LIBRARY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 DENNIS HAMILTON
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
 
 BY PROF. J. M. STIFLER 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans 
 
 A Commentary, Logical and His- 
 torical, izmo, cloth net, 1.25 
 
 " This commentary shows painstaking, honest, 
 careful and discriminating exegesis. The aim has 
 not been to read the author's individual views into 
 the Apostle's words, but to state truly and faithfully 
 the meaning of Paul's teaching, both logically and 
 historically. He has done his work with much 
 intelligence and conscientiousness. He employs a 
 clear, beautiful and forcible style. He evinces a 
 reverent spirit. While manifesting the alertness 
 and thoroughness of the scholar, he exhibits the 
 love and docility of the humble Christian." 
 
 The Examiner. 
 
 An Introduction to the 
 Book of Acts 
 
 i6mo, cloth net, .75 
 
 " For general readers we cannot speak too 
 highly of this book. It marks the great events 
 of this first period subsequent to the death and 
 resurrection of Christ with masterly simplicity and 
 good sense, and performs the work of such an 
 introduction by leaving the outlines and great 
 features of the history strongly impressed on the 
 student's mind. "The Independent.
 
 /THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 
 
 H Commentary 
 
 LOGICAL AND HISTORICAL 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES M^STIFLER, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN CROZER THEOLOGICAL 
 SEMINARY, CHESTER, PA. 
 
 NEW YORK CHICAGO TORONTO 
 
 Fleming H. Revell Company 
 
 Publishers of Evangelical Literature
 
 Copyright, 1897, by 
 FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PACK 
 
 PREFACE . ix 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 1. Origin of the Roman Church. 
 
 2. Time and Place of Writing. 
 
 3. Authenticity and Genuineness. 
 
 4. Occasion and Object. 
 
 5. Peculiarities of the Epistle. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE OUTLOOK 15 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH THE GENTILES . .30 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE ARGUMENT ON SIN CONCLUDED (VERSES 1-20), AND THE 
 SECOND MAIN DIVISION OF THE EPISTLE RIGHTEOUSNESS 
 BEGUN (VERSES 21-31) 45 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH IN HARMONY WITH THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT SCRIPTURES 69 
 
 v
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH SECURES THE FINAL SALVATION OF 
 BELIEVERS , 87 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH DOES NOT FAVOR A SINFUL COURSE 
 OF LIFE ... .106 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 122 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 IN CHRIST JESUS A GODLY LIFE is INSURED BY THE HOLY 
 SPIRIT 140 
 
 CHAPTERS IX-XI 
 THE THEODICY GOD'S PRESENT DEALING WITH THE JEWS . 161 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED . . . . . .165 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT . . . . . 182 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 193 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 RELIGIOUS DUTIES . .217 
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS ....... 229
 
 CONTENTS yii 
 
 * 
 
 PACE 
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 FRATERNAL DUTIES IN MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE . . . 238 
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 DISCUSSION OF FRATERNAL DUTIES CONCLUDED, AND PERSONAL 
 MATTERS 249 
 
 CHAPTER XVI 
 LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH ... .261
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THIS book has no other aim than to make the somewhat difficult Epis- 
 tle to the Romans better understood to report to the reader what the 
 apostle has written. It is not put forth in the interest of any theological 
 system ; it has no theory of any kind to advocate and no point to make, 
 except by dispassionate study to ascertain the meaning of Paul's language. 
 The commentator, even more than the preacher of the gospel, is under 
 solemn obligation not to bear false witness against the sacred penman, not 
 to misinterpret him, not to overlay his thought with personal views ; the 
 commentator's work is to follow down the stream of the inspired text, to 
 measure its width and if possible its depth, but not to dig new channels 
 for it and not to divert its flow to water his own garden. 
 
 This book is not a hasty product, but the result of many years of labor. 
 The author has had the privilege and pleasure of guiding more than 
 twenty classes of theological students through the Epistle to the Romans, 
 fourteen of these using the original text. The instruction has not been 
 given by means of lectures read or dictated by the teacher. Each word 
 and each idea in the epistle have been discussed with the class, every 
 member of which had the utmost liberty to suggest his difficulty, to ask 
 questions, to oppose, to deny, or to call up the contrary view of any com- 
 mentator. This book is the outcome of these years of study and discus- 
 sion. 
 
 While the very words written by the apostle have been considered and 
 weighed one by one, the result is not presented in that form, nor with any 
 but the very least reference to the Greek. There is a large class of men, 
 educated men, who, after all, can read a commentary with most satisfaction 
 and profit in English. This book is especially designed for them. The 
 voluminous works of Meyer and of Godet, even when translated, of Alford, 
 of Sanday and Headlam, and of others, are serviceable only to those 
 having a fair knowledge of Greek. Of the commentaries that have ap- 
 peared since the Reformation, Sanday and Headlam enumerate thirty- 
 five, very few of which can be used by any but scholars. They have their 
 place, and are invaluable in the cloisters of the erudite. But accurate and 
 even expert knowledge can be conveyed in vernacular speech, as is made 
 very apparent in the excellent commentaries of J. A. Beet, of H. G. C. 
 Monle, of M. B. Riddle, the latter not included in Sanday and Headlam's 
 list, and of E. H. Gifford in the " Speaker's Commentary." There is 
 room for more such, in which dry and arbitrary technicalities are not ex- 
 
 iz
 
 X PREFACE 
 
 hibited, in which only the house appears and not the tools, the noise, the 
 dust, and the process of erection. To the commentators above mentioned 
 and to others the author is indebted, and in the body of this work at the 
 appropriate place due credit has been given, Sanday and Headlam being 
 referred to by the first of the two names only. The King James version 
 is used as .the basis of this commentary, because it is the one still more 
 commonly read, and also because it is less presumptuous to criticize it than 
 the other. But the Revised Version is constantly cited, and its better 
 renderings are always given. 
 
 In preparing this book two things have been kept steadily in view. 
 First, Paul's point of view. A commentary cannot be called strictly his- 
 torical unless its exposition is vitally connected with the thought of the 
 times in which the text was written. It is the theologic current and the 
 religious questions of Paul's day, and not those of the present or of any 
 other day, that must furnish the key to the epistle. He wrote in the face 
 of that imposing system of biblical interpretation that claimed Moses for 
 its foundation, that found defenders in every synagogue from Jerusalem 
 to Rome, and that was sure that it knew the way of fellowship with God. 
 The only orthodox people were the sons of Israel, who must not be judged 
 alone by their narrow Pharisaism ; they were sure that by their law they 
 were the sole custodians of the truth of God. The rabbi was not merely 
 zealous, he was often able. In every line that Paul wrote he had Judaism 
 in mind. The historic attitude of the epistle has been one of the guiding 
 lines in preparing this commentary. 
 
 The other and second point constantly aimed at is to give the course of 
 thought without a break. Commenting in the strict sense of the term has 
 not been thought of, except in so far as it was required to show the logical 
 connection. As the language of the epistle is so compact, not a little 
 verbal exposition was found necessary ; but it has been sought to make it 
 strictly subsidiary to that which is of prime importance the apostle's ar- 
 gument. He used words not for their sake, but for the sake of what he 
 had to say, and in the latter sense they have been studied. 
 
 To Dr. Henry G. Weston, who has made the New Testament a daily 
 study for more than half a century, and whose knowledge of it is as pro- 
 found as it is comprehensive, I am greatly indebted ; for while he is not 
 responsible for the views of this commentary, he has kindly read the proof- 
 sheets while the bbok was going through the press, made suggestions, and 
 permitted the use of his name on this page. 
 
 JAMES M. STIFLER. 
 
 CROZER SEMINARY, CHESTER, PA., 
 January, 1897.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 I. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CHURCH is historically obscure. 
 There is no record, and little from which a record can be constructed, either 
 of the date of its beginning or of the agent or agents of its founding. 
 When the Epistle to the Romans was written the church had already a 
 world- wide reputation (i. 8). But little can be inferred from this as to 
 the length of time which the church had already existed. In five years it 
 might have become known ' ' throughout the whole world. " The Thessa- 
 lonian church in less than a year after Paul's first visit was widely known ; 
 for Paul writes them from Corinth (A.D. 52 or 53) : " In every place your 
 faith to Godward is spread abroad ; so that we need not to speak anything " 
 ( I Thess. i. 8). That the Roman church was not much if any older than 
 the earlier Gentile churches is probable. It was a Gentile church. It is 
 not easy to conceive how such a one could have come into existence before 
 the church in Antioch in Syria (Acts xi. 19-21), many years after Pente- 
 cost. And this first Gentile church did not get its authority to be strictly 
 such until after the council in Jerusalem (A.D. 50). The matter and the 
 spirit of the Epistle to the Romans show that the latter were thoroughly 
 settled on the question of their right to be just what they were a Gentile 
 church, grounded on faith in Christ. Now who made them such? Who 
 was qualified to teach them that in Christ there was no distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile, a doctrine that was not promulgated before Peter's visit 
 to the household of Cornelius (Acts x.), and that did not gain authoritative 
 recognition until a " good while " (Acts xv.) afterward? It seems almost 
 necessary to believe that the Roman church was founded by teachers from 
 some of the Gentile centers, and that, too, after such teachers had come 
 to clear vision of the intent of the gospel for Gentiles as such, and that 
 they could be saved as Gentiles. The Gentile character of the church is 
 now pretty generally admitted, and this admission makes necessary the 
 other, that its founders must have been men of Paul's way of presenting 
 the gospel. 
 
 This disposes of two theories in reference to the establishment of the 
 gospel in the imperial city. First, it could not have been carried thither 
 by the " strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes " (Acts ii. 10), who 
 were present at Pentecost. How could these men have founded a Gentile 
 church? The door to the heathen was not opened until years after the 
 descent of the Spirit. It would be a much better guess to say that some 
 from the household of Cornelius (Acts x.) carried to Rome the news of a 
 Saviour for the Gentiles.
 
 xii INTRODUCTION 
 
 Again, there is no reason for saying that Peter evangelized the Romans. 
 He was not the apostle to the uncircumcision (Gal. ii. 7, 8). The senti- 
 ment that guided Paul in choosing his fields of labor (xv. 20) precludes the 
 belief that Peter had been at Rome before him. " It is equally clear," 
 says Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, " that no other apostle was the founder." How 
 the seed came to be dropped that sprang up in this Roman church, or 
 from whose hands, remains in obscurity ; but it is safe to say that it was 
 the gospel as Paul preached it that gave the Romans their first knowledge 
 of Christ. It is equally safe to say that that gospel could not have been 
 preached until some years after Pentecost not until it was formulated. 
 The " many years " mentioned by Paul in xv. 23 need not mean more than 
 eight or ten (see Acts xxiv. 17) ; and it is difficult on account of his his- 
 tory, as given in the Book of Acts, to see how they can embrace any more. 
 
 2. THE TIME AND PLACE of the writing of the epistle are well known. 
 The data are furnished in the Book of Acts and in the epistle itself and in 
 others written near the same time. Paley (" Horse Paulinae ") says the 
 time and place are found, " not from the epistle nor from anything de- 
 clared concerning the time and place in any part of the epistle, but from a 
 comparison of circumstances referred to in the epistle, with the order of 
 events recorded in the Acts, and with references to the same circumstances, 
 though for quite different purposes, in the two epistles to the Corinthians." 
 This "comparison of circumstances" Paley draws out in an argument 
 that is unanswerable, not, indeed, for the actual, but for the relative time. 
 He states his conclusion thus: "We have these circumstances each by 
 some hint in the passage in which it is mentioned, or by the date of the 
 writing in which the passage occurs fixed to a particular time; and we 
 have that time turning out upon examination to be in all the same, namely, 
 toward the close of St. Paul's second visit to the peninsula of Greece." 
 According to the system of chronology generally admitted now to be 
 correct, this " time" was the early spring of A.D. 58, and the place was 
 Corinth. In this second visit to Greece, Paul's third missionary tour, he 
 stayed three months at Corinth (Acts xx. 3). This must have been in the 
 spring, for when he was about to leave navigation was possible, |and 
 though he was compelled to take the land route to Jerusalem, " through 
 Macedonia," he reached the latter country before the Passover (Acts xx. 
 6), and hoped " to be at. Jerusalem the day of Pentecost" (Acts xx. 16). 
 This gives us the season of the year to which the writing of the epistle 
 belongs, for it was penned just as he was leaving Corinth," But now I 
 go unto Jerusalem " (xv. 25), in the month of January or February. 
 
 It is not the intention to attempt to demonstrate either the problem of 
 time and place or several others belonging to this Introduction. This 
 would be simply to repeat what may be found in every Bible diction- 
 ary and in the numerous recent introductions to the Pauline epistles. 
 Furthermore, there is little need of proving what is nowhere seriously 
 disputed. What Lightfoot wrote about Romans more than a quarter of a 
 century ago is undisputed to-day: " The date of this epistle is fixed with 
 more absolute certainty and within narrower limits than that of any other 
 of St. Paul's epistles" (Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," article 
 " Romans "). He might have spoken with equal confidence about the 
 place. 
 
 3. THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS of the epistle are both be-
 
 INTRODUCTION xiii 
 
 yond doubt. No book in the New Testament is better attested. The ex- 
 ternal testimony begins with Clement of Rome (A.D. 96), who is followed 
 by Ignatius (A.D. 115), Polycarp (A.D. 116), Marcion (A.D. 130), the 
 Muratori canon (A.D. 170), and others, both friends and foes, to the num- 
 ber of nineteen, before the end of the second century. Of the beginning 
 of the same century Sanday, in the Introduction to his commentary, page 
 Ixxx., section 8, says: "Assuming, then, as we are entitled to do, that 
 the apostolic fathers represent the first quarter of the second century, we 
 find the Epistle to the Romans at that time widely read, treated as a stan- 
 dard authority on apostolic teaching, and taking its place in a collection of 
 Pauline letters." Neither the heretic Marcion in that ancient time nor 
 the rationalist Baur in our day has been able to deny that Paul wrote this 
 epistle, and that we possess in its present form what the apostle wrote. 
 Such a denial has not been attempted until within the last ten or fifteen 
 years, when certain Dutch and German critics Steck, Michelsen, Voelter, 
 and others have made it. They ignore the undisputed testimony of the 
 apostolic fathers, and put nothing in its place but impossible theories 
 based on their own subjective views. Their criticism has hardly created 
 a ripple in the smooth current of clear testimony to the canonicity of the 
 epistle. Sanday, who examines some of these views and acknowledges 
 his indebtedness to Knowling's " The Witness of the Epistles," concludes : 
 " It has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which 
 will seem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating, so sub- 
 jective and arbitrary is the whole criticism." 
 
 But Marcion, unequivocal in his witness to the genuineness of Romans, 
 assailed its integrity. He did not deny that Paul wrote the last two 
 chapters, but denied for some reason that they belonged to this epistle. 
 It was not until Baur's day and that of his followers that they were declared 
 spurious. From some cause they are not found in many cursive manu- 
 scripts, the doxology (xvi. 25-27) being appended at the end of chapter 
 xiv. 
 
 Baur's objections, somewhat plausible as to chapter xvi., are not formi- 
 dable. The question is noticed in the body of this commentary at the head 
 of chapter xv., and briefly in the notes on the last chapter. It remains to 
 say against the cursive manuscripts that all the great uncials, together with 
 the Syriac and Vulgate versions and all the Latin fathers, place the dox- 
 ology just where it is found in our King James version. The textual 
 critics, from Lachmann to Westcott and Hort, do the same; so, too, Wey- 
 mouth and the Canterbury revision. One of the objections to chapter 
 xvi., that Paul could not have known so many persons in Rome, is scarce 
 worth noticing. And lastly, Paley, in the same section quoted above, in 
 making eight points in favor of the genuineness of the epistle, finds most 
 of them in these two chapters. In proving the epistle he proves the 
 genuineness of these two chapters, and he does it with a lucidity and a 
 weight of logic that no subjective criticism can possibly overthrow, unless 
 a subjective objection is made to outweigh a solid argument. 
 
 4. THE OCCASION AND OBJECT of the epistle are not clearly apparent 
 on its pages. These are not hard to find in some of the other Pauline let- 
 ters. No one had come to Paul to report disorders and divisions at Rome 
 such as moved him to write to the Corinthians (i Cor. i. n), and he had 
 not received a letter of inquiry from Rome (i Cor. vii. i). The Romans
 
 xiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 were neither divided nor disorderly. Their faith was world-wide in its 
 reputation (i. 8), and they were full of goodness (xv. 14). The Romans 
 were in no danger from Judaizing teachers as were the Galatians, so that 
 Paul, in sore apprehension, must write them not to abandon the liberty 
 in Christ (Gal. v. l) for the bondage of the law. There is scarce a hint, 
 or but one hint, that the Romans were in any danger from false teachers 
 (xvi. 17-19). Again, as to the Romans, Paul need not send to know 
 their faith, as in the case of the Thessalonians (i Thess. iii. 5), and to 
 exhort them to remain steadfast in the persecutions that had come upon 
 them, for the Romans were not persecuted when the epistle to them was 
 written. 
 
 (a) The date (A.D. 58) and the place of writing (Corinth) being settled, 
 the occasion becomes apparent. Paul had long desired to see Rome, as 
 he declares twice in the epistle (i. 13 ; xv. 23) and once in Acts (xix. 2l). 
 He was now at their very doors, but still could not make the intended 
 visit ; other work must be done first (xv. 25), and only " after that " could 
 he see Rome (Acts xix. 21). An explanation is also due the Romans for 
 his long-continued delay in coming to them (i. 9, 10 ; xv. 22). The next 
 best thing can be done. Phebe is about to make a journey to Rome, and 
 Paul will take this opportunity to write to the Roman church. 
 
 (b) In seeking the object of the epistle, the topics discussed, the con- 
 tents, and the argument must be kept in view. The topics are sin, grace, 
 law, and brotherly love. There is but a word about the person of Christ ; 
 resurrection (see notes on i. 5, p. 18) is assumed ; eschatology, as it ap- 
 pears in other epistles, is wanting; the church as such is mentioned but 
 once in the epistle, and that almost at its close and incidentally (xvi. 23). 
 In its topics the epistle is far from comprehensive. 
 
 As to its contents, there are four grand divisions. After the salutation 
 (i. 17) and the introduction (i. 815), leading up to the theme of the 
 epistle (i. 16, 17), these follow: I. Sin (i. i8-iii. 20); 2. Righteousness 
 (iii. 21 viii.); 3. The Theodicy (ix.-xi.); 4. Christian Walk (xii. xvi.). 
 
 The argument is readily discovered in the epistle. On the main points 
 there can be little difference of opinion among exegetes, and no serious 
 conflict in the details. The " Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle 
 to the Romans " (1893), by Canon H. P. Liddon, is minute and exhaus- 
 tive. Sanday's analysis is, however, more practical, being, as it is, com- 
 pact and clear. But in studying the object of the epistle minuteness is 
 not as necessary as clear and broad outline. We may follow, with some 
 changes, that of Professor M. W. Jacobus in his article (" Presbyterian 
 Quarterly," January, 1893), " Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans," a 
 discussion both comprehensive and satisfactory : 
 
 I. The first general division, viz., the dogmatic presentation of the gos- 
 pel righteousness as opposed to the alleged law righteousness (i. i8-viii. 
 39), which division is subdivided into two parts : 
 
 (A) The necessity of the gospel righteousness (i. i8-iii. 20), which 
 necessity is evidenced by the impossibility of a law righteousness. 
 
 (a) On the part of the heathen (i. 18-32). 
 
 (b) On the part of the Jew (ii. l-iii. 20). 
 
 Having reached this conclusion, the apostle is ready to give : 
 
 (B) The positive presentation of this gospel righteousness (iii. 2i-viii. 
 39), arranged in the following order :
 
 INTRODUCTION rv 
 
 (a) The historical fact of the provision of this gospel righteousness (iii. 
 21-26), that excludes all boasting (iii. 27-30). 
 
 (6) Its agreement with the Old Testament Scriptures (iii. 3i-iv. 25). 
 
 (c) Its surety for the present and all the future (v. 121). 
 
 (d) Its result in the sanctification of the individual believer (vi. i-viii. 
 
 39). 
 
 (1) He is dead to sin (vi. 1-23). 
 
 (2) He is freed from the law as a means of sanctification (vii. 1-25). 
 
 (3) He has the power of the Spirit (viii. 1-39). 
 Then follows : 
 
 II. The second general division, viz., the presentation of the facts in 
 the case regarding Israel's present rejection (ix. i-xi. 36). 
 
 (a) God is righteous in rejecting, free in electing (ix. 133). 
 
 (6) Israel's responsibility in the rejection (x. 1-21). 
 
 (c) God's gracious plan in his present dealing with Israel (xi. 1-36). 
 
 III. The epistle concludes with a presentation of the Christian conduct 
 flowing from gospel righteousness (xii. i-xv. 13), which presentation 
 subdivides as follows : 
 
 (a) Conduct as a member of the Christian body (xii. 1-21). 
 
 (1) In exercising special spiritual gifts (xii. I 8). 
 
 (2) In the requirement of love (xii. 921). 
 
 (6) Conduct as a subject of the state (xiii. 1-7). 
 
 (c) Conduct toward the other subjects of the state (xiii. 8-14). 
 
 (d) Conduct in questions of conscience (xiv. i-xv. 13). 
 
 That which remains (xv. I4~xvi. 27) is epistolary, like i. 1-17, and does 
 not belong directly to the argument. 
 
 Now to recall what Paul has not said in this epistle, and to observe the 
 trend and climax of his argument, must lead to the discovery of his main 
 design in writing. The theodicy is the striking peculiarity of the epistle. 
 The climax of the argument is the close of the eleventh chapter (verses 
 28-36), God's interaction between the two permanent divisions of man- 
 kind, with a view to the future salvation of both. The theodicy is not an 
 episode; it is that toward which the argument moves from the start. 
 Paul begins (i. 2) with the assertion that the gospel accords with " the 
 Holy Scriptures." Beginning the third chapter, he declares (iii. 2) that 
 these "oracles" pertain peculiarly to the Jews. This assertion alone 
 made the thexxiicy necessary, and it was already sighted from this point. 
 The fourth diapter, which shows the agreement between the Old and 
 New Testament justification, seems at first sight to be strikingly like Gala- 
 tians iii. But there is one marked difference. Galatians makes very clear 
 that Abraham is the father of the Gentiles ; the fourth chapter of Romans 
 insists on the other point, that he is also father of the Jews, which is not 
 found in Galatians except by implication. In Romans Paul from first to 
 last preserves an even balance between Jew and Gentile ; they are sinners 
 alike (i. i8-iii. 20); the heads of the race, Adam and Christ (chap, v.), 
 embrace Jew and Gentile alike ; the law can sanctify neither Jew nor Gen- 
 tile (chap. vii.). When the argument reaches the eighth chapter we find 
 a striking peculiarity, a detailed prediction of the glorification of creation 
 (viii. 19-23). Only an argument that leads to the demonstration of the 
 salvation of the Jew nationally can make necessary this section about 
 glorified creation, for the Jew s oracles did not promise him heaven, a
 
 xvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 word which occurs but twice in the epistle once to tell of the " wrath 
 from heaven " (i. 18), and again to forbid ascent thither for justifying 
 help (x. 6). The Gentile salvation (Phil. iii. 20, 21) may be unlike that of the 
 ancient oracles ; but the latter are still living, to be made good to the Jew. 
 
 Paul's evangelistic work was well-nigh done. It needed but the capstone 
 of his visit to Rome, from which city, in less than four years after this 
 epistle was written, and two of those years were consumed in getting 
 there, he sends out the triumphant message that the gospel "was preached 
 to every creature which is under heaven " (Col. i. 23). Indeed, before this 
 it had " prevailed" (Acts xix. 20) with the close of the apostle's work at 
 Ephesus. The time has come to survey the field. Paul is standing in 
 thought on the platform of Judaism. His outlook is from Jerusalem, 
 where every one of his missionary journeys terminated. He sees the 
 danger a danger, alas! long ago realized that a gospel of grace that 
 reduces the Jew for salvation to the level of the Gentile, in blotting 
 out Judaism as a means of approach to God may blot out the Jew. 
 What does it mean that at the very beginning he reminds these Romans 
 that this salvation in Christ is " first " to the Jew? Outside the present 
 grace Jew and Gentile are kept wholly separate from beginning to end of 
 the epistle. Let the Gentile not boast. This is his day ; that of the Jew 
 is coming. Paul must insist that no man, Jew or Gentile, can now or 
 ever hereafter be saved, except by faith. This was good for all, but hard 
 for the Jew to accept. God's plan is to bring him to an acceptance of it, 
 that he may have mercy on him as he has had on the Gentile ; and mean- 
 while let the Gentile remember not only that this is coming, but that his 
 own ultimate triumph cannot come until mercy to the Jew appears. 
 
 To this view of the object of the epistle modern thought is coming. 
 Jacobus says in the article cited above : ' ' Paul's purpose was to correct 
 the attitude of the Gentile element in the church at Rome. They were 
 exalting his gospel at the expense of the Jew. His plan in writing the 
 epistle, therefore, was to take up this gospel of his . . . and show that, 
 after all, it did not ignore the Jew either as an essential element in the 
 Christian church or as the still unbelieving people outside of it ; in other 
 words, that his Gentile gospel was not to be overpressed and placed in 
 opposition to all the revelation and work of God so far." 
 
 Sanday comes to substantially the same conclusion : " Clearly this ques- 
 tion belongs to the later reflective stage of the controversy relating to Jew 
 and Gentile. The active contending for Gentile liberties would come first, 
 the philosophic or theologic assignment of the due place of Jew and Gen- 
 tile in the divine scheme would come afterward. This more advanced 
 stage has now been reached." Salvation by grace is final. There never 
 will be any other means of saving men. But the results so far seen are 
 far from final, and let not the Gentile confound these two. Grace for the 
 present has saved him and left outside the nation from which it first went 
 abroad. The theodicy, the culmination of the epistle, tells why the Jew 
 is thus left for the present, but it sees his glory in the future. Let the 
 Gentile not shut his eyes to it. 
 
 5. THE PECULIARITIES of the epistle demand attention. The first that 
 strikes one is its world-wide view its universalism. In all time and in 
 all nations men are sinners. God's wrath is not a flash of lightning ; it 
 gleams from the whole heaven. Sin and grace are traced to their ultimate
 
 INTRODUCTION xvii 
 
 sources in Adam and in Christ. The law as a means of salvation is swept 
 away at one stroke. The salvation is considered not in its relation to a 
 single soul or even a single church, but in its relation to the creation itself 
 and to every nation in it. When it comes to duties, they are also com- 
 prehensively treated. Love is the universal principle, and the believer is 
 looked at in his relation to the state, to the church, to his neighbor, to his 
 brother, and to himself. 
 
 The eloquence of the epistle cannot be overlooked. Other epistles have 
 eloquent passages, like I Corinthians xiii. and xv. or Ephesians iii. 8-21 ; 
 but in this epistle there are such passages in almost every chapter (i. 16- 
 23 ; ii. 4-1 1 ; iii. 21-26, etc.), but notably the conclusions of both chapter 
 viii. and chapter xi. The whole epistle is marked by a sustained elevation 
 of thought and sentiment. This universalism and eloquence befit an 
 epistle to the world's capital an epistle that deals with the world's destiny 
 through its two divisions of men, Jew and Gentile. 
 
 In its style the epistle is marked by great energy, but not with vehe- 
 mence. It is the resistless flow of a broad, deep river, noiseless, but ever 
 onward. But this is true of the argument rather than of the words that 
 convey it, which move rapidly and are often warm with the writer's earnest 
 feeling. His feeling throughout is more uniform than in some of his other 
 epistles ; not as calm as in Ephesians, but more so than in Galatians ; but 
 sometimes, as in ix. 1-5, xi. 33-36, it rises to great intensity. The 
 epistle is the masterpiece of the apostle, in which the gospel in its strictest 
 sense is methodically unfolded and shown in its widest connection. All 
 men, Jew and Gentile, are lost, " being justified freely by his [God's] 
 grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus " (iii. 24).
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 
 
 CHAPTER I* 
 
 THE OUTLOOK 
 
 As Paul was the preacher of a world-wide gospel, a gospel 
 suited to every moral and national condition, he comes be- 
 fore the Romans in this character. The first chapter gives a 
 wide survey. It glances at the Scriptures as a whole, recalls 
 their ancient promise of a Saviour, outlines Paul's extended 
 labors, and presents the religious history of the Gentile world 
 from the beginning. It has three topics: (i) the salutation 
 (verses 1-7); (2) Paul's fraternal introduction (verses 8-17); 
 (3) the guilt of the Gentile world in all time (verses 19-32). 
 In discussing this last topic, the course of thought is that (a) 
 God's wrath is revealed against the sins of all men (verse 18), 
 because (b) all men know his will (verse 190) ; (c) they know 
 it, for he himself has revealed it in nature (verses 19/5, 20) ; (d) 
 men rejected the light given, and in devising their own came 
 into darkness (verses 21,22); (<) in this darkness they fell into 
 idolatry (verses 23-25), sensuality (verses 26, 27), and every 
 other kind of immorality (verses 28-32). 
 
 J. In the salutation (verses 1-7) the writer first identi- 
 fies himself. At the time he wrote he was already so well 
 
 * The divisions in this book are, both as to the chapters and verses, 
 those of the epistle itself. 
 
 15
 
 16 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 2, 3) 
 
 known at Rome that he need give only his name, Paul. As 
 to his relation to Jesus Christ, he was a bond-servant. As to 
 his office, he was one sent forth, an apostle. As to his right 
 to this office, his authority, he was specifically called. As to 
 the limits of his work, he was separated from everything else 
 and confined to the gospel, the message from God. His duty 
 was narrow, excluding even the administration of the initiatory 
 ordinance (i Cor. i. 17). 
 
 2. With the second verse he begins the exaltation of his sub- 
 ject the message from God. First, it is not novel. God prom- 
 ised it long before by means of " his prophets." The latter get 
 their dignity and authority in the little word "his." They 
 were God's own. How much would have been lost if, instead 
 of " his," Paul had used the word " the " ! The prophets were 
 not an evo'utionary product of their times, there were many 
 such (2 Chron. xviii. ; Matt. vii. 22, 23), but men endowed 
 with God's Spirit to foresee the gospel message. It was re- 
 corded in Scriptures which are " holy." The emphasis is on 
 the word " holy." It calls attention to the character of these 
 writings. By means of these two words, " his " and " holy," 
 Paul shows the lofty and unique origin of the gospel message. 
 If any should accuse him of promulgating a new gospel his 
 answer is that his message was foretold for hundreds of years. 
 It is in harmony with the Bible of that day. And this is not 
 a mere ad hominem argument against the Jews. He virtually 
 declares that their Bible was itself a supernatural product. The 
 Old Testament is the documentary defense of the gospel. 
 
 3. To show still further the glory of the gospel he mentions, 
 secondly, its exalted theme. It is concerning God's Son, Jesus 
 Christ. The first word in this verse joins it either with the end 
 of the first verse, "gospel of God," or with the word "prom- 
 ised " in the second verse. The sense is about the same with 
 either connection. 
 
 Jesus Christ, the theme of the gospel story, is declared to be
 
 (I. 4) THE OUTLOOK 17 
 
 preeminent both on his human and on his divine side. The 
 antithesis in the phrases " according to the flesh " and " ac- 
 cording to the spirit " does not lie in the sphere of his person, 
 but in his relations. He was one person, but he belonged to 
 two realms. According to the flesh, looked at in his connec- 
 tion with the race, his origin was the very highest. He was 
 princely, being descended from the royal family of David. 
 According to the spirit of holiness, that is, looked at in his 
 connection with the realm above, he was higher than all 
 angels (Heb. i. 4) : he was the Son of God. The relation of 
 the two natures in Christ's person is not thought of. That 
 question was not raised in Paul's day. Neither would it suit 
 the context. Paul is magnifying the theme of the gospel. It 
 is about a being the most exalted, whether viewed in his human 
 or in his divine relations. The twofold antithetic statement 
 shows its significance when applied, as it well can be, to an- 
 other. It could be said of David, as to his flesh, as to his 
 origin as a man, he was the son of Jesse, or even the son of 
 Judah ; as to his relation to God, he was the declared and ac- 
 knowledged king of Israel. It would be absurd to ask now, 
 about the person of David, what part was merely natural or 
 human and what was royal or kingly. He was a man and a 
 king both at the same time. And so of Jesus : he was the son 
 of David and the Son of God. Of course the latter relation 
 involved an appropriate nature, but that nature is not the 
 question here. 
 
 4. Because the terms " flesh " and " spirit " designate not 
 what was in Christ as constituent of his person, but two exter- 
 nal and converging agencies, at whose point of contact he ap- 
 peared historically, it is not Paul's purpose to show what Christ 
 is, but how he was declared to be what he is. His resurrection 
 powerfully asserted his Sonship. The rising from the dead did 
 not create him a Son. This very passage says he was born so. 
 The gospel according to the text is about "his [God's] Son, who
 
 18 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 5) 
 
 was born." The word " made " of the King James version is 
 abandoned by recent translations. The three phrases begin- 
 ning at " with," " according," and " by " give respectively the 
 manner, the measure, and the means or cause of the declara- 
 tion of Christ's Sonship. 
 
 5, But Paul mentions the resurrection for an additional pur- 
 poseto give the source and character of his own apostolic 
 grace. Immediately upon this mention he adds "through 
 whom" through this raised Christ "we received grace and 
 apostleship." This is all-important. It gives at one stroke the 
 point of view from which Paul will discuss the gospel ; not from 
 the side of the incarnation, but from the side of the resurrec- 
 tion (2 Cor. v. 1 6). It is not always noted that this is the 
 epistleof the resurrection, resurrection not of the body, alluded 
 to only twice in the epistle (iv. 17 ; viii. 10), and both times 
 by an unusual word, but resurrection as the central potency 
 of salvation. Both justification and sanctification are secured 
 by it. " He was raised again for our justification." We are 
 "married to another, even to him who was raised from the 
 dead," that we might bring forth fruit unto God. The subject 
 is mentioned in i. 4 ; iv. 17, 24, 25 ; v. 10 ; vi. 4, 5, 9 ; vii. 4 ; 
 viii. ii, 34 ; x. 9 ; and possibly xi. 15. But this occurrence of 
 the word is but the outcropping here and there of the granite 
 ledge that lies everywhere underneath the epistle and on which 
 it is based. 
 
 In this fifth verse Paul has come around to that with which 
 he started in the first. There he was an apostle. Here now, 
 by means of what intervenes, he shows the dignity and char- 
 acter of his apostleship. It is from a raised Christ, who was 
 promised in the Scriptures. Hence the Scriptures predict the 
 resurrection, and hence, too, the gospel according to Paul is 
 universal. It is not Jewish, but world-wide, a gospel for the 
 Gentiles, for by resurrection Jesus transcended all Jewish con- 
 nection and became the world's Saviour, a Saviour not by obe-
 
 (I. 6, 7) THE OUTLOOK 19 
 
 dience to law which was Mosaic, but by the power of an endless 
 life. Life is universal. Thus Paul, by linking his apostolate 
 with the raised Christ, gives first the character of this epistle, 
 and secondly its scope. It is the epistle of divine life in Christ 
 Jesus for all nations, on the condition of faith. 
 
 6, 7. After his profound prelude, Paul, in the sixth verse, 
 reassures his readers, declaring that they are embraced in the 
 intent of the gospel; then comes the salutation proper. It 
 connects with the first verse, that which lies between verses 2 
 and 6 being, so to speak, parenthetical. 
 
 Two things may be observed in this salutation. First, like 
 most of them (see especially Gal. i. 1-5), it involves the germ 
 of all that follows. It has four items : the writer has a mes- 
 sage in accord with the Scriptures ; it is from the risen Christ ; 
 it is universal ; and it is for obedience to the faith. These are 
 the leading thoughts of the epistle. 
 
 Secondly, this salutation is striking in that it implicitly as- 
 serts the cardinal points of the gospel history, " the fundamental 
 facts of Christianity." The epistle was written within thirty 
 years after Jesus Christ trod the earth. This cannot be denied. 
 It is generally admitted. And this salutation asserts now that 
 the main facts of the gospel were in accord with Old Testament 
 prediction ; it asserts the incarnation and the resurrection, and 
 that these Romans, qualified to weigh the facts, had responded 
 with implicit faith in them. What they trusted then men may 
 safely trust now. 
 
 Having addressed the Romans formally and officially, Paul 
 now writes personally. One cannot fail to see between the 
 lines that the Romans had expected him to visit them before 
 this time, and that Paul is justifying himself for his failure to 
 meet that expectation. Rome was the capital of the Gentile 
 world, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles ; why did he 
 not come to them? Why spend years in the provinces? Once 
 before he had been at their very doors (Acts xviii. 1-18) and
 
 20 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 8-16) 
 
 had turned away from them, and now he was about to do so 
 again (cf. Acts xix. 21 with xx. 3 ; Rom. xv. 25). This intro- 
 duction has this state of things in full view. 
 
 8-J3. He is not indifferent about the spiritual welfare of the 
 Roman church. He thanks God by means of Jesus Christ for 
 their faith, already known throughout the Roman empire. This 
 wide reputation implies that at this date there was a general 
 diffusion of the gospel. And since there is no other to testify, 
 he calls God to witness that he makes unceasing prayer for 
 them. He prays also that God would prosper him in a jour- 
 ney to them. He longs to see them, that he may help them 
 and may be helped by them. He declares to them the fact 
 that he has again and again tried to come to them, but was 
 hindered. He covets the same fruit among them that he has 
 found among other Gentiles. All this is neither the spirit nor 
 the conduct of one not their friend. 
 
 J4* It is not without some vehemence there is no connect- 
 ing word introducing this verse that he professes his obliga- 
 tion to men of every tongue, " Greeks and Barbarians," and to 
 men of every degree of culture, " wise and foolish." In these 
 categories his readers would be classed with the Greeks and the 
 wise, ior the word " Greek " in the New Testament is not 
 strictly an ethnic term (Acts vii. 26). 
 
 J5. In accordance with this acknowledged obligation Paul 
 declares his readiness to preach at Rome. He is master of his 
 purpose, but not of his circumstances. 
 
 16. " For I am not ashamed of the gospel of [concerning] 
 Christ." If any one in Rome either said or thought that Paul 
 did not come to the capital because he distrusted the gospel for 
 that field, this is his answer. And the reason he is not ashamed 
 of it is because it is God's power effecting salvation in every 
 believer. Power of any kind is in honor among men, and divine 
 power can put no man to the blush. In this brief sentence Paul 
 has packed three rich facts : first, the effect of the gospel sal-
 
 (I. 17) THE OUTLOOK 21 
 
 vation , secondly, the extent it is world- wide, to "every one" ; 
 and thirdly, its condition faith in Jesus Christ. Paul con- 
 templates men of every land and of every degree of culture. 
 If they have discovered or if they can discover any other means 
 of salvation than the gospel, it has nothing to boast of ; it no 
 longer stands alone. But he is not ashamed to present it to 
 the civilized and the learned, for culture has not brought them 
 salvation, nor even the means of it. 
 
 J7. This verse gives the very point of the effectiveness of 
 the gospel. Certainly he is righteous before God who follows 
 God's means of righteousness. And the gospel alone reveals 
 this righteousness. In what it unveils lies its power. Right- 
 eousness means conformity to the divine claims on man. This 
 conformity is reached by means of faith. On man's part faith 
 is the righteousness (iv. 5). The phrase "from faith to faith" 
 is to be joined not with the verb "revealed," but with the 
 word "righteousness." The apostle is not concerned here 
 with the mode of the revelation, but with the character of that 
 which is revealed. It is a by-faith righteousness. So far as 
 the message of the gospel is concerned, the revelation is purely 
 objective. To connect the phrase in question, as many able 
 commentators do, with the verb " revealed " makes the power 
 of the gospel to lie in the manner in which it discloses salva- 
 tion, rather than in what it discloses, and the gospel itself to 
 be unknown but by an experience of it. Paul is first of all and 
 most of all describing the righteousness objectively, and only 
 incidentally showing how it is to be attained. The latter he 
 does further on. 
 
 The phrase " from faith to faith " is, literally, " out of faith 
 into faith." The righteousness provided by God is seen to be 
 one that springs out of faith ; it is one adapted only to (into) 
 faith. The phrase might be rendered " by faith for faith," in 
 which its simple meaning is seen that it is a righteousness 
 wholly by faith ; just as it might be said of a healing ointment,
 
 22 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 18) 
 
 it is a remedy by rubbing, a remedy for rubbing, and not a 
 remedy for or by any other use. 
 
 As this means of salvation involves the chief element in the 
 gospel, and the point at which it departs from the Pharisees' 
 teaching of Paul's day, he quotes their own Scriptures to show 
 that he is not inventing something new. As in Habakkuk's 
 day, so now men live by faith. It is not a proof-text, but it 
 indicates decisively that there is harmony between the gospel 
 and the law. 
 
 With the eighteenth verse of this first chapter the discussion 
 begins. Under the first topic, the universality of sin, Paul be- 
 gins with the Gentile world. There is not much argument on 
 this point. A mere statement of the facts was sufficient to gain 
 the consent of all his readers. When he comes to speak of the 
 sinfulness of the Jew (chap, ii.) he resorts to proofs. 
 
 J8 The " for " is not specific, but comprehensive. It looks 
 at all that Paul has just been saying. He is not ashamed of 
 the gospel. The gospel would be nothing if men were not 
 guilty and in need of the rescue which the gospel alone can 
 afford. The gospel alone reveals the means of salvation, for 
 everywhere else there is no revelation except of wrath. The 
 eighteenth verse, about wrath, gives significance to the preced- 
 ing two, about grace. Sin is the measure of salvation. Only 
 they know what it is to be saved who know what it is to be 
 lost. All heresy has its source in wrong or feeble conceptions 
 of sin. " As with churches, so with individuals, the estimate of 
 sin determines everything" ("Hulsean Lectures," 1874, p. 14). 
 The power of the gospel need not shame one, for everywhere 
 else God's wrath, from which it can save, is revealed. 
 
 This wrath or holy anger is universally revealed, " from 
 heaven." Men in all ages have been aware that the Power 
 above frowned upon them for their deeds. These deeds fall 
 under two heads : " ungodliness," a denial of the character or 
 essence of God, and " unrighteousness," a denial of his rule.
 
 (I. 19-21) THE OUTLOOK 23 
 
 The blackness of their sin is that they " hold " or withhold the 
 truth in unrighteousness. 
 
 J9. The assertion that they so withhold the truth and are 
 amenable to God's wrath is justified on the ground (" because ") 
 that what may be known of God that is, "the truth" is 
 manifest in them. They know the truth. They know it be- 
 cause God has showed it to them. They have had a teacher 
 who could not fail in his work. The steps so far are three : 
 God's wrath is righteously revealed against men ; it is so re- 
 vealed because men know and will not do ; they know because 
 God himself was their instructor. Their sin, then, is wilful 
 opposition to the revealed truth about God and from God. 
 
 20. This verse tells first how the revelation was given " by 
 the things that were made." Creation is revelation. Secondly, 
 it tells how long the revelation has been in existence "from 
 the creation of the world." God created man, and from the 
 beginning the Creator could be known by that which he cre- 
 ated (Acts xvii. 29). Thirdly, the verse tells what has been re- 
 vealed " the invisible things of him," that is, " his eternal power 
 and Godhead," or divinity. There never was a time when the 
 divine personality did not reveal himself to men. God's 
 works constitute his earliest and his universal Bible. It was 
 open and legible. " The dim light of nature " is a phrase of 
 fiction, not of fact. His invisible things are "clearly" seen. 
 That first Bible in the sky above (Ps. xix.), the earth beneath, 
 and in the heart of man was not written, but it was read, read 
 to men by God himself, " God hath showed it unto them," 
 so that they are without excuse. It was not from lack of 
 knowledge that men sinned, but in spite of it. Sin was not 
 an infirmity, not an inability from lack of development in 
 primitive men, but a wilful refusal to conform to the teaching 
 given by God. 
 
 2J. The last verse closed with the statement that men in 
 all ages, the Gentiles, were without excuse under the wrath
 
 24 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 22) 
 
 of God. This verse restates and expands the reason : " Be- 
 cause that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as 
 God, neither were thankful." This is the "ungodliness and 
 unrighteousness" of the eighteenth verse. They knew him; 
 this is plainly asserted ; but they did not respect his person by 
 giving him worship, neither did they acknowledge his benefits 
 by giving thanks. They withheld the truth, the knowledge 
 of God, in their unrighteousness; and a negative or neutral 
 position before God is impossible. As they refused to follow 
 the light, they were brought to folly in their thoughts "be- 
 came vain in their [corrupt] reasonings, and their foolish [sense- 
 less] heart was darkened." The intellectual revolt against 
 what they knew to be right was attended by a darkening of 
 the whole understanding. The refusal to accept the truth 
 destroys the power to discriminate between truth and error. 
 
 This is Paul's general survey of the religious history of the 
 race from the beginning. In his earlier days man was mono- 
 theistic* His development has not been upward, but down- 
 ward, not toward God, but from him. The prime error lay 
 in seeking to know God while denying the evidence which he 
 himself has given of his character and personality. God 
 manifested himself unmistakably ; but instead of worship and 
 praise, the two eyes without which God cannot be seen, men 
 betook themselves to vain reasoning. " The world by wis- 
 dom knew not God" (i Cor. i. 21). God knows how to re- 
 veal himself in nature, and to-day in his Word. He is quali- 
 fied to give evidence of himself. In man's estimation it may 
 be insufficient and even absurd; he may see no evidence of 
 God in nature, and nothing but patchwork in the Bible ; but 
 one word from either source is worth more than all human 
 speculation. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men" 
 (i Cor. i. 25). 
 
 22. "They became fools." This is the writer's, not to 
 say God's, estimate of the philosophers and religious leaders
 
 (I. 23) THE OUTLOOK 25 
 
 of the race. He knew the boasted wisdom of the Euphrates 
 and of the Nile, the learning of Hellas and of Rome. We 
 know it to-day. But there is this difference : there are those 
 in our time who see no generic difference between these ethnic 
 sages and the prophets of God, while Paul declares the former 
 to be but "fools." 
 
 23. This verse gives the evidence of their folly. The glory 
 of God, that admirable and effulgent representation of himself 
 which glowed in all that he had made, this they changed in the 
 likeness of an image "the uncorruptible God into an image 
 made like to corruptible man." The odiousness of idolatry is 
 not alone in the immorality to which it leads, but that it is a 
 caricature of God and a slander. It belongs to his glory that he 
 is imperishable. He was likened in that which is corruptible. 
 The very material of the image was a dishonor, as if one 
 should erect a statue to a distinguished man to-day not in 
 marble or bronze, but in chalk or putty. To liken God to 
 man is idolatry. Men were to make no image of him. Had 
 they preserved their original conception of him they would not 
 have attempted it. In due time he gave an image of himself 
 in a sinless being who was animated with eternal life, "the 
 brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person " 
 (Heb. i. 3). If Jesus was not more than a mortal, he was an 
 idol. 
 
 These professed sages did not stop with likening God to 
 man ; they figured him as a bird, then as a quadruped, and 
 finally as a reptile. There was the Apollo of the Greeks, the 
 eagle of the Romans, the bull of the Egyptians, and the ser- 
 pent of the Assyrians. Paul may be giving in this verse the 
 historical development of idolatry, from its highest phase to 
 its worst ; or he may be setting it forth in climactic form ; but 
 certain it is that all these phases of the sin existed. 
 
 In this review of the world's religion from the beginning, 
 Paul teaches that man at the first was not an idolater. The
 
 26 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 24-27) 
 
 origin of this sin is not contemporaneous with the appearance 
 of man on the globe. Man did not work his way from fetish- 
 ism through polytheism up to monotheism and the worship of 
 the true God. His course was the reverse. From the begin- 
 ning he did not grow better religiously, but worse. The Bible 
 gives no evidence of idolatry among the antediluvians. Men 
 in that age called on the name of the Lord (Gen. iv. 26). The 
 earliest mention of idolatry belongs to the days of Abraham 
 (Josh. xxiv. 2). Paul here gives the history and origin of idol- 
 atry. Men knew God and refused to worship him. Idolatry fol- 
 lowed as a psychological necessity. If there is a force of de- 
 velopment inherent in man, a force tending upward, the gos- 
 pel of the grace of God is an impertinence, and Paul might 
 well be ashamed of it. And why has not this force manifested 
 itself somewhat in the last two thousand years in Africa, in 
 India, and in China? The idolatry of to-day is no better 
 than that which grieved Paul. 
 
 24-27* This is the next long step downward. From idola- 
 try sprang sensuality. Originally man was chaste, but when 
 he cast God off, his animal passions were unchained. It was 
 God's infliction of punishment for the sin of idolatry. He 
 punished one sin by the imposition of another. Twice in 
 these verses we are told that " God gave them up," not pas- 
 sively, but actively. The reason is again given: "Who 
 changed the truth of God into the lie " of idolatry. They did 
 not change a lie into truth. Man's course was not in that 
 direction. They took " the truth of God " which he gave 
 them and perverted it to the falsehood of idol- worship. This 
 was the cause of that vileness whose hideous description we 
 have here. " For even their women." There is point in that 
 word " even." Woman is the purer, the more modest, of the 
 sexes, has propensities less ardent; but even she became 
 worse than beastly and equaled vile man in his depravity. 
 The corruption that got into the blood of the race by the fall
 
 (I. 28-32) THE OUTLOOK 27 
 
 did not show itself at once. The earlier families and tribes of 
 the world were pure ; God kept them so. Whatever morality 
 there is in the world is due not to human nature, but to the 
 restraining power of God. When God " gave them up," the 
 original corruption in the blood showed itself in foul moral 
 ulcers, and human virtue proved to be less than that of the 
 beasts of the field, among which the barriers of sex are not 
 crossed. 
 
 28-3 J. Again we are told that " God gave them over," and 
 again for the same reason. As they did not like to retain 
 God in their knowledge, he smote their mind to work abnor- 
 mally and wickedly. They failed not only in their passions, 
 but also in their thought. They practised not only sensuality, 
 but every other kind of immorality. Paul gives an appalling 
 catalogue of their crimes. 
 
 32. The last verse in the chapter sums up everything written 
 from the eighteenth, and restates it with unmistakable plain- 
 ness. Men in all time and in all ages knew the " judgment " 
 of God against sin, that it was death ; but, in defiance of his 
 wrath, they not only continued to practise these foul deeds, 
 but to applaud those who did them. The lowest stage in de- 
 pravity is to take pleasure in those who exhibit it. It is with 
 this thought that Paul brings the discussion of the Gentiles' 
 sin to a close and a climax. 
 
 Many salutary lessons are taught in this sad recital : 
 
 First, God gives in the works which he has made sufficient 
 knowledge of himself for adoration and gratitude. This 
 knowledge is accessible to the heathen of to-day. The first 
 verse in Genesis, repeated in almost every other book of the 
 Bible, is vital. God is before all things, and created them. 
 It is vital, for he is " understood by the things that are made." 
 
 Second, man's religious evolution is not upward, but down- 
 ward. Men hud sufficient light, and refused it. In their 
 darkness the descending steps were three : the growth of elabo-
 
 28 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 32) 
 
 rate systems of idolatry, the loss of all restraint upon the 
 animal passions, and the complete violation of all the com- 
 mands of the second table. The list of sins in verses 29-31 
 looks to this second table; for the words "haters of God," 
 the only exception in the list, ought to be " hateful to God." 
 
 Third, God punishes sin with sin. This is his "wrath." 
 If men will not honor him, he takes away from them the 
 power of chastity and morality. Indeed, the section teaches 
 that these sins come as a punitive infliction from God. This 
 wrath against the race can never cease while men as a whole 
 refuse to glorify him " as God." The attempt to rid the un- 
 believing world of the moral ills that afflict it is to attempt 
 to change God's judgment of wrath. The world has deliber- 
 ately and finally cast God off. It is well-nigh two thousand 
 years since this sad list of sins was set down by the pen of 
 Paul. Let candor say which one of them has ceased to have 
 an existence among men. They came in God's wrath then 
 because men refused the light of nature. The light to-day in 
 Jesus Christ is many times more intense, and men still refuse. 
 
 Fourth, we now have Paul's point of view, and can see what 
 he means in calling the gospel a " power " and in declaring 
 that he is not " ashamed " of it. It can rescue the believer 
 from this judgment of God upon his sin. Paul did not ex- 
 pect the flow of God's wrath against the world to change any 
 more than we may expect a change in gravity ; he knew that 
 that burning torrent would continue to the end (2 Thess. i. 
 6-9) ; but he was also assured that through Jesus Christ men 
 could be snatched from this flood and reconciled to the God 
 whose wrath was once upon them. God himself so loved the 
 world against which his anger burns the contradiction is too 
 great for human understanding that he sent a life-boat into 
 the judgment-tide that he himself created. The tide will not 
 leave the world, but men may leave the tide ; he will save 
 them that believe. When Israel rebelled against God in the
 
 (1.23) THE OUTLOOK 29 
 
 wilderness (Num. xxi. 4-9), he sent fiery serpents among them, 
 that bit the people, " and much people of Israel died." When 
 in repentance they prayed that God would "take away the 
 serpents," he did not answer them in this form. The serpents 
 were not taken away. God's punishment of their sin could 
 not be so lightly removed. But a remedy was provided in 
 the brazen serpent upon the pole, so that "he who looked 
 upon it " lived. Who would esteem the remedy if the judg- 
 ment of the presence of the serpents could be removed? The 
 cross and the resurrection are as great an outrage to human 
 wisdom as is the serpent upon the pole ; but when men learn 
 that there is no other escape from the wrath of God, they will 
 not be " ashamed " of the gospel. No reform can perma- 
 nently succeed, for God never ceases to punish the world's sin 
 with sin. Therefore the gospel is glorious, for it, and it alone 
 (Acts iv. 1 2), is God's power for salvation.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH THE GENTILES 
 
 IN depicting the sin of the Gentile in the first chapter, Paul 
 did not name him. It was not necessary. The picture was 
 so true to life that no one could fail to see who sat for it. 
 The author has been assured more than once by returned mis- 
 sionaries from China and India that when this first chapter 
 was read to intelligent natives of these heathen lands they 
 have hesitated to believe that it was from the missionary's 
 sacred Book, suspecting that the missionary had written it 
 himself as a description of what he had seen since he came 
 among them. 
 
 In this second chapter Paul has no one but the Jew in view. 
 He does not mention his name until the discussion has ad- 
 vanced some distance. It was easy to prove the Gentile a 
 sinner. He claimed nothing for himself, and his immorality 
 was patent to every eye ; Paul had only to point to the facts. 
 But in the case of the Jew all was different. He had a di- 
 vinely given system of religion. In the letter it was never 
 better observed than when Paul wrote. The Jew as a son of 
 Abraham considered himself righteous by the law. To con- 
 vince him of sin was no easier than it is to-day to convince a 
 hollow Christianity of its fatal error. Paul has still his state- 
 ment in view, that the gospel is the only power of God for 
 salvation, and nothing to be ashamed of. If Judaism can 
 save men, the gospel is an impertinence; hence the radical 
 failure of the Jew must be shown. 
 
 30
 
 (II. i-2) JEWS EQUALL Y GUIL TV WITH GENTILES 31 
 
 Before he directly assails the Jew Paul lays down in verses 
 i -i 6 of this chapter the principles of the judgment. These 
 are four, found in verses 2, 6, n, 16. The judgment will be 
 according to " truth " (verse 2), according to " deeds " (verse 
 6), without "respect of persons" (verse n), and "according 
 to my gospel" (verse 16). This section (verses 1-16) consti- 
 tutes what is virtually an indisputable major premise. Hence 
 but one of the points (verse 1 1 ) is argued. 
 
 J. " Inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest." 
 This verse comes as a deduction from the preceding section 
 about the Gentile. At the first blush it seems to be illogical, 
 for the inference is wider than the premise. Paul has proved 
 the Gentile a sinner amenable to God's wrath, and now he 
 seems to infer that every other man is so if he judges. But 
 the failure in logic is only momentary, for he at once adds 
 that he who judges does the " same things " that he condemns 
 in the wicked heathen. This is the proposition to be proved 
 in this chapter. A part of the Jew's righteousness consisted 
 in condemning the Gentile (Gal. ii. 15), and Paul, well aware 
 of this, wrote the sentence in this form to suggest what reader 
 was aimed at. The verse, then, contains both an inference 
 and a proposition. The inference is true; the proposition 
 will be proved so when the four principles of the judgment in 
 which all must stand are unfolded. 
 
 2, A better rendering of the phrase " we are sure " is " we 
 know" know that the judgment of God is according to 
 truth. The connection is in contrast with man's partial 
 judgment mentioned just before. Truth here has a shade of 
 meaning different from that in i. 18, 25. There it means 
 the revealed fact, that which is known about God ; here it 
 means the actual condition of the man judged just what he 
 is. When gold is assayed, the test considers only the metal 
 which is under it ; it does not ask whence it came, whose it is, 
 but what it is. God's judgment proceeds on just what the man
 
 32 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 3-5) 
 
 or the deed before him is in itself, apart from birth or race or 
 religious connection. 
 
 3. The second verse begins with "we know." What is 
 known requires no proof. The statement of verse 2 is self- 
 evident. Hence the connection is not in the way of argu- 
 ment; it is rather an appeal against a false and perilous 
 reckoning. You do the very things you condemn in others, 
 but irrationally think that you will escape their punishment. 
 This delusive self-estimation is always found in the false re- 
 ligionist. 
 
 4. The case may be worse than a vain, false estimate ; the 
 man may despise God's means to win him to a better life. 
 Against this contempt the apostle makes another appeal, that 
 ends in a solemn warning. God has not only shown some 
 " goodness " to the Jew ; he has been rich therein. He chose 
 the Jew in the past ; his providence watched over him ; he sent 
 him great kings and prophets, and finally the Messiah, and 
 made him the leading nation of the world. Toward the Jew's 
 waywardness and unthankfulness God was patient ("forbear- 
 ance"). This patience extended not only over all the former 
 times of Jewish history, but especially in the latter years when 
 the Messiah was rejected and his messengers slain. It is this 
 continued patience which is called " long-suffering." All this 
 goodness the Jew despised, looking upon it as his desert, and 
 ignoring the fact that it ought to lead him to repentance. 
 The case is going hard against the Jew, though he is not yet 
 named. The Gentile had none of this mercy to move him, 
 and yet was a condemned sinner ; the Jew had it v and treated 
 it with contempt. What is he? 
 
 5. This verse answers. In accordance with ("after") his 
 hardness and impenitence of heart, though judgment did not 
 at once come, he was heaping up for himself daily a treasure 
 of wrath in that treasury of wrath, the day of the righteous 
 judgment of God. The blackest of sins is not rights violated,
 
 (II. 6-io) JEWS EQUALLY G UIL TV WITH GENTILES 33 
 
 but mercies despised, and such sins were accumulating against 
 the Jew on that record which can neither be evaded nor dis- 
 puted. God's is called " righteous " judgment to contrast it 
 with the Jew's. 
 
 6. After this solemn appeal under the first principle of the 
 judgment, Paul brings in the second, " to every man accord- 
 ing to his deeds." This really constitutes the closing sentence 
 in the appeal, and thus shows that a judgment according to 
 truth and a judgment according to works or "deeds" are 
 practically the same thing. The former is abstract; the 
 measure applied in the judgment will be reality. This (verse 
 6) is concrete. That which is measured will be what is done, 
 " deeds." The judgment will embrace " every one." That 
 there is to be a judgment was not denied by the Jew ; it can- 
 not be denied by any sober man ; and therefore Paul brings 
 no proof in evidence. In that judgment, sure to come, God 
 will render to every man according to his deeds. 
 
 7- JO* The first principle was followed by an appeal. This 
 second one is followed by an appositional sentence in exposi- 
 tion of what "deeds" appear in the judgment, and their 
 awards. It is quietly implied that there are but two classes 
 of men, and consequently but two kinds of deeds. These are 
 set forth in a striking antithetical parallel, as is shown by the 
 Rev. John Forbes, LL.D. (" Analyt. Com.," pp. 7, 146), from 
 whom we adapt: 
 
 " Who will render to every man according to his DEEDS : 
 'i. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing 
 [character] 
 
 Seek for glory and honor and immortality [pursuit], 
 
 Eternal life [award] : 
 
 But unto them that are contentious [character], 
 
 And do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness 
 [pursuit], 
 
 Indignation [shall be] and wrath [award],
 
 34 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 7-10) 
 
 (I. Tribulation and anguish [award], 
 'rt < 8. Upon every soul of man that doeth evil [pursuit] ; 
 
 ^9. Of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile [character] ; 
 ^ (io. But glory, honor, and peace [award], 
 < ii. To every man that worketh good [pursuit] ; 
 ^ V.I2. To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile [character]." 
 
 There is a wealth of parallelism here which nothing but 
 careful inspection can discover. The thought is given in four 
 triplets, balanced against one another. The first two are, " in- 
 troversively," paralleled with the second two, and the lines in 
 each pair of triplets show the same feature. This gives us 
 first the statements about the " good " and the " bad," followed 
 by similar statements about each party in the reverse order, 
 the reversal being not only in the triplets, but in the lines com- 
 posing them. The three lines in each stanza, for such they 
 may be called, give first the character, then the pursuits, and 
 finally the appropriate awards, both of the good and of the 
 bad. This is the order in the first couplet. In the second 
 couplet we have it reversed : first the award, secondly the pur- 
 suit, and thirdly the character. In the very first line of the 
 first couplet we have character in the patient continuance of 
 well-doing ; the pursuit is glory, the award is eternal life. This 
 is followed in the second stanza by the opposite kind of char- 
 acter: contentious, exhibiting itself in an opposite kind of 
 pursuit, obedience to unrighteousness, with its opposite award, 
 indignation and wrath. In the third stanza Paul takes these up 
 in the reverse order and goes over them again : the sad award 
 of tribulation and wrath for him who in his pursuit " doeth evil," 
 whether in character Jew or Gentile, and the glorious award of 
 honor and peace for him who in his pursuit " worketh good," 
 whether in character Jew or Gentile. 
 
 By this parallelism richness of exposition is gained, both by 
 the repetition and the contrast of the lines. The exposition 
 of the " deeds " is given in two opposite directions : first from
 
 (II. ii) JEWS EQUALL Y GUILTY WITH GENTILES 35 
 
 the character of the doer, through his work up to his award, 
 and, conversely, beginning with the award, we ~o back through 
 the work and reach the character. 
 
 In this appositional unfolding of the deeds we see they are 
 more than mere acts. They embrace both the character and 
 the aim of the doer. Every deed has three elements: the 
 source from which it comes, the aim, and the concrete act. 
 The deeds, then, are, first of all, deeds of the heart, patience, 
 and a right aim on one side, and contentiousness and disobe- 
 dience of the truth on the other. And thus it is seen that the 
 second principle of the judgment, an award according to 
 "deeds," is pretty much the same as the first, an award ac- 
 cording to " truth," or what a man is. 
 
 Some difficulty has been found as to the harmony between 
 this principle of the judgment and the doctrine of salvation by 
 faith. This difficulty arises from a misconception of Paul's 
 view of faith. He is not speaking here of faith's beginning, 
 but of its completion ; not of justification, but of judgment. 
 The deeds that gain a reward clearly imply faith in him who 
 does them. For in the opposite side of the parallel indigna- 
 tion and wrath are said to come to those who do not obey 
 the truth, but obey unrighteousness ; that is, this sad award 
 comes to them as a result of their unbelief. Moreover, Paul 
 saw no contradiction here, for he closes the discussion (verse 
 1 6) with the declaration that the judgment will be according 
 to his ("my") gospel. 
 
 JJ, This is the third principle which will hold in the judg- 
 ment" no respect of persons." Paul had said that men would 
 be rewarded according to their deeds, whether they were Jews 
 having the law or Gentiles excluded from the law. This verse 
 comes in as a reason for that statement. God will not in- 
 quire in the judgment about a man's outward religious con- 
 nection. If his deeds are right, his being a Gentile will be no 
 detriment; if they are wrong, his being a Jew will be no
 
 36 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 12-14) 
 
 excuse. This phrase about respect of persons is used in the 
 Bible only in connection with judgment, and so here it is 
 limited to this single point. It will not serve a man in that 
 awful day to claim that he was an adherent of a true system 
 of doctrine. 
 
 J2 The "for" at the head of this verse introduces it not 
 as a proof, that comes later, but as an explanation of what 
 Paul means by the words "no respect of persons." Those 
 who sinned without law men can sin where there is no written 
 law shall also perish without law. Men can sin and perish, 
 too, where God's Word was never heard ; but they will per- 
 ish "without law," that is, without such penalties as must 
 meet those who knew the law and did not do it. And as many 
 as have sinned in the law (of Moses) shall not be saved, but 
 judged by that law. 
 
 J3. The "for" brings in a proof of the last statement. A 
 man may hear the law read every Sabbath day in the syna- 
 gogue, but if he does not do the things enjoined by it he fails. 
 For the only virtue in hearing the law lies in hearing to do. 
 This is exceedingly simple. A child might hear his parent's 
 command, might admire the clearness of his voice and the 
 perspicuity of his words, but what of this approval if he did 
 not obey and do as told? The child could not be held just. 
 In these two verses, 1 2 and 13, substitute " gospel " for " law " 
 in reading them, and they present the truth and the admoni- 
 tion suited to modern times. 
 
 J4. "For when Gentiles [omit "the"], which have not the 
 [written] law." This verse clearly shows that hearing or hav- 
 ing a holy law cannot recommend a people to God. It is a 
 proof of the statement in verse 13. The argument lies in this, 
 that Gentiles have what is tantamount to the moral law. If 
 having a law will save the Jews, why should the Gentiles not 
 also be saved? This is an ad hominem thrust. It struck at a 
 vital part in the Jew's prejudices. If he claims immunity be-
 
 (II. IS, 16) JEWS EQUALL Y GUILTY WITH GENTILES 37 
 
 cause of his law, the Gentile is equally safe ; but that a Gen- 
 tile as such could be saved the Jew would not for one moment 
 admit. 
 
 It must have been generally known that there were among 
 the Gentiles at least some who " by nature " did the things of 
 the law, pure men who knew the right and loved it, who looked 
 upon God as one and a person. Noah and Melchizedek, 
 Abraham and Job, are examples. 
 
 J5. This verse merely continues the thought of the last 
 that Gentiles are not devoid of that in which the Jew boasts 
 and trusts. The Gentiles' conscience bears testimony to this 
 fact along with their works. Their inward thoughts are in 
 constant debate one with another, one thought accusing or 
 else excusing another. How could this be unless some stan- 
 dard of right and wrong existed by nature among the heathen? 
 
 It must be noted that Paul does not say that the heathen 
 have the law written on their heart, for this is the character- 
 istic blessing under the new covenant (Heb. viii. 10). God 
 in regenerating grace certainly gives something more than that 
 which the heathen already have. Paul says they show not the 
 law, but its " work," written on their heart. A machine may 
 show the work of intelligence, but it has none. 
 
 Again, while Paul asserts that Gentiles may have what is 
 equivalent to the law, he does not say that they are saved by 
 that possession or that they can be ; rather the reverse, that if 
 the Jew can be saved by his law, why not the Gentile by that 
 which belongs to him? The discussion comes to just this: 
 that the Jew in his claim for his law is claiming too much. 
 If the law will save him, is not the Gentile saved too? For 
 he has virtually the same. Paul would drive the Jew from 
 his false mooring and leave him at sea. There is nothing else 
 even by implication in the argument. 
 
 J6. This verse lays down the fourth principle. Paul says, 
 " God shall judge the secrets of men . . . according to my gos-
 
 38 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 16) 
 
 pel." The connection is not with the twelfth, as some editions 
 of the King James version would indicate by their parentheses, 
 but with the thirteenth verse. Verses 14 and 15, containing 
 the argument for the third principle, are parenthetic. Without 
 the interruption of this proof matter, the thought runs : " The 
 doers of the law shall be justified in the day when God shall 
 judge the secrets of men." 
 
 Here we learn the meaning of the word "justify" on its 
 first occurrence in the epistle, for surely God will not at the 
 judgment-hour make these good who have already shown 
 themselves good by being doers of the law. The word can- 
 not mean " to make," but " to declare good." 
 
 We have seen above, under verse 6, that the " deeds " are 
 largely deeds of the heart. Hence Paul speaks here about 
 judging the " secrets " of men. Only the doers of the law 
 will pass the judgment, but the law is not done in God's sight 
 except by the incarnation of it in the heart. Paul is in strict 
 harmony with the Sermon on the Mount. The deeds to be 
 judged are not alone those which are seen in the life, but 
 those which God sees in the hidden chambers of the inner 
 man. 
 
 " According to my gospel." There is no antithesis between 
 law and gospel when both are rightly understood. When Paul 
 says " my " gospel he indicates the broad and universal turn 
 which he has given to it, unfolding it in a way suited to men 
 of every age and nation. It had its origin in one nation, but 
 it is not a national gospel ; it is world- wide. Paul's keenest 
 weapon against the narrow Jewish error lies in this word 
 " gospel." The judgment will not be according to law, which 
 by the Jewish interpretation left relation to Christ out, but ac- 
 cording to the gospel, which makes relation to him the chief 
 factor in the judgment. The gospel is the standard of judg- 
 ment ; the Judge, the day, the deed, the standard. The Judge 
 is just, the day is certain, the deed is known, the standard is
 
 (II. i7-2ia) JEWS EQUALL Y GUILTY WITH GENTILES 39 
 
 the gospel. God judges, but Jesus Christ holds the court. 
 " He hath committed all judgment unto the Son " (John v. 
 2 2 ; Acts xvii. 31). 
 
 Having now unfolded these four principles of the judgment, 
 Paul speaks directly to the Jew in what may be called the 
 minor premise in the argument (verses 17-24). The major 
 premise comes to this : that the judgment is of such a charac- 
 ter that sinners, no matter who they are, Jew or Gentile, can- 
 not stand in it. This minor premise shows the Jew that he is 
 a sinner, but the proposition which embraces both premises is 
 that the Jew who judges the Gentile does the same things. 
 In proof of this, Paul proceeds in the method used in the first 
 chapter against the Gentile : first, that he knew the truth, but, 
 secondly, refused it, and so, finally, fell into the sin of idolatry, 
 sensuality, and general immorality. We have the same method 
 and the same three sins. 
 
 J7-20. These verses show what light the Jew had, the light 
 not of nature only, but the clearer revelation of the law. In 
 five particulars he claimed personal privileges above other men : 
 "restest in the law," "makest thy boast of God," "knowest 
 his will," " appro vest the things that are more excellent," and 
 " instructed out of the law." In five other particulars the Jew 
 was "confident" that his knowledge was superior to that of 
 the Gentile. He claimed to be "a guide of the blind," "a 
 light of them which are in darkness," " an instructor of the 
 foolish," " a teacher of babes," having " the form of knowledge 
 and of the truth in the law." In these ten items of the Jew's 
 superiority the law is mentioned three times. On this point 
 of knowledge Paul merely declares of the Gentile that he had 
 it (i. 18-21), but when it comes here to the Jew he convinces 
 him out of his own mouth. It was the Jew's claim and boast 
 that he knew. 
 
 2Ja In the beginning of verse 17 it should read, not " Be- 
 hold," but " If thou art called," etc. It begins the first mem-
 
 40 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 21^,22) 
 
 her of a conditional sentence, the second member of which is 
 found in the first question of the verse before us. Paul does 
 not assert ; he only asks a question, a question that can have 
 but one answer : If you are a Jew, claiming full qualification 
 to teach blind Gentiles, do you not thereby teach yourself? 
 Do you not know? This is the first point in proving that the 
 Jew " does the same things " as the Gentile. He knows God, 
 yea, by his own confession he knows vastly more than the de- 
 spised Gentile. 
 
 2Jb, 22* The Jew had all the means extant in his time of 
 knowing God's will. The verses now in hand show his sad 
 failure in doing that will. Paul does not assert that the Jew 
 was guilty of these three sins of idolatry, sensuality, and im- 
 morality ; he puts it significantly in the interrogative form. 
 This means that his questions could have but one answer. In 
 the first chapter, in dealing with the Gentile, he proceeds from 
 idolatry to immorality. This order is reversed in the case be- 
 fore us. He proceeds from immorality, "Dost thou steal?" 
 to idolatry, " Dost thou commit sacrilege ? " or, to follow the 
 Revised Version, " Dost thou rob [heathen] temples? " This 
 change in the order is easily accounted for. In the first chap- 
 ter Paul is giving the origin and development of sin among 
 men ; he follows the natural order. But when it comes to the 
 Jew he writes climactically. Idolatry was forbidden by the 
 very first commandment. The Jew claimed to be free from 
 it and professed to abhor it ; and yet Paul more than intimates 
 that he is guilty of this foolish, debasing crime, the worst of 
 all sins. He mentions it last because it is blackest. 
 
 There is not sufficient information to-day to show what is 
 meant by Paul's allusion to the robbing of temples. In his 
 day the Jews did not actually worship idols, and he does not 
 charge them with the sin in this form. But it seems that they 
 did not hesitate, in the various heathen lands in which they 
 lived, to purloin the treasures deposited in these temples (Acts
 
 (II. 23-25) JEWS EQUALL Y GUILTY WITH GENTILES 41 
 
 xix. 37) and to take the accursed stuff (Deut. vii. 25, 26) into 
 their own houses. 
 
 23. Twice now Paul mentions the light-giving law, which, 
 with the question asked, " Dishonorest thou God? " condenses 
 into one compact, condemning whole all that has been said be- 
 ginning with verse 17. The verse does not advance the argu- 
 ment ; it sharpens it and brings it to a focus in the word " dis- 
 honorest." This is the odiousness of all sin ; it tarnishes the 
 glory of God's name. 
 
 24. Five questions have just been asked, the first expanded 
 in the next three, and the last condensing them again to an 
 arrow-point ; but Paul does not directly answer them. But 
 this twenty-fourth verse, beginning with " for," gives a reason 
 for asking them, and that reason is the answer. It must be 
 that they are guilty under these three counts, for, just as Isaiah 
 wrote long ago (In. 5), God's name is blasphemed among the 
 Gentiles because of the Jews. The latter claimed to be a holy 
 people knowing the true God, and the heathen among whom 
 they dwelt did not stop with contempt of them for their hy- 
 pocrisy; they exhibited that contempt toward God himself. 
 Says Beet (" Commentary," in loc.) : " Men around think less 
 of God because this man lives among them and calls himself 
 a disciple of God. It were more for the glory of God, and 
 therefore for the good of those who know this man, if he were 
 a professed heathen." 
 
 Thus far Paul has shown that the Jew is a sinner like the 
 Gentile. The next step will be to drive him from his refuge 
 in the rite of circumcision. This was the outward mark which 
 distinguished the Jew from his heathen neighbor and showed 
 him to be a descendant of Abraham. 
 
 25. " For . . . thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." 
 This first mention of the rite in the epistle comes in abruptly 
 and therefore startlingly. The " for " introduces the discussion 
 as a confirmation of what was said in the two previous verses.
 
 42 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 26, 27) 
 
 You dishonor God and lead the Gentiles to despise him, for 
 your circumcision is no advantage to you. 
 
 Circumcision profits if one keeps the law, for it was not in- 
 tended to be an atonement for wrong living, but a spur to- 
 ward right living. It is a seal, and what is the value of a seal 
 when torn from that which it was intended to certify? To be 
 content with the rite while neglecting that for which it stood 
 is to behave like him who should take a money sign ($, j) 
 for the money itself. By wrong living circumcision failed of 
 its object and became uncircumcision, or exclusion from son- 
 ship with Abraham. 
 
 26. "Therefore." Here is a fair deduction. If the aim 
 of circumcision was uprightness, and if a heathen exhibited the 
 latter if he has the substance, what odds if he lack the sign? 
 Bullion is gold, though it has no government stamp upon it. 
 In the scales of the judgment whose principles have been so 
 clearly laid down, will he who has the rite without the right- 
 eousness outweigh him who has righteousness without the rite? 
 This question needs no answer. 
 
 27. This verse also comes in under the " therefore " above. 
 " By the letter," etc., ought to read " with the letter," invested 
 with the letter of the law and with circumcision. Would that 
 be a judgment " according to truth " in which he who had the 
 law and the rite should stand after having transgressed both, 
 while the upright man who never had either must fall? Will 
 the sinner who has the law pass where the righteous man will 
 fail because he has not what never was given to him? Yes, 
 if God were seeking legal rather than real obedience. But 
 since the latter is his delight, the man who has it under the 
 disadvantage of no law will be a burning condemnation to 
 him who, despite the law to teach him, has failed to hear 
 its voice. Cornelius far outweighs Caiaphas ; for Caiaphas 
 with his circumcision was at heart one with heathen Pilate 
 against Jesus, while Cornelius without circumcision was at one 
 with Peter in following truth.
 
 (II. 28, 29) JEWS EQUALL Y GUILTY WITH GENTILES 43 
 
 The principle involved in these three verses is that a reli- 
 gious rite is worthless unless it is attended with goodness 
 " Patient continuance in well-doing." (See also John viii. 31.) 
 And this principle is solemnly applicable to-day in the matter 
 of baptism. Read the passage above, substituting " baptism " 
 and " no baptism " for " circumcision " and " uncircumcision " 
 respectively, and the verses become modern. 
 
 28, 29* In describing, as Paul does here, the real Jew, that 
 he must be such at heart in that which is within, Paul is in 
 harmony with his fourth principle of the judgment. God will 
 not look on that which is outward, but will judge the " secrets " 
 of men. That circumcision must be of the heart was not 
 Paul's invention; it was as old as the law (Deut. x. 16) and 
 the prophets (Ezek. xliv. 9). This statement of what consti- 
 tutes the veritable Jew is made in justification ("for") of the 
 sentiments in verses 25-27. If verse 25 degraded the more 
 formal Jew to the Gentile level, verse 28 tells why; and if 
 verses 26 and 27 elevated the good heathen above the profes- 
 sional Jew, verse 29 presents the substantial reason. He who 
 is right at heart is in God's sight a Jew even though he can- 
 not trace his fleshly descent from Abraham. He is not a Jew 
 who is only one outwardly, in dress, in profession, and in sub- 
 jection to ceremonials, and circumcision is not accomplished 
 with a sharp knife ; but he is a Jew who is right within, where 
 only God sees ; for circumcision pertains first of all to the 
 heart, a cutting off of man from all evil. The phrase " in the 
 spirit " serves to define the word " heart." The man must not 
 only intend right in his heart, but he must be right in his 
 spirit. Circumcision is not effected by the " letter " of the law. 
 Some think, however, that by the word " spirit " Paul means 
 the Holy Spirit. In this case the word would give the means 
 rather than the definition of a genuine circumcision, and it 
 would stand in antithesis with the word "letter." 
 
 This second chapter, then, in showing that the judgment 
 is concerned wholly with character and not at all with the
 
 44 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 28, 29) 
 
 outward ceremonials of religion, puts the immoral Jew among 
 the sinners of the first chapter, because he does the same 
 things, and his Judaism goes for nothing ; circumcision will 
 not shield him. But Judaism is God-given, and it is God who 
 has made the broad distinction between circumcision and 
 uncircumcision, a distinction which Paul seems to obliterate. 
 This starts a serious objection to the line of argument, and 
 this objection is noticed in the beginning of the next chapter.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE ARGUMENT ON SIN CONCLUDED (VERSES I-2o), AND THE 
 SECOND MAIN DIVISION OF THE EPISTLE RIGHTEOUS- 
 NESS BEGUN (VERSES 21-31) 
 
 (i) PAUL answers an objection (verses 1-8) and (2) con- 
 cludes with a scriptural argument for the universality of sin 
 (verses 9-20). Beginning the second grand division of the 
 epistle, (3) the righteousness that saves is described (verses 21- 
 26), (4) a righteousness that excludes the Jew's boasting (verses 
 
 27-31)- 
 
 J. "What advantage then hath the Jew?" etc. This is 
 one of the profound questions of the epistle. If circumcision 
 in itself does not give righteousness, if uncircumcision does 
 not preclude it, what profit was there ever in it? A distinc- 
 tion that God made among men seems, after all, not to be 
 one. Paul must answer this objection to his argument for the 
 sinfulness of the Jew. He does this fully in chapters ix.-xi. 
 Here he considers it only briefly and only so far as it blocks 
 his argument about sin. His readers, especially Jewish ones, 
 could not follow him another step until this hindrance in the 
 line of thought is removed. 
 
 In asking the question, " What advantage then hath the 
 Jew? " of course he does not mean the true Jew ethically, de- 
 scribed in the closing verses of the last chapter, but the Jew 
 
 45
 
 46 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 2) 
 
 nationally. What is the profit of Judaism if in itself it does 
 not save from sin and presents no advantages over heathen- 
 ism? There are not two questions in this verse; the repeti- 
 tion is a Hebrew parallel, used for the sake of perspicuity. 
 
 2, " Much every way." This is the answer, brief and un- 
 mistakable. It was written at a time when Christianity was 
 practically established all over the Roman empire. There 
 were Christian churches everywhere, and yet Paul says there 
 is much " advantage " in Judaism. For centuries the religious 
 world has overlooked this verse and has thought and wrote as 
 if Judaism were a mere relic of a dead past. Paul was every- 
 where planting believing communities composed of Jews and 
 Gentiles communities in which these and all other distinc- 
 tions disappeared (Gal. iii. 28) ; and yet he declares the Jew 
 as such has " much " left in his favor. Has Paul's view of 
 the matter become obsolete? When in the course of the cen- 
 turies after Paul's day did the Jew lose his advantage over 
 Gentile Christianity? 
 
 He tells in what the advantage lies. It is not that Judaism 
 prepared the way for something better, for we have seen that 
 that supposed better thing, the church, was already in exis- 
 tence when Paul affirmed the superiority of the Jew. His ad- 
 vantage was not that God sowed Judaism and the world 
 reaped Christianity. That blots out Judaism. It was first of 
 all "that unto them were committed the oracles of God," not 
 that they were made a mere Bible depositary, but that God 
 gave them, as Jews, promises, not yet fulfilled, and peculiarly 
 their own. The Old Testament, the record of these oracles, 
 contains not one promise either of or to the church as an or- 
 ganization. It does not predict a church ; it foreshadows a 
 kingdom in which the Jew shall be head and not lose his 
 national distinction as he does in the church. Dr. Adolph 
 Saphir, himself a converted Jew, a man who deserves to be 
 better known both for his profound scriptural knowledge and
 
 (III. 3, 4) SIN CONCLUDED 47 
 
 his Christ-like piety, says : " The view that is so prevalent, that 
 Israel is a shadow of the church, and now that the type is 
 fulfilled vanishes from our horizon, is altogether unscriptural. 
 Israel is not the shadow fulfilled and absorbed in the church, 
 but the basis on which the church rests (Rom. xi.). And al- 
 though, during the times of the Gentiles, Israel, as a nation, is 
 set aside, Israel is not cast away, because Israel is not a tran- 
 sitory and temporary, but an integral part of God's counsel. 
 The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Israel 
 was chosen to be God's people, the center of his influence 
 and reign on earth in the ages to come. The church in the 
 present parenthetic period does not supplant them. The 
 book of the kingdom awaits its fulfilment, and the church, 
 instructed by Jesus and the apostles, is not ignorant of this 
 mystery " (" Christ and the Scriptures," p. 64). 
 
 3. " For what if some [Jews] did not believe? " The " for " 
 bears on the assertion that the Jew, as such, has much advan- 
 tage. In spite of his disbelief of the gracious promises made 
 exclusively to him in the Old Testament oracles, Paul asserts 
 his superiority, for the unbelief of " some " will not make God 
 untrue to his promises to the nation. As God's long-given 
 promise to send Israel a Redeemer was not defeated by the 
 nation's deep sin and hypocrisy, so his promise to give the 
 nation headship cannot be made void by their disbelief of the 
 promise. He who could give unbelieving Israel a Saviour can 
 also give the same people that for which the Saviour came, a 
 universal kingdom of righteousness. 
 
 4, To the question, "Shall their unbelief make the faith 
 [faithfulness] of God without effect? " Paul replies vehemently, 
 " Let God be true, but every man a liar." Between the terms 
 of this reply and those in the preceding verse there is an in- 
 structive change. There he said, what if " some " disbelieved ; 
 here he answers, let " every man " do so. Again the unbe- 
 liever there is in this verse defined as a " liar," and finally the
 
 48 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 4) 
 
 " faith " of God is reproduced in the word " true." What if 
 some did not believe the oracles intrusted to them? Shall 
 their lying, yea, shall the lying unbelief of the whole nation, 
 so turn God that he also shall not be true to his own oracles? 
 Why does Paul teach that an unbeliever is a liar? It is easy 
 to see how his unbelief makes God a liar (i John v. 10). 
 Unbelief is lying, because it virtually pronounces unworthy of 
 trust that which is the truth of God. And so when God 
 eventually makes good his promises to the nation, not only 
 will the unbelievers be seen to be liars, but God will be " jus- 
 tified " in all his Old Testament sayings, and will " overcome " 
 when he is judged, for he was misjudged. In such an hour 
 and it is coming his faithfulness to his promises will shine 
 with added luster, because it was kept with those utterly un- 
 worthy of it. If Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and if 
 through him the Jewish race is not ultimately redeemed, then 
 his rejectors are the world's wise men ; but if God's plain but 
 far-reaching promises are made good by him, then unbelievers 
 will be found liars, and God's glory will shine the brighter on 
 the dark background of their unworthiness and sin. 
 
 Paul has now answered the Jew's objection which arises 
 from placing the Jew and the Gentile on the same level in the 
 church. For the present there is no advantage in circumci- 
 sion except the possession of certain national promises which 
 the Jew alone has. The answer comes to this, that the Jew 
 must not confine his view to the question of salvation from sin, 
 where indeed he is on the same plane with the heathen, trust 
 in Jesus; nothing else, not even circumcision, will avail, but 
 he must remember that in addition to this salvation God has 
 promised him a high place of honor in the world. Peter and 
 Cornelius were both sinners, the one circumcised, the other 
 uncircumcised, and both were saved from sin by the same 
 means, the forgiving grace of God. So far they are alike, but 
 now when saved Peter is made an apostle and Cornelius is
 
 (III. 5, 6) SIN CONCLUDED 49 
 
 not. Here is a difference. And neither the Old Testament 
 nor the New can be thoroughly understood until one perceives 
 the analogous likeness and difference between Jew and Gen- 
 tile. They are saved alike, but their future standing in the 
 earth is not alike. 
 
 We might start an objection here not noticed by Paul, and 
 most likely because it is not a real one. To what Jews will 
 God make his oracles good if all are found liars? The Scrip- 
 ture quoted here from the experience of David (Ps. li.) may 
 answer. It was not until he was given penitence for his sin 
 that he could say of that very sin that it justified God in his 
 sayings and gave him victory when judged. Repentant Is- 
 rael will find the " advantage," and they are promised repen- 
 tance (Acts v. 31 ; Rom. xi. 26). 
 
 5. But while Paul does not notice such an objection, if in- 
 deed it is one, he does see a real hindrance in the way of his 
 argument. It does not come in abstractly. The context 
 clearly shows that Paul had actually met it in his experience 
 in dealing with the subtle, wily Jew. You have shown, says 
 the opponent, that God's promises, when they come to pass 
 on Israel, will appear all the more gracious on account of the 
 nation's previous unbelief. Our obstinacy has turned out to 
 his glory : why should he punish us for that which has been a 
 favor to him? " If our unrighteousness commend the right- 
 eousness of God," is not God unjust to punish us for that 
 unrighteousness? Paul shrinks in placing these two words 
 " God " and " unrighteous " together, and declares he is not 
 speaking as a believer, but as a " man." 
 
 6. His reply to the question comes at one blow "Then 
 how shall God judge the world? " For the world is unright- 
 eous too, and its sin makes conspicuous God's love toward it. 
 If God may not punish the Jew for the reason here mentioned, 
 neither may he punish the Gentile, for the same reason can be 
 urged in the latter's case. And so all judgment is at an end.
 
 50 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 7-9) 
 
 This is the ad hominem argument again. The Jew could 
 not admit that the wicked Gentile world could go unpunished. 
 It must not be overlooked that Paul does not let this dis- 
 cussion of sin drift away from the light in which he began it 
 the light of the judgment. And he still keeps both Jew and 
 Gentile in view. Where the latter can find no cover, neither 
 can the former. 
 
 7. This verse does not advance the thought. It individu- 
 alizes the previous statement about the " world." The world's 
 sin has made God's mercy toward it all the brighter, and so 
 each man in the world might come before God with the claim 
 that his glory had been advanced by the man's lie, and on 
 this ground claim exemption. But while this does not ad- 
 vance the argument, it quietly intimates that not a single sin- 
 ner will escape the judgment. 
 
 8. Paul now with one stroke brings the whole objection to 
 its logically absurd conclusion. If sin enhances the glory of 
 God, and therefore is no longer guilt, why, the more we sin 
 the brighter his grace. Let us do all the evil we can, for the 
 more evil the more praise to his name! Some had affirmed 
 that this is the apostle's own doctrine. In their righteous 
 condemnation of it they condemn themselves in the claim 
 that God cannot punish sin, because it promotes his glory, for 
 this claim is the very essence of the hateful sentiment. And 
 thus he has come around in most skilful fashion to the asser- 
 tion with which he began against the Jew : " Thou art inex- 
 cusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest : for wherein 
 thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself" (ii. i). He 
 joins with them in repudiating the godless maxim, but he 
 does not go with them in holding it. They " slanderously re- 
 port " him who say he does. 
 
 9. Here the argument (see (2) above) from Scripture for uni- 
 versal sinfulness begins. In the words, "What then?" the 
 whole course of thought from the beginning (i. 18) is looked
 
 (III. 10, ii) SIN CONCLUDED 51 
 
 at, as much as to say, How does the question about sin stand 
 now? Whether the next little sentence should be rendered 
 as in the King James version, " Are we better ? " or as some 
 others, " Have we an excuse ? " is not easily decided. The 
 translation of the Revised Version is wide of the mark. The 
 answer to the question, whatever that question is, shows that 
 Paul now has both parties in view, both Jew and Gentile. 
 This would decide against the King James rendering, which 
 can embrace only the Jewish party. In looking back over the 
 argument, as the little interrogation, " What then? " directs, we 
 see that Paul has argued the guilt of both parties. One refuge 
 after another was beaten down. Does any remain? Have 
 we an excuse ? Is there no refuge for men ? Then comes the 
 sweeping negative, " No, in no wise," and in justification of this 
 negative he refers to what he previously said about both Jew 
 and Gentile, that they are all under sin. Note that he does not 
 say with the King James version that he before " proved " it ; 
 for while he has made it very evident, the clinching proof 
 comes only now, and it comes from Scripture. The selections 
 are from various psalms, from the prophets, and one (verse 
 15) from the Book of Proverbs (i. 16). They are arranged 
 to give, first, the character of men, secondly, their conduct, 
 and finally, the cause of their sin. They can be presented to 
 the eye thus : 
 
 1. Character (verses 10-12). 
 
 2. Conduct (speech (verses 13, 14), 
 
 (action (verses 15-17). 
 
 3. Cause (verse 18). 
 
 JO. "None righteous, no, not one." The striking little 
 repetition " no, not one," makes the preceding assertion all- 
 comprehensive. In the divine estimation of the non-right- 
 eousness of the race there is not a single exception. 
 
 tJ. "None that understandeth." The apostle taught be- 
 fore (i. 21, 22) that men became "fools." They did "not
 
 62 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 12-16) 
 
 seek after God," though they sought everything else. The 
 word " seek " implies not that God is concealed, but that man 
 is lost. As these passages are proof-texts of sin, the failure to 
 understand and to seek God is sin. A negative attitude toward 
 the truth is positive transgression. 
 
 \ 2. " All gone out of the way." They knew the right way, 
 the Gentile by the light of nature (i. 20, 21) and the Jew 
 by the law (ii. 17-20); but they deliberately forsook the 
 path where God's light shone for their own way of darkness. 
 They are "together [without exception, again] become un- 
 profitable." The last is a picturesque word, signifying some- 
 thing that once was good and useful, like meat or milk, but 
 has grown corrupt beyond recovery. As Paul began this 
 section on character with the sweeping statement that there 
 is none good, so he closes it with the equally inclusive state- 
 ment that no one " doeth good." All their religious works 
 and they are many are conceived in sin and are therefore un- 
 righteous. 
 
 J3, f 4. Speech was given to man for his honor and bless- 
 ing. He turned it to his own shame. See the whispering, back- 
 biting, boasting, in i. 29, 30. "Throat," "tongues," "lips," 
 " mouth," an anatomical order from that which is inward to the 
 outward. The throat over a corrupt heart is like an unfilled 
 grave, with the putrescent corpse lying at the bottom a terri- 
 ble picture for a Jew, or for anybody, for that matter; the 
 tongue, a means to praise God, become an instrument of 
 craft; the lips think of those of Judas deadly with the old 
 serpent's poison ; and the mouth, made to be full of innocent 
 laughter (Ps. cxxvi. 2; Luke vi. 21) and joyous praise, be- 
 fouled with cursing and bitterness. 
 
 J5 Their action is no better than their speech. " Their feet 
 are swift" they run eagerly to commit murder and make war. 
 
 J6 " Destruction and misery are in their ways." What 
 have the old nations that have run their course left in the path
 
 (III. 17-20) SIN CONCLUDED 63 
 
 behind them? Each empire has built itself up on the ruin of 
 all others. It is an adage, " Blessed is the nation that has no 
 history," for all history is but the annals of strife and human woe. 
 
 J7 "The way of peace . . . not known." This is the 
 other side of the last verse. Peace is a stranger to the world. 
 
 J8 " No fear of God before their eyes," for they turned 
 their backs on him. This lack of reverence for him and his 
 revelation is the fruitful source of this " mosaic of sin." It is 
 to be noted that what is a subjective condition of heart is here 
 spoken of as if it might be outward, " before their eyes." 
 
 J9. This plain Scripture proof of man's sinfulness having 
 been adduced, the next step is to show to whom it applies. 
 The Jew might say it is inspiration's estimate of the heathen 
 world, but cannot refer to him. No, says Paul; "we know 
 that what things soever the law saith," he calls the Psalms, 
 etc., from which these quotations are selected, the law, "it 
 saith to them who are under the law," that is, to the Jews. 
 These sentiments about the character and conduct of men and 
 the cause of their sin do describe the Gentiles, but are intended 
 first of all as a condemnation of the men to whom they are 
 spoken and in whose Bible they are recorded. Might it be 
 possible for us to delude ourselves to-day in a way that Paul 
 would not allow the Jew to do that these pictures of sin are 
 photographs of that distant age, but not of ours? But have 
 we not the same "law" then possessed by the Jew? And 
 has the principle it is a principle failed, that what the law 
 says it speaks first of all to them that have it? 
 
 Paul goes on to give the object of his quotations : they are 
 intended to stop "every mouth," that of the Jew especially, 
 and to show a whole world guilty before God. It is a con- 
 demned world, condemned by the Judge himself. To save it 
 or any man in it, there can be no means but his mercy. 
 
 20. The word " therefore " is a mistranslation. Paul is not 
 drawing a conclusion, as this word would indicate, but is about
 
 64 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 20) 
 
 to demolish the last stronghold of the Jew. For " therefore " 
 read "because." All the world is guilty before God, " because " 
 by deeds of law shall no flesh be justified, accounted righteous, 
 before him. Many Jews were rigorous observers of the law. 
 Paul's own righteousness in it had been perfect (Phil. iii. 6). 
 
 In proving all men sinners, he was well aware of the Jews' 
 scrupulous attention to the behests of Moses, but he demol- 
 ishes their last refuge in declaring that law- works cannot 
 save. After all of them are done, they leave a man in sin 
 (Gal. ii. 15, 16). The reason law cannot save is because it 
 has neither the office nor the power of salvation. In one 
 word Paul gives its office; "by the law is" not justification 
 "by the law is the knowledge of sin." It has an office and 
 "is good, if a man use it lawfully" (i Tim. i. 8). But one 
 might as well attempt to cross the river on a millstone as to 
 get into heaven by works of law. If he would sink without 
 the stone he must sink deeper with it. If the Gentile perishes 
 "without law" (ii. 12), much more will the Jew, who has it, 
 for it only makes his sin apparent. 
 
 It is to be observed that he does not say that only the law 
 has this office, nor that this is the only office of the law. Men 
 have " the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law " 
 (ii. 20). It is a permanent revelation of divine righteousness. 
 Again, it is said to be " a schoolmaster unto Christ " (Gal. iii. 
 24) and to have been made for the lawless (i Tim. i. 9). The 
 offices of the law are various. On the other hand, sin is re- 
 vealed not o^y by the law, but by conscience, as the apostle 
 has already taught (ii. 15), by the gospel, and especially 
 by the Holy Spirit (John xvi. 8, 9). When Paul says here 
 that by the law is the knowledge of sin, he is just asserting in 
 the most emphatic manner that the Jew cannot hope for sal- 
 vation by its observance. It cannot lift him out of the wide 
 morass of his sin ; it only shows him how deep and how hope- 
 lessly he is in.
 
 (III. 20) SIN CONCLUDED 55 
 
 This brief but radical statement about the office of the law 
 would startle the first readers of the epistle, especially the 
 Jewish ones, and lead them to expect something more on the 
 topic. And Paul presents it, but not here. Indeed, the law 
 is a chief topic to be considered. The most serious Jew would 
 ask, Has God given Israel a code that, after all, cannot save? 
 The question confronts the gospel at the start; Jesus met it 
 (Matt. v. 17-20), and Paul will in due time. 
 
 And here it may be as well to notice that this is a charac- 
 teristic of the epistle, to touch a subject and then drop it for 
 a full treatment farther on. We have had three such instances 
 already. The righteousness by faith was mentioned and at 
 once left at i. 17 for the discussion about sin. It is taken up 
 again as the next topic, and forms the main line of thought 
 to the end of chapter viii. The advantage of the Jew was 
 broached in iii. 1-4, but will not be noticed again until chap- 
 ters ix.-xi., where it is fully considered. The third case is 
 this one about the law, glanced at again in v. 20 and vi. 14, 
 but the full exposition is withheld until chapter vii. Romans 
 iii. 21 is the text of chapter iv. Finally there ends with vi. 13 
 a very short exhortation, taken up again in the first verse of 
 the twelfth chapter as the theme for the rest of the epistle. 
 Rigid attention to the course of thought shows the necessity 
 for this first mention and later development, and accounts 
 logically for the place where each comes in. 
 
 The first main division of the epistle forms a powerful nega- 
 tive argument for the second, and was evidently so intended. 
 Since man is a sinner with no help in himself and none in the 
 law, what is left to him but to look to the mercy of God? 
 Every son of Adam is not only lost, but condemned. His 
 penalty is continuance in sin not only while he sins, but be- 
 cause he has sinned. This is the wrath of God, the proposi- 
 tion which begins the first main division (i. 18) and is proved 
 in it. All the world is " guilty before God." In a court of
 
 66 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 21) 
 
 justice it is only after every defense has failed and the law 
 itself has been shown to be broken, it is only at this point 
 that the appeal is made to the judge for his clemency. The 
 epistle has brought us to such a point. 
 
 This division extends to the close of chapter viii., and con- 
 tains two leading thoughts : first, justification, in iii. 2i-v., and 
 secondly, sanctification, in chapters vi.-viii. These theologi- 
 cal terms are used instead of the more biblical ones, "right- 
 eousness " and " holiness," because Paul embraces under the 
 former both justification and sanctification, both the removal 
 of guilt (iii. 2i-v.) and the power of right living (vi.-viii.). 
 For clearness of thought, theology separates these two and 
 discusses them apart. Paul includes the two in the word 
 "righteousness" and even in the word "justify." 
 
 2f. With this verse -Paul begins the description of that 
 righteousness which avails before God. (See (3) above.) It 
 might read, "An apart-from-law righteousness of God has 
 been revealed." This gives Paul's order of the words. The 
 definite article before the word " righteousness " is omitted in 
 modern translations. He told us in a former verse (i. 17) 
 that it is in the gospel that this righteousness is unveiled, or, 
 as here, stands in clear light. The word " now," meaning as 
 the case, the argument, now stands, shows how gladly Paul 
 turns from the painful matter of sin to its sure remedy. A 
 sigh of relief can be heard in the particle. 
 
 Just one point is made so far about the righteousness : it 
 stands apart from the law, has no vital connection with it ; its 
 source is elsewhere. Paul says just this in Philippians iii. 9. 
 He does not define the word. Something of its contents is 
 given in i Corinthians xv. 3, 4. Of course it is not God's at- 
 tribute, so called, for that is not the special revelation of the 
 gospel ; neither could it be said of that attribute that it is a 
 righteousness by faith. The gospel tells where this saving 
 righteousness is found in Christ; on what condition it is
 
 (III. 22) RIGHTEOUSNESS 57 
 
 gained by a sinner faith ; what are its present fruits love, 
 joy, and peace ; and what is the outcome eternal life. Paul's 
 readers knew all this, and therefore he limits himself to other 
 points, equally important, found in the paragraph before us. 
 
 "Being witnessed by the law and the prophets." While 
 denying one relation between the law and the gospel, Paul 
 never forgets to insist upon another. There is no breach be- 
 tween the Old Testament and the New. The ceremonies and 
 the prophecies of the Jewish Bible could not give life; they 
 did not develop the Christ ; but in his springing " out of Judah," 
 in his being "made under the law," and in his resurrection 
 "according to the Scriptures," they become a powerful and 
 ever-living witness to him. A shadow never gives birth to sub- 
 stance, but substance to shadow. The shadow of the law an- 
 swers exactly to the substantial righteousness of the gospel, 
 from which the shadow arose, and testifies that they belong 
 together. How the ceremonies of the law pointed to Christ 
 is elaborately unfolded in the Book of Hebrews. The taber- 
 nacle, the lavings, the sacrifices, all pointed to Christ. The 
 prophets bore direct verbal testimony to righteousness to come 
 just as it did come. The gospel, when it was first preached 
 and as Paul preached it, must have seemed like a subversion 
 of the ancient documents, so new and radical was it. But 
 Paul found it harmonizing with these same parchments, when 
 read under the new light burning in Christ; and he stands 
 for and stands on the " living oracles " (Acts vii. 38). 
 
 In this verse, then, Paul has given the first item in describ- 
 ing the new righteousness; it is apart from the law, but not 
 contrary to it. 
 
 22. He tells us next the source of this righteousness it is 
 " of [from] God " ; he gives its leading characteristic it is not 
 a by-works, but a by-faith righteousness ; he points to him on 
 whom alone the faith must rest, Jesus Christ, for right faith is 
 faith on the right object ; he asserts the universality of its pro-
 
 68 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 23) 
 
 vision it is a righteousness for all ; he gives the condition of 
 its bestowment it is for every one who believes. It is to be 
 observed that faith, first the noun and then the verb, is men- 
 tioned twice in this verse. Commentators are either silent here 
 or confused. Even Meyer, correct in his exposition of the 
 first mention, but surely wrong at i. 17, says nothing about 
 the second. The lack of clearness arises in not observing that 
 when faith is first spoken of in the verse it belongs to the de- 
 scription of the righteousness, and in the second instance it 
 teaches how the righteousness is attained. The first is ob- 
 jective, the second subjective. As a righteousness by works is 
 secured by works, so a righteousness by faith is secured by faith. 
 
 " For there is no difference " between Jew and Gentile. 
 This little sentence gives the reason for saying that the right- 
 eousness is for " all." All need it, and no class of men has 
 anything else to present before God for salvation. 
 
 23* " For all have sinned." This shows what Paul means 
 in saying there is no difference. He does not mean that they 
 have all sinned to the same degree, but if any man has sinned 
 at all he has failed, and cannot be saved by any other means 
 than faith in Christ. Paul shows next the consequence of 
 universal sinfulness ; all sinned and are coming short, in suc- 
 cessive generations, of the glory of God. He changes the 
 tense from the past to the present. He does not say that all 
 men come equally short of measuring up to the standard ; but 
 the standard is perfection, nothing else can pass before God, 
 and the lack of an inch is as fatal as the lack of twelve. In 
 this world he who sins but little is much better than he who 
 sins much, but at God's bar neither will be accepted. There 
 is "no difference." To sin at ali is to lose all and to come 
 short of the glory or praise of God. " Glory " in this place 
 means the same as in John xii. 43, where it is translated 
 " praise." For man can have no higher glory than the ap- 
 probation of God.
 
 (III. 24) RIGHTEOUSNESS 69 
 
 What Paul has to say in this and the preceding verse about 
 sin is very brief, for the subject was fully discussed in the first 
 section of the epistle ; but this brief mention shows how this 
 section is made vital by that one. 
 
 24* " Being justified freely," etc. The subject of this par- 
 ticipial clause is the " all who sinned " at the beginning of the 
 last verse. Of course Paul does not mean to say that all sin- 
 ners are justified. He had just declared that the condition is 
 faith, and he need not say it again. To have inserted the word 
 " faith " would have turned the attention from what he has 
 to say, that sinners without exception are justified not by 
 works, not by any means except those mentioned below. 
 When they are justified, or if they are justified at all, it must 
 be as here described. The present tense of the participle does 
 not show a continuance of the act, justification occurs once 
 for all, but a continuance in its spreading among men and 
 generations that need it. 
 
 To justify does not mean to make (inherently) righteous, 
 but to declare or pronounce righteous. (See remarks on vi. 
 i.) Two cases in which the word has already stood in the 
 epistle show this, ii. 13 and iii. 4. In the first, men are said 
 to be justified in the judgment. Can that mean that they are 
 made right in that hour of award? In the next, God is said 
 to be justified at that same time. He that is holiness itself 
 can be declared so, and anything else is blasphemy. (See also 
 i Tim. iii. 16, and Luke vii. 29.) In Matthew (xi. 19) wis- 
 dom is said to be "justified of [by] her children." Her children 
 recognize her excellence, and pronounce it such, but do not 
 make her what she already is. To justify is in some sense a 
 forensic act equivalent to " not condemned " ; " he that be- 
 lieveth is not condemned" (John iii. 18), that is, he is justified 
 on his faith. But the peculiarity of the divine court is that the 
 sinner has been proved to be guilty and is known to be guilty, 
 all the world is guilty before God, and after all is freely
 
 60 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 25) 
 
 justified ; while in the human court this is impossible. When 
 one is justified or acquitted among men it must be either that 
 his crime was not proved or that there were extenuating cir- 
 cumstances. But before God man is guilty and yet is justified 
 on believing, but not for his believing. Man cannot justify a 
 sinner ; God can. 
 
 Paul proceeds to give three interesting facts the very mar- 
 row of the gospel pertaining to the subject. First, as to the 
 manner. All are justified "freely." It costs the acquitted 
 person absolutely nothing, " without money and without price " 
 (Isa. Iv. i). Secondly, the source of the justification. "By 
 his [God's] grace." This is his favor to the man not after he 
 is justified, but before. It is grace toward the ungodly (Eph. 
 ii. 4, 5): He "loved us, even when we were dead in sins." 
 Thirdly, we have the means of the justification of grace. 
 " Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Note the 
 relation of the two divine persons toward the justifying act. 
 It is God who justifies ; it is Christ who is the medium. God's 
 grace comes in and through Christ. 
 
 25. In this and the following verse there are just two points : 
 first, how Christ became redemption, and secondly, why. The 
 redemption is from the wrath of God. The Jew had little 
 trouble in understanding this point. As a sinner he knew he 
 was under the divine displeasure, and brought therefore a 
 bloody offering an ox, a sheep, or a dove by which to re- 
 deem himself from God's displeasure and render satisfaction 
 for his sin. Paul now says God himself has set forth Jesus 
 Christ in his blood as the propitiatory offering through faith. 
 The phrase " in his blood " is to be joined not with the word 
 " faith " immediately preceding, but with the verb " set forth." 
 Philosophy and theology have busied themselves here, without 
 reaching unanimity, on a question which Paul does not hint 
 at the relation of the sacrifice to its end. The apostle gives 
 only the facts. God freely justifies men by means of the ran-
 
 (III. 25) RIGHTEOUSNESS 61 
 
 som power in Christ Jesus. He is such because God has set 
 him forth in his blood as a sufficient propitiation. Whatever 
 reason may say about such a sacrifice, Paul is satisfied with it 
 because it is God's own. God is satisfied with the offering, 
 for he provided it. It becomes a propitiation " through faith," 
 because faith says of it just what God does I accept what 
 God has provided for my sin. That ends the difference be- 
 tween God and the sinner, and they are at one in Christ Jesus. 
 This is justification by faith. 
 
 " To declare his righteousness." With this Paul begins to 
 answer the second question, why Christ Jesus was set forth as 
 a redemptive sacrifice in his blood. His answer will not sat- 
 isfy unless his exposition of sin is accepted. Man's sin is not 
 misfortune; it is guilt. God's wrath burns against it; why 
 should that wrath ever cease? Again the Jew could answer. 
 His law bore witness (verse 2 1 ) to the gospel. The smoking 
 altar where he offered his lamb or his bullock not only testi- 
 fied that God could remit the offerer's sin, but declared also 
 that God was holy. Justice demanded the life of the sinner, 
 and a life was given in that of the bloody offering. Justice 
 justified because justice was satisfied. 
 
 The word " righteousness " in this sentence does not mean 
 the same as in verse 2 1 . To insist that a word must in every 
 instance of its use have the same signification is subversive of 
 all understanding. Such a notion is contradicted by the facts. 
 The word " glory " has already been used in two widely differ- 
 ent senses. Righteousness here looks at God's character as 
 Judge. The question now before us is, How can a righteous 
 Judge pronounce a guilty sinner guiltless ? Paul's answer is 
 that the redemptive sacrifice in Jesus Christ, a sacrifice fore- 
 shadowed in the Jewish altar-offerings, declares the divine 
 righteousness in showing mercy. The chief question in saving 
 man is not how the man may be accounted just, but how God 
 may remain so in forgiving his sins.
 
 62 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 25) 
 
 " For the remission of sins that are past, through the for- 
 bearance of God." The Revised Version is preferable : " Be- 
 cause of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the 
 forbearance of God." These are not the sins committed by 
 *he believer before he came to Christ, but the sins done under 
 the old economy, before Christ came (Heb. ix. 15). It is not 
 said that God forgave these sins, not even, with the King James 
 version, that he remitted them. To all appearances, in all past 
 time he paid no attention to sins, he overlooked them (" winked 
 it," Acts xvii. 30), without meting out adequate punishment 
 \Ps. Ixxviii. 38). Sometimes in the history of the race he sent 
 judgments, now against the Jews and now against the Gen- 
 tiles. The Jews were driven more than once into captivity, 
 and more than one heathen nation had been overthrown ; but 
 as judgment for man's sin, this was nothing. Inspiration's 
 just estimate, in spite of these severe visitations, cries that 
 there was on God's part a "passing over of the sins done 
 aforetime," as if the just Judge had not rightly weighed their 
 guilt. There was a thick veil over his righteousness, but the 
 cross removed it and demonstrated his judgment of sin. The 
 terrible tragedy of the cross, on which God set forth his Son in 
 his blood, is his measure of man's demerit. The punishment 
 that man so long escaped fell at last on the Son of man. 
 
 Now, while the death of Christ Jesus looked back thus at 
 the sins of the whole race, and while he died " because of the 
 passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of 
 God," it is by no means taught that the race was saved. What is 
 taught is very clear, not that Christ died to secure the righteous- 
 ness of men, but to rescue the righteousness of God from a mis- 
 understanding. Says Godet (" Commentary," in loc.) : " For 
 four thousand years the spectacle presented by mankind to 
 the whole moral universe (compare i Cor. iv. 9) was, so to 
 speak, a continual scandal. . . . Divine righteousness seemed 
 to sleep ; one might even have asked if it existed. Men sinned
 
 (III. 26) RIGHTEOUSNESS 63 
 
 here below and yet they lived. They sinned on and yet 
 reached in safety a hoary old age. Where were the 'wages 
 of sin'? It was this relative impunity which rendered a 
 solemn manifestation of righteousness necessary." Jesus died 
 for men, but in a much more striking way he died for God. 
 What a fathomless depth of meaning he gave to the first peti- 
 tion in the Lord's Prayer, "Hallowed be thy name"! How 
 God hates sin ! For even overlooking it his honor demanded 
 the blood of the cross; how much more when he forgives it! 
 And it is not difficult to distinguish between the cross as a dem- 
 onstration of God's righteousness on one hand, and a propiti- 
 ation looking toward man's righteousness on the other. It is a 
 propitiation only through faith ; it is a demonstration in itself. 
 In all time, past, present, or future, only those men are saved 
 by the cross who believe ; but equally in all time the cross 
 honors God whether men believe or not. The cross, instead 
 of saving all men, does show, by its declaration of God's 
 righteousness, and show conclusively, that they are not saved 
 unless they believe. 
 
 26. The cross stands midway in the history of the race and 
 looks in both directions in declaring God's righteousness in 
 his dealings with men. For this reason the phrase " to declare 
 his righteousness," in verse 25, is repeated here. The death 
 of Christ on the cross accomplished one great work and be- 
 came the means to another. It showed that God was not 
 slack in his dealing with the sins of the race in the past ; it 
 also declares his righteousness in his mercy toward the be- 
 liever now, " at this time," a phrase in contrast with the word 
 " past " in the preceding verse. But this phrase conveys also 
 the fitness and significance of the era of the cross. It was the 
 time foreseen and chosen by God for his marvelous display of 
 his own holy character. In after years men came in some 
 sense to recognize the meaning of this period by dating time 
 from the birth of Christ. What the antichrist will at the last
 
 64 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 26) 
 
 attempt to do (Dan. vii. 25) Christ had the right to do cre- 
 ate a new era. 
 
 " That he might be just, and the justifier of him which [who] 
 believeth in Jesus." This is the grand purpose of God in set- 
 ting forth Christ in his blood. On this setting forth the three 
 main ideas in these two verses depend: set forth to declare 
 God's righteousness in the past ; set forth to declare God's 
 righteousness " at this time " ; and set forth that he might be 
 just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. But why 
 does Paul mention the retroactive influence of the cross? It 
 is his argument, first of all with the Jew and ultimately with 
 all men, to cut off the Jew from a false reliance on his past 
 history. It explains history. History cannot interpret the 
 gospel ; the gospel interprets history. The Jew's history was 
 not complete, his sacrifices never atoned, until Christ died on 
 the cross, which death showed that God had dealt with men 
 not as they deserved and not strictly in accord with his char- 
 acter as a righteous Judge. The sacrifice on the cross dem- 
 onstrates for the first time what God is, and shows that in 
 times past and present he is the same " of purer eyes than to 
 behold evil" (Hab. i. 13). 
 
 If God set forth Christ in his blood as a redemptive and 
 propitiatory sacrifice in order that he might be just in justify- 
 ing the believer, then we gain with certainty the meaning of 
 the words "redemption " and "propitiation." God could not 
 be just without the sacrifice of Christ; it was made in order 
 that God might be just ; therefore it must be said that Christ 
 died for men and that his blood was their redemption price 
 (Gal. iii. 13; i Pet. i. 18, 19). The judge could not release 
 the bankrupt man until his creditor was satisfied. For Christ 
 did not die that God might seem to be just, but that in fact 
 he might be just in the very act of justifying the believer. It 
 is a righteous thing as well as a merciful thing for God to for- 
 give a believer ; but the sinner cannot plead this right, since
 
 (III. 26) RIGHTEOUSNESS 65 
 
 he did not provide the ransom, God did in Christ, but the 
 sinner's Saviour can plead it for him. Justification is an act 
 of righteousness toward Jesus Christ, an act of mercy toward 
 the sinner. If mercy is not made prominent in this descrip- 
 tion of righteousness, it is because Paul is looking at the primal 
 difficulty in saving men. It is not how to get men to God, 
 but how to get God to men how a just God is to pronounce 
 a sinner just. The wisdom of men never could have removed 
 this difficulty even if they had seen it. It is completely taken 
 away in Christ Jesus. 
 
 The paragraph (verses 21-26), then, has just two topics : the 
 righteousness that avails, and its bestowment, justification. It 
 may be outlined thus : 
 
 'i. Its source "God." 
 
 . ((a) "Apart from "it; 
 2. Relation to law < ; ' ..* 
 
 ( (b) " Witnessed " by it. 
 
 O 
 
 <u 
 
 be 
 3 
 
 3. Chief characteristic" Faith in Jesus." 
 
 4. Condition Belief in him. 
 
 5. Its extent" Unto all." 
 
 6. Reason for this extent "No difference." 
 
 '(a) Manner "Freely." 
 
 How 
 
 (b) Cause" His grace." 
 
 (c) Means "Redemption that is in Christ 
 
 Jesus." 
 
 Why by blood "That God might be just, and the 
 justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 This brief but masterly exposition of righteousness, like the 
 sun, is its own evidence. But it found great opposition at the 
 start, not in heathenism, but in pharisaism. The Jew could 
 claim that his God was the true one, his religion a revealed 
 one, and its documents inspired. (See his boast in ii. 17-20.) 
 It is not the false, but the perverted religion that furnishes the 
 chief obstacle to the truth. And Paul begins here to answer
 
 66 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 27, 28) 
 
 the perversion. Indeed, the direct exposition of the right- 
 eousness by faith ends with the twenty-sixth verse. If the 
 epistle had ended there it would not have been incomplete. 
 All the rest is a consideration of objections, in which the fur- 
 ther unfolding of the righteousness is only incidental. 
 
 27, " Where, then, is the boasting " on the part of the Jew? 
 How can he claim anything over the Gentile? Righteousness 
 does not arise from his law ; he is a sinner like the Gentile, 
 and the salvation in Christ is universal. " Where, then, is the 
 boasting? It is excluded. By what [kind of a] law? " What 
 sort of an institution? One whose chief characteristic is pre- 
 scribed works? No; where a man does works of law to be 
 saved, he can boast of them and boast of the law that warrants 
 them. Boasting can only be shut out by a law, an institution, 
 whose chief characteristic is faith. For faith says first of all 
 (Luke xviii. 13) that man is so hopelessly, helplessly a sinner, 
 so guilty even with all his law-works, that God's grace alone 
 can save him in Christ. If a man believes, he cannot boast 
 of that; for even if it is denied that faith is God's gift, it is 
 nothing to a man's credit to trust God. While it is the chief 
 of sins not to do so, trust is every man's bounden duty. 
 
 It will be noticed here that Paul claims the same distinction 
 for faith that the Jew does for works ; it is a law, a new and 
 wholly different law not a law of bondage, but a "law of 
 liberty" (James i. 25). He also sets the two in sharp an- 
 tithesis. Faith and works of law are mutually exclusive. 
 
 28, " Therefore we conclude," etc. The Revised Version 
 also reads " therefore," but it is not correct. It ought to be 
 "for." And thus the verse gives the substantial reason for 
 the exclusion of boasting. That reason is that " a man [any 
 man, Jew or Gentile] is justified by faith [the latter is the em- 
 phatic word] without deeds of law." The last clause is more 
 forcible by omitting the articles. 
 
 But why does Paul thrust so sharply at the Jew's boasting?
 
 till. 29, 30) RIGHTEOUSNESS 67 
 
 Is it not because vain pride or prejudice is generally the last 
 and strongest support of a bad case? The Jew's loud boast 
 was his only argument, and it must be silenced. 
 
 29. " Is he the God of the Jews only? " The word " or " 
 should precede "Or is God the God of the Jews only?" 
 This brings up the Jew's boast on another side. His claim 
 that law-works justify involves a position which he cannot 
 maintain that there must be more than one God, one of the 
 Jews and one of the Gentiles. It is proved now that there 
 can be but one way of justifying men, the way of faith, a way 
 suited to the Gentile and in flat contradiction to the Jew's way 
 of works. Now if the Jew sticks to his course, there must be 
 two Gods, for the same God cannot save men by opposing 
 methods. It is easy to become confused here. Paul is not 
 contending for justification by faith. That doctrine is settled, 
 settled with the close of the twenty-sixth verse. He is argu- 
 ing now for its exclusiveness, that it is the only true doctrine. 
 The Jew claims that the works of law will save; Paul has 
 proved that faith saves. If both are true, God is not one. 
 But the Jew admitted that his God was the God of the Gen- 
 tiles. The Old Testament gives abundant proof of this in the 
 Psalms and in the prophets. (See Jer. x. 7.) It was freely 
 admitted during the ministry of Jesus (Mark xii. 32), so that 
 no one would dispute the saying, " Yea, he is the God of the 
 Gentiles also." The Jew's boast in his works denied this, or 
 it was a groundless boast. 
 
 30. " Seeing it is one God." The Revised Version changes 
 both the reading and the rendering : " If so be that God is 
 one." The change in reading does not materially alter the 
 sense ; the change in translation is a gain in that it brings out 
 the idea of the unity of God. Because God is one there can 
 be but one way of justifying men. A righteous judge could 
 not render contradictory decisions where all are alike guilty, 
 and certainly he could not decide in such a way that his judg-
 
 68 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 31) 
 
 ment to save some would necessarily exclude others. The 
 unity of God makes salvation by faith exclusive of every other 
 means. 
 
 It is to be noted that Paul's argument on this whole subject 
 of justification by faith, beginning with the twentieth verse, is 
 so far theological. It is based on the character of God and 
 on his unity. The Jew admitted his holiness and his oneness, 
 but his deduction that justification came by works of law was 
 utterly inconsistent. He reached this false conclusion because 
 he was ignorant of his sinfulness. It cannot be said too often 
 that a false theology finds its source in inadequate views of 
 depravity. 
 
 Paul excludes the works of the law from justification, and 
 yet the Jew's Bible prescribed them, and in a most solemn 
 manner: "The uncircumcised man . . . hath broken my 
 covenant " (Gen. xvii. 14). The apostle's argument so far is 
 unanswerable ; it is based on solid theological data ; but from 
 the very start he has claimed that it is also scriptural. It has 
 a documentary defense, being witnessed by the law and the 
 prophets. 
 
 3J, This last verse of the third chapter serves to bring up 
 this question. Faith excludes works ; does it, then, evacuate 
 the Book of works, as the Jew supposed it to be? The nega- 
 tive comes with a shudder "God forbid." Paul will teach 
 nothing contradictory to what he has already called the Holy 
 Scriptures (i. 2). For the word "law" here does not mean 
 the ceremonial or even the moral law, but the whole Old 
 Testament. "We establish the law." The next chapter 
 shows how. He does not confirm it by abstract theological 
 reasoning, but by exegetical exposition of its utterance.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH IN HARMONY WITH THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT SCRIPTURES 
 
 THIS chapter answers the question raised in the last verse 
 above, and shows the concord between Moses and Paul, be- 
 tween the law and the gospel. The points are four: (i) 
 Abraham, with whom the Jewish nation began, was justified by 
 faith (verses 1-5), the method celebrated in song by their 
 greatest king, David (verses 6-8) ; (2) Abraham was justified 
 long before he was circumcised (verses 9-1 2) ; (3) the promise 
 that he should be the heir of the world was by means of faith 
 (verses 13-170) ; (4) the faith demanded by the gospel is none 
 other in character than that which Abraham exercised (verses 
 17/5-25). 
 
 J. " What shall we say then that Abraham . . . hath 
 found?" The variations in the reading of this verse do not 
 seriously affect the sense. As Abraham was the father of the 
 faithful, Paul seeks in the record of his life how he was justi- 
 fied. What did Abraham, our forefather, find or obtain " ac- 
 cording to the flesh"? This phrase is to be joined with the 
 verb " hath found " and not with the word " father." It 
 means, what did he find by his own natural efforts in contrast 
 with that which is spiritual? The phrase is almost equivalent 
 to this: what did he gain by religious works? The word 
 " flesh " stands for the whole natural man, body, soul, and 
 
 69
 
 70 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 2-4) 
 
 spirit, and not for the physical part only. Hence the Scrip- 
 ture can speak of " the will of the flesh " (John i. 13). 
 
 2. " For if Abraham was justified by works." The " for " 
 does not give the answer to the question about Abraham, but 
 the reason for asking it. The Jew rightly assumed, with Paul, 
 that the head of the nation was justified, but the question is, 
 how? by what means? If by works, then he has something 
 of which to boast. He can point to these works; he can 
 " glory." The conditional sentence ends with this word 
 "glory," which is rightly followed, both in the King James 
 and the Revised Version, by a semicolon ; for that which fol- 
 lows, " but not before God," is Paul's own solemn assertion. 
 Admitting that Abraham was justified in some way, Paul de- 
 clares that it was in such a way that the nation's head had 
 nothing to boast of before God. Paul's declaration is the 
 proposition now to be proved. 
 
 3. " For what saith the Scripture? " This is Paul's sup- 
 port of his point that Abraham found nothing of his Own to 
 glory in before God. In the Scripture, in the law, it is written : 
 " Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for right- 
 eousness " (Gen. xv. 6). It was not his natural works, but his 
 trust in God, that was set down to his account. The history, 
 a part of which is here quoted, leaves no room for works. 
 God made Abraham a supernatural promise, and the patriarch 
 believed it, and that belief was set down to his account for 
 justification. And since there is no merit in believing God, 
 because it is every man's bounden duty to do so, it was God's 
 mercy, God's grace, that " counted " Abraham's act ot faith 
 to his credit. 
 
 4. Paul might have dropped the question with the Scripture 
 quotation, which clearly proves that Abraham did not work, 
 but believed ; but he gives an exposition of the latter part 
 of his quotation almost in syllogistic form. It is a general 
 principle that a worker's "reward" or wages is a "debt" due
 
 (IV. 5) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 71 
 
 him for his work. But Abraham's reward, justification, was 
 " counted " to him, was bestowed on him as a favor. It fol- 
 lows, then, that he was not a worker. If he was, the word 
 " counted," implying grace, could not be used. It is no favor 
 to a man to pay him what he is earning. It is a " debt " due 
 him. Dr. Shedd (" Commentary," in loc.} quotes " Coriola- 
 nus " (act ii., sc. 3) here : 
 
 " Better it is to die, better to starve, 
 Than crave the hire which first we do deserve." 
 
 5. " But to him [any one] that worketh not [the case of 
 Abraham], but [on the other hand] believeth on him [God] 
 that justifieth the ungodly [individual], his faith [his believing] 
 is counted [to him] for righteousness [justification]." Abra- 
 ham was justified ; this is not disputed. He did not do works 
 to reach this happy position before God ; therefore nothing is 
 left to which to ascribe his salvation except his believing. 
 This verse has not the form, but all the force, of a deduction 
 from what precedes. It is the fundamental and guiding prin- 
 ciple in obtaining the favor of God. Abraham stood before 
 God in his sins. They were not forgiven. God made him 
 a promise that was against human reason, and the patriarch 
 put his trust in it and relied upon it. And now, on the con- 
 dition of that trust in God's word, God pronounced him no 
 longer guilty of sin. He had not uttered a prayer, he had 
 not done a religious deed, he was not a good man, but "un- 
 godly," and yet he was justified. The term "ungodly" does 
 not necessarily mean depraved, but simply without accepta- 
 ble piety. But after all it is an elastic term, and can include 
 the utmost departure from moral rectitude. God's justifica- 
 tion reaches believing men in whatever sins it finds them. 
 
 It may be said that Abraham was a believer long years be- 
 fore the incident in his life cited here by Paul; and so he was. 
 " By faith Abraham, when he was called, . . . went out, not
 
 72 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 6-8) 
 
 knowing whither he went " (Heb. xi. 8). But it is nowhere re- 
 corded that this act of faith justified him. It was not a faith 
 against reason, but a commendable following of the guidance 
 of God. If any kind of faith in God faith in his existence, 
 faith in his goodness, faith in his almightiness justified, 
 why, who would not be saved? The faith that saves is nar- 
 row, specific, and resting on one single item, the gospel, as 
 Paul soon shows. Abraham had been a good man and even 
 a believing man, as was Cornelius (Acts x. 1-6), and all this 
 was no hindrance to justification, but in the way of it. Justi- 
 fication, however, did not occur, at least there is no record of 
 it, in the case of Abraham until he believed God's supernatural 
 promise. And Cornelius was not justified by his goodness; 
 he had to hear the gospel to be "saved" (Acts xi. 14). 
 
 6-8, " Even as David," etc. Another most eminent man in 
 Jewish history is cited in favor of "righteousness without 
 works." David's testimony would be conclusive with a can- 
 did Jew. The introductory words, "even as," show his exact 
 accord with Paul's reasoning about Abraham's justification. 
 David uses the same language in describing the felicitation 
 (not felicity) of the man to whom " God imputeth righteous- 
 ness without works." David is just citing his own case (Ps. 
 xxxii. i, 2), when he had none but most evil works to show. 
 "This righteousness is not ours, otherwise God would not 
 gratuitously impute it, but bestow it as a matter of right ; nor 
 is it a habit or quality, for it is ' without works ' ; but it is a 
 gracious remission, a covering over, a non-imputation." It is 
 God's sentence of acquittal, pronounced on the sinner when 
 he believes God. 
 
 At first sight there seems to be a serious disagreement be- 
 tween what Paul sets out to prove and the citations from 
 David in attestation. Paul's proposition is that God "im- 
 puteth righteousness without works." The quotations men- 
 tion neither righteousness nor works, but speak about sins
 
 (IV. 9, io) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 73 
 
 being covered the only instance in the New Testament where 
 this language is used and about " the man to whom the Lord 
 will not impute sin." But to " forgive " clearly implies " with- 
 out works," and to " cover " implies the presence of the sins 
 at the moment when the mantle of grace falls on them to hide 
 them. They could not be covered if they had not been there 
 when the gracious concealment took place. This is the first 
 point in the proposition of "no works." The second, about 
 "righteousness," follows in the eighth verse, for the non-im- 
 putation of sin is necessarily the imputation of righteousness. 
 There is no conceivable state of the heart between the idea of 
 no sin and that of righteousness. Where there is no darkness 
 there must be light. 
 
 9. " Upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision 
 also?" With this verse begins the discussion of the second 
 (2) point in the concord between the Old Testament record 
 and grace. It is now proved by that record that a man is 
 justified by faith without works. Does this blessed way of 
 saving men belong to the Jews only? " For " it was proved 
 only in the case of him who is the father of the Jews, Abra- 
 ham. This puts the question into narrow limits. The uni- 
 versality of justification by faith must now be proved from 
 Abraham's case ; and this proof Paul proceeds to furnish. 
 
 JO* "How was it then reckoned?" Paul is not now in- 
 quiring after the condition on which Abraham was justified ; 
 for it has already been established that that condition was faith. 
 But what was his own personal or religious standing when he 
 believed and was justified thereby? Was he a heathen or a 
 Jew? Was he circumcised or uncircumcised ? Paul declares 
 he was in the latter condition, and submits this assertion with- 
 out proof, for the history of Abraham was conclusive on the 
 point. In Genesis xv. he was declared just. After this Ish- 
 mael was born, and when thirteen years old (Gen. xvii. 25) he 
 and Abraham were circumcised on the same day ; that is, Ish-
 
 74 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. il) 
 
 mael was in his fourteenth year, a number very significant in 
 the estimation of Paul's Jewish readers. 
 
 This was a tremendous blow to any who claimed that there 
 could be no salvation (Acts xv. i) without this principal Jew- 
 ish rite. Israel's own father was a justified man fourteen years 
 before it was imposed. 
 
 JJ* "The sign of circumcision." A new question now 
 confronts Paul. If the rite did not confer justification, if 
 Abraham was saved so long before it, what was its office? 
 what did it accomplish? Here is a reminder of the objector's 
 question at the beginning of the third chapter "What is the 
 profit of circumcision?" In answering Paul deals another 
 heavy blow to the opponent. The rite, instead of conferring 
 righteousness, confirmed that which Abraham already had, in 
 that it was a " sign " and seal of it. Circumcision attested the 
 validity of Abraham's faith righteousness in uncircumcision. 
 In no dispensation do rites bestow anything; they are the 
 shadow, not the substance ; they are a seal. But the seal is 
 worthless apart from the matter or from the document that it 
 attests. The Jew had torn off the seal from the covenant and 
 then vainly boasted of this meaningless imprint. 
 
 "That he might be the father." After using circumcision 
 and the relative time when it was given as a telling argument 
 for justification by faith and without works, Paul now shows 
 the divine intent of the rite. Without it Abraham would have 
 been father of the Gentiles only. With it he becomes father 
 of the Jews also. Thus quietly he puts the Jew in the second 
 place so far. Abraham is called father neither in a physical 
 nor in a spiritual sense. He is father in that he is head of the 
 faith clan and so the normal type. He is the head and father 
 in the fact that he was the first in whom God showed how 
 men are to be saved. 
 
 " Father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- 
 cumcised ; that [in order that] righteousness might be imputed
 
 (IV. 12) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 75 
 
 unto them also." In showing that Abraham is father of " all," 
 father of both Jews and Gentiles, he mentions the latter first. 
 The patriarch was saved without circumcision, by simple faith ; 
 so may the Gentiles be saved. The subordinate sentence, ' ' That 
 righteousness might be imputed," etc., depends on the word 
 " believe " in the preceding one. Gentiles in their uncircum- 
 cision believe in order that righteousness may be reckoned to 
 them, just as Abraham believed to become, in God's purpose, 
 their father and type. 
 
 J2. "And the father of circumcision." God's gracious 
 thought to save the world antedates, so to speak, his thought 
 of Israel. Israel was the means to the universal end. Hence 
 after Abraham was made the father of the believing Gentile 
 he was circumcised that he might become the first of a cir- 
 cumcised people ; thus he was head or father of both classes. 
 But Paul, by adding qualifying statements, carefully excludes 
 the unbelieving Jew from salvation in the Abrahamic descent. 
 If he was justified in uncircumcision he was circumcised in a 
 condition of faith. And faith is the vital element in establish, 
 ing saving descent from the patriarch. Without faith there is 
 no circumcision (Phil. iii. 2, 3) ; for Paul's qualifying sentences 
 show that Abraham is not father of those "of the circumci- 
 sion only " ; they must also walk in the steps of the uncircum- 
 cised faith of the patriarch "that faith of our father Abraham, 
 which he had being yet uncircuracised." 
 
 Paul has turned the Jew's boast upside down. It is not the 
 Gentile who must come to the Jew's circumcision for salva- 
 tion ; it is the Jew who must come to a Gentile faith, such a 
 faith as Abraham had long before he was circumcised. Paul's 
 reasoning here has been called a piece of " rabbinical scholas- 
 ticism." Is it not rather a plain but solid exposition of the 
 historic facts in Abraham's history? 
 
 That Abraham circumcised his sons, from one of whom the 
 circumcised Jewish nation according to the flesh sprang, has
 
 76 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 12) 
 
 nothing whatever to do with the point which Paul is here con- 
 sidering. It is Abraham himself and in his belief that is the 
 father and model of all God's people. He was not circum- 
 cised to be saved ; he was saved by faith and then circumcised 
 for a wholly different purpose, as Paul has shown, that he 
 might be father of a race of circumcised men. Faith saves ; 
 nothing else ever did or ever will. Circumcision is a pledge 
 of nationality, because Israel as a race is never to cease. 
 Faith is the condition of life for all men. Circumcision is a 
 token of the headship of Israel among the races of men a 
 headship to be gained when Israel as a nation adopts also 
 Abraham's faith. Isaac's circumcision when eight days old 
 (Gen. xxi. 4) was not, as in Abraham's case, a seal of right- 
 eousness, for the babe had none. And what did Ishmael's 
 circumcision "seal"? Ishmael and his descent, though cir- 
 cumcised, were never in the Jewish covenant, but " cast out " 
 (Gal. iv. 30). Men have never been able to rid themselves of 
 the delusion that circumcision has something to do in secur- 
 ing salvation ; but Abraham was a saved man many years be- 
 fore the rite was given. Circumcision secures not salvation, 
 but nationality. Abraham received it to become father of a 
 faithful circumcised nation, Isaac to perpetuate the national 
 promise, and Ishmael because God said, " Of the son of the 
 bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed" 
 (Gen. xxi. 13). When Isaac was saved he was not saved by 
 his circumcision any more than was his father before him. 
 God never promised salvation except to faith; he never 
 promised a perpetual nationality except to circumcised men 
 who believe. Abraham is head and father of both kinds of 
 men. Isaac is not ; he is first in the national line. Here was 
 the Jew's fatal mistake. He practically took Isaac in his eight- 
 days-old circumcision for the model of a saved man, and not 
 Abraham in his faith. 
 
 Another error on this verse is to be avoided that Paul is
 
 (IV. 13) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 77 
 
 showing and explaining how both Jews and Gentiles in his day 
 came together in the church, how Abraham was the father of 
 the church composed of both kinds of people. But the church 
 knows no nationality, and Paul is not considering the church 
 in this epistle. It is not mentioned till the argument has 
 closed. The theme of the epistle and of this verse is world- 
 wide, world-long salvation in Christ, in which all men shall 
 share, and ultimately the Jew as a Jew. It is a defense not of 
 the church, but of faith. The Jew thought circumcision saved ; 
 Paul shows that it only points to nationality when the Jew be- 
 lieves. 
 
 Can the question still be asked, " What is the profit of cir- 
 cumcision?" Paul has already given one rich word in reply 
 (see on iii. 2) ; here he has conceded that Abraham is the 
 national head of the Jews, and incidentally that their promises, 
 of which the fleshly mark is the token, still stand (xi. 28). The 
 full answer to the question is postponed, for here his main 
 point is that salvation comes only and wholly by faith. 
 
 (3. " For the promise, that he should be the heir of the 
 world." The course of thought still depends on the proposi- 
 tion in iii. 31, that salvation by faith without works of law 
 establishes the law ; it conforms to the law. In proof of this 
 it has been shown from that same law, a part of which is the 
 history of Abraham, that he was saved by faith and he was 
 saved before that prime article in the law, circumcision (Gal. 
 v. 3), was given. 
 
 With this thirteenth verse the third (3) point is taken up. 
 Paul, in verses n and 12, had used three times the common 
 Jewish designation for Abraham, "father." Israel's boast 
 and trust was," We have Abraham to our father" (Matt. iii. 9). 
 As father he had obtained in promise an inheritance for him- 
 self and his posterity, in accordance with which promise Isaac 
 was born. Now it is on his fatherhood in this light that the 
 "for" of this verse bears. Paul admits with the Jew that
 
 78 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 14, 15) 
 
 Abraham is father and thereby heir ; but as he becomes father 
 by faith, the thing already proved, so he also becomes heir by 
 faith. This last must be argued, and the word " for " intro- 
 duces the proof. The patriarch before Judaism existed had 
 obtained the grace of justification not as a Jew, but as a man ; 
 but in addition to this favor he also got the promise that he 
 and his seed in time to come should possess the world. The 
 Jews contended, even the best of them (Acts xv. 5), that the 
 latter favor was on the ground of law. Paul disputes it. His 
 argument is not drawn from Scripture, but from the faith now 
 proved and from the holiness of God. This thirteenth verse 
 does no more than to deny the false assumption that the prom- 
 ise of heirship to Abraham and to his seed was to be realized 
 by means of the Mosaic law, and to assert that that promise 
 is to be made good by means of a faith righteousness. 
 
 J4 If the assumption were true, that "they which are of 
 the law," the Jews as such, were heirs, then two impossible 
 things must be conceded to follow: first, faith is out of the 
 question, " is made void ; " and secondly, the promise itself is 
 nugatory or " of none effect." But that there is no righteous- 
 ness but by faith, that Abraham obtained his righteousness by 
 faith, has already been proved. Paul, therefore, does not argue 
 this point, but proceeds to discuss the next one. 
 
 J5. Why would the promise be nugatory if conditioned on 
 the keeping of the law? "Because the law" cannot realize 
 any promise based on its observance. It cannot work out a 
 promise to him who is under it, for he does not keep it, and so 
 law only works out "wrath" to him. God is holy and cannot 
 suffer the least infraction of his commands ; and Paul has al- 
 ready shown the whole nation under sin (iii. 9-20). 
 
 " For no law, ... no transgression." Instead of " for " 
 all modern versions read "but." Where there is no written 
 law man is still in sin. God expects nothing else of man, and 
 in his grace can provide for his rescue, and is not hindered by
 
 (IV. 16) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 79 
 
 transgression in showing favor. But when man is under law he 
 adds to his sin the aggravation of transgression, and the divine 
 grace is estopped. It is shut out not only by the violation of 
 the law, but by the holiness of God, who must vindicate his law. 
 Therefore the promise of heirship was given to faith outside of 
 law that there might be no transgression to defeat the promise. 
 
 \ 6. This verse concludes and so repeats the proposition under 
 debate, adding some amplifying details. It begins with very el- 
 liptical language, as the italic words in the King James version 
 indicate. The case is now so plain that Paul rushes to the con- 
 clusion in the fewest words : " Therefore of faith, in order that 
 according to grace." The ellipses can easily be supplied from 
 what precedes. " Therefore [since law cannot realize anything 
 but wrath] it [the promised heritage] is of faith [or " by faith "], 
 that [in order that] it might be by grace [or a gift to believing 
 sinners]." Even if the heritage could have been earned by 
 keeping the written law, none but the Jews had the law, and they 
 only would have been heirs. But as their law only brought 
 wrath and not the promise, the latter could have come to 
 neither party. So God conditioned it on faith, which is pos- 
 sible to all men, " to the end [with the intent] that the promise 
 might be sure [surely given] to all the seed [both Jew and Gen- 
 tile, as the rest of the verse declares]." In specifying that 
 part of the seed which belongs to the law he does not mention 
 faith again. It was not necessary, because this had just been 
 declared to be the condition on which " all " the seed could 
 inherit. Note that, while the twelfth verse refers to one class, 
 the Jews, with two characteristics, this verse refers to both 
 classes with but one characteristic, faith. 
 
 It is not without much hesitancy, even after prolonged study, 
 that at this point the great commentators cannot be followed. 
 Meyer, Forbes, Alford, even Bengel, make this third point to 
 be a further discussion of justification by faith, as though this 
 were synonymous with the words " heir of the world." Godet
 
 80 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 16) 
 
 just once touches on what is the matter here considered, but 
 then immediately drops it : " Believing Jews and Gentiles, we 
 all participate by faith not only in justification, but also in the 
 future possession of the world." The words which we have 
 italicized in this quotation are the key to this third point in 
 the chapter. The subject is not justification ; that ended with 
 verse 12. The subject is clearly and unmistakably announced 
 at the head of the paragraph that Abraham and his seed had 
 t\i& promise of heir ship of the world on the ground of faith. The 
 heirship of the world does not mean that Abraham was to have 
 an elect number of believers in all nations, that he was to be 
 " the father, federal head, and pattern of all them that believe " 
 (Forbes). Abraham was set forth as a father and pattern in 
 the second section (verses 9-12). Why should Paul be sup- 
 posed to be repeating that, especially when he has pointedly 
 given the topic of this third section? 
 
 Furthermore, the topic is not that Abraham by his faith 
 should be a model to his spiritual progeny ; both he and they 
 are taken together, and it is declared of the father and the 
 children in common that the heirship of the world is theirs. 
 It is not that Abraham's seed is such only by faith, but that 
 Abraham's seed gets the possession of the world by faith. 
 
 It must in justice be said that Meyer (" Commentary," in 
 loc., pp. 205, 206, T. & T. Clark) admits this view, but further 
 along he seems to relapse to the other. The Epistle to the 
 Romans must be studied historically and not as a theological 
 thesis on faith. The Jews of Paul's day had a definite and 
 pronounced eschatology, easily ascertained (Luke ii. 30-32), 
 based on many clear promises (Jer. iii. 17, 18), and it gives 
 the key in more than one place ; it is the key here. By the 
 law they hoped not only for salvation, but for universal do- 
 minion of the world. Paul no more denies their eschatologi- 
 cal hope than he does their hope of salvation. His conten- 
 tion so far is not only that both can be realized by nothing
 
 (IV. ija, 17^) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 81 
 
 but faith, but that this is the teaching of the law itself. The 
 law promises to Abraham's seed the possession of every na- 
 tion, but that possession is to be gained by faith. 
 
 "Abraham, who is the father of us all." This repetition 
 of what we already had in verses 1 1 and 1 2 is brought in here 
 in order to return to that which was the main subject there, 
 faith, whose vital element must be considered now in what re- 
 mains of this chapter. 
 
 J7a. "As it is written." The quotation is cited hardly in 
 confirmation of what Paul has said, but to show the harmony 
 between him and the Scripture. The first step was that Abra- 
 ham was justified by faith ; the second, that he was justified in 
 uncircumcision, and, though afterward circumcised, the object 
 was not salvation, but that he might be father of both divi- 
 sions of men, Gentile and Jew. The third point is that he and 
 the men who make him father are heirs of the world. This 
 heirship is not by law, which could not realize it. And so as 
 a man of faith he is not only father of all, but father of all their 
 hopes for world supremacy. It was to him as a believer that 
 it was said that he should be a father of many nations. Hence 
 Paul's doctrine of faith conflicts with the Jews' Bible neither 
 in the matter of salvation nor in the matter of their world hope. 
 " Father, . . . before him [God] whom he believed." In 
 God's sight he was a father by faith before he had a son. 
 Why should the Jews labor to get into their hands by law 
 what they may have at once in God's purpose by the faith of 
 Abraham ? 
 
 J7b. " Even God, who quickeneth the dead." Here begins 
 the fourth (4) point above. These first words show in what 
 character of God Abraham believed in him. The present tense 
 shows what is always true of God. If a Jew says he believes 
 as sincerely as Paul, it cannot be denied ; but suppose he com- 
 plains that Paul in presenting Jesus as an object of faith is de- 
 manding a different faith from that in the Old Testament, this
 
 82 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 18, 19) 
 
 can be shown to be false. Old Testament faith rests on resur- 
 rection. Acceptable faith is not merely the conviction that 
 there is a God and that he is benevolent and a just rewarder 
 of the good and evil; this is the world's faith. Abraham's 
 was more ; he became the father of many nations by believing 
 in God as one " who quickeneth the dead." He not only be- 
 lieved in God's existence and that he could bless ; this is not 
 sufficient ; he believed that that blessing could only come from 
 God as now active in nature for spiritual ends a spiritual 
 creator just as once he was a creator of nature. Faith gets its 
 character from that character in which it accepts God. Abra- 
 ham looked on him as one who in spite of nature is making 
 alive the dead. This is the leading thought in this section. 
 God calls the things that are not, not in the possibilities of 
 nature, as if they already were ; he calls them into existence. 
 Natural nations come in the course of nature ; but when God 
 asked Abraham to look to the stars and said, ''So shall thy 
 seed be," did he mean a natural seed and natural nations? 
 Isaac was not a child of nature, but a child of faith, and 
 Abraham's seed are not children of nature. 
 
 J8. " Who against [all rational] hope believed in hope," the 
 supernatural hope which God's promise awakened. Let the 
 Jew who thinks that he is Abraham's son reflect that Isaac, 
 from whom all sprang, was brought into being by the same 
 power that raised Christ from the dead. 
 
 J9, " He considered not his own body." The " not " is in 
 dispute ; critics are divided on its genuineness. Whether we 
 read it or do not read it, the sense is much the same. In the 
 former view it would be said that Abraham's faith was so strong 
 that he never once looked at the tremendous difficulty in the 
 way of his becoming a father. Weak faith looks at difficulties 
 and scarce looks to God. Strong faith looks at God who has 
 promised, and does not see the difficulties. In the other view 
 Abraham did "consider" the difficulties, his own body now
 
 (IV. 20, 2i) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 83 
 
 dead and the deadness of Sarah's womb, but still believed. 
 He estimated the hindrances at their full weight, but did not 
 " stagger " under the load. 
 
 20, 2J. Abraham's faith was threefold. Two elements are 
 already given : the character of his faith in that it accepted 
 what is tantamount to the resurrection, and the strength of his 
 faith in that it was superior to all hindrances in its way. The 
 third element is its worshipfulness. By it he gave " glory to 
 God " ; he did this by trusting God where reason could not 
 follow. When faith's only reason is God himself it honors 
 and worships him. 
 
 These three elements are now summed up in what might be 
 called Abraham's creed. It is simple, but comprehensive. 
 The character which he ascribed to God, his estimate of the 
 difficulties, and his worship come to this : a confident persua- 
 sion that what God had promised he was able also to perform. 
 
 Any one can believe in God's power abstractly. Every one 
 that believes there is a personal God believes also that he is 
 omnipotent ; but saving faith stands alone in saying that God 
 can make his supernatural promises good. What is not as- 
 cribed to God's word is not ascribed to him ; and the heart is 
 only cheating itself into self-deception on one side or supersti- 
 tion on the other that believes something else than what he 
 has revealed. A man's measure of God's word is the measure 
 of that man's faith in God. 
 
 It might be thought that Abraham should have believed in 
 God's willingness rather than in his ability to carry out his 
 promise ; that the question is not what the Almighty can do, 
 but what he will do ; that the account should read, " that what 
 God has promised he will perform." But God's will is already 
 indicated in the promise to make Abraham a father of many 
 nations ; his word is his will. The only question is, Can he 
 bring that supernatural promise to a reality? Any heart can 
 say that God can do natural things; faith says he can do
 
 84 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 22-25) 
 
 things beyond and above nature. And all God's saving prom- 
 ises transcend nature ; they rest on the supernatural. 
 
 22* "And therefore it was imputed." The word "there- 
 fore " is instructive and impressive. Because his faith stood 
 on the word of God, a word that nothing in nature could 
 explain, because his faith was of this character, it " was im- 
 puted to him for righteousness." There is a natural faith that 
 can accept much, and it is beautiful and salutary, but its high- 
 est exercise does not attain to justification. It falls far below 
 Abraham's in that he trusted in a personal promise which 
 nothing but the direct activity of the God who gave it could 
 make good. This is supernatural faith, and only such is im- 
 puted for righteousness. 
 
 23, 24 Paul in citing Abraham's faith declares that its de- 
 scription is not primarily in honor of the patriarch. The story 
 is not written for his sake alone, "but for us also." If the 
 patriarch found righteousness by believing in God as one who 
 quickeneth the dead, is the apostle's insistence upon faith in the 
 resurrection of Jesus an unscriptural demand? Paul asks no 
 more than Abraham exhibited in his life. He asks the same 
 faith in God who raises the dead. The Jew believed in one 
 God ; he did well ; but this was not the whole of his great 
 ancestor's faith, who believed also in resurrection. On the 
 ground of such faith he was saved, and no one can be saved 
 on any other. 
 
 25* " Who was delivered for, . . . raised for." Why was 
 this twenty-fifth verse added? Why did the story not close 
 with the twenty-fourth? To show that the faith that saves is 
 not faith in the act of resurrection, but in its import. He who 
 is justified must believe not only that Jesus died and rose again, 
 but why. He died " for our offenses." This word " offenses " 
 brings to view again the whole somber picture of the first main 
 division of the epistle, the division about sin. Sin was such 
 that nothing but the blood of Jesus our Lord could atone for
 
 (IV. 25) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 85 
 
 it. But his death does atone, and therefore no works of law 
 find any place in justification. And so it comes to pass that 
 he who believes in the resurrection believes first of all that 
 his own personal sins sent Jesus to the cross and the tomb, 
 that he was the all-sufficient sacrifice for sins. It is only pain- 
 ful conviction of sin that can believe in this way. 
 
 But if faith stopped at the tomb it would be only an agony. 
 It also sees that, while Jesus died for sins, that death was ac- 
 cepted as the ransom price (iii. 24), and so Jesus was raised 
 again. He who became surety for the sinner's debt could not 
 have been released from the prison-house of the tomb unless 
 the debt was paid. His reappearance from the tomb is an 
 everlasting proof of the sufficiency of his atonement for our 
 sins ; and he who really believes in the resurrection believes 
 that the guilt of his sins is canceled. Faith is no longer an 
 agony, but a joy, and the believer's heart is set not merely on 
 the historic (2 Cor. v. 16), but on the raised Christ. That he 
 was delivered for our offenses is pain; that he was raised 
 again for our justification is pure spiritual delight. 
 
 To believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then, is to accept the 
 two prime articles in the Christian creed, sin and grace; sin 
 that slew Jesus, and grace that accepts him for our justification. 
 
 In this sentence, " delivered for, . . . raised for," it is easy 
 to misunderstand the preposition. This comes because the 
 mind unconsciously gives a different meaning to the two in- 
 stances of the same word. "For" means not only "with a 
 view to," but also " because of." It cannot have one of these 
 in one case, and the other meaning in the second ; the paral- 
 lel between the two clauses will not allow this. The first 
 " for " cannot have the meaning " with a view to " ; it must 
 be "because of." Hence the second "for" has the same 
 signification ; he was raised not with a view to, but because 
 of, our justification, just as he was delivered because of our 
 offenses.
 
 86 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 25) 
 
 The difficulty raised is in assigning the sinner's justification 
 to the time of the resurrection, and not to the time when he 
 believes ; but this is the manner and confidence of Paul. Else- 
 where he refers the believer's regeneration, resurrection, and 
 even glorification all to the same moment, and that moment 
 the resurrection and exaltation of Christ (viii. 30 ; Eph. ii. 
 5, 6). The difficult language, when resolved, furnishes great 
 gain to faith. To be sure, no man has justification until he 
 exercises evangelical faith ; but the moment he does that his 
 faith may be assured of its foundation. It does not rest on 
 its own activity or in any experience, but at once finds its sure 
 basis at the empty tomb ; it rests on the gospel. The man was 
 justified in his believing, but not because of his believing. 
 The cause is the grace of God made sure by the resurrection 
 of Jesus. 
 
 But when it is said above that Jesus' reappearance from the 
 tomb is a proof of the atonement, and when it is said just 
 now that the resurrection makes grace sure, this by no means 
 exhausts its office and efficacy in the means of salvation. The 
 penalty of sin is death, and man was under it ; he had lost 
 spiritual life. The resurrection restored it ; for when Paul says 
 Christ was raised for our justification, he uses the word not in 
 our modern theologic sense, but in an inclusive one that em- 
 braces all that is contained in viii. 1,2. (See remarks on Paul's 
 use of this term just above the comment on iii. 21.) 
 
 It is shown now that the law as recorded in Genesis proves 
 (i) justification by faith, (2) in uncircumcision ; (3) the promise 
 of heirship by faith ; (4) and that the required faith in Jesus is 
 the same in character as that which Abraham had.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH SECURES THE FINAL SALVATION 
 OF BELIEVERS 
 
 THE rigid harmony in four elementary points between the 
 law and faith having been now exhibited, a new question 
 arises, a question of hope : Will faith save at last, and will it 
 save all, both Jew and Gentile? The two classes of men are 
 not mentioned, but the discussion has a race-wide view that 
 embraces all. In favor of the affirmative Paul makes three 
 points as the sure ground of hope: (i) afflictions will not de- 
 stroy, but strengthen it (verses 2-4) ; (2) it has a sure basis 
 in God's love toward the justified man (verses 5-11); (3) as 
 man's relation to Adam never fails to bring death on account 
 of his one sin, so the believer's similar relation to Christ cannot 
 fail to secure everlasting life on account of Christ's one right- 
 eous act at the cross (verses 12-21). 
 
 Many commentators have entitled this chapter the " Fruits 
 of Justification." This fails in both logic and history. Paul's 
 first readers would be amazed to hear him speak here about 
 fruits. Their cry would be, Is this method safe? Doing no 
 works of law, what assurance does this faith in Christ's work 
 give one for the future? Furthermore, fruits are immediate 
 results in experience and do not need the rigid logical proofs 
 exhibited in this chapter. And what " fruit " is there in the 
 parallel between Adam and Christ? 
 
 87
 
 88 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. I, 2) 
 
 I. "Therefore," etc. In view of the previous exposition 
 of the doctrine, it can be said of " being justified by faith " 
 that " we have peace with God." For " we have " many read 
 "let us have." In favor of the former stands the American 
 portion of the Revision Committee, as well as Meyer, Godet, 
 and others. Meyer says the imperative is " utterly unsuitable " 
 to the sense. The question turns on the length of a single vowel, 
 and the manuscripts are not trustworthy on this point ; they fre- 
 quently confound long and short o. The logic must decide. 
 
 " Peace " does not mean primarily tranquillity of mind, but 
 that state of things ensuing from the cessation of hostilities, 
 freedom from strife (iii. 17; Acts xii. 20). This peaceful 
 state came " through our Lord Jesus Christ," who averted the 
 wrath of God. It is possible by not noting this meaning of 
 the word " peace " that the mode of the verb was changed. 
 For justification gives peace in this sense even when there may 
 be no settled tranquillity of the heart. 
 
 2* "By whom . . . access by faith." The "grace" to 
 which Christ gives access is the grace of justification. The first 
 and the second verses both revolve about Christ. Through 
 him we have the peace ; he procured it ; and through him by 
 faith we gained access to justification, wherein the peace 
 exists. The first verse looks at the standing of the believer, and 
 the second recalls the hour of attaining it. The first verse has 
 in view the redemption wrought at the cross ; but it is only the 
 justified man who gets it, and this justification is administered 
 by God through Christ in the hour of conversion. The senti- 
 ment of these two verses up to this word " stand " is just a 
 repetition of iii. 24, a verse, with its context, that clearly im- 
 plies the "peace" and the standing of justification by faith 
 unfolded in these two. When justified freely by God's grace 
 men have peace, and they have also a permanent standing as 
 acquitted persons before God. The idea of permanence is 
 doubly furnished by the tense of the two verbs " have " and
 
 (V. 2) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 89 
 
 "stand." These two verses up to this point, in unfolding iii. 
 24, do in some sense show what may be called fruits peace 
 and standing. But this beginning of chapter v. is, after all, 
 but a repetition, a restatement, of what was given before, that 
 we might start from the same point on a new line of discus- 
 sion, the permanence of justification already hinted at in the 
 two verbs above, "have" and "stand." Until this latter 
 word is reached there is no advance ; it begins with the very 
 next sentence "We . . . rejoice in hope of the glory of 
 God." This is the new theme : Is this hope well founded? 
 Is rejoicing in it defensible? 
 
 What was said above on the reading " let us have " is equally 
 true here on the wrong reading "let us rejoice." The King 
 James version is correct. 
 
 It is to be noted that the moment this new proposition is 
 reached, after the restatement in verses i and 2 of what went 
 before, the proposition that justification by faith is permanent, 
 the word " faith," both noun and verb, is dropped. We have 
 up to this moment had them constantly before our eyes the 
 verb nine times, and the noun twenty-seven times. Neither 
 occurs again until ix. 30, unless for the verb the solitary in- 
 stance in vi. 8 be counted an exception. But it is not, for in 
 this place the word has rather the idea of being persuaded. 
 (See John xx. 8, 25, 27.) 
 
 The reason for dropping this leading word is obvious. Since 
 it is the permanence of a faith justification which is to be 
 proved, that permanence must be established by other means 
 than faith. If the latter should even once enter into the 
 question we should have a petitio principii, a begging of the 
 question, and the inquiry, But what about my salvation if my 
 faith fails? would be legitimate. Faith is, after all, a personal 
 experience, and the argument cannot be drawn from it. It is 
 itself to be shown in its permanence, and the proofs are all 
 brought from other and higher sources.
 
 90 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 3, 4) 
 
 3, 4* " Tribulations, . . . patience, . . . experience, . . . 
 hope." For " we glory " in the third verse read " we rejoice," 
 as in the second. The believer not only exults in the glory 
 awaiting him on the ground of his justification, but he exults, 
 too, in the tribulations or afflictions which beset him in the 
 path leading to the glory. The latter rejoicing comes about 
 because he is "knowing" the influence of these. They do 
 not destroy his hope, but, on the other hand, by a regular pro- 
 cess strengthen it. The storm-shaken tree roots the deeper. 
 Justification does not give patience, constancy, or endurance ; 
 this quality does not come at the hour of conversion, but the 
 trials and bufferings of the way thereafter serve to evoke it. 
 A man with some worthy thing in view, like the glory of God, 
 is prepared to withstand trials ; but he who has no hope in the 
 future frets under afflictions or seeks to avoid them. 
 
 When tribulations have taught the believer that he can stand, 
 or withstand, there ensues " experience " of the world, but 
 especially of himself. He has learned that he can endure. The 
 first storm may frighten the young sailor in guiding his craft ; 
 but after he has passed through a score unharmed and with- 
 out seeing a timber start, he knows the worst the sea can do, 
 the strength of his vessel to carry him, and his own ability to 
 steer. The man of experience is the proved man. The word 
 " experience " has been translated " approval." Others know 
 him now, but, more than all, he knows himself. The " proba- 
 tion " of the Revised Version is misleading and is not as good 
 as the King James's " experience." When one finds that for 
 the sake of his hope he can suffer pain, and that God is with 
 him all through it, he has gained confidence in himself 
 before God. He knows that this ark to which he has resorted 
 will carry him. And now the hope that he gained in the hour 
 of justification he has gained anew in the discovery that it sus- 
 tains him in the conflict. And it does not make ashamed. 
 Thus Paul has made his first point. The hope of glory
 
 (V. 5, 6) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 91 
 
 through justification by faith cannot be destroyed by tribula- 
 tions, because instead of overthrowing they strengthen it. This 
 topic, so briefly treated here, is taken up at length in chapter 
 viii. (See p. 55.) 
 
 5. "The love of God." This is the second argument in 
 favor of the theme restated now in a new form " hope maketh 
 not ashamed." The justified man does not blush to profess 
 this hope, because he has a proof that it will not disappoint 
 him at last. Without this proof his hope would be madness ; 
 for who is he? A justified man, to be sure, but far from per- 
 fect, beset with sin, full of ignorance, and with no act of his 
 life for which he can claim perfection. And yet he hopes to 
 stand before God, to be admitted to his glory, and to be an 
 equal heir with his own Son. It is as if a barbarous and coarse 
 Central African prince should boast that he expects shortly to 
 be son-in-law to the good Queen of England. His claim 
 would be ridiculed by all knowing people as the raving of de- 
 lusion. But if the vulgar prince could show on the finger of 
 his black hand that royal gem, the Koh-i-noor, presented to 
 him by the queefi and brought to him by the third in rank in 
 the government, his boast would be justified. That he has it in 
 his possession is proof that it came to him as a gift ; he could 
 neither buy nor steal that costly precious stone. The hope of 
 glory does not make ashamed, because the priceless jewel of 
 God's love toward the sinner is in the latter's possession, poured 
 out in his heart by the third person in the Trinity, " the Holy 
 Spirit which is given unto us." This language makes it plain 
 that it is not the justified man's love toward God, but God's 
 love toward the man, that is the proof and pledge of the valid- 
 ity of his hope. 
 
 6. " For ... Christ died." The " for " does not intro- 
 duce a proof of the possession of the love, but of its nature. 
 The possession need not be proved, being as it is a matter of 
 experience. But if the African prince knows neither the na-
 
 92 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 7, 8) 
 
 ture nor the value of his gem, if he looks upon it as a common 
 stone, what evidence can it be to him? It is not merely the 
 fact of God's love toward the believer, but its unearthly char- 
 acter, that fortifies hope. The Holy Spirit is the channel 
 through which God is pouring the love of his heart into the 
 sinner's. We are carried now to the fountainhead of the 
 blessed stream to study this love in its source. When "we 
 were yet without strength " to do right this love gave Christ 
 to die. How contemptible is he who lacks the moral ability 
 to do that which is right! Christ died for the pusillanimous. 
 But while sinners were imbeciles for good, they were mighty 
 for evil "ungodly." In the former condition they excite 
 disgust, in the latter, wrath, and each righteous feeling against 
 them reacts against the other to heighten it. But for just such 
 Christ died " in due time." The timeliness of his death in its 
 averting the wrath due enhances the love manifested at the cross. 
 7 f 8 " God commendeth his love." The sixth verse clearly 
 implies the unearthly character which these two verses now 
 prove. The " for " bears on this unearthliness ; the appeal is 
 to what is known in the history of men. For a "righteous 
 man," the man who conforms to the law, one would " scarcely " 
 die. The " yet " in the seventh verse should be rendered 
 "for," as it is in the Revision. It explains the, word "scarce- 
 ly." I say scarcely for a righteous man would one die. I 
 leave room for an exception, for when the righteous man is 
 that and something more, so that he could be called " good," 
 it might be that "some [one] would even dare to die." In 
 New Testament terminology to be good is much more than to 
 be righteous (Mark x. 18). The former word is rarely used 
 of men, and to die in behalf of this loftiest form of righteous- 
 ness is the very utmost of earthly love, and rare in its exam- 
 ples at that. " But God "what a sharp contrast, the differ- 
 ence of earth and heaven! gave his Son to die for sinners. 
 His love has no parallel among men ; it is divine. What men
 
 (V. 9, io) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 93 
 
 can scarcely do for the good God has done abundantly for the 
 vile and the despicable. 
 
 9 Having shown what God's love to sinners is, he draws 
 the necessary and logical inferences. If he could do so much 
 for them, "much more" now can he save from the "wrath" 
 to come those who are "justified by his [Christ's] blood." In 
 the New Testament men are said to be " justified by grace " 
 (iii. 24); "justified by faith" (v. i, and many other places); 
 "justified by works " (James ii. 21) ; but this is the solitary in- 
 stance in which " justified by blood " occurs. Grace is the 
 source of justification, faith the condition, works the evidence ; 
 but what is it to be justified by blood, and why did Paul use 
 this term here rather than his favorite one, "justified by 
 faith " ? The blood is the means, not to say the ground, of the 
 justification, and the phrase is about equivalent to that other 
 in iii. 24, "justified . . . through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus." Paul could not use the phrase "justified by 
 faith " here for the reason given above under verse 2 (p. 89), 
 that it is this very kind of justification that is to be proved. 
 Will it give security in the hour of God's coming wrath? Yes ; 
 for it is made sure by the redeeming blood. Man's faith does 
 not appeal to God, but Christ's blood does. The argument, 
 then, comes to this : if man in his odious sin found the favor 
 of God, how much more shall that man have his favor whom 
 he accounts right on the ground of redeeming blood ! 
 
 JO. The conclusion in the ninth verse, deduced from the 
 character of God's love, becomes also a proposition to be sup- 
 ported by the argument in the tenth. Hence the latter begins 
 with the causal word " for." The " if " following does not ex- 
 press doubt, but, as in many other places, is equivalent to 
 "since"; it introduces the admitted basis upon which the 
 proof follows. The argument here is in the form of a triple 
 antithesis, like that in Mark vii. 8. It can be exhibited to the 
 eye thus :
 
 94 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 10) 
 
 I. 2. 3. 
 
 Enemies . . . reconciled to God . . . death, 
 Reconciled . . . saved . . . life. 
 
 That is, (i) if God could do so much for his enemies, what, 
 can he not do now for those who are in a reconciled state? 
 Again, (2) if God could become reconciled with men when 
 enemies, can he not remain reconciled (which insures their be- 
 ing " saved ") now that they have become friends? And once 
 more, (3) if the death of Christ, a negative power, could do so 
 much (reconcile), what will not his life, his active energy on 
 high in their behalf, what will not his ever living, insure? This 
 threefold antithesis in argument is not merely three times as 
 weighty as a single one, but nine times. 
 
 The word "reconciled" occurs twice in this verse: "were 
 reconciled to God," "being reconciled." The first does not 
 indicate any change in the feelings of man ; it is the equiva- 
 lent and takes the place of " justified by his blood " in the pre- 
 vious verse. It does not signify that man was active in the 
 reconciliation, but God was, "in that he desists from his claims" 
 (Cremer, "Theol. Lex," sub voce}. He established a new re- 
 lation with men, exchanging the relation in wrath for the 
 blessed relation in love. He became appeased toward us in 
 the death of his Son. The second occurrence of the word 
 gives the result of the first. The first is God's act, the second 
 the standing into which "we " are brought by means of the first. 
 
 The word "enemies" is also passive. It is not that men 
 were inimical to God, a fact, to be sure, but that he was 
 inimical to them. This anger is not inconsistent with his lov- 
 ing them at the same time. 
 
 This matter is given in 2 Corinthians v. 19, 20: "God was 
 [not " is "] in Christ, reconcil ing the world unto himself. . . 
 Be ye reconciled to God." He changed toward you; do you 
 change toward him.
 
 (V. ii, 12) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 95 
 
 J J. " And not only so," not only reconciled, but at the same 
 time rejoicing in God. The change did not stop with that 
 which was outward, in an altered standing ; it was and remains 
 accompanied with an inward exultation the effect of the love 
 shed abroad in the heart. The argument has come around to 
 that with which it began : " we rejoice in hope of the glory of 
 God " (verse 2). This rejoicing is " through [by means of] our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, through whom ["by means of whom " again] 
 we have now received the reconciliation [the changed attitude 
 of God toward us]." It is ours " now." The word " atone- 
 ment " in its modern signification of propitiation or satisfac- 
 tion by the death of Christ is not correct here. The original 
 word is the same one used twice in the tenth verse. 
 
 It has not been sufficiently noted by expositors that the 
 word "received" is not active, but passive, equivalent to 
 "made recipients of." The argument for the "assurance of 
 salvation secured for the present and the future " (Meyer) is 
 conducted wholly from the divine side ; man and his believing 
 do not come into view. If it is objected that, after all, faith is 
 a necessary condition of salvation, and if it fails all fails, why, 
 this very point is secured by the whole argument. If when 
 we were hateful to God he changed toward us, will he now 
 that we have been made recipients in his grace of that saving 
 change will he now not insure the condition of its perpetu- 
 ity? Will God care for everything concerning the believer, 
 support him in trials, shield him in temptation, shed his love 
 abroad in his heart, but leave him to himself in the vital point, 
 his faith? The reconciled man's faith is the first and the chief 
 object of the divine care. The single aim of the argument is 
 the permanence of justification by faith. 
 
 J2. With this verse begins the third (see (3) above) argu- 
 ment in favor of the proposition of the chapter, that justifica- 
 tion by faith gives a sure hope of the glory of God. The 
 proof is found in the likeness of Adam and Christ in their re-
 
 96 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 12) 
 
 lation to those who are in them respectively. As Adam's one 
 sin never fails to bring death, so Christ's one righteous act in 
 behalf of sinners never fails to bring the opposite award to 
 those who are in him. This is the simple course of thought 
 easily traced through this section, but the details present seri- 
 ous difficulties. 
 
 "Wherefore," or, as the Revised Version, "Therefore." 
 Literally it reads, " On this account." This shows that the 
 chain of thought is not broken ; the topic is the same as in 
 the first eleven verses of the chapter. The connection is this : 
 because through Christ we received the reconciliation and the 
 assurance of eternal salvation, we can say this which follows. 
 Paul goes now to the germ of the disease on the one hand, and 
 of the remedy on the other. He shows anew that salvation 
 is the work of Christ, complete in him, and in no way to be 
 earned, but simply to be received in its objective perfection. 
 The validity of the argument depends on the immutable rela- 
 tions connecting men with the two sources, Adam and Christ, 
 and this vital connection gives the argument its comprehensive 
 character. The world's history is laid bare at its root, and the 
 key to that history is placed in our hands. 
 
 " By one man sin entered into the world." Paul does not 
 even by implication say whether sin had an existence before 
 Adam's fall or not. He says " sin," not " sins." He is look- 
 ing not at the concrete acts of sin, not at the habit. Adam 
 did not bring sin into the world by setting a bad example ; his 
 one act wrought a constitutional change of unholiness within 
 his heart. That act resulted in an innate corrupting principle 
 that transmitted itself just as his natural features did. Because 
 he had two feet rather than four, so all his descendants are 
 bipedal ; and as he became a sinner, so is each one of the 
 race sprung from him. Thus it entered into the " world " of 
 men. The material creation was affected on account of 
 Adam's sin (Gen. iii. 17), but not by direct connection, and
 
 (V. 12) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 97 
 
 Paul does not contemplate it in the word " world." He means 
 the world of mankind. 
 
 " And death by sin." This is the direct outcome and un- 
 failing fruit of that transmissive poison which entered Adam's 
 heart. It is primarily physical death, as is plain from verse 14 
 below, but physical death as an exponent and sign of that 
 other deeper death of the soul, spiritual death. The two stand 
 in together, and therefore Paul does not sharply distinguish 
 them. (See 2 Tim. i. 10.) 
 
 "For that all have sinned." A better translation is "be- 
 cause all sinned." Death is consequent on sin, and so death 
 passed on all men because all men sin in Adam. "This is 
 proved by the succeeding explanatory context, verses 15-19, 
 in which it is reiterated five times in succession that one and 
 only one sin is the cause of the death that befalls all men" 
 (Shedd, " Commentary," in loc.}. 
 
 This verse, and especially this short concluding sentence, 
 has provoked a world of controversy. The debate arises not 
 so much from facts which must have been plain to Paul's 
 Roman readers, but from the multitude of questions which the 
 facts suggest. Was Adam not created mortal? What is the 
 nature of his relation to posterity? Do men participate in the 
 guilt of his sin? Is its punishment imputed to them? Is 
 natural depravity transmitted from him to the race, and is it 
 culpable? There is no explicit answer to these questions 
 either here or anywhere else in the Bible. The first question 
 is not practical ; as to the second we have already indicated our 
 view the connection is natural, real. If Levi could pay tithes 
 when the tribe was yet unborn in the loins of Abraham (Heb. 
 vii. 9, 10), so the unborn race could sin in the loins of Adam. 
 To the remaining questions the answer must be in the af- 
 firmative, both for the sake of the parallel with Christ and that 
 Paul's words may be left to stand in their naked plainness. 
 
 But now springs up the question of the divine justice.
 
 98 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 13, 14) 
 
 Should millions suffer for the sin of one ? Yes, if millions may 
 be saved by the righteousness of one. But, furthermore, if 
 the elemental facts are as above it is presumptuous to raise 
 the question of justice. What God does is the ultimate stan- 
 dard of right. 
 
 J3, J4. These two verses, the last clause excepted, are in- 
 tended to show that men die not for their own personal sin, 
 but because of Adam's. It is a fact that sin was in the world 
 all along until the time of the giving of the law at Sinai. It 
 had an actual, practical existence ; but this personal, practical 
 sin is not "imputed," not set down to the account of these 
 sinners, and the reason for this non-imputation is, there was 
 " no law " no written or spoken law which they by personal 
 act could break. They sinned without law, but they could 
 not be adjudged worthy of the penalty of that sin before the 
 law was promulgated. The general principle is, sin not im- 
 puted where there is no law. It comes to this: no written 
 law, no sin, and no sin, no death. But now the fact is that 
 death reigned, had sovereign, undisputed sway, during all the 
 no-law period from Adam to Moses. In all this long period 
 death came to those who had " not sinned after the similitude 
 of Adam's transgression " ; that is, they had not broken any 
 formal command. Many more irresponsible babes died in the 
 flood than men. If, then, death is the penalty of some law 
 broken, and these had none, it follows they broke that first 
 law : they sinned in Adam. And the statement " for that all 
 have sinned " means this. The unwritten law noticed in ii. 14 
 cannot be the cause of death, for babes have not even that. 
 All sinned when Adam violated the word of God. 
 
 " Who [Adam] is the figure [type] of him that was to come." 
 Adam is a figure of Christ in just this respect : that as his one 
 sin brought death to all, even when there was no personal sin, 
 so Christ's one act of obedience brings unfailing righteousness 
 to those who are in him, even when they have no personal
 
 (V. is) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 99 
 
 righteousness. Hence the argument of verses 13 and 14 to 
 show that death must be traced to Adam's sole act and not to 
 the sin of his posterity one side of the parallel. 
 
 J5. " But not as the offense [the fall of Adam], so also is 
 the free gift [in Christ]." This verse and the next two show 
 in what points the type falls short of the antitype. The type 
 is complete in the outline, but not in some details. This verse 
 gives the difference in intensity between the destructive and 
 the recovering power. 
 
 " For if through the offense of [the] one [the] many be 
 dead," or " the many died," as in the Revised Version. The 
 King James, in its failure to give the articles, does not bring 
 out the sharp contrast between Adam and the race. The " if " 
 does not express any doubt ; it is argumentative. The " for " 
 brings in what Paul has to say on the inequality between the 
 offense and the free gift. Note that in this sentence, " Through 
 the offense of the one the many " died, he asserts that Adam's 
 sin is the sole cause of death among men. This unsupported 
 statement shows how Paul must be understood in verses 1 2 
 14. It needs no proof here, for that has preceded it. 
 
 Over against this poisonous fountain in Adam this fall 
 which brought death to all stands the healing " grace " of 
 God and the " gift " of justification. These two, the grace 
 and the gift, are found " by grace, which is by [the] one man, 
 Jesus Christ." The Revised Version is preferable here : " Much 
 more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the 
 one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many." Over against 
 the fall of the one is the grace of the one, Jesus Christ. Over 
 against the effect of the fall, the death of the many, is the 
 effect of the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, viz., that the 
 grace of God and the gift have " abounded unto [the] many." 
 The complex language of the verse becomes plain when it is 
 observed that it sets forth two opposing sources in the two 
 men, followed by two opposite results. This may be seen in
 
 100 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 16) 
 
 transposing the sentence : If the many died by the trespass of 
 the one, much more the grace of God and the gift abounded 
 to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ. The 
 "much more" is logical much more certain is it and not 
 quantitative, for the grace in its extent is here considered to 
 be just as wide and no wider than the death. The many were 
 embraced by both. 
 
 Meyer misses the whole point in saying that the grace in the 
 one man, Jesus Christ, is that in which "he found himself 
 moved " to accomplish the redemption ; for then there would 
 be in the verse two sources of grace, God and Christ, and the 
 parallel with Adam would be gone. Our guide here must 
 be iii. 24. Christ mediates the grace of God ; the grace of 
 God that " abounded unto the many " is the very same 
 grace that was " by one man, Jesus Christ." Grace did not 
 abound by grace, but grace abounded in grace, the grace of 
 God in the grace of Christ. " God was in Christ, reconciling 
 the world unto himself" (2 Cor. v. 19). And now the argu- 
 ment can be restated: If man, a creature, can do so much 
 against the race by his fall, what cannot God do for the race 
 by his grace in Jesus Christ? It is well-nigh a double antith- 
 esis : God in Christ over against man, and divine grace over 
 against a fall. 
 
 The whole verse is objective; the first member, "by the 
 offense of the one the many died," surely is. The question 
 is not one about salvation, but about the power to effect it ; 
 and this power resides in Christ for all men, or "unto the 
 many." 
 
 J6. "And not as it was by one that sinned [Adam], so is 
 the gift [in Christ]." Or, more exactly, " Not as through one 
 that sinned is the gift." The fifteenth verse shows the differ- 
 ence in the intensity of the two opposing powers ; this shows 
 a difference in extension, but not in the extension among men, 
 for each force, the force for death and the force for life, reaches
 
 (V. 17) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 101 
 
 to all men. In the last verse the inference was from the con- 
 trasted sources. In this it is seen in a contrasted extension, 
 not to men, but to their needs. 
 
 " The judgment, . . . the free gift." God's judgment, his 
 judicial sentence to the condemnation of death, proceeded 
 from "one" sin. Now that one sin measures the judgment 
 in its breadth. There was one sin and its befitting judgment 
 to match it ; but, on the other hand, the free gift for justifica- 
 tion, the free gift that issues in justification and saves, pro- 
 ceeded from " many offenses " ; for every man is not only in- 
 volved with Adam in sin, but he has committed innumerable 
 offenses himself. To be saved there must be a free gift that 
 will cover all these. The extent of the destructive power does 
 not go beyond the one sin of Adam; the extent of the re- 
 covering power is as wide as the countless sins of any heart. 
 The two forces, then, are measured by the difference in the 
 number of sins to which each looks : the judgment to one sin, 
 the free gift to many. How vastly more extensive, then, is the 
 free gift! To take the two verses together, the contrasts are 
 a shallow, narrow stream, and a deep, broad stream the shal- 
 low stream from Adam no wider than his one sin, the deep 
 stream from Christ as broad as the sum of all sins of men. 
 And if the little stream sweeps the soul away to death, how 
 surely the great volume of the other will carry one to the 
 haven of life ! 
 
 J7 "For if by one man's offense death reigned by one." 
 It is declared again that Adam's sin is the source of death 
 among men, as was proved in verses 12-14. The verse be- 
 fore us bears on just one word in the preceding one, the word 
 " justification," and is in the nature of a conclusion. That it 
 begins with " for " may seem to lie against the idea of a con- 
 clusion ; the word to be expected was " therefore " or " then." 
 But "for" is appropriate too, for it can be used to reas- 
 sert what has just been said, as in xv. 27, where it is
 
 102 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 18) 
 
 translated in the Revised Version "yea" and in the King 
 James " verily." The seventeenth verse serves to expand the 
 word "justification" in the previous one, or to give the con- 
 tents of that word. It brings in nothing new, only puts what 
 we had before in new form. The first, the conditional clause 
 of the verse, is given here for the third time; and the con- 
 cluding part has been implied twice before in verses 15 and 
 1 6. These two showed the superiority of the saving energy 
 in Christ. It remains now to say that those who " receive " 
 this energy, this " abundance of grace," will surely be saved, 
 or, what is the same thing, " reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." 
 " Received " does not mean accepted, but made recipients of, 
 as in i. 5 ; iv. ii ; v. ii ; viii. 15. The parallel between death 
 and life is not preserved. Paul says death reigned ; he does 
 not follow this with the words "life reigned"; instead, 
 "they . . . reigned in life." The latter is more expressive. 
 The justified are kings in life. 
 
 Paul's argument has now reached its point : If the relation 
 to Adam brought death, the relation to Christ formed in being 
 made a recipient of the superabundant grace in him will more 
 surely issue in life. If death in Adam is certain, life in Christ 
 is, if possible, more so. 
 
 J8 The first word of this verse, "therefore," in the King 
 James version is too strong. The conclusion is already given in 
 verse 1 7, and now the writer steps back to take up anew and to 
 finish the broken parallel begun, but dropped at verse 12. To 
 have completed it there would have asserted an exactness which 
 is seen now to exist only in the vital point, but not in the details. 
 The statue in Christ has been shown to be much larger than 
 the model in Adam. The verse should begin with the words 
 "so then," which look back over everything that has been 
 said from the twelfth verse on ; and it should be rendered neither 
 as the King James version nor as the Revision presents it, but, 
 " So then, as through one trespass it [the trespass] came to all
 
 (V. ig) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 103 
 
 men to condemnation, so also through one righteous act it [the 
 righteous act] came to all men to justification of life." 
 
 The first " all " is as broad as the race and includes every 
 one of mankind, even the babes. To deny for infants the 
 condemnation of Adam's sin, and to say that penalty is im- 
 possible without personal transgression, is to deny too much. 
 It is to deny salvation to the millions who die in infancy ; for 
 if they have no sin, how can they ever join in the salvation 
 song, " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins 
 in his own blood"? (Rev. i. 5.) 
 
 The second " all," to whom Christ's one righteous act comes 
 just as if it had been theirs, is limited by the words in the preced- 
 ing verse, "they which receive [the] abundance of [the] grace." 
 The first " all " indicates a natural and necessary relation with 
 Adam ; the second "all" indicates not a natural, but a spiritual 
 and mystical relation with Christ instituted by the will of God. 
 The first " all " refers to people of one character, the second to 
 people of a wholly different character, and it is not universal. 
 
 J9. " Disobedience, . . . obedience." This verse repeats 
 in corroboration the statements of the last. The two verses 
 are not primarily argumentative, but assertive of conclusions 
 reached before. The paragraph as a whole is not argumentative, 
 unless we except verses 12-14. It must not be forgotten that 
 from the beginning of the chapter Paul's topic is that justifi- 
 cation by faith secures the final salvation of him who has it. 
 This third point in proof does not rest on any fine-drawn 
 argument, but on an exposition of facts. It is a fact that 
 death comes through Adam. It is equally a fact that those 
 who are in the " last Adam " are saved. Paul has not one 
 word in attestation of the parallel ; he declares it. 
 
 The word " all " in the last verse is changed to " the many," 
 as more suitable to the word " one." " For [just] as by the one 
 man's disobedience the many [the rest, all] were made [rather 
 " were set down in the class of "] sinners, so [also] by the obe-
 
 104 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 20, 21) 
 
 dience of the one [Christ] the many [who are in him] shall be 
 made [shall be set down in the class of the] righteous." The 
 word " made " is not causative, but declarative. Those in 
 Adam were justly declared sinners, because thereby they were 
 naturally such (Eph. ii. 3). Those in Christ are declared 
 righteous graciously, because they are so in him. The future, 
 " shall be made," looks back to the other future in the seven- 
 teenth verse, " shall reign," that explains it. The " obedience " 
 does not refer to the whole sinless history of Christ, but to that 
 culminating act on the cross in which he "became obedient 
 unto death " (Phil. ii. 8). The logic of this section as well as 
 the uniform sentiment of the New Testament requires this 
 (Eph. ii. 13, 16; Heb. x. 12-14). 
 
 20, 2J These two verses have nothing to do with the argu- 
 ment now completed for the permanency of justification, ex- 
 cept as they remove an objection sure to occur to the Jew. 
 Paul has traced the origin of sin and of grace, or of death and 
 of life, to two primal and ultimate sources, Adam and Christ. 
 But the Mosaic law is a fact, and that law deals with death 
 and life too. This point cannot be overlooked, and Paul now 
 in few words shows the place which the law holds. Sin and 
 death do have their origin in Adam, but long after his day the 
 law was imposed to show sin's character. The law entered, 
 or came in alongside, in order that " the offense [the fall] might 
 abound." The law excited self-will and opposition, and the 
 Jews' transgressions of it or falls before it showed them to be 
 just what Adam was and worse. It did not solicit sin ; it elic- 
 ited. It was not intended gradually to remove sin, but to 
 prepare the way for its removal in Christ. 
 
 Since the offense is a proof of sin, Paul at once drops back 
 to this word to say, " Where sin abounded [a fact proved by 
 the " offense " under law], grace [in Christ] did much more 
 abound." This abundance of grace is the thing shown above, 
 especially in verses 15-17.
 
 (V. 20, 2i) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 106 
 
 The twenty-first verse draws the parallel once more, and 
 finally, between Adam and Christ. Grace superabounded, 
 "that [in order that] as sin hath reigned in [the sphere of] death 
 [and by death universal death, showing sin's universal sway], 
 even so might grace [the grace that far exceeds sin in its power] 
 reign through [by means of] righteousness [the righteousness 
 in Christ] unto eternal life." This was the point to be shown : 
 that this righteousness would not fail him who had it, but 
 that it was forever. The matter concludes with the solemn 
 words that this blessed, everlasting reign of righteousness is 
 " by Jesus Christ our Lord."
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE chapter has two main divisions : ( i ) continuance in sin 
 is impossible to the justified man (verses 1-14), because he 
 died to sin and is alive with the life of Christ ; and (2) even 
 sinning is unwarranted in justification of life, because it leads 
 to enslavement to sin and to its appropriate wages, death 
 (verses 15-23). 
 
 J, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" 
 The question comes logically from the last two verses in the 
 preceding chapter, where Paul virtually says, the more sin, the 
 more grace. But it looks back also necessarily over the whole 
 discussion of justification. That this question, involving such 
 an answer as that which follows, should emerge at all shows 
 clearly Paul's idea of justification. If the latter signifies " to 
 make good," the question would be impossible. If justification 
 means "to declare good," the question is pertinent. If the sin- 
 ner is justified on the ground of any personal merit, for any 
 good that he is doing with a view to justification, the question 
 is inexplicable. But if God by his free grace in Christ Jesus 
 justifies " the ungodly " (iv. 5), this question must come to the 
 front and press earnestly for an answer. 
 
 And this answer is found wholly in the facts that go to make 
 the gospel story. It is not found in the obligation of the law 
 
 106
 
 (VI. 2) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 107 
 
 that says " Thou shalt not " ; it is not found in the gratitude 
 which the justified man should feel toward him who died for 
 him; it is not found in good resolutions, in prayer, and in 
 watchfulness ; it is found in Christ. 
 
 2. " God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any 
 longer therein? " To live in sin is to be under its sway (verses 
 1-14) and to practise it (verses 15-23). Paul with vigorous 
 language repels the thought that a justified man can remain in 
 this enslaving service. The reason is that the justified are also 
 dead to sin. This death belongs to their redemption, on the 
 ground of which they were justified. " Dead to sin " is far 
 from meaning the death of sin as a power or principle in the 
 heart. (See under viii. n.) In the history of the church 
 many who have embraced this view have been driven from it 
 by a sad experience, and those who have not been so driven 
 have lived a life of self-deception. " Dead to sin " does not 
 mean a resolution to imitate Christ ; it is more than an act of 
 will; it is death in and with Christ in the actual fact of his 
 death. Christ's death was the believer's death also (2 Cor. v. 
 14 ; i Pet. ii. 24). Paul has virtually said this in the verses 
 just above (v. 18, 19). What the one did all did. He died 
 not only for sins (i Cor. xv. 3), but for sinners. He atoned 
 not only for the acts, but for the actor. It is the considera- 
 tion of the latter fact only that occupies this chapter "We, 
 that are dead," having died when he did. The blood shed at 
 the cross washes the sinner as well as his sins. " If I wash 
 thee not " (John xiii. 8). 
 
 To be saved is to be saved from sin first of all. After Paul 
 has labored through five chapters to show that this salvation 
 is a gratuitous gift to faith in Christ, how can he now refer it 
 to something else, a subjective death in the heart of the sin- 
 ner? He is not so illogical, but some of his interpreters are. 
 When the apostle is asked whether his doctrine that grace 
 covers every sin, the more sin, the more grace, "Let us do
 
 108 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 3) 
 
 evil, that good may come " (iii. 8), is not promotive of sin, 
 his answer is just simply a further explication of grace, an 
 opening up of a wider view of the work of the cross. The 
 power against continuance in sin is faith in the cross. 
 
 Sin's power, its mastery over the soul, comes from its pres- 
 ence. The enlightened man soon sees that his guilt lies not 
 so much in what he has done as in what he is. It is not his 
 acts, it is himself, that is an offense against God. Sin dwells 
 within him, tainting every fiber of his soul. He cannot es- 
 cape it by anything within his own power any more than he 
 can change the color of his eyes. It is ever present and is 
 thereby master. But why seek to escape it? why not continue 
 in it if grace covers it? "How shall we, that are dead to 
 sin, live any longer therein? " How can one on whom the 
 sun has risen walk now in the dark? The believer died in 
 Christ's death. The believer is dead, and that death answers 
 for the guilt of what he is. Faith takes Christ for sinfulness 
 as well as for sins ; and indwelling sin has lost its power to 
 vex the conscience and to cut off the light from God's coun- 
 tenance the moment that faith says, " He died for what I am 
 as well as for what I did." Sin loses its power, because sin is 
 gone from the heart by the death of Christ, in which the sin- 
 ner dies. 
 
 Note three things : First, the question so far is not about 
 continuing to sin, but about continuance in sin, in its power. 
 Secondly, the only change that Paul contemplates in the jus- 
 tified man up to this point is a change in his attitude toward 
 Christ ; from being a non-believer he has become a believer. 
 Thirdly, this first verse makes but the first step in answering 
 the question, "Shall we continue in sin? " 
 
 3. The question could not be asked if the Romans bethought 
 themselves of what they assumed in their baptism. They were 
 dead, as the verse above declares, for they were baptized into 
 Christ's death. This third verse, then, is in the way of expli-
 
 (VI. 3) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 109 
 
 cation that the Romans died to sin, the hour of that death 
 being the time when they entered the waters of baptism. The 
 meaning of their baptism was death. 
 
 But how did they die by means of baptism? Paul answers, 
 to quote the Revised Version : " Or are ye ignorant that all 
 we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his 
 death? " They knew, of course, that they were baptized into 
 Christ ; but Paul insists on the one point that that baptism in- 
 volved among other things oneness with him in his death to 
 sin. By the ordinance or in the ordinance they declared their 
 acceptance of him as Saviour and so came " into " him. The 
 nature of the union is not disclosed, but it is real. It is not 
 effected by the baptism, but in it. In the baptism the believer 
 virtually says, " I make Christ's death to sin my death to sin." 
 It is the symbolic response of the heart to the teaching of the 
 gospel that Christ's death is also the believer's. 
 
 But must it not be said now that Paul has abandoned his 
 theme, salvation by faith, in substituting the word " baptism "? 
 Why did he not say, "All we who believed into Christ," a 
 common phrase in the New Testament (x. 14; Gal. ii. 16), 
 "believed into his death"? The difficulty arises from the 
 modern wrong conception of the New Testament meaning 
 of the word "baptism," that it is a mere rite, an act to be 
 done, at the best, because one believes in Christ. The New 
 Testament writers never separate it from the faith which it 
 embodies and expresses. It is the fixed sign for faith, just as 
 any appropriate order of letters in a word is the sign of an idea. 
 The sign stands for the thing and is constantly used for the 
 thing. Hence Paul can say that Christ was " put on " in 
 baptism (Gal. iii. 27), and Peter does not hesitate to declare 
 that "baptism doth also now save us" (i Pet. iii. 21). It is 
 referred to as the " laver of regeneration " (Tit. iii. 5), and said 
 to " wash away sins " (Acts xxii. 1 6). To refuse to be baptized 
 is to reject God, and the opposite is to accept him (Luke vii.
 
 110 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 4) 
 
 29, 30). Every one of these passages and there are more 
 like them would teach salvation by a rite, salvation by 
 water, but that the word for baptism is used as a symbol of 
 faith. Faith so far is not one thing and baptism another ; they 
 are the same thing. The faith that accepted Christ in Paul's 
 day was the faith that showed its acceptance in baptism. The 
 water without the preceding faith was nothing. The faith 
 without the water could not be allowed. Believers were bap- 
 tized into Christ or they were not considered to be in him. 
 
 The word being so used, it is easy to see that Paul has not 
 departed from the gem doctrine of justification by faith ; and 
 by employing it he has gained defmiteness of statement. 
 Faith is a wide term and shows itself in many ways, each ex- 
 hibition being exactly appropriate to the way in which faith is 
 then exercised. The exhibition is an exponent of the faith. 
 In faith of a coming flood, Noah appropriately built an ark. 
 In faith that Israel would one day leave Egypt, Joseph gave 
 commandment concerning his bones, that they be not left be- 
 hind. In faith that one dies with Jesus, he is buried with him 
 in baptism, the faith taking this fit form. The Romans had 
 a broad faith that ran out in many lines, and it was known far 
 and wide (i. 8). Just one of these lines led to salvation the 
 one that found its appropriate exhibition in baptism. When 
 Paul said they were baptized into Christ, they knew instantly 
 to what hour (see on xvi. 7) and to what line of their multi- 
 form faith he referred the faith that saw the man and not 
 merely his sins on the cross and in the tomb, so that to show 
 itself appropriately the whole man must be buried with Christ 
 in baptism. The act of baptism is an exponent, first of all, 
 not of the remission of sins, but of the death of the believer in 
 Christ, so that his sinfulness is atoned for. He himself has 
 died to sin. 
 
 4. The second verse declares the fact of the believer's death 
 in Christ, a fact explained in the third. The two have just
 
 (VI. 5) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? Ill 
 
 the one thought death. This fourth verse draws the natural 
 conclusion : therefore we are buried with him by means of 
 the baptism into death. He does not say into " his " death 
 this time, because he is not now emphasizing the union with 
 Christ brought about in the ordinance, but the condition in 
 which it places the baptized man. He is dead. And this 
 favors the view that the phrase " into death " is to be joined 
 with "baptism." We are buried with him by means of an 
 into-death baptism. To connect it with the verb "buried" 
 gives an unnatural figure, buried into death, but one that is 
 supported by some. The mention of the burial prepares the 
 way for the next step, the second in the question of continu- 
 ance in sin. It is only touched and then dropped to go on 
 with the idea of death until the end of the seventh verse. 
 
 We were buried with him in order that, just as the Father 
 raised up Christ from the dead by means of that " glory " which 
 is the sum of the gracious excellence of his character, so we 
 also should walk in the newness of the principle of life. The 
 " should " does not express obligation, but the Father's intent 
 in the raising of the Saviour on our behalf. The mention o:' 
 the glory in connection with Christ's resurrection suggests tha; 
 the same glory will be exhibited in the walk springing from the 
 new life-principle. 
 
 5. This verse tells why there may be a new walk in point- 
 ing out the power of that walk. The reason is that, as we are 
 one with him in his death, so are we also in his resurrection, 
 being endowed in the latter with the same life which he re- 
 ceived in rising from the tomb. The reference is not to our 
 future bodily resurrection. " For if " (or " as "), a graft in a 
 tree (John xv.), "we became [not "planted," but] grown to- 
 gether ["with him] in the likeness of his death [viz., our baptism], 
 so shall we be also still grown together [with him] in the like- 
 ness of his resurrection [viz., our emergence from the watery 
 grave]." To state this idea of union Paul has not abandoned
 
 112 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 6, 7) 
 
 his figure of baptism. Grafting, to be sure, is not done in 
 water, but the union in the baptism is as vital as that between 
 the graft and the tree. It must be noted that none can share 
 in Christ's resurrection life except by first dying. We are 
 buried in order to be raised (John xii. 24). 
 
 Now for the first time Paul has clearly asserted union with 
 Christ. For the thought is, if we went into the baptism in 
 union, why should we not come out in union? The oneness 
 in the immersion is proof of the oneness in the emersion. 
 
 6 He changes his figure, but holds in both the same point 
 of view the death of Christ. The connection is causal; we 
 may say that we are grown together in the likeness of his 
 resurrection because of our "knowing this," viz., the signifi- 
 cance of the cross. It must not be said here, with Shedd, that 
 " St. Paul adduces the personal experience of the believer in 
 proof." Did any man ever experience that he died with Christ ? 
 The word does mean an experimental knowledge, but in this 
 case, as in many others, it is the experience of faith (Gal. iii. 
 7 ; 2 Tim. iii. i) and not of fact. It is by faith we know that 
 " our old man," our former self before our acceptance of Christ, 
 was (not "is") crucified with him, in order that our body, 
 the possession and slave of sin, might be (not "destroyed," 
 but) annulled by dying with Christ to sin. By "body" is 
 meant nearly the same as " old man." The latter is the man 
 in his relations to life and to his own history. The former is 
 the means of these. The intent of the annulling of this body 
 by the cross was that we might no more do bond-service to 
 sin, or, as the Revised Version, " that so we should no longer 
 be in bondage to sin." 
 
 7, That we are no longer debtors to sin, to render it any 
 kind of service, is proved by the accepted maxim in human 
 penalties that he who died (not "is dead") thereby stands 
 acquitted (not "is freed") from sin. Death cancels every- 
 thing.
 
 (VI. S-io) DOES FAITH PROiMOTE SIN? 113 
 
 So far, then, in the main Paul's answer to the question, " Shall 
 we continue in sin? " is this : that every believer, and not merely 
 a most devout man or two, is dead. It is not that he ought 
 to die, but his death is an accomplished fact in Christ Jesus. 
 Baptism means death and burial. In the crucifixion of Christ 
 the believer sees himself crucified too. Not only were his 
 sins there, but he himself was there, so that the " old man," 
 the former self, was slain. How can he "continue" in sin 
 when he and his sins are no more? The words "old man" 
 suggest a new man, against whom there is nothing penal either 
 for what he was or is, or for what he has done. These are 
 objective facts of the gospel, and the faith that has laid hold 
 of them finds perfect liberty before a holy God, and is certain 
 of his love. This faith opens the heart for the incoming 
 of that love mentioned in v. 5. When Christ is taken for no 
 more than the forgiveness of sins, then baptism has wholly 
 lost its significance, for it buries the man and not his sins, 
 and the cross has been robbed of half its efficacy, for it 
 crucifies the body of sin at the same time in which it puts 
 away its guilt. The power subjectively against continuance 
 in sin is belief in these objective facts of the gospel. 
 
 8-JO Sanctification begins with this chapter with the ques- 
 tion, " Shall we continue in sin ? " Paul has securely laid the 
 foundation of it in justification. There is no break with sin 
 but by trust in the gospel facts, and no one can have the power 
 of the resurrection life in his heart until he dies with Christ in 
 order to be raised with him. To die is to be justified from sin, 
 by which death comes union with Christ in life before God. 
 Thus it is that God's righteousness is a righteousness by faith. 
 
 Spiritual power flows into the soul by union with Christ, 
 but that fact is not developed until the eighth chapter. Here 
 the eye is still turned upward, not inward. 
 
 At this point, therefore, Paul takes up the second means 
 against continuance in sin; or rather it is the other side of
 
 114 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. n) 
 
 what has already been given, and touched on just once in 
 verse 5. " He was delivered for our offenses." This is verses 
 1-7. " He was raised again for our justification." (See on 
 iv. 25.) This is verses 8-14. The believer dead with Christ 
 will surely " live " with him, now in this present time, and then, 
 of course, ever hereafter. It is only the present time that is 
 here in view. Note that now for the first instance since iv. 
 24 (q.v.) we have the word " believe," signifying, however, not 
 faith in the gospel directly, but persuasion or conviction of its 
 efficacy. Since our present Christian life depends wholly on 
 Christ's life, since we live only in his life (see verse 5 above), 
 Paul need only prove that Christ, once raised, dies no more. 
 That he died at all was because of sin, and for this he died 
 " once " for all. Sin has no more dominion over him, and in 
 him it has no more dominion over the believer. And now 
 that he lives, he lives to God, or for God, for his pleasure and 
 glory. This is said in proof that Christ can never again die, 
 the suppressed premise being that he who lives for God must 
 live forever. It is also suggested that we who live by the power 
 of that life in him, and which has become ours, will also live 
 " to God," and so live both now and evermore. 
 
 JJ With this verse an exhortation begins that is continued 
 through the next two. To "reckon" is to account (ii. 26), to 
 " conclude " (iii. 28), to think (ii. 3). They were asked to think 
 of themselves ("yourselves"), just as God's Word here describes 
 them in Christ, "dead unto sin " and "alive unto [or "for"] God." 
 To conclude about ourselves what God has declared about us in 
 the gospel is faith (iv. 17). If the gospel says we are dead to 
 sin in Christ, we must say so too ; if it says we are alive in him, 
 we must so reckon ourselves. This reckoning stands on the 
 gospel and not at all on experience. The very meaning and 
 use of this word prove that Paul depended on a right estima- 
 tion of the gospel as the power against sin, and not on an 
 inward experience of something, except as this estimation is
 
 (VI. 12) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SINt 115 
 
 itself an experience. It is not be alive or become alive, but 
 account yourself now alive in Christ. The happy rendering in 
 the King James version, " likewise," shows the correspondence 
 between this verse and the tenth. As he died to sin once for all, 
 reckon ye yourselves dead " likewise," and as he liveth unto 
 God, so "likewise" do ye ; for the last phrase, "in [" through " 
 is not correct] Jesus Christ our Lord," in verse i 1 joins with 
 both "dead "and "alive." 
 
 J2. And " therefore," now that you reckon yourselves alive 
 in Christ and dead to sin, "therefore" looks back over the 
 whole section, "let not sin reign in your mortal body." He 
 says " mortal " to remind them of what they are in themselves, 
 mortal because sinful (viii. 10). They must "reckon" them- 
 selves pure, and this reckoning is their chief power over sin, 
 because God graciously so reckons them ; but in themselves 
 they are not so. See how clearly he implies that there is " sin " 
 in this mortal body. But it is now " your " body ; before ac- 
 cepting Christ it was "the body of sin." (For the meaning 
 of " body " see on verse 6 above.) 
 
 " Let not sin reign." This is much more than an appeal to 
 the exercise of will. It is an appeal to accept and make 
 one's own by faith all that state which is brought about by 
 union with Christ. The ideal Christian life is not a constant 
 battle with sin, but a victory over it. Not until a man sees him- 
 self sinless in Christ by death and resurrection has he found the 
 right way of approach toward sinlessness in life. He can attend 
 to the present when he knows that he is absolved from all that 
 he was and did in the past, as well as from all that he now is. 
 
 "That ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." The better 
 reading is, "That ye should obey its [the body's] desires." 
 The words "it in" are an unsupported addition to the true 
 text. " Lusts " is obsolete English and should find no place 
 in a modern revision. The sentence explains the word " reign." 
 The persistent tendency of sin is to subject man to a gratify-
 
 116 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 13, 14) 
 
 ing of his own desires. James i. 14, 15, describes the steps by 
 which sin dethroned in Christ regains its scepter. Note again 
 how clearly Paul implies that the believer is still possessed of 
 the desires of the body. As long as he has a body he has these 
 desires. It is not their presence nor the presence of sin with 
 its clamor to reign that is inconsistent with saving union with 
 Christ. The gospel is a means to save sinners (i Tim. i. 15). 
 It can justify the " ungodly " (iv. 5). But what it cannot tol- 
 erate is obedience to sin. It is not the will of the sinful man 
 that is to be done, but the will of God. Godet's rather vehe- 
 ment insistence that Paul here means only physical desires is 
 wide of the mark. The body is the man. Psychology is as 
 incompetent to explain Paul as geology is to explain Genesis. 
 Moule is correct when he says they are " desires of every kind, 
 whether sensual or not." For see Colossians iii. 3, 5, 8, 9. 
 Even a desire after some particular service to God may be 
 contrary to his will (i Thess. ii. 17, 18). It must not be for- 
 gotten that when " our old man " was slain at the cross these 
 "lusts" were crucified with him (Gal. v. 24). 
 
 J3* Paul descends from the general to the particular. The 
 " members " of the body, its various faculties and capabilities, 
 physical and mental, must not be yielded at any time " unto sin " 
 as weapons ("instruments") for unrighteousness, but (now he 
 turns from the negative to the positive) "yield," by one de- 
 cisive act, " yourselves to God." To " yield " means to present 
 for service. This topic is taken up at length in chapter xii. 
 It is in vain for one to present himself to God for service 
 except in the gospel fashion present himself not merely as a 
 forgiven sinner, but, by faith in the gospel, as one " alive from 
 the dead," " a living sacrifice " (xii. i ) ; and present once for 
 all to God the " members " of the body (same as above) as 
 weapons for righteousness, practical holiness. 
 
 J4. And you can make this holy warfare, " for " you have 
 not only been set free from sin by dying to it, but it has also
 
 (VI. IS, 16) DOES FAITH PROMOTE S-IN? 117 
 
 lost another means of hindering you, the law : " ye are not 
 under law," a matter to be fully explained in the next chapter 
 (see under iii. 20) ; ye are " under grace." Grace and law are 
 antagonistic and mutually exclusive. Sin and law go together, 
 and yet, should the believer chance to go astray, he is still 
 under grace. This raises the serious question of the second 
 (2) section whether sinning is not promoted by gratuitous 
 justification. 
 
 J5 "Shall we sin, because we are not under law? " This 
 question was sure to arise, because human society and govern- 
 ments know of no way to restrain sin but by law and its pen- 
 alties. The state's ruler is " the minister of God, a revenger 
 to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil " (xiii. 4) in breaking 
 the law. The assertion " ye are not under law " was made to 
 turn the justified man's gaze from Moses to Christ, from law 
 to grace. That this can lead to an act of sin Paul denies with 
 vehemence " God forbid " ; but he knew well that his simple, 
 radical declaration "not under law" could not be accepted 
 without defense. And even with his defense many are disposed 
 to think that the obvious meaning cannot be the true one. 
 
 J6. With this verse the answer begins. That answer is found 
 in the nature of sin. Its immediate effect is slavery ; its out- 
 come is eternal death. To repeal the law against taking poison 
 with suicidal intent would not affect the character of the drugs. 
 Paul's readers know this," Know ye not? "so that he only 
 reminds them what the result must be if they sin. Faith in 
 God is, first of all, faith in the ruinous power of sin (i. 32). 
 The compactness possible in the Greek of this sentence makes 
 a literal translation somewhat difficult. It might be para- 
 phrased slightly: Know ye not, to whom ye present your- 
 selves as servants to the extent of obedience, his slaves ye are 
 whom ye obey, whether sin's servants, whose end is death, or 
 obedience's servants, whose end is practical righteousness? 
 This states the universal law that a man becomes the moral
 
 118 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 17) 
 
 subject of what he does. If he yields to sin that sin gets 
 a grip upon him. If he lies once, not only is he likely to lie 
 again, but that lie has him in its power. It has soiled his con- 
 science and dimmed the light in his heart. This is also the 
 teaching in Matthew vi. 24; John viii. 34; 2 Peter ii. 19. No 
 one knows this so well as the believer. To be sure, he may 
 repent of his sin, but only Christ, and not the law, can restore 
 him. It is also true that acts of obedience tend to a habit and 
 enslave their doer in the comfortable bonds of righteousness. 
 The two words " whether," " or," show that life has but two 
 ways open, one or the other of which every man must choose ; 
 there is no middle course. 
 
 J7. After stating this law that holds in all moral action, he 
 speaks of the happy condition of the Romans, that, whereas 
 they had been sin's slaves, thanks be to God, they had escaped 
 bondage by obeying from the heart, sincerely and not in mere 
 act of the flesh, that " form " or mold of teaching into which 
 they were delivered. The King James translation is wrong 
 here. It does indeed seem natural to say a form of teaching 
 " which was delivered you," but this is not Paul's assertion. If 
 it were, one shining point would be lost, that both they and God 
 conjoined in the act of their salvation. They obeyed from the 
 heart the type of teaching the gospel into whose power his 
 grace delivered them. The commentators debate the implica- 
 tion here, whether there were different types of doctrine among 
 the apostles. There was a difference in presentation (see on ii. 
 1 6), but none in form or mold. In this debate it is strangely 
 overlooked that the implied antithesis is with that other " form 
 of knowledge and of the truth in the law " (ii. 20). To be sure, 
 in the passage here quoted there stands another word for 
 "form," but practically synonymous with the one before us. 
 The context, whether we shall be under law to be restrained 
 from sin, or under the gospel, settles the question of the an- 
 tithesis and also explains Paul's earnest words.
 
 (VI. i8, 19) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 119 
 
 " God be thanked." Paul had had no little trouble on this 
 point (Gal. v. i, 2). 
 
 It is impossible to think that in this phrase, " delivered into 
 a mold of teaching," Paul did not refer to what he said in 
 verse 4 above. Baptism is a symbolic mold or pattern of 
 doctrine into which the Romans could be said to be delivered, 
 and in accordance with which they are fashioned, for its idea 
 is dead to sin and alive with Christ. He who called the same 
 ordinance a "washing" or alaver "of regeneration" (Tit. iii. 5) 
 could consistently call it a mold of doctrine. 
 
 J8 This verse continues the thought of the last, the happy 
 condition into which the Romans were brought by their heart 
 obedience to the gospel ; being set at liberty from sin by dying 
 to it, they are now servants to righteousness. This word " ser- 
 vants," used all along, shows that now practical and not im- 
 puted righteousness is meant. At the very beginning of their 
 Christian course they were delivered from the guilt and from 
 the power of sin in order to do acceptable works. They did 
 not serve to be saved ; they were saved to serve. 
 
 J9. " I speak after the manner of men." For using the 
 words " servants of righteousness," Paul explains, almost apolo- 
 gizes. This expression belongs not strictly to the believer's 
 relation to Christ, but is human, " after the manner of men." 
 The fact is, as stated in v. 17, that the saint is not a servant, 
 but a king. But in view of the " infirmity of the flesh," the 
 feebleness of spiritual comprehension (Eph. iii. 16) on the part 
 of the Romans, he uses a phrase which they could understand. 
 While it is far from expressing the whole truth, it is in the way 
 toward it and cannot lead astray. This language of servitude, 
 while it does not assert their lofty spiritual dignity, conveys 
 the full measure of their duty slaves to righteousness. 
 
 In a further use of this human metaphor, he exhorts them 
 to a transfer of energy. Just as their powers and faculties had 
 once been slaves to the monsters " uncleanness and iniquity,"
 
 120 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 20-23) 
 
 so that the issue was iniquity, they were to present these " even 
 so " as slaves to righteousness, that the issue might be holiness. 
 In yielding themselves as servants to do right, there issued at 
 once a state of mind and heart called holiness. He does not 
 say yet that this holiness comes from the Holy Spirit. 
 
 20, 2J Paul urges them ("for") to this holy enslavement 
 by reminding them that the only freedom which they had in 
 their former condition was freedom relative to righteousness. 
 Such having been their condition, he asks, "What fruit had 
 ye accordingly ["then" is ambiguous] in those things [those 
 sinful deeds and habits] whereof ye are now ashamed? " 
 (i Pet. iv. 3.) They were "now" ashamed, which is to their 
 credit and proves their enlightenment. They were not " then " 
 ashamed, for this was impossible, because sin never sees its own 
 hideous face until it looks into the gospel with believing eyes. 
 The question all the time before the reader is, " Shall we sin, 
 because we are not under law? " Men are < not likely to repeat 
 that for which they are " now " ashamed. " What fruit had 
 ye?" I ask this painful question because ("for") ye know 
 " the end of those things is [spiritual] death." There was no 
 fruit. Note that Paul has quietly passed from the enslavement 
 produced by sin to its legitimate result death. 
 
 22. This verse describes their present blessed condition in 
 contrast with their former one, pictured in verses 20 and 21. 
 He does not now use the semi-figurative words " obedience," 
 "righteousness," "mold of teaching" (see Moule, in loc.), but 
 that which comprehends them all "servants to God." This 
 service has immediate fruit issuing in holiness, whose end is 
 eternal life. Here are two strange paradoxes : the end of sin 
 is death that never dies, and the end of holiness is " eternal " 
 life. The order and number of the terms must be noted 
 service to God, holiness, eternal life. The middle link of the 
 three cannot be omitted (Heb. xii. 14). 
 
 23. " Wages of sin ; . . . gift of God." This verse gives
 
 (VI. 23) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SINf 121 
 
 the solemn proof for the last three. It lies in the fundamental 
 law of the moral universe. Things are so constituted that sin 
 ends only in death, and grace in eternal life. That which 
 comes to sin is wages. Wages are what is due. The word 
 means soldier's pay. Sin is warfare against God, and the 
 appropriate pay is death. But that which comes to the servants 
 of God is not wages ; service is due him and merits no reward 
 (Luke xvii. 10). But that which comes to them is vastly more 
 than any wages which they could earn it is a gift of God, it 
 is eternal life. The argument closes, as each one does, with 
 the solemnly accumulated titles of the Redeemer : " The gift 
 of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 In a word, then, the question, " Shall we continue in sin? " is 
 answered. The answer is in the gospel, the work of Christ. 
 How can one continue in a state from which he is already 
 delivered? Death was due as the wages of sin, and that death 
 was paid in Christ. If it is, then, no longer service to sin, but 
 service to God, life is needed, a dead man cannot serve 
 God, and Christ's life is reckoned to the believer. Belief of 
 the gospel is the power against sin, and belief is to reckon one's 
 self as God reckons. In Christ man is guiltless ; this is his 
 standing, which enables him to shun sinning because he now 
 knows its destructive power. Believing acquaintance with 
 Christ in his gospel gives deliverance from sin and from 
 sinning.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 
 
 IN iii. 20 it was said that "by the deeds of the law shall no 
 flesh be justified in God's sight." 
 
 In v. 20 there is a second radical utterance about the law 
 it " entered, that the offense might abound." 
 
 In vi. 14 there comes a third amazing statement "Ye are 
 not under law." 
 
 In this chapter these three points are taken up in the reverse 
 order, and elaborated subsidiary to the leading idea that the 
 law cannot save from indwelling sin. (i) How and why the 
 justified are delivered from the law (verses 1-6). (2) If the 
 law makes sin to abound, is the law sinful (verses 7-13)? (3) 
 No man is saved by the law, for no man is delivered from the 
 flesh by it (verses 1425). 
 
 There was a profound historical necessity for the discussion 
 embraced in this chapter. Whether the composition of the 
 Roman church was in the main Jewish or Gentile, its Bible, 
 which it read and by which it knew God and Christ, was the 
 Old Testament, the book of the law. The law was divine, 
 given with most imposing sanctions on Sinai. For their own 
 stability, as well as for a means of defense against acute and 
 captious Jewish adversaries, Paul must make these Roman 
 believers see why that law was not binding on them in their 
 relation to God. The necessity was the more urgent from the 
 fact that he defends justification by faith by these same Old 
 Testament Scriptures. 
 
 122
 
 (VII. 1-4) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 123 
 
 In writing to the Hebrews, who were in danger of returning 
 to the law, there was equal need of showing them not only its 
 impotency to save, but that they were no longer under it. The 
 latter came about by the radical change in the order of the 
 priesthood (Heb. vii. 12, 19). 
 
 In the well-nigh vehement Epistle to the Galatians Paul 
 discusses this same question, but more in its relation to justi- 
 fication than to sanctification. Galatians is suggested in our 
 fourth chapter rather than in this seventh. 
 
 This question of the law was the meeting-point of the enemies 
 and friends of the gospel. More than once his attitude toward 
 it came well-nigh costing Paul his life (Acts xxi. 28, 31). It 
 is not strange, then, that we meet it here and in almost every 
 one of his epistles. 
 
 Paul's convincing teaching on the subject of law would bring 
 a comfort and a relief to the believing Jew, and to the believ- 
 ing Gentile as well, that can hardly be appreciated. His in- 
 struction was their answer for abandoning an old and divinely 
 established faith for a novel and untried one. The former 
 was the trust of the fathers and the prophets; the latter, it 
 could be said, was advocated by no one but heretics and 
 renegades. But it has also intrinsic and permanent value. It 
 is in the very blood of men everywhere to seek to set themselves 
 right with God by doing good works. This chapter shows how 
 futile all such efforts are. 
 
 J-4. " Or know ye not, brethren? " The chapter is linked 
 by the word "or" omitted in the King James version 
 with the fourteenth verse of the preceding one. He writes 
 to them as " men who know the law." The Revised Ver- 
 sion is preferable here. They knew the law, for it was con- 
 stantly read and expounded in their hearing. They knew 
 its permanent character, that it held dominion over man for 
 life. In proof, he cites a single item from the code. A wife 
 was held by the marriage bond as long as her husband lived ;
 
 124 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 1-4) 
 
 but if he died she was free, being no longer a wife, but the 
 same as a virgin. She could marry again. Here is where 
 this exceedingly simple illustration grows not only very pro- 
 found, but at the first sight very perplexing. The point that 
 Paul is after is that the law holds the man till he dies. But 
 in the illustration it was the husband that died and the wife 
 became free. And not a few commentators are puzzled and 
 make dark what Paul intended to be plain. Moule says: 
 " The metaphorical language is not strictly consistent." It is 
 both consistent and scriptural. Sanday says : " In the working 
 out of this illustration there is a certain amount of intricacy, 
 due to an apparent shifting of the standpoint in the middle of 
 the paragraph." But how strange that Paul should attempt to 
 clarify a simple statement by an intricate illustration! He 
 adds: "It is strange to speak of the same persons at one 
 moment as ' killed ' and the next as ' married again.' " But 
 have we not had this "strange " thing several times in the previ- 
 ous chapter? " Our old man was crucified with him, . . . that 
 we should not serve sin " (verse 6). " If we be dead with Christ, 
 we believe that we shall also [now] live with him " (verse 8). 
 (See Col. iii. 3.) Shedd makes the amazing statement that the 
 first husband stands for the law. Why, the woman was not 
 married to the marriage law, but to a man, and now the law 
 bound her. He adds: "If the figure had been regularly 
 carried out." Its regularity is beautiful, but how is one to see 
 it who makes the first husband the law ? Meyer's explanation 
 strikes the right note, but hardly goes far enough. When Paul 
 begins, " I speak to you as those who know the law," this is 
 not merely incidental or a compliment, but the key to the 
 passage. The moment he mentioned marriage their thought 
 would at once revert to Genesis ii. 24 : " And they shall be one 
 flesh." And, therefore, when the husband dies the wife dies 
 too ; and the law, that binds while life lasts, binds her no longer, 
 for she is dead. The wife is dead ; the woman remains. The
 
 (VII. 1-4) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 125 
 
 context, especially before, but also after, makes it inevitable that 
 the first husband, though he is not mentioned, is none other 
 than the crucified Christ. " Our old man is crucified with 
 him" These Romans, from what Paul had already written, 
 could not avoid believing that they died in his death, because 
 in some way they were in union with him. He was made 
 under the law that he might redeem them that were under the 
 law (Gal. iv. 4, 5). He and they died together (2 Cor. v. 14). 
 Christ while under the law was the first husband. 
 
 The third verse serves to emphasize the rigor of the marriage 
 law in its demand that husband and wife remain one, for if, 
 " while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she 
 shall [by the divine law itself] be called [by the harsh name] an 
 adulteress : but if her husband be dead, she is free from that 
 law," because, being one flesh (Mark x. 8) with him, she died 
 too. She is no more a wife than if she had never married. 
 She is dead to the law of her husband, so that it has no longer 
 a claim upon her. She can be " married to another man " if 
 she chooses to marry. 
 
 The fourth verse brings in the conclusion. It significantly 
 begins with the word " wherefore." It might be rendered " so 
 that." It shows the exactness of the parallel between the 
 woman's case and that of the believer in Christ. It is God's 
 law that the woman should be considered dead in her husband's 
 death, "so that ye," under a similar law, may be reckoned 
 dead in Christ's death. Meyer denies this harmony, and makes 
 the " wherefore " purely inferential. The sense is not materially 
 affected ; for the point reached is this : as the woman died to 
 the marriage law in the death of her husband, so "ye also," 
 like the woman, " my brethren," died by means of " the body 
 of Christ " on the cross to the whole Mosaic law ; " that ye 
 should be married to another, even to him who is raised from 
 the dead." In the case of the woman the husbands are two 
 and distinct; in the case of the Romans the husband is the
 
 126 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 1-4) 
 
 same, but in two different states, one, under the law, born of 
 Mary, and the other the resurrection state. This duality in the 
 relation of Christ to his own was taught first of all by himself. 
 (See John xiv. 18, 19 ; xvi. 16.) In 2 Corinthians v. 14-16, Paul, 
 in speaking of living to the raised Christ, declares: "Yea, 
 though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now hence- 
 forth know we him no more." But our text itself looks at 
 Christ in two conditions "the body of Christ" and "him 
 who is raised from the dead." These are identical in sub- 
 stance, but different in relation. The former was with men 
 under the law ; the latter belongs to the heavenly world. By 
 death and resurrection Jesus passed from one to the other, so 
 that when he met his disciples after rising from the tomb, he 
 virtually said he was no longer with them (Luke xxiv. 44). 
 
 The nature of that union which existed between Christ and 
 the race before the cross, so that his death was their death, is 
 nowhere revealed ; but to bring about such a union may be 
 the chief reason for the incarnation. 
 
 The union with Christ is twofold, one in the incarnation, by 
 which he stood for the race in such a way that when the One 
 died they all died "Ye were made dead to the law by the 
 body of Christ." This is the union with the first husband. 
 But now, secondly, the raised Christ is preached, and men may 
 become united with him in the Holy Spirit through faith. This 
 is the second and the saving union, made possible by the first. 
 
 That men became dead to the law by the body of Christ 
 does not make their salvation actual, because the intent of that 
 death was not salvation, but that they might be married to 
 another, to him who is raised from the dead, in whom, and in 
 no other way, the salvation is found. 
 
 But how did this question of the Mosaic law affect the 
 Gentiles, who were not under it? In a very true sense they 
 were under it. It was "against" them (Col. ii. 14). When 
 Moses shut up the Jew under law he shut the Gentile out, so
 
 (VII. 5, 6) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 127 
 
 that the Jew knew of no way of saving his uncircumcised 
 neighbor but by proselytism (Acts xv. 5). God's way was to 
 remove the barrier of the law by breaking down this " middle 
 wall of partition." Christ reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) 
 unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity 
 by it, so that now "both have access by one Spirit unto the 
 Father" (Eph. ii. 13-18). In the matter of law the cross did 
 as much for the Gentile as for the Jew, in that it brought about 
 that primal relation of men to God when there was no law. 
 
 This fourth verse gives the heart of the epistle and of the 
 gospel. The Christian's life is not a memory, not an imitation 
 of one who long ago lived, the former husband, but a wedlock 
 union with him who now lives in them and for them. 
 
 The object of the marriage with the risen Christ is that " we 
 might bring forth fruit for God." The figure of the marriage 
 is continued in the idea of fruitfulness. The fruit is love and 
 joy and peace, a mind in harmony with God. The character 
 of this fruit may be known in its origination from a heart in 
 union with Christ to be its author. It is divine and spiritual, 
 and so fit " for God." The very best that even the best man 
 can produce outside of spiritual union with Christ is in God's 
 sight but bastard fruit. 
 
 5. This verse shows why no fruit could be produced for 
 God under the law. " When we were in the flesh," not in 
 Christ, but under law, "the passions" (a better word than 
 " motions "), the excitabilities and evil capabilities in the heart 
 leading to their several "sins," these passions, "which were 
 [stirred to operate] by [means of] the law, did work [were 
 active] in our members," mental and physical, to the extent of 
 bringing forth fruit for death. This stirring of the passions to 
 opposition Paul will elaborate in the next section. 
 
 6, This verse describes the present happy state of the 
 Romans freed from the law and in Christ. " But now we are 
 freed [the same word is translated " loosed " in verse 2 above]
 
 128 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 7, 8) 
 
 from the law" Moses' moral and ceremonial law. How? 
 Just as the wife was : by " having died to that in which we were 
 held." The King James version is quite faulty here. We were 
 freed so as to (not " should ") do service " in newness of [the] 
 spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." The newness is the 
 new spiritual state or union with Christ ; the oldness of the letter 
 was their former state under the law. The letter means the 
 law. This new service produced holy fruit ; the service under 
 law brought forth fruit for death. 
 
 7, 8. But if we had to be absolved from the law, just as we 
 were absolved from the dominion of sin, in order to serve God, 
 "is the law sin? " With this inquiry the second point in the 
 chapter is introduced. (See remarks at the beginning of the 
 chapter and (2) in analysis.) Paul replies in the negative with 
 his usual vehemence " God forbid." His sole and decisive 
 proof for this negative answer is that that which reveals sin 
 cannot itself be sin (Eph. v. 13). " I had not [experimentally] 
 known sin, but by [means of] the law." He cites the tenth 
 commandment to illustrate his meaning. For the words " lust," 
 " covet," and " concupiscence " there is but one word, verb 
 and noun, in the original "to desire": "I had not known 
 desire, except the law had said, Thou shalt not desire." But 
 the moment that command came the sin in my .heart took the 
 command as an occasion to stir up within me every kind of 
 desire. I thought of a thousand things which I wanted, and 
 I longed for them now that they were forbidden. In quoting 
 only a part of the command, omitting as he does the specifi- 
 cations under it in Deuteronomy, Paul shows that he under- 
 stands it in its most sweeping extent. It forbids every strictly 
 human desire. Understood thus, it has the same awful effect 
 on men to-day that it had on Paul. It cannot be kept; it 
 grinds to powder. The heart is nothing but a nest of selfish 
 desires, to every one of which the command says no. The com- 
 mentators take the sword out of the law's hand in saying it for-
 
 (VII. 9) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 129 
 
 bids only "irregular desire," "illicit desire" (Sanday) : "desires 
 after what is forbidden " (Meyer). This quenches the fierce 
 blaze of the Sinaitic fire in the command and virtually reduces 
 the ten laws to nine ; for if the tenth forbids only what is 
 irregular and illicit, it merely reiterates those which are given 
 before it, and is a feeble summation instead of a burning 
 climax. Moreover, how could Saul of Tarsus, with his blame- 
 less legal righteousness (Phil. iii. 6) and his good conscience 
 (Acts xxiii. i) how could such a one as he "die" before a 
 law which inhibited only the " irregular," the " illicit," and the 
 " desires after what is forbidden "? In this sense he had kept 
 the tenth law as every pious Pharisee did, and as every moral 
 but unregenerate man does to-day. It was only when he came 
 to see that it was desire itself that was forbidden, that the sin 
 lay in the wish itself, not in the thing wished for, it was when 
 he read the command just as he here gives it, " Thou shalt not 
 desire" that he died under its power. If it is said that this 
 interpretation is impractical, that it dries up the springs of life, 
 the answer is, just this is its intent, so that men may seek to 
 escape "the corruption that is in the world by desire" (2 Pet. 
 i. 4). The will absolutely subject to God, admitted by all to 
 be the divine requirement, is practically impossible unless the 
 desires are likewise subject. What God has given men and 
 he has given much it is but gratitude to take; but every 
 desire beyond is under the ban of the tenth law. 
 
 " For without the law sin was dead." It is not the law in 
 its letter that stirs up sin, but the law in its deep spiritual 
 meaning, as Jesus interpreted it in the Sermon on the Mount. 
 Until this real meaning dawns on the heart and conscience sin 
 lies inactive and is dead. 
 
 9, " When the law came." It is nor just clear what Paul 
 means by these words. When did the law come to him? His 
 history shows that the time could not possibly have been when 
 at twelve years of age he, like other Jewish boys, was put under
 
 130 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 10, n) 
 
 it and became a son of the law (Godet's view). Most likely 
 he refers to his history on the Damascus road, when the light 
 smote him. He learned then that instead of serving God he 
 was obnoxious to him, so that for three days he groped in 
 darkness without eating and drinking. At length he prayed, 
 and found life in professing faith in Christ (Acts ix. 17, 18; 
 xxii. 1 6). Up to the time of this experience he was, in the 
 Jewish sense, under the law, but really "without it." It had 
 not yet " come " to his heart and understanding. He was 
 " alive " ; that is, every unregenerate activity of his soul was in 
 full exercise without restraint. But when the heart-searching 
 law broke in upon his apprehension, he not only saw that he 
 had broken it at every point, but the sin which he had not felt 
 before arose in active rebellion against that law, and he died. 
 The penalty for rebellion was death (Num. xxvii. 13, 14). The 
 language " alive " and " died " is metaphorical, like i Thess. 
 iii. 8 and i Cor. xv. 31. 
 
 JO. " And the commandment, which [was intended for] life, 
 I found [when it came to my sinful heart] to result in death 
 [for I could not keep it]." Paul is not excusing himself, nor 
 pitying himself; and he is at the farthest from saying in the 
 words, " I had not known sin," " sin revived," that the law 
 created sin. This is the point : the pool of his heart had looked 
 like a spring of sweet water. The law was the staff that stirred 
 it up and showed it to be nothing but mud at the bottom and 
 full of all hideous reptiles. The question of guilt is not be- 
 fore him, but the revealing power of the law. 
 
 JJ. " For sin . . . slew me." This verse supports the last 
 one in showing the process by which the law brought about 
 "death." Sin, like the tempter before Eve (Gen. iii. 1-13), 
 taking the commandment for a starting-point, an " occasion," 
 deceived him. Sin led him, as Eve was led, to think that the 
 command was depriving him of some good ; but in taking that 
 which seemed good he gathered death with it. The law rose 
 up against him and pronounced his doom.
 
 (VII. 12, is) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 131 
 
 J2. The conclusion about the law follows not exactly as an 
 inference from an argument, but as an exhibition of the law's 
 holiness given on the dark background of sin. The question 
 of verse 7 is answered. " Is the law sin? " No ; "the law is 
 holy, and the commandment [is] holy [for it discloses sin], and 
 just [or "righteous," because it condemns sin to death], and 
 good [or " beneficent," because its aim is " life "]." Bengel's 
 exposition of these adjectives, followed in some commentaries, 
 is lexical, but not logical. 
 
 J3 This assertion about the goodness or beneficence of the 
 law starts an acute objection: "Was then that which is 
 good made death unto me ? " . Can wholesome bread prove 
 poison to the hungry man who eats it? Does fresh, pure water 
 start a fever instead of allaying thirst? How can that which 
 is admitted to be "good," the law, prove to be "death to 
 me "? This subtle objection is not only answered, but turned 
 into an argument. It was not the law that brought death, 
 " but sin." And sin wrought death, " that [in the purpose of 
 God in giving the law] it might appear sin [inasmuch as it 
 (sin)] worked death in me by that which is good" How 
 desperate the disease that only grows worse under the appro- 
 priate remedy to heal it! But God had an additional purpose 
 in giving the holy law to sinful man, viz., "that [in order that] 
 sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." 
 The coward is not known until he hears the command to 
 march against the foe. 
 
 Paul, having now shown that the law was added " that the 
 offense might abound " (v. 20), takes up with this fourteenth 
 verse the third point (3) above in the chapter, that salvation 
 is impossible under the law, because it cannot deliver from the 
 flesh (iii. 20). The law cannot give holiness, for the flesh is 
 the seat of sin. 
 
 Two questions always confront the student on this passage : 
 (a) Is this Paul's own experience? In the word "I," which 
 was introduced at verse 7, does he contemplate no one but
 
 132 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 13) 
 
 himself? The section is certainly autobiographic. Such a 
 picture of the experience and despair of the heart in its contest 
 with sin could not possibly be drawn but by one who had had 
 the contest. It is because sin and law in their essence and 
 power are learned only by experience that he now reasons from 
 the latter. The law is not learned by hearing it ; it must "come." 
 
 But, while this must be a page from Paul's own history, it 
 is written in a way to be typical. He speaks not only for 
 himself, but voices the agony of every man situated similarly. 
 He has already more than once put his argument into dialogue 
 form and introduced the words "I" and "you" (see ii. i, 
 17 ff; iii. 7) with general and all-inclusive reference. 
 
 (V) The other question is much more serious: Do verses 
 1425 depict the experience of a regenerate or an unregen- 
 erate man? Is this a normal Christian experience or a 
 sinner's experience? The great names are found on both 
 sides; for the former, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc., 
 and for the latter, Meyer, Godet, Stuart, Tholuck, etc. 
 
 The first party claims, and with no little weight, that none 
 but a regenerate man would make such a struggle against sin ; 
 that only such a one could say, " I delight in the law of God " 
 (but see ii. 17, 23); and that Gal. v. 17 gives in brief the 
 contest between the flesh and the Spirit in the Christian, a 
 contest like this detailed in the section before us. (But beware 
 of the King James translation of Gal. v. 17.) 
 
 On the other hand, it is said, how can this be Paul's ex- 
 perience as a Christian, when he begins with the confession 
 that he is "sold under sin"; when, after denying that the 
 justified man "continues" in sin (vi. i, 2), he admits that it 
 holds him in its unbroken power ; when, after proclaiming his 
 freedom from law, and so from the " passions " of sins (vii. 5, 
 6 ; vi. 1 8), he now sadly confesses himself their slave, incapable 
 of doing one single good act? He " delights " in the law, but 
 is in " captivity " to sin.
 
 (VII. 14) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 133 
 
 This division of interpretation ought to have suggested long 
 ago that the understanding of this passage does not turn on 
 the question of regeneracy or unregeneracy. An undivided 
 decision in favor of one or the other would not shed a ray of 
 light on the interpretation; it would estop interpretation by 
 turning the course of argument away from its connection. 
 For who is the man in this picture? A man under law; one 
 who has discovered its heart-searching spirituality, but who in 
 every attempt to keep it finds himself defeated by indwelling 
 sin ; one who says, " How beautiful to have no desires, to let 
 God desire for me!" but finding at every turn that he wants 
 everything in sight. Now this will be the experience of any 
 man, regenerate or unregenerate, that attempts to keep the 
 law. It might have been the experience of the sincere ruler 
 (Mark x. 17-21), whom Jesus "loved." He came running 
 and kneeled in his eager inquiry to know what to do. It 
 might have been the experience of Paul during some part of 
 his stay in Arabia (Gal. i. 17, 18), until he had wrought out in 
 his heart and mind what the Christ in whom he had believed 
 was to his soul. For, while this section is as unlike a normal 
 Christian experience as early dawn is unlike broad daylight, 
 there is no doubt that many Christians have it and have had 
 it. The normal experience is given in vi. 17, 18 ; in vii. 4, 6 ; 
 and especially in viii. i, 2, and i Peter i. 8, 9. The section 
 before us, with its Laocoon contest, is the painful portrait of 
 a man in deadly earnest to be just before God without Christ, 
 either not knowing him at all or knowing him without under- 
 standing the gospel. (See Gal. iv. 9.) In Paul's day many 
 sincere Jews, with reverence for their holy law, may have seen 
 in this passage a picture of that agony with which their own 
 hearts had once ached. 
 
 J4. "The law is spiritual: ... I am carnal." This verse 
 is a proof of the last statement, that not the law, but sin, proved 
 death to him. As a natural law pertains alone to nature, as
 
 134 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 14) 
 
 a mental law has no field but the intellect, so a spiritual law 
 belongs only to the realm of spirit and can be kept only by 
 holy beings. Between the law and one who is carnal there is 
 a lack of moral adjustment. Peter, in his attempt to walk on 
 the water, began to sink, because he was out of the sphere 
 suited to mere doubting man. The priest could not carry the 
 sacrificial coals in his hand in going from the altar into the 
 holy place, and no more can a carnal man come before God 
 carrying the fiery law in his heart ; it would slay him. 
 
 If with this verse Paul drops the past tense for the present, 
 it is not at all because he is giving his own condition at the 
 time of writing. The change occurs in the verse before he re- 
 sorts to the first person and while he is still speaking of the law. 
 In verses 7-13 he expanded verse 5 above, showing in detail 
 the operation of the law on the Romans, once under it, but 
 not when he wrote (verse 6) ; hence the past tense. In this 
 verse he speaks not of the operation, but of the permanent 
 character of the law, which requires the present tense ; and he 
 continues with this tense to show what is always true of the 
 " flesh " under law. 
 
 The " carnal " man is not only the man out of Christ (see 
 verse 5 above), but also one presumably in him, but ignorant 
 of grace (cf. i Cor. iii. 3 with 23). The condition of all such is 
 given in the words " sold under sin," language borrowed from 
 the slave market. 
 
 This little phrase, in which sin is personified, is the proposi- 
 tion whose proof follows to the end of the chapter. The un- 
 happy slave chants his misery with monotonous repetition of 
 the one idea he would do good, but he cannot. The proof 
 falls into three dirges, the last of which ends in the high key 
 of a wail. The first dirge is verses 1 5-1 7 ; the second, verses 
 18-20 ; the third, verses 21-24. The last verse (25) sums all 
 up. These three all go to show one who is a slave sold under 
 sin.
 
 (VII. 15-20) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 135 
 
 J5-J7. The "for" with which this complaint begins intro- 
 duces it as a proof of the proposition, "sold under sin." 
 What the man does he knows (" allow " is incorrect) not. He 
 is driven blindly. He hates what he does and does what he 
 hates. This very conduct shows on both its sides that he 
 " consents to the law that it is good." His failure, then, to 
 lead a good life cannot be ascribed to his wrong attitude to- 
 ward the law ; that failure must be ascribed to indwelling sin. 
 The " I " is just himself, body, soul, and spirit, that have been 
 seized upon by the alien master which he calls sin. Note that 
 he does not yet hate his master ; he does not know him ; he 
 only hates his service. 
 
 J8-20* This dirge does not advance the argument one step. 
 It comes to the same conclusion as the last one and in the same 
 terms" sin that dwelleth in me." But, while it does not ad- 
 vance, it emphasizes by becoming more specific. There he 
 introduced the metaphor of a house : " sin dwells in me." He 
 now shows that sin occupies every room in the whole abode : 
 " there does not dwell in me a good thing." Sin lodges in 
 every chamber from the cellar to the roof. The law is doing 
 its work, " for by the law is the [full] knowledge of sin " (iii. 
 20). He thought there was some dust in the house, but now 
 as the white sunlight streams in at the windows he sees the 
 winged motes everywhere, saturating the air, settling on the 
 floor, defacing the furniture, and every motion he makes only 
 sets them flying. It is worse. For when he begins to beat 
 around to make things clean, it is as when Aaron smote the 
 dust in Egypt : it turned to lice (Exod. viii. 16), and his house 
 is possessed by them. 
 
 In a second point he is more specific than in the first dirge. 
 There he said in general terms, " what I would " and " what I 
 hate." Here he says " the good that I would " and " the evil 
 that I would not." The first did not show that it was good 
 that he could not do and evil that he could not shun.
 
 136 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 21-24) 
 
 The section begins with " for," leaning on the statement that 
 had just been made "sin that dwelleth in me." "For" is 
 " explanatory rather than demonstrative " (Godet). The phrase 
 " that is, in my flesh," following " in me," is not restrictive ; it 
 is appositional, serving to define the words " in me " and to 
 point out precisely what is meant by them. Every psycho- 
 logical exposition of this passage is wrong. To parcel out the 
 soul of this man, and say some part consents to the law and 
 some other part commits sin, is to deny the principal proposi- 
 tion (verse 14) and every verse that follows. And this the 
 psychological interpreters show by virtually saying that Paul 
 must not be understood at what he says: "/am carnal." It 
 is just one and the same " I " that is " carnal," that does " what 
 he allows not," that " hates what he does," that " consents unto 
 the law that it is good." It is precisely of his whole self that 
 he says " sin dwells in me" The carnal " I," thrilled by the 
 electric touch of the law, can consent to that law, can wish to 
 do the good, can hate the evil condemned by the law, can 
 " wish " and " hate " and " consent," yet never cease practising 
 sin. The very proof that he gives that sin dwells in him is, 
 "for to will [wish] is present with me, but how to perform 
 that which is good I find not." It is a carnal wish, for a 
 spiritual w'sh is a spiritual deed (2 Cor. viii. 10, R. V.). That 
 a carnal man, as the one in this section is declared to be, 
 could have a spiritual wish or a spiritual consent to the law is 
 a contradiction in terms. There can be no wish contrary to 
 character. 
 
 2J-24, The metaphor of a house is now dropped, and in 
 plain terms he repeats what was said in the two preceding 
 dirges, but in the form of result "then." "I find then [in 
 my experience] the law [the unvarying principle (in reference)], 
 to me who would do good, that evil is present with me [to de- 
 feat the effort at good]." That " law " does not mean the 
 Mosaic law in this passage is the opinion of Alford, Godet,
 
 (VII. 21-24) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 137 
 
 Sanday, and many others. (For the meaning assigned above 
 see viii. 2, " law of the Spirit.") 
 
 Verses 22 and 23, introduced by "for," unfold what Paul 
 means by verse 21. He delights in (with) the law Moses' law 
 here, for he calls it the " law of God." He can " approve " it 
 as a Jew, being " instructed " by it (ii. 1 8). This delight is 
 not in that which is outward in doing it, but in the " inward 
 man," in his " wish," in his " consent," in his " hate " of what 
 the law condemns. A proof of his delight in the law is his 
 persistent effort to keep it in spite of constant failure. The 
 inner man is not the new man (Eph. ii. 10 ; iv. 24). But along 
 with this delight he has an opposite experience ; he sees " an- 
 other," a different law, a force in his members, his various 
 capacities, a force that does not fight a battle merely, but car- 
 ries on a successful campaign against the law of his mind. 
 The " law of the mind " means the delight of the inward man 
 in God's law. This campaign is successful against him, be- 
 cause it leaves him in captivity to the " law [power] of sin in 
 his members," a phrase defining what he had just called. "an- 
 other law." The argument has now come around to the point 
 from which it started. What he deplores here is not his wrong- 
 doing, but his slavery" sold under sin " (verse 14). His pain 
 is not the path of wickedness which he pursues, but in the 
 chain that drags him along that destructive way a chain that 
 he cannot break. His sin is not an act ; it is helpless subjec- 
 tion to the law of sin in his members. How can this be called 
 a normal Christian experience? It is a legal experience, writ- 
 ten to show that, whatever else the law can do, it can deliver 
 no man, saint or sinner, from the flesh. Ye are " delivered 
 from the law" by "being dead" (in Christ) to that in which 
 ye " were held " (verse 6). It sometimes happens that a man 
 long addicted to intoxicants wakes up to some appreciation of 
 his degradation and of the ruin not far ahead of him in his 
 course. In sober moments he reflects on the purity and liberty
 
 138 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 25) 
 
 of the days before he touched the bowl, and he resolves to drink 
 no more ; but under the fierce clamor of his appetite his wish 
 to do good breaks down. He resolves again, and again fails, 
 and again and again. In this state he could read this section 
 and make every word his own. To wish the good and at the 
 same time to do the evil is not a normal condition. The strug- 
 gling drunkard's case is a mild one compared with that of the 
 awakened man under the law. The drunkard finds a master 
 in one member, his appetite for drink ; the man under God's 
 law finds a master in every member. The drunkard does some- 
 times succeed in breaking his hateful bonds ; the man stand- 
 ing under frowning Sinai never does. Christ must unshackle 
 him. 
 
 This divided state, yearning to do good, but learning finally 
 that the good is beyond his reach, wrings out the cry for de- 
 liverance from his wretchedness. This is this point to which 
 Paul has been leading the argument. Experience shows that 
 the law leaves a man, no matter how earnest to keep it, in a 
 state of miserable slavery. 
 
 " The body of this death." Moule's statement that " this is 
 that part of the regenerate man which yet has to die " shows 
 to what limits even an otherwise fair exegete can be driven by 
 a false assumption. His is that the man in this picture is re- 
 generate. Why, the very next word declares that deliverance 
 from the " body of death " comes not with physical death, but 
 " through Jesus Christ." The " body of death " is just the man 
 himself, the same that was mentioned in vi. 6. By using the 
 word " body " Paul indicates what he has all along said, that 
 he was wholly sinful. His cry virtually is, " Who shall deliver 
 me from myself? " He calls it " the body of this death," be- 
 cause it belongs to death and is under its power in being under 
 the power of sin. Sin and death always go together. 
 
 25 " I thank God [that deliverance comes] through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." This sentence is brief and not complete in
 
 (VII. 25) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 139 
 
 itself, because the method of the deliverance was fully described 
 by Paul in verses 1-6 at the beginning of the chapter. 
 
 "So then ... I myself," etc. These two antithetical 
 propositions sum up all that has been said above "a terse, 
 compressed summary of the previous paragraph, verses 7-24, 
 describing in two strokes the state of things prior to the inter- 
 vention of Christ." There is a similar condensation in i. 32. 
 " I myself," apart from Christ, " with the mind," that " wishes 
 to do good" and "delights in the law," thus "serve" it 
 " serve in the oldness of the letter " (verse 6 above) ; " but [I 
 myself] with the flesh [the enslaved man] [serve] the law of 
 sin [" in my members "]." (See xv. 14, where the same words 
 mean " apart from other information.")
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 IN CHRIST JESUS A GODLY LIFE IS INSURED BY THE HOLY 
 
 SPIRIT 
 
 GODET, in his introduction to this chapter, that begins with 
 no condemnation and ends with no separation, quotes Spener 
 as saying, " If Holy Scripture was a ring, and the Epistle to 
 the Romans its precious stone, chapter viii. would be the 
 sparkling point of the jewel." It takes up the little phrase in 
 chapter vii., "serve in newness of [the] spirit," and develops it. 
 The opposite service mentioned there, " in the oldness of the 
 letter," the law, is the theme of chapter vii. 
 
 This chapter is the counterpart of the fifth. The fifth shows 
 that justification by faith in Christ is once and forever it is 
 permanent ; here we have the same thing a godly life, the 
 fruit of justification, is insured. There the argument for per- 
 manence of justification is based on its ground, the love of 
 God in Christ Jesus ; here it is based on the power of the 
 Spirit in Christ Jesus. There the justified man was looked at 
 only in his relation to God ; here he is also considered in the 
 midst of his conflict with the flesh and the world, over which 
 he triumphs by the aid* of the Spirit. Hence some points just 
 touched on there are developed here. The Holy Spirit is only 
 once mentioned there (v. 5), said to be given, but nothing 
 more ; here his office is completely unfolded. Two short verses 
 there (3, 4) speak of " tribulations " ; here they occupy atten- 
 
 140
 
 (VIII. i, 2) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 141 
 
 tion almost wholly from verse 1 7 to the end. There the con- 
 clusion is briefly given "Grace reigns through righteousness 
 unto eternal life ; " here it is presented at length in a most 
 powerful and poetic strain (verses 31-39). 
 
 There are four topics in the chapter: (i) deliverance from 
 the flesh by the power of the Spirit (verses i-u) ; (2) realiza- 
 tion of sonship by the same Spirit (verses 12-170) ' (3) preser- 
 vation in sufferings (verses 17^-30); (4) a paean of triumph 
 (verses 31-39). Furthermore, the chapter brings all the lines 
 of argument together and shows them in their happy issue in 
 salvation, the eternal sequence of grace. 
 
 J. "There is therefore now no condemnation." The con- 
 nection by the word " therefore " is with the first clause of the 
 preceding verse, and through it with that to which the clause 
 refers. "Now" as the argument at present stands. The 
 " no " is emphatic no condemnation from the law, and none 
 on account of inherent sinfulness; none from any source or 
 for any cause. Those who make the " now " temporal miss 
 the shining point that "no condemnation" means none possi- 
 ble, none forever. This happy condition belongs only to those 
 " in Christ Jesus." The rest of the verse is not genuine and 
 is omitted by all modern editors of the text. 
 
 2. This verse tells not why, but how, the deliverance came 
 about. It gives not the ground, but the agent, of the freedom. 
 It is the seventh chapter condensed to one sentence. When 
 a man by faith comes into Christ Jesus he finds there the 
 Spirit's law or controlling force effecting life in the soul. This 
 law is neither the moral nor the Mosaic law ; it is not the " law 
 of the mind," not the " law of faith " (iii. 27), but the operative 
 force of the Holy Spirit, whose presence awakens spiritual life 
 and sustains it. He that has the Son has life (i John v. 12), 
 because in the Son he finds the life-giving Spirit. By faith in 
 Christ a man finds not only acquittal from sins, but also the 
 power by which he no longer commits them ; for this law of
 
 142 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 3, 4) 
 
 the Spirit sets him at liberty (" free ") from the " law of sin and 
 death," fully described in verse 23 above as an enslaving force 
 in his members. The spiritual law is set against the carnal and 
 overcomes it. The law of gravity ever keeps the serpent 
 crawling on the earth, and he cannot rise above it; but give 
 him wings and now he has a power superior to gravity by 
 which he can fly. A man cannot rise above the clouds ; his 
 own dead weight holds him down until he steps " in " the car 
 suspended beneath the balloon and cuts loose, when he finds 
 another force dominating the force of gravity and carrying 
 him aloft in spite of it. " In Christ Jesus " there is a power 
 that sets one at liberty from the sinful force in his members. 
 Gravity never ceases, but it may be overcome. The law of 
 sin in the members exists as long as they do, but " in Christ " it 
 cannot operate. 
 
 3> 4, These two verses tell, first, how it comes to pass that 
 the man in Christ Jesus is "free from the law of sin" in his 
 members, and, secondly, why. The "law [of Moses] could 
 not " condemn sin in the flesh, because it was weaker than the 
 flesh. It was weak through the flesh. The anchor of the law 
 was strong in itself, but it would not hold in the mud bottom 
 of the heart. It could and did condemn the acts of the flesh 
 and punished some of them even with death, but the sin in 
 the flesh it could not condemn ; it only excited it to rebellion. 
 " When the commandment came, sin revived " (vii. 5, 9). To 
 condemn is to pronounce sentence against and to inflict due 
 penalty. Christ died not only for acts of sin, but for sinners, 
 sin in the heart. (For the former see iii. 23-26; iv. 25 ; for 
 the latter, vi. 6-10.) If "he that is dead is justified from sin," 
 it is because the sinfulness in him was condemned in Christ. 
 The verses before us are the counterpart of vi. 6-10. 
 
 " God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." 
 Here is both the deity and the humanity of Christ (i Tim. iii. 
 1 6). He is called his "own" Son to distinguish him from
 
 (VIII. 3, 4) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 143 
 
 others (verse 16 below), and he was such before he was " sent." 
 He did not come in the likeness of flesh, or he would have 
 been no proper man, and he did not come in sinful flesh, or 
 he would have been a sinner ; but he came " in the likeness of 
 sinful flesh." He was neither a phantom nor a sinner, but a 
 perfect man. He must be such a man, that God might con- 
 demn sin in the flesh. 
 
 God sent him (an offering) "for sin." Godet's "wholly 
 different explanation," denying that Paul had the "condem- 
 nation on the cross " in view, is unscriptural. In leaving out 
 the cross Godet has left out the gospel. The phrase " for sin," 
 equivalent to " concerning " or " about sin," is all-comprehen- 
 sive. He was sent not merely about the guilt of sin, but about 
 its existence as well. He came not only to condemn its guilt, 
 but its presence in the heart even when passive. If the cross 
 is not mentioned, but, on the other hand, the sending and the 
 manner of it (" in the likeness of sinful flesh ") are made prom- 
 inent, this is just to confine our attention to that on which the 
 condemnation fell. The cross is plainly implied in the word 
 " condemn." Christ stood for men in his person in the flesh, 
 and so the condemnation which fell on his flesh is equally 
 theirs who are in him. And therefore the text does not say 
 " his," because it is theirs also. Had he not been sinless, he 
 could have been condemned, to be sure, but he could not have 
 risen again so that men might come to be in him. And " there 
 is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ 
 Jesus," because their sinfulness was condemned in him to- 
 gether with their sins. 
 
 God's purpose in thus sending his Son was that the " right- 
 eousness " demanded by the law, viz., a holy heart, might be 
 " fulfilled in [not " by "] us, who walk not after [in accordance 
 with the promptings of] the flesh, but after [the promptings of] 
 the spirit." To " walk " means to live and act. The last two 
 phrases, beginning with " who walk," do not tell why or on
 
 144 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 5-7) 
 
 what ground the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in believers, 
 but who are such. They give a description and not a reason. 
 Those who are in Christ find there the Spirit, that not only 
 begets a new life, but gives direction to its impulses. The third 
 verse gives the ground of regeneration; the fourth, its real- 
 ization. 
 
 Why did not Paul, instead of the phrase, "who walk not 
 after the flesh, but after the spirit," say "who believe "? For 
 believing involves such a walk and is not genuine unless it ex- 
 hibits such a walk. The answer is that he has the regulating 
 method of the Mosaic law to combat, and he wishes to show that 
 believing contains a real and effective energy for life which is 
 not in the law a walk in the spirit. 
 
 5-8. This brief section shows the contrast between the man 
 described in vii. 14-25 and the man "in Christ." The fifth 
 verse in its first sentence shows why the righteousness of the 
 law is not produced in the man not in Christ, that is, in the 
 man who walks after the flesh and so under law : he " minds 
 [likes, cares for, aspires after] the things of the flesh." Even 
 his religious notions spring from his own unregenerate con- 
 ceptions. On the other hand, " they that are after [according 
 to] the spirit [mind (care for, like)] the things of the spirit." 
 " They that are." The " are " asserts their character. They 
 that are after the flesh are natural, carnal men (John iii. 3, 6). 
 
 6, This verse gives the nature of the carnal mind as the 
 reason why it cares only for the things of the flesh. " To be 
 carnally minded is death." Death is absence of life and of 
 all power to do the things belonging to life. On the other 
 hand, " to be spiritually minded [as he is who is in Christ] is 
 life and peace." Such a one is endowed with the life and 
 peace of the Holy Spirit and can attend to the Spirit's things. 
 
 7. The first sentence defines the " death " of the last verse. 
 It is " enmity against God." In the seventh chapter the inabil- 
 ity to do God's will, the death, was merely bewailed ; here its
 
 (VIII. 8, 9) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 145 
 
 moral character is given it is guilt. As surely as God is love, 
 so surely the natural dislike to follow him is hostility and 
 hatred. 
 
 The natural mind is enmity to God, because it does not 
 subject itself to his law ; it is in a state of rebellion. The brief 
 sentence, " neither indeed can be," is a diluted translation, 
 lacking the climactic force of the original, which contains 
 another "for." The carnal mind does not subject itself to 
 the law of God, for, indeed, it cannot. Here is vii. 14-25 
 in a nutshell. Paul says there, " I am carnal, sold under 
 sin," and I cannot do the things that I delight in, contained in 
 the law. But an additional fact must now be given that this 
 inability is an impotency of enmity and guilt. A man may not 
 be conscious of a feeling of enmity ; he may even claim to 
 love God ; but the very fiber of the man out of Christ is here 
 declared to be in opposition to him. (See on v. 6, " without 
 strength.") 
 
 8 " So then." Another fault in the King James version ; 
 it ought to be simply " and." This eighth verse is not a logical 
 conclusion, but a solemn assertion : " And they that are in the 
 flesh [not in Christ] cannot please God." What is said of the 
 carnal mind, that it is impotent for good, is now asserted of 
 all the unregenerate. Out of Christ, a man may be religious 
 and serve in " the oldness of the letter," but he neither pleases 
 God nor is he God's friend. 
 
 This section (verses 5-8), then, gives a very substantial rea- 
 son, in the character of the unrenewed or carnal mind, why 
 only those who walk after the spirit (verse 4) found in Christ 
 (verse 2) can fulfil the righteousness of the law. It shows at 
 the same time that being in the flesh and being under law, the 
 two states occurring together as they do, is a union in helpless 
 guilt. 
 
 9. In happy contrast with those who " cannot please God," 
 because they are in the flesh, that is, under its power, Paul ad-
 
 146 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 10) 
 
 dresses the Romans directly to assure them of four great results 
 from the possession of the Spirit: "not in the flesh;" Christ's 
 own (i. 6) ; their own spirit alive ; certainty of the future life 
 of the body. " Ye [emphatic] are not in the flesh, but in [the 
 control of] the Spirit, if indeed [no doubt expressed ; it is on the 
 supposition that] the Spirit of God dwells in [makes his home 
 with] you." The supposition is that the Spirit is not a fitful 
 influence, but an abiding guest or, rather, host. Note how he 
 says, ye are in the Spirit if the Spirit is in you. 
 
 On the other hand, " if any one [how delicately he avoids 
 saying " ye " when it comes to this painful statement! ] has not 
 the Spirit of Christ," he does not belong to Christ. The Spirit 
 of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same Holy 
 Spirit. None but the reader who neglects the logic will take 
 the phrase " Spirit of Christ " for the temper or disposition of 
 Christ. The Spirit proceeds from both God and Christ. 
 
 J0 "And if Christ be in you." Here are three different 
 phrases meaning one thing : " the Spirit of God," " the Spirit 
 of Christ," and " Christ." He comes from God the Father 
 (Acts i. 4) ; he is given in Christ the Son (viii. 2) ; and does 
 not speak of himself (John xvi. 13), but manifests "Christ" 
 (John xiv. 21). The threefold mention shows the work of the 
 Trinity in the sanctification of the believer. 
 
 When Christ dwells in a man " the body is dead because of 
 sin." Paul does not say " flesh," because he means the literal 
 body. The saints are subject to physical death and die, be- 
 cause of Adam's sin (v. 12). But the spirit, the saint's own 
 personal spirit, is not alive, but " life." It has the life of Christ, 
 because of his righteousness imparted through faith. The 
 righteousness here mentioned is comprehensive, including justi- 
 fication and sanctification. He says the spirit is " life," but 
 he does not say the body is death, for, while the spirit of the 
 man in Christ is already redeemed from death, his body in due 
 time, at Christ's coming, will be.
 
 (VIII. n-13) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 147 
 
 JJ. "Raised up Jesus, . . . raised up Christ." The in- 
 dwelling of " the Spirit of him [God] that raised up Jesus [the 
 historic person] from [among] the dead" is a pledge that he 
 who raised up Christ, the covenant head, will also make alive 
 "your mortal bodies." He was raised not only as Jesus the 
 man, but as Jesus the Christ, who stands for all who are in 
 him. This quickening of the mortal body takes place either 
 because of or through (the reading is in doubt) the Spirit that 
 dwells in you. And thus the Trinity is connected with the 
 resurrection. 
 
 This closes the first section of the chapter deliverance from 
 the flesh by the power of the Spirit. His help is threefold : he 
 delivers in Christ from the condemnation of the flesh (verses 
 i, 2); from the power of the flesh (verses 3-8); the whole 
 man, spirit and body, from the power of death (verses 9-11). 
 
 It is now plain to be seen that the elucidation of the sixth 
 chapter by the objective view has everything in its favor. To 
 make that chapter subjective is to anticipate this section. Paul 
 takes one step at a time. There he gives the things to be be- 
 lieved, without which there is no sanctification ; here the things 
 to be experienced. Until faith takes Christ for the Saviour 
 from the flesh, it cannot find that he is also the inward sanc- 
 tifier. 
 
 J2, J3. (See (2) in analysis above.) Some (Moule, Lipsius) 
 would join these two verses with the last section and begin the 
 new one with verse 14. But with his intention to speak of 
 sonship Paul wishes to show that, first of all, it is realized in a 
 right life ; and so Jesus taught (Matt. v. 44, 45). And in such 
 a life is found the best starting-point for the discussion the 
 best, for without it there is no proof of the lofty relation (i 
 John ii. 4). 
 
 The section begins as a deduction (" therefore ") from verses 
 9-11. Because the Spirit has given life to our soul and will 
 give life to our mortal body, therefore " we are debtors not to
 
 148 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 14) 
 
 the flesh," which could not bring us any deliverance, to live 
 after it. Mark how Paul implies not only that the flesh still 
 exists, but also that there is danger from it. He discriminates. 
 Our only obligation is not to live after it ; otherwise we may 
 owe it much. But it is to be the slave, not the master. In the 
 warfare of life it is to be the soldier, sent into any dangerous 
 situation, and not the captain, who directs the siege. If this 
 order is reversed, if a man yields to the desires of his heart 
 and follows his own likes and dislikes, " if ye live after [ac- 
 cording to] the flesh," ye are going to die. The flesh belongs 
 to the world, and the man who is yielding to its promptings is 
 in the world, living like the world, and must perish with the 
 world. He is a child of " this world " (Luke xvi. 8), but not 
 a child of God ; he is not living like his only Son (i John ii. 6). 
 
 On the other hand, "if ye by [not "through"] the Spirit 
 put to death the deeds of the body." The emphatic words 
 are "by the Spirit." His presence is instant death to the evil 
 deeds of the body. To subdue these by other means is de- 
 ceptive asceticism. By the force of will they may be chained, 
 but, as the section above shows, only God's Spirit can destroy 
 them. Observe he does not say destroy the flesh, nor destroy 
 the body, but the deeds of the body its aspirations, impulses, 
 desires, and works (Gal. v. 19-21). To destroy the body, the 
 seat of the flesh, would be to destroy one's self. Paul uses the 
 word " body " here as objective of the flesh. (See vi. 6 and 
 Col. iii. 5-9.) The flesh is one's constant and most intimate 
 associate. The man in Christ is not in the flesh, but it is in 
 him, and the problem of salvation is not how to transmute the 
 flesh into something good, but how to live with this devilish 
 thing every day without being overcome by it. The presence 
 of the Spirit solves the problem. " If ye by the Spirit put to 
 death [at one stroke] the deeds of the body, ye shall live " 
 live the life of sons. 
 
 \ 4 " For." The sequence appears as soon as it is noticed
 
 (VIII. 15-17*) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 149 
 
 that putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, the 
 theme of the last verse, is exactly equivalent to being " led by 
 the Spirit " in this verse, and that the little sentence " ye shall 
 live " means live as sons. To be led by the Spirit is to put to 
 death the deeds of the body, and to be a son in consequence 
 of such leading is to live. Life by the Spirit gives sonship. 
 
 J5. After having argued their sonship on the ground of their 
 pious walk in the Spirit, he supports the argument now by the 
 testimony of their experience. They are sons, " for " they did 
 not, on becoming followers of Christ, receive a " spirit of bond- 
 age again unto [into a state of] fear" (2 Tim. i. 7). "Spirit" 
 in this verse seems to mean disposition or temper (Num. v. 14), 
 such as men had under the law. The Romans were not con- 
 scious of such a slavish spirit, for on becoming followers of 
 Christ they received a "spirit of adoption," which awakened 
 the feeling of sonship and by which they " cried " (out, confi- 
 dently, Gal. iv. 6), " Abba, Father," an endearing repetition of 
 words used by Jesus himself (Mark xiv. 36). 
 
 \6 f M a. The Holy Spirit testifies to the same fact. Note 
 how Paul distinguishes between the divine Spirit and the human 
 in which he dwells. " The Spirit himself bears witness along 
 with our spirit [and two witnesses establish the truth], that we 
 are children of God." The relation of the human and the 
 divine cannot be explained in the work of salvation, but they 
 are distinct, and the Holy Spirit destroys neither the volition 
 nor the personality of the human. 
 
 For the word " sons " in verse 14 Paul now uses the tenderer 
 term "children," begotten ones, which goes to show that the 
 word " adoption " is not to be pressed. They are not merely 
 legally adopted, but really born sons (i John v. i), spiritually 
 begotten. They have all the rights and prospects of children : 
 "if [since] children, then heirs;" and not heirs to a lesser, but 
 to an equal ("joint heirs" gives point to the assertion) portion 
 with Christ, the first-born. They do not inherit a secondary
 
 150 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. i-ji, 18) 
 
 share, not a share through him, but with him. "Thou hast 
 loved them as thou hast loved me " (John xvii. 23). (See also 
 Matt. xix. 28; i Cor. vi. 2, 3 ; Col. iii. 4; Rev. iii. 21.) 
 
 This second section of the chapter teaches then, first, that 
 the Spirit, who puts to death the deeds of the body, gives life 
 to the man ; secondly, that this life is the life of sonship ; and, 
 thirdly, that this sonship involves the fullest meaning of the 
 word, assuring an equal inheritance with Christ. 
 
 J7b Paul turns abruptly to the subject of suffering. (See 
 (3) in analysis above.) And yet not so abruptly, for the suf- 
 fering of real Christians at all times is, and especially at that 
 time was, a constant daily experience. We are joint heirs with 
 Christ " if [since, as the fact is] indeed we suffer with him " in 
 order to share his glory. This suffering is not penal and not 
 in the contest with our own flesh, but comes to his followers 
 because, like him, they live in opposition to the world that 
 hates them (i John iii. 13), and, like him, reprove the world's 
 works (John vii. 7). To suffer like him is to suffer with him, 
 for he makes his followers' pains his own (Acts ix. 4, 5). It 
 is almost an axiom of the gospel that the path to glory is the 
 path of pain (Mark x. 38 ; Phil. ii. 9). Therefore the intelli- 
 gent believer does not hesitate to undergo sorrow in his service 
 to Christ ; he rather covets it in order that he may be glorified 
 with him ; for the joint heirs are those who suffer that they 
 may be glorified. Suffering is the seed that ripens in fruit of 
 glory. 
 
 The discussion of this topic is concerned with that which 
 gives sustaining power and comfort in suffering. The points 
 are three: (a) the vastness of the future glory, an expansion 
 of v. 3, 4 (verses 18-25) J (&) tne Holy Spirit's aid (verses 26, 
 27) ; and (c) God's general control of all things to bring about 
 his people's ultimate good (verses 28-30). 
 
 J8. Paul had weighed the sufferings of the present time 
 against the future glory. This verse gives the estimate they
 
 (VIII. I9-2I) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 151 
 
 are not worthy, are no account in the comparison. In them- 
 selves the present tribulations for Christ are vast and painful 
 (2 Cor. xi. 23-28). If then before the glory they are nothing, 
 what must the glory be? (2 Cor. iv. 17.) It is not "in us," 
 but toward us, " to usward," for Paul is contemplating much 
 more than that which affects the person directly. 
 
 J9. So vast is this glory that the very (irrational) creation, 
 or "creature " (Isa. xi. ; 2 Pet. iii. 13), is awaiting it with eager 
 expectancy, longing for the " manifestation," the unveiling, of 
 the sons (verse 14 above) of God at his advent (Col. iii. 4). 
 
 20, 2J As God's sons look with longing to the future, first, 
 because their present condition is painful and is not the ideal 
 condition, and, secondly, because the future will bring them 
 redemption, just so the creation, personified all through this 
 passage, looks to the same future, first, because it is now under 
 the curse, and, secondly, in the future, in the glorification of 
 the faithful, it will find deliverance. The twentieth verse gives 
 a reason for the " earnest expectation " drawn from the present 
 condition of creation, and the next verse a reason (when we 
 read " because ") drawn from the future. " Was made subject 
 to vanity " is ambiguous. Creation was not made so, for origi- 
 nally creation was " good," and it was subjected to vanity, that 
 is, to attain to no good end permanently. Any good that comes 
 from creation must be evoked by man's hard toil. This con- 
 dition did not come about by its own will (" willingly "), but 
 because of him (God) who subjected it to vanity, not finally, 
 but upon a basis of some provision for the future, called "hope." 
 This verse clearly implies that creation (" all nature ") is neither 
 in its original condition nor in its final condition. It fell when 
 man fell (Gen. iii. 17-19) ; it shall be restored when he is, and 
 shall be no longer subject to vanity, but to him (Heb. ii. 5-9). 
 It is eagerly awaiting the revelation of God's sons, because 
 that is the time when it "also shall be delivered from the 
 bondage of corruption [the subjection, verse 20] into the liberty
 
 152 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 22-25) 
 
 of the glory [** glorious liberty " is wrong] of the children of 
 God." The creation is promised the liberty of the glory, not 
 the glory. 
 
 22. This verse explains the " liberty " of the last in showing 
 the need of it in creation. The language is highly poetic; 
 creation is personified. "We know," says Paul, from obser- 
 vation of the patent fact, " that the whole creation groans " 
 together in all its parts, and travails in birth pangs to bring 
 forth that which is new and fair. Cold winds moan and 
 earthquakes shake. " All the voices of nature are in the minor 
 key." All things sigh before God, as Bonar sang : 
 
 " Come and make all things new; 
 
 Build up this ruined earth ; 
 Restore our faded paradise, 
 Creation's second birth." 
 
 23. This verse puts the sons of God in a different category 
 from creation. " They " in italics in the King James version 
 should be "it," creation. Not only creation, "but ourselves 
 also," who, even though we have the first-fruits of salvation, the 
 Spirit, "ourselves groan within ourselves, [because or while] 
 waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." 
 The right of sons believers have already (see verse 1 5 above), but 
 not the realization ; and the body is dead because of sin. The 
 " redemption of the body " is more than resurrection and more 
 than the change that will come to that generation which shall 
 not die (i Cor. xv. 51). It is this and more: the instating of 
 redeemed man in his original position in creation and his re- 
 lation to it a redeemed man in a redeemed world. The 
 conception is Jewish (Ruth iv. ; Eph. i. 14; Rev. v. 9, 10). 
 Verses 22 and 23 are placed logically side by side. Creation 
 groans and God's sons groan, for both are looking for things 
 which will bring each in right relation to the other. 
 
 24. 25. " For we are saved by hope." A much better trans-
 
 . 26, 27) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 153 
 
 lation is that of Moule, Liddon, and others : " We were saved 
 in hope." When by faith the salvation from sin occurred, the 
 believer found himself in a condition of hope. From this con- 
 dition Paul argues in these two verses for the "redemption" 
 just mentioned. "The attitude of hope, so distinctive of the 
 Christian, implies that there is more in store for him than any- 
 thing that is his already " (Sanday). Hope suggests something 
 unseen, unrealized ; for what a man sees, what he already has, 
 he does not hope for. " But if we hope [the Christian's con- 
 dition] for that we see not, then [as he said in verse 23] do we 
 with patience wait for it." The hope of the exceeding glory 
 gives the holy patience that persists in good work (ii. 7) amid 
 suffering. 
 
 26, 27. The Spirit's aid. (See (F) under i -\b above.) " Like- 
 wise the Spirit also [just like hope] helpeth our infirmities." 
 " Weakness " is a better reading. Without the Spirit the saint 
 has no strength to attain to that for which he hopes. Paul 
 illustrates this in one single item belonging to Christian walk. 
 Prayer is the simplest and easiest of all activities, and yet " we 
 know not what we should pray for as we ought." Whether 
 this refers to the words (the manner) of the prayer or the sub- 
 ject makes little difference. The two views come to the same 
 thing. The Spirit helps in every way. The weakness is not 
 only in prayer, but general. He helps by taking hold with the 
 saint against the opposition. The only other instance of the 
 word (Luke x. 40) is instructive. How he helps in general is 
 not told, but in the matter of prayer he does in the heart what 
 Christ does before God (see verse 34 below) : he intercedes in 
 our behalf. The earnest manner of his intercession is shown 
 in the words, "with groanings which cannot be uttered," 
 yearnings whose depth is beyond the power of words to con- 
 vey. But, while the utterances are not intelligible, "he [God] 
 that searcheth the hearts [of the saints] knoweth what is the 
 mind of the Spirit." God knows the meaning of the Spirit's
 
 154 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 28) 
 
 groan and interprets the inarticulated aspiration of the heart, 
 " because he [the Spirit] maketh intercession for the saints [in 
 the groans proceeding from their hearts] according to God." 
 That wordless prayer is born of the Spirit in accordance with 
 God's purpose. 
 
 28. Here Paul abandons particulars to show generally that 
 the whole activity of God is directed toward the ultimate good 
 of those that love him. (See (c] under 1 7^ above.) While the 
 details of this verse and the next one present some difficulties, 
 the line of argument is clear. The present verse asserts the 
 fact that God is making all things work together for the good 
 of his people ; the next verse gives the reason for the fact in 
 his predestinating them from the beginning to be like his Son. 
 What he has determined at the beginning to accomplish nothing 
 along the way can thwart. His predetermination controls 
 everything affecting those who love him. 
 
 " We know " from God's dealing with the Old Testament 
 saints and from personal experience. "That all things" to 
 be taken in its most comprehensive sense ; some of the things 
 are named in verse 35 and verses 38 and 39 below. " Work 
 together" in concert with us, because they are under God's 
 control. The means are various, the purpose one. How Jacob 
 was pained for long years by the loss of Joseph! And how 
 Joseph was "hurt with fetters" when "laid in iron" (Ps. cv. 
 1 7-22) ! But God took this means to make him ruler of Egypt 
 and savior of his sorrowing father and his household. "All 
 things work" they are not accidents or blind chance; God 
 is working through them. This is true only of " them that love 
 God," now further described as those " who are called accord- 
 ing to his purpose," to show that their love to God was not a 
 mere natural love, but the fruit of his special love toward them. 
 " Called " does not mean invited, but effectually called (i. 6), 
 almost equivalent to chosen. This call was in harmony, in 
 accordance, with his " purpose " or free decree to bring them
 
 (VIII. 29) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 155 
 
 to glory in Christ. Those who love him are those whom he 
 has called. 
 
 29. Now it is not allowed to any vicissitude in the life of 
 such to harm them. " For whom he did foreknow [that is, his 
 called ones who^love him] he also did predestinate " for likeness 
 to Christ. To predestinate is to determine from the start what 
 shall be the outcome. It is this active, living, ever-present, 
 and controlling predestination that shields the lover of God 
 from harm and turns " all things " to his good. To " foreknow " 
 does not mean to approve on the ground of character ; it does 
 not mean that God foreknew who would believe and there- 
 fore predestinated them. God's appointment to eternal life is 
 chronologically before faith (Acts xiii. 48). The natural man 
 does not " seek after God " (iii. 1 1 ) ; his mind is " enmity 
 against God " ; it is not subject to the law of God, " for indeed 
 it cannot be " (viii. 7). How can those " dead'vn. trespasses and 
 sins" (Eph. ii. i) believe in God? How could God foreknow 
 some men as believers, when belief was impossible to them? 
 What his prescience saw in all men was enmity and helpless- 
 ness in sin because of a love of it. Even when they knew him 
 they deliberately chose to dishonor him (i. 21-23). Candor 
 must admit that these plain Scriptures teach the helplessness 
 of man in his sin. But it is said that by the preaching of the 
 gospel and the aid of the accompanying Spirit men are brought 
 into a condition where they can believe, and God foresaw who 
 in this condition would believe and predestinated them. This 
 is an invention outside of Scripture to meet a difficulty, an 
 invention that will not bear scrutiny. For this condition, to 
 be effective, must be one in which the death in sin is removed 
 and the enmity is overcome, which is nothing less than regener- 
 ation. And thus we should have regeneration as a condition 
 of faith, and, worse yet, that in this condition God would only 
 see some who believed and whom he might predestinate. Other 
 regenerate ones who failed to believe would perish.
 
 156 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 30) 
 
 Foreknowledge would better be left where Paul leaves it 
 without any of these additions. It differs from prescience, by 
 which God knows all things. It does not in itself include the 
 idea of selection, but when Paul says, "whom he did fore- 
 know," we see it is closely connected with this idea. He 
 foreknew certain persons (" whom "), knew them before they 
 had an existence, took note of them (Amos iii. 2 ; Matt. vii. 
 23), and these he destined to glory. His purpose included 
 their faith, of course, but this is just the word that Paul has 
 not used since v. 2 and does not use until we are well-nigh 
 through the next chapter. Where he does not use it we would 
 best not. And we would best leave the suggested difficulty of 
 responsibility and free will where he leaves it. He places the 
 salvation of God's people wholly in God's hand, and surely 
 there it is secure, secure only because it is there. 
 
 A sculptor would make a beautiful image in marble. He 
 knows among many the huge rough stone which he will use 
 for his purpose. He destines this block for the end which he 
 has in view. That determination on his part preserves it. He 
 will chisel and rasp and file on the block, but he will not do 
 anything to hurt it, and he will see to it that no one else mars 
 it. God's foreknowledge and predestination are the preserva- 
 tion of his people, making all things work for good. 
 
 " Conformed " means made like, not outwardly, but inwardly, 
 in character. God predestinates men not for heaven, but for 
 holiness. He makes " all things work together " toward this 
 end. Trials and crosses under his control are sanctifying. 
 "Tribulation works out patience," etc. (v. 3). The ultimate 
 purpose of God's predestination is to surround his Son with a 
 multitude like him, that by this likeness they may be his breth- 
 ren. The likeness will be completed at the resurrection. Since 
 no one as yet, save Jesus, has experienced this (i Cor. xv. 23), 
 he is called the " first-born." 
 
 30. This verse gives the steps by which the likeness to Christ,
 
 31? THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 157 
 
 the glory, is reached : " foreknew," " predestinated," " called," 
 "justified," "glorified," five golden links connecting God's 
 gracious purpose in the eternity past with its consummation in 
 the eternity to come. The last word, " glorified," in the past 
 tense, indicates the certainty of his purpose. (See on iv. 25, 
 last paragraph.) But this verse does more than to analyze what 
 precedes ; it presents an argument by means of the recurring 
 words " whom " and " them." These are also links in the 
 chain, forged in with it. " Whom " he did foreknow, " them," 
 all of them, he did " predestinate." The next " whom " takes 
 up the same persons and carries them to the next stage, and 
 so on to the end. The argument, when condensed, comes to 
 this: that the very ones he foreknew, these, without the loss 
 of one, he glorified. 
 
 These verses give an intelligent view of heaven. God did 
 not predestinate and call his people to a place, but to a like- 
 ness and a relation, to be conformed to the image of his Son 
 and to be his brethren, that is, to be God's sons. Heaven is 
 not where his people shall be, but what they shall be. 
 
 31. Here the hymn of triumph sounds its first exultant note. 
 (See (4) above.) "What shall we then say to these things," 
 the things considered in the last few verses? Many timid and 
 unintelligent and even unbelieving things are said ; how one 
 may yield to temptation, may lose the Spirit, or his faith may 
 fail. The one overwhelming answer is, " If [since] God is for 
 us, who can be against us? " Why does Paul not say, " what 
 can be against us " rather than " who "? The hostile force is 
 mainly personal (see the immediate context below and Eph. 
 vi. 1 1-13), but not wholly so. In all conflicts and trials " God 
 is for us." In temptations he rescues (i Cor. x. 13) ; the Spirit 
 may be grieved by our waywardness, but he will abide (John 
 xiv. 1 6) ; and as for faith, will God care for everything except 
 that which is vital? Is he "for us" in everything but faith? 
 He cares for this first of all (i Tim. i. 14 ; Luke xxii. 32).
 
 168 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 32-34) 
 
 32. How can anything be added to this verse ? God, who 
 is "rich in mercy," in undertaking to save men spared nothing. 
 Heaven was emptied to enrich God's called ones. Everything 
 was given (Eph. i. 3) that his people might be saved. The 
 verse contemplates none but his own. The " all " is in contrast 
 with the One delivered up for them. Paul does not assert that 
 with Christ God will give all things. He rather asks, " How 
 shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" The 
 Father, after bestowing the Son, knows of no way to withhold 
 the rest. And to give the rest is small in comparison after he 
 has given the Son. He who could part with the costly jewel 
 could readily give the little case in which it is preserved. The 
 mother who could give away her babe would wish its raiment 
 to go with it. 
 
 33* " Who [personal again] shall lay anything to the charge 
 of God's elect ? " To "lay to charge " is a legal term, mean- 
 ing to bring to account, bring a charge against. Paul returns 
 in this word to the forensic language of the earlier chapters 
 (and see Acts xxvi. 7). God's " elect " are his own chosen 
 people. The word recalls the " whom " and " them " above. 
 The answer might be put interrogatively : " Is it God that 
 justifieth " who will accuse? But it is more forceful to 
 read it as an assertion, almost an exclamation : It is God that 
 justifieth his own elect ; can wicked men or lost spirits or Satan 
 himself call again to account those whose case has been fa- 
 vorably decided in the highest place of judicature? Even to 
 speak against God's people impeaches the Judge and is con- 
 tempt of court heaven's court. His decision of justification 
 in favor of him who believes is final and irreversible. 
 
 34. "Who is he that condemneth? " As no one can open 
 the case again and bring a charge before the court, so no one 
 can condemn, for Christ is a fourfold protection. Are there 
 offenses? He "died" for them. Is there need of life? He 
 is "risen again," and we are " saved by his life " (v. 10). Do
 
 (VIII. 35-37) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 159 
 
 we need representation and influence at the court? He is in 
 the chief place of authority " even at the right hand of God." 
 Do we in hours of transgression and weakness need an Advo- 
 cate? (i John ii. i.) He "ever liveth to make intercession 
 for us " (John xvii.). 
 
 35, 36* " Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? " 
 It is Christ's love toward us. Again we have " who," for the 
 impersonal conditions which Paul goes on to mention do not 
 come of themselves. Paul is no doubt writing here from his 
 own experience, and all his troubles came from wicked men. 
 Why does he ask whether troubles shall separate us from Christ's 
 love toward us? Because they seem to hang like a heavy cloud 
 over the head, shutting out the light of his countenance. If 
 he is loving his people, why do these miseries overtake them? 
 The proof of his unchanging love is his word, not our expe- 
 rience. Experience would often disprove his love. But he 
 never loves his people more than when he allows them the 
 honor to suffer for him (Acts v. 41 and verse 1 7 above). God's 
 love for Jesus did not cease when he was hanging in agony on 
 the cross. 
 
 The word "sword" suggests the words of Psalm xliv. 22, 
 which teach that his people now suffer no more than those of 
 former days, and surely they were loved. 
 
 37. " More than conquerors." Who can be "more" than 
 a conqueror? He that cannot be conquered. A little waste 
 will soon exhaust a cistern, but a living fountain with sources 
 deep under the hills, though it may for a time be choked up, 
 cannot be dried up (John iv. 14). In all these adverse things 
 his true followers "are more than conquerors," not in their 
 own strength, but " through him that loved " them. Note, it 
 is not " loves " not present tense. He does love them through 
 all trials, but their unconquerable strength lies in that one act 
 of love when he died for them and by rising gained for them 
 imperishableness (Gal. ii. 20).
 
 160 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (111.38,39) 
 
 38,39* "For I am persuaded." It means "I have been 
 and am persuaded ; I stand persuaded." He has an unalter- 
 able conviction in the matter. The verses support the last 
 one, "we are more than conquerors through him that loved 
 us." The apostle's eye looks through all time, through all 
 space, and through all worlds, and in the most sweeping lan- 
 guage he asserts his persuasion that there is nothing " able " to 
 break the golden chain that binds the heart of God to his 
 people. They may be put to death in his cause, or in the 
 course of nature die in it. He loves them in " death." Life is 
 more trying and has more dangers than death. He loves them 
 in their " life." There are bad angels and organized principali- 
 ties for evil. He has already made a spoil of them (Col. ii. 15). 
 Against secret " powers " of satanic malignity we can stand in 
 the "power of his might" (Eph. vi. 10-12). The "things 
 present " are very pressing, but love unclasps their grip. The 
 " things to come," the future, may be ominous, but " the Lord 
 is my Shepherd ; I shall not want. . . . Surely goodness and 
 mercy shall follow me all the days of my life" (Ps. xxiii.). 
 And nothing in space above, nor depth beneath, nor " any other 
 created thing" this language embraces every conceivable 
 adversary in the universe shall be able to separate us from 
 God's love toward us in Christ Jesus. When he gave us Christ 
 Jesus he gave us in him all the love he felt toward the Son. 
 
 This is the climax. The preceding sections have been dry 
 and doctrinal; but there is here demonstrated the vital con- 
 nection between doctrine and love. It is out of these hard 
 sayings of predestination and election that there flows this 
 hymn of adoring confidence. The love of the Spirit is found 
 in the teaching of the Spirit.
 
 CHAPTERS IX-XI 
 
 THE THEODICY GOD'S PRESENT DEALING WITH THE JEWS 
 
 THIS is the third grand division of the epistle. It takes up 
 the little section in iii. 1-8, "What advantage then hath the 
 Jew? " and carries the answer to its utmost limit. This must 
 be borne in mind, for however far Paul may digress in the 
 discussion, this question is always before him and to it he 
 continually returns. 
 
 This matter about the Jew's relation to Christianity was a 
 vital one in Paul's day. The current interpretation of the 
 Old Testament was radically affected by it, and the Messiah- 
 ship of Jesus hung upon it. 
 
 The apostle found his chief defense of the doctrine of justi- 
 fication by faith in the Old Testament ; it is witnessed by the 
 law and the prophets. His argument in the fourth chapter is 
 unanswerable ; but even such an argument does not carry 
 conviction if in itself it starts legitimate and serious objections 
 and creates more difficulties than it removes. Faith did just 
 this. It appeared to array the rest of the Bible against Paul. 
 For faith blotted out before God all distinctions among men, 
 religious and national (Gal. iii. 28), and reduced all to the 
 same level. God's people, whose mark had been circumcision, 
 were henceforth to be found only in the select band of the 
 faithful. Faith usurped the divine sign given to Abraham. 
 The Jew with his " oracles " must give way and give place to 
 
 161
 
 102 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX.-XI.) 
 
 an elect church. And there were still other difficulties stirred 
 up by the doctrine of faith. 
 
 It has been tacitly assumed in Christian interpretation that 
 Judaism's day is over ; that an elect, leveling church built on 
 faith in Christ was the intent of the law and the prophets ; and 
 that it was the duty of all Jews to drop their peculiarities and 
 come into the church. Such an assumption the Jew ascribed 
 to Paul. It is strangely forgotten that the mother church in 
 Jerusalem and Judea never had a Gentile within its fold, that 
 none could have been admitted, and that every member of that 
 primitive body of tens of thousands was zealous of the law 
 (Acts xxi. 20). They accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but 
 abandoned none of their Old Testament customs and hopes. 
 Christianity has suffered not a little in the continuous attempt 
 to interpret it not from the Jewish, but from the Gentile point 
 of view. The church in Jerusalem, and not the church in 
 Antioch or Ephesus or Rome, furnishes the only sufficient 
 historic outlook. 
 
 When the devout but unbelieving Jew opened his Bible 
 almost anywhere he found promised to the seed of Abraham 
 a universal kingdom of righteousness. Now he might be will- 
 ing to accept faith as a condition of righteousness, but the 
 church into which it would lead him was neither a kingdom 
 nor was it universal. Its doctrine of election precluded uni- 
 versalism with one stroke. Augustine laid the foundation to 
 make the church so, and the result is sadly known. The honey 
 of the church was not only lost in the vinegar of the world, 
 but made the whole mass sevenfold more acid. The promise 
 of the kingdom was world-wide (Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14, 27 ; Zech. 
 xiv. 1619 P S - u - 8 ! I sa - u - I- 5 '> x i- I- 9> etal.\ The church 
 has no such promise. To make it the interpretation of these 
 and many similar Scriptures is to make an end both of the 
 Scriptures and of interpretation. Paul did not attempt this 
 method.
 
 (IX. -XI.) THE THEODICY 163 
 
 Again, these and other passages promised that the Jew, 
 with his Messiah as King, should have universal supremacy in 
 the world, and all other nations were to be in subordination. 
 Faith knew no supremacy. It created a body of believers 
 following a rejected Saviour, with no promise that it was ever 
 to be treated in any other way than he was (Matt. x. 22-25 > 
 John xv. 20). 
 
 Again, if the Old Testament knew a suffering Messiah, it 
 also knew a triumphing one. The Second Psalm is Scripture 
 as well as Isaiah liii. 
 
 Again, universal reign, supremacy of the Jew, a world King, 
 were all promised to the people whose distinctive national 
 mark was circumcision, and this mark was forever (Gen. xvii. 
 
 i3 "4). 
 
 Now the Jew was grieved and angered that righteousness 
 by faith warred against these hopes. It went to all nations, 
 but sought none, sought only believing individuals. It 
 claimed God as its own, and in its onward progress left the 
 Jew behind. Unless Paul can answer these objections, Jesus 
 is not the Messiah and the church is not God's people. 
 
 And Paul does answer. As a national sign circumcision 
 stands with much advantage every way; but to make it the 
 ground of righteousness is as unscriptural as it would be if 
 the Ethiopian, who has a promise of salvation (Ps. Ixviii. 31), 
 should expect it on account of the color of his skin. The Jew 
 remains a Jew and has his inviolable promises, and the Ethi- 
 opian has his, but neither realizes them by anything but faith. 
 Here was the Jew's failure. 
 
 Paul's course of thought is that for the present Judaism is 
 side-tracked ; but God's Word has not failed, nor is he unjust 
 in leaving Israel to fall. What he is doing meanwhile in 
 gathering an elect body of believers which has none of Israel's 
 promises, this, though not revealed in the Old Testament, can 
 be abundantly defended by it (ix. 24-29), just as righteous-
 
 164 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX.-XI.) 
 
 ness by faith was buttressed by these same Scriptures. In 
 God's own time he will return to Israel (Isa. xi. 10-12 ; Acts 
 xv. 1 6, 17), when they shall "all" be saved and come into 
 their promises and privileges. Their present rejection, to be 
 received by and by, is, God's purpose for the saving of the 
 world and to enhance his own glory. 
 
 The topic of this section must not be confounded with that 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The two are quite different. 
 Hebrews is dealing with the question of approach to God, the 
 question of worship and acceptance. Once the Jew drew near 
 by means of divers sacrifices and ceremonies prescribed by 
 Moses. These were superseded in Christ, and while they re- 
 main instructive, they are no longer mediatorial. Hebrews 
 teaches just what Romans teaches up to the point now reached 
 in the latter, that without faith it is impossible to please God. 
 Hebrews is absolutely silent on the theme of this theodicy, but 
 declares how God now and forevermore is to be served in 
 faith. It says nothing about the Jew nationally, and nothing 
 about the church. 
 
 The question before us is not one concerning ceremonies. 
 It is deeper and broader. It embraces God's whole plan to 
 bring the world to Christ. That plan is outlined in the Old 
 Testament, that contemplates the salvation of all nations as 
 nations, with the Jew's individuality preserved and himself far 
 in the van. 
 
 The church does not usurp the special promises made to 
 Israel ; whose unbelief shall not " make the faith of God with- 
 out effect " (iii. 3), and the world will not be converted till Is- 
 rael is, for the church has no promise of this, and Israel has.
 
 CHAPTER IX ( 
 
 ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 
 
 (i) IT is a great sorrow of heart to the apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles (verses 1-5) ; (2) it is not inconsistent with God's Word 
 (verses 6-13) ; (3) it is not inconsistent with his justice (verses 
 14-29) ; (4) present state of the case (verses 3033). 
 
 (-3. " I say the truth in Christ, I lie not." The transition 
 from the eighth chapter is abrupt. The sudden change may 
 be accounted for psychologically. The apostle had just been 
 contemplating the certainty of the glory of the sons of God ; 
 his heart goes now to the other extreme, the failure and mis- 
 ery of his own countrymen. 
 
 This vehement language was necessary, because in giving 
 the gospel to the heathen Paul was looked upon by the Jew 
 as an enemy of his own nation. Some of the Roman church, 
 knowing as they did the exclusiveness of the Jews, might be 
 persuaded that Paul was an apostate rather than an apostle of 
 God. He must defend himself. He is about to outline Israel's 
 shame. Let it be seen that the picture is drawn not by an 
 enemy, but by a loving friend, whose heart is breaking as he 
 paints. 
 
 "Accursed from Christ." This language is startling and 
 has troubled many ; but it is in the very spirit of Israel's great 
 leader, Moses (Exod. xxxii. 32), and may we not say, though 
 the word is different, in the spirit of Christ? (Gal. iiL 13.) 
 
 165
 
 1G6 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 4, 5) 
 
 Besides, this is not the language of deliberation, but of heart- 
 breaking passion, in which he says, " I could [were it per- 
 mitted or were it possible] wish myself accursed [away] from 
 [not " by "] Christ." It is this grief at the loss of men, this in- 
 tense yearning for their salvation, that made Paul the preacher 
 he was. 
 
 4, 5 " Who are Israelites," or being such as are Israelites, 
 a term of the highest honor, God's princes (Gen. xxxii. 28). 
 He enumerates seven particulars which belong especially to 
 them : (a) they were adopted as God's people ; (&) they alone 
 had the Shekinah " glory " ; (c] the " covenants," made with 
 the fathers (Gen. vi. 18; xv. 18; Exod. ii. 24) and renewed 
 from time to time (hence the plural), were theirs alone; (d) 
 the "law" amid imposing splendors was given to them; (e) 
 the temple " service " was divinely prescribed for them ; no 
 other nation had an authorized worship ; (/) they were the 
 only people who had " promises " of the Messiah and of direct 
 blessings through him ; the other nations received them through 
 Israel ; (g) the " fathers " Abraham, the head of many nations, 
 Isaac, and Jacob were theirs ; other nations had great ances- 
 tors, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have the honor of being 
 not merely natural, but divinely chosen chiefs. 
 
 Besides these seven all their own, the Israelites had one 
 other honor in which they shared, an honor that overtops all 
 the rest. The " whose " changes now to " of whom." The 
 fathers are theirs, but the Christ, though he came from them 
 in his human relation, belongs to the world. To show the 
 greatness of this honor Christ is declared to be God over all, 
 blessed forever. Sanday (" Commentary," in loc.}, after an ex- 
 haustive examination of all the arguments bearing on the 
 punctuation of this passage, " with some slight, but only slight, 
 hesitation," admits that Paul here applies the name God to 
 Christ. No other view gives the passage its climactic point. 
 
 Paul mentions all these things not only to set forth the Is-
 
 (IX. 6, 7) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 167 
 
 raelites' preeminence, but to show the painfulness and difficulty 
 of the problem now in hand. They had the promises and the 
 Christ sprang from them, and yet these covenant people were 
 reaping nothing from these advantages. Jesus belonged to 
 them, but they did not belong to Jesus. Could Paul's doc- 
 trine of an elective justification for all nations be true? Israel 
 is rejected. 
 
 6. Paul abruptly lays hold of the question. The Jews have 
 failed, but God's Word has not. (See (2) above.) The em- 
 phasis is on the phrase " the Word of God." The proof of no 
 failure is that the promises were made to Israel, but they were 
 not made to them on the ground of their natural descent from 
 Abraham. The real Israel is within the limits of the natural 
 Israel. For Paul is not now contemplating the church com- 
 posed of men from Jews and Gentiles alike. These, though 
 called " Abraham's seed " (Gal. iii. 29) and " children of Abra- 
 ham " (Gal. iii. 7), are never called Israel or Israelites. Gala- 
 tians vi. 16 is not an exception to this statement, but a proof. 
 (See Ellicott, " Commentary," in loc.) Paul is defending 
 God's Word in view of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah 
 with a true people following him, and in view of the fact that 
 Israel is not saved. His answer is that " they are not all [true] 
 Israel, which are of [from] Israel." The latter may mean the 
 patriarch (Jacob) or it may mean the nation natural. What 
 Paul denies in either case is that the real Israel, contemplated 
 in the Old Testament promise, is not identical in number with 
 the nation of Israel. 
 
 7. That the real Israel should not be as wide numerically 
 as the natural Israel is supported by the further statement that 
 even Abraham's natural seed were not all of them children of 
 the covenant. The promise was limited to Isaac, and Ishmael 
 was left out, although he also is called Abraham's "seed" 
 (Gen. xxi. 13). Paul thus keeps the all-important point fore- 
 most, that the promise to Israel was a vital promise, still hold-
 
 168 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 8, 9) 
 
 ing, but not on the condition of mere natural descent. God 
 did not surrender his prerogatives in the case to nature. Note 
 that to reach clearness in this and similar Scripture the phrase 
 " seed of Abraham " must be properly referred. It has three 
 meanings, two of which occur in this verse, the natural seed 
 (John viii. 37) and the real seed. Its third, quite distinct from 
 these, is the church (Gal. iii. 29). 
 
 8. This verse shows the significance of the promise, "In 
 Isaac shall thy seed be called." If God limited the promise 
 to one of Abraham's children, excluding Ishmael and the sons 
 of Keturah, it follows that " they which are the children of the 
 flesh are not the children of God." God's children are not 
 the product of nature ; they are not begotten by man, but by 
 him. Who, then, are his own, to whom the promises were 
 spoken? Not even the natural descendants of Isaac ; for the 
 principle already given, that the children of the flesh as such 
 are excluded, excludes Isaac's fleshly descent, excludes Esau. 
 God's children are those of whom Isaac is a type. He was 
 born not by the energy of nature, but was a supernatural 
 creation in accordance with a divine promise. Hence "the 
 children of the promise are counted [are reckoned, equal to 
 " called " in verse 7] for the seed [or " as seed "]" (John i. 13). 
 " Children of promise " is not equivalent to promised children. 
 The word is almost personified. God's promise is a potent 
 energy, quickening those to whom his covenant pertains. 
 Thus the seed is found " in Isaac," in his line. They are all 
 his offspring, but not all the offspring are "counted for the 
 seed." 
 
 9. If the children of the promise are the only ones "counted," 
 of whom Isaac is the apt type, it is necessary to show that he 
 was a child of promise, as this verse does. The original order 
 brings out the force better : " For of promise is this word," the 
 quotation which follows. The emphatic word is "promise." 
 Accordingly, as Meyer strikingly observes, " We see that not
 
 (IX. IO-I2) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 169 
 
 the bodily descent, but the divine promise, constitutes the re- 
 lation of belonging to Abraham's fatherhood." But he fails 
 to observe a subtle point in the quotation. The child was to 
 be not only the gift of God's power, " will I come," but given 
 in his own time : " At this time will I come." The happy 
 season for the realization of the promise was not yet. He 
 selected the time as well as the child, and the time was when 
 he should come with quickening power. Paul intimates that 
 Israel's hour has not yet dawned. 
 
 JQ-J2. "And not only this [or, fully expressed, "And 
 not only Sarah received a divine promise concerning her 
 son "] ; but when Rebecca," etc. In Rebecca's case the 
 divine action is still more pointed. In saying that she was 
 with child " by one," Paul is not calling attention to the unity 
 of the fatherhood, which would be absurd. It does not mean 
 by one man (Meyer), as though there might be two. The 
 "one" focuses the attention on him in whom the seed was 
 called, "even our father Isaac." He is significantly called 
 " our," that is, Israel's, " father." The promise was in Isaac's 
 line of descent, and yet even here there is a selection and a 
 limitation. 
 
 The "for" (eleventh verse) bears on this clearly implied 
 limitation, and brings in the statements that illustrate it. The 
 children were not yet born ; they had done neither good nor 
 evil ; the selection, then, was not made either on the ground 
 of their character or on the ground of their works. To say 
 that God foresaw the good character and good works of Jacob 
 is to import an idea that is repugnant to the logic of the state- 
 ment here made by Paul and contradicted by the subsequent 
 facts. Jacob's history does not show him to be a better man 
 morally than his brother ; his very name indicates his charac- 
 ter. (See below on verse 14.) Human merit, present or fore- 
 seen, does not enter into God's choice. Again, if God chose 
 Isaac and rejected Ishmael it might be said mistakenly that
 
 170 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 10-12) 
 
 the selection was made because of the latter's irregular pa- 
 rentage. That mistake is not possible in the case of Jacob 
 and Esau. Isaac and Ishmael had only one parent in com- 
 mon; Jacob and Esau, had both and the children were 
 twins. 
 
 We are next told the reason for dealing thus with the twins : 
 " that the purpose of God according to election might stand." 
 It is an according-to-election purpose. Paul finds the source 
 of salvation in God alone. He had a "purpose" to save. 
 This purpose cannot be of " none effect," but must " stand," 
 because, first, it is not universal, but is limited to an "elec- 
 tion," a selection, as in the case of Isaac against Ishmael. 
 The one elected was the one he promised. The idea of 
 promise, with which Paul began, is the same as that in the 
 word " election." And, secondly, God's elective purpose will 
 " stand " because it is determined " not by [or " of "] works, 
 but by [or " of "] him that calleth," that is, God himself. Now, 
 in order that God might show this purpose, a purpose that 
 was elective and based on his own will, he said before the 
 twins were born, "The elder shall serve the younger." By 
 his own will he reversed the order of nature and took but one 
 of the twin sons of Isaac, in whom the seed was promised. 
 
 If Paul began this chain of reasoning under the proposition 
 (verse 6) that the Word of God has not failed in the case of 
 the Jew, and now concludes it with the proposition that his 
 purpose has not failed, but must " stand," there is only an ap- 
 parent shifting of terms. It is the Word of God that em- 
 bodies the purpose, and in speaking of the latter Paul means 
 no other purpose but the one disclosed in the " Word." The 
 propositions are logically identical. The Jews erred, not 
 knowing the Scripture. They stuck to their baseless notion 
 that because they were the natural descent of Abraham they 
 were heirs of salvation, a notion against which Jesus solemnly 
 warned them. He admitted that they were Abraham's natu-
 
 (IX. I3-I6) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 171 
 
 ral " seed," but denied that they were his promised " children " 
 (John viii. 37, 39). 
 
 J3. " As it is written, Jacob [have] I loved, but Esau [have] 
 I hated." Omit " have " in both cases. This Scripture, which 
 looks only logically at the original two, but directly at their 
 descendants (Mai. i. 1-4), is quoted to corroborate the original 
 choice. God's motive in it was neither love of the one nor 
 hate of the other, but simply " of him that calleth." But, the 
 choice once made, God's love followed Jacob's seed, showing 
 the reality of his election, and his hate followed Esau's, show- 
 ing the reality of his rejection. The word " hated " need not 
 be softened. 
 
 Paul has now so far vindicated God's Word despite the 
 failurs of Israel. Jesus is the Messiah, even if they as a na- 
 tion have not participated in his blessings; for when Paul 
 closely scans the source of the nation he finds it has no prom- 
 ise on the ground of lineal descent from Abraham. That 
 promise belongs only to chosen elect ones among the nation, 
 chosen for nothing whatever pertaining to them, but solely 
 after God's own will. This starts a serious objection about 
 the divine justice, which Paul proceeds to answer. (See (3) 
 above.) 
 
 J4. " Is there unrighteousness with God? " This question 
 could not arise unless Paul wished himself to be understood 
 as teaching that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau for no 
 assignable reason outside his own will. If God chose Jacob 
 because he foresaw his faith or his virtue, and rejected Esau 
 for an opposite character, reason would approve and the ques- 
 tion of this verse could not be asked. But when it is taught 
 that God chose Jacob for no good in him, and rejected 
 (" hated ") Esau for no bad in him, man's narrow heart feels 
 that an injustice has been done. This sentiment Paul repels : 
 " God forbid." 
 
 J5, J6. Paul finds the argument for his vehement denial of
 
 172 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 17) 
 
 injustice in God not by abstract reasoning about the idea of 
 justice, but in the Scriptures. The quotation is from Exodus 
 xxxiii. 19. The great Jewish captain is earnestly seeking 
 grace from God. It might be supposed that he could attain 
 it on the ground of his office and merit ; but even " to Moses," 
 God saith, he gives mercy not because he is Moses, or because 
 he seeks it, but just because it is God's " will " to do so. It 
 is a bold, crisp assertion of the divine freedom in bestowing 
 grace. " In any case through human history wherein I shall 
 be seen to have mercy, the one account I give of the radical 
 cause is this I have mercy " (Moule). Mercy is the outward 
 manifestation of the feeling of compassion. 
 
 The conclusion follows. God's mercy is not the response 
 to human desire nor to human effort. It is not of him that 
 " willeth " or wishes it, as Moses did, and not of him who 
 " runneth " in the path of right. Willing and running may in- 
 dicate the possession of grace, but they are not the originating 
 cause. They may be the channel, but they are not the foun- 
 tain. The source of grace is God's own will, that goes out to 
 whom he will. Mercy is " of God, that showeth mercy " in- 
 dependent of any motive in man. 
 
 J7. " For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh." Moses' his- 
 tory bears on the election of Jacob ; Pharaoh's on the rejec- 
 tion of Esau. The latter is cited for the same purpose as the 
 former to show God's freedom and sovereignty in dealing 
 with men. As he grants mercy after his own will, so also he 
 withholds it, and hardens whom he will. Ten times in the 
 Scripture about Pharaoh it is said he hardened himself; but 
 Paul makes no account of this, for his clear intention is to ac- 
 count for Pharaoh's overthrow by the free purpose of God. 
 And yet God did not harden him for the sake of the harden- 
 ing, but that the divine power might have a field of display 
 and that the divine name might become known. If Pharaoh 
 had willingly and sweetly allowed the people to depart, there
 
 (IX. i8, 19) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 173 
 
 could have been no miracles " in Egypt and in the Red Sea " 
 (Acts vii. 36), and the children of Israel would have had no 
 fame as God's own chosen, a fame that endured for centuries 
 (i Sam. iv. 8). God's glory is promoted in the overthrow of 
 a sinner as much as in saving one. God wished men to know 
 him and his power, and for this purpose " raised up " Pharaoh, 
 which means neither that God created nor preserved him for 
 his purpose, but that God brought about everything that be- 
 longs to the history of the king. 
 
 In selecting Pharaoh as an example of God's hardening 
 Paul shows his skill. Pharaoh was a detestable heathen op- 
 pressor, and undue prejudice would not be excited against the 
 doctrine in illustrating it by his case. 
 
 Jg. This gives the solemn and awful conclusion of the sec- 
 tion beginning at verse 14, or even as far back as verse 7. 
 The word " whom " is singular. The subject is not one about 
 nations, but about individuals, not one about ethnic supremacy 
 or leadership, but about personal salvation. " Therefore hath 
 he mercy on what man he will, and what man he will he 
 hardeneth." God is absolute sovereign, allowing nothing to 
 direct his activity but his own will. His Word is true, as true 
 as he is, but he has never uttered a word to abridge his free- 
 dom, nor can his Word, like a promissory note, be pleaded 
 against his freedom. This hardening process is going on to- 
 day ; it can be read as clearly in current history as in God's 
 Word. And yet man is also free in choosing God and free in 
 refusing him. The reconciliation of these two is a question 
 of philosophy, and philosophy fails in the effort. The Bible 
 does not attempt it, but stops with asserting that both are 
 realities. 
 
 J9. "Why doth he yet find fault?" This puts the query 
 of verse 14 in a more aggravated form. There it is a ques- 
 tion about the justice of God ; here it is virtually a charge of 
 injustice. He hardened Pharaoh; he willed to harden him.
 
 174 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 20) 
 
 Pharaoh did just what God willed ; he did not resist his will ; 
 no one does whom he hardens. " Why doth he yet find fault " 
 and visit dire punishment upon sinners? 
 
 20* " Nay but, O man." Paul has already answered this 
 question as far as possibly it ever can be answered. The an- 
 swer is to the point and practical. It is that God is free to 
 do as he will ; he is a sovereign ; and what is the idea of abso- 
 lute sovereignty but that he who has it is under no obligation 
 to give a reason for anything which he does? If he must give 
 a reason for his actions he is no longer sovereign, but the rea- 
 son given enjoys that distinction, not to say the persons to 
 whom it must be given. This matter is not peculiar to the 
 gospel ; it belongs to every religion that owns a personal God. 
 A God is one whose will is free, whose will is law. 
 
 The question, then, "Why doth he yet find fault?" is not 
 only impious, but blasphemous. The man sets himself up to 
 condemn not only the decree of God, but to claim a higher 
 justice for himself ; he replies not merely against God's judg- 
 ment, but against the only possible conception given in the 
 word " God." In complaining against God for hardening a 
 man to do a wicked thing and then finding fault with that 
 man for doing it, the complainant says, " There ought not to 
 be such a God ; that is, there ought to be what is really no 
 God, one with such notions of justice toward men as I have! " 
 The man exalts himself above God in sitting in judgment upon 
 the divine acts. The fallacy is in his idea of what constitutes 
 a God. Godet weakens Paul's rejoinder, " Who art thou that 
 repliest? " by saying that he means " a reply to a reply." No ; 
 Paul's whole argument is drawn from the nature of God. His 
 opponent is more than a debater; he is well-nigh atheistic. 
 Shedd's exposition here is better than Godet's : " An irreverent 
 equalizing of man with God." 
 
 It must not be forgotten that whatever God does is neces- 
 sarily just ; because, if there is anything outside his own will
 
 (IX. 2i) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 175 
 
 by which to measure the actions of that will, that thing is 
 higher than God. For human reason or human sense of 
 right to sit in judgment on God's acts is as foolish as it is 
 wicked. 
 
 Again, he who replies against God must mean, if he means 
 anything, that it is God's hardening that deprives a soul of 
 salvation ; that if God did not interpose with an election, and 
 take some and leave others to be hardened, all men would at 
 least have an equal opportunity of salvation. This is false. 
 If God did not elect, none would be saved, for there is "none 
 that seeketh after God" (iii. n). And men are not lost be- 
 cause they are hardened ; they are hardened because they are 
 lost; they are lost because they are sinners (i. 21). 
 
 God is not responsible for sin. He is under no obligation 
 to save any one. Obligation and sovereignty cannot both be 
 predicated of God. If he saves any one it is a sovereign act 
 of mercy, and for that very reason his justification is tanta- 
 mount to salvation. 
 
 It must not be supposed (with Sanday, apparently) that Paul's 
 argument through this section is an ad hominem drawn from 
 the Jew's Old Testament conception of God. It is drawn 
 from the nature of sovereignty, the necessary conception of 
 God. Neither does Paul lay his hand on the mouth of the 
 objector and cry, " Stop! " He confutes him with one single 
 logical shaft : God is God. 
 
 " Shall the thing formed say." Note that Paul does not 
 say, " Shall the thing created say to him that created it." It 
 is not a question of original creation, but of subsequent des- 
 tination. What would the ability to fashion be worth if it 
 were under the dictation of that which is to be fashioned? 
 
 2J. " Hath not the potter power over the clay," from the 
 same lump to make one part a vessel to honor and another to 
 dishonor? (Isa. xlv. 9 ; Ixiv. 8 ; Jer. xviii. i-io.) This illus- 
 tration enforces the idea of God's sovereignty. To be sure,
 
 176 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 22) 
 
 men are not senseless clay, but beings of feeling and will ; and 
 yet, with all feeling and will and intelligence, they are as help- 
 less, being sinners, to fit themselves to please God as clay left 
 to itself is helpless to become an ornamental vase. The pot- 
 ter does not make the clay. He takes it as he finds it and 
 fashions out of the same lump the "clay" and the "lump" 
 are identical in character and quantity one part a vessel to 
 ornament the house and another part a vessel for some base 
 use. Originally the two were the same thing clay; the pot- 
 ter determined their destination. Pharaoh and Moses origi- 
 nally, belonged to the same guilty lump of humanity. Moses 
 was inherently no better than the Egyptian king. God had 
 mercy on one and fashioned him into a glorious instrument of 
 deliverance for his people ; the other he hardened, and to deny 
 God's justice in so doing is as absurd as to deny that the pot- 
 ter has a right to turn base clay into a slop-jar. Why it is 
 that men are sinners neither Paul nor, the Bible anywhere 
 teaches ; but sinners under God's wrath they are, and he is 
 not responsible that they are sinners, and from the lump of 
 sinful humanity may choose for his service whom he will and 
 may harden at his pleasure. To confess this is the very high- 
 est exercise of reason. 
 
 22 Now, after Paul has vindicated the idea of God in vin- 
 dicating his sovereignty, for a God who is not absolutely free 
 to do as he will is no God, he shows next and in addition 
 how graciously he exercised his freedom. Though "willing 
 to show his wrath [to-day], and to make his power known," as 
 in Pharaoh's case, he, after all, endured in much long-suffer- 
 ing the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Paul does not 
 now say that God fitted them. He bore with them. Jeru- 
 salem, that crucified his Son and slew his followers, was still 
 standing after more than a quarter of a century. God tem- 
 pered his sovereign wrath with long-suffering. 
 
 This sentence, embracing verses 22-24, ^ not complete.
 
 (IX. 23, 24) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 177 
 
 It is almost a worshipful exclamation, but may be read as in 
 the King James version, "What if," "What shall we say 
 if," etc. 
 
 23. Closely connected with the last verse by means of the 
 word " endured." The " vessels of mercy " called also for en- 
 durance. The writer of the epistle could not forget that, had 
 God's just wrath fallen upon the Jews at the time that they 
 earned it, he himself would have been lost. But God with 
 much long-suffering restrains his wrath against sinners, "and 
 [he does so] that he might make known [by calling and justi- 
 fication] the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy [the 
 elect], which he had afore prepared unto [eternal] glory." 
 They are not vessels of favor, but of "mercy," in that he 
 showed them mercy. These, it is said, " he prepared afore." 
 Paul is doubtless referring to viii. 29 in the word " afore." 
 
 Men, being sinners, have no rights remaining before God ; 
 in his justice he might destroy them all. But he chooses to 
 save some sinners in the exercise of mercy, and for the time 
 restrains his wrath toward the rest. These two verses bear 
 on the idea of his sovereignty in showing how he exercises it ; 
 the next one with the quotations following shows toward whom 
 he exercises it. 
 
 24. "Even us [the "vessels of mercy"], whom he hath 
 called." This is his own sovereign call. The rest heard the gos- 
 pel, but were not called by him. Unless the word has this spe- 
 cial meaning here and in i. 6 ; viii. 28, 30, it has no meaning. 
 The " called " were found not among the Jews only, but also 
 among the Gentiles. This is by no means the ultimate, but 
 only the present, exhibition of his sovereignty. Paul keeps 
 the two classes separate here, for he still has God's dealing 
 with the Jew in mind, to whom the thought returns exclusively 
 at verse 31 below. The promise of salvation was not condi- 
 tioned on nationality, but is " of him that calleth " (verse 1 1 
 above) and may extend to all nations : " Even us, ... not
 
 178 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 25-29) 
 
 of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." He supports this 
 statement chiastically from the Scriptures. 
 
 25, 26. These quotations from Hosea ii. 23 and i. 10 are 
 combined, and predict the call of Gentiles. The phrase " and 
 it shall come to pass " (verse 26) is not Paul's, but the pro- 
 phet's. " Call " and " called " do not mean invited or named, 
 but called with the call (verse n above and viii. 30). The 
 "place " is indefinite, and means any place in the world. The 
 prophecy originally seems to refer to the ten tribes, but as 
 they had been excluded from the nation and were practically 
 heathen, Paul refers to them as a type of the call of the Gen- 
 tiles. 
 
 27-29* These verses look at the case of Israel as predicted 
 in Isaiah to show that the mass would be reprobated and only 
 a "remnant" saved. The first quotation is from Isaiah x. 
 22, 23, on which Paul puts a gloss, representing the prophet 
 as " crying " in alarm and wonder, thus softening the stern 
 prediction that, while Israel may be countless in number, only 
 the elect few will be subjects of grace. " For," continues 
 Isaiah, the Lord "will finish the work, and cut it short in 
 righteousness." The righteousness is that of Jehovah's judg- 
 ment or wrath upon Israel's waywardness. The Revised 
 Version makes some large changes in this verse: "For the 
 Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and 
 cutting it short." With either reading the meaning is clear. 
 Summary and severe judgments were to fall on Israel, and of 
 such a character that only a remnant would be left to know 
 God's grace. The original reference in Isaiah was to the re- 
 turn from the captivity ; but Paul sees the applicability of the 
 prophecy to his own time ; it may come in force again in the 
 future. 
 
 The apostle makes one more quotation (Isa. i. 9), that 
 brings his teaching about God's sovereign and electing grace 
 to a startling climax. But for the divine interference Israel
 
 (IX. 30-33) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 179 
 
 would have become as Sodom and been made like unto Go- 
 morrah. Depravity would have run its course to this tragic 
 end. But God "left unto us a very small remnant," which 
 " small remnant " Paul calls a " seed " in quoting from the 
 Septuagint. The cities of the plain were obliterated for their 
 sin, and none were left to revive them ; and so it would have 
 been in Israel's case had not God "left" (spared) some. 
 Israel has nothing of which to complain. God's election de- 
 stroyed none ; it is the sole reason why any were spared. The 
 covenant name Jehovah is not used here, but " Lord of Saba- 
 oth," or of hosts or armies, which suggests his sovereignty. 
 
 30-33. "What shall we say then?" (See (4) above.) 
 What are the facts so far as this discussion is concerned, the 
 facts as seen wherever the gospel has gone? Not that the 
 Word of God has failed, but that the prophecy has now be- 
 come history, to be seen in history. First, some Gentiles, who 
 were making no effort (reminding the reader of verse 16 above, 
 " it is not of him that runneth ") after righteousness, reached it. 
 They did not will, but God did. Since these Gentiles had no 
 works, God bestowed righteousness upon them, that is, they 
 had a righteousness of faith. The article "the" before 
 " Gentiles " in the King James version is an error, strangely 
 repeated in the Revised Version. Paul, with the fact of elec- 
 tion in his mind, could not and he did not write this illogical 
 " the." That some Gentiles, those who believed, were right- 
 eous, was attested by their living. They had abandoned idola- 
 try, worshiped God, and claimed no merit for themselves (Phil. 
 iii. 3). 
 
 A second fact in accord with the argument above was (and 
 is) that Israel as a whole, though following the (Mosaic) law 
 of righteousness, the law that is connected with righteousness, 
 did not attain to that law. Omit " of righteousness " in the 
 second instance. Israel attained to the letter of the law, but 
 not to the acquittal from sin. Gentiles, who willed not, at-
 
 180 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 30-33) 
 
 tained ; Israel, who willed for themselves, failed, for salvation is 
 not of man's will. Some take " law " here in the sense of rule, 
 a rule of moral and religious life that would win righteousness. 
 
 That Israel had not become righteous was plain to every 
 one, and thus facts in both directions testify to the correctness 
 of Paul's logic and the aptness of his quotations from the 
 Scriptures. It was said that Gentiles would be saved, and 
 Gentiles are saved. It was said that the mass of Israel would 
 be rejected, and so it is, and God is just in it all and his Word 
 has not failed. 
 
 "Wherefore?" Why did Israel not reach righteousness? 
 Paul does not say they failed because they were non-elect. 
 Election accounts for the saved, but non-election does not ac- 
 count for the lost. The comprehensive reason for the latter 
 is sin, and the essence of sin is self-will, self-will even in seek- 
 ing God. These Jews took their own way of being reconciled 
 to God. They did not even seek him by the works of the law, 
 but " as it were " by works of the law. They decided for 
 themselves what the works should be and so had flesh works. 
 In their self-will they practically denied God. 
 
 It is at this point that Paul passes from the sovereignty of 
 God to the responsibility of man. The two cannot be har- 
 monized in the human understanding, except as the Scriptures 
 harmonize them ; that is, by insisting on and holding to both. 
 The Scriptures and reason assert the absolute sovereignty of 
 God, and Scripture and the human conscience assert with 
 equal force the responsibility of man ; so that the practical 
 error arises when either one of these is denied or when one is 
 explained in a way to exclude the other. It must also be re- 
 membered that, while man cannot save himself, moral inability 
 does not relieve from responsibility. Man's inability lies in 
 his sinful nature (viii. 7), and God cannot be made responsi- 
 ble for sin. The sinner's inability to do right, to do God's 
 will, is the acme of his sin.
 
 (IX. 30-33) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 181 
 
 "A world of sin is a world of confusion. Sin introduced 
 confusion between God and man, and confusion cannot be 
 explained. The real difficulty between God's absolute sover- 
 eignty and man's responsibility is metaphysical and not bibli- 
 cal. How can there be one sovereign free will and other free 
 wills? And when Fritzsche says that Paul's view is "abso- 
 lutely contradictory," he is virtually demanding that Paul cease 
 preaching and turn philosopher to solve the insoluble. But 
 Paul leaves the question where he found it, and goes on now 
 in this and the next chapter to show that Israel's failure was 
 their own fault. 
 
 " They stumbled at that stumbling-stone." The " for " is 
 probably not genuine, but it shows the correct relation of the 
 sentences. They failed to believe because the Christ came 
 in a way which their works disqualified them to approve 
 (i Pet. ii. 7,8). 
 
 "As it is written." The quotation is a combination of 
 Isaiah viii. 14 and xxviii. 16. That which was applicable in 
 the prophet's time Paul sees to be applicable also in his time. 
 God's enemies stumbled then because of him ; they stumble 
 now at his gift of Christ. At the same time Christ is a secu- 
 rity for him that believeth on him. The " whosoever " in the 
 King James version is not genuine and mars the sense. Paul 
 is quoting this Scripture not to show the universality of salva- 
 tion, which the word "whosoever" would suggest, but in 
 proof that the Jews failed by lack of faith. The word " be- 
 lieveth " carries the main idea. He that believeth shall not 
 make haste to some other refuge for salvation, or, what is the 
 same, he shall not be put to shame by trusting in this stone. 
 
 The substance of the chapter is that, in spite of Israel's re- 
 jection, in spite of the present mixed following of Jews and 
 Gentiles as the Lord's people, God's Word has not failed, for 
 God never pledged away his sovereignty in it, but, on the 
 other hand, predicted that salvation turned on his will and call.
 
 CHAPTER X 
 ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 
 
 THOUGH God did not elect the mass of Israel for salvation 
 at this time, their present rejection is not to be explained by 
 his withholding grace, which was freely offered them, but 
 by their sinful lack of discernment (Luke xii. 56 ; xix. 44 ; 
 xxi. 24). 
 
 The chapter contains four topics: (i) Israel failed to see 
 that Christ was the end of the law (verses 1-4) ; (2) the free 
 character of salvation (verses 5-11); (3) its universal charac- 
 ter (verses 12-18) ; and (4) they failed to see that all this, as 
 well as their own rejection, was the prediction of their own 
 Scriptures (verses 19-21). 
 
 J. " Brethren, my heart's desire," etc. " Good pleasure " 
 is preferable to the word "desire." It will be noticed that 
 each one of the three chapters in this theodicy begins with a 
 warm expression of the apostle's own feeling. He will not 
 let it be forgotten, in bringing these heavy charges against 
 those of his own blood, that he is writing in pity and not in 
 anger. He is not an enemy of Israel. Moreover, this prayer, 
 as well as the sentiment beginning the ninth chapter, could 
 not have been entertained by the apostle if he at the same 
 time considered Israel's case hopeless. As Bengel says on 
 this verse, " Paul would not have prayed had they been alto- 
 gether reprobate." If he prayed " that they might be saved " 
 
 182
 
 (X. 2-4) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 183 
 
 he must have believed the possibility of their salvation (2 Cor. 
 iii. 1 6). In the next chapter he confidently predicts it (xi. 26). 
 
 2, It was because Paul saw Israel's zeal for God that he 
 was so solicitous for them. And yet zeal does not imply a 
 right heart nor acceptance with God. Their zeal was not di- 
 rected by " knowledge," not regulated by spiritual discernment. 
 They had the means of knowledge, but not the knowledge. 
 This little phrase, "not according to knowledge," is the key 
 to the chapter. 
 
 3, " For they, being ignorant." Here are given the contents 
 of their ignorance : " ignorant of God's righteousness [by faith 
 in Christ], and going about [seeking] to establish their own 
 righteousness [by works of law, in zeal for the latter, they] 
 have not submitted themselves " to the former. Here the two 
 kinds of righteousness are set in contrast. These two are the 
 sum of all on earth, and they are mutually exclusive in the 
 human heart. The Jews at this time were not unacquainted 
 with the righteousness of God, but they were "ignorant" 
 of it. 
 
 4, " For Christ is the end of the law." The Revised Ver- 
 sion retains both articles. " End " means termination. It is 
 true that he is also the aim and the fulfilment of the law. 
 Tholuck combines the two ideas of termination and aim ; Al- 
 ford stands for the latter. But the sharp contrast here, as well 
 as the (original) word, requires the meaning termination. The 
 law is no longer a means of righteousness. 
 
 Sanday surely errs in saying that this verse is a proof that 
 the Jews were "wrong" in not submitting themselves to the 
 righteousness of God. It is not a question of right or 
 wrong, but of fact. The Jews claimed that in following the 
 law they were submitting to God, for he gave the law. No, 
 says Paul ; in so doing you are not submitting to the right- 
 eousness of God. " For Christ [whom God gave and you re- 
 ject] is the end of the law for [with a view to] righteousness
 
 184 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 5-7) 
 
 to every one that believeth." The Jew's system was one of 
 doing; but God's was one of believing, one of grace. Law 
 and grace are mutually exclusive and antagonistic systems 
 (iv. 4, 5 ; xi. 6). Because the Jew held to law he was not in 
 subjection to God. The proof that he was not is this great 
 principle of grace recorded in this fourth verse. 
 
 5. That Christ ends the law in making nothing but faith 
 necessary to righteousness is confirmed in the further contrast 
 of the two systems. (See (2) above.) Moses describes the 
 righteousness of the law as one of doing "the man that 
 doeth those things," etc. The point made here is not that no 
 man can do those things prescribed by Moses, but that, in case 
 he did do them, it would be his " own righteousness " and not 
 God's, which is next described at length. 
 
 6 f 7* " But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on 
 this wise." Paul does not say that Moses describes this right- 
 eousness ; he does not set Moses against Moses. He says the 
 righteousness itself speaks ; it is self-descriptive. 
 
 It must be carefully noted what Paul is after. The points 
 are just two : first, that the Jew's intense religious zeal in de- 
 votion to the law, a zeal that touches the apostle's heart, is, 
 after all, not God's righteousness, but in flat contradiction to 
 it. This is seen in the nature or character of the two. A 
 faith-righteousness in Christ must end law-righteousness, for 
 Moses describes the latter as one of doing. But now arises 
 just at this point a second question. Admitting, as the Jew 
 would, that the two are antagonistic, he would not admit that 
 the righteousness in Christ was genuine ; he would make that 
 claim for his own. Hence, beginning at this sixth verse, Paul 
 not only completes his contrast between the righteousness by 
 law and the righteousness by faith, but to the end of the sec- 
 tion at verse n adds the other argument, that nothing but 
 righteousness by faith is God's. 
 
 "Say not in thy heart." This is a quotation from Deu-
 
 (X.6, 7) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 185 
 
 teronomy xxx. 11-14, with Paul's interjected explanations by 
 means of the equating phrase "that is." The difficulty that 
 stands here is that Paul takes words that Moses seems to use 
 of the law, and makes them descriptive of the righteousness of 
 faith. Two considerations relieve the difficulty. First, the 
 contrast is not between the law and faith, but between the 
 righteousness proceeding from the two. The law bears testi- 
 mony to both kinds. The righteousness of faith is witnessed 
 by the law and the prophets (iii. 21,22). The second consid- 
 eration is that Paul interprets this passage in the original 
 Mosaic intent of it. This intent after the gospel came was not 
 difficult to see. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy refers 
 to the ultimate gathering of all Israel. Moses promises that 
 in the future God will circumcise the " heart " of Israel. He 
 further says, " If thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all 
 thine heart, and with all thy soul" (Deut. xxx. 10). The very 
 next verse introduces our quotation : " For this commandment 
 which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, 
 neither is it far off. It is not in heaven," etc. The chapter 
 itself speaks of both kinds of righteousness ; it mentions not 
 only the "commandments," but " this commandment." This 
 difference between singular and plural must not be overlooked. 
 It speaks both of keeping the commandments and also of 
 turning to the Lord with the heart. The gospel gave Paul the 
 key to the latter, and. he quotes the passage as not applicable 
 to the righteousness of the law, but descriptive only of the 
 gospel. When, therefore, Sanday implies that "words used 
 by Moses of the law " are applied by Paul to the gospel " as 
 against the law" ("Com. on Rom.," p. 288), and denies to 
 Paul a " true interpretation " of this and similar passages 
 (p. 306, /</.), the only question is, which is the safer expositor 
 of the Old Testament, the professor or the apostle? 
 
 The righteousness of the law is defined in terms that imply 
 doing. The passage quoted here by Paul defines the right-
 
 186 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 8-10) 
 
 eousness of faith in terms which shut out all doing. No man 
 need attempt the impossible thing of ascending to heaven, 
 which means to bring Christ down ; he has already come. 
 And no one need go over the sea or, what is the same thing^ 
 descend to its depths, the abyss, to bring Christ again from 
 the dead; he is already raised. God's "command" (Deut. 
 xxx. n), his work, is not "hidden from thee"; it is already 
 done (John vi. 29). 
 
 8. "But what saith it?" This little question belongs not 
 to the quotation, but is Paul's, and serves both to pass from 
 the negative to the positive side of the description of true 
 righteousness and to call attention a second time to it. It 
 declares that God's righteousness is not distant and difficult, 
 but "the word [Moses did not say "commandments"] is 
 nigh thee [like the air of heaven], in thy mouth, and in thy 
 heart : that is, the word of faith [referred to in Moses], which 
 we [apostles] preach." It is a word or command not for doing, 
 but for believing. 
 
 9 JO* These two verses give the contents of the " word of 
 faith." "That" is equivalent neither to "in order that" nor 
 to "because." The first is forbidden by the original word 
 (oti), and the second in that there is no need to prove the 
 express assertion that " the word is nigh thee." Paul would 
 not attempt to prove Scripture by his own assertion ; but he 
 may tell what it means. This " word " by the preaching of it 
 is brought to the mouth and the heart of the sinner as the 
 atmosphere comes to the lungs. Man does not make it; he 
 breathes it and lives. 
 
 Since Christ has already come down from above, has died, 
 and has been raised from the dead, nothing remains for the 
 Jew or for any one else to do but to confess it with his mouth 
 and believe it in his heart. Paul specifies the vital element in 
 Christian faith, "that God hath raised him from the dead." 
 He was raised for our justification (iv. 25). The faith that
 
 (X. ii) ISRAELS FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 187 
 
 leaves this out, although it may accept everything else in the 
 Christian's creed, is not Christian and is not saving. The 
 Jew's " doing " denied it. The " for " of the tenth verse does 
 not introduce a proof, but an analytic explanation, of the sal- 
 vation just mentioned " thou shalt be saved." If one believes 
 with the heart, that belief brings him into righteousness, right 
 standing before God, and if now he confesses openly in his 
 life his adherence to Jesus, that confession leads on to the 
 final salvation. Thus salvation is resolved into its two ele- 
 ments, a heart trust that provokes a true confession of his 
 name. And yet the two are one ; for confession without be- 
 lief is either self-deception or hypocrisy, while trust without 
 confession may be cowardice (John xix. 38). 
 
 It sounds a little odd, in view of Paul's words, "with the 
 mouth confession is made," to hear Sanday say the confession 
 "is made in baptism." Paul links baptism with faith (Col. 
 ii. 12). 
 
 If the order of the words "mouth" and "heart" in verse 
 9 is reversed to " heart " and " mouth " in verse 10, this occurs 
 because in the former Paul is following Moses' order, who 
 presents the " word " rather as a creed and climactically, not 
 only in thy mouth, but in thy very heart. The tenth verse 
 presents the words in the order of experience. 
 
 JJ. This quotation from Isaiah xxviri. 16, with the expan- 
 sion of " he " into " whosoever," clearly implied in the original, 
 is in proof of the last verse that salvation is by faith. The two 
 words about believing and confessing in the last verse are here 
 reduced to one, " believeth." (For " ashamed " see on ix. 33.) 
 Perhaps none but an apostle's eyes could see salvation by faith 
 in the quotation above from Deuteronomy xxx. But we must 
 think the zealous Jews either obstinate or blind that could not 
 see it in this verse in Isaiah, were it not for the same lack of 
 perception attending men still. Salvation by works, even in 
 evangelical circles, is pursued to-day by all such as cannot
 
 188 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 12-14) 
 
 unquestioningly, like a little child (Mark x. 15), accept this 
 same word in its sublime simplicity. 
 
 J2. " For there is no difference." As Israel failed to per- 
 ceive the character of the righteousness offered by God, but 
 excluded by their own righteousness of works, so they neces- 
 sarily failed to see the universality of God's righteousness. 
 Works are not suited to sinful men (iv. 14, 15). It is with 
 this failure that Paul now deals. (See (3) at the head of the 
 chapter.) He moves off at the word " whosoever " in the last 
 verse, and explains it in this one. As there is " no difference " 
 among men, Jew or Gentile, in their sinfulness (iii. 22, 23), so 
 there is no difference in God's mercy toward all, Jew or Gen- 
 tile. The " call " of faith from the heart of any man is not 
 merely answered, but richly answered. 
 
 J3. "For, Whosoever," etc. This, from Joel ii. 32, is the 
 scriptural proof of the universality of God's mercy. The 
 quotation is very much like that in verse 1 1 above, but there 
 is a difference in use : there it confirms the believing, here the 
 universality. Hence here in the original it is not simply who- 
 soever, but every one whosoever. The apostle seems fond of 
 repeating the noble gospel sentiment that believing prayer 
 from any heart of man receives an answer rich in righteous- 
 ness. 
 
 J4. " How then shall they call," etc. With these verses 
 begins an argument extending through several verses, to prove 
 from another point of view the universality of the gospel. If 
 this gospel is general and designed for all, if its language is 
 that " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
 saved" (verse 13), it is then inevitable from the word "call" 
 that the gospel must be preached everywhere. If such gen- 
 eral preaching is predicted (verse 15) and has been accom- 
 plished, there is thereby evidence of the gospel's universal 
 character ; and if it is found that Israel has heard this world- 
 wide gospel and has not believed it, the responsibility of their
 
 (X. is) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 189 
 
 rejection is upon themselves. Says Gifford, " From the nature 
 of the salvation just described (verse 13), it follows that the 
 gospel must be preached to all without distinction " (" Speaker's 
 Com.," in loc.). If the universal condition of salvation is to 
 call on the Lord, only the general spread of the gospel can 
 make such a call possible. 
 
 By successive steps Paul argues from Joel's cardinal words, 
 " Whosoever shall call," to the sending out of the preachers. 
 Men cannot call on him in whom they have not believed, 
 and, to be sure, they cannot believe in him of whom they never 
 heard. And how can they ever hear without a preacher? 
 The spread of the gospel is dependent on the living messen- 
 ger. The sending forth of Bibles is not sufficient ; Israel had 
 them, but did not profit by them. The Ethiopian eunuch, 
 earnest man though he was, did not understand even the 
 luminous fifty-third chapter of Isaiah until the preacher sent 
 to him opened the Scripture for him (Acts viii. 26-40). 
 
 J5. "And how shall they preach, except they be sent," 
 sent by God? The first heralds who formally and definitely 
 went out either to the Jews or to the Gentiles were commis- 
 sioned by the Holy Spirit (Acts ii. ; x. ; xiii. 2-4). There is 
 no clearer passage for the call into the ministry than this: 
 " How shall they preach, except they be sent? " (Gal. i. 15, 
 1 6.) No matter how well a man may be qualified otherwise, 
 if he is not divinely "sent" he is a profane intruder. No 
 matter how humble and lacking in brilliance, if he has this 
 credential he need not be discouraged. The Father sends the 
 Son, and the Son sends the preachers (John xvii. 18). 
 
 Paul has now argued backward from the nature of the gos- 
 pel, which demands that men call on the name of the Lord, 
 to that which this call implies, a general sending forth of minis- 
 ters. That such would be sent forth is confirmed by a passage 
 from Isaiah lii. 7 (see Nah. i. 15): "How beautiful are the 
 feet of them [how welcome is their coming] that preach . . .
 
 190 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 16, 17) 
 
 peace, that [not "and"] bring glad tidings of good things!" 
 There was a partial fulfilment of Isaiah's words in the return 
 from the captivity which the prophet foresaw. Paul sees a 
 deeper meaning, which points to the mission of the gospel 
 messengers, and now his argument so far is complete. A gos- 
 pel intended for all requires ministers sent to all, and this har- 
 monizes with the prediction that they would be sent. 
 
 J6. " But they have not all obeyed the gospel " the " glad 
 tidings " mentioned above. Paul restrains himself, as in iii. 3. 
 He might have said, "How few believed!" This general dis- 
 belief, however, does not disprove that the " sent " messengers 
 were God's. It actually confirms their authority. For Isaiah 
 foresaw this unbelief and predicted it in the sad words, " Lord, 
 who hath believed our report ? " or, " Who hath believed thy 
 message heard from us?" The prophet (Isa. liii. i) is now 
 speaking of the Messianic times, as the connection shows 
 clearly. Paul says " they " have not obeyed. The word is 
 general, but he has Israel in mind, whom he soon mentions. 
 Israel's rejection of the gospel is a proof of its truthfulness. 
 Not only the few who in all time have believed revelation, 
 but the many who reject it, are a confirmation of its divinity. 
 A gospel universally believed would not be God's. Jesus 
 said, " I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me 
 not : if another shall come in his own name, him ye will re- 
 ceive " (John v. 43). And ever so God's messenger is known 
 by his general rejection. 
 
 J7. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
 Word of God." Paul is not referring to the act of listening 
 as the source of faith. Listening is itself faith, and all men 
 listen to something. Saving faith, of which he is speaking, 
 comes from heeding saving doctrine ; this is his vital point. 
 This verse can be paraphrased thus : Genuine faith comes by 
 a message heard (from us), and the message heard (is) by 
 means of the Word of God, the Word given the messenger,
 
 (X. i8, 19) ISRAELS FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 191 
 
 the gospel. The " Word of God," or, as some read here, " of 
 Christ," does not mean his command to preach. 
 
 But why does Paul utter the words of this verse? It is the 
 logical conclusion of everything from verse 13 above. The 
 " call " that brings salvation demands faith, and this faith 
 comes from the Word of God sent through his messengers. 
 But, while this conclusion looks back to the beginning of this 
 little section, it is drawn directly from the quotation imme- 
 diately preceding, which itself comprehends what has gone 
 before. 
 
 J8. It being now shown that the gospel which is necessary 
 to faith has been universally given, could it be that they who 
 have not obeyed (verse 16) did not hear? " But I say, Have 
 they not heard? " The answer to this is a quotation from 
 Psalm xix. 4. The quotation refers to the silent but effective 
 message of the stars: "Their sound went into all the earth, 
 and their words unto the ends of the [inhabited] world." Paul 
 is not quoting these words in proof that men have heard. In 
 the verses immediately preceding there is already sufficient 
 proof of the opportunity to hear. By quoting the psalmist it 
 is beautifully suggested how vain would be the excuse that 
 men have not heard. The very stars declare God's glory the 
 world around (i. 20), and how much more must the preachers 
 mentioned in verse 15 above! Paul in using the psalmist's 
 words does not mention him, and uses no formula of quota- 
 tion. If men have not believed it is not because they have 
 not heard. The opportunity of hearing was as wide as the 
 star-studded heavens. The believing was limited to a " few " 
 (Matt. vii. 14). 
 
 J9. " But I say, Did not Israel know? " For emphasis Paul 
 repeats the words "but I say" of verse 18. " Israel" is not 
 in contrast with others intended in the preceding verse, for 
 Paul has had Israel in mind all along. The whole chapter, 
 as is shown at its beginning, refers primarily to nobody else.
 
 192 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 20, 21) 
 
 He names them now because the very word " Israel " ought 
 to answer the question in which it occurs. Know what? The 
 gospel or its universality? Both ; for he who knows the gos- 
 pel at all very soon comes to know that it is for all. In the 
 third verse he denied that Israel knew : " For they, being ig- 
 norant of God's righteousness." If he here affirms that they 
 did know he merely pronounces the former a wilful, guilty ig- 
 norance. (Cf. John vii. 28 with viii. 19.) The contradiction 
 is only in form. 
 
 He answers the question, " Did not Israel know? " by three 
 Scripture quotations. " First Moses," away back in his day, 
 predicted the faith of the Gentiles, who were " no people," and 
 the guilty ignorance of Israel ; because a " foolish " nation, one 
 void of understanding, would see the truth of the gospel to 
 which Israel was blind, and embrace it, and thus "anger" 
 Israel (Deut. xxxii. 21). If the Gentile perceived, it is the 
 Jew's own fault that he did not. 
 
 20* " But Isaiah is very bold " in what he utters against Is- 
 rael (Isa. Ixv. i). Where Israel was groping and failing to 
 find the Messiah, those who sought him not clearly discerned 
 him. How can Israel be excused for ignorance of a world- 
 wide gospel, when even the heathen discovered it? 
 
 2J. The third quotation, immediately following the one 
 above from Isaiah, brings the matter of their guilt to a climax. 
 God never ceased to plead with them ; but they were " dis- 
 obedient and gainsaying." But even in this rebellious state he 
 calls them " people," a hopeful word with which to begin the 
 next chapter.
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 
 
 THIS chapter from the historical point of view is logically 
 necessary. The Old Testament clearly promises Israel head- 
 ship or leadership in the world's worship. This primacy they 
 had held from the days of Moses until the days of Paul, when 
 the latter became the chief instrument in transferring it to 
 " another nation " (Matt. xxi. 43), composed of elect persons 
 called from all peoples (i Pet. ii. 9, 10). This promise of 
 headship was made to Israel not on the ground of their na- 
 tional descent, as the ninth chapter above shows, but, after all, 
 it was a national promise. It belonged to the natural descent, 
 and constituted their " advantage." It could not possibly be 
 realized in the church, because the latter knew no racial dis- 
 tinctions. The essence of Judaism was separation from other 
 people. Two facts stood out prominently in Paul's day : first, 
 that the church for the present had displaced Israel in the 
 leadership of God's worship in the world ; secondly, that Is- 
 rael had a promise in their " oracles " that was not realized in 
 the church and could not be ; for the aim of the latter was 
 not national separation, but diffusion, or, more exactly, elec- 
 tion from all nations. The first question Paul has already 
 considered in the ninth and tenth chapters. Israel was justly 
 displaced, and by their own fault. With the second fact the 
 present chapter deals. Israel as a separate people is to be re- 
 stored and to realize the promises made to them in the Old 
 
 19?
 
 194 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. i, 2) 
 
 Testament. God's far-reaching plans in the riches of his wis- 
 dom for the salvation of the world are here disclosed, provok- 
 ing the exultant hymn in verses 33-36. Israel's present fail- 
 ure proves to be the world's wealth now and their own finally. 
 
 Paul's thought in this chapter moves around two points: (i) 
 that the present rejection of Israel is not total (verses i-io), 
 and (2) it is not final (verses 11-36). Under (i) he shows 
 that as it was in the days of Elijah (verses 2-4), so now there 
 is an election of grace (verse 5), but not of works (verse 6), 
 and that the rest, as the Scripture declares, were hardened 
 (verses 7-10). 
 
 Under (2) there are four items: (i) the rejection of Israel 
 had a twofold aim, (a) to turn the stream of the gospel to the 
 Gentiles, and (b] by this means to provoke Israel to emulation 
 (verses 11-15); ( u ) tne likelihood of Israel's restoration 
 should move the Gentiles to humility and maintenance of faith 
 (verses 1 6-24) ; (iii) the apostle's prediction of Israel's restora- 
 tion (verses 25-32); and (iv) the worshipful doxology (verses 
 
 33-3 6 )- 
 
 J. "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? " The 
 preceding verse shows to whom Paul refers. It is " gainsay- 
 ing " and rejected Israel that is God's " people." " For I 
 also am an Israelite [of the purest blood, being] of the seed 
 of Abraham, of [through] the tribe of Benjamin." Paul was 
 an Israelite not by proselytism but by blood. He asserts his 
 pure Jewish descent not as evidence that Israel is not wholly 
 rejected, for the proof of this proposition does not begin be- 
 fore the next verse is reached. He has asked the question, 
 " Hath God cast away his people? " in a negative, deprecat- 
 ing spirit, and his being an Israelite accounts for the manner 
 of the question. He is in full sympathy with his race and 
 may be expected to answer the inquiry about Israel fairly. 
 (See on x. i.) 
 
 2 " God hath not cast off his people whom he foreknew."
 
 (XL 3-5) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 195 
 
 In the word " his " and the phrase " whom he foreknew " there 
 is a double proof that Israel, though for the present rejected, 
 is not cast off. Among the nations of the world the Jews 
 were the only one chosen by God for his own, with whom also 
 he entered into covenant relations. A king may be rejected 
 by his subjects, but he does not reject them. Moreover, God 
 " foreknew " Israel. For the meaning of this word see on 
 viii. 29. In this present Christian age God foreknows indi- 
 viduals in every nation, but Israel is the only nation he ever 
 foreknew. He elected it as a whole to obtain the salvation 
 in Christ when the appointed time for the blessing shall come 
 (Matt, xxiii. 39). This constitutes Israel's "advantage" and 
 makes it to be " much every way," for no other nation has as 
 a nation the promise of salvation before theirs. 
 
 3, 4. And even for the present the case of Israel is not as 
 bad as human observation would declare it to be. By the 
 phrase "of Elias," or literally "in Elias" (i Kings xix. 
 1018), Paul resorts to the method of citation used before 
 the Bible was divided into chapters and verses. (See Mark 
 xii. 26 ; Luke xx. 37.) The prophet thought the nation ruined 
 in his day ; but the divine response assured him of thousands 
 whom God had " reserved," or left to himself, from the flood 
 of unbelief that had come upon the land. The prophet saw 
 the overwhelming, devouring tide, but he could not see the 
 secret influence of the divine Spirit, who was leaving to God, 
 and preserving from Baal, seven thousand faithful ones. 
 
 5. " Even so then at this present time." Paul was better 
 acquainted with his days than the prophet had been with the 
 period to which he belonged ; for the apostle had the prophet's 
 experience to guide him and better means of observation. He 
 knew that in every church from Jerusalem to Rome there 
 were more or less Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, 
 "a remnant according to the election of grace." They had 
 not bowed the knee to the Baal of unbelief, because God's
 
 196 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 6, 7) 
 
 Spirit now, as in the prophet's day, had rescued them from the 
 faithless sentiment of the nation against Jesus of Nazareth. 
 This remnant, this reserve from the unbelieving mass, has 
 come to be and exists in accord with God's electing grace, 
 the phrase being added to show in what manner the remnant 
 obtained salvation. 
 
 While the nation lies fallen and faithless, elect individuals 
 are being brought into the church, where, if they lose the 
 national "advantage," they get sweet access to God in the 
 forgiveness of sins. 
 
 6 " And if by grace, then it is no more of works." The 
 " no more " is not temporal, but logical. Grace and works are 
 mutually exclusive methods. If the remnant was selected on 
 the ground of grace, their legal works had no part whatever 
 in the selection, else (the) grace would have lost its character 
 as grace. In this second mention of grace there is no article 
 in the original. 
 
 This verse expands the phrase " election of grace." It serves 
 also to show that the election, fully vindicated in chapter ix., 
 is by means of grace. This, which was implied before, is now 
 clearly stated. The Old Testament promised a remnant; it 
 is shown now that nothing but grace secures it. The latter 
 half of this verse, "but if of works," etc., is rejected by all 
 modern editors. 
 
 7. "What then? " How does the case now stand? "Is- 
 rael [the nation] hath not obtained that which he seeketh for 
 [viz., righteousness (ix. 31, 32)]; but the election [the elect 
 remnant] hath obtained it." Paul uses the abstract "elec- 
 tion " rather than the concrete " elect," to throw the emphasis 
 on the means and not on the result. " And the rest [the mass 
 of natural Israel] were [not "blinded," but] hardened." Since 
 the remnant was saved by grace, there was no injustice done 
 to the "rest." For who can complain if salvation came to 
 some where none deserved it? And if the undeserving rem-
 
 (XI. 8-i i) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 197 
 
 nant was saved because God would and when he would, why 
 may not the " rest " be saved in his own time and by the same 
 free grace? 
 
 8-JO. Scripture is quoted not only in confirmation of the 
 hardening of the " rest " of Israel, but also as descriptive of 
 their sad spiritual condition during the time of their rejection 
 (Isa. xxix. 10 ; Deut. xxix. 4; Ps. Ixix. 22, 23). The paren- 
 theses in the King James version in verse 8 must be removed. 
 The words " unto this day " are not Paul's, but a part of the 
 quotation. What was true in their author's day remained so 
 in Paul's, and is yet sadly true. In the word " table " there 
 is a picture of men feasting, eating and drinking, unconscious 
 that their enemies are just upon them. The Jew's carnal 
 security while trusting in the law proved his spiritual ruin. 
 But the quotation is poetic, and need not be rigidly defined. 
 " And bow [thouj down their back alway " under the heavy 
 legal yoke (Acts xv. 10). The "alway" does not mean for- 
 ever, or the whole discussion concerning Israel must end here. 
 "Alway," converted in a few cases by some editors into a 
 phrase, occurs about seven times, and means continuously or 
 without interruption (Luke xxiv. 53; Heb. xiii. 15). It is not 
 an indefinite, but a limited term, limited by the circumstances 
 of which it speaks. 
 
 JJ. From this verse to the end of the discussion Paul con- 
 siders the case of the great fallen mass of Israel. (See under 
 (2) above.) He has already shown the cause of the fall (ix. 
 3i-x.) in their own sin, the result of which was their harden- 
 ing. It remains to speak of the divine purpose in their pres- 
 ent moral condition and the outcome of the whole. 
 
 "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?" 
 The question is put negatively and deprecatingly, as in the 
 first verse above. They did not stumble that they might fall, 
 did they? Was this the whole and only purpose? They are 
 fallen, but is this the intended outcome of their history?
 
 198 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 12) 
 
 "God forbid." There was a gracious, far-reaching aim in 
 their rejection. The early preachers of the gospel were so 
 full of the Spirit that they must preach ; the gospel was like a 
 fire in their bones ; and since the Jews would not receive it, 
 they turned elsewhere (Acts xi. 20 ; xiii. 46, 47). Through 
 the Jews' fall salvation went to the Gentiles, to provoke the 
 former to emulation. " Jealousy " is not the best word. In 
 time Israel will see that the world has gained what they lost 
 by their obstinacy, and the salvation of the Gentiles will teach 
 Israel what they did not learn before they saw that salvation. 
 Two happy results, then, flow from their fall : a world diffusion 
 of the stream of life, a stream in which the fallen Jew may in 
 time wash himself from the uncleanness of his own self-right- 
 eousness (Isa. Ixiv. 6). 
 
 J2* " Now if the [sinful] fall of them is the riches of the 
 world [in that by the fall the world got the gospel], and [to 
 repeat the same question in another form, if] the diminishing 
 of them [is] the riches of the Gentiles ; how much more their 
 fullness? " Three words here demand attention. Twice Paul 
 calls the gospel sent to the Gentiles their "riches." It was 
 not their territory, not their armies, not their culture, not their 
 treasures, that constituted their wealth (Rev. ii. 9; iii. 17). 
 Again, the word "diminishing" has had various renderings, 
 " loss," " diminution," " defeat." It occurs in only one other 
 instance in the New Testament (i Cor. vi. 7), where it is 
 translated " fault." Furthermore, has the word a moral or a 
 numerical sense? Sanday stands for trie meaning "defeat," 
 which Godet says is impossible. On the whole, the word 
 seems to be numerical, and signifies diminution. Israel was 
 reduced to the small number of the elect. And it must be 
 noted, though it is but a shade, that it is not the elect that 
 Paul has in mind, but the nation thus reduced. It was the 
 diminishing of the nation, and not the elect, that brought 
 riches to the Gentiles.
 
 (XI. 13, H) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 199 
 
 Again, the meaning of this word determines that of the last 
 one, "fullness." The latter is also numerical. It denotes 
 that which fills out or fills full an empty space. Israel by 
 their fall created a great void in their ranks. The " fullness " 
 looks to the future reoccupation of this present vacancy. 
 Note how the salvation of the world turns on God's dealing 
 with Israel. Their fall sent the gospel to the Gentiles ; their 
 fullness is to issue in something vastly greater than the pres- 
 ent riches ; ultimate redemption is relative to them. In a very 
 wide sense "salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22). 
 
 J3, J4, "I am the apostle of the Gentiles," or, as the Re- 
 vised Version, " I am an apostle of Gentiles." Paul has 
 shown such an ardent desire for the welfare of the Jews, and 
 has now, beginning at chapter ix., devoted so much of his 
 epistle to them, that an explanation is due to the Roman 
 church, which, as this passage implies, was Gentile. Whatever 
 Jews were in it had lost Jewish caste. "I speak to you" 
 (the whole Roman church), you, the " Gentiles," about Israel, 
 for their welfare mightily affects yours. (At this point in the 
 King James text insert a colon.) But while I speak to you 
 and am an apostle of Gentiles, this apostleship looks also to- 
 ward Israel (Acts ix. 15 ; Rom. i. 5). "Inasmuch then as I 
 am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my [Gentile] ministry 
 [I endeavor to give it a resplendent success] : if by any means 
 I may provoke to emulation my flesh [the Jews], and might save 
 some of them." 
 
 The " for " introducing these two verses is not genuine ; 
 the approved reading is "but." The verses are not a paren- 
 thesis, but a logical part of Paul's argument, answering an ob- 
 jection that might arise in the minds of his Gentile readers 
 because he says so much about the Jews. He is laboring for 
 the Gentiles, glorifying his office to them, but with the salva- 
 tion of at least " some " Jews in view. For Gentile salvation 
 cannot be accomplished directly, cannot be reached, without
 
 200 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 15) 
 
 the " fullness " of the Jews. Therefore he is interested in the 
 Jews for the Gentiles' sake, and the Romans ought to be in- 
 terested in them for the same reason. If Paul can in laboring 
 for the Gentiles save " some " Jews, he has accomplished so 
 much toward the "fullness" necessary to the completion of 
 Gentile or world salvation. 
 
 J5. "For if the casting away of them," etc. This verse 
 gives the grand reason ("for") for Paul's laboring to reach 
 the Jew through his Gentile ministry. It is a kind of minis- 
 try little thought of to-day. The condition of Gentile Chris- 
 tianity is not such now as to impress the Jew with its superi- 
 ority. 
 
 The verse repeats the idea of the twelfth and brings this 
 section of the argument to its climax. The " casting away " 
 is equivalent to "their fall" or "diminution"; the "reconcil- 
 ing of the world " is equivalent to the " riches of the world " 
 or " of the Gentiles " ; the " receiving of them " is tantamount 
 to " their fullness " ; and the " life from the dead " to the " how 
 much more." For the significance of the phrase " reconciling 
 of the world " see 2 Corinthians v. 19. In the verse before us 
 it means that on the Jews' rejection God was pleased to send 
 the gospel to the Gentiles. This reconciliation on God's part 
 became the " riches of the Gentiles." The difficult point in the 
 verse is in the words " life from the dead." The question is 
 twofold : Who receives this life, and what is it? 
 
 On the surface the answer to the first question seems plain. 
 In the first member of the sentence the clause " reconciling of 
 the world " must mean the Gentiles. The parallel demands the 
 same meaning for this second clause. The casting away of 
 the Jews was the " reconciling of the world " ; the receiving of 
 the Jews into favor again will be "life from the dead " extend- 
 ing over the world. Of course the phrase in question must mean 
 something vastly more than the action contained in the words 
 " reconciling of the world," or there is no climax. But what
 
 (XI. 16) ISRAELS FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 201 
 
 is that " how much more " ? Meyer contends that the words 
 must have their literal meaning and that they refer to actual 
 bodily resurrection. If Paul says "life from the dead" in- 
 stead of "resurrection from the dead," it is because his eye is 
 fixed upon the permanent and blessed state beyond the act 
 which leads to it. This answers Alford's objection based on 
 this word "life." Meyer's view is favored by Sanday, and 
 " so many have understood it " (Boise). It has the advantage 
 of preserving the literalness of the words and of being in har- 
 mony with that expectation of the Jews an expectation of 
 resurrection warranted, as they thought, by their own Scrip- 
 tures. If Paul, as above, makes his argument point toward 
 the resurrection of the Gentiles, it was because it was neces- 
 sary to assure them also of this " hope " (Eph. ii. 1 2), without 
 which they had lived in all time past. But the resurrection 
 of the Jew must occur at the same time. He looked for it. 
 Paul says the Jew instantly served God day and night in hope 
 of attaining to this promise (Acts xxvi. 6-8). Jesus constantly 
 held out this hope (Matt. viii. 1 1 ; Luke xiii. 2830 ; John 
 xi. 25). He showed himself again and again the master of 
 death. The Jew looked for resurrection at the coming of the 
 Messiah (Dan. xii. i, 2), but he failed to see that Jesus was 
 the Messiah and so failed of the resurrection. When Israel 
 shall be received again, then comes their own resurrection as 
 well as that belonging to the world. And so Paul has adroitly 
 but powerfully turned the attention of his Gentile readers to 
 the Jews. Until the latter are received the Gentile cannot 
 hope for resurrection. 
 
 J6. "For if the first-fruit be holy." The "for" is not in 
 the original. It ought to be " now " or " but." (See ii under 
 (2) above.) Paul has not yet asserted that Israel will be re- 
 stored, but he has shown what blessed results would follow if 
 they were restored. It is their fall that is still before him, 
 and on this he bases an exhortation to his Gentile readers.
 
 202 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 16) 
 
 "First-fruit." For the figure see Numbers xv. 21. The 
 handful of dough offered to the Lord was evidence of the 
 worthiness of the whole mass from which it was taken. The 
 patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are the first-fruits, and 
 neither Christ nor the first Jewish Christians at Pentecost, for 
 branches could not be said to be broken off from these. 
 " Holy," not in the moral sense, but as consecrated to God 
 for his own purpose. For this technical sense see Deuteronomy 
 vii. 6 and i Corinthians vii. 14. The "lump" is the whole 
 lineal descent from the patriarchs. The " root." He changes 
 his figure from a lump of dough to that of a tree, because the 
 latter is easier of expansion in argument. The root, again, is 
 Abraham not merely as a man, but as one having the prom- 
 ises ; and the branches are his descendants, the fleshly Israel, 
 called " holy " in the sense given above. 
 
 What Paul is after in this discussion under the figure of the 
 olive-tree must be clearly kept in mind, or his parable dazzles 
 without helping sight, (a) He is not considering Abraham as 
 the ground or root of salvation, for this is Christ. The failure 
 to understand Paul here has led some (Origen, Theodoret) to 
 call Christ the " root." (b] It is not a question of fruit-bearing, 
 but of dependence, or his figure would not be true to nature. 
 Fruit is in accord with the engrafted scion, and not with the na- 
 ture of the root, (c] It is not a question of the continuity of the 
 church. Sanday's statement, " The olive-tree, the church of God 
 looked at as one continuous body," is confusing. The olive- 
 tree is the Jewish nation as a whole, which was anything but 
 a church. Moreover, the continuity of ancient Israel in the 
 church is both inconsistent with the character of Israel's restora- 
 tion and contradictory of the declared relation of the two. The, 
 church is not a branch sprung from the root, but a graft brought 
 to it. Israel is the basis of the church, but not the source. 
 Israel is a development, the church a creation (Eph. ii. 12; 
 iii. 9). (d) The only question considered is from what national
 
 (XI. 17, i8) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 203 
 
 sources and in what chronological order and relation God 
 called men to be his own spiritual people. He did call some 
 Jews to be his, but they were not made his because they were 
 Jews. The olive-tree had the promise of salvation first, and 
 Paul here shows why that promise was not realized now, and 
 that, while there remains a possibility of its future realization, 
 meantime the branch from the wild olive, the Gentiles, came 
 into relations with the good olive. 
 
 J7. "And if some of the branches [the "rest" in verse 7 
 above] be broken off [denied the covenant salvation of Abra- 
 ham], and thou [the Gentile believer, addressed directly for 
 emphasis], being a wild olive [not " tree," but branch, a mem- 
 ber of an alien race having no direct promise of salvation (cf. 
 Eph. ii. 12 with 19)], wert grafted in among them [made by 
 faith a child of the covenant and of God], and with them [the 
 believing Jews, the branches left standing] partakest [didst be- 
 come a partaker] of the root and fatness of the olive-tree." 
 Some by rejecting the " and " read " partaker of the root of 
 the fatness." The root is Abraham, not as a mere physical pro- 
 genitor of Israel, but as the covenant father (Gal. iii. 16, 29 ; 
 Rom. iv. ii, 12), and the root of the fatness is the covenant 
 with him which supplies the fatness, the salvation. The Gen- 
 tile was grafted in by means of his faith to which he was elected 
 (Acts xiii. 48). 
 
 J8. The "if" (since) beginning the last verse extends over 
 the first part of this one. If some (a miosis) were broken off 
 and thou wast grafted in, "boast not against the branches" 
 that were broken off and are fallen. The boasting of the 
 Gentile in this case would be most painful to him who could 
 wish himself accursed for his brethren, his kinsmen according 
 to the flesh. " But if thou boast " thou art absurd, for " thou 
 bearest not the root, but the root thee." The covenant of sal- 
 vation made with Abraham is not sustained by the Gentile ; 
 he is sustained and saved by the covenant. It was clearly
 
 204 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 19-22) 
 
 promised that the nations should be blessed, but blessed in 
 Abraham (Gen. xxii. 18). 
 
 f 9, 20. From Paul's admonition the Gentile believer would 
 deduce ("then") a reply: "Branches [omit "the"] were 
 broken off, that I [emphatic] might be grafted in." Paul ad- 
 mits the fact (" well "), but warningly directs the proud Gen- 
 tile's attention to another side of it : by want of faith they were 
 broken off, and only by faith do you stand as a wild branch 
 on the good stock. You stand not because they fell and not 
 because you are a Gentile, but solely by faith, having no direct 
 covenant. It might be well for Gentile Christianity to lay this 
 to heart to-day. When simple trust in God fails, what better 
 is a Gentile church-member than the wrongly despised Jew? 
 The admonition suits every age : " Be not high-minded, but 
 fear." 
 
 2J. Why fear? Because "if God spared not the natural 
 branches," to whose ancestors the promises were made and 
 who were " his people " (verse i above), if he spared not them 
 because of their unbelief, why should he spare you, a wild 
 branch, if you become faithless, as they are? Why should 
 God have any more regard for a faithless Gentile Christianity 
 than for faithless Judaism? The italic words in the King 
 James version add nothing to the sense, rather hinder. (See 
 the Revised Version.) 
 
 22. " Behold therefore." Because the Gentile stands solely 
 by his faith, let him " therefore " avoid boasting, and cease 
 from high-mindedness, and stop saying " I," to look rather at 
 the action of God. " Severity " and " goodness." On them 
 which fell came severity, and on " thee, goodness [the Gentile 
 merited nothing], if thou continue in his goodness." The 
 contingency must not be overlooked. This continuance de- 
 pended largely on God's favor toward the Gentile believer, 
 but also upon his own conduct. The relation of the two here, 
 as elsewhere, is not given. The Gentile is responsible for his
 
 (XI. 23, 24) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 20t 
 
 conduct, and if he fails to honor God he will fall as did the Jew. 
 (See the letters addressed to the churches in Rev. ii., iii.) 
 " Otherwise thou also shall be cut off." For why should God 
 spare a hollow, faithless church that fails to appreciate its in- 
 effable mercy (Eph. ii. 4, 5), when he spared not "his peo- 
 ple"? 
 
 23, 24. " And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief." 
 When God's purpose in breaking them off is served their 
 blindness will be removed (2 Cor. iii. 14-16), and they will 
 come into the blessed " advantage " mentioned in iii. 2. Here 
 again there is a contingency. God does all, but he acts also 
 on the human conscience and will mediately. He would in- 
 fluence the Gentile by fear lest he be broken off; he would 
 move Israel by hope, the hope of regaining his lost standing. 
 His rejection is not absolute and final. " God is able to graft 
 them [the fallen branches] in again." Paul's reference to 
 God's power is not to his abstract ability, which would be 
 commonplace, but he is able, stubborn as Israel seems, to re- 
 move his unbelief, the real hindrance. The twenty-fourth verse 
 elucidates ("for") what Paul means in appealing to God's 
 concrete power as the means of Israel's restoration. He is 
 able to graft them in again, because in love he can shape their 
 circumstances, their religious education, and their history in a 
 form to lead them to Christ. The figure of the olive-tree in 
 this verse is not to be pressed, else his " how much more " be- 
 comes " how much less." For certainly it would be easier to 
 graft in a living wild branch than a dead natural branch. 
 Israel lies sapless and withered. The inherent condition of 
 the branches, whether dead or alive, is just what does not 
 come into view. The point is the usual course taken in graft- 
 ing. The gardener for some purpose might graft a wild shoot 
 on a good stock, but " how much more " likely is it that he 
 will graft in good branches! A man might leave by will a 
 large portion of his estate to the son of a stranger, but how
 
 206 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 25) 
 
 much more will he devise for his own children! Divested of 
 the figurative language, Paul's thought is this: if God could 
 wean some Gentiles from their idol-worship and their gross 
 immorality and lead them to adopt the religion of another 
 nation, can he not " much more " lead Israel to adopt their 
 own ancestral worship when they are once brought to see 
 what it is, and that it is their own, and that their ignorant 
 works have been perverting it? God's ability is in his unfail- 
 ing love toward Israel. 
 
 What is gained in the figure lies in its suggestion. " Nature " 
 seems to mean here the established course of things in the 
 kingdom. Its course lay through Israel. Gentile salvation 
 is contrary to " nature," and Jewish rejection is also contrary 
 to " nature." The course of things, that is, nature, will in due 
 time assert itself. Therefore let the Gentile fear ; let the Jew 
 hope. The wild branch may be broken off, the fallen one 
 grafted in again. 
 
 25* With this verse begins (see (2) iii above) the direct pre- 
 diction of fallen Israel's restoration. Paul has been speaking 
 of the possibility of it. Here he justifies (" for ") his assertion 
 of the possibility by declaring that there is a temporal limit to 
 Israel's rejection. It only lasts "until the fullness of the 
 Gentiles be come in." This is revealed for moral purposes, 
 that the brethren of the Roman church, being Gentiles, may 
 not be " wise in their own conceits " and arrogate to themselves 
 a religious supremacy that can never end. How completely 
 this very Roman church does this very thing to-day, and how 
 fully Protestantism imitates her so far! To the religious world 
 this section of this chapter is a dead letter and is made "of 
 none effect" (Mark vii. 13) by the current tradition. This 
 Jewish blindness with its limit in time is called a " mystery," 
 that is, a fact which could not be known except by revelation. 
 Religious history is not a natural development ; its source is in 
 the divine will and its explanation is in his Word. History
 
 (XI. 25) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 207 
 
 may throw some light on the Bible, but the Bible sheds much 
 more on history. It is not because the Jew is morally worse 
 and the Gentile morally better that religious supremacy passed 
 from one to the other ; it came about because this was God's 
 plan to save both Jew and Gentile. And the transfer having 
 been made, human ken could not have dreamed that it is ever 
 to be reversed ; it is a " mystery " which the Gentile is slow to 
 believe. 
 
 " That blindness [hardness] in part has happened to Israel." 
 It is not a total, but a partial hardness; it exists not for all 
 time, but only " until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." 
 This phrase, "fullness of the Gentiles," is obscure. It cer- 
 tainly does not mean that all the Gentiles are first to be saved. 
 The Scriptures nowhere promise this for the present age, for 
 which Paul knows of nothing but an election, the idea of which 
 excludes that of general and complete salvation. Further- 
 more, Paul (in verse 15 above) puts the conversion of the 
 world not before, but after, the "receiving" of Israel, their 
 restoration being the chief condition in the salvation of the 
 Gentiles. 
 
 The phrase may mean (so Govett) that the void made in 
 Israel by the hardening and fall of a part is filled up from the 
 Gentiles. In this case the "of" would, as it might, mean 
 " from," and the words " come in " would get a fair meaning 
 come into the vacancy. In the parable in Luke xiv. 16-24 
 the bidden guests refuse to come, after which the servant is sent 
 into the highways and hedges (among the Gentiles), "that," 
 as the host said, " my house may be filled." He got the full- 
 ness for his house from these strange places. In Matthew xxii. 
 1-14, after the king has destroyed the city in which his first 
 invitation was rejected, he finds a supply of guests by going 
 beyond and bringing together as many as he found, "both 
 bad and good," a part only of whom were accepted, " for 
 many are called, but few chosen." This view is not worthy
 
 208 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 26, 27) 
 
 of the harsh condemnation of Godet, that it " tortures at will " 
 the words of the apostle. It is plausible, but lacks support 
 from anything in the context. 
 
 The explanation of the phrase is not to be found in any 
 numerical, but in the temporal view. " Until " suggests time. 
 The whole context brings up the notion of time. Jerusalem 
 is to be " trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be ful- 
 filled " (Luke xxi. 24). This view has so much in its favor that 
 it overbalances the difficulty left by it in the words " be come 
 in." The phrase may be used metaphorically. 
 
 26. " And so all Israel shall be saved." " So " looks to the 
 removal of the circumstances just mentioned, the partial blind- 
 ness and the limit. The illogical notion that " Israel " here 
 is the spiritual Israel is no longer held. It is the fallen, re- 
 jected, natural Israel, the only nation in this age that has the 
 promise of salvation as a whole. It will not be merely Chris- 
 tianized, but Christian. He gives a Scripture proof that Is- 
 rael shall be saved : " It is written [in Isa. lix. 20 after the 
 Septuagint, and in other places substantially, Isa. xxvii. 9 ; Ps. 
 xiv. 7], There shall come out of Zion [Ps. ex. 2] [the place of 
 God's glory] the Deliverer [the Goel, a strong kinsman who 
 avenges his weaker friends], and shall turn away ungodliness 
 [Ps. xcix.] [impieties] from Jacob." The word "Jacob," the 
 fleshly name, found in the quotation, gives the meaning of the 
 word " Israel." Whether the reference is to the first or to the 
 second coming of the Messiah is not indicated. The promise 
 of deliverance for Jacob is connected with a coming of the 
 Christ. He has come; he will surely make good that for 
 which he came. 
 
 27. A second Scripture proof of Israel's restoration. " And 
 [not "for"] this [which follows] is my covenant unto them, 
 when I shall take away their sins." The word "Jacob " looks 
 at them in the mass ; the word " their " looks at them indi- 
 vidually. The sense of the verse is, " When I shall take away
 
 (XI. 28, 29) ISRAELS FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 209 
 
 their sins, this taking away of sins is my side of the covenant 
 with them." God's covenant promises the taking away of 
 sins, and it cannot be broken. The verse seems to be a con- 
 densation of Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34. 
 
 28, 29. Paul now reviews and sums up the previous discus- 
 sion. Israel in their relation to the gospel are " enemies [re- 
 garded as such by God] for your sakes." He withheld the 
 gospel from them that you might have it. But Israel in rela- 
 tion to their own election by God as his people are " beloved 
 for the fathers' sakes," Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The 
 election here does not refer to the elect remnant now in the 
 church, but to God's choice of the Jewish nation as his own 
 (Deut. vii. 6). That Israel is beloved for the fathers' sakes 
 sounds strange in view of what John the Baptist said : " Think 
 not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father." 
 But John was only denying salvation on the ground of natu- 
 ral descent, which Paul also denies. The covenant descent, 
 which requires the faith of him with whom the covenant is 
 made, is everywhere allowed (Luke xiii. 16; xix. 9; Acts iii. 
 25). " If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if 
 the root be holy, so are the branches." Israel is beloved not 
 as the natural, but as the covenant descent. God loved the 
 fathers not alone as men, but as those who believed his prom- 
 ise about an innumerable progeny. That love is a guaranty 
 that God will make the descent like the fathers and worthy of 
 them. He will not mock the fathers' faith about their pro- 
 geny. He will take away ungodliness from Jacob, and see to 
 it (verse 23) that they " abide not still in unbelief." For while 
 beloved for the fathers' sakes, they will be saved by faith. 
 They are an intensely religious race, strangely preserved. 
 Their zeal will in due time be according to knowledge. 
 
 That Israel is still beloved is proved by the general principle 
 of the kingdom, based on the divine character, that the " gifts 
 and calling of God are without repentance." The "gifts"
 
 210 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XL 30-32) 
 
 are not the " moral and intellectual aptitudes " with which God 
 has endowed the Jews (Godet), but their own peculiar posses- 
 sions, already enumerated in ix. 4, 5. The "calling" is that 
 act of God in which he chose them for his people. These gifts 
 and this calling are "without repentance" on God's part; he 
 will never recall them. Having once given them to Israel, he 
 makes them theirs forever ; he does not change (iii. 3 ; Mai. 
 iii. 6). 
 
 30, 3J* " For" introduces these two verses not as a proof, 
 but as indicating how the general principle just mentioned will 
 be realized by Israel. " For as ye in times past," etc. The 
 contrast between the " ye," the Romans, and the " their " shows 
 that the Roman church was in the main Gentile. These 
 Gentiles once disbelieved God and were dead in sins; but 
 they obtained mercy by the unbelief of the Jews, as described 
 in verses n and 12 above. And just so "these" have not 
 believed, " that through your mercy [the same mercy shown to 
 you] they also may obtain mercy." As the Gentile's disobedi- 
 ence brought him the mercy of God, so the Jew's disobedience 
 will bring him the same mercy, in which he will realize that 
 God's gifts and calling are changeless. 
 
 32. The " for " introducing this verse is hardly argumenta- 
 tive ; it confirms nothing. Verses 30 and 31 practically restate 
 everything from verse 1 1 in a single sentence. The verse be- 
 fore us puts these two verses, especially the thirty-first, in an- 
 other form, almost that of a general principle of God's dealing 
 with men. His whole action with both Jew and Gentile comes 
 to this, that he "hath concluded [locked up as in a prison] 
 them all in unbelief [with this grand purpose], that he might 
 have mercy upon all." There is nothing richer than his mercy. 
 If the Jews, for instance, had obeyed him they could have ex- 
 perienced only his fidelity. Mercy, which wholly excludes 
 privilege or merit, is the grand idea (Eph. ii. 4, 5). The Jew 
 will find his gifts and calling, but they come to him as a mat-
 
 (XI. 32) ISRAELS FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 211 
 
 ter of mercy mercy that excludes "boasting" (iii. 27). Au- 
 thorities are divided on the meaning of "all." It certainly 
 does not refer to the elect; the whole context forbids that. 
 But does it mean all men, all individuals (Meyer, Alford), or all 
 nations, the Jews and the Gentiles about whom Paul has been 
 speaking? The context is decisive for the latter. This gen- 
 eral principle, as some have failed to notice, describes God's 
 attitude toward men, and not the outcome of that attitude. 
 It does not contradict other plain Scriptures by teaching uni- 
 versal salvation, or salvation without faith. " The Scripture 
 hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of 
 Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe " (Gal. iii. 22). 
 The principle says nothing about the outcome of the divine 
 mercy toward all. It simply declares that God has actively and 
 directly locked up all in sin so that he may have mercy toward 
 all ; that if they are saved they are saved by mercy. This is 
 the final and complete explanation of the Jew's fall. He was 
 by nature a sinner ; God hedged that nature about with a rigid 
 law to show him what his real character was. He tried to find 
 liberty within its iron bars, but gets only slavery. Mercy 
 alone can deliver him. The Gentile in Paul's day had no 
 law, but sought liberty in wisdom, his own wisdom (i. 21, 22), 
 and in his quest became a fool and a slave to his lust. God 
 knows that man cannot save himself, that no form of civil 
 government and no system of ethics, even though it be that of 
 the Old or of the New Testament, can attain to liberty. But 
 man does not know it; he is in the rough prison, shut up 
 under sin to learn it, to learn that salvation cannot be reached 
 by human effort, that it comes down from God, the absolute 
 gift of his mercy. This divine purpose of mercy is not only 
 the explanation of the Jew's fall, but of the continuance of the 
 world in sin. It is the key to those terrible first chapters of the 
 epistle. Universal condemnation leads to the universal prin- 
 ciple of mercy. And what Paul saw in his world-wide view
 
 212 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 33-36) 
 
 in his day is still sadly true. The nations are in sin ; Israel 
 still refuses the Christ. The lesson of sin's prison-house is 
 not yet learned ; but what the elect have found out all along 
 that there is no hope in themselves the nations will learn in 
 due time, and man's works will cease, and God's principle of 
 mercy toward all will bring salvation. God now elects men 
 from both Jew and Gentile ; Jew and Gentile will then elect 
 God. This thirty-second verse is the climax of the epistle. 
 
 33-36* Having completed his argument, Paul, in reviewing 
 God's plans and purposes as they were unfolded to him, 
 breaks forth in a lofty strain of adoration to him who is guid- 
 ing the nations and the world to salvation. " We have learned 
 Paul's meaning only when we can join in this ascription of 
 praise" (M. B. Riddle). It is a hymn of faith not in man, 
 but in God. To be sure, there was a chain of churches reach- 
 ing from Jerusalem to Rome, but the world around was sunk 
 in heathenish darkness; Satan was god of the world (2 Cor. 
 iv. 4), " the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobe- 
 dience " (Eph. ii. 2) ; false professors were many (Phil. iii. 18) 
 and false teachers were arising (Acts xx. 29, 30), while bonds 
 and afflictions awaited the apostle himself (Acts xx. 23) ; but 
 he saw the meaning of it all in seeing that God had an ulti- 
 mate merciful purpose for all, and hence this optimistic wor- 
 ship. (See iv above under (2).) 
 
 " O the depth ! " With most commentators, this should 
 probably be translated, " O the depth of the riches and of the 
 wisdom and of the knowledge of God!" He unfolds these 
 chiastically, treating of the wisdom and knowledge to the end 
 of verse 34, and of the riches in the remaining two verses. 
 The word " depth," as Chrysostom suggests, is the language 
 of wondering admiration when one cannot see all. " Riches " 
 is to be taken absolutely. It is not the riches of his grace, 
 nor of any one thing, but of all. God is inexpressibly rich. 
 "Wisdom" adapts means to ends, and "knowledge" sees
 
 (XI. 33-36) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 213 
 
 both in all their relations. Paul, from the mountain height 
 attained in his argument, beholds in one view the history of 
 man from the beginning in Adam to the triumphant end in 
 Christ as King of kings. This history is not man's, but God's 
 in his dealing with man, a history of God's own wisdom and 
 knowledge. Paul is the true historian of the race as well as 
 the true philosopher. No man can be either who leaves God 
 out. Hence man's history of himself is one of blood and fail- 
 ure. The Bible teaches more real knowledge about mankind 
 than is to be found in all other books. 
 
 " How unsearchable his judgments, and his ways past find- 
 ing out! " Mere human wisdom cannot understand them and 
 so pronounces them folly (i Cor. ii. 14). His "judgments" 
 are the product of his wisdom ; his " ways " the mode of his 
 procedure (Meyer) in making his decrees effective. Here is 
 the secret of profound reverence and devout worship. This 
 swelling doxology, this burst of praise, comes forth as Paul 
 scans the " ways " of God and sees something of his wide pur- 
 poses for men. It comes not from a contemplation of God's 
 infinitely tender heart, but of his infinitely wise mind. Men 
 know God's acts; the masters know his ways (Ps. ciii. 7). 
 History and prophecy ! Without these true reverence cannot 
 be reached. A mystery remains, for his judgments are un- 
 searchable and his riches have a depth that is lost in darkness. 
 But it is the mystery of intelligence and not of superstition, a 
 mystery that swathes reverence with a celestial glory. Paul 
 could not have worshiped here had he been able to see all ; 
 but he saw enough to console him for the present rejection of 
 his kinsmen according to the flesh ; enough to satisfy him that 
 the Word of God had not failed, though Israel was not saved ; 
 enough to be sure that, while only a meager elect number from 
 both Jew and Gentile was as yet accepted, this was God's way 
 that ultimately he might have mercy on all. Therefore, standing 
 in the midst of a world full of idolatry and woe, Paul adored.
 
 214 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 34-36) 
 
 34* "For who hath known the mind of the Lord?" A 
 proof ("for") from the Septuagint Scriptures (Isa. xl. 13) that 
 God's judgments and decrees are such as they are declared to 
 be in the last verse. It is well-nigh a challenge to produce 
 the man outside the circle of the inspired prophets and apos- 
 tles the wise man that understood God or that could give 
 him advice. The religious element in uninspired history and 
 philosophy is folly, and Paul has already (i. 22) in this epistle 
 called its authors fools (i Cor. ii ; 8; iii. 19, 20). This verse 
 again looks chiastically at what precedes, "the mind of the 
 Lord " corresponding to the mention of " knowledge " above, 
 and the word " counselor " to " wisdom." God's love explains 
 God's gifts, but his mind and wisdom alone explain his provi- 
 dence or the manner in which he makes the gifts of love effec- 
 tive. Modern thought of the advanced sort fails here. It 
 attempts to explain everything by love, with an inadequate 
 notion even of what that is, and so belittles the Book of di- 
 vine history and prophecy by denying it any proper inspira- 
 tion. Who has known the mind of the Lord, except as it was 
 divinely revealed to him? "Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy mind " study his ways. 
 
 35. With this verse Paul enlarges on the word "riches" 
 above. The reference is to Job xxxv. 7 or li. 1 1. No one ever 
 gave to God. Salvation and the whole plan of its administra- 
 tion are of grace. No one ever receives God's favor as a rec- 
 ompense for something done. The " Lord over all is rich unto 
 all that call upon him " (x. 12). They call not to give, but as 
 beggars (Matt. v. 3) to receive out of his store. 
 
 36. " For of, ... through, ... to him, are all things." 
 This verse is the proof that no one gives to God and therefore 
 receives a recompense. For " of him " are all things ; he is 
 their source, the Creator. And " through him " are all things ; 
 he is the mediator of their existence ; he upholds, rules, and 
 directs. And " to him are all things " ; he is their final cause ;
 
 (XI. 36} ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 215 
 
 they serve ultimately not man's, but God's, ends. To Paul 
 this was not a dry statement of theologic fact, as a matter of 
 course, but a reason for worship. All things, all events, are 
 full of God. To him be the befitting glory to the ages. 
 Amen. 
 
 (1) It is to be noticed in this momentous discussion that 
 Paul regards God's covenant with Abraham as one embracing 
 his natural seed and perpetually valid ; that he uses the words 
 "Jacob" and "Israel" not in reference to the church, but to 
 designate this natural seed. In the Old Testament he must 
 have read these words in the same way, so that he did not 
 apply what concerns Jacob and Israel to the church. Much 
 of the Old Testament remains unfulfilled. 
 
 (2) Again, he keeps up the sharp distinction between Jew 
 and Gentile; but the ultimate salvation of both is vitally 
 linked together, so that neither party can be saved without the 
 other. Paul, though an apostle to the Gentiles, labored also 
 to save the Jews on this very account. Missions to the Jews 
 are eminently scriptural. His own conception of the matter 
 was "to the Jewyfrtf." (See on i. 16.) 
 
 (3) Again, neither the unbelief of Israel nor of the nations 
 is estopping the current of God's rich grace. What the na- 
 tions are losing the " election " from all nations is gaining. 
 The gospel disbelieved by races is saving individuals. 
 
 (4) While Paul does not predict the breaking off of the en- 
 grafted wild-olive branch, the church, he warns it ominously. 
 It has no guaranty in a covenant, as has even fallen Israel. 
 It stands alone by faith. The individuals of the church, the 
 elect, have the most comforting assurance of eternal salvation, 
 but God has not promised to continue to elect. Indeed, it is 
 impossible to see how individual election, the source of the 
 church, is consistent with God's ultimate "mercy upon all." 
 Election is a means to an end in God's wide dealing with men. 
 When the end is reached, election will cease.
 
 216 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 36) 
 
 (5) And finally, Paul contents himself with predicting the 
 fact of Israel's restoration. He has not one word to say 
 about the details, whether the Jews will revive their ancient 
 liturgy, rebuild Jerusalem, and possess their land ; of these and 
 similar questions he is instructively silent.
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 RELIGIOUS DUTIES 
 
 THE chapter has two main divisions: (i) special duties 
 (verses 1-8), based on specific endowments of faith, and (2) 
 general duties (verses 9-21) ; or the first might be called offi- 
 cial, because they were to be discharged toward the church 
 as a whole, and the second personal, because they regulated 
 the conduct of each member with the other. 
 
 f . Paul does not command like Moses ; he beseeches. His 
 entreaty gets its point and strength through the mercies or 
 compassions of God. These mercies, as the " therefore " 
 shows, are the ones mentioned above (xi. 30-36), a paragraph 
 that condenses the whole theodicy (ix.-xi.). These solemn 
 facts of election and hardening, of breaking off of some 
 branches and grafting in others, are called " mercies," because 
 the end of all is "mercy upon all" (xi. 32). 
 
 " That ye present your bodies." " Present " is a temple 
 term for the bringing thither of anything to God. So Jesus 
 was presented (Luke ii. 22), and so Paul would present each 
 believer (Col. i. 28). He entreats the Romans to make them- 
 selves a sacrificial offering to God. This word " present " oc- 
 curs first in the epistle at vi. 13, a verse which this chapter now 
 unfolds. It is there translated "yield." (See note there.) 
 " Bodies " is the comprehensive term for the whole man, body, 
 soul, and spirit (i Thess. v. 23). It is equivalent to "your- 
 
 217
 
 218 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 2) 
 
 selves," but better suited than the latter word to Paul's sacri- 
 ficial idea. 
 
 "A living sacrifice, holy, acceptable." They had all this 
 in Christ. They were alive from the dead in him, they were 
 consecrated or holy in him, they were acceptable to God in 
 him. These were not qualities to be sought by them in addi- 
 tion to justification ; they came with it and belong to it. These 
 three words analyze or give the contents of their righteousness 
 in Christ. They were to present themselves such as they al- 
 ready were. " Your reasonable service." It was not to be a 
 literal presentation of their bodies, but a rational service. The 
 idea is that of spiritual worship in contrast with the tangible 
 carnal sort in Judaism. They presented themselves by heart 
 worship of God (John iv. 23, 24). 
 
 2. " Be not conformed to this world." The world, or age, 
 is looked at in its moral features. It is " this " world in con- 
 trast with one which is coming. What makes this world is its 
 spirit, its pursuits, and its domination. Its spirit is selfishness 
 and not love ; its pursuits are the pleasing of self and not God ; 
 and its domination is from the evil one and not from Christ, 
 whose rule it rejects (Eph. ii. 2 ; Gal. i. 4 ; John xiv. 30). To 
 be conformed to it is to be world-like, or age-like, selfish, self- 
 seeking, and devoid of the Holy Spirit. It is to have the same 
 moral fashion. 
 
 " Be ye transformed [not by mere outward means in modes 
 of dress and of eating and drinking, but] by the renewing of 
 your mind." The two words " conform " and " transform " 
 are widely different. The former looks to the outward mold, 
 the latter to the inward substance. The Romans were not 
 simply to shun the fashion of the world, but its character, to 
 have not only a different way of living, but a different heart. 
 The word " renewing " occurs in but one other place in the New 
 Testament (Tit. iii. 5), and there in connection with "regen- 
 eration." The latter is the divine act in which the religious
 
 (XII. 2) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 219 
 
 life begins. The " renewing " is the " following up, the con- 
 sequence, the consummation " (Trench, " Syn.") of regenera- 
 tion. In regeneration the believer is passive ; in the renewing 
 he is in active cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the agent of 
 the renewing process. The renewing continues what the 
 single act of regeneration, done once for all, begins (2 Cor. 
 iv. 1 6). 
 
 The " mind " is the organ of moral thinking and knowing. 
 The word has been used thrice before in the epistle: i. 28, 
 where the organ was judicially perverted that men might not 
 think right in moral matters; vii. 23, 25, where its action was 
 normal, but, in attempting to realize its perceptions, always de- 
 feated by enslavement to the flesh ; xi. 34, where it means 
 God's infinite ability to know. Since men are transformed by 
 the action of the mind, transformed by what they think, how 
 important to have the organ of thought renewed! (Eph. iv. 
 
 23.) 
 
 " That [in order that] ye may prove [recognize by the right 
 action of the renewed mind as worthy] the will of God," the 
 thing willed by him, which is " good " in its aim, " acceptable " 
 or well-pleasing to him, and because of these two " perfect " 
 in itself. The margin of the Revised Version is the prefer- 
 able translation here. 
 
 Beware of the chapter mark which cuts off these two verses 
 from what precedes, as if an entirely new thought were taken 
 up with chapter xii. These two verses are intimately connected 
 with the summing up at the close of chapter xi. That sum- 
 mary led Paul to adoring worship as he viewed God's wide- 
 reaching plans. And the idea of these two verses is worship 
 evoked and provoked by the same view. The Romans are to 
 present themselves for a rational service, a worship in which 
 the spiritual reason leads. This worship is impossible except 
 by men dissevered from conformity to the world. He who is 
 ruled by the world's spirit and pursuits, to whom the world
 
 220 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 3) 
 
 is the only great thing, cannot worship. The spring of the 
 worship, as well as its power, is just what it was in Paul, a 
 mind that discerns God's will in the dispensational ordering 
 of the world to bring about its ultimate salvation (see Eph. 
 iii. 14-21), a mind that sees that will as good and acceptable 
 and perfect. When the corner-stone of creation was laid all 
 the sons of God shouted for joy (Job xxxviii. 6, 7); and he, 
 too, will worship who sees the corner-stone laid by God in 
 Christ for the new creation. It takes mind (verse 2) to know 
 mind (xi. 34). These two mentions of the word look each 
 other in the face across the chapter bar, and man's mind in its 
 moral activity never acts normally except in adoring worship. 
 " Present your bodies " is the first step. " That ye may prove 
 the will " is then, first of all, his will in Christ for the redeeming 
 of the nations, Jew and Gentile. And only as this will is known 
 can any one see how he is himself to act. The renewed mind 
 dwelling on the sublime purposes of God gains an increasing 
 delicacy of discernment of its own moral action, and is pre- 
 pared for personal guidance in all questions of duty and living, 
 and to occupy spiritual offices acceptably. It is at this point 
 that Paul branches off on duties. The qualification to dis- 
 charge them is a knowledge of God's ways. 
 
 3. " For." What Paul has said in verse 2 is confirmed by 
 the demand upon the Romans for self-estimation. This re- 
 quest comes from his own apostolic " grace." It is addressed 
 not to the body, but pointedly to each individual member in 
 it, for one proud, wrong-headed man in the Roman assembly 
 could disturb all. Piety promotes thinking, but let no man 
 judge that his thought is so superior that it can embrace all. 
 In view of the fact that the plan of salvation is the product of 
 the divine mind, let him think " soberly," and not go beyond 
 what God has given him to believe ("faith") about these 
 things. The opinions of the head, the opinions demanded by 
 one's theological views, are mischievous unless they are also
 
 (XII. 4-8) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 221 
 
 the opinions of that faith given by the Holy Ghost Paul 
 shows his estimate of the importance of the sentiment of this 
 verse in that it is framed by a play on the word " think " to 
 fix attention and remembrance upon it, and in that it is intro- 
 duced by a reference to his apostolic authority. The Revised 
 Version brings out the meaning a little better. Who saw 
 more of God's will than Paul, and where is there a humbler 
 man? The secret of it is that he knew. 
 
 4, 5. This likening of the Roman church to the human body 
 is a condensation of i Corinthians xii. 12-27, written less than 
 a year earlier, and both for the same purpose. Each mem- 
 ber of the human frame has its own character and office, but 
 no one is sufficient of itself, no one can do anything apart from 
 the whole. And so let no one " think " of himself as if he 
 were not dependent on all the rest. There is a wisdom in 
 some far superior to that in the rest, and it shows that it is 
 wisdom in humbly serving those that do not have it (John xiii. 
 13, 14). When a man thinks too " highly " of himself to walk 
 in union with God's lowly people, his estimation of himself far 
 surpasses God's. The head cannot say to the feet, made only 
 for the earth, " I have no need of you" (i Cor. xii. 21). 
 
 6-8. The King James version, along with the Revised 
 Version and some commentators, separates the section em- 
 braced in these verses from the one immediately preceding; 
 but a semicolon is better than a period. The connection is : 
 " Every one members one of another ; and [or " but "] having 
 gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us." Of 
 these gifts seven are mentioned (Eph. iv. 8-1 2 ; i Cor. xii. 28) : 
 four semi-official, prophecy, ministry, teaching, and exhorta- 
 tion, and three general, giving, ruling, showing mercy. These 
 gifts get their character and their measure in the divine grace 
 that bestowed them. Prophecy is the gift of uttering God's 
 will under the direct impulse of the Spirit, but in the church 
 it did not amount to authoritative inspiration (i Cor. xiv. 29-
 
 222 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 6-8) 
 
 33; i Thess. v. 20, 21). Ministry is not so specific. It em- 
 braced the preaching of the gospel (xi. 13, rendered " office "), 
 the service in money (2 Cor. ix. i), and general help rendered 
 to the saints (Col. iv. 17 ; Heb. i. 14). The teacher set forth 
 principles of the kingdom, its fundamental truths, learned from 
 the Bible (2 Tim. iii. 10, 16 ; iv. 3), and built up the hearer to 
 distinguish between the true and the false (Eph. iv. 14). He 
 that exhorted encouraged and entreated. In i Timothy iv. 13 
 two of these words come together. 
 
 " He that giveth." This was some special function in giv- 
 ing, private and personal, a gift of faith, and not general 
 giving which belonged to all. " He that ruleth." This is a 
 faulty rendering; the apostolic churches had no rulers. It 
 ought to be, " He that presides " or " superintends." Paul may 
 have referred in this term to their elders (i Thess. v. 12; i 
 Tim. v. 17). "He that showeth mercy." Such a man had 
 a gift to aid those overtaken by misfortune of any sort. (See 
 story of good Samaritan.) The word " mercy " here has no 
 reference to sin. 
 
 The italic words in the King James version fairly represent 
 the best interpretation of this passage. Paul says if we have 
 the gift of prophecy, let us prophesy in this manner: "ac- 
 cording to the proportion [measure] of the [our] faith." Faith 
 does not mean here body of doctrine. It is the prophet's own 
 personal trust. There was dealt to him a measure of faith 
 (verse 3 above) for this work. God gave him an insight into 
 the gospel of Christ. Let his prophecy not go beyond that 
 and become vainglorious and arrogant. Men who have an 
 office are under strong temptation to go beyond what they 
 know in it. Thus they greatly injure themselves in coming to 
 believe the utterances of their own ignorance, and they mis- 
 lead others, who believe them because they are accredited 
 teachers. Let the prophet rigidly limit his gift by the faith of 
 his gift.
 
 (XII. 9, io) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 223 
 
 If one has a gift of " ministry," let him wait on his minister- 
 ing, give himself to it, and be content with that, while not 
 attempting something for which he is not gifted. And so of 
 the " teacher," let him stick to his teaching, and the " exhorter " 
 to exhortation. 
 
 The man of means who has the blessed gift of giving, let 
 him exercise it not ostentatiously, not to create obligation, but 
 in simplicity. The "ruler" must not be slothful, but diligent, 
 and the man who looks after the unfortunate must do it with 
 a bright and cheerful aspect. 
 
 This section on the gifts is plainly a reminiscence of what 
 Paul had written to the Corinthians (i Cor. xii.). He intro- 
 duces it with the same figure about the body and lays special 
 stress on the matter of prophecy. He had learned by the 
 shameful misuse of these gifts at Corinth the temptation which 
 they afforded carnal men. There was no abuse at Rome, but 
 he would forestall it. The notice of seven gifts lends the dis- 
 cussion the idea of comprehensiveness of all others. 
 
 9. " Let love be without dissimulation," without hypocrisy. 
 Feigned love is nothing but disguised hate. This little sen- 
 tence implies more than it says. Love was so prevalent, and 
 so strongly characterized the church, that he who had it not 
 was tempted to simulate it. This caution about love is vir- 
 tually the theme of the rest of the chapter, the second section 
 (see (2) above) beginning here. To the close of verse 13 the 
 original contains no verb, but is made up of participles show- 
 ing continuous action, or of adjectives of the same character. 
 
 " Be [continue] abhorring the evil [especially in conduct] ; be 
 cleaving to the good." This is intended to regulate moral 
 sentiment. 
 
 JO. " In [not " with "] [the matter of " brotherly love " or] 
 love to the brethren be kindly [kind-like] affectioned one to 
 another." Let it not be a mere church love, but such a love 
 as parents have for children, or husbands for wives.
 
 224 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 11-13) 
 
 In the matter of " honor," without which sentiment a church 
 could not exist, do not claim it, but fail not to show it. The 
 church is the " noblest school of courtesy." 
 
 J J. " Not slothful in business." A much misunderstood and 
 oft misquoted text. It has no reference to secular business 
 as such. The word means zeal. " In zeal [the outward] not 
 slothful ; in spirit [the inward, the human spirit] fervent ; serv- 
 ing [doing bond-service to] the Lord." The church life was 
 to be characterized by energy, by warmth, and as being a ser- 
 vice to the Lord. For " serving the Lord " some read " serv- 
 ing the time " ; but this has little support. 
 
 J2. " Hope, . . . tribulation, . . . prayer." These three 
 make up the bulk of many a Christian life. The hope of the 
 better things at the end (viii. 17-25) is not to be calmly held 
 as a mere article of belief, but as the inspiration of continual 
 joy (i Pet. i. 3-13). 
 
 As to tribulation, a better word is "affliction," it is sure 
 to attend the life of faith. The shield against it is not fretful- 
 ness or complaint, but quiet endurance. When the " hope " 
 dawns the affliction will be forever over, gone like a painful 
 dream. 
 
 " Prayer," both church and individual, is not to cease be- 
 cause no answer seems to come, but is to be a continual and 
 persistent (" instant ") habit. If Paul does not commend faith 
 in prayer, it is because persistence is one of the largest elements 
 of faith. 
 
 J3. As to one's possessions or incoming wages (Eph. iv. 28), 
 they are to be divided with those who have neither. " Saints " 
 is the New Testament term for believers in Christ, and does not 
 suggest eminence in piety. (Compare i Cor. i. 2 with iii. 3 
 in the same epistle.) And every house is also to be a Chris- 
 tian inn, where believers, apostles, teachers, and others may 
 find gladly given entertainment without cost. Note that this 
 verse enjoins a giving different from that in verse 8 above.
 
 (XII. I4-I6) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 225 
 
 J4 The repetition of the word " bless " enforces the duty. 
 The Roman church, for more than two hundred years under 
 a succession of heathen emperors, had abundant occasion to 
 recall this injunction (Luke xxiii. 34). 
 
 J5. " Rejoice, . . . weep." The mother enters into the 
 innocent joys of her children and is grieved in their sorrows, 
 for she is one with them and loves them. And believers are 
 " members one of another." Jesus did not mourn at Cana, 
 nor did he exult at the tomb of Lazarus. He wept with Mary 
 and Martha, even though he knew that in another moment all 
 cause for tears would be gone. And may we not say that to- 
 day, enthroned with the Father, he is glad in what gladdens 
 his and grieved in what grieves them? As it is much easier 
 to bewail another's woe, in that it does not excite envy or 
 covetousness, than to congratulate him in his joy, the apostle 
 mentions the rejoicing first. 
 
 J6. "The same mind one toward another." A family vir- 
 tue again in which there is a common regard and a common 
 understanding. Each thinks affectionately well of the other. 
 " Mind not high things." Diotrephes missed this (3 John 9). 
 So did Absalom in his yearning, " Oh that I were made judge ! " 
 (2 Sam. xv. 4.) So does every one who seeks for place above 
 his fellows (Mark x. 44, 45). The rose by the dusty wayside 
 is as sweet as the rose in the king's garden. The human re- 
 gard worth having is given for what one is rather than for 
 where he is. 
 
 " But condescend to men of low estate." The original is 
 not decisive as between lowly things and men that are lowly. 
 On the whole, the latter is preferable. " Condescend " is an 
 unfortunate word and must be rejected ; condescension has no 
 place in the church. Some render, " be carried away with " 
 the lowly give yourself to them. The world neglects and de- 
 spises them ; Christ loves them and died for them. There is 
 often more genuine worth and manhood in the alleys than in
 
 226 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 17, 18) 
 
 the avenues; and Christian love goes where love is most 
 needed. It is " carried away " in the service of need. Christ 
 in help to one lowly woman was so " carried away " that he 
 had no desire to eat (John iv. 31, 32). 
 
 " Be not wise in your own conceits." The word " wise " is 
 the same which we have had twice before in the verse 
 " mind " ; but it cannot be shown readily in a translation. 
 Think the same things toward one another ; think not on high 
 things ; think not highly of yourself. Self-conceit, too high an 
 estimate of one's self, is the chief hindrance to the three duties 
 enjoined just before. The man who complacently reflects on 
 his own abilities or exaltation is feeding on his own vitals. 
 He will grow lean. He who in self-forgetfulness is carried 
 away with the lowly grows large of heart. The man who is 
 above doing what Christ did for men is far beneath his ap- 
 proval. 
 
 J7. " Recompense to no man evil for evil." Verse 14 for- 
 bade the feeling, this the act; it is only love that can obey 
 either. 
 
 " Provide things honest in the sight of all men." Have a 
 care, see to it, that all your life is such that you do not awaken 
 the prejudice or contempt of men ; let your conduct commend 
 itself to them. This verse looks at the behavior of the church 
 with reference to those outside. This is not subservience to 
 public opinion. Jesus would not " offend " others (Matt. xvii. 
 27). It is a part of Christianity to commend itself to the 
 world by a well-ordered life. The word "provide" in its 
 modern narrow sense of furnishing or supplying is misleading. 
 The injunction refers not to acts, but to the prudence which 
 regulates them. 
 
 J8* " As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." 
 Seek peace. The other party may not yield, but let it be no 
 fault of yours if he does not. You are not guiltless until you
 
 (XII. 19-21) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 227 
 
 have exhausted every means to bring about reconciliation. 
 How could church quarrels flourish if men heeded this? 
 
 J9. " Dearly beloved [by God], avenge not yourselves." 
 You need not, since you are his dear children (Luke xviii. 7 ; 
 Rev. xix. 2). The sentiment of verses 14 and 17 is brought 
 up a third time. Bless him that wrongs you (verse 14) ; do 
 him no evil (verse 17) ; do not seek his punishment before the 
 court or otherwise (verse 19). The desire for revenge is not 
 Christian. 
 
 " But rather give place unto [the] wrath " of God in the day 
 of judgment. That the taking of vengeance does not belong 
 to man as man, but that it will surely be meted out to the 
 wrong-doer, is enforced by a crisp couplet from Scripture en- 
 forcing these two points. Vengeance is God's prerogative; 
 he will not fail to inflict it (Deut. xxxii. 35). 
 
 20. " Therefore if thine enemy hunger." The " therefore " 
 in all modern revisions gives place to "but." The verse is 
 not a deduction from what precedes, but states a course of 
 conduct for the wronged man the opposite of that which the 
 flesh would prompt. Instead of taking vengeance on his 
 enemy, he is to feed him and give him drink if the opportunity 
 presents itself. The verse is a quotation from the Scriptures 
 again (Prov. xxv. 21, 22). 
 
 " Heap coals of fire on his head." This is the only venge- 
 ance you are to inflict, the coals of red-hot love. God's 
 vengeance is of another sort. This is the only kind allowed 
 you. The explanation that kindness shown the wrong-doer 
 will awaken burning shame in him seems overdrawn. 
 
 2J. "Be not overcome of evil," as you would be if you 
 cried for vengeance ; you would be conquered then ; " but 
 overcome evil with good," the only weapon in your hand, and 
 a most effective one. For he who cannot be moved from the 
 basis of love is a victor even though he cannot win his enemy.
 
 228 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 21) 
 
 To win himself is a much greater triumph. This verse looks 
 not alone at the one just before it, but also back over the whole 
 section. The section looks like a cluster of rules or precepts ; 
 but it is not such. Its one key-note, its theme through all the 
 variations of the different verses, is love. It is i Corinthians 
 xiii. 4-7 put in another form for the less ideal, but more 
 practical, Romans.
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 
 
 THERE are obligations flowing from the endowments of 
 certain gifts, and other obligations flowing from fraternal re- 
 lations, obligations of love. The former were discussed in 
 xii. 1-8 and the latter in xii. 9-21. These are all purely spir- 
 itual obligations having their source in the relation to Christ. 
 But the Christian has another relation, a natural relation, hav- 
 ing its origin not in Christ, but in God. The former chapter 
 is spiritual or Christian ; the one before us is divine. These 
 are clearly distinct. Confusion here makes church and state 
 one, and reduces Christianity to sociology. It is easy to dis- 
 tinguish between what is spiritual and what is divine. The 
 Holy Spirit has brought about institutions and relations un- 
 known to nature. The church with its various functions is 
 the sum of these, and they had no existence before Christ came. 
 But there were men and relations long before. God instituted 
 the latter not for the church, for there was none, but for men. 
 They are divine, but not spiritual. One of them is marriage. 
 God gave it. Unregenerate men without the Spirit enter this 
 relation and are under solemn obligations to preserve it in- 
 violate. The Sabbath is another. It was given to man, and 
 as such he is bound to keep it. The state may enforce its 
 obligations, as it does that of marriage, and it would but for 
 the hopeless confusion into which the church long ago fell on 
 
 229
 
 230 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. i) 
 
 this point. The state is the sum of divine institutions as the 
 church is of the spiritual. A Christian is a citizen of the 
 world as clearly as he is a member of the church. Union 
 with the body of Christ absolves him from no duty that be- 
 longs to men as men. On the other hand, Paul enforces these 
 duties on the believer by his relation to Christ. When the 
 natural man violates a divine institution he sins against God ; 
 but the same violation in a believer would in addition be a sin 
 against Christ. 
 
 The consideration of these matters falls under three heads : 
 (i) duties to the state (verses 1-7); (2) to the citizens of the 
 state (verses 8-10); (3) the Christian enforcement of these 
 civil duties (verses 11-14). 
 
 J. " Let every soul [none is exempt, not even the pope] be 
 subject [submit himself] unto the higher powers," the civil 
 authorities that are over him. This is the broad general prin- 
 ciple; its essence is submission (i Pet. ii. 13-17). Within this 
 limit it does not forbid teaching and agitation for better govern- 
 ment if these do not lead to resistance, but under this princi- 
 ple it is hard to see how a Christian can lead in a rebellion. 
 Paul's words are unmistakable, and yet there stand Cromwell 
 and Washington! 
 
 " For there is no power [no civil authority] but of [from] 
 God : the powers that be are ordained of God." Or, " And 
 those that are have been ordained by God." This is said to 
 enforce ("for") the injunction of submission. Civil govern- 
 ment has its source in God, and all constituted power is ap- 
 pointed and ordained by him. The cruel abuses in govern- 
 ments are no necessary part of them and do not invalidate 
 their divine charter any more than the abuses of marriage rob 
 it of its sacredness. Any government is preferable to anarchy, 
 just as poorly enforced marriage laws are better than none. 
 Man abuses all God's gifts. 
 
 Paul in writing this was writing to a point. Only a few
 
 (XIII. 2) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 231 
 
 years before the Jews in Rome had rebelled and were expelled 
 the city (Acts xviii. 2), Priscilla and Aquila among them. In 
 their daily toil in Corinth in making tents, Paul and Aquila 
 must have often discussed this expulsion. The apostle knew 
 those of his own flesh to be very restive under the Roman yoke. 
 Statesman that he was, he may have forecast the destruction 
 of the Jewish nation, which occurred within little more than 
 a decade from the time that this chapter was penned. He 
 knew that Jews everywhere disputed the authority of Rome, 
 and that they held the fanatical doctrine, sometimes appear- 
 ing sporadically in more modern church history, that God's 
 child is directly responsible to God alone and that the king's 
 authority is a usurpation. That a Gentile prince could have 
 divine authority was a doctrine hard for a Jew to accept, es- 
 pecially when that authority was exercised over him. If Paul 
 was hated for this teaching, as he must have been, by the 
 Jewish nation, Titus gave him a thorough vindication twelve 
 years later. The disregard of this verse was the Jews' national 
 ruin. 
 
 2. " Whosoever therefore resisteth the power [it ought to 
 read, " So that he that sets himself against the power "], resist- 
 eth the ordinance of God." This is the logical and necessary 
 result in rebellion, for government is not man's, but God's. 
 
 " And they that resist." Paul changes from the singular to 
 the plural in passing from the statement of the principle to 
 the consequence on those who violate it. This consequence 
 is not " damnation," but condemnation. Damnation suggests 
 future eternal punishment, which is not meant here. The con- 
 demnation is from God through human instrumentality. Godet 
 remarks that Paul reproduces Jesus here (Matt. xxvi. 52). 
 
 It is not intended to be taught here that the subject must 
 do at the command of the governor that which is morally 
 wrong. God has sometimes honored his people by allowing 
 circumstances to arise in which they could suffer for his name's
 
 232 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 3, 4) 
 
 sake and for conscience' sake. One can refuse to do wrong 
 and undergo the penalty without resisting the power. 
 
 3. This verse looks back to the first and gives an additional 
 reason "for" subjection to the "higher powers." Rulers, 
 with few exceptions, have punished only evil-doers. The 
 Roman persecution of the church was not malicious, but arose 
 from the mistaken notion that the peace and safety of the 
 state were imperiled by the Christians' refusal to honor the 
 gods. More than once Paul found protection in Roman law 
 (Acts xviii. 12-17; x i x - 35~4 J '> xxu - 2 5) The so-called 
 church itself has been the worst persecutor. 
 
 "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?" Do you 
 wish to live without fear of the state's authority? Do right 
 and you will have no cause for alarm. Rulers have troubles 
 and anxieties enough, and the church ought so to live that the 
 governors could say they have none from it. 
 
 4 This verse bears logically on the last. There is no fear 
 of the ruler when you do good ; " for " he is God's minister 
 to thee for " good." God gives rulers in his people's behalf. 
 Therefore, to caricature them in public prints is grossly irrev- 
 erent and promotive of lawlessness, and to fail to pray for them 
 " first of all," a failure all too general, is an express violation 
 of God's Word (i Tim. ii. 1-3). 
 
 " But if thou do that which is evil," then fear ; for God did 
 not put the sword in the ruler's hand " in vain," as a meaning- 
 less symbol of power. That sword has a solemn purpose. 
 The governor's office has two sides: on one, it defends the 
 good ; on the other, he is " a revenger to execute [God's] wrath 
 upon him that doeth evil." Punishment is usually meted out 
 in the name of the state. A higher position might be taken. 
 It might be inflicted in the name of God. Civil penalties, 
 including capital punishment, are an expression of his will. 
 Twice in this verse the ruler gets a very solemn title, " minister 
 of God "twice because of his twofold office. The state and
 
 (XIII. 5-7) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 233 
 
 the church have each a place in the world. If God's ap- 
 pointed and established order is preserved neither will invade 
 the function of the other. 
 
 5. " Wherefore [as civil government is God's appointment] 
 ye must [necessity] be subject [be in submission to it], not 
 only for wrath [not only in fear of the sword], but also for 
 conscience' sake." Resistance is not merely inexpedient; it 
 is morally wrong. 
 
 6. " For for this cause." Better, " For on this account." 
 By the first " for " it is shown that this verse confirms the last 
 one. On this account, that there is a moral necessity for 
 submission to authority, "tribute," or tax, is regularly paid. 
 Instead of " pay ye " it ought to be " ye pay." Taxes are not 
 merely an imposition of the government, but are made neces- 
 sary by its divine character. 
 
 " For they [magistrates] are God's ministers." Paul uses 
 now a very different word for minister. In verse 4 the word 
 means servant. Here it means one of a priestly character. 
 Government is God's, and the magistrate is his sacred official 
 through whom he administers it, " a divinely consecrated sac- 
 rificial service" (Meyer). "Attending continually upon this 
 very thing" of administering this sacred governmental office 
 for God. As it is not an occasional, but a continuous duty, 
 God has appointed by taxes that rulers should be paid. It is 
 the divine decree that to every office, the Jewish priesthood, 
 the magistracy, and the gospel ministry, there is attached a 
 remuneration. "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 
 x. 7). 
 
 7. "Render therefore to all [in authority] their dues." 
 Omit "therefore." Four specifications are given: render 
 " tribute," personal or property tax, to him to whom it is due ; 
 " custom," import or export dues, to him to whom it is due ; 
 " fear," reverence (Meyer says " veneration "), to him who bears 
 the sword for God ; " honor " to all his subordinates.
 
 234 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 8-10) 
 
 In this discussion Paul has so framed his language (i) that 
 it is applicable to every form of government without recom- 
 mending or condemning any. (2) He does not subordinate 
 the church to the state nor the state to the church. They are 
 different in their character, the one natural, the other spiritual, 
 and their aims are different. The state promotes moral living, 
 the church spiritual living. (3) Paul must have been aware 
 that many rulers, too many, were immoral and selfish men, 
 and that many of their enactments were arbitrary and oppres- 
 sive ; but in such cases neither he nor the Bible has one word 
 of advice for the believer, or but one submission. David 
 when cruelly persecuted by Saul refused again and again to 
 use the advantage that fell to him against the king. He con- 
 stantly yielded, and trusted to God for his rights ( i Sam. xxvi. 
 9, 10). God appoints governors for a good purpose, and 
 when they fail to serve it he removes them by his own means 
 (Acts xii. 23). (4) Paul seems to say nothing for the senti- 
 ment of patriotism ; and yet he does. The law-abiding citizen 
 is the loftiest patriot. 
 
 8-JO. Having shown the believer's duties toward magis- 
 trates, Paul naturally comes to civil duties toward all men. 
 (See (2) above.) The very first injunction, " Owe no man," 
 shows that we are outside the church. This section is not a 
 resumption of the last chapter, where we had the spiritual re- 
 lation of brother to brother in the church. The believer oc- 
 cupies also another sphere in his relations with his fellow- 
 believers and with all men in the world. While the Spirit rules 
 in the church, the world is a world under moral law. Hence 
 law is not mentioned in the last chapter, but here it is again 
 and again exalted as a matter to be fulfilled, and the second 
 table is quoted. Neither is the word "brother" used here, 
 but the civic term " neighbor." Paul in reminding his readers 
 here of their duty to fulfil moral law does not contradict what 
 he said in vi. 14 and x. 4. The Christian's relation to God
 
 (XIII. n) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 235 
 
 is not legal ; his relation to the world is nothing else. " Christ 
 is the end of the law for righteousness " in the spiritual sphere, 
 but in the world law holds; and it holds all who are in the 
 world, else why does Paul here enjoin it? 
 
 But God demands much more of the believer than the state 
 asks. The latter says, " Thou shalt not injure thy neighbor." 
 God says, " Thou shalt love him as thyself ; " and short of this 
 love the civil law is not fulfilled. Love is not the " fulfilling," 
 but the fulfilment, of the law. This is impossible to men in 
 their natural state, but not to him whose heart is made like 
 God's. It is by this simple but powerful principle of love 
 that the Christian not only fulfils the law, but finds his free- 
 dom in it. Love takes the place of the letter and makes all 
 moral duties not only light, but a delight. He that loves will 
 not continue to be owing any man anything but " to love one 
 another," a debt which cannot be discharged. Paul says 
 " one another " because at first he has no one in view but be- 
 lievers. Love will restrain a man from making debts which 
 he cannot pay, and thus save the church from much scandal. 
 Love will restrain a man from adultery, murder, theft, false 
 witness, covetousness. These are not all, but only instances, 
 for Paul adds the sweeping words, " If there be any other 
 commandment," love will fulfil it. And love alone can keep 
 law. The state must use the sword, because, though it can 
 make good laws, it cannot inspire the love that heeds them. 
 
 JJ "And that, knowing the time." Here begins an en- 
 forcement of what was just said, followed by some exhorta- 
 tion against fleshly indulgence. (See (3) above.) The prin- 
 cipal argument is in the imminence of the consummation of 
 their hope. 
 
 "And that" should be "And this." "And this do [viz., 
 " owe no man anything, but to love one another," which love is 
 a fulfilment of the law] this do, knowing [as you do] the sea- 
 son [" time " (i Thess. v. i)), that now it is high time to awake
 
 236 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 12, 13) 
 
 out of sleep [to cast off inactivity in worship, and work]." Be 
 active. " For now is our salvation nearer than when we be- 
 lieved." This is the reason for awakening from sleep, a rea- 
 son so often given in the New Testament (Heb. x. 37 ; Phil, 
 iii. 20, 21 ; Gal. vi. 9). The salvation is not that from sin, 
 which the Romans already had (i Pet. i. 9), but the comple- 
 tion of it in the glorification awaiting them at the coming of 
 Christ (i Pet. i. 5, 6). When Paul says that this salvation is 
 " nearer " he is not speaking chronologically, nor is he imply- 
 ing an expectation of it in his day. He did not know the date 
 of the appearance of Christ. Just as one might say death is 
 always near and live in the power of such a sentiment, though 
 the death is long postponed. Paul's language here, as else- 
 where on this topic, is adapted to every generation of believers, 
 who, not knowing the time, can at least say salvation is 
 "nearer." 
 
 \ 2, " The night [of the Lord's absence] is far spent, the day 
 [to be ushered in by his appearance] is at hand." It was 
 Christ who imposed this attitude of alert expectation on his 
 followers, and the apostolic church seems to have had no other 
 (i Thess. i. 9, 10). He also warned against a seeming delay 
 (Matt. xxiv. 48). It belongs to the servant to watch at all 
 times, for the Master comes in his own time. "Therefore" 
 the works befitting only darkness are to be " cast off " as an 
 unclean garment, and the "armor" (Eph. vi. 13) suitable to 
 the light when it dawns is to be put on. 
 
 J3* " Let us walk honestly, as in the day." They are not 
 in the day, but they are to live as if they were in it. This is 
 the emphatic phrase in this sentence. The lightning flash that 
 ushers in the day will not change a man's walk ; it will merely 
 show what it is. Therefore let us walk becomingly ("honest- 
 ly ") now. Boise translates the remainder of the verse thus : 
 " Not in carousals and intoxications, not in licentious acts and 
 debaucheries, not in strife and jealousy." It is to be noticed
 
 (XIII. 14) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 237 
 
 that strife and jealousy are classed with these coarse indul- 
 gences of the animal nature and made their climax. The con- 
 tentious, envious man ranks with the drunkard and the 
 debauchee. 
 
 J4, " But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." He is first 
 put on in baptism (vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27), and then put on daily 
 in living in the obedience, disposition, and hopes suggested 
 by his threefold name, Lord Jesus Christ. As Lord he rules ; 
 as Jesus he lived ; as Christ he is the surety of all hopes (Phil, 
 iii. 20; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 12). To put him on is to walk 
 in the power of his life (viii. 2). 
 
 "And make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts 
 thereof." "Provision" here is misleading. (See on xii. 17.) 
 Literally translated, the sentence reads, " Take no forethought 
 for the flesh, for [its] desires." The flesh here, as usual, is the 
 whole man viewed apart from his relation to Christ. It is the 
 seat of all the sins mentioned in the last verse, and is a bundle 
 of desires (" lusts "). No forethought is to be taken for these. 
 (See on vi. 12.) The heathen went astray by them (i. 24). 
 They drown men in destruction and perdition (i Tim. vi. 9). 
 And they that are Christ's do not take forethought for their 
 gratification ; Christ's followers " have crucified the flesh with 
 the affections and lusts " (Gal. v. 24). They that are his have 
 daily needs for which the heavenly Father has made bountiful 
 provision (Phil. iv. 19; Matt. vi. 8, 33; Luke xii. 30), but 
 none for their own desires, for these are all sinful. 
 
 This is the Christian citizen's chapter. He is to be loyal to 
 the government, just toward his neighbor, and clean in his 
 personal life. The means for all this is Christ, and the root 
 of failure is self forethought for desires.
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 
 FRATERNAL DUTIES IN MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 FROM speaking of those who were too lax in the indulgence 
 of natural appetites, the subject passes mainly to those who are 
 too scrupulous. The object is not to remove these scruples, 
 but to show those who have them and those who have them 
 not how to live in Christian peace. The discussion runs to the 
 thirteenth verse of the next chapter, and comes under three 
 heads: (i) conscience in the matter of eating and drinking 
 (xiv. 1-12), an exhortation for the most part to the weak; (2) 
 the right use of liberty by the stronger brethren (xiv. 13-23) ; 
 (3) Christian forbearance is the will of the Lord in accordance 
 with his work for common worship (xv. 1-13). 
 
 Conscience in matters of eating and drinking did not origi- 
 nate with Moses. It is deeply ingrained in human nature, 
 and existed long before his time. By codifying and making 
 authoritative dietary laws he probably relieved more than he 
 burdened the conscience of his day. Paul was given a deep 
 insight into the religious heart to write this chapter. The 
 experience of the centuries, the present as much as any, has 
 shown that the church can be disturbed by dietary questions 
 quite as much as by those that are purely spiritual. Paul lays 
 down no rule for the Romans in this matter. He insists mainly 
 for the guidance of the stronger brother that he direct his 
 
 238
 
 (XIV. i-3) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 239 
 
 conduct at the table by love, the principle that guides also in 
 the matters considered in the last two chapters. 
 
 The question was not as serious in Rome as at other places. 
 It was not one of eating that which had been offered to idols 
 (i Cor. viii.) ; it did not touch the doctrine of justification 
 (Gal. ii. 12-21), nor was it raised by the Judaizers (Col. ii. 16). 
 It does not seem to have been a question wholly between the 
 Jewish and the Gentile element in the church. The weak 
 Gentile was as likely to have scruples as his Jewish brother. 
 They arose then, as they do now, from a natural infirmity of 
 the understanding. Grace sanctifies the heart much more eas- 
 ily than the head. 
 
 J. "Him that is weak in the faith." Omit "the." Faith 
 is weak by lack of moral discernment and understanding. It 
 has no breadth. It knows that Christ saves from sin, but it 
 does not perceive the relations of this salvation to living, and 
 so is full of small scruples, whose observance it invests with 
 the highest importance. At the same time it is blind to real 
 piety. It would not eat meat, but it would condemn harshly 
 the man who does, exalting its own abstinence far above 
 Christian love. 
 
 But this weak believer, weak in his faith, but correspond- 
 ingly strong in his scruples, is to be received into Christian 
 fellowship, but not to be disputed with about his thoughts. 
 This seems to be the meaning of the phrase " not to doubtful 
 disputations." He cannot be argued out of his views ; argu- 
 ment would only confirm him in them. He must grow out of 
 them, and meanwhile he is not to be criticized and judged, 
 but loved. This verse is addressed to the stronger brethren, 
 and may imply both that they are right and are in the ma- 
 jority. 
 
 2. Omit the "for." This verse, however, shows to what 
 the first one points. 
 
 3. The man who sees that there is no piety in the kind of
 
 240 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 4, 5) 
 
 food he eats may look with contempt on his poor narrow 
 brother over his dish of vegetable food ; for there is nothing 
 on which a man prides himself more than on his superior 
 knowledge of truth. On the other hand, the weak brother, 
 seeing the other with his meat and wine, may condemn him 
 as no saint, for the table is the narrow bound of his field of 
 morals. The weak man is not to judge the strong in the ex- 
 ercise of his liberty, because God has "received" the latter. 
 The reference is to the time of his conversion. 
 
 4* This verse is a sharp thrust at the vegetarian. It utterly 
 denies his right to judge. The man who has confidence to 
 eat meat is the Lord's servant, not the weak brother's. And 
 he stands or falls to his " own " Lord, who is Christ. There 
 is point in the word " own." But he will not fall in the exer- 
 cise of Christian liberty. " Yea, he shall be holden up : for the 
 Lord [not " God "] is able to make him stand." The reference 
 is not to the final judgment, but to his daily walk, from which 
 the weak brother is sure that he will decline because of his 
 meat. Here is an assurance to liberty which the abstinence 
 of a weak brother lacks. He has no promise to be holden up ; 
 rather a stern rebuke that he has forgotten Matthew vii. 1-5. 
 It is also plainly implied that the strong brother is not respon- 
 sible to the church in the use of his liberty, but only to the 
 Lord. The church has not a shred of authority in this mat- 
 ter ; it may not say what diet a member shall or shall not eat. 
 Christ cleansed all foods (Mark vii. 18, 19). 
 
 5. " One man esteemeth one day above another." Closely 
 connected with this question of food is that about holy days. 
 It is impossible to say that this general language does not 
 include the Sabbath. There is a Sabbath and it is divinely 
 instituted (Mark ii. 27, 28), but there is not a line nor a word 
 in the New Testament about how it is to be observed. In 
 Judaism the law of observance was plain enough (Exod. xxxv. 
 2). May the church or any man in it prescribe how a holy
 
 (XIV. 6-8) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 241 
 
 day shall be kept? Paul's rule is, "Let every [each] man be 
 fully persuaded in his own mind." He leaves it to that which 
 Rome condemns, private judgment. He uses the word " mind " 
 because it is a question for an enlightened understanding. 
 
 & " He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." 
 And since he is honoring God in his observance he is neither 
 to be despised nor hindered. Paul has said nothing here 
 about the nature of the day ; it is purely a question of regard 
 for it. One believer is devout on every day ; another believer 
 is more devout on special set days than on others. 
 
 The second sentence in this verse is omitted on strong evi- 
 dence by most modern editors. 
 
 The discrimination in days is of the same character as the 
 discrimination in food. The root of it in either party is regard 
 for the Lord. It is " unto the Lord," in deference to the re- 
 lation held with him. Therefore there should be no despising 
 and no judging. Each party is serving the same Lord, but 
 in different ways. The proof that it is service to him is that 
 "he that eateth" meat gives God thanks for the meat; and 
 " he that eateth not " meat, but dines on vegetables, does so 
 out of regard for the Lord, for he too gives thanks to God for 
 the vegetables. This consideration goes to show that there is 
 little merit in mere breadth of view, and little demerit in nar- 
 rowness. The merit lies in the thankfulness with which each 
 man partakes of his own particular kind of food, and in the 
 matter of thanks they stand on the same level before the 
 Lord. A man's views about these minor morals have little to 
 do with that standing. 
 
 It must be noted on this verse that the Roman Christians 
 were in the habit of giving thanks for food at the time of eat- 
 ing; they had Christ's example (Mark viii. 6, 7). 
 
 l f 8. These two verses bear (" for ") on the assertion that 
 eating is not a private and personal act, but one regulated by 
 regard to the Lord. No Christian lives out of regard for him-
 
 242 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 9-11) 
 
 self alone. He has the Lord's honor and will always in view. 
 He glorifies him even in death (John xxi. 19). Living or 
 dying, then, we are the Lord's and not our own to make our 
 own notions stand, be they broad or narrow. 
 
 9 This verse ought to read as in some recent versions: 
 " For to this end Christ died, and lived [again], that he might 
 be Lord of both dead and living." It preserves the corre- 
 spondence of the words and ideas. It shows ("for") how 
 Christ became Lord. He died to redeem his people (i Cor. 
 vi. 19, 20) ; he rose that he might reign. By death and resur- 
 rection he acquired Lordship of both the dead and the living. 
 Hence the brother weak or the brother strong who would 
 insist on his own method of living as the rule for all strikes at 
 the very Lordship of Christ. Scruples may be observed and 
 liberty enjoyed, but let every man beware how he thrusts them 
 in the place given to Christ by the cross and the opened tomb. 
 The resurrection not only gives life, but regulates living. 
 
 JO* " But why dost thou judge thy brother? " The King 
 James version obscures the emphasis. " But thou [the ab- 
 stemious man], why dost thou judge thy [liberal] brother? 
 or thou again [the liberal meat-eating man], why dost thou set 
 at naught [treat with contempt] thy [abstemious] brother? " 
 These questions are solemnly pertinent, because ("for") we 
 shall all, strong and weak alike, stand before the judgment- 
 seat of Christ, or God, as some read (2 Cor. v. 10). The right 
 and the wrong in a brother's conduct are to be determined at 
 that bar and not by individual opinion. In that solemn tri- 
 bunal no man will judge his own case, much less his brother's. 
 The "judgment-seat" is that of the great and appointed day 
 (Acts xvii. 31). As to the matter of acceptance, it only con- 
 firms ; but as to conduct, it exhibits and awards. 
 
 JJ. A solemn scriptural (Isa. xlv. 23) confirmation of the 
 " all " in the preceding verse. All shall stand in judgment, 
 for God has sworn not only that there shall be universal sub-
 
 (XIV. 12-14) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 243 
 
 mission to him, but confession of his right to judge. This 
 admission must be made even by those to whom the judgment 
 brings nothing but condemnation. 
 
 J2. " So then every [each] one of us." This is the conclu- 
 sion drawn from the two preceding verses. The emphasis is 
 not on " himself " and not on " God," but on the words " each 
 one of us." Godet gives the sense of these three verses thus : 
 "The preceding context [verse 10] signifies, 'Judge not thy 
 brother, for God will judge him; judge thyself [verse 12], for 
 God will judge thee? " 
 
 So far, then, Paul has neither approved nor condemned any 
 kind of food ; he has neither given nor withheld his sanction 
 of sacred days. What a man may do in reference to both 
 food or days is in itself nothing, but what he may think about 
 his own or his brother's doing in these cases is all-important. 
 This is the first point in the chapter. 
 
 But what one does, though indifferent in itself, is sure to 
 provoke thought and feeling. Hence Paul's second point (see 
 (2) above) about the right use of liberty. This is addressed 
 first of all to the strong brother. 
 
 J3. " Let us not therefore [in view of the fact of God's 
 judgment] judge one another any more." Such judgment is 
 doubly wicked because it anticipates God's, and assumes his 
 place (ii. i). " But judge this rather." Note the emphatic 
 turn in the meaning of the word "judge." 
 
 " That no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall 
 in his [a] brother's way." For Paul's own comment see i 
 Corinthians viii. 813. In eating and in drinking a man 
 must be directed not by what he thinks, but by the thought 
 his act will provoke in the mind of another. 
 
 J4. All food is clean ; but it is only clean to him who has 
 the enlightening grace to see it so. Many have not this grace. 
 With Moses' law about clean and unclean meats ever before 
 them, and unable to comprehend the liberty in Christ Jesus
 
 244 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 15, 16) 
 
 (Gal. v. i), many saints could not say that there is "nothing 
 unclean in itself." Their inability was not a moral defect, and 
 must not be despised. 
 
 J5* " Grieved with thy meat." To-day the question cen- 
 ters about drink. Even yet there are Christian men who 
 practically insist on their right to use wine. The cause of 
 temperance, as it is called, has suffered irreparably at the 
 hands of its advocates because they have been wiser than Paul 
 and based it on other grounds than his. He would surely 
 write to-day about wine what he wrote about meat: that, 
 while it is not morally unclean in itself, except to him who so 
 esteems it, yet he who uses it is not walking according to love 
 (" charitably "), inasmuch as his use of it is a grief to many and 
 leads others to fall. Paul's plea, which is the Holy Spirit's, 
 is unanswerable and irresistible. To deny the liberty is to take 
 all the virtue and force from the abstinence. To refuse to do 
 for the good of others what one has a right to do is love of the 
 highest character it is Christ-like. But if meat and drink 
 are in themselves morally evil there is no virtue in abstinence. 
 There is no credit in refraining from that which is sinful; it 
 is bounden duty, not love. 
 
 " Destroy not him with thy meat [or drink], for whom Christ 
 died." The exercise of that liberty at the table which may 
 cost the soul of one of Christ's own is characterized by him- 
 self in Matthew xviii. 6. 
 
 J6. "Let not then your good be evil spoken of." Broad 
 views, clear perception of the liberty and freedom in Christ, 
 are a " good." But he is an enemy of freedom and of liberty 
 in the matter of food who brings them into disrepute by his 
 manner of living. Paul is an advocate of liberty, but only love 
 knows how to indulge it. The address is to the strong brethren. 
 Meyer takes a different view. The address is to the whole 
 church. The " good " is the gospel, which may be despised by 
 the heathen if believers wrangle in such a way over meat that 
 the faith in Christ must seem to be concerned about nothing
 
 (XIV. i;. 1 8) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 245 
 
 else. The reason for this view is that the discussion passes 
 from the singular in verse 15 to the plural here" your " good. 
 
 J7. " For the kingdom of God." This verse gives a sub- 
 stantial reason against conduct which would lead to a wrong 
 view of the kingdom of God. The Romans were subjects of 
 this kingdom. If they spend their time and energy on sump- 
 tuary questions, are they not perverting the kingdom? 
 
 The phrase " kingdom of God " occurs only here in the 
 epistle. God rules everywhere, but there is a realm where he 
 governs by spiritual forces or laws alone. All who submit to 
 these are in the kingdom -and are themselves spiritual in char- 
 acter (Matt. v. 3-16). This kingdom, then, cannot in its es- 
 sence be eating and drinking, which pertain to nature. The 
 kingdom is the product of the Holy Spirit (John iii. 3 ; xviii. 
 36). It is founded on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and in 
 its essence is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost." " Righteousness " is not merely moral rectitude, but, as 
 Paul has used it in the epistle, embraces justification and sanc- 
 tification, deliverance from the guilt, the power, and the pres- 
 ence of sin. " Peace " is peace with God (v. i ) ; and the joy 
 is not that which flows naturally from the heart, but is awakened 
 by the Holy Spirit. He that is manifesting these is manifest- 
 ing the kingdom and showing men what that kingdom is. And 
 this will bring together the two views of the "good" given 
 above. Men will neither blaspheme the liberty of the king- 
 dom nor the kingdom itself when it is seen in the life of those 
 really in it, a life not concerned with eating and drinking, but 
 with righteousness and peace and holy joy. 
 
 J8. " For he that in these things." The Revised Version 
 wrongly rejects the words " these things." The verse confirms 
 that character of the kingdom which Paul has ascribed to it. It 
 must be " righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost," 
 for he who serves Christ in these three not only finds himself 
 " acceptable to God," but also cuts off occasion for evil speak- 
 ing on the part of men and is " approved " by them.
 
 246 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 19-21) 
 
 J9. An exhortation. " The things which make for peace " 
 and which are to be followed are the three mentioned in verse 
 17. There is enough in these to engage all hearts for all time, 
 and he who gives himself to them is in the way to " edify " 
 another. Attention given to minor morals has in times past 
 distracted the church and pulled down instead of building 
 up. To be right in anything, one must first be exactly right 
 with God through Christ. 
 
 20. " For meat destroy not the work of God." The word 
 " destroy," or pull down, is the opposite of " edify," or build 
 up. This verse is an advance on the fifteenth. There it was 
 a question of grieving the brother and destroying him ; here it 
 is a malign work of fighting against God in pulling down the 
 gracious work which he has done in the weak brother. 
 
 "All things [in the way of food] indeed are pure." But 
 there is more than this principle involved in the question, and 
 this one alone cannot settle it ; for even the pure food is evil 
 to him who eats it with offense of conscience. If, in imitation 
 of the strong brother, one partakes of food which his con- 
 science does not allow, he has stumbled ; his fellowship with 
 God is broken, and the strong brother who led him to this is 
 responsible ; he has destroyed God's work. 
 
 2J. "It is good neither to eat flesh," etc. This maxim, 
 addressed to the strong, covers the whole matter in question. 
 It is made the more pointed in that it follows the last verse 
 without the intervention of a connecting word. It is a flash 
 of light. The italic words in the King James version do not 
 bring out the whole thought. It is good, morally excellent 
 and wholesome, to eat no flesh, and to drink no wine, and to 
 do nothing whereby thy brother stumbles, or is made to halt, 
 or is weak. The phrase " and to do nothing " is sweeping and 
 embraces all matters of conscience. The King James render- 
 ing, by omitting the necessary word " do," narrows the senti- 
 ment to the single item of drink.
 
 (XIV. 22, 23) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 247 
 
 22. " Hast thou faith? " Have you such confidence in the 
 justifying work of Christ that you see your freedom in mat- 
 ters of food and drink? " Have it to thyself before God." 
 Keep it to yourself ; do not parade it in the exercise of it in 
 eating and drinking and in your treatment of the Sabbath. 
 Paul here clearly sanctions the broad and liberal view of the 
 strong brother. He has tacitly done the same thing all through 
 the chapter. But it is the very man who is sure of his free- 
 dom in these things in Christ, just as it is the man who has 
 real wealth or real learning, that makes no offensive display. 
 And this leads to the next assertion, " Happy is he that con- 
 demneth not himself," etc. There is a danger in this liberty 
 too. A man may not be as well grounded as he supposed 
 himself to be. He may " allow " himself an indulgence for 
 which his own conscience will afterward condemn him. In the 
 eagerness to exhibit or indulge his liberty in matters which he 
 approves or allows, he may subsequently have to sit in judgment 
 upon himself and pronounce a verdict of self-condemnation. 
 
 23. "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat." The 
 word "damned" is misleading. The man is condemned by 
 his own conscience. Mere hesitation or uncertainty leads to 
 this. Conscience must have the benefit of every doubt, for 
 in all matters in which the Bible is silent it has God's authority. 
 It may not usurp the function of his revealed will, but there 
 are many things arising in daily life on which God's mind has 
 not been made known except in a general way. Here con- 
 science must be heeded, or it utters its condemnation and the 
 man passes under the dark cloud of God's displeasure. 
 
 "Because he eateth not of faith." Better, "It is not of 
 faith." His act did not flow from his trust in Christ ; he was 
 not sure that his justification by God permitted this, and 
 therefore he felt condemned in eating. 
 
 Paul closes this second point with the principle underlying 
 all Christian conduct : " And [the " for " of the King James
 
 248 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 23) 
 
 version is wrong] all that is not of faith is sin." " All " is 
 better than " whatsoever." Christ has certainly redeemed the 
 believer from every sumptuary and ceremonial observance. 
 But distrust of Christ in these matters binds the conscience 
 just so far as the distrust extends. To violate this bond is sin. 
 
 It must be carefully noted that Paul is not speaking here of 
 absence of saving faith, but of defect in it. Hence this is not 
 a general but a Christian principle. Paul is prescribing for 
 what is before him in the church and not for mankind. 
 
 This principle thus limited is the major premise of a syllo- 
 gism : all that is not of faith is sin ; eating in doubt is not of 
 faith ; therefore it is sin and brings condemnation. In these 
 matters a man's conduct must be limited by his faith. 
 
 Jesus taught with sunlight clearness, "There is nothing 
 from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" 
 (Mark vii. 15). The word "nothing" is decidedly emphatic 
 and embraces what is drunk as well as what is eaten ; and the 
 weak in faith must remember this before they condemn the 
 saints who take the liberty here given them. 
 
 On the other hand, Paul teaches that this liberty will limit 
 itself by love. There has not been a time since he wrote 
 when it was more necessary to heed this than to-day. For 
 now there is abundant teaching in zeal without knowledge that 
 contradicts and nullifies the principle laid down by Christ. 
 This false teaching binds without enlightening the conscience. 
 The result is the weakness of a mere sense of duty in this 
 matter in the church instead of the strength of the liberty in 
 Christ that may exhibit itself in love like his. Therefore all 
 the more must the strong be abstinent, patient, and loving. 
 Paul does not in the least, as we have seen, set at naught 
 Christ's words recorded in Mark, but he shows how they were 
 intended to be used in love. So used, they, like all others 
 in the Book, are seen to be uttered " not to destroy men's lives, 
 but to save them " (Luke ix. 56).
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 DISCUSSION OF FRATERNAL DUTIES CONCLUDED, AND 
 PERSONAL MATTERS 
 
 THE argument of the epistle concludes at the thirteenth verse 
 of this chapter. (See under (3) in introduction to last chapter.) 
 Paul gives what he has to say about eating and drinking and 
 like matters under three heads. The third one is the first (i) 
 section of this chapter (verses 1-13), in which Paul shows (a) 
 that the strong must act in the spirit of Christ, that there may 
 be union in worship (verses 1-6) ; (b) that they must receive one 
 another in the spirit of Christ (verses 7-1 2) ; and (<:) pronounces 
 a benediction (verse 13). Christ's attitude toward God and 
 toward them indicates his will, which the strong should follow. 
 
 In the second (2) section of the chapter (verses 14-33), a 
 section entirely epistolary, like that in i. 8-15, Paul (a) justi- 
 fies his writing to the Romans (verses 14-16); (b) gives his 
 rule in choosing his field of labor (verses 1 7-2 1 ) ; (c) speaks 
 of the delays in visiting them (verses 22-29) '< (<O Dut hopes 
 to come, and asks for their prayers that the way may be kept 
 clear (verses 3033). 
 
 Because a few authorities, though from these all the great 
 manuscripts and the Latin fathers must be excluded, place the 
 benediction (xvi. 25-27) at the close of chapter xiv., the higher 
 criticism, beginning with Semler, has called these last two 
 chapters in question. Paul was supposed to be the author of 
 the whole, but originally these two chapters, the benediction 
 excepted, were not intended for Rome. Baur was the first 
 
 249
 
 260 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 1-3) 
 
 to assail their Pauline authorship. The difficulties are only 
 slight and have been much magnified. Meyer, who gives a 
 brief history of the discussion, concludes : " This entire hy- 
 pothesis turns upon presuppositions and combinations, which 
 are partly arbitrary in themselves and partly without any solid 
 ground or support in the detailed exegesis." So that it may 
 be safely said with Kerr (" Introduction to New Testament 
 Study "), " Despite these objections, the integrity of the epistle 
 as it now stands is certain." 
 
 J, 2. " We that are strong." Paul places himself among 
 the strong. " The infirmities of the weak " were a burden to 
 be borne, a heavy weight, except where love gave strength 
 to carry it. He does not say that the weak should reflect on 
 the load which they are imposing on others ; for if they had 
 the power to reflect they would not be weak. To eat meat 
 and to drink wine may please the palate, but the justified man 
 does not live to please himself, but to please his neighbor. The 
 neighbor may be pleased to his hurt, so Paul adds that he must 
 be pleased "for his good to edification." To afford him religious 
 pleasure which does not build him up is not for " his good." 
 
 3 " For even Christ pleased not himself." He is not pre- 
 sented as an example, but his manner of living affords an 
 argument. If it should seem burdensome and grievous to 
 some strong Roman to live narrowly for the sake of the weak, 
 the consolation and the dignity of such a life are that Christ 
 also lived it. The phrase " for even Christ " would better be 
 rendered, "for Christ also." The Scriptures are not in the 
 habit of holding up Christ as an example, for men are neither 
 saved nor sanctified by an example. 
 
 That his life was one of not pleasing himself is in accord 
 with that which was predicted of him in Psalm Ixix. 9. Re- 
 proaches fell on Christ because he pleased not himself, but 
 lived to please God in the work of saving men. If self-pleas- 
 ing had been the guide of his life he would have escaped the
 
 (XV. 4-6) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 251 
 
 reproach and shame cast upon him by the Jews ; but living as 
 he did to please God, to serve his will for the salvation of men, 
 these reproaches came, and thus were God's. This was Christ's 
 honor, and should any one complain who has the opportunity 
 to gain like honor in denying himself for the good of others ? 
 It is startling to read that " Christ pleased not himself." His 
 life was one of pain and suffering ; and yet he spoke about his 
 "joy" (John xv. n). And we feel that it ought to have been 
 only a delight to a perfect man, as he was, to serve God. It 
 was. And the solution of the apparent contradiction is that 
 in the service of God pain is only pleasure, while self-pleas- 
 ing is only pain. The Christian lives only when he dies, and 
 this is the joy and consolation in dying daily (i Cor. xv. 31). 
 It is only sorrow that can be turned into joy. 
 
 4. " Written for our learning." This one verse, culled from 
 the Old Testament, moves Paul to say that every part of that 
 same Testament was written for this purpose, our teaching or 
 "learning" (2 Tim. iii. 16). Paul gives here one chief object 
 of the existence of the Old Testament. It abounds in in- 
 stances of a self-denying life redounding to the glory of God, 
 and thus stimulates the " patience " and gives the enheartening 
 or " comfort " which such a life needs. The record of these 
 instances is authoritative and so becomes a proof that as God 
 dealt with his servants then so will he deal now ; he does not 
 change. It is by means of this " patience and comfort " de- 
 rived from the Scriptures that settled hope arises. Paul has 
 already (v. 3, 4) shown the relation of patience and hope. 
 
 5, 6. The apostle virtually prays that all parties in their use 
 of the Scriptures may have granted to them by God their 
 patience and comfort. These graces are, after all, the gift 
 of God, but given by him through his Word. It is by these 
 two Christian qualities, also, that God will make them " like- 
 minded " toward one another, a mind according to Christ's, 
 described above. This does not mean, then, that they will
 
 252 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 7, 8) 
 
 come to a common view on meats and wine, but to unanimity 
 in loving intercourse, so that " with one mind and one mouth " 
 they may glorify God. They may be divided in their dietary 
 views; this in itself is a small matter; but they must not be 
 divided in their worship and praise of God. For the patient 
 and comforted mind can join in praise with those from whom 
 there is dissent of opinion. This is true Christian union. 
 " Even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Translators are 
 divided, some rendering " and " instead of " even," making the 
 sentence read, " The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 In either case Paul's point is the same. God is to be glorified 
 not only as God, but also in his relation to him through whom 
 all are saved, Jew and Gentile, the liberal and the narrow man 
 alike. 
 
 7. " Wherefore receive ye one another." A deduction from 
 the desirability of union in praise. It is not now an exhorta- 
 tion to the strong to bear with the weak (verse i), but strong 
 and weak alike are addressed. They are to receive one another 
 into fellowship and favor, just as Christ had taken them into 
 his. Some read "us," others "you." Christ accepts men, 
 whether broad or narrow, whether Jew or Gentile, whether 
 bond or free. Beyond a genuine belief of the gospel he makes 
 no other demand. If he accepts men in all their weaknesses 
 and without any regard to their views about secondary matters, 
 well may we. " To the glory of God " might be joined with 
 "receive ye," but may possibly go with what just precedes. 
 Christ received us that God might gain glory. If we do not 
 receive one another his gracious purpose is marred. 
 
 8. " Now I say." The true reading is, " For I say," the 
 "for" introducing the long passage following to show how 
 Christ received both parties. The word " meat " and the words 
 "strong" and "weak" are not again used; but instead the 
 two nationalities in the church appear, the Jew and the Gentile, 
 showing that the division in dietary matters ran in the main be-
 
 XV. 9) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 253 
 
 tween these two. The Jew would be the weak man, the Gentile 
 the strong ; but there were doubtless exceptions on both sides. 
 
 This conclusion of the whole argument is based anew (a) 
 on the work of Christ in behalf of both parties, in which, 
 however, the Jew holds a priority, and (b] on the Scriptures. 
 The privileges of the Jew are seen in the fact that Jesus Christ 
 was himself circumcised, and this to fulfil the promise made to 
 the Jewish fathers. The Gentile had no direct promise. The 
 Jew's salvation came " for the truth of God," the Gentile's " for 
 his mercy." Here again, as in xi. 17-20, the Gentile is plainly 
 reminded that so far as his nationality goes he has not the same 
 foundation as the Jew. 
 
 "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision." Omit 
 " the." " Circumcision " is not " abstract for concrete " (Boise) 
 and does not signify Israel. Paul does not mean that Jesus 
 Christ was a minister, an attending servant, to the Jews, or 
 that he belonged exclusively to them. The word has its simple 
 meaning in which it stands for a religious system. Christ was 
 a minister of circumcision in that he fulfilled the whole Mosaic 
 requirement in his person and in his work. It would be little 
 to the point to say here that Jesus served the Jews. It is 
 everything to say that he was the minister of a covenant that 
 brought salvation to the Jews and through them to all men. 
 Galatians iv. 4, 5, is a good comment on this phrase. 
 
 " For the truth [in behalf of the veracity] of God." Christ 
 was such a minister of circumcision "to [or " that he might "] 
 confirm the promises made unto the fathers," Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob. The promises all lay within the limits of the cove- 
 nant of circumcision (Gen. xvii. 7, 14, 21), and Christ came, 
 Paul does not say to fulfil, but to " confirm," them. " Confirm " 
 means to make firm, to establish, to make sure ; and therefore 
 Israel may praise and glorify God for his faithfulness. 
 
 9. " And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [in behalf 
 of] his mercy." Christ's coming was to the Jew in the way
 
 254 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 10-12) 
 
 of God's truth, to the Gentile in the way of his mercy. The 
 former can praise for fidelity, the latter for grace. 
 
 There is a question about the grammatical dependence of 
 these two verses. Godet makes verse 9 depend on " I say " 
 in the previous one. Sanday connects the ninth verse with 
 Christ's becoming a minister of circumcision, so that this ninth 
 verse gives a second and subordinate object of that ministry. 
 The latter seems to be more logical, but whichever connection 
 is taken, the main thought is clear that the call of the Gentiles, 
 as well as the fulfilment of the promises to the Jews, both de- 
 pended on Christ in his ministry of circumcision. It was by 
 this ministry that he received us to the glory of God, that he 
 might be praised by the Jew for his truth and by the Gentile 
 for his mercy. Jacob worshiped for both (Gen. xxxii. 10). 
 
 "As it is written." Four quotations follow, one from the 
 law, two from the Psalms, and one from the prophets, in con- 
 firmation of God's purpose that Gentiles are to glorify God. 
 This first one (Ps. xviii. 49) shows Christ among the heathen 
 praising God. Of course he gives the praise through them. 
 Therefore the quotation implicitly declares the conversion of 
 those who praise. 
 
 JO. " And again he saith," quoting Deuteronomy xxxii. 43, 
 that Gentiles are to join in praise with " his people," the Jews. 
 
 \\. " And again, Praise the Lord " (Ps. cxvii. i). This little 
 psalm of but two verses shows that God would bring Gentiles 
 generally to his worship. " All " occurs twice. " People " is 
 plural, meaning Gentiles. 
 
 J2. "And again, Esaias saith " (Isa. xi. 10). The Septuagint 
 version is quoted. The prophet declares that he who comes 
 in the Davidic line, the root from Jesse, shall also be King 
 over Gentiles. " In him shall the Gentiles trust ; " or better, 
 " In him will Gentiles hope." It is significant that not only 
 here, but in all these four quotations, the article is omitted 
 before the word " Gentiles." The Gentiles, all of them, ac-
 
 (XV. I3-I6) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MA TTERS 255 
 
 cording to chapter xi., will one day be brought to Christ. But 
 in Paul's day and to this day only some have come. If he 
 had said " the " Gentiles the facts around him would have dis- 
 proved his assertion ; but Gentiles had come to Christ in his day, 
 first-fruits of the coming harvest, and he quotes in a way to em- 
 brace just these first-fruits and for the present no more. The 
 Revised Version in its translation of these citations is not critical. 
 
 This last quotation shows the union of Jew and Gentile 
 under Christ in a common hope, by which word Paul has come 
 around again to the idea of verse 4 : " That we through pa- 
 tience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." 
 
 J3. " Now the God of hope [the God who has laid in Christ 
 the foundation for it] fill you with all joy and peace in believ- 
 ing" the opposite of painful contention and disputing. In 
 the discussion Paul has had much to say about bearing and for- 
 bearing, about love and service. He now uses the word which 
 embraces because it gives the source of all these. All joy and 
 peace come " in believing." Paul longs for their joy and 
 peace, that they " may abound in hope [of eternal life], in the 
 power of the Holy Ghost." His fruits come in clusters (Gal. 
 v. 22, 23), only one of which Paul names hope. Strife drives 
 away the Holy Spirit ; joy and peace detain him, and he makes 
 hope to abound. 
 
 Paul closes the argument with two practical ideas, praise 
 and hope. The two are really but one praise. Every line 
 and thought from the beginning of the epistle has led up to 
 worship. "The harmonious glorification of the God and 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ by the whole body of the 
 redeemed, as it is the most exalted fruit of the scheme of re- 
 demption, so it is the last end of God in it." 
 
 J4-J6. In this epilogue Paul, first of all, in these three 
 verses apologizes for writing to the Romans. It is not because 
 they are not " full of goodness," but because they are. The 
 case is not as in Jude 3, but more like that in i John ii. 21, 27.
 
 256 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 17-21) 
 
 He writes not so much to instruct, as to "put them in mind " 
 of what they already know. For Christian argument and ad- 
 monition are of no value except where Christianity already 
 holds sway. He thus writes because of the apostolic "grace" 
 (i. 5 ; Eph. iii. 8) given him by God that he should be a min- 
 ister, a spiritual priest, to the Gentiles, not to offer a sacrifice 
 for them, which was already done, but to minister to them the 
 gospel, that they themselves might be an acceptable " offering " 
 to God (Eph. v. 26, 27 ; 2 Cor. xi. 2). The offering is ac- 
 ceptable because it is sanctified, made holy, by the presence 
 of the Holy Spirit. Paul gave men the gospel, and God gave 
 such of them as believed the Holy Spirit, and by these two 
 means they became a fit offering to God. The Christian priest 
 is just a preacher of the gospel ; for Paul's language on this 
 point is highly figurative. 
 
 J7. This verse forms the transition to what the apostle has 
 to say about his field of labor. " I have therefore [as one 
 ministering the gospel of God] whereof I may glory in [not 
 " through "] Jesus Christ " as to things pertaining to God. This 
 glorying was worthy. It had its basis in Christ, and it was 
 about God's affairs, the spread of the gospel. 
 
 J8, J9 This glorying was Paul's own, as is shown by the 
 somewhat emphatic " I have." In attestation ("for") that it 
 is his, he " dare " not speak of what God did not do by him 
 to win Gentiles to obedience ; but passing to the positive, he 
 mentions the great works done through him from Jerusalem, 
 the starting-point of his ministry, " round about unto Illyricum," 
 northwest of Macedonia. This country is not mentioned in 
 Paul's history as given in Acts, but many other events belong- 
 ing to his history find no record there (2 Cor. xi. 23-25). 
 Through this wide extent, he says, " I have fully preached the 
 gospel of Christ;" literally, "I have fulfilled the gospel of 
 Christ." Just how much this means cannot easily be told. 
 
 20, 2J* "Yea, so have I strived," or, "Yea, making it my
 
 (XV. 22-24) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 257 
 
 ambition so to preach," making it a point of honor not to go 
 where any one had gone before me. He considered that his 
 work was to lay foundations (i Cor. iii. 10) and to let others 
 do the building. He seems to have had as a motto to guide 
 him the Scripture found in Isaiah Iii. 15, after the Septuagint. 
 But why, then, does he wish to visit the Roman church already 
 founded? It is hard to say. It may be that the gospel was 
 never officially preached there (Acts xix. 21 ; xxviii. 22) ; or it 
 may be that, having fulfilled the gospel of Christ, he did not 
 consider his rule any longer binding. It was riot a hard and 
 fast rule. He preached a year at Antioch in Syria after the 
 church was unofficially gathered (Acts xi. 25, 26). And finally, 
 he was only going to call on the Romans on his way to Spain 
 (verse 24), a far-distant new field. Paul interpreted the com- 
 mission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach " (Mark xvi. 
 1 5), to mean, for him at least, not that he should go after some 
 one else had opened the way to the heathen, but that he should 
 go first. He was a pioneer. 
 
 22-24. " Much hindered," or often hindered by abundance 
 of work. Blessed hindrance! But Paul had removed the 
 obstacle by doing all that was to be done " in these parts," or 
 regions over which he had been traveling about fifteen years. 
 He had a " great desire " to see the Romans. " Many years " 
 is indefinite. The city lay on the highway to Spain, to which 
 distant land he was going. He hoped to see the Romans on 
 this journey, and " to be brought on the way thitherward." This 
 phrase " brought on the way," or sent forward, refers to a semi- 
 official custom of the apostolic churches in furnishing an escort 
 to go some or all of the way with a departing minister or mis- 
 sionary. Paul is here most likely asking that one or more of 
 the Roman brethren be sent with him to Spain. (See Acts xv. 
 3 ; xx. 38 ; xxi. 5 ; i Cor. xvi. 6, 1 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 16 ; Tit. iii. 13 ; 
 3 John 6.) The original word is technical and is used only in 
 reference to this custom.
 
 258 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 25-28) 
 
 " If first I be somewhat filled with your company." He 
 anticipated much spiritual enjoyment in his visit to Rome ; but 
 in the word "somewhat," or "in a measure," he intimates 
 that he may not be able to stay long enough to be fully satis- 
 fied with such blessed " company." We know from the Book 
 of Acts how he got to Rome, how eager the brethren were to 
 meet him (Acts xxviii. 15) ; but there is no other mention of the 
 church there, and it is not known whether he ever reached Spain. 
 
 25-27. But Paul cannot come directly to the Roman breth- 
 ren ; he has yet one duty to perform : " to minister to ... the 
 poor saints which are at Jerusalem." The epistles to the Co- 
 rinthians show how Paul's heart was set on this contribution. 
 Macedonia did its part (2 Cor. viii. 1-5) ; Corinth had been 
 urged to attend to the matter; Galatia, not mentioned here 
 for some reason, contributed (i Cor. xvi. i). It may be that 
 the Galatian funds had already been forwarded to Jerusalem. 
 
 " It hath pleased them." This clause is repeated from the 
 twenty-sixth verse, that Paul may show that there is another 
 side to this act than mere benevolent pleasure. A man is not 
 simply " pleased " to pay what he owes ; it is his " duty." This 
 contribution was a debt due from the Gentiles to the Jews 
 for the reason here given. And that debt is still due these 
 same Jews. But for their unparalleled sufferings in all time, 
 the world would have had no Bible and no gospel. The word 
 " minister " is an official word. It was the Gentiles' duty not 
 merely to give their " carnal things," but to minister as priests. 
 This gave the contribution a spiritual character. The word 
 " minister " occurs in only two other places, which shed light 
 on this act here (Acts xiii. 2 ; Heb. x. n). 
 
 28 " When therefore 1 have . . . sealed to them this fruit." 
 The money contribution was the fruit of the gospel among the 
 heathen; it showed the effectiveness of that gospel (Col. i. 
 5, 6). To seal is to authenticate, to make one's own. Paul 
 would turn the money over to the Jewish church and thus
 
 (XV. 29-31) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 269 
 
 seal it theirs. This verse by means of the word " therefore " 
 resumes the topic of verse 26 after the digression in the verse 
 intervening. He says, " When I have performed this." The 
 emphasis is on " this," as if the carrying up of the contribution 
 were the only thing left, the final hindrance to his visit. The 
 word "performed " is a religious word akin to the word " min- 
 ister" just above (Phil. i. 6; Heb. ix. 6). "By you" is pos- 
 sibly " by means of you." 
 
 29. " And I am sure," or, " I know." The phrase " of the 
 gospel " is not genuine ; possibly added by some one to make 
 Paul's statement harmonize better with the painful history of 
 his coming in chains to Rome. Paul did not know when he 
 would come ; he did not know the suffering that would over- 
 take him ; but he was sure of the condition of his heart. So 
 far every true saint may know his own future that to the end 
 he will be attended with the very " fullness of the blessing [or 
 "benediction"] of Christ." "The Lord is my shepherd; I 
 shall not want " (Ps. xxiii.). 
 
 30, 3J. " Now I beseech you," or, " I exhort you." Paul 
 knew what Jerusalem was, and he was aware of the prejudice 
 against himself. He asks the Romans that, through the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and through that love which the Spirit gives the 
 saints one for another, they would strive a word from the gym- 
 nastic contests along with him (i. 9, 10) in their prayers to God 
 for him. They were many, many miles from him, and they could 
 not know any day just where he was or under what circumstances ; 
 but God knew, and their prayers would be effective. And so 
 prayers for missionaries in foreign lands are offered to-day, 
 while their trials and needs are known only in a general way. 
 
 Two things are to be prayed for. Paul is God's great apostle 
 and is doing his will, but is not exempt on that account, any 
 more than Christ was, from the hatred of men. His fear is 
 twofold : the unbelievers in Judea may seek to destroy him, 
 and the saints may refuse his gifts from the heathen. To look
 
 260 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 32, 33) 
 
 at the history of Paul's visit to Jerusalem in its rough outward 
 aspect, one might say the prayers were not answered. But 
 the rough handling which the apostle received shows most 
 strikingly how he was delivered, and affords a useful lesson on 
 the way that God answers prayer. How shrewdly Paul helped 
 himself! (Acts xxii. 25; xxiii. 6; xxv. n.) And how came 
 it that his nephew discovered the secret plot to slay his uncle? 
 (Acts xxiii. 1 6.) The dangers he encountered were many, his 
 life was in constant peril, and yet he was spared and saw 
 Rome. While the record about the gift for the saints is al- 
 most silent, the fair presumption is (Acts xxi. 17-20) that it 
 was acceptable. In answer to the prayers, God did not keep 
 Paul out of the dangers, but he preserved him in them. He 
 had to enter the lions' den, but God closed their mouths. 
 
 32. " Come unto you with joy." This must not be hastily 
 misread as if Paul wrote, " And that I may come." There is 
 no "and"; otherwise his prayer would be threefold. His 
 prayer was for two things as above : to be delivered at Jeru- 
 salem, and to have his gift accepted, " that I may come unto 
 you with joy." His joy in coming was in what was behind as 
 well as in what was before him. He came to Rome a prisoner ; 
 but who shall say that, having escaped Jerusalem with his life, 
 and having now Rome and Spain before him, the latter for 
 evangelization, he did not come with joy ? 
 
 " By the will of God." This was the main source of Paul's 
 hope the will of God. " May with you be refreshed " by a 
 common interchange of faith and its fruits (i. 12). 
 
 33* "The God of peace be with you." In verse 13 he was 
 called the God of hope, here the God of peace, not as an 
 empty pious wish. Paul had fears, but his reliance on God 
 was such that these did not disturb the deep current of his 
 peace. The Romans would have fears for him. May the 
 God of peace save them from pain in their fear.
 
 CHAPTER XVI 
 
 LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 
 
 THE love of the saints shows itself (i) in a commendation 
 (verses 1,2); (2) in sundry hearty greetings (verses 3-16) ; (3) 
 in a solicitous caution about false teachers (verses 17-20); 
 (4) in further greetings (verses 21-24) > (5) ^ e doxology (verses 
 2 5~ 2 7)- There is no formal arrangement, for Paul closes in 
 the free and unstudied manner of an epistle. Hence in the 
 midst of his salutations he inserts the caution against the false 
 teachers, and then resumes the salutations. There is no marked 
 logical connection unifying the chapter. 
 
 Thirty-five persons are named in this conclusion. These 
 names may be classified as follows : 
 
 With Paul: 
 
 Timothy, 
 
 Lucius, 
 
 Jason, 
 
 Sosipater, 
 
 Tertius, 
 
 Gaius, 
 
 Erastus, 
 
 Quartus, 
 
 Phebe. 
 
 At Rome : 
 
 Men. 
 
 Women. 
 
 Aquila, Rufus, 
 
 Priscilla, 
 
 Epaenetus, Asyncritus, 
 
 Mary, 
 
 Andronicus, Phlegon, 
 
 Junia, 
 
 Amplias, Hernias, 
 
 Tryphena, 
 
 Urbane, Patrobas, 
 
 Tryphosa, 
 
 Stachys, Hermes, 
 
 Persis, 
 
 Apelles, Philologus, 
 
 Julia. 
 
 Herodion, Nereus, 
 
 
 Olympas. 
 
 
 261 

 
 262 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. i, 2) 
 
 Thus it is seen that there were nine persons with Paul when 
 he wrote eight men and one woman, Phebe ; that there were 
 twenty-four persons at Rome who were greeted seventeen 
 men and seven women. Besides these, there are two house- 
 holds in Rome that are mentioned, that of Aristobulus and 
 that of Narcissus. The names of those in the households are 
 not given. There are also some unnamed " brethren " referred 
 to in verse 14. And finally there are two unnamed women, 
 the "mother" of Rufus (verse 13) and the "sister" of Nereus 
 (verse 15). Riddle says of this list of names that it shows 
 "(i) Paul's personal regard; (2) the high place he accords to 
 women; (3) the great influence he exerted, since so many 
 friends were present in a place he had never visited ; (4) the 
 undying name received from his friendly mention is a type of 
 the eternal blessing which belongs to those whose names are 
 written in the Lamb's book of life." 
 
 The objection that Paul, after having traveled and made 
 converts all over the eastern section of the empire, could not 
 have known so many persons in Rome, a city that he had not 
 visited, is not worthy of an answer. Did Paul write this epistle, 
 with all its freedom and fraternal spirit, to these Roman breth- 
 ren while unacquainted with them? 
 
 J. " Phebe our sister." That she was the bearer of the 
 epistle is " a supposition which there is nothing to contradict " 
 (Meyer). The commendation rests on two grounds: she is 
 " our sister," and she is a " servant," or deaconess, of the neigh- 
 boring church of Cenchrea, nine miles from Corinth, and its 
 seaport. The word " our " is indefinite, giving but little hint 
 of how much it includes. (But see below on verses 8 and 9.) 
 She was a servant not in, but of, the church of Cenchrea, hold- 
 ing an official capacity. 
 
 2* The aim of the commendation was twofold : first, that 
 the Romans might " receive " her in a manner worthy of them- 
 selves as saints. What lies back of these earnest words, " that
 
 (XVI. 3, 4) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 263 
 
 ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints"? Was it be- 
 cause of her relation to the church at Cenchrea as deaconess 
 that Paul thus spoke? Was it because she was a woman 
 traveling alone? Again, she was commended that the Romans 
 might "assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of 
 you." From the technical language here employed many 
 have supposed that her business at Rome was legal. Paul 
 tells why (" for ") she is to be assisted : because she has assisted 
 many, even the great apostle himself. The language is general. 
 How she helped Paul or any one else is not told ; but because 
 she aided others she is worthy of aid. What a charitable free- 
 masonry existed in the church! Her "business" was her 
 own, but Paul does not hesitate to call on the whole Roman 
 brotherhood to stand by her in it. 
 
 3* " Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus." These 
 two were not apostles, not prophets, not even called teachers ; 
 just helpers, fellow-workers. Their tent-making belonged to 
 their work " in Christ " just as Paul's also did (Acts xviii. 3), 
 for their hands were busy only that the gospel might be spread. 
 They appear in the history first at Corinth about the year 
 52 A.D. (Acts xviii. 2); they move to Ephesus two years later 
 (Acts xviii. 1 8, 26; i Cor. xvi. 19); they are now in Rome, 
 and at a later date are again in Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 19). The 
 latter remark, however, depends on the date assigned to 
 2 Timothy. It is worth noting that in four of the six men- 
 tions of the names of this couple Priscilla's stands first. The 
 order in the King James version (Acts xviii. 26) is not cor- 
 rect. 
 
 4. " Who for my life laid down their own necks " on the 
 executioner's block. Whether this means literally, the stroke 
 having been in some way suspended, or whether they only 
 incurred imminent peril in Paul's behalf, is not certain. In 
 some way at the hazard of their lives they saved Paul's, and 
 so won not only his thanks, but those also of all the Gentile
 
 264 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 5-7) 
 
 churches, whose apostle was thus spared. Christ died for them ; 
 they were ready to die that his great servant might live. 
 
 5 " The church that is in their house." They had had a 
 church in their house at Ephesus (i Cor. xvi. 19) ; Nymphas, 
 whoever he was, maintained a church in his house at Colosse 
 (Col. iv. 15). (See also Philem. 2.) Paul had never been at 
 Colosse, but he knew of Nymphas's church just as he knew of 
 this one with Priscilla and Aquila. Paul was not ignorant of 
 details, but carried " daily the care of all the churches " (2 Cor. 
 xi. 28). The apostolic churches in the various cities do not 
 seem to have had a permanent meeting-place where they could 
 come together regularly, but the brethren met in groups in the 
 houses of the brethren as here. Such a group regularly meet- 
 ing was called a " church." But all believers in any one city 
 must have also come together often (i Cor. v. 4 ; xi. 20 ; Acts 
 xx. 7, 8). 
 
 " Epsenetus, who is the first-fruits of Achaia." Read " Asia " 
 for " Achaia," not the Asia of to-day, but the Roman province 
 of that time so called, with Ephesus as the chief city. This 
 man by his promptness in yielding to the gospel, so that he 
 was the first to believe when Paul came to Asia, earned a 
 deathless honor in Christ and is remembered by Paul. The 
 apostle had not forgotten the heart-thrill of joy he himself felt 
 when this first convert accepted Christ. 
 
 6. " Mary." There are six of this name in the New Testa- 
 ment. " Much labor on us " ought to be " much labor on 
 you." What this woman's labor on the Romans was we do 
 not know, except that it was abundant. 
 
 7. " Andronicus and Junia." Brother and sister or husband 
 and wife. But some read "Junias," a man's name, instead 
 of " Junia." They were relatives of Paul and so Israelites of 
 the tribe of Benjamin. When or where they had been fellow- 
 prisoners (2 Cor. xi. 23) is unknown. Paul was often in prison. 
 These two were well known by the Twelve in Judea, who held
 
 (XVI. 8-io) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 265 
 
 them in high esteem. But some think that the word " apostles " 
 here is to be taken in the wider sense of 2 Corinthians viii. 23 
 and Philippians ii. 25, where it is rendered "messengers" of 
 the churches. In the latter case we must read " Junias," and 
 understand that these two were distinguished among the mes- 
 sengers of the churches. Paul adds a fourth note about the 
 two : " Who also were in Christ before me." They were Paul's 
 seniors in the divine life. No doubt their prayers had been 
 again and again offered for his conversion. This note, together 
 with that about Epaenetus in verse 5, shows that regeneration, 
 or the state in which one can be said to be " in Christ," is a 
 matter of definite date. Between the condition of condemna- 
 tion and that of "not condemned" (John iii. 18) an appreci- 
 able interval of time is inconceivable. It is God that justifies, 
 and he does not justify by a process, but by a judicial sentence. 
 If he justifies at all he justifies " from all " (Acts xiii. 39). But 
 Paul in saying that these were " in Christ " before him must 
 be speaking objectively. He recalls the time when he, a per- 
 secutor of the saints, learned with bitterness of spirit that his 
 relatives, Andronicus and Junia, were " baptized into Christ " 
 and thus publicly proclaimed their renunciation of good works 
 as a ground of salvation and their acceptance of Christ. 
 
 8, 9. Nothing is known of these three persons, Amplias, 
 Urbane, and Stachys, except the record here given. The 
 phrase " in the Lord " shows that Paul's love for Amplias was 
 distinctively Christian. He calls Urbane "our helper in 
 Christ." As he had just used the singular, this plural "our" 
 must include Paul's fellow-laborers. Urbane, though not an 
 apostle, did apostolic work. Hence note the nice shade of 
 difference in changing from " beloved in the Lord " to " helper 
 in Christ." The latter is more specific. Stachys is simply " my 
 beloved." 
 
 JO. Apelles had stood, no doubt, one or more severe tests 
 of his faith, and so can be greeted as " approved in Christ."
 
 266 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 11-13) 
 
 (See on v. 4.) He was a tried believer. Of Aristobulus, 
 whether he was dead or alive, a saint or a sinner, these words 
 give no hint. It is those belonging to his household, possibly 
 slaves, who are greeted. If the master was alive he was not 
 in Christ or he would have been greeted also. If dead he may 
 have been a believer. 
 
 JJ. Herodion was a "kinsman" of the apostle. As noth- 
 ing more is said about him, he may as a believer have been 
 distinguished for nothing else. 
 
 " Them that be of the household of Narcissus." The same 
 remark must be made of this man as of Aristobulus. But a 
 note is added about his household, that they " are in the Lord." 
 Meyer despatches the phrase with one word, that it is written 
 "redundantly." How many difficulties might be gotten rid of 
 with this word! But this is not exegesis. Paul does not pen 
 superfluous words. Every person named in this chapter was 
 " in the Lord." Many of them were something more. Those 
 in Narcissus* household were no more. The phrase gives the 
 ground, the only but ample ground, on which they were greeted. 
 
 J2 "Tryphena and Tryphosa." These two women, with 
 " the beloved Persis," are hailed for their labor " in the Lord." 
 The first two were still engaged in it ; Persis for some reason 
 she may have been disabled in some way had ceased, for 
 note the tenses. Persis " labored much," which may indicate 
 length of service. Observe that, while Paul in speaking of 
 men says " my beloved," he now delicately omits the pronoun 
 before this woman's name. How much did all these women 
 contribute to the world- wide reputation of this church? (i. 8.) 
 
 J3. " Rufus, ... his mother and mine." This may be the 
 Rufus of Mark xv. 21. That the evangelist wrote his gospel 
 at Rome (Col. iv. 10) is generally admitted. He refers to 
 Rufus as one well known. Paul calls him "chosen in the 
 Lord." But all are chosen, and so the word must have here 
 a special sense distinguished, excellent. For some tender ser-
 
 (XVI. H-i6) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 267 
 
 vice Paul beautifully calls Ruf us's mother his also. This service, 
 Godet thinks, was rendered while Paul was a youth studying 
 in Jerusalem, and that he made his home in this family. This 
 is mere conjecture. 
 
 J4. The five names mentioned here, together with "the 
 brethren which are with them," indicate some kind of an as- 
 sociation, possibly one of the house churches again. 
 
 J5. Here are five persons more, two of them women, " and 
 all the saints which are with them." He says " saints " now 
 instead of " brethren," because this term can include both sexes. 
 Is this another house church, differing from the last one only 
 in embracing both men and women ? The word " with " in 
 both verses implies an association. Paul knew of these. He 
 knew the leaders of them by name and salutes the rest in each 
 group by the terms " brethren " and " saints," so that, with verse 
 5 above, he seems to greet every one in the church at Rome. 
 
 J6. "Salute one another with a holy kiss." The kiss in 
 that day, like hand-shaking now, was a common token of re- 
 spect among friends on meeting. Jesus rebuked the Pharisee, 
 Simon, for neglecting to kiss him (Luke vii. 45). Paul here 
 means that when they receive the letter from Phebe, and come 
 together to learn its contents, and have now read these salu- 
 tations, they shall greet one another as brethren in Christ by 
 this token. To employ the kiss as such a recognition makes 
 it " holy." This act marked the reception of a letter from an 
 apostle. (See i Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; i Thess. v. 26; 
 i Pet. v. 14.) That Paul intended to establish a permanent 
 custom or ordinance of the " holy kiss " is in violation of the 
 context. The reception of his letter and of his greetings was 
 to be marked by their greeting one another, just that and no 
 more. 
 
 "The churches of Christ salute you." It ought to read, 
 "All the churches." Paul had just been visiting many of 
 them, making known his intention to go to Rome, and how
 
 268 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 17-19) 
 
 natural that these churches should ask to be remembered to 
 the Roman brethren ! Paul conveys their greeting in the letter. 
 The " all " was possibly dropped by some later copyist in the 
 supposed interest of truth. 
 
 J7. " Mark them which cause divisions and offenses," or 
 occasions of stumbling. Paul "beseeches" the Romans to 
 " mark " these false teachers, that is, to keep an eye on them. 
 They would divide the church and put stumbling-blocks in its 
 way by their nonconformity to the "doctrine" or teaching 
 which the Romans had formerly learned, and which Paul has 
 now confirmed in his letter. The Romans must have had the 
 Pauline type of doctrine from the very first. The tense shows 
 that these disturbers of the peace were at work when Paul 
 wrote ; and what is the remedy prescribed? Excommunica- 
 tion? Imprisonment? Torture of the heretics? No; simply 
 " avoid them," turn away from them, freeze them out by not 
 listening to them. 
 
 J8. The reason for steadily refusing these men a hearing is 
 that they are not sen-ing the Lord, "but their own belly." 
 They are making a living by false teaching. False doctrine 
 and sensuality often accompany each other, as the first chapter 
 shows. 
 
 These men are bright speakers, full of pleasing eloquence, 
 and their " good words and fair speeches [2 Sam. xv. 1-6 ; 
 Matt. vii. 15] deceive the hearts of the simple." For how 
 could they talk so seraphically if not saints ! The " simple " 
 have no shield against the eloquent tongue of the deceiver 
 (Gen. iii. i, 4, 5 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3), that speaks not from his heart, 
 but, as Paul suggests, is a ventriloquist. Therefore the church 
 must not listen to these men, but turn away from them. 
 
 J9 "For your obedience is come abroad." The "for" is 
 difficult. It introduces an antithesis between the "simple" 
 and the Romans, who, Paul wishes to say, were not so, " for " 
 they were obedient. The word " simple " has not a bad sense
 
 (XVI. 20) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 269 
 
 except as it indicates a negative quality of character. The 
 emphasis of the sentence is on the word " your." I say simple, 
 and so do not mean you, " for your obedience is come abroad 
 unto all men," and their faith likewise (i. 8) ; for faith and 
 obedience cannot be disjoined. This last chapter links in with 
 the first. " Over you," therefore, I am glad, because of your 
 obedience. The emphasis is on "you," showing anew the 
 antithesis against the simple. But while " glad," Paul urges 
 to wisdom as to "that which is good." The seducers seem 
 to be wise. The shield against them is the true wisdom, un- 
 moved faith in the gospel. "And simple concerning evil." 
 The word for " simple " here is not the same as in the last 
 verse, but means harmless (the word in Matt. x. 16) or free 
 from evil. " Be deep in the wisdom of humble faith ; be con- 
 tented to be unacquainted with a wisdom which at its root is 
 evil" (Moule). For a man need not be evil, and needs no 
 personal experience in the practice of it, to be wise about it. 
 The pure life begotten of a pure faith knows best what sin is. 
 Darkness cannot reveal darkness. 
 
 20 "And the God of peace." He is so called to show 
 how contrary to him are those who cause divisions and deceive 
 the hearts of the simple. It is the " God of peace " that shall 
 "bruise Satan" under their feet "shortly." This last word 
 does not mean "soon," as is clearly shown in Luke xviii. 8, 
 where it is translated " speedily." God will " bear long " with 
 his elect that cry day and night unto him, but avenge them 
 "speedily." The long-continued patience is contrasted with 
 the rapid course of vengeance when the latter once begins. 
 In no instance of the seven in the New Testament does this 
 word mean "soon." In this whole exhortation, beginning at 
 verse 17, Paul has Genesis iii. clearly in mind. He quotes 
 now the very word, "bruise," found there. Just such false 
 teachers as these now troubling the Romans Paul calls else- 
 where "ministers" of Satan (2 Cor. xi. 15). They are the em-
 
 270 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 21-23) 
 
 bodiment of his spirit. If the Romans will be "wise unto 
 that which is good" and avoid these men, God will bruise 
 Satan in destroying the influence of these emissaries of Satan. 
 A church at peace and in unity has Satan under its feet. By 
 means of the word "bruise" from Genesis iii. 15, and the 
 word " Satan," Paul flashes a double ray of light on the char- 
 acter and inspiration of these seducers in Rome in a manner 
 as adroit as it is vivid. 
 
 An end to the epistle is now reached, and so Paul pronounces 
 a benediction. 
 
 2J-23. But would this epistle be despatched to Rome with- 
 out first being read to the church in Corinth, where it was 
 written? And when so read the Corinthian hearers must have 
 their greetings subjoined, first among whom comes Timothy, 
 Paul's "work-fellow," and, besides several others, another 
 kinsman, the fourth one in the chapter. 
 
 The amanuensis, Tertius, who in some quiet chamber had 
 been writing down what Paul dictated, and would not disturb 
 the apostle or add a word of his own there, now that an end 
 is reached and others are present and giving their salutations, 
 adds his own. Paul certainly did not dictate " I Tertius." 
 
 " Gaius," in whose house the letter was written, as must be 
 supposed, is doubtless the man alluded to in i Corinthians 
 i. 14. He was now Paul's "host," as Priscilla and Aquila had 
 been some years before (Acts xviii. 3), and the host "of the 
 whole church." There is no reason for diluting this statement 
 as some commentators do. The entire Christian assembly met 
 within this man's gates and may have been present when this 
 was penned. But why do we not read, " The church of Cor- 
 inth salutes you " ? Because their salutation is to be found in 
 verse 1 6 above. A city officer, Erastus, the chamberlain, salutes. 
 His faith in Christ did not debar him from a civic function. 
 The view that a Christian cannot hold an office of the state 
 wrecks on this passage. " And Quartus the [not " a "] brother."
 
 (XVI. 24-27) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 271 
 
 The Romans would especially appreciate this last salutation, 
 for they knew Quartus and all about him, as the word " the " 
 indicates. We are in entire ignorance of him. 
 
 24. The epistle having officially ended with verse 20, this 
 fraternal postscript was appended, not being suitable earlier, 
 and now again a benediction is pronounced. The doubt of 
 its genuineness (the Revised and many other modern versions 
 reject it) arose from a failure to see the structure of this closing 
 portion. As the benediction of verse 20 closed the epistle 
 officially, so this one closes it fraternally. Meyer skilfully 
 defends it. 
 
 25. We may now conceive of Paul as taking the pen from 
 the amanuensis Tertius, and adding the doxology in his own 
 peculiar (Gal. vi. n, R. V.) hand, not only to authenticate the 
 epistle (2 Thess. iii. 17) to the Romans, but also to bring the 
 whole to a worthy and exalted close. 
 
 25-27. " Now to him that is of power to [establish you." 
 Paul began the epistle with this thought (i. n). He wrote 
 about his desire to visit them and to impart to them some 
 spiritual gift, to the end that they might be established. And 
 now he refers them to God, who " is able " to do this. 
 
 " According to my gospel." " According " does not mean 
 either " in " or " by " or " in respect to." The word expresses 
 a correspondence. When in building a house it is set and es- 
 tablished according to a fixed street line, there is an agreement 
 between the house and the line, such a harmony that each 
 measures the other. When the Romans became finally fixed 
 and settled in their faith Paul hoped to see that faith in exact 
 parallel with his gospel. He has already called the latter a 
 " form " or mold (vi. 17). God is able to put its stamp upon 
 their thinking, feeling, and living, so that in all these there will 
 never be any divergence from the gospel. A church is " es- 
 tablished " when it reverently believes and says of everything 
 sin and Satan, Christ, death and life, the past and the future
 
 272 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 25-27) 
 
 just what the gospel reveals about these things. The heart 
 is so unstable, there is so much inadequate and even false 
 teaching, and Satan is so constantly seeking to undermine, 
 that God alone is " of power to establish " so that there be no 
 swerving. The Romans are joyfully firm now, Paul knows, 
 but divine power alone can preserve them in that firmness. 
 
 " My gospel "the gospel as I preach it. (See remarks on 
 ii. 16, and compare 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 8; Gal. ii. 2.) 
 There was no conflict between Paul's gospel and Peter's, but 
 Paul's shows a much wider development. 
 
 " And the preaching of Jesus Christ." Subjoined to show 
 without fail what Paul's gospel is in its substance and contents. 
 It is a proclamation about Jesus Christ. 
 
 " According to the revelation of the mystery." The word 
 " according " has the same meaning as in the first instance in 
 this verse. The question here is about the connection of the 
 phrase introduced by it, whether to join it with the verb 
 " stablish," thus making the two " according " phrases parallel, 
 or to affix it to the words " preaching of Jesus Christ." Prac- 
 tically the two connections come to the same thing. The 
 preaching of Jesus Christ accorded with the revelation by God 
 to Paul of a "mystery." A mystery is a spiritual truth which 
 could not be known to exist except by direct revelation. But 
 after it is revealed it is still called a mystery. Some part of 
 the one alluded to here was given in xi. 25 a part, for the 
 Romans surely knew the whole as it is given in Ephesians iii. 
 3, 6. The sum of the mystery was the union of Jew and 
 Gentile on the same level in Christ " until the fullness of the 
 Gentiles be come in," when the Jew should again come to the 
 front and receive his headship. The relation of Jew and 
 Gentile was the burning question in the church in Paul's day. 
 Nothing could be settled till it was settled. This question was 
 the foe of stability and well-nigh wrecked the churches of 
 Galatia. And Paul knew the might of the disturbing currents
 
 (XVI. 25-27) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 273 
 
 sweeping around the churches, and that nothing but God's 
 power could establish the Romans conformably with a preach- 
 ing that accorded with this mystery, so hateful to the zealous 
 but unbelieving Jew, who knew Moses, but had nothing but 
 hate for what Peter calls "the present truth" (2 Pet. i. 12). 
 
 "Which was kept secret since the world began." About 
 this mystery there was a hush during eternal ages. The end 
 of these silent times came in Paul's day. God knew from all 
 eternity that Jew and Gentile were to be saved alike by a 
 common faith in Christ, but he did not reveal it till he raised 
 up the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. i. n, 12, 15). Judaism 
 neither revealed nor embodied this mystery. Judaism was 
 quite subordinate, and served its own divinely given purpose 
 until God's plan for the world should be made known. 
 
 " But now is made manifest." The " now " is in pointed 
 contrast with the time in which the mystery was kept secret, 
 " which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, 
 as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the 
 Spirit" (Eph. iii. 5). The contrast here, as Colossians i. 26 
 shows, is between the other ages and " now." It may be further 
 remarked on this Ephesian passage that the "as" does not 
 give a comparison between degrees of revelation in the former 
 time and " now." It denies that there was any revelation at 
 all of the mystery in that former time; just as if one should 
 tell a man born blind that the sun does not shine in the night 
 as it does in daytime. It does not shine at all by night. 
 Certainly there is no comparison by " as " in Acts ii. 15; xx. 24. 
 " As " with a negative in the preceding clause has not received 
 the attention which it deserves. It is sometimes almost equiva- 
 lent to "but" (i Cor. vii. 31). f 
 
 It may be remarked also on the Ephesian passage that it 
 is generally admitted that in the phrase " holy apostles and 
 prophets " Paul is referring exclusively to the New Testament 
 prophets. Paul was both an apostle and a prophet.
 
 274 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 25-27) 
 
 "And by the Scriptures of the prophets." This very faulty 
 rendering of the King James version is, strangely enough, 
 followed in the Revised Version, but not in some other equally 
 good modern translations, that read "prophetic writings" 
 instead of " Scriptures of the prophets." In the original there 
 is no article with either word, as there would be if it referred 
 to the Old Testament ; nor is the word rendered " prophets " 
 a noun, but an adjective. The commentators generally (Godet 
 is an exception) make this mistranslated phrase refer to the 
 Old Testament. But how strange that Paul should say that 
 this mystery was kept secret until his day, as the commentators 
 admit that he does, and that then he should contradict himself 
 by saying that it was " made known " " by the Scriptures of the 
 prophets " ! These prophetic writings were chiefly Paul's own. 
 He claims that this mystery was made known to him by reve- 
 lation and that he " wrote " about it in " few words " (Eph. iii. 
 3). The apostles needed to have their understandings opened 
 to understand the Scriptures, but this cannot be called a reve- 
 lation. This mystery of the union of Jew and Gentile on the 
 common level of the church is utterly wanting in the Old Tes- 
 tament. The angels did not know it (Eph. iii. 9, 10). Re- 
 peated visions were necessary to lead Peter into an acceptance 
 of it (Acts x., xi.). The Old Testament bears witness to the 
 life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as to 
 the doctrine of justification by faith, as Paul has been careful 
 all through this epistle to show abundantly. It testifies clearly, 
 too, that the Gentiles are to be saved ; but beyond this, instead 
 of predicting that Judaism should for a time be set aside, it 
 declares its exaltation in Christ in innumerable places, and 
 instead of foretelling the equality of Jew and Gentile, it in- 
 variably predicts the latter's subordination in the time to come. 
 The expositors miss the meaning of this phrase, "Scriptures 
 of the prophets," first, from faulty presuppositions ; secondly, 
 from a hasty following of the ancient commentators, whom
 
 (XVI. 25-27) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 275 
 
 they quote with one consent, especially Theodoret (see Alford 
 and Ellicott) ; thirdly, from an inadequate conception of the 
 historical situation ; and, fourthly, from not seeing the climactic 
 relation of this doxology to the peculiarity of the epistle. As 
 no other this epistle breaks down the barrier between Jew and 
 Gentile, while admitting the " advantage " of the former (iii.). 
 Chapters ix.-xi. are peculiar to it. And Paul looks now to 
 God to establish them, not in accord with the Old Testament, 
 but according to this new revelation, " according to my gospel," 
 " according to the revelation of the mystery." 
 
 "According to the commandment of the everlasting God, 
 made known." The mystery of the oneness of Jew and Gen- 
 tile in Christ was not only manifested to the apostle, but made 
 known authoritatively. There are four qualifying clauses 
 about the mystery: it was made known (a) by means of the 
 prophetic writings ; (b] because of the command of the ever- 
 lasting God (it was Christ who commanded the gospel to be 
 preached ; God commanded the mystery to be made known, 
 significantly called the " everlasting " God) ; (c) the aim in 
 making it known is " the obedience of faith " (see on i. 5) ; 
 (d) and the extent of this knowledge was "to all nations." 
 
 "To God only wise." The translation of the Revised 
 Version is preferable : " To the only wise God, through Jesus 
 Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen." Paul, with 
 no strict grammatical connection with what precedes, closes 
 with an adoring look upward in an attitude of worship. The 
 phrase " through Jesus Christ " seems to go with the word 
 " God," who, through Jesus Christ, is manifested as the alone, 
 as the absolutely, wise. " To whom [God] be the glory " 
 the praise, worship, and honor for all that is done for men in 
 Christ. " To whom be the glory forever. Amen." Bengel 
 adds: "And let every believing reader say, 'Amen.'" The 
 subscription of the King James version, while not genuine, is 
 undoubtedly correct 
 
 frimttJ in tin Unit** Stmltt / A miricm.
 
 BS 
 
 57 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482
 
 A 001 025 735