. These words are most naturally 
 connected with the whole preceding verse, and express the final 
 end of the apostleship, viz. the honour of Christ. It was to 
 promote the knowledge and glory of Christ that Paul had 
 received his office and laboured to make the nations obedient to 
 the gospel. 
 
 VERSE 6. Among ivJiom are ye also. The apostle thus justi- 
 fies his addressing the Church at Rome in his official character. 
 If the commission which he had received extended to all nations, 
 he was not transcending its limits in writing as an apostle to 
 any church, though it had not been founded by his instrument- 
 ality, nor enjoyed his personal ministry. Called of Jesus 
 Christ. This may mean, Those whom Christ has called. But 
 as the x/^aa;, or vocation of believers, is generally in the New 
 Testament referred to God, the meaning probably is, The called 
 who belong to Christ. Qui Dei beneficio estis Jesu Christi. 
 Beza. The word x/jjro~ is never in the epistles applied to one 
 who is merely invited by the external call of the gospel. 01 
 xfyroi, the called, means the effectually called ; those who are 
 so called by God as to be made obedient to the call. Hence 
 the x/ijroi' are opposed to those who receive and disregard the 
 outward call. Christ, though an oifence to the Jews and Greeks, 
 is declared to be (ro?c x/Jjro?c) to the called the wisdom and 
 power of God. 1 Cor. i. 24. Hence, too, x/jjror and IXASXTO: 
 are of nearly the same import ; xara -xpod-zoiv x/qroi, Rom. viii, 
 28; corap. Rom. ix. 11, 1 Cor. i. 26, 27. We accordingly find
 
 32 ROMANS I. 7. 
 
 i used as a familiar designation of believers, as in Rev 
 xvii. 14, ol fiK a'jTou, xtyroi xac exhxroi. xac moral. See Jude 
 i. 1. Comp. Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 17, et seq., 
 Gal. i. 15, Eph. iv. 1, Col. iii. 15, 1 Thess. ii. 12, v. 24, 
 2 Tim. i. 9. In these and in many other passages, the verb 
 xcdeat expresses the inward efficacious call of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Theophylact remarks that the word xfojroi is applied to Chris- 
 tians, since they are drawn by grace, and do not come of them- 
 selves. God, as it were, anticipates them. The same remark 
 may be made of most of the other terms by which believers are 
 designated. They all more or less distinctly bring into view the 
 idea of the agency of God in making them to differ from others. 
 They are called IXMXTOC dsou. Rom. viii. 33, Col. iii. 12, 
 1 Tim. i. 1 ; or more fully, IxAsxroi xara np&jyaHKV $eoy, 1 Pet. 
 i. 2 ; foaausvoi, sanctified, which includes the idea of separa- 
 tion, 1 Cor. i. 1, Jude i. 1, xpoopcff&svTei; xara xpofreatv TOO 
 #eo5, Eph. i. 11, aw^o/jis^oc, 1 Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15, rera- 
 ffj.ivot er'c C ^ acfowov, Acts xiii. 48. 
 
 VERSE 7. To all who are in Home. These words are, in 
 sense, connected with the first verse, "Paul, the servant of 
 Jesus Christ, to all who are in Rome." Beloved of G-od. This 
 is the great distinction and blessedness of believers, they are 
 the beloved of God. They are not so called simply because, as 
 was the case with the ancient Israelites, they are selected from 
 the rest of the world, and made the recipients of peculiar 
 external favours ; but because they are the objects of that great 
 love wherewith he hath loved those whom, when they were dead 
 in sins, he hath quickened together with Christ, Eph. ii. 4, 5. 
 They are the elect of God, holy and beloved, Col. iii. 12 ; they 
 are brethren beloved of the Lord, 2 Thess. ii. 13. Galled to be 
 saints. The former of these words stands in the same relation 
 to the latter that x^jroj does to d^ooro^oc in ver. 1, called to be 
 .in apostle, called to be saints. It is one of those designations 
 peculiar to the true people of God, and expresses at once their 
 vocation, and that to which they are called, viz. holiness. The 
 word #TVOC, in accordance with the meaning of Ehnp in the Old 
 Testament, signifies clean, pure morally, consecrated, and espe- 
 cially as applied to God, holy, worthy of reverence. The people 
 of Israel, their land, their temple, &c., are called holy, as sepa-
 
 ROMANS I. 7. 33 
 
 rated and devoted to God. The term 8.ytot as applied to the 
 people of God under the new dispensation, includes this idea. 
 They are saints, because they are a community separated from 
 the world and consecrated to God. But agreeably to the nature 
 of the Christian dispensation, this separation is not merely 
 external; believers are assumed to be really separated from 
 sin, that is, clean, pure. Again, as the impurity of sin is, 
 according to Scripture, twofold, its pollution, and guilt or just 
 liability to punishment, so the words xaftaiptcv, xa&ar)i^siv, 
 (i^d^crv, which all mean to cleanse, are used both to express the 
 cleansing from guilt by expiation, and from pollution by the 
 Holy Spirit. Sometimes the one and sometimes the other, and 
 often both of these ideas are expressed by the w.ords. See 
 John xv. 2, Heb. x. 2, for the use of xaftaipto ; Acts xv. 9, 
 Eph. v. 26, Tit. ii. 14, Heb. ix. 14, 22, 1 John i. 7, for the uso 
 of y.a&api^a) ; John xvii. 19, Acts xxvi. 16, 1 Tim. iv. 5, Heb* 
 ii. 11, x. 10, 14, 29, for the use of ^id^w. Hence Christians- 
 are called ft-piot, foaa pivot, not only as those who are conse- 
 crated to God, but also as those who are cleansed both by 
 expiation, and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " Novam Me periodum incipio," says Beza, " adscripto puncto 
 post df/ofc." In this punctuation he is followed by Knapp r 
 Lachmann, Fritzsche, and many others. The sense then is r 
 "Paul, an apostle to the saints in Rome." And then follow* 
 the salutation, "Grace and peace to you." That the word* 
 yo-ptZ xac tipyvq are in the nominative, and the introduction of 
 bptv show that a new sentence is here begun. 
 
 G-race be to you, and peace. Xdpiz is kindness, and espe- 
 cially undeserved kindness, and therefore it is so often used to 
 express the unmerited goodness of God in the salvation of sin- 
 ners. Very frequently it is used metonymically for the effect 
 of kindness, that is, for a gift or favour. Anything, therefore, 
 bestowed on the undeserving may be called "/&{>($ In this 
 sense Paul calls his apostleship yd-pis, Rom. xii. 3, Eph. iii. 2, 8; 
 and all the blessings conferred on sinners through Jesus Christ,, 
 are graces, or gifts. It is in this sense repentance, faith, love, 
 and hope are graces. And especially the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit in the heart, in connection with the gift of the Son, the 
 greatest of God's free gifts to men, is with peculiar propriety 
 3
 
 34 ROMANS I. 8. 
 
 called %df)ez, cr grace. Such is its meaning in 1 Cor. xv. 10, 
 2 Cor. viii. 1, Rom. xii. 6, Gal. i. 15, and in many other pas- 
 sages. In the text, it is to be taken in the comprehensive 
 sense in which it is used in the apostolic benediction, for the 
 favour and love of God and Christ. The word Cinr^r^ which 
 is so often united with ydpts in the formulas of salutation, is 
 used in the wide sense of the Hebrew word tibsJ, well-being, 
 prosperity, every kind of good. Grace and peace therefore 
 include everything that we can desire or need, the favour of 
 God, and all the blessings that favour secures. "Nihil prius 
 optandum," says Calvin, "quam ut Deum propitium habeamus; 
 quod designatur per gratiam. Deinde, ut ab eo prosperitas 
 et successus omnium rerum fluat, qui significatur Pacis voca- 
 bulo." 
 
 From G-od our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. This 
 association of the Father and Christ as equally the object of 
 prayer, and the source of spiritual blessings, is a conclusive 
 proof that Paul regarded Christ as truly God. God is called 
 our Father, not merely as the author of our existence, and the 
 source of every blessing, but especially as reconciled towards 
 us through Jesus Christ. The term expresses the peculiar 
 relation in which he stands to those who are his sons, who 
 have the spirit of adoption, and are the heirs or recipients 
 of the heavenly inheritance. Jesus Christ is our Lord, as 
 our supreme Ruler, under whose care and protection we are 
 placed, and through whose ministration all good is actually 
 bestowed. 
 
 VERSE 8. From this verse to the end of the 17th, we have 
 the general introduction to the epistle. It has the usual 
 characteristics of the introductory portions of the apostle's 
 letters. It is commendatory. It breathes the spirit of love 
 towards his brethren, and of gratitude and devotion towards 
 God; and it introduces the reader in the most natural and 
 appropriate manner to the great doctrines which he means to 
 exhibit. First, I thank my God. The words TT/W-OV [JLSV 
 imply an enumeration, which however is not carried out. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 18, 2 Cor. xii. 12, and other cases in which 
 the apostle begins a construction which he does not continue. 
 My God, that is, the God to whom I belong, whom I serve,
 
 ROMANS I. 9. 35 
 
 and who stands to me in the relation of God, as father, friend, 
 and source of all good. " I will be to them a God, and they 
 shall be to me a people," is the most comprehensive of all pro- 
 mises. Through Jesus Christ, #re not to be connected with the 
 immediately preceding words, 'My God, through Jesus Christ;' 
 but with 'j%af>cffTo>, 'I thank God, through Jesus Christ.' 
 This form of expression supposes the mediation of Christ, by 
 whom alone we have access to the Father, and for whose sake 
 alone either our prayers or praises are accepted. See Rom. 
 vii. 25, Eph. v. 20, " Giving thanks always for all things unto 
 God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 And Col. iii. 17, " Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the 
 Father by him." Heb. xiii. 15, "By him therefore let us 
 offer the sacrifice of praise to God." All this is in accordance 
 with the command of Christ, John xiv. 13, and xvi. 23, 24, 
 "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye 
 shall receive." Such then being the clear doctrine of the 
 Bible, that in all our approaches to God in prayer or praise, 
 we must come in the name of Christ, that is, in him, referring- 
 to him as the ground of our acceptance, there is no need of the 
 various forced interpretations of the words in the text, which 
 have been given by those who are unwilling to admit the idea 
 of such mediation on the part of Christ. For you all. Several 
 manuscripts have nepi instead of TT ( O, which is probably a 
 correction. The sense is the same. The special ground of the 
 apostle's thankfulness is expressed in the following clause: 
 That your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 
 Their faith was of such a character as to excite general atten- 
 tion and remark. Not only the fact that the Romans believed, 
 'out that their faith was of such a character as to be everywhere 
 spoken of, was recognized by the apostle as cause of gratitude 
 to God. God therefore is the giver of faith. 
 
 VERSE 9. In confirmation of his declaration of gratitude 
 for their conversion, and for the eminence of their faith, Paul 
 appears to his constant remembrance of them in his prayers. 
 For G-od is my ivitness. This reverend appeal to God as the 
 searcher of hearts, is not uncommon in the apostle's writings. 
 2 Cor. i. 23, Gal. i. 20, Philip, i. 8. It is an act of worship.
 
 3G ROMANS I. 10. 
 
 ii-vout recognition of God's omnipresence and omniscience. 
 Whom I serve. The word AaTpeiKo is in the New Testament 
 always used of religious service, either as rendered to God or to 
 futures 'Who worship and serve the creature more than the 
 < r.Mtor,' chap. i. 25. This service may consist either in worship, 
 or in the performance of external duties of a religious nature. 
 The service of which Paul here speaks is characterized in the 
 following clause; in my spirit. This is opposed at once to an 
 insincere, and to a mere external service. Jn the gospel of his 
 Son. That is, it was a service rendered in preaching the 
 gospel. The priests served, lAdrpeuaav, when performing the 
 duties of their office; and Paul served in performing the duties 
 of an apostle. The gospel of his Son, may mean either the 
 gospel concerning his Son, or which his Son himself taught. 
 The former, perhaps, is more in accordance with the use of this 
 and similar phrases, as, 'gospel of the kingdom,' 'gospel of the 
 grace of God,' &c. That I constantly make mention of you. 
 It is plain, from the occurrence of the word fieo/jievoz in the 
 next verse, and from the use of this expression in other places, 
 Philip, i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2, that Paul here refers to his remem- 
 bering the Roman Christians in his prayers, and not to his 
 hearing them in his mind, or talking about them. The particle 
 oc may be connected with ddiafeixTtoz, how uninterruptedly ; 
 or with the clause, ' God is my witness that,' &c. Comp. Acts 
 x. 28, 1 Thess. ii. 10. 
 
 VERSE 10. I make mention of you, always in my prayers 
 praying (st fftwc) if possibly, if it may be, expressing the sub- 
 mission to the will of God with which the apostle urged his 
 request, ijj&y Tror^, now at last, as though he had long looked 
 forward with desire to what there was now a prospect of his 
 seeing accomplished. / may be so happy, by the will of Crod, 
 to come to you. Ebodow is, to lead in the right way, to pros- 
 per one's journey, Gen. xxiv. 48, and figuratively, to prosper, 
 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 3 John 2. In the passive voice, it is, to be 
 prospered, successful, favoured. In the present case, as Paul 
 had neither commenced his journey, nor formed any immediate 
 purpose to undertake it, see chap. xv. 25 29, his prayer was 
 not that his journey might be prosperous, but that he might be 
 permitted to undertake it; that his circumstances should be so
 
 ROMANS I. 11. 37 
 
 favourably ordered that lie might be able to execute his long 
 cherished purpose of visiting Rome. Knowing, however, that 
 all things are ordered of God, and feeling that his own wishes 
 should be subordinated to the Divine will, he adds, by the will 
 of Crod; which is equivalent to, If it be the will of God. 
 4 Praying continually, that, if it be the will of God, I may be 
 prospered to come unto you.' 
 
 VERSE 11. Why the apostle was anxious to visit Rome, he 
 states in this verse. He desired to see them, not merely for 
 his own gratification, but that he might confer some spiritual 
 gift upon them, which would tend to strengthen their faith. 
 For I long to see you, that I may impart (ftZTada) share with 
 you] some spiritual gift. By spiritual gift is not to be under- 
 stood a gift pertaining to the soul in distinction from the body, 
 but one derived from the Spirit. The gifts of which the Holy 
 (Spirit is the author, include not only those miraculous endow- 
 ments of which such frequent mention is made in the Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, and the ordinary gifts of teaching, exhorta- 
 tion, and prophesying, 1 Cor. xii., but also those graces which 
 are the fruits of the Spirit. The extraordinary gifts were 
 communicated by the imposition of the apostles' hands, Acts 
 viii. 17, xix. 6, and therefore abounded in churches founded by 
 the apostles, 1 Cor. i. 7, Gal. iii. 5. As the church at Rome 
 was not of this number, it has been supposed that Paul was 
 desirous of conferring on the Roman Christians some of those 
 miraculous powers by which the gospel was in other places 
 attended and confirmed. The following verses, however, are 
 in favour of giving the phrase here a wider signification. Any 
 increase of knowledge, of grace, or of power, was a jpiptafjuj. 
 irveufjtarcxw in the sense here intended. In order that ye. may 
 be strengthened. This includes not only an increase of con- 
 fidence in their belief of the gospel, but an increase of strength 
 in their religious feelings, and in their purpose and power of 
 obedience. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 2 : I sent Timothy " to estab- 
 lish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith." And 
 2 Thess. ii. 17, "Now our Lord Jesus Christ comfort your 
 hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work." And 
 the apostle prays that the Ephesians might be strengthened 
 as to the inner man. 
 
 5687
 
 H ROMANS I. 12. 
 
 VERSE 12. That is, that I may be comforted amcng you. 
 This is obviously intended to be an explanation or correction 
 oi what precedes. He had desired to see them, in order that 
 he might do them good ; but this was not his whole object, he 
 hoped to receive benefit himself. As to the grammatical 
 construction, the infinitive oufinapaxArftr^ac may depend on 
 nr-^nt-^f^ajc. The sense wo*uld then be, 'That you may be 
 strengthened, that I may be comforted.' Or the one infinitive 
 is coordinate with the other; then both depend on the Iva. 
 ii-.radca of ver. 10, ' That I may impart some spiritual gift tc 
 ; ;>u, in order that you may be strengthened; that is, that I 
 may be comforted together with you.' This seems the most 
 natural construction ; yet as Paul expected to be refreshed by 
 their faith, and not by his giving them spiritual gifts, the sense 
 seems to require that oufotttpwtfaidrjwu should depend on the 
 first words of ver. 10, ' 1 desire to see you, that I may impart 
 \Ji>a /JtTa8(o} some spiritual gift to you ; that is, that I may be 
 comforted (wfatapaQtfajdijVat)^ &c. It is not a valid objection to 
 this interpretation, that it supposes a change of the construc- 
 tion from the subjunctive to the infinitive. A similar change 
 occurs (probably) in ch. ix. 22, 23; and much greater irregu- 
 larities are not unfrequent in the New Testament. 
 
 The word KapcataMta is used in such various senses, that it is 
 not easy to determine what precise meaning should be attached 
 to it here. It signifies to call near, to invite, Acts xxviii. 20, 
 to call upon, and more generally to address, either for instruc- 
 tion, admonition, exhortation, confirmation, or consolation. 
 Our translators and the majority of commentators choose the 
 i;i.>t mentioned sense, and render ffV^apaxfaj&ipcu (e/^s) that I 
 :>.(// be comforted. This is probably too narrow. The word 
 
 ; presses all that excitement and strengthening of faith and 
 pious feeling, as well as consolation, which is wont to flow from 
 the communion of saints. This appears from the context, and 
 
 -ncriiilly from the following clause, oca r7^ Iv d'A/^kocz 
 r.'^rsoj-,, uiuov TS xai Ifwit, through our mutual faith, as well 
 
 >tx mine. The faith of the Romans would not only com- 
 fort, but strengthen the apostle; and his faith could not fail to 
 produce a like effect on them. l Yiuav re xai kfj.o~j are the 
 explanation of the preceding si/ a//jj'/wc, and should therefore
 
 ROMANS I. 13, 14. 39 
 
 be in the dative. Fritsche refers to Luke i. 55, for a similar 
 case of variation in the construction. 
 
 VERSE 13. I would not have you ignorant, brethren; a, mode 
 of expression which the apostle often adopts, when he would 
 assure his readers of anything, or call their attention to it par- 
 ticularly. That oftentimes I purposed to come unto you. In 
 chap. xv. 23, he States that he had cherished this purpose for 
 many years. And was hindered until now. Our version ren- 
 ders xai adversatively but. This is objected to as unnecessary, 
 especially as xai often introduces a parenthesis ; and such is 
 this clause, because the following ivd must depend on xposftefj.^ 
 of the preceding clause. As in the fifteenth chapter the apos- 
 tle says, that having no more place in the countries around 
 Greece, he was ready to visit Rome, it is probable that the 
 hindering to which he here refers, was the incessant calls for 
 apostolic labour, which left no time at his command. As, how- 
 ever, his course seems to have been under the guidance of a 
 special providence, Acts xvi. 6, 7, 9, it may be that the Spirit 
 who had forbidden his preaching in Asia, had hitherto forbidden 
 his visiting Rome. That I may have some fruit among you, as 
 among other gentiles. Kap-bv iyzw is to have profit, or advan- 
 tage. See chap. vi. 21, 22. The profit, however, which Paul 
 desired, was the fruit of his ministry, the conversion or edifica- 
 tion of those to whom he preached. 
 
 VERSE 14. Both to Grreeks and barbarians, to the wise and 
 to the unwise, I am debtor. That is, I am under obligation (to 
 preach) to all classes of men. His commission was a general 
 one, confined to no one nation, and to no particular class. 
 Greeks and barbarians, mean all nations; wise and unwise, 
 mean all classes. BdpGapot means properly a foreigner, ouc 
 of another language, 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Greeks and barbarians, 
 therefore, is equivalent to Greeks and not Greeks, all nations. 
 As the Greeks however excelled other nations in civilization, 
 the word came to signify rude, uncultivated; though even by 
 later writers it is often used in its original sense, and not as a 
 term of reproach. The apostle distinguishes men, first as 
 nations, Greeks and not Greeks, and secondly as to culture, 
 wise and unwise. The Romans, whose city was called "an 
 epitome of the world," belonged exclusively neither to the one
 
 40 ROMANS I. 15, 16. 
 
 class nor to the other. Some were wise and some unwise, 
 some Greeks and some barbarians. 
 
 VERSE lo. AnJ so, or hence. That is, since I am bound to 
 all men, Greeks and barbarians, I am raidy to preach to you, 
 who are at Rome. The clause, TO xar enk -t>ofr<jtwv, admits of 
 different interpretations. According to the English version, TO 
 xar' lp& must be taken together; Kfio&'jfjiov is taken as a sub- 
 stantive, and made the nominative to iari. Hence, as much as 
 is in me, (or, as far as I am concerned,) there is a readiness, 
 i. e. I am ready. Thus Calvin, " Itaque, quantum in me est, 
 paratus sum." This gives a good sense, and is specially suited 
 to the context, as it renders prominent Paul's dependence and' 
 submission. He did not direct his own steps. As far as lie 
 was concerned, he was willing to preach in Rome; but whether 
 he should do so or not, rested not with him, but with God. A 
 second explanation makes TO xar' l t us the subject of the sen- 
 tence, and xpo&ufjiQv the predicate. 'What is in me is ready.' 
 Thus Beza, " Quicquid in me situm est, id promptum est." Or, 
 as Beza also proposes, TO xar' ipe may be taken as a peri- 
 phrase for kj-(i), and the clause be translated, "Promptus -sum 
 ego." But it is denied that such a periphrase for the personal 
 pronoun ever occurs ; ra uusTeoa for t///e?c, and TO. lud for Ifcb, 
 to which Beza refers, are not parallel. The third explanation, 
 refers TO to -pb&ufjLov, and makes xar' Ifte equal to ktuti, ' My 
 readiness, or desire is.' Comp. Eph. i. lo, -cr^ xatf utw.z 
 /rrTrry, your faith ; Acts xvii. 28. roJv xatP u/^ OI'^THW. 
 xviii. 15, no/wit TO~J xa#' utj.Hi;. To preach the gospel. The 
 verb e'jaffs/.iaaafrat is commonly followed by some word or 
 phrase expressing the subject of the message kingdom of God, 
 gospel, word of God, Christ. In writing to Christians, who 
 knew what the. glad tidings were, the apostles often, as in the 
 present case, use the word absolutely so that the word by 
 itself means, to preach the gospel, &c. See ch. xv. 20, Acts 
 xiv. 7, Gal. iy. 13. 
 
 VERSE 16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.* 
 This he assigns as the reason why he was ready to preach even 
 
 * The words tn XprrcZ are omitted in the MSS. A. B. C. D. E. G. 17. 67. in 
 many of the versions and Fathers, and are rejected by Mill, Bengel, Gricsbach, 
 Lachmnnn, Tischendorf, and others. They are found in the Complutensian 
 Kit, and are defended by Wetstein and Mattluei.
 
 ROMANS I. 16. 41 
 
 at Rome. To the wise of this world the gospel was foolishness, 
 1 Cor. i. 23, yet Paul was not ashamed of it, but was ready 
 among the wise and unwise to preach Christ and him crucified. 
 The reason of this regard for the gospel is stated in the follow- 
 ing clause: For it is the power of G-od unto salvation. By 
 dwafjiiz 0soS, some understand great power , in accordance with 
 an assumed Hebrew idiom, agreeably to which 'mountains of 
 God' mean great mountains, ' wind of God' great wind, ' zeal' 
 of God' great zeal, &c. But the existence of such an idiom in 
 the Hebrew is very doubtful, and its application to this passage 
 is unnatural and unnecessary. Others make dsou a mere quali- 
 fying genitive, 'power of God,' meaning 'divinely powerful.' 
 Beza's explanation is, "Organon Dei vere potens et effieax." 
 The gospel is then declared to be that through which God exer- 
 cises his power. Most commonly 0so3 is taken as the genitive 
 of the Author, and power of God is made to mean power derived 
 from God. There are two things, then asserted of the gospel, 
 first that it is powerful, and secondly that it is from God. Comp. 
 1 Cor. i. 18, 24. The main idea, however, is that expressed by 
 Beza, The gospel is that in which God works, which he renders 
 efficacious ere ff airy plai>, unto salvation. That is, it is effica- 
 cious to save. The nature of the salvation here intended is to 
 be learned from the nature of the gospel. It is deliverance 
 from sin and its punishment, and admission into eternal life 
 and blessedness. This is what no means of man's devising, no 
 efforts of human wisdom or human power could effect for any 
 human being. The gospel effects it ~a^Ti rot ^KTTS'JO^TI, for 
 every one that believes. Emphasis must be laid on both the 
 members of this clause. The gospel is thus efficacious to every 
 one, without distinction between Jew and gentile, Greek or bar- 
 barian, wise or unwise ; and it is efficacious to every one that 
 believes, not to every one who is circumcised, or baptized, or 
 who obeys the laAv, but to every one who believes, that is, who 
 receives a:-d confides in Jesus Christ as he is offered in the 
 gospel. We have here the two great doctrines set forth in this 
 epistle. First, salvation is by faith ; and secondly, it is univer- 
 sally applicable, to the Greek as well as to the Jew. The faith 
 of which the apostle here speaks includes a firm persuasion 
 of the truth, and a reliance or trust on the object of faith.
 
 42 ROMANS I. 16. 
 
 Sometimes the one, sometimes the other <f these ideas is 
 expressed by the word, and very often both are united. The 
 meaning of the term is not to be determined so much by philo- 
 sophical analysis as by scriptural usage. For the question is 
 not what is the abstract nature of the act of believing, philoso- 
 phically considered, but what act or state of mind is expressed 
 by the words mffTS'J&v and xioTts in the various constructions 
 in which they occur. It is rare indeed that the state of mind 
 expressed by any word is so simple as not to admit of being 
 resolved into various elements. The exercise expressed by the 
 word love, for example, includes the perception of agreeable 
 qualities in its object, a judgment of the mind as to their 
 nature, a delight in them, and a desire for their enjoyment. 
 And these differ specifically in their nature, according to the 
 nature of the thing loved. It is not to any one of these 
 elements of the complex affection that the word love is applied, 
 but to the state of mind as a whole. So also with the word 
 faith, the exercise which it expresses includes a perception of 
 its object and its qualities, that is, it includes knowledge; 
 secondly, an assent of the mind to the truth of the thing 
 believed, and very often a reliance or trust on the object of 
 faith. Assent is therefore but one of the elements of saving 
 faith, that is, it is but one of the constituents of that state 
 of mind which, in a multitude of cases, is in the Bible expressed 
 by the word. And as the great object of interest to Christians 
 is not a philosophical definition of a word, but a knowledge of 
 the sense in which it is used in the word of God, we must recur 
 to -the usage of the Scriptures themselves to determine what 
 chat faith is which is connected with salvation. 
 
 There is no doubt that -^rz'juv is often used to express 
 mere assent. It means to receive as true, to be persuaded of 
 the truth of anything. Hence xiaris is persuasion of the truth. 
 When X(aT'jcv has this simple meaning, it is commonly fol- 
 lowed by the accusative, as in 1 Cor. xi. 18, John xi. 26 ; or 
 by the dative, Mark xvi. 13, obds Ixeivott; Zxiff-euaav, John 
 v. 4G; or by ore, Mark xi. 23, Rom. x. 9. Yet in these cases 
 the word often expresses confidence or trust, as well as assent ; 
 xtarz'jztv #so5 is in many connections, to confide in God; as 
 Acts xxvii. 25, mffTS'jta fap rw 6s<jj o-i oi>~it>z ZGTCU.
 
 ROMANS I. 16. 43 
 
 When mareustv is followed by i~i. with an accusative, as in 
 Horn. iv. 5, TiiareuovTc Ixc rbv dtxaioitvra, or by dxi with a 
 dative, as Rom. ix. 33, b r^careowv IT? abrat, 1 Tim. i. 16, it 
 commonly means to trust, to believe upon, to confide in. It has 
 the same sense when followed by ere, as in John xiv. i., 
 xwreueTS ei$ rbv 6zbv, xac c$ 1/j.s xtareusTs, xvi. 9, Rom. x. 14, 
 Gal. ii. 16, and often elsewhere. The construction with Iv is 
 less common; see, however, Mark i. 15, //sravoslrs, xac r*ia- 
 T.'jirs, iv raj ebaffsAcqt; comp. Gal. v. 10, x7toc&a sv Kupiw, 
 2 Thess. iii. 4. 
 
 The substantive Tttarc^ also in various constructions signifies 
 reliance, or trust ; thus when followed by f, as in Acts xx. 21, 
 Tiiarev rr t v efc rbv Kopiov 'f][j.u)v, xxiv. 24, xxvi. 18 ; by ITT/, with 
 the accusative, Heb. vi. 1; by xpbz, as 1 Thess. i. 8, ~:'<mc 
 Ufj.wv /^ ~/>6c TOV deov ; by iv, Rom. iii. 25, &a r^c xlffTSfoz iv 
 TOJ autou aifiart, comp. Gal. iii. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 13, nia-csi ry Iv 
 Xpca-w, 2 Tim. iii. 15 ; or by the genitive, as in Rom. iii. 22, 26, 
 Gal. ii. 16, iii. 22, and often. That faith, therefore, which is 
 connected with salvation, includes knowledge, that is, a percep- 
 tion of the truth and its qualities ; assent, or the persuasion of 
 the truth of the object of faith ; and trust, or reliance. The 
 exercise, or state of mind expressed by the word faith, as used 
 in the Scriptures, is not mere assent, or mere trust, it is the 
 intelligent perception, reception, and reliance on the truth, as 
 revealed in the gospel. 
 
 To the Jew first, and also to the G-reeJc. To render xpcorov 
 (first,} here especially, would make the apostle teach that the 
 gospel was peculiarly adapted to the Jews, or specially designed 
 for them. But he frequently asserts that this is not the case, 
 chap. iii. 9, 22, 29, x. 12. flooJTov, therefore, must have refer- 
 ence to time, 'To the Jew in the first instance, and then to the 
 Greek.' Salvation, as our Saviour said to the woman of 
 Samaria, is of the Jews. Of them the Messiah came, to them 
 the gospel was first preached, and by them preached to the 
 Gentiles. The apostle often, as in the present instance, says 
 Jews and Greeks, for Jews and Gentiles, because the Greeks 
 were the Gentiles with whom, at that period, the Jews were 
 most familiar.
 
 44 ROMANS I. 17. 
 
 VERSE 17. The reason why the gospel has the efficacy 
 ascribed to it in the preceding verse, is not because of its pure 
 morality, or because it reveals and confirms a future state of 
 retribution, but because the righteousness of Grod is therein 
 revealed. As this is one of those expressions which are 
 employed to convey ideas peculiar to the gospel, its meaning 
 is to be learned not merely from the signification of the words, 
 but from parallel passages, and from the explanations given in 
 the gospel itself of the whole subject to which it relates. That 
 dcxaeoa'jvTj cannot here be understood of a divine attribute, such 
 as rectitude, justice, goodness, or veracity, is obvious, because 
 it is a dcxatoa'jvTj Ix ~iarza)Z, a righteousness which is by faith, 
 i. e. attained by faith, of which the apostle speaks. Besides, 
 it is elsewhere said to be without law, Rom. iii. 21, to be a 
 gift, v. 17, not to be our own, x. 3, to be from God, Philip. 
 iii. 9. These and similar forms of expression are inconsistent 
 with the assumption that the apostle is speaking of a divine 
 attribute. The righteousness of God, therefore, must mean, 
 either the righteousness of which God is the author, or which 
 he approves. Luther, Calvin, and many others, prefer the 
 latter. "Die Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt," is Luther's 
 version. Calvin says, " Justitiam Dei accipio, qure apud Dei 
 tribunal approbatur." Beza, Reiche, De Wette, Riickert, and 
 others, prefer the latter. These ideas are not incompatible. 
 This righteousness is at once a fttxaioo'jw} f) Ix #soD, Philip, 
 iii. 9; and a dixatoa'jyq xapa rw 6fecw, Rom. ii. 13, iii. 20, Gal. 
 iii. 11. The gospel reveals a righteousness, which God gives, 
 and which he approves ; it is a righteousness, " qua quisquis 
 donatus est, sistitur coram Deo, sanctus, inculpatus, et nullius 
 labis possit postulari." Beza. 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by all that the Scriptures 
 teach respecting the manner of our justification before God. 
 The Bible represents God in the character of a moral governor 
 or judge. Man is placed under a law which is the rule of his 
 duty, and the standard by which he is to be judged. This law 
 may be variously revealed, but it is ever substantially the 
 same, having the same precepts, the same sanction, and the 
 same promises. Those who comply with the demands of this 
 law are dcxaiot, righteous; those who break the law are duexui,
 
 ROMANS I. 17. 45 
 
 unrighteous; to pronounce one righteous is facuouy, to justify; 
 the righteousness itself, or integrity which the law demands is 
 dixatoGuvq. Those who are righteous, or who have the right- 
 eousness which the law requires, or who are justified, have a 
 title to the favour of God. 
 
 Now, nothing is more clearly taught in the Scriptures than 
 that no man in himself is righteous in the sight of God. 
 " There is none righteous, no not one ; for all have sinned and 
 come short of the glory of God." It is no less clearly taught 
 that no man can make himself righteous ; that is, he cannot 
 attain the righteousness which the law demands, and which is 
 necessary to his acceptance with God. The reason is that the 
 law demands perfect obedience, which no one has rendered 
 or can render. It is hence plain that by the works of the 
 law no flesh can be justified before God. Rom. iii. 20, Gal. 
 ii. 16; dtxaioavvy is not Ix VO/JLOU, Gal. iii. 21, or dea vbuou, 
 ii. 21, or lg ipfwv, ii. 16. Men are not justified idia dixatoa'jvr} 
 by their own righteousness. Rom. x. 3. And yet righteous- 
 ness is absolutely necessary to our justification and salvation. 
 Such a righteousness the gospel reveals ; a righteousness which 
 is %a>pis vo//oi>, without the law; which is not of works; a 
 dexaioauvy xiareais or Ix xiaTews, which is by faith; a right- 
 ousness which is not our own, Philip, iii. 9 ; which is the gift 
 of God, Rom. v. 17 ; which is Ix 6soi> from Grod ; which is 
 imputed %a>piz sp-fwv without works. Christ is our righteous^ 
 ness, 1 Cor. i. 30, or we are righteous before God in him. 
 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
 From this contrast between a righteousness which is our 
 own, which is of works, and that which is not our own, which 
 is of God, from God, the gift of God, it is plain that the 
 dcxacoawrj 6soi> of which the apostle here speaks, is that 
 dixatoauvy by which we are made dcxaioc xapa T(p Oetp ; it is a 
 righteousness which he gives and which he approves. This 
 is the interpretation which is given substantially by all the 
 modern commentators of note, as Tholuck, Reiche, Fritzsche, 
 Riickert, Koellner, De Wette, &c., however much they may 
 differ as to other points. "Alle Erklarungen," says De Wette, 
 "wclche das Moment der Zurechnung iibersehen, und das thun 
 besonders die katholischen, auch die des Grotius, sind falsch."
 
 46 ROMANS I. 17. 
 
 That is, "All interpretations which overlook the idea of impu- 
 tation, as is done in the explanations given by the Romanists, 
 and also in that of Grotius, are false." 
 
 The nature of this righteousness, it is one great design of 
 this epistle, and of the whole gospel to unfold. This, there- 
 fore is not the place to enter fully into the examination of 
 that point ; it will present itself at every step of aur progress. 
 It is sufficient here to specify the three general views of the 
 nature of that righteousness by which men are justified before 
 God. The first may be called the Pelagian, according to 
 which the apostle teaches that righteousness cannot be attained 
 by obedience to the ritual law of the Jews, but consists in 
 works morally good. The second view is that of the Roman- 
 ists, who teach that the works meant to be excluded from our 
 justification are legal works ; works done without grace and 
 before regeneration ; but the righteousness which makes us just 
 before God, is that inherent righteousness, or spiritual excel- 
 lence which is obtained by the aid of divine grace. The third 
 view, which is the common doctrine of Protestant churches is, 
 that the righteousness for which we are justified is neither any- 
 thing done by us nor wrought in us, but something done for us 
 and imputed to us. It is the work of Christ, what he did and 
 suffered to satisfy the demands of the law. Hence not merely 
 external or ceremonial works are excluded as the ground of 
 justification ; but works of righteousness, all works of what- 
 ever kind or degree of excellence. Hence this righteousness 
 is not our own. It is nothing that we have either wrought 
 ourselves, or that inheres in us. Hence Christ is said to be 
 our righteousness ; and we are said to be justified by his blood, 
 his death, his obedience ; we are righteous in him, and are 
 justified by him or in his name, or for his sake. The right- 
 eousness of God, therefore, which the gospel reveals, and by 
 which we are constituted righteous, is the perfect righteous- 
 ness of Christ which completely meets and answers all the 
 demands of that law to which all men are subject, and which 
 all have broken. 
 
 This righteousness is said in the text to be of faith. It is 
 obvious that the words x Trcarsujz are not to be connected with 
 d-oxa}.'j7iTtrae They must be connected either directly or
 
 ROMANS I. 17. 47 
 
 indirectly with dtxcuoaiivy. It is either dixatoawy 1% rdarzioz 
 aTioxaA'JTTTsrai, righteousness by faith is revealed; or, dcxacocrjyr) 
 d~oxaA'j"rat Ix 7tiaTeo)z obaa, righteousness is revealed, being 
 of faith, i. e. which is by faith. Not an excellence of which 
 faith is the germinating principle, or which consists in faith, 
 because this is inconsistent with all those representations which 
 show that this righteousness is not subjective. 
 
 The meaning of the words e/c xtff~w in the formula kx 
 xlfrreioz etc xiffTtv, from faith to faith, is very doubtful. They 
 must be explained in a manner consistent with their connection 
 with dcxaioff'jurj. It is a righteousness which is of faith to faith. 
 Now it cannot be said that our justification depends on our 
 believing first the Old Testament, and then the New, which is 
 the interpretation of Theodoret dsl yap xtarvjatu. ro?c 
 rac^, xat di exetva)v ec<; rrp 7oi> eua-ffsZcoo 7:107 tv it 
 nor does it seem to suit this connection to make the phrase in 
 question express a progress from a weak or imperfect faith 
 to that which is more perfect. This however is a very gene- 
 rally received interpretation. Calvin says, " Quurn initio gusta- 
 mus evangelium, laetam quidem et exporrectam nobis cernimus 
 Dei frontem, sed eminus; quo magis augescit pietatis erudi- 
 tio, velut propiore accessu clarius ac magis familiariter Dei 
 gratiam perspicimus." The sense is however perfectly clear 
 and good, if the phrase is explained to mean, faith alone. 
 As "death unto death" and "life unto life" are intensive, 
 so "faith unto faith" may mean, entirely of faith. Our justi- 
 fication is by faith alone ; works form no part of that right- 
 eousness in which we can stand before the tribunal of God. 
 "Dicit," says Bengel, "fidem meram; namque justitia ex fide 
 
 subsistit in fide, sine operibus Fides, inquit Paulus, 
 
 manet fides ; fides est prora et puppis, apud Judseos et Gentiles, 
 etiam apud Paulum, usque ad ipsam ejus consummationem." 
 Most of the modern commentators regard etc in the words 
 7:iorcv, as indicating the terminus. Righteousness is from faith 
 and unto faith, comes to it. This makes xiffTiv here virtually 
 equivalent to TTttrreyovrac, as in chap. iii. 22, the dtxatoirvvj] 
 0oi> is said to be ere >ravrac rob? 7r:0Tyovrc- Righteousness 
 then is by faith and unto faith, i. e. is granted unto or bestowed 
 upon believers.
 
 48 ROMANS I. 17. 
 
 This doctrine of the apostle, that the righteousness which is 
 unto life is to be obtained by faith, he confirms by a reference 
 to Hab. ii. 4, where it is said, 6 3e dlxatoz ix Tn'orswf, ^asTac, 
 A that is righteous by faith, shall live; or, the righteous shall 
 live by faith. The connection of ix xiffTsaji; with dixatoz is 
 certainly best suited to the apostle's object, which is to show 
 that righteousness is by faith ; but in either construction the 
 sense is substantially the same. Salvation is by faith. In the 
 Hebrew also, either construction is allowable, as the words are 
 "The righteous in his faith shall live." The Masoretic accen- 
 tuation however connects, as Paul does, the first two words 
 together, 'The righteous in his faith, shall live.' Shall live, 
 shall attain that life which Christ gives, which is spiritual, 
 blessed, and everlasting; comp. chap. v. 17, viii. 13, x. 3. This 
 passage is cited in confirmation of the apostle's own doctrine, 
 and is peculiarly pertinent as it shows that under the old dis- 
 pensation as well as under the new, the favour of God was 
 to be secured by faith. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The apostolic office, except as to what was peculiar and 
 extraordinary, being essentially the same with the ministerial 
 office in general, Paul teaches, 1. That ministers are the 
 servants of Christ, deriving their authority from him, and not 
 from the people; 2. That their calling is to preach the gospel, 
 to which all other avocations must be made subordinate; 
 3. That the object of their appointment is to bring men to 
 the obedience of faith; 4. That their field is all nations; 
 5. That the design of all is to honour Christ; it is for his 
 name, vs. 1 5. 
 
 2. The gospel is contained in its rudiments in the Old 
 Testament. It is the soul of the old dispensation, ver. 2. 
 
 3. Christ is the Alpha and Omega of the gospel. In 
 stating the substance of the gospel, Paul says, * It concerns 
 Jesus Christ,' ver. 3. 
 
 4. Christ is at once God and man ; the son of David and 
 the Son of God, vs. 3, 4. 
 
 5. Christ is called the Son of God in reference to his Divine 
 nature, and on account of the relation in which, as God, he
 
 ROMANS I. 17. 49 
 
 
 
 stands to the Father. The name, therefore, is expressive of 
 his Divine character, vs. 3, 4. 
 
 6. He is the proper object of prayer, and tfye source of 
 spiritual blessings, ver. 7. 
 
 7. He is the Mediator through whom our prayers and 
 thanksgiving must be presented to God, ver. 8. 
 
 8. God is the source of all spiritual good; is to be wor- 
 shipped in spirit, and agreeably to the gospel; and his pro- 
 vidence is to be recognized in reference to the most ordinary 
 affairs of life, vs. 8 10. 
 
 9. Ministers are not a class of men exalted above the people, 
 and independent of them for spiritual benefits, but are bound 
 to seek, as well as to impart good, in all their intercourse with 
 those to whom they are sent, vs. 11, 12. 
 
 10. Ministers are bound to preach the gospel to all men,, 
 rich as well as' poor, wise as well as unwise ; for it is equally 
 adapted to the wants of all, vs. 14, 15. 
 
 11. The salvation of men, including the pardon of their sins 
 and the moral renovation of their hearts, can be effected by the 
 gospel alone. The wisdom of men, during four thousand years 
 previous to the advent of Christ, failed to discover any ade- 
 quate means for the attainment of either of these objects; and 
 those who, since the advent, have neglected the gospel, have 
 been equally unsuccessful, ,ver. 16, &c. 
 
 12. The power of the gospel lies not in its pure theism, or 
 perfect moral code, but in the CROSS, in the doctrine of justifi- 
 cation by faith in a crucified Redeemer, ver. 17, &c. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 .1. Ministers should remember that they are "separated unto 
 the gospel," and that any occupation which, by its demands 
 upon their attention, or from its influence on their character or 
 feelings, interferes with their devotion to this object, is for 
 them wrong, ver. 1. 
 
 2. If Jesus Christ is the great subject of the gospel, it is 
 evident that we cannot have right views of the- ne, without 
 having correct opinions respecting the other. What think ye 
 of Christ? cannot be a minor question. To be Christians,, we 
 must recognize him as the Messiah, or son of David; and-a* 
 4
 
 50 ROMANS I. 1832. 
 
 Divine, or the Son of God; we must be able to pray to him, to 
 look for blessings from him, and recognize him as the Mediator 
 between God and man, vs. 1 8. 
 
 3. Christians should remember that they are saints; that is. 
 persons separated from the world and consecrated to God. 
 They therefore cannot serve themselves or the world, without a 
 dereliction of their character. They are saints, because called 
 and made such of God. To all such, grace and peace are 
 secured by the mediation of Christ, and the promise of God, 
 ver. 7. 
 
 4. In presenting truth, everything consistent with fidelity 
 should be done to conciliate the confidence and kind feelings of 
 those to whom it is addressed; and everything avoided, which 
 tends to excite prejudice against the speaker or his message. 
 Who more faithful than Paul ? Yet who more anxious to avoid 
 offence? Who more solicitous to present the truth, not in its 
 most irritating form, but in the manner best adapted to gain 
 for it access to the unruffled minds of his readers ? vs. 8 14. 
 
 5. As all virtues, according to the Christian system, are 
 graces (gifts,) they afford matter for thanksgiving, but never 
 for self-complacency, ver. 8. 
 
 6. The intercourse of Christians should be desired, and made 
 to result in edification, by their mutual faith, ver. 12. 
 
 7. He who rejects the doctrine of justification by faith, 
 rejects the gospel. His whole method of salvation, and system 
 of religion, must be different from those of the apostles, ver. 17. 
 
 8. Whether we be wise or unwise, moral or immoral, in the 
 sight of men, orthodox or heterodox in our opinions, unless 
 we are believers, unless we cordially receive " the righteousness 
 which is of God," as the ground of acceptance, we have no part 
 or lot in the salvation of the gospel, ver. 17. 
 
 ROMANS I. 1832. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The apostle having stated that the only righteousness avail- 
 able in the sight of God is that which is obtained by faith, 
 proceeds to p~ove that such is the case. This proof required
 
 ROMANS I. 18. 51 
 
 that he should, in the first instance, demonstrate that the 
 righteousness which is of the law, or of works, was insufficient 
 for the justification of a sinner. This he does, first in refer- 
 rence to the Gentiles, chap. i. 1832 ; and then in relation to 
 the Jews, chap, ii., iii. 120. The residue of this chapter 
 then is designed to prove that the Gentiles are justly exposed 
 to condemnation. The apostle thus argues : God is just ; his 
 displeasure against sin (which is its punishment) is clearly 
 revealed, ver. 18. This principle is assumed by the apostle, as 
 the foundation of his whole argument. If this be granted, it 
 follows that all who are chargeable with either impiety or 
 immorality are exposed to the wrath of God, and cannot claim 
 his favour on the ground of their own character or conduct. 
 That the Gentiles are justly chargeable with both impiety and 
 immorality, he thus proves. They have ever enjoyed such a 
 revelation of the divine character as to render them inexcusa- 
 ble, vs. 19, 20. Notwithstanding this opportunity of knowing 
 God, they neither worshipped nor served him, but gave them- 
 selves up to all forms of idolatry. This is the height of 
 impiety, vs. 2123. In consequence of this desertion of God, 
 he gave them up to the evil of their own hearts, so that they 
 sank into all manner of debasing crimes. The evidences of 
 this corruption of morals were so painfully obvious, that Paul 
 merely appeals to the knowledge which all his readers possessed 
 of the fact, vs. 24 31. These various crimes they do not 
 commit ignorantly ; they are aware of their ill-desert ; and yet 
 they not only commit them themselves, but encourage others in 
 the same course, v. 32. 
 
 The inference from the established sinfulness of the Gentile 
 world, Paul does not draw until he has substantiated the same 
 charge against the Jews. He then says, since all are sinners 
 before God, no flesh can be justified by the works of the law, 
 chap. iii. 20. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 18. 'J/Toxo/v-reror yap dp-py 6sou d.x oupavou. For 
 the wrath of Grod is revealed from heaven. The apostle's object 
 is to prove the doctrine of the preceding verse, viz. that right- 
 eousness is by faith. To dj this it was necessary to show that
 
 52 ROMANS I. 18. 
 
 men in themselves are exposed to condemnation, or are destj 
 tute of any righteousness which can satisfy the demands of 
 God. His argument is, God is just ; he is determined to punish 
 sin, and as all men are sinners, all are exposed to punishment. 
 Hence this verse is connected by fdp to the preceding one. 
 Men must be justified by faith, for the wrath of God is 
 revealed, &c. 
 
 The wrath of God is his punitive justice, his determination 
 to punish sin. The passion which is called anger or wrath, 
 and which is always mixed more or less with malignity in the 
 human breast, is of course infinitely removed from what the 
 word imports when used in reference to God. Yet as anger in 
 men leads to the infliction of evil on its object, the word is, 
 agreeably to a principle which pervades the Scriptures, applied 
 to the calm and undeviating purpose of the Divine mind, which 
 .secures the connection between sin and misery, with the same 
 general uniformity that any other law in the physical or moral 
 government of God operates. 
 
 Is reveahd. ' Ar.oxakdxTui is properly, to uncover, to bring to 
 light, and hence to make known, whether by direct communica- 
 tion, or in some other way. A thing is said to be revealed, 
 when it becomes known from its effects. It is thus that the 
 thoughts of the heart, the arm of the Lord, and the wrath of 
 God are said to be "revealed." It is not necessary therefore to 
 infer from the use of this word, that the apostle meant to inti- 
 mate that the purpose of God to punish sin was made known 
 by any special revelation. That purpose is manifested in 
 various ways ; by the actual punishment of sin, by the inherent 
 tendency of moral evil to produce misery, by the voice of con- 
 science. Nor do the words "from heaven" imply any extraor- 
 dinary mode of communication. They are added because God 
 dwells in heaven, whence all exhibitions of his character and 
 purposes are said to proceed. It is however implied in the 
 whole form of expression, that this revelation is clear and 
 certain. Men know the righteous judgment of God; they 
 know that those who commit sin are worthy of death. As this 
 is an ultimate truth, existing in every man's consciousness, 
 it is properly assumed, and made the basis of the apostle's 
 argument.
 
 ROMANS I. 19. 53 
 
 This displeasure of God is revealed against all ungodliness 
 and unrighteousness of men; that is, against all impiety towards 
 God (dffs^eia,) and injustice towards men (docxia.) This dis- 
 tinction is kept up in the following part of the chapter, in 
 which the apostle proves first the impiety, and then the gross 
 immorality of the heathen. Who hold the truth in unrighteous- 
 ness. The word d)^&&ca is used in the Scriptures in a more 
 comprehensive sense than our word truth. It often means 
 what is right, as well as what is true ; and is therefore often 
 used in antithesis to ddixia, unrighteousness, as in Rom. ii. 8; 
 see Gal. iii. 1, v. 7. It is used especially of moral and religious 
 truth ; see John iii. 21, viii. 32, 2 Cor. iv. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 12. It 
 is therefore equivalent to true religion, that is, what is true and 
 right, in reference to God and duty. As xar%tv sometimes 
 means to have in the sense of possessing, as in 1 Cor. vii. 30, 
 this clause may be rendered, 'Who have the truth, together 
 with unrighteousness;' i. e. although they possess the truth, 
 are unrighteous. Comp. James ii. 1, fjiij Iv xpoata-oAr^iatz 
 e^cfc Trf xiaTiv. The sentiment is then the same as in ver. 21, 
 where the heathen are said to know God, and yet to act 
 wickedly. But as xaT%&v also means to detain, to repress or 
 hinder, 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, the passage may be translated, Who 
 hinder or oppose the truth. The great majority of commenta- 
 tors are in favour of this latter interpretation. The words Iv 
 ad'.xia may either express the means of this opposition, and 
 be rendered, through unrighteousness; or they may be taken 
 adverbially, Who unjustly, or wickedly oppose the truth. The 
 former is to be preferred. 
 
 VERSE 19. That this opposition is wicked, because inex- 
 cusable on the plea of ignorance, is proved in this and the 
 following verses. They wickedly oppose the truth, because the 
 knowledge of God is manifest among them. Agreeably to this 
 explanation, this verse is connected with the immediately pre- 
 ceding clause. It may however refer to the general sentiment 
 of ver. 18. God will punish the impiety and unrighteousness 
 of men, because he has made himself known to them. The 
 former method is to be preferred as more in accordance with 
 the apostle's manner, and more consistent with the context, 
 inasmuch as he goes on to prove that the impiety of the
 
 64 ROMANS I. 19. 
 
 heathen is inexcusable. Since that which may be known of 
 God, is man/'ft'tst in them. This version is not in accordance 
 with the iiK'aning of ^vtoarov, which always in the Bible means, 
 what is known, not what may be known. Besides, the English 
 :i seems to imply too much; for the apostle does not mean 
 to say that everything that may be known concerning God was 
 revealed to the heathen, but simply that they had such a know- 
 ledge of him as rendered their impiety inexcusable. We find 
 fvworoz used in the sense of p<wr6f, known. Acts i. 19, ii. 14, 
 xv. 18, fvtoora ax aaSvoc i<nt T(p &(p xdvra TU Ipfa. adrou; 
 and often elsewhere. Hence TO fvioatov \&=.fviaat^ as in Gen. 
 ii. 9, f\>i.oo-cbv -o~j xaXo'j xac roD xovypou. The knowledge of 
 God does not mean simply a knowledge that there is a God, 
 but, as appears from what follows, a knowledge of his nature 
 and attributes, his eternal power and Godhead, ver. 20, and his 
 justice, ver. 32. (Pavspov e<rctv kv ayroc, may be rendered, 
 either is manifest among them, or in them. If the former 
 translation be adopted, it is not to be understood as declaring 
 that certain men, the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics, as 
 Grotius says, had this knowledge ; but that it was a common 
 revelation, accessible, manifest to all. In them, however, here 
 more properly means, in their minds. " In ipsorum animis," 
 says Beza, "quia haec Dei notitia recondita est in intimis 
 mentis penetralibus, ut, velint nolint idololatrae, quoties sese 
 adhibent in consilium, toties a seipsis redarguantur." It is not 
 of a mere external revelation of which the apostle is speaking, 
 but of that evidence of the being and perfections of God which 
 every man has in the constitution of his own nature, and in 
 virtue of which he is competent to apprehend the manifesta- 
 tions of God in his works. For Grod hath revealed to them, 
 viz. the knowledge of himself. This knowledge is a revelation ; 
 it is the manifestation of God in his works, and in the consti- 
 tution of our nature. "Quod dicit," says Calvin, "Deum 
 manifestasse, scnsus est, ideo conditum esse hominem, ut spec- 
 tator sit fabrine mundi; ideo datos ei oculos, ut intuitu tarn 
 pulchne imaginis, ad auctorem ipsum feratur." God there- 
 fore has never left himself without a witness. His existence 
 and perfections have ever been so manifested that his rational
 
 ROMANS I. 20. 5c 
 
 creatures are bound to acknowledge and worship him as the 
 true and only God. 
 
 VERSE 20. This verse is a confirmation and amplification of 
 the preceding, inasmuch as it proves that God does manifest 
 himself to men, shows how this manifestation is made, and 
 draws the inference that men are, in virtue of this revelation, 
 inexcusable for their impiety. The argument is, God has mani- 
 fested the knowledge of himself to men, for the invisible things 
 of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead are, since the 
 creation, clearly seen, being understood by his works ; they are 
 therefore without excuse. The invisible things of him. By the 
 invisible things of God, Theodoret says we are to understand 
 creation, providence, and the divine judgments; Theophylact 
 understands them to refer to his goodness, wisdom, power, 
 and majesty. Between these interpretations the moderns are 
 divided. The great majority prefer the latter, which is obvi- 
 ously the better suited to the context, because the works of 
 God are expressed afterwards by /ro^'^ara, and because the 
 invisible things are those which are manifested by his works, 
 and are explained by the terms "power and Godhead." The 
 subsequent clause, YJ ts. dtdco^ aurou dovafu^ xal &siorr^, is in 
 apposition with and an explanation of the former one. The 
 particle re followed by xai, serves then, as Tholuck remarks, to 
 the partition of dopa-ra into the two ideas duvafuz and ft&or/jz, 
 and not to annex a distinct idea, as though the meaning were, 
 'and also his power and Godhead.' The power of God is more 
 immediately manifested in his works ; but not his power alone, 
 but his divine excellence in general, which is expressed by 
 t?6r^c, from $o>c. Qzb-crfa from #soc, on the other hand, 
 expresses the being, rather than the excellence of God. The 
 latter is Godhead; the former, divinity, a collective term for 
 all the divine perfections. 
 
 This divine revelation has been made cbro XTiasci 
 front, the creation of the world, not by the creation ; for 
 here is the act of creation, and not the thing created ; and the 
 means by which the revelation is made, is expressed immedi- 
 ately by the words ro?c jrofl^ctduv, which would then be redun- 
 dant. The noiyfia-ra TOO 6eoi>, in this connection, are the 
 things made by God, rather than the things done by him. The
 
 56 ROMANS I. 21. 
 
 apostle says t e abpaTa. xa&oparat, the unseen things are seen* 
 because they are perceived by the mind ; vooy^sva being under- 
 stood by means of the things made. *S'o that they are inexcusa- 
 ble. These words are by Griesbach, Knapp, and others, made 
 to depend on the last clause of ver. 19 ; and then the interpre- 
 tation of Beza and the elder Calvinists would be the most 
 natural. God has revealed the knowledge of himself to men, in 
 order that they might be without excuse. But this, to say the 
 least, is unnecessary. The connection with xaftofiarw is per- 
 fectly natural. ' The perfections of God, being understood by 
 his works, are seen, so that men are without excuse.' Paul does 
 not here teach that it is the design of God, in revealing himself 
 to men, to render their opposition inexcusable, but rather, since 
 this revelation has been made, they have in fact no apology for 
 their ignorance and neglect of God. Though the revelation of 
 God in his works is sufficient to render men inexcusable, it does 
 not follow that it is sufficient to lead men, blinded by sin, to a 
 saving knowledge of himself. As Paul says of the law, that it 
 was weak through the flesh, that is, insufficient on account of 
 our corruption, so it may be said of the light of nature, that, 
 although sufficient in itself as a revelation, it is not sufficient, 
 considering the indisposition and inattention of men to divine 
 things. "Sit haec distinctio," says Calvin, " demonstrate 
 Dei, qua gloriam suam in creaturis perspicuam facit, esse, 
 quantum ad lucem suam, satis evidentem; quantum ad nos* 
 tram cacitatem, non adeo sufficere. Caeterum non ita caeci 
 sumus, ut ignorantiam possimus prsetexere, quin perversitatis 
 arguamur." 
 
 VEUSE 21. Since knowing God. The most natural and 
 obvious connection of this verse is with the ,ust clause of the 
 preceding, 'Men are without excuse, since, although they knew 
 God, they worshipped him not as God.' This connection, 
 moreover, is in accordance with the apostle's manner, who 
 often establishes a proposition, which is itself an inference, by 
 a new process of argument. Thus in the present instance, in 
 vs. 19, 20, he proved that the heathen had a knowledge of God 
 which rendered them inexcusable, and then the fact that they 
 were without excuse, is proved by showing that they did not 
 act in accordance with the truth. Ruckert, however, who is
 
 KOMANS I. 21. 57 
 
 followed by Tholuck, considering that the apostle's obj ect is to 
 show that the heathen wickedly oppose the truth, as stated in 
 ver. 18; and that this proof consists of two parts, first, the 
 heathen had the knowledge of the truth, vs. 19, 20, and 
 secondly, that they did not act according to it, vs. 21 23; 
 assumes that the connection is rather with the last clause of 
 ver. 18, and that something is implied here which is not 
 expressed, and that the logical reference of dtorc is to this 
 omitted thought. ' The heathen are without excuse, and wick- 
 edly oppose the truth, since although they knew Gocl, they 
 glorified him not as God.' This sense is good enough, but it 
 is a forced and unnatural interpretation. 
 
 The apostle having shown in ver. 19, that the knowledge of 
 God was revealed to men, has no hesitation in saying that the 
 heathen knew God ; which does not mean merely that they had 
 the opportunity of knowing him, but that in the constitution of 
 their own nature, and in the works of creation, they actually 
 possessed an intelligible revelation of the Divine existence and 
 perfections. This revelation was indeed generally so neglected, 
 that men knew not what it taught. Still they had the know- 
 ledge, in the same sense that those who have the Bible are said 
 to have the knowledge of the will of God, however much they 
 may neglect and disregard it. In both cases there is knowledge 
 presented, and a revelation made, and in both ignorance is 
 without excuse. As there is no apology for the impiety of the 
 heathen to be found in any unavoidable ignorance, their idola- 
 try was the fruit of depravity. The apostle therefore says, 
 that although they knew God, they glorified him not as Gf-od, 
 neither were thankful to him. Aozd^siv is to ascribe honour 
 to any one, to praise, and also to honour, to make glorious, 
 or cause that others should honour any one. Men are said 
 to glorify God either when they ascribe glory to him, or 
 when they so act as to lead others to honour him. In the 
 present case, the former idea is expressed by the word. They 
 did not reverence and worship God as their God ; neither did 
 they refer to him the blessings which they daily received at his 
 hands. 
 
 Instead of thus rendering unto God the homage and grati- 
 tude which (if 3 his due, they became vain in their imaginations.
 
 58 ROMANS I. 22. 
 
 J*ii//i, (IfjtaTatwfyffOK) that is, according to constant scriptural 
 usage, became both foolish and wicked. Vain conversation is 
 corrupt conversation, 1 Pet. i. 18 ; and vanity is wickedness, 
 Eph. iv. 17. These words are all frequently used in reference to 
 idolatry, as idols are in the Bible often called pdrata, vanities. 
 In their imaginations, oea/.o^tafjiot^, properly thoughts; but usu- 
 ally, in the New Testament, with the implication of evil ; evil 
 thoughts or machinations. Here the word also has a bad sense. 
 The thoughts of the heathen concerning God were perverted and 
 corrupt thoughts. The whole clause therefore means, that the 
 heathen, in refusing to recognize the true God, entertained 
 foolish and wicked thoughts of the Divine Being ; that is, they 
 sank into the foll^ and sin of idoiatry. And their foolish heart 
 was darkened; they lost the light of divine knowledge ; aa-jj/sroc, 
 destitute of owzatz understanding, insight into the nature of 
 divine things. The consequence of this want of divine know- 
 ledge was darkness. The word xapdia, heart, stands for the 
 whole soul. Hence men are said to understand with the heart, 
 Matt. xiii. 15; to believe with the heart, Rom. x. 30; the heart 
 is said to be enlightened with knowledge, 2 Cor. iv. 6 ; and the 
 eyes of the heart are said to be opened, Eph. i. 8. The word 
 dtavoia, mind, is used with the same latitude, not only for the 
 intellect, but also for the seat of the affections, as in Eph. ii. 3, 
 we read of the desires of the mind. It is not merely intel- 
 lectual darkness or ignorance which the apostle describes in 
 this verse, but the whole moral state. We find throughout the 
 Scriptures the idea of foolishness and sin, of wisdom and piety, 
 intimately connected. In the language of the Bible, a fool is 
 an impious man; the wise are the pious, those who fear God; 
 foolishness is sin; understanding is religion. The folly and 
 darkness of which the apostle here speaks, are therefore ex- 
 pressive of want of divine knowledge, which is both the effect 
 and cause of moral depravity. 
 
 VERSE 22. Professing themselves to be wise. (Pdaxoisrs; e^ae 
 acxpoi, (for ffo<poi>z, by attraction.) Saying in the sense of pre- 
 tending to be. The more they boasted of their wisdom, the 
 more conspicuous became their folly. What greater folly can 
 there be, than to worship beasts rather than God? To this 
 the apostle refers in the next verse.
 
 ROMANS I. 23. 59 
 
 VERSE 23. They became fools, and exchanged the glory of 
 the incorruptible G-od for the likeness of the image of corruptible 
 man. Herein consisted their amazing folly, that they, as 
 rational beings, should worship the creature in preference to 
 the Creator. The common construction of the verb dttdaasiv 
 in Greek when it means to exchange, is either ri TWOS, or re 
 d.vri TCVOZ; but the apostle imitates the Hebrew construction, 
 2 "T^n, which by the LXX. is rendered aXXdaaecv Iv, as in Ps. 
 cvi. 20. The sense is not that they change one thing into 
 another, but that they exchanged one thing for another. The 
 glory, a collective term for all the divine perfections. They 
 exchanged the substance for the image, the substantial or real 
 divine glories for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, 
 i. e. an image like to corruptible man. The contrast is not 
 merely between God and man, or between the incorruptible, 
 imperishable, eternal God, and frail man, but between this 
 incorruptible God and the image of a man. It was not, how- 
 ever, in the worship of the images of men only that the degra- 
 dation of the heathen was manifested, for they paid religious 
 homage to birds, beasts, and reptiles. In such idolatry the 
 idol or animal was, with regard to the majority, the ultimate 
 object of worship. Some professed to regard the visible image 
 as a mere symbol of the real object of their adoration ; while 
 others believed that the gods in some way filled these idols, and 
 operated through them; and others again, that the universal 
 principle of being was reverenced under these manifestations. 
 The Scriptures take no account of these distinctions. All 
 who bowed down to stocks and stones are denounced as wor- 
 shipping gods which their own hands had made ; and idolatry 
 is made to include not merely the worship of false gods, but the 
 worship of the true God by images. The universal prevalence 
 of idolatry among the heathen, notwithstanding the revelation 
 which God had made of himself in his works, is the evidence 
 which Paul adduces to prove that they are ungodly, and conse- 
 quently exposed to that wrath which is revealed against all 
 ungodliness. In the following verses, to the end of the chap- 
 ter, he shows that they are unrighteous ; that as the con- 
 sequence of their departure from God, they sank into the 
 grossest vices.
 
 60 ROMANS I. 24. 
 
 VBRSE 24. Wherefore also he gave tMm, in their lust*, unto 
 mn4mnnrin The most natural construction of this passage is 
 to ct> ; dxa&vfHrifw with -ansuwx^, he gave up unto 
 
 Hncleanness. We have the same construction in vs. 2G, 28, 
 and frequently elsewhere. To construct -apsoajxzi/ with iv 
 raFc Intthfucus, as Beza and others do, gives indeed a good 
 sense, He gave them up to their desires unto unckanncss, 
 i. e. so that they became unclean, but is opposed to the con- 
 stant usage of the New Testament, inasmuch as -anaoiotoui 
 never occurs in construction with Iv. If the former construc- 
 tion be adopted, iv ro?c farib/tivC may be rendered as in our 
 version, through their lusts; or better in their hists; ^ rx- 
 pressing their condition, or circumstances ; them in their lusts, 
 L e. being in them, immersed in them. To dishonour, -w 
 aTipd'sattat. This infinitive with roy may depend on the pre- 
 ceding noun; 'the uncleanness of dishonouring,' &c., " quae 
 oernebatur in," c. Winer, 45. 4. b. But as the infinitive 
 with the genitive article is so frequently used to express design, 
 or simple sequence, it is better to make it depend on the whole 
 preceding clause, ' He gave them up to uncleanness, to dis- 
 honour,' i. e. either in order that they might dishonour, or so 
 that they dishonoured, c.; d.Tifjid^ff&cu may be taken either as 
 middle, so that they dishonoured their bodies; or as passive, so 
 that their bodies were dishonoured. The former best suits the 
 context. ' Ev <zyro?c is ekher equivalent to iv dx/^'/wc, reci- 
 procally, they dishonoured one another, as to their bodies ; or 
 in themselves, dishonouring their bodies in themselves; "signi- 
 ficantius exprimit," says Calvin, "quam profundas et inelui- 
 bik's ignominise notas corporibus suis inusserint." 
 
 This abandonment of the heathen to the dominion of sin 
 is represented as a punitive infliction. They forsook God, 
 otb xai, wherefore also he gave them up to uncleanness. This 
 is explained as a simple permission on the part of God. 
 But it removes no real difficulty. If God permits those who 
 forsake him, to sink into vice, he does it intelligently and inten- 
 tionally. The language of the apostle, as well as the analogy 
 of Scripture, demands more than this. It is at least a judicial 
 abandonment. It is as a punishment for their apostasy that 
 God gives men up to the power of sin. Tradidit Deus ut Justus
 
 ROMANS I. 25. 61 
 
 judex. He -withdraws from the wicked the restraints of his 
 providence and grace, and gives them over to the dominion of 
 sin. God is presented in the Bible as the absolute moral and 
 physical ruler of the world. He governs all things according 
 to the counsel of his own will and the nature of his creatures. 
 What happens as consequences does not come by chance, but 
 as designed; and the sequence is secured by his control. "It 
 is beyond question," says Tholuck, "that, according to the 
 doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, sin is the punish- 
 ment of sin." So the Rabbins teach, "The reward of a good 
 deed is a good deed, and of an evil deed, an evil deed." This 
 is also the teaching of all experience. We see that sin fol- 
 lows sin as an avenger. Be Wette truly says, " Diese Ansieht 
 ist nicht bloss judisch, sondern allgemein wahr vom absoluten 
 Standpunkte der Religion aus." "This is no mere Jewish 
 doctrine, but it is universally true from the absolute stand-point 
 of religion." God is not a mere idle spectator of the order of 
 events : he is at once the moral governor and efficient controller 
 of all things. "Man is not 'a virtue-machine,' " says Meyer, 
 u when God rewards virtue with virtue; neither is he 'a sin- 
 machine,' when God punishes sin with sin." Men are as free 
 in sinning as they are in obeying; and what in one passage 
 and from one point of view, is properly presented as the work 
 of God, in another passage and from another point of view, is 
 no less properly presented as the work of man. What is her"e 
 said to be God's work, in Eph. iv. 19, is declared to be the 
 sinner's own work. 
 
 VERSE 25. Who change, (ofovsc.) The pronoun has a causal 
 sense, being such as those who, i. e. because they exchanged the, 
 truth of Cf-od for a lie. The construction is the same as in 
 <ver. 23, ;uer^Maav Iv, they exchanged for, not, they changed 
 into. The truth of G-od, either a periphrase for the true God, or 
 the truth concerning God, i. e. right conceptions of God. For 
 a lie, that is, either a false god, or falsehood, i. e. false views 
 of God. The former is the better explanation. The glory of 
 ' God is God himself as glorious, and the truth of God, in this 
 connection, is God himself as true; that is, the true God. In 
 the Old Testament, as in Jer. xiii. 25, xvi. 19, the gods of the 
 heathen are spoken of as lies. Anything which is not what it
 
 62 ROMANS I. 26. 
 
 pretends to be, or what it is supposed to be, is in the Scriptures 
 c;il Ifd a lie. The proof of this apostasy is, that they worshipped 
 (Iffefidafyffav) and served (ttdrpeuffav.) These words are often 
 synonymous, both being used to express inward reverence and 
 outward worship; although the former properly expresses the 
 fVrling, and the latter the outward service. The creature 
 (xriate,) not the creation, but any particular created thing. 
 This noun belongs, in sense, to both the preceding verbs, 
 although the first by itself would require the accusative. More 
 than the Creator, napd TOV xTtaavca, i. e. beyond, in the sense 
 of more than, or in the sense of passing by, neglecting; 
 "praeterito Creatore," as Beza translates. The latter suits 
 best. Who is blessed for ever. Amen. Who, notwithstanding 
 the neglect of the heathen, is the ever-blessed God. This is 
 the natural tribute of reverence toward the God whom men dis- 
 honoured by their idolatry. The word lu/.o-^-o^ is by Harless, 
 Eph. i. 3, and by Meyer, made to mean praised, as the Hebrew 
 ^n, to which it so constantly answers ; not, therefore, worthy 
 of praise, but who is in fact the object of praise to all holy 
 beings. Bretschneider (Lexicon,) Tholuck, and others, render 
 it " celebrandus, venerandus." Amen is properly a Hebrew 
 adjective, signifying true or faithful. At the beginning of a 
 sentence it is often used adverbially, verily, assuredly; at the 
 end of a sentence it is used to express assent, it is true, so let it 
 be. Paul says Amen to the declaration that God is the ever- 
 blessed. 
 
 VERSE 26. For this cause, &c. That is, because they wor- 
 shipped the creature rather than the Creator, God gave them 
 up to corrupt affections. Ild&y dr^j'ac, shameful lusts, pas- 
 sions which are degrading, and the indulgence of which covers 
 men with ignominy. This verse is therefore an amplification 
 of the idea expressed in ver. 24. The reasons why Paul refers 
 in the first instance to the sins of uncleanness, in illustration 
 and proof of the degradation of the heathen, probably were, 
 that those sins are always intimately connected with idolatry, 
 forming at times even a part of the service rendered to the 
 false gods ; that in turning from God and things spiritual, men 
 naturally sink into the sensual ; that the sins in question are 
 peculiarly degrading ; and that they were the most notorious,
 
 ROMANS I. 27, 28. 63 
 
 prevalent, and openly acknowledged of all the crimes of the 
 heathen world. This corruption of morals was confined to no 
 one class or sex. The description given by profane writers, 
 of the moral corruption of the ante- Christian ages, is in all 
 respects as revolting as that presented by the apostle. Of this 
 the citations of Wetstein and Grotius furnish abundant proof. 
 Paul first refers to the degradation of females among the 
 heathen, because they are always -the last to be affected in the 
 decay of morals, and their corruption is therefore proof that all 
 virtue is lost. 
 
 VERSE 27. The apostle for the third time repeats the idea 
 that the moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of 
 their apostasy from God. Receiving, he says, in themselves the 
 meet recompense of their error. It is obvious from the whole 
 context that xXdyy here refers to the sin of forsaking the true 
 God ; and it is no less obvious that the recompense or punish- 
 ment of this apostasy was the moral degradation which he had 
 just described. 
 
 The heathen themselves did not fail to see the intimate con- 
 nection between impiety and vice. /Silius, iv. 794. "Heu 
 primse scelerum causae mortalibus gegris naturam nescire Deum. 
 Cicero De natura Deorum, 12. Haud scio, an, pietate adversus 
 Deos sublatS, fides etiam et societas, et una excellentissima 
 virtus justitia tollatur." See WETSTEIN. Those therefore who 
 would merge religion into morality, or who suppose that moral- 
 ity can be sustained without religion, are more ignorant than 
 the heathen. They not only shut their eyes to all the teach- 
 ings both of philosophy and of history, but array against them- 
 selves the wrath of God, who has revealed his purpose to 
 abandon to the most degrading lusts those who apostatize 
 from him. 
 
 VERSE 28. And as they did not think it worth while to retain 
 (rod in their knowledge, he gave them up to a reprobate mind. 
 Another repetition of the sentiment is expressed in vs. 24, 26, 
 that God abandons those who abandon him. And as, xat 
 xa&ioz. The cases are parallel ; as they deserted God, so God 
 abandoned them; comp. John xvii. 2. They did not like, oax 
 Idoxt/jtaaav; the verb means to try or put to the test, to ex- 
 amine, to approve, and, lignum habere, to regard as worthy,
 
 64 ROMANS I. 2931. 
 
 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 4, and when followed by an infinitive, 
 to think it worth u-hil*'. The heathen did not think it worth the 
 trouble to retain the knowledge of God. They considered reli- 
 gion as useless, and supposed they could live without God. The 
 phrase e%uv ev lxcr\<toot( is stronger than simply to know; both 
 becausi- s-q-woacz, full knowledge, is stronger than fwatz, and 
 because iyttv i\> txtrixiiffu is stronger than kr.tfifuioaKS.tv. The 
 text therefore means to retain in accurate or practical know- 
 ledge. It was the practical recognition of the only true God, 
 whose eternal power and Godhead are revealed in his works, 
 that men were unwilling constantly to make. Q-od gave them 
 up to a reprobate mind. Beza, Bengel, and others, give 
 ddoxtfw? here the sense of judicii expert, incapable of judgment 
 or discernment. But this is contrary to usage, and contrary to 
 the etymology of the word. Mxcfioz, from de^o/iac, means 
 receivable, worthy of being received; and ddaxe/jto^, worthy of 
 rejection, reprobate. To do things not becoming; that is, to do 
 things not becoming the nature and duties of man. Of the 
 things meant, the following verses contain a long and painful 
 catalogue, flotttv is the exegetical infinitive, to do, that is, so 
 that they did. It expresses the conseq.uence of the dereliction 
 just spoken of, and the natural fruit of a reprobate mind. 
 
 VERSES 29 31. Being filled with all unrighteousness, forni- 
 cation, wickedness, &c. The accusative mxfojpotfjtivwz is con- 
 nected with avro'jc of the preceding verse. He gave them up, 
 fitted with all unrighteousness; or it depends on the preceding 
 infinitive xotsiv, so that they, filled with all unrighteousness, 
 should commit, &c. It is not so connected with xaftsduxev, as 
 to imply that God gave them up after they were thus corrupt, 
 but it is so connected with Ttotdv as to express the consequence 
 of God's abandoning them to do the things which are not con- 
 venient. The crimes here mentioned were not of rare occur- 
 rence. The heathen were filled with them. They not only 
 abounded, but in many cases were palliated and even justified. 
 Dark as the picture here drawn is, it is not so dark as that pre- 
 sented by the most distinguished Greek and Latin authors, of 
 their own countrymen. Commentators have collected a fearful 
 array of passages from the ancient writers, which more than 
 sustain the account given by the apostle. We select a single
 
 ROMANS I. 2981. 65 
 
 passage from Senca de Ira, II. 8: "Omnia steleribus ac vitiia 
 plena sunt; plus committitur quam quod possit coercitione 
 sanari. Certatur ingenti quodam nequitise certamine; major 
 quotidie peccandi cupiditas, minor verecundia est. Expulso 
 melioris aequiorisque respectu, quocunque visum est, libido se 
 impingit; nee furtiva jam scelera sunt, prfeter oculos eunt. 
 Adeoque in publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium pectori- 
 bus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara, sed nulla sit. Numquid enim 
 singuli aut pauci rupere legem? undique, velut signo dato, ad 
 fas nefasque miscendum coorti sunt." What Paul says of the 
 ancient heathen world, is found to be true in all its essential 
 features of men of all generations. Wherever men have ex- 
 isted, there have they shown themselves to be sinners, ungodly, 
 and unrighteous, and therefore justly exposed to the wrath of 
 God. Of the vices with which the heathen were filled, xopveia 
 stands first as the most prominent; KOM^/O, malice, the dispo- 
 sition to inflict evil; xhovetia, rapacity, the desire to have- 
 more than is our due ; xaxia, malignity, malice in exercise ; 
 tf&bvoz and <povoz, envy and murder, united either from simi- 
 larity in sound, or because the former tends to the latter ; ept<; T 
 &Woc, contention and fraud, nearly related evils. The primary 
 meaning of oolot; is a bait, food exposed to entrap an animal ; 
 then the disposition to deceive, or an act of deception; xaxo- 
 y&zia (xazoz and ^i$oc,) malevolence, the disposition to make the- 
 worst of everything ; <t>t&upta-cr]z, a whisperer, clandestine slan- 
 derer ; xardXaXot;, a detractor, one who speaks against others ; 
 $OffWffz, hateful to Grod, or hating G-od. Usage is in favour 
 of the passive sense, the connection of the active. All wicked 
 men, and not any one particular class, are the objects of the- 
 divine displeasure. To meet this difficulty, Meyer proposes to- 
 make this word a mere qualification of the preceding, G-od- 
 abhorred detractors. This, however, is out of keeping with the 1 
 whole passage. The great majority of commentators adopt the 
 active sense. Then follow three designations, expressive of the- 
 different forms of pride, bftpcaTai, the insolent; b~zpr i (f6.voi, the 
 self-conceited; cUa^ovsc", boasters; iysupzral xoxtJav, inventors of 
 crimes; disobedient to parents. That such should be included 1 ' 
 in this fearful list, shows the light in which filial disobedience 
 is regarded by the sacred writers. In ver. 31, all the wordsr 
 5
 
 66 ROMANS I. 32. 
 
 begin with the a privative, dff'JKsro'Jt, without (<TJI/<C) insight 
 into moral or religious things, i. e. blinded, besotted, so as to 
 think evil good, and good evil ; d.a>jv&ro'jz, perfidious; aaroit- 
 j-u'j;, those in whom the natural affection for parents or child- 
 ren is suppressed; dtnrov&wc, implacable; avslefjfJLOvaz, without 
 pity. 
 
 VERSE 32. Who well knowing the rigktooM* judgment of 
 God; that is, although they well know, &c. They were (o>Tr,^) 
 such as who. The heathen whose acts had been just described, 
 are declared to be, M<n tcho, although they km-tc the //</' 
 judgment, &c., (dtxaltufjia) decree, a declaration of what is right 
 and just; and dixaiwfjia roD Bsou is the declaration of God as to 
 what is right and just. The import of this declaration is con- 
 tained in the clause, that they ivho do (npdaao'jfft, commit] such 
 t/tin<j8 are worthy of death. By death here, as often elsewhere, 
 is meant punishment, in the general meaning of that word. It 
 expresses the penalty of the law, and includes all evil inflicted 
 for the satisfaction of justice. Paul therefore teaches that the 
 heathen knew they deserved punishment for their crimes, or in 
 other words, that they were justly exposed to the wrath of God, 
 which was revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness 
 of men. The source of this knowledge he explains in the fol- 
 lowing chapter, ver. 14. It was a knowledge written on their 
 hearts, or included in the constitution of their nature ; it was 
 implied in their being moral agents. As he had before shown 
 that the impiety of the heathen was without excuse, inasmuch 
 as they had a knowledge of the true God, so here he shows that 
 their immorality was inexcusable, since their sins were not com- 
 mitted in ignorance of their nature or desert. This passage 
 also shows that the judicial abandonment of God does not 
 destroy the free agency or responsibility of men. They are 
 given up to work iniquity, and yet know that they deserve 
 death for what they do. The stream which carries them away 
 is not without, but within. It is their own corrupt nature. It 
 is themselves. Notwithstanding this knowledge of the ill-desert 
 of the crimes above enumerated, they not only commit them, 
 but approve of those who do (or practise) them. This is the 
 lowest point :>f degradation, To sin, even in the heat of pas- 
 sion, is evil ; but to delight in the sins of others, shows that
 
 ROMANS I. 1832. 67 
 
 men are of set purpose and fixed preference, wicked. Such is 
 the apostle's argument to prove that the heathen are all under 
 sin, that they are justly chargeable with ungodliness and 
 unrighteousness, and consequently exposed to the wrath of 
 God. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The punitive justice of God is an essential attribute of his 
 nature. This attribute renders the punishment of sin neces- 
 sary, and is the foundation of the need of a vicarious atone- 
 ment in order to the pardon of sinners. This doctrine the 
 apostle assumes as a first principle, and makes it the basis of 
 his whole exposition of the doctrine of justification, ver. 18. 
 
 2. That sin is a proper object of punishment, and that, 
 under the righteous government of God, it will be punished, are 
 moral axioms * which have "a self-evidencing light," whenever 
 proposed to the moral sense of men, vs. 18, 32. 
 
 3. God has never left himself without a witness among his 
 rational creatures. Both in reference to his own nature and to 
 the rule of duty, he has, in his works and in the human heart, 
 given sufficient light to render the impiety and immorality of 
 men inexcusable, vs. 19, 20, 32. 
 
 4. Natural religion is not a sufficient guide to salvation. 
 What individual or what nation has it ever led to right views 
 of God or of his law? The experience of the whole world, 
 under all the variety of circumstances in which men have 
 existed, proves its insufficiency; and, consequently, -the neces- 
 sity of a special divine revelation, vs. 21 23. 
 
 5. The heathen, who have only the revelation of God in his 
 works and in their own hearts, aided by the obscure tradition- 
 ary knowledge which has come down to them, need the gospel. 
 In point of fact, the light which they enjoy does not lead them 
 to God and holiness, vs. 21 23. 
 
 6. Error (on moral and religious subjects) has its root in 
 depravity. Men are ignorant of God and duty, because they 
 do not like t" retain him in their knowledge, vs. 21, 28. 
 
 7. God often punishes one sin by abandoning the sinner to 
 the commission of others. Paul repeats this idea three times, 
 vs. 24, 26, 28. This judicial abandonment is consistent with
 
 68 ROMANS I. 1832. 
 
 the holiness of God and the free agency of man. God does not 
 impel or entice to evil. He ceases to restrain. He says of the 
 sinner, Let him alone, vs. 24 28. 
 
 8. Religion is the only true foundation, and the only effectual 
 safeguard for morality. Those who abandon God, he abandons. 
 Irreligion and immorality, therefore, have ever been found inse- 
 parably connected, vs. 2428. 
 
 9. It evinces, in general, greater depravity to encourage 
 others in the commission of crimes, and to rejoice in their com- 
 mission, than to commit them one's self, ver. 32. 
 
 10. The most reprobate sinner carries about with him a 
 knowledge of his just exposure to the wrath of God. Con- 
 science can never be entirely extirpated, ver. 32. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. It lies in the very nature of sin, that it should be inex- 
 cusable, and worthy of punishment. Instead, therefore, of 
 palliating its enormity, we should endeavour to escape from its 
 penalty, vs. 18, 32. 
 
 2. As the works of God reveal his eternal power and God- 
 head, we should accustom ourselves to see in them the mani- 
 festations of his perfections, vs. 18 21. 
 
 3. The human intellect is as erring as the human heart. We 
 can no more find truth than holiness, when estranged from 
 God; even as we lose both light and heat, when we depart 
 from the sun. Those, in every age, have sunk deepest into 
 folly, who have relied most on their own understandings. " In 
 thy light only, God, can we see light," ver. 21, &c. 
 
 4. If the sins of the heathen, committed under the feeble light 
 of nature, be inexcusable, how great must be the aggravation 
 of those committed under the light of the Scriptures, ver. 20. 
 
 5. As the light of nature is insufficient to lead the heathen 
 to God and holiness, it is one of the most obvious and urgent 
 of our duties to send them the light of the Bible, vs. 20 23. 
 
 6. Men should remember that their security from open and 
 gross sins is not in themselves, but in God ; and they should 
 regard as the worst of punishments, his withdrawing from them 
 his Holy Spirit, vs. 24 28.
 
 ROMANS II. 116. 6(7 
 
 7. Sins of uncleanness are peculiarly debasing and demoral- 
 izing. To be preserved from them is mentioned in Scripture 
 as a mark of the divine favour, Eccl. vii. 26, Prov. xxii. 14 ; to 
 be abandoned to them, as a mark of reprobation. 
 
 8. To take pleasure in those who do good, makes us better; 
 as to delight in those who do evil, is the surest way to become 
 even more degraded than they are themselves, ver. 32. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE object of this chapter is to establish the same charges 
 against the Jews, which had just been proved against the 
 Gentiles ; to show that they also were exposed to the wrath of 
 God. It consists of three parts. The first contains an exhi- 
 bition of those simple principles of justice upon which all men 
 are to be judged, vs. 1 16. The second is an application of 
 these principles to the case of the Jews, vs. 17 24. The third 
 is an exhibition of the true nature and design of circumcision, 
 intended to show that the Jews could not expect exemption on 
 the ground of that rite, vs. 25 39. 
 
 ROMANS II. 1- 16. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THAT men so impious and immoral, as those described in the 
 preceding chapter, deserved the divine displeasure, and could 
 never, by their own works, secure the favour of God, the Jew 
 was prepared readily to admit. But might there not be a set 
 of men, who, in virtue of some promise on the part of God, or 
 of the performance of some special duties, could claim exemp- 
 tion from the execution of God's purpose to punish all sin? 
 To determine this point, it was necessary to consider a little 
 more fully the justice o" God, in order to see whether it
 
 70 ROMANS 11. 1. 
 
 admitted of impunity to sinners on the ground supposed. This 
 . -ei ion of the chapter, therefore, is employed in expanding 
 tin- principle of ver. 18 of the first chapter. It contains a 
 development of those principles of justice which commend 
 themselves at once to every man's conscience. The first is, 
 that he who condemns in others what he does himself, does 
 thereby condemn himself, ver. 1. The second, that God's 
 judgments are according to the truth or real state of the case, 
 ver. 2. The third, that the special goodness of God, manifested 
 towards any individual or people, forms no ground of exemp- 
 tion from merited punishment ; but being designed to lead them, 
 to repentance, when misimproved aggravates their condemna- 
 tion, vs. 3 5. The fourth, that the ground of judgment is the 
 works, not the external relations or professions of men : God 
 will punish the wicked and reward the good, whether Jew or 
 Gentile, without the least respect of persons, vs. 6 11. The 
 fifth, that the standard of judgment is the light which men have 
 severally enjoyed. Those having a written law shall be judged 
 by it, and those who have only the law written on their hearts, 
 (and that the heathen have such a law is proved by the opera- 
 tions of conscience, vs. 13 15,) shall be judged by that law, 
 ver. VI. These are the principles according to which all men 
 are to be judged in the last day, by Jesus Christ, ver. 16. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. In order to appreciate the force of the aposile's 
 reasoning in this and the following verses, it should be remem- 
 bered that the principal ground on which the Jews expected 
 acceptance with God, was the covenant which he had made 
 with their father Abraham, in which he promised to be a God 
 to him and to his seed after him. They understood this pro- 
 mise to secure salvation of all who retained their connection 
 with Abraham, by the observance of the law and the rite of 
 circumcision. They expected, therefore, to be regarded and 
 treated not so much as individuals, each being dealt with 
 according to his personal diameter, but as a community to 
 whom salvation was secured by the promise made to Abraham. 
 Paul begins his argument at a distance; he states his principles
 
 ROMANS II. 1. 71 
 
 in such general terms, that they could not fail to secure the 
 assent of the Jew, before he was aware of their application to 
 himself. That the Jews are addressed in this chapter is evident 
 from the whole strain of the argument, and from the express 
 application of the reasoning of the case of the Jews, from 
 ver. 17 onward. This view of the passage is now generally 
 adopted, though many of the earlier commentators supposed 
 either that no particular class of persons is here addressed, or 
 that the apostle has in view the better portion of the heathen, 
 or at least those who did not seem to approve of the crimes 
 mentioned in the preceding chapter, but rather condemned 
 them. 
 
 The connection between this chapter and what precedes, as 
 indicated. by the particle 016, wherefore, is somewhat doubtful. 
 Some suppose the inference to be drawn from the doctrine 
 taught from ver. 18 of the preceding chapter. God is just, and 
 determined to punish all unrighteousness and ungodliness of 
 men ; wherefore they are without excuse who commit the sins 
 which they condemn in others. In this case, however, the con- 
 clusion is not exactly in the form suited to the premises. It is 
 not so much the inexcusableness of sinners as the exposure to 
 punishment, that follows from the justice of God. Most com- 
 mentators therefore consider the inference as drawn from the 
 last verse of the preceding chapter. It is there said that all 
 men know that those who sin are worthy of death ; and the 
 inference is, that they who commit sin are without excuse, how- 
 ever censorious their self-conceit may render them towards 
 others. Every one who judges. Though from what follows it 
 is plain that the Jews are here intended, yet for the reasons 
 above stated the proposition is made general. Kpiwov, judging; 
 but by implication, condemning. For lolierein thou judgest 
 another, thou condemnest thyself. Wlierein (kv w,} either in 
 the thing which, or thereby, i. e. in the same judgment, or 
 whilst. See Mark ii. 19, John v. 7. The reason of this asser- 
 tion is given in the following clause, for thou that judgest doest 
 the same things. It is the thing done which is the ground of 
 condemnation; and therefore he who condemns the act, con- 
 demns the agent, whether the agent be himself or some or.e 
 else, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile.
 
 72 ROMANS II. 2, 3. 
 
 VERSE 2. But we know. That is, however perverse and 
 pnrtial may be the judgment you pass on yourself, we know, &c. 
 We does not refer to the Jews, as peculiarly instructed, but to 
 all men. Every one knows. The proposition contained in 
 this verse is: The judgment of G-od is against those who do 
 vuch things. That is, however they may excuse themselves, 
 God will judge them. The words xard dArj&seav, therefore, do 
 not form the predicate of the sentence, as though the sense 
 were, The judgment of God is according to truth. The mean- 
 ing rather is, the judgment of God, which is according to truth, 
 is against those, &c. There are two things therefore asserted, 
 the certainty of this divine judgment, and its being according 
 to truth, i. e. without error, without respect of persons. It 13 
 not founded upon mere appearances or professions, but upon 
 the real truth of the case. Comp. Prov. xxix. 14, kv d/yd-iia 
 xpiviov xT(o%o'JZ, and John viii. 16, fj xpiatz $ lity dXr^dr^ ianv. 
 This verse then contains the second general principle of justice, 
 according to which all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, are to be 
 judged. The whole hope of the Jews was founded on the 
 assumption that the judgment of God regarding them would be 
 guided by some other rule than truth. He was not to judge 
 them according to their real merits, but according to their 
 national and ecclesiastical relations, just as men now hope to 
 be saved because they belong to the true Church. 
 
 VERSE 3. But thinkest thou this, man, that judycst, &c. 
 The truth that God's judgment is just, and will fall on those 
 who themselves commit the sins which they condemn in others, 
 is so plain, that the apostle exclaims at the folly of those who 
 seem to deny it. The emphasis lies on the word thou, in the 
 middle of the verse. Dost thou think that thou, a JeAv, and 
 because a Jew, shalt escape the righteous judgment of God? 
 Shalt escape, Ixysugrj. "Every one," says Bengel, "who is 
 arraigned, (psufEt, tries to escape; he who is acquitted, kxtfs'j^se, 
 escapes." In ver. 1, the apostle had shown that the man 
 who did what he condemned in others, condemned himself. 
 "If then," as Theophylact says, "he cannot escape his own 
 judgment, how can he .escape the judgment of God? If 
 forced to condemn ourselves, how much more will the infi- 
 nitely Holy condemn us?" The ground on which this false
 
 ROMANS II. 4. 73 
 
 and absurd expectation rested is mentioned in the following 
 verse : 
 
 VERSE 4. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and 
 forbearance, and long-suffering? That is, admitting the general 
 principle, that those who do what they condemn in others are 
 themselves exposed to condemnation, do you expect exemption 
 on the ground of the peculiar goodness of God? That this was 
 the expectation of the Jews is plain from the apostle's argu- 
 ment here and in the following chapter, and from chap. ix. 
 and xi. Comp. also Matt. iii. 9, " Think not to say, We have 
 Abraham to our father," and John viii. 33. Despisest. To 
 despise, xara^oovscv, is to form a low estimate of. They 
 despise the goodness of God, who form such a wrong estimate 
 of it, as to suppose that it gives them a license to sin; who 
 imagine that he will not punish, either because he long for- 
 bears, or because his goodness towards us is so great that we 
 shall escape, though others perish. The words ^ojjarorjjc, uvoyf t , 
 and fjtaxpo&ufjLia, express the Divine goodness under different 
 aspects. The first means kindness in general, as expressed in 
 giving favours ; the second, patience ; the third, forbearance, 
 slowness in the infliction of punishment. The reason why the 
 Jews, as referred to by the apostle, and men in general, thus 
 abuse the goodness of God, is expressed by the clause, not 
 knowing that the goodness of G-od leadeth thee to repentance. 
 'AfUoiov, not knowing, not understanding ; and here, not com- 
 prehending the true nature and design of. Men abuse the 
 goodness of God, because they do not rightly apprehend that 
 instead of indicating a purpose not to punish, it is designed to 
 lead them to forsake their sins. The goodness of God leads us 
 to repentance, because it shows us our duty towards a Being 
 who is so kind, and because it gives us ground to hope for 
 acceptance. "The word d;'&, leads," says Dr. Wordsworth, 
 Canon of Westminster, in his elegant and scholarly work on 
 the Greek Testament, " intimates not only the will of God, but 
 the will of man. God leads, but man may refuse to be led : 
 ' Deus ducit volentem duci,' as Bengel says, ' ducit suaviter 
 non cogit necessit ite.' ' Very true ; but who gives the will to 
 be led ? Is there no preventing grace ? Does not God work in 
 us to will, as well is to do ? Surely there is such a thing as
 
 74 ROMANS II. 5, 6. 
 
 being made willing without being forced. There is a middle 
 ground between moral suasion and coercion. God supersedes 
 the neerssitv of forcing, by making us willing in the day of his 
 power. The apostle, however, is not here speaking of gracious 
 influence, but of the moral tendencies of providential dis- 
 pensations. 
 
 VERSE 5. The goodness of God, so far from being a ground 
 of reasonable expectation that we shall ultimately escape 
 punishment, becomes, when abused, an aggravation of our 
 guilt. This principle the apostle here applies to the Jews, 
 who, through their abuse of the peculiar mercy of God, were 
 treasuring up wrath for themselves. Kara 3s T^V ffx/^^oT^rd 
 <rou, lifter tlii/ hurdness, i. e. as might be expected from thy 
 hardness ; agreeably to its nature and degree xal 
 xapdiav, heart incapable of repentance. " ' 
 activam habet, animus, qui resipicere non potest, poenitcre 
 nescius. Enervat hunc locum Grotius quum explicat, animus, 
 qui poenitentiam non agit." Fritzsche. To treasure up is to 
 lay up little by little, and thus accumulate a store of anything, 
 whether good or evil. The abusers of God's goodness accumu- 
 late a store of wrath for themselves. 'A'v 'fas/iff. <V>j^c is com- 
 monly rendered unto the day of wrath ; but this unnecessarily 
 gives Iv the force of ere. It is better, with De Wette, Meyer, 
 and others, to connect iv with dpj-Tjv, 'wrath at or on the day 
 of wrath.' They treasure up for themselves wrath at that day 
 when wrath shall be manifested. That day is further described 
 as the day Axoxa/.tysioz dtxatoxpiaiaz roD $oD, of the revelation 
 of the righteous judgment of G-od. Some manuscripts insert 
 xai between d,Toxa/!^a>c and dtxouoxpeffia^; which reading is 
 preferred by Bengel, Wetstein, Mill, and Knapp. The sense 
 then is, the day of revelation, and of the righteous judgment 
 of G-od. The day of revelation, viz. of Christ, whose second 
 Sjoming is always associated in Scripture with the final judg- 
 ment ; and therefore the day of revelation may well express 
 the day of judgment. But as the phrase "day of revelation" 
 nowhere else occurs in this sense, and as the oldest manuscripts 
 are in favour of the common text, it should be allowed to stand. 
 
 VERSE 6. Who tvill render to every man according to hi* 
 works. This is the fourth important principle which the
 
 ROMANS II. 6. T5 
 
 apostle teaches us regulates the judgment of God. He will judge 
 men neither according to their professions nor their relations, 
 but according to their works. The question at his bar will be, 
 not whether a man is a Jew or a Gentile, whether he belongs to 
 the chosen people or to the heathen world, but whether he has 
 obeyed the law. This principle is amplified and applied in 
 what follows, in vs. 7 11. The question has been asked, how 
 the declaration that God will render to every man, whether Jew 
 or Gentile, according to his works to the good, eternal life, to 
 the wicked, indignation and wrath is to be reconciled with the 
 apostle's doctrine, that no man is justified by works, that right- 
 eousness and life are not by works, but by faith, and through 
 grace. In answering this question, two things are to be borne 
 in mind. The first is, that notwithstanding the doctrine of 
 gratuitous justification, and in perfect consistency with it, the 
 apostle still teaches that the retributions of eternity are accord- 
 ing to our works. The good only aro saved, and the wicked 
 only are condemned. "For we must all appear before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things 
 done in his body, whether good or bad," 2 Cor. v. 10, Eph. vi. 8. 
 "Reproborum," says Calvin, "malitiam justa ultione si puniet 
 Dominus, rependet illis quod meriti sunt. Rursum quia sancti- 
 ficat, quos olim statuit glorificare, in illis quoque bona opera 
 coronabit, sed non pro merito." With this accord the words 
 of Bernard: "Bona opera sunt via regni, non causa regnandi." 
 The wicked will be punished on account of their works, and 
 according to their works ; the righteous will be rewarded, not 
 on account of, but according to their works. Good works are 
 to them the evidence of their belonging to that class to whom, 
 for Christ's sake, eternal life is graciously awarded ; and they 
 are, in some sense and to some extent, the measure of that 
 reward. But it is more pertinent to remark, in the second 
 place, that the apostle is not here teaching the method 
 of justification, but is laying down those general principles 
 of justice, according to which, irrespective of the gospel, all 
 men are to be judged. He is expounding the law, not the 
 gospel. And as the law not only says that death is the wages 
 of sin, but also that those who keep its precepts shall live by 
 shem, so the apostle says, that God will punish the wicked and
 
 7b ROMANS II. 7, 8. 
 
 reward the righteous. This is perfectly consistent with whai 
 he afterwards teaches, that there are none righteous; that 
 there are none who so obey the law as to be entitled to the life 
 which it promises; and that for such the gospel provides a plan 
 of justification without works, a plan for saving those whom the 
 law condemns. He is here combatting the false hopes of the 
 Jews, who, though trusting to the law, were by the principles 
 of the law exposed to condemnation. This he does to drive 
 them from this false dependence, and to show them that neither 
 Jew nor Gentile can be justified before the bar of that God, 
 who, while he promises eternal life to the obedient, has revealed 
 his purpose to punish the disobedient. All therefore that this 
 passage teaches is, that irrespective of the gospel, to those who 
 either never heard of it, or who having heard, reject it, the 
 principle of judgment will be law. 
 
 VERSES 7, 8. The principle laid down in ver. 6, is here 
 amplified. God will render eternal life to the good, indignation 
 and wrath to the wicked, without distinction of persons ; to the 
 Jews no less than to the Gentiles. Though the sense of these 
 verses is plain, there is great difference of opinion as to the 
 grammatical construction. The explanation adopted by our 
 translators is perhaps the most natural, and is the one which is 
 most generally followed. To the verb dxodwase of ver. 6, 
 belong the two accusatives, COJTJV alwveov, and dopou xai 
 and the two datives, ro?c [* Z T j~~ J<Jt and TOJ ds lz Ip 
 The accusatives Sogav xai rtfjtjjv xai dtpfrapaiav then of course 
 depend on jjroy<, and xaff* &ro//oi/>jv so^oy dya&olj is an 
 adverbial qualification. The passage then reads thus: "To 
 those, who through perseverance in good works, seek glory, 
 honour, and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are 
 contentious, indignation and wrath." Another construction, 
 adopted by Bengel, Fritzsche, and others, supposes that ro?f 
 pel* xap &TO//OMJV ZPYOV dra&ou (scil. oboi) are to be taken 
 together; to those who are according to perseverance^ i. e. to 
 those who persevere; (comp. of xard adpxa=ol aapxixoi, and of 
 xard IJE r j/ia=ot irvw/iaTixol.) The following clause, dozav 
 fyruMi, is then in apposition with the preceding: "To those 
 who persevere in good works, seeking glory, honour, and 
 immortality, he will render eternal life." This view of the
 
 ROMANS II. 3. 77 
 
 passage is recommended by the correspondence thus established 
 between the role [*sv *#' uxofjiovqv of ver. 7, and the ro?f ds Ig 
 ipc&zias of ver. 8. It is opposed, however, by the following con- 
 siderations: 1. The interpretation of the phrase of xaff bxo- 
 fjLOvyv Hpfou dyaftov, is hardly borne out by a reference to the 
 phrases of xara adpxa and of xara /TvsEyzec. 2. The second 
 clause of ver. 7, if a mere amplification of the first clause, 
 should be introduced by xai, as in ver. 8 : 7o?e ds $ Ipi&elai;, 
 xai dxi&oi>ff(. Luther, after Oecumenius, translates thus: 
 " Welcher geben wird Preis und Ehre und unvergangliches 
 Wesen denen, die mit Geduld in guten Werken trachten nach 
 dem ewigen Leben:" "Who will give glory, honour, and 
 immortality to those, who, in patient continuance in well-doing, 
 seek eternal life." According to this view, the accusatives 
 do^av, rtpjv, a<p$apaiav, depend upon dnodaxjsi, and a)ty 
 aiwvcov on ^Toum. But this the position of the words will 
 hardly bear. Luther's fluent and forcible version is effected by 
 an entire transposition of the clauses. The construction there- 
 fore first mentioned is on the whole to be preferred. In the 
 English version of the words xatf" bTtopovyv, xard is rendered 
 thrvugh. So also Grotius, De Wette, and others. See 1 Cor. 
 xii. 8, Eph. iii. 3, 7. Others translate it by the Latin preposi 
 tion secundum, according to, or in virtue of. ' Yrtofiovij is ren- 
 dered patience by the Vulgate, and Luther ; patiens expectatio, 
 by Beza ; constancy, or patient continuance, in our version. 
 In illustration of the combination &7ro//oviyv Ipj-ou aj'a^oD, comp. 
 faoftovy rrfi ^/r/<5oc, 1 Thess. i. 3. The sing. Ip^ou is used 
 collectively for spy-ay, as in Gal. vi. 4, 1 Thess. i. 3, and else- 
 where. What is immediately afterwards expressed by eternal 
 life, is here expressed by the three words, glory, honour, and 
 immortality. The manifested excellence or splendour of the 
 future condition of the saints is expressed by doa; the honour 
 due such excellence by rifay; and the endless nature of their 
 blessedness by dup&apoia. 
 
 VERSE 8. To those who are of contention, that is, the con- 
 tentious. Comp. of Ix Kiareax;, believers; of Ix xsptTOfjrfi, the 
 circumcised; of Ix dxpoftuaTiaz, the uncircumcised; of Ix vofjtou, 
 those who belong to the law, legalists. Instead of the ordinary 
 derivation of lp:&sla from lots, Ruckert traces it to Zptdoz, a
 
 78 ROMANS II. 8. 
 
 hir, ling, which derivation is sustained by Tholuck, " Beitrage zur 
 Sprachcrkliirung des Neuen Testaments," p. 25, and Fritzsche, 
 Excursus to his Commentary on the second chapter of this 
 Ej>i.-tle, and is now generally adopted. The signification of the 
 word, as determined by its etymology and its classical usage is, 
 work for hire, selfishness, ambition, party spirit, malice. In the 
 New Testament it is used several times in the same sense, as in 
 Philip, i. 16, of [lev l~ Ipt&eias, some of rivalry, or malice; the 
 antithetical expression is of 3& t dyd-r^. In Philip, ii. 3, it is 
 connected with xsvoSozia, vain glory. In James iii. 14, 16, it 
 is connected with ^>lof, envy. In 2 Cor. xii. 20, it is distin- 
 guished from Ipc/;. These passages show that the scriptural 
 usage of the word agrees with the classical. Still in the present 
 case it seems to have a somewhat wider meaning. It is not 
 envy, or rivalry, but malicious opposition to God and his 
 requirements that is here expressed. This is plain from the 
 explanatory clauses that follow. The disposition expressed by 
 kiHitzia is manifested in disobeying the truth, and obeying 
 unrighteousness. Bretschneider therefore explains of lg ipt- 
 />*!</' to mean qui malitia ducti Deo, i. e. rei divince, adversan- 
 twr.' "Those who through malice oppose themselves to God." 
 The same interpretation is given by Reiche and De Wette, as 
 well as by the older commentators. Who obey not the truth. 
 \\-zciisio is to refuse belief, to disbelieve, as well as to disobey. 
 This clause therefore means, who refuse assent and obedience 
 to the truth. 'A/.r/frsta is divine truth ; what is true and right 
 as to faith and practice. See i. 18. " Saepe," says Bengel, " haec 
 duo (dty&tt* and adixla) inter se opponuntur : veritas continet 
 justitiam, et injustitia connotat mendacium." Who yield them- 
 selves to, or follow unrighteousness, indignation and icraih, 
 (shall be rendered.) The words $y/>c xac 6" pry should regularly 
 be in the accusative, as depending on a-ooMazt of ver. 6 ; but 
 as they are in the nominative, larm or dnodftMrsrae must be 
 supplied. There may be, as some suppose, force in the change 
 of construction and omission of the verb. God gives eternal 
 life; indignation and wrath come as earned by man, so to 
 speak, Deo nolente. God wills all men to be saved. Comp. 
 Rom. vi. 23. Both words are used for the sake of intensity. 
 As to their specific d'fference, both ancient and modern philo-
 
 ROMANS II. 9. 79 
 
 legists differ. The majority make $tyzoc express the momentary 
 impulse of anger, dp-py the permanent feeling. Others make 
 dp-p] to include the desire of vengeance, and therein to differ 
 irom fiufjLOZ. The former distinction is more in accordance with 
 the primary meaning of the words ; as $y//oc means the mind 
 as the seat of the emotions, and hence is used for any strong 
 passion, and dp?y means disposition, habit of mind. 
 
 VERSE 9. Tribulation and anguish; $/'^, (from $//,9w, to 
 press,} means pressure, affliction; arzvoyMoia., strait ness of 
 place, anguish. They are often associated; see chap. viii. 35, 
 2 Cor. vi. 4. The latter is the stronger of the two terms, as 
 may be inferred from its always following the other, and espe- 
 cially from 2 Cor. iv. 8, d-hfibusvot, 'a//' o'j arew^copovfjiiw., 
 troubled, but not distressed. Every soul of man, that is, every 
 man. Comp. Acts ii. 41, Rom. xiii. 1, and the Hebrew cc: - b3 
 s~. Ruckert, Meyer, and others, give tyvyji its full force, 
 upon every soul that belongs to a man, to express the idea, that 
 the soul and not the body is to suffer the penalty. But in 
 xiii. 1, do'/rj evidently stands for the whole person : ' let every 
 soul,' means let every person; and such is a common scriptural 
 meaning of the word, "if a soul sin," "if a soul lie," "if the 
 priest buy a soul with his money," &c. Of the Jew first, and 
 also of the Greek. It becomes now apparent that the apostle, 
 in laying down these general principles of justice, had the Jews 
 specially in view. God, he says, will render to every man 
 according to his works ; to the good, eternal life ; to the evil, 
 tribulation and anguish. And lest the every man should fail to 
 arrest attention, he adds expressly, that the Jew as well as the 
 Greek is to be thus judged. The word xpatTov may express 
 either order or preeminence. If the former, the sense is what 
 is expressed by Calvin, "Haec universalis est divini judicii lex, 
 quse a Judaeis incipiet, et comprehendet totum orbem." The 
 judgment shall begin with the Jews, and extend to the Gen- 
 tiles. If the latter, the sense is, The Jew shall not only be 
 punished as certainly as others, but more severely, because he 
 has been more highly favoured. "The Jew first," is equivalent 
 then to the Jew especially. The same remark applies to 
 the following verse. If the Jew is faithful, he shall be spe- 
 cially rewarded What is true of all men, is specially true
 
 80 ROMANS II. 1012. 
 
 of those to whom God has revealed himself in a peculiar 
 manner. 
 
 VERSE 10. But glory, honour, and peace, to every one doing 
 good; to the Jew first, and aho to the Greek. This verse com- 
 pletes the statement of the principle of law announced in ver. 6. 
 The law, while it threatens death to the transgressor, promises 
 life to the obedient ; and it matters not in either case, whether 
 it is a Jew or Gentile who receives its award. Glory, honour, 
 and peace are descriptive terms for eternal life. It is a life 
 glorious in itself, an object of reverence or regard to others, 
 and a source of unspeakable blessedness or peace. 
 
 VERSE 11. For there is no respect of persons with Q-od. He 
 is righteous and impartial, looking not at the person, but the 
 conduct of those whom he judges. This is the ground of the 
 assurance that he will judge Jews and Gentiles according to 
 their works. The words "xpooioxoh^ia, TtpoaM-otyxTTfi, xpoa- 
 a)~o).r t -ritt), are all peculiar to the New Testament, and all owe 
 their origin to the phrase xpboa)xov )Mfj.fidvtiv, which is used in 
 the sense of the Hebrew phrase, D^D s:, to lift up, or accept 
 the face of any one, that is, to be favourable to him. This is 
 sometimes used in a good sense, as Gen. xxxii. 21, " Peradven- 
 ture he will accept of me," literally t lift up my face. Gen. 
 xix. 21, Job xlii. 8. Most frequently in a bad sense, for par- 
 tiality. Hence judges are forbidden to accept the face of any 
 one. Lev. xix. 15, Deut. x. 17. In the New Testament, all the 
 expressions above mentioned are used in the sense of unjust 
 partiality. All xpoaa>xobj</>la, respect of person*, is denied 
 to God, and forbidden to men. See Eph. vi. 9, Col. Hi. 25, 
 James ii. 1. 
 
 VERSE 12. In the preceding verse it was stated that God is 
 just and impartial in all his judgments. This is confirmed not 
 only by the previous assertion, that he will judge every man 
 according to his works, but also by the exhibition of the impor- 
 tant principle contained in this verse. Men are to be judged 
 by the light they have severally enjoyed. The ground of judg- 
 ment is their works; the rule of judgment is their knowledge. 
 For as many as sinned without law. That is, God is impartial, 
 for he will judge men according to the light which they have 
 enjoyed. Our Lord teaches the same doctrine when he says,
 
 ROMANS II. .13. 81 
 
 " The servant which knew his lord's will, . . . "Lall be beaten 
 with many stripes ; but he that knew not, and did commit things 
 worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." Luke 
 xii. 47, 48. By law, is here meant a written or supernaturally 
 revealed law. In 1 Cor. ix. 21, the heathen are called avopot, 
 without law, as distinguished from the Jews, who were &TTO 
 KO/J.OV, under law. N6[j.oz, as used by the apostle, means the 
 rule of duty, the will of God revealed for our obedience ; com- 
 monly, however, with special reference to the revelation made 
 in the Scriptures. ^Av6[i.a>z is equivalent to %(apiz vopou, with- 
 out law, and is not to be taken in its moral sense, without 
 restraint, i. e. recklessly. *Av6[jLQ)s xal d~oAoi>vcat, shall also 
 perish without law, that is, their punishment shall be assigned 
 without reference to the written law. Kac before d/ro^oyvror, 
 says Riickert and Tholuck, indicates the relation between the 
 cause and effect, or premise and conclusion; or as Fritzsche 
 says, " necessitatem indicat, qu& TO av6[jia)<; drcoMuad-at ex T(p 
 ai'O/jtwz fyiOffrdveev consequatur." Neither of these explana- 
 tions seems to express the true force of the particle ; it rather 
 serves to indicate that as the sinning is avoptaz, so also is the 
 punishment. 'Ax6)JiJftt is to destroy, to put to death, spoken 
 of physical death, and also of eternal death, Matt. x. 28, Luke 
 iv. 34 ; and in the passive form, Luke xiii. 3, 5, John iii. 15, 16 y 
 1 Cor. viii. 11. The word is strong in its own import ; and as 
 explained by other passages, it here teaches that those who sin. 
 without a written revelation although they are to be judged 
 fairly, and are to be treated far less severely than those who- 
 have enjoyed the light of revelation are still to perish, 
 "Vide igitur, quale patrocinium suscipiant, qui praeposter& 
 misericordia gentes evangelii lumine privatas ignorantise prse- 
 textu Dei judicio eximere tentant." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 13. For not the hearers of the law. This verse is 
 connected with the last clause of the preceding, and assigns the 
 reason why the Jews shall be judged or punished according to 
 the law ; the mere possession or knowledge of the law would 
 not avail, for it is not the hearers, but the doers of the law 
 that are just before God. The expression hearers instead of 
 readers, is explained by the fact that the law was read in the 
 presence of the people, and by hearing rather than by reading, 
 6
 
 82 ROMANS II. 14. 
 
 their knowledge of it was obtained. Comp. Matt. v. 21, John 
 xii. 34, Gal. iv. 21, James i. 22. To be just before God, and 
 to be justified, are the same thing. They are both forensic 
 expressions, and indicate the state rather than the character of 
 those to whom they refer. Those are just in the sight of God, 
 or are justified, who have done what the law requires, and are 
 regarded and treated accordingly ; that is, are declared to be 
 free from condemnation, and entitled to the favour of God. In 
 obvious allusion to the opinion, that being a Jew was enough to 
 secure admission to heaven, the apostle says, It is not the 
 hearers but the doers of the law that are justified. He is not 
 speaking of the method of justification available for sinners, as 
 revealed in the gospel, but of the principles of justice which 
 will be applied to all who look to the law for justification. If 
 men rely on works, they must have works ; they must be doers 
 of the law; they must satisfy its demands, if they are to be 
 justified by it. For God is just and impartial ; he will, as a 
 judge administering the law, judge every man, not according to 
 his privileges, but according to his works and the knowledge of 
 duty which he has possessed. On these principles, it is his 
 very design to show that no flesh living can be justified. 
 
 VERSE 14. For whenever the Gentiles, not having the law. 
 In the preceding verse the apostle had said, That not the hear- 
 ers but the doers of the law are justified before God ; and then 
 adds, For whenever the Gentiles, not having the law, do by 
 nature the things of the law, they are a law unto themselves. 
 But the fact that the Gentiles are a law unto themselves, has 
 nothing to do, either as an illustration or confirmation, with the 
 general proposition contained in ver. 13. Those who insist on 
 establishing such a connection, suppose that ver. 14 refers to 
 the last clause of ver. 13, and is designed to prove either that 
 with regard to the Gentiles as well as Jews, doing is the thing 
 required ; or that there are doers of the law who may be justi- 
 fied, among the heathen. 'The doers of the law,' says the 
 apostle, ' shall be justified ; but the heathen do the law, there- 
 fore they shall be justified.' This, however, is not the con- 
 clusion at which the apostle is aiming. He is not teaching the 
 method of justification, or arguing to prove that the Gentiles as 
 well as the Jews may be doers of the law, and thus be justified
 
 ROMANS II. 14. 83 
 
 in the sight of God. He is expounding the law ; he is showing 
 the principles by which God will judge the world, Gentiles as 
 well as Jews. Those who are without the written law, he will 
 judge without any reference to that law; and those who are 
 under the law, he will judge by that law. This general pro- 
 position he confirms first by saying, in ver. 13, that the mere 
 possession of the law is not enough ; and secondly by saying, 
 in ver. 14, that the Gentiles have a law by which they may be 
 judged. The logical connection of ver. 14, therefore, is not 
 with ver. 13, but with ver. 12. Thus Calvin, who says, "Pro- 
 bationem prioris membri (ver. 12) nunc repetit. Probat enim 
 frustra obtendi a gentibus ignorantiam, quum factis suis de- 
 clarent, nonnullam se habere justitise regulam. Nulla enim 
 gens unquam sic ab humanitate abhorruit, ut non se intra leges 
 aliquas contineret." WJien, whenever, as often as, which may 
 be |he sense of the particle in this case, ' Whenever, or as often 
 as the heathen do so or so.' Or it may have the sense of while, 
 because: 'Because, or since the heathen do so or so.' Comp. 
 1 Cor. xv. 27. As $vjji is without the article, many would 
 render it heathen, that is, some heathen. But in the first place, 
 it is evident from the context that this is not what the apostle 
 means to say. His object is to show that the heathen would 
 have a rule of duty written on their hearts; a fact which is not 
 proved by some heathen obeying the law, but which is proved 
 by the moral conduct of all men. Men generally, not some 
 men, but all men, show by their acts that they have a know- 
 ledge of right and wrong. And secondly, this word has, with- 
 out the article, in virtue of its frequent occurrence, a definite 
 sense. Comp. iii. 9, ix. 24, and especially ver. 30 : l^ny . . . 
 xare/.afis oixatoawyv; the heathen attained righteousness. Do 
 by nature the things of the law. There are two misinterpreta- 
 tions of the phrase, ra TO~J vopou xotCtv. The one is, that it 
 means to fulfil the law ; the other, to do the office of the law, 
 i. e. to command and forbid. The former is unnecessary, and 
 is in direct opposition to the express and repeated declaration 
 of the apostle, that ncne, whether, Jew or Gentile, has ever 
 fulfilled the law. To fa the things of the law, is indeed to do 
 what the law prescribes, (comp. x. 5, Gal. iii. 12 ;) but whether 
 complete or partial obe-lience is intended, depends upon th^
 
 84 ROMANS II. 14. 
 
 context. The man who pays his debts, honours hid parents, is 
 kind to the poor, does the things of the law; for these are 
 things which the law prescribes. And this is all the argument 
 the apostle requires, or his known doctrine allows us to under- 
 stand by the phrase, in the present instance. This being the 
 case, there is no need of resorting to the second interpreta- 
 tion mentioned above, which was proposed by Beza, and adopted 
 by Wetstein, Flatt, and others. Though noteiv TO. TOU ubpou 
 might mean to do what the law does, prescribe what is good and 
 forbid what is evil, it certainly has not that sense elsewhere in 
 Paul's writings, see x. 5, Gal. iii. 12 ; and is especially out of 
 place here, in immediate connection with the phrase noiyTai rolj 
 vbfjLoo, in the sense of doers of the law. The heathen do (fuase, 
 by nature, the things of the law. The <p6ffe<; of anything is the 
 peculiarity of its being, that in virtue of which it is what it is ; 
 it is that which belongs to its original constitution, and is 
 opposed to what is taught, acquired, or made. The word is 
 sometimes used for a disposition or sentiment arising out of our 
 nature, as opposed to mere arbitrary rules, as in 1 Cor. xi. 14. 
 In the present case, the opposition is to v6fJLO. It is by nature, 
 not by an external law, that the Gentiles are led to perform 
 moral acts. Comp. Gal. iv. 8, Eph. ii. 3. The proper connec- 
 tion of <pbaet with rd roit vofjiou xoty, they do by nature the things 
 of the law, is retained in our version, and by the great majority 
 of commentators. Bengel, Rlickert, and a few others, connect 
 it with /jriy vopov lyovra, not having the law by nature; but this 
 is saying very little to the purpose of the apostle. His object 
 is to show that <p>jocz supplies to the Gentiles the place of v6fj.oz. 
 These not having the law, are a law unto themselves. NOJJLOV, 
 without the article, may be rendered either, a law, "not having 
 a law," by implication, a written, external law; or the law, 
 i. e. the Jewish law, since that word is often used without the 
 article for the law of the Jews ; that is, the law of God, as 
 revealed in the Scriptures. The Gentiles, then, are law unto 
 themselves ; they have in their own nature a rule of duty ; a 
 knowledge of what is right, and a sense of obligation. As 
 the absence of all moral acts among the lower animals shows 
 that they have no sense of right and wrong, that they are 
 not under a moral law, so the performance of such acts by
 
 ROMANS II. 15. 85 
 
 the Gentiles, shows that they have a law written on their 
 hearts. 
 
 VERSE 15. WJio show the work of the law written on their 
 hearts. Here, as in i. 25, and often elsewhere, the relative has 
 a causal force : ' They are a law unto themselves, because they 
 show the work of the law,' &c. Wolf, Tholuck, and others 
 make spfov roD vofiou a periphrase for the law itself; Grotius, 
 the effect of the law, that is, a knowledge of right and wrong ; 
 most modern commentators make TO Ipfov equivalent to TO. 
 Hpfa. The same works which the Jews have prescribed in their 
 law, the Gentiles show to be written on their hearts. It is by 
 doing the things of the law, that the Gentiles show they have 
 this inward rule of duty ; their conscience also bearing witness. 
 Grotius, Koppe, and Tholuck, take ffu^/j-aprupstv in the sense 
 3f the simple verb. Comp. Jer. xi. 7, in the LXX., Rom. ix. 1, 
 viii. 16. ' Their conscience bearing witness,' that is, to the fact 
 that there is a law written on their hearts. But as ayp.iy.apru- 
 pelv is properly und testari, and as the context presents no 
 reason for departing from the common meaning of the word, 
 the great majority of commentators give the ai)\> its proper 
 force. That with which conscience joins its testimony is the 
 honestas vitce, the moral acts of the heathen ; and the fact to 
 which this joint testimony is borne, is that they are a law unto 
 themselves. The apostle appeals not only to their external 
 conduct, but to the inward operations of their moral nature. 
 Soveifyfftz is the conscientia consequens, the inward judge, 
 whose acts are described in the following clause : Their thoughts 
 alternately accusing or even excusing. Our version takes }j.zra^u 
 as an adverb, and makes tiJ&qJMV the object of the following 
 participles, 'And in the meanwhile, their thoughts accusing, or 
 else excusing one another.' Kbllner defends this interpreta- 
 tion, and declares that jj.tra~'j, between, cannot mean vicissim. 
 It is used, he asserts, only of time, between two portions of 
 time, i. e. during; or of space, between two places, persons, or 
 things. It is not, however, so much the signification of the 
 word fj.z-caZ'j, as the sense of the phrase /utsrazb dJU^Jlau', that is 
 expressed by the translation, vicissim, sive alternants sententid. 
 'Between one another,' implies reciprocal or alternate action; 
 comp. Matt, xviii. 15. The order of the words is obviously
 
 86 ROMANS II. Id. 
 
 oppose-1 to the separation of a),).f t hov from //ercy, and to 
 making the former the object of the following participles; 
 which are rather to be taken absolutely. Their thoughts alter- 
 nately accusing and excusing, viz. their conduct. The inward 
 monitor acquits or condemns, as the case demands. Bengel 
 remarks on the y xai, or even, that xai is concessive, and shows 
 " cogitationes longe plus habere quod accusent, qu&m quod 
 defendant." 
 
 VERSE 16. The greatest difficulty in relation to this verse is 
 to determine its connection with the preceding context. In the 
 common copies of our Bible, vs. 13, 14, 15, are marked as a 
 parenthesis, and ver. 16 is placed in connection with ver. 12 : 
 4 The heathen shall be judged without the law, and the Jews by 
 the law, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.' 
 Thus the passage is arranged by Griesbach and Knapp ; a mode 
 of connection adopted also by Beza, Grotius, Reiche, and others. 
 The objections to this explanation are, first, the distance at 
 which this verse stands from ver. 12 ; and secondly, that the 
 intervening verses have not the nature of a parenthesis, but are 
 intimately connected with the idea contained in ver. 12. Calvin, 
 Bengel, lluckert, Fritzsche, De "Wette, Meyer, Tholuck, &c., 
 connect this verse v'tn ver. 15. The difficulty then is, that the 
 verb and participles of ver. 15 are in the present tense, whereas 
 xpevei of this verse is future : ' Their thoughts accusing or ex- 
 cusing in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.' 
 To meet this difficulty, Calvin proposes to give kv fytspa the 
 Force of c i $M' vav > * n tue sense f until, or in reference to the 
 day. Tholuck modifies this by making iv include ere, 'until 
 and nn that d;iy.' Not only does conscience now exercise its 
 office, but will do so especially on the day of judgment. Riick- 
 ert, Be Wctte, and others, suppose that the apostle thought 
 only of the present when he wrote evJ-fxyyvrw, but extends the 
 reference to the future, in the latter part of the verse. That 
 is, the present participles express what will be present on the 
 day of judgment: 'The heathen show the work of the law 
 written on their hearts, and their conscience also bearing wit- 
 
 O 
 
 ness,' &c., on the day of judgment. But the main objection to 
 this connection is, that tin: sense thus expressed is not suited to 
 the apostle's object. He designs to prove that the Gentiles are
 
 ROMANS H. 16. 87 
 
 a law to themselves. This is proved by the present operation 
 of conscience, which approves or condemns their conduct. But 
 it seems forced to bring that prcof from what conscience will 
 do on the day of judgment. It seemg best therefore to refer 
 this verse back to ver. 12. God, it is said, will judge the secrete 
 of men; the things which have escaped the knowledge of others ; 
 those hidden deeds of the heart and life, which are the surest 
 criterion of character. The searching character of this judg- 
 ment; its justice, as not guided by mere external appearance; 
 and its contrast with mere human judgments, are all intimated 
 by this expression. The clause, according to my gospel, is not 
 to be connected with xpivel, as though the gospel was to be the 
 rule of this divine judgment; for this would contradict the 
 apostle's doctrine, that men are to be judged by the light they 
 possess. It refers to the fact of a final judgment, which i3 
 declared to be in accordance with the gospel, or a part of that 
 message which Paul was commissioned to deliver. By Jesus 
 Christ is to be connected with xptvzi. God will judge the world 
 through Jesus Christ, agreeably to our Saviour's own declara- 
 tion, " The Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judg- 
 ment to the Son." Sometimes this judgment is referred directly 
 to the Messiah, as in 1 Cor. iv. 5, 2 Cor. v. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 1 ; 
 sometimes indirectly, as though he were but the representative 
 of God, as in Acts xvii. 31. These representations, however, 
 are perfectly consistent. The preposition did in such cases only 
 expresses the idea that the power or authority which belongs to 
 the Godhead is specially exercised through the Son. Thus 
 sometimes it is said, God created all things through the Son, 
 Heb. i. 2, and sometimes that the Son himself is the Creator, 
 Col. i. 16. 
 
 Such then are the principles on which Paul assures us that 
 all men are to be judged. They commend themselves irresisti- 
 bly to every man's conscience as soon as they are announced, 
 and yet every false hope of heaven is founded on their denial 
 or neglect. It may be proper to repeat them, that it may be 
 seen how obviously the hopes of the Jews, to which Paul, from 
 ver. 17 onward, applies them, are at variance with these moral 
 axioms. 1. He who condemns in others what he does himself, 
 ipso facto condemns himself. 2. God's judgments are according
 
 88 ROMANS II. 116. 
 
 to the real character of men. 3. The goodness of God, being 
 designed to lead us to repentance, is no proof that he will not 
 punish sin. The perversion of that goodness will increase our 
 guilt, and aggravate our condemnation. 4. God will judge 
 every man according to his works, not according to his pro- 
 fessions, his ecclesiastical connections or relations. 5. Mm 
 shall be judged by the knowledge of duty which they severally 
 possess. God is therefore perfectly impartial. These are the 
 principles on which men are to be tried, in the last day, by 
 Jesus Christ ; and those who expect to be dealt with on any 
 other plan, will be dreadfully disappointed. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The leading doctrine of this section is, that God is just. 
 His judgments are infinitely removed above all those disturbing 
 causes of ignorance and partiality, by which the decisions of 
 men are perverted, vs. 1, 16. 
 
 2. The refuge which men are always disposed to seek in their 
 supposed advantages of ecclesiastical connection, as belonging 
 to the true Church, &c., is a vain refuge. God deals with men 
 according to their real character, vs. 2, 3. 
 
 3. The goodness of God has both the design and tendency 
 to lead men to repentance. If it fails, the fault must be their 
 own, ver. 4. 
 
 4. It is a great abuse of the divine goodness and forbearance 
 to derive encouragement from them to continue in sin. Such 
 conduct will certainly aggravate our condemnation, vs. 3 5. 
 
 5. None but the truly good, no matter what the professions, 
 connections or expectations of others may be, will be saved ; 
 and none but the truly wicked, whether Gentile or Jew, Chris- 
 tian or heathen, will be lost, vs. 6 10. 
 
 6. The goodness which the Scriptures approve consists, in a 
 great degree, in the pursuit of heavenly things : it is a seeking 
 after glory, honour and immortality, by a persevering continu- 
 ance in well-doing. It is the pursuit of the true end of our 
 being, by the proper means, ver. 7. 
 
 7. The lesponsibility of men being very different in this 
 world, their rewards and punishment will, in all probability, be
 
 ROMANS II. 116. 89 
 
 very different in the next. Those who knew not their Lord's 
 will, shall be beaten with few stripes. And those who are 
 faithful in the use of ten talents, shall be made rulers over ten 
 cities, vs. 9, 10. 
 
 8. The heathen are not to be judged by a revelation of which 
 they never heard. But as they enjoy a revelation of the divine 
 character in the works of creation, chap. i. 19, 20, and of the 
 rule of duty in their own hearts, vs. 14, 15, they are inexcusa- 
 ble. They can no more abide the test by which they are to be 
 tried, than we can stand the application of the severer rule 
 by which we are to be judged. Both classes, therefore, need a 
 Saviour, ver. 12. 
 
 9. The moral sense is an original part of our constitution, 
 and not the result of education, ver. 14. 
 
 10. Jesus Christ, who is to sit in judgment upon the secrets 
 of all men, must be possessed of infinite knowledge, and there- 
 fore be divine, ver. 16. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The deceitfulness of the human heart is strikingly exhi- 
 bited in the different judgments which men pass upon them- 
 selves and others ; condemning in others what they excuse in 
 themselves. And it not unfrequently happens that the most 
 censorious are the most criminal, vs. 1, 3. 
 
 2. How does the goodness of God affect us ? If it does not 
 lead us to repentance, it will harden our hearts and aggravate 
 our condemnation, vs. 4, 5. 
 
 3. Genuine repentance is produced by discoveries of God's 
 mercy, legal repentance by fear of his justice, ver. 4. 
 
 4. Any doctrine which tends to produce security in sin, must 
 be false. The proper effect of the enjoyment of peculiar advan- 
 tages is to increase our sense of responsibility, and our grati- 
 tude to God, and not to make us suppose that we are his special 
 favourites. God is no respecter of persons, vs. 3 10. 
 
 5. How vain the hopes of future blessedness, indulged by the 
 immoral, founded upon the expectation either that God will not 
 deal with them according to the'.r works, or that the secrets of 
 their hearts will not be discovered! vs. 6 10, 16.
 
 90 ROMANS II. 1729. 
 
 6. If God is a just God, his wrath is not to be escaped by 
 evasions, but in the way of his own appointment. If we have 
 no righteousness of our own, we must seek that of the Saviour, 
 vs. 116. 
 
 7. He who died for the sins of men is to sit in judgment 
 upon sinners. This is a just ground of fear to those who reject 
 his offered mercy, and of confidence to those who trust in his 
 righteousness, ver. 16. 
 
 ROMANS II. 1729. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THIS section consists properly of two parts. The first, 
 vs. 17 24, contains an application of the principles laid down 
 in the former section, to the case of the Jews. The second, 
 vs. 25 29, is an exhibition of the nature and design of circum- 
 cision. The principal grounds of dependence on the part of the 
 Jews were, 1. Their covenant relation to God. 2. Their supe- 
 rior advantages as to divine knowledge. 3. Their circumcision. 
 Now if it is true that God will judge every man, Jew or Gentile, 
 according to his works, and by the law which he has enjoyed, 
 what will it avail any to say, We are Jews, we have the law, 
 ver. 17 ; we have superior knowledge, ver. 18 ; we can act as 
 guides and instructers to others ? ver. 19. This may all be very 
 true; but are you less a thief, merely because you condemn 
 stealing ? less an adulterer, because you condemn adultery ? or 
 less a blasphemer, because you abhor sacrilege? vs. 21, 22. 
 This superior knowledge, instead of extenuating, only aggra- 
 vates your guilt. While boasting of your advantages, you by 
 your sins bring a reproach on God, vs. 23, 24. According to 
 the first principles of justice, therefore, your condemnation will 
 be no less certain, and far more severe than that of the Gentiles. 
 As to circumcision, to which the Jews attached so much impor- 
 tance, the apostle shows that it could avail nothing, except on 
 condition of obedience to the law or covenant to which it be- 
 longed, ver. 25. If the law be broken, circumcision is worth- 
 less, ver. 25, latter clause. On the other hand, if the law is
 
 ROMANS II. IT. 91 
 
 obeyed, the want of circumcision will not prevent a blessing, 
 ver. 26. More than this, if those less favourably situated than 
 the Jews are found obedient, they will rise up in judgment 
 against the disobedient, though favoured people of God, ver. 27. 
 All this proves that an external rite can, in itself, have no 
 saving power; because God is a Spirit, and requires and 
 regards spiritual obedience alone. This principle is stated, 
 first negatively, he is not a Jew who is such in profession 
 merely, ver. 28 ; and then affirmatively, he is a Jew who is one 
 inwardly, ver. 29. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 17. Instead of tde, behold, which is in the common 
 text, most of the ancient manuscripts, many of the versions, 
 and of the Fathers, read ec ds, but if; which reading is adopted 
 by Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, and Lachmann, and is followed 
 by almost all the recent commentators. We have then the 
 protasis of a sentence of which the apodosis does not follow : 
 * But if thou art called a Jew, and hast the law, thou shouldst 
 act according to it;' comp. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Or the answering clause 
 may be found in ver. 21, ' If thou art called a Jew,' &c., 
 Heachest thou then (ouv] not thyself?' Winer, 64, II. 1. Art 
 called, eTio^o fjtd^Tj, called after, or in addition to; a sense 
 insisted on here by Theodoret, who says, "owe eZrev ovo^a.^ 
 d)J? e-ovvfidry." Bengel, Kollner, Meyer, and others, take the 
 same view of the meaning of the word: 'Besides your proper 
 name, you call yourself a Jew.' But as the compound word is 
 used for the simple one in Gen. iv. 17, 25, 26, and elsewhere, 
 and as Jew was then the common name of the people, it is 
 better rendered, thou art called. 'loudaloz, a Jew, a descendant 
 of Judah, in the New Testament applied to all the Israelites, as 
 inhabitants of Judea. It was considered a title of honour, not 
 only on account of its etymology, {"Hirr, meaning praised, Gen. 
 xlix. 8, but because it designated the people of God. Comp. 
 vs. 28, 29, and Rev. ii. 9 : " I know the blasphemy of those who 
 say they are Jews, and are not." To be a Jew in this sense, 
 was to be one of the covenant people of God, a member of the
 
 92 ROMANS II. 17. 
 
 theocracy, or of the true Church. As this was the principal 
 ground of the false confidence of the Jews, the apostle mentions 
 it before all others. It was not enough that they were the 
 children of Abraham ; if they sinned, they were exposed to the 
 displeasure of that God who will render to every man according 
 to his works, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. And 
 restest on the law. That is, Thou placest thy confidence upon 
 the law. In the Septuagint, the word occurs in Micah iii. 11, 
 a passage illustrative of the one before us, " The heads thereof 
 judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, the 
 prophets thereof divine for money ; yet will they lean upon the 
 Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us ? none evil can come 
 upon us." The law here means the whole Mosaic system, the 
 civil and religious polity of the Jews. This they relied upon ; 
 the fact that they were within the Church, were partakers of 
 its sacraments and rites ; that they had a divinely appointed 
 priesthood, continued in unbroken succession from Aaron, and 
 invested with the power to make atonement for sin, was the 
 ground on which they rested their hope of acceptance with God. 
 Within that pale they considered all safe ; out of it, there was 
 no salvation. Such was the false confidence of the Jews ; such 
 has been and is the false confidence of thousands of Christians. 
 And makest thy boast of Crod. See Winer, 13. 2, on the 
 form of the word xau-^aaat. To boast, or glory in any person 
 or thing, is to rejoice in him or it as a source of honour, happi- 
 ness, or profit to ourselves. "We are forbidden thus to glory in 
 ourselves, or any creature, as the ground of our confidence and 
 source of our blessedness. " Let no man glory in men ; but he 
 that glories, let him glory in the Lord." This glorying in God 
 may be right or wrong, according to the reasons of it. If it 
 proceeds from a sense of our own emptiness, and from right 
 apprehensions of the excellence of God, and from faith in his 
 promises, then it is that glorying which is so often commanded. 
 But if it arises from false notions of our relation to him, as his 
 peculiar favourites, then it is vain and wicked. The Jews 
 regarded themselves in such a sense the people of God, as to be 
 secure of his favour, let their personal character be what it 
 might. They boasted that he was their God, that they mono- 
 pc'ized his favour, all other nations being his enemies.
 
 ROMANS II. 18. 93 
 
 VERSE 18. And knowest the will, &c., f God. Superior 
 knowledge was another of the peculiar distinctions of the Jews. 
 The particulars to which the apostle refers in this, as well as in 
 the preceding and succeeding verses, constituted real and great 
 privileges, by which the Jews were distinguished from all other 
 people. To be the people of God, to have the law, to know the 
 divine will, were indeed great advantages ; but these advantages 
 only increased the obligations of those who enjoyed them. They 
 did not of themselves constitute any ground of confidence of 
 acceptance with God; much less did the mere possession of 
 these - distinguishing favours give exemption from those princi- 
 ples of just retribution, according to which God will judge the 
 world. The apostle, however, grants the Jews all they claimed : 
 he grants that they were the people of God ; that they had the 
 law, knew the divine will, &c., and then shows that they were 
 nevertheless exposed to condemnation. If real advantages, 
 such as distinguished the Jews above all other nations, were of 
 no avail to their justification or acceptance before God, what is 
 to be said or thought of those who place their confidence in 
 fictitious advantages, in mere imaginary superiority to their 
 fellow men or fellow Christians; as belonging to the true 
 Church, having the true succession, the real sacraments, when 
 in fact in these respects they are even less favoured than those 
 whom they look upon as outside the Church and the covenant? 
 And approvest the things that are more excellent, ^oxtfid^cv 
 is to try, to examine, as in 1 Cor. iii. 13 ; and then, to regard 
 as tried, i. e. to approve, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3. Jeayepetv means 
 to differ, as in Gal. ii. 6 ; and also, to excel, as in Matt. x. 31. 
 See also Matt. vi. 26, Luke xii. 7, &c. This is the most common 
 meaning of the word in the New Testament. We have then the 
 choice of the two interpretations, Thou approvest the things that 
 are more excellent, or, Thou dost distinguish the things that are 
 different. Our version gives the former, both here and in 
 Philip, i. 10, where the same words occur. The latter is adopted 
 by Theodoret, who explains dcaupipovra by Ivavrca cU^'/torc, 
 dtxaioffuvyv xal ddixiav; and Theophylact, ri dec npagai xal TC fay 
 d xpazcu. The same view is taken by most of the recent com- 
 mentators. It is suitable to the context, inasmuch as tne 
 apostle is here speaking of the peculiar advantages of the Jews,
 
 94 ROMANS II. 19, 20. 
 
 one of which -was their superior knowledge, and their ability to 
 do what others could not, that is, decide what was and what 
 was not consistent with the will of God. On the other hand, 
 however, to approve of what is right, to discern it to be right, 
 is a higher attainment than merely to discriminate between 
 good and evil. And as the apostle is here conceding to the 
 Jews everything they could claim, it is better to give his words 
 their highest sense. He admits that theoretically they were 
 right in their judgments. It was not their moral judgments, 
 but their moral conduct that was in fault. Being instructed, 
 xazrfto'j[jis.voz, (orally instructed, as the word literally means,.) 
 out of the law, i. e. the Scriptures, as nopo^ often means. The 
 word or law of God was a light to their feet, to which they 
 could at all times refer to guide their steps. 
 
 VERSES 19, 20. And art confident that thou thyself art a 
 guide of the blind. The apostle in these verses states the effect 
 which the peculiar advantages of the Jews produced upon them. 
 They considered themselves to be greatly superior to all other 
 nations; capable of instructing them; and of being the guides 
 and light of the world. This idea is presented in different 
 lights, in what follows a light of them which are in darkness, 
 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. They looked 
 upon themselves as qualified to act as the instructors of others, 
 fi^ovra, having, i. e. because they had the form, &c. Having 
 the form of knowledge and of truth in the law. Mojxpwats 
 occurs in the New Testament only here and in 2 Tim. iii. 5. 
 In the latter passage it is opposed to the reality (d'Jisauiz,') and 
 means mere appearance. This however cannot be its meaning 
 here; for the clause in which it occurs, assigns the reason 
 which the Jews 'felt themselves to have, and which they had in 
 fact, for their superior knowledge. They supposed themselves 
 to be able to guide others, because they had the form of know- 
 ledge in the law. It therefore here means, forma quce rem 
 exprimat, as Grotius expresses it. The form of knowledge, is 
 knowledge as represented or expressed in the law. In other 
 words, the exhibition of knowledge and truth in the law is 
 given in a form which expresses their true nature. The words 
 fvwatZ and dby&eta do not essentially differ. The former, says 
 De Wette, is truth as known ; the latter, truth in itself.
 
 ROMANS II. 21, 22. 95 
 
 VERSES 21, 22. Thou therefore that teachest another. We 
 have here the virtual apodosis of ver. 17. ' If thou, although a 
 Jew, and related to God as one of his peculiar people, and well 
 instructed out of the law, violate the law, and do the things thou 
 condemnest in others, how canst thou escape the judgment of 
 that God who will render to every man according to his works ?' 
 It is evident the apostle means to assert that the Jews were 
 guilty of the crimes here specified ; and it matters little whether 
 the several clauses be read interrogatively or affirmatively. 
 The former, as the more forcible, is generally preferred. To 
 set ourselves up as instructors, and yet not to apply our prin- 
 ciples to ourselves, is not only an inconsistency, but offensive 
 arrogance and hypocrisy. To steal and to commit adultery 
 are great sins, but for those who preach against them and con- 
 demn them in others, to commit them, is to quadruple their 
 guilt. The Jews, therefore, who committed the sins which they 
 BO loudly condemned in the heathen, were more guilty in the 
 sight of God than the heathen themselves. While flattering 
 themselves that they were secure from the divine wrath, in the 
 enclosure of the theocracy, they were the special objects of 
 God's displeasure ; so that publicans and harlots were nearer to 
 the kingdom of God than they. TJiou that abhorrest idols, dost 
 thou rob temples? That the Jews, subsequently to the captivity, 
 did abhor idols, is a well known fact; that they robbed the 
 temples of idols is not known. Besides, robbing the temples 
 of idols was not sacrilege ; for in the mind of the Jew there was 
 no sacredness in those temples. It was to him robbery, and 
 nothing more ; probably something less. The objurgatory cha- 
 racter of these several clauses requires that the thing here 
 charged should be of the same nature with idolatry, not its 
 opposite. The Jew taught that men should not steal, yet he 
 himself stole ; he said, Commit not adultery, yet he was guilty 
 of that crime; he abhorred idols, yet was guilty of idolatry. 
 It is something analogous to idolatry that is here charged, not 
 the despoiling of heathen temples, which would be the natural 
 expression of the abhorrence of idols. The essence of idol- 
 atry was profanation of God ; of this the Jews were in a high 
 degree guilty. They had made his house a den of thieves. 
 Instead therefore of taking the word lepoaoh'iz literally, which
 
 96 ROMANS II. 2325. 
 
 the context forbids, it should be understood in a secondary 
 sense. It expresses the sin of irreverence in its higher forms; 
 either as manifested in withholding from God his due, which 
 the prophet denounces as robbery " Will a man rob God ? yet 
 ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed 
 thee? In tithes and offerings," Mai. Hi. 8 : or it may be taken 
 in the still more general sense of profanation, the irreverent 
 disregard of God and holy things. This is all the context 
 requires: 'You profess great reverence for God, in eschewing 
 idolatry ; and yet, in other forms, you are guilty of the greatest 
 irreverence.' 
 
 VERSES 23, 24. Another striking instance of the incon- 
 sistency between their principles and their conduct was, that 
 while they made a boast of the law, they so disregarded its 
 precepts as to lead the heathen to think and speak evil of that 
 God who gave the law, of whose character they judged by 
 the conduct of his people. This charge he expresses in the 
 language of their own prophets; see Isa. Hi. 5, and Ezek. 
 xxxvi. 20, 23. In the former passage we find in the LXX. 
 nearly the same words as those used by the apostle : " di u/jta? 
 &6tfroi<r6c TO ovopd pou ^AOUT^/JISITOU kv ro?f e&vsai." Both 
 Isaiah and Ezekiel, indeed, refer to that blaspheming of God 
 by the heathen, which arose from the misery of his people, 
 whose God they were thus led to regard as unable to protect 
 his worshippers. This however does not render the reference 
 of the apostle less appropriate; for it is the mere fact that 
 God's name was blasphemed among the Gentiles, on account 
 of the Jews, that the apostle means to confirm by this reference 
 to the Scriptures. And besides, as their sins were the cause 
 of their captivity, their sins were the cause also of the evil 
 speaking of God, of which their sufferings were the immediate 
 occasion. 
 
 VERSE 25. The apostle, in vs. 1 16 of this chapter, had 
 proved that God would judge both Jews dnd Gentiles accord- 
 ing to their works; in vs. 17 24, that the Jews, notwith- 
 standing their peculiar privileges, were no less sinful than 
 the Gentiles ; the obvious conclusion therefore was, that they 
 were no less liable to condemnation. It is with this conclusion 
 implied, but not expressed, that this verse is connected by the
 
 ROMANS II. 25. 97 
 
 particle ydp : ' You are exposed to condemnation, for circum- 
 cision, in which you trust, profits only on conditi >n that you 
 keep the law.' Comp, chap, iv. 2, and iv. 9, and other places in 
 which fdp refers to a thought omitted. Circumcision is not 
 here to be taken for Judaism in general, of which that rite was 
 the sign, but for the rite itself. It is obvious that the Jews 
 regarded circumcision as in some way securing their salvation. 
 That they did so regard it, may be proved not only from such 
 passages of the New Testament where the sentiment is implied, 
 but also by the direct assertion of their own writers. Such 
 assertions have been gathered in abundance from their works 
 by Eisenmenger, Schoettgen, and others. For example, the 
 Rabbi Menachem, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses, 
 fol. 43, col. 3, says, " Our Rabbins have said, that no circum- 
 cised man will see hell." In the Jalkut Rubeni, num. 1, it ia 
 taught, "Circumcision saves from hell." In the Medrasch 
 Tillim, fol. 7, col. 2, it is said, " God swore to Abraham, that 
 no one who was circumcised should be sent to hell." In the 
 book Akedath Ji/ehak, fol. 54, col. 2, it is taught that "Abra- 
 ham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any 
 circumcised Israelite should enter there."* The apostle con- 
 siders circumcision under two different aspects. First, as a rite- 
 supposed to possess some inherent virtue or merit of its own ; 
 and secondly, as a sign and seal of God's covenant. In the- 
 former view, Paul here as well as elsewhere, says, "Circum- 
 cision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing," Gal. vi. 15; 
 in the latter, it had its value. As a seal it was attached in the 
 first place to the national covenant between God and the Jews. 
 It was a sign of the existence of that covenant, and that the 
 person to whom it was affixed was included within its pale. It 
 was a pledge on the part of God that he would fulfil the pro- 
 mises of that covenant. If any Jew fulfilled his part of the 
 national covenant, and in that sense kept the law, his circum- 
 cision profited him. It secured to him all the advantages of 
 Judaism. But this rite was, in the second place, attached to 
 the spiritual covenant formed with Abraham ; that is, " it was- 
 a seal of the righteousness of faith;" it was designed, as an 
 
 
 * Eiseninenger's Entdecktes Juienthum, Part II. p. 285. 
 
 7
 
 98 ROMANS II. 26. 
 
 assurance that Abraham was, in virtue of his faith, regarded as 
 righteous in the sight of God. To all those Jews who had the 
 faith of Abraham, and thus kept the covenant established with 
 him, circumcision was in like manner profitable. It was the 
 visible sign and pledge that all who believed should be justified. 
 On the other hand, if either the national or spiritual covenant 
 was broken, circumcision was of no avail. The fact that an 
 Israelite was circumcised, did not save him from excision from 
 the people, if he broke any of the fundamental laws of Moses ; 
 neither could circumcision save those who, being destitute of 
 the faith of Abraham, appeared as sinners before the bar of 
 God. Paul therefore teaehes that circumcision had no inherent, 
 magical efficacy ; that it had no value beyond that of a sign and 
 seal; that it secured the blessings of the covenant to those who 
 kept the covenant ; but to the transgressors of the laAv it was 
 of no avail. This latter idea he expresses by saying, tf xeptrofirj 
 ffov dxpoftua-ria fi^ovtv, thy circumcision has become uncircum- 
 cision. That is, it is of no use. It cannot prevent your being 
 dealt with as a transgressor, or treated as though you had nevei 
 been circumcised. 
 
 VERSE 26. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the right- 
 eousness of the law. This verse is an inference (obv) from the 
 preceding. It was there taught that everything depends upon 
 obedience to the law. God will judge every man according to 
 his works. If a Jew, though circumcised, break the law, he 
 shall be condemned ; and if a Gentile, though uncircum cised, 
 keep the law, he shall be justified. The one proposition flows 
 from the other ; for if circumcision is in itself nothing, its pre- 
 sence cannot protect the guilty ; its absence cannot invalidate 
 the claims of the righteous. Acxa.ubp.aTa, decrees, precepts, what 
 the law prescribes as right. The apostle does not mean to 
 intimate that the Gentiles do in any case keep the righteous- 
 ness of the law ; contrary to his own explicit assertion, that 
 there is none righteous, no not one. It is a mere hypothetical 
 statement, designed to show that everything depends on obedi- 
 ence, and that circumcision cannot be the ground either of 
 justification or condemnation. Shall not his uncircumcision be 
 counted for circumcision ? The phrase Xofi^zaftai TI c ? in 
 accordance with the Hebrew b son, 1 Sam. i. 13, Isa. xxix. 17,
 
 ROMANS II. 27. 99 
 
 often means to reckon or regard one thing as another. Uncir- 
 cumcision shall be taken for circumcision. 
 
 VERSE 27. Calvin makes this verse a part of the interro- 
 gation begun in ver. 26, a mode of pointing followed by Koppe, 
 Lackmann, Fritzsche, and many others. 'Shall not uncir- 
 cumcision be reckoned circumcision, and condemn you who 
 break the law?' Our translators supply ol%i before xptvsc, 
 and make ver. 27 a distinct interrogation, ' and shall not the 
 uncircumcision condemn you,' &c. Meyer takes ver. 27 cate- 
 gorically, and xai in the sense of even or moreover, so that 
 ver. 27 is virtually an answer to the preceding question. 
 ' Shall not uncircumcision be taken for circumcision ? (Yes, 
 verily,) it will even condemn you,' &c. In either way the 
 idea is, that the obedient uncircumcised heathen would be 
 better off, he would stand on higher ground, than the disobe- 
 dient circumcised Jew. It is only putting the truth taught 
 in this verse into different words, to say, 'the unbaptized 
 believer shall condemn the baptized unbeliever.' The uncir- 
 cumcision which is by nature, ^ ex tpjaettii; dxpofiixrcia. The 
 position of the article shows plainly that ix (fjaetaz qualifies 
 axpopuaTta, and is not to be connected with the following par- 
 ticiple T/.ouaa. The sense is, "the uncircumcision which is 
 natural," and not 'which by nature keeps the law.' If it 
 fulfil the law, i. e. provided it is obedient, and therefore right- 
 eous. Shall judge, xptvzi, by implication, shall condemn; the 
 judgment is by the context supposed to be a condemnatory 
 one. Comp. Matt. xii. 41. Thee who by the letter, &c.; as 
 TOV ded fpdfjifjiaTOZ, thee with the letter, i. e. the written law. 
 In the present case it is not used in a disparaging sense, for 
 the mere verbal meaning in opposition to the spirit. The 
 context rather requires that fpdfifjw and xspiTOfjq should be 
 taken as expressing the real and substantial benefits of the 
 Jews. Our version renders did by, Beza also has per. He 
 understands the apostle to mean that external circumcision 
 being profaned only rendered the Jews so much the worse. 
 But as did with the genitive so often means with, as expressing 
 the circumstances under which anything is done, (as oc b-otibvr t z 
 with patience, oca ^poffxo/^uaro^ with offence,) the meaning is, 
 T<?, qui literas et circumcisionem habens, contra legem fads.
 
 100 ROMANS II. 28, 29. 
 
 Notwithstanding they had the law and circumcision, they were 
 transgressors of the law. Calvin makes letter and circumcision 
 to mean literal circumcision; but this is unnecessary, and 
 unsuited to the context ; for when speaking of the advantages 
 of the Jews, the law is of too much importance to allow of 
 the word which expresses it being merged into a mere epithet. 
 
 VERSES 28, 29. For not he who is externally a Jew, is a 
 Jew, &c. These verses assign the reason why the external 
 rite of circumcision can avail o little. God looks upon the 
 heart, and does not regard mere external circumstances. It 
 is not, therefore, mere descent from Abraham, nor connection 
 with the external theocracy or church, that can secure his 
 favour ; but the possession of those internal dispositions which 
 external rites are intended to symbolize. Verse 28 contains 
 the negative, ver. 29 the affirmative statement of this gene- 
 ral truth. The word '/oyoaeoc is to be supplied in the first 
 member of the sentence, as the subject is b iv rw tpavspqj 
 '/oy<Ja?of, and the predicate ' lovda'tos tortv. The same remark 
 may be made with regard to the following clause, where the 
 subject is ^ Iv row <pavepw, Iv trapxi xepcTOfjcy, and the predicate 
 jntperofOJ iartv. External circumcision in the flesh is not circum- 
 cision, (fiavepoz apparent, visible, what falls under the observa- 
 tion of the senses, hence external. The word Jew is of course 
 to be taken as the designation of the people of God. ' He is 
 not one of the people of God who is such externally.' It is 
 nothing external that constitutes or secures this peculiar 
 relation to God. The affirmative statement is, d/lx' 6 kv r<p 
 xpwrTw '/ov<5?oc, ^laudato? iffrcv,~\ but the Jeto in secret is a 
 Jew. As in the preceding verse, part of the subject is bor- 
 rowed from the predicate, so here and in the following clause 
 the predicate is to be borrowed from the subject ; that is, 
 ' laudato? IffTiv is to be supplied after the first clause, and 
 xtpero/MJ lortv after the second clause of this verse, so that 
 the whole reads thus: "But he who is inwardly a Jew, is 
 really a Jew; and the circumcision of the heart, in spirit and 
 not in letter, is circumcision." This is the construction 
 of the passage almost universally adopted. Kpwroz hidden, 
 and as opposed to ^>avs/>oc inward; hence iv rip xpunr(p 
 inwardly, in heart. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 4. True circumcision
 
 ROMANS II. 28, 29. 101 
 
 Is described as TrepiTO/j.^ xapdia^, Iv Trvs^ar.', ou 
 These latter words admit of different interpretations. The 
 apostle contrasts xvsufjta and fpdfjt/jta. in Rom. vii. 6, and 2 Cor. 
 iii. 6, much as he does here. In chap. vii. 6, oldness of the letter 
 may mean the condition and spirit of those who were under the 
 law, now become old ; and newness of the spirit may mean that 
 new condition and temper which the Holy Spirit gives. In 
 2 Cor. iii. 6, Paul says he was made a minister of the new cove- 
 
 / 
 
 nant, ou fpdfj.fjLa.Toz, a)JM /rvc^arof , not of the letter, but of the 
 spirit, i. e. not of the law, but of the gospel ; not of a mere ob- 
 jective, legal covenant, but of that which derives its whole cha- 
 racter from the Spirit, and therefore is spirit, or in the widest 
 sense of the word, spiritual. Comp. also Gal. iii. 3. Guided by 
 these passages, Riickert understands jrvsy//a here to mean the 
 new principle of life imparted by the Holy Spirit, and Iv to ex- 
 press instrumentality. Thus the sense is: The circumcision of 
 the heart is not produced or effected by the law, but by this new 
 divine principle of life. The same interpretation substantially 
 is given by Kollner. It is not, however, strictly in accordance 
 with the mode of representation adopted in the Scriptures, to 
 speak of the circumcision of the heart, i. e. sanctification, as 
 effected by anything implanted in us. Beza makes Iv nvs'j/jiaTc 
 simply exegetical of xapdtaz, and gives the sense thus : " Cujus 
 vis est interior et in animo, sive qua circumcisi sunt affectus." 
 Erasmus : " Quae Spiritu constat, referens ad Spiritum Sanc- 
 tum, cujus unius opus est ista circumcisio d^po-ol^ro^. Mihi 
 vero videtur Iv msevfjiaT: additum partim propter antithesin 
 fpdfj.fj.aTOZ, partim ut explicaret, quid vocaret circumcisionem 
 cordis." According to this view, Iv TZVVJIIO.T& is in heart, 
 and is tautological with the clause (circumcision of the heart) 
 which it should explain. And besides, the opposition between 
 and fpdpfM is thus destroyed. Others again take lv 
 and Iv fpdfj.fj.ari adverbially, "after a spiritual, not 
 after a literal or external way;" or adjectively, spiritual, not 
 literal. The most common, and on the whole the preferable 
 interpretation refers nvs.~jfj.a to the Holy Spirit, and gives Iv 
 the sense of by. The circumcision of the heart is then described 
 as effected by the Spirit, and not by the letter, i. e. in obedi- 
 ence to the prescriptions of the law. Whose praise is not of
 
 102 ROMANS II. 1729. 
 
 7 ut of God. The relative ou is to be referred to \ 
 Tho true Jew, or child of God, is one whose excellence is inter- 
 nal, seen and acknowledged by God ; not in its nature external, 
 securing the notice and approbation of men. If the relative oD 
 be taken as neuter, then the idea is the same, but presented in 
 another form: 'Of which (i. e. of this spiritual Judaism) the 
 praise is of God.' As, however, '/ouodioz is the main subject in 
 the context, the former explanation is the more natural. The 
 spiritual import of circumcision was clearly taught in the Old 
 Testament, as in Deut. xxx. 6: "I will circumcise your heart, 
 and the heart of your children, to love the Lord thy God." See 
 Deut. x. 16, Jer. iv. 4 : " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, 
 and take away the foreskins of your heart." The wicked are 
 therefore called "the uncircumcised in heart," Jer. ix. 29, 
 Ezek. xliv. 9, Acts vii. 56. Comp. Col. ii. 11: "In whom also 
 ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." 
 This is what he calls "the circumcision of Christ," or Christian 
 circumcision ; that which Christ secures and gives. As circum- 
 cision thus signifies inward purification, and was a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith, it was, as to its import and design, iden- 
 tical with baptism. Hence what in Col. ii. 11, Paul expresses 
 by saying, Ye are circumcised, he expresses in ver. 12, by 
 saying, Ye are buried with him in baptism. What, therefore, 
 he teaches of the worthlessness of external circumcision, without 
 internal purity, and of the possibility of the external sign being 
 received without the internal grace, is no less true of baptism. 
 See 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19, Gal. vi. 15. 
 
 DOCTRIXE. 
 
 1. Membership in the true Church, considered as a visible 
 society, is no security that we shall obtain the favour of God. 
 The Jews, before the advent, were members of the true and 
 only Church, and yet Paul teaches that they were not on this 
 account the more acceptable to God. Multitudes of Jewish 
 converts were members of the apostolic Church, and yet, 
 retaining their former doctrines and spirit, were in the gall of 
 bitU'i-nt-.-s, YIT. 17.
 
 ROMANS II. 1729. 103 
 
 2 Mere knowledge cannot commend us to God. It neither 
 sanctifies the heart, nor of itself renders men more useful. 
 When made the ground of confidence, or the fuel of pride and 
 arrogance, it is perverted and destructive, vs. 18 20. 
 
 3. Superior knowledge enhances the guilt of sin, and in- 
 creases the certainty, necessity, and severity of punishment, 
 without in itself increasing the power of resistance. It is, 
 therefore, a great mistake to make knowledge our sole depend- 
 ence in promoting the moral improvement of men, vs. 18 20. 
 
 4. The sins of the professing people of God, are peculiarly 
 offensive to him, and injurious to our fellow-men, vs. 22 24. 
 
 5. Here, as in the former part of the chapter, the leading 
 idea is, that God is just. He asks not whether a man is a Jew 
 or a Gentile, a Greek or barbarian, bond or free, but what is 
 his character ? Does he do good or evil ? vs. 17 24. 
 
 6. According to the apostle, the true idea of a sacrament is 
 not that it is a mystic rite, possessed of inherent efiicacy, or 
 conveying grace as a mere opus operatum; but that it is a seal 
 and sign, designed to confirm our faith in the validity of the 
 covenant to which it is attached; and, from its significant 
 character, to present and illustrate some great spiritual truth, 
 ver. 25. 
 
 7. All hopes are vain which are founded on a participation 
 of the sacraments of the Church, even when they are of divine 
 appointment, as circumcision, baptism, and the Lord's supper ; 
 much more when they are of human invention, as penance, and 
 extreme unction, vs. 26, 27. 
 
 8. Religion and religious services, to be acceptable to God, 
 must be of the heart. Mere external homage is of no account, 
 vs. 28, 29. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The sins and refuges of men are alike in all ages. The 
 Jew expected salvation because he was a Jew, so does the 
 Roman Catholic because he is a Roman Catholic, the Greek 
 because he is a Greek, and so of others. Were it ever so cer- 
 tain that the Church to which we belong is the true, apostolic,
 
 104 ROMANS II. 1729. 
 
 universal Church, it remains no less certain that without holi- 
 ness no man shall see God, ver. 17, &c. 
 
 2. The possession of superior knowledge should make us 
 anxious, first, to go right ourselves, and then to guide others 
 right. To preach against evils which we ourselves commit, 
 while it aggravates our guilt, is little likely to do others much 
 good, ver. 18, &c. 
 
 3. Christians should ever remember that they are the epistles 
 of Jesus Christ, known and read of all men; that God is 
 honoured by their holy living, and that his name is blasphemed 
 when they act wickedly, vs. 23, 24. 
 
 4. Whenever true religion declines, the disposition to lay 
 undue stress on external rites is increased. The Jews, when 
 they lost their spirituality, supposed that circumcision had 
 power to save them. 'Great is the virtue of circumcision,' 
 they cried; 'no circumcised person enters hell.' The Chris- 
 tian Church, when it lost its spirituality, taught that water in 
 baptism washed away sin. How large a part of nominal Chris- 
 tians rest all their hopes on the idea of the inherent efficacy of 
 external rites ! ver. 25, &c. 
 
 5. While it is one dangerous extreme to make religion con- 
 sist in the observance of external ceremonies, it is another to 
 undervalue them, when of divine appointment. Paul does not 
 say that circumcision was useless; he asserts its value. So, 
 likewise, the Christian sacraments, baptism and the Lord's 
 supper, are of the utmost importance, and to neglect or reject 
 them is a great sin, ver. 26, c. 
 
 6. If the heart be right in the sight of God, it matters little 
 what judgment men may form of us ; and, on the other hand, 
 the approbation of men is a poor substitute for the favour of 
 God, ver. 29.
 
 ROMANS III. 18. 105 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Tuis chapter may be divided into three parts. The first con- 
 tains a brief statement and refutation of the Jewish objections 
 to the apostle's reasoning, vs. 1 8. The second, a confirma- 
 tion of his doctrine from the testimony of Scripture ; and a 
 formal drawing out and declaration of his conclusion, that by 
 the works of the law no flesh living can be justified before 
 God, vs. 9 20. The third, an exposition of the gospel method 
 of justification, vs. 21 31. 
 
 ROMANS III. 18. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE first objection to Paul's reasoning here presented is, 
 that according to his doctrine the Jew has no advantage over 
 the Gentile, ver. 1. The apostle denies the correctness of this 
 inference from what he had said, and admits that the Jews have 
 great advantages over all other people, ver. 2. The second 
 objection is, that God having promised to be the God of the 
 Jews, their unfaithfulness, even if admitted, does not release 
 him from his engagements, or make his promise of no effect, 
 ver. 3. Paul, in answer, admits that the faithfulness of God 
 must not be called in question, let what will happen, vs. 4, 5; 
 but he shows that the principle on which the Jews expected 
 exemption from punishment, viz. because their unrighteousness 
 commended the righteousness of God, was false. This he 
 proves by showing first, that if their principle was correct, God 
 could not punish any one, Gentile or Jew, vs. 5 7 ; and 
 secondly, that it would lead to this absurdity, that it is right to 
 do evii that good may come, ver. 8.
 
 106 ROMANS III. 1, 2. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE ]. What then is the advantage of the Jew? The 
 conclusion at which the apostle had arrived at the end of the 
 preceding chapter was, that the Jews, no less than the Gentiles, 
 are to be judged according to their works, and by their know- 
 ledge of the divine will ; and that being thus judged, they are 
 exposed to condemnation, notwithstanding their circumcision 
 and all their other advantages. The most obvious objection in 
 the mind of a Jew to this conclusion must have been, that it 
 was inconsistent with the acknowledged privileges and supe- 
 riority of his nation. This objection the apostle here presents ; 
 the answer follows in the next verse : flzfxaaos, over and above, 
 abundant; and in a comparative sense, better, and substantively, 
 as in the present instance, excellence, preeminence. What is 
 the preeminence or superiority of the Jew? Comp. Eccles. 
 vi. 11, ri TiEpcoabv T<p d-vftpcoTup; what advantage has man? 
 The second question in this verse, what is the benefit of circum- 
 cision? is by some considered as a repetition of the first; cir- 
 cumcision being taken as the mere sign of Judaism. 'What is 
 the advantage of the Jew ? or what is the benefit of Judaism ?' 
 But circumcision as a rite was so important in the estimation 
 :>f the Jews, and is made so prominent by the apostle in the 
 preceding context, that it is better to consider the second ques- 
 tion as referring to the rite itself. 
 
 VERSE 2. Much, in every way. The answer to the objection 
 implied in the preceding verse, is a denial of its correctness as 
 an inference from the apostle's reasoning. It does not follow, 
 because the Jews are to be judged according to their works, 
 that there is no advantage in being the peculiar people of God, 
 having a divine revelation, &c. llpaJrov fikv fdp. These words 
 are rendered by Beza, primarium enim (illud est;} comp. Luke 
 xix. 47, Acts v. 2. Calvin says, "xfxo-ov significat praecipue 
 vel praesertim, hoc sensu, Etsi unum istud esset, quod habent 
 Dei oracula sibi commissa, satis valere debet ad eorum digni- 
 tatem." Our translators adopt the same view. But to both 
 of the interpretations the particle fdp furnishes an objection. 
 The third and simplest view is, that the words in question mean 
 first, in the first place, as in 1 Cor. xi. 18 ; -^do is then namely,
 
 ROMANS III. 3. 107 
 
 for example. That the enumeration is not carried on, is no 
 serious objection to this explanation, as we have other examples 
 of the same kind. See chap. i. 8. Because they were entrusted 
 with the oracles of Grod. The subject of i~taTZ'j&r t aay, viz. 
 'laudato: is implied by the connection ; TO. X&fia. is the accusa- 
 tive ; comp. Gal. ii. 7 : TtttiaTS'jfj.at TO ^afjfsXcov^ 1 Cor. ix. 17, 
 1 Thess. ii. 4. Some, as Theodoret, Beza, &c., understand by 
 TO. lofla roi> 6zo~j, the law; others, as Grotius, Tholuck, &c.. 
 the Messianic promises; others, as Calvin, Rosemnuller, De 
 Wette, the whole Scriptures. In favour of this last is the usage 
 of the phrase which in the Old Testament is used for the reve- 
 lation of God in general, and in the New Testament, for any 
 divine communication. Heb. v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 11. The words 
 therefore are general in their meaning, and there is nothing in 
 the context to limit them ; foi *he apostle is speaking of the 
 treasure committed to the safe custody of the Jews; that 
 deposit of divine knowledge by which they were distinguished 
 from all other nations. Here, as in innumerable other places, 
 the sacred writers of the New Testament use forms of express- 
 ion which clearly imply that they regarded the sacred writings 
 of the Jews as really the word of God. 
 
 VERSE 3. Ti -fdp; What then? See Philip, i. 18 a formula 
 used to introduce an explanation, confirmation, or vindication 
 of a preceding assertion ; or to start an objection for the pur- 
 pose of answering it. In the present instance it is agreed that 
 the apostle designs to vindicate what he had previously taught ; 
 but whether ver. 3 refers to ver. 2, or to the conclusion that the 
 Jews were as much exposed to condemnation as the Gentiles, is 
 not so plain. According to the former view, the design of this 
 verse is to confirm what is said in ver. 2 : ' To the Jews were 
 committed the promises of God, or oracles of God. This is a 
 great advantage ; for if some of them disbelieve those promises, 
 and reject the Messiah, God remains faithful, and will accom- 
 plish all his gracious purposes.' Thus substantially, Calvin, 
 Beza, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Rlickert, Meyer, and many others. 
 According to the other view, the apostle here presents and 
 answers another objection to his previous reasoning: 'What if 
 we are unfaithful,' says the Jew, ' does that invalidate the faith- 
 fulness of God ? Has he not promised to be a God to Abraham
 
 108 ROMANS III. 3. 
 
 and to his seed? Has he not entered into a solemn covenanr 
 to grant his people all the benefits of the Messiah's kingdonl ? 
 This covenant is not suspended on our moral character. If we 
 adhere to the covenant by being circumcised and observing the 
 law, the fidelity of God is pledged for our salvation. We may 
 therefore be as wicked as you would make us out to be ; that 
 does not prove that we shall be treated as heathen.' For the 
 latter view it may be urged, 1. That it is better suited to the 
 context. It is plain that the whole of the first part of this 
 chapter is an answer to the objections of the Jews to the apos- 
 tle's doctrine that they were exposed to condemnation. This is 
 clear as to the first verse, and to the fifth and those that follow 
 it. It is therefore more consistent with the design of the pas- 
 sage, to make this verse an answer to the main objection of the 
 Jews, than to consider it a mere confirmation of what is said in 
 ver. 2. This consideration has the more force, since on the 
 other view of the passage the principal ground of confidence of 
 the Jews, viz. their peculiar relation to God, is left unnoticed. 
 Their great objection to Paul's applying his general principles 
 of justice to their case was that their situation was peculiar : 
 ' God has chosen us as his people in Abraham. If we retain 
 our relation to him by circumcision and the observance of 
 the law, we shall never be treated or condemned as the Gen- 
 tiles.' Traces of this opinion abound in the New Testament, 
 and it is openly avowed by the Jewish writers. " Think not," 
 says our Saviour, "to say within yourselves, We have Abraham 
 for our father," Matt. iii. 9. "We be Abraham's seed," John 
 viii. 33. Comp. Rom. ii. 17, ix. 6, and other passages, in which 
 Paul argues to prove that being the natural descendants of 
 Abraham is not enough to secure the favour of God. That such 
 was the doctrine of the Jews is shown by numerous passages 
 from their writings. "If a Jew commit all manner of sins," 
 says Abarbanel, " he is indeed of the number of sinning Israel- 
 ites, and will be punished according to his sins; but he has 
 notwithstanding a portion in eternal life." The same sentiment 
 is expressed in the book Torath Adam, fol. 100, in nearly the 
 same words, and the reason assigned for it, " That all Israel has 
 a portion in eternal life."* This is a favourite phrase with 
 * Eiaenmenger's Ent. Judeuthurn, P.irt II. p. 293.
 
 ROMANS III. 3. 109 
 
 the Rabbins, and frequently occurs in their writings. Justin 
 Martyr, as quoted by Grotius on chap. ii. 13, attributes this 
 doctrine to the Jews of his day : " They suppose that to them 
 universally, who are of the seed of Abraham, no matter how 
 sinful and disobedient to God they may be, the eternal kingdom 
 shall be given." This interpretation therefore makes the verse 
 in question present the objection which the Jews would be most 
 likely to urge. 2. A second consideration in its favour is, that 
 it best satisfies the meaning of the words. The other view 
 makes Paul say that the unfaithfulness of some of the Jews, 
 some here and there, could not render the promise of no effect. 
 It would be natural for the Jews thus to soften* down the state- 
 ment of the case. But Paul had not said that some of the Jews 
 were unfaithful, but that they were all under condemnation; 
 that as to this point there was no difference between them and 
 the Gentiles, since all had sinned and come short of the glory 
 of God. It cannot escape notice how completely the doctrine 
 of the Jews has been transferred by ritualists to Christianity. 
 They held that if a man was circumcised and remained within 
 the Theocracy, he might be punished for his sins, but he would 
 ultimately be saved. So ritualists hold that all who are bap- 
 tized and remain within the pale of the true Church, though 
 they may suffer for their sins here or hereafter (in purgatory,) 
 are certain to be finally saved. 
 
 If some did not believe? The word -r^iffrr^av may mean 
 disbelieved, or were unfaithful. Tholuck, Fritzsche, Ruckert 
 (2d edition,) Meyer, say the former, and explain the passage 
 thus: 'The promises (TO. kofia) committed to the Jews are a 
 great distinction ; and though some of the Jews have not 
 believed those promises, nor received the Messiah, still God is 
 faithful.' The great majority of commentators say the latter, 
 and consider the apostle as stating the want of fidelity of the 
 Jews to the trust committed to them, i. e. to the covenant made 
 with their fathers, as no reason for assuming a want of fidelity 
 on the part of God. That djita-cslv may have the sense here 
 assigned to it is plain from 2 Tim. ii. 13 ; and from the sense 
 of diTTiaria in Heb. iii. 12, 19, and of dxcffro? in Luke xii. 46, 
 Rev. xxi. 8. To understand the passage as referring to want 
 of faith in Christ, seems inconsistent with the whole context.
 
 110 ROMANS III. 4. 
 
 The apostle has not come to the exposition of the gospel ; he it 
 still engaged in the preliminary discussion designed to sho^i* 
 that the Jews and Gentiles are under sin, and exposed to con- 
 demnation; an exposure from which no peculiar privileges of 
 the former, and no promise of God to their nation, could pro- 
 tect them. 
 
 VERSE 4. Let it not be; the frequently recurring formula to 
 express strong aversion or denial. The objection presented 
 in the preceding verse is, that the apostle's doctrine as to the 
 condemnation of the Jews is inconsistent with the faithfulness 
 of God. Is the faith of God without effect ? asks the objector. 
 By no means, answers the apostle; that is no fair inference 
 from my doctrine. There is no breach of the promises of God 
 involved in the condemnation of wicked Jews. How the con- 
 demnation of the Jews is consistent with the promises of God, 
 he shows in a subsequent part of his epistle, chaps, ix. xi.; 
 here he merely asserts the fact, and shows that the opposite 
 assumption leads to an absurdity. Let God be true, but every 
 man a liar. That is, the truth and fidelity of God must be 
 acknowledged, whatever be the consequence. This is said to 
 express the strongest aversion to the consequence charged on 
 his doctrine. Fcviff^ut has its proper sense, fat, let him 
 become, i. e. be seen and acknowledged as true. This disposi- 
 tion to justify God under all circumstances, the apostle illus- 
 trates by the conduct and language of David, who acknowledged 
 the justice of God even in his own condemnation,' and said, 
 "Against thee only have I sinned; that thou mightest be 
 justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou art judged;" 
 i. e. that thy rectitude, under all circumstances, might be seen 
 and acknowledged. In the Hebrew, the last verb of the verse 
 is active, when thou judgest; in the Septuagint, a passive form 
 is used, when thou art judged. This latter Paul follows, 
 because the sentiment in either case is the same. God is seen 
 and acknowledged to be just. The sacred writers of the New 
 Testament often depart from the words of the Old Testament in 
 their citations, being careful only to give the mind of the Spirit. 
 "Scimus," says Calvin, "apostolos in recitandis Scripturae 
 verbis saepe esse liberiores ; quia satis habebant si ad rem appo- 
 site citarent; quare non tanta illis fuit verborum rcligio."
 
 ROMANS III. 5. Ill 
 
 VEKSE 5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteous- 
 ness of Grod, what shall we then say? Adcxia is not to be taken 
 in the restricted sense of injustice, nor as equivalent to axcaria 
 in the preceding verse, but in the comprehensive sense of un- 
 righteousness, wickedness. It is the opposite of otxaioa'jvy, 
 rectitude, righteousness, which includes all moral excellence. 
 The righteousness of God is here, not his goodness, which the 
 context does not require and usage does not authorize, but 
 rectitude, that attribute which is manifested in doing right. 
 Hov'arTjuc, in the New Testament, is to place with or before any 
 one ; and hence either to commend, to recommend, Rom. xvi. 1, 
 2 Cor. iii. 1, v. 12 ; or to set forth, to render conspicuous; see 
 Rom. v. 8, 2 Cor. vi. 4. The latter is obviously the sense 
 required in the present instance. That this verse is in answer 
 to an objection is obvious; but that objection is not derived 
 from the language of ver. 4. Paul had said nothing there to 
 give any colour to the suggestion, that he himself held that it 
 would be unrighteous in God to punish the wicked. He had 
 simply said, that the truth of God was to be admitted and 
 acknowledged, though all men were liars. From this it could 
 not be made an inference that we may do evil that good may 
 come. It is not a false inference from ver. 4, but a new objec- 
 tion to his general conclusion that he is here answering : ' Not 
 only is God's fidelity pledged to our salvation, but the very fact 
 of our being unrighteous will render his righteousness the more 
 conspicuous; and consequently it would be unjust in him to 
 punish us for what glorifies himself.' This is the thought; the 
 form in which it is presented is determined by the fact that the 
 apostle does not introduce the person of the objector, but states 
 the objection in his own person, in the form of a question. It 
 is plain, however, that the point of the argument is that God 
 cannot consistently punish those whose unrighteousness serves 
 to display his own rectitude ; and this is supposed to be urged 
 to show that the Jews, notwithstanding their sins, were not 
 exposed to condemnation. If our unrighteousness commend 
 the righteousness of God is the suggestion; the inference, which 
 the Jews were disposed to draw, and which Paul asks, whether 
 they would venture to make, is that God is unjust who taketh 
 vengeance: 6 dsb^ b kxupsawv ryv oppju, Crod the taker of
 
 112 ROMANS III. 6. 
 
 vengeance; he whose prerogative it is to inflict the punishment 
 due to sin. That the apostle is not in this verse expressing his 
 own sentiments, he intimates by saying, xara to&ptan* /.sj-ta, I 
 speak as a man. This formula, which is of frequent occurrence, 
 means to speak as men are accustomed to speak ; and as men 
 are in general wicked, to speak or act after the manner of men, 
 is to speak or act wickedly. It depends, however, entirely on 
 the context whether this idea is implied. When Paul asks, 
 "Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" 1 Cor. iii. 3, the case 
 is plain. But when in Gal. iii. 15, he says, "Brethren, I speak 
 as a man," he means merely to appeal to what was commonly 
 acknowledged as true among men. See also 1 Cor. ix. 8. When 
 in Rom. vi. 19, he says, &v&pa)xtvov Ae-fto, it is plain from the 
 context that he means, in a manner adapted to the comprehen- 
 sion of men. And in the present case, where he is not express- 
 ing his own sentiments, xard dv&pwxov fisfai is designed to 
 declare that he is not speaking in his character of an apostle 
 or Christian, but speaking as others speak, expressing their 
 thoughts, not his own. 
 
 VERSE 6. In answer to the question whether God is unjust 
 in punishing those whose unrighteousness renders his own 
 righteousness the more conspicuous, he says : By no means, 
 since in that case how can God judge the world f There is here 
 an answer to the question, and a proof of the correctness of 
 that answer. There are three views which may be taken of the 
 nature of this proof. The first supposes xoapoz to mean the 
 Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews. The sense then is : 
 If God cannot punish sin under the circumstances supposed, he 
 cannot even punish the heathen, for their unrighteousness 
 serves to commend his righteousness. This view is clear and 
 satisfactory as far as the argument is concerned, and is adopted 
 by Koppe, Reiche, Olshausen, &c. Besides the pertinency of 
 the argument as thus explained, this interpretation is supported 
 by the frequent use of xoffpo? to designate the world in dis- 
 tinction from the Theocracy, or the Church. 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 32, 
 Rom. xi. 12, John xii. 31, 1 John iv. 17, &c. The principal 
 objection to it arises from the difficulties in which it involves 
 the explanation of the following verse. The second view of the 
 passage supposes the argument to rest on the admitted fact that
 
 ROMANS III. 6. 113 
 
 God is the judge of all the earth; if so, he must be just. It is 
 impossible that God should be unjust, if he is to judge the 
 world; but he is to judge the world, therefore he is not unjust. 
 "Sumit argumentum ab ipsius Dei officio," says Calvin, "quo 
 probet id esse impossibile ; judicabit Deus hunc mundum, ergo 
 injustus esse non potest." To the same purpose Grotius says: 
 "Xullo modo possumus Deum injustum irnaginari quern cum 
 Abrahamo judicem mundi agnoscimus." This view is given 
 also by Tholuck, De Wette, Riickert, Kollner, and Meyer. 
 The obvious objection to it is, that it makes the apostle assume 
 the thing to be proved. He says, ' God cannot be unjust, 
 because he is the judge of the world, and the judge of the world 
 must be just.' But it is no more certain that the judge of the 
 world must be just, than that God is just, which is the point to 
 be established. Riickert, in his characteristic assumption of 
 superiority to the apostle, admits that the argument is "weak, 
 very weak;" but he not the less confidently ascribes it to the 
 apostle. The misapprehension of the argument in this verse 
 arises out of a misapprehension of the previous reasoning, and 
 of the precise point of the objection which is here answered. 
 Paul is not guarding against any false inference from his owm 
 reasoning ; he is not teaching that though God is seen to ba 
 just when he speaks, and clear when he judges, we must not 
 hence infer that he is unjust in punishing the sin which com- 
 mends his own righteousness, which would be indeed " eine 
 erbarmliche Einwendung," (a pitiable subterfuge,) as Reiche 
 calls it ; but he is answering the objections of the Jews to his- 
 doctrine, not their false inferences. To the declaration that 
 they were exposed to condemnation, the Jews pleaded the pro- 
 mise of God, which their unfaithfulness could not render of na 
 effect, and the less so because their unrighteousness would serve 
 to render the righteousness of God the more conspicuous. Paul 
 says on this principle God cannot judge the world. The ground, 
 assumed by the Jews might be assumed by all mankind, and if 
 valid in the one case it must be in all. In this view the answer 
 is complete and satisfactory; it is a reductio ad absurdum* 
 The correctness of this explanation is confirmed, by what 
 follows.
 
 114 ROMANS III. 7, 8. 
 
 VERSES 7, 8. These verses are the amplification and con- 
 firmation of the answer given in the sixth to the objection of 
 the Jews. These verses are designed to show that if the ground 
 assumed by them was valid, not only may every sinner claim 
 exemption, but it would follow that it is right to do evil that 
 good may come. The connection by fdp is therefore with the 
 sixth verse: 'God could not judge the world, for any sinner 
 may say, If the truth of God more abounds through my lie, 
 to his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner?' The truth 
 of God. As d)jj&sia is not unfrequently opposed to ddixia, 
 it may have here the sense of dtxaeoa'Jvrj, and designate the 
 divine excellence; then fisixr/jta, in the following clause, must 
 mean fahehood towards God, wickedness: 'If the excellence of 
 God is rendered more conspicuous by my wickedness.' But as 
 it was on the truth or veracity of God, his adherence to his 
 promises, that the false confidence of the Jews was placed, it is 
 probable that the apostle intended the words to be taken in 
 their more limited sense. Hath more abounded unto his glory. 
 Ilepiaas'jEiv, to be abundant, rich, or great; and by implication, 
 in a comparative sense, to be more abundant, or conspicuous, 
 Matt. v. 20, 1 Cor. xv. 58. The latter is the sense here, 'If 
 the truth of God has been made the more conspicuous;' e/c ~r,v 
 Sbtav airoD, so that he is glorified. Why am I also still judged 
 as a sinner? xdrw, either even I, or I also; I as well as others ; 
 or even I a Jew ; or, according to another view of the context, 
 even I a Gentile : Irr, yet, i. e. notwithstanding my falsehood is 
 the means of displaying the glory of God. According to the 
 view now given, the use of the first person is sufficiently ex- 
 plained by saying, as has often been done, " suam personam 
 ponit pro quvis alia." /, therefore, stands for any one : 'Any 
 one may say, Why am I also judged as a sinner?' Those how- 
 ever who understand xoffjwz, in the preceding verse, to mean 
 the Gentiles, suppose that the apostle here personates a heathen, 
 who is made to ask, 'If the divine majesty is the more displayed 
 by my idolatry, why am even I judged as a sinner?' This 
 interpretation gives a very good sense, because the Jews readily 
 admitted that the Gentiles were exposed to condemnation, and 
 therefore any principle which was shown to exculpate them, the 
 Jews mu*t acknowledge to be false. The objections to this
 
 ROMANS III. 8. 115 
 
 view of tLe passage are the unnecessary limitation which it 
 imposes on the word xoafiot;, ver. 6, and the unusual, if not 
 unauthorized sense, which it requires to be given to the words 
 aty&sta and ^euapa, the latter not being elsewhere used for 
 idolatry, and the former, in this connection at least, not ad- 
 mitting of the version, truth concerning Grod, i. e. the true 
 G-od. 
 
 VERSE 8. Almost all the modern commentators are agreed 
 in considering this verse as a continuation of the question com- 
 menced in the seventh, and in assuming an irregularity in the 
 construction, arising from the introduction of the parenthetical 
 clause in the middle of the verse : ' If your principle is correct, 
 why am I judged as a sinner; and why not let us do evil, that 
 good may come T Having commenced the question, he inter- 
 rupts himself to notice the slanderous imputation of this doc- 
 trine to himself as we are slandered, and as some affirm we 
 say, that we should do evil that good may come. HoiyacDfjisv, 
 therefore, instead of being connected with the (r/) -/jaj at the 
 beginning of the verse, is connected by 5r: with the immediately 
 preceding verb. See Winer, 63. Whose condemnation is just. 
 Paul thus expresses his abhorrence of the principle that we may 
 do evil that good may come. Tholuck and others refer <Lv to 
 the ^).aa(pTffjLo~j^Te^ to the slanderers of the apostle; but that 
 clause is virtually parenthetical, and it is not blaspheming the 
 apostle, but teaching a doctrine subversive of all morality, that 
 is here condemned. Calvin unites, in a measure, both views of 
 the passage: "Duplici autem nomine damnabilis fuit eorum 
 perversitas; primum quibus venire haec impietas in mentem 
 potuerit usque ad ipsum assensum, deinde qui traducendo evan- 
 gelic calumniam inde instruere ausi fuerint." 
 
 Such is the apostle's argument against the grounds of con- 
 fidence on which the Jews rested their hope of exemption from 
 condemnation. ' Our unfaithfulness serves to commend the 
 faithfulness of God, therefore we ought not to be punished.' 
 According to this reasoning, says Paul, the worse we are, the 
 better ; for the more wicked we are, the more conspicuous will 
 be the mercy of God in our pardon ; we may therefore do evil 
 that good may come.' By reducing the reasoning of the Jews 
 to a conclusion shocking to the moral sense, he thereby refutes
 
 116 ROMANS HI. 18. 
 
 it. The apostle often thus recognizes the authority of the 
 intuitive moral judgments of our nature, and thus teaches us 
 that those truths which are believed on their own evidence, as 
 soon as presented to the mind, should be regarded as fixed 
 points in all reasonings; and that to attempt to go beyond 
 these intuitive judgments, is to unsettle the foundation of all 
 faith and knowledge, and to open the door to universal skepti- 
 cism. Any doctrine, therefore, which is immoral in its ten- 
 lency, or which conflicts with the first principles of morals, 
 must be false, no matter how plausible may be the arguments 
 in its favour. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The advantages of membership in the external Church, 
 and of a participation of its ordinances, are very numerous 
 and great, vs. 1, 2. 
 
 2. The great advantage of the Christian over the heathen 
 world, and of the members of a visible ecclesiastical body over 
 others not so situated, is the greater amount of divine truth 
 presented* to their understandings and hearts, ver. 2. 
 
 3. All the writings which the Jews, at the time of Christ 
 and his apostles, regarded as inspired, are really the word of 
 God, ver. 2. 
 
 4. No promise or covenant of God can ever be rightfully 
 urged in favour of exemption from the punishment of sin, or 
 of impunity to those who live in it. God is faithful to his 
 promises, but he never promises to pardon the impenitently 
 guilty, vs. 3, 4. 
 
 5. God will make the wrath of men to praise him. Their 
 unrighteousness will commend his righteousness, without, on 
 that account, making its condemnation less certain or less 
 severe, vs. 5, 6. 
 
 6. Any doctrine inconsistent with the first principles of 
 morals must be false, no matter how plausible the metaphysical 
 argument in its favour. And that mode of reasoning is correct, 
 which refutes such doctrines by showing their inconsistency 
 with moral truth, ver. 8.
 
 ROMANS III. 18. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. We should feel the peculiar responsibilities which rest 
 upon us as the inhabitants of a Christian country, as members 
 of the Christian Church, and possessors of the word of God ; 
 as such, we enjoy advantages for which we shall have to render 
 a strict account, vs. 1, 2. 
 
 2. It is a mark of genuine piety, to be disposed always 
 to justify God, and to condemn ourselves. On the other hand, 
 a disposition to self-justification and the extenuation of our 
 sins, however secret, is an indication of the want of a proper 
 sense of our own unworthiness and of the divine excellence, 
 vs. 4, 5. 
 
 3. Beware of any refuge from the fear of future punish- 
 ment, founded upon the hope that God will clear the guilty, or 
 that he will not judge the world and take vengeance for our 
 sins, vs. 6, 7. 
 
 4. There is no better evidence against the truth of any doc- 
 trine, than that its tendency is immoral. And there is no 
 greater proof that a man is wicked, that his condemnation is 
 just, than that he does evil that good may come. There is 
 commonly, in such cases, not only the evil of the act com- 
 mitted, but that of hypocrisy and duplicity also, ver, 8. 
 
 5. Speculative and moral truths, which are believed on their 
 own evidence as soon as they are presented to the mind, 
 should be regarded as authoritative, and as fixed points in all 
 reasonings. When men deny such first principles, or attempt 
 to push beyond them to a deeper foundation of truth, there is 
 no end to the obscurity, uncertainty, and absur4ity of their 
 speculations. What God forces us, from the very constitution 
 of our nature, to believe, as, for example, the existence of the 
 external world, our own personal identity, the difference be- 
 tween good and evil, &c., it is at once a violation of his will 
 and of the dictates of reason to deny or to question. Paul 
 assumed, as an ultimate fact, that it is wrong to do evil that 
 good may rome, ver. 8.
 
 118 ROMANS III. 9. 
 
 ROMANS III. 920. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE apostle having demonstrated that the Je\v$ cannot 
 expect exemption from condemnation, on the ground of their 
 being the peculiar people of God, except on principles incom- 
 patible with the government of the world, and inconsistent 
 with the plainest moral truths, draws, in ver. 9, the conclusion, 
 that the Jew, as to the matter of justification before God, has 
 no preeminence over the Gentile. He confirms his doctrine of 
 the universal sinfulness of men by numerous quotations from 
 the Scriptures. These passages speak of men in general as 
 depraved, vs. 10 12; and then of the special manifestations 
 of that depravity in sins of the tongue, vs. 13, 14 ; and in sins 
 of violence, vs. 15 18. The inference from all his reasoning, 
 from chap. i. -18, derived from consciousness, experience, and 
 Scripture is, that "the whole world is guilty before God," 
 ver. 19 ; and that "no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the 
 law," ver. 20. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 9. What then? do we excel? What then? i. e. what 
 is the conclusion from the preceding discussion? are we Jews 
 better off than the Gentiles ? "VVahl points the passage thus : 
 Ti ou\> xpo%6/jtefta ; What then do we, or can we pretend or pre- 
 sent as an excuse? Then, however, as Riickert and others 
 remark, the answer should be, o'jdsv, nothing, and not oy 
 ffdvrcuc. The principal difficulty in this verse is to determine 
 the meaning of TT^OS^O'^S&Z. The most commonly received and 
 the most satisfactory explanation assumes that the middle form 
 has here the sense of the active. Uftoe^sev means to hold 
 before, or intransitively and topically, to have before another, to 
 excel. In the middle voice, the verb means to hold before one- 
 self, as a shield, or figuratively, to use as a pretext. Though 
 the middle does not elsewhere occur in the sense of the active, 
 its use in the present instance in that sense, may be justified
 
 ROMANS III. 9. 119 
 
 either by the remark, that the later writers often use the middle 
 form where the earlier authors employ the active, ( TholucJc); or 
 by assuming the sense of the active to be here somewhat modi- 
 fied, since the apostle is speaking of a superiority which the 
 Jews attributed to themselves, so that the strict sense is: 
 "Licetne nobis tribuere majorem dignitatem?" Bretschneider. 
 The context suits the sense commonly attributed to the word. 
 The whole discussion has brought the apostle to the conclusion, 
 that the Jews as sinners have no advantage over the Gentiles, 
 and this is the conclusion which he here confirms. If the 
 middle force of the verb be retained, then the sense is, as given 
 by Meyer: 'What then? Have we protection or defence?' 
 That is, are we Jews and Gentiles, men as sinners, protected 
 from the justice of God? The answer is, By no means. But 
 this does not so well suit the context or the form of the answer 
 to the question presented. The verb 7tpoiyjOfj.s.&a should, as 
 Ruckert says, in that case have an accusative, designating the 
 excuse or pretext: 'Have we anything for a pretext?' And the 
 answer would be, Nothing. The passive sense, Are we excelled f 
 adopted by Wetstein and others, is still less suited to the con- 
 text. For whether the Gentiles or the Jews be supposed to ask 
 the question, there is nothing to account for it, or to suggest it. 
 Paul had given no reason to either to ask, Are we excelled? 
 He had not proved that the Gentiles were worse off than the 
 Jews, or the Jews than the Gentiles, but that both were alike 
 under condemnation. The question, therefore, Do we excel ? 
 are we Jews better off than the Gentiles ? is the only one which 
 the occasion calls for, or that the answer suits. This is the view 
 given by Theophylact, who says, ozixvuac fj.r t dsv abrolx; lysw 
 -zocaabv, oaov Ix TOJV ocxsccov Tcpd-zwv; and which is adopted by 
 Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and the modern commentators, Tholuck, 
 Ruckert (2d edition,) Reiche, and De Wette. 
 
 Not at all, not in the least, (o\j -dvTwz,} the -avrcuc strength- 
 ening the negation. Grotius, Wetstein, and Kbllner translate, 
 not altogether, not in all respects. But the former version is 
 shown by Winer, 65, to be consistent with usage, and is much 
 better suited to the context ; for it is the obvious design of the 
 apostle to show that, as to the point in hand, the Jews did not 
 at all excel the Gentiles. This strong negation the following
 
 120 ROMANS III. 10. 
 
 clause confirms. The Jews are not better off; for we have 
 before charged both Jews and Gentiles with being under sin. 
 Aheao&at is properly, to accuse, here as in other cases followed 
 by an accusative and infinitive. Our version, ive have before 
 proved, though it may be justified by implication, is not in 
 strict accordance with the meaning of the words. The same 
 sense, however, is expressed by Erasmus, " ante causis redditis 
 ostendimus," and is adopted by Reiche and others. There is 
 force in the remark of Calvin: "Verbum Groccum aircila&at 
 proprie est judiciale: ideoque reddere placuit constitulunis. 
 Dicitur enim crimen in actione constituere accusator, quod 
 testimoniis ac probationibus aliis convincere paratus. Citavit 
 autem apostolus universum hominum genus ad Dei tribunal, ut 
 totuin sub unam damnationem includeret." To be under sin 
 means to be under the power of sin, to be sinners : whether the 
 idea of guilt, just exposure to condemnation, or of pollution, or 
 both, be conveyed by the expression depends on the context. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 17, Gal. iii. 10, 22, John xv. 22. Here both 
 ideas are to be included. Paul had arraigned all men as sin- 
 ners, as the transgressors of the law, and therefore exposed to 
 condemnation. 
 
 Verses 10 18, contain the confirmation of the doctrine of 
 the universal sinfulness of men by the testimony of the Scrip- 
 tures. These passages are not found consecutively in any one 
 place in the Old Testament. Verses 10 12 are from Psalms 
 xiv. and liii.; ver. 13 is from Ps. v. 10 ; ver. 14 is from Ps. x. 7; 
 vs. 15 17 are from Isa. lix. 7, 8; and ver. 18 is from Ps. 
 xxxvi. 1. These passages, it will be observed, are of two 
 different classes; the one descriptive of the general character 
 of men; the other referring to particular sinful acts, on the 
 principle, "by their fruits ye shall know them." This method 
 of reasoning is common and legitimate. The national character 
 of a people may be proved by the prevalence of certain acts by 
 which it is manifested. The prevalence of crime among men is 
 a legitimate proof that the race is apostate, though every man 
 is not a shedder of blood, or guilty of robbery or violence. 
 
 VEKSE 10. There is none righteous, no not one. Ps. xiv. 1, 
 in the Hebrew is, "there is none doing good;" in the Septua- 
 gint it is, -oiaJv w^Tto-r^i; Paul has, oux lare dixaioz, there is
 
 ROMANS III. 11, 12. 121 
 
 none righteous. The sense is the same. Paul probably uses 
 (i'.xaioz, righteous, because the question which he is discuss- 
 ing is, whether men are righteous, or can be justified on the 
 ground of their own righteousness in the sight of God. This is 
 a declaration of the universal sinfulness of men. The two ideas 
 included in the negation of righteousness, want of piety and 
 want of rectitude, are expressed in the following verses. 
 
 VERSE 11. There is none who understands, there is none who 
 seeks after Gf-od. In the Psalms it is said: "God looked down 
 from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there was one wise, 
 seeking after God." Here again the apostle gives the thought, 
 and not the precise words. Instead of "if there was one wise," 
 he gives the idea in a negative form, " There is none who under- 
 stands," oox larc o aowaiv. The participle 6 ouvuov, der ver- 
 standige, the wise, is stronger than the verb, who understands; 
 as the former expresses a permanent characteristic, the latter 
 properly only an act. The words awir/fic and auvsacz are fre- 
 quently used in the New Testament to express the right appre- 
 hension of divine truth. See Matt. xiii. 15, Acts vii. 25, Eph. 
 iii. 4, v. 17, Col. i. 9, ii. 2. In this case, awc&v (aovicav, 
 Winer, 14, 3,) answers to b^ssft, a word often used in a 
 religious sense, as in the Scriptures, wisdom and religion are 
 convertible terms. This right apprehension or spiritual discern- 
 ment of divine things is always attended with right affections 
 and right conduct he that understands seeks after God 
 which latter expression includes all those exercises of desire, 
 worship, and obedience, which are consequent on this spiritual 
 discernment. 
 
 VERSE 12. They are all gone out of the ivay. Blinded by 
 sin to the perfections and loveliness of God and truth, they 
 have turned from the way which he has prescribed and which 
 leads to himself, and have made choice of another way and of 
 another portion. Here, as in the first chapter, the loss of the 
 knowledge of God is represented as followed by spiritual blind- 
 ness, and spiritual blindness by moral degradation. Men do 
 not understand, i. e. have no right apprehension of God ; then 
 they turn away from him, then they become altogether unprofit- 
 able, -fyf>!(t)&yaav, worthless, morally corrupt. This depravity is 
 universal for there, is none that doeth good, no not one. The
 
 1-2-2 ROMANS III. 1317. 
 
 words o'jx e<uc K>C, not so much as one, arc a Hobrcv. .sm for 
 owe e. r c. This passage is taken from the Septuagint transla- 
 tion of Psalm xiv. 3. 
 
 VERSES 13, 14. These verses relate to the sins of the tongue. 
 The passages quoted are from Ps. v. 9, cxl. 3, and x. 7. Their 
 throat is an open sepulchre. The point of comparison may be 
 the offensive and pestiferous character of the exhalations of an 
 open grave. This is forcible, and suited to the context. Or the 
 idea is, that as the grave is rapacious and insatiable, so the 
 wicked are disposed to do all the injury with their tongues 
 which they can accomplish. -In Jer. v. 16, it. is said of the 
 Chaldeans, "Their quiver is an open sepulchre," i. e. destruc- 
 tive. But as in the following verses sins of violence are brought 
 distinctly into view, the former explanation is to be preferred. 
 What issues from the mouths of the wicked is offensive and 
 pestiferous. With their tongues they have used deceit. The 
 word kdoho'joav is in the imperfect, for idoteaiiiv, implying con- 
 tinuous action. In the Hebrew it is, "They make smooth their 
 tongue," i. e. they flatter. The LXX. and Vulgate give the 
 version which the apostle adopts. The poison of asps is utuhr 
 their lips. This is the highest expression of malignity. The 
 bite of the adder causes the severest pain, as well as produces 
 death. To inflict suffering is a delight to the malignant. This 
 is a revelation of a nature truly diabolical. Their mouth is full 
 of cursing and bitterness. The Hebrew in Ps. x. 7, is, " His 
 mouth is full of deceit and violence;" the Septuagint, "His 
 mouth is full of cursing, bitterness, and deceit." The Vulgate 
 follows the LXX.; Paul condenses the idea. 
 
 VERSES 15 17. These verses adduce the sins of violence 
 common among men, in proof of the general depravity of the 
 race. Their feet are swift to shed blood. That is, on the 
 slightest provocation they commit murder. The life of their 
 fellow-men is as nothing in their estimation, in comparison with 
 the gratification of their pride or malice. The words are quoted 
 from Isa. lix. 7: " Their feet run to evil, and they make haste 
 to shed innocent blood." Here the Septuagint agrees with the 
 Hebrew, and Paul again condenses the sense. Destruction and 
 miner// are in their ways. Their path through life is marked 
 not only with blood, but with the ruin and desolation which
 
 ROMANS III. 18, 19. 123 
 
 they spread around them. In Isaiah the passage runs, "Their 
 thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are 
 in their paths." The way of peace they have not known. "The 
 way of peace" is the way that leads to peace, or pacific ways. 
 "They have not known," means they have not approved or fre- 
 quented. The idea is to be taken in its most comprehensive 
 form, as the apostle designs to prove, not from any specific 
 form of violence, but from the general prevalence of sins of 
 violence among men, that human nature is depraved. The treo 
 which produces such fruit so abundantly must be evil. 
 
 VERSE 18. There is no fear of Grod before their eyes. This 
 is taken from Psalm xxxvi. 1 : " The dictum of depravity con- 
 cerning the wicked man in my heart is, There is no fear of God 
 before his eyes." That is, his depravity proves or reveals to 
 me that he does not fear God. See Alexander on the Psalms, 
 who proposes this with other versions of the passage. However 
 the previous part of the verse may be understood, the clause 
 quoted by the apostle is plain. The course of wicked men, as 
 previously described, is proof that they are destitute of the fear 
 of God. And by "the fear of God," we may understand, accord- 
 ing to Scripture usage, reverence for God, piety towards him ; or 
 fear, in the more restricted sense, dread of his wrath. In either 
 way, the reckless wickedness of men proves that they are desti- 
 tute of all proper regard of God. They act as if there were no 
 God, no Being to whom they are responsible for their conduct, 
 and who has the purpose and power to punish them for their 
 
 VERSE 19. Now we know; it is a thing plain in itself, and 
 universally conceded, that what things soever the law saith, it 
 saith to them that are under the law. The word VQ//OC means 
 that which binds, that to which we are bound to be conformed. 
 It is that which binds the reason, the conscience, the heart, and 
 the life, whether it be revealed in the constitution of our nature, 
 or in the decalogue, or in the law of Moses, or in the Scrip- 
 tures. It is the word or revelation of the will of God, consi- 
 sidered as the norm or rule to which men are to conform their 
 faith and practice. It depends on the context, under what 
 aspect this rule is in any particular case contemplated. It may 
 be the rule as written on the heart, ii. 14, or the law of Moses,
 
 124 ROMANS III. 19. 
 
 or the whole Scriptures, as John x. 34. In this passage it obv; 
 ously means the whole Old Testament, for the quotations giver 
 above are taken from the Psalms and the Prophets. In every 
 instance the principle applies, that what the law says, it says tc 
 those who have the law. Those to whom any revelation of the 
 divine will is made, are bound to be conformed to it. What the 
 law written in the heart says, it says to those who have that 
 law ; and what the law as written in the Scriptures says, it says 
 to those who have the Scriptures. The declarations therefore 
 contained in the Old Testament, which was the revelation of 
 God's will made to the Jews, were the norm or rule to which 
 they were obliged to conform their judgments and conduct. If 
 the Old Testament declared that all men are under sin, that 
 there is none righteous, no not one, the Jews could not deny the 
 truth of this universal declaration in its application to them- 
 selves. These passages speak not of heathen as heathen, but 
 of fallen men as such, and therefore are to be understood of all 
 men, of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles. That every mouth 
 may be stopped. The word is wa, in order that. That is, the 
 design of God in these general declarations was, that every 
 mouth should be stopped ; that all men should be reduced to 
 silence under the conviction that they had nothing to say against 
 the charge of sin. This idea is expressed in another form in the 
 following clause: That the whole world (~az b xoff/jioz,) all man- 
 kind, Jews and Gentiles, should become (yivr^rac^) in their own 
 conviction, guilty before Grod. That is, that all men should bo 
 convinced of guilt. Guilt, here, as always in theological lan- 
 guage, means liability or exposure to punishment on account 
 of sin. It is not to be confounded either with moral pollution, 
 or with mere demerit. It may exist where neither pollution nor 
 personal demerit is to be found. And it may be removed where 
 both remain. Christ is said to have borne the guilt of our sins, 
 although immaculate and without personal demerit; and justifi- 
 cation removes the guilt (or just exposure to punishment) of the 
 sinner, but it does not change his inward character. This is 
 the proper meaning of bnodtxoz (Ivojfoc dixr^,) guilty, satisfac- 
 tionem alteri debens, obnoxious to punishment. Before Grod y 
 T(p #sou, in relation to God, as it is to him that satisfaction for 
 Bin is due. I : if he whom we have offended, and under whose
 
 ROMANS III. 20. 125 
 
 sentence we lie. There are three things involved in the con- 
 sciousness of sin ; sense of moral turpitude, sense of demerit or 
 of ill-desert, and the conviction that \ve ought to be punished. 
 This last element is often the most clearly revealed ; so that a 
 criminal often voluntarily gives himself up to justice. It is this 
 that is denominated guilt, the obligation to suffer punishment ; 
 so that the guilty are not merely those who may be punished, 
 but those who justice (or moral rectitude) demands should be 
 punished. It is this that stops the sinner's mouth ; and it is 
 this which is met by satisfaction, so that although in the justi- 
 fied believer a sense of pollution and of ill-desert remains, there 
 is no longer this dreadful conviction that God is bound to 
 punish him. The conclusion to which the apostle's argument, 
 from experience and Scripture, has thus far led is, that all men 
 are guilty in the sight of God ; and if guilty, they cannot be 
 justified on the ground of their personal character or conduct. 
 To justify is to declare not guilty; and therefore the guilty 
 cannot, on the ground of character, be justified. 
 
 VEKSE 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh 
 be justified in his sight. Therefore. The particle is dtbre, which 
 is equivalent to 8e o TI, on account of which thing, wherefore. 
 In this sense it indicates a conclusion from preceding premises. 
 This would suit this connection, as ver. 20 is a fair conclusion 
 from what is said in ver. 19 : 'All the world is guilty before 
 God, wherefore, hence it follows that, no one can be justified by 
 works.' This is the conclusion which the apostle has had in 
 view from the beginning of his argument. His whole design is 
 to prove that men cannot be justified by their own righteous- 
 ness, in order to prepare them to receive the righteousness of 
 God. This view of the connection is assumed in our version, 
 by Beza, Turrettin, Rosemmuller, and others. But in the New 
 Testament, dtort is almost uniformly, perhaps in every case, 
 used in the sense of Sta TOUTO BTC, on this account that, or of the 
 simple ore, that. The great majority of commentators there- 
 fore render it here, because, as in i. 19, viii. 7, &c. Verse 20 
 then assigns the reason of what is said in ver. 19: 'Every 
 mouth must be stopped, because no flesh can be justified by 
 works.' This view is to be preferred, not because more suita- 
 ble, but because more consistent with the common use of the
 
 126 ROMANS III. 20. 
 
 particle in question. No flesh. When men are called flesh, in 
 the Bible, there was originally a reference to their weakness 
 and faults, as the flesh is earthly and perishable. But in many 
 cases there is no such implication; "no flesh" is simply equiva- 
 lent to no man. The Greek is here Tiaaa o".<>~ o'j x.r./, every 
 flesh shall not; according to the familiar Hebraism, no flesh 
 shall. The future is used not in reference to the day of final 
 judgment, for the act of justification takes place in this life. 
 It expresses the certainty of the thing affirmed : No flesh shall 
 ever be (i. e. ever can be) justified. The apostle seems evi- 
 dently to have had in his mind the passage in Psalm cxliii. 2 : 
 "Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight 
 shall no man living be justified." Aacai6a>, to justify, is not 
 simply to pardon. A condemned criminal, in whose favour the 
 executive exercises his prerogative of mercy, is never said to be 
 justified; he is simply pardoned. Nor is it to pardon and to 
 restore to favour. When a king pardons a rebellious subject, 
 and restores him to his former standing, he does not justify 
 him. Nor is it to make just inwardly. When a man accused 
 of a crime is acquitted or declared just in the eye of the law, 
 his moral character is not changed. To justify is a forensic 
 term; that is, it expresses the act of a judge. Justification is 
 a judicial act. It is a declaration that the party arraigned is 
 dixacoi;, just; and dixaiot; means right, conformed to the law. 
 To justify, therefore, is to declare that the party implicated is 
 rectus in foro judicii; that dixy, justice, does not condemn, but 
 pronounces him just, or declares herself satisfied. This is the 
 uniform meaning of the word, not only in Scripture, but also 
 in ordinary life. We never confound justification with pardon, 
 or with sanctification. It is always used in the sense antithe- 
 tical to condemnation. To condemn is not merely to punish, 
 but to declare the accused guilty or worthy of punishment ; and 
 justification is not merely to remit that punishment, but to 
 declare that punishment cannot be justly inflicted. Much less 
 does to condemn mean to render wicked, and therefore neither 
 does to justify mean to render good. When we justify God, wo 
 declare him to be just; and when God justifies the sinner, he 
 declares him to be just. In both cases the idea is, that there 
 is no ground for condemnation ; or that the demands of justice
 
 ROMANS III. 20. 127 
 
 are satisfied. Hence the terms and expressions used in Scrip- 
 ture, convertibly with the word to justify, all express the same 
 idea. Thus, in ii. 13, it is said: "Not the hearers of the law 
 are just before God (oixacoc xapa rw OeaJ,] but the doers of 
 the law shall be justified (oixatca&rjffovTae.") Here, to be just 
 before God, (in his sight or estimation,) and to be justified, 
 mean the same thing. It is clearly impossible that the apostle 
 should mean that the doers of the law shall be pardoned. What 
 should they be pardoned for? Doing the law does not call for 
 pardon : it is declared to be the ground of justification. Pardon 
 and justification therefore are essentially distinct. The one is 
 the remission of punishment, the other is a declaration that no 
 ground for the infliction of punishment exists. Quite as evident 
 is it that the apostle does not mean, in the passage referred to, 
 to say that the doers of the law shall be made holy. To justify, 
 therefore, cannot mean to make inherently just or good. In 
 iv. 6, he speaks of the " blessedness of the man to whom the 
 Lord imputeth righteousness without works." To impute right- 
 eousness is to justify. To impute is to ascribe to, to reckon to 
 one's account. But when we pardon a man, we do not ascribe 
 righteousness to him ; and therefore, again, justification is seen 
 to be different from pardon. It is quite as clear, that to impute 
 righteousness cannot mean to render holy; and therefore to 
 justify, which is to impute righteousness, cannot mean to make 
 good. In viii. 1, the apostle says, " there is no condemnation 
 to those who are in Christ Jesus." Not to condemn is neither 
 to pardon nor to sanctify, but it is to pronounce just. Nothing 
 can be clearer as a question of exegesis, than that the word 
 dixatoa) (to justify) expresses a judicial, as opposed to an execu 
 tive, and also to an efficient act. This indeed is plain from the 
 very form of the statement in this and other passages. It 
 would be utterly unmeaning to say that " no flesh shall be par- 
 doned by the works of the law," or that "no man shall be sanc- 
 tified by the deeds of the law." In the fifth chapter of this 
 epistle, Paul uses the phrase "sentence unto condemnation 
 (xpipa ere xa-cdxptfjia,") in antithesis to "sentence unto justifi- 
 cation (xpifia ere dtxaUoffcv.'") Justification therefore is as much 
 a ser.tence, a xpipa, a judgment, a declarative act, as condemna- 
 tion. It need not be remarked that this is a point of vital
 
 128 ROMANS III. 20. 
 
 importance. How can man be just with God ? is the question 
 which of all others most immediately concerns our eternal 
 interests. The answer which Pelagians and Remonstrants give 
 to this question is, that to justify is simply to pardon and tc 
 restore to divine favour. The Romanists say, that it is to 
 render inwardly pure or good, so that God accepts as right- 
 eous only those who are inwardly conformed to the law, and 
 because of that conformity. Protestants say, that to justify is 
 to declare just ; to pronounce, on the ground of the satisfaction 
 of justice, that there is no ground of condemnation in the 
 sinner ; or that he has a righteousness which meets the demands 
 of the law. The Romish doctrine of subjective justification, 
 against which the Protestants contended as for the life of the 
 Church, has in our day been revived in different forms. The 
 speculative and mystic theologians of Germany all repudiate 
 the doctrine of objective justification ; they all teach in some 
 way, that to justify is to make just; to restore the ruined 
 nature of man to its original state of purity or conformity to 
 the law of God. They are all disposed to say, with Olshausen : 
 "Von Gott kann nie etwas als gerecht anerkannt oder dafur 
 erklart werden, was es nicht ist;" i. e. G-od can never acknow- 
 ledge or declare that just, which is not so in itself. This is said 
 to prove that God cannot pronounce the sinner just, unless he is 
 inherently righteous. If this is so, then no flesh living can be 
 justified ; for no human being in this life, whether under the law 
 or the gospel, is inherently just, or inwardly conformed to the 
 law of God. The conscience of the holiest man on earth con- 
 demns him, and God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all 
 things. If not righteous in our own eyes, how can we be right- 
 eous in the sight of omniscient and infinite holiness ? Agreea- 
 bly to the principle just stated, Olshausen defines dtxatofftjvy, 
 conformity to law, so that "not only the outward act, but the 
 inward feeling and disposition answer to the divine law;" and 
 Jcxatbfo is said to express "die gottliche Thatigkeit des Her- 
 vorrufens der Sexacoff'jvy, welches natlirlich das Anerkennen 
 derselben als solcher in sich schliesst." That is, to justify is to 
 produce moral rectitude, and to acknowledge it as such. See 
 Olshausen s Commentary, Rom. iii. 21. Justification therefore 
 includes two things ; first, making a man inwardly just ; and
 
 ROMANS III. 20. 129 
 
 secondly, acknowledging him to be so. No man therefore can 
 be justified who is not inwardly conformed to the perfect law 
 of God. This is a sentence of eternal condemnation on all 
 mankind ; for there is none righteous, no not one ; neither by 
 works nor by faith, neither by nature nor by grace. Blessed 
 be God, this is not the doctrine of the Bible. God justifies the 
 ungodly; that is, he pronounces just, those who, personally con- 
 sidered, are unjust. He imputes righteousness to those without 
 works ; that is, to those who are in themselves unrighteous. In 
 no instance in the Scriptures has dtxaioco the sense of producing 
 oixaioa'jvy. We do not make God holy when we justify him 
 the unrighteous judge does not make the wicked holy when he 
 justifies him for a reward, Isa. v. 23. He surely is not an 
 abomination to the Lord, who makes the unrighteous good, but 
 he is declared to be such an abomination, who either justifies the- 
 wicked or condemns the just, Prov. xvii. 15. This doctrine is 
 not less inconsistent with the faith of the Church, than it is- 
 with the plain meaning of the Scriptures. The people of God 
 of every denomination are led as by instinct to renounce all 
 dependence upon anything done by them or wrought in them,, 
 and to cast themselves, for acceptance before God, on what 
 Christ has done for them. Their trust is in him, and not on; 
 their own inward conformity to the law. No previous training,, 
 and no trammels of false doctrine can prevent those who are- 
 truly under the guidance of the Spirit of God from thus 
 renouncing their own inward righteousness, and trusting to ih& 
 righteousness of the Son of God. 
 
 To justify then is not merely to pardon and restore to favour ;. 
 nor is it to make inwardly just or holy, but it is to declare or 
 pronounce just ; that is, judicially to declare that the demands 
 of justice are satisfied, or that there is no just ground for con- 
 demnation. The apostle here as everywhere teaches that no- 
 human being can be thus pronounced just, on the ground of his 
 personal character or conduct, because all have sinned and are 
 guilty before God. This is here expressed by saying, that no 
 flesh can be justified by works of the law. By works of the law 
 are not meant works produced or called forth by the law as a 
 mere objective rule of duty, as opposed to works produced' by an< 
 inward principle of faith, but works which the law prescribes.. 
 9
 
 130 ROMANS III. 20. 
 
 It is not by obedience to the law, by doing the works which the 
 law enjoins, that any man can be justified. As to the nature 
 of the works which are thus expressly declared not to be the 
 ground of justification, there are different opinions arising out 
 of the different views taken of the plan of salvation revealed 
 in the Scriptures. 1. The Pelagian doctrine, that the works 
 intended are the ceremonial works prescribed by the Mosaic 
 law. The doctrine assumed to be taught by the apostle is, that 
 men are not justified by any external rites, such as circumcision 
 and sacrifice, but by works morally good. 2. The Romish 
 doctrine, that the works of the law are works performed under 
 the stress of natural conscience. The Romish theory is, that 
 works done before regeneration have only the merit of con- 
 gruity; but those done after regeneration, and therefore from a 
 principle of grace, have the merit of condignity, and are the 
 ground of acceptance with God. 3. The Remonstrant or 
 Arminian doctrine is, that by the works of the law is to be 
 understood the perfect legal obedience enjoined on Adam as 
 the condition of eternal life. Under the gospel, such perfect 
 obedience is not required, God for Christ's sake being willing 
 to accept of imperfect obedience. Men therefore are not justi- 
 fied by the works of the law, but by the works of the gospel, 
 which requires only a fides obsequiosa. 4. The modern doc 
 trine already referred to is only a philosophical statement of 
 the Romish theory. Olshausen, Neander, and the school to 
 which they belong, teach that the law as an objective rule of 
 duty cannot produce real inward conformity to the will of God, 
 but only an outward obedience, and therefore there is need of a 
 new inward principle which produces true holiness in heart and 
 life. "Das Gesetz," says Olshausen, "konnte es nicht liber 
 eine aussere Legalitat hinausbringen, durch die Wiedergeburt 
 wird aber durch Gnade ein innerer Zustand, die dixaioff'juq 6?soi), 
 im Glaiibigen geschaffen, der den hochsten Forderungen ent- 
 spricht;" (see his Comment, on i. 17.) "The law can only 
 effect an external legal obedience; but by regeneration, an 
 inward state, the dtxatoouvr] #eoD, is produced by grace, which 
 meets the highest demands." The works of the law, therefore, 
 according to this view, the dtxatoa'jw] TO~J votwrj, or Ix v6[jt.oo, or 
 dtxatcouvr] idea, are those vorks or that righteousness which
 
 ROMANS III. 20. 131 
 
 men by their own power, without the cooperation of divine 
 grace, can effect; ("der Mensch sie gleichsam mit seinen 
 eignen, nach dem Fall ihm gebliebenen sittlichen Kraften, ohne 
 Wirkung der Gnade, zu Stande bringt.") Such works or such 
 righteousness cannot justify; but the inward righteousness pro- 
 duced by the grace of God, and therefore called the dcxacoabvrj 
 6zo~j or Ix xlaTecaz, meets the demands of the law, is the true 
 ground of justification. Olshausen, 3, 21. See also Neanders 
 Greschiohte der Pflanzung, pp. 503 510. The doctrine of the 
 divines of the school of Schleiermacher, presented in formulas 
 more or less mystic and transcendental is, that as we derive a 
 corrupt nature from Adam, and on the ground of that nature 
 are condemned, so we derive a holy nature from Christ, and on 
 the ground of that nature are justified. 5. In opposition to all 
 these views, which place the ground of justification, so far as it 
 is a declarative act, in man's own inward character or state, 
 Protestants with one heart and one voice teach that by the 
 works of the law, which are excluded from the ground of justi- 
 fication, are meant not only ceremonial works, not merely the 
 works of the unregenerate done without grace, not only the 
 perfect obedience required by the law originally given to 
 Adam, but works of all kinds, everything either done by us or 
 wrought in us. In proof of this, it may be urged : 1. That the 
 law of which the apostle speaks, is the law which binds all man- 
 kind. It is the law, the violation of which renders all men 
 guilty before God, as stated in ver. 19. The whole of the pre- 
 ceding argument is designed to show that both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, viewed as to their personal character, are under sin and 
 incapable of justification on the ground of their own character 
 or conduct. 2. This law which thus binds all men, demands 
 the highest kind of moral obedience. It is spiritual, extending 
 not merely to the external act, but to the secret motives. It 
 says, "thou shalt not covet;" thus condemning all irregular 
 or inordinate desires. It is holy, just, and good. It requires 
 us to love God with all the heart, and our neighbour as our- 
 selves. There can therefore be no form or kind of righteous- 
 ness, whether natural or gracious, higher than that which the 
 law demands, and which is comprehended in the works of the 
 law. 3. The contrast or opposition is never between one kind
 
 132 ROMANS III. 20. 
 
 of works and another. Paul does not teav,h that we cannot be 
 justified by ceremonial works, but are justified by good works ; 
 he does not exclude merely opera ex aolis natures viribua, i. e. 
 works of the unregenerate, and assert that works flowing from 
 a principle of grace are the ground of justification ; he does not 
 contrast imperfect obedience under the gospel with the perfect 
 obedience required of Adam; but the opposition is always 
 between works in general, all works, and faith. 4. The works 
 rejected as inadequate are called "works of righteousness," 
 Titus iii. 5; that is, works of the highest order, for there is no 
 designation of excellence of higher import than that. 5. The 
 works intended are such as Abraham, the father of the faithful, 
 whose obedience is held up as a model to all generations, per- 
 formed. 6. Whenever the ground of our justification is affirma- 
 tively stated, it is declared to be the obedience, the death, the 
 blood or work of Christ. 7. The objection to the apostle's 
 doctrine, which he answers at length in chap, vi., supposes that 
 good works of every kind are excluded from the ground of our 
 justification. That objection is, that if works are not the 
 ground of justification, then we may live in sin. There could 
 be no room for such an objection, had the apostle taught that 
 we are not justified by mere ceremonial or moral works, but by 
 works of a higher order of merit. It was his rejecting all 
 works, every kind and degree of personal excellence, and 
 making something external to ourselves, something done for us 
 as opposed to everything wrought in us, the ground of our 
 acceptance with God, that called forth the objection in question. 
 And this objection has been urged against Paul's doctrine from 
 that day to this. 8. Appeal may safely be made on this subject 
 to the testimony of the Church or the experience of the people 
 of God of every age and nation. They with one accord, at 
 least in their prayers and praises, renounce all dependence on 
 their own inward excellence, and cast themselves on the work 
 or merit of Christ. In reference to this cardinal doctrine, 
 Calvin says: "Neque vero me latet, Augustinum secus expo- 
 nere; justitiam enim Dei esse putat regenerationis gratiam; et 
 hanc gratuitam esse fatetur, quia Dominus immerentes Spiritu 
 suo nos renovat. Ab hac autem opera legis excludit, hoc est 
 }uibus homines a seipsis citra renovationem conantur Deum
 
 ROMANS III. 20. 133 
 
 proinereri. Mihi etiam plus satis notum est, quosdam novos 
 speculatores hoc dogma superciliose proferre quasi hodie sibi 
 revelatuui. Sed apostolum omnia sine exceptione opera com- 
 plecti, etiam quse Dominus in suis efficit, ex contextu planum 
 fiet. Nam certe regeneratus erat Abraham, et Spiritu Dei 
 agebatur quo tempore justificatum fuisse operibus negat. Ergo 
 a justificatione hominis non opera tantum moraliter bona (ut 
 vulgo appellant) et quse fiunt naturae instinctu excludit, sed 
 qusecunque etiam fideles habere possunt. Deinde si ilia est 
 justitise fidei definitio, Beati quorum remissse sunt iniquitates, 
 Ps. xxxii. 1; non disputatur de hoc vel illo genere operuin; 
 sed abolito operum merito sola peccatorum remissio justitiae 
 causa statuitur. Putant hsec duo optime convenire, fide justifi- 
 cari hominem per Christi gratiam ; et tamen operibus justificari, 
 quae ex regeneratione spirituali proveniant; quia et gratuito 
 nos Deus renovat, et ejus donum fide percipirnus. At Paulus 
 longe aliud principium suniit : nunquam scilicet tranquillas fore 
 conscientias, donee in solam Dei misericordiam recumbant ; ideo 
 alibi postquam docuit Deum fuisse in Christo, ut homines justi- 
 fi caret, modum sirnul exprimit, non imputando illis peccata." 
 
 For by the law is the knowledge of sin. No flesh can be 
 justified by the law, for by the law we are convinced of sin. 
 The law condemns by bringing sin clearly to our knowledge 
 as deserving the wrath of God, which is revealed against all 
 sin, and therefore it cannot justify. "Ex eadem scatebra," 
 says Calvin, "non prodeunt vita et mors." ErJtfvwatz (full or 
 accurate knowledge) is stronger than the simple word Yviom~ 
 (knowledge.] When the object of knowledge is something in 
 our own consciousness, as in the case of sin, knowledge involves 
 a recognition of the true nature of that object, and a cor- 
 responding experience. The knowledge of sin is therefore not 
 a mere intellectual cognition, but an inward conviction, includ- 
 ing both an intellectual apprehension and a due sense of its 
 turpitude and guilt. This is the office of the law. It was not 
 designed to give life, but so to convince of sin that men may be 
 led to renounce their own righteousness and trust in the right- 
 eousness of Christ as the only and all -sufficient ground of their 
 acceptance with God.
 
 104 ROMANS III. 920. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. However men may differ among themselves as to indivi- 
 dual character, as to outward circumstances, religious or social, 
 when they appear at the bar of God, all appear on the same 
 level. All are sinners, and being sinners, are exposed to con- 
 demnation, ver. 9. 
 
 2. The general declarations of the Scriptures, descriptive of 
 the character of men before the advent of Christ, are applicable 
 to men in all ages of the world, because they describe human 
 nature. They declare what fallen man is. As we recognize 
 the descriptions of the human heart given by profane writers a 
 thousand years ago, as suited to its present character, so the 
 inspired description suits us as well as those for whom it was 
 originally intended, vs. 10 18. 
 
 3. Piety and morality cannot be separated. If men do not 
 understand, if they have no fear of God before their eyes, they 
 become altogether unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, 
 vs. 1012. 
 
 4. The office of the law is neither to justify nor to sanctify. 
 It convinces and condemns. All efforts to secure the favour of 
 God, therefore, by legal obedience must be vain, ver. 20. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. As God regards the moral character in men, and as we 
 are all sinners, no one has any reason to exalt himself over 
 another. With our hands upon our mouth, and our mouth in 
 the dust, we must all appear as guilty before God, ver. 9. 
 
 2. The Scriptures are the message of God to all to whom 
 they come. They speak general truths, which are intended to 
 apply to all to whom they are applicable. What they say of 
 sinners, as such, they say of all sinners ; what they promise to 
 believers, they promise to all believers. They should, there- 
 fore, ever be read with a spirit of self-application, vs. 10 18. 
 
 3. To be prepared for the reception of the gospel, we must 
 be convinced of sin, humbled under a sense of its turpitude, 
 silenced under a conviction of its condemning power, and
 
 ROMANS III. 21. 135 
 
 prostrated at the footstool of mercy, under a feeling that we 
 cannot satisfy the demands of the law, that if ever saved, it 
 must be by other merit and other power than our own, ver. 20. 
 
 ROMANS III. 2131 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 HAVING proved that justification, on the ground of legal 
 obedience or personal merit, is for all men impossible, Paul 
 proceeds to unfold the method of salvation presented in the 
 gospel. With regard to this method, he here teaches, 1. Its 
 nature. 2. The ground on which the offer of justification is 
 made. 3. Its object. 4. Its results. 
 
 I. As to its nature, he teaches, 1. That the righteousness 
 which it proposes is not attainable by works, but by faith, 
 vs. 21, 22. 2. That it is adapted to all men, Jews as well 
 as Gentiles, since there is no difference as to their moral state, 
 vs. 22, 23. 3. It is entirely gratuitous, ver. 24. 
 
 II. As to its ground, it is the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus, or Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, vs. 24, 25. 
 
 III. Its object is the display of the divine perfections, and 
 the reconciliation of the justice of God with the exhibition of 
 mercy to the sinner, ver. 26. 
 
 IV. Its results. 1. It humbles man by excluding all ground 
 of boasting, vs. 27, 28. 2. It presents God in his true charac- 
 ter as the God and father of all men, of the Gentile no less 
 than of the Jew, vs. 29, 30. 3. It confirms the law, ver. 31. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 21. But noio the righteousness of G-od without the. law 
 is manifested, &c. Having demonstrated that no flesh can be 
 justified by the deeds of the law in the sight of God, the apostle 
 proceeds to show how the sinner can be .justified. With regard 
 to this point, he teaches, in this verse, 1. That the righteous- 
 ness which is acceptable to God is not a legal righteousness ; 
 and, 2. That it had been taught already in the Old Testament.
 
 136 KOMANS III. 21. 
 
 The words but now may be regarded as merely marking tt 
 transition from one paragraph to another, or as a designation 
 of time, now, i. e. under the gospel dispensation. In favour of 
 this view is the phrase, " to declare, at this time, his righteous- 
 ness," in ver. 26; compare also i. 17. Is manifested, i. e. clearly 
 made known, equivalent to the phrase is revealed, as used in 
 i. 17. The words righteousness of Grod, are subjected here to 
 the same diversity of interpretation that was noticed in the 
 passage just cited, where they first occur. They may mean, 
 1. A divine attribute, the justice, mercy, or general rectitude- 
 of God. 2. That righteousness which is acceptable to God, 
 which is such in his estimation. 3. God's method of justifica- 
 tion ; compare i. 17. The last interpretation gives here a very 
 good sense, and is one very commonly adopted. ' The method 
 of justification by works being impossible, God has revealed 
 another, already taught indeed, both in the law and prophets, a 
 method which is not legal (without law,) i. e. not on the condi- 
 tion of obedience to the law, but on the condition of faith, which 
 is applicable to all men, and perfectly gratuitous,' vs. 21 24. 
 But for the reasons stated above, in the remarks on i. 17, the 
 interpretation which best suits both the force of the words and 
 Paul's usage is, l The righteousness of which God is the author, 
 which comes from him, which he gives, and which consequently 
 is acceptable in his sight.' The word righteousness is employed 
 to designate that excellence which the law demands, or which 
 constitutes a man dcxaeot; (righteous] in the sight of the law, and 
 the genitive (roy #ou) of Grod, indicates the source or author 
 of that righteousness. As men therefore cannot attain such 
 righteousness by the deeds of the law, God has revealed in the 
 gospel another righteousness, which is not legal, but is attained 
 or received by faith, and is offered to all men, whether Jews or 
 Gentiles, as a free gift. The words %iopiz vo//oy, without latv, 
 may qualify the word righteousness. It is a righteousness 
 without law, or with which the law has nothing to do. It is 
 not a product of the law, and does not consist in our inward 
 conformity to its precepts ; so that -fciopcz v6/jioi> is equivalent to 
 %u>piz epfiov vofjiou, Gal. ii. 16. The connection however may 
 be with the verb : 4 Without the law (i. e. without the coopera- 
 tion of the law) the righteousness of God is revealed. But the
 
 ROMANS III. 22. 137 
 
 whole context treats of justification without works, and there- 
 fore the interpretation which makes the apostle say that a, 
 righteousness without the works of the law is made known in 
 the gospel, is more suited to the connection. The perfect 
 xzqavipitiTot has its appropriate force. The revelation has 
 been made and still continues. This righteousness, which, so 
 to speak, had long been buried under the types and indistinct 
 utterances of the old dispensation, has now in the gospel been 
 r-iade (^avc ( oa) clear and apparent. The apostle therefore adds, 
 being testified by the law and the prophets. The word is pap- 
 Topo'jut'Sfj, being testified to; the present is used because the 
 testimony of the Old Testament to the gospel was still con- 
 tinued. The Jews were accustomed to divide the Scriptures 
 into two parts the Law including the five books of Moses, and 
 the Prophets including all the other books. The word prophet 
 means one who speaks for God. All inspired men are prophets, 
 and therefore the designation applies to the historical, as well 
 as to the books which we are accustomed, in a more restricted 
 sense of the word, to call prophetical. The Law and the Pro- 
 phets therefore mean the Old Testament Scriptures. Matt. 
 v. 17, vii. 12, Luke xvi. 31, Acts xiii. 15, &c. The words desig- 
 nated a well known volume, and had to the minds of the Jews 
 as definite a meaning as the word Bible has with us. The con- 
 stant recognition of that volume in the New Testament as of 
 divine authority, relieves us of the necessity of proving sepa- 
 rately the inspiration of its several books. In sanctioning the 
 volume as the word of God, Christ and his apostles gave their 
 sanction to the divine authority of all that the volume contains. 
 That the Old Testament does teach the doctrine of "a right- 
 eousness without works," Paul proves in the next chapter, from 
 the case of Abraham, and from the declarations of David. 
 
 VERSE 22. Even the righteousness of Grod. The repetition 
 of the subject from the preceding verse; ds is therefore not 
 adversative, but is properly rendered even. This righteousness, 
 of which God is the author, and which is available before him, 
 and which is now revealed, is more particularly described as a 
 tfSpZfuoffwy (ouffa) did. TT/orecof) righteousness which is of faith, 
 i. e. by means of faith, not did Tziartv, on account of faith. Faith 
 is not the ground of our justification ; it is not the righteousness
 
 138 ROMANS III. 22. 
 
 which makes us righteous before God, (ii is not itself the 
 dexaeoa-jwj TO~J #eoD,) nor is it even represented as the inward 
 principle whence that righteousness proceeds. It is ind-.-cd the 
 principle of evangelical obedience, the source of holin* 
 heart and life ; but such obedience or holiness is not our justi- 
 fying righteousness. Holiness is the consequence and not the 
 cause of our justification, as the apostle proves at length in the 
 subsequent parts of this epistle. This righteousness is through 
 faith, as it is received and appropriated by faith. It is, more- 
 over, not faith in general, not mere confidence in God, not 
 simply a belief in the Scriptures as the word of God, much less 
 a recognition of the truth of the spiritual and invisible, but it is 
 faith of Christ; that is, faith of which Christ is the object. A 
 man may believe what else he may; unless he receives and rests 
 on Christ alone for salvation, receives him as the Son of God, 
 who loved us and gave himself for us, he has not the faith of 
 which the apostle here speaks as the indispensable condition 
 of salvation. This important doctrine is not only clearly but 
 frequently brought into view in the New Testament. What our 
 Lord constantly demanded was not merely religious faith in 
 general, but specifically faith in himself as the Son of God and 
 Saviour of the world. It is only faith in Christ, not faith as 
 such, which makes a man a Christian. " If ye believe not that 
 I am he," saith our Lord, "ye shall die in your sins," John 
 viii. 24. " To as many as received him, to them gave he power 
 to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on his 
 name," John i. 12. "That whosoever believeth on him should 
 not perish, but have eternal life," John iii. 14, 16. "Whoso- 
 ever believeth on him, shall not be confounded," Rom. ix. 33. 
 "How shall they call on him on whom they have not believed," 
 x. 14. Such passages are almost innumerable. So when the 
 object of saving faith is designated, it is said to be jiot truth in 
 general, but Christ himself. See ver. 25, (through faith in his 
 blood,) Gal. ii. 16, 20, iii. 24, Eph. iii. 12, &c. The act there- 
 fore which the sinner is required to perform, in order to be 
 made a partaker of the righteousness of God, is to believe on 
 Christ; that is, to receive him as he is revealed in the gospel 
 as the eternal Son of God, clothed in our nature, loving us and 
 giving himself as a propitiation for our sins. As there is no
 
 ROMANS III. 23. 139 
 
 verb in the text, of which dixatoa'jvy (righteousness) is the nomi- 
 native, we must either borrow the verb xzipavspwrae from ver. 
 21, 'the righteousness of God is manifested unto all;' or what 
 better suits what follows, supply ep^srae, comes (or simply |<rr.', 
 is) unto all and upon all. The words xat STIC xdvraz (and upon 
 all) are omitted in the MSS. A. c. 20. 31. 47. 66. 67; in the 
 Coptic and Ethiopic versions; and by several of the Fathers. 
 Griesbach and Lachmann leave them out of the text; most 
 modern critical editions retain them, both on external and 
 internal grounds. This righteousness is etc xdv-raz, extending 
 unto all, xal Ixi xdvraz, and over all, as covering them or over- 
 flowing them. "Eine Gnadenfluth," says Olshausen, "die an 
 alle herandringt und sogar liber alle hiniiberstrbmt." There 
 is no distinction between Jew and Gentile recognized in this 
 method of salvation. The question is not as to whether men 
 are of this or that race, or of one or another rank in life, or in 
 the Church visible or out of it. This righteousness is unto all 
 who believe. Faith is all that is demanded. The reason why 
 the same method of salvation is suited to all men is given in the 
 following clause : For there is no difference among men as to 
 their moral state or relation to God, or as to their need of sal- 
 vation, or as to what is necessary to that end. What one man 
 needs all require, and what is suited to one is suited to and 
 sufficient for all. The characteristics, therefore, of the plan of 
 salvation presented in this verse are : 1. That the righteousness 
 of God which is revealed in the gospel is to be attained by 
 faith, not by works, not by birth, not by any external rite, not 
 by union with any visible Church, but simply and only by 
 believing on Christ, receiving and resting upon him. 2. That 
 this righteousness is suited to and sufficient for all men ; not 
 only for all classes, but for all numerically; so that no one can 
 perish for the want of a righteousness suitable and sufficient, 
 clearly revealed and freely offered. 
 
 VERSE 23. For all have sinned. This is the reason why 
 there is no difference as to the condition of men. All are 
 sinners. The apostle uses the aorist ypaprov, sinned, and not 
 the perfect, have sinned. Ruckert says this is an inaccuracy; 
 Bengel explains it by assuming that the original act in paradise, 
 and the sinful disposition, and also the acts of transgression
 
 140 ROMANS III. 24. 
 
 flowing from it, are all denoted. Olshausen says that the 
 reference is mainly to original sin; for where there are no 
 peccata actualia, there is still need of redemption. Dr. Words- 
 worth, Canon of Westminster, gives the same explanation: 
 "All men sinned in Adam, all fell in him." Meyer says, 
 " The sinning of each man is presented as an historical fact of 
 the past." The idea that all men now stand in the posture 
 of sinners before God might be expressed either by saying, All 
 have sinned (and are sinners,) or all sinned. The latter is the 
 form adopted by the apostle. And come short, barspowrae, in 
 the present tense. The sinning is represented as past; the 
 present and abiding consequence of sin is the want of the glory 
 of God. By ooza ro~j Sio'j is most naturally understood the 
 approbation of God, the dbza which comes from God ; comp. 
 John xii. 43, "They love the praise of men rather than the 
 praise (dozav) of God." Calvin explains it as the glory qua 
 coram Deo locum habet, glory before God, i. e. in his estimation, 
 as he explains daaioawiq 6eo\> to be righteousness in his sight, 
 what he regards as such. This is against the natural force of 
 the genitive. Others understand 36~a in the sense of glorying, 
 non habent, unde coram Deo glorientur, Estius ; so also Luther, 
 Tholuck, (who refers to John v. 44, Joiav -and ro~j Ozo-J,) and 
 others. This idea would be expressed by the word xa'jyjff:?, 
 ver. 27, or xa'jyqjjta, iv. 2, 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 16, &c. Others again 
 say that the glory of Grod here means that glory which God 
 promises to the righteous, as in v. 2. So Beza, who says, 
 " oo~a est meta ad quam contendimus, id est, vita seterna, quaj 
 in glorise Dei participatione consistit." Riickert and Olshausen 
 say it means the image of God : ' Men are sinners, and are 
 destitute of the image of God.' But this is not the sense of the 
 words ; ' the glory of God' does not mean a glory like to that 
 of God. The first interpretation, which is the simplest, is per- 
 fectly suited to the context. All men are sinners and under 
 the disapprobation of God. In this respect there is no differ- 
 ence between them ; and therefore all need a righteousness 
 not their own, in order to their justification before God. 
 
 VERSE 24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The apostle continues hia 
 exhibition of the method of salvation by using the participle
 
 ROMANS III. 24. 141 
 
 'being justified,' instead of the verb 'we are justified,' agreea- 
 bly to a mode of construction not unusual in the Greek, though 
 much more frequent in the Hebrew, dcxauov/jievoi therefore 
 depends on bffrepowTat, ' all come short of the favour of God, 
 being justified freely.' That is, since justification is gratuitous, 
 the subjects of it are in themselves unworthy; they do not merit 
 God's favour. Justification is as to us daipedv, a matter of gift ; 
 on the part of God it is an act of grace ; we are justified r# 
 adroit ydp'.Ti by his grace. The act, so far as we are concerned, 
 is altogether gratuitous. We have not the slightest degree of 
 merit to offer as the ground of our acceptance. This is the 
 third characteristic of the method of justification which is by 
 the righteousness of God. Though it is so entirely gratuitous 
 as regards the sinner, yet it is in a way perfectly consistent 
 with the justice of God. It is through "the redemption that is 
 in Christ Jesus," that is, of which he is the auther. 
 
 The word d/ro/Wr/Jcwc, redemption, has two senses in the 
 New Testament. 1. It means properly 'a deliverance effected 
 by the payment of a ransom.' This is its primary etymological 
 meaning. 2. It means deliverance simply, without any refer- 
 ence to the mode of its accomplishment, whether by power or 
 wisdom. Luke xxi. 28, "The day of redemption (i. e. of deli- 
 verance) draweth nigh ;" Heb. xi. 25, and perhaps Rom. viii. 23 ; 
 compare Isa. 1. 2, " Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot 
 redeem?" &c. When applied to the work of Christ, as affect- 
 ing our deliverance from the punishment of sin, it is always 
 taken in its proper sense, deliver anee effected by the payment 
 of a ransom. This is evident, 1. Because in no case where it 
 is thus used, is anything said of the precepts, doctrines, or 
 power of Christ, as the means by which the deliverance is 
 effected; but uniformly his sufferings are mentioned as the 
 ground of deliverance. Eph. i. 7, " In whom we have redemp- 
 tion through his blood;" Heb. ix. 15, "By means of death, for 
 the redemption of transgressions," Col. i. 14. 2. In this pas- 
 sage the nature of this redemption is explained by the following 
 verse : it is not by truth, nor the exhibition of excellence, but 
 through Christ ' as a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith in his 
 blood.' 3. Equivalent expressions fix the meaning of the term 
 beyond doubt. 1 Tim. ii. 6, "Who gave himself as a ransom
 
 142 ROMANS III. 25. 
 
 for all ;" Matt. xx. 28, " The Son of man came to give his life 
 as a ransom for many;" 1 Peter i. 18, "Ye were not redeemed 
 with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the 
 precious blood of Christ," &c. Accordingly Christ is presented 
 as a Redeemer, not in the character of a teacher or witness, but 
 of a priest, a sacrifice, a propitiation, &c. That from which we 
 are redeemed is the wrath of God ; the price of our redemption 
 w the blood of Christ. That is in Christ Jesus. This may 
 mean by him, kv having its instrumental force, as in Acts 
 xvii. 31, (Iv dvdpi w,) by the man. As this use of the prepo- 
 sition with names of persons is infrequent, others retain its 
 usual force, in. Compare Eph. i. 7, "In whom (Iv w) we have 
 redemption," &c.; and Col. i. 14, '"We are justified by means 
 (did) of the redemption which we have in virtue of union to 
 Christ.' 
 
 VERSE 25. Wliom Grod hath set forth to be a propitiation^ 
 through faith in his bloody &c. This clause contains the ground 
 of our deliverance from the curse of the law, and of our accept- 
 ance with God, and constitutes therefore the second step in the 
 apostle's exhibition of the plan of salvation. He had already 
 taught that justification was not by works, but by faith, and 
 entirely gratuitous ; he now comes to show how it is that this 
 exercise of mercy to the sinner can be reconciled with the 
 justice of God and the demands of his law. The word xpoe- 
 $ro, hath set forth, also signifies to purpose, to determine, 
 Horn. i. 13 ; compare viii. 28. If this sense be adopted here, 
 the meaning would be, ' whom God hath purposed or decreed to 
 be a propitiation.' But the context refers to a fact rather than 
 a purpose ; and the words er c ZvoztZcv (for the manifestation,) 
 as expressing the design of the manifestation of Christ, is 
 decidedly in favour of the common interpretation. There are 
 three interpretations of the word tiaorrjoiov, (propitiation,) 
 which are worthy of attention. It was understood by many 
 of the Fathers, and after them by Luther, Calvin, Grotius, 
 Olshausen, and others, to mean the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, 
 jver the ark of the covenant, on which the high priest, on the 
 great day of atonement, sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices. 
 Here it was that God was propitiated, and manifested himself 
 AS reconciled to his people. The ground of this interpretation
 
 ROMANS III. 25. 143 
 
 is, that the original word here used is employed in the Septua- 
 gint as the designation of the mercj-seat, Exod. xxv. 18 20 ; 
 and often elsewhere. The meaning would then be, ' that God 
 had set forth Jesus Christ as a mercy-seat, as the place in 
 which, or the person in whom he was propitiated, and ready to 
 forgive and accept the sinner.' But the objections to this 
 interpretation are serious. 1. The use of the word by the 
 Greek translators of the Old Testament, probably arose from 
 a mistake of the proper meaning of the Hebrew term. The 
 Hebrew word means properly a ewer; but as the verb whence 
 it comes means literally, to cover, and metaphorically, to atone 
 for, to propitiate, the Greek translators incorrectly rendered 
 the noun IXaarypcov, the Latin propitiatorium, and our trans- 
 lators, the mercy-seat, a sense which rnss never has. It is, 
 therefore, in itself a wrong use of the Greek word. 2. This 
 interpretation is not consistent with the analogy of Scripture. 
 The sacred writers are not accustomed to compare the Saviour 
 to the cover of the ark, nor to illustrate his work by such a 
 reference. This passage, if thus interpreted, would stand alone 
 in this respect. 3. According to this view, there is an obvious 
 incongruity in the figure. It is common to speak of the blood 
 of a sacrifice, but not of the blood of the mercy-seat. Besides, 
 Paul in this very clause speaks of "his blood." See Deylingii 
 Observationes, Part II., sect. 41, and Krebss New Testament, 
 illustrated from the writings of Josephus. 
 
 The second interpretation supposes that the word $y//a 
 (sacrifice) is to be supplied : ' Whom he has set forth as a pro,- 
 pitiatory sacrifice.' 1. In favour of this interpretation is the 
 etymology of the word. It is derived from DAano^at, to appease, 
 to conciliate. Hence IXaarypcos, as an adjective, is applied to 
 anything designed to propitiate; as in the expressions "pro- 
 pitiatory monument," "propitiatory death." (Josephus, Ant. 
 XVI. 7. 1 Lib. de Mace., sect. 17. See Krebs on this verse.) 
 2. The use of analogous terms in reference to the sacrificial 
 services under the old dispensation, as ffwnjpiov, sacrificium pro 
 salute, Exod. xx. 24, xxviii. 29, for which we have in Exod. 
 xxiv. 5, fiuffia aairqp'ioi); so %apt<jrrjpia, thank-offerings, tb 
 xa&dpacov, the offering for purification. In keeping with all 
 these terms is the use of IXaan^pcov (do/to) in the sense of
 
 144 ROMANS III. 25. 
 
 propitiatory sacrifice. 3. The whole context favours this ex- 
 planation, inasmuch as the apostle immediately speaks of the 
 Wood of this sacrifice, and as his design is to show how the 
 gratuitous justification of men can be reconciled with the justice 
 of God. It is only a modification of this interpretation, if 
 ttaffryuiov be taken substantively and rendered propitiation, as 
 IB done in the Vulgate and by Beza. 
 
 The third interpretation assumes that llaarr^tov is here used 
 in the masculine gender, and means propitiator. This is the 
 explanation given by Semler and Wahl ; but this is contrary to 
 the usage of the word and inconsistent with the context. The 
 obvious meaning, therefore, of this important passage is, that 
 God has publicly set forth the Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight 
 of the intelligent universe, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the 
 sins of men. It is the essential idea of such a sacrifice, that it 
 is a satisfaction to justice. It terminates on God. Its primary 
 design is not to produce any subjective change in the offerer, 
 but to appease God. Such is the meaning of the word, from 
 which we have no right to depart. Such also is the idea which 
 it of necessity would convey to every Gentile and every Jewish 
 reader, and therefore such was the idea which the apostle 
 intended to express. For if we are not to understand the 
 language of the Bible in its historical sense, that is, in the 
 sense in which the sacred writers knew it would be understood 
 by those to whom they wrote, it ceases to have any determinate 
 meaning whatever, and may be explained according to the 
 private opinion of every interpreter. But if such be the mean- 
 ing of these words, then they conclusively teach that the ground 
 of our justification is no subjective change in us, but the propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice of Christ. Olshausen, who elsewhere plainly 
 teaches the doctrine of subjective justification, in his comment 
 on this verse, admits the common Church doctrine. He denies 
 that the work of Christ terminates on the sinner. u Every 
 sacrifice," he says, "proposed to expiate the guilt of man, and 
 to appease the wrath of God, consequently the sacrifice of all 
 sacrifices, in which alone all others have any truth, must 
 accomplish that which they only symbolized." The doctrine 
 of the Scotiats, he adds, of gratuito acceptatio, refutes itself, 
 because God can never take a thing for what it is not, and
 
 ROMANS III. 25. 145 
 
 therefore cannot accept as a satisfaction what is 110 satisfaction. 
 Grotius's view of an acceptilatio, which amounts to the same 
 thing with the doctrine of Scotus, and resolves the atonement 
 into a mere governmental display, (a popular theory reproduced 
 as a novelty in the American Churches,) he also rejects. He 
 says, "So there remains nothing but the acute theory of 
 Anselm, properly understood, of a satisfactio viearia, which 
 completely agrees with the teachings of Scripture, and meets 
 the demands of science."* According to Olshausen^ therefore^ 
 ("die tiefste Erorterungen,") the profoundest disclosures of 
 modern science have at last led back to the simple old doctrine 
 of a real vicarious satisfaction to the justice of God, as the 
 ground of the sinner's justification. 
 
 Through faith. These words, dea marsax;^ may be connected 
 with d&Otovft&oi as coordinate with dea d.7toXur pttiaswz: ' Being 
 justified through the redemption, that is, being justified through 
 faith.' But this breaks the connection between npoe&ero and; 
 ec evdstgtv. Meyer connects both dea Tziarewz and Iv T(fi ac/jtare: 
 with Trpos&STo: ' God hath, by means of faith, by his blood, set 
 forth Christ as a propitiation.' But the faith of man is not the 
 means by which God set forth Christ. The most natural con- 
 nection is with tiaffTypeov-, ' a propitiation through faith,' i. e. 
 which is received or appropriated through faith. It is a more- 
 doubtful question how the words in hi blood are to be con- 
 nected. The most obvious construction is that adopted in our 
 version, as well as in the Vulgate, and by Luther, Calvin r 
 Olshausen, and many others, 'Through faith in his blood;' s& 
 that the blood of Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, is the 
 ground of the confidence expressed in ~:<rr:c> "in Christi san- 
 guine repositam habemus fiduciam." Calvin. To this it is 
 objected, that the construction of niarit; with Iv is altogether 
 unauthorized. But there are So many cases in the New Testa- 
 ment in which this construction must be admitted, unless 
 violence be resorted to, that this objection cannot be allowed 
 much weight. See Gal. iii. 26, Eph. i. 15, Coi. i, 4, 1 Tim. iii. 13 
 2 Tim. iii. 15. Others connect both dia xi&c&az and ev r< 
 
 * So bleibt nur die richtig verstande hOchst scharfsinmge Anselmische 
 Theorio (satisfactio viearia) als diejemge iibrig, die der Schriftlehre eben so* 
 sehr genOgt, als den AnsprQcher der Wissenschaft. 
 
 10
 
 146 ROMANS III. 25. 
 
 rt as distinct qualifying clauses with r/.aarr^nov; the former, 
 as De Wette says, expressing the means of the subjective appro- 
 priation, the other the means of the objective exhibition. That 
 is, 'God has set forth Christ as a propitiation, which is availa- 
 ble through faith, and he is a propitiation by his blood.' Still 
 another method is to connect iv r<> atftaTc with ov: l Whom God 
 has set forth in his blood as a propitiation.' The construction 
 first mentioned, and sanctioned by the translators of the English 
 Bible, gives a perfectly good sense, and is most agreeable tr- 
 ibe collocation of the words. The blood of Christ is an ex- 
 pression used in obvious reference to the sacrificial character 
 of his death. It was not his death as a witness or as an exam 
 pie, but as a sacrifice, that expiates sin. And by his blood, it 
 not to be understood simply his death, but his whole work for 
 our redemption, especially all his expiatory sufferings from the 
 beginning to the end of his life. 
 
 This whole passage, which Olshausen happily calls the "Acro- 
 polis of the Christian faith," is of special importance. It 
 teaches that we are justified in a manner which is entirely of 
 grace, without any merit of our own; through, or by means 
 of faith, and on the ground of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus 
 Christ. It is evident from this statement, that Paul intended to 
 exclude from all participation in the meritorious ground of our 
 acceptance with God, not only those works performed in obedi- 
 ence to the law, and with a legal spirit, but those which flow 
 from faith and a renewed heart. The part assigned to faith in 
 the work of our reconciliation to God is that of an instrument ; 
 it apprehends or appropriates the meritorious ground of our 
 acceptance, the work or righteousness of Christ. It is not 
 itself that ground, nor the means of attaining an inherent 
 righteousness acceptable to God. This is obvious, 1. Because 
 our justification would not then be gratuitous, or without works. 
 Paul would then teach the very reverse of the doctrine which 
 he has been labouring to establish, viz. that it is not on account 
 of works of righteousness, i. e. works of the highest order of 
 excellence, that we are accepted, since these works would then 
 be the real ground of our acceptance. 2. Because we are said 
 to be justified by faith of which Christ is the object, by faith 
 in his blood, by faith in him as a sacrifice. These expressions
 
 ROMANS III. 25. 147 
 
 cannot possibly mean, that faith in Christ is, or produces, a 
 state of mind which is acceptable to God. Faith in a sacrifice 
 is, by the very force of the terms, reliance on a sacrifice. It 
 would be to contradict .the sentiment of the whole ancient and 
 Jewish world, to make the design of a sacrifice the production 
 of a state of mind acceptable to the Being worshipped, which 
 moral state was to be the ground of acceptance. There is no 
 more pointed way of denying that we are justified on account 
 of the state of our own hearts, or the character of our own acts, 
 than by saying that we are justified by a propitiatory sacri- 
 fice. This latter declaration places of necessity the ground of 
 acceptance out of ourselves ; it is something done for us, not 
 something experienced, or produced in us, or performed by us. 
 There is no rule of interpretation more obvious and more 
 important than that which requires us to understand the lan- 
 guage of a writer in the sense in which he knew he would be 
 understood by the persons to whom he wrote. To explain, 
 therefore, the language of the apostle in reference to the sacri- 
 fice of Christ, and the mode of our acceptance with God, other- 
 wise than in accordance with the universally prevalent opinions 
 on the nature of sacrifices, is to substitute our philosophy of 
 religion for the inspired teachings of the sacred writers. 
 
 To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of Gt-od. Having stated the 
 nature and ground of the gospel method of justification, Paul 
 comes, in this clause, to state its object: 'God has set forth 
 Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, to declare his righteousness.' 
 It should be remembered that the object of the death of Christ, 
 being very comprehensive, is variously presented in the word 
 of God. In other words, the death of Christ answers a great 
 number of infinitely important ends in the government of God. 
 It displays "his manifold wisdom," Eph. iii. 10, 11; it was 
 designed "to purify unto himself a people zealous of good 
 works," Titus ii. 14; to break down the distinction between the 
 Jews and Gentiles, Eph. ii. 15 ; to effect the reconciliation of 
 both Jews and Gentiles unto God, Eph. ii. 16; "to deliver ua 
 from this present evil woiid," Gal. i. 4; to secure the forgive- 
 ness of sins, Eph. i. 7; to vindicate his ways to men, in so long 
 passing by or remitting their sins, Rom. iii. 25 ; to reconcile the
 
 148 ROMANS m. 25. 
 
 exercise of mercy with the requirements of justice, ver. 26, &c. 
 These ends are not inconsistent, but perfectly harmonious. 
 The end here specially mentioned is, to declare his righteous- 
 ness. These words here, as elsewhere, are variously explained. 
 1. They are understood of some one of the moral attributes 
 of God, as his veracity, by Locke ; or his mercy, by Grotius^ 
 Koppe, and many of the moderns. Both of these interpreta- 
 tions are forced, because they assign very unusual meanings to 
 the word righteousness, and meanings little suited to the con- 
 text. 2. Most commentators, who render the phrase 'right- 
 eousness, or justification of God,' in chap. i. 17, Hi. 21, God's 
 method of justification, adopt that sense here. The meaning 
 would then be, that 'God had set forth Christ as a propitia- 
 tion, to exhibit his method of justification, both in reference to 
 the sins committed under the old dispensation, and those com- 
 mitted under the new.' But this is inconsistent with the 
 meaning of dtxatoa'jvy, which never has the sense of "method 
 of justification," and is unsuited to the context. 3. The great 
 majority of commentators understand the dtxatoa'jvr] 6sou here 
 spoken of to be the justice of God. This is the proper meaning 
 of the terms, and this the context demands. Justice is the 
 attribute with which the remission, or passing by, of sins with- 
 out punishment, seemed to be in conflict, and which therefore 
 required vindication. It was necessary that the justice of God 
 should be publicly exhibited, because he forgave sin. Besides^ 
 the apostle himself explains what he means by dtxatoo-jvy, when 
 he adds that God set forth Christ as a propitiation, in order 
 that he might be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The satis- 
 faction of justice therefore was the immediate and specific end 
 of the death of Christ. This was indeed a means to a higher 
 end. Justice was satisfied, in order that men might be sancti- 
 fied and saved ; and men are sanctified and saved, in order that 
 might be known, in the ages to come, the exceeding riches of 
 the grace of God. 
 
 For the remission of sins, Sea rqv xdpeffev, x.r.L This admits 
 of different explanations. 1. Some give 8ea with the accusa- 
 tive the same force as with the genitive ; through the forgive- 
 ness of sins. That is, the righteousness of God was manifested 
 by means of remitting sins. This is contrary to the proper
 
 ROMANS III. 25. 149 
 
 meaning of the words, and supposes that dtxatoawfj means good- 
 ness. Beza, however, adopts this view, and renders the words, 
 per remissionem; so also Reiche, Koppe, and others. 2. It is 
 taken to mean, as to, as it regards. This gives a good sense. 
 ' To declare his righteousness, as to, or as it regards the remis- 
 sion of sins.' So Raphelius, (Observationes, &c., p. 241,) who 
 quotes Polybius, Lib. 5, ch. 24, p. 517, in support of this inter- 
 pretation. This view is given by Professor Stuart. But the 
 preposition in question very rarely if ever has this force. No 
 such meaning is assigned to it by Wahl, Bretschneider, or 
 Winer. 3. The common force of the preposition is retained, 
 on account of. This clause would then assign the ground or 
 reason of the exhibition of the righteousness of God. It became 
 necessary that there should be this exhibition, because God had 
 overlooked or pardoned sin from the beginning. This is the 
 most natural and satisfactory interpretation of the passage. So 
 the Vulgate, propter remissionem, and almost all the moderns. 
 4. Others again make the preposition express the final cause or 
 object, ' To declare his righteousness for the sake of the remis- 
 sion of sins,' i. e. that sins might be remitted. So Calvin, who 
 says, "Tantundem valet praepositio causalis, acsi dixisset, 
 remissionis ergo, vel in hunc finem ut peccata deleret. Atque 
 haec definitio vel exegesis rursus confirmat quod jam aliquoties 
 monui, non justificari homines, quia re ipsa tales sint, sed 
 imputatione." But this is a very questionable force of the pre- 
 position: see Winer's Gram., 53, c. .The third interpretation, 
 therefore, just mentioned, is to be preferred. The word 7rd/?<rrc, 
 remission, more strictly means pretermission, a passing by, or 
 overlooking. Paul repeatedly uses the proper term for remis- 
 sion (d.<pz<Jiz,} as in Eph. i. 7, Heb. ix. 22, &c.; but the word 
 here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Many, 
 therefore, consider the selection of this particular term as 
 designed to express the idea, that sins committed before the 
 advent of Christ might more properly be said to be overlooked, 
 than actually pardoned, until the Sacrifice of the Redeemer had 
 been completed; see Wolf's Curce. Reference is made to Acts 
 xvii, 30, where God is said to have overlooked the times of 
 ignorance. But as the word used by the apostle is actually 
 used to express the idea of remission, in Greek writers, (see
 
 150 ROMANS III. 25. 
 
 Eisner,) the majority of commentators adopt that meaning bere. 
 The vrords -dpeaiz and dyeaiz express the same thing, but under 
 different aspects. They differ only as not punishing, and par- 
 doning. To say that God did not punish sins under the old 
 dispensation, is only a different way of saying that he pardoned 
 them. So "not to impute iniquity" is the negative statement 
 of justification. This passage, however, is one of the few which 
 the Romanists quote in support of their doctrine that there was 
 no real pardon, justification, or salvation, before the advent of 
 Christ. The ancient believers at death, according to their doc- 
 trine, did not pass into heaven, but into the limbus patrum, 
 where they continued in a semi-conscious state until Christ's 
 descensus ad inferos for their deliverance. The moden trans- 
 cendental theologians of Germany, who approach Romanism in 
 so many other points, agree with the Papists also here. Thus 
 Olshausen says, " Under the Old Testament there was no real, 
 but only a symbolical forgiveness of sins." Our Lord, howeVer, 
 speaks of Abraham as in heaven ; and the Psalms are filled 
 with petitions and thanksgiving for God's pardoning mercy. 
 
 The words, that are past, seem distinctly to refer to the times 
 before the advent of Christ. This is plain from their opposition 
 to the expression, at this time, in the next verse, and from a 
 comparison with the parallel passage in Heb. ix. 15, " He is the 
 Mediator for the redemption of sins that were under the first 
 testament." The words l\> TTJ w%fi, rendered through the for- 
 bearance of Grod, admit of different explanations. 1 . They may 
 ^e connected with the words just mentioned, and the meaning 
 be, ' Sins that are past, or, which were committed during the 
 forbearance of God ;' see Acts xvii. 20, where the times before 
 the advent are described in much the same manner. 2. Or they 
 may be taken, as by our translators, as giving the cause of the 
 remission of these sins, ' They were remitted, or overlooked 
 through the divine forbearance or mercy.' Forgiveness however 
 is always referred to grace, not to forbearance. The former 
 interpretation is also better sifited to the context. The mean- 
 ing of the whole verse therefore is, ' God has set forth Jesus 
 Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, to vindicate his righteousness 
 or justice, on account of the remission of the sins committed 
 under the former dispensation;' and not under the former
 
 ROMANS III. 26. 151 
 
 dispensation only, but also in the remission of sins at the pre- 
 sent time, as the apostle immediately adds. The interpretation 
 of the latter part of this verse, given above, according to which 
 TO. xpoYSfOvora ajitapnj fiara, (the sins before committed,} mean 
 the sins committed before the coming of Christ, is that which 
 both the context and the analogy of Scripture demand. In the 
 early Church, however, there were some who held that there is 
 no forgiveness for post-baptismal sins a doctrine recently 
 reproduced in England by the Rev. Dr. Pusey. The advocates 
 of this doctrine make this passage teach that Christ was set 
 forth as a propitiation for the forgiveness of sins committed 
 before 'baptism, that is, before conversion or the professed 
 adoption of the gospel. Ruckert and Reiche, among the recent 
 German writers, give the same interpretation. This would 
 alter the whole character of the gospel. There could be no 
 salvation for any human being ; for all men sin hourly, after as 
 well as before baptism or conversion. No man at any moment 
 of his life is perfectly conformed to the law of God. Conscience 
 always pronounces sentence against us. There could be no 
 peace in believing, no imputation or possession of righteousness. 
 We should not now be under grace, but under law, as com- 
 pletely as though Christ had never died. 
 
 VEKSB 26. To declare, I say, his righteousness, &c. This 
 clause is a resumption of what was said before, rrpbz evozizcv 
 being coordinate 'with the foregoing set; s^dsiZiv, both depending 
 upon ~()os&To: ' He set him forth er'c and 71 />oc-' The two 
 prepositions have the same sense, as both express the design or 
 object for which anything is done : ' Christ was set forth as a 
 sacrifice for the manifestation of the righteousness of God, on 
 account of the remission of the sins of old -for the manifesta- 
 tion of his righteousness at this time.' There were two pur- 
 poses to be answered ; the vindication of the character of God 
 in passing by former sins, and in passing them by now. The 
 words Iv TOJ v~jv xwpw, (at this time,} therefore stand opposed 
 to Iv Ty dvo%fj, (during the forbearance,} The death of Christ 
 vindicated the justice of God in forgiving sin in all ages of the 
 world, as those sins were by the righteous God, as Olshausen 
 eays, "punished in Christ." 
 
 That he might be just, &c.. e:f TO tlvac avrbv dixatov, in order
 
 152 ROMANS III. 26. 
 
 that, as expressing the design, and not merely the result of the 
 exhibition of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. This clause 
 therefore expresses more definitely what is meant by er'c l^dstzev 
 8cxcuo(j'j^. Christ was set forth as a sacrifice for the mani- 
 festation of the righteousness or justice of God, that is, that he 
 might be just, although the justifier of the ungodly. The word 
 just expresses the idea of uprightness generally, o being or 
 doing what the nature of the case demands. But when spoken 
 of the conduct of a judge, and in reference to his treatment of 
 sin, it must mean more specifically that modification of general 
 rectitude, which requires that sin should be treated according 
 to its true nature, that the demands of law or justice should not 
 be disregarded. A judge is unjust when he allows a criminal 
 to be pronounced righteous, and treated accordingly. On the 
 other hand, he acts justly when he pronounces the offender 
 guilty, and secures the infliction of the penalty which the law 
 denounces. What the apostle means to say is, that there is no 
 such disregard to the claims of justice in the justification of the 
 sinner who believes in Christ. This is seen and acknowledged, 
 when it is known that he is justified neither on account of hia 
 own acts or character, nor by a mere sovereign dispensing with 
 the demands of the law, but on the ground of a complete satis- 
 faction rendered by his substitute, i. e. on the ground of the 
 obedience and death of Christ. The gratuitous nature of this 
 justification is not at all affected by its proceeding on the 
 ground of this perfect satisfaction. It is, to the sinner, still the 
 most undeserved of all favours, to which he not only has not the 
 shadow of a personal claim, but the very reverse of which he 
 has most richly merited. It is thus that justice and mercy are 
 harmoniously united in the sinner's justification. Justice is no 
 less justice, although mercy has her perfect work ; and mercy 
 is no less mercy, although justice is completely satisfied. 
 
 * Just and the justifier,' &c. In the simple language of the 
 Old Testament, propositions and statements are frequently con- 
 nected by the copulative conjunction whose logical relation 
 would be more definitely expressed by various particles in other 
 languages; as Malachi ii. 14, "Against whom thou host dealt 
 treacherously, and she was thy companion," i. e. although she 
 was thy companion. ' They spak in my name, and (although)
 
 ROMANS III. 26. 153 
 
 I sent them not;" see Gresenius's Lexicon. In like manner the 
 corresponding particle in the Greek Testament is used with 
 scarcely less latitude. Matt. xii. 5, " The priests profane the 
 Sabbath, and (and yet) are blameless;" Rom. i. 13, "I pur- 
 posed to come unto you, and (but) was let hitherto;" Heb. 
 iii. 9, "Proved me, and (although they) saw my works;" see 
 Wahl's Lex. and Winer's G-ram., 57. So in the present 
 instance it may be rendered, "That God might be just, and 
 yet, or although the justifier," &c. Him which believeth in 
 Jesus, literally, 'Him who is of the faith of Jesus;" so Gal. 
 ii. 7, "They which are of faith," for believers; Gal. ii. 12, 
 "They of the circumcision," i. e. the circumcised; see Rom. 
 ii. 8, iv. 12, &c. Faith of Jesus, faith of which Jesus is the 
 object; see ver. 22. Our version therefore expresses the sense 
 accurately. He whom God is just in justifying, is the man who 
 relies on Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice. That justification is 
 a forensic act, is of necessity implied in this passage. If to 
 justify was to make subjectively just or righteous, what neces- 
 sity was there for the sacrifice of Christ ? Why should he die, 
 in order that it might be just.in God to render men holy? It 
 were an act of mercy to make the vilest malefactor good ; but 
 to justify such a malefactor would be to trample justice under 
 foot. The doctrine therefore of subjective justification perverts 
 the whole gospel. It is worthy of remark, that the orthodox 
 interpretation of the meaning of this whole paragraph is 
 acknowledged to be correct, even by those who cannot them- 
 selves receive the doctrine which it teaches. Thus Kollner, one 
 of the latest and most candid of the German commentators, 
 says : " It is clear that the true sense of this passage entirely 
 agrees with the doctrine of the Church concerning vicarious 
 satisfaction, as unfolded in the Lutheran symbols. Neverthe- 
 less, although it is certain that Paul intended to teach the doc- 
 trine of vicarious satisfaction, not merely as a figure, (or in the 
 way of accommodation,) but as a matter of full personal con- 
 viction; yet it is easy to see how he was necessarily led to 
 adopt this view, from the current opinions of the age in which 
 he lived." He proceeds to show that as the idea of vicarious 
 punishment was incorporated in the Jewish theology, the guilt 
 of the offender being laid upon the head of the victim offered in
 
 154 ROMANS III. 27. 
 
 sacrifice, Paul was unavoidably led to conceive of the work >f 
 Christ under this form. As, however, this theory, according 
 to Kollner, arose out of a false view of the nature of God, and 
 of his relation to the world, he cannot regard it as a divine 
 revelation. He proceeds to unfold what he supposes to. be 
 the eternal truth contained under these Jewish ideas, (unter 
 der Hulle der Zeitvorstellungen,) and presents very much the 
 governmental view of the atonement introduced by Grotius, and 
 reproduced in this country by the younger Edwards and his 
 followers. "Did Paul," says Kollner, "merely teach that God 
 made a symbolical exhibition of justice in the sufferings of 
 Christ, we might acquiesce in his teaching, but he says more ; 
 he constantly asserts that men are justified or constituted right- 
 eous through the blood of Christ, iii. 21, v. 19, Eph. i. 7, Col. 
 i. 14." Such writers are at least free from the guilt of per- 
 verting the word of God. They allow the Bible to mean what 
 it says, although they refuse to submit to its teaching. This is 
 better than not only refusing to submit, but forcing the Scrip- 
 tures to teach our own foregone conclusions. In Germany, the 
 subjection of the Bible to philosophy has come to an end. In 
 this country, it is still struggling for liberty. It is desirable 
 that the separation should here, as there, be made complete, 
 between those who bow to the authority of the word of God, 
 and those who acknowledge some higher rule of faith. Then 
 both parties can agree as to what the Bible really teaches. 
 
 VERSE 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By 
 what lawf of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. In this 
 and the following verses the apostle presents the tendency and 
 results of the glorious plan of salvation, which he had just 
 unfolded. It excludes boasting, ver. 27. It presents God in 
 his true character, as the God and Father of the Gentiles as well 
 as of the Jews, vs. 29, 30 ; and it establishes the law, ver. 31. 
 The word xauyr/^ai^ (boasting,) is used to express the idea of self- 
 gratulation with or without sufficient reason. In the former 
 case, it is properly rendered rejoicing, as when Paul speaks of 
 the Thessalonians being his "crown of rejoicing." In the 
 latter, the word boasting is the correct version. The word 
 properly means the act of boasting or rejoicing; at times, by 
 metonymy, the ground or reason of boasting, as in Rom. xv. 17.
 
 ROMANS III. 28. 155 
 
 Either sense suits this passage. The article .) *abfflnc, the 
 boasting, may have its appropriate force. The reference how- 
 ever is not specially to ver. 1 of this chapter, the boasting of 
 the Jews over the Gentiles, but the boasting of the sinner before 
 God. The latter however includes the former. A plan of sal- 
 vation which strips every man of merit, and places all sinners 
 on the same level before God, of course cuts off all assumption 
 of superiority of one class over another. Paul means to say 
 that the result of the gospel plan of salvation is to prevent all 
 self-approbation, self-gratulation and exaltation on the part of 
 the sinner. He is presented as despoiled of all merit, and as 
 deserving the displeasure of God. He can attribute, in no 
 degree, his deliverance from this displeasure to himself, and he 
 cannot exalt himself either in the presence of God, or in com- 
 parison with his fellow-sinners. As sin is odious in the sight 
 of God, it is essential, in any scheme of mercy, that the sinner 
 should be made to feel this, and that nothing done by or for him 
 should in any measure diminish his sense of personal ill-desert 
 on account of his transgressions. This result obviously could 
 not follow from any plan of justification that placed the ground 
 of the sinner's acceptance in himself, or his peculiar advantages 
 of birth or ecclesiastical connection ; but it is effectually secured 
 by that plan of justification which not only places the ground 
 of his acceptance entirely out of himself, but which also requires, 
 as the very condition of that acceptance, an act involving a 
 penitent acknowledgment of personal ill-desert, and exclusive 
 dependence on the merit of another. In this connection, the 
 phrases "by what law," "the law of works," and "the law of 
 faith," are peculiar, as the word vo//oc (law) is not used in its 
 ordinary sense. The general idea, however, of a rule of action 
 is retained. ' By what rule ? By that which requires works ? 
 Nay; by that which requires faith.' By the "law of faith," 
 therefore, is obviously meant the gospel. Compare ix. 31. 
 
 YEKSE 28. Therefore we conclude, &c. The common text 
 has ouv, therefore, giving this verse the character of a conclu- 
 sion from the preceding argument. The great majority, how- 
 ever, of the best manuscripts, the Yulgate and Coptic versions, 
 and many of the Fathers, have fdp^ which almost all the modern 
 editors adopt. This verse then is a confirmation of what is said
 
 156 ROMANS III. 28. 
 
 before: 'Boasting is excluded, Xoj-t^ofi^a fdp, for we think, 
 L e. are sure,' &c. See ii. 3, viii. 18, 2 Cor. xi. 5, for a similar 
 use of the word toft'opac. That a man is justified by faith. 
 If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can 
 be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of per- 
 sonal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by 
 faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther's version, therefore, 
 allcin durch den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The 
 Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as 
 a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators 
 before the tune of Luther had given the same translation. So 
 in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." 
 And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1588, 
 per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, 
 "man is justified by faith alone;" so that Erasmus, De Ratione 
 Concionandi, Lib. III., says, " Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapi- 
 data hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." 
 See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse. 
 
 Without works of the law. To be justified without works, is 
 to be justified without anything in ourselves to merit justifica- 
 tion. The works of the law must be the works of the moral 
 law, because the proposition is general, embracing Gentiles as 
 well as Jews. And as our Saviour teaches that the sum of the 
 moral law is that we should love God with all the heart, mind, 
 and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves, and as no higher 
 form of excellence than supreme love to. God is possible or con- 
 ceivable, in excluding works of the law, the apostle excludes 
 everything subjective. He places the ground of justification 
 out of ourselves. Olshausen, on this verse, reverts to his 
 Romish idea of subjective justification, and explains works of 
 the law to mean works produced by the moral law, which he 
 says spring only from ourselves, and are perishable, whereas 
 " the works of faith are imperishable as the principle whence 
 they spring." That is, we are not justified by works performed 
 from a principle of natural conscience, but by those which are 
 the fruits of a renewed nature. How utterly subversive this is 
 of the gospel, has already been remarked. The works of the 
 law are not works which the law produces, but works which the 
 law deraanis, and the law demands all that the Spirit of God
 
 ROMANS in. 29, 30. 157 
 
 effects, even in the just made perfect. And therefoie spiritual 
 as well as legal works are excluded. The contrast is not 
 between works produced by the law and works produced by 
 faith, but between works and faith, between what is done by 
 us (whether in a state of nature or a state of grace) and what 
 Christ has done for us. 
 
 VERSES 29, 30. Is he the Gf-od of the Jews only? is he not 
 also of the Q-entiles? Yes, of the G-entiles also; seeing it is 
 one Q-od who shall justify, &c. "We have here the second result 
 of the gospel method of justification; it presents God aa 
 equally the God of the Gentiles and of the Jews. He is such, 
 because ' it is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith, 
 and the uncircumcision through faith.' He deals with both 
 classes on precisely the same principles; he pursues, with 
 regard to both, the same plan, and offers salvation to both on 
 exactly the same terms. There is, therefore, in this doctrine, 
 the foundation laid for a universal religion, which may be 
 preached to every creature under heaven ; which need not, as 
 was the case with the Jewish system, be confined to any one 
 sect or nation. This is the only doctrine which suits the cha- 
 racter of God, and his relation to all his intelligent creatures 
 upon earth. God is a universal, and not a national God ; and 
 this is a method of salvation universally applicable. These 
 sublime truths are so familiar to our minds that they have, in a 
 measure, lost their power ; but as to the Jew, enthralled all his 
 life in his narrow national and religious prejudices, they must 
 have expanded his whole soul with unwonted emotions of 
 wonder, gratitude, and joy. We Gentiles may now look up to 
 heaven, and confidently say, " Thou art our Father, though 
 Abraham be ignorant of us, and though Israel acknowledge us 
 not." 
 
 Paul here, as in ver. 20, uses the future, Stxatdxrsi, will 
 justify, not for the present, nor in reference to the final judg- 
 ment, but as expressing a permanent purpose. There is no 
 distinction as to the meaning to be sought between Ix mffreax; 
 (by faith) and dca mffrsax; (through faith,) as Paul uses both 
 forms indiscriminately; ex, for example, in i. 17, iii. 20, iv. 
 16, &c., and did in iii. 22, 25, Gal. ii. 16, and sometimes first 
 the one, and then the other, in the same connection. There is
 
 158 ROMANS III. 31. 
 
 no greater difference between the Greek prepositions, as here 
 used, than between the English by and through. 
 
 VERSE 31. Do we then make void the law through faith f 
 Crod forbid: yea, we establish the law. This verse states the 
 third result of this method of salvation ; instead of invalidating, 
 it establishes the law. As Paul uses the word law in so many 
 Benses, it is doubtful which one of them is here principally 
 intended. In every sense, however, the declaration is true. 
 If the law means the Old Testament generally, then it is true ; 
 for the gospel method of justification contradicts no one of its 
 statements, is inconsistent with no one of its doctrines, and 
 invalidates no one of its promises, but is harmonious with all, 
 and confirmatory of the whole. If it means the Mosaic insti- 
 tutions specially, these were shadows of which Christ is the 
 substance. That law is abolished, not by being pronounced 
 spurious or invalid, but by having met its accomplishment, and 
 answered its design in the gospel. What it taught and promised, 
 the gospel also teaches and promises, only in clearer and fuller 
 measure. If it means the moral law, which no doubt was pro- 
 minently intended, still it is not invalidated, but established. 
 No moral obligation is weakened, no penal sanction disregarded. 
 The precepts are enforced by new and stronger motives, and the 
 penalty is answered in Him who bore our sins in his own body 
 on the tree. "Ubi vero ad Christum ventum est," says Calvin, 
 "primum in eo invenitur exacta Legis justitia, quae per imputa- 
 tionem etiam nostra fit. Deinde sanctificatio, qua formantur 
 corda nostra ad Legis observationem, imperfectam quidem illam, 
 sed ad scopum collimat." Instead of making ver. 31 the close 
 of the third chapter, many commentators regard it as more 
 properly the beginning of the fourth. The proposition that the 
 gospel, instead of invalidating, establishes the law, they say is 
 too important to be dismissed with a mere categorical assertion. 
 This, however, is Paul's method. After showing that the law 
 cannot save, that both justification and sanctification are by the 
 gospel, he is wont to state in a sentence what is the true end 
 of the law, or that the law and the gospel being both from God, 
 but designed for different ends, are not in conflict. See above, 
 ver. 20, Gal. iii. 19, 20. If this verse, however, be made 
 the beginning of th exhibition contained in the following
 
 ROMANS III. 2131. 159 
 
 chapter, then by law must be understood the Old Testament, 
 and the confirmation of the law by the gospel consists in the 
 fact that the latter teaches the same doctrine as the former. 
 4 Do we make void the law by teaching that justification is by 
 faith ? By no means : we establish the law ; for the Old Testa- 
 ment itself teaches that Abraham and David were justified 
 gratuitously by faith, and without works.' Although the sense 
 is thus good, there does not appear to be any sufficient reason 
 for departing from the common division of the chapters. The 
 next chapter is not connected with this verse by ifdp, which 
 the sense would demand, if the connection was what Meyer, 
 De Wette, and others would make it : ' We establish the law 
 when we teach faith, for Abraham was justified by faith.' The 
 connecting particle is simply o<5v, then, and gives a very dif- 
 ferent sense. Besides, it is a very subordinate object with the 
 apostle to prove that the law and the gospel agree. His design 
 is to teach the true method of justification. The cases of Abra- 
 ham and David are referred to, to prove his doctrine on that 
 point, and not merely the agreement between the old dispensa- 
 tion and the new. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The evangelical doctrine of justification by faith is the 
 doctrine of the Old, no less than of the New Testament, ver. 21. 
 
 2. Justification is pronouncing one to be just, and treating 
 him accordingly, on the ground that the demands of the law 
 have been satisfied concerning him, vs. 24 26. 
 
 3. The ground of justification is not our own merit, nor faith, 
 nor evangelical obedience ; not the work of Christ in us, but his 
 work for us, i. e. his obedience unto death, ver. 25. 
 
 4. An act may be perfectly gratuitous as regards its object, 
 and at the same time proceed on the ground of a complete 
 satisfaction to the demands of the law. Thus justification is 
 gratuitous, not because those demands are unsatisfied, but 
 because it is granted to those who have no personal ground of 
 recommendation, vs. 24, 26 
 
 5. God is the ultimate end of all his own acts. To declare 
 his glory is the highest and best end which he can propose for 
 himself or his creatures, ver. 25.
 
 160 ROMANS III. 21- -31. 
 
 6. The atonement does not consist in a display to others cf 
 the divine justice. This is one of its designs and results ; but 
 it is such a display only by being a satisfaction to the justice 
 of God. It is not a symbol or illustration, but a satisfac- 
 tion, Ver. 26. 
 
 7. All true doctrine tends to humble men, and to exalt 
 God; and all true religion is characterized by humility and 
 reverence, ver. 27. 
 
 8. God is a universal Father, and all men are brethren, 
 vs. 29, 30. 
 
 9. The law of God is immutable. Its precepts are always 
 binding, and its penalty must be inflicted either on the sinner 
 or his substitute. When, however, it is said that the penalty 
 of the law is inflicted on the Redeemer, as the sinner's substi- 
 tute, or, in the language of Scripture, that "he was made a 
 curse for us," it cannot be imagined that he suffered the same 
 kind of evils (as remorse, &c.) which the sinner would have suf- 
 fered. The law threatens no 'specific kind of evil as its penalty. 
 The term death, in Scripture, designates any or all of the evils 
 inflicted in punishment of sin. And the penalty, or curse of 
 the law, (in the language of the Bible,) is any evil judicially 
 inflicted in satisfaction of the demands of justice. To say, 
 therefore, that Christ suffered to satisfy the law, to declare 
 the righteousness of God, or that he might be just in justifying 
 him that believes in Jesus, and to say that he bore the penalty 
 of the law, are equivalent expressions, ver. 31. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. As the cardinal doctrine of the Bible is justification by 
 faith, so the turning point in the soul's history, the saving act, 
 is the reception of Jesus Christ as the propitiation for our 
 sins, ver. 25. 
 
 2. All modes of preaching must be erroneous, which do not 
 lead sinners to feel that the great thing to be done, and done 
 first, is to receive the Lord Jesus Christ, and to turn unto 
 God through him. And all religious experience must be de- 
 fective, which doe* not embrace distinctly a sense of the justice 
 of our condemnation, and a conviction of the sufficiency of
 
 ROMANS IV. 117. 161 
 
 the work of Christ, and an exclusive reliance up^n it as such, 
 ver. 25. 
 
 3. As God purposes his own glory as the end of all that he 
 does, so ought we to have that glory as the constant and com- 
 manding object of pursuit, ver. 25. 
 
 4. The doctrine of atonement produces in us its proper effect, 
 when it leads us to see and feel that God is just ; that he is 
 infinitely gracious ; that we are deprived of all ground of boast- 
 ing ; that the way of salvation, which is open for us, is open 
 for all men ; and that the motives to all duty, instead of being 
 weakened, are enforced and multiplied, vs. 25 31. 
 
 5. In the gospel all is harmonious : justice and mercy, as it 
 regards God ; freedom from the law, and the strongest obliga- 
 tions to obedience, as it regards men, vs. 25, 31. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE object of this chapter is to confirm the doctrine of justifi* 
 cation by faith. It is divided into two parts. The first, from 
 ver. 1 to 17 inclusive, contains the argumentative portion. The 
 second, ver. 18 to 25, is an illustration of the faith of Abraham* 
 
 ROMANS IV. 117. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 PAtTL, from the 21st verse of the preceding chapter, had been 
 setting forth the gospel method of salvation. That this is the 
 true method he now proves, 1. From the fact that Abraham 
 was justified by faith, vs. 15. That this was really the case 
 he shows, first, because otherwise Abraham would have had 
 ground of boasting, even in the sight of God, ver. 2; second, 
 because the Scriptures expressly declare that he was justified 
 by faith, ver. 8. Verses 4, 5, are designed to show that being 
 11
 
 162 ROMANS IV. 1. 
 
 justified by faith is tantamount with being justified gratu- 
 itously, and therefore all those passages which speak of the 
 gratuitous forgiveness of sins may be fairly cited in favour of 
 the doctrine of justification by faith. 2. On this principle he 
 adduces Ps. xxxii. 1, 2, as his second argument; for the/e 
 David speaks not of rewarding the righteous as such, or for 
 their righteousness, but of the free acceptance of the unworthy, 
 vs. 6 8. 3. The third argument is designed to show that cir- 
 cumcision is not a necessary condition of justification, from the 
 fact that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, and 
 therefore is the head and father of all believers, whether cir- 
 cumcised or not, vs. 9 12. 4. The fourth argument is from 
 the nature of the covenant made with Abraham, in which the 
 promise was made on the condition of faith, and not of legal 
 obedience, vs. 13, 14. 5. And the fifth, from the nature of the 
 law, vs. 15 17. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father 
 as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? The connection of this 
 verse with the preceding train of reasoning is obvious. Paul 
 had taught that we are justified by faith ; as well in confirma- 
 tion of this doctrine, as to anticipate an objection from the Jew, 
 he refers to the case of Abraham : ' How was it then with 
 Abraham? How did he obtain justification?' The point in 
 dispute was, how justification is to be attained. Paul proposes 
 to decide the question by reference to a case about which no 
 one could doubt. All admitted that Abraham was justified. 
 The only question was, How ? The particle o5v, therefore, is 
 not inferential, but simply indicates transition. What then 
 shall we say about Abraham? In the question, however, TC 
 obv kpobfjLtv, x.T.L the ri belongs to e&pyxevae: ' What shall we 
 say that Abraham hath found?' i. e. attained. The words 
 xara adpxa do not belong to Tta-rspa, ' our father according to 
 the flesh,' but to the preceding infinitive, ebpyxevai, 'what hath 
 he attained through the flesh T Although the question is inde- 
 finite, the connection shows that Paul meant to ask whether 
 Abraham secured justification before God, xara. adpxa, through
 
 ROMANS IV. 2. 163 
 
 the flesh. The word flesh admits in this connection of different 
 explanations. Calvin says it is equivalent to naturaliter, ex 
 seipso, and Grotius much to the same effect, propriis mribus, 
 'through his own resources.' Not much different from this is 
 the explanation of Meyer, Tholuck, and De Wette nach sein 
 menschlicher Weise that is, after a purely human way ; so that 
 ado? stands opposed to the divine TTveD/za, (Holy Spirit.) If 
 this implies that Abraham was not justified by natural, but was 
 justified by spiritual works, (works done after regeneration,) it 
 contradicts the whole teaching of the apostle. This, however, 
 though naturally suggested as the meaning of the passage as 
 thus explained, is not the doctrine of either of the commenta- 
 tors just named. Paul gives his own interpretation of xara 
 adpxa in the following verse: 'Did Abraham,' he asks, 'attain 
 justification according to the flesh ? No, for if he was justified 
 by works, he hath whereof to boast.' It is plain that he uses 
 the two expressions, according to the flesh and by works, as 
 equivalent. This meaning of ffdp is easily explained. Paul 
 uses the word for what is external, as opposed to what is inter- 
 nal and spiritual, and thus for all external rites and ceremonial 
 works, and then for works without limitation. See Gal. iii. 3, 
 vi. 12, Philip, iii. 3, 4. In this last passage Paul includes, 
 under the flesh, not only his Hebrew descent, his circumcision, 
 his being a Pharisee, his blameless adherence to the Jewish law, 
 but everything comprehended under his "own righteousness," 
 as distinguished from "the righteousness which is of God (!/rr 
 7tio-i] on the condition of faith." This is clearly its sense here. 
 It includes everything meant by "works," and "works" includes 
 all forms of personal righteousness. This same result is reached 
 in another way. Kara adpxa may mean, as Meyer and others 
 say, after a human method, i. e. after the manner of men ; and 
 this may be understood to mean after the manner common 
 among men, i. e. through works, or personal merit, which is the 
 way that men adopt to secure favour with others. This is the 
 explanation given by Kbllner. 
 
 VERSE 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath 
 whereof to glory, but not before G-od. The apostle's mode of 
 reasoning is so concise as often to leave some of the steps of 
 his argurcynt to be supplied, which, however, are almost always
 
 164 ROMANS IV. 3. 
 
 sufficiently obvious from the context. As just remarked, & 
 negative answer is to be supposed to the question in the firsi 
 verse. Abraham did not attain the favour of God through 
 the flesh. The force of for, at the beginning of this verse, is 
 then obvious, as introducing the reason for this answer. The 
 passage itself is very concise, and the latter clause admits of 
 different interpretations. ' If Abraham was justified by works, 
 he might indeed assert his claim to the confidence and favour 
 of his fellow-men, but he could not have any ground of boasting 
 before God.' This view, however, introduces an idea entirely 
 foreign from the passage, and makes the conclusion the very 
 opposite of that to which the premises would lead. For if justi- 
 fied by works, he would have ground of boasting before God. 
 The interpretation given by Calvin is altogether the most satis- 
 factory and simple: "Epichirema est, id est imperfecta ratio- 
 ?inatio, quae in hanc formam colligi debet. Si Abraham operibus 
 justificatus est, potest suo merito gloriari ; sed non habet unde 
 glorietur apud Deum; ergo non ex operibus justificatus est." 
 'If Abraham was justified by works he hath whereof to glory; 
 but he hath not whereof to glory before God, and therefore he 
 was not justified by works;* the very conclusion which Paul 
 intended to establish, and which he immediately confirms by 
 the testimony of the Scriptures. The argument thus far is 
 founded on the assumption that no man can appear thus con- 
 fidently before God, and boast of having done all that was 
 required of him. If the doctrine of justification by works 
 involves, as Paul shows it does, this claim to perfect obedience, 
 it must be false. And that Abraham was not thus justified, he 
 proves from the sacred record. 
 
 VERSE 3. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed 
 God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. The con- 
 nection of this verse with the preceding is this: Paul had just 
 said that Abraham had no ground of boasting with God ; for, 
 what saith the Scripture ? Does it refer the ground of Abra- 
 ham's justification to his works? By no means. It declares 
 he was justified by faith; which Paul immediately shows is 
 equivalent to saying that he was justified gratuitously. The 
 passage quoted by the apostle is Gen. xv. 6, "Abraham be- 
 lieved God, and it was counted unto him (i. e. imputed to him)
 
 ROMANS IV. 3. 165 
 
 for righteousness." This is an important passage, as the phrase 
 "to impute faith for righteousness," occurs repeatedly in Paul's 
 writings. 1. The primary meaning of the word Aofiofjtcu, here 
 rendered to count to, or impute, is to reason, then, to reckon, or 
 number; 2 Chron. v. 5, "Which could not be numbered for 
 multitude;" Mark xv. 28, "He was numbered with the trans- 
 gressors;" see Isa. liii. 17, &c. 2. It means to esteem, or 
 regard as something, that is, to number as belonging to a cer- 
 tain class of things ; Gen. xxxi. 15, "Are we not counted of him 
 strangers?" Isa. xl. 17, &c.; compare Job xix. 11, xxxiii. 10, 
 in the Hebrew. 3. It is used in the more general sense of pur- 
 posing, devising, considering, thinking, &c. 4. In strict con- 
 nection with its primary meaning, it signifies to impute, to et 
 to one's account; that is, to number among the things belonging 
 to a man, or chargeable upon him. It generally implies the 
 accessory idea of ' treating one according to the nature of the 
 thing imputed.' Thus, in the frequent phrase, to impute sin, 
 as 2 Sam. xix. 19, "Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto 
 me," i. e. 'Let him not lay it to my charge, and treat me 
 accordingly;" compare 1 Sam. xxii. 15, in the Hebrew and 
 Septuagint; Ps. xxxii. 2, (Septuagint, xxxi.) "Blessed is the 
 man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," &c. And in 
 the New Testament, 2 Cor. vi. 19, "Not imputing unto men 
 their trespasses;" 2 Tim. iv. 15, "/ pray G-od that it may not 
 be laid to their charge," &c. These and numerous similar pas- 
 sages render the scriptural idea of imputation perfectly clear. 
 It is laying anything to one's charge, and treating him accord- 
 ingly. It produces no change in the individual to whom the 
 imputation is made; it simply alters his relation to the law 
 All those objections, therefore, to the doctrine expressed by 
 this term, which are founded on the assumption that imputation 
 alters the moral character of men ; that it implies an infusion 
 of either sin or holiness, rest on a misconception of its nature. 
 It is, so far as the mere force of the term is concerned, a matter 
 of perfect indifference whether the thing imputed belonged 
 antecedently to the person to whom the imputation is made or 
 not. It is just as common and correct to speak of laying to a 
 man's charge what does not belong to him, as what does. That 
 a thing can seldom be justly imputed to a person to whom it
 
 166 ROMANS IV. 3. 
 
 does not personally belong, is a matter of course. But that the 
 word itself implies that the thing imputed must belong to the 
 person concerned, is a singular misconception. These remarks 
 have, of course, reference only to the meaning of the word. 
 Whether the Bible actually teaches that there is an imputation 
 of either sin or righteousness, to any to whom it does not per- 
 sonally belong, is another question. That the Bible does speak 
 both of imputing to a man what does not actually belong to 
 him, and of not imputing what does, is evident from the follow- 
 ing, among other passages, Levit. xvii. 3, 4 : ' What man soever 
 killeth an ox, and bring^th it not to the door of the taberna- 
 cle,' &c., "blood shall be imputed to that man;" that is, blood- 
 guiltiness or murder, a crime of which he was not actually 
 guilty, should be laid to his charge, and he should be put to 
 death. "Sanguis hie est ccedes, says Rosenmiiller ; perinde Deo 
 displicebit, ac si ille hominem occidisset, et mortis reus judi- 
 cabitur." "Als Blutschuld soil es angerechnet werden diesem 
 Manne." Cresenius. On the other hand, Levit. vii. 18, if any 
 part of a sacrifice is eaten on the third day, the offering " shall 
 not be imputed to him that made it." Paul, speaking to Phile- 
 mon of the debt of Onesimus, says, " put that on my account," 
 i. e. impute it to me. The word used in this case is the same 
 as that which occurs in Rom. v. 13, " Sin is not imputed where 
 there is no law;" and is in its root and usage precisely synony- 
 mous with the word employed in the passage before us, when 
 the latter is used in reference to imputation. No less than 
 twice also, in this very chapter, vs. 6 and 11, Paul speaks of 
 'imputing righteousness,' not to those to whom it personally 
 belongs, certainly, but to the' ungodly, ver. 5; to those who 
 have no works, ver. 6. 
 
 Professor Storr, of Tubingen, De vario sensu vocis dixaio?, 
 &c., in Nov. Test., in his Opuscula, Vol. I., p. 224, says, 
 " Since innocence or probity (expressed by the word righteous- 
 ness} does not belong to man himself, it must be ascribed or 
 imputed to him. In this way the formula, ' righteousness which 
 is of God,' Philip, iii. 9, and especially the plainer expressions, 
 'to impute faith for righteousness,' Rom. iv. 5, and 'to impute 
 righteousness,' are to be understood." We readily admit, he 
 says, that things which actually belong to a man may also be
 
 ROMANS IV. 3. 167 
 
 said to be imputed to him, as was the case with Phineas, &c., 
 and then adds, "Nevertheless, as he is said not to impute an 
 action really performed, Levit. vii., 2 Sam. xix., &c., who does 
 not so regard it as to decree the fruit and punishment of it ; so, 
 on the other hand, those things can be imputed, Levit. xvii. 4, 
 which are not, in fact, found in the man, but which are so far 
 attributed to him, that he may be hence treated as though 
 he had performed them. Thus righteousness may be said to 
 be imputed, Rom. iv. 6, 11, when not his own innocence and 
 probity, which God determines to reward, is ascribed to the 
 believer, but when God so ascribes and imputes righteousness, 
 of which we are destitute, that we are treated as innocent and 
 just." On page 233, he says, "Verbum Ao^sff&at monstrat 
 gratiam, Rom. iv. 4, nam dixaiovjuyy nostram negat." 
 
 This idea of imputation is one of the most familiar in all the 
 Bible, and is expressed in a multitude of cases where the term 
 is not used. When Stephen prayed, Acts vii. 60, " Lord, lay 
 not this sin to their charge," he expressed exactly the same 
 idea that Paul did, when he said, 2 Tim. iv. 16, "I pray G-od it 
 may not be laid to their charge," although the latter uses the 
 word impute (Xofta&dr],} and the former does not. So the 
 expressions, "his sin shall be upon him," "he shall bear his 
 iniquity," which occur so often, are perfectly synonymous with 
 the formula, "his sin shall be imputed to him;" and, of course, 
 "to bear the sins of another," is equivalent to saying, "thoso 
 sins are imputed." The objection, therefore, that the word 
 impute does not occur in reference to the imputation of the sin 
 or righteousness of one man to another, even if well founded, 
 which is not the fact, is of no more force than the objections 
 against the doctrines of the Trinity, vicarious atonement, per- 
 severance of the saints, &c., founded on the fact that these 
 words do not occur in the Bible. The material point surely is, 
 Do the ideas occur ? The doctrine of " the imputation of right- 
 eousness" is not the doctrine of this or that school in theology. 
 It is the possession of the Church. It was specially the glory 
 and power of the Reformation. Those who differed most else- 
 where, were perfectly agreed here. Lutherans and Reformed, 
 alienated from each other by the sacramentarian controversy, 
 were of one mind on this great doctrine. The testimony of the
 
 168 ROMANS IV. 3. 
 
 learned Rationalist, Bretschneider, if any testimony on so 
 notorious a fact is necessary, may be here cited. Speaking 
 with special reference to the Lutheran Church, he says, " The 
 symbolical books, in the first place, contradict the scholastic 
 representation of justification, followed by the Romish Church, 
 that is, that it is an act of God, by which he communicates to 
 men an inherent righteousness, (justitia habitualis, infusa,} 
 i. e. renders them virtuous. They described it as a forensic or 
 judicial act of God, that is, an act by which merely the moral 
 relation of the man to God, not the man himself (at least not 
 immediately,) is changed." "Hence, justification consists of 
 three parts: 1. The imputation of the merit of Christ. '2. The 
 remission of punishment. 3. The restoration of the favour and 
 the blessedness forfeited by sin." "By the imputatio justitue 
 (or meriti) Ohristi, the symbolical books understand that judg- 
 ment of God, according to which he treats us as though we had 
 not sinned, but had fulfilled the law, or as though the merit of 
 Christ was ours; see ApoL, Art. 9, p. 226, Merita propitiate- 
 ris aliis donantur imputatione divina, ut per ea, tanquam 
 propriis meritis justi reputemur, ut si quis amicus pro aniico 
 solvit aes alienum, debitor alieno merito tanquam proprio libe- 
 ratur." Bretschneider' 8 Entwickelimg aller in dcr Dog. vor- 
 kommtnden Begriffe, pp. 631, 632, &c. 
 
 But to return to the phrase, ' Faith is imputed for righteous- 
 ness.' It is very common to understand faith here, to include 
 its object, i. e. the righteousness of Christ ; so that it is not, 
 faith considered as an act, which is imputed, but faith consi- 
 dered as including the merit which it apprehends and appro- 
 priates. Thus hope is often used for the thing hoped for, as 
 Rom. viii. 24, "Hope that is seen is not hope," &c.; and faith 
 for the things believed, Gal. i. 23, " He preacheth the faith," &c. 
 In illustration of this idea, Gerhard, the leading authority in 
 the Lutheran Church, during the seventeenth century, says, 
 '* Quemadmodum annulus, cui inclusa est gemma, clicitur valere 
 aliquot coronatis, pretiosissima ita fides, quse apprehendit Christi 
 justitiam, dicitur nobis imputari ad justitiam, quippe cujus est 
 organum apprehendens." Loci Tom. VII. 238. Although there 
 are difficulties attending this interpretation, it cannot, with any 
 onsistency, be exclaimed against by those who make faith to
 
 ROMANS IV. 3. 169 
 
 include the whole work of the Spirit on the heart, and its fruits 
 in the life ; as is done by the majority of those who reject this 
 view of the passage. Besides this interpretation, there are 
 three other explanations which deserve consideration. The first 
 is that adopted by the Remonstrants or Anninians. According 
 to their view, dixwoo'jyq is to be taken in its ordinary sense of 
 righteousness, that which constitutes a man righteous in the 
 eye of the law. They understand the apostle, when he says, 
 "Faith was imputed for righteousness," as teaching that faith 
 was regarded or counted as complete obedience to the law. 
 As men are unable to render that perfect obedience which the 
 law given to Adam required, God, under the gospel, according 
 to this view, is pleased to accept of faith, (a fides obsequiosa, as 
 it is called, i. e. faith including evangelical obedience,) instead 
 of the righteousness which the law demands. Faith is thus 
 made, not the instrument, but the ground of justification. It 
 is imputed for righteousness in the sense of being regarded and 
 treated as though it were complete obedience to the law. It 
 must- be admitted, that so far as this single form of statement is 
 concerned, this interpretation is natural, and consistent with 
 usage. Thus uncircumcision is said to be imputed for circum- 
 cision, that is, the former is regarded as though it were the 
 latter. This, however, is not the only sense the words will 
 naturally bear, and it is utterly inconsistent with what the 
 Scriptures elsewhere teach. 1. It contradicts all those passages 
 in which Paul and the other sacred writers deny that the ground 
 of justification is anything in us, or done by us. These passages 
 are too numerous to be cited ; see chap. iii. 20, where it is shown 
 that the works which are excluded from the ground of justifica- 
 tion are n,ot ceremonial works merely, nor works performed 
 with a legal spirit, but all works, without exception ; works of 
 righteousness, Titus iii. 5, i. e. all right or good works. But 
 faith considered as an act, is as much a work as prayer, repent- 
 ance, almsgiving, or anything of the kind. And it is as much 
 an act of obedience to the law, as the performance of any other 
 duty ; for the law requires us to do whatever is in itself right. 
 2. It contradicts all those passages in which the merit of Christ, 
 in any form, is declared to be the ground of our acceptance. 
 Thus in chap. iii. 25, it is Christ's propitiatory sacrifice;
 
 170 ROMANS IV. 3. 
 
 chap. v. 18, 19, it is his obedience or righteousness; in many 
 other places it is said to be his death, his cross, his blood. 
 Faith must either be the ground of our acceptance, or the means 
 or instrument of our becoming interested in the true meritorious 
 ground, viz. the righteousness of Christ. It cannot stand in 
 both relations to our justification. 3. It is inconsistent with 
 the office ascribed to faith. We are said to be saved by, or 
 through faith, but never on account of our faith, or on the 
 ground of it. (It is always did. xiffrsfoz, or Ix r/trrewc, but 
 never oca Kiariv.} The expressions, "through faith in his blood," 
 iii. 25, "by faith in Jesus Christ," &c., admit of no other inter- 
 pretation than ' by means of faith in the blood of Christ, or in 
 Christ himself, as the ground of confidence.' The interpreta- 
 tion, therefore, under consideration is at variance with the very 
 nature of faith, which necessarily includes the receiving and 
 resting on Christ as the ground of acceptance with God ; and, 
 of course, implies that faith itself is not that ground. 4. We 
 accordingly never find Paul, nor any other of the sacred writers, 
 referring his readers to their faith, or anything in themselves, 
 as the ground of their confidence. Even in reference to those 
 most advanced in holiness, he directs them to what Christ has 
 done for them, not to anything wrought in them, as the ground 
 of their acceptance. See a beautiful passage to this effect, in 
 Neanders Gf-elegenheitschriften, p. 23. After stating that the 
 believer can never rest his justification on his own spiritual life, 
 or works, he adds, "It would, indeed, fare badly with the 
 Christian, if on such weak ground as this he had to build his 
 justification, if he did not know that ' if he confesses his sins, 
 and walks in the light, as he is in the light, he blood of Jesus 
 Christ his Son cleanses from all sin.' Paul, therefore, refers 
 even the redeemed, disturbed by the reproaches of conscience, 
 amidst the conflicts and trials of life, not to the work of Christ 
 in themselves, but to what the love of God in Christ has done for 
 them, and which, even notwithstanding their own continued sin- 
 fulness, remains ever sure." 5. Paul, by interchanging the 
 ambiguous phrase, 'faith is imputed for righteousness,' with 
 the more definite expressions, 'justified through or by means 
 of faith," 'justified through faith in his blood,' fixes the sense 
 in which the clause in question is to be understood. It must
 
 ROMANS IV. 3. 1T1 
 
 express the idea, that it was by means of faith that Abraham 
 came to be treated as righteous, and not that faith was taken 
 in lieu of perfect obedience. See this subject more fully dis- 
 cussed in Owen on Justification, chap, xviii. 
 
 According to the second view, the word righteousness is taken 
 in a much more limited sense, and the phrase ' to impute faith 
 for righteousness,' is understood to mean 'faith was regarded as 
 right, it was approved.' This interpretation also is perfectly 
 consistent with usage. Thus, Ps. cvi. 31, it is said of the zeal 
 of Phineas, "It was counted unto him for righteousness." This 
 of course does not mean that it was regarded as complete 
 obedience to the law, and taken in its stead as the ground of 
 justification. It means simply that his zeal was approved of. 
 It was regarded, says Dr. Owen, " as a just and rewardable 
 action." "Divinitus approbatum erat," says Tuckney, Prcelec- 
 tiones, p. 212, " tanquam juste- factum." In like manner, Deut. 
 xxiv. 13, it is said of returning a pledge, " It shall be right- 
 eousness unto thee before the Lord thy God." Agreeably to 
 the analogy of these passages, the meaning of this clause may 
 be, * his faith was regarded as right ; it secured the approbation 
 of God.' How it did this, must be learned from other passages. 
 The third interpretation agrees with the first, in taking d:xcu- 
 oa'jyy in its proper sense, (righteousness,} but gives a different 
 force to the preposition ere* 'Faith was imputed to him unto 
 righteousness,' that is, in order to his being regarded and treated 
 as righteous. In support of this view, reference is made to such 
 frequently recurring expressions as e/c ff&tqpiav, (unto salva- 
 tion,) 'that they might be saved,' x. 1; ere ^rdvotav, (unto 
 repentance,} 'that they might repent,' Matt. iii. 11. In x. 10, 
 of this epistle, the apostle says, ' With the heart man believeth 
 unto righteousness,' (src dtxatoavvyv,} i. e. in order to becoming 
 righteous, or so as to become righteous. Faith secures their 
 being righteous. According to this view of the passage, all it 
 teaches is, that faith and not works secured Abraham's justifica- 
 tion before God. And this is the object which the apostle has 
 in view. The precise relation in which faith stands to justifi- 
 cation, whether it is the instrument or the ground, however 
 clearly taught elsewhere, this particular expression leaves unde- 
 termined. It simply asserts that Abraham was justified as a
 
 172 ROMANS IV. 3. 
 
 believer, and not as a worker, (l/jfo^o/^voc,) as Paul expresses 
 it in the next verse. 
 
 The Rationalistic theologians of modern tiroes agree with the 
 Socinians in teaching that justification by faith, as distinguished 
 from justification by works, is nothing more than the doctrine 
 that moral character is determined more by the inward princi- 
 ple than by the outward act. By/a&A, in the case of Abraham, 
 they understand confidence in God; a pious frame of mind, 
 which is influenced by considerations drawn from the unseen 
 and spiritual world, the region of truth and eternal principles, 
 rather than by either mercenary feelings or outward objects, 
 When, therefore, the Scriptures say, ' God imputed Abraham's 
 faith for righteousness,' the meaning is, God accepted him for 
 his inward piety, for the elevated principle by which his whole 
 life was governed. If this is what Paul means, when he speaks 
 of Abraham being justified by faith, it is what he means when 
 he teaches that men are now justified by faith. Then the whole 
 gospel sinks to the level of natural religion, and Christ is in no 
 other sense a Saviour, than as by his doctrines and example he 
 leads men to cultivate piety. It is perfectly obvious that Paul 
 means to teach that sinners are now justified in the same way 
 that Abraham was. He proves that we are justified by faith, 
 because Abraham was justified by faith. If faith means inward 
 piety in the one case, it must have the same meaning in the 
 other. But as it is expressly said, over and over, in so many 
 words, that men are now justified by faith in Christ, it follows 
 of necessity that faith in Christ was the faith by which Abra- 
 ham was justified. He believed the promise of redemption, 
 which is the promise that we embrace when we receive and rest 
 on Christ for salvation. Hence it is one principal object of the 
 apostle's argument in the latter part of this ebaptcr, and in the 
 third chapter of his Epistle to the Galatiam, to show that we 
 are heirs of the promise made to Abraham, because we have 
 the same faith that he had; the same, that is, ooth in its nature 
 and object. 
 
 It is further to be remarked, that Aofl'sa&fjL' ec? oixruoff'j^v, 
 (to impute for righteousness,) and dexcuoittt&ae, (to be justified,) 
 me,-n the same thing. Thus Calvin say.i, " Tantum notemus, 
 eos <5[U ; .bus justitia i^aputatur, justificari: q\u.ido haec duo a
 
 ROMANS IV. 8. 173 
 
 Paulo tanquam synonyma ponuntur." Yet, strange to say, 
 Olshausen asserts that they are very different. To be justified 
 (dcxaioit&at] and to have righteousness imputed, he says, differ as 
 the Romish and the Protestant doctrines of justification differ. 
 The former means to be made subjectively righteous, the latter 
 simply to be regarded as righteous. "Was Jemandem ange- 
 rechnet wird, das hat er nicht, er wird aber angesehen und 
 behandelt, als hatte er es." What is imputed to a man, that lie 
 has not, but he is regarded and treated, as though he had it. 
 Abraham therefore was not justified, because before the coming 
 of Christ, any true righteousness (dtxatoavvrj &oi>, as Olshausen 
 says) was impossible; he was only regarded as righteous.* But 
 as what is said of Abraham is said also of believers under the 
 gospel, since to them as well as to him, righteousness is said to 
 be imputed, it follows that believers are not really justified in 
 this life. This is the conclusion to which he is led by two prin- 
 ciples. The first is, that the word 8:xat6a) means to make 
 righteous inwardly, (es bedeutet die gottliche Thatigkeit des 
 Hervorrufens der dcxcuoavvy,} and no man is perfectly holy in 
 this life; the second is, that God cannot regard any one as 
 being what he is not, and therefore he cannot regard the 
 unrighteous as righteous. The former of these assumptions is 
 
 * The doctrine of the transcendentalists (so called) regarding the incarna- 
 tion, the person of Christ, and his relation to the Church, necessarily leads to 
 the assumption of a great distinction between the religion of the Old Testament 
 and that of the New, and between the state and privileges of believers then and 
 now. If our redemption consists in our being made partakers of the thean- 
 thropic nature of Christ, as there was no such nature before the manifestation 
 of God in the flesh, there could be no real redemption, no deliverance from the 
 guilt and power of sin, before that event. Hence Olshausen says there could 
 be no JUULKO-JYH e*>u really belonging to those who lived before the advent; and 
 on page 171 he says, if we admit there was any regeneration at all under the 
 Old Testament, it could only be symbolical ; and on page 167, he says, before 
 Christ, forgiveness of sin was not real, but only symbolical. In a foot note he 
 adds, that under the theocracy there was the pardon of separate acts of trans- 
 gression, but not the forgiveness of all sins, actual and original, which can 
 only proceed from Christ. It follows also from this theory, that justification 
 is a subjective change, a change wrought in the soul by the reception of a new 
 nature from Christ. These conclusions the Romanists had reached long ago, 
 by a different process. It is not wonderful, therefore, that so many of the 
 transcendentalists of Germany, and of their abettors elsewhere, have passed 
 over to the Church of Rome.
 
 174 ROMANS IV. 3. 
 
 utterly unfounded, as dcxacoo) always means to declare just, and 
 never to make just. The second principle, Olshausen, in hid 
 comment on this verse, modifies so far as to say that God can 
 only regard as just those whom he purposes to render just ; and 
 as with God there are no distinctions of time, he regards as 
 already possessed of righteousness those whom he has purposed 
 to render so. (This would seem to imply eternal justification, 
 or at least an imputation of righteousness from eternity to all 
 whom God has purposed to save.) Without this modification, 
 he says, the objection of Romanists to the Protestant doctrine 
 would be unanswerable. There is a sense, however, in which 
 the principle in question is perfectly sound. God must see 
 things as they are, and pronounce them to be what they 
 are. The Protestant doctrine does not suppose that God 
 regards any person or thing as being other than he or it really 
 is. When he pronounces the unjust to be just, the word is 
 taken in different senses. He does not pronounce the unholy 
 to be holy; he simply declares that the demands of justice 
 have been satisfied in behalf of those who have no righteousness 
 of their own. In sin there are the two elements of guilt and 
 pollution the one expressing its relation to the justice, the 
 other its relation to the holiness of God ; or, what amounts to 
 the same thing, the one expressing its relation to the penalty, 
 and the other its relation to the precept of the law. These two 
 elements are separable. The moral character or inward state 
 of a man who has suffered the penalty of a crime, and thus 
 expiated his offence, may remain unchanged. His guilt, in the 
 eye of human law, is removed, but his pollution remains. It 
 would be unjust to inflict any further punishment on him for 
 that offence. Justice is satisfied, but the man is unchanged. 
 There may therefore be guilt where there is no moral pollution, 
 as in the case of our blessed Lord, who bore our sins ; and there 
 may be freedom from guilt, where moral pollution remains, as 
 m the case of every justified sinner. When, therefore, God 
 justifies the ungodly, he does not regard him as being other 
 than he really is. He only declares that justice is satisfied, and 
 in that sense the man is just ; he has a dexaioa'Jvy which satisfies 
 the demands of the law. His moral character is not the ground 
 )f that declaration, and is not affected by it. As to the
 
 ROMANS IV. 4, 5. 175 
 
 distinction made by Olshausen between imputing righteousness 
 and justifying, there is not the slightest ground for it. Ho 
 himself makes them synonymous, (p. 157.) The two forms of 
 expression are used synonymously in this very context. In 
 ver. 3, it is said, 'faith is imputed for righteousness;' in ver. 5, 
 'God justifies the ungodly;' and in ver. 6, 'he imputes righteous- 
 ness' all in the same sense. Olshausen, although a representa- 
 tive man, exhibits his theology, in his commentary, in a very 
 unsettled state. He not only retracts at times, in one volume, 
 what he had said in another, but he modifies his doctrine from 
 page to page. In his remarks on Romans iii. 21, he himself as- 
 serts the principle, (as quoted above,) that " by God nothing can 
 ever be regarded or declared righteous, which is not righteous," 
 (p. 145 ;) but in his comment on this verse, he pronounces the 
 principle, " das Gott nach seiner Wahrhaftigkeit nicht Jeman- 
 den fiir etwas ansehen kann, was er nicht 1st falsch und uber 
 den Heilsweg durchaus irreleitend," (p. 174.) That is, he says 
 that the principle " that God, in virtue of his veracity, cannot 
 regard one as being what he is not is false, and perverts the 
 whole plan of salvation." On page 157, he says, " The passing 
 over of the nature ( Wesen) of Christ upon the sinner, is expressed 
 by saying righteousness is im.puted to him;" whereas, on pages 
 173 5, he labours to show that imputing righteousness is some- 
 thing very different from imparting righteousness. He prevail- 
 ingly teaches the doctrine of subjective justification, to which 
 his definition and system inevitably lead ; but under the stress 
 of some direct assertion of the apostle to the contrary, he for 
 the time brings out the opposite doctrine. He exhibits similar 
 fluctuations on many other points. 
 
 VERSES 4, 5. Now to him that worketh, is the reward not 
 reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, &c. 
 These verses are designed, in the first place, to vindicate the 
 pertinency of the quotation from Scripture, made in ver. 3, by 
 showing that the declaration 'faith was imputed for righteous- 
 ness,' is a denial that works were the ground of Abraham's 
 acceptance ; and, secondly, that to justify by faith, is to justify 
 gratuitously, and therefore all passages which speak of gratui- 
 tous acceptance are in favour of the doctrine of justification 
 by faith.
 
 176 ROMANS IV. 4, 5. 
 
 Nmv to him that worketh, that is, either emphatically 'tc 
 him who does all that is required of him;' or 'to him who 
 seeks to be accepted on account of his works.' The former 
 explanation is the better. The words then state a general pro- 
 position, ' To him that is obedient, or who performs a stipulated 
 work, the recompense is not regarded as a gratuity, but as a 
 debt.' The reward, b pto&bz, the appropriate and merited com- 
 pensation. Is not imputed, xara %df>iv, dMa dfaityfjuz, not 
 grace, but debt, which implies that a claim founded in justice is 
 the ground and measure of remuneration. Paul's argument is 
 founded on the principle, which is so often denied, as by 
 Olshausen, (p. 172,) that man may have merit before God ; or 
 that God may stand in the relation of debtor to man. The 
 apostle says expressly, that rw lora^o/ievy, to him that works, 
 the reward is a matter of debt. If Adam had remained faith- 
 ful and rendered perfect obedience, the promised reward would 
 have been due to him as a matter of justice; the withholding 
 it would have been an act of injustice. When, therefore, the 
 apostle speaks of Abraham as having a ground of boasting, if 
 his works made him righteous, it is not to be understood simply 
 of boasting before men. He would have had a ground of 
 boasting in that case before God. The reward would have been 
 to him a matter of debt. 
 
 But to him that worketh not, rtp dk pr] Ip-farojiivy. That is, 
 to him who has no works to plead as the ground of reward ; 
 KMTTt'jovre ds Ixt x.r.L, but believeth upon, i. e. putting his trust 
 upon. The faith which justifies is not mere assent, it is an act 
 of trust. The believer confides upon God for justification. He 
 believes that God will justify him, although ungodly ; for the 
 object of the faith or confidence here expressed is b dtxai&u rbv 
 daeffi, he who justifies the ungodly. Faith therefore is appro- 
 priating; it is an act of confidence in reference to our own 
 acceptance with God. To him who thus believes, faith t* 
 counted for righteousness, i. e. it is imputed in order to his 
 becoming righteous. It lies in the nature of the faith of which 
 Paul speaks, that he who exercises it should feel and acknow- 
 ledge that he is ungodly, and consequently undeserving of the 
 favour of God. He, of course, in relying ofl the mercy of God, 
 must acknowledge that his acceptance is a matter of grace, and
 
 ROMANS IV 4, 5. 177 
 
 not of debt. The meaning of the apostle is plainly this : ' To 
 him that worketh, the reward is a matter of debt, but to him 
 who worketh not, but believeth simply, the reward is a matter 
 of grace.' Instead, however, of saying 'it is a matter of grace,' 
 he uses, as an equivalent expression, "to him faith is counted 
 for righteousness." That is, he is justified by faith. To be 
 justified by faith, therefore, is to be justified gratuitously, and 
 not by works. It is thus he proves that the passage cited in 
 ver. 8, respecting Abraham, is pertinent to his purpose as an 
 argument against justification by works. It at the same time 
 shows that all passages which speak of gratuitous acceptance, 
 may be cited in proof of his doctrine of justification by faith. 
 The way is thus opened for his second argument, which is 
 derived from the testimony of David. 
 
 It is to be remarked, that Paul speaks of God as justifying 
 the ungodly. The word is in the singular, TOV dasffi, the 
 ungodly man, not with any special reference to Abraham, as 
 though he was the ungodly person whom God justified, but 
 because the singular, ip^-a^ofiev^^ (to Mm that worketh,) mffTM- 
 OVTI, (to him that believeth,) is used m the context, and because 
 every man must believe for himself God does not justify com- 
 munities. If every man and all mon are ungodly, it follows 
 that they are regarded and treated as righteous, not on the 
 ground of their personal character ; and it is further apparent 
 that justification does not consist in making one inherently just 
 or holy; for it is as ungodly that those who believe are freely 
 justified for Christ's sake. It never was, as shown above, the 
 doctrine of the Reformation, or of the Lutheran and Reformed 
 divines, that the imputation of righteousness affects the moral 
 character of those concerned. It is true, whom God justifies he 
 also sanctifies; but justification is not sanctification, and the 
 imputation of righteousness is not the infusion of righteousness. 
 These are the first principles of the doctrine of the Reformers. 
 " The fourth grand error of the Papists in the article of justifi- 
 cation," says an old divine, "is concerning that which we call 
 the form thereof. For they, denying and deriding the imputa- 
 tion of Christ's righteousness, (without which r notwithstanding, 
 no man can be saved,) do h Did that men are justified by infusion, 
 and not by imputation of righteousness ; we, on the contrary, 
 12
 
 178 ROMANS IV. 68. 
 
 do hold, according to the Scriptures, that we are justified befort 
 God, only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and not 
 by infusion. And our meaning, when we say that God imputeth 
 Christ's righteousness unto us, is nothing else but this : that lie 
 graciously accepteth for us, and in our behalf, the righteousness 
 of Christ, that is, both as to his obedience, which, in the days 
 of his flesh, he performed for us; and passive, that is, his suf- 
 ferings, which he sustained for us, as if we had in our own per 
 sons both performed and suffered the same ourselves. Howbeit, 
 we confess that the Lord doth infuse righteousness into the 
 faithful ; yet not as he justifieth, but as he sanctifieth them,' 
 kc. Bishop Downame on Justification, p. 261. Tuckney, one 
 of the leading members of the Westminster Assembly, and 
 principal author of the Shorter Catechism, in his Preelections, 
 p. 213, says, "Although God justifies the ungodly, Rom. iv. 5, 
 i. e. him who was antecedently ungodly, and who in a measure 
 remains, as to his inherent character, unjust after justification, 
 yet it has its proper ground in the satisfaction of Christ," <kc. 
 On page 220, he says, " The Papists understand by justifica- 
 tion, the infusion of inherent righteousness, and thus confound 
 justification with sanctification ; which, if it was the true nature 
 and definition of justification, they might well deny that the 
 imputation of Christ's righteousness is the cause or formal 
 reason of this justification, i. e. of sanctification. For we are 
 not so foolish or blasphemous as to say, or even think, that the 
 righteousness of Christ imputed to us renders us formally or 
 inherently righteous, so that we should be formally or inhe- 
 rently righteous with the righteousness of Christ. Since the 
 righteousness of Christ is proper to himself, and is as insepara- 
 ble from him, and as incommunicable to others, as any other 
 attribute of a thing, or its essence itself." 
 
 VERSES 6 8. Even as David also describeth the blessedness 
 of the man to whom Gf-od imputeth righteousness without, works. 
 Paul's first argument in favour of gratuitous justification was 
 from the case of Abraham ; his second is from the testimony of 
 David. The immediate connection of this vrrsr is with ver. 5. 
 At the conclusion of that verse, it was said, t.> him who had no 
 works, faith is imputed, in order to his justification, i. e. he is 
 justified gratuitously, even as Dav : d speaks of the blessedness
 
 ROMANS IV. 68. 179 
 
 of him whom, although destitute of merit, God regards and 
 treats as righteous. Describeth the blessedness, i. e. pronounces 
 blessed. The words are Aej-et rbv [jiaxaptafjt.6v, utters the declara- 
 tion of blessedness concerning the man, &c. To whom Grod 
 imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards 
 and treats as righteous, although he is not in himself righteous. 
 The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. ' To impute 
 sin,' is to lay sin to the charge of any one, and to treat him 
 accordingly, as is universally admitted ; so 'to impute right- 
 eousness,' is to set righteousness to one's account, and to treat 
 him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong 
 antecedently to those to whom it is imputed, for they are un- 
 godly, and destitute of works. Here then is an imputation to 
 men of what does not belong to them, and to which they have 
 in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apos- 
 tle's definition of the term to justify. It is not making men 
 inherently righteous, or morally pure, but it is regarding and 
 treating them as just. This is done, not on the ground of per- 
 sonal character or works, but on the ground of the righteous- 
 ness of Christ. As this is dealing with men, not according to 
 merit, but in a gracious manner, the passage cited from Ps. 
 xxxii. 1, 2, is precisely in point: "Blessed are they whose 
 iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is 
 the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." That is, 
 blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and 
 treated as righteous. As the remission of sin is necessarily 
 connected with restoration to God's favour, the apostle speaks 
 of it as the whole of justification; not that the idea of remission 
 exhausts the whole idea of justification, but it necessarily 
 implies the rest. In like manner, in Eph. i. 7, it is said, "in 
 whom we have redemption, . . . the forgiveness of sins;" which 
 does not imply that forgiveness is the whole of redemption, that 
 the gift of the Spirit, the glorification of the body, and eternal 
 life, which are so constantly spoken of as fruits of Christ's 
 work, as parts of the purchased inheritance, are to be excluded. 
 Here again the doctrine of a personal, inherent righteous- 
 ness, which it is the special object of the apostle to exclude, is 
 introduced by the modern mystical or transcendental theolo- 
 gians. On the declaration that righteousness is imputed without
 
 180 ROMANS IV. 9. 
 
 works, Olshauscn remarks : " No matter how abundant or pure 
 works may be, the ground of blessedness is not in them, but in 
 the principle whence they flow; that is, not in man, but in 
 G:>d." The whole doctrine of the apostle is made to be, that 
 men are justified (made holy,) not by themselves, but by God ; 
 thus confounding, as Romanists do, justification with sanctifica- 
 tion. In Ps. xxxii. 1, 2, as quoted by Paul from the LXX., 
 dupcsvcu (to remit,) and enntaXuTT-cetv (to cover,} are interchanged. 
 Olshausen says the former expresses the New Testament idea 
 of forgiveness, (die reale Hinwegschaffung der Siinde,) i. e. the 
 real removal of sin ; the latter, the Old Testament idea of non- 
 imputation of sin the sin remaining, but being overlooked. 
 This view of the nature of remission, and of the difference 
 aetween the Old and the New Testament, is purely Romish. 
 
 VERSE 9. Cometh this blessedness upon the circumcison only, 
 or upon the uncircumcision also? &c. The apostle's third argu- 
 ment, commencing with this verse and continuing to the 12th, 
 nas special reference to circumcision. He had proved that 
 Abraham was not justified on account of his works generally; 
 he now proves that circumcision is neither the ground nor con- 
 dition of his acceptance. The proof of this point is brief and 
 conclusive. It is admitted that Abraham was justified. The 
 only question is, was it before or after his circumcision? If 
 before, it certainly was not on account of it. As it was before, 
 circumcision must have had some other object. 
 
 * Cometh this blessedness.' There is nothing in the original 
 to answer to the word cometh, although some word of the kind 
 must be supplied. The most natural word to supply is tiys-ccu. 
 David utters the declaration of the blessedness 'of the man 
 whose sins are pardoned.' Concerning whom is this declara- 
 tion uttered? The word rendered blessedness means, more 
 properly, 'declaration of blessedness.' 'This declaration of 
 blessedness, is it upon, i. e. is it about, (U-fSTae) is it said con- 
 cerning the circumcision only?' The preposition (Im) used by 
 the apostle, often points out the direction of an action, or the 
 subject concerning which anything is said. This question has 
 not direct reference to the persons to whom the offers of accept- 
 ance are applicable, as though it were equivalent to asking, ' Is 
 this blessedness confined to the Jews, or may it be extended to
 
 ROMANS IV. 10, 11. 181 
 
 the Gentiles also?' because this is not the subject now in hand. 
 It is the ground or condition of acceptance, and not the persons 
 to whom the offer is to be made, that is now under consideration. 
 The question therefore is, in substance, this : ' Does this decla- 
 ration of blessedness relate to the circumcised, as such ? Is cir- 
 cumcision necessary to justification?' the blessing of which 
 Paul is speaking. The answer obviously implied to the pre- 
 ceding question is, 'It is not said concerning the circumcised, 
 as such; for we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for 
 righteousness.' It was his faith, not his circumcision, that was 
 the condition of his justification. The preceding verses are 
 occupied with the testimony of David, which decided nothing as 
 to the point of circumcision. To determine whether this rite 
 was a necessary condition of acceptance, it was requisite to 
 refer again to the case of Abraham. TQ decide the point pre- 
 sented in the question at the beginning of the verse, the apostle 
 argues from the position already established. It is conceded 
 or proved that Abraham was justified by faith; to determine 
 whether circumcision is necessary, we have only to ask, Under 
 what circumstances was he thus justified, before or after cir- 
 sumcision ? 
 
 VEKSE 10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in 
 circumcision or uncircumcisionf Not in circumcision, but in 
 uncircumcision. Of course, his circumcision, which was long 
 subsequent to his justification, could not be either the ground 
 or necessary condition of his acceptance with God. 
 
 VERSE 11. And he received the sign of circumcision, the seal 
 of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncir- 
 cumcised, &c. As Paul had shown that circumcision was not the 
 condition of justification, it became necessary to declare its true 
 nature and design. The sign of circumcision, i. e. circumcision 
 which was a sign, (genitive of apposition;) as "the earnest of 
 the Spirit," for 'the Spirit which is an earnest,' 2 Cor. i. 20. 
 The seal of the righteousness of faith, &c. The phrase, right- 
 eousness of faith, is a concise expression for 'righteousness 
 which is attained by faith,' or, as it stands more fully in Philip, 
 iii. 9, "the righteousness of God, which is by faith." The 
 word righteousness, in such connections, includes, with the idea 
 of excellence or obedience, that of consequent blessedness. It
 
 182 ROMANS IV. 11. 
 
 is the 'state of acceptableness with God.' The circumcision of 
 Abraham was designed to confirm to him the fact, that he was 
 regarded and treated by God as righteous, through faith, which 
 was the means of his becoming interested in the promise of 
 redemption. From this passage it is evident that circumcision 
 was not merely the seal of the covenant between God and the 
 Hebrews as a nation. Besides the promises made to Abraham, 
 of a numerous posterity, and of the possession of the land of 
 Canaan, there was the far higher promise, that through his seed 
 (i. e. Christ, Gal. iii. 16) all the nations of the earth should 
 be blessed. This was the promise of redemption, as the apos- 
 tle teaches us in Gal. in. 13 18: "Christ," he says, "has 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law in order that the bless- 
 ing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles." The blessing 
 promised to Abraham, in which the Gentiles participate through 
 Jesus Christ, can be none other than redemption. As that 
 blessing was promised to Abraham on the condition, not of 
 works, but of faith, the apostle hence argues, that in our case 
 also we are made partakers of that blessing by faith, and not 
 by works. This was the covenant of which circumcision was 
 the seal. All therefore who were circumcised, professed to 
 embrace the covenant of grace. All the Jews were professors 
 of the true religion, and constituted the visible Church, in which 
 by divine appointment their children were included. This is 
 the broad and enduring basis of infant church-membership. 
 
 Abraham, says the apostle, was thus assured of his justifica- 
 tion by faith, (ere TO EIVCU,} in order that he might be the father ; 
 or, so that he is the father, &c. The former explanation is to 
 be preferred, not only because c with the infinitive, commonly 
 expresses design, but also because the whole context shows that 
 the apostle intends to bring into view the purpose of God in the 
 justification of Abraham. The father of all them that believe, 
 though they be not circumcised, xfo-iov ratv xiffre'joisTcov di 
 dxftoj'jff-ciaz, i. e. 'of all believing, with uncircumcision.' That 
 is, of all uncircumcised believers. The preposition did, here, as 
 in ii. 27, and elsewhere, simply marks the attendant circum- 
 stances. The word father expresses community of nature or 
 character, and is often applied to the head or founder of any 
 school or class of men, whose character or course is determined
 
 ROMANS IV. 11. 183 
 
 by the relation to the person so designated; as Gen. iv. 20, 
 21: " Jabal . . . was the father of such as dwell in tents;" and, 
 " Jubal . . . was the father of all such as handle the harp and 
 organ." Hence teachers, priests, and kings are often called 
 fathers. Believers are called the children of Abraham, because 
 of this identity of religious nature or character, as he stands 
 out in Scripture as the believer ; and because it was with him 
 that the covenant of grace, embracing all the children of God, 
 whether Jews or Gentiles, was reenacted ; and because they are 
 his heirs, inheriting the blessings promised to him. As Abra- 
 ham was the head and father of the theocratical people under 
 the Old Testament, this relation was not disowned when the 
 middle wall of partition was broken down, and the Gentiles 
 introduced into the family of God. He still remained the father 
 of the faithful, and we are "the sons of Abraham by faith," 
 Gal. iii. 7. The Jews were accustomed to speak in the same 
 way of Abraham : Michlol Jophi on Malachi ii. 15, by- the one 
 there mentioned, "Abraham is intended, for he was one alone, 
 and the father of all who follow and imitate him in faith." 
 Bechai. fol. 27, he is called "The root of faith, and father 
 of all those who believe in one God." Jalkut Chadash, fol. 
 54, 4, " On this account Abraham was not circumcised autil he 
 was ninety-nine years old, lest he should shut the door on 
 proselytes coming in." See Schoettgen, p. 508. 
 
 That righteousness might be imputed unto them also. The 
 connection and design of these words are not very clear, and 
 they are variously explained. They may be considered as 
 explanatory of the former clause, and therefore connected with 
 the first part of the verse. The sense would then be, 'Abraham 
 was justified, being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the 
 father of believers, although uncircumcised, that is, that right- 
 eousness might be imputed unto them also.' This clause is 
 most commonly regarded as a parenthesis, designed to indicate 
 the point of resemblance between Abraham and those of whom 
 he is called the father: 'He is the father of uncircumcised 
 believers, since they also are justified by faith, as he was.' 
 The words scz TO foftoffijpat are explanatory of ere TO tlvut a'j^bv 
 KCtTepa: ' He was justified in uncircumcision, in order that he 
 might be the father, &c.; that is, in order that faith might be
 
 184 ROMANS IV. 12. 
 
 imputed to them also.' From this it appears that "to impute 
 faith for righteousness" and "to impute righteousness," are 
 synonymous. To Abraham righteousness was imputed ; he had 
 tne (dexatoo'jvq rr^ -ioTzuiz) righteousness of faith as truly and 
 really as believers now have. Nothing can be more opposed to 
 the whole tenor of apostolic teaching than the Romish and 
 modern mystical doctrine, that the Old Testament believers 
 were not fully justified; that their sins were pretermitted, but 
 not remitted; that their regeneration was symbolical, but not 
 real. 
 
 "VERSE 12. And the father of circumcision to thum who are 
 not of the circumcision only, &c. That the preceding clause is 
 parenthetical is plain, because the grammatical construction in 
 this verse is continued unbroken. Father of circumcision, i. e. 
 of the circumcised. To them, abrol^. This change of con- 
 struction from the genitive to the dative may be accounted for 
 either by the fact, that in the Hebrew it may be said " father 
 to" as well as "father of;" or by assuming that abtolz is the 
 dative of advantage, "for them." The meaning of this verse 
 is somewhat doubtful. According to our version, which adheres 
 closely to the Greek, the meaning is, 'Abraham is not the father 
 of uncircumcised believers only, as stated in ver. 11, but he is 
 the father of the circumcised also, provided they follow the 
 example of his faith.' According to this view, as ver. 11 pre- 
 sents him as the father of the believing Gentiles, this presents 
 him as the father of the believing Jews. The only grammatical 
 objection to this interpretation is the repetition of the article 
 ro?c before aTot%v~j<j(, which would seem to indicate that " those 
 who follow the steps of his faith" were a different class from 
 the circumcised. Hence some commentators interpret the pas- 
 sage thus : ' He is the father of the circumcision, and not of the 
 circumcision only, but also of those who follow his faith, which 
 he had being yet uncircumcised.' But this is inconsistent with 
 the construction. 1. It overlooks the xat at the beginning of 
 the verse, by which it is connected with ver. 11 : 'He is the 
 father of the uncircumcised, (ver. 11,) and father of the circum- 
 cised, (ver. 12.) 2. It requires a transposition of the words 
 roZc ov, so as to rea 1 o>j ro?c. What Paul says is, ' To those 
 who are not of the circumcision only.' This interpretation
 
 ROMANS IV. 13. 185 
 
 
 
 makes him say, 'Not to those only who are of the circumcision/ 
 3. It is very unnatural to make this verse repeat what had just 
 been said in ver. 11. There Paul had said that Abraham was 
 the father of Gentile believers ; why should he here say he was 
 the father of the Jews, and also of the Gentiles? The former 
 interpretation, which is adopted by the great body of com- 
 mentators, is therefore to be preferred. 
 
 Verses 13 16 contain two additional arguments in favour 
 of the apostle's doctrine. The first, vs. 13, 14, is the same as 
 that presented more at length in Gal. iii. 18, &c., and is founded 
 on the nature of a covenant. The promise having been made 
 to Abraham (and his seed,) on the condition of faith, cannot 
 now, consistently with fidelity, be made to depend on obedience 
 to the law. The second argument, vs. 15, 16, is from the nature 
 of the law itself. 
 
 VERSE 13. For the promise, that he should be heir of the 
 world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, &c. The word for 
 does not connect this verse with the one immediately preceding, 
 as a proof of the insufficiency of circumcision. It rather marks 
 the introduction of a new argument in favour of the general 
 proposition which the chapter is designed to establish. As 
 Abraham was not justified for his circumcision, so neither was 
 it on arcount of his obedience to the law. If, however, it be 
 preferred to connect this verse with what immediately precedes, 
 the argument is substantially the same. In the preceding 
 verses Paul had said that Abraham is the father of believers; 
 in other words, that believers are his heirs, for the promise 
 that he should inherit the world was made on the condition of 
 faith. The promise here spoken of is, that Abraham and his 
 seed should be the heirs of the world. The word heir, in Scrip- 
 ture, frequently means secure possessor. Heb. i. 2, vi. 17, 
 xi. 7, &c. This use of the term probably arose from the fact, 
 that among the Jews possession by inheritance was much more 
 secure and permanent than that obtained by purchase. The 
 promise was not to Abraham, nor to his seed, (^ r^5 axspfjiaTi 
 auTOV,) i. e. neither to the one nor to the other. Both were 
 included in the promise. And by his seed, is not here, as in Gal , 
 iii. 16, meant Christ, but his spiritual children. This is evident 
 from ver. 16, where the apostle speaks of xav TO axspfLa, the
 
 186 ROMANS IV. 13. 
 
 * 
 
 whole seed. The clause TO xtypovopov ovrov tlvat is explanatory 
 of % Ixaffs/i'M. It states the contents of the promise. The 
 article TO, attached to the infinit ve, renders it more prominent 
 or emphatic. As no such promise as that mentioned in this 
 verse is contained, in so many words, in the Old Testament, the 
 apostle must have designed to express what he knew to be the 
 purport of those actually given. The expression, however, has 
 been variously explained. 1. Some understand the world to 
 mean the land of Canaan merely. But in the first place, this 
 is a very unusual, if not an entirely unexampled use of tho 
 word. And, in the second place, this explanation is incon- 
 sistent with the context ; for Paul has reference to a promise 
 of which, as appears from ver. 16, believing Gentiles are to 
 partake. 2. Others understand the apostle to refer to tba 
 promise that Abraham should be the father of many nations, 
 Gen. xvii. 5, and that his posterity should be as numerous as 
 the stars of heaven, Gen. xv. 5 ; promises which they limit to 
 his natural descendants, who, being widely scattered, may be 
 said, in a limited sense, to possess the world. But this inter- 
 pretation is irreconcilable with ver. 16. 3. Besides the pro- 
 mises already referred to, it was also said, that in him all the 
 nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3. This, as 
 Paul explains it, Gal. iii. 16, &c., had direct reference to the 
 blessings of redemption through Jesus Christ, who was the seed 
 of Abraham. And here too he speaks of blessings of which all 
 believers partake. The possession of the world, therefore, here 
 intended, must be understood in a manner consistent with these 
 passages. The expression is frequently taken in a general 
 sense, as indicating general prosperity and happiness. " To be 
 heir of the world" would then mean, to be prosperous and 
 happy, in the best sense of the words. Reference is made, in 
 support of this interpretation, to such passages as Matt. v. 5, 
 Ps. xxxvii. 11, " The meek shall inherit the earth ;" Ps. xxv. 
 13, "His seed shall inherit the earth." The promise then, to 
 be the heir of the world, is a general promise of blessedness. 
 And as the happiness promised to believers, or the pious, as 
 such, is of course the happiness consequent on religion, and is 
 its reward, the promise in this sense may include all the bless- 
 ings of redemption. So in Gal. iii. 14, Paul uses the expression
 
 ROMANS IV. 13. 187 
 
 "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles," 
 as equivalent to saying 'that all the blessings of the gospel 
 might come upon them.' 4. Or the promises in question may 
 have reference to the actual possession of the world by the 
 spiritual seed of Abraham, and Christ their head. The declara- 
 tion that Abraham should be tLe father of many nations, and 
 that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude, 
 included far more than that his natural descendants should be 
 very numerous. If they who are of faith ' are the seed of Abra- 
 ham, and heirs of the promise,' Gal. iii. 9, 29, then will the pro- 
 mise, as stated by the apostle, have its literal accomplishment 
 when the kingdoms of this world are given to the saints of the 
 most high God (Dan. vii. 27,) and when the uttermost parts of 
 the earth become the possession of Christ. In this sense, the 
 promise includes the universal prevalence of the true religion, 
 involving of course the advent of Christ, the establishment of 
 his kingdom, and all its consequent blessings. The Jewish 
 writers were accustomed to represent Abraham as the heir of 
 the world. "Bemidbar, R. xiv., fol. 202, 'The garden is the 
 world which God gave to Abraham, to whom it is said, Thou 
 shalt be a blessing.' ' God gave to my father Abraham the pos- 
 session of heaven and earth.' Midrasch Mischle, 19. Mechila, 
 in Ex. xiv. 31, 'Abraham our father did not obtain the inhe- 
 ritance of this world, and the world to come, except through 
 faith.' " Wetstein. 
 
 The promise to Abraham and his seed was not through the 
 law, but through the righteousness of faith. That is, it was not 
 on condition of obedience to the law, but on condition of his 
 having that righteousness which is obtained by faith. Through 
 the law, is therefore equivalent to through the works of the law. 
 as appears from its opposition to the latter clause, 'righteous- 
 ness of faith.' By the law, is to be understood the whole rule 
 of duty, as in other passages of the same kind ; see iii. 20. In 
 this sense it of course includes the Mosaic law, which, to the 
 Jews, was the most prominent portion of the revealed will of 
 God, and by obedience to which especially they hoped for the 
 mercy of God. The parallel passage, Gal. iii. 18, &c., where 
 the law is said to have been given four hundred years after the 
 covenant formed wi ih Abraham, shows it was one part of the
 
 188 ROMANS IV. 14. 
 
 apostle's design to convince the Jews, that as Abraham WAS not 
 justified by his circumcision, (ver. 11,) so also it was not in 
 virtue of the Mosaic economy not yet established ; and therefore 
 the promise could not be made to depend on the condition of obe- 
 drence to that dispensation. This idea, although included, is not 
 to be urged to the exclusion of the more comprehensive mean- 
 ing of the word law, which the usage of the apostle and the con- 
 text show to be also intended. It was neither by obedience to the 
 law generally, nor to the particular form of it, as it appeared 
 in the Mosaic institutions, that the promise was to be secured. 
 
 VERSE 14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, &c. 
 The original condition being faith, if another be substituted the 
 covenant is broken, the promise violated, and the condition 
 made of none effect. " They who are of the law" (of Ix vo/i/oy,) 
 sometimes, as ver. 16, means the Jews, i. e. those who have the 
 law; compare ver. 12, "Those of circumcision," &c. But here 
 it means legalists, those who seek justification by the works of 
 the law; as 'those who are of faith' are believers, those who seek 
 justification by faith; compare Gal. iii. 10, "As many as are 
 of the works of the law are under the curse," i. e. as many as 
 seek acceptance by their own works. The apostle's meaning, 
 therefore, obviously is, that if those who rely upon their own 
 works are the heirs of the promise, and are accepted on the 
 condition of obedience to the law, the whole covenant is broken, 
 faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. " Is 
 made void" (xexivtorac,} is rendered useless; see 1 Cor. i. 17, 
 "The cross of Christ is made useless," ix. 15, &c.; compare 
 1 Cor. xv. 17, "Your faith is vain," not only without founda- 
 tion but of no use. The promise is made of none effect (xarqp- 
 PJTOI,} i. e. is invalidated; see chap. iii. 3, 31. It is plain 
 from the whole design and argument of the apostle, that by 
 law, in this whole connection, he means not specifically the 
 law of Moses, but the law of God, however revealed as a rule 
 of duty for man. He has reference to the Gentiles as well as 
 to the Jews. His purpose is not simply to convince his readers 
 that obedience to the Mosaic law cannot save them, but that 
 obedience in any form, works of any kind, are insufficient for a 
 man's justification before God. So far, therefore, from the 
 context requiring, as so many of the modern commentators
 
 ROMANS IV. 15. 189 
 
 assert, an exclusive reference in this connection to the law of 
 Moses, it imperatively demands the reverse. 
 
 VEKSE 15. For the law worketh wrath, &c. That is, it causes 
 men to be the subjects of wrath. It brings them under con- 
 demnation. So far from imparting life, it causes death. If, 
 therefore, the inheritance is suspended on the condition of obe- 
 dience to the law, it can never be attained ; for by the law no 
 flesh living can be justified. The connection of this verse, 
 therefore, may be with what immediately precedes. The pro- 
 mise fails if it be by the law, for the law worketh death. The 
 truth here presented, however, although thus incidentally intro- 
 duced, is none the less a new and substantive argument for the 
 doctrine of justification by faith. It is the same argument as 
 that urged in Gal. iii. 10, derived from the very nature of the 
 law. If it works wrath, if all who are under the law are under 
 the curse, if the law condemns, it cannot justify. As, however, 
 there are two ways in which, according to the apostle, the law 
 works wrath, so there are two views of the meaning of this pas- 
 sage. First, the law works wrath, because it says, " Cursed is 
 every one who continueth not in all things written in the book 
 of the law to do them," Gal. iii. 10. As the law, from its very 
 nature, demands perfect obedience, and condemns all who are 
 not perfect, it, by its very nature, is unsuited to give life to 
 sinners. It can only condemn them. If there were no law, 
 there would be no sin, and no condemnation. But as all are 
 under the law, and all are sinners, all are under the curse. The 
 other way in which the law works wrath is, that it excites and 
 exasperates the evil passions of the heart ; not from any defect 
 in the law itself, but from the nature of sin. This idea the 
 apostle presents fully in the seventh chapter ; where it is pro- 
 perly in place, as he is there treating of sanctification. Here, 
 where he is treating of justification, that idea would be inappro- 
 priate, and therefore the former interpretation is to be decidedly 
 preferred. Calvin, Tholuck, and others, however, understand 
 the apostle to reason thus: 'The law, instead of freeing men 
 from sin, incidentally renders their transgressions more numer- 
 ous, conspicuous, and inexcusable, and thus brings them more 
 and more under condemnation.' "Nam quum Lex nihil quam 
 ultionem generet, non potest affere gratiam. Bonia quidem ac
 
 190 ROMANS IV. 15. 
 
 integris viam vitoe mfnstraret: sed quatenus viiiosis ac cor 
 ruptis praecipit, quid debeant, praestandi autera vires non sub- 
 ministrat, reos apud Dei tribunal peragit. Quae enim est naturas 
 nostrae vitiositas, quo magis docemur, quid rectum sit ac justum, 
 eo apertius nostra iniquitas detegitur, maximeque contumacia; 
 atque hoc modo gravius Dei judicium accersitur." For where 
 there is no law, there is no transgression. The interpretation 
 given to this clause depends upon the view taken of the preced- 
 ing one. It assigns the reason why the law works wrath. If 
 the law be understood to work wrath by exasperating the evils 
 of our corrupt nature, then the meaning of this confirmatory 
 clause must be, that the law makes sin more inexcusable. It 
 exalts sins into transgressions, a^apTta into xapdfiaatz. Thus 
 again Calvin says, that the reason why the law works wrath is, 
 " quia cognitione justitiae Dei per legem percept^, eo gravius 
 peccamus in Deum, quo minus excusationis nobis superest non 
 loquitur apostolus," he adds, "de simplici justitiae transgress- 
 ione, a qu& nemo eximitur; sed transgressionem appellat, ubi 
 animus edoctus, quid Deo placeat quidve displiceat, fines voce 
 Dei sibi definitos sciens ac volens perrumpit. Atqui ut uno 
 verbo dicam, transgressio hie non simplex delictum, sed destina 
 tarn in violandS, justitia contumaciam significat." But all,this 
 belongs to the inefficacy of the law to produce holiness, and not 
 to its impotency in the matter of justification, which is the point 
 here under consideration. The apostle's argument here is, that 
 the inheritance must be by faith, not by the law, for the law 
 can only condemn. It works wrath, for without it there would 
 be no condemnation, because there would be no transgression. 
 Besides, Paul does not make the distinction between sin and 
 transgression, between bpapria and 7tapdfiaat~, which the former 
 interpretation supposes. What is here said of transgression, is, 
 in v. 13, said of sin. Where there is no law, there can be no 
 sin, because the very idea of sin is the want of conformity to a 
 rule, to which conformity is due ; so that where there is no rule 
 or standard, there can be no want of conformity. Such being 
 the meaning of this clause, it is plain that by law, the apostle 
 does not intend the Mosaic law, but law as the standard to 
 which rational creatures are bound to be conformed. If men 
 would only acquiesce in Paul's idea of law, they could not fail
 
 ROMANS IV. 16. 191 
 
 to receive his doctrine concerning sin and justification. If the 
 law is holy, just, and good; if it is spiritual, taking cognizance 
 not only of outward acts, but of feelings, not only of active 
 feelings, but of the inherent states of the mind whence these 
 (Ircc&it^'oi) spring ; if it condemns all want of conformity to its 
 own inflexible standard of complete perfection, then there must 
 be an end to all hope of being justified by the law. 
 
 VERSE 16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; 
 to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed, &c. 
 This and the following verse contain the conclusion from the 
 previous reasoning, and especially from the two preceding 
 arguments: 'The inheritance promised to Abraham and his 
 seed must be either of the law, or of faith. It cannot be of the 
 law, for the law works wrath, therefore it is of faith.' The 
 expression in the original is simply dia, rovro x T:C<TTCOZ, there- 
 fore of faith. It matters little, so far as the sense is concerned, 
 whether we supply the words of xXypovofjiot eiae (therefore the 
 heirs are of faith,} from ver. 14, or the word iTta-fl-sAta (the 
 promise,] from ver. 13 ; or with Luther, dcxacoa'jvy, out of the 
 general context darum muss die Grerechtigkeit aus dem Grlau- 
 ben kommen. These are only different ways of saying the same 
 thing. The connection, as stated above, is in favour of the first 
 explanation. The inheritance is of faith, (a/a xara /w,) in 
 order that it might be a matter of grace. And it is of grace, 
 (e/C TO elvac fisfialav tyv iTrajjeXlav,) in order that the promise 
 might be sure. If salvation be in any form or to any degree 
 dependent on the merit, the goodness, or the stability of man, 
 it never can be sure, nay, it must be utterly unattainable. 
 Unless we are saved by grace, we cannot be saved at all. To 
 reject, therefore, a gratuitous salvation, is to reject the only 
 method of salvation available for sinners. Salvation being of 
 grace, suspended on the simple condition of faith, without 
 regard to parentage, to national or ecclesiastical connection, it 
 is available for all classes of men. And therefore the apostle 
 says, * The promise is sure (navrl roJ axspfian} to all the seed; 
 i. e. to' all the spiritual children of Abraham. He had already 
 shown in vs. 11, 12, that Abraham was the father of believing 
 Gentiles as well as of believing Jews. The word axsppa. (seed) 
 must therefore, in this connection, be understood of believers
 
 192 ROMANS IV. 17. 
 
 who, in a higher sense than mere natural descendants, are the 
 children of Abraham. Both classes of his seed are included in 
 the promise which is sure, (ou T(p kx rou vo//ou ^/ovoj^,) not to that 
 of the law only, i. e. not only to that portion of the seed who 
 are of the law, that is, believing Jews, but also (rw ix ma-reco^ 
 ' Aftpadfj?) to that which is of the faith of Abraham. These for- 
 mulas are indefinite, and susceptible, taken by themselves, of 
 different interpretations; but the context renders all plain. 
 Paul is speaking of the spiritual children of Abraham ; of those 
 who are heirs of the Inheritance promised to him. Of these 
 there are two classes; believing Jews and believing Gentiles. 
 The former are distinguished as (Ix vo//oy) of the law, the latter 
 as of the faith of Abraham, because their connection with him 
 is purely spiritual, whereas the Jewish believers were connected 
 with him by a twofold tie the one natural, the other spiritual. 
 Who is the father of us all, i. e. of all believers. The highest 
 privilege of New Testament saints is to be partakers of the 
 inheritance promised to Abraham. They are not exalted above 
 him, but united with him in the blessings which flow from union 
 with Christ. 
 
 VERSE 17. As it is written, I have made thee a father of 
 many nations, Gen. xvii. 5. This declaration, the apostle 
 informs us, contains a great deal more than the assurance that 
 the natural descendants Abraham should be very numerous. 
 Taken in connection with the promise, that "in him all the 
 nations of the earth should be blessed," it refers to his spiritual 
 as well as his natural seed, and finds its full accomplishment in 
 the extension of the blessing promised to him, to those of all 
 nations who are his children by faith. This clause is very pro- 
 perly marked as a parenthesis, as the preceding one, "who is 
 the father of us all," must be connected immediately with the 
 following words, before him whom he believed, even Gf-od, who 
 quickeneth the dead, c. The words xarivavrt ob IrriffTtuffe 
 Seotj, admit of different explanations. They are commonly 
 regarded as an example of the substantive being attracted to 
 the case of the relative, instead of the relative to that of the 
 substantive, #eou being in the genitive, because ou is. The 
 clause may therefore be resolved thus : xarlvawct 6zou $ IKKT- 
 retwre, before God whom he believed. To this, however, it is
 
 ROMANS IV. 17. 193 
 
 objected, that this form of attraction with the dative is very- 
 unusual, and therefore Winer, 24, 2, b, and others, adopt the 
 simple explanation, xarsvavrc #soD xarevawct oi> Imareuffs, (before 
 G-od, before whom he believed.) The sense in either case is 
 the same. Abraham is the father of us all, (xaT&avn,) before, 
 in the sight of that God in whom he believed. God looked upon 
 him as such. He stood before his omniscient eye, surrounded 
 by many nations of children. 
 
 It is not unusual for the apostle to attach to the name of God 
 a descriptive periphrase, bringing into view some divine attri- 
 bute or characteristic suited to the subject in hand. So here, 
 when speaking of God's promising to Abraham, a childless old 
 man, a posterity as numerous as the stars of heaven, it waa 
 most appropriate to refer to the omnipotence of God, to whom 
 nothing is impossible. Abraham believed, what to all humaa 
 appearance never could happen, because God, who made the 
 promise, is he who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those thing* 
 which be not, as though they were. To originate life is the pre>- 
 rogative of God. It requires almighty power, and is therefore 
 in Scripture specified as one of God's peculiar works ; see Deut^ 
 xxxii. 39, 1 Sam. ii. 6, 2 Kings v. 7, Ps. Ixviii. 20. The being 
 who can call the dead to life, must be able to fulfil to one,, 
 although as good as dead, the promise of a numerous posterity. 
 The other clause in this passage, (xat xcdouvTo? TO. py ovra Sx; 
 otra,) and calling things that be not, as being, is more doubtful. 
 There are three interpretations of these words, founded on three 
 different senses of the word (xahtv) to call. 1. To call, means to 
 command, to control, to muster or dispose of. Thus the psalm- 
 ist says, " The mighty God, even the Lord hath spoken, and 
 called the earth, from the rising of the sun unto the going down 
 thereof." Isaiah, speaking of the stars, says, "Who . . . bring- 
 eth out their host by number : he calleth them all by name, by 
 the greatness of his might," xl. 26, also Ps. cxlvii. 4, Isa. xlv. 3, 
 xlviii. 13. This gives a sense perfectly suited to the context. 
 God is described as controlling with equal ease things which 
 are not, and those which are. The actual and the possible are 
 equally subject to his command. All things are present to his 
 view, and all are under his control. This interpretation also is 
 suited to the peculiar form of expression, who calls (TO. py ovza. 
 13
 
 194 ROMANS IV. 117. 
 
 &C OVTO,) things not being, at being. It gives wz its appropri- 
 ate force. 2. To call, however, is often used to express the 
 creating energy of God. See Isa. xli. 4, xlviii. 13. Compare 
 Ps. xxix. 3 9. Philo de Great., TO. py OVTO. kx&zazv er'c ro 
 eivat. This also gives a good sense, as the omnipotence of God 
 cannot be more forcibly expressed than by saying, ' He calls 
 things not existing into existence.' But the difficulty is, that 
 <5>C ovra is not equivalent with ere TO eivae, nor with iao/jLzna, nor 
 with c TO Ctvajt. oc ovra, as Kollner and De Wette explain it. 
 This indeed is not an impossible meaning, inasmuch as oj/ra, as 
 Fritzsche says, may be the accusative of the effect, as in Philip. 
 iii. 21, "He shall change our vile body favfyiofipov) like unto 
 his glorious body," i. e. so as to be like ; see also 1 Thess. iii. 13. 
 As, however, the former interpretation gives so good a sense, 
 there is no need of resorting to these constrained explanations. 
 3. To call, is often used to express the effectual calling of men 
 by the Holy Spirit. Hence some understand the apostle as 
 here saying, ' God calls to be his children those who were not 
 children. ' But this is entirely foreign to the context. Paul 
 is presenting the ground of Abraham's faith in God. He 
 believed, because God was able to accomplish all things. 
 Everything is obedient to his voice. 
 
 DOCTRINE, 
 
 1. If the greatest and best men of the old dispensation had 
 to renounce entirely dependence upon their works, and to 
 accept of the favour of God as a gratuity, justification by works 
 must, for all men, be impossible, vs. 2, 3. 
 
 2. No man can glory, that is, complacently rejoice in his 
 own goodness in the sight of God. And this every man of an 
 enlightened conscience feels. The doctrine of justification by 
 works, therefore, is inconsistent with the inward testimony of 
 conscience, and can never give true peace of mind, vcr. 2. 
 
 3. The two methods of justification cannot be united. They 
 are as inconsistent as wages and a free gift. If of works, it is 
 not of grace; and if of grace, it is not of works, vs. 4, 5. 
 
 4. As God justifies the ungodly, it cannot be on the ground 
 f their own merit, but must be by the imputation of a right-
 
 ROMANS IV. 117. 196 
 
 iousness which does not personally belong to them, and which 
 they received by faith, vs. 5, 6, 11. 
 
 5. The blessings of the gospel, and the method of justifica- 
 tion which it proposes, are suited to all men; and are not to be 
 confined by sectarian limits, or bound down to ceremonial 
 observances, vs. 9 11. 
 
 6. The sacraments and ceremonies of the Church, although 
 
 * O 
 
 in the highest degree useful when viewed in their proper light, 
 become ruinous when perverted into grounds of confidence. 
 What answers well as a sign, is a miserable substitute for the 
 thing signified. Circumcision will not serve for righteousness, 
 nor baptism for regeneration, ver. 10. 
 
 7. As Abraham is the father of all believers, all believers are 
 brethren. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, 
 among them as Christians, vs. 11, 12. 
 
 8. The seed of Abraham, or true believers, with Jesus Christ 
 their head, are the heirs of the world. To them it will ulti- 
 mately belong ; even the uttermost parts of the earth shall be 
 their possession, ver. 13. 
 
 9. To speak of justification by obedience to a law which we 
 have broken, is a solecism. That which condemns cannot 
 justify, ver. 15. 
 
 10. Nothing is sure for sinners that is not gratuitous. A 
 promise suspended on obedience, they could never render sure. 
 One entirely gratuitous needs only to be accepted to become 
 ours, ver. 16. 
 
 11. It is the entire freeness of the gospel, and its requiring 
 faith as the condition of acceptance, which renders it suited to 
 all ages and nations, ver. 16. 
 
 12. The proper object of faith is the divine promise; or 
 Grod considered as able and determined to accomplish his 
 word, ver. 17. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The renunciation of a legal self-righteous spirit is the firt 
 requisition of the gospel. This must be done, or the gospel 
 cannot be accepted. 'He who works,' i. e. who trusts in his 
 works, refuses to be saved by grace, vs. 1 5.
 
 196 ROMANS IV. 1825. 
 
 2. The more intimately we are acquainted with our own 
 hearts and with the character of God, the more ready shall we 
 be to renounce our own righteousness, and to trust in his 
 mercy, vs. 2, 3. 
 
 3. Those only are truly happy and secure, who, under a 
 sense of ill-desert and helplessness, cast themselves upon the 
 grace and promise of God, vs. 7, 8. 
 
 4. Nothing is more natural, and nothing has occurred more 
 extensively in the Christian Church, than the perversion of the 
 means of grace into grpunds of dependence. Thus it was with 
 circumcision, and thus it is with baptism and the Lord's supper ; 
 thus too with prayer, fasting, &c. This is the rock on which 
 millions have been shipwrecked, vs. 9 12. 
 
 5. There is no hope for those who, forsaking the grace of 
 God, take refuge in a law which worketh wrath, ver. 15. 
 
 6. All things are ours if we are Christ's ; heirs of the life 
 that now is, and of that which is to come, ver. 13. 
 
 7. As the God in whom believers trust is he to whom all 
 things are known, and all things are subject, they should be 
 strong in faith, giving glory to God, ver. 17. 
 
 ROMANS IV. 1825. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE object of this section is the illustration of the faith of 
 Abraham, and the application of his case to our instruction. 
 With regard to Abraham's faith, the apostle states, first, its 
 object,, viz. the divine promise, ver. 18. He then illustrates its 
 strength, by a reference to the apparent impossibility of the 
 thing promised, vs. 19, 20. The ground of Abraham's con- 
 fidence was the power and veracity of God, ver. 21. The con- 
 sequence was, that he was justified by his faith, ver. 22. Hence 
 it is to be inferred that this is the true method of justification ; 
 for the record was made to teach us this truth. We are situ- 
 ated as Abraham was; we are called upon to believe in the 
 Almighty God, who, by raising up Christ from the dead, baa 
 accepted him as the propitiation for our sins, VB. 2325.
 
 ROMANS IV. 18. 197 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 "VERSE 18. Who against hope believed in hope. Here ire sfaide 
 may be taken adverbially, confidently: 'Against all human hope 
 or reasonable expectation, he confidently believed.' Or k may 
 indicate the subjective ground of his faith : he believed, because 
 he had a hope founded on the promise of God. He believed, 
 that he might become the father of many nations. The Greek 
 is, erf 70 fsvsa&at a?j~bv Tzaxspa, x.r.A., that is, according to one 
 explanation, the object of his faith was, that he should be the 
 father of many nations. The idea thus expressed is correct. 
 Abraham did believe that God would make him the father of 
 many nations. But to this it is objected that xiffre'jsiv e/c, with 
 an infinitive used as a substantive, although grammatically cor- 
 rect, is a construction which never occurs. Had the apostle, 
 therefore, intended to express the object of Abraham's faith, he 
 would probably have used ore, he believed that he should be, &c. 
 Others make ere TO feviad-oj express the result of his faith : ' He 
 believed . . . and hence he became,' &c. The consequence of his 
 faith was, that the promise was fulfilled. Most recent commenta- 
 tors assume that d$ with the infinitive here, as it commonly does, 
 expresses design, or intention ; not however the design of Abra- 
 ham, but of God: 'He believed in order that, agreeably to the 
 purpose of God, he might become the father of many nations.' 
 This best agrees with what is said in ver. 11, and with the con- 
 text. According to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed 
 be. This is a reference to the promise which was the object of 
 Abraham's faith. It is a quotation from Gen. xv. 5. The 
 word so refers to the stars of heaven, mentioned in the passage 
 as it stands in the Old Testament. The promise, therefore, 
 particularly intended by the apostle is, that Abraham should 
 be the father of many nations, 01 that his seed should be as 
 numerous as the stars. It has already been seen, however, that 
 the apostle understood this promise as including far more than 
 that the natural descendants of Abraham should be very numer- 
 ous ; see vs. 13, 17. The expression in the text is a concise 
 allusion to the various promises made to the ancient patriarch, 
 which had reference to all nations being blessed through 
 him. The promise cf a numerous posterity, therefore, included
 
 198 ROMANS IV. 1921. 
 
 the promise of Christ and his redemption. This is evident 
 1. Because Paul had been speaking of a promise (ver. 16,) in 
 which believing Jews and Gentiles were alike interested; see 
 Gal. iii. 14. 2. Because Paul asserts and argues that the seed 
 promised to Abraham, and to which the promise related, was 
 Jesus Christ, Gal. iii. 16. 3. So Abraham himself understood 
 it, according to the declaration of our Saviour ; John viii. 56, 
 "Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was 
 glad." He looked forward under the greatest discouragements 
 to the Redeemer as yet to come. We have the easier task to 
 look back to the same Deliverer, who has died for our sins, and 
 risen again for our justification, ver. 25. 
 
 VERSE 19. And being not weak in faith, he considered not 
 his own body, now dead, &c. The 18th verse had stated it was 
 contrary to all appearances that Abraham believed ; this verse 
 states the circumstances which rendered the accomplishment of 
 the promise an apparent impossibility, viz. his own advanced 
 age, and the age and barrenness of his wife. These circum- 
 stances he did not consider, that is, he did not allow them to 
 have weight, he did not fix his mind on the difficulties of the 
 case. Had he been weak in faith, and allowed himself to dwell 
 on the obstacles to the fulfilment of the divine promise, he 
 would have staggered. This does not imply that there was no 
 inward conflict with doubt in Abraham's mind. It only says, 
 that his faith triumphed over all difficulties. "The mind," says 
 Calvin, " is never so enlightened that there are no remains of 
 ignorance, nor the heart so established that there is no misgiv- 
 ings. With these evils of our nature," he adds, "faith main- 
 tains a perpetual conflict, in which conflict it is often sorely 
 shaken and put to great stress; but still it conquers, so that 
 believers may be said to be in ipsa injirmitate Jirmissimi." 
 Paul says Abraham was not weak, rfj -iaree, as to faith, 
 
 VERSES 20, 21. 1L- xtn;/yered not at the promise of God; o>j 
 dtzzfiifry. The aorist passive is here used in a middle sense, he 
 was not in strife with himself, i. e. he did not doubt ; src ryv 
 sxa-ffstiav, in reference to the promise of God ; ry axiariff., the 
 dative has a causal force, through unbelief. Want of faith in 
 God did not cause him to doubt the divine promise, d/U, but, 
 i. e. on the contrary; lusdLKsafuo&y, not middle, made himself
 
 ROMANS IV. 22. 199 
 
 strong, but passive, lie was made strong; rjy nlffrst, either by, or 
 as to faith. Giving glory to G-od; that is, the strength was 
 manifested in his giving glory to God. To give glory to God, 
 is to take him to be what he really is, almighty and faithful. 
 It is to show by our conduct that we give him credit, (so to 
 speak,) that he will and can do what he says. Therefore the 
 apostle adds, xac ir%jp<tfOpfy&8t$) and being fully persuaded; 
 that is, he gave glory to God by being fully persuaded that 
 what he had promised he was able also to perform. " Quod 
 addit," says Calvin, "dedisse gloriam Deo, in eo notandum est, 
 non posse Deo plus honoris deferri quam dum fide obsignamus 
 ejus veritatem ; sicuti rursus nulla ei gravior contumelia inuri 
 potest quam dum respuitur oblata ab ipso gratia, vel ejus verbo 
 derogatur auctoritas. Quare hoc in ejus cultu prsecipuum est 
 caput, promissiones ejus obedienter amplecti : vera religio a fide 
 incipit." It is therefore a very great error for men to suppose 
 that to doubt is an evidence of humility. On the contrary, to 
 doubt God's promise, or his love, is to dishonour him, because 
 it is to question his word. Multitudes refuse to accept his grace, 
 because they do not regard themselves as worthy, as though 
 their worthiness were the ground on which that grace is offered. 
 The thing to be believed is, that God accepts the unworthy ; 
 that for Christ's sake, he justifies the unjust. Many find it far 
 harder to believe that God can love them, notwithstanding their 
 sinfulness, than the hundred-years-old patriarch did to believe 
 that he should be the father of many nations. Confidence in 
 God's word, a full persuasion that he can do what seei,.s to us 
 impossible, is as necessary in the one case as in the othf r. The 
 sinner honours God, in trusting his grace, as much as A braham 
 did in trusting his power. 
 
 VERSE 22. Therefore also it was imputed to him for right- 
 eousness. That is, the faith of Abraham was imputed to him 
 for righteousness. He was accepted as righteous on account 
 of his faith ; not that faith itself was the ground, but the con- 
 dition of his justification. He believed, and God accepted him 
 as righteous ; just as now we believe, and are accepted as right- 
 eous, not on account of any merit in our faith, but simply on 
 the ground of the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to 
 Us when we believe; that is, it is given to us, whenever ire
 
 JOO ROMANS IV. 23, 24. 
 
 arc willing to receive and rest upon it. "Nihil plus conferre 
 fides nabis potest, quam a verbo acceperit. Quare non protinus 
 Justus erit, qui generali tantura confusaque notitia imbutus 
 Deum veracem esse statuet, nisi in promissione gratise quiescat." 
 Faith justifies by appropriating to ourselves the divine promise. 
 But if that promise does not refer to our justification, faith 
 cannot make us righteous. The object of justifying or saving 
 faith, that is, of those acts of faith which secure our acceptance 
 with God, is not the divine veracity in general, nor the divine 
 authority of the Scriptures, but the specific promise of gratu- 
 >tous acceptance through the mediation and merit of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 VERSES 23, 24. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, 
 that it was imputed to him. The record concerning the faith 
 and consequent justification of Abraham, was not made with the 
 simple intention of giving a correct history of that patriarch. 
 It had a much higher purpose. Abraham was a representative 
 person. What was true of him, was true of all others who stood 
 in the same relation to God. The method in which he was jus- 
 tified, is the method in which other sinners must be justified. 
 That he was justified by faith, is recorded in the Scriptures to 
 be a perpetual testimony as to the true method of justification 
 before God. The apostle therefore adds, that it was 01 faHs, 
 on our account. That is, on account of those to whom it shall 
 be imputed; ol^ fjtsAhe t.of'^ta&at, to whom it is appointed to be 
 imputed, in case they should believe. As all men are sinners, 
 the method in which one was certainly justified is the method 
 by which others may secure the same blessing. If Abraham 
 was justified by faith, we may be justified by faith. If the 
 object of Abraham's faith was the promise of redemption, the 
 same must be the object of our faith. He believed in God as 
 quickening the dead, that is, as able to raise up from one as 
 good as dead, the promised Redeemer. Therefore those to 
 whom faith shall now be imputed for righteousness are described 
 as those who believe that G-od hath raised up Jesus from the 
 dead. By thus raising him from the dead, he declared him to 
 be his Son, and the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations 
 of the earth were to be blessed. The object of the Christian's 
 faith, therefore, is the same as the object of the faith of Abra-
 
 ROMANS IV. 25. 201 
 
 dam. Both believe the promise of redemption through the 
 promised seed, which is Christ. When we are said to believe 
 in God, who raised up Christ, it of course implies that we 
 believe that Christ was thus raised up. As the resurrection of 
 Christ was the great decisive evidence of the divinity of his 
 mission, and the validity of all his claims, to believe that he 
 rose from the dead, is to believe he was the Son of God, the 
 propitiation for our sins, the Redeemer and the Lord of men ; 
 that he was all he claimed to be, and had accomplished all he 
 purposed to effect. Compare Rom. x. 9, Acts i. 22, iv. 33, 
 1 Cor. xv., and other passages, in which the resurrection of 
 Christ is spoken of as the corner-stone of the gospel, as the 
 great fact to be proved, and which, being proved, involves all 
 the rest. 
 
 VERSE 25. Who was delivered for our offences, and raised 
 again for our justification. This verse is a comprehensive state- 
 ment of the gospel. Christ was delivered unto death for our 
 offences, i. e. on account of them, and for their expiation; see 
 Isa. liii. 5, 6, Heb. ix. 28, 1 Peter ii. 21. This delivering of 
 Christ is ascribed to God, Rom. viii. 32, Gal. i. 3, and else- 
 where ; and to himself, Tit. ii. 14, Gal. ii. 20. It was by the 
 divine purpose and counsel he suffered for the expiation of sin ; 
 and he gave himself willingly to death. " He was led like a 
 lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is 
 dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Christ is said to have 
 been delivered unto death, did. TO. xapoatTdipaxa '/jfuov, and to 
 have been raised, did. ryv datautaev -/jfiaiy; that is, he was 
 delivered in order that our sins might be expiated, and he was 
 raised in order that we might be justified. His death and his 
 resurrection were alike necessary ; his death, as a satisfaction 
 to divine justice. He bore our sins in his own body on the 
 tree. That is, he bore the punishment of our sins. " Significat 
 ergo Paulus," says Calvin, " satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris 
 in cruce fuisse peractam. Nam ut Christus -nos in gratiam 
 Patris restitueret, reatum nostrum ab ipso aboleri oportuit; 
 quod fieri non poterat, nisi posnam, cui solvendae pares non 
 eramus, nostro nomine lueret." His resurrection was no less 
 necessary, first, as a proof that his death had been accepted as 
 an expiation for our sins. Had he not risen, it would have been
 
 202 ROMANS IV. 25. 
 
 evident that he wa not what he claimed to be. We should be 
 yet in our sins, 1 Cor. xv. 17, and therefore still under con- 
 demnation. Our ransom, in that case, instead of being publicly 
 accepted, had been rejected. And secondly, in order to secure 
 the continued application of the merits of his sacrifice, he rose 
 from the dead, and ascended on high, there to appear before 
 God for us. He stands at the right hand of God, ever to make 
 intercession for his people, thereby securing for them the benefits 
 of his redemption. With a dead Saviour, a Saviour over whom 
 death had triumphed and held captive, our justification had been 
 for ever impossible. As it was necessary that the high priest, 
 under the old economy, should not only slay the victim at the 
 altar, but carry the blood into the most holy place, and sprinkle 
 it upon the mercy-seat ; so it was necessary not only that our 
 great High Priest should suffer in the outer court, but that he 
 should pass into heaven, to present his righteousness before 
 God for our justification. Both, therefore, as the evidence of 
 the acceptance of his satisfaction on our behalf, and as a neces- 
 sary step to secure the application of the merits of his sacrifice, 
 the resurrection of Christ was absolutely essential, even for our 
 justification. Its relation to inward spiritual life and eternal 
 blessedness is not here brought into view ; for Paul is not here 
 speaking of our sanctification. That dcxaiioatz means justifica- 
 tion, and not the act of making holy, need hardly be remarked. 
 That follows of necessity, not only from the signification of the 
 word, but from the whole scope of this part of the epistle. It 
 is only by those who make justification identical with regenera- 
 tion, that this is called into question. "Pervertunt autein," 
 says Calovius, "sententiam Apostoli Papistae, cum id eum velle 
 contendunt, mortem Christi exemplar fuisse mortis peccatorum, 
 resurrectionem autem exemplar renovationis et regcnerationis 
 internae, per quam in novitate vitae ambulamus, quia hie non 
 agitur vel de morte peccatorum, vel de renovatione et novitate 
 vitae; de quibus, cap. vi., demum agere incipit Apostolus; sed 
 de non imputatione vel remissione peccatorum, et imputatione 
 justitise vel justificatione." Ol^hausen agrees substantially 
 with the Romish interpretation of this passage, as he gives 
 dexaiwacz an impossible sense, viz. (die den neuen Meuschen 
 schaffende Thatigkeit,) the regenerating activity of God. It
 
 ROMANS IV. 1825. 203 
 
 will be observed, that the theology of Olshausen, and of the 
 mystical school to which he belongs, has far greater affinity for 
 the Romish, than for the Protestant system. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Faith is an operative assent to the divine testimony, not 
 the reception of truth as something which can be proved by our 
 own arguments, vs. 18, 20. 
 
 2. When faith is genuine it is founded on correct apprehen- 
 sions of the divine character, and has a controlling influence 
 over the heart and life, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 3. The method of salvation has never been changed ; Abra- 
 ham was not only saved by faith, but the object of his faith was 
 the same as the object of ours, vs. 24, 17. 
 
 4. The resurrection of Christ, as an historical fact, estab- 
 lished by the most satisfactory evidence, (see 1 Cor. xv.,) 
 authenticates the whole gospel. As surely as Christ has risen, 
 so surely shall believers be saved, ver. 25. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The true way to have our faith strengthened is not to 
 consider the difficulties in the way of the thing promised, but 
 the character and resources of God, who has made the pro- 
 mise, ver. 19. 
 
 2. It is as possible for faith to be strong when the thing pro- 
 mised is most improbable, as when it is probable. Abraham's 
 faith should serve as an example and admonition to us. He 
 believed that a Saviour would be born from his family, when 
 his having a son was an apparent impossibility. We are only 
 called upon to believe that the Saviour has been born, has suf- 
 fered, and risen again from the dead facts established on 
 the strongest historical, miraculous, and spiritual evidence, 
 vs. 20, 24, 25. 
 
 3. Unbelief is a very great sin, as it implies a doubt of the 
 veracity and power of God, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 4. All that is written in the Scriptures is for our instruction. 
 What is promised, commanded, or threatened, (unless of a
 
 204 ROMANS V. 111. 
 
 strictly personal nature,) although addressed originally to indi- 
 viduals, belongs to them only as representatives of classes of 
 men, and is designed for all of similar character, and in similar 
 circumstances, ver. 23. 
 
 5. The two great truths of the gospel are, that Christ died 
 as a sacrifice for our sins, and that he rose again for our justifi- 
 cation. Whosoever, from the heart, believes these truths, shall 
 be saved, ver. 25, Rom. x. 9. 
 
 6. The denial of the propitiatory death of Christ, or of his 
 resurrection from the dead, is a denial of the gospel. It is a 
 refusing to be saved according to the method which God has 
 appointed, ver. 25. 
 
 CHAPTEK V. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 FROM verse 1 to 11, inclusive, the apostle deduces some of the 
 more obvious and consolatory inferences from the doctrine of 
 gratuitous justification. From the 12th verse to the end, he 
 illustrates his great principle of the imputation of righteous- 
 ness, or the regarding and treating "the many" as righteous, 
 on account of the righteousness of one man, Christ Jesus, by a 
 reference to the fall of all men in Adam. 
 
 ROMANS V. 111. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE first consequence of justification by faith is, that we 
 have peace with God, ver. 1. The second, that we have not 
 only a sense of his present favour, but assurance of future 
 glory, ver. 2. The third, that our afflictions, instead of being 
 inconsistent with the divine favour, are made directly conducive 
 to the confirmation of our hope ; the Holy Spirit bearing witness 
 to the fact that we are the objects of the love of God, vs. 3 5.
 
 ROMANS V. 1. 205 
 
 The fourth, the certainty of the final salvation of all believers. 
 This is argued from the freeness and greatness of the divine 
 love; its freeness being manifested in its exercise towards 
 the unworthy; and its greatness, in the gift of the Son of God, 
 vs. 6 10. Salvation is not merely a future though certain 
 good, it is a present and abundant joy, ver. 11. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VEKSE 1. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have* peace 
 with Grod; that is, we are reconciled to God. We are no longer 
 the objects of God's displeasure, his favour having been propi- 
 tiated by the death of his Son, ver. 10. As a consequence of 
 this reconciliation, we have conscious peace with God, that is, 
 we have neither any longer the present upbraidings of an unap- 
 peased conscience, nor the dread of divine vengeance. Both 
 these ideas are included in the peace here spoken of. The 
 latter, however, is altogether the more prominent. The phrase 
 ecpyvyv lyopw npbz rbv 6eov, we have peace in regard to Grod, 
 properly means. God is at peace with us, his dp-ft (wrath) 
 towards us is removed.' It expresses, as Philippi says, " not a 
 state of mind, but a relation to God."f It is that relation 
 which arises from the expiation of sin, and consequently justi- 
 fication. We are no longer his enemies, in the objective sense 
 of tho term, (see ver. 10,) but are the objects of his favour. 
 The whole context still treats of reconciliation and propitiation, 
 of the removal of the wrath of God by the death of his Son, 
 and not of inward sanctification. It is true that the immediate 
 and certain effect of God's reconciliation to us is our reconcilia- 
 tion to him. If he is at peace with us, we have inward peace. 
 Conscience is only the reflection of his countenance, the echo, 
 
 * Instead of o/*w, we have peace, %*/" let us have, is read in the MSS. A. 
 C. D. 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 42, 44, 46, 55, 66, in the Syriac, Coptic, and 
 Vulgate versions, and by several of the Fathers. The latter reading is adopted 
 by Lachmann. But as the external authorities are nearly equally divided, and 
 as the common reading gives a sense so much better suited to the context, it 
 is retained by the majority of critical editors. 
 
 | Commentar ttber den Brief Pauli an die Homer von Friederick Adolph 
 Philippi, Doktor und ord. Professor der Theologie zu Dorpat; since ?f 
 Rostock.
 
 206 ROMANS V. 2. 
 
 often feeble and indistinct, often terribly clear and unmistaka- 
 ble, of his judgment; and therefore subjective peace uniformly 
 attends faith in the love of God, or assurance of our justifica- 
 tion. Although, therefore, the primary idea of the apostle is, 
 that God is at peace with us, it is nevertheless true that inward 
 tranquillity of mind is the fruit of justification by faith. It is 
 peculiarly an evangelical doctrine, that pious affections are the 
 fruit of this reconciliation to God, and not the cause of it. Paul 
 says this peace is the result of justification by faith. He who 
 relies on his works for justification, can have no peace. He can 
 neither remove the displeasure of God, nor quiet the apprehen- 
 sion of punishment. Peace is not the result of mere gratuitous 
 forgiveness, but of justification, of a reconciliation founded 
 upon atonement. The enlightened conscience is never satisfied 
 until it sees that God can be just in justifying the ungodly; 
 that sin has been punished, the justice of God satisfied, his law 
 honoured and vindicated. It is when he thus sees justice and 
 mercy embracing each other, that the believer has that peace 
 which passes all understanding; that sweet quiet of the soul in 
 which deep humility, in view of personal unworthiness, is min- 
 gled with the warmest gratitude to that Saviour by whose blood 
 God's justice has been satisfied, and conscience appeased. 
 Hence Paul says we have this peace through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. It is not through ourselves in any way, neither by our 
 own merit, nor our own efforts. It is all of grace. It is all 
 through Jesus Christ. And this the justified soul is ever 
 anxious to acknowledge. "Pacem habemus. Singularis justitiae 
 fidei fructus. Nam siquis ab operibus conscientife securitatem 
 petere velit, (quod in profanis et brutis hominibus cernitur,) 
 frustra id tentabit. Aut enim contemptu vel oblivione Divini 
 judicii sopitum est pectus, aut trepidatione ac formidine quoque 
 plenum est, donee in Christum recubuerit. Ipse enim solus est 
 pax nostra. Pax ergo conscientise serenitatem significat, quae 
 ex eo nascitur, quod Deum sibi reconciliatum sentit." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 2. By whom also we have access by faith into this 
 t/race, &c. This verse admits of different interpretations. Ac- 
 cording to one view, it introduces a new and higher benefit than 
 peace with God, as the consequence of our justification: 'We 
 nave not only peace, but access (to God,) and joyful confidence
 
 HOMANS V. 2. 207 
 
 of salvation.' Besides other objections to this interpretation, 
 it overlooks the difference between s^ofjtev and lafflxapev, ren- 
 dering both, we have: 'We have peace, and we have access;' 
 whereas la%yxafjii> is properly, we have had. This clause, there- 
 fore, instead of indicating an additional and higher blessing 
 than the peace spoken of in ver. 1, expresses the ground of that 
 placer 'We have peace with God through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, through whom also we have had access into this grace.' 
 So Meyer, Philippi, &c. ' We are indebted to Christ not only 
 for peace, but also for access to this grace, (this state of justifi- 
 cation,) which is the ground of our peace.' The word rtooaafto-^ 
 means either introduction or access. In Eph. ii. 18, and iii. 12, 
 it has the latter meaning, which may be retained here. In both 
 the other places in which it occurs, it is used of access to God. 
 Many commentators so understand it in this place, and there- 
 fore put a comma after la%jxajuy, and connect xiaret with ere 
 TTTJV ydptv TauTyv. The sense would then be, ' Through whom 
 also we have had access to God, by faith on this grace.' The 
 objections to this explanation are, that it supposes an omission 
 in the text, and that the expression "faith on the grace," has 
 no scriptural analogy. The obviously natural construction is 
 to connect xpoaafMfrjV w ^h ere rjyv ydptv ra'j-ryv, as is done in 
 our version, and by the great majority of commentators, and to 
 take rfj xiarei instrumentally, by faith. The grace to which we 
 have access, or into which we have been introduced, is the state 
 of justification. The fact, therefore, that we are justified, we, 
 rather than others, is not due to anything in us. We did not 
 open the way, or introduce ourselves into this state. We were 
 brought into it by Christ. "Accessus quidem nomine initium 
 salutis a Christo esse docens, preparations excludit, quibus 
 stulti homines Dei misericordiam se antevertere putant; acsi 
 iiceret, Christum nihil promeritis obviam venire manumque 
 porrigere." Calvin. In which we stand. The antecedent of 
 the relative ($) is not xlffTse, but fo.pw; in which grace we 
 stand ; that is, we are firmly and immovably established. So 
 in John viii. 44, it is said of Satan, that he stood not (pty 
 effTTjXsv) in the truth, did not remain steadfast therein. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 1, "Wherein ye stand," 2 Cor. i. 24. The state, therefore, 
 into which the believer is introduced by Christ, is not a preca-
 
 208 ROMANS V. 2. 
 
 rious one. He has not only firm ground on which to stand, buv 
 he has strength divinely imparted to enable him to keep his 
 foothold. And rejoice in hope of the glory of Grod. The word 
 xa'j%aofiae is one of Paul's favourite terms. It properly means 
 to talk of one's self, to praise one's self, to boast; then to con- 
 gratulate one's self, to speak of ourselves as glorious or blessed; 
 and then to felicitate ourselves in anything as a ground of con- 
 fidence and source of honour and blessedness. Men are com- 
 manded not to glory (xa'j%aa&ae) in themselves, or in men, or in 
 the flesh, but in God alone. In this passage the word may be 
 rendered, to rejoice, 'we rejoice in hope.' Still something more 
 than mere joy is intended. It is a glorying, a self-felicitation 
 and exultation, in view of the exaltation and blessedness which 
 Christ has secured for us. In hope of the glory of God. The 
 object or ground of the rejoicing or boasting expressed by this 
 verb is indicated here by im; commonly, in the New Testament, 
 the matter of the boasting is indicated by iv, sometimes by 
 mp and nspi. The glory of Grod may mean that glory which 
 God gives, or that glory which he possesses. In either case, it 
 refers to the exaltation and blessedness secured to the believer, 
 who is to share in the glory of his divine Redeemer. " The 
 glory which thou gavest me," said our Lord, "I have given 
 them," John xvii. 22. There is a joyful confidence expressed 
 in these words, an assurance of ultimate salvation, which is the 
 appropriate effect of justification. We are authorized and 
 bound to feel sure that, having through Jesus Christ been 
 reconciled to God, we shall certainly be saved. This is only a 
 becoming confidence in the merit of his sacrifice, and in the sin- 
 cerity of God's love. This confidence is not founded on our- 
 selves, neither on the preposterous idea that we deserve the 
 favour of God, nor the equally preposterous idea that we have in 
 ourselves strength to persevere in faith or obedience. Our con- 
 fidence is solely on the merit of Christ, and the gratuitous and 
 infinite love of God. Although this assurance is the legitimate 
 effect of reconciliation, and the want of it is evidence of weak- 
 ness, still in this, as in other respects, the actual state of the 
 believer generally falls far short of the ideal. He ever lives 
 below his privileges, and goes limping and halting, when he 
 should mount up as with the wings of the eagle. Still it ia
 
 ROMANS V.-3, 4. 209 
 
 important for him to know that assurance is not an unseemly 
 presumption, but a privilege and duty. " Hie ever tuntur," 
 says Calvin, " pestilentissima duo sophistarum dcgmata, alte* 
 rum, quo jubent Christianos esse contentos eonjectura morali. 
 in percipienda erga se Dei gratia, alterum, quo tradunt omnes 
 esse incertos finalis perseverentiae. Atqui nisi et certa in prae- 
 sens intelligentia, et in futurum constans ac minime dubia sit 
 persuasio, quis gloriari auderet?" 
 
 VEKSES 3, 4. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations 
 also. Not only do we rejoice in this hope of future glory, but 
 we glory in tribulations also. Since our relation to God ia 
 changed, the relation of all things to us is changed. Afflictions, 
 which before were the expressions of God's displeasure, are now 
 the benevolent and beneficent manifestations of his love. And 
 instead of being inconsistent with our filial relation to him, they 
 serve to prove that he regards and loves us as his children ; Rom. 
 viii. 18, Heb. xii. 6. Tribulations, therefore, although for the 
 present not joyous, but grievous, become to the believer matter 
 of joy and thankfulness. The words xau%(b/ji&a In r?c &ti<pfft 
 do not mean that we glory in the midst of afflictions, but on 
 account of them. They are themselves the matter or ground 
 of the glorying. So the Jews are said to glory (^y) in the law, 
 others glory in men, the believer glories in the Lord ; so con- 
 stantly. Afflictions themselves are to the Christian a ground of 
 glorying ; he feels them to be an honour and a blessing. This- 
 is a sentiment often expressed in the word of God. Our Lord 
 says, "Blessed are they who mourn:" "Blessed' are the perse- 
 cuted;" "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you." He calls 
 on his suffering disciples to rejoice and be exceeding glad when 
 they are afflicted. Matt. v. 4, 10 12. The apostles departed 
 from the Jewish council, "rejoicing that they were counted 
 worthy to suffer shame for Christ's narae." Acts v. 41. Peter 
 calls upon Christians to rejoice when they are partakers of 
 Christ's sufferings, and pronounces them happy 'when they are 
 reproached for his sake. 1 Pet. iv. 13, 14. And Paul says, 
 "Most gladly therefore will I glory in (on account of) my 
 infirmities," (i. e. my sufferings.) "I take pleasure," he says, 
 "in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in 
 distresses for Christ's sake." 2 Cor. xii. 10, 11. This is not- 
 14
 
 210 ROMANS V. 5. 
 
 irrational or fanatical. Christians do not glory in suffering, a? 
 such, or for its own sake, but as the Bible teaches, 1. Because 
 they consider it an honour to suffer for Christ. 2. Because they 
 rejoice in being the occasion of manifesting his power in their 
 support and deliverance ; and, 3. Because suffering is made the 
 means of their own sanctification and preparation for usefulness 
 here, and for heaven hereafter. The last of these reasons is 
 that to which the apostle refers in the context. We glory in 
 afflictions, he says, because affliction worketh patience, fatopnvy. 
 constancy. It calls into exercise that strength and firmness 
 evinced in patient endurance of suffering, and in perseverance 
 in fidelity to truth and duty, under the severest trials. And 
 this constancy worketh experience, doxtfjcq. This word means, 
 1. Trial, as in 2 Cor. viii. 2, "In a great trial of affliction." 
 
 1. e. in affliction which is a trial, that which puts men to the test. 
 
 2. Evidence, or proof, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 3, "Since ye seek a 
 proof of Christ speaking in me." Compare 2 Cor. ii. 9, Philip, 
 ii. 22. This would give a good sense here : ' Constancy produces 
 evidence' of the fidelity of God, or of our fidelity. 3. The word 
 is used metonymica-lly for the result of trial, i. e. approbation, 
 or that which is proved worthy of approbation : ' doxitrr] est 
 qualitas ejus, qui est doxiuoz.' Bengel. It is tried integrity, a 
 state of mind which has stood the test. Compare James i. 12, 
 "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation, (&; uzousi^si 
 iZEtpaapov;) for when he is tried (on doxtuo? T'Sfousvo-) he shall 
 receive the crown of life." l T7tofjLov^, the endurance of trial, 
 therefore, makes a man doxcuo?; in other words, it worketh 
 doxifjty. It produces a strong, tested faith. Hence the parallel 
 expression, TO doxluiov 6//ov TTJC Trrerrewc, the trying of your 
 faith. 1 Pet. i. 7. And this doxe/jy, well tested faith, or this 
 endurance of trial produces hope; tends to confirm and 
 strengthen the hope of the glory of God, which we owe to our 
 justification through Jesus Christ. 
 
 VERSE 5. And hope maketh not ashamed, (xa^fuo-yj^ic.^ Not 
 to make ashamed, is not to put us to the shame of disappoint- 
 ment. The hope of the believer, says Calvin, "habet certissi- 
 mum salutis exitum." It certainly eventuates in salvation. 
 See ix. 33. The hope which true believers entertain, founded 
 on the very nature of pious exercises, shall never disappoint
 
 ROMANS V. 6. 211 
 
 them, Ps. xxii. 5. The ground of this assurance, however, is 
 not the strength of our purpose, or confidence in our own good- 
 ness, but the love of God. The latter clause of the verse assigns 
 the reason why the Christian's hope shall not be found delusive; 
 it is because the love of G-od is shed abroad in our hearts, by 
 the Holy Grhost given unto us. ' The love of God' is his love to 
 us, and not ours to him, as appears from the following verses, 
 in which the apostle illustrates the greatness and freeness of 
 this love, by a reference to the unworthiness of its objects. To 
 shed abroad, (lxx%urai, it has been, and continues to be shed 
 abroad,) is to communicate abundantly, and hence to evince 
 clearly, Acts ii. 17, x. 45, Titus iii. 6. This manifestation of 
 divine love is not any external revelation of it in the works of 
 Providence, or even in redemption, but it is in our hearts, Iv 
 ra<c xapdiais tffJifov, diffused abroad within our hearts, where sv, 
 in, is not used for scs, into. "The love of God," says Philippi, 
 " does not descend upon us as dew in drops, but as a stream 
 which spreads itself abroad through the whole soul, filling it 
 with the consciousness of his presence and favour. And this 
 inward persuasion that we are the objects of the love of God, is 
 not the mere result of the examination of evidence, nor is it a 
 vain delusion, but it is produced by the Holy Ghost: "The 
 Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the 
 children of God," Rom. viii. 16, 2 Cor. i. 21, 22, Eph. i. 14. 
 As, however, the Spirit never contradicts himself, he never 
 bears witness that "the children of the devil" are the children 
 of God ; that is, that the unholy, the disobedient, the proud or 
 malicious, are the objects of the divine favour. Any reference, 
 therefore, by the immoral, to the witness of the Spirit in their 
 favour, must be vain and delusive. 
 
 VERSE 6. For tvhen we were yet without strength. The con- 
 nection of this verse, as indicated by 7-^/7, is with ver. 5. We 
 are the object of God's love, for Christ died for us. The gift 
 of Christ to die on our behalf, is everywhere in Scripture 
 represented as the highest possible or conceivable proof of the 
 love of God to sinners. John iii. 16, 1 John iii. 16, iv. 9, 10. 
 The objection that the Church doctrine represents the death of 
 Christ as exciting or procuring the love of an unloving God, is 
 with )ut the shadow of foundation. The Scriptures represent
 
 212 ROMANS V. 6. 
 
 the love of God to sinners as independent of the work of Christ, 
 and anterior to it. He so loved us as to give his only begotten 
 Son to reconcile our salvation with his justice. In the Greek 
 of this passage, Ire yap Xptarbz OVTWV fawn da&sviau, the In, 
 yet, is out of its natural place; it belongs to OVTWV d.ad&iov, 
 (as in ver. 8, in bfiapToiltav,) and not to Xptaro;;. Such tra- 
 jections of the particles are not unusual even in classical Greek. 
 See Winer, 65, 4 : ' Christ died for us, when we were yet weak.' 
 This slight irregularity has given rise to considerable diversity 
 of readings, even in the older manuscripts. Some, instead of 
 In at the beginning of the verse, have etj-s or ere TC, and place 
 ire after faofrtvibv; others have in both at the beginning and at 
 the end of the clause. The great majority of editors and com- 
 mentators retain the common reading, and refer the in to 
 ovT(ov, &c., as is done in our version. We being yefc weak. The 
 weakness here intended is spiritual weakness, destitution of 
 strength for what is spiritually good, a weakness arising from, 
 and consisting in sinfulness. The same idea, therefore, is ex- 
 pressed in ver. 8, by the words in bpaprtDlMv, when we were 
 yet sinners. What, in Isa. liii. 4, is expressed by the LXX. in 
 the words roc &/uapnai; fjftaiv <f>spsi, he bears our sins, is, in 
 Matt. viii. 17, expressed by saying, rac dff&evelaz fjfMov iXafte, 
 he took our weaknesses. In due time, xara xaepov, are not to 
 be connected with the preceding participial, 'we being weak 
 according to (or considering) the time,' secundum rationem 
 temporis, as Calvin and Luther, after Chrysostom and Theo- 
 doret, render it, but with the following verb, dx$av, he died 
 xara xaepov. This may mean, at the appointed, or at the appro- 
 priate time. The former is more in accordance with the analogy 
 of Scripture. Christ came at the time appointed by the Father. 
 The same idea is expressed in Gal. iv. 4, by " the fulness of 
 time;" compare Eph. i. 10, 1 Tim. ii. 6, Titus i. 3, John v. 4. 
 Of course the appointed was also the appropriate time. The 
 question only concerns the form in which the idea is expressed. 
 He died, bxsp aatfiibv, for tlie ungodly. As the apostle had said, 
 'when we were weak,' it would have been natural for him to 
 gay, * Christ died for us, 1 rather than that he died for the 
 ungodly, had it not been his design to exalt the gratuitous 
 nature of God's love. Christ died for us the ungodly; and
 
 ROMANS V. 6. 213 
 
 therein, as the apostle goes on to show, is the mysteriousness 
 of the divine love revealed. That (rod should love the good, 
 the righteous, the pure, the godly, is what we can understand; 
 but that the infinitely Holy should love the unholy, and give 
 his Son for their redemption, is the wonder of all wonders, 
 " Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, 
 and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins." 1 John 
 iv. 10. As the love of a mother for her child, with which God 
 condescends to compare his love towards us, is not founded on 
 the attractive qualities of that child, but is often strongest when 
 its object is the least worthy, so God loves us when sinners. 
 The whole confidence of the apostle in the continuance of this 
 love (and therefore in the final perseverance of the saints) is 
 founded on its being thus gratuitous. If he loved us because 
 we loved him, he would love us only so long as we love him, and 
 on that condition ; and then our salvation would depend on the 
 constancy of our treacherous hearts. But as God loved us as 
 sinners, as Christ died for us as ungodly, our salvation depends, 
 as the apostle argues, not on our loveliness, but on the con- 
 stancy of the love of God. This idea pervades this whole para- 
 graph, and is brought more distinctly into view in the following 
 verses. Christ died for the ungodly ; that is, in their place, 
 and for their salvation. The idea of substitution is not indeed 
 necessarily involved in the force of the preposition u~so, which 
 means for, in behalf of, while dvri means in the place of. 
 None the less certainly, however, is the doctrine here taught. 
 To die for a man, means to die for his benefit. And there- 
 fore, if this were all that the Scriptures taught concerning the 
 relation between Christ's death and our salvation, it would 
 remain undecided, whether he died for us as an example, as a 
 martyr, or as a substitute. But when it is said that he died 
 as a sacrifice, that he gave his life as a ransom, that he .was 
 a propitiation, then the specific method in which Christ's 
 death benefits us is determined. It is therefore with u~sp, as 
 with our preposition for; whether or not it expresses the 
 idea of substitution depends on the context, and the nature 
 jf the subject. In such passages as this, and 2 Cor. v. 15, 
 20, 21, Gal. iii. 13, Philemon 3, UTISO involves in it the mean- 
 in;; of Civri.
 
 214 ROMANS V. 7. 
 
 VERSE 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, ye. 
 peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. The 
 greatness and freeuess of the love of God is illustrated in this 
 and the following verse, by making still more prominent the 
 uuworthiness of its objects : ' It is hardly to be expected that 
 any one would die, in the place of a merely righteous man, 
 though for the good man, this self-denial might possibly be 
 exercised. But we, so far from being good, were not even 
 righteous; we were sinners, ungodly, and enemies.' The dif- 
 ference between the words righteous and good, as here used, is 
 that which, in common usage, is made between just and kind. 
 The former is applied to a man who does all that the law or 
 justice can demand of him, the latter to him who is governed 
 by love. The just man commands respect ; the good man calls 
 forth affection. Respect being a cold and feeble principle, com- 
 pared to love, the sacrifices to which it leads are comparatively 
 slight. This distinction between oixcuoz and a.fa&6z is illustrated 
 by that which Cicero, De Officiis, Lib. III. 15, makes between 
 Justus and bonus: "Si vir bonus is est qui prodest quibus 
 potest, nocet nemini, recte justum virum, bonum non facile 
 reperiemus." The interpretation given above is the one gene- 
 rally adopted; it suits the context, the signification of the 
 words, and the structure of the passage. The design of the 
 apostle is to represent the death of Christ as an unexampled 
 manifestation of love. Among men, it was never heard of that 
 one died for a man simply just ; the most that human nature 
 could bo expected to accomplish is, that one should die for his 
 benefactor, or for the good man one so good as to be charac- 
 terized and known as the good. There is evidently a climax in 
 the passage, as indicated by the opposition between (/ju'riez and 
 rd'/^jL) scarcely and possibly. The passage, however, has been 
 differently interpreted. Luther takes both dtxalou and rou 
 dyad-ov as neuters : " Scarcely for the right will any one die, 
 possibly for something good some one might dare to die." 
 Calvin makes no distinction between the words: "Rarissimum 
 sane inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo quis mori 
 sustineat quanquam illud nonnunquam accidere possit." Meyer 
 takes d:xa:ui>, as it is without the article, as masculine, but 
 TO~J arafati as neuter, and renders the latter clause of the
 
 ROMANS V. 8, 9. 215 
 
 verse interrogatively : " Hardly for a righteous man will one 
 die, for who can easily bring himself to die for what is good 
 (TO dfa&bv, the good)?" The common interpretation is per- 
 fectly satisfactory, and to these, other objections more or less 
 decisive may be adduced. Instead of dixaiou, the Syriac reads 
 d.dixou / 'Scarcely for an unrighteous man will one die.' But 
 this is not only unauthorized, but the sense is not so appro- 
 priate. 
 
 VERSE 8. But G-od commendeth his love towards us, in that, 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 'Commendeth,' 
 a'j^lff-c^at, proves, or renders conspicuous; see iii. 5. What 
 renders the love of God so peculiarly conspicuous, is his send- 
 ing his S.on to die, not for the good, nor even for the righteous, 
 but for sinners, for those who were deserving of wrath instead 
 of love. The word sinners expresses the idea of moral turpi- 
 tude, and consequent exposure to the divine displeasure. It 
 was for, or in the place of those who were at once corrupt, and 
 the enemies of God, that Christ died. 
 
 VERSE 9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, 
 we shall be saved from wrath through him. This and the fol- 
 lowing verse draw the obvious inference, from the freeness and 
 greatness of the love of God, as just exhibited, that believers 
 shall be ultimately saved. It is an argument a fortiori. If the 
 greater benefit has been bestowed, the less will not be withheld. 
 If Christ has died for his enemies, he will surely save his 
 friends. Being justified. To be justified is more than to be 
 pardoned ; it includes the idea of reconciliation or restoration 
 to the favour of God, on the ground of a satisfaction to justice, 
 and the participation of the consequent blessings. This idea is 
 prominently presented in the following verse. ' We are justified 
 by his blood.' This expression, as remarked above (chap. iv. 3,) 
 exhibits the true ground of our acceptance with God. It is not 
 our works, nor our faith, nor our new obedience, nor the work 
 of Christ in us, but what he has done for us ; chap. iii. 25, 
 Eph. ii. 13, Heb. ix. 12. Having by the death of Christ been 
 brought into the relation of peace with God, being now regarded 
 for his sake as righteous, we shall be saved from wrath through 
 him. He will not leave his work unfinished; whom he justifies, 
 them he also glorifies. The word wrath, of course, means the
 
 216 ROMANS V. 10. 
 
 effects of wrath or punishment, those sufferings with which the 
 divine displeasure visits sin; Matt. iii. 7, 1 These, i. 10, Rom. 
 i. 18. Not only is our justification to be ascribed to Christ, but 
 our salvation is through him. Salvation, in a general seme, 
 includes justification ; but when distinguished from it, as in this 
 *?a8e, it means the consummation of that work of which justifi- 
 cation is the commencement. It is a preservation from all the 
 causes of destruction; a deliverance from the evils which sur- 
 round us here, or threaten us hereafter ; and an introduction 
 into the blessedness of heaven. Christ thus saves us by his 
 providence and Spirit, and by his constant intercession ; chap, 
 viii. 34, Heb. iv. 14, 15, vii. 25, Jude v. 24, 1 John ii. 1. 
 Olshausen here also introduces his idea of subjective justifica- 
 tion, and says that the meaning of this passage is, " If God 
 regenerates a man, we may hope that he will uphold and per- 
 fect him, and reduce his liability to apostasy to a minimum." 
 According to this, to justify is to regenerate, and to save from 
 wrath is to reduce our liability to apostasy to a minimum. 
 
 VERSE 10. For if, when we were yet enemies, ive were recon- 
 ciled to Crod by the death of his Son, &c. This verse contains 
 nearly the same idea as ver. 9, presented in a different form. 
 The word enemies is applied to men not only as descriptive of 
 their moral character, but also of the relation in which they 
 stand to God as the objects of his displeasure. There is not 
 only a wicked opposition of the sinner to God, but a holy 
 opposition of God to the sinner. The preceding verse presents 
 the former of these ideas, and this verse the latter most promi- 
 nently. There it is said, 'though sinners, we are justified;' 
 and here, 'though enemies, we are reconciled.' The word 
 i%frnoi has the same passive sense in xi. 28. And this is the 
 principal difference between the two verses. To be reconciled 
 to God, in such connections, does not mean to have our enmity 
 to God removed, but his enmity to us taken out of the way, to 
 have him rendered propitious, or his righteous justice satisfied. 
 This is evident, 1. Because the reconciliation is ascribed to the 
 death of Christ, or his blood, ver. 9. But, according to the 
 constant representations of Scripture, the death of Christ is a 
 sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, or to propitiate the favour of 
 God, and not immediately a means of sanctification. The former
 
 ROMANS V. 10. 217 
 
 is its direct object, the latter an incidental result. This is the 
 very idea of a sacrifice. The most liberal commentators, that 
 is, those least bound by any theological system, admit this to 
 be the doctrine of Scripture, and of this particular passage. 
 Thus Meyer: "Christi Tod tilgte nicht die Feindschaft der 
 Menschen gegen Gott ;" that is, " The death of Christ does not 
 remove the enmity of men towards God, but as that which 
 secures the favour of God, it removes his enmity towards men, 
 whence the removal of our enmity towards him follows as a con- 
 sequence." So also Riickert: "The reconciled here can only 
 be God, whose wrath towards sinners is appeased by the death 
 of his Son. On man's part nothing has happened ; no internal 
 change, no step towards God; all this follows as the conse- 
 quence of the reconciliation here spoken of." De Wette also 
 says, that "xaTaJJapj must mean the removal of the wrath of 
 God, and consequently the reconciliation is of God to man, 
 which not only here, but in iii. 25, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, Col. i. 21, 
 Eph. ii. 16, is referred to the atoning death of Christ." 2. The 
 object of the verse is to present us as enemies, or the objects 
 of God's displeasure. ' If while we were the objects of the 
 divine displeasure,' says the apostle, ' that displeasure has been 
 removed, or God propitiated by the death of his Son, how 
 much more shall we be saved,' &c. That is, if God has been 
 reconciled to us, he will save us. 3. This is the proper mean- 
 ing of the word, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. See also Matt. v. 24, " First 
 go and be reconciled to thy brother," i. e. go and appease his 
 anger, or remove the ground of his displeasure ; compare Heb. 
 ii. 17, " He is a priest to make reconciliation (erV rb DAcrxza&ac} 
 for the sins of the people." It is the appropriate business of 
 a priest to propitiate God, and not to reform men. See also 
 1 Sam. xxix. 4 : " Wherewith should he reconcile himself (diaX- 
 la-ffasTai) to his master? should it not be with the heads of these 
 men?" Eph. ii. 16, "That he might reconcile (axoxaratid-f/) 
 both unto God by the cross," not remove their enmity to God, 
 but secure for them his favour and access to the Father, ver. 18. 
 The verbs xarafadffato, dcaJJAaaa), and d.7ioxaraAXda<jw^ are used 
 interchangeably. The main idea, of course, as expressed by 
 to change, is slightly modified by the force of the
 
 218 ROMANS V. 10. 
 
 several prepositions with which it is combined to change xtti-i 
 in relation to, did between, fad from. The three verbs, however, 
 are all used to express the idea of reconciliation, i. e. changing 
 the relation of parties at enmity, so that they are at peace. 
 Whether this reconciliation is effected by the propitiation of the 
 justly offended party, or by a change of feeling in the offender, 
 or both, depends on the connection. 4. The context obviously 
 requires this sense here. " Being reconciled by the death of 
 his Son," evidently corresponds to the phrase, " Being justified 
 by his blood," The latter cannot mean that our feelings towards 
 God are changed, but is admitted to express the idea that we 
 are forgiven and restored to the divine favour. Such therefore 
 must be the meaning of the former. Besides, it is the object 
 of the apostle to illustrate the greatness and freeness of the love 
 of God, from the unworthiness of its objects. While sinners, 
 we are justified; while enemies, we are reconciled. To make 
 the passage mean, that when enemies we laid aside our enmity, 
 and became the friends of God. would be to make it contradict 
 the very assertion and design of the apostle. 
 
 We shall be saved by his life. This rather unusual mode of 
 expression was doubtless adopted for the sake of its correspond- 
 ence to the words, by his death, in the preceding clause, and is 
 a striking example of Paul's fondness for such antithetical con- 
 structions ; see chap. iv. 25, Gal. iii. 3, 2 Cor. iii. 6. The mean- 
 ing is obvious : ' If while we were enemies, we were restored to 
 the favour of God by the death of his Son, the fact that he 
 lives will certainly secure our final salvation.' 1. His life is a 
 pledge and security for the life of all his people; see John 
 xiv. 19, "Because I live, ye shall live also;" Rom. viii. 11, 
 1 Cor. xv. 23. 2. He is able to save to the uttermost, "because 
 he ever lives to make intercession for us," Heb. vii. 25, &c. 
 3. At his resurrection, all power in heaven and earth was com- 
 mitted to his hands, Matt, xxviii. 18 ; and this power he exer- 
 cises for the salvation of his people ; Eph. i. 22, ' He is head 
 over all things, for the benefit of his Church;' Rev. i. 18, Heb. 
 ii. 10, 1 Cor. xv. 25, &c.; see also the passages cited on the 
 last clause of ver. 9. There is, therefore, most abundant 
 ground for confidence for the final blessedness of believers, not
 
 ROMANS V. 11. 219 
 
 only in the amazing love of God, by which, though sinners and 
 enemies, they have been justified and reconciled by the death 
 of his Son, but also in the consideration that this same Saviour 
 that died for them still lives, and ever lives to sanctify, protect, 
 and save them. 
 
 VERSE 11. Not only so, but we rejoice in Gf-od, through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ; oi> [JLWOV ds, cU/a xac xau^fizvoc iv ra> 6zu>.. 
 There are three ways of explaining the participle xai>%a>vsi<oi; 
 the one is to make it antithetical to xara^Xa^evre^ 'not only 
 reconciled, but exulting in God, shall we be saved.' But this 
 is not only an unnatural form of expression, but in ver. 9, 
 xaTa)J.afVTS is not a qualification of a(ad"f^<j6fj.s.&a. The mean- 
 ing is not, 'We shall be saved reconciled,' but, 'Since we are 
 reconciled we shall be saved.' Another interpretation supplies 
 the verb from the preceding clause, 'Not only shall we be 
 saved, but saved rejoicing in God.' The best sense is obtained 
 by supplying iafiiv after the participle, as is assumed in the 
 English version, and advocated by the majority of commenta- 
 tors : ' We shall not only be ultimately saved, but we now glory 
 in God.' The benefits of redemption are not all future. It is 
 not only deliverance from future wrath, but the joy and glory 
 of the present favour and love of God, that we owe to Jesus 
 Christ. Thus the Vulgate, which renders xai>%(b/iuoi as a verb, 
 (sed et gloriamur,} as does Luther, "Wir ruhmen uns auch 
 Gottes." We glory in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 That is, it is to him that we are indebted for this joy in God 
 as our God and portion. Through whom we have now received 
 atonement. This is the reason why we owe our present glory- 
 ing in God to Christ ; it is because he has secured our recon- 
 ciliation. The word rendered by our translators, atonement, is 
 xaraAAa^', the derivative of xaraXXdooto, properly rendered in 
 the context, as elsewhere, to reconcile. The proper rendering, 
 therefore, of the noun would be reconciliation: ' Through whom 
 we have received reconciliation, that is, have been reconciled.' 
 This verse therefore brings us back to ver. 2. There it is said, 
 'Having peace with God, we rejoice in hope of his glory;' and 
 here, 'Being reconciled, we glory or rejoice in God.' Salvation 
 is begun on earth.
 
 220 ROMANS V. 111. 
 
 DOCTRLNK. 
 
 1. Peace with God is the result of that system of religion 
 which alone, by providing at once for the satisfaction of divine 
 justice and the sanctification of the human heart, is suited to 
 the character of God and the nature of man. All history 
 shows that no system other than the gospel has ever produced 
 this peace, ver. 1. 
 
 2. All the peculiar blessings of redemption are inseparably 
 connected with and grow out of each other. Those who are jus- 
 tified have peace with God, access to his presence, joy under the 
 most adverse circumstances, assurance of God's love, and cer- 
 tainty of final salvation; see the whole section, and compare 
 chap. viii. 30. 
 
 3. The Holy Ghost has intimate access to the human soul, 
 controlling its exercises, exciting its emotions, and leading it 
 into the knowledge of the truth, ver. 5. 
 
 4. The assurance of hope is founded on the consciousness of 
 pious affections, and the witness of the Holy Spirit ; and is a 
 grace to which believers may and ought to attain, vs. 4, 5. 
 
 5. The perseverance of the saints is to be attributed not to 
 the strength of their love to God, nor to anything else in them- 
 selves, but solely to the free and infinite love of God in Christ 
 Jesus. The praise is therefore no more due to them, than com- 
 mendation to a helpless infant for its mother's sleepless care. 
 " Can a woman forget her sucking child," &c., vs. 6 10. 
 
 6. Redemption is not by truth or moral influence, but by 
 blood, vs. 9, 10. 
 
 7. The primary object of the death of Christ was to render 
 God propitious, to satisfy his justice, and not to influence human 
 conduct, or display the divine character, for the sake of the 
 moral effect of that exhibition. Among its infinitely diversified 
 results, all of which were designed, some of the most important, 
 no doubt, are the sanctification of men, the display of the divine 
 perfections, the prevention of sin, the happiness of the universe, 
 &c. But the object of a sacrifice, as such, is to propitiate, vs. 9, 
 10, Heb. ii. 17. 
 
 8. All we have or hope for, we owe to Jesus Christ peace, 
 communion with God, joy, hope, eternal life; see the whole 
 section and the whole Bible.
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 221 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. If we are the genuine children of God, we have peace of 
 conscience, a sense of God's favour, and freedom of access to 
 his throne. We endure afflictions with patience. Instead of 
 making us distrustful of our heavenly Father, they afford us 
 new proofs of his love, and strengthen our hope of his mercy. 
 And we shall have also, more or less of the assurance of God's 
 love, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, vs. 1 5. 
 
 2. None of these fruits of reconciliation with God can be ob- 
 tained until the spirit of self-righteousness and self-dependence 
 is removed. They are secured through faith, and by Christ 
 Jesus, and not by our own works or merit, ver. 1, &c. 
 
 3. The hope of the hypocrite is like a spider's web; the 
 hope of the believer is an anchor to his soul, sure and stead- 
 fast, ver. 5. 
 
 4. Assurance of the love of God never produces self-com- 
 placency or pride ; but always humility, self-abasement, wonder, 
 gratitude, and praise. The believer sees that the mysterious 
 fountain of this love is in the divine mind ; it is not in himself, 
 who is ungodly and a sinner, vs. 8 10. 
 
 5. As the love of God in the gift of his Son, and the love of 
 Christ in dying for us, are the peculiar characteristics of the 
 gospel, no one can be a true Christian on whotn these truths do 
 not exert a governing influence, vs. 9, 10 ; compare 2 Cor. v. 14. 
 
 6. True religion is joyful, vs. 2, 11. 
 
 KOMANS V. 1221. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 I. Scope of the passage. The design of this section is the 
 illustration of the doctrine of the justification of sinners on the 
 ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the 
 condemnation of men for the sin of Adam* That such is its 
 design is evident, 1. From the context. Paul has been engaged 
 from the beginning of the epistle in inculcating one main idea, 
 viz. that the ground of the sinner's acceptance with God is not 
 in himself, but the merit of Christ. And in the preceding
 
 222 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 verses he had said, "we are justified by his blood," ver. 9: by 
 his death we are restored to the divine favour, ver. 10; and 
 through him, i. e. by one man, we have received reconciliation, 
 that is, are pardoned and justified, ver. 11. As this idea of 
 men's being regarded and treated, not according to their own 
 merit, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode 
 of thinking among men, and especially contrary to their self- 
 righteous efforts to obtain the divine favour, the apostle illus- 
 trates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact 
 in the history of the world. 2. From an inspection of vs. 12, 
 18, 19, which contain the whole point and substance of the 
 comparison. Verses 13 17 are virtually a parenthesis ; and 
 vs. 20, 21, contain two remarks, merely incidental to the dis- 
 cussion. Verses 12, 18, 19, must therefore contain the main 
 idea of the passage. In the 12th, only one side of the com- 
 parison is stated ; but in vs. 18, 19, it is resumed and carried 
 out : 'As by the offence of one all are condemned, so by the 
 righteousness of one all are justified.' This, almost in the words 
 of the apostle, is the simple meaning of vs. 18, 19, and makes 
 the point of the comparison and scope of the passage perfectly 
 clear. 3. The design of the passage must be that on which all 
 its parts bear, the point towards which they all converge. The 
 course of the argument, as will appear in the sequel, bears so 
 uniformly and lucidly on the point just stated, that the attempt 
 to make it bear on any other involves the whole passage in 
 confusion. All that the apostle says tends to the illustration 
 of his declaration, 'As we are condemned on account of what 
 Adam did, we are justified on account of what Christ did.' The 
 illustration of this point, therefore, must be the design and 
 scope of the whole. 
 
 It is frequently and confidently said that the design of the 
 passage is to exalt our views of the blessings procured by 
 Christ, by showing that they are greater than the evils occa- 
 sioned by the fall. But this is not only improbable, but impos- 
 sible. 1. Because the super abounding of the grace of the gospel 
 is not expressly stated until ver. 20. That is, not until the 
 whole discussion is ended ; and it is introduced there merely 
 incidentally, as involved in the apostle's answer to an objection 
 to his argument, implied in the question, 'For what purpose did
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 223 
 
 the law enter ?' Is it possible that the main design of a passage 
 should be disclosed only in the reply to an incidental objection? 
 The pith and point of the discussion would be just what they 
 are now, had no such objection been suggested or answered: 
 yet, if this view of the subject is correct, had the objection not 
 been presented, the main design of the passage would have been 
 unexpressed and undiscoverable. 2. The idea of the superiority 
 of the blessings procured by Christ to the evils occasioned by 
 Adam, although first expressly stated in ver. 20, is alluded to 
 and implied in vs. 16, 17. But these verses, it is admitted, 
 belong to a parenthesis. It is conceded on all hands, that 
 vs. 13, 14, are designed to confirm the statement of ver. 12, and 
 that vs. 15 17, are subordinate to the last clause of ver. 14, 
 and contain an illustration of its meaning. It is therefore not 
 only admitted, but frequently and freely asserted, that vs. 12, 
 18, 19, contain the point and substance of the whole passage, 
 vs. 13 17 being a parenthesis. Yet, in vs. 12, 18, 19, the 
 superabounding of the grace of Christ is not even hinted. Can 
 the main design of a passage be contained in a parenthesis, and 
 not in the passage itself? The very nature of a parenthesis is, 
 that it contains something which may be left out of a passage, 
 and leave the sense entire. But can the main design and scope 
 of an author be left out, and his meaning be left complete ? If 
 not, it is impossible that an idea contained only in a parenthesis 
 should be the main design of the passage. The idea is in itself 
 true and important, but the mistake consists in exalting a corol- 
 lary into the scope and object of the whole discussion. The 
 confusion and mistake in the exposition of a passage, conse- 
 quent on an entire misapprehension of its design, may be 
 readily imagined. 
 
 II. The connection. The design of the passage being the 
 illustration of the doctrine of justification by the righteousness 
 of Christ, previously established, the connection is natural and 
 obvious : ' WHEREFORE, as by one man we have been brought 
 under condemnation, so by one man we are brought into a state 
 of justification and life.' The wherefore (dca TO~JZO) is conse- 
 quently to be taken as illative, or marking an inference from 
 the whole of the previous part of the epistle, and especially 
 from the preceding verses. ' Wherefore we are justified by the
 
 224 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 righteousness of one man, even as we were brought into con- 
 demnation by the sin of one man.' It would seem that only a 
 misapprehension of the design of the passage, or an unwilling- 
 ness to admit, it, could have led to the numerous forced and 
 unauthorized explanations of these words. Some render them 
 moreover; others, in respect to this, &c. 
 
 III. The course of the argument. As the point to be illus- 
 trated is the justification of sinners on the ground of the right- 
 eousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of 
 all men in Adam, the passage begins with a statement of this 
 latter truth : 'As on account of one man, death has passed on 
 all men; so on account of one,' c., vcr. 12. Before carrying 
 out the comparison, however, the apostle stops to establish his 
 position, that all men are condemned on account of the sin of 
 Adam. His proof is this : The infliction of a penalty implies 
 the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there 
 is no law, ver. 13. All mankind are subject to death or penai 
 evils ; therefore all men are regarded as transgressors of a law, 
 rer. 13. This law or covenant, which brings death on all men, 
 is not the law of Moses, because multitudes died before that was 
 given, ver. 14. Nor is it the law of nature written upon the 
 heart, since multitudes die who have never violated even that 
 law, ver. 14. Therefore, as neither of these laws is sufficiently 
 extensive to embrace all the subjects of the penalty, we must 
 conclude that men are subject to death on account of Adam ; 
 that is, it is for the offence of one that many die, vs. 13, 14. 
 Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. As to this important 
 point, there is a striking analogy between the fall and redemp- 
 tion. We are condemned in Adam, and we are justified in 
 Christ. But the cases are not completely parallel. In. the first 
 place, the former dispensation is much more mysterious than 
 the latter; for if by the offence of one many die, MUCH MORE 
 by the righteousness of one shall many live, ver. 15. In the 
 second place, the benefits of the one dispensation far exceed the 
 evils of the other. For the condemnation was for one offence ;. 
 the justification is from many. Christ saves us from much more 
 than the guilt of Adam's sin, ver. 16. In the third place, 
 Christ not only saves us from death, that is, not only frees us 
 from the evils consequent on our own and Adam's sin, but
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 225 
 
 introduces us into a state of positive and eternal blessedness, 
 ver. 17. Or this verse may be considered as an amplification 
 of the sentiment of ver. 15. 
 
 Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy between 
 Adam and Christ, the apostle resumes and carries the compari- 
 son fully out : ' THEREFORE, as on account of one man all men 
 are condemned; so on account of one, all are justified,' ver. 18. 
 'For, as through the disobedience of one, many are regarded 
 and treated as sinners; so through the righteousness of one 
 many are regarded and treated as righteous,' ver. 19. This 
 then is the sense of the passage men are condemned for the 
 sin of one man, and justified for the righteousness of another. 
 If men are thus justified by the obedience of Christ, for what 
 purpose is the law? 'It entered that sin might abound,' i. e. that 
 men might see how much it abounded ; since by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin. The law has its use, although men are not 
 justified by their own obedience to it, ver. 20. As the law dis- 
 closes, and even aggravates the dreadful triumphs of sin reign- 
 ing, in union with death, over the human family, the gospel 
 displays the far more effectual and extensive triumphs of grace 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord, ver. 21. 
 
 According to this view of the passage it consists of five parts. 
 The first, contained in ver. 12, presents the first member of the* 
 comparison between Christ and Adam. The second contains 
 the proof of the position assumed in ver. 12, and embraces 
 vs. 13, 14, which are therefore subordinate to ver. 12. Adam, 
 therefore, is a type of Christ. The third, embracing vs. 15 17, 
 is a commentary on this declaration, by which it is at once 
 illustrated and limited. The fourth, in vs. 18, 19, resumes and 
 carries out the comparison commenced in ver. 12. The fifth 
 forms the conclusion of the chapter, and contains a statement 
 of the design and effect of the law, and of the results of the 
 gospel, suggested by the preceding comparison, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 12, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into tJie 
 
 world, and death by sin, &c. The force of S:a TOUTO, wherefore, 
 
 has already been pointed out, when speaking of the connection 
 
 of this passage with the preceding : ' It follows, from what has- 
 
 15
 
 226 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 been said of the method of justification, that as by one man ah 
 became sinners, so by one are all constituted righteous.' This 
 passage, therefore, is the summation of all that has gone before. 
 As (OKTTTS/),) obviously indicates a comparison or parallel. There 
 is however no corresponding clause beginning with so, to com- 
 plete the sentence. Examples of similar incomplete compari- 
 sons may be found in Matt. xxv. 14, with &a-zr>, and in 1 Tim. 
 i. 3, with xd&oi^. It is however so obvious that the illustration 
 begun in this verse is resumed, and fully stated in vs. 18, 19, 
 that the vast majority of commentators agree that we must 
 in those verses the clause which answers to this verse. The 
 other explanations are unnecessary or unsatisfactory. 1. Some 
 say that this verse is complete in itself, 'As by one man -in 
 entered into the world, and death by sin, so also death { 
 on all men, because all sinned.' The two insuperable objections 
 to this explanation are, first, that it does violence to the words. 
 It makes the apostle say what he does not say. It makes xai 
 o5ra>c> and so, to mean the same with o5ro> zal, so also, which is 
 impossible. And secondly, it is inconsistent with the whole 
 design and argument of the passage. Instead of having a com- 
 parison between Christ and Adam, the comparison would be 
 between Adam and other men : 'As he sinned and died, so they 
 sinned and died.' 2. Others say, that we find in the last clause 
 of ver. 14, in substance, although not in form, the apodosis of 
 this clause: l As by one man sin entered into the world, so 
 Adam is the type of Christ.' But this is obviously inconsistent 
 with the wording and connection of the clause in ver. 18. 
 3. De Wette proposes, after Cocceius, Eisner, and a few others, 
 to make the ata-tp of this verse introduce not the first, but the 
 second member of the comparison, the first being to be supplied 
 in thought, or borrowed from what precedes : ' We receive r'ujlit- 
 eousness and life through Christ, as by one man sin entered into 
 the world;' or, 'Wherefore Christ stands in a relation to man- 
 kind analogous to that of Adam, as by one man,' &c. But it is 
 plain that no reader could imagine that Paul intended so essen- 
 tial a member of the comparison to be conjectured or framed 
 from the preceding discussion. He does "not leave his readers 
 to supply one half of a sentence; he himself completes it in 
 rer. IS.
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 227 
 
 By one man sin entered into the world, of ivo 
 x.r.L These words clearly declare a causal relation between 
 the one man, Adam, and the entrance of sin into the world. 
 Benecke, who has revived the doctrine of the preexistence of 
 souls, supposes that Adam was the leadtr of the spirits who in 
 the preexistent state sinned, and were condemned to be born as 
 men. Adam was therefore the cause of sin entering into the 
 world, because he was the author of this ante-mundane apos- 
 tasy. The Pelagian theory is, that Adam was the mere occa- 
 sional cause of men becoming sinners. He was the first sinner, 
 and others followed his example. Or, according to another 
 form of the same general idea, his sin was the occasion of God's 
 giving men up to sin. There was no real connection, either 
 natural or judicial, between Adam's sin and the sinfuincss of 
 his posterity; but God determined that if the first man sinned, 
 all other men should. This was a divine constitution, without 
 there being any causal connection between the two events. 
 Others again say that Adam was the efficient cause of the sin- 
 fulness of his race. He deteriorated either physically or morally 
 the nature which he transmitted to his posterity. He was 
 therefore, in the same sense, the cause of the sinfulness of the 
 race, that a father who impairs his constitution is the cause of 
 the feebleness of his children. Others push this idea one step 
 farther, and say that Adam was the race. He was not only a 
 man, but man. The whole race was in him, so that his act was 
 the act of humanity. It was as much and as truly ours as his. 
 Others say that the causal relation expressed by these words is 
 that which exists between sin and punishment. It was the 
 judicial cause or reason. All these views must come up at 
 every step in the interpretation of this whole passage, for the 
 explanation of each particular clause must be determined by 
 the nature of the relation which is assumed to exist between 
 Adam and his posterity. All that need be said here is, that 
 the choice between these several explanations is not determined 
 by the mere meaning of the words. All they assert is, that 
 Adam was the cause of all men becoming sinners ; but whether 
 he was the occasional, the efficient, or, so to speak, the judicial 
 cause, can only be determined by the nature of the case, the 
 analc gy of Scripture, and the context. One thing is clear
 
 228 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 Adam was the cause of sin in a sense analogous co that in which 
 Christ is the cause of righteousness. 
 
 Sin entered into the world. It is hardly necessary to remark, 
 that xofffjio? does not here mean the universe. Sin existed 
 before the fall of Adam. It can only mean the world of man- 
 kind. Sin entered the world ; it invaded the race. There is a 
 personification here of sin, as afterwards of death. Both are 
 represented as hostile and evil powers, which obtained dominion 
 over man. By the words siffijl&e V rov xoff/jtov, much more is 
 meant than that sin began to be in the world. It means that 
 the world, xoapos , mankind became sinners ; because this clause 
 is explained by saying, all sinned. The entrance of sin is made 
 the ground of the universality of death, and therefore all were 
 involved in the sin whose entrance is mentioned. The word 
 dfjiaprla means, 1. Actual sin, (6i./jtdpTyfjta,) an individual act of 
 disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God. In 
 the plural form especially, &/jtaprla means actual sin. Hence 
 the expressions, "this sin," "respect of persons is sin," &c. 
 2. Sinful principle or disposition; an immanent state of the 
 mind, as in Rom. vii. 8, 9, 17, 23. 3. Both ideas are united, 
 as when it is said, "the sting of death is sin," "an offering for 
 sin." This comprehensive sense of the word is perhaps the most 
 common. 4. It often means the guilt of sin as distinguished 
 from sin itself, as when it is said, " he shall bear his sin," or, 
 "the son shall not bear the sin of his father;" or when Christ 
 is said "to bear our sin," and, "to take away sin by the sacri- 
 fice of himself," &c. In this passage, when it is said "sin 
 entered into the world," the meaning may be, actual sin com- 
 menced its course, men began to sin. Or the meaning is, 
 depravity, corruption of nature invaded the world, men became 
 corrupt. This is the interpretation given to the words by a 
 large class of commentators, ancient and modern. So Calvin, 
 " Istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiates. Ilia enim natu- 
 ralis pravitas, quam e matris utero afferimus, tametsi non ita 
 cito fructus suos edit, peccatum est coram Deo, ejus ultionem 
 meretur. Atque hoc est peccatum quod vocant originale." So 
 also Olshausen, who says it means habitus peccandi, that inward 
 principle of which individual sins are the expression or manifest- 
 ation. Tholuck gives the same interpretation : a new, abiding,
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 229 
 
 corrupting element, he says, was introduced into the organism 
 of the world. De Wette's explanation amounts to the same 
 thing : " Siinde als herrschende Macht, (sin as a ruling power 
 ntered the world,) partly as a principle or disposition, which, 
 according to vii. 8, slumbers in every man's breast, and reveals 
 itself in the general conduct of men, and partly as a sinful 
 condition-, such as Paul had described in the opening chapters 
 of this epistle." Ruckert, Kollner, Bretschneider, and most 
 moderns, unite with the older expositors in this interpretation. 
 Or tiftaprla may here have the third signification mentioned 
 above, and "sin entered into the world," mean that men became 
 guilty, i. e. exposed to condemnation. The objection to these 
 several interpretations is, that each by itself is too limited. All 
 three, taken collectively, are corrqct. " Sin entered into the 
 world," means "men became sinners," or, as the apostle 
 expresses it in ver. 19, "they were constituted sinners." This 
 includes guilt, depravity, and actual transgression. " The sin- 
 fulness of that estate into which man fell, (that is, the sin 
 which Adam brought upon the world,) consists in the guilt of 
 Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the 
 corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called 
 original sin ; together with all actual transgressions which pro- 
 ceed from it." 
 
 And death by sin; that is, death entered the world, men 
 became subject to death, dia rr^ &fjutprtac, by means of sin. 
 Sin was the cause of death ; not the mere occasional cause, not 
 the efficient cause, but the ground or reason of its infliction. 
 This passage, therefore, teaches that death is a penal evil, and 
 not a consequence of the original constitution of man. Paul, 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 40 50, appears to teach a contrary doctrine, for 
 he there says that Adam's body, as formed from the earth, was 
 earthy, an4 therefore corruptible. It was flesh and blood, 
 which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It must be changed, 
 so that this corruptible put on incorruption, before we can be 
 fitted for immortality. These representations, however, are not 
 inconsistent. It is clear, from Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19, that had 
 Adam never sinned, he would never "have died ; but it does not 
 follow that he would never have been changed. Paul says of 
 believers, "we shall not al die, but we shall all be changed,"
 
 230 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 1 Cor. xv. 51. The penal character of death, therefore, which is 
 so prominently presented in Scripture, or that death in the case 
 of every moral creature is assumed to be evidence of sin, is per- 
 fectly consistent with what the apostle says of the aio/jia $i>y:x6i> 
 (the natural body,) and of its unsuitableness for an immortal 
 exi.stence. It is plain that &6.\>aro^ here includes the idea of 
 natural death, as it does in the original threatening made to 
 our first parents. In neither case, however, is this its whole 
 meaning. This is admitted by a majority of the modern com- 
 mentators not only by such writers as Tholuck, Olshausen, 
 and Philippi, but by others of a different class, as De Wette, 
 Kollner, and Riickert. That the death here spoken of includes 
 all penal evil, death spiritual and eternal, as well as the disso- 
 lution of the body, is evident, 1. From the consideration that 
 it is said to be the consequence of sin. It must, therefore, 
 mean that death which the Scriptures elsewhere speak of as the 
 consequence and punishment of transgression. 2. Because this 
 is the common and favourite term with the sacred writers, from 
 first to last, for the penal consequences of sin. Gen. ii. 17, 
 "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," i. e. 
 thou shalt become subject to the punishment due to sin; Ezek. 
 xviii. 4, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die;" Rom. vi. 23, 
 "The wages of sin is death;" chap. viii. 13, "If ye live after 
 the flesh, ye shall die." Such passages are altogether too 
 numerous to be quoted, or even referred to; see, as further 
 example>, Rom. i. 32, vii. 5, James i. 15, Rev. xx. 14, &c. 
 3. From the constant opposition between the terms life and 
 death, throughout the Scriptures; the former standing for the 
 rewards of the righteous, the hitter for the punishment of the 
 wicked. Thus, in Gen. ii. 17. life was promised to our first 
 parents as the reward of obedience ; and death threatened as 
 the punishment of disobedience. See Deut. xxx. 15, "I have 
 set before thee life and death;" Jer. xxi. 8, Prov. xi. 19, Ps. 
 xxxvi. 0, Matt. xxv. 40, John iii. 15, 2 Cor. ii. 16, &c. 4. From 
 the opposition in this passage between the life which is by 
 Christ, and the deatli which is by Adam, vs. 15, 17, 21, ' Sin 
 reigns unto death, grace" reigns through righteousness unto 
 eternal life.' As, however, natural death is a part, and the 
 most obvious part of the penal evils of sin, it no doubt was-
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 231 
 
 prominent in the apostle's mind, as appears from vs. 13, 14. 
 Death, therefore, in this passage, means the evil, and any evil 
 which is inflicted in punishment of sin. 
 
 And so death passed on all men. That is, as death is the 
 necessary consequence of sin, death (oriJA&s) passed through, 
 reached to all men, because all sinned. Death is universal, 
 kocause sin is universal. As Adam brought sin on all men, he 
 brought death on all. That this is the true interpretation of 
 this clause, or that xal OVTOJZ means demzufolge, consequently, 
 hence it happens, is admitted by almost all modern commenta- 
 tors. As already remarked, the interpretation which assumes 
 that xal ourtoz is to be rendered so also, is entirely inadmissible, 
 1. Because it is inconsistent with their meaning. As it is impos- 
 sible that and so should mean so also, it is no less impossible 
 that xal o5ro>c should mean the same as ou~co xal. Compare 
 vs. 18, 19, 1 Cor. xi. 12, xii. 12, xv. 22. This interpretation 
 therefore does violence to the language. 2. It is no less incon- 
 sistent with the context. It is not Paul's design to teach the 
 inseparable connection between sin and death, by saying, l As 
 Adam sinned, and therefore died, so also all die, because all 
 sin.' His purpose is to teach the connection between Adam's sin 
 and the death of all men : ' It was by one man that men became 
 sinners, and hence all men die.' As all were involved in his 
 sin, all are involved in his death. 3. The comparison carried 
 through this whole paragraph is not between Adam and his 
 posterity, but between Adam and Christ; and therefore xal 
 otjTwz cannot possibly refer to the &a~zp at the beginning of 
 the verse, as has been already shown. 
 
 For that all have sinned, k<p' w xdvTSZ fympTOv. The words 
 i<p w are rendered in the Vulgate, in quo, (in whom,) and are so 
 understood by many of the older interpreters, not only in the 
 Romish Church, where the Vulgate is of authority, but also by 
 many Calvinists and Arminians. The objections to this inter- 
 pretation are, 1. It is not in accordance with the meaning of 
 the words as used elsewhere. It is inconsistent with the proper 
 force of e~i (on, upon,] which is not equivalent with iv {in,} 
 and n6 less inconsistent with the use of l<f? w in combination, 
 which, in 2 Cor. v. 4, means, as here, because; in Philip, iii. 12, 
 for which cause; and in Philip, iv. 10, for ivhicJi. In other
 
 232 ROMAN.- V. 12. 
 
 places where it occurs, it means on which, as a bed, Mark li. 4, 
 Luke v. 25, or as a place, Acts. vii. 33. 2. The proper mean- 
 ing of the words is, Izi ro'jn^t on, on account of this, or tJtat. 
 3. The structure of the sentence is opposed to this explanation. 
 The antecedent av&uti)-uu is too far separated from the relative 
 $; almost the whole verse intervenes between them. 4. This 
 interpretation is altogether unnecessary. The ordinary and 
 natural force of the words expresses a perfectly good sense : 
 'All men die, because all sinned.' So Calvin, quandoquidem, 
 Luther, dieweil, and all the moderns, except a few of the 
 Romanists. " Sin brought death, death has come on all, because 
 Bin came on all ; l<p tp must therefore necessarily be taken as 
 a conjunction." Philippi. 
 
 As to the important words TrcCvrec faap-rov, rendered in our 
 version all have sinned, we find the several interpretations 
 already referred to as growing out of the different views of the 
 nature of man and of the plan of salvation. First, on the assump- 
 tion that all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of known 
 law, and on the further assumption that one man cannot, in any 
 legitimate sense, be said to sin in another, a large class of com- 
 mentators, from Pelagius down, say these words can only mean 
 that all have sinned in their own persons. Death has passed 
 on all men, because all have actually sinned personally. This 
 interpretation, although consistent with the signification of the 
 verb Aftaprdvo, is, by the almost unanimous judgment of the 
 Church, utterly inadmissible. 1. It is inconsistent with the 
 force of the tense. The aorist (^//a ( orov) does not mean do sin, 
 nor have sinned, nor are accustomed to sin. It is the simple 
 historical tense, expressing momentary action in past time. All 
 sinned, i. e. sinned in Adam, sinned through or by one man. 
 "Omnes pecc&runt, peccante Adamo." This is the liter, il, 
 simple force of the words. 2. It is also incompatible with the 
 design of this verse, to make yftap-cov refer to the personal sins 
 of men. As so often remarked, the design is to show that 
 Adam's sin, not our own, is the cause of death. 3. Verses 
 13, 14, are intended to prove what is asserted in ver. 12; but 
 *,hey do not prove that all men personally sin, but the very 
 reverse. 4. This interpretation destroys the analogy between 
 Adam and Christ. It would make the apostle teach, that as
 
 ROMANS V. 12 233 
 
 ail men die because they personally sin. so all men live because 
 they are personally and inherently righteous. This is contrary 
 not only to this whole passage, but to all Paul's teaching, and 
 to the whole gospel. 5. This interpretation is not only thus 
 inconsistent with the force of the tense in which the verb 
 6.fjtaprdi;ct) is here used, with the design of the verse, with the 
 apostle's argument, and the analogy between Christ and Adam, 
 but it makes the apostle assert what is not true. It is not true 
 that all die because all personally sin; death is more exten- 
 sive than personal transgression. This is a fact of experience, 
 and is asserted by the apostle in what follows. This interpre- 
 tation, therefore, brings the sacred writer into conflict with the 
 truth.. Candid expositors admit this. They say Paul's argu- 
 ment is founded on a false assumption, and proves nothing. 
 Even Meyer, one of the most dignified and able of the modern 
 German commentators, who often defends the sacred writers 
 from the aspersions of irreverent expositors, is obliged to admit 
 that in this case Paul forgot himself, and teaches what is not 
 true. "The question," he says, "how Paul could write l^ $ 
 ndvTsz yfjtapTov (since all sinned,} when children die, although 
 they have not sinned, can only be answered by admitting that 
 he did not think of this necessary exception. For, on the one 
 hand, Trdtvrec must have the same extent of meaning as the pre- 
 vious e/c Ttdvraz cb$/>w7royc, and on the other hand, the death of 
 innocent children is proof positive that death is not in all men 
 the consequence of individual sin; and hence, moreover, the 
 whole doctrine that death is by divine constitution due to sin, 
 is overthrown." An interpretation which makes the apostlo 
 teach what is not true, needs no further refutation. 
 
 A second large class of commentators, as they make fruapTta, 
 in the former clause of the verse, to mean corruption, translate 
 k<p tu xdvTsz fyj.apTOi>, because all are corrupt. Adam having 
 defiled his own nature by sin, that depraved nature was trans- 
 mitted to all his posterity, and therefore all die because they 
 are thus inherently corrupt. We have already seen that this is 
 Calvin's interpretation of these words: "Nempe, inquit, quo- 
 niam omnes peccavimus. Porro istud peccare est corruptos 
 esse et vitiatos." In this view several of the modern commenta- 
 tors concur. According to this interpretation, the doctrine of
 
 234 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 the apostle is, that the inherent, hereditary corruption of natuio 
 derived from Adam, is the ground or reason why all die. This 
 is what is called mediate imputation ; or the doctrine that not 
 the sin of Adam, but inherent depravity derived from him, is 
 the ground of the condemnation of his race. Although Calvir. 
 gives this interpretation of the passage on which this theory is 
 founded, it is not to be inferred that he was an advocate of that 
 theory. He frequently and clearly discriminates between inhe- 
 rent depravity as a ground of condemnation and the sin of 
 Adam as distinct, and says that we are exposed to death, not 
 solely for the one, but also for the other. He lived in ;: day 
 when the imputation of Adam's sin was made, by the theolo- 
 gians of the Romish Church, so prominent as to leave inherent 
 depravity almost entirely out of view. The whole tendency of 
 the Reformers, therefore, was to go to the opposite extreme 
 Every theology is a gradual growth. It cost the Church ages 
 of controversy, before the doctrines of the Trinity and of the 
 Person of Christ were wrought out and definitively settled. In 
 like manner, the Theology of the Reformation was a growth. 
 It was not the reproduction of the theology of any class of the 
 schoolmen, nor of Augustin as a whole. It was the gathering 
 up and systematizing of the teachings of the Scriptures, and of 
 the faith of the Church as founded on Scripture. That this 
 should be done without any admixture of foreign elements, or 
 as perfectly at the first attempt, as in the course of successive 
 subsequent efforts, would have been a miracle. That it was 
 done as perfectly as it was, is due, under God, to the fact that 
 the Reformers were men endowed with minds of the very highest 
 order, and filled with the Spirit of Christ. Still it is only in 
 obedience to an established law, that the theology of the Re- 
 formation appears in a purer form in the writers of the seven- 
 teenth, than in those of the sixteenth century. We need not 
 then be surprised that inconsistencies appear in the writings of 
 Luther and Calvin, which are not reproduced in those of Hutter 
 or Turrettin. 
 
 In opposition to the interpretation which makes ravrsc 
 yfjtaprov mean all became corrupt, it is obvious to object, 1. That 
 it is contrary to the simple meaning of the words. In no case 
 has &naprdvw the sense here assigned to it. 2. It supposes
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 235 
 
 that the corresponding phrase, "sin entered into the world," 
 means "men became depraved," which, as we have seen, is not 
 the true or adequate meaning. 3. It is inconsistent with the 
 apostle's argument. Verses 13, 14, are designed to prove, and 
 do prove, that all men sinned in Adam ; but do not prove, and 
 cannot be made to prove, that all men are inherently corrupt. 
 4. It vitiates the whole analogy between Christ and Adam, and 
 therefore saps the very foundation of the gospel. That doc- 
 trine on which the hope of God's people, either implicitly or 
 explicitly, has ever been founded is, that the righteousness of 
 Christ as something out of themselves, something distinguished 
 from any act or subjective state of theirs, is the ground of their 
 justification. They know that there is nothing in them on 
 which they dare for a moment rely, as the reason why God 
 should accept and pardon them. It is therefore the essential 
 part of the analogy between Christ and Adam, the very truth 
 which the apostle designs to set forth, that the sin of Adam, as 
 distinguished from any act of ours, and from inherent corrup- 
 tion as derived from him, is the ground of our condemnation. 
 If this be denied, then the other great truth must be denied, 
 and our own subjective righteousness be made the ground of 
 our justification ; which is to subvert the gospel. 5. This inter- 
 pretation is inconsistent with the true meaning of vs. 15 19, 
 and with the often repeated and explicit declaration of the 
 apostle, that the sin of Adam was the ground of our condemna- 
 tion. Although, therefore, it is true that our nature was cor- 
 rupted in Adam, and has been transmitted to us in a depraved 
 state, yet that hereditary corruption is not here represented as 
 the ground of our condemnation, any mere than the holiness 
 which believers derive from Christ is the ground of their justi- 
 fication. 
 
 A third class of interpreters, especially those of the later 
 mystical school, understand the apostle to assert that all men 
 sinned actually in Adam ; that his act was not merely repre- 
 sentatively or putatively their act, but theirs in the strict and 
 proper sense of the term. He being not simply a man as one 
 among many, but the man in whom humanity was concentrated 
 as a generic life, his act as an act of that generic humanity was 
 the act of all the individuals in whom human nature subse-
 
 236 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 quently developed itself. But, 1. In the first place, the pro- 
 position, "all men sinned actually in Adam," has no meaning. 
 To say that "in Adam all die," conveys a distinct idea; but to 
 say that "all actually expired in Adam," conveys no idea at 
 all. It has no sense. Even on the extremest realistic assump- 
 tion that humanity as such is an entity, the act of Adam was 
 not the act of all men. His act may have vitiated his generic 
 nature, not only for his own person, but for his posterity ; but 
 this is a very different thing from his act being their act. His 
 sin was an intelligent act of self-determination ; but an act of 
 rational self-determination is a personal act. Unless, there- 
 fore, all men as persons existed in Adam, it is impossible that 
 they acted his act. To say that a man'acted thousands of years 
 before his personality began, does not rise even to the dignity 
 of a contradiction ; it has no meaning at all. It is a monstrous 
 evil to make the Bible contradict the common sense and com- 
 mon consciousness of men. This is to make God contradict 
 himself. 2. It is hardly necessary to add, that this interpreta- 
 tion is inconsistent with the whole drift and design of the pas- 
 sage, and with the often repeated assertion of the apostle, that 
 for the offence of one man (not of all men,) the judgment came 
 on all men to condemnation. If we all actually sinned in Adam, 
 so that his act was strictly ours, then we all obeyed in Christ, 
 and his righteousness and death were strictly our own acts; 
 which again is not only unscriptural, but impossible. 
 
 The fourth class of interpreters, including commentatDrs of 
 every grade of orthodoxy, agree in saying that what is meant 
 is, that all sinned in Adam as their head and representative. 
 Such was the relation, natural and federal, between him and his 
 posterity, that his act was putatively their act. That is, it was 
 the judicial ground or reason why death passed on all men. In 
 other words, they were regarded and treated as sinners on 
 account of his sin. In support of this interpretation, it may be 
 urged, 1. That it is the simple meaning of the words. It has 
 already been remarked, that the aorist faaprov does not mean 
 are sinful, or have sinned, but simply sinned. All sinned when 
 Adam sinned. They sinned in him. But the only possible 
 way in which all men can be said to have sinned in Adam, is 
 putatively. Hif act, for some good and proper reason, was
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 237 
 
 regarded as their act, just as the act of an agent is regarded as 
 the act of his principal, or the act of a representative as that 
 of his constituents. The act of the one legally binds the others. 
 It is, in the eye of law and justice, their act. 2. This is sustained 
 by the analogy of Scripture. Paul says, "in Adam all died." 
 This cannot possibly be understood to mean that all men ex- 
 pired when Adam died. It can only mean that when Adam 
 incurred the sentence of death for himself, he incurred it also 
 for us. In like manner we are said to die in Christ ; we " were 
 crucified with him," we "rose with him," we are now "sitting 
 with him in heavenly places." All this obviously means, that 
 as Christ was the head and representative of his people, all that 
 he did in that character, they are regarded as having done. 
 The rationalistic and the mystical interpretations of such pas- 
 sages are only different modes of philosophizing away the 
 meaning of Scripture the one having what is called " common 
 sense," and the other pantheism, as its basis. 3. The common 
 interpretation of this passage may, in another form, be shown 
 to be in accordance with scriptural usage. As remarked above, 
 6.p.apTia sometimes means guilt, and the phrase " sin entered 
 into the world," may mean men became guilty; and fr/napr-duta 
 at times means to contract guilt; or, as Wahl in his Lexicon 
 defines it, peccati culpam sustineo; equivalent to d^a^rWoc 
 xaTsaTd&Kv. He refers to the use of aton, in Gen. xliv. 32, a 
 
 / T T 7 
 
 passage which the LXX. renders tffjtapryxwz laopcu; the Vul- 
 gate, peccati reus ero; Luther, "will ich die Schuld tragen;" 
 und the English, I shall bear the blame. So in Gen. xliii. 9, 
 Judah says to his father, "If I bring him not back, I will 
 bear the blame (literally, I will sin] all my days." In 1 Kings 
 i. 21, Bathsheba says to David, (according to the Hebrew,) 
 "I and my son Solomon shall be sinners," where the LXX. 
 translates, laofjts&a. if<b xac 2aXo[i.(av b uto/; pou 6.fjtaf)T(utoc, 
 the sense of the passage being, as correctly expressed in our 
 version, "I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders." 
 To sin, therefore, or to be a sinner may, in scriptural language, 
 mean to be counted an offender, that is, be regarded and treated 
 as such. When, therefore, the apostle says that all men sinned 
 in Adam, it is in accordance not only with the nature of the 
 case, but with scriptural usage, to understand him to mean that
 
 238 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 we are regarded and treated as sinners on his account. His sin 
 was the reason why death came upon all men. Of course all 
 that is meant by this is the universally recognized distinction 
 between the signification and the sense of a word. //ckrec 
 Tjpaptov signifies "all sinned," and it can signify nothing else; 
 just as Trcivrec d.n&avov, 2 Cor. v. 15, signifies "all died." But 
 when you ask in what sense all died in Christ, or all sinned in 
 Adam, the question is to be answered from the nature of the 
 case and the analogy of Scripture. We did not all literally and 
 actually die in Christ, neither did we all actually sin in Adam. 
 The death of Christ, however, was legally and effectively our 
 death ; and the sin of Adam was legally and effectively our sin. 
 4. It is almost universally conceded that this 12th verse con- 
 tains the first member of a comparison which, in vs. 18, 19, is 
 resumed and carried out. But in those verses it is distinctly 
 taught that 'judgment came on all men on account of the 
 offence of one man.' This therefore is Paul's own interpreta- 
 tion of what he meant when he said "all sinned." They sinned 
 in Adam. His sin was regarded as theirs. 5. This interpreta- 
 tion is demanded by the connection of this verse with those 
 immediately following. Verses 13, 14, introduced by /or, are 
 confessedly designed to prove the assertion of ver. 12. If that 
 assertion is, 'all men are regarded as sinners on account of 
 Adam,' the meaning and pertinency of these verses are clear. 
 But if ver. 12 asserts merely that all men are sinners, then 
 vs. 13, 14 must be regarded as proving that men were sinners 
 before the time of Moses a point which no one denied, and no 
 one doubted, and which is here entirely foreign to the apostle's 
 object. Or if xdvTez ypaprov be made to mean all became cor- 
 rupt, the objection still remains. The passage does not prove 
 what it is designed to prove. Verses 13, 14, therefore, present 
 insuperable difficulties, if we assign any other meaning than 
 that just given to ver. 12. 6. What ver. 12 is thus made to 
 assert, and vs. 13, 14 to prove, is in vs. 15 19, assumed as 
 proved, and is employed in illustration of the great truth to be 
 established: "FOR IF through the offence of one many be 
 dead," ver. 15. But where is it said, or where proved, that the 
 many die for the offence of one, if not in ver. 12 and vs. 13, 14? 
 So iv all the other verses. This idea, therefore, must be con-
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 23i; 
 
 tained in ver. 12, if any consistency is to be maintained between 
 the several parts of the apostle's argument. 7. This interpre- 
 tation is required by the whole scope of the passage and drift 
 of the argument. The scope of the passage, as shown above, 
 is to illustrate the doctrine of justification on the ground of the 
 righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of 
 men for the sin of Adam. The analogy is destroyed, the very 
 point of the comparison fails, if anything in us be assumed as 
 the ground of the infliction of the penal evils of which the 
 apostle is here speaking. That we have corrupt natures, and 
 are personally sinners, and therefore liable to other and fui'ther 
 inflictions, is indeed true, but nothing to the point. In like 
 manner, it is true that we are sanctified by our union with 
 Christ, and thus fitted for heaven ; but these ideas are out of 
 place when speaking of justification. It is to illustrate that 
 doctrine, or the idea of imputed righteousness, that this whole 
 passage is devoted ; and, therefore, the idea of imputed sin must 
 be contained in the other part of the comparison, unless the 
 whole be a failure. Not only does the scope of the passage 
 demand this view, but it is only thus that the argument of the 
 apostle can be consistently carried through. We die on account 
 of Adam's sin, ver. 12 ; this is true, because on no other ground 
 can the universality of death be accounted for, vs. 13, 14. But 
 if we all die on Adam's account, how much more shall we live 
 on account of Christ ! ver. 15. Adam indeed brings upon us the 
 evil inflicted for the first great violation of the covenant, but 
 Christ saves us from all our numberless sins, ver. 16. As, 
 therefore, for the offence of one we are condemned, so for the 
 righteousness of one we are justified, ver. 18. As on account 
 of the disobedience of one we are treated as sinners, so on 
 account of the obedience of one we are treated as righteous, 
 ver. 19. The inconsistency and confusion consequent upon 
 attempting to carry either of the other interpretations through, 
 must be obvious to any attentive reader of such attempts. 
 8. The doctrine which the verse thus explained teaches, is one 
 of the plainest truths of the Scriptures and of experience. Is 
 it not a revealed fact, above all contradiction, and sustained by 
 the whole history of the world, that the sin of Adam altered 
 the relation in which our race stood to God ? Did not that sin
 
 240 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 of. itself, and independently of anything in us, or done by us, 
 bring evil on the world? In other words, did we not fall when 
 Adam fell? The principle involved in this great transaction is' 
 explicitly and frequently asserted in the word of God, and runs 
 through all the dispensations of his providence. He solemnly 
 declares himself to be a God who " visits the iniquities of the 
 fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, 
 unto the third and fourth generation." And so he does. The 
 curse of Canaan fell on his posterity : the Egyptians perished 
 for the sins of Pharaoh; the Moabites and Amalekites were 
 destroyed for the transgressions of their fathers ; the leprosy 
 of Naaman was to cleave to Gehazi, and "to his seed for ever;" 
 the blood of all the prophets was exacted, says our Lord, of the 
 men of his generation. We must become not only infidels but 
 atheists, if we deny that God thus deals with men, not merely 
 as individuals, but as communities and on the principle of 
 imputation. The apostacy of our race in Adam, therefore, and 
 the imputation of his sin to his posterity, although the most 
 signal of the illustrations of this principle, is only one among 
 thousands of a like kind. 9. The doctrine of the imputation 
 of Adam's sin, or that on account of that sin all men are 
 regarded and treated as sinners, was a common Jewish doctrine 
 at the time of the apostle, as well as at a later period. He 
 employs the same mode of expression on the subject, which the 
 Jews were accustomed to use. They could not have failed, 
 therefore, to understand him as meaning to convey by these 
 expressions the ideas usually connected with them. And such, 
 therefore, if the apostle wished to be understood, must have 
 been his intention; see the Targum on Ruth iv. 22, "On 
 account of the counsel given to Eve (and her eating the fruit,) 
 all the inhabitants of the world were constituted guilty of 
 death." R. Moses of Trana, Beth Elohim, fol. 105, i. e. "With 
 the same sin with which Adam sinned, sinned the whole world." 
 Many such passages are to be found in the pages of Wetstein, 
 Schoettgen, Eisenmenger, Tholuck, and other collectors and 
 commentators. Meyer therefore admits that such was unde- 
 niably the doctrine of the Jews. On this point, Knapp, in his 
 Theological Lectures (German edition, page 29,) says, "In the 
 Mosaic account of the fall, and in the Old Testament generally,
 
 ROMANS V. 12. 241 
 
 the imputation of Adam's sin is not mentioned under the term 
 imputation, although the doctrine is contained therein." "But 
 in the writings of the Talmudists and Rabbins, and earlier in 
 the Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament, we find the fol- 
 lowing position asserted in express words, ' that the descendants 
 of Adam would have been punished with death (of the body) on 
 account of his sin, although they themselves had committed no 
 sin.' ' On the next page he remarks, "We find this doctrine 
 most clearly in the New Testament, in Rom. v. 12, &c. The 
 modern philosophers and theologians found here much which 
 was inconsistent with their philosophical systems. Hence many 
 explained and refined on the passage, until the idea of imputa- 
 tion was entirely excluded. They forgot, however, that Paul 
 used the very words and expressions in common use on thia 
 subject at that time among the Jews, and that his immediate 
 readers could not have understood him otherwise than as teach- 
 ing this doctrine." And he immediately goes on to show, that 
 unless we are determined to do violence to the words of the 
 apostle, Ave must admit that he represents all men as subject to 
 death on account of the sin of Adam. This is a theologian who 1 
 did not himself admit the doctrine. 
 
 It may be well to remark, that this interpretation, so far 
 from being the offspring of theological prejudice, or fondness 
 for any special theory, is so obviously the true and simple 
 meaning of the passage required by the context, that it has the 
 sanction of theologians of every grade and class of doctrine. 
 Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Rationalists, agree in its- 
 support. Thus Storr, one of the most accurate of philological 
 interpreters, explains the last words of the verse- in the manner 
 stated above : " By one man all are subject to death, because 
 all are regarded and treated as sinners, i. e. because all lie 
 under the sentence of condemnation." The phrase, all have 
 ginned, ver. 12, he says is equivalent to all are constituted sin- 
 ners, ver. 19 ; which latter expression he renders, " sie werden 
 als Sunder angesehen und behandelt," that is, they were 
 regarded and treated as sinners; see his Commentary on- 
 Hebrews, pp. 636, 640, &c. (Flatt renders these words in pre- 
 cisely the same manner.) The Rationalist, Ammon, also con- 
 siders the apostle as teaching, that on account of the sin of 
 16
 
 212 ROMANS V. 12. 
 
 Adam nil men are subject to death; see Excursus C. to Koppe'a 
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Zacharine, in his 
 JHMJttfc Theologie, Vol. VI., p. 128, has an excellent exposi- 
 tion of this whole passage. The question of the imputation of 
 Adam's sin, he says, is this, "whether God regarded the act 
 of Adam as the act of all men, or, which is the same thing, 
 whether he has subjected them all to punishment, on account 
 of this single act." This, he maintains, the apostle asserts and 
 proves. On this verse he remarks : " The question is not here 
 immediately about the propagation of a corrupted nature to all 
 men, and of the personal sins committed by all men, but of 
 universal guilt (Strafwiirdigkeit, liability to punishment,) in the 
 sight of God, which has come upon all men ; and which Paul, 
 in the sequel, does not rest on the personal sins of men, but 
 only on the offence of one man, Adam, ver. 16." Neither the 
 corruption of nature, nor the actual sins of men, and their 
 liability on account of them, is either questioned or denied, but 
 the simple statement is, that, on account of the sin of Adam, all 
 men are treated as sinners. Zacharise, it must be remembered, 
 was not a Calvinist, but one of the modern and moderate theo- 
 logians of Gottingen. Whitby, the great advocate of Armini- 
 anisin, says, on these words : " It is not true that death came 
 upon all men, for that, or because all have sinned. [He con- 
 tends for the rendering, in whom.~\ For the apostle directly 
 here asserts the contrary, viz. that the death, and the condem- 
 nation to it, which befell all men, was for the sin of Adam only ; 
 for here it is expressly said, that by the sin of one man many 
 died; that the sentence was from one, and by one man sinning 
 to condemnation; and that by the sin of one, death reigned by 
 one. Therefore, the apostle doth expressly teach us that this 
 death, this condemnation to it, came not upon us for the sin 
 of all, but only for the sin of one, i. e. of that one Adam, in 
 whom all men die, 1 Cor. xv. 22." Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of 
 Westminster, in his recent edition of the New Testament, says, 
 in his comment on this verse : " Observe the aorist tense, 
 ijfjtapTov, they all sinned; that is, at a particular time. And 
 when was that? Doubtless, at the fall. All men sinned in 
 Adam's sin. All full in his fall." Philippi says: "We must 
 supply in thought to r^aprov, iv 'Addfj., or more precisely,
 
 ROMANS V. 13, 14. 243 
 
 Adamo peccante. 'Non agitur de peccato singulorum,' says 
 Bengel, 'omnes pejcarunt, Adamo peccante.' ' Such extracts 
 might be indefinitely multiplied from the most varied sources. 
 However these commentators may differ in other points, they 
 almost all agree in the general idea, which is the sum of the 
 whole passage, that the sin of Adam, and not their own indi- 
 vidual actual transgressions, is the ground and reason of the 
 subjection of all men to the penal evils here spoken of. With 
 what plausibility can an interpretation, commanding the assent 
 of men so various, be ascribed to theory or philosophy, or love 
 of a particular theological system ? May not its rejection with 
 more probability be attributed, as is done by Knapp, to theo- 
 logical prejudice ? Certain it is, at least, that the objections 
 against it are almost exclusively of a philosophical or theologi- 
 cal, rather than of an exegetical or philological character. 
 
 VERSES 13, 14. For until the law, sin was in the world, &c. 
 These verses are connected by for with ver. 12, as introducing 
 the proof of the declaration that death had passed on all men, 
 on account of one man. The proof is this : the infliction of 
 penal evils implies the violation of law ; the violation of the law 
 of Moses will not account for the universality of death, because 
 men died before that law was given. Neither is the violation 
 of the law of nature sufficient to explain the fact that all men 
 are subject to death, because even those die who have never 
 broken that law. As, therefore, death supposes transgression, 
 and neither the law of Moses nor the law of nature embraces 
 all the victims of death, it follows that men are subject to penal 
 evils on account of the sin of Adam. It is for the offence of 
 one that many die. 
 
 In order to the proper understanding of the apostle's argu- 
 ment, it should be borne in mind that the term death stands for 
 penal evil ; not for this or that particular form of it, but for ' 
 any and every evil judicially inflicted for the support of law. 
 Paul's reasoning does not rest upon the mere fact that all men, 
 even infants, are subject to natural death; for this might be 
 accounted for by the violation of the law of Moses, or of the 
 law of nature, or by their inherent native depravity. This 
 covers the whole ground, and may account for the universality 
 of natural death. But no one of these causes, nor all combined,
 
 244 ROMANS V. 13, 14. 
 
 ctn account for the infliction of all the penal evils to which men 
 are subjected. The great fact in the apostle's mind was, that 
 God regards and treats all men, from the first moment of their 
 existence, as out of fellowship with himself, as having forfeited 
 his favour. Instead of entering into communion with them the 
 moment they begin to exist (as he did with Adam,) and forming 
 them by his Spirit in his own moral image, he regards them as 
 out of his favour, and withholds the influences of the Spirit. 
 Why is this? Why does God thus deal with the human race? 
 The fact that he does thus deal with them is not denied by any 
 except Pelagians. Why then is it ? Here is a form of death 
 which the violation of the law of Moses, the transgression of the 
 law of nature, the existence of innate depravity, separately 01 
 combined, are insufficient to account for. Its infliction is ante- 
 cedent to them all ; and yet it is of all evils the essence and the 
 sum. Men begin to exist out of communion with God. This is 
 the fact which no sophistry can get out of the Bible or the his- 
 tory of the world. Paul tells us why it is. It is because we 
 fell in Adam ; it is for the one offence of ONE MAN that all thus 
 die. The covenant being formed with Adam, not only for him- 
 self, but also for his posterity, (in other words, Adam having 
 been placed on trial, not for himself only, but also for his race,} 
 Iris act was, in virtue of this relation, regarded as our act ; God 
 withdrew from us as he did from him ; in consequence of this 
 withdrawing, we begin to exist in moral darkness, destitute of a 
 disposition to delight in God, and prone to delight in ourselves 
 and the world. The sin of Adam, therefore, ruined us ; it was 
 the ground of the withdrawing of the divine favour from the 
 whole race ; and the intervention of the Son of God for our sal- 
 vation is an act of pure, sovereign, and wonderful grace. 
 
 Whatever obscurity, therefore, rests upon this passage, arises 
 from taking the word death in the narrow sense in which it is 
 commonly used among men. If taken in its scriptural sense, the 
 whole argument is plain and conclusive. Let penal evil be sub- 
 stituted for the word death, and the argument will stand thus : 
 'All men are subject to penal evils on account of one man ; this 
 is the position to be proved, ver. 12. That such is the case is 
 evident, because the infliction of a penalty supposes the viola- 
 tion of law. But such evil was inflicted before the giving of the
 
 ROMANS V. 13, 14. 245 
 
 Mosaic law; it comes on men before the ti ansgression of the 
 law of nature, or even the existence of inherent depravity; it 
 must therefore be for the offence of one man that judgment has 
 come upon all men to condemnation.' The wide sense in which 
 the sacred writers use the word death, accounts for the fact that 
 the dissolution of the body (which is one form of the manifesta- 
 tion of the divine displeasure) is not only included in it, but is 
 often the prominent idea. 
 
 Until the laiv. The law here mentioned is evidently the law 
 of Moses. The word a%pi is properly rendered until, and not 
 during the continuance of, a sense which the particle has in- 
 some passages. Until the law is immediately explained by the 
 words from Adam to Moses. Sin was in the world, i. e. men 
 were sinners, and were so regarded and treated. Sin is not 
 imputed, that is, it is not laid to one's account, and punished. 
 See iv. 8, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth 
 not iniquity;" and the familiar equivalent expressions, "His 
 iniquity shall be upon him," Numb. xv. 31; and, "He shall 
 bear his iniquity." The word (l/Ao^ror) here used, occurs 
 nowhere else in any Greek writer, except in Philemon 18. The 
 common word for impute is Xo-fi^ofj.ac. When there is no law, 
 fj-ifj ovroc vo/jtou, there not being law. Sin is correlative of law. 
 If there is no law, there can be no sin, as Paul had already 
 taught, iv. 15. But if there is no sin without law, there can be 
 no imputation of sin. As, however, sin was imputed, as sin 
 was in the world, as men were sinners, and were so regarded 
 and treated before the law of Moses, it follows that there must 
 be some more comprehensive law in relation to which men were 
 sinners, and in virtue of which they were so regarded and 
 treated. The principle here advanced, and on which the aposr 
 tie's argument rests is, that the infliction of penal evil implies 
 the violation of law. If men were sinners, and were treated as 
 such before the law of Moses, it is certain that there is some 
 other law, for the violation of which sin was imputed to them. 
 
 Instead of the interpretation just given, there are several 
 other methods of explaining this verse, which should be noticed. 
 Calvin, Luther, Beza, and not a few of the modern commenta- 
 tors, say that the clause, sin is not imputed when there is no 
 law, means, men do not impute sin to themselves, i. e. do not
 
 246 ROMANS V. 13, 14. 
 
 regard themselves as sinners; do not feel their guilt, AN hen there 
 is no law. To a certain extent, the sentiment thus expressed 
 is true. Paul, in a subsequent chapter, vii. 8, says, " Without 
 the law, sin was dead;" that is, unknown and disregarded. It 
 is true, that ignorance of the law renders the conscience torpid, 
 and that by the clear revelation of the law it is brought to life ; 
 so that by the law is the knowledge of sin. If, however, by 
 law, is meant a written law, or a full and authenticated revela- 
 tion of the will of God as a rule of duty, then it is only com- 
 paratively speaking true, that without law (i. e. such a law,) sin 
 is unknown or 'disregarded. There is another law, as Paul 
 teaches, ii. 14,^15, written on the heart, in virtue of which men 
 feel themselves to be sinners, and know the righteous judgment 
 of God, by which they are exposed to death ; see i. 3k!. The 
 objections, however, to this interpretation are decisive : 1. In 
 the first place, it is inconsistent with the meaning of the words 
 here used. " To impute sin" never means to lay sin to heart. 
 The imputation is always made from without, or by another, not 
 by the sinner himself. Tholuck, therefore, calls this interpreta- 
 tion "a desperate shift." "Noch," he says, "ist eine ge^vult- 
 same Iliilfe zu erwahnen die Manche diesem Ausspriiche de& 
 Apostels zu bringen gesucht haben. Sie haben dem ^AofsFj. 
 eine andere Bedeutung beigelegt. Sie haben es in der Bedeu- 
 tung achten, lliiclcsicht nehmen genommen." 2. This interpre- 
 tation proceeds on a wrong assumption of the thing to be 
 proved. It assumes that the apostle designs to prove that all 
 men are in themselves sinners, and for their personal guilt or 
 defilement, are exposed to death. But this, as has been shown, 
 leaves out of view the main idea of ver. 12. It is true, that all 
 men are sinners, either in the. sense of actual transgressors, or 
 of having a depraved nature, and consequently are exposed to 
 death; but the specific assertion of ver. 1-2 is, that it was r,y 
 ONE MAN death passed on all men. This, therefore, is the thing 
 to be proved, and not that all men are personally sinners. Of 
 course it is not denied that men are subject to death for their 
 own sins ; but that is nothing to the point which the apostle has 
 in hand. His design is to show that there is a form of death, 
 or penal evil, to which men are subject, anterior to any personal 
 ;ransgression or inherent corruption. 3. This interpretation
 
 ROMANS V. 13, 14. 247 
 
 assumes that the apostle is answering an objection which has 
 no force, or refuting an opinion which no one entertained. It 
 supposes that the Jews held that the Gentiles, before the law 
 of Moses, were not sinners, whereas they regarded them as pre- 
 eminently such. It makes the apostle reason thus : 'All men 
 are sinners. No,' objects the Jew, 'before Moses there was no 
 law, and therefore no sin. Yes,' replies Paul, 'they were sin- 
 ners, although they were not aware of it.' But as no human 
 being believed that men were not sinners before the giving of 
 the Mosaic law, as Paul himself had proved at length that the 
 whole world was guilty before God, as he had expressly taught 
 that the Gentiles, although they had no written law, were a law 
 unto themselves, and that they stood self-condemned in the pre- 
 sence of God, it is unreasonable to suppose that the apostle 
 would stop to refute an objection which has not force enough tc 
 be even a cavil. Paul had before laid down the principle 
 (iv. 15,) that where there is no law, there is no transgression, 
 which is only another form of saying, "sin is not imputed 
 when there is no law." But as sin was imputed before the law 
 of Moses, there must have been some other law, for the violation 
 of which men were condemned. It is that the apostle designs 
 to prove, and not that men were personally sinners ; a fact, so 
 far as the heathen were concerned, no Jew denied. 
 
 Another interpretation, which is adopted by a large number 
 of commentators and theologians, supposes that the word death 
 is to be understood of natural death alone. The reasoning of 
 the apostle then is, 'As on account of the sin of one man, all 
 men are condemned to die, so on account of the righteousness 
 of one, all are made partakers of life,' ver. 12. The proof that 
 all are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam, is given 
 in vs. 13, 14 : ' The infliction of the specific penalty of death, 
 supposes the violation of a law to which that particular penalty 
 was attached. This could not be the law of Moses, since those 
 die who never violated that law; and, in short, all men die, 
 although they have never broken any express command attended 
 by the sanction of death. The liability of all men, therefore, to 
 this specific form of evil, is to be traced not to their own indi- 
 vidual character or conduct, but to the sin of Adam.' Some of 
 those who adopt this view of the passage, are consistent enough
 
 248 ROMANS V. 13. 
 
 to carry it through, and make the life which is restored to all 
 by Christ, as here spoken of, to be nothing more than the life 
 of the body, i. e. the resurrection from the dead.* It will be 
 observed, that this interpretation is, as to its iniiin principle, 
 identical with that presented above as correct. That is, it 
 assumes that ver. 12 teaches that God regarded the act of Adam 
 as the act of the whole race, or, in other words, that he sub- 
 jected all men to punishment on account of his transgression. 
 And it makes vs. 13, 14, the proof that the subjection of all 
 men to the penal evil here specially in view, to be, not the cor- 
 ruption of their nature, nor their own individual sins, but the 
 sin of Adam. It is, however, founded on two assumptions ; the 
 one of which is erroneous, and the other gratuitous. In the 
 first place, it assumes that the death here spoken of is mere 
 natural death, which, as shown above, is contrary both to the 
 scriptural use of the term and to the immediate context. And, 
 secondly, it assumes that the violation of the law of nature 
 could not be justly followed by the death of the body, because 
 that particular form of evil was not threatened as the sanction 
 of that law. But this assumption is gratuitous, and would be 
 as well authorized if made in reference to any othei punishment 
 of such transgressions; since no definite specific evil, as the 
 expression of the divine displeasure, was made known to those 
 who had no external revelation. Yet, as Paul says, Rom. i. 3^, 
 the wicked heathen knew they were worthy of death, i. e. of the 
 effects of the divine displeasure. The particular manner of the 
 exhibition of that displeasure is a matter of indifference. It 
 need hardly be remarked, that it is not involved either in this 
 or the commonly received interpretation of this passage, that 
 men, before the time of Moses, were not punishable for their 
 own sins. While this is admitted and asserted by the apostle, 
 he proves that they were punished for Adam's sin. No one 
 feels that there is any inconsistency in asserting of the men of 
 this generation, that although responsible to God for their per- 
 sonal transgressions, they are nevertheless born in a state 
 of spiritual death, as a punishment of the sin of our great 
 progenitor. The pains of child-birth do not cease to be part 
 of the penalty of the original transgression, although each 
 
 * See Whitby on this passage.
 
 KOMANS V. 13. 249 
 
 suffering mother is burdened with the guilt cf personal trans- 
 gression. 
 
 As the effort to make these verses prove that all men are 
 actual sinner* fails of giving them any satisfactory sense, so 
 the interpretation which assumes that they are designed to 
 prove inherent, hereditary depravity, is no less untenable. If 
 i<f w /rdvrec rjnaprov, in ver. 12, means, ' Death has passed on 
 all, because all are tainted with the hereditary corruption derived 
 from Adam,' then the argument in vs. 13, 14, must stand thus: 
 'All men are by nature corrupt, for as sin is not imputed when 
 there is no law, the death of all men cannot be accounted for 
 on the ground of their actual sins ; therefore, since those die 
 who have never sinned, as Adam did, against a positive law, 
 they must be subject to death for their innate depravity.' But, 
 so far as this argument assumes that men, before the time of 
 Moses, were not justly subject to death for their actual sins, it 
 is contrary to truth, and to the express teaching of the apostle. 
 Yet this is the form in which it is generally presented. And 
 if it only means that actual sin will not account for the absolute 
 universality of death, since those die who have never committed 
 any actual transgression, the argument is still defective. Innate 
 depra,vity being universal, may account for the universality of 
 natural death ; but ddvaroz includes much more than natural 
 death. What is to account for spiritual death? Why are men 
 born dead in sin ? This is the very thing to be accounted for. 
 The fact is not its own solution. Paul's argument is, that they 
 are so born on account of Adam's sin. It is another objection 
 to this interpretation, that it destroys the analogy between 
 Christ and Adam, and therefore is inconsistent with the great 
 design of the whole passage. Paul's object is to show, that as 
 we are justified by th. ~ighteousness of Christ as something out 
 of ourselves, so we are condemned for the sin of Adam as some- 
 thing out of ourselves. To make him teach that we are con- 
 demned for our inherent depravity, to the exclusion of Adam's 
 sin, necessitates his teaching that we are justified for our inhe- 
 rent goodness, which destroys all hope of heaven. There is no 
 interpretation of this passage consistent with the meaning of the 
 words, the nature of the argument, the design of the context, 
 and the analogy of Scripture, but the one given aboTe, as
 
 250 ROMANS V. 14. 
 
 commonly received. Kb'llner complains that Paul's argumen 
 is very confused. This he accounts for by assuming that tht 
 apostle had two theories in his mind. The one, that men die 
 for their own sins ; the other, that they die for the sin of Adam. 
 His natural feelings led him to adopt the former, and he accord- 
 ingly says, in ver. 12, " Death passed on all men, because all 
 have sinned." But as the Jewish doctrine of his age, that men 
 were condemned for the sin of Adam, afforded such an admira- 
 ble illustration of his doctrine of salvation through the merit 
 of Christ, the apostle, says Kollner, could not help availing 
 himself of it. Thus he has the two theories mixed up together, 
 asserting sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. To those 
 who reverence the Scriptures as the word of God, it is assuredly 
 a strong argument in favour of the common interpretation of 
 the passage, that it saves the sacred writer from such asper- 
 sions. It is better to admit the doctrine of imputation, than to 
 make the apostle contradict himself. 
 
 VERSE 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses. 
 That is, men were subject to death before the law of Moses was 
 given, and consequently not on account of violating it. There 
 must be some other ground, therefore, of their exposure to 
 death. Neverthelesss. (d/>,) the clause thus introduced stands 
 in opposition to the preceding clause, o'jx i/M-j-zl-cm. That is, 
 ''although sin is not imputed when there is no law, nevertheless 
 death reigned from Adam to Moses.' Death reigned, i. e. had 
 undisputed, rightful sway. Men were justly subject to his 
 power, and therefore were sinners. 
 
 Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of 
 Adams transgression. Instead of connecting Ixl TW b/wxbfjiare, 
 as is usually done, with [rrj apapTrjaavTzz, Ghrysostom connects 
 -them with ifiaoiXvjozv. The sense would then be, 'death 
 reigned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, even over 
 those who had not sinned.' That is, death reigned over those 
 who had not personally sinned, just as it reigned over Adam. 
 This interpretation is adopted by Bengcl, who says, " Quod 
 homines ante legem inortui sunt, id accidit eis super similitudine 
 iransgressionis Adam, i. e. quia illorum eadem atque Adami 
 transgredientis ratio fuit: mortui sunt, propter alium reatum, 
 ion propter eum, quern ipsi per se contraxere, id est, propter
 
 ROMANS V. 14. 251 
 
 reatum ab Adamo contractum." Although the sense thus 
 expressed is good, and suited to the context, the construction 
 is evidently forced. It is much more natural to take the words 
 as they stand. Death reigned over a class of persons who had 
 not sinned as Adam had. The question is, What is the point 
 of dissimilarity to which the apostle here refers ? Some say it 
 is, that Adam violated a positive command to which the sanction 
 of death was expressly added, and that those referred to did 
 not. The principal objections to this interpretation are, 1. That 
 it destroys the distinction between the two classes of persons 
 here alluded to. It makes Paul, in effect, reason thus : ' Death 
 reigned over those who had not violated any positive law, even 
 over those who had not violated any positive law.' It is obvi- 
 ous that the first clause of the verse describes a general class, 
 and the second clause, which is distinguished from the first by 
 the word even, only a portion of that class. All men who died 
 from Adam to Moses, died without violating a positive com- 
 mand. The class, therefore, which is distinguished from them, 
 must be contrasted with Adam on some other ground than that 
 which is common to the whole. 2. This interpretation is incon- 
 sistent with the context, because it involves us in all the diffi- 
 culties specified above, attending the sense which it requires 
 us to put upon vs. 13, 14, and their connection with ver. 12. 
 We must suppose these verses designed to prove that all men 
 are sinners, which, as just shown, is at variance with the con- 
 text, with the obvious meaning of ver. 12, with the scope of the 
 passage, and the drift of the argument. Or we must adopt the 
 interpretation of those who confine the word death to the dis- 
 solution of the body, and make the apostle argue to show that 
 this particular evil is to be referred not to the personal sins of 
 men, but to the sin of Adam. Or we are driven to some other 
 unsatisfactory view of the passage. In short, these verses, when 
 the clause in question is thus explained, present insuperable 
 difficulties. 
 
 Others understand the difference between Adam and those 
 intended to be described in this clause, to be, that Adam sinned 
 personally and actually, the others did not. In favour of this 
 view it may be argued, 1. That the words evidently admit of this 
 interpretation as naturally as of the other. Paul simply says,
 
 252 ROMANS V. 14. 
 
 the persons referred to did not sin as Adam did. Whether he 
 means that they did not sin at all ; that they were not sinners 
 in the ordinary sense of that term ; or that they had not sinned 
 against the same kind of law, depends on the context, and is 
 not determined by the mere form of expression. 2. If ver. 12 
 teaches that men are subject to death on account of the sin 
 of Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, 
 as is admitted, vs. 13, 14 are designed to prove the assertion 
 of ver. 12, then is it necessary that the apostle should show 
 that death comes on those who have no personal or actual sins 
 to answer for. This he does: 'Death reigns not only over 
 those who have never broken any positive law, but even over 
 those who have never sinned as Adam did ; that is, who have 
 never in their own persons violated any law, by which their 
 exposure to death can be accounted for.' All the arguments, 
 therefore, which go to establish the interpretation given above 
 of ver. 12, or the correctness of the exhibition of the course 
 of the apostle's argument, and the design of the whole passage, 
 bear with all their force in support of the view here given of 
 this clause. The opposite interpretation, as was attempted to 
 be proved above, rests on a false exegesis of ver. 12, and a false 
 view of the context. Almost all the objections to this interpre- 
 tation, being founded on misapprehension, are answered by the 
 mere statement of the case. The simple doctrine and argument 
 of the apostle is, that THERE ARE PENAL EVILS WHICH COME 
 
 UPON MEX AXTECEDEXT TO AXY TRANSGRESSIONS OF THEIR 
 OWN; AND AS THE INFLICTION OP THESE EVILS IMPLIES A 
 VIOLATION* OF LAW, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE REGARDED 
 AND TREATED AS SINNERS, ON THE GROUND OF THE DISOBEDI- 
 
 EXCE OF ANOTHER, In other words, it was "by the offence 
 of one man that judgment cane on all men to condemnation." 
 It is of course not implied in thu. statement or argument, that 
 men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses, punishable 
 for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal 
 evils, which cannot be accounted for on the ground of their 
 personal transgressions, or their hereditary depravity. This 
 statement, which contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so 
 obviously contained in the argument of the apostle, and stands 
 out so conspicuously in the Bible, and is so fully established by
 
 ROMANS V. 14. 263 
 
 the history of the world, that it is frequently and freely ad- 
 mitted by the great majority of commentators. 
 
 Who is a figure of him that was to come, TUXOS ro~j 
 /7ft>C T'J~o:;; <pTJffw on waxep !xe?voc ro?c avro 
 
 drrb TOO ^'j).oo, fkyovzv atrto^ &avd.Tou roD did. rr t v 
 cffa%OsyToz, o5ro> xac b Xptarbz ro?c $ O.UTOU, xairoirs 
 o'j dcxcuo~pa^(faac, fifovs, TtpoZevoz dtxaioauvys, rp ded rov 
 ffrai>po~j irdaw tf/Mf i'/^piaaro' did TOUTO ava) xal xdrco roy Ivoc 
 e%Toi, xal ffi>v%a>z roDro ef'c peffov (pepsc. Ghrysostom. " How 
 a type? he says: because as he was the cause of the death 
 introduced by eating (the forbidden fruit,) to all who are of 
 him, although they did not eat of the tree; so also Christ, to 
 those who are of him, though they have not wrought right- 
 eousness, is become the procurer of the righteousness which, 
 by means of the cross, he graciously gives to us all ; on this 
 account he first and last makes the one so prominent, continu- 
 ally bringing it forward." This is an interesting passage 
 coming from a source so different from the Augustinian school 
 of theology. Every essential point of the common Calvinistic 
 interpretation is fully stated. Adam is the cause of death 
 coming on all, independently of any transgressions of their 
 own ; as Christ is the author of justification without our own 
 works. And the many, in the one clause, are all who are of 
 Adam ; and the many, in the other, those who are of Christ. 
 
 The word rendered figure, TUTTOI;, from TU^TCD (to strike,) 
 means a print, or impression made by a blow; as in John 
 xx. 25, rov TUTCOV TOJV yX<ov, the print of the nails. In a wider 
 sense it means a figure or form, literally, as when spoken of an 
 image, Acts vii. 43, or figuratively when used of a doctrine, 
 Rom. vi. 17. More commonly in the Scriptures it means either 
 a model after which anything is to be made, Heb. viii. 5, or an 
 example to be followed, Philip, iii. 17, " as ye have us for an 
 example," xa$o>c l^sre rjttov f)p.3.z. Besides these, so to speak 
 secular meanings, it has the religious sense of type, a designed 
 prefiguration, or counterpart, either historically, as the pass- 
 over was a. type or significant commemoration of the passing 
 over, by the destroying angel, of the habitations of the Hebrews 
 in Egypt ; or prophetically, as the sacrifices of the Old Testa- 
 ment were types of the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God. A
 
 ROMANS V. 14. 
 
 type, therefore, in the religious sense of the term, is not a mere 
 historical parallel or incidental resemblance between persons 01 
 events, bat a designed resemblance the one being intended u 
 prefigure or to commemorate the other. It is in this sense thai 
 Adam was the type of Christ. The resemblance between them 
 was not CT^* It was predetermined, and entered into the 
 whole plan of God. As Adam was the head and represents: 
 of his race, whose destiny was suspended on his conduct, so 
 Christ is the head and representative of his people. As the 
 sin of the one was the ground of our condemnation, so the 
 righteousness of the other is the ground of our justification. 
 This relation between Adam and the Messiah was recognized by 
 the Jews, who called their expected deliverer, fvw? =/*v> the 
 ItuA Adam, as Paul also calls him in 1 Cor. xv. 45, 6 lo^aroc 
 Aoau. Adam was the type, TO'J /*//0vro;. either of the Adam 
 who was to come, or simply of the one to come. The Old Testa- 
 ment system was preparatory and prophetic. The people under 
 its influence were looking forward to the accomplishment of the 
 promises made to their father. The Messianic period on which 
 their hopes were fixed was called "the world or age to come," and 
 the Messiah hkaseif was b ip-ydfiz-so^ b fiAtM**, the one coming.* 
 As Paul commenced this section with the design of insti- 
 tuting this comparison between Christ and Adam, and inter- 
 rupted himself to prove, in vs. 13, 14. that Adam was really the 
 representative of his race, or that all men are subject to death 
 for his offence; and having, at the close of ver. 14, announced 
 the fact of this resemblance by calling Adam a type of Christ, 
 he again stops to limit and explain this declaration by pointing 
 out the real nature of the analogy. This he does principally 
 by showing, in vs. 1517, the particulars in which the com- 
 
 * PhffippL, Professor in the Uarfersky at Rostock, one of the mort recent as 
 he is one of the best of the German commentators, says, in a note to this pas- 
 sage, "The Protestant Hrarch had abundant script^ 
 
 logical rewMB fcr ffcesr doetriae f the tsyvta* ftetott \ AAumtid d cmlp** et 
 fr**m, sad its toff^uULpeecmtwrn rigyuk, confBfting in the katitvi ptct**d\ 
 ad heace imohiag gmiit. It is one of the merits of Julias Mailer's -work 
 (die Christliche Lehre TOO der Snnde,) that he rejects the modern doctrine, 
 that innate depravity or the corruption of nature IB man, eeoseqaeat on the 
 fafl of Adam, is simply an evil, so that only rutumtmy Mseat thereto is pr- 
 perly ' the nature <rf eim.'
 
 ROMANS V. 15. 255 
 
 parison does not hold. In verses 18. 19, which ftre a resump- 
 tion of the sentiment of ver. 12, he states the grand point of 
 their agreement. 
 
 VERSE 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. The 
 cases, although parallel, are not precisely alike. In the first 
 place, it is far more consistent with our views of the character 
 of God, that many should be benefitted by the merit of one 
 man, than that they should suffer for the sin of one. If the 
 latter has happened, MUCH MORE may we expect the former to 
 occur. The attentive reader of this passage will perceive con- 
 stantly increasing evidence that the design of the apostle is not 
 to show that the blessings procured by Christ are greater than 
 the evils caused by Adam ; but to illustrate and confirm the 
 prominent doctrine of the epistle, that we are justified on the 
 ground of the righteousness of Christ. This is obvious from the 
 sentiment of this verse, ' If we die for the sin of Adam, muck 
 more may we live through the righteousness of Christ.' But 
 not as the offence, &c. *A%X ou% o>c TO xapdztTiofjLa, oitrio xae TO 
 %d t oifffj.a, a singularly concise expression, which however the 
 context renders sufficiently plain. FlapdxTtofJLa, from xapaxiTiTu) 
 (to fall,) means fall, and ya.pcafj.oi, an act of grace, or gracious 
 gift, which is explained by jj dcoped in this verse, TO dwprjfja. in 
 ver. 16, and ^ dwpea TT/Z dixaioff'jvr^ (the gift of righteousness,} 
 in ver. 17. The meaning therefore is, that ' the fall is not like 
 the gracious restoration.' The reason why the one is not like 
 the other, is stated in what follows, so that fdp has its appropri- 
 ate force : ' They are not alike, for if by the offence of one many 
 be dead.' The dative xapanTibfiaTt expresses the ground or 
 reason. The offence of one was the ground or reason of the 
 many dying ; and as death is a penalty, it must be the judicial 
 ground of their death, which is the very thing asserted in 
 ver. 12, and proved in vs. 13, 14. Many be dead; the words 
 are of xoMoi axi&avov, the many died, the aorist axs&awv 
 cannot mean be dead. By the many are intended all mankind, 
 ol KoAAoi and TidvTes being interchanged throughout the con- 
 text. They are called the many, because they are many, and 
 for the sake of the antithesis to the one. The many died for 
 the offence of one ; the sentence of death passed on all for his 
 offence. The same idea is presented in 1 Cor. xv. 22.
 
 256 ROMANS V. 15. 
 
 It is here, therefore, expressly asserted that the sin of Adam 
 was the cause of all his posterity being subjected to death, that 
 is, to penal evil. But it may still be asked whether it was 
 the occasional or the immediate cause. That is, whether the 
 apostle means to say that the sin of Adam was the occasion of 
 all men being placed in such circumstances that they all sin, 
 and thus incur death ; or that by being the cause of the cor- 
 ruption of their nature, it is thus indirectly the cause of their 
 condemnation ; or whether he is to be understood as saying that 
 his sin is the direct judicial ground or reason for the infliction 
 of penal evil. It has been frequently said that this is all 
 theory, philosophy, system, &c. But any one may see that it 
 is a mere exegetical question what is the meaning of a given 
 phrase ? Does the dative here express the occasional cause, or 
 the ground or reason of the result attributed to the offence of 
 one man ? It is a mere question of fact ; the fact is all, and 
 there is neither theory nor philosophy involved in the matter. 
 If Paul says that the offence of one is the ground and reason 
 of the many being subject to death, he says all that the advo- 
 cates of the doctrine of imputation say. That this is the strict 
 exegetical meaning of the passage, appears from the following 
 reasons : 1. That such may be the force and meaning of the 
 words as they here stand, no one can pretend to doubt. That 
 is, no one can deny that the dative case can express the ground 
 or reason as well as the occasion of a thing. 2. This interpre- 
 tation is not only possible, and in strict accordance with tht 
 meaning of the words, but it is demanded, in this connection, 
 by the plainest rules of exposition; because the sentiment 
 expressed by these words is confessedly the same as that taught 
 in those which follow ; and they, as will appear in the sequel, 
 will not bear the opposite interpretation. 3. It is demanded 
 by the vhole design and drift of the passage. The very point 
 of the comparison is, that as the righteousness of Christ, and 
 not our own works, is the ground of our justification, so the 
 sin of Adam, antecedently to any sins of our own, is the 
 ground of the infliction of certain penal evils. If the latter 
 be denied, the very point of the analogy between Christ and 
 Adam is destroyed. 4. This interpretation is so plainly the 
 correct and natural one, that it is, as shown above, freely
 
 ROMANS V. 16. 257 
 
 admitted by the most strenuous opponents of the doctrine which 
 it teaches. 
 
 Much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is 
 by one man, hath abounded unto many. Had Paul been studi- 
 ous of uniformity in the structure of his sentences, this clause 
 would have been differently worded : ' If by the offence of one 
 many die, much more by the free gift of one shall many live.' 
 The meaning is the same. The force of the passage lies in the 
 words much more. The idea is not that the grace is more 
 abundant and efficacious than the offence and its consequences : 
 this idea is expressed in ver. 20 ; but, ' if the one dispensation 
 has occurred, much more may the other; if we die for one, 
 much more may we live by another.' The noXXqj fjtaU.ov does 
 not express a higher degree of efficacy, but of evidence or cer- 
 tainty : ' If the one thing has happened, much more certainly 
 may the other be relied upon.' The first clause of the verse* 
 may be thus interpreted, * the grace of God, even the gift by 
 grace;' so that the latter phrase is explanatory of the former- 
 If they are to be distinguished, the first refers to the cause, viz- 
 the grace of God ; and the second to the result, viz. the gift by 
 grace, i. e. the gracious or free gift, viz. the gift of righteous- 
 ness, as explained in ver. 17. Which is by one man, Jesu 
 Christ; that is, which comes to us through Christ. This free? 
 gift is of course the opposite of what comes upon us for the- 
 sake of Adam. Guilt and condemnation come from him ; right- 
 eousness and consequent acceptance from Jesus Christ. What 
 is here called the free gift is, in ver. 17, called the gift of right- 
 eousness. Hath abounded unto many, 'f ro^c Tro^Aoyc, unto thv 
 many; that is, has been freely and abundantly bestowed on the- 
 many. Whether the many, in this clause, is co-extensive 
 numerically with the many in the other, will be considered 
 under ver. 18. 
 
 VERSE 16. And not as it was by one that sinned,* so is the 
 gift, &c. This clause, as it stands in the original, and not a* 
 by one that sinned, the gift, is obviously elliptical. Some word 
 corresponding to gift is to be supplied in the first member; 
 
 * Instead of A^rrfwrw, the MSS. D. E. F. G. 26, the Latin and Syrias 
 versions read au*Tp.a.Ti>;. The common text is retained by most editors, evea 
 by Lachmann. 
 
 17
 
 258 ROMANS V. 16. 
 
 either offence, which is opposed to the free gift in the preceding 
 verse; or judgment, which occurs in the next clause. The 
 sense thn is, ' The gift (of justification, see ver. 17) was not 
 like the sentence which came by one that sinned.' So Professor 
 Stuart, who very appositely renders and explains the whole 
 verse thus : " Yea, the [sentence] by one who sinned, is not like 
 the free gift ; for the sentence by reason of one [offence] was 
 unto condemnation [was a condemning sentence] ; but the free 
 gift [pardon] is of many offences, unto justification, i. e. is a 
 sentence of acquittal from condemnation." The point of this 
 verse is, that the sentence of condemnation which passed on all 
 men* for the sake of Adam, was for one offence, whereas we 
 are justified by Christ from many offences. Christ does much 
 more than remove the guilt and evils consequent on the sin 
 of Adam. This is the second particular in which the work 
 of Christ differs from that of Adam. 
 
 For the judgment was by one to condemnation. By one, z 
 kvbz, either by one man, or by one offence. As afjtaprr^ffa^'oi; 
 is the true reading in the preceding clause, most modern com- 
 mentators say that ivoc must be masculine, by one man. The 
 antithesis, however, between kvot; and XO/JMV is so obvious, that 
 it is more natural to supply xapaxTfo/jiaTOZ, from the next clause, 
 as in Hebrew parallelisms, an ellipsis in the first member must 
 at times be supplied from the second. An example of this kind 
 Gesenius finds in Isa. xlviii. 11. Here the very object of the 
 apostle is to contrast the one offence for which we suffer through 
 Adam, with the many offences from the guilt of which Christ 
 delivers us. Luther, Beza, Olshausen, Rothe, and others, take 
 voc as neuter, one offence. "A judgment to condemnation" is 
 a Hebraic or Hellenistic idiom, for a condemnatory judgment, 
 or sentence of condemnation. f The word xpifjLa, rendered judg- 
 ment, properly means the decision or sentence of a judge, and 
 
 * The words all men are expressed in Ter. 18, where this clause is repeated: 
 "By the offence of one, judgment came on all men to condemnation." 
 
 f See 1 Cor. IT. 45, 'The first Adam was made (tit ^fc" >*v) to a living 
 soul.' 'The last Adam to a quickening spirit.' Or the preposition (tit) may 
 express the grade or point to which anything reaches, and IK JMTOJ^MI be eqni- 
 Talent to ii>- TO fciraxg/Wdi/, a sentence unto condemnation; a decision which 
 went to the extent of condemning. So, in the next clause, ic ii*y.t*jUA, unto 
 jiutification, a sentence by which men are justified. See Wahl, p. 428.
 
 ROMANS V. 16. 259 
 
 is here to be taken in its usual and obvious signification. It is 
 then plainly stated that ' a sentence of condemnation has passed 
 on all men on account of the one sin of Adam.' This is one 
 of the clauses which can hardly be forced into the meaning 
 that the sin of Adam was the occasion merely of men being 
 condemned, because it was the means of their being led into 
 sin. Here again we have a mere exegetical question to decide ; 
 not a matter of theory or deduction, but simply of exposition. 
 What does the phrase * a sentence of condemnation by, or for 
 one offence,' in this connection, mean? The common answer 
 to this question is, It means that the one offence was the ground 
 of the sentence. This answer, for the following reasons, appears 
 to be correct : 1. It is the simple and obvious meaning of the 
 terms. To say a sentence is for an offence, is, in ordinary lan- 
 guage, to say that it is on account of the offence ; and not that 
 the offence is the cause of something else, which is the ground 
 of the sentence. Who, uninfluenced by theological prejudice, 
 would imagine that the apostle, when he says that condemna- 
 tion for the offence of one man has passed on all men, means 
 that the sin of Adam was the occasion of our sins, on account 
 of which we are condemned ? The preposition (lx), here trans- 
 lated by, expresses properly the idea of the origin of one thing 
 from another; and is, therefore, used to indicate almost any 
 relation in which a cause may stand to an effect. The logical 
 character of this relation depends, of course, on the nature of 
 the subject spoken of. In the phrases "faith is by hearing" 
 (Iz ebfoi^c,) chap. x. 17; "by this craft (Ix TWJTT^ r7^ Ipfaoiaz) 
 we have our wealth," Acts xix. 25; "our sufficiency is of God" 
 (Ix TOI #ov,) 2 Cor. iii. 5 ; and a multitude of similar cases, the 
 general idea of causation is expressed, but its precise character 
 differs according to the nature of the subject. In the former 
 of these examples the word indicates the instrumental, in the 
 latter the efficient cause. But when it is said that "a man is 
 not justified by works" (Ig Ipfoiv,^) Gal. ii. 16; that the purpose 
 of election "is not of works," Rom. ix. 11; that our salvation 
 is not " by works of righteousness (It Ipfwv TOJV v dtxatocrjvrj) 
 which we have done," Tit. iii. 5; and in a hundred similar 
 examples, the preposition expresses the ground or reason. We 
 are not elected. Dr justified, or saved on account of our works.
 
 260 ROMANS V. 16. 
 
 In like manner, when it is said we are condemned by, or for 
 the offence of one, and that we are justified for the righteous- 
 ness of another, the meaning obviously is, that it is on account 
 of the offence we are condemned, and on account of the right- 
 eousness we are justified. If it is true, therefore, as is so often 
 asserted, that the apostle here, and throughout this passage, 
 states the fact merely that the offence of Adam has led to our 
 condemnation, without explaining the mode in which it has pro- 
 duced this result, it must be because language cannot express 
 the idea. The truth is, however, that when he says " the sen- 
 tence was by one offence" (rd xpifia g vC,) he expresses the 
 mode of our condemnation just as clearly as he denies one mode 
 of justification by saying it "is not by works;" and as he 
 affirms another by saying it is "by the righteousness of Christ." 
 2. This interpretation is not only the simple and natural mean- 
 ing of the words in themselves considered, but is rendered 
 necessary by the context. We have, in this verse, the idea of 
 pardon on the one hand, which supposes that of condemnation 
 on the other. If the latter clause of the verse means, as is 
 admitted, that we are pardoned for many offences, the former 
 must mean that we are condemned for one. 3. The whole 
 force of the contrast lies in this very idea. The antithesis in 
 this verse is evidently between the one offence and the many 
 offences. To make Paul say that the offence of Adam was the 
 means of involving us in a multitude of crimes, from all of 
 which Christ saves us, is .to make the evil and the benefit 
 exactly tantamount : 'Adam leads us into offences from which 
 Christ delivers us.' Here is no contrast and no superiority. 
 Paul, however, evidently means to assert that the evil from 
 which Christ saves us, is far greater than that which Adam has 
 brought upon us. According to the simple and natural inter 
 pretation of the verse, this idea is retained : 'Adam brought the 
 condemnation of one offence only; Christ saves us from that 
 of many.' 4. Add to these considerations the obvious meaning 
 of the corresponding clauses in the other verses, especially in 
 ver. 19, and the design of the apostle in the whole passage, so 
 often referred to, and it seems scarcely possible to resist the 
 evidence in favour of this view of the passage. 5. This inter- 
 pretation is so clearly the correct one, that it is conceded
 
 ROMANS V. 16. *26l 
 
 6y commentators and theologians of every shade of doctrine. 
 "Justly indeed," says Koppe, "on account of one offence, 
 many are subjected to punishment ; but by divine grace many 
 are freed from the punishment of many offences." His own 
 words are, "Jure quidem unius delicti causa poenas subeunt 
 irulti; ex gratia verd divina a multorum poenis liberantur 
 beanturque rnulti." Flatt says, " Kardxptpa setzt als nicht 
 nothwendig eigene Verschuldung voraus, so wie das gegentheil 
 dcxalwfjia. nicht eigene dixacoauvq voraussetzt, Um einer einzi- 
 gen Siinde willen wurden alle dazu verurtheilt, den $avan>c, 
 (vs. 15, 17,) zu leiden." That is, 'Condemnation does not 
 necessarily suppose personal transgression, any more than the 
 opposite, justification, presupposes personal righteousness. On 
 account of one single sin, all are condemned to suffer death.' 
 So Storr: "Damnatio qua propter Adamum tenemur, unius 
 peccati causa damnatio est." 'The condemnation which we 
 suffer on account of Adam, is a condemnation on account of one 
 sin.' Whitby expresses the meaning thus : " The judgment was 
 by one sin to condemnation, we being all sentenced to death on 
 account of Adam's sin." 
 
 The free gift is of many offences unto justification; that is, 
 the free gift is justification. The free gift, TO ds yaptafj.a, the 
 act of grace is antithetical to xpipa, the judgment; as the clauses 
 xplfjta e/f xardxpe/jta and %dptafjta set; dtxaitofia, (sentence of con- 
 demnation and gratuitous justification,} are opposed to each 
 other. The word dcxalajfjta. is (i. 32) righteous judgment; here, 
 as antithetical to xardxpifjta, condemnation. It me&ns justifica- 
 tion, which is a righteous judgment, or decision of a judge, 
 pronouncing one to be just. This interpretation suits the signi- 
 fication of the word, and is to be preferred to making it mean 
 righteousness, a sense which the word has in ver. 18, when 
 opposed to transgression, and interchanged with obedience, 
 This justification is Ix TtoM&v TTapajTTajfjtdrwv, from many 
 offences. The relation indicated by Ix, in the first clause, 
 where it is said 'the sentence was lg voc for one offence,' is 
 slightly different from what it is in the second clause, where it 
 is said justification is Ix TroMwv TrapaTrcwfjidTcw, from many 
 offences. That is, sin stands in a different relation to con- 
 demnation from that which it sustains to justification; both,
 
 262 ROMANS V. 17. 
 
 however, may be expressed by the same preposition. Christ 
 has done far more than remove the curse pronounced in us for 
 the one sin of Adam; he procures our justification from our 
 own innumerable offences. This is the main idea presented in 
 this verse. 
 
 VERSE 17. For if by one mans offence, &c. The connection 
 of this verse, as indicated by for, is with ver. 16: 'We are jus- 
 tified by Christ not only from the guilt of Adam's first sin, but 
 from our own innumerable transgressions ; for if death reigned 
 over us for one offence, much more shall life reign through one 
 who is none other and no less than Jesus Christ.' It is doubt- 
 ful, however, whether this verse is a mere amplification of the 
 idea of ver. 15, which, in import and structure, it so much 
 resembles ; or whether the stress is to be laid on the last clause, 
 reigning in life; so that the point of the difference between 
 Adam and Christ, as here indicated, is, Christ not only delivers 
 from death, but bestows eternal life; or, finally, whether the 
 emphasis is to be laid on the word receive. The idea would 
 then be, 'If we are thus subject to death' for an offence, in 
 which we had no personal concern, how much more shall we be 
 saved by a righteousness which we voluntarily embrace.' This 
 appears to be Calvin's view, who says : '* Ut miseria peccati 
 haereditate potiaris, satis est esse hominem, residet enim in 
 carne et sanguine; ut Christi justitia fruaris, fidelem esse 
 necessarium est, quia fide acquiritur ejus consortium." The 
 decision of these questions is not at all material to the general 
 interpretation of the passage. Both of the ideas contained in 
 the two latter views of the verse are probably to be included. 
 By one mans offence, rcw roy Ivoc ~apaxTto[jLa-ci, by the offence 
 of the one (viz. Adam) death reigned, i. e. triumphed over all 
 men, by one. Here again the dative -aoaxTwfjtan has a causal 
 force, and the assertion of the apostle is, that the offence of 
 Adam was the cause of death coming on all men. His sin w;is 
 not the cause of death by any physical efficiency; nor as the 
 mere occasion of leading men to -incur by their own act the 
 penalty of death ; nor by corrupting the nature of man, which 
 corruption is the ground of the inflicted curse; but, as is 
 asserted in the preceding verse, because his sin was the ground 
 of the judicial condemnation, ~o xpipa e/c xa-cdxpcfia, which
 
 ROMANS V. 17. 263 
 
 passed on all mankind. If that is so, much more, says the 
 apostle, shall they which receive; be Xafj.ftdvovT$ may be taken 
 substantively, the receivers; or the present participle, those 
 receiving, is used to express the condition on which the enjoy- 
 ment of the blessing is suspended. The abundance of grace, 
 the abounding grace, the grace which, in ver. 15, is said 
 (insf)i<7ffSL>ff) hath abounded towards us. This grace is the 
 unmerited love of God, which is the source of the gift of right- 
 eousness, dwped. Tyz dtxatoffuvyz, i. e. righteousness is the gift 
 offered and received. That righteousness here does not mean 
 holiness, is evident from the constant use of the word by Paul 
 in a different sense in this epistle; from the fact that it is 
 pardon, justification, justifying righteousness, not sanctification, 
 that Paul in the context represents as the blessing received 
 from Christ; and because it is in this verse opposed to the 
 reigning of death, or state of condemnation on account of the 
 offence of Adam. Professor Stuart, therefore, in accordance 
 with the great majority of commentators, very correctly states 
 the sentiment of the verse thus : " For if all are in a state of 
 condemnation by reason of the offence of one, much more shall 
 those towards whom abundance of mercy and pardoning grace 
 are shown, be redeemed from a state of condemnation, and 
 advanced to a state of happiness." The general sentiment of 
 the verse is thus correctly exhibited; but some of the more 
 prominent terms do not appear to have their full force assigned 
 to them. They which receive the abundant grace, expresses 
 more than that this grace is manifested to them ; all such do 
 not reign in life. This phrase evidently implies the voluntary 
 reception of the offered boon. The gift of righteousness, too, is 
 something more than pardoning grace. It is that which is 
 expressed in ver. 15, by the free gift; and in ver. 16, by tha 
 free gift unto justification. It is, therefore, the gift of justifica- 
 tion ; or what is but another method of stating the same idea, 
 it is the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified, since 
 the gift of justification includes the gift of Christ's righteous- 
 ness. The meaning of the verse consequently is, ' If on account 
 of the offence of one man we are condemned, much more shall 
 those who receive the righteousness graciously offered to them 
 in the gospel, not only be delivered from condemnation, but
 
 264 ROMANS V. 18. 
 
 also reign in life by one, Jesus Christ;' that is, be gloriously 
 exalted in the participation of that life of holiness and com- 
 munion with God which is the end of our being. 
 
 By one, Jesus Christ. As it was by one man, antecedently 
 to any concurrence of our own, that we were brought into a 
 state of condemnation, so it is by one man, without any merit 
 of our own, that we are delivered from this state. If the one 
 event has happened, much more may we expect the other to 
 occur. If we are thus involved in the condemnation of a sin in 
 which we had no personal concern, much more shall we, who 
 voluntarily receive the gift of righteousness, be not only saved 
 from the consequences of the fall, but be made partakers of 
 eternal life. 
 
 VERSE 18. Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came 
 on all men to condemnation; even so, &c. The words d/>a oov 
 (therefore) are the inferential particles BO often used in Paul's 
 epistles, at the beginning of a sentence, contrary to the ordinary 
 classical usage vii. 3, 25, viii. 12, ix. 16, &c. They frequently 
 serve to introduce a summation of what had previously been 
 said. The inference from the whole discussion, from the begin- 
 ning of the epistle to ver. 12 of this chapter, is introduced in 
 that verse by dca roDro, wherefore. It followed, from all the 
 apostle had said of the method of justification through Jesus 
 Christ, that there is a striking analogy between our fall in 
 Adam and our restoration in Christ. The carrying out of this 
 comparison was interrupted, in the first place, to prove, in 
 vs. 13, 14, the position assumed in ver. 12, that all men are 
 subject to death on account of the sin of Adam ; and, in the 
 second place, to limit and explain the analogy asserted to exiss 
 between Christ and Adam, at the close of ver. 14. This is 
 done in vs. 1517. Having thus fortified and explained his 
 meaning, the apostle now states the case in full. The word 
 therefore, at the beginning of ver. 12, marks an inference 
 from the whole doctrine of the epistle; the corresponding 
 words here are also strictly inferential. It had been proved 
 that we are justified by the righteousness of one man, and it 
 had also been proved that we are under condemnation for the 
 offence of one. Therefore, as we are condemned, even so are 
 we justified.
 
 ROMANS V. 18. 265 
 
 It will be remarked, from the manner in which they are 
 printed, that the words judgment came, in the first clause of 
 this verse, and the free gift cime, in the second, have nothing 
 to answer to them in the original. That they are correctly and 
 necessarily supplied, is obvious from a reference to ver. 16, 
 where these elliptical phrases occur in full. The construction 
 in the clauses (xpipa) e:"c xaroixpefjta and (%doifffjta) e/c dtxaiwaiv 
 o>^C, is the same as in ver. 16. Judgment unto condemnation 
 is a sentence of condemnation, and the free gift unto justifica- 
 tion is gratuitous justification. The sentence is said to be 3i 
 ivoc tiapa7tTa)fi.aro^, through the offence of one, and the justifica- 
 tion is 3i voc dixauufjtaroz, through tlie righteousness of one. 
 In ver. 16, this word dtxaiai/jia. is rendered justification, because 
 it is there in antithesis to xardxptfjia, condemnation; it is here 
 properly rendered righteousness, because it is in antithesis to 
 Ttaftdx-ctona, offence, and because what is here expressed by 
 dixaiw/ia, is in ver. 17 expressed by uxaxoy, obedience. This 
 explanation is consistent with the signification of the word 
 which means a righteous thing, whether it be an act, a judg- 
 ment, or an ordinance. In Rev. xix. 8, TO. 8txaco){j.ara T<OV 
 &.f'uov is correctly rendered the righteousness of the saints. 
 Luther translates the word in the passage before us, gerecht- 
 igkeit, agreeing with our translators. Calvin renders it justifi- 
 catio, 'by the justification of one.' In this interpretation many 
 of the modern commentators concur. The principal argument 
 for this explanation of the word is, that it is used in that sense 
 in ver. 16 ; but there, as just remarked, it is opposed to xard- 
 xptfj.a, condemnation, while here it is opposed to napdrrrca/ia, 
 offence. As the word may mean either justification or right- 
 eousness, that sense should be adopted which suits the immediate 
 context. Many of the older theologians render it satisfaction; 
 according to the Aristotelian definition, dcxaicofia TO sxavopd-cnfjui 
 TOI> doixijfjtaToz. This gives a good sense : ' By the satisfaction 
 of one, the free gift has come on all men unto justification of 
 life.' But this, although in accordance with the strict classical 
 use of the word, is not the sense in which it is Used in the Bible, 
 and it is not so suitable to the context. 
 
 Instead of rendering di Ivoc TtapaxrtbfjLaTOZ, by the offence of 
 one, and di f voc dtxaiw]j.aToz, by the righteousness of one, a large
 
 266 ROMANS V. 18. 
 
 i 
 
 class of commentators render them, 'by one offence,' and 'by 
 one righteousness.' This does not materially alter the sense, 
 and it is favoured by the absence of the article before Ivoc. In 
 vs. 17, 19, it is ro'j Ii/Jc, the one. In favour of the version in 
 our English translation, however, it may be urged: 1. That 
 Iwic, throughout the whole context in vs. 12, 15, 17, 19, is 
 masculine, except in ver. 16, where it is opposed to the neuter 
 itotiwv. The omission of the article is sufficiently accounted 
 for from the fact that the one intended, viz. Adam, had been 
 before distinctly designated. 2. The comparison is between 
 Adam and Christ, rather than between the sin of the one and 
 the righteousness of the other. 3. The expression, one right- 
 eousness, is awkward and unusual ; and if Ivoc dix/iKo/iuro? be 
 rendered one righteous act, then it is inappropriate, inasmuch as 
 we are not justified by one act of Christ, but by his whole life 
 of obedience and suffering. 4. The natural opposition between 
 one and all, requires Ivoc to be masculine: 'It was by the 
 offence of one man that all men were condemned.' 
 
 That the apostle here again teaches that there is a causal 
 relation between the sin of Adam and the condemnation of his 
 race, cannot be denied. The only possible question is, What is 
 the nature of that relation, as expressed by did ? It was dt Iv^c 
 irapax7(bfJtaToz, ' by the offence of one that judgment came upon 
 all men.' Does this mean that the offence of one was simply 
 the occasion of all being condemned, or that it was the ground 
 or reason of their condemnation ? It is of course admitted that 
 the proper force of did with the genitive is, by means of, and 
 with the accusative, on account of. As the genitive and not the 
 accusative is here used, it might seem that the apostle design- 
 edly avoided saying that all were condemned (dta TO xaodxr to pa. 
 row Iv^c) on account of the offence of one. But there is no 
 necessity for departing from the ordinary force of the preposi- 
 tion with the genitive, in order to justify the interpretation 
 given above. The relation of a means to an end, depends on 
 the nature of that means. To say that condemnation is through, 
 or by means of* an offence, is to say that the offence is the 
 rational or judicial means, i. e. the ground of the condemnation. 
 No man doubts that when, in ver. 12, the apostle says, that 
 death was (did. njc &fJtaoTca^) by means of sin, he means that it
 
 ROMANS V. 18. 267 
 
 was on account of sin. This is not a solitary case. In chap, 
 iii. 24, we are said to be justified (3(d. rrfi cbroAyr paMrsax;} through 
 the redemption of Christ, i. e. by means of the redemption ; but 
 the ransom paid by Christ, in being the means, was the ground 
 of our redemption. So in the familiar phrases, " through his 
 blood," Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 20; "through his death," Rom. v. 10, 
 Col. i. 22; "by his cross," Eph. ii. 16; "by the sacrifice of 
 himself," Heb. ix. 26; "through the offering of the body of 
 Jesus," and in many similar expressions the preposition retains 
 its proper force with the genitive, as indicating the means, and 
 yet the means, from the nature of the case, is the ground or 
 reason. Thus also, in this immediate connection, we have the 
 expressions, "by the righteousness of one" all are justified, and 
 "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." We 
 have, therefore, in this single passage, no less than three cases, 
 vs. 12, 18, 19, in which this preposition with the genitive indi- 
 cates such a means to an end, as the ground or reason on 
 account of which something is given or performed. All this is 
 surely sufficient to prove that it may, in the case before us, 
 express the ground why the sentence of condemnation has 
 passed on all men. That such, in this connection, must be its 
 meaning, appears, 1. From the nature of the subject spoken of. 
 To say that one man has been corrupted by another, may 
 indeed express very generally, that one was the cause of the 
 corruption of the other, without giving any information as to the 
 mode in which the result was secured. But to say that a man 
 was justified by means of a good action, or that he was con- 
 demned by means of a bad one ; or plainer still, in Paul's own 
 language, that a condemnatory sentence came upon him by 
 means of that action ; according to all common rules of inter- 
 pretation, naturally means that such action was the reason of 
 the sentence. 2. From the antithesis. If the phrase, " by the 
 righteousness of one all are justified," means, as is admitted, 
 that this righteousness is the ground of our justification, the 
 opposite clause, "by the offence of one all are condemned," 
 must have a similar meaning. 3. The point of the comparison, 
 as frequently remarked before, lies in this very idea. The fact 
 that Adam's sin was the occasion of our sinning, and thua 
 incurring the Divine displeasure, is no illustration of tho fact
 
 268 ROMANS V. 18. 
 
 that Christ's righteousness, and not our own merit, is the ground 
 of our acceptance. There would be some plausibility in this 
 interpretation, if it were the doctrine of the gospel that Christ's 
 righteousness is the occasion of our becoming holy, and that on 
 the ground of this personal holiness we are justified. But this 
 not being the case, the interpretation in question cannot be 
 adopted in consistency with the design of the apostle, or the 
 common rules of exposition. 4. This clause is nearly identical 
 with the corresponding one of ver. 16 4 , " the judgment was by 
 one (offence) to condemnation." But that clause, as shown 
 above, is made, almost by common consent, to mean that tho 
 offence was the ground of the condemnatory sentence. Such, 
 therefore, must be the meaning of the apostle in this verse; 
 compare also vs. 15, 17, 19. 
 
 The second question of importance respecting this verse is, 
 whether the all men of the second clause is co-extensive with 
 the all men of the first. Are the all who are justified for the 
 righteousness of Christ, the all who are condemned for the sin 
 of Adam ? In regard to this point, it may be remarked, in the 
 first place, that no inference can be fairly drawn in favour of an 
 affirmative answer to this question, from the mere universality 
 of the expression. Nothing is more familiar to the readers of 
 the Scriptures than that such universal terms are to be limited 
 by the nature of the subject or the context. Thus, John iii. 24, 
 it is said of Christ, "all men come to him;" John xii. 32, Christ 
 Bays, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." Thus 
 the expressions, "all the world should be taxed," "all Judea," 
 "all Jerusalem," must, from the nature of the case, be limited. 
 In a multitude of cases, the words all, all thing*, mean the 
 all spoken of in the context, and not all, without exception; 
 see Eph. i. 10, Col. i. 20, 1 Cor. xv. 22, 51, 2 Cor. v. 14, &c. 
 2. This limitation is always implied when the Scriptures else- 
 where speak of a necessary condition connected with the bless- 
 ing to which all are said to attain. It is everywhere taught 
 that faith is necessary to justification ; and, therefore, when it 
 is said "all are justified," it must mean all believes. "By 
 him," says the apostle, "all that believe are justified from all 
 things," &c. Acts xiii. 39. 3. As if to prevent the possibility 
 of mistake, Paul, in ver. 17, says it is those who " receive the
 
 ROMANS V. 18. 269 
 
 gift of righteousness" that reign in life. 4. Even tlie all men, 
 in the first clause, must be limited to those descended from 
 Adam "by ordinary generation." It is not absolutely all. The 
 man Christ Jesus must be excepted. The plain meaning is, all 
 connected with Adam, and all connected with Christ. 5. A 
 reference to the similar passage in 1 Cor. xv. 22, confirms this 
 interpretation, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be 
 made alive ;" that is, shall be made partakers of a glorious resur- 
 rection and of eternal life. Thus the original word ( 
 OOVTOU) and the context require the latter clause of that 
 to be understood. The all there intended are immediately called 
 "they that are Christ's," ver. 28, i. e. all connected with him, 
 and not numerically the all that die in Adam. 6. This inter- 
 pretation is necessary, because it is impossible, with any regard 
 to scriptural usage or truth, to carry the opposite interpretation 
 through. In this whole passage there are two classes of per- 
 sons spoken of those connected with Adam, and those con- 
 nected with Christ. Of the former, it is said "they die," 
 ver. 15; "they are condemned," vs. 16, 18; "they are made 
 sinners," ver. 19, by the offence of one man. Of the latter it 
 is said, that to them " the grace of God and the gift by grace 
 hath abounded," ver. 15; that "they are freely justified from 
 many offences," vs. 16, 18; that "they shall reign in life 
 through Christ Jesus," ver. 17; that "they are regarded and 
 treated as righteous," yer. 19. If these things can be said of 
 all men, of impenitent sinners and hardened reprobates, what 
 remains to be said of the people of God ? It is not possible so 
 to eviscerate these declarations as to make them contain nothing 
 more than that the chance of salvation is offered to all men. 
 To say that a man is justified, is not to say that he has the 
 opportunity of justifying himself; and to say that a man shall 
 reign in life, is not to say he may possibly be saved. Who ever 
 announces to a congregation of sinners, that they are all justi- 
 fied, they are all constituted righteous, they all have the justifi- 
 cation of life? The interpretation which requires all these 
 strong and plain declarations to be explained in a sense which 
 they confessedly have nowhere else in the Bible, and which 
 makes them mean hardly anything at all, is at variance with 
 tery sound principle of construction. If the ttt in the latter
 
 270 ROMANS V. 19. 
 
 part of the verse is co-extensive with the all in the former, 
 the passage of necessity teaches universal salvation ; for it is 
 impossible that to be justified, constituted righteous, can mean 
 simply that justification is offered to all men. The all who are 
 justified are saved. If therefore the all means all men, the 
 apostle teaches that all men are saved. And this is the use to 
 which many Universalists have put the passage. As, however, 
 not only the Scriptures generally, but Paul himself, distinctly 
 teach that all men are not to be saved, as in 2 Thess. i. 9, this 
 interpretation cannot be admitted by any who acknowledge the 
 inspiration of the Bible. It is moreover an unnatural interpre- 
 tation, even if the attention be limited to this one passage ; 
 because as death on account of Adam supposes union with 
 Adam, so life on account of Christ supposes union with Christ. 
 It is all who are in Adam who are condemned for his offence, 
 and the all who are in Christ who are justified by his righteous- 
 ness. The modern German commentators, even those who do 
 not hesitate to differ from the apostle, admit this to be the 
 meaning of the passage. Thus Meyer says, Die /rcEvrec &v&p(o- 
 xoi in the first clause, are die gesammtheit der Adams-genera- 
 tion^ and in the second clause, die gesammtheit dcr Christus- 
 generation. Philippi says, "The limitation of the /ravrec 
 dv&patjioe is of necessity to be assumed. It can only mean all 
 who believe. . . . The apostle views, on the one hand, the gene- 
 ration of those lost in Adam, and on the other, the generation 
 of those saved in Christ." 
 
 VERSE 19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made 
 sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
 This verse presents the doctrine* of the preceding one in a some- 
 what different form. As in the doctrine of justification, there 
 are the two ideas of the ascription of righteousness, and treat- 
 ing as righteous ; and in the doctrine of the fall, the ascription 
 of guilt (legal responsibility,) and the treating all men as guilty ; 
 so either of these ideas is frequently presented more promi- 
 nently than the other. In ver. 18, it is the latter, in each case, 
 which is made most conspicuous, and in ver. 19, the former. In 
 ver. 18, it is our being treated as sinners for the sin of Adam, 
 and our being treated as righteous for the righteousness of 
 Christ, that is most prominently presented. In ver. 19, on the
 
 ROMANS V. 19. 271 
 
 contrary, it is our being regarded as sinners for the disobedience 
 of Adam, and our being regarded as righteous for the obedience 
 of Christ, that are rendered most conspicuous. Hence, Paul 
 begins this verse with for: 'We are treated as sinners for the 
 offence of Adam, for we are regarded as sinners on his 
 account,' &c. Though the one idea seems thus to be the more 
 prominent in ver. 18, and the other in ver. 19, yet it is only a 
 greater degree of prominency to the one, and not the exclusion 
 of the other, that is in either case intended. 
 
 By one mans disobedience. The disobedience here is evidently 
 the first transgression of Adam, spoken of in ver. 16, as the one 
 offence. The obedience of Christ here stands for all his work 
 in satisfying the demands of the law; his obedience unto and 
 in death ; that by which the law was magnified and rendered 
 honourable, as well as satisfied. From its opposition to the 
 disobedience of Adam, his obedience, strictly speaking, rather 
 than his sufferings, seems to be the prominent idea. " Paulus 
 unterscheidet in dem Werke Christi diese beiden Momente, das 
 Thun und das Leiden." Neander. l Paul distinguishes, in the 
 work of Christ, these two elements doing and suffering.' 
 Greschichte der Pflanzung, c., p. 543. In the paragraph 
 which follows this statement, Neander presents the old distinc- 
 tion between the active and passive obedience of Christ, very 
 nearly in its usual form. On p. 546, he says, "Dies heilige 
 Leben Christi will Gott als That der ganzen Menschheit 
 betrachten." 'God regards the holy life of Christ as the act 
 of all men.' The words the many, in both clauses of this verse, 
 are obviously equivalent to the all of the corresponding clauses 
 of ver. 18, and are to be explained in the same manner. 
 
 The words aftap-rujfoi xa-csaTddyaav oc xoXXoi, rendered " the 
 many were made sinners," properly mean, were set down in the 
 rank or category of sinners. Ka&itrry/M never, in the New Tes- 
 tament, means to make, in the sense of effecting, or causing a 
 person or thing, to be in its character or nature other than it 
 was before. Kaftiatdvat riva d.fjLapra)),6v does not mean to make 
 one sinful, but to set him down as such, to regard or appoint 
 him to be of that class. Thus, when Christ is said to have been 
 "constituted the Son of God," he was not made Son, but 
 declared to be such: "Who constituted thee a ruler or judge?"
 
 272 ROMANS V. 19. 
 
 i. e. Who appointed thee to that office ? So, " Whom his lord 
 made ruler." When, therefore, the apostle says, that the 
 many were (xartard^<rav) constituted sinners by the disobedi- 
 ence of Adam, it cannot mean, that the many thereby were 
 rendered sinful, but that his disobedience was the ground of 
 their being placed in the category of sinners. It constituted a 
 good and sufficient reason for so regarding and treating them. 
 The same remark applies, of course, to the other clause of thia 
 verse: dlxcuoe xaraara&^aovrcu ol noM.ol. This cannot mean, 
 that by the obedience of one the many shall be made holy. It 
 can only mean, that the obedience of Christ was the ground on 
 which the many are to be placed in the category of the right- 
 eous, i. e. shall be so regarded and treated. It is not our 
 personal righteousness which makes us righteous, but the 
 imputation of the obedience of Christ. And the sense in which 
 we are here declared to be sinners, is not that we are such per- 
 sonally, (which indeed is true,) but by the imputation of Adam's 
 disobedience. 
 
 Of course the several interpretations above mentioned are 
 applied to this verse. 1. That the sin of Adam was the mere 
 occasion of other men becoming sinners ; whether this was by 
 the force of example, or by an unfavourable change in their 
 external circumstances, or in some other unexplained manner, 
 being left undecided. 2. That in virtue of community, or 
 numerical oneness of nature between Adam and his posterity, 
 hia act was strictly their act, and made them sinners as it made 
 him a sinner. 3. That as the apostasy of Adam involved a 
 corruption of nature, that corruption was transmitted to his 
 descendants, by the general physical law of propagation. 
 4. That the sin of Adam was the judicial ground of the con- 
 demnation of his race. They were by his sin constituted sin- 
 ners in a legal or forensic sense ; as by the righteousness of 
 Christ we are constituted legally righteous. 
 
 That this last is the true interpretation, is plain, 1. Because 
 it is in accordance with usage. To make clean, to make unclean, 
 to make righteous, to make guilty, are the constant expressions 
 for regarding and treating as clean, unclean, righteous, or un- 
 righteous. 2. The expression, to make sin, and to make righteous- 
 ness, occurring in a corresponding sense, illustrate and confirm
 
 ROMANS V. 19. 273 
 
 this interpretation. Thus in 2 Cor. v. 21, Christ is said to be 
 ''made sin," i. e. regarded and treated as a sinner, "that we 
 might be made the righteousness of God in him," i. e. that we 
 might be regarded and treated as righteous in the sight of God, 
 on his account. 3. The antithesis is here so plain as to be of 
 itself decisive. " To be made righteous" is, according to Pro- 
 fessor Stuart, " to be justified, pardoned, regarded and treated 
 as righteous." With what show of consistency then can it 
 be denied that " to be made sinners," in the opposite clause, 
 means to be regarded and treated as sinners ? If one part of 
 the verse speaks of justification, the other must speak of con- 
 demnation. 4. As so often before remarked, the analogy 
 between the case of Adam and Christ requires this interpreta- 
 tion. If the first clause means either that the disobedience of 
 Adam was the occasion of our committing sin, or that it was the 
 cause of our becoming inherently corrupt, and on the ground of 
 these sins, or of this corruption, being condemned; then must 
 the other clause mean that the obedience of Christ is the cause- 
 of our becoming holy, or performing good works, on the ground 
 of which we are justified. But this confessedly is not the mean- 
 ing of the apostle. If then the same words, in the same con- 
 nection, and the same grammatical construction, have the same 
 meaning, the interpretation given above must be correct. 5. The- 
 design of the apostle to illustrate the great doctrine of the- 
 gospel, that men, although in themselves ungodly, are regarded, 
 and treated as righteous for Christ's sake, demands this inter- 
 pretation. 6. This view of the passage, so obviously required! 
 by the usage of the words and the context, is, as remarked 
 above on ver. 16, adopted by commentators of every class, as- 
 to theological opinion. See the passages there quoted. ''The 
 many are here again all, who, from the opposition to the one, 
 are in this place, as in ver. 15, denominated from their great 
 number. These have without exception become sinners (&/naf)- 
 TOJ/O.' xaTsard&Tjffay,) not in reference to their own inward cor- 
 ruption, of which Paul is not here speaking, but in reference to> 
 their guilt (Strafwiirdigkeit) and actual punishment on account 
 of Adam's sin."* Even Flatt, whose general view of the pas- 
 sage would lead to a different interpretation, gives, as a correct? 
 
 * Zachari*. f \blische Theologie, Vol. II. p. 388. 
 18
 
 2*4 ROMANS V. 19. 
 
 exhibition of the meaning of the apostle, "As on account of the 
 disobedience of one the many are treated as sinners, so on 
 account of the obedience of one shall the many be treated as 
 righteous." Storr also renders the first clause, "They were 
 regarded and treated as sinners;" this, he says, must bo its 
 meaning, from its opposition to the words "were constituted 
 righteous," which obviously express the idea of justification, 
 and also from the use of the word condemnation in the corres- 
 ponding clause of ver. 18. These writers are referred to rather 
 than Calvinistic commentators, to show how entirely destitute 
 of foundation is the reproach, that the interpretation given 
 above is the result of theological prejudice. 
 
 The meaning then of the whole passage is this : BY ONE MAN 
 sin entered into the world, or men were brought to stand in the 
 relation of sinners to God ; death consequently passed on all, 
 because for the offence of that one man they were all regarded 
 and treated as sinners. That this is really the case is plain, 
 because the execution of the penalty of a law cannot be more 
 extensive than its violation ; and consequently, if all are subject 
 to penal evils, all are regarded as sinners in the sight of God. 
 This universality in the infliction of penal evil cannot be 
 accounted for on the ground of the violation of the law of 
 Moses, since men were subject to such evil before that law was 
 given ; nor yet on account of the violation of the more general 
 law written on the heart, since even they are subject to this 
 evil, who have never personally sinned at all. We must con- 
 clude, therefore, that men are regarded and treated as sinners 
 on account of the sin of Adam. 
 
 He is, therefore, a type of Christ. The cases, however, are 
 not entirely analogous ; for if it is consistent with the Divine 
 character, that we should suffer for what Adam did, how much 
 more may we expect to be made happy for what Christ has 
 done ! Besides, we are condemned for one sin only, on Adam's 
 account; whereas Christ saves us not only from the evils con- 
 sequent on that transgression, but also from the punishment of 
 our own innumerable offences. Now, if for the offence of one, 
 death thus triumphs over all, how much more shall they who 
 receive the grace of the gospel, not only be saved from evil, but 
 reign in life through Christ Jesus !
 
 ROMANS V. 19. 275 
 
 Wherefore, as on account of one the condemnatory sentence 
 has passed on all the descendants of Adam, so on account of the 
 righteousness of one, gratuitous justification comes on all who 
 receive the grace of Christ ; for as on account of the disobedi- 
 ence of one we are regarded as sinners, so on account of the 
 obedience of the other we are regarded as righteous. 
 
 It may be proper to add a few remarks on the preceding 
 interpretation of this whole section. 1. The first is, that the 
 evidence of its correctness is cumulative, and is therefore not 
 to be judged exclusively by what is said in favour of the view 
 presented of any one of its parts. If it is probable that ver. 12 
 asserts, that all men became subject to death on account of one 
 man, this is rendered still plainer by the drift and force of 
 vs. 13, 14 ; it is rendered almost certain by ver. 15, where it is 
 asserted, that for the offence of one the many die ; by ver. 16, 
 where it is said that for one offence all are condemned; by 
 ver. 17, which affirms again, that the ground of death's reigning 
 over all is to be found in this one offence 1 ; and it would appear 
 to be raised almost beyond the reach of doubt by ver. 18, where 
 the words of ver. 16 are repeated, and the analogy with the 
 method of our justification is expressly asserted ; and by ver. 19, 
 in which this same idea is reiterated in a form which seems to set 
 all efforts at misunderstanding or misinterpretation at defiance. 
 
 2. The force of a remark previously made may now be more 
 fully appreciated, viz. that the sentiment attributed to ver. 12, 
 after having been proved in vs. 13, 14, is ever after assumed as 
 '.he ground of illustrating the nature, and confirming the cer- 
 tainty of our justification. Thus, in ver. 16, FOB IF by tho 
 offence of one many be dead, &c.; and ver. 17, FOR IF by one 
 man's offence, &c.; in ver. 18, THEREFORE AS by the offence of 
 one all are condemned, even so by the righteousness of one all 
 are justified ; and, finally, in ver. 19, FOR AS by one man's dis- 
 obedience, &c. 
 
 3. In connection with these remarks, it should be remem- 
 bered that the interpretation given to the several clauses in this 
 passage is the simple natural meaning of the words, as, with 
 scarcely an exception, is admitted. The objections relied upon 
 against it are almost exclusively of a theological, rather than a 
 philological or exegetical character. This interpretation, too,
 
 276 ROMANS V. 19. 
 
 is perfectly consistent with itself, harmonious with the design 
 of the apostle, and illustrative of the point which he proposed to 
 explain. If all these separate sources of proof be properly 
 considered and brought to bear, with their mutually sustaining 
 force, on a candid mind, it can hardly fail to acknowledge that 
 the commonly received view of this interesting portion of the 
 word of God, is supported by an amount and force of evidence 
 not easily overthrown or resisted. 
 
 4. This interpretation is old. It appears in the writings of 
 the early Christian fathers ; it has the sanction, in its essential 
 features, of the great body of the Reformers ; it has commanded 
 the assent of men of all parties, and of every form of theolo- 
 gical opinion. The modern Rationalist, certainly an impartial 
 witness, who considers it a melancholy proof of the apostle's 
 subjection to Jewish prejudices, unites with the devout and 
 humble Christian in its adoption. An interpretation which has 
 stood its ground so long and so firmly, and which has com- 
 mended itself to minds so variously constituted, cannot be dis- 
 missed as a relic of a former age, or disparaged as the offspring 
 >f theological speculation. 
 
 5. Neither of the opposite interpretations can be consistently 
 carried through. They are equally at variance with the design 
 of the apostle, and the drift of his 'argument. They render the 
 design and force of vs. 13, 14, either nugatory or unintelligible. 
 They require the utmost violence to be done to the plainest 
 rules of exposition ; and the most unnatural interpretations to 
 be given to the most perspicuous and important declarations of 
 the apostle. Witness the assertion, that " receiving the abun- 
 dance of grace and gift of righteousness," means to be brought 
 under a dispensation of mercy; and that "to reign in life by 
 one, Jesus Christ," is to be brought under a dispensation of life. 
 Thus, too, " the free gift of justification of life has come upon all 
 men," is made to mean that all are in a salvable state ; and " all 
 are constituted righteous," (i. e. "justified, pardcned, regarded 
 and treated as righteous,") is only to have the offer of pardon 
 made to all. These are but a tithe of the exegetical difficulties 
 attending the other interpretations of this passage, which make 
 the reception of either, the severest of all sacrifices to prejudice 
 or authority.
 
 ROMANS V. 20. 277 
 
 VERSE 20. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might 
 abound, &c. Paul, having shown that our justification was 
 effected without the intervention of either the moral or Mosaic 
 law, was naturally led to state the design and effect of the 
 renewed revelation of the one, and the superinduction of the 
 other. The law stands here for the whole of the Old Testament 
 economy, including the clear revelation of the moral law, and 
 all the institutions connected with the former dispensation. 
 The main design and result of this dispensation, considered as 
 law, that is, apart from the evangelical import of many of its 
 parts, was tva. TO Ttap6.--cwtj.ri. xhovday, that the offence might 
 abound. The offence TO xapdxTtofJia is in the context used of 
 the specific offence of Adam. But it is hard to see how the 
 entrance of the law made the offence of Adam to abound, unless 
 the idea is, that its dire effects were rendered more abundant. 
 It is more probable that the apostle uses the word in a collective 
 sense ; compare Gal. iii. 19. Agreeably to this view, the mean- 
 ing of the clause is, that the great design of the law (in refer- 
 ence to justification) is to produce the knowledge and conviction 
 of sin. Taking the word in its usual sense, the meaning is, that 
 the result of the introduction of the law was the increase of 
 sin. This result is to be attributed partly to the fact, that by 
 ^nlarging the knowledge of the rule of duty, responsibility was 
 proportionably increased, according to chap. iv. 15, and partly 
 to the consideration that the enmity of the heart is awakened 
 by its operation, and transgressions actually multiplied, agree- 
 ably to chap. vii. 8. Both views of the passage express an 
 important truth, as the conviction of sin and its incidental 
 increase are alike the result of the operation of the law. It 
 seems, however, more in accordance with the apostle's object, 
 and with the general, although not uniform force of the particle 
 (wa) rendered that, to consider the clause as expressing the 
 design, rather than the result simply of the giving of the law. 
 The word Trapetffr^^sv does not mean simply entered, nor 
 entered between, that is, came between Adam and Christ. This 
 is indeed historically true, but it is not the meaning of the 
 word, and therefore not the idea which the apostle intended to 
 express. Nor does the word mean here, as in Gal. ii. 4, entered 
 surreptitiously, "crept in unawares," for this is not true. It
 
 278 ROMANS V. 21. 
 
 rather means entered thereto, i. e. as the same idea is expressed 
 iii Gal. iii. 19, "it was added." It was superinduced on a plan 
 already laid, and for a subordinate, although necessary purpose. 
 It was not intended to give life, but to prepare men to receive 
 Christ as the only source of righteousness and salvation. 
 
 But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. That 
 is, great as is the prevalence of sin, as seen and felt in the light 
 of God's holy law, yet over all this evil the grace of the gospel 
 has abounded. The gospel or the grace of God has proved 
 itself much more efficacious in the production of good, than sin 
 in the production of evil. This idea is illustrated in the follow- 
 ing verse. The words ob and lx have a local force. Where* 
 i. e. in the sphere in which sin abounded; there, in the same 
 sphere grace super abounded; unepz-sptaavjetv is superlative, and 
 not comparative, and VxpMffttHOt is stronger than xhovd'ziv, as 
 xspcoabv is more than xAsov. The fact, therefore, of the triumph 
 of grace over sin, is expressed in the clearest manner. 
 
 VERSE 21. That as sin hath reigned unto death, &c. That, 
 Iva, in order that, as expressing the divine purpose. The design 
 of God in permitting sin, and in allowing it to abound, was to 
 bring good out of evil; to make it the occasion of the most 
 wonderful display of his glory and grace, so that the benefits 
 of redemption should infinitely transcend the evils of the apos- 
 tasy. Sin reigned, iv Ttfi ftavdry, not unto, but in death, or 
 through death. Death spiritual as well as temporal evil in its 
 widest sense, as the judicial consequence of sin, was the sphere 
 in which the power or triumph of sin was manifested. Even so 
 might grace reign, (&zxf) o5ro* xetr',) as the one has happened, 
 so also the other. The one is in order to the other. Grace is 
 the unmerited love of God and its consequences. It reigns, 
 i. e. it is abundantly and effectively displayed, unto eternal lijt, 
 (s/C C al '/ 1/ aitwtov,) in securing as the result of its exercise, eter- 
 nal life. This is done (dia dixfuoo-jvr^} by means of righteous- 
 ness, and that righteousness is THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR 
 LORD. As the triumph of sin over our race was through the 
 offence of Adam, so the triumph of grace is through the right- 
 eousness of Christ. The construction of this passage, assumed 
 in the above interpretation, is to be preferred to that whicL con- 
 nects deatOffuvifi ec ^for^ alotvcov, 'righteousness which is unt'
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 279 
 
 eternal life, because the antithesis is not between death and 
 righteousness, but between death and life: ' Sin reigns in death, 
 grace reigns unto life.' That the benefits of redemption shall 
 far outweigh the evils of the fall, is here clearly asserted. This 
 we can in a measure comprehend, because, 1. The number of 
 the saved shall doubtless greatly exceed the number of the lost. 
 Since the half of mankind die in infancy, and, according to the 
 Protestant doctrine, are heirs of salvation; and since in the 
 future state of the Church the knowledge of the Lord is to 
 cover the earth, we have reason to believe that the lost shall 
 bear to the saved no greater proportion than the inmates of a 
 prison do to the mass of the community. 2. Because the eter- 
 nal Son of God, by his incarnation and mediation, exalts hia 
 people to a far higher state of being than our race, if unfallen, 
 could ever have attained. 3. Because the benefits of redemp- 
 tion are not to be confined to the human race. Christ is to be 
 admired in his saints. It is through the Church that the mani- 
 fold wisdom of God is to be revealed, throughout all ages, to 
 principalities and powers. The redemption of man is to be the 
 great source of knowledge and blessedness to the intelligent 
 universe. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 I. The doctrine of imputation is clearly taught in this pas- 
 sage. This doctrine does not include the idea of a mysterious 
 identity of Adam and his race ; nor that of a transfer of the 
 moral turpitude of his sin to his descendants. It does not teach 
 that his offence was personally or properly the sin of all men, 
 or that his act was, in any mysterious sense, the act of his pos- 
 terity. Neither does it imply, in reference to the righteousness 
 of Christ, that his righteousness becomes personally and inhe- 
 rently ours, or that his moral excellence is in any way trans- 
 ferred from him to believers. The sin of Adam, therefore, is 
 no ground to us of remorse ; and the righteousness of Christ is 
 no ground of self-complacency in those to whom it is imputed. 
 This doctrine merely teaches, that in virtue of the union, repre- 
 sentative and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his ain 
 is the ground of their condemnation, that is, of their subjection 
 to penal evils; and that in virtue of the union between Christ
 
 280 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 and his people, his righteousness is the ground of their justi- 
 fication. This doctrine is taught almost in so many words in 
 vs. 12, 15 19. It is so clearly stated, so often repeated or 
 assumed, and so formally proved, that very few commentators 
 of any class fail to acknowledge, in one form or another, that it 
 is the doctrine of the apostle. 
 
 It would be easy to prove that the statement of the doctrine 
 just given is a correct exhibition of the form in which it was 
 held by the great body of the Reformed Churches and divines. 
 A few quotations from men of universally recognized authority, 
 as competent witnesses on this subject, must suffice. Turrettin 
 (Theol. Blench. Quaest. IX., p. 678) says, "Imputation is either 
 of something foreign to us, or of something properly our own. 
 Sometimes that is imputed to us which is personally ours ; in 
 which sense God imputes to sinners their transgressions. Some- 
 times that is imputed which is without us, and not performed 
 by ourselves; thus the righteousness of Christ is said to be 
 imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to him, although he 
 has neither sin in himself, nor we righteousness. Here we 
 speak of the latter kind of imputation, not of the former, 
 because we are treating of a sin committed by Adam, not by 
 us." The ground of this imputation is the union between Adam 
 and his posterity. This union is not a mysterious identity of 
 person, but, 1. "Natural, as he is the father, and we are the 
 children. 2. Political and forensic, as he was the representa- 
 tive head and chief of the whole human race. The foundation, 
 therefore, of imputation is not only the natural connection 
 which exists between us and Adam, since in that case all his 
 sins might be imputed to us, but mainly the moral and federal, 
 in virtue of which God entered into covenant with him as our 
 head." Again, "We are constituted sinners in Adam in the 
 same way in which we are constituted righteous in Christ." 
 Again, (Vol. II., p. 707,) to impute, he says, "is a forensic 
 term, which is not to be understood physically of the infusion 
 of righteousness, but judicially and relatively." Imputation 
 does not alter the moral character ; hence the same individual 
 may, in different respects, be called both just and unjust: "For 
 when reference is had to the inherent quality, he is called a 
 sinner and ungodly ; but when the external and forensic relation
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 281 
 
 eo Christ is regarded, he is pronounced just in Christ." "When 
 God justifies us on account of the righteousness of Christ, his 
 judgment is still according to truth ; because he does not pro- 
 nounce us just in ourselves subjectively, which would be false, 
 but in another putatively and relatively." Tuckney, (Prcelec- 
 tiones, p. 234,) "We are counted righteous through Christ in 
 the same manner that we are counted guilty through Adam. 
 The latter is by imputation, therefore also the former." "We 
 are not so foolish or blasphemous as to say, or even to think, 
 that the imputed righteousness of Christ makes us formally and 
 subjectively righteous;" see further quotations from this writer 
 on chap. iv. 5. Owen (in his work on Justification, p. 236) 
 says, "Things which are not our own originally, inherently, 
 may yet be imputed to us, ex justitia, by the rule of righteous- 
 ness. And this may be done upon a double relation unto those 
 whose they are, 1. Federal. 2. Natural. Things done by one 
 may be imputed unto others, propter relationem foederalem, 
 because of a covenant relation between them. So the sin of 
 Adam was imputed unto all his posterity. And the ground 
 hereof is, that we stood in the same covenant with him who was 
 our head and representative." On page 242, he says, "This 
 imputation (of Christ's righteousness) is not the transmission or 
 transfusion of the righteousness of another into them which are 
 to be justified, that they should become perfectly and inherently 
 righteous thereby. For it is impossible that the righteousness 
 of one should be transfused into another, to become his sub- 
 jectively and inherently." Again, page 307, "As we are made 
 guilty by Adam's actual sin, which is not inherent in us, but 
 only imputed to us ; so are we made righteous by the righteous- 
 ness of Christ, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed to 
 us." On page 468, he says, "Nothing is intended by the 
 imputation of sin unto any, but the rendering them justly 
 obnoxious unto the punishment due unto that sin. As the not 
 imputing of sin is the freeing of men from being subject or 
 liable to punishment." It is one of his standing declarations, 
 "To be alienee culpoR reus, MAKES NO MAN A SINNER." Knapp 
 (in his Lectures on Theology, sect. 76) says, in stating what the 
 doctrine of imputation is, " God's imputing the sin of our first 
 parents to their descendants, amounts to this : God punishes the.
 
 282 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 descendants on account of the sin of their first parents." Tint 
 he gives as a mere historical statement of the nature of the 
 doctrine, and the form in which its advocates maintained it. 
 Zacharise (Bib. Theologie, Vol. II., p. 394) says, "If God allows 
 the punishment which Adam incurred, to come on all his de- 
 scendants, he imputes his sin to them all. And, in this sense, 
 Paul maintains that the sin of Adam is imputed to all, because 
 the punishment of the one offence of Adam has come upon all." 
 And Bretschneider, as quoted above, on chap. iv. 3, when 
 stating the doctrine of the Reformers, as presented in the 
 various creeds published under their authority, says, that they 
 regarded justification, which includes the idea of imputation, as 
 a forensic or judicial act of God, by which the relation of man 
 to God, and not the man himself, was changed. And imputation 
 of righteousness they described as "that judgment of God, 
 according to which he treats us as though we had not sinned, 
 but had fulfilled the law, or as though the righteousness of 
 Christ was ours." This view of justification they constantly 
 maintained in opposition to the Papists, who regarded it as a 
 moral change, consisting in what they called the infusion of 
 righteousness. 
 
 Though this view of the nature of imputation, both of sin and 
 righteousness, is so familiar, yet as almost all the objections to 
 the doctrine are founded on the assumption that it proceeds on 
 the ground of a mysterious identity between Adam and his race 
 on the one hand, and Christ and his people on the other ; and 
 that it implies the transfer of the moral character of the acts 
 imputed, it seemed necessary to present some small portion of 
 the evidence which might be adduced, to show that the view 
 of the subject presented above is that which has always been 
 held by the great body of the Reformed Churches. The objec- 
 tions urged against this doctrine at the present day, are pre- 
 cisely the same which were urged by the Roman Catholics 
 against the Reformers; and the answers which we are obliged 
 to repeat, are the same which the Reformers and their suc- 
 cessors gave to those with whom they had to contend. 
 
 It will be seen how large a portion of the objections are 
 answered by the mere statement of the doctrine. 1. It is 
 objected that this doctrine " contradicts the essential principles
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 283 
 
 of moral consciousness. We never did, and never can feel 
 guilt} of another's act, which was done without any knowledge 
 or concurrence of our own. We may just as well say we can 
 appropriate to ourselves, and make our own, the righteousness 
 of another, as his unrighteousness. But we can never, in either 
 case, even force ourselves into a consciousness that any act is 
 really our own, except one in which we have had a personal and 
 voluntary concern. A transfer of moral turpitude is just as 
 impossible as a transfer of souls; nor does it lie within the 
 boundary of human effort, that we should repent of Adam's 
 sin." Prof. Stuart, p. 239. This idea is repeated very fre- 
 quently in his commentary on this passage, and the Excursus, 
 IV. V. "To say Adam's disobedience was the occasion, or 
 ground, or instrumental cause of all men becoming sinners, and 
 was thus an evil to them all, and to say that his disobedience 
 was personally theirs, is saying two very different things. I 
 see no way in which this last assertion can ever be made out by 
 philology." Compare Mr. Barnes, p. 119. Professor Stuart 
 further says, page 212, that if verse 12 speaks of the imputation 
 of Adam's sin, it could not be said men had not sinned after the 
 likeness of Adam's transgression. " So far from this must it 
 be, that Adam's sin is their very sin, and the ground why death 
 reigns over them." Mr. Barnes says, page 119, "If the doc- 
 trine of imputation be true, they not only had sinned after 
 the similitude of Adam's transgression, but had sinned the very 
 identical sin. It was precisely like him. It was the very thing 
 itself." In like manner, on page 96, he says, "But if the doc- 
 trine of the Scriptures was, that the entire righteousness of 
 Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and 
 was transferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could 
 the apostle say that God justified the ungodly?" &c. "They 
 are eminently pure, and have a claim not of grace, but of debt, 
 to the very highest rewards of heaven." It will be at once 
 perceived that these and similar objections are all founded on a 
 misapprehension of the doctrine in question. They are all 
 directed against the ideas of identity of person, and transfer of 
 moral character, neither of which is, as we have seen, included 
 in it ; they are, moreover, not only inconsistent with the true 
 nature of tho do?trine, but with the statements and arguments
 
 2S4 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 of these writers themselves. Thus Professor Stuart, page 239, 
 says, " That ' the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father,' 
 is as true as that ' the father shall not die for the iniquity of 
 the son;' as God has most fully declared in Ezek. xviii." 
 According to this view of the subject, " for the son to die for 
 the iniquity of the father," is to have the sin of the father 
 imputed to him, or laid to his charge. The ideas of personal 
 identity and transfer of moral character are necessarily excluded 
 from it, by its opponents themselves, who thus virtually admit 
 the irrelevancy of their previous objections. The fact is, that 
 : mputation is never represented as aifecting the moral charac- 
 ^er, but merely the relation of men to God and his law. To 
 impute sin is to regard and treat as a sinner ; and to impute 
 righteousness is to regard and treat as righteous. 
 
 2. It is said that this doctrine is nothing but a theory, an 
 attempt to explain what the apostle does not explain, a philo- 
 sophical speculation, &c. This again is a mistake. It is neither 
 a theory nor a philosophical speculation, but the statement of a 
 scriptural fact in scriptural language. Paul says, For the 
 offence of one man all men are condemned ; and for the right- 
 eousness of one all are regarded and treated as righteous. This 
 is the whole doctrine. 
 
 3. It is asserted that the word impute is never used in the 
 Bible, in reference to reckoning or charging upon a man any 
 thing which is not strictly and properly his own. But this has 
 been shown to be incorrect ; see chap. iv. 3. It is used twice 
 in chap, iv., of "imputing righteousness" to those without 
 works, to the ungodly, &c. But if the objection were well 
 founded, it would be destitute of any force; for if the word 
 means so to ascribe an action to a man as to treat him as the 
 author of it, it would be correct and scriptural to say that the 
 sin or righteousness of one man is imputed to another, when 
 that sin or righteousness is made the ground of the condemna- 
 tion or justification of any other than its personal authors. 
 
 4. It is denied that Adam was the representative of his pos- 
 terity, because he is not so called in Scripture, and because a 
 representative supposes the consent of those for whom he acts. 
 But this is a mistake. It is rare that a representative is 
 appointed by the choice of all on whom his acts are binding.
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 285 
 
 This is the case in no country in the world ; and nothing is 
 more common than for a parent or court to appoint a guardian 
 to act as the representative of a minor. If it is competent for 
 a parent to make such an appointment, it is surely proper in 
 God. It is a mere question of fact. If the Scriptures teach 
 that Adam was on trial not for himself only, but also for his 
 posterity ; if the race fell when he fell ; then do they teach that 
 he was in fact and form their representative. That they do 
 teach the fact supposed, can scarcely be denied ; it is asserted 
 as often as it is stated that the sin of Adam was the ground of 
 the condemnation of men. 
 
 5. It is said that the doctrine of imputation is inconsistent 
 with the first principles of justice. This objection is only of 
 force against the mistaken view given above. It has no weight 
 against the true doctrine. It is on all hands admitted that the 
 sin of Adam involved the race in ruin. This is the Avhole diffi- 
 culty. How is it to be reconciled with the divine character, 
 that the fate of unborn millions should depend on an act over 
 which they had not the slightest control, and in which they had 
 no agency ? This difficulty presses the opponents of the doc- 
 trine more heavily than its advocates. The former have no 
 advantage over the latter ; not in the amount of evil inflicted, 
 because they make the evil directly inflicted on account of 
 Adam's sin much greater than the others do; not in the pro- 
 vision made for the redemption of the race from this evil, 
 because both maintain that the work of Christ brings the offer 
 of life to the whole race, while it infallibly secures the salvation 
 of a multitude which no man can number. The opinion of those 
 writers not only has no advantage over the common doctrine, 
 but it is encumbered with difficulties peculiar to itself. It 
 represents the race as being involved in ruin and condemnation, 
 without having the slightest probation. According to one view, 
 they " are born with a corrupt disposition, and with the loss 
 of righteousness, and subjection to pain and wo," by a mere 
 arbitrary appointment of God, and without a trial, either per- 
 sonally, or by a representative. According to another view, 
 men are born without any such corrupt disposition, but in a 
 state of indifference, and are placed on their probation at the 
 very first moment of moral agency, and under a constitution
 
 286 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 which infallibly secures their becoming sinners. According tc 
 the realistic doctrine, revived by the modern speculative theo- 
 logians of the school of Schleiermacher, humanity existed as a 
 generic life in Adam. The acts of that life were therefore the 
 acts of all the individuals to whom, in the development of the 
 race, the life itself was communicated. All men consequently 
 sinned in Adam, by an act of self-determination. They are 
 punished, therefore, not for Adam's act, but for their own ; not 
 simply for their innate depravity, nor for their personal acts 
 only, but for the act which they committed thousands of years 
 ago, when their nature, i. e. their intelligence and will, were 
 determined to evil in the person of Adam. This is avowedly a 
 philosophical doctrine. This doctrine assumes the objective 
 reality of human nature as a generic life. It takes for granted 
 that persons can act before they exist, or that actual sin can be 
 committed by an impersonal nature, which is a contradiction in 
 terms, inasmuch as an intelligent, voluntary act is an act of a 
 person. If we actually sinned in Adam, then we (as persons) 
 were then in conscious being. This doctrine is directly opposed 
 to Scripture, which expressly teaches that the sin of Adam, and 
 not our personal sin, was the original ground of condemnation ; 
 as the righteousness of Christ, and not our personal righteous- 
 ness, is the ground of our justification. No less clearly does 
 the Bible condemn the other doctrines just mentioned. Paul 
 represents the evils which came on men on account of the 
 offence of Adam, as a condemnation ; not as an arbitrary inflic- 
 tion, nor as a merely natural consequence. \Ve are bound to 
 acquiesce in the truth as taught in the Scriptures, and not to 
 introduce explanations and theories of our own. The denial 
 of this doctrine involves also the denial of the scriptural view 
 of atonement and justification. It is essential to the scriptural 
 form of these doctrines, that the idea of legal substitution should 
 be retained. Christ bore our sins ; our iniquities were laid upon 
 him, which, according to the true meaning of scriptural lan- 
 guage, can only signify, that he bore the punishment of those 
 sins ; not the same evils, indeed, either in kind or degree ; but 
 still penal, because judicially inflicted for the support of law. 
 It matters little whether a debt be paid in gold or copper, pro- 
 vided it is cancelled. And as a comparatively small quantity
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 287 
 
 of the former is of equal value with a great deal of the latter, 
 BO the temporary sufferings of Christ are of more value for all 
 the purposes of punishment, than the eternal sufferings of all 
 mankind. It is then no objection to the scriptural doctrine of 
 sacrifice and atonement, that Christ did not suffer the same 
 kind or degree of evil, which those for whom he died must have 
 endured in their own persons. This idea of legal substitution 
 enters also into the scriptural view of justification. In justifi- 
 cation, according to Paul's language, God imputes righteousness 
 to the ungodly. This righteousness is not their own ; but they 
 are regarded and treated -as righteous on account of the obedi- 
 ence of Christ. That is, his righteousness is so laid to their 
 account, or imputed to them, that they are regarded and treated 
 as if it were their own ; or " as if they had kept the law." This 
 is the great doctrine of the Reformation, Luther's articulus 
 stcntis vel cadentis ecclesice. The great question between the 
 Papists and Protestants was ? whether men are justified on 
 account of inherent or imputed righteousness. For the latter, 
 the Protestants contended as for their lives, and for the life of 
 the Church. See the passages quoted above on chap. iv. 3, and 
 the Confessions of that period.* 
 
 * Apol., art. 9, p. 226. Merita propitiatoris aliis donantur imputations 
 divina, ut per ea, tauquam propriis meritis justi reputentur, ut si quis arnicas 
 pro amico solvit aes alienum, debitor alieno merito tanquam proprio liberatur. 
 
 F. Concordantise, art. 3, p. 687. Ad justificationem tria requiruntur: gratia 
 Dei, meritum Christi et fides, quae haec ipsa Dei beneficia amplectitur; qua 
 ratioue nobis Christi justitia imputatur, unde remissionem peccatorum, recon- 
 ciliationem cum Deo, adoptionem in filios Dei et hasreditatem vitae aeternaa 
 consequimur. 
 
 F. C. III., p. 684. Fides non propterea justificat, quod ipsa tarn bonum opus, 
 tamque praeclara virtus sit, sed quia in promissione evangelii meritum Christi 
 apprehendit et amplectitur, illud enim per fidem nobis applicari debet, si eo ipso 
 merito justificari velimus. 
 
 F. C. III., p. 688. Christi justitia nobis imputatur, unde remissionem pecca- 
 torum consequimur. 
 
 Bretschneider, Dog., Vol. II., p. 254, says that, according to the ?reeds of 
 the Reformation, justification "is that act of God in which he imputes to a man 
 the merit of Christ, and no longer regards and treats him as a sinner, but as 
 righteous." "It is an act in which neither man nor God changes, but the man 
 is merely freed from guilt, and declared to be free from punishment, and hence 
 the relation only between God and man is altered." This, he says, the sym- 
 bolical books maintained, in opposition to the Romish Church, which makes 
 justification a moral change.
 
 288 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 6. As the term death is used for any and every evil judicial! j 
 inflicted aa the punishment of sin, the amount and nature of the 
 evil not being expressed by the word, it is no part of the apos- 
 tle's doctrine, that eternal misery is inflicted on any man for 
 the sin of Adam, irrespective of inherent depravity or actual 
 transgression. It is enough for all the purposes of his argu- 
 ment, that this sin was the ground of the loss of the divine 
 favour, the withholding of divine influence, and the consequent 
 corruption of our nature. Turrettin, Theologia JSlenct., vol. i., 
 page 680 : " Poena quam peccatum Adami in nos accersit, vel 
 est privativa, vel positiva. Quoad primam dicimus Adami pecoa- 
 tum nobis imputari immediate ad poenam privativam, quia t3t 
 causa privationis justitiae originalis, et sic corruptionem antet^e- 
 dere debet saltern ordine naturae : Sed quoad posteriorem pott*st 
 dici imputari mediate quoad poenam positivam, quia isti poenje 
 obnoxii non sumus, nisi postquam nati et corrupt! sumus." 
 
 7. It is said that it is inconsistent with the omniscience and 
 veracity of God, and consequently with his nature as .God, that 
 he should regard and treat as sinners those who are not sinners, 
 or those as righteous who are in fact unrighteous. God's judg- 
 ments are according to truth, and therefore must be determined 
 by the real, subjective character of those whom they concern. 
 This difficulty arises simply from the ambiguity of language 
 The words sinner, just, unjust, righteous, and unrighteous, m 
 English, and the corresponding words in other languages, are 
 familiarly and properly used in two distinct senses. They 
 sometimes express moral character, and sometimes legal rela- 
 tions. A man may therefore be just and unjust, righteous and 
 unrighteous at the same time. A criminal who has satisfied the 
 demands of justice, is just in the eye of the law ; he cannot be 
 again or further punished for his offence, and is entitled to all 
 his rights as a citizen, although morally unrighteous. The 
 sinner, and every sinner whom God accepts or pronounces right- 
 eous for the righteousness of Christ, feels himself to be in his 
 own person most unrighteous. God's judgment, in pronouncing 
 him righteous, is none the less according to truth. He does not 
 pronounce the sinner subjectively righteous, which he is not, 
 but forensically righteous, which he is, because Christ has 
 satisfied the demands of justice on his behalf. In like manner,
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 280 
 
 when our blessed Lord, although he knew no sm, is said to 
 have been made sin, it only means that he assumed the respon- 
 sibility of meeting the requirements of the law in our place ; so 
 that his sufferings were not chastisements or calamities, but ot 
 the nature of punishment. He was condemned for our sakes, 
 as we are justified for his. It is no impeachment, therefore, 
 of the omniscience or veracity of God, when he holds us as 
 guilty on account of Adam's sin, as he does not pronounce us 
 morally criminal for his offence, but simply declares that for 
 the ends of justice we are involved in his condemnation. 
 
 8. Perhaps the most operative of all objections against the 
 doctrine of imputation is founded on the assumption that moral 
 character must be self-originated. It is assumed that inhe- 
 rent, hereditary depravity in man cannot have the nature of sin 
 and involve guilt, unless it is due to his own act. This princi- 
 ple, however, is not only erroneous, but contrary to the plainest 
 and most universally received doctrines of the Bible. It is the 
 intuitive judgment of men that moral qualities owe their charac- 
 ter to their nature, and not to their origin. A holy being is- 
 recognized as holy, whether his holiness be concreated, infused^, 
 or self-originated. All Churches believe that Adam was created! 
 holy ; all Churches believe that holiness is the product of divine 
 power in regeneration ; and all Churches, that is, the Latin,. 
 Lutheran, and Reformed, acknowledge that innate depravity i* 
 truly sin, although anterior to any act of self-determination, on 
 our part to evil. It is not necessary, therefore, to assume that 
 if men are born in sin, their sinfulness is to be referred to* 
 their personal act. It may, consistently with the common judg- 
 ment of men, and with the faith of the Church universal, be a> 
 penal consequence of the sin of Adam. 
 
 II. Whatever evil the Scriptures represent as coming upoa 
 us on account of Adam, they regard as penal; they call it 
 death, which is the general term by which, any penal evil is> 
 expressed. It is not however the doctrine of the Scriptures, 
 nor of the Reformed Churches, nor of our standards, that the- 
 corruption of nature of which they speak, is any depravation' 
 of the soul, or an essential attribute, or the infusion of any posi- 
 tive evil. " Original sin," as the Confessions of the Reformer* 
 maintain, " is not the substance of ma% neither his soul nor 
 19
 
 290 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 body ; nor is it anything infused into his nature by Satan, a? 
 poison is mixed with wine ; it is not an essential attribute, but 
 an accident,* i. e. something which does not exist of itself, an 
 incidental quality," &c. Eretschneider, vol. ii., p. 30. These 
 confessions teach that original righteousness was lost, as a 
 punishment of Adam's sin, and by that defect, the tendency to 
 sin, or corrupt disposition, or corruption of nature is occa- 
 sioned, f Though they speak of original sin as being, first, 
 negative, i. e. the loss of righteousness ; and secondly, positive, 
 or corruption of nature ; yet by the latter, they state, is to be 
 understood, not the infusion of anything in itself sinful, but an 
 actual tendency or disposition to evil, resulting from the loss 
 of righteousness. This is clearly expressed in the quotation 
 just made. It is therefore in perfect consistency with his own 
 views, and with those of the Protestant creeds, that President 
 Edwards teaches, in his book on Original Sin, "It is agreeable 
 to the sentiments of the best divines, that all sin comes from a 
 defective or privative cause," (p. 28;) and that he argues 
 against the idea of any evil quality being infused, implanted, or 
 wrought into our nature by any positive cause or influence 
 whatever, either of God or the creature, &c. With equal con- 
 sistency and propriety, he goes on to state that " the absence 
 of positive good principles," and " the withholding of special 
 divine influence," and "the leaving of the common principles 
 of self-love, natural appetite, which were in man in innocence," 
 are sufficient to account for all the corruption which appears 
 among men. Goodwin, one of the strictest Puritanical divines, 
 (vol. iii., p. 323,) has a distinct chapter to prove, "that there 
 is no necessity of asserting original sin to be a positive quality 
 in our souls, since the privation of righteousness is enough to 
 infect the soul with all that is evil." Yet he, in common with 
 
 * Accidens: quod non per se subsistit, sed in aliqua substantia est et ab ea 
 .discern! possit. 
 
 f F. Concor. I., p. 643: Etsi enim in Adamo et Heva natura initio pura, 
 bona et sancta creata est; tamen per lapsum peccatum non eo modo ipsorum 
 naturam invasit, ut Manichsei dixerunt quin potius cum seductione Satante 
 .per lapsum, justo Dei judicio (in poenam hominum) justitia concreata seu 
 .originalis amissa esset, defectu illo, privatione seu spoliatione et vulneratione, 
 (quorum malorum Satan causa est) humana natura ita corrupta est, ut jam 
 natura, ana cum illo defectu et corruptione, &c.
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 291 
 
 the Reformers, represents original sin as having a positive as 
 well as a negative side. This, however, results from the active 
 nature of the soul. If there is no tendency to the love and 
 service of God, there is, from this very defect, a tendency to 
 self and sin. How large a portion of the objections to the doc- 
 trine of original sin is founded on the idea of its being an evil 
 positively infused into our nature, "as poison is mixed with 
 wine," may be inferred from the exclamation of Professor 
 Stuart, in reference to the passage just quoted from President 
 Edwards. He says it is "a signal instance, indeed, of the 
 triumph of the spontaneous feelings of our nature over the 
 power of system!" It would seem from this, that he has no 
 objection to the doctrine as thus stated. And yet this is 
 the form in which, as we have just seen, it is presented in 
 the creeds of the Reformers, and the works of the "best 
 divines." 
 
 It will be at once perceived that all such questions as the 
 following, proceed on an incorrect apprehension of the point at 
 issue. It is often asked, If Adam's first sin is propagated to 
 us, why not all his other sins, and the sins of all our ancestors ? 
 No one properly maintains that Adam's first sin, his act of 
 eating the forbidden fruit, is propagated to any one. This is a 
 sheer impossibility. We derive from Adam a nature destitute 
 of any native tendency to the love and service of God; and 
 since the soul, from its nature, is filled as it were with suscep- 
 tibilities, dispositions or tendencies to certain modes of acting, 
 or to objects out of itself, if destitute of the governing tendency 
 or disposition to holiness and God, it has, of course, a tendency 
 to self-gratification and sin. There is surely nothing incredible 
 or inconceivable in the existence of a native tendency to delight 
 in God, any more than in the existence of a tendency or dis- 
 position to delight in beauty, or social intercourse, or in our 
 own offspring. Men have still an innate sense of right and 
 wrong, a natural sense of justice, &c. Why then may not Adam 
 have been created with an analogous tendency to delight in 
 God? And if this disposition presupposes a state of friendship 
 with his Maker, or if it is the result of special Divine influence, 
 why may not that influence be withheld as the expression of 
 God's displeasure for the apostasy and rebellion of man? This
 
 292 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 is perfectly analogous to the dealings of God in his pro\idence, 
 and agreeable to the declarations of his word. He abandons 
 tinners to themselves as a punishment of their transgressions ; 
 he withholds or withdraws blessings from children, in punish- 
 ment, or as an expression of his displeasure, for the sins of their 
 parents. There is, therefore, nothing in this doctrine at vari- 
 ance with the Divine character or conduct. On the contrary, it 
 has in its support the whole tenor of his dealings with our race, 
 from the beginning of the world. The objections, therefore, 
 founded on the supposed absurdity of the propagation of sin, 
 tnd especially of Adam's first w, all rest on misapprehension 
 of the doctrine in dispute. 
 
 Nor is the objection any better supported, that the doctrine 
 of corruption of nature makes God, from whom that nature 
 proceeds, the author of sin. Our nature is not corrupted by 
 any positive act of God, or by the infusion, implanting, or 
 inworking of any habit or principle of sin ; God merely with- 
 holds judicially those influences which produced in Adam a 
 tendency or disposition to holiness; precisely as a monarch 
 often, from the purest and wisest motives, withholds favours 
 from the children of traitors or rebels, or bestows them upon 
 the children of patriots and public benefactors. There is in 
 every human being a tendency to act upon the same principle. 
 We are all disposed to regard with less favour the children of 
 the wicked than the children of the good. If this principle is 
 recognized even in the ordinary dealings of Divine Providence, 
 we need not wonder at its being acted upon in that great trans- 
 action which decided the fate of the world, as Adam was not on 
 trial for himself alone, but also for his posterity. 
 
 As little weight is due to the objection, that the law of pro- 
 pagation does not secure the transmission of bodily defects, or 
 mental and moral peculiarities of parents to their children. 
 This objection supposes that the derivation of a corrupt nature 
 from Adam is resolved into this general law; whereas it is 
 uniformly represented as a peculiar case, founded on the repre- 
 sentative character of Adam, and not to be accounted for by 
 this general law exclusively. It is constantly represented as 
 resulting from the judicial withholding of the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit from an apostate race. See the Confessions of the
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 298 
 
 Reformers quoted above : Defectus et concupiscentia suntpoence, 
 Apolgia /., p. 58. That the peculiarities, and especially that 
 the piety of parents, are not transmitted by the law of propa- 
 gation, from parents to children, does not therefore present a 
 shadow of an objection to the common doctrine on this subject. 
 The notorious fact, however, that the mental and moral pecu- 
 liarities of parents are transmitted to their children, frequently 
 and manifestly, though not with the uniformity of an established 
 law, answers two important purposes. It shows that there is 
 nothing absurd, or out of analogy with God's dealing with men, 
 in the doctrine of hereditary depravity; and also, that the doc- 
 trine is consistent with God's goodness and justice. For if, 
 under the administration of the divine Being, analogous facts 
 are daily occurring, it must be right and consistent with the 
 perfections of God. 
 
 The most common and plausible objection to this doctrine is, 
 that it is inconsistent with the nature of sin and holiness to 
 suppose that either one or the other can be innate, or that a 
 disposition or principle, which is not the result of choice, can 
 possess a moral character. To this objection, President Edwards 
 answers, " In the first place, I think it a contradiction to the 
 nature of things, as judged of by the common-sense of mankind. 
 It is agreeable to the sense of the minds of men in all ages, not 
 only that the fruit or effect of a good choice is virtuous, but the 
 good choice itself, from which that effect proceeds ; yea, and not 
 only so, but the antecedent good disposition, temper, or affec- 
 tion of mind, from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtu- 
 ous. This is the general notion, not that principles derive their 
 goodness from actions, but that actions derive their goodness 
 from the principles whence they proceed ; and so that the act 
 of choosing that which is good is no farther virtuous than it 
 proceeds from a good principle or virtuous disposition of mind, 
 which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be 
 before a virtuous act of choice; and that, therefore, it is not 
 necessary that there should first be thought, reflection, and 
 choice, before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the 
 choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition of 
 heart, what signifies that choice ? There can, according to our 
 natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from
 
 294 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 no virtuous principle, but from mere self-love, ambition, or some 
 animal appetite." Original Sin, p. 140. It is certainly accord- 
 ing to the intuitive judgment of men, that innate dispositions 
 are amiable or unamiable, moral or immoral, according to their 
 nature; and that their character does not depend on the mode 
 of their production. The parental instinct, pity, sympathy with 
 the happiness and sorrows of others, though founded in innate 
 principles of our nature, are universally regarded as amiable 
 attributes of the soul; and the opposite dispositions as the 
 reverse. In like manner, the sense of justice, hatred of cruelty 
 and oppression, though natural, are moral from their very 
 nature. And the universal disposition to prefer ourselves to 
 others, though the strongest of all the native tendencies of the 
 mind, is no less universally recognized as evil. 
 
 The opposite opinion, which denies the possibility of moral 
 dispositions prior to acts of choice, is irreconcilable with the 
 nature of virtue, and involves us in all the difficulties of the 
 doctrine, that indifference is necessary to the freedom of the 
 will and the morality of actions. If Adam was created neither 
 holy nor unholy, if it is not true that " God made man upright," 
 but that he formed his own moral character, how is his choice 
 of God as the portion of his soul to be accounted for ? Or what 
 moral character could it have? To say that the choice was 
 made from the desire of happiness, or the impulse of self-love, 
 affords no solution of the case ; because it does not account for 
 the nature of the choice. It assigns no reason why God, in 
 preference to any other object, was chosen. This desire could 
 only prompt to a choice, but could not determine the object. 
 If it be said that the choice was determined by the superior 
 excellence of God as a source of happiness, this supposes that 
 this excellence was, in the view of the mind, an object supremely 
 desirable ; but the desire of moral excellence is, from the nature 
 of the case, a moral or virtuous desire ; and if this determined 
 the choice, moral character existed prior to this determination 
 of the will, and neither consisted in it, nor resulted from it. 
 On the other hand, if the choice was determined by no desire 
 of' the object as a moral good, it could have no moral character. 
 How is it possible that the choice of an object which is made 
 from no regard for its excellence, should have any moral
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 296 
 
 character? The choice, considered as an act of tho mind, 
 derives its character entirely from the motive by which it is 
 determined. If the motive be desire for it as morally excel 
 lent, the choice is morally good, and is the evidence of an ante- 
 cedent virtuous disposition of mind ; but if the motive be mere 
 self-love, the choice is neither good nor bad. There is no way, 
 on the theory in question, of accounting for this preference for 
 God, but by assuming the self-determining power of the will, 
 and supposing that the selection of one object, rather than 
 another, is made prior to the rise of the desire for it as excel- 
 lent, and consequently in a state of indifference. 
 
 This reasoning, though it applies to the origin of holiness, is 
 not applicable to the origin of sin; and, therefore, the objection 
 that it supposes a sinful disposition to exist in Adam, prior to 
 his first transgression, is not valid. Because an act of disobedi- 
 ence performed under the impulse of self-love, or of some animal 
 appetite, is sinful, it does not follow that an act of obedience, 
 performed under a similar impulse, and without any regard for 
 God or moral excellence, is virtuous. 
 
 Of all the facts ascertained by the history of the world, it 
 would seem to be among the plainest, that men are born desti- 
 tute of a disposition to seek their chief good in God, and with a 
 disposition to make self-gratification the great end of their 
 being. Even reason, conscience, and natural affection, are less 
 universal characteristics of our fallen race. For there are idiots 
 and moral monsters often to be met with ; but for a child of 
 Adam, uninfluenced by the special grace of God, to delight in 
 his Maker, as the portion of his soul, from the first dawn of his 
 moral being, is absolutely without example among all the thou- 
 sands of millions of men who have inhabited our world. If 
 experience can establish anything, it establishes the truth of the 
 scriptural declaration, " that which is born of the flesh is flesh." 
 It would seem no less plain, that this cannot be the original 
 and normal state of man ; that human nature is not now what 
 it was when it proceeded from the hand of God. Every thing 
 else which God has made, answers the end of its being ; but 
 human nature, since the fall, has uniformly worked badly : in 
 no one instance has it spontaneously turned to God as its chief 
 good. It cannot be believed that God thus made man ; that
 
 296 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 there has been no perversion of his faculties ; no loss of some 
 original and guiding disposition or tendency of his mind. It 
 cannot be credited that men are now what Adam was, when he 
 first opened his eyes on the wonders of creation and the glories 
 of God. Reason, Scripture, and experience, therefore, all 
 concur in support of the common doctrine of the Christian 
 world, that the race fell in Adam, lost their original rectitude, 
 and became prone to evil as the sparks fly upward. 
 
 This doctrine has so strong a witness in the religious experi- 
 ence of Christians, that it is not wonderful that it has been 
 almost universally received. Individual opponents and objectors 
 have indeed appeared, from time to time ; but it is believed that 
 no organized sect, bearing the Christian name, the Socinians 
 excepted, have ever discarded it from the articles of their faith. 
 It is so intimately connected with the doctrines of divine influ- 
 ence and redemption, that they have almost uniformly been 
 held or rejected together. It has indeed often been said, 
 because the term original sin was first used by Augustine, that 
 the doctrine itself took its origin with him ; although perfectly 
 synonymous expressions occur so constantly in the writings of 
 the earlier Fathers. Equally destitute of foundation is the 
 assertion, so often made, that Augustine was driven to his views 
 on this subject by his controversy with Pelagi.us. He had 
 arrived at all the conclusions on which he ultimately rested, at 
 least ten years before any controversy on the subject.* He 
 was led to these results by the study of the Scriptures, and 
 by his own personal experience. His earlier views on the 
 intimately related doctrines of depravity, ability, dependence, 
 and grace, were all modified as he became more thoroughly 
 acquainted with the word of God, and with his own heart. 
 When he passed what Neander calls the crisis of his religious 
 history, he saw clearly the depth of the evil which existed 
 Within him, and had corresponding views of the necessity and 
 efficacy of the grace of God, by which alone this evil could be 
 removed. 
 
 With regard to Pelagius, the case was just the reverse. His 
 views of depravity being superficial, he had very high ideas of 
 Cnc ability of man, and very low conceptions of the operations 
 
 * Neandef a Oeschichte der Christlichen Religion und Kirche, ii., 3.
 
 ROMANS V. 1221. 297 
 
 of the Spirit of God. The latter, as the author just referred to 
 strikingly remarks, was the representative and champion .of 
 "the general, moral, and religious consciousness of men;" the 
 other, of "the peculiar nature of Christian consciousness." A 
 doctrine which enters so much into the experience of all Christ- 
 ians, and which has maintained its ground in all ages and 
 sections of the Church, must have its deep foundations in the 
 testimony of God, and the consciousness of men. 
 
 III. It is included in the doctrines already stated, that man- 
 kind h?ve had a fair probation in Adam, their head and repre- 
 sentative , and that we are not to consider God as placing them 
 on their probation, in the very first dawn of their intellectual 
 and moral existence, and under circumstances (or "a divine 
 constitution") which secure the certainty of their sinning. Such 
 a probation could hardly deserve the name. 
 
 IV. It is also included in the doctrine of this portion of 
 Scripture, that mankind is an unit, in the sense in which an 
 army, in distinction from a mob, is one ; or as a nation, a com- 
 munity, or a family, is one, in opposition to a mere fortuitous 
 collection of individuals. Hence the frequent and extensive 
 transfer of the responsibility and consequences of the acts of 
 the heads of these communities to their several members, and 
 from one member to others. This is a law which pervades the 
 whole moral government and providential dispensations of God. 
 We are not like the separate grains of wheat in a measure, but 
 links in a complicated chain. All influence the destiny of each, 
 and each influences the destiny of all. 
 
 V. The design of the apostle being to illustrate the nature 
 and to confirm the certainty of our justification, it is the leading 
 doctrine of this passage, that our acceptance with God is founded 
 neither on our faith nor our good works, but on the obedience 
 or righteousness of Christ, which to us is a free gift. This is 
 the fundamental doctrine of the gospel, vs. 18, 19. 
 
 VI. The dreadful evil of sin is best seen in the fall of Adam, 
 and in the cross of Christ. By the one offence of one man, what 
 a waste of ruin has been spread over the whole world ! How far 
 beyond conception the misery that one act occasioned ! There 
 was no adequate remedy for this evil but the death of the Son 
 of God, vs, 12, 15, 16, &c.
 
 298 ROMANS V. 1221. 
 
 VII. It is the prerogative of God to bring good out of evil, 
 and to make the good triumph over the evil. From the full has 
 sprung redemption, and from redemption results which eternity 
 alone can disclose, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. Every man should bow down before God, under the humi- 
 liating consciousness that he is a member of an apostate race ; 
 the son of a rebellious parent ; born estranged from God, and 
 exposed to his displeasure, vs. 12, 15, 16, &c. 
 
 2. Every man should thankfully embrace the means provided 
 for his restoration to the Divine favour, viz. " the abundance of 
 grace and gift of righteousness," ver. 17. 
 
 3. Those that perish, perish not because the sin of Adam has 
 brought them under condemnation; nor because no adequate 
 provision has been made for their recovery; but because they 
 will not receive the offered mercy, ver. 17. 
 
 4. For those who refuse the proffered righteousness of Christ, 
 and insist on trusting to their own righteousness, the evil of sin 
 and God's determination to punish it, show there can be no rea- 
 sonable hope; while, for those who humbly receive this gift, 
 there can be no rational ground of fear, ver. 15. 
 
 5. If, without personal participation in the sin of Adam, all 
 men are subject to death, may we not hope that, without per- 
 sonal acceptance of the righteousness of Christ, all who die in 
 infancy are saved ? 
 
 6. We should never yield to temptation on the ground that 
 the sin to which we are solicited appears to be a trifle, (merely 
 eating a forbidden fruit;) or that it is but for ONCE. Remember 
 the ONE offence of one man. How often has a man, or a family, 
 been ruined for ever by ONE sin ! ver. 12. 
 
 7. Our dependence on Jesus Christ is entire, and our obliga- 
 tions to him are infinite. It is through his righteousness, with- 
 out the shadow of merit on our own part, that we are justified. 
 He alone was adequate to restore the ruins of the fall. From 
 those ruins he has built up a living temple, a habitation of God 
 through the Spirit. 
 
 8. We must experience the operation of the law, in producing 
 the knowledge and conviction of sin, in order to be prepared
 
 ROMANS VI. 111. 299 
 
 for the appreciation and reception of the work of Christ. The 
 Church and the world were prepared, by the legal dispensation 
 of the Old Testament, for the gracious dispensation of the 
 New, ver. 20. 
 
 9. We should open our hearts to the large prospects of purity 
 and blessedness presented in the gospel; the victory of grace 
 over sin and death, which is to be consummated in the triumph 
 of true religion, and in the eternal salvation of those multitudes 
 out of every tribe and kindred, which no man can number, 
 vcr. 21. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 As the gospel reveals the only effectual method of justification, 
 so also it alone can secure the sanctification of men. To exhibit 
 this truth is the object of this and the following chapter. The 
 sixth is partly argumentative, and partly exhortatory. In 
 vs. 1 11, the apostle shows how unfounded is the objection, 
 that gratuitous justification leads to the indulgence of sin. In 
 vs. 12 23, he exhorts Christians to live agreeably to the nature 
 and design of the gospel ; and presents various considerations 
 adapted to secure their obedience to this exhortation. 
 
 ROMANS VI. 111. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE most common, the most plausible, and yet the most 
 unfounded objection to the doctrine of justification by faith, is, 
 that it allows men to live in sin that grace may abound. This 
 objection arises from ignorance of the doctrine in question, and 
 of the nature and means of sanctification. It is so preposterous 
 in the eyes of an enlightened believer, that Paul deals with it 
 rather by exclamations at its absurdity, than with logical argu- 
 ments. The main idea of this section is, that such is t
 
 300 ROMANS VI. 1, 2. 
 
 of the believer's union with Christ, that his living in sin is not 
 merely an inconsistency, but a contradiction in terms, as much 
 B<> as to speak of a live, dead man, or a good bad one. Union 
 with Christ, being the only source of holiness, cannot be the 
 source of sin. In ver. 1, the apostle presents the objection. In 
 ver. 2, he declares it to be unfounded, and exclaims at its 
 absurdity. In vs. 3, 4, he exhibits the true nature and design 
 of Christianity, as adapted and intended to produce newness of 
 life. In vs. 5 7, he shows that such is the nature of union 
 with Christ, that it is impossible for any one to share the benefits 
 of his death, without being conformed to his life. Such being 
 the case, he shows, vs. 8 11, that as Christ's death on account 
 of sin was for once, never to be repeated, and his life, a life 
 devoted to God; so our separation from sin is final, and our 
 life a life consecrated to God. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. What shall we say then? What inference is to be 
 drawn from the doctrine of the gratuitous acceptance of sinners, 
 or justification without works, by faith in the righteousness of 
 Christ? 
 
 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? i. e. be 
 more conspicuously displayed. The form in which the objection 
 to the apostle's doctrine is here presented, is evidently borrowed 
 from the close of the preceding chapter. Paul had there spoken 
 of the grace of the gospel being the more conspicuous and 
 abundant, in proportion to the evils which it removes. It is no 
 fair inference from the fact that God has brought so much good 
 out of the fall and sinfulness of men, that they may continue in 
 sin. Neither can it be inferred from the fact that he accepts 
 of sinners on the ground of the merit of Christ, instead of their 
 own, (which is one way in which grace abounds,) that they may 
 sin without restraint. 
 
 VERSE 2. Q-od forbid, JJ.TJ j-ewco, let it not be. Paul's usual 
 mode of expressing denial and abhorrence. Such an inference 
 is not to be thought of. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live 
 any longer therein? The relative o?nvsc is as usual causative, 
 and it stands first, for thf sake of emphasis ; dne&dw/jtsv does
 
 ROMANS VI. 2. 301 
 
 not mean are dead, nor have died, but died. It refers to a spe- 
 cific act in our past history : ' Since we died to sin, how can we 
 still live in it ?' The act which in its nature was a dying to sin, 
 was our accepting of Christ as our Saviour. That act involves 
 in it not only a separation from sin, but a deadness to it. No 
 man can apply to Christ to be delivered from sin, in order that 
 he may live in it. Deliverance from sin, as offered by Christ, 
 and as accepted by the believer, is not mere deliverance from 
 its penalty, but from its power. We turn from sin to God when 
 we receive Christ as a Saviour. It is, therefore, as the apostle 
 argues, a contradiction in terms, to say that gratuitous justifica- 
 tion is a license to sin, as much as to say that death is life, or 
 that dying to a thing is living in it. Instead of giving rr) 
 d.fJLaprifj/L the usual force of the dative, to, or as it respects, sin, 
 Storr, Flatt, and many other commentators, say it should be 
 understood as in v. 15, xi. 20, on account of. l How shall we, 
 who in Christ, died on account of sin, i. e. who suffered vicari- 
 ously its penalty, inasmuch as we were crucified in him, live 
 any longer therein?' 
 
 , In favour of this interpretation, it is urged, 1. That this 
 phrase must express the same idea with the subsequent clauses., 
 buried with him, ver. 4; associated in his death, ver. 5; dead 
 with Christ, ver. 8. 2. That it must have this meaning in 
 ver. 10, where it is said of Christ, he died unto sin, i. e. on 
 account of sin. 3. The other interpretation, 'How shall we, 
 who have renounced sin, live any longer therein?' it is said, is 
 not suited to the apostle's object ; because it does not give any 
 adequate answer to the objection presented in ver. 1. In order 
 to answer that objection, it was necessary to show not merely 
 that the believer had renounced sin, but that the doctrine of 
 gratuitous justification effectually secures this renunciation. 
 According to the second interpretation, this answer is plain and 
 conclusive : ' How shall we, who have died on account of sin, 
 live any longer therein? If we are regarded and treated by 
 God, in virtue of our union with Christ, and if we regard our- 
 selves, as having suffered and died with him on account of sin, 
 we cannot but look upon it as hateful, and deserving of punish- 
 ment.' 
 
 The objections to this interpretation, however, are serious.
 
 302 ROMANS VI. 3. 
 
 1. It is not consistent with the common and familiar import of 
 the expression, to be dead to anything, which occurs frequently 
 in the New Testament; as Gal. ii. 19, "dead to the law;' 
 1 Pet. ii. 24, "dead to sins;" Rom. vii. 4; Col. ii. 20; Gal. 
 vi. 14, &c. In all cases the meaning is, to be free from. Sin 
 has lost its power over the believer, as sensible objects are not 
 able to affect the dead. 2. The opposite phrase, to live therein, 
 requires this interpretation. 3. The object of the apostle does 
 not require that a formal, argumentative answer should be sup- 
 posed to commence in this verse. He simply denies the justice 
 of the inference from his doctrine, stated in ver. 1, and asks 
 how it is possible it should be correct. How can a Christian, 
 which is but another name for a holy man, live any longer in 
 Bin? 
 
 VERSE 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
 into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death f In this and the 
 following verse, we have something more in the form of argu- 
 ment in answer to the objection in question. The apostle 
 reminds his readers, that the very design of Christianity was 
 to deliver men from sin; that every one who embraced it, 
 embraced it for that object; and, therefore, it was a contra- 
 diction in terms to suppose that any should come to Christ to 
 be delivered from sin, in order that they might live in it. And, 
 besides this, it is clearly intimated that such is not only the 
 design of the gospel, and the object for which it is embraced by 
 all who cordially receive it, but also that the result or neces- 
 sary effect of union with Christ is a participation in the benefits 
 of his death. Or know ye not, ij d.j-votlT, or are you ignorant? 
 If any doubt what is said in ver. 2, he must be ignorant of the 
 nature and design of baptism, and of the relation to Christ 
 which it involves. BaxTt^ttv V always means to baptize in 
 reference to. When it is said that the Hebrews were baptized 
 unto Moses, 1 Cor. x. 2 ; or when the apostle asks the Corinth- 
 ians, ' Were ye baptized unto the name of Paul ?' 1 Cor. i. 13 ; 
 or when we are said to be baptized unto Christ, the meaning is, 
 they were baptized in reference to Moses, Paul, or Christ ; i. e. 
 to be brought into union with them, as their disciples, or wor- 
 shippers, as the case may be. In like manner, in the expression 
 baptized i*to his death, the preposition expresses the design and
 
 ROMANS VI. 3. 303 
 
 the result. The meaning therefore is, 'we were baptized in 
 order that we should die with him,' i. e. that we should be united 
 to him in his death, and be partakers of its benefits. Thus, 
 "baptism unto repentance," Matt. iii. 11, is baptism in order to 
 repentance; "baptism unto the remission of sins," Mark i. 4, 
 that remission of sins maybe obtained; "baptized unto one 
 body," 1 Cor. xii. 13, i. e. that we might become one body, &c. 
 Paul does not design to teach that the sacrament of baptism, 
 from any inherent virtue in the rite, or from any supernatural 
 power in him who administers it, or from any uniformly attend- 
 ing Divine influence, always secures the regeneration of the 
 soul. This is contrary both to Scripture and experience. No 
 fact is more obvious than that thousands of the baptized are 
 unregenerate. It cannot be, therefore, that the apostle intends 
 to say, that all who are baptized are thereby savingly united to 
 Christ. It is not of the efficacy of baptism as an external rite, 
 that he assumes his readers are well informed: it is of the 
 import and design of that sacrament, and the nature of the 
 uniqn with Christ, of which baptism is the sign and the seal. 
 It is the constant usage of Scripture to address professors as 
 believers, to predicate of them as professors what is true of 
 them only as believers. This is also the usage of common life. 
 We address a company of professing Christians as true Christ- 
 ians; we call them brethren in Christ; we speak of them as 
 beloved of the Lord, partakers of the heavenly calling, and heirs 
 of eternal life. Baptism was the appointed mode of professing 
 faith in Christ, of avowing allegiance to him as the Son of God, 
 and acquiescence in his gospel. Those, therefore, who were 
 baptized, are assumed to believe what they professed, and to bo 
 what they declared themselves to be. They are consequently 
 addressed as believers, as having embraced the gospel, as having 
 put on Christ, and as being, in virtue of their baptism as an act 
 of faith, the children of God. When a man was baptized unto 
 Christ, he was baptized unto his death; he professed to regard 
 himself as being united to Christ, as dying when he died, as 
 bearing in him the penalty of sin, in order that he might be 
 reconciled to God, and live unto holiness. How could a man 
 who was sincere in receiving baptism, such being its design and 
 import, live in sin ? The thing is impossible. The act of faith
 
 304 ROMANS VI. 4. 
 
 implied and expressed in baptism, is receiving Christ as oui 
 sanctification as well as our righteousness. " Extra controver- 
 aiam est," says Calvin, "induere nos Christum in baptismo; et 
 hac lege nos baptizari, ut unum cum ipso simus." Baptism, 
 therefore, as an act of faith, as the formal reception of Christ 
 as our Saviour, brings us into intimate union with him: "For 
 as many as have been baptized unto Christ, have put on 
 Christ." Gal. iii. 27. And this baptism has special reference 
 to the death of Christ ; we are baptized unto his death. That 
 .8, we are united to him in death. His death becomes ours ; 
 ours as an expiation for sin, as the means of reconciliation with 
 God, and consequently as the means of our sanctification. 
 Although justification is the primary object of the death of 
 Christ, yet justification is in order to sanctification. He died 
 that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous 
 of good works. If such is the intimate connection between jus- 
 tification and sanctification in the purpose of God in giving his 
 Son to die for us, there must be a like intimate connection 
 between them in the experience of the believer. The very act 
 of faith by which we receive Christ as the propitiation for sin, 
 is spiritually a death to sin. It is in its very nature a renun- 
 ciation of everything which it was the design of Christ's death 
 to destroy. Every believer, therefore, is a saint. He renounces 
 sin in accepting Christ. 
 
 VERSE 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 death. This is an inference from ver. 3, to confirm the proposi- 
 tion in ver. 2, viz. that those dead in sin cannot live therein. 
 Therefore, says the apostle, such being the nature of our union 
 with Christ, expressed in baptism, it follows, that those who are 
 baptized are buried with Christ; they are as effectually shut 
 out from the kingdom of Satan, as those who are in the grave 
 are shut out from the world. The words dca TO~J ftaxr la par o? 
 e/c TOV ddvarov go together ; by baptism unto death, i. e. by a 
 baptism which has reference to Christ's death, and by which we 
 are associated with him therein. We are buried with him, i. e. 
 we are cut off from the world in and with him. If the words 
 unto death are connected with we were buried, the sense would 
 oe, we were buried unto death, i. e. we were buried so as to come 
 .nto the power of death. But this is an incongruous idea, and
 
 ROMANS VI. 4. 
 
 an unexampled form of expression. As in ver. 3, the aj ostle had 
 said si? rov &O.VO.TOV auroi> ^3a/-rrrer^^v, there is no reason to 
 doubt that he here designs to speak of baptism unto death, 
 Compare Col. ii. 12, "buried with him in baptism." The same 
 idea is expressed in ver. 8, by saying "we are dead with him," 
 and in ver. 5, " we are planted with him in the likeness of his 
 death." It is not necessary to assume that there is any refer- 
 ence here to the immersion of the body in baptism, as though 
 it were a burial. No such allusion can be supposed in the next 
 verse, where we are said to be planted with him. The reference 
 is not to the mode of baptism, but to its effect. Our baptism 
 unites us to Christ, so that we died with him, and rose with him. 
 As he died to sin, so do we ; as he rose to righteousness and 
 glory, so do we. The same doctrine concerning baptism, and 
 of the nature of union with Christ, therein expressed, is taught 
 in Gal. iii. 27, and Col. ii. 12. 
 
 That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
 of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
 We die with Christ, in order that we should live with him. We 
 share in his death, that we may be partakers of his life. Justi- 
 fication is in order to sanctification. The two are inseparable. 
 There can be no participation in Christ's life without a partici- 
 pation in his death, and we cannot enjoy the benefits of his- 
 death unless we are partakers of the power of his life. We 
 must be reconciled to God in order to be holy, and we cannot 
 be reconciled without thereby becoming holy. Antinomianism, 
 or the doctrine that the benefits of the atonement can b& 
 enjoyed without experiencing the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
 is therefore contrary to the very nature and design of redemp- 
 tion. As Christ died and rose again literally, so his people die 
 and rise spiritually. As Christ's resurrection was the certain 
 consequence of his death, so is a holy life the certain conv 
 sequence of our dying with Christ. There is not only aa 
 analogy between Christ's literal death and resurrection, and the 
 spiritual death and resurrection of the believer, but there is a 
 causal relation between the two. The death and resurrection; 
 of Christ render certain the justification and sanctification of 
 his people. Paul says Christ rose, did. rrfi 80^ roD Udrpo^ 
 by the glory of the Father, doza, glory, is the excellence 
 20
 
 306 ROMANS VI. 5. 
 
 of God, the sum of all his perfections, or any one perfection 
 specially manifested. The exhibition, therefore, of God's holi- 
 ness, or of his mercy, or of his power, is equally an exhibition 
 of his glory. Here the reference is to his omnipotence, which 
 was gloriously displayed in the resurrection of Christ. In 
 1 Cor. vi. 14, and 2 Cor. xiii. 4, it is said Christ was raised, 
 Ix dui>dfji(t)z 6$oi>, by the power of God. In Col. i. 11, the 
 apostle refers the sanctification of believers to the xftdro; r^c 
 SAgrfi &ou, to the power of his glory. It is according to the 
 analogy of Scripture, that the same event is attributed at one 
 time to the efficiency of the Father, and at another to that of 
 the Son. Christ rose from the dead by his own power. He 
 had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it 
 again. This is perfectly consistent with the apostle's declara- 
 tion, that he was raised by the power of God. The three per- 
 sons of the Trinity are one God. The efficiency of the Father 
 is also the efficiency of the Son. What the Father does, the 
 Son also does. That we should walk in newness of life, iv 
 K(u^6rrp:t ^wr^. The idea of purity is associated with that of 
 ' newness in the word of God a neiv heart, a new creature, the 
 new man. Newness of life is a life that is new, compared with 
 what is natural and original ; and it is a holy life, springing 
 from a new source. It is not we that live, but Christ that 
 liveth in us; and therefore our life is, in its manifestations, 
 analogous to his. His people are like him. 
 
 VERSE 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness 
 0f his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. 
 This is a confirmation of what precedes. We shall walk in 
 newness of life, if we are partakers of Christ's death, for com- 
 munity of death involves community of life. The general 
 meaning of the verse is plain, although there is doubt as to the 
 force of some of the words, and as to the construction. First, 
 as to the words. Calvin and many others render a'j/jL<fi>i:oz 
 insitus, inserted, engrafted, as though it were derived from 
 <f>VTU(o. It is, however, from yuca, which means both to bear 
 and to grow. Hence <rj/ji<pL>To<; sometimes means born with, in 
 the sense of innate ; sometimes it expresses community of 
 origin, or nature, in the sense of cognate, congenial ; and some- 
 times it IB used in reference to things born or produced at the
 
 ROMANS VI. 5. 307 
 
 same time. From the other meaning of the word <p'Ja), come 
 the senses groiving with, overgrown with, &c. In all cases there 
 is the idea of intimate union, and that is the idea which the 
 word is here intended to express. As to the construction, so 
 far as the first clause of the verse is concerned, we may connect 
 a'jjjupUToe with bfjtoi(t>fj.aTi, we have grown together in death, i. e. 
 been united in a like death; or we may supply the words r^J 
 Xpiaraj, we have been united with Christ, as to, or by, simi- 
 larity of death. The former, as it requires nothing to be sup- 
 plied, is to be preferred. In the second clause, the word 
 bfj.ottb-a.Tt may be supplied, as in our version: we shall be 
 (united) in the likeness of his resurrection. But as ffufjupirroi; 
 may be construed with the genitive as well as the dative, many 
 commentators unite ffu/jupuTot r^c dvaa-rdffscoz IffOfjts&a, we shall 
 partake of the resurrection. The sense is the same: if united 
 in death, we shall be united in life ; if we die with him, we shall 
 live with him. The future iabfj.e&a does not here express obli- 
 gation, nor futurity. The reference is not to what is to happen 
 hereafter, but to the certainty of sequence, or causal connection^ 
 If the one thing happens, the other shall certainly follow. The 
 doctrine of this passage is not simply that the believer dies and 
 rises, as Christ died and rose ; that there is in analogy between 
 his death and theirs; but, as before remarked, the main idea is, 
 the necessary connection between the death and resurrection of 
 Christ and the death and resurrection of his people. Such is 
 the union between them and him, that his death and resurrec- 
 tion render theirs a matter of necessity. The life or death 
 of a tree necessitates the life or death of the branches. Says 
 Calvin, "Insitio, non tantum exempli conformitatem designat, 
 sed arcanam conjunctionem per quam cum ipso coaluimus, ita 
 ut nos Spiritu suo vegetans ejus virtutem in nos transfundat. 
 Ergo ut surculus communem habet vitae et mortis conditionena 
 cum arbore in quara insertus est ; ita vitae Christi non minus 
 quam et mortis participes nos esse consentaneum est." That 
 the resurrection here spoken of is a spiritual rising from the 
 dead, seems plain, both from what precedes and from what 
 follows. The whole discussion relates to sanctification, to the 
 necessary connection between the death of Christ as an atone- 
 ment for sin, and the holiness of his people. Those who are
 
 ROMANS VI. 6. 
 
 cleansed from the guilt of sin, are cleansed also from its pollu- 
 tion. Although this is obvious, yet all reference to the future 
 resurrection of the body is not to be excluded. In chap. viii. 11, 
 the apostle represents the quickening of our mortal bodies as a 
 necessary consequence of our union with Christ, and the indwell- 
 ing of his Spirit. If, therefore, we are baptized unto the death 
 of Christ, united and conformed to him in his death, the sure 
 result will be, that we shall be conformed to him in a holy life 
 here, and in a life of glorious immortality of the soul and body 
 hereafter. All this is included in the life which flows to us 
 from Christ. 
 
 VERSE 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with 
 him, &c. What in the preceding verses is represented as the 
 consequence of our union with Christ as a matter of doctrine, is 
 here presented as a matter of experience. We are united to 
 Christ as our head and representative, so as to be partakers of 
 his death and resurrection, as a matter of law or of right. 
 What is thus done, as it were, out of ourselves, is attended by 
 an analogous spiritual experience. This knowing, i. e. expe- 
 riencing this. Our inward experience agrees with this doctrinal 
 statement. Our old man, that is, our corrupt nature as opposed 
 to the new man, or holy nature, which is the product of rege- 
 neration, and the effect of our union with Christ. In Eph. 
 iv. 22, 24, we are exhorted to put off the ^old man, and to put 
 on the new man. Col. iii. 8, 9. The Scriptures everywhere 
 assert or assume the fall and native depravity of man. We are 
 born the children of wrath. We are aliens from the common- 
 wealth of Israel, without God, and without hope. This is the 
 inward state and outward condition in which every man comes 
 into the world. Through the redemption that is in Christ, a 
 radical change is effected; old things pass away, all things 
 become new. The old man, the nature which is prior in the 
 order of time, as well as corrupt, is crucified, and a nature new 
 and holy is induced. The word man is used, because it is no 
 one disposition, tendency, or faculty that is changed, but the 
 man himself; the radical principle of his being, the self. Hence 
 Paul uses the pronoun / "I am sold under sin;" "I cannot 
 io the things that I would." It is plain from this whole repre- 
 sentation, that regeneration is not merely a change of acts, or
 
 ROMANS VI. 6. 309 
 
 <f the affections in distinction from the understanding, but a 
 change of the whole man. Another thing is also plain, viz. that 
 such a radical change of nature cannot fail to manifest itself in 
 a holy walk and conversation. This is what Paul here insists 
 upon. To the believer who knows that the old man is crucified 
 with Christ, the objection that gratuitous justification leads to 
 licentiousness, is contradictory and absurd. The old man is 
 said to be crucified, not because the destruction of the principle 
 of sin is a slow and painful process, but because Christ's death 
 was by crucifixion, in which death we were associated, and 
 because it is from him, as crucified, the death of sin in us pro- 
 ceeds. " Hunc veterem hominem dicit esse affixum cruci Christi, 
 quia ejus virtute conficitur. Ac nominatim allusit ad crucein, 
 quo expressius indicaret non aliunde nos mortificari, quam ex 
 ejus mortis participatione." 
 
 That the body of sin might be destroyed. " The body of sin" 
 is only another name for "the old man," or rather for its con- 
 crete form. The design of our crucifixion with Christ is the 
 destruction of the old man, or the body of sin ; and the design 
 of the destruction of the inward power or principle of evil, is 
 our spiritual freedom. This latter idea the apostle expresses 
 by saying, that henceforth we should not serve sin, i. e. be in 
 bondage to it. The service of sin is a fiouhla, a slavery, a state 
 from which we cannot free ourselves ; a power which coerces 
 obedience in despite of the resistance of reason, conscience, and 
 as the apostle teaches, even of the will. It is a bondage from 
 which we can be delivered in no other way than by the death 
 of the inward principle of evil which possesses our nature, and 
 lies back of the will, beyond the reach of our power, and which 
 can be destroyed only by union with Christ in his death, who 
 died for this very purpose, that he might deliver us from the 
 bondage of corruption, and introduce us into the glorious liberty 
 of the sons of God. Compare John viii. 34 ; Heb. ii. 14 16. 
 Although the general sense of this verse is thus plain, there is 
 great diversity of opinion as to the precise meaning of the words 
 aa)fj.a r7fi &ftafrletf t body of sin. 1. Some say it means the 
 sinful body, that is, the body which is the seat and source of 
 sin. But it is not the doctrine of the Bible, that sin has its 
 source in matter ; it is spiritual in its nature and origin. The
 
 310 ROMANS VI. 7. 
 
 body is not its source, but its instrument and sla?e. Moreover, 
 the design of Christ's death is never said to be to destroy the 
 body. 2. Others say that atofjLa means the physical body, not 
 as the source, but as the appurtenance of sin, as belonging to 
 it, and ruled by it. But this is subject in part to the same 
 objection. 3. Others say that awp.a means mass, "the mass 
 of sin." "Corpus peccati," says Calvin, "non camera et ossa, 
 sed massam designat ; homo enim naturae propriae relictus massa 
 eat ex peccato conflata.'' 4. Others assume that aaj/jta has the 
 same sense as odp, corrupt nature; so that "body of sin" 
 means our "sinful, carnal nature." This no doubt is the idea, 
 but it is not expressed by the word aojfia, which is not equiva- 
 lent to <rdpz. 5. Others take atopa, in accordance with the 
 Rabinical use of the corresponding Hebrew word, to mean 
 essence, or substance; for which, however, there is no authority 
 from the usus loquendi of the Scriptures. 6. Perhaps the most 
 satisfactory view is that of those who understand the phrase as 
 figurative. Sin is personified. It is something that has life, is 
 obeyed ; that can be put to death. It is represented as a body, 
 or organism ; as having its members. Compare Col. iii. 5. In 
 Gol. ii. 11, the apostle speaks of putting off " the body of the 
 sins of the flesh," by which he means the totality of our corrupt 
 nature. So here, "the body of sin," is sin considered as a 
 body, as something which can be crucified. 
 
 VERSE 7. For he that is dead is free from sin. The Greek 
 here is, 6 fan dxo&awoy dsoexaitoTcu OTTO ri^c d.p.aoria^, for he 
 who has died is justified from sin. The particle f a. ft, for, shows 
 that this verse is a confirmation of what precedes : ' The believer 
 (he who is by faith united to Christ in his death) cannot any 
 longer serve sin, for he who has died is justified from sin.' The 
 word axoftawov may be taken in a physical, a moral, or a mys- 
 tical sense. If in a physical sense, then the meaning is, that 
 death frees from sin. This may be understood in two ways: 
 first, on the theory that the body is the source of sin, death, or 
 freedom from the body, involves freedom from sin ; or, secondly, 
 Joiith considered as a penalty, is the expiation of sin; so that 
 ne who dies, is judicially free from sin. Some who adopt this 
 interpretation, suppose that the apostle sanctions the unscrip- 
 cural Jewish doctrine, (see Eisenmenger's Entdeckt. Judenthum,
 
 ROMANS VI. 7. Jll 
 
 II., p. 283,) that death is the full penalty of sin, and therefore 
 its expiation. Others say he is to be understood as speaking 
 only of sin or guilt in relation to human law : ' He who has 
 died for his crime is free from guilt or further liability.' In 
 either way, the. only relation which this verse, when understood 
 of physical death, can have to the apostle's argument, is that 
 of an illustration : 'As the man who has suffered for his crime 
 is freed from it, so he who is crucified with Christ is free from 
 sin. In- either case the power of sin is destroyed.' If the moral 
 sense of the word be adopted, then the meaning is either, ' he 
 who is spiritually dead is free from sin,' (which amounts to 
 saying, 'he that is holy is holy;') or, 'he who is spiritually 
 dead is justified from sin.' But this last sense is utterly 
 unsuited to the context, and implies that spiritual death, or 
 holiness, is the ground of justification ; which is contrary to all 
 Scripture, and especially to Paul's doctrine. The mystical sense 
 of the word is the only one consistent with the context. The 
 apostle has not been speaking of natural death, but of death 
 with Christ; of the believer being crucified with him. It is of 
 that he is now speaking. He had just said that the believer 
 cannot continue to serve sin. He here gives the reason : for 
 he who has died (with Christ) is justified, and therefore free 
 from sin, free from its dominion. This is the great evangelical 
 truth which underlies the apostle's whole doctrine of sanctifica- 
 tion. The natural reason assumes that acceptance with a holy 
 and just God must be founded on character, that men must be 
 holy in order to be justified. The gospel reverses this, and 
 teaches that God accepts the ungodly ; that we must be justi- 
 fied in order to become holy. This is what Paul here assumes 
 as known to his readers. As justification is the necessary 
 means, and antecedent to holiness, he that is justified becomes 
 holy; he cannot live m sin. And he who is dead, i. e. with 
 Christ, (for it is only his death that secures justification,) is jus- 
 tified from sin. To be justified from sin means to be delivered 
 from sin by justification. And that deliverance is twofold; 
 judicial deliverance from its penalty, and subjective deliverance 
 from its power. Both are secured by justification ; the former 
 directly, the other consequentially, as a necessary sequence. 
 Compare Gal. ii. 19, 20, vi. 14; Col. ii. 13, iii. 3; 1 Pet, iv. 1,
 
 ROMANS VI. 8. 
 
 and other passages in which the sanctification of believers is 
 represented as secured by the death of Christ. 
 
 VERSES 8 11. These verses contain the application of the 
 truth taught in the preceding passage: 'If we are dead with 
 Christ, we shall share in his life. If he lives, we shall live also. 
 As his life is perpetual, it secures the continued supplies of life 
 to all his members. Death has no more any dominion over 
 him. Having died unto, or on account of, sin once, he now ever 
 lives to, and with God. His people, therefore, must be con- 
 formed to him; dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God.' 
 This passage does not contain a mere comparison between the 
 literal death and resurrection of Christ, and the spiritual death 
 and resurrection of believers, but it exhibits the connection 
 between the death and life of the Redeemer and the sunctifica- 
 tion of his people. 
 
 VERSE 8. Now, if we be dead with Christ, &c. If the truth 
 stated in the preceding verses be admitted, viz. that our union 
 with Christ is such that his death secures our deliverance from 
 the penalty and power of sin, we believe we shall also live with 
 him. That is, we are sure that the consequences of his death 
 are not merely negative, i. e. not simply deliverance from evil, 
 moral and physical, but also a participation in his life. We 
 believe, i. e. we have a confidence, founded on the promise and 
 revealed purpose of God. It is not a conclusion of reason ; it 
 is not simply a hope, a peradventure ; it is a faith, an assured 
 conviction that God, after having justified us through the blood 
 of Christ, will not leave us spiritually defiled. We shall live, 
 auijaofj.si>, the future, referring not to what is to happen here- 
 after, but to what is the certain consequence of our union with 
 Christ. If we are united mystically with Christ in his death. 
 we shall certainly live with him, i. e. we shall certainly partake 
 of his life. As, however, this life is a permanent and eternal 
 life, as it pertains to the body as well as to the soul, a partici- 
 pation of his life now involves a participation of it, with all its 
 glorious consequences, for ever. To live with Christ, therefore, 
 includes two ideas; association with him, and similarity to him. 
 We partake of his life, and consequently our life is like his. 
 In like manner, since we die with him, we die as he died. So, 
 too, Tvhen we are said to reign with him, to be glorified together,
 
 ROMANS VI. 9. 313 
 
 both these ideas are included; see chap. via. IT, and many 
 similar passages. The life here spoken of is that "eternal life" 
 which believers are said to possess even in this world ; see John* 
 iii. 36, v. 24 ; and which is manifested here by devotion to God, 
 and hereafter in the purity and blessedness of heaven. It 
 includes, therefore, all the consequences of redemption. We 
 are not to consider the apostle as merely running a parallel 
 between the natural death and resurrection of Christ, and the 
 spiritual death and resurrection of his people, as has already 
 been remarked, but as showing that, in consequence of union to 
 him in his death, we must die as he died, and live as he lives. 
 That is, that the effect of his death is to destroy the power of 
 sin; and the result of his living is the communication and pre- 
 servation of Divine life to all who are connected with him. This 
 being the case, the objection stated in ver. 1 of this chapter, ia 
 seen to be entirely unfounded. This life of Christ, to which we 
 are conformed, is described in the following verses, first as per- 
 petual, and secondly, as devoted unto God. 
 
 VERSE 9. Knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, 
 dieth no more. Knowing ddorez is either equal to xai oi'da/iev, 
 and we know, thus introducing a new idea, or it is causal, 
 because we know. The latter is to be preferred. We are sure 
 we shall be partakers of the life of Christ, because we know 
 that he lives. Were he not a living Saviour, if his life were not 
 perpetual, he could not be the source of life to his people in all 
 ages. The perpetuity of Christ's life, therefore, is presented, 
 
 1. As the ground of assurance of the perpetuity of the life of 
 believers. We shall partake of the life of Christ, i. e. of the 
 spiritual and eternal blessings of redemption, because he ever 
 lives to make intercession for us, and to grant us those supplies 
 of grace which we need ; see chap. v. 10 ; John xiv. 19 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 23, &c. As death has no more dominion over him, there is 
 no ground of apprehension that our supplies of life will be cut 
 off. This verse, therefore, is introduced as the ground of the 
 declaration, "we shall live with him," at the close of ver. 8. 
 
 2. The perpetuity of the life of Christ is one of the points in 
 which our life is to be conformed to his. Christ dieth no more, 
 death hath no more dominion over him. This repetition is for 
 the sake of emphasis. Christ's subjection to death was volun-
 
 314 ROMANS VI. 10. 
 
 tary. It was not from a necessity of nature, nor from any 
 obligation to justice. He laid down his life of himself. He 
 voluntarily submitted to death for our sakes, and was the 
 master of death even in dying ; and therefore he is, so to speak, 
 in no danger of ever being subject to its power. The object of 
 his voluntary submission to death having been accomplished, he 
 lives for evermore. This is more fully expressed in the follow- 
 ing verse. 
 
 VERSE 10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once, &c. 
 He can never die again, for in dying he died once for all. By 
 the one offering of himself, he has for ever perfected them that 
 are sanctified. The apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 while arguing to show the necessity of the death of Christ as a 
 sacrifice for sin, argues also to show that such was the efficacy 
 of that sacrifice, it need not, and cannot be repeated. Heb. 
 vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
 
 In that he died, 6 d-e&avs; b may be taken absolutely, quod 
 attinet ad id, quod, as to that he died, so far as concerns his 
 dying; compare Gal. ii. 20; or the relative may be taken as 
 the object, the death he died. See Winer, III., -4. 4. 2. He 
 died unto sin, rfj a/tapria dxe&avsv, so far as the words are con- 
 cerned, admits of different interpretations. It may mean, he 
 died for the destruction of sin; or, he died for its expiation, i. e. 
 on account of sin ; or, in accordance with the force of the same 
 words in ver. 2, and the analogous expression, usxpouz TTJ 
 bpapria, dead to sin, ver. 11, he died as to sin, was by death 
 freed from sin. In this last sense, although the words are the 
 same, the idea is very different in the two cases. The believer 
 dies to sin in one sense, Christ in another. In both cases the 
 idea of separation is expressed ; but in the case of the believer, 
 it is separation from personal, indwelling sin ; in that of Christ, 
 it is separation from the burden of his people's sin, which he 
 bore upon the cross. The context and the argument favour this 
 last interpretation. Death has no more dominion over Christ, 
 for he died to sin ; by the one sacrifice of himself, he freed him- 
 self from the burden of sin which he had voluntarily assumed. 
 The law is perfectly satisfied; it has no further penalty to 
 inflict. Of course the same truth or doctrine is expressed, if the 
 )ther expositions of the phrase be preferred. It is only a
 
 KOMANS VI. 11. 315 
 
 question as to the form in which the same general truth is pre- 
 sented. Christ's death was for the destruction of sin, for its 
 expiation ; and it was a deliverance from it, i. e. from the burden 
 of its imputed guilt. He came the first time with sin ; he is to 
 come the second time without sin (without that burden,) unto 
 salvation. In that he liveth, he liveth unto Grod. This is said 
 in contrast to what precedes. He died unto sin, he lives unto 
 God. So must the believer. Death must be followed by life ; 
 the one is in order to the other. It is of course not implied that 
 our Lord's life on earth was not a living unto God, i. e. a living 
 having God for its end and object. The antithetical expression 
 is used simply to indicate the analogy between Christ and his 
 people. They must be freed from sin, and be devoted to God, 
 because their Lord and Saviour, in whose death and life they 
 share, died unto sin, and lives unto God. Many of the Fathers, 
 and some later interpreters, take T(p dzq> as equivalent to TTJ 
 dwdjj.se TOU 6eoo, by the power of Grod. But this is unsuited to 
 the connection. It is not the source of Christ's life, but the 
 nature of it, as perpetual and holy, that the apostle would bring 
 into view. Olshausen says T(JJ Ssaj means for Grod, i. e. for 
 righteousness, as opposed to sin, in the first clause : " He died 
 for the destruction of sin, he lives for the promotion of right- 
 eousness." But this is unnecessary, and inconsistent with the 
 context. 
 
 VERSE 11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead 
 indeed unto sin, but alive unto Grod, &c. What is true in itself, 
 should be true in their convictions and consciousness. If in 
 point of fact believers are partakers of the death and life of 
 Christ; if they die with him, and live with him, then they 
 should so regard themselves. They should receive this truth, 
 with all its consoling and sanctifying power, into their hearts, 
 and manifest it in their lives. So also ye, OVTCO xai //?c a 
 point may be placed after fy/sTc; so that the sense is, so also are 
 ye, as is done by Griesbach and others. The simpler and more 
 common method is to read the words continuously: so also 
 regard ye yourselves as dead to sin, vsxpobc TTJ a/jtapriqi; not 
 reckon yourselves to be dead, as the word dvat, although found 
 in the common text, is omitted by almost all the critical editors, 
 on the authority of the oldest manuscripts, and the sense is
 
 >16 ROMANS VI. 111. 
 
 complete without it ; Aortsadat rtvd rt, means to regard one as 
 something. Believers are to look upon themselves in their true 
 light, viz. a% dead to *m, freed from its penalty and dominion. 
 This is a freedom which belongs to them as believers, and there- 
 fore the apostle adds, ev Xptarw 'lytrou, not through, but -in 
 Christ Jesus, that is, in virtue of union with him. These words 
 belong equally to both clauses of this verse. It is in Christ that 
 the believer is dead to sin, and alive to God. The old man is 
 crucified ; the new man, the soul as renewed, is imbued with a 
 new life, of which God is the object; which consists in fellow- 
 ship with him, and which is manifested by devotion to his 
 service, and by obedience to his will. The words our Lord, 
 T(p Kuplqj fa&v, are not found in the best manuscripts. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 
 
 1. Truth cannot lead to unholiness. If a doctrine encourages 
 sin, it must be false, vs. 1, 2. 
 
 2. There can be no greater contradiction and absurdity that 
 for one who lives in sin to claim to be a Christian, ver. 2. 
 
 3. Antinomianism is not only an error, it is a falsehood and 
 a slander. It pronounces valid the very objection against the 
 gospel which Paul pronounces a contradiction and absurdity, 
 and which he evidently regards as a fatal objection, were it well 
 founded, vs. 2 4, &c. 
 
 4. Baptism includes a profession of the religion taught by 
 him in whose name we are baptized, and an obligation to obey 
 his laws, vs. 3, 4. 
 
 5. The grand design of Christianity is the destruction of sin. 
 When sincerely embraced, therefore, it is with a view to this 
 end, ver. 3. 
 
 6. The source of the believer's holiness is his union with 
 Christ, by which his reconciliation to God, and his participation 
 of the influences of the Holy Spirit are secured, vs. 4, 6. 
 
 7. The fact that Christ lives, renders it certain that his people 
 shall live in holiness here, and in glory hereafter, ver. 8. 
 
 8. The only proper evidence that we are partakers of the 
 benefits of the death and life of Christ, is our dying to sin, and 
 living to God, ver. 11.
 
 ROMANS VI. 111. 317 
 
 9. The gospel, which teaches the only true methc/d of justifi- 
 cation, is the only system that can secure the sanctification of 
 men. This is not only the doctrine of this section, but it is the 
 leading truth of this and the following chapter. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1 As the most prominent doctrinal truth of this passage is, 
 that the death of Christ secures the destruction of sin wherever 
 it secures its pardon ; so the most obvious practical inference 
 is, that it is vain to hope for the latter benefit, unless we labour 
 for the full attainment of the former, vs. 2 11. 
 
 2. For a professing Christian to live in sin, is not only to 
 give positive evidence that he is not a real Christian, but it is 
 to misrepresent and slander the gospel of the grace of God, to 
 the dishonour of religion, and the injury of the souls of men, 
 vs. 211. 
 
 3. Instead of holiness being in order to pardon, pardon is in 
 order to holiness. This is the mystery of evangelical morals, 
 ver. 4, &c. 
 
 4. The only effectual method of gaining the victory over our 
 sins, is to live in communion with Jesus Christ ; to regard his 
 death as securing the pardon of sin, as restoring us to the Divine 
 favour, and as procuring for us the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit. It is those who thus look to Christ not only for pardon, 
 but for holiness, that are successful in subduing sin ; while the 
 legalist remains its slave, vs. 6, 8. 
 
 5. It is a consolation to the believer to know, that if he has 
 evidence of being now a Christian, he may be sure that he shall 
 live with Christ. As long and as surely as the head lives, so 
 long and so surely must all the members live, ver. 8, &c. 
 
 6. To be in Christ is the source of the Christian's life ; to be 
 like Christ is the sum of his excellence ; to be with Christ ia 
 the fulness of his joy, vs. 2 11.
 
 318 ROMANS VI. 12. 
 
 ROMANS VI. 1223. 
 
 < 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 PAUL having shown, in the preceding section, that union with 
 Christ secures not only the pardon, hut the destruction of sin, 
 exhorts his brethren to live agreeably to the nature and design 
 of the gospel, vs. 12, 13. As an encouragement in their efforte 
 to resist their corruptions, he assures them that sin shall not 
 have dominion over them, because they are not under the law, 
 but under grace, ver. 14. This is another fundamental princi- 
 ple in the doctrine of sanctification. Holiness is not attained, 
 and cannot be attained by those who, being under the law, are 
 still unreconciled to God. It is necessary that we should enjoy 
 his favour, in order to exercise towards him right affections. 
 This doctrine is not justly liable to the objection, that we may 
 sin with impunity if not under the law, ver. 15. The true 
 situation of the Christian is illustrated by a reference to the 
 relation between a servant and his master. Believers, before 
 conversion, were the servants of sin; after it, they are the 
 servants of righteousness. Formerly they were under an influ- 
 ence which secured their obedience to evil ; now they are undei 
 an influence which secures their obedience to good. The con- 
 sequence of the former service was death ; of the present, life. 
 The knowledge of these consequences tends to secure the con- 
 tinued fidelity of the Christian to his new Master, vs. 16 23. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal 
 body, &c. This is a practical inference (obv) from what pre- 
 cedes. Since the believer is in fact united to Christ in his 
 death and life, he should live accordingly. The exhortation 
 contained in this and the following verse has a negative and 
 positive form yield not to sin, but give yourselves up to 
 God corresponding to the clauses, dead to sin, and alive unto 
 God, in ver. 11. To reign signifies to exercise uncontrolled 
 authority. Sin, although mortified in the believer, is not
 
 ROMANS VI. 12. 819 
 
 destroyed. Its power to injure remains after its dominion is 
 overthrown. The exhortation is, that we should not yield to 
 this dethroned adversary of Christ and the soul, but strenu- 
 ously strive against its efforts to gain ascendency over us, and 
 to bring us again into bondage. Let not sin reign in your 
 mortal body. This is a difficult clause. 1. Mortal body may 
 be a periphrase for you: 'Let not sin reign within you;' as 
 in the next verse, your members may stand for yourselves. 
 2. Others say that d-vyroz (mortal] is to be taken in the figura- 
 tive sense in which vexp6c, dead, i. e. corrupt, is often used. 
 8. Others take oatpa. in the sense of ffdp, corrupt nature, 
 including everything in man as fallen, which is not due to the 
 indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Thus Calvin says, "Nuper 
 admonui vocem Corporis non pro carne et cute et ossibus accipi, 
 sed pro tota hominis massa, ut ita loquar. Id certius colligere 
 licet ex praesenti loco : quia alterum membrum, quod mox sub- 
 jiciet de corporis partibus, ad animum quoque extenditur. Sic 
 autem crasse Paulus terrenum hominem significat." He says' 
 the word mortal is used, "per contemptum, ut doce*', totam 
 hominis naturam ad mortem et exitium inclinare." So also 
 Philippi, among the modern commentators, says that here, as 
 as in Rom. viii. 10, 13, (where $avaTo~jv rc ~pdgs:<; TOO aa>/jta- 
 roc is opposed to xara adpxa ijv,) aiofjia is the antithesis, of 
 rtvsiifia, the latter being the soul as pervaded by the Spirit 
 of God, and the former our nature considered as corrupt. This, 
 however, is so contrary to the general usage of Scripture, that 
 the ordinary sense of the words is to be preferred. Paul does 
 not teach that the body is the source of sin, nor its exclusive or 
 principal seat ; but it is the organ of its manifestation. It is 
 that through which the dominion of sin is outwardly revealed. 
 The body is under the power of sin, and that power the apostle 
 would have us resist ; and on the other hand, the sensual appe- 
 tites of the body tend to enslave the soul. Body and soul are 
 so united in a common life, that to say, ' Let not sin reign in 
 your mortal body,' and to say, 'Let not sin reign in you,' 
 amount to the same thing. When we speak of sin as dwelling 
 in the soul, we do not deny its relation to the body; so neither 
 does the apostle, when he speaks of sin dwelling in the body, 
 mean to deny its relation to the soul.
 
 320 ROMANS VI. 13. 
 
 That ye should obey it (ayny, i. e. sin,) in the lusts thereof. 
 (ayroy, viz. of the body.) We should not obey sin by yielding 
 to carnal appetites. The common text has here, c ro UTTOXOU- 
 etv ai>Ty kv ra?c ixt&ufjdatz ayroy. Knapp, Lachmann, and 
 other editors, adopt the simpler and better authenticated read- 
 ing, /c "b u~axo'jtv rale Ixt&u pious ayroy, to obey its lusts, i. e. 
 the lusts of the body. "A man," says Olshausen, "must 
 always serve. There is no middle ground between the service 
 of sin and the service of God. We have justification completely, 
 or we have it not at all. Sanctification, as springing from a 
 living faith, and as the fruit of God's love to us, admits of 
 degrees, and may be more or less earnestly cultivated ; but this 
 determines, not our salvation, but only the measure of future 
 blessedness. No wisdom or caution," he adds, "can guard this 
 doctrine from misunderstanding, whether such misunderstand- 
 ing arise unintentionally from the understanding, or designedly 
 from insincerity of heart. It nevertheless is the only way 
 which leads to God, in which the sincere and humble cannot 
 err." "The key to the mystery," he goes on to say, "that the 
 doctrine of redemption, although not demanding good works, 
 produces them, is to be found in the fact that love excites love 
 and the desire for holiness. Hence obedience is no longer 
 slavish. We strive to obey, not in order to be saved or to 
 please God, but because God saves us without works or merit 
 of our own, whom, because he is reconciled in the Beloved, we 
 delight to serve." 
 
 VERSE 13. Neither yield ye your members, &c. Do not 
 permit sin to reign in you, nor yield your powers as its instru- 
 ments. Neither yield, fMjds KaptardvsTe. The word means to 
 place by, to present, (as an offering,) Luke ii. 22 ; Rom. xii. 1 ; to 
 give up to the power or service of, vs. 16, 19, &c. Your members, 
 either literally, members of the body, the eye, ear, hand, &c., 
 or figuratively, your powers, whether of mind or body. The 
 choice between the literal and figurative interpretation depends 
 on the view taken of the preceding verse. If there aca^a 
 (body) be understood literally, then your members can only 
 mean the members of the body ; but if mortal body is there a 
 periphrase for you, then your members must mean your facul- 
 ties. The pity (members) are the parts of which the
 
 ROMANS VI. 14. 321 
 
 consists ; and therefore if the a&}ia stands for the whule person, 
 the members must include all our powers, mental as well as cor- 
 poreal. In vii. 5, Paul says that sin " did work in our mem- 
 bers;" and in ver. 23, he speaks of "a law in his members." 
 In neither of those cases is the reference exclusively to the 
 body. As instruments of unrighteousness. That is, instru- 
 ments which unrighteousness uses, or which are employed to 
 effect unrighteousness. The word oxXa is generic ; it is used in 
 the general sense of instruments, for the tackle of a ship, the 
 tools of an artisan, though most frequently for weapons. On 
 account of this general usage, and of Paul's own use of the 
 word in xiii. 12, "armour of light," (2 Cor. vi. 7, "armour of 
 righteousness," and 2 Cor. x. 4, "the weapons of our warfare,") 
 many prefer the restricted sense in this place. Our members 
 are regarded as weapons which sin uses to regain its dominion, 
 or the predominance of unrighteousness. The context, however, 
 does not favour the assumption of this allusion to a strife ; and 
 therefore the general sense of instruments, or implements, is 
 more in keeping with the rest of the passage. But yield your- 
 selves unto Grod ; d/Aa napaarrjaare, but, on the contrary, pre- 
 sent yourselves, i. e. give yourselves up to God, not only your 
 several powers, but your very selves, a dedication which of 
 necessity involves that of each separate faculty. In the first 
 clause of the verse the present tense, Tie/wrefosre, is used; 
 here it is the first aorist, present yourselves once for all. As 
 alive from the dead, i. e. as those who having been dead, are 
 now alive. Having been quickened by the power of God, 
 raised from the death of sin and all its dreadful consequences, 
 they were bound to live unto God. Who, having been restored 
 to life, would desire to return to the loathsomeness of the- 
 grave? And, i. e. and especially, your members (i. e. TtzptoTa- 
 vT, present your members) as instruments of righteousness to 
 God. Present all your powers to God, to be employed by him 
 as implements of righteousness ; that is, instruments by which 
 righteousness may be effected. 
 
 VERSE 14. For sin shall not have dominion over you, &c. 
 
 The future here is not to be understood as expressing either a 
 
 command or an exhortation, not only because the third, and 
 
 not the second person is used, but also because of the conneo 
 
 21
 
 322 ROMANS VI. 14. 
 
 tion, as indicated by for. We should yield ourselves to God, 
 for sin shall not have dominion, &c. It is not a hopeless strug- 
 gle in which the believer is engaged, but one in which victory 
 is certain. It is a joyful confidence which the apostle here 
 expresses, that the power of sin has been effectually broken, 
 and the triumph of holiness effectually secured by the work 
 of Christ. The ground of the confidence that sin shall not have 
 dominion, is to be found in the next clause : For ye arc not 
 under the laiv, but under grace. By law here, is not to be 
 understood the Mosaic law. The sense is not, ' Sin shall 
 not have dominion over you, because the Mosaic law is abro- 
 gated.' The word is to be taken in its widest sense. It is the 
 rule of duty, that which binds the conscience as an expression 
 of the will of God. This is plain : 1. From the use of the word 
 through this epistle and other parts of the New Testament. 
 2. From the whole doctrine of redemption, which teaches that 
 the law from which we are delivered by the death of Christ, is 
 not simply the Mosaic law ; we are not merely delivered from 
 Judaism, but from the obligation of fulfilling the law of God as 
 the condition of salvation. 3. Deliverance from the Mosaic 
 law does not secure holiness. A man may cease to be a Jew, 
 and yet not be a new creature in Christ Jesus. 4. The anti- 
 thesis between law and grace shows that more than the law of 
 Moses is here intended. If free from the Mosaic law, they may 
 still be under some ot'uer law, and as little under grace as the 
 Pharisees. To be under the law is to be under the obligation to 
 fulfil the law of God as a rule of duty, as the condition of salva- 
 tion. Whosoever is under the law in this sense, is under the 
 curse; for the law says, "Cursed is every one who continueth 
 not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." As 
 no man is free from sin, as no man can perfectly keep the com- 
 mandments of God, every man who rests upon his personal 
 conformity to the law, as the ground of his acceptance with God, 
 must be condemned. We are not under the law in this sense, 
 but under grace ; that is, under a system of gratuitous justifica- 
 tion. We are justified by grace, without works. We are not 
 tinder a legal dispensation, requiring personal conformity to the 
 law, and entire freedom from sin, past and present, as the con- 
 dition of our acceptance ; but we are under a gracious dispensa-
 
 ROMANS VI. 15. 323 
 
 tion, according to which God dispenses pardon freely, and accepts 
 the sinner as a sinner, for Christ's sake, without works or merit 
 of his own. Whoever is under the law in the sense just ex- 
 plained, is not only under condemnation, but he is of necessity 
 under a legal or slavish spirit. What he does, he does as a 
 slave, to escape punishment. But he who is under grace, who 
 is gratuitously accepted of God, and restored to his favour, is 
 under a filial spirit. The principle of obedience in him is love, 
 and not fear. Here, as everywhere else in the Bible, it is 
 assumed that the favour of God is our life. We must be recon- 
 ciled to him before we can be holy ; we must feel that he loves 
 us before we can love him. Paul says it was the love of Christ 
 to him, that constrained him to live for Him who thus loved him 
 and gave Himself for him. The only hope therefore of sinners, 
 is in freedom from the law, freedom from its condemnation, free- 
 dom from the obligation to fulfil it as the condition of accept- 
 ance, and freedom from its spirit. Those who are thus free, who 
 renounce all dependence on their own merit or strength, who 
 accept the oifer of justification as a free gift of God, and who 
 are assured that God for Christ's sake is reconciled to them, 
 are so united to Christ that they partake of his life, and their 
 holiness here and salvation hereafter are rendered perfectly 
 certain. 
 
 VERSE 15. What then f shall we sin, because we are not 
 under the law, but under grace ? G-od forbid. Because works 
 are not the ground of our justification; because we are justified 
 freely by his grace, are we at liberty to sin without fear and 
 without restraint ? Does the doctrine of gratuitous salvation 
 give a license to the unrestrained indulgence of all evil ? Such 
 has been the objection to the doctrines of grace in all ages. 
 And the fact that this objection was made to Paul's teachings, 
 proves that his doctrine is the same with that against which the 
 same objection is still urged. As the further consideration of 
 this difficulty is resumed in the following chapter, the apostle 
 here contents himself with a simple negation, and a reference 
 to the constraining influence under which the freely pardoned 
 sinner is brought, which renders it as impossible for him to 
 serve sin, as it is for the slave of one man to be obedient to 
 another man.. The slave must serve his own master.
 
 824 ROMANS VI. 16. 
 
 VERSE 16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yidd yourselves 
 servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, &c. 
 'Know ye not that those who obey sin are its slaves; hurried 
 on from one degrading service to another, until it works their 
 ruin ; but those who serve holiness are constrained, though 
 sweetly, to constancy and fidelity, until the glorious consum- 
 mation of their course?' As a servant or slave is under an 
 influence which secures obedience to his master, so also, in 
 spiritual or moral relations, a man who serves sin is under an 
 influence which secures the continuance of his obedience, and 
 he who serves holiness is under an influence which effectually 
 secures the constancy of his service. This being the case, it is 
 not possible for the Christian or servant of holiness to be found 
 engaged in the service of sin. The language and the construc- 
 tion are here nearly the same as in ver. 13. Here, as there, 
 we have xsptaTdvere in the sense of giving up to the power and 
 disposal of. Paul says, that those who give themselves up to 
 another as douXovs f faaxoyv, slaves to obedience, are the douXot 
 of him whom they thus obey. It enters into the idea of slavery, 
 that the subjection is absolute and continued. The slave does 
 not obey his own will, but his master's. He is subject not for 
 a time, but for life. He is under an influence which secures 
 obedience. This is as true in spiritual as in external relations. 
 He who serves sin is the slave of sin. He is under its power. 
 He cannot free himself from its dominion. He may hate his 
 bondage ; his reason and conscience may protest against it ; his 
 will may resist it ; but he is still constrained to obedience. This 
 is the doctrine of our Lord, as taught in John viii. 34 : "He that 
 committeth sin is the slave of sin." This remains true, although 
 this service is unto death: "The wages of sin is death." The 
 death intended is spiritual and eternal. It is the absolute loss 
 of the life of the soul, which consists in the favour and fellow- 
 ship of God, and conformity to his image. What is true of sin 
 is true of holiness. He who by virtue of union with Christ is 
 made obedient to God, becomes, as Paul says, a 5oy>lof bnaxorjC, 
 a slave of obedience. Obedience (personified) is the master to 
 which he is now subject. He is not only bound to obey, but he 
 is made to obey in despite of the resistance of his still imper- 
 fectly sanctified nature. He cannot but obey. The point of
 
 ROMANS VI. 17. 325 
 
 analogy to which reference is here made, is the certainty of the 
 effect, and the constraining influence by which that effect is 
 secured. In the case both of sin and of holiness, obedience is 
 certain; and it is rendered certain by a power superior to the 
 will of man. The great difference is, that in the one case this 
 subjection is abnormal and destructive, in the other it is normal 
 and beneficent. A wise man is free in being subject to his 
 reason. The more absolute and constant the authority of 
 reason, the more exalted and free is the soul. In like manner, 
 the more completely God reigns in us, the more completely we 
 are subject to his will, so much the more are we free ; that is, 
 so much the more do we act in accordance with the laws of our 
 nature and the end of our being. Servants of obedience unto 
 righteousness; dixcuoffitvy must here be taken in its subjective 
 sense. It is inward righteousness, or holiness. And in this 
 sense it is eternal life, and therefore antithetical to ddvaroi;, 
 which is spiritual and eternal death. The service of sin results 
 in death, the service of God results in righteousness ; that is, in 
 our being right, completely conformed to the image of God, in 
 which the life of the soul consists. 
 
 VERSE 17. But G-od be thanked, that ye were the servants 
 of sin ; but ye have obeyed from the heart, &c. As it is the 
 apostle's object to show that believers cannot live in sin, inas- 
 much as they have become the servants of another master, he 
 applies the general truth stated in the preceding verses more 
 directly to his immediate readers, and gives thanks that they, 
 being emancipated from their former bondage, are now bound 
 to a master whose service is perfect liberty. The expression in 
 the first member of this verse is somewhat unusual, although 
 the sense is plain : " God be thanked, that ye were the servants 
 of sin ;" that is, that this slavery is past ; or, ' God be thanked, 
 that ye, being the servants of sin, have obeyed,' &c. 
 
 Ye have obeyed from the heart; this obedience is voluntary 
 and sincere. They had not been passively transferred from 
 one master to another ; but the power of sin being broken, they 
 gladly renounced their bondage, and gave themselves unto God. 
 Ye obeyed, says the apostle, the form of doctrine which was 
 delivered to you. The TU~OZ diSaffiz, the form of doctrine, may 
 mean the doctrine which is a TUXOZ, a model or standard to
 
 326 ROMANS VI. 18. 
 
 which we should conform sentiendi agendique n,rma et regula. 
 Calvin says it means "expressam justitiae imaginein, quam 
 cordibus nostris Christus insculpsit." Another explanation 
 assumes ry-oc to be equivalent to form, contents, or substance 
 of the doctrine. Compare fibptptuocz ~7fi p^<To>~, ii. 20. The 
 former explanation is sustained by a reference to 2 Tim. i. 13, 
 where Paul speaks of a faortnroHiff byuuvovcwv \bf<ov, a form 
 of sound words; that is, sound words which are a pattern or 
 standard of faith. Compare Acts xxiii. 25 : ' Having written 
 an epistle containing this type,' i. e. form of words. By form 
 of doctrine is to be understood the Gospel, either in its limited 
 sense of the doctrine of gratuitous justification through Christ, 
 of which the apostle had been speaking ; or in its wider sense 
 of the whole doctrine of Christ as a rule both of faith and prac- 
 tice. The former includes the latter. He who receives Christ 
 as priest, receives him as a Lord. He who comes to him for 
 justification, comes also for sanctification ; and therefore obedi- 
 ence to the call to put our trust in Christmas our righteousness, 
 implies obedience to his whole revealed will. The words ur^- 
 eJc ov 7:aps8b&r^s rjxov 3:3affiz, may be resolved thus, 
 rs. ru~w dtdayr^, e:z ov xapsdo&r^s, ye have obeyed the 
 type of doctrine to which ye have been delivered. That is, the 
 mould into which, as it were, ye have been cast ; as Beza says, 
 the gospel is regarded " quasi instar typi cujusdam, cui veluti 
 immittamur, ut ejus figurse conformemur." This last idea is 
 unnatural : Y ov xapsdofyrs is either equivalent to o? ~apzo- 
 b&r t u/jui>, which was delivered unto you, (see Winer, 24. 2,) 
 or, to which ye were delivered, "cui divinitus traditi estis." 
 That is, to which ye were subjected. The intimation is, that 
 faith in the gospel is the gift of God, and obedience is our con- 
 sequent act. "The passive (~a ( 0co6^r,)" says Philippi, "indi- 
 cates the passive relation of men to the work of regeneration, 
 of which his activity (fanpto'jffccrs] is the consequence, according 
 to the familiar dictum : Ita a Spiritu Dei agimur ut ipsi quoque 
 agamus." 
 
 VERSE 18. Being made free from sin, ye became the servants 
 of righteousness. 4 This verse may be regarded as the conclusion 
 from what precedes, 3s being used for ouv : 'Being freed then 
 from sin,' &c.; or it may be connected immediately with ver. 17.
 
 ROMANS VI. 19. 327 
 
 a comma instead of a period intervening : ' Ye have obeyed the 
 form of doctrine, having been freed," &c. The latter is better. 
 Freed by the grace of God from sin as a despotic master, ye 
 became the servants, kdouXw^rs, ye were made slaves to right- 
 eousness. It was not license, but a change of masters, that 
 they had experienced. This being the case, it is impossible 
 they should serve sin; they have now another master. A 
 manumitted slave does not continue subject to his former 
 master. "Absurdum est, ut post manumissionem quis in servi- 
 tutis conditione maneat. Observandum, quomodo nemo possit 
 justitiae servire nisi Dei potentia et beneficio prius a peccati 
 tyrannide liberatus." Calvin. To the same effect our Lord 
 says : " If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed." 
 John viii. 36. This subjection to righteousness is perfect 
 liberty. It is the subjection of the soul to God, reason, and 
 conscience, wherein true liberty consists. This being the case, 
 the apostle in the following verse explains the reason why he 
 used a figure apparently so incongruous, in speaking of the 
 relation of the believer to righteousness. 
 
 VERSE 19. / speak after the manner of men, av&pibxivov 
 Asfa); I say what is human, i. e. common among men. The 
 only difference between this expression and the more common 
 phrase, xr' dv&pcoxov ^e^o), is, that the former characterizes as 
 human the thing said, and the other the manner of saying it. 
 The idea in this case is the same. The apostle means to say, 
 that he uses an illustration drawn from the common relations 
 of men, to set forth the relation of the believer to God. The 
 slave is bound to serve his master; the obedience of the believer 
 to God is no less certain. The one is slavery, because the obe- 
 dience is independent of the will, and coerced; the other is 
 perfect freedom, because rendered from the heart, and with full 
 consent of the will. Yet both are a douhca, so far as certainty 
 of obedience us concerned. This is the common and natural 
 interpretation of this clause. Others, however, take avfrpioTiivov 
 in the sense in which it is used in 1 Cor. ix. 22. There it is 
 opposed to what is superhuman, beyond the strength of man to 
 bear : ' I demand only Avhat is human. The obedience required 
 is, on account of the weakness of your flesh, only such as you 
 are able to render. For as ye served sin, so you can serve
 
 328 ROMANS VI. 19. 
 
 righteousness. The one is as easy as the other. The one is 
 the measure of the other.' But this does violence to the con- 
 nection. The owr/T ( oinio do not refer to the measure of the 
 obedience, but to the change of masters : 'As ye served sin, so 
 now serve God.' Besides, the principle that the measure of 
 obedience is determined by our ability, is utterly at variance 
 with the word of God and the dictates of conscience. The 
 eimple design of the apostle in this passing or parenthetical 
 remark is, to state the reason why he designated our new rela- 
 tion to God a slavery. He used this illustration, he says, on 
 account of the weakness of their flesh; not intellectual weak- 
 ness, but such as arose from the adf), their nature as corrupt. 
 It was their lack of spirituality which rendered such illustra- 
 tions necessary. The ?dp (for) of the next clause refers to 
 ver. 18: 'Being freed from sin, ye became the servants of 
 righteousness; for as ye yielded your members,' &c. Your 
 members, yourselves, your various faculties, with special refer- 
 ence to their bodily organs as the outward, visible instruments 
 of evil. Ye yielded your members, doitta, bound. This is the 
 only passage in the New Testament in which do~j),oz is used as 
 an adjective. They yielded their members to uncleanness and 
 to iniquity, Ty dxa&aoaia xal rjy dvopia. These two words 
 express the same thing under different aspects. Sin subjec- 
 tively considered is pollution, a defilement of the soul ; rela- 
 tively to the law of God, it is dvopia, what is unlawful, what 
 fails of conformity to the law. In the next clause, unto 
 iniquity, the word is used in a wider sense. They gave them- 
 selves up to iniquity, that is, to do evil ; f"c try dvo/uav being 
 equivalent to ec ?b xotsiv dvopiav. Men give themselves up 
 to sin as a master, to do what the law forbids. The same 
 idea is expressed, if e/c TT/V dvo/jtiav means, for the mani- 
 festation of iniquity. So now yield your members as servants 
 to righteousness. Having been delivered from bondage to the 
 tyrant sin, ye should act as becomes your new relation, and 
 be obedient to your new master, even to him who hath bought 
 you with his blood. To righteousness, unto holiness, c &f(- 
 aafjiov, so as to be pure in heart and life. The proximate result 
 of obedience to God is inward conformity to the Divine image. 
 Compare 1 Thess. itf. 3, 4, 7.
 
 ROMANS VI. 2021. 329 
 
 VERSE 20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free 
 from righteousness. This verse introduces a confirmation of 
 what precedes. The foregoing exhortation is enforced by the 
 consideration developed in vs. 21, 22, that the service of sin 
 is death. The particle rdp, therefore, is used in" its common 
 sense, for, and not namely. Formerly, when the slaves of sin, 
 ye were Ih'j&epoi rfj dcxatoao^ that is, either ' free in the esti- 
 mation of righteousness,' ("An ille mihi liber, cui mulier impe- 
 rat?" Cicero;) or, what is more natural, as to righteousness; 
 so far as righteousness is concerned, ye were free. Righteous- 
 ness had no power over you; your service was rendered to 
 another master. This is not to be understood ironically, as 
 though the apostle designed to refer to their former state as one 
 of freedom in their estimation. It is the simple statement of a 
 fact of experience. While the servants of sin, they did not and 
 could not serve righteousness. Here are two services, which is 
 to be preferred ? This is the question which the apostle pre- 
 sents for their consideration. 
 
 VERSE 21. The sense of this verse depends mainly on the 
 pointing. It may be read thus : ' What fruit had ye then of 
 those things of which ye are now ashamed ? (Answer, None,) 
 for the end of those things is death.' Or, 'What fruit had ye 
 then? (Answer, Such,) of which ye are now ashamed, for,' &c. 
 The choice between these interpretations is not very easy, and 
 accordingly commentators are about equally divided between 
 them. The Vulgate, the English version, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, 
 Meyer, Fritzshe, &c., adopt the former. Luther, Melancthon, 
 Koppe, Tholuck, De Wette, Olshausen, &c., the latter. The 
 decision seems to depend principally on the meaning given to 
 the phrase, to have fruit. If this means, to derive benefit, then 
 the sense is, ' What benefit did you derive from the things of 
 which you are now ashamed ?' The natural answer is, ' None ; 
 a course of conduct which ends in death can yield no benefit.' 
 This gives a pertinent sense : it is suited to ver. 22, where fruit 
 may also mean advantage; and especially it agrees best with 
 the words itp o?c, which otherwise must refer to xapnbv, (fruit 
 of which,) which is not natural. In favour of the second inter- 
 pretation, however, it is urged that fruit is never in the New 
 Testament used of reward or emolument, but always of acts
 
 330 ROMANS VI. 21. 
 
 The familiar illustration io that of a tree whose fruit is good or 
 bad according to its nature. According to this view, Paul 
 means to ask, 'What fruit did you then produce? Such,' he 
 answers, ' of which you are now ashamed.' Besides this general 
 use of the word (fruit,) it is urged that in ver. 22, this is the 
 natural sense of the word: "Ye have your fruit unto holiness;" 
 that is, 'Ye produce fruit which tends to holiness.' "This 
 figure," says Olshausen, "is the more significant, because it is 
 so directly opposed to that Pelagianism which is so congenial 
 with our fallen nature. The natural man, destitute of the 
 knowledge of God, of himself, and of sin, dreams thaj; by his 
 own strength and efforts he can produce a form of virtue which 
 can stand before the bar of God. He does not know that of 
 necessity, and by a law of his nature, he can only produce evil 
 fruit, just as a wild tree can produce only bitter fruit. Even 
 should he succeed in calling into exercise all the good he has in 
 the most perfect form, it is so destitute of love, and so cor- 
 rupted by conceit, that it merits condemnation, as fully as 
 though the life were openly immoral. The beginning of truth, 
 of which holiness, (which is true liberty,) by a like organic 
 necessity and law of nature, is the fruit, is for man the 
 acknowledgment that death reigns in him, and that he must 
 be imbued with life." All this is true, and all this is really 
 involved in the familiar figure which our Lord uses to illus- 
 trate the relation between the state of the heart and of the 
 outward life. But this does not seem to be the idea which 
 the apostle here intends to present. The phrase, xan-bv 
 xoiiiv, does indeed always mean to produce fruit, and figura- 
 tively, to do good or evil ; but xapxbv l/srv, to have fruit, 
 means to have the advantage, or profit. Thus, in i. 13, Paul 
 says: "That I might have some fruit among you;" i. e. that 
 he might gain something, win some souls for Christ. If this 
 be the true meaning of the phrase here, then the former of the 
 two interpretations is to be preferred. What advantage had 
 you of the service of sin ? None ; for the end of those things, 
 the r^oc, the final result of the service of sin, is death; not 
 physical death, but the death of the soul, final and hopeless 
 perdition. Such was their former condition ; to this the con- 
 trast is given in the next verse.
 
 ROMANS VI. 2223. 331 
 
 VERSE 22. But now, being made free from sin, 
 
 dxb r^c bftaptiaz; having been emancipated from one 
 master, dooXcad-s^T^ Ss T(p 6s(p, and become slaves to Grod, i. e. 
 being subject to his controlling influence by the power of his 
 Spirit, ye have your fruit unto holiness; that is, the benefit or 
 effect derived from the service of God is holiness. Sanctifica- 
 tion is the proximate result of this new service. And the end 
 eternal life. The final issue of this service is complete salva- 
 tion; the restoration of the soul to the favour and enjoyment 
 of God for ever. " Quemadmodum duplicem peccati finem ante 
 proposuit, ita nunc justitiae. Peccatum in hac vita malae con- 
 scientise tormenta affert, deinde aeternam mortem. Justitiae 
 prsesentem fructum colligimus, sanctificationem : in futurum, 
 speramus vitam aeternam." 
 
 VERSE 23. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of Grod 
 is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. The reason why 
 death is the result of sin is, that sin deserves death. Death is 
 due to it in justice. There is the same obligation in justice, 
 that sin should be followed by death, as that the labourer should 
 receive his wages. As it would be unjust, and therefore wrong, 
 to defraud the labourer of his stipulated reward, so it would 
 be unjust to allow sin to go unpunished. Those, therefore, who 
 hope for pardon without an atonement, hope that God will in 
 the end prove unjust. The word d</>a>via is, strictly, the rations 
 of soldiers ; in a wider sense, the same as dvTifxa&la, or /#<7$oc, 
 anything which is due as a matter of debt. But the gift of 
 Grod, TO 3s ydpcapa TOII 6soi>, the free, unmerited gift of God, 
 is eternal life. The connection between holiness and life is no 
 less certain than that between sin and death, but on different 
 grounds. Sin deserves death ; holiness is itself the gift of God, 
 and is freely crowned with eternal life. The idea of merit is 
 everywhere and in every way excluded from the gospel method 
 of salvation. It is a system of grace, frcrai the beginning to 
 the consummation. Through (rather in) Jesus Christ our 
 Lord. It is in Christ, as united to him, that we are made 
 partakers of eternal life. Jesus Christ and his gospel, then, 
 instead of being the ministers of sin as the Jews, and since 
 them, the opponents of the doctrines of grace, confidently 
 asserted effectually secure what the law never could accom-
 
 332 ROMANS VI. 1223. 
 
 plish, an obedience resulting in holiness here, and in eternal 
 life hereafter. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The leading doctrine of this section, and of the whole 
 gospel, in reference to sanctification, is, that grace, instead of 
 leading to the indulgence of sin, is essential to the exercise 
 of holiness. So long as we are under the influence of a self- 
 righteous or legal spirit, the motive and aim of all good works 
 are wrong or defective. The motive is fear, or some merely 
 natural affection, and the aim, to merit the bestowment of good. 
 But when we accept of the gracious offers of the gospel, and 
 feel that our sins are gratuitously pardoned, a sense of the 
 divine love, shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit, 
 awakens all holy affections. The motive to obedience is now 
 love, and its aim the glory of God, ver. 14, &c. 
 
 2. Paul teaches that it is not only obligatory on Christians 
 to renounce the service of sin, but that, in point of fact, the 
 authority and power of their former master are destroyed, and 
 those of their new master experienced, whenever they embrace 
 the gospel. This is the very nature of the change. The charge, 
 therefore, that the gospel leads to the service of sin, is an 
 absurdity, vs. 15 18. 
 
 3. Religion is essentially active. It is the yielding up of our- 
 selves, with all our powers, to God, and the actual employment 
 of them as instruments in doing good. Nothing can be at a 
 greater remove from this, than making religion a mere matter 
 of indolent profession, (a saying, Lord, Lord,) ver. 12, &c. 
 
 4. Both from the nature of things, and the appointment of 
 God, the wages of sin is death. It renders intercourse with 
 God, who is the fountain of life, impossible. It consists in the 
 exercise of feelings, *n their own nature, inconsistent with hap- 
 piness; it constantly increases in malignity, and in power to 
 destroy the peace of the soul. Apart from these essential 
 tendencies, its relation to conscience and the justice of God, 
 renders the connection between sin and misery indissoluble 
 Salvation in sin is as much a contradiction, as happiness in 
 misery, vs. 21, 23.
 
 ROMANS VI. 1223. 333 
 
 5. Eternal life is the GIFT of God. It does not, like eternal 
 death, flow, as a natural consequence, from anything in us. 
 With the holy angels, who have never lost the favour of God. 
 this may be the case. But the tendency of all that belongs to 
 us, is to death ; this must be counteracted ; those excellences, 
 in which life consists, and from which it flows, must be pro- 
 duced, sustained, and strengthened by the constant, condescend- 
 ing, and long-suffering grace of the Holy Spirit. The life thus 
 graciously produced, and graciously sustained, is at last gra- 
 ciously crowned with eternal glory, vs. 22, 23. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. We should cultivate a sense of the Divine favour as a 
 means to holiness. We must cease to be slaves, before we can 
 be children. We must be free from the dominion of fear, before 
 we can be under the government of love. A self-righteous 
 spirit, therefore, is not more inconsistent with reliance on the 
 righteousness of Christ, in order to justification, than it is with 
 the existence and progress of sanctification. Whatever tends 
 to destroy a sense of the Divine favour, must be inimical to 
 holiness. Hence the necessity of keeping a conscience void of 
 offence, and of maintaining uninterrupted our union with Christ 
 as our sacrifice and advocate, ver. 14, &c. 
 
 2. Those Christians are under a great mistake, who suppose 
 that despondency is favourable to piety. Happiness is one of 
 the elements of life. Hope and joy are twin daughters of piety, 
 and cannot, without violence and injury, be separated from 
 their parent. To rejoice is as much a duty as it is a privilege, 
 ver. 14, &c. 
 
 3. Sinners are slaves. Sin reigns over them ; and all their 
 powers are delivered to this master as instruments of unright- 
 eousness. He secures obedience with infallible certainty ; his 
 bonds become stronger every day, and his wages are death. 
 From his tyranny and recompense there is no deliverance by 
 the law ; our only hope is in Jesus Christ our Lord, vs. 12, 
 13, 16, &c. 
 
 4. Christians are the servants of God. He reigns over them, 
 and all their powers are consecrated to him. He, too, secures
 
 334 ROMANS VII. 1 25. 
 
 fidelity, and his bonds of love and duty become stronger every 
 day. His reward is eternal life, vs. 12, 13, 16, &c. 
 
 5. It is of God, that those who were once the servants of sin, 
 become the servants of righteousness. To him, therefore, all 
 the praise and gratitude belong, ver. 17. 
 
 6. When a man is the slave of sin, he commonly thinks him- 
 self free ; and when most degraded, is often the most proud. 
 When truly free, he feels himself most strongly bound to God ; 
 and when most elevated, is most humble, vs. 20 22. 
 
 7. Self-abasement, or shame in view of his past life, is the 
 necessary result of those views of his duty and destiny, which 
 every Christian obtains when he becomes the servant of God, 
 ver. 21. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE apostle, having shown in the preceding chapter that the 
 doctrines of grace do not give liberty to sin, but, on the con- 
 trary, are productive of holiness, in this chapter first illustrates 
 and confirms his position, that we are not under the law, but 
 under grace, and shows the consequences of this change in our 
 relation to God. While under the law, we brought forth fruit 
 unto sin ; when under grace, we bring forth fruit unto right- 
 eousness. This occupies the first section, vs. 1 6. The second, 
 vs. 7 25, contains an exhibition of the operation of the law, 
 derived from the apostle's own experience, and designed to 
 show its insufficiency to produce sanctification, as he had before 
 proved it to be insufficient for justification. This section con- 
 sists of two parts, vs. 7 13, which exhibit the operation of 
 the law in producing conviction of sin ; and vs. 14 25, which 
 show that in the inward conflict between sin and holiness, the 
 law cannot afford the believer any relief. His only hope of 
 v/ctory is in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
 ROMANS VII. 1. 335 
 
 ROMANS VII. 16. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THIS section is an illustration of the position assumed in 
 ver. 14 of the preceding chapter: we are not under law, but 
 under grace. Paul remarks, as a general fact, that the author- 
 ity of laws is not perpetual, ver. 1. For example, the law of 
 marriage binds a woman to her husband only so long as he 
 lives. When he is dead, she is free from the obligation which 
 that law imposed, and is at liberty to marry another man, 
 vs. 2, 3. So we, being free from the law, which was our first 
 husband, are at liberty to marry another, even Christ. We are 
 freed from the law by the death of Christ, ver. 4. The fruit 
 of our first marriage was sin, ver. 5. The fruit of the second 
 is holiness, ver. 6. 
 
 The apparent confusion in this passage arises from the apos- 
 tle's not carrying the figure regularly through. As a woman is 
 free from obligation to her husband by his death, so we are free 
 from the law by its death, is obviously the illustration intended. 
 But the apostle, out of respect probably to the feelings of his 
 readers, avoids saying the law is dead, but expresses the idea 
 that we are free from it, by saying, we are dead to the law by 
 the body of Christ. " Cseterum nequis conturbetur, quod inter 
 se comparata membra non omnino respondent: prsemonendi 
 sumus, apostolum data opera voluisse exigua inversione deflec- 
 tere asperioris verbi invidiam. Debuerat dicere, ut ordine simi- 
 litudinem contexeret: Mulier post mortem viri soluta est a 
 conjugii vinculo, Lex, quse locum habet mariti erga nos, mortua 
 est nobis : ergo sumus ab ejus potestate liberi. Sed ne offend- 
 eret Judseos verbi asperitate, si dixisset legem esse mortuam, 
 deflectione est usus, dicens nos legi esse mortuos." Calvin. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that 
 know the law,} how that the law hath dominion over a man as 
 long as he liveth ? In the English version of the words rj d.fvo- 
 etre, the particle yj, or, is overlooked. As that particle is almost
 
 336 ROMANS VII. 1. 
 
 always used in reference to the immediately preceding context, 
 Meyer and others insist on connecting this verse with vi. 23 . 
 'The gift of God is eternal life; or are ye ignorant.' That is, 
 you must recognize eternal life as a gift, unless ye are ignorant 
 that the law does not bind the dead. But this is evidently 
 forced. The idea which 9 is used to recall, is that in vi. 14: 
 "Ye are not under the law, but under grace." This is the 
 main idea in the whole context, and is that which the following 
 passage carries out and enforces. The thing to be proved is, 
 that we are not under the law. The proof is, that the law does 
 not bind the dead. But we are dead, therefore we are free from 
 the law. This idea, that the law binds a man only so long as he 
 lives, is presented as a general principle, and is then illustrated 
 by a specific example. That example is the law of marriage, 
 which ceases to bind the parties when one of them is dead. So 
 the law, as a covenant of works, ceases to bind us when death 
 has loosed its bonds.- We are as free as the woman whose hus- 
 band is dead. "Sit generalis propositio," says Calvin, "legem 
 non in alium finem latam esse hominibus, quam ut prsesentem 
 vitam moderetur: apud mortuos nullum ei superesse locum. 
 Cui postea hypothesin subjiciet, nos illi esse mortuos in Christi 
 corpore." Brethren; a mode of address applicable to all 
 believers. He speaks to his spiritual brethren, and not to the 
 Jewish converts alone, his brethren according to the flesh. For 
 I speak to them that know the law. That is, I speak to you aa 
 to persons who know the law ; not, I speak to those among you 
 who know the law. He does not distinguish one class of his 
 readers from another. That would require the participle in the 
 dative, ro?c ftvtboxoumv, to the knowers, as opposed to those 
 among them who did not know. He assumes that all his read- 
 ers were fully cognizant of the principle, that the law has 
 dominion over a man so long as he liveth. What law does the 
 apostle here refer to it? It may be understood of law without 
 any restriction. Law, all laws, (in the aspect in which they are 
 contemplated,) bind a man only so long as he lives. Or, it may 
 mean specifically the Mosaic law ; or, more definitely still, the 
 marriage law. There is no reason for these limitations. The 
 proposition is a general one; though the application is doubt- 
 less to the law of which he had been speaking, and specially to
 
 ROMANS VII. 1. 337 
 
 the law referred to in vi. 14, from which he says we are now 
 free. That certainly is not the Mosaic law consider ed as a tran- 
 sient economy, or as a system of religious rites and ceremonies 
 designed for one people, and for a limited period. It is the 
 Mosaic law considered as a revelation of the moral law, which 
 is holy, just, and good, and which says, "Thou shalt not 
 covet." He illustrates the mode of our deliverance from that 
 law, as a covenant of works, by a reference to the admitted 
 fact, that law has no dominion over the dead. 
 
 The original leaves it doubtful whether the last clause of the 
 verse is to be rendered "as long as Tie lives," or "as long as it 
 lives." The decision of this point depends on the context. In 
 favour of the latter, it may be said, 1. That it is better suited 
 to the apostle's design, which is to show that the law is dead or 
 abrogated. 2. That in verse 6 (according to the common read- 
 ing) the law is spoken of as being dead. 3. And, especially,, 
 that in vs. 2, 3, the woman is said to be free from the law, not 
 by her own, but by her husband's death ; which would seem to- 
 require that, in the other part of the comparison, the husband 
 (i. e. the law) should be represented a dying, and not the wife, 
 that is, those bound by the law. But, on the other hand, it- 
 must be admitted that the law lives, and the law dies, are very 
 unusual modes of expression, and perfectly unexampled in 
 Paul's writings, if the doubtful case in ver. 6 be excepted, 
 2. This interpretation is inconsistent with ver. 2. It is not the 
 law that dies: "The woman is bound to her husband as long as 
 he liveth; but if the husband be dead," &c. 3. Throughout the 
 passage it is said that we are dead to the law (ver. 4,) delivered 
 from the law (ver. 0,) and not that the law is dead. The com- 
 mon interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred : ' The law has 
 dominion as long and no longer than the person lives, to whom 
 it has respect. For example, the law of marriage ceases to be 
 binding when one of the parties is dead.' Instead of under- 
 standing the words, as long as he liveth, of the natural or phy- 
 sical life, as is done by the great body of interpreters, Philippi 
 and others say the meaning is, ' That the law binds a man so 
 long as his natural, corrupt, unregenerated life continues. When* 
 the old man is crucified, he is free from the law.' We have 
 here, he says, the same idea as is expressed above, vi. 7, ' He- 
 22
 
 338 ROMANS VII. 23. 
 
 that dieth is justified from sin.' This interpretation is not only 
 unnatural, but it necessitates a forced allegorical interpretation 
 of the following verses. 
 
 VERSE 2. For the woman which hath a husband, fi>W] u~av- 
 dpoz, viro subjecta, married, answering to fis-'i* rinpi, Num. 
 v. 29. Is bound by the law to her living husband, TUJ (O!,TI 
 dvdpi, i. e. to her husband while living. But if her husband be 
 dead, she is freed from the law of her husband. Is freed from, 
 xanyp-ffToe A/TO is an expression which never occurs in common 
 Greek. The same idiom is found in ver. 6 of this chapter, and 
 in Gal. y. 4. Karapfsiv means to invalidate, to render void. 
 The idea is, that the relation to her husband is broken off, and 
 she is free. Law of her husband means law relating to her 
 husband. The phrase is analogous to those often used in the 
 Old Testament "law of the sacrifice;" "law of leprosy;" 
 "law of defilement." According to the common interpretation 
 of this verse, fdp (for) introduces a confirmatory illustration : 
 'Law is not of perpetual obligation; for example, a married 
 woman is free from the law which bound her to her husband, by 
 his death.' There is of course a slight incongruity between the 
 illustration and the form in which the principle is stated in the 
 first verse. There it is said that the law has dominion over a 
 man so long as he lives. The illustration is, that a wife is free 
 (not when she dies) when her husband dies. For this and other 
 reasons, many interpreters do not regard this verse as present- 
 ing an example, but as an allegory. Those who take this view, 
 give different explanations. After Augustin, Melancthon, Beza, 
 and others, say : ' The husband is our corrupt nature, (vis ilia 
 nativa, as Beza calls it, ciens in nobis aifectiones peccatorum ;) 
 the wife is the soul, or our members. When, therefore, the 
 corrupt nature (or old man) dies, the soul is free from that hus- 
 band, and is at liberty to marry another.' Others, with much 
 more regard to the context, say that the wife is the Church, 
 the husband the law; so Origen, Chrysostom, Olshausen, Phi- 
 lippi, &c. This is indeed the application which the apostle 
 makes in the following verses, but it is not what is said in 
 vs. 2, 3. Here we have only an example, illustrating the truth 
 of the assertion in ver. 1. 
 
 VERSE 3 is an amplification and confirmation of what is said
 
 ROMANS VII. 4. 339 
 
 in ver. 2 : That a woman is bound by the law to her husband as 
 long as he lives, is plain, because she is called an adulteress if 
 she marries another man while her husband lives. And that 
 she is free from that law when he dies, is plain, because she is 
 in that case no adulteress, though she be married to another 
 man. She shall be called, %pyfjiaTiffc, authoritatively and 
 solemnly declared to be. Xpy/jiarireiv (from %py[ta) is literally 
 to transact business, and specially the business of the state, to 
 give decisions, or decrees ; and specially in the New Testament, 
 to utter divine responses, oracula edere, divinitus admonere; see 
 Matt. ii. 12, 22 ; Luke ii. 26 ; Acts x. 22 ; Heb. viii. 5, xi. 7. 
 Compare Rom. xi. 4. 
 
 VERSE 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also have become dead 
 to the law by the body of Christ. As the woman is free from 
 the law by the death of her husband, so ye also (xac u/jieiz) are 
 freed from the law by the death of Christ. This is the applica- 
 tion made by the apostle of the illustration contained in vs. 2, 3. 
 The law is our first husband; we were bound to satisfy its 
 demands. But the law being dead, (i. e. fulfilled in Christ,) we 
 are free from the obligation of obedience to it as the condition 
 of justification, and are at liberty to accept the gospel. "Lex 
 velut maritus fuit," ays Calvin, "sub cujus jugo detinemur, 
 donee mortua est. Post legis mortem Christus nos assumpsit, 
 id est, a lege solutos adjunxit sibi. Ergo Christo e mortuis 
 suscitato copulati adhaerere ei soli debemus : atque ut aeterna 
 est Christi vita post resurrectionem, ita posthac nullum futurum 
 est divortium." Instead of saying, The law is dead, as the con- 
 sistency of the figure would demand, the apostle expresses the 
 same idea by saying, Ye are dead to the law, or rather, are 
 slain, put to death, k&avarai^rs. This form of expression is 
 probably used because the death of Christ, in which we died, 
 was an act of violence. He was put to death, and we in him. 
 To be slain to the law, means to be freed from the law by death. 
 Death, indeed, not our own, but ours vicariously, as we were 
 crucified in Christ, who died on the cross in our behalf, and in 
 our stead. It is therefore added, by the body of Christ, i. e. by 
 his body as slain. He redeemed us from the law by death ; " by 
 being a curse," Gal. iii. 13; "by his blood," Eph. i. 7, ii. 13; 
 "by his flesh," Eph. ii. 15; "by the cross," Eph. ii. 16; "by
 
 340 ROMANS VII. 4. 
 
 the body of his flesh," Col. i. 22. These are all equivalent 
 expressions. They all teach the same doctrine, that Christ 
 bore our sins upon the tree ; that his sufferings and death were 
 a satisfaction to justice, and, being so intended and accepted, 
 they effect our deliverance from the penalty of the law. We 
 are therefore free from it. Although the law continues ever- 
 more to bind us as rational creatures, it no longer prescribes 
 the conditions of our salvation. It is no longer necessary that 
 we should atone for our own sins, or work out a righteousness 
 such as the law demands. Christ has done that for us. We 
 are thus freed from the law, that we should be married to 
 another, set; TO fevsff&ae, as expressing the design. The proxi- 
 mate design of our freedom from the law, is our union with 
 Christ ; and the design of our union with Christ is, that we 
 should bring forth fruit unto God, that is, that we should be 
 holy. Here, therefore, as in the preceding chapter, the apostle 
 teaches that the law cannot sanctify ; that it is necessary we 
 should be delivered from its bondage, and be reconciled to God, 
 before we can be holy. He to whom we are thus united, is said 
 to be he who is raised from the dead. As Christ is spoken of, 
 or referred to as having died, it was appropriate to refer to him 
 as now living. It is to the living and Irfe-giving Son of God 
 that we are united by faith and the indwelling of the Spirit ; and 
 therefore it is that we are no longer barren or unfruitful, but 
 are made to bring forth fruit unto God. " Sed ultra progreditur 
 apostolus," says Calvin, "nempe solutum fuisse legis vinculum, 
 non ut nostro arbitrio vivamus, sicuti mulier vidua sui juris est, 
 dum in coelibatu degit; sed alteri marito nos jam esse devinc- 
 tos: irao de manu (ut aiunt) in manum a lege ad Christum 
 nos transiisse." 
 
 It need hardly be remarked, that the law of which the apos 
 tie is here speaking, is not the Mosaic law considered as the 
 Old Testament economy. It is not the doctrine of this or of 
 similar passages, that Christ has merely delivered us from the 
 yoke of Jewish institutions, in order that we may embrace the 
 simpler and more spiritual dispensation of the gospel. The law 
 of which he speaks, is the law which says, "The man that 
 doeth these things shall live by them," x. 5; Gal. iii. 10; that 
 is, which requires perfect obedience as the condition of accept-
 
 ROMANS VII. 4. 341 
 
 ance. It is that which says, "Thou shalt not covet," ver. 7; 
 without which sin is dead, ver. 8 ; which is holy, just and good, 
 ver. 12 ; which is spiritual, ver. 14, &c. It is that law by whose 
 works the Gentiles cannot be justified, chap. iii. 20 ; from whose 
 curse Christ has redeemed not the Jews only, but also the Gen- 
 tiles, Gal. iii. 13, 14. It is plain, therefore, that Paul here 
 means by the law, the will of God, as a rule of duty, no matter 
 how revealed. From this law, as prescribing the terms of our 
 acceptance with God, Christ has delivered us. It is the legal 
 system which says, "Do this and live," that Christ has abo- 
 lished, and introduced another, which says, "He that believes 
 shall be saved." Since, however, as remarked above (chap, 
 vi. 14,) the Old Testament economy, including the Mosaic insti- 
 tutions, was the form in which the law, as law, was ever present 
 to the minds of the apostle and his readers ; and since deliver- 
 ance from the legal system, as such, involved deliverance from 
 that economy, it is not wonderful that reference to that dis- 
 pensation should often be made ; or that Paul should at times 
 express the idea of deliverance from the law, as such, by terms 
 which would seem to express only deliverance from the particu- 
 lar form in which it was so familiar to his readers. So, too, in 
 the epistle to the Galatians, we find him constantly speaking of 
 a return to Judaism as a renunciation of the method of gratui- 
 tous justification, and a recurrence to a reliance on the right- 
 eousness of works. The reason of this is obvious. The Old 
 Testament dispensation, apart from its evangelical import, which 
 lay, like a secondary sense, beneath the cover of its institutions, 
 was but a reenactment of the legal system. To make, however, 
 as is so often done, the whole meaning of the apostle to be, that 
 we are freed from the Jewish law, is not only inconsistent in 
 this place with the context, and irreconcilable with many 
 express declarations of Scripture, but destructive of the whole 
 evangelical character of the doctrine. How small a part of the 
 redemption of Christ is deliverance from the Mosaic institutions ! 
 How slight the consolation to a soul, sensible of its exposure to 
 the wrath of God, to be told that the law of Moses no longer 
 condemns us ! How void of truth and meaning the doctrine, 
 that deliverance from the law is necessary to holiness, if the law 
 means the Jevish economy merely
 
 342 ROMANS VII. 5. 
 
 VERSE 5. For when we were in *he flesh, the motions of tin, 
 whinh were by the law, &c. The apostle having, in ver. 4, stated 
 that believers are freed from the law by the death of Christ, in 
 this and the following verse, shows the necessity and the con 
 sequences of this change : ' We have been thus freed, because 
 formerly, when under the law, we brought forth fruit unto 
 death ; but now, being free from the law, we are devoted to the 
 service of God.' The force of for, at the beginning of this 
 verse, is therefore obvious. The former legal state of believers 
 is here described by saying, they were in the flesh. In the 
 language of Scripture, the word flesh expresses, in such con- 
 nections, one or the other of two ideas, or both conjointly. 
 First, a state of moral corruption, as in chap. viii. 8, "Those 
 that are in the flesh ;" secondly, a carnal state, i. e. a state in 
 which men are subject to external rites, ceremonies, and com- 
 mands; or more generally, a legal state, inasmuch as among 
 the Jews, that state was one of subjection to such external 
 rites. Gal. iii. 3, " Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made 
 perfect by the flesh?" Compare Gal. iv. 9, where the expression 
 "weak and beggarly elements" is substituted for the phrase 
 "the flesh;" see Rom. iv. 1. In the present case, both ideas 
 appear to be included. The meaning is, * when in your unre- 
 nenewed and legal state.' The opposite condition is described 
 (ver. 6) as a state of freedom from the law ; which, of course, 
 shows that the second of the two ideas mentioned above was 
 prominent in the apostle's mind when he used the words " in 
 the flesh." In vi. 14, the apostle says, " Sin shall not have 
 dominion over you, for ye are not under the law;" and here, in 
 the exposition of that passage, he shows why it is that while 
 under the law, sin does have dominion. It is because, while in 
 that state of condemnation and alienation from God, the effect 
 of the law is to produce sin. He says the -a^tiara. -(bv &uap- 
 Tcatv are dia TO~J fopou. This does not mean that the passions 
 of sin (i. e. which manifest themselves in sinful acts) are simply 
 made known by the law, but they are by it, that is, produced 
 by it. The word Tiaftypara literally means what is suffered, 
 afflictions ; here it is used in a secondary sense for passions, 
 (motions, in the sense of emotions, feelings.) These two mean- 
 ings of the word are nearly allied, inasmuch as in passion, or
 
 ROMANS VII. 6. 343 
 
 feeling, the soul is rather the- subject than the agent These 
 sinful feelings, aroused by the law, the apostle says ew^j-elro, 
 wrought, (the word is here, as everywhere else in the New Tes- 
 tament, used in an active sense,) in our members; i. e. in us, 
 not merely in our bodily members, but in all our faculties, 
 whether of soul or body. To bring forth fruit; set; TO xaprro- 
 (popr^aac, as expressing the result, not the design. The effect 
 of the excitement of sinful feeling by the law, was 1 the produc- 
 tion of fruit unto death; 7(p davarw, as opposed to rw 0zw of 
 the preceding verse. Death is personified. He is represented 
 as a master, to whom our works are rendered. They belong to 
 him. Death, in other words, is the consequence or end secured 
 by our sins. The wages of sin is death. The consequence of 
 sinning is, that we die. The death here meant is no more mere 
 physical death than in vi. 23. It is that death which the law 
 of God threatens as the punishment of sin. 
 
 VERSE 6. But now, (vuvi ds, opposed to ors of ver. 5,) i. e. 
 since our conversion, we were freed from the law; xarypfy- 
 &-/jjjii> a.710 TOU vofj.oi), (the same idiom as in ver. 2.) How were 
 we thus freed from the law ? By death. If dno&avovToz, found 
 in the common text, is the true reading, (that having died,) then 
 it is by the death (i. e. the abrogation or satisfaction) of the law 
 that we are thus freed, even as the woman is freed by the death 
 of her husband. But if, as all modern editors agree, axo&avbv- 
 rsc (we having died} is the true reading, then it is by our own 
 vicarious death in Christ, our having died with him whose death 
 is a satisfaction to the law, that we are thus delivered. This is 
 in accordance with ver. 4, where it is said we died to the law. 
 The apostle says we died (TOUT(^) lv $ xaret^o/jis&a, (to that) by 
 which we were bound. The law held us under its authority, 
 and, as it were, in bondage ; from which bondage we have been 
 redeemed by death. So that, the consequence of this freedom 
 from the law is, we serve (God) in newness of the Spirit, and not 
 (sin) in the oldness of the letter. That is, we serve God in a 
 new and holy state due to the Spirit, which the Spirit has pro- 
 duced, and not sin in, or according to, the old and corrupt state 
 under the law. Neivness of the Spirit is that new state of mind 
 of which the Holy Ghost is the author. Oldness of the letter is 
 that old state of which the law is the source, in so far as it was
 
 344 ROMANS VII. 16. 
 
 a state of condemnation and enmity to God. That Hn^pa here 
 is the Holy Spirit, and not the human soul as renewed by the 
 Spirit, may be inferred from the general usage of the New Tes- 
 tament, and from such parallel passages as Gal. iii. 3, 2 Cor. 
 iii. 6, in both of which /rvc^a means the Gospel as the revela- 
 tion and organ of the Spirit. In the latter passage, the apostle 
 says, "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." There, as 
 here, the letter, -ppd/ifta, is what is written. The law is so desig- 
 nated because the decalogue, its most important part, was origi- 
 nally written on stone, and because the whole law, as revealed 
 to the Jews, was written in the Scriptures, or writings. It was 
 therefore something external, as opposed to what was inward 
 and spiritual. Luther's version of this passage gives the sense 
 in a few words : "Als dass wir dienen im neuen Wesen des 
 Geistes, und nicht im alten Wesen des Buchstaben." Believers 
 then are free from the law, by the death of Christ. They are 
 no longer under the old covenant, which said, "Do this and 
 live;" but are introduced into a new and gracious state, in 
 which they are accepted, not for what they do, but for what 
 has been done for them. Instead of having the legal and 
 slavish spirit which arose from their condition under the law, 
 they have the feelings of children. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The leading doctrine of this section is that taught in 
 ver. 14 of the preceding chapter, viz. that believers are not 
 under a legal system ; and that the consequence of their free- 
 dom is not the indulgence of sin, but the service of God, ver. 4. 
 
 2. This deliverance from the law is not effected by setting 
 the law aside, or by disregarding its demands ; but by those 
 demands being satisfied in the person of Christ, ver. 4, chap, 
 x. 4. 
 
 3. As far as we are concerned, redemption is in order to 
 holiness. We are delivered from the law, that we may be 
 united to Christ ; and we are united to Christ, that we may 
 bring forth fruit unto God, ver. 4, &c. 
 
 4. Legal or self-righteous strivings after holiness can never 
 De successful. The relation in which they place the soul to
 
 ROMANS VII. 16. 345 
 
 God is. from its nature, productive of evil, and not of holy 
 feelings, ver. 5. 
 
 5. Actual freedom from the bondage and penalty of the law 
 is always attended and manifested by a filial temper and obedi- 
 ence, ver. 6. 
 
 6. The doctrine concerning marriage, which is here inci- 
 dentally taught, or rather which is assumed as known to Jews 
 and Christians, is, that the marriage contract can only be dis- 
 solved by death. The only exception to this rule is given by 
 Christ, Matt. v. 32; unless indeed Paul, in 1 Cor. vii. 15, 
 recognizes wilful and final desertion as a sufficient ground of 
 divorce, vs. 2, 3. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. As the only way in which we can obtain deliverance from 
 the law is by the death of Christ, the exercise of faith in him 
 is essential to holiness. When we lose our confidence in Christ, 
 we fall under the power of the law, and relapse into sin. 
 Everything depends, therefore, upon our maintaining our union 
 with Christ. "Without me, ye can do nothing," ver. 4. 
 
 2. The only evidence of union with Christ is bringing forth 
 fruit unto God, ver. 4- 
 
 3. As deliverance from the penalty of the law is in order to 
 holiness, it is vain to expect that deliverance, except with a 
 view to the end for which it is granted, ver. 4. 
 
 4. Conversion is a great change ; sensible to him that expe- 
 riences it, and visible to others. It is a change from a legal 
 and slavish state, to one of filial confidence manifesting itself 
 by the renunciation of the service of sin, and by devotion to the 
 service of God, ver. 6. 
 
 5. A contract so lasting as that of marriage, and of which 
 the consequences are so important, should not be entered into 
 lightly, but in the fear of God, vs. 2, 3. 
 
 6. The practice, common in many Protestant countries of 
 Europe, and in many States of this Union, of granting divorces 
 on the ground of cruel treatment or 'incompatibility of temper,' 
 is in direct contravention of the doctrines and precepts of the 
 Bible on this subject, vs. 2, 3
 
 346 ' ROMANS VII. 7. 
 
 ROMANS VII. 713. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 PAUL, having shown that we must be delivered ft >m the law, 
 in order to our justification (chapters iii. iv.,) and that this 
 freedom was no less necessary in order to sanctification (chap, 
 vi., chap. vii. 1 6,) comes now to explain more fully than he 
 had previously done, what are the use and effect of the law. 
 This is the object of the residue of this chapter. The apostle 
 shows, first, vs. 7 13, that the law produces conviction of sin, 
 agreeably to his declaration in chap. iii. 20; and, secondly, 
 vs. 14 25, that it enlightens the believer's conscience, but 
 cannot destroy the dominion of sin. Tbis section, therefore, 
 may be advantageously divided into two parts'. Paul introduces 
 the subject, as is usual with him, by means of an idea intimately 
 associated with the preceding discussion. He had been insisting 
 on the necessity of deliverance from the law. Why ? Because 
 it is evil ? No ; but because it cannot produce holiness. It can 
 produce only the knowledge and the sense of sin ; which are the 
 constituents of genuine conviction. These two effects are attri- 
 buted to the operation of the law, in vs. 7, 8. These ideas are 
 amplified in vs. 9 11. The inference is drawn in ver. 12, that 
 the law is good ; and in ver. 13, that the evil which it incident- 
 ally produces is to be attributed to sin, the exceeding turpitude 
 of which becomes thus the more apparent. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far from 
 it, &c. The apostle asks whether it is to be inferred, either 
 from the general doctrine of the preceding section, respecting 
 the necessity of deliverance from the law, or from the special 
 declaration made in ver. 5, respecting the law producing sin, 
 that the law was itself evil ? He answers, By no means ; and 
 shows, in the next verse, that the effect ascribed to the law, in 
 ver. 5, is merely incidental. Is the law sin? means either, Is 
 the law evil ? or is it the cause of sin ? see Micah i. 5, ' ^amaria 
 is the sin of Jacob.' The former is best suited to the context,
 
 ROMANS VII. 7. 347 
 
 because Paul admits that the law is incidentally productive of 
 sin. The two ideas, however, may be united, as by Calvin, 
 "An peccatum sic generet, ut illi imputari ejus culpa debeat;" 
 Does the law so produce sin, as that the fault is to be imputed to 
 the law itself? Grod forbid, py fivoKo; let it not be thought 
 that the law is to blame. On the contrary (dttd,) so far from 
 the law being evil, it is the source, and the only source of 
 the knowledge of sin. / had not known sin, but by the law. 
 Where there is no knowledge of the law, there can be no con- 
 sciousness of sin ; for sin is want of conformity to the law. If, 
 therefore, the standard of right is not known, there can be no 
 apprehension of our want of conformity to it. By the law here, 
 is to be understood the moral law, however revealed. It is not 
 the law of Moses, so far as that law was peculiar and national, 
 but only so far as it contained the rule of duty. ' It is not the 
 experience of men, as determined by their relation to the 
 Mosaic dispensation, but their experience as determined by 
 their relation to the moral law, that is here depicted. But in 
 what sense does Paul here use the pronoun I? That he does 
 not speak for himself only; that it is not anything in his own 
 individual experience, peculiar to himself, is obvious from the 
 whole context, and is almost universally admitted. But if he 
 speaks representatively, whom does he represent, whose experi- 
 ence under the operation of the law is here detailed ? Grotius 
 says, that he represents the Jewish people, and sets forth their 
 experience before and after the introduction of the law of 
 Moses. This opinion was adopted by Locke, Estius, and 
 recently by Reiche. Others say that he speaks out of the 
 common consciousness of men. "Das Ij-ca, repnesentirte sub- 
 ject," says Meyer, "ist der Mensch iiberhaupt, in seiner rein 
 menschlichen und naturlichen Verfassung." The experience 
 detailed is that of the natural or unrenewed man throughout. 
 This view is the one generally adopted by modern commenta- 
 tors. Others again say, that Paul is here speaking as a Christ- 
 ian ; he is giving his own religious experience of the operation 
 of the law, as that experience is common to all true believers. 
 This does not necessarily suppose that the preliminary exercises, 
 as detailed in vs. 7 13, are peculiar to the renewed. There is 
 a "law work,'* a work of conviction which, in its apparent
 
 348 ROMANS VII. 7. 
 
 characteristics, is common to the renewed and the unrenewed. 
 Many are truly and deeply convinced of sin ; many experience 
 all that the law in itself can produce, who are never regene- 
 rated. Nevertheless, the experience here exhibited is the expe- 
 rience of every renewed man. It sets forth the work of the law 
 first in the work of conviction, vs. 7 13, and afterwards in 
 reference to the holy life of the Christian. This is the Augus- 
 tinian view of the bearing of this passage adopted by the 
 Lutherans and Reformed, and still held by the great body of 
 evangelical Christians. 
 
 I had not known sin. There are two kinds of knowledge. 
 The one has for its object mere logical relations, and is a matter 
 of the intellect; the other has for its object both the logical 
 relations and the qualities, moral or otherwise, of the thing 
 known, and is a matter of the feelings as well as of the intel- 
 lect. The kind of knowledge of which the apostle speaks is not 
 mere intellectual cognition, but also conviction. It includes the 
 consciousness of guilt and pollution. The law awakened in him 
 the knowledge of his own state and character. He felt himself 
 to be a sinner ; and by a sinner is to be understood not merely 
 a transgressor, but one in whom sin dwells. It was the cor- 
 ruption of his nature which was revealed to the apostle by the 
 operation of the law. This sense of the word apapTta in this 
 context is almost universally admitted. "Die b/jtaprla," says 
 Meyer, " ist das principe der Sunde im Menschen (1. v. 8. 9. 11. 
 13. 14.), dessen wir erst durch das Gesetz uns bewusst werden, 
 und welches ohne das Gesetz unbewusst geblieben ware." That 
 is, " The difiapria is the principle of sin in men, of which we 
 become conscious through the law, and of which we would with- 
 out the law have remained unconscious." So De Wette, Tho- 
 luck, Rlickert, Kbllner, Olshausen, and Philippi, among the 
 modern commentators, as well as the older doctrinal expositors. 
 
 For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt 
 not covet. This may be understood as merely an illustration of 
 the preceding declaration : ' I had not known sin but by the 
 law. For example, I had not known. lust, except the law had 
 said, Thou shalt not covet.' According to this view, there is 
 uo difference between sin and lust, a/jtaprca and l-c&u/jtca, except 
 that the latter is specific, and the former general. Lust falls
 
 ROMANS VII. 8. 349 
 
 ui.der the general category of sin. But according to this inter- 
 pretation, neither fytaptta nor Ifvwv (sin nor know) receives the 
 full force which the connection requires. This clause, there- 
 fore, is not simply an illustration, but a confirmation of the 
 preceding : * I had not known sin, but by the law ; for I had 
 not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.' 
 That is, ' From the consciousness of desire striving against the 
 law, arose the conviction of the principle of sin within me.' 
 Desire revealed as evil by the law, itself revealed the evil 
 source whence it springs. The word Imdupia means simply 
 earnest desire, and the verb ixt$o[i.l(a is to desire earnestly. It 
 depends on the context whether the desire be good or bad, 
 whether it is directed towards what is lawful or what is forbid- 
 den. In the tenth commandment, here quoted, the meaning is, 
 Thou shalt not desire to have (i. e. thou shalt not covet) that 
 which belongs to another. The point of the apostle's argument 
 is, that his knowledge of sin is due to the law, because without 
 the law he would not have known that- mere desire is evil, and 
 because these evil desires revealed the hidden source of sin in 
 his nature. 
 
 VERSE 8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, 
 wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. This verse is not 
 logically connected with the preceding. It is rather coordinate 
 with it, and is a virtual, or rather, an additional answer to the 
 question, Is the law evil ? To this question Paul replies, No ; 
 on the contrary, it leads to the knowledge of sin. And hence 
 he adds, It is not evil in itself, although incidentally the cause 
 of sin in us. By sin, in this case, cannot be understood actual 
 sin. It must mean indwelling sin, or corruption of nature; 
 sin as the principle or source of action, and not as an act. 
 lil AfjLapria non potest esse hoc loco peccatum ipsum," says 
 Koppe, " sed ipsa potius prava et ad peccandum proclivis indo- 
 les, vitiosa hominis natura, vitiositas ipsa." To the same effect, 
 Olshausen: "Aus der allgemeinen siindhaften natur des Men- 
 schen geht die Ixi&ufjua, prava concupiscentia, als erste Ausse- 
 rung hervor und dann folgt erst die That." That is, from sin 
 immanent in our nature, comes first desire, and then the act. 
 Thus Kb'llner says, "m&ofuav, so von d.p.apria verschieden^ 
 dass diese <]as gleichsam im Menschen ruhende siindliche
 
 350 ROMANS VII. 8. 
 
 Princip bezeichnet, ixt&vfjda aber die im einzelnen Falle 
 wirksame bose Lust, ganz eigentlich die Begierde, die dann 
 zunachst zur Sunde in concrete fiirht." Such is plainly the 
 meaning of the apostle. There is a principle of sin, a corrup- 
 tion of nature which lies back of all conscious voluntary exer- 
 cises, to which they owe their origin. 'Em&upia, feeling, the 
 first form in which sin is revealed in the consciousness, springs 
 from bfiapTia. This is a truth of great importance. According 
 to the theology and religious conviction of the apostle, sin can 
 be predicated not only of acts, but also of inward states. 
 
 Sin taking occasion, dyopfjyv, opportunity or advantage, by 
 the commandment, i. e. the command, "Thou shalt not covet." 
 A part is taken for the whole. This special precept (Ivcoty) 
 stands, by way of illustration, for the whole law. The words 
 dia rijc ^JTO^C, by the commandment, may be taken with the 
 preceding clause, 'taking advantage of the commandtnent.' In 
 favour of this construction is the position of the words, and, as 
 is supposed, the dt avrijc ^ n ver - H> which, it is said, cor- 
 responds to these words in this verse. This is the construction 
 which is adopted by our translators, and by many commenta- 
 tors. Others prefer connecting the words in question with what 
 follows "by the commandment wrought in me." In favour 
 of this is the fact, that the main idea of the passage is thus 
 brought out. The apostle designs to show how the law, although 
 good in itself, produced evil : 'Sin wrought by it.' Besides, the 
 phrase dyopfjiyv Xa.[j.j$dvtiv ex, or xapd, or 6.7:6, is common, but 
 with did it never occurs : did is not the appropriate preposition ; 
 whereas xaTtpfd^sa&ai did is perfectly appropriate. Wrought 
 in me all manner of concupiscence, xaoav faedypiav, every (evil) 
 desire. 
 
 For without the law sin (was) dead. This is designed as a 
 confirmation of the preceding declaration. This confirmation 
 is drawn either from a fact of Paul's personal experience, or 
 from an universally admitted truth. If the former, then we 
 must supply was: ' Sin is excited by the law, for without the 
 law sin was dead ;' i. e. I was not aware of its existence. If the 
 latter, then is is to be supplied: 'Without the law sin is dead.' 
 This is an undisputed fact : ' Where there is no law there is no 
 sin ; and where is no knowledge of law there is no knowledge
 
 ROMANS VII. 9. 351 
 
 of sin. The latter view best suits the context. To say that a 
 thing is dead, is to say that it is inactive, unproductive, and 
 unobserved. All this may be said of sin prior to the operation 
 of the law. It is comparatively inoperative and unknown, until 
 aroused and brought to light by the law. There are two eftects 
 of the law included in this declaration the excitement of evil 
 passions, and the discovery of them. Calvin makes th latter 
 much the more prominent : "Ad cognitionem praecipue refero, 
 acsi dictum foret : Detexit in me omnem concupiscentiam ; quge 
 dum lateret, quodammodo nulla esse videbatur." But the con- 
 text, and the analogous declarations in the succeeding verses, 
 seem to require the former to be considered as the more impor- 
 tant. The law then is not evil, but it produces the conviction 
 of sin, by teaching us what sin is, ver. 7, and by making us 
 conscious of the existence and power of this evil in our own 
 hearts, ver. 8. "Ehe dem Menschen ein vcy/oc entweder von 
 aussen gegeben wird, oder in ihm selbst sich entwickelt, so ist 
 die Siindhaftigkeit zwar in ihm, als AnJage, aber sie ist todt, 
 d. h. sie ist ihm noch nicht zum Bewusstseyn gekommen, weil 
 noch kein Widerstreit zwischen seiner Siindhaftigkeit und 
 einem Gebote in ihm entstehen konnte." Usteri Lehrbegriff 
 Pauli, p 25. Such is certainly the experience of Christians. 
 They live at ease. Conscience is at rest. They think them - 
 selves to be as good as can be reasonably required of them, 
 They have no adequate conception of the power or heinousness 
 of the evil within them. Sin lies, as it were, dead, as the torpid 
 serpent, until the operation of the law rouses it from its slum- 
 bers, and reveals its character. 
 
 VERSE 9. For I was alive without the, law once, &c. The 
 meaning of this clause is necessarily determined by what pre- 
 cedes. If by sin being dead means its lying unnoticed and 
 unknown, then by being alive, Paul must mean that state of 
 security and comparative exemption from the turbulence or 
 manifestation of sin in his heart, which he then experienced. 
 He fancied himself in a happy and desirable condition. He had 
 no dread of punishment, no painful consciousness of sin. But 
 when the commandment came, i. e. came to his knowledge, was 
 revealed to him in its authority and in the extent and spiritu- 
 ality of its demands, sin revived; i. e. it was roused from it8
 
 352 ROMANS VII. 10. 
 
 torpor. It was revealed in his consciousness by its greater 
 activity ; so that the increase of his knowledge of sin was due 
 to an increase in its activity. And I died. As by being alive 
 was meant being at ease in a fancied state of security and good- 
 ness, being dead must mean just the opposite, viz. a state of 
 misery arising from a sense of danger and the consciousness 
 of guiit. This interpretation is recommended not only by its 
 agreement with the whole context, but also from its accordance 
 with the common experience of Christians. Every believer can 
 adopt the language of the apostle. He can say he was alive 
 without the law ; he was secure and free from any painful con- 
 sciousness of sin ; but when the commandment came, when he 
 was brought to see how holy and how broad is the law of God, 
 sin was aroused and revealed, and all his fancied security and 
 goodness disappeared. He was bowed down under the con- 
 viction of his desert of death as a penalty, and under the power 
 of spiritual death in his soul. "Mors peccati," says Calvin, 
 "vita est hominis; rursum vita peccati mors hominis." 
 
 The questions, however When was Paul, or those in whose 
 name he speaks, without the law ? In what sense was he then 
 alive? What is meant by the commandment coming? In what 
 sense did sin revive ? and, What does Paul mean when he says, 
 he died ? are all answered by different commentators in differ- 
 ent ways, according to their different views of the context and 
 of the design of the argument. Grotius and others say, that 
 being without the law designates the ante-Mosaic period of the 
 Jewish history, when the people lived in comparative innocence ; 
 the law came when it was promulgated from Mount Sinai, and 
 under its discipline they became worse and worse, or at least 
 sin was rendered more and more active among them. Others 
 say, that Paul was without the law in his childhood, when 
 he was in a state of childish innocence ; but when he came to 
 years of discretion, and the law was revealed within him, then 
 he died then he fell under the power of sin. These interpre- 
 tations give a much lower sense than the one above-mentioned, 
 and are not in keeping with the grand design of the passage. 
 
 VERSE 10. And the commandment which was unto life, I 
 found to be unto death. The law was designed and adapted to 
 secure life, but became in fact the cause of death. Life and
 
 ROMANS VII. 11. 353 
 
 death, as here opposed, are figurative terras. Life includes the 
 ideas of happiness and holiness. The law was designed to make 
 men happy and holy. Death, on the other hand, includes the 
 ideas of misery and sin. The law became, through no fault of 
 its own, the means of rendering the apostle miserable and 
 sinful. How vain therefore is it to expect salvation from the 
 law, since all the law does, in its operation on the unrenewed 
 heart, is to condemn and to awaken opposition ! It cannot 
 change the nature of man. By the law is the knowledge of 
 sin, iii. 20; it produces "the motions of sin," ver. 5; it "works 
 all manner of concupiscence," ver. 8; it revives sin, ver. 9; it 
 seduces into sin, ver. 11. How then can it save ? How mise- 
 rable and deluded are those who have only a legal religion ! 
 
 VERSE 11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, 
 deceived me, and by it slew me. The law is the cause of death, 
 ver. 10, for by it sin deceived and slew me. The two idea* 
 before insisted upon are again here presented viz. the law, so 
 far from giving life, is the source of death, spiritual and penal ; 
 and yet the fault is not in the law, but in sin, i. e. in our own 
 corrupt nature. Here, as in ver. 8, two constructions are pos- 
 sible. We may say, * Sin took occasion by the commandment ;.' 
 or, ' Sin taking occasion, by the commandment deceived me/ 
 For reasons mentioned above, ver. 8, the latter is to be pre- 
 ferred : Sin deceived me, k^nd-n^ffs. The Ix is intensive : ' It 
 completely deceived me, or disappointed my expectations.' 
 How ? By leading the apostle to expect one thing, while he 
 experienced another. He expected life, and found death. He 
 expected happiness, and found misery ; he looked for holiness, 
 and found increased corruption. He fancied that by the la\r 
 all these desirable ends could be secured, when its operation 
 was discovered to produce the directly opposite effects. Sia 
 therefore deceived by the commandment, and by it slew him^ 
 instead of its being to him the source of holiness and blessed- 
 ness. The reference is not to the promised joys of sin, which 
 always mock the expectation and disappoint the hopes, but 
 rather to the utter failure of the law to do what he expected 
 from it. Such is the experience of every believer, in the 
 ordinary progress of his inward life. He first turns to the 
 law, to his own righteousness and strength, but he soon finds 
 23
 
 854 ROMANS VII. 12, 13. 
 
 that all the law can do is only to aggravate his guilt and 
 misery. 
 
 VERSB 12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment 
 holy, just, and good. This is the conclusion from the preceding 
 exhibition. The law is not evil, ver. 5. Sin is the true source 
 of all the evil which incidentally flows from the law. In itself 
 the law is holy, (i. e. the whole law,) and the commandment, 
 i. e. the specific command, "Thou shalt not covet," is holy, 
 just, and good. That is, it is in every aspect what it should be. 
 It is in every way excellent. It is holy as the revelation of the 
 holiness of God ; it is in its own nature right, and it is good, 
 i. e. excellent. In the next verse all these attributes are sum- 
 med up in one, TO d-fa&ov, goodness. Hence this is probably 
 the generic term of which the others are the species. " Lex 
 ipsa," says Calvin, "et quicquid lege prsecipitur, id totum sanc- 
 tum est, ergo summa dignitate reverendum; justum, ergo nullius 
 injustitiae insimulandum ; bonum, ergo omni vitio purum ac 
 vacuum." 
 
 VERSE 13. Was then that which is good made death unto me ? 
 G-od forbid. In order to prevent the possibility of misconcep- 
 tion, the apostle again vindicates the law. To ouv dfa#ov, 
 fj.ot Yyov$ ddvaToi;, Has the good become death to me ? Grod 
 forbid. 'JMa, on the contrary, $ afiap-ta (iftoi fifovt $avarof) 
 gin (has become death to me.) Not the law, but sin is the cause 
 of death. And it is made so, Iva <?<&?) &f*aprla, dia TO~J dra&ou 
 fjuoi xarepra^ofui^ ftdvarov, in order that it may appear sm, 
 working in me death by meant of good. The true character of 
 sin, as sin, is revealed by its making even that which is in 
 itself good, the means of evil. In order that it might become 
 exceeding sinful by the commandment. God has so ordered it, 
 that the sinfulness of sin is brought out by the operation of the 
 law. Such is the design of the law, so far as the salvation of 
 sinners is concerned. It does not prescribe the conditions 
 of salvation. We are not obliged to be sinless ; in other words, 
 we are not obliged to fulfil the demands of the law, in order to 
 be saved. Neither is the law the means of sanctification. It 
 cannot make us holy. On the contrary, its operation is to 
 excite and exasperate sin ; to render its power more dreadful 
 and destructive, so that instead of being the source of life, it is
 
 ROMANS VII. 713. 355 
 
 the instrument of death. By it we are slain. The construction 
 of this passage, given above, is that which the words demand, 
 and which almost all modern commentators adopt. Calvin, 
 Luther, the English translators, and many others, make d-^apria 
 the subject of xaTprao[jivy (jjv) taken as a verb : Sin wrought 
 death. The sense thus expressed is good ; but this construction 
 does violence to the words, as it converts a participle into a 
 verb. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The law, although it cannot secure either the justification 
 or sanctification of men, performs an essential part in the 
 economy of salvation. It enlightens conscience, and secures its 
 verdict against a multitude of evils, which we should not other- 
 wise have recognized as sins. It arouses sin, increasing its 
 power, and making it, both in itself and in our consciousness, 
 exceedingly sinful. It therefore produces that state of mind 
 which is a necessary preparation for the reception of the 
 gospel, vs. 7, 8. 
 
 2. Conviction of sin, that is, an adequate knowledge of its 
 nature, and a sense of its power over us, is an indispensable 
 part of evangelical religion. Before the gospel can be embraced 
 as a means of deliverance from sin, we must feel that we are 
 involved in corruption and misery, ver. 9. 
 
 3. The law of God is a transcript of his own nature holy, 
 just, and good. The clearer our views of its extent and excel- 
 lence, the deeper will be our sense of our own unworthiness, 
 vs. 9, 12. 
 
 4. Sin is exceedingly sinful. Its turpitude is manifested by 
 the fact, that the exhibition of holiness rouses it into opposi- 
 tion ; and that the holy law itself is made incidentally to 
 increase its virulence and power, ver. 13. 
 
 5. Sin is very deadly. It extracts death from the means of 
 life, and cannot exist unattended by misery, vs. 10 13. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. How miserable the condition of those whose religion is all 
 law ! vs. 713. 
 
 2. Though the law cannot save us, it must prepare us for
 
 356 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 salvation . It should, therefore, be carefully and faithfully 
 preached, both in its extent and authority, vs. 7, 8. 
 
 3. It must be wrong and productive of evil, so to describe 
 the nature of evangelical religion as to make the impression 
 that it is a mere change in the main object of pursuit the 
 choice of one source of happiness in preference to another. It 
 is a return to God, through Jesus Christ, for the purpose of 
 being delivered from sin, and devoted to his service. Its first 
 step is the conviction that we are sinners, and, as such, dead, 
 i. e. helpless, corrupt, and miserable, vs. 7, 13. 
 
 4. Nothing is more inconsistent with true religion than self- 
 complacency. Because the more holy we are, the clearer our 
 views of God's law; and the clearer our views of the law, the 
 deeper our sense of sin, and, consequently, the greater must be 
 our humility, vs. 12, 13. 
 
 5. If our religious experience does not correspond with that 
 of the people of God, as detailed in the Scriptures, we cannot 
 be true Christians. Unless we have felt as Paul felt, we have 
 not the religion of Paul, and cannot expect to share his reward, 
 vs. 713. 
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE apostle, having exhibited the operation of the law in 
 producing conviction of sin, comes now to show its effect on the 
 mind of the believer. It cannot secure his sanctification. The 
 cause of this inability is not in the evil nature of the law, which 
 is spiritual, ver. 14, but in the power of indwelling sin ; " I am 
 carnal," says the apostle, "sold under sin," ver. 14. As this 
 is not only a strong, but an ambiguous expression, Paul imme- 
 diately explains his meaning. He does not intend to say that 
 he was given up to the willing service of sin ; but that he was 
 in the condition of a slave, whose acts are not always the 
 evidence of his inclination. His will may be one way, but his 
 master may direct him another. So it is with the believer. He 
 does what he hates, and omits to do what he approves, ver. 15.
 
 ROMANS VII. 14. 357 
 
 This is a description of slavery, and a clear explanation of what 
 is intended by the expression "sold under sin." There are two 
 obvious inferences to be drawn from this fact. The one is, that 
 the believer, while denying the sufficiency of the law, and main- 
 taining the necessity of deliverance from it, bears an inward 
 testimony to its excellence. He feels and admits that the law 
 is good, ver. 16 ; for it is the law which he approves, and the 
 transgression of it he hates, as stated in the preceding verse. 
 The second inference is, that acts thus performed are not the 
 true criterion of character: "Now then, it is no more I that do 
 it, but sin that dwelleth in me," ver. 17. The acts of a slave 
 are indeed his own acts ; but not being performed with the full 
 assent and consent of his soul, they are not fair tests of the real 
 state of his feelings. The propriety and truth of this repre- 
 sentation of the state of the believer, and of the influence of the 
 law, is reasserted and confirmed in vs. 18 20. The law pre- 
 sents duty clearly: the heart and conscience of the believer 
 assent to its excellence; but what can the law do in destroying 
 the power of our inward corruptions? These evil principles 
 remain, so far as the law is concerned, in full force. The 
 authoritative declaration that a thing must not be done, does 
 not destroy the inclination to do it. 
 
 The result, therefore, is, that notwithstanding the assent of 
 the mind to the excellence of the law, the power of sin remains, 
 so that when we would do good, evil is present with us, ver. 21. 
 We delight in the law after the inward man, but this does not 
 destroy the power of sin in our members, vs. 22, 23. This 
 inward conflict the law can never end. It only makes us sensi- 
 ble of our helpless and degraded condition, ver. 24 ; and drives 
 us to seek victory, whence alone it can be obtained, i. e. as the 
 gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, ver. 25. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 14. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am 
 carnal, sold under sin. The connection between this verse and 
 the preceding passage seems to be this : It had been asserted 
 in ver. 5, that the law was incidentally the cause of sin. 
 This result, however, was no reflection on the law; for it was
 
 358 ROMANS VII. 14. 
 
 holy, just, and good, ver. 12. As the fact that the law excites 
 sin is consistent with its being good, so is also the fact that it 
 cannot destroy the power of sin. The law indeed is spiritual, 
 but we are carnal. The fault is again in us. The ?dp thus 
 introduces the confirmation of the whole preceding argument. 
 If the connection is with ver. 13, the sense is substantially the 
 same: 'Sin, and not the law, works death; for the law is 
 spiritual, but I am carnal.' The apostle says, oida/ieu ydp, 
 "for we know.'' It is among Christians an acknowledged and 
 obvious truth, that the law is spiritual. This is probably the 
 reason that in this case he uses the plural we instead of the 
 singular I, which occurs everywhere else in this connection. 
 Semler, indeed, and others, to preserve uniformity, proposes to 
 read olda {JLZV "{dp, 1 know indeed, instead of we know. But 
 then there would be no ds corresponding to the [iev. The ifa> 
 os is opposed to vo//o^, and not to ij-w in olda. The apostle 
 would have said, ' The law indeed is spiritual, but I am carnal,' 
 and not, 'I indeed know,' &c. The common division of the 
 words is therefore almost universally adopted. 
 
 The law is said to be spiritual, not because it pertains to our 
 spirits, reaching, as Beza says, to the interior man, ("mentem 
 et interiorem hominem respicit;") much less because it is rea- 
 sonable, or in accordance with the Trvsty/a as the higher faculty 
 of our nature ; nor because it was given by inspiration of the 
 Spirit; but as expressing its nature. It is spiritual in the 
 sense of being Divine, or as partaking of the nature of the Holy 
 Spirit, its divine Author. This epithet includes, therefore, all 
 that was before expressed, by saying that the law is holy, just, 
 and good. But I am carnal. The word in the common text is 
 oapxao^. Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, on the author- 
 ity of the older manuscripts, and of the Fathers, read adoxti>o<;. 
 The difference between these words, (when fchey are distin- 
 guished,) is, that the former expresses the nature, the latter the 
 substance out of which a thing is made; so thaf- adpxivoz means 
 made of flesh, fleshy, corpulent. This is agreeable to the analogy 
 of words in evoz, XJ&voc, made of stone; (iXfi/oc, made of wood. 
 This, however, is not an uniform rule, as di/#/w/Tfvuc means hu- 
 man. In 2 Cor. iii. 3, the word adoxr^o^ is used in it* strict sense, 
 where, iv 7r/or xapoia^ aupxiKatz (in tables of the heart tiade
 
 ROMANS VII. 14. 859 
 
 of flesh,) it is opposed to v xkai h&cvau; (tables made of .stone.) 
 Even if adpxcvoz, in this case, is the true reading, it must have 
 the same sense as the more common word oapxcxoz, which, for 
 internal reasons, the majority of commentators prefer. As 
 spiritual expresses the nature of the law, so carnal must express 
 the nature, and not the material. I am carnal means I am 
 under the power of the flesh. And by flesh is meant not the 
 body, not our sensuous nature merely, but our whole nature as 
 fallen and corrupt. It includes all that belongs to men, apart 
 from the Holy Spirit. ' In the language of the New Testament, 
 the mt&aarexoi, spiritual, are those who are under the control 
 of the Spirit of God ; and the aapxexot are those who are under 
 the control of their own nature. As, however, even in the 
 renewed, this control of the Spirit is never perfect, as the flesh 
 even in them retains much of its original power, they are 
 forced to acknowledge that they too are carnal. There is no 
 believer, however advanced in holiness, who cannot adopt the 
 language here used by the apostle. In 1 Cor. iii. 3, in 
 addressing believers, he says, "Are ye not carnal?" In tht 
 imperfection of human language the same word must be taken 
 in different senses. Sometimes carnal means entirely or 
 exclusively under the control of the flesh. It designates those 
 in whom the flesh is the only principle of action. At other 
 times it has a modified sense, and is applicable to those who, 
 although under the dominion of the Spirit, are still polluted 
 and influenced by the flesh. It is the same with all similar 
 words. When we speak of 'saints and sinners' we do not 
 mean that saints, such as they are in this world, are not 
 sinners. And thus when the Scriptures classify men as Trvsu/jtaTe- 
 xoi and aapxtxoi, spiritual and carnal, they do not mean to 
 teach that the spiritual are not carnal. It is, therefore, only 
 by giving the words here used their extreme sense, a sense 
 inconsistent with the context, that they can be regarded as 
 inapplicable to the regenerated. The mystical writers, such aa 
 Olshauseri, in accordance with the theory which so many of 
 them adopt, that man consists of three subjects or substances, 
 body, soul, and spirit, oa>na, <pi>'ffl and Trvsy/za, say that by 
 adpz, in such connections, we are to understand das game 
 seelische Leben, the entire psychical life, which only, and not
 
 860 ROMANS VII. 14. 
 
 the Trvoy/a, (the spirit or higher element of our nature,) is 
 in man the seat of sin. In angels, on the contrary, the 
 jwev/jta itself is the seat of sin, and they therefore are incapable 
 of redemption. And in man, when sin invades the -i/sDua, 
 (spirit) then comes the sin against the Holy Ghost, and 
 redemption becomes impossible. This is only a refined or 
 mystical rationalism, as 7rveD//a is only another name for 
 reason, and the conflict in man is reduced to the struggle 
 between sense and reason, and redemption consists in giving 
 the higher powers of our nature ascendency over the lower. 
 According to the Scriptures, the whole of our fallen nature is 
 the seat of sin, and our subjective redemption from its power 
 is effected, not by making reason predominant, but by the 
 indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The conflicting elements are 
 not sense and reason, the anima and animus; but the flesh 
 and spirit, the human and divine, what we derive from Adam 
 and what we obtain through Christ. "That which is born 
 of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." 
 John iii. 6. 
 
 The sense in which Paul says he was carnal, is explained by 
 saying he was sold under sin, i. e. sold so as to be under the 
 power of sin. This, of course, is an ambiguous expression. 
 To say that a 'man is sold unto sin' may mean, as in 1 Kings 
 xxi. 20, and 2 Kings xvii. 17, that he is given up to its service. 
 Sin is that which he has deliberately chosen for a master, and 
 to which he is devoted. In this sense of the phrase it is 
 equivalent to what is said of the unrenewed in the preceding 
 chapter, that they are the doitXoc TTJZ &fiaptia$ t the slaves of sin. 
 From this kind of bondage believers are redeemed, vi. 22. 
 But there is another kind of bondage. A man may be 
 subject to a power which, of himself, he cannot effectually 
 resist ; against which he may and does struggle, and from which 
 he earnestly desires to be free ; but which, notwithstanding all 
 his efforts, still asserts its authority. This is precisely the 
 bondage to sin of which every believer is conscious. He 
 feels that there is a law in his members bringing him into 
 subjection to the law of sin ; that his distrust of God, his hard- 
 ness of heart, his love of the world and of self, his pride, in 
 short his indwelling sin, is a real power from which he longs
 
 ROMANS VII. 15. 361 
 
 to be free, against which he struggles, but from which he 
 cannot emancipate himself. This is the kind of bondage of 
 which the apostle here speaks, as is plain from the following 
 verses, as well as from the whole context and from the analogy 
 of Scripture. 
 
 VERSE 15. For that which I do, I allow not, &c. This is 
 an explanation and confirmation of the preceding declaration. 
 *I am sold under sin, for that which I do, I allow not, &c.' 
 The word ywcoffxa) rendered I allow, properly signifies, I know, 
 and as it is used in different senses in the Scriptures, its mean- 
 ing in this case is a matter of doubt. Retaining its ordinary 
 sense, the word may be used here as in the common phrase, *I 
 know not what I do,' expressive of the absence of a calm and 
 deliberate purpose, and of the violence of the impulse under 
 which one acts. Inscius et invitus facio, quae facio. Or the 
 meaning may be, that what is done, is done thoughtlessly. Non 
 cum pleno mentis proposito. Morus. This view is a very com- 
 mon one, expressed in different forms. " The sinful decision 
 occurs not by rational self-determination, and, therefore, not 
 with the full consciousness with which we should act." De 
 Wette. To the same effect Meyer, ' the act occurs without the 
 consciousness of its moral character, in a state of bondage of 
 the practical reason, as a slave acts without a consciousness of 
 the nature or design of what he does.' Or, 'I do not do it 
 knowingly, because I know it to be right.' This comes very 
 near the old interpretation according to which, to know means 
 to approve. See Ps. i. 6, " The Lord knoweth the ways of the 
 righteous." With regard to moral objects, knowledge is not 
 mere cognition. It is the apprehension of the moral quality, 
 and involves of necessity approbation or disapprobation. Hence 
 the pious are described in Scripture as those "who know God," 
 or "the knowers of his name." Ps. ix. 10, xxxvi. 10, Hosea 
 viii. 2. What the apostle, therefore, here says, is, 'what I per- 
 form, i. e., what I actually carry out into action, (xarspfdZo/jtat,) 
 I -approve not, i. e., I do not recognize as right and good.' 
 
 For what 1 would, that do I not ; but what I hate, that do I. 
 This is a further description of this state of bondage. As the 
 expressions what I would, and what I hate, are in antithesis, 
 the former must mean what I love or delight in. This use of
 
 862 ROMANS VII. 15. 
 
 the Greek work ($e/o>) is accommodated to the corresponding 
 Hebrew term, and occurs several times in the New Testament. 
 Matt, xxvii. 43, "Let him deliver him, if he will have him 
 ( tteht ayro>), i. e. if he delight in him;" Matt. ix. 13, 
 xii. 7, Heb. x. 5, 8, and Pa. xxi. 9, xxxix. 7, in the Septua- 
 gint. The word will, therefore, does not express so much a 
 mere determination of the mind, as a state of the feelings and 
 judgment. 'What I love and approve, that I omit; what I 
 hate and disapprove, that I do.' This may not be philosophi- 
 cal, though it is perfectly correct language. It is the language 
 of common life, which, as it proceeds from the common con- 
 sciousness of men, is often a better indication of what that 
 consciousness teaches, than the language of the schools. Philo- 
 sophers themselves, however, at times speak in the same simple 
 language of nature. Epictetus, Enchirid. 1. ii. c. 26, has a 
 form of expression almost identical with that of the apostle ; 
 6 &fjtap~dva>v 8 fjtev $/&, o'j Tzotzi, xai o fiy fietet ~otzl. The 
 language of the apostle, in this passage, expresses a fact of 
 consciousness, with which every Christian is familiar. Whether 
 the conflict here described is that which, in a greater or less 
 degree, exists in every man, between the natural authoritative 
 sense of right and wrong, and his corrupt inclinations; or 
 whether it is peculiar to the Christian, must be decided by 
 considerations drawn from the whole description, and from the 
 connection of this passage with the preceding and succeeimg 
 portions of the apostle's discourse. It is enough to reunrk 
 here, that every Christian can adopt the language of this \ *rse. 
 Pride, coldness, slothfulness, and other feelings which h( dis- 
 approves and hates, are, day by day, reasserting their ] jwer 
 over him. He struggles against their influence, groans be icath 
 their bondage, longs to be filled with meekness, humility , and 
 all other fruits of the love of God, but finds he can neitl r of 
 himself, nor by the aid of the law, effect his freedom from what 
 he hates, or the full performance of what he desires a d ap- 
 proves. Every evening witnesses his penitent confession jf his 
 degrading bondage, his sense of utter helplessness, a A his 
 longing desire for aid from above. He is a slave looki g and 
 longing for liberty. 
 
 Two consequences flow from this representation of tlr. <?xperi-
 
 ROMANS VII. 16, 17. 63 
 
 ence of the Christian. First, the fault is felt and acknowledged 
 to be his own ; the law is not to be blamed, ver. 16. Second, thi3 
 state of feeling is consistent with his being a Christian, ver. 17. 
 
 VERSE 16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent 
 unto the law that it is good. Paul here asserts that his acting 
 contrary to the law was no evidence that he thought the law 
 evil ; for what he did, he disapproved. But to disapprove and 
 condemn what the law forbids, is to assent to the excellence of 
 the law. There is a constant feeling of self-disapprobation, 
 and a sense of the excellence of the law, in the Christian's 
 mind. He is, therefore, never disposed to blame the extent or 
 severity of the law, but admits the fault to be in himself. I 
 consent to, atjfjtyyfju, I speak with, I say the same thing which 
 the law says, when it pronounces itself good. There is no 
 conflict between the law and the believer; it is between the 
 law and what the believer himself condemns. 
 
 VEKSE 17. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that 
 dwelleth in me. Now then, vuvt Se, that is, under these cir- 
 cumstances, or, this being the case. Or the meaning may be 
 but now, i. e. since I became a Christian. The former ex- 
 planation is to be preferred on account of the connetion of this 
 verse with ver. 15, from which this passage is an inference, 
 'If the case be so, that I am sold under sin and am its 
 unwilling slave ; if I do what I disapprove, and fail to accom- 
 plish what I love ; it is clear that it is not properly and fully I 
 that do it, my real self; my better feelings or renovated nature 
 is opposed to what the law forbids.' Ego quidem in utroque, 
 sed magis ego in eo, quod approbabam, quam in eo quod in me 
 improbabam. Augustine, Confess. Lib. viii. ch. 5. This is 
 not said as an exculpation, but to exhibit the extent and power 
 of indwelling sin, which it is beyond our own power, and 
 beyond the power of the law, to eradicate or effectually control. 
 This feeling of helplessness is not only consistent with a 
 sense and acknowledgment of accountability, but is always 
 found united with genuine self-condemnation and penitence. 
 There are, in general, few stronger indications of ignorance of 
 the power and evil of sin, than the confident assertion of our 
 ability to resist and subdue it. Paul groaned beneath its 
 bondage, as if held in the loathsome embrace of a " body of
 
 364 ROMANS VII. 1820. 
 
 death." The apostle's object, therefore, is not to apologize for 
 sin, but to show that the experience detailed in ver. 15, is con- 
 sistent with his being a Christian. * If it is true that 1 really 
 approve and love the law, and desire to be conformed to it, I 
 am no longer the willing slave of sin; to the depth and power 
 of the original evil is to be attributed the fact that I am not 
 entirely delivered from its influence.' This is obviously con- 
 nected with the main object of the whole passage. For if sin 
 remains and exerts its power, notwithstanding our disappro- 
 bation, and in despite of all our efforts, it is clear that we 
 must look for deliverance to something out of ourselves, and 
 that the mere preceptive power of the law cannot remove 
 the evil. 
 
 VERSES 18, 19, 20. These verses contain an amplification 
 and confirmation of the sentiment of the preceding verses. 
 They re-assert the existence, and explain the nature of the 
 inward struggle of which the apostle had been speaking. 'I 
 am unable to come up to the requirements of the law, not 
 'because they are unreasonable, but because I am corrupt; 
 there is no good in me. I can approve and delight in the 
 exhibitions of holiness made by the law, but full conformity to 
 its demands is more than I can attain. It is not I, therefore, 
 my real and lasting self, but this intrusive tyrant dwelling 
 within me, that disobeys the law.' This strong and expressive 
 language, though susceptible of a literal interpretation, which 
 would make it teach not only error but nonsense, is still per- 
 fectly perspicuous and correct, because accurately descriptive 
 of the common feelings of men. Paul frequently employs 
 similar modes of expression. When speaking of his apostolic 
 labours, he says, " Yet not I, but the grace of God, which was 
 with me," 1 Cor. xv. 10. And in Gal. ii. 20, he says, "I live, 
 yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." As no one supposes 
 that the labours and life here spoken of were not the labours 
 and life of the apostle, or that they did not constitute and 
 express his moral character ; so no Christian supposes that the 
 greatness and power of his sin frees him from its responsibility, 
 even when he expresses his helpless misery by saying, with the 
 apostle, "It is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me." This 
 doctrine of sin as indwelling is irreconcilable with the assump-
 
 ROMANS VII. 18. 365 
 
 tion that sin consists exclusively in acts of the will, or even in 
 the widest sense of the terms, in voluntary action. An in- 
 dwelling act is a solecism. Sin, in this, as in so many other 
 places of Scripture, is. presented as an abiding state of the 
 mind, a disposition or principle, manifesting itself in acts. It 
 is this that gives sin its power. We have measurably power 
 over our acts, but over our immanent principles we have no 
 direct control. They master us and not we them. Herein 
 consists our bondage to sin. And as the power of an in- 
 dwelling principle is increased by exercise, so the strength of 
 sin is increased by every voluntary evil act. No act is iso- 
 lated. "Nothing," says Olshausen, "is more dangerous than 
 the erroneous opinion that an evil act can stand alone, or that 
 a man can commit one sin and then stop. All evil is con- 
 catenated, and every sin increases the power of the indwelling 
 corruption in a fearful progression, until, sooner than the 
 sinner dreams of, his head swims, and he is plunged into the 
 
 VERSE 18. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, 
 there dwelleth no good thing, &c. The yap refers to the pre- 
 ceding clause, "sin dwelleth in me," which what follows con- 
 firms. * Sin dwells in me, for in my flesh there dwelleth no 
 good thing;' literally, good does not dwell. Paul is here 
 explaining how it is that there is such a contradiction between 
 his better principles and his conduct, as just described. The 
 reason is, that in himself, he was entirely depraved, "In me, 
 that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing." As Paul 
 is here speaking of himself, he limits the declaration that there 
 was no good in him. In its full sense, as he was a renewed 
 man, this could not be true; he therefore adds, "in my flesh." 
 Agreeably to the explanation given above, ver. 14, these words 
 evidently mean, 'in my nature considered apart from Divine 
 influence,' i. e. 'in me viewed independently of the effects pro- 
 duced by the Spirit of God.' This is Paul's common use of the 
 word flesh. As he ascribes all excellence in man to the Holy 
 Spirit, in men, when destitute of that Spirit, there is " no good 
 thing." To be "in the flesh," is to be unrenewed, and under 
 the government of our own depraved nature; to be "in the 
 Spirit," is to be under the guidance of the Holy Ghost;
 
 366 ROMANS VII. 19. 
 
 ch. viii. 8, 9. So too, in Scripture language, a naturd. man is 
 a depraved man ; and a spiritual man is one that is renewed ; 
 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. It need hardly be remarked that in the 
 flesh cannot here mean in the body. Paul does not mean to 
 say that in his body there was no goocl thing, as though the 
 body were the seat of sin in man, and that exclusively. He 
 frequently uses the phrase works of the flesh, in reference to 
 sins which have no connection with the body, as envy, pride, 
 seditions, heresies, &c., Gal. v. 19, 20. 
 
 For to will is present with me, but to perform that which 
 is good, I find not. This again is connected by fap with what 
 precedes. * Good does not dwell in me, for though I have the 
 will to do right, I have not the performance.' To fieletv 
 jtapdxetTat pot, not will as a faculty, but (TO #e/e<v) as an art 
 The purpose or desire is present, i. e. I have it; but the per- 
 formance of the good I find not ; ob% eupiaxio is equivalent to 
 o'j xapdxKTat is not present. I have the one but not the other. 
 Instead of the common text as given above, Griesbach and 
 Lachmann, on the authority of the Alexandrian manuscript, 
 read simply oy, omitting edplaxat, (I find.) The sense is the 
 same, for in that case Kapdxee-at must be understood. 'The 
 one is present, the other is not (present).' The common 
 reading is generally preferred, as the omission is easily ac- 
 counted for. 
 
 VERSE 19. For the good that I would, I do not; but the 
 evil that I would not, that I do. A confirmation of what goes 
 before. ' I do not find good present with me, for the good I 
 would I do not.' This is a repetition, nearly in the same 
 words, of what is said in ver. 15. Paul reasserts that he was 
 unable to act up to his purposes and desires. For example, he 
 doubtless desired to love God with all his heart, and at all 
 times, but constantly was his love colder, and less operative 
 than the law demands. This verse is, therefore, but an ampli- 
 fication of the last clause of ver. 18. / would ($^o,) means 
 either I approve or love, as in ver. 15 ; or, / purpjse, as in 
 yer. 18. The numerous passages* quoted by commentators in 
 
 * The following are a few examples of this kind selected from the multitude 
 collected by Grotius and Wetstein. 
 
 Quid eat hoc, Luc'li, quod nos slio tendentes alio trahit, et eo, undo recedere
 
 ROMANS VII. 20. 367 
 
 illustration of this and the preceding verses, though they may 
 serve to throw light upon the language, are expressive of 
 feelings very different from those of the apostle. When an 
 impenitent man says 'he is sorry for his sins,' he may express 
 the real state of his feelings; and yet the import of this 
 language is very different from what it is in the mouth of a man 
 truly contrite. The word sorrow expresses a multitude of verj 
 different feelings. Thus, also, when wicked men say they 
 approve the good while they pursue the wrong, their appro- 
 bation is something very different from Paul's approbation 
 of the law of God. And when Seneca calls the gods to 
 witness, 'that what he wills, he does not will,' he too expresses 
 something far short of what the language of the apostle con- 
 veys. This must be so, if there is any such thing as experi- 
 mental or evangelical religion; that is, if there is any dif- 
 ference between the sorrow for sin and desire of good in 
 the mind of a true Christian, and in the unrenewed and 
 willing votaries of sin in whom conscience is not entirely 
 obliterated. 
 
 VERSE 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I 
 that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. The same conclusion 
 from the same premises as in ver. 17. l The things which I do, 
 when contrary to the characteristic desires and purposes of my 
 heart, are to be considered as the acts of a slave. They are 
 indeed my own acts, but not being performed with the full and 
 joyful purpose of the heart, are not to be regarded as a fair 
 criterion of character.' 
 
 cupimus, repellit? Quid colluctatur cum animo nostro, nee permittit nobia 
 quidquam semel velle? Fluctuamus inter varia consilia, nihil libere volumus, 
 nib.il absolute, nihil semper. Seneca, Ep. 25. 
 
 Sed trahit invitam nova vis, aliudque cupido, mens aliud suadet Video 
 meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Ovid, Metam. vii. 19. 
 
 Vos testor, omnes coelites, hoc quod volo, me nolle. Seneca, Hippol. T. 604. 
 
 wc,n7, KAI t> pit 3i\f/, TT^eu. Arrian's Epict. ii. 26. "Since the sinner oes not 
 wish to err, but to act correctly, it is plain that what he wills "he does not, and 
 what he wills not he does." 
 
 Mayday* /ufv, oia. fy** /SAA itsuea, 
 
 eupo; t\ K%u<r<rur rJ> l/u.^ Biuwpd'Ten. Euripides, Medea, T. 1077. 
 
 "I know indeed that what I am about to do is evil; 
 
 But passion is too strong for my purposes."
 
 368 ROMANS VII. 21. 
 
 VERSE 21. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evL 
 is present with me. This verse has been subjected to a greater 
 variety of interpretations than any other in the chapter, or 
 perhaps in the whole epistle. The construction in the original 
 is doubtful ; and besides this difficulty, there is no little uncer- 
 tainty as to the sense in which the word law is to be here 
 taken. The question is, whether Paul means the law of God, 
 of which he has been speaking throughout the chapter, or 
 whether he uses the word in a new sense, for a rule, course, or 
 law of action. Our translators have assumed the latter. If 
 the former sense of the word be preferred, the passage may be 
 thus interpreted. * I find, therefore, that to me wishing to do 
 good, evil (the law as the cause of evil) is present with me.' 
 See Koppe. This is very unnatural. Or thus, ' I find, there- 
 fore, that to me wishing to act according to the law, i. e. to do 
 good, evil is present with me.'* Or, as Tholuck explains it, 'I 
 find, therefore, that while I would do the law, (i. e. good), evil is 
 present.' Then TOV vopov depends on xoielv, (willing to do the 
 law) and TO xa/.6v is in apposition with TOV vtiyLOv. The law is 
 the good which the apostle desired to do. But in the context, 
 the phrase Ttocsiv TOV vopov does not occur, and the passage aa 
 thus explained is awkward and unnatural. Besides TO xaXov 
 would be entirely superfluous as TOV vopov needs no explana- 
 tion. The considerations in favour of the second explanation 
 of. the word law appear to be decisive. 1. The other interpre- 
 tation does not afford a sense suited to the context, as appears 
 from Paul's own explanation of his meaning in the following 
 verses. 'I find,' he says, 'this law, that while wishing to dc 
 good, I do evil,' ver. 21; that is, 'I 'find that while I delight in 
 the law of God, after the inward man, there is another law in 
 my members which causes me to sin.' vs. 22, 23. Here it is 
 evident, that the apostle means to explain what he intended by 
 saying in ver. 21, that he found or experienced a law which 
 caused him to act contrary to his better judgment and desires. 
 2. Having used the word law by itself for the Divine law 
 throughout the chapter, he, for the first time, in ver. 22, calls 
 
 * Knapp's Prolusio in locum, Rom. vii. 21, in his Scripts Varii Argument!. 
 The several interpretations of the passage are given and discussed by that 
 writer.
 
 ROMANS VII. 22. 
 
 it "the law of God," to mark the distinction between the law 
 intended in ver. 21, and that intended in ver. 22. 3. Thia 
 sense of the word is not unusual ; it occurs repeatedly in the 
 immediately succeeding verses* 
 
 But admitting that vo//oc is taken here in the sense of con- 
 trolling principle or inward necessity, the construction of the 
 passage is still doubtful. Tw deXovn ipoi may depend on 
 eupiaxaj, I find in me. The construction is then regular : ' I 
 find in myself willing to do good the law, that evil is pre- 
 sent with me/ so Meyer; or, as Winer ( 65,4.) proposes, 
 " Invenio hanc legem (normam) volenti mihi honestum facere, 
 ut mihi," &c. And Beza: " Comperio igitur volenti mihi 
 facere bonum hanc legem esse impositum, quod mihi malum 
 adjaceat." Most commentators, however, assume a trajectioi* 
 of the particle on, placing it before the first, instead of the 
 second clause of the verse : ' I find this law, that (ore) to me- 
 willing to do good, evil is present with me;' instead of, 'I find 
 this law to me willing to do good, that (ore) evil is present/ 
 The English version assumes this trajection. The sense is the 
 same ; and if it can be elicited without altering the position of 
 the words, no such alteration should be made. PauFs experi- 
 ence had taught him, that while wishing to do good, he was- 
 still subject to evil, and from this subjection nothing but the 
 grace of God could deliver him. This experience is common to 
 all believers. "Fideles," says Calvin, "dum ad bonum nitun- 
 tur, quandam in se tyrannicam legem reperire, quia eorum. 
 medullis et ossibus infixa est vitiositas legi Dei adversa et 
 repugnans." 
 
 VERSE 22. For I delight in the law of G-od after the inward 
 man. This is both an explanation and confirmation of what 
 precedes. The inward conflict referred to in ver. 21, is here 
 stated more fully. Paul had said that although he purposed 
 to do good evil was present with him : 'For I delight in the 
 law of God after the inner man ; but I find a law in my mem- 
 bers bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.' I delight in 
 the law, ao^dofjLoi fdp -rip vbfjup, I rejoice with; not however 
 with others, to whom the context suggests and allows no refer- 
 ence, but intus, apud animum meum. As we say, to rejoice 
 with the whole heart. Compare ffbvocoa, I am conscious, i. e. y L. 
 24
 
 370 ROMANS VII. 22. 
 
 know with myself. As the apostle recognised in the new man 
 two conflicting principles, he speaks as though there were 
 within him two persons, both represented by /. The one is I, 
 i. e. my flesh ; the other is I, i. e. my inner man. By the inner 
 man is to be understood the "new man;" either the renewed 
 principle in itself considered, or the soul considered or viewed 
 as renewed. That this is the true meaning of the phrase is 
 evident : 1. From its origin. It is a term descriptive of excel- 
 lence. As the soul is better than the body, so the inner man 
 is better than the outward man. When the contrast is simply 
 between the external and internal, then the inner man means 
 the soul ; but when the contrast is, as here, between two con- 
 flicting principles within the soul, then by the inward man must 
 be meant the higher or better principle within us. That this 
 higher principle is not any natural faculty, anything belonging 
 to us in our unrenewed state, is plain from what is predicated 
 of this inner man. Everything is said of it that can be said 
 of what is characteristic of the true children of God. 2. This 
 interpretation is confirmed by a comparison with those passages 
 where the same phrase occurs. In 2 Cor. iv. 16, and Eph. 
 iii. 16, by "inward man" is meant the soul as renewed. It is 
 equivalent to the inner, or divine life, which is daily renewed 
 or strengthened by the communications of the Spirit. 3. The 
 analogous phrases, "the new man," as opposed to the "old 
 man," Rom. vi. 6, Eph. iv. 22, Col. iii. 9, and " hidden man of 
 the heart," 1 Pet. iii. 14, serve to illustrate and confirm this 
 interpretation. As "the new man" is the soul as made new, 
 so "the inward man," of which the same things are predicated, 
 means the renewed nature, or nature as renewed. 4. The use 
 of the terms "inward man," "law of the mind," "the Spirit," 
 "the spiritual man," as opposed to "the law in the members," 
 "the old man," "the flesh," "the natural man," shows that 
 the former all indicate the soul as regenerated, or as the seat 
 of the Spirit's influences, and the latter the soul as unrenewed. 
 5. The decision of the question as to what is here meant by 
 the "inward man," depends on what is elsewhere taught in 
 the Scriptures concerning the natural state of man. If men, 
 since the fall, are only partially depraved; if sin affects only 
 our lower faculties, leaving the reason undisturbed in its
 
 ROMANS VII. 23. 371 
 
 original purity, then by the "inward man," we must under- 
 stand our rational, as opposed to our sensuous nature. But 
 if the Bible teaches that the whole man is defiled by sin, 
 and that the principle of spiritual life is something superna- 
 tural, then it follows that the conflict here depicted is not that 
 between sense and reason, but that between the new and old 
 man, the soul as renewed and indwelling sin. "Interior igitur 
 homo," says Calvin, "non anima simpliciter dicitur, sed spiri- 
 tualis ejus pars, quse a Deo regenerata est: membrorum voca- 
 bulum residuam alteram partem significat. Nam ut anima est 
 pars excellentior hominis, corpus inferior; ita spiritus superior 
 est carne. Hac ergo ratione, quia Spiritus locum animae tenet 
 in homine, caro autem, id est corrupta et vitiata anima, corpo- 
 ris, ille interioris hominis, haec membrorum nomen obtinet." 
 So also Melancthon says, " Interior homo significat hominem, 
 quatenus renovatus est Spiritu sancto." And Luther's mar- 
 ginal note is, "Inwendiger Mensch heisst hier der Geist aua 
 Gnaden geboren, welcher in den Heiligen streitet wider den 
 ausserlichen, dass ist, Vernunft, Sinn und alles was Natur am 
 Menschen ist." And this conflict between the flesh and Spirit, 
 he says, in his preface to this epistle, " continues in us so long 
 as we live, in some more, and in others less, according as the 
 one or the other principle is the stronger. Yet the whole man 
 is both flesh and Spirit, and contends with himself until he is 
 completely spiritual." 
 
 VERSE 23. But I see another law in my members, &c. I see, 
 as though looking into his own soul, and observing the princi- 
 ples there in conflict. Besides "the inward man," or principle 
 of the divine life, there was "another law," not merely <2Mov, 
 another numerically, but erepov, another in kind, one that is 
 heterogenous, of a different nature. This evil principle is called 
 a law, because of its permanency and its controlling power. 
 It is not a transient act or mutable purpose, but a law, some- 
 thing independent of the will which defies and controls it. In 
 my members, i. e. in me. It is equivalent to "in my flesh," 
 ver. 18. Warring against the law of mind. It is not only 
 passively antagonistic, but it is a constantly active principle, 
 warring, i. e. endeavouring to overcome and destroy the law 
 of my mind. c vofioz roD vooc JJLOU, is not the law of which
 
 372 ROMANS VII. 23. 
 
 my mind is the author, but which pertains to my higher nature. 
 As the one law is in the members, or flesh, the other is the 
 mind; voyc, not the reason, nor the affections, but the higher 
 or renewed nature. It is antithetical to 0dpg, and as the latter 
 does not mean the body, nor simply our sensuous nature, but 
 our nature considered as corrupt, so the former does not mean 
 the soul, nor the reason, but our nature as renewed. " The law 
 of the mind" is evidently only another designation for "the 
 inward man." It was not the apostle's mind, his rational 
 nature, which strove against the law in his members; but it 
 was his mind or rational nature as a Christian, and therefore, 
 as such, the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit. It is not the 
 reason of the natural man, but the illuminated reason of the 
 spiritual man, of which the apostle here speaks. Bringing me 
 into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. The 
 principle of evil is not only active, but it is conquering. It 
 takes the soul captive. So that it is, in the sense of ver. 14, 
 the slave of sin. Not its willing servant, but its miserable, 
 helpless victim. This does not mean that sin always triumphs 
 in act, but simply that it is a power from which the soul cannot 
 free itself. It remains, and wars, in spite of all that we can 
 do. The law of sin is only a descriptive designation of that 
 other law mentioned in the preceding clause. They are not 
 two laws. The law in the members, which was against the law 
 of the mind, is a law of sin, i. e. it is sin considered as a law, 
 or controlling power. It is the same as "indwelling sin," 
 jj otxoitaa ev Ifioi afjiapria. In my members, i. e. in me, as what 
 is here expressed by Iv ro?c fJieteoi /*oy, is before expressed by 
 v kfjioi. It is only a modification of the old anti-Augustinian 
 interpretation, when Olshausen represents, according to his 
 anthropology, man as composed of three parts, the Tn/sy^et, 
 <pu-ffl, and fffaf^a, or voyc, ^/^ an d adpg. The faffl he makes 
 the real centre of our personality. By the voyc we are in com- 
 munion with the spiritual world, by the odpg with the material 
 world. The ^y#7, therefore, is the battle-field of the voyc and 
 <T/>. By itself the ^y/J? cannot free itself from the dominion 
 or power of the ffdpi, and therefore needs redemption, the 
 effect of which is to give the higher principle of our nature the 
 ascendency. The conflict is, from first to last, a natural one.
 
 ROMANS VII. 24. 373 
 
 It is only a struggle between the good principle in man which 
 has survived the fall, with the disorder introduced into his 
 nature by the apostacy. 
 
 VERSE 24. wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me 
 from the body of this death ? The burden of indwelling sin 
 was a load which the apostle could neither cast off nor bear. 
 He could only groan under its pressure, and long for deliver- 
 ance by a power greater than his. TaAafafopoz, (nearly allied 
 to ra/arrs^oroc, from T/.da) and Ttdpa, much tried,) wretched, 
 Rev. iii. 17, where it is connected with lAeeevo?, compare James 
 v. 1, iv. 9. Who shall deliver me ? this is the expression, not 
 of despair, but of earnest desire of help from without and 
 above himself. "Non quaerit," says Calvin, "a quo sit liber- 
 andus, quasi dubitans ut increduli, qui non tenent unicum esse 
 liberatorem : sed vox est anhelantis et prope fatiscentis, quia 
 non satis praesentem opem videat." That from which the 
 apostle desired to be delivered is the body of this death, r/c /ze 
 fiuffCTai Ix TOI> ffto/jtaroz TOI> &avdiToi> TO'jrou. The demonstra- 
 tive TOUTOU may be referred either to aa>f*aroz, this body of 
 death, or to fiavdrou, body of this death. It is not unusual, 
 especially in Hebrew, for the demonstrative and possessive pro- 
 nouns to be connected with the noun governed, when they 
 really qualify the governing noun; as "idols of his silver," for 
 his silver idols; "mountains of my holiness," for my holy 
 mountains. If this explanation be here adopted, then the 
 meaning is, this body which is subject to death, i. e., this mor- 
 tal body. Then what the apostle longed for was death. He 
 longed to have the strife over, which he knew was to last so 
 long as he continued in the body. But this is inconsistent, 
 both with what precedes and with what follows. It was the 
 "law in his members," "the law of sin," which pressed on him 
 as a grievous burden. And the victory for which he gives 
 thanks is not freedom from the body, but deliverance from sin. 
 To avoid these difficulties, death may be taken in the sense of 
 spiritual death, and therefore including the idea of sin. " This 
 body of death," would then mean, this body which is the seat 
 of death, in which spiritual death i. e. reigns. It is, however, 
 more natural to take the words as they stand, and connect 
 TOUTOU with &avdToi>, this death. Then the body of this death
 
 374 ROMANS VII. 25. 
 
 may mean the natural or material body, which belongs or per- 
 tains to the death of which he had been speaking. This agrees 
 nearly with the interpretation last mentioned. This supposes 
 that the body is the seat of sin ' who shall deliver me from 
 this death which reigns in the body?' It is not, however, 
 Paul's doctrine that the body is evil, or that it is the seat or 
 source of sin. It is the soul which is depraved, and which 
 contaminates the body, and perverts it to unholy use. It is, 
 therefore, better to take aatpa (body) in a figurative sense. 
 Sin is spoken of figuratively in the context as a man, as " the 
 old man," as having members, and, in vi. 6, as a body, "the 
 body of sin." The meaning, therefore, is, 'Who will deliver 
 me from the burden of this death?' or, 'this deadly weight.' 
 Calvin explains it thus: "Corpus mortis vocat massam peccati 
 vel congeriem, ex qua totus homo conflatus est." The body 
 under which the apostle groaned was mortifera peccati massa. 
 'This exclamation is evidently from a burdened heart. It is 
 spoken out of the writer's own consciousness, and shows that 
 although the apostle represents a class, he himself belonged to 
 that class. It is his own experience as a Christian to which 
 he gives utterance. 
 
 VERSE 25. The burden of sin being the great evil under 
 which the apostle and all other believers labour, from which no 
 efficacy of the law, and no efforts of their own can deliver 
 them, their case would be entirely hopeless but for help from 
 on high. " Sin shall not have dominion over you," is the lan- 
 guage of the grace of God in the gospel. The conflict which 
 the believer sustains is not to result in the victory of sin, but 
 in the triumph of grace. In view of this certain and glorious 
 result, Paul exclaims, / thank G-od through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord. This is evidently the expression of a strong and sudden 
 emotion of gratitude. xVs, however, his object is to illustrate 
 the operation of the law, it would be foreign to his purpose to 
 expatiate on a deliverance effected by a different power ; he, 
 therefore, does not follow up the idea suggested by this excla- 
 mation, but immediately returns to the point in hand. Instead 
 of the common text t'jyfuna-at ria &zw, I thank &od, many 
 editors prefer the reading '/<iocz '<+ $>, thanks be to God. 
 Some manuscripts have 37 2 a ,"'-r ~u~-> 0-zuii. Then this verse
 
 ROMANS VII. 25. 375 
 
 would be an answer to the preceding. ' Who shall deliver me 
 from this burden of sin?' An*. 'The grace of God.' For 
 this reading, however, there is little authority, external or 
 internal. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul does not 
 only render thanks to God through the mediation of Christ, 
 but the great blessing of deliverance for which he gives thanks, 
 is received through the Lord Jesus Christ. He does for us 
 what neither the law nor our own powers could effect. He is 
 the only Redeemer from sin. 
 
 So then, apa obv, wherefore. The inference is not from the 
 immediately preceding expression of thanks. * Jesus Christ is 
 my deliverer, wherefore I myself,' &c. But this is an unnatural 
 combination. The main idea of the whole passage, the subject 
 which the apostle laboured to have understood, is the impo- 
 tence of the law the impossibility of obtaining deliverance 
 from sin through its influence or agency. The inference is, 
 therefore, from the whole preceding discussion, especially from 
 what is said from ver. 14 onward. The conclusion to which 
 the apostle had arrived is here briefly summed up. He 
 remained, and so far as the law is concerned, must remain 
 under the power of sin. 'With the mind I serve the law of 
 God, but with the flesh the law of sin.' Deliverance from the 
 power of sin the law cannot accomplish. / myself, adroc if(o. 
 The aijTbz here is either antithetical, placing the if a) in oppo- 
 sition to some expressed or implied, or it is explanatory. 
 If the former, the opposition is to ocd lr t oo~j Xptaroi), I alone^ 
 without the aid of Christ. So Mayer and others. But the 
 idea thus expressed is not in accordance with the context. 
 Paul had not been teaching what his unrenewed, unaided 
 nature could accomplish, but what was the operation of the 
 law, even on the renewed man. The cwroc is simply explana- 
 tory, / myself, and no other, i. e. the same Ego of which he, 
 had spoken all along. It is very plain, from the use of this 
 expression, that the preceding paragraph is an exhibition of 
 his own experience. All that is there said, is summarily here 
 said emphatically in his own person. ' I myself, I, Paul, with 
 my mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of 
 sin.' The antithesis is between vol and aapxi; the one explains 
 the other. As adpz is not the body, nor the sensuous nature,
 
 376 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 but indwelling sin, ver. 18, so voDc is not the mind as opposed 
 to the body, nor reason as opposed to the sensual passions, but 
 the higher, renewed principle, as opposed to the law in the 
 members, or indwelling corruption. This interpretation is sus- 
 tained by the use of the word in the preceding verses. Paul 
 served the law of God, in so far as he assented to the law that 
 it is good, as he delighted in it, and strove to be conformed to 
 it. He served the law of sz'n, that is, sin considered as a law 
 or inward power, so far as, in despite of all his efforts, he was 
 still under its influence, and was thereby hindered from living 
 in that constant fellowship with God, and conformity to his 
 will, that he earnestly desired. 
 
 Having gone through the exposition of this passage, it is 
 time to pause, and ask, Of whom has Paul been speaking, of a 
 renewed or unrenewed man? Few questions of this kind have 
 been more frequently canvassed, or more intimately associated 
 with the doctrinal views of different classes of theologians. 
 The history of the interpretation of the latter part of this 
 chapter, is one of the most interesting sections of the doctrinal 
 history of the Church. A brief outline of this history may be 
 found in the Dissertation of Knapp, before referred to, and 
 somewhat more extended in the Commentary of Tholuck. It 
 appears that during the first three centuries, the Fathers were 
 generally agreed in considering the passage as descriptive of 
 the experience of one yet under the law. Even Augustine at 
 first concurred in the correctness of this view. But as a deeper 
 insight into his own heart, and a more thorough investigation 
 of the Scriptures, led to the modification of his opinions on so 
 many other points, they produced a change on this subject also. 
 This general alteration of his doctrinal views cannot be attri- 
 buted to his controversy with Pelagius, because it took place 
 long before that controversy commenced. It is to be ascribed 
 to his religious experience, and his study of the word of God. 
 
 The writers of the middle ages, in general, agreed with the 
 later views of Augustine on this, as on other subjects. At the 
 time of the Reformation, the original diversity of opinion on 
 this point, and on all others connected with it, soon became 
 manifested. Erasmus, Socinus, and others, revived the opinion
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 3T7 
 
 of the Greek Fathers; while Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, 
 Beza, &c., adhered to the opposite interpretation. At a later 
 period, when the controversy with the Remonstrants occurred, 
 it commenced with a discussion of the interpretation of this 
 chapter. The first writings of Arminius, in which he broached 
 his peculiar opinions, were lectures on this passage. All his 
 associates and successors, as Grotius, Episcopius, Limborch, &c., 
 adopted the same view of the subject. As a general rule, 
 Arminian Avriters have been found on one side of this question, 
 and Calvinistic authors on the other. This is indeed the natural 
 result of their different views of the scriptural doctrine of the 
 natural state of man. Most of the former class, going much 
 farther than Arminius himself ever went either denying that 
 the corruption consequent on the fall is such as to destroy the 
 power of men to conform themselves to the law of God, or 
 maintaining that this power, if lost, is restored by those opera- 
 tions of the Holy Spirit which are common to all found no 
 difficulty in considering the expressions, "I consent to" and 
 "delight in the law of God after the inward man," as the 
 language of a person yet in his natural state. On the other 
 hand, those who held the doctrine of total depravity, and of 
 the consequent inability of sinners, and who rejected the doc- 
 trine of "common grace," could not reconcile with these 
 opinions the strong language here used by the apostle. 
 
 Although this has been the general course of opinion on this 
 subject, some of the most evangelical men, especially on the 
 continent of Europe, have agreed with Erasmus in his view 
 of this passage. This was the case with Francke, Bengel, &e., 
 of a previous age; and with Knapp, Flatt, Tholuck, &c., of our 
 own day ; not to mention the distinguished writers of England 
 and our own country, who have adopted the same view. There 
 is nothing, therefore, in this opinion, which implies the denial 
 or disregard of any of the fundamental principles of evangelical 
 religion. Still, that the view of the passage which so long pre- 
 vailed in the Church, and which has been generally adopted by 
 evangelical men, is the correct one, seems evident from the fol- 
 lowing considerations. 
 
 I. The onus probandi is certainly on the other side. When 
 the apostle uses not only the first person, but the present tense,
 
 378 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 and says, "I consent to the law that it is good," "I delight in 
 the law of God," "I see another law in my members warring 
 against the law of my mind," &c., those who deny that he 
 means himself, even though he says I myself, or refuse to 
 acknowledge that this language expresses his feelings while 
 writing, are surely bound to let the contrary very clearly be 
 seen. Appearances are certainly against them. It should be 
 remembered that Paul uses this language, not once or twice, 
 but uniformly through the whole passage, and that too with an 
 ardour of feeling indicative of language coming directly from 
 the heart, and expressing its most joyful or painful experience. 
 This is a consideration which cannot be argumcntatively exhi- 
 bited, but it must impress every attentive and susceptible 
 reader. To suppose that the apostle is personating another, 
 either, as Grotius* supposes, the Jew first before the giving of 
 the law, and then after it; or as Erasmus thinks, a Gentile 
 without the law, as opposed to a Jew under it ; or as is more 
 commonly supposed, an ordinary individual under the influence 
 of a knowledge of the law, is to suppose him to do what he 
 does nowhere else in any of his writings, and what is entirely 
 foreign to his whole spirit and manner. Instead of thus sinking 
 himself in another, he can hardly prevent his own individual 
 feelings from mingling with, and moulding the very statement 
 of objections to his own reasoning; see chap. iii. 3 8. One 
 great difficulty in explaining his epistles, arises from this very 
 source. It is hard to tell at times what is his language, and 
 what that of an objector. If any one will examine the passages 
 in which Paul is supposed to mean another, when he uses the 
 first person, he will see how far short they come of affording 
 any parallel to the case supposed in this chapter. f In many 
 of them he undoubtedly means himself, as in 1 Cor. iii. 5, 
 iv. 3, &c.; in others the language is, in one sense, expressive 
 of the apostle's real sentiments, and is only perverted by the 
 objector, as in 1 Cor. vi. 12; while in others the personation 
 of another is only for a single sentence. Nothing analogous to 
 
 * Ego, id est, genus Israeliticum cum vixit ante legera in Aegjpto scilicet. 
 See his comment on ver. 9. 
 
 t The passages referred to by Knapp are 1 Cor. iii. 5, iv. ?, &c.; vi. 12; 
 x. 29, 30; riii. 11, 12; iiv. 14, 15; Gal. ii. 1821.
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 379 
 
 this passage is to be found in all his writings, if indeed he is 
 not here pouring out the feelings of his own heart. 
 
 II. There is no necessity for denying that Paul here speaks 
 of himself, and describes the exercises of a renewed man. 
 There is not an expression, from beginning to the end of this 
 section, which the holiest man may not and must not adopt. 
 This has been shown in the commentary. The strongest 
 declarations, as, for example, "I am carnal, and sold under 
 sin," admit, indeed, by themselves, of an interpretation incon- 
 sistent with even ordinary morality; but, as explained by the 
 apostle, and limited by the context, they express nothing more 
 than every believer experiences. What Christian does not feel 
 that he is carnal ? Alas, how different is he from the spirits 
 of the just made perfect ! How cheerfully does he recognise 
 his obligation to love God with all the heart, and yet how con- 
 stantly does the tendency to self and the world, the law in his 
 members, war against the purer and better law of his mind, and 
 bring him into subjection to sin ! If, indeed, it were true, as 
 has been asserted, that the person here described " succumbs to 
 sin IN EVERY INSTANCE of contest"* the description would be 
 inapplicable not to the Christian only, but to any other than 
 the most immoral of men. It is rare indeed, even in the 
 natural conflict between reason and passioa, or conscience and 
 corrupt inclination, that the better principle does not succeed, 
 not once merely, but often. There is, however, nothing 
 even approaching to the implication ot such a sentiment in the 
 whole passage. Paul merely asserts that the believer is, and 
 ever remains in this life, imperfectly sanctified ; that sin con- 
 tinues to dwell within him ; that he never comes up to the full 
 requisitions of the law, however anxiously he may desire it. 
 Often as he subdues one spiritual foe, another rises in a differ- 
 ent form ; so that he cannot do the things that he would ; that 
 is, cannot be perfectly conformed in heart and life to the image 
 of God. 
 
 It must have been in a moment of forgetfulness, that such a 
 man as Tholuck could quote with approbation the assertion of 
 Dr. A. Clarke : " This opinion has most pitifully and shame- 
 fully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but 
 
 * Professor Stuart, p. 558.
 
 380 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 destroyed its influence and disgraced its character." 
 lamentable blindness to notorious facts does such language 
 evince ! From the days of Job and David to the present hour, 
 the holiest men have been the most ready to acknowledge and 
 deplore the existence and power of indwelling sin. "Without 
 appealing to individual illustrations of the truth of this remark, 
 look at masses of men, at Augustinians and Pelagians, Calvin- 
 ists and Remonstrants: in all ages the strictest doctrines and 
 the sternest morals have been found united. It is not those 
 who have most exalted human ability, that have most advan- 
 tageously exhibited the fruits of its power. It has been rather 
 those who, with the lowest views of themselves, and the highest 
 apprehensions of the efficacy of the grace of God, have been 
 able to adopt the language of Paul, " What I would, that do I 
 not;" and who, looking away from themselves to him through 
 whom they can do all things, have shown the Divine strength 
 manifested in their weakness. 
 
 III. While there is nothing in the sentiments of this passage 
 which a true Christian may not adopt, there is much which 
 cannot be asserted by any unrenewed man. As far as this 
 point is concerned, the decision depends, of course, on the cor- 
 rect interpretation of the several expressions employed by the 
 apostle. 1. What is the true meaning of the phrases "inward 
 man" and " law of the mind," when opposed to "the flesh" and 
 "the law in the members"? The sense of these expressions is 
 to be determined by their use in other passages ; or if they do 
 not elsewhere occur, by the meaning attached to those which 
 are obviously substituted for them. As from the similarity 
 of the passages, it can hardly be questioned, that what Paul 
 here calls "the inward man" and "law of the mind," he, in 
 Gal. v. 17, and elsewhere, calls "the Spirit;" it is plain that 
 he intends, by these terms, to designate -the soul considered as 
 renewed, in opposition to the "flesh," or the soul considered 
 as destitute of Divine influence. 2. It is not in accordance 
 with the scriptural representation of the wicked, to describe 
 them as consenting to the law of God; as hating sin, and 
 struggling against it; groaning under it as a tyrant's yoke; 
 as delighting in the law of God, i. e. in holiness : doing all this, 
 not as men, but as men viewed in a particular aspect as to the
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 381 
 
 inward or new man. This is not the scriptural representation 
 of the natural man, who does not receive the things of the 
 Spirit of God, and cannot know them, 1 Cor. ii. 14. On the 
 contrary, the carnal mind is enmity against God and his law. 
 They therefore who are in the flesh, that is, who have this 
 carnal mind, hate and oppose the law, Rom. viii. 7, 8. The 
 expressions here used by the apostle, are such as, throughout 
 the Scriptures, are used to describe the exercises of the pious, 
 "whose delight is in the law of the Lord, Ps. i. 2. 3. Not 
 only do these particular expressions show that the writer is a 
 true Christian, but the whole conflict here described is such 
 as is peculiar to the sincere believer. There is, indeed, in 
 the natural man, something very analogous to this, when his 
 conscience is enlightened, and his better feelings come into 
 collision with the strong inclination to evil which dwells in his 
 mind. But this struggle is very far below that which the 
 apostle here describes. The true nature of this conflict seems 
 to be ascertained beyond dispute, by the parallel passage in 
 Gal. v. 17, already referred to. It cannot be denied, that to 
 possess the Spirit is, in scriptural language, a characteristic 
 mark of a true Christian. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in 
 the spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any 
 man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 
 viii. 9. Those, therefore, who have that Spirit, are Christians. 
 This being the case, it will not be doubted that the passage in 
 Galatians, in which the spirit is represented as warring against 
 the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit, is descriptive of the 
 experience of the true believer. But the conflict there described 
 is identical with that of which the same apostle speaks in this 
 chapter. This is evident, not merely from the fact that one 
 of the antagonist principles is, in both cases, called flesh, but 
 because the description is nearly in the same words. In conse- 
 quence of the opposition of the flesh and spirit, Paul tells the 
 Galatians they cannot do the things that they would ; and he 
 says here of himself, that in consequence of the opposition 
 between the flesh and the law of his mind, what he would he 
 did not. The same conflict and the same bondage are described 
 in each case ; and if the one be descriptive of the exercises of a 
 true Christian, the other must be so also.
 
 382 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 IV. The context, or the connection of this passage with the 
 preceding and succeeding chapters, is in favour of the common 
 interpretation. The contrary is, indeed, strongly asserted by 
 those who take the opposite view of the passage. Tholuck 
 seems to admit that, were it not for the context, the whole of 
 the latter part of the chapter might well be understood of the 
 believer: see his remarks on ver. 14. And Professor Stuart 
 says, " I repeat the remark, that the question is not, whether 
 what is here said might be applied to Christians ; but whether, 
 from the tenor of the context, it appears to have been the 
 intention of the writer that it should be so applied. This prin- 
 ciple cannot fail to settle the question concerning such an 
 application." P. 558. It may be proper to pause and remark, 
 that such statements involve a renunciation of the arguments 
 derived from the inapplicability to the real Christian, of what 
 is here said. Everything is here admitted to be in itself appli- 
 cable to him, did but the context allow it to be so applied. Yet 
 every one is aware that no argument is more frequently and 
 strongly urged against the common interpretation, than that 
 the description here given is, in its very nature, unsuitable to 
 Christian experience. On the same page which contains the 
 passage just quoted, Professor Stuart says, "As, however, there 
 is no denying the truth of these and the like declarations,* and 
 no receding from them, nor explaining them away as meaning 
 less than habitual victory over sin; so it follows, that when 
 vs. 14 25 are applied to Christian experience, they are 
 wrongly applied. The person represented in these verses, 
 succumbs to sm, IN EVERY INSTANCE of contest." This is cer- 
 tainly an argument against applying the passage in question to 
 the Christian, founded on the assumption that it is, from its 
 nature, entirely inapplicable. And the argument is perfectly 
 conclusive, if the meaning of the passage be what is here stated. 
 But it is believed that this is very far from being its true mean- 
 ing, as shown above. This argument, however, it appears, is 
 not insisted upon; everything is made to depend upon the 
 context. 
 
 Many distinguished commentators, as Alfonso Turrettin, 
 Knapp, Tholuck, Flatt, and Stuart, consider this chapter, from 
 
 * 'He who loveth Christ, keepeth his commandments,' &c.
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 ver. 7 to the end, as a commentary upon ver. 5, in which verse 
 the state of those who are in "the flesh" is spoken of; and the 
 first part of the next chapter as a commentary on ver. 6, which 
 speaks of those who are no longer under the law. Accord- 
 ingly, vs. 7 25 are descriptive of the exercises of a man yet 
 under the law ; and viii. 1 17, of those of a man under the 
 gospel, or of a believer. It is said that the two passages are in 
 direct antithesis; the one describes the state of a captive to 
 sin, vii. 23, and the other the state of one who is delivered 
 from sin, viii. 2. This is certainly ingenious and plausible, but 
 is founded on a twofold misapprehension ; first, as to the nature 
 of this captivity to sin, or the real meaning of the former 
 passage, vii. 14 25; and, secondly, as to the correct inter- 
 pretation of the latter passage, or viii. 1 17. If vii. 14 25 
 really describes such a captivity as these authors suppose, in 
 which the individual spoken of "succumbs to sin in every 
 instance," there is, of course, an end of this question, and that 
 too without any appeal to the context for support. But, on the 
 other hand, if it describes no such state, but, as Tholuck and 
 Professor Stuart admit, contains nothing which might not be 
 said of the Christian, the whole force of the argument is gone ; 
 verses 7 25 are no longer necessarily a comment on ver. 5, 
 nor viii. 1 17 on ver. 6. The antithesis of course ceases, if 
 the interpretation, to which it owes its existence, be abandoned. 
 The matter, after all, therefore, is made to depend on the cor- 
 rect exposition of the passage (vs. 14 25) itself. A particular 
 interpretation cannot first be assumed, in order to make out the 
 antithesis ; and then the antithesis be assumed, to justify the 
 interpretation. This would be reasoning in a circle. In the 
 second place, this view of the context is founded, as is believed, 
 on an erroneous exegesis of viii. 1 17. The first part of that 
 chapter is not so intimately connected with the latter part of 
 this; nor is it designed to show that the Christian is delivered 
 from "the law of sin and death" in his members. For the 
 grounds of this statement, the reader is referred to the com- 
 mentary on the passage in question. Even if the reverse were 
 the fact, still, unless it can be previously shown that vs. 14 25 
 of this chapter describe the state of a man under the law, there 
 is no ground for the assumption of such an antithesis between
 
 384 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 the two passages as is supposed in the view of the context 
 stated above. Both passages might describe the same indivi- 
 dual under different aspects ; the one exhibiting the operation 
 of the law, and the other that of the gospel on the renewed 
 mind. But if the exposition given below of viii. 1 17, is 
 correct, there is not a shadow of foundation for the argument 
 derived from the context against the common interpretation 
 of vii. 1425. 
 
 The whole tenor of the apostle's argument, from the begin- 
 ning of the epistle to the close of this chapter, is not only con- 
 sistent with the common interpretation, but seems absolutely to 
 demand it. His great object in the first eight chapters, is to 
 show that the whole work of the sinner's salvation, his justifica- 
 tion and sanctification, are not of the law, but of grace ; that 
 legal obedience can never secure the one, nor legal efforts the 
 other. Accordingly, in the first five chapters, he shows that 
 we are justified by faith, without the works of the law ; in the 
 sixth, that this doctrine of gratuitous justification, instead of 
 leading to licentiousness, presents the only certain and effectual 
 means of sanctification. In the beginning of the seventh 
 chapter, he shows that the believer is really thus free from the 
 law, and is now under grace ; and that while under the law he 
 brought forth fruit unto sin, but being under grace, he now 
 brings forth fruit unto God. The question here arises, Why is 
 the holy, just, and good law thus impotent? Is it because it is 
 evil? Far from it; the reason lies in our own corruption. 
 Then, to show how this is, and why the objective and authorita- 
 tive exhibition of truth cannot sanctify, the apostle proceeds to 
 show how it actually operates on the depraved mind. In the 
 first place, it enlightens conscience, and, in the second, it 
 rouses the opposition of the corrupt heart. These are the two 
 elements of conviction of sin ; a knowledge of its nature, and a 
 sense of its power over ourselves. Hence the feeling of self- 
 condemnation, of helplessness and misery. Thus the law slays. 
 This is one portion of its effect, but not the whole ; for, even 
 after the heart is renewed, as it is but imperfectly sanctified, 
 the law is still unable to promote holiness. The reason here 
 again is not that the law is evil, but that we are carnal, ver. 14. 
 Indwelling sin, as the apostle calls it, is the cause why the law
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 385 
 
 cannot effect the sanctification even of the believer. It pre- 
 sents, indeed, the form of beauty, and the soul delights in it 
 after the inward man; but the corrupt affections, which turn 
 to self and the world, are still there: these the law cannot 
 destroy. But though the law cannot do this, it shall eventually 
 be done. Thanks to God, through Jesus Christ, our case is not 
 hopeless ! 
 
 The apostle's object would have been but half attained, had 
 he not thus exhibited the effect of the law upon the believer's 
 mind, and demonstrated that a sense of legal bondage was not 
 necessary to the Christian, and could not secure his sanctifica- 
 tion. Having done this, his object is accomplished. The eighth 
 chapter, therefore, is not so intimately connected with the 
 seventh. It does not commence with an inference from the 
 discussion in vs. 7 25, but from the whole preceding exhibi- 
 tion. " There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that 
 are in Christ Jesus." Why? Because they are sanctified? No;, 
 but because they are not under the law. This is the main 
 point, from first to last. They are delivered from that law, 
 which, however good in itself, can only produce sin and death,, 
 ver. 2. In view of this insufficiency of the law, God, having; 
 sent his Son as a sacrifice for sin, has delivered them from it,, 
 by condemning sin in him, and has thus secured the justification 
 of believers. Through him they satisfy the demands of the law,, 
 and their salvation is rendered certain. This, however, implies 
 that they do not live after the flesh, but after the Spirit, agree- 
 ably to the doctrine of the sixth chapter ; for salvation in sin is 
 a contradiction in terms. 
 
 There is, therefore, no such antithesis between the seventh 
 and eighth chapters, as the opposite interpretation supposes. 
 It is not the design of the latter to show that men are delivered 
 from indwelling sin ; or that the conflict between the u law in 
 the members" and "the law of the mind," between the flesh 
 and Spirit, ceases when men embrace the gospel. But it shows 
 that this consummation is secured to all who are in Christ, to 
 all who do not deliberately and of choice walk after the flesh, 
 and make it their guide and master. In virtue of deliverance 
 from the law, and introduction into a state of grace, the believer 
 has not only his acceptance with God, but his final deliverance 
 25
 
 386 ROMANS VII. 1425. 
 
 from sin secured. Sin shall not triumph in those who have th* 
 Spirit of Christ, and who, by that Spirit, mortify the deeds of 
 the body. 
 
 If, then, the context is altogether favourable to the ordinary 
 interpretation; if the passage is accurately descriptive of 
 Christian experience, and analogous to other inspired accounts 
 of the exercises of the renewed heart ; if not merely particular 
 expressions, but the whole tenor of the discourse, is inconsistent 
 with the scriptural account of the natural man ; and if Paul, in 
 the use of the first person and the present tense, cannot, with- 
 out violence, be considered otherwise than as expressing his 
 own feelings while writing, we have abundant reason to rest 
 satisfied with the obvious sense of the passage. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. No man is perfectly sanctified in this life. At least, Paul 
 was not, according to his own confession, when he wrote this 
 passage, vs. 14 25. 
 
 2. The law is spiritual, that is, perfect, deriving its character 
 from its author, the Spirit of God. It is, therefore, the unerr- 
 ing standard of duty, and the source of moral light or know- 
 ledge. It should, therefore, be everywhere known and studied, 
 and faithfully applied as the rule of judgment for our own 
 conduct, and that of others. Evangelical doctrines, therefore, 
 which teach the necessity of freedom from the law as a cove- 
 nant of works, i. e. as prescribing the terms of our justification 
 before God, derogate neither from its excellence nor its author- 
 ity. It is left to do its proper work in the economy of redemp- 
 tion ; to convince of sin, and be a guide to duty, ver. 14, &c. 
 
 3. The mere presentation of truth, apart from the influ- 
 ences of the Spirit, can neither renew nor sanctify the heart, 
 ver. 14, &c. 
 
 4. Inability is consistent with responsibility. " To perform 
 that which is good I find not," that is, I cannot, ver. 18; Gal. 
 v. 17. As the Scriptures constantly recognise the truth of 
 these two things, so are they constantly united in Christian 
 experience. Every one feels that he cannot do the things that 
 he would, yet is sensible that he is to blame for not doing them.
 
 ROMANS VII. 1425. 387 
 
 Let any man test his power by the requisition to love God per- 
 fectly at all times. Alas ! how entire our inability ; yet how 
 deep our self-loathing and self-condemnation ! 
 
 5. The emotions and affections do not obey a determination 
 of the will, vs. 16, 18, 19, 21. A change of purpose, therefore, 
 is not a change of heart. 
 
 6. The Christian's victory over sin cannot be achieved by 
 the strength of his resolutions, nor by the plainness and force 
 of moral motives, nor by any resources within himself. He 
 looks to Jesus Christ, and conquers in his strength. In other 
 words, the victory is not obtained in the way of nature, but of 
 grace, vs. 14 25. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. As the believer's life is a constant conflict, those who do 
 not struggle against sin, and endeavour to subdue it, are not 
 true Christians, vs. 14 25. 
 
 2. The person here described hates sin, ver. 15; acknow- 
 ledges and delights in the spirituality of the divine law, 
 vs. 16, 22 ; he considers his corruption a dreadful burden, from 
 Avhich he earnestly desires to be delivered, ver. 24. These are 
 exercises of genuine piety, and should be applied as tests of 
 character. 
 
 3. It is an evidence of an unrenewed heart to express or feel 
 opposition to the law of God, as though it were too strict ; or 
 to be disposed to throw off the blame of our want of conformity 
 to the divine will from ourselves upon the law, as unreasonable. 
 The renewed man condemns himself, and justifies God, even 
 while he confesses and mourns his inability to conform to the 
 divine requisitions, vs. 14 25. 
 
 4. The strength and extent of the corruption of our nature 
 are seen from its influence over the best of men, and from its 
 retaining more or less of its power, under all circumstances, to 
 the end of life, ver. 25. 
 
 5. This corruption, although its power is acknowledged, so 
 far from being regarded as an excuse or palliation for our indi- 
 vidual offences, is recognised as the greatest aggravation of our 
 guilt. To say, with the feelings of the apostle, "I am carnal,"
 
 388 ROMANS VIII. 139. 
 
 is. to utter the strongest language of self-condemnation and self- 
 abhorrence, vs. 14 25. 
 
 6. Although the believer is never perfectly sanctified in this 
 life, his aim and efforts are ever onward ; and the experience 
 of the power of indwelling sin teaches him the value of heaven, 
 and prepares him for the enjoyment of it, vs. 14 25. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAUL had now finished his exhibition of the plan of salvation. 
 He had shown that we are justified gratuitously, that is, by 
 faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the law. He had 
 proved that, so far from this freedom from the law leading to 
 the indulgence of sin, it is necessary to our sanctification, 
 because the law is as inadequate to the production of holinesa 
 in the sinner, as it is to secure pardon or acceptance with God. 
 That such is the insufficiency of the law, he proved by exhibit- 
 ing its operation both on the renewed and unrenewed mind. 
 Having accomplished all this, he leaves, in the chapter before 
 ua, the field of logical argument, and enters on the new and 
 more elevated sphere of joyous exultation. As, however, 
 there is always warmth of feeling in the apostle's argument, 
 so also is there generally logical arrangement in his highest 
 triumphs. 
 
 His themo here is the security of believers. The salvation 
 of those who have renounced the law, and accepted the gracious 
 offers of the gospel, is shown to be absolutely certain. The 
 whole chapter is a series of arguments, most beautifully 
 arranged, in support of this one point. They are all traced 
 back to the great source of hope and security, the unmerited 
 and unchanging love of Grod in Christ Jesus. The proposition 
 is contained in the first verse. There is no condemnation to 
 those who are in Christ Jesus : they shall never be condemned 
 or perish.
 
 KOMANS VIII. 111. 389 
 
 1. Because they are delivered from the law ; all its demands 
 being fulfilled in them by the mission and sacrifice of Christ, 
 vs. 1 4. 2. Because their salvation is actually begun in the 
 regeneration and sanctification of their hearts by the Holy 
 Spirit. Those who have the Spirit of Christ have the Spirit 
 of life, vs. 5 11. 3. Not only is their salvation begun, but 
 they are the children of God, and if children, they are heirs, 
 vs. 12 17. 4. The afflictions which they may be called to 
 endure, are not inconsistent with this filial relation to God, 
 because they are utterly insignificant in comparison with the 
 glory that shall be revealed in them ; and under these afflictions 
 they are sustained both by hope and the intercessions of the 
 Holy Spirit, vs. 18 28. 5. Because they are predestinated 
 to the attainment of eternal life ; of which predestination their 
 present sanctification or effectual calling is the result, and 
 therefore the evidence, vs. 28 30. 6. Because God has given 
 his Son to die for them, and thereby to secure their justifica- 
 tion and salvation, vs. 31 34. 7. Because the love of God is 
 infinite and unchangeable; from which nothing can separate 
 us, vs. 35 39. Thus from the proximate cause of salvation, 
 or the indwelling of the Spirit, does the apostle rise with ever- 
 increasing confidence, to the great source and fountain of all, 
 in the love of God.* 
 
 Although, according to this view of the chapter, it is one 
 whole, it may, for the sake of convenience, be divided into 
 three sections. 
 
 ROMANS VIII. 111. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THIS section contains the development of the first two of the 
 apostle's arguments in favour of the position, that those who 
 are in Christ Jesus shall never be condemned. The immediate 
 reason is assigned in the second verse they are delivered from 
 the law. For, in view of the insufficiency of the law, God sent 
 
 * The same general view of the design of this chapter, and of the course of 
 the apostle's argument, is given in the analysis of this epistle, by Stephen 
 de Brais.
 
 390 ROMANS VIII. 1. 
 
 forth his Son as a sacrifice for sin, ver. 3 ; and thus secured 
 the justification of all believers, ver. 4. Being thus delivered 
 from the law, they walk not after the flesh, hut after the Spirit, 
 and this possession of the Spirit is incipient salvation : hecause 
 the carnal mind, which, of course, all who are in the flesh pos- 
 sess,, is death; whereas a mind under the government of the 
 Spirit is life and peace. Such is the very nature of the case. 
 Holiness is salvation, vs. 5 7. The reason that death is the 
 necessary consequence of being carnally minded, is the essen- 
 tial opposition between such a state of mind and God. Hence, 
 those who have this state of mind are the objects of the Divine 
 displeasure, vs. 7, 8. As, however, believers are not under the 
 government of the flesh, but of the Spirit, their salvation is 
 secured, even to the resurrection of the body. For if the Spirit 
 of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in them, he 
 shall also quicken their mortal bodies, vs. 9 11. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them 
 which are in Christ Jesus. It is a matter of considerable 
 importance to the understanding of this chapter, to decide what 
 is its precise relation to the preceding part of the epistle. The 
 word therefore indicates that what follows is an inference; but 
 from what ? From the conclusion of the seventh chapter, or 
 from the whole previous discussion ? The latter seems to be 
 the only correct view of the context ; because the fact that 
 there is no condemnation to believers, is no fair inference from 
 what is said at the close of the preceding chapter. Paul does 
 not mean to say, as Luther and others explain ver. 1, that 
 there is nothing worthy of condemnation in the Christian, 
 because with his mind he serves the law of God. Nor does he 
 mean, at least in the first few verses, to argue that believers 
 shall not be condemned, because they are freed from the 
 dominion of sin. But the inference, in the first verse, is the 
 legitimate conclusion of all that Paul had previously estab- 
 lished. Believers shall be saved, because 'they are not under 
 the law, but under grace, which is the main point in all that 
 Paul has yet said. There is, therefore, noiv, i. e. under these
 
 ROMANS VIII. 1. 391 
 
 circumstances, viz. the circumstances set forth in the previous 
 part of the epistle. The decision of the question as to the con- 
 nection depends on the view taken of the apostle's argument. 
 If he argues that believers are not liable to condemnation, 
 because with the mind they serve the law of God, then the con- 
 nection is with what immediately precedes. But if his argu* 
 ment is, that those in Christ are not exposed to condemnation, 
 notwithstanding their imperfect sanctification, because Christ 
 has died as a sacrifice for their sins, then the connection is 
 with the main argument of the epistle. Since men, being sin- 
 ners, cannot be justified by works ; since by the obedience of 
 one man, Jesus Christ, the many are made righteous ; and since 
 through him, and not through the law, deliverance from the 
 subjective power of sin is effected, therefore it follows that 
 there is no condemnation to those who are in him. 
 
 There is no condemnation, ouoev xaTdxpifjta, does not mean 
 niliil damnatione dignum (nothing worthy of condemnation,) as 
 Erasmus and many others render it, but there is no condemna- 
 tion. Those who are in Christ are not exposed to condemnation. 
 And this again is not to be understood as descriptive of their 
 present state merely, but of their permanent position. They 
 are placed beyond the reach of condemnation. They shall 
 never be condemned. The meaning of a proposition is often 
 best understood by the arguments by which it is sustained. It 
 is so in this case. The whole chapter is a proof of the safety 
 of believers, of their security not only from present condemna- 
 tion, but from future perdition. Nothing shall ever separate 
 them from the love of God, is the triumphant conclusion to 
 which the apostle arrives. Those to whom there is and never 
 can be any condemnation, are described, first as to their rela- 
 tion to Christ, and secondly as to their character. The first 
 assigns the reason of their security, the second enables us to 
 determine to whom that security belongs. First, they are in 
 Christ. In what sense ? This must be determined, not so much 
 from the force of the words, as from the teachings of Scripture. 
 1. They are in him federally, as all men were in Adam, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 22, Rom. v. 12 21. 2. They are in him vitally, as the 
 branch is in the vine, John xv. 1 7; or, as the head and mem- 
 bers of the body are in vital union, 1 Cor. xii. 27, Eph. i. 23.
 
 392 ROMANS VIII. 2. 
 
 This union arises from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 13, vi. 15, 19. 3. They are in him by faith, Eph. iii. 17, 
 Gal. iii. 26, 27. It is not in virtue of any one of these bonds 
 of union exclusively, but in virtue of them all (so far as adults 
 are concerned,) that there is no condemnation to those who are 
 in Christ Jesus. It follows from the nature of this union, that 
 it must transform the character of those who are its subjects. 
 If, therefore, any man is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature, 
 2 Cor. v. 17, John xv. 4, Phil. iii. 19, Col. ii. 6, 1 John ii. 5, 
 iii. 6. As the union includes the bodies of believers, as well as 
 their souls, 1 Cor. vi. 15 19, so this transforming power will 
 ultimately extend to the former as well as to the latter, Rom. 
 viii. 10, 11. In this verse, (according to the common text,) the 
 transforming power of this union with Christ is expressed by 
 saying, that those who are in him, walk not after the flesh, but 
 after the Spirit. To walk means to regulate the inward and 
 outward life. It includes, therefore, the determination of the 
 judgments, the feelings, the purposes, as well as the external 
 conduct. The controlling principle in believers is not the fleshy 
 i. e. the corrupt nature, but the Holy Spirit who dwells in 
 them, as the source of knowledge, of holiness, of strength, of 
 peace and love. They are not oapxtxot governed by the ffdp, 
 but xvz'jfjLarrxoi governed by the Spirit. The only evidence 
 therefore to ourselves, or to others, of our being in Christ, is 
 this subjection of the whole life to the control of his Spirit, so 
 that we discern and believe the truth, 1 Cor. ii. 14 16, and 
 are governed by it. When the word Trvetma is not only without 
 the article, and opposed to ffdpg, it may be understood of the 
 Spirit as the principle of life in the believer, and in that view 
 be equivalent to the new man, or the renewed principle. This 
 is the view adopted by many as the meaning of the word in this 
 passage. This clause, however, is of doubtful authority. It 
 occurs in ver. 4, and may by a transcriber have been trans- 
 ferred to this place. The whole clause is omitted in the major- 
 ity of the uncial MSS., and by the great body of modern critics. 
 The latter clause only is omitted in the MSS. A. D. in the Vul- 
 gate, and by Chrysostom, which reading is adopted by Bengel. 
 VERSE 2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesux, &c. 
 This verse assigns the reason why there is no condemnation to
 
 ROMANS VIII. 2. 393 
 
 those who are in Christ, as is evident from the use of for, with 
 which the verse commences. 
 
 The law of the Spirit is here opposed to the law of sin and 
 death, mentioned in the other clause of the verse. The inter- 
 pretation of the one phrase, therefore, must decide that of the 
 other. There are three different views which may be taken 
 of the verse. 1. The word law may be used here as it is in 
 vs. 21, 23, of chap, vii., for a directing power; and Spirit, by 
 metonymy, for that which the Spirit produces, i. e. sanctified 
 affections; and the words of life may mean, producing life. 
 The sense would then be, ' The power of the renewed principle 
 which tends to life, has delivered me from the power of sin 
 which tends to death.' In other words, 'The law of the mind 
 has delivered me from the law of sin which is in the members.' 
 So Beza and many others. 2. The word law is taken in nearly 
 the same sense ; but Spirit of life is understood to mean the 
 Holy Spirit, considered as the author of life. The sense then 
 is, 'The power of the life-giving Spirit has delivered me from 
 the dominion of the law of sin and death in my members.' So 
 Calvin, and others : " Legem Spiritus improprie vocat Dei 
 Spiritum, qui animas nostras Christi sanguine aspergit, non 
 tantum ut a peccati labe emundet quoad reatum ; sed in verarn 
 puritatem sanctificet." The objection to this interpretation, 
 that it seems to refer our freedom from condemnation to our 
 regeneration, he proposes to meet by saying that Paul does not 
 state the cause, but the method of our deliverance from guilt : 
 " Negat Paulus externa legis doctrina id nos consequi, sed dum 
 Spiritu Dei renovamur, simul etiam justificari gratuita venia, ne 
 peccati maledictio in nos amplius recumbat. Perinde ergo valet 
 haec sentia acsi dixisset Paulus, regenerationis gratiam ab 
 imputatione justitise nunquam disjungi." 3. According to the 
 third view, the law of the Spirit of life is the gospel, i. e. the 
 law of which the life-giving Spirit is the author. Of course, 
 the other member of the verse, instead of describing the corrupt 
 principle in men, means the law of God, which, as Paul had 
 taught in chap, vii., is incidentally the cause of sin and death. 
 The sense of the passage then is, ' The gospel has delivered me 
 from the law.' So Witsius, &c. 
 
 This last seems decidedly to be preferred, for the following
 
 394 ROMANS VIII. 2. 
 
 reasons : 1. Although the two former interpretations are con- 
 sistent with Paul's use of the word law, neither of them so well 
 suits the context, because neither assigns the reason why 
 believers are not exposed to condemnation. Paul asserts that 
 those who are in Christ are restored to the divine favour. 
 Why? Because they are sanctified? No; but because they 
 have been freed from the law and its demands, and introduced 
 into a state of grace. 2. It is not true that believers are deli- 
 vered from the law of sin in their members. If the terms law 
 of the Spirit, and law of sin, are to be understood of the good 
 and evil principle in the Christian, how can it be said that by 
 the former he is, in this life, delivered from the latter? This 
 would be in direct contradiction to chap. vii. and to experience. 
 3. The terms here used may naturally be so understood, because 
 the word law, in its general sense, as rule, is applicable and is 
 applied to the gospel, Rom. iii. 27, especially when standing 
 in antithesis to the law of works. The gospel is called the law 
 of the Spirit, because he is its author: see the phrase "minis- 
 tration of the Spirit," 2 Cor. iii. 8. In the other member of 
 the verse the law is called the law of sin and death, because 
 productive of sin and death. This is no more than what Paul 
 had said expressly of the law in the preceding chapter, vs. 5, 
 13, &c. And in 2 Cor. iii. 6, the law is said to kill : it is called 
 the dcaxovia TOU davdrou, (the ministration of death,) and the 
 Siaxowa TTJZ xaToxpcffetoz, (ministration of condemnation.) There 
 the same contrast between the dcaxovia TOU &avd-oi> and the 
 deaxovia roD /rv!>//aroc is presented, as here between the vo^oc 
 TOU davdrou and the Wfioz rob Tn/sD/^aroc. 4. This interpreta- 
 tion alone assigns an adequate ground for the declaration of the 
 preceding verse. That declaration, the result of all that Paul 
 had yet proved, is that believers, and believers only, are per- 
 fectly safe ; and the reason assigned is the sum of all the argu- 
 ment from the commencement of the epistle. They are not 
 under the law, but under grace ; the law of the Spirit has freed 
 them from the old law of works. 5. The next verse favours, 
 if it does not absolutely demand, this interpretation. It gives 
 the reason why believers are thus freed from the law, viz. it 
 was insufficient for their salvation, "it was weak through the 
 flesh." 6. The use of the aorist -/jhu&Epwos, which shows that
 
 ROMANS VIII. 3. 395 
 
 the freedom spoken of is an accomplished fact, confirms this 
 interpretation. Deliverance from the law of sin in the members 
 is a gradual process ; deliverance from the law is effected once 
 for all ; and with regard to the believer, it is a fact accom- 
 plished. 
 
 The words kv Xpiartjj, in Christ, may be connected with the 
 immediately preceding words rijc C"^) the life which is in 
 Christ; or with 6 vcy/oc x.r.A., the law of the Spirit which is in 
 Christ. As, however, the connecting article (rijc or 6,) which 
 is necessary at least definitely to indicate either of those con- 
 structions, is wanting, the words in question are generally con- 
 nected with the following verb, -rjfau&epcDffe, in Christ freed me; 
 that is, it was in him, and therefore through him, that this 
 deliverance was effected. The meaning of this verse, therefore, 
 in connection with the preceding, is, * There is no condemnation 
 to those who are in Christ, because they have been freed in 
 him by the gospel of the life-giving Spirit, from that law which, 
 although good in itself, is, through our corruption, the source 
 of sin and death.' Being thus free from the curse of the law, 
 and from the obligation to fulfil its demands, as the condition 
 of life, and consequently freed from a legal spirit, their 
 sins are gratuitously pardoned for Christ's sake ; they are 
 made partakers of the Spirit of God, are transformed more and 
 more into his image, and God is pledged to preserve them unto 
 eternal life. 
 
 VERSE 3. This verse is connected with the preceding by the 
 particle fdp, for. ' We are delivered from the law, for the law 
 could not effect our salvation.' The words TO dduvarov TOO 
 v6fj.ou may be rendered either, the impotency of the law, or what 
 is impossible to the law. The choice between these renderings 
 depends on the grammatical structure of the passage. First, 
 TO dduvarov may be taken as the accusative, and the preposition 
 dta be supplied, on account of the impotency of the law; or, 
 secondly, it may be taken as the accusative absolute, as to the 
 impotency of the law, i. e. in view of it's impotency ; or, thirdly, 
 it may be taken as the nominative, and in apposition with the 
 following clause. The sense would then be, ' The impossibility 
 of the law God condemned sin ;' i. e. the condemnation of sin 
 is what is impossible to the law. This is the view commonly
 
 896 ROMANS VIII. 3. 
 
 adopted, especially by those who understand the apostle to be 
 speaking of sanctification, and who therefore take condemned 
 sin to mean destroyed sin. As, however, that clause does not 
 mean to destroy sin, but judicially to condemn it, the first 
 clause cannot strictly be in apposition with it. The law could 
 condemn sin. What it cannot do is to free us either from its 
 guilt or power. It can neither justify nor sanctify. On this 
 account, the second exposition of the first clause of the verse 
 just mentioned, is to be preferred : * In view of the impotency 
 of the law, God sent his Son,' &c. This insufficiency of the 
 law, as the apostle had taught in the preceding chapters, is not 
 due to any imperfection of the law itself. It is holy, just, and 
 good. It requires nothing more than is right. If men could 
 comply with its righteous demands, the law would pronounce 
 them just. If they were free from the infection of sin, " the 
 form of truth and knowledge in the law," the perfect exhibition 
 which it makes of the will of God, would avail to maintain and 
 advance them in holiness. But as they are already under sin, 
 under its guilt and power, the law is entirely impotent to their 
 justification or sanctification. The apostle therefore says, that 
 the law is impotent, Iv <jw, because that (see Heb. ii. 18) it is 
 weak through the flesh, dta r^c ffapxoz, i. e. through our cor- 
 ruption. It is our being depraved that renders the law weak, 
 or impotent to s.avc (rod sending (or having sent re/^'ttc) 
 his oion Son, rbv iaurou vlov. The term Son here evidently 
 designates the eternal personal Son. He was from eternity, 
 and in virtue of his Divine nature, and not in virtue either of 
 his miraculous birth, or his exaltation, the Son of God. The 
 greatness of the work to be accomplished, and the greatness of 
 the love of God impelling him to our redemption,. are strongly 
 exhibited in these words. It was not a creature, even the most 
 exalted, whom God sent on this mission, but his own Son, one 
 with him in essence and glory. 
 
 Two things are further stated concerning this mission of the 
 Son of God. First, the form under which he appeared in the 
 world; and, secondly, the object for which he was sent. As to 
 the form in which he appeared, it was in the likeness of sinful 
 Jl'xh. It was not simply iv aapxi (in the flesh,} clothed in our 
 nature ; for that might have been said, had he appeared in the
 
 ROMANS VIII. 3. 397 
 
 glorious, impassive nature of Adam before the fall. Much less 
 was it in Iv aapxi djuapTta^ (in sinful flesh,) for that would 
 imply that his human nature was denied, contrary to Heh. 
 iv. 15, and to all Scripture; but it was Iv bftoiwjuaTt ffapxbi; 
 huapriaz, (in the likeness of sinful flesh,) that is, in a nature 
 like to our sinful nature, but not itself sinful. Christ took our 
 physically dilapidated nature, subject to the infirmities which 
 sin had brought into it. He was therefore susceptible of pain, 
 and weariness, and sorrow. He could be touched with a sense 
 Df our infirmities. He was tempted in all points as we are. He 
 is therefore a merciful and trustworthy High Priest. The 
 object for which God sent his Son, clothed in this feeble, suffer- 
 ing nature of ours, is expressed by xal Ttepe &juapTla<;, (and for 
 sin.) This may mean either on account of sin, whether for its 
 expiation or its removal, being undetermined; or it may be 
 understood in a sacrificial sense. Christ was sent for the expia- 
 tion of sin, or as a sacrifice for sin. 1. In favour of this is the 
 usus loquendi, as xepe 6.fjta.p7iac is so often used in this sense : 
 see Num. viii. 8, Ps. xl. 7, (in the LXX. 396,) Lev. vi. 25, 30, 
 Heb. x. 6, 8, 18, xiii. 11. Thus also in Gal. i. 4, Christ is said 
 to have given himself xepi 6.papTia>v ^//*v, for, i. e. as a sacri- 
 fice for, our sins. 2. The analogy of Scripture, as it is so 
 abundantly taught in the word of God, is that Christ was sent to 
 make expiation for sin, to wash away sin, to offer himself unto 
 God as a sacrifice for sin. When, therefore, it is said that he 
 was sent for sin, or gave himself for our sins, the implication is 
 almost unavoidable that the meaning is, he was sent as a sacri- 
 fice for sin. 3. The immediate context demands this interpre- 
 tation ; for the effect ascribed to this sending Christ for sin, is 
 that which is due to a sacrifice or expiation. What the law 
 could not do, was to reconcile us unto God. It was in view of 
 the impotency of the law to effect the salvation of sinners, that 
 God sent his Son to make expiation for their offences, and thus 
 bring them back to himself. He thus condemned sin in the 
 flesh; that is, he condemned it in the flesh, or nature, which his 
 Son had assumed. Christ took upon himself our nature, in 
 order to expiate the guilt of that nature. The expiation must 
 be made in the nature which had sinned. As Christ, the 
 apostle tells us, Heb. ii. 14 18, did not undertake the redemp-
 
 398 ROMANS VIII. 3. 
 
 tion of angels, he did not assume their nature, but took part in 
 flesh and blood. That the words xa-csxpivs rr f v 6.fj.apriav (he 
 condemned tin,) does not mean that he destroyed sin, but that 
 he punished it, visited it with the penalty of the law, is evident. 
 
 1. Because xardxpevat never means to destroy, but always means 
 to condemn. It is perfectly arbitrary, therefore, to depart 
 from the ordinary meaning of the word in this particular place. 
 
 2. The sacrifice of Christ was the condemnation of sin. That 
 is, he bore our sins. He was made a curse, in the sense that 
 he endured the curse due to sin. His sufferings were penal, as 
 they were judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice. The 
 proximate design and effect of a sacrifice is expiation, and not 
 reformation or inward purification. When therefore the apostle 
 speaks, as he here does, of what God did by sending his Son 
 as a sacrifice for sin, he must be understood to speak of the 
 sacrificial effect of his death. 3. The context requires this 
 interpretation. The argument of the apostle is, that there is 
 no xardpt/jta (condemnation) to us, because God xarepcvs (con- 
 demned) sin in Christ. The other interpretation supposes him 
 to say, that there is no condemnation to us, because sin is 
 destroyed in us. That is, we are justified on the ground of our 
 own inherent goodness or freedom from sin. But this is con- 
 trary to the Scriptures, and to the faith of the Church. " Clare 
 affirrnat Paulus," says Calvin, "ideo expiata fuisse peccata 
 Christi morte, quia Legi impossibile erat, justitiam nobis con- 
 ferre." The apostle, he adds, teaches, "Legem nihil prorsus 
 habere momenti ad conferendam justitiam. Vides ergo, nos 
 penitus excludi ab operum justitia: ideoque ad Christi justi- 
 tiam nos confugere, quia in nobis nulla esse potest. Quod 
 scitu in primis necessarium est ; quia Christi justitia nonquam, 
 vestiemur, nisi prius certo noverimus, propriae justitiae nihil nos 
 habere." In saying, however, that the proximate object and 
 effect of a sacrifice is to expiate sin, and therefore that sin is 
 thereby condemned and not destroyed, it is not forgotten that 
 propitiation is the end of expiation ; that our sins are atoned 
 for by the blood of Christ, in order to our being restored to his 
 image and favour. Justification is not on account of, or on the 
 ground of sanctification, but it is in order to it ; and therefore 
 the two are inseparable. The justified are always sanctified.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 4. 399 
 
 And therefore, so far as the meaning is concerned, there is no 
 objection to saying, that the condemnation of sin of which the 
 apostle here speaks, includes the idea of its extirpation or 
 destruction as a necessary consequence. But it is nevertheless 
 important, not only to a due understanding of his argument, 
 but also to the integrity of scriptural doctrine, to remember 
 that the condemation of sin in the person of Christ, expresses 
 its expiation by his blood, and not the destruction of its power 
 in us. It is Christ as the substitute of sinners, bearing the 
 curse for them, that is here presented to our view. This even 
 Olshausen admits, who says, "The conclusion of this verse 
 expresses in the most decisive terms the vicarious (stellvertre- 
 tenden) atoning death of the Saviour." 
 
 VERSE 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled 
 in us, &c. This verse expresses the design of God in sending 
 his Son, and in condemning sin in the flesh. He did thus con- 
 demn it, tva, in order, that the righteousness of the law might 
 be fulfilled. The meaning, therefore, of this passage is deter- 
 mined by the view taken of ver. 3. If that verse means, that 
 God, by sending his Son, destroyed sin in us, then of course this 
 verse must mean, ' He destroyed sin, in order that we should 
 fulfil the law;' i. e. that we should be holy. But if ver. 3 is 
 understood of the sacrificial death of Christ, and of the con- 
 demnation of sin in him as the substitute of sinners, then this 
 verse must be understood of justification, and not of sanctifica- 
 tion. He condemned sin, in order that the demands of the law 
 might be satisfied. This is the view of the passage given even 
 by the majority of the early Fathers, and by almost all evan- 
 gelical interpreters, including the Reformers. " Qui intelligunt 
 Spiritu Christi renovates legem implere, commentum a sensu 
 Pauli penitus alienum afferunt ; neque enim eo usque proficiunt 
 fideles, quamdia peregrinantur in mundo, ut justificatio legis in 
 illis plena sit, vel integra. Ergo hoc ad veniam referre necesse 
 est; quia, dum nobis accepta fertur Christi obedientia, legi 
 satisfactum est, ut pro justis censeamur." That this is the true 
 meaning of the passage appears not only from the connection 
 and the course of the argument, but also from the following 
 considerations : 1. It is consistent with the strict and natural 
 meaning of the words. The word dtxalwfjia, here used, means,
 
 400 ROMANS VIII. 4. 
 
 first, something righteous, and then, second, something declared 
 to bo righteous and obligatory, an, ordinance or precept ; and, 
 third, a righteous decision, a just judgment, as when in Rom. 
 L 29, the heathen are said to know the otxanofia^ the riyhteou* 
 judgment of God ; and, fourth, the act of declaring righteous, 
 justification. In this sense dtxauopa is antithetical to xa-dxpipa. 
 The otxaica/jta TOU vo;tw, therefore, may mean, the righteous 
 requirement of the law, that which satisfies its demands. In 
 strict accordance therefore with the sense of the words, we may 
 explain the passage to mean, 'that the demands of the law 
 might be satisfied in us.' That is, that we might be justified. 
 Christ was condemned, that to us there might be no condemna- 
 tion. He was made sin, that we might be made righteousness, 
 2 Cor. v. 21. Or, if we take dtxaiiupa in the sense of (Recht- 
 fertigungsurtheil) a declaration of righteousness, an act of justi- 
 fication, the same idea is expressed : ' Sin was condemned in 
 Christ, in order that the sentence of justification might be ful- 
 filled, or carried into effect in us.' This is the explanation 
 which Eckermann, Kb'llner, Philippi, and other modern inter- 
 preters adopt. 2, The analogy of Scripture. To make this 
 passage teach the doctrine of subjective justification, that we 
 are freed from condemnation or delivered from the law by our 
 inward sanctification, is to contradict the plain teaching of the 
 Bible, and the whole drift and argument of this epistle. 
 3. The concluding, clause of the verse, (who walk not after the 
 flesh, &c.) demands the interpretation given above. In the 
 other view of the passage, the latter clause is altogether unne^ 
 cessary. Why should Paul say, that Christ died in order that 
 they should be holy who are holy, i. e. those who walk not after 
 the flesh ? On the other hand, the second clause of the verse 
 is specially pertinent, if the first treats of justification. The 
 benefits of Christ's death are experienced only by those who 
 walk not after the flesh. The gospel is not antinomian. Those 
 only are justified who are also sanctified. Holiness is the fruit 
 and evidence of reconciliation with God. There is no con- 
 demnation to those who walk after the Spirit; and the right- 
 eousness of the law is fulfilled by those who walk after the 
 Spirit. In both cases, the latter clause is designed to describe 
 the class of persona who are entitled to appropriate to them-
 
 ROMANS VIII. 5. 401 
 
 selves the promise of justification in Christ. 4. Finally, as 
 intimated in the above quotation from Calvin, it is not true that 
 the righteousness of the law, in the sense of complete obedience, 
 is fulfilled in believers. The interpretation which makes the 
 apostle say, that we are delivered from the law by the work of 
 Christ, in order that the complete obedience which the law 
 demands might be rendered by us, supposes what all Scripture 
 and experience contradicts. For an exposition of the last 
 clause of the verse, see ver. 1. 
 
 VERSE 5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things 
 of the flesh. The immediate object of this and the following 
 verse is to justify the necessity of limiting the blessings of 
 Christ's death, to those who walk not after the flesh, but after 
 the Spirit. The for, therefore, connects this verse, not with 
 the main idea, but with the last clause of the preceding. Men 
 must be holy, because sin is death, whereas holiness is life and 
 peace. The necessity of spirituality, therefore, lies in the verjr 
 nature of things. 
 
 They who are after the flesh, those ivTio are in the flesh r 
 the carnal, are expressions of like import, and describe those' 
 who are governed by the flesh, or by their nature considered 
 as corrupt. The corresponding series, they who are after the 
 Spirit, who are in the Spirit, the spiritual, describe those who 
 are under the government of the Holy Ghost. Of the former 
 class it is said they mind the things of the flesh, of the latter, 
 they mind the things of the Spirit. The word ypovetu is de- 
 rived from <p pyv, which is used for the seat of all mental affec- 
 tions and faculties, and therefore (ppoviw has a wide meaning. 
 It expresses any form of mental activity, any exercise of the' 
 intellect, will, or affections. They mind, (<ppovovmv,} therefore, 
 means, they make the object of attention, desire, and pursuit. 
 The things of the flesh, are the objects on which their hearts are' 
 set, and to which their lives are devoted. Things of the flesh 
 are not merely sensual things, but all things which do not 
 belong to the category of the things of the Spirit. Compare 
 Matt. xvi. 23, oi> <fpovsiz TO. TOO Seou, thou savourest not the 
 things of Grod. Phil. iii. 19, of ra km^eca (ppovovvrsz. Col. 
 iii. 2, &c. The English word mind is used with much the^ 
 same latitude. The idea evidently is, that the objects of atten- 
 26
 
 402 ROMANS VIII. 6. 
 
 tion, desire, and pursuit, to the carnal, are corrupt and worldly ; 
 while to the spiritual, they are the things which the Spirit pro- 
 poses and approves. 
 
 VERSE 6. For to be carnally minded is death. The j-dp 
 hero is by many taken as a mere particle of transition, equiva- 
 lent to but. 'But to be carnally minded is death.' The utter 
 incompatibility between the indulgence of sin and a state of 
 salvation is thus clearly expressed. It is impossible that justi- 
 fication should be disconnected with sanctification, because a 
 sinful and carnal state of mind is death. It is better, however, 
 to take fdp in its usual sense of for. The connection may then 
 be with ver. 4, so that verses 5 and 6 are coordinate, vcr. 6 
 presenting an additional reason why believers do not walk after 
 the flesh. They do not thus walk, for to do so is death. Or, 
 the connection is with ver. 5. Justification is limited to the 
 holy, for to live after the flesh is death. The phrase ypovyfta 
 rr oapxoz is substantially of the same import with <fpouziv ra 
 TTJC <ra ( 0xoc, the minding the things of the flesh. It is thus 
 active in its signification. It is, however, more in accordance 
 with the proper signification of the word to understand it as 
 expressing a state of the mind. This is implied in the English 
 version, to be carnally minded. The idea is not merely that 
 the actual seeking the things of the flesh leads to death ; but 
 that a carnal state of mind, which reveals itself in the desire 
 and pursuit of carnal objects, is death. And by death is of 
 course meant spiritual death, the absence and the opposite of 
 spiritual life. It includes alienation from God, unholiness, 
 and misery. On the other hand, the (ppwr^a TO~J Trve^uaroc is 
 that state of mind which is produced by the Spirit, and which 
 reveals itself in the desire and pursuit of the things of the 
 Spirit. This state of mind is life and peace. Therein consists 
 the true life and blessedness of the soul. This being the case, 
 there can be no such thing as salvation in sin ; no possibility 
 of justification without sanctification. If partakers of the 
 benefits of Christ's death, we are partakers of his life. If we 
 died with him, we live with him. This is pertinent to the 
 apostle's main object in this chapter, which is to show that 
 believers never can be condemned. They are not only de- 
 livered from the law, and justified by the blood of Christ, but
 
 ROMANS VIII. 7. 403 
 
 they are partakers of his life. They have the (ppovr^a TO'J 
 xvs'j[j.a~oz, which is life and peace. 
 
 VERSE 7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against Crod. 
 This is the reason why the (fpovr^ua rijc aapxoz is death. It is 
 in its nature opposed to 'God, who is the life of the soul. His 
 favour is life, and therefore opposition to him is death. The 
 carnal mind is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law 
 of God. The law of God, however, is the revelation of his 
 nature, and therefore opposition to the law, is opposition to 
 God. This opposition on the part of the carnal mind is not 
 casual, occasional, or in virtue of a mere purpose. It arises out 
 of its very nature. It is not only not subject to the law of God, 
 but it cannot be. It has no ability to change itself. Otherwise 
 it would not be death. It is precisely because of this utter 
 impotency of the carnal mind, or unrenewed heart, to change 
 its own nature, that it involves the hopelessness which the word 
 death implies. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 14, where the same truth is 
 asserted : " The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit of God neither can he know them." "Nee enim potesL 
 En," says Calvin, "liberi arbitrii facultas, quam satis evehere 
 sophistae nequeunt. Certe Paulus disertis verbis hie affirmat 
 quod ipsi pleno ore detestantur, nobis esse impossibile subjicere 
 legis obedientiae. . . . Procul igitur sit a Christiano pectore ilia de 
 arbitrii libertate gentilis philosophia. Servum peccati se quis- 
 que, ut re vera est, agnoscat, quo per Christi gratiam manu 
 missus liberetur; alia libertate prosus stultum est gloriari." 
 To the same effect the modern German commentators, whether 
 mystic, rationalistic, or evangelical. "No man," says Olshau- 
 sen, "can free himself from himself:" "Von sich selbst kann 
 sich keiner selbst losmachen, es muss eine hbhere Liebe kom- 
 men, die ihn meha anzieht, als sein Ich." "The will itself is 
 fallen away from God," says Baumgarten-Crusius. And the 
 evangelical Philippi says: "This verse is a strong argument 
 against the doctrine of the so-called liberum arbitrium of the 
 natural man. For this carnal state of mind, which cannot sub- 
 ject itself to the will of God, is not produced by any act of 
 man's will, nor can it be removed by any such act ; it consti- 
 tutes, according to the apostle's doctrine, the original nature 
 of man in its present or fallen state."
 
 404 ROMANS VIII. 8, 9. 
 
 VEBSE 8. The necessary consequence of this opposition of a 
 mind governed by the flesh, towards God, is that those who are 
 in this state are the objects of the divine displeasure. So then 
 they that are in the flesh cannot please G-od. To be in the 
 flesh, as before remarked, is to be under the government of 
 the fleshy or corrupt nature, to be destitute of the grace of God. 
 It is an expression applied to all unrenewed persons, as those 
 who are hot in the flesh are in the Spirit. 
 
 Cannot please G-od. 'Apeaxstv nvc generally means to be 
 pleasing, or acceptable to any one ; Matt. xiv. 6, 1 Cor. vii. 32, 
 Gal. i. 10, 1 Thess. ii. 15. Not to be pleasing to God, is to be 
 the objects of his displeasure. Enmity towards God (%&pa V 
 Ssou) has as its necessary consequence, subjection to the enmity 
 of God, (ly^pa dsov.) The apostle's immediate purpose is to 
 show, that to be carnally minded is death. It must be so, for 
 it is enmity towards God. But those who hate God are the 
 objects of his displeasure; and to be the objects of the wrath 
 of God, is perdition. Surely, then, to be carnally minded is 
 death. In vs. 9 11, the apostle applies to his readers what 
 he had just said, and shows how it is that ((fpo^pa roy 
 7Tpy//oroc,) to be spiritually minded, is life and peace. 
 
 VERSE 9. 'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, 
 i. e. ye are not carnal, but spiritual. The Spirit, so to speak, 
 is the element in which you live. Such the Roman Christians 
 were by profession and by repute, for their faith was spoken 
 of throughout the world. Their real character, however, was 
 not determined either by their professions or their reputation. 
 The apostle therefore adds, if so be the Spirit of G-od dwell in 
 you. This is the only decisive test. Every other bond of union 
 with Christ is of no avail without this. We may be members 
 of his Church, and united to him by being included in the 
 number of his people, yet unless we are partakers of that vital 
 union which arises from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, we 
 are his onry in name. Our version gives ecvsp (if so be) its 
 ordinary and proper sense, "fibttp," says Hermann ad Viger, 
 310, "*usurpatur de re, qua? esse sumitur, sed in incerto relin- 
 quitur, utruni jure an injuria sumatur; f^e autem de re, quae 
 jure sumta creditur." Sometimes, however, efcep has the same 
 force as etre (since); as, 2 Thess. i. 6, "seeing it is a righteous
 
 ROMANS VIII. 10. 405 
 
 thing with God." The ordinary sense of the particle, however, 
 is better suited to this passage. The Spirit of God is every- 
 where ; yet he is said to dwell wherever he specially and per- 
 manently manifests his presence. Thus he is said to dwell in 
 heaven : he dwelt of old in the temple ; he now dwells in the 
 Church, which is a habitation of God through the Spirit, Eph. 
 ii. 22 ; and he dwells in each individual believer whose body is 
 a temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 19. Compare John xiv. 19, 
 1 Cor. iii. 16, 2 Cor. vi. 16, 2 Tim. i. 16, &c. Now if any man 
 have not the Spirit of Christ. It is obvious that the Spirit of 
 Christ is identical with the Spirit of God. The one expression 
 is interchanged with the other : ' If the Spirit of God dwell in 
 you, you are true Christians ; for if the Spirit of Christ be not 
 in you, you are none of his.' This is the reasoning of the 
 apostle. "Spirit of Christ," therefore, can no more mean the 
 temper or disposition of Christ, than " Spirit of God" can mean 
 the disposition of God. Both expressions designate the Holy 
 Ghost, the third person in the adorable Trinity. The Holy 
 Spirit is elsewhere called the Spirit of Christ, Gal. iv. 16, Phil. 
 i. 19, 1 Pet. i. 11. Whatever the genitive expresses in the one 
 case, it does in the other. He is of the Spirit of Christ in the 
 same sense in which he is the Spirit of God. In other words, 
 the Spirit stands in the same relation to the second, that he 
 does to the first person of the Trinity. This was one of the 
 points of controversy between the Greek and Latin Churches; 
 the latter insisting on inserting in that clause of the Creed 
 which speaks of the procession of the Holy Ghost, the words 
 "filioque," (and from the Son.} For this the gratitude of all 
 Christians is due to the Latin Church, as it vindicates the full 
 equality of the Son with the Father. No clearer assertion, and 
 no higher exhibition of the Godhead of the Son can be con- 
 ceived, than that which presents him as the source and the 
 possessor of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit proceeds from, and 
 belongs to him, and by him is given to whomsoever he wills. 
 John i. 33, xv. 26, xvi. 7, Luke xxiv. 29, &c. 
 
 VERSE 10. And if, or rather, but if, (e: ds) Christ be in you. 
 1 If a man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his ; but 
 if Christ be in him, he is partaker of his life.' From this inter- 
 change of expression it is plain that to say that the- Spirit of
 
 406 ROMANS VIII. 10. 
 
 Christ dwells in us, and to say that Christ dwells in us, is the 
 same thing. And as the former phrase is interchanged with 
 Spirit of God, and that again elsewhere with God, it follows, 
 that to say, God dwells in us, the Spirit of God dwells in us, 
 Christ dwells in us, and the Spirit of Christ dwells in us, are 
 only different ways of expressing the same thing. " Qui Spi- 
 ritum habet, Christum hahet; qui Christum habet, Deum 
 habet." Bengel. This scriptural usage finds its explanation in 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. While there is one only, the living 
 and true God ; yet as there are three persons in the Godhead, 
 and as these three are the same in substance, it follows, that 
 where the Father is, there the Son is, and where the Son is, 
 there is the Spirit. Hence our Lord says, "If any man love 
 me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and 
 we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 
 xiv. 23. And the apostle John says, " Whosoever shall confess 
 that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in 
 God." 1 John iii. 15. "I and my Father," says Christ, "are 
 one." He therefore who hath the Son, hath the Father also. 
 There is another familiar scriptural usage illustrated in this 
 verse. Christ is properly an official designation of the Thean- 
 thropos, as the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of his 
 people. It is however used as a personal designation, and is 
 applied to our Lord, as well in reference to his human as to his 
 divine nature. Hence the Bible says indifferently, Christ died, 
 and that he created all things. In this and other passages, 
 therefore, when Christ is said to dwell in us, it is not Christ as 
 man, nor Christ as the Theanthropos, but Christ as God. 
 Compare 2 Cor. xiii. 5, " Know ye not that Jesus Christ is in 
 you." His indwelling in his people is as much a function of 
 his divine nature, as his creating and upholding all things by 
 the word of his power. 
 
 And if Christ (be) in you, the body is dead because of sin, &c. 
 As this verse is antithetical to the preceding, ds should be ren- 
 dered but: 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is 
 none of his ; but if Christ be in you, although the body must 
 die on account of sin, the spirit shall live because of righteous- 
 ness.' The Spirit is the source of life, and wherever he dwells, 
 there is life.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 10. 407 
 
 The body indeed is dead, rb fj.su ffio/ia vs,xpbv. That 
 here is to be taken in its literal sense is plain, because such is 
 the proper meaning of the word. It is rarely, if at all, used in 
 the figurative sense 'in which adp (flesh] so often occurs. This 
 interpretation also is required by the antithesis between body 
 and spirit, in this verse. The context also demands this view 
 of the passage, both because of the reference to . the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, which was of course literal, and because in the 
 next verse we have the phrase "mortal bodies," which does not 
 admit of a figurative interpretation. The sense also afforded 
 by the literal meaning of the word is so natural, and so suited 
 to the context, as to preclude the necessity of seeking for any 
 other. In this view the majority of commentators concur. 
 Others, however, understand by awpa, the corrupt nature, or 
 the whole nature of man, his soul and body, as distinguished 
 from the Spirit as the principle of divine life. The word vsxpbv 
 is made to mean vBVxpa)p.ivov, put to death, mortified ; and 01 
 &fjiapTcav, on account of sin, is made equivalent to ry a/jtaprla, 
 as to sin. This evidently does unnecessary violence to the 
 literal meaning of the words. The body is dead in the sense 
 that it is not only obnoxious to death, but as it is already the 
 seat of death. It includes in it the principle of decay. This 
 necessity of dying is on account of sin. It is not inconsistent 
 with the perfection of the redemption of Christ, that its benefits 
 are not received in their fulness the moment we believe. We 
 remain subject to the pains, the sorrows, the trials of life, and 
 the necessity of dying, although partakers of the life of which 
 he is the author. That life which is imparted in regeneration, 
 is gradually developed until it has its full consummation at the 
 resurrection. 
 
 'The spirit is life because of righteousness. By spirit here, 
 is not to be understood the Holy Spirit, but the human spirit, 
 because it stands opposed to body in the former clause. The 
 body is dead, but the spirit is life. It should not therefore be 
 printed with a capital S, as in the ordinary copies of the Eng- 
 lish version. The sense in which the spirit is life, is antithetical 
 to that in which the body is dead. As the body is infected with 
 a principle of decay which renders its dissolution inevitable, so 
 the soul, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, is possessed of a
 
 408 ROMANS VIII. 11. 
 
 principle of life which secures its immortal and blessed exist- 
 ence. Because of righteousness; dixaeoa'j^, as opposed to 
 bfjiapTia, must be taken in its subjective sense. It is inward 
 righteousness or holiness, of which the apostle here speaks, and 
 not our justifying righteousness. It is because the Holy Ghost, 
 as dwelling in believers, is the source of holiness, that he is the 
 source of life. The life of which he is the author, is the life 
 of God in the soul, and is at once the necessary condition and 
 the effect of the enjoyment of his fellowship and favour. We 
 shall continue in the enjoyment of the life just spoken of, 
 because the principles of this new and immortal existence are 
 implanted within us. Regeneration is the commencement of 
 eternal life. The present possession of the Spirit is an earnest 
 of the unsearchable riches of Christ, Eph. i. 14. In this view 
 the verse is directly connected with the main object of the 
 chapter, viz. the security of all who are in Christ Jesus. To 
 such there is no condemnation, because they have been freed 
 from the law which condemned them to death ; and because the 
 work of salvation is already begun in them. They have eternal 
 life, John vi. 47. 
 
 VERSE 11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from 
 the dead dwell in you. Such periphrases for G-od as that which 
 this verse contains, are very common with the apostle, (see 
 Rom. iv. 24, &c.,) and are peculiarly appropriate when the force 
 of the argument in some measure rests on the fact to which the 
 descriptive phrase refers. Because God had raised up Christ, 
 there was ground of confidence that he would raise his people 
 up also. Two ideas may be included in this part of the verse : 
 first, that the very possession of that Spirit, which is the source 
 of life, is a pledge and security that our bodies shall rise again ; 
 because it would be unseemly that anything thus honoured ty 
 the Spirit, should remain under the dominion of death; and, 
 secondly, that the resurrection of Christ secures the resurrec- 
 tion of those that are his, according to Paul's doctrine in 
 1 Cor. xv. 23. The argument of the apostle is, that the same 
 Spirit which was in Christ, and raised him from the dead, 
 dwells in us, even in our bodies, (1 Cor. vi. 19,) and will 
 assuredly raise us up. 
 
 He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken
 
 ROMANS VIII. 11. 409 
 
 your mortal bodies. This clause cannot, with any regard to 
 usage or the context, be understood of a moral resurrection, or 
 deliverance from sin, as it is explained by Calvin and many 
 others. See the analogous passage, 2 Cor. iv. 14. The apostle 
 designs to show that the life which we derive from Christ, shall 
 ultimately effect a complete triumph over death. It is true that 
 our present bodies must die, but they are not to continue under 
 the power of death. The same Spirit which raised Christ's 
 body from the grave, shall also quicken our mortal bodies. 
 The word is not l^eepsc, but ^cooxoqasi, which imports more 
 than a mere restoration of life. It is used only of believ-ers. It 
 expresses the idea of the communication of that life of which 
 Christ is the author and the source. And this life, so far as 
 the body is concerned, secures its conformity to the glorious 
 body of the risen Son of God. 
 
 By his Spirit that dwelleth in you, or, as it must be rendered 
 according to another reading, " On account of his Spirit that 
 dwelleth in you." For the reading did. TO ivotxow WJTO~J xveitfjia, 
 Wetstein quotes the MSS. D. E. F. G. and many of the more 
 modern MSS., together with the Syriac and Latin versions, 
 and several of the Fathers. This reading is adopted by Eras- 
 mus, Stephens, Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, and Knapp. For the 
 reading did roi> IWIXOMTOZ, x.r.L, are quoted the MSS. A. 10. 
 22. 34. 38. 39., the editions of Colinseus, Beza, the Compluten- 
 sian, and many of the Fathers. Lachmann and Tischendorf 
 retain the common text. This passage is of interest, as the 
 reading Ivo^oDvroc was strenuously insisted on in the Macedo- 
 nian controversy respecting the personality of the Holy Ghost. 
 The orthodox Fathers contended, that as the genitive was 
 found in the most ancient copies of the Scriptures then extant, 
 it should be retained. If the dead are raised by the Holy 
 Ghost, then the Holy Ghost is of the same essence with the 
 Father and the Son, to whom, elsewhere, the resurrection of 
 the dead is referred. This argument is valid, and, other things 
 being equal, is a good reason for retaining the common text. 
 The sense, however, is in either case substantially the same. 
 According to the former, the meaning is, that the resurrection 
 of believers will be effected by the power of the Spirit of God;
 
 410 ROMANS VIII. 11. 
 
 and according to the latter, that the indwelling of the Spirit is 
 the ground or reason why the bodies of believers should not 
 be left in the grave. The internal evidence is decidedly in 
 favour of the former reading : 1. Because Paul uses precisely 
 these words elsewhere, "By the Holy Spirit," &c., 1 Tim. 
 i. 14, &c. 2. Because throughout the Scriptures in the Old 
 and New Testaments, what God does in nature or grace, he is 
 said to do by his Spirit. Passages are too numerous and too 
 familiar to be cited. 3. Because the Jews seem to have 
 referred the resurrection of the body specially to the Holy 
 Ghost.* As the external authorities are nearly equally divided, 
 the case must be considered doubtful. If the latter reading be 
 adapted, this clause would then answer to the phrase, on account 
 of righteousness, in the preceding verse. ' On account of the 
 indwelling of the Spirit,' expressing the same general idea 
 under another form. Our souls shall live in happiness and 
 glory, because they are renewed ; and our bodies too shall be 
 raised up in glory, because they are the temples of the Holy 
 Ghost. In the widest sense then it is true, that to be in the 
 Spirit, is to be secure of life and peace. 
 
 It will be remarked, that in this verse, and elsewhere, God 
 is said to have raised up Christ from the dead, whereas, in 
 John x. 17, 18, the Saviour claims for himself the power of 
 resuming his life. So here (according to the common reading) 
 we are said to be raised up by the Holy Spirit ; in John vi. 40, 
 Christ says of the believer, "/ will raise him up at the last 
 day;" and in 2 Cor. iv. 14, and in many other places, the 
 resurrection of believers is ascribed to God. These passages 
 belong to that numerous class of texts, in which the same 
 work is attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, and which, in connection with other sources of proof, 
 show conclusively that "these three are one;" and that the 
 persons of the Adorable Trinity concur in all works ad 
 extra. 
 
 * Wetstein quotes such passages as the following, from the Jewish writers: 
 "Tempore futuro Spiritus meus vivificabit vos." "Spiritua Sanctus est 
 causa resurrectionis mortuorum," &c.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 111. 411 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. As the former part of this chapter is an inference from 
 the previous discussion, and presents a summary of the great 
 truths already taught, we find here united the leading doctrines 
 of the first portion of the epistle. For example, justification is 
 by faith, ver. 1; believers are not under the law, ver. 2; the 
 law is insufficient for our justification ; God has accomplished 
 that object by the sacrifice of his Son, vs. 3, 4; and this bless- 
 ing is never disconnected with a holy life, ver. 4. 
 
 2. The final salvation of those who are really united to 
 Christ, and who show the reality of their union by good works, 
 is secure. This is the doctrine of the whole chapter. This 
 section contains two of the apostle's arguments in its support. 
 1. They are free from the law which condemned them to death, 
 vs. 24. 2. They are partakers of that Spirit which is the 
 author and earnest of eternal life, vs. 5 11. 
 
 3. Jesus Christ is truly divine. He is "God's own Son," 
 i. e. partaker of his nature. The Holy Ghost is his Spirit, and 
 he dwells in all believers, vs. 3, 11. 
 
 4. Jesus Christ is truly a man. He came in the likeness of 
 men, ver. 3. 
 
 5. Christ was a sacrifice for sin, and his sufferings were 
 penal, i. e. they were judicially inflicted in support of the law. 
 4 God punished sin in him,' ver. 3. 
 
 6. The justification of believers involves a fulfilling of the 
 law; its demands are not set aside, ver. 4. 
 
 7. Everything in the Bible is opposed to antinomianism. 
 Paul teaches that justification and sanctification cannot be dis- 
 joined. No one is, or can be in the favour of God, who lives 
 after the flesh, vs. 5 11. 
 
 8. The necessity of holiness arises out of the very nature of 
 things. Sin is death, whereas holiness is life and peace. God 
 has made the connection between sin and misery, holiness and 
 happiness, necessary and immutable, ver. 6. The fact that 
 holy men suffer, and that even the perfect Saviour was a man 
 of sorrows, is not inconsistent with this doctrine. Such suffer- 
 ings never proceed from holiness. On the contrary, the Divine 
 Spirit was, and is a wellspring within of joy and peace, to all 

 
 412 ROMANS VIII. 111. 
 
 who are sanctified. In itself considered, therefore, moral 
 purity is essentially connected with happiness, as cause and 
 effect. 
 
 9. All unrenewed men, that is, all "who are in the flesh," 
 are at once the enemies of God, and the objects of his dis- 
 pleasure. Their habitual and characteristic state of mind, that 
 state which every man has who is not "in the Spirit," is 
 enmity to God, and consequently is the object of his disappro- 
 bation, vs. 6, 8. 
 
 10. The Holy Ghost is the source of all good in man. Those 
 who are destitute of his influences, are not subject to the law 
 of God, neither indeed can be ; for no man can call Jesus Lord, 
 that is, can really recognise his authority, but by the Holy 
 Ghost, vs. 58. 
 
 11. Death, and the other evils to which believers are 
 exposed, are on account of sin, ver. 10. They are no longer, 
 however, the evidences of God's displeasure, but of his parental 
 love, Heb. xii. 6. 
 
 12. The redemption of Christ extends to the bodies as well 
 as the souls of his people, ver. 11. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. There can be no safety, no holiness, and no happiness to 
 those who are out of Christ. No safety, because all such are 
 under the condemnation of the law, vs. 1 3; no holiness, 
 because only such as are united to Christ have the Spirit of 
 Christ, ver. 9; and no happiness, because "to be carnally 
 minded is death," ver. 6. Hence those who are in Christ, 
 should be very humble, seeing they are nothing, and he is 
 everything ; very grateful, and very holy. And those who are 
 out of Christ, should at once go to him, that they may attain 
 safety, holiness, and happiness. 
 
 2. The liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free, is 
 a liberty from the law and from sin, vs. 2, 5. A legal spirit, 
 and an unholy life, are alike inconsistent with the Christian 
 character. 
 
 3. Believers should be joyful and confident, for the law is 
 fulfilled ; its demands are satisfied as respects them. Who then 
 can condemn, if God has justified ? ver. 4.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 1228. 413 
 
 4. There can be no rational or scriptural hope without holi- 
 ness, and every tendency to separate the evidence of the divine 
 favour from the evidence of true piety, is anti-Christian and 
 destructive, vs. 4 8. 
 
 5. The bent of the thoughts, affections, and pursuits, is the 
 only decisive test of character. " They who are after the flesh 
 do mind the things of the flesh," &c., ver. 5. 
 
 6. It is therefore a sure mark of hypocrisy, if a man who pro- 
 fesses to be a Christian, still minds earthly things, that is, has his 
 affections and efforts supremely directed towards worldly objects. 
 
 7. We may as well attempt to wring pleasure out of pain, 
 as to unite the indulgence of sin with the enjoyment of happi- 
 ness, vs. 6, 7. 
 
 8. How blinded must those be, who, although at enmity with 
 God, and the objects of his displeasure, are sensible neither of 
 their guilt nor danger ! vs. 7, 8. 
 
 9. The great distinction of a true Christian, is the indwell- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit. Hence his dignity, holiness, and hap- 
 piness, vs. 9 11. 
 
 10. If the Spirit of God dwells in the Christian, how careful 
 should he be, lest anything in his thoughts or feelings would be 
 offensive to this divine guest ! 
 
 11. Christians are bound to reverence their bodies, and pre- 
 serve them from all defilement, because they are the members 
 of Christ, and the temples of the Holy Ghost, ver. 11. 
 
 ROMANS VIII. 1228. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THIS section* contains two additional arguments in support 
 of the great theme of the chapter the safety of all who are in 
 
 * It was remarked above, that the division of this chapter into section's is 
 merely arbitrary. For, although there are several very distinct topics intro- 
 duced, yet the whole is intimately interwoven and made to bear on one point. 
 In passing, too, from one argument to another, the apostle does it so naturally, 
 that there is no abruptness of transition. The connection, therefore, between 
 the last verse of the preceding section and the first verse of this, and between 
 the last of this and the first of the following, is exceedingly intimate. It is 
 only for the sake of convenient resting places for review, that the division 
 is made.
 
 414 ROMANS VIII. 1228. 
 
 Christ. The first is derived from their adoption, vs. 12 17, 
 and the second from the fact that they are sustained by hope, 
 and aided by the Spirit, under all their trials ; so that every- 
 thing eventually works together for their good, vs. 18 28. 
 
 Paul had just shown that believers were distinguished by the 
 indwelling of the Spirit. Hence he infers the obligation to live 
 according to the Spirit, and to mortify the deeds of the body, 
 ver. 12. If they did this, they should live, ver. 13. Not only 
 because, as previously argued, the Spirit is the source of life, 
 but also because all who are led by the Spirit are the children 
 of God. This is a new ground of security, ver. 14. The reality 
 of their adoption is proved, first, by their own filial feelings; 
 as God's relation and feelings towards us are always the coun- 
 terpart of ours towards him, ver. 15. Secondly, by the testi- 
 mony of the Spirit itself with our spirits, ver. 16. If children, 
 the inference is plain that believers shall be saved, for they are 
 heirs. Salvation follows adoption, as, among men, heirship does 
 sonship. They are joint heirs with Jesus Christ, ver. 17. 
 
 It is nowise inconsistent with their filial relation to God, nor 
 with their safety, that believers are allowed to suffer in this 
 world: 1. Because these sufferings are comparatively insignifi- 
 cant, vs. 18 23. 2. Because they are sustained by hope. 
 3. Because the Spirit itself intercedes for them. In amplifying 
 the first of these considerations, the comparative insignificancy 
 of the sufferings of this present state, the apostle presents in 
 contrast the unspeakable blessedness and glory which are in 
 reserve for believers, ver. 18. To elevate our conceptions of 
 this glory, he represents : 1. The whole creation as looking and 
 longing for its full manifestation, ver. 19, &c. 2. All those who 
 have now a foretaste of this blessedness, or the first fruits of 
 the Spirit, as joining in this sense of present wretchedness, and 
 earnest desire of the future good, ver. 23. 
 
 These afflictions, then, are not only thus comparatively light 
 in themselves, but they are made still more tolerable by the 
 constant and elevating anticipation of the future inheritance 
 of the saints, vs. 24, 25. And not only so, but the Spirit 
 also sustains us by his intercessions, thus securing for us 
 all the good we need, vs. 26 28. The salvation, then, of 
 believers is secure, notwithstanding their sufferings, inasmuch
 
 ROMANS VIII. 12, 13. 415 
 
 AS they are children, and are sustained and aided by the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the 
 flesh, to live after the flesh. We have here an example of what 
 the rhetoricians call meiosis, where less is said than is intended. 
 So far from being debtors to the flesh, the very reverse is the 
 case. This passage is an inference from the exhibition of the 
 nature and tendency of the flesh, or the carnal mind, as hostile 
 to God, and destructive to ourselves, vs. 5, 8. As this is its 
 nature, and believers are no longer in the flesh, but in the 
 Spirit, they are under the strongest obligations not to live after 
 the one, but after the other. We are debtors; oysdeTot lapsv. 
 We are the debtors, not of the flesh, but, as the implication is, 
 of the Spirit. Of the two controlling principles, the flesh and 
 the Spirit, our obligation is not to the former, but to the latter. 
 To live after the flesh; rov xara odpxa r t v. The genitive is, 
 here, either the genitive of design, ' in order that we should live 
 after the flesh;' or it depends on dyede-rat, agreeably to the 
 formula, (^e^r^c eif*! -Ttvi TWOS, I am debtor to some one for 
 something. The sense would then be, ' We do not owe the flesh 
 a carnal life.' The former explanation is the simpler and more 
 natural. 
 
 VERSE 13. The necessity of thus living is enforced by a 
 repetition of the sentiment of ver. 6. To live after the flesh is 
 death ; to live after the Spirit is life. For if ye live after the 
 flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit, &c. The 
 necessity of holiness, therefore, is absolute. No matter what 
 professions we may make, or what hopes we may indulge, justi- 
 fication, or the manifestation of the divine favour, is never 
 separated from sanctification. Ye shall die; //ex/ere dxo$i>y- 
 axetv, ye are about to die ; death to you is inevitable. Compare 
 Matt. iv. 24, 1 Thess. iii. 4, James ii. 12. The death here spoken 
 of, as appears from the whole context, and from the nature of 
 the life with which it is contrasted, cannot be the death of the 
 body, either solely or mainly. It is spiritual death, in the com- 
 prehensive scriptural sense of that term, which includes all the 
 penal consequences of sin here and hereafter, chap. vi. 21, viii. 6,
 
 416 ROMANS VIII. 14. 
 
 Gal. vi. 8. But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of 
 the body, ye shall live. The use of the word mortify, to put to 
 death or destroy, seems to have been suggested by the context. 
 *Ye shall die, unless ye put to death the deeds of the body;' 
 see Col. iii. 5. The destruction of sin is a slow and painful 
 process. 
 
 Deeds of the body* It is commonly said that body is hero 
 equivalent to flesh, and therefore signifies corruption. But it 
 is very much to be doubted whether the word ever has this 
 sense in the New Testament. The passages commonly quoted 
 in its behalf, Rom. vi. 6, vii. 24, viii. 10, 13, are very far from 
 being decisive. If the common reading, therefore, is to be 
 retained, (see note,) it is better to take the word in its literal 
 and usual sense. The deeds of the body is then a metonymical 
 expression for sinful deeds in general ; a part being put for the 
 whole. Deeds. performed by the body, being the deeds which 
 the body, as the organ of sin, performs. 
 
 Tile destruction of sin is to be effected through the Spirit, 
 which does not mean the renewed feelings of the heart, but, as 
 uniformly throughout the passage, the Holy Spirit which dwells 
 in believers : see ver. 14, where this Spirit is called " Spirit of 
 God." Ye shall live, that is, enjoy the life of which the 
 Spirit is the author; including therefore holiness, happiness, 
 and eternal glory. 
 
 VERSE 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of Q-od, they 
 ctre the sons of God. This is the reason why all such shall live ; 
 that is, a new argument is thus introduced in support of the 
 leading doctrine of the chapter. Believers shall enjoy eternal 
 life, not only because they have the Spirit of life, but because 
 they are the sons of God. To be led by the Spirit, and to walk 
 after the Spirit, present the same idea, viz. to be under the 
 government of the Spirit, under two different aspects, Gal. 
 v. 18, 2 Pet. i. 21. The former phrase refers to the constant 
 and effectual influence of the Holy Ghost in regulating the 
 thoughts, feelings, and conduct of believers. Are the sons of 
 
 * Instead of S-W^AW, D. E. F. G., the Vulgate and many of the early writers 
 have *{:,*, which Bengel and Griesbach approve. Although this reading looks 
 like a gloss, it has much in its favour from the weight of these MSS., and the 
 usual mode of speaking of this apostle.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 15. 41T 
 
 G-od. The term son, in such connections, expresses mainly one 
 or the other of three ideas, and sometimes all of them united. 
 1. Similarity of disposition, character, or nature ; Matt. v. 9, 45, 
 "That ye may be the children (Gr. sons) of your Father -which 
 is in heaven." So, too, "sons of Abraham" are those who are 
 like Abraham; and "children of the devil" are those who are 
 like the devil. 2. Objects of peculiar affection. Rom. ix. 26, 
 Those who were not my people, "shall be called the sons of the 
 living God;" 2 Cor. vi. 18, "Ye shall be my sons and daugh- 
 ters, saith the Lord Almighty." So frequently elsewhere. 
 3. Those who have a title to some peculiar dignity or advan- 
 tage. Thus the "sons of Abraham" are those who are heirs 
 with Abraham of the same promise, Gal. iii. 8, seq., John i. 12, 
 1 John iii. 2. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it 
 doth not yet appear what we shall be," &c. The term may 
 indeed express any one of the various relations in which child- 
 ren stand to their parents, as derived from them, dependent ort 
 them, &c. The above, however, are the most common of its- 
 meanings. In this passage, the first and third ideas appear 
 specially intended : ' Believers shall live, because they are the 
 peculiar objects of the divine affection, and are heirs of his 
 kingdom,' vs. 15, 16. That those who are led by the Spirit are 
 really the sons of God, appears from their own filial feelings, 
 and from the testimony of the Spirit. The indwelling of the 
 Spirit of God raises those in whom he dwells, into the state of 
 sons of God. By regeneration, or new birth, they are born into* 
 a higher life ; are made partakers, as the apostle Peter says r 
 of the divine nature ; and are thus, through and in Christ, the> 
 source of their new life, the objects of the divine love, and tha 
 heirs of his kingdom. 
 
 VERSE 15. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage 
 again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, &c. 
 That is, ' The Holy Spirit, which you have received, does not 
 produce a slavish and anxious state of mind, such as those 
 experience who are under the law ; but it produces the filial 
 feelings of affection, reverence, and confidence, and enables us, 
 out of the fulness of our hearts, to call God our Father.' 
 
 The phrase, the spirit of bondage, may mean a feeling or 
 sense of bondage, as "spirit of meekness," 1 Cor. iv. 21, may 
 27
 
 418 ROMANS VIII. 15. 
 
 mean meekness itself; and "spirit of fear," 2 Tim. i. 7, fear 
 itself. This use of the word spirit is not uncommon. Or it may 
 mean the Holy Spirit as the author of bondage: 'Believers 
 have not received a Spirit which produces slavish feelings, hut 
 the reverse.' The context is decidedly in favour of this view: 
 because Paul has been speaking of the Holy Spirit as dwelling 
 in Christians. This Spirit is that which they have reci-iv. !, 
 and is the author of their characteristic feelings. In the words 
 again to fear, there is an evident allusion to the state of 
 believers prior to the reception of the Spirit. It was a state 
 of bondage in which they feared, i. e. were governed by a 
 slavish and anxious apprehension of punishment. In this state 
 are all unconverted men, whether Jews or Gentiles, because 
 they are all under the law, or the bondage of a legal system. 
 
 Spirit of adoption; the Spirit that produces the feelings 
 which children have. The Spirit is so called because he adopts. 
 It is by him we are made the sons of God, and his indwelling, 
 as it produces the character of sons, so it is the pledge or 
 assurance of sonship, and of final salvation, Eph. i. 14. The 
 contrast here presented between the 7ri>i>fia. douAsiaz and the 
 nvvjfjta ulo&iaiaz, is parallel to that between do~JAoi and ulot, in 
 Gal. iii. 23 26, iv. 1 8. Those who are unrenewed, and 
 under the law, are dovXoi, slaves; they are under the dominion 
 of servile fear, and they have no right to the inheritance. 
 Those who are in Christ by faith and the indwelling of his 
 Spirit, are sons, both in their inward state and feelings, and in 
 their title to everlasting life. The interpretation followed by 
 Luther, who renders xv&fjLa ufofefflac, "ein kindlicher Goist,'' 
 makes spirit, here, mean disposition, feeling, and the genitive 
 (uto&sfftai;) th genitive of the source : " the disposition which 
 flows from adoption or sonship." But this is not only incon- 
 sistent with the context, but with such passages as Gal. iv. 6, 
 where what is here called the Spirit of adoption, is said to be 
 the Spirit of the Son of God, which God sends forth into our 
 hearts. By which we cry, Abba, Father, i. e. which enables us 
 to address God as our Father. "Clamor," says Bengel, "sermo 
 vehemens, cum desederio, fiducia, fide, constantia." Abba is 
 the Syriac and Chaldee form of the Hebrew word for father, 
 and therefore was to the apostle the most familiar term. As
 
 ROMANS VIII. 16. 419 
 
 such it would, doubtless, more naturally and fully express his 
 filial feeling towards God, than the foreign Greek word. It is 
 rare, indeed, that any other than our mother tongue becomes 
 so inwoven with our thoughts and feelings, as to come up spon- 
 taneously when our hearts are overflowing. Hence, expressions 
 of tenderness are the last words of their native language which 
 foreigners give up ; and in times of excitement, and even deli- 
 rium, they are sure to come back. Paul, therefore, chose to 
 call God his Father, in his own familiar tongue. Having used 
 the one word, however, the Greek of course became necessary 
 for those to whom he was writing. The repetition of two syno- 
 nymes may, however, be employed to give fuller utterance to 
 his feeling. This is Grotius's idea : " Imitatur puerorum patri- 
 bus blandientium voces. Mos est blandientium repetere voces 
 easdem." It is a very common opinion that Paul used both 
 words, to intimate that all distinction between different nations 
 was now done away. " Significat enim Paulus, ita nunc per 
 totum mundum publicatam esse Dei misericordiam, ut promiscue 
 linguis omnibus invocetur : quemadinodum Augustinus observat. 
 Ergo inter omnes gentes consensum exprimere voluit." Calvin. 
 The former explanation seems more natural and satisfactory. 
 
 VERSE 16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
 that we are the children of Grod. 'Not only do our own filial 
 feelings towards God prove that we are his children, but the 
 Holy Spirit itself conveys to our souls the assurance of this 
 delightful fact.' 
 
 The Spirit itself (afco TO Trveopa, and not TO abrb 7tvs~jfjLa, 
 which would mean, the same spirit) is, of course, the Holy 
 Spirit. 1. Because of the obvious distinction between it and 
 our spirit. 2. Because of the use of the word throughout the 
 passage. 3. Because of the analogy to other texts, which can- 
 not be otherwise explained. Gal. iv. 6, " God hath sent forth 
 the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father;" 
 Rom. v. 5, " The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by 
 the Holy Ghost given unto us," &c. 
 
 Beareth witness with our spirit, aufiiiapTUpsi TO) xveufjid-i 
 fj[4wv; that is, 'beareth witness, together with our own filial 
 feelings, to our spirit.' Although it is very common for com- 
 pound verbs to have the same force with the simple ones, yet,
 
 420 ROMANS VIII. IT. 
 
 in this case, the context requires the force of the preposition to 
 be retained, as two distinct sources of confidence are here men- 
 tioned, one in ver. 15, the other in this verse. Beareth witness 
 to, means confirms or assures. ' The Spirit of God produces in 
 our spirit the assurance that we are the children of God.' How 
 this is done we cannot fully understand, any more than we can 
 understand the mode in which he produces any other effect in 
 our mind. The fact is clearly asserted here, as well as in other 
 passages. See Rom. v. 5, where the conviction that we are the 
 objects of the love of God, is said to be produced "by the Holy 
 Ghost which is given unto us." See 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, Eph. i. 13, 
 iv. 30 ; and in 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5, 1 John ii. 20, 27, and other pas- 
 sages, the conviction of the truth of the gospel is, in like man- 
 ner, attributed to the Holy Spirit. From this passage it is 
 clear that there is a scriptural foundation for the assurance of 
 salvation. Those who have filial feelings towards God, who 
 love him, and believe that he loves them, and to whom the 
 Spirit, witnesses that they are the children of God, cannot 
 doubt that they are indeed his children. And if children, they 
 know they are heirs, as the apostle teaches in the following 
 verse.. 
 
 VERSE 17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of Grod, and 
 joint heirs with Christ, &c. This is the inference from our 
 adoption, in favour of the great theme of the chapter, the safety 
 of believers. If the children of God, they shall become par- 
 takers of the inheritance of the saints in light. The words to 
 inherit, heirs, and inheritance, are all of them used in a general 
 sense in the Scriptures, in reference to the secure possession 
 of any good, without regard to the mode in which that pos- 
 session is obtained. They are favourite terms with the sacred 
 writers, because possession by inheritance was much more 
 secure than that obtained by purchase, or by any other method. 
 There are three ideas included in these words, accessory to that 
 which constitutes their prominent meaning the right, the cer- 
 tainty, and the unalienable character of the possession. Hence, 
 when the apostle says, believers are the heirs of God, he means 
 to recognise their title, in and through the Redeemer, to the 
 promised good, as well as the certainty and security of the pos- 
 session. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,
 
 ROMANS VIII. 17. 421 
 
 and heirs according to the promise," Gal. iii. 29. In Gal. iv. 7, 
 we have the same argument as in the passage before us, 
 " Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son ; and if a 
 son, then an heir of God through Christ;" see Col. iii. 24, 
 Heb. ix. 15, Eph. i. 14, &c. Joint heirs with Christ. These 
 words are intended to designate the inheritance which believers 
 are to receive. It is not any possession in this world, but it is 
 that good of which Christ himself is the recipient ; we are to be 
 partakers of his inheritance. This idea is frequently presented 
 in the Scriptures. "Enter ye into the joy of your Lord," 
 Matt. xxv. 21; " That ye may eat and drink at my table in my 
 kingdom," Luke xxii. 30; "To him that overcometh will I 
 grant to sit with me in my throne," &c., Rev. iii. 21, and in 
 many other places. 
 
 If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified 
 together. Those suffer with Christ who suffer as he did, and for 
 his sake. They are thus partakers of the sufferings of Christ. 
 We suffer as Christ suffered, not only when we are subject to 
 the contradiction of sinners, but in the ordinary sorrows of life 
 in which he, the man of sorrows, so largely shared. We are 
 said to suffer with Christ, 7va, in order that we may be glorified 
 together. That is, the design of God in the affliction of his 
 people, is not to satisfy the demands of justice, but to prepare 
 them to participate in his glory. To creatures in a state of 
 sin, suffering is the necessary condition of exaltation. It is the 
 refining process through which they must pass, 1 Pet. i. 6, 7. 
 The union of believers with Christ, in suffering as well as in 
 glory, is what he and his apostles taught them to expect. "If 
 any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up 
 his cross and follow me, Matt. xvi. 24; "If we be dead with 
 him, we shall also live with him. If we suffer, we shall also 
 reign with him," 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. The blessedness of the 
 future state is always represented as exalted: it is a glory, 
 something that will elevate us in the rank of beings ; enlarging, 
 purifying, and ennobling all our faculties. To this state we are 
 to attain "through much tribulation," i. e. attain it as Christ 
 did. And this is what the apostle here intends to say, and not 
 that the participation of Christ's glory is a reward for our 
 having suffered with him.
 
 1-2-2 ROMANS VIII. 18, 19. 
 
 VERSE 18. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present 
 time care not worthy to be compared, &c. 'If children, then 
 heirs ; for I do not think our present sufferings inconsistent 
 with our being either the children or the heirs of God: 
 1. Because they are comparatively insignificant, vs. 18 23; 
 and, 2. Because we are sustained under them, vs. 24 28.' 
 Without much altering the sense, the for may be considered as 
 referring to the last clause of the preceding verse : * We shall 
 be glorified with Christ, for these present afflictions are not 
 worthy of thought.' In 2 Cor. iv. 17, Paul speaks much in the 
 same manner of the lightness of the afflictions of this life in 
 comparison with the glory that shall be revealed in us. We are 
 not only the recipients of a great favour, but the subjects in 
 which a great display of the divine glory is to be made to 
 others, Eph. iii. 10. It is a revelation of glory in us ; see Col. 
 iii. 4, 1 John iii. 2. Not worthy, Q\JX aca, not of like weight. 
 * Aztov T'jwz, what outweighs anything. Here, instead of the 
 genitive, TT,OOC is used Not weighty in reference to, or in com- 
 parison with. As the glory so outweighs the suffering, the idea 
 of merit, whether of condignity or of congruity, is of necessity 
 excluded. It is altogether foreign to the context. For it is 
 not the ground on which eternal life is bestowed, but the great- 
 ness of the glory that the saints are to inherit, which the 
 apostle designs to illustrate. "Neque enim," says Calvin, 
 "dignitatem utriusque confert apostolus, sed gravitatem crucis 
 tantum elevat comparatione magnitudinis gloriae, idque ad con- 
 firniiindos patientia fidelium anirnos." 
 
 The apostle, fired with the thought of the future glory of 
 the saints, pours forth the splendid passage which follows, 
 (vs. 19 23,) in which he represents the whole creation groan- 
 ing under its present degradation, and looking and longing for 
 the revelation of this glory, as the end and consummation of its 
 existence. 
 
 VERSE 19. For the earnest expectation of the creature, &c. 
 This verse is evidently designed to confirm the assertion con- 
 tained in the preceding verse. As, however, it is there asserted 
 that the glory to be revealed in us is great, that it is certain, 
 and that it is future, which of these points does the apostle 
 here, and in what follows, design to establish? Some say, that
 
 ROMANS VIII. 19. 423 
 
 in the preceding clause, ryv [j.s^Xo'jaav db^av 
 HeHoooav is the emphatic word. The glory is future, for it is 
 an object of expectation. We are saved only in hope. Others 
 again say, that the main idea is that tfeis glory is about to be, 
 i. e. certainly shall be revealed, agreeably to the special force 
 of the word pstisev. But the main idea of ver. 18 obviously is, 
 that this future glory transcends immeasurably the suffering of 
 this present state. All that follows tends to illustrate and 
 enforce that idea. Tlie earnest expectation, dnoxafjaooxla, from 
 xapaooxzcv, erecto capite prospicere, to look for with the head 
 erect. The 0.710 is intensive ; so that drroxapaooxca is earnest or 
 persistent expectation. It is an expectation that waits the time 
 out, that never fails until the object is attained. The object 
 of this earnest expectation is, the manifestation of the sons of 
 Grod. That is, the time when they shall be manifested in their 
 true character and glory as his sons. " Beloved, now are we 
 the sons of God ; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be : 
 but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him." 
 1 John iii. 2. The subject of this expectation is the xrim^^ the 
 creation. As this word signifies, first, the act of creating, and 
 then, any individual created thing, or all creatures collectively, 
 its meaning in any particular place must be determined by the 
 context. In this passage it has been made to mean : 1. The 
 whole rational and irrational creation, including angels, and 
 all things else, animate and inanimate. 2. The whole world, 
 excluding angels, but inclusive of the irrational animals. 
 3. The whole material creation, in a popular sense, as we say, 
 all nature. 4. The whole human race. 5. The heathen world, 
 as distinguished from believers. 6. The body of believers. 
 The choice between these several interpretations must be deter- 
 mined by what is predicated of the xrimt; in this immediate 
 connection, and by the analogy of Scripture. Unless the 
 Bible elsewhere speaks of angels as the subjects of redemption, 
 they cannot he here included, especially as they, as a class, are 
 not subject to corruption. How far irrational animals are 
 included, is more doubtful. The prophetic representations of 
 the Messianic period set forth not only inanimate nature, the 
 deserts, mountains, and forests, as rejoicing in the new order 
 of things, but also the beasts of the field ; and therefore the: a
 
 424 ROMANS VIII. 19. 
 
 is scriptural ground for including them under the comprehen- 
 sive words of the Apostle. That xriffcz here, is to be taken, not 
 as meaning the whole human family, nor the heathen world, 
 nor all rational creatures, but the whole creation with which we 
 are immediately connected the earth, and all its tribes of 
 beings, man excepted is the opinion of the great majority 
 of commentators of all ages. It is supported by the following 
 considerations : 1. In the first place, the words -u.aa i t x-tai*, 
 the whole creation, are so comprehensive, that nothing should 
 be excluded which the nature of the subject and the context do 
 not show cannot be embraced within their scope. It has 
 already been remarked, that as Paul is speaking of the benefits 
 of redemption, no class of creatures not included in some way 
 in that redemption, can be here intended. While the good 
 angels are, according to the Scriptures, not only deeply inter- 
 ested in this great work, 1 Pet. i. 12, but receive through it the 
 clearest manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. ii. 7, 
 yet they are not in such a sense partakers of the redemption 
 of Christ as this passage supposes. They are not burdened 
 with the consequences of man's apostacy, nor can they be repre- 
 sented as longing for deliverance from that burden. Angels, 
 therefore, must be excluded from "the whole creation" here 
 intended. 2. In the second place, as the apostle clearly dis- 
 tinguishes between the xrlffei; and believers, the latter cannot be 
 included in the former. 'Not only,' he says, 'the xriae^ but 
 we believers groan within ourselves,' &c. 3. Neither can "the 
 creature" mean the race of mankind as distinguished from 
 Christians. Hammond, Locke, Semler, Ammon, and others, 
 may be quoted in favour of this interpretation. Wetstein 
 expresses the same view briefly and plausibly thus : " Genus 
 humanum dividitur in eos, qui jam Christo nomen dederunt, 
 quique primitiae vocantur hie et Jac. i. 18, et reliquos, qui 
 nondum Christo aomen dederunt, qui vocantur creatura, vid. 
 Marc. xvi. 15. Et Judsei sentiunt onus legis suae: gentes 
 reliquae tenebras suas palpant, prsedicatione evangelii tanquam 
 e somno excitatae; ubique magna rerum convertio expectatur." 
 To this, however, it may be objected: 
 
 (a) It cannot be, said of the world of mankind, that they 
 have ^n earnest expectation and desire for the manifestation
 
 ROMANS VIII. 19. 425 
 
 of the sons of God. The common longing after immortality, to 
 which reference is made in defence of the application of this 
 verse to men in general, is very far from coming up to the 
 force of the passage. "The manifestation of the sons of God" 
 is a definite scriptural event, just as much as the second advent 
 of Christ. It can, therefore, no more be said that the world 
 longs for the one event than for the other. Yet had the apostle 
 said the whole creation was longing for the second advent of 
 the Son of God, can any one imagine he meant they were 
 merely sighing after immortality ? He evidently intends, that 
 the creature is looking forward, with earnest expectation, to 
 that great scriptural event which, from the beginning, has been 
 held up as the great object of hope, viz. the consummation of 
 the Redeemer's kingdom. 
 
 (6) It cannot be said, in its full and proper force, that man- 
 kind were brought into their present state, not by their own act, 
 or "willingly," but by the act and power of God. The obvious 
 meaning of ver. 20 seems to be, that the fact that the creature 
 
 O ' 
 
 was subjected to its present state, not by itself, but by God, is 
 the reason, at once, why it longs for deliverance, and may hope 
 to obtain it. Such exculpatory declarations respecting men, 
 are not in keeping with the scriptural mode of speaking either 
 of the conduct or condition of the world. 
 
 (c) A still greater difficulty is found in reconciling this inter- 
 pretation with ver. 21. How can it be said of mankind, as a 
 whole, that they are to be delivered from the bondage of cor- 
 ruption, and made partakers of the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God? And, especially, how can this be said to 
 occur at the time of the manifestation of the sons of God, 
 i. e. at the time of the second advent, the resurrection day, 
 when the consummation of the Redeemer's kingdom is to take 
 place? According to the description here given, the whole 
 creation is to groan under its bondage until the day of redemp- 
 tion, and then it also is to be delivered. This description can, 
 in no satisfactory sense, be applied to mankind, as distinguished 
 from the people of God. 
 
 (d) This interpretation does not suit the spirit of the context 
 or drift of the passage. The apostle is represented as saying, 
 in substance, "The very nature and condition of the human
 
 426 ROMANS VIII. 19. 
 
 race point to a future state : they declare that this i3 an imper- 
 fect, frail, dying, unhappy state ; that man does not and cannot 
 attain the end of his being here; and even Christians, sup- 
 ported as they are by the earnest of future glory, still find 
 themselves obliged to sympathize with others in these sufferings, 
 Borrows, and deferred hopes."* But how feeble and attenuated 
 is all this, compared to the glowing sentiments of the apostle ! 
 His object is not to show that this state is one of frailty and 
 sorrow, and that Christians must feel this as well as others. 
 On the contrary, he wishes to show that the sufferings of this 
 state are utterly insignificant in comparison with the future 
 glory of the sons of God. And then to prove how great this 
 glory is, he says, the whole creation, with outstretched neck, has 
 been longing for its manifestation from the beginning of the 
 world; groaning not so much under present evil as from the 
 desire for future good. 
 
 As therefore the angels, the human race, and believers as a 
 class, must be excluded, what remains but the creation, in the 
 popular sense of that word the earth, with all it contains, 
 animate and inanimate, man excepted? AVith believers, the 
 whole creation, in this sense, is represented as being burdened, 
 and longing for deliverance. The refutation of the other inter- 
 pretations shuts us up to the adoption of this. It is, moreover, 
 consistent with the context and the analogy of Scripture. As 
 the object of the apostle is to impress upon believers the great- 
 ness of the glory of which they are to be the subjects, he repre- 
 sents the whole creation as longing for its manifestation. There 
 is nothing in this unnatural, unusual, or unscriptural. On the 
 contrary, it is in the highest degree beautiful and effective, and 
 at the same time in strict accordance with the manner of the 
 sacred writers. How common is it to represent the whole 
 creation as a sentient being, rejoicing in God's favour, trem- 
 bling at his anger, speaking aloud his praise, &c. How often 
 too is it represented as sympathizing in the joy of the people 
 of God ! " The mountains and hills shall break forth before 
 you into singing, and all the trees of the fields shall clap their 
 hands." Isa. Iv. 12. It may be objected, that such passages 
 are poetical ; but so is this. It is not written in metre, but it 
 
 * Professor Stuart's Commentary on Romans, p. 340.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 19. 427 
 
 is poetical in the highest degree. There is, therefore, nothing 
 in the strong figurative language of ver. 19, either inappro- 
 priate to the apostle's object, or inconsistent with the manner 
 of the sacred writers. 
 
 It may also with the strictest propriety be said, that the irra- 
 tional creation was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by 
 the authority of God. It shared in the penalty of the fall 
 "Cursed is the earth for thy sake." Gen. viii. 17. And it is 
 said still to suffer for the sins of its inhabitants: "Therefore 
 hath the curse devoured the earth," Isa. xxi?. 6; "How long 
 shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither, for 
 the wickedness of them that dwell therein?" Jer. xii. 4. This 
 is a common mode of representation in the Scriptures. How 
 far the face of nature was affected, or the spontaneous fruitful- 
 ness of the earth changed by the curse, it is vain to ask. It is 
 sufficient that the irrational creation was made subject to a 
 frail, dying, miserable state, by the act of God (not by its own,) 
 in punishment of the sins of men. This is the representation 
 of the Scriptures, and this is the declaration of Paul. While 
 this is true of the irrational creation, it is not true of mankind. 
 
 Ths principal point in the description of the apostle is, that 
 this subjection of the creature to the bondage of corruption is 
 not final or hopeless, but the whole creation is to share in the 
 glorious liberty of the children of God. This also is in perfect 
 accordance with the scriptural mode of representation on this 
 subject. Nothing is more familiar to the readers of the Old 
 Testament, than the idea that the whole face of the world is to 
 be clothed in new beauty when the Messiah appears: "The 
 wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them ; and 
 the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose," c. Isa. 
 xxxv. 1, xxix. 17, xxxii. 15, 16. " The wolf also shall dwell 
 with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and 
 the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a 
 little child shall lead them." Isa. xi. 6. Such passages are too 
 numerous to be cited. The apostle Peter, speaking of the 
 second advent, says the present state of things shall be changed, 
 the heavens shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with 
 fervent heat : " Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look 
 for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteous-
 
 428 ROMANS VIII. 19. 
 
 ness," 2 Pet. iii. 7 13. "And I saw a new heaven and a new 
 earth; for the first heavens and the first earth were passed 
 away," Rev. xxi. 1; see Heb. xii. 26, 27. It is common, there- 
 fore, to describe the advent of the Messiah as attended with a 
 great and glorious change of the external world. Whether this 
 is intended merely as an exornation, as is doubtless the case 
 with many of the prophetic passages of the Old Testament ; or 
 whether it is really didactic, and teaches the doctrine of the 
 restoration of the earth to more than its pristine beauty, which 
 seems to be the meaning of some of the New Testament pas- 
 sages, is perfectly immaterial to our present purpose. It is 
 enough that the sacred writers describe the consummation of 
 the Redeemer's kingdom as attended with the palingenesia of 
 the whole creation. This is all Paul does; whether poetically 
 or didactically, is too broad a question to be here entered upon. 
 In further confirmation of this interpretation it may be 
 remarked, that this doctrine of the renewal of the external 
 world, derived from the language of the prophets, was a com- 
 mon doctrine among the Jews. Abundant evidence of this fact 
 may be seen in Eisenmenger's EntdecJctes Judenthum (Judaism 
 Revealed,) particularly in chapter fifteenth of the second part. 
 The following passages are a specimen of the manner in which 
 the Jewish writers speak on this subject : " Hereafter, when 
 the sin of men is removed, the earth, which God cursed on 
 account of that sin, will return to its former state and blessed- 
 ness, as it was before the sin of men," p. 828. "At this time 
 the whole creation shall be changed for the better, and return 
 to the perfection and purity which it had in the time of the first 
 man, before sin was." See this latter quotation, and others of 
 a similar import, in Tholuck. In the early Christian Church, 
 this opinion was prevalent, and was the germ whence the extra- 
 vagances of the Millenarians arose. Almost all such errors 
 contain a portion of truth, to which they are indebted for their 
 origin and extension. The vagaries, therefore, of the early 
 heretics, and the still grosser follies of the Talmudical writers 
 on this subject, furnish presumptive and confirmatory evidence 
 that the sacred writers did teach a doctrine, or at least employed 
 a mode of speaking of the future condition of the external 
 world, which easily accounts for these errors.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 20. 429 
 
 The objections to this view of the passage are inconclusive. 
 1. It is objected that it would require us to understand all such 
 passages as speak of a latter day of glory, literally, and believe 
 that the house of God is to stand on the top of the moun- 
 tains, &c. But this is a mistake. When it is said, " The 
 heavens declare the glory of God," we do not understand the 
 words literally, although we understand them as speaking of 
 the visible heavens. 2. Neither are the prophetic descriptions 
 of the state of the world at the time of the second advent, 
 explained literally, even when understood didactically, that is, 
 as teaching that there is to be a great and glorious change in 
 the condition of the world. But even this, as remarked above, 
 is not necessary to make good the common interpretation. It 
 is sufficient that Paul, after the manner of the other sacred 
 writers, describes the external world as sympathizing with the 
 righteous, and participating in the glories of the Messiah's 
 reign. If this be a poetic exaggeration in the one case, it may 
 be in the other. Again, it is objected that the common inter- 
 pretation is not suited to the design of the passage. But this 
 objection is founded on a misapprehension of that design. The 
 apostle does not intend to confirm our assurance of the truth 
 of future glory, but to exalt our conceptions of its greatness. 
 Finally, it is said to be very unnatural, that Paul should repre- 
 sent the external world as longing for a better state, and 
 Christians doing the same, and the world of mankind be left 
 unnoticed. But this is not unnatural if the apostle's design be 
 as just stated. 
 
 There appears, therefore, to be no valid objection against 
 supposing the apostle, in this beautiful passage, to bring into 
 strong contrast with our present light and momentary afflic- 
 tions, the permanent and glorious blessedness of our future 
 state ; and, in order to exalt our conceptions of its greatness, 
 to represent the whole creation, now groaning beneath the con- 
 sequences of the fall, as anxiously waiting for the long expected 
 day of redemption. 
 
 VERSE 20. For the creature was made subject to vanity, &c. 
 In this verse there are three reasons expressed or implied why 
 the creature thus waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. 
 The first is, that it is now subject to vanity. 2. That this sub-
 
 430 ROMANS VIII. 20. 
 
 jection was not voluntary, but imposed by God. 3. That ii 
 was never designed to be final. The creature was subjected, 
 (u-trdfy, historical aorist : the fact referred to occurred at the 
 fall, when the curse fell on the earth.) To vanity, fjtaTcuor/jTt. 
 This word expresses either physical frailty or worthlessness, or 
 moral corruption. Here it is the former; in Eph. iv. 17, 
 2 Pet. ii. 18, it is the latter. The two ideas, however, are in 
 the Scriptures nearly related. The idea here expressed is anti- 
 thetical to that expressed by the word glory. It includes, 
 therefore, all that distinguishes the present condition of the 
 creature from its original state, and from the glorious future in 
 reserve for it. What is expressed by fiaTodorr^, is in ver. 21 
 expressed by <p$opa<;, corruption. What the apostle here says 
 of the creature, was familiar to his Jewish readers. Their 
 Rabbis taught that : " Quamvis creatae fuerint res perfects, cum 
 primus homo peccaret, corrupts tamen sunt, et non redibunt 
 ad congruum statum suum, donee veniat Pharez," i. e. M^Bsias. 
 See Eisenmenger. This subjection of the creature, the apostle 
 says, was not kxoixja, not willingly, not of its own choice. It 
 was neither by the voluntary act of the creature, nor in accord- 
 ance with its own inclination. The inanimate creature was a 
 passive sufferer, sharing in the curse which fell on man for his 
 apostacy. Btit by reason of him who hath subjected, d/J.u (on 
 the contrary) Sta TOV uTrordgavra, on account, i. e. in accordance 
 with the will of Him who rendered it subject. It was the will of 
 God, not of the creature, which caused the creature to be subject 
 to vanity. While this can be said with the strictest propriety, 
 of the material and irrational creation, it cannot properly be 
 said of sinners. Their subjection to the bondage of corruption 
 was by their own voluntary act, or by the voluntary act of their 
 divinely constituted head and representative. The subjection 
 of the creature to vanity, however, was not final and hopeless ; 
 it was ITI' l/.-ioi. These words may be connected either with 
 ^Trcfpy or with tflrorc^aira: ' the creature was subjected in 
 hope;' or, 'on account of him subjecting it in hope.' In either 
 case the sense is the same. The subjection was not a hopeless 
 one. By giving ursrd-pj a middle sense, and connecting $-' 
 e/.-idt therewith, we have the beautiful idea, that the creature 
 submitted to the yoke of bondage in hope of ultimate deliver- 
 
 \
 
 ROMANS VIII. 21. 431 
 
 ance. " Subjecit se jugo, hac tamen spe, ut et ipsa liberetur 
 tandem ab eo." Koppe. " Obedientise exemplum," says Calvin, 
 "in creaturis omnibus proponit, et earn addit ex spe nasci, quia 
 hinc soli et lunee, stellisque omnibus ad assiduum cursum alacri- 
 tas; hinc terrse ad fructus gignendos sedulitas obsequii, hinc 
 aeris indefessa agitatio, hinc aquis ad fluxum promptus vigor, 
 quia Deus suas quibusque partes injunxit; nee tantum praeciso 
 imperio quid fieri vellet, sed spem renovationis intus simul 
 indidit." 
 
 VERSE 21. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered 
 from the bondage of corruption, &c. This verse, according to 
 our version, assigns the reason why the subjection of the crea- 
 ture was not hopeless. This reason is, that the creature was 
 to share in the glorious redemption. The particle on, however, 
 rendered because, may be rendered that, and the verse then 
 indicates the object of the hope just spoken of. The subjection 
 was with the hope that the creature should be delivered. In 
 either way the sense is nearly the same. The creature itself 
 also, is another of the forms of expression which show that Paul 
 speaks of the creation in a sense which does not embrace the 
 children of God. Bondage of corruption, i. e. bondage to cor- 
 ruption the state of frailty and degradation spoken of above. 
 
 Delivered, or liberated into the liberty, is an elliptical form 
 of expression for 'delivered and introduced into the liberty.' 
 Liberty of glory, as the words literally mean, or glorious liberty, 
 refer to that liberty which consists in, or is connected with the 
 glory which is the end and consummation of the work of 
 redemption. This word is often used for the whole of the 
 results of the work of Christ, as far as his people are con- 
 cerned ; (see ver. 18.) The creature then is to be partaker in 
 some way, according to its nature, of the glories in reserve for 
 the sons of God. "Porro non intelligit, consortes ejusdem 
 glorise fore creaturas cum filiis Dei, sed suo modo melioris 
 status fore socias : quia Deus simul cum humano genere orbem 
 nunc collapsum in integrum restituet. Qualis vero futura sit 
 integritas ilia tarn in pecudibus quam in plantis et metallis, 
 curiosius inquirere neque expedit, neque fas est. Quia prae- 
 cipua pars corruptionis est interitus: Quaerunt arguti, sed 
 parum sobrii homines, an immortale futurum sit omne anima-
 
 432 ROMANS VIII. 22, 23. 
 
 lium genus: his speculationibus si frcnuin laxetur, quoraum 
 tandem nos abripient? Hao ergo sirnplici doctrina content! 
 simus, tale fore temperamentum, et tarn concinnuin ordinem, ut 
 nihil vel deforme vel fluxum appareat." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth 
 and travaileth in pain together until now. This verse is a repe- 
 tition and confirmation of the preceding sentiment : ' The crea- 
 ture is subject to vanity, and longs for deliverance; for we 
 see, from universal and long continued experience, the whole 
 creation groaning and travailing in pain.' It is, however, as 
 Calvin remarks, the pains of birth, and not of death. After 
 sorrow comes the joy of a new existence. The word together 
 may have reference to the whole creation which groans together, 
 all its parts uniting and sympathizing ; or it may refer to the 
 sons of God, ' For the whole creation groans together with the 
 sons of God.' On account of the following verse, in which 
 Christians are specially introduced as joining with the whole 
 creation in this sense of present misery and desire of future 
 good, the former method of understanding the passage seems 
 preferable. Until now, from the beginning until the present 
 time. The creature has always been looking forward to the 
 day of redemption. " Particula Hactenus, vel ad hunc usque 
 diem, ad levandum diuturni languoris taedium pertinet. Nam 
 si tot saeculis durarunt in suo gemitu creaturae, quam inexcusa- 
 bilis erit nostra mollities vel ignavia, si in brevi umbratilis vitae 
 curriculo deficimus?" Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 23. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the 
 first fruits of the Spirit, &c. 'Not only does the whole crea- 
 tion thus groan, but we ourselves, we Christians, who have a 
 foretaste of heavenly bliss, the first fruits of the glorious inhe- 
 ritance, we groan within ourselves, and long for the consum- 
 mation of glory.' The first fruits was that portion of the 
 productions of the earth which was offered to God. From the 
 nature of the case, they contained the evidence and assurance 
 of the whole harvest being secured. The idea, therefore, of an 
 eajnest or pledge is included in the phrase, as well as that of 
 priority. This is the general if not constant use of the word in 
 the New Testament. Thus Christ is called "the first fruits of 
 them that slept," 1 Cor. xv. 20, not merely because he rose
 
 ROMANS VIII. 23. 433 
 
 first, but also because his resurrection was a pledge of the 
 resurrection of his people. See Rom. xi. 16, xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 
 James i. 18. In all these places, both ideas may be, and pro- 
 bably ought to be retained. In the passages before us, what is 
 here called the first fruits of the Spirit, is elsewhere called the 
 earnest of the Spirit, Eph. i. 14, &c. The phrases, the Spirit 
 which is the first fruits, and the /Spirit which is an earnest, are 
 therefore synonymous. The Spirit is the first fruits of the full 
 inheritance of the saints in light. The expression in the text, 
 therefore, is descriptive of all Christians, and not of any par- 
 ticular class of them ; that is, it is not to be confined to those 
 who first received the influences of the Spirit, or were first 
 converted. 
 
 The interpretation given above, of this clause, is the one most 
 commonly received, and the most natural. There is, however, 
 great diversity in the MSS. as to the text, although the sense 
 is substantially the same, whichever of the various readings be- 
 adopted. The common text is : ou [JLOVOV ds, dtta xac aurot TTJV 
 i-apyjp row JtveupaTOZ ejfovrec, xac J^//?c abroe Iv iat>ro?c 
 aTz^d^ofiusv. This may mean, -Not only (the xr/<rrc,) but they 
 having the first fruits of the Spirit, and we ourselves groan,' &c. 
 A distinction is thus made between those who have the first 
 fruits of the Spirit, and those meant by we ourselves. Those 
 who adopt this interpretation suppose that Paul intended by 
 we, either himself individually, or himself and the other apos- 
 tles. This view of the passage, however, is not the natural 
 one, even assuming the correctness of the common text; and is 
 impossible, if the true reading be $//?c aurol, as found in the 
 MSS. D. F. G., and adopted by many critics. The auroc in 
 the first clause, and the jj//?c aittoi, refer to the same class of 
 persons, and indicate the subject of the verb artv6^ofj.tv. It is- 
 more doubtful what force should be given to the participle 
 e^ovrec- As the article is omitted, most commentators render 
 it, 'although having.' 'Even we groan, although having the 
 present influences and support of the Spirit.' In our version, 
 and by Calvin, Beza, and Bengel, it is rendered as though the 
 article was used, of l^ovrec, even we who have, i. e. the possessors 
 of. This is more pertinent, as the apostle's object is to desig- 
 nate the class intended by we. The article in such cases is not 
 28
 
 434 ROMANS VIII. 23. 
 
 always used, (see ver. 1,) according to the common text. In 
 the phrase cbra^joy TOL> xbE'j/jtaroi;, the genitive may be taken as 
 the genitivus partivus. In favour of this is the signification of 
 the word, and its ordinary use. In such expressions as " first 
 fruits of the corn and of the wine," "of the dead," and others 
 of a like kind, the genitive indicates that of which the first 
 fruits are a part. This gives a good sense here. Believers now 
 possess and now enjoy, in the indwelling of the Spirit, a pre- 
 libation of what they are to receive hereafter a part of the 
 full measure of divine influence in reserve for them. Still the 
 analogy of Scripture is in favour of taking the genitive as the 
 genitive of apposition. The Holy Spirit is the d~aoynj; or as 
 it is said in Eph. i. 14, 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, ajj[)afiajv, the earnest 
 of the Spirit. The inheritance of the saints in light, is that of 
 which the Spirit is the first fruits and the earnest. 
 
 Even ive ourselves groan within ourselves, kv ka'j-roiz. as 
 expressing the internal load by which the believer is now 
 oppressed. Waiting for the adoption, uiofaaeav without the 
 article; 'waiting for adoption.' There is a sense in which 
 believers are now the sons of God and partakers of adoption. 
 But the full enjoyment of their blessedness as the children of 
 God, the time when they shall be recognised as uioi, and enter 
 upon their inheritance as such, is still future. Here Christians 
 are in the condition of vtj-ioi, minor children ; their introduc- 
 tion into the state of uloi, in the sense of adult sons entitled to 
 .their inheritance, is their u!o&ffia, for which they now wait, 
 (tu:xdz%6fjivoi,} with patient, but earnest desire. What, there- 
 fore, in the foregoing verse is expressed by " the manifestation 
 of the sons of God," is here expressed by the single word 
 "adoption." Even the redemption of the body. The redemp- 
 tion of the body is not so in apposition with the adoption, that 
 the two phrases are equivalent. The adoption includes far 
 more than the redemption of the body. But the latter event is 
 to be coincident with the former, and is included in it, as one 
 of its most prominent parts. Both expressions, therefore, 
 designate the same period: 'We wait for the time when we 
 shall be fully recognised as the children of God, i. e. for the 
 time when our vile bodies shall be fashioned like unto the glori- 
 ous body of the Son of God.' How much stress Paul laid upon
 
 ROMANS VIII. 24, 25. 435 
 
 the redemption of the body, is evident not only from this pas- 
 sage, and that in Philip, iii. 21, just quoted, but also from the 
 whole of 1 Cor. xv., especially the latter part of the chapter. 
 The time of the resurrection of the body, or the manifestation 
 of the sons of God, is the time of the second advent of Jesus 
 Christ. See 1 Cor. xv. 23, "Christ the first fruits; afterwards 
 they that are Christ's, at his coming." 1 Thess. iv. 16, "For 
 the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout ; and 
 the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are 
 alive," &c. This is the period towards which all eyes and all 
 hearts have been directed, among those who have had the first 
 fruits of the Spirit, since the fall of Adam ; and for which the 
 whole creation groaneth and is in travail even until now. 
 
 VERSES 24, 25. The apostle, intending to show that the pre- 
 sent afflictions of believers are not inconsistent with their being 
 the children of God, and are therefore no ground of discourage- 
 ment, refers not only to their comparative insignificance, but 
 also to the necessity which there is, from the nature of the case, 
 for these sufferings : ' Salvation, in its fulness, is not a present 
 good, but a matter of hope, and of course future ; and if future, 
 it follows that we must wait for it in patient and joyful expecta- 
 tion.' While, therefore, waiting for salvation is necessary, from 
 the nature of the case, the nature of the blessing waited for, 
 converts expectation into desire, and enables us patiently to 
 endure all present evils. 
 
 For we are saved by hope, rrj fap kfaidt kaat&qfitev. At the 
 close of the preceding verse, Paul had spoken of believers as 
 waiting for the adoption. They thus wait, because salvation is 
 not a present good, but a future one. We are saved in hope, 
 i. e. in prospect. The dative (iAixidc) does not \n this case 
 express the means by which anything is done, but the condition 
 or circumstances in which it is, or the way and manner in which 
 it occurs. It is therefore analogous to our forms of expression, 
 we have a thing in expectation or prospect. Salvation is a bless- 
 ing we have in hope, not in possession : if it be the one, it 
 cannot be the other, since hope that is seen is not hope. It lies 
 in the nature of hope, that its object must be future. The word 
 hope is here used objectively for the thing hoped for, as in Col. 
 i. 5, "The hope that is laid up for you in heaven; Ileb. vi. 18,
 
 436 ROMANS VIII. 25, 26. 
 
 Eph. i. 18, &c. The latter clause of the verse, for what a 
 man teeth, why doth he yet hope for, is only a confirmation of 
 the* previous declaration, that it lies in the nature of hope to 
 have reference to the future. " This passage," says Olshausen, 
 " is specially important for determining the true nature of hope. 
 It stands opposed to ftjiemiv, seeing which supposes the object 
 to be externally present. It is, however, no less opposed to the 
 entire absence of its object. It is, on the contrary, the inward 
 possession of the things hoped for, so far as they are spiritual. 
 A man can believe, and hope for eternal things, only so far as 
 they are inwardly present to him. Therefore it is that Chris- 
 tian hope is something so exalted. It is the daughter of expe- 
 rience, (Rom. v. 4,) and maketh not ashamed. It is the sister 
 of faith and love. Good wishes, desires, and longings, are not 
 hope, because they do not involve the real possession of the 
 things longed for." 
 
 VERSE 25. But if we hope for that we gee not, c. That is, 
 ' If hope has reference to the unseen and the future, then, as 
 salvation is a matter of hope, it is a matter to be waited for-' 
 It results, therefore, from the nature of the plan of redemption, 
 that the full fruition of its blessing should not be obtained at 
 once, but that through much tribulation believers should enter 
 into the kingdom; consequently, their being called upon to 
 suffer is not at all inconsistent with their being sons and heirs. 
 Then do we with patience wait for it; 3c broyiovf^, with con- 
 stancy, or firmness, which includes the idea of patience, as its 
 consequence. There is something more implied in these words 
 than that salvation, because unseen, must be waited for. This, 
 no doubt, from the connection, is the main idea; but we not 
 only wait, but we wait with patience, or constancy. There is 
 something in the very expectation of future good, and especially 
 of such good, the glory that shall be revealed in us, to produce 
 not only patient but even joyful endurance of all present suffer- 
 ing. "Spes ista," says Grotius, "non infructuosa est in nobis, 
 egregiam virtutem operatur, malorum fortem tolerationem." 
 
 VERSE 26. Not only does hope thus cheer and support the 
 Buffering believer, but likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirm- 
 ities. Likewise, literally, in the same way. As hope sustains, 
 so, in the same manner, the Spirit does also. Not that the
 
 ROMANS VIII. 26. 437 
 
 mode of assistance is the same, but simply as the one does, so 
 also does the other. In this case at least, therefore, the word 
 thus rendered is equivalent to moreover. The translation 
 likewise suits the context exactly. Helpeth, the word <ryvai/r.'- 
 Xa/Jifid^sTat, means to take hold of any thing with another, to 
 take part in his burden or work, and thus to aid. Compare 
 Luke x. 40. It is, therefore, peculiarly expressive and appro- 
 priate. It represents the condescending Spirit as taking upon 
 himself, as it were, a portion of our sorrows to relieve us of 
 their pressure. " Magna est vis Graeci verbi awaw/.afjtfidvsff&a.', 
 quod scilicet partes oneris quo nostra infirmitas gravatur, ad se 
 recipiens Spiritus non modo auxiliatur nobis et succurrit, sed 
 perinde nos sublevat acsi ipse nobiscum onus subiret." Calvin. 
 Our infirmities* is the appropriate rendering of the original, 
 which expresses the idea both of weakness and suffering. Heb. 
 iv. 15, " We have not an high priest which cannot be touched 
 with a feeling of our infirmities;" 2 Cor. xii. 5, "I will not 
 glory, but in mine infirmities." 
 
 For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; 
 but the Spirit, &c. What we know not is : TO TC xpozeugfo/jts&a 
 xa&b dec. The article TO belongs to the whole clause, as in 
 Luke ix. 46 ; Acts iv. 21, and after. Winer, 20. 3. This is 
 said as an illustration and confirmation of the previous general 
 declaration ; it is an example of the way in which the Spirit 
 aids us. * He helpeth our infirmities, for he teaches us how to 
 pray, dictating to us our supplications,' &c. The necessity for 
 this aid arises from our ignorance; we know not what to pray 
 for. We cannot tell what is really best for us. Heathen 
 philosophers gave this as a reason why men ought not to 
 pray If How miserable their condition when compared to 
 ours ! Instead of our ignorance putting a seal upon our lips, 
 and leaving our hearts to break, the Spirit gives our desires a 
 language heard and understood of God. As we know not how 
 to pray, the Spirit teaches us. This idea the apostle expresses 
 by saying, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us. The 
 
 * For T*7c i./Tiv**K, the singular TJ; ci<r3iv* is read by MSS. A. C. D. 10, 28, 
 31, 37, 47, and the Syriac and Latin versions. Lachmann has the singular. 
 f Diogenes, L. VIII. 9. Pythagoras MX, if t'J%&5*t i//Ttg i*u' efw TO p* tliiizi 
 y. Wetstein.
 
 438 ROMANS VIII. 26. 
 
 simple verb {tot&ftfaaty rendered he maketh intercession, pro* 
 perly means to meet, then to approach any one to make suppli- 
 cation, Acts xxv. 24. This supplication may be against any 
 one, Rom. xi. 2, or for him, v. 34; Heb. vii. 25. Hence, to 
 intercede for, is to act the part of advocate in behalf of any 
 one. This Christ is said to do for us in the last two passages 
 cited, as well as in Heb. ix. 24, 1 John ii. 1, and John xiv. Ifr, 
 for Christ calls the Holy Spirit "another advocate," i. e. 
 another than himself. This office is ascribed to the Spirit in 
 the last passage quoted in John xiv. 26, xv. 26, and xvi. 7, as 
 well as in the passage before us. As the Spirit is thus said, in 
 the general, to do for us what an advocate did for his client, so 
 he does also what it was the special duty of the advocate to 
 perform, i. e., to dictate to his clients what they ought to say, 
 how they should present their cause.* In this sense the pre- 
 sent passage is to be understood. We do not know how to 
 pray, but the Spirit teaches us. All true prayer is due to the 
 influence of the Spirit, who not only guides us in the selection 
 of the objects for which to pray, but also gives us the appro- 
 priate desires, and works within us that faith without which 
 our prayers are of no avail. We are not to suppose that the 
 Spirit itself prays, or utters the inarticulate groans of which 
 the apostle here speaks. He is said to do what he causes ua 
 to do. " Interpellare autem dicitur Spiritus Dei," says Cal- 
 vin; "non quod ipse re vera suppliciter se ad precandum vel 
 gemendum demittat, sed quod in animis nostris excitet ea vota, 
 quibus noa sollicitari convenit; deinde corda nostra sic afficiat 
 ut suo ardore in coelum penetrent." Nevertheless, far more is 
 meant than that the Spirit teaches us to pray, as one man may 
 teach another. And more is meant than that, by a mere ab 
 extra influence, certain desires and feelings are awakened in 
 our hearts. The Spirit dwells in the believer as a principle of 
 life. In our consciousness there is no difference between our 
 own acting and those of the Spirit. There is, however, a 
 concur#u8, a joint agency of the divine and human in all holy 
 exercises, and more especially in those emotions, desires, and 
 
 * See Knapp's Dissertation De Spiritu Sancto et ChTisto Paracletis, p. 114, 
 f his Scripta Varii Argumenti. Or the translation of that Dissertation in 
 the Biblical Repertory, Vol. I. p. 234.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 27. 439 
 
 aspirations which we are unable to clothe in words. The 
 0Tva?7/o:c d/a^ro^c may mean with unutterable or unuttered 
 groanings. The former is not only more forcible, but it is 
 more in accordance with the experience and language of men. 
 It is common to speak of emotions too big for utterance, and 
 we all know what that means. The analogy of scripture is 
 also in favour of this view. The Bible speaks of God'8 
 unspeakable gift, 2 Cor. xii. 4, of ctppyra. frij/jtaTa, 'words 
 which cannot be uttered;' and of 'a joy that is unspeakable/ 
 
 VERSE 27. Although these desires are not, and cannot be 
 uttered, the eye of Him who searches the heart can read and 
 understand them. And (rather, but) he who searcheth the 
 hearts. To search the heart is the prerogative of God, as it 
 implies omniscience. As no man knoweth the things of a man, 
 but the spirit of man that is in him, to read the unexpressed 
 emotions of the soul must be the work of Him to whose eyes 
 all things are naked. " I the Lord, search the heart, I try the 
 reins." Jer. xvii. 10, Ps. cxxxix. 7, 9, Rev. ii. 23. Know- 
 eth the mind of the Spirit. By (ppovr^a roy Trvetijuarof is 
 meant the meaning, intention of the Spirit, what he means by 
 those unutterable groanings. By Spirit must be here under- 
 stood, as the context requires, the Holy Spirit. It is that 
 Spirit who intercedes for the saints and in them, and who ia 
 expressly distinguished from the soul in which he dwells. God 
 is said to know the mind of the Spirit. As the word to know 
 is so often used with the implication of the idea of npproval, 
 this may mean, God recognises or approves of the mind of the 
 Spirit. " Hie verbi nosse," says Calvin, " adnotanda est pro- 
 prietas; significat enim, Deum non novos et insolentes illoa 
 Spiritus affectus non animadvertere, vel tanquam absurdos 
 rejicere; sed agnoscere, et simul benigne excipere ut agnitoa 
 sibi et probates." If this be the meaning of the word, then 
 the following ore is causal, and introduces the reason why God 
 thus approves of the mind of the Spirit. It is because the 
 Spirit maketh intercession for the saints xara 6sov according to 
 G-od, i. e., agfeeably to his will. The desires produced by the 
 Spirit of God himself are, of course, agreeable to the will of 
 God, and secure of being approved and answered. This is the
 
 440 ROMANS VIII. 28. 
 
 great consolation and support of believers. They know not 
 either what is best for themselves or agreeable to the will of 
 God; but the Holy Spirit dictates those petitions and excites 
 those desires which are consistent with the divine purposes, 
 and which are directed towards the blessings best suited to our 
 wants. Such prayers are always answered. "And this is 
 the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask any thing 
 according to his will, he heareth us," 1 John v. 7. But if 
 olds is to be taken in its ordinary sense, then ore is explicative. 
 'God knows that the Spirit,' &c. Those who adopt this vk-\v 
 generally render xara 6zbv towards God, i. e., before God. 
 * The Spirit intercedes before God for the saints.' In favour 
 of this interpretation of the passage, it is urged that this is the 
 proper place of the word vide ; and as to the clause xara. #eov, 
 it is said, God's knowing the mind of the Spirit, does not 
 depend on its being according to his will. He would know it 
 whether in accordance with his will or not. This difficulty, 
 however, does not exist if ocds means 'he recognises and 
 approves.' It is making the verse say comparatively little, if 
 it is made to mean simply ' that the Searcher of hearts knows 
 that the Spirit intercedes in his presence (or toward him) for 
 the saints.' The interpretation adopted by our translators, 
 therefore, is to be preferred. It is more to the apostle's pur- 
 pose if he assigns the reason why God receives the unutterable 
 desires and longings of the heart as true prayer. . This indeed 
 is a consolation to believers. 
 
 VERSE 28. And we know all things work together for good to 
 them that love God, &c. This may be regarded as virtually, 
 though not formally, an inference from what Paul had taught 
 concerning afflictions. As they are comparatively insignificant, 
 as they call forth the exercises of hope, and give occasion for 
 the kind interposition of the Holy Spirit, far from being incon- 
 sistent with our salvation, they contribute to our good. It 
 seems, however, more natural to consider the apostle as pre- 
 senting the consideration contained in this verse, as an addi- 
 tional reason why the afflictions of this life are not inconsistent 
 with our being the sons of God. These afflictions are real 
 blessings. All things, as is usually the case with such general 
 expressions, is to be limited to the things spoken of in the
 
 ROMANS VIII. 28. 441 
 
 context, i. e., the sufferings of the present time. See 1 Cor. 
 ii. 15, where the spiritual man is said to understand " all 
 things;" Col. i. 20, where Christ is said to reconcile "all 
 things unto God;" and Eph. i. 10, with many other similar 
 passages. Of course it is not intended that other events, 
 besides afflictions, do not work together for the good of Chris- 
 tians, but merely that the apostle is here speaking of the suf- 
 ferings of believers. " Tenendum est, Paulum non nisi de rebus 
 adversis loqui: acsi dixisset Divinitus sic temperari quaecunque 
 sanctis accidunt, ut, quod mundus noxium esse putat, exitus 
 utile esse demonstret. Nam tametsi verum est, quod ait 
 Augustinus, peccata quoque sua, ordinante Dei providentia, 
 sanctis adeo non nocere, ut potius eorurn saluti inserviant : ad 
 hunc tamen locum non pertinet, ubi de cruce agitur." Calvin. 
 Those to whom afflictions are a real blessing are described, 
 first, as those who love Crod; and secondly, as those who are 
 called according to his purpose. The former of these clauses 
 describes the character of the persons intended, they love G-od, 
 which is a comprehensive expression for all the exercises of 
 genuine religion. The latter clause declares a fact, with regard 
 to all such, which has a most important bearing on the apostle's 
 great object in this chapter, they are catted according to his 
 purpose. The word catted, as remarked above, (i. 7,) is never, 
 in the epistles of the New Testament, applied to those who are 
 the recipients of the mere external invitation of the gospel. It 
 always means effectually 'called, i. e., it is always applied to 
 those who are really brought to accept of the blessings to which 
 they are invited. 1 Cor. i. 24, "But to those who are called," 
 i. e., to true Christians. Jude 1, " To those who are sanctified 
 by God the Father, and are preserved in Jesus Christ, and 
 called," 1 Cor. i. 2, &c. The word is, therefore, often equiva- 
 lent with chosen, as in the phrase "called an apostle," 1 Cor. 
 i. 1, Rom. i. 1; and "called of Jesus Christ," Rom. i. 6. 
 And thus in the Old Testament, " Hearken unto me, Jacob, 
 and Israel my called," Isa. xlviii. 12; see Isa. xlii. 6, xlix. 1, 
 li. 2. Those who love God, therefore, are those whom he hath 
 chosen and called by his grace to a participation of the 
 Redeemer's kingdom. This call is not according to the merits 
 of men, but according to the divine purpose. "Who hath
 
 442 ROMANS VIII. 1228. 
 
 saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to 
 our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which 
 was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." 2 Tim. 
 i. 9, Eph. i. 11, Rom. ix. 11. The design of the apostle, in 
 the introduction of this clause, seems to have been twofold. 
 First, to show, according to his usual manner, that the fact 
 that some men love God is to be attributed to his sovereign 
 grace, and not to themselves; and, secondly, that if men are 
 called, according to the eternal purpose of God, their salvation 
 is secure. By this latter idea, this clause is associated with 
 the passage that follows, and with the general object of the 
 chapter. That the calling of men does secure their salvation, 
 is proved in verses 29, 30. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. True Christians are the sons of God, objects of his affec- 
 tion, partakers of his moral nature, and heirs of his kingdom, 
 ver. 14. 
 
 2. The relation of God to us is necessarily the counterpart 
 of ours to him. If we feel as friends to him, he feels as a 
 friend towards us ; if our sentiments are filial, his are parental, 
 ver. 15. 
 
 3. God, who is every where present and active, manifests 
 his presence, and communicates with his creatures in a manner 
 accordant with their nature, although in a way that is inscruta- 
 ble, ver. 16. 
 
 4. Assurance of salvation has a twofold foundation, the 
 experience of those affections which are the evidences of true 
 piety, and the witness of the Holy Spirit. The latter can never 
 be separated from the former ; for the Spirit can never testify- 
 to what is not the truth. He can never assure an enemy that 
 he is a child of God, ver. 16. 
 
 5. Union with Christ is the source of all our blessings of 
 justification and sanctification, as taught in the previous chap- 
 ters, and of salvation, as taught in this, ver. 17. 
 
 6. Afflictions are not inconsistent with the divine favour, nor 
 vith our being the sons of God, vs. 18 25. 
 
 7. The future glory of the saints must be inconceivably great,
 
 ROMANS VIII. 1228. 443 
 
 if the whole creation, from the beginning of the world, groans 
 and longs for its manifestation, vs. 19 23. 
 
 8. The curse consequent on the fall has affected the state of 
 the external world. The consummation of the work of redemp- 
 tion may be attended with its regeneration, vs. 20 22. 
 
 9. The present influences of the Spirit are first fruits of the 
 inheritance of the saints ;. the same in kind with the blessings 
 of the future state, though less in degree. They are a pledge 
 of future blessedness, and always produce an earnest longing for 
 the fruition of the full inheritance, ver. 23. 
 
 10. As, for wise reasons, salvation is not immediately conse- 
 quent on regeneration, hope, which is the joyful expectation 
 of future good, becomes the duty, solace, and support of the 
 Christian, vs. 24, 25. 
 
 11. The Holy Spirit is our Paraclete (John xiv. 16) or advo- 
 cate, we are his clients, we know not how to plead our own 
 cause, but he dictates to us what we ought to say. This office 
 of the Spirit ought to be recognised, and gratefully acknow- 
 ledged, ver. 26. 
 
 12. Prayer, to be acceptable, must be according to the will 
 of God, and it always is so when it is dictated or excited by the 
 Holy Spirit, ver. 27. 
 
 13. All events are under the control of God ; and even the 
 greatest afflictions are productive of good to those who love 
 him, ver. 28. 
 
 14. The calling or conversion of men, involving so many of 
 their free acts, is a matter of divine purpose, and it occurs in 
 consequence of its being so, ver. 28. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. If God, by his Spirit, condescends to dwell in us, it is our 
 highest duty to allow ourselves to be governed or led by him, 
 vs. 12, 13. 
 
 2. It is a contradiction in terms to profess to be the sons of 
 God, if destitute of the filial feelings of confidence, affection, 
 and reverence, ver. 15. 
 
 3. A spirit of fear, so far from being an evidence of piety, 
 is an evidence of the contrary. The filial spirit is the genuine 
 spirit of religion, ver. 15. 
 
 4. Assurance of hope is not fanatical, but is an attainment
 
 444 ROMANS VHI. 1228. 
 
 which every Christian should make. If the witness of men is 
 received, the witness of God is greater. As the manifestation 
 of God's love to us is made in exciting our love towards him, 
 BO the testimony of his Spirit with ours, that we are the sons 
 of God, is made when our filial feelings are in lively exercise, 
 ver. 16. 
 
 5. Christians ought neither to expect nor wish to escape suf- 
 fering with Christ, if they are to be partakers of his glory. 
 The former is a preparation for the latter, ver. 17. 
 
 6. The afflictions of this life, though in themselves not joyous 
 but grievous, are worthy of little regard in comparison with the 
 glory that shall be revealed in us. To bear these trials 
 properly, we should regard them as part of the heritage of the 
 sons of God, ver. 18. 
 
 7. As the present state of things is one of bondage to cor- 
 ruption, as there is a dreadful pressure of sin and misery on the 
 whole creation, we should not regard the world as our home, 
 but desire deliverance from this bondage, and introduction into 
 the liberty of the children of God, vs. 19 22. 
 
 8. It is characteristic of genuine piety to have exalted con- 
 ceptions of future blessedness, and earnest longings after it. 
 Those, therefore, who are contented with the world and indif- 
 ferent about heaven, can hardly possess the first fruits of the 
 Spirit) ver. 23. 
 
 9. Hope and patience are always united. If we have a well- 
 founded hope of heaven, then do we with patience and fortitude 
 wait for it. This believing resignation and joyful expectation 
 of the promises, are peculiarly pleasing in the sight of God and 
 honourable to religion, vs. 24, 25. 
 
 10. How wonderful the condescension of the Holy Spirit ! 
 How great his kindness in teaching us, as a parent his children, 
 how to pray and what to pray for ! How abundant the conso- 
 lation thus afforded to the pious in the assurance that their 
 prayers shall be heard, vs. 26, ^7. 
 
 11. Those who are in Christ, who love God, may repose in 
 perfect security beneath the shadow of his wings. All things 
 shall work together for their good, because all things are under 
 the control of Him who has called them to the possession of 
 eternal life according to his own purpose, ver. 28.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 29. 445 
 
 ROMANS VIII. 2939. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THIS section contains the exhibition of two additional argu- 
 ments in favour of the safety of believers. The first of these 
 is founded on the decree or purpose of God, vs. 29 30 ; and 
 the second on his infinite and unchanging love, vs. 31 39. 
 In his description of those with regard to whom all things shall 
 work together for good, Paul had just said that they are 
 such who are called or converted in execution of a previous 
 purpose of God, ver. 28. If this is the case, the salvation of 
 believers is secure, because the plan on which God acts is con- 
 nected in all its parts ; whom he foreknows, he predestinates, 
 calls, justifies, and glorifies. Those, therefore, who are called, 
 shall certainly be saved, vs. 29, 30. Secondly, if God is for 
 us, who can be against us ? If God so loved us as to give his 
 Son for us, he will certainly save us, vs. 31, 32. This love has 
 already secured our justification, and has made abundant pro- 
 vision for the supply of all our wants, vs. 33, 34. 
 
 The triumphant conclusion from all these arguments, that 
 nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ, but that we 
 shall be more than conquerors over all enemies and difficulties, 
 is given in vs. 35 39. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predes* 
 tinate, &c. The connection of this verse with the preceding, 
 and the force of for, appears from what has already been said. 
 Believers are called in accordance with a settled plan and 
 purpose of God, for whom he calls he had previously predes- 
 tinated : and as all the several steps or stages of our salvation 
 are included in this plan of the unchanging God, if we are pre- 
 destinated and called, we shall be justified and glorified. Or 
 the connecting idea is this : All things must work together for 
 good to those who love God, for the plan of God cannot fail ; 
 those whom he has called into this state of reconciliation, whom
 
 446 ROMANS VIII. 29. 
 
 he has made to love him, he will assuredly bring to the glory 
 prepared for his people. 
 
 Whom he did foreknew. As the -words to know and fore- 
 know are used in three different senses, applicable to the present 
 passage, there is considerable diversity of opinion which should 
 be preferred. The word may express prescience simply, 
 according to its literal meaning; or, as to know is often to 
 approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection 
 in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon. 
 Among those who adopt one or the other of these general views, 
 there is still a great diversity as to the manner in which they 
 understand the passage. These opinions are too numerous to 
 be here recited. 
 
 As the literal meaning of the word to foreknow gives no 
 adequate sense, inasmuch as all men are the objects of the 
 divine prescience, whereas the apostle evidently designed to 
 express by the word something that could be asserted only of a 
 particular class; those who adopt this meaning here supply 
 something to make the sense complete. Who he foreknew 
 would repent and believe, or who would not resist his divine 
 influence, or some such idea. There are two objections to this 
 manner of explaining the passage. 1. The addition of this 
 clause is entirely gratuitous ; and, if unnecessary, it is, of course, 
 improper. There is no such thing said, and, therefore, it 
 ehould not be assumed, without necessity, to be implied. 2. It 
 is in direct contradiction to the apostle's doctrine. It makes 
 the ground of our calling and election to be something in us, 
 our works ; whereas Paul says that such is not the ground of 
 our being chosen. " Who hath called us not according to our 
 works, but according to his own purpose and grace, kc.," 
 2 Tim. i. 9, and Rom. ix. 11, where the contrary doctrine is not 
 only asserted, but proved and defended. To say that faith as 
 distinguished from works is what is foreseen, and constitutes 
 the ground of election, does not help the matter. For faith is 
 a work or act, and it is the gift of Go'J, the result or effect of 
 election, and therefore not its ground. 
 
 The second and third interpretations do not essentially differ. 
 The one is but a modification of the other; for whom God 
 peculiarly loves, he does thereby distinguish from others, which
 
 ROMANS VIII. 29. 447 
 
 is in itself a selecting or choosing of them from among others. 
 The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of 
 this general idea of preferring. " The people which he fore- 
 knew," i. e., loved or selected, Rom. xi. 2; "Who verily was 
 foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i. e. fixed upon, chosen before 
 the foundation of the world," 1 Peter i. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 19, 
 John x. 14, 15 ; see also Acts ii. 23, 1 Peter i. 2. The idea 
 therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, 
 and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of 
 mankind ; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he 
 elected he predestined, &c. 
 
 It is evident, on the one hand, that Kpdfvaxjtz expresses 
 something more than the prescience of which all men and all 
 events are the objects, and, on the other, something different 
 from the xpoopiff/jtoz (predestination) expressed by the following 
 word: "Whom he foreknew, them he also predestinated." The 
 predestination follows, and is grounded on the foreknowledge. 
 The foreknowledge therefore expresses the act of cognition or 
 recognition, the fixing, so to speak, the mind upon, which 
 involves the idea of selection. If we look over a number of 
 objects with the view of selecting some of them for a definite 
 purpose, the first act is to fix the mind on some to the neglect 
 .of the others, and the second is to destine them to the proposed 
 end. So God is represented as looking on the fallen mass of 
 men, and fixing on some whom he predestines to salvation. 
 This is the qpfyrvfoftfr the foreknowledge, of which the apostle 
 here speaks. It is the knowing, fixing upon, or selecting those 
 who are to be predestinated to be conformed to the image of 
 the Son of God. Even De Wette says, Der Begriff der unbe- 
 dingten Gnadenwhal tiegt hier klar vor, (the idea of sovereign 
 election is here clearly presented.) 
 
 He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image 
 of his Son. To predestinate is to destine or appoint before- 
 hand, as the original word is used in Acts iv. 28, "To do 
 whatsoever thy hand and counsel determined before to be 
 done;" "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of 
 children," Eph. i. 5; "Being predestinated according to the 
 purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
 own will," Eph. i. 11. In all the cases in which this pre-
 
 448 ROMANS VIII. 29. 
 
 destination is spoken of, the idea is distinctly recognised, that 
 the ground of the choice which it implies is not in us. We are 
 chosen in Christ, or according to the free purpose of God, &c. 
 This is a /ore-ordination, a determination which existed in 
 the divine mind long prior to the occurrence of the event, 
 even before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4; so that 
 the occurrences in time are the manifestations of the eternal 
 purpose of God, and the execution of the plan of which they 
 form a part. 
 
 The end to which those whom God has chosen are pre- 
 destined, is conformity to the image of Jits Son, i. e., that they 
 might be like his Son in character and destiny. He hath 
 chosen us " that we should be holy and without blame before 
 him," Eph. i. 4, iv. 24. " He hath predestined us to the 
 adoption, i. e., to the state of sons, Eph. i. 5. "As we have 
 borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image 
 of the heavenly," 1 Cor. xv. 49 ; see Phil. Hi. 21, 1 John iii. 2. 
 The words ffi)fjtfji6p(povz r^c sixovoz roit ulo~j OUTOI>, express not 
 only the general idea that believers are to be like Christ, but 
 Aiore definitely, that what Christ is we are to be ; as He is ufoc 
 we are uloi ; as He was I v poptfrj deou we are to be obnpoptpot; 
 as He assumed our nature, and thereby purified and exalted it, 
 we are to partake of that purity and glory. We are to have 
 the same f*op<fij (form) as the tixtbv of Christ has resemble him 
 as the image answers to the original. As Paul, in verse 17, had 
 spoken of our suffering with Christ, and in the subsequent pas- 
 sage was principally employed in showing that though in this 
 respect we must be like Christ, it was not inconsistent with our 
 being sons and heirs, so here, when we are said to be conformed 
 to the image of Christ, the idea of our bearing the same cross 
 is not to be excluded. We are to be like our Saviour in moral 
 character, in our present sufferings and future glory. As this 
 conformity to Christ includes our moral likeness to him, and as 
 this embraces all that is good in us, it is clear that no supposed 
 excellence originating from our own resources, can be the 
 ground of our being chosen as God's people, since this excel- 
 lence is included in the end to which we are predestined. " I 
 remark here in passing," says Olshausen, "that according to 
 Paul's doctrine, there is a praedettinatio sanctorum in the strict
 
 ROMANS VIII. 30. 449 
 
 sense of the word ; that is, that God does not foreknow those 
 who by their own decision will become holy, but he himself 
 creates that decision in them. In xpoYivmaxstv the divine 
 knowledge, and in jrf)oopi^stv the divine will, (both of which 
 are included in the ~/>6$<r?c,) are expressed." 
 
 That he might be the first-born among many brethren. This 
 clause may express the design, or merely the result of what 
 had just been said. ' God predestinated us to be sons, in order 
 that Christ might be,' &c., or ' He made us his sons, hence 
 Christ is,' &c. The former is on every account to be preferred. 
 It is not merely an unintended result, but the great end con- 
 templated in the predestination of God's people. That end is 
 the glory and exaltation of Christ. The purpose of God in the 
 salvation of men, was not mainly that men should be holy and 
 happy, but that through their holiness and happiness his glory,. 
 in the person of the Son, should be displayed, in the ages to- 
 come, to principalities and powers. Christ, therefore, is the* 
 central point in the history of the universe. His glory, as the; 
 glory of God in the highest form of its manifestation, is the 
 great end of creation and redemption. And this end, the 
 apostle teaches, is accomplished by making him the first-born 
 among many brethren, that is, by causing him to stand as the 
 first-born, the head and chief, among and over that countless 
 multitude who through him are made the sons of God. " Igi- 
 tur," says Calvin, "sicut primogenitus familiae nomen sustinet; 
 ita Christus in sublimi gradu locatur, non modo ut honore emi- 
 neat inter fideles, sed etiam ut communi fraternitatis nota sub' 
 se omnes contineat." 
 
 VERSE 30. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also* 
 catted. Those whom he had thus foreordained to be conformed 
 to the image of his Son in moral character, in suffering, and in 
 future glory, he effectually calls, i. e., leads by the external* 
 invitation of the gospel, and by the efficacious operation of his 
 grace, to the end to which they are destined. That the calling- 
 here spoken of is not the mere external call of the gospel, is 
 evident both from the usage of the word, and from the neces- 
 sity of the case; see 1 Cor. i. 9, " God is faithful by whom ye 
 were called to the fellowship of his Son," i. e., effectually 
 brought into union with him. In the same chapter, ver. 24,, 
 29
 
 450 ROMANS VIII. 30. 
 
 "To those which are called, Christ the power of God," &c. 
 The called are here expressly distinguished from the rejecters 
 of the external invitation. 1 Cor. vii. 15, 18, in which chap- 
 ter calling is repeatedly put for effectual conversion, " Is any 
 man called, being a servant," &c. Heb. ix. 15, " That they 
 which are called may receive the promise of eternal inheri- 
 tance." Rom. ix. 12, Eph. iv. 4, 1 Thess. ii. 12, and many 
 similar passages. This use of the word, thus common in the 
 New Testament, is obviously necessary here, because the apos- 
 tle is speaking of a call which is peculiar to those who are 
 finally saved. Whom he calls he justifies and glorifies; see 
 verse 28. 
 
 Whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justi- 
 fied, them he also glorified. The aorist here used may express 
 the idea of frequency. Whom he calls, he is wont to justify; 
 and whom he is wont to justify, is he accustomed to glorify. 
 So that the meaning is the same as though the present tense 
 had been used, 'Whom he calls, he justifies,' &c.; .see James 
 i. 11, 1 Peter i. 24, where the same tense is rendered as the 
 present, " The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth 
 away." Or, as this use of the aorist is doubtful, or at least 
 unusual, that tense is employed, because Paul is speaking of 
 that God, who sees the end from the beginning, and in whose 
 decree and purpose all future events are comprehended and 
 fixed; so that in predestinating us, he at the same time, in 
 effect, called, justified, and glorified us, as all these were 
 included in his purpose. 
 
 The justification here spoken of, is doubtless that of which 
 the apostle has been speaking throughout the epistle, the 
 regarding and treating sinners as just, for the sake of the 
 righteousness of Christ. The blessings of grace are never 
 separated from each other. Election, calling, justification, and 
 salvation are indissolubly united; and, therefore, he who has 
 clear evidence of his being called, has the same evidence of his 
 election and final salvation. This is the very idea the apostle 
 means to present for the consolation and encouragement of 
 believers. They have no cause for despondency if the children 
 of God, and called according to his purpose, because nothing 
 can prevent their final salvation.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 31. 451 
 
 VERSE 31. What shall we say to these things? That is, 
 what is the inference from what has hitherto been said ? If 
 Gf-od be for us, if he has delivered us from the law of sin and 
 death, if he has renewed us by his Spirit which dwells within 
 us, if he recognises us as his children and his heirs, and has 
 predestinated us to holiness and glory, who can be against us? 
 If God's love has led to all the good just specified, what have 
 we to fear for the future? He who spared not his own Son, 
 will freely give us all things. This verse shows clearly what 
 has been the apostle's object from the beginning of the chapter. 
 He wished to demonstrate that to those who accede to the plan 
 of salvation which he taught, i. e., to those who are in Christ 
 Jesus, there is no ground of apprehension ; their final salvation 
 is fully secured. The conclusion of the chapter is a recapitu- 
 lation of all his former arguments, or rather the reduction of 
 them to one, which comprehends them all in their fullest force; 
 GOD is FOR us. He, as our Judge, is satisfied ; as our Father, 
 he loves us; as the supreme and almighty Controller of events, 
 who works all things after the counsel of his own will, he has 
 determined to save us; and as that Being, whose love is as 
 unchanging as it is infinite, he allows nothing to separate his 
 children from himself. 
 
 It has been objected, that if Paul had intended to teach these 
 doctrines, he would have said that apostacy and sin cannot 
 interfere with the salvation of believers. But what is salvation, 
 but deliverance from the guilt and power of sin ? It is, there- 
 fore, included in the very purpose and promise of salvation, 
 that its objects shall be preserved from apostacy and deadly 
 sins. This is the end and essence of salvation. And, there- 
 fore, to make Paul argue that God will save us if we do not 
 apostatize, is to make him say, those shall be saved who are 
 not lost. According to the apostle's doctrine, holiness is so 
 essential and prominent a part of salvation, that it is not so 
 much a means to an end as the very end itself. It is that to 
 which we are predestinated and called, and therefore if the 
 promise of salvation does not include the promise of holiness, 
 it includes nothing. Hence, to ask whether, if one of the 
 called should apostatize and live in sin, he would still be saved, 
 is to ask, whether he will be saved if he is not saved. Nor can
 
 452 ROMANS VIII. 32. 
 
 these doctrines be perverted to licentiousness without a com- 
 plete denial of their nature. For they not only represent sin 
 and salvation as two things which ought not to be united, but 
 as utterly irreconcilable and contradictory. 
 
 VERSE 32. He that spared not his own Son, &c. That 
 ground of confidence and security which includes all others, is 
 the love of God ; and that exhibition of divine love which sur- 
 passes and secures all others, is the gift of HIS OWN SON. Paul 
 having spoken of Christians as being God's sons by adoption, 
 was led to designate Christ as his own peculiar Son, in a sense 
 in which neither angels (Heb. i. 5) nor men can be so called. 
 That this is the meaning of the phrase is evident, 1. Because 
 this is its proper force ; oicn Son being opposed to adopted 
 sons. An antithesis, expressed or implied, is always involved 
 in the use of the word idcoz, see Acts ii. 6, Rom. xi. 24, xiv. 4, 
 Tit. i. 12. The Jews, we are told, took up stones to stone our 
 Lord, because xaxipa. idcov Ihfe rbv QS.OV, thus making himself 
 equal with God. Christ is in such a sense the Son of God, 
 that he is of one nature with him, the same in substance, equal 
 in power and glory. 2. Because the context requires it, as 
 Paul had spoken of those who were sons in a different sense 
 just before. 8. Because this apostle, and the other sacred 
 writers, designate Christ as Son of God in the highest sense, as 
 partaker of the divine nature ; see Rom. i. 4. 
 
 But delivered him up for us all. He was delivered up to 
 death ; see Gal. i. 4, Rom. iv. 25, Isa. liii. 6, xxxviii. 13 (in 
 the LXX.,) and Matt. x. 21. For us all; not merely for our 
 benefit, but in our place. This idea, however, is not expressed 
 by the peculiar force of the preposition u-ep, but is implied 
 from the nature of the case. The benefit secured by a sacri- 
 fice is secured by substitution. It is offered for the benefit of 
 Uhe offender because it is offered in his place. There is no 
 restriction or limitation to be put on the word all in this 
 verse, other than which the context and the analogy of Scrip- 
 ture imposes. God, says Paul, gave up his Son for us all; 
 whether he means all rational creatures, or all men, or all 
 those whom he determined thereby to redeem, and whom he 
 had foreknown and predestinated to eternal life, depends on 
 what the Scripture elsewhere teaches on the subject.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 33. 45S 
 
 Sow shall he not also (xai] with him freely give us all things. 
 If God has done the greater, he will not leave the less undone. 
 The gift of Christ includes all other gifts. If God so loved us 
 as to give his Son for us, he will certainly giv6 the Holy Spirit 
 to render that gift effectual. This is presented as a ground of 
 confidence. The believer is assured of salvation, not because 
 he is assured of his own constancy, but simply because he is 
 assured of the immutability of the divine love, and he is assured 
 of its immutability because he is assured of its greatness. Infi- 
 nite love cannot change. A love which spared not the eternal 
 Son of God, but freely gave him up, cannot fail of its object. 
 " Christus non nudus aut inanis ad nos missus est ; sed coeles- 
 tibus omnibus thesauris refertus, ne quid eum possidentibus ad 
 plenam felicitatem desit." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's 
 elect? This and the following verse show how fully the 
 security of believers is provided for by the plan of redemp- 
 tion. What is it they have to fear under the government of a 
 just and powerful God? There is nothing to be dreaded but 
 sin; if that be pardoned and removed, there is nothing left 
 to fear. In the strongest manner possible, the apostle declares 
 that the sins of believers are pardoned, and shows the ground 
 on which that pardon rests. To them, therefore, there can be 
 neither a disquieting accusation nor condemnation. Wlio can 
 lay any thing ? rt$ IfxajAazt ; the word ^//e?y means in jus 
 vocare, to summon before the bar of justice. The question is 
 in the form of a challenge, and implies the strongest con- 
 fidence that no accuser against God's elect can appear. If 
 the law of God be satisfied, "the strength of sin," its con- 
 demning power, is destroyed. Even conscience, though it 
 upbraids, does not terrify. It produces the ingenuous sorrow 
 of children, and not the despairing anguish of the convict, 
 because it sees that all the ends of punishment are fully 
 answered in the death of Christ, who bore our sins in his own 
 body on the tree. 
 
 G-ods elect, i. e. those whom God has chosen; see ver. 29. 
 The word elect is sometimes used in a secondary sense for 
 beloved, which idea is implied in its literal sense, as those 
 chosen are those who are peculiarly beloved. This sense may
 
 454 ROMANS VIII. 33. 
 
 be given to it in 1 Peter ii. 4, " elect and precious" may be 
 beloved and precious. And so in a multitude of cases it were 
 optional with a writer to say chosen or beloved, as the one 
 implies the other. But this does not prove that chosen means 
 beloved, or that the idea of choice is to be excluded from the 
 idea of the word. The elect are those whom God has chosen 
 out of the world to be the members of his family or kingdom ; 
 just as under the Old Testament the Hebrews, whom he had 
 chosen to be his peculiar people, were his elect. Men may 
 dispute as to what the elect are chosen to, and why some are 
 chosen and not others. But there seems to be no ground for 
 dispute whether "the elect" mean the chosen. This passage, 
 however, proves that those who are elect, and whose election 
 has become recognised, are in a state in which they are free 
 from condemnation. No one can lay any thing to their 
 charge. The demands of justice as regards them have been, 
 satisfied. This is not true of those who are chosen merely to 
 church privileges. There is an election, therefore, unto grace 
 and salvation. The elect are safe. This is the grand theme 
 of this jubilant chapter. 
 
 It is God who justifieth, 6sbz b otxatatv. Editors and com- 
 mentators are about equally divided on the question whether 
 this and the following clauses should be taken interrogatively or 
 affirmatively. If the former, the idea is, that as God is the 
 being against whom we have sinned, and who alone has the 
 administration of justice in his hands, if he does not accuse 
 there can be no accuser. Who shall lay any thing against the 
 elect of God? Shall God, who justifies them? In favour of 
 this view is the fact, that the questions in ver. 32, and also in 
 ver. 35, are answered by questions, and hence the questions in 
 vs. 33, 34, are most naturally so answered. Nevertheless, the 
 impossibility of any accusation being sustained against the elect 
 of God, is better expressed by the affirmation. It is God who 
 is their justifier. If he justifies, who can condemn ? Besides, 
 according to the current representation of Scripture, God is 
 the judge, not the accuser. To justify, is to declare the claims 
 of justice satisfied. If God, the supreme judge, makes this 
 declaration, it must be true, and it must stop every mouth. 
 .No rational creature, no enlightened conscience, can call for the
 
 ROMANS VIII. 34. 455 
 
 punishment of those whom God justifies. If justice is not 
 satisfied, there can be no justification, no peace of conscience, 
 no security either for salvation or for the moral government of 
 God. The Bible knows nothing of mere pardon. There can 
 be no pardon except on the ground of satisfaction of justice. It 
 is by declaring a man just, (that is, that justice in relation to 
 him is satisfied,) that he is freed from the penalty of the law, 
 and restored to the favour of God. 
 
 VERSE 34. Who is he that condemneth? i. e., no one can 
 condemn. In support of this assertion there are, in this verse, 
 four conclusive reasons presented; the death of Christ, his 
 resurrection, his exaltation, and his intercession. It is' Christ 
 that died. By his death, as an atonement for our sins, all 
 ground of condemnation is removed. The death of Christ 
 could not be a proof that the believer cannot be condemned, 
 unless his death removed the ground of condemnation ; and it 
 could not remove the ground of condemnation, unless it satisfied 
 the demands of justice. His death, therefore, was a satisfac- 
 tion, and not merely an exhibition of love, or a didactic symbol 
 meant to impress some moral truth. Yea, rather, that is risen 
 again. The resurrection of Christ, as the evidence of the 
 sacrifice of his death being accepted, and of the validity of all 
 his claims, is a much more decisive proof of the security of all 
 who trust in him, than his death could be. See on chap. i. 4, 
 iv. 25, Acts xvii. 31, 1 Cor. xv. 17, &c. 
 
 Who is even at the right hand of (rod, i. e., is associated 
 with God in his universal dominion. Psalm ex. 1, " Sit thou on 
 my right hand," i. e., share my throne; Eph. i. 20, Rev. iii. 21. 
 " As I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his 
 throne." Heb. i. 3, "Who sat down at the right hand of the 
 majesty on high." From these and other passages in their 
 connection, it is evident that Christ is exalted to universal 
 dominion, all power in heaven and earth is given into his 
 hands. If this is the case, how great the security it affords 
 the believer ! He who is engaged to effect his salvation is the 
 Director of all events and of all worlds. 
 
 Who also maketh intercession for us, i. e., who acts as our 
 advocate, pleads our cause before God, presents those consid- 
 erations which secure for us pardon and the continued supply
 
 456 ROMANS VIII. 35. 
 
 of the divine grace ; see on ver. 26, Heb. vii. 25, ix. 24, 1 John 
 ii. 1. Christ, as seated at the right hand of God, and invested 
 with universal dominion, is able to save ; his interceding for us 
 is the evidence that he is willing to save willing not only in 
 the sense of being disposed to, but in the sense of purposing. 
 He intends to save those who put their trust in him, and there- 
 fore in their behalf he presents before God the merit of his 
 mediatorial work, and urges their salvation as the reward pro- 
 mised him in the covenant of redemption. He is our patron, 
 in th$ Roman sense of the word, one who undertakes our case; 
 an advocate, whom the Father heareth always. How complete, 
 then, the security of those for whom he pleads!* Of course 
 this language is figurative; the meaning is, that Christ con- 
 tinues since his resurrection and exaltation to secure for his 
 people the benefits of his death, every thing comes from God 
 through him, and for his sake. 
 
 VERSE 35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ f 
 This is the last step in the climax of the apostle's argument; 
 the very summit of the mount of confidence, whence he looks 
 down on his enemies as powerless, and forward and upward 
 with full assurance of a final and abundant triumph. No one 
 can accuse, no one can condemn, no one can separate us from 
 the love of Christ. This last assurance gives permanency to 
 the value of the other two. 
 
 The love of Christ is clearly Christ's love towards us, and 
 not ours towards him. Paul is speaking of the great love of 
 God towards us as manifested in the gift of his Son, and of the 
 love of Christ as exhibited in his dying, rising, and interceding 
 for us. This love, which is so great, he says is unchangeable. 
 Besides, the apostle's object in the whole chapter is to console 
 and confirm the confidence of believers. The interpretation 
 just mentioned is not in accordance with this object. It is no 
 ground of confidence to assert, or even to feel, that we will 
 never forsake Christ, but it is the strongest ground of assurance 
 
 * "Porro hone intercessionem carnali sensu ne metriamur: Non enim cogi- 
 tandus est supplex, flexis genibus, inanibus expansis Patrein deprecari : sed 
 quia apparet ipse assidue cum morte et resurrectione sua, quae vice sunt 
 aeternae intercessionis, et vivae orationis efficaciam habent, ut Patrem nobis 
 ooncilient, atque exorabilem reddant, merito dicitur intercedere." Calvin.
 
 ROMANS VIII. 36. 457 
 
 to be convinced that his love will never change. And, more- 
 over, verse 39 requires this interpretation; for there Paul 
 expresses the same sentiment in language which cannot be 
 misunderstood. "No creature," he says, "shall be able to 
 separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus." 
 This is evidently God's love towards us. The great difficulty 
 with many Christians is that they cannot persuade themselves 
 that Christ (or God) loves them; and the reason why they 
 cannot feel confident of the love of God, is, that they know 
 they do not deserve his love, on the contrary, that they are in 
 the highest degree unlovely. How can the infinitely pure God 
 love those who are defiled with sin, who are proud, selfish, dis- 
 contented, ungrateful, disobedient? This, indeed, is hard to 
 believe. But it is the very thing we are required to believe, 
 not only as the condition of peace and hope, but as the condi- 
 tion of salvation. If our hope of God's mercy and love is 
 founded on our own goodness or attractiveness, it is a false 
 hope. We must believe that his love is gratuitous, mysterious, 
 without any known or conceivable cause, certainly without the 
 cause of loveliness in its object ; that it is, in short, what it is 
 so often declared to be in the Bible, analogous to the love of a 
 parent for his child. A father's or mother's love is indepen- 
 dent of the attractiveness of its object, and often in spite of its 
 deformity. 
 
 Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, &c. This is 
 merely an amplification of the preceding idea. Nothing shall 
 separate us from the love of Christ, neither tribulation, nor 
 distress, nor persecution, &c. That is, whatever we may be 
 called upon to suffer in this life, nothing can deprive us of the 
 love of him who died for us, and who now lives to plead our 
 cause in heaven; and, therefore, these afflictions, and all other 
 difficulties, are enemies we may despise. " Sicut enim nebulae 
 quamvis liquidum solis conspectum obscurent, non tamen ejus 
 fulgore in totum nos privant: sic Deus in rebus adversis per 
 caliginem emittit gratiae suae radios, nequa tentatio despera- 
 tione nos obruat : imo fides nostra promissionibus Dei tanquam 
 alis fulta sursum in coelos per media obstacula penetrare debet." 
 Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 36. As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the
 
 458 ROMANS VIII. 3739. 
 
 day long, &c. A quotation from Psalm xliv. 22, agreeably to 
 the Septuagint translation. The previous verse of course 
 implied that believers should be exposed to many afflictions, 
 to famine, nakedness, and the sword ; this, Paul would say, is 
 in accordance with the experience of the pious in all ages. We 
 suffer, as it is recorded of the Old Testament saints, that they 
 suffered. 
 
 VERSE 37. Nay, in all these things we are more than con* 
 querors, &c. This verse is connected with the 35th. ' So far 
 from these afflictions separating us from the love of Christ, 
 they are more than conquered.' That is, they are not only 
 deprived of all power to do us harm, they minister to our good, 
 they swell the glory of our victory. Through him that loved 
 us. The triumph which the apostle looked for was not to be 
 effected by his own strength or perseverance, but by the grace 
 and power of the Redeemer. 1 Cor. xv. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Philip, 
 iv. 13, " I can do all things through Christ which strengthen- 
 eth me." 
 
 VERSES 38, 39. In these verses the confidence of the apostle 
 is expressed in the strongest language. He heaps words 
 together in the effort to set forth fully the absolute inability of 
 all created things, separately or united, to frustrate the pur- 
 pose of God, or to turn away his love from those whom he has 
 determined to save. 
 
 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, &c. It is 
 somewhat doubtful how far the apostle intended to express 
 distinct ideas by the several words here used. The enumera- 
 tion is by some considered as expressing the general idea that 
 nothing in the universe can injure believers, the detail being 
 designed merely as amplification. This, however, is not very 
 probable. The former view is to be preferred. Neither death. 
 That is, though cut off in this world, their connection with 
 Christ is not thereby destroyed. "They shall never perish, 
 neither shall any pluck them out of my hand," John x. 28. 
 Nor life, neither its blandishments nor its trials. "Whether 
 we live, we live unto the Lord, or whether we die, we die unto 
 the Lord. So that living or dying we are the Lord's." Rom. 
 xiv. 8. 
 
 Nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers. Principalities
 
 ROMANS VIII. 39. 459 
 
 and powers are by many understood here to refer to the 
 authorities of this world as distinguished from angels. But to 
 this it maybe objected, that Paul frequently uses these terms in 
 connection to designate the different orders of spiritual beings, 
 Eph. i. 21, Col. i. 16 ; and secondly, that corresponding terms 
 were in common use among the Jews in this sense. It is 
 probable, from the nature of the passage, that this clause is to 
 be taken generally, without any specific reference to either good 
 or bad angels as such. 'No superhuman power, no angel, how- 
 ever mighty, shall ever be able to separate us from the love of 
 God.' Neither things present, nor things to come. Nothing in 
 this life, nor in the future ; no present or future event, &c. 
 
 VERSE 39. Nor height, nor depth. These words have been 
 very variously explained. That interpretation which seems, on 
 the whole, most consistent with scriptural usage and the con- 
 text, is that which makes the terms equivalent to heaven and 
 earth. ' Nothing in heaven or earth ;' see Eph. iv. 8, Isa. vii. 11, 
 "Ask it either in the depth or the height above," &c., &c. Nor 
 any other creature. Although the preceding enumeration had 
 been so minute, the apostle, as if to prevent despondency having 
 the possibility of a foothold, adds this all-comprehending speci- 
 fication, no created thing shall be able to separate us from the 
 love of God. This love of God, which is declared to be thus 
 unchangeable, is extended towards us only on account of our 
 connection with Christ, and therefore the apostle adds, which 
 is in Clirist Jesus our Lord; see Eph. i. 6, 2 Tim. i. 9. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. God chooses certain individuals and predestinates them to 
 eternal life. The ground of this choice is his own sovereign 
 pleasure ; the end to which the elect are predestinated, is con- 
 formity to Jesus Christ, both in character and destiny, ver. 29. 
 
 2. Those who are thus chosen shall certainly be saved, 
 ver. 30. 
 
 3. The only evidence of election is effectual calling, that is, 
 the production of holiness. And the only evidence of the 
 ^genuineness of this call and the certainty of our peseverance, 
 
 is a patient continuance in well doing, vs. 29, 30.
 
 460 ROMANS VIII. 2939. 
 
 4. The love of God, and not human merit or power, is the 
 proper ground of confidence. This love is infinitely great, as 
 is manifested by the gift of God's own Son ; and it is unchange- 
 able, as the apostle strongly asserts, vs. 31 39. 
 
 5. The gift of Christ is not the result of the mere general 
 love of God to the human family, but also of special love to his 
 own people, ver. 32. 
 
 6. Hope of pardon and eternal life should rest on the death, 
 the resurrection, universal dominion, and intercession of the 
 Son of God, ver. 34. 
 
 7. Trials and afflictions of every kind have been the portion 
 of the people of God in all ages ; as they cannot destroy the 
 love of Christ towards us, they ought not to shake our love 
 towards him, ver. 35. 
 
 8. The whole universe, with all that it contains, as far as it 
 is good, is the friend and ally of the Christian ; as far as it is 
 evil, it is a more than conquered foe, vs. 35 39. 
 
 9. The love of God, infinite and unchangeable as it is, is 
 manifested to sinners only through Jesus Christ our Lord, 
 ver. 39. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The plan of redemption, while it leaves no room for 
 despondency, affords no pretence for presumption. Those 
 whom God loves he loves unchangeably ; but it is not on the 
 ground of their peculiar excellence, nor can this love be 
 extended towards those who live in sin, vs. 29 39. 
 
 2. As there is a beautiful harmony and necessary connection 
 between the several doctrines of grace, between election, pre- 
 destination, calling, justification, and glorification, so must there 
 be a like harmony in the character of the Christian. He 
 cannot experience the joy and confidence flowing from his 
 election, without the humility which the consideration of its 
 being gratuitous must produce ; nor can he have the peace of 
 one who is justified, without the holiness of one who is called, 
 vs. 29, 30. 
 
 3. As Christ is the first born or head among many brethren^ 
 all true Christians must love him supremely, and each other as
 
 ROMANS VIII. 2939. 461 
 
 members of the same family. Unless we have this love, we 
 do not belong to this sacred brotherhood, ver. 29. 
 
 4. If the love of God is so great and constant, it is a great 
 sin to distrust or doubt it, vs. 30 39. 
 
 5. Believers need not be concerned if they are condemned 
 by the world, since God justifies them, vs. 33, 34. 
 
 6. If God spared not his own Son, in order to effect our 
 salvation, what sacrifice on our part can be considered great, as 
 a return for such love, or as a means of securing the salvation 
 of others, ver. 32. 
 
 7. The true method to drive away despondency, is believing 
 apprehensions of the scriptural grounds of hope, viz., the love 
 of God, the death of Christ, his resurrection, his universal 
 dominion and his intercession, ver. 34. 
 
 8. Though the whole universe were encamped against the 
 solitary Christian, he would still come off more than conqueror, 
 vs. 3539. 
 
 9. Afflictions and trials are not to be fled from or avoided, 
 but overcome, ver. 3T. 
 
 10. All strength to endure and to conquer comes to ua 
 through him that loved us. Without him we can do nothing, 
 ver. 37. 
 
 11. How wonderful, how glorious, how secure is the gospel ! 
 Those who are in Christ Jesus are as secure as the love of God, 
 the merit, power, and intercession of Christ can make them. 
 They are hedged around with mercy. They are enclosed in the 
 arms of everlasting love. "Now unto Him that is able to keep 
 us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence 
 of his glory with exceeding joy; to the only wise God our 
 Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now 
 and for ever. Amen!"
 
 462 ROMANS IX. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 WITH the eighth chapter, the discussion of the plan of salva- 
 tion, and of its immediate consequences, was brought to a close. 
 The consideration of the calling of the Gentiles, and the 
 rejection of the Jews, commences with the ninth, and extends 
 to the end of the eleventh. Paul, in the first place, shows 
 that God may consistently reject the Jews, and extend the 
 blessings of the Messiah's reign to the Gentiles, ix. 1 24; 
 and in the second place, that he has already declared that such 
 was his purpose, vs. 25 29. Agreeably to these prophetic 
 declarations, the apostle announces that the Jews were cast off 
 and the Gentiles called ; the former having refused submission 
 to the righteousness of faith, and the latter having been 
 obedient, vs. 30 33. In the tenth chapter, Paul shows the 
 necessity of this rejection of the ancient people of God, and 
 vindicates the propriety of extending the invitation of the 
 gospel to the heathen, in accordance with the predictions of 
 the prophets. In the eleventh, he teaches that this rejection 
 of the Jews was neither total nor final. It was not total, inas- 
 much as many Jews of that generation believed, and it was not 
 final, as the period approached when the great body of that 
 nation should acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, and be rein- 
 grafted into their own olive tree. So that we have in this and 
 the following chapters, 1st. Paul's lamentation over the rejec- 
 tion of the Jews, ix. 1 5. 2d. The proof that God had the 
 right to deal thus with his ancient people, ix. 6 29. 3d. The 
 proof that the guilt of this rejection was on the Jews them- 
 selves, ix. 30 33, and x. 1 21. 4th. The consolation which 
 the promises and revealed purposes of God afford in view of 
 this sad event. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 In entering on the discussion of the question of the rejection 
 of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles, the apostle assures 
 his brethren of his love for them, and of his respect for their 
 national privileges, vs. 1 5. That his doctrine on this subject
 
 ROMANS IX. 15. 463 
 
 was true, he argues, 1. Because it was not inconsistent with 
 the promises of God, who is perfectly sovereign in the distribu- 
 tion of his favours, vs. 6 24. And secondly, because it was 
 distinctly predicted in their own Scriptures, vs. 25 29. The 
 conclusion from this reasoning is stated in vs. 20 33. The 
 Jews are rejected for their unbelief, and the Gentiles admitted 
 to the Messiah's kingdom. 
 
 ROMANS IX. 15. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 As the subject about to be discussed was of all others the 
 most painful and offensive to his Jewish brethren, the apostle 
 approaches it with the greatest caution. He solemnly assures 
 them that he was grieved at heart on their account ; and that 
 his love for them was ardent and disinterested, verses 1 3. 
 Their peculiar privileges he acknowledged and respected. They 
 were highly distinguished by all the advantages connected with 
 the Old Testament dispensation, and, above all, by the fact 
 that the Messiah was, according to the flesh, a Jew, verses 4, 5. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, &c. There are 
 three ways in which the words in Christ, or by Christ, may 
 here be understood. 1. They may be considered as part of the 
 formula of an oath, I (swear) by Christ, I speak the truth. But 
 in oaths the preposition TT^O'C, and not Iv, is used. In a few 
 cases, indeed, where a verb of swearing is used, the latter pre- 
 position occurs, but not otherwise. In addition to this objec- 
 tion, it may be urged that no instance occurs of Paul's appeal- 
 ing to Christ in the form of an oath. The case which looks 
 most like such an appeal is 1 Tim. v. 21, " I charge thee before 
 God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels," &c. 
 But it is evident from the mention of the angels, that this is 
 not of the nature of an oath. Paul merely wishes to urge 
 Timothy to act as in the presence of God, Christ, and angels. 
 This interpretation, therefore, is not to be approved. 2. The 
 words in Christ may be connected with the pronoun J. '/ in
 
 464 ROMANS IX. 1, 2. 
 
 Christ, i. c., as a Christian, or, 'In the consciousness of my 
 union with Christ, I declare,' &c. So the words are used in a 
 multitude of cases, "You in Christ," "I in Christ," "We in 
 Christ," being equivalent to you, I, or we, as Christians, i. e., 
 considered as united to Christ. See 1 Cor. i. 20, " Of whom 
 are ye in Christ," i. e., 'By whom ye are Christians, or united 
 to Christ;' Rom. xvi. 3, 7, 9, 1 Cor. iii. 1, and frequently 
 elsewhere. 3. The words may be used adverbially, and be 
 translated after a Christian manner. This also is a frequent 
 use of this and analogous phrases. See 1 Cor. vii. 89, " Only 
 in the Lord," i. e., only after a religious manner, in the Lord 
 being equivalent with in a manner becoming, or suited to the 
 Lord. Rom. xvi. 22, "I salute you in the Lord." Philip, ii. 
 29, "Receive him, therefore, in the Lord;" Eph. vi. 1, Col. 
 iii. 18. The sense of the passage is much the same, whether 
 we adopt the one or the other of the last two modes of expla- 
 nation. Paul means to say that he speaks in a solemn and 
 religious manner, as a Christian, conscious of his intimate rela- 
 tion to Christ. 
 
 I say the truth, and lie not. This mode of assertion, first 
 affirmatively, and then negatively, is common in the Scriptures. 
 "Thou shalt die, and not live," Isaiah xxxviii. 1. "He con- 
 fessed, and denied not," John i. 20. There is generally some- 
 thing emphatic in this mode of speaking. It was a solemn and 
 formal assertion of hia integrity which Paul here designed to 
 make. My conscience also bearing me witness; ounfjtapTUpouayt;, 
 my conscience bearing witness with my words. In the Holy 
 Ghost. These words are not to be taken as an oath, nor are 
 they to be connected with the subject of ov </>t>dojuai, l l, 
 instructed, or influenced by the Holy Ghost, lie not;" but 
 rather with GUfjLftapTopovffrjs, his conscience bore this testimony 
 guided by the Holy Spirit, Spiritu Sancto duce et moderatore, 
 as Beza expresses it. 
 
 VERSE 2. That I have great heaviness, &c. This it is which 
 Paul so solemnly asserts. He was not an indifferent spectator 
 of the sorrow, temporal and spiritual, which was about to come 
 on his countrymen. All their peculiar national advantages, 
 and the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom which they had 
 wickedly rejected, were to be taken away; they were, there-
 
 ROMANS IX. 3. 465 
 
 fore, left without hope, either for this world or the next. The 
 consideration of their condition filled the apostle with great and 
 constant heaviness. The sincerity and strength of this sorrow 
 for them he asserts in the strongest terms in the next verse. 
 
 VERSE 3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from 
 Christ for my brethren, &c. The word anathema (Attic dvd- 
 &ypa, Hellenistic d)dhe/ia,} means any thing consecrated to 
 God, TO di>aTi&eij.zvov T(p #</>, as Suidas explains it. The 
 Attic form of the word occurs in the New Testament only in 
 Luke xxi. 5. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word to 
 which it answers occurs very frequently, and probably the root 
 originally meant to cut off, to separate. Hence, the substantive 
 derived from it, meant something separated or consecrated. In 
 usage, however, it was applied only to such things as could not 
 be redeemed,* and which, when possessed of life, were to be 
 put to death. It is evident from the passages quoted in the 
 margin, that the word usually designates a person or thing set 
 apart to destruction on religious grounds ; something accursed. 
 
 In the New Testament the use of the Greek word is very 
 nearly the same. The only passages in which it occurs, beside* 
 the one before us, are the following; Acts xxiii. 14, "We have- 
 bound ourselves under a great curse, (we have placed ourselves- 
 under an anathema,) that we will eat nothing until we have- 
 slain Paul." The meaning of this passage evidently is, 'We 
 have imprecated on ourselves the curse of God, or we have 
 
 * Levit. xxvii. 28, 29, "No devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the 
 Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his posses- 
 sion, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing (ts^n foa&y**) l9 m( >8t 
 holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted from among men, 
 shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death." 
 
 Deut. vii. 26, "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house, lest 
 thou be a cursed* thing (ua3-ijst) like it, but thou shalt utterly detest it, and 
 utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing." The sacred writer is here speak- 
 ing of the images, &c., of the heathen, which were devoted to destruction. 
 
 Joshua vi. 17, "And the city shall be (ura'S-^wa) accursed, even it and all that 
 is therein, to the Lord," &c. Verse 18, "And ye, in any wise keep yourselves 
 from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of 
 the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it." 
 
 1 Sam. xv. 21, "And the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief 
 of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, &c. In Hebrew,, simply 
 0*inn> of which the words in italics are a paraphrase. 
 
 30
 
 466 ROMANS IX. 3. 
 
 called upon him to consider us as anathema.' 1 Cor. xii. 3, 
 "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed 
 (anathema);" 1 Cor. xvi. 22, "Let him be anathema mara- 
 natha;" Gal. i. 8, 9, "Let him be accursed (anathema)." In 
 all these cases it is clear that the word is applied to those who 
 were regarded as deservedly exposed, or devoted to the curse 
 of God. In this sense it was used by the early Christian 
 writers, and from them passed into the use of the church. " Let 
 him be anathema," being the constant formula of pronouncing 
 any one, in the judgment of the church, exposed to the divine 
 malediction. 
 
 Among the later Jews, this word, or the corresponding 
 Hebrew term, was used in reference to the secc nd of the three 
 degrees into which they divided excommunication (see Buxtorf s 
 Rabbinical Lexicon.) But no analogous use of the word occurs 
 in the Bible. Such being the meaning of this word in the 
 Scriptures, its application in this case by the apostle admits of 
 various explanations. The most common interpretations of the 
 passage are the following. 
 
 As those men or animals pronounced anathema in the Old 
 Testament were to be put to death, many consider the apostle 
 as having that idea in his mind, and meaning nothing more 
 than 'I could wish to die for my brethren,' &c. But the 
 objections to this interpretation are serious. Even in the Old 
 Testament the word expresses something more than the idea 
 of devotion to death. An anathema was a person devoted to 
 death as accursed; see the passages quoted above. And in the 
 New Testament this latter idea is always the prominent one. 
 
 The connection is also unfavourable to this interpretation. 
 The phrase is, "accursed from Christ" How are the words 
 from Christ to be explained? Some say they should be ren- 
 dered by Christ. 'I could wish myself devoted to death by 
 Christ.' But this is an unusual use of the preposition (d;ro) 
 which our version correctly renders from; and the whole 
 expression is, besides, unusual and unnatural. Others, there- 
 fore, say that the passage should be rendered thus : ' I could 
 wish from Christ, that I might be devoted to death.' But this, 
 top, is an unusual and forced construction. 
 
 Others think that Paul has reference here to the Jewish
 
 ROMANS IX. 3. 467 
 
 use of the word, and means only that he would be willing to be 
 cut off from the church, or excommunicated. In this view the 
 word Christ is commonly taken for the body of Christ, or the 
 church. But, in the first place, this is not a scriptural use of 
 the word anathema, and is clearly inapplicable to the other 
 cases in which it is used by the apostle ; and, in the second 
 place, it gives a very inadequate sense. Excommunication 
 from the church would not be a great evil in the eyes of the 
 Jews. 
 
 Others render the verb which, in our version, is translated 
 'I could wish,' I did wish. The sense would then be, 'I have 
 great sorrow on account of my brethren, because I can sympa- 
 thize in their feelings, for I myself once wished to be accursed 
 from Christ on their account.' But, in the first place, had 
 Paul intended to express this idea, he would have used the 
 aorist, the common tense of narration, and not the imperfect.* 
 2. It is no objection to the common translation, that the imper- 
 fect indicative, instead of some form of the optative, is here 
 used, and that, too, without an optative particle, see Acts xxv. 
 22. 3. This interpretation does not give a sense pertinent to 
 the apostle's object. He is not expressing what was his state 
 of mind formerly, but what it was when writing. It was no 
 proof of his love for his brethren that he once felt as they 
 then did, but the highest imaginable, if the ordinary interpre- 
 tation be adopted. 4. The language will hardly admit of this 
 interpretation. No Jew would express his hatred of Christ, 
 and his indifference to the favours which he offered, by saying 
 he wished himself accursed from Christ. Paul never so wished 
 himself before his conversion, for this supposes that he recog- 
 nised the power of Christ to inflict on him the imprecated curse, 
 and that his displeasure was regarded as a great evil. 
 
 The common interpretation, and that which seems most 
 natural, is, ' I am grieved at heart for my brethren, for I could 
 wish myself accursed from Christ, that is, I could be willing to 
 be regarded and treated as anathema, a thing accursed, for 
 their sakes.'f That this interpretation suits the force and 
 
 * That is, wjtyfjM a-sri instead of ni^junv. Noetselt. 
 
 f Sensus est: optabam Judaeorum miseriam in meum caput oonferre, et 
 illorum loco esse. Judaei, fide^m repudiantes, erant anathema a Chriato. 
 fiengel.
 
 468 ROMANS IX. 3. 
 
 meaning of the words, and is agreeable to the context, must, 
 on all hands, be admitted. The only objection to it is of a 
 theological kind. It is said to be inconsistent with the apostle's 
 character to wish that he should be accursed from Christ. But 
 to this it may be answered, 1. Paul does not say that he did 
 deliberately and actually entertain such a wish. The expres- 
 sion is evidently hypothetical and conditional, *I could wish, 
 were the thing allowable, possible, or proper.' So far from 
 saying he actually desired to be thus separated from Christ, he 
 impliedly says the very reverse. ' I could wish it, were it not 
 wrong ; or, did it not involve my being unholy as well as mise- 
 rable, but as such is the case, the desire cannot be entertained.' 
 This is the proper force of the imperfect indicative when thus 
 used ; it implies the presence of a condition which is known to 
 be impossible. Speaking of the use of the imperfect Ifititolbfap 
 in Acts xxv. 22, Dr. Alexander says : " Most interpreters, and 
 especially the most exact philologists of modern times, explain 
 the Greek verb, like the similar imperfect used by Paul in 
 Rom. ix. 2, as the indirect expression of a present wish, ren- 
 dered correctly in the English version. The nice distinction 
 in Greek usage, as explained by these authorities, is that the 
 present tense would have represented the result as dependent 
 on the speaker's will (as in Rom. i. 13, 16, 19, 1 Cor. xvi. 7, 
 1 Tim. ii. 8); the imperfect with the qualifying particle dv 
 would have meant, I could wish (but I do not); whereas this 
 precise form is expressive of an actual and present wish, but 
 subject to the will of others, ' I could wish, if it were proper, or 
 if you have no objection.'* 2. Even if the words expressed 
 more than they actually do, and the apostle were to be under- 
 stood as saying that he wished to be cut off from Christ, yet, 
 from the nature of the passage, it could fairly be understood 
 as meaning nothing more than that he was willing to suffer the 
 
 * Buttmann's Larger Grammar, by Professor Robinson, p. 187. Matthiae, 
 sect 608, 609. And Winer's Grammar, p. 233, who thus translates the pas- 
 sage before us: "Vellem ego (si fieri posset): ich wOnschte (wenn es nur 
 nicht unrnflglich ware)." Tholuck says: "Ths indicative of the imperfect 
 expresses exactly the impossibility of that for which one wishes, on which 
 account it is not, properly speaking, really wished at all. The optative admits 
 the possibility of the thing wished for, and the present supposes the certainty 
 of it"
 
 ROMANS IX. 4. 469 
 
 utmost misery for the sake of his brethren. The difficulty 
 arises from pressing the words too far, making them express 
 definite ideas, instead of strong and indistinct emotions. The 
 general idea is, that he considered himself as nothing, and his 
 happiness as a matter of no moment compared with the salva- 
 tion of his brethren.* Brethren according to the flesh. Paul 
 had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the 
 children of God in Christ ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, 
 Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who 
 belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren, 
 after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the 
 same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother xal kv aapxl 
 xac kv K'jpitu, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible 
 recognises the validity and Tightness of all the constitutional 
 principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves 
 of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and 
 other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race 
 and country. 
 
 VERSE 4. The object of the apostle in the introduction to 
 this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the 
 Jews of his love and of his respect for their peculiar privileges. 
 The declaration of his love he had just made; his respect for 
 their advantages is expressed in the enumeration of them con- 
 tained in this verse. Who are Israelites, i. e., the peculiar 
 people of God. This includes all the privileges which are 
 afterwards mentioned. The word Israel means one who con- 
 tends with G-od, or a prince with G-od. Hosea xii. 3, " He 
 took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength 
 he had power with God." As it was given to Jacob as an 
 expression of God's peculiar favour, Gen. xxxii. 28, its appli- 
 cation to his descendants implied that they too were the 
 favourites of God. To whom pertaineth the adoption. As Paul 
 is speaking here of the external or natural Israel, the adoption 
 
 * Utrum privationem duntaxat omnis boni, et destructionem vel aimihila- 
 tionem sui, an etiam perpessionem omnis rnali, eamque et in corpore et in 
 anima, et sempiternam, optaret, aut in ipso Toti illius paroxysmo intellectui 
 BUO observantem habuerit, quis scit, an Paulus ipse interrogatus definiret? 
 Certe illud EGO penitus apud ilium in pausa erat: tantum alios, honoris divini 
 causa, spectabat. Bengel.
 
 470 ROMANS IX. 4. 
 
 or sonsJtip which pertained to them, as such, must be external 
 also, and is very different from that which he had spoken of in 
 the preceding chapter. They were the sons of God, i. e., the 
 objects of his peculiar favour, selected from the nations of the 
 earth to be the recipients of peculiar blessings, and to stand in 
 a peculiar relation to God. Exod. iv. 22, " Thou shalt say 
 unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son, even my first-born;" Deut. 
 xiv. 1, "Ye are the children of the Lord your God;" Jer. xxxi. 
 9, "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born." As 
 the whole Old Testament economy was a type and shadow of 
 the blessings of the New, so the sonship of the Israelites was 
 an adumbration of the sonship of believers. That of the for- 
 mer was in itself, and as common to all the Jews, only the 
 peculiar relation which they sustained to God as partakers of 
 the blessings of the theocracy. The latter, common to all the 
 true children of God under any dispensation, is that relation 
 in which we stand to God in virtue of regeneration, the indwell- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the household of 
 God. 
 
 And the glory. These words are variously explained. They 
 may be connected with the preceding, as explanatory of the 
 adoption, or as qualifying it, and the two words be equivalent 
 to glorious adoption. But as every other specification in this 
 verse is to be taken separately, so should this be. Others 
 understand it, of the dignity and distinction of the theocratical 
 people. It was their glory to be the people of God. In the 
 Old Testament, however, that symbolical manifestation of the 
 divine presence which filled the tabernacle and rested over the 
 ark, is called the glory of the Lord. Exod. xl. 34, "A cloud 
 covered the tent of the congregation ; and the glory of the 
 Lord filled the tabernacle;" Exod. xxix. 43, "There will I 
 meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be 
 sanctified by my glory;" Lev. xvi. 2, "I will appear in the 
 cloud upon the mercy-seat;" 1 Kings viii. 11, "The glory of 
 the Lord had filled the house of the Lord;" 2 Chron. v. 14, 
 ilaggai ii. 7, Rev. xv. 8. By the Jews this symbol was called 
 the ShekinaJi, i. e., the presence of God. Besides this, the 
 manifestation of God's presence in general is called his glory; 
 Isa. vi. 4, "The whole earth is full of his glory," &c. It ia
 
 ROMANS IX. 5. 471 
 
 probable, therefore, that Paul intended by this word to refer to 
 the fact that God dwelt in a peculiar manner among the Jews, 
 and in various ways manifested his presence, as one of their 
 peculiar privileges. 
 
 The covenant*. The plural is used because God at various 
 times entered into covenant with the Jews and their fore- 
 fathers; by which he secured to them innumerable blessings 
 and privileges; see Gal. iii. 16, 17, Eph. ii. 12. The giving 
 of the law, (fj vofjLO$s.a't.d) the legislation. The word is some- 
 times used for the law itself (see the Lexicons) ; it may here be 
 taken strictly, that giving of the law, i. e., the solemn and glo- 
 rious annunciation of the divine will from Mount Sinai. The 
 former is the most probable ; because the possession of the law 
 was the grand distinction of the Jews, and one on which they 
 peculiarly relied; see chap. ii. 17. The service means the 
 whole ritual, the pompous and impressive religious service of 
 the tabernacle and temple. The promises relate, no doubt, 
 specially to the promises of Christ and his kingdom. This was 
 the great inheritance of the nation. This was the constant 
 subject of gratulation and object of hope. See Gal. iii. 16, 
 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made;" ver. 
 21, "Is the law against the promises of God?" So in other 
 places the word promises is used specially for the predictions 
 in reference to the great redemption, Acts xxvi. 6. 
 
 VERSE 5. Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning 
 the flesh, Christ came, &c. The descent of the Jews from men 
 so highly favoured of God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was 
 justly regarded as a great distinction. And of whom. The 
 and here shows that whom refers, not to the fathers, but to the 
 Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption, the law, the service, 
 and of whom Christ caine. This was the great honour of the 
 Jewish race. For this they were separated as a peculiar peo- 
 ple, and preserved amidst all their afflictions. As it was true, 
 however, only in one sense, that Christ was descended from the 
 Israelites, and as there was another view of his person, accord- 
 ing to which he was infinitely exalted above them and all other 
 men, the apostle qualifies his declaration by saying as concern- 
 ing the flesh. The word flesh is used so often for human nature 
 in its present state, or for men, that the phrase as to the flesh,
 
 472 ROMANS IX. 5. 
 
 in such connections, evidently means in as far as he was a man, 
 or as to his human nature, chap. i. 3. In like manner, when 
 it is said Christ was manifested or came in the flesh, it means, 
 he came in our nature, 1 Tim. iii. 1C, 1 John iv. 2, &c. 
 
 Who is over all, Crod blessed for ever. Amen. There is but 
 one interpretation of this important passage which can, with 
 the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained. 
 The words 6 a>i> are equivalent here to oc &'(, as in John i. 18, 
 xii. 17, 2 Cor. xi. 31. Over all, i. e., over all things, not over 
 all persons. The xdvTtav is neuter, and not masculine ; see 
 Acts x. 37, 1 Cor. xv. 28. It is supremacy over the universe 
 which is here expressed, and therefore this language precludes 
 the possibility of 6sbc being taken in any subordinate sense. 
 In the Greek fathers, 6 kni Tidvraiv Bzb? is the constantly 
 recurring designation of the supreme God. So exalted is its 
 import, that some of them used it only in reference to the 
 Father, who, being the first Person in the Trinity, was, they 
 say, alone as a person, God over all. It is not the relation of 
 the persons of the Trinity, however, which is here brought into 
 view, but simply the true and supreme divinity of our Lord. 
 Paul evidently declares that Christ, who, he had just said, was, 
 as to his human nature, or as a man, descended from the Israel- 
 ites, is, in another respect, the supreme God, or God over all, 
 and blessed for ever. That this is the meaning of the passage, 
 is evident from the following arguments: 1. The relative who 
 must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other 
 subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a depar- 
 ture from this ordinary rule, in this case, even plausible. " Of 
 whom Christ came, who is," &c. Who is? Certainly Christ, 
 for he alone is spoken of. 2. The context requires this inter- 
 pretation, because, as Paul was speaking of Christ, it would be 
 very unnatural thus suddenly to change the subject, and break 
 out into a doxology to God. Frequently as the pious feelings 
 of the apostle led him to use such exclamations of praise, he 
 never does it except when God is the immediate subject of dis- 
 course. See chap. i. 25, " Who worship and serve the creature 
 more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore;" Gal. i. 5. 
 2. Cor. xi. 31. Besides, it was the very object of the apostle 
 to set forth the great honour to the Jews of having Christ born
 
 ROMANS IX. 5. 473 
 
 among them, and this, of course, would lead to his presenting 
 the dignity of the Redeemer in the strongest light. For the 
 greater he was, the greater the honour to those of whose race 
 he came. 3. The antithesis, which is evidently implied be- 
 tween the two clauses of the verse, is in favour of this interpre- 
 tation. Christ, according to the flesh, was an Israelite, hut, 
 according to his higher nature, the supreme God. On any 
 other interpretation there is nothing to answer to the TO xara 
 cdpxa. These words are used in distinct reference, and for the 
 sake of the clause who is over all. Why not simply say, "of 
 whom Christ came"? This would have expressed every thing, 
 had not the apostle designed to bring into view the divine 
 nature. Having, however, the purpose to exalt Christ, in 
 order to present in the highest form the honour conferred on 
 the Jewish race in giving the Messiah to the world, he limits 
 the first clause. It was only as to the flesh that Christ was 
 descended from the patriarchs; as to his higher nature, he was 
 the supreme God. See the strikingly analogous passage in 
 chap. i. 3, 4, where Christ is said, according to one nature, to 
 be the Son of David, according to the other, the Son of God. 
 4. No other interpretation is at all consistent with the gram- 
 matical construction, or the relative position of the words. 
 One proposed by Erasmus is to place a full stop after the 
 words Christ came, and make all the rest of the verse refer to 
 God. The passage would then read thus : " Of whom, as con- 
 cerning the flesh, Christ came. God blessed for ever. Amen." 
 But this is not only opposed by the reasons already urged, that 
 such doxologies suppose God to be the immediate subject of 
 discourse, or are preceded by some particle which breaks the 
 connection, and shows plainly what the reference is, &c. ; but, 
 apart from these objections, no such doxology occurs in all the 
 Bible. That is, the uniform expression is, "blessed be God," 
 and never "God be blessed.'''* The word blessed always 
 stands first, and the word Grod after it with the article. Often 
 as such cases occur in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, there 
 
 * In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the constant form of the 
 doxology is K/XIT-DTCC o KC, or tuKtytrrct xi/gf o QK;, never the reverse. And so 
 in Hebrew, always J7l!-p ^"a
 
 474 ROMANS IX. 5. 
 
 is, it \a believed, no case of the contrary arrangement. In 
 Psalm Ixviii. 20 (Septuagint Ixvii. 19), the only apparent 
 exception, the first clause is probably not a doxology, but a 
 simple affirmation, as in the old Latin version, Dominus Deus 
 benedictus est. In the Hebrew it is, as in all other cases, 
 Blessed be the Lord, and so in our version of that Psalm. See 
 also Ps. xxxi. 21, Ixxii. 18, 19, xli. 13, Ixviii. 35, Ixxxix. 
 52, Gen. ix. 26 T Exod. xviii. 10, and a multitude of other ex- 
 amples. In all these and similar passages, the expression is 
 blessed be Crod, or blessed be the Lord, and never God blessed, 
 or Lord blessed. This being the case, it is altogether incredi- 
 ble that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar 
 with this constantly recurring formula of praise, should, in 
 this solitary instance, have departed from the established 
 usage. This passage, therefore, cannot be considered as a 
 doxology, or an ascription of praise to God, and rendered 
 Q-od be blessed, but must be taken as a declaration, who is 
 blessed; see chap. i. 25, "The Creator, who is blessed for 
 ever." 2 Cor. xi. 31, "The God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore." See Matt. xxi. 9, 
 Luke i. 68, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3; in these and 
 all other cases, where, as here, the copula is omitted, it is 
 fu/oforoe 6 #soc. Where the relative and verb are used, then 
 it is not an exclamation but an affirmation, as Rom. i. 25: rbv 
 xrcaa^Ta, oe Iffnv e-j/.o^rcx; set; roic alowa^. 'Affiv. 2 Cor. 
 xi. 31 : 6 Ssbz xae -aTyp 6 <Lv ey/o^roc f V ~'JC aitovaz ; and 
 here, Xpeorbz, 6 &i> i~l xdvrcov OEOZ, eu^o^roc cr'c rob; alta^a^. 
 'Ajuqv. To separate this passage from the class to which it 
 obviously belongs, and to make it a solitary exception, is to do 
 violence to the text. A second method of pointing the verse, 
 also, proposed by Erasmus, and followed by many others, is to 
 place the pause after the word all. The verse would then read, 
 "Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over 
 all. God be blessed for ever." This avoids some of the diffi- 
 culties specified above, but it is subject to all the others. It 
 breaks unnaturally the connection, and makes a doxology out 
 of a form of expression which, in the Scriptures, as just stated, 
 is never so used. 5. There is no reason for thus torturing the 
 text to make it speak a different language from that commonly
 
 ROMANS IX. 5. 475 
 
 ascribed to it; because the sense afforded, according to the 
 common interpretation, is scriptural, and in perfect accordance 
 with other declarations of this apostle. Titus i. 3, ''According 
 to the commandment of God our Saviour." "Looking for that 
 blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and 
 (even) our Saviour Jesus Christ," Titus ii. 13; see Phil. ii. 6, 
 Col. ii. 9, &c., &c. 
 
 Over all is equivalent to most high, supreme. The same 
 words occur in Eph. iv. 6, "One God, who is above all." This 
 passage, therefore, shows that Christ is God in the highest 
 sense of the word. Amen is a Hebrew word signifying true. 
 It is used as in the New Testament often adverbially, and is ren- 
 dered verily; or, at the close of a sentence, as expressing desire, 
 let it be, or merely approbation. It does not, therefore, neces- 
 sarily imply that the clause to which it is attached contains a 
 wish. It is used here, as in Horn. i. 25, for giving a solemn 
 assent to what has been said. " God who is blessed for ever, 
 Amen." 'To this declaration we say, Amen. It is true.' 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The Holy Ghost is ever present with the souls of the 
 people of God. He enlightens the judgment and guides the 
 conscience, so that the true and humble Christian often has an 
 assurance of his sincerity, and of the correctness of what he 
 says or does, above what the powers of nature can bestow, 
 ver. 1. 
 
 2. There is no limit to the sacrifice which one man may make 
 for the benefit of others, except that which his duty to God 
 imposes, ver. 3. 
 
 3. Paul does not teach that we should be willing to be 
 damned for the glory of God. 1. His very language implies 
 that such a wish would be improper. For in the ardour of his 
 disinterested affection, he does not himself entertain or express 
 the wish, but merely says, in effect, that were it proper or pos- 
 sible, he would be willing to perish for the sake of his brethren. 
 2. If it is wrong to do evil that good may come, how can it be 
 right to wish to be evil that good may come ? 3. There seems 
 to be a contradiction involved in the very terms of the wish. 
 Can one love God so 'much as to wish to hate him? Can he be
 
 476 ROMANS IX. 15. 
 
 so good as to desire to be bad ? "We must be willing to give up 
 houses and lands, parents and brethren, and our life also, for 
 Christ and his kingdom, but we are never required to give up 
 holiness for his sake, for this would be a contradiction. 
 
 4. It is, in itself, a great blessing to belong to the external 
 people of God, and to enjoy all the privileges consequent on 
 this relation, ver. 4. 
 
 5. Jesus Christ is at once man and God over all, blessed for 
 ever. Paul asserts this doctrine in language too plain to be 
 misunderstood, ver. 5. 
 
 KEMARKS. 
 
 1. Whatever we say or do, should be said or done as in 
 Christ, i. e., in a Christian manner, ver. 1. 
 
 2. If we can view, unmoved, the perishing condition of our 
 fellow-men, or are unwilling to make sacrifices for their benefit, 
 we are very different from Paul, and from Him who wept 
 over Jerusalem, and died for our good upon Mount Calvary, 
 vs. 2, 3. 
 
 3. Though we may belong to the true Church, and enjoy all 
 its privileges, we may still be cast away. Our external relation 
 to the people of God cannot secure our salvation, ver. 4. 
 
 4. A pious parentage is a great distinction and blessing, and 
 should be felt and acknowledged as such, ver. 5. 
 
 5. If Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, if he has a nature 
 like our own, how intimate the union between him and hia 
 people ; how tender the relation ; how unspeakable the honour 
 done to human nature in having it thus exalted ! If Jesus 
 Christ is God over all, and blessed for ever, how profound 
 should be our reverence, how unreserved our obedience, and 
 how entire and joyful our confidence ! ver. 5. 
 
 6. These five verses, the introduction to the three following 
 chapters, teach us a lesson which we have before had occasion 
 to notice. Fidelity does not require that we should make the 
 truth as offensive as possible. On the contrary, we are bound 
 to endeavour, as Paul did, to allay all opposing or inimical 
 feelings in the minds of those whom we address, and to allow 
 the truth, unimpeded by the exhibition of any thing offensive 
 on our part, to do its work upon the heart and conscience.
 
 ROMANS IX. 624. 477 
 
 ROMANS IX. 624. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE apostle now approaches the subject which he had in 
 view, the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. 
 That God had determined to cast off his ancient covenant 
 people, as such, and to extend the call of the gospel indis- 
 criminately to all men, is the point which the apostle is about 
 to establish. He does this by showing, in the first place, that 
 God is perfectly free thus to act, vs. 6 24, and in the second, 
 that he had declared in the prophets that such was his inten- 
 tion, vs. 2533. 
 
 That God was at liberty to reject the Jews and to call the 
 Gentiles, Paul argues, 1. By showing that the promises which 
 he had made, and by which he had graciously bound himself, 
 were not made to the natural descendants of Abraham as such, 
 but to his spiritual seed. This is plain from the case of Ishmael 
 and Isaac ; both were the children of Abraham, yet one was 
 taken and the other left. And also from the case of Esau and 
 Jacob. Though children of the same parents, and born at one 
 birth, yet "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," is the 
 language of God respecting them, vs. 6 13. 2. By showing 
 that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his 
 favours ; that he is determined neither by the external rela- 
 tions, nor by the personal character of men, in the selection of 
 the objects of his mercy. This is proved by the examples just 
 referred to ; by the choice of Isaac instead of Ishmael, and 
 especially by that of Jacob instead of Esau. In this case the 
 choice was made and announced before the birth of the children, 
 that it might be seen that it was not according to works, but 
 according to the sovereign purpose of God, vs. 6 13. 
 
 Against this doctrine of the divine sovereignty, there are two 
 obvious objections, which have been urged in every age of the 
 world, and which the apostle here explicitly states and answers. 
 The first is, that it is unjust in God thus to choose one, and 
 reject another, at his mere good pleasure, ver. 14. To this 
 Paul gives two answers: 1. God claims the prerogative of
 
 478 ROMANS IX. 6. 
 
 sovereign mercy ; saying, " I will have mercy on whom I will 
 have mercy," vs. 15, 16. 2. He exercises this right, as is 
 evident from the case of Pharaoh, with regard to whom he says, 
 "For this same purpose have I raised thee up," vs. 17, 18. 
 The second objection is, that if this doctrine be true, it destroys 
 the responsibility of men, ver. 19. To this also Paul gives a 
 twofold answer: 1. The very urging of an objection against a 
 prerogative which God claims in his word, and exercises in his 
 providence, is an irreverent contending with our Muker, espe- 
 cially as the right in question necessarily arises out of the rela- 
 tion between men and God as creatures and Creator, vs. 20, 21. 
 2. There is nothing in the exercise of this sovereignty incon- 
 sistent with either justice or mercy. God only punishes the 
 wicked for their sins, while he extends undeserved mercy to the 
 objects of his grace. There is no injustice done to one wicked 
 man in the pardon of another, especially as there are the 
 highest objects to be accomplished both in the punishment of 
 the vessels of wrath, and the pardon of the vessels of mercy. 
 God does nothing more than exercise a right inherent in 
 sovereignty, viz., that of dispensing pardon at his pleasure, 
 vs. 2224. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 6. It has already been remarked, (chap. iii. 3,) that 
 it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the promises 
 of God being made to Abraham and to his seed, all his natural 
 descendants, sealed, as such, by the rite of circumcision, would 
 certainly inherit the blessings of the Messiah's reign. It was 
 enough for them, therefore, to be able to say, " We have Abra- 
 ham to our father." This being the case, it was obvious that it 
 would at once be presented as a fatal objection to the apostle's 
 doctrine of the rejection of the Jews, that it was inconsistent 
 with the promises of God. Paul, therefore, without even dis- 
 tinctly announcing the position which he intended to maintain, 
 removes this preliminary objection. It is indeed peculiarly 
 worthy of remark, as characteristic of the apostle's tenderness 
 and caution, that he does not at all formally declare the truth 
 which he labours in this chapter to establish. He does not tell 
 the Jews at once they were to be cast off; but begins by pro-
 
 KOMANS IX. 6. 479 
 
 fesslng his affection for them, and his sorrow for their destiny ; 
 thus simply, by implication, informing them that they were not 
 to be admitted to the Messiah's kingdom. When he has shown 
 that this rejection involved no failure on the part of God in 
 keeping his promises, and was consistent with his justice and 
 mercy, he more distinctly announces that, agreeably to the pre- 
 dictions of their own prophets, they were no longer the peculiar- 
 people of God. The remark, therefore, which Calvin makes on 
 ver. 2, is applicable to the whole introductory part of the 
 chapter. Non caret artificio, quod orationem ita abscidit, 
 nondum exprimens qua de re loquatur ; nondum enim oppor- 
 tunum erat, interitum gentis Judaicae aperte exprimere. In 
 YS. 2, 3, in which he professed his sorrow for his brethren and his 
 readiness to suffer for them, it was, of course, implied that they 
 were no longer to be the peculiar people of God, heirs of the 
 promises, &c., &c. This, Paul shows, involves no failure on 
 the part of the divine promises. Not as though the word of 
 G-od hath taken none effect, c. That is, ' I say nothing which 
 implies that the word of God has failed.' The simplest expla- 
 nation of the words ou% dlov ds on, is, not as that, i. e., I say no 
 such thing as that. It is thus an elliptical phrase for ou rocov 
 8s tefto, olov ore, non tale, (dico,) quale (hoc est) excidisse cet, 
 Winer, 66. 5. Others give ou% otov os followed by ore, the 
 force of o>j% otov TS followed by an infinitive, viz., it is not 
 possible. This, however, is not only contrary to usage, but to 
 the context. Paul does not intend to say that it is impossible 
 the promise should fail, but simply that his doctrine did not 
 conflict with the promise. God had not bound himself never 
 to cast off the Jews; and therefore what the apostle taught 
 concerning their rejection did not involve the failure of the 
 word of God. Meyer, who generally defends the apostle from 
 the charge of violating Greek usage, assumes that he here con- 
 founds two forms of expression, ou% olov ixxe-Tcuzev and oi>% ore 
 lx~XTo)Xv. He agrees, however, with the explanation quoted 
 above from Winer. The word of Grod means any thing which 
 God has spoken, and here, from the connection, the promise 
 made to Abraham, including the promise of salvation through 
 Jesus Christ. Hath taken none effect, literally, hath fallen, 
 i. e., failed. " It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than
 
 480 ROMANS IX. 7. 
 
 one tittle of the law to fail," literally, to fall, Luke, xvi. 17. 
 So this word is used frequently. The reason why the rejection 
 cf the Jews involved no failure on the part of the divine pro- 
 mise, is, that the promise was not addressed to the mere natural 
 descendants of Abraham. For they are not all Israel which are 
 of Israel, i. e., all the natural descendants of the patriarch are 
 not the true people of God, to whom alone the promises 
 properly belong. The word Israel may refer either to Jacob or 
 to the people. 'All descended from the patriarch Jacob 
 called Israel, are not the true people of God;' or, 'all belong- 
 ing to the external Israel are not the true Israel;' i. e., all who 
 are in the (visible) Church do not belong to the true Church. 
 The sense is the same, but the former explanation is the 
 more natural. In the following verse the apostle distinguishes 
 between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham, as here he 
 distinguishes between the two classes of the descendants of 
 Israel. 
 
 VERSE 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are 
 they all children. In this and the following verses the senti- 
 ment is confirmed, that natural descent from Abraham does not 
 secure a portion in the promised inheritance. The language of 
 this verse is, from the context, perfectly intelligible. The seed, 
 or natural descendants of Abraham, are not all his children in 
 the true sense of the term ; i. e., like him in faith, and heirs of 
 his promise. So in Gal. iii. 7, Paul says, "They which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham." This verse is 
 part of the sentence begun in the preceding verse. It pre- 
 sents the same idea in a different form. 'All the descend- 
 ants of Israel are not the true Israel, neither are all the 
 seed of Abraham his (true, or spiritual) children.' Children, 
 viz., of Abraham. Others supply ro~j 6soi>, " the seed of Abra- 
 ham are not all children of God." This is true, but it is not 
 what the apostle here says. His object is to show that the 
 promises made to the children of Abraham were not made to 
 his natural descendants as such. 
 
 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. As the word rendered 
 called sometimes means to choose, Isa. xlviii. 12, xlix. 1, the 
 meaning of the phrase may be 'In Isaac shall thy seed be 
 chosen.' 'I will select him as the recipient of the blessings
 
 ROMANS IX. 8. 481 
 
 promised to you.' 2. To be called is often equivalent to to be, 
 to be regarded, as Isa. Ixii. 4, " Thou shalt not be called deso- 
 late," i. e., thou shalt not be desolate. Hence, in this case, tha 
 text may mean, 'In Isaac shall thy seed be,' i. e., he shall be 
 thy seed. Or, 3. ' After Isaac shall thy seed be called,' they 
 shall derive their name from him. Shall be named, i. e., shall be 
 so regarded and recognised. ' Not all the children of Abraham 
 were made the heirs of his blessings, but Isaac was selected by 
 the sovereign will of God to be the recipient of the promise.' 
 This is the general meaning of the passage ; but here, as before, 
 it may be understood either of the individual Isaac, or of his 
 descendants. 'Isaac shall be to thee for a seed;' or, 'Through 
 Isaac shall a seed be to thee.' The former is the more con- 
 sistent with the context, because Paul's immediate object is to 
 show that natural descent from Abraham did not make a man 
 one of his true seed. Ishmael was a son of Abraham as well as 
 Isaac, but the latter only was, in the spiritual sense of the 
 term, his seed. The Greek here answers exactly to the- 
 original Hebrew, 'In Isaac a seed shall be called to thee, or for 
 thee.' That is, 'Isaac (not Ishmael) shall be to thee a son and 
 heir.' God therefore is sovereign in the distribution of hia. 
 favours. As he rejected Ishmael notwithstanding his natural 
 descent from Abraham, so he may reject the Jews, although 
 they also had Abraham as a father. 
 
 VERSE 8. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, 
 these are not the children of G-od. The simplest view of this 
 verse would seem to be, to regard it as an explanation of the 
 historical argument contained in the preceding verse. 'The 
 Scriptures declare that Isaac, in preference to Ishmael, was 
 selected to be the true seed and heir of Abraham, that is, or 
 this proves, that it is not the children of the flesh that are 
 regarded as the children of God, &c.' This suits the immedi- 
 ate object of the apostle, which is to show that God, according 
 to his good pleasure, chooses one and rejects another, and that 
 he is not bound to make the children of Abraham, as such, the 
 heirs of his promise. It is very common, however, to consider 
 this passage as analogous to that in Gal. iv. 22 31; and to 
 regard the apostle as unfolding the analogy between the history 
 of Isaac and Ishmael, and that of the spiritual and natural 
 31
 
 482 ROMANS IX. 8. 
 
 children of Abraham; Isaac being the symbol of the former, 
 and Ishmael of the latter. As Ishmael, "who was born after 
 the flesh, (Gal. iv. 23,) i. e., according to the ordinary course 
 of nature, was rejected, so also are the children of the flesh; 
 and as Isaac, who was born "by promise," i. e., in virtue of 
 the promised interference of God, was made the heir, so also 
 are they heirs, who in like manner are the children of the 
 promise, that is. who are the children of God, not by their 
 natural birth, but by his special and effectual grace. The 
 point of comparison, then, between Isaac and believers is, that 
 both are born, or become the children of God, not in virtue of 
 ordinary birth, but in virtue of the special interposition of God. 
 In favour of this view is certainly the strikingly analogous 
 passage referred to in Galatians, and also the purport of the 
 next verse. Besides this, if Paul meant to say nothing more 
 in this and the following verse, than that it appears from the 
 choice of Isaac that God is free to select one from among the 
 descendants of Abraham and to reject another, these verses 
 would differ too little from what he had already said in vs. 6, 7. 
 It is best, therefore, to consider this passage as designed to 
 point out an instructive analogy between the case of Isaac and 
 the true children of God; he was born in virtue of a special 
 divine interposition, so now, those who are the real children of 
 God, are born not after the flesh, but by his special grace. 
 
 The children of the promise. This expression admits of 
 various explanations. 1. Many take it as meaning merely 
 the promised children, as child of promise is equivalent to 
 child which is promised. But this evidently does not suit the 
 application of the phrase to believers as made here, and in Gal. 
 iv. 28. 2. It may mean, according to a common force of the 
 genitive, children in virtue of a promise. This suits the con- 
 text exactly. It assigns to the genitive Ixa-ffttiaz in this 
 clause the same force that aapxoz has in the preceding. Isaac 
 was born not after the ordinary course of nature, but in virtue 
 of a divine promise. See Gal. iv. 23, where the expressions born 
 after the flesh, and born by promise, are opposed to each other. 
 It is, of course, implied in the phrase children in virtue of a 
 promise, that it is by a special interposition that they become 
 children, and this is the sense in "which Paul applies the expres-
 
 ROMANS IX. 9. 483 
 
 sion to believers generally. In Gal. iv. 28, he says, "We, as 
 Isaac was, are the children of promise." Believers, therefore, 
 are children of the promise in the same sense as Isaac. The 
 birth of Isaac was xara xvsufta, supernatural; believers also 
 are the children of God in virtue of a spiritual or supernatural 
 birth. This is the main idea, although not the full meaning. 
 The children of promise are those to whom the promise belongs. 
 This is what the apostle has specially in view in the passage in 
 Galatians. He there desires to show that believers are the 
 true children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise made to 
 the father of the faithful. This idea, therefore, is not to be 
 excluded even here. Isaac was not only born in virtue of a 
 promise, but was, on that account, heir of the promised bless- 
 ing. The former, however, as just stated, is the prominent 
 idea, as appears from the following verse. Comp. John i. 13. 
 "Who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
 the will of man, but of God." This idea seems to be included 
 in the apostle's use of the expression. Gal. iv. 28, "Now we, 
 brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," and iii. 
 29, "Ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro- 
 mise;" see, too, Gal. iii. 18, 22, Rom. iv. 16, "To the end the 
 promise might be sure to all the seed." Though this idea 
 seems to have been in the apostle's mind, the second expla- 
 nation is most in accordance with the context. Are counted 
 for the seed, i. e., are regarded and treated as such. "Not the 
 natural descendants of Abraham are the children of God, but 
 those who are born again by his special interposition, are re- 
 garded and treated as his true children." See the same form 
 of expression in Gen. xxxi. 15. 
 
 VERSE 9. For this is the word of promise, at this time will 
 I come, and Sarah shall have a son. Literally, (the word of) 
 the promise is this word. This verse is evidently designed to 
 show the propriety, and to explain the force of the phrase 
 children of the promise. I ;iac was so called because God said 
 at this time I will come, &c. This is not only a prediction and 
 promise that Isaac should be born, but also a declaration that 
 it should be in consequence of God's coming, i. e., of the spe- 
 cial manifestation of his power; as, in scriptural language, God 
 is said to come, wherever he specially manifests his presence
 
 484 ROMANS IX. 10. 
 
 or power, John xiv. 23, Luke i. 68, &c. The apostle does 
 not follow exactly the Hebrew or the Septuagint. lie givei 
 the substance of Gen. xviii. 10, and xviii. 14. The words 
 frn nsa at the living time, either tempore vivente, i. e., rede- 
 unte, or, the time being, i. e., the current time, are rendered by 
 the LXX. and the apostle, xara TOV xatpbv ro&rov, at this season. 
 That is, when this season of the year returns again. 
 
 VERSE 10. And not only (this); but when Rebecca had con- 
 ceived by one r (even) by our fatJier Isaac. Not only does the 
 case of Isaac and Ishmael prove that the choice of God doea 
 not depend on natural descent, but on the sovereign will of 
 God, but that of Rebecca evinces the same truth still more 
 clearly. In the former case, it might be supposed that Isaac 
 was chosen because he was the son of Sarah, a free woman, and 
 the legitimate wife of Abraham, whereas Ishmael was the son 
 of a maid-servant. In the choice between Jacob and Esau, 
 there is no room for any such supposition. They had the same 
 father, the same mother, and were born at one birth. Here, 
 assuredly, the choice was sovereign. The original is here ellip- 
 tical, something must be supplied to complete the sense. On 
 the principle that an ellipsis should, if possible, be supplied 
 from the immediate context, Winer, Meyer, and others, supply 
 the ellipsis thus : ' Not only did Sarah receive a promise of a 
 son, but Rebecca also.' In this view the construction of the 
 passage is regular; otherwise, an irregularity, or change of 
 grammatical construction, must be assumed in ver. 12. 'Not 
 only Rebecca it was said to her.' To this however, it ia 
 objected, first, that the promise was not made to Sarah, but to 
 Abraham ; and secondly, that no promise was made to Rebecca. 
 Others, therefore, prefer supplying simply, did this happen. 
 That is, not only was Isaac chosen instead of Ishmael, although 
 both were the sons of Abraham, but also Rebecca. Then we 
 must either assume a grammatical irregularity, or the nomina- 
 tive (Rebecca) must be taken absolutely; or we can supply 
 some such phrase as, Rebecca also proves this, i. e., the sove- 
 reignty of God in election. These questions do not affect the 
 sense of the passage. The apostle proceeds with his historical 
 proof that God, according to his own good pleasure, does choose
 
 ROMANS IX. 11. 485 
 
 one and reject another. He has therefore the right to cast off 
 the Jews. 
 
 VERSE 11. For the children being not yet born, neither 
 having done any good or evil, &c. The force of for is clear by 
 a reference to the preceding verse, and the object of the 
 apostle. 'Not only does the case of Isaac and Ishmael evince 
 the sovereignty of God, but that of Rebecca and her children 
 does the same, in a still more striking manner, for the decision 
 between her children was made previously to their birth, for the 
 very purpose of showing that it was not made on the ground 
 of works, but of the sovereign pleasure of God.' This is an 
 example which cannot be evaded. With regard to Ishmael, it 
 might be supposed that either the circumstances of his birth, or 
 his personal character, was the ground of his rejection ; but 
 with regard to Esau neither of these suppositions can be made. 
 The circumstances of his birth were identical with those of his 
 favoured brother, and the choice was made before either had 
 done any thing good or evil. The case of Ishmael was, indeed, 
 sufficient to prove that having Abraham for a father was not 
 enough to secure the inheritance of the promise, but it could 
 not prove the entire sovereignty of the act of election on the 
 part of God, as is so fully done by that of Jacob and Esau. 
 This passage shows clearly that the design of the apostle is not 
 simply to show that natural descent from Abraham was a title 
 to Messianic blessings, but that works also were excluded; that 
 the choice of God was sovereign. 
 
 Neither having done good or evil. The design of the intro- 
 duction of these words is expressly stated in the next clause. 
 It was to show that the ground of choice was not in them, but 
 in God; and this is the main point in regard to the doctrine 
 of election, whether the choice be to the privileges of the 
 external theocracy, or to the spiritual and eternal blessings of 
 the kingdom of Christ. 
 
 That the purpose of Gf-od, according to election, might stand. 
 This is the reason why the choice was made prior to birth. 
 The original here admits of various interpretations, which, how- 
 ever, do not materially alter the sense. The word rendered 
 purpose, is that which was used in the previous chapter, ver. 28, 
 and means here, as there, a determination of the will, and of
 
 486 ROMANS IX. 11. 
 
 itself expresses the idea of its being sovereign, i. e., of having its 
 ground in the divine mind and not in its objects. Hence, in 
 2 Tim. i. 9, it is said, " Who hath called us not according to 
 our works, but according to his own purpose, &c., see Eph. 
 i. 11, iii. 11. The words (xar Ixtoyjtt) according to election, are 
 designed to fix more definitely the nature of this purpose. The 
 word election often means the act of choice itself, as 1 Thess. 
 i. 4, " Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God." In 
 this sense, the clause means, ' the purpose of God in reference 
 to election, or in relation to this choice.' This view of the 
 passage is perfectly consistent with the context. The choice 
 was made prior to birth, in order that the true nature of the 
 purpose of God in reference to it might appear. It is objected 
 to this interpretation that the IxAofy (election) follows the 
 irpo&soiz (the purpose) and not the reverse. This does not 
 amount to much. It relates merely to the order of conception. 
 We can conceive of God's electing some to eternal life, and 
 then purposing to save them, as well as his purposing to save 
 them and then electing them. The real meaning is expressed 
 by giving xar ixio-ftv an adjective force, the electing purpose., 
 electivum Dei propositum, as Bengel renders it. Others give 
 lx/.off here the sense of free choice, or free will. ' The purpose 
 according to free choice, for, free or sovereign purpose.' Many 
 commentators adopt this view of the passage. This is, perhaps, 
 the most common interpretation. But as the word does not 
 occur in this sense in the New Testament, the former mode of 
 explanation is perhaps to be preferred. Should stand, i. e., 
 should be established and recognised in its true character, that 
 is, that it might be seen it was not of works, but of him that 
 calleth. This purpose of God, in reference to election, or the 
 choice itself, is not of works, i. e , does not depend on works, 
 but on him that calleth. It is not to be traced to works as its 
 source. That is, as plainly as language can express the idea, 
 the ground of the choice is not in those chosen, but in God who 
 chooses. In the same sense our justification is said to be " not 
 of works," Gal. ii. 16, and often ; i. e., is not on the ground of 
 works; see Horn. xi. 6, 2 Tiui. i. 9. The language of the 
 apostle in this verse, and the nature of his argument, are so 
 perfectly plain, that there is little diversity of opinion as to his
 
 ROMANS IX. 11. 487 
 
 general meaning. It is almost uniformly admitted that he here 
 teaches that the election spoken of is perfectly sovereign, that 
 the ground on which the choice is made is not in men, but in 
 
 O ' 
 
 God. Commentators of every class unite in admitting that the 
 apostle does here teach the sovereignty of God in election. 
 Unde sensus totius loci sic constituitur ; ut appareret, quicquid 
 Deus decernit, libere eurn decernere non propter hominis 
 meritum, sed pro sua decernentis voluntate. Koppe. Ut 
 benevola Dei voluntas maneret, ut quae non a meritis cujus 
 quam pendeat, sed benefactore ipso. Noesselt. Das der 
 Kathschluss Gottes fest stehe, als ein solcher, der nicht abhange 
 von menschlichen Verdiensten, sondern von dein gnadigen oder 
 freien Willen Gottes. 'That the decree of God might stand 
 firm, as one which depended not on human merit, but the 
 gracious or free will of God.' Flatt. And even Tholuck 
 makes Paul argue thus, " Dass wie Gott, ohne Anrechte anzuer- 
 kennen, die aussere Theokratie und mancherlei Vortheile 
 Ubertrug wem er wollte, er so auch jetzt die innere dem 
 Ubertragt, oder den darein eingehen lasst welchen er will." 
 ' That as God, without recognising any claims, committed the 
 external theocracy and manifold advantages to whom he pleased, 
 so also now he commits the internal to whom he will, or allows 
 whom he will to enter it.' To the same effect Meyer says, "Er 
 wollte namlich dadurch fiir immer festsetzen, dass sein zufolge 
 einer Auswahl unter den Menschen eintretender Beschluss, mit 
 dem Messianischen Heile zu begliicken, unabhangig sei von 
 menschlichen Leistungen, und nur von seinem, des zum Messi- 
 asheil Berufenden, eigenen Willen dependire." His design was 
 to establish, once for all, (the principle) that his purpose in 
 reference to the choice of those who were to enter the Messiah's 
 kingdom, was independent of human conduct, and was deter- 
 mined by the will of him who calls. 
 
 The opposers of the doctrine of personal election endeavour 
 to escape the force of this passage, by saying that the choice of 
 which the apostle speaks, is not to eternal life, but to the ex- 
 ternal advantages of the theocracy ; and that it was not so much 
 individuals as nations or communities which were chosen or 
 rejected. With regard to this latter objection, it may be 
 answered, 1. That the language quoted by the apostle from the
 
 488 ROMANS IX. 12. 
 
 Old Testament is there applied to the individuals, Jacob and 
 Esau ; and that Jacob, as an individual, was chosen in preference 
 to his brother ; and that Paul's whole argument turns on this 
 very point. 2. That the choice of nations involves and con- 
 sists in the choice of individuals; and that the same objections 
 obviously lie against the choice in the one case as in the other. 
 With regard to the former objection, that the choice here spoken 
 of is to the external theocracy and not to eternal life, it may 
 be answered, 1. Admitting this to be the case, how is the diffi- 
 culty relieved? Is there any more objection to God's choosing 
 men to a great than to a small blessing, on the ground of his 
 own good pleasure? The foundation of the objection is not the 
 character of the blessings we are chosen to inherit, but the 
 sovereign nature of the choice. Of course it is not met by 
 making these blessings either greater or less. 2. A choice to 
 the blessings of the theocracy, i. e., of a knowledge and worship 
 of the true God, involved, in a multitude of cases at least, a 
 choice to eternal life ; as a choice to the means is a choice to 
 the end. And it is only so far as these advantages were a 
 means to this end, that their value was worth consideration. 
 3. The whole design and argument of the apostle show that the 
 objection is destitute of force. The object of the whole epistle 
 is to exhibit the method of obtaining access to the Messiah's 
 kingdom. The design here is to show that God is at liberty to 
 choose whom he pleases to be the recipients of the blessings of 
 this kingdom, and that he was not confined in his choice to the 
 descendants of Abraham. His argument is derived from the 
 historical facts recorded in the Old Testament. As God chose 
 Isaac in preference to Ishmael, and Jacob in preference to 
 Esau, not on the ground of their works, but of his own good 
 pleasure, so now he chooses whom he will to a participation of 
 the blessings of the kingdom of Christ : these blessings are 
 pardon, purity, and eternal life, &c., &c. That such is the 
 apostle's argument and doctrine, becomes, if possible, still more 
 plain, from his refutation of the objections urged against it, 
 which are precisely the objections which have ever been urged 
 against the doctrine of election. 
 
 VERSE 12. It was said to her, the elder shall serve the 
 younger. These words are to be connected with the 10th verse,
 
 ROMANS IX. 12. 489 
 
 according to our version, in this manner, " Not only this, but 
 Rebecca also, when she had conceived, &c., it was said to her, 
 &c." According to this view, although the construction is 
 irregular, the sense is sufficiently obvious. As it was said to 
 Rebecca that the elder of her sons should serve the younger, 
 prior to the birth of either, it is evident that the choice between 
 them was not on account of their works. It has been said that 
 this declaration relates not to Jacob and Esau personally, but 
 to their posterity, 1. Because in Gen. xxv. 23, whence the 
 quotation is made, it is said, " Two nations are within thy womb, 
 and the one people shall be stronger than the other people ; and 
 the elder shall serve the younger. 2. Because Esau did not 
 personally serve Jacob, although the descendants of the one 
 were subjected to those of the other. It is no doubt true that 
 the prediction contained in this passage has reference not only 
 to the relative standing of Jacob and Esau as individuals, but 
 also to that of their descendants. It may even be allowed that 
 the latter was principally intended in the annunciation to 
 Rebecca. But it is too clear to be denied, 1. that this distinc- 
 tion between the two races presupposed and included a distinc- 
 tion between the individuals. Jacob was made the special heir 
 to his father Isaac, obtained as an individual the birth-right and 
 the blessing, and Esau as an individual was cast off. The one, 
 therefore, was personally preferred to the other. 2. In Paul's 
 application of this event to his argument, the distinction 
 between the two as individuals, was the very thing referred to. 
 This is plain from the llth verse, in which he says, " The 
 children being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
 evil, &c." It is, therefore, the nature of the choice between the 
 children that is the point designed to be presented. As to the 
 objection that Esau never personally served Jacob, it is founded 
 on the mere literal sense of the words. Esau did acknowledge 
 his inferiority to Jacob, and was in fact postponed to him on 
 various occasions. The main idea, however, is that Esau for- 
 feited his birthright. Jacob was preferred to his elder brother, 
 and constituted head of the theocracy. In a spiritual or reli- 
 gious sense, and therefore in the highest sense, or in reference 
 to the highest interests, Esau was placed below Jacob, as much 
 as Ishmael was below Isaac. This is the real spirit of the
 
 490 ROMANS IX. 13. 
 
 passage. This prophecy, as is the case with all similar predic- 
 tions, had various stages of fulfilment. The relation between 
 the two brothers during life ; the loss of the birthright blessing 
 and promises on the part of Esau; the temporary subjugation 
 of his descendants to the Israelites under David, their final and 
 complete subjection under the Maccabees; and especially their 
 exclusion from the peculiar privileges of the people of God, 
 through all the early periods of their history, are all included. 
 Compare the prediction of the subjection of Ham to his 
 brethren; and of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, 
 Gen. ix. 2527. 
 
 VERSE 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
 have I hated. These words are quoted from Malachi i. 2, 3, 
 where the prophet is reproving the Jews for their ingratitude. 
 As a proof of his peculiar favour, God refers to his preference 
 for them from the first, " Was not Esau Jacob's brother, saith 
 the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, &c." This 
 passage, as well as the one quoted in ver. 12, and just referred 
 to, relates to the descendants of Jacob and Esau, and to the 
 individuals themselves ; the favour shown to the posterity of the 
 one, and withheld from that of the other, being founded on the 
 distinction originally made between the two brothers. The 
 meaning, therefore, is, that God preferred one to the other, or 
 chose one instead of the other. As this is the idea meant to 
 be expressed, it is evident that in this case the word hate means 
 to love less, to regard and treat with less favour. Thus in 
 Gen. xxix. 33, Leah says, she was hated by her husband ; while 
 in the preceding verse, the same idea is expressed by saying, 
 "Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah," Matt. viii. 24, Luke 
 xiv. 26 ; " If a man come to me and hate -not his father and 
 mother, &c." John xii. 25. The quotation from the prophet 
 may be considered either as designed in confirmation of the 
 declaration that the elder should serve the younger ; or it may 
 be connected in sense with the close of the llth, ' God is sove- 
 reign in the distribution of his favours, as it. is written, Jacob 
 have I loved, and Esau have I hated;' the distinction made 
 between these two individuals being cited as an illustration and 
 confirmation of the apostle's doctrine. 
 
 The doctrine of the preceding verses is, that God is per-
 
 ROMANS IX. 14, 15. 491 
 
 fectly sovereign in .the distribution of his favours, that the 
 ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not 
 their works, but his own good pleasure. To this doctrine 
 there are two plausible objections; first, it is not consistent 
 with the divine justice, ver. 14; second, it is incompatible with 
 human responsibility, ver. 19. To the former the apostle 
 answers, first, God claims distinctly in his word this prerogative, 
 ver. 15 ; and secondly, he obviously exercises it, as is seen in the 
 dispensations of his providence, ver. 17. Here again the sense is 
 BO plain that commentators of all classes agree in their inter- 
 pretations. Thus Meyer says, " God does not act unjustly in his 
 sovereign choice ; since he claims for himself in the Scriptures 
 the liberty to favour or to harden, whom he will." 
 
 VERSE 14. What shall we say then, is there unrighteousness 
 with Grod ? G-od forbid. The apostle, according to his usual 
 manner, proposes the objection to his own doctrine in the form 
 of a question, denies its validity, and immediately subjoins his 
 reason; see Rom. iii. 5, Gal. iii. 21. The obvious objection 
 here presented is, that it is unjust in God, thus, according to 
 his own purpose, to choose one and reject another. This Paul 
 denies, and supports his denial by an appeal, in the first place, 
 to Scripture, and the second, to experience. It will be 
 remarked that these arguments of the apostle are founded on 
 two assumptions. The first is, that the Scriptures are the word 
 of God; and the second, that what God actually does cannot 
 be unrighteous. Consequently any objection which can be 
 shown to militate against either an express declaration of 
 Scripture, or an obvious fact in providence, is fairly answered. 
 And if, as is almost always the case, when it militates against 
 the one, it can be shown to militate against the other, the 
 answer is doubly ratified. 
 
 VERSE 15. For G-od saith to Moses, I will -have mercy on 
 whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on tvhom 
 I will have compassion. The connection and argument are 
 obvious. ' It is not unjust in God to exercise his sovereignty 
 in the distribution of his mercies, for he expressly claims the 
 right.' The passage quoted is from the account of the solemn 
 interview of Moses with God. In answer to the prayer of the 
 prophet for his people and for himself, God answered, " I will
 
 492 ROMANS EX. 16. 
 
 proclaim my name before thee, and will be gracious to whom I 
 will be gracious, &c." Exodus xxxiii. 19. It is, therefore, a 
 formal declaration of a divine prerogative. The form of expres- 
 sion / will do what I will, or / do what I do, is here, as in 
 Ezek. xvi. 23, 2 Sam. xv. 20, designed to convey the idea that 
 it rests entirely with the agent to act or not, at his pleasure. 
 The ground of. decision is in himself. In the connection of 
 this verse with the former, therefore, it is obvious that Paul 
 quotes this declaration to prove that God claims the sovereignty 
 which he had attributed to him. In order to avoid the force 
 of this passage, many deny that it expresses the sentiment of 
 the apostle. They consider this and the following verses as 
 the objections of a Jewish fatalist, a mode of interpretation so 
 obviously inconsistent with the context, and even the proper 
 force of the words, that it is mentioned only to show how hard 
 it is to close the eyes against the doctrine which the apostle so 
 clearly teaches. Gottes Erbarmen und Huld sei lediglich von 
 Beinem eigenenen mramschranten Willen abhangig; auf wen 
 einmal sein Erbarmen gerichtet sei, dem werde er's erweisen. 
 Meyer. God's mercy and favour depend solely on his own 
 sovereign will, he will manifest that mercy towards him to whom 
 it has been once directed. Tittmann, in his Synon. in N. T., 
 says that the difference between olxrsiosev and l/.escv is, that the 
 former denotes the feeling experienced in view of the sufferings 
 of others, and the latter the desire to relieve them. The differ- 
 ence is very much the same as that between our words com- 
 passion and mercy. 
 
 VERSE 16. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him 
 that runneth, &c. If the ground of the decision or choice of 
 the objects of mercy be in God, as asserted in ver. 15, then 
 that it is not in man, is a conclusion which flows of course from 
 the previous declarations. The word it refers to the result con- 
 templated in the context, viz., the attainment of the divine 
 favour, or more definitely, admission into the Messiah's king- 
 dom. This result, when attained, is to be attributed not to the 
 wishes or efforts of man, but to the mercy of God. That one, 
 therefore, is taken, and another left, that one is introduced into 
 this kingdom and another not, is to be referred to the fact 
 asserted in the preceding verse, that " God will have mercy on
 
 ROMANS IX. 17. 493 
 
 whom he will have mercy," This seems plainly to have been 
 the apostle's meaning. It is said, however, that the efforts here 
 declared to be vain are those of the self-righteous ; that Paul 
 intends to say that the Jews, by the works of the law, could 
 not attain the favour of God, &c. But no such sentiment is 
 expressed by the apostle ; it is all supplied by the commentator. 
 The sentiment, moreover, is not only not expressed, but it is in 
 direct contradiction to the language and design of the apostle. 
 He says the ground of choice, or of admission into the kingdom 
 of Christ, is not in us; this interpretation says it is in us. 
 Paul says it is in God ; this interpretation says, it is not in 
 God. It is neither the will nor the efforts of men which deter- 
 mines their admission into Christ's kingdom. It depends on 
 the sovereign will of God. Neque in voluntate nostra, neque 
 in conatu esse situm, ut inter electos censeamur: sed totum id 
 divinae bonitatis, quae nee volentes, nee conantes, ac ne cogit- 
 antes quidem ultro assumit. Calvin. This is not an interpre- 
 tation peculiar to Augustinians, It is, as has been shown, the 
 view of the passage adopted by commentators of every shade 
 of doctrine. Also ist's (namlich Gottes Erbarmen und Huld 
 zu empfangen) nicht von dem wollenden noch von dem Laufen- 
 den abhangig, sondern von dem barmherzig scienden Gotte. 
 Meyer. 
 
 VERSE 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, &c. The 
 connection of this verse is with the 14th, rather than with the 
 one immediately preceding. Paul is still engaged in answering 
 the objection proposed in the 14th verse. There is no injustice 
 with God, because he saith to Moses, 'I will have mercy, &c/ 
 ver. 15, and because the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, for this 
 purpose, &c. ver. 17. His second answer to the objection is, 
 that God, in point of fact, does exercise this sovereignty, as is 
 evident from the case of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was no worse than 
 many other men who have obtained mercy ; yet God, for wise 
 and benevolent reasons, withheld from him the saving influences 
 of his grace, and gave him up to his own wicked heart, so 
 that he became more and more hardened, until he was finally 
 destroyed. God did nothing to Pharaoh beyond his strict 
 deserts. He did not make him wicked; he only forbore to 
 make him good, by the exertion of special and altogether un-
 
 494 ROMANS IX. 17. 
 
 merited grace. The reason, therefore, of Pharaoh's being left 
 to perish, while others were saved, was not that he was worse 
 than others, but because God has mercy on whom he will have 
 mercy; it was because, among the criminals at his bar, he 
 pardons one and not another, as seems good in his sight. He, 
 therefore, who is pardoned, cannot say it was because I -was 
 better than others; while he who is condemned must ac- 
 knowledge that he receives nothing more than the just recom- 
 pense of his sins. In order to establish his doctrine of 
 the divine sovereignty, Paul had cited from Scripture the 
 declaration that God shows mercy to whom he will; he 
 now cites an example to show that he punishes whom he will. 
 Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up. This is 
 what God said to Pharaoh, as recorded in Exod. ix. 16. The 
 meaning of the declaration may be variously explained. In the 
 Old Testament, the Hebrew word used in the passage quoted, 
 means literally, I have caused thee to stand. This is understood 
 by some as meaning, I have called thee into existence. 2. By 
 others, / have preserved thee. . 3. By others, I have raised 
 thee up as king. 4. By others, I have placed and continued 
 thee in thy post. Either of these interpretations admits of 
 being defended on philological grounds more or less satis- 
 factory. The first is sufficiently suitable to the word used by 
 the apostle, but does not agree so well with the original. The 
 Hebrew word -j2, in Hiphil, is used not only in the literal 
 sense, to cause to stand, but also in the sense, to continue, to 
 preserve, as in 1 Kings xv. 4, and also to appoint (to office). 
 The LXX. (changing the person) have, in Exod. ix. 16, ois- 
 Tijpy&rfi, equivalent to vivus servatus es, thou hast been kept 
 alive. Paul renders the Hebrew i^ttpA as, which answers to 
 the use of the word in Nehem. vi. 7, " Thou hast appointed 
 (caused to appear) prophets; and Dan. xi. 11, "The king of 
 the south shall set forth a great multitude." In no case, how- 
 ever, is the Hebrew word used for calling into existence in the 
 sense of creating. For the second, it may be urged that verbs 
 in the form (Hiphil) used in the passage quoted, signify fre- 
 quently the continuance of a thing in the state which the 
 simple form of the verb expresses. Thus the verb meaning to 
 live, in this form, signifies to preserve alive, Gen. vi. 19, 20,
 
 ROMANS IX. 18. 495 
 
 xix. 19, &c. Besides, the particular word used in Exod. ix. 16, 
 signifies to preserve, to cause to continue, in 1 Kings xv. 4, 
 2 Chron. ix. 8, Prov. xxix. 4, c. The third interpretation is 
 too definite, and supplies an idea not in the text. The fourth, 
 which is only a modification of the second, is perhaps the 
 nearest to the apostle's intention. * For this purpose have I 
 raised thee up, and placed thee where thou art ; and instead 
 of cutting thee off at once, have so long endured thy obstinacy 
 and wickedness.' It is not the design of Pharaoh's creation that 
 is here asserted; but the end for which God determined his 
 appearance and position in the history of the world. Nor does 
 the apostle refer Pharaoh's wickedness to God as its author, 
 but his appearance at that period, the form in which the evil of 
 his heart developed itself, and the circumstances attending its 
 manifestation, were all determined by the providence of God, 
 and ordered for the promotion of his infinitely wise and bene- 
 volent purposes. 
 
 That I might show my power in thee, and that my name 
 might be declared in all the earth. This is the reason why 
 God dealt with Pharaoh in the manner described. It was not 
 that he was worse than others, but that God might be glorified. 
 This is precisely the principle on which all punishment is 
 inflicted. It is that the true character of the divine lawgiver 
 should be known. This is of all objects, when God .is con- 
 cerned, the highest and most important; in itself the most 
 worthy, and in its results the most beneficent. The ground, 
 therefore, on which Pharaoh was made an object of the divine 
 justice, or the reason why the law was in his case allowed to 
 take its course, is not to be sought in any peculiarity of his 
 character or conduct in comparison with those of others, but in 
 the sovereign pleasure of God. This result of the argument 
 Paul formally states in the next verse. 
 
 VERSE 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have 
 mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. This is the conclusion, 
 not merely from the preceding verse, but from the whole 
 passage, vs. 14 17. This perfect sovereignty in the selection 
 of the objects of his mercy and of his judgment, Paul had 
 attributed to God in ver. 11, and, in the subsequent verses, 
 had proved that he claims and exercises it, both in reference
 
 496 ROMANS IX. 18. 
 
 to the recipients of his favour, ver. 15, and the objects of 
 his wrath, ver. 15. The doctrine, therefore, is fully estab- 
 lished. 
 
 The latter clause of this verse, whom he will he hardeneth, 
 admits of various explanations. The word may be taken either 
 in its ordinary meaning, or it may be understood in its second- 
 ary sense. According to the latter view, it means to treat 
 harshly, to punish. This interpretation, it must be admitted, 
 is peculiarly suited to the context, ' He hath mercy on whom 
 he will, and he punishes whom he will.' Nor is it entirely 
 destitute of philological support. In Job xxxix. 16, it is said 
 of the ostrich, "she treateth hardly her young." But, on the 
 other hand, it is liable to serious objections. 1. It is certain 
 that it is a very unusual sense of the word, and opposed to the 
 meaning in which it frequently occurs. There should be very 
 strong reasons for departing from the usual meaning of an 
 expression so common in the Scriptures. 2. It is inconsistent 
 with those passages in the Old Testament which speak of the 
 hardening of Pharaoh's heart. 3. It removes no difficulty ; for 
 what, according to the usual sense of the word, is here said, is 
 frequently said elsewhere. 
 
 1. The common sense of the word is, therefore, doubtless, to 
 be preferred, whom he will he hardens. This is by many under- 
 stood to express a direct and positive influence of God on the 
 soul in rendering it obdurate. But, in the first place, this inter* 
 pretation is by no means necessary, as will presently be shown ; 
 and, in the second, it can hardly be reconciled with our ideas 
 of the divine character. 
 
 2. Others think that this phrase is to be explained by a 
 reference to that scriptural usage, according to which God ia 
 said to do whatever indirectly and incidentally results from his 
 agency; on the same principle that a father is said to ruin his 
 children, or a master his servants, or that Christ is said to 
 produce wars and divisions. Thus, Isa. vi. 10, the prophet is 
 commanded to make the heart of the people fat, and their ears 
 heavy, and shut their eyes, &c., as though to him were to be 
 ascribed the incidental effects of his- preaching. In the same 
 way the gospel is the cause of death (not of misery only, but of 
 insensibility also,) to those who hear aud disregard it.
 
 ROMANS IX. 18. 49T 
 
 3. Nearly allied to this mode of explanation is that which 
 rests on the assumption that God is said to do what he permits 
 to be done. Reference is made to such passages as the follow- 
 ing. 2 Sam. xii. 11, "I will give thy wives unto thy neigh- 
 bour," i. e., I will permit him to take them. 2 Sam. xvi. 10, 
 "The Lord hath said unto him, curse David." Isa. Ixiii. 17, 
 *' Lord, why hast thou caused us to err from thy ways, and 
 hardened our hearts from thy fear." Deut. ii. 30, "For the 
 Lord thy God hardened his spirit, (Sihon's,) that he might 
 deliver him into thy hand." 1 Kings xi. 23, "The Lord 
 stirred up another adversary." Ps. cv. 25, "He turned their 
 hearts to hate his people." In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, God is said to 
 have moved David to number the people; but in 1 Chron. 
 xxi. 1, Satan is said to have provoked David to number Israel. 
 From these and similar passages, it is evident that it is a 
 familiar scriptural usage, to ascribe to God effects which he 
 allows in his wisdom to come to pass. Hence, almost every 
 thing is, at times, spoken of as if it was produced by divine 
 agency, although, in a multitude of other places, these same- 
 results are referred, as in some of the examples cited above, to 
 their immediate authors. According to this mode of representa- 
 tion, God is understood as merely permitting Pharaoh to harden 
 his own heart, as the result is often expressly referred to Pha- 
 raoh himself, Exod. viii. 15, 32, &c. 
 
 4. But there seems to be more expressed by the language of 
 the text than mere permission, because it is evidently a puni- 
 tive act that is here intended, and because this view does not 
 suit the other passages in which God is said to give sinners up 
 to the evil of their own hearts, Rom. i. 24, 28. It is probable, 
 therefore, that the judicial abandonment of men " to a repro- 
 bate mind," a punitive withdrawing of the influences of his 
 Holy Spirit, and the giving them up to the uncounteracted 
 operation of the hardening or perverting influences by which 
 they are surrounded, are all expressed by the language of the 
 apostle. In this God does no more than what he constantly 
 threatens to do, or which the Scriptures declare he actually 
 does, in the case of those who forsake him ; and nothing more 
 than every righteous parent does in reference to a reprobate 
 son. This, in connection with the principle referred to above,. 
 
 32
 
 ROMANS IX. 19. 
 
 (in No. 2,) seems as much as can fairly be considered as in- 
 cluded in the expressions. De Wette here wisely says, that we 
 are to exclude, on the one hand, the idea that God merely 
 permits evil, and on the other, that he is its author, and to hold 
 fast the doctrine, that evil is from man, and that God orders 
 and directs it, and that to punishment. It is to be remembered 
 that the hardening of the sinner's heart is itself punitive. It 
 supposes evil, and is its punishment. As a ruined constitution 
 is at once the inevitable consequence and the punishment of 
 intemperance, so insensibility, obduracy of conscience, and 
 blindness of mind, are the penal consequences of a course of sin, 
 and become themselves the just ground of further punishment, 
 because they are in their own nature evil. This we instinc- 
 tively recognise as true in our moral judgments of men. A 
 man whom a long course of crime has rendered perfectly 
 callous, is, on account of his callousness, justly the object of 
 execration and abhorrence. It is therefore not only a doctrine 
 of Scripture (Rom. i. 24) that sin is the punishment of sin, but a 
 fact of experience. Satis est, says Augustine, (Ad Sixtum Ep.,) 
 interim Christiano ex fide adhuc viventi, et nondum cernenti 
 quod perfectum est, sed ex parte scienti, nosse vel credere quod 
 neminem Deus liberet nisi gratuita miseracordia per Dominum 
 nostrum Jesus Christum, et neminem damnet nisi aequisima 
 veritate per eundem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. 
 Cur autem ilium potius quam ilium liberet aut non liberet, 
 scrutetur qui potest judiciorum ejus tarn magnum profundum, 
 verumtamen caveat praecipitqim. The Lutheran Church, 
 after the days of Luther, endeavoured to find a middle ground 
 between the Augustinian and the semi-Pelagian doctrine. In 
 the Form of Concord it is taught that the choice of the vessels 
 of mercy is to be referred to the good pleasure of God, but the 
 passing by of the non-elect is to be referred to their voluntary 
 resistance of his offered grace. Election is founded, according 
 to this view, on the sovereignty of God, but preterition on the 
 foresight of impenitence. This, however, seems to involve a 
 contradiction ; for if faith be the gift of God, the purpose to 
 give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to 
 others. Besides, it is the very object of the apostle in the 
 whole context to teach the sovereigntv of God in dealing with
 
 ROMANS IX. 19. 499 
 
 the vessels of wrath. This Olshausen admits. "This refer- 
 ence," he says, "to the foreknowledge of God, although not 
 unfounded so far as evil is concerned, tends rather to pervert 
 than to elucidate the passage, inasmuch as the precise object of 
 the apostle is to render prominent the sovereignty of the divine 
 will." 
 
 VERSE 19. Thou wilt then say unto me, why doth he yet find 
 fault? for who hath resisted his will? This is the second 
 leading objection to the apostle's doctrine. If it be true, as he 
 had just taught, that the destiny of men is in the hands of God, 
 if it is not of him who willeth, or of him that runneth, but of 
 God that showeth mercy, what can we do ? If the fact that 
 one believes and is saved, and another remains impenitent and 
 is lost, depends on God, how can we be blamed ? Can we resist 
 his will? It will at once be perceived that this plausible and 
 formidable objection to the apostle's doctrine is precisely the 
 one which is commonly and confidently urged against the doc- 
 trine of election. There would be no room either for this 
 objection, or for that contained in the 14th verse, if Paul had 
 merely said that God chooses those whom he foresees would 
 repent and believe ; or that the ground of distinction was in the 
 different conduct of men. It is very evident, therefore, that he 
 taught no such doctrine. How easy and obvious an answer to 
 the charge of injustice would it have been to say, God chooses 
 one and rejects another according to their works. But teach- 
 ing as he does the sovereignty of God in the selection of the 
 subjects of his grace and of the objects of his wrath, declaring 
 as he does so plainly, that the destiny of men is determined 
 by his sovereign pleasure, the objection (how can he yet find 
 fault ?) is plausible and natural. To this objection the apostle 
 gives two answers ; 1. That it springs from ignorance of the 
 true relation between God and men as Creator and creatures, 
 and of the nature and extent of the divine authority over us, 
 vs. 20, 21 ; 2. That there is nothing in his doctrine inconsistent 
 with the divine perfections; since he does not make men 
 wicked, but from the mass of wicked men, he pardons one and 
 punishes another, for the wisest and most benevolent reasons, 
 vs. 22, 23. 
 
 Why doth he yet find fault ? If God hardens us, why does
 
 600 ROMANS IX. 20. 
 
 he blame us for being hard. Gross as is this perversion of the 
 apostle's doctrine on the part of the objector, Paul at first 
 rebukes the spirit in which it is made, before he shows it to be 
 unfounded. It is not the doctrine of the Bible, that God first 
 makes men wicked, and then punishes them for their wicked* 
 ness. The Scriptures only assert, what we see and know to be 
 true, that God permits men, in the exercise of their own free 
 agency, to sin, and then punishes them for their sins, and in 
 proportion to their guilt. He acts towards them as a perfectly 
 righteous judge, so that no one can justly complain of his deal- 
 ings. This strictness in the administration of justice, is, how- 
 ever, perfectly consistent with the sovereignty of God in deter- 
 mining whom he will save, and whom he will permit to suffer 
 the just recompense of their deeds. Who hath resisted, rather, 
 who resists, i. e., who can resist. The perfect dv&^ffrr^xs (as 
 earqxsv) is present; see xiii. 2. His will, i. e., his purpose, 
 
 VERSE 20. Nay, but, man, who art thou that repliest 
 against Gf-od ? Shall the thing formed, &c. In these words we 
 have both a reproof and an answer. The reproof is directed 
 against the irreverent spirit, whence such cavils always arise. 
 After the clear proof given in the preceding verges, that God 
 claims this sovereignty in his word, and exercises it in his 
 providence, it argues great want of reverence for God, to assert 
 that this claim involves the grossest injustice. It is very 
 oommon with the sacred writers, and with Christ himself, when 
 questions or cavils are presented, to direct their answers more 
 to the feeling which the question indicated, than to the question 
 itself. Tholuck refers, in illustration of this remark, to John 
 Hi. 3, Matt. viii. 19, 20, 22, xix. 16, xxii. 29. But in this case, 
 besides this reproof of presumption in attempting to call our 
 Maker to account, instead of considering that the mere fact 
 that God claims any thing as his right, is evidence enough that 
 it is just, there is a direct answer to the difficulty. The objec- 
 tion is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the true 
 relation between God and his sinful creatures. It supposes that 
 he is under obligation to extend his grace to all. Whereas he 
 is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited 
 every claim to his mercy ; it is, therefore, the prerogative of
 
 ROMANS IX. 21. 501 
 
 God to spare one and not another; to make one vessel to 
 honour, and another to dishonour. He, as their sovereign 
 Creator, has the same right over them that a potter has over 
 the clay. It is to be borne in mind, that Paul does not here 
 speak of the right of God over his creatures as creatures, but 
 as sinful creatures, as he himself clearly intimates in the next 
 verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator, 
 that he is answering ; and he does it by showing that God is 
 under no obligation to give his grace to any, but is as sovereign 
 as the potter in fashioning the clay. Nay, but, man, 
 fjtvoi>vf. This particle is often used in replies, and is partly 
 concessive and partly corrective, as in Luke xi. 28, where it is 
 rendered, yea, rather, in Rom. x. 18, yes, verily. It may here, 
 as elsewhere, have an ironical force. Sometimes it is strongly 
 affirmative, as in Phil. iii. 8, and at others, introduces, as here, 
 a strong negation or repudiation of what had been said. 
 
 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast 
 thou made me thus? See Isaiah xlv. 9. In this clause Paul 
 presents mainly the idea of God's right, and in the subsequent 
 verses he shows that nothing unjust is included in the right 
 here claimed. We are at his mercy ; and it is the height of 
 irreverence and folly for us to call him to account for the 
 manner in which he may see fit to dispose of us. 
 
 VEKSE 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, out of the 
 same lump to make one vessel, &c., &c. The word sgouffia. ren- 
 dered power, means also authority and right. In this case it 
 means, the lawful power or right; he not only can do it, but he 
 has a perfect right to do it ; see the use of the Greek word in 
 Matt. xxi. 23, 1 Cor. viii. 9, and frequently elsewhere. This 
 verse is merely an illustration of the idea contained in the last 
 clause of the preceding. The Creator has a perfect right to 
 dispose of his creatures as he sees fit. From the very idea of 
 a creature, it can have no claim on the Creator; whether it 
 exists at all, or how, or where, from the nature of the case, 
 must depend on him, and be at his sovereign disposal. The 
 illustration of this truth which follows, is peculiarly appropriate. 
 When the potter takes a piece of clay into his hands, and 
 approaches the wheel, how entirely does it rest with himself to 
 determine the form that clay shall take, and the use to which
 
 ROMANS IX. 22, 23. 
 
 it shall be destined ? Can any thing be more unreasonable, 
 than that the clay, supposing it endued with intelligence, should 
 complain that the form given it was not so comely, or the use 
 to which it was destined not so honourable, as those which fell 
 to the lot of a different portion of the" same mass? Are not 
 these points on which the potter has a most perfect right to 
 decide for himself, and regarding which the thing formed can 
 have no right to complain or question ? And so it is with God ; 
 the mass of fallen men are in his hands, and it is his right to 
 dispose of them at pleasure ; to make all vessels unto honour, 
 or all unto dishonour, or some to one and some to the other. 
 These are points on which, from the nature of the relation, we 
 have no right to question or complain. The illustration here 
 employed occurs elsewhere in Scripture, as in Isa. Ixiv. 8, 
 " But now, Lord, thou art our Father ; we are the clay, and 
 thou art our Potter; and we all are the work of thy hands." 
 See also Isa. xxix. 16, and Jer. xviii. 3 6, "Then I went down 
 to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the 
 wheels. And the vessel which he made of clay was marred in 
 the hands of the potter; so he made it again another vessel, as 
 seemed good to the potter to make it. house of Israel, 
 cannot I do with you as this potter ? saith the Lord. Behold, 
 as clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, house 
 of Israel." In the sovereignty here asserted, it is God as 
 moral governor, and not God as creator, who is brought to 
 view. It is not the right of God to create sinful beings in 
 order to punish them, but his right to deal with sinful beings 
 according to his good pleasure, that is here, and elsewhere 
 asserted. He pardons or punishes as he sees fit. 
 
 VERSES 22, 23. But what if God. willing to show his wrath, 
 and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering 
 the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might 
 make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, 
 which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, &c. ? These 
 verses contain Paul's second answer to the difficulty presented 
 in the 19th verse. He had shown in vs. 20, 21, that in virtue 
 of his relation to men as his sinful creatures, God is at perfect 
 liberty to dispose of them at his pleasure, pardoning one and 
 punishing another, as seemeth good in his sight. He now shows
 
 ROMANS IX. 22, 23. 503 
 
 that in the exercise of this right there is nothing unreasonable 
 or unjust, nothing of which his creatures have the least right 
 to complain. The punishment of the wicked is not an arbitrary 
 act, having no object but to make them miserable; it is 
 designed to manifest the displeasure of God against sin, and to 
 make known his true character. On the other hand, the salva- 
 tion of the righteous is designed to display the riches of his 
 grace. Both in the punishment of the one class and the salva- 
 tion of the other, most important and benevolent ends are to be 
 answered. And since for these ends it was necessary that 
 some should be punished, while others might be pardoned, as 
 all are equally undeserving, it results from the nature of the 
 case that the decision between the vessels of wrath and the 
 vessels of mercy must be left to God. The apostle would, 
 moreover, have it remarked, that even in the necessary punish- 
 ment of the wicked, God does not proceed Avith any undue 
 severity, but, on the contrary, deals with them with the greatest 
 long-suffering and tenderness. Such seems to be the general 
 purport and object of these difficult verses. 
 
 The attentive reader will perceive, that even with the inser- 
 tion of the word what f which has nothing to answer to it in the 
 original, and with a sign of interrogation at the end of ver. 24, 
 the construction of the passage in our version remains ungram- 
 matical and the sense incomplete. As the difficulty exists in 
 the Greek text, and not merely in our translation, the explana- 
 tions which have been proposed are very numerous. Many of 
 these are presented and canvassed by Tholuck and Wolf, par- 
 ticularly the latter. There are three views taken of the con- 
 nection, which are the most plausible. 1. The two verses are 
 considered as both referring to the rejection of the wicked, for 
 which ver. 22 assigns one reason, and ver. 23 another. ' What 
 if God, willing to show his wrath, endured with much long-suf- 
 fering the vessels of wrath, so that also he might make known the 
 riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, c.' The treatment 
 of the wicked was not only to display the divine displeasure 
 against sin, but also, by contrast, his mercy towards his people.* 
 
 * So, among others, Calvin, who translates verse 23 thus, Ut notas quoque 
 faceret divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae praeparavit in gloriam. 
 And in his comment he remarks, Est autem secunda ratio quae gloriam Dei in
 
 504 HOMANS IX. 22, 23. 
 
 But, in order to make the two verses cohere in this way, it is 
 necessary to transpose the words at the beginning of the 23d 
 verse, and read that al&o, instead of and that, which alters the 
 Bense materially, while for such a transposition there is. no 
 authority. Besides this, it makes ver. 23 too subordinate to 
 ver. 22; that is, it makes God's dealings towards the vessels of 
 mercy merely an incidental topic, instead of having equal 
 prominence with his treatment of the vessels of wrath. From 
 the context we are led to expect a vindication of his course, not 
 only in the destruction of the latter, but in the salvation of the 
 former. 
 
 2. A second explanation is to make the second clause of ver. 
 22 and the beginning of ver. 23 depend on the first words of 
 ver. 22. 4 God willing to show his wrath and make his power 
 known, and (willing) that the riches of his glory should be 
 known, &c.' This gives a good sense, though the construction 
 is suddenly, and rather violently, changed at the beginning of 
 ver. 23, "that he might make known," being substituted for 
 the infinitive, "to make known." 
 
 3. Tholuck makes ver. 24 parallel with ver. 23, and explains 
 the passage thus, * God, willing to manifest his wrath, bore with 
 the vessels of wrath ; and that he might make known his mercy, 
 called us, &c.' This gives a very good sense, but assumes the 
 construction to be irregular to a very unusual degree. Though 
 the second method be somewhat irregular, it seems, on the 
 whole, the least objectionable, and gives a sense obviously con- 
 sistent with the context. The meaning of the apostle is suffi- 
 ciently plain. He asks a question tt 0, but if. ' What can 
 be said if God, to manifest his justice, bears with the vessels of 
 wrath, and to manifest his grace prepares the vessels of mercy ?' 
 There is nothing in this inconsistent with the character of God, 
 or the rights of his creatures. 
 
 reproborum interito manifestat; quod ex eo luculentius divinae boniutis erga 
 electos amplitude confirmatur. 
 
 Much in the same way Winer explains the passage, connecting the **< ir* 
 of ver. 23, immediately with the verb ^xa of ver. 22, "Wenn Gott beschliess- 
 end mit aller Langmuth die GeftLsse seines Zornes trug * * auch in der 
 Absicht, den Reichthum * * zuerkennen zu geben." "If God willing * * * 
 bore with all long-suffering the vessels of wrath * * * * also with the view 
 to make known the riches, &c." Gram. p. 443.
 
 ROMANS IX. 22, 23. 505 
 
 The two objects which Paul here specifies as designed to be 
 answered by the punishment of the wicked, are the manifesta- 
 tion of the wrath of Grod, and the exhibition of his power. 
 The word wrath is used here as in chap. i. 18, for the divine 
 displeasure against sin, the calm and holy disapprobation of 
 evil, joined with the determination to punish those who com- 
 mit it.* The power of God is conspicuously displayed in the 
 destruction of the wicked, no matter how mighty or numerous 
 they may be. Though the inherent ill-desert of sin must ever 
 be regarded as the primary ground of the infliction of punish- 
 ment, a ground which would remain in full force, were no bene- 
 ficial results anticipated from the misery of the wicked, yet 
 God has so ordered his government that the evils which sinners 
 incur shall result in the manifestation of his character, and the 
 consequent promotion of the holiness and happiness of his intel- 
 ligent creatures throughout eternity. 
 
 God treats the wicked, not as a severe judge, but with much 
 long suffering. The expression vessels of wrath, no doubt sug- 
 gests itself from the illustration of the potter used in the pre- 
 ceding verse ; though the term vessel is used not unfrequently 
 in reference to men, .Acts ix. 15, 1 Peter iii. 7. Vessels of 
 wrath, i. e., vessels to receive wrath, or which are destined to 
 be the objects of wrath. This is a modification of the expres- 
 sion in ver. 21, axsDoc e/c ^.rcuian, vessel unto dishonour. 
 
 Fitted to destruction, xaryprcfffjisva e/c a-(o/.:av. This phrase 
 admits of two interpretations. The passive participle may be 
 taken as a verbal adjective, fit for destruction. This leaves 
 undetermined the agency by which this fitness was effected. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. x. 10, 1 Peter i. 8. In favour of this view is the 
 change of expression adopted ;n ver. 23. Of the vessels of 
 wrath, it is simply said that they are fit for destruction ; but of 
 the vessels of mercy, that God prepares them for glory. Why 
 this change, if the apostle did not intend to intimate that the 
 agency of God is very different in the one case from what it is in 
 the other ? Besides, as it is the object of the writer to vindicate 
 the justice of God in these dispensations, it is specially perti- 
 nent to represent the vessels of wrath as fit for destruction in 
 
 * Ira Dei non, perturbatio animi ejus est, sed judicium quo irrogatur poena 
 peccato. August. De Civit. Dei, 1. 15. c. 35.
 
 506 ROMANS IX. 22, 23. 
 
 the sense of deserving it. The other interpretation assumes 
 that the reference is to God, and that xa-cafjrcafJLi>a has its full 
 participial force ; prepared (by God) for destruction. This is 
 adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by 
 many Lutherans and Neologists. This sense they say is de- 
 manded by the context. God is compared to a potter, who 
 prepares one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. So 
 God prepares some for wrath, and some for mercy. This, 
 however, is not to be understood in a supralapsarian sense. 
 God does not create men in order to destroy them. The pre- 
 paration intended is that illustrated in the case of Pharaoh. 
 God did not make him wicked and obdurate ; but as a punish- 
 ment for his sin, he so dealt with him that the evil of his nature 
 revealed itself in a form, and under circumstances, which made 
 him a fit object of the punitive justice of God. The dealings 
 of God as a sovereign are often, by the Jewish writers, spoken 
 of in the same terms as those here used; see Moed Katon, 
 fol. 9, 1. Exiit filia vocis, dixitque eis; vos omnes ordinati 
 estis ad vitam seculi futuri. Megilla, fol. 12, 2. Memuchan, 
 Esther i. 14, i. e., Haman. Cur vocatur nomen ejus Memucan? 
 quia ordinatus est ad poenas. R. Bechai in Pentateuch, fol. 
 132. Gentes ordinatae ad gehennam ; Israel vero ad vitam. 
 Fol. 220, 4, Duas istas gentes vocat Salomo duas filias, dicitque 
 ad gehennam ordinatas esse. Sechoroth, fol. 8, 2. R. Joseph 
 docuit, hi sunt Persae, qui preparati sunt in gehennam. Wet- 
 stein on Acts xiii. 48. 
 
 VERSE 23. And that he might make known the riches of 
 his glory, &c. The grammatical construction of this clause, as 
 before remarked, is doubtful. The tva fvwpiarj may depend on 
 ^vspsv, he bore with the vessels of wrath in order that he 
 might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of 
 mercy; or, they may be connected with xoqp/ffvo/j&Mt, vessels 
 prepared for destruction, in order that he might make known, &c. 
 Or, we must assume that Iva fWptp$ is used for the infinitive, 
 and that this clause is coordinate with the preceding. ' What 
 if God, to manifest his wrath, bears with the wicked, and to 
 make known his mercy, prepares others for glory.' The vessels 
 of mercy* i. e., those destined to mercy. The riches of, i. e., 
 the abundance or greatness of, his glory. The glory refers to
 
 ROMANS IX. 24. 507 
 
 the divine majesty or excellence which is glorious, that is, the 
 proper object of admiration. It may be used of the divine per- 
 fection in general, or for any of the divine attributes in particu- 
 lar, for his power, as Rom. vi. 4, or his mercy, in Eph. iii. 16. 
 Here it should be taken in its comprehensive sense, although 
 from its opposition to the word wrath, the reference is specially 
 to the mercy of God. That is the attribute most conspicuously 
 displayed in the salvation of sinners. 
 
 Which he had afore prepared, Ttpor^oiaaa^v. This word is 
 used both in the sense of preparing beforehand, and of predes- 
 tining. Many prefer the latter sense here ; whom he had pre- 
 destined to glory. Comp. Eph. ii. 1Q. But the context is in 
 favour of the ordinary meaning of the word. God, as the pot- 
 ter, prepares or fashions the vessels of mercy unto glory. The 
 word glory here evidently refers to the glorious state of exist- 
 ence for which God is preparing his people, and in hope of 
 which they now rejoice, v. 2. 
 
 VEKSE 24. Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews 
 only, but also of the G-entiles. We are the vessels of his 
 mercy, even we whom he hath called, i. e., effectually intro- 
 duced by his Spirit into the kingdom of Christ ; see chap. viii. 
 28, 30. The use of the masculine relative o3c, although the 
 antecedent trxsuy e^eouc is neuter, may be explained as a con- 
 structio ad sensum, or better as a case of attraction ; o5c taking 
 the gender of the following $//c. Winer, 63, 1. How 
 naturally does the apostle here return to the main subject of 
 discussion! How skilfully is the conclusion brought out at 
 which he has continually aimed ! God chose Isaac in prefer- 
 ence to Ishmael, Jacob in preference to Esau ; it is a preroga- 
 tive which he claims and exercises, of selecting from among the 
 guilty family of men, whom he pleases as the objects of his 
 mercy, and leaving whom he pleases to perish in their sins, 
 unrestricted in his choice by the descent or previous conduct 
 of the individuals. He has mercy upon whom he will have 
 mercy. He calls men, therefore, from among the Gentiles and 
 from among the Jews indiscriminately. This is the conclusion at 
 which the apostle aimed. The Gentiles are admitted into the 
 Messiah's kingdom, vs. 25, 26 ; and the great body of the Jews 
 are excluded, ver. 27. This conclusion he confirms by explicit
 
 508 ROMANS IX. 624. 
 
 declarations of Scripture. Ex disputatione, quam hactenus de 
 libertate divinae electionis habuit, duo consequebantur : nempe 
 Dei gratiam non ita inclusam esse in populo Judaico, ut non ad 
 alias quoque nationes emanare, et in orbem universura effundere 
 se posset : deinde ne sic quidera alligatam esse Judaeis, ut ad 
 omnes Abrahae filios secundum carnem sine exceptione perve- 
 niat. Calvin. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. No external circumstance, no descent from pious parents, 
 no connection with the true church, can secure admission for 
 men into the kingdom of 'Christ, vs. 6 12. 
 
 2. Paul teaches clearly the doctrine of the personal election 
 of men to eternal life, an election founded not on works, but on 
 the good pleasure of God. The choice is to eternal life, and 
 not to external privileges merely. 1. Because the very point 
 to be illustrated and established through this and the two fol- 
 lowing chapters, is the free admission of men into the Messiah's 
 kingdom, and its spiritual and eternal blessings. 2. Because 
 the language of the apostle seems of itself to preclude the other 
 idea, in vs. 15, 16, and especially in ver. 18, "Therefore he 
 hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth." 
 This is not applicable to the reception of men to a state of 
 peculiar external privileges or their rejection from it. 3. The 
 case of Pharaoh is not an illustration of the refusal to admit 
 some men to peculiar privileges. 4. The choice is between the 
 vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath ; vessels of mercy chosen 
 unto glory, not unto church privileges, and vessels of wrath 
 who were to be made the examples of God's displeasure against 
 sin. 5. The character of the objections to the apostle's doc- 
 trine shows that such was the nature of the choice. If this 
 election is to eternal life, it is, of course, a choice of individu- 
 als, and not of communities, because communities, as such, do 
 not inherit eternal life. This is still further proved by the 
 cases of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, between 
 whom, as individuals, the choice was made. From the illustra- 
 tion derived from the case of Pharaoh. From the objections 
 presented in vs. 14, 19. From the answer to these objections 
 in vs. 15, 16, 20, 23, especially from the passage just referred
 
 ROMANS IX. 624. 509 
 
 to, which speaks of the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory; 
 which cannot be applied to nations or communities. This elec- 
 tion is sovereign, i. e., is founded on the good pleasure of God, 
 and not on any thing in its objects. 1. Because this is express- 
 ly asserted. The choice between Jacob and Esau was made 
 prior to birth, that it might be seen that it was not founded on 
 works, but on the good pleasure of God, ver. 11. The same is 
 clearly stated in ver. 16, "It is not of him that willeth or of 
 him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;" and also 
 in ver. 18, "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, &c." 
 The decision rests with God. 2. Because otherwise there 
 would be no shadow of objection to the doctrine. How could 
 men say it was unjust if God chose one and rejected another 
 according to their works? And how could any one object, as 
 in ver. 19, * that as the will of God could not be resisted, men 
 were not to be blamed,' if the decision in question did not 
 depend on the sovereign will of God? How easy for the 
 apostle to have answered the objector, 'You are mistaken, the 
 choice is not of God ; he does not choose whom he will, but those 
 who he sees will choose him. It is not his will, but man's that 
 decides the point.' Paul does not thus answer. He vindicates 
 the doctrine of the divine sovereignty. The fact, therefore, 
 that Paul had to answer the same objections which are now 
 constantly urged against the doctrine of election, goes far to 
 show that that doctrine was his. 3. That the election ia 
 sovereign, is taught elsewhere in Scripture. In 2 Tim. i. 9, it 
 is said to be "not according to our works, but according to hia 
 own purpose and grace." Eph. i. 5, it is said to be "according 
 to the good pleasure of his will," i. e., his sovereign pleasure. 
 4. This view alone harmonises with the doctrine, that all good 
 thoughts and right purposes and feelings proceed from God, 
 which is clearly taught in the Scriptures. For if the purpose 
 not to resist 'common grace,' is a right purpose, it is of God, 
 and, of course, it is of him that one man forms it, and another 
 does not. 5. This doctrine is alone consistent with Christian 
 experience. "Why was I made to hear thy voice?" Ko 
 Christian answers this question by saying, because I was tetter 
 than others. 
 
 3. The two leading objections against the doctrine of election,
 
 510 ROMANS IX. 624. 
 
 viz., that it is inconsistent with the divine character, and incom- 
 patible with human responsibility, are answered by the apostle. 
 It cannot be unjust, because God claims and exercises the right 
 of sovereign choice. It is not inconsistent with human respon- 
 sibility, because God does not make men wicked. Though, as 
 their Sovereign, he has a right to dispose of wicked men as he 
 pleases. He can, of the same corrupt mass, choose one to 
 honour, and the other to dishonour, vs. 14 23. 
 
 4. Scripture must ever be consistent with itself. The rejec- 
 tion of the Jews could not be inconsistent with any of God's 
 promises, ver. 6. 
 
 5. The true children of God become such in virtue of a 
 divine promise, or by the special exercise of his grace. They 
 are born not of the will of the flesh, but of God, ver. 8. 
 
 6. Though children prior to birth do neither good nor evil, 
 yet they may be naturally depraved. They neither hunger 
 nor thirst, yet hunger and thirst are natural appetites. They 
 exercise neither love nor anger, yet these are natural passions. 
 They know probably neither joy nor sorrow, yet are these 
 natural emotions, ver. 11. 
 
 7. The manifestation of the divine perfections is the last and 
 highest end 'of all things, vs. 17, 22, 23. 
 
 8. The fact that the destiny of men is in the hands of God 
 (that it is not of him that willeth, or him that runneth,) is not 
 inconsistent with the necessity of the use of means. The fact 
 that the character of the harvest depends on the sovereign 
 pleasure of God, does not render the labour of the husbandman 
 of no account. The same God who says, " I will have mercy 
 on whom I will," says also, "Work out your salvation with 
 fear and trembling." The sovereignty of God and the neces- 
 sity of human efforts are both clearly taught in the Scriptures. 
 At times the former, as in this chapter, at times the latter doc- 
 trine is most insisted upon. Neither should be forgotten or 
 neglected, as both combine to produce the right impression on 
 the mind, and to lead us to God in the way of his own appoint- 
 ment, ver. 16. 
 
 9. Men, considered as the objects of election, are regarded as 
 fallen. It is from the corrupt mass that God chooses one 
 vessel to honour and one to dishonour, vs. 22, 23.
 
 ROMANS IX. 624. 611 
 
 10. The judicial abandonment of men to their own ways, the 
 giving them up to work out their OAvn destruction, is a righteous 
 though dreadful doom, vs. 18, 22, also chap. i. 24, 26. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. If descent from Abraham, participation in all the privi- 
 leges of the theocracy, the true and only church, failed to 
 secure for the Jews the favour of God, how foolish the expecta- 
 tion of those who rely on outward ordinances and church-rela- 
 tions as the ground of their acceptance, vs. 6 13. 
 
 2. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the choice of 
 the objects of his mercy should produce, 1. The most profound 
 humility in those who are called according to his purpose. 
 They are constrained to say, "Not unto us, not unto us, but 
 unto thy name be all the glory." 2. The liveliest gratitude, 
 that we, though so unworthy, should from eternity have been 
 selected as the objects in which God displays " the riches of 
 his glory." 3. Confidence and peace, under all circumstances, 
 because the purpose of God does not change ; whom he has 
 predestinated, them he also calls, justifies, and glorifies. 
 4. Diligence in the discharge of all duty, to make our calling 
 and election sure. That is, to make it evident to ourselves and 
 others, that we are the called and chosen of God. We should 
 ever remember that election is to holiness, and consequently to 
 live in sin, is to invalidate every claim to be considered as one 
 of "God's elect." 
 
 3. As God is the immutable standard of right and truth, the 
 proper method to answer objections against the doctrines we 
 profess, is to appeal to what God says, and to what he does. 
 Any objection that can be shown to be inconsistent with any 
 declaration of Scripture, or with any fact in providence, is suffi- 
 ciently answered, vs. 15, 17. 
 
 4. It should, therefore, be assumed as a first principle, that 
 God cannot do wrong. If he does a thing, it must be right. 
 And it is much safer for us, corrupt and blinded mortals, thus 
 to argue, than to pursue the opposite course, and maintain that 
 God does not and cannot do so and so, because in our judgment 
 it would be wrong, vs. 15 19. 
 
 5. All cavilling against God is wicked. It is inconsistent
 
 512 ROMANS IX. 6 24. 
 
 with our relation to him as our Creator. It is a manifestation 
 of self-ignorance, and of irreverence toward God, ver. 20. 
 
 6. What proof of piety is there in believing our own eyes, 
 or in receiving the deductions of our own reasoning? But to 
 confide in God, when clouds and darkness are round about him ; 
 to be sure that what he does is right, and that what he says is 
 true, when we cannot see how either the one or the other can 
 be, this is acceptable in his sight. And to this trial he 
 subjects all his people, vs. 20 24. 
 
 7. If the manifestation of the divine glory is the highest 
 end of God in creation, providence, and redemption, it is the 
 end for which we should live and be willing to die. To substi- 
 tute any other end, as our own glory and advantage, is folly, 
 sin, and self-destruction, vs. 17, 22, 23. 
 
 8. The fact that God says to some men, "Let them alone;" 
 that "he gives them up to a reprobate mind;" that he with- 
 holds from them, in punishment of their sins, the influences of 
 his Spirit, should fill all the impenitent with alarm. It should 
 lead them to obey at once his voice, lest he swear in his wrath 
 that they shall never enter into his rest, vs. 17, 18. 
 
 9. We and all things else are in the hands of God. He 
 worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. The Lord 
 reigns, let the earth rejoice, vs. 14 24. 
 
 ROMANS IX. 2533. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THB conclusion at which the apostle had arrived in the pre- 
 ceding section, was, that God is at liberty to select the objects 
 of his mercy, indiscriminately, from among the Gentiles and 
 Jews. This conclusion he now confirms by the declarations of 
 the Old Testament, according to which it is clear, 1. That 
 those were to be included in the kingdom of God, who origi- 
 nally were considered as aliens, vs. 25, 26 ; and 2. That, as to 
 the Israelites, only a small portion should attain to the blessings 
 of the Messiah's reign, and of course, the mere being a Jew by 
 birth was no security of salvation, vs. 27 29. The inference
 
 ROMANS IX. 25. 513 
 
 from all this is, that the Gentiles are called, and the Jews, as 
 Jews, are rejected, vs. 30, 31. The reason of this rejection is 
 that they would not submit to the terms of salvatioa presented 
 in the gospel, ver. 32. As it had been long before predicted, 
 they rejected their Messiah, taking offence at him, seeing 
 in him no form or comeliness that they should desire him, 
 ver. 33. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 25. The first part of the general conclusion, contained 
 in the 24th verse, is, that the Gentiles are eligible to the bless- 
 ings of Christ's kingdom. This the apostle confirms by two 
 passages from the prophecies of Hosea, which express the 
 general sentiment, that those who, under the old economy, 
 were not regarded as the people of God, should hereafter 
 (i. e., under the Messiah) become his people. The first passage 
 cited is from Hosea ii. 23, which in our version is, " I will have- 
 mercy on her that had not obtained mercy ; and I will say to 
 them which were not my people, thou art my people." The- 
 Hebrew, however, admits of the rendering given by the apostle,, 
 as the word translated to have mercy may signify to love. The- 
 difficulty with regard to this passage is, that in Hosea it evi- 
 dently has reference not to the heathen, but to the ten tribes. 
 Whereas, Paul refers it to the Gentiles, as is also done by Peter y 
 1 Peter ii. 10. This difficulty is sometimes gotten over by 
 giving a different view of the apostle's object in the citation, 
 and making it refer to the restoration of the Jews. But this- 
 interpretation is obviously at variance with the context. It is 
 more satisfactory to say, that the ten tribes were in a heathen- 
 ish state, relapsed into idolatry, and, therefore, what was said 
 of them, is of course applicable to others in like circumstances, 
 or of like character. What amounts to much the same thing,, 
 the sentiment of the prophet is to be taken generally, ' those 
 who were excluded from the theocracy, who were regarded and 
 treated as aliens, were hereafter to be treated as the people of 
 God.' In this view, it is perfectly applicable to the apostle's, 
 object, which was to convince the Jews, that the blessings of 
 Christ's kingdom were not to be confined within the pale of the : 
 Old Testament economy, or limited to those who, in their' 
 33
 
 $14 ROMANS IX. 26, 27, 28. 
 
 external relations, were considered the people of God ; on the 
 contrary, those who, according to the rules of that economy, 
 were not the people of God, should hereafter become such. 
 This method of interpreting and applying Scripture is both 
 common and correct. A general truth, stated in reference to a 
 particular class of persons, is to be considered as intended to 
 apply to all those whose character and circumstances are the 
 same, though the form or words of the original enunciation may 
 not be applicable to all embraced within the scope of the general 
 sentiment. Thus what is said of one class of heathen, as such, 
 is applicable to all others, and what is said of one portion of 
 aliens from the Old Testament covenant, may properly be 
 referred to others. 
 
 VERSE 26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where 
 it was said to them, Ye are not my people, &c. This quotation 
 is more strictly conformed to the Hebrew than the preceding. 
 It is from Hosea i. 10. The sentiment is the same as before. 
 The combination of two or more disconnected passages in one 
 quotation, is not unusual in the New Testament, and was a 
 common practice with the Jewish Rabbins, who, as Surenhusius 
 says, Interdum plura loca sacrae Scripturae in unum contrahi 
 solent ad efficaeiorem rei demonstrationem. In the place where, 
 iv TM TOTtat oy, is by many understood of Palestine. The pro- 
 phet predicts the ten tribes should be restored, and that they 
 should be again recognised as part of the people of God in the 
 very place where they had been regarded as apostates and out- 
 casts. Others think that the apostle refers to the church, 
 in coetu Christianorum, ubi diu dubitatum est, an recte Gen- 
 tiles reciperentur, ibi appellabantur filii Dei. Fritzsche. Much 
 the most common and natural explanation is, that the reference 
 is indefinitely to the heathen world. Wherever, in every 
 place, where the people had been regarded as aliens, they 
 should be called the children of God. That is, those formerly 
 not his people, should become his people. 
 
 VERSES 27, 28. The second part of the apostle's conclusion, 
 ver. 24, is, that the Jews, as such, were not to be included in 
 the kingdom of Christ, which, of course, is implied in all those 
 predictions which speak of them as in general cut off and 
 tejected. Two such passages Paul quotes from Isaiah. The
 
 ROMANS IX. 27, 28. 515 
 
 first is from Isaiah x. 22, 23. Though the number of the chil- 
 dren of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be 
 saved, for he will finish the work and cut it short in righteous- 
 ness: because a short work will the Lord make in the earth. 
 This passage is nearer the LXX. translation than to the Hebrew. 
 The general sense is the same in both, and also in the apostle's 
 version, ' However numerous the children of Israel might be, 
 only a small portion of them should escape the judgments of 
 God.' This being the case, it is evident that the mere being a 
 Jew was never considered sufficient to secure the divine 
 favour. The portion of the prophecy contained in ver. 27 is 
 the principal point, ' Only a few of the Jews were to be saved.' 
 What is contained in ver. 28 is an amplification, or states the 
 converse of the preceding proposition. 'Most of the Jews 
 should be cut off.' The passage in Isaiah, therefore, is strictly 
 applicable to the apostle's object.* 
 
 Our version of ver. 28 is consistent with the original, f But 
 it may also be rendered, " He will execute and determine on 
 the judgment with righteousness, for a judgment determined on, 
 will the Lord execute in the earth." The word (/o^ov) ren- 
 dered work in our version, means properly a word, something 
 spoken, and may refer to a promise, or threatening, according to 
 the context. Here of course a threatening is intended; the 
 judgment threatened by the prophet in the context. The word 
 (ffyvre/aiy) rendered he will finish, means bringing to an end, 
 and here perhaps, executing at once, bringing to an end speedily. 
 And the term (ff'JvrsfjLvwv) translated cutting short, may mean 
 deciding upon. See Dan. ix. 24, " Seventy weeks are deter- 
 mined (auvs-jj.rj&rjffav) upon my people." But the ordinary 
 
 * Sed quia id de suo tempore vaticinatus est propheta ; videndum, quomodo 
 ad institutum suum Paulus rite accommodet. Sic autem debet: Quum Dominus 
 vellet e captivitate Babylonica populum suum liberare, ex immensa ilia multi- 
 tudine ad paucissimos modo liberationis suae beneficium pervenire voluit ; qui 
 excidii reliquiae merito dici possent prae numeroso illo populo quern in exi'.io 
 perire sinebat. Jam restitutio ilia carnalis veram ecclesiae Dei instaura- 
 tionem figuravit, quae in Christo peragitur, imo ejus duntaxat fuit exordium. 
 Quod ergo tune accidit, multo certius nunc adimpleri convenit in ipso libera- 
 tionis progressu et complemento. Calvin. 
 
 } Calvin translates it much in the same way, Sermonem enim consummans 
 et abbre\ians, quonian sermonem abbreviatum faciet Dominus in terra.
 
 516 ROMANS IX. 29. 
 
 sense of the word is in favour of our version, and so is the con- 
 text.* If it were allowable to take the same word in different 
 senses in the same passage, the verse might be rendered thus, 
 4 For he will execute the judgment, and accomplish it speedily, 
 for the judgment determined upon will the Lord execute in 
 the earth.' This same word is used in one of these senses, 
 Ban. ix. 24, and in the other in ver. 26 of the same chapter. 
 See, too, an analogous example in 1 Cor. iii. 17, "If any man 
 ((f&eipei) defile the temple of God, him will God (f #e/>e?) 
 destroy." Here the same word is rendered correctly, first 
 defile, and then destroy. We may, therefore, render the 
 last clause of the verse either as in our version, or as given 
 above. 
 
 VERSE 29. The second passage quoted by the apostle is from 
 Isa. i. 9, JExcept the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had 
 been as Sodom, been made like unto Gf-omorrah. The object of 
 this quotation is the same as that of the preceding, viz., to 
 show that being Israelites was not enough to secure either 
 exemption from divine judgments or the enjoyment of God's 
 favour. The passage is perfectly in point, for although the 
 prophet is speaking of the national judgments which the people 
 had brought upon themselves by their sins, and by which they 
 were well nigh cut off entirely, yet it was necessarily involved 
 in the destruction of the people for their idolatry and other 
 crimes, that they perished from the kingdom of God. Of 
 course the passage strictly proves what Paul designed to estab- 
 lish, viz., that the Jews, as Jews, were as much exposed to God's 
 judgments as others, and consequently could lay no special 
 claim to admission into the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Paul here again follows the Septuagint. The only difference, 
 however, is, that the Greek version has (ffxfyfjta) a seed, instead 
 of a remnant, as it is in the Hebrew. The sense is precisely 
 the same. The Hebrew word means that which remains; and 
 seed, as used in this passage, means the seed reserved 
 for sowing. The figure, therefore, is striking and beautiful. 
 Lord of Hosts is a frequent designation for the Supreme God 
 in the Old Testament. As the word host is used in reference 
 
 * See Koppe and Wttein for a satisfactory exhibition of the utut loquendi 
 as to this word.
 
 ROMANS IX. 30. 517 
 
 to any multitude arranged in order, as of men in an army, 
 of angels, of the stars, or of all the heavenly bodies, including 
 the sun and moon, so the expression Lord of hosts, may mean 
 Lord of ai'mies, Lord of angels, or Lord of heaven, or of the 
 universe as a marshalled host; see 1 Kings xxii. 19, "I saw 
 the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven 
 standing by him;" 2 Chron. xviii. 11, Ps. ciii. 21, Ps. cxlviii. 2, 
 "Praise ye him, all his angels, praise ye him, all his hosts." 
 In other passages, the reference is, with equal distinctness, 
 to the stars, Jer. xxxiii. 22, Deut. iv. 19, and frequently. It 
 is most probable, therefore, that God is called Lord of hosts 
 in reference to his Lordship over the whole heavens, and all 
 that they contain, Lord of hosts being equivalent to Lord of 
 the universe. 
 
 VERSE 30. R'aving proved that God was free to call the 
 Gentiles as well as the Jews into his kingdom, and that it had 
 been predicted that the great body of the Jews were to be 
 rejected, he comes now to state the immediate ground of this 
 rejection. What shall we say then? This may mean either, 
 * What is the inference from the preceding discussion ?' and the 
 answer follows, ' The conclusion is, the Gentiles are called and 
 the Jews rejected;' or, 'What shall we say, or object to the 
 fact that the Gentiles are accepted,' &c., &c. So Flatt and 
 others. But the former explanation is better suited to the 
 context, especially to ver. 32, and to the apostle's common use 
 of this expression ; see ver. 14, chap. vii. 7, viii. 31. 
 
 That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness* 
 have attained, &c. The inference is, that what to all human 
 probability was the most unlikely to occur, has actually taken 
 place. The Gentiles, sunk in carelessness and sin, have attain- 
 ed the favour of God, while the Jews, to whom religion was a 
 business, have utterly failed. Why is this? The reason is 
 given in ver. 32 ; it was because the Jews would not submit to 
 be saved on the terms which God proposed, but insisted on 
 reaching heaven in their own way. To follow after righteous- 
 ness, is to press forward towards it as towards the prize in a 
 race, Phil. iii. 14. Righteousness, dtxacoa'jvT], uniformly in 
 Paul's writings, means either an attribute, as when we ascribe 
 righteousness to God ; or, what constitutes righteousness, i. e.,
 
 518 ROMANS IX. 31. 
 
 that which satisfies the demands of justice or of the law, as 
 when God is said to impute righteousness. That is, he ascribes 
 to men, or sets to their account, that which constitutes them 
 righteous in the sight of the law. Sometimes, however, the 
 word includes by implication, the consequences of possessing 
 this righteousness. This is the case in this passage. Those 
 who sought after righteousness, sought to be regarded and 
 treated as righteous in the sight of God ; that is, they sought 
 after justification. This, however, does not imply that ocxaeua'Jvrj 
 signifies justification. It means righteousness, the possession of 
 which secures justification. Justification is a declarative act of 
 God ; righteousness is the ground on which that declaration is 
 made. 
 
 Even the righteousness which is of faith, i. e., even that 
 righteousness which is attained by faith. Throughout this 
 verse, the word righteousness, as expressing the sum of the di- 
 vine requisitions, that which fulfils the law retains its meaning. 
 'The Gentiles did not seek this righteousness, yet they attained 
 it ; not that righteousness which is of the law, but that which 
 is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by 
 faith,' Phil. iii. 9. They obtained that which satisfied the 
 demands of the law, and was acceptable in the sight of God. 
 
 VEKSE 31. What the Gentiles thus attained, the Jews 
 failed to secure. The former he had described as " not follow- 
 ing after righteousness ;" the latter he characterizes as those 
 TROQ follow after the law of righteousness. The expression law 
 of righteousness may be variously explained. Law may be 
 taken in its general sense of rule, as in chap. iii. 27, and else- 
 where. The meaning would then be, 'They followed after, 
 i. e., they attended diligently to, the rule which they thought 
 would lead to their attaining righteousness or being justified, 
 but they did not attain unto that rule which actually leads to 
 such results.' Law of righteousness is, then, norma juxta quara 
 Deus justificat. This is the interpretation of Calvin, Calovius, 
 Bcngel, and many others. Or, 2. The word law may be 
 redundant, and Paul may mean to say nothing more than that 
 'The Jews sought righteousness or justification, but did not 
 attain it.' This, no doubt, is the substance, though it may not 
 be the precise form of the thought. 3. Law of righteousness
 
 ROMANS IX. 32, 33. 519 
 
 is often understood here as equivalent to righteousness which is 
 of the law. This, however, is rather forced, and not very con- 
 sistent with the latter clause of the verse, "Have not attained 
 to the law of righteousness," which can hardly be so inter- 
 preted. Meyer, Tholuck, and others, take the phrase law of 
 righteousness in both parts of the verse in what they call an 
 ideal sense. The Jews strove to realize the justifying law, 
 i. e., to attain that standard which secured their justification. 
 It is more common to take the words as referring to the Mosaic 
 and moral law, as revealed in the Scriptures, in the former part 
 of the verse, and in the latter, the law of faith. 'The Jews 
 made the Mosaic law, (the law of works,) the object of their 
 zeal, as the means of attaining righteousness, and therefore did 
 not attain to that law (the law of faith, Rom. iii. 27,) which 
 really secures righteousness.' They were zealous to attain 
 righteousness, but failed. Why? The answer is given in the 
 next verse. 
 
 VERSE 32. Because they sought it not by faith, but, as it 
 were, by the works of the law. In other words, they would not 
 submit to the method of justification proposed by God, which 
 was alone suitable for sinners, and persisted in trusting to their 
 own imperfect works. The reason why one man believes and 
 is saved, rather than another, is to be sought in the sovereign 
 grace of God, according to Paul's doctrine in the preceding 
 part of this chapter, and chap. viii. 28, 2 Tim. i. 9, &c.; but 
 the ground of the rejection and condemnation of men is always 
 in themselves. The vessels of wrath which are destroyed, are 
 destroyed on account of their sins. No man, therefore, can 
 throw the blame of his perdition on any other than himself. 
 This verse, consequently, is very far from being inconsistent 
 with the doctrine of the divine sovereignty as taught above. 
 The force of the word rendered as it were, may be explained 
 by paraphrasing the clause thus, ' as though they supposed it 
 could be obtained by the works of the law.' See 2 Cor. iii. 5, 
 ii. 7, 'They sought it as (being] of the works of the law.' For 
 they stumbled at that stumbling-stone. That is, they did as it 
 had been predicted they would do, they took offence at the 
 Messiah and at the plan of salvation which he came to reveal. 
 
 VERSE 33. What it was they stumbled at, the apostle
 
 520 ROMANS IX. 33. 
 
 declares in this verse, and shows that the rejection of the 
 Messiah by the Jews was predicted in the Old Testament. 
 As it is written, Bi'hold, I lay in Zion a stumbling-stone, and a 
 rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be 
 ashamed. This passage is apparently made up of two, one 
 occurring in Isa. xxviii. 16, the other in Isa. viii. 14. In both 
 of these passages mention is made of a stone, but the predicates 
 of this stone, as given in the latter passage, are transferred to 
 the other, and those there mentioned omitted. This method of 
 quoting Scripture is common among all writers, especially where 
 the several passages quoted and merged into each other, refer 
 to the same subject. It is obvious that the writers of the NCTT 
 Testament are very free in their mode of quoting from the Old, 
 giving the sense, as they, being inspired by the same Spirit, 
 could do authoritatively, without binding themselves strictly to 
 the words. The former of the two passages here referred to 
 stands thus in our version, "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foun- 
 dation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure 
 foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste," which is 
 according to the Hebrew. The other passage, Isa. viii. 14, is, 
 "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling 
 and a rock of offence to both houses of Israel." 
 
 Isaiah xxviii. is a prophecy against those who had various 
 false grounds of confidence, and who desired a league with 
 Egypt as a defence against the attacks of the Assyrians. God 
 Bays, he has laid a much more secure foundation for his church 
 than any such confederacy, even a precious, tried corner stone ; 
 those who confided to it should never be confounded. The pro- 
 phets, constantly filled with the expectation of the Messiah, 
 and, in general, ignorant of the time of his advent, were accus- 
 tomed, on every threatened danger, to comfort the people by 
 the assurance that the efforts of their enemies could not pre- 
 vail, because the Messiah was to come. Until his advent, they 
 could not, as a people, be destroyed, and when he came, there 
 should be a glorious restoration of all things; see Isa. vii. 
 14 16, and elsewhere. There is, therefore, no force in the 
 objection, that the advent of Christ was an event too remote to 
 be available to the consolation of the people, when threatened 
 with the immediate invasion of their enemies. This passage
 
 ROMANS IX. 33. 521 
 
 is properly quoted by the apostle, because it was intended 
 originally to apply to Christ. The sacred writers of the 
 New Testament so understood and explain it ; see 1 Peter 
 ii. 6, Matt. xxi. 42, Acts iv. 11 ; compare also Ps. cxviii. 22, 
 1 Cor. iii. 11, Eph. k. 20, and other passages, in which Christ 
 is spoken of as the foundation or corner stone of his church. 
 The same interpretation of the passage was given by the 
 ancient Jews * 
 
 The other passage, Isa. via. 14, is of much the same charac- 
 ter. God exhorts the people not to be afraid of the combina- 
 tion between Syria and Ephraim. The Lord of hosts was to 
 be feared and trusted, he would be a refuge to those who con- 
 fided in him, but a stone of stumbling and rock of offence to all 
 others. This passage, too, as appears from a comparison of 
 the one previously cited with Ps. cxviii. 22, and the quotation 
 and application of them by the New Testament writers, refers 
 to Christ. What is said in the Old Testament of Jehovah, the 
 inspired penmen of the New do not hesitate to refer to the 
 Saviour; compare John xii. 41, Isa. vi. 1, Heb.. i. 10, 11, Ps. 
 cii. 25, 1 Cor. x. 9, Exod. xvii. 2, 7. When God, therefore, 
 declared that he should be a sanctuary to one class of the peo- 
 ple, and a rock of offence to another, he meant that he, in the 
 person of his Son, as the Immanuel, would thus be confided in 
 by some, but rejected and despised by others. The Avhole 
 spirit, opinions, and expectations of the Jews were adverse to 
 the person, character, and doctrines of the Redeemer. He 
 was, therefore, to them a stumbling-block, as he was to others 
 foolishness. They could not recognise him as their fondly 
 anticipated Messiah, nor consent to enter the kingdom of 
 heaven on the terms which he prescribed. In them, therefore, 
 were fulfilled the ancient prophecies, which spoke of their rejec- 
 tion of Christ, and consequent excision from the people of God. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Exclusion from the pale of any visible church does not of 
 itself imply that men are without the reach of divine mercy, 
 vs. 25, 26. 
 
 * Martini Pugio Fidei, Lib. II. cap. 5, p. 342, and the passages quoted by 
 Rosenmfiller and Qesenius on Isa. xxviii. 16.
 
 522 ROMANS IX. 2533. 
 
 2. As the world has hitherto existed, only a small portion of 
 the nominal members of the Church, or of the professors of the 
 true religion, has been the real people of God, vs. 27, 28, 29. 
 
 3. Error is often a greater obstacle to the salvation of men 
 than carelessness or vice. Christ said that publicans and har- 
 lots would enter the kingdom of God before the Pharisees. In 
 like manner the thoughtless and sensual Gentiles were more 
 susceptible of impression from the gospel, and were more fre- 
 quently converted to Christ, than the Jews, who were wedded 
 to erroneous views of the plan of salvation, vs. 30, 31. 
 
 4. Agreeably to the declarations of the previous portion of 
 this chapter, and the uniform tenor of Scripture, the ground of 
 the distinction between the saved and the lost, is to be found 
 not in men, but in God. He has mercy on whom he will have 
 mercy. But the ground of the condemnation of men is always 
 in themselves. That God gave his saving grace to more Gen- 
 tiles than Jews, in the early ages of the Church, must be refer- 
 red to his sovereign pleasure ; but that the Jews were cut off 
 and perished, is to be referred to their own unbelief. In like 
 manner, every sinner must look into his own heart and conduct 
 for the ground of his condemnation, and never to any secret 
 purpose of God, ver. 32. 
 
 5. Christ crucified has ever been either foolishness or an 
 offence to unrenewed men. Hence, right views of the Saviour's 
 character, and cordial approbation of the plan of salvation 
 through him, are characteristic of those "who are called;" 
 i. e., they are evidences of a renewed heart, ver. 33. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The consideration that God has extended to us, who were 
 not his people, all the privileges and blessings of his children, 
 should be a constant subject of gratitude, vs. 25, 26. 
 
 2. If only a remnant of the Jewish Church, God's own peo- 
 ple, were saved, how careful and solicitous should all professors 
 of religion be, that their faith and hope be well founded, vs. 
 2729. 
 
 3. Let no man think error in doctrine a slight practical evil. 
 No road to perdition has ever been more thronged than that of 
 false doctrine. Error is a shield over the conscience, and a 
 bandage over the eyes, vs. 30, 31.
 
 ROMANS X. 523 
 
 4. No form of error is more destructive than that which leads 
 to self-dependence ; either reliance on our own powers, or on our 
 own merit, ver. 32. 
 
 5. To criminate God, and excuse ourselves, is always an 
 evidence of ignorance and depravity, ver. 32. 
 
 6. Christ declared those blessed who were not offended at 
 him. If our hearts are right in the sight of God, Jesus Christ 
 is to us at once the object of supreme affection, and the sole 
 ground of confidence, ver. 33. 
 
 7. The gospel produced at first the same effects as those we 
 now witness. It had the same obstacles to surmount ; and it 
 was received or rejected by the same classes of men then as 
 now. Its history, therefore, is replete with practical instruc- 
 tion. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE object of this chapter, as of the preceding and of the 
 one which follows, is to set forth the truth in reference to the 
 rejection of the Jews as the peculiar people of God, and the 
 extension to all nations of the offers of salvation. The first 
 verses are again, as those at the beginning of chap, ix., intro- 
 ductory and conciliatory, setting forth the ground of the rejec- 
 tion of the Jews, vs. 1 4. The next section contains an 
 exhibition of the terms of salvation, designed to show that they 
 were as accessible to the Gentiles as the Jews, vs. 5 10. The 
 plan of salvation being adapted to all, and God being the God 
 of all, the gospel should be preached to all, vs. 11 17. The 
 truth here taught (the calling of the Gentiles, &c.,) was pre- 
 dicted clearly in the Old Testament, vs. 18 21. 
 
 EOMANS X. 110. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 WITH his usual tenderness, the apostle assures his brethren 
 of his solicitude for their welfare, and of his proper appreciation
 
 524 ROMANS X. 1, 2. 
 
 of their character, vs. 1, 2. The difficulty was, that they would 
 not submit to the plan of salvation proposed in the gospel, and, 
 therefore, they rejected the Saviour. This was the true ground 
 of their excision from the people of God, vs. 8, 4. The method 
 of justification, on which the Jews insisted, was legal, and from 
 its nature must be confined to themselves, or to those who 
 would consent to become Jews. Its terms, when properly 
 understood, were perfectly impracticable, ver. 5. But the 
 gospel method of salvation prescribes no such severe terms, it 
 simply requires cordial faith and open profession, vs. 6 10. 
 This, he shows, in the next verses, is the doctrine of the Scrip- 
 tures, and from it he infers the applicability of this plan to all 
 men, Gentiles as well as Jews. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to G-od for 
 Israel is, that they might be saved* As the truth which Paul 
 was to reiterate in the ears of the Jew was, of all others, to 
 them the most offensive, he endeavours to allay their enmity, 
 first, by assuring them of his affection, and secondly, by avoid- 
 ing all exaggeration in the statement of their case. The word 
 eudoxia means either good pleasure, sovereign purpose, Matt. xi. 
 26, Luke ii. 14, 2 Thess. i. 11, Eph. i. 5, 9, or benevolence, 
 kind feeling, or desire, as in Phil. i. 15. The latter sense best 
 suits this passage. Paul meant to assure his brethren accord- 
 ing to the flesh, that all his feelings towards them were kind, 
 and that he earnestly desired their salvation. He had no 
 pleasure in contemplating the evils which impended over them, 
 his earnest desire and prayer was (e/c tfWftflpfay) that they mtyht 
 be saved; literally to salvation, as expressing the end or object 
 towards which his wishes and prayers tend ; see chap. vi. 22, 
 Gal. iii. 17, and frequent examples elsewhere of this use of the 
 preposition ec- 
 
 VERSE 2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of 
 G-od. So far from desiring to exaggerate the evil of their con- 
 
 
 
 * Hinc videmus, quanta sollicitudine sanctus vir offensionibus obviarit. 
 Adhuo enim, ut temperet quicquid erat accerbitatis in exponenda Judaeorura 
 rejectione, suam, ut prius, erga eos benevolentiam testatur, et earn ab effectu 
 comprobat, quod sibi eorum salus curae esset coram Domino. Calvin.
 
 ROMANS X. 3. 525 
 
 duct, the apostle, as was his uniform manner, endeavoured to 
 bring every thing commendable and exculpatory fully into view. 
 The word for, has here its appropriate force, as it introduces 
 the ground or reason of the preceding declaration. ' I desire 
 their salvation, for they themselves are far from being uncon- 
 cerned as to divine things.' Zeal of Grod may mean very great 
 zeal, as cedars of Grod mean great cedars, according to a com- 
 mon Hebrew idiom; or zeal of which Grod is the object; the 
 latter explanation is to be preferred. John ii. 17, " The zeal 
 of thy house hath eaten me up." Acts xxi. 22, "Zealous of 
 the law." Acts xxii. 3, "Zealous of God." Gal. i. 14, &c., 
 &c. The Jews had great zeal about God, but it was wrong as 
 to its object, and of consequence wrong in its moral qualities. 
 Zeal, when rightly directed, however ardent, is humble and 
 amiable. When its object is evil, it is proud, censorious, and 
 cruel. Hence, the importance of its being properly guided, 
 not merely to prevent the waste of feeling and effort, but prin- 
 cipally to prevent its evil effects on ourselves and others. But 
 not according to knowledge. Commentators notice that Paul 
 uses the word Imfvcom^. The Jews had rv&au; (knowledge), 
 what they lacked was k^q-vcoa:^, correct knowledge and appre- 
 ciation. Their knowledge was neither enlightened nor wise; 
 neither right as to its objects, nor correct in its character. The 
 former idea is here principally intended. The Jews were zeal- 
 ous about their law, the traditions of their fathers, and the 
 establishment of their own merit. How naturally would a zeal 
 for such objects make men place religion in the observance of 
 external rites ; and be connected with pride, censoriousness, and 
 a persecuting spirit. In so far, however, as this zeal was a zeal 
 about God, it was preferable to indifference, and is, therefore, 
 mentioned by the apostle with qualified commendation. 
 
 VEKSE 3. For they being ignorant of Grod's righteousness, 
 and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not, 
 &c. The grand mistake of the Jews was about the method 
 of justification. Ignorance on this point implied ignorance of 
 the character of God, of the requirements of the law, and of 
 themselves. It was, therefore, and is, and must ever continue 
 to be a vital point. Those who err essentially here, err fatally ; 
 and those who are right here, cannot be wrong as to other
 
 526 ROMANS X. 3. 
 
 necessary truths. Their own righteousness, rqv tdlav dtxato- 
 ffuvyv, which Theophylact correctly interprets, rr t v l Zfifiov lotto* 
 xal noviov xarop&oo[jLsvr^. The phrase righteousness of God, 
 admits here, as in other parts of the epistle, of various inter- 
 pretations. 1. It may mean the divine holiness or general 
 moral perfection of God. In this way the passage would mean, 
 
 * Being ignorant of the perfection or holiness of God, and, of 
 course, of the extent of his demands, and going about to estab- 
 lish their own excellence, &c.' This gives a good sense, but it 
 is not consistent with the use of the expression righteousness of 
 God, in other similar passages, as chap. i. 17, iii. 21, &c. And, 
 secondly, it requires the phrase to be taken in two different 
 senses in the same verse; for the last clause, 'Have not sub 
 mitted themselves to the righteousness of God,' cannot mean, 
 
 * They have not submitted to the divine holiness.' 2. The term 
 may mean that righteousness of which God is the author, that 
 which he approves and accepts. This interpretation is, in this 
 case, peculiarly appropriate, from the opposition of the two 
 expressions, righteousness of God and their own righteousness. 
 i Being ignorant of that righteousness which God has provided, 
 and which he bestows, and endeavouring to establish their own, 
 they refused to accept of his.' The sense here is perfectly 
 good, and the interpretation may be carried through the verse, 
 being applicable to the last clause as well as to the others. A 
 comparison of this passage with Phil. iii. 9, "Not having my 
 own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God," is 
 also in favour of this interpretation. For there the phrase 
 the righteousness which is of God, can only mean that which he 
 gives, and with this phrase the expression the righteousness 
 of God, in this verse, seems to be synonymous.* 3. Thirdly, 
 Some interpreters take righteousness in the sense of justifica- 
 tion, "justification of God" being taken as equivalent to 
 ' God's method of justification.' 'Being ignorant of God's 
 method of justification, and going about to establish "their 
 
 * Judaei habuere et habent zelum sine scientia, DOS contra, proh dolor, 
 scientiam sine zelo. Flaciut, quoted by Bengel. Melina est vel claudicare in 
 via, quam extra viam strenue currere, ut ait Augustinus. Si religiosi esse 
 volumus, meminerimus verum esse, quod Lactantius docet, earn demum veram 
 esse religionem quae conjuncta est cum Deiverbo. Calvin.
 
 ROMANS X. 4. 527 
 
 own, they have not submitted themselves to the method which 
 he has proposed.' The cause of the rejection of the Jews was 
 their rejection of the method of salvation through a crucified 
 Redeemer, and their persisting in confiding in their own merits 
 and advantages as the ground of their acceptance with God. 
 Although this is the meaning of the passage, it is not the sense 
 of the words. Righteousness does not signify justification. It 
 is that on which the sentence of justification is founded. Those 
 who have righteousness, either personal and inherent, or 
 imputed, are justified. As we have no righteousness of our 
 own, nothing that we have done or experienced, nothing per- 
 sonal or subjective, that can answer the demands of the law, we 
 can be justified only through the righteousness of God, imputed 
 to us and received by faith. 
 
 VERSE 4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness 
 to every one that believeth. The precise connection of this verse 
 with the preceding, depends on the view taken of its meaning. 
 The general import of the passage is sufficiently obvious, but its 
 exact sense is not so easy to determine, on account of the am- 
 biguity of the word (TS).OZ) translated end. The word may 
 signify, 1. The object to which any thing leads. Christ is, in 
 this sense, the end of the law, inasmuch as the law was a 
 schoolmaster to lead us to him, Gal. iii. 24; and as all its types 
 and prophecies pointed to him, " They were a shadow of things 
 to come, but the body is of Christ," Col. ii. 17, Heb. ix. 9. 
 The meaning and connection of the passage would then be, 
 ' The Jews erred in seeking justification from the law, for the 
 law was designed, not to afford justification, but to lead them to 
 Christ, in order that they might be justified.' To Christ all 
 its portions tended, he was the object of its types and the 
 subject of its predictions, and its precepts and penalty urge the 
 soul to him as the only refuge. So Calvin, Bengel, and the 
 majority of commentators.* 
 
 * Indicat legis praeposterum interpretem esse, qui per ejus opera justifi- 
 cari quaerit, quoniam in hoc lex data est, quo nos ad aliam justitiam 
 manu duceret. Imo quicquid doceat lex, quicquid praecipiat, quicquid pro- 
 mittat semper Christum habet pro scopo; ergo in ipsum dirigendae suntomnes 
 partes. Calvin. 
 
 Lex hominem urget, donee is ad Christum confugit* Turn ipsa dicit: asylum 
 u nactus, desino tepersegui, tapis, salvus es. Bengel.
 
 528 ROMANS X. 4. 
 
 2. The word may be taken in the sense of completion or 
 fulfilment. Then Christ is the end of the law, because he 
 fulfils all its requisitions, all its types and ceremonies, and 
 satisfies its preceptive and penal demands. See Matt. v. 17, 
 " Think not I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I 
 am not come to destroy, but to fulfil;" and Rom. viii. 4. The 
 philological ground for this interpretation is slight. 1. Tim. 
 i. 5, is compared with Rom. xiii. 10, in order to prove that the 
 word (rs/oc) here translated end, is equivalent to the word 
 (jtAyptofia) which is there (Rom. xiii. 10) rendered fulfilling. 
 The sense, according to this interpretation, is scriptural, but is 
 not consistent with the meaning of the word. 
 
 3. We may take the word in its more ordinary sense of end 
 or termination, and understand it metonymically for he who 
 terminates or puts an end to. The meaning and connection 
 would then be, 'The Jews mistake the true method of justifica- 
 tion, because they seek it from the law, whereas Christ has 
 abolished the law, in order that all who believe may be justified.' 
 Compare Eph. ii. 15, "Having abolished in his flesh the 
 enmity, even the law of commandments;" Col. ii. 4, "Blotting 
 out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, &c," 
 Gal. iii. 10, 12, Rom. vi. 14, vii. 4, 6, and the general drift of 
 the former part of the epistle. In sense, this interpretation 
 amounts the same with the preceding, though it differs from it 
 in form. Christ has abolished the law, not by destroying, but 
 by fulfilling it. He has abolished the law as a rule of justifica- 
 tion, or covenant of works, and the whole Mosaic economy 
 having met its completion in him, has by him been brought to 
 an end. In Luke xvi. 16, it is said, " The law and the prophets 
 were until John;" then, in one sense, they ceased, or came to 
 an end. When Christ came, the old legal system was abolished, 
 and a new era commenced. The same idea is presented in 
 Gal. iii. 23, "Before faith came we were kept under the law," 
 but when Christ appeared, declaring, " Believe and thou shalt be 
 saved," we were no longer und erthat bondage. The doctrine is 
 clearly taught in Scripture, that those who are out of Christ 
 are under the law, subject to its demands and exposed to its 
 penalty. His coming and work have put an end to its authority, 
 we are no longer under the law, but under grace, Rom. vi. 14 ;
 
 ROMANS X. 6. 529 
 
 we are no longer under the system which says, Do this, and 
 live ; but under that which says, Believe, and thou shalt be 
 saved. This abrogation of the law, however, is not by setting 
 it aside, but by fulfilling its demands. It is because Christ is 
 the fulfiller of the law, that he is the end of it. It is the latter 
 truth which the apostle here asserts. The word law is obvi- 
 ously here used in its prevalent sense throughout this epistle, 
 for the whole rule of duty prescribed to man, including for the 
 Jews the whole of the Mosaic institutions. That law is 
 intended which has been fulfilled, satisfied, or abrogated by 
 Jesus Christ. For righteousness to every one that believeth. 
 The general meaning of this clause, in this connection, is, ' So 
 that, or, in order that, every believer may be justified;' Christ 
 has abolished the law, <Va 3ixata>&7j /rac 6 Ttiarsbfov kn auryj, in 
 in order that every believer may attain righteousness, which is 
 unattainable by the law. The law is abolished by Christ, not 
 as a rule of life, but as a covenant prescribing the condition 
 of life. The way in which this idea is arrived at, however, may 
 be variously explained. 1. The preposition (slz) rendered for r 
 may be rendered as to, as it relates to. ' Christ is the end of 
 the law, as it relates to righteousness.' 2. It may be under- 
 stood of the effect or result, and be resolved into the verbal 
 construction with that, or so that; 'Christ is the end, &c., that- 
 righteousness is to every believer ; or so that every believer is- 
 justified.' 3. It may point out the end or object. 'Christ 
 has abolished the law in order that everyone that believes, &c.' 
 The last is the correct explanation. The Jews, then, did net- 
 submit to the righteousness of God, that is, to the righteous- 
 ness which he had provided, for they did not submit to Christ, 
 who is the end of the law. He has abolished the law, in order 
 that every one that believes may be justified. 
 
 VERSE 5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is ef 
 the law. That is, concerning the righteousness which is of 
 the law, Moses thus writes. In the last clause of the pre- 
 ceding verse it was clearly intimated that faith was the con- 
 dition of salvation under the gospel. ' To every one, without 
 distinction, that believeth, is justification secured.' On this 
 the apostle connects his description and contrast of the two- 
 methods of justification, the one by works and the other b^ 
 34
 
 530 ROMANS X. 6, 7. 
 
 i 
 
 faith, with the design of showing that the former is in its 
 nature impracticable, while the other is reasonable and easy, 
 and adapted to all classes of men, Jews and Gentiles, and 
 should therefore be offered to all. 
 
 The righteousness which is of the law. The word righteous- 
 ness has here its common and proper meaning. It is that 
 which constitutes a man righteous, which meets the demands 
 of the law, or satisfies the claims of justice. The man who is 
 righteous, or who possesses righteousness, cannot be condemned. 
 The apostle in his whole argument proceeds on the assumption 
 that God is just ; that he does and must demand righteousness 
 in those whom he justifies. There are but two possible ways in 
 which this righteousness can be obtained by works, or by 
 faith. We must either have a righteousness of our own, or 
 receive and trust in a righteousness which is not our own, but 
 which has been wrought out for us, and presented to us, as the 
 ground of our acceptance with God. The quotation is from 
 Lev. xviii. 5, " The man that doeth those things shall live by 
 them." Those things are the things prescribed in the law. It 
 is the clear doctrine of the Scriptures, that obedience to the 
 law, to secure justification, must be perfect. For it is said, 
 " Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written 
 in the book of the law to do them;" and, he that oiFendeth in 
 one point, is guilty of all. It is not necessary that a man who 
 commits murder should also steal, in order to bring him under 
 the penalty of the law. The legal system, then, which 
 demanded obedience, required perfect obedience. Those, and 
 those only, who were thus free from sin, should live, i. e., shall 
 enjoy that life which belongs to him as a rational and immortal 
 being. It is a life which includes the whole man, soul and 
 body, and the whole course of his existence, in this world and 
 in that which is to come. Zr^asrat ex mente Judaeorum inter- 
 pretatur de vita aeterna, ut Targum, Levit. xviii. 4. The 
 Jewish writers also well remark, that Moses says, Qui fecerit 
 ea homo; non dicitur, Sacerdos, Levita, Israelita, sed homo; ut 
 discas, etiam gentilem, si proselytus fiat, et det legi operam, 
 intelligi. See Wetstein. 
 
 VERSES 6, 7. But the righteousness which is of faith speak- 
 eth on this wise, Say not, &c. Moses says one thing; the
 
 ROMANS X. 6, 7. 531 
 
 righteousness of faith says another thing, The same kind of 
 personification occurs in Gal. iii. 23, 25. The phrase righteous- 
 ness of faith, or as it is here, which is of faith, admits of differ- 
 ent interpretations, if we limit ourselves to the mere force of 
 the words. Righteousness of faith, may mean that righteous- 
 ness which consists in faith; or, which flows from faith, (i. e., 
 that inward excellence which faith produces) ; or, the righteous- 
 ness which is received by faith. This last is the only interpre- 
 tation consistent with the context, or with the analogy of 
 Scripture. The righteousness which consists in faith, or which 
 flows from faith, is our own righteousness. It is as true and 
 properly our own as any righteousness of works on which 
 Pharisees relied. Besides, it is the whole doctrine of the 
 apostle and of the gospel, that it is Christ's righteousness, his 
 obedience, blood, or death, which is the ground of our accept- 
 ance with God, and which it receives and rests upon. 
 
 It is clearly implied in that verse that the attainment of 
 justification, by a method which prescribed perfect obedience, 
 is for sinful men impossible. It is the object of this and the 
 succeeding verses, to declare that the gospel requires no such 
 impossibilities ; it neither requires us to scale the heavens, nor 
 to fathom the great abyss ; it demands only cordial faith and 
 open profession. In expressing these ideas the apostle skilfully 
 avails himself of the language of Moses, Deut. xxx. 10 14. It 
 is clear that the expressions used by the ancient lawgiver were 
 a familiar mode of saying that a thing could not be done. The 
 passage referred to is the following, " For this command which 
 I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is 
 it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who 
 shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may 
 hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou 
 shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it 
 unto us, that we may hear it, and do it ? But the word is very 
 nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou may- 
 est do it." The obvious import of this passage is, that the 
 knowledge of the will of God had been made perfectly accessi- 
 ble, no one was required to do what was impossible ; neither to 
 ascend to heaven, nor to pass the boundless sea, in order to 
 attain it; it was neither hidden, nor afar off, but obvious and
 
 532 ROMANS X. 6, 7. 
 
 at hand. Without directly citing this passage, Paul uses nearly 
 the same language to express the same idea. The expressions 
 here used seem to have become proverbial among the Jews. 
 To be "high," or "afar off," was to be unattainable; Ps. 
 cxxxix. 6, Prov. xxiv. 7. "To ascend to heaven," or "to go 
 down to hell," was to do what was impossible, Amos ix. 2, Ps. 
 cxxxix. 8, 9. As the sea was to the ancients impassable, it is 
 easy to understand how the question, ' Who can pass over the 
 sea?' was tantamount to 'Who can ascend up into heaven?' 
 Among the later Jews the same mode of expressions not unfre- 
 quently occur. Bava Mezia, f. 94, 1. Si quis dixerit mulieri, 
 si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris 
 milii desponsata, haec conditio frustranea est. Wetstein. 
 
 Instead of using the expression, 'Who shall go over the sea 
 for us?' Paul uses the equivalent phrase, 'Who shall descend 
 into the deep?' as more pertinent to his object. The word 
 (dfoffffov) rendered deep, is the same which elsewhere is render- 
 ed abyss, and properly means, without bottom, bottomless, and, 
 therefore, is often applied to the sea as fathomless, Gen. i. 2, 
 vii. 11 (in the Septuagint), and also to the great cavern beneath 
 the earth, which, in the figurative language of the Scriptures, 
 is spoken of as the abode of the dead, and which is often 
 opposed to heaven. Job xxviii. 24, " The abyss says it is not 
 in me;" compare the enumeration of things in heaven, things 
 in earth, and things under the earth, in Phil. ii. 10, and else- 
 where ; see also Gen. xlix. 25, God " shall bless thee with the 
 blessings of heaven above, blessings of the abyss which lieth 
 under." In the New Testament, with the exception of this 
 passage, it is always used for the abode of fallen spirits and 
 lost souls, Luke viii. 31, Rev. xvii. 8, xx. 1, and frequently in 
 that book, where it is appropriately rendered the bottomless pit. 
 The expression is, therefore, equivalent to that which is com- 
 monly rendered hell in our version. Psalm cxxxix. 8, " If I 
 make my bed in hell." Amos x. 2, "Though they dig into 
 hell," &c., and was no doubt chosen by the apostle, as more 
 suitable to the reference to the resurrection of Christ, with 
 which he meant to connect it, than the expression used by 
 Moses in the same general sense, "Who shall pass over the 
 sea?"
 
 ROMANS X. 6, T. 533 
 
 Paul connects each of the questions, virtually borrowed from 
 the Old Testament, with a comment designed to apply them 
 more directly to the point which he had in view. Say not, Who 
 shall ascend into heaven % that is, to bring Christ down, &c. 
 The precise intent of these comments, however, may be differ- 
 ently understood. 1. The words that is, may be taken as 
 equivalent to namely, or to wit, and the apostle's comment be 
 connected, as an explanatory substitute, with the questions, 
 1 Say not who shall ascend into heaven ? to wit, to bring Christ 
 down ; or who shall descend into the deep ? to bring him up 
 again from the dead. The sense would then be, ' The plan of 
 salvation by faith does not require us to do what cannot be 
 done, and which is now unnecessary ; it does not require us to 
 provide a Saviour, to bring him from heaven, or to raise him 
 from the dead ; a Saviour has been provided, and we are now 
 only required to believe, &c.' 2. The words that is, may be 
 taken as equivalent to the fuller expression, that is to say, 'To 
 ask who shall ascend into heaven?' is as much as to ask, Who 
 shall bring Christ down from above ? And to ask, ' Who shall 
 descend into the deep ? is as much as to ask, who shall bring 
 Christ again from the dead?' The comments of the apostle 
 may, therefore, be regarded as a reproof of the want of faith 
 implied in such questions, and the passage may be thus under- 
 stood, Do not reject the gospel. Say not in thy heart that 
 no one can ascend to heaven, as the gospel says Christ has 
 done; and no man can descend into the abyss and thence 
 return, as is said of Christ. The incarnation of the Son of 
 God, and his ascension to heaven, are not impossibilities, which 
 would justify unbelief. The doctrines of the gospel are plain 
 and simple. 
 
 Instead of regarding the apostle as intending to state gener- 
 ally the nature of the method of justification by faith, many 
 suppose that it is his object to encourage and support a 
 desponding and anxious inquirer. ' Do not despairingly inquire 
 who shall point out the way of life? No one, either from 
 heaven or from the deep, will come to teach me the way. 
 Speak not thus, for Christ has come from heaven, and arisen 
 from the dead for your salvation, and no other Saviour is
 
 534 ROMANS X. 6, 7. 
 
 required.'* But this view does not seem to harmonize with the 
 spirit of the context. 
 
 It has been questioned whether Paul meant, in this passage, 
 merely to allude to the language of Moses in Deut. xxx. 10 14, 
 or whether he is to be understood as quoting it in such a 
 manner as to imply that the ancient prophet was describing the 
 method of justification by faith. This latter view is taken by 
 Calvin, De Brais, and many others. They suppose that in the 
 passage quoted in the 5th verse from Levit. xviii. 5, Moses 
 describes the legal method of justification, but that here he has 
 reference to salvation by faith. This is, no doubt, possible. 
 For in Deut. xxx. 10, &c., the context shows that the passage 
 may be understood of the whole system of instruction given by 
 Moses ; a system which included in it, under its various types 
 and prophecies, an exhibition of the true method of salvation. 
 Moses, therefore, might say with regard to his own law, that it 
 set before the people the way of eternal life, that they had now 
 no need to inquire who should procure this knowledge for 
 them from a distance, for it was near them, even in their hearts 
 and in their mouths. But, on the other hand, it is very clear 
 that this interpretation is by no means necessary. Paul does 
 not say, ' Moses describes the righteousness which is of faith 
 in this wise,' as immediately above he had said of the righteous- 
 ness which is of the law. There is nothing in the language of 
 the apostle to require us to understand him as quoting Moses 
 in proof of his own doctrine. It is, indeed, more in accordance 
 with the spirit of the passage, to consider him as merely 
 expressing his own ideas in scriptural language, as in ver. 19 
 of this chapter, and frequently elsewhere. 'Moses teaches us 
 that the legal method of justification requires perfect obedience; 
 but the righteousness which is by faith, requires no such impos- 
 sibility, it demands only cordial faith and open profession. 
 The modern interpreters who understand the apostle as 
 quoting the language of Moses to prove the true nature of the 
 gospel, differ among themselves. Meyer and most other advo- 
 cates of this view of the context, assume that Paul departs 
 entirely from the historical meaning of the original text, and 
 
 * See Knapp's Diatribe in Locum Rom. x. 4 11, c.. p. 543 of his Script* 
 Varii Argumenti.
 
 KOMANS X. 8. 535 
 
 gives it a sense foreign to the intention of the sacred writer. 
 Others, as Olshausen, suppose him to give its true spiritual 
 sense. The passage in Deuteronomy is, in this view, strictly 
 Messianic. It describes, in contrast with the inexorable 
 demand of obedience made by the law, the spiritual power of 
 the future dispensation. All this, however, requires unneces- 
 sary violence done both to the passage in Deuteronomy and to 
 the language of the apostle. In this very chapter, ver. 18, we 
 have another clear example of Paul's mode of expressing his 
 own ideas in the language of the Scriptures. This is done 
 without hesitation by every preacher of the gospel. The 
 apostle, therefore, is not to be understood as saying, Moses 
 describes the righteousness of the law in one way, and the 
 righteousness of faith in another way ; but he contrasts what 
 Moses says of the law with what the gospel says. 
 
 According to the interpretation given above, it is assumed 
 the design of this passage is to present the simplicity and suita- 
 bleness of the gospel method of salvation, which requires only 
 faith and confession, in opposition to the strict demands of the 
 law, which it is as impossible for us to satisfy as it is to scale 
 the heavens. According to the other view, mentioned abcu r e, 
 the design of the apostle was to rebuke the unbelief of the 
 Jews. They were not to regard the resurrection and ascension 
 of Christ as impossible. But the whole context shows that the 
 purpose of the apostle is to contrast the legal and the gospel 
 method of salvation to show that the one is impracticable, the 
 the other easy. By works of the law no flesh living 'can be 
 justified; whereas, whosoever simply calls on the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved. 
 
 VERSE 8. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even 
 in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which 
 we preach. As the expressions to be hidden, to be far off, 
 imply that the thing to which they refer is inaccessible or diffi- 
 cult, so to be near, to be in the mouth and in the heart, mean to 
 be accessible, easy, and familiar. They are frequently thus 
 used; see Joshua i. 8, "This law shall not depart out of thy 
 mouth," i. e., it shall be constantly familiar to thee; Exod. 
 xiii. 9, "That the law maybe in thy mouth;" Ps. xxxvii. 31, 
 xl. 8. The meaning of this passage then is, 'The gospel,
 
 536 ROMANS X. 9. 
 
 instead of directing us to ascend into heaven, or to go down 
 to the abyss, tells us the thing required is simple and easy. 
 Believe with thy heart and thou shalt be saved.' The word is 
 nigh thee, i. e., the doctrine or truth contemplated, and by im- 
 plication, what that doctrine demands. Paul, therefore, repre- 
 sents the gospel as speaking of itself. The method of justifi- 
 cation by faith says, * The word is near thee, in thy mouth, i. e., 
 the word or doctrine of faith is thus easy and familiar.' This 
 is Paul's own explanation. The expression word of faith, may 
 mean the word or doctrine concerning faith, or the word to 
 which faith is due, which should be believed. In either 
 case, it is the gospel, or doctrine of justification, which is here 
 intended. 
 
 VERSE 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord 
 Jesus, &c. The connection of this verse with the preceding 
 may be explained by making the last clause of ver. 8 a paren- 
 thesis, and connecting this immediately with the first clause. 
 'It says, the word is nigh thee; it says, that if thou shalt 
 confess and believe, thou shalt be saved.' According to thia 
 view, this verse is still a part of what the gospel is represented 
 as saying. Perhaps, however, it is better to consider this verse 
 as Paul's own language, and an explanation of the "word of 
 faith" just spoken of. * The thing is near and easy, to wit, the 
 word of faith which we preach, that if thou wilt confess, ic." 
 The two requisites for salvation mentioned in this verse aro 
 confession and faith. They are mentioned in their natural 
 order ; as confession is the fruit and external evidence of faith. 
 So in 2 Peter i. 13, calling is placed before election, because 
 the former is the evidence of the latter. The thing to be con* 
 fessed is that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is, we must openly 
 recognise his authority to the full extent in which he is Lord ; 
 acknowledge that he is exalted above all principality and 
 powers, that angels are made subject to him, that all power in 
 heaven and earth is committed unto him , and of course that 
 he is our Lord. This confession, therefore, includes in it an 
 acknowledgment of Christ's universal sovereignty, and a 
 sincere recognition of his authority over us. To confess Christ 
 as Lord, is to acknowledge him as the Messiah, recognised as 
 such of God, and invested with all the power and prerogatives
 
 ROMANS X. 10* 53T 
 
 of the Mediatorial throne. This acknowledgment is conse- 
 quently often put for a recognition of Christ in all his offices. 
 1 Cor. xii. 3, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but 
 by the Holy Ghost." Phil. ii. 11, "Every tongue shall confess 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord." 'To preach the Lord Jesus,' or 
 'that Jesus is the Lord," Acts xi. 20, is to preach him as the 
 Saviour in all his fulness. Rom. xiv. 9, "For to this end 
 Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord 
 both of the dead and of the living." The necessity of a public 
 confession of Christ unto salvation is frequently asserted in the 
 Scriptures. Matt. x. 32, " Whosoever, therefore, shall confess 
 me before men, him will I confess also before my Father 
 which is in heaven." Luke xii. 8, 1 John iv. 15, "Whosoever 
 shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in 
 him, and he in God." 
 
 The second requisite is faith. The truth to be believed is 
 that God hath raised Christ from the dead. That is, we must 
 believe that by the resurrection of Christ, God has publicly 
 acknowledged him to be all that he claimed to be, and has 
 publicly accepted of all that he came to perform. He has 
 recognised him as his Son and the Saviour of the world, and 
 has accepted of his blood as a sacrifice for sin. See Rom. 
 iv. 25, i. 4, Acts xiii. 32, 33, 1 Peter i. 35, 1 Cor. xv. 14, 
 et seq. Acts xvii. 31, "Whereof he hath given assurance unto 
 all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. To 
 believe, therefore, that God has raised Christ from the dead, 
 involves the belief that Christ is all that he claimed to be, 
 and that he has accomplished all that he came to perform. 
 In thy heart. Faith is very far from being a merely specula- 
 tive exercise. When moral or religious truth is its object, it is 
 always attended by the exercise of the affections. The word 
 heart, however, is not to be taken in its limited sense, for the 
 seat of the affections. It means the whole soul, or inner man. 
 Confession is an outward act, faith is an act of the mind in the 
 wide sense of that word. It includes the understanding and 
 the affections. Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent, 
 but a cordial receiving and resting on Christ alone for sal- 
 vation. 
 
 VERSE 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteous-
 
 538 ROMANS X. 110. 
 
 ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 
 This is the reason why faith and confession are alone necessary 
 unto salvation ; because he who believes with the heart is justi- 
 fied, and he who openly confesses Christ shall be saved. That 
 is, such is the doctrine of Scripture, as the apostle proves in the 
 subsequent verse. Here, as in the passages referred to above, 
 in which confession is connected with salvation, it is evident 
 that it must be not only open but sincere. It is not a mere 
 saying, Lord, Lord, but a cordial acknowledgment of him, 
 before men, as our Lord and Redeemer. Unto righteousness, 
 i. e., so that we may become righteous. The word righteousness 
 has two senses, answering" to the two aspects of sin, guilt and 
 moral depravity. According to the former sense, it is that 
 which satisfies justice; in the latter, it is conformity to the 
 precepts of the law. A man, therefore, may be righteous and 
 yet unholy. Were this not so, there could be no salvation for 
 sinners. If God cannot justify, or, pronounce righteous, the 
 ungodly, how could we be justified ? Here, as generally, where 
 the subject of justification is discussed in the Bible, righteous- 
 ness has its forensic, as distinguished from its moral, sense. 
 And when Paul says, "With the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness," he expresses the relation of faith, not to our 
 sanctification, but to justification. Unto salvation is equiva- 
 lent to saying 'that we may be saved.' The preposition ren- 
 dered unto, expressing here the effect or result. Acts x. 4, 
 Heb. vi. 8. By faith we secure an interest in the righteousness 
 of Christ, and by confessing him before men, we secure the per- 
 formance of his promise that he will confess us before the angels 
 of God. Caeterum viderint quid respondeant Paulo, qui nobis 
 hodie imaginariam quandam fidem fastuose jactant, quae secreto 
 cordis contenta, confessione oris, veluti re supervacanea et inani, 
 supersedeat. Nimis enim nugatorium est, asserere ignem esse, 
 ubi nihil sit flammae neque caloris. Calvin. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Zeal, to be either acceptable to God or useful to men, must 
 not only be right as to its ultimate, but also as to its immediate 
 objects. It must not only be about God, but about the things 
 which are well pleasing in his sight. The Pharisees, and other
 
 ROMANS X. 110. 589 
 
 early Jewish persecutors of Christians, really thought they were 
 doing God service when they were so exceedingly zealous for 
 the traditions of their fathers. The moral character of their 
 zeal and its effects were determined by the immediate objects 
 towards which it was directed, ver. 2. 
 
 2. The doctrine of justification, or methdd of securing the 
 pardon of sin and acceptance with God, is the cardinal doctrine 
 in the religion of sinners. The main point is, whether the 
 ground of pardon and acceptance be in ourselves or in another, 
 whether the righteousness on which we depend be of ourselves 
 or of God, ver. 3. 
 
 3. Ignorance of the divine character and requirements is at 
 the foundation of all ill-directed efforts for the attainment of 
 salvation, and of all false hopes of heaven, ver. 3. 
 
 4. The first and immediate duty of the sinner is to submit to 
 the righteousness of God ; to renounce all dependence on his 
 own merit, and cordially to embrace the offers of reconciliation 
 proposed in the gospel, ver. 3. 
 
 5. Unbelief, or the refusal to submit to God's plan of salva- 
 tion, is the immediate ground of the condemnation or rejection 
 of those who perish under the sound of the gospel, ver. 3. 
 
 6. Christ is every thing in the religion of the true believer. 
 He fulfils, and by fulfilling abolishes the law, by whose demands 
 the sinner was weighed down in despair ; and his merit secures 
 the justification of every one that confides in him, ver. 4. 
 
 7. Christ is the end of the law, whether moral or ceremo- 
 nial. To him both, as a schoolmaster, lead. In him all their 
 demands are satisfied, and all their types and shadows are 
 answered, ver. 4.* 
 
 8. The legal method of justification is, for sinners, as 
 impracticable as climbing up into heaven or going down into 
 the abyss, vs. 5 7. 
 
 9. The demands of the gospel are both simple and intelligi- 
 ble. The sincere acceptance of the proffered righteousness of 
 God, and the open acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord, 
 vs. 69. 
 
 10. The public profession of religion or confession of Christ 
 is an indispensable duty. That is, in order to salvation, we 
 must not only secretly believe, but also openly acknowledge
 
 540 ROMANS X. 110. 
 
 that Jesus is our prophet, priest, and king. Though faith and 
 confession are both necessary, they are not necessary on the 
 same grounds, nor to the same degree. The former is necessary 
 as a means to an end, as without faith we can have no part in 
 the justifying righteousness of Christ ; the latter as a duty, the 
 performance of which circumstances may render impracticable. 
 In like manner Christ declares baptism, as the appointed means 
 of confession, to be necessary, Mark xvi. 1C ; not, however, as 
 a sine qua won, but as a command, the obligation of which pro- 
 vidential dispensations may remove, as in the case of the thief 
 on the cross, ver. 9. 
 
 11. Faith is not the mere 1 assent of the mind to the truth of 
 certain propositions. It is a cordial persuasion of the truth, 
 founded on the experience of its power or the spiritual percep- 
 tion of its nature, and on the divine testimony. Faith is, there- 
 fore, a moral exercise. Men believe with the heart, in the 
 ordinary scriptural meaning of that word. And no faith, which 
 does not proceed from the heart, is connected with justification, 
 ver. 10. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. If we really desire the salvation of men, we shall pray for 
 it, ver. 1. 
 
 2. No practical mistake is more common or more dangerous 
 than to suppose that all zeal about God and religion is neces- 
 sarily a godly zeal. Some of the very worst forms of human 
 character have been exhibited by men zealous for God and his 
 service; as, for example, the persecutors both in the Jewish 
 and Christian churches. Zeal should be according to know- 
 ledge, i. e., directed towards proper objects. Its true charac- 
 ter is easily ascertained by noticing its effects, whether it 
 produces self-righteousness or humility, censoriousness or char- 
 ity; whether it leads to self-denial or to self-gratulation and 
 praise; and whether it manifests itself in prayer and effort, or 
 in loud talking and boasting, ver. 2. 
 
 3. We should be very careful what doctrines we hold and 
 teach on the subject of justification. He who is wrong here, 
 ruins his own soul; and if he teaches any other than the 
 scriptural method of justification, he ruins the souls of others, 
 ver. 3.
 
 ROMANS X. 1121. 541 
 
 4. A sinner Is never safe, do what else he may, until he has 
 submitted to God's method of justification. 
 
 5. As every thing in the Bible leads us to Christ, we should 
 suspect every doctrine, system, or theory which has a contrary 
 tendency. That view of religion cannot be correct which does 
 not make Christ the most prominent object, ver. 4. 
 
 6. How obvious and infatuated is the folly of the multitude 
 in every age, country, and church, who, in one form or 
 another, are endeavouring to work out a righteousness of their 
 own, instead of submitting to the righteousness of God. They 
 are endeavouring to climb up to heaven, or to descend into the 
 abyss, vs. 5 7. 
 
 7. The conduct of unbelievers is perfectly inexcusable, who 
 reject the simple, easy, and gracious offers of the gospel, which 
 requires only faith and confession, vs. 8 9. 
 
 8. Those who are ashamed or afraid to acknowledge Christ 
 before men, cannot expect to be saved. The want of courage 
 to confess, is decisive evidence of the want of heart to believe, 
 vs. 9, 10. 
 
 ROMANS X. 1121. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE object of the apostle in the preceding comparison and 
 contrast of the two methods of justification, was to show that 
 the gospel method was, from its nature, adapted to all men; 
 and that if suited to all it should be preached to all. In 
 ver. 11 the quotation from the Old Testament proves two 
 points. 1. That faith is the condition of acceptance; and 
 2. That it matters not whether the individual be a Jew or 
 Gentile, if he only believes. For there is really no difference, 
 as to this point, between the two classes ; God is equally gra- 
 cipus to both, as is proved by the express declarations of 
 Scripture, vs. 12, 13. If, then, the method of salvation be 
 thus adapted to all, and God is equally the God of the Gen- 
 tiles and of the 'Jews, then, to accomplish his purpose, the 
 gospel must be preached to all men, because faith cometh by 
 hearing, ver. 14 17. Both the fact of the extension of the
 
 542 ROMANS X. 11, 12. 
 
 gospel to the Gentiles, and the disobedience of the great part 
 of the Jews, were clearly predicted in the writings of the Old 
 Testament, vs. 18 21. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 11. For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on 
 him shall not be ashamed. This passage is cited in support of 
 the doctrine just taught, that faith alone is necessary to salva- 
 tion. There are clearly two points established by the quota- 
 tion ; the first is, the universal applicability of this method of 
 salvation ; WHOSOEVER, whether Jew or Gentile, believes, &c. ; 
 and the second is, that it is faith which is the means of securing 
 the divine favour; whosoever BELIEVES on him shall not be 
 ashamed. The passage, therefore, is peculiarly adapted to the 
 apostle's object; which was not merely to exhibit the true 
 nature of the plan of redemption, but mainly to show the 
 propriety of its extension to the Gentiles. The passage 
 quoted is Isa. xxviii. 16, referred to at the close of the pre- 
 ceding chapter. We must not only believe Christ, but believe 
 upon him. The language of Paul is, ;raf 6 T.IOTWWV Ix airaJ, 
 HiffTtbsiv m TCVC, to trust upon any one. That is, it expresses 
 confiding reliance on its object. It is all important' to know 
 what the Bible teaches, both as to the object and nature of 
 saving faith. That object is Christ, and saving faith is trust. 
 He is so complete a Saviour as to be able to save all who come 
 unto God by him ; and therefore whosoever believeth on him 
 shall not be ashamed. Hoc monosyllabon, says Bengel, Traf 
 (omnis), toto mundo pretiosus, propositum, ver. 11, ita repetitur, 
 ver. 12 et 13, et ita confirmatur ulterius, vs. 14, 15, ut non 
 modo significet, quicumque invocaret, salvum fore; sed, Deum 
 velle, se invocari ab omnibus salutariter. 
 
 VERSE 12. For there is no difference between the Jew and 
 the Greek, &c. This verse is evidently connected logically 
 with the whosoever of ver. 12, 'Whosoever believes shall be 
 saved, for there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile.' 
 That is, there is no difference in their relation to the law or to 
 God. They are alike sinners, and are to be judged by pre- 
 cisely the same principles, (see chap. iii. 22); and conse- 
 quently, if saved at all, are to be saved in precisely the same
 
 ROMANS X. 12. 543 
 
 way. For the same Lord over all, is rich unto all who call upon 
 him. This is the reason why there is no difference between the 
 two classes. Their relation to God is the same. They are 
 equally his creatures, and his mercy towards them is the same. 
 It is doubtful whether this clause is to be understood of Christ 
 or of God. If the latter, the general meaning is what has just 
 been stated. If the former, then the design is to declare that 
 the same Saviour is ready and able to save all. In favour of 
 this latter, which is perhaps the most common view of the 
 passage, it may be urged that Christ is the person referred to 
 in the preceding verse; and secondly, that he is so commonly 
 called Lord in the New Testament. But, on the other hand, 
 the Lord in the next verse refers to God; and secondly, we 
 have the same sentiment, in the same general connection, in 
 chap. iii. 29, 30, " Is he the God of the Jews only ? &c. It is 
 the same God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and 
 the uncircumcision through faith." The same Lord over all, 
 in this connection, means 'one and the same Lord is over all.' 
 All are equally under his dominion, and may, therefore, 
 equally hope in his mercy. As good reasons may be assigned 
 for both interpretations, commentators are nearly equally 
 divided on the question whether the immediate reference be to 
 Christ or to God. Doctrinally, it matters little which view be 
 preferred. Faith in God is faith in Christ, for Christ is God. 
 This is the great truth to be acknowledged. The condition of 
 salvation, under the gospel, is the invocation of Christ as God. 
 The analogy of Scripture, therefore, as well as the context, is 
 in favour of the immediate reference of x'jpcoz to Christ. The 
 words is rich, may be either a concise expression for is rich in 
 mercy, or they may mean is abundant in resources. He is suf- 
 ficiently rich to supply the wants of all ; whosoever, therefore, 
 believes in him shall be saved. 
 
 Unto all who call upon him, i. e., who invoke him, or 
 worship him, agreeably to the frequent use of the phrase in the 
 Old and New Testament, Gen. iv. 26, xii. 8, Isa. Ixiv. 6, Acts 
 ii. 21, ix. 14, xxii. 16, 1 Cor i. 2, 2 Tim. ii. 22. This religious 
 invocation of God implied, of course, the exercise of faith in 
 him ; and, therefore, it amounts to the same thing whether it is 
 said, 'Whosoever believes/ or, ' Whosoever calls on the name
 
 544 ROMANS X. 13. 
 
 of the Lord, shall be saved. This being the case, the passage 
 quoted from Joel, in the next verse, is equivalent to that cited 
 from Isaiah, in verse 11. The meaning, then, of this verse is, 
 * That God has proposed the same terms of salvation to all men, 
 Jews and Gentiles, because he is equally the God of both, and 
 his mercy is free and sufficient for all.' 
 
 VERSE 13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved. As this verse is not introduced by the 
 usual form of quotation from the Old Testament, as it is written, 
 or as the Scripture, or the prophet saith, it is not absolutely 
 necessary to consider it as a direct citation, intended as an 
 argument from Scripture, (compare ver. 11.) Yet, as the 
 passage is in itself so pertinent, it is probable that the apostle 
 intended to confirm his declaration, that the mercy of God 
 should be extended to every one who called upon him, by 
 showing that the ancient prophets had held the same language. 
 The prophet Joel, after predicting the dreadful calamities which 
 were about to come upon the people, foretold, in the usual 
 manner of the ancient messengers of God, that subsequent to 
 those judgments should come a time of great and general 
 blessedness. This happy period was ever characterized as one 
 in which true religion should prevail, and the stream of divine 
 truth and love, no longer confined to the narrow channel of the 
 Jewish people, should overflow all nations. Thus Joel says, 
 " It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit 
 upon all flesh, &c., and whosoever shall call upon the name 
 of the Lord shall be delivered," Joel ii. 28, 32. WHOSOEVER, 
 therefore, betakes himself to God as his refuge, and calls upon 
 him, in the exercise of faith, as his God, shall be saved, whether 
 Gentile or Jew, (see 1 Cor. i. 2.) The prophecy in Joel has 
 direct reference to the Messianic period, and therefore the Lord, 
 who was to be invoked, who was to be looked to, and be called 
 upon for salvation, is the Messiah. All, whosoever, without 
 any limitation as to family or nation, who call on him, shall be 
 saved. This is Paul's doctrine, and the doctrine, with one 
 accord, of all the holy men who spake of old, as the Spirit gave 
 them utterance. This being the case, how utterly preposterous 
 and wicked the attempt to confine the offers of salvation to the 
 Jewish people, or to question the necessity of the extension of
 
 EOMANS X. 14, 15. 
 
 the gospel through the whole world. Thus naturally and beau- 
 tifully does the apostle pass from the nature of the plan of 
 mercy, and its suitableness to all men, to the subject princi- 
 pally in view, the calling of the Gentiles, or the duty of 
 preaching the gospel to all people. 
 
 VERSES 14, 15. How then shall they call on him in whom 
 they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of 
 whom they have not heard? &c., &c. Paul considered it as 
 involved in what he had already said, and especially in the 
 predictions of the ancient prophets, that it was the will of God 
 that all men should call upon him. This being the case, he 
 argues to prove that it was his will that the gospel should be 
 preached to all. As invocation implies faith, as faith implies 
 knowledge, knowledge instruction, and instruction an instructor, 
 so it is plain that if God would have all men to call upon him, 
 he designed preachers to be sent to all, whose proclamation of 
 mercy being heard, might be believed, and being believed, 
 might lead men to call on him and be saved. This is agreeable 
 to the prediction of Isaiah, who foretold that the advent of 
 the preachers of the gospel should be hailed with great and 
 universal joy. According to this, which is the common and 
 most natural view of the passage, it is an argument founded on 
 the principle, that if God wills the end, he wills also the means ; 
 if he would have the Gentiles saved, according to the predic- 
 tions of his prophets, he would have the gospel preached to 
 them. " Qui vult finem, vult etiam media. Deus vult ut homines 
 invocent ipsum salutariter. Ergo vult ut credant. Ergo vult 
 ut audiant. Ergo vult ut habeant praedicatores. Itaque prae- 
 dicatores misit." Bengel. Calvin's view of the object of the 
 passage is the same, but his idea of the nature of the argument 
 is very different. He supposes the apostle to reason thus* 
 The Gentiles actually call upon God; but invocation implies 
 faith, faith hearing, hearing preaching, and preaching a divine 
 mission. If, therefore, the Gentiles have actually received and 
 obeyed the gospel, it is proof enough that God designed it to 
 be sent to them. This interpretation is ingenious, and affords a 
 good sense ; but it is founded on an assumption which the Jew 
 would be slow to admit, that the Gentile was an acceptable 
 worshipper of God. If he admitted this, he admitted everj 
 35
 
 546 ROMANS X. 15, 16. 
 
 thing and the argument becomes unnecessary. According to 
 Be Wette, Meyer, and others, the design of the apostle is to 
 show the necessity of divine messengers in order to ground 
 thereon a reproof of disobedience to that message. The whole 
 context, however, shows, that he is not here assigning the 
 reasons for the rejection of the Jews, but vindicating the pro- 
 priety of preaching to the Gentiles. God had predicted that 
 the Gentiles should be saved ; he had provided a method of sal- 
 vation adapted to all men; he had declared that whosoever 
 called upon the name of the Lord should be saved ; from which 
 it follows, that it is his will that they should hear of him whom 
 they were required to invoke. 
 
 VERSE 15. As it is written, How beautiful are the feet 
 of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tiding* 
 of good things. The word here rendered preach the gospel, 
 is the same as that immediately afterwards translated, bring 
 glad tidings. The word gospel, therefore, must be taken in 
 its original meaning, good news, the good news of peace. The 
 passage in Isa. lii. 7, which the apostle faithfully, as to the 
 meaning, follows, has reference to the Messiah's kingdom. 
 It is one of those numerous prophetic declarations, which 
 announce in general terms the coming deliverance of the 
 Church, a deliverance which embraced, at the first stage of 
 its accomplishment, the restoration from the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity. This, however, so far from being the blessing princi- 
 pally intended, derived all its value from being introductory 
 to that more glorious deliverance to be effected by the 
 Redeemer. How beautiful the feet, of course means, how 
 delightful the approach. The bearing of this passage on the 
 object of the apostle is sufficiently obvious. He had proved 
 that the gospel should be preached to all men, and refers 
 to the declaration of the ancient prophet, which spoke of the 
 joy with which the advent of the messengers of mercy should 
 be hailed. 
 
 VERSE 16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel, for Isaiah 
 taith, Lord, who hath believed our report ? This verse may be 
 viewed as an objection to the apostle's doctrine, confirmed by 
 the quotation of a passage from Isaiah. 'You say the gospel 
 ought to be preached to all men, but if God hud intended
 
 ROMANS X. 17. 547 
 
 that it should be preached to them, they would obey it ; which 
 they have not done.' This view of the passage would have 
 some plausibility if Calvin's representation of Paul's argument 
 were correct. Did the apostle reason from the fact that the 
 Gentiles believed that it was God's intention they should have 
 the gospel preached to them, it would be very natural to object, 
 that as only a few have obeyed, it was evidently not designed 
 for them. But even on the supposition of the correctness of 
 this view of the argument, this interpretation of ver. 16 is 
 barely possible, for the quotation from Isaiah cannot be under- 
 stood otherwise than as the language of the apostle, or as 
 intended to confirm what he himself had said. There is no 
 necessity for the assumption that this verse is the language of 
 an objection. Paul had said that the preaching of the gospel 
 to all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, was according to the will 
 of God. This is true although (dM.d) all have not obeyed. 
 This disobedience was foreseen and predicted, for Isaiah saith, 
 Lord, who hath believed our report? The complaint of the 
 prophet was not confined to the men of his generation. It had 
 reference mainly to the general rejection of the gospel, especi- 
 ally by the theocratical people. Christ came to his own, and 
 his own received him not. And this was predicted of old. Our 
 report, or message. The word is dxor}, literally the faculty or 
 act of hearing; then, metonymically, what is heard, i. e., a 
 message, preaching, or teaching. The message of the prophet 
 concerning the servant of the Lord, and what he was to do and 
 suffer for his people, as recorded in Isa. liii., it was predicted 
 would be believed by the great majority of those to whom it 
 was addressed. 
 
 VERSE 17. So then faith (cometh) by hearing, and hearing 
 by the word of God. The passage in Isaiah speaks of an dxoy, 
 a message, something addressed to the ear. The design of that 
 message was that men should believe. They were required to 
 receive and rest upon it as true. Without it, there could be 
 no ground of faith ; nothing on which faith could rest. There- 
 fore faith is from hearing. It is receiving the message as true. 
 But this message is by the word or command of God. It is 
 therefore a sure foundation of faith. And as all men are 
 required to believe, the message should be sent to all, and the
 
 548 ROMANS X. 18. 
 
 divine command on -which it rests, must include an injunction 
 to make the proclamation universal. Thus the two ideas pre- 
 sented in the context, viz., the necessity of knowledge to faith, 
 and the purpose of God to extend that knowledge to the Gen- 
 tiles, are both confirmed in this verse. The above is the common 
 interpretation of this passage. It assumes that pr^a Beou is to 
 be taken in the sense of command of God, whereas it commonly 
 means the word or message of God. If this sense be retained 
 here, then dxor t must mean the act of hearing. * Faith cometh 
 by hearing, and hearing supposes something to be heard, a 
 pr t [ia, or word of God.' In Luke v. 5, Heb. xi. 3, (compare 
 Heb. i. 3,) pr^a 6sou means God's (or the Lord's) command. 
 There is no necessity, therefore, for giving &xor} a different 
 sense here from that which it must have in the preceding 
 verse. 
 
 VERSE 18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes, verily, 
 their sound went into all the earth, &c. The concise and abrupt 
 manner of argument and expression in this and the verses 
 which precede and follow, renders the apostle's meaning some- 
 what doubtful. This verse is frequently considered as referring 
 to the Jews, and designed to show that their want of faith could 
 not be excused on the ground of want of knowledge. The sense 
 of the passage would then be, 'As faith cometh by hearing, 
 have not the Jews heard ? Have they not had the opportunity 
 of believing ? Yes, indeed, for the gospel has been proclaimed 
 far and wide.' So Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi, &c. 
 But there are several objections to this view of the passage. 
 In the first place, it is not in harmony with the context. 
 Paul is not speaking now of the rejection of the Jews, or the 
 grounds of it, but of the calling of the Gentiles. 2. If the 
 16th verse refers to the Gentiles, " They have not all obeyed 
 the gospel," and therefore this verse, "Have they not heard?" 
 cannot, without any intimation of change, be naturally referred 
 to a different subject. 3. In the following verse, where the 
 Jews are really intended, they are distinctly mentioned, "Did 
 not Israel know?" 
 
 Paul's object in the whole context is to vindicate the pro- 
 priety of extending the gospel call to all nations. This he had 
 beautifully done in vs. 14, 15, by showing that preaching was
 
 ROMANS X. 18. 549 
 
 a necessary means of accomplishing the clearly revealed will of 
 God, that men of all nations should participate in his grace. 
 ' True, indeed, as had been foretold, the merciful offers of the 
 gospel were not universally accepted, ver. 16, but still faith 
 cometh by hearing, and therefore the gospel should be widely 
 preached, ver. 17. Well, has not this been done? has not the 
 angel of mercy broke loose from his long confinement within 
 the pale of the Jewish Church, and flown through the heavens 
 with the proclamation of love?' ver. 18. This verse, therefore, 
 is to be considered as a strong declaration that what Paul had 
 proved ought to be done, had in fact been accomplished. The 
 middle wall of partition had been broken down, the gospel of 
 salvation, the religion of God, was free from its trammels, the 
 offers of mercy were as wide and general as the proclamation 
 of the heavens. This idea the apostle beautifully and appo- 
 sitely expresses in the sublime language of Psalm xix., "The 
 heavens declare the glory of God, day unto day uttereth speech, 
 there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard, 
 their line is gone through all the earth, and their words to the 
 end of the world." The last verse contains the words used by 
 the apostle. His object in using the words of the Psalmist was, 
 no doubt, to convey more clearly and affectingly to the minds 
 of his hearers the idea that the proclamation of the gospel was 
 now as free from all national or ecclesiastical restrictions, as 
 the instructions shed down upon all people by the heavens 
 under which they dwell. Paul, of course, is not to be under- 
 stood as quoting the Psalmist as though the ancient prophet 
 was speaking of the preaching of the gospel. He simply uses 
 scriptural language to express his own ideas, as is done involun- 
 tarily almost by every preacher in every sermon.* It is, how- 
 ever, nevertheless true, as Hengstenberg remarks in his Christ- 
 ology, that " The universal revelation of God in nature, was a 
 
 * Calvin's view of this passage is peculiar Quaerit, an Deus nunquam ante 
 gentes vocem suam direxit, et doctoris officio functus sit erga totum mundum. 
 Accipio igitur ejus citationem in proprio et germano prophetae sensu, ut tale 
 eit argumentum: Deus jam ab initio nmndi suam gentibus divinitatcm mani- 
 festaret, et si non hominum praedicatione, creaturarum tamen suarum testi- 
 monio. Apparet ergo, Dominum etiam pro eo tempore, quo foederis sui gra- 
 tiam in Israele continebat, non tamen ita sui notitiam gentibus subduxisss, 
 quin aliquam semper illis scintillam aceenderet.
 
 550 ROMANS X. 19. 
 
 providential prediction of the universal proclamation of the 
 gospel. If the former was not fortuitous, but founded in the 
 nature of God, so must the latter be. The manifestation of God 
 hi nature, is, for all his creatures to whom it is made, a pledge 
 of their participation in the clearer and higher revelations." 
 
 It will be perceived that the apostle says, " Their sound ha3 
 gone, &c.," whereas in the 19th Psalm it is, '"Their line is 
 gone." Paul follows the Septuagint, which, instead of giving 
 the literal sense of the Hebrew word, gives correctly its figura- 
 tive meaning. The word signifies a line, then a musical chord, 
 and then, metonymically, sound. 
 
 VERSE 19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses 
 saith, I will provoke you to jealousy, &c. Another passage 
 difficult from its conciseness. The difficulty is to ascertain 
 what the question refers to. Did not Israel know what ? The 
 gospel ? or, The calling of the Gentiles and their own rejection ? 
 The latter seems, for two reasons, the decidedly preferable 
 interpretation. 1. The question is most naturally understood 
 as referring to the main subject under discussion, which is, as 
 frequently remarked, the calling of the Gentiles and rejection 
 of the Jews. 2. The question is explained by the quotations 
 which follow. ' Does not Israel know what Moses and Isaiah 
 so plainly teach?' viz., that a people who were no people, 
 should be preferred to Israel; while the latter were to be 
 regarded as disobedient and gainsaying. According to the 
 other interpretation, the meaning of the apostle is, ' Does not 
 Israel know the gospel? Have not the people of God been 
 instructed? If, therefore, as was predicted, they are super* 
 seded by the heathen, it must be their own fault.' Calvin 
 thinks there is an evident contrast between this and the pre- 
 ceding verse. * If even the heathen have had some knowledge 
 of God, how is it with Israel, the favoured people of God? &c.' 
 But this whole interpretation, as intimated above, is incon- 
 sistent with the drift of the context, and the spirit of the 
 passages quoted from the Old Testament. 
 
 First Moses says, I will provoke you to jealousy by them 
 that are no people, &c. The word first seems evidently to be 
 used in reference to Isaiah, who is quoted afterward, and should 
 not be connected, as it is by many, with Israel. ' Did not
 
 ROMANS X. 20, 21. 551 
 
 Israel first learn the gospel? &c.' So Storr, Flatt, &c. Better 
 in the ordinary way, 'First Moses, and then Isaiah, say, &c.' 
 The passage quoted from Moses is Deut. xxxii. 21. In that 
 chapter the sacred writer recounts the mercies of God, and the 
 ingratitude and rebellion of the people. In ver. 21 he warns 
 them, that as they had provoked him to jealousy by that which 
 is not God, he would provoke them to jealousy by them that 
 are no people. That is, as they forsook him and made choice 
 of another god, so he would reject them and make choice of 
 another people. The passage, therefore, plainly enough inti- 
 mates that the Jews were in no such sense the people of God, 
 as to interfere with their being cast off and others called. 
 
 VERSES 20, 21. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, &c. 
 That is, according to a very common Hebrew construction, 
 in which one verb qualifies another adverbially, gaith very 
 plainly or openly. Plain as the passage in Deuteronomy is, 
 it is not so clear and pointed as that now referred to, Isaiah 
 Ixv. 1, 2. 
 
 Paul follows the Septuagint version of the passage, merely 
 transposing the clauses. The sense is accurately expressed. 
 'I am sought of them that asked not for me, I am found of them 
 that sought me not,' is the literal version of the Hebrew, as 
 given in our translation. The apostle quotes and applies the 
 passage in the sense in which it is to be interpreted in the 
 ancient prophet. In the first verse of that chapter Isaiah says, 
 that God will manifest himself to those "who were not called 
 by his name;" and in the second, he gives the immediate 
 reason of this turning unto the Gentiles, " I have stretched out 
 my hand all the day to a rebellious people." This quotation, 
 therefore, confirms both the great doctrines taught in this 
 chapter; the Jews were no longer the exclusive or peculiar 
 people of God, and the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom were 
 thrown wide open to all mankind. With regard to Israel, the 
 language of God is peculiarly strong and tender. All day long 
 I have stretched forth my hands. The stretching forth the 
 hands is the gesture of invitation, and even supplication. God 
 has extended wide his arms, and jirged men frequently and 
 long to return to his love ; and it is only those who refuse, 
 that he finally rejects.
 
 552 ROMANS X. 11 21. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Christianity is, from its nature, adapted to be an universal 
 religion. There is nothing, as was the case with Judaism, 
 which binds it to a particular location, or confines it to a par- 
 ticular people. All its duties may be performed, and all its 
 blessings enjoyed, in every part of the world, and by every 
 nation under heaven, vs. 11 13. 
 
 2. The relation of men to God, and his to them, is not 
 determined by any national or ecclesiastical connection. He 
 deals with all, on the same general principles, and is ready to 
 save all who call upon him, ver. 12. 
 
 3. WHOSOEVER will, may take of the water of life. The 
 essential conditions of salvation have in every age been the 
 same. Even under the Old Testament dispensation, God 
 accepted all who sincerely invoked his name, ver. 13. 
 
 4. The preaching of the gospel is the great means of salva- 
 tion, and it is the will of God that it should be extended to all 
 people, vs. 14, 15. 
 
 5. As invocation implies faith, and faith requires knowledge, 
 and knowledge instruction, and instruction teachers, and 
 teachers a mission, it is evident not only that God wills that 
 teachers should be sent to all those whom he is willing to save, 
 when they call upon him, but that all parts of this divinely 
 connected chain of causes and effects are necessary to the end 
 proposed, viz., the salvation of men. It is, therefore, as 
 incumbent on those who have the power, to send the gospel 
 abroad, as it is on those to whom it is sent, to receive it, 
 vs. 14, 15. 
 
 6. As the rudiments of the tree are in the seed, so all the 
 elements of the New Testament doctrines are in the Old. The 
 Christian dispensation is the explanation, fulfilment, and de- 
 velopement of the Jewish, vs. 11, 13, 15. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. Christians should breathe the spirit of an universal religion. 
 A religion which regards aU men as brethren, which looks on 
 God, not as the God of this nation, or of that church, but as 
 the God and Father of all, which proposes to all the same con-
 
 ROMANS X. 10, 1121. 553 
 
 ditions of acceptance, and which opens equally to all the same 
 boundless and unsearchable blessings, vs. 11 13. 
 
 2. It must be very offensive to God, who looks on all men 
 with equal favour, (except as moral conduct makes a difference,) 
 to observe how one class of mortals looks down upon another, 
 on account of some merely adventitious difference of rank, 
 colour, external circumstances, or social or ecclesiastical con- 
 nection, ver. 12. 
 
 3. How will the remembrance of the simplicity and reasona- 
 bleness of the plan of salvation, and the readiness of God to 
 accept of all who call upon him, overwhelm those who perish 
 from beneath the sound of the gospel ! ver. 13. 
 
 4. It is the first and most pressing duty of the church to 
 cause all men to hear the gospel. The solemn question, implied 
 in the language of the apostle, How CAN THEY BELIEVE WITH- 
 OUT A PREACHER ? should sound day and night in the ears of the 
 churches, vs. 14, 15. 
 
 5. "How can they preach except they be sent?" The 
 failure of the whole must result from the failure of any one of 
 the parts of the system of means. How long, alas ! has the 
 failure been in the very first step. Preachers have not been 
 sent, and if not sent, how could men hear, believe, or call upon 
 God? vs. 14, 15. 
 
 6. If "faith comes by hearing," how great is the value of a 
 stated ministry ! How obvious the duty to establish, sustain, 
 and attend upon it ! ver. 17. 
 
 7. The gospel's want of success, or the fact that few believe 
 our report, is only a reason for its wider extension. The more 
 who hear, the more will be saved, even should it be but a small 
 proportion of the whole, ver. 16. 
 
 8. How delightful will be the time when literally the sound 
 of the gospel shall be as extensively diffused as the declaration 
 which the heavens, in their circuit, make of the glory of God ! 
 ver. 18. 
 
 9. The blessings of a covenant relation to God are the un- 
 alienable right of no people and of no church, but can be pre- 
 served only by fidelity on the part of men to the covenant 
 itself, ver. 19. 
 
 10. God is often found by those who apparently are the
 
 654 ROMANS XI. 
 
 farthest from him, while he remains undiscovered by those who 
 think themselves always in his presence, ver. 20. 
 
 11. God's dealings, even with reprobate sinners, are full of 
 tenderness and compassion. All the day long he extends the 
 arms of his mercy, even to the disobedient and the gainsaying. 
 This will be felt and acknowledged at last by all who perish, to 
 the glory of God's forbearance, and to their own confusion and 
 self-condemnation, ver. 21. 
 
 12. Communities and individuals should beware how they 
 slight the mercies of God, and especially how they turn a deaf 
 ear to the invitations of the gospel. For when the blessings 
 of a church relation have once been withdrawn from a people, 
 they are long in being restored. Witness the Jewish and the 
 fallen Christian churches. And when God ceases to urge 
 on the disobedient sinner the offers of mercy, his destiny is 
 sealed, v. 21. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THIS chapter consists of two parts^ vs. 1 10, and 11 36. 
 In the former the apostle teaches that the rejection of the Jews 
 was not total. There was a remnant, and perhaps a much 
 larger remnant than many might suppose, excepted, although 
 the mass of the nation, agreeably to the predictions of the 
 prophets, was cast off, vs. 1 10. In the latter, he shows that 
 this rejection is not final. In the first place, the restoration of 
 the Jews ia a desirable and probable event, vs. 11 24. In the 
 second, it is one which God has determined to bring to pass, 
 vs. 25 32. The chapter closes with a sublime declaration of 
 the unsearchable wisdom of God, manifested in all his dealings 
 with men, vs. 33 36. In the consideration of the great doc- 
 trinal truths taught in this chapter, Paul intersperses many 
 practical remarks, designed to give these truths their proper 
 influence both on the Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter.
 
 ROMANS XI. 110. 555 
 
 ROMANS XI. 110. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE rejection of the Jews is not total, as is sufficiently mani- 
 fest from the example of the apostle himself, to say nothing of 
 others, ver. 1. God had reserved a remnant faithful to hin> 
 self, as was the case in the times of Elias, vs. 2 4. That this 
 remnant is saved, is a matter entirely of grace, vs. 5, 6. The 
 real truth of the case is, that Israel, as a nation, is excluded 
 from the kingdom of Christ, hut the chosen ones are admitted 
 to its blessings, ver. 7. This rejection of the greater part of 
 the Jews, their own Scriptures had predicted, vs. 8 10. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. I say, then, hEfto oov, I ask, then, i. e., Is it to be 
 inferred from what I have said, that God hath rejected his 
 people ? When we consider how many promises are made to 
 the Jewish nation, as God's peculiar people ; and how often it 
 is said, as in Psalm xciv. 14, " The Lord will not ' cast off his 
 people," it is not surprising that the doctrine of the rejection 
 of the Jews, as taught in the preceding chapters, was regarded 
 as inconsistent with the word of God. Paul removes this diffi- 
 culty, first by showing that the rejection of the Jews was 
 neither total nor final ; and secondly, by proving that the 
 promises in question had reference, not to the Jewish nation as 
 such, but to the elect, or, the spiritual Israel. The word 
 d-TtoMja-co stands at the beginning of the sentence, to show that 
 it is emphatic. Has God utterly (i. e., totally and finally) 
 rejected his people ? This Paul denies. He had not asserted 
 any thing of the kind. The rejection of the Jews as a nation, 
 was consistent with all that God had promised to their fathers. 
 Those promises did not secure the salvation of all Jews, or 
 of the Jews as a nation. And the doctrine which he had 
 inculcated did not involve the rejection of all Jews. In proof, 
 he adds, For I also am an Israelite. Paul had not taught hia 
 own rejection. The fact that he claimed for himself, and for
 
 556 ROMANS XL 2. 
 
 all who with him believed on Christ, a part in the Messiah's 
 kingdom, made it clear that he did not teach the rejection of 
 all Israel. De Wette, and Meyer, in opposition to almost 
 common consent, give a different view of the apostle's language. 
 They understand him as repudiating the idea of the univer- 
 sal rejection of the Jews, as inconsistent with his patriotic 
 feeling. For I also am an Israelite. How can a Jew believe 
 that God has cast off his people ? But the context is clearly in 
 favour of the common interpretation. The apostle goes on to 
 show that a general apostacy did not involve an entire rejec- 
 tion. The nation, as a nation, had before turned to idols, and 
 yet a remnant had remained faithful. And so it was now. 
 Of the seed of Abraham, and of the tribe of Benjamin, see 
 Phil. iii. 5. Paul was a Jew by descent from Abraham, and 
 not merely a proselyte ; and he was of one of the most favoured 
 tribes. Judah and Benjamin, especially after the exile, were 
 the chief representatives of the theocratical people. 
 
 VERSE 2. G-od hath not cast away his people which he fore- 
 knew. This verse admits of two interpretations. The words 
 his people, may be understood, as in the preceding verse, as 
 meaning the Jeivish nation, and the clause ivhich he foreknew, 
 as, by implication, assigning the reason for the declaration that 
 God had not cast them off. The clause, according to this view, 
 is little more than a repetition of the sentiment of the preceding 
 verse. ' It is not to be inferred from what I have said of the 
 rejection of the Jews, that God has cast away all his chosen 
 people. Multitudes are excepted now, as in the days of Elias.' 
 The second interpretation requires more stress to be laid upon 
 the words which he foreknew, as qualifying and distinguishing 
 the preceding phrase, his people. ' God has indeed rejected his 
 external people, the Jewish nation as such, but he has not cast 
 away his people whom he foreknew.' According to this view, 
 Aw people means his elect, his spiritual people, or the true 
 Israel. This interpretation seems decidedly preferable, 1. Be- 
 cause it is precisely the distinction which Paul had made, and 
 made for the same purpose, in chap. ix. 6 8, ' The rejection of 
 the external Israel does not invalidate the promises of God, 
 because those promises did not contemplate the natural seed as 
 such, but the spiritual Israel. So, now, when I say that the
 
 ROMANS XL 2. 557 
 
 external Israel is rejected, it does not imply that the true chosen 
 Israel, to whom the promises pertained, is cast away.' 2. Be- 
 cause this is apparently Paul's own explanation in the sequel. 
 The mass of the nation were cast away, but "a remnant, 
 according to the election of grace," were reserved, ver. 5. 
 Israel, as such, Paul says in ver. 7, failed of admission to the 
 Messiah's kingdom, "but the election hath obtained it." It is, 
 therefore, evident that the people which G-od foreknew, and 
 which were not cast off, is "the remnant" spoken of in ver. 5, 
 and "the election" mentioned in ver. 7. 3. Because the illus- 
 tration borrowed from the Old Testament best suits this inter- 
 pretation. In the days of Elias, God rejected the great body 
 of the people; but reserved to himself a remnant, chosen in 
 sovereign grace. The distinction, therefore, in both cases, is 
 between the external and the chosen people. 
 
 Which he foreknew. On the different senses of the word 
 rendered he foreknew, see chap. viii. 29. Compare Rom. vii. 
 15, 2 Tim. ii. 19, 1 Cor. viii. 3, Gal. iv. 9, Prov. xii. 10, 
 Ps. ci. 4, 1 Thess. v. 12, Matt. vii. 32. In foreknowledge, as 
 thus used, is involved something more than simple prescience, 
 of which all persons and all events are the objects. The 
 people whom God foreknew, were a people distinguished by 
 that foreknowledge from all other people. All are not Israel 
 who are of Israel. God knows those who are his, and in the 
 midst of general apostacy, preserves and saves those whom he 
 thus foreknows as his own. Even Luther gives this view of 
 the passage. " Es ist nicht alles Gottes volk, was Gottes volk 
 heisset; darum wird nicht alles verstossen, ob der mehere 
 Theil auch verstossen wird." And Olshausen says, "Vom sicht- 
 baren geht er aber weiter, auf den unsichtbaren Kern des 
 volkes Gottes iiber. . . . Offenbar kann Paulus hier nicht von 
 bloss die zur Kirche ubergetretenen Juden meinen, die waren 
 kenntlich, sondern die jedem menschlichen Auge unbekannten, 
 die den verborgenen Schatz der Treue und Aufrichtigkeit ibnen 
 selbet unbewusst im Herzen trugen. Diese verhalten sich zur 
 Masse des Volks, wie im Individuum die Reste des gbttlichen 
 Ebenbildes zum alten Menschen ; oder wie im wiedergebornen 
 der unentwickelte, oft von der Sunde zuriickgedrangte neue 
 Mensch zu dem ihm umgebenden sundlichen Menschen. Wie
 
 558 ROMANS XL 3, 4. 
 
 dieser sterbcn muss, damit jener herrsche, so muss auch das 
 hi/tua frei gemacht werden VOQ der frcmden Schale, in der er 
 vrohnt, um sich ausbreiten zu kb'nnen. Immer 1st es das 
 eigentliche Volk (9, 6 ff.) auf das alle Verhcisungen gehen, wie 
 der unscheinbare neue Mensch in dem ungeschlachtigen altea 
 Menschen allein der wahre Mensch ist." 
 
 Wot ye not wliat the Scripture saith of Elias? iv ' Htia, in 
 Elias, i. e., in the section which treats of Elias, or which is 
 designated by his name. Another example of this method of 
 referring to Scripture is found in Mark xii. 26, " In the bush 
 God spake unto him ;" i. e., in the section which treats of the 
 burning bush. This method of quotation is common with the 
 Rabbins, Surenh. p. 493, and occurs in the classic writers. 
 How he makcth intercession to God against Israel; wruf- 
 f&vttv means to approach or draw near to any one, either u~e/>, 
 in behalf of, or xard, against. The latter form occurs here 
 and in 1 Mace. x. 60. 
 
 VERSE 3. Lord, they have kitted thy prophets, and digged 
 down thine altars, and I am left alone, &c. 1 Kings xix. 10. 
 Paul gives the sense, and nearly the words of the original. The 
 event referred to was the great defection from the true religion, 
 and the murder of the prophets of God, under the reign of 
 Ahab. The point of the analogy to which the apostle refers, 
 is, that although then, as now, the defection was apparently 
 entire, yet many unknown of men remained faithful, and escaped 
 the doom visited on the nation as such. As the law allowed 
 only one altar, and that at Jerusalem, it has been asked, How 
 the prophet could speak of digging down the altars of God, as 
 though ihere were many ? To this it is commonly answered, 
 that the probability is, that after the defection of the ten 
 tribes, many altars to the true God were erected in secret 
 places, by those who adhered to the religion of their fathers, 
 and which, aa access to Jerusalem was impossible, were 
 then tolerated by the prophets, and the destruction of which, 
 out of hatred to the true religion, was evidence of apostacy 
 from God. 
 
 VERSE 4. But what saith the answer of God unto him ? I 
 have reserved to myself seven thousand men, &c. 1 Kings xix, 
 18. Here again the apostle gives the sense of the original,
 
 ROMANS XI 5. 559 
 
 with slight variations both from the Hebrew and Greek. In 
 the LXX., the future xarcdeit/HO is used where Paul has the 
 aorist, xr/rrov. Paul also inserts the pronoun (s/zayrtw), 
 which is neither in the Greek nor Hebrew. " I have reserved 
 for myself;" i. e., as my own peculiar people. In Kings, God 
 threatens the general destruction of the people, but promises to 
 reserve seven thousand, who had not gone after false gods. No 
 special stress is to be laid on the number seven, as the whole 
 design of the apostle is to show that national destruction does 
 not involve the destruction of the true people of God. He 
 always has an invisible church within the visible; and the 
 destruction or dispersion of the latter does not affect the for- 
 mer. Answer of God, %py/jta.Tcff/*6z, divine response, or oracle. 
 The verb y^/jia-l^to occurs in Heb. xii. 25, xi. 7, Matt. ii. 12, 
 Luke ii. 26, Acts x. 22. Those who remained faithful in the 
 time of Elias, were those who had not bowed the knee to Baal. 
 Baal signifies lord, ruler, and is used as the designation of a 
 Phoenician deity. Among the Chaldeans he was called Bel, or 
 Belus. He was regarded as the generative, controlling princi- 
 ple, of which the sun or the planet of Jupiter was the symbol, 
 and to the people the direct object of worship. With him was 
 associated a female deity, Ashtaroth, the Greek Astarte, called 
 queen of heaven, the moon. But as Baal was also associated 
 with the planet Jupiter, so was Ashtaroth with Venus. In this 
 passage the feminine article is used before Baal, TTJ BdaL 
 This is explained by our interpreters, by supposing that ecxdve, 
 image, is omitted. But this is unsatisfactory, not only because 
 if such ellipsis occurred, the expression would properly be, rgl 
 TOO BdaX ; but also because in the LXX. and the Apocrypha, 
 Baal has repeatedly the feminine article. Zeph. i. 4, Hos. ii. 8, 
 1 Sam. vii. 4. Some say this is done in the way of contempt, 
 as with the Rabbins the feminine form is sometimes thus used. 
 There is, however, no special indication of any such purpose in 
 those cases where the feminine article occurs. It is more satis- 
 factory to asume that, at least with the later Hebrews, both the 
 active generative principle in nature, and the passive, or birth- 
 giving principle, was expressed by the same word ; so that Baal 
 was really androgyne, both male and female. 
 
 VERSE 5. Even so then at this present time also there is a
 
 560 ROMANS XI. 6. 
 
 remnant according to the election of grace. As in the days of 
 Elias, there was a number which, although small in comparison 
 with the whole nation, was still much greater than appeared to 
 human eyes who remained faithful, so at the present time, 
 amidst the general defection of the Jews, and their consequent 
 rejection as a people, there is a remnant, (hlppa, what is left, 
 answering to xarsfaov in ver. 4,) according to the election of 
 grace; that is, graciously chosen. The election was gracious, 
 not merely in the sense of kind, but gratuitous, sovereign, not 
 founded on the merits of the persons chosen, but the good 
 pleasure of God. This explanation of the term is given by the 
 apostle himself in the next verse. Remnant according to the 
 gracious election is equivalent to remnant gratuitously chosen; 
 see chap. ix. 11, and vs. 21, 24 of this chapter. Paul, there- 
 fore, designs to teach that the rejection of the Jews was not 
 total, because there was a number whom God had chosen, who 
 remained faithful, and constituted the true Israel or elected 
 people, to whom the promises were made. As in the days of 
 Elias, the number of those who had not bowed the knee to 
 Baal was far greater than the prophet believed it to be, so the 
 number of those who acknowledged Christ as the Messiah, in 
 the times of the apostle, was much larger probably than is 
 generally supposed. The apostle James speaks of many 
 myriads (izbatu. fjLUptddez), Acts xxi. 20, of believing Jews. 
 
 VERSE 6. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; 
 otherwise grace is no more grace. This verse is an exegetical 
 comment on the last clause of the preceding one. If the elec- 
 tion spoken of be of grace, it is not founded on works, for the 
 two things are incompatible. It evidently was, in the apostle's 
 view, a matter of importance that the entire freeness of the 
 election of men to the enjoyment of the blessings of the Mes- 
 siah's kingdom, should be steadily kept in view. He would 
 not otherwise have stopped in the midst of his discourse to 
 insist so much on this idea. This verse serves to illustrate 
 several declarations of the apostle in the preceding chapter. 
 For example, ver. 11, in which, as here, men are said to be 
 chosen in a sovereign manner, and not according to their 
 works. It is obvious that foreseen works are as much excluded 
 as any other. For a choice founded upon the foresight of good
 
 ROMANS XI. 7. 561 
 
 works, Is as really made on account of works as any choice can 
 be, and, consequently, is not of grace, in the sense asserted by 
 the apostle. In the second place, the choice which is here 
 declared to be so entirely gratuitous, is a choice to the kingdom 
 of Christ. This is evident from the whole context, and espe- 
 cially from ver. 7. It was from this kingdom and all its spirit- 
 ual and eternal blessings that the Jews, as a body, were reject- 
 ed, and to which "the remnant according to the election of 
 grace" \vas admitted. The election, therefore, spoken of in the 
 ninth chapter, is not to external privileges merely. 
 
 The latter part of this verse is simply the converse of the 
 former. But if of works, then it is no more grace ; otherwise 
 work is no more work. If founded on any thing in us, it is not 
 founded on the mere good pleasure of God. If the one be 
 affirmed, the other is denied. This clause is omitted in the 
 uncial MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G., and in several of the ancient 
 versions, and by all the Latin fathers. On these grounds it ia 
 rejected as a gloss by Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, 
 and the later editors. It is found, however, in the MS. B. r 
 and in the Syriac version, both of which are important author- 
 ities, and is retained by Beza and Bengel, and defended by 
 Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others. The internal evidence, and a 
 comparison with similar passages, as Bom. iv. 4, Eph. ii. 8, 9, 
 are in its favour. 
 
 VERSE 7. What then ? Israel hath not obtained that which 
 he seekethfor: but the election hath obtained it, &c. Seeketh, 
 Im'rjTei expresses earnest seeking, and the use of the present 
 tense indicates the persistency of the search. The Jews zeal- 
 ous and perseveringly sought after righteousness. They failed, 
 however, as the apostle says, because they sought it by works. 
 This verse is by many pointed differently, and read thus, 
 " What then ? Hath not Israel obtained that which he seek- 
 eth for? nay, but the election have," &c. The sense is not 
 materially different. The apostle evidently designs to state 
 the result of all he had just been saying. Israel, as a body, 
 have not attained the blessing which they sought, but the 
 chosen portion of them have. The rejection, therefore, is not 
 total, and the promises of God made of old to Israel, which 
 contemplated his spiritual people, have not been broken. It ia 
 36
 
 562 ROMANS XI. 8. 
 
 clear, from the whole discourse, that the blessing sought by the 
 Jews was justification, acceptance with God, and admission into 
 his kingdom ; see chap. x. 3, ix. 30, 31. This it is which they 
 failed to attain, and to which the election were admitted. It 
 was not, therefore, external advantages merely which the 
 apostle had in view. The election means those elected; as the 
 circumcision means those who are circumcised. The election, 
 i. e., reliquiae ejus populi, quas per gratiam suam Deus 
 eligit. 
 
 And the rest ivere blinded. The verb (iTctofttofyaav) rendered 
 were blinded, properly means in its ground form, to harden, to 
 render insensible, and is so translated in our version, Mark vi. 
 52, viii. 17, John xii. 40. In 2 Cor. iii. 14, the only other 
 place in which it occurs in the New Testament, it is rendered as 
 it is here. It is used in reference to the eyes in the Septuagint, 
 Job xvii. 7, "My eyes are dim by reason of sorrow." Either 
 rendering, therefore, is admissible, though the former is pre- 
 ferable, as more in accordance with the usual meaning of the 
 word, and with Paul's language in the previous chapters. And 
 the rest were hardened, that is, were insensible to the truth and 
 excellence of the gospel, and, therefore, disregarded its offers 
 and its claims. This xwptoacs affected the understanding as 
 well as the heart. It was both blindness and obduracy. The 
 passive form here used, may express simply the idea that they 
 became hard, or the reference may be to the judicial act of God, 
 see ix. 18. They were hardened by God, i. e., abandoned by 
 him to the hardness of their own hearts. 
 
 VERSE 8. According as it is written, Grod hath given them 
 the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they 
 should not hear. This passage, as is the case with ix. 33, is 
 composed of several passages found in the Old Testament. In 
 Isa. vi. 9, it is said, " Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; see 
 ye indeed, but perceive not;" ver. 10, "Lest they see with 
 their eyes, and hear with their ears." Deut. xxix. 4, "Yet 
 the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to 
 see, and ears to hear, unto this day." Isa. xxix. 10, "For the 
 Lord hath poured upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath 
 closed your eyes." The spirit, and to some extent, the 
 language of these passages, 'Paul cites in support of his argu-
 
 ROMANS XI. 9, 10. 563 
 
 ment. They are in part descriptive of what had occurred in 
 the times of the prophets, and in part prophetic of what should 
 hereafter occur, and are therefore applicable to the character 
 and conduct of the Jews during the apostolic age. See Matt. 
 xiii., xiv. The design of such citations frequently is to show 
 that what was fulfilled partially in former times, was more per- 
 fectly accomplished at a subsequent period. The Jews had 
 often before been hardened, but at no former period were the 
 people so blinded, hardened, and reprobate, as when they 
 rejected the Son of God, and put him to an open shame. It 
 had often been predicted that such should be their state when 
 the Messiah came. The punitive character of the evils here 
 threatened, cannot escape the reader's notice. This blindness 
 and hardness were not mere calamities, nor were they simply 
 the natural effects of the sins of the people. They were puni- 
 tive inflictions. They are so denounced. God says, I will 
 give you eyes that see not. It is a dreadful thing to fall into 
 the hands of the living God. The strokes of his justice blind, 
 bewilder, and harden the soul. The words even unto this day, 
 may, as by our translators, be connected with the last words 
 of the preceding verse, l The rest were blinded even unto this 
 day.' Or they may be considered as a part of the quotation, 
 as they occur in Deut. xxix. 4. 
 
 VERSES 9, 10. And David saith, Let their table be made a 
 snare, and a trap, &c. This Psalm (Ixix.) is referred to David 
 in the heading prefixed to it, and the propriety of the reference 
 to him as its author is confirmed both by external and internal 
 evidence. See Hengsten bergs Commentary on the Psalms. 
 No portion of the Old Testament Scriptures is more frequently 
 referred to, as descriptive of our Lord's sufferings, than the 
 Psalms Ixix. and xxii. There is nothing in this Psalm which 
 forbids its being considered as a prophetic lamentation of the 
 Messiah over his afflictions, and a denunciation of God's judg- 
 ments upon his enemies. Verse 9, "The zeal of thy house 
 hath eaten me up," and ver. 21, "They gave me vinegar to 
 drink," are elsewhere quoted and applied to Christ. Viewed 
 in this light, the Psalm is directly applicable to the apostle's 
 object, as it contains a prediction of the judgments which should 
 befall the enemies of Christ. Let their table be, is only another
 
 564 ROMANS XI. 110. 
 
 and a more forcible way of saying, their table shall be. Isa. 
 xivii. 5, "Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, 
 daughter of the Chaldeans," for 'Thou shalt sit, &c.' And 
 so in a multitude of cases in the prophetic writings. In the 
 Psalm, indeed, the future form in the Hebrew is used, though 
 it is correctly rendered by the Septuagint and in our version 
 as the imperative, in these passages. The judgments here de- 
 nounced are expressed in figurative language. The sense is, 
 their blessings shall become a curse ; blindness and weakness, 
 hardness of heart and misery shall come upon them. This last 
 idea is forcibly expressed by a reference to the dimness of 
 vision, and decrepitude of old age ; as the vigour and activity 
 of youth are the common figure for expressing the results of 
 God's favour. 
 
 Even if the Psalm here quoted be considered as referring 
 to the sorrows and the enemies of the sacred writer himself, 
 and not to those of Christ, it would still be pertinent to the 
 apostle's object. The enemies of the Psalmist were the 
 enemies of God ; the evils imprecated upon them were impre- 
 cated on them as such, and not as enemies of the writer. These 
 denunciations are not the expression of the desire of private 
 revenge, but of the just and certain judgments of God. And 
 as the Psalmist declared how the enemies of God should be 
 treated, how dim their eyes should become, and how their 
 strength should be broken, so, Paul says, it actually occurs. 
 David said, let them be so treated, and we find them, says the 
 apostle, suffering these very judgments. Paul, therefore, in 
 teaching that the great body of the Jews, the rejectors and 
 crucifiers of the Son of God, were blinded and cast away, taught 
 nothing more than had already been experienced in various 
 portions of their history, and predicted in their prophets. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 
 The people whom God had chosen for himself, he preserved 
 amidst the general defection of their countrymen, vs. 1, 2. 
 
 2. The apparent apostacy of a church or community from 
 God, is not a certain test of the character of all the individuals 
 of which it may be composed. In the midst of idolatrous
 
 ROMANS XI. 110. 565 
 
 Israel, there were many who had not bowed the knee unto 
 Baal. Denunciations, therefore, should not be made too 
 general, vs. 2 4. 
 
 3. The fidelity of men in times of general declension is not 
 to be ascribed to themselves, but to the grace of God. Every 
 remnant of faithful men, is a remnant according to the election 
 of grace. That is, they are faithful, because graciously elected, 
 ver. 5. 
 
 4. Election is not founded on works, nor on any thing in its 
 objects, but on the sovereign pleasure of God; and it is not to 
 church privileges merely, but to all the blessings of Christ's 
 kingdom, vs. 6, 7. 
 
 5. It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth. 
 Israel, with all their zeal for the attainment of salvation, were 
 not successful, while those whom God had chosen attained the 
 blessing, ver. 7. 
 
 6. Those who forsake God, are forsaken by God. In 
 leaving him, they leave the source of light, feeling, and happi- 
 ness, ver. 7. 
 
 7. When men are forsaken of God all their powers are use- 
 less, and all their blessings become curses. Having eyes, they 
 see not, and their table is a snare, vs. 8 10. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 i 
 
 1. As in the times of the greatest defection, there are some 
 who remain faithful, and as in the midst of apparently apostate 
 communities, there are some who retain their integrity, we 
 should never despair of the church, nor be too ready to make 
 intercession against Israel. The foundation of God standeth 
 sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his, 
 vs. 1 4. 
 
 2. Those only are safe whom the Lord keeps. Those who 
 do not bow the knee to Baal, are a remnant according to the 
 election of grace, and not according to the firmness of their 
 own purposes, vs. 5, 6. 
 
 3. All seeking after salvation is worse than useless, unless 
 properly directed. Those who are endeavouring to work out a 
 righteousness of their own, or to secure the favour of God in 
 any way by their own doings, are beating the air. Success ia
 
 5GG ROMANS XI. 1136. 
 
 to be obtained only by submission to the righteousness of God, 
 ver. 7. 
 
 4. As the fact that any attain the blessing of God is to be 
 attributed to their election, there is no room for self-compla- 
 cency or pride ; and where these feelings exist and are cher- 
 ished in reference to this subject, they are evidence that we are 
 not of the number of God's chosen, ver. 7. 
 
 5. Men should feel and acknowledge that they are in the 
 hands of God ; that, as sinners, they have forfeited all claim to 
 his favour, and lost the power to obtain it. To act persever- 
 ingly as though either of these truths were not so, is to set our- 
 selves in opposition to God and his plan of mercy, and is the 
 very course to provoke him to send on us the spirit of slumber. 
 This is precisely what the Jews did, vs. 7, 8. 
 
 6. Men are commonly ruined by the things in which they 
 put their trust or take most delight. The whole Mosaic system, 
 with its rites and ceremonies, was the ground of confidence 
 and boasting to the Jews, and it was the cause of their destruc- 
 tion. So, in our day, those who take refuge in some ecclesias- 
 tical organization instead of Christ, will find what they ex- 
 pected would prove their salvation, to be their ruin. So, too, 
 all misimproved or perverted blessings are made the severest 
 curses, vs. 9, 10. 
 
 ROMANS XL 1136. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 As the rejection of the Jews was not total, so neither is it 
 final. They have not so fallen as to be hopelessly prostrated. 
 First, God did not design to cast away his people entirely, but, 
 by their rejection, in the first place, to facilitate the progress of 
 the gospel among the Gentiles, and ultimately to make the con- 
 version of the Gentiles the means of converting the Jews, ver. 
 11. The latter event is in itself desirable and probable. 
 1. Because if the rejection of the Jews has been a source of 
 blessing, much more will their restoration be the means of good, 
 vs. 12, 15. (The verses 13, 14, are a passing remark on the 
 motive which influenced the apostle in preaching to the Gen-
 
 ROMANS XL 11. 567 
 
 tiles.) 2. Because it was included and contemplated in the 
 original election of the Jewish nation. If the root be holy, so 
 are the branches, ver. 16. 
 
 The breaking off and rejection of some of the original 
 branches, and the introduction of others of a different origin, 
 is not inconsistent with this doctrine ; and should lead the Gen- 
 tiles to exercise humility and fear, and not boasting or exulta- 
 tion, vs. 17 22. As the rejection of the Jews was a punish- 
 ment of their unbelief, and not the expression of God's ultimate 
 purpose respecting them, it is, as intimated in ver. 16, more 
 probable that God should restore the Jews, than that he should 
 have called the Gentiles, vs. 23, 24. 
 
 This event, thus desirable and probable, God has determined 
 to accomplish, vs. 25, 26. The restoration of the Jews to the 
 privileges of God's people is included in the ancient predictions 
 and promises made respecting them, vs. 26, 27. Though now, 
 therefore, they are treated as enemies, they shall hereafter be 
 treated as friends, ver. 28. For the purposes of God do not 
 alter; as his covenant contemplated the restoration of his 
 ancient people, that event cannot fail to come to pass, ver. 29. 
 The plan of God, therefore, contemplated the calling of the 
 Gentiles, the temporary rejection and final restoration of the 
 Jews, vs. 30 32. 
 
 How adorable the wisdom of God manifested in the plan and 
 conduct of the work of redemption ! Of him, through him, and 
 to him, are all things ; to whom be glory for ever. Amen, 
 vs. 3336. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 11. I say then. Have they stumbled that they should 
 fain G-od forbid, &c. This verse begins with the same 
 formula as the first verse of the chapter, and for the same 
 reason. As there the apostle wished to have it understood that 
 the rejection of God's ancient people was not entire, so here he 
 teaches that this rejection is not final. That this is the mean- 
 ing of the verse seems evident, 1. From the comparative force 
 of the words stumble and fall. As the latter is a much stronger 
 term than the former, it seems plain that Paul designed it 
 should here be taken emphatically, as expressing irrevocable
 
 508 ROMANS XI. 11. 
 
 ruin, in opposition to that which is temporary. The Jews have 
 stumbled, but they are not prostrated. 2. From the context ; 
 all that follows being designed to prove that the fall of the 
 Jews was not final. This is indeed intimated in this very verse, 
 in which it is implied that the conversion of the Gentiles would 
 lead to the ultimate conversion of the Jews. The word (-iaioaw} 
 rendered should fall, is used here as elsewhere to mean, should 
 perish, become miserable, Heb. iv. 11. The particle ha, that, 
 here as usually, expresses design. Have the Jews stumbled, 
 in order that they should fall ? There are two views, however, 
 as to the meaning of the passage. The first is that just men- 
 tioned, Was it the design of God, in permitting the stumbling 
 of the Jews, that they should finally perish ? In other words, 
 Was their rejection designed to be a permanent casting them 
 out of the kingdom of Christ ? This view is sustained by the 
 whole subsequent discussion, in which the apostle proves that 
 the Jews, as a nation, are to be converted. The other inter- 
 pretation assumes that the apostle means to say, that the 
 design of God in the rejection of the Jews, was not so much 
 their punishment, as to facilitate the calling of the Gentiles. 
 'Has God caused or allowed them to stumble, for the sake of 
 punishing them, or simply that they should fall ? By no means, 
 but,' &c. This interpretation, although it is suited to the verse, 
 considered separately, is not so agreeable to the context, and 
 the design of the apostle. It is not his object in what follow-, 
 to prove that God had not cast off his people for the simple 
 purpose of causing them to suffer, but to show that their rejec- 
 tion was not final. 
 
 But through their fall salvation has come unto the Grentiles. 
 The stumbling of the Jews was not attended with the result of 
 their utter and final ruin, but was the occasion of facilitating 
 the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles. It was, there- 
 there, not designed to lead to the former, but to the latter 
 result. From this very design it is probable that they shall be 
 finally restored, because the natural effect of the conversion of 
 the Gentiles is to provoke the emulation of the Jews. That 
 the rejection of the gospel on the part of the Jews was the 
 means of its wider and more rapid spread among the Gentiles, 
 seems to clearly intimated in several passages of the New
 
 ROMANS XI. 11. 569 
 
 Testament. "It was necessary," Paul says to the Jews, "that 
 the word of God should first have been spoken to you; hut 
 seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of 
 eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Acts xiii. 46. And 
 in Acts xxviii. 28, after saying that the prophecy of Isaiah was 
 fulfilled in their unbelief, he adds, "Be it known therefore unto 
 you, that the salvation of God is sent unto them." Compare 
 Isa. xlix. 4 6. The Jews, even those who were professors of 
 Christianity, were, in the first place, very slow to allow the 
 gospel to be preached to the Gentiles; and in the second, they 
 appear almost uniformly to have desired to clog the gospel with 
 the ceremonial observances of the law. This was one of the 
 greatest hinderances to the progress of the cause of Christ 
 during the apostolic age, and would, in all human probability, 
 have been a thousand-fold greater, had the Jews, as a nation, 
 embraced the Christian faith. On both these accounts, the 
 rejection of the Jews was incidentally a means of facilitating 
 the progress of the gospel. Besides this, the punishment which 
 befell them on account of their unbelief, involving the destruc- 
 tion of their nation and power, of course prevented their being 
 able to forbid the general preaching of the gospel, which they 
 earnestly desired to do. 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16, "They please not 
 God, and are contrary to all men ; forbidding us to preach to 
 the Gentiles, that they might be saved." 
 
 For to provoke them to jealousy. As the result and design 
 of the rejection of the Jews was the salvation of the Gentiles, 
 so the conversion of the latter was designed to bring about the 
 restoration of the former. The Gentiles are saved in order to 
 provoke the Jews to jealousy. That is, this is one of the many 
 benevolent purposes which God designed to accomplish by that 
 event. This last clause serves to explain the meaning of the 
 apostle in the former part of the verse. He shows that the 
 rejection of the Jews was not intended to result in their being 
 finally cast away, but to secure the more rapid progress of the 
 gospel among the heathen, in order that their conversion might 
 react upon the Jews, and be the means of bringing all, at last, 
 within the fold of the Redeemer. To provoke to jealousy, 
 T.apo.^r t )Maat^ to excite emulation ; i. e., to stimulate to follow. 
 The word is not to be taken in a bad sense, notwithstanding
 
 570 ROMANS XI. 12. 
 
 the ~apd. All the apostle intended to say was, that he hoped 
 the conversion of the Gentiles would be the means of exciting 
 
 O 
 
 the Jews to seek salvation in the gospel. 
 
 VERSE 12. Now, if the fall of them be the riches of the world, 
 and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how 
 much more their fulness ? Although there is considerable diffi- 
 culty in fixing the precise sense of the several clauses of this 
 verse, its general meaning seems sufficiently obvious. * If the 
 rejection of the Jews has been the occasion of so much good to 
 the world, how much more may be expected from their restora- 
 tion?' In this view it bears directly upon the apostle's object, 
 which, in the first place, is to show that the restoration of the 
 Jews is a probable and desirable event. There is in the verse 
 a two-fold annunciation of the same idea. In the first, the sen- 
 tence is incomplete. ' If the fall of them be the riches of the 
 world, how much more their recovery ? if their diminishing, how 
 much more their fulness?' The principal difficulty in this pas- 
 sage results from the ambiguity of the words (s^r/jua and 
 ntypcafia) rendered diminishing and fulness. The former may 
 mean fewness or inferiority, a condition worse than that of 
 others, or worse than a former one. Those who adopt the 
 former of these senses, understand the verse thus : ' If the few 
 Jews, who have been converted, have been such an advantage 
 to the Gentiles, how much more will the great multitude of 
 them, when brought to Christ, be a source of blessing.' But 
 to this interpretation it may be objected, 1. The word has 
 rarely, if ever, the meaning here assigned to it. Passow gives 
 it no such signification in his Lexicon. The cognate verb sig- 
 nifies, lam inferior in strength or condition to any one. 2 Peter 
 ii. 19, 2 Cor. xii. 13. The adjective means inferior, worse: 
 1 Cor. xi. 17, "Ye come together not for the better, but for 
 the worse." The only place in which the word here used 
 occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, is 1 Cor. vi. 7, " There 
 is utterly a fault among you," or as it might be rendered, ' It 
 is an injury to you.' Such too is the meaning of the word in 
 the Old Testament : Isa. xxxi. 8, " His young men shall be 
 discomfitted," which expresses the sense of the original; and 
 so does the Septuagint, which employs the word used by the 
 apostle, * His young men shall be brought into an inferior con-
 
 ROMANS XI. 12. 571 
 
 dition,' i. e., shall be conquered. 2. This interpretation does 
 not suit the context. Paul does not say that the conversion 
 of the few Jews who had become Christians, had been the occa- 
 sion of good to the Gentiles, but the rejection of the great body 
 of the nation. 3. It does not at all suit the first clause of the 
 verse. The fall of them, answers to and explains the diminish- 
 ing of them. As the former clause cannot receive the interpre- 
 tation objected to, neither can the latter. Tholuck and others 
 take yTTyfjLa in a moral sense ; their fault, so as to correspond 
 with 7iapd.Trc(D[jLa. But this would make the two clauses of the 
 verse tautological, and destroy the antithesis between yrrypa 
 and n/jjpca/jta, as the latter cannot mean, their goodness. The 
 sense is clear and good if we give ^rr^/za its natural meaning ; 
 their worse estate, or loss. The Jews lost their peculiar privi- 
 leges and blessings, and their loss was the riches of the Gen- 
 tiles. It enriched them by being the means of transferring to 
 them the treasures of the gospel. 
 
 The word Tttypajfta has various senses in the New Testament. 
 It properly means that with which anything is filled, as in the 
 frequent phrase, the fulness of the earth, or of the sea, &c. So 
 fulness of the G-odhead, all that is in God, the plenitude of 
 Deity. John i. 16, "Of his fulness have all we received;" 
 Eph. iii. 19, " That ye might be filled with all the fulness of 
 God." It also means the complement or supplement of any- 
 thing, the remaining part ; see Matt. ix. 16. So in Eph. i. 33, 
 the church may be called the fulness of Christ, because he is 
 the head, the church the residue, or complement, by which the 
 mystical body is completed. Of these several meanings, Storr 
 selects the last, and explains the verse thus : ' If the ruin of 
 the unbelieving Jews has been a source of blessing to the Gen- 
 tiles, how much more shall the remaining portion of the nation, 
 i. e., those converted to Christianity, be the means of good.' 
 But, 1. This interpretation destroys the obvious antithesis of 
 the sentence; "the remaining part" does not answer to the 
 word rendered ruin, as it obviously should do. 2. It is not in 
 accordance with the context, which is not designed so much to 
 set forth the usefulness of the Jews then converted, as to 
 declare the blessings likely to be consequent on the final con- 
 version of the whole nation. 3. A comparison of this, with the
 
 572 ROMANS XI. 13. 
 
 15th verse, is unfavourable to this interpretation. These verses 
 evidently express the same idea, and therefore illustrate each 
 other. ' If the casting away of them be the occasion of recon- 
 ciling the world, what will the receiving of them be ?' &c. 
 Ver. 15. Retaining the sense, complement, the passage admits 
 of a different interpretation from that given by Storr. The 
 Jewish nation are the xtfpcofjLa, the complement, that which 
 completes the whole number of the people of God. A rent, or 
 loss had occurred by their rejection; they were, however, the 
 complement by which that loss was to be made good. This is 
 evidently forced. 
 
 The common interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred: 
 'If the injury or ruin of the Jews has been the occasion of good 
 to the Gentiles, how much more shall their full restoration or 
 blessedness be?' 1. This agrees with the antithesis, 'If the 
 fall, then the recovery; if the ruin, then the blessedness,' &c. 
 2. It suits the context, and the design of the apostle. 3. It is 
 in strict accordance with the obviously parallel passage in the 
 15th verse, just quoted. The remark of Thomas Aquinas is 
 of great weight : " Bonum est potentius ad utilitatem inferen- 
 dam, quam malum, sed malum Judserorum gentilibus magnam 
 utilitatem contulit, ergo multo majorem confert mundo eorum 
 bonum." The TrArjpwfjta of the Gentiles is, therefore, that which 
 fills them, and renders their blessedness full. The word is thus 
 retained in its ordinary sense. 
 
 VERSE 13. For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am 
 the apostle to the Gentiles. This and the following verse con- 
 tain a transient remark relating to the apostle's own feelings 
 and mode of acting in reference to the subject in hand. His 
 readers were not to suppose, that because he was the apostle to 
 the Gentiles, his labours had no reference to the Jews, or that 
 he was unconcerned about their salvation. This passage is 
 therefore connected with the last clause of the preceding verse, 
 in which Paul had said that the conversion of the Gentiles was 
 adapted and designed to bring about the restoration of the 
 Jews. These two events, instead of being at all inconsistent, 
 were intimately related, so that both ought to be kept con- 
 stantly in view, and all efforts to promote the former had a 
 bearing on the accomplishment of the latter. This being the
 
 ROMANS XI. 14. 573 
 
 case, the Gentiles ought to consider the restoration of the Jews 
 as in no respect inimical to their interests, but as on every 
 account most desirable. Paul therefore says, that what he had 
 just stated in reference to the effect on the Jews, of the con- 
 version of the Gentiles, he designed specially for the latter. 
 He wished them to consider that fact, as it would prevent any 
 unkind feelings towards the Jews. He had the better right 
 thus to speak, as to him, especially, "the gospel of the uncir- 
 cumcision had been committed." He himself, in all he did to 
 secure the salvation of the Gentiles, or to render his office suc- 
 cessful, had an eye to the conversion of the Jews. The word 
 (do^d^w] rendered / magnify, means, first, to praise, to estimate 
 and speak highly of a thing ; secondly, to render glorious, as 
 chap. viii. 30, "Whom he justifies, them he also glorifies;" and 
 so in a multitude of cases. Either sense of the word suits this 
 passage. The latter, however, is much better adapted to the 
 following verse, and therefore is to be preferred : ' I endeavour 
 to render my office glorious by bringing as many Gentiles as 
 possible into the Redeemer's kingdom ; if so be it may provoke 
 and arouse my countrymen.' His magnifying his office con- 
 sisted in the faithful discharge of its duties ; and in thus labour- 
 ing assiduously for the salvation of the Gentiles, he aimed also 
 at the salvation of the Jews. "Sic gentes alloquitur: Quum 
 sim vobis peculiariter destinatus apostolus ideoque salutem 
 vestrain mihi commissam singular! quodam studio debeam pro- 
 curare, et quasi rebus omnibus omissis unum illud agere : officio 
 tamen meo fideliter fungar, si quos e mea gente Christo lucri- 
 fecero: idque erit in gloriam ministerii mei, atque adeo in 
 vestrum bonum." Calvin. The object of the apostle, therefore, 
 in these verses, is to declare that he always acted under the 
 influence of the truth announced at the close of the 12th verse. 
 He endeavoured to make the conversion of the Gentiles a means 
 of good to the Jews. . 
 
 VERSE 14. If by any means I may provoke to emulation them 
 which are my flesh, and might save some of them. This is the 
 reason (of course one among many) why Paul desired the con- 
 version of the Gentiles. If the two events, the salvation of 
 both classes, were intimately related, there was no ground of 
 ill feeling on either part. The Gentiles need not fear that the
 
 674 ROMANS XL 15. 
 
 restoration of the Jews would be injurious to them, as though 
 the happiness of one class were incompatible with that of the 
 other. 
 
 VERSE 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling 
 of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from 
 the dead ? Although Paul here returns to the sentiment of the 
 12th verse, this passage is logically connected with the pre- 
 ceding. The apostle had said, that even in labouring for tho 
 Gentiles, he had in view the salvation of the Jews ; for if their 
 rejection had occasioned so much good, how desirable must be 
 their restoration. If the casting away of them be the recon- 
 ciling of the world. The reconciliation here spoken of is that 
 which Paul so fully describes in Eph. ii. 11 '22. A reconcilia- 
 tion by which those who were aliens and strangers have been 
 brought nigh ; reconciled at once to the church, the common- 
 wealth of Israel, and to God himself, "by the blood of Christ." 
 This event has been facilitated, as remarked above, by the 
 rejection of the Jews; what will the restoration of the Jews 
 then be, but life from the dead? That is, it will be a most 
 glorious event; as though a new world had risen, not only glo- 
 rious in itself, but in the highest degree beneficial to the Gen- 
 tiles. De Braia and many others suppose that the apostle 
 refers to the future declension of the Gentile church, from 
 which the restoration of the Jews shall be the means of arous- 
 ing them. Of such an allusion, however, there is no intimation 
 in the text. The most common and natural interpretation is 
 that which considers the latter clause as merely a figurative 
 expression of a joyful and desirable event. The conversion of 
 the Jews will be attended with the most glorious consequences 
 for the whole world. 
 
 Not only in the Scriptures, but also in profane literature, the 
 transition from a state of depression and misery, to one of pros- 
 perity, is expressed by the natural figure of passing from death 
 to life. The Old Testament prophets represented the glorious 
 condition of the theocracy, consequent on the coming of Christ, 
 in contrast with its previous condition, as a rising from the 
 dead. This interpretation of the passage before us, is adopted 
 by many of the best commentators, ancient and modern. There 
 are, however, two other views presented. According to some,
 
 ROMANS XI. 15. 575 
 
 the life here spoken of is strictly spiritual life, and the dead 
 from which it springs are the spiritually dead. The meaning 
 would then be, that the conversion of the Jews would be the 
 occasion, or the means, of awakening many of the Gentiles to 
 spiritual life. This idea, however, is included in the former 
 interpretation, because the summa felicitas, the state of great 
 prosperity which the church is to enjoy when the Jews are 
 restored, is a religious prosperity. It supposes the conversion 
 of great multitudes of men, and the general spread and power 
 of the gospel. But this does not justify us in confining the 
 words to this spiritual' sense. The latter clause, according to 
 this view, expresses no more than the former clause. The 
 reconciliation of the world, implies, of course, the conversion of 
 multitudes of men, and the prevalence of true religion. The 
 life from the dead, is more than this. It is not only a greater 
 measure of the former blessing, but a glorious and happy con- 
 dition therewith connected, and consequent thereon. The other 
 view of the passage is that given by Chrysostom, and adopted 
 by many of the best modern commentators, as Tholuck (in hia 
 second edition,) De "VYette, Meyer, and others. It assumes that 
 corj ex vexoajv (life from the dead,} refers to the resurrection 
 of the dead. The idea is, that the conversion of the Jews is 
 the condition precedent of that great event. When the Jews 
 are converted, then comes the resurrection and the consumma- 
 tion of Christ's kingdom. But nowhere else in Scripture is the 
 literal resurrection expressed by the words wy Ix vzxp&v. 
 Had Paul intended a reference to the resurrection, no reason 
 can be assigned why he did not employ the established and 
 familiar words, avdaraais Ix vexp&u. If he meant the resurrec- 
 tion, why did he not say so ? Why use a general phrase, which 
 is elsewhere used to express another idea? Besides this, it is 
 not according to the analogy of Scripture, that the resurrection 
 of the dead, and the change in those who shall be then alive, 
 (1 Cor. xv. 51, 1 Thess. iv. 14 18,) are to be immediate, con- 
 sequent on the conversion of the Jews. The resurrection is 
 not to occur until "the end." A new state of things, a new- 
 mode of existence, is to be then introduced. Flesh and blood, 
 i. e., our bodies as now organized, (the acapa </>u%ixov,) cannot 
 inherit the kingdom of God. They are not suited for the state
 
 576 ROMANS XI. 16. 
 
 of being which is to follow the resurrection. If, therefore, the 
 world is to continue after the conversion of the Jews, that event 
 will not inaugurate the resurrection. 
 
 VERSE 16. For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also 
 holy; and if the root be holy, so also are the branches. Under 
 two striking and appropriate figures, the apostle expresses the 
 general idea, ' If one portion of the Jewish people is holy, BO 
 also is the other.' With regard to this interesting passage, the 
 first point to be settled is the allusion in the figurative expres- 
 sion in the first clause. The Jews were commanded to offer a 
 certain portion of all the productions of the earth to God, as 
 an expression of gratitude and acknowledgment of depend- 
 ence. This offering, called the first-fruits, was to be made, 
 first, from the productions in their natural state (Ex. xxiii. 19 ;) 
 and, secondly, from the meal, wine, oil, and dough, as prepared 
 for use. Num. xv. 20, " Of the first of your dough ye shall 
 give unto the Lord a heave-offering in all your generations ;" 
 Neh. x. 37, Deut. xviii. 14. If the allusion of the apostle is 
 to the former of these offerings, then the first-fruits must refer 
 to a portion of the harvest or vintage presented to God, and the 
 lump to the residue of the grain or grapes. If the allusion be 
 to the second, then the first-fruits mean the portion of dough 
 offered to God, and the lump the residue of the mass. The 
 latter is undoubtedly most consistent with the meaning of the 
 word (<f'jpa/ia) used by the apostle, which can hardly be under- 
 stood as referring to heaps of grain, or other productions of the 
 earth. In either case, however, the purport of the illustration 
 is the same. 
 
 A second question is, Who are intended by the first-fruits 
 and the root, and by the lump and the branches, in these two 
 figures ? With respect to this question, the following are the 
 most common and plausible answers: 1. The first-fruits are 
 understood to mean the Jews first converted to the Christian 
 faith, who became, as it were, the root of the Christian church. 
 According to this view of the passage, the apostle designs to 
 say, 'Since the first converts to the gospel were Jews, it is 
 evident that the nation, as such, is not cast off by God ; as a 
 portion of them is holy (or have been accepted of God,) so may 
 the residue be. 1 2. By the first-fruits and the root, may be
 
 ROMANS XL 16. 57T 
 
 understood the patriarchs, the forefathers of the Jews ; and by 
 the lump and the branches, the residue of the nation, or the 
 Jews as a people. That this latter is the true meaning of the 
 passage seems very evident: 1. Because this interpretation 
 alone preserves the propriety of the figure. How can the 
 unconverted Jews or the Jewish nation be called the branches 
 of the portion that became followers of Christ ? The Gentile 
 Christians might be so called, but not the Jewish people, as 
 such. On the other hand, nothing is more natural than to call 
 the ancestors the root, and their descendants the branches. 
 
 2. This interpretation best suits the design of the apostle. He 
 wishes to show that the conversion of the Jews, which he had 
 declared to be so desirable for the Gentiles, was a probable 
 event. He proves this by referring to the relation of their 
 ancestors to God. If they were the peculiar people of God, 
 their descendants may be regarded as his also, since the cove- 
 nant was not with Abrahani only, but also with his seed, 
 
 3. This is the apostle's own explanation in ver. 28, where the 
 unconverted Jews, or Hebrew nation, as such, are said to be 
 "beloved for the father's sake." 4. This interpretation alone- 
 can be consistently carried through the following verses. The 
 Gentile Christians are not said (ver. 17) to be grafted into the 
 stock of the converted Jews, but as branches with them they 
 are united to a common stock. And the stock into which the 
 branches, now broken off, are to be again grafted, is not the 
 Jewish part of the Christian church, but the original family or 
 household of God. 
 
 The word (dyioz) rendered holy, which properly means clean, 
 is used in two general senses in the Scriptures : 1. Consecrated; 
 2. Pure. In the former of these, it is applied, times without 
 number, in the Old Testament, to persons, places, and things 
 considered as peculiarly devoted to the service of God. So the 
 whole Jewish people, without reference to their moral charac- 
 ter, are called a holy people. So, too, the temple, tabernacle, 
 and all their contents, were called holy, &c. The use of the 
 word in this sense, in reference to places and things, is not 
 unfrequent in the New Testament. Matt. iv. 5, where Jerusa- 
 lem is called the "holy city;" see Matt. vii. 6, xxiv. 15, xxvii. 
 53, and often. It is, however, rarely so used in relation to 
 37
 
 578 ROMANS XI. 17. 
 
 persons. In the vast majority of instances, when thus applied, 
 it means, morally pure; yet, in some cases, it signifies, devoted 
 to God. Luke ii. 23, "Every male that openeth the womb 
 shall be called holy unto the Lord." Perhaps, too, in the 
 expressions, "the holy prophets," Luke i. 70, and "holy apos- 
 tles," Eph. iii. 5, the reference is rather to their relation to 
 God, as persons devoted to his service, than to their moral cha- 
 racter. In 1 Cor. vii. 14, the children of professing Christians 
 are called "holy," not in reference to their moral condition, 
 but their relation to the church. In like manner, in this pas- 
 sage, the Jews, as a people, are called holy, because peculiarly 
 consecrated to God, separated from the rest of the world for 
 his service.* 
 
 The connection of this verse with the preceding, its import 
 and bearing on the -apostle's object are therefore clear. The 
 restoration of the Jews, which will be' attended with such bene- 
 ficial results for the whole worldj is to be expected, because of 
 their peculiar relation to God as his chosen people. God, in 
 selecting the Hebrew patriarchs, and setting them apart for his 
 service, had reference to their descendants, as well as to them- 
 selves ; and designed that the Jews, as a people, should, to the 
 latest generations, be specially devoted to himself. They stand 
 now, therefore, and ever have stood, in a relation to God which 
 no other nation ever has sustained ; and, in consequence of this 
 relation, thevr restoration to the divine favour is an event in 
 itself probable, and one, which Paul afterwards teaches (ver. 
 25,) God has determined to accomplish. 
 
 VERSES 17 24. The object of these verses is to make such 
 an application of the truths which Paul had just taught as 
 should prevent any feeling of exultation or triumph of the Gen- 
 tile Christians over the Jews. It is true that the Jews have 
 been partially rejected from the church of God ; that the Gen- 
 tiles have been introduced into it; and that the Jews are ulti- 
 mately to be restored. These things, however, afford no ground 
 
 * Non est minim, si in patre suo Judaei sanctificati sint. Nihil hie erit 
 difficultatis, si sanctitatem intelligas nibil esse aliud, quam spiritualem gene- 
 ris nobilitatem, ct earn quidem non propriam naturae, sed quae ex foedere 
 manabat. . . . Electi populi dignitas, proprie loquendo, supernaturale priyi- 
 \egiam est. Calvin.
 
 ROMANS XL 17. 579 
 
 Of boasting to the Gentiles, but rather cause of thankfulness 
 %nd caution. Paul illustrates these truths by a very appropri- 
 ate figure. 
 
 VERSE 17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and 
 ihou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, &e. 
 The words tv auro^ may refer to the branches in general, 
 and be rendered as in our version, among them; or they may 
 refer to the rejected branches, and be rendered, in their place. 
 * Some of the branches have been broken off, and you have been 
 inserted in their place.' The purport of the passage is plain. 
 Some of the Jews were broken off and rejected; the Gentiles, 
 though apparently little susceptible of such a blessing, were 
 introduced into the church, and made to partake of all its pecu- 
 liar and precious privileges. The Jewish church is compared 
 to the olive tfee, one of the most durable, productive, and 
 valuable of the productions of the earth, because it was highly 
 favoured, and therefore valued in the sight of God. The Gen- 
 tiles are compared to the wild olive, one of the most worthless 
 of trees, to express the degradation of their state, considered 
 as estranged from God. As it is customary to engraft good 
 scions on inferior stocks, the nature of the product being deter- 
 mined by the graft, and not the root, it has been thought that 
 the illustration of the apostle is not very apposite. But the 
 difficulty may result from pressing the comparison too far. The 
 idea may be simply this, 'As the scion of one tree is engrafted 
 into another, and has no independent life, but derives all its 
 vigour from the root, so the Gentiles are introduced among the 
 people of God, not to confer but to receive good.' It is low- 
 ever said, on the authority of ancient writers nn.l of modern 
 travellers, to have been not unusual to graft the wild on the 
 cultivated olive.* Even if this were so, it would' not be perti- 
 nent to the apostle's object. He does not mean to say, that the 
 graft imparts life and vigour to the root, but the very reverse. 
 There is no necessity for departing from the common view. 
 
 * COLUMELLA dc Re rusttca, V. 9. Solent terebrari ole* laete, in foramen 
 talea vindis oleastri demittitur, et sic velut inita arbor fcecundo semine fer- 
 tilior exstat. 
 
 PALLADIDS de Re rustica, XIV. 53. Foecundat sterilis pinguis oleaster 
 ohvas, et quae non novit munera ferre docet.
 
 580 ROMANS XI. 1820. 
 
 The Gentiles are saved by their introduction into that church 
 of which the patriarchs were the root. 
 
 It is plain from this verse, that the root in this passage can- 
 not be the early converts from among the Jews, but the ancient 
 covenant people of God. The ancient theocracy was merged 
 in the kingdom of Christ. The latter is but an enlargement 
 and elevation of the former. There has, therefore, never been 
 other than one family of God on earth, existing under different 
 institutions, and enjoying different degrees of light and favour. 
 This family was composed, of old, of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, and their descendants. At the advent, its name and 
 circumstances were changed; many of its old members were 
 cast out, and others introduced, but it is the same family still. 
 Or, to return to the apostle's illustration, it is the same tree, 
 some of the branches only being changed. 
 
 VERSE 18. Boast not thyself against the branches; xara~ 
 r.au%dofjiae means, to boast against, in the sense of glorying over 
 any one. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the 
 root thee. A concise expression, for, If thou boast, (i. e., art 
 disposed to do it.) consider that thou bearest not the root, &c. 
 The Gentiles had been brought into fellowship with the patri- 
 archs, not the patriarchs with them. Salvation was from the 
 Jews. The truth that the Jews were the channel of blessings 
 to the Gentiles, and not the reverse, was adapted to prevent all 
 ungenerous and self-confident exultation of the latter over the 
 former. 
 
 VERSE 19. You will say then, The branches were broken off, 
 that I might be grafted in. The apostle guards against a fur- 
 ther ground of self-complacency on the part of the Gentiles. 
 Although forced to admit that the root bore him, and not he 
 the root, yet he might pride himself on the fact, that the 
 branches were broken off, and he put in their place. To this it 
 is answered, that the Gentiles are not authorized to infer, from 
 the fact that the Jews were rejected, and they chosen, that this 
 occurred on the ground of their being in themselves better than 
 the Jews. The true reason of this dispensation is aesigned in 
 the next verse. 
 
 VERSE 20. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off", &c. 
 The fact that they were broken off is admitted, but the infer-
 
 ROMANS XL 21, 22. 581 
 
 ence drawn by the Gentiles is denied. It was not for any 
 personal considerations that the one was rejected and the other 
 chosen. The Jews were rejected because they rejected the 
 Saviour, and the only tenure by which the advantages of a 
 covenant relation to God can be retained is faith. The Gen- 
 tiles will not be secure, because Gentiles, any more than the 
 Jews were safe, because Jews. Instead, therefore, of being 
 high-minded, they should fear. 
 
 VERSE 21. If G-od spared not the natural branches, take 
 heed lest he also spare not thee. The clause, fj^rca)^ ouos <rs 
 <f{<r/jrai, must depend on something understood. Our trans- 
 lators supply ^/errere, take heed; others, (fofto~jfjuu, I fear. 
 The Gentile has even more reason to fear than the Jew had. 
 It was in itself far more probable that God would spare a 
 people so long connected with him in the most peculiar manner, 
 than that he should spare those who had no such claims on his 
 mercy. The idea intended to be expressed by this verse pro- 
 bably is, that the Jews, from their relation to God, were more 
 likely to be spared than the Gentiles, inasmuch as God is 
 accustomed to bear long with the recipients of his mercy, before 
 he casts them off; even as a father bears long with a son, 
 before he discards him and adopts another. 
 
 VERSE 22. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of 
 G-od: on them which fell, severity; but on thee, goodness. 
 Instead of the accusatives arzoTO[Jiia.v and y^arorr^a, Lach- 
 mann and Tischendorf read aTTOTOftla and yj^oTorr^. If this 
 reading be adopted, iariv must be supplied. ' Towards the one 
 class there is severity, towards the other kindness.' The effect 
 which the consideration of these dispensations of God should 
 produce, is gratitude and fear. Gratitude, in view of the favour 
 which we Gentiles have received, and fear lest we should be cut 
 off; for our security does not depend upon our now enjoying 
 the blessings of the church of God, but is dependent on our 
 continuing in the divine goodness or favour, (Rom. iii. 4, Titus 
 iii. 4,) that is, on our doing nothing to forfeit that favour; its 
 continuance being suspended on the condition of our fidelity. 
 If thou continue in (his) goodness, kav ixtpsiw^ r7 t yj^aro-r^ 
 is sometimes explained to mean, if thou continue in goodness^ 
 i. e., in being good, according to the analogy of the following
 
 582 ROMANS XL 23. 
 
 clause, fly e~({tsir<a)a: tf t a-toria, if they continue not in unbe- 
 lief. But this is inconsistent with the context. The jf/>^<rror^c 
 spoken of, is the goodness or love of God. Compare Acts 
 xiii. 43, xpoff/jisi'scv rfj %&["~t roD Bsou, to remain in the grace 
 of G-od. "Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off," kzee xai alt 
 ixxoxrjffT], since, in that case, (i. e., if thou continuest not in his 
 goodness,) thou also shalt be cut off; Ixxo^ar^ second future 
 indicative passive. There is nothing in this language incon- 
 sistent with the doctrine of the final perseverance of believers, 
 even supposing the passage to refer to individuals; for it is 
 very common to speak thus hypothetically, and say that an 
 event cannot, or will not come to pass, unless the requisite 
 means are employed, when the occurrence of the event had 
 been rendered certain by the previous purpose and promise of 
 God; see Acts xxvii. 31. The foundation of all such state- 
 ments is the simple truth, that He who purposes the end, pur- 
 poses also the means ; and he brings about the end by securing 
 the use of the means. And when rational agents are concerned, 
 he secures the use of the means by rational considerations pre- 
 sented to their minds, and rendered effectual by his grace, when 
 the end contemplated is good. This passage, however, has no 
 legitimate bearing on this subject. Paul is not speaking of the 
 connection of individual believers with Christ, which he had 
 abundantly taught in chap. viii. and elsewhere, to be indissolu- 
 ble, but of the relation of communities to the church and its 
 various privileges. There is no promise or covenant on the 
 part of God, securing to the Gentiles the enjoyment of these 
 blessings through all generations, any more than there was any 
 such promise to protect the Jews from the consequences of their 
 unbelief. The continuance of these favours depends on the 
 conduct of each successive generation. Paul therefore says to 
 the Gentile, that he must continue in the divine favour, " other- 
 wise thou also shalt be cut off." 
 
 VKKSE 23. And they also, if they bide not in unbelief, shall 
 be graffed in, &c. The principle which the apostle had just 
 stated as applicable to the Gentiles, is applicable also to the 
 Jews. Neither 011:- nor the other, simply because Jew or Gen- 
 tile, is either retained in the church or excluded from it. As 
 the one continues in this relation to God, only on condition of
 
 ROMANS XI. 24. 583 
 
 faith, so the other is excluded by his unbelief alone. Nothing 
 but unbelief prevents the Jews being brought back, "for God 
 is able to graff them in again."* That is, not merely has God 
 the power to accomplish this result, but the difficulty or impedi- 
 ment is not in him, but solely in themselves. There is no 
 inexorable purpose in the divine mind, nor any insuperable 
 obstacle in the circumstances of the case, which forbids their 
 restoration ; on the contrary, the event is, in itself considered, 
 far more probable than the calling of the Gentiles. 
 
 VERSE 24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is 
 wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good 
 olive-tree; how much more, &c. The connection indicated bjp-' 
 fdp (for,) is not with the preceding clause, Crod is able to graff 
 them in again, because what follows does not prove the power' 
 of God to restore the Jews to their ancient privileges, but that 
 their restoration is a probable event. The connection, there- 
 fore, is with the main idea in the context, as expressed in 
 ver. 23, "They shall be graffed in." This may be expected, 
 he says, for, c. The Gentiles were of the wild olive, having 
 no natural connection with the tree into which they were 
 graffed. The Jews were its natural branches. In itself con- 
 sidered, therefore, their reunion with their native stalk was 
 more probable than the graffing in of the Gentiles. The oppo- 
 sition, however, between XO.TO. <p'jaw and xapa. (f'jacv, does not 
 refer to any natural fitness of the Jews, as a race, for the true 
 religion, in opposition to the unsuitableness of the Gentiles. 
 According to the Scriptures, there is no difference, so far as 
 their relation to God is concerned, between the different races 
 of men, since all have sinned. They are all alike unfit for the 
 service and enjoyment of God, and alike unable to save them- 
 selves. And, on the other hand, they are alike susceptible of 
 the salvation of the gospel, which is adapted to all classes of 
 men. The words in question are used only to preserve the 
 figure of a tree and its branches. The simple meaning, there- 
 fore, of this verse is, that the future restoration of the Jews is, 
 
 * Frigiduru apud homines profanos argumentum hoc foret. ... At quia 
 fideles quoties Dei potentiam nominari audiunt, quasi prsesens opus intuen- 
 tur, hanc rationem satis putavit valere, ad percellendas eorum mentes. 
 Calvin.
 
 584 ROMANS XI. 25. 
 
 in itself, a more probable event than the introduction of the 
 Gentiles into the church of God. This, of course, supposes 
 that God regarded the Jews, on account of their relation to 
 him, with peculiar favour, and that there is still something in 
 their relation to the ancient servants of God, and his covenant 
 with them, which causes them to be regarded with special 
 interest. As men look upon the children of their early friends 
 with kinder feelings than on the children of strangers, God 
 refers to this fact to make us sensible that he still retains pur- 
 poses of peculiar mercy towards his ancient people. The 
 restoration of this people, therefore, to the blessings of the 
 church of God, is far from being an improbable event. 
 
 VERSE 25. For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of 
 this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that 
 blindness in part has happened unto Israel, until the fulness 
 of the Grentiles be come in. Although the interpretations given 
 of this and the following verses are very numerous, they are all 
 modifications of one or the other of the two following general 
 views of the passage. 1. Many understand the apostle as not 
 predicting any remarkable future conversion of the Jewish 
 nation, but merely declaring that the hardening or blinding of 
 the nation, was not such as to prevent many Jews entering the 
 Christian church, as long as the Gentiles continued to come in. 
 Thus all the true Israel, embracing Jews as well as Gentiles, 
 should ultimately be saved. 2. The second general view sup- 
 poses the apostle, on the contrary, to predict a great and gene- 
 ral conversion of the Jewish people, which should take place 
 when the fulness of the Gentiles had been brought in, and that 
 then, and not till then, those prophecies should be fully accom- 
 plished which speak of the salvation of Israel. The former of 
 these views was presented, in different forms, by the great body 
 of the authors who lived about the time of the Reformation ; 
 who were led by the extravagancies of the Millenarians, who 
 built much on this passage, to explain away its prophetic 
 character almost entirely.* Olshausen, in order to show the 
 
 * Wolfius, in his Curse, gives an account of the authors who discuss the 
 meaning of this and the following verses, as Calovius in Bibliis Illustratis ; 
 Buddeus in Institutio Theol. Dog., p. 672. Wolfius himself says, "Contcxtus 
 eaadet credere, Paulum id hie tantum agere, ut conversi e Gentilibus non
 
 ROMANS XI. 25. 585 
 
 hostile feeling entertained by the Reformers towards the Jews, 
 quotes a passage from Luther, which does not admit of trans- 
 lation: "Em jiidisch Herz ist so stoch-stein-eisen-teufelhart, 
 das mit keiner Weise zu bewegen ist ; es sind junge Teufel zur 
 Hblle verdammt, diese Teufelskinder zu bekehren ist unmb'g- 
 lich, wie etliche solchen Wahn schbpfen aus der Epistel an die 
 Romer." 
 
 The second view has been the one generally received in every 
 age of the church, with the exception of the period just referred 
 to. That it is the correct interpretation, appears evident for 
 the following reasons : 1. The whole context and drift of the 
 apostle's discourse is in its favour. In the preceding part of 
 the chapter, Paul, in the plainest terms, had tfcught that the 
 conversion of the Jews was a probable event, and that it would 
 be in the highest degree beneficial and glorious for the whole 
 world. This idea is presented in various forms ; and practical 
 lessons are deduced from it in such a way as to show that he 
 contemplated something more than merely the silent addition 
 of a few Israelites to the church during successive ages. 2. It 
 is evident that Paul meant to say, that the Jews were to be 
 restored in the sense in which they were then rejected. They 
 were then rejected not merely as individuals, but as a commu- 
 nity, and therefore are to be restored as a community ; see 
 vs. 11, 15. How can the latter passage (ver. 15.) especially, 
 be understood of the conversion of the small number of Jews 
 which, from age to age, have joined the Christian Church? 
 This surely has not been as "life from the dead," for the whole 
 world. 3. It is plain from this and other parts of the dis- 
 course, that Paul refers to a great event ; something which 
 should attract universal attention. 4. In accordance with this 
 idea, is the manner of introducing this verse, I would not have 
 you ignorant, brethren; see 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, and elsewhere. 
 Paul uses this form of address when he wishes to rouse the 
 attention of his readers to something specially important. 
 5. The gradual conversion of a few Jews is no mystery, in the 
 scriptural sense of the word. The word H'JOTTJ peov, secret, is 
 
 existiment, Judaeis omnem spem ad Christum in posterum peryeniendi proe- 
 xjisam esse, sed ita potius statuant, ipsis non minus ceteris Gentilibus, nondum 
 conversis, viam patere, qua ad Christum perducantur."
 
 586 ROMANS XI. 25. 
 
 not generally used, in the New Testament, in the sense of the 
 word mystery. It means simply, what is hidden, or unknown ; 
 whether because it is an unrevcaled purpose of God; or 
 because it is future ; or because it is covered up in parables or 
 symbols, (as the mystery of the seven candlesticks, Rev. i. 20 ;) 
 or because it lies beyond the reach of the human mind, Eph. 
 v. 32. It is only in the last-mentioned case that 
 answers to our word mystery. Whatever needs an 
 to become an object of knowledge, is a (jLoa-c^fHOv. It is there- 
 fore used in reference to all the doctrines of the gospel which 
 are not the truths of reason, but matters of divine revelation ; 
 Rom. xvi. 25, 1 Cor. ii. 7, iv. 1, Eph. vi. 19, &c. Hence minis- 
 ters are called? stewards of the mysteries (i. e., of the revela- 
 tions) of God. It is also used of some one doctrine, considered 
 as previously unknown and undiscoverable by human reason, 
 however simple and intelligible in its own nature. Thus, the 
 fact that the Gentiles should be admitted into the church of 
 God, Paul calls a mystery, Eph. i. 9, iii. 4. Any future event, 
 therefore, which could be known only by divine revelation, is a 
 mystery. The fact that all should not die, though all should 
 be changed, was a mystery, 1 Cor. xv. 51. In like manner, 
 here, when Paul says, " I would not, brethren, have you igno- 
 rant of this mystery," he means to say, that the event to which 
 he, referred, was one which, depending on no secondary cause, 
 but on the divine purpose, could be known only by divine reve- 
 lation. This description is certainly far more suitable to the 
 annunciation of a prophecy, than to the statement of a fact 
 which might have been confidently inferred from what God had 
 already revealed. 6. The words, all Israel, in the next verse, 
 cannot, as the first interpretation mentioned above would 
 require, be understood of the spiritual Israel; because the 
 word is just before used in a different sense, "blindness in part 
 has happened unto Israel." This blindness is to continue until 
 a certain time, when it is to be removed, and then all Israel is 
 to be saved. It is plain, that Israel in these cases must be 
 understood as referring to the same class of persons. This is 
 also clear from the opposition between the terms Israel and 
 Gentile. 7. The words (5-%ptZ ov,} correctly rendered in our 
 version, until, cannot, so consistently with usage, be translated,
 
 ROMANS XI. 25. 587 
 
 as long as, or so that, followed as they are here by the aorist 
 subjunctive; see Rev. xv. 8, xvii. 17; compare Heb. iii. 13. 
 8. The following verses seem to require this interpretation. 
 The result contemplated is one which shall be a full accomplish- 
 ment of those prophecies which predicted the salvation of the 
 Jews. The reason given in vs. 28, 29, for the event to which 
 Paul refers, is the unchangeableness of God's purposes and 
 covenant. Having once taken the Jews into special connection 
 with himself, he never intended to cast them off for ever. The 
 apostle sums up his discourse by saying, 'As the Gentiles were 
 formerly unbelieving, and yet obtained mercy, so the Jews who 
 now disbelieve, shall hereafter be brought in ; and thus God 
 will have mercy on all, both Jews and Gentiles.' From all 
 these considerations, it seems obvious that Paul intended here 
 to predict that the tini.e would come when the Jews, as a body, 
 should be converted unto the Lord; compare 2 Cor. iii. 16. 
 The prediction contained in this verse is to be explained by the 
 context. The rejection of the Jews at the time of Christ, did 
 not involve the perdition of every individual of that nation. 
 Thousands, and even myriads, believed and were saved. So the 
 restoration here foretold is not to be understood as including 
 every individual of the Jewish people, but simply that there is 
 to be a national restoration. 
 
 Lest ye should be wise in your own conceits. This is given 
 as the reason why the apostle wished the Gentiles to know and 
 consider the event which he was about to announce. This 
 clause may mean either, ' Lest ye proudly imagine that your 
 own ideas of the destiny of the Jews are correct;' or, 'Lest ye 
 be proud and elated, as though you were better and more 
 highly favoured than the Jews.' The former is perhaps most 
 in accordance with the literal meaning of the words (kv kaoTolz 
 <pp6vtfjoe;) see Prov. iii. 7. 
 
 Blindness in part, i. e., partial blindness ; partial as to its 
 extent and continuance. Because not all the Jews were thus 
 blinded, nor was the nation to remain blind for ever. The 
 words cbro pepou^ are not to be connected with Titbpcaacz, nor 
 with ruj laparjX; but with fefovev. 'Blindness has partially 
 happened to Israel.' The reference, however, is not to the 
 degree, but to the continuance of this blindness. It is not final
 
 588 ROMANS XI. 25. 
 
 and hopeless; it is only for a time. The word 
 rendered blindness, is more correctly rendered, in Mark 
 iii. 5, hardness; compare Eph. iv. 16; see ver. 7, and chap. 
 ix. 18. 
 
 Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Until, //>'C <&, 
 marks the terminus ad quern. This blindness of Israel is to 
 continue until something else happened. There were to be, and 
 have been numerous conversions to Christianity from among the 
 Jews, in every age since the advent ; but their national conver- 
 sion is not to occur until the heathen are converted. What, 
 however, is definitely meant by the xtypatfia rwv l&vcav, it is 
 not easy to determine. The question is not to be decided by 
 the mere signification of the words. In whatever way they may 
 be explained, the general idea is the same. The rj^atopa of 
 the Gentiles may mean, that which makes the Gentiles, as to 
 number, full. Or, according to others, the Gentiles themselves 
 are the MJtyptyttj i. e., the complement; they make full the 
 vacancy left by the rejection of the Jews. Or, as is commonly 
 assumed, nhjptojua is be taken in a secondary sense, for multi- 
 tude. Compare Gen. xlviii. 19: "Multitude (literally fulness) 
 of nations;" and Isa. xxxi. 4, "Multitude (fulness) of shep- 
 herds." This does not mean the totality of the Gentiles. It is 
 not Paul's doctrine, that all Gentiles who ever lived are to be 
 introduced into the kingdom of Christ. Nor does it mean, that 
 all the Gentiles who may be alive when the Jews are converted, 
 shall be true Christians. All that can be safely inferred from 
 this language is, that the Gentiles, as a body, the mass of the 
 Gentile world, will be converted before the restoration of the 
 Jews, as a nation. Much will remain to be accomplished after 
 that event; and in the accomplishment of what shall then 
 remain to be done, the Jews are to have a prominent agency. 
 Their conversion will be as life from the dead to the church. 
 We must remember, that Paul is here speaking as a prophet, 
 Iv dxoxa/.'j^'s:, 1 Cor. xiv. G, and therefore his language must be 
 interpreted by the rules of prophetic interpretation. Prophecy 
 is not proleptic history. It is not designed to give us the know- 
 ledge of the future which history gives us of the past. Great 
 events are foretold; but the mode of their occurrence, their 
 details, and their consequences, can only be learned by the
 
 ROMANS XI. 26. 589 
 
 event. It is in the retrospect that the foreshadowing of the 
 future is seen to be miraculous and divine. 
 
 VERSE 26. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written. 
 Israel, here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people, 
 and all Israel, the whole nation. The Jews, as a people, are 
 now rejected ; as a people, they are to be restored. As their 
 rejection, although national, did not include the rejection of 
 every individual ; so their restoration, although in like manner 
 national, need not be assumed to include the salvation of every 
 individual Jew. flat; ' lapayX is not therefore to be here under- 
 stood to mean, all the true people of God, as Augustin, Calvin, 
 and many others explain it ; ,nor all the elect Jews, i. e., all that 
 part of the nation which constitute " the remnant according to 
 the election of grace;" but the whole nation, as a nation. 
 
 In support of what he had said, the apostle appeals to the 
 Old Testament prophecies. It is probable that here, as else- 
 where, he does not intend to refer exclusively to any one predic- 
 tion, but to give the general sense of many specific declarations 
 of the ancient prophets. Isa. lix. 20, 21, xxvii. 9, Jer. xxxi. 
 31 34, Ps. xiv. 7, are the passages which seem to have been 
 immediately before the apostle's mind, and to have given colour 
 to his language. In Isa. lix. 20, it is said, "The Redeemer 
 shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression 
 in Jacob." Instead of Ix 2cwv, out of Zion, the LXX. have 
 evsxsv 2i(bv, for the sake of Zion, the English version, to Zion. 
 In Ps. xiv. 7, it is, out of Zion. The latter part of the verse, as 
 given by Paul, does not agree with the Hebrew, which is cor- 
 rectly rendered in our version, " Tq such as turn from trans- 
 gression (literally, to the converts of transgression) in Jacob." 
 Paul follows the LXX., xat diroarps^st daeftetaz dno '/axtoft, 
 and shall turn iniquity from Jacob. In Isa. xxvii. 9, the phrase 
 is, "the iniquity of Jacob shall be purged." The general idea 
 expressed in these passages is, " The God, the deliverer, shall 
 come for the salvation of Jacob," i. e., of the Jews. And this 
 is all that Paul desired to establish by these ancient prophecies. 
 The apostle teaches, that the deliverance promised of old, and 
 to which the prophet Isaiah referred in the passage above cited, 
 included much more than the conversion of the comparatively 
 few Jews who believed in Christ at the advent. The full
 
 590 ROMANS XL 27, 28. 
 
 accomplishment of the promise, that he should turn away 
 ungodliness from Jacoh, contemplated the conversion of the 
 whole nation, as such, to the Lord. We are, of course, hound 
 to receive the apostle's interpretation as correct ; and there is 
 the less difficulty in this, as there is nothing in the original 
 passage at all incompatible with it, and as it accords with the 
 nature of God's covenant with his ancient people. 
 
 VERSE 27. For this is my covenant unto them; aurrq OLUTOK; ^ 
 xa.fi ifjioi) dta&yxr], this for them is the covenant which proceed* 
 from me. In the Hebrew it is simply, my covenant; so that 
 xa t o IfjLoo is for the genitive. See, however, Winer, iii., 30. 
 The pronoun avry, t his, is to be referred to what follows ; this 
 is my covenant, (orav, when,) that I will take away their sins. 
 The demonstrative pronoun may be followed, and its reference 
 determined, by iva, John xvii. 3; Idv, 1 John ii. 3; and as in 
 this case, and in 1 John v. 2, by brdv. The quotation in this 
 verse, as that in ver. 26, is not from any one place. The words, 
 This is my covenant with them, occur in Isa. lix. 21 ; the clause, 
 When I shall take away their sins, is from Isa. xxvii. 9, as ren- 
 dered by the LXX., who give the sense of the Hebrew, "Their 
 iniquity shall be purged;" or, literally, to take away his sin. 
 All the apostle intended to prove, is proved by the language of 
 the prophets. The covenant of God with his ancient people 
 secured, after their apostacy and consequent banishment in 
 Babylon, and their dispersion over the earth, and their rejec- 
 tion of Christ, the ultimate purging away of their sin, and their 
 restoration, as a nation, to the Messiah's kingdom. This 
 national conversion is also predicted in Zech. xii. 10, and in 
 many other passages of the Old Testament. 
 
 VERSE 28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for 
 your sakes ; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the 
 fathers' sakes. In this and the few following verses, the apostle 
 sums up what he had previously taught. The Jews, he says, 
 were now, as far as the gospel was concerned, regarded and 
 treated as enemies, for the benefit of the Gentiles; but, in 
 reference to the election, they were still regarded as the pecu- 
 liar people of God, on account of their connection with the 
 patriarchs. They are enemies, whether of the gospel, of the' 
 apostle, or of God, is not expressed, and therefore depends on
 
 ROMANS XI. 29. 591 
 
 the context. Each view of the clause has its advocates. The 
 last is the correct one, because they are enemies to him, by 
 whom, on one account, they are beloved. The word e%$poi may 
 be taken actively or passively ; see v. 10. They are inimical 
 to God, or they are regarded and treated as enemies by him. 
 The latter best suits the context. They are now aliens from 
 their own covenant of promise. 
 
 As concerning the gospel, xara TO iva-ffihov, tha* is, the 
 gospel is the occasion of their being regarded as enemies. This 
 is explained by a reference to vs. 11, 15. By their punishment 
 the progress of the gospel has been facilitated among the Gen- 
 tiles ; and therefore the apostle says, it is for your sakes they 
 are thus treated. On the other hand, xata ds rr^ Ixloffv, as 
 it regards the election, or the covenant of God, they are still 
 regarded with peculiai favour, because descended from those 
 patriarchs to whom and to whose seed the promises were made. 
 This is but expressing in a different form the idea which the 
 apostle had previously presented, viz., that the covenant made 
 with Abraham was inconsistent with the final rejection of the 
 Jews, as a people. God foresaw and predicted their temporary 
 defection and rejection from his kingdom, but never contem- 
 plated their being for ever excluded; see vs. 16, 25 27. 
 "Paui-is autum docet, ita (Judgeos) fuisse ad tempus Dei provi- 
 dentia excaecatos, ut via evangelic ad gentes sterneretur : caete- 
 rum non esse in perpetuum a Dei gratia exclusos. Fatetur 
 ergo Deum non esse immemorem foederis, quod cum patribus 
 eorum pepigit, et quo testatus est, se aeterno consilio gentem 
 iiiam dilectione complexam esse." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 29. For the gifts and calling of G-od are without 
 repentance; T ^aplfffiara xac ^ x/ymz, the gifts of God in gene- 
 ral, and specially the calling of God. Coirmare Mart xvi, 7. 
 God is not man, that ne should cnange. Having chosen the 
 Jews as hi", people, the purpose which he had in view in that 
 choice can never be altered; and as it was his purpose that 
 they should ever remain his people, their future restoration to 
 his favour and kingdom is certain. Having previously explained 
 the nature of God's covenant with his ancient people, Paul 
 infers from the divine character, that it will be fully accom- 
 plished. C'alliny is equivalent to election, as appears from the
 
 592 ROMANS XI. 30, 31. 
 
 context, the one word being substituted for the other, and also 
 from the use of the cognate terms, (see chap. viii. 28, i. 7, &c., 
 &c.) The general proposition of the apostle, therefore, is, that 
 the purposes of God are unchangeable; and, consequently, 
 those whom God has chosen for any special benefit cannot fail 
 to attain it. The persons whom he hath chosen to eternal life 
 shall certainly be saved ; and the people whom he chooses to be 
 his peculiar people, as the Jews were chosen in Abraham, must 
 for ever remain his people. The purpose once formed, and the 
 promise once given, never can be changed. As in the whole 
 context Paul is speaking, not of individuals, but of the rejec- 
 tion and restoration of the Jews as a body, it is evident that 
 the calling and election which he here has in view, are such as 
 pertain to the Jews as a nation, and not such as contemplate 
 the salvation of individuals. 
 
 VERSES 30, 31. For as ye in times past have not believed 
 God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even 
 so, &c. These verses contain a repetition and confirmation of 
 the previous sentiment. The cases of the Gentiles and Jews 
 are very nearly parallel. Formerly the Gentiles were disbe- 
 lieving, yet the unbelief of the Jews became the occasion of 
 their obtaining mercy; so now, though the Jews are dis- 
 obedient, the mercy shown to the Gentiles is to be the means 
 of their obtaining mercy. As the gospel came from the Jews 
 to the Gentiles, so is it to return from the Gentiles to the Jews. 
 Paul had before stated how the unbelief of the Israelites was 
 instrumental in promoting the salvation of other nations, and 
 how the conversion of the Gentiles was to re-act upon the Jews. 
 It is in confirmation of what had just been said, that the 
 apostle introduces what follows by yap, for. For as ye in time 
 past have not believed. Ye, of course referring to the Gentiles. 
 In times past, i. e., before the coming of Christ. Save not 
 believed God, -r^tt&^aaTS. 7(p &<p, disobeyed God. According 
 to the Scriptures, however, faith is an act of obedience, and 
 unbelief is disobedience. Hence the to obey often means to 
 believe or confide in. That is, the same act may be expressed 
 by either word. Thus in Heb. v. 9, Christ is said to be the 
 author of salvation to all those who obey him. In the New 
 Testament dxet&eiv and dxsideia are always used to express
 
 ROMANS XI. 32. 593 
 
 disobedience to the truth; that is, the act of rejecting the 
 truth. It is not, therefore, moral disobedience in general that 
 is here referred to, but unbelief. Have obtained mercy through 
 their unbelief, TTJ TO'JTWV dnsi&eia. The dative has here a 
 causal force. The unbelief of the Jews was, as an historical 
 fact, the occasion of the gospel's being extended to the Gen- 
 tiles. So have these also not believed, that through your mercy 
 they may also obtain mercy, o5ro> xai ouroe v~jv -fasldrjaav r< 
 6petp<p /*, tva xai avroc khrftatat. The translation given 
 of this clause in the English version, supposes that a/a is 
 out of its proper place, and should stand before rw ufj.Tep(v l?.hc, 
 that through your mercy they may obtain mercy. In the Greek 
 these words are connected with ^rct&gNw; and accordingly in 
 the Vulgate they are rendered, "ita et isti nunc non credide- 
 runt in vestram misericordiam." And Luther translates, 
 " And these now have not chosen to believe the mercy which; 
 you have accepted or experienced." Calvin: "Si nunc in- 
 creduli facti sunt, eo quod adepti estis misericordiam," (because 
 ye have obtained mercy.) Lachmann, in his edition of the 
 Greek Testament, adopts the same construction, putting a 
 comma after llht. The parallelism of the verse, and the 
 obvious antithesis between lAhi and dxst&sia, (your mercy and 
 their unbelief.] demand the other mode of explanation. This- 
 trajection of the particle iva is not unusual. For the sake of 
 emphasis, some clause or word is placed before, when its- 
 logical position would be after the particle. See 2 Cor. ii. 4, 
 Tfy d.'(6,~r t v 1\a. yvwrs. 
 
 VERSE 82. For G-od hath concluded all in unbelief; avvzhcw 
 c> in a literal or local sense, means, to hut up. together in a 
 place; and metaphorically, to deliver over to the power of. 
 Here the idea is, that God, in the dispensation of his provi- 
 dence and grace, has so ordered things, that all, Gentiles and 
 Jews, first the one, and then the other, should reveal their true 
 character as sinners, and stand out in history confessed as 
 unbelievers. For examples of a similar form of expression, see 
 Ps. xxxi. 8, "Thou hast shut me up (auvexhcoaz) into the 
 hands of the enemy;" Ps. Ixxviii. 50, "He gave their life over 
 ((juvszhiasv) to the pestilence." Compare Gal. iii. 22. In 
 none of these cases is the word used simply declarative^,, 
 38
 
 694 ROMANS XI. 3336. 
 
 "God declared them to be unbelievers." Nor is mere permis- 
 sion all that is expressed. God's efficiency or control is 
 directly asserted. God gave the Psalmist into the hands of 
 his enemy, and he gave up first the Gentiles and then the 
 Ji i \v.s, unto unbelief. The agency of God in giving men up to 
 sin is punitive ; it is consistent with their liberty and responsi- 
 bility, and with his own holiness. He does not cause their sin, 
 but he so orders his dispensations, that their sinfulness is 
 revealed, and the mode of its manifestation determined. It 
 seems also to enter into the design of the apostle to show 
 that God had dealt alike with Gentile and Jew. They stood 
 on the same ground. Both were dependent on sovereign 
 mercy. Both had sunk into a state from which the grace 
 of God alone could save them. As all were equally miserable 
 and helpless, God determined to have mercy upon all, and 
 to bring all, Jews as well as Gentiles, into the fold of Christ. 
 
 VERSES 33 36. The apostle having finished his exhibition 
 of the plan of redemption, having presented clearly the doc- 
 trine of justification, sanctification, the certainty of salvation 
 to all believers, election, the calling of the Gentiles, the present 
 rejection and final restoration of the Jews, in view of all the 
 wonders and all the glories of the divine dealings with men, 
 pours forth this sublime and affecting tribute to the wisdom, 
 goodness, and sovereignty of God. Few passages, even in the 
 Scriptures, are to be compared with this, in the force with 
 which it presents the idea that God is all, and man is nothing. 
 It is supposed by many that these verses have reference to the 
 doctrines taught in the immediate context ; and that it is the 
 wisdom of God, as displayed in the calling of men, Gentiles 
 and Jews, which Paul here contemplates. Others restrict 
 them still further to the display of the mercy of God, of which 
 the apostle had just been speaking. But the passage should 
 be applied to that to which it is most naturally applicable. 
 The question is, what called forth these admiring views of the 
 dispensations of God? The truth that he would ultimately 
 restore his ancient people? or the whole exhibition of the 
 economy of redemption ? As the passage occurs at the close 
 of this exhibition, as it expresses precisely the feelings which it 
 might be expected to produce, and as there is nothing to restrict
 
 ROMANS XI. 33. 595 
 
 it to the immediate context, it is most natural to consider it as 
 referring to all that the apostle had hitherto taught. 
 
 The principal ideas presented in this passage are, 1. The 
 incomprehensible character and infinite excellence of the divine 
 nature and dispensations, ver. 33. 2. God's entire independ- 
 ence of man, vs. 34, 35. 3. His comprehending all things 
 within himself; being the source, the means, and the end of 
 all, ver. 35. 
 
 VERSE 33. the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
 knoioledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and 
 his icays past finding out. There are two methods of interpret- 
 ing these words. First, the three genitives, X/M>JTOL>, aotfiaz, 
 pwtfcw', may stand in the same relation to ftd&oz. the 
 depth of the riches, and of the wisdom, and of the knowledge 
 of God. Or ;r/oyroy may qualify ;9<$oc, the depth of the 
 riches, (the inexhaustible, or inconceivable, depth) both of the 
 wisdom and knowledge of God. So far as commentators are 
 concerned, they are about equally divided as to these explana- 
 tions. If the former method be adopted, riches may be under- 
 stood to refer specially to the mercy or goodness of God, 2, 4, 
 10, 12; or, to his resources in general. 'How inconceivable 
 are the resources of God,' i. e., his plenitude of perfections and 
 of means. If the latter, then it refers simply to the inconceiv- 
 ableness of God's wisdom and knowledge. As, however, the 
 grace of God is not only prominently presented throughout the 
 epistle, but is specially referred to as an object of admiration 
 in these verses, the former explanation is on the whole to be 
 preferred. Although it is not probable that, in such a pas- 
 sage, every word was designed to be taken in a very precise 
 and definite sense, yet it is likely that Paul meant to express 
 different ideas by the terms wisdom and knowledge, because 
 both are so wonderfully displayed in the work of redemption, 
 of which he had been speaking. All-comprehending know- 
 ledge, which surveyed all the subjects of this work, all the 
 necessities and circumstances of their being, all the means 
 requisite for the accomplishment of the divine purpose, and all 
 the results of those means from the beginning to the end. 
 Infinite wisdom, in selecting and adapting the means to the 
 object in view, in the ordering of the whole scheme of creation,
 
 506 ROMANS XI. 34, 35. 
 
 providence and redemption, so that the glory of God, and the 
 happiness of his creatufes are, and are to be, so wonderfully 
 promoted. His judgments, TO. xpipara oorot;, may be under- 
 stood in the wide sense, his decisions, i. e., his purposes, or 
 decrees; or in the more restricted and proper sense, his judicial 
 decisions, his judgments concerning men; or it may refer to his 
 providential judgments or dispensations, and be perfectly par- 
 allel with al oldoi ayrou, his ways. As of old, the ruler was 
 also the judge to judge often means to rule and the same 
 \vord is used for the decisions of the judge and the decrees or 
 ordinances of the ruler. In this case, however, as Paul dis- 
 tinguishes between wisdom and knowledge, so it is better to 
 retain the shade of distinction between judgments and ways. 
 The former are dve^e^eyv^ra, incapable of being investigated as 
 to their grounds or reasons ; the latter are &vttyyi.ajot:ot, impos- 
 sible to trace, (from fyvoc, footprint.) We can only wonder and 
 adore. We can never understand. And it is well that it is so. 
 What can be understood must be limited. What is fully com- 
 prehended no longer exercises, excites, or enlarges. It is 
 because God is infinite in his being, and incomprehensible in 
 liis judgments and in his ways, that he is an inexhaustible 
 source of knowledge and blessedness. 
 
 VERSE 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or, 
 who hath been his counsellor ? This verse is designed to con- 
 firm what is said in ver. 33. These clauses may be taken as 
 synonymous, or the first may refer to God's judgments, and the 
 second, to his ways. Who hath known what God designed to 
 do, and the reasons of his decrees ? and, Who hath counselled 
 him as to the mode of their execution ? In his purposes and 
 his dispensations he is equally and perfectly independent, 
 infinitely exalted above the supervision or direction of his 
 creatures. 
 
 VERSE 35. Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be 
 recompensed to him again ? This is not to be confined to 
 giving counsel or knowledge to God, but expresses the general 
 idea that the creature can do nothing to place God under obli- 
 gation. It will be at once perceived how appropriate is this 
 thought, in reference to the doctrines which Paul had been 
 teaching. Men are justified, not on the ground of their own
 
 ROMANS XI. 36. 597 
 
 merit, but of the merit of Christ ; they are sanctified, not by 
 the power of their own good purposes, and the strength of their 
 own will, but by the Spirit of God ; .they are chosen and called 
 to eternal life, not on the ground of anything in them, but 
 according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after 
 the counsel of his own will. God, therefore, is the Alpha and 
 the Omega of salvation. The creature has neither merit nor 
 power. His hopes must rest on sovereign merey alone. There 
 is a correspondence between the several clauses in these verses. 
 4 Who hath given to God,' refers to the plenitude and sove- 
 reignty of his grace, (the fia&o$ 7r/oyroy) ; ' Who hath known 
 the mind of the Lord?' to his unsearchable knowledge; and 
 ' Who hath been his counsellor ?' to his infinite wisdom. This 
 was remarked long ago. Thus Theodoret says : TO. TOCO. TOUTS. 
 7T/>6c TO. Toia Ted-sixs, TOV xlouTov xat Trp ootfiav xac Tr t v 
 TO }j.v rr'c lyvto VQ~JV xuplo'j xpbz TT^V fv&atv, TO os TI 
 abTOit I^S^STO TT/>OC rrp aoyiav, TO 3s rr'c xpoioioxtv a'jT<jj xai 
 avTaTzo&rjGZTat ~pb$ TOV TtXoitTOv. 
 
 VERSE 36. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all 
 things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen. The reason why 
 man can lay God under no obligation, is, that God is himself all 
 and in all ; the source, the means, and the end. By him all 
 things are ; through his power, wisdom, and goodness, all things 
 are directed f and governed; and to him, as their last end, all 
 things tend. The prepositions Ix, dca, f , here .used, indicate 
 that God is the source, the constantly working cause, and end 
 of all things. Among the fathers, it was a common opinion 
 that the apostle had reference to the Trinity, and intended in 
 these words to indicate the relation of all things to the several 
 persons of the Godhead. All things are of the Father, through 
 the Son, and to the Spirit. So Tholuck and Olshausen. To 
 this, however, it is objected, that such reference is not 
 demanded by the context, and that the Spirit's relation to 
 what is out of himself is expressed by $v, not by V- Compare 
 Eph. iv. 6. It is God as God, the Godhead, and not the 
 persons of the Trinity in their distinct relations, that is here 
 brought into view. When Paul asks, Who hath first given t(i 
 God ? the answer is, No one, for of him, through him, and to 
 him, are all things. It is for the display of his character every
 
 598 ROMANS XL 11 3G. 
 
 thing exists, and is directed, as the highest and noblest of all 
 sible objects. Creatures arc as nothing, less than vanity 
 and nothing in comparison -with God. Human knowledge, 
 }>uwer, and virtue, are me're glimmering reflections from the 
 brightness of the divine glory. That system of religion, there- 
 fore, is best in accordance with the character of God, the 
 nature of man, and the end of the universe, in which all things 
 :ire of, through, and to God ; and which most effectually leads 
 men to say, NOT UNTO us, BUT UNTO THY NAME BE ALL TIIE 
 GLORY! 
 
 Such is the appropriate conclusion of the doctrinal portion of 
 this wonderful epistle ; in which more fully and clearly than in 
 any other portion of the word of God, the plan of salvation is 
 presented and defended. Here are the doctrines of grace; 
 doctrines on which the pious in all ages and nations have rested 
 their hopes of heaven, though they may have had compara- 
 tively obscure intimations of their nature. The leading prin- 
 ciple of all is, that God is the source of all good ; that in fallen 
 man there is neither merit nor ability; that salvation, conse- 
 quently, is all of grace, as well sanctification as pardon, as well 
 flection as eternal glory. For of him, and through him, aud 
 to him, are all things ; to whom be glory for ever. Amen. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. There is to be a general conversion of the Jews, concern- 
 ing which the apostle teaches us, 1. That it is to be in some 
 way consequent on the conversion of the Gentiles, vs. 11 31. 
 "2. That it will be attended with the most important and 
 desirable results for the rest of the world, vs. 12, 15. 3. That 
 it is to take place after the fulness of the Gentiles is brought 
 in; that is, after the conversion of multitudes of the Gentiles, 
 (how many, who can tell?) ver. 25. Nothing is said of this 
 restoration being sudden, or effected by miracle, or consequent 
 on the second advent, or as attended by a restoration of the 
 Jews to their own land. These particulais have all been added 
 by some commentators, either from their own imagination, or 
 from their views of other portions of the Scriptures. They are 
 not taught by the apostle. On the contrary, it is through the 
 mercy shown to the Gentiles, according to Paul, that the Jews
 
 ROMANS XI. 1136. 
 
 are to be brought in, which implies that the former are to be 
 instrumental in the restoration of the latter. And he every- 
 where teaches, that within the church the distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile ceases. In Christ there is neither Jew nor 
 Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, Col. iii. 11 ; all 
 classes are merged in one, as was the case under the direction 
 of the apostles in the first ages of the church. 
 
 2. The church of God is the same in all ages and under all 
 dispensations. It is the society of the true people of God, 
 together with their children. To this society the ancient- 
 patriarchs and their posterity belonged ; into this society, at 
 the time of Christ, other nations were admitted, and the great 
 body of the Jews were cast out, and into this same community 
 the ancient people of God are to be again received. In every 
 stage of its progress, the church is the same. The olive-tree 
 is one, though the branches are numerous, and sometimes 
 changed, vs. 17 24. 
 
 3. The web of Providence is wonderfully woven. Good and 
 evil are made with equal certainty, under the government of 
 infinite wisdom and benevolence, to result in the promotion 
 of God's gracious and glorious designs. The wicked unbelief 
 and consequent rejection of the Jews, are made the means 
 of facilitating the conversion of the Gentiles ; the holy faith 
 and obedience of the Gentiles, are to be the means of the 
 restoration of the Jews, vs. 11, 31. 
 
 4. All organized communities, civil and ecclesiastical, have a 
 common responsibility, a moral personality in the sight of God, 
 and are dealt \vith accordingly, rewarded or punished according 
 to their conduct, as such. As their organized existence is con- 
 fined to this world, so must the retributive dispensations of God 
 respecting them be. Witness the rejection, dispersion, and 
 sufferings of the Jews, as a national punishment for then- 
 national rejection of the Messiah. Witness the state of all 
 the eastern churches broken off from the olive-tree for the 
 unbelief of former generations. Their fathers sinned, and their 
 children's children, to the third and fourth generation, suffer 
 the penalty, as they share in the guilt, vs. 11 24. 
 
 5. The security of every individual Christian is suspended 
 on his continuing in faith and holy obedience ; which is indeed
 
 COO ROMANS XL 1136. 
 
 rendered certain by the purpose and promise of God. In like 
 manner, the security of every civil and ecclesiastical society, in 
 the enjoyment of its peculiar advantages, is suspended on its 
 fidelity as such, for which fidelity there is no special promise 
 with regard to any country or any church, vs. 20 24. 
 
 6. God does sometimes enter into covenant with communities, 
 as such. Thus he has covenanted with the whole human 
 race that the world shall not be again destroyed by a deluge, 
 and that the seasons shall continue to succeed each other, in 
 regular order, until the end of time. Thus he covenanted with 
 the Jews to be a God to them and to their seed for ever, and 
 that they should be to him a people. This, it seems, is a per- 
 petual covenant, which continues in force until the present day, 
 and which renders certain the restoration of the Jews to the 
 privileges of the church of God, vs. 16, 28, 29. 
 
 7. It is the radical principle of the Bible, and consequently 
 of all true religion, that God is all and in all ; that of him, and 
 through him, and to him, are all things. It is the tendency of 
 all truth to exalt God, and to humble the creature ; and it is 
 characteristic of true piety to feel that all good comes from 
 God, and to desire that all glory should be given to God, 
 vs. 3336. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The mutual relation between the Christian church and the 
 Jews should produce in the minds of all the followers of Christ, 
 
 1. A deep sense of our obligations to the Jews as the people 
 through whom the true religion has been preserved, and the 
 blessings of divine truth extended to all nations, vs. 17, 18. 
 
 2. Sincere compassion for them, because their rejection and 
 misery have been the means of reconciling the world to God, 
 i. e., of extending the gospel of reconciliation among men, 
 vs. 11, 12, 15. 3. The banishment of all feelings of contempt 
 towards them, or exultation over them, vs. 18, 20. 4. An 
 earnest desire, prompting to prayer and effort, for their restora- 
 tion, as an event fraught with blessings to them and to all the 
 world, and one which God has determined to bring to pass, 
 vs. 12, 15, 25, &c. 
 
 2. The dealings of God with his ancient people should,
 
 ROMANS XI. 1130. 601 
 
 moreover, teach us, 1. That we have no security for the con- 
 tinuance of our privileges but constant fidelity, ver. 20. 
 2. That, consequently, instead of being proud and self-con- 
 fident, we should be humble and cautious, vs. 20, 21. 3. That 
 God will probably not bear with us as long as he bore with the 
 Jews, ver. 21. 4. That if for our unbelief we are cast out of 
 the church, our punishment will probably Jbe more severe. 
 There is no special covenant securing the restoration of any 
 apostate branch of the Christian church, vs. 21, 24, with 16, 
 2729. 
 
 3. It is a great blessing to be connected with those who are 
 in covenant with God. The promise is " to thee and thy seed 
 after thee." " The Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, 
 which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him 
 and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations," Deut. 
 vii. 9. The blessing of Abraham reaches, in some of its 
 precious consequences, to the Jews of this and every coming 
 age, vs. 16, 2729. 
 
 4. The destiny of our children and our children's children is 
 suspended, in a great measure, on our fidelity. " God is a jeal- 
 ous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children 
 unto the third and foufth generation of them that hate him." 
 What words of woe for unborn thousands, were those, "His 
 blood be on us and on our children!" As the -Tews of the pre- 
 sent age are suffering the consequences of the unbelief of their 
 fathers, and the nominal Christians of the eastern churches 
 suffer for the apostacy of previous generations, so will our 
 children perish, if we, for our unbelief as a church and nation, 
 are cast off from God, vs. 19 24. 
 
 5. As the restoration of the Jews is not only a most desirable 
 event, but one which God has determined to accomplish, Chris- 
 tians should keep it constantly in view even in their labours for 
 the conversion of the Gentiles. This Paul did, vs. 13, 14. 
 Every effort to hasten the accession of the fulness of the Gen- 
 tiles is so much done towards the restoration of Israel, ver. 25. 
 
 6. Christians should not feel as though they were isolated 
 beings, as if each one need be concerned for himself alone, 
 having no joint responsibility with the community to which he 
 belongs. God will deal with our church and country as a
 
 602 ROMANS XII. 1. 
 
 whole, and visit our sins upon those who are to come after us. 
 We should feel, therefore, that we are one body, members one 
 of another, having common interests and responsibilities. We 
 ought to weep over the sins of the community to which we 
 belong, as being in one sense, and in many of their conse- 
 quences, our sins, vs. 11 24. 
 
 7. As the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, 
 those to whom he has given the Holy Spirit, and has called 
 unto holiness, may rejoice in the certainty of the continuance 
 of these blessings, ver. 29. 
 
 8. Does the contemplation of the work of redemption, and 
 the remembrance of our own experience, lead us to sympathize 
 with the apostle in his adoring admiration of the wisdom and 
 goodness of God, and feel that, as it regards our salvation, 
 everything is of him, and through him, and to him ? vs. 33 30. 
 
 9. As it is the tendency and result of all correct views bf 
 Christian doctrine to produce the feelings expressed by the 
 apostle at the close of this chapter, those views cannot be scrip- 
 tural which have a contrary tendency; or which lead us to 
 ascribe, in any form, our salvation to our own merit or power, 
 vs. 3336. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THIS chapter consists of two parts. The first, vs. 1 8, treats 
 of piety towards God, and the proper estimation and use of the 
 various gifts and offices employed or exercised in the church. 
 The second, vs. 9 21, relates to love and its various manifes- 
 tations towards different classes of men. 
 
 ROMANS XII. 18. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 As the apostle had concluded the doctrinal portion of the 
 
 epistle with the preceding chapter, in accordance with his
 
 ROMANS XII. 1. 603 
 
 almost uniform practice, he deduces from his doctrines import- 
 ant practical lessons. The first deduction from the exhibition 
 which he had made of the mercy of God in the redemption of 
 men, is that they should devote themselves to him as a living 
 sacrifice, and be conformed to his will and not to the manners 
 of the world, vs. 1, 2. The second is, that they snould be 
 humble, and not allow the diversity of their gifts to destroy the 
 sense of their unity as one body in Christ, vs. 3 5. These 
 various gifts were to be exercised, not for selfish purposes, but 
 in a manner consistent with their nature and design ; diligently, 
 disinterestedly, and kindly, vs. 6 8. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies 
 of Grod, &c. As the sum of all that Paul had said of the justi- 
 fication, sanctification, and salvation of men is, that these 
 results are to be attributed not to human merit nor to human 
 efforts, but to the mercy of God, he brings the whole discussion 
 to bear as a motive for devotion to God. Whatever gratitude 
 the soul feels for pardon, purity, and the sure prospect of eter- 
 nal life, is called forth to secure its consecration to that God 
 who is the author of all these mercies. 
 
 That ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, accept- 
 able unto Crod. All the expressions of this clause seem to 
 have an obvious reference to the services of the Old Testament 
 economy. Under that dispensation, animals free from blemish 
 were presented and devoted to God; under the new dispensa- 
 tion a nobler and more spiritual service is to be rendered ; not 
 the oblation of animals, but the consecration of ourselves. The 
 expression, your bodies, is perhaps nearly equivalent to your- 
 selves; yet Paul probably used it with design, not only because 
 it was appropriate to the figure, but because he wished to ren- 
 der the idea prominent, that the whole man, body as well as 
 soul, was to be devoted to the service of God. " Ye are bought 
 with a price ; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your 
 spirit, which are God's," 1 Cor. vi. 20. The apostle carries 
 the figure out ; the sacrifice is to be living, holy and acceptable. 
 The first of these epithets is generally considered as intended 
 to express the contrast between the sacrifice here intended, and
 
 604 ROMANS XII. 1. 
 
 the victims which were placed lifeless upon the altar; thus 
 believers, in 1 Peter ii. 5, are called " living stones," in oppo- 
 sition to the senseless materials employed in a literal building. 
 We are to present tiuaiav a>0av, a sacrifice that lives. " Abomi- 
 nabile est, cadaver offere." Bengel. The word living, how- 
 ever, may mean perpetual, lasting, never neglected; as in the 
 phrases, "living bread," John vi. 51, 'bread which never 
 looses its power;' "living hope," 1 Peter i. 3, 'hope which 
 never fails;' "living waters," "a living way," &c. ; (see 
 WahTs Lexicon, .under the word cta.) The sacrifice then 
 which we are to make is not a transient service, like the obla- 
 tion of a victim, which was in a few moments consumed upon 
 the altar, but it is a living or perpetual sacrifice never to be 
 neglected or recalled. The epithet holy has probably direct 
 reference to the frequent use of a nearly corresponding word 
 (Diftri) in the Hebrew scriptures, which, when applied to sacri- 
 fices, is commonly rendered, without blemish. The word holy is 
 then in this case equivalent to immaculate, i. e., free from those 
 defects which would cause an offering to be rejected. The 
 term acceptable is here used in the same sense as the phrase 
 "for a sweet smelling savour," Eph. v. 2, Phil. iv. 18, Lev. i. 9, 
 i. e., grateful, w ell- pleasing ; a sacrifice in which God delights. 
 T(jj 6stp is to be connected with e'jdfjsa-rov and not with 
 
 Your reasonable service. There is doubt as to the gram- 
 matical construction of this clause. The most natural and 
 simple explanation is to consider it in apposition with the pre- 
 ceding member of the sentence, as has been done by our trans- 
 lators, who supply the words which is. This consecration of 
 ourselves to God, which the apostle requires, is a reasonable 
 service. The word karftsia does not mean an offering, but 
 worship. It is not the thing offered that is said to be reason- 
 able in the sense of, endowed with reason, but the nature of the 
 service. It is rendered by the mind. The word (forqdjv) ren- 
 dered reasonable, is indeed variously explained. The simplest 
 interpretation is that which takes the word in its natural sense, 
 viz., pertaining to the mind ; it is a mental or spiritual service, 
 in opposition to ceremonial and external observances. Com- 
 pare the phrase (Xo-ftxbv fa/a), 'milk suited, or pertaining to
 
 ROMANS XII. 2. 605 
 
 the mind.' 1 Peter ii. 2. Others understand these words as 
 expressing the difference between the sacrifices under the 
 Christian dispensation and those under the Old. Formerly 
 animals destitute of reason (d.),ofa <oa) were offered unto God, 
 but now men possessed of a rational soul. But this interpreta- 
 tion is neither so well suited to the meaning of the word, nor 
 does it give a sense so consistent with the context; compare 
 1 Peter ii. 5. 
 
 VERSE 2. And be not conformed to this world, but be ye 
 transformed by the renewing of your mind, &c. Not only is 
 God to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, as required in the 
 preceding verse, but there must be a corresponding holiness of 
 life. This idea is expressed in the manner most common with 
 the sacred writers. Regarding men universally as corrupted 
 and devoted to sin, the world is with them equivalent to the 
 wicked; to be conformed to the world, therefore, is to be like 
 unrenewed men in temper and in life. The word accurately 
 rendered conformed, expresses strongly the idea of similarity 
 in character and manners; and that rendered transformed 
 expresses with equal strength the opposite idea. This world. 
 The origin of this term, as used in the New Testament, is no 
 doubt to be sought in the mode of expression so common 
 among the Jews, who were accustomed to distinguish between 
 the times before, and the times under the Messiah, by calling 
 the former period this world, or this age, (rwn fibis) and the 
 latter, the world, or age to come (z*2n fcbi*). The former phrase 
 thus naturally came to designate those who were without, and 
 the latter those who were within the kingdom of Christ ; they 
 are equivalent to the expressions the world and the church; 
 the mass of mankind and the people of God ; compare 1 Cor. 
 ii. 8, Eph. ii. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 4, Luke xx. 35, Heb. ii. 5, vi. 5. 
 There is, therefore, no necessity for supposing, as is done by 
 many commentators, that the apostle has any special reference, 
 in the use of this word, to the Jewish dispensation ; as though his 
 meaning were, ' Be not conformed to the Jewish opinions and 
 forms of worship, but be transformed and accommodated to the 
 new spiritual economy under which ye are placed.' The word 
 (aio)v) here used, and the equivalent term (xoffpoz) commonly 
 translated world, are so frequently used for the mass of man-
 
 606 ROMANS XII. 3. 
 
 kind, considered in opposition to the people of God, that there 
 can be no good reason for departing from the common interpre* 
 tation, especially as the sense which it affords is so good in 
 itself, and so well suited to the context. 
 
 By the renewing of your mind. This phrase is intended to 
 be explanatory of the preceding. The transformation to which 
 Christians are exhorted, is not a mere external change, but one 
 which results from a change of heart, an entire alteration of 
 the state of the mind. The word voDc, mind, is used as it is 
 here, frequently in the New Testament, Rom. i. 28, Eph. iv. 17, 
 23, Col. ii. 18, c. In all these and in similar cases, it does not 
 differ from the word heart, i. e., in its wide sense for the 
 whole soul. 
 
 That ye may be able to prove what is that good and acceptable 
 and perfect will of Grod. The logical relation of this clause to 
 the preceding .is doubtful, as the original (src ro ooxc/id^eii^) 
 admits of its being regarded as expressing either the design or 
 the result of the change just spoken of. Our translators have 
 adopted the former view, 4 Ye are renewed, in order that ye 
 may be able to prove, &c.' The other, however, gives an 
 equally good sense, 'Ye are renewed so that ye prove, &c.;' 
 such is the effect of the change in question. The word ren- 
 dered to prove, signifies also to approve; the sense of this 
 passage, therefore, may be either, ' that ye may try or prove 
 what is acceptable to God,' i. e., decide upon or ascertain what 
 is right; or, 'that ye may approve what is good, &c.' The 
 words good, acceptable, and perfect, are by many considered as 
 predicates of the word will. As, however, the expression 
 'acceptable will of God' is unnatural and unusual, the majority 
 of modern commentators, after Erasmus, take them as substan- 
 tives; 'that ye may approve what is good, acceptable, and 
 perfect, viz., the will of God.' The last phrase is then in appo- 
 sition with the others. The design and result then of that great 
 change of which Paul speaks, is, that Christians should know, 
 delight in, and practise, whatever is good and acceptable to 
 God; compare Eph. v. 10, 17, Phil. iv. 8. 
 
 VKRSE 3. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to 
 every man that is among you, not to think of himself more 
 highly than he ought to think, &c. The apostle connects with
 
 ROMANS XII. 3. 607 
 
 the general exhortation contained in the preceding verses, and 
 founds upon it, an exhortation to special Christian virtues. 
 The first virtue which he enjoins upon believers is modesty or 
 humility. This has reference specially to the officers of the 
 church, or at least to the recipients of spiritual gifts. It is 
 very evident from 1 Cor. xii. and xiv., that these gifts were 
 coveted and exercised by many of the early Christians for the 
 purpose of self-exaltation. They, therefore, desired not those 
 which were most useful, but those which were most attractive ; 
 and some were puffed up, while others were envious and dis- 
 contented. This evil 'the apostle forcibly and beautifully 
 reproved in the chapters referred to, in the same manner that 
 he does here, and much more at length. He showed his 
 readers that these gifts were all gratuitous, and were, therefore, 
 occasions of gratitude, but not grounds of boasting. He 
 reminds his readers that the design for which these gifts were 
 bestowed, was the edification of the church, and not the exalta- 
 tion of the receiver ; that, however diversified in their nature, 
 they were all manifestations of one and the same Spirit, and 
 were as necessary to a perfect whole as the several members 
 of the body, with their various offices, to a perfect man. 
 Having one Spirit, and constituting one body, any exaltation 
 of one over the other was as unnatural as the eye or ear dis- 
 regarding and despising the hand or the foot. As this 
 tendency to abuse their official and spiritual distinctions was 
 not confined to the Corinthian Christians, we find the apostle, 
 in this passage, giving substantially the same instructions to the 
 Romans. 
 
 Through the grace given unto me. The word grace in this 
 clause is by many understood to mean the apostolic office, 
 which Paul elsewhere speaks of as a great favour. " Tantun- 
 dem valent ejus verba acsi dixisset : Non loquor a me ipso, sed 
 legatus Dei, quae mihi mandata ille injunxit, ad vos perfero. 
 Gratiam (ut prius) vocat apostolatum, quo Dei bonitatem in eo 
 commendet, ac sirnul innuat, se non irrupisse propria temeritate, 
 sed Dei vocatione assumptum." Calvin. Compare chap. i. 5, 
 xv. 15, Eph. ii. 2, 8. But this is too limited; the word 
 probably includes all the favour of God towards him, not 
 merely in conferring on him the office of an apostle, but in
 
 608 ROMANS XI. 8. 
 
 bestowinga 11 the gifts of the Spirit, ordinary and extraordinary, 
 which qualified him for his duties, and gave authority to his 
 instructions. Through, dea, i. e., on account of, or out of 
 regard to. 
 
 Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to 
 think. The word to think is an inadequate translation of the 
 Greek, (tfpovziv,} inasmuch as the latter includes the idea of the 
 exercise of the affections as well as of the intellect ; see 
 chap. viii. 5, Col. iii. 2, Phil. iii. 19. To think of one-self too 
 highly, is to be puffed up with an idea of our own importance 
 and superiority. 
 
 But to think soberly, according as G-od hath dealt to every 
 man the measure of faith. There is in the first member of this 
 clause a beautiful paranomasia in the original ((fpovtlv :<; 
 TO 0u)(ff>ovziv) which is lost in a translation. The word ren- 
 dered soberly properly means to be of a sane mind; and then 
 to be moderate or temperate. Paul speaks of one who overesti- 
 mates or praises himself as being beside himself; and of him 
 who is modest and humble as being of a sane mind, i. e., as 
 making a proper estimate of himself. "For whether we be 
 beside ourselves, it is to God ; or whether we be sober, it is for 
 your cause," 2 Cor. v. 13, i. e., 'If we commend ourselves, it 
 is that God may be honoured; and if we act modestly and 
 abstain from self-commendation, it is that you may be bene- 
 fitted.' To think soberly, therefore, is to form and manifest a 
 right estimate of ourselves, and of our gifts. A right estimate 
 can never be other than a very humble one, since, whatever 
 there is of good in us is not of ourselves, but of God. 
 
 The expression measure or proportion of faith, is variously 
 explained. Faith may be taken in its usual sense, and the 
 meaning of the clause be, 'Let every one think of himself 
 according to the degree of faith or confidence in God which has 
 been imparted to him, and not as though he had more than he 
 really possesses.' Or faith may be taken for what is believed, 
 or for knowledge of divine truth, and the sense be, ' according 
 to the degree of knowledge which he has attained.' Or it may 
 be taken for t hat which is confided to any, and be equivalent 
 to gift. The sense then is, ' Let every one think of himself 
 according to the nature or character of the gifts which he has
 
 ROMANS XII. 4, 5. 609 
 
 received." This is perhaps the most generally received inter- 
 pretation, although it is arrived at in different ways ; many 
 considering the word faith here as used metonymically for its 
 effects, viz., for the various (yapiayLOxa) graces, ordinary and 
 extraordinary, of which it is the cause. This general sense is 
 well suited to the context, as the following verses, containing a 
 specification of the gifts of prophesying, teaching, ruling, &c., 
 appear to be an amplification of this clause. The first men- 
 tioned interpretation is, however, most in accordance with the 
 usual meaning of xiarcz. 
 
 VERSES 4, 5. For as we have many members in one body, 
 and all members have not the same office; so we, &c. In these 
 verses we have the same comparison that occurs more at length 
 in 1 Cor. xii., and for the same purpose. The object of the 
 apostle is in both cases the same. He designs to show that the 
 diversity of offices and gifts among Christians, so far from 
 being inconsistent with their union as one body in Christ, is> 
 necessary to the perfection and usefulness of that body. Ifc 
 would be as unreasonable for all Christians to have the same: 
 gifts, as for all the members of the human frame to have the 
 same office. This comparison is peculiarly beautiful and appro- 
 priate ; because it not only clearly illustrates the particular 
 point intended, but at the same time brings into view the 
 important truth that the real union of Christians results from 
 the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as the union of the several 
 members of the body is the result of their being all animated, 
 and actuated by one soul. Nothing can present in a clearer 
 light the duty of Christian fellowship, or the sinfulness of divi- 
 sions and envyings among the members of Christ's body, than 
 the apostle's comparison. 'Believers, though many, are one- 
 body in Christ, and every one members one of another.' 01 
 Tto/J.ot sv ffa)fjid laftev. We, the many, are one body. In one 
 respect we are many, in another we are one. Just as the body 
 is many as to its members, and one in their organic connection. 
 Believers are one body, i. e., a living organic whole, not in 
 virtue of any external organization, but in Christ, i. e., in 
 virtue of their common union with him. And as this union with 
 Christ is not merely external, or by profession, or by unity of 
 opinion and sentiment only, but vital, arising from the indwell- 
 39
 
 610 ROMANS XII. 6. 
 
 ing of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ, so, the apostle 
 adds, the union of believers one with another, is also a vital 
 union. They are 6 xaff uz //^/wv y"AJy, every one members one 
 of another. The relation of believers to each other is far more 
 intimate than that between the members of any external organi- 
 zation, whether civil or ecclesiastical. It is analogous to the 
 mutual relation of the members of the same body, animated by 
 one soul. 6 xaff 1 ere for 6 xaP Zva, in the sense of ere sxfiwroc, 
 is a solecism occurring only in the later Greek. 
 
 VERSE 6. Having therefore gifts differing according to the 
 grace given unto w, &c. In this and the following verses we 
 have the application of the preceding comparison to the special 
 object in view. 'If Christians are all members of the same 
 body, having different offices and gifts, instead of being puffed 
 up one above another, and instead of envying and opposing 
 each other, they should severally discharge their respective 
 duties diligently and humbly for the good of the whole, and not 
 for their own advantage.' It is a common opinion that the 
 apostle, in specifying the various gifts to which he refers, meant 
 to arrange them under the two heads of prophesying and admin- 
 istering ; or that he specifies the duties of two classes of officers, 
 the prophets and deacons (dcdxovoi). To the former would then 
 belong prophesying, teaching, exhortation ; to the latter, min- 
 istering, giving, ruling, showing mercy. This view of the pas- 
 sage, which is adopted by De Brais, Koppe, and others, requires 
 that the terms prophet and deacon should be taken in their 
 widest sense. Both are indeed frequently used with great 
 latitude ; the former being applied to any one who speaks as 
 the mouth of God, or the explainer of his will ; and the latter 
 to any ministerial officer in the church, 1 Cor. iii. 5, Eph. iii. 7, 
 Col. i. 7, 23, &c. Although this interpretation is -consistent 
 with the usage of the words, and in some measure simplifies the 
 passage, yet it is by no means necessary. There is no appear- 
 ance of such a systematic arrangement ; on the contrary, Paul 
 seems to refer without any order to the various duties which the 
 officers and even private members of the church were called 
 upon to perform. The construction in the original is not 
 entirely regular, and, therefore, has been variously explained. 
 There is no interpretation more natural than that adopted by
 
 ROMANS XII. 6. 611 
 
 our translators, who, considering the passage as elliptical, have 
 supplied in the several specifications the phrases which in each 
 case the sense requires. Instead of beginning a new sentence 
 with ver. 6, many commentators connect e^ovrec with e<r^ev in 
 ver. 5, and make the following accusatives depend on it. The 
 whole passage is then regarded as declarative, and not exhorta- 
 tive. ' We are one body having gifts, prophecy according to 
 the proportion of faith ; or the gift of ministering, in the minis- 
 try, he that teacheth, in teaching,' &c. It is plain, however, 
 that this requires a very forced interpretation to be given to the 
 several terms here used. Ataxovia does not in the same clause 
 mean first the gift, and then the exercise of the gift ; much less 
 can Iv TjJ -apaxtyffsi, ev &r^6r;jTY, &c., indicate the sphere within 
 which the gifts mentioned are exercised. Others retaining the 
 exhortatory character of the passage, still connect lyo\*Tzz with 
 ver. 5. ' We are having gifts, whether prophecy or ministry, 
 let us use them aright.' On the whole, the simplest method is 
 to begin a new sentence with e^ovrec, and supply the necessary, 
 verb in the several clauses, as is done in our version, and by 
 Olshausen, Fritzsche, Phillipi. Comp. 1 Peter iv. 11, e? TIC; 
 Xo/c?, ttc Abfta. 6soi> (sc. kahtiTto). &c. 
 
 Having therefore gifts differing according to the grace given 
 unto us, i. e., as there are in the one body various offices and 
 gifts, let every one act in a manner consistent with the nature 
 and design of the particular gift which he has received. Whe- 
 ther prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of 
 faith. The first gift specified is that of prophecy, with regard 
 to the precise nature of which there is no little diversity of 
 opinion. The original and proper meaning of the Hebrew 
 word rendered prophet in the Old Testament, is interpreter, one 
 who explains or delivers the will of another. And to this idea 
 the Greek term also answers. It matters little whether the 
 will or purpose of God which the prophets were called upon to 
 deliver, had reference to present duty or to future events. 
 They derived their Hebrew name not from predicting what was 
 to come to pass, which was but a small part of their duty, but 
 from being the interpreters of God, men who spoke in his name. 
 We accordingly find the term prophet applied to all classes of 
 religious teachers under the old dispensation. Of Abraham it
 
 612 ROMANS XII. 6. 
 
 is said, " He is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee and thou 
 shalt live," Gen. xx. 7. The name is often applied to Moses 
 as the great interpreter of the will of God to the Hebrews, 
 Deut. xviii. 18 ; and the writers of the historical books are also 
 constantly so called. The passage in Exod. vii. 1, is peculiarly 
 interesting, as it clearly exhibits the proper meaning of this 
 word. "And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made 
 thee a god to Pharaoh ; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy 
 prophet," i. e. he shall be thy interpreter. In chap. iv. 16, it 
 is said, "He shall be a mouth to thee;" and of Jeremiah, God 
 says, "Thou shalt be my mouth," Jer. xv. 19; compare Deut. 
 xviii. 18. Any one, therefore, who acted as the mouth of God, 
 no matter what was the nature of the communication, was a 
 prophet. And this is also the sense of the word in the New 
 Testament;* it is applied to any one employed to deliver a 
 divine message, Matt. x. 41, xiii. 57, Luke iv. 24, vii. 26 29, 
 "What went ye out to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, 
 and much more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is 
 written, Behold I send my messenger, &c." John iv. 19, 
 "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet," i. e., an inspired 
 man. Acts xv. 32, "And Judas and Silas, being prophets, 
 also themselves exhorted the brethren and confirmed them." 
 1 Cor. xii. 28, "God hath set in the church, first, apostles; 
 secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; &c." 1 Cor. xiv. 
 29 32, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the 
 other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth 
 by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one 
 by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted. For the 
 spirits of the prophets are subjects to the prophets." "If any 
 man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual (inspired), let 
 him acknowledge, &c." From these and numerous similar pas- 
 
 * In common Greek, also, this is the meaning of the word. The /ud>TK was 
 the immediate receiver of the divine influence, and declarer of the oracles, and 
 the jrjo<*r>ic was the interpreter. Hence /uci/<r~r yryxfiireu the interpreters of th 
 Mutts. These two words, however, ,uarr and a-jc^'-rac, are frequently used 
 indiscriminately, the latter being applied to any person who spoke under a 
 divine influence. As poets were supposed to speak under a certain kind of 
 inspiration, they too were called prophets. Paul used the word in this sense 
 when he wrote to Titus, Tit. i. 12, "A prophet of their own said, the Cretans 
 are always liars," &c.
 
 ROMANS XII. 6. 613 
 
 sages, it appears that the prophets in the Christian church 
 were men who spoke under the immediate influence of the 
 Spirit of God, and delivered some divine communication rela- 
 ting to doctrinal truths, to present duty, to future events, &c., 
 as the case might he.* The point of distinction between them 
 and the apostles, considered as religious teachers, appears to 
 have been that the inspiration of the apostles was abiding, they 
 were the infallible and authoritative messengers of Christ; 
 whereas the inspiration of the prophets was occasional and 
 transient. The latter differed from the teachers (diodaxatoc), 
 inasmuch as these were not necessarily inspired, but taught to 
 others what they themselves had learned from the Scriptures, or 
 from inspired men. 
 
 Agreeably to this view of the office of the prophets, we find 
 the sacred writers speaking of the gift of prophecy as consist- 
 ing in the communication of divine truth by the Spirit of God, 
 intended for instruction, exhortation, or consolation. " Though 
 I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and 
 all knowledge," 1 Cor. xii. 2; "He that prophesieth speaketh 
 unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort," 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 4 ; " If all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth 
 not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, 
 &c." ver. 24. 
 
 The gift of which Paul here speaks, is not, therefore, the 
 faculty of predicting future events, but that of immediate occa- 
 sional inspiration, leading the recipient to deliver, as the mouth 
 of God, the particular communication which he had received, 
 whether designed for instruction, exhortation, or comfort. The 
 apostle required that those who enjoyed this gift should exer- 
 
 * Tlf^tiTttf, vates, i. e., vir divinus, qui afflatu divino gaudet et cui numea 
 retegit, quae antea incognita erant, maxitne ad religionem pertinentia. Wahi. 
 
 Sunt qui propheliam intelligunt divinandi facultatem, quae circa evangelii 
 primordia in ecclesia vigebat. . . . Ego vero eos sequi malo, qui latius exten4- 
 unt hoc nomen ad peculiare revelationis donum, ut quis dextre ac perite in 
 Toluntate Dei enarranda munus interprets obeat. Calvin. 
 
 On the nature of the office of prophet, see Koppe's Excursus III., appended 
 to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians; and Winer's Realwbrter- 
 buch, under the word Propheten. Both these treatises are rationalistic, yet 
 both contain the materials for a fair examination of the subject. See also 
 Neander on the Planting of the Christian Church, Vol. L
 
 014 ROMANS XII. 6. 
 
 cise it according to the proportion of faith. This clause admits 
 f different interpretations. The word (dva}>oria) rendered 
 proportion, may mean either proportion, or measure, rule, 
 standard. Classic usage is rather in favour of the former of 
 these meanings. The latter, however, is necessarily included 
 in the former ; and the word is defined by Hesychius, measure, 
 canon, or rule. The choice between the two meanings of the 
 word must depend on the sense given to the word faith, and on 
 the context. Faith may here mean inward confidence or 
 belief; or it may mean the gift received, i. e. that which is 
 confided (TO Kzntot ZUJJLSVOV); or, finally, that which is believed, 
 truths divinely revealed. If the first of these three senses be 
 adopted, the passage means, ' Let him prophesy according to 
 his internal convictions ; that is, he must not exceed in his 
 communication what he honestly believes to have been divinely 
 communicated, or allow himself to be carried away by enthu- 
 siasm, to deliver, as from God, what is really nothing but his 
 own thoughts.' If the second sense (of xiarez) be preferred, 
 the clause then means, 'Let him prophesy according to the 
 proportion of the gifts which he has received ; i. e. let every 
 one speak according to the degree and nature of the divine 
 influence, or the particular revelation imparted to him.' If, 
 however, faith here means, as it does in so many other places, 
 the object of faith, or the truths to be believed, (see Gal. i. 23, 
 iii. 25, vi. 10, Eph. iv. 5, 2 Thess. iii. 5, &c.,) then according 
 to the proportion signifies, agreeably to to the ride or standard; 
 and the apostle's direction to the prophets is, that in all their 
 communications they are to conform to the rule of faith, and 
 not contradict those doctrines which had been delivered by men 
 whose inspiration had been established by indubitable evidence 
 In favour of this view of the passage is the frequent use of the 
 word faith in the sense thus assigned to it. The ordinary sub- 
 jective sense of the word does not suit the passage. The 
 amount or strength of faith does not determine either the 
 extent to which the gift of prophecy is enjoyed, or the manner 
 in which it is exercised. There were prophets who had no 
 saving faith at all; just as many performed miracles, who were 
 not the true disciples of Christ. ; 'In that day," says our Lord, 
 il many shall say uuto me, Lord, Lord, have Ave not prophesied
 
 ROMANS XII. 6. 615 
 
 in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils ? and in thy 
 name done many wonderful works ? To whom he will say, I 
 never knew you." The second sense given to nioTiz, that which 
 is confided to any one, i. e. a, gift, is without any authority. 
 The objective sense of the word, ^although denied by many of 
 the strict philological interpreters, is nevertheless well estab- 
 lished by such expressions, "obedience to the faith," "doer of 
 faith," "faith once delivered to the saints," and is perfectly 
 familiar in ecclesiastical usage. 2. The fact that similar direc- 
 tions respecting those who consider themselves prophets or 
 inspired persons, occur in other passages. Thus Paul says, 
 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let 
 him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the 
 commandments of the Lord;" 1 Cor. xiv. 37. This was the 
 standard ; and no man had a right to consider himself inspired, 
 or to require others so to regard him. who did not conform 
 himself to the instructions of men whose inspiration was beyond 
 doubt. Thus too the apostle John commands Christians, 
 " Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be 
 of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the 
 world," 1 John iv. 1. And the standard by which these pro- 
 phets were to be tried, he gives in ver. 6: "We are of God: 
 he that knoweth God, heareth us ; and he that is not of God, 
 heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the 
 spirit of error." It was obviously necessary that Christians, 
 in the age of immediate inspiration, should have some means 
 of discriminating between those who were really under the 
 influence of the Spirit of God, and those who were either 
 enthusiasts or deceivers. And the test to which the apostles 
 directed them was rational, and easily applied. There were 
 inspired men to whose divine mission and authority God had 
 borne abundant testimony by "signs and wonder, and divers 
 miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit." As God cannot con- 
 tradict himself, it follows that anything inconsistent with the 
 teachings of these men, though proceeding from one claiming 
 to be a prophet, must be false, and the pretension of its author 
 to inspiration unfounded. Accordingly, the apostle directed 
 that while one prophet spoke, the others were to judge, i. e. 
 decide whether he spoke according to the analogy of faith ; and
 
 616 ROMANS XII. 7. 
 
 whether his inspiration was real, imaginary, or feigned. 3. This 
 interpretation is also perfectly suitable to the context. Paul, 
 after giving the general direction contained in the preceding 
 verses, as to the light in which the gifts of the Spirit were to 
 be viewed, -and the manner in which they were to be used, in 
 this and the following verses, gives special directions with 
 respect to particular gifts. Those who thought themselves 
 prophets should be careful to speak nothing but truth, to con- 
 form to the standard ; those who ministered should devote 
 themselves to their appropriate duties, &c. 
 
 VERSE 7. Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he 
 that teacheth, on teaching. The terms minister and ministry 
 (dtdxovot; and dtaxovia, deacon and deaconship,} are used in the 
 New Testament both in a general and a restricted sense. In 
 the former, they are employed in reference to all classes of 
 ecclesiastical officers, even the apostles ; see 1 Cor. iii. 5, 2 Cor. 
 vi. 4, Eph. iii. 7, vi. 21, Col. i. 7, 23, 1 Tim. iv. 6, Acts i. 17, 
 25, xx. 24, Rom. xi. 13, I Cor. xii. 5, 2 Cor. iv. 1, &c. In the 
 latter, they are used in reference to a particular class of 
 officers, to whom were committed the management of the exter- 
 nal affairs of the church, the care of the poor, attention to the 
 sick, &c.; see Acts vi. 1 3, Phil. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 8 13, &c. 
 It is doubtful in which of these senses the latter of the above- 
 mentioned words is here used by the apostle, most probably in 
 the restricted sense. The apostle exhorts different classes of 
 officers to attend to their own peculiar vocation, and to exercise 
 their own gifts, without intruding into the sphere of others, or 
 envying their superior endowments. The deacons, therefore, 
 were to attend to the poor and the sick, and not attempt to 
 exercise the office of teachers. Luther, and many others, give 
 the words their wide sense. " Hat jemand ein Amt, so warte 
 er des Amtes :" If a man has an office, let him attend to it. 
 But this would render unnecessary the specifications which 
 follow. The apostle, in this context, refers to definite ecclesi- 
 astical offices in connection with ordinary Christian duties. 
 That is, he exhorts both church officers and private Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 He that teacheth, on teaching. Teachers are elsewhere 
 expressly distinguished from prophets, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29 : " God
 
 ROMANS XII. 8. 617 
 
 hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, pro- 
 phets ; thirdly, teachers. Are all apostles ? are all prophets ? 
 are all teachers ? are all workers of miracles ?" And in this 
 passage they are not to be confounded, nor is teaching to be 
 regarded, in this place, as one part of prophesying. As 
 remarked above on ver. 6, the teachers were distinguished from 
 prophets, inasmuch as the former were not necessarily inspired, 
 and were a regular and permanent class of officers. Those who 
 had the gift of prophecy, were to exercise it aright ; those who 
 were called to the office of deacons, were to devote themselve8 
 to their appropriate duties ; and those who had the gift of 
 teaching, were to teach. 
 
 VERSE 8. He that exhorteth, on exhortation. The word 
 (jrapaxa^edj} here used, means to invite, exhort, and to comfort. 
 Our translators have probably selected the most appropriate 
 sense. Teaching is addressed to the understanding; exhorta- 
 tion, to the conscience and feelings. There Avas probably no 
 distinct class of officers called exhorters, as distinguished from 
 teachers; but as the apostle is speaking of gifts ?<* well as 
 officers, (both are included in the word -^afiiafjiara^ his direc- 
 tion is, that he who had the gift of teaching, should teach ; and 
 that he who had a gift for exhortation, should be content to 
 exhort. 
 
 He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, 
 with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. These 
 directions have reference to the manner in which the duties of 
 church officers and of private Christians ought to be performed. 
 In this connection, the former no doubt are principally, though 
 not exclusively intended. It is a common opinion, that giving, 
 ruling, showing mercy, (6 ftSTadtoouz, o xpoiaTdftsvoz, 6 lleajv,) 
 refer to different functions of the deaconate. But not only the 
 use of {jtsradtdouz instead of oeadidou^ the former properly 
 meaning giving (what is one's own,) and the latter, distribut- 
 ing is opposed to this view, but the whole exhortation, which 
 refers with equal, or greater propriety, to the state of mind 
 and the manner in which the private duties of Christian fellow- 
 ship are be performed. There seems to be no good reason for 
 the restriction of the directions here given to either class, 
 officers or private members, exclusively. He that giveth, with
 
 618 ROMANS XII. 8. 
 
 simplicity, frr^onjrf, singleness of mind. This direction, con- 
 sidered in reference to the deacons, whom, no doubt, Paul 
 included in his exhortation, contemplates their duty of impart- 
 ing or distributing to the necessity of the saints. This duty, 
 by whomsoever performed, is to be done with simplicity, i. e., 
 with purity of motive, free from all improper designs. This 
 same word is rendered singleness of heart, in Eph. vi. 5, Col. 
 iii. 22, and occurs in the same sense, in the phrase, " simplicity 
 and godly sincerity," 2 Cor. i. 12. Considered in reference to 
 private Christians, this clause may be rendered, he that giveth, 
 with liberality; see 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 13. 
 
 He that ruleth, with diligence. Here again the right dis- 
 charge of ecclesiastical duties is principally intended ; 1 Thess. 
 v. 12, " We beseech you, brethren, to know (esteem, love) them 
 that are over you in the Lord;" 1 Tim. v. 17, "The elders 
 that rule well." There is considerable diversity of opinion as 
 to the explanation to be here given to 6 xpoi0Tdfji*voz. The 
 word properly means, one who is placed over, who presides, or 
 rules. It is, however, used in a more restricted sense, for a 
 patron, one who befriends others, and especially strangers. 
 Hence in xvi. 2, Phoebe is called a xpoardTts, a patroness, one 
 who befriended strangers. As what precedes and what follows, 
 giving and showing mercy, relates to acts of kindness, the one 
 to the poor, the other to the sick, so this word, it is urged, 
 should be understood of showing kindness to strangers. There 
 is certainly force in this consideration. But as there is very 
 slight foundation for the ascription of this meaning to the 
 word in the New Testament, and as it is elsewhere used in its 
 ordinary sense, (see 1 Thess. v. 13, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 17,) it is 
 commonly understood of rulers. Some take it in reference to 
 rulers in general, civil or ecclesiastical; others, of church- 
 rulers or elders ; others, specifically of the forestaer, or pastor, 
 or bishop of the congregation. The objection against this 
 restricted reference to the presiding officer of a church, is the 
 introduction of the term in the enumeration of ordinary Chris- 
 tian duties. He that gives, he that acts as pastor, he that 
 shows mercy, is rather an incongruous association. It is more 
 common, therefore, to understand KpOflfrdpMPOC, of any one who 
 exercises authority in the church. Those who were called to
 
 ROMANS XII. 18. 619 
 
 exercise the office of ruler, were required to do it (Iv 
 with diligence, i. e. with attention and zeal. This is opposed 
 to inertness and carelessness. The government of the church, 
 in correcting abuses, preventing disorders, and in the adminis- 
 tration of discipline, calls for constant vigilance and fidelity. 
 "IIpocffrdfjievoLK; tametsi proprie nuncupat eos, quibus mandata 
 erat ecclesiae gubernatio (erant autem illi seniores, qui aliis 
 prseibant ac moderabantur, vitseque censuram exercebant,) quod 
 autem de illis dicit extendi in universum ad prsefecturas omne 
 genus potest. Neque enim aut parva ab iis solicitudo requiri- 
 tur, qui omnium securitati consul ere, aut parva sedulitas ab 
 iis, qui pro salute omnium noctes diesque excubare debent." 
 Calvin. 
 
 He that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness, (IXaporyi;, hilarity.) 
 As the former direction (he that giveth, with simplicity) had 
 reference to the care of the poor, this relates to the care of the 
 sick and afflicted. These were the two great departments of 
 the deacons' duties. The former was to be discharged with 
 honesty, this with cheerfulness ; not as a matter of constraint, 
 but with alacrity and kindness. On this, the value of any ser- 
 vice rendered to the children of sorrow mainly depends. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The great principle, that truth is in order to holiness, 
 which is so frequently taught in the Scriptures, is plainly 
 implied in this passage. All the doctrines of justification, 
 grace, election, and final salvation, taught in the preceding 
 part of the epistle, are made the foundation for the practical 
 duties enjoined in this, ver. 1. 
 
 2. The first great duty of redeemed sinners is the dedication 
 of themselves to God. This consecration must be entire, of the 
 body as well as the soul ; it must be constant, and according to 
 his will, ver. 1. 
 
 3. Regeneration is a renewing of the mind, evincing itself 
 in a transformation of the whole character, and leading to the 
 knowledge and approbation of whatever is acceptable to God, 
 ver. 2. 
 
 4. God is the giver of all good, of honours and ofiices as 
 well as of talents and graces ; and in the distribution of his
 
 620 ROMANS XII. 18. 
 
 favours he renders to every man according to his own 
 vs. 3, 6. 
 
 5. Christians arc one body in Christ. This unity is not 
 consistent with great diversity of gifts, but necessarily implies 
 it; as the body is one from the union of various members, 
 designed for the performance of various functions, vs. 4, 5. 
 
 6. The different offices of .the church are of divine appoint- 
 ment, and are designed for the benefit of the whole body, and 
 not for the advantage of those who hold them, vs. 6 8. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The effect produced upon us by the mercies of God, in 
 redemption, and in his providence, affords an excellent criterion 
 of character. If they lead us to devote ourselves to his service, 
 they produce the effect for which they were designed, and we 
 may conclude that we are of the number of his children. But 
 if they produce indifference to duty, and cherish the idea that 
 we are the special favourites of heaven, or that we may sin with 
 impunity, it is an evidence that our hearts are not right in the 
 eight of God, ver. 1. 
 
 2. While Christians should remember that the service which 
 they are called upon to render is a rational service, pertaining 
 to the soul, they should not suppose that it consists merely in 
 the secret exercises of the heart. The whole man and the 
 whole life must be actively and constantly devoted to God, 
 vei 1 . 1. 
 
 3. Those professors of religion who are conformed to the 
 world, cannot have experienced that renewing of the mind 
 which produces a transformation of character, ver. 2. 
 
 4. Self-conceit and ambition are the besetting sins of men 
 entrusted with power, or highly gifted in any respect, as dis- 
 content and envy are those to which persons of inferior station 
 or gifts are most exposed. These evil feelings, so offensive to 
 God, would be subdued, if men would properly lay to heart, 
 that peculiar advantages are bestowed according to the divine 
 pleasure ; that they are designed to advance the glory of God, 
 and the good of his church, and not the honour or emolument 
 of those who receive them; and that very frequently those 
 which are least attractive in the sight of men, are the most
 
 ROMANS XII. 18. 621 
 
 important in the sight of God. It is here as in the human 
 frame ; not the most comely parts are the most valuable, but 
 those which are the least so. The vital parts of our system 
 never attract the praise of men, and are never the source of 
 vanity or pride, ver. 3. 
 
 5. As Christians are one body in Christ, they should feel 
 their mutual dependence and their common interest in their 
 Head, from whom life, intelligence, enjoyment, and every good 
 comes. They should sympathize in each other's joys and sor- 
 rows ; the hand should not envy the eye, nor the eye despise 
 the foot. How can they, who are destitute of this common 
 feeling with their fellow Christians, be partakers of that Spirit 
 by which true believers are constituted really and not merely 
 nominally one? vs. 4, 5. 
 
 6. Real honour consists in doing well what God calls us to 
 do, and not in the possession of high offices or great talents, 
 vs. 68. 
 
 7. No man's usefulness is increased by going out of his 
 sphere. It is a great mistake to suppose because one pos- 
 session or employment may, in itself considered, afford better 
 opportunity of doing good than another, that therefore any 
 or every man would be more useful in the one than in the 
 other. The highest improvement of the individual, and the 
 greatest good of the whole, are best secured by each being 
 and doing what God sees fit to determine. If all were the 
 same member, where were the body ? ' God is not the author 
 of confusion, but of order, in all the churches of the saints,' 
 vs. 68. 
 
 8. No amount of learning, no superiority of talent, nor even 
 the pretension to inspiration, can justify a departure from the 
 analogy of faith, i. e., from the truths taught by men to whose 
 inspiration God has borne witness. All teachers must be 
 brought to this standard; and even if an angel from heaven 
 should teach anything contrary to the Scriptures, he should be 
 regarded as anathema, Gal. i. 8. It is a matter of constant 
 gratitude that we have such a standard whereby to try the 
 spirits whether they be of God. Ministers of Christ should 
 see to it, that they do not incur the curse which Paul denounces 
 on those who preach another gospel, ver. 6.
 
 622 ROMANS XII. 9. 
 
 9. Private Christians, and especially ecclesiastical officers, 
 are required to discharge their respective duties with singleness 
 of heart, and in the exercise of those virtues which the peculiar 
 nature of their vocation may demand, vs. 6 8. 
 
 ROMANS XII. 921. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 HAVING treated of those duties which belong more especially 
 to the officers of the church, the apostle exhorts his readers 
 generally to the exercise of various Christian virtues. There 
 is no logical arrangement observed in this part of the chapter, 
 except that the general exhortation to love precedes the pre- 
 cepts which relate to those exercises which are, for the most 
 part, but different manifestations of this primary grace. The 
 love of the Christian must be sincere, and lead to the avoiding 
 of evil, and the pursuit of good, ver. 9. It must produce 
 brotherly affection and humility, ver. 10 ; diligence and devo- 
 tion, ver. 11; resignation, patience, and prayer, ver. 12; 
 charity and hospitality, ver. 13; forgiveness of injuries, ver. 
 14; sympathy with the joys and sorrows of others, ver. 15; 
 concord and lowliness of mind, ver. 16 ; and a constant endea- 
 vour to return good for evil, vs. 17 11. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 9. Let love be without dissimulation, or, Love is with- 
 out hypocrisy, i. e., sincere, not hypocritical, and not consisting 
 in words merely. The love intended in this verse, is probably 
 love to all men, and not to Christians exclusively, as in ver. 10, 
 brotherly affection is particularly specified. Much less is love 
 to God the idea meant to be expressed. 
 
 Abhor tiiat which is evil; cleave to that which is good. There 
 is a number of participles following this verse, to which our 
 translators supply the imperative of the substantive verb ; l be 
 abhorring,' 'be kindly affectioned,' &c. Others connect them 
 all with s-jAofsFrs in ver. 14; 'abhorring evil,' 'being kindly 
 affectioned,' 'bless those,' &c. But these participles do not
 
 ROMANS XII. 10. 623 
 
 express what should qualify, or characterize, the act of blessing 
 our persecutors; 'hating,' 'loving the brethren,' 'bless your 
 enemies,' &c. It is more natural to assume that the apostle 
 departs slightly from the regular construction, and Avrites aa 
 though, in ver 9, he had said, dj-dnare dvuxoxpiraz, d-oatofo- 
 
 ez, x.T.L Compare 2 Cor. i. 7, and Heb. xiii. 5, &<fddp- 
 6 rpoTios (for, dyddpyupot TrspirraTelre,} dpxo'jfjtsi<oe rotf 
 itapouatv. This is the explanation given by Philippi and others. 
 The words rendered to abhor (dTioarofeui) and to cleave to (xaX- 
 IdofjLai) are peculiarly forcible, and express the highest degree 
 of hatred on the one hand, and of persevering devotion on the 
 other. The latter word, in the active form, properly means, to 
 glue, and in the middle, to attach one's self to any person or 
 thing. The words evil and good, in this passage, may be under- 
 stood of moral good and evil ; and the exhortation be considered 
 as a general direction to hate the one and love the other. But 
 the great majority of commentators, out of regard to the con- 
 text, take the terms in a restricted sense, making the former 
 mean injurious, and the latter kind. The sense of the whole 
 verse would then be, ' Let love be sincere ; strive to avoid what 
 is injurious to others, and earnestly endeavour to do whatever 
 is kind and useful.' As the words themselves admit of either 
 of these interpretations, the choice between them depends upon 
 the context. The latter is, on this ground, perhaps to be pre- 
 ferred. 
 
 VERSE 10. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly 
 love, in honour preferring one another. ' As to brotherly love, 
 be kindly affectioned one towards another.' This exhortation 
 seems to have special reference to Christians. The word 
 (ycAoffTopj-oz) used by the apostle, expresses properly the 
 strong natural affection between parents and children (ffroppj), 
 but is applied also to tender affection of any kind. Here, no 
 doubt, the idea is, that Christians should love each other with 
 the same sincerity and tenderness as if they were the nearest 
 relatives. 
 
 In honour preferring one another. This passage, thus trans- 
 lated, cannot be understood otherwise than as an exhortation 
 to humility ; and such is the interpretation generally given to 
 it. But the word (npor^siadae) rendered to prefer, never occurs
 
 624 ROMANS XII. 11. 
 
 in that sense elsewhere. It means properly, to go before, tc 
 lead; and then, figuratively, to set an example. And the word 
 translated honour, may mean deference, respect, and even kind- 
 ness, (observantia et omnia humanitatis officia quae aliis dcbe- 
 mus. Schleusner.) The sense of the clause may then be, 'as 
 to respect and kindness (tv/hy) going before each other, or 
 setting an example one to another.' This interpretation, which 
 is given by most of the recent commentators, is not only better 
 suited to the meaning of the words, but also to the context. 
 The Vulgate translates, "Honore invicem prsevenientes ;" and 
 Luther, " Einer komme dem Andern mit Ehrererbietung zu vor." 
 It is not only an iujunction of politeness, but that in all acts of 
 respect and kindness, we should take the lead. Instead of wait- 
 ing for others to honour us, we should be beforehand with them 
 in the manifestation of respect. 
 
 VERSE 11. Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serv- 
 ing the Lord. The love to which the apostle exhorts his readers 
 is not inactive or cold ; on the contrary, it manifests itself in 
 diligence, zeal, and devotion to God. The word rendered busi- 
 ness (a~ov8ij) properly means haste, activity. It is the effect or 
 outward manifestation of zeal. The exhortation has not the 
 reference which our version would naturally suggest, viz., to 
 the active performance of our several vocations; it refers 
 rather to religious activity : ' As to activity or diligence, do not 
 grow weary or be indolent; on the contrary, be fervent in 
 spirit.' The word spirit is by many understood of the Holy 
 Spirit; it most naturally refers to the mind; compare Acts 
 xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos, " being fervent in spirit 
 (i. e., zealous,) he spake and taught diligently." This clause, 
 therefore, stands in opposition to the preceding. Instead of 
 being inactive, we should be zealous. 
 
 Serving the Lord, i. e., doing service to the Lord; influenced 
 in our activity and zeal by a desire to serve Christ. This 
 member of the sentence thus understood, describes the motive 
 from which zeal and diligence should proceed. Compare Eph. 
 vi. 5 8, especially the expressions, as unto Christ, as the 
 servants of Christ, as to the Lord, &c.; and Col. iii. 22, 23. 
 Instead of serving the Lord, there is another reading, accord- 
 ing to which the passage must be rendered, serving tAc
 
 ROMANS XII. 12, 13. 625 
 
 time* (tempori servientes. Calvin,} i. e., making the most of 
 every opportunity, (see Eph. v. 16 ;) or, as others understand 
 it, 'adapting your conduct to circumstances.' Zeal is to be 
 tempered with prudence. The common text is the best authen- 
 ticated, and is generally adopted. The zeal which the apostle 
 recommends is zeal for Christ, and not for our own advancement 
 or interests. 
 
 VERSE 12. Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; con- 
 tinuing instant in prayer. These exhortations refer to nearly 
 related duties: Christians are to be joyful, patient, and prayer- 
 ful. However adverse their circumstances, hope, patience, and 
 prayer are not only duties, but the richest sources of consola- 
 tion and support. 'Rejoicing on account of hope, or in the 
 joyful expectation of future good.' This hope of salvation is 
 the most effectual means of producing patience under present 
 afflictions ; for if we feel " that the sufferings of this present 
 time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall 
 be revealed in us," it will not be difficult to bear them patiently.. 
 Intercourse with God, however, is necessary to the exercise of 
 this and all other virtues, and therefore the apostle immediately 
 adds, continuing instant in prayer. The original could hardly 
 be better translated ; as the Greek term (xpooxapTepeat, inten~ 
 tus sum ret) expresses the idea of perseverance and ardour in 
 the prosecution of any object. There are no attributes of 
 acceptable prayer more frequently presented in the Scriptures 
 than those here referred to, viz., perseverance and fervour, 
 which, from their nature, imply faith in the ability and wil- 
 lingness of God to grant us needed good, Acts i. 14, vi. 4, 
 Eph. vi. 18, &c. 
 
 /'VERSE 13. Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to 
 hospitality. These virtues are the immediate fruits of the love 
 enjoined in vs. 9, 10. The word rendered to distribute (xotvut- 
 veto) signifies, intransitively, to become a partaker with; and, 
 transitively, to cause others to partake with us^ to communicate 
 
 * Ksu?~>, instead of *via>, is read only in the MSS. D. F; G. All the other 
 MSS., and the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and Syriac versions, have 
 wutjtt. Mill and Griesbach prefer the former; but Wetstein, Bengel, Knapp, 
 Lachmann, the latter. This diversity of reading is not surprising, as Kft war 
 a frequent contraction both for wj/ and iw/gw. 
 
 40
 
 626 ROMANS XII. 14. 
 
 to. It is commonly followed by a dative of the person to -whom 
 the communication is made, Gal. vi. 6. In this case the con- 
 struction may be the same as in the preceding verses, ' as to the 
 necessity of the saints, be communicative;' or, * give to the 
 necessity of the saints.' The transitive meaning of xotuovsio is 
 by many denied, and is, at least, infrequent. It is, therefore, 
 commonly taken here in its ordinary sense : ' Taking part in 
 the necessities of the saints ; regard them as your own.' 
 Believers are zotvwvoi in every thing, because they are all mem- 
 bers of the body of Christ. The members of the same body 
 have the same interests, feelings, and destiny. The joy or 
 sorrow of one member, is the joy or 'sorrow of all the others. 
 The necessities of one are, or should be, a common burden.^ 
 As intimately connected with this injunction, the apostle adds, 
 given to hospitality, as our translators aptly render the strong 
 expression of the original. The phrase is jpeHottfgtutv duoxovres, 
 following after hospitality; sectantes, ut hospites non modo 
 admittatis, sed quaeratis. The value which the early Chris- 
 tians placed upon the virtue of hospitality is plain, from Paul's 
 enumerating it among the requisite qualifications of a bishop, 
 Titus i. 8. During times of persecution, and before the gene- 
 ral institution of houses of entertainment, there was peculiar 
 necessity for Christians to entertain strangers. As such houses 
 are still rarely to be met with in the East, this duty continues 
 to be there regarded as one of the most sacred character. 
 
 VERSE 14. Bless them which persecute you; bless, and curse 
 not. The exercise of love, and the discharge of the duties of 
 benevolence, are not to be confined to the saints, or people 
 of God; but the same spirit is to be manifested towards our 
 enemies. The word (ebbo-pew) rendered to bless, signifies both 
 to pray for good to any one, and to do good. Here, from the 
 context, the former meaning is to be preferred, as it is opposed 
 to cursing, which signifies to imprecate evil on any one. The 
 command therefore is, that, so far from wishing or praying that 
 evil may overtake our persecutors and enemies, we must sin- 
 cerely desire and pray for their good. It is not sufficient to 
 avoid returning evil for evil, nor even to banish vindictive 
 feelings ; we must be able sincerely to desire their happiness. 
 M* hard this is for corrupt human nature, every one who is
 
 ROMANS XII. 15, 16. 627 
 
 acquainted with his own heart well knows. Yet this is the 
 standard of Christian temper and character exhibited in the 
 Scriptures, Matt. v. 44. "Ardua res est, fateor, et naturae 
 hominis penitus contraria; sed nihil tarn arduum, quod non 
 yirtute Dei superetur, quae nobis nunquam deerit, modo ne 
 ipsani invocare negligamus. Et quanqam vix unum reperias 
 qui tantos in lege Dei progressus fecerit, ut prseceptum istud 
 impleat ; nemo tamen filium Dei jactare se potest, aut Christiani 
 nomine gloriari, qui non animum istum ex parte induerit, et 
 cum affectu adverse quotidie pugnet. Dixi hoc esse difficilius 
 quam remittere vindictam, ubi quis laesus fuerit. Qui dam enim 
 licet manus contineant, neque etiam agentur nocendi libidine, 
 cuperent tamen aliunde hostibus suis accidere cladem vel dam- 
 uum. Deus autem verbo suo non tantem manus coercet a male- 
 ficiis, sed amarulentos quoque affectus in animis domat ; neque 
 id modo, sed etiam vult de eorum salute esse sollicitos qui nos 
 injuste vexando sibi exitium accersunt." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 15. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with 
 them that weep. Love produces not only the forgiveness of 
 enemies, but a general sympathy in the joys and sorrows of our 
 fellow men, and especially of our fellow Christians. The dis- 
 position here enjoined is the very opposite of a selfish indiffer- 
 ence to any interests but our own. The gospel requires that 
 we should feel and act under the impression that all men are 
 brethren ; that we have a common nature, a common Father, 
 and a common destiny. How lovely is genuine sympathy! 
 How much like Christ is the man who feels the sorrows and 
 joys of others, as though they were his own ! 
 
 VERSE 16. Be of the same mind one towards another; mind 
 not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not 
 wise in your own conceits. The phrase (TO aLrb (fpovzli;} used 
 by the apostle expresses the general idea of concord, unanimity, 
 whether of opinion or feeling depends on the context; see 
 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Phil. ii. 2, Rom. xv. 5. Here the latter idea is 
 the prominent one. 'Be of the same mind,' i. e.. be united in 
 feeling, interests, and object, let there be no discord or disagree- 
 ment. This idea is then amplified in the following clauses ; do 
 not be aspiring, but be humble. Ambition and contempt for 
 lowly persons or pursuits, are the states of mind most incou-
 
 623 ROMANS XII. 16. 
 
 sistent with that union of heart by which all Christians should 
 be united. '' Quocirca illud TO aurb non intelligo idem quod 
 alii de nobis sentiunt, sed idem quod nos de nobis ipsi sentimus, 
 vel quod alios de nobis sentire postulamus." De Brais. Eras- 
 mus and others understand this clause to mean, 'Think of 
 others as well as you do of yourselves,' (nemo putet alium se 
 minorem.) But this gives too restricted a sense, and is no 
 better suited to the context than the common interpretation 
 given above. The command is, that we should be united; 
 feeling towards others as we wonld have them feel towards us. 
 Mind not high things, i. e., do not aspire after them, do not 
 desire and seek them ; see the use of the Greek word here em- 
 ployed in chap. viii. 5, Col. iii. 2, (TO. &va) ypovel-ce.) But con- 
 descend to men of low estate. The general idea expressed by 
 these two clauses is obviously this, 'Be not high-minded, but 
 humble.' The precise meaning of the latter clause, however, is 
 a matter of much doubt. The word (awa.-6.fio) rendered con- 
 descend properly means, in the passive or middle voice, to allow 
 one's self to be carried along with others, i. e., influenced by 
 them, as in Gal. ii. 13, " Insomuch as Barnabas also was 
 (allowed himself to be) carried away with their dissimula- 
 tion." And 2 Peter iii. 7, "Beware lest ye also, being led 
 away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stead- 
 fastness." " With the dative of a person, ouvax6.fs.a&cu. means to 
 be carried along with him ; with the dative of a thing, it means to 
 be carried along by it." Philippi. If Taxzwolz be here taken 
 as masculine, one sense is, allow yourselves to be carried along 
 with the lowly, i. e., to associate with them, and share their 
 condition. If it be taken as neuter, to correspond with the 
 TO. b(pr])d in the first clause, then the meaning is, allow your- 
 selves to be carried along together by lowly things ; i. e., instead 
 of being concerned about high things, let lowly things occupy 
 and control you. So Calvin : " Non arroganter de vobis sen- 
 tientes, sed humilibus vos accommodantes. Vocem humilibus 
 in neutro genere accipio, ut antithesis ita compleatur. Hie 
 ergo damnatur ambitio, et quae sub magnanimitatis nomine se 
 insinuat animi elatio : siquidem praecipua fidelium virtus mode- 
 ratio est, vel potius submissio, quae honorem semper malit aliia 
 cedere quam praeripere." Most modern commentators concur
 
 ROMANS XII. 17. 629 
 
 in this view of the passage. In either way the general sense 13 
 the same. The thing forbidden is ambition ; the thing enjoined 
 is lowliness of mind. 
 
 Be not wine in your own conceit. This precept is intimately 
 connected with the preceding, since ambition and contempt for 
 lowly persons and pursuits generally arise from overweening 
 self-estimation. No species of pride is more insidious or more 
 injurious than the pride of intellect, or a fancied superiority to 
 those around us, which leads to a contempt of their opinions, 
 and a confident reliance upon ourselves. The temper which 
 the gospel requires is that of a little child, docile, diffident, and 
 humble; see chap. xi. 25, Prov. iii. 7, Isa. vii. 21. 
 
 VERSE 17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide 
 things honest in the sight of all men. Paul having, in the pre- 
 ceding verses, enjoined the duties of love, condescension, and 
 kindness towards all men, comes, in this and the following 
 passages, to forbid the indulgence of a contrary disposition, 
 especially of a spirit of retaliation and revenge. The general 
 direction in the first clause is, not to retaliate; which is but a 
 lower exercise of the virtue afterward enjoined in the command 
 to "overcome evil with good." 
 
 Provide things honest in the sight of all men. Our transla- 
 tion of this clause is not very happy, as it suggests an idea 
 foreign to the meaning of the original. Paul does not mean to 
 direct us to make provision for ourselves or families in an 
 honest manner, which is probably the sense commonly attached 
 to the passage by the English reader, but to act in such a 
 manner as to command the confidence and good opinion of men. 
 In this view, the connection of this with the preceding member 
 of the verse is obvious. ' We must not recompense evil for 
 evil, but act in such a way as to commend ourselves to the con- 
 sciences of all men.' There should not, therefore, be a period 
 after the word evil, since this clause assigns a motive for the 
 discharge of the duty enjoined in the first. The word (-poo- 
 tla&at) rendered to provide, signifies also to attend to, to care 
 for. The sense then is, ' Do not resent injuries, having regard 
 to the good opinion of men,' i. Q., let a regard to the honour of 
 religion and your own character prevent the returning of evil for 
 evil. Thus Paul (2 Cor. viii. 20, 21) says of himself that he
 
 ROMANS XII. 18, 10. 
 
 wi.shed others to be associated with him in the distribution of the 
 alms of the church, " having regard for what was right, (xpovo- 
 o'J/jtsKoi xtud,) not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the 
 sight of men." "Summa est, dandam sedulo esse operam, ut 
 nostra integritate omnes aedificentur. Ut eniin necessaria est 
 nobis conscientiae innocentia coram Deo ; ita famae integritas 
 apud homines non est negligenda. Nam si Deum in bonis nostris 
 operibus glorificari convenit, tantundem decedit ejus gloriae, 
 ubi nihil laude dignum in nobis homines conspiciunt." Calvin. 
 In Proverbs iii. 4, we have the same exhortation, nearly in the 
 same words as given in the LXX. : Tifjo^ouit xa}.a li>w-eov xupiou 
 xa.: dvfiow-cuv. 
 
 VERSE 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live 
 peaceably with all men. The retaliation of injuries necessarily 
 leads to contention and strife, while peace is the natural result 
 of a forgiving disposition. The command in this verse, there- 
 fore, is naturally connected with that contained in ver. 17. So 
 far from resenting every offence, we should do all we can to live 
 at peace with all men. As the preservation of peace is not 
 always within our control, Paul limits his command by saying, 
 if it be possible, so far as lieth in you, TO Iz U/JLIOV, as to what is 
 of you. The cause of conflict must not arise from you. Your 
 duty is to preserve peace. From the wickedness of others, this 
 is often impossible ; and Paul's own example shows that he was 
 far from thinking that either truth or principle was to be sacri- 
 ficed for the preservation of peace. His whole life was an 
 active and ardent contention against error and sin. The pre- 
 cept, however, is plain, and the duty important. As far as it 
 can be done consistently with higher obligations and more 
 important interests, we must endeavour to promote peace, and 
 for this end avoid giving offence and avenging injuries. Gro- 
 tius well expresses the meaning of this verse: " Omnium amici 
 este, si fieri potest; si non potest utrimque, certe ex vestra 
 parte amici este." 
 
 VERSE 19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; but rather 
 give place unto wrath, &c. This is a repetition and amplifica- 
 tion of the previous injunction, not to recompense evil for evil. 
 There are three interpretations of the phrase give place unto 
 wrath, which deserve to be mentioned. According to the first,
 
 ROMANS XII. 20. 631 
 
 the wrath here intended is that of the injured party, and to give 
 place to, is made to signify, to allow to pass, i. e., let it go, do 
 not cherish or indulge it. But this is in direct contradiction to 
 the common and proper meaning of the phrase in question, 
 which signifies, give free scope to; and no example of a con- 
 trary usage is adduced. In Latin, the phrase, dare spatium 
 irae, is frequently used in the sense of deferring the indulgence 
 of anger, giving it space or time to cool. But spatium in these 
 cases has reference to time, temporis spatium, a sense in which 
 the Greek TOTTOC is not used. The second interpretation refers 
 the wrath to the injurer. The meaning then is, ' Do not avenge 
 yourselves, but rather yield (cedite irae) or submit to the anger 
 of your enemies.' This is consistent with the literal meaning 
 of the phrase to give place, i. e., to get out of the way; and 
 Schoettgen says that the Jewish writers use the corresponding 
 Hebrew phrase (sipfc 1M) in the sense of avoiding; of this 
 usage, however, there is no example in the Bible. It is cer- 
 tainly contrary to the uniform scriptural usage of the expres- 
 sion, which is never employed to convey this idea, but uniformly 
 means, as just stated, to give room to, to allow free exercise to 
 any person or thing; see Eph. iv. 27, "Neither give place to 
 the devil." The third interpretation, therefore, according to 
 which it is the wrath of God that is here intended, is the 
 only one consistent with the meaning of the phrase or with 
 the context. 'Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, leave 
 that matter to God.' Stand out of the way. Give scope to 
 ;he wrath of God. It is his prerogative to punish. The 
 passage, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord, is 
 quoted from Deut. xxxii. 35, and is obviously cited to show the 
 propriety of the command to leave vengeance to God, and not 
 attempt to take it into our own hands. This does not imply a 
 desire that the divine vengeance should overtake our enemies, 
 but simply that we should not usurp the prerogative of God as 
 the avenger. 
 
 VERSE 20. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed Mm; if 
 lie thirst, give him drink, &c. That is, instead of avenging our- 
 selves by returning evil for" evil, we must return good for evil. 
 The expressions, feed him and give him drink, are obviously 
 not to be confined to their literal meaning, nor even to the dis-
 
 G32 ROMANS XII. 20. 
 
 charge of the common offices of humanity ; they are figurative 
 expressions for all the duties of benevolence. It is not enough, 
 therefore, that we preserve an enemy from perishing; we must 
 treat him with all affection anil kindness. 
 
 For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of Jire upon his head. 
 This whole verse is taken from Prov. xxv. 21, 22, "If thine 
 enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat ; and if he be thirsty, 
 give him water to drink : for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon 
 his head, and the Lord shall reward thee." The common and 
 natural meaning of the expression, to heap coals of fire upon 
 any one, is to inflict the greatest pain upon him, to punish him 
 most severely; see Ps. cxl. 10, "Let burning coals fall upon 
 them;" Ps. xi. 6, "Upon the wicked he shall rain coals (^np 
 for c^ans), fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest;" 
 Ezek. x. 2, 4 Esdr. xvi. 52, " Let not the wicked deny that he 
 has sinned, for coals of fire shall burn upon the head of him 
 who denies that he has sinned against the Lord God." The 
 most probable explanation of this figurative expression is, that 
 the allusion is to the lightning or fire from heaven, which is the 
 symbol of the divine vengeance. To rain fire upon any one, is 
 to visit him with the severest and surest destruction. This 
 explanation is much more natural than to suppose the allusion 
 is to the practice of throwing fire-brands upon the heads of the 
 besiegers of a city, or to the fusing of metals. 
 
 There are three leading interpretations of this interesting 
 clause. The first, which is perhaps the oldest, and very gene- 
 rally received, is, that Paul means to say that our enemies will 
 be much more severely punished if we leave them in the hands 
 of God, than if we undertake to avenge ourselves. ' Treat your 
 enemy kindly, for in so doing you secure his being punished by 
 God in the severest manner.' The revolting character of this 
 interpretation, which every one must feel, is mitigated by the 
 remark, that the enemy is not to be thus treated from any 
 wish or intention of drawing down the divine wrath upon him ; 
 it is only meant that such will be the consequence. But this 
 remark does not meet the difficulty. This clause is so con- 
 nected with the preceding, that it must be understood as assign- 
 ing the motive or reason for the discharge of the duty enjoined: 
 * Treat thine enemy kindly, for in so doing,' &c. The second
 
 ROMANS XII. 21. 633 
 
 interpretation is, that by heaping coals of fire on his head, is 
 meant, you will cause him pain, i. e., the pain of remorse and 
 shame. So Tholuck, and many other commentators. The 
 third, which seems much the most simple and natural, is, ' for 
 in so doing, you will take the most effectual method of subduing 
 him.' To heap coals of fire on any one, is a punishment which 
 no one can bear; he must yield to it. Kindness is no less 
 effectual ; the most malignant enemy cannot always withstand 
 it. The true and Christian method, therefore, to subdue an 
 enemy is, to "overcome evil with good." This interpretation, 
 which suits so well the whole context, seems to be rendered 
 necessary by the following verse, which is a repetition of the 
 previous injunctions in plainer and more general terms. The 
 sentiment which the verse thus explained expresses, is also 
 more in harmony with the spirit of the gospel. " Vincere dulce 
 et prceclarum est. Optimam autem vincendi rationem sapientis- 
 sime docet Salomo (Prov. xxv. 21) jubens nos esurientibus 
 inimicis cibum, sitientibus potum prsebere : quia beneficiis eos 
 devincientes fortius superabimus, quam qui hostem a vallo et 
 moenibus flammis superjectis arcent et repellunt." De Brais. 
 
 Among the numerous striking classical illustrations of the 
 sentiment of this verse, quoted by Wetstein, are the following : 
 Justinus, XI. 12, 8, " Tune Darius se ratus vere victum, cum 
 post prselia etiam beneficiis ab hoste superaretur." Ccesar ap. 
 Cic. ad Atticum, IX. 8, " Haec nova sit ratio vincendi, ut 
 misericordia nos muniamus, id quemadmodum fieri possit, non- 
 nulla mi in mentem veniunt, et multa reperiri possunt." Seneca 
 de Beneficiis, VII. 31, " Vincit malos pertinax bonitas, nee quis- 
 quam tarn duri infestique adversus diligenda animi est, ut etiam 
 vi victus bonos non amet." 32, "Ingratus est huic ipsi bene- 
 ncium dabo iterum, et tanquam bonus agricola cura cultuque 
 sterilitatem soli vincam." De Ira, II. 32, "Non enim ut in 
 beneficiis honestum est merita meritis repensare, ita injurias 
 injuriis ; illic vinci turpe est, hie vincere." 
 
 VERSE 21. Se not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with 
 good. It is only by disconnecting this verse from the preceding, 
 and considering it as nearly independent of it, that any plausi- 
 bility can be given to the first interpretation mentioned above, 
 of ver. 20. That it is not thus independent of it, almost every
 
 634 ROMANS XII. 921 
 
 reader must feel. 'We are not to conquer evfl by evil, but to 
 treat our enemies with kindness. Thus we shall most effectually 
 subdue them. Do not therefore allow yourself to be overcome 
 of evil (i. e., to be provoked to the indulgence of a spirit of 
 retaliation,) but overcome evil with good; subdue your enemie^ 
 by kindness, not by injuries.' 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Love is the fulfilling of the law ; it leads to the avoiding 
 of every thing injurious to our neighbour, and to sedulous 
 attention to every thing adapted to promote his welfare, 
 ver. 9. 
 
 2. The relation in which Christians stand to each other, is 
 that of members of the same family. As, however, it is not a 
 relation constituted by birth, nor secured by the adoption of a 
 name, there is no evidence of its existence but that which con- 
 sists in the exercise of that 'brotherly affection' (that spiritual 
 aroppj) which brethren in Christ feel for each other, ver. 10. 
 
 3. Religion is the soul of morality, without which it is but a 
 lovely corpse. Our moral duties we must perform as "serving 
 the Lord." The religious affections and emotions do not super- 
 Bede those of a simply benevolent or social character, but mingle 
 with them, and elevate all social and relative duties into acts of 
 religion and genuine morality, ver. 11. 
 
 4. The source of our life is in God ; without intercourse with 
 him, therefore, we cannot derive those supplies of grace which 
 are requisite to preserve the spirit of piety in our hearts, and 
 to send a vital influence through the various duties and avoca- 
 tions of life. Hence the absolute necessity of being "instant 
 in prayer," ver. 12. 
 
 5. God has made of one blood all men that dwell upon the 
 face of the earth. There is in this fact of a common origin, 
 and the possession of a common nature, a sufficient ground for 
 the inculcation of an universal sympathy with all our fellow 
 men. As he is no true Christian who is destitute of a genuine 
 sympathy for his fellow Christians, so he is very far from being 
 a man such as God approves, who does not "rejoice with them 
 that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep," ver. 15. 
 
 6. A wron estimate of ourselves is a fruitful source of evil.
 
 ROMANS XII. 921. 635 
 
 Viewed in relation to God, and in our own absolute insignifi- 
 cance, we have little reason to be wise or important in our own 
 conceits. A proper self-knowledge will preserve us from pride, 
 ambition, and contempt of others, ver. 16. 
 
 7. Abstaining from evil is but one half of duty. It is not 
 enough to avoid imprecating evil upon our enemies; we must 
 sincerely desire and pray for their welfare. Nor is it sufficient 
 not to recompense evil for evil ; we must return good for evil, 
 vs. 1721. 
 
 8. The prerogatives of judgment and vengeance belong to 
 God, we have no right, therefore, to arrogate them to ourselves, 
 except in those cases in which, for his glory and the good of 
 society, he has given us authority. All condemnation of others 
 for self-gratification, and all private revenge is inconsistent with 
 the gospel, vs. 11 21. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. Christians should never forget that faith without works is 
 dead. It is not more important to believe what God has 
 revealed, than to do what he has commanded. A faith, there- 
 fore, which does not produce love, kindness, sympathy, hu- 
 mility, the forgiveness of injuries, &c., can do us little good, 
 vs. 921. 
 
 2. It is peculiarly characteristic of the spirit of the gospel 
 that it turns the heart towards others, and away from our own 
 interests. Self is not the Christian's centre; men are loved 
 because they are men, Christians because they are Christians; 
 the former with sincere sympathy and benevolence, the latter 
 with brotherly affection. The happiness and feelings of others, 
 the gospel teaches us to consult in small, as well as in great 
 matters, anticipating each other in all acts of kindness and 
 attention, vs. 9 13. 
 
 3. The benevolence of the gospel is active and religious; it 
 leads to constant efforts, and is imbued with a spirit of piety, 
 ver. 11. 
 
 4. We must remember that without Christ we can do 
 nothing : that it is not we that live, but Christ that liveth in us. 
 If, therefore, we attempt to discharge the duties here enjoined 
 apart from him, we shall be as a branch severed from the vine j
 
 636 ROMANS XII. 921. 
 
 and unless we are " instant in prayer," this union with Christ 
 cannot be kept up, ver. 12. 
 
 5. Alms-giving and hospitality, in some ages of the church, 
 have been unduly exalted, as though they were the whole of 
 benevolence, and the greater part of piety. While we avoid 
 this extreme, we should remember that we are stewards of 
 God, and that " Whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his 
 brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion 
 from him, hath not the love of God dwelling in him," ver. 13. 
 1 John Hi. 17. 
 
 6. One of the most beautiful exhibitions of the character of 
 our Saviour was afforded by his conduct under persecution. 
 *' He was led as a lamb to the slaughter ;" " when he was 
 reviled, he reviled not again ; when he suffered, he threatened 
 not." Even martyrs dying for the truth have not always been 
 able to avoid the prediction of evil to their persecutors ; so 
 much easier is it to abstain from recompensing evil for evil, than 
 r,eally to love and pray for the good of our enemies. This, 
 however, is Christian duty, such is the spirit of the gospel. 
 Just so far, therefore, as we find our hearts indisposed to bless 
 those who curse us, or inclined to indulge even a secret satis- 
 faction when evil comes upon them, are we unchristian in our 
 temper, vs. 19 21. 
 
 7. Nothing is so powerful as goodness ; it is the most effica- 
 cious means to subdue enemies, and put down opposition. Men 
 whose minds can withstand argument, and whose hearts rebel 
 against threats, are not proof against the persuasive influence 
 of unfeigned love ; there is, therefore, no more important col- 
 lateral reason for being good, than that it increases our power 
 to do good, vs. 2021.
 
 ROMANS XIII. 1. 637 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE chapter treats mainly of our political duties. From ver. 
 1 to ver. 7 inclusive, the apostle enforces the duties which we 
 owe to civil magistrates. From ver. 8 to ver. 10, he refers to 
 the more general obligations under which Christians are placed, 
 but still with special reference to their civil and social relations. 
 From ver. 11 tc the end of the chapter, he enjoins an exem 
 plary and holy deportment. 
 
 ROMANS XIII. 114. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE duty of obedience to those in authority is enforced, 
 
 1. By the consideration that civil government is a divine insti- 
 tution, and, therefore, resistance to magistrates in the exercise 
 of their lawful authority is disobedience to God, vs. 1, 2. 
 
 2. From the end or design of their appointment, which is to 
 promote the good of society, to be a terror to evil doers, and a 
 praise to them that do well, vs. 3, 4. 3. Because such subjec- 
 tion is a moral, as well as civil duty, ver. 5. On these grounds 
 the payment of tribute or taxes, and general deference, are to 
 be cheerfully rendered, vs. 6, 7. 
 
 Christians are bound not only to be obedient to those in 
 authority, but also to perform all social and relative duties, 
 especially that of love, which includes and secures the obser- 
 vance of all others, vs. 8 10. A pure and exemplary life as 
 members of society is enforced by the consideration that the 
 night is far spent and that the day is at hand, that the time of 
 suffering and trial is nearly over, and that of deliverance ap- 
 proaching, vs. 11 14. 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 VERSE 1. Let every soul be subject to the "higher powers. 
 The expression every soul is often used as equivalent to every
 
 638 ROMANS XIII. 1. 
 
 one; it is at times, however, emphatic, and such is probably the 
 case in this passage. By higher powers are most commonly 
 and naturally understood those in authority, without reference 
 to their grade of office, or their character. We are to be 
 subject not only to the supreme magistrates, but to all who 
 have authority over us. The abstract word powers or authori- 
 ties (l~oixj'.ai) is used for those who are invested with power, 
 Luke xii. 11, Eph. i. 21, iii. 10, &c., &c. The word (u-ef^y^) 
 rendered higher, is applied to any one who, in dignity and 
 authority, excels us. In 1 Peter ii. 13, it is applied to the 
 king as supreme, i. e., superior to all other magistrates. But 
 here one class of magistrates is not brought into comparison 
 with another, but they are spoken of as being over other men 
 who are not in office. It is a very unnatural interpretation 
 which makes this word refer to the character of the magistrates, 
 as though the sense were, 'Be subject to good magistrates.' 
 This is contrary to the usage of the term, and inconsistent with 
 the context. Obedience is not enjoined on the ground of the 
 personal merit of those in authority, but on the ground of their 
 official station. 
 
 There was peculiar necessity, during the apostolic age, for 
 inculcating the duty of obedience to civil magistrates. This 
 necessity arose in part from the fact that a large portion of the 
 converts to Christianity had been Jews, and were peculiarly 
 indisposed to submit to the heathen authorities. This indispo- 
 sition (as far as it was peculiar) arose from the prevailing 
 impression among them, that this subjection was unlawful, or 
 at least highly derogatory to their character as the people of 
 God, who had so long lived under a theocracy. In Deut. 
 xvii. 15, it is said, "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over 
 thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one from among 
 thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee ; thou shalt not set 
 a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." It was a 
 question, therefore, constantly agitated among them, "Is it 
 lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar, or not?" A question which 
 the great majority were at least secretly inclined to answer in 
 the negative. Another source of the restlessness of the Jews 
 
 O 
 
 under a foreign yoke, was the idea which they entertained of 
 the nature of the Messiah's kingdom. As they expected a tern-
 
 ROMANS XIII. 1. C39 
 
 poral Prince, whose kingdom should be of this world, they were 
 ready to rise in rebellion at the call of every one who cried, " I 
 am Christ." The history of the Jews at this period shows how 
 great was the effect produced by these and similar causes, on 
 their feelings towards the Roman government. They were con- 
 tinually breaking out into tumults, which led to their expulsion 
 from Rome,-* and, finally, to the utter destruction of Jerusalem. 
 It is therefore not a matter of surprise, that converts from 
 among such a people should need the injunction, "Be subject 
 to the higher powers." Besides the effect of their previous 
 opinions and feelings, there is something in the character of 
 Christianity itself, and in the incidental results of the excite- 
 ment which it occasions, to account for the repugnance of many 
 of the early Christians to submit to their civil rulers. They 
 wrested, no doubt, the doctrine of Christian liberty, as they did 
 other doctrines, to suit their own inclinations. This result, 
 however, is to be attributed not to religion, but to the improper 
 feelings of those into whose minds the form of truth, without its 
 full power, had been received. 
 
 For there is no power but of Grod; and the powers that be are 
 ordained of G-od. Ob ydf) kartv k^ouaia ec fjy O.TZO $eoy. This 
 is a very comprehensive proposition. All authority is of God. 
 No man has any rightful power over other men, which is not 
 derived from God. All human power is delegated and minis- 
 terial. This is true of parents, of magistrates, and of church 
 officers. This, however, is not all the passage means. It not 
 only asserts that all government (i-otxrta, authority) is (dxb $soy) 
 derived from God, but that every magistrate is of God ; that is, 
 his authority is jure divino. The word igouaia is evidently, in 
 this connection, used in a concrete sense. This is plain from 
 the use of the word in the other clauses of the verse. " The 
 higher powers," and "the powers that be," are concrete terms, 
 meaning those invested with power. Compare vs. 3, 4, where 
 "rulers" and "ministers" are substituted for the abstract 
 "powers." The doctrine here taught is the ground of the 
 injunction contained in the first clause of the verse. We are 
 
 * Suetonius, Claud. 25, says, "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumullu- 
 antes (Claudius) Roma expulit;" see Acts xviii. 2.
 
 640 ROMANS XIII. 2. 
 
 to obey magistrates, because they derive their authority from 
 God. Not only is human government a divine institution, but 
 the form in which that government exists, and the persons by 
 whom its functions are exercised, are determined by his pro- 
 vidence. All magistrates of whatever grade are to be regarded 
 as acting by divine appointment; not that God designates 
 the individuals, but that it being his will that there should be 
 magistrates, every person, who is in point of fact clothed with 
 authority, is to be regarded as having a claim to obedience, 
 founded on the will of God. In like manner, the authority 
 of parents over their children, of husbands over their wives, 
 of masters over their servants, is of God's ordination. There 
 is no limitation to the injunction in this verse, so far as the 
 objects of obedience are concerned, although there is as to 
 the extent of the obedience itself. That is, we are to obey all 
 who are in actual authority over us, whether their authority be 
 legitimate or usurped, whether they are just or unjust. The 
 actual reigning emperor was to be obeyed by the Roman Chris- 
 tians, whatever they might think as to his title to the sceptre. 
 But if he transcended his authority, and required them to wor- 
 ship idols, they were to obey God rather than man. This is 
 the limitation to all human authority. Whenever obedience to 
 man is inconsistent with obedience to God, then disobedience 
 becomes a duty. 
 
 VERSE 2. Whoso, therefore, resisteth the power, retisteth the 
 ordinance of Grod. This is an obvious inference from the 
 doctrine of the preceding verse. If it is the will of God that 
 there should ' be civil government, and persons appointed to 
 exercise authority over others, it is plain that to resist such 
 persons in the exercise of their lawful authority is an act of 
 disobedience to God. 
 
 And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 
 This also is an obvious conclusion from the preceding. If dis- 
 obedience is a sin, it will be punished. The word (xpifia) ren- 
 dered damnation, means simply sentence, judicial decision; 
 whether favourable or adverse, depends on the context. Here 
 it is plain it means a sentence of condemnation. He shall be 
 condemned, and, by implication, punished. As the word 
 damnation is by modern usage restricted to the final and eternal
 
 ROMANS XIII. 3. 641 
 
 condemnation of the wicked, it is unsuited to this passage and 
 some others in which it occurs in our version ; see 1 Cor. xi. 29. 
 Paul does not refer to the punishment which the civil magis- 
 trate may inflict ; for he is speaking of disobedience to those in 
 authority as a sin against God, which he will punish. 
 
 It is clear that this passage (vs. 1, 2) is applicable to men 
 living under every form of government, monarchical, aristo- 
 cratical, or democratical, in all their various modifications. 
 Those who are in authority are to be obeyed within their 
 sphere, no matter how or by whom appointed. It is the ooaat 
 ~o!ja:ai, the powers that be, the de facto government, that is to 
 be regarded as, for the time being, ordained of God. It was to 
 Paul a matter of little importance whether the Roman emperor 
 was appointed by the senate, the army, or the people ; whether 
 the assumption of the imperial authority by Caesar was just or 
 unjust, or whether his successors had a legitimate claim to the 
 throne or not. It was his object to lay down the simple prin- 
 ciple, that magistrates are to be obeyed. The extent of this 
 obedience is to be determined from the nature of the case. 
 They are to be obeyed as magistrates, in the exercise of their 
 lawful authority. When Paul commands wives to obey their 
 husbands, they are required to obey them as husbands, not as 
 masters, nor as kings; children are to obey their parents aa 
 parents, not as sovereigns ; and so in every other case. This 
 passage, therefore, affords a very slight foundation for the doc- 
 trine of passive obedience. 
 
 VERSE 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to 
 evil. This verse is not to be connected with the second, but 
 with the first, as it assigns an additional reason for the duty 
 there enjoined. Magistrates are to be obeyed, for such is the 
 will of God, and because they are appointed to repress evil and 
 to promote good. There is a ground, therefore, in the very 
 nature of their office, why they should not be resisted. 
 
 Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which ia 
 good, and thou shall have praise of the same. That is, govern- 
 ment is not an evil to be feared, except by evil doers. As the 
 magistrates are appointed for the punishment of evil, the way 
 to avoid suffering from their authority is not to resist it, but 
 to do that which is good. Paul is speaking of the legitimate 
 41
 
 642 ROMANS XIII. 4, 5. 
 
 design of government, not of the abuse of power by wicked 
 men. 
 
 VERSE 4. For Tie is the minister of G-odfor tliee for good, &c. 
 This whole verse is but an amplification of the preceding. 
 4 Government is a benevolent institution of God, designed for 
 the benefit of men; and, therefore, should be respected and 
 obeyed. As it has, however, the rightful authority to punish, 
 it is to be feared by those that do evil.' For good, i. e., to 
 secure or promote your welfare. Magistrates or rulers are not 
 appointed for their own honour or advantage, but for the benefit 
 of society, and, therefore, while those in subjection are on this 
 account to obey them, they themselves are taught, what those 
 in power are so apt to forget, that they are the servants of the 
 people as well as the servants of God, and that the welfare of 
 society is the only legitimate object which they as rulers are at 
 liberty to pursue. 
 
 But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth 
 not the sword in vain; a revenger to execute wrath (c <V ; /' 3 J 1 ' 
 i. e., for the purpose of punishment) upon him that doeth evil. 
 As one part of the design of government is to protect the good, 
 so the other is to punish the wicked. The existence of this 
 delegated authority is, therefore, a reason why men should 
 abstain from the commission of evil. He beareth not the sword 
 in vain, i. e., it is not in vain that he is invested with authority 
 to punish. The reference is not to the dagger worn by the 
 Roman emperors as a sign of office, as fid^atpa in the New Tes- 
 i tament always means sword, which of old was the symbol of 
 authority, .and specially of the right of life and death. As the 
 common method of inflicting capital punishment was by decapi- 
 tation with a sword, that instrument is mentioned as the symbol 
 of the right of punishment, and, as many infer from this 
 passage, of the right of capital punishment. "Insignis locus 
 ad jus gladii comprobandum ; nam si Dominus magistratum 
 armando gladii quoque usum illi mandavit, quoties sontes 
 capitali poena vindicat, exercendo Dei ultionem, ejus mandatis 
 obsequitur. Contendunt igitur cum Deo qui sanguinern nocen- 
 tium hominum effundi nefas esse putant." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for 
 wrath, but also for conscience 1 sake. That is, subjection to
 
 ROMANS XIII. 6. 643 
 
 magistrates is not only a civil duty enforced by penal statutes, 
 but also a religious duty, and part of our obedience to God. 
 For ivrath, i. e., from fear of punishment. For conscience' sake, 
 i. e., out of regard to God, from conscientious motives. In like 
 manner, Paul enforces all relative and social duties on religious 
 
 * O 
 
 grounds. Children are to obey their parents, because it is 
 right in the sight of God ; and servants are to be obedient to 
 their master, as unto Christ, doing the will of God from the 
 heart, Eph. vi. 1, 5, 6. 
 
 VERSE 6. For, for this cause, pay ye tribute also. This verse 
 may be connected, by the words (dea TO~JTO) rendered for this 
 cause, with the preceding, thus, 'Wherefore (i. e., for conscience 
 sake,) ye should pay tribute also.' But it is better to consider 
 this clause as containing an inference from the foregoing exhi- 
 bition of the nature and design of civil government: 'Since 
 government is constituted for the benefit of society, for the 
 punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of those that do 
 well, ye should cheerfully pay the contributions requisite for its 
 support.' 
 
 For they are the ministers of G-od, attending continually on 
 this very thing. This clause introduces another reason for the 
 payment of tribute. They, not the tax-gatherers, but ol 
 doy^ovTSZ, the rulers, to whom the tribute is due. Magistrates 
 are not only appointed for the public good, but they are the 
 ministers of God, and consequently it is his will that we should 
 contribute whatever is necessary to enable them to discharge 
 their duty. The word (hcroupfoi) rendered ministers, means 
 public servants, men appointed for any public work, civil or 
 religious. Among the Greek democratical states, especially at 
 Athens, those persons were particularly so called, who were 
 required to perform some public service at their own expense. 
 It is used in Scripture in a general sense, for servants or minis- 
 ters, Rom. xv. 16, Heb. i. 7, viii. 2. The words er'c abrb TOOTO, 
 to this very thing, may refer to tax- gathering. The magistrates 
 are divinely commissioned, or authorized to collect tribute. 
 This is necessary to the support of government ; and govern- 
 ment being a divine institution, God, in ordaining the end, has 
 thereby ordained the means. It is because magistrates, in the 
 collection of taxes, act as the Asiro'jf^oc #0D, the executive
 
 644 ROMANS XIII. 7, 8. 
 
 i 
 
 officers of Grod, that we are bound to pay them. Others mate 
 the ayro rovro refer to the fa-coupy'ia, or service of God, which 
 is implied in magistrates being called hiroufiyoi. 'They are tho 
 ministers of God attending constantly to their ministry.' The 
 former interpretation is the more consistent with the context. 
 
 VERSE 7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom 
 tribute; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to 
 whom honour. 'Such being the will of God, and such the 
 benevolent design of civil government, render to magistrates 
 (and to all others) what properly belongs to them, whether 
 pecuniary contribution, reverence, or honour.' The word all 
 seems, from the context, to have special reference to all in 
 authority, though it is not necessary to confine it to such per- 
 sons exclusively. The word ((pbpoz) tribute is applied properly 
 to land and capitation tax ; and (re^oc) to the imposts levied on 
 merchandise. The words (ybfioz) fear, and (tv//^) honour, are 
 generally considered in this connection as differing only in 
 degree ; the former expressing the reverence to superiors, the 
 latter the respect to equals. 
 
 VERSE 8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another, &c. 
 That is, acquit yourselves of all obligations, except love, which 
 is a debt that must remain ever due. This is the common, and 
 considering the context, which abounds with commands, the 
 most natural interpretation of this passage. Others, however, 
 take the verb (otfsihre) as in the indicative, instead of tho 
 imperative mood, and understand the passage thus: 'Ye ow 
 no man any thing but love (which includes all other duties,) for 
 he that loves another fulfils the law.' This gives a good sense, 
 when this verse is taken by itself; but viewed in connection 
 with those which precede and follow, the common interpretation 
 is much more natural. Besides, " the indicative would require 
 o'jdsvi oijosv, and not fjafavt jjqdev. The use of the subjective 
 negative shows that a command is intended." Meyer. The 
 idea which a cursory reader might be disposed to attach to 
 these words, in considering them as a direction not to contract 
 pecuniary debts, is not properly expressed by them ; although 
 the prohibition, in its spirit, includes the incurring of such 
 obligations, when we have not the certain prospect of discharg- 
 ing them. The command, however, is, 'Acquit yourselves of
 
 ROMANS XIII. 911. 645 
 
 all obligations, tribute, custom, fear, honour, or -whatever else 
 you* may owe, but remember that the debt of love is still 
 unpaid, and always must remain so ; for love includes all duty, 
 since he that loves another fulfils the law.'* He that loveth 
 another hath fulfilled (tt-fajpcaxe) the law. It is already done. 
 That is, all the law contemplated, in its specific commands 
 relating to our social duties, is attained when we love our 
 neighbour as ourselves. 
 
 VERSE 9. For this, Tliou shalt not commit adultery, Thou 
 shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false 
 witness,^ Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other corn^ 
 mandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. This verse is evidently 
 a confirmation of the declaration at the close of the preceding 
 one, that love includes all our social duties. This is further 
 confirmed in the following verse. 
 
 VERSE 10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore 
 love is the fulfilling of the law. That is, as love delights in the 
 happiness of its object, it effectually prevents us from injuring 
 those we love, and, consequently, leads us to fulfil all the law 
 requires, because the law requires nothing which is not con- 
 ducive to the best interests of our fellow-men. He, therefore, 
 who loves his neighbour with the same sincerity that he loves 
 himself, and consequently treats him as he would wish, under 
 similar circumstances, to be treated by him, will fulfil all that 
 the law enjoins; hence the whole law is comprehended in this 
 one command, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
 
 VERSE 11. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high 
 time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than 
 when we believed. From this verse to the end of the chapter, 
 
 * Amare; debitum immortale. Si amabitis, nil debitis nam amor iroplet 
 legem. Amare, libertas est. Bengel. Argute et eleganter dictum: dilectio- 
 nis debitum et semper solvitur et semper manet. Wetstein. 
 
 A grateful mind, 
 
 By owing owes not, and still pays, at once 
 Indebted and discharged. Milton's Paradise Lost, IV. 55. 
 f The words ol 4^,=<gTi/g>iVj are omitted in the MSS. A. D. E. F. G. 1, 2, 29, 
 84, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 52, and in the Syriac version. They are rejected 
 In the Complutensian edition, and in those of Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Kuapp, 
 and Lachmann.
 
 C4G ROMANS XIII. 11. 
 
 Paul exhorts his readers to discharge the duties already 
 enjoined, and urges on them to live a holy and exemplary life. 
 The consideration by which this exhortation is enforced, is, 
 that the night is far spent, and that the day is at hand, the 
 time of deliverance is fast approaching. The words (xac roDro) 
 rendered and that, are by many considered as elliptical, and 
 the word (-orsZrs) do is supplied ; 'And this do.' The demon- 
 strative pronoun, however, is frequently used to mark the 
 importance of the connection between two circumstances for 
 the case in hand, (Passow, Vol. II. p. 319,) and is, therefore, 
 often equivalent to the phrases^ and indeed, the more, &c. So 
 in this case, ' We must discharge our various duties, and that 
 knowing.' &c., i. e., 'the rather, because we know,' &c.; com- 
 pare Ileb. xi. 12, 1 Cor. vi. 6, Eph. ii. 8. Knowing the 
 time, i. e., considering the nature and character of the period 
 in which we now live. The original word (xainoz) does not 
 mean time in the general sense, but a portion of time considered 
 as appropiate, as fixed, as short, &c. Paul immediately explains 
 himself by adding, that now it is high time to awake out of 
 sleep; it was the proper time to arouse themselves from their 
 slumbers, and, shaking off all slothfulness, to address them- 
 selves earnestly to work. For now ii our salvation nearer than 
 when we believed. This is the reason why it is time to be up 
 and active, salvation is at hand. There are three leading inter- 
 pretations of this clause. The first is, that it means that the 
 time of salvation, or special favour to the Gentiles, and of the 
 
 notion of the Jews, was fast approaching. So Hammond, 
 "Whitby, ami many others. But for this there is no foundation 
 iii the simple meaning of the words, nor in the context. Paul 
 evidently refers to something of more general and permanent 
 interesr. than the overthrow of the Jewish nation, and the con- 
 :it freedom of the Gentile converts from their persecutions. 
 The night that was far spent, was not the night of sorrow 
 arising from Jewish bigotry; and the day that was at hand 
 
 -omething brighter and better than deliverance from its 
 T r. A second interpretation very generally received of late 
 is. that the reference is to the second advent of Christ. It is 
 n<>umcd that the early Christians, and even the inspired apos- 
 tles, were under the constant impression that Christ wad to
 
 ROMANS XIII. 11. 64T 
 
 appear in person for the establishment of his kingdom, before 
 that generation passed away. This assumption is founded on 
 such passages as the following: Phil. iv. 5, "The Lord is at 
 hand;" 1 Thess. iv. 17, "We that are alive and remain shall 
 be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air;" 
 1 Cor. xv. 51, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be 
 changed," &c. With regard to this point, we may remark, 
 
 1. That neither the early Christians nor the apostles knew 
 when the second advent of Christ was to take place. " But 
 of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, nor the angels of 
 heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, 
 so shall the coming of the Son of man be," Matt. xxiv. 36, 37, 
 " They (the apostles) asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at 
 this time restore the kingdom to Israel ? And he said unto 
 them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which 
 the Father hath put in his own power," Acts i. 6, 7. "But of 
 the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write 
 unto you ; for ye yourselves know perfectly that the day of the 
 Lord so cometh as a thief in the night," 1 Thess. v. 1, 2. 
 
 2. Though they knew not when it was to be, they knew that it 
 was not to happen immediately, nor until a great apostacy had 
 occurred. "Now we beseech you, brethren, by (or concerning) 
 the coming of the Lord Jesus, and our gathering together to 
 him, that ye be not soon shaken m mind ... as that the day 
 of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: 
 for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away 
 first, and that man of sin be revealed," &c., 2 Thess. ii. 1 3; 
 and ver. 5, "Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, 
 I told you these things?" .Besides this distinct assertion, that 
 the second advent of Christ was not to occur before the revela- 
 tion of the man of sin, there are several other predictions in the 
 writings of Paul, which necessarily imply his knowledge of the 
 fact, that the day of judgment was not immediately at hand, 
 1 Tim. iv. 1 5, Rom. xi. 25. The numerous prophecies of the 
 Old Testament relating to the future conversion of the Jews, 
 and various other events, were known to the apostles, and pre- 
 cluded the possibility of their believing that the world was to 
 come to an end before those prophecies were fulfilled 3. We 
 are not to understand the expressions, day of the Lord, the
 
 CIS ROMANS XIII. 11. 
 
 appearing of Clirist, the coming of the Son of man, in all ca?es 
 in the same way. The day of the Lord is a very familiar 
 expression in the Scriptures to designate any time of the 
 special manifestation of the divine presence, either for judg- 
 ment or mercy ; see Ezek. xiii.-5, Joel i. 15, Isa. ii. 12, xiii. 0, 9. 
 So also God or Christ is said to come to any person or place, 
 when he makes any remarkable exhibition of his power or 
 grace. Hence the Son of man was to come for the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, before the people of that generation all perished; 
 and the summons of death is sometimes represented as the 
 coming of Christ to judge the soul. What is the meaning of 
 such expressions must be determined by the context, in each 
 particular case. 4. It cannot, therefore, be inferred from such 
 declarations as " the day of the Lord is at hand ;" " the coming 
 of the Lord draweth nigh;" "the judge is at the door," &c., 
 that those who made them supposed that the second advent and 
 final judgment were to take place immediately. They expressly 
 assert the contrary, as has just been shown. 5. The situation 
 of the early Christians was, in this respect, similar to ours. 
 They believed that Christ was to appear the second time with- 
 out sin unto salvation ; but when this advent was to take place, 
 they did not know. They looked and longed for the appearing 
 of the great God their Saviour, as we do now ; and the prospect 
 of this event operated upon them as it should do upon us, as a 
 constant motive to watchfulness and diligence, that we may be 
 found of him in peace. There is nothing, therefore, in the 
 Scriptures, nor in this immediate context, which requires us to 
 suppose that Paul intended to say that the time of the second 
 advent was at hand, when he tells his readers that their salva- 
 tion was nearer than when, they believed. 
 
 The third and most common, as well as the most natural inter- 
 pretation of this passage is, that Paul meant simply to remind 
 them that the time of deliverance was near; that the difficulties 
 and sins with which they had to contend, would soon be dis- 
 persed as the shades and mists of night before the rising day. 
 The salvation, therefore, here intended, is the consummation of 
 the work of Christ in their deliverance from this present evil 
 world, and introduction into the purity and blessedness of 
 heaven. Eternity is just at hand, is the solemn consideration
 
 ROMANS XIII. 12, 13. 649 
 
 that Paul urges on his readers as a motive for devotion and 
 diligence. 
 
 VERSE 12. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us 
 therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the 
 armour of light. The general sentiment of this verse is very 
 obvious. Night or darkness is the common emblem of sin and 
 sorrow ; day or light, that of knowledge, purity, and happiness. 
 The meaning of the first clause therefore is, that the time of 
 sin and sorrow is nearly over, that of holiness and happiness is 
 at hand. The particular form and application of this general 
 sentiment depends, however, on the interpretation given to the 
 preceding verse. If that verse refers to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, then Paul means to say, that the night of persecution 
 was nearly gone, and the day of peace and prosperity to the 
 Gentile churches was at hand. But if ver. 11 refers to final 
 salvation, then this verse means, that the sins and sorrows of 
 this life will soon be over, and the day of eternal blessedness is 
 about to dawn. The latter view is to be preferred. 
 
 Paul continues this beautiful figure through the verse. There- 
 fore let us cast off the ivorks of darkness, and let us put on the 
 armour of light. That is, let us renounce those things which 
 need to be concealed, and clothe ourselves with those which are 
 suited to the light. The works of darkness are those works 
 which men are accustomed to commit in the dark, or which suit 
 the dark ; and armour of light means those virtues and good 
 deeds which men are not ashamed of, because they will bear to 
 be seen. Paul probably used the word (oxla) armour, instead 
 of works, because these virtues constitute the offensive and 
 defensive weapons with which we are here to contend against 
 sin and evil; see Eph. vi. 11. The words a-OTt&za&ac and 
 ivd'jea&of suggest the idea of clothing. \Ve are to cast off one 
 set of garments, and to put on another. The clothes which 
 belong to the night are to be cast aside, and we are to array 
 ourselves in those suited to the day. 
 
 VERSE 13. Let us tvalk honestly as in the day: not in rioting 
 and drunkenness; not in chambering and wantonness; not in 
 strife and envying. This verse is an amplification of the pre- 
 ceding, statin & some of those works of darkness which we are 
 
 O" O 
 
 to put off; as ver. 14 states what is the armour of light which
 
 650 ROMANS XIII. 14. 
 
 we are to put on. The word (s.oaffifj.uvwz) rendered honestly, 
 means becomingly* properly. There sire three classes of sins 
 specified in this verse, to each of which two words are appro- 
 priated, viz., intemperance, impurity, and discord. Rioting and 
 drunkenness belong to the first. The word (xio/w^) appropri- 
 ately rendered rioting, is used both in reference to the disor- 
 derly religious festivals kept in honour of Bacchus, and to the 
 common boisterous carousing of intemperate young men, (see 
 Passow, Vol. I., p. 924.) The words chambering and wanton- 
 ness, include all kinds of uncleanncss ; and strife and envying, 
 all kinds of unholy emulation and discord. 
 
 VERSE 14. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, i. e., be as 
 he wa's. To put on Christ, signifies to be intimately united to 
 him, so that he, and not we, may appear, Gal. iii. 27 : ' Let not 
 your own evil deeds be seen, (i. e., do not commit such,) but let 
 what Christ was, appear in all your conduct, as effectually as 
 if clothed with the garment of his virtues.' 
 
 And make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts theieof. 
 That is, let it not be your care to gratify the flesh. By fl>.'sh, 
 in this passage, is perhaps generally understood the body; so 
 that the prohibition is confined to the vicious indulgence of the 
 sensual appetites. But there seems to be no sufficient reason 
 for this restriction. As the word is constantly used by Paul 
 for whatever is corrupt, and in the preceding verse the sins of 
 envy and contention are specially mentioned, it may be under- 
 stood more generally, ' Do not indulge the desires of your cor- 
 rupt nature.' 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Civil government is a divine institution, i. e., it is the 
 will of God that it should exist, and be respected and obeyed, 
 ver. 2. 
 
 2. While 'government is of God, the form is of men.' God 
 has never enjoined any one form obligatory on all communi- 
 ties ; but has simply laid down certain principles, applicable to 
 rulers and subjects, under every form in which governments 
 exist, vs. 1 7. 
 
 3. The obedience which the Scriptures command us to render 
 to our rulers is not unlimited ; there are cases in which disobe- 
 dience is a duty. This is evident, first, from the very nature
 
 ROMANS XIII. 114. 651 
 
 of the case. The command to obey magistrates is, from its 
 nature, a command to obey them as magistrates in the exercise 
 of their rightful authority. They are not to be obeyed as 
 priests or as parents, but as civil rulers. No one doubts that 
 the precept, "Children, obey your parents in all things," is a 
 command to obey them in the exercise of their rightful parental 
 authority, and imposes no obligation to implicit and passive 
 obedience. A parent who should claim the power of a sove- 
 reign over his children, would have no right to their obedience. 
 The case is still plainer with regard to the command, "Wives, 
 submit to your own husbands." Secondly, from the fact that 
 the same inspired men who enjoin, in such general terms, 
 obedience to rulers, themselves uniformly and openly disobeyed 
 them whenever their commands were inconsistent with other 
 and higher obligations. " We ought to obey God rather than 
 men," was the principle which the early Christians avowed, and 
 on which they acted. They disobeyed the Jewish and heathen 
 authorities, whenever they required them to do anything con- 
 trary to the will of God. There are cases, therefore, in which 
 disobedience is a duty. How far the rightful authority of rulers 
 extends, the precise point at which the obligation to obedience 
 ceases, must often be a difficult question ; and each case must 
 be decided on its own merits. The same difficulty exists in 
 fixing the limits of the authority of parents* over their children, 
 husbands over their wives, masters over their servants. This, 
 however, is a theoretical rather than a practical difficulty. The 
 general principles on which the question in regard to any given 
 case is to be decided are sufficiently plain. No command to do 
 anything morally wrong can be binding; nor can any Avhich 
 transcends the rightful authority of the power whence it eman- 
 ates. What that rightful authority is, must be determined by 
 the institutions and laws of the land, or from prescription and 
 usage, or from the nature and design of the office with which 
 the magistrate is invested. The right of deciding on all these 
 points, and determining where the obligation to obedience 
 ceases, and the duty of resistance begins, must, from the 
 nature of the case, rest with the subject, and not with the ruler. 
 The apostles and early Christians decided this point for them- 
 selves, and did not leave the decision with the Jewish or Roman
 
 652 ROMANS XIII. 114. 
 
 authorities. Like all other questions of duty, it is to be decided 
 on our responsibility to God and our fellow-men, vs. 1 7. 
 
 4. The design of civil government is not to promote the 
 advantage of rulers, but of the ruled. They are ordained and 
 invested with authority, to be a terror to evil doers, and a 
 praise to them that do well. They are the ministers of God 
 for this end, and are appointed for "this very thing." On this 
 ground our obligation to obedience rests, and the obligation 
 ceases when this design is systematically, constantly, and noto- 
 riously disregarded. Where unfaithfulness on the part of the 
 government exists, or where the form of it is incompatible with 
 the design of its institution, the governed must have a right to 
 remedy the evil. But they cannot have the moral right to 
 remedy one evil, by the production of a greater. And, there- 
 fore, as there are few greater evils than instability and uncer- 
 tainty in governments, the cases in which revolutions are 
 justifiable must be exceedingly rare, vs. 3 7. 
 
 5. The proper sphere of civil government is the civil and 
 social relations of men, and their temporal welfare ; conscience, 
 and of course religion, are beyond its jurisdiction, except so far 
 as the best interests of civil society are necessarily connected 
 with them. What extent of ground this exception covers, ever 
 has been, and probably will ever remain a matter of dispute. 
 Still it is to be remembered, that it is an exception ; religion 
 and morality, as such, are not within the legitimate sphere of 
 the civil authority. To jusli-fy the interference of the civil 
 government, therefore, in any given case, with these important 
 subjects, an exception must be made out. It must be shown 
 that an opinion or a religion is not only false, but that its pre- 
 valence is incompatible with the rights of those members of the 
 community who are not embraced within its communion, before 
 the civil authority can be authorized to interfere for its sup- 
 pression. It is then to be suppressed, not as a religion, but as 
 a public nuisance. God has ordained civil government for the 
 promotion of the welfare of men as members of the same civil 
 society; and parental government, and the instruction and dis- 
 cipline of the church, for their moral and religious improve- 
 ment. And the less interference there is between these two 
 great institutions, in the promotion of their respective objects,
 
 ROMANS XIII. 114. 6.53 
 
 the better. We do not find in the New Testament any com- 
 mands addressed to magistrates with regard to the suppression 
 of heresies or the support of the truth ; nor, on the other hand, 
 do we meet with any directions to the church to interfere with 
 matters pertaining to the civil government, vs. 8 6. 
 
 6. The discharge of all the social and civil duties of life is to 
 the Christian a matter of religious obligation, vs. 5 7. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The Christian religion is adapted to all states of society 
 and all forms of civil government. As the Spirit of God, when 
 it enters any human heart, leaves unmolested what is peculiar 
 to its individual character, as far as it is innocent, and effects 
 the reformation of what is evil, not by violence, but by a sweetly 
 constraining influence ; so the religion of Christ, when it enters 
 any community of men, does not assail their form of govern- 
 ment, whether despotic or free; and if there is anything in 
 their institutions inconsistent with its spirit, it is changed by 
 its silent operation on the heart and conscience, rather than by 
 direct denunciation. It has thus, without rebellion or violent 
 convulsions, curbed the exercise of despotic power, and wrought 
 the abolition of slavery throughout the greater part of Christen- 
 dom, vs. 1 14. 
 
 2. The gospel is equally hostile to tyranny and anarchy. It 
 teaches rulers that they are ministers of God for the public 
 good ; and it teaches subjects to be obedient to magistrates, not 
 only for fear, but also for conscience' sake, ver. 5. 
 
 3. God is to be recognised as ordering the affairs of civil 
 society: "He removeth kings, and he setteth up kings;" by 
 him "kings reign, and princes decree justice." It is enough, 
 therefore, to secure the obedience of the Christian, that, in the 
 providence of God, he finds the power of government lodged in 
 certain hands. The early Christians would have been in con- 
 stant perplexity, had it been incumbent on them, amidst the 
 frequent poisonings and assassinations of the imperial palace, 
 the tumults of the pretorian guards, and the proclamation by 
 contending armies of rival candidates, to decide on the individual 
 who had de jure the power of the sword, before they could con- 
 scientiously obey, vs. 1 5.
 
 654 ROMANS XIV. 123. 
 
 4. "When rulers become a terror to the good, and a praise to 
 them that do evil, they may still be tolerated and obeyed, not 
 however, of right, but because the remedy may be worse than 
 the disease, vs. 3, 4. 
 
 5. Did genuine Christian love prevail, it would secure the 
 right discharge, not only of the duties of rulers towards their 
 subjects, and of subjects towards their rulers, but of all the rela- 
 tive social duties of life ; for he that loveth another fulfilleth the 
 law, vs. 7, 8. 
 
 6. The nearness of eternity should operate on all Christians 
 as a motive to purity and devotedness to God. The night is 
 far spent, the day is at hand ; now is our salvation nearer than 
 when we believed, vs. 13, 14. 
 
 7. All Christian duty is included in putting on the Lord 
 Jesus ; in being like him, having that similarity of temper and 
 conduct which results from being intimately united to him by 
 the Holy Spirit, ver. 14. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 As in chapter xii., Paul had insisted principally upon moral 
 and religious duties, and in chapter xiii., on those of a political 
 character, he here treats particularly of the duties of church 
 members towards each other, in relation to matters not binding 
 on the "conscience. There are two points specially presented : 
 the first is the manner in which scrupulous Christians, who 
 make conscience of matters of indifference, are to be treated, 
 vs. 1 12; and the second, the manner in which those who are 
 strong in faith should use their Christian liberty, vs. 13 23. 
 
 ROMANS XIV. 123. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 SCRTPULOUS Christians, whose consciences are weak, are to 
 be kindly received, and not harshly condemned, ver. 1. This 
 direction the apostle enforces in reference to those who were
 
 ROMANS XIV. 123. 655 
 
 scrupulous as to eating particular kinds of food, and the pro- 
 priety of neglecting the sacred days appointed in the law of 
 Moses. Such persons are not to be condemned: 1. Because 
 this weakness is not inconsistent with piety ; notwithstanding 
 their doubts on these points, God has received them, ver. 3. 
 
 2. Because one Christian has no right to judge another, (except 
 where Christ has expressly authorized it, and given him the 
 rule of judgment ;) to his own master he stands or falls, ver. 4. 
 
 3. Because such harsh treatment is unnecessary ; God can and 
 will preserve s?ich persons, notwithstanding their feebleness, 
 ver. 4. 4. Because they act religiously, or out of regard to 
 God, in this matter; .and, therefore, live according to the great 
 Christian principle, that no man liveth to himself, and no man 
 dieth to himself, but whether he lives or dies, belongs to God, 
 vs. 6 9. On these grounds we should abstain from condemn- 
 ing or treating contemptuously our weaker brethren, remember- 
 ing that we are all to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, 
 vs. 1013. 
 
 As to the use of Christian liberty, the apostle teaches that 
 it is not to be given up or denied ; that is, we are not to naake 
 things sinful which are in themselves indifferent, ver. 14. But 
 it does not follow, that because a thing is not wrong in itself, 
 it is right for us to indulge in it. Our liberty is to be asserted ; 
 but it is to be exercised in such a way as not to injure others. 
 We must not put a stumbling-block in our brother's way, 
 ver. 12. This consideration of others, in the use of our liberty, 
 is enforced : 1. From the great law of love. It is inconsistent 
 with Christian charity, for our own gratification, to injure a 
 brother for whom Christ died, ver. 15. 2. From a regard to 
 the honour of religion. We must not cause that which is good 
 to be evil spoken of, ver. 16. 3. From the consideration that 
 religion does not consist in such things, vs. 17, 18. 4. Because 
 we are bound to promote the peace and edification of the 
 church, ver. 19. 5. Though the things in question may be in 
 themselves indifferent, it is morally wrong to indulge in them 
 to the injury of others, vs. 20, 21. 6. The course enjoined by 
 the apostle requires no concession of principle, or adoption of 
 error. We can retain our full belief of the indifference of things 
 which God has not pronounced sinful ; but those who have not
 
 656 ROMANS XIV. 1. 
 
 our faith, cannot act upon it, and therefore should not be 
 encouraged so to do, vs. 22, 23. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. Him that is weak in faith receive, but not to doubt- 
 ful disputations. This verse contains the general direction 
 that weak and scrupulous brethren are to be kindly received, 
 and not harshly condemned. Who these weak brethren were, 
 and what was the nature of their scruples, is matter of doubt. 
 Some say they were Jewish converts, who held to the continued 
 obligation of the ceremonial law. But to this it is objected, 
 that they abstained from all flesh (ver. 2,) and refused to drink 
 wine (ver. 21 ;) things not prohibited in the law of Moses. 
 Others think they were persons who scrupled about the use of 
 such flesh only as had been offered in sacrifice to idols, and 
 of the wine employed in libation to false gods. But for this 
 limitation there is no ground in the context. Eichhorn, Ein- 
 leitung III. p. 222, supposes that they were the advocates, of 
 Gentile birth, of the ascetic school of the new Pythagorean 
 philosophy, which had be^un to prevail among the heathen, 
 and probably to a certain extent among the Jews. But it is 
 plain that they held to the continued authority of the Jewish 
 law, which converts from among the heathen would not be 
 likely to do. The most probable opinion is, that they were a 
 scrupulous class of Jewish Christians; perhaps of the school of 
 the Essenes, who were more strict and abstemious than the 
 Mosaic ceremonial required. Asceticism, as a form of self-right- 
 eousness and will-worship, was one of the earliest, most exten- 
 sive and persistent heresies in the church. But there is nothing 
 inconsistent with the assumption that the weak brethren here 
 spoken of were scrupulous Jewish Christians. Josephus says, 
 that some of the Jews at Rome lived on fruits exclusively, from 
 fear of eating something unclean. Weak infaith, i. e., weak as 
 to faith (TTwrrer.) Faith here means, persuasion of the truth ; a 
 man may have a strong persuasion as to certain truths, and a 
 very weak one as to others. Some of the early Christians were, 
 no doubt, fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and yet 
 felt great doubts whether the distinction between clean and 
 unclean meats was entirely done away. This was certainly a
 
 ROMANS XIV. 2. 65T 
 
 great defect of Christian character, and arose from the want 
 of an intelligent and firm conviction of the gratuitous nature 
 of justification, and of the spirituality of the gospel. Since, 
 however, this weakness was not inconsistent with sincere devo- 
 tion to Christ, such persona were to be received. The word 
 fytpoafafiftdvofuu) rendered receive, has the general signification, 
 to take to one-self; and this is its meaning here : ' Him that is 
 weak in faith, take to yourselves as a Christian brother, treat 
 him kindly;' see Acts xxviii. 2, Rom. xv. 7, Philemon va. 
 15, 17. 
 
 There is much more doubt as to the meaning of the words (jxi) 
 e/C fatxpimtt dfaJiafevfjuitv) translated not to doubtful disputations. 
 The former of the two important words of this clause means, the 
 faculty of discrimination, 1 Cor. xiii. 10 ; the act of discerning, 
 Heb. v. 14, and then, dijudication, judgment. It is said also to 
 signify doubt or inward conflict; see the use of the verb in chap, 
 iv. 20. It is taken in this sense in our version, not to the doubtc 
 fulness of disputes, not for the purpose of doubtful disputation 
 That is, not so as to give rise to disputes on doubtful matters- 
 Luther (und verwirret die Gewissen nicht,) and many others 
 take otaxplffsez in the sense of doubt, and refer the dcakrfcofio'c 
 to the weak brethren : ' Not so as to awaken doubts of thought, 
 i. e., scruples.' Although the verb dtazp'vsa), in the passive, 
 often means to hesitate or doubt, the noun diaxpiat$ is not used, 
 in that sense, either in the classics or in the New Testament. 
 It is therefore better to take the word in its ordinary sense r 
 which gives a meaning to the passage suited to the context, not 
 to the judging of thoughts; i. e., not presuming to sit in judg- 
 ment on the opinions of your brethren. G-rotius: "Non> 
 sumentes vobis dijudicandas ipsorum cogitationes." This is 
 the injunction which is enforced in the following verses. 
 
 VERSE 2. For one believeth he may eat all things: another, 
 who is iveak, eateth herbs oj fj.ev aotfTCUM yarstv Ttdura does 
 not mean, one believeth he may eat all things; much less, he 
 that believeth eats all things, but, one has confidence to eat all 
 things. Instead of oc piv being followed by Be <5e, one eats 
 all things, another eats herbs, Paul says, 6 Se dadsvwv, he who 
 is weak eateth herbs. This is an illustration of the weakness 
 of faith to which the apostle refers in ver. 1. It was a scrupu* 
 42
 
 658 ROMANS XIV. 3. 
 
 lousness about the use of things considered as nnclenn, and with 
 regard to sacred days, ver. 5. There were two sources whence 
 the early Christian church was disturbed by the question about 
 meats. The first, and by far the most important, was the 
 natural prejudices of the Jewish converts. It is not a matter 
 of surprise that, educated as they had been in a strict regard 
 for the Mosaic law, they found it difficult to enter at once into 
 the full liberty of the gospel, and disencumber their consciences 
 of all their early opinions. Even the apostles were slow in 
 shaking them off; and the church in Jerusalem seems to have 
 long continued in the observance of a great part of the ceremo- 
 nial law. These scruples were not confined to the use of meats 
 pronounced unclean in the Old Testament, but, as appears from 
 the Epistles to the Corinthians, extended to partaking of any- 
 thing which had been offered to an idol ; and, in these latter 
 scruples, some even of the Gentile converts may have joined. 
 The second source of trouble on this subject was less prevalent 
 and less excusable. It was the influence of the mystic ascetic 
 philosophy of the East, which had developed itself among the 
 Jews, in the peculiar opinions of the Essenes, and which, among 
 the Christian churches, particularly those of Asia Minor, pro- 
 duced the evils which Paul describes in his Epistles to the 
 Colossians (chap. ii. 10 23,) and to Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 1 8,) 
 and which subsequently gave rise to all the errors of Gnosti- 
 cism. There is no satisfactory evidence that the persons to 
 whom Paul refers in this passage were under the influence of 
 this philosophy. The fact that they abstained from all meat, 
 as seems to be intimated in this verse, may have arisen from 
 the constant apprehension of eating meat which, after having 
 been presented in sacrifice, was sold in the market-place, or 
 which had in some other way been rendered unclean. Every 
 thing in the context is consistent with the supposition that 
 Jewish scruples were the source of the difficulty; and as these 
 were by far the most common cause, no other need be here 
 assumed. 
 
 VERSE 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; 
 and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God 
 hath received him. There is mutual forbearance to be exercised 
 in relation to this subject. The strong are not to despise the
 
 ROMANS XIV. 4. . 659 
 
 weak as superstitious and imbecile ; nor the weak to condemn 
 those who disregard their scruples. Points of indifference are 
 not to be allowed to disturb the harmony of Christian fellow- 
 ship. For Grod hath received him; i. e., God has recognised 
 him as a Christian, and received him into his kingdom. This 
 reason is not designed to enforce merely the latter of the two 
 duties here enjoined, but is applied to both. As God does not 
 make eating or not eating certain kinds of food a condition of 
 acceptance, Christians ought not to allo^ it to interfere with 
 their communion as brethren. The Jewish converts were per- 
 haps quite as much disposed to condemn the Gentile Christians, 
 as the latter were to despise the Christian Jews ; Paul there- 
 fore frames his admonition so as to reach both classes. It 
 appears, however, from the first verse, and from the whole con- 
 text, that the Gentiles were principally intended. 
 
 VERSE 4. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? 
 to his oicn master he standeth or falleth. If God has not made 
 the point in question a term of communion, we have no right to 
 make it a ground of condemnation. We have no right to exer- 
 cise the office of judge over the servant of another. This is the 
 second reason for mutual forbearance with regard to such mat- 
 ters as divided the Jewish and Gentile converts. It cannot fail 
 to be remarked how differently the apostle speaks of the same 
 things under different circumstances. He who circumcised 
 Timothy, who conformed in many things to the law of Moses, 
 and to the Jews became a Jew, and who here exhorts Christians 
 to regard their external observances as matters of indifference, 
 resisted to the uttermost, as soon as these things were urged as 
 matters of importance, or were insisted upon as necessary to 
 acceptance with God. He would not allow Titus to be circum- 
 cised, nor give place even for an hour to false brethren, who 
 had come in privily to act as spies. Gal. ii. 3, 5. He warned 
 the Galatians, that if they were circumcised, Christ would profit 
 them nothing ; that they renounced the whole method of gra- 
 tuitous justification, and forfeited its blessings, if they sought 
 acceptance on any such terms. How liberal and how faithful 
 was the apostle ! He would concede every thing, and become 
 all things to all men, where principle was not at stake ; but 
 when it was, he would concede nothing for a moment. What
 
 660 ROMANS XIV. 5. 
 
 might be safely granted, if asked and given as a matter cf 
 indifference, became a fatal apostacy when demanded as a 
 matter of necessity or a condition of salvation. 
 
 To his own master he standeth or falleth, i. e., it belongs to 
 his own master to decide his case, to acquit or to condemn. 
 These terms are often used in this judicial sense, Ps. i. 5, 
 Ixxvi. 7, Luke xxi. 36, Rey. vi. 17. Yea, he shall be holden 
 no: for Grod is able to make him stand; i. e., he shall stand, or 
 be accepted, for God has the right and the will to make him 
 stand, that is, to acquit and save him. This clause seems 
 designed to urge a further reason for forbearance and kindness 
 towards those who differ from us on matters of indifference. 
 However weak a man's faith may be, if he is a Christian, he 
 should be recognised and treated as such ; for his weakness is 
 not inconsistent with his acceptance with God, and therefore is 
 no ground or necessity for our proceeding against him with 
 severity. The objects of discipline are the reformation of 
 offenders and the purification of the church; but neither of 
 these objects requires the condemnation of those brethren 
 whom God has received. "God is able to make him stand;" 
 he has not only the power, but the disposition and determina- 
 tion. Compare chap. xi. 23, "For God is able to graft them 
 in again." The interpretation given above, according to which 
 standing and falling are understood judicially, is the one com- 
 monly adopted. It is however objected, that justifying, causing 
 to stand in. judgment, is not an act of power, but of grace. On 
 this ground, standing and falling are taken to refer to continu- 
 ing or falling away from the Christian life. God is able, not- 
 withstanding their weakness, to cause his feeble children to 
 persevere. But this is against the context. The thing con- 
 demned is unrighteous judgments. The brethren are not 
 responsible to each other, or to the church, for their scruples. 
 God is the Lord of the conscience. To him they must answer. 
 Before him they stand or fall. 
 
 VERSE 5. One man esteemeth one day above another; another 
 esteemeth every day alike. Kpcvst fyjtepav na{> fyjtlpav ( 
 judges one day (to be) before another, (i. e., better ;) xpivet 
 fyispav (tlvai jjfjtepav) to be a day, and nothing more. He has 
 the same judgment (or estimation) of every day. As the law
 
 ROMANS XIV. 6. 661 
 
 of Moses not only made a distinction between meats as clean 
 and unclean, but also prescribed the observance of certain days 
 as religious festivals, the Jewish converts were as scrupulous 
 with regard to this latter point as the former. Some Chris- 
 tians, therefore, thought it incumbent on them to observe these 
 days ; others were of a contrary opinion. Both were to be tole- 
 rated. The veneration of these days was a weakness ; but still 
 it was not a vital matter, and therefore should not be allowed 
 to distui-b the harmony of Christian intercourse, or the peace 
 of the church. It is obvious from the context, and from such 
 parallel passages as Gal. iv. 10, "Ye observe days, and months, 
 and times, and years," and Col. ii. 16, "Let no man judge you 
 in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new 
 moon, or of Sabbath days," that Paul has reference to the 
 Jewish festivals, and therefore his language cannot properly be 
 applied to the Christian Sabbath. The sentiment of the pas- 
 sage is this, * One man observes the Jewish festivals, another 
 man does not.' Such we know was the fact in the apostolic 
 church, even among those who agreed in the observance of the 
 first day of the week. 
 
 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. The 
 principle which the apostle enforces in reference to this case, is 
 the same as that which he enjoined in relation to the other, 
 viz., that one man should not be forced to act according to 
 another man's conscience, but every one should be satisfied 
 in his own mind, and be careful not to do what he thought 
 wrong. 
 
 VERSE 6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the 
 Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth 
 not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, &c. That is, 
 both parties are actuated by religious motives in .what they do ; 
 they regulate their conduct by a regard to the will of God, and 
 therefore, although some, from weakness or ignorance, may err 
 as to the rule of duty, they are not to be despised or cast out 
 as evil. The strong should not contemn the scrupulous, nor the 
 scrupulous be censorious towards the strong. This is a fourth 
 argument in favour of the mutual forbearance enjoined in the 
 first verse. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord; for he giveth 
 G-od thanks, &c. That is, he who disregards the Mosaic dis-
 
 662 ROMANS XIV. 7, 8. 
 
 tinction between clean and unclean meats, and uses indiscrimi- 
 nately the common articles of food, acts religiously in so doing, 
 as is evident from his giving God thanks. He could not delibe- 
 rately thank God for what he supposed God had forbidden him 
 to use. In like manner, he that abstains from certain meats, 
 it religiously, for he also giveth thanks to God; which 
 implies that he regards himself as acting agreeably to the divine 
 v.-ill. The Lord is he who died and rose again, that he might be 
 Lord both of the living and the dead. It is to him the believer 
 is responsible, as to the Lord of his inner life. 
 
 VERSB 7. For none of us liveih to himself, and no man dieth 
 t himself; ka'jra), in dependence on himself. This verse is an 
 amplification and confirmation of the preceding. The principle 
 oa which both the classes of persons just referred to acted, is a 
 true Christian principle. No Christian considers himself as his 
 own master, or at liberty to regulate his conduct according to 
 his own will, or for his own ends; he is the servant of Christ, 
 and therefore endeavours to live according to his will and for 
 his glory. They, therefore, who act on this principle, are to be 
 regarded and treated as true Christians, although they may 
 differ as to what the will of God, in particular cases, requires. 
 Ifo man dieth to himself, i. e., death as well as life must be left 
 in the hands of God, to be directed by his will and for his glory. 
 The sentiment is, 'We are entirely his, having no authority 
 over our life or death.' 
 
 VERSE 8. For lohether we live, we live unto the Lord; or 
 whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, 
 or d-ie, we are the Lord'*. The same sentiment as in the pre- 
 ceding verse, rather more fully and explicitly stated. In ver. 7, 
 Paul had stated, negatively, that the Christian does not live 
 according to his own will, or for his own pleasure; he here 
 states, affirmatively, that he does live according to the will of 
 st, and for his glory. This being the case, he is a true 
 -tian; he belongs to Christ, and should be so recognised 
 and treated. It is very obvious, especially from the following 
 verse, which speaks of death and resurrection, that Christ is 
 intended by the word Lord, in this verse. It is for Christ, and 
 in subjection to his will, that every Christian endeavours to 
 regulate his heart, his conscience, and his life. This is the
 
 ROMANS XIV. 9. 663 
 
 profoundest homage the creature can render to his Creator; 
 and as it is the service which the Scriptures require us tc 
 render to the Redeemer, it of necessity supposes that Christ is 
 God. This is rendered still plainer by the interchange, through- 
 out the passage (vs. 6 9,) of the terms Lord and God : ' He 
 that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks. We 
 live unto the Lord ; we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ 
 died and rose, that he might be the Lord,' &c. It is clear that, 
 to the apostle's mind, the idea that Christ is God was perfectly 
 familiar. Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 
 We are not our own, but Christ's, 1 Cor. vi. 19. This right 
 of possession, and the consequent duty of devotion and obedi- 
 ence, are not founded on creation, but on redemption. We are 
 Christ's, because he has bought us with a price. 
 
 VERSE 9. For to this end Christ both died, and rone, and 
 revived,* that he might be the Lord both of the dead and living. 
 The dominion which Christ, as Mediator or Redeemer, exercises 
 over his people, and which they gladly recognise, is therefore 
 referred to his death and resurrection. By his death he pur- 
 chased them for his own, and by his resurrection he attained to 
 that exalted station which he now occupies as Lord over all, 
 and received those gifts which enable him to exercise as Medi- 
 ator this universal dominion. The exaltation and dominion of 
 Christ are frequently represented in the Scriptures as the 
 reward of his suiferings: "Wherefore God also hath highly 
 exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; 
 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow," &c. Phil. 
 ii. 8, 9. This authority of Christ over his people is not con- 
 fined to this world, but extends beyond the grave. He is Lord 
 both of the dead and the living. 
 
 * The common text reads **/ &7r&*n */ In? K-J} Cvi^tm; most corrected 
 editions read *< amSrw X.JLI t?>:<rsv; and some omit x.*i before ^ri^n The 
 words xa) uVs-T are omitted in the MSS. A. C., in the Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, 
 and Armenian versions, and by many of the Fathers. They are rejected by 
 Erasmus, Bengel, Schmidt. Knapp, Lachmann, and others. The words **) 
 cu'ff-to-tf are omitted by some few MSS. and Fathers; x*i "i?Ttt are read in MSS. 
 A. C. and in forty-four others. They are adopted in the Complutensian edi- 
 tion, and in those of Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Knapp, Lachmann, &c. 
 These diversities do not materially affect the sense. The words dwa-T* and 
 .Vi<nr have very much the appearance of explanatory glosses.
 
 CG4 ROMANS XIV. 10, 11. 
 
 VERSE 10. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why 
 dost thou set at^ naught thy brother ? for we shall all stand 
 before the judgment-seat of Christ.* In this and the following 
 verses, to the 13th, Paul applies his previous reasoning to the 
 case in hand. If a man is our brother, if God has received him, 
 if he acts from a sincere desire to do the divine will, he should 
 not be condemned, though he may think certain things right 
 which we think wrong ; nor should he be despised if he tram- 
 mels his conscience with unnecessary scruples. The former of 
 these clauses relates to scrupulous Jewish Christians ; the latter 
 to the Gentile converts. The last member of the verse applies 
 to both classes. As we are all to stand before the judgment- 
 seat of Christ, as he is our sole and final judge, we should not 
 usurp his prerogative, or presume to condemn those whom he 
 has received. 
 
 VERSE 11. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every 
 knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess. This 
 quotation is from Isa. xlv. 23, " I have sworn by myself, the 
 word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not 
 return, that unto me every knee' shall bow, and every tongue 
 shall swear." The apostle, it will be perceived, does not adhere 
 to the words of the passage which he quotes, but contents him- 
 self with giving the sense. As I live, being the form of an 
 oath, is a correct exhibition of the meaning of the phrase, I 
 have sworn by myself. And since, to swear by any being, is to 
 recognise his power and authority over us, the expressions, 
 every tongue shall swear, and every tongue shall confess, are of 
 similar import. Both indeed are parallel to the clause, every 
 knee shall bow, and are but different forms of expressing the 
 general idea that every one shall submit to God, i. e., recognise 
 his authority as God, the supreme ruler and judge. The apostle 
 evidently considers the recognition of the authority of Christ as 
 being tantamount to submission to God, and he applies without 
 hesitation the declarations of the Old Testament in relation to 
 
 * Instead of %yrrov, at the close of this verse, the MSS. A. D. E. F. G. read 
 S-BU, which is adopted by Mill, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The common 
 reading is supporte/l by the great majority of the MSS., most of the ancient 
 versions, an 1 almost all the Fathers. It is therefore retained by most critical 
 editors.
 
 ROMANS XIV. 12, 13. 6G5 
 
 the universal dominion of Jehovah, in proof of the Redeemer's 
 sovereignty. In Paul's estimation, therefore, Jesus Christ was 
 God. This is so obvious, that commentators of all classes 
 recognise the force of the argument hence deduced for the 
 divinity of Christ. Luther says : " So muss Christus rechter 
 Gott sein, weil solches vor seinem Richterstuhl geschehen." 
 Calvin: "Est etiam insignis locus ad stabiliendam fidem mos- 
 tram de seterna Qhristi divinitate." Bengel: "Christus est 
 Deus, nam dicitur Dominus et Deus. Ipse est, cui vivimus et 
 morimur. Ipse jurat per se ipsum." Even Koppe says, " Quae 
 Jes. xlv. 23, de Jehova dicuntur. eadeni ad Christum transferri 
 ab apostolo, non est mirandutu, cum hunc illi artissime conjunc- 
 tum cogitandum esse, perpetua sit turn Judseorum, quoties- 
 eunque de Messia loquuntur, turn imprimis Pauli et Joanis 
 sententia." This verse may be considered as intended to con- 
 firm the truth of the declaration at the close of the one preced- 
 ing : ' We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ ; 
 for it is written, To me every knee shall bow.' And this seems 
 the natural relation of the passage. Calvin understands this 
 verse, however, as designed to enforce humble submission to the 
 judgment of Christ: ' We should not judge others, since we are 
 to be judged by Christ; and to his judgment AVC must humbly 
 bow the knee.' This is indeed clearly implied ; but it is rather 
 an accessory idea, than the special design of the passage. 
 
 VERSE 12. So then every one of us shall give account of him- 
 self to God. 'As, therefore, God is the supreme judge, and we 
 are to render our account to him, we should await his decision, 
 and not presume to act the part of judge over our brethren.' 
 
 VERSE 13. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; 
 but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an 
 occasion to fall in his brother 8 way. After drawing the con- 
 clusion from the preceding discussion, that we should leave the 
 office of judging in the hands of God, the apostle introduces 
 the second leading topic of the chapter, viz., the manner in 
 which Christian liberty is to be exercised. He teaches that 
 it is not enough that we are persuaded a certain course is, in 
 itself considered, right, in order to authorize us to pursue it. 
 We must be careful that we do not injure others in the use of 
 our liberty. The word (xpivca) rendered judge, means also, to
 
 666 ROMANS XIV. 14, 15. 
 
 determine, to make up one's mind. Paul uses it first in the 
 one sense, and then in the other: 'Do not judge one another, 
 but determine to avoid giving offence.' The words (-Hooxuuua 
 and axdvij(doy) rendered a stumbling-block and an occasion to 
 fall, do not differ in their meaning ; the latter is simply exe- 
 getical of the former. 
 
 VERSE 14. / know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, 
 that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth 
 anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. * The distinction 
 between clean and unclean meats is no longer valid. So far the 
 Gentile converts are right. But they should remember that 
 those who consider the law of the Old Testament on this subject 
 as still binding, cannot, with a good conscience, disregard it. 
 The strong should not, therefore, do anything which would be 
 likely to lead such persons to violate their own sense of duty.' 
 I know and am persuaded by (in) the Lord Jesus, i. e., this 
 knowledge and persuasion I owe to the Lord Jesus ; it is not an 
 opinion founded on my own reasonings, but a knowledge derived 
 from divine revelation. That there is nothing unclean of itself. 
 The word (xoivoz} rendered unclean, has this sense only in Hel- 
 lenistic Greek. It means common, and as opposed to (d^o^) 
 holy, (i. e., separated for some special or sacred use,) it signifies 
 impure; see Acts x. 14, 28, Mark vii. 2, &c. But to him that 
 esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean; i. e., 
 though not unclean in itself, it ought not to be used by those 
 who regard its use as unlawful. But, el /j.y, which seems here 
 .to be used in the sense of dtid; compare Matt. xii. 4, Gal. i. 19. 
 The ordinary sense of except may, however, be retained, by 
 restricting the reference to a part of the preceding clause: 
 * Nothing is unclean, except to him. who esteems it to be 
 unclean.' The simple principle here taught is, that it is wrong 
 for any man to violate his own sense of duty. This being the 
 case, those Jewish converts who believed the distinction bet.veen 
 clean and unclean meats to be still in force, would commit sin 
 in disregarding it ; and, therefore, should not be induced to act 
 contrary to their consciences. 
 
 VERSE 15. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now 
 walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for 
 whom Christ died. Instead of 3s, but, which is found in the
 
 ROMANS XIV. 16. 66? 
 
 common text, Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, on the 
 authority of the majority of the Uncial MSS., read fdp, for. 
 As this verse, however, does not assign a reason for the princi- 
 ple asserted in ver. 14, but does introduce a limitation to the 
 practical application of that principle, the majority of com- 
 mentators and editors retain the common text. The sense 
 obviously is, ' Though the thing is right in itself, yet if indul- 
 gence in it be injurious to our Christian brethren, that indul- 
 gence is a violation of the law of love.' This is the first 
 consideration which the apostle urges, to enforce the exhorta- 
 tion not to put a stumbling-block in our brother's way. The 
 word (Ay7T?ro/,) is grieved, may mean is injured. Either sense 
 suits the context : ' If thy brother, emboldened by thy example, 
 is led to do what he thinks wrong, and is thus rendered misera- 
 ble,' &c. Or, 'If thy brother, by thy example, is injured (by 
 being led into sin,) thou walkest uncharitably.' This use of the 
 word, however, is foreign to the New Testament. It is a moral 
 grievance of which the apostle speaks, a wounding of the con- 
 science. Destroy not (jj.y cbro^ys.) These words have been 
 variously explained. The meaning may be, ' Avoid every thing 
 which has a tendency to lead him to destruction.' So De Brais, 
 Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, and many others. Or, ' Do not injure 
 him, or render him miserable.' So Eisner, Koppe, Flatt, Wahl, 
 and others. There is no material difference between these two 
 interpretations. The former is more consistent with the com- 
 mon meaning of the original word, from which there is no 
 necessity to depart. Believers (the elect) are constantly spoken 
 of as in danger of perdition. They are saved only, if they con- 
 tinue steadfast unto the end. If they apostatize, they perish. 
 If the Scriptures tell the people of God what is the tendency 
 of their sins, as to themselves, they may tell them what is the 
 tendency of such sins as to others. Saints are preserved, not 
 in despite of apostacy, but from apostacy. 'If thy brother be 
 aggrieved, thou doest wrong; do not grieve or injure him.' 
 For whom Christ died. This consideration has peculiar force. 
 ' If "Christ so loved him as to die for him, how base in you not 
 to submit to the smallest self-denial for his welfare.' 
 
 VERSE 16. Let not your good be evil spoken of; that is, ' Do 
 not so use your liberty, which is good and valuable, as to make
 
 668 ROMANS XIV. 17. 
 
 it the occasion of evil, and so liable to censure.' Thus Calvin 
 and most other commentators. This supposes that the exhorta- 
 tion here given is addressed to the strong in faith. The b/juov, 
 however, may include both classes, and the exhortation extend 
 to the weak as well as to the good. Your good, that special 
 good which belongs to you as Christians, viz., the gospel. This 
 view is taken by Melancthon, and most of the later commenta- 
 tors. "Lsedunt utrique evangelium cum rixantur de rebus non 
 necessariis. Ita fit ut imperiti abhorreaut ab evangelic cum 
 videtur parere discordias." 
 
 VERSE 17. For the kingdom of Grod is not meat and drink; 
 but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Grhost. This 
 is a new reason for forbearance. No principle of duty is sacri- 
 ficed; nothing essential to religion is disregarded, for religion 
 does not consist in external observances, but in the inward 
 graces of the Spirit. It has already been remarked (ver. 4,) 
 that with all his desire of peace, no one was more firm and 
 unyielding, when any dereliction of Christian principle was 
 required of him, than the apostle. But the case under con- 
 sideration is very different. There is no sin in abstaining from 
 certain meats, and therefore, if the good of others require this 
 abstinence, we are bound to exercise it. The phrase, kingdom 
 of Grod, almost uniformly signifies the kingdom of the Messiah, 
 under some one of its aspects, as consisting of all professing 
 Christians, of all his own people, of glorified believers, or as 
 existing in the heart. It is the spiritual theocracy. The theoc- 
 ^acy of the Old Testament was ceremonial and ritual ; that of 
 the New is inward and spiritual. Christianity, as we should 
 say, does not consist in things external. Meat and drink, 
 or rather, eating (ftfxoatz) and drinking (noffi^.) The distinction 
 between these words and puajtjta and Tro/^a, is constantly 
 observed in Paul's epistles. Righteousness, peace, and joy in 
 the Holy Grhost. These words are to be taken in their scrip- 
 tural sense. Paul does not mean to say, that Christianity con- 
 sists in morality; that the man who is just, peaceful, and 
 cheerful, is a true Christian. This would be to contradict the 
 whole argument of this epistle. The righteousness, peace, and 
 joy intended, are those of which the Holy Spirit is the author. 
 Righteousness ia that which enables us to stand before God,
 
 . ROMANS XIV. 18, 19. 669 
 
 because it satisfies the demands of the law. It is the righteous- 
 ness of faith, both objective and subjective; peace is the con- 
 cord between God and the soul, between reason and conscience, 
 between the heart and our fellow-men. And the joy is the joy 
 of salvation ; that joy which only those who are in the fellow- 
 ship of the Holy Ghost ever can experience. 
 
 VERSE 18. For he that in these things serveth Christ, is 
 acceptable to G-od and approved of men. This verse is a con- 
 firmation of the preceding. These spiritual graces constitute 
 the essential part of religion ; for he that experiences and exer- 
 cises these virtues, is regarded by God as a true Christian, and 
 must commend himself as such to the consciences of his fellow- 
 men. Where these things, therefore, are found, difference of 
 opinion or practice in reference to unessential points, should 
 not be allowed to disturb the harmony of Christian intercourse. 
 It is to be observed, that the exercise of the virtues here spoken 
 of, is represented by the apostle as a service rendered to Christ; 
 "he that in these things serveth Christ," &c., which implies 
 that Christ has authority over the heart and conscience. 
 Instead of kv rourorc, many of the oldest MSS. read Iv rooru), 
 referring to nvevpaTt: 'He that in the Holy Spirit serveth 
 Christ.' This reading is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 and many others. The external authorities, however, in favour 
 of the common text, are of much weight, and the context seems 
 to demand it. 
 
 VERSE 19. Let us therefore follow after the things which 
 make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another. 
 That is, let us earnestly endeavour to promote peace and 
 mutual edification. The things which make for peace, is equi- 
 valent to peace itself (to. rrfi ecpyvy<;=etpyvr / v;) and things 
 wherewith one may edify another, is mutual edification (TO. rr^ 
 ohodofif=olxodorjfjV.} This verse is not an inference from the 
 immediately preceding, as though the meaning were, 'Since 
 peace is so acceptable to God, therefore let us cultivate it ;' but 
 rather from the whole passage: 'Since Christian love, the 
 example of Christ, the comparative insignificance of the matters 
 in dispute, the honour of the truth, the nature of real religion, 
 all conspire to urge us to mutual forbearance, let us endeavour 
 to promote peace and mutual edification.'
 
 670 ROMANS XIV. 20. 
 
 VERSE 20. For meat destroy not the work of G-od. This 
 clause is, by De Brais and many other commentators, con- 
 sidered as a repetition of ver. 15. " Destroy not him with thy 
 meat, for whom Christ died." The work of God then means a 
 Christian brother ; see Eph. ii. 10. Others refer the passage 
 to the immediately preceding verses, in which the nature of 
 true religion is exhibited. The work of God, in that case, is 
 piety, and the exhortation is, 'Do not, for the sake of indul- 
 gence in certain kinds of food, injure the cause of true religion, 
 i. e., pull not down what God is building up.' The figurative 
 expression used by the apostle ;/r? xard)jjs, pull not down, 
 carries out the figure involved in the preceding verse. Be- 
 lievers are to be edified, i. e., built up. They are the building 
 of God, which is not to be dilapidated or injured by our want 
 of love, or consideration for the weakness of our brethren. 
 
 All things (i. e., all kinds of food) are pure; but it is evil 
 (xaxov, not merely hurtful, but sin, evil in a moral sense) for 
 that man that eateth with offence. This last clause admits of 
 two interpretations. It may mean, It is sinful to eat in such a 
 way as to cause others to offend. The sin intended is that of 
 one strong in faith who so uses his liberty as to injure his 
 weaker brethren. This is the view commonly taken of the 
 passage, and it agrees with the general drift of the context, 
 and especially with the following verse, where causing a brother 
 to stumble is the sin against which we are cautioned. A com- 
 parison, however, of this verse with ver. 14, where much the 
 same sentiment is expressed, leads many interpreters to a dif- 
 ferent view of the passage. In ver. 14 it is said, ' Nothing is 
 common of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be 
 xinclean, to him it is unclean;' and here, 'All things are pure, 
 but it is evil to him who eateth with offence.' To eat with 
 offence, and, to eat what we esteem impure, are synonymous 
 expressions. If this is so, then the sin referred to is that which 
 the weak commit, who act against their own conscience. But 
 throughout the whole context, to offend, to cause to stumble t 
 ' offence, are used, not of a man's causing himself to offend his 
 own conscience, but of one man's so acting as .to cause others 
 to stumble. And as this idea is insisted upon in the following 
 verse, the common interpretation is to be preferred.
 
 ROMANS XIV. 21. 671 
 
 VERSE 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, 
 nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or 
 is made weak. That is, abstaining from flesh, wine, or any 
 thing else which is injurious to our brethren, is right^ i. e., 
 morally obligatory; (xalov, id quod rectum et probum est.) The 
 words stumbleth, offended, made weak, do not, in this con- 
 nection, differ much from each other. Calvin supposes they 
 differ in force, the first being stronger- than the second, and the 
 second than the third. The sense then is, ' We should abstain 
 from every thing whereby our brother is cast down, or even 
 offended, or in the slightest degree injured.' This, however, 
 is urging the terms beyond their natural import. It is very 
 common with the apostle to use several nearly synonymous 
 words for the sake of expressing one idea strongly. The last 
 two words (TJ axavdaXi^rat y da$V?) are indeed omitted in some 
 few manuscripts and versions, but in too few seriously to impair 
 their authority. Mill is almost the only editor of standing 
 who rejects them. 
 
 There is an ellipsis in the middle clause of this verse which 
 has been variously supplied. ' Nor to drink wine, nor to (drink) 
 any thing;' others, 'nor to (do) any thing whereby, &c.' Ac- 
 cording to the first method of supplying the ellipsis, the mean- 
 ing is, ' We should not drink wine, nor any other intoxicating 
 drink, when our doing so is injurious to others.' But the latter 
 method is more natural and forcible, and includes the other, 
 'We should do nothing which injures others.' The ground on 
 which some of the early Christians thought it incumbent on 
 them to abstain from wine, was not any general ascetic prin- 
 ciple, but because they feared they might be led to use wine 
 which had been offered to the gods ; to which they had the 
 same objection as to meat which had been presented in sacrifice. 
 " Augustinus de moribus Manichaeorum, II. 14, Eo ternpore, 
 quo haec scribebat apostolus, multa immoliticia caro in macello 
 vendebatur. Et quia vino etiam libabatur Diis gentilium, multi 
 fratres infirmiores, qui etiam rebus his venalibus utebantur, 
 penitus a carnibus se et vino cohibere maluerunt, quam vel 
 nescientes incidere in earn, quam putabant, cum idolis com- 
 municationem." Wetstein.
 
 672 ROMANS XIV. 22. 
 
 VERSE 22. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. 
 Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he 
 alloweth. Paul presents in this verse, more distinctly than he 
 had before done, the idea that he required no concession of 
 principle or renunciation of truth. He did not wish them to 
 believe a thing to be sinful which was not sinful, or to 
 trammel their own consciences with the scruples of their weaker 
 brethren. He simply required them to use their liberty in a 
 considerate and charitable manner. He, therefore, here says, 
 Hast thou faith? (i. e., a firm persuasion, e. g., of the lawful- 
 ness of aV< kinds of meat,) it is well, do not renounce it, but 
 retain it, ?.nd use it piously, as in the sight of God.' Instead 
 of reading the first clause interrogatively, Hast thou faith ? it 
 may be read, TJiou hast faith. It is then presented in the 
 form of an objection, which a Gentile convert might be disposed 
 to make to the direction of the apostle to accommodate his 
 conduct to the scruples of others. 'Thou hast faith, "thou 
 mayest say; well, have it, I do not call upon thee to renounce 
 it.' By faith here seems clearly to be understood the faith of 
 which Paul had been speaking in the context ; a faith which 
 some Christians had, and others had not, viz., a firm belief 
 "that there is nothing (no meat) unclean of itself." Have it 
 to thyself, (xara. ataurbv ;,) keep it to yourself. There are 
 two ideas included in this phrase. The first is, keep it pri- 
 vately, i. e., do not parade it, or make it a point to show that 
 you are above the weak scruples of your brethren; and the 
 second is, that this faith or firm conviction is not to be 
 renounced, but retained, for it is founded on the truth. Before 
 G-od, i. e., in the sight of God. As God sees and recognises it, 
 it need not be exhibited before men. It is to be cherished in 
 our hearts, and used in a manner acceptable to God. Being 
 right in itself, it is to be piously, and not ostentatiously or 
 injuriously paraded and employed. 
 
 Blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that which he 
 alloweth. That is, blessed is the man that has a good con- 
 science; who does not allow himself to do what he secretly 
 condemns. The faith, therefore, of which the apostle had 
 spoken, is a great blessing. It is a source of great happiness 
 to be sure that what we do is right, and, therefore, the firm
 
 ROMANS XIV. 23. 6TS 
 
 'jonviction to which some Christians had attained, was not to be 
 undervalued or renounced. Compare chap. i. 28, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 
 for a similar use of the word (doxcfjid^oi] here employed. This 
 interpretation seems better suited to the context, and to the 
 force of the words, than another which is also frequently given, 
 'Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself, i. e., give 
 occasion to others to censure him for the use which he makes 
 of his liberty.' This gives indeed a good sense, but it does not 
 adhere so closely to the meaning of the text, nor does it so well 
 agree with what follows. 
 
 VERSE 23. But he that doubleth is damned if he eat, because 
 he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. 
 That is, however sure a man may be that what he does is right, 
 he cannot expect others to act on his faith. If a man thinks & 
 thing to be wrong, to him it is wrong. He, therefore, who is 
 uncertain whether God has commanded him to abstain from 
 certain meats, and who notwithstanding indulges in them, evi- 
 dently sins; he brings himself under condemnation. Because 
 whatever is not of faith is sin; i. e., whatever we do which we- 
 are not certain is right, to us is wrong. The sentiment of thi* 
 verse, therefore, is nearly the same as of ver. 14. " To him that 
 esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." There 
 is evidently a sinful disregard of the divine authority on the 
 part of a man who does any thing which he supposes God has 
 forbidden, or which he is not certain he has allowed. The 
 principle of morals contained in this verse is so obvious, that 
 it occurs frequently in the writings of ancient philosophers. 
 Cicero de Officiis, lib. 1, c. 9. Quodcirca bene praecipiunt, qui 
 vetant quidquam agere, quod dubites, aequum sit, an iniquum. 
 Aequitas enim lucet ipsa per se: dubitatio cogitationem sig- 
 nificat injuriae. This passage has an obvious bearing on the 
 design of the apostle. He wished to convince the stronger 
 Christians that it was unreasonable in them to expect their 
 weaker brethren to act according to their faith ; and that it 
 was sinful in them so to use their liberty as to induce theso 
 scrupulous Christians to violate their own consciences.* 
 
 * The three verses which, in the common text, occur at the close of chapter 
 xvi., are found at the close of this chapter in the MSS. A, and in all those 
 written in small letters on Wetatein's catalogue, from 1 to 55, except 13, 15,. 
 
 43
 
 674 ROMANS XIV. 123. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. The fellowship of the saints is not to be broken for unes- 
 sential matters ; in other words, we have no right to make any 
 thing a condition of Christian communion which is compatible 
 with piety. Paul evidently argues on the principle that if a 
 man is a true Christian, he should be recognised and treated as 
 such. If God has received him, we should receive him, 
 VB. 112. 
 
 2. The true criterion of a Christian character is found in the 
 governing purpose of the life. He that lives unto the Lord, 
 i. e., he who makes the will of Christ the rule of his conduct, 
 and the glory of Christ his constant object, is a true Christian, 
 although from weakness or ignorance he may sometimes mistake 
 the rule of duty, and consider certain things obligatory which 
 Christ has never commanded, vs. 6 8. 
 
 3. Jesus Christ must be truly God, 1. Because he is the Lord, 
 
 16, 25, 27, 28, 60, 63, (two of these, 27, 63, do not contain this epistle, and 
 25, 28, are here defective.) To these are to be added many others examined 
 by later editors, making one hundred and seven MSS. in which the passage 
 occurs at the close of this chapter. Of the versions, only the later Syriac, 
 Sclavonic, and Arab'C, assign it this position; with which, however, most of 
 the Greek father? coincide. Beza, (in his 1st and 2d editions,) Grotius, 
 Mill, Hammond, Wetstein, Griesbach, consider the passage to belong to this 
 chapter. 
 
 On the other hand, the MSS. C. D. E., and several of the codd. minuac., the 
 early Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Vulgate versions, and the Latin fathers, 
 place the contested verses at the close of chapter xvi. This location is adopted 
 in the Complutensian edition, by Erasmus, Stephens, Beia, (in his 3d, 4th, 
 nd 5th editions,) Bengel, Koppe, Knapp, Lachmann, and others. 
 
 These verses are left out in both places in the MSS F. G. 57, 67, 68, 69, 70. 
 And are found in both places in A. 17, and in the Armenian version. The 
 weight due to the early versions in deciding such a question, is obviously very 
 great; and as these versions all coincide with the received text and some of 
 the oldest MSS. in placing the passage at the close of the epistle, that is most 
 probably its proper place. The doxology which those verses contain, so evi- 
 dently breaks the intimate connection between the close of the 14th chapter 
 and the beginning of the 1.5th, that it is only by assuming with Semler that the 
 epistle properly terminates here, or with Tholuck and others that Paul, after 
 having closed with a doxology, begins anew on the same topic, that the 
 presence of the passage in this place can be accounted for. But both these 
 assumptions are unauthorized, and that of Semler destitute of the least plausi- 
 bility. See Koppe's Excursus II. to this epistle.
 
 ROMANS XIV. 123. 675 
 
 according to whose -will and for whose glor j we are to live, vs. 
 6 8. 2. Because he exercises an universal dominion over the 
 living and the dead, ver. 9. 3. Because he is the final judge 
 of all men, ver. 10. 4. Because passages of the Old Testament 
 which are spoken of Jehovah, are by the apostle applied to 
 Christ, ver. 11. 5. Because, throughout this passage, Paul 
 speaks of God and Christ indiscriminately, in a manner which 
 shows that he regarded Christ as God. To live unto Christ is 
 to live unto God ; to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ 
 is to give an account unto God; to submit to Christ is to bow 
 the knee to Jehovah. 
 
 4. The gospel does not make religion to consist in external 
 observances. "Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither 
 if we eat are we the better ; neither if we eat not are we the 
 worse." vs. 6, 7. 
 
 5. Though a thing may be lawful, it is not always expedient. 
 The use of the liberty which every Christian enjoys under the 
 gospel, is to be regulated by the law of love ; hence it is often 
 morally wrong to do what, in itself considered, may be innocent, 
 vs. 15, 20, 21. 
 
 6. It is a great error in morals, and a great practical evil, to 
 make that sinful which is in fact innocent. Christian love never 
 requires this or any other sacrifice of truth. Paul would not 
 consent, for the sake of avoiding offence, that eating all kinds 
 of food, even what had been offered to idols, or disregarding 
 sacred festivals of human appointment, should be made a sin ; 
 he strenuously and openly maintained the reverse. He repr '- 
 sents those who thought differently, as weak in faith, as being 
 under an error, from which more knowledge and more piety 
 would free them. Concession to their weakness he enjoins on 
 a principle perfectly consistent with the assertion of the truth, 
 and with the preservation of Christian liberty, vs. 13 23. 
 
 7. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. It is wrong to do any 
 thing which we think to be wrong. The converse of this pro- 
 position, however, is not true. It is not always right to do what 
 we think to be right. Paul, before his conversion, thought it 
 right to persecute Christians ; the Jews thought they did God 
 service when they cast the disciples of the Saviour out of the 
 synagogue. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. When we
 
 G76 ROMANS XIV. 123. 
 
 do what we think God has forbidden, we are evidently guilty 
 of disobedience or contempt of the divine authority. But when 
 we do what we think he has required, we may act under a cul- 
 pable mistake; or, although we may have the judgment that 
 the act in itself is right, our motives for doing it may be very 
 wicked. The state of mind under which Paul and other Jews 
 persecuted the early Christians, was evil, though the persecu- 
 t ; on itself they regarded as a duty. It is impossible that a man 
 should have right motives for doing a wrong action ; for the 
 very mistake as to what is right, vitiates the motives. The 
 mistake implies a wrong state of mind ; and, on the other hand, 
 the misapprehension of truth produces a wrong state of mind. 
 There may, therefore, be a very sinful zeal for God and reli- 
 gion (see Rom. x. 2 ;) and no man will be able to plead at the 
 bar of judgment, his good intention as an excuse for evil con- 
 <iuct, ver, 23. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. Christians should not allow any thing to alienate them 
 from their brethren, who afford credible evidence that they are 
 the servants of God. Owing to ignorance, early prejudice, 
 weakness of faith, and other causes, there may and must exist 
 a diversity of opinion and practice on minor points of duty. 
 But thia diversity is no sufficient reason for rejecting from 
 Christian fellowship any member of the family of Christ. It 
 is, however, one thing to recognise a man as a Christian, and 
 another to recognise him as a suitable minister of a church, 
 organized on a particular form of government and system of 
 doctrines, vs. 112. 
 
 '2. A denunciatory or censorious spirit is hostile to the spirit 
 of the gospel. It is an encroachment on the prerogatives of the 
 only Judge of the heart and conscience : it blinds the mind to 
 moral distinctions, and prevents the discernment between mat- 
 ters unessential and those vitally important ; and it leads us to 
 forget our own accountableness, and to overlook our own faults, 
 iii our zeal to denounce those of others, vs. 4 10. 
 
 3. It is sinful to indulge contempt for those whom we suppose 
 to be our inferiors, vs. 3, 10. 
 
 t. Christians should remember that, living or dying, they 
 are the Lord's. This imposes the obligation to observe his will
 
 ROMANS XIV. 123. 677 
 
 and to seek his glory; and it affords the assurance that the 
 Lord will provide for all their wants. This peculiar propriety 
 in his own people, Christ has obtained by his death and resur- 
 rection, vs. 8, 9. 
 
 5. We should stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has 
 made us free, and not allow our consciences to be brought under 
 the yoke of bondage to human opinions. There is a strong ten- 
 dency in men to treat, as matters of conscience, things which 
 God has never enjoined. Wherever this disposition has been 
 indulged or submitted to, it has resulted in bringing one class 
 of men under the most degrading bondage to another; and 
 in the still more serious evil of leading them to disregard the 
 
 O O 
 
 authority of God. Multitudes who would be shocked at the 
 thought of eating meat on Friday, commit the greatest moral 
 offences without the slightest compunction. It is, therefore, of 
 great importance to keep the conscience free; under no subjec- 
 tion but to truth and God. This is necessary, not only on 
 account of its influence on our own moral feelings, but also 
 because nothing but truth can really do good. To advocate 
 even a good cause \vith bad arguments does great harm, by 
 exciting unnecessary opposition; by making good men, who 
 oppose the arguments, appear to oppose the truth; by intro- 
 ducing a false standard of duty ; by failing to enlist the support 
 of an enlightened conscience, and by the necessary forfeiture 
 of the confidence of the intelligent and well informed. The 
 cause of benevolence, therefore, instead of being promoted, is 
 injured by all exaggerations, erroneous statements, and false 
 principles, on the part of its advocates, vs. 14, 22. 
 
 6. It is obviously incumbent on every man to endeavour to 
 obtain and promote right views of duty, not only for his own 
 sake, but for the sake of others. It is often necessary to assert 
 our Christian liberty at the expense of incurring censure, and 
 offending even good men, in order that right principles of duty 
 may be preserved. Our Saviour consented to be regarded as ;i 
 Sabbath-breaker, and even "a wine-bibber and friend of publi- 
 cans and sinners;" but wisdom was justified of her children. 
 Christ did not in these cases see fit to accommodate his conduct 
 to the rule of duty set up, and conscientiously regarded as cor- 
 rect by those around him. He saw that more good would arise
 
 078 ROMANS XIV. 123. 
 
 from a practical disregard of the false opinions of the Jews, as 
 to the manner in which the Sabbath was to be kept, and as to 
 the degree of intercourse which was allowed with wicked men, 
 tuan from concession to their prejudices. Enlightened benevo- 
 lence often requires a similar course of conduct, and a similar 
 exercise of self-denial on the part of his disciples. 
 
 7. While Christian liberty is to be maintained, and right 
 principles of duty inculcated, every concession consistent with 
 truth and good morals should be made for the sake of peace 
 and the welfare of others. It is important, however, that the 
 duty of making such concessions should be placed on the right 
 ground, and be urged in a right spirit, not as a thing to be 
 demanded, but as that which the law of love requires. In this 
 
 iv success is more certain and more extensive, and the con- 
 i-.-initant results are all good. It may at times be a difficult 
 practical question, whether most good would result from coni- 
 j. nance with the prejudices of others, or from disregarding 
 diem. But where there is a sincere desire to do right, and a 
 willingness to sacrifice our own inclinations for the good of 
 others, connected with prayer for divine direction, there can be 
 K:tle danger of serious mistake. Evil is much more likely to 
 arise from a disregard of the opinions and the welfare of our 
 brethren, and from a reliance on our own judgment, than from 
 any course requiring self-denial, vs. 13, 15, 20, 21. 
 
 8. Conscience, or a sense of duty, is not the only, and 
 perhaps not the most important principle to be appealed to in 
 s-ipport of benevolent enterprises. It comes in aid, and gives 
 its sanction to all other right motives, but we find the sacred 
 writers appealing most frequently to the benevolent and pious 
 i.-elings; to the example of Christ; to a sense of our obligations 
 t;> him; to the mutual relation of Christians, and their common 
 connection with the Redeemer, .Sec., as motives to self-denial 
 and devotedness, vs. 15, 21. 
 
 9. As the religion of the gospel consists in the inward graces 
 of the Holy Spirit, all who have these graces should be recog- 
 nised as genuine Christians; being acceptable to God, they 
 should be loved and cherished by his people, notwithstanding 
 their weakness or errors, vs. 17, 18. 
 
 10. The peace and edification of the church are to be sought
 
 ROMANS XV. 113. 679 
 
 at all sacrifices except those of truth and duty ; and the work 
 of God is not to be destroyed or injured for the sake of any 
 personal or party interests, vs. 19, 20. 
 
 11. An enlightened conscience is a great blessing; it secures 
 the liberty of the soul from bondage to the opinions of men, 
 and from the self-inflicted pains of a scrupulous and morbid 
 state of moral feeling ; it promotes the right exercise of all the 
 virtuous affections, and the right discharge of all relative 
 duties, ver. 22, 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THIS chapter consists of two parts. In the former, vs. 1 13, 
 the apostle enforces the duty urged in the preceding chapter, 
 by considerations derived principally from the example of 
 Christ. In the latter part, vs. 14 33, we have the conclusion 
 of the whole discussion, in which he speaks of his confidence in 
 the Roman Christians, of his motives in writing to them, of his 
 apostolical -office and labours, and of his purpose to visit Rome 
 after fulfilling his ministry for the saints at Jerusalem. 
 
 ROMANS XV. 113. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The first verse of this chapter is a conclusion from the whole- 
 of the preceding. On the grounds there presented, Paul 
 repeats the command that the strong should bear with the in- 
 firmities of the weak, and that instead of selfishly regarding 
 their own interests merely, they should endeavour to promote 
 the welfare of their brethren, vs. 1, 2. This duty he enforces 
 by the conduct of Christ, who has set us an example of perfect 
 disinterestedness, as what he suffered was not for himself, ver. 3. 
 This and similar facts and sentiments recorded in the Scripture
 
 680 ROMANS XV. 1, 2. 
 
 are intended for our admonition, and should be applied for that 
 purpose, ver. 4. The apostle prays that God would bestow on 
 them tli at harmony and unanimity which he had urged them to 
 cultivate, vs. 5, 6. He repeats the exhortation that they should 
 receive one another, even as Christ had received thorn, ver. 7. 
 He shows how Christ had received them, and united Jews and 
 Gentiles in one body, vs. 8 13. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. We then that are strong ought to bear tlie infirmi- 
 ties of the weak, and not to please ourselves. The separation of 
 this passage from the preceding chapter is obviously unhappy, 
 as there is no change in the subject. 'As the points of differ- 
 ence are not essential, as the law of love, the example of Christ, 
 and the honour of religion require concession, we that are fully 
 persuaded of the indifference of those things about which our 
 weaker brethren are so scrupulous, ought to accommodate our- 
 selves to their opinions, and not act with a view to our own 
 gratification merely.' We that are strong, (ouvaroi,} strong in 
 reference to the subject of discourse, i. e., faith, especially faith 
 in the Christian doctrine of the lawfulness of all kinds of food, 
 and the abrogation of the Mosaic law. Ought to bear, i. e., 
 ought to tolerate, (fiaaTa.'e.tv.} The infirmities, TO. aadzvy/jtara, 
 that is, the prejudices, errors, and faults which arise from weak- 
 ness of faith. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 20 22, where the apostle illus- 
 trates this command by stating how he himself acted in relation 
 to this subject. And not to please ourselves; we are not to do 
 every thing which we may have a right to do, and make our 
 own gratification the rule by which we exercise our Christian 
 liberty. "Significat non oportere studium suum dirigere ad 
 satisfactionem sibi, quemadmodum solent, qui proprio judicio 
 contenti alios secure negligunt." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 2. Let each one of us please his neighbour, for his 
 good for edification. The principle which is stated negatively 
 at the close of the preceding verse, is here stated affirmatively. 
 We are not to please ourselves, but others ; the law of love is 
 to regulate our conduct ; we are not simply to ask what is right 
 in itself, or what is agreeable, but also what is benevolent and 
 pleasing to our brethren. The object which we should have in
 
 ROMANS XV. 3. CS1 
 
 view in accommodating ourselves to others, however, is their 
 good. For good to edification most probably means with a 
 view to his good so that he may be edified. The latter words, 
 to edification, are, therefore, explanatory of the former; the 
 good we should contemplate is their religious improvement; 
 which is the sense in which Paul frequently uses the word 
 (olxodo/jLTj) edification; chap. xiv. 19, 2 Cor. x. 8, Eph. iv. 
 12, 29. It is not, therefore, a weak compliance with the 
 wishes of others, to which Paul exhorts us, but to the exercise 
 of an enlightened benevolence; to such compliances as have the 
 design and tendency to promote the spiritual welfare of our 
 neighbour. 
 
 VERSE 3. For even Christ pleased not himself, but as it is 
 written, The reproaches of them that reproached theefell on me. 
 'For even Christ, so infinitely exalted above all Christians, was 
 perfectly disinterested and condescending.' The example of 
 Christ is constantly held up, not merely as a model, but a 
 motive. The disinterestedness of Christ is here illustrated by 
 a reference to the fact that he suffered not for himself, but for 
 the glory of God. The sorrow which he felt was not on account 
 of his own privations and injuries, but zeal for God's service 
 consumed him, and it was the dishonour which was cast on God 
 that broke his heart. The simple point to be illustrated is 
 the disinterestedness of Christ, the fact that he did not please 
 himself. And this is most affectingly done by saying, in the 
 language of the Psalmist, (Ps. Ixix. 10,) " The zeal of thy 
 house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that 
 reproached thee are fallen upon me;" that is, such was my 
 zeal for thee, that the reproaches cast on thee I felt as if 
 directed against myself. This Psalm is so frequently quoted 
 and applied to Christ in the New Testament, that it must be 
 considered as directly prophetical. Compare John ii. 17, xv. 
 25, xix. 28, Acts i. 20.* 
 
 * Quod si regnet in nobis Christus, ut in fidelibus suis regnare eum necesse 
 est, hie quoque sensus in animis nostris vigebit, ut quicquid derogat Dei glorise 
 non aliter nos excruciet, quam si in nobis resident. Eant nunc, quibus summa 
 votorum est, maximos honores apud eos adipisci qui probris omnibus Dei nomen 
 afficiunt, Christum pedibus conculcant, evangelium ipsius et contumeliose lace- 
 rant, et gladio flanimaque persequuntur. Non est sane tutum ab iis tantopere 
 honorari, a quibus non modo contemnitur Christus, sed contumeliose etiara 
 traQtatur. Calvin*
 
 682 ROMANS XV. 4, 5. 
 
 VERSE 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were 
 written for our learning, that we, through patience and com- 
 fort of the Scriptures might have hope. The object of this 
 verse is not so much to show the propriety of applying 
 the passage quoted from the Psalms to Christ, as to show that 
 the facts recorded in the Scriptures are designed for our 
 instruction. The character of Christ is there portrayed that 
 we may follow his example and imbibe his spirit. The ~po in 
 itpotfpdfq has its proper temporal sense ; before us, before our 
 time. The reference is to the whole of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, and assumes, as the New Testament writers always 
 assume or assert, that the Scriptures are the word of God, holy 
 men of old writing as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 
 God had an immediate design in the Scriptures being just what 
 they are ; and that design was the sanctification and salvation 
 of men. The words, through patience and consolation of the 
 Scriptures, may be taken together, and mean, 'through that 
 patience and consolation which the Scriptures produce;' or the 
 words through patience may be disconnected from the word 
 Scriptures, and the sense be, ' that we through patience, and 
 through the consolation of the Scriptures,' &c. The former 
 method is the most commonly adopted, and is the most natural.* 
 Might Jtave hope. This may mean, that the design of the divine 
 instructions is to prevent all despondency, to sustain us under 
 our present trials ; or the sense is, that they are intended to 
 secure the attainment of the great object of our hopes, the 
 blessedness of heaven. Either interpretation of the word hope 
 is consistent with usage, and gives a good sense. The former 
 is more natural. 
 
 VERSE 5. Now the G-od of patience and consolation grant 
 you to be like minded one towards another, according to Jesus 
 Christ. ' May God, who is the author of patience and consola- 
 tion, grant,' &c. Here the graces, which in the preceding verse 
 are ascribed to the Scriptures, are attributed to God as their 
 
 * The M3S. A. C. 1, 20, 30, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 47, read fii before vis 
 iraiui^>irta<, which would render the second mode of explaining the passage 
 stated iu the text the more probable. The Complutensian edition, Bengel, 
 and Lachmann, adopt this reading, though the preponderance of evidence is 
 greatly against it.
 
 ROMANS XV. 6. 683 
 
 author, because lie produces them by his Spirit, through the 
 instrumentality of the truth. The patience, uxopovy, of which 
 the apostle speaks, is the calm and steadfast endurance of suf- 
 fering, of which the consolation, Tcapaxtyaiz, afforded by the 
 Scriptures, is the source. This resignation of the Christian is 
 very different from stoicism, as Calvin beautifully remarks t 
 "Patientia fidelium non est ilia durities, quam praecipiunt phi- 
 losophi: sed ea mansuetudo, qua nos libenter Deo subjiciuius, 
 dum gustus bonitatis ejus paternique amoris dulcia omnia nobis 
 reddit. Ea spem in nobis alit ac sustinet, ne deficiat." Luther 
 says : " Scriptura quidem docet, sed gratia donat, quod ilia 
 docet." External teaching is not enough; we need the inward 
 teaching of the Holy Spirit to enable us to receive and conform 
 to the truths and precepts of the word. Hence Paul prays 
 that God would give his readers the patience, consolation, 
 and hope which they are bound to exercise and enjoy. Paul 
 prays that God would grant them that concord and unanimity 
 which he had so strongly exhorted them to cherish. The 
 expression (ro abrb (ppovziv,} to be like minded, does not here 
 refer to unanimity of opinion, but to harmony of feeling; see 
 chap. viii. 5, xii. 3. According to Jesus Christ, i. e., agreea- 
 bly .to the example and command of Christ ; in a Christian 
 manner. It is, therefore, to a Christian union that he exhorts 
 them. 
 
 VERSE 6. That ye may with one mind and with one mouth 
 glorify Crod, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This 
 harmony and fellowship among Christians is necessary, in order 
 that they may glorify God aright. To honour God effectually 
 and properly, there must be no unnecessary dissensions among 
 his people. G-od, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 means either that God who is the Father of the Lord Jesus, or 
 the God and Father of Christ. This expression occurs fre- 
 quently in the New Testament.; see 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Eph. 
 i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3. Most commonly the genitive roD xupiou is 
 assumed to belong equally to the two preceding nouns, God 
 and Father. Many of the later commentators restrict it to the 
 latter, and explain xai as exegetical : ' God, who is the Father 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ.' In favour of this explanation, refer- 
 ence is made to such passages as 1 Cor. xv. 24, Eph. v. 20, and
 
 684 ROMANS XV. 7, 8. 
 
 others, in which b $0f xal xanjp occur without the genitive 
 roD xuptov x.T.L 
 
 VERSE 7. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also 
 received us,* to the glory of Grod. Wherefore, i. e., in order that 
 with one heart they may glorify God. This cannot be done, 
 unless they are united in the bonds of Christian fellowship. 
 The word (xpoalafifidvza&i) receive, has the same sense here 
 that it has in chap. xiv. 1 : ' Take one another to yourselves, 
 treat one another kindly, even as Christ has kindly taken us to 
 himself;' Trftoa^dfero, sibi sociavit. The words, to the glory of 
 Cf-od, may be connected with the first or second clause, or with 
 both: 'Receive ye one another, that God may be glorified;' 
 or, * as Christ has received us in order that God might be glori- 
 fied ;' or, if referred to both clauses, the idea is, 'as the glory 
 of God was illustrated and promoted by Christ's reception of 
 us, so also will it be 'exhibited by our kind treatment of each 
 other.' The first method seems most consistent with the con- 
 text, as the object of the apostle is to enforce the duty of mutual 
 forbearance among Christians, for which he suggests two mo- 
 tives, the kindness of Christ towards us, and the promotion of 
 the divine glory. If instead of "received us," the true reading 
 is, received you," the sense and point of the passage is materi- 
 ally altered. Paul must then be considered as exhorting the 
 Gentile converts to forbearance towards their Jewish brethren, 
 on the ground that Christ had received them, though aliens, 
 into the commonwealth of Israel. 
 
 VERSE 8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the 
 circumcision for the truth of (rod, to confirm the promises made 
 unto the fathers. This verse follows as a confirmation or illus- 
 tration of the preceding. Now I say, i. e., this I mean. The 
 apostle intends to show how it was that Christ had received 
 those to whom he wrote. He had come to minister to the Jews, 
 ver. 8, and also to cause the ' Gentiles to glorify God, ver. 9. 
 The expression, minister, or servant, of the circumcision, means 
 
 * For ji/uof, iifjtat is read in the MSS. A. C. D. (ex emendatione,) E. F. G. 1, 
 21, 23, 29, 30, 87, 38, 39, 43, 52, 61, in both the Syriac, in the Coptic, Gothic, 
 Latin, and Armenian versions, and in several of the Fathers. It is adopted in 
 the Complutensian edition, and in those of Griesbach, Mill, Knapp, Lachmann, 
 aud Tischendorf.
 
 ROMANS XV. 9. 685 
 
 a minister sent to the Jews, as ' apostle of the Gentiles,' means 
 'an apostle sent to the Gentiles.' For the truth of Gf-od, i. e., 
 to maintain the truth of God in the accomplishment of the pro- 
 mises made to the fathers, as is immediately added. The truth 
 of God is his veracity or fidelity. Christ had exhibited the 
 greatest condescension and kindness in coming, not as a Lord 
 or ruler, but as an humble minister to the Jews, to accomplish 
 the gracious promises of God. As this kindness was not con- 
 fined to them, but as the Gentiles also were received into his 
 kingdom, and united with the Jews on equal terms, this exam- 
 ple of Christ furnishes the strongest motives for the cultivation 
 of mutual affection and unanimity. 
 
 VERSE 9. And that the G-entiles might glorify Grod for his 
 mercy. Might glorify, dogdaat, have glorified. The effect is 
 considered as accomplished. The apostle's language is, as 
 usual, concise. There are two consequences of the work of 
 Christ which he here presents ; the one, that the truth of God 
 has been vindicated by the fulfilment of the promises made to 
 the Jews ; and the other, that the Gentiles have been led to 
 praise God for his mercy. The grammatical connection of this 
 sentence with the preceding is not very clear. The most pro- 
 bable explanation is that which makes (dogdacu) glorify depend 
 upon (Ufa)} I say, in ver. 8 : ' I say that Jesus Christ became 
 a minister to the Jews, and I say the Gentiles have glorified 
 God;' it was thus he received both. Calvin supplies dstv, and 
 translates, "The Gentiles ought to glorify God for his mercy;" 
 which is not necessary, and does not so well suit the context. 
 The mercy for which the Gentiles were to praise God, is obvi- 
 ously the great mercy of being received into the kingdom of 
 Christ, and made partakers of all its blessings. 
 
 As it is written, I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, 
 and sing unto thy name, Ps. xviii. 49. In this and the follow- 
 ing quotations from the Old Testament, the idea is more or less 
 distinctly expressed, that true religion was to be extended to 
 the Gentiles ; and they therefore all include the promise of the 
 extension of the Redeemer's kingdom to them, as well as to the 
 Jews. In Psalm xviii. 49, David is the speaker. It is he that 
 Bays : " I will praise thee among the Gentiles." He is contem- 
 plated as surrounded by Gentiles giving thanks unto God, which
 
 686 ROMANS XV. 1012. 
 
 implies that they were the worshippers of God. Our version 
 renders Igojuofopjoofiat, I will confess, make acknowledgment 
 to thee. The word in itself may mean, to acknowledge the 
 truth, or sin, or God's mercies; and therefore it is properly 
 rendered, at times, to give thanks, or to praise, which is an 
 acknowledgment of God's goodness. 
 
 VERSE 10. And again, Rejoice ye G-entiles with his people. 
 This passage is commonly considered as quoted from Deut. 
 xxxii. 43, where it is found in the Septuagint precisely as it 
 stands here. The Hebrew admits of three interpretations, 
 without altering the text. It may mean, ' Praise his people, ye 
 Gentiles;' or, 'Rejoice, ye tribes, his people;' or, 'Rejoice, 
 ye Gentiles, (rejoice,) his people.' Hengensbenlerg on Ps. 
 xviii. 50, adopts the last mentioned explanation of the passage 
 in Deuteronomy. The English version brings the Hebrew into 
 coincidence with the LXX. by supplying with: 'Rejoice, ye 
 Gentiles, with his people.' And this is probably the true sense. 
 As the sacred writer (in Deut. xviii.) is not speaking of the 
 blessing of the Jews being extended to the Gentiles, but seems 
 rather, in the whole context, to be denouncing vengeance on 
 them as the enemies of God's people, Calvin and others refer 
 this citation to Ps. Ixvii. 3, 5, where the sentiment is clearly 
 expressed, though not in precisely the same words. 
 
 VERSE 11. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye G-entiles; and 
 laud Mm, all ye people. This passage is from Ps. cxvii. 1, and 
 strictly to the apostle's purpose. 
 
 VERSE 12. And .again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root 
 of Jesse, and he that shall rise to rule over the G-entiles; in him 
 shall the Gentiles trust, Isa. xi. 1, 10. This is an explicit pre- 
 diction of the dominion of the Messiah over other nations 
 besides the Jews. Here again the apostle follows the Septua- 
 gint, giving, however, the sense of the original Hebrew. The 
 promise of the prophet is, that from the decayed and fallen 
 house of David, one should arise, whose dominion should 
 embrace all nations, and in whom Gentiles as well as Jews 
 should trust. In the fulfilment of this prophecy Christ came, 
 and preached salvation to those who were near and to those 
 who were far off. As both classes had been thus kindly received 
 by the condescending Saviour, and united into one community,
 
 ROMANS XV. 1433. 687 
 
 they should recognise and love each other as brethren, laying 
 aside all censoriousness and contempt, neither judging nor 
 despising one another. 
 
 VERSE 13. Noiv then the G-od of hope fill you with all joy 
 and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope through the 
 power of the Holy G-host. A II joy means all possible joy. Paul 
 here, as in ver. 5, concludes by praying that God would granc 
 them the excellencies which it was their duty to possess. Thus 
 constantly and intimately are the ideas of accountableness and 
 dependence connected in the sacred Scriptures. We are to 
 work out our own salvation, because it is God that worketh in 
 us both to will and to do, according to his good pleasure. The 
 G-od of hope, i. e., God who is the author of that hope which it 
 was predicted men should exercise in the root and offspring of 
 Jesse. 
 
 Fill you with all joy and peace in believing, i. e., fill you with 
 that joy and concord among yourselves, as well as peace of con- 
 science and peace towards God, which are the results of genuine 
 faith. That ye may abound in hope. The consequence of the 
 enjoyment of the blessings, and of the exercise of the graces 
 just referred to, would be an increase in the strength and joy- 
 fulness of their hope ; through the power of the Holy Grhost, 
 through whom all good is given and all good exercised. 
 
 ROMANS XV. 1433. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 THE apostle, in the conclusion of his epistle, assures the 
 Romans of his confidence in them, and that his motive for 
 writing was not so much a belief of their peculiar deficiency, 
 as the desire of putting them in mind of those things which 
 they already knew, vs. 14, 15. This he was the rather entitled 
 to do on account of his apostolic office, conferred upon him by 
 divine appointment, and confirmed by the signs and wonders, 
 and abundant success with which God had crowned his minis- 
 try, vs. 15, 16. He had sufficient ground of confidence in this 
 respect, in the results of his own labours, without at all encroach- 
 ing upon what belonged to others ; for he had made it a rule
 
 688 ROMANS XV. 14. 
 
 not to preach where others had proclaimed the gospel, but to 
 go to places where Christ was previously unknown, vs. 17 21. 
 His labours had been such as hitherto to prevent the execution 
 of his purpose to visit Rome. Now, however, he hoped to have 
 that pleasure, on his way to Spain, as soon as he had accom- 
 plished his mission to Jerusalem, with the contributions of the 
 Christians in Macedonia and Achaia, for the poor saints in 
 Judea, vs. 22 28. Having accomplished this service, he hoped 
 to visit Rome in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of 
 Christ. In the mean time he begs an interest in their prayers, 
 and commends them to the grace of God, vs. 29 33. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 14. And I myself also am persuaded of you, my 
 brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all know- 
 ledge, able also to admonish one another.* Paul, with his 
 wonted modesty and mildness, apologises, as it were, for the 
 plainness and ardour of his exhortations. They were given 
 from no want of confidence in the Roman Christians, and they 
 were not an unwarrantable assumption of authority on his part. 
 The former of these ideas he presents in this verse, and the 
 latter in the next. / also myself, i. e., I of myself, without the 
 testimony of others. Paul had himself such knowledge of the 
 leading members of the church of Rome, that he did not need 
 to be informed by others of their true character. That ye also 
 are full of goodness, i. e., of kind and conciliatory feelings; or, 
 taking aya&a)0'jv7] in its wider sense, full of virtue, or 'excel- 
 lence. Filled with all knowledge, i. e., abundantly instructed 
 on these subjects, so as to be able to instruct or admonish each 
 other. It wa% therefore, no want of confidence in their dispo- 
 sition or ability to discharge their duties, that led him to write 
 to them ; his real motive he states in the next verse. They 
 were able, voy$crs?v, to put in mind, to bring the truth seasona- 
 bly to bear on the mind and conscience. It does not refer 
 exclusively to the correction of faults, or to reproof for trans- 
 
 * For dxxrfxwc, each other, oxxcwj, othert, is read in the MSS. 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 
 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 29, 32, 35, 38, 43, 46, 48, 62, 64, 62, 63; in the Syriac Ter- 
 Bion, and by many of the Greek Fathers. The Complutensian editors, Beza, 
 Wetstein, and Griesbach, adopt this reading.
 
 ROMANS XV. 15, 16. 
 
 gression. "Duae monitoris praecipuse sunt dotes, humanitaa 
 quae et illius animum ad juvandos consilio suo fratres inclinet, 
 et vultum verbaque comitate temperet: et consilii dexteritas, 
 sive prudentia, quae et auctoritatem illi conciliet, ut prodesse 
 queat auditoribus, ad quos dirigit sermonem. Nihil enim magis 
 contrariura fraternis monitionibus, quam malignitas et arrogan- 
 tia, quae facit ut errantes fastuose contemnamus, et ludibrio 
 habcre malimus, quam corrigere." Calvin. 
 
 VERSE 15. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more 
 boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of 
 the grace given to me of Crod. It was rather to remind than to 
 instruct them, that the apostle wrote thus freely. The words 
 (obro fj.sooin;} in some sort, are intended to qualify the words 
 more boldly, ' I have written somewhat too boldly.' How 
 striking the blandness and humility of the great apostle ! The 
 preceding exhortations and instructions, for which he thu* 
 apologises, are full of affection and heavenly wisdom. What a 
 reproof is this for the arrogant and denunciatory addresses 
 which so often are given by men who think they have Paul for 
 an example! These words, (in some sort,} however, maybe- 
 connected with / have written; the sense would then be, 'I 
 have written in part (i. e., in some parts of my epistle) very 
 boldly.' The former method seems the more natural. When a 
 man acts the part of a monitor, he should not only perform the- 
 duty properly, but he should, on some ground, have a right to 
 assume this office. Paul therefore says, that he reminded the= 
 Romans of their duty, because he was entitled to do so ia 
 virtue of his apostolical character ; because of the grace given 
 to me of G-od. Crrace here, as appears from the context, 
 signifies the apostleship which Paul represents as a favour ; see 
 chap i. 5. 
 
 VERSE 16. That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to 
 the G-entiles; htroupfov etc r &va, a minister for, or, in refer- 
 ence to the Gentiles. This is the explanation of the grae 
 given to him of God ; it was the favour of being a minister of 
 Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. Compare Eph. iii. 1, " Unto me, 
 who am the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should! 
 preach, among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ." 
 The word (htroupr6^ rendered minister, means a public officer 
 44
 
 690 ROMANS XV. 16. 
 
 or servant; see chap. xiii. 6, where it is applied to the civil 
 magistrate. It is, however, very frequently used (as is also 
 the corresponding verb) of those who exercised the office of a 
 priest, Deut. x. 8, Heb. x. 11. As the whole of this verse is 
 figurative, Paul no doubt had this force of the word in his 
 mind, when he called himself a minister, a sacred officer of 
 Jesus Christ ; not a priest, in the proper sense of the term, for 
 the ministers of the gospel are never so called in the New Tes- 
 tament, but merely in a figurative sense. The sacrifice which 
 they offer are the people, whom they are instrumental in 
 bringing unto God. 
 
 Ministering the gospel of G-od, that the offering up of the 
 G-entiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Grhost. 
 This is the apostle's explanation of the preceding clause. ' He 
 was appointed a minister of Christ to administer, or to act the 
 part of a priest in reference to the gospel, that is, to present 
 the Gentiles as a holy sacrifice to God.' Paul, therefore, no 
 more calls himself a priest in the strict sense of the term, than 
 he calls the Gentiles a sacrifice in the literal meaning of that 
 word. The expression, (Ispoopfoitvca TO wa-ffehov) rendered 
 ministering the gospel, is peculiar, and has been variously 
 explained. Erasmus translates it sacHficans evangelium, ' pre- 
 Benting the gospel as a sacrifice;' Calvin, consecrans evan- 
 gelium, which he explains, ' performing the sacred mysteries of 
 the gospel.' The general meaning of the phrase probably is, 
 'acting the part of a priest in reference to the gospel.' Com- 
 pare Mace. iv. 7, 8, hpoureiv TOV vopov. 
 
 The sense is the same, if the word (eya-ffDjov} gospel be 
 made to depend on a word understood, and the whole sentence 
 be resolved thus, ' That I should be a preacher of the gospel 
 (V T ?va: fie, x^o'jaffoisTa TO ey) to the Gentiles, a ministering 
 priest (i. e., a minister acting the part of a priest) of Jesus 
 Christ,' Wahl's Clavis, p. 740. Paul thus acted the part of a 
 priest that the offering of the Grentiles might be acceptable. 
 The word (xpoff<po[jd) offering sometimes means the act of obla- 
 tion, sometimes the thing offered. Our translators have taken 
 it here in the former sense ; but this is not so suitable to tho 
 figure or the context. It was not Paul's act that was to be 
 acceptable, or which was ' sanctified by the Holy Spirit.' The
 
 ROMANS XV. 17. 691 
 
 latter sense of the word, therefore, is to be preferred; and 
 the meaning is, 'That the Gentiles, as a sacrifice, might be 
 acceptable ;' see chap. xii. 1, Phil. ii. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 6. Being 
 sanctified by the Holy G-host. As the sacrifices were purified 
 by water and other means, when prepared for the altar, so 
 we are made fit for the service of God, rendered holy or 
 acceptable, by the influences of the Holy Spirit. This is an 
 idea which Paul never omits ; when speaking of the success of 
 his labours, or of the efficacy of the gospel, he is careful that 
 this success should not be ascribed to the instruments, but to 
 the real author. In this beautiful passage we see the nature 
 of the only priesthood which belongs to the Christian ministry. 
 It is not their office to make atonement for sin, or to offer a 
 propitiatory sacrifice to God, but by the preaching of the 
 gospel to bring men, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, to 
 offer themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to 
 God. It is well worthy of remark, that amidst the numerous 
 designations of the ministers of the gospel in the New Testa- 
 ment, intended to set forth the nature of their office, they are 
 never officially called priests. This is the only passage in 
 which the term is even figuratively applied to them, and that 
 under circumstances which render its misapprehension impos- 
 sible. They are not mediators between God and man ; they do 
 not offer propitiatory sacrifices. Their only priesthood, as 
 Theophylack says, is the preaching of the gospel, (oury f6.p pot 
 hptoa'jvq TO xctTa-ffeXhtv TO e&afflkovj) and their offerings are 
 redeemed and sanctified men, saved by their instrumentality. 
 "Et sane hoc est Christiani pastoris sacerdotium, homines in 
 evangelii obedientiam subigendo veluti Deo immolare; non 
 autem, quod superciliose hactenus Papistae jactarunt, oblatione 
 Christi homines reconciliare Deo. Neque tamen ecclesiasticos 
 pastores simpliciter hie vocat sacerdotes, tanquam perpetuo 
 titulo ; sed quum dignitatem efficaciamque ministerii vellet com- 
 mendare Paul us, hac metaphora per occasionem usus est." 
 Cafvin, 
 
 VERSE 17. I have therefore ivhereof to glory through Jesus 
 Christ in those things which pertain to God. That is, ' seeing 
 I have received this office of God, and am appointed a minister 
 of the gospel to the Gentiles, I have (xavfflfftv) confidence and'
 
 C02 ROMANS XV. 18, 19. 
 
 rejoicing.' As, in the previous verses, Paul had asserted hia 
 divine appointment as an apostle, he shows, in this and the fol- 
 lowing verses, that the assertion was well founded, as God had 
 crowned his labours with success, and sealed his ministry with 
 signs and wonders. He, therefore, was entitled, as a minister 
 of God, to exhort and admonish his brethren with the boldness 
 and authority which he had used in this epistle. This boasting, 
 however, he had only in or through Jesus Christ, all was to be 
 attributed to him ; and it was in reference to things pertaining 
 to God, i. e., the preaching and success of the gospel, not to 
 his personal advantages or worldly distinctions. There is 
 another interpretation of the latter part of this verse, which 
 also gives a good sense. 'I have therefore ground of boasting, 
 (i. e., I have) offerings for God, viz., Gentile converts.' (The 
 words TO. Trpbz rbv $sov are understood as synonymous with the 
 word xpoffyopd of the preceding verse, Kpootvzyjfrkvta. being 
 supplied.) The common view of the passage, however, is more 
 simple and natural. 
 
 VERSES 18, 19. In these verses the apostle explains more 
 fully what he had intended by saying he gloried, or exulted. It 
 was that God had borne abundant testimony to his claims as a 
 divinely commissioned preacher of the gospel; so that he had 
 no need to refer to what others had done ; he was satisfied to 
 rest his claims, on the results of his own labours and the testi- 
 mony of God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those 
 things which Christ hath not wrought by me. That is, 'I will 
 not claim the credit due to others, or appeal to results which I 
 have not been instrumental in effecting.' According to another 
 view, the meaning is, * I will not speak of any thing as the 
 ground of boasting which Christ has not done by me.' The 
 contrast implied, therefore, is not between what he had done 
 and what others had accomplished, but between himself and 
 Christ. He would not glory in the flesh, or in any thing per- 
 taining to himself, but only in Christ, and in what he had 
 accomplished. The conversion of the Gentiles was Christ's 
 work, not Paul's ; and therefore Paul could glory in it without 
 self-exaltation. It is to be remarked that the apostle repre- 
 sents himself as merely an instrument in the hands of Christ for 
 the conversion of men ; the real efficiency he ascribes to the
 
 ROMANS XV. 19. 69S 
 
 Redeemer. This passage, therefore, exhibits evidence that 
 Paul regarded Christ as still exercising a controlling agency 
 over the souls of men, and rendering effectual the labours of his 
 faithful ministers. Such power the sacred writers never attri- 
 bute to any being but God. To make the Gentiles obedient, 
 i. e., to the gospel; compare chap. i. 5, where the same form 
 of expression occurs. The obedience of which Paul speaks is 
 the sincere obedience of the heart and life. This result he says 
 Christ effected, through his instrumentality, by word and deed, 
 not merely by truth, but also by that operation which Christ 
 employed to render the truth effectual. It was not only by the 
 truth as presented in the word, but also by the effectual inward 
 operation of his power, that Christ converted men to the 
 faith. 
 
 VERSE 19. Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power 
 of the Spirit of Grod, i. e., by miracles, and by the influences 
 of the Holy Ghost. The Greek is, kv duvdfjtsi aypdcav xat 
 rspdriav, iv dwd^sc 7rvey//aroc df/ou, that is, by the power of 
 (i. e., which comes from) signs axid wonders, and, the pow^t 
 which flows from the Holy Spirit. It was thus Christ rendered 
 the labours of Paul successful. He produced conviction, or the 
 obedience of faith, in the minds of the Gentiles, partly by 
 miracles, partly and mainly by the inward working of the 
 Holy Ghost. That Christ thus exercises divine power both in 
 the external world and in the hearts of men, clearly proves that 
 he is a divine person. Signs and wonders are the constantly 
 recurring words to designate those external events which are 
 produced, not by the operation of second causes, but by the 
 immediate efficiency of God. They are called signs because 
 evidences of the exercise of God's power and proofs of the 
 truth of his declarations, and wonders because of the effect 
 which they produce on the minds of men. This passage is, 
 therefore, analogous to that in 1 Cor. ii. 4, "My speech and 
 preaching was not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but 
 in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." That is, he 
 relied for success not on his own skill or eloquence, but on the 
 powerful demonstration of the Spirit. This demonstration of 
 the Spirit consisted partly in the miracles which he enabled 
 the first preachers of the gospel to perform, and partly in the
 
 694 KOMANS XV. 20, 21. 
 
 influence with which he attended the truth to the heart* 
 and consciences of those that believed; see Gal. iii. 2 5, 
 Heb. ii. 4. 
 
 So that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Hlyricum, 
 I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Round about, xai 
 x'Jx/.uj, in a circle. Jerusalem was the centre around which 
 Paul prosecuted his labours. He means to say, that through- 
 out a most extensive region I have successfully preached the 
 gospel. God had given his seal to Paul's apostleship, by 
 making him so abundantly useful. I have fully preached, 
 expresses, no doubt, the sense of the original, (mxtyp+Bfate TO 
 euaj-fe'/roy,) to bring the gospel (i. e., the preaching of it) to an 
 end, to accomplish it thoroughly ; see Col. i. 25. In this wide 
 circuit had the apostle preached, founding churches, and 
 advancing the Redeemer's kingdom with such evidence of the 
 divine cooperation, as to leave no ground of doubt that he was 
 a divinely appointed minister of Christ. 
 
 VERSES 20, 21. In further confirmation of this point, Paul 
 states that he had not acted the part of a pastor merely, but of 
 an apostle, or founder of the church, disseminating the gospel 
 where it was before unknown, so that the evidence of his apos- 
 tleship might be undeniable; compare 1 Cor. ix. 2, "If I be 
 not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the 
 seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord;" and 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3, 
 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ 
 was named, lest 1 should build on another man's foundation; 
 that is, ' I have been desirous of not preaching where Christ 
 was before known, but in such a way as to accomplish the pre- 
 diction that those who had not heard should understand.' 
 (PiAoTiusiffflfu, so to prosecute an object as to place one's honour 
 in it. The motive which influenced him in taking this 
 course, was lest he should build upon another man's founda- 
 tion. This may mean either, lest I should appropriate to 
 myself the result of other men's labours; or, lest I should act 
 the part not of an apostle, (to which I was called,) but of a 
 simple pastor. 
 
 VER&K 21. But, as it is written, To whom he was not spoken 
 of, they shall nee; and they that have not heard shall under- 
 stand. That is, I acted in the spirit of the prediction, that
 
 ROMANS XV. 2224. 695 
 
 Christ should he preached where he had not heen known. It 
 had been foretold in Isa. Hi. 15, that Christ should be preached 
 to the Gentiles, and to those who had never heard of his name ; 
 it was in accordance with this prediction that Paul acted. 
 There is, however, no objection to considering this passage as 
 merely an expression, in borrowed language, of the apostle's 
 own ideas ; the meaning then is, ' I endeavoured to preach the 
 gospel trot where Christ was named, but to cause those to see 
 to Avhom he had not been announced, and those to understand 
 who had not heard.' This is in accordance with the apostle's 
 manner of using the language of the Old Testament ; see chap. 
 x. 15, 18. But as, in this case, the passage cited is clearly a 
 prediction, the first method of explanation should probably be 
 preferred. A result of this method of interweaving passages 
 from the Old Testament, is often, as in thia case and ver. 3, a 
 Want of grammatical coherence between the different members 
 of the sentence ; see 1 Cor. ii. 9. 
 
 VERSE '22. For which cause also I have been much hindered 
 from coming to you. That is,. his desire to make Christ known 
 where he had not been named, had long prevented his intended 
 journey to Rome, where he knew the gospel had already been 
 preached. Much, ra xo/Jd, plerumque, in most cases. The 
 pressure of the constant calls to preach the gospel where he 
 then was, was the principal reason why he had deferred so long 
 visiting Rome. Hindered from coming, IvexoxTOffii; TOU !/$?v, 
 the genitive following verbs signifying to hinder. 
 
 VERSE 23. But now having no more place in these parts, and 
 having a great desire these many years to come -unto you, &c. 
 Great desire, i-c-o&iav, sumrnum desiderium. The expression, 
 having no more place (fjtyxsTi TOTTOU lya>\,,} in this connection, 
 would seem obviously to mean, ' having no longer a place in 
 these parts where Christ is not known.' This idea is included 
 in the declaration that he had fully preached the gospel in all 
 that region. Others take the word (TO~OV) rendered place, to 
 signify occasion, opportunity, ' Having no longer an opportunity 
 of preaching here;' see Acts xxv. 16, Heb. xii. 17. 
 
 VERSE 24. Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will 
 come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be 
 brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat
 
 696 ROMANS XV. 2527. 
 
 filled with your company. WJiensoever (oc &d-v for w$ <Jv,) at 
 toon as; 'As soon as I take my journey,' &c. The words in the 
 original, corresponding to I will come unto you, for are omitted 
 in many MSS.* The sense is complete without them: 'As soon 
 as I take my journey into Spain, I hope to see you on my way.' 
 If the word for be retained, the passage must be differently 
 pointed : ' Having a great desire to see you, as soon as I go to 
 Spain, (for I hope on my way to see you, c.,) but now I go to 
 Jerusalem.' Spain, the common Greek name for the great 
 Pyrenian Peninsula, was '/fepia, although 2'~u^ia was also 
 used. The Romans called it '/o/raw'a. Whether Paul ever 
 accomplished his purpose of visiting Spain, is a matter of doubt. 
 There is no historical record of his having done so, either in the 
 New Testament, or in the early ecclesiastical writers ; though 
 Host of those writers seem to have taken it for granted. His 
 whole plan was probably deranged by the occurrences at Jeru- 
 salem, which led to his long imprisonment at Cesarea, and his 
 being sent in bonds to Rome. To be brought on my way. The 
 original word means, in the active voice, to attend any one on 
 a journey for some distance, as an expression of kindness and 
 respect ; and also to make provision for his journey ; see Acts 
 xv. 3, xx. 88, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 2 Cor. i. 16. 
 
 VERSE 25. But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the 
 taints, i. e., to supply the wants of the saints, distributing to 
 them the contributions of the churches; see Heb. vi. 10; com- 
 pare also Matt. viii. 15, Mark i. 31, Luke iv. 39. The word 
 8taxovtD is used for any kind of service. The present partici- 
 ple is used to imply that the journey itself was a part of the 
 service Paul rendered to the saints at Jerusalem. 
 
 VERSES 26, 27. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and 
 Achaia to make a contribution for the poor saints which are at 
 Jerusalem. To make a contribution, xoeixitviav rc^a -ocr^aa&at, 
 to bring about a communion, or participation. That is, to cause 
 the poor in Jerusalem to partake of the abundance of the breth- 
 ren in Achaia. In this way the ordinary intransitive sense of 
 
 * The MSS. A. C. D. E. P. Q. the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopia, and Latin ver- 
 sions, some of the Greek, and most of the Latin Fathers, omit i/.ijs-iua; Tr^ot 
 v/*at, and '.nost of these authorities omit yd$. Mill, Griesbach, and Knapp, 
 emit both; Lachmann retains yzg.
 
 ROMANS XV. 28, 29. 697 
 
 the word xoivcavla is retained. Compare, however, 2 Cor. ix. 13, 
 and Heb. xiii. 16, where the transitive sense of the word is com- 
 monly preferred. Having mentioned this fact, the apostle 
 immediately seizes the opportunity of showing the reasonable- 
 ness and duty of making these contributions. This he does in 
 such a way as not to detract from the credit due to the Grecian 
 churches, while he shows that it was but a matter of justice to 
 act as they had done. It hath pleased them verily; and their 
 debtors they are; i. e., 'It pleased them, I say (fdo, redor- 
 diendce orationi inservit,} they did it voluntarily, yet it was but 
 reasonable they should do it.' The ground of this statement is 
 immediately added : For if the G-entiles have been made par- 
 takers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to 
 them in carnal things. 'If the Gentiles have received the 
 greater good from the Jews, they may well be expected to con- 
 tribute the lesser.' The word (hcroup-fiaai) rendered to minis- 
 ter, may have the general sense of serving; or it may be used 
 with some allusion to the service being a sacred duty, a kind 
 of offering which is acceptable to God. "Nee dubito, quin 
 significet Paulus sacrificii speciem esse, quum de suo ^rogant 
 fideles ad egestatem fratrum levandam. Sic enim persolvunt 
 quod debent caritatis officium, ut Deo simul hostiam grati odoris 
 offerant: sed proprie hoc loco ad illud mutuum jus compensa- 
 tionis respexit." Calvin. This, however, is not very probable, 
 as the expression is, hcroup-p^aat aurolc, to minister to them. 
 The XtiTOOp-fia was rendered to the brethren, not to God. 
 
 VERSE 28. When therefore I have done this, and sealed unto 
 them this fruit, I ivill come by you into Spain. The word sealed 
 appears here to be used figuratively, ' When I have safely deli- 
 vered this fruit to them;' compare 2 Kings xxii. 4, "Go up 
 to Hilkiah, the high priest, and sum (seal, (npf}d.?caov,} the 
 silver," &c. Commentators compare the use of the Latin words 
 f.onsignare, consignatio, and of the English word consign. 
 
 VERSE 29. And I am sure that when I come unto you, I 
 shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel* of Christ. 
 
 * The words vw Kiayyt^in TOU arc omitted in the MSS. A. C. D. F. G. 67, in 
 the Coptic and Ethiopia versions, and by some of the Latin Fathers. Mill, 
 Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and others, leave them out. The sense 
 remains the same: "I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of Christ."
 
 698 ROMANS XV. 30, 81. 
 
 The fulness of the blessing, means the abundant blessing, Paul 
 was persuaded that God, who had so richly crowned his labours 
 in other places, would cause his visit to Rome to be attended by 
 those abundant blessings which the gospel of Christ is adapted 
 to produce. He had, in chap. i. 11, expressed his desire to visit 
 the Roman Christians, that he might impart unto them some 
 spiritual gift, to the end that they might be established. 
 
 VERSE 30. Now I beseech you, brethren, for our Lord Jesut 
 Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive 
 together with me in your prayers to Grod for me. As the apos- 
 tle was not immediately to see them, and knew that he would, 
 in the meantime, be exposed to many dangers, he earnestly 
 begged them to aid him with their prayers. He enforces this 
 request by the tenderest considerations; for our Lord Jesus 
 Clirisfs sake, i. e., out of regard to the Lord Jesus; 'whatever 
 regard you have for him, and whatever desire to see his cause 
 prosper, in which I am engaged, let it induce you to pray for 
 me.' And for the love of the Spirit, i. e., 'for that love of which 
 the Holy Spirit is the author, and by which he binds the hearts 
 of Christians together, I beseech you,' &c. He appeals, there- 
 fore, not only to their love of Christ, but to their love for him- 
 self as a fellow Christian. That ye strive together with me 
 (auwfioMoaadai IJLOC,} i. e., 'that ye aid me in my conflict, by 
 taking part in it.' This they were to do by their prayers. 
 
 VERSE 31. That I may be delivered from them that do not 
 believe in Judea. There are three objects for which he particu- 
 larly wished them to pray; his safety, the successful issue of 
 his mission, and that he might come to them with joy. How 
 much reason Paul had to dread the violence of the unbelieving 
 Jews is evident from the history given of this visit to Jerusa- 
 lem, in the Acts of the Apostles. They endeavoured to destroy 
 his life, accused him to the Roman governor, and effected his 
 imprisonment for two years in Cesarea, whence he was sent in 
 chains to Rome. Nor were his apprehensions confined to the 
 unbelieving Jews ; -he knew that even the Christians there, from 
 their narrow-minded prejudices against him as a preacher to 
 the Gentiles, and as the advocate of the liberty of Christians 
 from the yoke of the Mosaic law, were greatly embittered 
 against him. He, therefore, begs the Roman believers to pray
 
 ROMANS XV. 32, 33. 699 
 
 that the service which (he had) for Jerusalem might be accepted 
 of the saints. The words service which I have, &c., (>) otaxovia 
 ftou $ etc ^hpouaaAyfjL) means the contribution which I carry to 
 Jerusalem; see the use of this word (dtaxovia) in 2 Cor. viii. 4, 
 ix. 1, 13. The ordinary sense of dtaxovia, service, however, 
 may be retained. Paul desired that the work of love on which 
 he was to go to Jerusalem might be favourably received by the 
 Christians of that city. Paul laboured for those whom he 
 knew regarded him with little favour; he calls them saints, 
 recognises their Christian character, notwithstanding their 
 unkindness, and urges his brethren to pray that they might be 
 willing to accept of kindness at his hands. 
 
 VERSE 32. TJiat I may come unto you with joy by the will 
 of God, and that I may with you be refreshed. These words 
 may depend upon the former part of the preceding verse, ' Pray 
 that I may come;' or, upon the latter part, 'Pray that I may 
 be delivered from the Jews, and my contributions be accepted, 
 so that I may come with joy, &c.' By the will of Grod, i. e., 
 by the permission and favour of God. Instead of 6eou, the 
 MS. B. has Kupiou Ur^aou; D.* E. F. G. the Italic version, read 
 Xptaroi) 'fyaou; most editors, however, retain the common text. 
 Paul seemed to look forward to his interview with the Chris- 
 tians at Rome, as a season of relief from conflict and labour. 
 In Jerusalem he was beset by unbelieving Jews, and harrassed 
 by Judaizing Christians ; in most other places he was burdened 
 with the care of the churches ; but at Rome, which he looked 
 upon as a resting-place, rather than a field of labour, he hoped 
 to gather strength for the prosecution of his apostolic labours 
 in still more distant lands. 
 
 VERSE 33. Now the peace of G-od be with you all. As he 
 begged them to pray for him, so he prays for them. It is 
 a prayer of one petition; so full of meaning, however, that 
 no other need be added. The peace of God, that peace which 
 God gives, includes all the mercies necessary for the perfect 
 blessedness of the soul. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. Ths sacrsd Scriptures are designed for men in all ages of 
 the world, and are the great source of religious knowledge and 
 consolation, ver. 4.
 
 700 ROMANS XV. 133. 
 
 2. The moral excellences which we are justly required to 
 attain, and the consolations which we are commanded to seek 
 in the use of appropriate means, are still the gifts of God. 
 There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the doctrines of 
 free agency and dependence, vs. 5, 13. 
 
 3. Those are to be received and treated as Christians whom 
 Christ himself has received. Men have no right to make terms 
 of communion which Christ has not made, ver. 7. 
 
 4. There is no distinction, under the gospel, between the Jew 
 and Gentile : Christ has received both classes upon the same 
 terms and to the same privileges, vs. 8 12. 
 
 5. The quotation of the predictions of the Old Testament by 
 the sacred writers of the New, and the application of them in 
 proof of their doctrines, involves an acknowledgment of the 
 divine authority of the ancient prophets. And as these pre- 
 dictions are quoted from the volume which the Jews recognise 
 as their Bible, or the word of God, it is evident that the apos- 
 tles believed in the inspiration of all the books included in the 
 sacred canon by the Jews, vs. 9 12. 
 
 6. Christian ministers are not priests, i. e., they are not 
 appointed to "offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." It is no part 
 of their work to make atonement for the people ; this Christ 
 has done by the one offering up of himself, whereby he has for 
 ever perfected them that are sanctified, ver. 16. A priest, 
 according to the Scriptures, is one appointed for men who have 
 not liberty of access to God, to draw nigh to him in their 
 behalf, and to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin. In this 
 sense Christ is our only Priest. The priesthood of believers 
 consists in their having (through Christ) liberty of access unto 
 God, and offering themselves and their services as a living 
 sacrifice unto him. In one aspect, the fundamental error of 
 the church of Rome is the doctrine that Christian ministers are 
 priests. This assumes that sinners cannot come to God through 
 Christ, and that it is only through the intervention of the 
 priests men can be made partakers of the benefits of redemp- 
 tion. This is to put the keys of heaven into the hands of 
 priests. It is to turn men from Christ to those who cannot 
 Bave. 
 
 7. The truth of the gospel has been confirmed by God, by
 
 ROMANS XV. 133. 701 
 
 signs and wonders, and by the power of the Holy Ghost. 
 Infidelity, therefore, is a disbelief of the testimony of God. 
 When God has given satisfactory evidence of the mission of his 
 servants, the sin of unbelief is not relieved by the denial that 
 the evidence is satisfactory. If the gospel is true, therefore, 
 infidelity will be found not merely to be a mistake, but a crime, 
 ver. 19. 
 
 8. The success of a minister in winning souls to Christ may 
 be fairly appealed to as evidence that he preaches the truth. 
 It is, when clearly ascertained, as decisive an evidence as the 
 performance of a miracle ; because it is as really the result of a 
 divine agency. This, however, like all other evidence, to be 
 of any value, must be carefully examined and faithfully applied. 
 The success may be real, and the evidence decisive, but it may 
 be applied improperly. The same man may preach (and doubt- 
 less every uninspired man does preach) both truth and error; 
 God may sanction and bless the truth, and men may appeal to 
 this blessing in support of the error. This is often done. Suc- 
 cess therefore is of itself a very difficult test for us to apply, 
 and must ever be held subject to the authority of the Scrip- 
 tures. Nothing can prove that to be true which the Bible pro- 
 nounces to be false, vs. 18, 19. 
 
 9. Prayer (and even intercessory prayer) has a real and 
 important efficacy; not merely in its influence on the mind of 
 him who offers it, but also in securing the blessings for which 
 we pray. Paul directed the Roman Christians to pray for the 
 exercise of the divine providence in protecting him from danger, 
 and for the Holy Spirit to influence the minds of the brethren 
 in Jerusalem. This he would not have done, were such peti- 
 tions of no avail, vs. 30, 31. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. The duty of a disinterested and kind regard to others, in 
 the exercise of our Christian liberty, is one of the leading topics 
 of this, as it is of the preceding chapter, vs. 1 13. 
 
 2. The desire to please others should be wisely directed, and 
 spring from right motives. We should not please them to their 
 own injury, nor from the wish to secure their favour; but for 
 their good, that they may be edified, ver. 2.
 
 702 ROMANS XV. 133. 
 
 3. The character and conduct of Jesus Christ are at once the 
 most perfect model of excellence and the most persuasive motive 
 to obedience. The dignity of his person, the greatness of his 
 condescension, the severity of his sufferings, the fervour of his 
 love towards us, all combine to render his example effective in 
 humbling us, in view of our own short-comings, and in exciting 
 us to walk even as he walked, vs. 4 13. 
 
 4. We should constantly resort to the Scriptures for instruc- 
 tion and consolation. They were written for this purpose ; and 
 we have no right to expect these blessings unless we use the 
 means appointed for their attainment. As God, however, by 
 the power of the Holy Ghost, works all good in us, we should 
 rely neither on the excellence of the means, nor the vigour and 
 diligence of our own exertions, but on his blessing, which is to 
 be sought by prayer, vs. 4, 5, 13. 
 
 5. The dissensions of Christians are dishonourable to God. 
 They must be of one mind, i. e., sincerely and affectionately 
 united, if they would glorify their Father in heaven, vs. 5 7. 
 
 6. A monitor or instructor should be full of goodness and 
 knowledge. The human heart resists censoriousness, pride, and 
 ill feeling, in an admonisher ; and is thrown into such a state, 
 by the exhibition of these evil dispositions, that the truth is 
 little likely to do it any good. As oil poured on water smooths 
 its surface, and renders it transparent, so does kindness calm 
 the minds of men, and prepare them for the ready entrance 
 of the truth. Besides these qualifications, he who admonishes 
 others should be entitled thus to act. It is not necessary that 
 this title should rest on his official station; but there should 
 be superiority of some kind of age, excellence, or know- 
 ledge to give his admonitions due effect. Paul's peculiar 
 modesty, humility, and mildness, should serve as an example 
 to us, vs. 14, 15. 
 
 7. We should be careful not to build improperly on another 
 man's foundation. Pastors and teachers must of course preach 
 Christ where he had before been known ; but they should not 
 appropriate to themselves the results of the labours of others, 
 or boast of things which Christ has not wrought by them. The 
 man who reaps the harvest, is not always he who sowed the 
 seed. One plants, and another waters, but God giveth the
 
 ROMANS XVI. 1. 703 
 
 increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither 
 he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase, vs. 19, 20. 
 
 8. It is the duty of those who have the means, to contribute 
 to the necessities of others, and especially to the wants of those 
 from whom they themselves have received good, vs. 26, 27. 
 
 9. The fact that men are prejudiced against us, is no reason 
 why we should not do them good. The Jewish Christians were 
 ready to denounce Paul, and to cast out his name as evil ; yet 
 he collected contributions for them, and was very solicitous that 
 they should accept of his services, ver. 31. 
 
 10. Danger is neither to be courted nor fled from; but 
 encountered with humble trust in God, ver. 31. 
 
 11. We should pray for others in such a way as really to 
 enter into their trials and conflicts ; and believe that our 
 prayers, when sincere, are a real and great assistance to them. 
 It is a great blessing to have an interest in the prayers of the 
 righteous. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 IN this concluding chapter, Paul first commends to the church 
 at Rome the deaconess Phebe, vs. 1, 2. He then sends his 
 salutations to many members of the church, and other Chris- 
 tians who were then at Rome, vs. 3 16. He earnestly exhorts 
 his brethren to avoid those who cause contentions ; and after 
 commending their obedience, he prays for God's blessing upon 
 them, vs. 17 21. Salutations from the apostle's companions, 
 vs. 22 24. The concluding doxology, vs. 25 27. 
 
 ROMANS XVI. 127. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 VERSE 1. / commend unto you Phebe our sister, ivhish is a 
 servant of the church which is at Cenchrea. Phebe, from 
 Phrebus, (Apollo.) The early Christians retained their names, 
 although they were derived from the names of false gods,
 
 704 ROMANS XVI. 2. 
 
 because they had lost all religious significance and reference. 
 In like manner we retain the use of the names of the days of 
 the week, without ever thinking of their derivation. Corinth, 
 being situated on a narrow isthmus, had two ports, one towards 
 Europe, and the other towards Asia. The latter was called 
 Cenchrea, where a church had been organized, of which Phebe 
 was a servant (dcdxovoc,} i. e., deaconess. It appears that in the 
 apostolic church, elderly females were selected to attend upon 
 the poor and sick of their own sex. Many ecclesiastical writers 
 suppose there were two classes of these female officers ; the one 
 (npsaft'Jndsz, corresponding in some measure in their duties to 
 the elders,) having the oversight of the conduct of the younger 
 female Christians ; and the other, whose duty was to attend to 
 the sick and the poor. See Suicer's Thesaurus, under the 
 word dcdxovoz', Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities, 11, 12; 
 Augusti's Denkwiirdigkeiten der christl. Archaologie. 
 
 VERSE 2. That ye receive her in the Lord. The words in 
 the Lord, may be connected either with receive, 'receive her in 
 a religious manner, and from religious motives;' or with the 
 pronoun, her in the Lord, her as a Christian. The apostle 
 presents two considerations to enforce this exhortation; first, 
 regard for their Christian character ; and, secondly, the service 
 which Phebe had rendered to others. As becometh saints; this 
 expression at once describes the manner in which they ought to 
 receive her, and suggests the motive for so doing. The worda 
 dzitoz T(ov ayUtiv may mean, 4 as it becomes Christians to receive 
 their brethren,' or, 'sicut sanctos excipi oportet, as saints ought 
 -o be received.' In the former case, d^ioiv (saints) are those 
 who received, and in the latter, those who are received. And 
 that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you. 
 They were not only to receive her with courtesy and affection, 
 but to aid her in any way in which she required their assistance. 
 The words (Iv <fi dv Trpdj-fjtare) in whatsoever business, are to be 
 taken very generally, in whatever matter, or in whatever 
 respect. For she hath been a succourer of many, and of 
 myself also. The word (npoardrt^) succourer, means a pat- 
 roness, a benefactor; it is a highly honorable title. As she had 
 BO frequently aided others, it was but reasonable that she 
 should be assisted.
 
 ROMANS XVI. 35. 705 
 
 VERSE 3. Salute Priscilla* and Aquila, my helpers in CJirist 
 Jesus, i. e., my fellow labourers in the promotion of the gospel. 
 Priscilla is the diminutive form of Prisca ; compare Livia and 
 Livilla, Drusa and Drusilla, Quinta and Quintilla, Secunda and 
 Secundilla. Grrotius. Aquila and Priscilla are mentioned in 
 Acts xviii. 2, as having left Rome in consequence of the edict 
 of Claudius. After remaining at Ephesus a long time, it 
 seems that they had returned to Rome, and were there when 
 Paul wrote this letter; Acts xviii. 18, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, 
 2 Tim. iv. 19. 
 
 VERSE 4. Who have for my life laid down their own necks, 
 i. e,, they exposed themselves to imminent peril to save me. 
 On what occasion this was done, is not recorded. Unto whom 
 not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the G-entiles. 
 Their courageous and disinterested conduct must have been 
 generally known, and called forth the grateful acknowledg- 
 ments of all the churches interested in the preservation of a life 
 so precious as that of the apostle. 
 
 VERSE 5. The church that is in their house. These words 
 (xal TYJU xar* olxov avr&v Ixxtycriav) are understood, by many of 
 the Greek and modern commentators, to mean their Christian 
 family; so Calvin, Flatt, Koppe, Tholuck, &c. The most 
 common and natural interpretation is, 'the church which is 
 accustomed to assemble in their house;' see 1 Cor. xvi. 19, 
 where this same expression occurs in reference to Aquila and 
 Priscilla. It is probable that, from his occupation as tent- 
 maker, he had better accommodations for the meetings of the 
 church than most other Christians. 
 
 Salute my well beloved JEpenetus, who is the first-fruits of 
 Aehaia-\ unto Christ. This passage is not irreconcileable with 
 1 Cor. xvi. 15, " Ye know the household of Stephanas, that it 
 is the first-fruits of Achaia;" for Epenetus may have belonged 
 
 * Instead of n g iV*/AX*, IIg/<r**r is read in the MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G., and 
 in many codd. minusc; and this reading is adopted in the editions of Bengel, 
 Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Knapp, Lachmann. 
 
 f ACTWC is read in MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G. 6, 67; and in the Coptic, Ethiopic, 
 and Latin versions. Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, and Lachmann, adopt 
 that reading. 
 
 45
 
 706 ROMANS XVI. 6, 7. 
 
 to this family. So many of the oldest MSS. and versions, how- 
 ever, read Asia, instead of Aehaia, in this verse, that the great 
 majority of editors have adopted that reading. This, of course, 
 removes even the appearance of contradiction. 
 
 VERSES 6, 7. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour upon 
 us. Salute Andronicu* and Junta, my kinsmen and my fellow- 
 prisoners. Instead of ere $/*"C, some of the older MSS. read 
 ^C >fJ.<iz, and others ev bfjiiv. The common text is, however, 
 retained in the latest editions, and is better suited to the con- 
 text, as the assiduous service of Mary, rendered to the apostle, 
 is a more natural reason of his salutation, than that she had 
 been serviceable to the Roman Christians. It is very doubtful 
 whether Junia be the name of a man or of a woman, as the 
 form in which it occurs (VooWav) admits of either explanation. 
 If a man's name, it is Junias; if a woman's, it is Junia. It is 
 commonly taken as a female name, and the person intended is 
 supposed to have been the wife or sister of Andronicus. My 
 kinsmen, i. e., relatives, and not merely of the same nation ; at 
 least there seems no sufficient reason for taking the word in 
 this latter general sense. Fellow-prisoners. Paul, in 2 Cor. 
 xi. 23, when enumerating his labours, says, "In stripes above 
 measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft," &c. He was, 
 often in bonds, (Clemens Romanus, in his Epistle to the Cor- 
 inthians, sect. 5, says seven times,) he may, therefore, have 
 had numerous fellow-prisoners. Who are of note among the 
 apostles; i-iaijuoi Iv ro?c d^o<rro/o*c. This may mean either 
 they were distinguished apostles, or they were highly respected 
 by the apostles. The latter is most probably the correct inter- 
 pretation because the word apostle, unless connected with some 
 other word, as in the phrase, "messengers (apostles) of the 
 churches," is very rarely, if ever, applied in the New Testament 
 to any other than the original messengers of Jesus Christ. It 
 is never used in Paul's writings, except in its strict official 
 sense. The word has a fixed meaning, from which we should 
 not depart without special reason. Besides, the article (Iv ro?c 
 dxoaTOAoez,) among the apostles, seems to point out the definite 
 well-known class of persons almost exclusively so called. The 
 passage is so understood by Koppe (magna eorum fama est 
 apud apostolos,) Flatt, Bloomfield, Meyer, Philippi, and the
 
 ROMANS XVI. S 15. 707 
 
 majority of commentators. Who also were in Christ before me, 
 i. e., who were Christians before me. 
 
 VERSES 8 15. My beloved in the Lord. The preposition in 
 (lv,) here, as frequently elsewhere, points out the relation or 
 respect in which the word to which it refers is to be under- 
 stood ; brother beloved, both in the flesh and in the Lord (Phile- 
 mon, ver. 16,) both in reference to our external relations, and 
 our relation to the Lord. And thus in the following, ver, 9, our 
 helper in Christ, i. e., as it regards Christ ; ver. 10, approved 
 in Christ, i. e., in his relation to Christ ; an approved or tried 
 Christian ; ver. 12, who labour in the Lord; and, which laboured 
 much in the Lord, i. e., who, as it regards the Lord, laboured 
 much; it was a Christian or religious service. The names, 
 Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis, are all feminine. The last is 
 commonly supposed to indicate the native country of the person 
 who bore it, as it was not unusual to name persons from the 
 place of their origin, as Mysa, Syria, Lydia, Andria, &c.; such 
 names, however, soon became common, and were given without 
 any reference to the birth-place of those who received them. 
 Chosen in the Lord, i. e., not one chosen by the Lord ; chosen, 
 (i. e., approved, precious; see 1 Peter ii. 4,) in his relation to 
 the Lord, as a Christian. It is not merely elect in Christ, that 
 is, chosen to eternal life, for this could be said of every Chris- 
 tian; but Rufus is here designated as a chosen man, as a dis- 
 tinguished Christian. It is worth noticing, that at Rome, as at 
 Corinth, few of the great or learned seem to have been called. 
 These salutations are all addressed to men not distinguished 
 for their rank or official dignity. Mylius, as quoted by Calov, 
 says: "Notanda hie fideliuin istorum conditio: nemo hie nomi- 
 natur consul, nemo quaestor aut dictator insignitur, minime 
 omnium episcopatuum et cardinalatuum dignitate hie perso- 
 nant: sed operarum, laborum, captivitate titulis plerique 
 notantur. Ita verum etiam in Romana ecclesia fuit olim, 
 quod apostolus scribit, non multi potentes, non multi nobiles, 
 sed stulta mundi electa sunt a Deo. Papatus autem Csesarei, 
 qualis adjuvante diabolo, in perniciem religionis, posteris 
 saeculis Romae involuit, ne umbra quidem apostolorum aetate 
 istic fuit: tantum abest, ut ille originem ab apostolis ipsia 
 traxerit."
 
 708 ROMANS XVI. 16, 17. 
 
 VERSE 16. Salute one another with a holy kiss. Reference 
 to this custom is made also in 1 Cor. xvi. 20, 1 Thess. T. 26, 
 1 Peter v. 14. It is supposed to have been of oriental origin, 
 and continued for a long time in the early churches ;* after 
 prayer, and especially before the celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper, the brethren saluting in this way the brethren, and the 
 sisters the sisters. This salutation was expressive of mutual 
 affection and equality before God. 
 
 VERSE 17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which 
 cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye 
 have learned, and avoid them. While he urges them to the 
 kind reception of all faithful ministers and Christians, he 
 enjoins upon them to have nothing to do with those who cause 
 divisions and offences. There were probably two evils in the 
 apostle's mind when he wrote this passage; the divisions occa- 
 sioned by erroneous doctrines, and the offences or scandals 
 occasioned by the evil conduct of the false teachers. Almost 
 all the forms of error which distracted the early church, were 
 intimately connected with practical evils of a moral character. 
 This was the case to a certain extent with the Judaizers ; who 
 not only disturbed the church by insisting on the observance 
 of the Mosaic law, but also pressed some of their doctrines to 
 an immoral extreme; see 1 Cor. v. 1 5. It was still more 
 obviously the case with those errorists, infected with a false 
 philosophy, who are described in Col. ii. 10 23, 1 Tim. 
 ir. 1 8. These evils were equally opposed to the doctrines 
 taught by the apostle. Those who caused these dissensions, 
 Paul commands Christians, first, to mark (axoxstv,) i. e., to 
 notice carefully, and not allow them to pursue their corrupting 
 
 * Justin Apol. II., dAAjiAcwr <f&ft*fi drTct^&st ^ret^rd/atfoi v&t tvfrjr; 'After 
 prayers we salute one another with a kiss.' Tertullian de Oratione: "Quae 
 oratio cum divortio sancti osculi Integra? Quern oinnino officium faoientem 
 impedit pax? Quale sacrificium sine pace receditur?" By peace, is here 
 intended the kiss of peace, for he had before said, "Cum fratribus sabtrahant 
 osculum pacis, quod eat signaculum orationis." In the Apostolic Constitu- 
 tions, it is said (L. 2, c. 57,) "Then let the men apart, and the women apart, 
 Balute each other with a kiss in the Lord." Origcn says, on this verse, 
 " From this passage the custom was delivered to the churches, that after 
 prayers the brethren should salute one another with a kiss." See Grotiui 
 and Whitby.
 
 ROMANS XVI. 18, 19. 709 
 
 course unheeded; and, secondly, to avoid, i. e., to break off 
 connection with them. 
 
 VERSE 18. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches 
 deceive the hearts of the simple. These men are to be avoided, 
 because they are wicked and injurious. The description here 
 given is applicable, in a great degree, to errorists in all ages. 
 They are not actuated by zeal for the Lord Jesus ; they are 
 selfish, if not sensual ; and they are plausible and deceitful. 
 Compare Phil. iii. 18, 19, 2 Tim. iii. 5, 6. The words 
 (XprjaToXofia and eyP.o^'a, blandiloquentia et assentatio] rendered 
 good words and fair speeches, do not in this connection materi- 
 ally differ. They express that plausible and flattering address 
 by which false teachers are wont to secure an influence over the 
 simple. The word (dxaxo^ simple, signifies not merely inno- 
 cent, but unwary, he who is liable to deception. (Prov. xiy. 
 15, dxaxoz mffTeuet -navrl kofw, the simple believes every thing.) 
 
 VERSE 19. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men, 
 &c. This clause admits of two interpretations; the word obe- 
 dience may express either their obedience to the gospel, their 
 faith, (see chap. i. 8,) or their obedient disposition, their readi- 
 ness to follow the instructions of their religious teachers. If 
 the former meaning be adopted, the sense of the passage is 
 this, 'Ye ought to be on your guard against these false 
 teachers, for since your character is so high, your faith being 
 every where spoken of, it would be a great disgrace and evil to 
 be led astray by them.' If the latter meaning be taken, the 
 sense is, .' It is the more necessary that you should be on your 
 guard against these false teachers, because your ready obedience 
 to your divine teachers is so great and generally known. This,, 
 in itself, is commendable, but I would that you joined prudence 
 with your docility.' This latter view is, on account of the 
 concluding part of the verse, most probably the correct one,; 
 see 2 Cor. x. 6, Phil. v. 21. 
 
 / am glad, therefore, on your behalf; but yet I would have 
 you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. 
 That is, ' Simplicity (an unsuspecting docility) is indeed good ; 
 but I would have you not only simple, but prudent. You must
 
 710 ROMANS XVI. 2024. 
 
 not only avoid doing evil, but be careful that you do not suffer 
 evil. Grotius' explanation is peculiarly happy, ita prudentet 
 ut non fallamini; ita boni ut non fallatis; l too good to deceive, 
 too wise to be deceived.' The word (dxepato? from a et xepdoi) 
 simple, means unmixed, pure, and then harmless. * Wise as to 
 I'e/c) good, but simple as to evil;' or, 'wise so that good may 
 result, and simple so that evil may not be done.' This 
 latter is probably the meaning. Paul would have them so 
 wise as to know how to take care of themselves; and yet 
 harmless. 
 
 VERSE 20. And the G-od of peace shall bruise Satan under 
 your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with 
 you. Amen. As the evils produced by the false teachers were 
 divisions and scandals, the apostle, in giving them the assurance 
 of the effectual aid of God, calls him the G-od of peace, i. e. t 
 God who is the author of peace in the comprehensive scriptural 
 sense of that term. Shall bruise is not a prayer, but a consola- 
 tory declaration that Satan should be trodden under foot. As 
 Satan is constantly represented as " working in the children of 
 disobedience," the evil done by them is sometimes referred to 
 him as the instigator, and sometimes to the immediate agents 
 who are his willing instruments. The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ be with you. This is a prayer for the favour and aid of 
 Christ, and of course is an act of worship, and a recognition of 
 the Saviour's divinity. 
 
 VERSE 21 24. These verses contain the salutations of the 
 apostle's companions to the Roman Christians, and a repetition 
 of the prayer just mentioned. I Tertiua, who wrote this epistle, 
 salute you in the Lord. Tertius was Paul's amanuensis. The 
 apostle seldom wrote his epistles with his own hand ; hence he 
 refers to the fact of having himself written the letter to the 
 Galatians as something unusual ; Gal. vi. 11, "Ye see how large 
 a letter I have written unto you with my own hand." In order 
 to authenticate his epistles, he generally wrote himself the salu- 
 tation or benediction at the close; 1 Cor. xvi. 21, "The salu- 
 tation of me Paul, with mine own hand ;" 2 Thess. iii. 17, " The 
 salutation of Paul with mine own hand ; which is the token in 
 every epistle: so I write." Gains mine host, and of the whole
 
 ROMANS XVI. 2527. 7H 
 
 church, i. e., Gaius, who not only entertains me, but Christians 
 generally ; or, in whose house the congregation is accustomed 
 to assemble. Erastus the chamberlain of the city, (okovo/zoc) 
 the treasurer of the city, the quaestor. 
 
 VERSES 25, 27. These verses contain the concluding dox- 
 ology. Now to him that is of power to establish you according 
 to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the 
 revelation of the mystery, &c. As the apostle interweaves with 
 his doxology a description and eulogium of the gospel, he ren- 
 ders the sentence so long and complicated that the regular 
 grammatical construction is broken. There is nothing to govern 
 the words (TW duvafieuj) to him that is of power. The words 
 be glory for ever, (which are repeated at the end in connection 
 with ai) are, therefore, most probably to be supplied. To him 
 that is able to establish you, i. e., to render you firm and con- 
 stant, to keep you from falling. According to my gospel. The 
 word (xa-cd) according to, may be variously explained. 5t may 
 be rendered, 'establish you in my gospel;' but this the proper 
 meaning of the words will hardly allow; or, agreeably to my 
 gospel, in such a manner as the gospel requires; or, through^ 
 i. e., by means of my gospel. The second interpretation is 
 perhaps the best. And the preaching of Jesus Christ. This 
 may mean either 'Christ's preaching,' or, 'the preaching con- 
 cerning Christ;' either interpretation gives a good sense, the 
 gospel being both a proclamation by Christ, and concerning 
 Christ. The apostle dwells upon this idea, and is led into a 
 description and commendation of the gospel. According to the 
 revelation of the mystery. These words may be considered as 
 co-ordinate with the preceding clause; the sense then is, 'Who 
 is able to establish you agreeably to (or through) my gospel, 
 agreeably to (through) the revelation of the mystery, &c.' It 
 is, however, more common to consider this clause as subordinate 
 and descriptive. ' The gospel is a revelation of the mystery 
 which had been hid for ages,' The word mystery, according to 
 the common scriptural sense of the term, does not mean some- 
 thing obscure or incomprehensible, but simply something pre- 
 viously unknown and undiscoverable by human reason, and 
 which, if known at all, must be known by a, revelation, froaa.
 
 712 ROMANS XVI. 26. 
 
 God. In this sense the gospel is called a mystery, or "the 
 wisdom of God in a mystery, that is, a hidden wisdom," which 
 the wise of this world could not discover, but which God has 
 revealed by his Spirit, 1 Cor. ii. 7 10, iv. 1, Eph. vi. 19, Col. 
 i. 25 27, ii. 2, &c. In the same sense any particular doctrine, 
 as the calling of the Gentiles, Eph. iii. 4 6 ; the restoration 
 of the Jews, Rom. xi. 25 ; the change of the bodies of living 
 believers at the last day, 1 Cor. xv. 51; is called a mystery, 
 because a matter of divine revelation. According to this 
 passage, Paul speaks of the gospel as something "which had 
 been kept secret since the world began;" (ynbvotz actavloi^) 
 i. e., hidden from eternity in the divine mind. It is not a 
 system of human philosophy, or the result of human investiga- 
 tion, but it is a revelation of the purpose of God. Paul often 
 presents the idea that the plan of redemption was formed from 
 eternity, and is such as no eye could discover, and no heart 
 conceive, 1 Cor. ii. 7 9, Col. i. 26. 
 
 VERSE 26. But is now made manifest, and by the Scrip- 
 tures of the prophets; that is, ' this gospel or mystery, hidden 
 from eternity, is now revealed; not now for the first time 
 indeed, since there are so many intimations of it in the prophe- 
 cies of the Old Testament.' It is evident that the apostle adds 
 the words and by the Scriptures of the prophets, to avoid 
 having it supposed that he overlooked the fact that the plan of 
 redemption was taught in the Old Testament ; compare chap. 
 i. 2, iii. .21. According to the command of the everlasting G-od, 
 that is, this gospel is now made manifest by command of God. 
 Paul probably uses the expression, everlasting (actovtou) G-od, 
 because he had just before said that the gospel was hid from 
 eternity. 'It is now revealed by that eternal Being in whose 
 KIC^ t-he wonderful plan was formed, and by whom alone it 
 could be revealed.' Made known to all nations for the obedience 
 of the faith. ' Made known among (c, see Mark xiii. 10, 
 Luke xxiv. 47) all nations.' For the obedience of faith, i. e., 
 that they should become obedient to the faith ; see chap. i. 5. 
 This gospel, so long concealed, or but partially revealed in the 
 ancient prophets, is now, by the command of God, to be made 
 known among all nations.
 
 ROMANS XVI. 27. 713 
 
 VERSE 27. To the only wise G-od be glory through Jesus 
 Christ for ever, Amen. There is an ambiguity in the original 
 which is not retained in our version. ' To the only -wise God, 
 through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever.' The con- 
 struction adopted by our translators is perhaps the one most 
 generally approved. To him that is able to establish you, to 
 the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be glory.' In this 
 case the relative <ju, to whom, in verse 27, is pleonastic. Others 
 explain the passage thus, < To the only wise God, made known 
 through Jesus Christ, to whom (i. e., Christ) be glory for ever.' 
 The simplest construction is, * To the only wise God, through 
 Jesus Christ, to him, I say, be glory for ever.' As Paul often 
 calls the gospel the "wisdom of God," in contrast with the 
 wisdom of men, he here, when speaking of the plan of redemp- 
 tion as the product of the divine mind, and intended for all 
 nations, addresses his praises to its author as the ONLY WISE 
 GOD, as that Being whose wisdom is so wonderfully displayed 
 in the gospel and in all his other works, that he alone can be 
 considered truly wise. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1. It is the duty of Christians to receive kindly their 
 brethren, and to aid them in every way within their power, and 
 to do this from religious motives and in a religious manner, as 
 becometh saints, vs. 1, 2. 
 
 2. The social relations in which Christians stand to each 
 other as relatives, countrymen, friends, should not be allowed 
 to give character to their feelings and conduct to the exclusion 
 of the more important relation which they bear to Christ. It 
 is as friends, helpers, fellow-labourers in the Lord, that they 
 are to be recognised ; they are to be received in the Lord ; 
 our common connection with Christ is ever to be borne in 
 mind, and made to modify all our feelings and conduct, 
 vs. 312. 
 
 3. From the beginning females have taken an active and 
 important part in the promotion of the gospel. They seem, 
 more than others, to have contributed to Christ of their sub- 
 stance. They were his most faithful attendants, " last at the
 
 714 ROMANS XVI. 127. 
 
 cross, and first at the sepulchre." Phebe was a servant of 
 the church, a succourer of Paul, and of many others; Try- 
 phena, Tryphosa, and Persis, laboured much in the Lord, vs. 1, 
 2, 3, 6, 12. 
 
 4. It does not follow, because a custom prevailed in the early 
 churches, and received the sanction of the apostles, that we are 
 obliged to follow it. These customs often arose out of local 
 circumstances and previous habits, or were merely conventional 
 modes of expressing certain feelings, and were never intended 
 to be made universally obligatory. As it was common in the 
 East, (and is so, to a great extent, at present, not only there, 
 but on the continent of Europe,) to express affection and con- 
 fidence by 'the kiss of peace,' Paul exhorts the Roman Chris- 
 tians to salute one another with a holy kiss; i. e., to manifest 
 their Christian love to each other, according to the mode to 
 which they were accustomed. The exercise and manifesta- 
 tion of the feeling, - but not the mode of its expression, are 
 obligatory on us. This is but one example ; there are many 
 other things connected with the manner of conducting public 
 worship, and with the administration of baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper, common in the apostolic churches, which have 
 gone out of use. Christianity is a living principle, and was 
 never intended to be confined to one unvarying set of forms, 
 ver. 16. 
 
 5. It is the duty of Christians to be constantly watchful over 
 the peace and purity of the church, and not to allow those who 
 cause divisions and scandals, by departing from the true doc- 
 trines, to pursue their course unnoticed. With all such we 
 should break off every connection which either sanctions their 
 opinions and conduct, or gives them facilities for effecting 
 evil, ver. 17. 
 
 6. False teachers have ever abounded in the church. All 
 the apostles were called upon earnestly to oppose them. Wit- 
 ness the epistles of Paul, John, Peter, and James. No one of 
 the apostolical epistles is silent on this subject. Good men 
 may indeed hold erroneous doctrines ; but the false teachers, 
 the promoters of heresy and divisions, as a class, are character- 
 ized by Paul as not influenced by a desire to serve Christ, but
 
 ROMANS XVI. 127. 715 
 
 as selfish in their aims, and plausible, flattering, and deceitful 
 in their conduct, ver. 18. 
 
 7. Christians should unite the harmlessness of the dove with 
 the wisdom of the serpent. They should be careful neither to 
 cause divisions or scandals themselves, nor allow others to 
 deceive and beguile them into evil, ver. 19. 
 
 8. However much the church may be distracted and troubled, 
 error and its advocates cannot finally prevail. Satan is a con- 
 quered enemy with a lengthened chain ; God will ultimately 
 bruise him under the feet of his people, ver. 20. 
 
 9. The stability which the church and every Christian should 
 maintain, is a steadfastness, not in forms or matters of human 
 authority, but in the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ. 
 God alone is able thus to make his people stand ; and, there- 
 fore, we should look to him, and depend upon him for our own 
 preservation and the preservation of the church ; and ascribe to 
 him, and not to ourselves, all glory and thanks, vs. 25, 27. 
 
 10. The gospel is a mystery, i. e., a system of truth beyond 
 the power of the human mind to discover, which God has 
 revealed for our faith and obedience. It was formed from eter- 
 nity in the divine mind, revealed by the prophets and apostles, 
 and the preaching of Jesus Christ ; and is, by the command of 
 God, to be made known to all nations, vs. 25, 26. 
 
 11. God alone is wise. He charges his angels with folly; 
 and the wisdom of men is foolishness with him. To God, there- 
 fore, the profoundest reverence and the most implicit submis- 
 sion are due. Men should not presume to call in question what 
 he has revealed, or consider themselves competent to sit in 
 judgment on the truth of his declarations or the wisdom of 
 his plans. To GOD ONLY WISE, BE GLORY, THROUGH JESUS 
 CHRIST, FOR EVER. Amen. 
 
 The subscriptions to this and the other epistles were not added by the 
 sacred writers, but appended by some later and unknown persons. This 10 
 evident, 1. Because it cannot be supposed that the apostles would thus for- 
 mally state (as in this case) what those to whom their letters were addressed 
 must have already known. The Romans had no need to be informed that this 
 epistle was sent by Phebe, if she actually delivered it to them. 2. They ar
 
 716 ROMANS. 
 
 frequently incorrect, and at times contradict the statements made in the epis- 
 tles to which they are appended. Thus the subscription to the first Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, states that it was written from Philippi, whereas Paul, chap, 
 xvi. 8, speaks of himself as being in Ephesns when he was writing. 8. They 
 are either left out entirely by the oldest and best manuscripts and versions, or 
 appear in very different forms. In the present case many MSS. have no sub- 
 scription at all : others simply, "To the Romans;" others, "To the Romans, 
 written from Corinth;" others, "Written to the Romans from Corinth, by 
 Phebe," &c. These subscriptions, therefore, are of no other authority than 
 as evidence of the opinion which prevailed to a certain extent, at an early 
 date, as to the origin of the epistles to which they are attached. Unless con- 
 firmed from other sources, they cannot be relied upon. 
 
 THE BSD.
 
 r 
 
 C V
 
 x> 
 
 AJNIHli 
 ANCfU 
 
 
 fc &* 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 lOSv 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 MNfl-3 
 
 8RARY 
 
 AllFO 
 
 I 
 
 aiAwn-M 
 
 I 
 
 /UBRARY0/ 
 
 
 uil 
 
 MAY 1 02004 
 
 A^njj 
 
 fftflQl* 
 
 ( WlV3-JO^ 
 
 
 F-CAlIFOftfc 
 
 
 wen 
 
 
 ....JO LD- 
 *W Ot i 27 1994 ^ 
 ^OCTZSM 94 
 
 ^ 
 e: 
 
 < 

 
 IRABY0A 
 
 
 
 8 g 
 t i 
 
 
 > 
 
 JMHIWVBB^. ^1 
 
 3 / 
 
 ( u ^ s 
 ^ s vfc-r-| s 
 
 fe^>^ 
 
 1158 on 2145 
 
 ^?UDNV-S01^ "%a3AlNfl3V^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^Aavaan-^ 
 
 I i 
 
 WVER5/A 
 
 ^ 05 
 
 T* O 
 
 
 
 S2 =? 
 
 INIVER5/