CONVERTED 
 

COMMENTARY 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 TRANSLATION AND VARIOUS EXCURSUS 
 
 MOSES STUART, 
 
 Prof, of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sera, at Andovor. 
 
 ANDOVER: 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY FLAGG & GOULD. 
 NEW YORK: J. LEAVITT, NO. 182, BROADWAY. 
 
 1832. 
 

 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by 
 
 Moses Stuart, 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 
 
 
 / 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I publish to the world the result of my labours upon the epistle 
 to the Romans, with unfeigned diffidence, and with a trembling sense 
 of the responsibility which I incur by so doing. This epistle has 
 been the grand arena, if I may so express myself, on which theo- 
 logical combatants have been contending, ever since the third centu- 
 ry ; and perhaps still earlier. The turn which the apostle James has 
 given to his discussion respecting justification, makes it probable, 
 that even in his time there were some who abused the words of Paul, 
 in his epistle to the Romans, concerning the doctrine of 'justification 
 by faith without the deeds of law.' If so, then it would seem, that 
 there has been no period since this epistle was written, in which its 
 meaning has not been more or less a subject of contest. 
 
 How could this be otherwise, since it discusses the highest and 
 most difficult of all the doctrines which pertain to the Christian sys- 
 tem? Men must be more alike in their early education, their illu- 
 mination, their habits of reasoning, and their theological convictions, 
 than they have hitherto been; and they must love God and each other, 
 better than they have ever yet done ; not to differ in their interpreta- 
 tion of the epistle to the Romans. It strikes at the root of all hu- 
 man pride and vain glory ; it aims even a deadly blow. And where 
 a passionate attachment to these is rankling in the breast, how is it 
 possible that this epistle should meet with a welcome reception, and 
 the authority of its simple and obvious meaning be admitted? Even 
 where the remains of such an attachment are still lurking within, 
 and only now and then developing themselves, because the heart is 
 in some measure unsanctified, there we cannot expect to find an un- 
 prejudiced interpretation of the writing in question. An epistle, 
 which is as it were the very Confession of Faith that a true Christian 
 is to make, must needs receive an interpretation more or less forced, 
 on the part of all who are influenced by pride, by passion, by preju- 
 dice, by ill-directed early instruction, or by ignorance. 
 
 For these reasons, an interpreter of this epistle must expect op- 
 position at the present day, let his views be what they may. Be he 
 Calvinist, Arminian, Pelagian, Antinomian, Socinian, or of any 
 other sect, it is in vain for him to think of escape. Paul is a writer 
 too formidable to be acknowledged as an opponent. Hence, when 
 he is interpreted so that the views of one party in any particular point 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 seem to be favoured, the others are very apt to unite in condemning 
 the interpretation. Nothing will satisfy them, but to have such a 
 writer explained as siding with them. Alas then for the interpreter! 
 While he meets, perhaps, with the approbation of a few, he must of 
 course expect the vehement dissent of many. He must make up his 
 mind, therefore, before he publishes, to bear with all this, and to 
 bear with it patiently and firmly ; or else he had better abstain from 
 publishing. It may appear to him as a very undesirable remunera- 
 tion for painful and long-protracted labours; but it is one which 
 others have been obliged to receive, and which he also must expect. 
 The only offset for all the pain which this may occasion him, must be 
 the hope, that his labours after all may do some good ; and that, if 
 they do not themselves on the whole directly advance the cause of 
 truth, they may at least be the means of exciting others to make in- 
 quiries, which will result in the accomplishment of such an end. 
 
 For myself, I do not profess to be free from all prejudices of edu- 
 cation and all attachment to system, in such a degree as to make it 
 certain that my views may not sometimes be affected by them. Nor 
 do I profess to be so illuminated in respect to divine things, and so 
 skilled in the original language and criticism of the New Testament, 
 as to be certain that all my conclusions respecting the meaning of 
 the epistle before us, are correct. Homo sum, et nihil ab hominibus 
 me alicnum puto. When, therefore, I speak in the indicative mood, 
 and say that this means thus and so, the reader will not understand 
 that any thing more is intended, than that this is true in my opinion. 
 To be always dealing in the conditional mode, and filling one's pages 
 with if, perhaps, probably, possibly, may it not, can it not, etc., etc., 
 would be intolerable in such a writing as a commentary. Besides, 
 it would represent the author himself as in a perpetual state of doubt 
 or uncertainty. This I cannot truly say of myself. My convictions, 
 for the most part, have become definite and full in respect to far the 
 greater portion of the epistle to the Romans. To represent them 
 otherwise, would be to misrepresent them. 
 
 But this does not imply, that I am insensible of the weakness of 
 human nature, or of my exposedness to err. If I have any know- 
 ledge of my own heart, it is very far from such insensibility. After 
 all, however, a man who is liable to err, may form opinions, and may 
 be satisfied that they are correct. This all men do, and must do; 
 and all which can be properly demanded of them is, that they should 
 hold themselves open to conviction, whenever adequate reasons are 
 offered to convince them of their errors. 
 
 In this position, I trust and believe, do I hold myself, as to the 
 opinions advanced in the interpretations that follow. I can say truly, 
 that there are no opinions advanced here, which have been hastily 
 taken up. I have been long engaged in the exposition of the epistle 
 to the Romans, and have studied it much more than any other part 
 of the bible. I have taken an extensive range in consulting com- 
 mentators ancient and modern, as well as exegeses contained in theo- 
 logical essays and systems. This, however, I mention for one pur- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 pose, and one only, viz., to shew that I have not come lightly to the 
 responsible task of writing and publishing a commentary on the epis- 
 tle under consideration ; and that the opinions, therefore, which are 
 advanced in it, are not the offspring of mere education or hasty con- 
 jecture. 
 
 Dissent, and probably contradiction, are almost of course to be ex- 
 pected. I may be permitted, however, respectfully to solicit those who 
 may see fit to publish any thing of this nature, that they would investi- 
 gate thoroughly, before they condemn what I have said. When they 
 have so done, I shall value their opinion, however it may differ from 
 my own. Aiming, as I trust I do, at the development of truth, I 
 shall rejoice to find any of my errors corrected ; for errors no doubt 
 there are in my work ; and if the correction be made in the spirit of 
 love and Christian friendship, so much the more acceptable will it be. 
 If it be made in a different spirit, and is still a real correction, I 
 would fain hope for magnanimity enough to say : Fas est ah hoste 
 doceri. 
 
 From some of those who have never deeply studied the epistle to 
 the Romans, and who have a traditional and systematic exegesis 
 which answers their purposes in an a priori way, I may probably ex- 
 pect, in regard to some things, vehement and unqualified dissent. 
 Such, however, can hardly assert the right of demanding that my 
 views should be accommodated to theirs ; since we proceed, in our re- 
 spective interpretations, on grounds so exceedingly diverse. I hope, 
 therefore, that such will excuse me from any obligation to contend 
 with their exegesis. 
 
 To those who may differ from me, after thorough research, I can 
 only say : ' The field is open ; as open for you as for me. You have 
 the same right to publish your thoughts to the world, as I have to 
 publish mine ; and as good a right to defend your views, as I have 
 to proffer mine. The result of doing this, if done with deep, atten- 
 tive, protracted consideration, and in the spirit of kindness, cannot 
 be otherwise than favourable to the interests of truth. I may not live 
 to vindicate my own views where just, or to abandon the errors of 
 which you might convince me ; but others will live, who will do the 
 one or the other for me, should it become necessary. The truth, at 
 last, must and will prevail.' 
 
 I confess, frankly, that I do not expect, for this book, the favour 
 of such as are truly sectarians. I have written it, so far as in my 
 power, without any regard to sect or name. Doubtless my efforts 
 have been imperfect ; but so far as in me lay, the one only and sim- 
 ple inquiry with me has been : What did Paul mean to teach ? What 
 Calvin, or Augustine, or Edwards, or Arminius, or Grotius, or any 
 other theologian or commentator has taught or said, has been with 
 me only secondary and subordinate. No one is farther from disre- 
 spect to the great and good, than myself; but when explaining the 
 Bible, to call no man master, and to bow to no system as such, are 
 sacred principles with me. If I have not always adhered to them, 
 it results from my imperfection ; not from any conscious and allowed 
 
Vi PREFACE. 
 
 design. Of course, all party men in theology, will probably find 
 some things in the following pages with which they will not agree. 
 How can it be otherwise ? I have, to the utmost of my power, left 
 their systems out of sight, and made it my constant and only effort, 
 to follow simply the way in which the apostle seems to lead me. 
 Such a course will be estimated differently from what it now is, when 
 less attachment to system and party in theology, and more of simple- 
 hearted love of the truth just as it stands in the Scripture, shall pre- 
 vail in the churches. 
 
 My views of Rom. 5: 12—19, of 7: 5—25, and of 8: 28, seq., 
 will no doubt be controverted. I have anticipated this; for who can 
 help knowing, that these passages have, for time immemorial, been the 
 great ngoa'AO^/nu xal ov.avduXov of theology 1 To hazard an inter- 
 pretation here, and not to accompany it with reasons, would be justly 
 deemed presumptuous. To give reasons, demands at least the ap- 
 pearance of theologizing. Whatever of this exists in the Commen- 
 tary or the Excursus, is, I may say, involuntary on my part. It is in- 
 serted only to guard against being misunderstood, or else to support 
 the interpretation which I have given. In order to do this, it is now 
 and then necessary, to shew that a different interpretation is replete 
 with difficulties, some of which are insurmountable. 
 
 Those who are disposed to find fault with what they may call my 
 theological discussions, (brief and seldom as they are), would proba- 
 bly not make any objections to such discussions, had the result of 
 them been accordant with their own views, or with those of the au- 
 thors whom they highly esteem. Cut how can I be under obligation, 
 to make wishes of this nature a rule to guide my interpretations, or 
 my explanation and defence of them ? I know of no precept in the- 
 ory, nor any obligation from usage, which hinders an interpreter from 
 reasoning upon the doctrines which the Scriptures appear to teach, 
 or which they have been represented as teaching. How can it be 
 one's duty, not to guard against the misrepresentation of his own 
 views in respect to the meaning of Scripture, and not to defend those 
 views by producing the arguments which appear to justify them ? 
 
 Whatever the following pages contain, either of truth or error, 
 they have been written under no ordinary sense of responsibility. 
 The epistle itself must needs create such a feeling in the breast of 
 every reflecting man, who undertakes to comment upon it ; and in 
 addition to this, I have been repeatedly interrupted in my labours by 
 my state of health ; and this, under circumstances which rendered it 
 not improbable, that I should not live to see the completion of my 
 work. The day of my account cannot be far distant ; and in view 
 of it, can I publish to the world what I do not seriously regard as 
 being true 1 Can party purposes have any strong attractions for a 
 man in such a condition ? I hope and trust I can say, that the tribu- 
 nal before which this and all other works are to be finally judged, ap- 
 pears to me a matter of immeasurably higher interest, than all the 
 praise or blame which men can bestow. 
 
 Mav that omniscient and merciful Being, the God of love and 
 
PUEFACE. VII 
 
 truth, forgive whatever of error may be in this book ; and accept and 
 bless to the good of his church, whatever of truth is explained or de- 
 fended ! 
 
 I should be ungrateful, if I should omit to mention my special 
 obligations to some of the interpreters, who have laboured to explain 
 the epistle to the Romans. Calvin, Grotius, J. A. Turretin, Flatt, 
 and Tholuck, have been my favourite authors ; although I have by 
 no means confined my reading to these. Most of all am I indebted 
 to the excellent book of Tholuck on this epistle. In particular, I 
 have often relied on him, in my statements with respect to the opin- 
 ions of other commentators, whom I had not at hand, or whom I did 
 not think it important to consult myself, because I confided in his ac- 
 count of their views. But in all cases, where any considerable im- 
 portance was attached to the opinion of this or that individual, and 
 where it was in my power to consult, I have consulted for my- 
 self. Prof. Tholuck will easily perceive, also, if the following sheets 
 should pass under his eye, that I am indebted to him for various 
 classical quotations and allusions, and also for not a few valuable phi- 
 lological remarks, as well as views of the reasoning and argumenta- 
 tion of the apostle. He has my most unfeigned thanks, for all the aid 
 which his excellent work has afforded me. 
 
 He will also perceive, that in some places I differ from him ; I 
 do this, as I trust, in the spirit of kindness and brotherly love. When 
 I do differ, I always give my reasons for it. As I fully believe, that 
 his only aim is to come to the knowledge and development of truth ; 
 so I trust he will put a candid estimate on the full and frank expres- 
 sion of my own views, where they differ from his. May our respec- 
 tive labours and inquiries help to promote the great object which we 
 both have in view ! 
 
 Throughout, I have adopted and expressed no views or opinions, 
 without study ; and none upon the authority of others. Those who 
 read the following pages, will perceive, I apprehend, that while I have 
 not neglected the study of other writers, I have not omitted to study 
 and think for myself. In this way only can any advance be hoped for, 
 in the all-important work of interpreting the Bible. 
 
 I have only to add, that the present work is designed, in a special 
 manner, for beginners in the study of interpretation ; and this fact will 
 account for the occasional repetitions and particularity of illustration, 
 which the reader will not unfrequently meet with, in his perusal of 
 this volume. If all the young men in our country, who repair to the- 
 ological Seminaries, or who devote themselves in any way to the stu- 
 dy of sacred criticism, had been trained in early life to the study of 
 the classics, on such grounds as are adopted in the Gymnasia of Eu- 
 rope, many a minute remark might be spared which is now made. 
 The reader, who finds some things which are superfluous for himself, 
 when he calls this to mind, will grant me pardon for being minute 
 and particular. Commentary written in a general way, leaves only a 
 general and indistinct impression. It is not my aim to accomplish 
 merely such an end. 
 
VIII PREFACE. 
 
 The more practised interpreter will not, for the most part, be dis- 
 pleased with being frequently reminded of principles in grammar and 
 criticism, which are in themselves important, and which need, in our 
 biblical studies, to be kept constantly before the mind. 
 
 I cannot close this preface, without expressing my obligations to 
 Mr. Leonard Woods, jun., who has with great assiduity, perseverance, 
 and kindness, assisted in the correction of the press, in nearly all the 
 sheets of the present volume, and whose aid has been important to 
 me, on account of the ability and accuracy with which it has been 
 rendered. 
 
 MOSES STUART. 
 
 Theological Seminary; Andover, / 
 Sept. 1832. ( 
 

 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Introduction and Salutation. 
 
 I. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a chosen apostle, set apart for 
 
 2 the gospel of God, ' which he formerly published by his prophets in 
 
 3 the holy Scriptures, ' concerning his Son, (who was of the seed of 
 
 4 David as to the flesh, ' [and] was constituted the Son of God with 
 power as to his holy spiritual nature, after his resurrection from the 
 
 5 dead), Jesus Christ our Lord, ' (by whom we have received grace 
 and the office of an apostle, in order to promote the obedience of 
 
 6 faith among all nations, for his name's sake, ' among whom are ye 
 
 7 also, called of Jesus Christ), ' to all who are at Rome, beloved of 
 God,, chosen saints ; grace be unto you, and peace from God our 
 Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 8 First, I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, on account of you 
 
 9 all, that your faith is spoken of in all the world. For God is my 
 witness, whom I truly serve in the gospel of his Son, how unceasing- 
 
 10 ly I make remembrance of you, ' always asking in my prayers, 
 that at some time or other, if possible before long, I may (God will- 
 
 11 ing) make a prosperous journey, and come to you. For I am de- 
 sirous to see you, in order to bestow on you some spiritual favour, 
 
 12 so that you may be confirmed. This is also [my desire], to be com- 
 forted among you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 
 
 13 Moreover I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I have of- 
 ten purposed to come unto you, (but have been hindered until now), 
 
10 ROMANS I. 14—27. 
 
 that I might have some fruit among you, as also among other Gen- 
 
 14 tiles. I am a debtor to both Greeks and Barbarians, to both the 
 
 15 learned and the unlearned : such being the case, I am ready, ac- 
 cording to my ability, to preach the gospel even to you who are at 
 Rome. 
 
 Subjects of consideration proposed, which constitute tlio distinguishing traits of the gospel. 
 
 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, since it is the pow- 
 er of God unto the salvation of every one that believeth ; to the Jew 
 
 17 first, and then to the Greek. For the justification which is of God, 
 is revealed by it, [justification] by faith, in order that we may be- 
 
 1S lieve ; as it is written : " The just shall live by faith." Moreover 
 the wrath of God from heaven is revealed against all ungodliness, 
 and unrighteousness of men who hinder the truth by unrighteous- 
 ness. 
 
 Universal depravity and guilt of the Gentiles. 
 
 19 Because that which might be known concerning God, is manifest 
 
 20 to them ; for God hath manifested it to them ; ' (for the invisible 
 things of him, since the creation of the world, are clearly seen by 
 the things which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead) ; 
 
 21 so that they are without excuse : because, when they knew God, 
 they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became 
 vain in their imaginations, and their inconsiderate mind was dark- 
 
 22 ened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ' and 
 
 23 exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image like to mor- 
 
 24 tal man, and fowls, and four-footed beasts, and reptiles. Wherefore 
 God even gave them up, in the lusts of their hearts, to uncleanness, 
 
 25 to dishonour their own bodies among themselves ; who exchanged 
 the true God for a false one, and worshipped and served the crea- 
 
 26 ture more than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen ! On ac- 
 count of this, God gave them up to base passions ; for their women 
 
 27 changed their natural use into that which is against nature. And 
 in like manner also the males, leaving the natural use of the fe- 
 male, burned in their lust toward each other, males with males do- 
 
ROMANS I. 28— II. 12. 11 
 
 ing that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves the reward 
 
 28 of their error which is due. And inasmuch as they did not like to re- 
 tain God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, 
 
 29 to do those things which are base ; being filled with all iniquity, un- 
 cleanness, malice, covetousness, mischief; full of envy, murder, 
 
 30 strife, deceit, malevolence ; backbiters, open slanderers, haters of 
 God, railers, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to 
 
 31 parents, ' inconsiderate, covenant-breakers, destitute of natural af- 
 
 32 fection, implacable, unmerciful : who knowing the ordinance of God, 
 that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only do the 
 same things, but even bestow commendation on those who do them. 
 
 The Jews equally guilty with the Gentiles. 
 
 II. Therefore thou art without excuse, O man, whoever thou art 
 that condemnest ; for in condemning another thou passest sentence 
 upon thyself, since thou who condemnest, doest the same things. 
 
 2 Now we know that the judgment of God is according to truth, 
 
 3 against those who do such things. Dost thou think then, O man, 
 who condemnest those that do such things, and doest the same, that 
 
 4 thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or dost thou despise his 
 abounding goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering ? not ac- 
 knowledging that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance, 
 
 5 ' but according to thy hard and impenitent heart, treasuring up for 
 thyself wrath in the day of wrath, when the righteous judgment of 
 
 C God shall be revealed ; who will render to every man according to 
 
 7 his works : to those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek 
 
 8 for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life ; but to those 
 who are contentious and disobey the truth and obey unrighteous- 
 
 9 ness, indignation and wrath. Affliction and distress [shall be] upon 
 every soul of man that doeth evil, first of the Jew and then of the Greek; 
 
 1 but glory and honour and peace [shall be] to every one who doeth 
 
 11 good, first to the Jew and then to the Greek ; (for with God there 
 
 12 is no respect of persons; since so many as have sinned without law 
 will perish without law, and so many as have sinned under the law 
 
12 ROMANS II. 1:3—29. 
 
 13 will be condemned by the law, ' because it is not those that hear 
 the law who are just with God, but those that obey the law who will 
 
 14 be justified ; for when the Gentiles who have no law, do in a natural 
 state such things as the law requireth, these being destitute of the 
 
 15 law, are a law to themselves ; who shew that the work which the 
 law requireth, is written upon their hearts, their conscience bearing 
 witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or excusing) ; in the 
 
 16 day when God shall judge the secret things of men by Jesus Christ, 
 according to my gospel. 
 
 17 If now thou art called a Jew, and dost rest upon the law, and 
 IS make thy boast of God, ' and art acquainted with [his] will, and 
 
 canst distinguish things which differ, being instructed by the law ; 
 
 19 thou art confident, too, of being thyself a guide to the blind, a light 
 
 20 to those who are in darkness, ' an instructor of the ignorant, a teach- 
 er of little children, one having the representation of true knowledge 
 
 21 in the law ; dost thou, then, who teachest another, not instruct thy- 
 25 self? Dost thou who preachest against stealing, thyself steal? ' Dost 
 
 thou who forbiddest to commit adultery, thyself commit adultery ? 
 Dost thou who abhorrest idols, thyself commit robbery in holy 
 
 23 things? Dost thou who makest thy boast of the law, thyself dishon- 
 
 24 our God by transgressing the law ? " For the name of God is 
 
 25 blasphemed by you among the Gentiles;" as it is written. Circum- 
 cision indeed is profitable, if thou dost obey the law ; but if thou 
 art a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision becometh uncircumci- 
 
 26 sion. If then he who is uncircumcised keep the precepts of the 
 
 27 law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision 1 Yea, 
 he who keepeth the law, in his natural uncircumcised state, will con- 
 demn thee, who, in possession of the Scriptures and a partaker of 
 
 28 circumcision, art a transgressor of the law. For he is not a Jew, 
 who is one outwardly ; nor is that which is outward, [merely] in the 
 
 29 flesh, circumcision. But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly ; and 
 circumcision is of the heart, spiritual not literal; whose praise is not 
 of men, but of God. 
 
i 
 
 ROMANS III. 1—19. U$ 
 
 Answer to some objections. Further confirmation of the depravity and guilt of the Jews. 
 General conclusion from the facts stated. 
 
 III. ' What then is the advantage of the Jew ? Or what the profit 
 of circumcision V 
 
 2 Much, in divers respects; the most important however is, that 
 they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 
 
 3 ' What then if some did not believe ? Will their unbelief ren- 
 der the faithfulness of God of no effect V 
 
 4 By no means ; but let God be [counted] true, although every 
 man [be counted] false ; as it is written : " That thou mightest be 
 justified when thou speakest, and overcome when thou judgest." 
 
 5 ' But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, 
 what shall we say ? Is God unjust, who inflicteth punishment?' 
 
 G (I speak after the manner of men). By no means ; otherwise, 
 how shall God judge the world? 
 
 7 'Still, if God's faithfulness to his word has, on account of my 
 deceitfulness, abounded more unto his glory, why am I any longer 
 condemned as a sinner ?' 
 
 8 Shall we then [say], (as it is slanderously reported and as some 
 affirm that we do say) : Let us do evil that good may come ? whose 
 condemnation is just. 
 
 9 ' What then ? Have we any pre-eminence ?' None at all ; for 
 we have already made the accusation against both Jews and Gen- 
 
 10 tiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written : " There is none 
 
 11 righteous, not even one; there is none who understandeth, there is 
 
 12 none who seeketh after God ; all have gone out of the way, together 
 have they become corrupt ; there is none who doeth good, not even 
 
 13 one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with their tongues do 
 
 14 they deceive. The poison of asps is under their lips. ' Whose mouth 
 
 15 is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood ; 
 ]y| destruction and misery attend their steps; ' the way of peace 
 
 18 they know not. There is no fear of God before their eyes. 
 
 19 Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it speakcth 
 
14 ROMANS III. 20.— IV. 3. 
 
 to those who have the law ; so that every mouth must be stopped, 
 
 20 and the whole world become guilty before God. Wherefore by 
 works oflaw shall no flesh be justified before him ; for by law is the 
 knowledge of sin. 
 
 Gratuitous Justification by Christ is the only way of salvation. 
 
 21 But now, the justification which is of God, without law, is re- 
 vealed ; to which testimony is given by the law and the prophets ; 
 
 22 a justification, moreover, which [is of God by faith in Jesus Christ, 
 [offered] to all and [bestowed] on all who believe; for there is no 
 
 23 distinction. For all have sinned and come short of the glory which 
 
 24 God bestows, ' being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
 
 25 demption which is in Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth as a 
 propitiatory [sacrifice] by faith in his blood, in order to declare his 
 justification with respect to the remission of sins formerly committed 
 
 26 during the forbearance of God ; in order to declare his justification 
 at the present time ; so that he might be just and yet the justifier of 
 him that believeth in Jesus. 
 
 27 Where then is boasting 1 It is excluded. By what law ? Of 
 
 28 works? Nay, but by the law of faith ; for we have come to the con- 
 
 29 elusion, that a man is justified by faith, without works oflaw. Is he 
 the God of the Jews only ? Is he not also of the Gentiles ? Yea, of 
 
 30 the Gentiles also ; since it is one and the same God who will justify 
 
 31 the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised by faith. Do we 
 then make void the law, through faith ? By no means ; we confirm 
 the law. 
 
 The Scriptures of the Old Test., i.e. the law, teach the doctrine of Justification by grace only. 
 
 IV. ' What then shall we say that Abraham our father obtained, in 
 respect to the flesh V 
 
 2 [Much] ;* if, however, Abraham was justified by works, he hath 
 
 3 ground for glorying ; but [this he hath] not before God. For 
 what saith the Scripture ? " And Abraham believed God, and it 
 
 * Comp. 3: 1,2. 
 
ROMANS IV. 4— 18. 
 
 4 was counted to him for righteousness." Now to him that worketh, 
 
 5 reward is not counted as a matter of grace, but as a debt ; but to 
 him who worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the un- 
 godly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 
 
 6 In like manner, also, David describeth the blessedness of the 
 
 7 man, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works : " Bless- 
 ed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are cov- 
 
 8 ered ; blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not iniqui- 
 ty." 
 
 9 ' [Cometh] this blessedness, then, upon those who are circum- 
 cised [only], or also upon the uncircumcised? For we say, that 
 faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness.' 
 
 10 How then was it counted ? While he was in a state of circum- 
 cision, or of uncircumcision ? Not in a state of circumcision, but of 
 
 11 uncircumcision? And he received the sign of circumcision, as a 
 seal of the righteousness by faith which [he possessed] in a state of 
 uncircumcision ; in order that he might be the father of all the 
 uncircumcised who believe, so that righteousness might be counted 
 
 12 to them ; and also the father of the circumcised, who are not only 
 of the circumcision, but walk in the steps of that faith which our 
 father Abraham had while in a state of uncircumcision. 
 
 13 For the promise was not made by law to Abraham or to his seed, 
 that he should be heir of the world ; but by the righteousness of faith. 
 
 14 If now they who are of the law, are heirs, faith is rendered of no 
 effect, and the promise is made void ; for the law is the occasion of 
 wrath, because where there is no law, there is no transgression. 
 
 16 On this account it was of faith, that it might be of grace, in order 
 that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to him who 
 is under the law, but to him who is of the faith of Abraham ; — who 
 
 17 is the father of us all, ' (according to what is written : "A father of 
 many nations have I made thee"), in the sight of God in whom he 
 believed, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things which 
 are not, as if they were. 
 
 18 [It was] he who, against hope, believed in hope that he should 
 
16 ROMANS IV. 19.— V. 11. 
 
 become the father of many nations, (according to what had been 
 
 19 said: " So shall thy seed be"); ' and being not weak in faith, he 
 considered not his own body already dead (as he was about one hun- 
 
 20 dred years of age), nor yet the deadness of Sarah's womb; neither 
 did he through unbelief doubt the promise of God, but he was strong 
 
 21 in faith, giving glory to God ; yea, he was fully persuaded that what 
 
 22 he had promised, he was also able to perform. Wherefore it was 
 
 23 verily counted to him for righteousness. But it was not recorded 
 merely for his sake, that it was counted to him ; but also for our 
 sake to whom it will be counted, to us who believe on him who 
 
 24 raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, ' who was delivered up on 
 account of our offences, and was raised for the sake of our justifica- 
 tion. 
 
 The Fruits of Justification, as to tlieir certainty and extent. 
 
 V. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, 
 
 2 through our Lord Jesus Christ ; by whom also we have obtained 
 access, through faith, unto this state of grace in which we stand, 
 and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 
 
 3 And not only so, but we rejoice also in our afflictions ; knowing 
 
 4 that affliction produceth patience, ' and patience approbation, and 
 
 5 approbation hope, ' and hope maketh not ashamed ; for the love of 
 God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Spirit which is given 
 
 C to us. For while we were yet without strength, Christ died in due 
 
 7 time for the ungodly. Now scarcely for a just man will any one 
 die ; although for a good man some one, perhaps, might even ven- 
 
 8 ture to die. But God commendeth his love to us, in that while we 
 
 9 were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now 
 
 10 justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath by him. For if, 
 when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death 
 of his Son ; much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his 
 life. 
 
 1 1 And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, by whom we have now obtained reconciliation. 
 
ROMANS V. 12.— VI. 5. 17 
 
 12 In respect to this [I say], as by one man sin entered the world, 
 and death by sin ; and in like manner death came upon all men, 
 
 13 because that all have sinned ; (for until the law sin was in the 
 
 14 world, although sin is not accounted of where there is no law; yet 
 death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over those who had not 
 sinned in like manner as Adam transgressed ; who is a type of him 
 
 15 that was to come. But not as the offence, so the free gift also ; for 
 if by the offence of one the many died, much more has the grace of 
 God and the gift which is by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, 
 
 16 abounded unto the many. Yea, not as [the condemnation] by one 
 who sinned, is the free gift ; for sentence was by one [offence] unto 
 condemnation, but the free gift is unto justification from many of- 
 
 17 fences. For if by the offence of one, death reigned on account of 
 one [offence], much more shall they who receive abundance of 
 grace and of the gift of justification, reign in life by one, Jesus 
 
 18 Christ) ; therefore, as by one offence [sentence came] upon all men 
 unto condemnation, so by the righteousness of one [sentence came] 
 
 19 upon all men unto justification of life ; for as by the disobedience of 
 one man the many were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of 
 one the many will be constituted righteous. 
 
 20 The law, moreover, was introduced, so that offence would 
 
 21 abound ; but where sin abounded, grace superabounded : so that, 
 as sin reigned by death, in like manner grace also will reign by jus- 
 tification unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 Gratuitous justification does not encourage men to sin, but restrains them from it. 
 
 VI. ' What shall we say then 1 Shall we continue in sin, that grace 
 may abound?' 
 
 2 By no means- How shall we, who are dead to sin, any longer 
 
 3 live in it ? Know ye not, that so many of us as have been baptized 
 
 4 into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death? We then 
 have been buried with him by baptism into his death ; so that, as 
 Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, in like 
 
 5 manner we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have 
 
 3 
 
18 ROMANS VI. 6— 23. 
 
 become kindred with him by a death like his, then we shall be also 
 6 by a resurrection ; knowing this, that our old man is crucified, as 
 
 he was, that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we should 
 g I no longer serve sin : for he who is dead, is freed from sin. If 
 
 now we are dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with 
 him; knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no 
 
 10 more, death hath no longer any dominion over him. For in that 
 he died, he died once for all unto sin ; but in that he liveth, he 
 
 1 1 liveth unto God. In like manner you also must account yourselves 
 dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ. 
 
 12 Let not sin reign, then, in your mortal body, that ye should obey 
 
 13 the lust3 thereof; neither proffer your members to sin as instru- 
 ments of iniquity ; but proffer yourselves to God as alive from the 
 dead, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 
 
 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you : since ye are not under 
 law, but under grace. 
 
 15 ' What then 1 Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but 
 under grace V 
 
 16 By no means. Know ye not, that to whomsoever ye proffer 
 yourselves as servants ready to obey, ye are servants to him whom 
 ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justifica- 
 
 17 tion ? But thanks be to God, that ye were the servants of sin, but 
 have become obedient from the heart to that model of doctrine in 
 
 18 which ye have been instructed. Moreover being freed from sin, ye 
 
 19 have become the servants of righteousness : (I speak in language 
 usual to men, because of the weakness occasioned by your flesh). 
 As then ye have proffered your members for servants to* impurity 
 and iniquity, in order to commit iniquity ; so now proffer your mem- 
 
 20 bers to righteousness, in order to be holy. For when ye were the 
 
 21 servants of sin, ye were free in respect to righteousness. What 
 fruit had ye then, in those things of which ye are now ashamed ? 
 
 22 for the end of those things is death. But now, being freed from 
 sin, and having become servants to God, ye have fruit in respect to 
 
 23 holiness, and in the end [ye will have] eternal life. For the wages 
 
ROMANS VII. 1—13. 19 
 
 of sin is death ; but the gift of God, eternal life, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord. 
 
 Those who are under law, cannot be freed from tho power and poualty of sin. 
 
 VII. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to those who are acquaint- 
 ed with the law), that the law hath dominion over a man so long as 
 
 2 he liveth ? For the married woman is bound to her husband, so 
 long as he liveth ; but if her husband die, she is freed from the law 
 
 3 of her husband. Therefore, if she marry another while her husband 
 is living, she must be called an adulteress ; but if her husband die, 
 she is freed from the law, so that she will not become an adulteress 
 by marrying another husband. 
 
 4 Thus, my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law by the 
 body of Christ, in order that ye should be joined to another who is 
 risen from the dead ; so that we may bring forth fruit unto God. 
 
 5 For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions which were by 
 the law, wrought powerfully in our members to bring forth fruit unto 
 
 6 death ; but now we are freed from the law by which we were held in 
 bondage, inasmuch as we have become dead to it; so that we must 
 serve [God] in newness of spirit, and not in the old and literal man- 
 ner. 
 
 7 ' What shall we say then ? Is the law sin V 
 
 By no means. Still, I had not known sin except by the law ; 
 for I had not known even inordinate desire, unless the law had said : 
 
 8 " Thou shalt not lust." But sin, taking occasion by the command- 
 ment, wrought in me all manner of inordinate desire ; for without 
 
 9 the law sin is dead. For I was alive, once, without the law ; but 
 
 10 when the commandment came, sin revived, ' but I died; yea, the 
 commandment which was unto life, the very same was found to be 
 
 11 death to me. For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceiv- 
 
 12 ed me, and by it slew me ; wherefore the law is holy, and the com- 
 mandment holy and just and good. 
 
 13 ' Has then that which is good become death to me V 
 
 By no means; but sin [becomes death], in order that it might 
 
20 ROMANS VII. 14.— VIII. 6. 
 
 manifest itself; causing death to me by that which is good, so that 
 
 14 sin (through the commandment) might be exceedingly sinful. For 
 we know that the law is spiritual ; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 
 
 15 For that which I do, I approve not ; since it is not what I de- 
 
 16 sire which I do, but I do that which I hate. If now I do that which 
 
 17 I desire not, I consent that the law is good. But now it is no longer 
 
 18 I who do this, but sin which dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, 
 that is in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing ; for to desire what 
 
 19 is good, is easy for me, but to do it I find difficult. For the good 
 which I desire, that I do not ; but the evil which I desire not, that 
 
 20 I do. Now if I do that which I desire not, it is no longer I who do 
 
 21 it, but sin which dwelleth in me. I find, then, that it is a law to 
 
 22 me, when desirous to do good, that evil is near to me. For I 
 
 23 take pleasure in the law of God, as to the inner man ; but I per- 
 ceive another law in my members, warring against the law of my 
 mind, and making me a captive to the law of sin which is in my 
 
 24 members. Wretched man that I am ! Who shall deliver me from 
 
 25 the body which causeth this death ? I thank God, through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord ! Wherefore I, the same person, serve with my 
 mind the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin. 
 
 A state of grace deliver& from the bondago and penalty of sin. 
 
 VIII. But now, there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ 
 
 2 Jesus.* For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath freed 
 
 3 me from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not ac- 
 complish, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own 
 Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [accomplished], and [by an offer- 
 
 4 ing] for sin condemned sin in the flesh ; so that the precepts of the 
 law might be fulfilled by us, who walk not according to the flesh, 
 
 5 but according to the Spirit. For they who are according to the 
 flesh, concern themselves with the things of the flesh ; but they who 
 
 6 are according to the Spirit, with the things of the Spirit. For the 
 
 * Who walk not after the fiesh but after the Spirit, is probably spurious here, 
 and is therefore omitted. 
 
ROMANS VIII. 7—23. 21 
 
 mind of the flesh is death ; but the mind of the Spirit is life and 
 
 7 peace. Because the mind of the ilesh is enmity against God ; for it 
 
 8 is not subject to his law, nor indeed can it be. Those, then, who 
 
 9 are in the flesh, cannot please God. Ye, however, are not in the 
 flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in 
 you. But if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 
 
 10 But if Christ be in you, the body indeed is mortified on account of 
 
 11 sin, but the spirit liveth on account of righteousness. But if the 
 Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, dwelleth in you, 
 he who raised up Christ from the dead, will also quicken your mor- 
 tal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. 
 
 12 Therefore, brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live ac- 
 
 13 cording to the flesh ; for if ye live according to the flesh, ye shall 
 die ; but if, through the Spirit, ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye 
 
 14^shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are 
 
 15 the sons of God. For ye have not received a servile spirit, that ye 
 should again be in fear ; but ye have received a filial spirit, by 
 
 16 which we cry : Abba, Father ! The same Spirit beareth witness to 
 
 17 our spirit, that we are children of God. But if children, then heirs; 
 heirs truly of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer 
 with him, in order that we may also be glorified with him. 
 
 Fruits of the grace and sanctification proffered in the gospel. 
 
 IS Moreover, I count not the sufferings of the present time as wor- 
 
 19 thy of comparison with the glory which is to be revealed to us. For 
 the earnest expectation of the creature is waiting for the manifesta- 
 
 20 tion [of this glory] of the children of God. For the creature was 
 
 21 made subject to frailty, (not of its own choice, but by him who put 
 it in subjection), in hope that this same creature may be freed from 
 the bondage of a perishing state, and [brought] into the glorious lib- 
 
 22 erty of the children of God. For we know that all creatures sigh 
 
 23 together and are in anguish, even to the present time. And not 
 only so, but we who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we our- 
 selves groan within ourselves, waiting for [our] adoption as children, 
 
22 ROMANS VIII. 24—39. 
 
 24 the redemption of our bodies. For even we are saved [only] in 
 hope. Now hope which is seen, is not hope ; for what a man seeth, 
 
 25 how doth he still hope for it ? But if we hope for that which we do 
 not see, we patiently wait for it. 
 
 26 In like manner, also, the Spirit helpeth our infirmities ; for we 
 know not what we should pray for as we ought ; the same Spirit, 
 however, maketh intercession for us in sighs which cannot be utter- 
 
 27 ed ; but he who searcheth hearts, knoweth the mind of the Spirit, 
 for he maketh intercession in behalf of the saints according to the 
 will of God. 
 
 28 We know, moreover, that all things work together for good to 
 those who love God, to those who are called according to his pur- 
 
 29 pose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be 
 conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he should be t!ie 
 
 30 First-born among many brethren. Those also whom he predestina- 
 ted, the same he likewise called ; and those whom he called, the same 
 he also justified ; and those whom he justified, the same he also glo- 
 rified. 
 
 31 What shall we say, then, concerning these things? If God be 
 
 32 for us, who is against us i Even he who spared not his own Son, 
 but freely gave him up for us all — how shall he not also, with him, 
 
 33 freely give us all things ? ' Who shall accuse the elect of God ? It is 
 
 34 God that justifieth ; ' who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ who 
 died [for us] ; yea rather, who is risen, and who is at the right hand 
 
 35 of God, and who intercedeth for us. Who shall separate us from the 
 love of Christ ? Shall affliction, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, 
 
 36 or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? (As it is written : " For thy sake 
 are we continually exposed to death, we are counted as sheep for 
 
 37 the slaughter"). Nay, in all these things we are more than con- 
 
 38 querors, through him who loved us. For I am persuaded, that nei- 
 ther death nor life, neither angels nor principalities, neither things 
 
 39 present nor future, nor powers, ' neither height nor depth, nor any 
 other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of 
 God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
ROMANS IX. 1—18. 23 
 
 God has a right to mako tlioso whom ho chooses, to bo partakers of his favour; and this right he 
 lias always exercised. 
 
 IX. I say the truth in Christ, I do not speak falsely, (as my con- 
 
 2 science testifieth for me in the Holy Spirit,) ' that I have great 
 
 3 sorrow and continual anguish in my heart. For I could wish even 
 myself to be devoted to destruction by Christ, instead of my breth- 
 
 4 ren, my kinsmen after the flesh ; ' who are Israelites ; to whom 
 pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 
 
 5 giving of the law, and the rites of service, and the promises; whose 
 are the fathers ; and from whom Christ [descended] in respect to 
 the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen ! 
 
 G However, it is not so that the word of God has been rendered 
 
 7 void ; for they are not all Israel, who are of Israel ; ' neither are all 
 
 8 the seed of Abraham children, ' but, " In Isaac shall thy seed be cal- 
 led ;" that is, not the children of the flesh are the children of God, 
 
 9 but the children of promise are counted for the seed. For the word 
 of promise was thus : " According to this time will I come, and 
 Sarah shall have a son." 
 
 10 And not only so, but Rebecca also, have conceived by one, Isaac 
 
 11 our father, ' (for [the children] being not yet born, neither having 
 done any thing good or evil, that the purpose of God according to 
 
 12 election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth), ' it was 
 
 13 said to her : " The elder shall serve the younger ;" ' as it is written : 
 " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." 
 
 14 ' What shall we say then 1 Is there unrighteousness with God?' 
 
 15 By no means ; for he saith to Moses : " I will have mercy on 
 whomsoever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom- 
 
 16 soever I will have compassion." Therefore it is not of him that 
 willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who sheweth mercy. 
 
 17 For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh : " For this very purpose have I 
 roused thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee, and de- 
 
 18 clare my name in all the land." Therefore, on whom he will he hath 
 mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 
 
24 R031ANS IX. 19—33. 
 
 19 Thou wilt say then to me : Why doth he yet find fault, for who 
 
 20 hath resisted his will? Who then art thou, O man, that repliest 
 against God ] Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it : 
 
 21 Why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not the potter power over the 
 clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel to honour and another 
 
 22 to dishonour ? What now if God, purposing to manifest his indigna- 
 tion and make known his power, endured with much long-suffering 
 
 23 the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction ? And that he might make 
 known the riches of his glory toward the vessels of mercy which he 
 
 24 had before prepared for glory, ' [shewed mercy] even to us whom 
 
 25 he hath called, not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles. As 
 he saith also in Hosea : "I will call him who was not my people, 
 
 26 my people ; and her who was not my beloved, beloved. And it 
 shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said to them : * Ye 
 are not my people,' there shall they be called the sons of the living 
 God." 
 
 27 Isaiah moreover says concerning Israel : " Although the number 
 of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant 
 
 28 shall be saved. For he will execute his word, [which] he hath de- 
 creed in righteousness ; for the Lord will execute his word decreed 
 
 29 concerning the land." Yea, as Isaiah had before said : " Except 
 the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a remnant, we should have been like 
 Sodom, we should have been made like to Gomorrah." 
 
 30 ' What shall we say then V That the Gentiles, who did not seek 
 after justification, have obtained justification, even that justifica- 
 
 31 tion which is by faith ; but Israel, who sought after a law of justifi- 
 
 32 cation, have not attained to a law of justification. Why? Because 
 [they sought] not by faith, but by works of law ; for they stumbled 
 
 33 at the stone of stumbling ; ' as it is written : " Behold ! I lay in Zion 
 a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence ; but every one who be- 
 lieveth on him shall not be ashamed." 
 
ROMANS X. 1—16. 25 
 
 The unbelief ami rejection of the Jews, an.l the reception of the Gentiles through faith, are truly 
 consistent with the declarations of the ancient Scriptures. 
 
 X. Brethren, the kind desire of my heart and my prayer to God for 
 
 2 them is, that they may he saved. For I bear them witness, that they 
 
 3 have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being 
 ignorant of the justification which is of God, and seeking to establish 
 their own justification, they have not submitted themselves to the 
 
 4 justification which is of God. For Christ is the end of the law, for 
 justification to every one who believeth. 
 
 5 Now Moses thus describeth the justification which is of the law : 
 
 6 " The man who doeth these things, shall live by them." But justi- 
 fication by faith speaketh in this manner: " Say not in thine heart, 
 Who shall ascend into heaven V that is, to bring down Christ ; or, 
 
 7 " Who shall descend into the abyss V that is, to bring up Christ 
 
 8 from the dead. But what saith it ? " The word is near to thee, in 
 thy mouth and in thy heart;" that is, the word of faith which we 
 
 9 preach. For if thou shalt openly confess the Lord Jesus with thy 
 mouth, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, 
 
 10 thou shalt. be saved ; because with the heart man believeth unto 
 justification, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 
 
 11 For the Scripture saith: "No one who believeth on him, shall be 
 ashamed." 
 
 12 There is, then, no difference between Jew and Greek ; for there 
 is the same Lord of all, who is rich [in mercy] unto all them that 
 
 13 call upon him ; since " every one who calleth on the name of the 
 Lord, shall be saved." 
 
 14 ' How, then, shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
 lieved ? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not 
 
 15 heard 1 And how shall they hear without a preacher ? ' And how 
 shall they preach, except they be sent?' 
 
 Even so is it written : " How beautiful are the feet of those who 
 
 16 publish salvation, who proclaim good tidings !" Yet all have not 
 
 obeyed the gospel ; for Isaiah saith : " Lord, who hath believed our 
 
 report ?" 
 
 4 
 
26 ROMANS X. 17.— XI. 10. 
 
 17 ' Faith, then, cometh by hearing ; and hearing by the word of 
 God.' 
 
 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yea truly, " their sound hath 
 gone forth into all the earth ; their words to the ends of the world." 
 
 19 I say, moreover: Doth not Israel know? First Moses saith : "I 
 will move you to jealousy by that which is no nation ; I will excite 
 
 20 your indignation by a foolish people." But Isaiah is very bold, and 
 saith : " I was found by those who sought me not ; I made myself 
 
 21 manifest to those who did not inquire for me." But concerning 
 Israel he saith : " All the day long, have I stretched out my hand to 
 a disobedient and gainsaying people." 
 
 God has not cast away the Jews entirely and utterly. Pome are now saved ; and all will finally be 
 converted, with the fulness of the Gentiles. God's dealings with them are unsearchable, but 
 wise. 
 
 XI. ' I say then, hath God cast away his own people V 
 
 2 By no means ; for I myself am an Israelite, of the seed of Abra- 
 ham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people 
 whom he foreknew. Know ye not what the Scripture saith in 
 [the history of] Elijah, when he maketh intercession to God against 
 
 3 Israel ? " Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine 
 
 4 altars ; and I only am left, and they are seeking my life." But what 
 saith the answer of God to him? "I have reserved for myself 
 
 5 seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal." In 
 like manner, now, there is also at the present time a remnant ac- 
 
 C cording to the election of grace. But if it be of grace, then it is no 
 more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of 
 works, it is no more of grace ; otherwise work is no more work. 
 
 7 ' What then ? That which Israel sought after, he hath not 
 obtained.' 
 
 8 But the elect have obtained it ; and the rest were blinded ; ' as 
 it is written : " God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that 
 
 9 see not, and ears that hear not, even unto this day." David also 
 saith : " Let their table become a snare to catch them, and an occa- 
 
 10 eion of falling, and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be dark- 
 
ROMANS XI. 11—26. 27 
 
 ened so that they cannot see, and their back be always bowed 
 down." 
 
 11 'I say then : Have they stumbled so as utterly to fall V 
 
 By no means; but by their fail salvation [is come] to the Gen- 
 
 12 tiles, to provoke their emulation. If now their fall hath been the 
 riches of the world, and their degradation the riches of the Gentiles, 
 
 13 how much more their fulness ! I say this, however, to you Gentiles, 
 (for inasmuch as I am truly an apostle of the Gentiles I do honour to 
 
 14 my office), ' so that, if possible, I may excite to emulation some of 
 my kinsmen after the flesh, and save some of them. 
 
 15 If then the casting away of them be the reconciliation of the world, 
 
 16 what shall the reception of them be, but life from the dead? If, 
 moreover, the first-fruits were holy, so shall the mass be ; and if the 
 
 17 root be holy, so will be the branches. If, also, some of the branches 
 were broken off, and thou being a wild olive wert engrafted in their 
 
 18 stead, and made partaker of the root and fatness of the olive, ' glory 
 not over the branches ; but if thou dost glory, thou dost not support 
 
 19 the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then : ' The branches 
 
 20 were broken off, that I might be grafted in.' Be it so ; they were 
 broken off by unbelief, and thou standest by faith ; be not high- 
 
 21 minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, then 
 surely he will not spare thee. 
 
 22 Behold, then, the kindness and the severity of God ! Severity to- 
 ward them who have fallen away ; but kindness toward thee, provided 
 
 23 thou dost abide in his kindness, otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And 
 they also, unless they continue in unbelief, shall be grafted in ; for 
 
 24 God is able again to graft them in. For if thou wert cut out from the 
 olive which was wild by nature, and wert grafted into the good olive, 
 contrary to thy nature ; how much more shall the natural branches 
 be grafted into their own olive ! 
 
 25 Moreover I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, 
 (lest ye should be wise in your own conceit), that blindness has 
 come upon Israel in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles shall come 
 
 26 in. And then all Israel shall be saved ; even as it is written : " A 
 
28 ROMANS XI. 27.— XII. 8. 
 
 deliverer shall come out of Zion, and shall turn away ungodliness 
 
 27 from Jacob ;" ' also : " This is my covenant with them, when I shall 
 
 28 take away their sins." In respect to the gospel, [they have become] 
 enemies on your account ; but in respect to the election, [they are] 
 
 29 beloved for their fathers' sake. For the gifts and calling of God, he 
 
 30 will not repent of. For as ye were formerly disobedient to God, but 
 
 31 have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; thus also they have 
 now become disobedient, so that they may obtain mercy through the 
 
 32 mercy shewn to you. For God hath given over all to unbelief, so 
 that he might have mercy on all. 
 
 33 O the boundless riches and wisdom and knowledge of God ! How 
 
 34 unsearchable are his counsels, and his ways past finding out ! For 
 who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his coun- 
 
 35 sellor? Or who hath first given him any thing, that he may be 
 
 36 repaid? For of him, and by him, and for him, are all things; to 
 him be glory for ever, Amen ! 
 
 Exhortation to piety, humility, diligent improvement of gifts, kind sympathy, and benevolent 
 
 feeling. 
 
 XII. I entreat you, therefore, by the tender mercies of God, to pre- 
 sent your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is 
 
 2 your rational service. And be not conformed to this world; but be 
 ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may learn 
 what the will of God is, even that which is good and acceptable and 
 perfect. 
 
 3 I say, moreover, by the grace given to me, to every one among you, 
 that he think not of himself more highly than he ought to think, but 
 that he think modestly, according to the measure of faith which God 
 
 4 hath imparted to him. For as in one body we have many members, 
 
 5 but all the members have not the same office ; so w T e, being many, 
 are one body in Christ, and are members one of another. 
 
 6 Having then gifts which differ according to the grace that is 
 given us, whether prophecy, [let it be] according to the proportion 
 
 7 of faith ; ' whether ministry, [let there be diligence] in ministration ; 
 
 8 whether teaching, in instruction ; ' or exhorting, in exhortation. 
 
ROMANS XII. 9.— XIII. 5. 29 
 
 — — 
 
 Let the distributer [do his duty] with simplicity ; the superintend- 
 ant, with diligence ; he who performs offices of compassion, with 
 9 cheerfulness. Let benevolence be sincere; abhor that which is 
 evil; cleave to that which is good. 
 
 10 As to brotherly love, [be] kindly affectionate one toward ano- 
 
 11 ther; as to honour, give to each other the preference; ' as to dili- 
 
 12 gence, be not slothful, be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord. 
 Rejoice in hope ; be patient in affliction ; persevere in prayer. 
 
 14 < Supply the wants of the saints; practise hospitality. Bless 
 
 15 those who curse you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those 
 
 16 who rejoice; and weep with those who weep. Think mutually the 
 same thing ; do not regard high things, but suffer yourselves to be 
 influenced by humble ones. Be not wise in your own conceit. 
 
 17 Render to no man evil for evil ; seek after that which is good in 
 
 18 the sight of all. If it be possible, so far as in you lieth, be at peace 
 
 19 with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved ; but give place to 
 [divine] indignation; for it is written : "Retribution is mine, I will 
 
 20 make it, saith the Lord." Therefore, " if thine enemy hunger, feed 
 him ; if he thirst, give him drink ; for in so doing, thou shalt heap 
 
 21 coals of fire upon his head." Be not overcome by evil, but overcome 
 evil with good. 
 
 Exhortation to obey civil rulers, and to exhibit a kind and peaceable demeanor toward all men. 
 
 XIII. Let every soul be subject to the supreme magistracies ; for there 
 is no magistracy except by divine permission ; and those which be, 
 
 2 are ordained of God. So he that resisteth the magistracy, resisteth 
 the ordinance of God; and they who resist, shall receive punishment 
 
 3 for themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to 
 evil ones ; and wilt thou not stand in awe of the magistracy ? Do 
 
 4 good, and thou shalt have praise for it; for [the magistrate] is a 
 servant of God for thy benefit. But if thou doest evil, fear; for he 
 beareth the sword not in vain, since he is the minister of God, con- 
 
 5 demning to punishment the evil-doer. Therefore we ought to yield 
 subjection, not only because of punishment, but for conscience' sake. 
 
30 ROMANS XIII. 6.— XIV. 6. 
 
 6 On the same account, moreover, we should also pay tribute ; for 
 
 7 they are God's ministers who attend to this matter. Render, there- 
 fore, to all that which is due ; tribute, to whom tribute ; custom, to 
 
 8 whom custom ; fear, to whom fear ; honour, to whom honour. Owe 
 no man any thing, except to love one another ; for he who loveth 
 
 9 another, fulfilleth the law. For this [is the law] : "Thou shalt not 
 commit adultery ; thou shalt not kill ; thou shalt not steal ; thou shalt 
 not covet ;" and if there be any other command, it is summarily com- 
 prehended in this precept, namely : " Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 
 10 as thyself." Love worketh no ill to its neighbour ; love, then, is the 
 fulfilling of the law. 
 
 11 And this [do], considering the time, that the hour is already 
 come when we should awake out of sleep : for now is our salvation 
 
 12 nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is 
 at hand; let us put away then the works of darkness, and put on the 
 
 13 armour of light. Let us walk in a becoming manner, as by day ; 
 not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chambering and wanton- 
 
 14 ness, not in strife and bitter envy ; ' but put ye on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, in respect to its lusts. 
 
 Caution against making externa) rites and observances matters of division and contention among 
 
 Christians. 
 
 XIV. Him that is weak in faith receive with kindness, not so as to 
 
 2 increase his scrupulous surmisings. One believeth that he may eat 
 
 3 every thing ; but he who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him who eat- 
 eth, despise him who eateth not ; nor him who eateth not, condemn 
 
 4 him who eateth ; for God hath accepted him. Who art thou, that 
 condemnest the servant of another ? By his own master he standeth 
 or falleth ; and he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand. 
 
 5 One man esteemeth one day above another ; but another esteemeth 
 every day [alike] ; let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind. 
 
 6 He who regardeth the day, regardeth it to [the honouring of] the 
 Lord ; and he who regardeth not the day, for [the honouring] of the 
 Lord he doth not regard it. Likewise he who eateth, eateth to 
 [the honouring of] the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he 
 
ROMANS XIV. 7—23. 31 
 
 who eateth not, for [the honouring of] the Lord he eateth not, 
 
 7 and giveth God thanks. For no one of us liveth to himself; and no 
 
 8 one of us dieth to himself; for whether we live, we live to the Lord, 
 and whether we die we die to the Lord; whether we live, then, or 
 
 9 die, we are the Lord's. For Christ both died and revived for this 
 very purpose, that he might be Lord of the dead and of the living. 
 
 10 And thou, why dost thou condemn thy brother ? And thou, too, 
 why dost thou despise thy brother 1 For we must all stand before 
 
 11 the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written : "As I live, saith 
 the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall con- 
 
 12 fess to God." Every one of us, therefore, must give an account of 
 himself to God. 
 
 13 Let us, then, no longer condemn one another ; but rather let 
 us decide, not to put a stumbling-block or a cause of falling in the 
 
 14 way of a brother. I know, and am persuaded of the Lord Jesus, 
 that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who deemeth any thing 
 
 15 to be unclean, it is unclean. Now if thy brother is grieved because 
 of meat, thou dost not demean thyself as benevolence requireth ; 
 
 16 destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not your 
 
 17 good, then, be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is not meat 
 and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. 
 
 18 Now he who serveth Christ, as to these things, is acceptable to 
 
 19 God and approved by men. Therefore let us strive after peace and 
 
 20 mutual edification. Destroy not the work of God on account of 
 meat. All [meats] are clean ; yet they are hurtful to him, who eat- 
 
 21 eth so as to stumble thereby. It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink 
 wine, nor [to do any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or hath 
 
 22 cause of offence, or is made weak. Hast thou faith, keep it to thy- 
 self before God. Happy the man, who doth not condemn himself 
 
 23 in that which he alloweth! But he who doubteth, is condemned if 
 he eat, because it is not of faith ; and every thing which is not of 
 faith, is sin. 
 
32 ROMANS XV. 1—15. 
 
 Various exhortations to charity and kindness. Expression of the apostle's regard for the elm re h at 
 Rome, of his intention to visit them, and of his desire for an interest in their prayers. 
 
 XV. We, moreover, who are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of 
 
 2 the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please 
 his neighbour, in respect to that which is good, unto edification. 
 
 3 For Christ did not seek his own pleasure ; but according to that 
 which is written : " The reproaches of those who reproached thee, 
 
 4 have fallen upon me," [so it was with him]. Now whatsoever 
 things were written in ancient times, were written for our instruc- 
 tion ; that through patience, and the admonition of the Scriptures, 
 we might obtain hope. 
 
 5 Now may the God who giveth patience and admonition, give to 
 
 6 you mutual unity of sentiment, according to Christ Jesus ; that 
 with one mind and with one voice, ye may glorify God, even the 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ! 
 
 7 Wherefore deal kindly with each other, even as Christ hath dealt 
 kindly with you, unto the glory of God. 
 
 8 Now I say, that Jesus Christ became a minister of the circum- 
 cision, on account of the truth of God, in order to confirm the prom- 
 
 9 ises made to the fathers ; also, that the Gentiles shall glorify God for 
 his mercy ; even as it is written : " Therefore will I celebrate thy 
 
 10 praise among the Gentiles, and to thy name will I sing." And 
 
 11 again he saith : "Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people." And 
 again: "Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and laud him all ye peo- 
 
 12 pie." And again Isaiah saith : " There shall be a root of Jesse, and 
 one shall arise to be a leader of the Gentiles ; upon him shall the 
 Gentiles place their hopes." 
 
 13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in 
 believing, that you may abound in hope, through the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit! 
 
 14 Moreover, I myself am well persuaded concerning you, my 
 brethren, that ye are full of kindness, abounding in all knowledge, 
 
 15 and able to admonish one another. I have also written to you the 
 more boldly, brethren, when reminding you concerning some things, 
 
ROMANS XV. 1G— 31. 33 
 
 16 because of the grace which is bestowed by God upon me, ' that I 
 should be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, performing the 
 office of a priest in respect to the gospel of God, that the offering of 
 the Gentiles might be acceptable, being purified by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 17 1 have, then, cause of glorying in Christ Jesus, as to those things 
 
 18 which pertain to God ; for I do not venture to mention any thing 
 which Christ hath not wrought by me, in order to bring the Gentiles 
 
 19 to obedience, by word and by deed, ' by the power of signs and won- 
 ders, by the power of the Holy Spirit ; so that from Jerusalem and 
 around it, even to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of 
 
 20 Christ ; and so also, that I was strongly desirous to preach the gos- 
 pel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another 
 
 21 man's foundation, ' but in accordance with what is written : " They 
 shall see to whom no declaration was made respecting him, and 
 they who have not heard shall understand." 
 
 22 On this account I have been greatly hindered from coming to 
 
 23 you. But now, having no longer any place in these regions, and 
 
 24 being desirous for many years of making you a visit ; whenever I 
 may go into Spain, I hope, as I pass on, to see you, and to be sent 
 on my way thither, when I am in part first satisfied with your com- 
 
 25 pany. But at present I am going to Jerusalem, to supply the wants 
 
 26 of the saints. For it hath seemed good to Macedonia and Achaia, to 
 
 27 make some contribution for the saints in poverty at Jerusalem. [I 
 say] it hath seemed good ; for verily they are their debtors ; because 
 if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they ought 
 
 28 surely to assist them in temporal things. Now when this duty shall 
 have been performed, and this fruit secured to them, I shall pass 
 
 29 through the midst of you into Spain. And I know that when I 
 come to you, I shall come with abundant blessings of the gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 30 Moreover I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together for me, in your 
 
 31 prayers to God in my behalf, ' that I may be delivered from the un- 
 believing in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be 
 
 5 
 
34 ROMANS XV. 32.— XVI. 20. 
 
 32 acceptable to the saints ; [also] that I may come to you with joy (if 
 
 33 God will), and may be refreshed among you. The God of peace be 
 with you all, Amen ! 
 
 Various salutations. Caution against divisions. Conclusion. 
 
 XVI. Now I commend to you Phebe our sister, who is a deaconess of 
 
 2 the church at Cenchrea, ' that ye may receive her as being in the 
 Lord, in a manner worthy of the saints, and give her assistance in 
 any thing where she may need it of you ; for she herself hath been 
 a helper of many, and especially of me. 
 
 3 Salute Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow labourers in Christ Jesus- 
 
 4 ' (who exposed themselves to great danger in my behalf; to whom 
 not only I myself am grateful, but even all the churches of the Gen- 
 
 5 tiles) ; ' and the church which is at their house. Salute Epenetus, 
 my beloved, who is the first fruit of Asia in Christ. Salute Mary, 
 
 7 who laboured much for us. Salute Andronicus and Junias, my 
 kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, 
 
 8 and who were before me in Christ. Salute Amplias, my beloved in 
 ,q >the Lord. Salute Urbanus, our fellow labourer in Christ. Salute 
 
 11 them of the household of Aristobulus. Salute Herodian, my kins- 
 man. Salute them of the household of Narcissus, who are in the 
 
 12 Lord. Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. 
 
 13 Salute Persis the beloved, who laboured much in the Lord. ' Salute 
 
 14 Rufus, elect in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Salute Asyn- 
 critus, Phlegon, Hennas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren with 
 
 15 them. Salute Philologus and Julias, Nereus and his sister, and 
 
 16 Olympas, and all the saints with them. Salute each other with a 
 holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you. 
 
 17 Moreover I beseech you, brethren, to beware of those who occa- 
 sion divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have 
 
 18 learned. For such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but. their own 
 appetite ; and by flattery and fair speeches, they beguile the minds 
 
 19 of the simple. For your obedience is known to all ; I rejoice, there- 
 fore, concerning you, and desire you to be wise in respect to that 
 
 20 which is good, but simple in respect to that which is evil. May the 
 
ROMANS XVI. 21—27. 35 
 
 God of peace shortly bruise Satan under your feet ! The grace of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ be with you ! 
 
 21 Timothy my fellow labourer, and Luke and Jason and Sosipater, 
 
 22 my kinsmen, salute you. (I Tertius who wrote this epistle, salute 
 
 23 you in the Lord). Gaius saluteth you, who is my host, and that of 
 the whole church. Erastus saluteth you, the chamberlain of the 
 
 24 city, and Quartus, a brother. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 be with you all, Amen ! 
 
 25 Now unto him who is able to establish you, according to my 
 gospel, even the gospel of Jesus Christ ; according to the revelation 
 
 2G of the mystery which was kept silent in ancient times, ' but is now 
 made manifest by the prophetic Scriptures, according to the com- 
 mand of the eternal God, [and] published to all nations for the sake 
 
 27 of obedience unto the faith ; — to the only wise God, through Jesus 
 Christ, to whom be glory forever, Amen ! 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 § 1. Of the planting of the church at Rome. 
 
 History affords no certain evidence respecting the individual who 
 first preached the gospel at Rome. The Romish church indeed main- 
 tain, that Peter was the founder of the first Christian community in that 
 city. Irenaeus (adv. Haereses III. 1), and Eusehius (Chron. ad ami. 2 
 Claudii), are the witnesses to whom the appeal is particularly made, in 
 order to confirm this opinion. But although these fathers had undoubt- 
 edly heard such a tradition, and (as it appears by the passages above cited) 
 gave credit to it, yet there is substantial reason for doubting the correct- 
 ness of it. The statement of Eusebius implies, that Peter came to Rome 
 in the second year of Claudius' reign, i. e. A. D. 43.* Jerome states, that 
 Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius' reign, in order to 
 counteract the influence of Simon Magus there ; and that he resided in 
 that city, and held the office of a bishop in it, for twenty-five years, i. e. 
 until the last year of Nero's reign, in which he suffered martyrdom ; De 
 Viris illustr. c. I. But neither Eusebius, nor any of the most ancient 
 ecclesiastical writers make mention of such a period. Whence Jerome 
 obtained information respecting it, he does not tell us ; and some leading 
 critics among the Roman Catbolics, e. g. Valesius, Pagi, Baluzius, and 
 others, give no credit to this part of his narration. 
 
 That Peter visited Rome at some period of his life, before the close 
 of Nero's reign, cannot well be doubted. Origen (in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 
 III. 1), and Dionysius of Corinth (flor. c. ann. 117) as related by Eusebius 
 (II. 25), testify to this in such a manner, that it cannot well be rejected, 
 without giving up the credibility of all ancient historical testimony of the 
 like nature. Cains, a presbyter, at the commencement of the third cen- 
 tury, mentions that he saw at Rome the graves of Paul and Peter ; Euseb. 
 Hist. Ecc. II. 25. The doubts of many Protestants relative to the fact 
 that Peter visited Rome, and the assertions of Salmasius, Spanheim, and 
 others, that this could not have been the case, appear to be without any 
 solid foundation. 
 
 But that Peter did not go to Rome as bishop in the second year of 
 Claudius' reign ; nor indeed, before the epistle of Paul to the Romans 
 was written; seems to be nearly or quite certain. (1) In Acts 12: 3, 4, 
 we find an account of Peter's being imprisoned by Herod Agrippa, in the 
 last year of this King's reign (comp. v. 23) ; and this year synchronizes 
 with the fourth year of Claudius. Of course Peter was at Jerusalem, 
 
 **Etc\ t?/s avTTJg Klavoiov (Jaoilu'ag, sc. anno secundo ; Eusob. Ecc. Hist. 
 II. 14. 
 
38 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 not at Rome, after the period when Jerome and Eusebius affirm that lie 
 went to Rome and resided there. (2) We find Peter at Jerusalem in the 
 ninth (some say eleventh) year of Claudius ; he being present at the 
 council there, Acts 15: 6, seq. (3) Nothing is said in the book of Acts, or 
 in the New Testament, respecting Peter's visiting Rome ; and if he had 
 done so, before the time at which the history in the book of Acts termi- 
 nates, we can hardly suppose so important an occurrence would have 
 escaped the notice of Luke. (4) Paul came as a prisoner to Rome, in 
 the 7th year of Nero's reign, i. e. A. D. GO (but some say in 62 or 63) ; 
 on which occasion there is no mention, and there seems to have been 
 among the Jews of that city no knowledge, of Peter, Acts 28: 17, seq. (5) 
 Could Paul have addressed the Romans as he did in his epistle, if he had 
 recognized them as disciples of Peter ? Could he have written his whole 
 epistle without once adverting to this fact ? (6) If Peter was at Rome, 
 when Paid wrote this epistle, how could the latter fail to send a saluta- 
 tion to him as well as to others ? 
 
 So late, then, as A. D. 57 or 58, when the epistle to the Romans was 
 probably written, it seems to be nearly certain, that Peter had not been at 
 Rome. The flourishing and apparently numerous church there, must 
 therefore have been gathered by some other person than Peter. 
 
 But who was this person ? A question that cannot be answered with 
 any certainty ; although we may arrive at some probabilities respecting 
 it. In the salutations which Paul sends to the church at Rome, he men- 
 tions (16: 7) Andronicus and Junias, as having been his fellow-prisoners, 
 and as Inio-rjfioi, Iv rolg anoaToloig, they having become Christians earlier 
 than himself. What hinders the supposition, that one or both of these 
 men, perhaps converts on the notable day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 10), and 
 of high repute among the apostles themselves, may have first spread the 
 knowledge of the gospel in the metropolis of the Roman empire, of which 
 they were inhabitants, or in which they were at least residents ? Rufus, 
 also, a distinguished Christian, whose mother had shewn much kindness 
 to Paul (Rom. 16: 13), may have been one of the founders, or at least 
 fosterers, of the Roman church ; possibly the same Rufus, whose father 
 (a native of Cyrene) was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus, when on 
 his way to Calvary, Mark 15: 21. Others, moreover, who are mentioned 
 in Rom. xvi., may have been, and probably were, contributors to the 
 work of establishing or building up the church at Rome. At all events 
 there was opportunity for a very early establishment of it ; inasmuch as 
 we find persons from this city present at Jerusalem on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, Acts 2: 10. We know, also, that Christians were scattered 
 abroad, when the persecution of Stephen occurred ; at first in Judea and 
 Samaria, Acts 8: 1 ; afterwards to more distant regions, Acts 11: 19 ; and 
 what hinders us from supposing that some of them may have come to 
 Rome itself, preaching the gospel ? 
 
 That the church at Rome was early planted, seems probable from the 
 fame which it had acquired throughout the Christian world (Rom. 1: 8. 
 16: 19), when Paul wrote his epistle. That the persons concerned in the 
 establishment of it were Paul's particular friends and acquaintances, with 
 whom he had met and conferred, while preaching in Asia or in Greece, 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 39 
 
 appears very plain from the manner of the salutations in chap. xvi. 3 — 
 Id. In respect to Aquila and Priscilla, we have a definite knowledge, 
 from Acts 18: 1 — 3, 18, 2(i, and from what is said in Rom. 10: 3, 4. Oth- 
 ers are called the kinsmen (a-v/yevslg) of Paid, viz. Andronicus and Junias, 
 v. 7; Herodian, v. 11. Others again are called ayaTcrjTol, avvsgyoi, 
 sxXextoi, xotii&vtsq & tm xvgloj, etc. Moreover, the manner in which Paul 
 addresses the church at Rome, i. e. the plain, familiar, authoritative tone 
 of the letter, shews that he considered himself as addressing those who 
 were in effect his disciples, i. e. that they had probably been converted to 
 Christianity under the preaching of his own particular friends and spiri- 
 tual children. Heuce, too, the frequent expressions of strong affection 
 for the church at Rome, and of strong sympathy with them. 
 
 On the whole, although we have no definite history of the planting 
 of the church at Rome, (excepting the one given by Jerome, which is 
 not entitled to credit), yet we may consider it as quite probable, that some 
 of the persons named in the salutation (1G: 3 — 10), were entitled to the 
 honour of having founded a church in the metropolis of the Roman 
 empire. 
 
 § 2. Of the constituent pads of the church at Rome. 
 
 Nothing can be clearer, than that a considerable portion of the church 
 at Rome consisted of Jewish converts ; see 2: 17 — 3: 19. 4: 1, 12. 7: 1 — 4, 
 and chaps, ix. — xi. Nor is there any serious difficulty of a historical 
 nature, in making out the probability of this. When Pompey overran 
 Judea with a conquering army, about 03 years before the Christian era, 
 he caused many captive Jews to be sent to Rome. There they were 
 sold into slavery, as was usual in respect to captives taken in war. But 
 their persevering and unconquerable determination to observe the Sabbath 
 and to practise many of the Levitical rites and customs, gave their Ro- 
 man masters so much trouble, that they chose to liberate them rather 
 than to keep them. As there was a large body of persons so liberated, 
 the government assigned them a place opposite Rome, across the Tiber, 
 where they built a town which was principally inhabited by Jews. Here 
 Philo found them, just before Paul's time ; Legat. ad Caium. p. 1014 
 ed. Fraukf. The reader who wishes for historical vouchers in respect 
 to the number of Jews at Rome, during the apostolic age, may consult 
 Joseph. Antiq. XVII. 14. XVIII. 5, ed. Cologn. Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 
 p. 37. Suetonii vita Tiberii, cap. 30. 
 
 When the first impressions arising from the degradation of captivity 
 and slavery began to wear away, the Roman citizens seem to have looked 
 at the Jewish community with some degree of respect, or at least with 
 not a little of curiosity. Whether it arose from the disgust which deli- 
 cate females among the Romans felt for the obscene rites of heathenism 
 which they were called to practise or to witness, or whether it sprung 
 from a curiosity which is characteristic of the female sex, the fact was, 
 that in Ovid's time (ob. A. D. 17), some of the most elegant and polished 
 females thronged the Jewish assemblies. The poet, therefore, advises 
 the young men of the city, if they wished to see a splendid collection of 
 
40 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 its beauty, to go to the sabbath day solemnities of the Syrian Jew, "Culta- 
 que Judaeo septima sacra Syro." 
 
 It is not strange, moreover, that some of these should become 
 o-Fi36u(rai or proselytes; as Josephus relates of Fulvia /.ilu rtor iv u'io'iuutl 
 yvvaiYMV, i. e. a noble- woman. By degrees the men also, as was natural, 
 began to frequent the assemblies of these once despised foreigners. Ju- 
 venal, at the close of the first century, pours out his contempt and indig- 
 nation at this, in the following bitter words : 
 
 " Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem, 
 Nil praeter nubes, et coeli Numen adorant; 
 Nee distare putant liumana carne suillam, 
 Qua pater abstinuit : mox et pTaeputia ponunt; 
 Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 
 Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus. 
 Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses." 
 
 I suppose the poet must here refer, however, to those who had a 
 Roman mother and a Jewish father. In regard to 'Nil praeter nubes et 
 coeli numen adorant,' I take it to refer to the fact, that the Jews had no 
 temple at Rome, and that they addressed and worshipped God as dwell- 
 ing in heaven, i. e. above the clouds ; in both which respects they differ- 
 ed from the heathen. 
 
 Seneca also, (fl. A. D. 64), about the time when Paul wrote the 
 epistle to the Romans, says, in a fragment preserved by Augustine (De 
 Civit. Dei, VII. 11), that "so many Romans had received the Jewish 
 [he means by this the Christian] religion, that per omnes jam terras 
 recepta sit, victi victoribus leges dederunt." Tacitus, in his Annals, like- 
 wise represents the " exitiabilis superstitio" (Christian religion) as break- 
 ing out again after bemg repressed, and spreading non modo per Judaeam, 
 sed per urbem [Romam] eliam. 
 
 When to these testimonies respecting the Jews at Rome, we add that 
 of the epistle before us respecting Gentile converts, no doubt can be left 
 that the church at Rome was made up of Gentiles as well as Jews. 
 Let the reader compare Rom. 1: 16—32. 2: 6—11. 3: 9—19, 29. 9: 24, 30. 
 11: 13 — 25. 14: 1 — 15: 13, and no doubt can possibly remain in his mind 
 relative to this point. The general strain of the whole epistle is such, 
 as that it can best be accounted for by the supposition that the church 
 at Rome consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and that each party were 
 endeavouring to propagate or to defend the peculiar views respecting 
 certain points, which they respectively entertained. But of this, more 
 in the sequel. 
 
 § 3. Of the time and place, when and where the epistle was written. 
 
 We have a kind of stand-point here, with which the epistle itself 
 furnishes us. It could not have been written before the decree of the 
 emperor Claudius was published, by which the Jews were banished 
 from the city of Rome. In Acts 18: 2, we have an account of Paul's 
 first acquaintance with Aquila and Priscilla, who had recently quitted 
 Rome and come to Corinth, because of the decree of Claudius banishing 
 the Jews from the imperial city. Now as Paul salutes these same per- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 41 
 
 sons, in Rom. 16: 3, 4, and speaks of them as having risked great dangers 
 in his behalf, it follows, of course, that his epistle must have been writ- 
 ten subsequent to the decree of Claudius; which was probably in A. D. 
 52, or as some say (improbably however) in A. D. 54. 
 
 It must probably have been written after the time when the first 
 epistle to the Corinthians was written, which was during the last visit 
 Paul made to Ephesus, and near the close of that visit, i. e. about A. I). 
 56. In Acts 18: 19, we are told that Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at 
 Ephesus. After this he made another circuit through the churches of 
 Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, (Acts 18: 20 — 23), and returned again 
 to Ephesus, 19: 1. There he spent two years or more (19: 8 — 10) ; and 
 near the close of this period, in writing to the Corinthians, he sends the 
 salutation of Aquila and Priscilla who were still at Ephesus, 1 Cor. 16: 
 19. Now as Paul sends a salutation, in his epistle to the Romans, to 
 Aquila and Priscilla at Rome, it would seem probable that it must have 
 been written after he left Ephesus, and after they had removed from 
 this city to the metropolis of the Roman empire. 
 
 Other circumstances concur, to render the matter still more definite. 
 When Paul wrote his epistle, he was on the eve of departure to Jerusa- 
 lem, whither he was going to carry the contributions of the churches in 
 Macedonia and Achaia, Rom. 15: 25, 26. When he should have accom- 
 plished this, he intended to make them a visit at Rome, Rom. 15: 28, 29. 
 In what part of his life, now, do we find the occurrence of these circum- 
 stances ? Acts 19: 21, compared with 20: 1 — 4, gives us a narration of 
 exactly the same thing. Paul, at the close of his last abode at Ephesus, 
 purposing to make a charitable collection in Macedonia and Achaia, 
 first sent on Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia in order to forward it 
 there, (Acts 19: 22) ; afterwards he himself went into Achaia, passing 
 through Macedonia, Acts 20: 1, 2. That he came, on this occasion, to 
 the capital of Achaia, i. e. Corinth, there can be no reasonable doubt. 
 Here most probably he abode three months (Acts 20: 3) ; and then set 
 out on his contemplated journey to Jerusalem, where he was made a 
 prisoner, and sent (A. D. 59 or 60) to Rome, in order to prosecute his 
 appeal to Cesar. From a comparison of this account in the Acts, with 
 Rom. 15: 25 — 29, it follows of course that the epistle to the Romans must 
 have been written about A. D. 57 ; although some chronologists put it 
 later. Counting the time which Paul's journey to Jerusalem must have 
 occupied, and adding the two years of his detention as a prisoner at 
 Cesarea (Acts 24: 27), and the time necessarily taken up in going to 
 Rome, we must assign to the epistle to the Romans the date above given, 
 ou the supposition that Paul came to Rome (as is most probable) about 
 the beginning of the year 60. 
 
 As to the place where it was written, there can be no doubt. In 
 16 : 1, Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, is commended to 
 the Romish church, who probably either had charge of the epistle, or 
 accompanied those who did carry it ; and Cenchrea was the port of the 
 city of Corinth, some seven or eight miles from that place. In 16 : 23, 
 Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul, and this Gaius was baptized by 
 Paul at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1: 14. Paul speaks also of Erastus, the cham- 
 6 
 
42 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 berlain of the city, Rom. 16: 23. The city, then, was a well known one, 
 i. e. the capital of Achaia ; and moreover, we find this Erastns spoken 
 of in 2 Tim. 4: 20, as abiding at Corinth. 
 
 From all these circumstances, we must conclude that the place of 
 writing the epistle to the Romans was Corinth ; and that the time was 
 that in which Paul made his last visit there, and near the close of it, i. e. 
 about the latter part of A. D. 57. 
 
 § 4. Of the genuineness of the Epistle. 
 
 This has been so generally acknowledged at all times, and in all 
 ages since it was written, (excepting the two last chapters which have 
 recently been disputed,) that it seems to be unnecessary to make any 
 quotations here from the early writers for the sake of proving it. It is 
 true, indeed, that some early sects, viz. the Ebionites, Eucratites, and 
 Cerinthians rejected it ; as appears from Irenaeus ad Haeres. I. 26. 
 Epiphan. Haeres. XXX. Hieronym. in Matt. XII. 2. But as this 
 seems to have been purely on doctrinal grounds, i. e. because they could 
 not make the sentiments of Paul in this epistle to harmonize with their 
 own views, it follows of course that no weight can be attached to their 
 opinions. The question whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, 
 is of a historical, not of a doctrinal nature. 
 
 The reader who is curious to see an exhibition of early testimony 
 respecting this epistle, may find it amply detailed in Lardner's Credibil- 
 ity ; and in Schmidii Historia et Vindiciae Canonis Sac. etc. The cir- 
 cumstantial evidence which evinces its genuineness, he will find admir- 
 ably exhibited in Paley's Horae Paulinae. 
 
 Those who do not possess the first two of these works, may consult 
 Polycarp Epist. and Philipp. cap. 6 ; Clemens Rom. Ep. and Cor. cap. 
 35 ; both in Cotelerii Patres Apostolici. See also Theoph. ad Auto- 
 lyc. I. 20. III. 14. Epist. Ecc. Vienn. et Lugd., in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 
 V. 1. Irenaeus cont. Haeres. III. 16. § 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 
 p. 457, and I. p. 117, edit. Sylburg. Tertull. adv. Praxeam, cap. 13 ; de 
 Corona, cap. 6. Cypr. Ep. LXIX. It is needless to cite later testi- 
 monies. 
 
 § 5. Of the genuineness of chaps. XT r . XVI. 
 The genuineness of these chapters, at least as a part of the proper 
 epistle to the Romans, has been called in question, and is still doubted 
 by some. Heumann has, advanced a peculiar hypothesis respecting 
 chap. xvi. He thinks that the proper original epistle of Paul ends 
 with chap, xi., and excludes from it all the hortatory part, i. e. chaps. 
 xii. — xv. Chapter xvi., he supposes, was originally attached to the 
 end of chapter xi. ; and that the sequel of the epistle is a kind of post- 
 script or second letter, added by Paul after some delay in transmitting 
 the first letter. This hypothesis, indeed, does not really deny the gen- 
 uineness of any part of the epistle; but it advances what seems to be 
 very improbable. What could be more natural, than for Paul, after he 
 had completed his doctrinal discussions, to caution the church at Rome 
 against various evils to which he knew them to be particularly exposed ? 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 43 
 
 Is not this his manner elsewhere ? And does not the ovv (chap. xn. 1) 
 necessarily import a connexion between the sequel and the preceding 
 context? In a word, the whole theory is so gratuitous, that it does not 
 seem to be entitled to any serious contradiction. 
 
 Semler, however, has advanced much furtherthan Heumann. In bis 
 Dissert, de dupl. appendice ep. Pauli ad Rom., he advances the supposi- 
 tion, ' that chap. xv. was not addressed to the Romans, but to those 
 who had charge of Paul's epistle to them, which consisted of chap. i. — 
 xiv., with the doxology in 1G: 25 — 27.' 
 
 But let any one, now, without any reference to such a hypothesis, 
 sit down and carefully read chap, xv., and I will venture to predict, 
 that he will never once even think of its being addressed to any other 
 persons, than those to whom the preceding part of the epistle is addressed. 
 In particular ; how can he help feeling that vs. 1 — 13 do very closely 
 cohere with chap, xiv., as the 6cpt!Xop,tv da at the beginning indicates? 
 And in the remaining part of the chapter, what is there which is incon- 
 gruous with the condition and relation of Paul in respect to his readers? 
 Compare vs. 15, 23 with 1: 13; and also 15: 28 with Acts 19: 21, the 
 latter of which passages shews the actual condition of Paul, when he 
 wrote the epistle. I am entirely unable to see why Paul should have 
 given personally to the bearers of his letter to the Romans, such hints 
 as chap. XV. contains ; nor can I imagine what inducement Sender had 
 to suppose this. But, 
 
 Chap. xvi. is more exposed to attack ; because it consists of 
 matter in general which is easily dissociated from the rest of the epistle. 
 If the whole of it be omitted, the epistle is still, in all important respects, 
 the same ; if it be retained, the matter added consists chiefly in the expres- 
 sion of personal civilities. Moreover, the concluding part of chap. xv. 
 woidd make a very probable and analogical close of the epistle ; in par- 
 ticular if the 'Afii'iv at the close of v. 33 be retained. 
 
 Probably grounds such as these first occasioned doubts concerning 
 the genuineness of this chapter in particular. Semler advances a suppo- 
 sition respecting it, which (I had almost said) none but a man of such 
 visionary phantasies could have advanced. He supposes that all the 
 persons to whom greetings are sent, in vs. 1 — 16, are those whom the 
 bearers of the epistle expected to visit, on their way to Rome ; and of 
 course, that none of these were to be found in Rome itself. Conse- 
 quently, according to him, this part of the epistle was a mere letter of 
 commendation or introduction, designed for the bearers of the epistle, 
 and not for the church at Rome. 
 
 According to this, then, the first stage of the journey of the letter- 
 carriers was only to Ceuchrea, some seven or eight miles from Corinth, 
 to the house of Phebe. But the singularity of Paul's recommendation is, 
 that instead of commending them to her hospitality, he commends her to 
 the hospitality of those whom he addresses : avvi(Txr\fii 8s ifuv fl'oiSnv .... 
 iV« ttvrrjv 7TQO(j8i'i>i<jfrf x. t. I. Sender felt the incongruity of this, and 
 referred nyo(j8i'$.r l a&s to receiving into communion. Did Phebe then, living 
 within a couple of hours' walk from Corinth, and famous as she was for 
 being a nQoajotTig noXXoiv (v. 2), need a written recommendation of Paul, 
 
44 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 in order that the hearers of his letter might admit her to church com- 
 munion ? But besides this, the word irgocrds^rfa^^, in such a connection, 
 does not admit of such a sense. Comp. Phil. 2: 29, and also (as to 
 general meaning) 3 John v. 6. 
 
 Thus much for the outset of this journey. Nor is the progress more 
 fortunate. Aquila and Priscilla are next recommended to the letter-car- 
 riers. But the last which we know of them, before the writing of this 
 letter, is that they are at Ephesus, Acts 18: 18, 19, 26. But Semler 
 provides them with a house at Corinth; and this, probably, because it 
 would not be very natural for those who were to travel westward toward 
 Rome, to go some hundreds of miles eastward, i. e. to Ephesus, in order 
 to get to the capital of the Roman empire. But how is the matter helped 
 by this process ? What have we now? A letter of introduction (so to 
 speak) from Paul, directing his messengers to greet Priscilla and Aquila 
 on their journey, while these same persons lived in the very town from 
 which they started ! Hug has well expressed his views of this matter. 
 After .speaking of the first stay of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts 
 18: 2), and of a second at Ephesus (Acts 18: 18, 19), he thus proceeds: 
 "Whence now this third or Semlerian house at Corinth, I know not," 
 Einleit. II. p. 397. ed. 3. But, lastly, what are we to do with vs. 17 — 20, 
 on the ground of Sender ? Were the bearers of the letter so divided, as 
 is there described ; and was their obedience (vnaxoij) so celebrated, as is 
 there hinted ? Above all, what is to be done with vs. 21 — 24 ? Would 
 Paul send written salutations from those who were with him at Corinth, 
 to the bearers of his epistle, who set out from the same place ? Did they 
 not confer with Paul himself, and did not his friends as well as himself 
 see and converse with them ? And what shall we say to v. 16, which 
 directs Paul's messengers to salute one another ? 
 
 But enough of this. Let us briefly examine some of the external 
 evidences which Semler adduces, against the genuineness of chap. xvi. 
 
 (a) ' Marcion, as Origen testifies, excluded chaps, xv. xvi. from the 
 epistle.' 
 
 But according to Ruffin's translation of Origen (the original here is 
 lost), the words of this writer are: "Caput hoc [i. e. 16: 25 — 27], Marcion, a 
 quo Scriptural evangelical et apostolicfe interpolatce sunt, de hac epistola 
 penitus ahstulit ; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo ubi scriptum est : 
 ' Omne autem quod non ex fide est, peccatum est' [Rom. 14 : 23], 
 usque ad fiuem totius epistola?, cuncta dissecuit" From this nothing 
 more can be gathered, than that Marcion wholly omitted the doxology in 
 16: 25 — 27, and separated (dissecuit) chaps, xv. xvi. from the rest of the 
 epistle. There is an evident distinction here, between penitus abstulit and 
 dissecuit. This separation Marcion might make, as others have done, 
 because of the diverse matter contained in these chapters. And even if 
 Marcion omitted the whole, he stands convicted before the world of such 
 notorious falsifications of the sacred writings, that it would weigh nothing. 
 
 (b) ' Euthalius, in his Elenehus capitulorun, leaves out chap, xvi.' 
 True ; but Euthalius, in his Elenehus, mentions only those chapters 
 
 which were publicly read ; and chap. xvi. was usually omitted in the 
 public reading of the epistle. That he did not acknowledge this chapter 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 45 
 
 as a part of the epistle, is altogether improbable ; since, in reckoning the 
 (TTtxot of the whole epistle, he includes those of chap. xvi. 
 
 (e) ' Tertullian (cont. Marc. v. 13) cites Rom. 14: 10 thus: ' In clausula, 
 tribunal Christi comminari Paulum.' 
 
 But what should hinder Tertullian from saying that chap. 14: 10 is in 
 the clausula, i. e. closing part, of the epistle ? Is it not in such a part ? 
 Can any thing be satisfactorily proved, moreover, by urging a sense of 
 words strictly and logically exact, in such a writer as Tertullian ? 
 
 As to any alleged discrepancy of manuscripts, with regard to a part 
 of chap, xvi., I shall have occasion to notice this in the sequel. 
 
 But, very recently, another doubter in the genuineness of chap, xvi., 
 of a more solid cast than Sender, has made his appearance. Schott, in 
 his Isagoge ad Nov. Test, recently published, in a note p. 248 seq., has 
 assigned other, and perhaps better, reasons than those of Sender, for his 
 doubts. Let us examine them. 
 
 (a) 'Paul salutes many persons, in 1G: 5 — 15, as being at Rome, and 
 in a very familiar way. How could he, who had never been at Rome 
 (Rom. 1:' 13), do this ?' 
 
 The answer is, that several of these persons were his own kinsmen ; 
 see § 1 above. With all or most of them he had very probably met, in 
 the course of his travels. Intercourse between the metropolis of the 
 Roman empire and the large towns of the provinces, was very frequent ; 
 specially with Corinth the head-quarters of Achaia, and Ephesus of Asia 
 Minor. And even if Paul had not seen all the persons whom he salutes, 
 what is easier than to suppose that their character and standing were 
 known to him, and therefore he sent them salutations ? It is plainly a 
 mistake, to suppose that none but personal acquaintances are saluted in 
 the Pauline epistles. 
 
 (b ) ' But Paul makes no mention of any of the persons here saluted 
 as being at Rome, in his other epistles written there, e. g. in his epistle to 
 the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.' 
 
 The answer is, that in only one of these (that to the Colossians), does 
 he send any thing but a mere general salutation. Moreover, as all these 
 epistles must have been written some two years and a half, and may have 
 been written some four years, later than the epistle to the Romans, so the 
 state of that church, exposed as it was continually to increase and de- 
 crease, may have greatly altered when he wrote the last named epistles ; 
 or the persons named in his epistle to the Romans, may have gone else- 
 where in order to propagate the gospel ; or they might have deceased ; 
 or it might be, that they did not happen to pay him a visit while he was 
 writing the above named epistles, and so a greeting from them was not 
 mentioned. A thing of this nature is so accidentally varied, that we 
 cannot make any conclusions which are valid, either from this appearance 
 or from that. 
 
 (c) ' Aquila and Priscilla are saluted as being at Rome. In Acts 18 : 
 19, 26, we find their abode at Ephesus ; and in Paul's last stay at Ephe- 
 sus, when he wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, we find them still 
 there, 1 Cor. 16: 19.' 
 
 All this I concede. But since Aquila and Priscilla had, for some 
 
46 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 time, been obliged to relinquish their abode at Rome, on account of the 
 decree of Claudius, what is more natural than to suppose, that, so soon as 
 might be, they would return to Rome, at least long enough to adjust their 
 affairs there, which, it is more than probable, had been embarrassed by 
 the decree of banishment ? 
 
 (d) ' But 2 Tim. 4: 19, written at Rome, greets Priscilla and Aquila 
 as residing at Ephesus.' 
 
 I grant it. But when was this written? Just before the final mar- 
 tyrdom of Paul (4: 6 — 8) ; i. e. probably some ten years after the epistle 
 to the Romans Avas written, and also after the persecution by Nero had 
 commenced. What difficulty now in the supposition, that Aquila and 
 Priscilla had fled from Rome when this persecution broke out, and gone 
 back to their former station at Ephesus, where they had spent several 
 years ? There Paul salutes them in 2 Tim. 4: 19. 
 
 Lastly, Professor Schott expresses his belief, that ' chap. xvi. is made 
 up of fragments of some brief epistle of Paul's, written at Corinth and 
 addressed to some church in Asia Minor, and added by mistake, piece 
 by piece as it was discovered, to the epistle to the Romans. Vs. 1 — 16 
 compose the first fragment ; vs. 17 — 20, the second ; vs. 21 — 24, the 
 third ; vs. 25 — 27, the fourth.' 
 
 But what a series of postidata are here made out, without a syllable 
 of historical evidence ! Where is the evidence of the lost epistle to an 
 anonymous church in Asia Minor ? Where that it was lost, excepting 
 a few scattered fragments which " sensim sensimque deprehendebantur ?" 
 And the conceit of adding all these fragments to the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, which already had a good ending with chap. xv. ; how should 
 this have ever entered any one's head? Why add them to this 
 epistle, rather than to some of Paul's shorter epistles ? And then the 
 persons themselves, named in chap. xvi. ; what a singular phantasy it 
 must have been in the compiler, to have supposed, that if they belonged 
 to some church in Asia Minor, their names could be tacked on to the 
 epistle written to the church at Rome ! How can we admit such gra- 
 tuitous and improbable hypotheses as these? 
 
 Nor can I admit what has frequently been said, in respect to chap. 
 xvi., viz. that it is wholly unconnected with the preceding part of the 
 epistle, and may be disjoined from it without injury to it. Thus much 
 is true, indeed, viz. that salutations and expressions of Christian courtesy, 
 are not doctrinal discussions nor practical precepts ; in a word, the six- 
 teenth chapter, which is principally made up of salutations, must of 
 course be diverse from the preceding part of the epistle. But is it not 
 equally true, that chaps, xn — xv. differ as much from the preceding 
 ones, as chap. xvi. does from all the others ? Is it proper, moreover, 
 that Christian salutations should be exchanged, in epistles like that of 
 Paul ? This will not be denied. The force of such examples of kind- 
 ness and courtesy and benevolent feeling, is scarcely less than that of 
 direct precept ; and in some respects it has evidently the advantage of 
 precept, inasmuch as practice speaks louder than theory. Why, then, 
 should the salutatory part of the epistle be thrown away ? And would 
 not rejecting it be an injury to the congruity and to the general good 
 effect of the whole ? 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 47 
 
 Nor is it correct to say, that there is not an. evident relation and 
 connexion of some part of chap. xvi. with what precedes, besides that 
 which has just been mentioned. Let any one diligently consider the 
 contents of vs. 1? — 20, and he will see plainly, that they refer to the 
 divisions and erroneous sentiments which are the subject of particular 
 discussion in chaps, xn. — xv. Let him compare l(i: IV with 1: 8, and 
 he will see the same person expressing himself in the same circum- 
 stances. In a word, it would be truly wonderful, if the straggling frag- 
 ments of an epistle, sent to some unknown church in Asia Minor, should 
 fit the place of a conclusion to the epistle to the Romans so well as its 
 present conclusion fits it. 
 
 Eichhorn (Emleit. in das N. Test.) has advanced a hypothesis still 
 more fanciful, if possible, than that of Sender or Schott. Chap. xvi. 
 1 — 20 is, according to him, a letter of recommendation to the Corinthian 
 church, which Paul wrote for Phebe, the deaconess mentioned in vs. 1, 2. 
 This, after it had been read by them, she obtained again, carried it along 
 with her to Rome ; and because the church there were unwilling that 
 any thing from the hand of Paul should perish, they tacked it on upon 
 the epistle of Paul to them, so as to make out a conclusion for it ! 
 
 Is it worth the pains to refute such criticism ? Or rather, can the 
 name of criticism be fairly given to such extravagant and incongruous 
 suppositions? One is ready to ask: What sort of a church must it 
 have been, in the metropolis of the world, and whose fame had gone 
 abroad through the whole empire, that could deal thus with Paul's epis- 
 tles ? Why was not the letter of Phebe kept by itself, and published 
 by itself, as well as John's letter to the " elect lady ?" But this is only 
 one among the numerous conceits, which are intermingled Avith the 
 striking and instructive compositions of Eichhorn. 
 
 Finally, as no internal evidence can be made out, that chaps, xv. xvi. 
 are spurious ; so no external evidence of any considerable weight can 
 be adduced in favour of this supposition. The manuscripts (with some 
 variety as to the position of 16: 25 — 27, and with the omission of these 
 verses in a few cases), are all on the side of the genuineness of these 
 chapters; I mean, that all which are of any authority are so. Jerome 
 (Comm. in Eph. 3: 5) mentions, that he knew of some manuscripts which 
 omitted lb": 25 — 27 ; and Wetsteiu cites a Codex Latinus which does so. 
 But in regard to all the rest of chaps, xv. xvi., it will not be contended 
 that any authority from manuscripts, fathers, or versions, warrants us in 
 suspecting them. Even as to Marcion himself, there is no certain evi- 
 dence, as we have seen, that he rejected them. Why then should we 
 reject them at the present time ? 
 
 § G. Different position in manuscripts of 16: 25 — 27. 
 
 There is a difference among the Codices here, which it is very diffi- 
 cult to account for in a satisfactory manner. (1) In the Codex Alex., 
 and in one hundred and six Codices rninusc, these verses follow chap. 
 14.23; and here Tholuck, Flatt, Griesbach, and others, place them. 
 In most of the Greek fathers, also, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions, 
 thpy occupy the same place. 
 
48 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 This is the sum of the external evidence, in respect to this posi- 
 tion of the verses in question. But in whatever way they may have 
 been transferred thither, it seems difficult to avoid the feeling of incon- 
 gruity as to such a position. It is an evident interruption of the tenor 
 of the discourse. The bcpnlouzv ds of 15 : 1, shows that it is a con- 
 tinuation of a preceding discourse ; and so plainly does the matter 
 of vs. 1 — 13 itself indicate. Nor am I able to persuade myself, that the 
 matter at the close of chap. xiv. is of such a tenor, as entitles us to be- 
 lieve that Paul here breaks out into an animated doxology. Usually, it 
 is only after the enunciation of some deep, sublime, soul-stirring truth, 
 that he betakes himself to expressions of this nature in medio cursu. 
 What is there in the discussion about eating meats or refraining from 
 them, to move his soul to the sublime doxology contained in 16: 25 — 27? 
 I must accord, therefore, with Knapp, who places these verses at the 
 end of the epistle. 
 
 (2) A few manuscripts omit vs. 25 — 27. 
 
 Eichhorn, as usual, has built a singular castle in the air upon this 
 fact. He accounts for all the varieties in the manuscripts in this way : 
 (1) The original piece of parchment, on which Paul's epistle was 
 written, was filled Avhen the scribe came to 14: 23. He then took a 
 small and separate piece of parchment, on one side of which he wrote 
 the salutations in vs. 21 — 24 ; and on the other the doxology in vs. 25 — 
 27. But the letter not being hnmeriirtely sent, the apostle made addi- 
 tions to it ; first of chap, xv., and then of 16: 1 — 20. So then the 
 epistle was sent to the church at Rome, on four separate pieces of man- 
 uscript. In copying this, some ended the epistle with 14: 23 ; others 
 added to this the doxology in 16: 25 — 27 ; a third class copied as far as 
 14: 23, and then added the postscripts of the apostle (15: 1 — 16: 20), and 
 finally the small leaf of parchment written with the body of the epistle, 
 (which is the usual form of the epistle) ; while a fourth class, copying 
 from these different copies, inserted the doxology both after 14: 23 and 
 at the end of the whole epistle. 
 
 Sorry copyists, indeed, they must have been at Rome, to make such 
 mistakes as these ! One is ready to wonder, why the additional parch- 
 ments were not joined on to the original one, in proper order, and not 
 left in the form of Sybilline leaves ; a thing which required nothing 
 more than a little paste or glue, and a moment's attention. Then, sup- 
 posing them to have been left separately, were there no marks added 
 by the writer, to direct the reader's attention and perusal ? Are im- 
 portant documents wont to be made out in such a negligent manner ? 
 But (what is directly to our present purpose) how came any copyist to 
 imagine, that the letter ended with chap. 14: 23 ? Or why, as so many 
 mistakes were made about the order of the small piece of parchment 
 first added, were none made about the order of the two different post- 
 scripts, viz. 15: 1—33 and 16: 1—20 ? 
 
 I am grieved to add, that Griesbach, in attempting to account for 
 the variation of manuscripts in regard to 16: 25 — 27, has advanced sup- 
 positions not less visionary and gratuitous than those of Eichhorn. 
 This is the more to be wondered at, since Griesbach is not much prone 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 49 
 
 to phantasies of this nature. The reader of Eichhorn is not surprised 
 to find such a conceit in him; for a critic, who could add on the last, 
 twenty-six chapters of the book of Isaiali (which he names Pseudo- 
 Isaiah), to the genuine works of that prophet, because the copyist hap- 
 pened to have room to spare in his parchment, and wanted to till it out 
 (Einleit. in das A. Test. hi. p. 91. cd. 3d), may well be imagined not to 
 be incapable of making suppositions like those above related. 
 
 But what if we, at the present day, are unable to account for the 
 confusion of manuscripts, with regard to 16: 25 — 27 ? Will this oblige 
 us to resort to suppositions altogether incredible in themselves? — To say 
 the least, it should not induce us thus to do. We cannot, then, — at least 
 until we come to the persuasion that parchment was as scarce and dear 
 in ancient times as Eichhorn (so often as it suits his critical convenience) 
 makes it, we cannot — admit a supposition which involves such an entire 
 votsqov TTQUTfQov, in a most solemn uikI important epistle of Paul. And 
 even if we admit that parchment was so scarce and so dear, we are, 
 after all, at our wit's end to know why the concluding piece was not 
 joined on to the same roll which contained the rest of the epistle. 
 
 (3) Some manuscripts have 10: 25 — 27 both after 14: 23 and at the 
 end. Of this further notice is taken, under the next head. 
 
 (4) With the Textus Receptus, which places these verses at the end, 
 agree the Codex. Vat., three uncial Codices, some Codd. minusc, and 
 the Latin fathers. With Knapp, Hug, and others, I am persuaded that 
 this is their genuine place. What shall we say of iyto TigTiog, 6 yquipaq 
 t!]v ijiiiTJolijv, in 16: 22? Does it not of course imply, that it is near 
 the close of the epistle, and that the epistle is one? And if so, then are 
 chaps xv. xvi. a genuine and original part of it, as Bertholdt has well 
 remarked, Einleit. vi. § 715. 
 
 ' But how can so many doxologies be accounted for ?' To which I 
 answer, that no serious difficulty lies in the way of this. It is not 
 natural to suppose, indeed it cannot well be supposed, that the apostle 
 wrote the ivhole epistle in a single day, or at. a single sitting. If, in the 
 midst of his multiplied engagements and his short stay at Corinth, he was 
 several days, or even weeks, in writing it, (which we may easily and 
 probably suppose) ; then we can account for the various doxologies and 
 apparent closes of the epistle, in chaps, xv. xvi. It is easy to believe, 
 that 15: 33 was the first pause which was made, with the probable 
 design, originally, of ending the epistle there. Afterwards, renewed 
 and additional intelligence coming from Rome, with kind greetings of 
 friends there, he was induced to add, in return, the greetings in 10: 1 — 16 ; 
 to which he subjoined the warnings, and the apparent conclusion in vs. 
 17 — 20. The definiteness with which he here speaks of the divisions 
 and erroneous sentiments in the church at Rome, in all probability had 
 its origin in the very recent information which he had obtained from that 
 city. Finally, before sending away his epistle, other Christians at Co- 
 rinth, deeply interested in the affairs of the church at Rome, visited the 
 apostle and desired him to express their salutations. This done, he 
 adds, as usual, another kind wish and prayer for the church which he 
 addresses, 16: 24. And then, in reading over and correcting the copy 
 7 
 
50 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 which Tertius had made of the whole, Paul, at the close of all, subjoined 
 the general doxology which is contained in vs. 25 — 27. 
 
 If you say : ' Here are almost as many suppositions as those of Eich- 
 horn and Griesbaeh ;' my reply is, that there are almost as many in 
 respect to number, but still of a totally different character. Here the 
 appeal is made to the internal state of the epistle itself, and to the prob- 
 able and natural circumstances which accompany the writing of such a 
 letter. Nothing stands in the way of believing the things just suggested 
 to be altogether probable. But when all these phenomena are made to 
 depend on odd pieces of parchment, and Sybilline leaves, strangely for- 
 warded without juncture or order, and as strangely mistaken in the 
 copying, how can we satisfy ourselves with such suggestions? 
 
 That the manuscripts differ so much, as to 16: 25 — 27, is indeed a 
 striking circumstance in the critical history of the epistle to the Romans. 
 But if any one will attentively reflect on the several apparent conclu- 
 sions in the epistle, (15: 13, 23 and 16: 20, 24), he may easily be induced 
 to believe, that the confusion in the manuscripts has arisen from this cir- 
 cumstance. Copyists supposed there must be some mistake, in having 
 a conclusion in 16: 24, and then another superadded in vs. 25 — 27. It 
 was natural for them to find a difficulty in this. Therefore, with the 
 conviction that here was some mistake, they sought an earlier place for 
 these verses ; and they could find none which was not already occupied 
 by something of the like nature, without going back to 14: 23. Here 
 then some of them placed 16: 25 — 27, and others followed these copies. 
 In the mean time, other copies continued to be taken after the original 
 order of the epistle, and thus a discrepancy arose. Some copyists, per- 
 ceiving this discrepancy, and also the fact that chaps, xv. xvi. contain 
 so many formulas of conclusion, omitted 16: 25—27; while others find- 
 ing these verses in some copies after 14: 23, and in others at the end of 
 the epistle, copied them both. In this way we can easily account 
 for all the discrepancies that exist, without resorting to any forced or 
 unnatural suppositions. We may add to all this, moreover, the proba- 
 bility that the public lections of the epistle extended only to the end of 
 chap, xiv.; to which it was altogether natural to add 16: 25 — 27 as a 
 proper close ; and that the practice of reading the epistle in this man- 
 ner, gradually introduced the writing of manuscripts in the same way. 
 
 § 7. State of feeling and opinion in the church at Rome, when the epistle 
 
 ivas ivritten. 
 
 That this church consisted of Jews and Gentiles, we have already 
 seen ; § 2 above. That many of the erroneous views which Paul com- 
 bats in it, were such as the Hebrews were prone to cherish, there can 
 be no doubt, on the part of any one well acquainted with the history of 
 Jewish opinions. That grounds of dissension among its members 
 existed in the church at Rome, we can hardly refuse to believe, when 
 we consider the general tenor of the epistle. The national pride of the 
 Jew ; his attachment to the Mosaic institutes, and especially to the Le- 
 vitical rites and distinctions of clean and unclean ; his impatience of sub- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 51 
 
 ordination in any respect to Gentiles ; his unwillingness to believe that 
 they could be admitted to equal privileges with the Jew, in the kingdom 
 of the Messiah, and particularly without becoming proselytes to the Mosa- 
 ic religion ; his proneness to feel indignant at the government of heathen 
 magistrates over him; all this lies on the face of the epistle, and cannot 
 well be overlooked by any considerate and attentive reader. 
 
 On the other hand ; the Gentiles disregarded the prejudices of the 
 Jews, especially about circumcision, and meats and drinks, and holi- 
 days ; they were wounded at the claim of superiority which the Jews 
 seemed to make ; and knowing that, the great apostle to the Gentiles 
 was an advocate for their equal rights and privileges, they no doubt 
 engaged in contest with the Jews with an unyielding spirit. Such a 
 state of things very naturally gave rise to discussions in the epistle to 
 the Romans, and to all the cautions and precepts contained in the horta- 
 tory part of the epistle. 
 
 With this general view of the condition of the church before us, we 
 need not be solicitous to determine whether the apostle had special and 
 local objects in view, when he wrote it, or more general ones. My 
 answer to this question would be, that he had both in view ; i. e. he 
 meant to establish some great and general principles of Christianity, and 
 also to apply them to the state of the church at Rome. Nothing can 
 be more natural than this supposition ; and so Luther, Calvin, Melanc- 
 thon, Bucer, Michaelis, Tholuck, and others, have for substance judged. 
 That Paul intermingles with general truths, many things which are 
 local, is almost a matter of course in an epistle to a particular church. 
 The contents of the epistle itself, or a brief analysis and synopsis of the 
 whole, I reserve for a separate statement. 
 
BRIEF ANALYSIS 
 
 CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Were I to select a motto, which would, in a single brief sentence, 
 designate the substance of what this epistle contains, it should be taken 
 from the apostle Paul himself: 
 
 XP12T02 'IJMIN JIKAIOZTNII TE KAI ATIA2M02 '. 
 
 CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 The first five chapters exhibit Christ, as the author and efficient 
 cause of our justification. 
 
 After an appropriate and affectionate introduction (1: 1 — 16), the 
 apostle proceeds to show, that the Gentiles have all transgressed against 
 the law of God, which was written on their hearts, and that they indul- 
 ged in a great variety of sins which they knew to be wrong, (1: 17 — 32). 
 He next proceeds to shew, that the Jews are even more guilty still, 
 inasmuch as they have sinned against more light and more distinguish- 
 ed privileges, (2: 1 — 3: 19). He now draws the conclusion from these 
 premises, that justification by deeds of law, i. e. on the score of merit or 
 on the ground of perfect obedience, is impossible ; for inasmuch as all 
 men have sinned against the law of God, all are under its condemnation, 
 and therefore grace or mercy only can save them from perishing. This 
 grace is vouchsafed only through Christ, and has been procured by his 
 sufferings and death in behalf of sinners, (3: 20 — 31). 
 
 The Old Testament also teaches the same doctrine of gratuitous jus- 
 tification ; and that this should be extended to Gentiles, as well as Jews, 
 (4: 1_25). 
 
 The happy fruits of such a state of justification, peace with God, 
 support and consolation in the midst of trials and sufferings, a hope 
 which maketh not ashamed and never can be disappointed, are next 
 described by the writer, (5: 1 — 11). And that it is perfectly proper 
 and becoming on the part of God, to extend those blessings to all, both 
 
ANALYSIS. 53 
 
 Jews and Gentiles, is strikingly taught by an exhibition of the fact, that 
 all have been made to share in the evils which flowed from the apostasy 
 of our original progenitors, (5: 12 — 19). Even in those cases where sin 
 has exhibited its greatest power, the grace of the gospel is made to tri- 
 umph over it, (5: 20, 21). 
 
 Thus is CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION set forth by the apostle. 
 He comes next to exhibit CHRIST OUR SANCTIFICATION. This 
 important topic he introduces, by discussing the objection raised against 
 the doctrine of gratuitous justification, viz. that it tends to encourage sin. 
 He shows in the first place, from various considerations, the incongru- 
 ity and impossibility of this, (G: 1 — 23). He then proceeds to contrast a 
 state of grace, and the means and motives to holiness which it furnishes, 
 with a legal state ; and to show that in the latter, the sinner has no hope 
 of maintaining a holy character, while hi the former he is abundantly 
 furnished with the means of doing it ; consequently that a state of grace, 
 so far from encouraging men to sin, affords them the only hope of their 
 being able to subdue and mortify sin, (7: 1 — 8: 17). 
 
 The apostle then, as he had before done at the close of his discus- 
 sion respecting justification (5: 1 — 11), goes on to shew the consolation 
 which the gospel affords, under the various troubles of the present life, 
 (8: 18 — 27); and in the sequel concludes, as in the former case, with 
 exultation in the certainty of future and eternal glory to all who truly 
 love God, (8: 28—39). 
 
 The part of the epistle properly doctrinal, concludes with the 8th 
 chapter. Chapter ix. discusses the objections raised against the deal- 
 ings of God with his creatures, when he makes some of them the dis- 
 tinguished subjects of his mercy, and passes by others. Chap. x. con- 
 firms still farther, by various considerations, and particularly by texts ci- 
 ted from the Old Testament, the idea that the Jews who remain m un- 
 belief, are and must be cast off; and therefore that this is not new or 
 strange doctrine. Chap. xi. continues to urge the same subject ; but 
 at the close, deduces from it the cheering consolation, that even the re- 
 jection of the Jews will be made a great blessing to the world, as it will 
 be the occasion of salvation being sent to the Gentiles. And if their 
 rejection be attended with consequences so important, then surely their 
 reception again will fill the world with its happy fruits. 
 
 The rest of the epistle is hortatory ; and adapted specially to warn 
 the church at Rome against several errors, to which, in their circum- 
 stances, they were peculiarly exposed. First, they are exhorted to lay 
 aside all pride, and envious distinctions, and claims to preference on the 
 
54 ANALYSIS. 
 
 ground of office, gifts, etc. ; and to conduct themselves in a kind, af- 
 fectionate, gentle, peaceable manner, (12: 1 — 21). Next, they are ex- 
 horted to a quiet and orderly demeanor in regard to the civil power, 
 which the Jews were especially prone to contemn, (13: 1 — 7). The 
 great law of love is to be regarded and obeyed toward all men, without 
 or within the church, (13: 8 — 14). 
 
 Thirdly, the Gentile Christians are admonished to respect the scru- 
 ples of their Jewish brethren, on the subject of eating meats offered to 
 idols ; and admonished that they have no right to interfere, either in 
 this matter or in other things of the like tenor, (14: 1 — 15 — 7). On the 
 other hand, the Jews are admonished, that their Gentile brethren have 
 equal rights and privileges with themselves, under the gospel dispensa- 
 tion, (15: 8—13). 
 
 The writer then expresses his good hopes concerning them all ; his 
 kind and tender regard for them, and his purposes hi respect to visiting 
 them. Lastly, he subjoins the salutations of various Christians who 
 were with him ; cautions them against those who seek to make divis- 
 ions among them ; and concludes with a doxology. 
 
 Such is the brief sketch of the contents of the epistle before us ; 
 one which the reader will not fully understand and appreciate, until he 
 has attentively studied the whole ; but still, one to which he may recur, 
 hi order to satisfy liimself of the relation which a particular part has to 
 the whole. To gain this satisfaction, it is important that he should be- 
 come well acquainted with the general scope and object of the whole, 
 epistle. The details of the respective parts, are given in the introduc- 
 tions to each ; which are embodied with the commentary, although 
 distinguished from it by the smaller type in which they are printed. 
 
COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 1—16. 
 
 Tlie introductory part of the epistle to the Romans, 1: 1 — 1G, contains, 
 (1) A salutation, vs. 1 — 7. (2) A brief declaration of some personal wishes 
 and concerns, vs. 8 — 16. — The apostle, being a stranger in person to the 
 church at Rome, begins his letter with exhibiting the nature of his office and 
 of his relation to the church of God, v. 1. Having mentioned that he had 
 been set apart for the service of God in the gospel, he hints, in passing, 
 that this same gospel had been before announced by the ancient prophets, v. 
 2, and that it has respect to him, who was of the seed of David according to 
 the flesh or in his humbler condition, but the exalted and powerful Son of 
 God in the glorified state which succeeded his resurrection, vs. 3, 4. From 
 him who had thus been constituted Lord of all, Paul avers that he had received 
 such grace as made him one of Christ's devoted followers, and also the office 
 of an apostle to the Gentiles, in order to promote the knowledge of a Saviour 
 among them, v. 5 ; and inasmuch as the Romans were among these Gentiles, 
 and were called to he heirs of the grace of life, v. 6, he addresses them, wishing 
 them every needed spiritual and temporal blessing. 
 
 He next passes on to circumstances of a personal nature, which seem to 
 prepare the way for the subsequent address that he is to make to them. He 
 thanks God that their Christian faith is so distinguished as to become a matter of 
 universal notice, v. 8 ; declares the strong desire which he had long cherished 
 of paying them a visit, and that they had been the continual subject of his 
 remembrance when coming before the throne of grace, vs. 9, 10; and alleges 
 his wish not only to impart spiritual consolation and joy to them, but to receive 
 the same from them, vs. 11, 12. He then repeats his declaration respecting 
 the desire he had all along cherished of paying them a visit, and states the 
 reasons why he had not fulfilled it, v. 13. He expresses a wish to preach 
 among them as well as among other Gentiles, inasmuch as he considers him- 
 self under obligation to preach the gospel to all classes of men among the 
 heathen, vs. 14,15. Of this gospel he is not ashamed, knowing that by it the 
 mighty power of God is manifested, in the salvation of both Jews and 
 Greeks, v. 16. 
 
 Here the introduction properly ends; inasmuch as the next verse exhibits 
 one great theme of the epistle, and is the subject which gives occasion to all 
 the remarks which follow, to the end of chap. v. 
 
 The reader of Paul's writings cannot fail to remark, how different 
 was the mode of writing epistles, in ancient times, from that which 
 we now practice, with regard to some things pertaining to address, sub- 
 scription, etc. Paul prefixes his name, instead of subscribing it at 
 the end of his letters, as we now do. In the like way, and after his 
 
56 ROMANS I: 1. 
 
 example, the Utters missive, etc., of churches to each other, are still 
 drawn up among us. 
 
 (1) Uavlog, probably a Roman and not a Hebrew name, i. e. 
 Paulas ; compare the name of the Roman deputy-praetor, Sergius 
 Paulus, Acts 13: 7, who became a convert to Christianity through 
 the instrumentality of Paul. The Hebrew name of this apostle was 
 ^18*23 , Zuvlog; and he is first called TTuvlog in Acts 13: 9, imme- 
 diately after the mention of Sergius Paulus. Hence many have 
 thought, that TLavlog is a name which the apostle took in honour of 
 the deputy-praetor. The more natural explanation is, that ITavkog 
 was a second name of Roman origin, given him in accordance with 
 the custom of the times. While the Jews were subjected to the pow- 
 er of the Seleucidae on the throne of Syria, it was very common 
 among them to adopt a second name of Greek origin ; e. g. Jesus, 
 Jason ; Jehoiakim, Alkimos, etc. So under the Roman power : 
 Dostai, Dositheus; Tarplun, Trypho. A comparison of these will 
 shew, that in general the second name bore some resemblance in 
 sound to the first. So 2uvXog, Tfuulog. 
 
 AovXog means, in itself, one devoted to the service of another, one 
 ivho is subject to the will or control of another. Of course it may im- 
 port a station or condition which is in itself high or low, honorable or 
 dishonorable, according to the state or rank of the master. A servant 
 of a man, i. e. of any common man, is a slave ; at least, the word in 
 its strict sense would import this. But the servants of a king, are 
 courtiers of the highest rank, who count this title a matter of honour. 
 So servants of God is an appellation given to the prophets, Moses, 
 Joshua, etc., Rom. 10:7. 11: 18. 15:3. Deut. 34:5. Josh. 1: 1. Jer. 
 25: 4. Amos 3: 7 ; and in like manner, and for the same reason, the 
 apostles and primitive preachers of the gospel are called the servants 
 of Christ, Gal. 1: 10. Tit. 1: 1. James 1: 1. 2 Pet. 1: 1. Col. 4: 12. 
 The sense of dovlog in the text before us, accords with this latter 
 usage. The apostle means to call himself a servant of Christ in a 
 special sense, as the context which follows clearly indicates. If this 
 were not the case, dovlog might be understood as meaning simply a 
 worshipper of Christ or of God, one devoted to his service ; for in such 
 a sense we find the word employed in 1 Pet. 2: 16. Eph. 0: 6. Rev. 
 7: 3. Luke 2: 29. Acts 4: 29. Ps. 113: 1. But in Rom. 1: 1, it is 
 clear that dovlog means one devoted to the special service of Christ in 
 his gospel ; and it is therefore an honorary title, or rather, it indicates 
 both the station and the devotedness of the person to whom it is 
 applied. 
 
ROMANS 1:1. 57 
 
 Irjoov Xqhjtov may mean, cither that Christ has bestowed on 
 him the office of dovkog which he holds, i. e. it may be Gcnitivus 
 auctoris ; or it may mean, that the apostle's business or object as 
 dovlog, is to promote the cause of Christ, or to forward his work. The 
 sequel shews that the former sense is the one here meant. 
 
 KhiTog, lit. called, but the meaning here is, chosen, invited, viz. 
 chosen to take upon him the office of an apostle ; see Acts 2G: 17, 
 where the y.lt]Tog here is expressed by t'Saigoi'/utvog ot, I have taken 
 thee out of, I have selected thee from. The word '/.Xrjrog sometimes 
 has the sense merely of invited, bidden; e. g. Matt. 20: 16. 22: 14. 
 But in the writings of Paul, it is not used in the sense merely of in- 
 vited, but always in the sense of efficient calling, as we say, i. e. it 
 means not only that the person designated has been invited or selected, 
 but that he has accepted the invitation ; 1 Cor. 1: 1, 2. 1 Cor. 1: 24. 
 Rom. 1: 6, 7. 8: 28; with which collate Gal. 1: 15. Jude v. 1. Heb. 
 3: 1. Rom. 11:29. Eph. 4. 1. 
 
 ^/qoQia^t'i'og .... dtov, lit. separated or set apart for the gospel 
 of God, i. e. chosen or selected in order to proclaim or preach the gos- 
 pel of God, viz. that gospel of which God is the author, &tov being 
 the Gcnitivus auctoris. The word uqoQid^itvog seems intended to he 
 epexegetical of y.h^xog, i. e. it expresses the same idea in different 
 language. Hesychius explains aqogiofitvog by ty.ltltyfitvog, chosen, 
 diaxtagifttvog, selected. In the same sense aqogloart occurs in Acts 
 13: 2. See the same sentiment in Gal. 1: 15. Jer. 1: 5. The mean- 
 ing is, that God, who foreknows all things, did set him apart, choose, 
 select him for the work of the gospel, even from the earliest period of 
 his life, Gal. 1: 15. So it is said of Jeremiah, that he was set apart, 
 selected, for the prophetic office even before he was formed in his 
 mother's womb ; by all which expressions is meant, that God knows 
 all persons and events before they exist or take place, and that he has 
 a definite object in view which he intends to accomplish by them. 
 
 Elg tuayyekiov has the same sense as tig to tvayytlloaG&at 
 tvuyytliov, in order to preach the gospel. This method of using the 
 Ace. (with the preposition tig prefixed) as a nomen actionis, is a fre- 
 quent idiom of Paul's writings, and resembles the use of the Heb. 
 Inf. (with a b prefixed) as a nomen actionis. Evayythov itself is 
 sometimes employed to denote the preaching of the gospel; e. g. 1 
 Cor. 4: 15. 9: 14. — EvayyOuov {ttov Chrysostom understands as 
 meaning the gospel concerning God, viewing &tov as Gcnitivus objecti. 
 But this interpretation is plainly erroneous ; for the object is supplied 
 
58 ROMANS 1:2. 
 
 in v. 3, viz. evayyiXiov -Oeov .... Tiegl tov v'tov avrov. Theophy- 
 lact rightly explains the phrase : cog dcogi^div -nagcl tov -foot/, [the 
 gospel] as given by God. For the sentiment that the gospel is of 
 God, and that Christ taught it as received from him, let the reader 
 compare John 8: 28, 38. 5: 19, 30. 12: 49. 14: 10, 24. 17: 4—8. 
 
 (2) O TigointjyyiiXccTO .... cxytuig, which he formerly, or in 
 former times, declared or published by his prophets, in the holy Scrip- 
 tures. In like manner, Paul, in his defence before Agrippa, says, 
 that he had proclaimed nothing as a preacher of the gospel, which 
 the prophets and Moses had not declared should take place, Acts 26: 
 22. That Christ and all his apostles believed and taught, that the 
 Old Testament abounds in prophecies respecting him, there can be 
 no doubt on the part of any one who attentively reads the New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 Even the heathen of the apostle's time had become acquainted 
 with the expectations of the Jews, in regard to the appearance of the 
 Messiah ; which expectations were excited and cherished in the He- 
 brews, by the perusal of their own ancient Scriptures. Thus Tacitus 
 speaks of this subject : " Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdo- 
 tum Uteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, pro- 
 fectique Judaea rerum potirentur," Hist. V. 13. In the same manner 
 Suetonius his cotemporary expresses himself: " Percrebuerat Oriente 
 toto, vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judaea pro- 
 fecti rerum potirentur," in Vespas. c. 4. The first promises respect- 
 ing the Messiah were merely of a general nature, unaccompanied by 
 peculiar and characteristic declarations ; e. g. Gen. 3: 15. 12: 3. 
 17: 4, 5. 49: 10. In later times, it was foretold that the expected 
 King and Deliverer would be of the progeny of David, 2 Sam. 7: 16. 
 Ps. 89: 35 — 37. In several Psalms, some traits of the life, office, 
 character, and sufferings of this illustrious personage were given ; 
 viz. Psalms n. xvi. xxn. xlv. ex. etc. ; still more graphically is the 
 Messiah described in Is. liii. ; and individual occurrences in his his- 
 tory are given in later prophets, e. g. Zech. 9: 9. 11: 13. Mai. 3: 1, seq. 
 4: 2, seq. It has been observed, that Malachi's declaration in the last 
 chapter of his prophecy, is homogeneous with the very first annunci- 
 ation of the gospel in Mark 1: 2. Our English version of Jigofjrr/yytl- 
 \uto, promised afore, does not give the proper meaning of the word. 
 
 ' Ev yuaqulg ayiatg, in the holy Scriptures. The Jews employed 
 either ygccqt] the singular, or ygaqcc! the plural, indifferently. The 
 first means the corpus librorum sacrorum ; the second refers to the 
 
ROMANS 1 : 3. 51) 
 
 same collection, as made up of several particular writings. The epi- 
 thet uyiai is given to youqal, because the Scriptures were regarded 
 as worthy of all reverence, or because they were looked upon as being 
 inspired by ro -nvevpa ro dylor. 
 
 (3) TIiqi tov viov avrov, respecting his Son. In sense, this 
 clause is united to tvayytXiov Ofov at the close of v. 1. It follows, 
 therefore, that v. 2 is a parenthetic circumstance thrown in. But 
 although this is the case, there is no more necessity here of actually 
 inserting a parenthesis, than in many other cases where explanatory 
 circumstances are added in the like way ; nor, on the other hand, can 
 there be any weighty objections made against inserting a parenthesis 
 here (as I have done in the translation), inasmuch as the sense in 
 reality implies one. Tholuck joins nf(A k.t.X. with TtyoiTujyytilaTO ; 
 but as this verb itself relates to tvayytXiov &eov, it seems more con- 
 gruous to refer ticqi x.r.k. to the same words. 
 
 Tov ysvofttvov .... ouoy.a, who was born of the seed of David, 
 in respect to the flesh. The verse itself is replete with difficulties ; 
 and especially so to one who is not familiarly conversant with the 
 character of Paul's style. Tholuck strikingly compares the latter to 
 the urgent force of waves, which swell one above another in continual 
 succession. It is an obvious peculiarity of this apostle's style, that he 
 abounds in what we should usually call parentheses. His mind ap- 
 pears to have been so glowing, and so full of ideas, that the expres- 
 sion of a single word seems often to call forth as it were a burst of 
 thought respecting the import of that word, which hinders him from 
 advancing in the sentence that he had begun, unlil he has given 
 some vent to the feelings thus incidentally occasioned. The expres- 
 sion of these feelings, makes what I have named parenthesis above ; 
 although this may not always be designated as such, in our printed 
 books. To illustrate what I mean, let us take the examples in the 
 first paragraph of the epistle before us. When Paul (v. 1) had nam- 
 ed the avuyytkiov fieou, which would recal to the minds of his read- 
 ers the gospel that was then preached by himself and others, he im- 
 mediately adds, in order to enforce on their minds a becoming idea 
 of the dignity and excellence of this gospel, o" TiQoemjyytlkaTO did 
 Twv TiQoq:<r t Tcov avrov Iv ygaquJg dylaig' after which he resumes his 
 subject. But no sooner has he uttered the words tov viov avrov, 
 than another burst of thought respecting the exalted personage thus 
 named escapes him. First, this Son is yivoptvov .... odgxa, a 
 descendant of David, the most exalted king who ever occupied the 
 
GO ROMANS 1:3. 
 
 Jewish throne, even as to his humbler condition, or his human nature. 
 Secondly, he is xov OQio&ivxog .... vexQuiv, i. e. he has been consti- 
 tuted or set forth as the Son of God, clothed with supreme dominion, 
 in respect to his more exalted condition or his more exalted nature, 
 after his resurrection from the dead. Having thus given vent to the 
 feelings of reverence with which the mention of the Son of God had 
 inspired him, he resumes his theme by the words 'jtjoov .... i'j/hmv, 
 which are in apposition with xov vlov avxov in v. 3. The words 
 xov xvglov rifxtov again suggest another train of thought, which the 
 writer stops to utter, viz. di ov . . . . Xgioxov' after which he resumes 
 his theme, and finishes the sentence by naai xovg .... Xqioxov, v. 
 7. The greater part, then, of this apparently involved sentence, 
 might be included in parenthesis ; and then the simple sentence would 
 run thus : TIavXog .... acf(D()io i ut'i>og tig ivo.yytX.iov fttovntQi xov 
 vlov avxov .... h]$ov Xqioxov xov Avgiov r^ioyv . . . . ttugi xo7g 
 ovaiv x.r.A. 
 
 If the reader now will take special notice of this characteristic in 
 the writings of Paul, it will help to unravel many a sentence, which 
 would otherwise seem perplexed and perhaps even irrelevant. To 
 understand well the writings of this apostle, something more than a 
 knowledge of grammar and of words is necessary. We must be able 
 to enter into the feelings and sympathies of the writer, and to trace 
 his modes of thought and expression in cases that seem obscure, as 
 well as in cases which are plain. 
 
 Ftvoptvov, descended, born. — Ex Gnt'p[.iaxog, of the posterity, of 
 the lineage. — Kaxa oaoxa, in respect to his human nature, or in re- 
 spect to his incarnate state, his fleshly existence, -£ao!j, denotes liter- 
 ally flesh, i. e. the flesh of a living, animated being, in distinction 
 from that of a dead one, which is xytag. It denotes body also; not 
 in the sense of oaifta which has reference to the compacting of the 
 whole of the parts into one mass, but in the sense of body as distin- 
 guished from mind, the visible part as distinguished from the invisible 
 one. Hence it is very often used, both in the Old Testament and 
 the New, for our animal nature, the animal man (so to speak). 
 Frail, perishable man, also, and man with carnal appetites and passions, 
 are often designated by it ; as every lexicon will shew. As kindred with 
 this, it often means man as living in his present fleshly and dying or 
 transitory state, in distinction from another and different condition in 
 a future world; so Gal. 2: 20. Phil. 1:22,24. Heb. 5: 7 applied to 
 Christ. 1 Pet. 4: 2. 2 Cor. 10: 3. This I take to be the shade of 
 
ROMANS 1:4. Gl 
 
 sense, which it has in the passage before us. Christ, as to his out- 
 ward and transitory man, or as to his human nature or condition, de- 
 scended from the royal progeny of David ; and therefore, even in 
 respect to his lower nature, he was of exalted origin. In other words, 
 Christ, as to his incarnate condition, i. e. as to that nature which 
 dwelt on earth (iazrjvcuofv iv rif^uv, John 1: 14), and was capable of 
 suffering and dying, was of regal descent. 
 
 Such was Christ even in his state of humiliation. But what was 
 he in his exalted and glorified state ? If, as to his fleshly or transitory 
 nature and state, he was David's son, what was he in his exalted con- 
 dition, his 'pneumatic state? The answer is, 'The Son of God;' and 
 not simply this neither, for he was the Son of God while iv ouq-ai' but 
 in his exalted state, he was the Son of God iv Swapst, i. e. he was 
 " Lord over all," " Head over all things to his church, uQxn *nS 
 mtotwg tov ■&iov." 
 
 Such I take to be the general idea of rot' OQiodtvxog .... uyna- 
 ovi'ijg. The illustration of particular words, is attended with no 
 small difficulty. 
 
 (4) 'Ogio&i'vTOS has been rendered decreed, constituted, ordained ; 
 so Clavius, Erasmus, Faber, and others. So also the oldest Latin 
 interpreters, qui pmdestinatus est ; as appears from the Latin inter- 
 pretation of Irenaeus, III. 18, 32; from Rutin's version of Origen, 
 and Hilary De Trinitate, VII. To the same purpose some recent 
 interpreters have rendered OQiodtvxog' and this accords with the 
 meaning of the word in Heb. 4: 7. Acts 11: 29. 2: 23. 10: 42. 17: 
 20, 31. Luke 22: 22; and these are all the instances in which it is 
 used in the New Testament, excepting the case before us. 
 
 But this sense of the word is alleged, by some critics, not to accord 
 with the design of the passage. In order to prove this, they suppose 
 the passage (by way of illustration) to be construed thus : ' Ordained 
 to be the Son of God with power, aura irvtvpa dyiojovvtjg, i. e. by 
 the miraculous gifts which the Spirit conferred upon him, or by the 
 miracles which the Spirit enabled him to perform ;' and then ask, 
 how the miraculous gifts or deeds of Jesus ordained or constituted him 
 to be the Son of God 1 He possessed these gifts, or performed these 
 miracles, as they justly aver, because he was the Son of God ; he was 
 not made so by the possession of his gifts or the performance of his 
 deeds. Grotius, in order to relieve this difficulty with respect to 
 QQiodtvioq, construes the passage thus : ' The regal dignity of Jesus, 
 as Son of God, was predestinated or prefigured, when he wrought signs 
 
62 ROMANS 1 : 4. 
 
 and wonders in his incarnate state.' But how predestinating or 
 constituting can be made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware. 
 
 Others construe thus : 'Ordained to be the powerful Son of God, 
 in his pneumatic condition [or state of exaltation], by his resurrection 
 from the dead.' But in this case we are compelled to ask : How 
 could his resurrection decree or ordain his exalted state 1 It might 
 be the consequence of a decree that he should be exalted; it was so; 
 but in what manner the resurrection could ordain, or constitute, or 
 decree his exaltation, it would be difficult indeed to explain. 
 
 There is yet one other sense, however, in which the passage be- 
 fore us may be taken, viz. ' Constituted the Son of God with power, 
 in his pneumatic condition, after his resurrection from the dead.' For 
 although he was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was 
 not the Son of God iv duvuiiei, in the sense here meant, until after 
 his ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high. 
 
 I hesitate between this sense, and the one given by Origen, 
 Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius, the Syriac 
 version, and the great majority of modern critics; viz. 6giodti>Tog' 
 dtc/dt'vTOQ, uixocf&tvrog, ttQi&tvrog, 6/.io?.oyi]dt'i>Tog, shewn, demon- 
 strated, exhibited, declared. Of this meaning of oj/;w, it is true, no 
 example can be found in the New Testament, nor in the classics, 
 which seems to be exactly in point. Passow gives no sense of this 
 kind to 6(ji'£o), in his lexicon. I find only one example (if indeed 
 this be one) in the instances produced by Eisner, which will stand 
 the test of scrutiny; this is : "A patron of what is just, dixaOTijv 
 6<ji£ontv yvi']Oiov, we call a true judge, or we declare to be a judge 
 worthy of the name." But even here, the sense of deciding, deter- 
 mining, defining, is altogether a good one for 6gl£ouiv ; and this 
 agrees with the usual meaning of the word. Still, as o^/fw (from 
 boog) means literally to prescribe the boundaries or limits of any thing, 
 and thus, by defining it, to distinguish it from other things ; so the 
 secondary meaning given by Chrysostom, viz. der/\rtvTog,ajioq&ivTog, 
 declared, shoion, is not an unnatural one, although destitute (so far as 
 I can discover) of any definite usus loquendi to support it. The 
 lexicon of Zonaras gives the same gloss to the word : OQioOtvzog' 
 d^odtiydivTog, dnoqav&ti'Tog. 
 
 It is a safe rule, not to adopt the sense of a word, which is not 
 supported by the usus loquendi, when another meaning which is 
 supported by it, can be given, that will make good sense. And in 
 the case before us, it is as good sense to say, that ' Christ was consti- 
 
ROMANS 1:4. 63 
 
 tuted the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from the dead,' 
 as to say, that ' Christ was shown to be the Son of God with power, 
 after his resurrection from the dead.' For after the resurrection, he 
 was advanced to an elevation which, as Messiah, he did not before 
 possess; comp. Phil. 2: 9— 11. Heb. 2: 9. 12:2. Rev. 3: 21. Matt. 
 19: 28. Heb. ] : 3. Nay, I may say that the more energetic meaning 
 of the word is to be found in constituted. As an instance of this 
 nature exactly in point, see Acts 10: 42, where Christ is said so be 
 6 ojgiOfiH'og vno rou Viov xpirijg £ojvTCOVKai i>txgwi/,thc constituted 
 judge of the living and the dead; an example quite in point as to 
 the sentiment, as well as the language. See also the same sense of 
 the word in Acts 17: 31, wyioi sc. XQiTr']v, i. e. he [GodJ hath consti- 
 tuted him [Christ] the judge, etc. ; comp. 17 : 26, oyioug .... 
 xuipovg. 
 
 If we should construe the phrase thus, as some do : ' Declared to 
 be the Son of God with power, by the Holy Spirit, on account of (by) 
 his resurrection from the dead ;' one might then ask : How could the 
 resurrection declare, in any special manner, that Christ was the Son 
 of God 1 Was not Lazarus raised from the dead ? Were not others 
 raised from the dead, by Christ, by the apostles, by Elijah, and by 
 the bones of Elisha? And yet was their resurrection proof, that they 
 were the Sons of God ? God did indeed prepare the way for univer- 
 sal dominion to be given to Christ, by raising him from the dead. 
 To the like purpose is the apostle's assertion in Acts 17: 31. But 
 how an event common to him, to Lazarus, and to many others, could 
 of itself demonstrate him to be the Son of God iv dwcc/nei — remains 
 yet to be shewn. 
 
 These questions appear to me so forcible, that I must go back to 
 the more simple and unembarrassed meaning : ' Constituted the Son 
 of God with power, in respect to his pneumatic state or condition, 
 after his resurrection from the dead.' The sequel will exhibit addi- 
 tional considerations, in respect to this subject. 
 
 The phrase vlov {rsov is still more difficult of interpretation. In 
 order to be as brief as possible, I begin with the generic idea. Tlog 
 &tov any rational being may be called, who is formed in the image 
 of God, i e. possesses by his gift a moral and intellectual nature like 
 his own. The original idea of viog, is that of derivation. The 
 secondary one (which is often employed), is that of resemblance. 
 The third gradation of meaning is, that of being regarded or treated 
 as a son, occupying the place of a son, viz. having distinguished 
 
G4 ROMANS 1:4. 
 
 gifts, favours, or blessings bestowed on any one. To one or the 
 other of these classes of meaning, may all the instances be traced, in 
 which the phrase son or sorts of God is applied, in the Old Testament 
 or the New. 
 
 It is superfluous here to shew that vlog, in its primary and literal 
 sense, as applied to the relations of men, means a masculine descendant 
 of any one ; or that it means offspring, posterity, near or remote. In 
 regard to the phrase vlog -&iov, it is applied, (1) To Adam, as pro- 
 ceeding immediately from the hand of the Creator, Luke 3: 38. (2) 
 To those who are regenerated, or born of the Spirit of God, John 1 : 
 12, 13. Rom. 8: 15, 17. 1 John 3: 1, 2, et ssepe alibi. Connected with 
 this, is the usage of calling all true worshippers of God his sons ; e. g. 
 Matt. 5: 9, 45. Luke C: 35. 20: 36. Rom. 8: 14, 19. 2 Cor. C: 
 18. Gal. 3: 26. Heb. 12: 6. Rev. 21: 7, et alibi. (3) The same 
 appellation is sometimes given to such as are treated with special 
 kindness; e. g. Rom. 9: 26. Hos 1: 10. 11: 1. Deut. 32: 5, 19. 
 Is. 1: 2. 43: 6. Jer. 31: 9. 2 Cor. 6: 18. God, as the common 
 father and benefactor of all men, good and bad, in reference to this 
 relation, often calls himself a father, and styles them his children ; 
 " If I be a father, where is mine honour?" " I have nourished and 
 brought up children, but they have rebelled against me." Moreover, 
 as all men are made in his image, i. e. have an intellectual, rational, 
 and moral nature like his own ; on this account also they may be styled 
 his children ; but more specially does this apply to those who are 
 regenerated, and in whom the image of God that had been in part 
 defaced, is restored. (4) As bearing some resemblance to the Su- 
 preme Ruler of the universe in respect to authority, or as having 
 office by his special favour, kings are sometimes named sons of God ; 
 e. g. Ps. 82: 6 {yi'bz "3 a). 2 Sam. 7: 14. So in Homer, dtoy^vrjg 
 fiaotlevg, Hi. I. 279. II. 196. (5) Angels are called sons of God, 
 for the like reason that men are, viz. because God is their creator 
 and benefactor; and specially, because they bear a high resemblance 
 to God ; see Job 1:6. 2: 1. 38: 7. Dan. 3: 25. 
 
 It is evident from inspecting these examples, that men and angels 
 may be called sons of God for more than one reason ; nay, that in 
 some cases all the reasons for giving this appellation are united. E. g. a 
 pious Israelite might be called a son of God, because God was his 
 creator ; because of the special favours and blessings bestowed upon 
 him, i. e. because of his being treated as a son ; because he was born 
 again by the power of the Holy Spirit ; and because he bore a special 
 
ROMANS 1:4. 05 
 
 resemblance to his heavenly father. For each or for any one of these 
 reasons, it is obvious we might, agreeably to Scripture usage, call 
 any one a son of God, who is truly pious ; and for all of them combined, 
 or for any part of them, we might in like manner bestow on him the 
 same appellation. I mention this here, because it is of no small im- 
 portance in rightly estimating the force of J vlog tov {)iov, as applied 
 to Christ. We come now to consider this last phrase, as applied in 
 this manner. 
 
 («) It designates Jesus as produced in the womb of the virgin 
 Mary, by the miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1: 32 
 (comp. Luke 3: 38). Perhaps the same sense belongs to it in Mark 
 1: 1 The words of the centurion, in Matt. 27: 54 and Mark 15: 39, 
 seem, in the mouth of a Roman, to have the like sense, although 
 perhaps it is not altogether the same. 
 
 (b) It means Jesus as the constituted King or Messiah. E. g. 
 Matt. 16: 16. 26: 63. Mark 14: 61. Luke 22: 70. John 1: 49. 11: 
 27; and probably in Matt. 8: 29. 14: 33. Mark 3: 11. 5: 7. Luke 4: 
 41. 8: 28. John 1: 34. 6: 69. 9: 35. 10: 36. Acts 9: 20. 13: 33. 
 Heb. 5: 5. In the like sense, the appellation Son is given to him, in 
 the way of anticipation, by the ancient prophets who foretold his ap- 
 pearance ; Ps. 2: 7. 89: 27. On the like ground, kings, as we have 
 seen in No. 4, are called sons of God ; Ps. 82: 6. 2 Sam. 7: 14. 
 
 (c) The most common use of the phrase Son of God as applied 
 to the Messiah, is, to designate the high and mysterious relation 
 which subsisted between him and God the Father, by virtue of which 
 he was, in his complex person as diuv&gomog, the unaiyaofiu tt}q 
 d6'£,r]g xal yagaxTijg ztjg vjiooiuotoig tov nargog, Heb. 1: 3; the 
 eixcov zov-Oeov tov uoguTOv, Col. 1: 15; the tixtov tov dtov,%Cor. 
 4: 4. In this respect, 6 vlog tov fteov is rather a name of nature 
 than of office, for it is predicated upon the high and glorious eixtov, 
 resemblance, similitude, which the Son exhibits of the Father, he being 
 the radiance (uTzccvyaa^iu) of his glory ; so that what Jesus said to 
 Philip is true, viz. ; ' He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," 
 John 14: 9. " It hath pleased the Father, that in him all fulness 
 should dwell," Col. 1: 19; even "all the fulness of the Godhead bod- 
 ily," Col. 2: 9; and that high, yea divine honour should be paid to 
 him, Phil. 2: 9—11. Rom. 14: 11. (comp. v. 9). Rev. 5: 13, 14. John 
 5: 23. Heb. 1: 6. As Son, Christ is lord and heir of all things, Heb. 
 1: 2, 3, 8. In particular, it would seem to be one design of the New 
 Testament writers, in using the appellation Son of God, to convey the 
 
 9 
 
66 ROMANS 1:4. 
 
 idea of a most intimate connexion, love, and fellowship (so to speak), 
 between him and the Father. Compare, in order to illustrate this idea, 
 such texts as Matt. 11: 27. Luke 10: 22. John 1: 14, 18. Heb. 1: 5, 
 sen. Matt. 3: 17. Luke 3: 22. 9: 35. Col. 1: 13. 2 Pet. 1: 17. Matt. 
 17: 5. Mark 1: 11. 9: 7. Compare, also, with these last texts, the 
 parables in Matt. 21: 37, seq. 22: 2, seq. Mark 12: 6. Luke 20: 13; 
 also John 8: 35, 36, and 10: 36. That God has given Christ the 
 Spirit without measure, that he dwells in him ocDfiaiixaJg, that all 
 counsels and secrets (so to speak) of the divine Nature are perfectly 
 known to him, (John 1: 18. Matt. 11: 27. Luke 10: 22. John 6: 46. 
 7: 29. 8: 19. 14: 9, 10, 11, 20. 10: 15), seems to be suggested by 
 the appellation Son of God as frequently bestowed ; for so the texts 
 referred to, and other like texts, would imply. In a word, similitude, 
 affection, confidence, and most intimate connection, seem to be de- 
 signated by the appellation Son, as applied to Christ. In this sense 
 it is most frequent in the New Testament ; although with Paul, the 
 idea of Messianic dignity or elevation is more commonly designated 
 by Kvqioq. 
 
 But while I am fully satisfied that the term Son of God is often- 
 times applied to Christ as a name of nature, as well as of office ; yet I 
 am as fully satisfied, that it is not applied to him considered simply as 
 divine, or simply as Logos. It designates the Geav&Qomog, the 
 God-man, i. e. the complex person of the Messiah, in distinction from 
 his divine nature simply considered, or his Logos state or condition. 
 The exceptions to this are only cases of such a nature, as shew that 
 the appellation Son of God became, by usage, a kind of proper name, 
 which might be applied either to his human nature, or to his divine 
 one, as well as to his complex person. In just such a way proper 
 names are commonly used ; e. g. Abraham usually and properly 
 means, the complex person of this individual consisting of soul and 
 body. But when I say : ' Abraham is dead,' I mean the physical 
 part only of Abraham is so ; and when I say : 'Abraham is alive, 5 1 mean 
 that his immortal part only is so. So in regard to the name Son of 
 God; when I say : 'The Son of God was crucified,' I mean that his 
 mortal part was so; when I say : 'God sent his Son, the Son came 
 out from the Father, he had glory with the Father before the world 
 was,' etc., I mean, in such cases, that the divine nature of the Son 
 became incarnate, that iavrov ixti'CDOS .... lavrov izantu'ojGf 
 (Phil. 2: 7, 8), taking upon him the likeness of our nature. But when 
 I say, with John, that "Jesus is the Son of God," and that " Jesus 
 
ROMANS 1:4. 67 
 
 Christ has come in the flesh," I mean to designate his complex per- 
 son, the {tedv&Qonog, the &eog if aagxl (favigco&eig, the loyog oa(j£ 
 ysvoptvog' and this is the case with most of the examples of the 
 phrase in the New Testament ; see Excursus I. 
 
 If I rightly understand the meaning of viov tffov, it designates 
 the Messiah, the King of Israel, the Lord of all, in the passage be- 
 fore us. Such was Christ constituted, after his resurrection from the 
 dead, when he ascended to take his place at the right hand of the 
 Majesty on high, and was made xh]gov6[.wg navtoov. To express this 
 idea with intensity, the writer adds : 
 
 ' ' Ev dvvdf.ui, i. e. Christ was now constituted the Son of God or 
 the Messiah, possessed of duvufttg or endowed with dvvdfiig. Before 
 his resurrection, he appeared as " a man of sorrows and acquainted 
 with grief," as " a root out of dry ground ;" after it, he was clothed 
 with supreme majesty and glory, and " all power in heaven and on 
 earth was committed to him," Matt 28: 18. This last passage seems 
 to present the key to the one before us. 
 
 I am aware that iv dvvdfiei has been connected, by many exposi- 
 tors, with uyiodtvrog, and regarded as an adverb signifying potcnter, 
 JT-naia, and so rendering intensive the participle just named, i. e. 
 making the whole to mean powerfully demonstrated, or shewn in a 
 glorious or wondcrfid manner, etc. That the Dative case of a noun 
 joined with i v, may be employed adverbicdly, is indeed in accordance 
 with the laws of the Greek language. But is it in accordance with 
 probability, in this case, that iv dwapet qualifies ogiadivrogl It 
 would seem to be a singular method indeed of expressing intensity. 
 Why not put iv dvvdfiet, in such a case, before oytn&tvzog, in order 
 to avoid an equivocal construction of the sentence ? Then again, how 
 singular the qualification of a word which signifies to constihde, or, if 
 you please, to shew. How could one think of adding iv dvvdfiev to 
 augment the signification of such a kind of verb or participle ? Why 
 not choose dnoqv.ivw, i)Jy%(x), or some such word which is intense in 
 itself? And further ; where are the analogies in the New Testa- 
 ment? Avvu^ag^ as employed in general, is a qualification of a per- 
 son, or thing, or an office, not of a verb; e. g. Acts 10: 38, God 
 anointed Jesus of Nazareth -nvevfiari dyiw xal dvvdfuf Rom. 15: 
 19, iv dvvciftH, by the force of, by virtue of; 1 Cor. 4: 20, 'the king- 
 dom of God is iv dvvdfiet'' 1 Cor. 15: 43, 'the body is raised iv 
 duvuutij i. e. endowed with dvvv.fiig' 1 Thess. 1:5, 'the gospel 
 was not in word only, but iv duvdfier' 2 Thess. 1: 11, 'the work of 
 
68 ROMANS 1:4. 
 
 faith iv dwccpet' 1 2 Thess. 2: 9, iv tiuojj dvvupti, endowed with va- 
 rious powers. Once only do I find iv dvvafitt apparently qualifying 
 a participle or verb, viz. Col. 1: 29, iv£Qyovp,tvr\ iv ipol iv dvvupti, 
 operating powerfully in me. But here the participle has such a mean- 
 ing as is plainly susceptible of intensity. Can we say that the same 
 is the case with opiOitivTog? As we cannot, I must therefore believe 
 that iv dvvupti is designed to qualify vlov fifoo, in the manner 
 before stated. I am the more inclined to this, when I see it to be 
 affirmed in Matt. 24: 30. Mark 13: 26. Luke 21: 27, that ' the Son of 
 Man shall come, to take vengeance on the unbelieving Jews, ptia 
 dvvupecog y.ul doh]Q' when the Saviour says of himself, after his 
 resurrection, ' nuna dvvupig in heaven and earth is given to me,' 
 Matt. 28: 18 ; when Peter speaks of ' having made known to those 
 whom he addressed, the dvvup.iv y.ul i'Sovoluv of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ,' 2 Pet. 1: 16; when the Son of Man represents himself, after 
 his resurrection, as ' seated at the right hand r? t g fivvupf ojg,' Matt. 26: 
 64. Mark 14: 62. Luke 22: 69; and when to xpuiog is ascribed to 
 the Lamb in Rev. 5: 13, and i'iovoia in Rev. 12: 10. It does not 
 seem to me, that there is any solid reason, why critics should any longer 
 consider the application of iv d'vvupfi, in our text, as doubtful, or as 
 belonging to ogtodt'iTog. 
 
 Kutu nvevpa uyiwauviig — like every other expression in this 
 verse, is contested. Some translate, by the Holy Spirit ; and 
 some, by a holy spirit, i. e. divine and miraculous power. A third 
 party construe nvsvfia here, as designating the higher nature or con- 
 dition of Christ, i. e. his pneumatic nature or condition, if I may so 
 express it. 
 
 Schleusner, Flatt, Bengel, and others, find in uyiomvvt] a meaning 
 designedly different from that of uyiorrjg or uyiuapog. Thus Ben- 
 gel : " uyiOTijg sanctitas, uyiuapog sanctificatio, uytwovvrj sanctimo- 
 nia." But this seems to be imaginary ; for even in Latin, sanctimo- 
 nia and sanctitas differ only in form, not in sense. In Greek, as 
 there is no difference between uyuf)o>avvi] and uyudoTijg, so there 
 appears to be none between uyiojovvi] and aytozrjg. The Seventy 
 use uyiwovv)] for Xv , strength, in Ps. 96: 6 (95: 6) ; for ttj'jp in Ps. 
 97: 12 (96: 12) ; and for nin in Ps. 145: 5 (144: 5). But as -nvirvpu, 
 so often called nifvpu uyiov, is here joined with uyio)Ohvt]g, I cannot 
 doubt that the word dyicoavviig is here employed in the place of the 
 adjective uyiov, (like 1231.1? in " l ttJ*lp "in, i. e. my holy mountain). 
 So the Gen. case of nouns is employed, in almost innumerable in- 
 
ROMANS 1:4. 69 
 
 stances. If we may conjecture a reason why the apostle here pre- 
 ferred dyiwavvrjg to dyioi', we might say, that it was because he wished 
 to avoid the dubious meaning which dyiov would seem to give to the 
 passage, as the reader would more naturally refer this epithet to divine 
 influence, or to the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But why should not one of the two first named senses of dyiu)ovvr]g 
 be adopted? I answer: Because there is contra-distinction, (not 
 antithesis in the strict sense of the word, for it is climax here instead 
 of antithesis), between xara oayxa and yara nviviia. Christ, yard 
 cugxa, was a king of David's race; Christ, yard nixv^a, was king in 
 glory above, at the right hand of God. Such being the obvious mean- 
 ing of the passage, I must reject the two first interpretations of dyiwov- 
 vi]Q, just mentioned. Those meanings are liable to serious objections ; 
 for if you say, that yard tti>iv^u means divine miraculous power ; then 
 how, I ask, could this demonstrate that Christ was the Son of God, 
 when he himself declares, that his disciples, after his death, shall do 
 greater miracles than he had done ? If you say that it means the 
 Holy Spirit, as raising Christ from the dead (f i avaoidoeajg venQWv), 
 then this is contrary to the analogy of the Scripture, which represents 
 God the Father as raising up Christ from the dead, Rom. 6: 4. 8: 11. 
 Acts 2: 24. 2 Cor. 13: 4. Besides, how could the being raised from 
 the dead be proof, as Flatt intimates, of the divine nature of Christ, 
 since Lazarus and many others had also been raised from the dead? 
 But what is more than all, the evident contra-distinction between 
 Kara oagya and y.aru iivtvpa is wholly laid aside, by either of those 
 methods of interpretation ; which of itself is adequate reason for 
 rejecting them. 
 
 We come then to the third position, viz. that nviviia dyio)avvrjg 
 designates Christ in his higher or pneumatic state or condition. But is 
 this analogical? Is nvtufia elsewhere applied to Christ in the like way? 
 
 That nvevfia is applied directly to Christ, seems clear from 2 Cor. 
 3: 17, 6 y.vQiog [Xgiorog] to nvtvfia ioriv and in v. 18, yvgiov 
 ■nviv^azog. The appellation nvivfia is probably applied to Christ 
 here, as the bestower of Ttvttpa. Again, in Heb. 9: 14, Christ is 
 said to have offered himself, in the heavenly temple, a spotless victim 
 to God diu nvivf-iurog aiwrlov, in his everlasting pneumatic or glo- 
 rified state. This passage does not seem fairly susceptible of any 
 other meaning, when one compares it with vs. II, 12, which precede, 
 and with the analogy of Scripture ; did here being did conditionis. 
 
 In 1 Pet. 3: 18, the apostle speaking of Christ says, that he was 
 
ro ROMANS 1:4. 
 
 -OuvaxofdHQ jU*V aapxt, faonotrfduQ de nviv/naTC where he appa- 
 rently uses the very same contra-distinction which Paul makes use of 
 in the verse before us. What can be the meaning of nvevf-iu, then, 
 in such examples, if it be not the pneumatic state or condition or na- 
 ture of the Saviour, i. e. his exalted and glorious state or nature ? The 
 word £ojonoi>i&ftg, as here used, seems not to indicate restored to life, 
 (for in what sense can this be literally applied to the nvev^u of Christ, 
 even if nvevfta mean nothing more than his human soul?) but rendered 
 happy, exedted to a state of glory ; comp. ch. 4:1, where iruxtovrog 
 is put for &uvaTW&(ig in 3: 18, and is the antithesis of CoDOTTOirj&elg 
 used in the sense just explained. 
 
 If I rightly comprehend the meaning of these expressions as ap- 
 plied to Christ, the sense of the whole clause on which I have been 
 commenting, is : ' Of royal descent, even of David's lineage, as to his 
 incarnate state (loyog ouoi eyivexo) ; the Son of God clothed with 
 supreme dominion, in his pneumatic i. e. exalted and glorified state.' 
 
 That both clauses, viz. that which describes his state xar« Gv.Q'/a, 
 and that which describes his state Kara nvivf.iu dyioiovv^g, are de- 
 signed to describe the dignity of the Saviour, seems altogether clear. 
 Not anthithesis then, but climax seems to be here intended. So, with 
 Tholuck, I understand the passage ; and I have interpreted it accord- 
 ingly. I do not say that an ingenious critic can raise no difficulties 
 with respect to this interpretation ; but I cannot help thinking, that 
 they are much less than attend any other method of exegesis which 
 has yet been adopted. 
 
 'E'S, dvaoxdotwg xo"ji> vr/.gwv is another contested phrase. Many 
 have rendered i'§ by. So Chrysostom ; who deduces from our verse 
 three proofs which were exhibited in order to shew the divine nature 
 of Christ ; viz. (1) 'Ev dwd/iiet, i. e. the wonderful miracles which 
 Christ wrought. (2) The gift of the Holy Spirit, v.arv. revived. 
 uyio)ovp?]g. (3) The resurrection. The difficulty with his reason- 
 ing is, that in the same manner, prophets, apostles, and others, may 
 be proved to be divine. There can indeed, be no doubt, that tv. (e't) 
 is, so far as this preposition is concerned, susceptible of such an in- 
 terpretation. It is often used in the sense of propter, ex, and desig- 
 nates the causa occasionalis ; e. g. John 4: 6, Jesus being wearied ix 
 rrjg odotjioolag- Acts 28: 3. Rom. 5: 16. Rev. 8: 13 ; or it desig- 
 nates the causa instrumentalis, 1 Cor. 9: 14. 2 Cor. 7: 9. Rev. 3: 18. 
 But, on the other hand, that in signifies after, since, in respect to 
 time, is equally clear and certain ; e. d. ix xoiliag fiijiQog, from 
 
ROMANS 1:4. 71 
 
 the time of one's birth ; Matt. 19: 20, ett veozijzog, from early youth ; 
 Luke 8: 27, ix %govoyv ixccvoiv, a long time since ; 23: 8. John 0: 64. 
 6:66. 9: 1,32. Acts 9:33. 15:21. 24: 10. Rev. 17: II, tx zolv 
 * TiTu lazi, after the seven ; 2 Pet. 2: 8 ; comp. Sept. in Gen. 39: 10. 
 Lev. 25: 50. Deut. 15. 20. — So in the classics ; Arrian Exped. Alex. 
 I. 26. 3. ix votwv Gx\i]ga)}>, after vehement south winds. III. 15. 
 13. V. 25. 3. Hist. Ind. 33. 5, ix zoocavd'e xuxtov, after so many 
 evils. Xenoph. Res Graecae, VI. i'£ uglazov, after dinner. No 
 doubt can be left, then, that i'S, ccvccazaofcog vexgiov may be rendered, 
 after the resurrection from the dead, or since his resurrection, etc. 
 So Luther, sint dcr Zeit er auferstanden ist, since the time when he 
 arose. 
 
 ' AvaoTUGtcxig vt xgwv, moreover, is one of those combinations of 
 the Gen. case with a preceding noun, which express great latitude of 
 construction. Here it is equivalent to dvaozaoioig ix vexgoZv. Both 
 phrases, viz. dvdozaatg vixgwv and uraaraoig ix vexgwv, are used 
 by the New Testament writers ; e. g. the first, in Matt. 22: 31. Acts 
 17: 32. 24: 21. 26: 23 ; and Paul limits himself to this same 
 phraseology, e. g. 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42. Heb. 6: 2 ; the second, 
 in Luke 20: 35. Acts 4: 2. I can perceive no difference whatever in 
 their meaning. In regard to the latitude in which the Genitive is 
 employed, in order to designate relations which might otherwise be 
 expressed by a preposition, see Winer's N.Test. Gramm. § 30. ed. 3d. 
 
 The apostle having given his views respecting the dignity of Christ 
 both nurd odgxa and xuza nviifiu, (for distinction's sake I include 
 his declaration in a parenthesis, in my version of the passage), he now 
 resumes the theme mentioned at the beginning of v. 3, viz. rot! vlov 
 uviov, by adding the other usual appellatives of honour and office 
 given to the Son; which are, 'Jt]O0v Xgtazov zov xvg'iov ijiitov. Kvgiog 
 is a word of deep interest to Christians. Applied to Christ it properly 
 denotes him as supreme Ruler or Lord, specially of his church. Mat- 
 thew and Mark do not apply this title absolutely to Christ, except 
 after his resurrection, Matt. 28: 6. Mark 16: 19, 20. But Luke, 
 John, and Paul, apply it to him every where and often. With Paul 
 the application seems to be in a manner exclusive. God the Father, 
 or God absolutely considered, is named xvgiog about thirty times, in 
 the Old Testament passages which Paul cites ; but elsewhere, with 
 the exception of some four or five instances, Paul gives to Christ ex- 
 clusively the title of xvgiog or 6 xvgiog, in more than two hundred and 
 fifteen instances ; see Bib. Repos. I. 733, seq. The article makes 
 
72 ROMANS ] : 5, 6. 
 
 no difference in the meaning, inasmuch as the word is a kind of 
 proper name by usage, is employed in like manner as one, and may 
 therefore take or omit the article at the pleasure of the writer. See 
 the Essay on the meaning of the word xvgiog, in the Bibl. Repos. as 
 above. 
 
 (5) At ov . . . . anoGroX^v, by whom roe have received grace and 
 the office of an apostle. Chrysostom, Grotius, and others interpret 
 this as though it meant X a 9 tv T W* utiooto\>]Q, the favour or privilege 
 of the apostolic office ; i. e. they construe the last words as a Hendia- 
 dys. Augustine, as quoted by Tholuck, seems to have hit the real 
 meaning : " Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus accepit — apostolatum, 
 non cum omnibus." I prefer to separate the meaning of the words. 
 As to XUQiQ, comp. 1 Tim. 1: 12 — 14. As to unooxoh], comp. Acts 
 9: 15. 13: 2. 22: 21. 
 
 Eig vjiuxotjv nlorfoig, on account of the obedience of faith. Eig, 
 followed by an Ace, in almost innumerable instances designates the 
 object or end for which any thing is, or is done. The idea here is, 
 that the office of an apostle had been given to Paul, ' in order that 
 (fig) he should further or promote obedience to the faith,' i. e. to the 
 gospel ; or (as we may construe niozsmg) the obedience of faith, viz. 
 that which springs from subjective or internal faith. I prefer this lat- 
 ter sense, as being on the whole the most energetic. 
 
 Ev naoi roig t&vsGi, among all nations; see Bretschn. Lex. iv. 
 No. 7, 2d edit. 'Eftvioi, may be rendered Gentiles here, inasmuch 
 as Paul was " the apostle of the Gentiles ;" but the expression seems 
 to be more general. He means to say, that he received the office of 
 an apostle, in order that the gospel might be preached to all nations, 
 to Gentiles as well as to Jews. 
 
 ' Tti%q tov ovofAUTog uvTov,for his name's sake, which means, on 
 his account. But with what is this to be joined ? Does the apostle mean 
 to say, that he had received yuQiv %al dnoGToh'jv on his [Christ's] ac- 
 count ; or does he join the latter expression with fig vnuxotji* nioreMg, 
 and thus designate the following sentiment, viz. that 'obedience 
 springing from Christian faith may be promoted among all nations, so 
 that Christ may be glorified V In this latter way I should prefer to 
 interpret it ; and so Tholuck has done in his Commentary, as also 
 Castalio and others. 
 
 (6) * Ev oTg ioi£ nal vfii7g, among which [nations] are ye [Ro- 
 mans]. The writer means to say: 'Among those nations are ye, 
 who have been won over to obey the Christian faith.' So the sequel : 
 
ROMANS 1 : 6, 7. 73 
 
 y.Xt]TOi Irjaov Xgiorov, the called of Jesus Christ, i. e. the called who 
 belong to Christ. Alijiog (see on the word under v. 1) means, by 
 the usage of Paul, not only those to whom the external call of the 
 gospel has been addressed, but those who have also been internally 
 called ; in other words, it designates effectual calling. My reason for 
 supposing I. Xqigtov here to be a Genitive which designates belong- 
 ing to, rather than a Genitivus agentis (in which case it would sig- 
 nify of or by Christ), is, that the usual idiom ascribes the calling of 
 sinners to Christ as effected by the agency of the Father, or of the 
 Holy Spirit. Ahjiol J. Xqigtov, according to the interpretation 
 now given, would mean 'Christians effectually called.' 
 
 (7) IJuni, . . . {leov, to all who are at Rome, beloved of God ; 
 i. e. to all these \tyot, yQuqxo, I say what follows in the sequel, viz. 
 XctQig vfiiv, etc. I am inclined to think, that in saying tv 'Pco/it], 
 the apostle meant to include not only the Christians who habitually 
 dwelt there, but also Christians from abroad, more or less of whom 
 must have frequented that great city. Such was the concourse of 
 Greeks there in Juvenal's time, that he calls it Grae.com urban. 
 Christian foreigners who were izi the city, no doubt would attend wor- 
 ship with the church which belonged there ; so that the apostle might 
 well address the whole body of those who joined in Christian Worship. 
 
 Ahjrolg ayiotg, chosen saints, or saints effectually called. So 
 most editions and commentaries unite these words, making xh)]To7g 
 an adjective qualifying aylocQ' and so I have translated them. This 
 may be correct, inasmuch as the apostle had just before called them 
 nhjTOt J. Xqigtov. If this union of the two words was intended by 
 him, they mean as much as to say, called or chosen to be holy, or to 
 be consecrated to God, to be devoted to Mm. In the mean time, it is 
 evident that the words may be pointed thus, xXijzoTg, ayioig, to those 
 who are called, to ho are devoted to Christ. The sense is substantially 
 the same, whichever way we choose to interpret the words. 
 
 As to the appellations, uyamiioig-Otou, Kkrjroig dyt'oig, the reader 
 may compare the terms of honour and affection given to God's ancient 
 people; in Ex. 19: 6. Deut. 33: 3. 32: 19; see also 1 Pet. 2: 9. 1 
 Tim. 3: 15. Phil. 2: 15. 1 John 3: 1, 2, 10. 5: 1. 
 
 XuQig Vfilv sc. f'orco, may grace be imparted to you ! XctQig I 
 understand as meaning every Christian grace and virtue, which the 
 Spirit of God imparts to the followers of Christ ; divine favour in the 
 most extensive sense, but specially in the sense of spiritual blessings. 
 — Eior]i't] } like the Heb. QibttJ , happiness of every kind, peace with 
 
 io' 
 
74 ROMANS 1:7,8. 
 
 God and man, and so a state of quiet and happiness. The same word 
 (cb"£0 is used, down to the present hour, among the oriental nations 
 who speak the Shemitish languages, as an appropriate expression in 
 their formulas of greeting, or of signifying good wishes. 
 
 Ilaigog ?;«(oi', i. e. the Father of all Christians, of you and me. 
 So Christ has taught his disciples, when they approach God in prayer, 
 to say Trait g rjfiav. — Kvgiov, see under v. 4. 
 
 It should be remarked here, that in this prayer or wish, Paul 
 seems to take it for granted, that the blessings for which he asks, 
 come as really and truly (not to say as much) from the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, as from God our Father. To the one, then, he addresses 
 his prayer, as well as to the other. 
 
 The reader, in looking back on what he has now read, will find 
 the whole paragraph exceedingly characteristic of the manner in 
 which Paul often writes. With regard to the parenthetic explana- 
 tions or remarks in vs. 3, 4, (see the remarks on the course of thought 
 in these verses, under v. 3), we have seen that they were occasioned 
 by the association of ideas in the writer's mind, which were connect- 
 ed with the mention of tou viov uvzov. So in respect to vs. 5 and 
 C again ; they were evidently suggested to the mind by tou kvqiov 
 ripoji' in v. 4. Having expressed the thoughts which y.v<j!ov thus 
 spontaneously suggested, the writer again resumes the direct address 
 or salutation which he was making : ttuoi xolg oucav x.r.A. The words 
 necessarily connected in the paragraph stand thus: irtgl tov iwv 
 aviov .... Jijoou Xqiotov tov kvqiov tj/itov .... nuoi xolg ovatv 
 if 'Poj//?; y.. z. )..; so that the whole seven verses make but one sen- 
 tence, which is grammatically connected together. In this are three 
 parentheses, if we count o nootjiijyytikuxo diu xi»v nooqi]ion> uvtov 
 iv yguquig aylaig as one; which we may do. This is an unusual 
 number, even for Paul, in one sentence. Yet the characteristic of 
 style developed by it is often to be seen, more or less, in the works of 
 this distinguished apostle. 
 
 (8) The apostle now proceeds to the expression of his kind feel- 
 ings and wishes toward the church at Rome, in order to prepare the 
 way, as it was natural for him to do, to be the more kindly listened 
 to by them. TIgojiov, in the first place, first of all, viz. before I speak 
 of other things. It does not here mean first in point of importance, 
 but first in the order of time. — Mtv Bretschneider (Lex.) considers as 
 here placed absolutely, i. e. without its usual corresponding St; for he 
 says: " No d'evTegov follows," i. e. no additional clause connected with 
 
ROMANS 1:8,1). 75 
 
 dt. But in this I think he is mistaken. For the apostle, after two 
 paragraphs in his usual manner, which begin with yuo (illustrating and 
 continuing first what he had said in v. 8, and then what he had said 
 in v. 10), proceeds to the deuTtyov of his declarations in v. 13, viz. on 
 ■Oilo) d'e Vjiag ■/.. r. ).. That is, first, the apostle thanks God for their 
 faith, etc. ; and secondly, he is desirous to tell them how much he has 
 longed to pay them a visit, etc. 
 
 Tra {ltu> /liov, my God; the Christian religion which teaches us 
 to say narso tjfiwv, allows us to say, &eog /tor. — Aia Jt]noii Aoia- 
 xuu, per Christum, auxilio Christi, intcrventu Christi, i. e. through, 
 by, or in consequence of, what Christ has done or effected ; in other 
 words, Deo gratias ago respectu vestrum omnium, ut Christo adju- 
 vante fides vestra etc. All that had been done among them to pro- 
 mote a true and saving belief, the apostle attributes to what Christ had 
 caused or effected. But whether he means to designate what he had 
 done for them by his sufferings and death, or by sending his Spirit, 
 does not certainly appear. In either sense, the passage will convey 
 a meaning both true and important. 
 
 'Ttxiq Tiuvroiv Vfiwv, on account of you all; not for you in this 
 sense, viz. in your room or stead. — niazig l\uojv, your Christian be- 
 lief, your faith in the gospel. — ' OXoi xca y,oo/nco, i. e. throughout the 
 Roman empire. Aooiiog and oixovpz'v?] are frequently used in a 
 limited sense, like the y~i.N and b^n of the Hebrews. Nothing is 
 more natural than to suppose, that the faith of the church at Rome 
 might have been widely known or reported, in consequence of that 
 great city being frequented by strangers from all parts of the empire. 
 
 (9) Mugrvg yuo .... tieog, for God is my witness. Fug cjpli- 
 cantis et confirmantis ; i. e. the apostle unfolds and confirms, in the 
 following sentence, the evidence of his strong sympathies with them, 
 and of his gratitude to God on their account. The reason why he 
 here makes the appeal to God seems to be, that he being a stranger in 
 person to the church at Rome, they might otherwise think his expres- 
 sions to be merely those of common civility. 
 
 Sit Xargeiio) .... aviov, whom I serve with my sovl [sincerely] 
 in the gospel of his Son. Ev rw nviv/uari f.iov I understand as de- 
 signating sincerity, i. e. real, internal, spiritual devotedness, in dis- 
 tinction from what is merely external or apparent. The apostle 
 means to say, that he was sincerely and really devoted to the cause 
 which he professed to love and to promote ; comp. Phil. 3: 3. 2 Tim. 
 1:3. Eph. 6:6. Rom. 2: 28, 29. 
 
7(5 ROMANS 1:9—11. 
 
 3 Ev rw evayyihio) rov vlov avrov, by the preaching of the gospel 
 which has respect to his Son, or by the preaching of the gospel of 
 which his Son is the author, and which he taught me. — 'fig udiuXeln- 
 ? cog .... Tiotovf-iui, how unceasingly I make remembrance of you. 
 This shews the intense zeal which the apostle cherished for the wel- 
 fare of the Christian churches ; for if he thus constantly interceded 
 with God for the church at Rome, which he had never visited, we 
 cannot suppose that he forgot other churches which he had been the 
 instrument of establishing. How different a phase would the Christian 
 church speedily assume, if all its ministers were now actuated with the 
 same degree of zeal which Paul exhibited ! 
 
 (10) JJuvioxe .... dfOfitvog, always making supplication in my 
 prayers; which is confirming what he had said before, udiuXelm mg 
 pvtiuv v/iaiv noiovj-iai, and at the same time pointing out the man- 
 ner in which he made this fiveiav, viz. in his supplications before 
 God. 
 
 Emtog . . . ifiug, [that] at some time or other, if possible before 
 long, I may (God willing) make a prosperous journey, and come to 
 pay you a visit. Eintog expresses a degree of uncertainty which 
 hung over the future, in the writer's own mind, i. e. it means per- 
 haps, if possible, if in some way, if by any means. "Udr t , followed 
 by the Future, means max, brevi, by and by, soon, before long. JJoxt, 
 aliquando, tandem, at last, at some time or other, at some future peri- 
 od; [note, with the accent on the penult, means when). Both the 
 words i']di] and nor?', have often nearly the same meaning when con- 
 nected with a future tense. They may be here rendered thus : note, 
 at last, at some time or other, or at some future period ; jjdt], mox, be- 
 fore long; so in the version, where I have given to each word its own 
 particular and appropriate meaning. 
 
 Euodtoi)ij<70[tcti means, to make a pleasant or prosperous journey. 
 A journey to Rome, which the apostle so ardently longed to visit, 
 would in it.-clf of course have been a pleasant one. — Ev rw •Offojiiuit 
 rov {teuu, i. e. Deo volcnte. Grotius renders the passage very hap- 
 pily : " Si forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat ad vos ve- 
 niendi." 
 
 (11) .T«p, in this verse, precedes a sentence designed to illustrate 
 and confirm the declaration which Paul had just made, viz. that he 
 felt a deep interest for the church at Rome, and hoped yet to enjoy 
 the pleasure of visiting them. — ■' Jva n . . . . nvsvpaTixov, that I may 
 impart to you some spiritual favour or gift. Bengel, Michaelis, and 
 
ROMANS 1: 11, 12.' 77 
 
 others, interpret yuoiofiu nvevfiarixov as meaning miraculous gift, 
 such as the apostles sometimes imparted by the imposition of hands. 
 Augustine understands by the same words, the love of one's neighbour, 
 supposing that the Jewish Christians at Rome were deficient in this 
 virtue. But in v. 12, the apostle expresses his expectation of receiv- 
 ing on his part a benefit like to that which he bestows on them ; so 
 that both of these methods of explanation seem to be fairly out of 
 question. What he expected from them, was Gvimufjuy.krjfli/iai .... 
 d'ta rijg iv a?J.r,ko/g nlortoig' consequently this was what he expected 
 to do for them, viz. to encourage, animate, and strengthen them in 
 their Christian profession and virtues. 
 
 So the latter part of our verse : eig to OTrjgr/xtijvai vpug, that 
 you may be confirmed, viz. in the manner stated above. Nor does it 
 follow, that the apostle viewed the church at Rome as weak in faith, 
 because he says this ; unless we say that he was himself weak in 
 faith, because he expects the lik£ advantage of confirmation from his 
 intercourse with them. Faith that is strong, and Christian virtue that 
 is conspicuous, are capable of becoming still more so ; and therefore 
 expressions of this nature are never applied amiss, even to Christians 
 of the highest order. The apostle " did not as yet count himself to 
 have attained" all that elevation of Christian character of which he 
 was capable, and which it was his duty to attain ; Phil. 3: 13, seq. 
 
 (12) Tovio di ion, that is, id est, prefixed to an epexegesis, or an 
 tiruvoQdioGtQ (correction), as the Greeks named explanatory clauses 
 of such a nature as that which now follous. The apostle, lest the 
 meaning of the preceding declaration might be misconstrued, adds 
 (in v. 12) the more full expression of his sentiment. He does not 
 mean to assert, that the consequence of his visiting Rome would be 
 merely their confirmation in the Christian faith, and so the advantage 
 be all on their side : but he expects himself to be spiritually benefited 
 by such a visit ; and this he fully expresses in v. 12. The remark of 
 Calvin on this passage is very striking and just : " See with what 
 gentleness a pious soul will demean itself! It refuses not to seek 
 confirmation even from mere beginners in knowledge. Nor does the 
 apostle use any dissimulation here; for there is none so poor in the 
 church of Christ, that he cannot make some addition of importance 
 to our stores. We, unhappily, are hindered by pride from availing 
 ourselves properly of such an advantage." How very different is the 
 spirit and tenor of this remark from that of Erasmus, who calls the 
 expression of the apostle, pia vafritics ct sancta adulatio ! 
 
ROMANS 1 : 12, 13. 
 
 £t}[A7iaQCM&i] i d"rjvai .... ipov, to be comforted among you by the 
 mutual faith both of you and me. HaQaxkrj&ijvai, in Attic Greek, 
 means to call, to invite, to exhort. But in Hellenistic Greek, it not 
 only means to exhort, but specially to address one in such a way as to 
 administer comfort, encouragement, hope, resolution, etc. I have 
 rendered the word comfort, only because I cannot find any Eng- 
 lish word which will convey the full sense of the original. — Ev, 
 among; and so, oftentimes ; see the lexicons. — Ev u).h]\oig, placed 
 between the article and its noun, is of course employed in the manner 
 of an adjective, i. e. it means mutual. — 'T/.nov ti xal t/nov is simply a 
 repetition of the idea conveyed by ev ccXXtjXoig. This repetition de- 
 notes the strong desire which the apostle entertained, to be understood 
 by the church at Rome as saying, that he expected good from them, 
 as well as hoped that they might receive good from him. 
 
 (13) The apostle had already signified his desire to visit Rome, 
 vs. 10, 11. But here he proceeds to shew how definitely and fre- 
 quently he had cherished such a desire ; which gives intensity to the 
 whole representation. 
 
 Ov ■Qtlo) d'i .... Vfiug, moreover I am desirous, brethren, to have 
 you know, that I have often purposed to come to you. At in this 
 passage I regard as corresponding to (Atv in v. S, and so making the 
 20 dtVTtgov or apodosis of the apostle's discourse. Ov ■&ik(a i pug 
 uyvotiv is the same in sense as ftiXw vpug yivioaxtiv ; but the first 
 form of expression (in a negative way), is what the Greeks called 
 Juiozijg, i. e. a softer or milder form of expression than direct affirm- 
 ation. 
 
 TloV.dxig Ttgofdt[.it}v, I have often purposed. How often, or for 
 how long a time, we have no means of ascertaining. But one thing 
 is clear from this, and many other like passages, viz. that the apostles 
 were not uniformly and always guided in all their thoughts, desires, 
 and purposes, by an infallible Spirit of inspiration. Had this been the 
 case, how could Paul have often purposed that which never came 
 to pass ? Those who plead for such a uniform inspiration, may seem 
 to be zealous for the honour of the apostles and founders of Christian- 
 ity ; but they do in fact cherish a mistaken zeal. For if we once 
 admit, that the apostles were uniformly inspired in all which they 
 purposed, said, or did ; then we are constrained of course to admit, 
 that men acting under the influence of inspiration, may purpose that 
 which will never come to pass or be done ; may say that which is 
 hasty or incorrect, Acts 23: 3 ; or do that which the gospel disap- 
 
ROMANS 1 : 13, 14. 79 
 
 proves, Gal. 2: 13, 14. But when this is once fully admitted, it makes 
 nothing for the credit due to any man, to affirm that he is inspired ; 
 for what is that inspiration to be accounted of, which, even during its 
 continuance, does not guard the subject of it from mistake or error? 
 Consequently those who maintain the uniform inspiration of the apos- 
 tles, and yet admit (as they are compelled to do) their errors in pur- 
 pose, word, and action, do in effect obscure the glory of inspiration, 
 by reducing inspired and uninspired men to the same level. 
 
 To my own mind nothing appears more certain, than that inspira- 
 tion in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform with the 
 apostles or any of the primitive Christians. To God's only and well 
 beloved Son, and to him only, was it given to have the Spirit ap6TQo>Q 
 or ov ty. f.(ttgov, John 3: 34. All others on whom was bestowed the 
 precious gift of inspiration, enjoyed it only ix ftt'rgov. The conse- 
 quence of this was, that Jesus "knew no sin, neither was guile found 
 in his mouth ;" but all his followers, in so far as they were left 
 without the special and miraculous guidance of the Spirit, committed 
 more or less of error. 
 
 This view of the subject frees it from many and most formidable 
 difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the pre-eminence which is justly 
 due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his apostles. At the 
 same time, it does not detract, in the least degree, from the certainty 
 and validity of the apostolic sayings and doings, when these ministers 
 of the gospel were under the special influence of the Spirit of God. 
 
 Aal itt<alv&ijv .... d'fi'go, but have been hindered until now. — 
 Kui, although or but; Bretschn. Lex. v.ul III: "ex Hebraismo 
 xul est particula adversativa, sed, vero, at;" of which he gives many 
 examples. The well known power of 1 to stand before a disjunctive 
 clause, throws light on this usage, which, to say the least, is very 
 unfrequent in classic Greek. 
 
 ' Iva Tiva .... t&i>£6iv, that 1 might have some fruit even among 
 you, as also among other Gentiles; i. e. that I might see my labours 
 to promote the gospel crowned with success even at Rome, the capital 
 of the world, as well as in all other places where I have preached. 
 
 (14) " EXXijai if ... . tip!, I am indebted both to Greeks and 
 Barbarians, to the learned and the ignorant; i. e. oqfikti7jg iifxl 
 tvayytkiCfoftai, I am tinder obligation to preach the gospel. In clas- 
 sic ussage, (3ag(ja(joi means all who spoke a language foreign to the 
 Greek. Of course, the Romans themselves, by this usage, would be 
 named (3ap(3agoi' and so Philo constantly names them ; and Plautus 
 
80 ROMANS 1 : 14. 
 
 himself calls the Latin language barbara lingua, and Italy barbaria. 
 But here the question with the apostle is not in respect to language, 
 but only in regard to circumstances and condition of knowledge. 
 "JEWrjdL, then, seems to be equivalent to ooqo7g, and fiuyfiuyoig to 
 ui'OtjTOtg. Considered in this way, ' EXXij<u y.ai fiuyftagoig mean the 
 polished and unpolished, or the learned and ignorant, or (to use the 
 idiom of the present day) 'the civilized and the savage.' 
 
 2oqoig rf "Aui avoijiotg should be regarded here as characteriz- 
 ing the state of knoidedge, rather than the real attributes or faculties 
 of men thus designated. Learned and unlearned, is the rendering ad 
 sensum. 
 
 Tholuck finds much difficulty in the ovrto of the clause which 
 follows ; and after discussing it at some length, comes to the conclu- 
 sion, that the apostle has here " fallen out of his construction," inas- 
 much as the nature of his sentence requires that xafttuQ should be 
 placed before ' EXXijgi, in order to make out the comparison. But I 
 do not feel this difficulty. Surely ouio or oviojq often stands alone, 
 without a preceding xa&ojg or fuonaQ' as any one may see by open- 
 ing a lexicon or concordance. Ohio) is often employed in this way, 
 in the sense of similiter, simili modo, eodcm modo, in the like way, in 
 such a way, in a similar manner, in the same manner. Thus in Matt. 
 5: 16. 7: 17. 18: 14. Mark 13: 29. 14: 59. Luke 14: 33, et saepe 
 alibi. What hinders, now, that we should understand it, in the verse 
 before us, in the same way? ' I am under obligation,' says the apos- 
 tle, ' to preach the gospel [for fi'ayyfXiouofrai is implied in the first 
 clause] to the learned and the unlearned.' What then ? ' In the 
 like manner (ovrcog), i. e. being under a similar obligation, or circum- 
 stances being thus (ovtco ocpfiXt'rtjg (ov), I am ready (to xut ifii 
 ■nooOv^ov) to preach the gospel even to you who are at Rome.' If 
 the reader does not think that the above references go so far as to give 
 to oiixo) the sense here assigned it, viz. matters being thus, or circum- 
 stances being thus or being in this condition, he may turn to John 4: 6, 
 where it is said : " Jesus being weary on acconnt of his journeying, 
 ixadt'CfTO oviojg em xi\ n^yri," he sat down in this condition upoii the 
 well, namely, in a state of weariness. All the attempts that I have 
 seen, to give ovrcog any other sense here, seem to be in vain. Com- 
 pare also Rev. 3: 16, "I would thou wert either cold or hot ! Ourwg, 
 [i. e. the matter being thus, or since thou art neither cold nor hot, as 
 the writer goes on to explain], I will spue thee out of my mouth." 
 So in the text before us, ovtw, 'the matter being thus, viz. it being 
 
ROMANS 1: 15, 16. 81 
 
 true that I am under obligation to preach to all classes of men, I am 
 ready to preach at Rome ;' or, ' since I am bound in duty to preach to 
 all, in accordance with this (oinio) I am ready to preach the gospel at 
 Rome.' If xa&aig were placed before Ekkrjat, as Tholuck and oth- 
 ers judge it should be, the sentiment would be thus : ' In proportion 
 to my obligation to preach to all men, is my readiness to preach at 
 Rome ;' a sentiment which, although doubtless true, does not seem to 
 me to be the one which the apostle means here to convey. It is more 
 simple to understand him as saying : ' Since I am bound to preach to 
 all, in accordance with this obligation I am ready to preach even at 
 Rome (xul vja7v) s formidable and difficult as the task may seem to 
 be.' Comp. 1 Cor. 9: 16. 
 
 To «ar i/.ti ngodvuov, lit. [there is] a readiness in respect to my- 
 self, q. d. I am ready, the same as tyui nyoftvpov £%oi. Or it may 
 be interpreted in this way : ' There is a readiness so far as it respects 
 me,' namely, to the extent of my ability, so far as it depends on me ; 
 meaning to intimate, that the actual disposal of the matter is to be 
 wholly committed to God. As to to noodv^ov (an adjective of the 
 neuter gender) being used for a noun, nothing is more common than 
 for the Greeks to employ adjectives in this way. 
 
 Kul Vfuv has an emphasis in it, i. e. even to you, at Rome, the 
 metropolis of the world. In other words : ' I shun not to preach the 
 gospel any where ; to the most learned and critical, as well as to the 
 most unlearned and unskilled in judging.' ' Ev, at ; and so often 
 times before nouns of place. 
 
 (16) Ov yag .... Xqiotov, for I am not ashamed of the gospel 
 of Christ; which contains a reason or ground of his readiness to 
 preach it, which he had just before asserted. He gloried in the gospel ; 
 in fact he gloried in nothing else. Although Christ crucified was 
 " to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," he 
 shunned not to preach it on this account, but was willing even in 
 presence of the learned and the sophists at Rome, to proclaim the 
 truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
 The reading zov Xqiotou is marked by Knapp as wanting an 
 adequate support, and is rejected by Griesbach. In respect to the 
 sense of the passage, its insertion or rejection will make no important 
 difference. If retained, too Xqiotou must be construed as Ge- 
 nitivus objecti, i. e. the gospel respecting Christ, or of which Christ is 
 the object. 
 
 Here ends the first or salutatory part of the epistle. The remainder 
 11 
 
82 ROMANS 1: 16, 17. 
 
 of v. 1G (with vs. 17, 18) constitutes the leading subject or theme of 
 the epistle ; which the writer here as it were formally proposes, 
 and which he then proceeds to confirm, illustrate, and fortify. 
 
 CHAP. I. 16—18. 
 
 These three verses contain four propositions, which lie at the basis of all 
 that may be appropriately called the gospel of Christ, (t) To gospel truth is 
 imparted a divine energy, in saving the souls of men. (2) Those only can be 
 saved by it, who believe it and put their confidence in it. (3) The pardon of sin, 
 or the justification which God will bestow only on sinners who believe in Christ, 
 is revealed from heaven, and proposed to all men for their reception. (4) From 
 the same source a revelation is made, that the unbelieving and ungodly will 
 be the subjects of divine indignation and punishment. The apostle does not 
 proceed formally and in order to illustrate and establish these propositions 
 separately and successively; but now one part of these respective truths, and 
 now another, comes into view as he proceeds, and the whole is fully develop- 
 ed by him in the course of the epistle. 
 
 Avva^io, yag . . . ■niax6vovzi,for it is the power of God, unto the 
 solvation of every one toho believes ; i. e. it is made the efficacious in- 
 strument, by which God promotes or accomplishes the salvation of all 
 believers. Avva^ig xnov means, that by it God exerts his power ; it is 
 powerful through the energy which he imparts, and so it is called his 
 power. It is mighty tig oiaztjglav, to the salvation, i. e. to the accom- 
 plishment or attainment of salvation. Eig with the Accusative is, 
 in a multitude of cases, used in the like manner. — Tluvzizolmaiev- 
 ovn, Dativus commodi ; the gospel brings salvation to every believer, 
 or it is the means of imparting it to him. 
 
 'Jovdalvt. . . ."EXh]vi, to the Jew first, and then to the Greek, or 
 and also to the Greek. In proclaiming the gospel, the primitive preach- 
 ers of it themselves being Jews, were directed first to proclaim the 
 offers of mercy through a Saviour to the Jews, wherever they went, 
 and then to the Gentiles ; which was the order usually followed, and 
 to which the clause before us seems to advert. That the ngonov 
 here merely relates to the order in which the gospel was proposed, 
 and not to any substantial preference of the Jew over the Greek, the 
 sequel of this epistle most abundantly shows. So Chrysostom : nx^toig 
 iazi ngojiov, i. e. ngioxov relates merely to order. 
 
 (17) AixutoGvvri yag &e'ov. The yug is yug illustrantis, as the 
 lexicographers say. In the preceding verse the apostle has said, that 
 the gospel is, through divine power accompanying it, an efficacious 
 instrument of salvation narzi rw nioztvovxi., to every believer. On 
 
ROMANS 1:17. 83 
 
 this last expression an emphasis is to be laid ; inasmuch as the great 
 object of Paul, in the epistle before us, is to shew that salvation is 
 gratuitously bestowed on the believer in Christ, but never conferred 
 in any case on the ground of merit. The design of v. 17 is to sug- 
 gest, that faith or belief is the appointed means or condition of justi- 
 fication, i. e. of obtaining pardoning mercy with God ; that the Old 
 Testament Scriptures confirm this idea ; and consequently, that salva- 
 tion is granted to believers, and to them only : all which goes to illus- 
 trate and establish the affirmation in v. 16. It is in this way that yap 
 connects the fine and delicate shades of thought and processes of 
 reasoning, in the Greek language ; a circumstance which has, unhap- 
 pily for the criticism of the New Testament, been quite too much 
 overlooked by the great body of interpreters. 
 
 Aixaioovvt} &iou is a phrase among the most important which 
 the New Testament contains, and fundamental in the right interpre- 
 tation of the epistle before us. To obtain a definite and precise view 
 of its meaning, we must betake ourselves, in the first place, to the 
 verb dcxuioco' for from the meanings which this verb conveys, come 
 nearly all the shades of meaning that belong to dixaioovrr] and diyMi- 
 ojoig, so often employed (especially the former) in the writings of Paul. 
 
 The Greek sense of the verb dixcuow, differs in one respect 
 from the corresponding Hebrew verb py± ; for this (in Kal) means 
 to be just, to be innocent, to be upright, and also to justify one's self, 
 to be justified, thus having the sense of either a neuter or passive verb. 
 In the active voice, dixaiou) in Greek has only an active sense, and 
 is used in pretty exact correspondence with the forms p^lC and p" 1 "^!"! 
 (Piel and Hiphil) of the Hebrews, i. e. it means, to declare just, to 
 pronounce just, to justify, i. e. to treat as just; consequently, as inti- 
 mately connected with this, to pardon, to acquit from accusation, to 
 free from the consequences of sin or transgression, to set free from a 
 deserved penalty. This last class of meanings is the one in which 
 Paul usually employs this word. Asa locus classicus to vindicate this 
 meaning, we may appeal to Rom. 8: 33, ' Who shall accuse the elect 
 of God ? It is God o dwauov, who acquits them,' viz. of all accusation, 
 or who liberates them from the penal consequences of transgression. 
 Exactly in the same way is it said, in Prov. 17: 15, ' He who justifieth 
 (p" 1 "^^) the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both 
 are an abomination to the Lord.' So in Ex. 23: 7, 'I will not justify 
 (p"""^N Nb) the wicked.' In the same manner Is. 5:23 speaks: 
 ' Who justify the wicked (Sttj^rt ■ , p/ , ~£:o) for a reward.' In these 
 
84 ROMANS 1:17. 
 
 and all such cases, the meaning of the word justify is altogether plain ; 
 viz. it signifies to acquit, to free from the penal consequences of guilt, 
 to pronounce just, i. e. to absolve from punishment, it being directly 
 the opposite of condemning or subjecting to the consequences of a 
 penalty. 
 
 In this sense Paul very often employs the verb ; e. g. Rom. 5: 1, 
 dexecia)&6VTeg, being freed from punishment, being acquitted, being 
 pardoned, . . . ligijvriv t%0(x£v TiQog top titor. Rom. 5: 9. diy.utoj- 
 ■&tvxeg, being acquitted, pardoned . . . . Gw&qaofte&a di avrov utiq 
 Tt,g oyyrjg, which salvation is the opposite of being subjected to pun- 
 ishment, or of not being justified. In Gal. 2: 16, 17, Sixaioco is four 
 times employed in the sense of absolved, acquitted, or treated as just, 
 i. e. freed from penalty and admitted to a state of reward. So Gal. 
 3: 8, II. 3: 24. 5: 4. Tit. 3: 7. In Rom. 4: 5, rov dixaiovvxa. xov 
 aatijii is plainly susceptible of no other than the above interpretation ; 
 for those who are ungodly, can never be made innocent in the strict 
 and literal sense of this word, they can only be treated as innocent, 
 i. e. absolved from the condemnation of the law, pardoned, delivered 
 from the penalty threatened against sin. That the idea of pardon, 
 or remission of the penalty threatened by the divine law, is the one 
 substantially conveyed by dixuiota and dixcuoovvrj, as generally em- 
 ployed in the writings of Paul, is most evident from Rom. 4: G, 7 ; 
 where the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes div.uio- 
 ovvij, i. e. reckons, counts, treats as dr/.uiog, is thus described : "Bless- 
 ed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are cover- 
 ed; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sin," i. e. 
 whom he does not treat or punish as a sinner. This is a fundamental 
 explanation of the whole subject, so far as the present class of mean- 
 ings attached to df/.uioo) and dixatoavvi], is concerned. 
 
 In the same sense we have the word dixaioca in Rom. 3: 24, 26, 
 28, 30. 4: 2, et al. saepe. So Acts 13: 38, 39. Luke 18: 14. Comp. 
 Sept. in Gen. 38: 26. Job 33: 32. Is. 43: 26. 
 
 The way is now open for an easy and intelligible explanation of 
 the nouns, which stand intimately and etymologically connected with 
 the verb diy.alow. These are three, viz. diyMioovvi], dixaioj/nu, and 
 d'i:<uio)Gig, all employed occasionally in the very same sense, viz. that of 
 justification, i. e. acquittal, pardon, freeing from condemnation, accept- 
 ing and treating as righteous. All three of these nouns are employed 
 occasionally by the Seventy, in rendering the Hebrew word BBffiJa ; 
 which I mention merely to shew that the usus loquendi could employ 
 
ROMANS 1: 17. 85 
 
 all of them in the same sense; e. g. ()ixaioovu>j for pS'liti in Prov. 
 16: 11. 17: 23. Is. 61: 8. Ezek. 18: 17, 19,21, etc; 'diy'ulofia for 
 ttS'-IJH , Ex. 21: 1, 9, 31. 24: 3, et ssepissimc; df/Miojaig for uB'^E , 
 Lev. 24: 22. 
 
 In like manner all three of these nouns are employed in Paul's 
 epistles; e. g. Stxtxiuiftu in the sense of pardon, justification, Rotn.5: 
 16, where it stands as the antithesis of y.aruy.<jt{ta' dr/.uicDGig in Rom. 
 4: 25, where it plainly means justification ; and so in Rom. 5: 18, 
 where it is the antithesis of xuTuy.pt [iu. 
 
 But the word dr/.aionvvr] is the usual one employed by Paul to 
 designate gospel-justification, i. e. the pardoning of sin, and accepting 
 and treating as righteous. So we find this word plainly employed, in 
 Rom. 3: 21, 22 (comp. v. 24), 25, 26. 4: 1 1, 13. 5: 17, 21. 9: 30, 31. 
 10: 3, 4, 5, 6, 10. 2 Cor. 5: 21 (abstract for concrete). Phil. 3: 6, 9. 
 Heb. 11: 7, et alibi ssepe. 
 
 With these facts before us, we now return to our text. Aiy.aio- 
 avvr} -Oiov seems very plainly to have the same meaning that it has in 
 Rom. 3: 21 , and in the other passages just referred to in this epistle, viz. 
 the justification or pardoning mercy bestowed on sinners who are un- 
 der the curse of the divine law. In this sense it is allied to the He- 
 brew Stp 1 "^ , which often means kindness, benignity , favour , deliver- 
 ance from evil; e. g. Is. 45: 8, 24. 46: 13. 48: 18. 51: 6, 8. 54: 17. 
 56: I, and often in the Psalms. 
 
 The reader must be careful to note, however, that the simple idea 
 of pardon, unattended by any thing else, i. e. the mere deliverance 
 from punishment, is not all which is comprised in the meaning of 
 dixuioo) and dixuioovin]. The idea is more fully expressed by 
 accepting and treating as righteous. Now when this is done by a 
 benefactor, he does not stop with the simple remission of punishment, 
 but he bestows happiness in the same manner as though the offender 
 had been altogether obedient. As there are but two stations allotted 
 for the human race, i. e. heaven or hell ; so those who are delivered 
 from the latter, must be advanced to the former. 
 
 All is now plain. Aiy.awoivrj dfov is the justification toliich 
 God bestoivs, or the justification of ivhich God is the author. 6fou 
 is the Gcnitivus auctoris ; as in innumerable cases elsewhere. This 
 is made altogether clear, by comparing Rom. 3: 21 — 24 ; and indeed 
 the whole tenor of the discussion in the epistle to the Romans, seems 
 imperiously to demand this sense. 
 
 We may now judge what we should think of the exegesis, which 
 
S6 ROMANS 1:17. 
 
 explains dixuioavvr) Azov, in this passage, as meaning God's attri- 
 bute of justice. The dixaioovvt] here in question, is that which is fie 
 GMTiigiav ttccpiI tm niarevovrt' but is God's justice, which must of 
 course pass sentence of condemnation on all sinners, the attribute 
 which is revealed in the gospel as saving them? Besides, the dr/.ui- 
 oovvrj -deov of v. 17, is in direct antithesis with the ogyq -&60V of v. 
 18, which inflicts punishment; how then can the first mean simple 
 justice, which must condemn offenders? 
 
 Chrysostom and Schoettgen explain dixaioavvrj as meaning good- 
 ness. We have seen above, that Snp12 often has such a meaning. 
 In a generic sense, this mode of interpreting would not be wide of the 
 mark. The objection to it here is, that it is not so specific as dr/.ui- 
 oavvj] fteov was by the writer designed to be. 
 
 Tholnck, after rejecting the two last named interpretations, pro- 
 poses another which seems to me inadmissible. His exegesis is thus : 
 " In the gospel, the way is made known of perfectly fulfilling the law, 
 as God requires." But how would this place v. 17 in antithesis with 
 v. 18 ? Such an antithesis is clearly designed by the writer. In v. 
 18 the sentiment is : ' The gospel discloses the punishment of all sin, 
 viz. all which is persevered in. In v. 17, therefore, we have the sen- 
 timent, that the gospel reveals the way of escape from punishment, 
 i. e. reveals pardon to the believer in Jesus. 
 
 Then why should we adopt a sense of dc/.atoovvr] &fov here, 
 which must be dropped, for the most part, in the remainder of the 
 epistle? At least, if it be retained, it makes the modes of expression 
 so involved and contorted and difficult, that one knows not how to 
 admit it. I do not deny that dixuioavvt] sometimes means righteous- 
 ness, in the sense of piety, or obedience to the divine law; but here, 
 and in the like passages, it seems to me very plain, that it conveys the 
 idea of pardon, of accepting and treating as righteous. So Flatt, 
 and many other distinguished commentators. 
 
 That div.uioouvi] xUov . .. . . «c matsmg had a direct reference, in 
 the writer's mind, to liberation from punishment, and the obtaining of 
 salvation, is perfectly clear from the quotation which he immediately 
 makes from the Old Testament, in order to sanction the sentiment 
 which he had uttered, viz. d'r/.atog ex nioi ecog £t'jG6Tui, he who is just, 
 i. e. he who is accepted or regarded as dizcciog, shall obtain life, i. e. 
 shall be happy by faith (not by merit). Such then is the dixcuoavvq 
 tftov, that it bestows unmerited favour on perishing sinners ; not on 
 those who have fulfilled the law, (for who has done this?) but on 
 those who believe in Jesus ; comp. Rom. 4: 3 — 5. 
 
ROMANS 1 : 17. 87 
 
 Such a dtxatoavvi] is revealed in or by the gospel, if ctvtco ano- 
 KuXvnitTur for avio> refers to xo evayytkiov in v. 16. The apostle 
 does not mean to say, that nothing respecting such a faith was before 
 revealed ; ibr he appeals immediately to the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tares, in order to confirm the sentiment which be had just uttered. 
 But the gospel, in the first place, makes such a revelation one of its 
 most prominent features; and therefore, secondly, justification by 
 faith is revealed in it more fully and explicitly than it ever had been 
 before. In the same way, life and immortality are said to be brought 
 to light by the gospel, 2. Tim. I: 10. 
 
 Ex TitOTtojg tig nloTtv, a controverted, and (by reason of its con- 
 nection) very difficult phrase. The main question is, whether ix 
 7i tor 6h>g is to be joined with dixouoavi'tj, or whether it belongs in 
 sense to tig tiiotiv, so that ix Tiiortoig fig jiigtiv would make a kind 
 of climactic expression, which would be equivalent to the following 
 phrase, viz. ' from a lower to a higher degree of faith.' In this latter 
 way Theophylact understood it ; for he says, ov yag agxu to Tigwxcog 
 ■niGTfvoui, cxXX ex Tr t g siaaycoyixijg m'Gxtwg dt7 ?]f.iag ava8aivsiv eig 
 xi]v xtltioztouv niOTLv' i. e. ' our first belief is not sufficient, but we 
 must ascend from our inceptive faith to a more perfect degree of it.' 
 So Clemens Alex. (Strom. V. 1): Koivr] n'tGxig xudantg ■Q-ff.ieXiog, 
 xa&wg 6 xvgiog ktyti, ri nlortg gov GtGcoxi Gf, i. e. 'a common faith 
 is as it were a foundation, as Christ said : Thy faith hath saved thee.' 
 He then goes on to say, that ' a rtXila nlortg is one which can re- 
 move mountains ; on which account the apostles themselves made 
 this request : Lord, we believe, help thou our unbelief.' 
 
 Tholuck approves of this exegesis ; and it is substantially the same 
 as that which has been defended by Melancthon, Beza, Calov, Le 
 Clerc, and many others. But three difficulties seem to lie in the way 
 of admitting it; the first, that it does not appear at all to answer the 
 exigency of the passage; the second, that the analogy of Paul's epis- 
 tles is against it ; the third, that the context is evidently repugnant 
 to it. 
 
 (a) The exigency of the passage. The exegesis in question would 
 make Paul's main thesis to be this : ' The justification which God be- 
 stows, (or, according to Tholuck, the fulfilling of the law), is revealed 
 in the gospel, from a lower degree of faith to a higher,' i. e. (as I 
 suppose is meant) it is so revealed as that men are required to ad- 
 vance from a lower degree of faith to a higher one. This would 
 indeed be a most singular mode of expressing such a sentiment; one 
 
HS ROMANS ] : 17. 
 
 of the last which the usual method of thinking and expression can well 
 be supposed to devise. One might expect, if this idea is intended to 
 be contained in the passage, that the writer would have said : Aixai- 
 oovvr t Oeou iv aviat ujioxuXvjixexui 'iva ngofiuhioiitv (or ngofitoficv) 
 ix nloxctog stg tiigxiv or at least that some mode of expression like 
 this would have been employed. But if the sense be not, that justi- 
 fication is so revealed by the gospel as that men are required to 
 advance from a lower to a higher degree of faith, then, after all, ix 
 TitGifwg must be joined in effect with dixutoovvi}, and we must say : 
 ' The justification which is ix niGxtwg fig nioxiv, is revealed, etc' 
 But to such a junction Tholuck objects, on account of the separation 
 of ix TiiOTfwg from dixaioouv}]. A word on this subject, in the sequel. 
 
 I have said that this sentiment does not fit the exigency of the pas- 
 sage; and my reason for saying this is, that it represents the apostle, not 
 as proposing the grand theme of gratuitous justification (which is evi- 
 dently the main subject of his epistle), but as proposing the climactic 
 nature of the faith connected with justification, as his great topic. 
 How can this well be imagined, by a considerate reader of his epistle? 
 
 {b) It is against the analogy of homoge?icous passages; e. g. Rom. 
 3: 22, dixaiOGvvt] {ttov dice m'ozecog (altogether of the same tenor as 
 dixuioGvtn] diou . . . . ix niarewg in our verse ); Rom. 3: 30, bg 
 dixuio'joto .... ix TiiOTtojg, xui .... dice Tiiortcog' Rom. 4: 11, 
 GCfouyida r?jg d'ty.aiocjuvijg xr t g nioxewg' Rom. 4: 13, dta dixatoav- 
 vr\g Tiloitwg' Rom. 5: 1, di'/.aioidtvxeg ix zu'oxtwg' Rom. 9: 30, ra 
 t&vi] .... xaviXufte .... dixceioovurjv xr\v ix TiiGxio>g' Rom. 9: 32, 
 ozt ovx ['jagai]l t)i> diooxwv dixuioGvvrjv] ix niarscog' Rom. 10: 6, 
 r\ di ix nlaifojg dixaioavvrj' and so in the other epistles of Paul, e. g. 
 Gal. 2 16, [dixatovrat avftgcmiog] diet nioxfwg' Gal. 3: 8, ix nlo- 
 ztcog dbxcuoi zee i'&vi] 6 fteog' Gal. 3: 11, 6 dixaiog ix TiiGxfojg 
 £i']Gtxai (a quotation); Gal. 3: 24, 'ivct ix niGxtcog dixuiayftcojAtv Gal. 
 5: 5, ix TiiGTfojg iknldcc dixaioGuvr}g anexdeyo^e&a' Phil. 3: 9, dixui- 
 qgvvi]v . . . zrjv dice niGxeoig' Heb. 11: 7, trig xuxce tiigxiv dixaio- 
 Gvvr\g' et alibi ssepe. These are enough to show what Paul (I had 
 almost said every where and always) presents to our view, in respect 
 to the subject of justification. Can there be any good reason to ap- 
 prehend, that in proposing the theme of his whole epistle, he should 
 not propose the same justification by faith of which he afterwards so 
 amply treats ? 
 
 ' But,' it is replied, ' how could Paul separate ix niGxecog so far 
 from dixctioavvi], if he meant that the former should qualify the lat- 
 
ROMANS 1 : 17. 89 
 
 ter 1 I answer, it was because dixaioavvi], as here employed, has al- 
 ready a noun in the Genitive (Otoi') connected with it. The writer 
 could not say, ?; ix -niaxicog dixatoavi/tj {)fov, (which would, I be- 
 lieve, be without a parallel) ; nor was it apposite to say, dixuaioui)] 
 ■&tov ix nlaxtcog. because the writer was hastening to say, that God's 
 appointed method of justification was revealed in the gospel. When 
 this idea, which was uppermost in his mind (because he had just said 
 that he was not ashamed of the gospel), was fully announced, the wri- 
 ter proceeds immediately to specify more particularly the dtxaioovvt] 
 in question. It is a dixaioavvt] ix nioxecog' in accordance with 
 which he has, in almost numberless examples, elsewhere made declar- 
 ations. 
 
 The easiest and most direct solution is, to suppose dixuioavvt] to 
 be repeated here immediately before ix nlarewg. The sentence 
 would then run thus : Aixuiocwpi] yag fttov iv uvio} dnoxulimxixut, 
 \pixaioovvt{\ ix nt'axeojg x.t.).. In this way, ix niori&g is epexeget- 
 ical merely of what precedes. The idea conveyed by dixuioovvi] is 
 resumed by the mind, and it is made still more definite by this 
 adjunct. 
 
 (c ) That this is the real sentiment and design of the apostle, 
 seems quite clear from the context, i. e. from the quotation which he 
 forthwith makes, in order to confirm what he had said, viz. 6 di 
 dixuiog Ix 7itGT£h)g £i']Ofxvi. Does not dlxaiog ix -nioxtwg clearly 
 and unavoidably correspond with the dixuioovvtj . . . . ix nlortcog 
 which immediately precedes ? 
 
 I merely add, that Flatt, Bengel, Hammond, and others, interpret 
 the passage in the same way as I have done. The more I study the 
 passage, the more difficulty I feel in construing it as meaning, is 
 revealed from faith to faith. What can be the meaning of is reveal- 
 ed from faith 1 And if ix nioxeojg does not qualify unoxalvTixixui, 
 then it must qualify dixuioovviy in which case the meaning that I 
 have given seems nearly certain. 
 
 In respect to the thing itself, viz. justification by faith, faith de- 
 signates the modus in quo, or the instrument by which ; not the causa 
 causans scu cfficiens, i. e. not either the meritorious or efficient cause 
 or ground of forgiveness. Every where the apostle represents Christ 
 as this cause. But faith (so to speak) is a conditio sine qua non; it 
 is a taking hold of the blessings proffered by the gospel, although it is 
 by no means the cause or ground of their being offered. If the rea- 
 ders of this epistle will keep in mind these simple and obvious truths, 
 12 
 
90 ROMANS 1 : 17. 
 
 it will save them much perplexity. Justification by faith, is an expres- 
 sion designed to point out gratuitous justification (Rom. 4: 16), in 
 distinction from that which is by merit, i. e. by deeds of law, or entire 
 obedience to the precepts of the law. The word faith used in this 
 phrase, is designed to shew, that the justification which we are now 
 considering can be conferred only on believers, and that it is to be 
 distinguished from 6'ntuioavvt] it egycov, i. e. meritorious justification. 
 It is not designed to shew that faith is, in any sense, the meritorious 
 or procuring cause or ground of justification. 
 
 Eig nlaitv, in order to be believed, for belief Such a use of the 
 Ace. with eig is exceedingly frequent in Paul's epistles. It is 
 equivalent to the Infinitive mode with the article before it ; e. g. in v. 
 5 above, eig vnuY.or,v = eig to vTiaxov&rjvar so in v. 16, sig ooxjj- 
 (j lav = eig xo oto&rjvai, et sic al. saepe. The reason why the apos- 
 tle adds eig niaxiv seems to be, because he had said, eig aontjoiav 
 ziuvxl rw luaxevovxi. In accordance with this he here says, that 
 gratuitous justification (dtxatoavvrj ex nloxeoig) is revealed, so that 
 all, both Jews and Greeks ('fovdaiat re kqotov v.al " Elh]vi), may 
 believe and be saved ; i. e. they can be saved through belief, and in 
 this way only. 
 
 If ex -nioxewg is to be attached to unoxuXvnxexai, I should think 
 the sentiment must be, that the gospel is revealed by means of faith, 
 i. e. by means of those who have faith in Christ, and in order to promote 
 faith ; thus making a kind of paronomasia, to which the writings of 
 Paul are by no means a stranger. But I can not apprehend this to be 
 the true sentiment. 
 
 A'uOojg yeyocnxui, in accordance with what is written, agreeably 
 to what is written, viz. in the Scriptures. The Talmudists very 
 often appeal to Scripture in the like way, by the formulas S"TO*i I2^n , 
 as it is icritten; 2TO" '"J" T-"]tr , according to that which is written; or 
 pnDSri IttfcH StS^n, as the Scripture says. It is not necessary to 
 suppose, in all cases of this nature, that the writer who makes such 
 an appeal, regards the passage which he quotes as prediction. Plainly 
 this is not always the case with the writers of the New Testament ; as 
 nearly all commentators now concede. Compare, for example, Acts 
 28:25, seq. Rom. 8:36. 9:33. 10:5. 11:26. 14: 11, etc. Such 
 being the case, it is not necessary that we should interpret the passage 
 which follows (Hab. 2: 4), as having been originally designed to describe 
 gospel justification by faith ; for plainly the connection in which it 
 stands does not admit of this specific meaning. But then it involves the 
 
ROMANS 1 : 17. 91 
 
 same principle as that for which the apostle is contending, viz. that 
 ' the means of safety is confidence or trust in the divine declarations.' 
 The prophet Habakkuk sees, in prophetic vision, " trouhlous times" 
 coming upon Judea ; and he exclaims, T^t]1 injIHStSl p" 1 "^ , o 
 dixuiog ix mGtecog Ci'jOtiai, the pious man shall be saved by his con- 
 science or faith, viz. in God. It was not, then, by relying on his own 
 merit or desert, that safety could be had ; it was to be obtained only 
 in the way of believing and trusting the divine declarations. Now 
 the very same principle of action was concerned in so doing at that 
 time, which is concerned with the faith and salvation of the gospel. 
 Of course the apostle might appeal to this declaration of Habakkuk, 
 as serving to confirm the principle for which he contended. 
 
 Dr. Knapp and many others join ex niazeoig with dixctoQ, and 
 then translate the passage thus: The just by faith, shall live; i. e. he 
 who possesses faith, shall be happy. The sentiment is true ; but it 
 does not comport, I apprehend, with the design of Habakkuk, who 
 must have written ilJI&NS if he intended this, and not (as he has 
 done) inanftNS . 
 
 If it be viewed as a simple illustration of a general principle, all 
 difficulty about the quotation vanishes. As the Israelite, in the time 
 of Habakkuk, was to be saved from evil by faith as an instrument ; so 
 Jew and Gentile are now to be saved by faith as an instrument. 
 What real difficulty can there be, in such a comparison as this? 
 
 To the whole I subjoin the brief comment which J. A. Turretin 
 has so strikingly given, in his Prcdectiones on the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans : " Apostolus noster, ubi agit de justificatione et salute homi- 
 num, seepe vocat justitiam Dei earn justifications rationem quam 
 Deus hominibus commonstrat, et cujus ope eos ad salutem ducit." 
 Again: " Justitia Dei .... est ipsamet hominis justificatio, seu 
 modus quo potest Justus haberi apud Deum, et salutis particeps 
 fieri ;" — a definition of which one may almost say : Omne tulit 
 punctum. 
 
 Turretin has, indeed, construed ex Tiiorewg eig tiigtiv nearly as 
 Tholuck has done. But the usus loquendi of Paul in such construc- 
 tions is decidedly against him ; e. g. Rom. 6: 19, ' Since ye have 
 yielded your members as servants of impurity, xctl rij avopla fig 
 (tvo^'iav, and to iniquity for the commission of icickedness, so should 
 ye yield your members as servants ry dixaioavvi] elg dyiuoftov, unto 
 righteousness in order that ye may practice holiness ;" 2 Cor. 2: 16, 
 ' [The gospel is] to some 6op.ij tfavdrov etg ■Ouvutov, and to others, 
 
92 ROMANS 1 : 17, 18. 
 
 6<7fn] ftoJJs fig ^''J'/'', o, savour of death to the causing of death, and 
 a savour of life to the causing of life. In these and all such cases, 
 the Accusative with tig before it denotes the end or object to which 
 the thing that had just been named tends. So must it be, then, in 
 our text; the [d'iy.uiooui'r t ] tx nloiiog is revealed or declared to the 
 world tig niOTii', i. e. in order that it may be received or believed. 
 
 (18) AnoY.v.\vnitiai yai) .... av&Qwiiuiv, for the wrath of God 
 from heaven, is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. 
 The yao here seems to connect the verse with v. 16. The apostle 
 first declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ; why ? 
 Because, (1) It reveals the way of pardon for sinners who believe in 
 Christ. (2) It shews the fearful doom of those who remain in their 
 sins, and refuse to believe. The gospel of Christ, therefore, on both 
 these accounts, is a proper subject of the deepest interest with those 
 who preach it, and who have indeed no reason to be ashamed of it as a 
 trilling or indifferent matter, like some of the speculations of science 
 falsely so called. In this view, vs. 17 and 18 both stand in a similar 
 relation to v. 16, inasmuch as both constitute distinct parts of the illus- 
 tration or confirmation of this verse; which the ujioxulvnrirui yuQ 
 in both plainly intimates. Flatt refers yag in v. 18, to dixatoavvt} 
 &tov in v. 17; but how can v. 18 be a reason or ground of the decla- 
 ration in v. 17? 
 
 'Opyti tftov, literally the lorathof God, divine indignation, or (to 
 use a softer phraseology) God's displeasure. That the phrase is anthro- 
 popathic (i. e. is used uvO-yronoTTu-diog), will be doubted by no one who 
 has just views of the divine Being. It is impossible to unite with the 
 idea of complete perfection, the idea of anger in the sense in which we 
 cherish that passion ; for with us it is a source of misery as well as 
 sin. To neither of these effects of anger can we properly suppose the 
 divine Being to be exposed. His anger, then, can be only that 
 feeling or affection in him, which moves him to look on sin with dis- 
 approbation, and to punish it when connected with impenitence. We 
 must not, even in imagination, connect this in the remotest manner 
 with revenge; which is only and always a malignant passion. But 
 vengeance, even among men, is seldom sought for against those whom 
 we know to be perfectly impotent, in respect to thwarting any of our 
 designs and purposes. Now as all men, and all creation, can never 
 endanger any one interest (if I may so speak) of the divine Being, or 
 defeat a single purpose ; so we cannot even imagine a motive for 
 revenge, on ordinary grounds. Still less can we suppose the case to 
 
J? 
 
 V 
 
 ROMANS 1: 18. 93 
 
 be of this nature, when we reflect that God is infinite in wisdom, 
 power, and goodness. This constrains us to understand such phrases 
 as ooyij i9foo, iydixijoig &eov, y..j.X. as anthropopatluc , i. e. as 
 speaking of God after the manner of men. It would be quite as well 
 (nay, much better), to say that when the Bible attributes hands, eyes, 
 arms, etc. to God, the words which it employs should be literally 
 understood, as to say that when it attributes anger and vengeance to 
 him, it is to be literally understood. But if we so construe the Scrip- 
 tures, in this latter case, we represent God as a malignant Being, and 
 class him among the demons; whereas by attributing to him hands, 
 eyes, etc., we only commit the sin of anthropomorphism. 
 
 The lexicons make ogyt] to signify punishment. Byway of conse- 
 quence, indeed, punishment is implied. But ogyt] dtov is a more fearful 
 phrase, understood in the sense of divine displeasure or indignation, 
 and more pregnant with awful meaning if so rendered, than it is if we 
 give to it simply the sense of y.olccoig, as so many critics and lexicog- 
 raphers have done. 
 
 dn ovgavov, another locus vcxatus. Is it to be joined with diuv 
 or should we refer it back to unoyakimiirai, and construe it as im- 
 plying the method in which the divine displeasure is made known? 
 The latter way is the one which almost all commentators have chosen, 
 although there is almost an endless diversity among them as to the 
 meaning of an ovgavov. E. g. (1) The heavens declare the glory 
 of God, and so point men naturally to his worship, and by conse- 
 quence warn them to forsake sin. (2) Storm, tempest, hail, thunder, 
 lightning, etc., from heaven, declare the wrath of God against sin. 
 
 (3) Christ will be revealed from heaven, at the last judgment, to 
 punish sin ; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Limborch, etc. 
 
 (4) Judgments which come from God, who is in heaven, testify 
 against sin ; so Origen, Cyrill, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, etc. (5) In 
 consequence of an appointment of heaven, the divine displeasure 
 against sin is testified by conscience in every breast. (6) The dis- 
 pleasure of God against sin is revealed, through divine appointment, 
 or by the arrangement of the supreme Being. 
 
 This last interpretation I think to be nearly right. But the usus 
 loquendi (which seems unaccountably to have been overlooked here), 
 enables us to be more explicit. In Heb. 12: 25 the apostle says : " If 
 they escaped not who rejected toi> inl yijg .... ygiipuxi^ovTu, him 
 who on earth [at mount Sinai] warned them, much more shall we not 
 escape, if we reject vov an ovgavotv [ygrjuaTiCoviu], him [who warn- 
 
94 ROMANS 1 : 18. 
 
 eth usj from heaven;" comp. Mark 1: 11, where a voice iy. tmv 
 ovgaviop says : " This is my beloved Son," etc. Now if such phrase- 
 ology be compared with Matt. 5: 45, zoi~ natgog vfiwv too iv ouyu- 
 volg' 6: 1, naryl . . . . iv rolg oi'tjuvo'ig' 6: 9, nareg r^oiv o iv rolg 
 ovQavolg, et al. ssepe, it would seem sufficiently plain, that God 
 (■(inting from heaven where he dwells, or God belonging to heaven, 
 is intended to be designated by the phrase dtou an ot'yavov. That 
 kjio, in a multitude of cases, is put before a noun of place, in order to 
 designate that one belongs to it, scarcely needs to be suggested ; e. g. 
 Matt. 2: 1. 4: 25. Mark 8: 11. Luke 21: 11. 2 Thess. 1: 7. John 1: 
 45. Acts 2: 5. 15: 19. 28: 21, et al. saepe. The sentiment I take to 
 be this : ' The God of heaven, i. e. God supreme, omnipotent, has 
 revealed, in the gospel, his displeasure against sin, as well as his 
 readiness to pardon believers.' 
 
 I cannot agree with those who refer an ovgavov to the designa- 
 tion of a method of testifying displeasure against sin, which is foreign 
 to the gospel, or at least not connected with it. The unoy.alcniiTat, 
 here, as well as in v. 17, seems evidently to refer to the gospel as 
 mentioned in v. 16 ; and the connection of yao in both cases in vs. 
 17, 18, renders this plainer and more imperious still. 
 
 I am aware that my exegesis of an ovoaiov differs from the more 
 usual one ; but I trust it will be seen, that the usus loqucndi plainly 
 contributes to support it. 
 
 'ui/otijfiuv, imjjiet)/,towards God, (from a privative and oiffo/nat, to 
 worship), and ad'r/.lav, injustice, unrighteousness toward men. 
 
 To)v rrjv .... y.uTeyoi'TOJV^ who keep back or hinder the truth by 
 iniquity. So the verb -/.ariyji most naturally means; comp. Luke 4: 
 42. Philem. v. 13. 2 Thess. 2: 6, 7. It also means to hold firmly , to 
 grasp hold of, to take possession of and retain, etc., as may be seen 
 in the lexicons ; but these meanings do not fit well here. Theophy- 
 lact explains y.areyovxoyv by xaAvmeiv, oy.OTi&tv. The meaning 
 seems to be : ' Who hinder the progress or obstruct the power of 
 truth, in themselves or others.' 
 
 But of what truth ? ylhi&tia cannot here mean the gospel ; be- 
 cause the writer goes on immediately to say, that the light of nature 
 sufficed to teach the heathen better than to restrain the aXt)&eiu in 
 question, '^dlrfteia is here, then, that truth which the light of nature 
 taught, respecting the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. 
 When the apostle says in v. 18, roiv rtjv dfo'j&uav iv adiy.ia xuzi- 
 yovraw, in his own mind he singles out of the dvdgojncov (all men) 
 
ROMANS: CONTENTS OF 1: 19—32. 95 
 
 whom he had just mentioned, the heathen or Gentiles, whose vicious 
 state he immediately proceeds to declare. This is the theme for the 
 remainder of the first chapter. 
 
 '£» adiY.la. means by iniquity, iv standing hefore the instrument, 
 as usual. To fill out v. 18 completely, the reader must supply, in his 
 own mind, [inl naauv dot'iSftap aul ud'ixiav] xaiv xr\v aXrjOuuv 
 
 X.T.L 
 
 CHAP. I. 19—32. 
 
 The apostle, having intended in his own mind to designate the heathen or 
 Gentiles, by mentioning those ' who hinder the truth through unrighteous- 
 ness,' now proceeds to illustrate and confirm his charge against them. God, 
 says he, has disclosed in the works of creation his eternal power and Godhead ; 
 and this so clearly, that they are without excuse for failing to recognize it, 
 vs. 19, 20. And since they might have known him, but were ungrateful, and 
 refused to glorify him, and darkened their minds by vain and foolish disputa- 
 tions ; since they represented the eternal God to be like mortal man, and even 
 like the brutes which perish ; God gave them up to their own base and 
 degrading lusts, who thus rendered to the creature the honour that was due 
 to the Creator, vs. 21 — 25. Yea, he gave them up to the vile and unnatural 
 passions which they cherished, vs. 26,27; to a reprobate mind, and conse- 
 quently to all the various sins which they practise, vs. 29, 30; and these they 
 not only commit themselves, although they know them to be worthy of death, 
 i. e. of condemnation on the part of the divine lawgiver, but they encourage 
 others by their approbation to commit the like offences. 
 
 Such being the state of facts in regard to the heathen world, it follows, of 
 course, that they justly lie under the condemning sentence of the divine law. 
 It is not the object of the apostle, to prove that every individual heathen is 
 guilty of each and all the sins which lie enumerates ; much less does he intend 
 even to intimate that there are not other sins, besides those which he enume- 
 rates, of which the Gentiles are guilty. It is quite plain, that those which he 
 does mention, are to be regarded merely in the light of a specimen. Nor will 
 the charges which he here makes, prove that every individual of the Gentile 
 world was, at the moment when he was writing, guilty of all the tilings pre- 
 ferred against the heathen. If we suppose that there might then have been 
 some virtuous heathen, (a supposition apparently favoured by Rom. 2: 14), 
 such must have abstained from the habitual practice of the vices named, and 
 from others like them. But it suffices for the apostle's purpose, to shew that 
 they once had been guilty of them; which of course was to shew their absolute 
 need of salvation by a Redeemer, i. e. by gratuitous pardon procured through 
 him. The case is the same here, as that which is presented in chap. n. m., 
 where a charge of universal guilt is brought against the Jews. Certainly this 
 was not designed to prove that there then existed no pious Jews, who were not 
 liable to such charge in its full extent, at the moment when the apostle was 
 writing. Enough that they had all, at some time or other, committed sin. 
 Nay, it was of course true to some extent, even of the pious, at the time when 
 Paul was writing, that they daily committed sin in some form or other; and 
 the same was also true of pious Gentiles, if indeed there were any such. Jill 
 men. then, were guilty before God; although all men might not practise the 
 particular vices which the apostle named, when he was writing. It matters 
 not, for his purpose, to prove this. All who could sin, had sinned, and did 
 then sin, in some way or other; and this is now, and always has been true. 
 Of course all have fallen under the condemnation of the divine law, and salva- 
 
90 ROMANS 1 : 19. 
 
 tion by the grace proffered in tlie gospel, is the only salvation which is possible 
 for them. 
 
 The question when men begin to sin, it is not the object of the apostle here 
 to discuss. Nor is it even the degree of their depravity, which it is his main 
 design to illustrate and prove. The universa I ity of it is the main point; and it 
 is all which is essential to his argument. To this universality Paul admits of 
 no exception ; but then we are of course to understand this, of those who are 
 capable of sinning. It is thus that we interpret in other cases. For example ; 
 when it is said : " He that believeth not, shall be damned," we interpret this 
 of those who are capable of believing, and do not extend it beyond them. 
 With the question, when individuals are capable of believing or of sinning, I 
 repeat it, Paul does not here concern himself. Neither mere infancy, nor 
 entire idiotism, is the object of his present consideration. He is plainly speak- 
 ing of such, and only of such, as are capable of sinning; and these, one and 
 all, he avers to be sinners, in a greater or less degree. Such being the fact, it 
 follows, that as " the soul which sinneth must die," so, if there be any reprieve 
 from this sentence, it must be obtained only by pardoning mercy through a 
 Redeemer. 
 
 I add merely, that the clause rSv rip> ikij&tiav iv aSixlcc xaxsxovrmv, properly 
 belongs to that division of the discourse which we are now to examine; but 
 the connection of it with the general proposition in the preceding part of v. 18, 
 is made so intimate by the present grammatical structure, that I deemed it best 
 not to disjoin them in the commentary. 
 
 (19) But how is it to be made out, that the heathen keep back the 
 truth respecting the only living and true God, by their unrighteous- 
 ness 1 I answer, by shewing that to all men is made, in the works of 
 nature, a revelation so plain of the eternal power and Godhead of 
 Jehovah, that nothing but a wilful and sinful perversion of the light 
 which they enjoy, can lead them to deny this great truth. So the 
 apostle: Atari .... avroTg, because that which might be Jcnown con- 
 cerning God, was manifest to them. Aeon stands before a clause 
 which assigns a reason, why the heathen hinder the truth by iniquity. 
 The amount of the illustration which follows is, (1) That the truth 
 was knowable. (2) That nothing but base and evil passions kept 
 men from acknowledging and obeying it. 
 
 To yvwoiov zov -&eov, literally the knotcledge of God, or that 
 concerning God which is knowable or Jcnown. The neuter adjective 
 is used for a noun, in accordance with a well-known and common 
 Greek idiom. The meaning, that which is hioivable, which is here 
 assigned to zo yvwoiov, is the best ; and that to yvomiov may be thus 
 rendered, we can have no doubt, when we compare zo voi]tov intelli- 
 gible, to aio\h]T0v quod perceptum sit, to uoqutov quod non visum 
 sit, i. e. invisible, etc. Ernesti denies that yixoarov can be rendered, 
 that which is to be known, or that which is knowable (N. Theol. 
 Biblioth. X. G39) ; and this has been greatly contested among critics. 
 Buttmann (Gramm. § 92. Anra. 3) seems to have decided this point, 
 however, beyond any reasonable doubt. He says, indeed, that verbals 
 
ROMANS 1: 19. 9T 
 
 in -rog frequently correspond to the Latin participles in -tus ; so ttA^x- 
 zog stricken, GTQtiixog perverted, noDjrog made, f actus, etc. But 
 "more commonly," he adds, "they have the sense of possibility , like 
 the Latin adjectives in -i/is, or the German ones in -bar ; as orfjtmog 
 versatiiis, oyuzog visibilis, dxovozog audibilis." This appears more 
 fully when tori is joined with these adjectives or verbals; e. g. fito)- 
 zov iozt, one can live, {quasi ' it is live-able') ; zolg ov/. iiiiov ion, 
 they cannot go out, (quasi ' to them it is not go-able'). It is strange, 
 indeed, that this should so long and so often have been called in ques- 
 tion ; especially as Plato frequently uses the very word under examin- 
 ation, in connection with do'Saozov, e. g. to yvwozov xal zo doiocozov, 
 that which is knowable and that which is supposcab/c, de Repub. Lib. v. 
 Tov dtov, concerning God, fttov being Gcnitivus objecti, as 
 grammarians say. For a correct and extended statement of the lati- 
 tude of the Genitive, in regard to the many various relations which 
 it expresses, see Winer's Gramm. N.Test. § 30, ed. 3. Examples in 
 point are Matt. 13: 18, nayapoki] tov oirilQOviog, the parable con- 
 cerning the sower; 1 Cor. 1: IS, o \oyog o rov ozuvoov, the decla- 
 ration concerning the cross. So "koyog zivdg, a report concerning 
 any one, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 10. vm. 5. 28. Comp. Luke 6: 12. Rom, 
 13: 3. John 17: 2. Heb. 9: 8, et alibi. 
 
 ' Ev ccvzolg may be construed among them. So iv often means ; 
 e. g. Matt. 2: 6, iv zoig riyepootv, among the leaders ; Luke 1: 1, iv 
 r^ilv, among us; Rom. 1: G, iv oig, among whom; Rom. 11: 17. 1 
 Cor. 3: 18, etc. The sense would then be : ' What may be known 
 [by the light of nature] concerning God, was manifest among them,' 
 i. e. in the midst of them, or before their eyes. If any prefer, how- 
 ever, to render iv uvzoig as they would the simple Dative aviolg, viz. 
 to them, examples of such a use may be found; e. g. 1 Cor. 14: 11. 
 Matt. 17: 22. Luke 23: 31. 12: 8, and perhaps Acts 4: 12. 1 Cor. 2: 
 6. 2 Cor. 4: 3. But the former method of construction is plainly the 
 more certain and simple one. Tholuck prefers to render iv avro7g 
 in them, and interprets it as referring to their moral sense, by which 
 they may come to discern and judge of the evidences of divine power 
 and Godhead. To me it seems, that the expression qavegov ioriv 
 iv avzoJg is clearly and fully explained by the very next clause, added 
 by the writer for the sake of explanation, viz. o &eog ycxg uvto7g 
 iqavt'owoe. Here aviolg seems to be used plainly in the sense of iv 
 civrolg in the preceding clause, i. e. in the sense of to them or among 
 them. 
 
 13 
 
ROMANS 1:20. 
 
 The yug in 6 ftiog yug uvrolg iquvt'gwos is yug confirmantis. 
 
 (20) Tu yug .... kui StiOTijg, may be regarded as a parenthetic 
 explanation. The yug here is also yug confirmantis vel illustrantis, 
 and has special relation to the clause or assertion immediately pre- 
 ceding, i. e. it stands before an assertion designed to illustrate and 
 confirm this. 
 
 Tu yug uuguru uvtou, for the invisible things of him, i. e. of 
 God. ' yloguxu means those attributes or qualities of the divine Being, 
 which are not the subjects of physical notice, i. e. are not disclosed 
 to any of our corporeal senses. Of course the expression refers to such 
 attributes as belong to the nature of God, considered as a spirit. 
 
 Ano XTioeoiQ y.oapov, since the creation of the world, or since the 
 world ivas created. That uno may be rendered since, scarcely needs 
 proof; e. g. uno y,uTuj3oktjg •AOCf.iov, un ugyrg, uno Tijg ojgag inci— 
 vrjg, etc. ; see Lex. in verbum. With equal propriety, so far as the 
 usns loquendi is concerned, might it be rendered by, by means of, a 
 sense which uno very frequently has. But the reason why it should 
 not be here rendered in this latter way, is, that noi?]{juot designates 
 the means by which. By tu uooutu uvtou .... y.u&oguiui, the 
 writer means to say, that ever since the world was created, the evi- 
 dences of eternal power and Godhead have been visible; which 
 indeed must be as true, as that they are now visible. 
 
 Toig noiTj/nuoi, by the things which are made, i. e. by the natural 
 creation. TTotr^uot might be rendered by his operations, inasmuch 
 as nouns ending in the neuter -/<« not unfrequently have the same 
 meaning as those which end in —ntg' e. g. duxulujfxu, dixaiiaaig, 
 justification. If it were thus rendered, the sense would be, that the 
 operations of God in the world of nature, continually bear testimony 
 respecting him. This is not only true, but a truth scarcely less strik- 
 ing, as it now appears to us through the medium of astronomy, natural 
 philosophy, and physiology, than that which is developed by creative 
 power. Nevertheless, as the discoveries of modern science were un- 
 known to the heathen, so it seems most congruous here to explain 
 7toii]uuoi by things made, the natural creation, which the heathen, in 
 common with all others, were continually reminded of by their exter- 
 nal senses. 
 
 The due result of serious notice is, that tu uoguxu T0t> {riou may 
 be voovfifvu, apprehended by the mind, vnderstood. Noov^uvu y.ux)- 
 oguTui means, are distinctly seen, are intelligibly perceived, i. e. 
 they are so, or may be so, by the aid of the things which have been 
 
ROMANS 1 : 20. 99 
 
 made. In other words ; God's invisible attributes, at least some of 
 them, are made visible, i. e. made the object of clear and distinct 
 apprehension, by reason of the natural creation. So the Psalmist : 
 " The heavens declare the glory of God ; the firmament sheweth forth 
 the work of his hands. Day unto day uttereth speech, night unto 
 night sheweth knowledge," Ps. 19: 1, 2. 
 
 But what are the attributes of God which are thus plainly discernible 
 by his works? The answer is, ij xi u'idtog uviou duvtxjiig xui Ouoxrig, 
 both or even his eternal power and Godhead. Avva^ag must here 
 have special reference to the creative power of God ; and this seems 
 to be called aldiog, because it must have been possessed antecedently 
 to the creation of the world, or before time began. Still, although 
 di]f.aov{)yia (creative power), as Theodoret says, is here specially 
 meant, I apprehend that the sense of duvuiug is not restricted to this. 
 He who had power to create, must of course be supposed to have 
 power to wield and govern. 
 
 Stioxijg is distinguished by Tholuck and others, from QioiriQ' 
 for they represent the latter as signifying the Divinity or the divine 
 Nature, while the former is represented as meaning the complexity 
 of the divine attributes, the sum or substance of divine qualities. I 
 can not find any good ground, however, for such a distinction. &to- 
 xr\g is the abstract derivate from \Hog- and from this latter word is 
 formed the concrete or adjective derivate \>e7og, divine. To &e7ov of 
 course means divinity ; and from this comes another regular abstract 
 noun, fiiwTiig, with the same signification. So Passow : &ti6xi]g, 
 Gottlichkeit, gottliche Natur, i. e. divinity, divine nature. He then 
 adds : " In particular, divine greatness, power, excellence, eminence, 
 etc.;" i. e. xhcoi^g designates the divinity, with special reference to 
 these qualities — the identical manner in which the word is employed 
 in our text. The same lexicographer defines ■Qtorrig, the Godhead, 
 the divine Being, divine excellence. In the same sense, viz. that of 
 Godhead, Divinity, is to Qilov plainly used in Acts 17:29. So 
 SeiOT?]g in Wisd. 18: 9. So Clemens Alex. (Strom. V. 10), xo (at) 
 qj{)fi(jeoOat, &iioxi]xog (ieit%sii> toil, not to perish, is to be a par- 
 taker of Godhead or Divinity. 
 
 I£{)ei0Tiig be interpreted here as a word designating "the sum 
 of all the divine attributes," we must regard natural theology as 
 equally extensive with that which is revealed, so far as the great doc- 
 trines respecting the Godhead are concerned. Did the apostle mean 
 to assert this? I trust not. I must understand dewing, then, as 
 
100 ROMANS 1:20,21. 
 
 designating Divinity, divine Nature, divine excellence or supremacy , 
 i. e. such a station and condition and nature, as make the Being who 
 holds and possesses them to be truly divine or God. Eternal power 
 and supremacy or exaltation appear, then, to be those qualities or 
 attributes of the divine Being, which the works of creation are said 
 by the apostle to disclose. And when examined by the eye of philo- 
 sophy and reason, the evidence appears to be of the very same nature 
 which he has here designated. At all events, the heathen never have 
 made out any very definite and explicit views of God as holy and 
 hating sin ; not to speak of other attributes, of which they have had 
 quite imperfect and unsatisfactory views. 
 
 On this deeply interesting subject, viz. the disclosures of the na- 
 tural world in respect to the Creator, Aristotle has said an exceed- 
 ingly striking thing (De Mundo, c. 6), nuor t x9^>;r>/ qbGtt ytvofuvos 
 ctftfioyiiTog, an av xa>v xuiv igyitiv -^tcogzliai o ■Otog, God, who is 
 invisible to every mortal being, is seen by his works. Comp. also a 
 striking passage of the like tenor, in Wisd. 13: 1 — 5. 
 
 Elg to iivai uviovg avajioloy)]iovg, so that they are witkotit ex- 
 cuse. Eig ro, followed by an Inf., is often used in the same manner 
 as ajazr e. g. Luke 5: 17. Rom. 4: 18. 7: 4, 5. 12: 3. Eig to x.t.X. 
 is joined in sense with 6 Viog ydg o.vio7g iqavtgo)ae, (the first clause 
 in v. 20 being a parenthesis) ; i.e.' God has exhibited, in his works, 
 such evidences of his eternal power and Godhead, that those are 
 without any excuse who hinder the truth by reason of their iniquity.' 
 That the apostle means to characterize the heathen by all this, is clear 
 from the sequel. 
 
 (21) Aioxi yvovxig rot> x^toi^ because that having known God. 
 The diort, here stands as co-ordinate with that in v. 19. Verses 19, 
 20 assign the first ground or proof of the assertion, that the heathen 
 keep back the truth by unrighteousness ; the substance of which is, 
 that the truth is so plainly forced upon them by the works of creation, 
 that they could not deny it, except on the ground of being influenced 
 by sinful passions. Verse 21 gives the second ground of the assertion 
 that the heathen keep back the truth, viz. that with all their opportu- 
 nities to know and acknowledge the true God, they became corrupt, 
 debased, and devoted to idolatry. On this second ground the apostle 
 dwells, amplifying and confirming it in vs. 22 — 25. 
 
 Eiovrig here is employed in a sense that comports with the mean- 
 ing of to yvwOTQv in v. 19, i. e. having opportunity to know, being 
 furnished with the means of knowing, having the knowledge of God 
 plainly set before them. 
 
ROMANS 1 : 21. 101 
 
 Ov% u>g . . . . vjv%aQtG&T]Ottv, they glorified him not as God, nei- 
 ther were thankful; i. e. they paid him not the honour due to him as 
 the Creator and Governor of all things, nor were they thankful for the 
 blessings which he bestowed upon them. 
 
 A)X t/LiaicaoJOtioav .... avxoiv, but indulged foolish imagina- 
 tions or vain thoughts. So we may render the passage, if we follow 
 the more common meaning of /.iutcuoo), which not unfrequently cor- 
 responds to the Hebrew ^20 , b^Oi - ] , insipide, stulte agere. The 
 Vulgate renders ijUttTatojd)]Oav by evanuerant, and Erasmus by frus- 
 trati sunt; and to the like purpose many critics have- interpreted it. 
 But the evident intention of the writer seems here to be, to describe a 
 state of mind or feeling, not to express the result of it. — Ataloym^olg 
 may be translated thoughts, reasonings, or disputations ; for the word 
 has each of these senses. The first seems the most appropriate here 
 on account of the clause which immediately follows, and which shews 
 that the state of the interior man is designed to be described. It 
 should be noted, moreover, that dcakoyiopog, as meaning thought or 
 imagination, is commonly taken in malam partem, i. e. as designating 
 bad thoughts, evil imaginations, e. g. Matt. 15: 19. Mark 7: 21. Is. 
 59: 7 (Sept.) 1 Cor. 3: 20. 
 
 If we construe the words before us in this way, the sense will be : 
 1 They foolishly or inconsiderately indulged evil imaginations,' i. e. 
 base and degrading views respecting the nature and attributes of God, 
 and the honour due to him; as the sequel (vs. 22 — 25) shews, partic- 
 ularly v. 23. 
 
 But there is another sense of the expression before us, which I am 
 strongly tempted to adopt. The Hebrew r?.n , vanitas, (.lUTaiOTijg, 
 (.laicua, as is well known, is often employed to designate idols and 
 idolatry. Hence (.turaia is frequently employed by the Septuagint to 
 designate idols; e. g. 2 K. 17: 15. Jer. 2: 5. 8: 19. Amos 2: 4. 1 K. 
 16: 13, etc. So also in the New Testament, Acts 14: 15. From 
 this usage, as one might naturally conclude, the verb fiarctioco (which 
 means literally fiur aco v facer e vel fieri) sometimes means to be de- 
 voted to (.laiuia, i. e. to idols; e. g. 2 K. 17: 15. Jer. 2: 5, ff-iuzatoj- 
 -Orjoav, they became devoted to idolatry, or to vanities (which is the 
 same thing). The phrase in our verse is plainly susceptible of the 
 like rendering, viz. In their evil imaginations or by reason of their 
 wicked devices, they became devoted to idolatry, or devoted to vanities 
 (which has the same meaning). 
 
 But on the whole, it is safer perhaps to regard the clause before 
 
102 ROMANS 1:21—23. 
 
 us as a kind of parallel with the one which follows ; in which case, 
 the first asserts that the heathen foolishly indulged in wicked devices, 
 and the second, that in consequence of this, their inconsiderate minds 
 became darkened. The clause under examination will then be of the 
 like tenor with v. 22. 
 
 Kal tcjy.orlodt] .... xugdi'a, and their inconsiderate mind was 
 darkened. Kugdiu, like the Hebrew aV , very often means animus, 
 intellectus, the mind; which latter is here plainly its meaning. — 
 'yjavvtioq means stolidus, insipiens, or imprudcns, which latter word 
 means, wanting in consideration and foresight. I hesitate between 
 this meaning, and that of stolidus in the sense of the Hebrew V=: , 
 i. e. impious, tvicked. The y.updla which had foolishly indulged evil 
 imaginations respecting God, may be truly characterized either as in- 
 considerate, or as impious. On the whole, the latter seems to convey 
 rather the most energetic meaning ; but the former accords better 
 with the idea, that the second clause (now under examination) is 
 parallel with the clause which precedes it. 
 
 It will be observed by the attentive reader, that the apostle here 
 represents the darkening of the mind to be a consequence of the wicked 
 imaginations which the heathen had indulged. Men had once a right 
 knowledge of the true God ; they all had opportunity to be acquainted 
 with his true attributes. But in this condition, they chose foolishly to 
 indulge in wicked devices and imaginations; and in consequence of 
 this, they lost even what light they possessed, toy.oilodri i] uovvirog 
 avxwv xuydia. 
 
 (22) (I->u(jy.ovz(g .... ifAfaQav&rjoav, professing themselves to be 
 wise, they became fools. The antithesis of the sentiment here is 
 strong. The pretensions of many heathen philosophers to wisdom, is 
 well known. From these sprung the names, qi).6ooqoi, qtloooqiu, 
 ooqoi, ooqiozctl, etc. (JJuay.co means to declare, to affirm; which, in 
 the present case, means the same as to profess. So the Greeks used 
 quoy.o)' e. g. ol qikoooqttv qaaxovtfg, those who profess to philoso- 
 phize. To the same purpose Cicero says: " Qui se sapientes esse 
 profitentur," Quaestt. Tusc. I. 9. 
 
 (23) Ko.l i'j).?Mtuv .... tgmzon', and exchanged the glory of the 
 immortal God, for an image like to mortal man, and fowls, and 
 quadrupeds, and reptiles. Tijv do'S.uv tov aq {) agi ov tiiou means, 
 the majesty and excellence of the eternal God, or the glorious and 
 eternal God. In rjl'tMiuv . . . . tv opOKo^axi^ the Dative with tv 
 before it follows the verb. In such cases the usual construction is, to 
 
ROMANS 1:23. 103 
 
 put the simple Dative after the verh, i. e. the Dative of the noun de- 
 signating the thing for which another is exchanged ; e. g. Lev. 27: 
 10, ovy. akkutf-i .... v-ukov novijgo). Ibid. akkutr] .... xtrjvog 
 xttjvd. Lev. 27: 33. Ex. 13: 13. The classic writers usually say, 
 cckkunotiv r* Ttvog, or ti uvxi %tvog' but sometimes ukkaaaiit/ zi uvt. 
 I find no construction like this in v. 23, except in Ps. 105: 20, where 
 akkuiavTO xt]v tio'iuv uvrov iv Ofiouofiavi (ioo%ov occurs. Tholuck 
 says that iv ofwiwiictu. stands for tig ouolwfio: and he construes it 
 here as meaning the transmuting of one thing into another, i. e. mak- 
 ing out of one thing something different from it. But this is not the 
 common use of akkaoato, in cases like ours; although the verb occa- 
 sionally admits of this sense, (see v. 26 below, where, however, the 
 Accusative with eiff is employed). But usually it means, to commute 
 one thing for another, (not to transmute one thing into another). 
 Nor can it be the design of Paul to say, that the heathen changed the 
 glorious and immortal God into an image of perishable man and ani- 
 mals, (for how could ihey do this?) but to say that they exchanged 
 the former (as an object of worship) for the latter ; which is the exact 
 state of the case. 
 
 Such being the fact, both as to the sense of the passage, and the 
 more usual construction of the verb akkdaoo), I must regard tv 6/uoi- 
 ojfiuit here as of the same import and design as the simple Dative 
 would be, unattended with the preposition ; of which examples are 
 not wanting in the New Testament, and which Ps. 105: 20 confirms. 
 
 'Ev 6fiOio')ficTi eixovog is like the Hebrew Sb^. mftT , the resem- 
 blance of the image, i. e. an image resembling or like unto. &&<xqtov 
 is designed as the antithesis of uq Qayiov, and means frail, perisha- 
 ble, mortal. 
 
 HeTiivtov v..T.k. How extensively such idolatry as is here de- 
 scribed, has been and still is practised among the heathen, is too well 
 known to need any formal proof in the present case. Juvenal (Sat. 
 xv.) has drawn an admirable picture of Egyptian superstitions. The 
 following lines are sufficiently graphic : 
 
 " Quis nescit .... qualia deniens 
 iEjjyptus portenta oolat ? Crocodilon ado rat 
 Pars hffic ; ilia pavit saturam serpentibus Ibirn. 
 
 Oppida tuta canem venerantur, nemo Dianam." 
 
 And after saying that they worshipped various productions of the 
 
 earth, and even culinary vegetables, he exclaims : 
 
 " O sanctas gent.es, quibus haec nascuntur in liortis 
 Numina !" 
 
104 ROMANS 1 : 23, 24. 
 
 Comp. Ps. cxv. 135: 15, seq. Is. 44: 9 — 17, where is a most vivid de- 
 scription, in some of its traits not unlike to the hints in Horace, Lib. 
 I. Sat. 8. 
 
 (•24) Such was the impiety and folly of the heathen. Even their 
 philosophers and learned men could not be exempted from a part of 
 the charges here brought against the Gentiles. On account of such 
 sins, God even gave them up to their own lusts; dio aal Tragt'dajxev 
 . . . caccc&apoictVi ichcrefore God even gave them up, in the lusts of their 
 hearts, to impurity ; i. e. God gave them over to the pursuit of their 
 lusts, and to the dreadful consequences which follow such a course, 
 because they were so desperately bent upon the pursuit of these ob- 
 jects, and would hearken to none of the instructions which the book 
 of nature communicated. The imputation is, that in apostatizing 
 from the true God, and betaking themselves to the worship of idols, 
 they had, at the same time, become the devoted slaves of lust; which 
 indeed seems here also, by implication, to be assigned as the reason 
 or ground of their apostasy. Every one knows, moreover, that among 
 almost all the various forms of heathenism, impurity has been either a 
 direct or indirect service in its pretended religious duties. Witness 
 the shocking law among the Babylonians, that every woman should 
 prostitute herself, at least once, before the shrine of their Venus. It 
 is needless to say, that the worshippers of Venus in Greece and 
 Rome, practised such rites; or that the mysteries of heathenism, of 
 which Paul says, "it is a shame even to speak," allowed a still greater 
 latitude of indulgence. Nor is it necessary to describe the obscene 
 and bloody rites practised in Hindoostan, in the South Sea and the 
 Sandwich Islands, and generally among the heathen. Polytheism 
 and idolatry have nearly always been a religion of obscenity and 
 blood. This the apostle plainly intimates ; for after saying that men 
 had substituted idols for the only living and true God, he immediately 
 subjoins : ' Wherefore God gave up them to pursue their lusts, who 
 were so eager in pursuit of them.' This of course is taking it for 
 granted, that in plunging into polytheism and idolatry, they had at 
 the same time plunged deep into the mire of impurity. How well 
 such a representation accords with fact, the history of heathenism 
 will testify most abundantly. It lies on the face of almost every page, 
 written in characters ' which he who runneth may read.' 
 
 TIuQidoixe, gave up, gave over, i. e. left them to pursue their own 
 desires, without checking them by such restraints as he usually im- 
 poses on those who are not hardened and obstinate offenders. It 
 
ROMANS 1:24. 105 
 
 seems here neither to denote an active 'plunging into sin,' on the one 
 hand; nor a 'mere inactive letting alone,' on the other; but a with- 
 holding, by way of just retribution for their offences, such restraints 
 as I have just described. 
 
 Ev Tuig inc&vfilaig, in their lusts, i. e. God gave up them, [being] 
 in their lusts, tig cnttt&ctQoiav -a.t.I. But most critics construe iv 
 here as meaning by in the sense of on account of, by means of. The 
 sense is good, indeed, when rendered in this way, and the usus loquendi 
 above exception ; see Bretschn. Lex. iv. No. 6. ed. 2nd. But I pre- 
 fer to render it in the following way, viz. God gave up them [ovrig 
 being] in their lusts, etc., i. e. them who were filled with lust, he gave 
 up to the pursuit of it, he abandoned them to the perverse desires of 
 their own hearts and to the consequences which would follow. In this 
 way iv raig imdv/uiocig rwc xayd'idjv becomes equivalent to an adjec- 
 tive qualifying aviovg. Of a usage like this in respect to the Dative 
 with iv before it, the New Testament affords most ample proofs ; e. g. 
 Luke 4: 32, iv itovalct i)v o Xoyog avzou, his word urns powerful; 
 Rev. 1: 10, iytvofxvjv iv nvivfiaxt, I teas inspired; John 10: 25, iv 
 7iuQ0i(.ilaig XaXtiv, to speak parabolically ; John 5: 5, iv uaOtvtla 
 £X 0}l 'i being weak ; Rom. 16: 7, ol ytyovuaiv iv Xyioio), who became 
 Christians ; and thus very often, as may be seen in Bretschn. Lex. iv. 
 No. 5. ' Ev employed in this way, may be called iv conditionis, inas- 
 much as the noun before which it stands, serves to designate condi- 
 tion, habitude, relation. Ev thus employed agrees with the so called 
 2 predicate of the Hebrews, i. e. 2 prefixed to a noun which is em- 
 ployed in the sense of an adjective. 
 
 Llg axu&aQGtav, to the practice of impurity, where tig be- 
 fore the Accusative denotes, as usual, the object for which any 
 thing is or is done. The sense is the same as tig to nocelv t?}v 
 dxuxragolav. 
 
 Tov azi[*a£tG&cti . . . . iv iuvroig, to dishonour their own bodies 
 among themselves, or mutually to dishonour their own bodies. Tov cczi- 
 /.{uCto&cu is constructed after nagtd'iov.t implied. This kind of Infi- 
 nitive (viz. the Infinitive with tov before it), has, until recently, been 
 reckoned an imitation of the Hebrew Infinitive with b . But Winer 
 (N. Test. Gramm. § 45. 4, ed. 3d) has shown abundantly that it is no 
 Hebraism, but is very common in the Greek classics. The older 
 critics used to solve this form of the Infinitive (where tov intimates 
 design, object, end), by supplying tvtxu or %uqiv before it. Winer 
 constructs tov aTi{iu£io&ui, in the present case, by making it the 
 14 
 
j 06 ROMANS 1:24,25. 
 
 Genitive after dy.uduooiuv. I prefer the other method, which makes 
 the clause epcxegetical. 
 
 In respect to the fact of dishonouring their own bodies, i. e. sub- 
 jecting themselves to base and degrading lusts, we shall see more in 
 the sequel. 
 
 'JSv tavTQiQ, among themselves. For this frequent sense of £»', see 
 Bretschn. Lex. iv. 1. 6. 
 
 (25) A repetition of the idea contained in v. 23 — v.ui rJJ.utuv 
 X. t.).., but with some additions. O'ixiviQ ftitijXXa^av .... i/wimPm, 
 who exchanged the true God for a false one. *slh)deiav rov i>;oo = 
 tov ak-qOtj {liov. More usually it is the latter of two nouns which is 
 employed as an adjective in order to qualify the former : but some- 
 times the first noun performs the office of an adjective ; compare Heb. 
 Gramm. \\ 440. b. Both ulrfieiuv and y.>(vd(i are examples of the 
 abstract for the concrete; xi'eidn corresponding to the Hebrew ^2." , 
 8VC5 , ~\p;+ , which are so often employed to designate idols. In re- 
 gard to {.utrt'O.uluv . ... iv TOi yitvdti, see on ij?.ku£c/.v . . . . tv 0{.iot- 
 v')f(UTi in v. 23. 
 
 Kul iGi^aa&ijaav .... KtlaavTa, and worshipped and served the 
 creature more than the Creator. £eficc£opai signifies to venerate, to 
 worship, and designates the state of mind in the worshipper. The 
 aorists passive often have the sense of the Middle voice, and so, there- 
 fore, not unfrequently have an active sense, as here. Autq(vo) desig- 
 nates either internal worship (see v. 9 above), or external. Here, as 
 it is joined with of{ju£o/i(o>i, it more naturally designates the external 
 rites of the heathen religion. — 7ijj xrtoti, the creature, created things; 
 see the close of v. 23. — TIuQa., more than, above; compare Luke 3: 
 13. Heb. 1: 4. 3: 3. 9: 23. 11: 4, etc. ; and see Bretschn. Lex. tzuou 
 III. 2. e. 
 
 ' Og tOTiv .... ccf.ir t v, who is blessed forever, Amen. Doxologies 
 of this nature are not unusual in the writings of Paul ; see Gal. 1: 5. 
 Rom. 9: 5. 2 Cor. 11: 31. The Jewish Rabbies, from time immemo- 
 rial, have been accustomed to add a doxology of the like nature, 
 whenever they had occasion to utter any thing which might seem 
 reproachful to God. The Mohammedans have borrowed this custom 
 from them, and practise it to a great extent. Tholuck mentions an 
 Arabic manuscript in the library at Berlin, which contains an account 
 of heresies in respect to Islamism ; and so often as the writer has 
 occasion to name a new heretical sect, he immediately adds : ' God 
 be exalted above all which they say !' — Evkoyrjiog means, worthy of 
 praise, deserving to be extolled. 
 
ROMANS 1:35—27. 107 
 
 '^ifirfv, the usual response of the Hebrew solemn assemblies to the 
 words or precepts of the law, when read ; see Deut. 27: 15 — 26. The 
 Hebrew ?-£fl means, verum, cerium, ration sit, i. e. ita sit; which i$ 
 the usual sense of aftijv in the New Testament, as in Rom. 9: 5. 11: 
 36. Gal. 1: 5. Eph. 3: 21, et al. saepe. As to the custom of public 
 religious assemblies in respect to using this word, see 1 Cor. 14: 16. 
 It is to be understood as the solemn expression of assent to what has 
 been said, and approbation of it, on the part of those who use it. 
 
 (26) As v. 25 is a repetition and amplification of the sentiment in 
 v. 23 ; so vs. 26, 27, are a repetition and amplification of the senti- 
 ment in v. 24. There is the same connection in both cases; e. g. 
 after asserting the idolatry of the heathen in v. 25, the apostle 
 proceeds (as in v. 24) to say: Aiu xovro x.t.X, i. e. because they 
 became idolaters and polytheists, God gave them up to the vile pas- 
 sions which they indulged in this species of worship. — Aia xovio . . . 
 (XTipiug, on account of this [their idolatry], God gave them up to base 
 passions. For the sense of napt'dojxtv 6 Vtog, see v. 24. — FluOi] 
 ctri^iiag, base passions, where unplug (the latter of two nouns in 
 regimen) holds the place of an adjective, agreeably to common usage; 
 see the remarks on v. 25. 
 
 Ai rt yap .... qvaiv, for their women exchanged their natural 
 usage, into that which is unnatural or against nature. Tluoa fre- 
 quently has the sense here assigned ; as may be seen in the lexicons. 
 Ti-jv qvaiy.tjf A /Qi}aiv means usus venereus. But whether the apostle 
 refers here to the Greek TQifiadtg or ituiqIoiqiui, or to those who 
 were guilty of prostituting themselves in the vile and unnatural man- 
 ner mentioned in v. 27, it would be difficult to determine, and is un- 
 necessary. Those who wish to trace evidences of the facts alluded 
 to, may consult Seneca, Ep. 95. Martial. Epigr. I. 90. Athenaeus, 
 Deipnos. 13. p. 605. Tholuckon the State of the heathen World, in 
 Neander's Denkwijrdigkeiten, I. p. 143 seq., and in the Biblical Re- 
 pository, vol. II. 
 
 (27) 'OfAOiag ts xal .... dlh'jloig, in like manner, also, the 
 males, leaving the naturaluse of the female, burned in their lust toivard 
 each other. Literally opolcog re v.ai may be rendered, moreover in 
 like manner too. Ti y.ai is often employed in enumerating particu- 
 lars, in order to designate an intimate connection between them. 
 This it signifies in a more emphatic manner than y.ai simply ; and in 
 this respect, the Greek rt answers well to the Lat. que. Tt is em- 
 ployed rather to annex clauses than words, and in this respect differs 
 
108 ROMANS 1:27. 
 
 from year at the same time xi is more commonly connected only with 
 clauses which are not necessary to complete the sentence in itself, 
 hut are epexegetical, i. e. serve for confirmation, illustration, amplifi- 
 cation, etc. 
 
 The evidences of the fact here stated by the apostle, are too 
 numerous and prominent among the heathen writers, to need even a 
 reference to them. Virgil himself, the chaste Virgil, as he has been 
 often called, has a Cory don amabat Alexin, without seeming to feel 
 the necessity of a blush for it. Such a fact sets the whole matter in 
 open day. That at Athens and Rome natfegaOTia was a very com- 
 mon and habitual thing, needs no proof to one who has read the 
 Greek and Latin classics, especially the amatory poets, to any consi- 
 derable extent. Plutarch tells us that Solon practised it ; and Dioge- 
 nes Laertius says the same of the Stoic Zeno. Need we be surprised, 
 then, if the same horrible vice was frequent in the more barbarous 
 parts of Greece and of the Roman empire 1 Would God that nations 
 called Christian were not reproachable with it ; and that the great 
 cities of the old world (possibly of the new also), did not exhibit ex- 
 amples of it, almost as flagrant as those of Greece and Rome ! 
 
 "ylycifvfQ . . . . xccT£Qya£o(*£vot) males with males doing that which 
 is shameful. A further description of what the writer means, so as to 
 leave no doubt about the design of the preceding affirmation. 
 
 Kal rrjv .... anolafiftai'omg, and receiving in themselves the 
 reward which is due to their error. The apostle doubtless means, 
 here, the evil consequences both physical and moral, which followed 
 the practices on which he is animadverting. In respect to the first, 
 their bodies were weakened, their health impaired, and premature old 
 age came on both in a mental and physical respect. With regard to 
 the second, what else could be expected from those who sunk them- 
 selves far below the brute creation, but that their moral sense would 
 be degraded, their conscience "seared with a hot iron," and all the 
 finer feelings and delicate sensibilities of life utterly extinguished? 
 No example in the whole brute creation can be produced, which 
 resembles the degradation of the TiaidfnaoTar and it follows, by an 
 immutable law of a sin-hating God which is impressed on the very 
 nature of all moral beings, that degradation and shame should result 
 from the gratification of viler than beastly appetites. The despots, 
 princes, and rich men of the East, who practise polygamy and keep 
 extensive harems, are usually superannuated by the time they are 
 forty years of age; how much more might this be naturally expected, 
 as to the offenders mentioned in the verse under examination ? 
 
ROMANS 1:28,29. 100 
 
 (28) Kul '/.a&wg .... tv tmyvwati, and inasmuch as they did 
 not like to retain God in their knowledge. ^loxtpd£o) usually means 
 to try, •prove, examine, etc. But a secondary sense of the word is, to 
 approve, to choose; like to doxtnog, approved, acceptable, agreeable, 
 etc. The apostle means here to say, that the heathen voluntarily 
 rejected the knowledge of the true God, which, to a certain and 
 important extent, they might have gathered from the hook of nature 
 so widely spread open before them. — ' Eytiv tv tntyvowti is alto- 
 gether equivalent to ijiiytioiaxeiv. 
 
 Ilagtdwxtv .... vov v, God gave them rip to a reprobede mind. 
 See on v. 24 for Ttunt'dwxtv. — 'sldoxtpog is the negative or antithesis 
 of dov.if.iog- and therefore means reprobate, that which is to be rejected, 
 unapproved. Beza has rendered this adjective as though it had a 
 neuter active sense, a mind incapable of judging. But the usus lo- 
 quendi will not bear this ; although adjectives in -ipog sometimes have 
 an active sense; see Buttm. ausfuhrl. Sprachl. 2 Abth. p. 341. The 
 meaning here of cldoxipov vow is, wicked or vile mind, which is de- 
 serving of condemnation or execration. 
 
 Tloihiv xd fit] xa-&r]xovru, to do those things which are disgrace- 
 ful; i. e. which are indecorous, shameful. God, in his righteous 
 judgment, abandoned those who practised such vices, to the legitimate 
 consequences of their own passions and conduct. 
 
 (20) TTfTiltigiopii'Ovg, filled, full of, abounding in. The con- 
 struction, if completed, would be, [nagt'doxip avrovg 6 &(og] 
 ■nenlriQoiptvovg x. t. I. so that nenhjooiutvovg agrees with avrovg in 
 the preceding verse. It is here followed by the Dative of the suc- 
 ceeding nouns; and so in some other cases; see Wahl's Lex. under 
 nhiooo). The Genitive is more common after verbs of abounding. 
 
 ddtxla is a generic word here, iniquity, sin, which comprehends 
 all the particular vices that are afterwards named. — Uogvtiu is omit- 
 ted in some manuscripts, and in some it is placed after novijgla. 
 The enumeration seems quite incomplete without it; as it is a sin 
 which most of all was universal among the heathen. In the New 
 Testament, the word rtogvtla has an extended sense, comprehending 
 all illicit intercourse, whether fornication, adultery, incest, or any 
 other venus illicita. See Bretsch. Lex. on the word. 
 
 Ilovrjgia, malice, i. e. versitta et fallax nocendi ratio, as Grotius 
 defines it. Malice is a wicked desire or intention of doing harm to 
 others, in a fraudulent and deceitful manner. — IRsovi^ltt, covetous- 
 ness. Where luxury abounds, and devotedness to sinful pleasures, 
 
110 ROMANS 1:29,30. 
 
 there a thirst for gold will also reign, because it is necessary to supply 
 the means of pleasure. Petronius strikingly represents Rome as 
 covetous of the wealth of other nations, in the following manner: 
 
 .... Si quis sinus abditus ultra, 
 Si qua foret tellus quae fulvum milteret aurum, 
 Hostis erat, fatisque in tristia bella paratis 
 Qaerebantur opes. 
 
 Rttxla, among the Greeks, was the antithesis of ugiTt], when 
 taken in a generic sense. But when taken (as here) in a limited one, 
 it means the habit of doing mischief or harm to others in any way. It 
 differs from iioiyrjia, malice, inasmuch as that more particularly desig- 
 nates a state of mind, and the craftiness by which the purposes it 
 forms are to be executed. Kaxla is any kind of injurious treatment. 
 
 JUsatovs is of the same meaning as Titnkrjgtafte'vQvg' but it seems 
 to be introduced here merely for the sake of varying the construction 
 of so many nouns. As it governs the Genitive, so the Genitive here 
 follows it, and this makes a variety in the construction. The ellipsis 
 is as before, [nagt&mxsv avravg o &tos] [itozovg x.r.X. — OOoiog, 
 envy, seems to be natural to the human breast. It exists at all times 
 and in all places, where one part of the community is, or is thought 
 to be, more happy or distinguished than another. This passion was 
 in the highest degree predominant at Rome. — &6i>og, murder or 
 manslaughter, both public and private, legalized and forbidden, was 
 exceedingly frequent at Rome; e. g. the gladiatorial fights, the de- 
 struction of slaves, the executions by the Roman emperor's orders, 
 and deaths by poison, assassination, etc. — "Egig of course followed on 
 in such a train. — AoXog is strikingly exemplified by a verse of Juve- 
 nal : "Quid Romae faciem? Mentiri nescio," Sat. III. 41. — Ka- 
 xoijftfia means malevolence, particularly that species of it which 
 perverts the words and actions of another, and puts a wrong construc- 
 tion on them in order to gratify a love of mischief, when it was easy 
 and proper to put a good construction upon them. It differs specific- 
 ally, therefore, from Tjovrjoia. 
 
 (30) Wt&vQiaxrig means a slanderer in secret. — KuraXuXog, a 
 slanderer in public. — ©eovtvyslg, haters of God. Grotius says, it 
 should be written titoaivytig, i. e. with the tone or accent on the 
 penult, in order to have an active sense. But this is not necessary ; 
 for Suidas defines ifioaxtyiig (oxytone) by ol vno -&fov (.iicjovptvot, 
 xul ol &iov (.naovvxig. In the same manner Passow gives the 
 meaning of the word. That the active sense is here required, the 
 
ROMANS 1:30—32. Ill 
 
 context clearly shews; inasmuch as the vices of men are here desig- 
 nated, not the punishment of them. — 'Tftgioiug, reproachful, i. e. 
 lacerating others by slanderous, abusive, passionate declarations. — 
 ' Tnfgtiqui/ovg. proud, i. e. looking with disdain upon others, and 
 thinking highly of themselves. — sD.u^ovag, boosters, i. e. glorying in 
 that which does not belong to them, whether wealth, learning, talents, 
 or any thing else. — Eqpfvgerag xu-amv, inventors of evil things. This 
 doubtless refers to the inventions in luxuries, vices, etc., which were 
 constantly taking place in the great cities of ancient times, where 
 there was a competition in pleasures among the wealthy. — Ibvfvoiv 
 anttfrttg, disobedient to parents ; a vice exceedingly common among 
 the heathen, multitudes of whom cast out their parents, when they are 
 old, to perish from hunger, or cold, or by the wild beasts. The Ac- 
 cusative cases throughout this and the following verse, are all governed 
 by naptdwxev 6 Otog, brought forward from v. 28, in the mind of the 
 writer, and to be supplied by the reader. 
 
 (31) .dovvHOvg, inconsiderate or foolish ; compare vs. 21, 22. — 
 jiavv&iTOvg, covenant-breakers, perfidious. — Aorogyovg, destitute of 
 natural affection. The writer probably refers here, to the usual 
 practices among the heathen of exposing young children to perish, 
 when the parents had more of them than they thought themselves able 
 to maintain, or had such as they did not wish to take the trouble of 
 bringing up. Tertullian (in Apologetico) repeats this accusation 
 against them in a tremendous manner: " . . .. qui natos sibi liberos 
 enecant .... crudelius in aqua spiritum extorquetis, aut frigori et 
 fami et canibus exponitis." — 's/onoid'ovg, implacable, qui pactum non 
 admittit. Some manuscripts omit the word; but its authority does 
 not seem fairly to be doubtful. This is a well-known trait of the 
 heathen character, exemplified in a most striking manner by the 
 Aborigines of this country. — ' sfv(ht?iuovag, destitute of compassion, 
 unmerciful. What, for example, are or were the provisions made 
 for the poor and suffering, among the heathen? 
 
 (32) O'izivtg .... iniyt'Ovrtg, who knowing the ordinance of 
 God. Eniyvovitg is here to be taken in the like sense with yvovug 
 in v. 21 ; see the remarks on this. In Rom. 2: 14, 15, Paul asserts 
 that 'the heathen who have no written law (revelation), are a law to 
 themselves, for they give evidence that the requisitions of the divine 
 law are written upon their hearts.' He refers, of course, in these 
 and the like expressions, to leading and principal traits of moral 
 duty. So in our text, when he speaks of the Gentiles as knowing 
 
112 ROMANS 1:32. 
 
 God, he means, that the disclosures made respecting God in the 
 works of nature, and respecting the duties which he demanded of 
 them in their own consciences or moral sense, were of such a kind as 
 fairly to give them an opportunity of knowing something respecting 
 the great outlines of duty, and of rendering them inexcusable for 
 neglecting it. 
 
 To dcxctitofict, statute, ordinance, precept. The Seventy employ 
 it often, in order to translate the Hebrew pn , EslpH , f"P2££ . The 
 use of dixatojiia in such a way, seems to be quite Hellenistic. Sui- 
 das, however, defines it thus: diKuioifittra' vo/.io?, ivioXal. Clear 
 cases of usage in such a sense, are 1 Mace. 1: 13, iroitiv ru dixctiio- 
 ;i ut a toj v i'ftv tov ' and Test. xn. Patriarch., noielv tcc dixauafiaza 
 xvqiov, y.al vnaxovetv ivrolag #*ow, Fabric. Cod. Pseudep. I. 603. 
 
 What the dixaicoua or pn is, which the heathen knew or might 
 have known, is now declared, viz. bit oi . . . . eloiv, that they who do 
 such things [such as he had just been mentioning], are worthy of death. 
 As the affirmation here has respect to those who did not enjoy the 
 knowledge of a written revelation, so death can hardly be taken in 
 the full and exact scriptural sense of the word ; (on this sense, see 
 the remarks on Rom. 5: 12). It must, however, be taken in a sense 
 strictly analogous with this, viz. as meaning punishment, misery, suf- 
 fering. The very nature of the term implies this. That the word 
 •fravarov is figuratively, not literally employed here, is sufficiently 
 plain from an inspection of the catalogue of vices which the apostle 
 had just named. Surely he does not mean to say, that all of these 
 deserved capital punishment from the civil magistrate, in the literal 
 sense ; and that, this was a case so plain, that the heathen themselves 
 clearly recognized it. 
 
 A certain degree of vitiosity is manifested, by the commission of 
 crimes or the practice of wickedness ; in some cases a very high 
 degree. But still, in many cases crimes are the result of a sudden 
 impetus of passion and temptation, in the midst of which men aban- 
 don reflection. It requires therefore, in the main, a higher degree of 
 depravity coolly to applaud and deliberately to justify and encourage 
 wickedness already committed or to be committed, than it does to 
 commit it in the moment of excitement. Hence the apostle considers 
 this as the very climax of all the charges which he had to bring 
 against the heathen, that they not only plunged into acts of wicked- 
 ness, but had given their more deliberate approbation to such doings. 
 Ov fxovov .... uQaooovoi) not only do the same things, but even 
 
ROMANS 1:32. 113 
 
 commend those who do them. It is often the case, that wicked men, 
 whose consciences have been enlightened, speak reproachfully of 
 others who practise such vices as they themselves indulge in. Few 
 profligate parents, for example, are willing that their children should 
 sustain the same character with themselves. But when we find, as 
 in some cases we may do, such parents encouraging and applauding 
 their children in acts of wickedness, we justly consider it as evidence 
 of the very highest kind of depravity. 
 
 It is of such depravity as this, that the apostle accuses the heathen. 
 And justly ; for even their philosophers and the best educated among 
 them, stood chargeable with such an accusation. For example; both 
 the Epicureans and the Stoics allowed and defended Ttcudtpuaitu 
 and incest, numbering these horrid crimes among the udiaqogcc, 
 things indifferent. Aristotle and Cicero justify revenge. Aristotle 
 (Polit. I. 8) represents war upon barbarous nations, to be nothing 
 more than a species of hunting, and altogether justifiable. The same 
 writer justifies forcible abortion, Polit. VII. 16. Other philosophers 
 represent virtue and vice as the mere creatures of statute and arbi- 
 trary custom; or (to use the words of Justin) they maintain, fifjdiv 
 livui aotr?jv (.iijd't xuy.iav, doti] di ^iovov zovg uvdQoinovg i] ayaOu 
 ■t] Y.O.Y.U. tuvtcc iiyelaQcu, that there is nothing either virtuous or vi- 
 cious, but that things are made good or evil merely by the force of 
 opinion. 
 
 This is sufficient to justify the declaration of the apostle ; for if 
 philosophers thought and reasoned thus, what must the common peo- 
 ple have done, who were more exclusively led by their appetites and 
 passions ? The picture is indeed a dreadful one ; it is truly revolting 
 in every sense of the word. But that it is just, nay, that it actually 
 comes short of the real state of things, particularly on the score of 
 impurity and cruelty, there cannot be the least doubt in any man, 
 who is acquainted with the ancient state of the heathen world, and of 
 Rome in particular. Poets, philosophers, and historians, have con- 
 firmed the words of Paul ; and the relics of ancient cities in Italy, (in 
 pictures, carvings, statues, etc.) — cities destroyed near the time when 
 the apostle lived, bear most ample testimony to what he has said of 
 their lasciviousness and shameless profligacy. One has only to add, 
 with the deepest distress, that in many of the great cities of countries 
 15 
 
114 ROMANS 1:32. 
 
 called Christian, there is fearful reason to believe, that there are 
 abominations practised in various respects, which even exceed any 
 inventions of heathen depravity. How often is one obliged to ex- 
 claim, with the apostle, Tia^idtoxev uvtovg 6 &toi! The evidence 
 of this lies in more than beastly degradation. 
 
 It has frequently been asked, whether the apostle intended here 
 to draw a picture of the philosophers and sophists, or only of the 
 common people ; whether he meant to say that all the heathen were 
 guilty of the vices which he names, or only a part of them, etc. 
 The answer to these questions has in part been given above ; and 
 as to the rest, it seems not to be difficult. It is sufficiently plain, I 
 trust, from the very nature of the case, as has been already stated, 
 that Paul does not mean to assert of every individual among the hea- 
 then, that he stood chargeable with each and every crime here speci- 
 fied. This is impossible. He means only to say, that these and the 
 like vices (for surely they were guilty of many others), were notori- 
 ous and common among the heathen ; and that every individual ca- 
 pable of sinning, philosophers and common people, stood chargeable, 
 in a greater or less degree, with some of them. In this way he makes 
 out a part of his main proposition, viz. that all men are tinder 
 sin; consequently, that all are in a lost condition or in a state of con- 
 demnation. These declarations being established, it follows of course, 
 that all men need a Saviour, and can be delivered from the curse of 
 the divine laiv, only by means of atoning blood which procures gratu- 
 itous pardon for them. 
 
 That the apostle has been here describing the heathen, is clear 
 from vs. 20 — 23, where all that is said applies in its proper force only 
 to them. 
 
 That the heathen had a moral sense, is clear from Rom. 2: 14, 15. 
 One may even suppose it to be probable that some of them did, to a 
 certain extent, obey this internal law ; at least, we may well suppose 
 that they could obey it. This seems to be implied in Rom. 2: 26, 
 and perhaps in Acts 10: 35. It is on this basis, that the apostle 
 grounds his charge of guilt against them. They Jcnno, at least they 
 might have known, that what they did was against the law of nature, 
 against their consciences, against their internal persuasion with re- 
 spect to right and wrong. Consequently they were verily guilty in 
 the sight of God; not for transgressing the precepts of a revelation 
 never made known to them, but for violating a law that was within 
 them, and shutting their eyes against the testimony of the natural 
 
CONTENTS OF ROM. 2: 1—20. 115 
 
 world. Most clearly and fully does the apostle recognize and teach 
 all this, Rom. 2: 12—16, 2C, 27. No one, therefore, can accuse God 
 of injustice, because he blames and condemns the heathen ; for he 
 makes the law which was known to them the measure of their blame 
 and condemnation (Rom. 2: 12, seq.), and not a revelation with 
 which they were not acquainted. 
 
 When this subject, therefore, is contemplated in its full and 
 proper light, it becomes clear, that neither the accusations of the 
 apostle, nor the deductions which he makes from them, are sub- 
 ject to any just exception. Thus far his argument is good, and 
 conclusive. It is clear that the Gentiles need a Saviour ; it is equally 
 clear that they need gratuitous justification, and that they must perish 
 without such a provision for them. It remains then to be seen, 
 whether the same things can be established with respect to the Jews. 
 
 On the method of establishing the declaration which the apostle 
 makes concerning the depravity of the Gentiles, it may be proper 
 here to add a single remark. He goes into no formal argument. 
 In the passage which we have been considering, he does not even 
 appeal, (as he sometimes does, Tit. 1: 12), to the testimony of their 
 own writers. The ground of this must be, that the facts were plain, 
 palpable, well known, and acknowledged by all. To mention them 
 merely, was to establish his allegation ; the appeal being made to the 
 certain knowledge of every reader. In particular, he was well as- 
 sured that the Jewish part of his readers would call in question none 
 of the allegations, which he made in relation to the vices of the 
 Gentiles. There was no need, therefore, of any more formal proof, 
 on the present occasion. A plain statement of the case was sufficient. 
 We shall see that the writer occupies more time, and makes greater 
 effort, to confirm his declarations respecting the Jews. 
 
 CHAP. II. 1—29, 
 
 The apostle, having thus concluded his short hut very significant view of 
 the heathen world, now turns to address his own nation, the Jews, in order to 
 shew them that, they stood in need of the mercy proffered by the gospel, as 
 really and as much as the Gentiles. But this he does not proceed to do at 
 once, and by direct address. He first prepares the way by illustrating and enforc- 
 ing the general proposition, that all who have a knowledge of what is right, 
 and approve of it, but yet sin against it, are guilty ; and as really so as those who 
 are so blinded as not to see the loveliness and excellence of virtue, and who at 
 the same time transgress its precepts. This he does in vs. 1 — 10; in which, 
 although he had the Jews constantly in mind, he still advances only general 
 
1 16 ROMANS 2 : 1. 
 
 propositions, applicable in common to them and to others; thus preparing the 
 way, with great skill and judgment, for a more effectual charge to be made 
 specifically against the Jews, in the sequel of his discourse. Such a view of his 
 discourse will render easy the solution of the agitated question: Whom does 
 Paul address in vs. 1 — 8? Le Clerc supposes that he addresses the heathen 
 philosophers ; but Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, and others, that he ad- 
 dresses heathen magistrates. It seems quite plain, at ieast to my mind, that 
 he directly addresses neither the one or the other of these here, nor any other 
 particular class of men ; but that he employs general propositions only, in the 
 verses before us; and this, merely for the sake of preparing the way to con- 
 vince the Jews, and to shew that they too, as well as the Gentiles, are in a 
 state of condemnation. In v. 11 he first commences the direct attack (if so it 
 may be called) upon the Jews, and continues it, more or less directly, to chap. 
 3: 19. 
 
 The words of Turretin (Expos. Epist. Pauli ad Rom. in cap. II.) are so 
 much to my purpose, that I cannot forbear quoting them. " Postquam osten- 
 disset apostolus epistola? sua? capite primo, Gentes ex propriis operibus justifi- 
 cari non potuisse, eo quod deploratissimus eorum status esset ; idem jam 
 Judfeis capite II. demonstrare aggreditur. Verum id tacit dextre nee inediocri 
 solertia. statim ne nominatis quidem Judaeis, positisque generalibus principiis, 
 quorum veritatem et equitatem negare non poterant; quo facto, sensim 
 eorum mentionem injicit; tandemque directe eos coinpellat, vividaque et 
 pathetica oratione eorum conscientiam pungit, facitque ut de propriis peccatis 
 volentes nolentes convincantur. Et in his quidem omnibus, deprimit super- 
 cilium Judseorum, qui caeteras gentes summo contemptu habebant, iisque se 
 Ion<ve meliores et Deo acceptiores gloriabantur. At vero, non negatis 
 Judreorum ad cognitionem quod adtinet praerogativis, ostendit eos, ad mores 
 quod spectat, quae pars est religionis longe prascipua, Gentibus haud quaquam 
 meliores fuisse, proindeque Dei judicio et damnationi haud minus obnoxios 
 fore." 
 
 So far as the contents of the present chapter then are concerned, we have, 
 in vs. 1 — 8, the general considerations already named ; in vs. 9 — 16, the apostle 
 shews that the Jews must be accountable to God, as really and truly, for the 
 manner in which they treat the precepts contained in the Scriptures, as the 
 heathen are for the manner in which they demean themselves with respect to 
 the law of nature ; and that each must be judged, at last, according to the 
 means of grace and improvement which he has enjoyed. 
 
 In vs. 17 — 29, lie advances still farther, and makes a direct reference to the 
 Jew alone. He shews here, that those who sin against higher degrees of 
 knowledge imparted by revelation, must be more guilty than those who have 
 offended merely against the laws of nature ; i. e. he plainly teaches the doc- 
 trine, that guilt is proportioned to the light and love that have been manifested, 
 and yet been abused. The very precedence in knowledge, of which the Jews 
 were so proud and so prone to boast, the apostle declares to be a ground of 
 greater condemnation, in case those who possessed it sinned against it ; a doc- 
 trine consonant as truly with reason and conscience, as it is with the declara- 
 tions of the Scriptures; compare John 3: 19. 15: 22 — 24. 9: 41. 
 
 (1) Aio .... KQivtav, therefore thouvirt without excuse, O ?nan, 
 every one that condemneth, or ivhosoever thou art that condemnest. — 
 Aio here has been made the subject of much discussion. The point 
 of difficulty respecting it is, to shew how it stands connected as an 
 illative particle, with the preceding discourse. As it is made up of 
 dia and 6, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the word is, in its own 
 proper nature, illative. To my own mind, the connection appears to 
 be thus : ' Since it will be conceded, that those who know the ordi- 
 
V 
 
 ROMANS 2:1. 117 
 
 nances of God against such vices as have been named, and still prac- 
 tise them, and applaud others for doing so, are worthy of punishment; 
 it follows ((ho, therefore), that all who are so enlightened as to disap- 
 prove of such crimes, and who still commit them, are even yet more 
 worthy of punishment.' The apostle here takes the ground, that 
 those who were so enlightened and instructed by revelation, as to 
 condemn the vices in question, would of course sin against motives 
 of a higher kind than those which the heathen enjoyed who were 
 possessed of less light. It must be conceded, indeed, that avvfvdo- 
 y.ovat in 1: 32 is designed to aggravate the description of the guilt 
 which the heathen incurred, (and in fact it does so) ; yet it will not 
 follow, that the sin of these heathen would not have been still greater, 
 had they enjoyed such light from revelation, as would have led them 
 fully to condemn those very sins in their own consciences, while they 
 yet practised them. The main point in the discourse here, seems to 
 stand connected principally with the greater or less light as to duty. 
 The heathen with less light, went so far in vice as even to approve 
 and applaud it, as well as to practise it ; the Jew with more light, 
 was led irresistibly as it were to condemn such sins, but with all this 
 light, and against all the remonstrances of his conscience, he violated 
 the same precepts which the heathen violated. Now what the apos- 
 tle would say, is, that he who sins while he possesses light enough to 
 condemn the vice which he practises, is really and truly guilty, as 
 well as he who sins while approving it. He takes it for granted that 
 his readers will concede the point which he has asserted respecting 
 the guilt of the heathen ; hence he draws the inference (dio), that on 
 the like grounds they must condemn every one, who, like the Jew, 
 sins against the voice of his conscience and against his better 
 knowledge. 
 
 In like manner Flatt (Comm. iiber d. Romer) makes out the 
 connection of dio here : " Aio, because thou knowest to dixal(»iia 
 rov -frtov' because thou knowest, that according to the divine deci- 
 sion they are worthy of punishment who practise such vices ; because 
 thou thyself dost acknowledge this datalcofta &(ov' so thou canst not 
 excuse thyself for committing the like sins." 
 
 As to nag 6 xgtvcov, the proposition made by it is indeed general; 
 but this is plainly a matter of intention on the part of the writer. He 
 means to include the Jews in it ; but at the same time, he commences 
 his remarks on them in this general way, for the very purpose of 
 approaching gradually and in an inoffensive manner, the ultimate 
 point which he has in view. 
 
I 
 
 US ROMANS 2: 1. 
 
 ' Ev <w yug .... xaiaxglveis, for in respect to the same thing 
 [which] thou condemnest in another, thoit passest sentence of condem- 
 nation upon thyself; or, in condemning another, thou passest sentence 
 on t In/self. — *Ev ft), in respect to, with reference to; it may be translat- 
 ed, because that, inasmuch as, like the Hebrew "^NS . The latter 
 method would represent the apostle as saying : ' For the very act of 
 condemning another, is passing sentence upon thyself.' I prefer the 
 former method, which represents *him as saying : ' Thou who con- 
 demnest, dost pass sentence on thyself in respect to the very point 
 which is the subject of condemnation ;' i. e. thou who condemnest the 
 practice of the vices just named, dost thyself practise the very same 
 vices, and so dost come under thine own condemnation. That 
 -Apho) has oftentimes the same sense as xctrattpivw, every good lexi- 
 con will shew. Such is clearly the case here; compare Matt. 7: 1. 
 LukeG: 37. Rom. 14: 3, 4, 10, 13, 22. 1 Cor. 4: 5. Col. 2: 16. 
 
 The yuQ in this clause is yao illustrantis vel cenfrmantis ; for 
 the sentiments which follow are designed to show, that nag 6 y.oivon> 
 is inexcusable, inasmuch as he stands chargeable himself with the very 
 crimes which he censures in others. 
 
 Tot. yug .... o kqivojv, since thou who condemnest, doest the same 
 things. The apostle asserts this, and leaves it to the conscience of 
 his readers to bear witness to the truth of it, and to make the applica- 
 tion. He has not yet named the Jews ; and therefore the charge is 
 only implied, not expressed. As in the case where the woman taken 
 in adultery was brought before the Saviour, and he said to her ac- 
 cusers : " He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone," and they 
 all withdrew because of conscious guilt ; so here, the apostle says : 
 'Every one who condemns the heathen for the crimes specified, [he 
 was well aware that the Jews did this with a loud voice], condemns 
 himself, because he is guilty of the like vices.' How is this shown ? 
 Not by any arguments or testimonies ; for Paul knew that these were 
 unnecessary. He knew that the consciences of his readers would at 
 once bear witness to the truth of his allegations. Therefore he leaves 
 it to their consciences. But still, external testimony to the facts 
 alleged is not wanting. That the Jews of this period were grossly 
 corrupt, is certain from the accusations which Jesus so often brought 
 against them, as recorded in the Gospels. We may make the appeal 
 to Josephus also, and in particular to the description which he gives 
 of Herod and his courtiers. 
 
 The yuQ in the present clause is also inserted, because this 
 
ROMANS 2:2,3. 119 
 
 „ clause is designed to confirm the preceding one, and to show how he 
 who judged did condemn himself. 
 
 (2) Otd'c.fiti' di . . . npccoooi'rag, now we know that the judgment 
 of God is etc cording to truth, against those who do such things. KQtpa 
 {}fov means, sentence of condemnation on the part of God, &eov heing 
 Genitivus auctoris. — Kara uli'jOitav may be construed in various 
 ways; viz. (1) It may be taken (as usual in the classics) for truly, 
 verily ; i. e. just in the same sense as uvkoq, ah}do~)q. This would 
 make a good sense in our verse ; but not the best. (2) It may mean 
 the same as v.axa dixaioovvr]v, agreeably to justice, inasmuch as u\r\- 
 'fttiu often means vera religionis doctrina,vera atqvc salutaris doctri- 
 na, etc. So Beza, Tholuck, and others. (3) A better sense still seems 
 to be, agreeably to the real state of things, in accordance with truth 
 as it respects the real character sustained by each individual. The 
 sentiment then is : ' Think not to escape the judgment of God, thou 
 who condemnest the vices of the heathen, and yet dost thyself prac- 
 tise them ; whatever thy claims to the divine favour on account of thy 
 birth or thy spiritual advantages may be, remember that the judgment 
 of God will be according to the true state of the case, according to 
 the real character which thou dost sustain.' I prefer this method of 
 interpretation, as it renders the verse more significant, while the usus 
 loquendi is fully retained. 
 
 Ta Totavia, such things, viz. such as he had just been mention- 
 ing. Observe that the apostle does not accuse the uug 6 xghtov 
 here of the very same things in all respects, (as uvzu in the preceding 
 verse might at first view appear to intimate); but he speaks of him 
 who condemns, as doing ra TOianra. Nor is it to be understood by 
 this, that every individual among the Jews, or even that any one, was 
 chargeable with each and every vice which he had named. Enough 
 that any one or more of these vices might be justly charged on all. 
 And even if it could be said, that there might be individuals who 
 gave no external proofs to men that they were guilty of any of these 
 vices ; there certainly were none who were not more or less guilty, in 
 the sense in which our Saviour declares in his Sermon on the Mount 
 that men may be guilty of murder and adultery, i. e. spiritually, inter- 
 nally, mentally. 
 
 (3) yloytCy d'i .... Qtov, dost thou think, then, O man, who con- 
 demnest those that do such things, and doest the very same thi)igs, that 
 thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Ai, says Flatt, appears to 
 stand for ovv ' but why, he has not shewn. Bretschneider has better 
 
120 ROMANS 2:3,4. 
 
 explained it, in his lexicon : " Ah .... addit vim interrogationi." 
 This is exactly the case here. It seems to me, that the apostle does 
 not mean to say, therefore, etc. ; and accordingly, I do not take 
 v. 3d to be properly illative. The nearest translation which we can 
 give in English, is then used as an intensive ; which is a common 
 use of it in such a connection as that before us, i. e. addit vim inter- 
 rogationi. 
 
 The point in the verse appears to be as follows : ' Thou, who 
 condemnest others for vicious indulgences and still dost thyself prac- 
 tise the same, dost thou suppose, that while they cannot escape thy 
 condemning sentence, thou canst escape the sentence of him who is 
 of purer eyes than to behold iniquity V Well has Chrysostom para- 
 phrased it: to aov ovx ittqvyeg aglf.icc, aal xo xov fteov diaqevhj; 
 thou hast not escaped thine own condemnation ; and shall thou escape 
 that of God ? 
 
 (4) *H xov .... xaxaqgovtlg, or dost thou despise his abounding 
 goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering ? The word nXovxog 
 is often employed by Paul, in order to designate abundance, copious- 
 ness; e. g. Eph. 1 : 7. 2 : 7. 1 : 18. 3 : 16. Rom. 9 : 23. 11 : 33, et 
 alibi. The Seventy frequently employ it to translate "pE" and b".n . 
 Here tiXovtov supplies the place of an adjective, and means abundant 
 or abounding; comp. Heb. Gramm. § 440. b. 
 
 Xqi](Jt6ttitoq, kindness, benignity, 'y/voyfjg, literally holding in, 
 i. e. checking or restraining indignation, forbearing to manifest dis- 
 pleasure against sin. — Maytgo&v^iiag, longanimitas, C'BN Tj-iN , slow- 
 ness to anger, forbearance to punish. Both words (uvoyjjg and 
 uoMQO&vfiiag) are here of nearly the same import, and serve, as 
 synonymes thus placed usually do, to give intensity to the expression. 
 The meaning is, as if the apostle had said : ' Despisest thou his 
 abounding kindness, and distinguished forbearance to punish V 
 
 Kaxuqgovio) means to treat with contempt, either by word or by 
 deed. The apostle means to say here, that all the distinguished 
 goodness which the 6 xq'ivqiv enjoyed, in consequence of his superior 
 light, was practically neglected and contemned by him, inasmuch as 
 he plunged into the same vices which the ignorant heathen practised. 
 ' yiyvoiav .... aye t, not acknowledging that the goodness of God 
 leadeth thee to repentance, yiyvooiv in the sense of not recognizing 
 or acknowledging, rivojoxw and the Hebrew 2>V often mean, to 
 recognize, to acknoivledge ; as may be seen in the lexicons. — To 
 ygt]Gi6v, i. q. iQrjGx6zt]g^ by a common usage of the Greek tongue ; 
 
ROMANS 2: 4, 5. 121 
 
 compare zo yvwaiov in 1: 19. — "slyti, leads; but as verbs often de- 
 signate a tendency towards the action which they usually designate, 
 as well as the specific action itself, so here the tendency or fitness to 
 accomplish the end is designated; compare John 5: 21, iytiQii, has 
 the power or faculty to raise up ; ^wonoiel, has the power of giving 
 life; Rom. 1: 21, yvovteg, having opportunity to know. The senti- 
 ment is, that the goodness of God which the 6 xqivoiv enjoys in a 
 peculiar manner, is intended to teach him gratitude for his blessings, 
 and of course sorrow (perdvoiav) for his offences in respect to that 
 course of conduct which such a principle would dictate. Let the 
 reader compare, for the sake of deeply impressing on his mind so 
 important and striking a sentiment, the passages in 2 Pet. 3: 9. Ezek. 
 18:23,32. 33: 11. 
 
 (5) Kara dt . . . . y.apdluv, but according to thine obstinacy and 
 impenitent heart, or according to thy hard and impenitent heart. Ai 
 naturally connects sentences or clauses which are more or less anti- 
 thetic. Verse 5 expresses antithesis to the acknowledging of the good- 
 ness of God, etc. ; which the offender is bound to do, but he takes a 
 contrary course. JtxA?;oo'r?;£ means insensibility of heart or mind, a 
 state in which one is not duly affected by considerations presented to 
 his mind. — '^/f.(6iuv6t]TOv nagdlav means a heart not so affected as 
 to sorrow for sin, by the goodness of God which is designed to pro- 
 duce such an effect. It is by such spiritual insensibility or stupidity, 
 that the sinner is aggravating his condemnation ; so the next clause. 
 
 SriaavQi^eig .... xov tttou, thou art treasuring up for thyself 
 wrath in the day of wrath, when the righteous judgment of God shall 
 be revecded. BrjaavQitiig, to treasure up, i. e. to lay up in store, to 
 accumulate, to increase. — 2e «i>rw, for thyself, Dativus incommodi 
 (as grammarians say) ; compare Rom. 13: 2. Matt. 23: 31. — Ogyt]v, 
 wrath, includes also the punishment which is the natural consequence 
 of wrath. A day of punishment is called, in the Old Testament, El^ 
 N*iiD , E?T &Y 1 , ttiFP P]J$ Ci" 1 , i. e. a day when the displeasure of 
 Jehovah is manifested. 
 
 * Ev tj^uga ogyrjg, i. e. ogyi]v \rt}v ioo{ti'i>i]i>] iv ijf-it'gu ogytjg, 
 indignation that will be shewn or executed in the day of indignation 
 or punishment. — Kal dnoxaXvijifcag xal diy.aiOY.Qioiag may be taken 
 as a Hendiadys, and rendered of revealed righteous judgment. The 
 meaning is : ' When God's righteous judgment shall be revealed, i. e. 
 in the great day of judgment.' Griesbach omits the second xai' 
 which makes the reading more facile. 
 16 
 
loo ROMANS 2: G— 8. 
 
 (G) "Os anodcooet .... aviov, who will render to every man ac- 
 cording to his works ; i. e. who will make retribution to every man, 
 according to the tenor of his conduct. The sequel shews what 
 distinction the supreme Judge will make, between men of different 
 characters. — £gyu means here, as often elsewhere, all the develope- 
 ments which a man makes of himself, whether by outward or inward 
 actions ; compare John 6 : 27. Rev. 14 : 13. 22 : 12. The word 
 is, indeed, more commonly used to designate something done exter- 
 nally ; but it is by no means confined to this sense. Thus tgyu 
 vui(Ov means, any works which the law demands; toy a -&tov means, 
 such works as God requires ; and in cases of this nature it will not 
 be said, I trust, that God and his law do not require any thing but 
 external works. 
 
 , (?) Toig (tin .... auovtov, to those who by patient continuance 
 ox perseverance in tv ell doing, seek for glory and honour and immor- 
 tality, or immortal glory and honour, [he will render] eternal life 
 or happiness. — XitOfisv^v means perseverance or patient continuance. 
 — Kuxct, before the Accusative, frequently designates the modus in 
 which any thing is done, or the state and condition in which it is ; 
 e. g. y.uru zaS.iv, y.axa &)\ov, y.uxu yvcuaiv, etc. — ' Egyov here has 
 the epithet dyuitov, in order to distinguish it from the generic toy a 
 used in the preceding verse. 
 
 Ai'j'iuv y.ai zifirjv y.al uq&ugoluv is cumulative or intensive ; i. e. 
 it expresses happiness or glory of the highest kind. We may trans- 
 late the phrase thus : immortal glory and honour, making dq&agaluv 
 an adjective to the other nouns; or we may render it, glorious and 
 honourable immortality, or honourable and immortal glory. I prefer 
 the first. The idea is indeed substantially the same in all ; but all do 
 not seem equally congruous, as to the method of expression. The 
 joining of xipij and d'o'ta, in order to express intensity, is agreeable 
 to a usage which is frequent in the New Testament; e. g. 1 Tim. 1: 
 17. Heb. 2: 7, 9. 2 Pet. 1 : 17. Apoc. 4: 9, 11. So the Hebrew 
 
 -n-i nirt. 
 
 The uiv at the beginning of the verse is the utv Tigozuoecog, i. e. 
 uiv designating the protasis in a sentence ; the uixodwoig here is v. 8, 
 which commences with Si apodotic, i. e. marking the apodosis, and 
 standing as the counter-part of uiv in v. 7. 
 
 (S) To7g di l| igi&tiug, but to those who are contentious. 'E-a 
 (iVj before the Genitive of a noun, is often employed as an adjective 
 in designating some particular description of persons or things. 
 
ROMANS 2: 8. 123 
 
 Thus o *£ o?Jp«fOi'= oi'pcmo?" ?/ ix qvottog, natural; xov h. nln- 
 xioig, credens ; 6 i'S vpiav, yours; ol ix ntQirotitjg, the circumcised; 
 so the classical ol ex ozoug, etc. The apostle means here to desig- 
 nate those who contend against God, or rebel against him. The 
 Seventy use ipeOi^o) in order to translate n"i)2 , Deut. 21: 20. 31: 
 27. What it means, moreover, is explained in the next clause by 
 dnei&ovai. 
 
 Kal aTiiixtovcu . . . . adtxia, and arc disobedient to the truth, but 
 obedient to unrighteousness. Here (in a subordinate member of the 
 apodosis of the sentence begun in verse 7) is a second (iiv pro- 
 tatic and ds apodotic. The contrast of the two respective clauses 
 in which they stand, is made very plain by direidovai and nei&Ofit- 
 vocg. The exact expression of this [it'v and di, cannot be made out 
 by any translation which the English language will permit. Wc 
 have no words capable of designating such nice shades of relation as 
 fAt'p and de signify here, and in like cases; shades very plain and 
 palpable, indeed, to the practised critic in Greek, but such an one is 
 still left without the power of expressing them in his own vernacular 
 language. I have not in this case attempted an exact translation, for 
 the reason just mentioned. The nearest to the original that I am able 
 to come, is by the following version : And those who disobey indeed the, 
 truth, but obey unrighteousness. How imperfect an exhibition this is 
 of the nicer colouring of the Greek expression, every one must 
 feel who has " did zr t v tiiv id aia&exi'iQia. yeyvfivaGfteva jryog 
 diaxpiaiv." 
 
 °^4fo]{rilct here means true doctrine. As the proposition of the 
 apostle is general here, i. e. as it respects all, whether Jews or 
 Gentiles, who disobey the precepts of religion and morality, so 
 dhi&eiu must be taken in a latitude that embraces the truths of both 
 natural and revealed religion. On the other hand abixlu means that 
 which is unrighteous, that which the truth forbids, it being here (as 
 in 1: 18) the antithesis of aXt]&sla. 
 
 'Opyrj xcd -&vfiog, indignation and wrath. Ammonius says, 
 ftviiog iitv ean Tipooxcugog, ogyi] di no\vyj)6viog (.tvijaixaxia, i. e. 
 ■Qvpog is of short duration, hut ogyn is a long-continued remembrance 
 of evil. I apprehend, however, that in the case before us, the ex- 
 pression is merely intensive; which (as usual) is erfected by the accu- 
 mulation of synonymous terms. In respect to the construction of 
 these nouns in the Nominative case, it is an evident departure from 
 the structure in the preceding verse, where Cwqv aicoviov is in the 
 
124 ROMANS 2: 8—11. 
 
 Accusative governed by dnodotatt, understood. Here ogyt] nal Sv/aog 
 are the Nominative to eoovrac implied. Such departures in the latter 
 portion of a sentence, from a construction employed in the former 
 part of it, grammarians call uvanolvdop- which means, that a con- 
 struction begun, is not followed up or completed in the like manner. 
 
 (9) ©llxpig xctl OTivo%b)giu are words which correspond to ogyr, 
 xul ftvpog, and designate the effects of the latter. The meaning is, 
 intense anguish, great suffering. It is evident, at first sight, that the 
 9th verse is a repetition of the general sentiment contained in v. 8; 
 while the 10th verse repeats the sentiment of v. 7. This repetition, 
 however, is evidently introduced with the design of making a specific 
 application, and of shewing definitely whom the apostle means to 
 include in what he had said. 
 
 The construction in v. 8th is here followed ; inasmuch as toovrui 
 is plainly implied after dVnpig xal OT£vo%wgia. These two words, 
 used in the way of expressing intensity, are often joined by classic 
 writers; and so in Hebrew we have i^J^ r l i2"i !"nss . 
 
 ' Enl Ticcaav ijjv){7]i> clv\}(}(vtiov, [great distress shall be] upon 
 every soul of man, i. e. upon every man. In Hebrew, the soul of the 
 righteous, of the wicked, of the poor, of the rich, of the hungry, of the 
 thirsty, etc., means the righteous, the wicked, etc. So here, the soul 
 of man means man. — '/ovd'uiov . . . .' EXh,vog, first of the Jeiv, and 
 then of the Greek; i. e. the Jew, to whom a revelation has been 
 imparted, shall be judged and punished first in order, because he 
 sustains a peculiar relation to revealed truth which calls for this ; 
 compare 1: 16. Here the apostle comes out, and openly shews, that 
 what he had been thus far saying only in general terms, is applicable 
 to Jcivs as well as to Greeks. 
 
 (10) Ao'ta de .... EXXrjvi, but glory and honour and peace to 
 every one who doeth good, first to the Jew and then to the Greek. 
 That is, both threatenings and rewards are held out to Jews and 
 Greeks, in the same manner and on the same condition. With God 
 there is no ngoownoXt]\pia. This verse is a repetition of v. 7, with the 
 addition of Jovdutov zt ngonov xul LWrjvog. But here f/gi]pt] is 
 substituted for uq.dugaiuv there. We might translate, but happiness 
 glorious and honourable, etc. The meaning of the whole is plain. 
 Intensity of description or affirmation is intended. 
 
 (11) Ov yug .... -Ofoj, for with God there is no partiality, or 
 no respect of persons. The Hebrew tP:D Miaa means, to deal par- 
 tially, to look not at things but at persons, and pass sentence accord- 
 
ROMANS 2: 11—13. 125 
 
 ingly. The phrases irgooamov Xa/n[3ui/ecp or filtiifiv, and also tiqo- 
 (jo>7io)>t]x]iia, are entirely Hebraistic in their origin ; the classic writers 
 never employ them. The apostle here explicitly declares, that there 
 is no difference in regard to the application of the general principle 
 which he had laid down, the Jew as well as the Greek being the 
 proper subject of it. The yag at the beginning of the verse is yag 
 conftrmantis. 
 
 (12) A confirmation or explanation of what he had said in the 
 preceding verse ; for if God judges every man according to the advan- 
 tages which he has enjoyed, then there is no partiality in his pro- 
 ceedings ; and that he does, the present verse explicitly declares. 
 
 ' Oooi yag .... dnoXovvxai^ since as many as have sinned without 
 a revelation, shall jierish without a revelation. J\o t uog, like the He- 
 brew iinnFl , often means the Scriptures, the revealed law; e. g. Matt. 
 12: 5. 22: 36. Luke 10: 26. John 8: 5, 17. 1 Cor. 14: 21. Gal. 3: 10. 
 Matt. 5: 18. Luke 16: 17. John 7: 49, et alibi. Here most plainly it 
 means the revealed law, revelation, or the Scriptures ; for v. 15 asserts 
 directly that the heathen were not destitute of all law, but only of an 
 express revelation. The classical sense of avopoyg would be unlaw- 
 fully, = nagav6f.io)g. But plainly this meaning is here out of 
 question. 
 
 'Avowing airolovvrut, means, that when adjudged to be punished, 
 they shall not be tried by the precepts of a revealed law, with which 
 they have never been acquainted ; but by the precepts of the law of 
 nature, which were written on their own hearts ; see v. 15. 
 
 Kcd boot .... y.QixttjOoi'rai, and so many as have sinned under 
 rev elation, will be condemned by revelation. Here vo/nog is employed 
 in the sense pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. *Ev vojam — 
 with Iv conditionis, as we may call it ; for Iv is often put before nouns 
 designating the state, condition, or relation of persons or things; see 
 Bretschn. Lex. iv, No. 5. The sentiment is, that those who enjoyed 
 the light of revelation (as the Jews had done), would be condemned 
 by the same revelation, in case they had been transgressors. 
 
 (13) This declaration is followed by another which is designed to 
 illustrate and confirm it, and which is therefore introduced with 
 another yag, {yag illustrantis et conftrmantis). Ov yag .... dixai- 
 o)&rioovTai, for not those who hear the law are just with God, but 
 those who obey the law shall be justified ; i. e. not those to whom a 
 revelation has been imparted, and who hear it read, are counted as 
 righteous by their Maker and Judge, but those who obey the law shall 
 
126 ROMANS 2 : 13, 14. 
 
 be counted righteous. The apostle here speaks of ol dxgoctzul xov 
 vouov, because the Jews were accustomed to hear the Scriptures read 
 in public, but many of them did not individually possess copies of the 
 sacred volume which they could read. The sentiment is : ' Not 
 those who merely enjoy the external privilege of a revelation have 
 any just claim to divine approbation ; it is only those who obey the 
 precepts of such a revelation, who have any ground to expect this.' 
 
 (14) To this sentiment the apostle seems to have anticipated that 
 objections would be made. He goes on to solve them, or rather to 
 prevent them by anticipation. He had said, that the doers of the law 
 would be justified. It was natural for the Jew to reply and say : 
 ' The Gentiles have no revelation ; and therefore this statement can- 
 not be applied to them, or this supposition cannot be made in relation 
 to them.' The answer to this is, that the Gentiles have a law as 
 really and truly as the Jews, although it is not written on parchment, 
 but on the tablets of their hearts. Flatt refers vs. 14, 15 back to v. 
 12, and thinks that bxav yag v.. x. \. in v. 14 stands as co-ordinate 
 with ov yao v.. x. A. in v. 13. But Tholuck and Turretin construe 
 the oxav yao v.. x. X., as I have done. 
 
 An objection to this has often been made, viz. that in this way we 
 may represent the apostle as affirming, that there were some of the hea- 
 then who did so obey the law as to be just before God. But this is a 
 mistake. The apostle no more represents the heathen as actually 
 attaining to this justification here, than he represents the Jew as attain- 
 ing to it in v. 13. Surely he does not mean to say in v. 13, that there 
 are any Jews who are actually not^xcci. xov v6f*ov in the sense which 
 he attaches to this phrase ; compare chap. 3: 19, 20, 23, 27, 30, 31. 
 He is merely illustrating a principle, in both cases. The Jew ex- 
 pected justification on account of his external advantages. ' No,' says 
 the apostle, ' this is impossible ; nothing but entire obedience to the 
 divine law will procure justification for you, so long as you stand 
 merely on your own ground. And here the heathen may make the 
 like claims. If you say that a heathen man has no law, because he 
 has no revelation ; still I must insist that he is in as good a condition 
 to attain justification, as you Jews are; for although he has no Scrip- 
 ture, (and in this respect, no law), yet he has an internal revelation 
 inscribed on his heart, which is a rule of life to him, and which, if 
 perfectly obeyed, would confer justification on him, as well and as 
 truly as entire obedience to the written law could confer it upon you. 
 The principle is the same in both cases. You can claim no pre-emi- 
 nence in this respect.' 
 
ROMANS 2: 14, 15. 127 
 
 It is plain, then, that the apostle is only laying down or illus- 
 trating a principle litre, not relating a historical fact ; and this 
 being duly apprehended, all difficulty about the sentiment of the pas- 
 sage is removed. Certainly there is no more difficulty in v. 14, than 
 must arise in regard to the noiijTal tov vo/aov of v. 13. The writer 
 means to say neither more nor less, than that the Gentiles may have 
 the same kind of claims to be justified before God as the Jews, (which 
 of course has an important bearing on v. 11); but, as the sequel 
 shews most fully, neither Jew nor Gentile has any claim at all, since 
 both have violated the late under which they have lived. 
 
 0voit .... Ttoiy, do in their natural state such things as revela- 
 tion requires. cpvoig, in a classical sense, means the nature or 
 natural state of a thing, the natural condition of any thing; just in 
 the same way as we use the word nature, in our own language ; e. g. 
 the Greeks said, 6 xurcc qvaiv {tui/ccrog, natural death; 6 xaza 
 qvatv 7i«r?/p, natural father ; qvatv tyti yevsa&at, it naturally hap- 
 pens, etc. In the verse before us, quo ft is equivalent to ra [ii] vofiov 
 tyovza ' i. e. it means those who were acquainted with only the 
 precepts of natural religion, and were destitute of a special revelation. 
 In respect to the Dative case (qvaei), it is the common method to 
 which the Greeks have recourse, in order to express the state or 
 condition of any thing ; i. e. Dativus conditionis. 
 
 Ovzoi .... flat vo/uog, these having no law, are a law unto them- 
 selves. The construction is changed, when ovzoi (masc. gender) is 
 employed ; which is constructio ad sensum, av&QCOTiot being under- 
 stood. What is meant by iavzoTg fiat vopog, is explained in the 
 following verse. 
 
 (15) Oirii'tg .... avzcov, who show that the work which the laio 
 requires, is written upon their hearts. OizivSQ refers to the Gentiles. 
 — To t\>yov tov vo/nov, the ivork or duty of the law, i. e. which the 
 law demands. So, plainly, this much controverted passage should be 
 rendered, if we compare it with other phrases of the like tenor ; e. g. 
 1 Thess. 1:3, tyyov zijg Tiiartojg, work such as faith demands; 2 
 Thess. 1: 11, i'gyov ixlorewg, such work as faith requires; John 6: 
 28, ' What shall we do that we may perform x« tgya tov fttov, such 
 works as God requires; to which the answer is (v. 29), ro tgyov tov 
 &sov, the work which God requires, is, that ye should believe, etc. ; 
 John 9: 4, zu e'gya tov nepipuvTog pe, works enjoined by him who 
 sent me; 2 Tim. 4: 5, t'gyov ivuyytfaGTov, duty which the evangelical 
 office demands ; et sic alibi. With these plain cases of usage before 
 
log ROMANS 2: 15. 
 
 us, there is no need of endeavouring to prove, (with Palairet, Wolf, 
 Schleusner, and others), that I'gyov is here merely periphrastic, 
 i. e. that t'gyop rov vopov means the same as vo/.iog. That such 
 a ttsus loquendi is not unknown to the Greeks, may indeed be 
 shewn; e. g. to irjg qiloooqlag tgyov, tvioi quatv, utto (jugjjagwv 
 ugiut,, philosophy {some say) took its rise from barbarians. The 
 periphrastic use of "/J? 1 ]/-' 01 an< ^ 7igay/na, in this way, is well known. 
 But it is wholly unnecessary to have resort to this, when the expres- 
 sion I'gyov vouov can be so easily explained without it. It means 
 plainly, such work or duty as the laic requires. 
 
 This, i. e. precept enjoining this, is written on the hearts or minds 
 of the Gentiles, rguznov is of course to be understood figuratively ; 
 and the idea conveyed by the whole expression is, that the great pre- 
 cepts of moral duty are deeply impressed on our moral nature, and 
 co-exist with it, even when it is unenlightened by special revelation. — 
 A'ugdlu, like the Hebrew nb , very often stands for mind as well as 
 heart. Tganiov tv ralg xagdiatg is used as the antithesis of yguu- 
 xov iv Tihuil )a&lvuig, which characterized the revealed law of 
 Moses; 2 Cor. 3: 3. 
 
 What was meant by the expression just considered, the apostle 
 goes on to shew, by adding two epexegetical clauses. ^Vfifiagrv- 
 govorig avrojv Tr t g avveidtjoeog, their conscience bearing witness, viz. 
 tw uvto), to it, to the same i'gyov vofjov. That is, the evidence 
 that what the law of God requires is inscribed on the minds of the 
 heathen, is the testimony of their consciences to such moral precepts. 
 Some understand ov/ufxagivgovoijg as meaning, that the conscience 
 bears testimony in conjunction with the heart or mind. But I appre- 
 hend this not to be the meaning of Paul. Compound verbs, like 
 ov^ifiagivgioj, not unfrequently have the same sense as the simple 
 forms. So in respect to ai^^iagzuge'co, an undoubted instance of 
 such usage occurs in Rom. 9: 1. And in our text, written in their 
 hearts or minds is explained by adding, the conscience bearing testi- 
 mony, viz. to the precepts in question. This is the evidence that 
 these precepts are engraved upon the minds of natural men. The 
 apostle does not mean to say, that there are two testimonies, one of 
 the mind, and another of the conscience ; but that the conscience 
 testifies to the fact which he had alleged in regard to the mind. 
 
 The apostle now adds a second confirmation of the fact, that the 
 demands of the moral law are inscribed on the heart of men in a state 
 of nature; viz. uai /Aizu£v .... (xnoXoyoviitvoiv, their thoughts alter- 
 
ROMANS 2: 15. 129 
 
 natcly accusing or excusing them. 3fiTa$v u).h'jfo>)i>, between each 
 other, at mutual intervals, alternately , i. e. in succession, first one 
 kind of thoughts, i. e. approbation ; then another kind, i. e. disappro- 
 bation. — sloyiOfiOQ means ratiocination, judgment, reflection. It 
 designates a more deliberate act of the mind than a mere ivdvftt][w 
 or (i>&Lf.it]Gig. — A'aTijyopoviio}}', accusing, in case the actions were 
 bad ; dno\oyovf.av(av, defending, in case they were good. After 
 each of these participles, taviovg or avxtQomov is implied. 
 
 The meaning of this clause is not, as has frequently been sup- 
 posed, that one man blames or applauds another, or that men mutu- 
 ally blame and applaud one another, (although the fact itself is true) ; 
 but that in the thoughts or judgment of the same individual, appro- 
 bation or condemnation exists, according to the tenor of the actions 
 which pass in review before him. Thus the voice of conscience, 
 which proceeds from a moral feeling of dislike or approbation, and the 
 judgment of the mind when it examines the nature of actions, unite 
 in testifying, that what the moral law of God requires, is impressed 
 in some good measure on the hearts even of the heathen. 
 
 Those commit a great mistake, then, who deny that men can 
 have any sense of moral duty or obligation, without a knowledge of 
 the Scriptures. The apostle's argument, in order to convince the 
 Gentiles of sin, rests on a basis entirely different from this. And if 
 it be alleged, that in this way the necessity of a revelation is super- 
 seded ; I answer, not at all. The knowledge of some points of moral 
 duty, or the power to acquire such knowledge, is one thing ; a dispo- 
 sition to obey the precepts of natural religion, is another. The latter 
 can be affirmed of few indeed, among the heathen of any age or na- 
 tion. Again ; faculties adapted to discover the path of duty, are one 
 thing ; the use of them so as effectually to do this, is another. The 
 former the apostle asserts ; the latter he denies. And justly ; for 
 after all, what have the heathen done and said, which renders the 
 gospel in any measure unnecessary ? Little indeed ; in some respects 
 we may say: Nothing. What authority had their precepts over 
 them ? And how was it with them as to doubts and difficulties about 
 some of the plainest principles of morality? Their minds were 
 blinded by their passions. Hence the voice within them was not 
 listened to ; but this does not prove that God left himself without 
 sufficient witness among them. The apostle most plainly and fully 
 asserts that he did not. 
 
 17 
 
130 ROMANS 2: 16. 
 
 (1G) ' Ev r^tQu .... dv&Qbmoiv, in the day when God shall judge 
 the secret things of men. But with what must we connect iv V[*tQu ? 
 Most commentators have said: 'With xpt{t?]oovTcu in v. 12, making 
 vs. 13, 14, 15, a parenthesis.' So Grotius, Limborch, Wolf, Knapp, 
 Griesbach, Winer, and others. This would then compare, as to 
 construction, with Rom. 1:2 — 6. 5: 13 — 18, and many other passages 
 in Paul's epistles. 
 
 Others, as Beza and Heumann, join iv Vfit'ga with 8exai(a&ti- 
 ooi'Tui at the end of v. 13, and make vs. 14, 15, a parenthesis. 
 
 Bengel and Chr. Schmidt join if i](iiQ($ with ivdeitcvvvrai in v. 
 15, making the sentiment to be, that in the day of judgment it will 
 appear manifest to all, that men's consciences have testified in favour 
 of the law of God, etc. 
 
 Somewhat different in sense from this, is the exegesis of Jerome, 
 Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, CEcumenius, Calvin, Erasmus, 
 and others ; viz. that iv WiQV stands connected immediately with 
 the participles xuTrjyopovvTcop and unoXoyoi^u'vojv' which makes 
 the passage to mean, that in the judgment day, the consciences of the 
 heathen will accuse them of all that Paul has charged upon them. 
 Several of these commentators, however, think that Paul means only 
 to say, that a fortiori their consciences will then accuse them ; with- 
 out meaning to say, that they do not accuse them in the present life. 
 
 To this last interpretation Tholuck seems to accede. But I 
 cannot accord with this exegesis, because the object of the writer, in 
 vs. 13 — 15, seems plainly to be merely a justification or confirmation 
 of what he had said in v. 12, viz. that the heathen who had no revela- 
 tion, still had a laio which they were bound to obey, and by which 
 they must be judged. How does Paul establish this? By an appeal 
 to the fact that they have a conscience or "a moral sense, and that 
 they pass judgment of a moral nature upon their own actions. To 
 say that this conscience and moral sense will be developed at the 
 judgment day, is saying what is not sufficiently apposite to his pur- 
 pose. At the judgment-day, the heathen will be tried by what? By 
 the law under which they were placed, and under which they acted, 
 in the present life. What was this law? That of conscience or 
 moral sense. Then the accusing and excusing, which are appealed 
 to as evidence of this moral sense, are exercised in the present world ; 
 i. e. its exercise here must of course be appealed to in order to sustain 
 the apostle's argument, by which he designs to establish their present 
 guilt. 
 
ROMANS 2: 16. 131 
 
 For these reasons I must accede to the prevailing opinion among 
 critics, viz. that if Vftf'pa is either to he joined with XQi\n)oovicu in 
 v. 12, and that vs. 13 — 15 are a parenthetic explanation or confirma- 
 tion of v. 12; or (which I think preferable) make vs. 11 — 15 paren- 
 thetic, and unite v. 16, iv v)fitga x.t. A., with v. 11. 
 
 To. y.ovjjzd augments the force of the affirmation: 'God will not 
 only bring into judgment the external actions of men, but all their 
 secret thoughts, desires, and affections.' Tholuck understands it as 
 referring to the secret judgment of the mind or conscience, mentioned 
 in the preceding verse, and makes the sense to be, that God will 
 bring into open judgment, all the secret judgments of the mind. But 
 does this accord with the nature of the case 1 It is not the moral 
 judgment of the mind, when it accords with the decisions of the 
 divine law (as is here supposed), which the apostle means to represent 
 as judged by God; for these are not matters of punishment, when 
 they are correct ; but it is the secret wickedness of men, as well as 
 their open vices, that will make the final judgment a time of awful 
 terror. That such a view of the subject is here intended, seems to 
 me quite plain ; and so Turretin, Flatt, and most others. To the 
 very same purpose Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 4: 5, where he represents 
 the day of judgment as the time, when God will bring to light xa 
 hqviuu tov oy.orovg .... y.al rag (jovXag nuc xagdtwv. 
 
 Kuid to tvuyyiliov iiov, according to the gospel which I preach; 
 compare 2 Tim. 2: 8. 1 Cor. 15: 1. Some have understood this of 
 a written gospel of the apostle ; but without any good critical or his- 
 torical evidence. 
 
 Aiu 'Jr t oov Xptozov, by Jesus Christ. Compare Acts 17: 31. 
 John 5: 27, 22. 17: 2. Acts 10: 42. 
 
 By affirming that God icill judge to. -/.gviird according to his 
 gospel, Paul seems to intimate, that a judgment-day is not plainly 
 revealed by the light of nature; or at least, that the extent of the sen- 
 tence which will be passed at that time, is not understood by the 
 heathen. Notions of reward and punishment, in some form or other, 
 belong to almost all the systems of heathenism ; but such explicit 
 views of a judgment-day as the gospel gives, are no where else to be 
 found. 
 
 As the secrets of all hearts are to be revealed and judged, in the 
 great day of trial, w^hat but Omniscience is capable of passing sentence? 
 To God alone is ascribed the power and prerogative of searching the 
 heart; see 1 Sam. 16: 7. 1 Chron. 28: 9. 29: 17. Ps. 7: 9. Jer. 11: 
 
1 32 ROMANS 2: 16, 17. 
 
 20. 17: JO. Rom. 8: 27. To Christ the same power is ascribed in 
 Acts 1: 24. Rev. 2: 23, besides the present passage. How can the 
 Supreme Judge of all the human race be less than omniscient ? How 
 can he do full and impartial justice, with any knowledge short of 
 omniscience ? 
 
 (17) The attentive reader cannot help observing the skill and 
 address, which Paul exhibits in this chapter. His object is, to shew 
 that his kinsmen the Jews are equally guilty with the Gentiles, or 
 even more so ; and consequently that salvation by grace is the only 
 salvation which is possible for them. But knowing the proud and 
 selfish feelings which the Jews possessed, in regard to this subject, he 
 does not assail them at once, but gradually, and with great address. 
 In vs. 1 — 8 of the present chapter, he discusses the subject on general 
 grounds, bringing forward considerations applicable either to Jew or 
 Gentile, but not once naming either. In vs. 9 — 16 he makes the 
 application of these considerations to both, and shews why both are 
 to be considered as transgressors of the divine law, the one having 
 sinned against the revelation contained in the Scriptures, the other 
 against that which the book of nature discloses. 
 
 But he has not yet done with the subject. Guilt is proportioned 
 to light and love abused. He ventures therefore, in the next place, to 
 prefer a heavier charge against the Jews, than he had done against 
 the Gentiles. He takes them on their own ground ; admitting, for 
 the sake of argument, all the claims to pre-eminence which they were 
 accustomed to advance ; and then he shews that these only increase 
 their guilt so much the more, in case of disobedience. 
 
 El d& . . . . inovofAaCrj, if now thou art surnamed Jew. The 
 reading ide\ (from which comes our English version behold), is found 
 in very few manuscripts, and is of no good authority. The only 
 difficulty with el di is, that it makes a ngwTaoig, to which there 
 seems, at first view, to be no corresponding anodwoig. However, 
 this is not in reality the case; for vs. 21 seq. make in substance an 
 apodosis. The relation between the two parts stands thus : ' If now 
 thou art called a Jew, etc., i. e. if thou dost in fact enjoy a high pre- 
 eminence as to privileges, .... still thou dost transgress the very law 
 which thou teachest, and of which thou dost make thy boast.' 
 
 Jovdulog, a name of honour, much coveted by the Jews ; comp. 
 Gal. 2 : 15. Phil. 3 : 5. Rev. 2 : 9. — 'EnovofxuCrj, more formal and 
 solemn than ovopa^y. It is appropriate also; inasmuch as 'JovduTog 
 is a surname, which may be added to the individual name of every 
 Hebrew. 
 
ROMANS 2: 17, 18. 133 
 
 jLnuvanuvri tw vOftm, thou rcstest upon the law, or thou leanest 
 upon the law. Eiiavanavo) corresponds to the Hebrew ys^\ , to 
 lean upon, to restore, to prop up one's self by ; see in the Sept. 2 K. 
 7: 2, 17, tnavtnaaiTO ly %£iQi aurov. This verb is also used in the 
 sense of adhering to; see 1 Mace. 8: 12. Either meaning gives a 
 good sense in the verse before us. I prefer the first, as being the 
 more usual sense of the word, and altogether apposite. The Jew 
 leaned upon the law, as defending his claims to precedence and to 
 acceptance with God. — Noftm of course means here the Mosaic law, 
 or the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 Kal .... &ftp, and gloriest in God ; i. e. dost claim to thyself 
 honour or glory, because Jehovah, the only living and true God, is 
 thy God ; compare Deut. 4: 7. Ps. 147: 19, 20. 2 Sam. 7: 23. It was 
 on this account, that the Jew felt himself so far elevated above the 
 Gentile, that he disdained all comparison with him. As to the con- 
 struction of KuviuGai with tv and the Dative case, see Wahl on the 
 word. 
 
 (18) Kal .... diacftgoviu, and art acquainted with [his] will, 
 and canst distinguish things that differ, Ttvcoay.fig, knowest, art 
 acquainted with, designates what the Jews were accustomed to say of 
 themselves ; or if viewed simply as a declaration of the apostle, the 
 meaning is : ' Thou hast the means of knowing, thou art instructed 
 in.' To -ittXripa, his toill; where almost all the commentators say 
 that avrov or tov &eov is to be supplied after &tkr t pa. But this 
 is unnecessary; for, as is well known, the article frequently has the 
 sense of a pronoun ; see Middleton on the Greek article, chap. I. § 3. 
 E. g. Acts 17: 28, tov yao ytvog tapev,for we are ofms ytvog. 
 
 Aoxiy.a£tiQ may mean, either to distinguish, or to approve; the 
 word having both these meanings in the New Testament and in the 
 classics. So diaqigoviu may mean, things that differ, or things that 
 excel; the usus loquendi in both senses being equally certain. Tho- 
 luck explains the phrase as meaning : ' Thou approvest the things 
 which are excellent.' I prefer the other sense, because the idea of 
 knowledge or instruction is the one here intended to be urged ; as is 
 plain from the sequel. Such being the case, to distinguish things 
 that differ is more characteristic of this, than the other rendering, 
 and therefore more appropriate. Things that differ, are virtue and 
 vice, i. e. lawful and unlawful, praiseworthy and base things. 
 
 KaTt%ovp.ivog tx tov vopov, being instructed by the law; i. e. 
 being taught or enlightened by the Scriptures. 
 
134 ROMANS 2: 19—21. 
 
 (19) ITenof&dg ts . . . . oxortt, and thou art confident that thou 
 thyself art a guide of the blind, a light to those who are in darkness. 
 This is figurative language, designed to shew, in a strong light, the 
 claims to superiority over the Gentiles, which were made by the Jews. 
 A guide to the blind signifies one who is an instructer by means of 
 superior knowledge ; i. e. an instructer of those who are in a state of 
 gross ignorance, viz. the Gentiles; see Matt. 15: 14. — (I)mg twv tv 
 oxorfi, the same idea by the use of another figure. Compare Is. 49: 
 6. Luke 2: 32. John 1: 8, 9, 4, 5, respecting the signification of the 
 word light. Zv.('nog here, as often elsewhere, designates a state of 
 ignorance. 
 
 (20) Huidtmrjv .... vtjnloiv, an instructer of the ignorant, a 
 teacher of little children. "^IqQtov means one who has not mental 
 skill or consideration ; secondarily, an ignorant person. — Nrjnlfav of 
 course here means, children of such an age as that they may receive 
 instruction. I have therefore rendered it little children, in preference 
 to babes, which naturally designates those not sufficiently mature for 
 instruction. 
 
 "L'%oi'Tcc . ... tt> ioi vofxw, having the delineation of true know- 
 ledge in the Scriptures. IMonqmoiv may be used in a bad or good 
 sense. In a bad sense it occurs in 2 Tim. 3: 5, where the form ({ioq- 
 qojati') of godliness is opposed to the power of it, i. e. hypocritical 
 pretences to piety are opposed to the real exercise of it. But the verb 
 [togqoto is used in a good sense, in Gal. 4: 19, ' until Christ f.iogqo)&ri 
 be formed in you.' The synonyme of /.loyqwoig, viz. vnorvnoiaig, is 
 used in a good sense 2 Tim. 1: 13, ' hold fast vnorvnojoig of sound 
 doctrine,' etc. Mogqoioig means form, external appearance; also 
 delineation, sketch, i. e. imitated form. I understand it in the good 
 sense, i. e. as meaning delineation, in our verse, because the apostle 
 is enumerating the supposed, or rather the acknowledged, advantages 
 of the Jews. One of these was, that true knowledge, (in distinction 
 from the philosophy falsely so called of the Greeks), was in their 
 possession, or at least in their power. 
 
 Trjg yvo'iGtwg xul rijg ahjirdag, of true knowledge; a Hendiadys, 
 in which the latter noun qualifies the former. The meaning of the 
 whole is : ' Est tibi vera sapientia in lege adumbrata.' 
 
 (21) O ovv .... dtd'aoxttg ; dost thou, then, who teachest others, 
 not instruct thyself? This forms the apodosis to the protasis which 
 commenced with el dt in v. 17. Argumentum ad hominem ; for it is 
 as much as to say : ' Thou pridest thyself in thy superior knowledge, 
 
ROMANS 2:21—23. 135 
 
 and requirest all others to sit at thy feet in the humble capacity of 
 learners ; making these lofty professions, art thou thyself ignorant of 
 what thou professest to know V The apostle implies by this, that 
 many of the Jews were criminally ignorant. 
 
 'O x?ipvoocov .... xfo'nrtig; thou who proclaimest that [men] 
 must not steal, dost thou steal? Dost thou practise the very vice, 
 against which thou dost so loudly protest ? 
 
 (22) O Xtywv .... iioi%tvii?; thou ivho forbiddest to commit 
 adultery, dost thou conunit adultery ? A crime very common among 
 the Jews ; for even the Talmud accuses some of the most celebrated 
 Rabbies of this vice. 
 
 'O fid'ilrooofiti'og .... hgoauXiTg; dost thou who abhorrest 
 idols, commit robbery in sacred things ? Since the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity, the Jews have always expressed the greatest abhorrence of 
 idolatry. But still, the real criminality of idolatry consists in taking 
 from the only living and true God that which belongs to him, and 
 bestowing it upon something which is worthless and vain. Now the 
 Jews, who were prone to keep back tithes and offerings (Mai. 1: 8, 
 12, 13, 14. 3: 10. Mark 7: 11), by so doing robbed God of that 
 which was due to him, notwithstanding they professed a great abhor- 
 rence of this. I apprehend, however, that the word hpoavXeJg is 
 here used in a wider extent than this interpretation simply considered 
 would imply; viz. in the latitude of designating every kind of act 
 which denies to God his sovereign honours and claims. 
 
 The exegesis of this word, which assigns to it a literal sense, viz. 
 that of committing sacrilege, i. e. of robbing the temples of idols, and 
 converting their riches to individual use, (contrary to the precept in 
 Deut. 7: 25), is wanting in respect to a historical basis for its support. 
 When and where were the Jews accustomed to act in this manner? 
 Yet Chrysostom, Theophylact, Le Clerc, Koppe, and others, have 
 defended this interpretation. 
 
 (23) Og tv . . . . aztiiu£eig; thou, who gloriest in the law, by the 
 transgression of the law dost thou dishonour God? For the construc- 
 tion of Y.avyaoat, zv vOfiqi, see on v. 17. As God was the author of 
 the law, or supreme legislator, so the transgression of it was a dishon- 
 ouring of him, a contemning or setting light by his authority. For 
 the form of y.avyuaui (second pers. sing. pres. Middle voice), see 
 Buttmann's Gramm. § 93. III. 1. 2. Winer's N. Test. Gramm. § 13. 
 2. b; and comp. in Matt. 5. 36. 8: 2. Mark 1: 40. 9: 22. Luke 16: 
 25. 1 Cor. 4: 7. Rom. 11: 18, the like forms. The ending -uocci for 
 
130 ROMANS 2:24,25. 
 
 the second person singular, is the ancient one, out of which the usual 
 ending is made by contraction and dropping the a. 
 
 (24) To yug .... ytygunxui, for the name of God is blasphemed 
 by you, or on your account, among the Gentiles; as it is written. Fug 
 con fir mantis. — At vfiug may mean, by you as authors or agents; like 
 Cm d'tu xov nuTf'ga, vivo, Patre vita? mecc auctore, John. 6: 57. So 
 £t'jG(Tat di ifie, ibid., et sic alibi ; see Bretschn. Lex. d'tu, II. 1. At 
 vpug may also mean, on your account, i. e. you being the cause or 
 ground of the blasphemy in question. The latter would, at first, 
 seem to be the most probable meaning here ; and this accords with 
 the general usage of diu ' yet the apostle appears to have had in his 
 mind Ezek. 36: 23, where the charge is made against the Jews them- 
 selves, of profaning God's name among the Gentiles. The passage 
 in Is. 52: 5 does not seem apposite, (although this is usually referred 
 to as the one which is here quoted) ; for in this last passage, the Jews 
 are not represented as criminal; it is the heathen who blaspheme the 
 name of Jehovah, (so I understand 3>K2» " , att3 Bi^B^bS T^ni), 
 because he permitted the Jews to be led away captive. On the con- 
 trary, in Ezek. 36: 23, the Jews themselves are guilty of the crime 
 alleged. And the like sense is demanded in the verse before us. 
 
 As to Iv io7g t'dvtoi, it is merely circumstantial. It appears to 
 be cited here, because it stands connected in the original Hebrew 
 with the rest of the sentiment. The fact that the Jews themselves 
 dishonour the name of God, is that which the apostle means to de- 
 clare ; not where they do so, nor whom they may occasion to do so. 
 The apostle does not cite the passage in order to prove (in the proper 
 sense of this word) the allegation which he had made; but merely to 
 illustrate and confirm it. It is as much as to say : ' I bring no new 
 charge against you ; the same thing in substance was said, long ago, 
 by one of your own prophets.' 
 
 (25) IlegiTOf-a] .... Tigu<mr t g, circumcision indeed is profitable, 
 if thou dost obey the law. Mtv here belongs to the protasis ; the 
 apodosis of which commences with £ui> da.- Of yug we may say : 
 Orationi continuandce inservit ; but here the formula ftiv yug is con- 
 cessive as well as continuative ; it is as much as to say : ' I grant, 
 indeed, that there is some truth in what you allege, viz. that circum- 
 cision is of advantage, or is a privilege.' Iligizofii}, circumcision, 
 includes the idea of being a member of the Jewish commonwealth, 
 and entitled to all the external privileges of the same. The sign 
 here stands for the thing signified. ' I grant,' says the apostle, ' that 
 
ROMANS 2:25—27. 137 
 
 the privileges attached to being a Jew are important, provided any 
 one obeys the law by which the Jews are bound, so that he thereby 
 becomes entitled to the blessings promised only to the obedient.' 
 
 *Euv di . . . . ytvovtv, but if thou bccomcst a transgressor of the 
 law, thy circumcision becomes uncircumcision; i. e. if thou dost not 
 obey the law, then the privileges to which thou art entitled as a Jew, 
 will not save thee ; thou wilt not be considered or treated as any 
 better than an uncircumcised person, i. e. a Gentile or heathen man. 
 In a word, not external privileges or pre-eminence, in themselves 
 considered, but the use which is made of them, entitles any one to 
 divine approbation or favour. 
 
 How much the Jews attributed to circumcision, is strikingly illus- 
 trated in a passage of the Talmud (Shemoth Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 
 118): "Said Rabbi Berachias, When heretical, apostate, and impi- 
 ous Jews say : ' We cannot go down to hell because we are circum- 
 cised ;' what does the blessed God do ? He sends his angel, et 
 praeputia eorum attrahit, ut ipsi preputiati [uncircumcised] in infer- 
 num descendant." 
 
 (26) Eav ovf .... cpvXaoot], if then the uncircumcised keep the 
 precepts of the law. 'ytiiQO^vGxia, abstract for concrete, as exhibited 
 in the translation. — Aiy.ai(af.iuru, precepts, E^ttSttJa . 
 
 Ovyl i) . . . XoyiofttiosTut; shall not his uncircumcision be counted 
 for circumcision ? That is, shall not he, in a heathen state, be 
 accepted as readily as a Jew who obeys in a state of circumcision ? 
 In other words : Neither circumcision, nor the want of it, determines 
 our deserts in the view of our Maker and Judge; but a spirit of filial 
 obedience. " If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." — Elq 
 ■jitgiTOpi'jv is after the Hebrew analogy, which puts b before a noun 
 designating that into which another thing has been changed, or 
 which it has become, e.g. tPSJSjNtb Brfjtt, be men, 1 Sam. 4:9; 
 ' Jehovah made the rib iTiZJNb , a woman, Gen. 2: 22. 
 
 (27) Kcd XQivel .... iilovocc, yea, he tvho keeps the law in his 
 natural uncircumcised state, shall condemn. Kul affir mantis. Ex 
 tpvoetog coining between the article and its following noun, takes of 
 course the place of an adjective. Ovaig plainly means here, what we 
 call a state of nature, in distinction from a state in which a revelation 
 is enjoyed. The apostle states here, and in the preceding verse, a 
 principle for illustration merely ; he does not aver, that what he 
 describes is matter of historical fact; for this would contradict the 
 whole tenor and object of his reasoning in general, which is to shew 
 
 18 
 
138 ROMANS 2 : 27—29. 
 
 that all men without exception have sinned, and therefore that all with- 
 out exception must be saved by grace through faith in Christ, and can 
 be saved only in this way. The efforts to prove from such passages 
 as the present, that there have been heathen who kept the whole law 
 of God, are surely fruitless. The main argument of the apostle him- 
 self falls to the ground, if this be once admitted. It seems quite plain, 
 that the whole is merely a supposed case ; supposed for the sake of 
 illustrating a principle; and in the process of argumentation, nothing 
 is more common than this. 
 
 •2V top .... vofiov, [condemn] thee who art a transgressor of the 
 law, although enlightened by the Scriptures, and a partaker of circum- 
 cision. Aid ygdppazog y.al negiroprig, here coming between the 
 article tov and its corresponding noun 7i«o«/?Kr>^, evidently perform 
 the office of adjectives qualifying naguQdi^v. The did here is did 
 conditionis vel status, if I may so speak. Aid is not unfrequently 
 placed before nouns which designate state or condition; e. g. Rom. 
 4: 11, those who believe dt' dxgofivGTtag, in an uncircumcised state ; 
 2 Cor. 2: 4, I have written this did nolXtov daxQvcov, in a state of 
 much weeping ; 2 Cor. 5: 10, that every one may receive to. diu tov 
 oojfiarog, [according to] the things done in a bodily state ; Heb. 9: 12. 
 2 Pet. 1: 3. 1 John 5: 6; see Bretschn. Lex. did, I. 2. c. The idea 
 intended to be conveyed by the apostle, is quite plain ; viz. ' If a 
 Gentile should do what the law requires, would not this shew that 
 you are worthy of condemnation who transgress the law, although 
 you enjoy the light of revelation and the privileges which a state of 
 circumcision confers V 
 
 (28) Ov ydg . . . ionv,for he is not a Jew, who is one externally ; 
 i. e. he who is descended from Abraham, is circumcised, and enjoys 
 the privileges of a written revelation, is not a Jew in the important 
 and spiritual sense of this word ; he is merely an external (not an 
 internal) Jew. The grammatical construction completed without any 
 ellipsis, would be, 6 ii> to> quvtoo) [ /ovdu~og], ovx Iovduiog iorii>. 
 
 Ovdi r] Iv , . . . Tifgnoittj, nor is that which is external, [merely] 
 in the flesh, circumcision ; i. e. that is not circumcision in its high 
 and true sense, which is merely external, which pertains merely to 
 the flesh. The sentence filled out would read thus : oiid'i r\ iv iw 
 tfuvegoj [ntgizof.1)]], iv oagy.1 [nig it opt]], jugizopi] \_iqti\, i. e. true 
 ■negiioinq. 
 
 (29) AW o iv . . . . 'Jovdulog, but he who is a Jew in the hidden 
 part, i. e. who is spiritually or internally a Jew, such an one only 
 
ROMANS 2:29. 139 
 
 deserves the appellation Jovda7og. The clause filled out would 
 stand thus : all 6 iv rw y.gvnioi 'Jovdaiog, [' lovdulog ioiti] ; 
 which latter clause the mind of the writer supplied from the first part 
 ofv. 28. 
 
 A at TitpiTOiuj .... yya/.t/.tuTi, and the circumcision of the heart, 
 a spiritual not a literal one, [is the true circumcision.] There is the 
 same ellipsis here, as in the preceding clause, TMyiiofu] ionv being 
 understood after ov ygaf.if.iaTi. The words nveVftuTi ov yguftftan, 
 CEcumenius, Grotius, and most interpreters construe as referring to 
 the Holy Spirit and to the precepts of the law ; i. e. circumcision of 
 the heart wrought by the operation of the Holy Spirit, not by follow- 
 ing merely the literal precepts of the law r . The sense is good, and 
 the doctrine true; but I apprehend that the writer here uses nvfv- 
 fiari. and ygafifiaTt merely as adjectives or adverbs to characterize 
 more graphically the negiTOfitj y.agdiag which he had just mentioned. 
 
 Ou 6 anaivog .... {Itov, tohose praise is not of men, but of God; 
 that is, the praise of the Jew, who is truly a Jew after the hidden or 
 internal man, is not of men, but of God. " Man looketh on the 
 outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart." The Jews 
 considered it as a great privilege and a ground of high pre-eminence 
 over others, that they were descended from Abraham, were circum- 
 cised, and were entrusted with the Scriptures. ' All this,' says the 
 apostle, ' does not entitle them, in the least degree, to the praise of 
 God. The state of the heart, in the internal man, is what he con- 
 siders ; and this alone is of any real moral value in his sight.' ' You,' 
 says he, ' who are nothing more than external Jews, are not Jews in 
 the high and noble sense which will make you to be heirs of the 
 grace of life or of the promises of God. You have, because of your 
 external privileges, no pre-eminence over the heathen, on the score 
 of moral accountability. All men, in regard to such an accountabil- 
 ity, stand on a level ; for each will be judged according to the law 
 under which he acted ; the Gentiles, by the law of nature ; the Jews, 
 by revelation.' 
 
140 ROMANS 3: 1. 
 
 CHAP. III. 1—20. 
 
 Nothing was more natural than for the Jew, who had conceived the most 
 exalted notions of the advantages to which he was entitled from his external 
 privileges, to feel strong objections to such a representation of the apostle, as 
 reduced Jews and Gentiles to a level in a moral respect. It was to be expected 
 that the Jew would indignantly ask, (and so the apostle represents him as 
 asking) : ' Of what advantage then can Judaism be, provided you make a 
 correct representation of the case?' v. 1. To this the apostle replies in v. 2, 
 stating that the benefit of more light was conferred by such a privilege. But 
 the Jew, not satisfied with a claim to pre-eminence of this kind, further 
 inquires, how the apostle's views could be reconciled with God's fidelity to 
 the promises which lie had made to the Jews, v. 3. The apostle replies, that 
 this fidelity must not for a moment be called in question, but that we must 
 adopt the sentiment of David (Fs. 51: 4) in regard to this, v. 4. The Jew, still 
 dissatisfied, urges further questions, by which he intends to hedge up the 
 apostle's way : ' If the sins of the Jewish nation serve to render more conspic- 
 uous the justice of God, is it not unjust that he should punish us ?' v. 5. Not 
 at all, replies the apostle; for on the same ground you might object to the 
 truth, that God will judge the world, and of course punish the wicked ; for 
 his justice will in this be displayed in such a way as to redound to his glory, 
 v. G. The Jew, still dissatisfied, asks : ' If God's faithfulness becomes more 
 conspicuous by my unfaithfulness, why should I be condemned?' v. 7. To 
 this the apostle replies, that he might just as well say : ' Let us do evil that good 
 may come ;' which in fact some did charge him with saying, but they deserved 
 condemnation for so doing, v. 8. 
 
 The Jew again asks, with evident disappointment: 'How then have we 
 Jews any pre-eminence over the Gentiles?' To which the apostle replies: 
 You have none, in respect to the matter that I am discussing. All are sinners. 
 Your own Scriptures do abundantly bear testimony that your nation are 
 transgressors, as well as the heathen. Prophets of different ages have borne 
 testimony to this point ; and testimony which conveys charges of the most 
 aggravated nature, vs. 10 — 18. Now as what is thus said in the Scriptures 
 was plainly said concerning the Jews, it follows, that your own sacred books 
 bear testimony to the same doctrine which I affirm to be true. Consequently 
 the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God, v. 19. It follows 
 from this, that salvation in any other way than by gratuitous pardon through 
 Christ, is altogether impossible, v. 20. 
 
 (1) Tl oiiv . . . . 'Jovdalov; tvhat advantage then hath the Jew? 
 or, what pre-eminence hath the Jew? — Oui>, then, is very often joined 
 with ri in interrogatives. It signifies as much as to say : ' Allowing 
 what you affirm, then how can this or that take place ; or, how can it 
 be so or so?' etc. — IUqigoov signifies that which exceeds or abounds, 
 precedence, pracstantia. Sentiment : ' If what you say be true, then 
 how is the Jew in any better condition than the Gentile, or what pre- 
 eminence has he over him V 
 
 jffzlg .... TifptrOjU?;?, or tvhat is the advantage of circumcision, 
 or tvhat is the use of circumcision ? That is, if the Jew is subject to 
 the same condemning sentence as the Gentile, of what use is the rite 
 of circumcision, and the relation in which it places him to the people 
 of God ? 
 
ROMANS 3: 2. 141 
 
 (2) TIoXv .... TQonov, much [advantage] in many respects, or 
 in every respect. Rendered in this latter way, tiuvtu would refer of 
 course to something in the preceding context; and every respect 
 would mean, every one already touched upon, e. g. in 2: IT — 23. 
 Literally interpreted, -nuvra must mean in all respects. But the real 
 sense of the phrase here is better given by the translation, in various 
 or many respects, in a variety of ways. 
 
 UtjojTOP piv yag .... ihov, the principal one however, is, that 
 they were entrusted with the oracles of God. Beza renders ngutzov, 
 primarium Mud est quod. But Tholuck takes the piv which follows 
 TjQLOTOi', to be the piv of a protasis, to which indeed no apodosis suc- 
 ceeds. He says, that 'it agrees well with the fire of Paul's mind, to 
 regard him as having forgotten what was to follow, or to have con- 
 sidered the first thing here suggested as adequate to his purpose, 
 without suggesting any more.' But I must at least feel greater neces- 
 sity than I see here, before I can adopt such a solution. FIqmiov 
 clearly means, in some cases, imprimis, maxime omnium, particularly , 
 specially, most of all ; e. g. Matt. 6: 33. Luke 12: 1. 2 Pet. 1: 20. 3: 
 3. 1 Tim. 2: 1. In these cases, it does not signify first in such a 
 sense as implies a second in order, but first as most eminent, or as 
 the most important thing; like the Hebrew rViZJen. , e. g. rPUJNn 
 C"]iil, the most distinguished of nations, Num. 24: 20. Amos 6: 6. 
 — Tholuck further suggests, that piv renders it probable that a. pro- 
 tasis is here intended, although he does not think this decisive. And 
 truly it is not decisive ; for piv is not unfrequently used absolutely, 
 i. e. without any Si following, both in the classical writers and in 
 the books of the New Testament; e. g. Rom. 11: 13. 2 Cor. 12: 12. 
 1 Thess. 2: 18. Rom. 7: 12. 10: 1, where " explicationi inservit ;" 
 and so piv yag in Acts 28: 22. 2 Cor. 9:1. 11 : 4. Heb. 6 : 16. 7: 
 18; pin ovv, Acts 26: 9. 1 Cor. 6: 4, 7, et alibi. Miv yag, in cases 
 such as those just cited, seems evidently designed to answer the place 
 of the Latin quidem, equidem, i. e. to give intensity to a declaration; 
 and piv may in such cases be called piv intensivum, or ptv conces- 
 sivum, viz. implying that what is asserted, is supposed to be conceded ; 
 or at least that the speaker thinks it plainly ought to be conceded. 
 
 So in the case before us, pin yag implies, that the principal 
 advantage [ngwzov] of the Jew, it must be conceded, lay in his 
 superior illumination on account of having the gift of a revelation 
 bestowed upon him. We may translate (ad sensum) thus: 'The 
 most important advantage, as you must concede, is, that,' etc. ; or, 
 
142 ROMANS 3: 2, 3. 
 
 'The most important advantage, indeed, is,' etc.; both having sub- 
 stantially the same sense. 
 
 "On .... dfov is not to be construed by taking loyia as a Nom- 
 inative, for it is the Accusative after tniaTiidfjoav. It is a principle 
 in the Greek language, that where a verb in its active voice governs 
 the Accusative of a thing and the Dative of a. person, the Accusative 
 is retained after a verb of the passive voice. Such is the case with 
 morevo)' see Luke 16: 11. John 2 : 24 ; compare for the passive 
 voice, 1 Cor. 9: 17. Gal. 2: 7. 1 Thess. 2: 4. 1 Tim. 1: 11. Tit. 1: 3. 
 So frequently in the classics ; see Wahl's Lex. in verb. Winer's N. 
 Test. Gramm. § 40. 1. ed. 3d. 
 
 yloyiu, oracles, like the '"Hn of the Hebrews, means any kind of 
 divine response or communication, cffatum divinum. 
 
 In regard to the sentiment itself, it is as much as to say, that more 
 light and better spiritual advantages were bestowed upon the Jews, 
 than upon the Gentiles. Access to the Scriptures would give more 
 light ; and in consequence of the state in which revelation placed 
 them, to them were made the first offers of the gospel. 
 
 (3) Tl yap ; what then ? The usual mode of asking questions, 
 yuo being very often joined with an interrogation. It seems to be 
 yuo intensivum, in most of such cases; as Acts 10: 37, ov yug, not 
 at all, 2 Tim. 2: 7. Job 0: S. Phil. 1: 18. In the present case, yug 
 seems to have a reference to what had been said in the preceding 
 verse. The course of thought appears to be thus: ' What then shall 
 we say to this, viz. to that which I am now going to suggest?' That 
 is: 'Allowing what you have said to be true, then if some of the Jews 
 were unfaithful, as you intimate, would not this detract from the 
 veracity of the divine promises ?' 
 
 El riniorrfiav .... xaiuoyqoei ; if some were unfaithful, will 
 their unfaithfulness render void the faithfulness of God? That is, if 
 some of the Jews have apostatized, and are in no better condition 
 than the heathen, how will this consist with the fidelity of God as to 
 his promises made to the Jewish nation? — HtiIot^ouv is from ccnio- 
 ts'w which comes again from uhiotoq, unfaithful, (ncOTog often 
 means faithfid). ' AnKSxita, therefore, means not to be niorog, 
 i. q. to be unfaithful, treacherous, etc. The meaning is: If the Jews 
 disregarded, i. e. would not receive and obey, divine revelation, etc. — 
 TItoi iv, fidelity , faithfulness in heeping promises ; compare Matt. 23: 
 23, and perhaps Gal. 5: 22. 1 Tim. 1: 5, 19. Rev. 2: 19. 13: 10. 
 
 Mr\ ytvoixo, hoc minime eveniat! Let not this be supposed; or 
 
ROMANS 3 : 3, 4. 143 
 
 not at all, by no means! Optative of yho/nat joined with a negative. 
 This should be included in v. 4. The Hebrew ni^rn corresponds 
 to this. 
 
 (4) Ih'f'oOco Si .... xpsvartjg, but let God be accounted true, 
 although every man be impeached of falsehood. 'yJltjOt'ig means 
 veracious, faithful to his word or promise. — Wevaryg is the opposite 
 of u\rj{)}jg. The meaning is: Let God be regarded as faithful, al- 
 though all men should thereby be deemed guilty of unfaithfulness; 
 i. e. much more becoming and proper is it, that men should impute 
 unfaithfulness to themselves, than to God. 
 
 To confirm the pious sentiment which he had just uttered, the 
 apostle appeals to an expression of David (Ps. 51: 7), where, in signi- 
 fying his penitence in view of his past transgressions, he says (Sept. 
 Ps. 50: 4) : " Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in 
 thy sight, bnojg uv .... xplveo&ai (7? , so that thou mayest be justified 
 when thou speakest, or in thy tvords (^~0*13), and be clear when thou 
 judgest or condemncst." The Psalmist means to say, that as he had 
 sinned in a grievous manner against God, so God is to be justified 
 altogether, when he reproves him for his sin, and pronounces against 
 it the sentence of condemnation. The like use would Paul make of 
 the sentiment contained in these words. ' Let us not,' says he, ' at- 
 tempt to justify ourselves, when we are accused of being unfaithful ; 
 but let us justify God in all respects, when he condemns our conduct 
 and vindicates his own.' 
 
 Ev roig loyoig oov means, when thou utterest reproof or condem- 
 nation ; i. e. the connection in which it stands, of necessity gives it 
 such a turn. — Ntxijarjg, mightest overcome, Heb. !"l3Tn, mightest be 
 pure, i. e. mightest be adjudged to be pure, held to be guiltless or 
 faultless. He who, in a judicial contest, was adjudged to be pure or 
 guiltless, of course was the victor ; and on this account the Septua- 
 gint vixrjGyg (adopted by the apostle) is a translation of the Hebrew 
 ad sensum, although not ad verbum. 
 
 ' Ev Tot -AQivtoOui ae, Flatt and others construe as being in the 
 passive voice. But the sense does not require it ; or rather, it does 
 not seem to me to admit it. The Hebrew runs thus: n"0*i!2 .... 
 *{tg&2Ja , when thou speakest .... when thou judgest. So xphoftao 
 in the middle voice, means not only to strive ivith, to implead, etc., 
 but also to judge, prove, decide, condemn, etc. ; see Passow, xqivoj, b. 
 4 — 6. There is no difficulty, therefore, in following the literal sense 
 of the Hebrew, by rendering xyli/to&ai as belonging to the middle 
 voice. 
 
144 ROMANS 3: 4, 5. 
 
 Sentiment : ' Whenever God speaks by way of reproving or con- 
 demning men, let him be accounted altogether just, and let him be 
 fully vindicated.' 
 
 (5) El di .... ovvioT7]Gi, but if our unrighteousness commend the 
 righteousness of God. At " addit vim interrogation!, et usurpatur 
 prssertim interrogatione repetita," Bretschn. Lex. dt. 3. b. The 
 sense of dt is plainly adversative here. — Adixt'a is here the generic 
 appellation of sin, for which a specific name (utiiotiu) was employed 
 in v. 3, and \ptvO[.<a is used in v. 7. In like manner, the datatoowi] 
 in v. 5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one 
 (nioriv) in v. 3, and by uhj&fia in v. 7. The idea is substantially 
 the same, which is designated by these respectively corresponding ap- 
 pellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity, are designated by tiIgiiv, 
 8b7.ai0Gvvr}V) and ukrj&iia' while aniaria, udf/.iu, and ytuouuri, 
 designate unfaithfulness, leant of uprightness , and false dealing. All 
 of these terms have more or less reference to the rP^.S , covenant or 
 compact (so to speak), which existed between God and his ancient 
 people. But in the present verse, they are to be taken in a sense 
 somewhat more enlarged. 
 
 Ar/.aioouvt]v fitov does not here mean, (as it does in most cases 
 where it is used in this epistle), the justif cation which is of God; it 
 designates the divine justice, as the context clearly shews. For here 
 the apostle (or theobjector) is speaking of that attribute of God, which, 
 is concerned with the judging and punishing of offenders. Of course, 
 the retributive justice of God must be understood by diy.uioavvr}v 
 ■freov. 
 
 £viioTi]Oi,sets off to advantage, shews forth, renders conspicuous. 
 — Ti ioovfitv; ivhat shall we say? That is, how can we persevere 
 in maintaining, that the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation will be 
 cast off, so long as even their very unbelief will be instrumental in 
 setting off to more advantage, or in rendering more conspicuous, the 
 retributive justice of God, and so of causing the more glory to his 
 name? The equivalent of rl igovptv, is common in the Rabbinic 
 writings, where it runs thus : "Wlgb N^^N *H72 , quid est dicendum ? 
 This is usually expressed by the abbreviation rN/2 . 
 
 Mr\ tidr/.og .... ogyr]v; is God unjust, ivho inflicts punishment? 
 If the interrogation were here made by f.n) ou, is not, etc., the solu- 
 tion of the sentence would be easy. But jmjj corresponds to the Latin 
 num, nc, and asks a question to which a negative answer is usually 
 expected as a matter of course. The Attics employed it, however, 
 
ROMANS 3: 5. 14; 
 
 with somewhat greater liberty, and in cases where a negative answer 
 did not of course follow. On the contrary, ov is used in an interro- 
 gation, where an affirmative answer is of course expected. For an 
 example of both cases : Mv\ d'oxtl not jouio tivui tvt]{ftg ; Docs this 
 seem to you foolish? Ans.no. Ovv.ul v.vXov Iqxv to uyuflov; Is not 
 a good thing something excellent? Ans. yes. We cannot translate, 
 therefore, as Turretin and many others have done : Nonne injustus 
 Dcus, dum infert iram? i. e. is not God unjust, etc.? This would 
 indeed make the sentiment more easy and intelligible, when viewed 
 as coming from the objector ; for that it is to be attributed to him, 
 appears from the sequel, xur' avQ{jo}nov Itya, After all, however, 
 nearly the same sentiment comes out of the passage in another way. 
 The objector asks: Ti tyuufisv ; If now we suppose him to continue 
 his interrogation, as plainly he does, we may then fill up the ellipsis 
 in the next clause thus : Jb) [igovptv on] 6 &£og /.. t. I. The inti- 
 mation is this : ' Shall we say, then, as according to your suggestions 
 we must necessarily be led to say, that God is unjust who inflicts 
 punishment?' The answer of course is, No. Or (to use other 
 words) : l Must we come to this, viz. that we should find it to be 
 necessary to tax God with injustice, when he punishes V For to such 
 a conclusion (as the objector means to intimate), the principles of 
 the apostle seem to lead. 
 
 As to the immediate occasion of such a question, on the part of 
 the objector, the sentiment of the preceding verse seems to have fur- 
 nished it. God, says the apostle, is to be justified in his condemning; 
 yea, he is altogether to be vindicated in it, even if all men are by him 
 found guilty of unfaithful and treacherous dealing. ' But,' replies the 
 objector, 'on your ground we may go on and say, that glory redounds 
 to God because of such dealing on the part of men ; for this gives 
 opportunity for God to display his justice to greater advantage than it 
 could otherwise have been displayed. Why not, now, carry these 
 considerations forward, and come to the result to which they would 
 naturally lead ? Why not conclude, that God is unjust when he 
 inflicts punishment ? For this would seem to be a necessary conse- 
 quence, if it be true that his justice is displayed to the greatest advan- 
 tage by reason of the wickedness of men, and he thus gets to himself 
 the more honour and glory.' 
 
 Tholuck attributes py 6 fteog v.. t. A. to the apostle himself, as an 
 answer to the preceding question. But the xard uv&gomov Xtyot 
 19 
 
146 ROMANS 3:5,6. 
 
 and the fit] ytvouo which follow, seem to me clearly to decide 
 against this. 
 
 Kuxu av&QbiTiov Ityw, 1 speak after the manner of men; i. e. I 
 speak as men are often accustomed to do. The expression itself is 
 general ; but the class of men whom the writer has in his mind here, 
 are plainly the objectors to his doctrine. The expression xutu 
 uvftQomov Xi'yoj may mean : I speak more hamano, i. e. in such a 
 manner as is intelligible to men, in such language as men may com- 
 prehend ; so uvdgcomvov Xiyw, in Rom. 6: 19; and naru av&Qomov 
 Xe'yw, in Gal. 3: 15. In the sense first attributed to the phrase, the 
 Greek and Latin writers often use the like expression ; e. g. Aristoph. 
 Ranse, v. 1090, bv yjjf] tpQtt&tv ccv&gcimfiug, which one must describe 
 in a way that is usual among men; Athen. Deipnos. Tom. III. Lib. 
 IX. 29, av&QwmvoZq ku).t7v, to speak like other folks. So Cicero : 
 hominum more clicere, de Div. II. 64. In like manner the Rabbins, 
 when they wish to express what is commonly understood or affirmed 
 by men in general, say: "^N ^"ijONT 1^3, as men usually affirm 
 or say. 
 
 (6) Mt] ytvoiro, by no means. This is the negative answer, 
 given by the apostle to the question : J\h) udixog x. r. A. 
 
 End ncog .... xoo/nov; otherwise, how shall God judge the 
 world? i. e. if it is not to be denied that God is unjust, or if we must 
 concede that he is unjust, then how shall we admit the doctrine of a 
 future or general judgment? — 'Enel, otherwise; comp. Rom. 11: 6, 
 22. 1 Cor. 5: 10. 7: 14. 14: 16. 15: 29. Heb. 10: 2, et alibi. The 
 question, ' How shall God judge the world V is founded on the con- 
 cessions or established opinion of the Jews respecting a judgment- 
 day, which were well known to the apostle. The expression implies 
 as much as to say : ' You Jews concede that there will be a time of 
 judgment, when God will punish the wicked and reward the right- 
 eous. But how can this be, if your objections have any force ? The 
 retributive justice of God will be rendered conspicuous, when the 
 wicked shall be condemned and punished, and God will be glorified 
 thereby, just as in the present case ; if this then be a reason why God 
 should not punish, it is a reason why there should be no judgment; 
 and in order to be consistent, you must deny this also.' 
 
 In this way we see, that the argument of the apostle is in a man- 
 ner ad hominem, being founded on the concessions and established 
 opinion of the Jews ; which, however, in this instance, was in itself 
 a well founded and correct opinion. 
 
ROMANS 3: 7, 8. 147 
 
 (7) El yaQ .... avTOv, still, if the truth of God has abounded 
 the more unto his glory, on account of my false deeding. Tholuck 
 understands these to be the words of the apostle. To me they 
 appear very plainly to be words which he attributes to the objector. 
 The ydo at the beginning of the verse, points to a connection with 
 v. 5, and denotes a continuance of the same theme, and is yao con- 
 
 Jirmantis, i. e. it is placed before a sentence by which the objector 
 endeavors to fortify his own opinion. This yug does not so naturally 
 attach itself to v. C. As to cdr]fttia and tyivai-iuTi, see on v. 5. 
 Ah]ftiiu here means, God's faithful dealings with his people, both 
 in his threats and promises; xptvof-iaxi means, their unfaithfulness 
 as to his covenant, their false and treacherous dealings in respect to 
 their vows and obligations. Sentiment : ' If the veracity and faith- 
 fulness of God are rendered more conspicuous, and this unto his own 
 glory, by the false and deceitful conduct of his covenant people, 
 why, etc' 
 
 Tl e'ort .... y.Qho{iai; then why am I still condemned as a sin- 
 ner ? That is, why should I suffer punishment on account of that 
 very thing which has contributed to the glory of God, inasmuch as it 
 has occasioned the greater display of his perfections? 
 
 (8) Kul (aij . . . . aya&u; shall ice then [say], (as it is slander- 
 ously reported, and as some affirm that we do say) : Let us do evil 
 that good may come ? As ^r\ is interrogative here, it cannot be 
 rendered (as in our English version), not. Miq is connected with 
 igovuev or It'yojfAev understood, as appears from the following clause 
 with bzt. The answer of the apostle, is by a question which strongly 
 implies disapprobation of the sentiment in the preceding clause : 
 ' Why then may we not speak out and say : Let us do evil that good 
 may come ? as some do actually, although slanderously, accuse us of 
 saying.' "Ore, when the verse is thus explained, may be regarded 
 as a particle marking cited words, (for so it is often used, in all parts 
 of the New Testament), viz. the words noitjooj^iev x. x. I. Or the 
 whole may be construed thus : Shall we say, then, that ice may do 
 evil, etc. 
 
 BXaoq>imov[A£&u, literally toe are slanderously reported, viz. it is 
 slanderously reported that we say, etc. In the paragraph above, I 
 have rendered ad sensum rather than ad literam. 
 
 The occasion given for the enemies of the gospel thus to slander 
 Paul and others, was, that he preached the doctrine, that God would 
 be glorified by the display of his justice in the condemnation of 
 
148 ROMANS 3: 8—10. 
 
 sinners, and that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound ; 
 doctrines easily abused by a carnal mind, but which contain truths 
 awful and delightful. Would God that the abuse of them might 
 have never extended beyond the apostolic age ! 
 
 r Qv to v.Qif.ia Ivdiy.ov ioTi, whose condemnation is just. He 
 means, that the condemnation of those who falsely attributed such 
 doctrines to the apostles and other preachers, was just; in other 
 words, that their offence was of such a nature as that it deserved 
 punishment. 
 
 (9) Tlovv; Wliat then? The question is by the objector ; and 
 ovv, in such a connection, implies as much as to say : ' What now 
 can be gathered from all this V 
 
 IIcotx6{.(f&u ; Have toe [Jews] any preference ? That is, al- 
 lowing all that you have said to be true, what preference now can we 
 assign to the Jews? Have they any ground at all for a claim of 
 superiority ? 
 
 Ov ttuvtioq- none at all; i. e. none as it respects the great point 
 in debate, viz. whether all men are sinners before God, and under 
 the condemning sentence of his law. So the latter part of the verse 
 leads us to explain the sentiment; and a comparison with vs. 1,2 
 above, will oblige us thus to interpret it ; for superiority of another 
 kind, i. e. in external advantages, is there directly asserted of the 
 Jews, by the apostle himself. 
 
 H{joriTiaGU[.itfta .... eivui,for we have already made the charge 
 against both Jews and Gentiles, that they are cdl under sin. I cannot 
 find, in the best lexicons, any evidence that ngoonTiaonat means to 
 prove. Atria, is accusation, cause, ground, reason ; hence the verb 
 atuaopoct means, to accuse, to shetc cause, etc. ; generally in a bad 
 sense, implying the support of a charge against any one. The apos- 
 tle means to say, that having already advanced the charge against 
 Jews and Gentiles of being sinners without exception, and of stand- 
 ing in need of the mercy proffered by the gospel, of course he cannot 
 now concede, that the Jews have any exemption from this charge, or 
 any ground of preference to the Gentiles, so far as the matter of justi- 
 fication is concerned. 
 
 T(f< a{.ittQTiav means, under the power or control of sin, subject 
 to its dominion. 
 
 ( 10) Ku&coq yt'ypunrai v.. x. I. What is the object of this appeal ? 
 Evidently it is to illustrate and confirm the point now in debate. And 
 what then is this point? Why plainly, that the Jews have no prefer- 
 
ROMANS 3: 10. 149 
 
 ence over the Gentiles, so far as their guilt and inability to justify 
 themselves are concerned. The apostle had just said, (in answer to 
 the question put by a Jew, Have we any pre-eminence ?) Ov navivi?. 
 Why not? Because he had already involved the Jews, as well as the 
 Gentiles, in the charge of universal guilt ; therefore both were in the 
 same condition, with respect to their need of a Saviour. What then 
 is the object of further proof or illustration here ? Surely it must be 
 the point in question, viz. Whether in fact the Jews, equally with the 
 Gentiles, lie under the imputation of guilt before God. The quota- 
 tions then have special reference to the Jews. So Chrysostom, 
 Calvin, Grotius, Tholuck, Flatt, and others. So v. 19 obliges us to 
 construe the quotations in question. 
 
 The quotations are taken from various parts of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures ; and mostly in the words of the Septuagint. The general 
 strain and object of them is to shew, that charges of guilt were made 
 in ancient times against the Jews, of a nature not less aggravated 
 than the charges now made by the apostle. The Jew could make 
 no reply to this, so long as he allowed the full weight and authority of 
 the Old Testament. The apostle, then, in adducing such charges 
 from it, says in effect : ' You cannot accuse me of making strange 
 and novel charges against you. Your own Scriptures are filled with 
 charges of the like nature.' 
 
 That such is the general object of the quotations which follow, 
 there seems to me no good reason to doubt. Certainly some of the 
 passages adduced have not an unlitmted signification, applicable to 
 men of all times and all nations ; at least they have not such a mean- 
 ing in the Old Testament, in the connection in which they stand. 
 Nothing can be more certain than that the writers of most of them 
 are not treating of the question, whether all men are depraved ; but 
 are advancing charges against the unbelieving and impious part of 
 the Jewish nation. Now what characterized unbelieving Jews of 
 old, may still be affirmed of them, i. e. of all who reject a Saviour. 
 This must proceed from wickedness of heart; and therefore the 
 apostle may apply to all who are guilty of it, those descriptions of 
 wicked Jews which the Old Testament exhibits. 
 
 Such seems to be the plain and obvious method of interpreting 
 the quotations before us. I am well aware, that they have not unfre- 
 quently been understood and explained in a different way, viz. as 
 having a direct bearing on the universal depravity of the human race. 
 The context both in vs. 9 and 19 shews, however, that such an 
 
150 ROMANS 3: 10—12. 
 
 assumption is not well grounded, and that the citations have respect 
 to the apostle's argument in regard to the moral condition of all 
 unbelieving Jews. I say unbelieving Jews ; for it is not to his purpose 
 to shew that such as believe and are already justified, are still under 
 the condemning sentence of the law; nor could this be said without 
 contradicting what he frequently asserts, in the sequel of this epistle. 
 
 In the way in which I interpret the quotations that follow, there 
 is no difficulty with respect to the explanation of them, as they stand 
 in the Old Testament. But in the other method, which makes them 
 universal propositions, and makes the original authors to speak di- 
 rectly to the point of universal depravity, the difficulty of exegesis is 
 insurmountable. Several of the passages, as they stand in the Old 
 Testament, must have absolute violence done to them, in order to 
 make them speak in this manner. This, in itself, is a strong reason 
 for suspecting such an interpretation ; and when united with the 
 other reasons named, seems to be amply sufficient to justify us in 
 rejecting it. 
 
 We proceed to consider each of the quotations separately. 'On 
 ovx .... tig, is a quotation acl scnsum of Ps. 14: 1 ; where the He- 
 brew has iit: niab ]\v ; and the Septuagint, ovx tan noiulv #p>;oro- 
 T7]vcc, ovx tar iv tug tvog. In Ps. liii. (a repetition of Ps. xiv.), 
 the Septuagint has simply, ovx tan notcov aya&ov while the 
 Hebrew is the same as above. It would seem, therefore, that the 
 apostle had his eye or his mind upon Ps. xiv., when he made the 
 quotation before us; and that he has varied from the diction, but 
 followed the sense of the original. Instead of saying, there is none 
 that doeth good, he says, there is none righteous; (idem per alia 
 verba). The ovdt tig of our text, evidently corresponds to the Sep- 
 tuagint, ovx tar iv tag tvog. 
 
 (11) Ovx tar iv avvioiv .... &s6v, corresponds to the Hebrew 
 ^■TlbS-TlN "&■}" b^SilJig Ui^il t whether there is any one who under- 
 standeth, icho seeketh after God, Ps. 14: 2. The question in the 
 Hebrew implies a negative; and a simple negative is made by Paul, 
 who says, ovx tariv x. r. X. The Septuagint runs literally : El tan 
 avvioiv rj tx£t]iaiv rov Stov. Paul has cited ad sensum, and nearly 
 ad verbum. 
 
 (12) Uavrtg .... tvog, cited exactly from the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of Ps. 14: 3. The Hebrew runs thus : 
 
 nnN to "pi* 
 
ROMANS 3: 12, 13. 151 
 
 Jfliether all have gone out of the icay, and together become corrupt? 
 None doeth good, 
 Not. even one. 
 
 Paul omits, as the Septuagint also does, the interrogatory sense of 
 the first clause, made by i?3rt (which is co-ordinate with U)?.tt in the 
 preceding verse), and renders simply: IlavTtg t'itxXivav altogether 
 ad sensum. 
 
 The word avviojv in v. 11 means, to have an enlightened know- 
 ledge, viz. of God and duty. — 'O tx£t}io>v (Heb. ^~}i) means, to 
 toorship God, to seek him in acts of devotion, meditation, etc., to be a 
 devoted worshipper. — ' EttvJuvav in v. 11 means, have departed from 
 the right way, from the paths of piety and happiness. — ' IIyoudiQr r 
 Gav, have become corrupt, literally have become unprofitable or useless. 
 But as the meaning is here a moral one, the first rendering is the 
 most appropriate. 
 
 In regard to the original meaning of these quotations, there seems 
 not to be much room for dispute. Who is it of whom the Psalmist is 
 speaking ? It is ^a: , 6 aypcov, as v. 1 determines. But are all men 
 without exception acfQtoveg? Whatever may be the fact, yet it is 
 not here asserted ; for in v. 4, the ivorkers of iniquity are expressly dis- 
 tinguished from my people. In v. 5, the generation of the righteous 
 is distinguished from the workers of iniquity. It is plain, then, that 
 the Psalmist is here describing two parties among the Hebrews ; the 
 one wicked, yea altogether corrupt ; the other righteous, i. e. belong- 
 ing to the true people of God. 
 
 The application of this passage by the apostle is plain. All unbe- 
 lievers, all who put not their trust in Christ, are of the same character 
 with those wicked persons whom the Psalmist describes. 
 
 (13) Taqog .... idoliovaav, verbatim with the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of Ps. 5: 10 (5: 9) ; which runs thus in the Hebrew : 
 
 d;^ rnns ^sp. 
 
 An open sepulchre is their throats ; with their tongues do they flatter 
 or speak deceitful things. Sentiment : ' As from the sepulchre issues 
 forth an offensive and pestilential vapour; so from the mouths of 
 slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential words. — 'EdoXioZ- 
 guv, speak deceit, deceive. The form of the word is the Alexandrine 
 or Boeotian -guv instead of -v, which is frequent in the Imperf. and 
 2nd Aorist ; e. g. ildfioGctv, ipa&OGctv, etc., for iXaftov, tfiw&ov, etc. 
 EdoliovGav stands for idoXiovv, Imperfect active. 
 
J 52 
 
 ROMANS 3: 13—17. 
 
 The context in Ps. v. shews, that the workers of iniquity there 
 mentioned are the party opposed to David. Those who opposed the 
 Son of David, are characterized by Paul in a similar manner. 
 
 'Jog a.07il8b)v vno ra yu\r\ o.vtojv, accords verbatim with the 
 Septuagint version of a part of Ps. 140: 4 (140: 3). The Hebrew 
 runs thus: iO^nBiB nnft ire is nttrt, the poison of asps, or of the 
 adder, is xindcr their lips ; i. e. their words are like poison, they utter 
 the poisonous breath of slander. The phrase before us gives intensity 
 to the preceding description ; all of which, however, is not intended 
 to designate merely some specific kind of slander, but the sinful 
 exercise of the tongue, which (as James expresses it) is tivq, o 
 %6o/.iog rijg ad'ty.lag, 3: G. 
 
 Here again, the persons characterized are the enemies of David. 
 What was said of them may be applied, as the apostle here intimates 
 by the quotation, to all those who refused submission to ' David's 
 Lord that sat upon his throne.' 
 
 (14) "»Qy to ... . yifisi, runs thus in the Septuagint: Ov ugag 
 to niof-ia. avrov yt'f.tsi xul ntnglag, which corresponds exactly to the 
 Hebrew in Ps. 10: 7, ni»^»q $bl2 life nrN, excepting that ov is 
 added by the Seventy. The apostle has quoted exactly ad sensum, 
 the suffix pronoun in IT^S being generic and indicating a real plural- 
 ity, which Paul expresses by tov. 
 
 The violent and embittered enemies of David, (or of the Psalmist, 
 if David be not the author of Ps. x.), are here characterized. The 
 application is the same as before. 
 
 IIixQiag is used to translate the Hebrew rnQ"]73 , which literally 
 signifies fraud, deceit. But as false accusations are here meant, 
 which tend to destroy reputation and confidence, and proceed from 
 bitterness of spirit, so mxgla (bitterness) is employed to characterize 
 them, it being used ad sensum in a general way. 
 
 (15 — 17) '0'£t7g .... tyvwaav, abridged from Is. 59: 7, 8. The 
 Septuagint and Hebrew run thus : 
 
 01 Tiodig aviwv inl irovi]Qiuv 
 xQtypvai, Tuyjvol i/.yhoa alpa, 
 nul ol diuloyio^iol olvtmv diaXo- 
 yiGf.iol uno (f.opo)V owtqi^iau 
 xul xakatntogia tv xoug od'oTg 
 avxoiv, xul odov llQT]V1]g ovx 
 oidttoi. 
 
 
ROMANS 3 : 17—10. 153 
 
 Here the expressions are altogether of a general nature, as they 
 stand in the prophet, and plainly characterize a great part of the Jew- 
 ish nation in the time of the writer ; compare Is. 59: 2, 4, 9 — 15. Of 
 course this is still more directly to the apostle's purpose, than the 
 preceding quotations. These correspond with his intention, in the 
 way of implication ; but the present quotation corresponds in the way 
 of direct analogy. 
 
 An inspection of the original will disclose how much the apostle 
 has abridged it, in his quotation. Also in quoting, he has substituted 
 <}£,ftQ for raytvov in the Septuagint; then passing by a whole clause, 
 viz. " their thoughts are thoughts of evil," he quotes the rest verba- 
 tim. Both the Seventy and Paul omit the Hebrew "^a , viz. in CT 
 ■'jja , innocent blood. — ' Exyfou, 1 Aor. Inf., comes from ixyiw, Fut. 
 ixyevocj (in the New Testament txytco), 1 Aor. i^'yecc after the 
 manner of verbs in A, (.i, v, q. A fcw verbs in Greek follow this 
 method of forming the first aorist ; see Buttmann, Gramm. § 87. 
 Note 1. 
 
 Sentiment : ' They are ready and swift to engage in crimes of the 
 highest degree ; destruction and misery attend their steps, i. e. 
 wherever they go, they spread destruction and misery around them. 
 The way of happiness they take no knowledge of, or they give no 
 heed to what concerns their own true welfare, or that of others.' 
 
 (18) Ouk tart . . . amuZv, is exactly quoted from the Septuagint, 
 and corresponds to the Hebrew, excepting the final uvtojv, which in 
 the Hebrew and Septuagint is in the singular number. But then it 
 is the singular generic, and so corresponds exactly in sense to the 
 plural avtcov of the apostle. The Hebrew original is in Ps. 3G: 1, 
 and it runs thus: VIS "U?.b S^ni'R 'ins "pi*, there is no fear of 
 God before his eyes ; i. e. he has no reverence for God, no fear of 
 offending him which puts any effectual restraint upon his wickedness. 
 
 (19) Oidafxtv dt . . . . kuktl' now we know that tvhatsoevcr things 
 the law saith, it addresses to those toho have the law ; i. e. we know 
 that whatever the Old Testament Scriptures say, when they speak in 
 the manner now exhibited, they address it to those who are in posses- 
 sion of these Scriptures, viz. to the Jews. — At continuativum, nunc, 
 German nun, English now in the sense of a continuative. To7g iv 
 ru» vofio), those who have a revelation, iv conditionis; compare on iv 
 under chap. I. 24. 
 
 The object of the apostle is to shew, that the Jews can in no way 
 avoid the force of what is here said. It was originally addressed to 
 20 
 
154 ROMANS 3: 19. 
 
 the Jews in a direct manner. What he has quoted was indeed 
 spoken at different times, to different classes of persons, and uttered 
 by various individuals. But still the principle is the same. Jews are 
 addressed ; and Jews are accused in the very same manner, i. e. with 
 equal force, by their own prophets whose authority is acknowledged, 
 as they were accused by Paul. The principle then by which such 
 an accusation is to be supported, is thus established. As to the 
 actual application of this, and the facts respecting the conduct and 
 character of the Jews in the apostle's time ; all the writings of the 
 New Testament, of Josephus, and others, and the direct assertions of 
 Paul in this epistle, go to shew that no injustice at all was done to 
 them in the present case. 
 
 It is this principle, viz. that in consistence with the fidelity of 
 God to his promises, and consistently with the ancient Scriptures, the 
 Jews might be charged with wickedness even of a gross character, 
 and such as brought them as truly under the curse of the divine law 
 as the polluted heathen were under it, — it is this, which the apostle 
 has in view to establish by all his quotations ; and this he does en- 
 tirely establish. When thus understood, there remains no important 
 difficulty respecting the quotations. He did not need these, in order 
 to settle the question about the depravity of the Gentiles. The Jews 
 would reluctate only against the truth of the charges made against 
 themselves. The character of the heathen was too palpable to be 
 denied. That of the Jews, indeed, was scarcely less so ; but still, 
 they themselves expected to escape divine justice, on the ground of 
 being God's chosen people. All expectation of this nature is over- 
 turned, by the declarations and arguments of the apostle, in chap. n. 
 m. of this epistle. 
 
 Such as undertake to prove universal depravity directly from the 
 texts here quoted, appear to mistake the nature of the apostle's argu- 
 ment, and to overlook the design of his quotations. It is impossible 
 to make the passages in the Old Testament, as they there stand, to 
 be universal in their meaning, without doing violence to the funda- 
 mental laws of interpretation. And surely there is no need of doing 
 thus. The whole strain of the apostle's argument at large, goes to es- 
 tablish universal depravity ; I mean the universal depravity of all who 
 are out of Christ, and are capable of sinning. The doctrine is safe, 
 without doing violence to any obvious principles of exegesis ; which 
 we never can do with safety. I need scarcely add, that Flatt, Tho- 
 luck, and all enlightened commentators of the present day, so far as 
 
ROMANS 3: 19. 155 
 
 I know, agree in substance with the interpretation which I have 
 now given. 
 
 Jva. Tiav .... <&£w, so that every mouth must be stopped, and the 
 whole icorld become guilty before God. TIuv oxo\xa CfQvyij, i. e. 
 every man, all men whether Jews or Gentiles, must be convicted of 
 sin, and be unable to produce any thing to justify their conduct ; 
 compare Job 5: 16. Ps. 107: 42. — 'Tnod'ixog, reus, so7is, guilty, de- 
 serving of condemnation. 
 
 But how extensive is the conclusion here ? I answer, (1) It ex- 
 tends to all who are out of Christ. I draw this conclusion, not so 
 much from the mere forms of expression, such as nav niopa and 
 TTtcg o xogiaog, as I do from the nature and object of the apostle's 
 argument. What is this ? Plainly his design is, to shew that there 
 is but one method of acceptance with God now possible ; and this is 
 in the way of gratuitous pardon or justification. But why is this 
 necessary in all cases? The answer is: Because all have sinned. 
 Certainly, if those who do not believe in Christ, can be pardoned 
 only for his sake, this is because they are sinners and have need of 
 pardon on the ground of simple mercy. Consequently all who are 
 out of Christ, as they cannot be justified by the deeds of the law, are 
 sinners. 
 
 But (2) All who are in Christ, i. e. are justified, have once been 
 sinners, and do still commit more or less sin, for which pardoning 
 mercy becomes necessary. Once they were among the impenitent 
 and unregenerate. What the apostle asserts, then, in our text, of all 
 men, need not be limited, and should not indeed be limited, merely 
 to those who are out of Christ at any particular time, but may be ex- 
 tended to all who were ever out of him. 
 
 That this is a bona fide application of the principle which he here 
 contends for, is clear from his own commentary on this doctrine in 
 chap. iv. For what does he say there ? He shews, that even Abra- 
 ham and David, as well as the grossest sinners, were justified only in 
 a gratuitous tvay, being utterly unable to obtain the divine approba- 
 tion on the ground of perfect obedience. What is the inference from 
 all this? Plainly, that all men are sinners, and that none therefore 
 can be saved by their own merits. So does v. 20 virtually declare ; 
 so, explicitly, says v. 23. 
 
 In form, the argument of Paul extends only to those who are out 
 of Christ ; but as this has once been the condition of all men without 
 exception, so in substance it embraces all men without exception, who 
 
15 G ROMANS 3 : 19, 20. 
 
 " by nature are children of wrath, being children of disobedience;" 
 for "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh." 
 
 I cannot forbear to add, that it seems to me a wrong view of the 
 apostle's meaning in vs. 10 — 19, which regards him as labouring to 
 prove directly the universality of men's depravity, merely by the argu- 
 ment which these texts afford. Paul has other sources of proof, 
 besides that of argument ; for if he himself was an inspired apostle, 
 then surely his own declarations respecting the state of the heathen 
 or Jews, were to be credited on just the same grounds as those of the 
 ancient Psalmist and of the Prophets. Why not? And then, why 
 should we be solicitous to shew that every thing in Paul's epistle is 
 established by argumentation ? Had the apostle no other way of 
 establishing truth, except by argumentation ? Are not his own dec- 
 larations, I repeat it, as weighty and credible as those of the ancient 
 prophets? If so, then we need not be anxious to retain the argument 
 as a direct one, in vs. 10 — 19. Enough that it illustrates and con- 
 firms the principle which the apostle asserts, and for which he 
 contends. The argument from this principle is irresistible, when we 
 once concede that Christ is the only Saviour of all men without ex- 
 ception ; for this cannot be true, unless all men without exception are 
 sinners. Of course I mean, all who are capable of sinning. 
 
 (20) Aiotl . . . . at i ov, wherefore by toorks of laic shall no flesh 
 be justified before him. Aioti, an abridgement of did tovto oti, on 
 account of, because that, therefore, wherefore ; so it often means, at 
 the beginning of a conclusion deduced from preceding premises; 
 e. g. Acts 17: 31. Rom. 1: 21. 8: 7. 1 Pet. 2: 6. 
 
 * ' Efjyoiv vo/uor, works of law, i. e. such works as law requires; 
 just as i'oya ■Qiov means, such works as God requires or approves: 
 and so tgyu tov ^ipftt< ( «, John 8: 39; t« tgyu tov nargog ifiujv 
 [iou diuj3olov], John 8: 14; id tgyu xi»v NtxoXa'iTwv, Rev. 2: 6; 
 and so tgya rr t g -nugvrfi — Tijg augxog — tov dtaftokov — ir,g nioxeog, 
 etc. etc. From these, and a multitude of other examples which every 
 good lexicon and every concordance will supply, it appears entirely 
 plain that tgya and egyov, followed by a Genitive which qualifies it, 
 mean something to be effected or done, which is agreeable to the 
 command, desire, nature, etc. of the thing which is designated by 
 that Genitive noun. 
 
 Concerning this usage, there is no just room to doubt. But the 
 sense of vo/uov has been thought to be less obvious. Does vofiog then 
 mean ceremonial law, revelation in general ; or the moral law, whether 
 
ROMANS 3 : 20. 157 
 
 revealed or natural ? Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, 
 Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Ammon, and others, 
 have explained vof.iog as meaning the ceremonial lata. But is this 
 correct ? The meaning of a word which is capable of various signi- 
 fications, is always to be judged of by the object or design of the 
 writer, so often as this is practicable. What then is the object of 
 Paul in the present case ? Surely it is, to shew that both Gentiles 
 and Jews need that gratuitous justification which the gospel proclaims, 
 and which Christ has procured ; compare 3: 9, nuv oro/-ia and -nag 
 o -Aoa/iog in 3: 19, navttg in v. 23, together with v. 29. Compare 
 also chap. 1: 19 — 32 with 2: 17 — 29. Nothing can be more certain 
 than that the conclusion of the apostle is a general one, having re- 
 spect to Jew and Gentile both. But how can it be apposite to say, in 
 respect to the Gentiles, that they cannot be justified by the ceremonial 
 law? Did the apostle need to make a solemn asseveration of this? 
 Were the Gentiles sinners, because they had not kept the ritual laws 
 of Moses? So the apostle does not judge; see 2: 14, 15, 26. How 
 then can he be supposed to say in reference to the Gentiles, (for the 
 present verse refers to them as well as to the Jews,) that by the law 
 is the knowledge of sin? What knowledge of the ceremonial law of 
 Moses, did the heathen possess? 
 
 I remark in the next place, that transgressions of the ritual law 
 are no part of the accusation which the apostle here brings against 
 the Jews. In chap. 2: 17 — 29, he accuses them of breaking moral 
 laws ; and after having enumerated a long catalogue of crimes com- 
 mon among the Gentiles, in chap. 1: 19 — 32, he goes on immediately 
 to intimate in chap. 2: 1, seq., that the Jews were chargeable with 
 the same, or with the like crimes. In 2: 14, seq., and 2: 26, seq., he 
 intimates that the law inscribed upon the consciences and minds of 
 the heathen, inculcated those very things, with regard to which the 
 Jews were sinners. In 3: 9, seq., he brings Jews and Gentiles under 
 the same accusation, explicitly charging all with being sinners ; and 
 sinners against a law which was common to both ; as chap. 2: 15, 16, 
 26, seq., most explicitly shews. 
 
 Again ; when it is asked in Rom. 6: 15, Shall we sin because we 
 are not vtio vofxov but under grace? what sense would there be in 
 this question (which is supposed to be urged by an objector), pro- 
 vided the ceremonial law be meant? Would an objector in the pos- 
 session of his senses, ask the question: 'Have we liberty to break 
 the moral law, i. e. to sin, because we are not under the ceremonial V 
 
|.-,s ROMANS 3:20. 
 
 Or, ' because the ceremonial law will not justify us, may we not break 
 the moral law?' Yet vo^iov in Rom. G: 15, is plainly of the same 
 nature as I'Otiog in 3: 20. 
 
 Finally ; the apostle every where opposes the dixuloioiq or dixui- 
 oavvi] of the gospel, to that justification which results from works in 
 general, works of any kind whatever ; e. g. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Eph. 2: 8, 9. 
 Tit. 3: 5. Rom. 4: 2—5, 13—16. 3: 27. 11: 6, and in many other 
 places. 
 
 From all this it results, that touov must here mean the moral\si\v, 
 whether written or unwritten, i. e. law in general, any law whether 
 applicable to Gentile or Jew, any rule which prescribes a duty, by 
 obedience to which men might claim a promise of reward. Nor can 
 this duty be limited merely to what is external. Surely the law of 
 God, whether natural or revealed, does not have respect merely to 
 the external conduct of men ; it also has reference to the state of 
 their heart and feelings. So, most explicitly, does Paul teach, in 
 Rom. 2: 28, 29, in Rom. 2: 16, and very often elsewhere. 
 
 Understood in this way, the phrase l'(jya vopov is plain. Neither 
 Jew nor Gentile can be justified before God on the ground of obedi- 
 ence ; " all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;" each 
 one has broken the law under which he has acted ; the Gentiles, that 
 which was written on their minds and consciences, 2: 14, 15 ; the 
 Jews, that which was contained in the Scriptures, 2: 27. Now as 
 the law of God, revealed or natural, requires entire and perfect obe- 
 dience, just so far as it is known and understood, or may be so with- 
 out criminal neglect on the part of men ; and since "the soul which 
 sinneth must die," and " he who offendeth in one point is guilty of 
 all ;" it follows of necessity, that all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, 
 while in an unconverted state, are under the condemning sentence 
 of the law ; and therefore they cannot possibly claim acceptance 
 with God, on the ground of perfect obedience. Nay, so far are they 
 from this, that they can expect nothing but condemnation and misery 
 from simple retributive justice being exercised toward them, under a 
 pure system of law; for "all have sinned," and therefore "all have 
 come short of the glory of God." 
 
 In no other way, as it seems to me, can the general course of 
 argument by the apostle be understood, and interpreted so as to 
 preserve consistency with the other parts of this epistle, and with his 
 other writings, or so as to harmonize with the particular design and 
 object of the writer. Accordingly, Storr, Flatt, Tholuck, not to 
 
ROMANS 3: 20. 159 
 
 mention a multitude of the older commentators, have explained 
 t'gymv voftov substantially in the same manner as I have done. 
 
 Aiy.ui(x)\))]aeitti, see on d'txcaoavv?] in 1: 17, where the verb 
 fiixaioto is also explained. It means here, to be accepted and 
 treated as having fully kept the precepts of the law. — Ov .... 
 ■nana oap£ = -|JU3-b3 Nb , no one; a true Hehraism in all respects. 
 Indeed, the expression would hardly have been intelligible to a mere 
 Attic Grecian, there being nothing like it in his own dialect. 
 
 If all the world are vnodmog iw #«<£, then must it be true, that 
 none can be dr/.atog before him in a legal sense, i. e. on the ground of 
 perfect and meritorious obedience. JEvcontov uvtov == Y^&b , in 
 his view, in his sight, in his presence. The mind of the writer is 
 here contemplating mankind, as standing before the divine tribunal 
 in order to be judged of the things done in the body. 
 
 Aia yaQ .... d/nagTiag,for by laic is the knowledge of sin. No- 
 fiov here must evidently mean the same as it does in the clause £§ 
 egycov vouov which clearly signifies any law of a moral kind, either 
 natural or revealed. Turretin understands vopov, in the phrase 
 before us, as meaning the Jewish Scriptures. But inasmuch as the 
 preceding phrase is general, it must be understood so here. All law 
 is a rule of action, in the most extensive sense of this word, embra- 
 cing the internal as well as the external developments of the human 
 soul. By this rule, all actions are to be scanned ; the Gentiles are 
 to scan theirs by the law written upon their own minds, 2: 14, 15 ; 
 the Jews, by their own Scriptures. The precepts of law, whether 
 natural or revealed, by commanding this and prohibiting that, serve 
 to make known the nature of sin; for all sin is di'0[tla, want of con- 
 formity to the law. The simple design of the apostle in saying did 
 ydg vo/nou iiriyvcoaig dpaarlug, is, to remind those whom he ad- 
 dressed, that the law (any law either natural or revealed), so far from 
 holding out to men who are sinners the prospect of justification before 
 God, and promising them acceptance with him, is the very means of 
 bringing them, by its disclosures respecting the nature and guilt of 
 sin, to a knowledge of their unhappy and desperate condition, inas- 
 much as it shews them that they are exposed to its full penalty, for 
 every transgression which they have committed. 
 
160 ROMANS 3: 21. 
 
 CHAP. III. 21-31. 
 
 The apostle having shewn that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, 
 and therefore are obnoxious to the penalty of the divine law ; having also 
 declared (what must indeed be obvious from the fact just stated), that 
 gratuitous pardon or justification is the only way of salvation now open for 
 men ; he proceeds to intimate, that this way of salvation is disclosed in the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, v. 21 ; even that justification which is proposed to 
 all men without distinction, and conferred on all who believe in Christ, v. 22. 
 No difference can be made, as to the need of such a justification, between the 
 Jew and Gentile, inasmuch as ail without exception are sinners, and therefore 
 stand in the same need of gratuitous pardon, v. 24. Christ is set forth to all 
 men as a propitiatory offering or sacrifice, the efficacy of which may be expe- 
 rienced by faith in his blood; and Ctirist is set forth in this manner, in order 
 that God may manifest to the world the provision which he has made for the 
 forgiveness of sins committed in former ages, and also under the new dispen- 
 sation, thus disclosing a way in which his holy regard to justice may be 
 preserved, and yet his pardoning mercy be bestowed on the penitent believer 
 in Jesus, vs. 25, 2G. All boasting then of salvation on the ground of our own 
 merits, is entirely excluded, because justification by faith, from its own nature, 
 must be wholly gratuitous, v. 27. Well may we conclude, then, from all this, 
 that we are gratuitously justified, and not on the ground of merit, v. 28. God, 
 moreover, justifies all on the same ground, because he stands in the same 
 relation to both Jews and Gentiles, v. 29 ; both the circumcised and the uncir- 
 cumcised he justifies by faith, v. 30. But are the Old Testament Scriptures 
 annulled, by inculcating such doctrine ? Not at all ; for (as was before said, v. 
 21) they teach the very same doctrine, v. 31. 
 
 (21) Nvvl dt . . . . ntqavi'gwTcci, but now, the justification which 
 is of God, without law, is revealed. A'vvi, now, i. e. under the gospel 
 dispensation, in distinction from ancient times, or former days. — At, 
 "particula discretiva, opposita conjungens." — Xcopig vofiov, without 
 law, i. e. without the aid or concurrence of law, or in such a way as 
 not to be by means of law, or in a way contrary to that of legal justi- 
 fication, which rests solely on the ground of perfect and meritorious 
 obedience. Xatplg vofxov may be interpreted as qualifying dinaio- 
 ovvrj Seov, or it may be joined in sense with ntyavigcoTat, • the 
 meaning in either case will be substantially the same. I interpret it 
 as qualifying drAcuoovvr} dtov, and designating that this diY.atoavv}} 
 is gratuitous, i. e. not on the ground of merit or legal obedience. 
 
 Acxaioovvrj tfiov, see on 1 : 17. — IlicpavtQoiJui, is disclosed, 
 manifested, revealed, viz. in or by the gospel. 
 
 MayxvQovfiivi] .... ngocpiiToov, which is testified, i. e. plainly 
 and openly declared, by the law and the prophets, i. e. by the Old 
 Testament, the Jewish Scriptures; compare Matt. 5: 17. 7: 12. 11: 
 13. 22: 40. Luke 16: 16. John 1: 45. 4 Mace. 18: 10. The apostle 
 means by this to aver, that he teaches no new thing ; he only repeats 
 what in substance has been declared respecting gratuitous justifica- 
 
ROMANS 3: 21, 22. lfil 
 
 tion, by the Old Testament Scriptures. And when he says vvvl .... 
 ntqavtooixui, in the preceding part of the verse, he means that this 
 shall be emphatically , not absolutely, understood ; otherwise the same 
 verse would contain a contradiction of itself. 
 
 What is merely hinted in the declaration before us, Paul goes on 
 fully to develope in chap. iv. 
 
 (2:2) What that dixcaoovv?] \ftov is, which is '/cogig v6/.iov, the 
 apostle next proceeds explicitly to develope. Aixuioavvi] dt . . . /tjoou 
 Xqigiou, the justification which is of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. 
 This explanation makes it clear as the noon-day sun, that dixuioavi/tj 
 ■dtov, in this connection, does not mean righteousness or the love of 
 justice as an attribute of God. For in what possible sense can it be 
 said, that God's righteousness or justice (as an essential attribute) is 
 by faith in Christ? Does he possess or exercise this attribute, or 
 reveal it, by faith in Christ ? The answer is so plain, that it cannot 
 be mistaken. 
 
 Aiu nioittog h]($ov Xqiotov, by Christian faith, i. e. by that 
 faith of which Jesus Christ is the object, ' Jr t aov Xyioxov being Geni- 
 tivus objecti ; for most clearly it is not faith which belongs to Christ 
 himself, but the faith of sinners towards him. The meaning of the 
 apostle is, that the gratuitous justification which the gospel reveals, is 
 that which is to be had by believing and trusting in Christ as our 
 Redeemer and Deliverer; compare vs. 23 — 26. Faith, indeed, is 
 not to be regarded as the meritorious cause or ground of justification, 
 (which is wholly gratuitous, v. 24), but only as the means or instru- 
 ment by which we come into such a state or relation, that justification 
 can, consistently with the nature and character of God, be gratuitously 
 bestowed upon us. 
 
 jEig nuviuQ xul inl iiavrag, to all and upon all. Luther under- 
 stands igyopt'i'}] before fig nuvtug, i. e. [dixouoovi'i] ■dtov tg^ofii'pr]] 
 tig Ttuirag. The sense is good ; but the same end may be attained 
 in another way. Why not construe fig navzag as connected with 
 ntqavtganat ? I am aware that qurtgow usually governs the simple 
 Dative after it in such cases ; but then it is equally certain, that the 
 New Testament writers often use the Accusative with tig instead of 
 the simple Dative, or the Dative with tv see Bretschn. Lex. tig, 5. b. 
 Very naturally may we suppose, that after neqat'tgonat the persons 
 would be named to whom the revelation is made. It seems to me 
 that they are designated by tig iiavxag. 
 
 'JSnl ixuvrug appears to mark the subjects, who receive the dixctio- 
 21 
 
16 o ROMANS 3: 22, 23. 
 
 cvvt] in question; which is clear from the xovg niaxivovxag that 
 follows and qualifies it. Big navxag denotes to whom the proclama- 
 tion of diy.utoovi'1], gratuitous pardon, is made, i. e. to all men*. Aal 
 inl navxag xovg niaxivovxag I should consider, then, as a parenthe- 
 sis thrown in, to guard against the idea that the actual bestowment 
 of justification is as universal as the offers of it. The offer is made 
 to all men without exception ; believers only, however, are entitled to 
 the actual reception of it. My reason for supposing such a parenthe- 
 sis here, is, that the writer immediately resumes the generic or uni- 
 versal idea, ov yag ton v.. x. X., which shews that his mind is intent 
 on the illustration of fig navxag, as his principal proposition. His 
 object is to shew, that there is no exception at all, as to the need of 
 that justification which the gospel proposes. As this is plainly his 
 main point, he only suggests, here and there by the way, the extent 
 in which the justification proposed is actually bestowed — inl navxag 
 rovg niaxivovxag . . . xal diy.aiovvxu xov ix ntaxiwg Jtjoov (v. 26.) 
 
 It is by overlooking these nicer shades and connections of thought 
 in this paragraph, that many critics have come to the conclusion, that 
 no difference exists here between tig navxag and inl navxag' a posi- 
 tion which seems to me to be plainly contradicted by the course 
 of thought before and after these expressions. Before inl navxag 
 either iatl or rather *; taxi seems to be implied ; and then inl is 
 used in the sense of ad commodum, for; comp. Heb. 8: 8. Heb. 12: 
 10 ; see also Bretschn. Lex. inl, III. 5. 
 
 Ov yag ian diuaxoXr h for there is no distinction or difference; 
 i. e. in regard to the matter of justification by faith or gratuitous justi- 
 fication, all men stand in the same need of it ; and must perish with- 
 out it. In this respect there is no distinction whatever between Greek 
 and Jew ; for as all have sinned, so justification by deeds of law, L e. 
 by perfect obedience to the law, is an impossible thing ; for it is 
 impossible that a sinner should lay in any proper claim to such a 
 justification. The yag here is yag illustrantis, the sequel being 
 added in order to illustrate and confirm the affirmation made above, 
 viz. that the justification which is of God is revealed sig navxag. 
 
 (23) Tlavxig yag .... dtov^for all have sinned, and come short 
 of the glory tohich God bestows, or of divine approbation. The yag 
 here is again yag illustrantis vel confrmantis; i. e. it is placed at the 
 commencement of a sentence which is designed to illustrate and 
 confirm the preceding assertion, and to shew the reason why there is 
 no diaoxoh'j. Taxegtoi comes from voxtgog, last, and sometimes 
 
ROMANS 3 : 23, 24. 163 
 
 means (as its etymology would indicate), to be last or inferior, 1 Cor. 
 12: 24. 8: 8. 2 Cor. 11:5. 12: 11. The passive voice ( varegov vim 
 is passive) is used in the same sense, for substance, as the active; 
 VGTiptoo meaning deficio, destituo, and vorfQiot-icci destituor, I am 
 wanting in, I am deficient in. The idea in our text is that of failing, 
 icanting, being deprived or destitute of The verb, when used in 
 this way, of course governs the Genitive, by the usual principles of 
 syntax. 
 
 Aoi-rjg %ov ■Qeov is rendered by many, the divine approbation. 
 So, indeed, most commentators translate it ; and with good philolo- 
 gical support, inasmuch as doia frequently means praise, approba- 
 tion; e. g. John 5: 41, 44. 7: 18. 8: 50, 54. 12: 43. Nevertheless, 
 as do'ia very often means a glorified state, a splendid glorious condi- 
 tion, supreme happiness, it may be so taken here , and &eov may be 
 construed as Genitivus auctoris, so that dotyg rou ■O^ov would mean, 
 the glory which God bestows, or of which God is the author. This, 
 on the whole, I should prefer. But still, as the subject is here that 
 of justification, viz. acquittal, dohjg may be employed in the classic 
 sense of opinion, (here good opinion, approbation), i. e. the approba- 
 tion of the final judge of men, when they stand before his tribunal. 
 The idea would then be, that inasmuch as all men have broken the 
 law of God, so they cannot expect his approbation in the day of trial, 
 provided they stand upon the ground of their own merits. Hence 
 the necessity of some other method of justification, different from that 
 which is by toorks of laic. 
 
 (24) AtxaiovptvoL .... '/tjoov, [all] being justified freely by 
 his grace through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus. On the 
 one hand, the apostle declares that all have sinned, and thus ren- 
 dered a sentence of acquittal and reward impossible, on the ground 
 of law. He now asserts the counter-part of this, viz. that all who 
 obtain justification, must obtain it gratuitously and only by virtue of 
 the redemption that Christ has accomplished ; a proposition which 
 contains the very essence of all that is peculiar to the gospel of Christ, 
 or which can make a solid foundation for the hopes of perishing 
 sinners. 
 
 The ellipsis before and after dixaiovpevoi may be filled out thus : 
 [navTig] dmutovfiivoi [hoi]. In fact, vs. 23, 24, are really two dif- 
 ferent sentences ; while the present grammatical construction of them 
 makes but one. — Awgtuv, freely, gratuitously , in the way of mere 
 favour. AoiQiuv (Heb. C3ti) comes from dwQiu, donum gratuitum, 
 
1G4 ROMANS 2 : 24, 25. 
 
 bencficium ; and this, with d'ugov munus, dtogr^fxa bencficium, and 
 dcugt'o^icxi dono, all originate from dldtopi or didow to give. 
 
 Tr, uvrov %agtit, by his grace, epexegetical of d'toQiuv, and 
 added to give intensity to the whole sentence or affirmation ; comp. 
 Eph. 2: 8, 9. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Tit. 3: 4, 5.— 'yJnoXvrgwoiwg, redemption. 
 The force of this word may be best seen, by recurring to its root 
 XviQov, which means, the price of ransom paid for a slave or a cap- 
 tive, in consequence of which he is set free. Avtqoio and an olv rgoo) 
 both mean, to pay the price of ransom ; just as IviQwotg and unolv- 
 zgtoaig mean, (1) The act of paying this price ; and (2) The con- 
 sequences of this act, viz. the redemption which follows it. This 
 latter sense is the one which belongs to the cxnokvr(/o)oecog of our 
 text. — Tijg iv Xgiotov 'Jrjoov designates the author of this redemp- 
 tion, viz. him who paid the ransom and procured our freedom, when 
 we were the slaves and captives of sin and Satan. The sequel de- 
 fines what the writer understands by (xtxoIvtqioo? cog. 
 
 (25) The most important word in the translation of the first 
 clause of this verse, is daOTt]Qiov, the sense of which must first be 
 determined. In classic Greek it is equivalent to the adjective daot- 
 pog, propitiatory, atoning; which comes directly from ikaapog, 
 atonement, propitiation; iluGiy.og, daortxog, daazi]Oiog (the last 
 three are equivalents), and Raofta, all come from IXuexapui or dao- 
 (Aui (dt'of.iat Att.), which Homer always employs to designate the 
 making of propitiation or atonement to the gods. The later Greek 
 sometimes used 'dao'/.o/.tuc in the sense of being propitious. 
 
 In our text duax^giov is an adjective used in an elliptical way, 
 like other adjectives of a similar nature; e. g. xayiozijoiov, aonij- 
 qiov, to. izi'joict, ia yti't'0)uu, etc. The question naturally arises: 
 What is the noun here to be supplied after iXucntjoiov? Is it *jm- 
 ■Ot^pa (£nl$t[.<a) ) cover; or &Vfia, offering or sacrifice? 
 
 In the first of these ways, the Seventy employ duarijgiov some- 
 times joining it with mi&t(ia, Ex.25: 17; but usually omitting 
 inidt[Aa and using iluaii'iyiov alone, in the same sense which both 
 words would give ; e. g. Ex. 25: 18, 19, 20 bis, 22. 37: (Sept. 38:) 6, 
 7, 3, 8 bis. Lev. 16: 2, 13, 14, 15, etc. In all these cases, whether 
 'duc>Tii(jiov has hilde^ta expressed or not, the Hebrew word is 
 rn.23 , covering, viz. the covering of the ark of the covenant in the 
 most holy place, which was overlaid with pure gold (Ex. 25: 17), 
 over which the cherubim stretched out their wings (Ex. 25: 20), and 
 which was the throne of Jehovah in his earthly temple, the place 
 
ROMANS 3: 25. 165 
 
 from which he uttered his oracles, and communed with the represent- 
 atives of his people, Ex. 25: 22 ; comp. Ex. 37: 6—9. Into the inner 
 sanctuary where the ark was, the high-priest entered but once in a 
 year (Heb. 9: 7), when he sprinkled the nnbi , 'dac>Ti)otoi' [ini- 
 \>t[ia] witli blood, in order to make propitiation for the sins of the 
 people, Lev. 16: 2, 15, 16. 
 
 In like manner with the Seventy, Philo calls the nVs3 , nwfACt 
 i).u<ii}]oi,Qv and tnlOefta i\anzi)<jiov, i. e. a propitiatory covering; 
 VitaMosis, III. 668. (Frankf. ed.) 
 
 Such is the Septuagint usage of ilaozrigtoi>. But was Paul ne- 
 cessarily limited to this 1 Certainly not, inasmuch as the common 
 Greek idiom afforded him another combination of V.uozrjcjiov, viz. 
 ikuoi t](jiov {rvuu, a propitiatory sacrifice or offering. So Dio Chrys- 
 ostom, Orat. II. 184, iXaarrjgiov 'u4"/uiol nj Aitriva, the Greeks 
 [made] a propitiatory offering to Minerva. So Josephus, IXuozrjgiov 
 [Avrjua, a propitiatory monument, Antiq. XVI. 7. 1. So in 4 Mace. 
 17: 22, ilaazijoiov {luvazou uvtov, his propitiatory death. 
 
 Which now of these two methods of construing iluazi]oiov shall 
 we choose? Origen, Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius, Eras- 
 mus, Luther, and others, have preferred the former ; Hesychius, 
 Grotius, Le Clerc, Kypke, Turretin, Eisner, Flatt, Tholuck, and 
 others, the latter. " Fatemur (says Turretin) expositionem illam 
 [priorem] minus commodam nobis videri ;" after which he goes on 
 to say, that he understands by ikaoTrjgiov, an expiatory victim. I 
 most fully agree with Turretin. But I have a reason for this opinion, 
 which I have not seen noticed in any of the commentators; and this 
 is, that in the phrase iv zw a't'f.tuzz o.vrov which follows, there is a ref- 
 erence to the txffict of the ilaozi]oiov. It may be said, that if Christ 
 be represented as the mercy-seat which was sprinkled with propitia- 
 tory blood, aqtazi uuzov may refer to this. But my answer is, that, 
 such an image is unnatural ; for then Christ would be represented as 
 a mercy-seat, sprinkled with his own blood; an incongruous figure, if 
 the analogy of the Jewish mercy-seat be consulted. But if Uuazjj- 
 gtov means a propitiatory sacrifice, then is the image altogether con- 
 gruous; inasmuch as the blood was sprinkled round about upon the 
 altar, where the sacrifice was laid, Lev. 1: 5, 11. 3: 8. 
 
 There is another way of casting light on this subject, viz. by 
 investigating the meaning of nQoi'ftizo. In the classics, ngozl&^pi 
 means, (1) To lay before, to set before, e. g. to set any thing before 
 one for him to eat ; also, to set a mark before one, or a punishment, 
 
1G6 ROMANS 3: 25. 
 
 or a reward ; i. e. to propose. (2) Publicly to expose or to hold up 
 to view ; e. g. to expose goods, wares, etc., for inspection and sale : 
 also, to declare enmity, war, hatred, etc. (3) It means, to prefer; 
 which is the least common signification. In the New Testament, 
 iigoTi'O^rjfit is sometimes used in the sense of purposing, decreeing, 
 constituting; e. g. Rom. 1: 13. Eph. 1: 9. So also in Joseph. Antiq. 
 IV. 0, 5. 
 
 Of these various meanings, the second classical one seems plainly 
 to be that which is best adapted to our text ; for this best agrees with 
 the tig t'vdei'^iv and ngog tvdti&v which follow. Of ngotdfzo o 
 \tiog ilu6ii)ytov may then be rendered : whom God hath openly 
 exhibited to the loorld as a propitiatory sacrifice. But suppose now, 
 that we construe IXaanjoiov as meaning mercy-seat, then where is 
 the congruity of the image ? Was the mercy-seat exhibited to the 
 view of those for whom atonement was made 1 Never ; the high- 
 priest only saw it, once in each year, on the great day of atonement. 
 To avoid this evident incongruity, one must render Tigotdexo, consti- 
 tuit ; and then the evident reference made by it to tig tvSti^w and 
 Tigoq tvda'iiv, is lost or obscured. 
 
 On the whole, I see no congruous method of interpreting the 
 passage before us, except by rendering l\uoTi}Otov, propitiatory 
 sacrifice. In respect to the sentiment which this rendering exhibits, 
 compare John 1: 29. Eph. 5: 2. 1 Pet. 1: 19. 2: 24. Heb. 9: 14. 1 
 Cor. 5: 7. If iluoxi)oiov be rendered propitiation (as in our English 
 version), the sense will be the same. 
 
 Aia xijg nlaxtojg, by faith, i. e. this sacrifice then produces its 
 propitiatory effect, when faith is exercised in the blood, i. e. death, of 
 the victim which is offered. In other words : Christ makes expiation 
 which is effectual for such, and only such, as trust or put confidence 
 in his atoning blood, i. e. who believe in him as " the Lamb of God 
 which taketh away the sin of the world." 
 
 Atu xr\g Tiloxeaig may also be connected with dtxuiovfievot or 
 with -jTQOt&iTo • but not to so good purpose, or so naturally, as with 
 
 IXuGTtJQtOV. 
 
 Ev no u'lfiaxt avxov means, his bloody death; the expression 
 and image being borrowed from the expiatory blood of the ancient 
 sacrifices. Faith in this blood, or in the death of Jesus, as the means 
 of expiation, seems to be the distinguishing trait above all others of 
 true Christianity. 
 
 Eig tvdnl-w .... npog i'vdeihv. Two questions that are very 
 
ROMANS 3: 25. 167 
 
 important in respect to the interpretation of vs. 25, 26, arise here, viz. 
 (1) Are tig and ngog used in this place as equivalent terms, and 
 joined with i'vdiiiiv as designating a sense which in both cases is 
 the same? (2) Is ngog tvdtitiv co-ordinate with fig ivdtiiiv, i. e. 
 is it arranged in the same manner, and does it sustain the same rela- 
 tion to the Jirst part of the whole sentence ? As to the first question ; 
 nothing can be more certain than that both sig and ngog stand 
 before the Accusative case, and before the Infinitive mode used as 
 a noun in the Accusative, in order to design the intention, object, 
 purpose, design, e?id, etc., of any thing; e. g. sig ^ioi'jv in order to 
 obtain life, fig Ttjv dvof.iluv in order to commit iniquity, sig o for 
 which purpose, tig tovio for this purpose, fig to if.nxaitac in order 
 to mock, Matt. 20: 19, tig to OTuvgoytJ^vui in order to be crucified, 
 and so in numberless instances; see Bretsch. Lex. sig. 3. The same 
 thing is true of iryog' e.g. ngog to ^tuxt^vui, in order to be seen, 
 Matt. 6: 1 ; ngog nugw/tuicxaai, for the sake of passing the icinter, 
 Acts 27: 12; ngog to inixtvprjaai, in order to lust, Matt. 5:28, • 
 ngog oixod'o^?jv,for the sake of edification, Rom. 15: 2; ngog tvTQO- 
 nr\v, for the sake of shaming you, I Cor. 6:5, et al. ssepe ; see 
 Bretschn. Lex. ngog, III. c. 
 
 So far then as usage is concerned, it is a perfectly plain case, that 
 tig tvdtiS.iv and ngog tvdtiSiv may be altogether equivalent. Tho- 
 luck thinks that the change of prepositions (tig and ngog) makes 
 against the co-ordination of tig tvdtc'itv and ngog svflsi£iv' and yet, 
 in commenting on v. 30 below, he is obliged to admit, that sx ntOTtoog 
 and dm mart cog are altogether equivalent. Such I take to be the 
 case with the tig and ngog in question ; and therefore, 
 
 (2) I must, with Flatt, Turretin, and many other expositors, ex- 
 plain sig tvdtiS.iv and ngog tvdtiSiv as co-ordinate. The arrangement 
 of the thought stands thus: 6v ngot'&tTO 6 fltog IXuoti]oiov .... tig 
 tvdtiicv — ov ngoifttro 6 &tog IXaGxrigiov . . . ngog tvdtiiiv which 
 arrangement fully exhibits what I mean, by saying that the expres- 
 sions are co-ordinate. And this arrangement seems to be plainly and 
 fully confirmed, by the antithetic comparison of ngoytyovoiwv (past) 
 in one clause, and iv tu> vvv tcaigta (present) in the other. 
 
 Tr t g dr/MioGvvrjg uvtov, of his justification, i. e. of the justifica- 
 tion which he proffers, or of which he is the author. But here again 
 is great diversity of opinion among commentators. Ambrose, Locke, 
 and others, understand d'r/.uioovv?]g as meaning veracity; Theodo- 
 ret, Socinus, Grotius, Bolten, and Koppe, explain it as meaning 
 
1(58 ROMANS 3: 25. 
 
 goodness; like the Hebrew PTjJ'lS . Flatt renders it sanctitas ; Tho- 
 luck says that dixaiOGuprj, in Paul's writings, always means right- 
 eousness or holiness ; in which he is most surely mistaken. To my 
 own mind nothing can be plainer, than that dixuioovi>r}Q has the 
 same sense here as in chap. 1: 17, and as in v. 22d above; where it 
 seems too plain to be mistaken. What can be more certain, than that 
 it is taken in a sense which is homogeneous with dtyMCcodiiofTUt in 
 v. 20, and dtxuiovf-tfvot in v. 23? 
 
 What now is the sentiment which is in accordance with this? It 
 is as follows : ' God has openly exhibited Christ to the world as a 
 propitiatory offering for sin, unto all who believe in him, in order that 
 he might fully exhibit his pardoning mercy (his dixuioovvrj) in 
 respect to the forgiveness of sins under the past and present dis- 
 pensation.' 
 
 Is not this plain and consistent sentiment, congruous with the 
 design of the writer and with the nature of facts ? How or why so 
 much difficulty should have been made about the word div.cuoovi>iiQ 
 here, I am not able to explain. Turretin, indeed, calls the exegesis 
 which I have here given, " frigida repetitio .... apostolo nostro haud 
 satis digna." I should have been better satisfied, if he had given 
 some valid reason for such a remark ; which it is always easier to 
 make than to justify. One good rule in the explanation of Scripture 
 is, that the same writer, on the same topic, and in the same connec- 
 tion of reasoning and thought, must be construed as using the same 
 phraseology in the same sense. All I ask here is, that a maxim so 
 plain and reasonable, should be observed. And where is the " repe- 
 titio" in this case? Where has the apostle before said, that God had 
 openly proposed to the world the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, in 
 order to exhibit his pardoning mercy for sins committed under the 
 old and under the new dispensation? And as to the "frigida;" if 
 there be any one sentiment, in the whole New Testament, respecting 
 the efficacy of the atoning blood of Jesus with regard to power and 
 extent, which stands at the head of all others, the sentiment here 
 developed holds this very place. It has its express parallel, only in 
 Heb. 9: 15. I feel constrained, therefore, to differ here exceedingly 
 from Turretin, as to what he names frigida interpretation It is as 
 opposite to this, as light is to darkness. 
 
 Jliu i }}v . . . . deov, in regard to the remission of sins formerly 
 committed, during the forbearance of God. That diu not unfre- 
 quently has the meaning in respect to, in regard to, see Matt. 18: 23, 
 
ROMANS 3:25,2(1 109 
 
 dia tovio, iii respect to this, viz. the sentiment which Jesus had just 
 uttered ; the same in Matt. 21: 43. 23: 34, diu tovio, for the sake of 
 this, on account of this; Mark 11: 24. Luke 11: 49. 1 Thess. 3: 7, diet, 
 on account of; to which I may add Rom. 5: 12, did tovto, in respect 
 to this, viz. the sentiment which had just been uttered. So Flatt on 
 our verse, diet, in Ruclcsicht auf, in respect to. 
 
 The clause did r/;i/ ndoiaiv .... \>fov, I regard as epexegetical 
 of the preceding dixaionvinjg ctvrov, viz. his dr/.uioauvr] was mani- 
 fested on account of, in respect to, the remission of sins committed in 
 former times, etc. 
 
 IIuQiaiv (from nagiijftt) means remission, passing by, dismissing, 
 etc.; and therefore it has the same sense with uqioiv, as we should 
 expect from the etymology of the word. — IIgoyfyov6i(ov, formerly 
 done, committed in times before. In the sense of clone, taken place, or 
 committed, ylvopcu is often used with respect to actions ; e. g. Matt. 6: 
 10. Luke 10: 13. 23: 24. 9: 7. 13: 17. 2S: 8, et alibi; see Bretschn. 
 Lex. yivoftai, 3. 
 
 (26) Ev i>j uvoyj], during the forbearance of God. The uniting 
 of this clause with v. 26, is a mistake of Robert Stephens; for it is 
 plainly connected with the preceding verse, and has reference either 
 to naptoiv or nQoytyovormv nf.iaQTt]fidiuv. But to which of these? 
 Does the writer mean to say, remission .... through the forbearance 
 of God to punish sin ; or sins formerly committed, ichilc God forbore 
 to punish ? I understand him in the latter sense ; and this is the 
 natural exegesis of dvoyij, so far as its present position in the sentence 
 is concerned. That tv often has the sense of during, dum est, is 
 quite clear; e. g. Matt. 12: 2, iv oafi&uroj, during the sabbath; Matt. 
 13: 4, iv TO) ontlotiv, inter screndum, during the action of sowing ; 
 John 2: 23, tv ztj toQTij, during the feast ; John 7: 11. Acts 8: 33. 
 17:31. Rev. 1: 10. 
 
 As to the sentiment of the clause, it has in some respects a paral- 
 lel, in Acts 17: 30 ; " As to the times of this ignorance, vntoidojv 6 
 fiiog," i. e. God forbore punishment. But in our text, the apostle 
 speaks of the remission which is connected with justification, i. e. 
 the pardon of sin. 
 
 IToog ii/dfi'iii' ir t g dixatoovi'qg uvrou, the same in all respects 
 as fig ti'dfitif rijg dwaioavvijg uvxov in v. 25. ' Ev rw vvv KctiQw, 
 at the present time, i. e. under the new dispensation. Thus has the 
 apostle shewn, that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ extends, with 
 respect to its efficacy, to all ages of the world, to all generations and 
 22 
 
170 ROMANS 3: 2G. 
 
 nations ; i. e. that it is capable of such an extent, where such a faith 
 as God requires is exhibited. The parallel of this remarkable and 
 most cheering and animating sentiment, is to be found in Heb. 9: 15. 
 It is implied in other passages of the New Testament, not unfre- 
 quently ; but it is no where else so explicitly asserted. The sentiment 
 shews, moreover, in what light the apostle viewed the death of Christ. 
 If this were to be regarded only as the death of a martyr to the truth, 
 or as an example of constancy, etc., then how could its efficacy take 
 hold on nfjoytyovoiwv dfxapirj [autwv, whatever it might do as to 
 those who lived after his death took place 1 This question seems to 
 suo-gest the necessity of ascribing a vicarious influence to the death 
 of Jesus ; for how else can it avail for the forgiveness of sins commit- 
 ted in early ages ? 
 
 Eig ro thai .... 'h]Oou, that he might be just, and yet thejusti- 
 fier of him that believeth in Jesus, i. e. has the faith of a Christian. 
 Here again is a great diversity of sentiment concerning dixatov 
 some making it to signify kind, benignant, for which they appeal to 
 Matt. 1: 19. John 17: 25. 1 John 1: 9, and the frequent signification 
 of the Hebrew p^a and "J^l? . But although the word is capable 
 of this sense, the connection does not seem to admit it here, as it 
 would make tautology. The difficulty seems to be, that commenta- 
 tors have overlooked the logical connection of the whole clause. The 
 fig to at the beginning of it, shews that it has a like object with fig 
 tvdeiS.iv and ixQog tvdti'iiv, and is co-ordinate with them. There 
 seems to me, however, to be this difference, viz. that in tig to tivai 
 dixatov v.. t. I, the writer looks back to the whole sentiment proposed 
 in vs. 21 — 24 ; which is, that all men are sinners, and that a regard 
 merely to the law, i. e. a sense of justice merely on the part of God, 
 or he being dixaiog merely, does not in itself permit justification by 
 overlooking or setting aside the penalty of the law ; but the death of 
 Christ is an expedient of infinite wisdom, by which the full claims of 
 the law may be admitted, and yet the penalty avoided, because a 
 moral compensation or equivalent has been provided, by the sufferings 
 of him who died in the sinner's stead. Here then are two things 
 conspicuous in this wonderful arrangement of infinite wisdom and 
 benevolence ; the first, that God will not give up the penalty of his 
 law without an adequate substitute for it ; he is diy.aiog, i. e. he fully 
 retains a high and immutable regard to justice or rectitude, he is 
 unwilling to sacrifice any part of the purity and strictness of his law 
 which is " holy and just and good :" the second, that God has still 
 
ROMANS 3:26,27. 171 
 
 provided a way by which he may retain all his views of justice, and 
 his law may remain without being in any measure dishonoured or 
 sacrificed, and yet the penitent sinner may be pardoned, and treated 
 as though he had yielded perfect obedience to it. These I take to 
 be the sentiments conveyed by bixuiov and dixulovviu in this pas- 
 sage. Bengel has happily expressed it : " Summurn hie paradoxon 
 evangelicum ,• nam in lege conspicitur Deus Justus et condemnans, 
 in evangelio Justus ipse et justificans peccatores." As I can find no 
 case ifl which dlxutog appears to mean either justified, or justifying, 
 I must retain the sense of just in this place. 
 
 Tov ix ntOTiws Jtjoov is like ol ix mQiTOfirjg, ol e'S tpt&tiag, 
 etc. The phrase may be correctly translated : The believer in 
 Jesus, or him who is of the faith which believes in Jesus, i. e. the true 
 Christian believer. 
 
 (27) Uov ovv r\ xavxqoig; where then is boasting or glorying? 
 That is, if what I have said be true, viz. that all men, both Jews and 
 Gentiles, are sinners, and can be justified only by grace through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; then it follows, that all boasting 
 of their own merits, all glorying in their special privileges, is entirely 
 excluded. This has a special reference to the Jews, who were so 
 prone to boast of these things. 
 
 Aia noiov V0/.10V ; by ichat arrangement or economy ? Nofiov 
 appears to be used here in the sense of the Chaldee nT , economy or 
 rule of doing any thing. It sometimes designates a mode of life ; e. g. 
 Phil. 3: 5, xuru v6f.tov &aruoa7og. For the sense of rule or stand- 
 ard, see in Rom. 7: 23, 25. 8: 2. 9: 31. In the sense of economy or 
 arrangement it is used in Gal. 3: 21. Acts 21: 20, and perhaps 23: 29. 
 The sense is : 'By what arrangement, or by what rule, is boasting 
 excluded V 
 
 Tojv t'gycDv ; That is, Is it excluded did vofiov tov tQyoiv; Is 
 it excluded by that economy or rule, which places justification on the 
 ground of perfect obedience to the law, i. e. of entirely performing 
 those works which the law demands? 
 
 Ovyi .... nloTiojg, nay, but by the economy or rule of faith. 
 That is, faith being the condition of justification under the gospel- 
 arrangement or vopog, this excludes all claims of desert on the part 
 of the sinner. The very statement of itself shews, that although faith 
 is a conditio sine qua non of justification, yet it is not the meritorious 
 or procuring cause of it. Nopov TciOTicog means, that arrangement 
 which makes faith necessary to salvation, but which, at the same 
 time, bestows salvation merely as a gratuity. 
 
J72 ROMANS 3: 28— 31. 
 
 (28) yloyi&ftuQu • • • • vofiov, we conclude, therefore, that a man 
 is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law ; i. e. we believe or 
 count it as certain, that men are justified in a gratuitous manner, 
 through faith in Christ, and not by perfect obedience to the law, or 
 by perfectly doing those things which the law requires. What is 
 meant by being justified by faith, is sufficiently plain here, inasmuch 
 as it is opposed to justification by works, i. e. on the score of merit or 
 perfect obedience. See remarks on chap. 4: 5. 
 
 Luther translates nlaiii, allein durch den Glauben, i. e. by faith 
 only. And such were his views on this subject, that he rejected the 
 epistle of James from the canon of the New Testament, because he 
 thought that the second chapter of this epistle taught a doctrine 
 different from that which Paul here inculcates. I must refer the 
 reader to Excursus II. for a brief view of this subject. 
 
 (29) 'i/ 'jot'daitov .... tttvwv; Is he the God of the Jetos 
 only ? Is he not also of the Gentiles? That is, why should it not 
 be acknowledged, that " the God of the spirits of all flesh," who " has 
 made of one blood all the nations that dwell upon the face of the 
 earth," and who of old was named V P "5 8 $1 2 ! 7 ='¥ ~r.p V^-.Z — wn y 
 should he not sustain the same relation to the Gentiles as to the 
 Jews, and admit them to the like privileges? 
 
 (30) He should; he must be so regarded. Nal, xal i&vwv . To 
 confirm this he adds: tntlnfQ .... niozecog, since it is one and the 
 same God icho will justify the circumcised by faith, and the unciraim- 
 cised by faith. ATg, one and the same; so Luke 12: 52. 1 Cor. 10: 
 17. 11: 5, et al. — Ex Ttisxemg and dia zijg nlottoig are of the same 
 import; for both tx and diet are placed before the Genitive as signify- 
 ing the instrumental cause, in the same sense, in almost numberless 
 examples. — IlegiTO^Tjv and axyupvoiluv are examples of the ab- 
 stract put for the concrete. 
 
 (31) Ao^tov ovv .... Tiloifog; Do we then make void the law 
 through faith ? That is, do we counteract or annul the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, by inculcating gratuitous justification 1 So I feel 
 obliged to construe vouov here, when I compare this verse with vs. 
 20, 21, and with chap. iv. where the object of the writer throughout 
 is, to shew that the Old Testament inculcates the same doctrine as 
 that which he here urges. So Flatt, Koppe, Tholuck, and others. 
 Chrysostom also says of vOftov here: rouio [dixuiuvf] ovy ioyvoev 
 o vo/.iog. The argument which renders this exegesis quite plain, is, 
 that the apostle immediately proceeds to answer the objection here 
 
ROMANS 4: 1. 173 
 
 made, by shewing that the Old Testament actually teaches the doc- 
 trine in question. 
 
 A6f.iOf iaiiiiutv, we confirm the law ; i. e. we inculcate that which 
 entirely accords with the Old Testament, and only serves to con- 
 firm it. 
 
 How gratuitous justification can be said to confirm or establish 
 the moral law, (as this text has been often explained), it seems diffi- 
 cult to make out. That the doctrine of justification by faith does not, 
 indeed, overthrow moral obligation ; yea, that such a justification 
 even serves in a most important way to promote holiness of life ; 
 the apostle shews in chap. vi. But his present concern is with the 
 objection made to his sentiments, viz. the objection that he is weak- 
 ening the force of the ancient Jewish Scriptures. Accordingly, he 
 discusses this question at large, in the following chapter. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 1—12. 
 
 The writer now proceeds to shew, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament 
 do in fact confirm the view which he had given of gratuitous justification. To 
 the question : What special advantages were bestowed on Abraham, in conse- 
 quence of his peculiar covenant relation with God? the apostle replies, that he 
 had no cause of glorying before God, on the ground of any external privilege 
 which was his, vs. 1, 2. The Scripture asserts, that Abraham's faith teas 
 imputed to him for righteousness ; and consequently that he was gratuitously 
 justified, vs. 3, 4. So also David speaks of the subject of justification, repre- 
 senting it as gratuitous forgiveness, not as acceptance pro mcritis, vs. G — 8. If 
 it be asked now, whether such forgiveness belongs only to those who are 
 circumcised, i. e. to Abraham and his natural posterity, the answer is, that 
 such cannot be the case ; for Abraham was himself justified antecedently to his 
 circumcision: and he received this rite merely as a token of confirmation in 
 respect to the blessing already bestowed ; and in order that he might be a 
 spiritual father, i. e. an eminent pattern or exemplar of spiritual blessings, 
 both to Gentiles and Jews, vs. 9 — 12. 
 
 Verses 1 — 12 may be divided into three distinct parts, if the reader desires 
 it; viz. (1) Vs. 1 — 5, the justification of Abraham was gratuitous. (2) Vs. 
 6 — 8, David discloses the same views of acceptance with God. (3) Vs. — 12, 
 circumcision was not, and'could not be, any ground at all of the justification 
 of Abrahim. I have, however, chosen to connect these under one general 
 head, because I view the third particular as the answer to the question in v. 1, 
 and the first and second particulars as being preparatory to this, and also as 
 having respect to the main design of the writer, which is to shew that the Old 
 Testament Scriptures do in fact exhibit the same views of justification, which 
 he has given in the preceding context. The particular introduction to the 
 remaining parts of the present chapter, will be found in its appropriate place. 
 
 (1) Ti ovv .... xutu au(jy.u; What then shall we say that 
 Abraham our father obtained in respect to the Jlcsh? This question 
 is parallel with those in chap. 3: 1. The apostle evidently suggests 
 
174 ROMANS 4: 1. 
 
 it as one which an opponent to his views would naturally ask. The 
 import of it is : ' How will your doctrine concerning justification as 
 entirely gratuitous, agree with the views which the Scripture leads us 
 to take of Abraham ? Had he no advantage from his precedence and 
 privileges? Was the covenant and rite of circumcision, by which he 
 was distinguished from all the rest of the world, of no avail in his 
 case V Such is evidently the tenor of the discourse, whether we 
 suppose the apostle to put such interrogations in his own person, or in 
 that of his opponent. 
 
 Ovv, then, i. e. on the ground which you take, what can we say, 
 etc. — Tov iiaxiQu ijiidjv, our father, shews that the objector here is 
 supposed to be a Jew. EvQiyxivat, obtained; comp. Luke 1 : 30. 
 Heb. 9: 12. — Kara aagxa is a controverted phrase here. Should it 
 be united in sense with tov Tiartga muavl Or must we join it with 
 (vg^xtvat ? If the question here concerned the relation of Abraham 
 respectively as a spiritual father and as a natural one, we should feel 
 in a measure necessitated to join v.ata oagxa with tov naTt'gu ?]/.iojv. 
 Chrysostom, Erasmus, Limborch, and others, do thus join it; and 
 some manuscripts, in accordance with such views, have transferred 
 evgiixt'vai and placed it before tov naTiga r^io'v. But as the weight 
 of authority is against these ; as the hypcrbaton or transposition, 
 taking the text as it now stands, would be abrupt and improbable, if 
 we should join xard adgxu with toi/ naxtga ijiicov and specially as 
 xard odgxa would not then add any thing to the idea designated by 
 tov TiaxtQa ^icof • so it would seem to be more eligible, to regard 
 adz a odgxa as qualifying evgyxtvai. One meaning which has been 
 given here to adg'E, is, external privileges or advantages; and the 
 appeal is made to 1 Cor. 10: 18. Phil. 3: 3. Gal. 6: 12, in order to 
 confirm this ; but these texts all plainly relate to circumcision. £uq$ 
 sometimes means, that which is external or physical, in distinction 
 from that which is internal or spiritual, e. g. Gal. 4: 23. Rom. 9: 8. 
 In accordance with this general idea, and with probability on their 
 side, Wetstein, Michaelis, Bretschneider (Lex.), and others, under- 
 stand by nard aagxa in our text, circumcision ; odg£, being frequently 
 used to designate the physical member which was circumcised, or 
 fleshly circumcision, e. g. Phil. 3: 3. Gal. 6: 12. 1 Cor. 10: 18. Eph. 
 2: 11. Col. 2: 13; comp. Gen. 17: 11, 14, 24, 25. Tholuck makes 
 the objection to this exegesis, that the apostle does not undertake, in 
 the sequel, to shew that circumcision was not the ground of Abraham's 
 justification, but that works were not. He also suggests, that the 
 
ROMANS 4: 1. 175 
 
 second verse seems to construe xutu augxa as being equivalent in 
 sense to £§ tQyojv. Calvin renders xuict gccqhu, naturalitcr ; and 
 Grotius, propriis viribus; to support which appeal has been made to 
 Matt. 1G: 17. Gal. 1: 1G ; but there the phrase is, flesh and blood. But 
 if we consider kutu oagxcc as the opposite of zaiu ripfvpcc, and 
 regard nvevfta as designating the gracious spiritual influences vouch- 
 safed to believers under the gospel, the meaning of x«ra accyxa would 
 then be : 'In respect to efforts by one's own natural powers, or efforts 
 made in one's own strength.' This is the interpretation which for 
 substance Tholuck defends. If, however, y.urd aupy.a is to be taken 
 as qualifying evprjxt'vai, (and so the present text compels us to take 
 it), I must prefer the predominant sense of it in the epistles of Paul, 
 viz. in respect to circumcision; comp. 3: 1, where the very same 
 question is put in a more literal way. The meaning of the question 
 would then be : What good or advantage has Abraham our father 
 obtained, in respect to the distinguishing rite which separated him 
 from all the world and consecrated him to God I Of what use was 
 it? The apostle, in answer to the like question in chap. 3:1, shews 
 that the Jewish nation were all under sin and under condemnation, 
 and that they can therefore lay no claim to justification on the ground 
 of external privileges. The objector, however, is not satisfied with 
 this general answer, but now suggests the case of Abraham as a more 
 urgent one, and wishes to know whether we can justly hold that no 
 pre-eminence was given to him on account of the covenant and the 
 rite of circumcision. The apostle in his answer does not deny, or 
 rather he tacitly admits, that Abraham enjoyed some advantage on 
 account of his external privileges. He admits the same thing ex- 
 pressly of the whole Jewish nation, 3: 2. But as to the great subject 
 in question, viz. gratuitous justification, Paul avers at once that 
 Abraham was not justified at all on the ground of his external advan- 
 tages, or of any merit ; for then he would have had matter of boasting. 
 But this he has not before God ; whatever may be the praise which his 
 privileges or his conduct in general may deserve from men. 
 
 The particular reason why Paul introduces the case of Abraham 
 here, in distinction from that of the Jews at large, seems to be, the 
 use which he is to make of it in the sequel, in refuting the assumption 
 of the objector. After shewing, in vs. 2 — 9, that the justification of 
 Abraham must have been gratuitous, the apostle proceeds to a special 
 refutation of the idea that Abraham could have been justified naru 
 oagxu, i. e. on account of the rite and covenant of circumcision. 
 
17G ROMANS 4:2,3. 
 
 Tholuck is therefore mistaken, when he states that the apostle has 
 not laboured to contradict this groundless objection of the Jew. In- 
 deed he has made this contradiction so prominent and striking, that 
 one cannot well avoid the supposition, that he had this thing in view, 
 when he used the phrase v.utu ougxu. 
 
 (2) El yug .... xuvyijfia, if, however, Abraham was justified 
 hy works, he has ground of boasting. This seems to me to be the 
 real response of the apostle, which is marked by the nature of the 
 sentiment, and the yug respondents, as Bretschneider calls it, (Lex. 
 in yug)- rug is undoubtedly sometimes employed in making replies, 
 with the sense of yet, hozvever, (see Matt. 27: 23. Luke 23: 22. John 
 7: 41. 9: 30. Mark 7: 28) ; and so I have rendered it above. But 
 when so employed, something is usually implied which precedes it. 
 So here the apostle means the same as to say: 'I concede that 
 Abraham had advantages from his external condition and privileges, 
 [comp. 3: 2, where this idea is expressed] ; it is still true, however, 
 that he was not justified by any works or merit of his own, certainly 
 not in the sight of God; for the Scripture saith, etc' When the 
 writer says el, if, etc., he makes a supposition which he immediately 
 and fully negatives. El t'S. i'gyotv fdixecicufdtij means, if he were justi- 
 fied meritoriously, i. e. on the ground of any thing which belonged to 
 him, or which he had done. 
 
 '^4\)' .... xttov, but not [i. e. he had no ground of boasting] be- 
 fore God. Whatever advantage, then, the Jew might attribute to 
 Abraham, he could not justly attribute that of obtaining justification 
 by his own privileges or merits. So the writer goes on to prove from 
 the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 Ov ngog rov {teov may be considered either as referring to tyti 
 v.uvyi}[KU or to l'% igyotv idty.uto')&?]. The sense will be substantially 
 the same. The immediate antecedent, in such a case, has the 
 preference ; and therefore I consider it as referring to f'yei y.uv/?]fiu. 
 
 (3) For ivhat saith the Scripture ? And Abraham believed God, 
 and it teas counted to him for righteousness ; see Gen. 15: 6, which 
 runs thus : " And he [God] counted it to him [Abraham] as right- 
 eousness." Instead of the active form, the apostle (with the Seventy) 
 employs the passive one, which for substance communicates the same 
 sense. But what is Xoyi^toOut fig dixuioovvr]v? 
 
 This inquiry is of great importance in order to understand the 
 present chapter, in which the expression mentioned is so often em- 
 ployed. In v. 4, the phrase in question is exchanged for Xoyl£iTui 
 
ROMANS 4 : 3. 177 
 
 xuzu ydoiv ■ which affords a view of its meaning that is entirely 
 satisfactory. To reckon Abraham's belief as righteousness, cannot 
 mean, that the simple act, on the part of Abraham, of giving credit to 
 the divine testimony, was tantamount to complete obedience in all 
 respects to the divine law, and was accepted as such. In this case, 
 Abraham would have been accepted on the ground of his own merit ; 
 for his belief was as much his own act, as any kind of obedience could 
 have been. To have his belief imputed or counted for righteousness, 
 then, must mean, that in consequence of his belief, he ivas treated as 
 righteous, he was accepted as righteous, i. e. he was gratuitously justi- 
 fied, treated as righteous, or accepted as righteous. So vs. 4, 5 ; 
 which speak so plainly to this point, that the force of their testimony 
 cannot be avoided ; see the remarks upon them. 
 
 In regard to the faith of Abraham, (which, as described in Gen. 
 15: 6, is not appropriately faith in Christ), Heb. xi. shews, that all 
 faith, i. e. all true faith, is of one and the same nature, and is con- 
 nected with the like blessings. All true faith is confidence in God; 
 confidence in his declarations, whether they have respect to the 
 Messiah, or to any fact or doctrine whatever. Substantially, then, 
 faith must always perform the same office ; for it is always essentially 
 of the same nature. 
 
 In order further to illustrate the meaning of loyl&o&ai %. r. A. to 
 impute or reckon, etc., it may be remarked, (1) That the word some- 
 times means, to reckon to one what he actually possesses, to impute 
 that to him which actually belongs to him, i. e. to treat him as actu- 
 ally possessing the thing or quality reckoned to him ; e. g. Ps. 106: 
 31 (105: 31), (comp. Num. 25: 10—13). 2 Sam. 19: 19, (atj loyia- 
 ao&M 6 kvqioq pov dvopiav. Ps. 32: 2 (31: 2). 1 Cor. 13: 5. 2 Cor. 
 5: 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. 
 
 (2) It also means, to impute something to one which does not 
 actually belong to him ; to treat him as possessing what he does not 
 actually jjossess, or as having done that which he has not actually 
 done; e. g. Lev. 17: 4, aTpa Xoyio&tjoerui, blood shall be imputed to 
 that man, i. e. he shall be treated as if guilty of shedding human 
 blood ; which he had not done, for so the sequel shews. So also 
 Hos. 8: 12. 1 Sam. 1: 13 (Sept.) Lam. 4: 2. Wisdom (Apocrypha) 
 2: 16. Such is plainly the sense, in Rom. 4: 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 22, 
 23, 24. So also ikkoyei, Philem. v. 18. See the remarks at the 
 close of v. 5. 
 
 The reader will note also, that in most of the cases just cited, a± 
 23 
 
ITg ROMANS 4: 4, 5. 
 
 is plainly used as equivalent to ojq ■ and in the same sense the He- 
 brew b is often used, to which ug corresponds. 
 
 (4) To} igya&ftepqt (Midd. voice), to him who worketh, i. e. to 
 him who performs all the I'gycc vopov, to him who yields entire obe- 
 dience to the precepts of law; compare the remarks on Igya vo- 
 pov under 3: 20 above. 'jEgyaCopevq? here is equivalent to 6 noimi/ 
 ru i'gya • comp. 3: 20, 27, 28. 2: 15 ; also v. 6. below. Luther trans- 
 lates : Der mit Werken umgehct ; Beza : Is qui ex opcre est aliquid 
 promcritus. Tholuck defends Luther's version. To me it seems to 
 convey truth, but not the ivholc truth. Better has Turretin said : Per 
 turn qui qperatur non intelligimus .... eos qui bona opera faciunt, 
 sed eos qui perfecte implerunt legem Dei absque ullo defectu. 
 
 ' O (iiGdog .... yagiv, rtioard is not regarded or counted as a 
 matter of grace; i. e. it is his just due, as the sequel («M« xura oqel- 
 h]f.tci) shews; a due in consequence of the promise or engagement of 
 reward which the law contains, and not because the obedience of men 
 can really profit the divine Being, so as to lay him under obligations 
 on this account. 
 
 (5) Tot di ftrj tgya&LitvM, but to him who does not yield perfect 
 obedience ; plainly the opposite of the first part of the verse. The 
 meaning is : ' To the sinner who has not exhibited perfect obedience, 
 but nioztvovri x. t. A., believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,' 
 i. e. on Christ who died for sinners, and by whose death they are jus- 
 tified; comp. 5: 8—10. 4: 25. 1 Pet. 3: 18. Heb. 9: 28. 
 
 Aoyi£na.i .... Siy.occooi'VTjg, his faith is coiintcd as righteous- 
 ness ; i. e. through belief in Christ who died for sinners, he comes to 
 be treated or accepted as if he were himself righteous ; in other 
 words, through the favour of God he is freed from ihe penalty of the 
 law, and accepted and treated as he would be, had he been perfectly 
 obedient. 
 
 But how can a man's faith be counted as righteousness, and yet 
 this man at the same time be gratuitously justified, i. e. justified with- 
 out attributing to him any merit? Is not faith an act of his own? 
 And if his faith be counted as righteousness, and he in this way be 
 justified, why is he not justified as truly by his own doings, as if he 
 were justified on the ground of perfect obedience ? 
 
 These questions are very natural, and they have often been asked 
 and urged. To answer them satisfactorily, we must recur for a mo- 
 ment to the nature of faith and works, as placed in contra-distinction 
 to each other by the apostle Paul. 
 
ROMANS 4:. r >. 179 
 
 We have already seen (3: 20), that t\iya voptov, (and therefore 
 ifjya, which, in this epistle, is for the most part only an abridgement 
 of this phrase), means those toorks which the lata requires. To do 
 these tvorks must of course mean, to do them as the law requires, i. e. 
 to do all of them, and perfectly ; in a word, it means perfect obedience. 
 This is one ground (the legal one) of justification ; and it stands on 
 the simple basis : " This do, and thou shalt live." To be justified by 
 works of law, or by works, means, of course, to be justified by com- 
 plete or perfect obedience. 
 
 To this the apostle directly opposes justification by faith, Rom. 3: 
 27, 28; comp. vs. 20 — 22. Consequently justification by faith means, 
 gratuitous justification. So the apostle has shewn us most clearly, 
 by averring that what he had called dixcuoovvi] dtov did nioxeojg in 
 3: 22, is the same as being justified d(»gtav, t>j aviov yuQixi, v. 23. 
 The contrast also in 3: 27, 28 fully confirms the same view. 
 
 In the verses which we are now considering (4: 4, 5), this contrast 
 is fully drawn out and presented to view. 'J'(jyu£u[.ifvog is one who 
 does all the egya xov v6f.iov, and so is entitled to the reward y.ccxa 
 ogf/A »;,««, i. e. agreeably to the promise made in the law. On the 
 other hand, o Tuaxtucov im xov dixaiovvxa xov aotfitj is one, who, 
 abandoning all hope of salvation on law-ground, i. e. by his own 
 merit, puts his confidence in the Saviour only for pardon and accept- 
 ance with God. Now the faith by which he does this, is intimately 
 connected of course with his justification ; so that Paul very often 
 speaks of d'matoovvrj £% niaitiog, and employs the phrases dixaiw- 
 &tvTfg ix TTtGTfwg, idixaioj&i] ix nioxfwg, etc. But the manner in 
 which he speaks of justification every where; the assertion that it is 
 daiQtav, that it is xij yctgixi, that it is bestowed on iw pr\ £gyu£o- 
 fit'po) • and the direct contrast which he makes between being justi- 
 fied by works, i. e. by perfect or meritorious obedience, and by faith; 
 shew, beyond all reasonable question, that faith is never connected 
 with justification as the meritorious cause of it, but only as a conditio 
 sine qua non, a state of heart and feelings without which the gratui- 
 tous benefits that Christ bestows on sinners, cannot be received. To 
 use the language of the old writers : 'It is a mere meritum ex congruo, 
 not a meritum ex condigno ;' i. e. it implies simply a. fitness in the sub- 
 ject of blessings to receive them, not a desert of such blessings. 
 
 This is all plain. What then is it to have one's faith counted for 
 righteousness ? This question is fully and most satisfactorily an- 
 swered in 4: 6, 7. It is ' to be forgiven yojfjlg ipyuv,' without meri- 
 
!gO ROMANS 4 : 5, 6. 
 
 torious obedience, without having fulfilled the demands of the law ; it 
 is for one ' to have no iniquity imputed to him.' It is quite clear, 
 then that by loyi&adut -nioziv tig dtxaioovvrjp is not meant, that 
 one's faith is put in the place of perfect obedience to the law, and 
 counted to him on the score of merit; but that faith, when exercised 
 by the penitent sinner, is a means or instrument of his being regarded 
 or treated as righteous. Yet the fact that he is so treated , is a mere gra- 
 tuity ; not something due to the sinner on the score of merit, a merit 
 connected with his faith. Nothing can be made clearer than this is, 
 by Rom. 3: 20—24, 28, 29. 4: 4, 5, 6, 7. And according to these 
 plain and certain views, are we to modify the expression loyi&o&at, 
 iiiOTiv tig d'lxaiocvvtjv. Whenever faith is so counted, it is all of 
 gratuity. The faith of a sinner, is not what the divine law originally 
 requires; strictly speaking, then, it is not obedience to the law; the 
 faith of a sinner is a requisition of the gospel, (I mean faith in its 
 appropriate Christian sense), as distinguished from the law. To 
 count this faith as righteousness, is to treat the penitent sinner who 
 possesses it, as if he were righteous, i. e. to deliver him from punish- 
 ment and to advance him to happiness. It must of course be by gra- 
 tuity altogether, that a sinner who has faith is thus treated. The 
 very nature of the whole transaction shews this ; for the faith in ques- 
 tion is belief in a Saviour, who came to deliver sinners that were in a 
 perishing condition. That deliverance is of grace. Faith is not of 
 itself such an act of obedience to the divine law, as that it will supply 
 the place of perfect obedience. Nor has it any efficacy in itself, as 
 a meritum ex condigno, to save men. It is merely the instrument of 
 union to Christ, in order that they may receive a gratuitous salvation. 
 But of this salvation we must always say, with Paul : " If by grace, 
 it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace," Rom. 
 11:6. 
 
 (6) KuOumq scat .... olv&qo'jtiov, in like manner, also, David 
 speaks of the blessedness of the man. The apostle having adduced the 
 example of Abraham, as being gratuitously justified through faith, 
 now goes on to add the example of David, in order to shew, (what he 
 had before asserted in 3: 31), that he does not disannul the Old 
 Testament Scriptures by avowing the doctrine of gratuitous justifi- 
 cation. Aiyti, describes, speaks of. — JJuymqioi-iov, the blessedness or 
 ihe happiness, the great privilege. Sit 6 dtog . . . t'yywv, i. e. whom 
 God accepts and treats as righteous, %o»Qig t'gywv, without entire 
 obedience to the law, without having done all the works which the 
 
ROMANS 4:6,7. 181 
 
 law enjoins ; comp. v. 5 above, with the references there. To impute 
 righteousness without works, is substantially the same as to impute 
 faith for righteousness, as we have already seen. 
 
 From the use made of diy.caoGvvi] in vs. 3 — 6 here, and elsewhere 
 in this chapter where the same phraseology occurs, it is evident that the 
 word is not to be understood in the sense of justification, (which is the 
 more common meaning of it in our epistle), but in the usual sense of 
 np*3SE , viz. the doing of that which is right, obedience to the divine law. 
 This results from the connection in which dixaioovin} here stands, 
 from the evident design of the writer, and from the particular nature 
 of his phraseology. Paul is aiming to shew, that on the ground of 
 perfect obedience (np'i2C or dixaioavvt] in the complete sense), no 
 one can be saved ; and that the Old Testament Scriptures teach us 
 plainly, that even such men as Abraham and David were saved y.azu 
 %uoiv .... ovu t£ tQywv. But how? The answer is, that, "believ- 
 ing on him who justifieth the ungodly," their " faith was counted for 
 righteousness," i. e. they were gratuitously justified through faith, or 
 they found through faith that acceptance with God, which would have 
 followed perfect obedience or the dixaioouvi] which the law of God 
 demands. In other words : TJheir faith was gratuitously reckoned 
 as equivalent to the dixatoouvi] demanded by the law. The nature 
 of the case and the object of the writer shew, therefore, that the 
 dcxaioavvt] here mentioned is a legal one ; and consequently that the 
 meaning justification cannot be attached to it. And besides all this, 
 the phrase loyi£io&cu tig Siaaioavm]v is peculiar, and shews that a 
 special sense is to be attached to it. To say — teas counted for justi- 
 fication, would make no tolerable sense ; but to say — was counted 
 as complete obedience, would be saying just what the apostle means to 
 say, viz. that the believer is gratuitously justified ; for through vs. 
 3 — 6, and for the most part in the sequel, loyl^oput is used in the 
 second sense mentioned under v. 3, viz. that of imputing to one what 
 in reality does not belong to him. When the penitent sinner's faith is 
 counted for righteousness, i. e. when the penitent sinner is accepted 
 and treated as if he were righteous, then is something counted to him 
 which does not belong to him ; i. e. righteousness is counted to him, 
 when it does not belong to him. It lies then upon the face of this 
 whole matter, that his salvation is gratuitous, and not of merit. 
 
 (7) Muy.uqiov, happy, greatly privileged. — AytQ^oav, are re- 
 mitted, from aqhjfxi, to remit, forgive. — ' Whose sins ineKalvcf&t}- 
 auv, are covered;' a figurative expression, not unfrequently applied to 
 
182 ROMANS 4: 7, 8. 
 
 the remission of sin. To cover or conceal, is to remove from sight or 
 notice ; and sins which are left out of sight and out of notice, of 
 course are sins which are not punished. 
 
 (8) Happy the man, to whom the Lord imputcth not iniquity ! 
 Here koyloijiai means, to reckon a thing to one which actually be- 
 longs to him; in the sense No. 1, under v. 3 above. The meaning 
 is : ' Happy the man who obtains forgiveness of sins, and is accepted 
 and treated as if he were righteous.' To impute one's own iniquity 
 to him, is to hold him accountable for it in respect to the demands of 
 punitive justice. 
 
 This verse most clearly shews what Paul means by faith being 
 imputed for righteousness; for he commutes with this phrase the 
 expressions, covering sins and imputing not iniquity. To pardon sin, 
 then, and to treat with favour, constitute the essential ideas intended 
 to be conveyed by the above expressions, as used by the apostle. 
 
 The apostle has now prepared the way to refute the special allega- 
 tion designed to be made by the question in v. 1, zi oiv igovpev 
 \4(j 'yauf.1 rSf nuxtoa tqpajv evpijxtvat hutcc caQxa; He has shewn 
 that justification on the ground of merit or perfect obedience is out of 
 the question ; for even Abraham and David were justified through 
 faith gratuitously, and not e| t'oywv. No ground of boasting, then, 
 could be claimed by either of these conspicuous individuals. It was 
 grace only that saved them. But if it is true, in the general sense 
 here stated, that salvation is altogether a gratuity, one question (and 
 but one) still remains, viz. is this gratuity bestowed only on those 
 who are circumcised, i. e. on the Jews only, or is it also granted to 
 the Gentiles ? The prejudiced Jew of course would hold to the first ; 
 and this is intimated in the question in v. I, and had been before more 
 expressly signified in chap. 3: 1. This part of the questions there 
 put, the apostle did not directly answer in chap, m., but contented 
 himself with a discussion of the general question, whether in respect 
 to offences against the divine law, and in regard to the matter of 
 justification, the Jew had any pre-eminence over the Gentile. Hav- 
 ing disposed of this subject in chap, in., and fortified the general 
 views there given concerning justification, by appeals to the Old 
 Testament in chap. 4: 1 — 8, he now comes to the special considera- 
 tion of the question about circumcision, which was first asked in chap. 
 3: 1, and, as it had not been particularly answered in the sequel, is 
 again virtually repeated by the evgrjHi'vai naid oapxa in chap. 4: 1. 
 
 The discussion on this particular point I understand him as now 
 
ROMANS. 4: 9, 10. 183 
 
 introducing, by the language of an objector. 'O f.iuxa(ji<Jf.<og .... 
 ttKQofivGTiav ; [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcised 
 [only], or also upon the uncircumciscd '? That is: 'Granting the 
 truth of the quotation which you have made, conceding the blessed- 
 ness of the man whose sins are forgiven, and wbose iniquities are 
 covered, still I ask : Does such a blessedness belong only to the 
 Jews ? Or are we to suppose that David here means to include the 
 Gentiles also ? Do God's promised mercies belong to his own pecu- 
 liar people only ; or are we to credit it, that they are also bestowed 
 on the idolatrous heathen V 
 
 The Jew doubtless felt that such questions must carry along with 
 them their own answer, and that they would refute the position 
 advanced by the apostle. So confident is he of this, that he even 
 suggests that the very Scripture which the apostle had been quoting, 
 in respect to Abraham, proved a limitation of the blessings in ques- 
 tion ; \iyop.sv yap .... tig diYMioovvtjv, for we say that faith was 
 imputed to Abraham, for righteousness. The word Abraham is of 
 course emphatic, according to this method of interpretation. The 
 language of the objector means as much as to say : 'Be it so that 
 gratuitous justification is the only one which men can obtain ; still 
 the Scripture, in declaring this, says only that faith was counted to 
 Abraham, not to the uncircumcised Gentiles. Your quotation, there- 
 fore, does not establish your general assertion. It only proves that 
 God's covenant people were so justified.' 
 
 In this way of interpreting v. 9, 1 find no difficulty in the Xtyoptv 
 yap • which seems incapable of any other satisfactory explanation. 
 If the words are to be considered simply as the apostle's, they must 
 still be explained as virtually raising objections, or asking questions, 
 that would naturally proceed from his opponent. 
 
 (10) The reply of the apostle now follows : IJojg ovv .... axoo- 
 (jvozta ' How then was it counted? While he was in a state of circum- 
 cision, or of uncirewncision ? Not in a state of circumcision, but of 
 uncirewncision. In iv TTtgiro^iy v.. r. A., the Iv stands (as often) 
 before the Dative of condition, i. e. the Dative of a noun designating 
 state or condition. 
 
 The design of the writer is very plain. The objector suggests by 
 his remarks, that only those within the pale of God's ancient covenant 
 of circumcision, received the blessedness which David describes. But 
 this is not so; for Abraham's/m£A was imputed to him for righteous- 
 ness, i. e. he was gratuitously justified, before the covenant of circuni- 
 
18 4 ROMANS 4: 10, 11. 
 
 cision was made with him, and of course before he was a partaker in 
 this rite. Consequently the blessedness in question is not limited to 
 those who are circumcised, and therefore does not depend on cir- 
 cumcision. 
 
 (11) Kal otjfislov . . . . tv dxgofivoiia, arid he received the sign 
 of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness by faith, which [he ob- 
 tained] while in a state of uncircumcision. That is, circumcision 
 was not the cause or ground of his faith being counted for righteous- 
 ness, or of his being gratuitously justified ; it was merely a seal, i. e. 
 a token of confirmation (for such is acpgayig, 1 Cor. 9: 2. 2 Tim. 2: 
 19) in respect to the blessing which he had before obtained. The 
 allusion in the language, is to the practice of confirming written 
 instruments, by seals placed on them in token of ratification. Trig 
 dixuioavvrjg trjg niOTiwg might here be rendered, of the justification 
 which is by faith ; but the idiom of this chapter rather points us to a 
 different version. There is, however, no ground for mistake here, 
 inasmuch as the qualifying words -rijg niOTtwg, in connection with 
 what had before been said, sufficiently guard against it. 
 
 This circumstance alone is fatal to the claims of the bigoted Jew, in 
 respect to circumcision. But the apostle is not satisfied with repelling 
 the enemy. He advances into his camp, and takes entire possession 
 of it. ' Abraham was not only justified before he was circumcised, 
 but this was done for the very purpose of confirming the truth which 
 I am proclaiming. He was justified before the covenant of circum- 
 cision, sig zo thai .... dixatoouv?]v, in order that he might be the 
 father of all those who believe in a state of uncircumcision, so that 
 righteousness might be imputed to them. That is, God, in justifying 
 Abraham before he was circumcised, did intend to make him a father, 
 i. e. an eminent pattern or example, to Gentile as well as Jewish 
 believers, and to shew that righteousness might be imputed to the 
 uncircumcised as well as to the circumcised. At uxgofivoiiag is an 
 example of 8ia conditionis, i. e. of diu before a noun in the Genitive 
 which designates state or condition. It is of the same import, when 
 thus employed, as the Dative with tv as used above, and is here evi- 
 dently commuted for it. The meaning of the whole verse is, that 
 Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a confirmation of his 
 justification by faith in an uncircumcised state ; and this was thus 
 solemnly confirmed, in order that he might be a spiritual father ; i. e. 
 an eminent pattern or example, to Gentiles who would also be gratu- 
 itously justified in an uncircumcised state. 
 
ROMANS 4: 12. 185 
 
 (12) In ail this, moreover, the apostle admits that there was 
 another object also in view, viz. that Abraham should be a spiritual 
 father of the circumcised, as well as of the uncircumcised, i. e. that 
 he should be an eminent example to all, both Jews and Gentiles, of 
 that justification which God bestows on men under the gospel dispen- 
 sation. So the sequel: Kcu nuzt'ou .... '^^gddfi, and also the 
 father of those who are circumcised, who arc not only of the circumcis- 
 ion, but walk in the steps of that faith which our father Abraham had 
 while in a state of uncircumcision. The ellipsis in the construction of 
 this part of the sentence must be filled up thus: [rig to tlvai\ uviov 
 ■jiaxtoa v.. r. A., which the mind spontaneously carries forward from 
 the preceding clause. The connection requires us to understand the 
 apostle as asserting, that the sign of circumcision which Abraham 
 received, as a seal of the righteousness of faith or a token of confirm- 
 ation in respect to his gratuitous justification, was received by him in 
 order that he might be the spiritual father of such Jews as imitated 
 his example. The writer clearly makes the same distinction here, 
 that he does in chap. 2: 28, 29. Not the literal posterity of Abraham, 
 or his descendants by natural generation only, who received the 
 external sign of circumcision in their flesh, were the children of this 
 patriarch, in the sense here intended. To walk in the steps of Abra- 
 ham's faith means, to follow the example of Abraham, to possess and 
 exercise a faith like his. It is to such, and only to such, that Abra- 
 ham is a spiritual father. 
 
 This last clause of the verse renders very plain what is meant, 
 when Abraham is called the father of both Gentile and Jewish be- 
 lievers. The word 3tt , ttutjJo, employed in this way, designates an 
 exemplar, a pattern, a leading and eminent example after which others 
 copy; comp. for such a sense, Gen. 4: 20, 21. John 8: 38, 41, 44, 
 where the devil is called the father of the wicked Jews ; comp. also 
 1 Mace. 2: 54. In the verse before us, the children of Abraham are 
 those who walk in the steps of his faith, i. e. imitate his example. 
 
 One difficulty remains in respect to to?? axoiyovai. The repeti- 
 tion of the article before it here, seems as if the writer intended to 
 distinguish those whom it designates, from the to7q ovx ix nfoiroptjg 
 iiovov, which by placing the ovx before rolg would mean, not only to 
 those of the cirumcision; and then uU.cc xal rolg x. r. k. would mean, 
 but also to those who wedk, etc., i. e. but also to Gentiles who imitate 
 Abraham's faith. To this purpose the Syriac version, the Vulgate, 
 Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio, Grotius, Koppe, and others. But the 
 24 
 
18G CONTENTS OF ROM. 4: 13—18. 
 
 objection to this is, that heathen believers have already been men- 
 tioned in the preceding verse ; and that the writer seems plainly here 
 intending to characterize such Jews, and only such, as were the spir- 
 itual children of Abraham, i. e. to whom he was a spiritual father. 
 The repetition of the article before axoiyovot in this case is indeed 
 peculiar ; Tholuck calls it a solecism. I regard it rather as a resump- 
 tion of the sentence begun with the preceding zoig, and interrupted 
 for a moment by the ovx in ntQixo^iiig fxovov ulKu y.ui. If these 
 latter words are omitted, or regarded as parenthetic, and the second 
 to?? (which is the sign of resumption) be omitted, the sentence runs 
 smoothly. Nothing is more certain, however, than that anomalous 
 constructions do occur, not only in the writings of Paul, but not 
 unfrequently in classic heathen writers. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 13-18. 
 
 The apostle now proceeds to another illustration and confirmation of his* 
 assertions respecting gratuitous justification. The Jew gloried in belonging to 
 a nation to whom God had given a revealed law, and looked upon the pre- 
 eminence which this gave him, as a proof that God would treat him with 
 special favour in a spiritual respect. The reader has only to look back, and 
 re-peruse chap. 2: 17 — 24, in order to sec what dcpendance the Jews were 
 prone to place upon the knowledge which they possessed of the holy Scrip- 
 tures, and their superiority in this respect over the Gentiles. In order to take 
 away all ground of glorying in this manner, the apostle here proceeds distinctly 
 to remind them, that Abraham was not justified by any such privilege, the law 
 having been given more than four hundred years after the time in which he 
 lived. Such then as are his spiritual children, i. e. such as are justified on 
 grounds like those on which he was justified, cannot regard the law as the 
 ground of their justification. 
 
 The proof of the writer's position is very striking, and could not fail to 
 make a deep impression on the mind of a serious Jew. The manner in which 
 it is exhibited, is well adapted to make such an impression. ' Abraham,' says 
 the apostle, ' did not receive promises for himself and his seed, on account of 
 the law or by means of the law, but gratuitously, i. e. by the righteousness of 
 faith, v. 13. Now if the possession of the law, or obedience to it, were neces- 
 sary to constitute Abraham and his seed heirs of the promises, then heirship 
 by faith, and the promises connected with this, would be annulled, because 
 these were granted to Abraham before the giving of the law, v. 14. The law, 
 moreover, is so far from being the ground of such promises, that it is a 
 means of indignation on the part of God toward sinners, i. e. a means of their 
 punishment; fur it is the prohibitions of the law which constitute and define 
 transgressions, and if there were no law, there could be no transgression, v. 15. 
 Such being the case, the promises are made, not on the ground of law, but 
 through the instrumentality of faith, i. e. gratuitously, in order that all the 
 seed might be assured respecting them, both Gentiles who have not the law, 
 and Jews who have it, provided they have like faith with Abraham, the 
 spiritual father of all, v. 16. The Scripture points out such a relation of Abra- 
 ham to all true believers, and he is regarded as sustaining such an one, by him 
 who raises the dead to life and calls things out of nothing into existence, v. 17. 
 
ROMANS 4: 13. 187 
 
 Such was the faith of the father of believers, that lie put entire confidence in 
 the divine declarations, when, to all appearance, there was no ground to hope 
 that they could be carried into execution ; so that he became the spiritual 
 Father of many nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, according to the tenor of the 
 Scripture promise : So shall tlitj seed be, v. 13. 
 
 (13) Ov ydg .... one'gftccTi ccvtov, for not by the laio tvas the 
 promise made to Abraham, or to his seed. Aia vo/uov, through latv, 
 by means of the law. The writer designs by it either to designate 
 the possession of the law, or the privilege of living under it and being 
 the depositary of it, or else he means obedience to it. I am inclined 
 to give it the former sense here, on account of the oi in v6f,iov in v. 
 14, which rather designates such as live under the law, than those 
 who fulfil it. 
 
 What the promise made to Abraham and his seed was, the writer 
 proceeds to tell us, viz. to xhjgovofiov .... xoGftov, that he should 
 be heir or possessor of the world. This expression is found in none 
 of the passages which contain the promises made to Abraham, Gen. 
 12: 1 — 3. 15: 1 — 6. 17: 1 — 8. But in Gen. 15: 5 is a promise, that 
 the seed of Abraham should be like the stars of heaven for multitude ; 
 and in Gen. 17: 5 it is said : " A father of many nations have I made 
 thee." That the apostle had his mind intent upon this text, is plain 
 from v. 17 in the sequel. When he says, then, that the promise was 
 that Abraham should be heir of the world, his meaning evidently is, 
 that the seed of Abraham (in the sense here meant, viz. his spiritual 
 seed), should be co-extensive with the world, or (to use the phraseol- 
 ogy employed in another of the promises made to Abraham), " in him 
 should all the families of the earth be blessed." Taken in the sense 
 now adverted to, the phrase before us would imply, that the spiritual 
 seed of Abraham should be co-extensive with the world, i. e. should 
 be of all nations. But there is a somewhat more figurative way of 
 understanding the phrase, to be heir of the world; viz. to take it as 
 an expression that designates the receiving of great and important 
 blessings. In such a way most clearly are VlfiWl tt3"V tth]govo(.ic7v 
 jr t v yi]v to be taken, Ps. 25: 13. 37: 9, 11, 22, 29* Prov. 2: 21. Matt. 
 5: 5. The former method of exegesis, however, is here to be prefer- 
 red, on the ground that v. 17 developes the fact, that Paul here had a 
 special meaning. 
 
 In regard to that seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was spe- 
 cially made; who can this be but the Messiah? Who else of Abraham's 
 seed was to be possessor of all the earth, particularly in a spiritual 
 sense? That Paul himself had such a view of this subject, is made 
 
J8S ROMANS 4: 13—15. 
 
 quite certain by Gal. 3: 16. It is true, indeed, that in respect to the 
 promises of a temporal nature made to Abraham, his literal descend- 
 ants were the partakers and heirs of them; see Gen. 17: 8. 15: 18. 
 So also were they, that is some of them, heirs of spiritual promises. 
 But the specific promise to which the apostle alludes in our text, 
 seems to have been made to Christ, at least seems to have been ful- 
 filled only by him, Gal. 3: 16. 
 
 The promise in question was not Sect vo^iov, i. e. on account of 
 any privileges connected with the giving of the law, for the law was 
 not yet given; but it was diet d'txaioavvtjg jiioTtoig, through the 
 righteousness of faith, i. e. it was gratuitously given, faith being the 
 medium or instrument by which it was conferred ; see on 3: 22. 
 
 (34) Ei yag .... Y.Xrioovo{,ioi, if now they who are of the law, 
 are heirs; i. e. if they who live under the law and enjoy its privileges,, 
 or only those who fulfil it, are heirs of the promise made to Abraham 
 and his seed. I'ao here is prefixed to an additional clause designed 
 to confirm the preceding one — yao confrmemtis. Ol ix voftov may 
 mean, either those who rest upon the law, make their boast of having 
 fulfilled it, and so expect justification from it, (in which way Tholuck 
 and many others have understood it); or it may mean, those who 
 enjoy the privileges and the distinction which a revelation confers. 
 1 prefer the latter sense, as being more consonant with the special 
 object of the apostle ; which here is, to prove that no external rites or 
 privileges can be the ground of justification before God. 
 
 Kixtvonai .... inayytlla, faith is rendered of no effect, and 
 the promise is made void. The reason of this is, that the promise was 
 made to Abraham and his seed, on the ground of faith, and therefore 
 gratuitously ; but if those only who enjoy the privilege of living under 
 the law, (or those who obey the law), are heirs of the promise, and 
 are so without walking in the steps of Abraham as to faith, then the 
 ground of the promises to Abraham is done away. Neither his faith, 
 nor the promise connected with it, is of any avail; because neither 
 of them stands on law-ground, and neither depends on the privilege 
 of possessing the law, or on the merit of obeying it. In a word, the 
 ground of justification taken by those who plead for it ix vo/nov, is 
 entirely diverse from and opposed to that, by which Abraham was 
 justified, and on which the promises were made to him; and if they 
 are in the right, the promises made to Abraham are of course null. 
 
 (15) 'O yctp 161.WQ .... TiuoafiuoiQ, for the law is the occasion 
 of wrath ; for where there is no law, there is no transgression. I take 
 
ROMANS 4:15. 189 
 
 this verse not to be an illustration or confirmation of the next pre- 
 ceding one, but of v. 13, which declares that the promises made to 
 Abraham, stand not upon law-ground, but on that of gratuity ; or in 
 other words, that thev are made on condition of faith. Verse 14 
 assigns one illustration or confirmation of this assertion ; which is, that 
 on law-ground, both the faith of Abraham and the promises made to 
 him would be null, inasmuch as the law (the apostle is speaking here 
 of the Jewish law) was not yet given, or perfect obedience to the law 
 was not yielded by Abraham. In v. 15 a second reason is assigned 
 by Paul, why the promise is not dia voftov and this is, that the law 
 is the occasion of bringing upon us divine displeasure, by reason of 
 our offences against its precepts. If there were no law, then there 
 would be no transgression or sin. All sin is avo^lu, i. e. want of 
 conformity to the law of God, either as to omission or commission. 
 Now as all men do sin, the law against which they offend (inasmuch 
 as it prohibits and condemns sin) is the instrument of their condemna- 
 tion, not of their justification. This is indeed no fault of the law, 
 which is of itself "holy and just and good" (Rom. 7: 12); the fault 
 lies with the transgressor. But when such transgressor appeal's to 
 the law as the ground of his justification, he must be told (as he is 
 here told), that the law, instead of delivering him from death, con- 
 demns him to it; nay, that its precepts, although altogether holy and 
 just and good in themselves, and worthy of all respect and obedience, 
 are nevertheless the occasion (the innocent occasion indeed) of the 
 sinner's guilt and ruin. The fault lies in him; but still, if there had 
 been no precepts to transgress, and no penalty connected with trans- 
 gression, then he could not have been a transgressor. It is on such 
 ground, that the apostle (chap. 7: 7 — 13) declares most explicitly, 
 that "he had not known sin, except by the law;" that "sin, taking 
 occasion by the law, wrought in him all manner of concupiscence ;" 
 that " without the law sin was dead," i. e. the power of sin was ineffi- 
 cacious; but still, that "the law is holy and just and good," and all 
 the fault lies in the transgressor. Chap. 7: 7, seq., is indeed an ample 
 commentary on the sentiment expressed in the verse before us. 
 
 Admitting the truth of the apostle's representation, it follows, that 
 those who have no knowledge of law, that is, no moral sense of any 
 moral precept, cannot be transgressors. This is plainly and palpably 
 the doctrine which he teaches ; a doctrine which is sanctioned by the 
 fundamental principles of our moral nature, and essential to the idea 
 of right and wrong. In common cases, we never pronounce any 
 
190 ROMANS 4: 15—17. 
 
 man to be an offender against a moral law, unless he is an intelligent, 
 rational, moral, free agent. Any one of these qualifications being 
 found wanting, we absolve him from guilt. And does not Paul the 
 same ? But this does not settle the question when men begin to be 
 such agents ; for plainly they may be moral and free agents before 
 they can read the Scriptures. The question as to the time when sin- 
 ning begins, in each individual case, can be settled only by Omnis- 
 cience. Why should we not be content to leave it with ' the Judge of 
 all the earth, who will do right V 
 
 The first yap in this verse is co-ordinate with that in v. 14, i. e. 
 each of them stands related in the same way to the declaration in 
 v. 13, the one standing at the head of one illustration or confirmation 
 of it, and the other at the head of another. The second yug in v. 15 
 is placed at the head of a reason or ground of the assertion immedi- 
 ately preceding ; which is, that the law is the occasion or instrument 
 of condemnation. How does this appear? In this way, viz. because 
 that where there is no law, there is no transgression. The ydg here, 
 then, is ydg confir mantis, i. e. preceding that which serves to confirm 
 the expression immediately antecedent. 
 
 (16) Because then the law can never justify, but only condemn, 
 it follows that, if justification be at all bestowed on sinners, it must 
 come in some other way than a legal one. Aid tovto .... yu-Qiv, 
 on this account it was of faith, that it might be of grace ; i. e. justifi- 
 cation is through the medium or in the way of faith, in order that it 
 may be gratuitous; there being no way left in which it can be be- 
 stowed on the ground of merit. See the notes on vs. 4, 5 above. 
 Elq to eh'ai .... GniQf.ioai, in order that the promise might be 
 sure to all the seed. On any other ground than that of grace or gra- 
 tuity, the promise could not be sure either to Abraham or to his 
 seed ; for if it were to be fulfilled only on condition of entire obedi- 
 ence to the law, then would it never have any fulfilment, inasmuch 
 as no mere man ever did or will exhibit perfect obedience. 
 
 Ov to> .... 'A(jouuf,i, not only to him who is under the law, but 
 to him who is of the faith of Abraham ; i. e. the promise is given on 
 gratuitous grounds, in order that it may not fail of being carried into 
 execution, and that the blessings which it proffers may be bestowed 
 on both Jew and Greek, that is, on all men without distinction, on all 
 xoig otoi"j[0voi ro7g 'i^vtat, rrjg iv xtj axgoflvoria ntOTeojg tov ticct- 
 gog r^iorv 'u4(3gud[A. 
 
 (17) This last idea, viz. that Abraham is the spiritual father of 
 
ROMANS 4: 17. 191 
 
 both Jews and Gentiles, the apostle now takes occasion farther to 
 illustrate and confirm, by a rcibrence to the Jewish Scriptures. Og 
 ion. . . . i]t.t(x)i>, who is the father of us all; xutioig yiy gamut .... 
 Of, as it is written : A father of many nations have I made thee. 
 TtOifAu as is the Septuagint rendering of *prcna , the Hebrew "jn; 
 frequently meaning to put, place, or constitute; in which meaning it 
 is frequently followed by the Septuagint and New Testament, in the 
 use of ii&tj{ai. In respect to the original in Gen. 17: 5, the only 
 question is, whether the passage there means any thing more than 
 that the literal posterity of Abraham should be very numerous. Tho- 
 luck and many commentators so construe it ; but it seems clear 
 to me, that the apostle puts a different interpretation upon it, and that 
 he viewed it as having reference to a spiritual seed. This is made 
 quite clear by comparing Gal. 3: 7. Rom. 2: 28, 29. 4: 11, 12, 16, 
 18. The embarrassment in the interpretation of Gen. 17 : 1 — 8 
 seems to arise principally from the fact, that promises of both a tem- 
 poral and spiritual nature are there made. A double paternity (so to 
 speak) is assigned to Abraham ; many nations are to descend from 
 him literally ; his seed, i. e. some of them, are literally to possess the 
 land of Canaan. But he is also to become the spiritual father (i. e. 
 an eminent pattern or exemplar in regard to faith and justification by 
 it) of " many nations," and in him are " all the families of the earth 
 to be blessed," Gen. 12: 3. 
 
 Such a father he is to be y.urtiuvzi or ... . -Otov, in the sight of 
 God whom he confided in or believed. Kdrtpuvit is equivalent to the 
 Hebrew "132 , "\'>f-. , "*}.-\ > " , s' , ?3 > * n ^ e sight of in the. view of 
 before. The sentiment is this: 'Abraham is the father of many na- 
 tions, in the sight of that God in whom he trusted or whose word he 
 believed ;' i. e. God has constituted him the spiritual father of many 
 nations. The construction of the verse is difficult, at first view, and 
 has given rise to many critical doubts. I regard the real sense of it 
 as being the same, as if the arrangement in Greek were thus : A'uri- 
 vuvxt {rfov ov [= w] etihxsvGi. The ov is to be considered as a 
 case of attraction, as grammarians say. See instances of this nature 
 in John 2: 22. Mark 7: 13. Luke 2: 20. Acts 7: 17, 45. 1 Pet. 4: 11. 
 John 15: 20, etc. ; but in all of these cases, the noun precedes the 
 pronoun which conforms to it. Examples however of the like nature 
 with the present, are the following : viz. Mark 6: 16, ov tyoi avaxt- 
 qafoGu Jcoui'i>t]i>, ovrog iorf Acts 21: 16, uyoviig nag' Jt tevio- 
 {rojpiv Mvaob)vi' Rom. 6: 17, fig ov uugudufrtin rvnov d'tdw/Vy' 
 
lifc> ROMANS 4 : 17. 
 
 in which examples, indeed, the noun conforms to the pronoun as to 
 its case. If we regard ov inioievcse as a circumstance thrown in, 
 and to he mentally included in a parenthesis, the difficulty of the 
 sentence will he removed. The present construction, after all, is 
 somewhat anomalous, the usual order being thus: Kaitvavti \J(ov 
 OV tTl'lGTfVOt k. t, X. 
 
 Tov CoiOTJOioiwTog .... uvtu, who givcth life to the dead, and 
 calleth the things which are not, as if they were. Another contested 
 passage, which I shall endeavour briefly to explain. To express the 
 idea of divine, almighty power, is plainly the object of it. This it 
 does by asserting that God raises the dead, and exercises creative, 
 controlling power. In regard to tov ^wonoiovvTog rovg vtxoovg, it 
 may mean generally, that God has the power to raise the dead, and 
 exercises it ; or, it may have a special reference to God's promise to 
 raise up a numerous progeny from Abraham, who was dead as to the 
 power of procreation ; comp. Heb. 11: 17 — 19, and v. 19 below. In 
 either case the meaning is good. In the first, it is more expressive; 
 in the second, more appropriate to the special object of the writer. 
 
 KaXovvzog zu (AT) oi'tu ojg uvru is Hebraistic in its manner. 
 KaXico is sometimes employed like the Hebrew N"}£ , i. e. to desig- 
 nate the idea of commanding a thing to be or exist,- which did not 
 before exist; e. g. Is. 41: 4. 48: 13 j comp. 2 K. 8: 1. Is. 22: 12. 
 Comp. also 2 Mace. 7: 2S, f| ovx ovtoov Inolrjasv uvtu 6 -&f6g, 
 which resembles in sense the phrase before us ; also Philo de Creat. 
 p. 728, tu fi>i ot'cu ixaksasv tig zo ilvav. The reference in the 
 mind of the writer, when he used the phrase before us, no doubt was 
 to Gen. 1: 3, seq. The calling of things that are not, is to command 
 that they shall exist, in order to fulfil the purposes which the Creator 
 has in view by bringing them into existence. This latter circum- 
 stance seems to have been overlooked ; and thus has arisen great 
 perplexity among interpreters. How, it has been asked, could God 
 call into existence things that are not, as if they were 1 A paradox, 
 to be sure; for things that already are, we may well say, cannot be 
 called into existence. But the meaning of the apostle in xulovi/Tog 
 is not simply bidding to exist, but directing, disposing of, command- 
 ing in any way and for any purpose, the things called. 'God,' says 
 he, ' can call into existence things that now have no existence, and 
 employ them for his purposes, just as he directs and disposes of 
 things that already exist; God calls zu (if} uvtu, just as he does za 
 ovza • things that now exist not, are under his control as really and 
 
ROMANS 4: 18, 19. 193 
 
 truly as things that do exist, i. e. they can be made to exist and to 
 subserve his purpose, in the same manner as things do which now 
 already exist.' Is there any room for difficulty, in respect to such a 
 meaning as this ? 
 
 CHAP. IV. 18—25. 
 
 The apostle having thus shewn that the doctrine of gratuitous justification 
 by faith does not at all impugn the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by appeal- 
 ing to the example of Abraham and to the declarations of David ; and having 
 more particularly insisted on the justification of Abraham, previously to the 
 covenant of circumcision and independently of it; and this, in order that 
 Abraham might be the spiritual father of all believers, both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles; he now concludes the whole by an animated description and commenda- 
 tion of Abraham's faith, and by pointing 1 out the happy consequences of 
 imitating it to all who profess to be the disciples of Christ. First, Abraham 
 hoped, when to all human appearance there was no ground of hope, that he 
 might become the father of many nations through the birth of a son, v. 18. 
 His strong faith led him to overlook his own extreme old age and that of 
 Sarah, v. 19; to trust with full confidence in the simple promise of God 
 respecting a son, thus giving glory to God by reposing in him such an unlim- 
 ited trust, and by being so fully persuaded that he would perform what he had 
 promised, vs. 20, 21. On this account, he was justified through his faith, v. 
 22; nor was this fact recorded merely for his sake, but also for our sake, that 
 we may be inspired with the hope of attaining to the like justification, provided 
 we believe in the declarations of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, and 
 proposed him to the world as the object of saving belief, inasmuch as he died 
 for our offences, and rose again in order that we might be justified. 
 
 (IS) "Og ttuo i).nidu in iknidi intGTtvotv, toho against [all 
 apparent] ground of hope, believed in hope that he shoidd become the 
 father, etc. The expression na<J tXnida in' tknid'i, is what the 
 Greeks call olvpwQov [oxymoron], i. e. a sharp, pointed saying, 
 which to appearance exhibits a kind of contradiction ; like the Latin 
 spes insperata, ignavia stren.ua, etc. The nao iknidi, beyond or 
 against hope, in this case, refers to the circumstances recounted in 
 verse 19. 
 
 Kutu. io tiQ)}UH'Ov, viz. in Gen. 15: 5. — O'vtwq, so, viz. like the 
 stars in respect to number, to which Abraham had just been pointed, 
 i. e. innumerable; Ps. 147: 4. 
 
 (19) Mtj (xo&evi'ioag, not being weak, i. e. being strong; the 
 negative form of declaration being used, where an affirmative sense 
 is meant. So, " He confessed, and denied not, but confessed," John 
 1: 20. The Greeks call this mode of expression, XiTOtrjg (smallness, 
 shnchrness), or (if loaa is (diminution) ; because it seemingly dimin- 
 ishes from the full strength of the positive form. Often, however, 
 25 
 
194 ROMANS 4 : 19—22. 
 
 (as here), it is equivalent in all respects to the affirmative or positive 
 form. 
 
 Trj nloxti, Dative of condition, being strong in faith or in respect 
 to faith, i. e. having strong confidence. 
 
 Ov xurfi'OiiOf, he did not regard. — "Hdi] vsvenQf»[iivOV, already 
 dead, i. e. inefficient with regard to procreation; comp. Heb. 11: 12. 
 Gen. 17: 17. — Kal, nor, inasmuch as it follows ov in the preceding 
 clause. So in Hebrew, "l following isb means nor, Heb. Gramm. § 
 358. Note. — Tt)v viiiQoiatv xijg jutjigag = xt]v [.irjigav rtji> vevixgw- 
 (iivijv. Comp. the age of Sarah at this time, Gen. 17: 17. 
 
 (20) Ov diUKQi&r}, he did not doubt, did not hesitate; comp. 
 Rom. 14 : 23. James 1:6. 2:4. Matt. 21 : 21. Mark 11 : 23.—Eig 
 inuyyiklav tov xtioi), respecting the p>romise of God. — Ti] amoxia, 
 through, by reason of, an unbelieving spirit ; the Dative is frequently 
 employed in this way, in the same sense which the Genitive preceded 
 by diet would have; Winer, Gramm. Excurs. p. 71. 16. c. 
 
 AXk iutdwu/nojOi] rij ttigtii, the opposite of the preceding ex- 
 pression, he firmly and confidently believed, or he ivas confident through 
 belief; xtj niorsi being the Dative of manner or means; see Winer 
 tit supra. 
 
 Aovq 66'iav xoi ■&{ w, giving glory to God. The Hebrew fc=lir 
 J"Prpb Tins means, to shew by our actions that we acknowledge any 
 attribute of God ; which is ascribing to him what belongs or is due 
 to him. So here, Abraham, by the strength of his confidence, did in 
 the highest manner ascribe to God omnipotence and veracity. Comp. 
 John 9: 24. Josh. 7: 19. The meaning of the phrase as here em- 
 ployed by the writer, is given in the next verse. 
 
 (21) Kal 7ifoigoqogi]&(lg b'zi x.z.X., a repetition or epexegesis 
 of what the preceding clause asserts. " Being strong in faith" there, 
 is equivalent to Ti)^goqogT]0-eig here, which means, being fully per- 
 suaded. — O lnr]yyt\xv.t,, that which had been promised, or rather, what 
 he had promised. This last rendering can be retained, because the 
 Perf. pass, not unfrequently has an active sense, inasmuch as it serves 
 for the Perf. Middle as well as Passive, (Buttm. Gramm. § 123. 4). So 
 in Acts 13: 2, nQOGxixhiuai, I have invited. Acts 16: 10. 1 Pet. 4: 
 1. John 9: 22. — Kal tiuiijoui, also to perform, xai in the sense of 
 etiam, quoquc, as it often is ; i. e. ttai intensive. 
 
 (22) Aio . . . fig drAuioovvriv, wherefore [his belief] was counted 
 to him as righteousness; in other words, through his faith, he was 
 counted or 'treated as righteous ; he was admitted to the divine favour. 
 See on v. 5 above. 
 
ROMANS 4 : 23—25. 195 
 
 (23, 24) Nor was this method of justification and acceptance lim- 
 ited to Abraham. The history of it is recorded as an example, for the 
 encouragement and imitation of all others down to the latest period 
 of time. Those who believe in him who raised up Jesus from the 
 dead (comp. v. 17 above), i. e. those who believe in what God has 
 done and said with respect to the Messiah, the only foundation of the 
 sinner's hope, will be justified through their faith, in like manner as 
 Abraham was by his. 
 
 (25) Ilayidodt], was given up, was delivered up, viz. to death, 
 Matt. 26: 2. — Ata ru nuQaTHoifiaxa ijfiwv, comp. Is. 53: 12, 5, G, 8. 
 Gal. 1: 4. 2: 20. Tit. 2: 14. 
 
 Aiu tt]v dixuicoGtv I'j^cof, on account of our justification, i. e. our 
 acceptance with God. Christ rose from the dead, in order that this 
 great and glorious work might be completed. The primary object 
 of his death is here stated as being expiatory, i. e. as having a special 
 influence on that part of justification which has respect to remitting 
 the penalty of the divine law. But as justification, in its full sense, 
 comprehends not only forgiveness, but the accepting and treating of 
 any one as righteous, it implies of course the being advanced to a 
 state of glory. The resurrection of Christ was connected with this; 
 for " if Christ be not risen, then our faith is vain." By his resurrec- 
 tion he was prepared to receive the kingdom given him of the Father, 
 and thus to complete the redemption of those who believe in him. 
 
 CHAP. V. 1—21. 
 
 The apostle having now shewn, (a) That all men, Jews and Gentiles, are 
 sinners; (A) That they are therefore under the condemning sentence of the 
 divine law; (c) That the only method of escape from the execution of this 
 sentence, is by gratuitous pardon, i. e. by justification obtained through the 
 death of Christ; and (d) That all this is no new doctrine, but one inculcated 
 in the Old Testament both by precept and example ; he next proceeds, in chap, 
 v., to exhibit the blessed fruits of this pardon or justification. (1) We have 
 peace with God, (with whom we were before in a state of enmity, being 
 alienated from him, comp. vs. G — 10), and we enjoy, through Christ, free 
 access to a state of favour with God, and thus are led to rejoice in the hope of 
 future glory, vs. 1,2. (2) We are supported and comforted in all our afflictions 
 during the present life ; nay, we may even rejoice in them as the instruments 
 of spiritual good to us, vs. 3 — 5. (3) All this good is rendered certain, and the 
 hope of it sure, by the fact that Christ, having died for us while in a state of 
 enmity and alienation, and having thus reconciled us to God, will not fail 
 to perfect the work which he has thus begun, vs. G — 10. (4) We may now 
 rejoice in God, (who is as truly our covenant God as he has been that of the 
 Jews), on account of the reconciliation which Christ has effected, v. 11. (5) 
 This state of reconciliation or filial relation to God, is now extended to all 
 
19fi ROMANS 5: 1,2. 
 
 men, (i.e. proffered to all, laid open for all, rendered accessible to all), in like 
 manner as the evils occasioned by the sin of our first ancestor have extended to- 
 all, v. 12 — 14; yea, such is the greatness of Christ's redemption, that the 
 blessings procured by his death far exceed the evils occasioned by the sin of 
 Adam, vs. 15 — 19; they even exceed all the evils consequent upon the sins of 
 men, who live under the light of revelation, vs. 20,21. 
 
 Such appears to me the sum of what is taught in chap. v. The difficulties 
 attending the interpretation of this passage, 1 readily acknowledge, and have 
 long and deeply felt. To the study of them I have devoted much more time, 
 than to any other equal portion of the holy Scriptures. I do not persuade 
 myself, however, that I have succeeded in all respects with regard to the solu- 
 tion of them ; much less do I expect, that what 1 shall propose will be satisfac- 
 tory to the minds of all others. What I could do, I have done ; if others 
 succeed better, it will be matter of sincere joy to me. One thing I cannot 
 help remarking here ; which is, that any exegesis of vs. 12 — 21, which repre- 
 sents the contents as irrelevant to the tenor of the context both before and after 
 these verses, must wear the air, of course, of being an improbable one. Never 
 have I found more difficulty, however, than in satisfying myself of the relation 
 which vs. 12 — 21 do in fact hold to the surrounding context; and in particular 
 how they bear upon the theme discussed in vs. I — 11. The result of my 
 investigations is given, as to substance, under No. 5 above. 
 
 Tholuck states his result a little differently : " To render more conspicuous 
 the fruits obtained by redemption, the apostle contrasts the state of mankind 
 as a icholc, and as being in the misery of their unredeemed condition, with the 
 state of mankind as a whole, in their happiness as partakers of the benefits of 
 redemption. By a striking parallel, he exhibits mankind in Adam the head 
 and source of our race as sinful; and in Christ the head and source of it, as 
 redeemed ; and he so represents this, that redemption appears to be the great- 
 est and most important occurrence which has taken place with regard to man- 
 kind — the central point of all spiritual life and all happiness.'' (Coram, fiber 
 Rom. p. 156. edit. 2). Whether this summary comes nearer than my own to 
 the true exhibition of the contents of vs. 12 — 21 ; in particular, whether it har- 
 monizes better with the context; I submit to the reader to decide, when he 
 shall have carefully studied the whole. In the mean time, I acknowledge 
 with gratitude the important aid that 1 have received from the Commentary of 
 the above named excellent writer. 
 
 The reader will find a statement of the contents of vs. 12 — 10, more detailed 
 than the above, at the commencement of the commentary on this passage. 
 
 (1) Ev. ixtOTeojg, i. e. gratuitously ; by means of belief, instead 
 of perfect obedience ; see on cbap. 4: 5 above. 
 
 EiQi}vy]v e'/Ofiiv, we have peace; here in opposition to a state of 
 enmity, a state of alienation; see v. 10. 
 
 Aia tov K. I. XfjtGTOv, viz. by the reconciliation which he has 
 effected, v. 11. 
 
 (2) Ai> oil v.ul, by whom also. — T}}v 7T<joaaytoy>jv, access, as well 
 as reconciliation ; comp. Eph. 2: 18. 3: 12. We have access fig xr t v 
 '/ugiv tuvti]v, i. e. to this state of favour or grace, in which we now 
 stand or are. 
 
 Tholuck and some others: 'We have access [to God], by belief 
 
ROMANS 4:2—5. 197 
 
 in the grace or gracious condition in which we continue.' I prefer 
 the other construction ; and so most interpreters have done. 
 
 Kal xav%oj[A£&a, and roc rejoice ; i.e. in addition to peace, and 
 access to a state of favour, we are filled with joy, in the hope of thai 
 glory which God will bestow. Geov is here Genitivus auctoris. 
 
 (3) Ov j.i6vov 8t, alia xiwxo')/.if&u x.x.l., not only so, but we 
 ctlso rejoice, etc. This is a formula of transition, or of enumeration 
 of particulars, answering to our numerical divisions in a discourse ; 
 comp. v. 11. 
 
 jEidoxeg, knowing, having assurance, viz. from our relation to 
 God, and from his gracious purposes toward us. 
 
 ' Oxv .... xaxi<jyu&xui, produces patience or perseverance. Nei- 
 ther of these virtues can be exercised without sufferings and trials. 
 Afflictions, therefore, are essential to the cultivation of them. They 
 are not, indeed, the direct and efficient cause of patience; but they 
 are at least an occasion or instrumental cause. 
 
 (4) Aov-ip^v, trial or approbation. Either rendering is correct ; 
 for perseverance or patience in the enduring of afflictions, makes 
 thorough trial ; and the same virtue secures approbation. I prefer 
 the second meaning, viz. approbation; because it more naturally 
 connects itself with the ikirlg that follows. Comp. doxi[.tu£uj ; which 
 means to try, and also to approve. 
 
 ^Elnlda, hope, which springs of course from the approbation be- 
 stowed on patient endurance of suffering for virtue's sake. 
 
 (5) Ov xutuic>%vv£i, will not disappoint ; as the sequel shews. 
 So the Hebrew, toin"; Nb . 
 
 " Oxi i] dyant] xov xteov v.. x. X. The first reason given why the 
 Christian's hope will not disappoint him, is, that the love of God [love 
 toward God] is diffused (ty.xe'pjxai) in his heart or mind, i. e. is copi- 
 ously given to him ; and this, by that holy Spirit which is imparted to 
 him, i. e. by the gracious residence or influence of that Spirit who 
 dwells in the hearts of believers ; 1 Cor. 6: 19. 3: 16. 2 Cor. 6: 16 ; 
 comp. 2 Cor. 1 : 22, where the spirit in the hearts of believers is called 
 their d.QQa§oiv, the pledge of their future happiness, the pledge that 
 their salvation is secure. Comp. also Eph. 1: 13, 14, where the same 
 sentiment is fully expressed. 
 
19 8 ROMANS 5: 6, 7. 
 
 CHAP. V. 6—10. 
 
 Verses 6— 10 are a kind of episode, (if I may so speak), and contain an 
 illustration and confirmation of the sentiment expressed in v. 5, viz. that 
 Christina hope will not disappoint them. To shew that this is truly the case,^ 
 the writer goes on to produce an illustration, which exhibits an argument of 
 the kind called ft ma.jori ad minus ; i. e. ' if Christ has already done the greater 
 thing for you, viz. reconciled you to God when you were in your sinful state, 
 how much more will he complete the work, the greatest and most difficult part 
 of which has already been accomplished ?' 
 
 In this view, the passage before us seems to be more direct, in respect to 
 the perseverance of the saints, than almost any other passage in the Scriptures 
 which I can find. The sentiment here is not dependant on the form of a 
 particular expression, (as it appears to be in some other passages) ; but it is 
 fundamentally connected with the very nature of the argument. 
 
 (6) "JEtt yuQ Xgtorog oviwv r t [mv, a singular metathesis or 
 transposition of the particle tu, which belongs to ovrwv, and plainly 
 qualifies it. — FaQ confirmantis here, i. e. it stands before a paragraph 
 which assigns a cause or ground of the assertion in the preceding 
 sentence, viz. that the hope of the Christian would not disappoint him. 
 
 "Eti ovxmv Tq(.ib)v, while toe xcere yet, or we yet being. — AoQtvwv, 
 literally, destitute of strength ; here plainly in a moral sense, i. e. 
 destitute of moral vigour, without any holy energy, in a state of 
 moral indisposition. 
 
 A'aioc kcuqov, in clue time, at an appointed or set time, viz. that 
 fixed upon in the counsels of God. Comp. Sept. in Job 5: 26. Is. 60: 
 22; comp. also Luke 21: 24, 8. Heb. 11: 11. Gal. 4: 4. 
 
 'TntQ aoifiwv, i. e. vntQ dafjSuJv [i?iuov'],for [us] who were un- 
 godly. It is plain that doepuiv here means the same as uofttvav in 
 the preceding clause. 
 
 (7) rdp illustrantis, i. e. yuQ declarative. The sequel is designed 
 to illustrate the great benevolence which the death of Christ displayed. 
 Atxuiov is here used in distinction from dya&ov. Often they are 
 synonymous ; yet they are capable of distinct use, and are not unfre- 
 quently, in classic usage, distinguished from each other. E. g. Cicero: 
 " Recte justum virum, bonum non facile reperiemus ;" de Offic. III. 
 15. Again : " Jupiter Optimus dictus est, id est, benejicentissimus." 
 So in the Talmud (Pirqe Aboth, 5. 10) it is said : " There are four 
 kinds of men ; (1) Those who say : What is mine is mine, and what 
 is thine is thine ; these are the middling men. (2) Those who say : 
 What is mine is thine, and what is thine is mine ; these are the com- 
 mon people. (3) Those who say : What is mine is thine, and what 
 is thine is thine ; these are the t^TDh > i- e - dya&oi. (4) Those 
 
ROMANS 5 : 7—10. 199 
 
 who say : What is mine is mine, and what is thine is mine ; these 
 aie the tPSlin ." So, by the Seventy, TOf! is usually distinguished 
 from p" 1 ^ ; inasmuch as the former is usually rendered oaiog, while 
 the latter is translated by dlxaiog. Ai/.aiog may be used (and not 
 un frequently is used), to designate a person who is innocent merely; 
 so in the Septuagint, Ex. 23: 7. Gen. 18: 23, seq. So in the New 
 Testament, Matt. 27: 19, 24. It corresponds also to the Hebrew 
 *j?5 , Prov. 1:11. 6: 17. Joel 3: 19. 
 
 In using dr/Miog, therefore, as designating a character somewhat 
 different from ayadog, and inferior to it, the apostle has not varied 
 from sacred and classic usage. Aixaiog clearly means here, one toho 
 is just in the common sense of the word, one who is free from crimes 
 cognizable by law, one who does not defraud, etc. For such an one, 
 the apostle says, it would be rare to find any person willing to volun- 
 teer the sacrifice of his life. 
 
 'But for an ayadog, i. e. a benevolent or beneficent man, a T'Dft , 
 some perhaps might venture to lay down their lives.' This has, in 
 fact, not unfrequently been done. The difference between the readi- 
 ness of men to hazard their lives, for a man of peculiar and overflow- 
 ing benevolence of heart, and for a man who merely pays a nice 
 regard to meum and tuum, is very plain to every observer who has a 
 feeling heart. 
 
 (8) Yet the grace of the gospel has far surpassed any exhibition 
 of human benevolence. £vviazrif,ii, commends, sets forth, displays. 
 — vlyam]v, benevolence, kind feeling, D^fin , compassionate kind- 
 ness. — 'TntQ jJjhcuv, in our stead, or on our account. In either way 
 of rendering, the sense here must be, that the death of Christ saved 
 us from that, which we as u/.iapzo)Xoi. deserved. 
 
 (9) JZoAAm oiiv .... and rtjg ogyrjg, much more, then, being 
 justified, i. e. acquitted, pardoned as to our past offences, by his blood, 
 
 i. e. the sufferings and death of Christ, shall we be saved by him from 
 [future] indignation. In other words: ' If Christ by his death has 
 accomplished our reconciliation, while we were in a state of enmity ; 
 a fortiori we may expect that the great work, thus begun and accom- 
 plished as to the most difficult part, will be completed.' 
 
 (10) A repetition of the same general ideas, in which the senti- 
 ment of the whole is compressed, and rendered prominent. Quia- 
 tov x.t.X. here, corresponds to zw aipazi avzov in the preceding 
 verse. — Ev zij £o}>j avzov, the antithesis of &avdzov avzov. Mean- 
 ing : 'If we were reconciled to God, when enemies, by a dying 
 
oqo ROMANS 5: 11. 
 
 Saviour ; a fortiori shall we now attain salvation, when thus recon- 
 ciled through a living one ; i. e. if Christ in his humble and suffer- 
 ing state reconciled us to God, much more in his exalted and glorified 
 state will he complete the work thus begun. 
 
 (11) Ov f.wvoi> d'i, alia aal a. r. X., and not only [do we rejoice 
 in afflictions, v. 3, as tending to produce a hope of glory, which the 
 death of Christ has rendered sure and certai?i], but we rejoice, xaw/oj- 
 litvoi [iafAfv] in God, viz. as our God, our covenant God, our su- 
 preme and eternal joy; comp. Rev. 21: 3. Heb. 8: 10. Zech. 8: 8. 
 Jer. 4: 2; also John 8: 41, 54. Rom. 2: 17, which last passage shew9 
 the claims of the Jews in respect to their covenant relation with God. 
 The apostle means to intimate in our text, that all which the Jews 
 boasted of, is in reality secured to Christians. 
 
 The verse before us is not so much a distinct ground or reason for 
 rejoicing, as it is a summary or consummation of all the grounds of it ; 
 for to rejoice in God as our God, expresses the consummation of all 
 the Christian's happiness. In respect to form or mode of expression, 
 it constitutes a diverse head ; and it is one which is really diverse in 
 this respect, viz. that it is more generic than the others. The phrases 
 in vs. 1, 3, and 11, viz. xuvyiofuOa — ov (.iovov 8t uXXcl nut — ov 
 {idvov de uXXa v.ui — present the natural divisions of the apostle's 
 discourse, and correspond to our 1st, 2d, 3d, in English. 
 
 T)]v y.uTo.XXayijv iXuffopev receives its form from the expression 
 in v. 10, Y.arr{kXayr]n^v v.. r. X. The word means reconciliation; 
 and such is the sense in which our English translators here used the 
 word atonement (quasi at-one-ment). 
 
 CHAP. V. 12—19. 
 
 Thnt this is one of the most difficult passages in all the New Testament, will 
 be conceded, I believe, by all sober and reflecting critics. As I have before 
 remarked, 1 have bestowed repeated and long-continued efforts upon the study 
 of it. I do not say this, however, as affording in itself even a presumptive 
 proof that I have at last attained to a right understanding of it; but only to 
 shew that I have felt, and in some measure rightly estimated, the difficulties 
 attendant upon the nature of an undertaking to explain it, and have not neg- 
 lected any efforts within my power to overcome them. 
 
 The main design of this passage is indeed plain. It lies, one may say, 
 upon the very face of it. It is this; viz. ; to exalt our views respecting the 
 blessings which Christ has procured for us, by a comparison of them with the 
 evil consequences which ensued upon the fall of our first ancestor, and by 
 shewing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these 
 evils, but even far beyond this ; so that the grace of the gospel lias not only 
 abounded, but super abounded.' 
 
ROMANS 5: 12. 201 
 
 Even the most unpractised critic can hardly fail to discern the general 
 object, as thus stated. But the detail is replete with difficulties ; which havo 
 been greatly augmented on account of the numerous theories formed by spec- 
 ulative minds, relative to the various topics on which the paragraph before ua 
 has been supposed to touch. 
 
 A full synopsis of what is taught in vs. 12 — lf>. comprises the following 
 particulars; viz. («) Sin entered the world [commenced], by the offence of 
 Adam ; and death, i.e. punishment or misery, came in as the necessary result 
 of it. In like manner, death came upon all men, because that all became 
 sinners, v. 12. 
 
 (/») It is indeed true, that all men have been the subjects of sin and death ; 
 for that even those have been so, who have not lived under the light of revela- 
 tion, or been made acquainted with any express commands of God, is proved 
 from the fact, that all those who lived between Adam and Moses, were sin- 
 ners, and lay under sentence of death, vs. 13, 14. 
 
 (c) Adam, who was the occasion of introducing sin into the world and of 
 bringing sin and death upon all men, may be considered as a tj'.tos ol Christ, 
 in respect to the influence which he has had on others; (but not as to the 
 kind of influence, or the degree of it, for here is a wide diversity) ; v. 14, last 
 clause. 
 
 (</) That the hind and degree of influence which Adam had on all men, is 
 not like that which Christ has on them; or that Adam, when regarded as a 
 ti'to? of Christ, is not to be so regarded in these respects; is plain, (1) From 
 the fact, that Adam occasioned the condemnation of all men ; but Christ delivers 
 mankind from condemnation, and bestows eternal happiness on them, v Jo. 
 (2) The condemnation of which Adam was the occasion, has respect only to 
 one offence ; the pardon which Christ procured, extends to many offences, v. 
 16. Hence, (3) If death reigned over men because of one offence ; much 
 more shall they reign in life, who through Christ receive pardon for many 
 offences, and a title to future blessedness, v. 17. 
 
 Having thus guarded his readers against extending the idea of tvttos to 
 points of which tvtto? cannot be predicated ; and having shewn that the influ- 
 ence of Christ on the human race is exactly the reverse of that of Adam, in 
 respect to its kind or nature ; and also that it far surpasses it in degree ; the apos- 
 tle now returns to the consideration of the real point of resemblance or rinos 
 between Adam and Christ, viz. the universality or extent of influence. This 
 •he states as follows: 
 
 (e) As the consequences of Adam's sin were extended to all men, so the con- 
 sequences of Christ's obedience [viz. unto death] are extended to all ; i. e. Jews 
 and Gentiles all come on an equal footing into the kingdom of Christ, or the 
 blessings which the gospel proffers i?re made equally accessible to all men 
 without exception ; and to all on the same terms or conditions, vs. 18, 19. 
 Compare, as an illustration of this last idea, Rom. 3: 23 — 30. 
 
 Such appear to be the principal contents of this contested and celebrated 
 passage. The sequel will present many specific and particular illustrations, 
 which cannot properly find a place in a general synopsis, such as I have now 
 endeavoured to give. 
 
 (12) Aid tovto, wherefore, therefore. So it is usually translated, 
 viz. as illative; i. e. as shewing that what follows is a consequence 
 or deduction from what has gone before. But in what tolerable 
 sense can this be here asserted ? How are the sentiments in the 
 sequel here, deduced from that which precedes them ? 
 
 A question that has greatly perplexed critics and commentators. 
 Some have converted the words did tovto, into a mere formula of 
 transition ; e. g. Schleusner makes them so here ; and Wahl repre- 
 26 
 
202 ROMANS 5: 12. 
 
 sents them as being so in Matt. 13: 52. If this were admissible, they 
 might then be rendered, moreover, further. But it is somewhat diffi- 
 cult, perhaps, by reasoning which is strictly philological, to justify 
 such a latitude of translation as this; although one is strongly tempted 
 to indulge in it, by such examples of the phrase in question as occur 
 in Matt. 13: 13. 14: 2. 18: 23. 21: 43. Mark 12: 24, and Rom. 13: 
 6 (where diu tovto is preceded by ov fiovov in the clause going 
 before, just as in our verse). On the whole, in view of the passages 
 just cited, one might acquiesce in the meaning: Qua cum ita sint, 
 which Wahl and others assign to diu tovto in such places. But in 
 such instances, the illative form of the phrase does not involve a 
 syllogistic or logical deduction or inference from what precedes ; it 
 indicates only, that the expression of the sentiments disclosed in the 
 sequel, ivas occasioned by what precedes, or that the sequel was sug- 
 gested to the mind by that which precedes. 
 
 Such an illation or deduction (if it may be so called) as this, may 
 be admitted in our text ; nay, it is altogether probable : but a syllo- 
 gistic or logical one cannot be made out ; at least, I am unable for 
 myself to perceive how it can be made out. Admitting, however, the 
 former kind of illation, we have no specific formula of expression in 
 English, which will designate the exact shade of it, i. e. the peculiar 
 nature of the connection, in the case before us, between what pre- 
 cedes diet tovto and what follows it. 
 
 In a sense like the one just mentioned, Schott understands diu 
 tovto, in his able Essay on Rom. 5: 12 — 14 {Opusc. vol. I. p. 318, 
 seq.) But Tholuck and Flatt both represent diu tovto here as illa- 
 tive ; although they do not shew how the sequel is a deduction from 
 what precedes. Nor has any writer with whom I am acquainted, 
 satisfactorily done this; I mean, no one who makes these words illa- 
 tive here in a logical sense. 
 
 I would propose another method, somewhat diverse from this, of 
 illustrating this phrase, which is so difficult ; difficult not in itself, i. e. 
 not as to the sense in which it is commonly employed, but difficult 
 here, by reason of the connection in which it stands. Aiu, as cor- 
 rectly explained by Passow, has all the various meanings of the Ger- 
 man wegen, which means, on account of, because of, in respect to, in 
 relation to, for the sake of, etc. Now if the meaning in respect to, 
 be adopted here, the sense will be thus : ' In respect to this,' — viz. 
 this matter or subject of reconciliation, of which the apostle had just 
 spoken, or in respect to this matter of rejoicing in God through Christ 
 
ROMANS 5: 12. 203 
 
 who has effected a reconciliation — ' in respect to this I say (hyoj 
 being implied), that as by one man [Adam] evils were brought upon 
 all the human race, so by one man [Christ JesusJ superabounding 
 good is effected for all, through the reconciliation accomplished by 
 him.' 
 
 The connection of thought would then be substantially as follows: 
 'I have further to say, in regard to the reconciliation effected by 
 Christ, that it enures to the benefit of all men without exception, of 
 Gentiles as well as Jews ; in the same manner as the evils brought 
 on the human race by Adam, have occasioned mischief to all ; al- 
 though the blessings conferred by Christ, far surpass in deoree the 
 evils in question.' 
 
 Considered in this way, vs. 12 — 19 are designed at once to confirm 
 the statement made in chap. 3: 23 — 30 and 4: 10 — 18, i. e. to confirm 
 the sentiment, that Gentiles as well as Jews may rejoice in the recon- 
 ciliation effected by Christ; while, at the same time, the whole repre- 
 sentation serves very much to enhance the greatness of the blessino-s 
 which Christ has procured for sinners, by the contrast in which these 
 blessings are placed. I cannot perceive the particular design of 
 introducing such a contrast in this place, unless it be to shew the 
 propriety and justice of extending the blessings of reconciliation to 
 the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, and to set off to the best advan- 
 tage the greatness of these blessings. In respect to the former of 
 these designs it may be remarked, that the Gentiles, in common with 
 the Jews, being sufferers on account of the sin of the first Adam, the 
 propriety of extending help to them by the gratuitous salvation of 
 the gospel that had been effected by the second Adam, becomes 
 the more conspicuous. In respect to the latter design, it is clear that 
 the abounding grace of the gospel is rendered more striking, by virtue 
 of the contrast which the apostle presents. 
 
 Admitting such a connection and course of thought as I have 
 now pointed out, it would follow, that did tovto is substantially an 
 elliptical expression here, and that tiyo> should be virtually under- 
 stood after it. This will make it in substance (although not in form), 
 a phrase or formula of transition. That it is sometimes employed in 
 a way like that now suggested, the reader may satisfy himself, by 
 consulting Matt. 13: 13, 52. 18: 23. 21: 43. Mark 12:24. Rom. 13: 
 6. Matt. 6: 25, where Xtyw vp.lv is expressly supplied; as it is 
 also in Matt. 12: 31. 21: 43. 
 
 On the whole, I feel constrained to adopt this method of inter- 
 
204 ROMANS 5: 12. 
 
 pretation ; at least I must do so, until I can find one which will 
 better consist with the subject of the discourse, in the preceding and 
 succeeding context. Such a method is plainly consonant with the 
 laws of language, i. e. with the usus loquendi of the New Testament. 
 It has not yet been shown, so far as I am able to judge, that any of 
 the commonly proposed methods of interpretation will better suit the 
 context. May I not add, respecting most of them, that they do not 
 at all harmonize with it ? 
 
 "S2antg, as, of course introduces a comparison ; taoneg standing 
 before the protasis, which seems to extend through the verse. But 
 where is the apodosis ? The form of the sentence completed would 
 be : "Siantg v.. v. A. — ovxto v.ul v.. x. A. But the latter member is here 
 wanting. This is supplied, however, in different ways, or is differ- 
 ently constructed, by different critics. 
 
 la) Aia jovto \tt}v y.uxul\ayr,v ika(jOf.iev], maneg dt ivog 
 v.. r. A. ; making 6'iOntQ x. x. A. itself an apodosis instead of a protasis. 
 So Cocceius, Eisner, Koppe, Rosenmuller, Stolz, and some others. 
 
 (b) By inverting v.ui oviojg, and writing it ovtwg y.al y.. t. A.; and 
 so making the rest of the verse which follows, to be the apodosis of 
 the sentence. So Le Clerc, Wolf, and others. 
 
 (c) Kul diu Ti;g afiagriag x. t. A. is made the beginning of the 
 apodosis by Erasmus and Beza; which of course they must translate, 
 so also by sin, etc. 
 
 But all these methods come short of fully exhibiting the contrast 
 here, which the apostle designs to make between the one man 
 (Adam) who sinned, and Christ ; which contrast appears fully and 
 plainly in vs. 18, 19. With the majority of interpreters, therefore, I 
 hesitate not to regard vs. 13 — 17 as substantially a parenthesis, 
 (thrown in to illustrate a sentiment brought to view in the protasis, v. 
 12) ; and I find a full apodosis only in vs. 18, 19, where the sentiment 
 of v. 12 is virtually resumed and repeated, and where the apodosis 
 regularly follows, after an o v r at x a i. (I admit, however, that bg 
 Ian rvTJog toil (liXKovrog, in v. 14, is a kind of apodosis by way of 
 hint). In this manner, and only in this, can I find the real antithesis 
 or comparison to be fully made out, which the apostle designs to 
 make. This method of writing, too, where the protasis is suspended 
 for the sake of explanations thrown in, is altogether consonant with 
 the usual method of the apostle Paul ; comp. Rom. 2: 6 — 16. Eph. 2: 
 1_5. 3; 1_13. 1 Tim. 1: 3, 4. Rom. 9: 10, seq. Rom. 9: 22, seq. 
 Rom. 8: 3. Heb. 4: 6—9. 5: 6—10. 5: 10—7: 1. 9: 7—12. 
 
ROMANS 5 : 12. 
 
 Tholuck suggests, that og iatt rvnog too (jtllovrog (v. 14) is, as to 
 sense, a real apodosis of the preceding declarations in v. 12; v. 13 and 
 the preceding part of v. 14 being regarded as a parenthesis. The 
 meaning of the apostle must then be thus represented : 'As by one man 
 sin and death entered the world ; .... [so] this one (og in the sense of 
 xal oliog) was a type, i.e. an antithetic type, of Christ who brought 
 righteousness to all men.' But this seems to be, at best, only an imper- 
 fect apodosis, as already hinted; and withal it is somewhat embarrassed; 
 for Tholuck supposes the apostle to have forgotten here that he had 
 begun the sentence with an gkttisq, and moreover he changes bg into y.al 
 oiTog. I much prefer, therefore, the more easy and obvious solution of 
 the difficulty, by supposing the existence of a suspended sentence ; sus- 
 pended for the sake of intermediate explanations and illustrations, and 
 completed after these have been made, viz. completed in vs. 18, 19. 
 Especially do I prefer this, because this method of writing is so frequent 
 in Paul. 
 
 Al kvog uv-frQWJTOv, by one man, i. e. by Adam, as appears from v. 14 ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22. The apostle cannot design that this should be 
 strictly construed ; for he himself has told us, that "Adam was not 
 deceived ; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression" (1 
 Tim. 2: 14), i.e. Eve first transgressed; which moreover Paul assigns 
 as a reason why she should not usurp authority and have precedence 
 in the church, in the like way, the son of Sirach represents Eve as 
 the first transgressor, 25: 24. If now it was a principal object with the 
 apostle here, to point out specifically and with exactness the first 
 author of transgression, how could he omit mentioning Eve ? Or if 
 his main design was, to point out a corrupt nature propagated by ordi- 
 nary generation, then why should he neglect to mention Eve along with 
 Adam ; for both parents surely were concerned in this ? In respect to 
 these questions it may be remarked further, that either the apostle, in 
 making mention of Adam, trusted that his readers would spontaneously 
 call to mind the primitive pair, the woman being comprehended along 
 with the man ; or that he designed merely to compare the origin itself 
 and extent of sin and misery, (without particularizing the manner), with 
 the origin and extent of the deliverance from them as wrought by 
 Christ. In respect, to the first of these answers, the rule a potiori nomen 
 fit seems to be applicable to the sentiment of it. Adam, as the consti- 
 tuted superior, first formed, and made lord of the inferior creation ; 
 Adam, who by consenting to the sin of his wife and participating in it, 
 made himself a full partaker of it; is named here from the fact of his 
 precedence. He only is named, because it is the particular design of 
 the writer to make a comparison between the second Adam (Christ) 
 and the first. The congruity of the representation and comparison 
 would be marred, by naming more than one author of sin and misery. 
 Nor can any importance be here attached to the fact itself, that tivo were 
 concerned in the primitive transgression: for "they twain were one 
 flesh ;" they were one also in guilt, i. e. they were both partakers of the 
 same criminality. The question is not concerning the exact manner in 
 which the first transgression came to be committed, (for this is not here 
 
200 ROMANS 5 : 12. 
 
 iinv object of investigation with Paul); but the question is: What influ- 
 ence had the primitive sin, in which Adam was the most conspicuous, 
 responsible, and important actor, on the race of men, as to introducing 
 and occasioning sin and misery? 
 
 It may also be remarked, that had Adam refused to unite with his 
 wife in her transgression, the consequences must inevitably have been 
 altogether different from what they have now been. His act, then, 
 completed the mischief which was begun by Eve ; and so the apostle 
 names him here as the occasion of all the evils which followed. This, 
 however, does not prove that he considers Eve as less blameworthy 
 than Adam, or more excusable ; for 1 Tim. 2: 14 is directly opposed to 
 such a notion: but it results, I apprehend, merely from a desire of 
 congruity, in respect to the comparison which he is to make, i. e. the 
 congruity of comparing one person with one, one man (i. e. the first 
 Adam) with one man (i. e. the second Adam). How would it strike 
 readers, if Eve had been here substituted for Adam ? And this sugges- 
 tion leads, at once, to a perception of what congruity demands in the 
 case before us. 
 
 c // (tuaoiLa, sin. The sin would mean, in English, something differ- 
 ent from what the Greek here means, although the article is prefixed to 
 the word. Whenever any thing is named which is generic in its 
 nature, but unique or single in its kind, the Greeks usually prefix the 
 article to it ; e. g. o ifiloaoqog, ij aQirij, )) uh]&tiu, to ctya&ov, )j 8iy.uio- 
 avvi], etc. In such cases i] diy.aioo-vvi] (for example) as an entire genus, 
 is unique, i. e. it differs from all other qualities of moral beings ; and so 
 it has the article prefixed in order to denote this. But still, dutuioavvn 
 may at another time be considered as a genus comprehending several 
 subordinate species, such as commutative justice, penal justice, integrity, 
 etc. ; in which case the article would naturally be omitted. Agreeably 
 to these principles, i) ufiuoiia here appears with the article, because it 
 appears in its simple generic nature, i. e. as single or monadic. That it 
 is generic here, i. e. that it comprehends both sinful actions and affec- 
 tions, seems to be clear from the nature of the case, and from what 
 follows. If Adam was created so as to be upright, and was purely holy 
 until bis fall, then sin commenced with his fall ; sin of every kind, or 
 rather of any kind ; sin either in affection or action. That such a, generic 
 meaning must here be given to i] apngjiu, is evident, moreover, from 
 the sequel ; viz. iq> w mxt'Ttg ijuuqtov, v. 12 ; u{iuqtIu i)v iv xoafim, v. 13; 
 Comp. Rom. 7: 7, seq., where sin is represented as comprising concu- 
 piscence, i. e. internal affection ; Rom. 7: 15 — 19, where the fruits of this 
 concupiscence, i. e. external actions, are called evil, i. e. sin. 
 
 Bretschneider remarks (Dogmatik. II. 48, edit. 3), that the article is 
 used before upotoiia in the verse before us, because it designates vitiosi- 
 tas, but not peccata actualia. But surely he will not contend, that the 
 article is not used before nouns employed in a generic sense, like o 
 cpdoaocfios, 6 aToctTiwTrjQ, o aya&og, etc.; which is even a law of the 
 Greek language. Nor does the sequel here justify his remark ; for the 
 ■t) afiaQxiu of Adam is called (v. 14) his TtuoafiaoiQ' in vs. 15, 17, and 
 18, his naQixnxbipa' in v. 19, his nagaxoi'i' all of which implies peccatum 
 
ROMANS 5 : 12. 207 
 
 actuate, viz. the eating of the forbidden fruit It must be evident, also, 
 that if actual sin is the fruit and consequence of vitiositas, and if tins last 
 entered the world by the act of Adam, then sin in its genetic sense must 
 have entered the world di' svog uv&qmttov, i. e. by Adam's offence. 
 
 JEig tov xofffiov, into the world, i. e. among men, into the world 
 of human heings ; comp. Matt. 26: 13. 2 Pet. 2: 5. 3: 6. Matt. 13: 
 33. John 1: 10. 3: 1G, 17. 1G: 33. 2 Cor. 1: 12. Comp. also 'tyytv- 
 {hai fig to\ yoafiov, John 6: 14. 9: 39. 11: 27. 12:46. Heb. 10: 5. 
 
 That the right explanation of xocspog is given above, is confirmed by 
 v. 18, where eig nuvxag uvftfjomovg is a substitute for it, and one of 
 equivalent import. 
 
 ElarjlOf, entered into, invaded. So the Latin invadere terrain vel 
 provincial)}, etc. ; and so liitgyo^cu in Mark 3: 27. Acts 20: 29. 
 The representation is full of vivacity; for sin is here personified, and 
 represented as invading the human race, in the first transgression of 
 Adam. Compare also the expressions in Wisd. 2 : 24, qtiovoi dt 
 diu t 3ulov ■Oui'uiog eioijl&iv eig top xooftov 14: 14, y.tvodo'tia 
 yuo uv&Qomoiv [tidoAokargflu] t i a ?j k & e v tig iov y.oopov. 
 
 Km diu xjjg dfiagrlug, and by sin, i. e. through the instrumental- 
 ity of sin ; or rather, by reason of sin, in consequence of sin, on ac- 
 count of sin; diet being usually employed in this sense, when put 
 before the Genitive. 
 
 &uvarog, death. But what death? That of the body, or of the 
 soul, or of both? In other words: Is temporal evil here meant, or 
 eternal, or both? 
 
 The answer must be sought for, first of all, in the usus loquendi of 
 the author himself. In the context we have his own explanation of 
 &uvaxog. In v. 15, death (ani&avop) stands opposed to yugig tov 
 ■dtov y.ul ij dwgtu ip yugni. In v. 17, it stands opposed to tt\v 
 negioaeiap Tr,g ydgirog y.ut Trig d'(*)giug Ti\g diy.uioovvt]g. In v. 21, 
 it stands opposed to £o»]v aiolptop. In chap. 6: 23, ddvaxog is di- 
 rectly contrasted with £eo*J almviog. That ■dctvaiog, then, by the 
 usus loquendi of Paul, does sometimes mean a death which is the op- 
 posite of eternal life or happiness, is here made certain. 
 
 In the like sense, i. e. as used to designate the penalty of sin, the 
 reader may find Suvuxog, in Rom. 1: 32. 6: 21. 6: 16. 7: 5. 7: 10. 
 7: 13. 7: 24. 8: 2. 8: 6. 2 Cor. 2: 16. 7: 10. 2 Tim. 1: 10. Heb. 
 2: 14. 
 
 This usage agrees with that of other sacred writers in the New 
 Testament; e. g. John 8: 51. 5:24. James 1: 15. 1 John 3: 14. Rev. 
 2: 11. 20: 6. 20: 14. 
 
208 ROMANS 5: 12. 
 
 In like manner we find it used in the Old Testament; e. g. Deut. 
 30: 15. Jer. 21: 8 (comp. Sirach 15: 7). Prov. 5: 5. 8: 36. 11: 19. 
 12:28. Ezek. 33: 11. 
 
 In the same way the verb to die is employed ; e. g. by Paul, Rom. 
 8: 13; by John, 6: 50. 11: 26. 8: 21. So in the Old Testament; 
 e. g. Ezek. 18: 4. 18: 20. 18: 17. 18: 21. 18: 24. 18: 28. 18: 32. 
 Prov. 15 :10. Ezek. 33: 8. 33: 11. 33: 14. 33: 15. Prov. 23: 13. 
 Must not this be the sense, also, in Gen. 2: 17. 3: 3, 4? 
 
 If anyone now will carefully investigate all these examples, he will 
 find that in many cases it is quite impossible to limit the word death, 
 so as to make it signify no more than the dissolution of the body or 
 temporal death. E. g. John 8: 51, ' If any man shall keep my saying, 
 he shall never see death.' John 5: 24, ' He that heareth my words 
 . ... is passed from death unto life.' John 1 1 : 26, ' Whosoever .... 
 believeth in me, shall never die.' Ezek. 18: 28, ' He .... that turn- 
 eth away from his transgressions .... shall surely live, he shall not 
 die ;' and to the same effect in many of the other passages quoted; to 
 which it would be easy to add many more. 
 
 That the usns loquendi, then, picrmits flavurog to be construed as 
 designating the whole penalty of sin, there can be no good ground of 
 doubt. The only question now is : Whether duvuiog is employed in 
 this sense, in the passage before us ? 
 
 The antithesis in vs. 15, 17, 21, and 6: 23, as produced above, 
 would seem to go far toward a final settlement of this question. In- 
 deed, I see no philological escape from the conclusion, that death in 
 the sense of penalty for sin in its full measure, must be regarded as 
 the meaning of the writer here. 
 
 But is there any thing in the nature of the case, which goes to shew 
 that death should here have a limited meaning given to it ; in other 
 words, that it should be construed as meaning only the death of the 
 body ? 
 
 What then is the nature of the case ? It is this, viz. that as con- 
 demnation [xcnuxgina] came upon all men by the offence of one man 
 (Adam), so by the obedience of one (Christ) all men have access to 
 dixamcng tig £(OTjV, v. 18. Now as 'Qm] is here plainly the antithesis of 
 ■&uvaToq [y.uruy.QiiAa], we have only to inquire what must be the mean- 
 ing of £on/, in order to obtain that of &dvuTog. But in respect to this 
 there can surely be no doubt. Zw>) means the blessings procured by a 
 Saviour's death, viz. all the holiness and happiness which this intro- 
 duces. But certainly these blessings are not limited to the resurrection 
 of the body. I do not deny that such a resurrection is a blessing to the 
 righteous ; for so the apostle plainly considers it in 1 Cor. xv. ; or rather, 
 
ROMANS 5: 12. 209 
 
 1 would say, it is a thing preparatory to the bestowment of blessings. 
 But it must be remembered, that the wicked will be raised from the 
 dead as truly as the righteous; yet no one will count this a blessing to 
 them. It is only a preparation for augmented misery. 
 
 It cannot be then, that a resurrection from the dead, in itself consid- 
 ered, is dixulaaig ?co>]c* and therefore a state of temporal death is not the 
 antithesis, i. e. is not the evil from which it is the main object of Christ 
 to deliver us. A resurrection from this is a good or an evil, just as the 
 case may be in regard to the moral character of him who is the subject 
 of it. 
 
 Does Christ then deliver from the suffering itself of temporal death ? 
 A formal answer to this is unnecessary, since all men without distinction , 
 are mortal and die. 
 
 One thing, however, should be said in reference to this ; which is, 
 that ' the sting of death' is taken away through the hopes inspired by a 
 Saviour's blood ; and that in this way the evil is greatly mitigated to 
 those who have true hope in Christ. 
 
 I remark, once more, that the penalty of all sin, is evil both of body 
 and soul. "The soul that sinneth shall die." Now if Adam's first sin 
 was a real sin, and a fortiori if it was one of the greatest of all sins (as 
 we surely have much reason to conclude when we consider its conse- 
 quences), then death in its most extensive sense must have been the 
 penalty attached to it. What reason can be given why other less sins 
 are punishable with death in the enlarged sense of this word, and yet 
 that the sin of Adam was not punishable in the like way ? Was he not 
 the more culpable, who fell from a state of entire holiness ? 
 
 Finally, the apostle, when he comes to point out the dissimilitude 
 between Adam's offence and its consequences, and the obedience of 
 Christ and its consequences, (as he does in vs. 15 — 17), opposes the 
 xoijiu occasioned by Adam to the Swaloiua effected by Christ, v. 16 ; 
 and the &uvaToq introduced by the former to the fiuadevtiv iv ^wjj 
 accomplished by the latter, v. 17. Now as dixalwua is not, in its more 
 important sense, a deliverance from temporal death, nor the reigning in 
 life merely a deliverance from mortality ; so temporal death cannot, 
 with any good appearance of reason, be understood here as the essential 
 meaning of &uvaTotz. That -frdvctTog includes this among other evils, I 
 would not by any means be understood to deny ; for 1 Cor. 15: 22 
 shews, that Paul clearly held the death of the body to have been 
 introduced by Adam. But that this was the prominent evil in his mind, 
 so much so as to be here named as the principal thing which constituted 
 the penalty threatened to our first parents, has, I trust, been rendered 
 sufficiently improbable, by the considerations above stated. See Ex- 
 cursus III. 
 
 Ko.l ovrwg, and thus, or and in like manner. An important 
 inquiry may be here raised, viz. Does the apostle mean to say : ' In 
 consequence of sin's entering the world and death by sin, through the 
 transgression of Adam — as the natural and necessary, at least the 
 
 27 
 
oio ROMANS 5: 12. 
 
 established consequence of this — sin and death came upon all other 
 men ;' in other words, does he mean to say that ' the coming of sin 
 and death upon all other men, was occasioned by Adam's committing 
 sin and incurring death V Or does he mean thus : ' As it was with 
 Adam, when he sinned and death came upon him in consequence of 
 it, so it is with all other men, i. e. they sin, and death in like manner 
 comes upon them?' 
 
 The former meaning implies a special connection between Adam 
 and his posterity, and a special influence of his crime and condemna- 
 tion upon their sin and condemnation ; the latter contains no such 
 implication, but merely avers that all who sin, whether Adam or his 
 posterity, fall under sentence of condemnation. The word o'vzwg is 
 capable of either interpretation ; as it means either hoc modo, hole 
 ratione, or similiter, simili modo. Which of these is the sense that 
 the writer here means to express, we shall be enabled to inquire more 
 advantageously, when we have gone through with the remaining 
 words of the verse. 
 
 Eq to iiavTig r](.iagiov, because that all have sinned. Another 
 method of rendering this has often been urged, viz. in whom all have 
 sinned. So the Vulgate; and so, after this, Augustine, Beza, Calix- 
 tus, E. Schmidt, Calovius, Quenstedt, Raphelius, et alii. But the 
 objections to translating icp to by in quo, in whom, are weighty ; for, 
 (1) If to be made a masc. relative pronoun here, there is no antece- 
 dent for it within any probable limits. ' ySfv&Qtonov lies too far back ; 
 and dtxvarog as an antecedent, would make no tolerable sense. (2) 
 .£.71 1 to (iq: u>) does not, by Greek usage, mean in whom; iv to 
 would of course be the proper expression for this. So Thomas Ma- 
 gister, iq' to, d'wit. Comp. 2 Cor. 5: 4. (3) The assertion tq' to 
 nui'Teg ijiiccqtov, is dwelt upon and explained in vs. 13, 14; and in 
 these verses, men's own personal sins are spoken of (as we shall 
 hereafter see), not those of another which are laid to their charge. 
 If this explanation be admitted, then iq' to cannot here mean in 
 who?)/. (4) If £cp to could be properly taken as equivalent to iv to, 
 (and so much is true, viz, that ijii and iv are beyond all doubt fre- 
 quently commuted as to sense in the New Testament), yet the whole 
 phrase, viz. afiaQTavitv irti xivt,, meaning to sin in one or by one, is 
 without any example, that I can find, to support it. How can it then 
 be here adopted, against the usual idiom of the Greek language, and 
 against another and preferable sense ? 
 
 On the other hand ; agreeably with the rendering because that, or 
 
ROMANS 5: 12. 211 
 
 for that, is the version of the Syriac, the commentaries of Theodoret, 
 Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Vatablus, Flatt, Tholuck, Schott, and a 
 multitude of others, together with our English version. 
 
 Grotius, indeed, proposes another rendering, viz. per quern. That 
 tnl has not unfrequently the sense of causa, propter, gratia, there 
 can be no ground of philological doubt ; see Luke 5: 5. 9: 48. Acts 
 3: 16. 1 Cor. 8: 11. But what would be the sense of ' all have sinned 
 for the sake of Adam V It makes it more tolerable, however, to 
 translate thus: 'By reason of Adam, i. e. through his transgression, 
 all men have sinned.' But if the writer had meant here to say this, 
 he could hardly have avoided saying d'e' ov~ for in the same way he 
 continually employs dia, in the paragraph under examination ; e. g. 
 in vs. 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, no less than nine times. 
 
 On the whole, we can have no reasonable ground of doubt here, 
 that iq>' o> means because that, or for that, as our English version has 
 it. Augustine, indeed, does strenuously contend for the Vulgate 
 rendering in quo; for on this he builds his views of original sin. 
 Accordingly he says : " Fuerunt enim omnes ratione scminis in 
 lumbis Adam quando damnatus est ; et ideo sine illis damnatus non 
 est: quemadmodum fuerunt Israelite in lumbis Abraham, quando 
 decimatus est," [Heb. VII. 9, 10] ; contra Jul. Pelag. V. 12. And 
 again : " In Adam omnes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura, 
 ilia insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhuc omnes Me unus fuerunt" 
 De pecc. merit, et rem. III. 7. The same unity with Adam has 
 Pres. Edwards laboured to establish, in Part IV. chap. 3 of his work 
 on Original Sin ; where he has argued, that the identity of one and 
 the same individual is merely an effect of " an arbitrary divine con- 
 stitution ;" and that unity may as well be predicated of each individ- 
 ual of the human race with Adam their common ancestor, as of any 
 individual with himself at different points of time ; unity in both cases 
 being merely a matter of " sovereign and arbitrary appointment." In 
 the like way with Jerome, moreover, did Origen and Ambrose think ; 
 and the Schoolmen have speculated ad nauseam on this subject. 
 
 Uuvtiq r.iiuoTOi', all have sinned. But how? In their own 
 proper persons ? Or in Adam ? Or is it merely the meaning of 
 vtfiuoiov here, that men arc treated as sinners? 
 
 This last opinion Storr maintains ; and he appeals to Gen. 44: 32, 
 "■nNOril , then I will bear the blame, i. e. I will be treated as a sin- 
 ner. He also refers to Job 9: 29, 3>«"}N QN ; which however does 
 not support the appeal. Grotius also appeals to Gen. 31: 27 and Job 
 
212 ROMANS 5: 12. 
 
 6: 24 ('0, for the like purpose; but without ground. And although, 
 if an exigency of the passage demanded it, r t j.iaorov might be ren- 
 dered are treated as sinners (comp. 1 K. 1: 21) ; yet no such exigency 
 occurs here, as vs. 13, 14 shew; for in these (which are plainly 
 explanatory of the latter part of v. 12), the writer labours to prove 
 that men are themselves actual sinners, not merely sinners in Adam ; 
 as we shall see in the sequel. Besides, it is a good rule of interpreta- 
 tion, never to depart from the usual sense of words unless there is an 
 imperious reason for it; and the usual sense of u[.iuqiuv(x>, is not to 
 be treated as a sinner. 
 
 There remain, then, only the other two methods of construing 
 illAuyxop, which are adverted to in the first and second questions 
 above. But the second method, viz. that all men have sinned in 
 Adam, cannot be admitted here, for reasons already stated above; it 
 can be admitted only in a case of philological necessity, which does 
 not occur here. There remains, therefore, only the first plain and 
 simple method of interpretation, viz. all men have sinned in their 
 own persons; all men have themselves incurred the guilt of sin, and 
 so subjected themselves to its penalty ; or at least, all men are them- 
 selves sinners, and so are liable to death. 
 
 I am aware that a different sense has been given to navreg ij/uuqtov 
 here, by many of the most respectable commentators. They regard it 
 as meaning that all have sinned in Adam, or at least, that through him 
 they have become sinners ; and they appeal to vs. 17 — 19 in support of 
 this sentiment. And it must be confessed, that there is no more ground 
 for objection to the sentiment which the expression thus construed would 
 convey, than there is to the sentiment in vs. 17 — 19. It is not on this 
 ground, that I hesitate to receive this interpretation. It is because there 
 are philological difficulties involved in such an exegesis, which I see no 
 way of satisfactorily removing. Vs. 13 and 14 seem plaiuly to recog- 
 nize such sin as that of which men are personally and actually guilty ; 
 yea, a sin different in some important respects from that of Adam's first 
 transgression, .... tTil iovg fi >/ afiagrijaavTag inl tw ouoimfiaxi T>jg ttuq- 
 apuatag *A8a(i. This is a sin, moreover, on account of which " death 
 reigned over them." But if this sin were the very sin of Adam, im- 
 puted to them, and not their own actual sin ; if it were his sin propa- 
 gated to them (as the usual sentiment respecting original sin is) ; then 
 how could it be, that death came upon them, although they had not 
 sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression ? So far from this 
 must it be, that Adam's sin is their very sin, and the ground why death 
 reigns over them. 
 
 This consideration, united with the principle that the ordinary 
 meaning of* yftagtw should be received, unless there is a solid reason 
 for departing from it ; and all this added to the consideration that vs. 13, 
 
ROMANS 5: 12. 218 
 
 14 are plainly epexegetical of the latter part of v. 12 ; seem to make it 
 unavoidable that 7r«j'T£? i'lpuqiov should be here construed, all have sin- 
 ned in their own persons or actually. 
 
 I know, indeed, that such distinguished men as Calvin, Edwards, 
 Flatt, Tholuck, and others, explain the phrase in question by referring to 
 v. 19 ; and some of them allege as a ground of this, that the design of 
 the apostle requires us so to understand nuvTtg 'ijpanxov here, because he 
 is evidently intent upon representing the evils which Adam occasioned. 
 But it does not follow, because v. 19 asserts an influence of Adam upon 
 the sinfulness of men, that the same sentiment must therefore be af- 
 firmed in v. 12 ; certainly not that it should be directly asserted in the 
 same manner. It appears quite probable, I readily concede, that Paul, 
 in making the declarations contained in v. 12, had in his own mind a 
 view of the connection between the first offence of Adam and the sin- 
 fulness of his posterity. It is possible, that y.ul ovriog may imply this; 
 which (with Erasmus, Tholuck, and others) we might construe, et ita 
 factum est, i. e. and so it happened, or and thus it teas brought abotd, viz. 
 brought about that all men came under sentence of death, and also be- 
 came sinners ; in other words, Adam's offence brought sin and condem- 
 nation upon all men. Yet I am not persuaded that this is the true 
 method of interpreting the words y.ul ovjb)g. While, however, I readily 
 concede what I have just stated above, and am persuaded there is no 
 good reason to deny that Paul did entertain the idea, when he made the 
 declarations in v. 12, that the fact of all men's becoming sinners and 
 being subjected to the dominion of death, was connected with the first 
 transgression of Adam (comp. vs. 17 — 19) ; yet that the apostle has 
 asserted this sentiment explicitly and directly in v. 12, cannot, I think, 
 be made out by any just rules of interpretation. Nay, for reasons 
 already given, and on account of what is yet to be said, I cannot but 
 regard the case as quite clear, that no more is here explicitly and directly 
 asserted, than that all men are themselves actual sinners, and therefore 
 come under condemnation. This assertion the latter clause of the verse 
 seems to me fully and plainly to contain. But in the preceding uiiaqxiu, 
 rig xov v.oa\iov ucn]l&i, and in the y.ul ovtwq .... dirjXxre, I think we 
 may, without any forced construction, nay that we must, discover an 
 indirect intimation of what is directly asserted in vs. 17 — 19, viz., that 
 the first offence of Adam was connected with the sin and misery nf his 
 posterity, and in some sense or other causal of it. Nothing can be 
 plainer, than that at the outset Paul had this sentiment in his mind ; yet 
 in v. 12 he seems to intimate it only in the expressions just cited. Con- 
 strued in this way the sense of the verse would be as follows : ' By 
 Adam's first offence, sin and death invaded the world of mankind ; and 
 having thus invaded it, they have been marching through it (diijlds), 
 and carrying on their conquests ever since ; all men have become sin- 
 ners, all have come under condemnation.' 
 
 Now while this asserts the fact that all have become sinners, and 
 have come under condemnation, it does also intimate by implication, 
 that the whole of what has come upon men, stands connected with the 
 introduction by Adam of sin and death into the world. I cannot, there- 
 
214 ROMANS 5: 12. 
 
 
 fore agree with those commentators who find in onr verse no intimation 
 of such a connection of all men with Adam; neither can I assent to 
 those who find in it no charge upon ail of Adam's posterity, of actual 
 sin in propria persona. 
 
 The objection made by Flatt against construing the clause before us 
 as having respect to actual sin, seems to be destitute of any good ground 
 of support. 'In this way,' says he, ' infants must be included among 
 actual sinners; which is not true.' But how can any more difficulty 
 arise from saying lhat all are sinners here, than from the apostle's say- 
 ins the very same thing so often in the previous part of his epistle, e. g. 
 3 : 9 — 18, 19, 23 ? Of course the writer of these declarations must be 
 understood, (if he means to designate actual sinners in the passages just 
 adverted to, as it is agreed that he does), to designate such as are capable 
 of being so; just as when it is said: "He that believeth not shall be 
 damned," we understand the Saviour to speak of such as are capable of 
 belief or unbelief. There is surely no more difficulty in the one case 
 than in the other. That the apostle had his eye on the case of infants, 
 in particular, any where hi this whole paragraph, may be justly regarded 
 as doubtful ; particularly must we doubt this, when we bring Rom. 9: 
 1 1 into the account, which surely implies a state of infants somewhat 
 different from that which the charge in Rom. 5: 17 — 19 would imply, in 
 case we suppose them to be there included. I remark, once more, on 
 the exegesis of tiuvtez r^uQiov by Calvin and others, that the evils occa- 
 sioned by Adam, are surely not limited by the apostle, and by the 
 nature of the case are not to be limited, to that part only of suffering 
 which comes upon our race by reason of original sin (as it is called), 
 whatever this sin may be. Verse 14 speaks of ' death as reigning over 
 those ivho had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression ;' 
 and of course it speaks of a sin committed by Adam's posterity, different 
 from that of Adam ; and v. 16 speaks of the many offences which the 
 free gift of Christ takes away or causes to be pardoned, in distinction 
 from the one offence only of Adam's that enters into the account of our 
 condemnation. It follows of course, and we are assured, that the apos- 
 tle does not limit himself to the one offence of Adam, and its consequen- 
 ces in the way of imputation, when he exhibits the contrast between 
 Adam and Christ. Why should he do so? If actual sin in any way 
 proceeds from, is connected with, or is occasioned by, original sin ; 
 and if this latter can be traced to Adam ; then does it follow, that actual 
 as well as original sin should enter into the contrast presented by the 
 apostle, between the sin and misery occasioned by the first Adam, and 
 the justification and happiness introduced by the second. 
 
 Of course there seems to be no valid reason, why we may not 
 construe nuvrtg Tjfiagxov as I have already done above. 
 
 Let us return now to the v.ul ovrmg, the interpretation of which 
 was left unfinished. Does it mean : ' And in like manner with Adam, 
 did his posterity sin, and come too, like him, under sentence of 
 death?' Or: 'As death followed sin in the case of Adam, so it did 
 
ROMANS 5 : 12. 215 
 
 in the case of his posterity V Or : ' Since Adam introduced sin and 
 misery into the world, it has so happened, that his sin was imputed to 
 all his posterity, and all of them are subjected to death thereby'!' Not 
 the first; because v. 14 tells us that death came on many of Adam's 
 posterity, who had not sinned in the manner that he did, i. e. against 
 a revealed, express law. Not the third; for reasons which have 
 already been given, why we must accede to the idea that nuvitg 
 ijuapTOi' here means actual sin in propria persona. The meaning of 
 y.al ovrwg, then, must be substantially what is implied in the second 
 of the above questions; viz. as sin entered the world, and death was 
 inseparably connected with it ; so death has passed through the world 
 and come upon all men, because it was inseparably connected with 
 their sin. More than this cannot be looked upon as directly asserted 
 by the latter clause of the verse. But that the whole verse contains 
 an intimation, that both the sins of men and their condemnation stand 
 connected, in some way or other, with the first offence by Adam, has 
 already been stated. The force of xul o'viwg, however, cannot fall 
 directly on this. Consider what the writer asserts : ' Death came on 
 Adam diet rijg u^ugiiag- and in like manner (y.al ovrcog), death 
 came upon all men,' [dttt rtjg aiiuQiiug, he might have said, which 
 would have meant neither more nor less than xul o'mwg, but he has 
 expressed the same idea by] £q.> oi nuvreg iif.ia(jrov.' In other words: 
 ' As Adam sinned and brought death upon himself, so death in all 
 other cases is in like manner the inseparable attendant upon sin ; and 
 death is universal, because sin is so.' So much, and I think no more, 
 can be fairly made out of y.ul oihcog' it must be considered as intended 
 to designate the connection — the invariable, inseparable connection 
 — between sin and death. But how it came about that sin is univer- 
 sal, is a thing not intended to be comprehended in the comparison 
 made by xal ol'iTog- although it is probably hinted at, as I have 
 already shewn, by other words, in the same verse, viz. iioij).dt and 
 dti]^&f. There is no room here for such a comparison, by means of 
 xal ovrcug ' for how would it sound to say : ' As sin and death were 
 universal in respect to Adam, so they are universal in respect to his 
 posterity V 
 
 In regard to construing y.al ourog, with Erasmus, Tholuck, and 
 others, as meaning ita factum est, viz. ' so it happened that all men 
 sinned in Adam, and were sentenced to death by reason of this sin,' 
 I must make one more remark. I cannot help feeling this exegesis 
 to be wholly inadmissible here. If the apostle had designed to say 
 
216 ROMANS 5: 13, 14. 
 
 what this interpretation represents him as saying, would he not have 
 written : Kal ovrojg tytvixo on v.. r. X. ? But as he has now con- 
 structed the sentence, the force of v.cu ovuog seems fairly and inevi- 
 tably to fall on the inseparable connection between sin and death ; 
 which is directly asserted by t<p ui navreg rifAagrov ■ i. e. it is simply 
 and directly said, that all are condemned as Adam was, because all 
 have sinned. 
 
 CHAP. V. 13, 14 
 
 The .apostle having- thus asserted that sin and death were introduced into the 
 world by one man, and had become universal, in order to complete the com- 
 parison which he designs, and which is intimated by wott{(j at the beginning' of 
 v. 12, would have naturally rilled out the sentence by adding, at the end of 
 this verse, ovrojs xal dV tvus uvdtoofaov l) twij stg rev xog/iov [sis Trclvras av&goj- 
 ?roi's] BioijAnfyj eoinp. vs. 17, 18. But he suspends his apodosis here, for the 
 sake of elucidating and confirming what he had already said ; comp. p. 210 
 above. This confirmation is made by the verses now under consideration ; as 
 the yd.Q confirmantis with which they are introduced, very clearly shews. 
 What has he said ? That all have sinned, and that all are under sentence of 
 death. How ; s this elucidated and confirmed? By taking a case in which 
 i :ie might be disposed to say, it would be difficult to prove that men are sin- 
 ners, since the apostle himself had already explicitly declared, that it is ' the 
 law which occasions punishment; for where there is no law, there is no trans- 
 gression,' 4: 15. To meet this difficulty which might easily arise, he avers 
 that men were sinners (afiayTia tjv tv v.6o[ao>) , before the giving of the Mosaic 
 law; although they are not themselves prone to acknowledge their guilt in 
 such circumstances, or they make but little account of it. Yet the fact was, 
 that they were sinners, and that death therefore prevailed over them all, even 
 all who had not sinned against a revealed law as Adatn did. 
 
 Such 1 take to be the confirmation of what was asserted at the close of v. 
 12. To establish and defend this exegesis, is of course our next immediate 
 object. 
 
 "^X9 l vofAOv, until the law; i. e. the law of Moses, as v. 14 leads us 
 inevitably to construe it. Some commentators, (Origen, Chrysostom, 
 Erasmus, Koppe, and others), construe u%Qt> vopov not as designating 
 the commencement of the Mosaic economy, but as extending through 
 the whole period of it. In defence of such an interpretation, we are 
 referred to ujqi in Acts 3: 21, and its synonyme tiaQ av in Acts 2: 
 35. Gen. 2S: 15, etc. That these words are sometimes employed in 
 such a manner, as not to indicate a cessation of any thing that is or is 
 done, at the time which is mentioned in connection with aypi or twq, 
 is true. In other words, the terminus ad quern does not limit the thing 
 affirmed universally ; it only expresses a limit for a certain purpose. 
 For example ; in Acts 3: 21 it is said, that " the heavens must receive 
 Jesus aygi ygoviov ccnonaraaTdatcog navzeov, until the restoration of 
 
ROMANS 5: 13. 217 
 
 all things ; by which it is not surely meant, that he is no longer to 
 dwell in heaven, but that he will certainly dwell there until that time. 
 In like manner ccygi, it is said, may here admit the time of the Mo- 
 saic law to be included. 
 
 But whatever may be true in regard to the possible meaning of 
 aygi in some cases, v. 14 clearly shews, that here it means only until 
 the commencement of the laws of Moses, i. e. the time when these laws 
 were given. 
 
 ' But how can this be ? Was sin in the world no longer than that 
 period 1 Did it cease when the law was introduced ? This would 
 be a direct contradiction of v. 20, and of many other passages.' The 
 answer is brief and conclusive. It is no part of the apostle's object, 
 to aver that sin did not exist after this period ; but to declare that it 
 existed before it. What he had already said, again and again, neces- 
 sarily involved the idea, that where law was, there sin was. But he 
 had also said, that " where there is no law, there is no transgression." 
 Now some of his readers might suggest, and this not unnaturally : 
 ' Since you say that where there is no law, there is no transgression 
 (Rom. 3: 15), how then were men sinners before the law was give?i?' 
 I allow that no intelligent and candid man could have good ground 
 to put such a question, after all which the apostle had already said on 
 this subject. But surely we are not to suppose, that Paul had to do 
 only with men of this character. The objections answered through- 
 out the epistle, shew a state of things quite different from this. 
 
 To the question, then, as above suggested, I suppose the apostle 
 to answer in our verse. ' Sin,' says he, ' was in the world, until the 
 law of Moses ; i. e. men were sinners between the time of Adam and 
 Moses, for death reigned during all this period,' v. 13. It is not 
 necessary that there should be a law expressly revealed, in order that 
 men should be sinners; "the heathen who have no law, are a law 
 unto themselves," 2: 14. 
 
 That apamiu here means something different from original sin 
 or imputed sin, seems to be clear from the reference which the apostle 
 here tacitly makes to a law of nature that had been transgressed. A 
 revealed law there was not for men in general, antecedently to the 
 time of Moses ; yet men were sinners. How ? By sinning against 
 the law " written on their hearts," (2: 15). But if such was their sin, 
 it was actual sin, not imputed guilt. 
 
 Very different views of afiaQTta here, however, are entertained by 
 some, who state the whole of the apostle's reasoning in the following 
 
 28 
 
218 
 
 ROMANS 5: 13. 
 
 manner ; viz. ' Men's own sins were not imputed to them on the ground 
 of their transgressing any law, until the law of Moses was given; yet 
 they were counted sinners (apagjla t)v iv xocrjUt.)) ; consequently, it must 
 have been by reason of Adam's sin being imputed to them, inasmuch as 
 their own offences were not imputed.' 
 
 Although this mode of exegesis is supported by many names of high 
 respectability, I find myself unable to admit it for the following reasons: 
 1. To aver that men's own sins were not imputed to them by God, (so 
 they construe uukotIu de ovv. iIIo-/htgu p) bvxog vouov), is directly to 
 contradict the whole tenor of Old Testament history and declarations ; 
 and also what Paul has, in the most explicit manner, asserted in the 
 preceding part of his epistle. As evidence in favour of the first asser- 
 tion, I appeal to the case of Cain ; of the antediluvians who perished in 
 the flood ; of Sodom and Gomorrha ; and to all the declarations of 
 divine displeasure made against the actual thoughts and deeds of the 
 wicked, not against their original sin. In respect to the second, I 
 appeal to the whole of what Paul has said in Rom. 1: 19 — 32. 2: 12, 14, 
 15. 3: 9, 19, 23, 25. All these charges are made against actual sins ; 
 and it is impossible to suppose that the apostle means here to say, that 
 those who are avouoi (without revelation), are, or ever have been, 
 counted by God as being without sin, actual sin ; for both ilvo uoi and 
 two (io i, according to Paul, are all under sin, under actual sin. 
 To admit the contrary, would be to overturn the very foundation the 
 apostle had taken so much pains to lay, in chap. i. — m., in order to 
 make the conclusion entirely evident and unavoidable, that all men need 
 gratuitous justification. 
 
 2. To aver that men's sins are not imputed to them, when they do 
 not live under a revealed law, would be to contradict what the immedi- 
 ate context itself must be considered as asserting. Who are those that, 
 have not sinned after the manner of Adam ? The answer of those 
 whom I am now opposing, is : ' They are those, who have only original 
 sin or imputed sin charged to their account.' But then I find great dif- 
 ficulty in this answer. By the supposition of those who make it, Adam's 
 first sin does become really and truly that of all his posterity, inasmuch 
 as it is propagated to them in the way of natural generation. Yea, 
 Augustine, Pres. Edwards, and many others, maintain a real physical 
 unity of Adam with all his posterity; and hence they derive to all his 
 posterity, a participation in his sin. But if his sin be theirs in any 
 proper sense, either really by such a unity as is asserted, or by mere 
 imputation without this ; then how is it that the sin of the avouou is (as 
 Paul asserts) not like that of Adam ? How can it be unlike it, when it 
 is the very same ; either the very same in reality (as Augustine and his 
 followers hold), or the very same putatively ? But, 
 
 3. I have another difficulty. How can the sins of Adam be here 
 asserted to be imputed to all his posterity, and yet their own personal 
 sins to be not at all reckoned ? By the exegesis of those whose opinion 
 I am now endeavouring to controvert, Paul is made to say, that God did 
 not count to men their own personal and actual sins, i. e. to those who 
 lived before the Mosaic law. By a parity of reason, then, the Gentiles 
 
ROMANS 5: 13. 219 
 
 nt all times and every where, who are uvopoi, are freed from the impu- 
 tation of their own transgressions ; which would directly contradict the 
 declarations of Paul. 
 
 From this conclusion, however, Schott and Tholuok, who defend 
 for suhstance the exegesis which I am calling in question, do in some 
 measure revolt, and say that to ovu illoyuTo must be assigned only a 
 comparative sense; that although the guilt of men who sinned against 
 the law of nature, was not taken away absolutely, yet their accountability 
 for it was in a good measure superseded. To illustrate this, TholucK 
 refers us to uvox>] in Rom. 3: 26, and to vntoiSmv 6 &£og in Acts 17: 30. 
 Both of these instances, however, relate to deferring punishment, not to 
 a remission of accountability ; comp. 2 Pet. 3: 8, 9. Such a remission 
 of punishment would directly contradict what Paul has fully and 
 strongly asserted, in Rom. 2: 6 — 16. 
 
 And to what purpose is it to say, that men who were uvopoi, were 
 in a comparative sense not accountable to God for their own personal 
 sins ? This means neither more nor less, than that they were account- 
 able in some degree, although not as highly so as those who were i'vvofioi. 
 But accountability being admitted, (how can it be denied after reading 
 Rom. 2: 6 — 16?) then the argument is marred, which those whom I am 
 opposing deduce from the verses in question. They make these verses 
 to say, that ' the uvouoi are not accountable for their own sins ; but inas- 
 much as they are still treated as sinners, it must be because of imputed 
 sin only.' But while we admit accountability in some degree for the sins 
 of the avop.oi, it forecloses such an argument from the passage ; for it 
 leaves it fully liable to the following construction, viz. ' Although men 
 were held less accountable and criminal, who lived before the Mosaic 
 law, than those who lived under this law, yet that they still were sinners, 
 and were regarded as such, is true, for all were subjected to death.' 
 That they were sinners in their own person, or actual offenders in a 
 way different from that of Adam, is clear from what is said in v. 14 re- 
 specting them. How then can Adam's sin be here asserted to be theirs, 
 and, by implication, to be the only sin for which death came upon them ? 
 
 In such an interpretation, moreover, as that which I am now con- 
 sidering, a very different sense is given to (lloytLto from that which it 
 will here bear ; as Ave shall see in the sequel. 
 
 I have only to add, that the supposition of men's own personal sins 
 not being reckoned to them, while they perish by the imputation of 
 another's sin, is a position so revolting with respect to the justice, and 
 goodness, and impartiality of the sovereign Judge, "who will render to 
 every man according to his works," that it should not be made out from 
 constructive evidence ; it requires most ample and satisfactory arguments 
 to support it. 
 
 The phrase u'lQV vo/uov df.iuorla v\v tv xoofio), appears then to be 
 only an affirmation of that respecting a particular class of men, (whom 
 some might think it difficult to prove to be sinners), which in the 
 preceding clause had been affirmed of all men, napieg ^fxagrov. It 
 
220 ROMANS 5: 13. 
 
 is illustrating and confirming this latter expression, by shewing that 
 even that class of men are sinners, whom one might be prone to ex- 
 empt from such a charge. 
 
 './iiaozlu dt . . . . vofiov, although sin is not counted where there 
 is no law ; an expression which has given occasion to great perplexity 
 and difficulty. This has arisen, however, in a great measure from 
 construing ik\oyi7zat as though it were connected with deog, as the 
 agent by whom the counting or imputing is to be done. The diffi- 
 culties of such an interpretation have already been stated,, in the 
 considerations presented above. Bretschneider (Dogmatik. II. 49". 
 edit. 3) seems to have suggested the true solution of the phraseology : 
 "'MXoyfhui is not imputatur a Deo, but refertur ab hominibus ad 
 peccata, i. e. habetur, agnoscitur peccatum." The like views did 
 Calvin and Luther entertain, relative to the expression. The former 
 says, that [homines] sibi nihil imputarent in peccatum, nisi [lege] 
 coacti .... sine legis stimulis in socordiam se demergunt ; i. e. ' men 
 do not count themselves as sinners, and are not alarmed for their 
 guilt, unless the law first excites and quickens their consciences.' So 
 Luther renders t/J.oythai by achten, to regard, to have respect to. 
 To the like purpose Heumann and Camerarius. Tholuck says this 
 is doing violence to the word. But surely, when it is rendered (as 
 by Bretschneider) habetur, imputatur [ut peccatum] ab hominibus, 
 this is no more a departure from the meaning of tlloyftrat, than to 
 render it imputatur a Deo. Whether deog or av&Qfonoi is to be 
 understood here, must be decided, of course, by the nature of the 
 sentiment. And as to W.oyfnui, why should attributing to it the 
 meaning of regarding, accounting, esteeming, etc., be called strange? 
 inasmuch as in sense this word accords altogether with koy!£opcit, 
 which often occurs with such a meaning; e. g. Acts 19: 27. Rom. 2; 
 26. 6: 11. 8: 36. 9: 8. 14: 14. 1 Cor. 4: 1. 2 Cor. 10: 2. 11: 5, et 
 scepe. So Sian , Gen. 31: 15. 1 Sam. 1: 13. Job 41: 24. The ellipsis 
 after ikloynrai may be supplied by eig a^iuoriav or tag dpagria, both 
 methods of construction being common after koyi£o[.<(xt, as any one 
 may see by consulting the above instances. That ikloyto) occurs in 
 Philem. v. 18, in the sense of impute, is no more a reason why it 
 should have that particular meaning in the verse before us, than it is 
 that Xoyt£o[tat should ahvays have the sense of impute, because it 
 often means to impute; but we know, also, that oftener still it means 
 to compute, to regard, to make account of. 
 
 That the sentiment derived from such an exegesis as that which 
 
ROMANS 5: 13. 221 
 
 I have adopted, is not foreign to the writings of Paul, is quite clear 
 from comparing Rom. 7: 7 — 1 1 and 3: 20. In the former of these 
 passages the law is represented as greatly exciting and aggravating 
 the unholy desires of the carnal heart, by its restraints and dis- 
 closures; so that " without the law, sin is dead," i. e. it is little esti- 
 mated and felt. In the latter, Paul declares that " by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin." How well this accords with v.f.n/.QTiu dt oux 
 tlt.oyfhut fitj ovrog vofiov, needs hardly to be suggested. 
 
 I admit that a modified sense of the expression is to be regarded 
 as the true one, viz. it is not to be considered so absolute as to con- 
 vey the idea that no sense of sin existed among the heathen in any 
 measure ; for this would contradict fact, and contradict what Paul 
 says in chap. 2: 14, 15. But then the modification is of just the same 
 nature, as is to be received in respect to Rom. 7: 7 — 11. 3: 20, and 
 also of John 15: 22 — 24, where the Saviour says, that if he had not 
 come and spoken to the Jews, " they would not have had sin." 
 
 Pres. Edwards has given the verse before us a peculiar turn : "For 
 before the law of Moses was given, mankind were all looked upon by 
 the great Judge as sinners, by corruption and guilt derived from Adam's 
 violation of the original law of works; which shews, that the original 
 universal rule of righteousness is not the law of Moses; for if so, there 
 would have been no sin imputed before that was given, because sin is 
 not imputed where there is no law," (Orig. Sin, p. 275. Worces. edit.) 
 He supposes that the main design of the apostle is here to shew, that the 
 .lews could not claim their law as the only criterion of right and wrong ; 
 and in order to do this, Paul shews that men Mere condemned on 
 account of imputed sin, before the giving of the law. But besides the 
 forced construction which this introduces, it also obliges us to bring in 
 here, a subject of consideration that the apostle seems for the present to 
 to have dismissed from his mind, viz. the confident reliance of the Jews 
 on their law, and their boasting of it. In order to make out the inter- 
 pretation of Edwards, it must be shewn that the apostle here asserts the 
 existence of another law antecedent to that of Moses, to which men 
 were accountable. This he had done in chap. 2: 14, 15; but here it is 
 not to his purpose to repeat this. He says merely, that men were 
 sinners antecedently to the law of Moses, although in a state of nature 
 they make but little account of sin ; they were sinners, notwithstanding 
 they made light of it ; and they incurred the sentence of death, although 
 they had not, like Adam, sinned against a revealed and express law. 
 Now this goes to confirm the assertion in v. 12, viz. tiuvt^ tyiagTOV 
 inasmuch as it serves to shew that a part of mankind were actually 
 under sentence of death, about whom doubts might most easily arise. 
 And as it seems to be spoken for this veiw purpose, so we may acqui- 
 esce in such an interpretation of the language as shows that it is 
 directly subservient to the purposes of the writer. 
 
222 ROMANS 5: 14. 
 
 'AM' i^oeaiXevaev .... Movai'ojg, still or nevertheless death 
 reigned from Adam unto 3Ioses. Alia, tamen, attamen. — L^aoiliv- 
 oe, reigned, means was predominant, exercised uncontrolled sway or 
 power. The writer designs, by this word, to express in a strong 
 manner the universal dominion of death among men. But what 
 death? The same, I would answer, as before; but still, I should be 
 disposed to believe that he had in his eye here a particular part of 
 what is comprehended under the generic term death; in other words, 
 that temporal death was the special object to which he here adverts. 
 My reason for this is, that temporal death is a palpable part of the 
 execution of the sentence, so palpable that all must admit it ; and to 
 some such undeniable evidence does the writer appear to appeal, for 
 he seems to regard what he states as a thing that will not be denied. 
 I do not look upon this sense of &uvarog here as a departure from 
 the preceding one, in any important respect ; for it should be con- 
 strued as referring to a palpable part of the death threatened, which 
 by its relations to the other parts of the same, involves or implies them 
 also. So Tholuck, Coram, p. 187. 2 edit. 
 
 Kul tnl .... ' Adap, even over those who had not sinned after the 
 similitude of Adam's transgression. 
 
 A part of the text itself is here a matter of dispute. Some Latin 
 Codices, also Origen, Cyril, Rutin, Tertullian, Victorinus, Sedulius, 
 and Ambrosiaster, omit the pt] here. Semler, Mill, and some others, 
 have done the same. But nearly all the Greek manuscripts, the Sy- 
 riac version, the Vulgate, and many of the most conspicuous Greek 
 and Latin fathers, e. g. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilus, Irenasus, 
 Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, insert it. The weight of 
 authority on the side of inserting it, seems, therefore, to be quite 
 conclusive. Moreover, there is internal evidence of its genuineness. 
 Toellner, Koppe, and Schott, have well remarked, that the use of y.ui 
 here, before dpaor^auvxag, intimates that something unusual or 
 unexpected was designed on the part of the writer. Accordingly, 
 while one would expect to find him saying simply, (which would 
 apparently make a much more facile and seemingly unexceptionable 
 sense), ^jualltvas . . . tnl Tovg dpagitjaavrug, we find him saying, 
 tjjuoilevof ...y. at inl jovg pi] upcxcjTijCsavTtg. 
 
 'Eid to) 6p.oivap.aTi, is like the Hebrew Ht35.b (confdenter) ; i. e. 
 a noun with a preposition is employed instead of an adverb. So the 
 Hebrew tTJN >1 :3 n^fS , Dan. 10: 16, is rendered in the Septuagint, 
 wg 6poiti)Gig vlov dvd-Qamov. In all respects, inl toj opoiwputi ia 
 
ROMANS 5: 14. 223 
 
 equivalent to Ofioicog' so that d/nolaig tw 'siddii ixugufictvTt, would 
 express the sense ; as would oinniQ ' Adv^i rcaQt^t]. Comp. dfiohofia 
 in Rom. 1: 23. 8: 3. Phil. 2: 7. 
 
 As to the sense of the passage ; by mentioning those who lived 
 before the law of Moses, as not having sinned after the manner of 
 Adam, there is a plain implication that those who lived under the 
 law, did sin after the manner of Adam. But the likeness in ques- 
 tion did not consist in this, viz. that the very same precepts were 
 given to them, and were transgressed by them ; it consisted plainly 
 in the fact, that they, like Adam, had positive or revealed precepts as 
 the rule of duty. Consequently those who sinned, but yet did not sin 
 in the like way, (and such are described in vs. 13, 14), must have 
 sinned without positive revealed precepts. Such are described in 
 chap. 2: 14, 15. 
 
 Origen, Augustine, Melancthon, Beza, Pres. Edwards, and others, 
 have construed the clause u?) uuugTijnuvTug x. r. A., as having respect 
 to infants only. But Calvin rejects this interpretation : " Malo .... 
 interpretari de iis qui sine lege peccaverunt." Nevertheless he 
 thinks infants may be included. But the ground of this is, that he 
 construes na/vrfs ij^tugiov and dfiecgrla i)v iv xdofiip as referring to 
 imputed sin. The remark of Turretin is directly to the point : " Ex 
 scopo apostoli serieque sermonis patet ; hie agi etiam de adultis om- 
 nibus qui ab Adamo usque ad Mosem vixerunt. Etenim si de solis 
 infantibus ageretur, cur intra id spatium se contineret, quod inter 
 Adamum et Mosem fuit? Nam infantium omnium, et ante et post 
 legem, eadem est ratio." Accordingly, the interpretation of Augustine 
 is generally rejected by distinguished critics of all parties, at the 
 present day. 
 
 I am aware that it has been frequently alleged, in regard to [it] 
 duogr^oupiag v.. r. I., that the dissimilitude here affirmed consists in 
 the fact that Adam was an actual sinner, and others to whom refer- 
 ence is here made, sinners only by imputation. But such an inter- 
 pretation has already been shewn to be inconsistent with the tenor of 
 the passage, and with the declarations of the Old and New Testament 
 in relation to this subject. How can it be in any way rendered prob- 
 able, or even plausible, that men from the time of Adam to that of 
 Moses, were sinners only by imputation ? It is fairly out of question. 
 The attempt to establish such an interpretation must fail. For if 
 such an imputation be made out, by virtue of the unity of Adam's 
 race with himself, (and this is the ground on which it is asserted), 
 
224 ROMANS 5: 14. 
 
 then it would follow, of course, that their sin is not different from his, 
 but the very same; for if they were in him, and sinned in and with 
 him, surely their sin is not different, but the same with his; which is 
 what the apostle here denies. 
 
 ' Og ion rvnog too pi'/.koviog, who is a type of him that ivas to 
 come. Tvnog signifies, (1) In its original and most literal accepta- 
 tion, an impress, a note or mark made by impression, sculpture, 
 beating, etc.; inasmuch as it comes from it'ivnu the second Perfect 
 of Tt'iriTO). In this sense it is employed in John 20: 25. Hence, 
 (2) It means example, pattern, model ; as in Acts 7: 44. Heb. 8: 5. 
 Ex. 25: 40 (where the Hebrew has n^rrp). (3) It means example, 
 model in a good sense ; e. g. Phil. 3: 17. 1 Thess. 1: 7. 2 Thess. 3: 9. 
 1 Tim. 4: 12. Tit. 2: 7. 1 Pet. 5: 3 ; but sometimes an example for 
 the sake of warning, not of imitation, as in 1 Cor. 10: 6, comp. v. lit 
 (4) It means image, something which is a resemblance of some other 
 thing supposed or real; as in Acts 7: 43. Amos 5: 26 (Heb. c'r^:). 
 In this last sense, i. e. that of image or resemblance, not in a physical 
 sense, but in a causal one (if I may so speak), is Adam called a 
 xvnog of Christ. 
 
 That Christ is meant by rov {itD.ovxog, is clear from v. 15 seq., 
 where he is by name brought into comparison with Adam. The 
 ellipsis after ^illovxog, i. e. the noun with which this participle 
 agrees by implication, seems to be 'yJddii, viz. the second Adam or 
 taxuzog ' slSa^i, as he is called in 1 Cor. 15: 45. 
 
 But in what sense, i. e. how' far, is the first Adam here considered 
 as an image of the second? A question of no small importance; inas- 
 much as by the answer to it must, in a great measure, all our views of 
 the general meaning of vs. 12 — 19 be regulated. 
 
 An answer somewhat in detail, would occupy too much space to be 
 inserted here. 1 have therefore thrown it into the form of an Excur- 
 sus, which the reader may consult, in respect to the illustration and 
 support of the following sentiments, which contain the principal results 
 of what I have there exhibited ; viz. 
 
 I. The rvnog asserted of Adam, in respect to Christ, is not to be taken 
 in the widest and fullest sense that the word itself is capable of, but in a 
 sense which has many important limitations. For, (1) The whole is 
 contrast ; i. e. the rvnog is antithetic. In many cases, a rvnog in the 
 Old Testament is of the same nature with the avnrvnog in the New 
 Testament. But here, the whole is most plainly antithetic. (2) The 
 degree or measure of the evils occasioned by Adam, is not the point of 
 rvnog in respect to Christ ; for this measure is declared to be far ex- 
 ceeded by the blessings which Christ has procured; "grace supera- 
 bounds." (3) It is not the person of Adam as such, which is compared 
 
ROMANS 5 : 14. 225 
 
 with the person of Christ as such, in order to point out any personal 
 resemblances. It is the acts of each, and the consequences ofiohat each. 
 has done, that are the objects of comparison by the apostle; it is the 
 TTccQixxotj or 7ca()U7iz(0{ia and xmdxoifxa of Adam, which are compared 
 with the vTtaxoi] and dixulcoy.a of Christ. 
 
 We have seen what points do not belong to the xvnog' let us now 
 inquire what does belong to it. 
 
 II. The actual and principal point of similitude is, that each indi- 
 vidual respectively, viz. Adam and Christ, was the cause or occasion, in 
 consequence of what he did, of greatly affecting the whole human race ; 
 although in an opposite way. Adam introduced sin and misery into 
 the world ; and in consequence of this, all men are, even without their 
 own concurrence, subjected to many evils here ; they are born in a 
 condition in which they are entirely destitute of holy affections, and 
 which renders it certain that they will sin, and will always sin in all 
 their acts of a moral nature, until their hearts are renewed by the Spirit 
 of God ; and of course, all men are born in a condition in which they 
 are greatly exposed to the second death or death in the highest sense of 
 the term ; and in which this death will certainly come upon them, 
 without the interposition of mercy through Christ. On the other hand ; 
 Christ introduced righteousness or justification, and all the blessings 
 spiritual and temporal, which are connected with a probationary state 
 under a dispensation of grace, and with the pardoning mercy of God. 
 A multitude of blessings, such as the day and means of grace, the com- 
 mon bounties of Providence, the forbearance of God to punish, the calls 
 and warnings of mercy, the proffers of pardon, etc., are procured by 
 Christ for all men without exception, and without any act of concurrence 
 on their part ; while the higher blessings of grace, actual pardon and 
 everlasting life, although proffered to all, are actually bestowed only 
 upon those who repent and believe. 
 
 In this way we see, quite plainly, that Adam was a rvjiog of Christ ; 
 because what he did affected the Avhole of the human race, to a certain 
 extent, even without any concurrence or act of their own ; and also ex- 
 posed them to imminent hazard of everlasting death. As the antithesis 
 of this, Christ procures blessings for all the human race, to a certain 
 extent, even without any concurrence or act of their own ; and he has 
 also procured by his blood, and proffers fully and freely to all, eternal 
 redemption from the higher evils which the divine law would inflict 
 upon sinners. The extent of the influence of Adam, is a proper xvnog 
 of that of Christ. Each of these, by what he did, affected our whole 
 race, without any concurrence of theirs, to a certain extent : the one 
 has placed them in a condition, in which, by their own voluntary acts, 
 they are peculiarly exposed to the most awful of all evils ; the other has 
 enabled them to secure the greatest of all blessings. Here then is 
 clearly and plainly antithetic xvnog. 
 
 The superabounding of gospel grace, which is insisted on so emphat- 
 ically in vs. 15 — 17, consists, (as is stated in v. 16), in the simple fact, 
 that the death of Christ procures pardon for the numerous offences 
 which we commit (nollwv nuQanxm^uxoiv), i. e. the effects of the death 
 29 
 
226 ROMANS 5: 14. 
 
 of Christ have respect to unnumbered offences; while the effects of Ad- 
 am's sin have respect only to one offence, viz. that of eating the forbid- 
 den fruit. In other words ; the death of Christ, as a remedy, is far more 
 powerful and efficacious, than the sin of Adam was, as a means of 
 corruption and misery. 
 
 For the considerations which may serve to explain and confirm the 
 views here given of -timoq, I must refer the reader to Excursus IV., at 
 the close of this volume. 
 
 I have one more remark to make, on the phrase og tart xxmog too 
 fu'XXovTog' which is, that Calvin and Tholuck regard the expression 
 as the apodosis of v. 12. Calvin : " Haec particula posita est vice 
 alterius membri .... perinde ergo accipias ac si scriptum esset : Si- 
 cut per unum hominem intravit peccatum in universum mundum, et 
 per peccatum mors ; ita per unum hominem rediit justitia, et per 
 justitiam vita." To the same purpose, Tholuck in his Commentary. 
 And indeed, it cannot be denied that there is some ground for this. 
 The apostle had said, that sin and death entered the world by Adam ; 
 he now says, that Adam is a ivnog of Christ, (an antithetic xvnog is 
 of course meant) ; by which must be signified, that Christ is in like 
 manner the author of justification and happiness. This of course 
 contains virtually, and by way of implication, what is contained in 
 the apodosis which is fully and formally expressed in vs. 18, 19. 
 
 CHAP. V. 15—17. 
 
 The general object of these verses is plain and simple; and this is, to 
 guard the reader against mistake as to the meaning of the writer, when he 
 asserts that Adam is a type of Christ. Certainly it is very easy to carry the 
 meaning of the word tvtto? too far; and that most readers are prone to do so, 
 scarcely needs to be mentioned. In order then to guard against so doing, on 
 the present occasion, the apostle proceeds, in vs. ].">— 17, distinctly to name or 
 point out some important things, in regard to which similitude (rvnog) cannot 
 be asserted, between the first Adam and the second. In particular, the degree 
 of evil occasioned by Adam's transgression, is not to be compared with the 
 degree of good accomplished by Christ. Accordingly v. 15 asserts, that as 
 ' the many were brought under sentence of death by the offence of Adam ; so 
 may we well conclude it to be plainer still, that the grace of God, through 
 Christ, would abound to the many.' V. 1G repeats the same sentiment, but in 
 a more specific manner : viz. ' the condemnation which comes upon us through 
 Adam, has respect only to one offence; while the justification effected by 
 Christ, has respect to manij offences. V. 17 repeats the general sentiment 
 of both the preceding verses, and adds the declaration, that as the offence of 
 Adam caused death to reign over men, so the pardoning mercy and grace of 
 the gospel will not only deliver us from punishment, but advance us to a state 
 of eternal happiness and glory. This last verse, then, is plainly a climax, in 
 relation to the two which precede it. All three verses exhibit the same general 
 sentiment; but each one also exhibits a specific difference from the others. 
 
ROMANS 5:15. 227 
 
 Such is the dissimilitude, then, between the case of Adam and that of Christ. 
 Consequently we must exclude the particulars named by the apostle, from the 
 idea which we attach to tvtto? on the present occasion. How often the oi>x oj? 
 here has been forgotten, in the parallels which have been drawn between the 
 first and the second Adam, no one who has read theology extensively needs to 
 be informed. It may be further remarked, that the sentiment, which attrib- 
 utes to the grace of Christ good, which is far greater than the evil occasioned 
 by Adam's offence, lies upon the very face of vs. 15 — 17, and should never be 
 overlooked. What we should be in ourselves, as the fall of Adam has left us, 
 is one thing ; what our condition now is, through the grace of Christ, is 
 another and very different one. When we maintain, then, that our present 
 state, depraved and ruined as in itself it is, is more eligible as to securing our 
 final salvation, than that of Adam while on his first probation, let it not be said 
 that we deny or extenuate the evil consequences of the fall. By no means. 
 But let this be said, viz. that, after the example of Paul, we represent grace as 
 super abounding over all the evils introduced by the apostasy. And is not this 
 true? yea, is it not strongly and repeatedly asserted in the chapter before us? 
 
 (15) ITctgaTiTcofHx, offence, fall, viz. the first sin of Adam. That 
 only one sin, and this altogether peculiar as to its effects, is here taken 
 into view by the apostle, seems clear from vs. 16, 17, 18. — Xagiopa, 
 favour, benefit, good bestowed on us, or done for us. 
 
 El yuQ, for if, does not imply uncertainty here, but concession. 
 The shape of the argument stands thus : 'Granting (as we must do) 
 that the many [all] die [come under sentence of death] through Ad- 
 am or by means of him ; much more must we allow,' etc. Fuq is 
 here obviously yuy confir mantis. — 'Evog refers of course to sldufi. 
 
 01 noXkol unidavov, the many died, i. e. all men came under 
 sentence of death. Uo)loi here is exchanged in v. 18 for -navxag 
 uv&Qatnovg, which is doubtless the meaning ofnoMol. The reason 
 why the apostle employs this word seems plainly to be, because he 
 had just said too tvog, of which ul noU.oi is the direct antithesis, and 
 as such would designate all men in distinction from Adam. In 
 regard to unitiuvov, I must refer the reader to what is said on $ava~ 
 xog under v. 12. I would merely remark, that if tfavaxog means, as 
 I have there stated it to mean, evil of any kind, in this world and in 
 the next, then it is true that Adam did by his offence cause -davuxog 
 to come on all without exception, inasmuch as all his race are born 
 destitute of holiness, and in such a state that their passions will, 
 whenever they become moral agents, lead them to sin. All too are 
 the heirs of more or less suffering. It is true, then, that all suffer on 
 Adam's account ; that all are brought under more or less of the sen- 
 tence of death ; that ol -nolhil unidavov but it need not, as I have 
 already endeavoured to shew above, be maintained that all without 
 distinction, and without any voluntary act of their own, are equally 
 exposed to duvaiog in its fullest, highest, and most awful sense. 
 
228 ROMANS 5: 15. 
 
 This I regard as no more true, than that all men partake of the 
 yugtofia of Christ in its highest sense, without any act of their own, 
 i. c. without repentance and faith. To say that ol noXXol dni&avov 
 did 'ylddf-t, is not to say that all have the sentence executed on them 
 in its highest sense (which is contradicted by fact) ; but it is to say, 
 that in some respect or other, all are involved in it; that as to more or 
 less of it, all are subjected to it ; and that all are exposed to the whole 
 of the evil which death includes. In what sense all this is true, we 
 have already seen. In like manner, all receive some important ben- 
 efits from Christ, even without any concurrence of their own ; and 
 the most important favours are proffered to every individual ; but still 
 these can be actually possessed only by penitence and faith. 
 
 In a word, it appears to be the design of the apostle to say, that 
 all the human race without exception are involved, by the offence of 
 Adam, in more or less of evil, i. e. in ■Oavarog of some kind or other ; 
 and as the antithetic zvnog of this, to affirm that all without exception 
 partake of blessings which Christ has procured. Here then is one 
 essential point of zimog. Now as to the detail ; it certainly is not 
 necessary to suppose, that those who never had any knowledge of 
 duty, and never arrived at a state in which they were capable of moral 
 agency ; in a word, that infants and idiots — are liable to the same 
 ■Oavazog in all respects, as those who have noXXd naganzoj^azcc (v. 
 16) of their own to answer for. It is enough for the apostle's pur- 
 pose, that all, even without any act or concurrence of their own, do 
 in some degree partake both of the evil and the good, although the 
 good intglootvoi • while all, by their own acts, may be exposed to 
 fidvazog in its ultimate and highest sense on the one hand, and may 
 by penitence and faith obtain four; in its highest sense on the other. 
 
 TIoIIm (.iuIIov, much more; in sense just what the old logicians 
 call an a fortiori in argument. — ' 11 %dgig zov &tov xal r\ dwgtd iv 
 ydgizi, the grace of God and the gift which is by grace, may be 
 regarded as a Hendiadys, meaning the gracious gift of God, viz. that 
 which the gospel proffers, or the blessings which Christ has procured. 
 If the reader prefers a different interpretation, and construes each 
 separately, then xagig zov diov should be regarded as designating 
 the gracious purpose of God, and ij dwgfd iv %dgtzv the actual exe- 
 cution of this purpose. There can be no important objection urged 
 against this method of interpretation. I prefer the other, however, 
 as the more simple and easy. 
 
 Tt] zov tvog .... Xgiaiov, which is of one man Jesus Christ. 
 
j^cT$E lib/? 
 
 ROMANS 5: 16. 229 
 
 Tt] has %uQnt> for its antecedent. The Genitive rov ivog v.. r. A. 
 may he construed in different ways. If it be taken as Gen. objecti, 
 then it will mark the favour bestowed on Christ, i. e. of which he was 
 the recipient ; which does not seem here to be the object of assertion. 
 If it be construed as Gen. auctoris, then it will designate the grace 
 of which Christ is the cause or author. But as Paul had just said 
 %ugig &iov, denoting &(6g as the author, so it is more probable that 
 rov ivog v.. t. A. is Gen. instrumenti vel modi, i. e. it signifies here, 
 that the blessings bestowed upon men, come by or through Christ, 
 by his means or his agency. So Erasmus and Tholuck ; and this 
 sense seems best to fit the passage. 
 
 Elg rovg nokkovg intgioGivof, hath abounded toward the many. 
 Tovg TioXXovg is, of course, of a different meaning from -noXlovg- just 
 as ol nollol, in the preceding clause, differs from nokkol. The lat- 
 ter would signify many in distinction from a few; but ol noXXoi sig- 
 nifies the many, i. e. the mass of men, as we say in English; or in 
 German, die Gesammtheit der Menschen ; in Hebrew, tnN - !:^ . 
 Rightly has Augustine said (on v. 19) : sfftagroriol nanaxa&rjaav 
 ol nolXoi, multi constituti sunt peccatores, i. e. omnes, qui revera 
 sunt multi. So in v. 18, the synonyme is neevrag av&gomovg. 
 
 The reader will observe, that the statement made in this verse is 
 simple declaration ; a declaration, however, in which the appeal is 
 tacitly made to that sense of the divine goodness, which, the apostle 
 seems to have taken for granted, dwelt in the breast of all his readers. 
 ' If it be true,' says he, ' that the sin of Adam occasioned so much 
 evil ; then surely we may regard it as true, that the goodness of God 
 has abounded so as to counterbalance it.' He needed no argument 
 to make his readers inclined to receive this. 
 
 As to the question, how much t] %agig rov fttov and iq dotgiu 
 tv %uqho here mean, and how these are bestowed on all men, I 
 must refer the reader to what is said above, and in Excursus IV. Let 
 us count in what manner we please, and, if we make a right estimate, 
 the blessings of the gospel more than counterbalance the mischiefs of 
 the fall ; and this is true, even when we take into view the full 
 extent of those mischiefs. How this can be, I have already attempted 
 to explain, in the places to which I have just referred. 
 
 (16) Kul, imo, immo, yea. Kai confirmantis, but with the repe- 
 tition of the preceding idea. It is obvious, indeed, that v. 16 repeats 
 the first proposition in v. 15, and then adds an explanation, or rather, a 
 confirmation of it. It is constructed in the same manner ; inasmuch 
 
030 ROMANS 5: 16. 
 
 as it begins with the general assertion of dissimilarity (ovy oig), anil 
 then continues with a yap explicative, as before. After ovy otg, xgi- 
 pu should be mentally inserted in order to fill out the ellipsis; as is 
 clear from the next clause, viz. to ph yap xplfta. Comp. ovy wg 
 to napdnrofja, in v. 15. 
 
 'u4^uQir]Oaviog. Several important Codices, viz. D. E. F. G. ; 
 also the Syriac, Vulgate, and old Latin versions; read d/uccozi^iUTog. 
 But the present reading has, on the whole, the weight of evidence in 
 its favour ; and it is attended with no serious difficulty. One need 
 only insert xpi^a after (og, and the comparison is obvious ; and that 
 this should be done, is plain, as has already been hinted, from the 
 clause immediately following, viz. to fiiv yap y.pi^ia v.. t. X. The 
 whole would then read thus : ' Yea, [the sentence] by one who sin- 
 ned, is not like the free gift; for the sentence by reason of one 
 [offence] was unto condemnation [was a condemning sentence] ; but 
 the free gift [pardon] is of many offences, unto justification, i. e. is a 
 sentence of acquittal from condemnation.' 
 
 To [itf yap v<,pl(.iu i§ tvog, i. e. i£ ivog [nupunio)(4.arog] ; for the 
 antithesis, yupcoixa in noXXio v napuncto^azoi/, shews, very clear- 
 ly, that napam at [xax og is to be supplied after ivog. 
 
 ^(opjjfta and dtxalcopa differ not at all in sense here. It appears 
 to be merely variety of expression which is sought for in the use of 
 them, but not a difference in the meaning or idea. 
 
 The verse thus interpreted, shews the ground of the nfpioada, 
 the abounding of the grace of the gospel, over the x.pl[ia or xaiaxpi- 
 f.ia occasioned by the sin of Adam. This abounding was asserted in 
 v. 15, but not particularly explained. Here it is explained. What- 
 ever were the evils occasioned to the posterity of Adam, by his fall, 
 they were only such as one offence occasioned. But, on the other 
 hand, the blessings procured by Christ, are not merely commensurate 
 with these evils; they extend not only to counterbalancing the conse- 
 quences of the fall ; but also to the removing of the consequences of 
 the ixolXa napantbi^aru of men. 
 
 I cannot agree with Siiskind, who (Magazin der Dogmatik und 
 Moral, Th. XIII. p. 86, seq.) supplies ui>{>po')nov after ivog here, and 
 refers noXXojv, not to 7iupu7iTO)fiai wv, but to av&ptonoiv under- 
 stood ; a violence by which nearly the whole of the antithesis is lost, 
 and which seems to me plainly to force upon the passage a sense not 
 belonging to it. Chrysostom saw the passage in another light ; who 
 says: 'If di ydpig ov ti)v fxiav ixeli>7]i> dfA,aptiav aviiXr] (xovov, 
 dXXa xal zdg (Aft' ix£ivt]v lioiX&oiOug. 
 
ROMANS 5: 16. 231 
 
 The general object of the verse is sufficiently plain, from the con- 
 siderations already stated. But there is still some difficulty as to the 
 detail. Agt'iia, implied after ov% wq, and expressed in to [a£v yap 
 XQifitt, means judgment or sentence of condemnation, or punishment. 
 So it often means, e. g. Rom. 3: 8. 13: 2. 1 Cor. 11: 20. Gal. 5: 10. 
 1 Tim. 5: 12, et alibi. It is plainly the opposite of Hmq^hu, which is 
 only another name for ^apiof.ia, as the sequel of the verse shews, in 
 which the latter is substituted for the former. Now as doigrjfAa and 
 %uqio[*u both denote favour, good bestowed of any kind ; so XQifia 
 (the antithesis) must of course denote the opposite of this, i. e. evil 
 inflicted, the withholding of good. As in Hebrew, nNtah means not 
 only sin, but the penal consequences of sin; so x<jl/.ia means, not only 
 condemning sentence, but the consequences of condemnation ; see the 
 passages referred to above. 
 
 But how are we to interpret y.oly.a di ivoq Big xcxrdcy.Qif.ioi. ? The 
 very expression shews, that here xo/'fiu is to be taken as explained 
 above, viz. as meaning the evil inflicted by Adam's sin. Now whether 
 this be considered as the loss of the righteousness of man's original 
 state, and the being born in a condition in which it is certain that our 
 passions will get the better of our reason and bring us under condem- 
 nation ; or whether it be considered as matter of fact, that the sin of 
 Adam occasions all men to be born with a disposition which is in 
 itself positively sinful, and thus necessarily leading to our condemna- 
 nation ; it is still true in either case, that the xgifitt, the evil inflicted 
 or suffered, is of such a nature as to lead to, or prepare the way for, 
 xuruxgif-ta, condemnation, i. e. ftuvaTOQ in its higher and more 
 dreadful sense. Before eig xutuxciuu the verb iytiiro is of course 
 implied. 
 
 But you may ask: Does the xy'tfia then lead cdl men without 
 exception to xaxaxgifia? All, I reply, who sin; but others, i. e. 
 infants and idiots, are not necessarily involved in this, in its highest 
 and most awful sense, any more than they are in the sentence : "He 
 that believeth not shall be damned." The declaration now in ques- 
 tion, does not extend of necessity, (I mean, of course, in its high and 
 full sense), to every individual, any more than the Sixatwfjcc does, 
 which is mentioned in the last clause of the verse. Some voluntary 
 act on the part of each individual, (as has once and again been 
 already said), is essential either to subject one to the xaraxgifia, or to 
 receive the dixuioj/Aa, in their full sense. If the comparison of the 
 apostle will hold here, (and who will deny that he means to make 
 
232 ROMANS 5: 16. 
 
 the impression that it will ?) it can no more be true that the one sin- 
 ner has brought Y.axdy.gi[ia in its highest sense on all men, without 
 any act of their own, than it is true that dixaimfiu, in its full sense, 
 is actually conferred by the one righteous on all, without any act 
 of their own. But the latter is certainly not true ; how then can the 
 former be made out ? That the fall of Adam has had an influence 
 on the guilt and condemnation of all who perish, in some way or 
 other ; that it is one of the causes, in the sense of being an occasion 
 of, or being accessory to, a state or condition preparatory to the guilt 
 that brings on xuTuxgiya in its highest sense, I do most fully believe 
 and freely admit. I see no ground to deny that the apostle had at least 
 so much in view. More than this, his language does not oblige us to 
 admit; and more than this, the nature of his comparisons does not 
 seem to allow. Certainly the analogy of other parts of Scripture 
 speaks for such an interpretation ; as we shall see in the sequel. For 
 additional considerations relative to this topic, I must refer the reader 
 to the remarks on v. 19, and to the Excursus which is connected 
 with it. 
 
 In regard to tij hog [7iugaiiTO)f.iaTog], Flatt observes, that the 
 mention of one offence, viz. the first one of Adam, does not exclude 
 the idea that his other and subsequent offences might have contributed 
 to the evils of his posterity, as well as this; "much less," he adds, 
 " can we conclude that this one sin was the only cause of corruption." 
 But I cannot accede to this sentiment, in the shape in which it is 
 here stated. It is clear throughout this passage (vs. 12 — 19), that 
 to nagumofia, i] 7iagu(jactg, 7] ■jrccgaxotj, all have a specific relation 
 to Adam's first sin. Equally clear is it^that 1 Tim. 2: 14. 2 Cor. 11: 
 3. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22 favour this opinion. And in the verse before us, 
 i'i tvog [naganroJ^uuTog] is plainly and directly opposed to no I lav 
 7iaganTw^uro)v. But how could this be, unless Paul considered the 
 first offence of Adam, and (I may say) this only, as having procured 
 the evils which he here contrasts with the blessings bestowed by 
 Christ? 
 
 It must indeed be granted, that this was a peculiar dispensation 
 of the Most High, one which displayed his sovereignty in a special 
 manner. But so was the dispensation of grace. It was the act of 
 obedience unto death, by which Christ procured justification (dixalo)- 
 fia) for us. All the obedience of his life did indeed contribute to the 
 perfection of his character, and so fitted him to become an acceptable 
 propitiatory sacrifice ; but his obeying to the death of the cross was 
 
ROMANS 5: 17. 233 
 
 the grand act by which our salvation was ensured ; comp. Phil. 2: 8. 
 Matt. 2(3: 39, 42. John 10: 18. Ileb. 10: 7—10. In this respect, 
 therefore, the obedience of the one may be compared with the disobedi- 
 ence of the other; as it is, indeed, in v. 19. 
 
 (17) Thus much, in the preceding verse, with regard to counter- 
 balancing, or rather, hindering or removing, the evils occasioned not 
 only by the sin of Adam, but by all the sins which men have commit- 
 ted 'in their own persons. What is there said, seems to refer simply 
 and only to the hindering or removing of the evils in question. This 
 of itself would merely deliver men from positive evil, i. e. from actually 
 ' going down to the pit ;' leaving them where they are, without ad- 
 vance to a state of positive happiness and glory. But such is not the 
 work of Christ. The apostle had already intimated, in vs. 8 — 10 of 
 the present chapter, that the Saviour does not begin his work and 
 leave it half completed ; and in accordance with this sentiment Paul 
 now goes on to state, that in addition to saving men from the penalty of 
 their many offences (v. 16), i. e. saving them from positive evil, Christ 
 advances them, when thus delivered, to a state of exalted happiness 
 and glory. 
 
 El yu<j . . . d'/u tov zvog,for if by the offence of one, death reigned 
 by means of one. The yap here is yap illastrantis, in the same man- 
 ner as it is in the beginning of v. 16 ; for v. 17 is (in respect to sense, 
 not form) co-ordinate with v. 10, both being parts of an illustration or 
 confirmation of the declaration made in v. 15. V. 10 declares that 
 Christ saves men from the punishment of their many offences; v. 17, 
 that he actually advances them to glory. — Tov tvog in both cases 
 means, tov Ivog [avfipcorrov.] The reign of death is here the same 
 thing as in v. 14, i. e. tfiaoiXevoe means, was predominant, exercised 
 an uncontrolled power. In what sense death affected all, has already 
 been explained, once and again. 
 
 TToXkco .... Xqigtov, much more shall they who receive abun- 
 dance of grace and of the gift of justification, reign in life through 
 one, Jesus Christ. UtQiaaiiuv rfjg ydpirog xal lijg d'wgfdg rijg 
 dtxuioovi'jjg, refers to the yapig and Saigad already mentioned in v. 
 15. Tholuck refers dixuioovvq here to internal sanctification, or to 
 the life of God in the soul of man, i. e. subjective holiness. But it 
 seems to me quite clear, that diy.uioavi't; conveys the same meaning 
 here, as dty.ai(»i)t'in?g in vs. 1, 9. Certainly this makes the best 
 antithesis to the state of condemnation, designated by 6 ■Ootvuiog 
 i(jaol\tvoe in the preceding clause. In case we construe dtxctiocv- 
 30 
 
234 ROMANS 5 : 17. 
 
 vrjQ as I have proposed above, the sentiment runs thus: 'For if all 
 are in a state of condemnation by reason of the offence of one, much 
 more shall those toward whom abundance of mercy and pardoning 
 grace are shewn, be redeemed from condemnation, and advanced to a 
 state of happiness.' But suppose, instead of inserting this latter 
 clause, we should say : ' Much more shall they who receive grace 
 and are sanctified, be saved, etc.;' would the antithesis be equally 
 forcible, or the congruity of the sentiment equally striking ? A nega- 
 tive answer seems to me unavoidable ; and of course I cannot accede 
 to the exegesis of Tholuck ; especially when I compare the sentiment 
 in v. 16, to df yugiopu .... eig dixuioj/xu. 
 
 BaoiXtvaovai iv £"co?/, shall reign in life, i. e. shall be elevated to 
 an exalted and glorious state of happiness. That £iotj is the common 
 word to indicate happiness, needs not to be here proved. That to 
 reign means to be exalted to an elevated and glorious condition, the 
 reader may see by comparing Rev. 2: 26, 27. 3: 21. Matt. 19: 28. 
 Luke 22: 30. 1 Cor. 6: 2. 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12. Rev. 20: 4. Dan. 7: 22. 
 Ps. 49: 14. Ex. 19: 6, comp. 1 Pet. 2: 9. 
 
 Flatt, in his Commentary, represents v. 17 as an advance upon 
 the sentiment in v. 16, after the same manner (for substance) that I 
 have done. This interpretation seems to me to fall in with the natural 
 progress of thought in the apostle's mind ; for the first thing, in con- 
 templating the remedy for the miseries which followed in the train of 
 Adam's transgression, would naturally be, deliverance from positive 
 evil or suffering. But this would not complete the idea of nept oofla, 
 the abounding of gospel grace. The reigning in life was essential to 
 the full completion of this; and this v. 17 exhibits. 
 
 CHAP. V. 18, 19. 
 
 We have already seen, that v. 12 contains a. protasis without a correspond- 
 ing apodosis. We have also seen, that os tart tvttos toZ uIV.ovto? (v. 14) 
 comprises in substance, but still in the way of hint and not formally, a kind of 
 apodosis. No sooner was tvttos tov fitklovros uttered by the apostle, than his 
 mind was turned to the comparison itself thus proposed, instead of going on to 
 complete his apodosis ; and he plainly seems to have felt it to be important, to 
 guard his readers against misconstruing titzos, or carrying the resemblance 
 indicated by it too far. Accordingly he does this, as we have also seen, in 
 vs. 15—17 ; which exhibit the cpanorthosis (tTTavoQ&ojaig) in question ; for so 
 grammarians call that form of speech which is designed to guard against mis- 
 takes. This being completed, he now proceeds fully to exhibit his apodosis 
 in vs. 18, 19. which we aro next to consider. 
 
ROMANS 5: 18. 335 
 
 (18) ' Aga ovv . . . xecTuxgifta, wherefore, as by the offence of one, 
 [sentence] came upon all men unto condemnation. " yjgu and ugvc 
 ovv are commonly illative, according to New Testament usage; e. g. 
 Matt. 7: 20. Gal. 4: 31. Rom. 7: 3, 25. 8: 12. 9: 16, 18. 14: 12, 19, 
 et alibi. Nor does this make any serious difficulty here. The apos- 
 tle had already averred, that Adam was xvnog zov [ifXkovrog. He 
 had already shewn, that the mischiefs resulting to our race from the 
 fall of Adam, were more than repaired by the grace of Christ. " sJgu 
 ovv, then, would by no means be inapposite. It is as much as to 
 say: 'Matters being as 1 have already declared, it follows or results 
 from them, that the comparison begun in v. 12 will hold, viz. that as 
 all have been introduced to sin and death by Adam, so righteousness 
 and life are provided for all by Christ.' While uga ovv may be admit- 
 ted, then, (as Tholuck urges), to be illative, it does not hinder it from 
 standing at the head of a sentence, which is properly a resumption of 
 what had been said in v. 12. 
 
 That dt ivog nugamoi^c/.Tog means by the offence of one, is 
 evident from the antithesis, <5t ivog dr/Mioj/AUTog' which naturally 
 cannot mean any thing but the righteousness of one, (not one right- 
 eousness). That xg!/.ia is implied after nugcxTtTOj^iaiog, is suggested 
 by Calvin, and is clear from the manifestly elliptical condition of the 
 sentence as it now stands, as well as from a comparison of it with the 
 middle clause in v. 16. 
 
 In regard to the manner or extent of the xgl/na iig xuruxgipa, 
 see the notes on v. 16. 
 
 Ovt(o xal .... ^oir\g, so [the free gift] came upon all men unto 
 justification of life. That yagiapa is here to be supplied, is manifest 
 from the nature of the case, from the elliptical state of the phrase, and 
 from a comparison with the latter clause of v. 16. Ovtw xat, here, 
 is the genuine mark of the apodosis, which stands in antithesis both 
 to v. 12, and to the first clause in the present verse, which is merely 
 a resumption or repetition in substance of that verse. — Atxuiwfiarog 
 being here the antithesis of naganzoifiarog, must be explained as 
 meaning obedience, holiness, righteousness = vnuxor] in v. 19. 
 
 EiQ ndvrag dvQg(onovg, unto all men. Let us hear Calvin : 
 " Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia omnibus eiposita est, non 
 quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa : Nam etsi passus est Christus pro 
 
 PECCATIS TOTIUS MUNDI, OlqUC OMNIBUS INDIFFERENTER Dei benig- 
 
 nitate offerlur; non tamen omnes apprehendunt." So do such men 
 speak, when they look away from system, and have thoroughly studied 
 
236 ROMANS 5 : 19. 
 
 the Scriptures, as Calvin had done when he wrote this. In his early 
 work entitled Institutiones, he has sometimes exhibited sentiments 
 which appear to differ from these. I only add, that no words can 
 more exactly express what I suppose the apostle to mean, than those 
 of Calvin. 
 
 AixaiMGiv Cotfj?, justification of life, means that justification 
 which is connected with eternal life or happiness. So Calvin ; and 
 so the nature of the case requires. It is plain that dixulopu in v. 
 16, dtxaioouvr} in v. 17, and dixauomg here, are all used in the same 
 sense ; as indeed they all may be, consistently with their form and 
 etymology. These different words seem to be chosen by the writer, 
 purposely for the sake of avoiding uniformity of diction. 
 
 (19) The first impression on reading this verse is, that it is merely 
 a repetition of the sentiment in v. 18. But, as Calvin remarks : Non 
 est tautologia, sed necessaria proximse sententiae declaratio; i. e. it is 
 not tautology, but a necessary explanation of the preceding verse. In 
 v. 18 the apostle simply says, that [sentence] came upon all men to 
 condemnation; why, he does not there say. In v. 19 he gives the 
 ground or reason of this, viz. that " all men were constituted sinners 
 by the disobedience of Adam." And so, mtctatis mutandis, in respect 
 to justification. 
 
 That noow/oi'i here, is the same as nafjafiaoig in v. 14, and 
 nuouTTTcofta in vs. 15, 17, 18, needs hardly to be mentioned. But in 
 this case, as there in respect to 7ia<jaj3aoig and nagcenzoj/ita, refer- 
 ence is not made to other offences of Adam besides the first, but 
 specifically to the first, and to that only. See on v. 16 above. In 
 other words; it is not the nagay.or'j of Adam's whole life, to which 
 the apostle refers, but the first act only of his disobedience. 
 
 'dftagioikol TtuTiatuOtjOur ol tioXkoI, tl>e many were constituted 
 sinners, or became sinners. AaOlnr^fiC means, in the active voice, 
 to appoint, constitute, male, cause, to put one in any place or office, 
 to set him in any place, etc. In the passive and middle voices, 
 (for xaTiocuQijCiuv may belong to either, inasmuch as the first 
 Aorist pass, is frequently employed in the sense of the middle voice), 
 yM.TtoiuO?ioav may mean, were constituted, or became ; comp. James 
 4: 4, where xuxtloiurat denotes becoming an i-yOuo? xliov by one's 
 own act, i. e. by being a friend of the world. And so in 3 Mace. 3: 
 5, 'the Jews xa&ttGTqxfiaav [became] eiduxtfioi,' by their own vol- 
 untary doing of justice, as the first part of the verse asserts. In like 
 manner here, no necessity is laid upon us, by the use of the word 
 
ROMANS 5: 19. 237 
 
 v.uittiTuxtiiGuv, of understanding the apostle to assert that men invol- 
 untarily, or without the concurrence of their own free will, become 
 sinners. Surely men may become sinners in consequence of the act 
 of another, and yet be altogether voluntary in becoming so ; as is 
 clear from the fact, that men every day yield to temptations offered 
 by others to commit sin, and yet are altogether voluntary in thus 
 yielding. Nothing then can be drawn merely from the use of the 
 word xuTtOTa-Crqaav, to shew that here the doctrine of imputation, in 
 the strict and proper sense of this word, is taught. 
 
 'But if this doctrine does not lie in the word ttaTfOTa-6 'tjnav 
 alone, does it not lie in this word joined with diu, itjg Trayaxoijg tov 
 ivog? How can men become sinners dia rrjg vayuxotiQ rov tvog, 
 and be themselves proper agents in their own sinfulness'?' 
 
 Bretschneider, in commenting on this passage, has remarked 
 {Dogmatik p. 53), that the apostle, throughout vs. 12 — 19, has used 
 dia with the Genitive after it ; in which case, he says, it designates 
 not the efficient cause, but only the means or occasion of a thing ; and 
 this he states as a principle in regard to the preposition did. He 
 adds, moreover, that dia should have been followed by the Accusative 
 case, if the writer had meant to designate the efficient cause. 
 
 I can hardly see how a writer of such distinguished acuteness as 
 Bretschneider, and the author of an excellent lexicon of the New 
 Testament, should have let such a remark as this escape him. That 
 dia before the Genitive often marks the efficient cause, the reader may 
 see in John 1: 3. Rom. 11: 36. John 3: 17. Pvom. 1: 5. 1 Cor. 1: 9. 
 Gal. 1: 1. 2 Thess. 2: 2. Heb. 1: 3, di tavrov. That it signifies the 
 efficient cause any oftener or more naturally, when followed by the 
 Accusative, has, I am fully persuaded, no foundation in point of fact. 
 It can be made altogether clear, that dia before either Genitive or 
 Accusative, in the New Testament, and also in classical writers, may 
 mean, and does mean, both the efficient and instrumental or occa- 
 sional cause. 
 
 But although there is no just ground for the remark of Bretschnei- 
 der, yet the fact that did may mark either the principal cause, or 
 merely the occasional one, shews that we cannot here lay any stress 
 on the preposition itself as determining either for or against the usual 
 idea of imputation, in the verse before us. 
 
 We must come then, in the next place, to the examination of the 
 general nature of the whole phrase, in order to get the satisfaction 
 which is required. And if now " the many became sinners by the 
 
•238 ROMANS 5: 19. 
 
 disobedience of Adam," must it not follow that his sin is imputed to 
 them, i. e. reckoned as theirs ? 
 
 In reply I would ask : Why should this be a necessary conse- 
 quence of admitting the apostle's assertion ? If a writer should say, 
 that millions in Europe have become or been constituted profligates, 
 by Voltaire ; would the necessary meaning be, that the sin of Voltaire 
 was put to their account? Certainly not ; it would be enough to say, 
 in order fully to explain and justify such an expression, that Voltaire 
 had been an instrument, a means or occasion of their profligacy. The 
 sin itself of profligacy is, after all, entirely their own. There is no 
 room for mistake, in such a case as this. 
 
 But 1 will select a case more directly in point still ; one taken 
 from the very epistle under consideration, and which therefore must 
 serve to cast direct light upon the usus loquendi of Paul. In Rom. 7: 
 5, this apostle says, rd 7iu&>j{icctu tiZv apugriaip, zee dia xov vo- 
 fiov, our sinful passions which were by the laze. Again, in v. 7 he 
 says: "I had not known sin, except did vopov." Again, in v. 8: 
 " Sin taking occasion, d i d ttjg ivxoh]Q wrought in me all manner of 
 concupiscence;" and so again in v. 11. Suppose now, that one 
 should undertake to prove from these passages, that the lain or the 
 commandment (which is the same thing) is the efficient cause of all 
 sin; what would be the reply? It would be, that the law, by the 
 restraints and prohibitions which it imposes on the sinner, becomes 
 the innocent occasion of exciting the sinner's passions and opposition 
 to what is enjoined. These passions would have lain comparatively 
 dormant, had they not been roused by opposition and restraint. It is 
 thus that our " sinful passions are by the law." But is the law the 
 efficient cause of our sinful passions? Or is there evil in the law, 
 which evil is put to our account, i. e. merely imputed to us ? The 
 answer to this is, that " the law is holy, and just, and good." Aid. 
 then does mark some other cause besides an efficient one ; for surely 
 the law is not the efficient cause of sin. Nay, we see by the instance 
 just produced, that our sinful passions may be said to be did rov 
 vofiov, and yet that the law itself is altogether " holy and just and 
 good." It may surely then be said, that 'men become sinners by or 
 through the disobedience of Adam, without meaning by this, that his 
 own personal sin is ours, or that his personal guilt is imputed to us. 
 If the apostle had said simply: Aia slddfi d^aQtwlol nareoTa-9?;- 
 aav oi noWol, we could not have determined merely from this, even 
 whether Adam was the guilty or innocent occasion of our becoming 
 
ROMANS 5 : 19. 230 
 
 sinners, (for surely the law, as above, was an innocent occasion) ; it 
 is only from the uuaariu, nuouljaaig, Txagu7irc<)f.tu, and Tiufjav.or) 
 which are attributed to Adam, and from the history of his fall, that 
 we know him to have been the guilty occasion of bringing evils on 
 his posterity. 
 
 It were easy to produce many other cases of dice, applied in the 
 like way as in Rom. vn. ; but I deem it superfluous. It is impossi- 
 ble, then, that any legitimate conclusions in favour of imputation in 
 its strict sense, can be made out either from the particular words or 
 the general phraseology of v. 19. /y 
 
 We must, then, examine the nature of the case. What is it ? It is 
 (according to the common theory of imputation), that the sin of one man 
 is charged upon all his posterity, who are condemned to everlasting 
 death because of it, antecedent to, and independently of any voluntary 
 emotion or action on their part. But this idea seems to be attended 
 with some serious difficulties ; for, (a) It appears to contradict the es- 
 sential principles of our moral consciousness. We never did, and we 
 never can, feel guilty of another's act, which was done without any 
 knowledge or concurrence of our own. We may just as well say, that 
 we can appropriate to ourselves and make our own, the righteousness of 
 another, as his unrighteousness. But we can never, in either case, even 
 force ourselves into a consciousness that any act is really our own, ex- 
 cept one in which we have had a personal and voluntary concern. A 
 transfer of moral turpitude is just as impossible as a transfer of souls; 
 nor does it lie within the boundaries of human effort, that we should re- 
 pent of Adam's sin. We may be filled, and we should be filled, with 
 deep abasement on account of our degraded and fallen nature ; but to 
 repent, in the strict sense of this word, of another's personal act, is fa 
 plainly an utter impossibility. 
 
 (b) Such an imputation as that in question, would be in direct oppo- 
 sition to the first principles of moral justice, as conceived of by us, or as 
 represented in the Bible. That " the son shall not die for the iniquity 
 of the father," is as true as that " the father shall not die for the iniqui- 
 ty of the son ;" as God has most fully declared in Ezek. xvni. I am 
 aware that Pres. Edwards (Orig. Sin) has endeavoured to avoid the force 
 of the declarations in this deeply interesting chapter, by averring, that 
 " the thing denied, is communion in the guilt and punishment of the 
 sins of others, that are distinct parts of Adam's race, i. e. who are dif- 
 ferent individuals," p. 338. The same writer has laboured at length to 
 prove the actual physical or metaphysical (I hardly know which to name 
 it) unity of all our race with Adam. According to him, then, we are all 
 one in Adam and with him. How then can we all be separate and dis- 
 tinct from each other ? Are we any more separate from each other, 
 than we are from our first parents ? Pres. Edwards and many others 
 have often and at length represented our connection with Adam, by the 
 figure of a tree and its branches. Conceding this for the present, we 
 
<240 ROMANS 5: 19. 
 
 may ask, whether the topmost branch is not more nearly and intimately 
 connected with the one next below it, than it is with the root ; and 
 whether it receives the laws of its nature any more from the root, than it 
 does from the branch immediately next to it ? Then we may ask again, 
 whether any law exists between the branches as they have respect to 
 each other, that is fundamentally different from, and opposite to, that 
 law by which they are all connected with the root ? Can the root com- 
 municate that to the topmost branch, which does not come through the 
 next branch below the topmost, and conform to the laws of its nature ? 
 Or has the root some other mode of communication with the topmost 
 branch, independently of that through the next intermediate one, and in 
 conformity with the laws of its nature? 
 
 But I must desist from urging questions. I can only say, that my 
 limits, and the nature of my present undertaking, allow me to do no 
 more than to give mere hints ; and these, only in respect to a small 
 part of the subject. I make the appeal, however, to all who have not 
 a point to carry, and ask, for I feel constrained to ask : Would such an 
 exegesis of the prophet Ezekiel have ever been produced, except for the 
 sake of avoiding the force of a consideration, which at least seems to 
 overturn the doctrine of imputation in its rigid sense ? I add only, that 
 the whole doctrine of moral retribution, as built on the principles of 
 moral justice, appears, at the very first view of it which is taken by our 
 conscience and our sense of right and wrong, to be consentaneous with 
 the principles laid down in Ezefc. xvm ; and the representations of mor- 
 al retribution in the Scriptures surely accord with the views of that 
 chapter. 
 
 ' But still you admit, that the whole human race became degenerate 
 and degraded, in consequence of the act of Adam.' 
 
 I do so ; I fully believe it. I reject all the attempts to explain 
 away this. (See in Excursus V.) I go further: I admit not only the 
 loss of an original state of righteousness to all, in consequence of 
 Adam's first sin, but that temporal evils and death have come of course 
 on all by means of it. I admit that all are born in such a state, that it 
 is now certain they will be sinners as soon as they are moral agents, 
 and that they will never be holy until they are regenerated ; consequent- 
 ly I must admit, that all have come into imminent hazard of everlasting 
 death, by means of Adam's first offence. But it does not follow, that 
 the evils of the present life, (which, I admit, in and by themselves con- 
 sidered, may be truly regarded as a part of the penalty threatened to 
 Adam), may not still, through " superabounding grace," be converted 
 even into instruments of good, with regard to the discipline of the pen- 
 itent in this fallen state. " We know that all things will work together 
 for good to those who love God." If infants are saved, (as I do hope 
 and trust they are), all the evils which they now suffer in this world, 
 may be made, by a wise and holy Providence, to contribute to their 
 eternal good. In what way, I pretend not to determine. If they are 
 in fact saved, this fact of itself will render it certain, that their sufferings 
 will be made to contribute to their eternal good ; for so much we are 
 taught, and so much therefore we know from the assurances of the 
 
ROMANS 5: 19. 241 
 
 Scriptures. It does not follow, then, because a part, a very small part, 
 of the penalty of the law is inflicted on all our race without exception, 
 and only such a part as is capable of becoming the means of good, (so 
 the " superabounding " and wonderful grace of the gospel has ordered 
 
 it), that it can be proved from such infliction, that all are the heirs of 
 denial damnation, whether guilty or not of voluntary sins. It does not 
 follow, because we are born destitute of those holy inclinations which 
 Adam had in his original state, that we arc horn with a positive infus- 
 ion of evil inclinations into our nature. (See Edwards on Orig. Sin, Part 
 IV. chap. 2, who strongly asserts here the same sentiment). It doesnot 
 follow, because it is certain that all who come to be moral agents, will 
 sin and will not do any thing which is holy until they are regenerated, 
 that when men do sin, they do not sin of their own free will and choice 
 and without any compulsion or necessity. It was just as certain be- 
 fore Adam and the fallen angels first sinned, that they would sin, as it 
 is now that they did sin. Yet they sinned freely. Certainty, in the 
 view of God or in the nature of things, as to a future event, does not 
 diminish at all from the possibility that it should be altogether volunta- 
 ry and of free choice. It does not follow, then, from the entire certain- 
 ty that ail Adam's race in their present fallen condition will sin so soon 
 as they are capable of sinning, and tints bring on themselves the sen- 
 tence of death in its fullest sense, that his sin is strictly and fully imput- 
 ed to them. 
 
 I might go further. Pres . Edwards and others have vehemently urg- 
 ed the universality of sin, as a proof that our nature has inherited a pos- 
 itive infusion of corruption from Adam ; and be insists on this at great 
 length, in the first part of his Treatise on Original Sin, as an unanswer- 
 able argument. But I find great difficulty in admitting the force of the 
 argument. Just so far as the human race have had any trial in a pure 
 and holy state, just so far the consequence was a universal falling from 
 that state. Pres. Edwards himself has taken great pains, in another 
 part of his book, to shew that we had a more favourable trial in the per- 
 son of Adam, than we should have had in propria persona. Of course, 
 then, he must admit that we all should have fallen, had we, like Adam, 
 been placed in a state of holiness. The corruption, therefore, by his 
 own arguments, woidd have been just as universal as it now is, if all 
 men had been placed on trial in a state of innocence. How then can 
 the universality of corruption prove that men have now a positively de- 
 praved nature which has been inherited from Adam ? 
 
 I might even go farther still, and aver, that if the argument from 
 the universality of corruption he a valid one to prove our native and 
 positive depravity ; the same argument will prove, that men would have 
 been greater sinners if they had heen born in a holy state, than they 
 now are. For as all of mankind who were placed on trial in a state of 
 holiness did fall; and as by the statement of Pres. Edwards himself, it 
 must he admitted that all their posterity would have fallen, in the like 
 condition ; and as it is clear, that when beings in a holy state sin and 
 fall, they are preeminently guilty ; so, for aught that I can see, Pres. 
 Edwards himself being judge, the gudt of men would have been just as 
 31 
 
242 ROMANS 5: 19. 
 
 universal as it now is, if they had been born holy and placed on trial as 
 Adam was ; while the measure of this guilt would of course have been 
 much greater than at present. For why were the fallen angels passed 
 by, without any redemption provided for them, if their sin was not be- 
 yond the reach of mercy because of their previous holy state ? And 
 why did Adam's first sin produce such tremendous consequences as no 
 other sin among men ever produced, unless its aggravation was exceed- 
 ingly great, in consequence of his having fallen from a state of holiness ? 
 And even at the present time, is it not true that the sins of Christians 
 are, for obvious reasons, more blame-worthy than those of the unregen- 
 erate ? 
 
 But to return ; when I say, then, that the whole human race have be- 
 come degenerate and degraded by the fall, I mean, that they have lost the 
 righteousness of their original state ; that they are subjected to various 
 evils in the present life ; that they are in such circumstances, that they 
 zvill all sin as soon as they are capable of sinning, and never do any thing 
 holy until they are regenerated. But in his original state, Adam did 
 neither sin as soon as he was capable of doing it ; nor did he fail to live 
 in a manner entirely holy, for some time ; how long, the Scriptures 
 have not told us. Here then are two things, in which his state was ex- 
 ceedingly different from ours ; and in respect to these two things, it 
 was far superior to ours. This entitles us to say, that our nature is 
 now degraded and degenerate, in itself considered. As elevated by the 
 grace of God, a different view is presented. But we have been con- 
 templating it now, merely as it is in itself. 
 
 1 add only, that as " the many" are never " made righteous" with- 
 out penitence and faith, i. e. without some act which is properly their 
 own, so, by a parity of reason, we must suppose that " the many" are 
 not " constituted sinners," except in the same way. 
 
 I see no way, then, either by philology or from the nature of the 
 case, of establishing the doctrine of imputation, in the sense of moral 
 transfer or communication of turpitude, or in the sense of guilt constru- 
 ed as meaning obnoxiousness to punishment in the full and proper 
 sense of the word ; at least, no way of proving this from the passage un- 
 der examination. 
 
 In respect to vnaxoijg, I regard it here as designating peculiarly 
 the obedience of Christ as exhibited in his expiatory sufferings; 
 comp. Phil. 2: 8. Matt. 26: 39, 42. John 10: 18. Heb. 10: 7—10.— 
 Alxcuoi xaraaiad)jaoi'Tai ol noklol, many shall be constituted right- 
 eous, i. e. be justified, pardoned, accepted and treated as righteous, 
 shall be subjects of the gospel dixuioovurj which Christ procures for 
 sinners. Under the gospel this is proffered to all men, as stated by 
 Calvin ; see on v. 18. So much is done without any concurrence or 
 voluntary act on the part of the sinner; just as the same sinner is 
 subjected to certain evils on account of Adam's transgression, and 
 without any voluntary act of his own. But whether the sinner shall 
 
ROMANS 5 : 20, 21. 243 
 
 obtain the higher ransom thus proffered, or whether he will suffer the 
 second death or higher penalty — is suspended on his own act. It 
 remains still true, as it ever has been, that "except we repent, we 
 shall all perish." Men do not become dlxatot, therefore, without 
 some voluntary act of their own. Even so they do not become sin- 
 ners, without their own concurrence. 
 
 For farther considerations respecting this deeply interesting pas- 
 sage of Scripture, the reader is referred to Excursus V. 
 
 CHAP. V. 20, 21. 
 
 The reader will observe, that in all which the apostle has said in vs. 
 12 — 19, respecting the evils occasioned by Adam and the blessings pro- 
 cured by Christ, he has said nothing respecting any good achieved by the Jew- 
 ish dispensation, as a remedy for these evils. It is very natural to suppose 
 that the Jew, ever jealous for the honour of the Mosaic economy, would feel a 
 strong objection to the representation which the apostle had made ; inasmuch 
 as deliverance from evils seems to be wholly attributed by Paul to Christ and 
 his gospel, and nothing of this great work to be attributed to the law. I re- 
 gard vs. 20, 21, as designed to answer such an objection, which the apostle 
 would very readily anticipate. The substance of the answer may be thus ex- 
 pressed : ' As to the Mosaic law, it was so far from delivering men from sin 
 and its fearful consequences, that the result of it was just the contrary, viz. the^ 
 abounding of sin, or at least the more conspicuous and striking exhibition of 
 it. Both of these sentiments, indeed, we may suppose to be included in the 
 assertion made in v. 20. If the reader is surprised at this, or doubts it, let him 
 study attentively Rom. 7: 5—13, where he will find that Paul fully maintains 
 these views, and comments at large upon them. The facts simply considered, 
 are, that the restraints which the law puts upon the evil passions of men, 
 make them more violent in their opposition; the light which the law sheds on 
 the path of duty, makes men the more guilty and inexcusable when they sin ; 
 and ; the holiness, justness, and goodness of the law' (Rom. 7: 12), renders sin 
 altogether more conspicuous than it otherwise would be, (Rom. 7: 13). In all 
 these respects, then, the entrance of the law was followed by the abounding 
 of sin ; and what is said in chap. 7: 5 — 13 seems to render clear the meaning 
 of the apostle in 5: 20. 
 
 Moreover, in vs. 20, 21, the apostle plainly designs to shew, that the gospel, 
 instead of being superseded by the law in any important respect, was rendered 
 (so to speak) the more necessary. The law, instead of diminishing the sins of 
 men, did, on account of their abusing it (Rom. 7: 11), render them more guil- 
 ty ; and consequently it increased their need of a new dispensation of pardon- 
 ing mercy. And such is the rich provision for mercy under this new dispen- 
 sation, that not only the sins which men committed before the law of Moses 
 was published, may be forgiven, but even the more aggravated guilt which 
 they incur who sin against the precepts of revelation, may be pardoned. In a 
 word; the law, instead of superseding the gospel, rendered it the more neces- 
 sary : and the gospel was fully adequate to every case of need, however great 
 this might be ; for the sins of men, even of men enlightened by express reve- 
 lation, great as they are, may now be forgiven by that mercy which abounds 
 through Jesus Christ. 
 
 Considered in the point of view now presented, the verses under considera- 
 tion are pregnant with highly important meaning. 
 
044 ROMANS 5: 20. 
 
 (20) No^iog, revelation, the Mosaic law. — TIuQiirjr t ).$tv, either 
 came in unawares (which would make no tolerable sense here) ; or 
 supervened, came in by icay of addition, prceterea introiit (ns Beza 
 translates it) ; i. e. it supervened upon the state which preceded Mo- 
 ses, when men were living without a revelation. Philo uses the word 
 nageioijk&ev in the same sense as eiotjk&cv, (see Bretsch. Lex.) ; 
 but I regard the second meaning above given to the word, as the 
 best in this passage. 
 
 "Iva is said by Chrysostom to be ovy. ahioXoyiug a)X txpaotcog, 
 q. d. not causal, i. e. not introducing a reason or cause why the law 
 came in, but ekbatic (ixficcTixog), i. e. shewing the effect or conse- 
 quence ; so that we may translate : The law supervened so that 
 offences abounded. That 'iva sometimes has an ekbatic* sense, viz. 
 so that, may be seen in Wahl's Lex. 'iva, No. 2. See also (on this 
 use of 'iva which some critics deny) Hoogeveen Doctrina Partic. 
 Gra;c. voc. 'iva' or Schi'itz's Abridgment of the same work. Comp., 
 as clear cases of such an usage, ivu in Luke 9: 45. 11: 50. 14: 10. 
 16: 9. Gal. 5: 17. John 17: 12; and see Bretschn. Lex. 'iva, No. 2. 
 
 The telle sense of 'iva, however, may be retained in the verse 
 under examination, by construing nksovaorj, as we do insQiaaBvaiv 
 in 3: 2, which there means, may appear to abound, may exhibit or 
 display its abounding, (like the Piel and Hiphil conjugations of 
 Hebrew verbs) ; and to the same effect is nfoioatvori used in 2 Cor. 
 4: 15. In this way the sense will be : ' The law came in, in order 
 that, sin might be abundantly exhibited, or that a full display of sin 
 might be made;' according with Rom. 7: 13, comp. 7: 5 — 12. 3: 12. 
 In this way it is construed by Tholuck, Flatt, and others ; and it 
 scarcely needs to be said, that the end or design of the law itself was 
 not the increase of sin, but the restraint of it. 
 
 My objection, however, to the explanation of these interpreters, is, 
 that v. 21 evidently demands a sense of hUovugj] different from that 
 which they give. If we say : ' The law entered in order that the 
 odious nature of sin might be more fully and plainly exposed and 
 known ;' then what shall we make of v. 21 ? It must be this : 
 'Where sin was more fully displayed, grace superabounded,' viz. 
 
 * When 'iva is employed in the sense of in order that, to the end that. etc. 
 i. e. when it is caused, it is called by the Greeks z t /. i y. u g (from zti.og), q. d. 
 indicatirc of the. r.ND or reason why a thing is, or is dene. When it is used in 
 the sense of so that, i. e. used in such a way as to denote the e.ffe.ct or event of 
 a tiring, it is called ixftazixos, or in Latin, effectivum, i.e. shewing the effect 
 or event of a thing. 
 
ROMANS 5 : 20, 21. 245 
 
 above the display. But clearly the apostle means not to say this, 
 (for what can be the meaning of such a declaration?) but that where 
 sin actually abounded, there grace actually superabounded. 
 
 We must return then to the ekbatic use of u>a here, which 
 Chrysostom has proposed. The meaning of the verse may be thus 
 given : ' The Mosaic law which was introduced, instead of diminish- 
 ing the guilt and sins of men, served only to increase them ; for 
 although in itself holy and just and good, yet being abused and 
 resisted by the evil passions of men, it was made the occasion of 
 increasing their guilt, because the light which it shed on them, both 
 aggravated their offences and rendered them more conspicuous/ 
 Chap. 7: 5 — 13, as before suggested, is a full and satisfactory com- 
 ment on these sentiments. 
 
 Thus understood, it is easy to see, that the apostle has a deep 
 design in saying what he does ; viz. it was his purpose not only to 
 convince the Jew, that the Mosaic law afforded him no prospect of 
 deliverance from the power and penalty of sin, but that it had be- 
 come the occasion of his contracting deeper stains of guilt than he 
 otherwise would have had ; and therefore, of plunging him into a more 
 hopeless condition. The necessity of deliverance through the pardon- 
 ing mercy of the gospel, does, in this way, become truly conspicuous; 
 and the need of its superabounding grace is thus placed in a strong 
 light, by the apostle. I observe that Turretin, perceiving the diffi- 
 culties of other explanations, has for substance adopted the same 
 which I have now given. 
 
 (21) But where sin abounded, grace did superabound; i.e. the 
 pardoning mercy of the gospel has triumphed even over the sins 
 of the Jews, which were greatly aggravated by reason of the light 
 they enjoyed. 
 
 "ha WOT16Q v.. r. ),., so that as sin reigned by death, i. e. brought 
 sentence of death or condemnation upon all men, in like manner, also, 
 grace might reign by justification unto eternal life, through Christ 
 Jesus our Lord; i. e. grace might reign or have an influence widely 
 extended, in the bestowment of justification or pardoning mercy, 
 which confers eternal life or happiness on all men who will accept it, 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord. — After dmaioovi/ijg here, one must 
 supply rrjg ovar t g (which is) tig £o)»;j> ulo'iviov. In this verse, tv rw 
 davacw is the Dative of means, or rather of manner ; and it stands 
 in antithesis with did d'ixuioaupr]g tig £oir}v alatviov. Of course 
 dixcaoovvTjg does not here mean righteousness in the sense of holi- 
 
246 ROMANS 5: 21. 
 
 ness or conformity to the divine law, but in the sense of justification; 
 exactly as dcxuico^u, dixcuoovvqg, and dixaiojoiv, in vs. 16 — 18 
 above. The meaning is, that as sin exercised its sway over men, in 
 occasioning their condemnation (dui>o.TOi>) ; so grace, which supera- 
 bounds, has exercised its sway in procuring a remission of the 
 sentence of condemnation, and bestowing that justification which is 
 connected with eternal life. Turretin makes Sixawavvijg here 
 mean both justification and sanctification ; which is unnecessary, and 
 indeed incapable of being defended. The antithesis of diy.aioavpTj, 
 viz. ftuvuTOQ, does not mean both sin and condemnation at the same 
 time : of course, then, diy.aioovvi] should be interpreted in such a 
 manner, as to have a single and not a double sense. 
 
 The reader will not fail to remark, also, that as {tuvaxog is the 
 direct antithesis of £"«// ulotviog here, so it must mean more than tem- 
 poral death merely ; nay, more than any limited term of misery in a 
 future world ; unless, indeed, it can be shewn that the happiness of 
 the righteous is limited. But this none will attempt to shew. How 
 then can the misery of the wicked be shewn to be temporary ? That 
 -Ouvuiog is here employed in the same sense as in vs. 12 — 19, im- 
 presses itself spontaneously on the mind of every reader, not misled 
 by a priori reasonings. 
 
 It should also be noted, that vntpfnffji'tyofvoev i) yugig cannot, of 
 course, be applied to the number of its subjects here ; for how could 
 grace superabound as to these, when all men were sinners ? It plainly 
 has reference, therefore, to abounding sin which existed after the 
 law was introduced. What the apostle means to affirm, is, that 
 however much sin was aggravated, under this new order of things, 
 yet such was the greatness of gospel-grace, that it triumphed even 
 over this aggravated guilt. In other words, the salvation of the gos- 
 pel is so ample, that it may be extended to all men, however depraved 
 and deserving of punishment they may be. 
 
 CHAP. VI— VIII. 
 
 When the apostle (chap. I— II.) had shewn the guilt of all men, both Jews 
 and Gentiles, and that none could escape the wrath to come, except by the 
 mercy of God through Christ, he represents the Jew as objecting to such a 
 sentiment, on the ground that the fidelity of God, in respect to the promise 
 made to Abraham and his seed, would be called in question by it. To this the 
 apostle replies, that no such objection could be made ; for God is to be regard- 
 ed as faithful to his promises, even if all men are thereby convicted of being 
 unfaithful to their engagements. The faithfulness of God is, in fact, the more 
 
ROMANS VI— VIII. 247 
 
 conspicuous, when he treats those who have sinned, and who continue impen- 
 itent, according to their reul desert. 
 
 The Jew, however, not satisfied with this, objects that there would in this 
 way be encouragement for men to sin ; inasmuch as the divine glory would 
 be the more conspicuous, in consequence of the display of pardoning mercy. 
 But this objection the apostle repels, with strong language of disapprobation, 
 3: 5 — 8. He does not, however, proceed to canvass it, because he has other 
 thino-s which he is desirous to say, before he enters particularly into the con- 
 sideration of such an objection. 
 
 These he exhibits in chap. 3: 9 — 5: 21. After all which he here says, and 
 especially after such an exhibition of superabounding grace, as is made in chap. 
 5: 12 — 21, it is natural to expect, that the Jew would renew, at least in his 
 own mind, the same objection as before ; and this, with more appearance of rea- 
 son than he then had. Accordingly, we find the apostle representing him as 
 immediately objecting to the views of gospel grace which he had expressed, in 
 the following words: "Shall we continue then in sin, that grace may 
 abound?" Chap. VI. VII. VIII. are designed to canvass the great subject 
 which this objection brings forward, and fully to illustrate it. The course 
 of thought appears to be as follows : 
 
 1. The very profession and nature of the Christian religion are directly op- 
 posed to continuance in sin ; for he who is " baptized into the death of Christ," 
 if sincere in his professions, must renounce sin, and mortify his carnal appe- 
 tites, 6: 2—11. 
 
 2. The remainder of chap. VI. forms a peculiar argument, if I may so call 
 it, with respect to the subject under the apostle's consideration, viz. whether 
 a dispensation of grace allows its subjects to sin. Verses 12, 13 are an exhor- 
 tation to guard against sin ; which is occasioned by the preceding considera- 
 tions that the writer has proffered. But in v. 14, Paul places his subject in a 
 new attitude. He had before shown, that Christianity from its very nature 
 stands opposed to sin, and implies the subduing and mortifying of all evil pas- 
 sions and desires. He now ventures to suggest, not only that there is no good 
 ground for the allegation of the objector, viz. that the doctrine of grace would 
 encourage men to continue in sin, but that this very doctrine furnishes pow- 
 erful motives, yea more powerful ones than those which a dispensation of law 
 furnishes, to excite men to the practice of holiness. He begins by saying, 
 that ' sin will not have dominion over Christians, for they are not under law, 
 but under grace.' This is as much as to say, that if they were still under the 
 law (in the sense here meant), sin would have dominion over them ; but inas- 
 much as they are under grace, this will not be the case, v. 14. By being tin- 
 der the laic, he means being subjected to it and devoted to it, in the sense in 
 which the Jews (as legalists) were, viz. confidently expecting sanctification 
 from it. Being under grace means, being servants of grace, i. e. subject to its 
 influence and obedient to its requisitions. Vs. 16 — 19 necessarily lead us to 
 such an explanation. 
 
 The subject thus introduced is one of vast magnitude and importance. If 
 it be true, that a system of grace is the only one which noio proffers adequate 
 means of sanctification, as well as pardon, then is the importance of the gospel 
 rendered doubly conspicuous. This is what the apostle intimates in v. 14, and 
 which he goes on through the remainder of chap. VI., and also through chap. 
 VII. VIII , to confirm and illustrate. That this essential circumstance has 
 been so often overlooked by commentators, has been the occasion of much that 
 is irrelevant and unsatisfactory in their remarks upon this passage. 
 
 The first illustration of the power of gospel grace to subdue sin, is drawn 
 from the relation which the Christian sustains toward the gospel ov yaQtg. He 
 has become the servant of grace ; consequently he must yield it his obedience ; 
 and by becoming the servant of grace, he has renounced his subjection to sin ; 
 consequently he must act in a manner that accords with the relation which he 
 sustains, i. e. he should live in a holy manner, vs. 16 — 20. Thus the Christian 
 must be led to act, on the ground that the consequences of obeying sin and of 
 obeying grace are so unspeakably different and important, vs. 21 — 23. 
 
 Thus far the apostle has employed comparison, in order to illustrate and 
 
248 ROMANS VI— MIL 
 
 enforce his sentiment. I mean, that under the figure of Christians being the 
 servants of grace, lie lias signified their obligation I<j yield obedience. This is 
 laying a good foundation ; for obligation to be holy surely lies at the basis of 
 the Christian's duty. In the next place, he brings into view the consequences 
 of obedience to sin and holiness. 'Thus much, then, (he would seem to say 
 by all this), belongs to a system of grace ; and in respect to obligation and 
 penalty it is in no wise behind a system of law. It holds forth both the obliga- 
 tion to duty, and the encouragement to it; while the awful penalty of the di- 
 vine law for neglect of it, i. e. for sin, remains in full force under the gospel.' 
 
 This, however, is negative argument; if I may so speak. I mean, that it 
 does not directly prove what is intimated in v. 14, viz. the superiority of grace 
 to law in influencing us to lead a lioly life. But it proves, that even in those 
 respects in which the law might seem to claim a high preeminence, it has 
 noiie. The gospel confers as high obligation, and threatens as hijh penalties. 
 In both respects it is opposed to sin; its obligations are directly contrary to 
 sin ; its consequences are just the reverse of those which follow sin. In all 
 these respects, then, we may truly affirm of the gospel, as much as could be 
 affirmed of the law. 
 
 3. Thus much in order to shew that a system of grace is not behind a sys- 
 tem of law, either in regard to obligations or penalties. All this prepares the 
 way to accomplish the subsequent part of. the apostle's design : which is, to 
 shew that the law (in the sense to which Jewish legalists adhered to it), is vir- 
 tually and substantially renounced, by giving ourselves to Christ in the way of 
 the gospel, 7: 1 — 4. This is an important point, and a great advance toward 
 the attainment of the apostle's design. 
 
 But he does not stop even here. He goes on (7: 5, G) to assert that the law, 
 instead of being an effectual means of sanctifying men and making them tru- 
 ly holy, is in reality the occasion of their plunging into deeper guilt; while 
 grace produces just the contrary effect. This is the ultimate and highest point 
 at which Paul aims, in order to wean legalists from their unwarrantable at- 
 tachment to the law. That he may fully accomplish his object, he shews, first, 
 how the law, instead of delivering us from sin, is the occasion of our being 
 plunged deeper into it, 7: 7 — 12. Secondly, he rennves the objections which 
 one might naturally raise against the law, on such a ground, 7: 13 — 25. 
 
 4. He next goes on to shew that grace operates upon men in a manner en- 
 tirely different from that of law, 8: 1 — 11. 
 
 5. In the remainder of chap. VIII., he insists on the duties and privileges 
 that result from such a state of grace. 
 
 If the reader will now look back, for a moment, he will see a regular series 
 of thought, all pertaining to the same great subject, from the commencement 
 of chap. VI. to the end of chap. VIII. To the apostle's plan of justification 
 by grace alone, the natural and most formidable objection, at first view, 
 would be, that such a doctrine would lay no restraint upon sin. but rather en- 
 courage it. Already had he adverted to this objection, in chap. III. 5 — 8. 
 But with chap. VI. the formal discussion of the subject which is introduced 
 by it, commences. The simple outlines of the argument and illustration are, 
 (I) The very profession and nature of Christianity imply a renunciation of sin, 
 ti: 1 — 11. (2) The Gospel lays more effectual constraint upon us to abstain 
 from sin, than the law can do, 6: 14 ; for (a.) By becoming servants of it, we 
 must yield our obedience to it, 6: 16 — 20. (&) It sets before us the highest pos- 
 sible rewards, and renders them attainable, 6:21 — 23. (3) We renounce our 
 legality, i. e. our dependence on the law as the effectual means of sanctifica- 
 tion, when we become affianced to Christ. We sustain a new relation in con- 
 sequence of this, and are laid under new obligations, which are of a more for- 
 cible nature, 7: 1 — 4. (4) The law, instead of restraining and subduing our 
 sins, is even the occasion of th"ir being aggravated, of plunging us into deeper 
 condemnation, 7: 5 — 11 ; yet this is not chargeable upon the nature ofthe law, 
 which in itself is holy and just and good, but on our evil passions which abuse 
 it, while our consciences testify to the excellence and purity ofthe law itself, 
 7: 12 — 25. Consequently sanctification, as well as justification, can be expect- 
 
ROMANS VI— VIII. 249 
 
 ed not from the law, but only from a dispensation of grace. (5) Such is the ac- 
 tual effect of grace : it subdues and mortifies the principles of sin within us, 
 and affords us the effectual guidance and aid of the Spirit of God, in the dis- 
 charge of our duty, 8-. 1—11. Consequently, (6) The obligation to live in a 
 holy manner may now be urged on Christians with the hope of success, for 
 they have aid which is adequate for every time of need ; yea, which will make 
 them to triumph overall the troubles and sorrows and trials of life, and to per- 
 severe even unto the end, in the way of holiness and truth, 8: 12 — 3'J. 
 
 1 hope the reader will pardon this partial repetition of the course of thought 
 in chap. VI — VIII ; which I have indulged in merely for the sake of being 
 explicitly understood. The attainment of correct views in regard to this course, 
 is a sine qua noa to a right exegesis of the whole. How can we correctly ex- 
 plain a writer, unless we rightly apprehend his aim, and the scope of his dis- 
 course ? It is impossible; and therefore it is of fundamental importance that 
 we should obtain correct views of the apostie's design in the chapters above 
 named, before we can safely advance to the particular explanation of their sev- 
 eral parts. All form one harmonious whole; all resolve themselves, at last, 
 into the simple design of shewing, not only that the grace of the gospel is not 
 justly liable to the cliarge of encouraging sin, but that it does in fact proffer to 
 sinners the on >j hopeful and effectual means of sanctification, as well as justi- 
 fication ; yea, that it assures them of these means being effectual even to the 
 end, so that their hopes can never be disappointed. 
 
 If it be asked why sanctification is here so much insisted on, rather than 
 justification ; the answer is, that the apostle had before most fully shewn, in 
 chap. I — IV., that justification by the law is impossible. The question now 
 with him is, whether this plan of salvation, viz. gratuitous justification, encour- 
 ages the sinner to continue in sin. This question he treats in the manner 
 stated above; and thus shews, that the grace of the gospel is as necessary to 
 us in respect to our sanetification, as it is in respect to our justification. A no- 
 ble triumph, indeed, of true Christian principles over all opposition and objec- 
 tions ! One too which shews, that a system of law strictly adhered to, can on- 
 ly end in the aggravated ruin of sinners ; and that therefore our only hope of 
 salvation is in him, " who hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being- 
 made a curse for us." 
 
 If the reader has still any doubt, whether I have correctly stated the gen- 
 eral outlines of the apostle's design and argument, let him look back on chap. 
 I — IV., and see that the great discussion concerning gratuitous justification is 
 there terminated ; as is evident from chap. 5: 1 — 11. Let him look at the na- 
 ture of the subject proposed by the question in 6: 1, and the arguments and il- 
 lustrations which follow. Let him duly consider the assertion in 6: 14, with 
 the sequel in vs. 15 — 20. Let him then see, in vs. 21 — 23, that xuQTrds £is dyi- 
 aafjLov is still before the writer's mind. In passing to 7: I — 3,4, let him note, 
 that v. 4 sums up the object of all by "iva •AO.QTroyQi'ioojfitv xC> d'tw. In reading 
 vs. 5, 6, he must observe, that the law is set forth as being even the occasion 
 of aggravating our carnal desires, instead of mortifying and subduing them ; 
 all of which shews the insufficiency of it as a means of sanctification. Vs. 7 — 
 11 only expand and enforce this idea ; while vs. 12 — 23 defend it from abuse. 
 Chap. VIII. opens as if the subject of justification were a prominent object of 
 the writer's attention ; but vs. 2 — 4 shew that this is only in consequence of 
 justification being connected with sanctification. The special object of God's 
 sending his Son, as considered in vs. 3, 4, is naTay.Qivsiv n)v afiaQTiav iv rij 
 aaQxl, and 'Iva to Stttaioj/ia rot vufiov Trhjpoj&ij iv i)/mi>. And so the sequel 
 shews, that sanctifying grace subdues sin, and secures filial obedience. 
 Hence, in vs. 12 — 17, the exhortation subjoined to the preceding nontext is, 
 that Christians " should not live aaru odpxa." And finally, it is the sanctifi- 
 ed, filial, obedient spirit, inspired by the gospel and given by the Spirit of God 
 in connection with it, which supports us under all sorrows and trials, and will 
 end in complete and everlasting triumph. On the face of all this course of 
 thought, there lies, then, what has already been attributed to it. 
 
 There is another circumstance still, which affords no small ground for con- 
 
 32 
 
250 ROMANS 6: 1, 2. 
 
 firming what has been stated above. Let the reader look back to chap. 5: 1 — 
 11. and see that tlie apostle, after finishing- his discussion with regard to the 
 Bobject of justification by grace, goes on to declare the happy fruits of this, 
 viz. cheering support under all the sorrows of life, and assurance of final hap- 
 piness in the kingdom of glory, through the redemption of Christ. Even so 
 in chap. 8: 14 — 39. When Paul has completed the discussion of his second 
 orand theme, viz. the sanctifying nature of gospel grace, he goes on to shew, 
 first, how it triumphs over sufferings and sorrows, inspiring a joyful hope; 
 and secondly, that it will assuredly bring the believer, at last, safe to glory. 
 The parallelism, as to the general course of thought, is so exact between chap. 
 5: 1 — 11, and 8: 14 — 39, that no one can help perceiving it. There is then 
 crood ground to believe, from this circumstance, in addition to the other evi- 
 dence produced above, that the apostle had, in his own view, here completed 
 a second prominent topic of discussion ; just as. at the end of chap. IV., he had 
 completed his first one. The rest of his epistle is employed in canvassing va- 
 rious objections raised by Judaizing opponents ; and in delivering various pre- 
 cepts and exhortations suited to the condition of the church at Rome. 
 
 If the o-eneral course of thought now lies before us, in an intelligible man- 
 ner, we are prepared to advance once more to the consideration of particulars. 
 
 (1) 77 ovv tQOvptv; words of the objector; viz. 'What shall be 
 said, now, as to such a sentiment as that just uttered, viz. that where 
 sin abounded, grace did superabound? Does it not follow that one 
 may well say : Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound ?' The 
 meaning of the question is : Since God is glorified in the abounding 
 of his grace ; and since this abounds in proportion to the sin which 
 is committed ; then why should we not go on to sin, as the glory of 
 God will in this way be made to abound ? 
 
 (2) 's4n£&uvo[.uv ttj dixaoTia, dead to sin means, to renounce 
 sin ; to become as it were insensible to its exciting power or influ- 
 ence, (as a dead person is incapable of sensibility); or, as Chrysos- 
 tom well expresses it, [atjxiti vthx-aqvuv [r>7 d/.tuoria], dkld ptviiv 
 uy.itiy]Tov owntg xov vikqov. Comp. the phraseology in Gal. 2: 19. 
 1 Pet. 2: 24. Rom. 7: 4. 
 
 TImq in ^rjoofiev £v avico; how shall ice any longer live in it? i. e. 
 how shall we who have renounced sin, and profess to be insensible 
 to its influence, any more continue to practise it, or to be influenced 
 by it? 
 
 There has been not a little discussion and controversy, in respect 
 to the meaning and design of the apostle's language here. To me it 
 appears wholly divested of obscurity. When the objector asks (v. 1), 
 whether we shall continue in sin, he means, beyond all doubt : ' Shall 
 we go on to sin? Shall we still continue the practice of it?' To 
 this question the apostle answers in the negative ; and this negative 
 he expresses by the phrase dnaduvo^tv trj u^uqtU(. This must 
 therefore mean : ' To refrain from the practice of sin, no longer to 
 
ROMANS (5: % 3. 251 
 
 continue in it.' It means just the opposite of Ct'jGOftfv fw aur?/, the 
 signification of which is, to continue in the practice of it. To become 
 dead to sin, or to die to sin, plainly means, then, to become insensible 
 to its influence, to be unmoved by it; in other words, to renounce 
 it and refrain from the practice of it. 
 
 That such is the condition of true Christians, the apostle now 
 proceeds to shew, by shewing what is implied by the very nature of 
 a Christian profession with its initiatory rites. 
 
 (3) ' £)3anrla0 'tj/ufv eig tov Xgiarov Itjaovv. The sense of this 
 depends on the meaning of the formula fiarrtl^eip fig xiva, — or 8un- 
 tlfeiv fig to ovoticc vivog. (a) In regard to (Jamifetv fig ro ovoftu, 
 the noun avowee is, no doubt, to be regarded as expletive ; as fUJ in 
 Hebrew often is. So in the Jewish formula of baptizing proselytes ; 
 if the proselyte was a servant, the master, at his baptism, made a 
 declaration whether he intended to make the servant free as a prose- 
 lyte, or to have him still remain a servant. This declaration was 
 made thus : "fnin ]z tntta bntt , he is baptized into the name of 
 freemen ; or 133> BTZJa 'i'Z'O , he is baptized into the name of a servant. 
 So Matt. 28: 19, baptized fig to ovofia tov TiaTpog, y.ul tov vlov, 
 v.al tov nvfv/iiuTog dyiov which is the same as baptized fig tov 
 TictTtga, xal tov viov, xul zo nvtv/iu to ayiov. Accordingly we 
 find ovof.iu omitted in our text, as also in 1 Cor. 10: 2. Gal. 3: 27 ; 
 it is used in Acts 8: 16. 19: 5. 1 Cor. 1:13, 15. 
 
 (6) The sense of the ichole formida is more difficult to be ascer- 
 tained. Most commentators, after Vitringa (Obs. Sac. III. 22), ex- 
 plain fig as meaning into the acknoivledgment of; with an implication 
 of affiance, subjection, discipleship, etc. But the formula in 1 Cor. 
 12: 13, nuvTfg fig fv au^ia f^unTiod}]^ifv, seems not to accord with 
 such an explanation. Here tig plainly means, participation; i. e. by 
 baptism we come to belong to one body, to participate in one body, to 
 be members of one body. In like manner, we may say, by baptism 
 we come to belong, (in a special and peculiar sense, no doubt), to 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; to Moses, 1 Cor. 10: 2; to Paul, 1 
 Cor. 1: 13. In this way all the passages may be construed alike, 
 and the sense in all will be good. The idea is, for substance, that 
 ' by baptism we become consecrated to any person or thing, appro- 
 priated (as it were) to any person or thing, so as to belong to him or 
 to it, in a manner peculiar and involving a special relation, and con- 
 sequent special duties and obligations.' 
 
 This sense is such an one as fits the passage under examination, 
 
252 ROMANS 6 : 3, 4. 
 
 Thus interpreted it would mean : ' As many of us as have become 
 devoted to Christ by baptism ; as many as have been consecrated to 
 Christ by baptism ; or been laid under peculiar obligations, or taken 
 upon them a peculiar relation to him, by being baptized.' 
 
 El? to v ■duvuTOv c/.viov i/jumi'o-drjuii 1 , we have been baptized 
 into his death, i. e. we have, as it were, been made partakers of his 
 death by baptism; we have come under a special relation to his 
 death ; we have engaged to die unto sin, as he died for it ; we have a 
 communion or participation in death to sin ; comp. Rom. 6: 6. Gal, 
 2: 19. The being baptized into his death is, therefore, an internal, 
 moral, spiritual thing; of which the external rite of baptism is only a 
 symbol; for the relation symbolized by baptism, is in its own nature 
 spiritual and moral. The participation in the death of Christ, of 
 which Paul here speaks, is surely something more than what is ex- 
 ternal ; it is of a moral or spiritual nature, of which the external rite 
 is merely a symbol. 
 
 (4) ^uvtTciqtiuiv oiv v.. r. ).., tee have been buried icith him, then, 
 hi) baptism into his death, i. e. we are (by being baptized into his 
 death) buried as he was, a v v nv.qr t iitv : where ovv means like, in 
 like manner with; comp. v. 6; also Rom. 8: 17. Col. 3: 1, where any 
 other sense of ovv is out of question; 2 Tim. 7: 11, to which the 
 same remark will apply. 
 
 Most commentators have maintained, that avveiaqiq^fv has here 
 a necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism, which, they say, 
 was by immersion ; and this, they think, affords ground for the em- 
 ployment of the image used by the apostle, because immersion (under 
 water) may be compared to burial (under the earth). It is difficult, 
 perhaps, to procure a patient re-hearing for this subject, so long 
 regarded by some as being out of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my 
 own conviction is not, after protracted and repeated examinations, 
 accordant here with that of commentators in general, I feel con- 
 strained briefly to state my reasons. 
 
 The first is, that in the verse before us there is a plain antithesis ; 
 one so plain that it is impossible to overlook it. If now ovvtiai(r r 
 fitv is to be interpreted in a physical way, i. e. as meaning baptism 
 in a physical sense, where is the corresponding physical idea, in the 
 opposite part of the antithesis or comparison ? Plainly there is no 
 such physical idea or reference in the other part of the antithesis. 
 The resurrection there spoken of, is entirely a moral, spiritual one ; 
 for it is one which Christians have already experienced, during the 
 
ROMANS 6: 4. 253 
 
 present life; as may be fully seen by comparing vs. 5, 11, below. I 
 take it for granted, tbat after ^(AiiQ in v. 4, (ysQ&t'vTeg is implied; 
 6ince tbe nature of the comparison, the preceding olg rjya'g&t] Xqio- 
 zog, and v. 5, make this entirely plain. 
 
 If we turn now to the passage in Col. 2: 12, (which is altogether 
 parallel with the verse under examination, and has very often been 
 agitated by polemic writers on the subject of baptism), we shall there 
 find more conclusive reason still, to argue as above respecting the 
 nature of the antithesis presented. "We have been buried with him 
 [Christ] by baptism. 1 ' What now is the opposite of this? What is 
 the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have 
 been buried ? The apostle tells us : " We have risen with him 
 [Christ], by faith wrought by the power of God [r>7? tvegytiag too 
 Otoe], who raised him [Christ] from the dead." Here, there is a 
 resurrection by faith, i. e. a spiritual, moral one. Why then should 
 we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis? If one part of the 
 antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral or spiritual, 
 why should we not construe the other in the like manner? To un- 
 derstand avv{Tccqii[.iti>, then, of a literal burial under water, is to 
 understand it in a manner which the laws of interpretation appear to 
 forbid. 
 
 (b) Nothing can be plainer, than that the word avv£Taqr]^f.v, in 
 Rom. G: 4, is equivalent in sense to the word «ne{)aioptv in v. S. 
 It seems to be adopted merely for the sake of rendering more striking 
 the image of a resurrection, which the apostle employs in the other 
 part of the antithesis. A resurrection from the grave is a natural 
 phrase, when one is speaking with respect to the subject of a resur- 
 rection; see John 5: 28, 29; comp. Dan. 12: 2. In accordance with 
 this statement, the context does most plainly speak, both in respect 
 to Rom. 6: 4, and Col. 2: 12. For in respect to Rom. 6: 4, the 
 apostle goes on in the very next verse, (as is usual with him), to pre- 
 sent the same idea which is contained in v. 4, in a different costume. 
 V. 5 (which is a mere epexegesis of v. 4) says: If we have been 
 homogeneous (cjt'ftCfuiot, like, of the same kind) with Christ in his 
 death, then shall we be in his resurrection. The same idea and 
 explanation is repeated in v. 8 — anf-Ouvo^ev — cv£fjO0[tii> ' and the 
 whole is summarily explained in v. 11 : So reckon ye yourselves to be 
 viy.govg /uti> T7] d[.iagTia, £Wr«£ dt ro> x)eto. 
 
 Exactly in the same manner has the apostle gone on to explain 
 ovvTuqtvTiQ in Col. 2: 12. In v. 13 he adds: You vckqovs in 
 
254 ROMANS 6: 4. 
 
 your offences .... ovvt^ownohiot, has he [God] made alive with him 
 [Christ], having forgiven us all our offences." 
 
 There can be no real ground for question, then, that by Gvvtto.qr r 
 Htv, in both cases, is meant neither more nor less than by ctnoftuvo- 
 fiev, vtxgoi, etc. The epexegesis added in both cases, seems to 
 make this quite plain. 
 
 The only reason, then, which I can find, why GvviTuqripfv is 
 preferred in Rom. 6: 4, and in Col. 2: 12, is, as has been suggested 
 above, that the language may be a fuller antithesis of the word resur- 
 rection, which is employed in the corresponding part of the compari- 
 son. "You who were [dead] buried with Christ," gives energy to 
 the expression. 
 
 (c) But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual exegesis of 
 Gvi'(iu(f7]fAfv is, that the image or figure of immersion, baptism, is, so 
 far as I know, nowhere else in Scripture employed as a symbol of bu- 
 rial in the grave. Nor can I think that it is a very natural symbol of 
 burial. The obvious import of washing with water, or immersing in 
 water, is, that it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification. But 
 how will this aptly signify burying in the grave, the place of corrup- 
 tion, loathsomeness, and destruction? 
 
 For these reasons, I feel inclined to doubt the usual exegesis of 
 the passage before us, and to believe that the apostle had in view only 
 a burying which is moral and spiritual; for the same reasons that he 
 had a moral and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view, in 
 the corresponding part of the antithesis. 
 
 Indeed what else but a moral burying can be meant, when the 
 apostle goes on to say : We are buried with him [not by baptism 
 only, but] by baptism into his death? Of course it will not be 
 contended, that a literal physical burying is here meant, but only a 
 moral one. And although the words, into his death, are not inserted 
 in Col. 2: 12 ; yet, as the following verse there shews, they are plainly 
 implied. In fact it is plain, that reference is here made to baptism, 
 because, when that rite was performed, the Christian promised to 
 renounce sin and to mortify all his evil desires, and thus to die unto 
 sin that he might live unto God. 1 cannot see, therefore, that there 
 is any more necessary reference here to the modus of baptism, than 
 there is to the modus of the resurrection. The one may as well be 
 maintained as the other. 
 
 I am aware, however, that one may say : 'I admit that the burial 
 with Christ has a moral sense, and only such an one ; but then the 
 
ROMANS (5:4. 255 
 
 language in which this idea is conveyed (avvi'raqrjuiv), is evi- 
 dently borrowed from the custom of immersion.' In reply to this, I 
 would refer to the considerations under (c) above. The possibility 
 of the usage I admit; but to shew that the image is natural, and 
 obvious, and that it is a part of Scripture usage elsewhere, is what 
 seems important, in order to produce entire satisfaction to the mind 
 of a philological inquirer. At any rate, I cannot at present think the 
 case to be clear enough, to entitle any one to employ this passage 
 with confidence, in a contest respecting the mode of baptism. 
 
 Atu Tf]Q d'ohjg (— liaia) glorious presence, i. e. glorious display 
 of power, might. The Hebrew T2> , might, power, is sometimes ren- 
 dered do'iu by the Seventy ; e. g. Ps. 68: 35 (67: 34). Is. 12: 2. The 
 idea really conveyed by did zijg do'itjg here, can be satisfactorily 
 explained, however, only by a reference to the Hebrew 1123 , which 
 was employed to designate the divine presence as being attended with 
 a supernatural brightness or splendor. In the same sense Jl^S'iB 
 was employed by the Rabbinic writers ; comp. Matt. 28 : 3. Luke 
 24: 4, which seem to disclose that to which did ztjg dotqg here re- 
 fers. Bretschneider (Lex.) has rendered the phrase, in Dei gloriam ; 
 a liberty which did before the Genitive does not seem to allow. Aid 
 signifying on account of, for the sake of, as an end or object, must 
 have the Accusative after it ; at least I have not been satisfied with 
 any proof which I have seen, that it admits the Genitive in such a 
 sense. Compare, as to sentiment, Col. 2: 12. Eph. 1: 19. 
 
 'JT(is7g [tytoVt'i'Ttg] ; which latter word plainly must be added 
 here, in order to make good the comparison commenced with r^yegdrj 
 above. 
 
 Ev xaivOTtjTt ztjg fw??? niQnxarr}(Ja(.i(:V, we [being raised from 
 the dead] should live a new life; i. e. as we have been made like unto 
 Christ in his death, so must we also in his resurrection, or, we^must, 
 like him, live a new life after our resurrection. See the explanation 
 given in v. 11. 
 
 It will occur to the distinguishing reader, at once, that the com- 
 parison here instituted by the apostle, is not one in all respects of like 
 loith like. Christ died for sin, i. e. on account of it, in order to make 
 expiation for it ; the believer dies to sin, that is, he mortifies, subdues 
 it, becomes insensible to its influence, or at least successfully resists 
 it. Christ had no sin of his own to mortify ; the believer's dying 
 consists in the mortification of his own sins. Even so it is with the 
 resurrection. Christ rose physically from the dead ; the believer, in 
 
256 ROMANS 6 : 4. 
 
 the present life, rises spiritually from a state of moral death. Christ 
 lived physically and naturally a new life ; the believer lives spiritually 
 and morally a new life. 
 
 On the whole, this is one of those cases of comparison, which, not 
 affording strict analogies throughout, can be brought to bear only in 
 a general v, ay, and will not stand the test of being urged into partic- 
 ulars. It were easy to bring many instances of the like nature from 
 the Scriptures; but the attentive reader will of course observe them. 
 Those who insist, in all cases, on exact similitudes throughout in 
 comparisons, will find difficulty here ; for nothing can be more evi- 
 dent, than that merely some general traits of similitude exist between 
 the two cases. Christ died for sin — a painful death ; the believer in 
 dying to sin suffers pain and distress, he ' crucifies the old man with 
 his deeds:' Christ died in order to destroy the power of sin; the 
 believer in becoming dead to sin, destroys its power or influence: 
 Christ rose from the dead to live in wholly a new state ; the believer 
 who is quickened, must also live in a new state. Here the similitude 
 ends; and here it should end, for the writer evidently did not design 
 to push it any farther. Turretin, in speaking of v. 4, says truly and 
 forcibly : " Non tarn est argumentum directum .... quam vivida 
 atque elegans hujus argumenti illustratio, et quasi pictura pro more 
 orientalium hominum ac specialiter Judaeorum, qui ejusmodi figuris 
 atque emblematibus plurimum delectabantur." 
 
 CHAP. VI. 5—11. 
 
 The main idea or essential features of the apostle's comparison being- thus 
 introduced, he now proceeds to expand the thought, and to present it in a 
 variety of costume appropriate to the nature of the case, and serving to 
 impress the whole upon the mind of the reader. (1) We have been intimately 
 connected (or/ucpvTOt, lit. grown unitedly) with Christ as to his decth, i. e. we 
 have died in respect to sin, as he died on account of it; and consequently we 
 must be like him as to rising from a state of death to a new life, v. 5. (2) Our 
 old man, i. e. our sinful passions and desires, is crucified, for the very purpose 
 that our bodies which incline us to sin should no more be subject to the power 
 of sin ; for (to carry the figure through) he who is dead, is freed from sin ; 
 consequently we, being dead to sin, should be freed from its power, vs. 6, 7. 
 (3) If then we are in fact dead with Ciirist, i. e. if we have died to sin as he 
 died for it, we must believe of course that we shall live with him, i. e. live a 
 new life, as he lived a new one ; for as Christ, when once risen from the dead, 
 could no more be subject to the dominion of death, (since he could die on 
 account of sin but once), and as he now lives forever a divine and heavenly 
 life, so Christians must die once for all to sin, i. e. renounce it forever, and 
 live continually unto God, i. e. live a holy and heavenly life, vs. 8 — 11 . 
 
 The reader will see, that the same idea for substance is kept before the 
 mind, through vs. 5 — 11. But he will also see, that there are shades of differ 
 
ROMANS 6: 5, 6. 257 
 
 ence in the diction and method of illustration. V. 5, for example, presents the 
 simple idea, in a generic way, of being connected with Christ as to his death 
 and resurrection. Vs. C, 7, present the specific idea of crucifying our old man 
 (as Christ was crucified), in order that, being put to death, he might no more 
 lead us to sin. Vs. 8 — 11 present the general notion of dying and living with 
 Christ, i. e. as he did, but with the accessory idea, that as he died once for all, 
 and can never die again but lives forever a new life, so we must, in dying to 
 sin, die once for all, i. e. renounce it for ever, and ever live a new life. — How 
 then, (for such is the question implied at the close of all this), can Christians 
 continue in sin that grace may abound? There is no foundation for this 
 objection. 
 
 (5) El y o. (j oiifiqvioc yt yuvupsv, if ive have been made homogeneous, 
 if ice have been connected together. So ovftqvrot must be explained, 
 if philology is to be the guide. JEvpcpvTog and GVfAqwiS appear to be 
 synonymous ; and both mean grown up together, sprung up together, 
 and so secondarily, intimately connected together, etc. Of the whole 
 grain, growing together in one field, the Greeks would say : It is 
 ov/.tqviog. The evident meaning here is the same as ofiOiog, homo- 
 geneous, or participating in, intimately connected with; therefore we 
 may render : If we have become connected or homogeneous, by a like- 
 ness in respect to his death, too {rui-caov being the Gen. objecli, i. e. 
 the object in respect to which we have become like to Christ. The 
 meaning is : If we have become dead to sin, as he died for sin ; then 
 shall we in like manner live a new life, when risen from our [moral] 
 death, as he lived a new one after his resurrection. 
 
 'Alio. y.ul, then surely ; aklu, certe, profecto, sane (dU.a affirman- 
 tis) ; at the same time contrast is implied between the part of the 
 sentence to which dU.u is prefixed, and the preceding part. — L'oofti- 
 ■&u, in the Fut. tense, but here designating a time future to that in 
 which Christians were made to resemble Christ as to his death. Sen- 
 timent : ' After we have died to sin, we must henceforth live in a new 
 state.' Or the Fut. tGOfii&a may be regarded here as expressive of 
 obligation ; for so the Fut. is not unfrequently employed ; e. g. Matt. 
 4: 10. Luke 3: 10, 12, 14. Judg. 13: 13, 14 (Sept.). Deut. 6:5 
 (Sept.). Matt. 22: 37, 39. Lev. 19: 17, IS (Heb. and Sept.). That 
 the apostle does not mean here to argue merely that Christians 
 should, at some future period, become alive to God, is clear from 
 v. 11. 
 
 (6) ToIto yiio')c>-/.ovitg, knotting this, i. e. we acknowledge, 
 concede, or consider as established, thus much, viz. what is immedi- 
 ately mentioned in the sequel. 
 
 'O Tif.Xuto; ifaajv uvVnomog, our old man, a phrase of Jewish 
 origin, no doubt. Thus in the Talmud it is said of proselytes, that 
 33 
 
o 5 3 ROMANS 6: 6. 
 
 "they became as little children" (Jemavoth. fol. 62. 1) ; and they are 
 also called a new creation, iTiShtt ^T"^ • This serves to shew, that 
 when our Saviour spoke to Nicodemus, of the necessity of being born 
 again ; and when Paul spake of him who is in Christ as being a neto 
 creature (ttcuvt] xrioig);, there is no probability, that the language 
 employed by them was unusual or strange among the Jews. The 
 nukuiog uvtfoomog here seems plainly to mean, the internal man, 
 i. e. the sinful desires and propensities which belong to us in a 
 natural or unrenewed state. The epithet -jiulaiog (old) is given, in 
 opposition to the new spiritual man, which is put on in Christ Jesus. 
 
 ^uviGTuvQoj&ii, is crucified as he [Christ] was, literally, is cruci- 
 fied with him. On the comparative meaning of aw in composition, 
 see on nvv£Tuq:rif.iiv under v. 4. Meaning : ' The sinful desires and 
 propensities of the natural man are mortified and subdued in the 
 Christian, so that they will no longer have a predominant influence 
 over his conduct.' Not improbably, the apostle, in choosing the 
 word ovvtOTuv(joj&7i here, might have an allusion in his mind, to the 
 painful and protracted struggle which every Christian must go 
 through, in subduing his carnal desires. Certainly the word is very 
 significant, when viewed in this light. 
 
 KuiagyrjOrj, might be deprived of efficiency, might be destroyed, 
 i. e. might be deprived of sinful vigour, power, life ; might be ren- 
 dered inefficacious, or be disabled any more from causing sin. 
 
 To aiufia. rijg duaoiiag, (locus vexatus) is explained by Ham- 
 mond, Schcettgen, Glass, Tholuck, and others, by referring it to the 
 Hebrew idiom; in which QSS and 7\1X {substance and body) are 
 often employed either in a kind of superfluous manner, or (which is 
 the more usual fact) in order to add intensity to the expression. This 
 interpretation well fits the sense of the passage. Explained in this 
 manner, the whole runs thus : ' Our old man, i. e. our carnal natural 
 man, is crucified as Christ was, in order that the substance or es- 
 sence of our sinful passions might be destroyed.' 
 
 Another explanation is admissible. -2w,k« in some cases has the 
 same meaning as oug'i,' comp. Rom. 7: 24. 8: J3; and taking uf.tag- 
 riag here as an adjective, we may translate : In order that our sinful 
 desires and lusts might be destroyed. Tholuck objects to this as tau- 
 tology ; but if it be so, then there is abundance of tautology in all 
 parts of the Bible. Comp. Rom. 7: 5 and 8: 3, where is an expres- 
 sion exactly equivalent; viz. aceaxog dficcQtlag. See also Rom. 7: 25, 
 OMftuTOQ davdiov. 
 
ROMANS G : G. 259 
 
 The true solution of the difficulty, as it seems to me, lies in the sen- 
 timent of the apostle here in the context, with respect to the body or 
 fleshly part of man. He regards it, and speaks of it, as the seat and 
 cause of passions and desires which war against the soul, and bring 
 destruction upon it; e. g. Rom. C: 12, "Let not sin reign in your 
 mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof" (aviov, sc. oo>(*a- 
 Tog). Here it is the lusts of the body, which are represented as con- 
 stituting the reign or dominion of sin. So in Rom. 7: 24, too owfici- 
 rog iov {lurarov tovtov means, the body which occasions this death 
 or condemnation (Oavutov Gen. effectus). So again in Rom. 8: 13, 
 we have lag ngu'ieig zou aro/jatog-, the deeds (sins) of which the body 
 is the cause or occasion, (aoj/nuTog, Gen. causae vel auctoris). The 
 idea is the very same which is expressed by the apostle in Rom. 7: 
 23, when he speaks of" the law in our members, which wars against 
 the law of the mind." 
 
 With these ideas and phrases in view, let us observe now that the 
 apostle has just spoken of crucifying the old man. And what is the 
 object ? Plainly in order that this old man might be put to death, 
 i. e. mortified, subdued, rendered inactive or inefficient as to its 
 influence over us. He means a moral crucifixion plainly, and not a 
 natural or physical one. Nothing seems to be plainer, then, than 
 that to awfttt zijg dfiupriug means the same as 6 nukuiog uvQqwtioq. 
 Both of course mean the natural internal man; the sinful, unsancti- 
 fied, internal man, in opposition to the regenerated and holy one. 
 'Let us crucify the old man,' says the apostle, 'in order that he may 
 lose all power over us, I'vu xarayytjd >], that he may be deprived of all 
 influence, or that he may be destroyed. But instead of repeating the 
 phrase 6 nukcuog avdQwiiog a second time, he substitutes ooj^u 
 ttfitngxiag in its room, as being altogether an equivalent for it. And 
 thus viewed, all is plain. Zmjau df-iugilug is the nulaiog uvOgomog 
 which excites to sin ; and which, therefore, the spirit of the gospel 
 requires should be crucified. Tholuck thinks it would be incongru- 
 ous to speak of our body as being destroyed. But not to insist that 
 y.aTupytjftt] is not confined to such a sense, (it is not indeed the 
 leading or primary one), it is enough to say, that the body here, as 
 merely flesh and blood, i. e. as merely physical, is not the object of 
 the apostle's contemplation. So CEcumenius : To oo~)[a<x tj;£ a/nug- 
 ■tiag — negiqgaoitxwg' avri] upuQiia. It is either mere circumlo- 
 cution for sin itself; or it is the body merely as the cause or occasion 
 of sinning ; and just so far as it is so, it should be mortified and ren- 
 
o 60 ROMANS 6 : 6, 7. 
 
 dered inefficacious. Comp. in respect to the like sentiment, 1 Cor. 
 9: 27; and exactly the same idea is found in Rom. 8: 13, tug tiqu- 
 £ttg iov ocofAUiog fiuvaiovit. 
 
 'yjfAaQxiu here is used in a personal way ; comp. vs. 10 — 14. 
 This removes the objection of Tholuck to the exegesis suggested 
 above, viz. that if wopa dpugzlug means sinful body, then the apos- 
 tle must have said uino [not tjpug] dovXevstv. What hinders us 
 from understanding the apostle to say : ' This body, as the cause of 
 sin, must be mortified and subdued, in order thatw?e may no more be 
 the servants of sin V 
 
 Too /t/jxfYt dovXfveiv i][*ug n, uj.iu.qtiu, that we should no more 
 be servants to sin. Tov .... dovXiveiv, instead of Mart doulivav 
 for in this latter way the Greeks usually express themselves. There 
 are, indeed, examples of such a use of tov before the Infinitive, even 
 in classic Greek authors ; see Buttmann's Gr. Gram. § 127. b. Anm. 
 1. But the frequency of this usage in the New Testament and Sep- 
 tuagint in the sense of that, in order that, which must be assigned 
 to rov in some of these cases, seems to have its basis in the use of V 
 before the Infinitive in Hebrew, where it may signify either design, 
 object, or end, event, consequence. For a full exhibition of this sub- 
 ject, with abundance of examples of all the different shades of usage, 
 see Winer, Gramm. N. Test. § 45. 4. 
 
 (7) This verse may be regarded as a kind of general maxim or 
 truth, in regard to all such as die physically or naturally. The ob- 
 ject of the writer is, to draw a comparison between the effects of na- 
 tural death, and those of spiritual death ; the first causes men to 
 cease from all actions, and of course from their transgressions ; and by 
 analogy we may conclude, that the second, which is a death unto sin, 
 will do as much. The saying, in its physical sense, was probably a 
 proverbial one among the Jews. Thus in the Talmud, it is said : 
 " When a man dies, he is freed from the commands." Tract. Nidda. 
 Now what is said by the common proverb adduced by the apos- 
 tle, in a physical respect, (and correctly said in the sense intended 
 to be conveyed), the apostle means to intimate will apply, in a spir- 
 itual respect, to one who is spiritually dead as to sin, i. e. he must 
 become free from its influence. His great object is to illustrate and 
 enforce this point. The yuo with which the proverb is introduced, 
 is yug illustrantis vel confrmantis. 
 
 'O yug uno&uviDv is understood by some, as referring here to a 
 moral death unto sin ; so that the verse is supposed to mean : ' He 
 
ROMANS 6:7,8. 261 
 
 who is dead to sin, is freed from its influence.' The objection to 
 this is, that it would seem to be a tautology, i. e. a mere repeti- 
 tion, or nearly so, of the preceding verse. Bretschneider (Lex. 
 diy.uiou)) has proposed a singular exegesis : " Qui mortuus est, 
 absolutus habendus est a poena mortis, nimirum quum poenam 
 peccati (i.e. descensum in Haden) jam tulerit." How he who has 
 gone down to Hades, and is there still, is freed a poena mortis, I do 
 not perceive ; nor is this exegesis applicable to the case in hand, for 
 the question here is not about freeing from the penalty of sin, but 
 from its power; the apostle is treating of sanctif cation, not of justifi- 
 cation. On this ground the exposition of Alting, Wolf, Carpzov, and 
 others, which gives to unoftatHtiv here the sense of an expiatory death, 
 (by virtue of being like to Christ in his death), and so makes didtxui- 
 o)tui utto T),g uiiuon'ug mean, 'is acquitted from the penalty of sin/ 
 must be rejected ; although other reasons might be urged against it. 
 I must understand dtdixulanai, therefore, in the sense already in- 
 timated above, viz., freed, delivered from. Nothing is more common 
 in the writings of Paul than the use of dixuiooy in the sense of acquit' 
 ting, freeing, viz. from the sentence or penalty of the law, etc. But 
 here the idea is more general, and is equivalent to that conveyed by 
 iktv&SQOtOj which is substituted in its room, in v. 18 below. Com- 
 pare 1 Pet. 4: 1, o tiu-Qojv tv aaoxl, m'naviui ufxaQxtag. In Sirach 
 26: 29, we read: ov dixcciojOtjoerut xccntjhog ctno ufiupTtag, aped- 
 lar toill not be freed from sin, meaning that in the course of his busi- 
 ness he will almost of course be led to contract guilt. 
 
 Thus explained, v. 6 asserts the fact, that in case the old man ia 
 crucified, Christians can no more be engaged in the service of sin. 
 V. 7 enforces this declaration by a simile drawn from natural or phy- 
 sical death ; viz. as he who is physically dead, ceases from all action, 
 and therefore from sin, so he who is dead to sin (for this apodosis 
 is implied), ceases from the practice of it. What is said literally of 
 the one — literal death, is said morally or spiritually of the other death, 
 which is of a moral nature. It hardly needs to be added here, that 
 when the apostle speaks of natural death as freeing us from sin, he 
 means from sinning here, in our present state and condition. What 
 may be the condition of the soul in a future world, is not here an ob- 
 ject either of inquiry or of assertion. 
 
 (8) In order to understand the nicer shades of the apostle's dis- 
 course here, the reader must cast his eye back upon vs. 5 — 7, and 
 re-eurvey the course of thought, which is this : ' We are dead with 
 
262 ROMANS 6: 9, 10. 
 
 Christ, and we shall live with him [in the sense explained above] ; 
 for if we are made like him in the first respect, then we must be in 
 the second. That such must be the case, follows from the fact that 
 our old man is crucified, and we are thus freed from the power of sin, 
 and can no longer serve it.' Vs. 5 — 7 are therefore merely an illus- 
 tration or confirmation of v. 4 ; and accordingly ti yuy and 6 yag, 
 the usual signs of clauses added for such a purpose, here make their 
 appearance. But v. 8 commences with an el dt, which here devel- 
 opes one of the nicer shades of meaning. At is not unfrequently em- 
 ployed as a confirmative of the discourse ; and particularly, where 
 the theme before introduced is resumed, and something added by way 
 of illustration or confirmation; in which case we may call it dt re- 
 sumptionis. Here the apostle resumes the sentiment of v. 4, (Tur- 
 retin and Tholuck say, of v. 5, overlooking the yug confirmantis of 
 v. 5), for the sake of adding a new circumstance by way of establish- 
 ing his position, viz. that as Christ died but once, and thenceforth 
 lives for ever a new life, so the believer dies once for all to sin, when 
 he truly dies to it ; so that he must ever after live a new life, and no 
 more practise sin as he once did. 
 
 For the sense of am-davofiiv aui' Xgtaro) and <Jv£)]cso/.itP uuico, 
 see on v. 4 above ; where also the whole nature of the comparison is 
 stated. 
 
 Eidoitg on is employed here in the same way that iovto yivwa- 
 xovrtg is in v. 6, and for the same purpose, viz. as prefatory to the in- 
 troduction of matter that was confessedly obvious and true. This 
 form of speech is equivalent to saying : 'What I have now asserted 
 must be true, inasmuch as you know this or that to be true, from 
 which my position is a plain and necessary deduction.' 
 
 Ovxt'u uno&vijoutt, dies no more, i. e. will nevermore die. The 
 whole force of the illustration hangs on these two words ; for in these 
 consists the additional matter which the apostle introduces. — &avu- 
 rog .... •Avgitvti, death has no more dominion over him; merely a 
 repetition of the preceding declaration, in different language, in order 
 to give it intensity. As to the sentiment here and in v. 10, comp. 
 Heb. 9: 25— 28. 10:11—14. One is strongly tempted to believe, 
 that the same hand traced all these passages, from the peculiar shade 
 of sentiment which is found in them. They mutually illustrate and 
 confirm each other. 
 
 (10) 6 y<xQ .... iyunu'i, for in respect to his dying, he died on 
 account of sin once for all, or only once. The construction of 6 (neu- 
 
ROMANS 6 : 10. 263 
 
 ter pronoun) here, is rather unusual in the New Testament; comp. 
 Gal. 2: 20 for a like example. For its use in the classics, see Matth. 
 Gramm. II. 894. Like the corresponding Latin quod thus placed, it 
 means in respect to this, viz. that what is immediately subjoined ; 
 which here is uniOuvt. — Fu(j illustrantis vel confnnantis, the verse 
 being designed to confirm the preceding affirmation. 
 
 Tr t auuoTt'a unt&uvfi', he died to sin. But " he who knew no 
 sin," could not die to sin in the sense that sinful men do. The use 
 of the Dative, in order to signify on account of , for the sake of, is not 
 strange ; Eurip. Androm. V. 334, Tt'&vyxa tjj orj &vyazQi,Idiefor 
 the sake of your daughter. The Dativus causae vel occasionis also 
 is not unfrequent, e.g. Rom. 11: 20, 30 ; and this might be applied 
 to the expression before us, in case it stood alone, in the following 
 way, viz. Christ died on account of the sins of men, i. e. they were the 
 occasion of his death, and he died in order to expiate them. But 
 then we could not well interpret £y rw Oiai which follows, in like 
 manner ; and therefore we cannot admit this solution. The true 
 solution, after all, seems to be the general principle of the Dative, 
 which is designed to express an object to which the action of the 
 verb stands related, but not the object on which it directly terminates. 
 This last is marked by the Accusative case after transitive verbs. 
 Here the dying expressed by untdavtv bears a relation to ry u/napTicc. 
 This is designated by the Dative of this noun. But what the kind of 
 relation is, the Dative does not of itself designate. This must be 
 gathered from the context, or from the nature of the case. And here 
 the sense requires us to construe Christ's dying to sin, as meaning 
 that he died in order to diminish its power or influence, (Dat. incom- 
 modi, as the grammarians express themselves in such a case). — Eqa- 
 tt«J, lit. for once; but the meaning is, as we say in English, once 
 for cdl. 
 
 "O dt £rj, £/? rep ftfai, but in respect to his living, he lives to God. 
 As this clause is an antithesis of the former, so the Dative here is an 
 antithesis of the one there employed ; for here it is a species of the 
 Dativus commodi (as grammarians call it), the meaning being evi- 
 dently that 'Christ lives to the honour and glory of God.' For such 
 a sense of the Dative, and in a like case, comp. Rom. 14: 6 — 8. See 
 also 2 Cor. 5: 13. Matt. 3: 16. Luke 1: 55. 12: 21. The case in 
 Luke 20: 38, nttvteg yag aviot £w<uv, resembles the present one in 
 form, but not in sense, inasmuch as avuo (sc. <&ito) appears to mean 
 by him. 
 
264 ROMANS 6: 10—12. 
 
 Theophylact paraphrases tw dtuj by it-- r/J dvva^ei tov fttou' 
 which spoils the sense in its present connection. Oecurnenius says: 
 " He lives by his divine nature ;" which is equally inapposite. The 
 Dativus commodi is, therefore, the preferable principle. So Demos- 
 thenes : ovx uia'/uvovrou 0ih'niTO) £an<rf£, they are not ashamed, 
 who live for the advantage of Philip. 
 
 (11) Now follows the comparison of the members with the head. 
 O'vxoi y.ou .... &eto, in like manner you also must account yourselves 
 dead to sin, but alive to God. For the sense of vwqovq r/; or/<«or7«, 
 see on v. 2. above. — Zatvxag iut Otw has here the same sense as in 
 the preceding verse. 
 
 The only difficulties that seem to remain, are, (l) That the com- 
 parison in vs. 10, 11, between Christ and believers, will not hold in 
 the same sense. On this I have already remarked under v. 4. 
 (2) That Christ lived to God, in the sense here supposed to be as- 
 serted, before his resurrection, as well as after it. How then can the 
 apostle be supposed to assert what would imply, that it was only after 
 his resurrection that he lived to God ? The answer to this is virtual- 
 ly exhibited in the context. The apostle has said that Christ died to 
 sin, once for all; death has no more dominion over him. Now as his 
 living to God is placed in antithesis to this, the necessary implication 
 is, that he lives to him in such a way as to have no more concern with 
 suffering and sorrow on account of sin, he lives to him in a state that 
 is new, and the happiness of which is not interrupted by sin. In like 
 manner, believers are to become dead to sin, i. e. to be unaffected by 
 its solicitations, and alive to God, i.e. devoted in heart and life to the 
 honour and glory of God, or living in a state in which God, and not 
 sin, shall be the chief object of all their regard. 
 
 In the case of Christ's living to God, the meaning is, that he is 
 forever exempt from the troubles and sorrows which dying for sin 
 gave him ; believers live to God, when they are exempt from being 
 led astray through the solicitations and influence of sin. All this is 
 to be attained iv X. Jtjooii, through Jesus Christ, for ' his is the 
 only name given under heaven among men, whereby we can attain 
 to such a happy condition.' — 7(;7 xvgiqt t]^6)v is marked by Knapp 
 as being spurious. It matters nothing to the sense of the passage in 
 general, whether it be received or rejected. 
 
 (12) Out', therefore, i.e. all this being true which I have said, it 
 follows that sin ought not to reign, etc. — BuncXfvt'ro), reign, predomi- 
 nate, have rule; see on 5: 17. — Tut \rpr}iw v/ncov atu/turi, in your 
 
ROMANS 6: 12, 13. 205 
 
 mortal body. The word frvrjiqi has given occasion here to a variety 
 of exegesis. I regard the appellation as designating our physical, 
 fleshly hodies, and the whole phrase, &i/T]Tat aoiiiuri, as equivalent to 
 ouy't, or ouy'i xul aliia. The reason why the apostle calls the body 
 &vqTOv, seems to be, that he may present, in an impressive manner, 
 the sin and folly of permitting the lusts and passions of a frail, per- 
 ishable body, to have dominion over the soul. The ground why lie 
 speaks of one body as the seat of reigning sin, is, that carnal lusts 
 and desires have great influence in leading men to sin. Comp. with 
 the sentiment here, Rom. 7: 5, 23, 24. 8: 3, 6, 7. See also the re- 
 marks on to gmiiu c/}, upugziug, v. 6 above. 
 
 Elg ru viraxoveiv .... uutov, i. e. let not sin have such a pre- 
 dominance, as to yield obedience to its dictates. There seems to be 
 a tacit acknowledgment in the form of this expression, that sinful ap- 
 petites are not extinguished in the believer ; he must keep them in sub- 
 jection, but he does not wholly extinguish them. Fact accords with 
 this. 
 
 Ta?g ini'&Vfitaig ccuiov is rejected by Griesbach, but admitted 
 by Knapp ; and with good reason, as it seems to me ; for the con- 
 struction appears to be incomplete without it. 
 
 (13) riugiaTui'itf, proffer, give up, devote, afford. Mt'lii means 
 literally, the members of the body. This verse, then, is only a virtual 
 repetition of the preceding one, in different language, and for the 
 sake of intensity. — 7'/; diiaytta connects with (.o) -nuyioiavat, give 
 not up to sin, i. e. to sinful lust or desire, your members as instruments 
 of iniquity, i. e. as instruments of doing that which is sinful. 
 
 'J'vi ■&£(£, being arranged immediately after nagaaz>jGurs here, 
 shews that rj] u/.iugria in the clause above is to be constructed in 
 like manner. — '£2g est vsxqwp £wVr«e?, as alive from the dead, i. e. as 
 raised from the dead; comp. Eph. 2: 1, 5. The ground of this figu- 
 rative language is easily found in vs. 3 — 11. That moral life and 
 death are here meant, the reader scarcely needs to be reminded. 
 
 Kal ru (Atkt) [jiuouoctjOctTf] . . . . to] 'Off), give up to God your 
 members, as instruments of righteousness ; viz. as instruments of do- 
 ing that which is lawful and right. Tta Jfw is construed here by 
 some, as a Dativus commodi ; i. e. as instruments of doing that which 
 is right and proper, for God, viz. for the glory and honour of God. 
 Tholuck prefers this construction. But analogy with the preceding 
 clause seems plainly to require a different one, viz. such as I have 
 given in the translation above. 
 34 
 
26(3 ROMANS 6: 14. 
 
 (14) ' A^iagrlu ydg .... iivgi-ivatt, for sin shall not have domin- 
 ion over you. The ydg here makes no little difficulty ; yet com- 
 mentators in general have passed it by, without even noticing it. It 
 is clearly not the ydo respondents ; nor yet is it the ydg illustrantis 
 vcl explicantis, for a neiv declaration is introduced in this verse, a 
 new subject, and not merely an explication of one already introduced. 
 That Christians will not sin because they are under grace, i. e. that 
 grace is a direct and efficient means of preventing sin, is a new at- 
 titude of the writer's subject, first presented in this verse. I see no 
 way, then, of accounting for the yag here, except in the manner so 
 amply and ably illustrated in Bretschn. Lex. yag, 1. b, where he 
 shews that ydg is often introduced by a writer or speaker, in con- 
 nection with what is implied in his discourse, but not expressed, 
 i. e. there is an ellipsis of some part of the sentiment, with which 
 ydg stands connected. So here, the ellipsis may be completed by 
 supplying [xat tovto TioiqatTf, or y.al nagaortjoeie iutnovg], auag- 
 Tta ydg v.. r. X. That the sense of the verse is prediction, promise, 
 (and not simply command or obligation), I must believe, with the 
 great body of commentators, e. g. Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, 
 Theodoret, Melancthon, Erasmus, Calvin, etc. Consequently I can- 
 not regard yag here as causal in respect, to the preceding com- 
 mands which are expressed in v. 13 ; for then the matter would stand 
 thus: 'Be not the servants of sin, because you shall not be the ser- 
 vants of sin.' But if ydg depends on such a clause (mentally suppli- 
 ed) as I have indicated above, then all is plain : 'Ye will give up 
 yourselves to God, for sin shall not have dominion over you;' i. e. sin 
 shall not be able to prevent your doing so, inasmuch as ye are not 
 under the law, but under grace. 
 
 Ov xvptcvoM means, to have a predominant influence, to hold 
 dominion over you, as a master does over his slave ; comp. vs. 16 — 18. 
 
 Ov yag iace .... ydgir, for ye are not under law, but under 
 grace; an expression much contested, and not unfrequently mis- 
 understood. The simple meaning seems to me plainly to be : ' Ye 
 are not under a legal dispensation, but a gracious one.' This is a 
 general proposition, and one which the reader will hardly be able 
 to understand, without reading the whole remainder of this chapter 
 and also chapters VII. VIII. By so doing he will see, that the apostle 
 means to assert the incompetency of the law to furnish the requisite 
 means for the sanctification of the sinner in his present condition. 
 See in particular 7: 1 — 5, 9 — 11. 8: 3, 4. The confidence of Paul, 
 
ROMANS 6: 14. 267 
 
 that sin would not have dominion over Christians, was wholly re- 
 posed in the grace proffered by the gospel. He well knew, that no 
 strictness of precept, no authority of law, no sanctions of it however 
 awful, would effectually deter men from sin. He has shewn, in chap. 
 VII., that the law instead of doing this, is even the occasion of the 
 sinner's being plunged into deeper guilt and condemnation, than he 
 would otherwise be. How then can it deliver either from the power 
 or the penalty of sin 1 It can do neither. The latter of these he haa 
 abundantly shewn, in chap. I — IV. The former is what he now de- 
 signs to assert, and what he goes on to illustrate and to confirm. 
 
 To say, with some commentators, that vno vofxov refers only to 
 the ceremonial law, would be to give the passage a sense frigid and 
 inept. Where, in all the sequel down to the end of chap. VIII., is 
 there any thing which reminds us that the discussion here has relation 
 merely to the ceremonial law? Does not chap. VII. 5 — 25 most ful- 
 ly contradict such a view of the subject ? The law there discussed, is 
 not only " holy, just, and good," but it is the internal moral law, the 
 vo/nog too voog (v. 23), it is a vopog nviv/uxTixog (v. 14). 
 
 But the question is asked : How can it be true that Christians are 
 not under the law ? The Saviour did not come to abolish the moral 
 law ; nay, he came that it might be fulfilled (Matt. 5: 17, 18) ; how can 
 it then be said that we are not under the moral law ? 
 
 My answer is, that this is not designed to be said. Every expres- 
 sion of such a nature as the one under examination, is of course to be 
 understood according to the circumstances and intention of the writer. 
 Paul had to do with Jewish legalists. And what was their doctrine ? 
 It was, that salvation is attainable by legal obedience, not in theory on- 
 ly, but in an actual and practical way, i. e. as a matter of fact. It was 
 moreover, that the law by its precepts, its restraints, and its penalties 
 was an adequate and effectual means of sanctification. The first part 
 of this scheme, the apostle has overthrown in chap. I — IV ; the last 
 part he is now employed in overthrowing. How he does this, the rea- 
 der may see, by reperusing the illustration of the general course of 
 thought, prefixed to the present chapter. 
 
 Now that Christians are not under the law, either as an actual, ef- 
 fectual, adequate means of justification or sanctification, is true. If they 
 are so, their case is utterly hopeless ; for ruin must inevitably ensue. 
 That they are not so, the apostle asserts in the verse under considera- 
 tion. And from the sequel of his remarks (6: 15 — 8: 39), it is plain that 
 this is all which he means. What can be plainer, than that the moral 
 law as precept, is altogether approved and recognized by him ? See 
 chap. 7: 12 — 14. Nay, so far is the apostle from pleading for abolition 
 or repeal of moral precept, that he asserts directly (8: 3, 4), that the 
 gospel is desigued to secure obedience to these precepts ; which the law 
 itself was unable to do. 
 
2G8 ROMANS 6 : 15, 10. 
 
 it is then from the law viewed in this light, and this only, viz. as inad- 
 equate to effect the sanctifieatiou and secure the obedience of sinners, 
 that the apostle here declares us to be free. Who can object to this ? 
 Or if any one should object, how is he to answer the arguments which 
 the apostle has adduced in the sequel, in order to confirm his declara- 
 tion ? 
 
 Let no one then abuse this declaration, by imagining that it in any 
 measure affords ground to believe, that Christians are freed from obliga- 
 tion to obey the precepts of the moral law ? What is the divine law, 
 but a transcript of the divine will ? And are not Christians to be con- 
 formed to this ? Is not all the law summed up in these two declara- 
 tions : " Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine heart ; and thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself?" And are Christians absolved from loving God and 
 their neighbour ? If not, then this part of the subject stands unembar- 
 rassed by any thing which the apostle has said in our text or context. 
 Indeed, when rightly viewed, there is no ground at all for embarrass- 
 ment. 
 
 I will only suggest, in addition, that vno -/dqiv implies, that Chris- 
 tians are placed in a condition or under a dispensation, of which grace 
 is the prominent feature ; grace to sanctify as well as renew the heart ; 
 grace to purify the evil affections ; grace to forgive offences though of- 
 ten repeated, and thus to save from despair, and to excite new efforts of 
 obedience. 
 
 Viewed in this light, there is abundant reason for asserting, that Chris- 
 tians, under a system of grace, will much more effectually throw off the 
 dominion of sin, than they would do if under a mere law-dispensation. 
 
 (15) Ti ovv ; . . . . yaQtv ; What then ? Shall ice sin, because we are 
 not under the law but under grace ? i. e. What shall we say to this? 
 viz. what he had just asserted. Shall we conclude that one may 
 sin, etc. ? The first impression made by the declaration of the apos- 
 tle, we might easily suppose, would lead the legalist to such a con- 
 clusion. 'Is not the law,' he would ask, 'holy? Does it not forbid 
 all sins? And does not grace forgive sin ? How then can grace re- 
 strain sin V That is, why may we not sin, if we are under grace mere- 
 ly, and not under the law ? But this question the apostle follows with 
 a urj ytvotro' and then goes on to illustrate and confirm the impor- 
 tant truth which he had uttered in v. 14. 
 
 (16) Ova o'iduTf ; Know ye not? i. e. I take it for granted that ye 
 know and believe. The reader will not fail to mark how often the 
 apostle introduces this and the like expressions, as a preface to mat- 
 ters which he knows are well understood and assented to by those 
 whom he addresses ; see tovto yivoxstcovreg v. 6, and eidong v. 9. 
 
 "On w . . . . vnuxovtTt, that to whomsoever ye give up yourselves 
 as servants bound to obey, ye are the servants of him whom ye obey. 
 
ROMANS 6: 16. 26<> 
 
 ^JovXovg rig vnuxot'iv means, servants for the sake of obedience, 
 servants obedient, ready, or bound to obey, devoted to obedience ; tig 
 before the Accusative denotes purpose, object, intention, obligation. 
 AovXoi tare, i.e. when you have once given up yourselves to any one 
 as dovkovg tig vnaxoijv, you are no longer your own masters, or at 
 your own disposal ; you have put yourselves within the power and at 
 the disposal of another master." When the reader calls to mind the 
 extent of a master's power over his slave or servant, in the days of 
 Paul, he will perceive the strength of the expressions here. 
 
 Jliot (Xf.iu(jTtag .... dtxaiooiwriv, whether of sin unto death, or 
 of obedience unto justification; i. e. ye are servants, when once ye 
 are given up, either to sin or to righteousness. If ye give up your- 
 selves as servants of sin, then you must expect the consequence to be 
 death ;. for "the wages of sin is death," v. 23. Once devoted to sin, 
 and continuing to be so, you cannot avoid the end of it, which is 
 death. But if you are the servants of that obedience which is unto 
 justification, i. e. which is connected with justification, which ends 
 in it, then you may expect eternal life (s"o>//V uiinviov, v. 22). The 
 argument intended to be urged by these representations, is, that when 
 the Christian has once given himself up as the servant of grace, he 
 will of course, if sincere, yield obedience to its dictates ; and these 
 are such as will lead eig dixcuoavviqv, to justification. That such is 
 the meaning of this last phrase here, seems to me quite clear from 
 its being the antithesis of tig davaxov. How the construction of 
 these passages could have been a matter of so much dissension and 
 doubt among commentators, as it has been, I cannot well conceive. 
 When I compare the very explicit epexegesis of the whole in vs. 2J, 
 22, where £Yo>?j/ ulotviov is substituted for dixaioavvijv in v. 16, all 
 seems to be plain and easy. Yet if the reader will consult even the 
 commentaries of Tholuck and Flatt, he will find himself unable, (at 
 least I have been so), to make out an explicit opinion from either. 
 There is, indeed, a little doubt about the genuineness of the reading, 
 tig d-uvuxov, inasmuch as Codd. D. E., the Syriac Version, etc., omit 
 it. Yet, on the whole, no substantial doubt remains, that we should 
 admit it. Then what is there so strange and difficult in the contrast 
 here ? Paul says we must be the servants of him to whom we devote 
 ourselves, we must go where and when he bids ; and this holds true, 
 he adds, whether we apply it to our being the servants of sin, which 
 will lead us to death, i. e. condemnation, or to our being the servants 
 of that obedience which is connected with or leads to justification, 
 
270 ROMANS 6: 17. 
 
 i. e. pardon, acquittal from the penalty of the law. How can df/.ui- 
 oc>vvj]v here mean holiness, uprightness, when i'iikko?/ itself necessa- 
 rily designates this very idea. What is an obedience which leads to 
 righteousness? Or how does it differ from righteousness itself, inas- 
 much as it is the very act of obedience which constitutes righteous- 
 ness in the sense now contemplated? Then, moreover, the contrast 
 here with Ouvurov does not seem to leave any room for doubt, what 
 the meaning must be. The sentiment is : ' Fearful as the consequen- 
 ces of sin are, when you are its servants, you must follow its dictates. 
 But, on the other hand, the obedience which you yield to grace, is a 
 joyful, glorious service, ending in eternal life.' 
 
 (17) Xaoig dt . . . . didayrjg, but thanks be unto God, that ye 
 were the servants of sin, but have become obedient from the heart to 
 that model of doctrine in ivhich ye have been instructed. Such is the 
 literal translation. But the nature of the case is sufficient to show, 
 that the apostle's thanks to God are not designed to have a special 
 bearing on t]ce dovkoi xi t g a/iugn'ag. In view of the whole case, viz. 
 that they once were the servants of sin, but now are devoted to 
 Christian obedience, Paul thanks God ; as well he might, for ' there is 
 joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.' But to say that he 
 thanks God with special reference to the fact that they were sinners, 
 and because they were so, would be saying what contradicts not only 
 the whole strain of Paul's epistles, but all the Bible. 
 
 It has been proposed here to render 6 xi although ; but, first, there 
 is no adequate authority for such a translation ; secondly, the present 
 construction of the sentence requires on as rationem reddens in 
 respect to ydoig iw -Otol ; and the dt (but) after vui^xovaazf, indi- 
 cates that on in the preceding clause, retains its usual sense. The 
 true solution of the difficulty consists in taking the whole phrase to- 
 gether ; for then a meaning is conveyed, which might well excite the 
 mind of the apostle to gratitude. 
 
 'Yni]xovC)UTt dt in v.aodlag, but ye have heartily, sincerely, become 
 obedient. The apostle means to express his cheering confidence in 
 the reality of their devotedness to the cause of Christ, which they 
 professed to love ; and this seems to me to be all that he here means 
 to express. Tholuck says, however, that imi]xovauxt joined with ix 
 xagdiccg, ' is designed to render conspicuous the idea of the free will 
 with which the sinner first came to Jesus and received pardon.' Was 
 it true, then, that Jesus first sought the sinner, or the sinner him ? Do 
 we "love him because he first loved us ;" or is it the reverse ? That 
 
ROMANS G: 17,18. 271 
 
 the sinner was " willing," I doubt not; but that he was "made wil- 
 ling in the day of God's power," seems to be equally plain. Does not 
 " God work in us both to will and to do 1" 
 
 Eig ui' .... did\r/ijg. The construction here has given much 
 trouble to critics. It need not have done so; for vnaxpvo) may 
 govern the Accusative as well as the Dative ; see examples of the 
 Accusative in Prov. 29: 12. Deut. 21: IS. It may also govern the 
 Genitive ; e. g. Deut. 21: 20. 20: 14, 17, et al. saepe. The Dative af- 
 ter it, however, is most common. We may then construe thus : vna- 
 xouoocii tutiov did'uytjg .... fig ov nugaoo-&ijT6. Eig with the 
 Accusative very frequently follows nuQadiotofAi, although the simple 
 Dative is the most usual. But here the Dative would not give the 
 sense — into which ye have been initiated, or in respect to which ye 
 have been instructed. 
 
 A second way of solving the grammatical construction, is by at- 
 traction. The noun, as all grammarians of course know, is almost 
 as often attracted to the case of the pronoun, as the pronoun is to 
 that of the noun. The former we may suppose to be the case here, 
 so that tVTiov is written for rvnm, which latter would be the more 
 usual construction after vnaxovco. Why Tholuck, Flatt, and others, 
 should prefer the forced construction here, viirjxovaaTS fig ivixov og 
 TtaotdoOt] vfiTv, I do not see. They do not seem to have adverted 
 to the fact, that vnaxovca may take the simple Accusative after it, as 
 shewn above. 
 
 That vTUixovaara corresponds in the second clause here, to rjtt 
 dovloi in the first, is plain. The apostle might have used IdovXai- 
 ■0i]tz in the room of it; but vur}xovauT6 corresponds better to the 
 phraseology of the preceding verse. 
 
 Tvt\ov dtduy^g, model of doctrine ; rvjiog, model, form, example, 
 etc. Comp. Rom. 2: 20, /nooqwotg rrjg yvoycttiog- 2 Tim. 1: 13, 
 vnotvnonig vyiavovtwv koymv. In the classics, also, such expres- 
 sions occur; e. g. Jambl. Vita Pythag. c. 16, "He had rt]g ziuidfi- 
 afcog 6 runog joioutog, such a model of instruction, and looking to 
 this," etc.; lb. c. 23, "For the sake of rendering more conspicuous 
 ioi> rvnov ii,g did'uay.akiug." Bretschneider (Lex. ivnog) gives the 
 meaning of i(<tioi> diduyijg here, by doctrina animis vestris insculpta; 
 a sense which might receive some countenance from tpcfmov hrynv 
 in James 1: 21, but which, however, cannot be maintained as Paul- 
 ine, after weighing the examples in Rom. 2: 20. 2 Tim. 1: 13. 
 
 (18) 'EXivdifjoiftiviig .... dftagu'ccg, being freed from sin, i. e. 
 
272 ROMANS G: 18, 19. 
 
 from a state of bondage to sin, from being the servants of sin. This 
 was effected, when they "passed from death unto life," from "the 
 bondage of Satan to enjoy the liberty of the children of God." Then 
 it was, also, that they became the Lord's ; they became so in xag- 
 dlag. Being " bought with a price," they held themselves, in their 
 new state, to be under obligation to "glorify God with their bodies 
 and with their spirits, which are his ;" which is expressed by idov- 
 ?.a>ifr l Te Ti] dty.uioavDj. 
 
 It is easy to see, that vs. 17, 18, do not advance the argument of 
 the apostle. They are not designed for this purpose ; but only for 
 the sake of making an impression on the minds of his readers. He 
 intends to shew them, that they have a personal interest in what he 
 says, and indeed that they are themselves examples of what he is 
 declaring. To a like purpose, are the declarations in vs. 19, 20. 
 Verse 18 may indeed be viewed as an appeal ad liomincm : ' Ye, 
 brethren, are no more the servants of sin ; how then can you any 
 longer continue to obey its dictates? Ye have become the servants of 
 righteousness; and of course you must obey its dictates, i. e. live a life 
 of holiness.' 
 
 (19) 'sli{)(jL<)nuov kt'yo) seems to be equivalent to v.ax uv&qoj- 
 nov Xe'ycQ, 3: 5; i.e. 1 speak as men are accustomed to speak, viz. I 
 use such language as they usually employ in regard to the affairs of 
 common life. So the classic Greek authors say, in the like sense, 
 uvVyomii'wg )J"/(a or uv&Qomtibig Xtyo) * see Aristoph. Ranre, 1090. 
 Vespa?, 1174. Strato in Athenseus, Deipnos. Tom. III. lib. IX. 29. 
 So also the Latins ; as Petronius, Satyr, c. 50, Saspius poetice quam 
 humane locutus es. Cicero, de Divinat. II. 64, hominum more 
 dicere. The apostle means to say, that in speaking of the subject 
 under consideration, he uses language borrowed from common life, 
 which may be easily understood. The reason of this he now pro- 
 ceeds to assign. 
 
 Aiu. xr t v .... V(ioiv, because of the lecakness of your flesh, i. e. 
 because of the feebleness or imperfection of your spiritual knowledge, 
 or of your ability to comprehend me, which is occasioned by the flesh, 
 i. e. the carnal part, having so great an influence. Or tj]Q occQy.og 
 vfiwv may, like the Hebrew "liz , be used by way of periphrasis, 
 merely to indicate your own selves. Or uoQivtiuv may be used here, 
 (as uo&eviov is in Rom. 5: 6), for moral weakness. So Beza and 
 others ; but this is an improbable sense ; for the apostle does not here 
 speak in the tone of chiding. The expression in 1 Cor. 3: 1, seems 
 
ROMANS 6 : 19. 273 
 
 to afford aid sufficient to make the matter plain : " I could not speak 
 to you as nvfVfiauxoTg, but as aayxixolg ;" which latter word is im- 
 mediately explained by the epexegetical clause, tug v^-nioig if Xgia- 
 to). So then, the do&ivftu %y\g cagxog may be regarded as indicat- 
 ing (if I may thus speak) the feeble or infantile state of spiritual 
 knowledge among the Romans; and to adapt himself to this, the 
 apostle had made use of the familiar phraseology which the context 
 exhibits. In giving this construction to da-Oivtiav rijg oagxog Vfitov, 
 we must regard Ttjg aaQv.og as Gen. causa; vel auctoris; so that the 
 sense is : ' The weakness which the flesh or carnal part occasions,' viz. 
 the inability to comprehend language of a higher and more difficult 
 nature, which had been occasioned by their fleshly passions and 
 appetites. 
 
 Siarr^p yap .... ui'Ofiiav, as then ye have given tip your members 
 to be the servants of impurity and iniquity, for the sake of iniquity. 
 Pdo here is rather difficult of explanation. Passow (Lex. ydp) ob- 
 serves, that ' yap as a causal particle often precedes, in respect to 
 position, that to which it stands related ;' e. g. '^fzpeid't], iiollol ydp 
 Ti&vaaiv 'ydycuoi, rw oi yprj noh?(.tov tiuvgcu, II. VII. 328, Atrei- 
 des, since many of the Greeks have perished, it is necessary that you 
 should put an end to the war. Here nohkol yap Tiftvuniv y/yutol 
 follows (in respect to sense) the clause which now succeeds it in 
 regard to position. Passow adds, that in such cases ydp has the sense 
 of well since, because that, or da (since). This would fit the passage 
 before us well, were it not that toontp forbids such a rendering ; for 
 to translate : As since ye have given up, etc., would not be congruous. 
 We must refer ydp, then, to the whole of what the apostle had said 
 in vs. 14 — 18. ' Qantp ydp x. r. A. resumes the exhortation in v. 13, 
 and resumes it with additional strength, in reference to what had 
 been said in vs. 14 — 18. 'In view of all this,' the apostle means to 
 say, ' it becomes you, as you have once served sin, now to serve the 
 cause of holiness ;' i. e. if you were once actively engaged in the 
 service of sin, much more should you now be in the cause of holiness. 
 In this view of the subject we can see how ydo, in this place, can be 
 rendered then (Passow, denn); which is as much as to say : ■ In view 
 of what has been suggested, or on account of what has been suggest- 
 ed, I may go on to say,' etc. 
 
 Td f.tihj vfttov is equivalent to atufAU ftvijTov in v. 12. It is re- 
 suming the diction of v. 13. The ground of the usage is, that our 
 members are the instruments actually employed either in the service 
 35 
 
074 ROMANS 6: 19, 20. 
 
 of sin or righteousness. They are our instrumental agents. — Aovla 
 is here an adjective, dovhog -r\ -ov comp. Wisd. 15: 7. — 2V; dxu- 
 {Nxooitt ttul rij dvofila, Dat. commodi, at least a species of it. — Eig 
 xr\v uvof.ilav, for the purpose of iniquity, i. e. of doing iniquity, of 
 committing sin. 
 
 O'vto) vvv .... uyutGi.i6i<, so now give up your members to be the 
 servants of righteousness, for the sake of holiness. — Eig ayiuo^iou 
 stands here without the article, although we have in the antithesis 
 tig xtjv dvo/ntav. But this is one of those cases in which the writer 
 may insert or omit the article, so far as I can see, without any differ- 
 ence of meaning in his discourse. Abstract nouns allow this liberty ; 
 Winer, Gramm. § 18. 1, ed. 3. 
 
 (20) "Che yap .... dixacoovui],for when yc icerc the servants of 
 sin, ye tvercfree in respect to righteousness. The expression in itself 
 is not difficult, excepting perhaps the last clause of it ; but the con- 
 nection and object of the verse are truly difficult. Tholuck says, 
 that yap points to v. 22, in respect to the reward of Christians; but 
 this is a liberty with yap which it would be no easy task to justify. I 
 must connect it with what precedes, in this case, not with what fol- 
 lows. What says the apostle? ' As you once served sin, so now 
 you must serve holiness. Your present relation admits of no other 
 conclusion ; for when you served sin, you deemed yourselves free 
 from all obligation to righteousness, [so now, serving holiness, count 
 yourselves free from all obligation to sin.]' I cannot see in what 
 other way bzs yap v.. i. A. is here connected. As yap confrmantis 
 vel illustrantis, I think we must take the particle here; and if so, 
 then I cannot make out the object of the verse in any other way than 
 as above. There is, indeed, an anacoluthon in this case; but how 
 often Paul admits this into his epistles, the distinguishing reader of 
 them needs not to be informed. 
 
 Bretschneider (Lex. ikev&sgog) renders ikfv&fpoi, destituti; 
 and so, many others have done ; but this is a sense which it would 
 be difficult to vindicate, and which is unnecessary. When the apos- 
 tle says, that they, being the servants of sin, were tXsv&egot zrj 
 d't'/Mtoavi'ij, he cannot mean that in fact they were free from all obli- 
 gation to holiness, (for this can never be true of any moral being 
 whatever) ; he must mean, then, that in their own estimation, or 
 according to the tenor of their own reasonings, they were absolved 
 from obligation to pursue holiness. I understand him here as making 
 an appeal ad hominem, as in the preceding verse, and as saying in 
 
ROMANS 0:20,21. 275 
 
 effect : ' Since you formerly, when in the service of sin, counted 
 yourselves free from the dominion of holiness ; so now, as the ser- 
 vants of righteousness, count yourselves free from obligation to obey 
 sin.' Verse 19 I understand as making appeal to the state of facts 
 merely ; v. 20, as appealing to the views and feelings of Christians, 
 in respect to their old and new condition. In this way, all is appo- 
 site, and we are not forced to do violence to the laws of language. 
 The Dative rr\ dixaioovvy here, belongs to that class of Datives 
 whose office it is, to designate relation to, respect to, a particular 
 thing, i. e. the noun is put in the Dative, which limits to a particular 
 thing a predicate which in its own nature is general. So here thfv- 
 ■&egoi — a general idea — but T)j dinuioovvij limits it to this particular 
 thing. See Winer, § 31. 3; and comp. 1 Cor. 14: 20. Acts 7: 51. 
 20: 22. 1 Cor. 7: 34. Heb. 5: 11. 
 
 (21) Tiva ovv .... inutaxvffo&e ; What fruit, moreover, had 
 ye then, in respect to those things [of which] ye are notv ashamed? 
 There are various ways of pointing and constructing this sentence. 
 Some put the interrogation point after ro'rf, and make the answer to 
 be : ' Such fruit as ye are now ashamed of So Koppe; with whom 
 Flatt and Tholuck agree. I prefer the division of Knapp, who points 
 as above. Ovv, " orationi continuandm inservit," (Bretschn. Lex.). 
 There seems to me plainly to be a transition in the discourse here to 
 another topic, viz. from the topic of obligation of which the writer 
 had been speaking, to that of consequence, i. e. either penalty or re- 
 ward. This makes the second point of comparison, between being 
 under the law and under grace. The end or event of the two states 
 is unspeakably different. The writer, however, assumes the fact 
 here, that while under the law men will continue to sin, and thus 
 bring death upon themselves. It is only in the sequel (chap. 7: 5 — 
 25), that he fully illustrates the reason or ground of this. 
 
 Kuqtiov ei%tre x. r. A. must mean : What reioard had ye 1 What 
 benefit did ye experience! Comp. Rom. 1: 13. 15: 28. Heb. 12: 11. 
 ' Eii iv kuqtiov has a different meaning from cptgeiv kuqtiov. To 
 make the construction full, ixei'vwv must be understood before tq> 
 oTg. Such an ellipsis is very frequent; see Bretschn. Lex. og, c. §. 
 'Ejiut,(5%vvof.im usually governs the Accusative, but is here con- 
 structed with ini after it. 
 
 To yuQ Ttlog ixelvwv, -fruvutog, for the end of those things, is 
 death; viz. of such things as they formerly practised, but are now 
 ashamed of. Tilog retains here a sense which is very common, viz. 
 
27C ROMANS 6 : 22, 23. 
 
 the consequence, final event, fata ultima, exitus rei. Fug confirman- 
 tis ; as if the writer had said : ' What solid good can result from your 
 former course of life, since the end of this course must be death V 
 For the sense of ftuvuzog, see chap. 5: 12. 
 
 (22) Nvvl d'i .... dyiuo/.i6v, but now, being freed from sin, and 
 having become servants to God, ye have fruit in respect to holiness. 
 The preceding context explains ikfv&egw&tvTtg .... &io). "EyiTt 
 rov "/.uonov must mean the same as in v. 21, viz. you have your ben- 
 efit or reward. — Elg .... uyiaofiov, in respect to holiness or sanctifi- 
 cation (Bretschn. Lex. tig, 4) ; not (with Flatt and others) unto holi- 
 ness, i. e. the consequences are, that ye are holy. The consequence of 
 serving God it is not the writer's object here to represent as being the 
 attainment of holiness ; for serving God implies that holiness already 
 existed. It is the fruits, i. e. consequences of serving God, which 
 Paul here brings into view ; for nothing else would make out the 
 antithesis to the preceding verse ; a circumstance overlooked by 
 many commentators. I understand the apostle as saying : ' You al- 
 ready enjoy important benefits, in respect to a holy course of life ; 
 and you hope for more important benefits still, viz. £ojrjv aioviov.' 
 
 To Si ... . ttifuviov, and the end [is to possess] eternal life. The 
 reader will observe, that the Ace. £byr\v ctlotviov renders it necessary 
 here to supply some verb, in order to complete the construction ; 
 which is different from that in v. 21, where ftdvaTog is in the Nom. 
 The sentence may be filled out in two ways ; viz. (1) To de xt'kog 
 [t ytt v or tifcv] ^wrjv altovtov. (2) To dtrtlog \ttti] ^wyv alwviov. 
 The sense is the same in both cases. In the latter case, £wi]v alio- 
 viov is put in apposition with to xtXog, and is explanatory of it. In 
 the former case, the construction is thus : ' The end or event will be, 
 that you shall obtain everlasting happiness.' One or the other of 
 these constructions, the context and the form of the words compel us 
 to adopt. 
 
 The reader cannot help remarking here the antithesis between 
 Starjv uiojfiov and ■ftavuxog. How can the latter be temporal only ? 
 What comparison would this make, between the', two members of the 
 antithesis ? 
 
 (23) Such consequences must follow from the established rules 
 of the divine government, respecting the fruits of sin and of holi- 
 ness. Ta yug .... ftuvaTog, for the reward (wages) of sin is 
 death; comp. on Rom. 5: 12. — Fag confirmantis ; for what is said 
 in the sequel confirms vs. 21, "22. — 'Oipolvia, properly the rations of 
 
M*5 
 
 CHAP. VII. 1—4. 
 
 soldiers, i. e. their wages, which at first were paid in grain, meat, 
 fruit, etc., but afterwards in money. Observe that the apostle em- 
 ploys this term, in order to designate something which was really the 
 proper due of sin, viz. for the service of it ; as the wages which a 
 soldier earns by his hard military service, are properly his due. 
 But, on the other hand, the reward of Christians is all of grace, not 
 of debt ; and so it is designated in the sequel by yuQiapu. 
 
 Ev XgtOToj Jtjaov raj kvqico t]^oiv, i. e. through the redemp- 
 tion or atonement of Christ, 3: 23—2(3. 5: 1, 8, 11, 17—19, 21. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 1—4. 
 
 The variety of opinion respecting the first four verses in this chapter, is so 
 great, and so many difficulties present themselves in the way of almost every 
 exegesis which has hitherto been proposed, that one is strongly tempted to 
 abandon the hope, that any thing can be offered which will be satisfactory to 
 an enlightened and inquiring mind. After long and often-repeated study of 
 these verses, however, I have come to the persuasion, that the difficulty with 
 most commentators, lies principally in their insisting upon too minute compar- 
 ison between the conjugal connection here mentioned, and the connection of 
 Christians with the law. A minute and exact comparison cannot be made; for, 
 (J) The apostle represents the husband as dying, and the wife asbecoming/ree, 
 in consequence of his death. Then, (2) Christians are said to die to the law, (not 
 the law to them), and they are thus prepared to be affianced to Christ; i. e. 
 the party who dies is, in this last case, represented as married to another ; 
 while, in respect to the literal conjugal union, it is of course only the party 
 who lives that can be joined to another. This apparent dissimilitude between 
 the two cases, has given great trouble to commentators ; and in fact it appears 
 inexplicable, unless we acquiesce in a mere general point of similitude as to 
 the things compared, without insisting on minute and circumstantial resem- 
 blances. 
 
 Let us inquire first of all : What is the object of the writer in presenting 
 the comparison before us? The answer is, to illustrate and defend the senti- 
 ment avowed in chap. G: 14 ; viz. " For we are not under the law, but under 
 grace." Those Christians who were inclined to be legalists, and to look for justi- 
 fication or sanctification (the latter is here the subject of the writer) by the law, 
 and therefore to hold fast to the law as an adequate means of accomplishing this 
 end, would easily take offence at such a declaration. ' What !' they would natu- 
 rally say, ' does the gospel then absolve us from our relation to the law ? Shall 
 we throw by the ancient Scriptures as of no more use to us, because we now 
 come under a new dispensation of grace ?' 
 
 The apostle has prepared the way in chap. 6: 16 — 21, for the declaration 
 which he is now about to make relative to this subject. He has there shewn, 
 as we have already seen, that a state of grace diminishes nothing of our obli- 
 gation to refrain from sin ; for by this very state are we made servants to 
 righteousness ; and the practice of holiness is at the same time urged upon 
 us, by the prospect of a glorious reward, while the neglect of it is follow- 
 ed by endless misery. He now advances another step, and declares that we 
 are " dead to the law," i. e. that the law as an efficient means of sanctification 
 (which the legalist holds it to be), has been renounced by true Christians ; for 
 the death of Christ, " who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one 
 who believes," in whom, moreover, we profess to trust as the ground of our 
 rfanctification as well as justification, has placed us in a new relation as to ade- 
 
278 CHAP. VII. 1-4. 
 
 quate means of being sanctified, and freed us from the vain and deceptive 
 hopes of legalists, who were leaning upon the law both as the ground of sanc- 
 tification and justification. 
 
 I have already stated reasons, for supposing that the apostle is here speak- 
 ing in particular of the law as an adequate means of sanctification ; see the in- 
 troduction to chap. VI. I merely remark here, that the close of v. 4 shews 
 very explicitly, that the special object which the apostle now considers asjit- 
 tainable by becoming dead to the law, and being affianced to Christ, is 'iru 
 xnoTrorpopyjooj/xtv toj &&m. Sanctification then, not justification as many com- 
 mentators suppose, is here the particular subject of the writer's attention. 
 
 Vs. 1 — 4 may rather be called an illustration of what the apostle had avowed 
 in G: 14, than an argument to establish the declaration there made. The sim- 
 ple basis of the whole comparison I understand thus : ' Brethren, you are 
 aware that death, in all cases, dissolves the relation which exists between an 
 individual and a law by which he was personally bound. For example ; the 
 conjugal law ceases to be in force, by the death of one of the parties. So it is 
 in the case of Christians. They not only die to sin, i. e. renounce it, when 
 they are baptized into the death of Christ, 6: 2—11 ; but they also die to the 
 law" at the same time, i. e. they renounce all their hopes and expectations of 
 being sanctified by the law, so that sin will no more have dominion over them.' 
 They do, by the very fact of becoming real Christians, profess to receive Christ 
 as their " wisdom, and justification, and sanctification (ayiao/uoi), and redemp- 
 tion," 1 Cor. 1: 30. 
 
 Let the reader consider, for a moment, the true nature of the declaration just 
 quoted. Christ is our wisdom; i. e. our teacher, he who communicates the 
 spiritual knowledge and light which we need, " the light of the world." 
 Christ is our justification (StMuoaivrj) : i.e. the meritorious cause, ground, or 
 author of it; comp. Rom. 3: 21 — 28. Christ is our sanctificaiiua ; i. e. the au- 
 thor, cause, or ground of our sanctification, by what he has done in our behalf 
 in order to ensure it. Christ is our redemption (oltto^vtqojgis) ; i. e. he is (to 
 sum up all in one word) the cause of our deliverance from the penalty and 
 power of sin, and of our being brought to enjoy the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God. The last word makes the climax of the whole sentence. 
 
 Christ then is as really and truly our sanctification, as he is our justification. 
 If now, in despair of being justified by the law (for so we must be if we right- 
 ly view the subject), we go to Christ for justification, and receive him as our 
 only Saviour, renouncing all merit of our own, and all hope of being saved by 
 the law — if, I say, we feel and do all this, then we do renounce the law forever 
 as the ground of justification, and accept the gratuitous salvation which is 
 proffered by Christ. In the same manner, when the sinner comes to an ade- 
 quate and proper view of the strictness and purity of the divine law, and also 
 to right views of the state of his own heart while in a natural condition, he 
 will utterly abandon all hope of being sanctified by the law ; for he will see, 
 what Paul has so fully asserted in Chap. 7: 5 — 11, ' that the law brings him, 
 (through his own fault indeed, but not the less surely because of this), into a 
 state of deeper guilt and condemnation.' How then can the law be an ade- 
 quate means of his sanctification? It is impossible; and the truly convicted 
 sinner renounces all hope of this, and betakes himself to Christ and his salva- 
 tion as the only ground of hope in this respect. 
 
 Here is the great difficulty, and here the solution of the whole passage must 
 come in. Consider, for a moment, the true nature of the apostle's assertion, 
 and no alarm need be felt as to the tendency of his sentiments. For what is it 
 which he affirms in chap. 6: 14 ? It is, that " sin shall not have dominion over 
 Christians, because they are not under the law, but under grace." The domin- 
 ion or -power which sin is to have over Christians, is then the subject of his 
 inquiry, and of his assertions. So indeed the preceding context teaches ; and 
 so the subsequent context also. That we are not under the law, then, must of 
 course mean, in this connection, that we are not under it as an efficacious or 
 successful means of deliverance from the power of sin ; for this it has never 
 
CHAP. VII. 1—4. 279 
 
 been, and cannot be, as chap. 7: ■■> — 25 most fully shews. Christians are dead 
 to the law, then, in this respect, viz. they renounce all hope of deliverance from 
 the power of sin, through the law. It convinces, and condemns, and keeps up 
 a perpetual struggle in the sinner's breast by awakening his conscience ; but. it 
 does not deliver, 7: 14 — 25, comp. 8: 3, 4. Consequently tho true penitent, 
 coming' to feel its impotence as the means of delivering from the power of sin, 
 renounces all hope of deliverance in this way, and gives himself up to Christ, 
 as his sanctlficatipn, as well as his wisdom, justification, and redemption. 
 
 Now what is there in all this, which infringes on the obligation of moral 
 precept contained in the law? Surely nothing. "The law is holy, and just, 
 and good;" it is all summed up in the requisition, 'to love God with all our 
 heart and our neighbor as ourselves.' Will any one assert that Paul contends 
 against this, after all that he has said in chaps. VI — VIII., relative to the 
 Christian's obligation to renounce sin and live a holy life ? Nothing can be far- 
 ther from his intention. The only question that needs to be solved, in order 
 to remove all real difficulty, is : In what sense does Paul say that we are dead 
 to the lino ■' This I have endeavoured to answer, by making the apostle his own 
 expositor. The sum of the answer is, that as Christians renounce the law as 
 an effectual means of justification (chap. I — HI.), so they must renounce it as 
 an effectual means of sanctification. Christ is cur only hope in this respect, as 
 well as in the other. The grace of the gospel is the only effectual means by 
 which we can hope successfully to resist sin, and persevere in holiness. 
 
 And is not this true ? Just as true as that Christ is the ground of our justi- 
 fication ? I appeal to chap. 8: 3, 4 for an exhibition of the sum of this sentiment ; 
 and to the whole of chaps. VI — VIII., and also to the experience and feelings 
 of every truly enlightened and humble Christian on earth, — in confirmation 
 of the same sentiment. 
 
 I acknowledge it is a truth often overlooked. Many a time have I read 
 the epistle to the Romans, without obtaining scarcely a glimpse of it. When 
 1 ask the reason of this, I find it in neglect to look after the general object and 
 course of thought in the writer. Special interpretation stood in the way of 
 general views ; the explanation of words hindered the discerning of the course 
 of thought. And so I suppose it may be with many others. But now the 
 whole matter appears to me so plain, that I can only wonder that I have ever 
 been in the dark respecting it. Luther atid other Reformers saw what was so 
 long hidden from ine ; and of late, Knapp, Tholuck, and many other com- 
 mentators, have explained the chapters in question in like manner as I now do. 
 
 Having already given what I consider as the only defensible exposition of 
 the similitude, which the apostle employs in vs. 1 — 4, I merely advert to dif- 
 ferent expositions, ancient and modern. Augustine (Prop. 3G): Tria sint; an- 
 ima tanquam mulier, passiones peccatorum tanquam vir, et lex tanquam lex 
 viri. Beza : " The old man is the wife, sinful desire the husband, sins the 
 children." Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and others : ' : Men are the wife, the 
 law the former husband, Christ the new one." This last explanation seems to 
 accord substantially with v. 4, in which Christians are represented as having 
 become dead to their former husband, and affianced to a new one. In order to 
 carry the figure regularly through, it would seem as if the law (the former 
 husband) must be represented as dead, by which Christians would be at liberty' 
 to be joined to a new husband. But this the apostle does not say ; probably 
 because he thought the expression would give offence to the Jews. Yet he 
 says what is tantamount to it ; for if either of the parties in a conjugal union 
 die, then each is dead to the law, and the law to them, i. e. the conjugal law 
 has no more application or relation to them, it is annulled as to them. It mat- 
 ters not which party dies, so far as the law is concerned ; for the law is at an 
 end if either dies. So in the case before us; one of the parties being dead, 
 the conjugal relation ceases. A new connection, therefore, may be formed. 
 But this last conclusion can be made out only on the ground, that " dying to 
 the law" is a figurative expression ; which, indeed, no one will deny. If it is 
 to be expounded by analogy with chap. 6: 1 — 11, we must construe it as mean- 
 ing, ' the renunciation of all trust in the law as the efficient means of sancti- 
 
.<0 ROMANS 7: 1,2. 
 
 fying the sinner.' When the awakened sinner comes to feel this sincerely and 
 thoroughly, he is then prepared to be affianced to Christ, i. e. to receive him as 
 his sanstij cation, as well as his justification. 
 
 (1) " II uyvoiixh, in sense the same as oik o'ldart in 6: 16 ; which 
 see. "II, num, an, merely a sign of interrogation here. Here, as in 
 6: 16, the writer means to say, that they well know, or that they will 
 readily acknowledge, viz. what he is about to state. — rivojoxovot .... 
 XuXm, for I address those ivho are acquainted with the late, viz. the 
 Mosaic law. The apostle may mean here, that he addresses the 
 Jewish part of the church at Rome, in a particular manner, in relation 
 to what he is about to say ; or what he says may imply, that the 
 whole church had some acquaintance with the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures. In regard to this latter fact it may be said, that as the Old 
 Testament was every where and continually appealed to by the 
 primitive teachers of Christianity, and was moreover extant in the 
 Greek language which was very generally understood at Rome, so it 
 is altogether probable, that the Roman Christians in general had an 
 acquaintance with at least the leading features of the Mosaic system. 
 lug, " rationcm reddentis ;" for if they were acquainted with the 
 law, they could not be ignorant of what the apostle supposes them to 
 know. 
 
 "On 6 vofxog .... £{], that the law exercises control over a man as 
 long as he lives. The apostle means the Mosaic law here ; but what 
 he says, is equally true of other laws of a permanent nature. — Kv- 
 Qievei, performs the office of xvgtog, i. e. controls, is valid in respect 
 to. — Tov avvQtoiiov, the man, i. e. the man who lives under it, not 
 any man in general, but only any one who holds such a relation. 
 Some interpreters here take dv&ga'mov in the same sense as uvdgog, 
 i. e. husband. But besides the want of usiis loguendi in its favour, it 
 may be said, that the proposition is evidently of a general nature, in 
 respect to such individuals as lived under the Mosaic law. — Ztj is 
 rendered by Flatt and others, it lives, viz. the law. But first, how 
 could this be ? If the man dies, the law still lives as to others ; it 
 becomes inefficacious as to him, only by means of his death. It can- 
 not die in any other way. Then secondly, what a tautology ! The 
 law is in force (y.vguvti), as long as it is in force (£>/). Is this the 
 manner of Paul ? Thirdly, the uvt}g £iav and atioQavoiv of vs. 2, 3, 
 clearly shews, that in v. 1 uv&gcoTiog is the Nominative to £*J. 
 
 (2) II yug .... 1 6 f.ic>), for the married woman is bound to her 
 husband by the law, so long as he liveth.— Tnuvdgog, a very expres- 
 sive word, classical as well as Hellenistic, and like the Hebrew nhp) 
 
ROMANS 7: 3— 4. 281 
 
 sreil* 
 
 \V , Num. 5: 29. In the East, intavdoog denotes a higher degree 
 of disparity between husband and wife, than is admitted in the west- 
 ern world. — AtdiTca voino lias a force also here, which commenta- 
 tors have generally overlooked. Under the Mosaic economy, the 
 husband could divorce the wife almost at pleasure ; but where is the 
 precept giving the like liberty to the wife ? This would have been 
 contrary to the genius of eastern manners and customs. This seems 
 to be the reason why the apostle has chosen the woman, in this case, 
 in order to exhibit an example of obligation while the life of the par- 
 ties continues. — Fao illustrantis ; and it might, as to sense, be well 
 translated for example. The instance in vs. 2, 3, seems to me very 
 plainly to be a mere illustration of the general principle in v. 1. 
 
 J lav dd .... avdyog, but if her husband die, she ceases to be 
 under the conjugal law. — Kuxr\oyr\x(xi (Pcrf. Midd. here), when fol- 
 lowed by uno (as in the present case), means to cease to belong to 
 any one, to cease to be subject to his control ; comp. v. 6 below, and 
 Gal. 5: 4. In the next verse we find ZltvOtga iatlv cmo tov ioliov, 
 in the same sense as xaxijyyqiai ano too vof,iov in this. CEcume- 
 nius : xuTt']oyt]iuf ctvzl zou unoltlviut, iltvxftQWTai. — Tov av- 
 6(jog, Gen. of relation, viz. the law which related to her husband ; 
 or Gen. of attribute, viz. the conjugal law. 
 
 {3) "^/oa ovv .... tTiQw, therefore if she marry another, during 
 her husband's life, she shall be called an adulteress ; i. e. it follows, 
 from the nature of her obligation, that she can not be united with 
 another man, while her husband is living. — Xgri^arlofi, she shall 
 bear the name of, she shall receive the appellation of. This usage of 
 the word belongs to later classics ; in which the verb puts the name 
 called into the Nominative after it; e. g. ty^LiccTiCi fiuodtvg, Diod. 
 Sic. XX. 54. 
 
 Tov uti tivui avxi]v, so that she shall not be. The classic Greek 
 would usually express this by wp« iirj tivcu avrrji/. But Infinitives 
 with tov are very frequent in the Septuagint and in the New Testa- 
 ment; even in cases where, like the present, the end or event is desig- 
 nated by the article. In this respect to u before the Infinitive resem- 
 bles the Hebrew ^r , which expresses either purpose, design, or else 
 end, event. See Winer, Gramm. § 45, 4. 
 
 (4) "Sioze (compounded of tog and t*) standing at the beginning 
 
 of a sentence, must, according to Bretschneider, be rendered igitur, 
 
 quare, i. e. therefore, wherefore. The true sense here indicated by it, 
 
 however, seems to be thus, i. e. these things being so, you also have 
 
 36 
 
282 
 
 ROMANS 7: 4. 
 
 / become dead to the law, in order that you might be affianced to 
 Christ etc. In other words ; allowing that a new connection may 
 be lawfully formed, after the death of one of the parties in the conju- 
 gal union, it follows that you, who have become dead to the law, i. e. 
 wholly renounced it as an adequate means of sanctification, may be 
 affianced to Christ, etc. 
 
 71-7 v6(A<a, the Dative of specification, i. e. .designating the partic- 
 ular thing in respect to which Christians have become dead ; Winer, 
 Gramm. § 31. 3, a. The declaration that they had become dead to 
 the law, is new in respect to form. Dead to sin the apostle has 
 asserted them to be, in chap. vi. ; he has also asserted that they are 
 not vno v6f.toi>, 6: 14. But that they were dead to the law is a new 
 expression, and needs some explanation. The writer immediately 
 subjoins one: did zov (jo^uajogzov JCqiotov. He must of course mean, 
 the body of Christ as crucified, as having suffered in order to redeem 
 us from the curse of the law; comp. Heb. 10: 5 — 10. Col. 1: 22. 
 2: 14. 1 Pet. 2: 24. Eph. 2: 15, which do not seem to leave any doubt 
 with respect to the meaning of om^iu Xpiorou here. As Christ, by 
 his death, is made unto us " righteousness, and sanctification, and 
 redemption;" so it is his death which has opened such new prospects 
 for perishing sinners, that they are enabled to look away from the 
 law and to renounce it as an effectual means of sanctification. Hence 
 the apostle says : " Ye have become dead to the law, by the body of 
 Christ." 
 
 Eig to yivea-dai .... lytgdtvzi, in order that ye should be [affi- 
 anced] to another, who has risen from the dead; i. e. Christ has called 
 you away from your vain hopes and expectations respecting what the 
 law could accomplish as to purifying and saving you, and admitted 
 you to participate in the blessed fruits of his death, viz. the gift of a 
 sanctifying Spirit. But although by his death you are freed from the 
 relation in which you once stood to the law as a means of sanctifica- 
 tion, yet you are not affianced to him as being dead, but as being 
 risen from the dead, as a conqueror who has burst the bars of death, 
 and ascended to glory at the right hand of God the Father. 
 
 "ha .... fitw, so that we may bring forth fruit to God; i. e. 
 such fruit as God will accept. Seoi, Dat. commodi. The reader 
 will observe, that the last circumstance noted here, is the climax of 
 the figurative language used by the apostle. First, there is an annul- 
 ling of a former marriage-contract by the death of one of the parties; 
 next, there is a new union ; and lastly the fruits of this, and also the 
 
ROMANS 7:5. 283 
 
 object of it, are designated. To bring forth fruit for God, or unto 
 God, is to live a holy life, to yield obedience unto his precepts, to act 
 in such a manner as to do honour to him. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 5, 6. 
 
 'But what if we are dead to the law?' the objector might hero replj : 
 1 what if, in our new relation, we are affianced in a peculiar manner to Christ ; 
 does it follow from this, that the law was so inefficacious in itself for oursanc- 
 tifieation, as you represent it to be ? Nay, what you saj' implies even more ; it 
 implies that it is only in our new state of affiance to Christ, that we can bring 
 forth fruit to God; and that, while under the law, no fruit but such as is of 
 a contrary nature, can be produced.' 
 
 At this crisis of the discussion, the apostle comes out with his last, highest, 
 and boldest assertion concerning the law, as to its efficacy with respect to the 
 point under consideration, viz. its efficacy to sanctify the hearts of sinners. 
 His course of thought seems to be in substance as follows : ' I have said that 
 you must be freed from the law and united to Christ, in order that you may 
 bring forth fruit to God. This is true ; for the law is so far from accomplishing 
 the great end of subduing and sanctifying the hearts of sinners, that it occa- 
 sions just the opposite effect, i. e. it is the occasion of their becoming more 
 deeply involved in guilt, and of bringing them into more aggravated condem- 
 nation. It is the occasion of their bringing forth fruit unto death, and not unto 
 God. But when we are freed from all reliance upon it as a means of subdu- 
 ing and sanctifying us, and with a becoming sense of our guilt and helpless- 
 ness have betaken ourselves to Christ, and relied on him only as our " sancti- 
 fication and redemption," then we are enabled to serve God with a new spirit, 
 and not in the old way of only a literal and external obedience. 
 
 These were propositions of a bold and startling nature to the Jewish legal- 
 ist. Some formidable objections would at once rise up in his mind against 
 them. The apostle fully anticipates this; and, as we shall see in the sequel, 
 occupies the remainder of chap. VII. in canvassing and answering them. 
 
 In the mean time let it be noted, that v. 5 here is the theme of discussion 
 through vs. 7 — 25 in the sequel ; while v. G (the antithesis of v. 5) constitutes 
 the theme of chap. 8: 1 — 11, which is in all important respects the antithesis 
 of 7: 7 — 25. Knapp, Tholuck, Flatt, and, other distinguished commentators, 
 have seen and noted this ; and in fact it lies on the face of the whole discus- 
 sion, if the reader will only lay aside for a moment his attention to particular 
 words and phrases, and look simply after the course of thought and reasoning 
 which the apostle pursues. 
 
 (5) "Ore yuQ .... aagai, for when we were in the flesh; i. e. 
 when we were in our natural or carnal state. That such is the mean- 
 ing of this expression, is clear from the usus loquendi, and from the 
 nature of the case. From the first ; because they who are in the 
 flesh, are contrasted with rolg tv Xgtorro 'Jtjhov, in chap. VIII. 
 1 — 11, where vs. 7 — 9 put it beyond all question what h aagm ilvav 
 means. From the second ; because the contrast in vs. 5, 6, is be- 
 tween the character which those whom the apostle addresses sustain- 
 ed before they became affianced to Christ, and that which they 
 
284 ROMANS 7 : 5. 
 
 sustained after they were affianced to him. Of course iv aap'/u 
 thai must mean, to be in a natural or unregenerate state, to be in 
 that state in which men are who are not yet united to Christ. 
 
 Tu na&t'iuuTu .... vo t uov, our sinful passions which icere by 
 the law ; i. e. our sinful passions which were occasioned by the law, 
 v. 11. — Tup dfiUQTuov, Gen. of attribute, our passions which lead us 
 to sin, our sinful passions. — To. did tov vo/.iov [sc. ovru or ytyovo- 
 tu], which were by the law; not, as Chrysostom and Carpzov, i« 
 did zov v6f.wv [q:uiv6(.iivu or yi'UOTu], which were shewn or dis- 
 closed by the law; and not as Locke (Coram, on Romans), that 
 remained in us under the law, who construes did vofiov as diu con- 
 ditionis, viz. we being in a law state. To both of these methods of 
 commentary v. 11 is an unanswerable objection, as it is the author's 
 commentary upon his own words. Moreover, the laws of language 
 forbid the exegesis of Mr. Locke ; for to make the sense which he 
 gives, the Greek must be : qpelg did tov v6(.iov ovieg, not i« [nu&r r 
 |U«ra] diu tov ro^iov. 
 
 'EvioysltTO .... &avdt(o, put forth their energy in our members, 
 to bring forth fruit unto death. ^Evegyiho, vim suam exserebat, effi- 
 cax fuit. — *Ev to7q lu'ktoiv qftwv, the same in sense as atofiu &vijtqv 
 in 0: 12, as may be seen by comparing v. 23 below. Mth] is used 
 as an equivalent for oia/ua, because the members of the body are its 
 efficient agents in doing any thing. 
 
 Such was the influence of our sinful passions, tu did tov voftov, 
 that the consequences were fatal. Our fruit was unto death, i. e. was 
 such as turned to the account of death, such as brought us under its 
 power or subjected us to it. The Dat. rw ■d-avuxot is a kind of Dat. 
 commodi ; as expressed in the paraphrase above. OdvuTog is here 
 used in the way of personification. 
 
 (6) Thus much, then, for the influence of the law upon us, in 
 our natural state. It was utterly unable to effect our renewal and 
 sanctification ; nay, it did but aggravate our guilt and condemnation ; 
 instead of delivering us from them. It is only in our new state 
 and under our new affiance, that we are enabled to bring forth fruit 
 of a different, kind. 
 
 Nvvl di . . . . vofiov, but noio being freed from the latv ; i. e. no 
 longer placing our reliance on it as a means of subduing and sancti- 
 fying our sinful natures. For the sense of xatrjQyq&'iJiiiv, compare 
 Y.aTr\oyy]Ttti ano tov vofiov in v. 2 above. 
 
 Ano&uvovTig is a controverted reading; and there are some vari- 
 
ROMANS 7 : 5. 285 
 
 ations in the manuscripts. But the weight of external evidence is 
 greatly in its favour ; and the internal evidence seems to be quite 
 conclusive. The sentiment of it is exactly the same, as that of i&u- 
 vuTU&rjie no vo/nco in v. 4 above. Here the first person plural is 
 used, — and there the second; but this changes not the nature of the 
 sentiment. The full construction here would seem to be : vmoftu- 
 vovttg [ixfh'O)] h w nartiyofu&a. The verb y.urtyo) means to hold 
 back, to retain, to hold firmly, etc. Here MXTet%6p&&a must mean, 
 the holding as it were in a state of bondage, from which the gospel 
 frees. Ev o), i. e. tv <w vo/noi. 
 
 The sense of the whole may be made more facile, by a different 
 arrangement: but now being dead [to the law], wc are freed from the 
 law by which ivc were held in bondage. 
 
 "S2ore .... yguftftarog, so that we may now serve [God] in a 
 new and spiritual manner, and not in the old and literal one. That 
 dim is to be understood after dovXeveiv, seems certain from the na- 
 ture of the antithesis, and from comparing vs. 4, 5. — Hvtvpajog I 
 take to be the Gen. of attribute or explanation. Ev xccivottjti nviv- 
 [Aurog, in a newness of a spiritual kind, i. e. in a new and spiritual 
 manner. So nalaiotrjic ygctfificaog designates the former method 
 of literal external obedience, which the Jews endeavored to render to 
 the law while tv aagyti. There was no heart in it. God is a Spirit; 
 and he must be worshipped tv nvevfiari. But this command is 
 obeyed, only when there is a "new heart and a right spirit" in men; 
 and this is not until they become affianced to Christ. " The law," 
 says Calvin, " puts a check upon our external actions ; but it does 
 not in the least restrain the fury of our concupiscence." 
 
 CHAP. VII. 7—12. 
 
 We must expect the legalist to rise up with not a little excitement against 
 the declaration of the apostle, viz. rd TTa&i'jfiara xwv afiaQTivn 1 , rd Sid rov 
 ru t uou. ' What, then,' he would at once say, ' are we to believe that the holy 
 and perfect law of God is not only incompetent to sanctify us, but that, it is 
 even the occasion of our being greater sinners than we should otherwise be? 
 Can it be lawful or proper to make such an insinuation as this ? Is the law sin?' 
 
 To this objection the apostle now replies ; and replies in such a way as to 
 shew, that while he fully maintains his ground, viz. that the law is the occa- 
 sion of greatly aggravating our guilt and condemnation, still the fault lies in 
 ns and not in the law ; for this is altogether worthy of approbation and obedi- 
 ence, because it is " holy, just, and good.'' This is at once a delicate and diffi- 
 cult part of the apostle's discourse, and it is managed with great skill and 
 effect. How often it has been misunderstood, and construed so as to be irrele- 
 vant to the object which the writer has in view, will be better seen in the 
 
286 ROMANS 7: 5. 
 
 sequel. In the mean time, I must beg the reader to dismiss every thing from 
 his mind but the simple desire and inquiry to know what the verses before us 
 mean, when explained by the object of the writer, the nature of the connection 
 in which they stand, and the language which is employed. 
 
 (7) Ti ovv .... ufiagrta; What shall we say then ? Is the law 
 sin ? Language of the objector, in opposition to what the apostle had 
 said in v. 5. — ' A^agxiu, from the necessity of the case must here 
 mean, the cause of sin. So Mic. 1:5, " What is the transgression of 
 Jacob? Is it not Samaria?" i. e. what is the cause of Jacob's trans- 
 gression, etc.? Eph. 2: 16, "having slain the enmity thereby," i. e. 
 the cause of enmity. To give dpagria a different sense here, would 
 be inept. 
 
 Mr] yivoiro is the answer of the apostle. He means by it wholly 
 to deny the charge involved in the previous question, in the sense in 
 which the legalist supposed the charge might be made, viz. that the 
 law was the efficient cause or the sinful cause of our sin, and that our 
 guilt might be justly put to the account of the law. So much is plain 
 from the sequel. But he does not mean to deny, that there is a sense 
 in which the law is connected with our sins, and that it is the occa- 
 sion of their being aggravated, rather than the efficient means of our 
 being sanctified. ' AWa intimates, that the apostle has some excep- 
 tion to the universal sense of [xi] yivono. The course of thought 
 runs thus: 'The law is not the sinful or efficient cause of sin ; but 
 still there is a sense in which the law is connected with sin.' What 
 this is, the writer goes on to describe. 
 
 Trjv v.[auijtIccv .... v6y.o), I had not known sin except by the law. 
 By what law? As a general proposition, it would be true as to the 
 law of nature or of revelation. " Where there is no law, there is no 
 transgression," Rom. 4: 15. When the apostle (Rom. i — n.) speaks 
 of the Gentiles as sinners, he makes them offenders against the law of 
 nature, written upon their hearts, Rom. 2: 14, 15; and when he 
 convicts the Jews of guilt, he represents them as offending against 
 revelation. What is said in the verse before us, if understood in a 
 general way, might be explained and defended, then, on general 
 principles. But plainly this is not the object of the writer here. He 
 is controverting with the legalists. And who were they ? Jews, not 
 Gentiles ; at least, they usually were not Gentiles. It is the Jewish 
 law, then, to which he here adverts. 
 
 But in what sense would he not have known sin, except by the 
 
ROMANS 7 : 5. 287 
 
 law ? Surely the Gentiles were sinners, who had no revelation ; a9 
 he has abundantly shewn in chap. i. n. This consideration leads us 
 of course to say, that the meaning of known (eyvmv) is a qualified and 
 comparative one, in the present passage. The meaning must be, 
 that he would not have known sin in any such manner and measure 
 as he then actually did, had it not been for the law. In this idea is 
 included, not a mere theoretical, and as it were scientifical, know- 
 ledge of it, but that knowledge which is derived from experience, and 
 experience in a high degree. The explanation subjoined in v. 8, 
 appears to leave no room to doubt this exegesis. The simple expla- 
 nation of the whole seems to be this : ' Unless the law had put restraint 
 upon sinning, I should never have known how great my wickedness 
 is, or how much propensity to evil I have. The restraints of the law 
 galled my evil passions, and they broke out with redoubled violence ; 
 and in this way I have come, from bitter experience, to know much 
 more of the nature and extent of my sinfulness. I should never have 
 known to what extent I was capable of going, had not the restraints 
 of the law brought me to a full development of myself. I was ex- 
 cited by the check which they put upon me ; and I acted "out myself 
 in such a manner as I never should have otherwise done ; and in this 
 way I have come to know my sinfulness, through the law. In this 
 way Tiacu hm,ftvn'ia (v. 8) was wrought in me, so that I have a 
 knowledge of sin such as I never should have acquired in any other 
 way.' 
 
 In this compound sense (so to speak) of fuller development, and 
 (through this) of more complete means of knowledge, does the apos- 
 tle appear to affirm that he has acquired a knowledge of sin by the 
 law. Vs. 7 and 8 taken together, and so they must be treated, can 
 leave no room to doubt, that it is not merely the instruction which 
 the law gives concerning the nature of sin, that the apostle aims here 
 to describe ; but a knowledge which is acquired (as described in 
 v. 8) by an experimental acquaintance with sin ; which had been 
 heightened to so great a degree by the restraints of law, as to place 
 the subjects of it in such a condition as to practical knowledge with 
 regard to his own sinfulness, as nothing else could have brought 
 about. 
 
 On any other ground of exegesis, the connection between vs. 7 
 and 8 must be virtually broken up. The connection is thus : ' I had 
 not known sin, as I now do, except by the law ; but now I do so know 
 it, because the law has brought out all my sinful nature in opposition 
 
288 ROMANS 7: 5. 
 
 to it which would otherwise have never so developed itself.' But if 
 we understand v. 7 as a mere eulogy of the law, on account of the 
 liffht which it gives, (as not a few commentators have deemed it to 
 be) ; then in what respect is v. 8 the antithesis of v. 7 ? That anti- 
 thesis or distinction is intended, the dt in v. 8 here clearly shews. 
 The true nature of the antithesis seems to be this : ' I had not so 
 known sin, except by the law ; but now I do so know it, on account 
 of the law. Verse 8 shews how and why the sinner comes thus to 
 know it, and that it is in an experimental way. 
 
 T*]v rt yap .... tnt&vfitjOtiQ, for I had not known even hist, 
 unless the law had said: Thou shall not lust. Tag confrmantis here ; 
 i. e. it is placed at the head of a clause designed to confirm and 
 strengthen the preceding assertion. The second clause is an asser- 
 tion of the same general nature with the first, excepting merely that 
 it is in its nature more intense. jEni&v/iiav is a word for which we 
 have no equivalent in our language, when it means, as it here does, 
 unlaivf ul or sinful desire in general, i. e. desire of what would be in any 
 way injurious to our neighbour. The reference in the mind of the wri- 
 ter, appears plainly to have been to Ex. 20: 14, Saiin £■& etc. ; which is 
 well rendered : Thou shalt not covet, i. e. shalt not inordinately de- 
 sire; but which is rendered in Greek by ovx inifiv/jijaeig, thou shalt 
 not desire, thou shalt not lust after or covet. The misfortune is, that 
 we have no English noun that corresponds to the verb covet ; for cov- 
 etousness means, a greedy appetite for wealth ; and lust means (at 
 least as now employed), unclean desire. We must then paraphrase 
 ijii&vf.iiav, and render it inordinate desire, forbidden desire. The 
 word sometimes means unlawful sensual desire ; but plainly it is not 
 here limited to a meaning so circumscribed. The reference to Ex. 
 20: 14 forbids this supposition, as well as the nature of the case. 
 
 Tt has given trouble to the critics here. How it differs from 
 %ui may be seen in Bretschn. Lex. re. When employed alone (as 
 here), it is used to join those things which in their own nature are 
 united and naturally follow each other ; or those which, for some 
 other reasons, must be associated together. Here the first of these 
 reasons seems to apply. -Eni&v^ia, in the sense which it here has, 
 is of course a species under the genus u/napriu. In such cases, r* 
 answers to the Latin que, ctiam. I have rendered it even (etiam), 
 because I apprehend that there is a kind of climactic sense in the 
 clause in which it stands. The writer appears to say : ' Even im- 
 moderate desire, that internal feeling which the law might not seem 
 
ROMANS 7 : 7, 8. 289 
 
 to modify, has been greatly excited and aggravated by its restraints.' 
 This adds a kind of intensity to what the writer had said of upuyilu 
 in general. 
 
 That the whole is here to be understood in a comparative sense, 
 is a clear case. If no revelation had ever been given to the Jews, 
 then, like the Gentiles, they would have had the law of nature to 
 guide and check them, Rom. 2: 14, 15. In the absolute sense, then, 
 the apostle cannot be supposed to speak. The writer means : ' I had 
 not so known sin as I now know it, except by the law.' A complete 
 and full illustration and vindication of such a comparative sense, may 
 be found in John 15: 22 — 24 ; which the reader is desired attentively 
 to consult. 
 
 (8) This verse explains how the law has been the occasion of 
 promoting the knowledge of sin, in the sense which the writer here 
 means to convey. A<fQQyCr\v 8i . . . . int&vfiiav, but sin taking oc- 
 casion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of inordinate 
 desire. — '^Jf-iugria is here the sinful principle in men, their corruption 
 or sinful disposition. It is personified in the present verse. But how 
 or why did sin take occasion by the commandment to produce all 
 manner of inordinate desires ? The apostle does not definitely an- 
 swer this question, but leaves it to be supplied, as a matter of course, 
 by his readers. What then is the principle in human nature, which 
 he seems to consider so obvious as to need no mention ? It is the one, 
 I answer, to which I have already more than once adverted ; viz. that 
 opposition to the desires and passions of unsanctified men, inflames 
 them and renders them more intense and unyielding. So most of 
 the commentators. Calvin : Neque inficior quum acrius a lege ex- 
 stimuletur caro ad concupiscendum. — Per legem instigatur cupiditas 
 nostra, ut in majorem ebulliat insaniam. — Vitiosa hominum natura, 
 cujus perversitas ac libido, quo magis justitiae repagulis coerceretur, 
 eo furiosius erumpit (in v. 5). Chrysostom : "Orav yuQ xtvog tmxtv- 
 pov/.ifv, tiiu y.oiXvoij.ie{ya, u'lgtruo {xuXlov rtjg ini&vf.iiag 1] cploi, 
 when we covet any thing, and arc hindered from obtaining it, the 
 flame of our inordinate desire is the more augmented. Erasmus : 
 Universa cupiditatum cohors irritata, prohibitione coepit acrius ad 
 peccandum solicitare. A most striking and melancholy example in 
 point is, that prohibition and penalty were not sufficient, even in 
 paradise, to prevent our first parents from ruining themselves and all 
 their posterity. 
 
 The very heathen fully acknowledged the principle in question ; 
 37 
 
290 ROMANS 7 : 8, 9. 
 
 so plainly is it a part of our nature. Thus Cato (Liv. xxxiv. 4) says 
 of luxury : Non mota, tolerabilior esset quam erit nunc ; ipsis vinculis, 
 sicut fera bestia, irritata deinde emissa. Seneca: Parricidas cum 
 lege cceperunt, de Clem. I. 23. Horace : Audax omnia perpeti, gens 
 humanum ruit per vetitum nefas, Carm. I. 3. Ovid : Nitimur in 
 vetitum semper cupimusque negata, Amor. III. 4. To the like pur- 
 pose is Prov. 9: 17 : Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in 
 secret is pleasure. 
 
 Now as this is an obvious principle of a corrupt natural state, and 
 will account for the fact which the apostle has asserted in the text, 
 we may adopt the conclusion that it lies at the ground of his as- 
 sertion. 
 
 Observe the strength of the expression, dcu Tijg ivzaXrjg .... im- 
 &v(iluv • as much as to say : ' Sin, i. e. my sinful nature or disposition, 
 did not simply produce int&vfii'av, i. e. some inordinate desire that 
 would lead to the commission of evil — but nuouv iirt&vfiiav, every 
 kind of inordinate desire, a great variety of evil passions, and highly 
 stimulated ones.' To account for this, we must resort to the principle 
 already stated. It should be noted here, also, that in this way it was, 
 that the law was the occasion of his obtaining a knowledge of sin, 
 which he would otherwise never have acquired. So the sequel in- 
 timates : 
 
 Xcoglg yug vof.iov uf.io.QTta vtxga, for without the law sin is 
 dead; i. e. comparatively sluggish and inoperative; comp. James 2: 
 17, 26, nlaxig vtxgu. That such must be the sense, the preceding 
 declaration shews; the amount of which is, that 'sin did by the com- 
 mandment produce all kinds of inordinate desire in him.' Now if 
 this be correct, then sin, without such commandment, i. e. without 
 the occasion of producing nuaav tm&vfxiuv, would be comparatively 
 inoperative. For the comparative sense of the whole passage, the 
 reader is again referred to John 15: 22 — 24. That the apostle could 
 not mean to be understood in the absolute sense, is plain from chap. 
 i. ii., where the Gentiles are convicted of sin, who nevertheless are 
 without the law here spoken of, i. e. without a revelation. 
 
 (9) Eyoi dt t£a>v .... nozt, for I was alive once, without the 
 law. A difficult and much controverted phrase. The dt presents 
 obstacles, in the first place. Is it dt orationi continuandtf inserviens, 
 or dt discretiva vel disjunctiva ? The first, I answer ; but it belongs 
 to that species of usage which inserts dt before an explanation ; " ac- 
 curatius definit," Bretsch. Lex. In such a case dt may be rendered 
 
ROMANS 7:9. 29] 
 
 enim, denim, and it differs not essentially from ydg as to sense ; comp. 
 dt in Mark 4: 37. 16: 8. John G: 10. Acts 23: 13. Rom. 3: 22. 
 1 Cor. 10: 11. 15: 56. As I understand t£wv here, it is an opposi- 
 tion of phraseology merely, not of sense. To say that sin was dead, 
 and that / teas alive, is saying the same thing as to sentiment ; for 
 whenever sin lives, then man dies, as the sequel of the verse clearly 
 shews. And when the writer says iym di t£oii> a. r. I., he evidently 
 means to give an example of what he had just asserted, viz. that 
 without the law sin was dead. ' Such,' says he, ' was my case nozt.' 
 
 But when ? The difficulty of answering this question seems to 
 have led Augustine, Calvin, and many others, to the opinion, that 
 t^biv here means : ' I deemed myself alive once,' i. e. before I under- 
 stood the spirituality and extent of the law. But in such a case we 
 should go through with the exegesis; and this would shew at once 
 the insuperable difficulty which attends it. For example : ' I once 
 deemed myself spiritually alive; but when I came under conviction 
 by the law, I was brought to deem myself spiritually dead,' (so far all 
 seems well) ; ' and the commandment which was designed to give 
 life, proved to be deadly (eiQ davccTOv) to me ;' i. e. it was deadly to 
 me, because it brought me under real and true conviction as to my 
 desperate spiritual condition ! Is this then the way in which the law 
 of God proves fatal to the sinner, viz. by convincing him of the true 
 and deadly nature of sin ? This cannot be admitted ; nor is it at all 
 to the writer's purpose, whose immediate object it is to shew, that the 
 law can never cure our maladies, but that on the contrary it is the 
 occasion of aggravating them. 
 
 'JSyo) di t£o)v v.. x. A., then, has the same sense here, as the %oyg\g 
 ydg v6(.iov dt-tagria vty.gd of the preceding verse has. It is an ex- 
 ample in point to illustrate it ; and of course the same thing is to be 
 said as to the comparative sense which it bears here, as was said of 
 dftaQTia vc/.gd there. As I have already remarked, eym i'Cwv, and 
 dftagrlu vixgu, both convey the same idea: when sin is dead, I am 
 alive; i. e. when sin is comparatively inactive or inefficient, (afxagriav 
 ovx f7yoi>, John 15: 22, 24), then I may be said to be comparatively 
 unexposed to death, or, in other words, be said to live. 
 
 Bretschneider and others understand t^oiv here in the simple 
 sense of degerc vitam, to exist or be for any length of time. But the 
 nature of the antithetic language here does not seem to permit this ; 
 for in the sequel, dnt&uvov is plainly opposed to t£wv here ; but 
 dntdavov cannot be the antithesis of ifav taken in the sense of 
 
29-J ROMANS 7 : 9, 10. 
 
 vitam degebam, for then ant'&avov must mean physical death. That 
 both words are used in a comparative and modified sense, is plain 
 from the nature of the case and the tenor of the writer's illustrations. 
 
 We return to the question: When was Paul 'jojolg vopov ; He 
 says note, once. But does he mean absolutely without law, or com- 
 paratively ? Not the first ; for no moral agent in the universe ever 
 was, or ever will be, without law in the absolute sense. But when 
 did the commandment come ? The whole turns on this. It is not the 
 giving of the Jewish law, surely, to which Paul refers by this expres- 
 sion ; for he did not live then. He must mean, then, some applica- 
 tion of the law to himself, in a new manner, or in a way different 
 from any which he had before experienced. When this was, he does 
 not say. We may suppose it to be in childhood, or in riper years. 
 The principle is the same. Whenever the law of God was pressed 
 on his mind and conscience with such a weight and power that he 
 could not dismiss attention to what it demands, then began his active 
 and increased opposition to it. Before this, sin was comparatively 
 dead. Now it revived in all its strength, and brought him into 
 deeper guilt and more aggravated condemnation. Such is "the com- 
 ing of the commandment ;" and previous to this coming, Paul was, 
 in the sense before stated, alive; i. e. he was less the subject of sin, 
 and less exposed to death. 
 
 The di after ik&ovoys is discretive; for that part of the sentence 
 which follows is placed in antithesis with the preceding clause. — 
 'Afiagrla ui>t'£i]oe, sin revived or flourished. Ava^dbi means to 
 gather new life, to shew additional vigour , and such is clearly the 
 sense here, as it does not mean merely a renezval of a life which had 
 before existed. The expression itself is plainly one which the writer 
 uses as equivalent to duagria. . . . Kartioyaauro iv ifiol nunav ini- 
 &v[i!av, in the preceding verse. As there "all manner of inordinate 
 desire was wrought did r?jg tvroXrjg-" so here, the consequence of 
 ild^ovarjg rtjg £i>TO?.ijg is, that sin becomes vigorous. 
 
 (10) 'jEyw di dnt&avov, but I died. The d't is here used, be- 
 cause dnt&avov is the antithesis of di/t'Crjdf, de discretiva. The 
 preceding dt indicates the antithesis of the whole sequel of the sen- 
 tence with the preceding part of it ; the present one indicates an an- 
 tithesis in the form of expression, between two subordinate clauses 
 of the latter part of the sentence. — ' Ani&avov, I fell under sentence 
 of death; " the soul that sinneth shall die;" "the wages of sin is 
 death." So plainly the next clause explains it, where the death in- 
 
ROMANS 7: 10—12. 293 
 
 curred is placed in opposition to the life which obedience to the 
 whole law would ensure. But then, there is plainly an intensive 
 sense to be attached here to the word dntduvov just as there is to 
 the word avi^ae. The apostle means to say (as v. 8 shews), that 
 sin put forth fresh vigour when the commandment came ; consequent- 
 ly he incurred aggravated guilt; and aggravated condemnation must 
 necessarily follow. It also lies on the face of the whole, that the 
 writer designs to convey the idea, that the law, instead of affording 
 sanctification and deliverance from sin, is the occasion of aggravating 
 both guilt and condemnation. So he had intimated in G: 14; and so 
 he here proves the fact to be. 
 
 Kal tvgi&i] .... fig davarov, even the very commandment which 
 teas designed [to bestow] life, was found to be unto my death. — Kal 
 iVQt&rj x. t. A. is evidently a clause added for the sake of intensity and 
 variety of expression — a mere epexegesis of ani&avov. The xui 
 here, then, is not and, but y.ai etiam ; y.ai " intendit vel auget signi- 
 ficationem." — In saying IvtoXi] tig £on]v, there was a reference in 
 the mind of the writer to such passages of the Old Test, as the fol- 
 lowing : " My statutes .... which if a man do he shall even live by 
 them," Ezek. 20: 11, 13, 21. Lev. 18: 5, et alib. Moi is, in point of 
 sense, to be constructed after -Qavaxov, and is a Dat. incommodi ; 
 comp. in verse 13. 
 
 (11) A repetition with some variations in the phraseology, of the 
 same sentiment which is established in v. 8. — ' H yag .... unix- 
 Tttvt, for sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and 
 by it slew me. JTao confirmantis ; for the sequel shows how the com- 
 mandment came to prove deadly to him. In respect to aqogftijv Xa- 
 (iovaa, see v. 8. The occasion was, that the law restrained evil pas- 
 sions ; which, in a graceless state of the heart, aggravated opposition 
 to it. — Aid rr t g ivioXijg must mean, through the law as an occasional 
 instrument or cause ; not by it as the efficient cause of sin, which 
 the sequel denies the law to be. — JS^ndtrjat /.if seems to mean, the 
 deceit which our sinful passions practise upon us, by leading us to 
 regard all restraint of them as unreasonable and oppressive, and to 
 feel that we are in the right when we resist such restraint. The 
 consequences of such a feeling will be ; to obey our passions and not 
 the law. Of course we are slain by such deceit ; it leads us to 
 plunge into ruin. — At avrrjg must mean, dc iproXrjg. In what sense 
 sin slays through the commandment, has been once and again stated. 
 
 (12) "Sian 6 /*ti> .... riyu&t], wherefore the law is holy, and the 
 
294 ROMANS 7: 12. 
 
 commandment holy and just and good. ' Slars at the beginning of a 
 sentence, is rendered quare, itaque, igitur, by Bretschneider. The 
 true force of it seems to be so that, i. e. things being as I have said, 
 it follows that, etc. — Miv is difficult of grammatical solution here. 
 Taken as the usual sign of protasis, where (we may ask) is the apo- 
 dosis ? A'al i] ivtoh) %. r. A. will hardly make one, for it is merely 
 epexegetical of 6 vo/xog ayiog. Bretschneider (Lex.) says, that fxtv 
 here cannot be translated. Be it so; it must still be true, I think, 
 that the writer had some apodosis in his mind, when he employed it. 
 I know it is often the case, in the Greek classics, that fxtv is employed 
 without any subsequent apodosis being expressed. But is it used un- 
 less one is implied ? I think not. What then is the implied apodosis 
 here ? We may probably supply it from v. 13 ; and if so it would 
 seem to be this : u[iuqt'lu dt iaxiv r\ y.cxTeQyu£o[A.tvri ■Quvuiov diu 
 zov uycx&ov vof.iOV. 
 
 It will be perceived, that the present verse is not a regular logical 
 deduction from the preceding verses. The writer means to say, that 
 after all that he has said, the view which he has taken of the case is 
 such, that the excellence and purity of the law stand unimpeached. 
 The law is indeed the occasion, but it is the innocetit occasion, of sin. 
 It is the abuse of it which makes men sinners. It is their evil pas- 
 sions which convert what in its own nature tends to life, into an in- 
 strument of death. The reason of repeating vopog and ivroh] both, 
 here, seems to be, that both had been employed in the preceding illus- 
 tration ; see vs. 7 — 10. If there be any difference between the two 
 words, it must be, that vopog is the generic appellation of the divine 
 law, tTOFi; while ivroh] corresponds to ph, i. e. any particular pre- 
 cept. As used by the writer, however, no difference is here intended. 
 ' ' Ayia. here means pure, free from cdl moral defect, free from sin, op- 
 posed to sin. Amalu, agreeable to dc/.rj, i. e. promoting justice and 
 punishing sin. ' AyaO-t], good in its object and end, tending to se- 
 cure the ends of benevolence. The most appropriate to the apostle's 
 purpose here, of all the qualities which he mentions, is that of holi- 
 ness. Hence, 6 vo/.iog ayiog and r\ ivzofo] ayia. 
 
 Thus much for statement, that the law is the occasion of our guilt 
 being aggravated, instead of delivering us from it. The vindication of 
 that character of the law, which is stated in v. 12, follows. But before 
 we proceed to it, we must endeavour to solve some questions which 
 naturally arise here. 
 
 The reader has doubtless perceived, that I suppose the apostle to be 
 here speaking of himself when in a legal state, or under the law, and 
 
ROMANS 7: 11. 295 
 
 before he was united to Christ. This I believe to be the ease, for many 
 reasons; some of which I must defer to the close of the whole chapter. 
 It is sufficient to my present purpose to state, that nothing can appear 
 more certain, than that vSi 7 — 11 are a defence and confirmation of the 
 obnoxious expression (obnoxious to the legalist) contained in v. 5. It 
 is this verse, which gives occasion to the objection expressed at the be- 
 ginning of v. 7 ; and it is of course the same, which is the theme of vs. 
 7 — 1 1. But on looking back to v. 5, we find ypiv iv tjj actgxl to be the 
 condition of the person, on whom the law of God produced the un- 
 happy effect stated in the sequel. Indeed the case of itself determines 
 this ; for surely the law of God is not the object of the believer's hatred ; 
 nor does it enkindle his passions and aggravate his offences ; it reproves, 
 restrains, moderates, subdues his evil affections and desires. To prove 
 this, would be as superfluous as to prove that the renewed heart loves 
 and approves of holiness. It is surely none but an unsanctified heart, 
 which can make such a use of the law of God as is stated in vs. 7 — 11. 
 
 Moreover the difficulties attending the usual exegesis (usual in 
 modern times and among a certain class of writers) of this passage, are 
 truly appalling. E. g. vs. 9, 10, are thus explained : ' I thought myself 
 alive, i. e. hqly or good, before I was brought under conviction by the 
 law ; but when this conviction took place, a penitential sense of sin 
 became strong and active ; I was then fully persuaded that I deserved 
 condemnation (eyw ds ani&avov); and I found that instead of keeping 
 the commandment, 1 had only brought myself under its penalty.' Now 
 all this would do well, in itself considered ; the sentiment is evangelical 
 and correct. But the difficulty in obtaining this sentiment from the 
 passage before us, is, (1) That one must violate the usus loquendi. (2) 
 He must bring contradiction and inextricable difficulty into the context. 
 (3) He must make the writer assert what is irrelevant to his present 
 purpose. 
 
 First, to construe upugriu uv£Z,r t <j(v as meaning, a penitential sense of 
 sin revived or became strong, has no parallel in Scripture. 'AjxaoTia can- 
 not be shewn ever to mean penitential sense of sin. As little too can 
 i'Qmv be shewn to mean, / thought myself alive, i. e. righteous. Both 
 renderings are discrepant from all usus loquendi. 
 
 Secondly, if we take the meaning of ap,aQjia, penitential sense of sin, 
 and carry it on through v. 11, which is indissolubly connected with 
 v. 10, (as a comparison of vs. 7, 8, and the yaq in v. 11, shewj, it will 
 make a sense utterly inadmissible. E. g. 'A penitential sense of sin 
 (apaoTiu), taking occasion by the law, deceived me and slew me P And 
 is this an exegesis to be tolerated even for a moment ? I trust not. 
 Sorrow for sin neither deceives nor slays ; but just the opposite. Yet 
 such a carrying forward of the sense given to a^uQiia in v. 10, is fairly 
 inevitable, unless one renounces all the principles by which a writer's 
 thoughts are connected together. 
 
 Thirdly, such a sentiment as is given to v. 10, is irrelevant to the 
 writer's purpose. His object is ^o shew, that he has not rashly said, tcc 
 nu&^fiaxa tmv uj.iuqtl(xjvtu dt,a tov vopov, v. 5. How will it prove this, 
 if he declares merely that the law undoes the false hopes of the sinner, 
 
•296 ROMANS 7 : 12. 
 
 and brings him under true conviction ? This would seem, at least, to 
 be proving just the opposite of what lie designs to shew. Nor will it 
 help the matter in the least, if you suppose him to be speaking of the 
 experience of Christians; for surely it would not illustrate the declara- 
 tion, that the law is the occasion of our evil passions being aggravated, 
 to assert that Christians are convinced of sin by it, and brought to true 
 penitence. The whole interpretation, therefore, which assigns such a 
 meaning to v. 10, appears to be inept, and destitute of any adequate 
 support whatever. The sentiment which it brings forward is indeed in 
 itself correct ; but whether it is the sentiment of the passage under 
 examination — is a very different question. 
 
 I shall proceed, therefore, through the remainder of the chapter, 
 on the ground that a person in a law-state, and not in a state of grace, is 
 described. To some of the reasons for this method of interpretation I 
 have just adverted ; and to some more I must advert, in the course of 
 my exposition. But the more ample defence of this principle of exege- 
 sis, and the answer to the principal objections, I reserve to the close of 
 the chapter, because they will then be better understood than if they 
 should now be introduced. 
 
 It is proper, however, to say a few words here, respecting the use 
 of the first person singular, throughout vs. 7 — 25. Does the apostle 
 mean to designate himself specially and peculiarly, or does he include 
 others with himself? Others certainly are included, understand him 
 as you please. If he speaks of himself while under the law, he means 
 by a parity of reasoning to include all others who are in the same con- 
 dition. If he speaks of himself as a Christian, he means in the same 
 manner to include all other Christians, who of course must have similar 
 experience. So that Ambrose very appropriately and truly says : Sub 
 sua persona quasi generalem causarn agit. The use sometimes of the 
 plural and sometimes of the singular number, favours this supposition ; 
 comp. vs. 5, 7, 14, seq. and 8: 1, seq. The apostle often employs the 
 first person singular, where he is discussing general principles ; e. g. 
 1 Cor. 6: 12. 10: 23, 29, 30. 13: 11, 12. Gal. 2: 18, et al. ssepe. That it 
 is not unusual for the apostles to include themselves, even where they 
 are saying things which convey sharp reproof, is also true ; e. g. James 
 3: 1, 2, 9. Whatever ground of exegesis one takes, as to chap. vn. in 
 general, the principle that Paul speaks of himself only as an example of 
 what others are in like circumstances, must of course be admitted. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. 4: 6, where he explicitly asserts such a principle. 
 
CONTENTS OF ROM. 7: 13—25. 297 
 
 CHAP. VII. 13—25. 
 
 The Jew would very naturally ask, on hearing- such a declaration as is con- 
 tained in v. 12; ' What, then, is that which is good, the cause of sin ?' This 
 the apostle represents him as doing ; and to this question he replies, that it is 
 not the law itself which is the cause of sin, but tiic abuse of it by the sinner 
 which renders him guilty; and that in this way the odious deformity of sin is 
 peculiarly and strikingly exhibited. Inthesequol the apostle proceeds to exhi- 
 bit, in a very forcible manner, the fact that the law can in no way be involved 
 in the charge of being the efficient cause of sin, for it stands in direct and 
 perpetual opposition to all the sinful desires of men in an unsanctified and 
 carnal state. That it is holy and just and good, is evinced by the fact, that the 
 conscience and moral sense spontaneously take sides with it or approve of its pre- 
 cepts. Yet notwithstanding all this, such is the force of sinful desires and lusts, 
 that they triumph over the precepts of the law, and lead the unsanctified man 
 to continual opposition and transgression. Even against the voice of reason 
 and conscience, i. e. of an internal moral nature, as well as against the divine 
 precepts, does carnal desire prevail ; we yield the moral self to the power of 
 the carnal self, and plunge deep into ruin, while the voice of God's law is 
 thundering in our ears, and the voice of our own consciences is loudly remon- 
 strating against our conduct. ' Wretched men that we are !' Truly wretched, 
 while out of Christ, while under the law, while destitute of that spirit of 
 adoption, which subdues the carnal man, and leads us to walk nurd nvtvaa, 
 and furnishes us with grace to do so ! 
 
 The purpose of all this illustration or representation, on the part of the 
 apostle, is very plain. If such is the state of those who are under the law, 
 that all its prohibitions, penalties, and commands will produce no decisive in- 
 fluence in reforming and sanctifying them ; if such is the wickedness of un- 
 sanctified men, that they refuse to hearken to the voice of conscience even, as 
 well as of the divine law; then is the condition of the legalist, who places his 
 hopes in the sanctifying power of that law, desperate indeed. Well may he ex- 
 claim : raXaiTtogog iyoj uv&(jomos ■' rt'g (it yvaerai tx tov ovj/uarog rov&avdrov; 
 Who can refrain, now, from perceiving that all this is much to the purpose of 
 the apostle, whose object it is to show, that to be under grace (and not under 
 the law) affords the only hope for the sinner? Accordingly, in chap. VIII. 
 1 — 17, he shews that the opposite of all which he has been before describing 
 takes place in the unregenerate, and that a filial spirit subdues carnal affec- 
 tions, overcomes the world, and enables Christians to walk according to the 
 Spirit ; nothing of which is accomplished, while men are in the condition de- 
 scribed in 7: 14 — 25. 
 
 Now to what special end of the apostle would it be here subservient, if we 
 suppose him to be describing a state of grace in chap. VII.? How does the 
 contest in the breast of Christians against sin, prove the inefficacy of the lazo 
 to sanctify them ? For to prove such an inefricacy, it must be admitted, is the 
 general object of all the present discourse. The fact is, that such a statement 
 would prove too much. It would shew that grace is wanting in efficacy, as 
 well as the law; for the Christian, being a subject of grace, and still keeping 
 vip such a contest, one might of course be tempted to say : ' It appears, then, 
 that grace is no more competent than law, to subdue sin and sanctify the 
 heart.' And indeed he might well say this, if the ground of those who con- 
 strue all this of the regenerate man be correct. For what is the real state of 
 the whole matter as represented by the apostle ? It is, that in every contest here 
 between the flesh and the spirit (the moral man), the former comes off vic- 
 torious. And can this be a regenerate state ? Is this " the victory which is of 
 God, and overcometh the world?" "He that is born of God sinneth not;" 
 those that love his law " do no iniquity ;" he that loveth Christ, " keepeth his 
 commandments;" i. e. a habitual and voluntary offender such an one is not ; 
 he gives not himself up to any course of sin; it is his habitual study and ef- 
 
 38 
 
298 ROMANS 7: 13. 
 
 fort to subdue his passions and obey the commandments of God. But what 
 of all this is there, in the case which the apostle presents in 7: 14 — 25? Read 
 now chap. VIII. I — 17, and then ask : Is the man described in 7: 14 — 25, who 
 yields in every instance to the assault of his passions, and suffers them contin- 
 ually to triumph over law, conscience, and ever)' other consideration, such a 
 man or the same man as is described in 8: 1 — 17? In this latter passage the 
 man is described " who walks not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Can 
 this then be the same man who does walk after the flesh, and always does 
 this, even when the voice of God and conscience is thundering in his ears, 
 and his own internal moral nature is warning hirn against the course he pur- 
 sues ? Impossible. Light and darkness are not more diverse than these two 
 cast's. 
 
 The transition which is represented as taking place, at the close of chap. 
 VII. and the commencement of chap. VIII., most fully exhibits this. Here 
 is indeed a wonderful transition ; one from a state of captivity to the law of 
 sin and death, to a state of freedom from both, to the enjoyment of the glori- 
 ous liberty of the children of God. But if the contest in chap. 7: 14 — 25 is 
 meant for one which is only in the breast of the regenerate ; then into what 
 state does lie go, or what is the condition of him, who makes the transition re- 
 presented in chap. VIII. ? The only answer which can be made, seems to be, 
 that it is from a state of struggle with sin, to a state in which there is no strug- 
 gle with it. And does the Christian, then, attain to this state in the present life? 
 I will not deny the possibility of it; but as a matter of fact, who will bring ade- 
 quate proof, that he does truly " love God with all his heart and his neighbour 
 as himself," without variation, and to the highest extent of which he is capa- 
 ble ? " If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 
 in us." Such a transition, then, in this case, is utterly improbable; and there- 
 fore cannot be admitted. 
 
 But put the case which I have supposed above, and which accords with the 
 desio-n of the apostle and the language employed, viz. that the transition is 
 from a state in which the carnal passions were uniformly victorious, to one in 
 which the holy principle becomes predominantly so, and then you have not 
 only a possible but an actual case ; yea, thousands and millions of actual 
 cases. Can we hesitate, then, as to what the object of the writer is,, in the 
 passage before us? 
 
 (13) To ovv dya&ov .... {rdvaxog ; Has then that which is 
 good become death to me 1 i. e. ' You call the commandment dya&iq, 
 kind, beneficent, productive of happiness; how can that which is be- 
 neficent, be fatal to me 1 Is not this a contradiction V The answer 
 is, /.«?? ytvoiro ' i. e. it is not true that the lvxo\r\ ayuxtt] was of itself 
 fatal or deadly to you, «AA« 1) df.iagxia, but sin [was death to you] ; 
 for that ool ytyovt ftdvaxog is implied after d^cegxiu, is very plain 
 from the nature of the sentence. 
 
 "Jva qavr] .... ■Qavuxov, so that sin might exhibit itself, causing 
 death to me by that which is good. — 0ui>}} is 2 Aor. pass. Subj., but 
 is employed (as the Aorists pass, often are) in the sense of the Middle 
 voice. The meaning is : ' Sin became the cause of death to me, by 
 my abusing of the law which was altogether good; and so it exhibited, 
 in a true light, its own deadly and odious nature. The /aoi here, and 
 the t/.iol above, are the Dat. incommodi. 
 
 Ivu yiv}]xu.i .... IvxoXm, so that sin, through the commandment, 
 
ROMANS 7: 13, 14. 299 
 
 might be exceedingly sinful; i.e. so that sin, by abuse of the com- 
 mandment which was good, and making it the occasion of death to 
 the sinner, and by its opposition to a commandment in its own 
 nature holy and just and good, might thus appear to be exceedingly 
 aggravated and detestable. For y.ax>' vntQpoX}]v, used adverbially 
 instead of vneoljalXov nog, comp. 1 Cor. 12: 31. 2 Cor. 1: 8. 4: 17. 
 
 (14) 0'idaf.itv yap some critics divide thus: o'idu piv yap. But 
 the general usage of Paul is against this ; for in appeals of this na- 
 ture he generally uses the plural number, and not the singular. — Tap 
 illustrantis et confirmantis ; for the sequel is designed to illustrate 
 and confirm what he has said in respect to the law and sin, in v. 13. 
 
 O vopog 7ivevf.tctTiy.og lore, the law is spiritual, i. e. the law en- 
 joins those things which are agreeable to the nature and mind of the 
 Spirit. Flesh and spirit are often opposed to each olher in a variety 
 of senses; viz. (1) As flesh is weak and perishable (Gen. 6: 3. Ps. 
 78: 39. 50: 4. Jer. 17: 5. Is. 40: 6), so spirit (rvn , -nvnipa), the 
 animating and invigorating principle, is sometimes placed in opposi- 
 tion to it with the meaning of strength and permanence ; e. g. Is. 31: 
 3. But, (2) The most common usage fn the New Testament is the 
 tropical one ; where aap'S. is viewed as the principal seat or strong 
 hold of sinful desires and affections, and is often employed to desig- 
 nate them, sometimes simply, and sometimes with qpovt}f.ia added to 
 it; while iivtifiu, when employed in the way of antithesis to it, means 
 the new living principle, which is xl uvtvpaxixov, something pro- 
 duced by the Spirit of God, and guided by his influence. Hence 
 Christians are Trvfiiftazinoi, and unsanctified men are oapxixol, be- 
 cause the former are under the influence of the Spirit, and the latter 
 are guided by their carnal appetites and desires. All this is quite 
 plain, when one reads Rom. 8: 1 — 17, where the antithesis is fully 
 and explicitly stated. 
 
 To say, then, that the law is nvtip.aTiy.6g, is to affirm that its 
 nature is pneumatic, i. e. agreeable to the nature and mind of the 
 Spirit. The antithesis, therefore, is plain; viz. iyco de oapxixog 
 tifit, but 1 am carnal, i. e. under the influence of carnal desires and 
 affections. Even such desires as do not spring directly from the 
 flesh, are sometimes named carnal ; and this, it would seem, because 
 most of our sinful propensities are directly connected with the flesh, 
 and those which are not, are similar in regard to their character. 
 For example ; in Gal. 5: 19 — 22, the apostle names hatred, envy, an- ' 
 ger, etc., as i'pyu aapxog ' and so in Rom. 8: 5 — 9, xara oapxa iivat 
 
300 ROMANS 7 : 14, 15. 
 
 or ntginaittv, includes every kind of vicious life. And in the passage 
 before us, oagy.ty.6g slfti is explained by a clause which the writer 
 immediately adds ; viz. 
 
 Ilfjigufitvog vtxo rtjp afiugxiuv, sold under sin, i. e. the bond- 
 slave of sin, dovlog z^g uftagziag ' for so the sequel shews him to be, 
 inasmuch as he always obeys sin, whatever opposition is made to it 
 on the part of conscience or the divine law. The language is bor- 
 rowed from the practice of selling captives, taken in war, as slaves. 
 They were viewed as having forfeited their lives ; and so they were 
 sold into a state of the most absolute despotism. In allusion to this, 
 the apostle represents the person who is still under the law, and 
 therefore unredeemed, as being the bond-slave of sin. Stronger lan- 
 guage than this he could not employ ; and it will be important, in the 
 sequel, to look back on this expression in order to solve some of the 
 doubts which may arise from o /uow, 6 ov •fJi'loj iycx>, to QzXtiv 
 TxuQuy.eiTaif.iot, GvvrjdofACti rw vofio) rou dtov, etc. Let the reader, 
 who wishes to know the writer's own exposition of oagy.iy.og here, 
 carefully compare chap. 8: 5 — 9. 
 
 The law, then, is good, for it is nvtvfAaxwog, agreeable to the 
 dictates of the Spirit. It is not this, therefore, which is the efficient 
 cause of men's sins; it is that they are cagy.iy.ol, devoted to the de- 
 sires of the flesh, following the dictates of its desires. 
 
 (15) That the law does sustain such a character, must be well 
 known to the sinner himself. His own reason and conscience take 
 sides with the law, and approve its precepts. Yet still, so carnally 
 inclined is he, that he listens not to these, but acts directly against 
 them. 
 
 In order to express this sentiment in the most striking manner, 
 the apostle divides the person who is thus ougy.iy.6g, but is still com- 
 pelled to give testimony in favour of the divine law, into two selves, 
 (if I may thus speak) ; viz. the vovg or 6 toco uv&gconog (vs. 22, 23), 
 and the ow/ia, ougl, or carnal part of his nature. In the latter 
 dwell the passions and affections which sway the av^gconog ougy.i- 
 xoV in the former is still a portion of the image of God, which dis- 
 cerns, and cannot but approve, the holy and perfect law of God that is 
 merely a transcript of his own nature. If the reader has any question, 
 whether this last statement is in accordance with the apostle's views 
 of unsanctified human nature, he needs but to turn back and read 
 Rom. 2: 14, 15, in order to dissipate his doubts. That the unregen- 
 erate have reason and conscience which approve, and must approve, 
 
ROMANS 7: 15. 301 
 
 the divine law, shews nothing more than that they are rational and 
 moral beings, with faculties adapted to a state of moral probation ; 
 and that they are made in the image of God, so far as a rational and 
 moral nature is concerned. This is merely saying that they are men, 
 and not brutes. The faculty to discern what is good, the power to 
 approve of it, is in itself no more holy or sinful, than the faculty of 
 ratiocination is, or of seeing or hearing. Nothing can be more un- 
 founded, than the supposition that moral good is put to the account of 
 the sinner, merely because one assigns to him reason to discern its 
 nature, and conscience to approve it. Without these he could not be 
 a rational and moral being. They are mere pura naturalia, to speak 
 in the language of the old theology. 
 
 The reader need not be in any degree alarmed, then, for the 
 doctrine of human depravity, when he finds the sinner here repre- 
 sented as seeing something of the nature of the divine law, and testi- 
 fying in its favour. It is on such a ground as this, that the ways of 
 God toward men may be vindicated ; for should we allow it to be true, 
 that our physical nature is the exciting cause of most of our sins, we 
 may still ask : ' Is there not an toot avdgomog which opposes all 
 this, and solicits us to avoid sin and cleave to duty V And on this 
 ground it is, that God regards the heathen as being without excuse ; 
 which is clear from Rom. i. ir. 
 
 ' O yug .... yivojoxoj, for that ivhich I do, 1 disapprove. The 
 yuQ here shews clearly that the writer adduces the considerations 
 which follow, in order to illustrate and confirm what he had just 
 asserted, viz. that he who is under the law is quoy.iy.6q, etc. — Ov 
 yivojGxo) is rendered by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tholuck, and 
 others, / know not, i. e. my mind is so darkened by sin, that I do not 
 perceive the true nature of what I am doing ; but the explanation 
 which Paul immediately subjoins seems to forbid this exegesis, viz. 
 ov yug o fttko) x. r. I. Besides, the very height of the criminality 
 here depicted is, that the sin is against light and knowledge and 
 conscience. On the other hand, that yivwoY.to in Greek, and the 
 Hebrew 9^ , not unfrequently mean to know, in the sense of acknow- 
 ledging or approving, may be seen in the lexicons ; see Matt. 7: 23. 
 25: 12. Luke 13: 27. Ps. 1: 6. Hos. 8: 4. 
 
 Ov yug o {reXw, tovto iiguaao),for not that which I approve, do 
 I perform. Tug confirmantis , i. e. the sentence that follows, confirms 
 the preceding statement, by repeating it for substance, but in a form 
 more intelligible and specific. First, we have the general declaration : 
 
302 ROMANS 7: 15. 
 
 What I do, I disapprove. Next, the specific one, which illustrates 
 and confirms it: Not that which I desire do I perform, but I do that 
 which I hate. If there be any thing paradoxical here, (and as being 
 so, the first view of the case would seem to present it), it is occasioned 
 entirely by the plan of the writer to represent the two contrary selves 
 in one and the same person. /{uregyaCof-iut belongs to the carnal 
 self; ytpojoxa) to the vovg or taw uvilyomoq- and thus in succes- 
 sion, it is the conscience and reason, i. e. the internal moral man, 
 which disapproves (oudelm) and hates (jaiow); while the carnal man 
 does (ttqugom, tioioj) the thing which is disapproved and hated. 
 
 All speculative metaphysical questions would here be entirely out 
 of place. One might ask : ' Is it true, then, that a man does what he is 
 unwilling to do, and hates to do ? This would be not only to represent 
 him as acting against predominant motives, but as a machine who 
 could not follow his own inclination.' And on the ground of some 
 systems of metaphysical philosophy, the whole would indeed be ai^im- 
 accountable affair, as it is here represented by the apostle ; although 
 such philosophy is not unfrequently insisted on, and urged as being all- 
 important in theology. But still the apostle might make the appeal, 
 for his own triumphant vindication, to the breast of every man on 
 earth, where the moral warfare has been carried on, as he describes it, 
 between conscience and passion. And a most exact and striking pic- 
 ture it is too. The demonstration of its correctness is internal, in the 
 very consciousness of the soul ; it depends not on metaphysics or ra- 
 tiocination. 
 
 It is not true, indeed, that a man does what, on the whole, he is un- 
 willing to do ; nor is this what the apostle means to affirm. But it is 
 true, that men often do what reason and conscience disapprove ; and 
 which he here expresses in the strong language of ov xHAw and {iutm, 
 i. e. it is the taoi avd-gmnog of whom this is predicated. And even this, 
 in a contrast like the present, is not to be urged to its highest point of pos- 
 sible meaning. Thus, for example, [now does not always mean positive 
 hatred, but a not loving, or merely a comparatively not loving, i. e. a less 
 loving ; for so the examples in Matt. 6: 24. Luke 16: 13. 14: 26, teach 
 us. The last example here is perfectly in point, to shew that pio-w may 
 mean (as it certainly does here) merely a less loving of some than others; 
 comp. as exegetical of it, Matt. 10: 37. That dskoo and uhjco, then, can 
 both be affirmed of the conscience enlightened by the divine law 
 (comp. v. 9) , when they are understood in this qualified sense, (and a 
 qualified sense, on any ground of exegesis, is absolutely necessary), is 
 sufficiently manifest. Any one who undertakes to urge the sense of 
 words employed in such a contrast as is here presented, to the highest 
 meaning of which they are capable, must involve himself in difficul- 
 ties that arc absolutely inextricable. 
 
 There is a striking passage in Xenophon (Cyrop. VI. 1), in which 
 Araspes the Persian says, by way of excusing his treasonable designs : 
 
ROMANS 7: 15, 16. 303 
 
 " Certainly I must have two souls .... for plainly it is not one and 
 the same which is both evil and good, nor which loves honorable and 
 base conduct, and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not to do 
 it. Plainly, then, there are two souls ; and when the good one prevails, 
 then it does good ; and when the evil one predominates, then it does 
 evil." Similar to this is the sentiment in Euripides, Medea, 1077, 
 Mar&uro) f.iev, o'tu 8quv [.iiUm nana, 
 Ol'fiOg 8t X()lL<J(Jb)V T(i)V iflWl' (jovIivuutwv. 
 1 know, indeed, that such things as I am about to do, are evil ; but my mind 
 is better than my inclinations. 
 
 The same poet (as quoted by Clemens Alex. Strom. II. 15) says : 
 AsXrj&sv ovSsv tmvoe (.t wv av vovdnxuq' 
 rvb>[iip> 8' I'xovtu ft' i) (f>vo-ig filU&TUl, 
 I have forgotten none of the things respecting which you have admonished 
 me ; but although I have a desire to do them, nature struggles against it. 
 
 To the same purpose, and in a manner very much like that of Paid, 
 Epictetus says (Enchirid. II. 26) : '0 uuuotuvwv, o (lev 3i).fi ov noiu' 
 v.ul o (ir> \rsXsi,, noiil. So Plautus (Trinumnus, Act. IV. Seen. 2, v. 31) ; 
 Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser ; / knew that it 
 ivas becoming, but, me miserable! I Could not do it. Seneca (Ep. Ill): 
 Quid est ... . quod nos alio tendentes, alio trahit, et eo mule recedere 
 cupimus repellit? Quid colluctatur cum ammo nostro, nee permittit nobis 
 quidquam semel velle ? Ovid (Metamorph. VII. 10): Aliudque cupido, 
 mens aliud suadet ; Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Seneca 
 (Hippol. v. 604): Vos testor .... hoc quod volo, me nolle. 
 
 So Lactantius also represents a heathen as saying : Volo equidem 
 non peccare, sed vincor ; indutus enim sum carne fragili. Itaque ducor 
 incertus, et pecco non quia volo, sed quia cogor. 
 
 These quotations (for which I gratefully express my obligations to 
 Prof. Tholuck) shew how clear and distinct the impression is upon 
 the human mind, in all countries, that there is a struggle in the breast 
 between conscience and carnal inclination. They also shew how 
 much alike, men enlightened or unenlightened by revelation express 
 themselves in relation to the struggle in question. They answer still 
 another purpose, viz. to shew that language of this nature is used, and 
 is to be understood, in the popular sense, and in this only. 
 
 (16) Ei 6i . . . . y.cdog, if noio I do that which I do not desire, 
 1 acknowledge that the law is good ; i. e. if my reason and conscience 
 disapprove that which I do, then my inward man bears testimony in 
 favour of the law, gives assent to the goodness of it. At " orationi 
 continuandae inservit." JEv^pjiu, lit. to speak with, to confess, to 
 acknowledge. The appeal here in favour of the law is very strong ; 
 for even those who habitually violate it, are represented as testifying in 
 its favour. In one point of view, this is stronger testimony than that 
 of Christians; for if the real enemies themselves of the law feel obliged 
 
304 ROMANS 7: 17, 18. 
 
 to confess its excellence, we may well expect that the friends of the 
 law will do the same ; as indeed they of course do. 
 
 (17) Nvvi di . . . . uf-iaQTiu, 7iow, moreover, it is no longer I who 
 do this, but sin which dioclls in me. At confirmative, " accuratius 
 definit." Two consequences follow from the principle asserted in 
 v. 15; viz. first, that the internal man assents to the goodness of the 
 divine law ; secondly, that it is not reason and conscience unperverted 
 which lead men to sin, but their carnal desires. The latter senti- 
 ment is asserted in v. 17. ' Eyw, therefore, is the moral self, the vovg 
 or tow uv&Qomo<; here; while r, a^apriu (here personified) means, 
 the sinful passions and affections of men. The distinction here made, 
 between the higher moral self of reason and conscience, and the 
 lower one of carnal passions and appetites, is very striking. In like 
 manner Seneca says : Mens cujusque is est quisque, non ea figura 
 quse digito monstrari potest ; the mind of a man is himself, not that 
 part which may he pointed out with one's finger, i. e. not the body. 
 So Augustine : Magis ego in eo quod in me approbabam, quam in eo 
 quod in me improbabam, Confess. VIII. 5. 
 
 (18) Old a yap .... ccya&ov, for I know that in me, that is, in 
 my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. — Tap explicantis; for the 
 present verse is designed to explain the preceding one. There the 
 apostle had said : It is sin who dwelleth in me. But what is meant 
 by me ? The answer in v. 18 is : The carnal man. To say that sin 
 dwells in me, and to say that no good thing dwells in my flesh, is one 
 and the same thing here. Let the reader compare, in order to ascer- 
 tain the meaning of the writer, vs. 5, 14. 
 
 But this is not all. The apostle goes further than merely to assert, 
 that the carnal part of himself is destitute of any thing spiritually 
 good. He maintains, also, that it has a predominant power over him 
 who is still "under the law and not under grace." To yap .... 
 tvpioxo), for to will that which is good, is in my power ; but to do it, 
 I do not find [in my power]. — To &t'),6iv here is of course employed 
 in the same sense as fitXco in v. 16, i. e. to designate the approbation 
 or desire of reason and conscience. Tap is inserted before a clause 
 designed to illustrate and enforce the preceding declaration. — TTapa- 
 xeiTai, lit. lies by me or before me, i. e. is accessible, is possible, is in 
 my power. — Ova evpioau, I do not find, is an elliptical expression. 
 The complement here would seem to be thus : Ovv. lupiaxo) [napa- 
 aflfiivov (io t], i. e. I do not find it in my power. But no metaphysi- 
 cal nicety of expression is here intended. The writer evidently 
 
ROMANS 7 : 18—21. 305 
 
 means to say, that the carnal part is altogether the predominant self; 
 just in the same manner as he says, that " the natural man receiveth 
 not the things of the Spirit of God .... neither can he know them." 
 So again : " The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not sub- 
 ject to the law of God, nor indeed ran it be," Rom. 8: 7. As accoxc- 
 xog, i. e. as swayed and directed by carnal desires and affections, the 
 sinner finds no power to do good. The assertion of the apostle does 
 not respect men in a mere psychological or physiological point of 
 view, with simple reference to the powers and attributes of their 
 nature ; but it respects them as aagxixoi, as tv aaQxi, and as acting 
 agreeably to this predominating part of themselves. 
 
 To xalov stands in the original after xuiiQya&a&at' but I have 
 arranged it in the translation, so as to make the sense as explicit as 
 I can. 
 
 (19) Ov yao o &&co x. r. A., appears to be a repetition of v. 15. 
 It is so in fact; but it is not designed to be merely a repetition. 
 First, the form is a little varied ; for here we have ay ad' 6 v and ym-aov. 
 But secondly, the sentence here commences with a yap confirmantis, 
 and it appears to be designed to confirm the preceding declaration. 
 What is the proof that my reason and conscience approve that which 
 is good, and that I find myself unable to effect it 1 It is, that I in fact 
 leave undone the good which I approve, and do the evil which I 
 disapprove. 
 
 (20) This verse is a summary repetition of vs. 16, 17, omitting 
 one clause of them ; as may be seen by comparison. The assertion 
 here is again, that as the moral I, viz. the conscience and reason, 
 disapproves of evil, the commission of it is not occasioned by the lata 
 av&Qamog, but by the av&Qomog oaQY.iY.og. 
 
 (21) Next follows a deduction from the preceding representations, 
 of which uga, then, therefore, is the sign. 
 
 The grammatical construction of the verse is difficult, and has 
 been a matter of contest among critics. Only two methods of ex- 
 planation seem to me worth discussing, (a) * I find xov vofiov, a law 
 or constitution, viz. of my nature, that when I would do good, evil is 
 near at hand.' So Calvin, Venema, Limborch, Michaelis, Bolten, 
 Amnion, etc. It is charged as a difficulty upon this mode of inter- 
 pretation, that the article in xov vojliov cannot well be accounted for; 
 for vo^iov in v. 23 has it not. But this objection has little weight 
 indeed; for vofxog in v. 21 is surely a. particular, specific voy.og~ but 
 in v. 23, xov hsQOv vo/.iov would give a sense which the writer does 
 39 
 
30G ROMANS 7 : 21, 22. 
 
 not intend, for he means here only to say that there is another law, 
 i. e. some other law, in opposition to the law of his mind. Ev rolg 
 uakioi does indeed specificate the vofxog in question; but in such a 
 case, the article may be either inserted or omitted. A comparison, 
 moreover, of v. 23 with v. 21, seems to render it quite plain, that tov 
 ixjfiov in the latter is the same as the t'rfgov vo^iov in the former. I 
 take the meaning of the writer to be, that he finds it to be a custom 
 or Imo with him, resulting from his carnal nature, that when his rea- 
 son and conscience decide in favour of doing good, evil comes in and 
 prevents it ; i. e. his carnal affections and desires interpose and hin- 
 der his doing good ; in other words, he finds the doing of evil so 
 habitual with himself, that he must regard it as a controlling law of 
 his carnal nature. 
 
 (6) The second method puts a comma after uqcc, and construes 
 the intermediate clause thus : 'Efiol ko {ftlovzb noielv tov v6(.iov, 
 [sc. rioitiv] to y.uXov thus making to xulov a synonyme with tov 
 vofiov, and supposing noulv to be virtually repeated before it. So 
 Tholuck, Knapp, et al. This explanation is a possible one ; but I 
 can hardly bring myself to feel that it is probable. In sense it does 
 not differ materially from the other ; and therefore it offers no special 
 inducement to adopt it. 
 
 Ef-iol to ttctxov 7iuqux£itui, evil is at hand, evil is near or in 
 readiness. The meaning here is, as v. 23 shews, that evil stands 
 ready to usurp the place of good, and does in fact usurp it. 
 
 (22) ^vvrjdofjiai ydo .... at>\tQwnov,for I delight in the law of 
 God, as it respects the internal mem. Fug illustrantis. The senti- 
 ment is, for substance, the same as in vs. 15 — 17 ; but the costume 
 in which it appears, is diverse. That the sentiment, moreover, is 
 epexegetical of v. 21, is quite plain. Hence the yuQ with which it 
 is introduced. 
 
 In regard to the words; Gvvr,do(.iut, here corresponds to avfapijfit 
 in v. 16; and tooi uv&gwrtov here, corresponds to lyo'i in v. 17. If 
 any one is disposed to urge here the strength of the expression ovvt]- 
 dof-icci tm vof.io), as being inconsistent with an unregenerate state, he 
 will do well to look back on v. 14 and ask, whether the expression 
 there, on the other side, is not still stronger. The truth is, in a con- 
 trast like this, where the mind of the writer is wrought up to a high 
 pitch of feeling, the mere forms of expression cannot in themselves 
 go very far toward establishing any principle of doctrine. It is to 
 the object at which the writer is earning, that we must look ; and this 
 
ROMANS 7: 22, 23. 30? 
 
 object has been already brought to view. But if any one insists on 
 urging the form of expression, I must ask him first to construe v. 14 
 by the rule which he himself here adopts ; and then to compare 
 Mark 6: 20. John 5: 35. Matt. 13: 20. John 2: 23—25. Acts 8: 13, 
 comp. vs. 20 — 23. Isa. 58: 2, where it is said of the wicked, that 
 "they delight to know my ways," and "they take delight in ap- 
 proaching to God." Comp. also 1 K. 21: 27—29. 1 John 3: 9. Ps. 
 119: 3. Many other passages of the like tenor could be adduced, in 
 order to show that a qualified sense is to be put on such expressions. 
 Above all, John 15: 22—24. Matt. 6: 24. Luke 16: 13 and 14: 2G, 
 shew that very strong expressions of this kind are to be modified ac- 
 cording to the nature of the case which is under consideration. 
 
 With such examples before us, and with the whole context (at 
 least so it plainly appears to me) to remind us of the necessity of 
 taking ovvijdoftcu in a qualified sense, I cannot hesitate to say, that 
 v. 22 only expresses in a more intense form and with more feeling, 
 what is simply expressed in v. 16, ovptyrjfit tm vo^ao. The approba- 
 tion, complacency (so to speak), which reason and conscience yield 
 to the divine law as holy and good, is the truth intended to be ex- 
 pressed. It is strongly expressed, indeed ; but not more so, than in 
 the cases to which the reader is referred above, and about the exege- 
 sis of which there can be no disagreement. In fact, the very next 
 verse shews, that the apostle cannot here be understood to mean the 
 pleasure which a regenerate and filial spirit takes in the divine law ; 
 for this, as chap. 8: 1 — 17 most clearly shews, would lead the person 
 who might possess it, to "walk after the Spirit," and not "after the 
 flesh;" while here, the very individual who "delights in the law of 
 God after the inner man," is at the same time represented as being 
 ruled over by the law of sin and death, and led to destruction by it. 
 Is this the real state of a child of God? Comp. 8: 9 — 14. 
 
 (23) BXtnoi di .... fiov, but I perceive another law in my mem- 
 bers, warring against the law of my mind. Ai adversative or dis- 
 junctive; i. e. notwithstanding my reason and conscience strongly 
 approve of the divine law, yet I do not obey it ; for there is another 
 law directly opposed to it, viz. the law dictated by my carnal passions 
 and desires. — 3Ieke6t as in v. 5. This law not only wars against the 
 law of the inner man, but actually overcomes it; — ar^ialwii^ovra 
 fits ... . (iov, lit. making me a captive to the law of sin which is in 
 my members, i. e. reducing me to entire subjection unto, placing me 
 altogether at the disposal of, the law of sin or carnal self. Captives 
 
308 ROMANS 7: 23—25. 
 
 taken in war were put to death, kept as slaves, or sold as slaves, at 
 the pleasure of the victor. The meaning therefore is, that the law of 
 sin had entire rule or control, notwithstanding the inner man decided 
 against it. And can such be the habitual state of any real Christian? 
 
 (24) TuXalno)Qog .... roviov, Wretched man that I am! Who 
 shall deliver me from the body which occasions this death or condem- 
 nation? No wonder that the sinner, whose conscience has been 
 awakened by the law of God, and who has been brought by bitter 
 experience to see, that all which reason and conscience do for him, 
 proves ineffectual as to the actual control of his lusts and passions — 
 no wonder that he should be constrained, in view of the dreadful 
 condemnation which seems to await him, to exclaim, " Wretched 
 man that I am !" Well may he express a wish, too, for deliverance 
 from the predominating power of his bodily carnal lusts and inclina- 
 tions ; which, in spite of all the remonstrances that his awakened 
 conscience makes, continue to expose him to the curse of the divine 
 law, yea, to its aggravated penalty. 
 
 Tov ow/uutoq tov {ravarov tovtov is construed by some, as 
 equivalent to atojua &vt]t6v, i. e. frail, dying body. The sentiment 
 would then be : ' O that I might die, or be liberated from this mortal 
 body !' This would, in the connection here presented, be the lan- 
 guage of despair ; like that of Job when in deep distress, 3: 3 — 11. 
 10: 18. But, although this is a p>ossiblc sense, it does not seem to be 
 a probable one ; as the comparison of it with chap. 8: 2 shews. 2w- 
 f.ia I understand here (so not unfrequently elsewhere) as equivalent 
 to oupt;, i. e. as designating the seat of the carnal and sinful principle. 
 In such a sense octgt stands opposed to nviv/ua, in John 3: 6. Rom. 
 8: 9, 5, 6. Suvutov is the Genitive of effect, as grammarians say, i. e. 
 it is a Genitive which marks or designates the effect produced by 
 oaifia' and this latter word designates the agent, viz. the carnal 
 principle in natural men, which leads to death or condemnation ; 
 comp. 8: 6. 
 
 (25) EvyuQiatoj .... ?]/.icoi>, I thank God, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, viz. that there is deliverance ; an exclamation from sym- 
 pathy for the guilty and wretched sufferer, who had just been de- 
 scribed. It should be read as in a parenthesis ; for to parenthesis it 
 clearly belongs, inasmuch as it breaks in altogether upon the thread 
 of discourse, and is simply an anticipation of what is about to follow 
 in chap. vm. 
 
 u4(ja ovv .... d{.(ccQiiag, wherefore I the same person serve ivith 
 
ROMANS 7:25. 309 
 
 the mind the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. A sum- 
 mary of the whole preceding representation, as uqu ovv denotes, in 
 respect to the contest which he had been describing. The sum of 
 all is: 'While my mind, i. e. reason and conscience, takes part with 
 the law of God and approves its sanctions, my carnal part obtains the 
 predominance, and brings me into a state of condemnation and ruin.' 
 Avjoq iyu>, the same iyco, i. e. I the same person have two minds or 
 inclinations in me, etc. 
 
 But what follows from all this? Just what the writer set out to 
 prove, viz. (1) That the law of God, which has reason and conscience 
 on its side, is not to be accused as being the efficient cause of sin ; 
 but that the indulgence of the sinner's own evil passions is the direct 
 cause of his guilt and misery. (2) That the law, with all its holiness 
 and justice and goodness, and even with reason and conscience on its 
 side, is unable to control the person who is yet under it and is desti- 
 tute of the grace of the gospel. From all this, follows the grand 
 deduction which the apostle intends to make, viz. that we must be 
 " under grace," in order to subdue our sinful passions and desires. In 
 other words: 'Christ is our ayiaopog, as well as our dcxaioovvt].' 
 
 And now, at the close of this whole representation we may well 
 ask : What stronger proof could the apostle produce, than that which 
 he has brought forward, in order to shew that the law is ineffectual as 
 the means of subduing the power of sin and of sanctifying sinners ? 
 The law with all its terrors and strictness, even when reason and con- 
 science are on its side, cannot deliver ix tov awuuxog xov &uvaxov xov- 
 xov. On the contrary, its very restraints are the occasion of the sin- 
 ner's guilt being aggravated, because his passions are excited by them 
 to more vehement opposition. Does not all this fully and satisfactorily 
 establish the assertion in v. 5, tu Txu&ijfiuxa xwv u^iaQxiav xu diu tov vo- 
 fiov 1 And yet, with what admirable caution and prudence is the whole 
 of this nice and difficult discussion conducted ! The law stands fully 
 vindicated. Even the sinner himself, who abuses it to his own aggra- 
 vated guilt and ruin, is obliged to concede that it is holy and just and 
 good. But with all its excellence and glory, with all its promises and 
 threatenings, it never did and never can redeem one soul from death, nor 
 " hide a multitude of sins." Christ is, after all, our only, our all-suffi- 
 cient Saviour ; his is "the only name given under heaven among men 
 whereby we can be saved." He is " our wisdom, our justification, our 
 sanctification, and our redemption." What then becomes of all the 
 vain and selfish hopes of the legalist ? The apostle has scattered them 
 to the winds, and shewed that ' no man can come unto the Father, except 
 by the Son.' 
 
 That there is after all, help for the poor perishing sinner, the apostle 
 next proceeds to shew. What the law could not accomplish, Christ 
 
310 ROMANS 8: 1. 
 
 has effected. That control over the carnal passions and desires, 
 which no legal penalties and no remonstrances of reason and con- 
 science would give to him, the grace of the Holy Spirit, given through 
 the gospel, does impart. No longer does he live to the flesh ; no more 
 does sin have a habitual and supreme control over bim. Such is the 
 happy state to which the perishing sinner comes, by being brought vnb 
 %uqiv • and this, he has abundant assurance, will be a permanent state, 
 his 'grace will be crowned with glory.' Such is the theme of the next 
 chapter ; but before we proceed to the consideration of it, it will be 
 proper to take, in this place, a brief and compressed view of the 
 grounds on which chap. VII. 5 — 25 has been interpreted, as having re- 
 spect to a person who is under the law and not under grace. For this, 
 I must refer the reader to the Excursus upon this chapter. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 1—11. 
 
 In the preceding chapter (vs. 7 — 25), the apostle has illustrated and enfor- 
 ced the proposition made in 7: 5, viz. that while in a carnal state, our sinful pas- 
 sions are not only exercised, but they are even rendered more vigorous or en- 
 ergetic by reason of the restraints which the divine law puts upon them ; and 
 consequently, that they ' bring forth fruit unto death.' The law, then, being 
 thus abused by our unholy inclinations and desires, and made the occasion of 
 increasing our sin and enhancing our condemnation, can never be the means 
 of our salvation or deliverance from that very penalty which itself pronounces 
 on all transgressors. 
 
 The present chapter exhibits the antithesis of all this. It is a commentary 
 upon 7: 6, or at least an enlargement and illustration of the sentiment there 
 exhibited. As v. 6 there, is the antithesis of v. 5 ; so here, 8: 1 — 11 is the anti- 
 thesis of 7: 7—25. 
 
 (1) * ' Aqu. vvv, now then, i. e. now agreeably to this. "Aga is 
 usually illative, but not always. It is so here, at least in part. But 
 it does not stand connected with the next preceding sentence. The 
 reader must go back beyond the illustration in 7: 7 — 25, to 7: 6 and 
 7: 4, in order to find the connection of the apcc vvv here. The 
 course of the sentiment is thus : ' Since ye have been absolved from 
 your legal state, i. e. since ye have quit your hope of being sanctified 
 and saved by the law, and have become united to Christ, in order 
 that you may bring forth fruit unto God and serve him in newness of 
 spirit, there is no condemnation to you in your present state.' This 
 of course implies, that there would have been condemnation to them, 
 had they remained under the law. 
 
 Outitv .... xazdxQt/iu here means, of course, no condemnation 
 which is to be carried into execution, no penalty actually to be in- 
 flicted. The gospel condemns all sin either in believers or others, 
 with even more strictness than the law (see Matt. V.) ; but under it, 
 
ROMANS 8: 1. 311 
 
 a way of pardon is provided, by which the condemned may obtain 
 remission of the penalty that they have incurred. 
 
 The reason why the apostle here mentions the subject of con- 
 demnation, is, because he had just called the attention of the reader 
 to it, by the exclamation : Tig f.ie qvoituo in rov aco/ituTog zov {)uva- 
 xov tovtov ; Besides, sin and condemnation are inseparably connect- 
 ed ; and hence it is, that in v. 2 the apostle speaks of " deliverance 
 from sin and death," by the power and grace of the gospel. The 
 subject of death or condemnation is, however, merely secondary here ; 
 for chaps. I — V. fully treat of this. It is sanctification, and not 
 justification, which as has been repeatedly remarked, is the main 
 subject of discussion here. This is made quite plain, by vs. 3, seq. 
 
 Tolg iv Xoioiai b]Gov, i. e. to those who are truly and spiritu- 
 ally united to Christ; comp. 2 Cor. 5: 17. Rom. 16: 7 — 11. Phil. 1: 
 1. Erasmus rightly : Qui in Christo insiti sunt. The ground of 
 this idiom, is the spiritual union which exists between the Head of the 
 church and its members ; comp. Eph. 5: 30. 1 Cor. 6: 15. 12: 27. 
 Eph. 4: 15, 16. John 17: 11, 21, 23. 14: 20. 1 John 4: 13. 3: 24. 
 
 Mr\ %<xza .... nvfvpa, is marked by Knapp as spurious, and is 
 omitted by Mill, Semler, Bengel and Griesbach. Many critics re- 
 gard it as being spurious. It is omitted in manuscripts C. D. F. G. ; 
 also in many versions and fathers. Only the last clause, however, 
 i. e. akXu xaid nvev/nu, is omitted in manuscripts A. B. ; also in the 
 Vulgate, Syriac, and Armenian versions ; likewise in Basil, Chrysostom, 
 and many of the fathers. It is a matter of little or no importance whe- 
 ther the words are received or rejected, either in whole or in part, so 
 far as the sense of the whole passage is concerned. Besides, the 
 very same words occur again in v. 4 ; which is the reason why many 
 critics have supposed that they are not genuine here. But this argu- 
 ment cannot be of much weight ; or if it is, then we may as well 
 prove the spuriousness of v. 4 by assuming that it is a mere repeti- 
 tion of this, as the spuriousness of this by assuming it to be a repeti- 
 tion of v. 4. On the whole it is quite clear, that there exists in the 
 connection of the discourse here, no imperious reason for rejecting 
 the clause in question. Only the external evidence makes the genu- 
 ineness of it doubtful. 
 
 If the clause be retained, the sense of it is : ' Who do not live in 
 such a manner as to gratify the desires of the flesh, but walk in such 
 a manner as accords with the desires which the spirit imparts.' The 
 
312 ROMANS 8 : 2. 
 
 whole clause is to be regarded as an epexegesis, added in order to 
 characterize those toho are in Christ Jesus. 
 
 (2) 'O vo/uog xov nvfV[.iaTog v.. x. X. The word v6f.wg here will 
 be best understood by referring back to 7: 21, 23, 25, where, in vo- 
 \.iov, iiiQov vopov, and v6[xw d/itccpxtug, the word means dictate (as 
 we say), dominatio, jussum, prcBceptum. As vof,iog cc/nagxlag means, 
 dictate of sin, so vofiog nvtupaxog (the opposite of vo/uog dfActQiiag) 
 must mean, dictate of the Spirit, i. e. inclination resulting from the 
 influences of the Spirit. 
 
 Ilvsvfiaxog xr\g Cat-fig iv Xqigxw 'lt]Cov, of the Spirit of life 
 in Christ Jesus, i. e. of the Spirit which imparts true, quickening, 
 Christian influence, or a Christian disposition ; comp. as to the influ- 
 ences of the Spirit, vs. 9, 11 below; also 1 Cor. 2: 10, 12. 12: 4, 7, 
 11. 2 Cor. 13: 13. That something different from the natural pow- 
 ers or the natural conscience of men, is meant, seems to be quite 
 plain, from comparing the antithesis here with what is asserted of the 
 natural conscience in 7: 15 — 25. In this latter passage, we see how 
 inefficacious natural conscience is, to control the passions and to free 
 the sinner from the condemning sentence of God's holy law. I take 
 Caitjg to be abstract for concrete, i. e. a noun designating quality and 
 holding the place of an adjective ; the meaning of which is life-giv- 
 ing, quickening. ' Ev Xgtaxco 'h]aov means the same as in v. 1. The 
 sentiment then is this : ' The dictate of, or the inclination imparted 
 by, the Spirit, who quickens those that once were dead in trespasses 
 and sins, and who are now united in a spiritual manner to Christ.' 
 
 This influence of the Spirit, Paul goes on to say, frees them from 
 the law of sin and death. Here (as this is the antithesis of the for- 
 mer clause of the verse) the law of sin and death means, the dictate 
 [jussum or impetus] of sin which leads to death or condemnation. 
 The apostle does not mean to say, that Christians who are under the 
 influences of ' the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,' are perfectly sin- 
 less ; but that they are freed from the predominating power of sinful 
 inclinations, such as is described in the preceding chapter, vs. 7 — 25, 
 and such as subjects them to the penalty of the divine law. More 
 than this need not be attached to his words ; and more than this 
 cannot be properly attached to them, when the antithesis in the pre- 
 ceding chapter is taken into the account, or when facts themselves 
 are regarded. 
 
 (3) To ya(j advvaxov too v6f.iov, for that which the law could 
 not effect, or that which was impossible for the late, viz. that which 
 
ROMANS 8:3. 313 
 
 the law of works could not effect or accomplish. Tag is prefixed to 
 a clause, introduced for the sake of illustration or confirmation. 
 
 Ev (o tjodti'fi diet rt^g ougxog, because it was weak through the 
 flesh, i. e. because, through the strength of our carnal inclinations 
 and desires, it was unable to regulate our lives so that we should be 
 perfect or entirely free from sin ; comp. 7: 14 — 25. -^«oS here, as 
 often elsewhere, designates carnal appetites or inclinations. 
 
 What the law of works could not effect, u &sog .... v.ftagriag, 
 God sending his own Son in the likeness of our sinful flesh, i. e. God, 
 sending his Son, clothed with a body like that of corrupt and sinful 
 men, i. e. with a fleshly or corporeal nature like to theirs, [did accom- 
 plish]; comp. John 1: 14. Heb. 2: 14, 17. Phil. 2: 7. 1 John 4: 2, 3. 
 1 Tim. 3: 16. The phrase ev o^oicoftazi does not mean, as the Do- 
 cetae construed it, merely an apparent likeness of human nature, 
 and not a real one. That Jesus possessed a nature really and truly 
 like our own, is established beyond all doubt by the passages above 
 quoted, and others of the like tenor. Equally certain is it, that al- 
 though he took on him the likeness of sinful flesh, yet he did not on 
 that account become a sinner; see Heb. 4: 15. 2 Cor. 5: 21. Heb. 
 7: 26. The amount therefore of the expression before us, is, that 
 Christ participated in our fleshly nature, that he took on him such a 
 physical nature as sinful men possess. 
 
 Kal negl dfiugrlag, i. e. y.ui ngooqogo: negl d^iagrlug, and by an 
 offering for sin. 'A^ugriu itself, in Hebrew-Greek, often corresponds 
 to DNEii , sin-offering. The phrase -ntgl upagxiug appears here to 
 be elliptical; the full form would be (as above) ngooqogu rrtgl 
 uf.iagxlag, by an offering for sin. But the elliptical phrase ntgl 
 u/.iagxiag, is frequently used instead of the entire one ; comp. Heb. 
 10: 18, with 10: 8, 6. Lev. 4: 3. Num. 8: 8. Ps. 39: 6 (Sept.). There 
 can be no serious difficulty in regard to such an ellipsis. Moreover, 
 that uiiuQxla alone is sometimes used for sin-offering (nNtan), seems 
 to be quite probable from 2 Cor. 5: 21, dj-iagxlav inohjoe ' also Heb. 
 9: 28, yo)Q(g ufxagriag. 
 
 A'ccTt'xgive .... ougxi, condemned sin in the flesh ; i. e. con- 
 demned the sin which fleshly appetites occasion, condemned our 
 carnal appetites and desires. The word wuTty.givi has occasioned 
 much difficulty among critics. The reason why it is employed here, 
 seems to be, that the writer had just used xuTcty.gip.u in v. 1. The 
 antithesis stands thus: 'There is now no xar«xp^« for Christians; 
 40 
 
314 ROMANS 8: 3, 4. 
 
 but there is a xaTaxgipa of their carnal appetites and desires ;' i. e. 
 Christians are delivered from the penalty of death, but their sinful 
 lusts are condemned to death or slain, in consequence of the provision 
 made by Jesus Christ for their deliverance. This antithesis seems 
 to have escaped the notice of most commentators ; and thus much 
 perplexity has attended the exegesis of xuTi'xgive. As to sin's being 
 put to death, condemned, or punished in Christians ; comp. chap. 6: 
 2 — 11, where the meaning of the writer is, not that sinners are pun- 
 ished by inflicting on them the penalty of the law, but that the carnal 
 mind is, by the grace of the gospel, mortified, subdued, crucified, and 
 as it were put to death. This bears upon the point in question, and 
 makes all plain. For what is the consequence of the Kait'xQive 
 uuugxiav here? Plainly, that Christians yield obedience to the di- 
 vine precepts; I'va to dmalw/na k. t. X., v. 4. As plainly, this is the 
 direct consequence of their carnal affections being put to death, i. e. 
 as it were, taken off by capital sentence or xaTUitgi^ia, if I may so 
 express it. All this is effected by the sin-offering of Christ, who 
 came to save his people from the power as well as the penalty of sin. 
 
 In looking back upon this verse, the reader will see that the first 
 clause of it has no proper grammatical sequel, as there is no verb to 
 govern to udvvctTOv, nor any to which it can be the subject or Nomi- 
 native case. I take this to be one of those cases of anacoluthon in 
 construction, in which the [Ace] case absolute is employed ; comp. 
 Luke 21: 6. 2 Cor. 12: 17. The shape of the sentence would seem 
 to be thus: 'What the law could not do ... . God condemned sin, 
 sending his own Son, etc. ;' i. e. what the law could not do, God [did ; 
 for] sending his own Son, he condemned sin, etc. If the Greek 
 were filled out, it should probably be done in this manner : To ydg 
 udvi'UTOv .... Trjg aagnog, 6 &tog [inoh]Oi '] tov [yug] iavTOv viov 
 y.. t. A. See Winer, Gramm. § G4. d. 
 
 (4) To d'muicD^a tov vofiov, the precept of the laic. So in the 
 Septuagint it is used to translate pn , DB^S , and iir^q . nfoigm&rj 
 iv i][uv, might be accomplished or done by us ; viz. that we might be 
 obedient, we who are no longer devoted to the lusts of the flesh, but 
 are influenced and guided by the Spirit. 
 
 Here, then, we have a view of the end which is accomplished by 
 the death of Christ; not the only end, but one great end, viz. the 
 sanctification of believers. This is one of those passages, which shews 
 the whole drift of the discourse in chap. 7 and 8: 1 — 11. Ev ri[uv 
 may be rendered by us, or in us. In the latter case it would desig- 
 
ROMANS 8: 5—7. 315 
 
 nate the internal spiritual influence of the death of Christ upon 
 believers, inasmuch as it causes a conformity of spirit or heart to him. 
 
 (5) 01 yag .... qgovovoiv, for they who are in a carnal state, 
 have regard to carnal things. lag illustrantis. 
 
 01 dt .... nvfVfiuiog, but they who are in a spiritual state, 
 have regard to spiritual things. Comp. vs. 2 and 9 — 11. 
 
 (6) To yag .... Qavaxog, for the carnal mind is death. Tag illus- 
 trantis again, where we might naturally expect St. However, I take 
 v. 6 to be co-ordinate with v. 5, and the yag here to indicate an 
 illustration of what is said in v. 4. The connection seems to be 
 thus : ' The precepts of the law are obeyed by those who walk not 
 after the flesh, but after the Spirit ; but carnal men will not give heed 
 to spiritual things, and their pursuits lead to death; while the spirit- 
 ual mind, i. e. a mind conformed to the dictates of the Spirit, stands 
 connected with life and peace ; or life and peace, i. e. eternal hap- 
 piness, are the consequence or fruits of it.' This is not direct con- 
 firmation of what is asserted in v. 4, but is an illustration of the 
 condition there described, by shewing its connections and results, 
 and also those of the opposite condition. 
 
 (7) Next follows the ground or reason why this is and will be so. 
 Aioxi .... tig fttov, because the carnal mind is enmity toward God, 
 i. e. is inimical to God, or (in plain terms) hates him, dislikes his 
 precepts, his character, and his ways. So the sequel, xw ydg v.. r. X. 
 The abstract noun i%-&ga, is here used for the adjective i'/^ga (with 
 accent on the ultimate), inimical, unfriendly. The proof that the 
 sentiment just uttered is correct, follows in the next clause. 
 
 Toi yag .... Suvaiui, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor 
 indeed can be ; i. e. it does not obey the precepts of God's law, nor 
 can it obey them. The very nature of a carnal mind, is to gratify 
 earned and sinful desires, viz. those desires which the law of God 
 prohibits. Of course, this mind or disposition, just so far as it pre- 
 vails, leads to the very opposite of subjection to God's law, i. e. leads 
 to disobedience. From its very nature, this cannot be otherwise. 
 
 The first yag here, in iw yag vofiw, is yag illustrantis vel confir- 
 mantis, i. e. it stands before a clause designed to illustrate and confirm 
 the preceding declaration. If the carnal mind does not subject itself 
 to the law of God, then it must be enmity to him; for his law is merely 
 an expression of his will and character. A want of subjection, then, 
 to this law, is a plain indication that the carnal mind dislikes it, i. e. 
 hates it. But why ? The fact is plainly asserted; and the fact, as plain- 
 ly, is evidence of what had been before asserted. But how shall the fact 
 
31G ROMANS 8:7,8. 
 
 be accounted for, viz. the fact that it is not subject to the law of God ? 
 The apostle gives the ground of it : ovdi yag dvvaxai, i. e. ovd'e yag dv- 
 vuiut vnoiuoneo&ai v.. r. A. Here then is a passage, on which the ad- 
 vocates of metaphysical reasoning with respect to ability in men have 
 speculated, and about which they have disputed, not a little. What is 
 the cannot ? One answers : It is a will not ; another, that it is to be 
 literally understood, without any abatement. So Luther, de Servo 
 Arbitrio ; and so many others. That the phrase stands in the way 
 of Pelagianism, and indeed of all unqualified assertions of ability in 
 the carnal man ; at least, that it may be easily and naturally so con- 
 strued ; it is not difficult to see. After all, however, nothing can be 
 farther from correct principles of interpretation, than to suppose that 
 the apostle had here any reference in his own mind to the psycholo- 
 gical metaphysics of the present day. What the natural and physio- 
 logical powers of the sinner are, is not here the subject of discussion. 
 Thus much the writer appears to say, and no more, viz. that the 
 (pQOvrjf.iu oagxog is not subject to God's law, and cannot be subject 
 to it. And is not this plainly and obviously true? So far as qgovr]- 
 fxu ougxog goes, it is directly the opposite of subjection in its very 
 nature. " How," says Augustine (and much to the point), " can 
 snow be warmed ? For when it is melted and becomes warm, it is 
 no longer snow." And so it is with the carnal mind. Just so long 
 as it exists, and in just such proportion as it exists, it is and will be 
 enmity against God, and disobey his law. But whether the sinner 
 who cherishes this qgovrj^a oagxog, is not actuated by other princi- 
 ples also, and urged by other motives, and possessed of ability to turn 
 from his evil ways — ability arising from other sources — does not seem 
 to be satisfactorily determined by this expression. So much, how- 
 ever, does seem to be decided by it, viz. that so long as this qgovtmu 
 oagxog is the predominant principle within him, so long he will 
 continually disobey the law of God. Such a disposition is in itself 
 utterly incompatible with obedience. 
 
 (8) 01 de .... dvvuvtui, those then who are in the Jlesh, cannot 
 •please God. The particle 8i creates a difficulty here. It seems to be 
 employed in a sense analogous to that of yag or ovv. One use of it is, 
 to introduce clauses confirmative of the narrative or reasoning, which 
 clauses are at the same time explicative, either by adding some cir- 
 cumstance, or by resuming a declaration before made, but now stated 
 in somewhat different terms, etc. ; comp. de in Rom. 8: 28. Mark 16: 
 8. Acts 23: 13. Rom. 3:22. 1 Cor. 10: 11. 15: 56. James 2: 15. So 
 
ROMANS 8:8,9. 317 
 
 here, oi d't iv octgxl x. r. A. is resuming the sentiment contained in 
 to qQovi]f.ia xt]Q oayxog £%&Qa x. r. A., and repeating it in another 
 form. Moreover, this latter form has special reference to 7: 5, 18. 
 
 But who are those that are iv octQxi? They are those, "who are 
 not led by the Spirit of God," comp. vs. 9, 13, 14; who follow fleshly 
 desires and appetites. In other words, all men who are not regene- 
 rated or sanctified, who are in a natural state, are iv accgxl, carnal, 
 and therefore are influenced and guided by their carnal desires and 
 affections ; comp. John 3: 6. 1 Cor. 2: 14. Eph. 2: 1—3. Col. 2: 13. 
 Consequently, as may well be supposed, &ecp ugioat ov dvvuviat, 
 they cannot please God; i. e. while they live in such a state, and are 
 led on by such carnal desires, they can do nothing which is pleasing 
 to God. The ov dvvuviat here is to be understood in the same way 
 as the ov dvvuiat in the preceding verse. 
 
 (9) The opposite character is now brought into view, in order to 
 render the sentiment more striking. ' Tpfig di .... vpiv, but you 
 are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, provided the Spirit of God 
 dwells in you. The di here is distinctive. If the Spirit of God 
 dwells in any one, he cannot be in a carnal state ; for the Spirit dwells 
 in and guides only those, who are the sons of God (x. 14), and there- 
 fore his friends, v. 17. Such cannot be at enmity with God. 
 
 The nvev[.ia \)tov which is here mentioned, is the same as that to 
 which the writer has all along referred. In the next verse it is called 
 nvsvfta Xgiaiov. As to the dwelling of the Spirit in Christians, 
 comp. 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17. 6: 19. 2 Cor. 6: 16; and with these texts 
 comp. John 17: 23. 14: 23—26. 
 
 ITifUfta Xqmstov is the Spirit which Christ imparts, or the Spirit 
 which makes us like to Christ. Either sense is good here. The 
 first is perhaps the more probable meaning ; at least a comparison 
 with John 14: 15 — 18, 26. 15: 26, would seem to render it so. It is 
 remarkable that in this short paragrapli (vs. 9 — 11), nvzvpu Xgtazou, 
 Xgiarog, and to nviv/nu tov iyeigavrog '/tjaovv (i. e. nvev^iu •Qiov 
 ■nuigog), should be exchanged for each other, and plainly stand for 
 one and the same thing. Is not this evidence, that the apostle saw 
 and felt no inconsistency in speaking of Christ, and of the Spirit of 
 God or of Christ, as in some respects distinct, and yet in others, as 
 constituting a unity of nature 1 There seems to me to be an entire 
 simplicity in the mode in which Paul has treated this subject ; a sub- 
 ject which has unhappily been made so complex and intricate, by 
 the subtilties of the schools. The simple facts, that Christ and the 
 
318 ROMANS 8 : 9, 10. 
 
 Spirit are divine, are one in nature with God, and yet in some respect 
 distinct from the Father, seem to be the basis of the apostle's lan- 
 guage here and elsewhere ; while all speculation on the subject, all 
 attempts to make out nice distinctions or metaphysical definitions, 
 are entirely neglected. Whenever the time shall come, that Chris- 
 tians are content with simple facts relative to this great subject, much 
 that has proved to be injurious to the prosperity of religion, will be 
 done away. 
 
 Ovy. i'/fi, possesseth not ; i. e. if the Spirit of Christ does not 
 habitually dwell in and influence any one. — Ova tonv aviov, he is 
 not his, i. e. he is no Christian, he is not a true disciple or follower 
 of Christ. The di at the beginning of the clause is continuative, 
 and should be translated now. 
 
 (10) El di Xgiorog iv vp.7v, but if Christ be in you, i. e. if he 
 dwell in you by his Spirit, if ye have the Spirit of Christ, if ye are 
 habitually influenced by him in your lives and conversation. The 
 di here is adversative. 
 
 To (tip oo)[.iu .... Siy.utoavvr], the body indeed is mortified on 
 account of sin, but the spirit lives on account of righteousness ; a 
 passage about which (including v. 11) critics have been greatly di- 
 vided. There are three methods in which it has been interpreted ; 
 each of which must be briefly noticed. 
 
 (a) Nsxqov means spiritually dead, (as often elsewhere); and the 
 general sentiment will then be : 'If the Spirit of Christ dwell 
 in you, then, although your bodies (i. e. you) are spiritually dead, 
 that is, are still the seat of diverse carnal affections and lusts (v. 10), 
 yet you shall spiritually live ; for the Spirit of him who raised up Je- 
 sus from the dead will subdue these forbidden affections and desires, 
 and gradually make you entirely conformed to his will, v. 11.' To 
 this effect, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Piscator, Locke, C. Schmid, and 
 others. 
 
 The objection made to this exegesis is, that in v. 11 the apostle 
 speaks of the quickening of those bodies which are -&vi]tu, mortal, 
 frail, dying ; an epithet that seems to be given to our frail, physical 
 body as such, and not given to it merely as the corrupt seat of lusts. 
 As it does not appear that {yvt]x6g of itself ever has the same figura- 
 tive sense which vfy.gog often has, i. e. morally dead or corrupt; so 
 one might be prone to conclude, that Ccoonoiijdtt, in this case does 
 not indicate the spiritual vivification which the exegesis already men- 
 tioned assigns to it, but rather the restoration of the body to life at 
 
ROMANS 8: 10. 319 
 
 the period of the resurrection. I shall take further notice of this ex- 
 egesis in the sequel. 
 
 (b) Another class of interpreters explain thus: 'The body is 
 dead in respect to sin, i. e. sin has no more power to excite its evil 
 appetites and desires. The soul has, moreover, the principle of spir- 
 itual life ; and he who raised up Jesus will also give to your bodies 
 [viz. at the resurrection], a new principle of spiritual life or anima- 
 tion.' So for substance, Origen, Theodoret, Clarius, Grotius, Ra- 
 phel, Taylor, Melancthon, Bucer, and others. 
 
 The objection to this is, that it renders it necessary to construe 
 diu before the Accusative as meaning in respect to, in reference to. 
 Moreover it destroys the antithesis in v. 10. It renders quite insipid, 
 also, the antithesis between oo)[.ia vtxgo'v in v. 10, and Ccoonoiqoet 
 tcc \)v>]Ta (7£0|t«aTa in v. 11. 
 
 (c) Another method of interpreting the phrase in question is this: 
 ' The body must die [physically] because of sin ; but the spiritual 
 part lives; and even the body itself will be made to live at the period 
 of the resurrection ; i. e. it will be raised up and become like 
 Christ's own glorious body.' So Tholuck, Flatt, Calvin, Augustine, 
 Beza, and others. 
 
 Understood in this way, the passage may be regarded as designed 
 to foreclose an objection which might arise in the mind of some 
 reader, who might ask : ' Are all the consequences of sin, then, re- 
 moved by the death of Christ V To this the apostle may be viewed 
 as replying, in the verses before us : ' No, not absolutely and entirely 
 all. Natural death still remains. But a glorious resurrection will 
 follow this ; so that in the end, all its consequences will be done 
 away.' 
 
 The view which I entertain of the passage, agrees substantially 
 with the first of the above interpretations. I understand ow/uu vixqov 
 in v. 10, as not indicating [physical] death; nor yet as meaning death 
 in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins, i. e. destitute of 
 spiritual life, or in a state of death or condemnation. I take it to be 
 used in the same sense as ■&avaxog in 6: 4, 5 ; as expressing an idea 
 exactly kindred with ovviGTuvQwOri and xuTapyrj&tj to oojucc r?;£ 
 dfidOTiag, in 6: 6 ; the same with dnoftavojv in 6: 7 ; dni&uvofisv 
 in 6: 8 ; and vtxoovg in 6: 11. That the writer did connect 8: 10, 
 11, in his own mind, with 6: 4 — 13, appears quite plain from his dic- 
 tion and general course of thought. In 6: 12 he calls the body 
 &vr}Tov, just as in 8: 11; and in the former passage he evidently 
 
320 ROMANS 8: 10. 
 
 means to designate by it, a corporeal, material, perishable body : 
 which is also the sense, for substance, in 8: 11. 
 
 But all the words above mentioned, in chap. VI., serve merely 
 to characterize what we call the mortification [the putting to death] 
 of the body, i. e. the subduing and mortifying our carnal desires and 
 affections, which are cherished by, or originate from, the body. I un- 
 derstand vtxgov in 8: 10 (as I do vtxgovg in 6: 11), to designate this 
 state or condition, viz. a state in which the old man is crucified, in 
 which the carnal desires of the body are mortified and subdued. 
 This exegesis has, at least, analogy on its side. 
 
 Thus interpreted, the sentiment of the whole passage would run 
 thus : ' If the Spirit of Christ dwells in any one, his body is indeed 
 dead on account of sin, i. e. the old man is crucified, or he undergoes 
 mortification as to his bodily sinful appetites ; but his spirit is render- 
 ed happy on account of righteousness, i. e. because of conformity to 
 the requisitions of the gospel. Yea, if the Spirit of him who raised 
 up Jesus from the dead, dwells in any man, that same Spirit will 
 quicken, i. e. impart life to, his mortal body ;' in other words, he will 
 not suffer it to remain a mere owpa vcaqov, but make it an instru- 
 ment of righteousness (6: 12, 13, 19), and give it a power of being 
 subservient to the glory of God. 
 
 By degrees, the Christian " brings under his body," and keeps it 
 in subjection. At first it is, as it were, crucifying the old man ; but 
 in the sequel, the grace of God makes conquest easy and even de- 
 lightful. It is such a quickening of our bodies, a converting of them 
 into " instruments of righteousness," to which the apostle seems to 
 me here to refer. One circumstance appears to be conclusive, in 
 regard to this exegesis ; which is, that the apostle here describes the 
 Spirit which "quickens the bodies" of Christians, as being the Spirit 
 which dwells in them, h'owovv iv Vfuv. Where is the resurrection 
 at the last day, of our physical bodies, attributed to the sanctifying 
 Spirit in believers? Very different is the statement in Col. 2: 12, 13. 
 Eph. 1: 19, 20. 2: 5, 6. Rom. 6: 4. It is, then, the Spirit who dwells 
 in believers, that is to quicken them, in the sense which is here meant; 
 and what can this be, except the one designated in 6: 12, 13, 19? 
 
 The body is often the occasion of sin and sorrow, it is a ow/.(a 
 &UVUT0V. It requires to be mortified, and crucified. But the Spirit 
 of God, in believers, by degrees brings them to yield their members 
 as instruments of righteousness. Then is the old man, the body of 
 sin, dead ; and the body itself, like the spirit, is quickened in the 
 
ROMANS 8: 12—17, 321 
 
 service of God. Verse 13 seems clearly to indicate that the present 
 passage is to be thus understood ; for there, tag nQu'Stcg zov aojf.iuTog 
 {fuvuTuuie appears plainly to convey the same meaning as aw[.tu 
 vexgov. The object of the writer, as I apprehend it, is to shew 
 Christians, that although mortification and self-denial must be prac- 
 tised in order to subjugate carnal desires, yet even here they may 
 expect relief in due time. Victory repeated becomes easier. The 
 enemy, often vanquished, becomes weaker. The Spirit of Christ, in 
 fine, brings the believer at last, fully and freely to dedicate all that he 
 has and is to the service of his Lord and Master; so that no discour- 
 agement should be felt, because the way is at first rough and difficult. 
 It is a path which conducts to life. 
 
 (11) El dl to . . . . vfiTv. The Spirit of him who raised up Jesus 
 from the dead, is the Spirit of God the Father, or the Spirit of God; 
 comp. v. 9, also Col. 2: 12, 13. Eph. 1: 19, 20. 2: 5, 6. Rom. 6: 4. 
 At here is a continuativc ; side, if also, if moreover. Zwonoiyou, 
 will give life to, toill animate, i. e. will make them active instruments. 
 Aicc to ivoixouv .... v/uv, i. e. the same Spirit who dwells in you, 
 will enable you to quicken the &vi]iov cw^a or ooj/acc ftavuiov, 
 which now occasions so much pain and mortification, and to make it 
 a willing instrument of righteousness, 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 12—17. 
 
 In the preceding verses, the apostle has consummated his argument to 
 prove that Christians, who are under grace, are the only persons who possess 
 means adequate and ample, of living devoted to the service of God, and of 
 renouncing sin and mortifying all their sinful desires. What those under the 
 law could not do, God, sending his Son for a sin-offering, and pouring out his 
 Spirit, and giving a filial and obedient temper of mind, has accomplished. The 
 mind is thus filled with desires of conformity to Christ, and even the body, the 
 seat of carnal appetites and sinful desires, will be so quickened as to become an 
 instrument of righteousness. 
 
 And what now follows ? Just that which we should expect from an aposlle 
 so zealous of good works as Paul, and so grateful for the blessings of redemp- 
 tion ; viz. an animated exhortation to live in a manner accordant with Chris- 
 tian obligation, and a view of the consequences which will ensue, from the 
 believer's being united to Christ. 
 
 (12) "Agcc ovi> .... £rjv, therefore, brethren, we are not tmder 
 obligation to the flesh, to live in a carnal manner ; i. e. since such a 
 spirit is given to us, and we have such privileges, we must not obey 
 the lusts of the flesh. The manner of expression is what rhetoricians 
 call kitoitjg, i. e. where less is said than is meant. The writer means, 
 41 
 
322 ROMANS 8 : 13, 14. 
 
 that we are bound not to obey the dictates of carnal appetites and 
 desires. 
 
 (13) El yug .... uTxoxrvt'jOxfip, for if yclivein a carnal manner, 
 ye shall die; i. e. if ye live carnally, ye shall come under the penalty 
 of the divine law, which threatens death to the soul that sins. See on 
 &ai>uTog, in chap. 5: 12. 
 
 El dt . . . . &](Jto&£, but if, through the Spirit, ye mortify the 
 deeds of the body, ye shall live ; i. e. if, yielding to the influence of 
 the Spirit which dwelleth in you, ye crucify the old man with his 
 lusts, if you suppress those deeds to which your carnal affections 
 would lead, then ye shall live, i. e. enjoy the spiritual blessedness 
 which the gospel promises to the obedient. 
 
 (14) The yug at the beginning of this verse, shews that what 
 follows is illustration or confirmation of the declaration just made. 
 The apostle has just said, that those who mortify their sinful appetites 
 and desires, shall live, i. e. shall enjoy the happiness which the gospel 
 proffers. What is the proof of this ? One convincing evidence is, 
 that such persons are led by the Spirit of God ; consequently they 
 must be the children of God ; and if so, he will give them the portion 
 which belongs to children, viz. the heavenly inheritance. Such is 
 the course of thought that follows in the sequel of yap, and such the 
 confirmation of the promise implied in £i']Ofa&£. 
 
 "Oooi yug .... &eou, for so many as are led by the Spirit of 
 God, they are the sons of God. That a special divine influence is 
 here implied in uyovrai, would seem to be plain ; for if nothing but 
 the simple means of moral suasion is employed in guiding the children 
 of God, how do they differ from others, who enjoy the same means ? 
 If you say : ' The difference is that the former obey the suasion, 
 while the latter resist it ;' I answer : The fact is true ; but then it 
 does not reach the point of difficulty. How comes the one to obey 
 the suasion, and the other to resist it? What is the first occasion of 
 this? If you say : ' A corrupt nature leads the impenitent to resist;' 
 then I ask : Had not the regenerate the like corrupt nature, before 
 their change ? What then was the efficient cause, why one obeys and 
 the other disobeys ? The passage before us ascribes it to the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit of God. That this influence is special, follows 
 from the fact, that if we suppose it to be common to all men, it would 
 be difficult to account for it why all men are not converted. Since, 
 however, the fact is that they are not, it would seem to follow that 
 where they do become converted, the influence of the Spirit is special 
 
ROMANS 8: 14— l(i. 323 
 
 Tlut dead, sons of God, a term of endearment; comp. Matt 5: 
 9, 45. Luke 6; 35. 20: 36. Rom. 8: 19. 2 Cor. 6: 18. Gal. 3: 20. 4: 
 0, 7, et alib. comp. Hosea 11:1. Ex. 4: 22, 23. 
 
 (15) Ov yup .... tig a.o[3ov, for yc have not received a servile 
 spirit, that yc should again be afraid ; i. e. ye have not the spirit of 
 slaves, who being in bondage, are fearing; and trembling before the 
 dreaded severity of a master; in other words, ye are not, through 
 fear of condemnation or death, all your life-time Iroyoc dovXn'aQ, 
 Heb. 2: 15. J up illustrantis et confrmantis. 
 
 AXXa .... J naa)p! but ye have received a filial spirit, by which 
 toe cry: Abba, Father ! That is, instead of the timid, cowering spirit 
 of slaves, who tremble before their masters, we are endowed with the 
 spirit of children, so that we may approach God with affection and 
 confidence. The word 'Afifiu is the Chaldee N2St, sc. nuirip! 
 Augustine and Calvin think that the design of using both Afi§u and 
 o nurrip here, is, to shew that both Jews and Greeks, each in their 
 own respective language, would call on God as a Father. But the 
 objection to this is, that the same idiom is exhibited in Mark 14: 36 
 and Gal. 4: 6, where such a distinction is out of question ; at any rate, 
 in the first of these two cases it is out of question. If 6 jiurijp here 
 be designed for any thing more than a translation of ° Afifia, we may 
 suppose the repetition to be designed for expressing intensity of child- 
 like feeling, for this naturally prompts to a repetition of the name of 
 a parent. So Theodoret. 
 
 (16) Avxo to nvfiif.ia .... -&tov, this same Spi?-it testifies to our 
 minds, that toe are the children of God; i. e. (as many interpret the 
 passage) this filial, confiding, affectionate spirit, imparted by the 
 Spirit of God who dwells in us, affords satisfactory evidence to our 
 minds that we are the children of God. ^vf.i^upxvpe7 here may mean 
 no more than the simple verb f-iaprvptco ■ for so, beyond all doubt, 
 avfA/iiupTvpeco is employed in Rom. 2: 15. 9: 1, al. The sentiment 
 of the passage thus construed, would be, that the affectionate spirit 
 which the children of God possess, is an evidence to their minds of 
 their standing in a filial relation to him. Tco 7ivfVf.iv.Ti rjfxoiv means, 
 to our minds, animis ?iost?'is. On any ground of exegesis, this sense 
 (for substance) is here to be attributed to this expression. 
 
 There is, however, another method of interpreting this verse, 
 which makes uuio to iivev(,ia to mean the Spirit of God, the Spirit 
 mentioned in vs. 9, 14. This is certainly not an improbable exege- 
 sis ; and many distinguished interpreters have followed it. Very re- 
 cently, Flatt and Tholuck have both defended it. 
 
324 ROMANS 8: 16, 17. 
 
 For a lone time I was doubtful respecting this interpretation, and 
 rather preferred the other. But repeated and attentive study of the 
 whole passage in its connection, has of late brought me to a pretty 
 full persuasion that amo to nvevf,ia is the same as nvevfia &iov in 
 v. 14. And if the question be urged, as it is natural that it should 
 be ; ' How then does the Spirit bear witness to our minds or souls, 
 that we are the children of God V The answer is, by imparting the 
 spirit of adoption or a filial spirit to us. It is this, then, which af- 
 fords the evidence to our minds of being in a state of filiation, i. e. 
 of bearing the relation to God of spiritual children. And as this 
 spirit comes from the Spirit of God, so he may be said, in this case, 
 to bear witness, because he is the author of that spirit, which affords 
 the evidence of our filiation. Those who adopt the first method of 
 interpretation, refer avio ro nviv^a to the nvtvpa vlo&iaiag of the 
 preceding clause ; and compare this with vs. 26, 27, which they con- 
 strue in the like way. 
 
 That the world deny any such testimony in the hearts of be- 
 lievers, and that they look on it with scorn or treat it with derision, 
 proves only that they are unacquainted with it ; not that it is an illu- 
 sion. It was a sensible and true remark of the French philosopher, 
 Hemsterhuys, in regard to certain sensations which he was discus- 
 sing : " Those who are so unhappy as never to have had such sen- 
 sations, either through weakness of the natural organ, or because 
 they have never cultivated them, will not comprehend me." Oeuvres, 
 I. p. 208. Paul has, on another occasion, expressed himself relative 
 to the point in question, with still more power : " The natural man 
 receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness 
 to him," 1 Cor. 2: 14. 
 
 (17) Ei d'e rt'xpa v.. r. A. i. e. if we sustain the relation of sons, 
 then shall we be treated as such, i. e. we shall be heirs. Khigovo^ot 
 fttov, heirs of God means, possessors of that inheritance which God 
 bestows. Ai continuativc. — 2?vyxh]Q0i>0[i0L Xqiotou, joint heirs 
 with Christ ; i. e. as Christ endured sufferings and was advanced to 
 glory, in like manner shall we also be advanced to glory. We shall 
 be made like him, be united to him, be with him, in possession of 
 the heavenly inheritance. For the manner in which Christ obtained 
 this heritage, see and comp. Phil. 2: 8, 9. Heb. 2: 9, 10. 5: 7 — 9 ; 
 and for the comparison of believers to Christ, see 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12. 
 Heb. 12: 2. Rev. 3: 21. John 17: 22—24. These texts sufficiently 
 explain the sequel of the verse, (in£Q x. x. X. 
 
ROMANS 8: 18. 325 
 
 32 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 18—25. 
 
 These verses constitute one of those passages, which the critics call loci 
 rexatissimi. The general object of tho passage, however, cannot fail to bo 
 evident to every considerate reader. In v. 18 the apostle asserts, that, the suf- 
 ferings of the present life are not worthy of ana comparison with the glory which 
 is to he revealed; i. e. future glory is great beyond all comparison or expres- 
 sion. Such is the proposition to be illustrated or confirmed. But how is this 
 effected? I answer, that the theme being thus introduced by the apostle, he 
 proceeds in the following manner : ' Now that sach a glory is yet to be reveal- 
 ed, (in other words, that there is a world of surpassing glory beyond the 
 grave), the whole condition of things or rather of mankind, in the present 
 world, abundantly proves. Here a frail and perishable nature serves to shew, 
 that no stable source of happiness can be found on earth. From the commence- 
 ment of the world down to the present time, it lias always been thus. In tho 
 midst of the sufferings and sorrows, to which their earthly existence exposes 
 them, mankind naturally look forward to another and better world, where 
 happiness without alloy and without end may be enjoyed. Even Christians 
 themselves, joyful as their hopes should make them, find themselves still com- 
 pelled by sufferings and sorrows to sigh and groan, and to expect a state of real 
 and permanent enjoyment only in heaven ; so that they can only say, for the 
 present, that they are saved, because they hope or expect salvation in another 
 and better world. The very fact that here they, like all others around them, 
 are in a state of trial, and that they only hope for glory, shews that the present 
 fruition of it is not to be expected.' 
 
 The practical conclusion from all this the apostle now proceeds to draw, 
 viz. ' that Christians, in the midst of sufferings and trials, ought not to faint or 
 to be discouraged, inasmuch as a glory to be revealed is in prospect, which 
 should make them regard their present temporary sufferings as altogether un- 
 worthy to be accounted of.' 
 
 (18) Aoyi&iiat, here means, / count, reckon, regard, estimate. 
 The classical Greek writers employed this word rather in the sense 
 of computing or reckoning, e. g. a sum of numbers, or of estimating 
 a conclusion drawn from premises by the act of reasoning. 
 
 It is difficult, at first sight, to account for the yuQ here, which, in 
 nearly every instance where it is employed, (if not always and neces- 
 sarily), has reference to a preceding sentiment, fact, etc. Here it 
 seems to be merely a particle of transition. But, although I have 
 translated it as such, viz. by our word moreover, yet this word does 
 not express the full force and design of the Greek particle. The 
 apostle had said, in the preceding verse : " If we suffer with Christ, 
 we shall also reign with him," i. e. we shall be exalted with him to 
 a state of happiness and glory. In reference to our suffering with 
 Christ, he then goes on to say in v. 18, I regard not the sufferings, 
 etc. Now as this passage was evidently suggested to the mind of the 
 writer, by the avfinda^o^sv in the preceding verse, so /«o intimates' 
 such a connection. Yet as the writer passes on, in verse 18 seq., to 
 a new turn of thought, and a commentary as it were on the words 
 
32G ROMANS 8 : 18. 
 
 avu^uo%0[.itv and oiwdo'^aodoiiiv in verso 17, so yuQ in verse 18, 
 also indicates a transition to something which may more fully illus- 
 trate or explain these words, /ay explicantis sive illustrantis. 
 
 That this particle, in itself, should necessarily denote a connec- 
 tion with what precedes, and at the same time serve as a convenient 
 particle of transition, shews well the nature of the Greek particles, 
 and the exquisite relations of speech which they are employed to ex- 
 press. Our English word moreover, is a tolerable translation of yug 
 when employed in this way, inasmuch as it indicates that something 
 had preceded, and also indicates transition. But the superior nature 
 of the Greek yag is disclosed in this, viz. in indicating not simply 
 that something had preceded, but that this was of such a nature that 
 the sequel was designed to explain or illustrate it. 
 
 Tlu&^iazu iov vvv Y.aigov means suffering, such as Christians 
 were then called to endure, or sufferings such as all men are exposed 
 to endure, in the present life. The latter seems to be the preferable 
 sense ; because the reasoning of the apostle, in the context, has re- 
 spect not to time then present only, but to the whole period of the 
 present life down to its close, when a glorious reward succeeds a life 
 of sorrow. 
 
 The latitude in which the Genitive case is employed should be 
 noted from the phrase before us. The sufferings of the present time 
 surely does not mean, the sufferings which time endures as the sub- 
 ject of them, but those which Christians endure while they continue 
 in the present world. The Genitive here, as often elsewhere, is the 
 Genitivus temporis, i. e. it marks the time belonging to the noun 
 which precedes it, the designation of which is intended to qualify 
 that noun. 
 
 Ova aS.ia, non aequiparanda sunt, arc not to be put on a level, or 
 are not to be reputed, not to be counted or regarded. The first seems 
 rather the more apposite sense ; and then ngog, which follows in the 
 construction, may be rendered in its usual sense, with. But if the 
 second sense be preferred, viz. reputed, regarded, then ttqoq has the 
 sense of compared with, in comparison of. So this preposition is 
 sometimes used ; e. g. Ecclus. 25: 19, Every evil is small tcqoq uaxluv 
 yvvaixog, compared icith the malignity of a woman. Joseph, cont. 
 Apion. II. 22, All matter is worthless upog uxova xr\v toutov, com- 
 pared with the image of this [god]. 
 
 The phrase xr\v fxtllovoav do'^av ccnonaXv(p&rjvcit, is equivalent 
 to dnoncchvcp&rioofu'pfjv. The Greek could use his regular future 
 
ROMANS 8: 18, 19. 327 
 
 without a helping verb ; or he could, as here, use the verb fit'/do and 
 the infinitive, instead of a regular future. The word do£u, which 
 here signifies future happiness, is used by the New Testament wri- 
 ters in a sense quite different from the classic one ; which is, opinion, 
 fume, reputation, etc. But the New Testament meaning of do'tu is 
 borrowed from the Hebrew "1133 or Tin , splendor, magnificence, 
 excellence. The idea of do'ia in the presence of God, seems to be 
 founded upon being there in the light or splendor of his presence. 
 Hence light is used so often in the Bible as the image of happiness. 
 Hence too, we may see something of the plenary meaning which 
 do'iu has, when used to describe a state of future happiness. In the 
 present world, " eye hath not seen ;" but when another world bursts 
 upon the vision of Christians, after death shall have rent away the 
 veil of mortality, there, ' in God's light they will see light;' there too, 
 they shall enjoy " everlasting light, for God will be their glory." 
 
 (19) Here we have another yag which sustains a relation to the 
 preceding verse, like that which yug in v. IS sustains to v. IT. The 
 apostle in v. 18 has introduced, as an object of attention, the glory 
 which is to be revealed. That there is such a glory he now proceeds 
 to shew, or at least to adduce reasons why Christians should confi- 
 dently expect it. Tag, therefore, is in v. 19 prefixed to a clause ad- 
 ded by way of confirming the sentiment of the preceding assertion. 
 
 'Anoxugud'oxla, earnest expectation, the German Ahndung. The 
 etymology favours this meaning ; for the word comes from utto, and 
 xagu head, and donevoj to observe, look after. The Etymologicum 
 Magnum explains it by rrj y.HfaXy ngofilamiv, to thrust forward the 
 head and see, i. e. to look with anxiety or eagerness ; like the Hebrew 
 bbitinrr. The same sense the word has in Phil. 1: 20. Ernesti 
 observes, that the word is not intensive in the New Testament (Inst. 
 Interpr. I. § 2) ; but in this he seems to be plainly mistaken, if we 
 may judge either from the composition of the word itself, or from the 
 nature of the passages in which it stands. 
 
 We come now to the principal word, on which very much of the 
 difficulty of the passage before us turns, viz. xiioig. In order to 
 proceed in a satisfactory manner with the investigation of it, I shall 
 consider, in the first place, its meaning in the other passages of the 
 New Testament where it occurs, and as compared with the corre- 
 sponding Hebrew words ; and then, in the second place, I shall pro- 
 pose and examine in order the various meanings which have been 
 
328 ROMANS 8: 19. 
 
 assigned to the word in this place, and endeavour to vindicate that 
 sense to which the preference seems to belong. 
 
 I. In regard to the meaning of XTt'oig, in all the other passages of 
 the New Testament where it is found, excepting the one before us, 
 they may be distributed into two classes ; viz. 
 
 1. It means the act of creation, creating. 
 
 In such a sense it is generally conceded that it is employed in 
 Mark 10: 6. 13: 19. Rom. 1: 20. 2 Pet. 3: 4. But the two first and 
 the last of these significations might well be referred to No. 2, which 
 follows. This is the proper and primary meaning of the word, ac- 
 cording to the usual principles of the Greek language, in which words 
 of this class commonly denote the act of doing any thing, they being 
 what grammarians call nomina actionis. So in the Greek classics, 
 the sense of making, constructing, building, creating, etc., is the one 
 attached to this word. But in the majority of examples in which 
 XTiaiQ occurs in the New Testament, the meaning is different from 
 this. 
 
 2. It means creature, created thing, any product of creating 
 •power, creation as an existing thing. 
 
 Such a deflexion from the primary meaning of a word, is very 
 common, not only in the Greek, but in all other languages ; the ab- 
 stract (nomen actionis) passing, as grammarians say, into the con- 
 crete sense ; i. e. the word which denoted action, being also used to 
 denote the consequences or effects of that action. So here, xrtotg, 
 the act of creating, is more commonly employed in the New Testa- 
 ment to signify the effects of this action, viz. a thing created, res 
 creata. 
 
 But this second signification being in its own nature generic, is 
 either used generically, or is also employed to designate any of the 
 several species of meanings that may constitute a part of the generic 
 one. 
 
 (a) It is used in its generic sense, i. e. as meaning created things, 
 creation, any created thing, in Rom. 1: 25. 8: 39. Col. 1: 15. Heb. 4: 
 13. Rev. 3: 14, perhaps also in Mark 10: 6. 13: 19, and 2 Pet. 3: 4. 
 In a sense very nearly allied to this, it is used in Heb. 9: 1 1 to desig- 
 nate the material creation as such, in distinction from the spiritual 
 one. This distinction, however, results rather from the exigency of 
 the passage, and the distinction made here by the word zuviyg, than 
 from the force of xrlaig. 
 
 (6) Kiioig is also used in a specific sense, and means the rational 
 
ROMANS 8: 19. 329 
 
 creation, man, men, the world of mankind. Thus in Mark 16: 15, 
 Ho preach the gospel nuar, tij xr fail, to all men, to every man. Col. 
 1: 33, which [gospel] has been preached tv naotj xij '/.xlaei, among all 
 nations, or to every man. 1 Pet. 2: 13, Be subject then vuotj dvdyw- 
 nlvri xtlaet, to every man, to every human being, for the Lord's sake, 
 i. e. out of regard to the Lord Christ. What the meaning of this is, 
 the explanation immediately subjoined informs us; viz. e'itt fiaodfl, 
 Log vntot'/OfTi' ehe rjyty.oaiv, cog di uvzou x. r. )..; i. e. ' Be subject 
 to every man placed in authority, whether he be a king who has pre- 
 eminence, or a governor appointed,' etc. These examples make it 
 clear, that xilotg is employed to designate a specific class of created 
 beings, as well as created things in general. 
 
 (c) The word is sometimes employed in a more specific and 
 limited sense still, viz. to designate the new rational creation, those 
 who are created anew in Christ Jesus, Christians. Such is the mean- 
 ing in 2 Cor. 5: 17, If any one be in Christ, he is Kutpt) xxlatg, a 
 new creature. Gal. 6: 15, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor 
 uncircumcision avails any thing, but xcccptJ xzloig. This rather 
 seems to mean, a new act of creating, i. e. the power of the Spirit in 
 renovating the soul. But in both of these cases, the special meaning 
 depends on xuivrj, rather than upon -Aiioig. 
 
 These are all the cases in which y.iiaig occurs in the New Tes- 
 tament, excepting those in the passage under examination. From 
 these we gather the conclusion, that the usus loquendi allows us td 
 assign to -Aziaig either of the three meanings ranked under no. 2, 
 i. e. it may be interpreted as meaning things created or the natural 
 creation, men or mankind, or lastly, Christians. But this last mean- 
 ing is made, as we have seen, by the addition of the epithet v.aivr\. 
 
 I have only to add here, as a confirmation of the above meanings 
 assigned to xrlnig, (which however are not altogether peculiar to the 
 New Testament, see Judith 9: 12. 11: 14. Wisd. 2: 6. 16: 24. 19: 
 6), that the Chaldee and the Rabbinic Hebrew coincide with the 
 usage just exhibited. The words in these languages which corres- 
 pond to y.iiaig, are N^"}2 , Stn^a, nN" 1 "]^ , !"T")3, which all mean 
 crcatio, creatura, res creata, i. e. the act of creating, and the thing 
 created, just in the same way as yxiaig does. Moreover, in Rabbi- 
 nic Hebrew, the plural form ri"P~}:2 sometimes means homines, men, 
 specially the heathen. All this, we see, corresponds with the New Tes- 
 tament use of mlaig, and explains it when a reference to the Greek clas- 
 sics would not. In regard to the last particular of all, viz. that rii' 1 T3 
 42 
 
330 ROMANS 8 : 19. 
 
 sometimes means the heathen, by way of degradation or contempt ; it 
 is singular that we have adopted, into vulgar English, the very same 
 meaning of the word creature, and applied it in a derogatory sense 
 to human beings ; e. g. the creature refused to obey.' 
 
 II. We have seen what meanings are assigned to xiloig by the 
 writers of the New Testament, and what belonged to the correspond- 
 ing Chaldee and Hebrew words. Which of all these, now, shall be 
 applied to xrioig in the passage before us ? 
 
 That the reader may see how variously this question has been an- 
 swered, I will lay before him the different interpretations given to it. 
 These are, 1. The Angels. 2. The souls (the animating principle) 
 of the planetary worlds. 3. Adam and Eve, because they were the 
 immediate work of creative power. 4. The souls of believers, in 
 distinction from their bodies. 5. The bodies of believers, i. e. their 
 dead bodies, in distinction from their souls. 6. Christians in gen- 
 eral. 7. Christians in particular, i. o. either Jewish Christians, or 
 Gentile Christians. 8. Unconverted men in general. 9. Uncon- 
 verted men in particular, i. e. either unconverted Jews, or uncon- 
 verted heathen. 10. The material creation, inanimate and animate, 
 exclusive of rational beings. 11. The rational creation or men in 
 general, mankind. 
 
 All these supposed meanings I have canvassed in an exegesis of 
 vs. 18 — 25, printed in the Biblical Repository, Vol. I. pp. 363, seq. 
 I deem the first five too improbable to need discussion here ; and 
 therefore proceed with the others. 
 
 The sixth and seventh opinions may both be ranked under one 
 head, viz. that of Christians. Can -/.xioig, then, here mean Chris- 
 tians, either in general, or in particular ? 
 
 (a) The usns loqucndi is wanting, to render this probable. The 
 word ariaig in 2 Cor. 5: 17 and Gal. G: 15, does not, as I have already 
 remarked, of itself mean Christians. In both these cases it is con- 
 nected with nati'7]. It is y.aiv}} xricig, then, and this only, which 
 usage authorizes us to believe is employed in order to designate 
 Christians. This argument alone would render the exegesis in ques- 
 tion doubtful. 
 
 (b) But we have another argument, which has been generally 
 deemed a still more weighty one. This is, that in vs. 19, 21, the 
 word xi'iGLg designates those who are distinguished from the children 
 of God, and who belong not to such as are now entitled to their priv- 
 ileges. But I cannot consider this argument to be so decisive as 
 
ROMANS 8:19. 331 
 
 Flatt, Tholuck, and others, think it to be. My reason is, that the 
 expressions in vs. 19, 21, are not much unlike that in v. 23, where, 
 beyond all doubt, Christians are represented as groaning within 
 themselves and waiting for their filiation (vloxteoiur), i. e. for the 
 consequences of it, viz. the redemption of their bodies from their 
 present, frail, painful, and dying state. I see not, therefore, but that 
 it is quite possible, in itself considered, to suppose that in vs. 19, 21, 
 Christians may be represented as waiting for the glory which will be 
 given to the children of God ; although if v. 23 were struck out, 
 the expressions there might well be taken for antithetic ones; I 
 mean, that xrt'oig might, in such a case, naturally and well be under- 
 stood, to designate a class of men distinct from the viol zov •Oeov in 
 v. 19, and from the rd rixvu too \Jtou in v. 21. 
 
 (c) A more conclusive argument, however, is deducible from v. 
 23, where viol rqv a.7iaQ%rjv tov Ttvtvfiazog t^ovng seems plainly 
 to mean Christians, as I shall in due time endeavour to shew. Con- 
 ceding this, then it is quite plain, that nxioig in the preceding verses 
 cannot mean Christians, because the class of men designated in v. 23, 
 is very clearly distinguished from the preceding class in vs. 19 — 21, 
 designated by xrloig. 
 
 On the same ground, viz. that xrlotg cannot be regarded as mean- 
 ing Christians in general, it must be excluded from meaning Chris- 
 tians in particular, i. e. either Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians. 
 How are these to be distinguished from " those who had the first-fruits 
 of the Spirit?" Even supposing that dnugp] means here special, 
 miraculous gifts, (as some believe), we may ask : Were there no Jew- 
 ish Christians who possessed these? Surely they above all others 
 possessed them. But still, were there no Gentile Christians who 
 possessed them ? This will not be denied. If we look into the first 
 epistle to the Corinthians, we find there a graphic account of the 
 special gifts of the Spirit, which leaves no room to doubt that they 
 were distributed to Gentile as well as to Jewish Christians. Still 
 stronger is the argument, if we suppose (as I shall endeavour hereaf- 
 ter to shew that we must suppose) dnag^v here to mean, the preli- 
 bat ion, the foretaste, the earnest of future glory, which is common to 
 all Christians. For as those who have this unaQ%riv, arc here plainly 
 and explicitly distinguished from those denominated xxi'oig above ; so, 
 if these are Christians in general (as they clearly seem to be), it fol- 
 lows that Ktioig above is not used to designate Christians, either 
 Christians in general, or Jewish or Gentile Christians in partic- 
 
332 ROMANS 8: 19. 
 
 ular. Neither of these classes were distinguished from other Chris- 
 tians, by the exclusive possession of miraculous gifts, or the ex- 
 clusive possession of the earnest of the heavenly inheritance ; and 
 there seems, therefore, to be no ground for making a distinction 
 of such a nature. It must necessarily follow, that if uriatg means 
 either Jewish Christians, or Gentile Christians, as such, then this class 
 of Christians did not partake of the anagyjjv tov nvsvftatog ' for 
 those who did partake of it, are clearly distinguished from those indi- 
 cated by xTioig. But inasmuch as both these classes of Christians- 
 did partake of the gift in question, so neither of them can be desig- 
 nated here by xrlaig. 
 
 I should not have dwelt so long on this head, had not such critics 
 as Le Clerc, Nosselt, Schleusner, and others {magni nominis) de- 
 fended the exegesis in question. 
 
 The eighth and ninth opinions may also be classed under one 
 head. These are, that xzloig means either unconverted men in gen- 
 eral as such, or unconverted men in particular, viz. Jews, or Gentiles. 
 In regard to the specific meaning here assigned to y.iloig, I cannot 
 see any tolerable ground of support for it. Why should unconverted 
 Jews be represented as peculiarly exposed to a frail and dying state? 
 Or why should unconverted Gentiles be so represented ? Surely 
 there is no good reason for any distinction here, as all are equally 
 exposed to the miseries of life. We cannot therefore admit the exe- 
 gesis which here gives a specific meaning to xrlaig, limiting it either 
 to unconverted Jews or to unconverted Gentiles. 
 
 More probable is the interpretation, which assigns to xriaig the 
 meaning of unconverted men in general. In this case, it is easy to 
 make a plain and evident distinction between xriaig in vs. 19 — 22, 
 and ol rrjv v.nuQ*/r,v tov nvsvfiarog I'yovTtg in v. 23. Substantially 
 I think this to be the right meaning. But I would not assign to it 
 the signification simply of unconverted men. I apprehend the mean- 
 ing to be the same as in Mark 16: 15. Col. 1: 23. 1 Pet. 2: 13, i. e. 
 man, men, mankind in general. But of this, and of the objections 
 urged against it, I shall say more in the sequel. 
 
 On the whole, then, we have reduced our multiplex interpreta- 
 tions down to two, viz. the material creation in general, animate and 
 inanimate; and the rational creation, or mankind in general. These 
 remain to be carefully examined. Critics of high rank and great 
 abilities, are divided between these two interpretations. 
 
 I commence with the first of these two meanings, that of the ma- 
 terial creation, the icorld in general, or the universe, exclusive of ra- 
 
ROMANS 8: 19. 333 
 
 tional beings. This has had many defenders both in ancient and 
 modern times. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
 Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Koppe, Doddridge, Flatt, Tholuck, and a 
 multitude of others have been its advocates. Flatt and Tholuck, in 
 their recent commentaries, have collected all which has been said in 
 its favour, besides advancing some things peculiar to themselves. 
 What they have brought forward, deserves a serious examination. 
 
 That xrlaig might be employed to indicate the natural creation 
 around us, consisting of things animate and inanimate, may be seen 
 by examining the usus loquendi of the word under no. 2. a, p. '328 
 above. On this part of the subject, there can be no just ground of 
 controversy among philologists. But is it so employed in the passage 
 before us? This is the only question that affords any room for dispute. 
 
 Tholuck argues that it is so employed, from two sources ; first, 
 from the connection in which it stands, and the predicates which are 
 assigned to it ; and secondly, from both Jewish and Christian belief 
 respecting the renewal of the natural world, at a future period. 
 
 Under the first head of argument, he says, that the more usual 
 meaning of ttiiai g is the natural world. If he means by this to aver, 
 that the word has this signification in a majority of the instances in 
 which it is employed in the New Testament, an inspection of p. 328, 
 seq. above, will convince the reader that he is mistaken. But still, the 
 fact that the word may very naturally, in itself considered, be em- 
 ployed in such a way, I freely concede, and this I have already more 
 than once intimated. 
 
 His next argument is, that uvri] r\ xrhtg in v. 21, indicates a de- 
 scent from the noble to the ignoble part of creation. He means that 
 uvirj rj y.ilaig signifies as much as to say : ' Not only does the nobler 
 part of creation long for a disclosure of the glory which is to be re- 
 vealed, but even this inferior creation, of which I am now speaking, 
 also longs for the period when this disclosure shall be made.' 
 
 The answer to this is, that such an exegesis of avzy t] yaloig 
 would necessarily imply, that a higher and nobler xrloig had been 
 already mentioned in the preceding context, with which this inferior 
 one is now compared. Had such mention been made, there would be 
 some ground for the remark of Tholuck. But as there is no mention of 
 any thing of this nature, I do not see how we can give a comparative 
 sense to aim) 1) aziGig. In order to do this, must not something 
 have been mentioned, with which we may compare it? The expec- 
 tation of the nobler part of creation, is first mentioned in v. 23, vlo- 
 
334 ROMANS 8: 19. 
 
 ■ftioiav dnfudi'/o^evov. The force of ami] >? xrloig, I apprehend, 
 must therefore be made out in another way. Paul had just said, 
 i] xrloig is made subject to a frail and perishing state (f.iarai6rr]ri), 
 with the hope, i. e. in a condition or in circumstances in which it is 
 permitted to hope, that xal ami) ij xzloig, even this very same crea- 
 ture may be freed, etc. Tholuck does not seem to have noted, that 
 the expression is not simply auz/j, but xal uvztj, which necessarily 
 refers it to the preceding xrloig, and means even the very same xrloig, 
 viz. the frail and perishing xrloig which had just been described, is 
 still placed in a state in which it may indulge the hope of deliver- 
 ance, etc. The force of xal avn], then, seems to consist in desig- 
 nating that very same perishing xrloig which the writer had just de- 
 scribed, as being in a state to indulge a hope of obtaining freedom 
 from this wretched condition. If this be correct, then its force does 
 not consist in any implied comparison with a nobler xrioig, which in- 
 dulged the like hopes. 
 
 A third reason of Tholuck for the signification which he here as- 
 signs for xrloig, is that in v. 22, naou i] xrloig is mentioned. 
 
 But why the apostle could not say ixaoa i] xrloig, if he meant the 
 world of rationed beings, just as well as he could if he meant the 
 world of nature, I am not aware ; and more especially so, since in 
 Mark 16: 15 and Col. 1: 23, this very expression is made use of 
 (ndat] rt] xrlofi — iv Tidaij Ti] xrlosi), in order to denote the univer- 
 sality of the rational world. 
 
 Finally, Tholuck avers, that the predicates fiaraiOTT]g and dov- 
 lilu rr t g q&ogdg (vs. 20, 21) more naturally belong to the material 
 creation. 
 
 But this I cannot see. Above all, I cannot see it, when the apos- 
 tle says, that the xrloig was made subject fxaruiorrjri, ovy ixovoa, 
 not voluntarily, not of its oion choice. Does this belong more natu- 
 rally, then, to the material than the rational creation ? Of which is 
 choice more naturally predicated ? Then again, is not ^axaioxrjg, 
 a frail and dying state, as easily and naturally to be predicated of 
 men, as it is of the material world ? And taken as a whole, is not 
 the latter far less subject to f.miai6r^g than the race of men ? Once 
 more, is not dovltlu njg qfrogag, the bondage of a mortal or per- 
 ishing condition, as naturally predicated of men, as it is of the mate- 
 rial world ? Rather, is it not much more naturally applied to human 
 beings, than it is to the world in which they live 1 
 
 None of the reasons, then, assigned by Tholuck for the exegesis 
 
ROMANS 8: 19. 335 
 
 which he defends, that are drawn from the exigency of the passage, 
 seem to be well grounded. So much is true, viz. that the usus lo- 
 quendi, in itself considered, would admit the sense which he gives to 
 xrlocg. But that the exigentia loci renders probable this meaning, 
 does not seem in any good degree to be made out. 
 
 We come, next, to the second class of reasons assigned by Tho- 
 luck in defence of his interpretation ; viz. those derived from the 
 Jewish and Christian belief respecting the renovation of the natural 
 world, at a future period. 
 
 The passages of Scripture mainly relied on, are 2 Pet. 3: 7 — 12. 
 Rev. 21: 1. Is. 11: 6, seq. G5: 17, seq. Heb. 12: 26, seq. Hints of 
 the same doctrine are supposed to be contained in Matt. 13: 38, seq. 
 19: 28, and Acts 3: 21. Brief suggestions respecting passages of 
 such a nature, are all which any reader will here expect 
 
 All the force of argument from these and the like passages, 
 must rest on a literal interpretation of them. But how can pas- 
 sages of this nature be urged as having a literal meaning, after 
 reading Rev. chap. xxi. and 22: 1 — 5? Or if this does not satisfy 
 the mind, then compare passages of a similar nature, viz. those 
 which have respect to the Messiah's kingdom on earth, his spir- 
 itual kingdom before the end of time, and during the gathering in 
 of his saints. What immeasurable absurdities and contradictions 
 must be involved in a literal exegesis here ! For example ; from Is. 
 2: 1 — 4 and Micah 4: 1 — 3, one might prove that in the time of the 
 Messiah, the temple of the Lord is to be built on a mountain, placed 
 upon the top of the highest mountains any where to be found, and 
 that there all the nations of the earth will assemble to offer their de- 
 votions. Is. 11: 6 — 9 would prove that all the brute creation are to 
 experience an absolute change of their very nature ; the lion is to eat 
 straw like the ox ; the asp and the cockatrice are no more to retain 
 their venomous power. Is. 9: 7 would prove, that the literal throne 
 of David is to be occupied by the Messiah, and that he is to rule in 
 his capacity as literal king, without intermission, and without end. 
 Is. 25: 6 — 8 would prove, that a feast of fat things and of rich wines 
 is to be made for all nations, and that all suffering and sorrow and 
 death are to be abolished. Is. 35: 1 — 10 would prove that the deserts 
 of the earth are to be filled with living streams and exuberant herbage 
 and trees, and that all the ransomed of the Lord are to repair to the 
 literal mount Zion, where they will have uninterrupted and everlast- 
 ing pleasure. Is. 43: 18 — 21 would prove the same thing respecting 
 
336 ROMANS 8 : 19. 
 
 the deserts ; and also that the beasts of the field, the dragons, and the 
 owls, shall be among the worshippers of God. Is. 55: 1 — 13 would 
 prove, not only that wine and milk are to be had, in the days of the 
 Messiah, without money and without price, but that the mountains 
 and the hills will break forth into singing, and all the trees of the 
 field shall clap their hands ! Is. CO: 15 — 22 would prove that Israel 
 is to feed on the milk of the Gentiles, and to be nourished by the 
 breasts of kings ; and also that there will be no sun by day, nor moon 
 by night, but God himself, by his own splendor, is to make their 
 everlasting light, so that no more night will ever be known. (The 
 very same things are said respecting the new Jerusalem, in Rev. 21: 
 23; are they literal there?) Is. 60: 22 — 24 would prove, that all 
 nations are to come, from one new moon to another, and from one 
 sabbath to another, and worship before the Lord in Jerusalem. 
 
 Why now are not such passages just as reasonably construed in a 
 literal manner, as those which have respect to the kingdom of God 
 after the general resurrection ? Must it not be true, that in its very 
 nature this kingdom will be still more spiritual, than that of the Mes- 
 siah during its preparatory or disciplinary state? This will not be 
 denied. Is there not reason a fortiori, then, why we should under- 
 stand the language respecting this kingdom as figurative ; in just the 
 same manner as we are obliged to do, with regard to all the descrip- 
 tions in the Bible of the heavenly world ? Nay, I may add, that the 
 idea of Flatt, Tholuck, and many others, about a renewed earth 
 becoming the literal abode of the blessed, after the resurrection, 
 is directly at variance with other declarations of the Scriptures. 
 Paul represents Christians at the general resurrection as caught up 
 to meet the Lord in the air, i. e. as ascending to heaven, and as so, 
 being ever with the Lord, viz. in heaven, 1 Thess. 4: 17. So all the 
 Bible; believers are to dwell with God, to be with him, to see his 
 face, to enjoy his presence, to stand at his right hand. The apostle 
 Paul says, that at the resurrection this mortal will put on immortality, 
 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, that this 
 natural body is to become a spiritual body, and be made like unto 
 Christ's glorified body, 1 Cor. 15: 44, 50, 53 ; and all this, that saints 
 may be glorified with Christ. But where is Christ's body? And 
 where does he dwell? And where do believers go, when they are 
 " absent from the body," in order that they may be " present with 
 the Lord ?" Our Saviour represents the saints at the resurrection, 
 as becoming incapable of all earthly pleasures, and as being made 
 
ROMANS 8 : 19. 3*37 
 
 like to the angels of God in heaven, Matt. 22: 29, 30. And must we 
 believe, after all this, that the present earth, when it has undergone 
 an emendation, is still to be the abode of spiritual bodies, of saints 
 made like to their Lord and Redeemer ? Believe it who may, I must 
 first see all these and the like texts blotted out from the Bible ; nay, 
 my whole views respecting the very nature of future happiness must 
 undergo an entire transformation, as great as the earth itself is sup- 
 posed by the writers in question to undergo, before I can admit such 
 an exegesis as they defend. It contradicts analogy ; it contradicts 
 the nature of the case ; it contradicts the express declarations of the 
 Saviour and of his apostles. 
 
 I have a difficulty, also, as to the logical commentary of the pas- 
 sage, provided we adopt the interpretation defended by Tholuck. Let 
 us examine this for a moment. The apostle begins by saying, that 
 present afflictions should not be laid to heart by Christians, because 
 of the future glory which is reserved for them. "What now is de- 
 manded, in order that this should be believed, and that Christians 
 should regulate their thoughts and conduct by it? Why plainly 
 nothing more is required, than that they should cherish a confirmed 
 belief of it, a steadfast hope that such glory will be bestowed. Such 
 is the conclusion in v. 25. But how is this hope to be animated and 
 supported ? Plainly by considerations which add to the assurance, 
 that future glory is in prospect. And what are these ? They are, 
 that God has enstamped on our very nature the desire of such a state ; 
 he has placed us in such a frail and dying condition, that the whole 
 human race naturally and instinctively look to such a state and hope 
 for it. The present is manifestly a state of trial ; even Christians, 
 who have the earnest of future glory within themselves, are not ex- 
 empt from this. But the very fact that we are in a state of trial and 
 probation, naturally points to an end or result of this. And what is 
 such an end, but a state of future happiness? for here, happiness in 
 a higher sense is not to be attained. 
 
 But suppose now that the material world is that which sighs after 
 and hopes for deliverance from its present frail and perishable state ; 
 has this a direct bearing on the subject in question ? The answer 
 must be in the negative; so thought Turretin, as his notes most 
 clearly shew. But then it may be said, that it has a bearing upon 
 it by way of implication ; because the renovation of the material 
 world is necessarily connected with the future happiness of the saints. 
 In this point of view, I acknowledge it would not be irrelevant. But 
 43 
 
338 ROMANS 8:19. 
 
 is not this less direct, less forcible, less convincing, than the appeal 
 to the wants and desires of which every human breast is conscious? 
 Of two modes of exegesis, either of which is possible, I must prefer 
 that which imparts the most life and energy to the reasoning and 
 argument of the writer. 
 
 I have another substantial difficulty with the interpretation under 
 examination. It is this ; if kt'iolq means the material or natural 
 world, on the one hand, and aviol ti]i> uuuq-/i]v xov Tiviif-tazog 
 t'xovreg means Christians on the other, (which Tholuck and Flatt 
 both avow), then here is a lacuna which cannot well be imagined or 
 accounted for. Christians are subject to a frail and dying state, but 
 are looking for a better one ; and the natural world is in the same 
 circumstances ; but the world of men in general, the world of rational 
 beings who are not regenerate, have no concern or interest in all 
 this ; they are not even mentioned. Can it be supposed now, that 
 the apostle has made such an important, unspeakably important, 
 omission as this, in such a discourse and in such a connection ? The 
 natural, physical world brought into the account, but the world of 
 perishing men left out ! I must have confirmation " strong as proof 
 from holy writ," to make me adopt an interpretation that offers such 
 a manifest incongruity. 
 
 Such are my reasons for not regarding as weighty, the arguments 
 offered by the advocates of the interpretation I am examining ; and 
 such are my positive grounds for rejecting it. 
 
 I come, at last, to the interpretation which I have supposed above 
 to be the correct and proper one, viz. that uziatg most probably means 
 men, mankind in general, as stated on p. 328 above, no. 2. b. That 
 such an interpretation is agreeable to the usus loquendi, is clear from 
 the statement there made. It only remains then to inquire, whether 
 it accords with the nature of the passage in which the word stands, 
 and whether it can be vindicated from the objections made to it. 
 
 As to its accordance with the nature of the passage, and with the 
 argument which the writer purposes to employ, I must refer the 
 reader (in order to save repetition) to my general statement of the 
 meaning of the passage on p. 325 above, and also to p. 337, where I 
 have had occasion briefly to recapitulate the same thing, in order to 
 compare this statement with the claims made by a different exegesis. 
 It remains, then, only that I take some notice of the objections 
 urged against this interpretation. Flatt has done most justice to the 
 side of objections ; and I shall therefore first examine the arguments 
 which he produces. 
 
ROMANS 8: 19. 339 
 
 1. ' Kriatq in vs. 19 — 21, is distinguished from vlolOeov. How 
 then can it mean all men, of which viol -fteov constitute a part?' 
 
 The answer to this is, that there is not an antithesis here of xxi- 
 Gig to viol &iOv, (which the objection assumes), but only a distinction 
 of species from genus. ' Mankind,' says the apostle, i. e. men in 
 general, ' have always been in a frail and dying state, have felt this, 
 and have longed after a higher and better state.' In v. 23 he goes 
 on to say : ' Even those whom one might expect to be exempt from 
 this, i. e. Christians themselves who already have an earnest of future 
 glory, have not been exempt from such a condition.' Here is indeed 
 a distinction, but no antithesis. In fact, the nature of the case does 
 not admit antithesis; for both the xri'aig and ol zrjv a.nuQ"p)v tov 
 nviv/nazog i'xovrsg, are partakers of the same frail and dying state. 
 The distinction therefore is of a different nature from that of antithe- 
 sis. It is made, I apprehend, in the manner stated above. 
 
 2. ' How could the apostle represent arlaig in this sense, i. e. 
 heathen men and all unconverted men, as seeking and sighino- after 
 the liberty of the children of God, when he every where avers that 
 they are estranged from God, and at enmity with him, and are igno- 
 rant of the things of the Spirit V 
 
 But here the argumentum ad hominem may be applied to good 
 purpose. How could the apostle represent the natural or inanimate 
 creation as longing after such a happiness, or any other like to it ? 
 You reply : ' It is a prosopopeia.' It is so, truly, if you interpret it 
 rightly ; and personification of the boldest kind, so bold that I know 
 not how we can admit it, while it has so much of incongruity in it. 
 
 I quit this part of the subject, however, and proceed. Is there 
 not, in the human breast, a longing and sighing after immortality ? 
 Hear Cicero, who puts these words into the mouth of Cato, when 
 speaking of Elysium : "O praeclarum diem, cum ad illud divinorum 
 animorum concilium coetumque proficiscar, cumque ex hac turba et 
 colluvione discedam ! Proficiscar enim, non ad eos solum viros, de 
 quibus ante dixi ; verum etiam ad Catonem meum, quo nemo vir 
 melior natus est, nemo pietate praestantior ;" De Senectute. Listen 
 also to Seneca: "Juvabat de aeternitate animorum quaerere, imo 
 mehercule credere. Credebam enim facile opinionibus magnorum 
 virorum, rem gratissimam promittentium, magis quam probantium. 
 Dabam me spei tantae." In other passages the same writer descants 
 upon the meanness of affairs pertaining to the present life, unless 
 one rises in his views above human objects. " Sic creatura," adds 
 
340 ROMANS 8 : 19. 
 
 Turretin, to whom I am indebted for these quotations, " sic creatura 
 abhorrcbat a vanitatc cui subjecta est. Sic sperabat se aliquando a 
 servitute ilia liberatum iri;" Opp. II. 361. 
 
 Who can refuse to see how applicable all this is to our present 
 purpose? Tholuck and Flatt would themselves say, that this sighing 
 after immortality is one of the most convincing of all arguments, that 
 men are truly immortal. Does not the fact, that all nations have had 
 their Elysium, establish the allegation that such a longing is innate, 
 i. e. pertaining to our rational nature 1 Or if this be questioned, is it 
 not certain, that the present unsatisfying, frail, dying condition of the 
 human race, does lead them to feel their need of a better state, and 
 to sigh after it ? 
 
 This does not prove, indeed, that they long for the heaven of the 
 Christian, principally as a place of purity and freedom from all sin. 
 That they have specific views of this, and desires after it, is not true ; 
 and if they had, we could not suppose them to desire it in respect to 
 its holiness. But it is not necessary to suppose this, in reference to 
 the object of the apostle's argument. It is not a specific view of 
 heaven simply as a place of purity and holiness, which he here repre- 
 sents Christians themselves as entertaining ; for in v. 23, he adverts 
 to them as hoping for the redemption of their bodies, i. e. an exemp- 
 tion from the pains and sufferings to which their frail bodies are con- 
 tinually exposed. May not the unconverted long to be delivered from 
 suffering and sorrow 1 Do they not, in this respect, desire future hap- 
 piness ? I acknowledge that they are unwilling to employ the proper 
 means of obtaining it ; and that there are actually, as the Christian 
 revelation holds it up to view, things in it which would not of them- 
 selves be at all desirable to the unconverted ; but do they not, after 
 all, in some definite and important sense, hope and wish for another 
 and better world ? This will not be denied, after reading the above 
 extracts from Cicero and Seneca ; and this being admitted, it is all 
 which the apostle's argument here demands. 
 
 What he means to say, I take to be in substance this : ' The very 
 nature and condition of the human race point to a future state; they 
 declare that this is an imperfect, frail, dying, unhappy state ; that 
 man does not, and cannot, attain the end of his being here ; and even 
 Christians, supported as they are by the earnest of future glory, still 
 find themselves obliged to sympathize with all others in these suffer- 
 ings, sorrows, and deferred hopes.' 
 
 I acknowledge that if one insists on construing the revelation of 
 
ROMANS 8: 19. 341 
 
 the sons of God, and the glorious liberty of the children of God, as 
 being so specific that they cannot be predicated of the hopes of the 
 world at large, he may make difficulty with the exegesis which I am 
 defending. So Flatt and Tholuck have done. But how should they 
 both have overlooked the fact, that this same rigid interpretation ap- 
 plied to their own mode of construing xilotg, makes a difficulty still 
 greater ? For in what possible sense can the natural world be hoping 
 for, or expecting the glorious liberty of the children of God ? I mean, 
 if these expressions be interpreted, (as they in making their objections 
 insist that they must be), in their specific and rigid sense. 
 
 If there be any difficulty here, then, it is evidently less on the 
 ground which I take, than on the other. It is not enough to make 
 objections to a particular mode of interpretation ; but one should 
 shew that his own is not liable to objections still greater. And sure- 
 ly it must be deemed a greater difficulty, to represent the natural 
 world as expecting the glorious liberty of the children of God, than 
 it is to suppose that immortal beings, made in the image of God, and 
 made sensible of the insufficiency of the present world to render 
 them happy, should anxiously look for another and better state. It 
 is not necessary for the apostle's argument, to shew that they look for 
 this in the way that Christianity would direct them to do, nor even 
 that they have any good grounds in their present state to expect per- 
 sonally a happier condition in future. If even the wicked, who love 
 this world, are not satisfied with it, and are made to sigh after ano- 
 ther and more perfect state, then follows what the apostle has de- 
 signed to urge, viz. the conclusion that God has strongly impressed 
 on our whole race, the conviction that there is a better state, and that 
 it is highly needed. 
 
 The ground which Noesselt and others take respecting v.Ttaig, 
 viz. that it means Christians in general, would indeed free the whole 
 passage from any objections of the kind under consideration, inas- 
 much as they might be said, without any limitation, to expect the reve- 
 lation of the sons of God. But this interpretation is pressed wiih 
 other insuperable difficulties, as has already been stated. It makes 
 no distinction between nrlaig and viol &eov or rt'xvu fisov in vs. 19, 
 21, when the writer has plainly made one ; and then it understands 
 avcol xijv dnao^v xov nvtv/naiog f%ovzig of the apostles only, or 
 such Christians as were endowed with miraculous gifts ; which can 
 not, in any tolerable manner, be defended. 
 
 I come then, by virtue of such considerations as have been sug- 
 
342 ROMANS 8: 19, 20. 
 
 gested, to prefer the interpretation which assigns to xrioig the sense 
 of mankind, men in general, to any other of the proposed methods of 
 explanation. But in so doing, I do not aver that there are no difficul- 
 ties in the way, or that an ingenious critic can raise none. This 
 is not the question. The more proper question is, whether the 
 difficulties that lie in the way of this interpretation, are not less 
 than those which can be thrown in the way of any of the other 
 methods which have been discussed 1 I can only say, that they 
 seem to me clearly to be less ; and therefore I feel compelled to em- 
 brace this exegesis, until a more probable one is proposed. It has 
 been defended by Lightfoot, Locke, J. A. Turretin, Semler, Rosen- 
 miiller, Ammon, Usteri, Keil, and many others. This indeed is in 
 itself no reason for receiving it ; but it shews, at least, that the diffi- 
 culties attending it have not been regarded as insuperable, by men 
 of very different theological views, and of no small attainments. 
 
 Tr\v ccnoxuXvipif xwv view rov fteou cnnxdt%STca, expects, or 
 waits for the revelation of the sons of God; i. e. the period when the 
 sons of God, in their true state, endowed with all their honors and 
 privileges, shall be fully disclosed. This will be at the general judg- 
 ment ; when the Father who seeth in secret will reward them openly. 
 Here they are in obscurity ; the world knoweth them not. They are 
 like to the seven thousand of old, who had not bowed the knee to 
 Baal, but who were not known even to the prophet Elijah. How- 
 ever, it will not always be so. The day is coming, when they will 
 shine forth as the sun in his strength, and as the stars forever and 
 ever, in the kingdom of their God and Father. 
 
 In what sense the xxlaig dnexd't'xsxui, expects or waits for such 
 a revelation, has been already stated, more than once, in the preced- 
 ing pages, and therefore it needs not to be here repeated. I take 
 the generic idea of future happiness to be the main design of the 
 writer in this case, although the special import of the expression 
 goes, as I have intimated before, much farther. 
 
 (20) Ti] yap /Aaxat6xi]xt ij xzloig vnexdyy, for the creature, i. e. 
 mankind, was subject to a frail and dying state. That [taxuioxi]g 
 here has the sense thus assigned to it, is clear from the epexegesis of 
 it in v. 21, viz. dovlei'a xrjg cpdogug, which is there used instead of 
 repeating [taxaiozijg. Such as wish for further confirmation as to 
 this sense of the word, may consult in the Sept. Ps. 61: 9. 38: 5. 
 Ecc. 1: 2, 14. 
 
 As the Heb. b^ii vanity, to which (iaxca6x>ig in the Septuagint 
 
ROMANS 8 : SO, 21. 343 
 
 corresponds, sometimes designates an idol; so some commentators 
 have here interpreted /naTcuozijg in a corresponding manner, viz. 
 mankind became subjected to idolatry, or the natural world was em- 
 ployed as the object of idolatry. So Tertullian, Luther, Mark, 
 Baumgarten, and others. Consequently they interpreted the suc- 
 ceeding clause, not voluntarily , but through him who subjected it, as 
 having reference either to Satan, or to Adam as concerned in the 
 original fall of man. But dovlela rrjg qj&opug, v. 21, seems to re- 
 move all probability of this interpretation of (.laxaiot^g ■ and of 
 course vnoid'tuvTu can be applied only to God the Creator of man. 
 Compare Gen. 3: 17 — 19. 
 
 Oi)% tKOvou, alia did top imoid'^avxa, not voluntarily , bid by 
 him who put it in subjection, viz. to a frail and dying state. That 
 is, the creature did not voluntarily choose its present condition of 
 sorrow and pain, for this cannot well be imagined ; but God the Cre- 
 ator has placed it in this condition ; it is by his sovereign will, by 
 the arrangements of his holy providence, that man is placed in a frail 
 and dying state. But this is not to be considered as an irretrievable 
 misfortune or evil. Distressing and frail as the condition of man is, 
 it is still a state of hope. So we are assured in the next verse. 
 
 (21) En iXnldi, in hope. Here the Dative designates the state 
 or condition in which the xtIgiq is, although subjected to j.iuxou6rr}Ti. 
 It is a state in which a hope of deliverance can be indulged. It is 
 not a state of despair. 
 
 Let the reader now ask, whether it is not doing violence to the 
 word xzloig, to construe it here as meaning natural world, and then 
 to predicate of it, iaovoa and in ilnidi ? It would be an example 
 of prosopopeia, which I believe even the most animated poetical 
 parts of the Scriptures no where present. 
 
 But what is the hope in which the creature is permitted to in- 
 dulge? It is, on Hal uvti] r\ xzlaig iXzv&fQoy&rjGexai ano zrjg dov- 
 Xeiag rijg q&ogug, that this very same creature, viz. the one which is 
 subjected to a frail and dying state, shall be freed from the bondage of 
 a perishing condition. &&0()d comes from qSilgw, to corrupt, to 
 destroy. Here it plainly means a state of corruption, i. e. a frail and 
 dying state. Such a state the apostle calls dovktla, bondage; first, 
 because the creature was not willingly subjected to it ; secondly, be- 
 cause it is not only a state of pain and misery, but it places us at the 
 disposal of masters, who inflict upon us suffering and sorrow while 
 
344 ROMANS 8 : 21, 99. 
 
 we cannot resist or control them. The word tlev-OfQwOijotiui is 
 fitly chosen as the antithetic correlate of dovfalcc. 
 
 Elg Tt\v tXivQiQiuv Ti]g do'Stjg zcov rtxvwv tov {teov, [and shall 
 be introduced, xai eloayfttjoeTut,] into the glorious liberty of the chil- 
 dren of God. Elg, put before the Accusative here, shews the state 
 into which the creature is to be brought, after being freed from bon- 
 dage ; i. e. elg stands before the object unto which the creature is to 
 attain, by being delivered from the bondage of a frail and dying state. 
 That elg very often stands before nouns designating the event or 
 effect of any thing, is a well known Greek idiom ; and the proofs of it 
 may be seen at large in the various lexicons. The phrase, however, I 
 take here to be a constructio pragnans, as the grammarians call it, i. e. 
 an elliptical expression, which implies some verb before it, and proba- 
 bly the one which I have supplied above. Ao'ia here is used as an 
 adjective, qualifying the preceding noun, by an idiom which is very 
 common throughout the Scriptures. In what sense men in general 
 may be said to hope for this state, has been already explained above. 
 If there be any objection to predicate this of men in general, is there 
 not a still stronger one to predicating it of the natural world ? 
 
 Verses 20, 21, thus explained, render a reason why the creature 
 looks with anoaaoad'oxla to another and better state ; which is, be- 
 cause men are born with an instinctive, unquenchable thirst for hap- 
 piness, and cannot find what they desire, in this frail and perishing 
 condition. This explains the reason why yap is prefixed to v. 21 ; 
 " yap orationi rationem reddenti praefigitur." 
 
 (22) 0'iduf.iev yuQ, on nuoa f\ xrlaig avareva^ei xtu avvwdlpet, 
 (x-XQi tov vvv,for we know that every creature, i. e. the whole human 
 race, has sighed and sorrowed together, until the "present tune. In 
 other words, it has been the lot of man, from the beginning down 
 to the present time, to be subject to a frail and dying state, which 
 has cost much sighing and sorrow. The force of otdaftev is, no one 
 can have any doubt, we are cdl assured, no one will call it in question. 
 Of course it seems to take for granted, that' the thing to which it 
 refers is well and familiarly known to all. But suppose, now, that 
 the natural world is here represented as sighing and sorrowing, from 
 the beginning of the world down to the time then present, and this 
 because it waited for its renovation, which will take place only at the 
 end of the world, or after the general resurrection ; was this a thing 
 so familiar to all, that the apostle could appeal to it by saying o'lda- 
 (iev ? I cannot but think, that the advocates themselves of this in- 
 
ROMANS 8: 22, 23. 345 
 
 terpretation must hesitate here. /wo is prefixed, in the present case, 
 to a clause which confirms what the writer had said, in v. 21, of our 
 frail and dying state; " yuo illustrantis sive explicantis." 
 
 The verbs ouoi£i'u£(i and ovviodivtt, denote the mutual and uni- 
 versal sighing and sorrowing of mankind. No one part is exempt ; 
 there is a mutual correspondence betweeen them all, in regard to the 
 subject in question. Those who construe xtt'oig of the natural world, 
 of course lay an emphasis on the avv here compounded with the 
 verbs, as indicating the correspondence of the natural world with the 
 rational one. But the difficulty with this interpretation is, that it 
 leaves a great part of rational beings wholly out of the account ; a 
 thing exceedingly incredible. 
 
 (23) And not only so, but we ourselves who have the Jirst fruits of 
 the Spirit, even we groan loithin ourselves; i. e. not only have man- 
 kind in all ages, down to the present hour, been in a frail and suffer- 
 ing state, but even we, who are permitted to cherish the hopes of a 
 better world which the gospel inspires, we who have within us an 
 earnest of future glory, a pledge that we are the children of God, who 
 are to receive the inheritance of his beloved, — even we, who, as one 
 might naturally suppose, would on account of our privileges be ex- 
 empted from the common lot of sinful men, we also, like all others, 
 are in distress, and sigh for deliverance from it. 
 
 The phrase not auiol ttjv anugyjiv tov nvevf-iaxog tyovrtg, has 
 been very diversely understood. Some interpret it of special and 
 supernatural gifts , limiting it to the apostles only; while others ex- 
 plain it in the like way, but extend it to all Christians who were 
 endowed with such gifts. Others regard dnuoyf] as meaning gift or 
 present merely, in a general way ; while most interpret it as meaning 
 the earnest, or first fruits, ox pledge, of that which is afterward to be 
 given in a more complete manner. 
 
 It becomes necessary, therefore, to investigate the word ana^yf] 
 with special care. I can find but one meaning of it throughout the 
 New Testament ; and this is, that which is first of its kind, or that 
 which is first in order of time, ttjjojVo?. It is applied both to persons 
 and things, in a sense compounded of both of these, viz. first in re- 
 spect to kind and time also; e. g. Rom. 16: 5. 1 Cor. 16: 15. James 
 1:18. 1 Cor. 15: 20, 23. Rev. 14: 4. Bretschneider suggests, in his 
 lexicon, that in this last passage it may have the general sense of 
 sacrifice or offering, inasmuch as the Septuagint puts it for the He- 
 brew H/w^-in , which conveys such a meaning. This is possible ; 
 44 
 
346 ROMANS 8: 23. 
 
 but on the whole I should prefer the other sense. I take the mean- 
 ing of the writer in Rev. 14: 4 to be, that the persons there named 
 may be considered in a light resembling that of the miagpi in an- 
 cient times, as the first fruits of a glorious Christian harvest. 
 
 I understand unugyf] to have the same sense as the Hebrew 
 n^fifl , for which it so often stands ; caput, princeps, first in its 
 kind, first in point of time, etc. Comp. DMJN"! in Gen. 49: 3. Prov. 
 8: 22. Lev. 2: 12. 23: 10. Deut. 18: 4. 26: 10. 33: 21. Num. 24: 20. 
 Amos 6: 6. 
 
 In the passage before us, all the Greek fathers appear to have 
 attached one and the same meaning to vmagp], viz. that of first 
 fruits, in the sense of earnest, pledge, foretaste, of joys to come. So 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Basil. This accords well, 
 too, with the nature of the case. The apostle represents Christians 
 as the habitation of God by his Spirit, Eph. 2: 22, comp. 1 Cor. 3: 16. 
 6: 19. The Spirit of God dwells in them, 1 John 3: 24. 4: 13. This 
 Spirit, thus conferred on them, is the uggufiwv, the pledge of future 
 glory, 2 Cor. 5: 5. Eph. 1: 14. 
 
 What hinders now, that with all the Greek fathers, we should 
 understand ctnugyi] as meaning, the pledge, foretaste, first fruits, of 
 future glory 1 The usus loquendi of the word does not seem to admit 
 of any other exegesis. Nor do we need any other ; as this is alto- 
 gether congruous with the nature of the passage. 
 
 With Keil then, in his admirable explanation of this passage, 
 (Opusc. p. 294, seq.), I would interpret it in the. manner exhibited 
 above. And if this be correct, then it follows, that the anugyij here 
 spoken of is common to all true Christians ; and that the interpreta- 
 tion which limits this verse to the apostles, or to a few of the primitive 
 Christians endowed with miraculous gifts, has no stable foundation. 
 
 That Christians were subject to sorrows, needs not to be proved. 
 That they were exposed to more than ordinary ones, may be seen in 
 2 Cor. 5: 2, 3. 1 Cor. 15: 19. That they longed and sighed for deliv- 
 erance, followed from their very nature. That even the earnest of 
 future glory did not exempt them from sufferings, is certain. But 
 there is a peculiar energy and delicacy in the expression which 
 marks the consequences of their sufferings ; tec groan ivithin our- 
 selves, i. e. internally, not externally. We suppress the rising sigh ; 
 we bow with submission to the will of God which afflicts us; we re- 
 ceive his chastisement as children ; our frail nature feels it, and we 
 sigh or groan inwardly ; but no murmuring word escapes us ; we 
 
ROMANS 8 : 23. 347 
 
 suppress the outward demonstrations of pain, lest we should even 
 seem to complain. 
 
 Is this imaginary on my part ? Or did the writer mean to convey 
 what I have attributed to him ? So much, at least, we can say, viz. 
 that such a sentiment was worthy of Paul, and of all Christians who 
 suffered with him. It is worthy of being carried into practice at the 
 present hour ; it commends itself to the conscience of every one, who 
 thoroughly believes in the holy, just, and benevolent providence of 
 God. 
 
 Tlo&eoluv unexdfyof.ifvoi., waiting for [our] adoption or filia- 
 tion. There is a twofold filiation spoken of in the New Testament. 
 The first is that which takes place, when believers are born again, 
 John 1: 12, 13. 3: 3 — 5. Rom. 8: 14, 15, represents believers as 
 possessing 7ivivf.ia. vio&iaiug. 1 John 3: 1,2. But there is another 
 and higher sense in which believers are to become the children of 
 God, viz. they are to be so, when they shall be perfected iu the world 
 of glory, when they become " the children of the resurrection," when 
 they are made "like to the angels," Luke 20: 36. Their first adoption 
 or filiation is secret, in regard to the world ; their second is the unoxu- 
 Xvxptg xoiv vttou tov &eov, when " he who seeth in secret, shall reward 
 them openly." It is probably because the word v'lo&eolav here used, 
 is in itself dubious, that the apostle adds an explanatory or epexeget- 
 ical clause, which he places in apposition with it, viz. ttjv unolvrgo)- 
 aiv too oo)[acctoq rj(.io)v, the redemption of our body, i. e. its redemption 
 from a state of frailty, disease, and death. It is, at the resurrection, 
 to be like to Christ's glorious body, Phil. 3: 21 ; it is to be a aolfia 
 7ivev[.iarix6p, 1 Cor. 15: 44 ; this mortal is to put on immortality, this 
 acofAct q&uoxov is to become a aot^ia uqx>u()T0v, 1 Cor. 15: 53, 54. 
 Such is the (xtioXvtqwoiq of this frail and dying body, which believers 
 now inhabit. Comp. unolvrgojoig in Luke 21: 28. Eph. 1: 14. 4: 
 30. Heb. 11: 35. 
 
 The reader will note, as I have had occasion already to intimate, 
 that the expression anoluiQwaiv rov oco/Aaxog here is equivalent to 
 the unoxulvyjiv twv vlcoi> rov -&eov in v. 19, and to the t\evdegiav 
 xoiv xexvcov tov -&S0V in v. 21. It therefore serves to show what 
 those expressions mean, in the connection in which they stand. 
 
 Christians then, in their present state, must long and wait for 
 their second and final adoption or filiation. They must wait with 
 confidence ; yea, with assurance ; for " he who cometh will come, 
 and will not tarry." But let them not regard the present world as 
 
348 ROMANS 8: 23—25. 
 
 their home. It is not the Canaan in which they are to rest. They 
 must " seek a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker 
 is God." Then the agitated breast, the heaving sigh, the groaning 
 within, will no more annoy or distress them. Let not the child of 
 God complain, then, that his final reward is not anticipated and dis- 
 tributed to him here, in the present world, while he is in a state of 
 trial. He must wait until he comes to the goal, before he can wear 
 the crown of a victor in the race. He must defer his expected lau- 
 rels, until his combat is over. Then he shall receive a crown of 
 glory, which fadeth not away. 
 
 (24) That the Christian cannot expect a reward here, the apos- 
 tle goes on most explicitly to declare. Tij ydg ilnldt ieeu&tjftev, for 
 ice are saved in hope, i. e. we have as yet obtained salvation only in 
 hope ; we have only attained to a condition in which we indulge a 
 hope of future glory. This is all which can be rationally expected 
 or accomplished in the present life. He had said, in the preceding 
 verse, that Christians are in the attitude of waiting for their filiation. 
 Verse 24 is designed to illustrate and confirm this ; hence the yag 
 illustrantis at the beginning of it. 
 
 'EXnlg di (5fanopit>T], ovx touv tlnlg, now hope zohich is seen, is 
 no longer hope; i. e. the object of hope (llnig here means this) is no 
 longer such, when one attains the actual possession of it. At orati- 
 oni continuandae inservit, as the lexicographers say, i. e. it stands be- 
 fore a clause which is designed to continue the subject already intro- 
 duced. 
 
 "O ydg fiXinfi rig, ri v.ai iXm'£fi ; for what a man sees, hoio does 
 he still hope for it ? That is, what a man has actually attained or 
 come to the enjoyment of, how can he be said to look forward to it 
 with hope or anticipation ? Fug rationem rei dictae reddit, i. e. it 
 stands in a clause designed to explain or confirm the preceding asser- 
 tion ; for such is the nature of the present clause. 
 
 (25) Ei dt o ov fikiTiOfiei/, tkni&fisv, 61 VTto^ivrjg unixdfyo^f- 
 #tt, but if now we hope for that which wc do not enjoy, then ice pa- 
 tiently wait for it. That is, if it be true, as all will concede, that in 
 the present life we attain not to our final reward, but can be called 
 the heirs of salvation, only because we have obtained a well-ground- 
 ed hope of it ; if it be so, that we cannot rationally expect an ex- 
 emption from trials and troubles here, but must take our part in 
 them with all around us ; if it be true also, that a great and glorious 
 reward is reserved in heaven, for all who endure patiently until the 
 
ROMANS 8:2(1 349 
 
 end of their probation ; (and that this is true, the very nature that 
 God has given to men, which is here so imperfectly developed, and 
 which therefore points to a state of greater perfection, satisfactorily 
 shews); then it becomes Christians to endure with all patience and 
 meekness the trials and sufferings of the present life. Time is short ; 
 eternity is long. Our sufferings are slight and momentary, when 
 viewed in a comparative light. Who can place them beside that 
 glory, " which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it hath 
 not entered into the heart of man to conceive," and which is to en- 
 dure as long as the God who bestows it, and yet make any serious 
 account of them ? Christian brethren, says the apostle, let us pa- 
 tiently wait the appointed tune of our deliverance. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 26, 27. 
 
 In thisonr weak and suffering condition, we are greatly aided by the Spirit 
 who dwells in us ; so tiiat even when we are so much perplexed and distress- 
 ed that we know not what to ask for, or what to say in our prayers, our inter- 
 nal sighs which are not uttered by words, and which arise from his influence 
 on our souls, are noticed and understood by the Searcher of hearts, whose 
 ears will be open to them. Such is the course of thought in these verses ; the 
 natural inference from it is : 'Christians, be not discouraged, even in your 
 deepest distresses. He who seeth in secret, counts every groan, hears every 
 sigh, and will be a very present help in time of need.' 
 
 (26) Such is the general sentiment of the passage. Particular 
 words, however, present some difficultes. 'S2<iavzo)g, in like manner, 
 in the same roay. But in what way '? Like to what 1 A difficult 
 question. Some critics, (Grotius, Koppe, Flatt and others), render 
 waaviwq by practcrea, uberdiess, i. e. moreover, besides. This would 
 do well, if philology would allow it. It seems, however, to be mak- 
 ing a new meaning for the word. The true answer to the question : 
 Like to what 1 seems to be this : ' In like manner as hope supports, 
 strengthens, cheers us, and renders us patient, so do the influences 
 of the Spirit aid us, in all our distresses ; i. e. as hope aids us amidst 
 all our sufferings and sorrows, so does the Spirit likewise. 
 
 To iivfvfxa, the Spirit. But what Spirit 1 Our own mind ? A 
 filial Spirit ? Or the Spirit of God ? Each of these methods of exe- 
 gesis has been defended. I was once inclined to regard the second 
 meaning as the most probable ; principally on account of the 27th 
 verse. It is natural to ask : Does not the epithet, 6 igtvvtav rag 
 x«(jd!ag, designate him who knows the secrets of the human breast, 
 
350 ROMANS 8:26. 
 
 and not him who knows the secrets of the Spirit of God, i. e. his 
 own secrets ? Then again, <fp6pr,ua zov TTVivfiarog, in the same 
 verse, seems to mean, the mind, will, design of the human heart or 
 spirit ; and again, Where in all the Scriptures is the Spirit of God 
 represented as making intercession (ivTvyyuvn) for the saints? 
 These difficulties led me, as they have done many others, to con- 
 strue mrevfia as meaning Tivtvuu vlo&tolag, comp. v. 15. But a re- 
 investigation of this subject, has now, on the whole, made me to 
 doubt this exegesis ; and this for reasons which will be specified in 
 the sequel. 
 
 Let the reader first compare nvsvfta in vs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 
 14, 23, where it clearly means the Spirit of God or of Christ, and he 
 will feel the weight of probability that the writer here uses Tiveviiiu 
 in the like sense. That Spirit which sanctifies Christians, which 
 subdues their fleshly appetites, which gives them a filial temper, which 
 bestows a foretaste of future glory, — this same Spirit, aids Christians 
 in all their sufferings and sorrows ; and consequently they ought pa- 
 tiently to endure them. It cannot be denied, that intensity of mean- 
 ing is given to the whole passage, by this exegesis. 
 
 ^ui'ui'Ti/.uihjaieiui, helps; but in the Greek, aw augments the 
 signification, so that one might translate, greatly assists, affords much 
 help, — ^a&fi'fiaig r\u(.»v, our infirmities, seems to mean, our frail, 
 infirm, afflicted, troubled state; and this accords entirely with the 
 context. 
 
 To yuo ■/.. t.X., yuo illustrantis again ; for the sequel shews what 
 our condition is, and how the Spirit aids us. To yag .... ovx oida- 
 fttv, for we know not what ice should pray for as we ought ; i. e. in 
 our perplexities, weaknesses, ignorance, and distresses, we are often 
 at a loss what would be best for us, or most agreeable to the will of 
 God respecting us. Ka&6 di7, i. e. the object for which we should 
 pray xaOo del, viz. -autu to diltjua tov &fov (comp. 1 John 5: 14), 
 is frequently unknown to us. 
 
 In this state, the same Spirit, avxo to Tcvevua, the same who sanc- 
 tifies us, dwells in us, and helps our infirmities — this same Spirit in- 
 tercedes for us, vjitofi'Tvy/ai'ti vnig >]uu)i>, where vnt'g in compo- 
 sition with the verb, augments the force of it. 
 
 Prayer or supplication, however, made by the Spirit, i. e. the 
 Spirit of God as such and by himself, is not here intended. So the se- 
 quel clearlv shews. The fyirit makes intercession for us arevayuotg 
 u).ah']zoig, in sighs or groans ichich arc unutterable, i. e. the full mean- 
 
ROMANS 8 : 26, 27. 351 
 
 ing of which cannot be spoken in words. Or uluh)xoig may mean, that 
 which is not uttered, that which is internal, suppressed sighs. Either 
 sense is good; and either gives an intense meaning. In this way, 
 then, the Spirit intercedes for the saints, viz. by exciting within them 
 such longing and high desires for conformity to God, and for deliver- 
 ance from evil, and for the enjoyment of future blessedness, that 
 these desires become unutterable ; no language can adequately ex- 
 press them. What is thus done in the souls of believers through the 
 influence of the Spirit, is here attributed to him ; i. e. he is said to 
 do, what they do under his special influence. 
 
 In accordance with such a sentiment, Fenelon, in his Essay en- 
 titled, Que T Esprit de Dieu enscigne en dedans, [That the Spirit of 
 God teaches internally], says in a very striking manner : " The Spirit 
 of God is the soul of our soul." So Augustine, with equal correct- 
 ness and concinnity : " Non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud se- 
 met ipsum in ilia Trinitate gemit ; sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere 
 nosfacit, (Tract. VI. in Johan. § 2) ; that is, ' the Divine Spirit does 
 not groan or intercede in and by himself, as God and belonging to 
 the Trinity ; but he intercedes by his influence upon us, and by lead- 
 ing us to aspirations which language cannot express : ' a sentiment 
 equally true and striking. 
 
 (27) 'O de loevvolv xug y.agdlug, a common appellation of God 
 who is omniscient ; comp. Ps. 7: 9 (10). Jer. 11: 20. — Oldi to qoo- 
 vr t (xu xov nvevuuxog, knoweth the desire of the Spirit or the mind of 
 the Spirit, i. e. what is sought after, willed, or desired, when these 
 ozfpuyfxol u?.uh"jxoi, excited by him, arise. In other words: 'The 
 Searcher of hearts does not need that desires should be clothed or 
 expressed in language, in order perfectly to understand them and to 
 listen to them.' 
 
 It is not the mind of the Spirit of God, in itself considered and 
 as belonging to the Godhead, that the Searcher of hearts is here 
 represented as knowing. It is the mind or desire of the Spirit, as 
 disclosed h oxevw/iiolg v.Xuh,TOig xov ttyiatv, that the writer means 
 to designate. In this way, there is no difficulty in applying nveipu 
 to the Spirit of God. 
 
 " Oxt y.uxu .... aylatv, because he intercedes for the saints agree- 
 ably to the rvill of God. To construe y.uxu fttov, to God, as if it 
 were ttoo? -&c6v here, the usus loquendi of the language absolutely 
 forbids ; for hxvyyuveo y.uxu .... means to accuse; in which case, 
 also, nuzu must be followed by the Genitive. Kuxu fteov, then, 
 
352 ROMANS 8:27. 
 
 must mean secundum Deum, i. e. y.utu. to ■dtX^/Aa tod tfiov, comp. 
 1 John 5: 14. So the Syriac version, Chrysostom, Tholuck, Flatt, 
 and others. Comp. for this sense of y.aid, Rom. 8: 4. 2 Cor. 11: 
 17. Rom. 2: 2. Luke 2: 22, 24, 27, 29, et al. 
 
 Sentiment : ' The Searcher of hearts knows all that the sighs of 
 his children mean, when these are excited by his Spirit; for the Spirit 
 excites in them unutterable desires, in accordance with the will of 
 God, i. e. desires for what is agreeable to his will or proper for him 
 to grant ; to which, therefore, he will readily listen.' 
 
 In this mode of exegesis, all difficulties seem to be removed, and 
 one is enabled to maintain a uniform and consistent meaning of 
 nvn'fiu throughout the whole chapter. 
 
 The Christian who reads this passage with a spirit that responds 
 to the sentiments which it discloses, cannot avoid lifting up his soul 
 to God, with overflowing gratitude for his mercies. Here, we are 
 poor and wretched and miserable and blind and naked, and in want 
 of all things ; we are crushed before the moth ; we all do fade as a 
 leaf, and the wind taketh us away ; we are often in distress, in dark- 
 ness, in perplexity, in straits from which we can see no escape, 
 no issue; even in far the greater number of cases, we know not 
 what will be for our ultimate and highest good, and so " know 
 not what we should pray for as tee ought:" but then, the Spirit of 
 the living God is present with all the true followers of the Saviour ; 
 he excites desires in their souls of liberation from sin and present evil, 
 of heavenly blessedness and holiness, greater than words can express. 
 The soul can only vent itself in sighs, the meaning of which language 
 is too feeble to express. Often we do not know enough of the con- 
 sequences or designs of present trials and sufferings, even to venture 
 on making a definite request with regard to them ; because we do 
 not know whether relief from them is best or not. The humble 
 Christian, who feels his need of chastisement, will very 'often be 
 brought to such a state. Then what a high and precious privilege it 
 is, that our " unutterable sighs" should be heard and understood by 
 Him who searches our hearts ! Who can read this without emotion ? 
 Such are the blessings purchased for sinners by redeeming blood ! 
 Such the consolations which flow from the throne of God, for a 
 groaning and dying world ! 
 
ROMANS 8: 28, 29. 853 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 28—39. 
 
 To crown the whole, the apostle now goes on to assure those to whom he 
 is writing, that ' all things,'' i. e. the sufferings and sorrows and trials of the 
 present life, will prove to be instruments, in the hand of a wise and powerful 
 God and merciful Redeemer, of promoting the final and greatest happiness 
 and glory of all true saints. The accomplishment of this end cannot fail. 
 The purpose of God in respect to the saints, can never be disappointed. Noth- 
 ing can ever separate them from the care and kindness and affection of the Sa- 
 viour, who has redeemed them. The inference to be drawn from all this, is. that 
 Christians have no reason to despond or to be discouraged, while suffering the 
 evils and trials of life. Their hopes and expectations should be elevated above 
 the world, and be in accordance with the glorious inheritance that awaits them. 
 
 (28) 0'iduf.iev dt, we know now, or we know then or moreover. At 
 orationi eontinuandae inservit. What follows, is an addition to what 
 had gone before, of the like in kind or relating to the same subject. 
 
 Havra ovvtgyti, all sufferings, sorrows, trials, etc., shall coope- 
 rate, mutually contribute, for the good, for the final and highest good, 
 of those who love God, i. e. of the saints, of true Christians. So the 
 sequel describes them. 
 
 ToIq . . . ovaiv, to those who are called according to his purpose or 
 design. Kh]xolg, in the New Testament, is used twice in the sense 
 of invited, bidden, viz. Matt. 20: 16. 22: 14. In all other cases it 
 means, not only such as were invited, but such as had accepted the 
 invitation; e. g. 1 Cor. 1: 2, 24. Jude v. 1. Rom. 1: 6. Rev. 17: 14. 
 It seems, therefore, to be employed as the equivalent of txXtxxog, and 
 means a true Christian. Plainly this is the sense in the verse before 
 us; for the persons here designated are those who love God. — Kaxa 
 nQO&6aiv, those who are called or chosen in conformity with the pur- 
 pose [of God]. This Tigo&taig is xax txkoyijv, Rom. 9: 11, i. e. free, 
 without any merit or desert on the part of the sinner, or of obligation 
 (strictly speaking) on the part of God ; it is the jtQO&soig of him who 
 worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, and hath before 
 ordained that Christians should have a heavenly inheritance, Eph. 1: 
 11; it is a ngo&eaig zwv aio'ivwv, an eternal purpose, Eph. 3: 11 ; 
 or it is a -ngo&foig .... ngo %g6viav uloivioiv, a purpose before the 
 ancient ages, i. e. before the world began, 2 Tim. 1: 9. 
 
 That the purpose of God is here meant, and not the purpose or 
 will of man, (as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyril, Pelagius, Suidas, 
 Hammond, Le Clerc, and others, have maintained), is rendered en- 
 tirely clear by the sequel, v. 29, seq. See Excursus VII. 
 
 (29) "Oxt, ovq ngotyvoj. The course of thought seems to be 
 thus : ' All things must work together for good to Christians — to such 
 
 45 
 
354 ROMANS 8 : 29. 
 
 as are called to the privileges of a filial relation, and were chosen 
 before the world began, to be conformed to the image of God, and to 
 be advanced to a state of glory. The everlasting love and purpose of 
 God cannot be disappointed.' "On x. r. X. introduces the reasons, 
 why it is certain that all things will work together for the good of 
 true Christians. 
 
 Tlgotyvw, foreknew, or before decreed or constituted or determin- 
 ed, (viz. as xXrjTOi, elect, saints, chosen, see on v. 28), a word end- 
 lessly disputed. But whether theology or philology has been the 
 predominating element in the dispute, it is not difficult for an impar- 
 tial reader to decide. My object and argument shall be ■philological. 
 I would seek for what the apostle does say ; not for what I may con- 
 jecture he ought to say. 
 
 TIqo, in composition, gives the additional signification of previous 
 time, formerly ; the action designated by the verb remaining the same 
 as is signified by the simple form of the word. What then does yi- 
 vojoxo) mean? It means, (1) To know in any manner generally; 
 to know by the aid of any of the bodily senses, by hearing, etc., or 
 by experience, trial ; Lat. cognoscere, sentire. (2) To he acquainted 
 with, to perceive so as fidly to apprehend, to take knowledge of, to 
 make one's self acquainted with. (3) To recognize one as a known 
 friend, a familiar acquaintance; Matt. 7: 23. Mark 7: 24. 1 Cor. 8: 
 3. Gal. 4: 9. 2 Tim. 2: 19. Heb. 13: 23. To the same purpose is 
 the corresponding Hebrew S*l* employed ; i. e. it means to love, to 
 regard with affection, to treat ivith favour; e. g. it is said of God in 
 respect to the saints, Ps. 1: 6. 144: 3. Amos 3: 2. Nah. 1:7; of men 
 in respect to God, Hos. 8: 2. Ps. 36: 11. 9: 11. Job 18: 21. The 
 first and second classes of meaning above given are so common, and 
 so easily confirmed by any of the lexicons, that I have deemed it 
 superfluous to adduce examples, which every one may find in abun- 
 dance by consulting his lexicon. 
 
 npot'yvw then may mean, he before loved, he before regarded with 
 affection, he before looked on with favour. In this sense many have 
 here understood the word; e. g. Origen, Erasmus, Mosheim, Baum- 
 garten, E. Schmidius, and generally the Arminians. 
 
 On the other hand; Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrose, Augus- 
 tine, Bucer, Balduin, Hunnius, Calovius, Heumann, and others, have 
 construed ngot'yvb) here as meaning, he forekneu\ understood in the 
 literal and primary sense of the word ; i. e., say the Lutheran com- 
 mentators in general: 'God foreknew that the xhtjioi would freely 
 
ROMANS 8:2!). 355 
 
 believe.' In the same way, many at the present day construe this 
 text. But the question on which all turns, as to this interpreta- 
 tion, is : Does the apostle here represent the calling and justification 
 and glorification of the xA/;ro/, as the result of God's love to them, or 
 of their love to him? That is, did God bring them by his Spirit into 
 a state of grace, because they loved him first, or before they were 
 brought into this state ; or did he by his mercy bring them into this 
 state, so that they might love him ? This question is finally and fully 
 settled by such texts as 1 John 4: 10, 19. John 15: 16. Rom. 5: G — 
 10. Jer. 31: 3. 2 Tim. 1:9, ov naru ra tgya t]^ioji> — aklu y.uru 
 ngo&soiv ttctl yagiv rrjv do&eiouv .... ngo ygovwv c.ioiviojf. It is 
 settled by the nature of the case. The Spirit of God "breathes on 
 the valley of dry bones;" he "quickens those who are dead in tres- 
 passes and sins;" he "calls the dead to life;" he "creates anew in 
 Christ Jesus ;" sinners are " born of the Spirit ;" and it is in this 
 way, and in this only, that they come to love God ; for " the car- 
 nal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, nor 
 indeed can be ;" and that " which is born of the flesh is flesh." It is 
 God who first loves us ( 1 John 4: 10, 19), before we come to love him. 
 There is no setting aside declarations so plain, so full, so often re- 
 peated as these. 
 
 We cannot embrace that view of -ngotyvw, then, which makes 
 the manifestation of God's love to his children to depend on his fore- 
 sight of their meritorious obedience, or their love towards him. It is 
 undoubtedly true, it must be so, that God foresees and perfectly knows 
 all the love and obedience which his children will ever exhibit ; and 
 it is equally certain, that he has before determined to reward these in 
 proportion to their desert. But this cannot be the ground of his caus- 
 ing them, when they are his enemies and dead in trespasses and sins, 
 to become ov^(.i6gcf.ovg xijg fr/.ovog xov viov avzov. It must forever 
 remain true, that we are brought " to love him, because he first 
 loved us." 
 
 It should also be observed, in regard to the exegesis now in ques- 
 tion, that it gives a ground or reason of God's foreknowledge in this 
 case, which the text does not give. The text does not say why or 
 how God foreknew ; but merely that he did so. Of this more in the 
 sequel. 
 
 In the sense of No. 3 above, viz. that of approving, loving, re- 
 garding with approbation or affection, Origen, Martyr, Calvin, and 
 many others take ngotyvot here. But those who embrace this senti- 
 
3.56 ROMANS 8: 29. 
 
 ment respecting iiQOtyv to, are divided ; some saying that God before 
 loved his saints, because he foresaw their character and good works ; 
 others, that out of his mere good pleasure he set his love upon them. 
 In the latter way, Calvin, Beza, the Westminster Catechism, and 
 most of the Calvinistic writings take it. But our text, it should be 
 observed, assigns neither the one reason nor the other ; it states the 
 simple fact, and no more. 
 
 I do not see that any conclusive objections can be urged against 
 adopting the sense of before loving or regarding with affection; be- 
 cause the like sense of the verbs yivojaxo) and S^ is common. 
 It is only when the reason for doing this is forced upon us, as being 
 disclosed in the text itself, that I should object to such an exegesis. 
 
 With Tholuck, however, I prefer a sense of ngoiyvo), different 
 from any yet mentioned ; and this merely from the philology of the 
 passage. It is well known in respect to yivutaxo), that it sometimes 
 means, volo, constituo mecum, I will, I wish, I determine with my- 
 self, I resolve or determine or decide ; and of course, J ordain, con- 
 stitute, decree. So Rom. 7: 15. So Josephus : 6 d(6g t'yvw ti(xoq'i- 
 auo&ut aviovg, God hath determined to punish them, Antiq. I. 2 ; 
 comp. also Antiq. II. 4, 5 and III. 12, 3. So Psalt. Sal. 17. 47 : %v 
 lyvoi 6 &f6g otvamriGou, which God hath determined to establish. In 
 like manner Plutarch : tyvoi qvyi7i> unod^fAin ri}v vnovotav, he de- 
 termined to avoid suspicion by going abroad, Lye. c. 3. Polybius : i'y- 
 vo)auv dia poi'/tiQ '/.Qiveiv id TiQuypaxu, they have determined to de- 
 cide matters by appeal to arms, V. 82. 
 
 That TiQoyivwcsxin may have the like sense, is clear from 1 Pet. 
 1: 20; where nyoeyvwopivov tiqo xuzafioktig xoopov (said of Christ) 
 means plainly, before decreed, before constituted or determined. In 
 the like sense (as many think) is it used in Rom. 11: 2, God hath 
 not cast away his people ov TiQOtyvw, whom he chose to be his or con- 
 stituted his, viz. before the foundation of the world ; comp. 1 Pet. 
 1: 20. Eph. 3: 11. 2 Tim. 1: 9. And in accordance with this, tt(j6- 
 yvuiaig is used ; e. g. Acts 2: 24, where it is the equivalent of ajyio- 
 fte'vt] j3ovlrj. So also in 1 Pet. 1: 2; and it is the same as nQO&iatg, 
 in 2 Tim. 1:9. Eph. 3: 11. 
 
 In this view of the subject, ov nQOtyvw is to be regarded as a re- 
 sumption of the idea expressed by nurd Trgo&taiv ulritolg in v. 28, 
 i. e. those who by his purpose were xA/jro/, those whom ngot'yvo) — i. e. 
 whom he had before chosen or constituted his y.hrjroi — nQOUiQine x.r.A. 
 That 7IOO in composition here means, before the foundation of the 
 
ROMANS 8:29. 357 
 
 world, may be seen by comparing 1 Pet. 1: 20. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Eph. 
 3: 11. 
 
 The objections to this view of the subject do not seem to be 
 weighty ; and they lie equally against translating nQOtyvw, he fore- 
 kneto, or he loved before. If God did actually foreknow who were to 
 be his xfojzoi, then it was not uncertain whether they would be or 
 not. If he loved them before the foundation of the world, then it 
 must have been, that he did foreknow that they would be his xlrjzoi' 
 and this again makes the same certainty. If he determined before 
 the foundation of the world that they should be his ttXqzol, then 
 again the same certainty existed, and no more. Nay even if we 
 could abstract God and his purposes from the whole, and suppose the 
 order of the universe to move on in its constituted way, the same 
 certainty would still have existed. I do not see, therefore, in what 
 way we can avoid the conclusion, that certainty must exist by the di- 
 vine purpose and counsel, in regard to the xktjzoi — a certainty not 
 merely that they will be saved, provided they believe and obey and 
 persevere in so doing; but a certainty that the y.aza ngoftioiv y.\r\- 
 roi will be brought to believe and obey and persevere, and will there- 
 fore obtain salvation ; for such is the manifest tenor of the whole 
 passage. 
 
 Still, all those of any party in theology, who draw from irgoiyvoi 
 the conclusion that God fore-ordained or chose or loved, out of his 
 mere good pleasure, on the one hand ; or from his foresight of faith 
 and good works on the other ; deduce from the text what is not in it, 
 for it says neither the one nor the other. It avers merely, that the 
 y.uzu nQO&toiv xhjzol were foreknown, or fore-loved, or fore-deter- 
 mined. Construe this in whatever way you will, if there be any ob- 
 jection against the one, there is the same against the other, unless 
 you remove it by adding a condition which the apostle has not added. 
 It lies on the face of the whole paragraph, that certainty of future 
 glory to all the xXyzol &iov, is what the writer means to affirm ; and 
 to affirm it by shelving that it is part of the everlasting purposes of 
 God. 
 
 Kul TTgoojQiae, he edso fore-ordained, predestinated, decreed be- 
 fore, viz. before the foundation of the world. So, clearly, the word is 
 used in Acts 4: 28. 1 Cor. 2: 7, expressly uqo zwv aitovoiv. Eph. 
 1: 5, 11. Bretschneider (Lex.) says, that the decree here has respect 
 merely to the external privileges of the gospel, and not to eternal sal- 
 vation ; which is directly contradicted by 1 Cor. 2: 7 — eig do^av 
 
358 ROMANS 8 : 29, 30. 
 
 r]u(oV by Eph. 1: 5 — iig vto&eolav diet h]00V Xqiotov . . . . ip o> 
 t%0[Aiv xr\v unoXvrgcooiv .... and v. 11, iv op iitX^goj-Oi^fifv, 
 tiqooqio-&£vt£S yard tiqo&ioiv it. t. X. In like manner, the whole 
 tenor of the passage before us clearly contradicts this ; for here 
 the subject is, final and future glory, not merely present oppor- 
 tunities and external advantages for acquiring Christian knowledge. 
 The only remaining passage where the word is used (Acts 4: 28), 
 employs it in an entirely different connection, but with the plain sense 
 of before decreed. The sense of the whole is : ' Those who are v.Xt]- 
 rol according to the purpose of God, those whom he determined from 
 everlasting to save, he did at the same time predestinate to be con- 
 formed to the image,' etc. 
 
 2vfAfA.6gq.ovg is here used as a noun, having the Gen. after it; if 
 employed as an adjective, it would require the Dative ; ovfifjogqovg 
 . . . avrov, to be of the like form with the image of his own Son, i. e. 
 to be like him, to resemble him in a moral respect. God has not 
 then, (as is often objected to the doctrine of predestination), decreed 
 that men should be saved whether they be sinful or holy, i. e. with- 
 out any regard to the character which they may have ; but he has 
 determined, that all who are conducted to glory must resemble, in a 
 moral respect, him who leads them to glory, i. e. the great Captain of 
 their salvation. 
 
 Eig to iivav .... cld(Xqo7g, that he [the Son] should be the first- 
 born among many brethren; i.e. that the Saviour should, in his office 
 as Lord of all and Head over all things for his church, still sustain a 
 fraternal relation to those whose leader he is, they being made to re- * 
 semble him by being made partakers of the like qualities or affec- 
 tions; comp. Heb. 2: 11 — 18. On ngoiTOTOxog, comp. Ps. 89: 27, 
 (28). Ex. 4: 22. Heb. 1: 6. Col. 1. 15. 
 
 (30) Ovg di irgowgioi, and whom heforc-ordained, or predestinated, 
 viz. to be conformed to the image of his Son. In other words, whom 
 he before determined to regenerate and sanctify, to purify from sin, 
 and to make holy in some measure as the Saviour is holy. 
 
 Toviovg v.ul inaleae, the same did he also call. Is this the so 
 named effectual calling ; or does it mean nothing more than the ex- 
 ternal invitation of the gospel, the moral suasion of it addressed to 
 the heart and understanding of sinners? That the external call is of- 
 ten designated by the word y.ali(a, is clear enough from such passa- 
 ges as Matt. 9: 13. Mark 2: 17. Luke 5: 32. Gal. 1:6. 5: 8, 13. 
 Eph. 4: 1,4 etc. But the word auXt'o} may also be applied to effectual 
 
ROMANS 8: 30, 31. 359 
 
 calling, i. e. such a calling as ensures acceptance. In such a way 
 x\)}Oig and xfajtog are, beyond all doubt, usually applied to effectual 
 calling or election. So here, ixultoa manifestly means, such a cal- 
 ling as proceeds from the ngo&toig, from the fore-knowledge and 
 from the predetermination of God in respect to the objects of it, and 
 which is followed by justification or pardon of sin, and final glory. If 
 this be not effectual calling, what is ? Such a call as proceeds from the 
 everlasting purpose and love of God, and ends in heavenly glory, is 
 something more than an external motive or suasory argument, merely 
 addressed to the mind. 
 
 Toviovg y.v.1 tdixalwaev, the same he also justified ; i. e. pardoned, 
 acquitted, absolved from the penalty of the divine law, accepted and 
 treated as righteous. — Ovg de . . . . ZdoZaae, and those whom he justi- 
 fied, the same he edso glorified; the work, begun in accordance with 
 his everlasting love and purpose, he carries through and consum- 
 mates, by bestowing endless glory in heaven upon the v.axd ngo&ioiv 
 y.\}]iol. 
 
 How then can the mere external invitations and privileges of the 
 gospel be here meant 1 Is it indeed true, that all to whom these are 
 extended are xfajioi? If so, then wdiat is to be the lot of those, to 
 whom the gospel is not made known 1 Whether it be true, moreover, 
 that all who hear the gospel will be saved, may be determined from 
 such texts as John 15: 22—24. 9: 41. 3: 19. Heb. 2: 1—3. 3: 18, 19. 
 6: 4—6. 10: 26—30. Mark 16: 16. It may, with equal certainty, be 
 determined from vs. 1 — 11 of the present chapter, where the distinc- 
 tion between aapy.ix.ol and ■nvfv/naTix.ot is broad and clear. If now 
 all who enjoy the external privileges of the gospel, are not yhjiol or 
 xtY.lt]f.iivoi, in the sense of the present passage, then must it be true, 
 that such only as are conformed to the image of Christ will be saved. 
 And that all who enjoy the external privileges of the gospel, are con- 
 formed to the image of Christ, will not, I trust, be asserted by any 
 considerate person. See Excursus VIII. 
 
 (31 ) Ti . . . . TuvTtt ; what shall we say in respect to these things ? 
 i. e. what shall we say, now, in reference to the facts and principles 
 which I have just mentioned, viz. the purposes of God in respect to the 
 y.h]Tol, and the manner in which he deals with them? The sequel 
 answers this question ; the sum of which is, that ' such being the 
 purposes of God, none of the sorrows or troubles of life, yea none of 
 the spiritual enemies and opposers of the children of God, will be able 
 to disappoint or frustrate their hopes.' 
 
3G0 ROMANS 8:32. 
 
 El 6 tfedg .... qjiwv; If God be on our side, i. e. espouse our 
 cause, who can contend with success against him? 
 
 (32) "Og yt v.. r. X., even he ivho spared not his own Son. It, 
 quidem, German eben; " yt . . . . vim verbi auget, i. e. intensiva est." 
 — 'Jdiov, his own, his genuine, in opposition to, or in distinction from, 
 vlov ■Onov, an adopted son; e. g. Abraham prepared to offer up his 
 own son as a sacrifice, instead of selecting a supposititious or adopted 
 heir. Yet by own here, we are not to understand a son more humano, 
 but a Son [lovoytvijg, in a sense stated by Luke, 1: 35 ; Son being evi- 
 dently used here not for the divine Logos as such, but for the Messiah 
 clothed with our nature ; as the sequel plainly shews. 
 
 Ovx iqelaaro, he spared not, i. e. he did not withhold ; a hrOTtjg, 
 i. e. a negative form of expression, which has an affirmative meaning 
 equivalent to tftaQiaaio, he gave. So the sequel; all' .... avrov, 
 but gave him up for us all, i. e. gave him up to suffering and death, 
 devoted him to be a sacrifice for our sins ; comp. John 3: 16. Luke 
 22: 19. Gal. 1: 4. IIuptcov is plainly the same here as rjptig, i. e. 
 all Christians. 
 
 Ilwg ovyl .... yuQioirai, how [can it be] that with him he will 
 not bestoiv even all things upon us 1 That is : ' How can we possibly 
 suppose, that, after having bestowed the greatest of all gifts upon us, 
 viz. his own Son, he will refuse to bestow those gifts which are 
 smaller and less costly V 
 
 Tholuck says here, that "the apostle has assured Christians [in the 
 paragraph before us], that nothing shall hurt them, unless they injure 
 themselves." And again: "If the Calvinistic idea [of perseverance] 
 had been intended to be conveyed [by the apostle], he must also have 
 said, that neither apostasy nor sin would, under any circumstances, have 
 rendered their calling uncertain, or disappointed it." That this may be 
 rendered uncertain, he thinks is shewn by 2 Pet. 1: 10. 
 
 But if exhortations, commands, and threatenings of a most awful 
 nature, addressed to Christians, are to be considered as implying an 
 uncertainty whether the work which God has begun in Christians will 
 be completed ; then the Bible is indeed full of proof that they may fall 
 away and finally perish ; for it is filled with passages of such a nature. 
 Above all, does the epistle to the Hebrews abound in them. But, while 
 it is impossible to deny this ; or even to deny, that if Christians were 
 left to themselves they would fall away every day and hour of their 
 lives ; one may still, without any just cause of reproach, be permitted 
 to believe with the apostle, that " ivhom God calls, he justifies and glori- 
 fies ; " he may believe, with the same apostle, that " if Christ died for us 
 while we were yet sinners, while we were acr&evttg xal aaffielc, much 
 more, being justified [i.e. obtaining pardon through his blood], shall we 
 
ROMANS 8: 33. 3G1 
 
 be saved from wrath," Rom. 5: G — 10. How can we then put a con- 
 struction so frigid, on this most animated aud energetic passage which 
 is now before us ? ' The purposes of God,' says the apostle, ' will not 
 be disappointed in bringing his elect to glory.' Why ? ' Because, since 
 God hath given his own Son, the greatest possible gift, to redeem them 
 from sin, therefore their redemption remaineth not uncertain, but will be 
 accomplished.' This reasoning we can see and feel. But how is it 
 with the exegesis of Tholuck ? ' God will save you from the power of 
 external causes of disappointment, if you only take care yourselves of 
 the internal ones.' Indeed? But I have great difficulty to find, in all 
 this, the consolation or assurance which I need. It is offering me only 
 a single drop of water, when I am ready to faint with thirst and need a 
 copious draught. Ten thousand thousand enemies ivithout, are not half 
 so strong as the one within ; and if God's gift of his own Son has not 
 secured sanctifying and restraining grace for his children, which shall 
 enable them to ' crucify the old man with his lusts, and to put on the 
 new man,' then is the work not only incomplete, but it will most cer- 
 tainly fail of being finally accomplished. The world and the devil 
 would have little influence over us, indeed, were our hearts altogether 
 right toward God ; and certain it is, that all other combats are mere 
 skirmishes, compared with the warfare that is going on within us, 
 by reason of our internal enemy, a corrupt heart. But did not Christ 
 die to redeem us from the dangers of this most powerful of all enemies, 
 so well as from other dangers ? If not, then we may abandon all hopes 
 which the gospel inspires, and give ourselves up, after all, for lost. But 
 no, no ! This exegesis does not meet the object which the apostle has 
 in view. It is and must be true, that "if when we were enemies, we 
 were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being 
 reconciled, ive shall be saved by his life," Rom. 5: 10. 
 
 But all this purpose (which belongs only to the counsels and mercy 
 of God), does not hinder Paul, nor any other sacred writer, from reprov- 
 ing, warning, and threatening Christians, just as if they were liable, 
 every day and hour of their lives, to fall away and to lose the glorious 
 reward of the saints, In themselves considered, they are liable to this ; 
 and God employs the very means in cpiestion, to preserve them against 
 apostasy. Thus, while we admit that the promises of Christ will not 
 fail, nor the efficacy of atoning blood be frustrated ; while we believe 
 that " where God has begun a good work, he will carry it into execution 
 [ejiiTskiaet) until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1: 6); we admit in the 
 fullest manner the importance and duty of warning, reproving, exhort- 
 ing, and threatening Christians, just as we should do were there no 
 direct assurances that "whom God calls he justifies, and whom he 
 justifies he glorifies." We admit all this, because the sacred writers 
 evidently admit it, and write constantly in a manner that accords with 
 this admission. 
 
 (33) Tig . . . . ■deov; Who shall bring an accusation against 
 the elect of God? That is: 'Who shall prefer an accusation against 
 them, of crimes that would occasion their condemnation, when they 
 46 
 
362 ROMANS 8 : 33, 34. 
 
 come before the tribunal of God V 'EaXexzwi', Heb. Tha , ^h^3 , 
 "■jlfra, chosen, dear, beloved, precious; comp. 1 Pet. 2: 9. Luke 23: 
 35. 1 Pet. 1: 1. Matt. 24: 22, 31. Mark 13: 20. Luke 18: 7. Col. 3: 
 12. Tit. 1: 1. Rev. 17: 14; also Matt. 20: 16. 22: 14, (where ixXex- 
 roi is used in distinction from xh]T0t). That ixXtxzwv here means 
 something more than merely ayuTUjTOi, may be seen from comparing 
 v. 28 above — xuzu TiQO&zotv .... xX^zoi' also 1 Pet. 1: 1, 2, 
 ixXixzolg .... x«ia n qo yvwa tv &(ov jruzpog. 
 
 Seog 6 dixutMi', it is God who justificth. So I prefer to render 
 and to point it, viz. by making this phrase an answer to the preceding 
 question. So Luther, Tholuck, our English version, and most com- 
 mentators. On the other hand, Augustine, Erasmus, Locke, Schbtt- 
 gen, Griesbach, Knapp, and others, put an interrogation point after 
 dixaio~)p, and likewise after all the succeeding clauses; with dimin- 
 ished emphasis, as it seems to me, and certainly with no great proba- 
 bility ; for how can we well suppose that seventeen successive questions 
 are here put, without any answer or intervening matter? as Dr. 
 Knapp's and Griesbach's pointing represents them to be. Gtog o 
 dixuioiv means, God acquits, pardons, forgives the sins rwc ixXix- 
 Thii>. Now as God is the supreme and final judge, how can any 
 accusation against them occasion their condemnation 1 
 
 (34) Tig o xuzuxqIvmv ; Who shall condemn, or be the condem- 
 nor ? i. e. who shall pass sentence of condemnation ? God acquits ; 
 can any besides him condemn 1 No ; Christ has prevented all con- 
 demnation by his death ; Xqiotoq 6 ujxoftavwv, i. e. his death having 
 made expiation for the sins of believers, no sentence of condemnation 
 can now be passed. I construe Xqioioq 6 uTtoftavcov as an answer 
 to the preceding question ; so Tholuck and Flatt. 
 
 MaXXov di .... i](.iwv, yea rather, who is also risen, and is at the 
 rigid hand of God, and intercedes for us; i. e. Christ not only died 
 to make atonement for our sins, but he is risen from the dead, and is 
 exalted to the throne of Majesty in the heavens, in order that he may 
 complete the glorious work which he began by his death. In regard 
 to the phrase iv dt'tia rov \)tou, see my Coram, on Heb. 1: 3. 
 
 Evxvyiavn conveys the general meaning of aiding^ assisting, 
 managing one's concerns for his advantage, etc. ; comp. Heb. 7: 25. 
 9: 24. 1 John 2: 1. 
 
 In construing the passage in this way, I remove the interrogation 
 points after the respective clauses, and substitute a comma after the 
 first and second, and a period after the third. 
 
ROMANS 8 : 35—38. 303 
 
 (35) Tig .... Xgiotov ; JVho shall separate us from the love of 
 Christ ? i. e. from that love which he cherishes for us ; for so the 
 tenor of the passage plainly demands that we should construe it. 
 Calvin remarks on tig here (instead of ri), that the apostle uses rig, 
 because he considers all creatures and trials here as so many athletae, 
 striving against the efforts of Christians. 
 
 &Mipig, tj ortvoywoia, i] dtouypog; i. e. shall vexation from with- 
 out, or anxiety from within, or persecution by the enemies of the 
 Christian religion, effect a separation from the love of Christ ? Sli- 
 ijug is strictly applicable to any strait or pressure which comes from 
 circumstances, i. e. from external causes ; aitvo'/myiu (lit. narrow- 
 ness of place), is applied more especially to anxiety of mind; dioy- 
 pog is sufficiently plain, as it obviously designates distresses arising 
 from the rage and malice of persecutors. All three words together 
 designate intensively the general idea of trouble or distress. 
 
 Bodily sufferings and dangers next follow ; for to these, Chris- 
 tians, who live in periods of persecution, must of course be peculiar- 
 ly exposed. Famine and nakedness are the natural result of being 
 driven from home, and made to wander in deserts and desolate places. 
 Peril and sword are necessarily connected with the bitter hostility of 
 persecution. 
 
 (36) The quotation here comes from Ps. 44: 23 (Sept. 43: 22), 
 and is applied to the state of Christians in the apostle's times, as it 
 was originally to those whom the Psalmist describes; in other words, 
 the apostle describes the state of suffering Christians, by the terms 
 which were employed in ancient days to describe the suffering people 
 of God. — "Ohjv xrtv tjpt'gav, fii'n~S3, continually, unremittingly. 
 
 'EXoyiaftrjiuv cJs ixQopuru oqc.yijg, we are counted, i. e. we are 
 reckoned, regarded, dealt with, as sheep for the slaughter, i. e. we are 
 killed as slaughter-sheep, unremittingly and without mercy. 
 
 (37) ' AXXa^ but, still, i.e. notwithstanding these severe pressures 
 and trials. — ' Ev xoviotg naaiv, in all these, viz. all these sufferings 
 and sorrows. — ' Tjifgiixopii', we are more than conquerors, an inten- 
 sive powerful form of expression, used with great appropriateness and 
 significancy here. — Aid . . . ypag, i. e. through Christ who loved 
 us, viz. in consequence of the strength and courage which he im- 
 parts ; comp. Phil. 4: 13. 
 
 (38) Guvuzog .... fan?, death, here seems plainly to mean, a 
 violent death by the hands of persecutors. Zodi], on the other hand, 
 seems to be life on condition of recanting a profession of the Chris- 
 
364 ROMANS 8 : 38. 
 
 tian religion. It was customary with persecutors, in order to win 
 Christians over to heathenism, to terrify with threats of death in case 
 they persevered in their profession ; and also to allure with promises 
 of life, in case they abjured it. To this usage the words Ouvaxog and 
 £a)t'j here very naturally refer. 
 
 Ouie uyytloi, ovre v.Q%al .... oihf dwapeig, neither angels, nor 
 ■principalities, nor powers. The separation of dvvafitig here from 
 u.Q"/a'i, by an intervening clause, has been a matter of difficulty 
 among critics of all ages. But as this separation does in fact exist 
 in all the best manuscripts, and in the Coptic, Armenian and Syriac 
 Versions, we are obliged, as critics, to receive it as it stands, and to 
 interpret it in the best manner we can. 
 
 The principal difficulty has arisen from the supposition, that Svpcc- 
 fiitg must have been intended by the writer here, to designate an or- 
 der of angels, either good or bad. This supposition was natural, 
 because we find words of the same and the like kind, elsewhere 
 ranged together to designate such classes or orders; e. g. Eph. 1: 21, 
 . . . agyijg, xal Z'^ovolag, xul Svvufiiwg' Col. 1: 16, (he &p6vot,i'hs 
 nugiOTTjTfg, fhe ugycd, elfzs i'govolui ' 1 Pet. 3: 22, ayyt'Xwv, xal t'Sov- 
 odov, y.ul dwupt'oiv. The Seventy often render NS£ (exercitus) by 
 dvvautg. And this seems to give us a key to the meaning of the 
 word, when it is applied to the angels. However, in the passages just 
 cited, different ranks or orders of angels would seem to be designated. 
 Is this in accordance with the Jewish urns loquendi? 
 
 So far as we can gather, from the Old Testament and from the 
 Rabbins, what this usage was, we may answer in the affirmative. 
 Thus in Dan. 12: 1, Michael is called the great prince. In Isaiah 
 6: 1, seq., the Seraphim are represented as presence-angels (so to 
 speak) of Jehovah. In Matt. 18: 10, the guardian angels of little 
 children are also represented, by our Saviour, as the presence-angels 
 of Jehovah. And with regard to the Rabbins, it is well known that 
 they made a great many different orders of angels; e.g. QT^-O, 
 
 B*SBfc , Bosnia , B'vepn , B^rrVan "sa , B^VJattSn , B^anfi , B^Nrii) ; 
 
 and also B^niD , B^BrE , and B'it&a, i.e. xv(jion]T(g, uq%uI, and 
 
 ■&Q0V01,. 
 
 From all this it appears, that angels and principalities and potcers 
 correspond exactly to some of the Jewish orders of angels ; and that, 
 so far as the possibility of meaning is here concerned, there lies no 
 difficulty in the way of applying these three words to angels. Nay, we 
 may advance still farther, and say, that in respect to ao%ai at least, it 
 
ROMANS 8:38. 365 
 
 is quite improbable that it should have been intended to designate 
 magistrates of any kind. " yJyytXob and dgyai may very naturally 
 be taken as designating angels and archangels ; comp. Jude v. 9. 
 1 Thess. 4: 1(5. Dan. 10: 13. 12: 1. If we understand here these 
 two great divisions of angels, it will be in accordance with the usus 
 loquendi of the Old Testament. The fact that ayyfXoi and dgyai 
 are joined together by juxta-position, renders it probable that they 
 belong to the same category of meaning ; for so words of this class 
 are commonly employed. 
 
 But allowing this ; are good or evil angels here meant ? That 
 evil angels were also distributed by the Jews into classes, is as clear 
 as that good angels were classified ; e. g. Eph. 6: 12. 1 Cor. 15: 24. 
 Col. 2: 15, where they are called aoyul xal itovolai, and in 2 Pet. 
 2: 4 they are also called uyyikoi. Moreover Satan is styled 6 uq%wv, 
 Matt. 9: 34. 12: 24. John 12: 31. 14: 30. 16: 11. Eph. 2: 2, which 
 implies precedence, i. e. rank among evil angels. The passage in 
 Eph. 6: 12 seems to be most direct to our purpose, where the apostle 
 represents Christians as in violent contest nyog rag ugyag xal ttqoq 
 rag l'S,ovaiag. So in the verse before us, I understand the apostle as 
 averring, that neither angels nor archangels with whom we are con- 
 testing, i. e. neither the inferior evil spirits, nor Satan himself, (or it 
 may be, Satan and others of similar rank), shall be able, by all their 
 assaults and machinations, to separate true Christians from the love 
 of their Saviour. 
 
 Tholuck supposes the good angels to be meant here ; but how 
 can those, " who are sent forth to minister to such as are the heirs of 
 salvation" (Heb. 1: 14), be well supposed to be the opposcrs and en- 
 emies of Christians ? Accordingly, with Flatt, I understand uyyikoc 
 and uQ'/ai of evil spirits. 
 
 Avvuf.i£ig appears not to be associated in meaning with ayyeloc 
 and aQyctl, because it is not associated with them by juxta-position ; 
 for it has juxta-position in all other instances, where it means angels. 
 I must interpret it, therefore, as designating magistrates, civil powers, 
 viz. persecuting kings and princes. That duvu^ug means auctoritas, 
 imperiwn, is beyond all doubt ; see Luke 4: 36. Acts 4: 7. 1 Cor. 5: 
 4. Rev. 13: 2; also Rev. 4: 11. 5: 12. 7: 12. 12: 10. And that the 
 abstract sense may become concrete, i. e. that dvvapig may designate 
 those persons who are clothed with civil power, is clear from 1 Cor. 
 15: 24. Eph. 1: 21, as also from comparing its synonyme i§ovolct, in 
 Rom. 13: 1—4. 
 
366 ROMANS 8:38,39. 
 
 Ovn iviOTiZia ovre {itlXovTa, neither [troubles] present nor fu- 
 ture; comp. 1 Cor. 3: 23, where the same words are employed in the 
 same sense. The connection demands such a sense here. 
 
 (39) Ovti ui/'OY'tt ovn (3uOog, lit. neither height nor depth. But 
 a great variety of explanations have been given to these words ; e. g. 
 Origen : ' Evil spirits in the air and in Hades.' Ambrose : ' Neither 
 high and haughty speculation [in doctrine], nor deep sins.' Augus- 
 tine : ' Idle curiosity about things above us and below us.' Melanc- 
 thon : ' Heretical speculation of the learned, and gross superstition of 
 the vulgar, etc' So likewise : ' Honour and dishonour,' ' high place 
 and low place,' ' happiness and misery,' ' the elevation of Christians on 
 the cross, and the submersion of them in the sea,' have all had their 
 advocates. The meaning happiness or misery, honour or dishonour, 
 is a possible one; but the animated and glowing spirit of the whole 
 passage naturally leads the mind to expect something more elevated 
 than this. " Ttyog may mean heaven ; so tn*"ift , and so vxpog in Luke 
 1: 78. Eph. 4: 8. As to fia&og, it has been taken to mean the earth, 
 and Eph. 4: 9 is appealed to as sustaining this interpretation. But 
 Ps. 139: 15, Y"~i.N rn'Piftni, the lower parts of the earth, ra (3cc&t] rrjg 
 yr t g (comp. Eph. 4: 9), would be a more apposite appeal, inasmuch 
 as here the meaning plainly is, earth or secret recesses of the earth. 
 On the whole, however, fiuftog, as the antithesis of vxpwpu, more 
 appropriately designates the under-world, biNcJ, qdijg, aSvaaog. 
 
 Thus understood, the sentiment of the apostle ends in a climax ; 
 viz. neither heaven, nor hell, i. e. neither the world above, nor the 
 world below, ovie rig xn'oig ire'ga, nor any other created thing. The 
 whole summed up together, and understood after the Hebrew manner 
 of speaking, stands thus : ' The universe shall not be able to separate 
 Christians from the love of Jesus, who died for them ;' heaven above 
 and Sheol below and other created things making, in the language of 
 Scripture, the universe. 
 
 This is indeed "an anchor sure and steadfast, entering into that 
 within the vail ;" a blessed, cheering, glorious hope, which 
 
 ONLY THE GOSPEL AND ATONING BLOOD CAN INSPIRE ! 
 
CONTENTS OF ROM. 9: 1—53. 367 
 
 CHAP. IX. 1—33. 
 
 With the eighth chapter concludes what may be appropriately termed the 
 doctrinal part of our epistle. What follows, is either by way of forestalling or 
 of removing objections, or of justifying what has been said ; or else in the way 
 of practical exhortation and caution. In previous and different parts of the 
 epistle, the apostle had already advanced sentiments on the subject of salvation 
 by grace — a salvation proffered in the same manner and on the same terms to 
 Gentile as well as Jew — which he well knew would be very obnoxious to many 
 of his kinsmen after the flesh, not excepting some of those who by profession 
 were converts to the Christian religion. In chaps, n. and m., he had formally 
 and at length laboured to shew, that the Jews were not only in a state of con- 
 demnation by the divine law, but even more guilty than the Gentiles ; and 
 this, because they had enjoyed greater religious privileges. At the close of 
 chap. in. he had come out fully and plainly with the declaration, that God is 
 the God of the Gentiles as really and truly as of the Jews ; and in the succeed- 
 ing chapter, he had laboured to shew that such was the principle or doctrine 
 which is taught in the Old Testament Scriptures themselves. "The seed of 
 Abraham," in the highest and noblest and only really important sense of the 
 phrase, means his spiritual seed ; which comprises all who imitate the faith of 
 Abraham, and like him believe implicitly in the divine declarations. 
 
 In chap. v. the apostle had implicitly justified the extension of the gospel 
 privileges and blessings to all men indiscriminately, inasmuch as all were 
 affected by the fall of Adam their common progenitor. Then, in chaps, vi — 
 vin., he had shewn that Christ and his grace are the only effectual ground of our 
 sanctification as well as justification ; that all objection to the scheme of grace, 
 on the ground that it will encourage sin, not only is destitute of foundation, 
 but that the sinner has no hope of resisting sin with success, but through the 
 grace of the gospel ; and finally, that the sanctification of believers will issue in 
 their salvation, with the same certainty as their justification does. 
 
 But how could the Jew, accustomed as he was to pride himself in his de- 
 scent from Abraham, to regard God as his peculiar and covenant God, and to ex- 
 pect acceptance in consequence of his lineao-e and of the peculiar favours which 
 had been shown to the Hebrew nation — how could lie receive with approbation a 
 doctrine, which not only went to prostrate all the hopes that he had cherished 
 of preeminence in this world and of happiness in the world to come, and to 
 place the very heathen on a level with himself, but which even advanced still 
 farther, and made him more guilty than the heathen, and consequently involved 
 him in higher condemnation, because he had sinned against peculiar light and 
 love ? Nay, the very privileges, which had been the ground of his greatest 
 confidence that he must be regarded with divine approbation and entitled to 
 the favour of God, had become, according to the representation of the apostle, 
 the occasion of his peculiar and aggravated condemnation. 
 
 The apostle well knew, that the haughty spirit of his countrymen could not 
 easily brook all this. He expected they would accuse him of having become 
 alienated from his kinsmen after the flesh, and partial to the Gentiles, since 
 he was an apostle to them. It is evidently with such anticipations, that he 
 wrote the chapter now before us. For he begins this, by a most solemn pro- 
 fession or declaration of his sincere and ardent affection for his own nation. 
 He protests against the idea, that in declaring God to be the God of the Gen- 
 tiles, as well as the Jews, he has therefore abjured every kind of preeminence 
 to his own people. He allows that they have enjoyed special and distinguished 
 external privileges; above all, that the Messiah himself has come from the 
 midst of them, vs. ] — 5. He then proceeds to shew, that God in selecting the 
 heirs of his grace where he pleases, i. e. in making the Gentiles the y.atu ttqo- 
 &taiv y.hjToi as well as Jews — in doing all this, he had violated no promise. 
 His word ovx exTCiiCTOtxs (v. 6), i. e. his promise made to Abraham and his seed 
 is not frustrated or annulled, because he has given up unbelieving Jews to 
 perish, and granted to believing Gentiles the privilege of being called the 
 
368 CONTENTS OF ROM. 9: 1—33. 
 
 sons of God. God has always exercised the right of choosing the recipients 
 of his favours, when and where he pleases ; as the Jewish Scriptures them- 
 selves do testify. Abraham, for example, had several children; but in Isaac 
 only was his seed called, vs. 7—9. To Isaac two sons were born, Esau and 
 Jacob ; yet Esau was rejected and Jacob received ; and the decision respecting 
 this, was made even before they were born, vs. 10 — 14. God's declaration to 
 Moses, and his dealings with Pharaoh, exhibit the same truth in a striking 
 manner, vs. 15 — 18. All objection to this on the ground of partiality or 
 injustice, is without any good support ; inasmuch as the sovereign Lord of the 
 universe has a perfect right to dispose of his own as seems good in his sight, 
 vs. 19, 20. He does injustice to none ; for those whom he passes by, are left 
 to the course of justice and equity, vs. 21 — 23. The Hebrew Scriptures have 
 not only displayed, in this way, God's sovereignty in his dealings with his 
 people, but they also contain express declarations that the Gentiles shall be 
 brought into the church and become the children of God, vs. 24 — 2C. Equally 
 certain is it, also, that they predict the unbelief and rejection of the natural 
 descendants of Abraham, vs. 27 — 29. Finally, the apostle sums up the whole 
 matter in discussion, by declaring, that ' the Gentiles are admitted to the gos- 
 pel privilege of justification by faith, but that the Jews in general remain in a 
 state of unbelief and rejection, because Christ crucified is to them a stumbling- 
 block, and none but believers on him can be saved, vs. 30 — 33. 
 
 It is in this way, that the apostle justifies what he had already advanced re- 
 specting the Jews and the Gentiles ; and in particular, what he had said in the 
 eighth chapter, about the highest blessings of the gospel being bestowed on 
 the aard ■TTQod'soiv x?-)]zot. The amount of the justification is this : ' God has 
 always dealt in the like manner by his people. The Old Testament is full of 
 the same doctrine, or it exhibits facts which illustrate and confirm it. It con- 
 tains predictions concerning the very things of which the Jews now complain.' 
 Viewed in this light, (and I am unable to see in what other light it can 
 be fairly viewed), there can be no great difficulty in deciding the question : 
 What is the object of the chapter before us? Plainly the object is to illustrate, 
 and defend against objections, the affirmations which the apostle had been 
 making. What were these ? The consummation of the whole is, that ' the 
 xard ttqo&soiv xhjrot are predestinated, called, justified, and glorified; and 
 these, both Jews and Gentiles.' But the Jew objects, that this amounts to 
 a breach of the promises made to Abraham and his seed. The apostle denies 
 this. He states that the natural seed, as such, are not the specific objects of 
 this promise ; and that God has always, in times past, as now under the gospel, 
 chosen the objects of his favour where he pleased, without regard to any 
 external privileges, advantages, or relations. 
 
 What then has the apostle in reality been asserting in the eighth chapter, 
 which he justifies and defends in the ninth ? Surely the question in the eighth 
 chapter is not one of external privileges or advantages ; it is one of calling, 
 justification, and glorification. It is one which respects the everlasting and in- 
 separable love of Christ. Defence, therefore, of the sentiments inculcated in 
 respect to these topics, occupies the ninth chapter. In itself, it contains not 
 the great doctrine in question, that is, it does not directly reveal or inculcate 
 it. The examples of God's sovereignty produced in it are of various kinds, 
 some of them having respect to temporal advantages or disadvantages ; and 
 some to both spiritual and temporal. But the "principle illustrated and confirm- 
 ed by all these, is the main and all-important question ; and the principle is 
 that which is avowed in the eighth chapter, viz. that the xard ttqo&soiv xh/Tot 
 are the certain heirs of future glory. It is the eighth chapter then, which is 
 the key of the ninth ; and without keeping this in view, one may look in vain 
 for the object of the various examples and illustrations which the ninth chap- 
 ter exhibits. In a word, the apostle shews in the ninth chapter, that God in 
 calling, justifying , and glorifying die Tcqotyvu), does only what he has a perfect 
 right to do ; what is analagous to examples of his dealing as exhibited by the 
 Jewish Scriptures, and what accords with the doctrines and predictions which 
 they contain. In this way, and in this only, can we fully see the scope, ob- 
 ject, and connection of the ninth chapter. 
 
ROMANS 9: 1. 369 
 
 CHAP. IX. 1—5. 
 
 (1) First of all, the apostle proceeds to the most solemn assur- 
 ances of his affectionate regard for his own nation, in order to pre- 
 vent the apprehension that he believed and taught as he had done re- 
 specting the Gentiles, on account of being alienated in his affections 
 from the Jews. The expression of his feelings is made in glowing 
 terms. 
 
 Akr\&lictv .... XgioiM, I speak the truth in Christ. Most in- 
 terpreters regard iv Xgcorio as the formula of an oath ; and they ap- 
 peal to the Hebrew form of an oath, which prefixed z (iv) to the ob- 
 ject or person by whom any one sware. So also iv in the New Tes- 
 tament ; e. g. Matt. 5: 34—30. Rev. 10: 0. Dan. 12: 7 (in Theodo- 
 tion's Greek Version). In this way I was early accustomed to con- 
 strue the expression ; and so Flatt interprets it in his Commentary. 
 But Tholuck has made this interpretation very doubtful. Compare, 
 for example, iv kvqIoci in Eph. 4: 17, where it follows fiugrvgopui, 
 and where the formula of an oath is out of question. It is only so- 
 lemn declaration, such as Christ or the Spirit of Christ prompts or 
 suggests. In like manner we have yvtga iv Xgiorco, ayant] iv 
 Xgioioj, x. r. X., where an oath is of course out of all question. In- 
 deed, the phrase iv y.vgio), iv Xgtoio), etc., occurs so often, in the 
 sense of agreeably to what the Lord or Christ requires, or in accord- 
 ance with what Christ by his Spirit suggests, that abundant analo- 
 gies are at hand to justify the exegesis which is given to iv Xgiaiuj 
 here, when we construe it as meaning, in accordance with Christ, or 
 agreeably to what becomes one who is in Christ, or who belongs to 
 him. 
 
 Ov yivdouat repeats the affirmation and strengthens it, although 
 the negative form or XiTOirjQ is used. Comp. John 1: 21. Eph. 4: 
 25. I Sam. 3: 18, for the negative form of the expression ; and 1 
 Tim. 2: 7, for the like words. 
 
 ^vpiiagrvgovG^g .... dylo), my conscience bearing me ivitness, 
 in the Holy Spirit. I must connect these words together, in the 
 method of exegesis which is here preferred, and not join ov i//fi$o- 
 f.tut with iv nvevpuit uyiw, as Dr. Knapp^and most other critics 
 have done, making the latter phrase a part of the formula of an oath. 
 The repetition of an oath here, would seem rather unlooked for and 
 excessive ; besides that no example elsewhere of Christians swearing 
 by the Holy Ghost, can be produced. Conscience is the voice of 
 47 
 
370 ROMANS 9: 2, 3. 
 
 God in man ; or at least, the faculty on which the influence of the 
 Spirit of God seems to be specially exerted. It was a conscience 
 moved and enlightened by this Spirit, which, the apostle here solemnly 
 declares, testified his affectionate regard for the Jewish nation ; h 
 nvsvuccrt uylci) meaning, agreeably to the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 (2) "On .... ftov, that I have great sorrow and continual an- 
 guish in my heart. For the like expressions of sympathy and affec- 
 tion towards others, comp. 1 Cor. 1: 4. Phil. 1: 3, 4. Eph. 1: 16. 
 IThes. 1:2. Rom. 1: 9, 10. Philem. v. 4. 2 Tim. 1: 3, 4. 2 Cor. 
 11: 29. 12: 15. 
 
 (3) A much controverted verse, and which therefore needs par- 
 ticular illustration. Nearly every word has been the subject of dif- 
 ferent and contested exegesis. 
 
 ffv%6{it]v yap av x 6 Q, for I myself could wish. Compare Acts 
 25: 22, ipov\6pi]v, I coidd wish; Gal. 4: 20, i]{rilov, 1 could desire. 
 But why not translate, J did toish, i. e. I did wish, when I was an un- 
 converted Jew? Because, (1) The apostle designs to shew his present 
 love to the Jews. Who questioned his strong attachment to them, 
 when he persecuted Stephen and others, before his conversion ? Or to 
 what purpose could it be now to exhibit this, when his love to 
 them since he became a Christian, is the only thing that is called in 
 question ? Then, (2) Neither the present tvyopiai, nor the Optative 
 tvyoi^r\v, would accurately express what the apostle means here. 
 JEvyof-iai (Ind. present) would mean, / ivish by way of direct and 
 positive affirmation, and with the implication that the thing wished 
 mio-ht take place; ivyol^ijv (Opt.), / am wishing with desire, im- 
 plying the possibility that the thing wished for would take place. 
 On the other hand, (ijvy6/.t7^) as here employed I could wish, implies, 
 that whatever his desires may be, after all the thing wished for is im- 
 possible, or it cannot take place ; which is doubtless the very shade of 
 thought that the writer would design to express. 
 
 '^4iudtfta tivat, to be an anathema, to be devoted to destruction, 
 or to be excommunicated. This difficult and controverted word needs 
 a full and satisfactory illustration. In classical Greek anaOi^u and 
 ava&ripa were originally altogether equivalent or synonymous ; just 
 as evQffta and I'vot^a were, and also tnl&f^u and tTiiOt]pa, etc. (1) 
 The proper and original meaning of dvu&tpa or uvd&r}fi.u was a 
 setting out or setting up of any thing consecrated to the gods, in their 
 temples ; such as tripods, images, statues, inscriptions, etc. The 
 
ROMANS 9:3. 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 exposure of such things in the temples, in any way, whether they 
 hung up, stood up, or lay down, was di'd&efAW the action of exposing 
 them, or the exposure itself, was called dvu&tpu. Hence, (2) The 
 thing itself exposed, the thing consecrated or devoted to the gods, was 
 called dvd&e^a' by a very common principle of language, applica- 
 ble to a great multitude of words. Then, (3) As any thing devoted 
 or consecrated to the gods, was irrevocably given up to them, and 
 was no more subject to common use; so when any living thing, beast 
 or man, became an di'a&tfta, it was of course to be slain in sacrifice, 
 and offered to the gods mostly as a piacular victim. In like manner, 
 under the Levitical law, every Enrt or ccvd&epu devoted to God, was 
 incapable of redemption ; Lev. 27: 28, 29, tiuv uiaxit^a .... dno 
 av&yoinov twg ttrijvovg . . . . ou XrTyojdqoarui, aXlu duvdiw ■&&- 
 varojih'jOfTai; comp. Judg. 11: 30, 31 and 39 ; which, however, is 
 the only instance on record in the Scriptures of a human didOtfxa, 
 and which at all events, is not encouraged by the laws of Moses. 
 And in consequence of such a custom or law, cities, edifices, and 
 their inhabitants, which were devoted to excision or entire destruction, 
 were called D"}ft , i. e. dvditffiu as the Seventy have rendered it. So 
 Jericho was tnh , Josh. 6: 17, comp. v. 21 ; and so the cities of the 
 Canaanites that were utterly destroyed by Israel, were named 
 !l'2")h, destruction. Any thing in fact, whether man, beast, or any 
 species of property or ornament, which was to be utterly destroyed, 
 was called fi"lft (dvd&tf.iu) by the Hebrews ; see Lev. 27: 28, 29. 
 Deut. 13: 15—17, and comp. 1 K. 20: 42. Is. 34: 5. Zech. 14: 11. 
 
 The Greek words dvadff.tarlC«i and avaxixtrmt correspond, in 
 like manner, to the Heb. E^hn (Hiph of Enil), and mean, to pro- 
 nounce to be an avdife^ia, to give up as an uvu&ffAa, i. e. to set 
 apart or deliver over to destruction. 
 
 But to what destruction ? To natural death or spiritual, i. e. to suf- 
 ferings in the present world, or those of everlasting death ? Those 
 who construe the word in the first way, say, that ano zov Xqiozov 
 means, by Christ; in which case the whole sentiment would seem to 
 be : ' I could wish to suffer temporal death inflicted by Christ, pro- 
 vided this would exempt my countrymen from it.' But there are 
 some weighty objections to this ; for the apostle is not here discussing 
 the subject of the Jews' temporal punishment or excision, but of their 
 excision from the blessings of a future world, by reason of their unbe- 
 lief; comp. 9: 25 — 33. It is the fearful doom, then, which unbelief 
 is to bring on the Jews, that the apostle wishes could be averted ; 
 
372 ROMANS 9: 3. 
 
 find it is his deep concern for them in respect to this, which he desires 
 to testify. It is a E"i.(n of this kind, then, that he would consent to 
 take upon himself, could they be saved by it. That uvudtfxa may 
 be used to signify the second death, is clear from 1 Cor. 16: 22. The 
 whole tenor of the passage makes clearly against the supposition, that 
 temporal excision merely is meant. 
 
 In respect to arro xov Xqiotov, (if the whole be construed as I 
 have here supposed it must be in order to follow the strict principles 
 of exegesis), it must mean, by Christ, i. e. it is equivalent to ilno zov 
 Xqioiov. So clearly ano may be used, and is often employed ; e. g. 
 Mark 8: 31. Luke 9: 22. 17: 25. Matt. 11: 19. Luke 12: 58. Acts 2: 
 22. 10: 17, et saepe; see Bretschn. in verbum. 
 
 In regard to vntg twc .... augxu, on account of or in the room 
 of my brethren, my kinsmen after the flesh, it plainly means, for the 
 sake of my natural brethren, my kinsmen by natural descent or gen- 
 eration, i. e. the Jews. 
 
 Tholuck gives a little different turn to the passage, but the same 
 sense in substance. He compares dru&ffia to 0"lh in the later He- 
 brew ; which was used to denote excommunication, separation from 
 the Jewish community or b~j? . The Rabbins make three gradations 
 of excommunication, which they call, (a) "*\~2 , seclusion, which lasted 
 a month, and obliged a man to keep four ells distant from all his 
 household, (b) The C"|n, which forbade all intercourse, action, 
 eating, drinking, etc., with any one, and all approach on the part of 
 the excommunicated person to the synagogue, (c) The HTVgO (from 
 njSTU , excludere), which designated utter exclusion on the part of God 
 and man, and the being given up to destruction. A tremendous ex- 
 ample of the Rabbinic cnn is produced by Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. p. 
 828. I subjoin it below, for the information of the curious reader.* 
 
 * " By the authority of the Lord of lords, let A. B. be an anathema (t,~.p) in 
 both houses of judgment, in that above and that beneath ; let him be anathema 
 by the holy beings on high, by the Seraphim and Ophannim [Q^BSiS , wheels, 
 see Ezek. 1: 16, seq., a superior order of angels] ; let him be anathema by the 
 whole church, great and small. Let plagues great and real be upon him; 
 diseases great and horrible. Let his habitation be that of dragons ; let his star 
 be darkened with clouds. Let him be an object of wrath, indignation, and 
 anger; let his corpse be given to wild be;:sts and serpents. Let his enemies 
 and adversaries exult over him ; let his silver and gold be given to others ; let 
 his children be exposed at the door of his enemies ; and let posterity be aston- 
 ished at his fate. Let him be cursed by Ura mouth of Addiriron and Achtariel, 
 by the mouth of Sandalphon and Hadrnniel. by the mouth of Hansasiel and 
 Patchiel, by the mouth of Seraphiel and Sngansiel, by the mouth of Michael 
 and Gabriel, by the mouth of Raphael and Mesharet.iel. [These are the names 
 of angels.] Let him be cursed by the mouth of Zabzabib, and by the mouth of 
 
ROMANS 9 : 3. 373 
 
 In this way, dvaO-f^ia dno tov Xgiozov would mean, one ban- 
 ished, cut off, separated from Christ ; which would involve, however, 
 all the consequences that are involved in the preceding exegesis. 
 
 But on the whole, as the preceding sense is most consonant with 
 Scriptural and classical usage, I should give it the preference. The 
 sentiment then is: 'Such is my love for my kinsmen after the flesh, 
 that, were it possible, I would devote myself to the destruction which 
 threatens them, could they but escape by such means.' 
 
 In respect to the objections urged against this sentiment, they do 
 not seem to be weighty. It is asked : ' How could the apostle be wil- 
 ling to be forever cast off and separated from Christ? How could he 
 be willing to become a sinner and to be miserable forever?' I answer, 
 (1) The possibility that such could or would be the case, is not at all 
 implied in what he says; no more than the possibility that "an angel 
 from heaven should preach another gospel," is implied by what is said 
 in Gal. 1: 8. It is merely a case supposed or stated, for the sake of 
 illustrating or expressing a feeling or sentiment. (2) Even supposing 
 the actual possibility of the exchange in question was believed by the 
 apostle, it would not imply that in itself he was willing to be a sinner, 
 or to be forever miserable. It would imply merely, that he would be 
 willing, in case he could save the whole nation, to take on himself the 
 miseries to which they were hastening. And a sentiment like this, is 
 surely capable of a rational and sober defence. If benevolence would 
 lead Paul to undergo any assignable degree of suffering, in the present 
 life, in order to promote the evarlasting welfare of the Jewish nation ; 
 would not the like benevolence lead him to undergo any assignable 
 degree of misery in a future world for the same purpose, provided such 
 a purpose could be answered by it ? Who can draw the line where 
 benevolence would stop short; except it be, where the evil suffered was 
 to be equal to the good accomplished, or even greater? Could Paul 
 have the genuine spirit of his Lord and Master, unless he could truly 
 say what he has said in the passage before us ? But, (3) The inference 
 that Paul "was willing to be damned," or that Christians must come to 
 such a state of willingness, is made without any ground from the verse 
 in question. If Paul's being cast off by the Saviour could occasion the 
 reception and salvation of the whole Jewish people, this apostle ex- 
 presses his readiness to submit to it. But as such a thing was impossi- 
 
 Habhabib, who is the great God, [these names are Cabbalistic ones of the 
 Divinity] ; and by the mouth of the seventy names of the great King [Jeho- 
 vah] ; and on the part of Tsortak the great chancellor, [another mysterious 
 name]. Let him be swallowed up, like Korah and his company; with terror 
 and trembling let his breath depart. May the rebuke of Jehovah slay him ; 
 may he be strangled, like Ahithophel, by his own counsel! May his lep- 
 rosy be like that of Gehazi ; and may there be no resurrection of his remains ! 
 Let not his sepulchre be with that of Israel. Let his wife be given to 
 others ; let them embrace her, while he is giving up the ghost. — In this anath- 
 ema let A. B. remain ; and let this be his inheritance. But on me, and on all 
 Israel, may God bestow peace with his blessing !" 
 
374 ROMANS 9: 3. 
 
 ble ; and as he really knew it to be so ; all that we can well suppose the 
 passage teaches, is, that the apostle possessed such a feeling of benevo- 
 lence toward the Jewish nation, that he was ready to do or suffer any 
 thing whatever, provided their salvation might be secured by it. In 
 other words, this is a high and glowing expression, springing from an 
 excited state of feeling, which the use of common language could not 
 at all satisfy. And in making use of such an expression, Paul did not 
 depart from a mode of speaking which is still very common in the 
 East. The Arabians, for example, very commonly, in order to testify 
 
 >>X X SC rO C / 
 
 strong affection, say, (^xJ [Uouf / m*J..J ■> ^ m y sou l be a ransom for 
 
 thee. So Maimonides (Sanhed. fol. 18. 1), in explaining the Talmudic 
 expression ^m33 " | :" , ">M, see, I am thy ransom, states, that this is a 
 common expression of strong affection. 
 
 So in the verse before us, the whole is evidently and necessarily 
 designed to express strong affection. But what expression of this would 
 be uttered, if we suppose the apostle merely to say, (as not a few critics 
 maintain), that he once was desirous of being cut off from Christ, viz. 
 before his conversion, when he persecuted the church. But how could 
 he be cut off from him, who never had been joined to him? And what 
 evidence was this of present affection ? Or if it be construed as meaning, 
 'cut off, destroyed, i. e. put to death, by Christ ;' did the apostle actually 
 wish this before he was converted ? And if he did, what had this to 
 do with the salvation of his brethren and kinsmen ? 
 
 It is possible, indeed, to construe avu&iua as implying temporal 
 death or destruction ; and to suppose the apostle to say : ' I could wish 
 that I might suffer the punishment which Christ is about to inflict on 
 the Jews, in their stead.' The emphasis would not be wholly destroyed 
 by this interpretation. But it would be greatly diminished. And then, 
 the context nowhere leads us to consider the subject of temporal de- 
 struction, as being here agitated in the mind of the apostle. It is only 
 the ' wrath of God which is revealed from heaven' against the impeni- 
 tent and unbelieving, to which he considers them in this place as ex- 
 posed. He is writing to Jews at Rome, not in Palestine. 
 
 I must adopt then the exegesis above given of the verse before us, 
 viz. ' Such is my affection for my Jewish brethren after the flesh, that 
 could I put myself in their stead, and take on me the consequences of 
 unbelief to which they are exposed, I would willingly do it, in order 
 that they might be saved.' Truly, "a love stronger than death, which 
 many waters could not quench, nor floods drown !" 
 
 (4) I(J(jc7]).7Tai, Israelites, i. e. who bear the honourable or far- 
 famed name of Israelites ; comp. Gen. 32: 28. 2 Cor. 11: 22. Phil. 3: 
 5. This however is only an external privilege ; for they are not all 
 Israelites in truth, who are of Israelitish descent, Rom. 9: 6 ; comp. 
 3: 28, 29. 
 
 ' Slv >; vioxtiola, whose is the sonship, i. e. the relation of sons or 
 
ROMANS 9: 4, 5. 375 
 
 children ; comp. Ex. 4 : 22, 23. Deut. 32 : 5, 6. 14: 1. Hos. 11:1. 
 
 The meaning is, that God bore a special relation to Israel ; or rather, 
 that Israel stood in a special relation to him, and was treated with 
 distinguished and peculiar affection. This last circumstance forms 
 the special ground of the vio&eala. But this vio&ioiu was external, 
 and consisted with the Jewish nation's being in a very imperfect 
 state; comp. Gal. 4: 1 — 3. 2 Cor. 3: 6 — 18. As the antithesis of 
 this, comp. Gal. 4: 4 — 7. Rom. 8: 14 — 17. 
 
 Aotu may have the sense here of glory, and be joined with vlo- 
 ■Qtaia in the way of Hendiadys, so that the meaning would be, glori- 
 ous adoption or sonship, i. e. one which is worthy of praise, which 
 deserves to be mentioned with honour. And this method Tholuck 
 prefers. But the objection to this is, that the epithet d'u'iu appears to 
 be too strong for a mere external vio&eaiu' and besides all this, all 
 the other nouns which precede and follow, stand single. On this 
 account I must prefer giving to d'o'toc the sense of TiS3, and regard 
 it here as designating the visible splendor which was the symbol of 
 Jehovah's presence, and which was peculiarly manifested in the sanc- 
 tum sanctorum of the temple ; comp. Ex. 25: 22. 40: 34, 35. Lev. 9: 
 6. Ezek. 1: 28. 3: 23. 8: 4. It is true indeed, that in all these pas- 
 sages we have nil":? *ri^5 (do'£a dfov), and not simply Tli3. But 
 the Targum, which employs ~1~* NFES'iJ for Tiirt"; "ri HS , also em- 
 ploys Nn:::uj (Shechinah) alone in the same sense. Paul then may 
 have here used dote, elliptically, in a corresponding manner ; and so 
 (with Beza, Turretin, Heumann, and others) I suppose that he has 
 employed it. The sentiment then is : ' To the Israelites belonged 
 the visible splendor or glory, which was indicative of the immediate 
 presence of Jehovah.' 
 
 jjia&fjxai seems here to indicate the covenants made at different 
 times, with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. — JYof-tofliaia, legislation or 
 system of laws, viz. the Mosaic legislation or laws; as to the distin- 
 guished privilege of these, comp. Deut. 4: 5 — 8. Ps. 147: 19, 20. 
 Rom. 2: 18, 19. — Aargeia, service, IT'TISS;, riies of the temple, priest- 
 hood, etc. — 'Enayytklai, the promises, viz. those which had respect 
 to the Messiah ; comp. Gal. 3: 16. 
 
 (5) ' £2i> ol nuTt'geg, whose are the fathers, i. e. whose progenitors 
 were the fathers, Abraham, etc., to whom so many promises (tnayyi- 
 Xlui) were made, and who are so distinguished in sacred history. 
 
 Et o)v . . . . G(xq-au, from whom [descended] Christ, in respect to 
 the flesh, i. e. in respect to his human or inferior nature, or so far as 
 
376 ROMANS 9:5. 
 
 he was man ; comp. Rom. 1 : 3. But if he had no other nature, why 
 should such a distinction as is implied by auxa auQ'/,a, be here desig- 
 nated ? Would a sacred writer say of David, for example, that he was 
 descended from Abraham v.uxu odgxa 1 If this should be said, it 
 would imply that kuxo. nvtv^ia he was not descended from Abraham, 
 but from some one else. But here, the other nature of Christ is de- 
 signated by the succeeding phrase, 6 we tnl navxoiv #tog. 
 
 'O wV . . . a^nl]v, who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen. O 
 o')v is equivalent to, or the same as, bg tan, who is ; for so the article 
 followed by a participle is often employed in the Greek language ; 
 see John 1: 18. 3: 13. 12: 17. 2 Cor. 11: 31, 6 &sog . . . 6 wv tvlo- 
 y?]xog %. x. 1. — Lnl navxwv, being placed here between the article o 
 and the noun &tog to which this article belongs, is of course an ad- 
 jective as to meaning, and designates the idea of supreme. Some 
 indeed have understood tnl nctvxwv as meaning lnl ttupxoip nuxifjiav 
 but this is plainly a forced and frigid exegesis. In Hebrew, Vibi* 
 niN^^ and " l ~UJ are epithets of Jehovah, the supreme God ; and to 
 these tmxvxoxquxwq in the Septuagint corresponds ; e. g. 2 Sam. 5: 
 10. 1 Chron. 11: 9. Jer. 5: 14. Amos 3: 13. Zach. 1: 3, seq.,et alibi. 
 So in the Apocalypse, 7iavxoy.(jaioi(i often appears as an epithet of 
 Jehovah, e.g. Rev. 1: 8. 4: 8. 11: 17. 15: 3, etc. Now navxoy.ga- 
 xoiQ is for substance the equivalent of lnl nuvxwv as to meaning ; so 
 that o tnl navxojv xrtog must be altogether equivalent to fitog nav- 
 
 XOXQUXWQ. 
 
 EvXoyrjxog is equivalent to the Hebrew ^p"G . The Jewish Rab- 
 bies, from time immemorial, have been accustomed, whenever the 
 name of God is mentioned, to add Ml In ^12 , blessed is he. So Paul 
 here, after calling Christ, as to his higher nature, 6 tov tnl nuvxiov 
 ■&tog, adds, tv\oy>]xog tig xovg uiMvug, i. e. *un dlbisb "p""^- Com- 
 pare now the same appellation given to God in Mark 14: 61 .§ Whether 
 an ascription of divine honour to Christ is intended, by applying to him 
 here the word tvXoyijxog, the reader may satisfy himself by comparing 
 the use of this word in 2 Cor. 1: 3. 11: 31. Eph. 1: 3. 1 Pet. 1: 3. 
 Luke 1: 68. That divine honour is ascribed to Christ by the heav- 
 enly hosts, (and the same too which is rendered to the Father), ap- 
 pears from Rev. 5: 13, 14. Nor can it be objected that it is contrary 
 to the usage of Paul, to name Christ Otog' for so he is called in Tit. 
 1: 3, and the great God in Tit. 2: 13 ; moreover he is represented as 
 laa -dta) in Phil. 2: 6; and as &eog in John 1: 1 ; not to mention 
 the controverted, but seemingly well authenticated reading (&tog) in 
 
ROMANS 9:5. 377 
 
 1 Tim. 3: 16. Nor is it any objection to this, that in 1 Cor. 15: 24 — 
 28, the apostle represents the Son as renouncing or laying aside his 
 supremacy or dominion, at the final consummation of all things; for 
 the office of the Messiah, and the dominion of the Messiah as such, 
 must of course cease, when all the objects of that office and that do- 
 minion shall have been fully accomplished. In reference to this kind 
 of dominion, Christ is called xvoioz in 1 Cor. 8: 6; and it is such a 
 dominion which is represented as bestowed on him in Phil. 2: 9 — 11. 
 Col. 1: 17, 18. Heb. 1: 3. 2: 5—9. 8: 1. 
 
 Neither the grammatical arrangement of the text, then, nor the 
 sentiments of the apostle elsewhere, require us, (may I not say?) 
 permit us, to give a different interpretation to the words of the verse 
 in question. Nor do any various readings of the verse occur, which 
 are of any authority at all. It has been conjectured, indeed, that we 
 should read u)i> 6 y..r.l., i. e. whose is the God over all, etc. ; so 
 Whitby, Crellius, Taylor, and others. But not to say, that taking 
 such liberties with the text is fairly out of question, (which sure- 
 ly must be granted), it will be enough to compare the sentiment 
 which the passage thus modified would give, with Rom. 3: 29, 30. 
 This then is one of the cases, in which Paul has directly asserted 
 Christ to be supreme God, and has accordingly rendered to him the 
 sacred doxology. 
 
 The efforts to evade this conclusion have been many and strenuous. 
 The interpretations which have resulted from them, may be divided 
 into two classes ; viz. 
 
 I. Those which put a full period after guqxu, and make the remain- 
 der of the verse a doxology to God the Father. So Erasmus, in the 
 enlarged edition of his Notes ; so Enjeddin, Whiston, Sender, and 
 others. But, (a) It was long ago noted by Bengel, (with whom Faustus 
 Socinus also agrees), that in all classes of doxology, "TITS in Hebrew, 
 and svloyrjTog in Greek, precede the name of God who is blessed. So 
 the laws of grammar beyond all doubt demand; for ?p"l2 nTH* would 
 mean, the blessed Jehovah, i. e. the blessed Jehovah does this or that ; for 
 both words (thus arranged) make out merely the subject of a sentence. 
 On the contrary, rpri* yl"l£ means, blessed is or blessed be Jehovah; Je- 
 hovah being the subject of the sentence, and "p ~i 3 the predicate. So, 
 more than thirty times, the words ^"Q in Hebrew and svi-oytjiog in 
 Greek are placed in the Old Testament ; as any one may see by 
 consulting Tromm's Concordance under siloyriTog. The same is 
 the case with all the examples in the New Testament. Only one 
 that I can rind, in all the Bible, differs from tins ; and this is Ps. 
 t>7: 19 (Sept); where however the repetition of svkoyrjTog is plainly an 
 error of the scribes, as it has no corresponding repetition in the Hebrew, 
 and is against all analogy ; I mean in respect to the first instance in 
 48 
 
378 ROMANS 9:5. 
 
 which it here occurs, (b) Construed in this way, ojv is entirely useless 
 and destitute of meaning, and the addition of it is altogether unaccoun- 
 table. The natural and only proper order of the text would be : Evi.o- 
 yrjTog o inl ndvxwv S-f6g x. t. I. (c) In this mode of interpretation, 
 there is no antithesis to xciiu adgxa, which plainly requires one ; as the 
 natural inquiry is : If Christ be descended from David only xcnu awgxa, 
 what is he as to his higher nature ? 
 
 II. Another class of critics, viz. Locke, Clarke, Justi, Ammon, and 
 others, put a full period after tiuvtcxiv, and then make a doxology of the 
 sequel. In this way the difficulty last suggested, with regard to the 
 interpretation No. I, is in a measure removed, as a kind of antithesis is 
 made out by 6 tav inl ndvTbw, sc. ndviiov naiigutv, i. e. Christ in his 
 human nature was a descendant of David, but still was a personage of 
 exalted dignity, being elevated above all the Jewish fathers who are the 
 objects of so much encomium in sacred history, and of so much vene- 
 ration among the Jewish people. But still there are weighty objections 
 against this mode of pointing and explaining the text ; for (a) The diffi- 
 culty in regard to the position of tvXoytjxog, is the same here as has 
 been already described above, under No. I. «. If it were doxology, it 
 must be written, svloyrjTog o i9fo? x. z. X. But as there are no author- 
 ities either of manuscripts or versions, for such an arrangement, so we 
 are not at liberty to make it ; and if we do so, we must do it arbitrarily. 
 (b ) In such a case the noun dsog must have the article, as being the sub- 
 ject of the sentence, and in its own nature customarily requiring it. So 
 uniformly in the Sept. and in the New Testament, where -&sog is the 
 subject in a doxology with svXoyrjrog, it takes the article ; e. g. Gen. 9: 
 26 14: 20. 24: 27. 1 Sam. 25: 32. 2 Sam. 18: 28. 1 K. 1: 48. 5: 7. 8: 
 15. 2 Chron. 2: 12. 6: 4. Ez. 7: 46. Ps. 17: 50. 40: 14. 65: 19. 67: 20, 
 38. 71: 19. 105: 47. 143: 1. Dan. 3: 29. Luke 1: 68. 2 Cor. 1: 3. Eph. 
 1: 3. 1 Pet. 1: 3. In regard to xvgiog, the usage of the Sept. varies ; 
 e. g. 1 Sam. 25:39, eiXoyrjzog o xvgiog, according with the usage of fooc* 
 but in other passages the article is omitted, e.g. Ex. 18: 10. Ruth 
 4: 14. Ps. 123: 5. 134: 21. But no instance of the like variation can 
 I find, in respect to &sog. The example in our text must stand 
 alone, if it be one, of S-eog in a doxology with evkoy)]rog, and yet with- 
 out the article, (c) To break off a sentence with o wV iitl jtccvtwv, 
 seems at least to make it very abrupt and incomplete. To what can 
 Ttdvxmv refer, in such a connection, except to the fathers'} And to say 
 that the Messiah was exalted above the Jewish patriarchs, although it 
 might be saying something, would not seem to be saying very much, 
 considering the efficacy which Paul had been ascribing to his love and 
 sufferings and death, and the greatness which he had ascribed to his 
 power, (d) There is something incongruous in a doxology here to 
 God the Father ; which even Crellius himself suggests, (Artemon. Ink. 
 Evang. Johan.) The apostle is here expressing the deepest and most 
 unfeigned regret of his soul, that notwithstanding the exalted and pe- 
 culiar privileges of the Jewish nation, they had by their unbelief for- 
 feited them all, and made themselves obnoxious to a most terrible con- 
 demnation. To break out into a doxology here, would be (as Flatt 
 suggests) like saying: 'These special privileges have, by being abused, 
 
ROMANS 9: 5. 379 
 
 contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and punishment of the Jewish 
 nation ; God be thanked that he has given them such privileges!' It is 
 a duty, indeed, to be grateful for blessings which are bestowed ; but — 
 all in its proper place. Doxologies are not appropriate to paragraphs, 
 which give an account of mercies abused, and deep guilt contracted. 
 (e) Besides all this, the abruptness of a doxology here, which could 
 contain no reference to God as mentioned in the preceding context (for 
 he is not there mentioned), is plain and striking ; and also, as Noesselt, 
 Flatt, Koppe, and Ewald have observed, it would be without example. 
 Comp. Rom. 1: 25. 11: 36. 
 
 The remark of Eckermann and Justi, that svXoywTog is required to 
 stand before ^ho£ in a doxology, only when this doxology stands at the 
 beginning of a sentence, is not true in point of fact ; e. g. Gen. 14: 20, 
 where xul shews that svXoywTog is not at the beginning of a sentence. 
 2 Sam. 22: 47. Ps. 17: 46. 67: 35. In the last case, one might contend 
 and say, that svXoyyxog begins a neiv sentence ; but then, where does it 
 not, on the same ground ? The burden of proof lies on those, who as- 
 sert that ivXoynxoq need not be prefixed, except it stand at the beginning 
 of a sentence ; and where are the instances in which it is not prefixed ? 
 The only one (except an instance of a manifestly corrupt text, Ps. 67: 
 19), is the very verse in question. To assume the principle in question 
 then, is to take for granted the very point in dispute. 
 
 The remark of Dbderlein, that apijv necessarily implies an Optative 
 doxology, (sc. ivXoynxbg s In ■d-eog), is disproved by Rom. 1: 25, where og 
 ear iv svXoyyxbg .... «pjv, are the words of Paul, i. e. the apostle 
 speaks in the Indicative mode, and not in the Optative. The same is 
 the case in 1 Pet. 4: 11, w [sc. Ssm vel %qiar0] sirrivt) dosax.x.X. 
 And in other cases where no verb is supplied, e. g. Rom. 16: 27. Gal. 
 1: 5. 1 Tim. 1: 17. 6: 16. 2 Tim. 4: 18, etc., it is not by any means cer- 
 tain, (as the above explicit instances of Indicative usage show) , that the 
 Optative sir], rather than the Indicative earl, is to be supplied. 
 
 Nor does the remark of Erasmus, that in some of the manuscripts 
 of Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, Dens or dsog is wanting, in the 
 citations of Rom. 9: 5, prove any thing ; for these are evidently omis- 
 sions of copyists, since all the best manuscripts of these fathers insert 
 Deus or S-eog. 
 
 Grotius is still more unsuccessful, in asserting that the Syriac ver- 
 sion, (the Peshito) omits &eog • for this version has \^ \^ v^ ] oil^s 
 
 Deus super omnia. Stolz, in his celebrated German version, has left 
 out &wg' whether on the authority of Grotius as above, or because he 
 thought it a disagreeable appendage to the text, does not appear. After 
 all these proposed changes, however, of punctuation, of the order of 
 the text, and of the substance of it, the text, as it now stands, remains 
 in reality untouched by any criticism which can have any considerable 
 weight with men of ingenuous and candid minds. That those who deny 
 the divinity of Christ, should be solicitous to avoid the force of this 
 text, is not unnatural ; for while it remains in the records of the New 
 Testament, it stands an irrefragable evidence of what Paul believed, 
 
380 ROMANS 9:5,6. 
 
 asserted, and taught, relative to this subject. The only way in which 
 any avoiding of its force is practicable, seems to be, to assert that o wV 
 tnl nuvTwv &tog is meant to designate the supremacy of Christ as Medi- 
 ator, m which capacity he is quasi Deus, and is styled QTtVn in the 
 like capacity, in Ps. XLV. In pursuing this course, more probability 
 than is now exhibited in the various evasions that I have above noticed, 
 and also more ingenuousness, might be shown. But still the general 
 and spontaneous feeling of an unprejudiced reader must always be, (at 
 least so it seems to me), that God over all means supreme Gon, and that 
 f vloyr t Tog lie rovg alwvae, afitjv, can be applied only to him who is truly 
 divine. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 6—13. 
 
 The apostle, having expressed his strong affection toward his own nation, 
 and described the claims to preeminence which they had hitherto enjoyed, now 
 proceeds to shew that all these do not make out any good grounds of preference 
 in a spiritual respect. He teaches them clearly, that it is not the simple fact 
 of natural descent from Abraham, which makes them his children in the 
 higher and Scriptural sense of this word. ' They are not all Israel, who are of 
 Israel;' and even among the natural descendants of Abraham, God did in 
 ancient times make a wide distinction. Consequently, the mere fact of natural 
 descent can prove nothing as to the point of spiritual rights or claims, vs. 
 6—13. 
 
 (6) Oi'% oTov 8t, a controverted expression ; which however may 
 be rendered plain in two ways; either, (1) OTov is to be taken as log 
 or tonmg, to which it is very often equivalent, (see Passow on oTog, 
 No. 6) ; and then we may translate : It is not so that, etc. ; just as we 
 translate /atj ws on, 2 Thess. 2: 2. (2) OTov in classic Greek often 
 stands for oxi toiov (Passow, No. 2. b); in which case, we may ren- 
 der: ' No such thing [do I assert], viz. on ixntnTwxtv %. t. A. The 
 former method I prefer, as being most simple. The meaning is : ' But 
 what I have said in respect to the defection of Israel, does not at all 
 imply that the promises of God are not sure and certain.' At, but, 
 continuative and adversative. 
 
 Tholuck is mistaken, when, in objecting to oTov dt being here 
 used as equivalent to oTov rt, he says the latter must always have the 
 Infinitive after it. OTog n with an Infinitive, has indeed the mean- 
 ing, possibile est, etc. ; but oTog rt is often employed without an Infin- 
 itive, and in the sense of so as, such as, like ; and even without an 
 Infinitive it sometimes means, possible ; see Passow on oTog No. 2. e. 
 No. 3. c. However, I do not find oTov df employed in the sense of 
 oiov xi, possible. Consequently I must prefer the rendering given 
 above. 
 
 Aoyog, promise, word, in the sense of something promised ; so, of- 
 
ROMANS 9: 6—8. 381 
 
 ten, in English, e. g. he has given his word. — EY.-ntnxbiY.iv, failed, 
 been frustrated, irritum factum est. So the Hebrew be: , which cor- 
 responds in sense with ixninxwxf e. g. in Josh. 21: 45. 1 K. 8: 56. 
 2 K. 10: 10. 
 
 Ov yap .... /aga^X, for not all who arc of Israel, are Israel; 
 i. e. not all the natural descendants of Abraham, are Israelites in the 
 true, spiritual, scriptural sense of the word. The Talmud, Tract. 
 Sanhed. cap. 11, expresses the feelings and views of the Jews relative 
 to their claims of preeminence : N2~ Ebisb p".v. "£?. '^.T^-T. - - 3 , i- e. 
 all Israel have their portion in the world to come. But such claims 
 are rejected by our text and the sequel ; as well as by Rom. in. John 
 S: 39. Matt. 3: 9. Gal. 3: 9, 28, 29. Pag here shews, that what fol- 
 lows is designed for illustration and confirmation. 
 
 (7) £nt(j[iu, natural descendants. — Ttxvu, children, here in the 
 higher spiritual sense, like that of JogaijX above, in the second in- 
 stance. — AW iv Iguuy. .... anig^ia, but, " In Isaac shall thy seed 
 be called:" i. e. in the person of Isaac, thy seed, viz. thy descendants 
 who are to stand in a covenant relation to me, shall be chosen or se- 
 lected. These same xizvu are, in the next verse, called t« xtY.ru 
 xrjg inuyytXtag. In v. 5 above, tnayytXlai (rP~i3) are reckoned 
 among the external privileges which the Israelites enjoyed. But even 
 these, only a. part of Abraham's natural descendants enjoyed. Ish- 
 mael, Abraham's eldest son, was excluded from the covenant relation; 
 and so were Abraham's six sons by Keturah, Gen. 25: 1 — 5. 
 
 EnuyytXiug in v. 8, however, refers to the promises in Gen. 15: 
 4, 5. 17: 15, 16, 19, 21, (see v. 9). Isaac was in a special sense the 
 son of promise; and his natural descendants, therefore, may be styled 
 xixvu xyg inuyytXlug. 
 
 (8) Tovx taxiv, that is, i. e. which signifies, which means. — 
 Ov xu . . . . titou, it is not the natural descendants [of Abraham] who 
 arc the children of God. Tu xixvu rr]g ougxog plainly means phys- 
 ical or natural descendants, children in the first and literal sense. 
 But the sense of xiy.ru xov {fsov is not so obvious. Is it here used 
 to designate the children of God in the highest spiritual sense of this 
 term ? I think not ; for it is Isaac and his descendants as such, who 
 are here contradistinguished from Ishmael and the other six sons of 
 Abraham and their descendants. The point here insisted on is, that 
 natural descent from Abraham did not of itself entitle any one to the 
 high spiritual privileges of the gospel ; that the Jew had no more 
 right than the Gentile, to expect any peculiar favour to himself merely 
 
382 ROMANS 9 : 8. 
 
 on such a ground. But how does the apostle illustrate and confirm 
 this principle 1 By shewing that in ancient times, the promise of a 
 numerous seed who should stand in a covenant relation to God, and 
 enjoy peculiar external privileges on this account, was not made to 
 the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but only to those natural 
 descendants who would spring from Isaac the son of peculiar prom- 
 ise. In other words ; Ishmael and the sons of Abraham by Keturah, 
 had no share in the covenant-engagements made with the promised 
 seed. 
 
 The deduction from all this is, that God does not dispense hi3 
 blessings or favours according to claims grounded on mere natural 
 descent or external privileges, but according to his own infinite wis- 
 dom and pleasure. In other words, the claims of men on the ground 
 of birth, or external privilege, or merit of their own, are not the 
 ground of decision on the part of God, with respect to the blessings 
 which he may bestow upon them. The first two of these constitute 
 no ground at all of claim ; and the last, also, has no foundation, inas- 
 much as all men are sinners and are deserving of the divine displeas- 
 ure. Of course, the reasons why God gives to these, and withholds 
 from those, are with himself; they are not grounded on our claims or 
 merits. Reasons he doubtless has, and these of the best kind ; for 
 who will venture to tax infinite wisdom and goodness with doing any 
 thine without good and sufficient reason 1 But then these reasons 
 God has kept to himself; he has not revealed them to us. When 
 this is the case, the apostle speaks of him as acting xccid t?]v ngo&t- 
 otv avrov — xaru tijv mQia^ihvriv (3ovh]v xc/.i ngoyviDOiv auvov, etc. 
 But nothing can be farther from truth, than to suppose that a Being 
 of infinite wisdom and goodness ever acts arbitrarily , or without the 
 best of reasons ; although they may be, and often are, unknown to us. 
 That Tt'/.vu tov diov may mean, 'the children of promise in 
 respect to the external privileges and blessings of the ancient cove- 
 nant or dispensation,' is clear from the manner in which xtuva (W33) 
 is applied to the whole body of Israelites, in Deut. 32: 5, 6. 14: 1. 
 Hos. 11: 1. Ex. 4: 22, 23. Of the same nature is tec zt'xva rr t g 
 inayyeXiag. It designates those on whom the promised blessings 
 were bestowed, which are mentioned above in vs. 4, 5 ; or else those 
 who were the descendants of Isaac, himself a xixvov xrjg inayyikiag. 
 In the same manner ontQ^ia, at the close of the verse, is to be under- 
 stood, i. e. as equivalent to xixva &eov in the sense just explained, or 
 as sn? in Gen. 17: 8. 
 
ROMANS 9: 8. 383 
 
 The argument and illustration of the apostle, according to this 
 explanation, stand thus : ' All claims of the Jews to the spiritual 
 privileges and blessings of Christ's kingdom, on the ground of natural 
 descent from Abraham, are futile. Even in ancient times, God did 
 not confer the blessings and privileges of his ancient dispensation on 
 such a ground. Only one of Abraham's sons was selected as the 
 object of God's peculiar covenant. Consequently, it is no strange 
 thing that God should deal in like manner with Abraham's natural 
 descendants, at the present time.' 
 
 The question is not, whether the distinction made in ancient 
 times among the natural descendants of Abraham, and to which the 
 apostle here refers, was one which had direct respect to their condi- 
 tion in a future world, i. e. to the highest spiritual blessings ; for most 
 clearly this is not the case. Surely all the natural descendants of 
 Isaac were not called in this sense. The distinction adverted to 
 here, must be that which had respect to the external covenant-rela- 
 tion of the Israelites, as a nation, to God. But the essential question, 
 in respect to the meaning of the whole passage, is : Why does the 
 apostle adduce such an example here of God's bestowing blessings 
 xard ngo&eatv aviov ; The answer to this must be, that he adduces it 
 in order to justify the principle which is concerned with the fore-or- 
 daining, calling, justifying, and glorifying the nX^xoi described in 
 chap. VIII. But this surely does not pertain to mere external privi- 
 leges in the present world. 
 
 The amount of the whole is, that Paul in order to illustrate and 
 defend God's proceedings in respect to bestowing spiritual blessings 
 of the highest kind, adduces examples from the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures, where the principle concerned is exactly the same, as that 
 which is concerned with the calling and glorifying of the nXrjTOt, viz. 
 where the blessings bestowed are not conferred on the ground of be- 
 ing a natural descendant of Abraham, nor on the ground of merit or 
 desert, but Kuxa npofteoiv &sov. Now certainly God can no more 
 be unjust in great things than in small ones ; and if he was not un- 
 just in selecting the objects of his temporal favours xaru TiQO&tGiv 
 auTOv, why should we regard him as unjust in selecting the objects 
 of his highest spiritual favours in the same way ; that is, not accord- 
 ing to claim or merit, on the part of men, (for these belong not to 
 them), but according to reasons, good and sufficient ones, known 
 only to himself? Such as are inclined to feel that this would be 
 wrong on the part of God, and that it is in any measure proper for 
 
384 ROMANS 9:9, 10. 
 
 us to complain of this, will do well to read the sequel of this chapter 
 with a candid, humble, inquiring mind. 
 
 (9) ' Enuyyeliug ydg .... vtog, for this was the word of the 
 promise : " According to this time will I come, and Sarah shall have 
 a son," Gen 18: 10, 14. This shows who the children of the pro- 
 mise were, that are described in the preceding verse, viz. the descend- 
 ants of Isaac the son thus promised. Hence the ydg at the begin- 
 ning of the verse. 
 
 Kara tov xaigov tovtov, according to this time. In Hebrew the 
 whole phrase runs thus: n^n ny3 Sp!?N STON "2V13\ I will surely 
 return or come baric to thee, when the time shall be reneiocd, Gen. 18: 
 10. The word :~Ph seems to be simply an adjective, as the text now 
 stands, and to mean living again, in the sense of being renewed. So 
 Gesenius and Tholuck ; comp. Gen. 17: 21 and 18: 14, IJjifc. The 
 Sept. reads in this last case, rfg tov xctiodv tovtov dvaGTgf'i}iw noog 
 at fig oigag. What is meant by tig oigag, unless it be exactly, at the 
 very hour, I am unable to conjecture. In regard to tovtov (which 
 seems to be put for iT^n), one almost spontaneously falls upon the 
 conjecture, that the Sept. and Paul must have read !i*H in Gen. 
 18: 10, 14, instead of rrn ; which is by no means improbable, con- 
 sidering that the ancient manuscripts were destitute of vowel points, 
 and that the two words mn and riTn are so nearly alike. 
 
 (10) The apostle having thus shewn, that the promised seed was 
 not all the natural descendants of Abraham, but only a select part of 
 them, he now advances a step farther, and goes on to shew, that not 
 only did God make a distinction xut<x ngoOsniv dvrov among the 
 natural descendants of Abraham, but that even among the descend- 
 ants of him who was " the son of promise," he made a like distinc- 
 tion ; and this too, in a case where the respective merit or desert of 
 the parties could not possibly be the ground of distinction. Thus, in 
 respect to the descendants of Isaac ; Jacob his younger son was 
 chosen as the object of favour, and Esau the elder son, who accord- 
 ing to the custom of the patriarchs had higher rights, was rejected. 
 Yea, this reception of the one to special favour, and rejection of the 
 other, was determined on before the children were born, i. e. before 
 they could have done either good or evil, or in other words, before 
 they could have possessed any merit or demerit. Consequently the 
 ngofrtoig of God was according to his Ixloyri, and not l\ tgyoiv or 
 on the ground of merit. 
 
 The reason why the apostle adds this example of God's selecting 
 
ROMANS 0: 10. 3Sr> 
 
 the objects of his favour, to the one which he had already produced, 
 seems to be, in order to prevent the objections which might not un- 
 naturally be made in respect to the force of that example. The Jews 
 might say : ' As to Ishmael, he was only the son of a bond-woman, 
 and therefore had no good title to be an heir of promise. And as to 
 the sons of Keturah, they were much younger than Isaac, who of 
 course was entitled to the rights of primogeniture. On these grounds 
 we may suppose the preference was given to Isaac' 
 
 In order to foreclose every thing of this nature, the apostle now 
 produces an example of r\ v.cct' ty.Xoyrjv rrgofiioig, which effectually 
 accomplishes his object. Esau was not only the son of Rebecca, the 
 lawful, proper, and only wife of Isaac, but he was the elder son, and 
 therefore entitled by usage to the rights of primogeniture. Yet not- 
 withstanding all this, Jacob was preferred to him, and was chosen as 
 the tiy.vov xtjg tnayytXlag. 
 
 The bearing which all this has on the main subject of the apostle, 
 is plain. 'If God did, x«r' ty.Xoyrji', make such distinctions among 
 the legitimate and proper children of Isaac, the son of promise, then 
 the same God may choose, call, justify, and glorify those who are 
 xA?;ro/ in respect to the heavenly inheritance. If it is not unjust or 
 improper, in one case, to distribute favours xcsra ngodeoiv uviov, 
 then it is not in another.' 
 
 Ov f.i6vov dt, and not only ; an incomplete or elliptical expression, 
 which has been filled out in different ways by different critics. The 
 most natural of these seems to be, to supply rovxo. Then the senti- 
 ment is simply : ' Not only was such the case with Abraham, but also 
 in respect to Rebecca, etc' 
 
 'Pefitxxv. forms here a kind of anacoluthon, i. e. the beginning of a 
 sentence, the construction of which is afterwards changed, or in other 
 words, the sentence is not finished in the same manner in which it was 
 begun. Here, the natural grammatical construction would be, ov 
 (.iovov dt [tovio], uXXa. '/.ai ' Ptptiixu, c'§ tvQQ noixt^v iyovoy .... 
 tQQy)\}ii .... on x.r.X. Instead however of 'PtfiMxa (Dat.), we 
 have in the text 'PtptKxa (Nom.), with which tyovoa agrees. But 
 the construction thus begun in the Nominative, is not carried through. 
 Instead of associating the Nom. 'Ptfitxxu, with some following verb 
 of which it might be the subject, the verb £qqi'i&i] is afterwards em- 
 ployed, and the Dative required by it is made by a pronoun referring 
 to 'PtiJixxa, viz. by auvrj. This mode of construction is frequent in 
 Hebrew, where what is called the Nom. absolute is employed, to 
 49 
 
386 ROMANS 9: 10,11. 
 
 which a pronoun in the sequel refers, being put in the case in which 
 the verb or the nature of the sentence requires it to stand. 
 
 'E£ ivog KoizTjv t%ovoa, accipiens semen unius viri. Literally 
 nolrrjv means cubile, bed; figurately however it is employed to desig- 
 nate semen concnbitus ; like the Hebrew $-\\ flSlDttj , concubitus 
 seminis, Lev. 15: 16, 32. 18: 20, 23. 22: 4. In Lev. 18: 23, na&& 
 alone is employed to designate the same idea. A clear case of such 
 a usage, is in Num. 5: 20, (Sept.). Bretschneider is the first, so far 
 as I know, who has satisfactorily illustrated this word. The idea is, 
 having conceived by one, i. e. by Isaac our ancestor. 
 
 (11) Fuq, illustrantis. — Tsvvrfitvxfnv, sc. -nuidoiv, which the 
 mind spontaneously supplies, by recurring back to f£ ivog %ohr]v 
 iYOvoa. The whole phrase in the verse, is a construction with the 
 Genitive absolute, i. e. a species of anacoluthon. 
 
 Mydi .... xaxov, neither having done any thing good or evil; 
 a very important declaration in respect to its bearing on some of the 
 controverted questions about hereditary depravity or original sin. It 
 appears, that when the words related in the next verse were spoken 
 to Rebecca, the children in her womb had arrived to such a state of 
 growth, as that life and motion in them were perceived by the mother, 
 Gen. 25: 22, 23, i.e. to the age of some five months, comp. Luke 1: 
 24. At this period, then, the apostle declares that they had done 
 neither good nor evil, i. e. they had as yet no positive moral character; 
 there was, as yet, no development of their moral powers. The 
 assertion is so clear and direct here, that I see not how we can evade 
 the force of it. And with the principle here developed, the tenor of 
 other texts agrees; e. g. Is. 7: 15, 16, comp. 8: 4. Deut. 1: 39. Jo- 
 nah 4: 11. That some knowledge of .law and its obligations should 
 exist, in order that sin can be committed, seems to be clearly decided 
 by Rom. 4: 15, and to be plainly implied by James 4: 17. John 9: 41. 
 1 John 3: 4. Every man's consciousness of the nature of moral guilt, 
 moreover, seems spontaneously to decide in accordance with these 
 texts. But when children do arrive at such a growth of moral nature, 
 that they begin to sin, the Scripture does not seem to have decided ; 
 I mean, that I have yet discovered no text where this point is fixed. 
 Ps. 51: 5, when compared with Ps. 58: 3, will hardly establish the 
 doctrine which many have supposed it to establish. Gen. 8: 21 de- 
 cides no more, than that men begin very early to commit sin ; and 
 John 3: 6. Eph. 2: 3, and other texts of the like nature, decide only 
 that men in a natural state, i. e. in an unregenerate or unsanctified 
 
ROMANS 9:11. 387 
 
 state, are children of wrath, and carnal ; but they do not definitely fix 
 the time when they begin to sin. 
 
 The apostle, however, has told us when sinning had not begun, in 
 respect to Jacob and Esau. That they possessed powers ox faculties, 
 even in the womb, which were afterwards employed in committing 
 sin, when they were more fully developed, is undoubtedly true. But 
 the power or faculty of sinning is one thing; the commission of sin, 
 another. Adam in paradise, before his fall, certainly possessed the 
 power or faculty of sinning , but he was not guilty of sin because he 
 possessed such a power, but for the abuse of it. It is not therefore 
 the powers which the Creator has given us, that make us sinners ; 
 it is the abuse of them. God may be, and is, the author of our power 
 to sin ; but he is not therefore the author of our sins. So young 
 children may have all the powers adapted to sinning, without having 
 yet sinned ; for it will not be denied that Jacob and Esau had the 
 embryo of such powers, in their early state, at the period when the 
 apostle says that they had not committed any sin. But I refer the 
 reader to what is said relative to these topics, in my remarks on chap. 
 5: 12—19, in Excursus V. 
 
 The object of the apostle, in here saying that the children had done 
 neither good nor evil, is very plain, viz. to cast light on, or to confirm, 
 the truths which he had disclosed in 8: 28 — 39. There all things 
 are represented as contributing to the good of the xccrw ngo&faiu 
 xhjTol, v. 28, seq. Now if the Jew should object to this, as being 
 unaccountable, or as evincing partiality on the part of God, the apos- 
 tle could of course foreclose this objection, by shewing him that 
 instances of the like nature, (so far as the principle of them was 
 concerned), are recorded in the Old Testament In the case before 
 us, the decision of God in respect to the future lot and privileges of 
 Jacob and Esau, was not made by reason of any claims of merit, or 
 any grounds of demerit ; for it was made before the children were 
 born, and before they had done either good or evil. It was so de- 
 cided, moreover, 
 
 "Jvu t) . . . . auXovvToq, that the purpose of God according to elec- 
 tion might stand, not of toorks, but of him that calleth. H xcct 
 ixloytjv iiQO&toiQ means, a purpose which proceeds from one's own 
 free choice, one to which he is moved by internal, not by external, 
 causes or motives. It means here, a purpose which God did not 
 entertain because he was moved to it by any thing which Jacob or 
 Esau had done, or would do (ovx i£ tpyoiv), but for reasons which 
 
388 ROMANS 9: 11—13. 
 
 he has not disclosed, and which pertain merely to himself. But let 
 the reader beware, how he represents, or even imagines, these reasons 
 to be arbitrary or ungrounded. This would be to represent the 
 divine conduct, as utterly inconsistent with infinite wisdom and 
 goodness. 
 
 Ovx i'$ igywv, not of works, i. e. not because of merit, not because 
 of obedience yielded to the law of works, i. e. the law requiring good 
 works. — '^/X?. ix xuXovvrog, but of him that calleth; i.e. the admis- 
 sion of the one to privileges, and the rejection of the other from 
 them, proceeded not from their personal desert, but from him who 
 calls, i. e. chooses or selects men to be the objects of his special fa- 
 vour, for reasons within himself. That such is the sentiment here, 
 seems very plain ; for the apostle has just asserted, that the decision 
 of God in respect to the future destiny and privileges of Jacob and 
 Esau, was made before they were born, and before they had done 
 either good or evil ; and that it was so made, in order that God's v.ax 
 iy.hoyt}v noodtaig might be stable, (ti'vr), Heb. i&3£, 
 
 ( 12) But what is the thing decided in this case ? 'O f.tfl&ji' .... 
 ihaaoovi, the elder shall serve the younger ; or rather, the first-born 
 shall serve the younger, i. e. he who by right of primogeniture would 
 take the precedence, he shall in fact be inferior or take the lower 
 place. Both the words uifcwv and ildoob}i>, however, relate rather 
 to the posterity of Esau and Jacob, than to their own individual per- 
 sons. The precedence then of Jacob is established by this declara- 
 tion ; but in what respect ? 
 
 (13) In a temporal one, no doubt, so far as this instance is 
 concerned. 7bV .... ifiiurjGa, Jacob have I loved, and Esaii have 
 I hated; i. e. on Jacob have I bestowed privileges and blessings, 
 such as are the proofs of affection ; I have treated him, as one treats 
 a friend whom he loves; but from Esau have I withheld these privi- 
 leges and blessings, and therefore treated him as one is wont to treat 
 those whom he dislikes ; comp. Mai. 1: 2, 3, from which the quotation 
 here is made, and where the prophet adds to the last clause ('JHffav 
 i/.uat]Gu), the following words : And laid his mountains and his heri- 
 tage waste. That the whole refers to the bestowment of temporal 
 blessings and the withholding of them, is clear not only from this 
 passage, but from comparing Gen. 25: 23. 27: 27 — 29, 37 — 40. As 
 to i^lnrjaa, its meaning here is rather privative than positive. When 
 the Hebrews compared a stronger affection with a weaker one, they 
 called the first love, and the other haired; comp. Gen. 29: 30, 31. 
 
ROMANS 9:13. 380 
 
 Deut. 21 : 15. Prov. 13 : 24. Matt. 6 : 24. Luke 14 : 26 comp. with 
 Matt. 10: 37. Glass. Rhet. Sac. lib. III. tr. 3. can. 10. 
 
 After all, this does not answer the question : What is the object 
 of the apostle, in making his appeal to such an instance of kut f'/do- 
 yt]i> TiQoftfoig? Must not this answer be, that he does so in order to 
 justify and support what he had said in chap. 8: 28 — 30 ? And 
 surely, what he has there said does not relate to temporal condition or 
 privileges, but to effectual calling, to justifying and glorifying. 
 
 All however which is decided is, that God, in either case, does not 
 bestow his blessings on the ground of merit, (for how can any sinner 
 be blessed on such a ground?), but for reasons known only to him- 
 self, and which are ab intra, not ab extra. 
 
 Those who contend against this sentiment, contend against what is 
 every day exhibited before their eyes. Why was this man born white, 
 and that one black ? Why is this child born and nurtured in the bo- 
 som of a pious family, and that one in the midst of robbers and murder- 
 ers ? The children had " done neither good nor evil," when their lot 
 was decided. This no one can deny. Then, in the next place : Is not 
 their eternal condition connected with their means of grace, their pious 
 nurture, their present condition and associations in life ? And who 
 placed them in their present condition ? 
 
 How easy now to multiply such questions indefinitely ; and the 
 answer must at last resolve the whole into divine sovereignty. The 
 world is full of that which teaches this doctrine. All nature speaks it, 
 and speaks it loudly too ; not less so than the Bible itself. Yet with all 
 this, the Bible plainly recognizes the freedom of men, and attributes to 
 themselves their own destruction. The world say, that there is contra- 
 diction here ; but if there be, the naturalist has as really to contend with 
 its difficulties, as the advocate for revelation. However, there can in 
 reality be no contradiction or absurdity in two things which are both 
 true. All the difficulty lies in us. Being ignorant of the manner in 
 which predestination and free-agency can be reconciled, we are prone 
 to think that they are irreconcileable. When will men learn, that their 
 ignorance is not the measure of truth ! 
 
 One cannot but contemplate with regret, the efforts of some critics 
 to evade the plain, philological, (and for my own part I must say, inevi- 
 table) meaning of the chapter on which we ai-e commenting. It seems 
 to me, however, that I perceive in nearly all, who are sober-minded and 
 judicious men, a radical mistake in their conceptions respecting predes- 
 tination. They transfer to it analogies from the material world ; and 
 then they seem to feel, that it is but another name for fate or destiny. 
 They conceive of a decrelum absolutum as involved in it, which, as they 
 view it, is neither more nor less than a decree without any reason, a 
 mere arbitrary derision. With such views, they reject the doctrine of 
 predestination ; and rightly, if it does indeed involve all this. That this 
 
390 CONTENTS OF ROM. 9: 14—29. 
 
 however is a very imperfect and erroneous view of the subject, is what 
 I fully believe ; and what 1 have endeavoured to exhibit in the state- 
 ments above. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 14—29. 
 
 In carefully estimating the sentiments advanced in vs. 14 — 29, the sum of 
 them appears to be this : ' No one has any right to call in question the dispo- 
 sal which the Creator, Governor, and rightful Lord of all things makes of his 
 creatures, or to charge him with injustice on account of it. It does not be- 
 come the creature to find fault with his maker, in respect to the manner in 
 which he has been made. But not to make the appeal solely to the right, as a 
 sovereign, which God has over all his creatures ; what ground of objection 
 can be alleged against the divine proceedings, when God endures with much 
 long suffering the rebellious and contumacious, not speedily cutting them off 
 as they deserve, but waiting, and giving them space for repentance ? Comp. 
 Rev. 2: 21. 2 Pet. 3: 9. Ezek. 18: 23, 32. 33: 11. Lam. 3: 33. 1 Pet. 3: 20. 
 Why should we complain, if God, in order to display his abounding mercy, 
 chooses from among the perishing, both Jews and Gentiles, those on whom he 
 will bestow his grace? The ancient Scriptures do repeatedly testify, that he 
 would do this. 
 
 All this is by way of answer to the objection of the Jew, against the asser- 
 tions and arguments of the apostle. Paul affirms, that ' God is at liberty to 
 choose, and does choose, the objects of his grace when and where he pleases ; 
 that he selects these from among the Gentiles as well as the Jews; that he is 
 bound by no promises or covenant, to confine his goodness to the natural de- 
 scendants of Abraham ; and that in abandoning some of the impenitent to the 
 just reward of their deeds, in permitting them to become hardened under the 
 dealings of his providence or his grace, and waiting with long suffering for 
 their amendment, God does nothing to which any one can justly object, or 
 with which he can reasonably find fault.' 
 
 All this, too, is plainly connected with the subject discussed in 8: 28, seq. ; 
 and it is designed as an illustration and defence of the principle there avowed, 
 viz. the sovereignty of God in selecting the objects of his mercy, not his ar- 
 bitrary choice of them, but a choice which rests on grounds unknown to us. 
 Surely v. 23 here does not respect the mere external call or privilege of the 
 saints; for how can « -TTQorjTolfiaatv th dot; a v be so construed ? If this is 
 clear, (and I cannot think any one will venture to deny that it is), then it fol- 
 lows of course, that the antithesis in v. 22 has respect, not to temporal OQyi'jv 
 merely, but to future misery also, i. e. to the whole penalty of sin. If all this 
 be clear, then is it equally so, that the object of the apostle in this chapter, is 
 not merely to vindicate the divine proceedings in regard to giving or withhold- 
 ing favors in the present world, but also in respect to the future lot of both 
 saints and sinners. When saints are made the objects of grace, the exceeding 
 richness of that grace is displayed ; and when sinners are hardened and be- 
 come prepared for destruction, under the dealings of God's providence and 
 grace with them, it is still true that the long suffering of God is manifested in 
 deferring their punishment. So the texts cited above lead us to conclude, re- 
 specting God's dealings with them ; and so all the views of his benevolent 
 character which the Bible gives, would naturally lead us to conclude. 
 
 Whatever then may be the nature of his agency in regard to the hardening 
 of sinners and fitting them for destruction, we are necessarily led to the con- 
 clusion, that it is not such as makes him chargeable with the guilt of their sins 
 in any manner or measure ; it is not such as detracts from their free agency, 
 the voluntariness of their transgressions, the moral guilt which they incur, or 
 the responsibility which follows it. The Scriptural doctrine of reprobation 
 (as it is called) seems then to be this, viz., that God, for reasons not given to 
 
ROMANS 0: 14. 391 
 
 us, does bestow his special grace on some, i. e. hath mercy on whom he will hate 
 mercy, while he leaves others voluntarily to harden themselves and to become 
 ripe for destruction, although lie waits long to be gracious, and does not exe- 
 cute his judgments as speedily as they deserve them. 
 
 If any still decline to receive this as the sentiment of the present chapter, 
 and maintain that the whole has reference merely to the distinctions made by 
 Providence in the present world, it is incumbent on them to shew that the 
 context, e. c. chapter 8: 29, seq., leads to such a discussion. It is also incum- 
 bent on them to shew, how God can any more be justified for such a distri- 
 buting and withholding of his favours in respect to the present world, than in 
 respect to the future world. The Saviour says (Luke 16: 10): " He that is 
 unjust in the least, is unjust in much." If the distributing and withholding 
 favours in the manner stated by the apostle, be in itself unjust, God can no 
 more be vindicated for so doing in respect to the present world, than in respect 
 to the future world. Indeed we cannot separate the one from the other. In 
 respect to those who deny thnt the present chapter has a reference to a future 
 state, let me ask, whether the circumstances in which men are placed in the 
 present world, have not a bearing on the future world ? One is born and nur- 
 tured in the bosom of a pious family, and lives surrounded by pious influence, 
 all of which is the ordering of Providence in respect to his lot; another is 
 born in a family of thieves and murderers, and nurtured among them, and 
 lives without God and without hope in the world. Has the eternal state of 
 these individuals no intimate connection with such circumstances ? One is 
 born in a heathen land, and another in a Christian ; surely not by their own 
 act. Has this no bearing on their eternal condition? Is God just then, who 
 makes such distinctions? It is a question we must meet; substantially we 
 have to meet it, if we resort even to Theism for a refuge from difficulties. And 
 when those who hold to the mere temporal relation of the chapter before us, 
 can clear up the difficulties that attend this, even on their own principles ; then 
 it will be time to speak with more confidence, than they can now with propri- 
 ety feel, against the views of such as differ from them. 
 
 (14) Ti ovv igovf.i6v; language which Paul puts into the mouth 
 of the objecting Jew. — 3Itj (xd'ixia -napa zw &ew; A very natural 
 question for one whose mind is perplexed and offended with the doc- 
 trine of divine sovereignty, and the dispensation of favours on the 
 part of God, v.axa ixgoxtfoiv uviov. If God has dispensed them in- 
 dependently of any merits on the part of man, and for reasons known 
 only to himself, it seems to an unhumbled and carnal man, that he 
 has dispensed them in a merely arbitrary manner, without any regard 
 at all to justice or propriety. How easy it is to feel difficulties and 
 raise questions on this perplexing subject, fact shews. From the 
 time of the apostle down to the present hour, the same questions 
 have been repeated, and the same difficulties felt. That some of 
 those who have maintained the doctrine of divine sovereignty, have, 
 at times, given occasion for their opponents to charge on them repre- 
 sentations of such a nature as make predestination amount to fate or 
 destiny, and /car i"/,\oyrjv ngoxriacg to amount to arbitrary decision, 
 — is what I feel unable to deny. In some treatises on reprobation, 
 enough that stands exposed to such a charge, or to something very 
 much like it, may be found. But to argue from such expressions as 
 
392 ROMANS 9: 14. 
 
 top ' Eguv iplarjou, an actual hatred, like that which men cherish 
 toward one another, would be a great abuse indeed of the sound 
 principles of exegesis. On the same ground, one might prove that 
 it is our duty actually and positively to hate father, mother, wife, chil- 
 dren, brethren, sisters, yea, and our own lives or" ourselves also, and 
 that we cannot be Christians without so doing, if he should urge' the 
 literal meaning of Luke 14: 26, and other texts of the same tenor. God 
 cannot hate, more humano, any thing which he has made ; and there- 
 fore he cannot hate man, who is made in his own image. Consult for 
 a moment, Rom. 5: 8 — 10. John 3: 16, 17. Tit. 3: 4, 5. So the 
 Wisdom of Solomon, 11: 24 : " Thou lovest all beings, and abhorrest 
 nothing which thou hast made, neither hatest any thing which thou 
 hast created." But still, God may and does hate sin; he may and 
 will punish it ; he may treat sinners therefore as if he hated them, 
 i. e. he may inflict evil or suffering upon them. In the future world, 
 he never does this but in consequence of actual guilt, and in propor- 
 tion to that guilt; but in the present world, trouble and sorrow may 
 be brought on men as the instruments of trying them, of purifying 
 them, of humbling them, and this without being proportioned by the 
 simple principles of retribution ; for sufferings and trials here, are not 
 always in the way of retribution. In all this, God acts yara Tioode- 
 ccp avTOv' certainly not in an arbitrary manner and without any 
 good reason, (therefore not on the ground of a decrctum absolutum in 
 the rigid sense of this phrase) ; but still, in a manner which we cannot 
 explain, because the reasons are unknown to us. But can our want 
 of knowledge establish against him a charge of injustice? Most 
 surely not. 
 
 That God does dispense his favours without being moved thereto 
 by any merit on the part of him who receives them, is clearly estab- 
 lished, and is designed to be confirmed, by the quotation which Paul 
 makes from the Old Testament. — Miq ytvono .... oiHTfigoj, not at 
 all; for he saith to 3Ioscs : " I ivill have mercy on whomsoever I ivill 
 have mercy ; and I tvill shew compassion to ivhomsoevcr 1 icill shew corn- 
 passion." In other words : ' I choose the objects of favour where I 
 please, for reasons known only to myself. None of the human race 
 have merited my approbation and reward ; and none being entitled 
 to them on the ground of merit, but all having deserved my displeas- 
 ure, I may properly bestow my favours where and when I please.' 
 Why is not this both true and just? Is there any ddiaiu here? Out 
 of a hundred criminals who have all justly deserved death, may not a 
 
ROMANS 9: 15 16. 393 
 
 wise and benevolent government, for reasons entirely within itself, 
 choose some as the objects of pardon, while others are given up to the 
 punishment which the law enjoins? I am fully aware of the opposi- 
 tion made, by the natural heart, to such a proceeding on the part of 
 God ; but I am not aware, how the fact that God does this, can be 
 reasonably denied, or how injustice can with any propriety be charged 
 upon him because he does it. 
 
 The quotation is from Ex. 33: 19. The reasoning of the apostle 
 is simply this : 'God cannot be unjust because he distributes his fa- 
 vours xaxu TTQoftiacv uvtov, and without reference to the merits of 
 the individuals concerned. The Old Testament inculcates the same 
 doctrine ; and to the decisions of their own Scriptures the Jews surely 
 will not object.' The ydy at the beginning of the verse, intimates 
 that the writer applies the quotation in this manner. 
 
 (1G) yiQ<x ovv .... -Ofov, consequently, or it follows, therefore, 
 [that favours are not obtained] by him that willeth, or him that run- 
 neth, but through the mercy of God. That is, God bestows his favours 
 not because they are first merited or acquired by effort, either of 
 strong desire or of strenuous action, but because he has mercy on 
 those who are the objects of his favour. This does not imply, (as it 
 has frequently been thought to imply), that let men merit ever so 
 much, i. e. desire salvation ever so much, or labour for it ever so 
 strenuously, all this will be of no account with God ; and that he will 
 bestow mercy in a manner merely arbitrary, and irrespectively of all 
 works or character on the part of the sinner. On the contrary, it im- 
 plies, that before sinners are made the objects of his special mercy, they 
 are " dead in trespasses and sins," that they are " by nature children 
 of wrath and disobedience," that " what is born of the flesh is flesh," 
 that " the carnal mind is enmity against God, is not subject to his law, 
 nor indeed can be ;" consequently, that the case here supposed (of 
 previous merit and effort) never exists. And in fact, it never does 
 exist. It is God's mercy which frst disposes sinners to will and to 
 do, (Phil. 2: 13. Eph. 2: I. Rom. 5: 6—10). How then can his 
 mercy be bestowed in consequence of their previous merits ? The 
 thing is plainly beyond reasonable question ; it is impossible. 
 
 All this, however, does not disprove the doctrine that good works 
 will be rewarded ; which is certainly and plainly a Scripture doctrine. 
 But what are good works ? Those which are done before conversion, 
 or after it? Surely the latter. But in respect to the reward of 
 Christians or evangelical good works, the apostle is not here speaking. 
 50 
 
394 ROMANS 9: 16, 17. 
 
 What he says, has respect to the fore-knowing, fore-ordaining, call- 
 ing, justifying, and glorifying, mentioned in 8: 29, seq. All this is 
 not on the ground of merit, but of pure gratuity ; and consequently is 
 rov tliovvxoQ &(ov. The fact that good works themselves are re- 
 warded, is itself a part of this pure system or plan of grace; for it is 
 only the works of those who are sanctified, which are reputed good in 
 the Scripture sense, i. e. holy, acceptable to God ; and even the best of 
 these are imperfect, so that they could not claim any reward on their 
 own account and on principles of legal merit. The law allows of no 
 imperfection. It requires us " to love God with all the heart, and 
 our neighbour as ourselves." Now as no man on earth has ever done 
 this, (Jesus only excepted), so no man has ever been in a condition 
 to advance a claim to reward on the ground of laiv, in any age or 
 country of the world. Consequently, the fact that the good works of 
 saints are rewarded, is a matter of gratuity, and not of legal claim. 
 But still, this part of the subject is not what the apostle is here dis- 
 cussing ; and consequently what he says here, is not to be regarded 
 as at all interfering with or contradicting what he says on the subject 
 of good works being rewarded, in other parts of his writings. 
 
 As to ■QtlovToq, it indicates desire, wishing. Tgtyovrog is used 
 to designate strenuous effort. In such a sense it often designates 
 Christian efforts ; e. g. 1 Cor. 9: 24, 26. Heb. 12: 1. Phil. 2: 16. 3: 
 14. Gal. 2: 2. 5: 7, etc. EXfovvrog here is designed to convey the 
 idea, that our blessings originate from God's compassion, love, and 
 mercy, and are not bestowed on account of our own deserts. To 
 construe this in such a manner as to exclude the idea of gratuitous 
 reward for obedience and good works, in the sense above stated, 
 would be to depart widely from the meaning of the writer ; whose 
 design is to affirm, that man's salvation is to be attributed solely to 
 the mercy of God, and not to any merit of his own. 
 
 (17) The preceding verse, although comprising a sentiment 
 which is very disagreeable to the natural heart and to the pride 
 of unsanctified men, is still more easily acquiesced in than the one 
 now before us, which has been the theme of great contention, and 
 the occasion of not a little unguarded and hazardous assertion. Let 
 us first investigate the language. 
 
 Atyei yu(j r; ygacfij iw (Dapaoo ■ for the Scripture saith to Pha- 
 raoh, instead of the formula, for God saith to Pharaoh. So Gal. 3: 
 8, 22. 4: 30. What the Scripture says, God says, for naaa t] ygacp^ 
 ftionvivOTOQ, i. e. it is the word of God. So the Rabbins frequently 
 
R03IANS 9: 17. 395 
 
 exchange the two formulas of quotation, fi^n ~)72i< , the Name [God] 
 says, and SVtett "Waal , the Scripture says; both of which are desig- 
 nated by the abbreviation Ti'DH . 
 
 On £ig .... dvi'u/uip (xov, for this very purpose have I roused 
 thee up, that 1 might exhibit my power. Paul has departed from the 
 Septuagint version, which runs thus : ivtxzv xovio dierrjQTt^^q, i'vu 
 ivdelStofiat iv ool tfjv lo'/yv /.iov so that Paul substitutes t'iriyfipa 
 for di6Tt]Qt'jift]g, bnog for iva, and dvvafiiv for iofluv. The apostle 
 seems plainly to have made a translation of his own, independently of 
 the Septuagint ; and one which, on the whole, was better adapted to 
 the purpose of his argument here, and equally accordant with the 
 original Hebrew, or rather, more strictly accordant with it. 
 
 For ascertaining the sense then of i&yeigcc, (on which the tenor 
 of the whole passage depends), we must not take disrt](j^irijg for a 
 commentary on it here, inasmuch as the apostle has rejected this, 
 and preferred another verb, for the sake (as it would seem) of a 
 nearer accordance with the meaning of the original Hebrew in this 
 particular passage. What then is the sense of iJ-eyetQCt), as employed 
 in Hellenistic Greek ? Passow has not inserted this word in his clas- 
 sical lexicon, although it is certainly a classical word, for Xenophon 
 employs it, Cyrop. VIII. 7. 2. In the Septuagint it is a very common 
 word, being used some seventy times. In none of these cases does 
 it mean to create, to produce, to raise up, in the sense of bringing 
 into being, etc. ; so that those who construe ihjyfiga oe, I have cre- 
 ated thee or brought thee into existence, (Beza : Feci ut existeres), do 
 that which is contrary to the usus loquendi of the Greek language. 
 
 In the Septuagint, i'£{y{lgc» is employed throughout in the sense 
 of arousing, exciting, rousing up, toaking up from, etc., with slight 
 shades of variation in meaning, according to the connection and the 
 adjuncts of the verb. So it is employed by the Septuagint to translate 
 the Hebrew Y" , p" , to rouse up, or to wake up, i. e. from sleep, Ps. 3: 
 5. 72: 20. 138: i8. Jer. 31: 26. 51: 39. Dan. 12: 2. In the like man- 
 ner it stands for Y\i* , to wake up or rouse up from sleep ; Gen. 28: 
 16. 41: 22. Judg. 16: 15, 21. Ps. 77: 71. But the principal use of 
 it is, to designate the idea of rousing up one's self to action, exciting 
 or rousing up others to action, exciting or rousing up any thing, ani- 
 mate or inanimate, to do this or that; e. g. Judg. 5: 12. Ps. 7: 7. 34: 
 26. 56: 11. 79: 3. 107: 2. Cant. 4: 16. Jer. 50: 41. Joel 3: 9. Zech. 
 13: 7, etc. ; and so in the like manner forty-two times ; see Trommii, 
 
396 ROMANS 9: 17. 
 
 Concord, in verbum, No. 11. In all these cases, it corresponds to 
 the Hebrew -ni> , ""i" 1 ?", etc. In seven other cases it corresponds to 
 tip , when this word is used in a sense altogether synonymous with 
 that of -nj> , e. g. Num. 10: 35. 2 Sam. 12: 11. 1 K. 11: 14. Est. 8: 
 5. Ps. 118: 62. Hab. 1: 6. Zech. 11: 16. Throughout all these, the 
 idea is uniform, viz. that of rousing, exciting, stirring up, rendering 
 active, urging to activity, in a word, in the sense of bringing out of a 
 state of rest or inaction or inefficiency, into a contrary state, i. e. in 
 the sense of exciting. 
 
 Twice only have the Seventy employed i&iytiga, where the 
 meaning might perhaps be thought doubtful. In Prov. 25: 24, ui'iftog 
 .... i'ieyilgei i>tqi], the wind raiseth up clouds. The Hebrew verb 
 is bbin , begetteth or bring eth forth. But the sense of i'ifyeigoj here 
 in the Septuagint, is plainly the usual one. So also in Ezek. 21: 16 
 (Heb. 21: 21), tliytigezai corresponds to r\'l~272 (from li^) ; but 
 still it has the sense of excite, this meaning corresponding substantially 
 with the Hebrew, although not literally. 
 
 In the New Testament we have only one example besides that 
 before us, where i'£tyeioo) is used, viz. 1 Cor. 6: 14, where it is clearly 
 used to designate the action of rousing from the sleep of death, rais- 
 ing or exciting from a state of inaction or death. 
 
 On the whole, then, the sense of the Greek word is clear, and 
 subject to no well grounded doubt. It means to rouse up, to ex- 
 cite, to stir up, in any manner or for any purpose. But does the He- 
 brew word in Ex. 9: 16, which corresponds to ihjyetga, admit of 
 such a sense 1 
 
 The Heb. word is Tn^"" , Hiphil of 1122 ; which usually means, 
 in Kal, to stand, to stand fast, to continue, to stand up, etc. In Hi- 
 phil (~\"!2'JTj), it means to make to stand, to place, also, to keep stand- 
 ing, to preserve or continue in standing. Tholuck and others have 
 laboured to show that "'Hias" has this latter signification in Ex. 9: 16. 
 That the Hebrew word might have such a sense, is sufficiently plain 
 from 1 K. 15: 4. 2 Chron. 9: 8. Prov. 29: 4. 2 Chron. 35: 2. And so 
 the Kal conjugation not unfrequently means to continue, to remain in 
 standing; e.g. Ex. 9: 28. Lev. 13: 5. Dan. 10: 17. But although 
 the Hebrew word "'n'lTSyrl might have the sense which Tholuck and 
 others assign to it, yet the Greek word i'i/jyeiga, which Paul uses, 
 can hardly have such sense put upon it. I have been able to find no 
 example of a usus loquendi, that would justify this exegesis. 
 
 The main question remains, however : Has T , 03?!n the sense of ex- 
 

 397 
 
 citing, ai-ousing, awaking, like the th'iyetpa of the apostle ? If so, 
 then we may presume the apostle chose this Greek word, in deliberate 
 preference to the duTt]gi]&rjQ of the Septuagint. 
 
 Instances of this nature are clear. So in Neh. 6. 7, rVTfaSrl , 
 thou hast roused up or excited the prophets, etc. So Dan. 11: 11, 
 13, VTayrn , and he shall excite or rouse up a great multitude, etc. 
 We can have little reason, then, to doubt that the apostle had such a 
 meaning of "'iFttioyn in view, when he rendered it t£t]ytiQa; for this 
 Greek word is fairly susceptible of no other meaning. In accord- 
 ance, therefore, with this result (respecting the meaning of eifyflyio), 
 I have translated thus : For this very purpose have I roused thee up. 
 
 'Onwg . . . . T7j yr t , that I might shew forth my power, and de- 
 clare my name, in all the earth or in all the land, viz. of Egypt. The 
 consequence of Pharaoh's conduct was, that the Hebrews were 
 brought out of Egypt by signal divine interposition, viz. in the vari- 
 ous plagues inflicted on Egypt after the declaration recorded here, 
 i. e. the hail, the locusts, the extraordinary darkness, the smiting of 
 the first born among the Egyptians, the drowning of Pharaoh and his 
 host in the Red Sea, etc., Ex. 9: 16, seq. Such interpositions caused 
 the power and glory of Jehovah to be known through all the land of 
 Egypt. Or if this last expression be construed as having a more ex- 
 tensive sense, one might justify this by observing, that the Scriptures 
 themselves now diffused so widely through the world, the Koran read 
 and revered by many millions, the Greek author Artapanus (Euseb. 
 Praep. Evang. IX. 29), also Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. III. 39), and the 
 Latin Trogus (Justin. Hist. XXXVI. 2), all speak of the wonders 
 which were done in Egypt, and the overthrow of Pharaoh there. 
 
 (18) "^qcc ovv .... anXrjQvvti, therefore hath he mercy on 
 whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. A conclusion of the 
 apostle's, and not the words of the objector, as some have intimated. 
 This is clear from what is immediately subjoined by Paul : 'Egtlq ovv 
 pot,, x. r. I. ; which of course implies, that what precedes had been 
 spoken by the apostle, and not by the objector. 
 
 On the nature and force of the conclusion here drawn, I have al- 
 ready remarked in commenting on the preceding verse. As to oxkt]- 
 Qvvti, Rambach, Carpzov, and Ernesti have endeavored to shew that 
 it means here, to deal hardly with. They appeal to 2 Chron. 10: 4 
 and Job 39: 18 in order to confirm this ; but without effect, for in the 
 first instance the grammatical construction and expression is different 
 (an Ace. comes after the verb), in the second the Heb. is h" 1 ;^*", 
 
393 ROMANS 9: 19,20. 
 
 and the Sept. dnooy.ktjgvvw, and the sense, moreover, is capable of 
 harmonizing substantially with that in the verse before us. I see, 
 therefore, no proper philological method of construing oxfojQvvei, but 
 in the way already intimated above. 
 
 (19) 'EQtig oiw . . . av&tozijxe ; Thou wilt say to me, then: 
 Why doth he still find fault, for who hath resisted his will? The 
 apostle expected, as a matter of course, that the principles which he 
 had just asserted, would be met with objections such as he now pro- 
 duces. On what ground did he expect this? At least, it will be ad- 
 mitted, it was because he had said something which seemed to imply 
 what the objector here intimates. "Whom he will he hardeneth," 
 says Paul, 'Then why blame men for being hardened? How is this 
 inconsistent with what God wills?' is the reply of the objector ; and 
 this contains a sentiment, which has been repeated from the time 
 when Paul wrote his epistle, down to the present hour. The objec- 
 tion seems to be formidable, at first view ; yet all its seeming impor- 
 tance is derived from carrying along to the consideration of the di- 
 vine dealings towards us, analogies borrowed from cause and effect 
 in respect to material things. It does not follow, because God, by 
 his infinite goodness and almighty power, will convert the wicked 
 deeds of the sinner into means of promoting his own glory, that the 
 sinner may not be called to an account and punished for the evil 
 which he intended. It does not follow, because a wise and benevo- 
 lent government may convert the crime of some individuals into a 
 means of furthering the public good, that the criminals in question 
 do not deserve punishment. Supposing then that there is a sense, in 
 which sin is made even the instrument of accomplishing the wise 
 and holy purposes of God and the greatest good of his creatures ; it 
 does not follow, that the sinner who had malignant purposes in view, 
 is not deserving of punishment, nor that there is not an important 
 sense in which he has resisted the will of God. 
 
 (20) Ikfevoiivye, etiim vero, immo vero, but still, however. — 2v xlg 
 fi . . . &fm ; who art thou that repliest against God, i.e. who sayest 
 something that charges him with acting wrongly or improperly ? It 
 will be observed here, that the apostle, in answer to the objector, 
 does not endeavour at all to explain hoio it may be, that God should 
 harden sinners, and yet sinners be guilty of their own ruin ; in other 
 words, he does not attempt any metaphysical conciliation of divine 
 sovereignty and control, with human freedom and moral responsi- 
 bility. He evidently takes for granted that the facts which he had 
 
ROMANS 9 : 20. 399 
 
 been stating were true, and could not be contradicted. Hence he 
 finds fault with the objector, for charging God rashly and irrever- 
 ently, with having dealt hardly or unjustly by his creatures. He 
 continues this remonstrance in the sequel, by quoting from the Old 
 Testament, and applying to the object before him, passages which 
 serve strongly to confirm the right of the Creator on the one hand to 
 dispose of his creatures, and the duty of his creatures on the other 
 to bow in submission before him. 
 
 Would it not be well for those who are to teach the doctrines of 
 Paul, at the present time, to walk in his steps, and to deal with objec- 
 tors in the same manner as he has, by shewing them their presump- 
 tion from the Scriptures, rather than to appeal to metaphysical expla- 
 nations in order to remove the difficulties suggested? 
 
 Mi] Ioh .... ovtojg; shall the thing formed say to him who 
 formed it, why hast thou made me thus ? A quotation ad sensum from 
 the passage in Is. 45: 9, or 29: 16 ; for it does not literally follow the 
 words of either. The design of this quotation is, to stop the mouth 
 of the objector who inquires: "Why doth he find fault, then, for 
 who hath resisted his will ? " The implication in this, of wrong on 
 the part of God, in bestowing blessings on some which he withholds 
 from others, and in advancing some to glory while he leaves others to 
 hardness of heart and to the punishment consequent upon it, — this 
 implication the apostle meets by appealing to the language of the 
 Scriptures, in regard to the sovereignty of God over the works 
 of his hands : ' Has the creature a right to call in question the 
 Creator, by whose power he was formed, and by whose goodness 
 he is preserved and nurtured ? Should he reproach his Creator, be- 
 cause he has endowed him with the nature which he possesses 1 ' 
 It is as much as to say : ' Even supposing there was some ground 
 for the objection which you make, I might reply, in the language of 
 Scripture, and ask whether it is proper and becoming for a creature 
 to summon the Creator before his tribunal, and to pass sentence of 
 condemnation upon him.' Viewed in this light, it is a kind of argu- 
 mentum ad hominem ; applicable indeed to all who make the like objec- 
 tion in the like spirit, but specially adapted to stop the mouth of the 
 haughty and presumptuous Jew, who, in Paul's time, was indignant 
 that God should be represented as making the Gentiles the objects of 
 his special favour. In appealing, however, to the sovereignty of God 
 the Creator, Paul cannot with any propriety be considered as assert- 
 ing or intimating, that God is arbitrary in any of his dealings with 
 
400 ROMANS 9: 21, 22. 
 
 his creatures, or that he ever makes any arrangement in respect to 
 them, without wise and good and sufficient reasons. It would be alto- 
 gether incongruous to suppose, that the apostle did ever think or as- 
 sert, that a Being infinitely holy and wise and just and good, would 
 act without the best of reasons for acting ; although, indeed, these 
 reasons might not be given to us. It should be remarked here, also, 
 that it is only when a proud and contumacious spirit lifts up itself, like 
 that of the Jew in the context, that an appeal to a direct and sove- 
 reign right of God, is made by the sacred writers, in order to abash 
 and repress such arrogant assumption. 
 
 (21) But one quotation does not satisfy the apostle's ardor to repress 
 the objector. He makes a second one {ad sensum again, not ad lite- 
 ram) from Jer. 18: 6, comp. v. 4, which by another image, inculcates 
 the same sentiment as before. \H ovx .... arm lav; Hath not the 
 potter power over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel to 
 honour and another to dishonour? i. e. one vessel for a use which is 
 deemed honorable, and another for one deemed dishonorable ; comp. 
 Jer. 18: 4. ' Even so (the apostle would say) are all men in the 
 hands of God, and at his disposal;' comp. Jer. 18: 6. In other 
 words : ' Who can call in question his right to dispose of us, as it 
 seems good in his sight ? The indecorum and contumacy of so doing, 
 must be apparent to all.' 
 
 The Jew, however, regarded his nation as the qvga/na from which 
 none but oxtvrj rifAtjg could be formed. But the apostle lets him 
 know, that God could make, and had made, the Gentiles also a qvgu- 
 (iu from which the like vessels were formed. The same God also 
 makes unbelievers among the Jews, to be oxtvi] ogyijg, as well as un- 
 believers among the Gentiles. He chooses the objects of his mercy 
 or of his justice, where he judges best; not arbitrarily, but still for 
 reasons which are not revealed to us. 
 
 (22) El d't {tiloiv x. r. A. It is evident to any one who will at- 
 tentively read vs. 22 — 24, that the sense remains incomplete, i. e. the 
 sentence (or sentences) is unfinished ; which form of writing the 
 Greeks called draY.6\v{fov. But what must be supplied in order to 
 complete the sense of these verses, is not sufficiently plain to command 
 the unanimous consent of interpreters. Without delaying to recite 
 different opinions, I would merely say, that at the end of vs. 22 — 24, 
 it seems to me plainly, that the question in v. 20 is to be repeated, 
 viz. ou ilg ei, 6 avrauoxgivofiivog rw dew; Whether you repeat 
 this question at the end of v. 22, or here and also at the end of v. 24, 
 
ROMANS 9: 22. 401 
 
 seems to be of little importance ; for the sense in each case would be 
 substantially the same. The sum of the sentiment thus explained, is : 
 'If God, in order that he might exhibit his punitive justice and sove- 
 reign power, endures with much long-suffering the wickedness of the 
 impenitent and rebellious, who are worthy of divine indignation ; and 
 if he has determined to exhibit his rich grace toward the subjects 
 of his mercy, whom he has prepared for glory, even toward us ([*nt] 
 tjjuag) whom he has called (8: 30), Gentiles as well as Jews ; [who art 
 thou,- that repliest against the divine proceedings in respect to all 
 this?'] 
 
 The whole passage is elliptical ; and besides this, there is an 
 enallage of construction at the beginning of v. 23 (in xal 'iva yvos- 
 QiO)]), which will require further notice. I proceed from this general 
 view, to examine the words. 
 
 Ei df, if then or if now ; i. e. since God is the supreme Lord of 
 all things, and all his creatures are at his disposal by a sovereign and 
 entire right (vs. 20, 21) ; if noio, determining to display his punitive 
 justice and power, he has endured, etc. At, ' orationi continuandae 
 inservit.' The connection of thought seems to be this : ' If the sove- 
 reign Lord of all creatures, who may dispose of them as he pleases, 
 does still endure with much long-suffering the wickedness of some 
 of them, and by all this determines to display his punitive justice, 
 who can justly find fault with his proceedings V 
 
 Gelojv, willing, determining, designing, purposing. It intimates, 
 of course, that in ' enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of 
 wrath fitted for destruction,' God had a purpose or design of display- 
 ing his indignation against sin, i. e. his punitive justice and his power. 
 Can it be a reasonable subject of complaint, that he is determined, or 
 that he purposes (Qiloiv), to bring good out of evil? 
 
 'Evdei^ua&ai xr\v ogyyv, to manifest or exhibit his indignation or 
 displeasure ; in other words, to display his punitive justice with re- 
 spect to the wicked. Opyi] is often employed to designate the idea 
 of punishment, i. e. the consequences of indignation or anger ; e. g. 
 Rom. 1 : 18. 4: 15. 13: 4, 5, al. So Demosthenes: ova 'ia?jv xr^v 
 OQyrjv 6 voftov £ia£?, x. t. A., the law has not sanctioned equal punish- 
 ment, etc. Reiske Demosth. p. 528. — Kul yi/wgiaat to dvvuiov av- 
 xov, and to make known, publish, declare, his power; comp. dvvafitQ 
 in v. 17, where the power of God has special reference to his miracu- 
 lous interpositions in order to punish Pharaoh with the Egyptians, 
 and to deliver the oppressed Hebrews. Avvaxov, therefore, in the 
 51 
 
402 ROMANS 0:22. 
 
 connection in which it here stands, must be viewed as having a special 
 relation to the power of making retribution to sinners, the power of pu- 
 nitive justice. But to understand and interpret this as done for pur- 
 poses of revenge or vengeance more humano, or for the sake of display 
 such as men make through pride and vain glory, would be to make God 
 altogether like ourselves, and to represent him in a manner altogether 
 reproachful and unworthy of his perfections. A being who is self- 
 existent, immutable, and independent ; who cannot even be imagined 
 as depending in any manner or measure, for his own essential hap- 
 piness or glory, on the creatures whom his power has formed and his 
 bounty supports — such a being cannot have any purposes of revenge 
 or vain glory to accomplish. Of what possible consequence could 
 they be to him? Men are prone to revenge, from malignity and be- 
 cause of wounded pride ; they are prone to display, because of vanity 
 and vain glory. But the ever blessed God, who is love, and whose 
 essential glory cannot be affected by the giving or refusing of homage 
 by any of his creatures, and whose happiness cannot in any measure 
 be affected by their opposition to him — such a God we cannot at all 
 imagine as exhibiting his punitive justice and power, for the purposes 
 of revenge or display. He exhibits them only for the purposes of be- 
 nevolence, i. e. for the sake of doing good to the subjects of his moral 
 government; who, while they are allured to virtue, on the one hand, 
 by all the glories of the upper world, are deterred from sin, on the 
 other, by the judgments that are inflicted on the disobedient and 
 rebellious. 
 
 "£v?yxt, endured, bore with. The verb qtgw has generally the 
 sense of bearing or carrying away, i. e. of bearing accompanied by 
 motion in some way or other. But it is also employed in the sense of 
 fero,patior, to endure, to suffer, Heb. 13: 13; or of tolero, sustineo, to 
 tolerate, to bear with, as Heb. 12: 20: in the Sept. Gen. 30: 7. Num. 
 11: 14. Deut. 1: 12. In this last sense it is clearly used here, as the 
 adjunct iv TroXkij f.(ay.po{fi<filc< shews. — MuxQod u[.itu, long-suffering, 
 longanimitas, i. e. forbearance to punish, delay to enforce the strict 
 claims of justice. The apostle seems to have his eye here on the case 
 of Pharaoh in particidar, who, after he had nine times resisted the 
 mandate of heaven to let the Hebrews go, was still spared and pre- 
 served in life, although he had long before forfeited all claim to forbear- 
 ance. Still the design of Paul plainly is not to limit the case to 
 Pharaoh only. He means to intimate, that God, in like manner, now 
 (i. e. at the time when he was writing) displays his long-suffering, by 
 
ROMANS 9 : 22. 403 
 
 forbearing to punish those who deserve it. And what was true then, 
 in respect to this matter, has been so ever since, and is so at the 
 present moment. 
 
 2xtvi] ogyijg, vessels of wrath means, vessels in respect to which 
 wrath should be displayed, i. e. wicked men who deserve punishment. 
 The reason why the writer here makes use of axevt], may be found 
 in the verses immediately preceding, where he has spoken of vessels 
 fitted for honourable and dishonourable use. The language literally 
 employed there, is figuratively used here, i. e. wicked men are called 
 axfi)] ogyrjg. So in Is. 13: 5, the Persian army is called toT ^3 
 PHIT , axevrj ogyfjg xvgiov comp. Jer. 50: 25. But in these exam- 
 ples of the Hebrew Scriptures, by axfvr] ogyijg is meant instruments 
 of executing the divine displeasure ; while in our text the meaning is 
 passive, viz. persons on whom it ought to be or will be executed. 
 
 Kajr}Qrcs(itva tig cmioltiuv, fitted for destruction ; another of- 
 fendiculum criticorwn. Kurrigna^tvu fitted ; how? By whom? 
 The text does not say. It simply designates the actual condition of 
 the oxtvtj ogyljg. Now whether they came to be fitted merely by 
 their own act, or whether there was some agency on the part of God 
 which brought them to be fitted, the text of itself does not here de- 
 clare. The passive participle, in such a case, may be applied to 
 designate what one has done for himself; e. g. 2 Tim. 2: 21, iav ovv 
 Tig ixxuftdgy iuvxov dno xounov, larui axevog fig ri/Arjv .... tig 
 ■nuv tgyov ayu&ov ijt o iftaa /.it vov, where the being prepared for 
 every good work is the consequence of the txxaxtagi] tavzov. So in 
 2 Tim. 3: 17, iii]gria^ii>og denotes the being prepared or fitted for 
 every good work, by the beneficial influence of the inspired Scrip- 
 tures. But in our text, how can we avoid comparing "Aart]oriG[iiva 
 in v. 22, with a ngoijioipuof in v. 23? The two verses are coun- 
 ter-parts and antithetic; and accordingly we have axivrj ogyrjg, to 
 which oxevrj ikt'ovg corresponds, and so eig unwXeiav and tig do'tav. 
 How can we help concluding, then, that xaTtjQTiafitvci and « ngor]- 
 T0.if.tuns correspond ? 
 
 The objections which can be made to such a sense of xuzrjgTio- 
 ptva here, viz. a sense which makes it to designate some agency or 
 arrangement on the part of God. by or in consequence of which, or 
 under which the vessels of wrath become fitted for destruction, are in 
 all respects just the same as can be brought against the ih'iytigcc 
 x. r. X. of v. 17, which has been so fully discussed above. The ques- 
 tion is not, whether God is, in any sense, the author of sin in such a 
 
404 ROMANS 9:22. 
 
 way as throws the guilt, or any portion of it, upon him, and removes 
 or diminishes the criminality of the sinner. The answer to this ques- 
 tion is settled and certain from the tenor of the whole Bible, as well 
 as from passages direct and express; e. g. James 1: 12. But the 
 question is : Whether God, as the sovereign of the universe, has a 
 right to dispose of, and does so dispose of, his creatures who are moral 
 and free agents, as to place them in circumstances in which he knows 
 they will sin ; and, supposing it to be certain that in such a case what 
 he foreknows will come to pass, whether it is proper for him to exhibit 
 his punitive justice and power? This is precisely the attitude of the 
 question in v. 17; and it seems plain that the apostle has not let go 
 the subject there discussed, but that he here presents it again in a 
 somewhat different form, and in the way of direct antithesis. If any 
 one is still stumbled at this, I must refer him to such texts as 1 Pet. 2: 
 8. 1 Thess. 5: 9, for God hath not appointed us to tcrath, ovy. l&ixo 
 tjjua£ x.t.I., i. e. the implication is, that he has appointed some 
 others, but not us, to punishment, etc. Jude v. 4. Prov. 16: 4. Add 
 to these, such as designate the antithesis to this meaning, viz. the 
 appointment of some to life eternal ; as in Acts 13: 48. 2: 47. Eph. 1: 
 4, 5, 11. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Rom. 8: 29, 30. Eph. 3: 11, al. If now to all 
 these he adds such texts as 2 Sam. 12: 11. 16: 10. 1 K. 22: 22. Josh. 
 11: 20. Ps. 105: 25. 1 K. 11: 23. 2 Sam. 24: 1. Ex. 7: 13. 9: 12. 10: 
 1, 20, 27. 11: 10. 14: 8. Rom. 9: 17, 18. Deut. 2: 30. Is. 63: 17. 
 John 12: 40, he can no longer doubt that there is some sense, in which 
 the sacred writers do declare that God is concerned with evil. In 
 what sense, I have endeavoured to shew above, on v. 17. In the 
 same sense, and in no other, can we suppose God to be here con- 
 cerned with fitting the vessels of wrath for destruction. At all events 
 there can be nothing more difficult in this, than there is in all the 
 texts just referred to ; and especially in Prov. 16: 4. Jude v. 4. 1 Pet. 
 2: 8. 1 Thess. 5: 9. It is of no use to explain away the force of one 
 text, while so many others meet us which are of the very same tenor; 
 and some of which, at least, admit of no explaining away. And even 
 if we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge a God, who 
 is omnipotent and omniscient, we can not abate in the least degree 
 from any of the difficulties which such texts make. The great prob- 
 lem is : Hoio can entire free agency and accountability consist with 
 entire dependence, and with the fact that our Creator has designs to 
 accomplish even by our very wickedness? The how is the whole of 
 the nodus; and, as has been repeatedly said, is plainly beyond the 
 
ROMANS 9:22, 23. 405 
 
 boundaries of human knowledge. In the mean time, as sin is actu- 
 ally in the world, and men arc actually accountable, — would it be any 
 relief to the difficulties of our question, to suppose God to be so impo- 
 tent that he cannot bring good out of evil ; or so deficient in foresight 
 and wisdom, as to have made a plan for the world of intelligent moral 
 beings, which is radically defective in regard to accomplishing the 
 ends of benevolence, and which admits evil that was neither foreseen 
 nor can be prevented, nor even turned to the accomplishment of good ? 
 I repeat it, would this be any relief for the difficulties of our question? 
 I think every candid and sober man will answer in the negative. It 
 is better, then, to let the subject rest where the Bible has placed it. 
 He who admits a God, supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, and 
 benevolent, must admit that this God will make sin the occasion of 
 exhibiting his punitive justice and power, for the good of the rational 
 universe ; and this is enough. This is what our text, and what v. 17, 
 plainly implies. 
 
 (23) Kal iva yvtuQiGr), an enallage of construction. Verse 22 
 begins with el tft'Xojv .... evdeiiaadav .... xul yvuglaai, i. e. with 
 a participle followed by the Infinitive mode. The same construction 
 continued would require [el dt'Xcov] yvwglaac- rov nXovrov x. r. X. 
 But instead of this, we have iva yvwyiay. In the same manner, the 
 apostle might have said, el di tftog, iva tvdii'Sr] .... xai yvcoglat] 
 .... r\veyxev x. t. X. Now as both of these methods of expression 
 amount to the same thing, and as both are equally good in respect to 
 grammar, the apostle has used the one in v. 22, and the other in v. 23. 
 The rules of modern rhetoric would indeed require, that the same 
 construction should be carried forward, with which the writer had 
 commenced the sentence. But I suppose it will not be doubted, 
 that Paul frequently departs from the rules in question. That dt'Xo) 
 may be followed by 'iva with the Subjunctive, as well as by the Infin- 
 itive, (like Oi'Xwv .... iva yvojglar,), is clear from such examples as 
 occur in Matt. 7: 12. 20: 32 (where iva is implied) ; 26: 17 id. 27: 
 17 id. Mark 6. 25. 9: 30. 10: 51 (iva implied), et saepe. That this 
 may be so with the participle of dt'Xoj as well as with the verb, appears 
 from 2 Cor. 11: 12, dtXovzwv .... iva .... evgij&cooi x. r. X. The 
 full construction here then, is [el dt tftXav] iva yvcoghy x. t. X. 
 
 Tov tiXovtov rrjg dohjQ, his abundant glory, where the first noun 
 stands as an adjective; comp. Heb. Gramm. § 440. b. JSxevrj iXt'ovg, 
 i. e. vessels toward which his mercy was to be displayed ; the same 
 as the xXt]Toi of 8: 28, and the antithesis here of axe vr\ ogyijg. — ■ A 
 
406 ROMANS 9: 23, 24. 
 
 7ipo?/ro///aaf, which he had before prepared; comp. Acts 13: 48. 
 2: 47. Eph. 1: 4,5, 11. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Rom. 8: 28,29,30. Eph. 3: 11, 
 et al. — Autav, glory, i. e. happiness, glory in heaven. — As to nlov- 
 TOQ, comp. Rom. 2: 4. Eph. 1: 7, 18. 2: 7. Col. 1: 27. 
 
 After do Sup there is plainly something wanting, in order that the 
 sentence may correspond with tfvtyxe, x. x. A. in the verse above. 
 The most appropriate verb to be supplied seems to be tjkt'^oe, had 
 mercy upon, it being suggested by the phrase axfit] tkt'oig. But sup- 
 plying this, we read thus : " [And if desiring] that he [God] might 
 make known his rich grace toward the vessels of mercy which he 
 had before prepared for glory, [he shewed mercy to] us whom he 
 called, etc." In this way all runs on smoothly ; and although I have 
 not seen this exegesis of the passage in any commentator, I cannot 
 help thinking that it is the most easy and obvious one. At all events, 
 no one can read v. 23, with its tjvsyxs x. x. I., without feeling that 
 some corresponding verb is wanting here. Tholuck has represented 
 Ixuleae as being this verb ; but the ovg xul seems to forbid this. 
 And besides, Zxo.Xioz does not seem to complete the sense. Under- 
 stood as above explained, the sentiment is plain, and the transition in 
 v. 24 . . . ovg xal x. x. X., is facile. 
 
 The same thing is accomplished in another way, viz. by suppos- 
 ing the ellipsis to be completed from the former part of v. 23 thus : 
 " God, desiring that he might make hioron his rich grace toward the 
 vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared for glory, [tyvojyias 
 xov Tilovrov Ttjs do£i]? ui'iov int] r,uug, ovg xul ixukfoe x. x. A." 
 This evidently comes to the same thing as the exegesis given above; 
 and it has this preference over it, that the whole of the ellipsis is sup- 
 plied in so many words from the preceding context. 
 
 That i'ji.(ag is governed by some verb implied, seems to be plain; 
 for iy.uXtot governs ovg, not ijficig. 'ifyug, viewed in this light, is 
 synonymous with oxeOtj lltovg, or is in apposition with it, and there- 
 fore takes the same preposition (in!) implied before it. The phrase 
 connected stands thus, (according to the last proposed method of fil- 
 ling up the ellipsis) : He made known his rich grace toward or unto 
 us, [inl] rj[Att?. 
 
 (24) Ovg xul i/.ultGf, whom he did indeed call; y.ui affirmantis, or 
 xai intensivum ; " xal intendit sive auget" (Bretschn.) ; comp. 8: 28 
 — 30, and the notes on these verses. 
 
 Ov f.iovov .... iOvojv, not only from among the Jews, but also 
 among the Gentiles. Comp. 3: 29, 30. 1: 16. 2: 9, 10. 4: 9, 12. 
 
ROMANS 9: 25, 26. 407 
 
 (25) 'fig xul .... Xtytt, even so he saith by Hosea. Ev 'S2nt]i 
 may mean in Hosea, i. e. in the book of Hosea ; just as iv Aa§id 
 (Heb. 4: 7) may mean in the book of David. But in both cases, it 
 is perhaps more probable that the meaning is, by Hosea, by David ; 
 like the Hebrew SttJirtS , TH3 . 
 
 KuXt'ato .... tjyanr]{iti>t]v, I will call him who was not my peo- 
 ple, my people; and her' who teas not beloved, beloved; i. e. the Gen- 
 tiles, who were deemed outcasts from God and were strangers to the 
 covenant of his promise, will I bring into a covenant relation with 
 me, and number among my beloved family ; I will make them " sons 
 and daughters of the Lord almighty." The object of the quotation 
 is to support the assertion just made, that the vessels of mercy were 
 chosen from the Gentiles as well as the Jews, without any respect of 
 persons. 
 
 In regard to the manner of the quotation, the Hebrew runs thus: 
 " I will love her, who was not beloved ; and I will say to her who was 
 not my people, My people art thou," Hos. 2: 23 (25). The Sept. 
 have literally rendered this in the same order : uyaniiGw tt]v oux 
 ayuiitjfi€i/ijv x. t. X. The apostle has changed the order, and put 
 xuXt'oio before both phrases, instead of saying (with the Heb. and 
 Sept.) ayun>](jw .... y.ul Iqw x.t. X. Of course he has quoted ad 
 sensum, not ad litcram. 
 
 (26) Kul tocat, .... fojij/ro?, and it shall come to pass, in the 
 place where it was said to them : Ye are not my people, there shall 
 they be called the sons of the living God; another quotation from 
 Hos. 1: 10 (2: 1 ), to the same purpose as the preceding one. In both 
 cases the original Hebrew has reference to the reception and resto- 
 ration to favour of Israel, who had been rejected on account of their 
 transgressions. What was originally said of them, thus cast away 
 and rejected, on occasion of their being again restored to favour, the 
 apostle now applies to the receiving of the Gentiles, who had been 
 " strangers to the covenant of promise, and aliens from the common- 
 wealth of Israel." It is an accommodation of the words of the pro- 
 phet, so as to express his own views on the present occasion. But 
 at the same time it is still more ; for the principle of God's dealing, 
 which is disclosed in the original passages, and applied to Israel who 
 was rejected and cast off, but eventually restored, is the same which 
 is involved in the reception to favour of the Gentiles, who had been 
 out-casts. 
 
 In respect to the quotation, it accords exactly with the original 
 
408 ROMANS 9 : 27, 28. 
 
 Hebrew. The Sept., instead of the ixii xXtj&i'ioovtcci of the apostle, 
 has xlrjftrjaovTai aul uvxoi. 
 
 (27) Thus much for the reception of the Gentiles. Next, as to 
 the casting off of the great body of the Jews ; a point the most dif- 
 ficult of all, to be maintained in a satisfactory manner. In order, 
 however, to settle the question on this point, the apostle appeals to 
 the declarations of the Hebrew prophets themselves. 'Jioutug di .-. . 
 J(j()ui]X, Isaiah moreover says, in respect to Israel. At continua- 
 tive, i. e. it stands before an additional clause designed to illustrate 
 and confirm the preceding declaration. — Again, exclaims, speaks 
 aloud or openly. 
 
 Eai>, although or if; Heb. here, fcN "O , although. — '£2g fj cc^iog 
 r?J? &cdaoGi]Q, i. e. so great that it cannot be reckoned, exceedingly 
 great. To xaTulfifjpa omdt'jofTai, a remnant [only] shall be saved. 
 A'uTuXiif([iu here, and the corresponding Heb. "")N'.p , means a small 
 number, a residue only. And correspondency with this the context 
 obliges us to interpret the word, both here and in Is. 10: 22, seq., 
 from which it is quoted. This sense is the only one apposite to the 
 apostle's purpose ; which is to shew that the Hebrew prophets had 
 foretold the same thing which he affirms, viz. that only a remnant of 
 Israel is to be saved. In the original Hebrew, the passage has pro- 
 bably the same sense as here, i. e. it relates to the times of the Mes- 
 siah ; as may be seen by comparing Is. 10: 20, 21. The meaning of 
 v. 22 seems to be, that only a small remnant of them [small compar- 
 ed with those who had perished] will return to the Lord, so as to be 
 received by him. 
 
 (28) Aoyov .... yr\g, quoted verbatim from the Sept., Is. 10: 
 22, 23, with the exception that yug is added by the apostle, to shew 
 that he continues quoting for the sake of confirmation ; for notion 
 Avpiog, the Sept. has A'vgiog noifjaef and for inl zrjg yrjg, the 
 Sept. has iv rr t oixovf.tt'pt] oAj?. The original Hebrew runs some- 
 what differently ; destruction is decreed, which shall make justice over- 
 sow ; yea, destruction is verily determined on ; the Lord Jehovah will 
 
 execute it in the midst of all the land. The Sept. and the apostle 
 both represent the general sense of the Hebrew, but do not follow the 
 words. Aoyov ovvtiXwv means, accomplishing his word, i. e. his 
 promise or threat of excision. Kal avvxtfxvbiv, deciding, bringing to 
 an end, accomplishing, viz. his \6yov, as before. — Ev dixcaoovvrj, 
 carrying all this into execution, so as to satisfy the demands of 
 justice. 
 
ROMANS 9 : 28, 99. 409 
 
 On koyov ovvTiT{.u}i.tfpov nonjoei, for [Jehovah] will execute 
 his word decreed, i. e. his threatening determined on, or decisively 
 made, decisively pronounced. 'Enl jijg yfjg, on the land of Israel. 
 
 The object of the whole is only to show, that God of old threat- 
 ened to destroy great multitudes of the Jews for contumacy ; and 
 that it is no new thing now to say, that great numbers of them will 
 perish, while the Gentiles are received to favour. 
 
 (29) Kul .... 'Uau'iag, yea, [it happens] as Isaiah had before 
 said. Kai affirmant is, imo, immo. The object of this quotation is 
 the same as that of the preceding one, viz. to shew that it is no new 
 or strange thing, that a part, yea a large portion, of Israel should be 
 rejected or cut off on account of their apostasy or unbelief. Conse- 
 quently nal was followed, in the mind of the writer, (and of course it 
 should be in the mind of the reader), by ylvtrai or tyt'vfzo, it hap- 
 pens or has happened. IlgoiigrjKS here does not mean predicted, 
 (as it does in some cases), but had before said. The apostle had 
 just cited one passage from Isaiah, viz. 10: 22, 23 , and here he adds : 
 ' To the same purpose had Isaiah spoken in a preceding part of his 
 prophecy,' viz. in 1:9, v.al nu&cog iigotigt]y.av 'Hautug. 
 
 Kvgtog JEafiuo'id-, the Lord of Hosts. The Hebrew name rnNSS 
 is often added to the title !~ni"P or b^H'bfi* (^rbtt), and designates 
 the Supreme Being as Lord of the hosts of heaven, i. e. of the an- 
 gels, etc., in .heaven. There does not appear to be any good reason 
 for the opinion of Von Colin, which Tholuck adopts, that this 
 title was first given to Jehovah because he was the mighty de- 
 fender ("1123) of Israel; and afterwards, because he was consid- 
 ered as the Lord of the stars, which are called the host of heaven. 
 The Lord of the heavenly hosts, i.e. the angels, DTwS'ni: nirr*,is 
 more simple : and so Gesenius appears to understand it in his lexicon ; 
 comp. Ps. 68: 17, where the "chariots of God are said to be twenty 
 thousand, ' even thousands of angels," and "the Lord to be among 
 them ;" also Deut. 33: 2, where he is said to come with myriads of 
 his holy ones (UHj? ninn-ia); comp. 2 K. 6: 16, 17. Dan. 7: 10, 
 " thousand of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times 
 ten thousand stood before him." I add only, that the appellation 
 niiOX does not occur in the Pentateuch, nor in the book of Judges, 
 and that it is most frequent in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Mal- 
 achi. The apostle appears to have retained the Hebrew word un- 
 translated, because it is so retained in the Septuagint version of Is, 
 
 1: 9, which he here quotes. 
 52 
 
410 ROMANS 9:29. 
 
 2nt'gi*a here corresponds to the Hebrew T-jto , the literal mean- 
 ing of which is not seed, but remnant, i. e. that which is left or saved 
 after a general overthrow or destruction. In Deut. 3: 3 and Is. 1: 9, 
 the Septuagint has oni'gpcc for T")iB . JZni'gfAU often means posteri, 
 posterity, those who come after one. But I apprehend the ground of 
 the usage in this case, by the Seventy, is, that ontg^ia (ivhat is sown, 
 seed) denotes what remains of grain, after the consumption for the 
 year, until seed time comes, which is then sown ; so that, considered 
 in this lio-ht, antg^ia is equivalent to residuum, which is the sense of 
 
 it here. 
 
 'fig lufioggu av c6fioico&t]i.(H', instead of rofiogga av MfiOibidri- 
 pev, i. e. Tbiiogga in the Dative after topoioi&tjpev. The Greeks 
 could employ either construction ; at least the Seventy have done so ; 
 see in Hos. 4: 6. Ezek. 32: 2, in which latter case both constructions 
 are employed in the same sentence ; Xt'ovri iOvoiv oifiouo&^g ov f 
 Kul (og d ga-AO) v 6 iv rrj tfaXdoGij. The Hebrew is 3 ^vj- To 
 be like Gomorrha, is to be utterly destroyed, as this city was. The 
 sentiment therefore is : ' Isaiah said, concerning the Jews, that only 
 a small remnant should be rescued from utter destruction.' 
 
 It is true, that in Is. 1: 9, the passage does not respect the spirit- 
 ual but the temporal punishment of the Jews. But the ground of the 
 apostle's reasoning here is analogy. His object is, as it all along 
 through the chapter has been, to illustrate a principle of action. 
 What God did at one time, and in one respect, he may do at another 
 time and in a different respect, provided the principle concerned shall 
 be the same. And surely it is no more against his benevolence or 
 his justice, to punish spiritually for transgressions of a spiritual na- 
 ture, i. e. for continued impenitence and unbelief, than it is to punish 
 temporally for sins against himself. His promises to Abraham and 
 his seed, i. e. his literal descendants, are only and always condi- 
 tional, either as to temporal or spiritual blessings. Of course, 
 the same principle of action applies to both, when God punishes. 
 It is on this ground, then, that the apostle adduces instances of 
 threatening temporal evil, in order to illustrate and confirm spiritual 
 threats. 
 
 Overlooking this obvious principle of analogical reasoning, many 
 commentators on Rom. ix. have very strenuously maintained, that all 
 which is there said pertains only to the present world and to things 
 of a merely temporal nature, or at most, only to the external privileges 
 of religion ; and all this, because the instances here produced, are 
 
ROMANS 9:29. 411 
 
 mostly of such a kind. But let any one look back first on chap. 8: 
 28 — 39, which most plainly gives rise to the whole discussion in chap. 
 ix. ; then contemplate the resumption of this theme in chap. 9: 6 ; 
 and above all, let him view the summing up of the main object in 
 chap. 9: 18 — 23, and then glance forward to vs. 30 — 33; and it does 
 seem to me, that unless he has made up his mind in an a priori way, 
 before he comes to the study of the text, he cannot entertain any 
 doubt what the object of the writer is. That extravagant positions have 
 been advanced, on the ground of Rom. ix., which are revolting to 
 piety and to right views of God and of human liberty, I should be 
 among the last to deny. How easy it is for ardent polemics, when 
 engaged in controversy and hardly pushed by subtle and able antag- 
 onists, to venture on extravagant positions, positions which depend on 
 an exegesis ad literam, and not upon one ad sensum, need not be 
 shewn, when the melancholy examples of such facts stand out so 
 boldly in relief. But why all this should be charged to Paul, and why 
 those who differ in sentiment from speculative critics of this class, 
 should go so far over in the opposite direction, as to lose all sight of the 
 apostle's object and aim, and make him discuss things of a merely 
 temporal nature, when he begins, continues, and ends with a spiritual 
 theme ; — why all this is so frequently done, should be well looked to 
 by those who are engaged in doing it. They may be very sincere in 
 their opinions ; and this I would by no means call in question. But a 
 man may be sincerely wrong, as well as sincerely right ; and when he 
 is so through prejudice, through the heat of dispute, through reliance 
 on mere human authority, through want of diligence and candour in 
 studying the word of God, and judging with respect to its meaning ; 
 then it is but just, that his divine Lord and Master should consider 
 him as accountable for his wrong judgment, and for the mischief 
 which he does to others by it. If I am myself in the very predica- 
 ment which I am here describing, may God in mercy open my 
 eyes to see the truth as it in reality is, that I may not wander and 
 perish myself, nor be the occasion that others should do the same ! 
 
412 ROMANS 9:30,31. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 30—33. 
 
 Having thus completed the illustration and confirmation of his views re- 
 specting the sovereign dispensations of God, as to his mercy and his justice, 
 the apostle now repeats in substance a leading sentiment of his epistle, viz., 
 that justification being wholly gratuitous, and by faith in Christ, it is extended 
 to all who will receive it as such, and so brings the Gentiles within its reach; 
 while the Jews, rejecting this method of salvation, have failed to obtain justifi- 
 cation ; for they have stumbled at the doctrine of the cross, and been unable to 
 find acceptance with God on the ground of merit, or by deeds of law. As no 
 doctrine of the gospel was more repulsive to the Jews, than the truth that 
 preference would be given to believing Gentiles over them, or at least a full 
 admission to the same privileges in all respects; so Paul takes occasion fre- 
 quently and solemnly to impress this important principle upon them. 
 
 (30) Ti ovv ipovf.av; a preface or transition to a summary of 
 what he had been inculcating in the preceding context. It is as much 
 as to say : ' How then may all that has been said on the point under 
 consideration, be summed up ? What in brief is the whole matter V 
 The answer follows : 
 
 "On . ... tx niorttog, that the Gentiles, who did not seek after 
 justification, have obtained justification, even that justification which 
 is by faith. That is, one principal thing which I have maintained, 
 (when I have averred that the Gentiles have become the children of 
 Abraham by faith and are received in the place of the unbelieving 
 Jews), is, that those icho did not seek after justification, i. e. who were 
 once estranged from God and his law, were enemies to all which is 
 good, and utterly regardless of spiritual blessings — these have now 
 obtained justification by faith, i. e. they are admitted by the mercy 
 of God, without any merit on their part, to participate in the bless- 
 ings of the gospel, even in the justification which Christ has procured. 
 Aifoxoi is frequently used, even in the classic authors, in a sense 
 like £rjitiv and so in Hebrew, *\^~\ for U3.3. 
 
 (31) Jaguij). . . ovv. iqduoi, but Israel, tcho sovght for a law of 
 justification, have not attained to a law of justification. That is, 
 
 Israel, who, confiding in their own merit and good works, betook 
 themselves for justification to their supposed complete obedience to 
 the divine law, or betook themselves to the law as a means of justifi- 
 cation, have not found or attained to such a law as would justify 
 them. In other words : ' The Jews, who trusted in their obedience 
 and merit as the ground of their acceptance with God, have failed in 
 obtaining acceptance or justification in this way.' The reason or 
 ground of this is fully stated in Rom. i — in. The law demands 
 perfect obedience to all its precepts, which no one ever did, or ever 
 
ROMANS 9: 32, 33. 413 
 
 will exhibit ; and consequently, no one can obtain acceptance on the 
 ground of legal obedience, or by works of law. The apostle proceeds 
 briefly to state the ground of what he had just asserted. 
 
 (32) Atari; on . . vopov Why? because [they sought] not by 
 faith, but by works of law; i. e. Israel did not seek for justification 
 
 in a gratuitous way, but by legal, i. e. meritorious obedience. That 
 iy. nloiiwg, by faith, necessarily involved, in the mind of the writer, 
 the idea of gratuitous justification, is certain from Rom. 4: 4, 5, and 
 especially 4: 16. From a comparison of 3: 20 — 28, it is equally clear, 
 that i'£ igycov vofiov means, meritorious obedience, i. e. a complete 
 obedience to every precept of the law, in such a way that the reward 
 consequent on perfect obedience can be claimed. Such a reward, 
 the apostle maintains, it is now impossible for any one of the human 
 race to obtain, "because all have sinned, and come short of the glory 
 of God." 
 
 Now as the Jews were self-righteous and proud, they of course 
 lacked that humility and sense of ill-desert which the gospel demands, 
 and without which its salvation is not to be had. This pride and 
 self-righteousness led them to reject the Saviour of lost sinners, and 
 to refuse all trust or confidence in him. Here it was, that they 
 stumbled and fell, yea, even to their own perdition ; as the apostle 
 goes on to say : 
 
 Tlgoolxoipav yag .... ytyganxai, for they stumbled on the stone 
 of stumbling, as it is written. Tag here is causal, i. e. standing be- 
 fore a clause which assigns the cause or reason why Israel had not 
 obtained dataioavvrjv. To the question, dtarl; why? viz., Why 
 did not Israel obtain justification ? the apostle answers, (1) Because 
 they sought it by legal obedience and not by faith. (2) As subordi- 
 nate to this he says : They did not exercise faith, because they were 
 offended with the Messiah, as he appeared among them ; they were 
 stumbled at his character and claims. The yag stands as causal, 
 before this last clause. 
 
 (33) Idov .... xacaioxvv&tioiTai, behold I lay in Zion a stone 
 of stumbling and a rock of offence ; but every one ivho belicveth on 
 him, shall not be ashamed. A peculiar quotation, made up of Is. 28: 
 16 and 8: 14. The former passage runs thus : " Behold, I have laid 
 in Zion a stone, a corner stone, tried, precious, a firm foundation ; he 
 who confides in it shall not be afraid." — The latter passage thus : 
 " And he shall be for a refuge, and for a stone of stumbling and a 
 rock of offence to both houses of Israel." It appears, then, that the 
 
414 ROMANS 9: 33. 
 
 stone of stumbling and rock of offence, in Rom. 9: 33, comes from 
 Is. 8: 14, while the rest of the verse is taken from Is. 28: 16. 
 
 It is a very common practice among the Jewish Rabbies, in cit- 
 ing the Scriptures, to mix passages together that are of the same 
 tenor ; and I may add, this is done by writers every day, without 
 any consciousness of doing violence to the Scriptures, or of using an 
 improper liberty; see Surenhusius' Blfilog A'araUdy^g, Par. V. 
 p. 43. But however this may be, the fact that the apostle has done 
 so, seems to be plain. The reader will observe, that in Is. 28: 16, 
 the predicates of the stone that was to be laid in Zion, are, that it is 
 tried, precious, a firm foundation; but one of the predicates in Is. 
 8: 14 is, that it is a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence. This 
 is just what would coincide with the design of the apostle in the pas- 
 sage before us. He is describing the unbelief of the Jews, their re- 
 jection of the Messiah. Of course the stone of stumbling is best 
 adapted to the description of their case. 
 
 It would seem to be clear, from the manner in which Paul cites 
 both of these passages, that he applied them both to the Messiah ; 
 or at least, that they were, in his view, capable of such an applica- 
 tion in the way of analogy. Tholuck and many others understand 
 them in the former way. The Chaldee Targum, on Is. 28: 16, trans- 
 lates thus : " See, I place in Zion a King, a mighty and powerful 
 King ;" meaning the Messiah. Also the Babylonish Talmud (Tract. 
 Sanhedrin. fol. 38, 1), the book of Zohar, and Jarchi. Kimchi also 
 speaks of such an interpretation being given. In the New Testa- 
 ment, if the reader will compare Matt. 21: 42, 44. Luke 20: 17, 18, 
 and 1 Pet. 2: 5 — 7, he will find that Ps. 118: 22 (" the stone which 
 the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner"), and Is. 
 8: 14 are joined together, on account of their resemblance and their 
 reference to the same object. Peter has not only joined these two 
 passages, but added a third, viz. Is. 28: 16, and referred them all to 
 the Messiah. This casts light, therefore, on the intermingling of 
 texts by Paul, in the passage under consideration. 
 
 In regard to the text in Is. 8: 14, it seems evident from Luke 2: 
 34, that the pious part of the Jews, to say the least, were accustomed 
 to give it a Messianic interpretation ; for thus does the aged Simeon, 
 when he takes the child Jesus in his arms, and says : " This child is 
 set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, a sign that shall be spoken 
 against." So the Gemara (Tract. Sanhedrin) also interprets Is. 8: 
 14, of the Messiah. That the Messiah would be rejected by the 
 
ROMANS 9: 33. 415 
 
 Jews, is plainly enough predicted, (as their own ancient Rabbies ac- 
 knowledge), in Ps. xxn. Is. Liu. Zech. xi. xn., etc. So the Bere- 
 shitli Rabba, (a mystical commentary on Genesis, written about 
 A. D. 300, by Rabbi Bar Nachmani), says: "One will sing no song, 
 until the Messiah shall be treated with scorn ; as it is written in Ps. 
 89: 52." 
 
 The objection against the Messianic interpretation of Is. 8: 14. 
 28: 16, viz. that ' circumstances then present are referred to, the 
 threatening of present punishment uttered, and excitement to present 
 hopes and confidence then proffered/ cannot weigh much against 
 such an interpretation. The prospect of the future was then held 
 out by the prophet to the wicked as a matter of dread ; to the pious, 
 as a matter of hope and joy. Let us see, now, how this matter stood. 
 The Jews looked forward to a great deliverer, to a period of great 
 prosperity and glory in the days of their Messiah. What says the 
 prophet? He says: 'The days of the Messiah himself shall bring 
 no liberation of the wicked from evil ; they shall be consolatory only 
 to the good; for even the Messiah himself will be only a stone of 
 stumbling and a rock of offence to the wicked.' This is both predic- 
 tion and preaching. It threatens and consoles, while it discloses 
 what is yet future. 
 
 Who can venture to say, now, that the prophet could not, or did 
 not, entertain such views as these, and speak in such a manner ? Af- 
 ter the interpretation of Christ himself and of his apostles, in such 
 a way as to support this view, we may venture to embrace it without 
 any hazard. 
 
 Ou Kuraiayvv&^anai, in the Hebrew Vi^rf n b . Paul seems to 
 have read (and so the Seventy also), "jj"'^ Nb or "cin^ N?. The 
 present Hebrew text, ^ft* fitb, means literally, he shall not make 
 haste ; but a secondary and derived sense of this same verb, is, to be 
 afraid, to be agitated with fear so as to betake one's self to flight. In 
 this latter sense, it comes in substance to the same sense that y.uiata- 
 Xvt>&t]OfTut expresses, viz. that of disappointed expectation and 
 hope, failure of obtaining security and happiness. " Non refert ver- 
 bum, sed res." 
 
416 ROMANS 10: 1, 2. 
 
 CHAP. X. 1—21. 
 
 Having thus shewn that the casting off of Israel cannot be alleged as a 
 wrong on the part of their sovereign Lord and Ruler, and that the Scriptures 
 contain many examples of the like dealing with individuals, as well as predic- 
 tions respecting the rejection of the Jews ; having also declared very explicitly 
 that this rejection is because of their unbelief in respect to the Messiah, and 
 their confidence in their own merits ; the apostle now proceeds again to testify 
 (as he had done in chap. 9: 1 — 5) his strong affection for his kinsmen after the 
 flesh, and his ardent desires and prayers for their salvation. Nothing can be 
 more appropriate than the expression of so much kind and deeply interested 
 feeling, on his part, for the Jews, whom he is obliged to denounce and threaten 
 because of their character and conduct. It serves to shew, that he does not do 
 this in the spirit of revenge, or because he loves denunciation ; but that he 
 does it with a sorrowful heart and eyes full of tears, that his bowels yearn over 
 them, and that he retains for them all the affection which he once had when 
 acting with them, yea, even more, and that too of a higher and better nature. 
 
 He had just said, that Israel was Sio'xojp vofiov Sixaioavv?/? .... xai ovx 
 t(p&aas. Here he resumes the theme, and explains himself more at large. He 
 states the reason why they did not attain justification, vs. 2, 3, and goes on to 
 shew, that Moses himself confirms the same ideas which he had disclosed to 
 them relative to faith and works, vs. 4 — 8. The sentiment, that belief in Christ 
 is necessary for all, both Jew and Greek, is still further confirmed by vs. 9 — 12. 
 
 The apostle next presents the Jew, as objecting thus : ' If we allow what 
 you say as to the necessity of faith or belief in Christ, yet how are we to be 
 blamed for rejecting him, in case he has never been preached or declared to 
 us ?' vs. 13—15. 
 
 To this the apostle answers, (1) That not all who have heard the gospel, 
 believe it; as Isaiah himself declares, vs. 16, 17. (2) But further; the objec- 
 tion cannot be truly made, that the Jews have not heard the gospel, at least 
 enjoyed the opportunity of hearing it; for one may apply to them, in this 
 respect, the words of Ps. 19: 4; or the words of Moses, in Deut. 32: 21 ; or of 
 Isaiah, in 65: 1,2: so that they are left without any just apology for their 
 unbelief, vs. 18 — 21. 
 
 (1) 'Hfxsv evdoxlcc tijq f/w?js xagdiag, the benevolent or kind de- 
 sire of my heart ; i. e. his sincere and hearty wish, (as we say), is, 
 etc. — Elg aonygiap, for salvation, i. e. for their salvation. Literally 
 my prayer to God for them [is] unto or in respect to salvation. But 
 elg is frequently used in the New Testament in the same sense as b 
 in Hebrew; e. g. Rom. 16: 6, elg ^pag, for us; I Cor. 8: 6, elg av- 
 rov,for him, i. e. for his honour and glory ; 2 Cor. 8: 6, elg vf.iag,for 
 your advantage ; and so often. The phrase imeg cevnop [iarip] elg 
 ccoirigtap, is altogether equivalent, then, to ipu ow&cooi, or vneg rr t g 
 oon?]giag avxojp. 
 
 (2) Magrvgw yag avzo7g,for I bear them witness. Tag illustran- 
 tis, i. e. standing before a clause that suggests some consideration 
 which has a bearing on the preceding declaration. The apostle 
 means to say, that he retains a strong affection for the Jews, and 
 prays sincerely and ardently for their salvation ; and specially so, as 
 they have much feeling and zeal in respect to the subject of religion. 
 
ROMANS 10:2,3. 417 
 
 viuroig is the Dative after {laorvoio' for this verb commonly takes the 
 Dative of the person or thing, for whom or which testimony is given. 
 
 Oti £t]lov Ofou tyovoi, that they have a zeal for God; dfov 
 being the Genitive of the object to which £!jkov stands related. So 
 in John 2: 17, 6 t/jAo? ton o'exov aov, zeal for the honour of thine 
 house; comp. Ps. 69: 10 (9), tjnra M»J? , also Acts 22: 3, and John 
 16: 2. The apostle means to say, that the Jews had much zeal for 
 objects of a religious nature, for such objects as had a relation to 
 God ; or in other words, that they possessed strong feelings and sym- 
 pathies of a religions nature. And with this representation all ac- 
 counts of them agree. Philo, Josephus, the various writers of the 
 New Testament, by the facts which they disclose, most abundantly 
 confirm the correctness of this declaration. 
 
 yJ)X ov xar iixiyvoioiv, but not according to knowledge; i.e. 
 not an intelligent, discerning, enlightened zeal; not a zeal regulated 
 by a proper understanding of what was really religious truth. They 
 persecuted Christians, for example, unto death, and yet thought them- 
 selves to be doing service for God, Iutqziuv Oko, John 10: 2. There 
 may be zeal without knoivledge, which is superstitious, persecuting, 
 hostile to the peace' and happiness of the community ; and there may 
 be knowledge without zeal, which is cold, skeptical, unfeeling, and 
 which devils may possess as well as men. An actual union of both 
 is accomplished only by sincere piety ; and a high degree, only by 
 ardent piety. 
 
 (3) '^yvoovvisg yu(j . . . dixuio<Jvi>iiv,for being ignorant of that 
 justification which is of God. Gfov here is Gen. auctoris, i. e. a Gen- 
 itive designating the author of that which the preceding noun signi- 
 fies. Tr\v too Qtov dixaioovv)]v is that method of justification, viz. 
 gratuitous or by faith, which God has established, appointed, or re- 
 vealed in the gospel. It stands opposed, here, to rr\v idiav dr/.aioav- 
 vr\v, i. e. justification on the ground of merit or by the works of law. 
 r<xo causal, i. e. standing before a clause which gives the reason or 
 ground of the assertion, ukk ov xaz tniyvwoiv, and consequently it 
 may be rendered for. 
 
 The apostle does not mean by ayvoovvug, to imply that the Jews 
 had enjoyed no opportunity to become acquainted with the dixaio- 
 <ii>vr)v &eov' for this would contradict what he says in the sequel, v. 
 IS, seq. He means only to say, that whatever their opportunities of 
 knowledge had been, they were in fact still ignorant, and criminally 
 ignorant, of the gospel method of justification. 
 53 
 
418 ROMANS 10: 3, 4. 
 
 Kal ir]v ISlav .... GTi]oai, and seeking to establish their own 
 justification. To establish, GTrjaut, means here, to render valid, to 
 make good o?ie's claims. The Jews sought for and expected justifica- 
 tion by their own merit, i. e. by obedience to their laws, specially the 
 ceremonial ones. How defective their views were, on the subject of 
 what is required by the law of God, particularly in a spiritual respect, 
 is manifest from the whole of the New Testament, but specially so 
 from the declarations of the Saviour in his Sermon on the Mount, 
 Matt. V. seq. That justification in the way of merit was impossible, 
 the apostle had before shewn in chaps, n. in. 
 
 Ovx vnfio>yt]oav, they have not submitted themselves ; in which 
 rendering we give to the second Aor. of the Pass, voice, the reflexive 
 sense of the Middle voice. So the Aorists of the Passive are fre- 
 quently used ; see Buttm. Gr. Gramm. § 123. 2. Winer's N. Test. 
 Gramm. 2 edit. §33. 2. But if we render ovx vmrdyriouv passive- 
 ly, they have not been subjected, the sense will be substantially the 
 same. 
 
 Sentiment of the verse : " Having no correct views of justification 
 by grace, and being earnestly desirous of justification on the ground 
 of their own merit, they reject the justification which God has prof- 
 fered to them in the gospel.' 
 
 (4) TiXog ydg vofiov XyiOTog, for Christ is the end of the law; 
 i. e. belief in Christ, receiving him by faith and thus attaining to 
 dcxatoovpi] fisov, accomplishes the end or object of what the law 
 would accomplish, viz. which perfect obedience to the law would 
 accomplish. In this simple way, and consonant with the context, I 
 interpret this long agitated and much controverted text. That xtXog 
 has often the same meaning, substantially the same, which is here 
 given to it, may be abundantly shewn. It is frequently used to denote 
 exitus rei, the event, end, ultimate object or design of a thing ; e. g. 
 Matt. 26: 58, idtlv to xtlog, to see the event, final end; Rom. 6: 21, 
 to Tt'log, the end or final event of those things, is death; 2 Cor. 11: 
 15, dv to rtkog, whose end, fined state or condition, i. e. reward, shall 
 be according to their works; Phil. 3: 19, wv to n'log, whose end or 
 final state, shall be destruction ; 1 Tim. 1: 5, to dt xtlog xrjg iiaQuy- 
 ytXiag, now the ultimate end, object, design of the commandment, etc. ; 
 Heb. 6: 8, rig to rtkog fig xavaiv, ivhose end or fined reioard is burn- 
 ing. See also James 5: 11. 1 Pet. 1: 5, to xtXog, the end or event of 
 your faith, is the salvation of your souls; 4: 17. So in other Greek 
 writings ; e. g. to TtXog tov ngdyfiaxog elg xum'up ayei, Test. XII. 
 
ROMANS 10:4. 419 
 
 Patriarch, p. 689, to tovtov rthog ii> duo tjv, the end or event of this 
 matter was with the Divinity, Demosth. 292. 22. So in the phrases 
 rikog kaftpdveiv, Tjagtgyja&at fig rilog, ix xov rtlovg yvoigia&t'v- 
 tu, x. t. A. 
 
 From all this, there remains no good reason to doubt, that TtXog 
 may mean here, exitus, the end, final object, the result ; i. e. the end 
 which the law was intended to accomplish or bring about, has been 
 brought about or accomplished by Christ. Now the end of the law, 
 was the justification of men, i. e. their advancement to happiness and 
 glory in a future world. So the apostle himself states in the sequel : 
 " The man that doeth these things shall live by them." But inas- 
 much as " all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God," 
 so " no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law ;" in other words, 
 legal justification on the ground of merit, is now impossible. But what 
 the law cannot accomplish, Christ does accomplish ; for through him 
 the justification of sinners is brought about, which would otherwise be 
 impossible. Christ then is the end of the law, i. e. he accomplishes 
 or brings about that which the law was designed to accomplish — the 
 acceptance of men with God, and their admission to the happiness of 
 the future world. 
 
 That v. 4 is only epexegetical of the last clause of the preceding 
 verse, seems to me quite plain ; and the yag intimates this. Christ 
 then is asserted, in v. 4, to be the end of the law, i. e. to answer the 
 same end which the law perfectly obeyed would answer, as to jus- 
 tification. 
 
 But rtlog has been very differently construed ; viz. (a) As mean- 
 ing end in the sense of ending or completion. In this case vopog is 
 interpreted as meaning the ceremonial law ; so that the sentiment is : 
 ' Christ has, by his coming, made an end of the ceremonial law.' But 
 it is a sufficient objection to this interpretation, that it is wholly irrele- 
 vant to the subject now under discussion ; which is, whether jus- 
 tification is by merit, as the Jews believed, or by grace. This 
 interpretation, however, has been defended by Augustine, Gregory 
 Thaumat, Schlichting, Le Clerc, Limborch, and some others. 
 
 (b) Christ is the TiXflwaig or Tiltjowfia of the Jewish law, i. e. 
 Christ perfectly fulfilled or obeyed it. But this explanation, although 
 defended by Origen, Pelagius, Ambrose, Melancthon, Vatablus, Cal- 
 vin, etc., fails in being able to make out a nsus loquendi in favour of 
 such a sense of the word rtkog. And moreover ; what is it to the 
 purpose of the apostle ? To say that Christ obeyed the whole law, 
 
420 ROMANS 10:4,5. 
 
 ritual, or moral, or both, is saying what indeed is true; but then it 
 has no direct or visible bearing on the subject immediately before the 
 mind of the writer. There are two ways of justification, one wrong 
 way and one right one ; this it is his object to shew. Now the Jews, 
 having chosen the wrong one, viz. their own works of law, i. e. their 
 own merits, have of course missed the right one, i. e. that by faith 
 on Christ. 
 
 (r) Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Bucer, S. Schmidt, Bengel, 
 Turretin, Heumann, Tholuck, etc., understand rtlog in the sense of 
 end, design, final object. Tholuck explains it thus : viz. that the law 
 teaches us our sinfulness and our need of a Saviour, and this was 
 what it was designed to accomplish ; and thus it leads us in the end 
 to Christ, or to Christ as its final end. He finds an exact parallel in 
 Gal. 3: 24 : " The law is our naidayoyog to bring us to Christ.''' 
 But why we should give the passage this turn here, I cannot see ; for 
 the writer has expressly told us in what respect he means that Christ 
 was the end of the laic, viz. tig dixuioovi'ijv. And in accordance with 
 this, Flatt has expounded the passage thus : ' Christ is the zikog vof.iov 
 in respect to div.atoovvi] ■ he has brought it about, that we should 
 not be judged after the strictness of the law. He has removed the 
 sentence of condemnation, from all those who receive the gospel.' — 
 Well and truly. 
 
 Eig .... TiiorevovTi, in respect to the justification of every be- 
 liever. This designates, as I have before observed, the very respect 
 in which Christ was rtlog i>6/.iov. He is so to every believer; but 
 not so to others, i. e. not so while they are unbelievers, although he is 
 proffered to them as mighty and willing to save all who will come 
 unto God through him. Ilavil x. r. A. in the Dative, as the person 
 for whom. 
 
 (5) Moiijafjg yag, yug illustrantis again ; for the whole of the 
 quotations which follow are plainly designed to illustrate the two dif- 
 ferent methods of justification which the apostle had just brought into 
 view. T'gaqfi describeth, delineatcth ; often used in such a sense. — 
 Trjv dixatoovvriv rr\v ix xov vofAOv, legal justification, i.e. merito- 
 rious justification, one which a man may claim as the proper reward 
 of his own good deeds or obedience. The apostle makes this appeal 
 to Moses, both to confirm and illustrate his own declarations, and to 
 shew also that he is inculcating no new doctrine. 
 
 On . . .'. ev uvioig, that the man who doeth these things, shall 
 Jive by them. "On is prefixed here to a quotation, as usual, and has 
 
ROMANS 10: 5, 6. 4^1 
 
 the sense of our viz., namely, or as follows. The Greek word itself 
 seems in reality to be the neuter of bong, on = 6 it, i.e. this thing, 
 videlicet. 
 
 Ilotijoccg avTu, viz. the things spoken of in the preceding con- 
 text. The quotation is from Lev. 18: 5, which has a reference to 
 preceding ordinances and statutes recorded in Leviticus. Tlouoi is 
 very frequently employed in the sense of 'performing , obeying, a 
 statute, ordinance, etc., or obeying the will of another. — Zrjoezctt iv 
 auToig, he shall be rendered happy by them, i. e. by obedience to 
 such statutes, etc. Obedience, i. e. entire obedience, shall render 
 him happy, shall entitle him to the rewards that are proffered to the 
 obedient. That the Jews understood something more than happi- 
 ness in the present life, by the MTI (£>](SiTui) in Lev. 18: 5, seems 
 probable from the version of Onkelos : " He shall live in eternal life 
 by them." So the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan : " He shall live in 
 eternal life, and have a part with the righteous." 
 
 (6) J I tit . . . . Xiytt, but justification by faith spcaketh thus. 
 At, but, here in distinction from, or in opposition to, the preceding 
 declaration. Atxaioavvi] is here personified. The sense is the same 
 as to say: 'One who preaches justification by faith, might say, etc' 
 
 Mr) .... gov, say not in thine heart, i. e. within thyself. To say 
 within one's self, is to think, imagine, suppose. So the Greek q>t]{.a is 
 sometimes used for internal saying, i. e. thinking. ' Ev ti} xapd'tu 
 gov, ^3ba , where 5b (heart) is used like £33 (soul), for self; and 
 so very often, in the Hebrew language. 
 
 Ti'g .... ouijuvop ; who shall ascend to heaven? etc. The whole 
 appeal and method of reasoning is in an analogical way. Moses, 
 near the close of his life, in a general exhortation to obedience, 
 which he addressed to the Hebrew nation, assigns as one reason why 
 they should obey, that the statutes of the Lord which he had given 
 them, were plain and intelligible ; they "were not hidden from them, 
 neither were they afar off," Deut. 30: 11. In order to enforce this 
 last thought the more effectually, he dwells upon it, and illustrates it 
 in several ways. " The commandment," says he, " is not in heaven, 
 that thou shouldest say : Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring 
 it unto us, that we may hear it and do it. Neither is it beyond the sea, 
 that thou shouldst say : Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it 
 unto us, that we may hear and do it?" That is : ' The law which you 
 are required to obey, is plain, and intelligible; it is accessible to all 
 men, and not difficult to be procured or understood. It needs no mes- 
 
422 ROMANS 10: 6, 7. 
 
 senger to ascend the skies and bring it down from heaven ; for it is al- 
 ready revealed. We need not send abroad for it, nor search after it iu 
 distant or inaccessible lands that lie beyond the ocean. In other words : 
 ' It is plain and easy of access.' Nay one may say : " The word is 
 very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest 
 do it," Deut. 30: 14. That is : ' The commandment is in language 
 which thou dost speak, and is such as thou canst comprehend with 
 thine understanding ;' which last circumstance is only repeating or 
 amplifying, in another form, the idea that had preceded. 
 
 The whole may be summed in one word, omitting all figurative 
 expression ; viz. the commandment is plain and accessible. You can 
 have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting it. 
 
 So in the case before us. Justification by faith in Christ is a 
 plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious lan- 
 guage, nor concealed from the eyes of all but the initiated, like the 
 heathen mysteries. It is like what Moses says of the statutes which 
 he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible, accessible. It is not in the books 
 of countries which lie beyond the impassable ocean ; not in the myste- 
 rious book of God in heaven, and yet undisclosed ; not in the world 
 beneath, which no one can penetrate and return to disclose its se- 
 crets. It is brought before the mind and heart of every man ; and 
 thus leaves him without excuse for unbelief. 
 
 Such is the general nature and object of these quotations, and 
 such the method of reasoning in respect to them. It is apparent, 
 therefore, that ne quid nimis is very applicable here, in regard to 
 commentary on the words which are employed. It is the general 
 nature of the imagery, in the main, which is significant to the pur- 
 pose of the writer. Paul means simply to affirm, that if Moses could 
 say that his law was intelligible and accessible, the doctrine of justi- 
 fication by faith in Christ, is even still more so. 
 
 Tom' tori, .... xaruyuyuv, that is to bring down Christ. The 
 tow ion here designates the reference which the apostle makes of 
 the sentiment just quoted, viz. that he means to apply it to Christ, 
 and not to the law of Moses. Xqiotov here means, Christ in the 
 sense of v. 4, where he is called rtkog vo/nov .... tig dixcaoovvi]v. 
 
 (7) Tig .... apuaoov, who shall go down into the abyss. In the 
 Hebrew, Deut. 18: 13, the phrase is, Nln b'b '*£&'& Mp , not beyond 
 the sea is it. The expression differs from that of Paul in words, but 
 not in sense. To go beyond the sea, which is of boundless width 
 (Job 11: 9) and impassable, is employed by Moses as the image of 
 
ROMANS 10:7—9. 423 
 
 what is difficult or impossible. In the same way Paul employs ufiva- 
 aov. No one returns from the world beneath, blJWJ or Cinn ; (for 
 riiWJ and Cirri? are occasionally synonymous, being the antithesis of 
 C^p , see Gen. 49: 25. Ps. 107: 26. Sirac. 10: 18. 24: 5, and comp. 
 Ps. 139: 8. Amos 9: 2. Matt. 11: 23). As afivaoov is the opposite 
 of ovgupog, so the general idea conveyed by the expression is one of 
 the same nature ; viz., ' Say not that an insuperable difficulty is to be 
 overcome, in order to be a believer ; such a difficulty as would be in 
 the way, if one must ascend to heaven in order to bring Christ down, 
 or into the world beneath in order to bring him up. 
 
 The quotations before us are clear examples of the liberty which 
 Paul takes, of accommodating the spirit of the Old Testament to the 
 objects and truths of the gospel, without any slavish subjection to the 
 mere form of words. 
 
 Tow' tort .... uvayuytiv, that is, to bring up Christ from the 
 region of the dead, viz. from the sepulchre or the world of the dead, 
 to which, after his death, he descended. In other words, Christ, as 
 proffered to perishing sinners in the gospel, is not to be sought in 
 heaven, nor in the abyss ; for he is near at hand. Sentiment : ' Jus- 
 tification by faith in him is intelligible and accessible.' 
 
 (8) ' sllXa xi liytt; i. e. what saith q in irianoug dixaioavvr] ? It 
 saith : Eyyvg aov . . . oov, the word is nigh to thee, in thy mouth 
 and in thy heart. 'Prjfia here means (trj/Lta niGtiwg, i. e. the gospel, 
 as the sequel shews ; comp. 1 Tim. 4: 6. In thy mouth, in thine own 
 language, i. e. a subject of conversation and teaching. In thy heart, 
 i. e. a subject of meditation and thought. Sentiment : ' The doc- 
 trine which I inculcate, is so far from being an obscure and inacces- 
 sible and forbidden mystery, that it is daily a subject of reflection 
 and of conversation.' 
 
 That the apostle means the doctrine of faith which he taught and 
 preached, is clear from the following tovt' i'ou .... xtigvooopfr. 
 
 (9) "On, because, i. e. what I have said is true, because if, etc. 
 'F.av 6f.ioXoyt]Orig .... 'hjoovv, if thou shcdt openly profess with 
 
 thy moidh, that Jesus is Lord. The verb opoloyiw means literally, 
 eadem loqui, to speak what consents or agrees with something which 
 others speak or maintain. But it is frequently used to denote speak- 
 ing or professing openly, i. e. proclaiming openly one's belief in 
 Christ, which was speaking in accordance with what other Christians 
 had avowed. ' Ev xm atof.iari, by word of mouth, in words, or by the 
 use of language. Kvoiov I take to be the predicate of the sentence, 
 
424 ROMANS 10:9,10. 
 
 in this case, i. e. a true believer is to confess that Jesus is Lord ; 
 comp. Acts 2: 36. 5: 31. Phil. 2: 9, 10, where the order of the words 
 is, Y.i'QMQ JrjGovg Xqmstoq, the same as here, but where it is certain 
 that xvgtog must be a predicate, viz. that Jesus Christ is Lord. 
 
 Kal niOT6V6)jg .... vtXQbw, and shalt believe in thy heart that 
 God hath raised him from the dead; i. e. shalt sincerely, ex animo, 
 believe that God has raised him from the dead, and exalted him to 
 the throne of universal dominion. It is not the simple fact of a resur- 
 rection of Jesus' body from the tomb, which in the apostle's view is 
 the great and distinguishing feature of Christian belief; it is the ex- 
 altation, glory, and saving power that are consequent on the resur- 
 rection, which he evidently connects with this event. So in Phil. 2: 
 8 — 11. So in Acts 2: 24, 31 — 33, where the whole connection is very 
 explicit; comp. also Heb. 2: 9. 2 Cor. 4: 14. Acts 17: 31. Rom. 4: 
 25. 1 Cor. 15: 17—20. 
 
 ^wdtjoij, thou shalt be saved ; i. e. a bold and open profession of 
 the Christian faith, united with a sincere and hearty belief of it, will 
 secure the salvation of him who makes such a profession ; all which 
 shews that the way of salvation is open and easy of access. 
 
 The reader will observe, that the apostle has here followed the 
 order of the quotations which he had made from the law of Moses (v. 
 8) in stating the conditions of salvation. Independently of this, we 
 might naturally expect that belief of the heart would be first mention- 
 ed, and then confession of the mouth, i. e. by words ; for this is the 
 order of nature. And so, in the explanation immediately subjoined, 
 the apostle does in fact arrange his declarations ; viz. 
 
 (10) KaQd'ia yuQ . . . aoDT^glav, for ivith the heart there is belief 
 unto justification, and with the mouth co?ifession is made unto salva- 
 tion. TIiaTevezai and ofioXoyfTrai, if regarded as being in the Mid. 
 voice, may be rendered in an active sense ; but both may be taken 
 passively and rendered as above ; or we may translate : Belief is 
 exercised, confession is made, etc. Our English version takes the first 
 verb actively, and the last passively ; which does not seem to have 
 been intended by the writer. Tuq illustrantis, i. e. before a clause 
 which assigns a ground or reason for what had just been said. Eig 
 dixcuoovvriv and eig oonijfjlav mean, so that justification is attained, 
 and so that salvation is attained. Eig here, as often, stands before a 
 noun designating the object or end to be obtained, and may be called 
 eh objectivum. 
 
 The sentiment of the verse is the same as before ; viz. sincere 
 
ROMANS 10: 11, 12. 425 
 
 belief in Christ, and open profession of him, are essential conditions 
 of salvation, and such as, being complied with, will certainly secure 
 it. The design of the apostle in repeating it, is merely to make an 
 appeal, respecting this point, to the feelings and convictions of 
 those whom he addressed. This is an important point, in the course 
 of his argumentation. 
 
 (11) This is still further confirmed by again bringing into view a 
 text, to which he had before made an appeal in chap. 9: 33. Ilag 6 
 .... xaiaiO"/uv&)']0£Tai, no one who bclieveth on him shall ever be 
 disappointed; i. e. salvation is certain to every true believer. ITug 
 . . . . oi) I have put together and rendered no one. The form of the 
 Greek is Hebraistic. The Hebrews had no method of saying none, 
 except by using bi> {every one) with a negative ttb (not). Not every 
 one, bb tfb , nag . . . ov, means of course none, i. e. no one ; and so 
 I have rendered it. A'uvuc<}](vvx})j(J{tui, "iii^Z > nonc shall be put to 
 shame by a failure of his hopes, none shall be disappointed. 
 
 (12) The word -nag, which the above quotation from Is. 28: 10 
 exhibits, gives occasion here for the apostle to bring into view a point 
 which he had often insisted upon in the previous parts of his epis- 
 tle, particularly in chaps, in. iv., viz. that the salvation of the gospel 
 is proffered to all men without distinction, and on the same terms. 
 Ov yug . . . . Elh]vog, for there is no difference between the Jew and 
 Greek, or there is no distinction of Jew and Greek; i. e. no distinc- 
 tion as to the proffers of salvation and the terms on which it may be 
 had. rug illustrantis, viz. illustrating the nag of the preceding 
 assertion. In fact, there is a singular succession here of clauses, 
 arising one out of another, to all of which yug is prefixed. Thus in v. 
 10, y.ugdla yug v.. r. A., assigns a ground or confirmation of the 
 preceding declaration; v. 11, rf?.et yug -/.. r. A., assigns a ground of 
 confirmation, in respect to what had been advanced in v. 10, i. e. it 
 appeals to the Scripture in confirmation of it; v. 12, ov yug v.. r. A., 
 is again a confirmation of the declaration nag . . . . ov iTruia%vv&ri- 
 oaui " and this last declaration is, in its turn, confirmed by two suc- 
 ceeding ones, viz. J yug uviog x. t. a., and nug yug bg h.t.L, the 
 first of which contains a declaration of the apostle, and the second an 
 appeal to the Scriptures confirming this declaration : so that here are 
 no less than^ye clauses in immediate succession, all of which have a 
 yug prefixed, and in the same sense throughout, i. e. each yug stands 
 in a clause which serves to confirm or illustrate the preceding asser- 
 tion. This is altogether characteristic of the manner of Paul ; who 
 
 54 
 
426 ROMANS 10: 12, 13. 
 
 in the course of making a single declaration, often throws out words, 
 which suggest whole trains of thought that are but indirectly con- 
 nected with the main object of the declaration, but which the apostle 
 stops to express ; and in expressing them, he is often led again to 
 other thoughts connected with these subordinate ones ; and these 
 other thoughts again lead to a third series (if they may be so named); 
 and after expressing all these, the writer returns again, and resumes 
 his main subject ; comp. for example, Rom. 1: 1 — 7, where vs. 1 and 
 7 belong together ; Rom. 5: 12 — 18, where v. 18 is a resumption of 
 the subject in v. 12, and a completion of the comparison there begun. 
 So in Eph. 3: 1 — 4: 1, where 3: 1 is immediately connected with 4: 
 1, while there is a parenthesis (so to speak) of twenty verses between. 
 It is this manner of unfolding his thoughts, which gives birth to so 
 many instances of yag, whose proper use is, to stand before a clause 
 that is added, in order to assign a reason of what precedes, or to ex- 
 hibit an illustration or confirmation of it. Now inasmuch as the 
 apostle Paul often writes in the way above described, where one 
 thought grows out of another in succession (as in the case above) ; 
 so it is not strange that we have a yag that corresponds with declara- 
 tions of this nature, and therefore often repeated ; a circumstance, I 
 may add, which has not been duly noticed by the great body of com- 
 mentators. 
 
 'O yug .... navxoiv, for there is the same Lord of all ; i. e. the 
 Jews and Gentiles have one common Lord and Master ; comp. Rom. 
 3: 29,30. 4: 16, 17. — Illovitov . . . uiiiov, abounding [in goodness] 
 toward all who call upon him. UXovxwv means being rich, having 
 abundance, viz. of wealth. But here the connection shews, of course, 
 that the apostle means, rich in spiritual blessings, abounding in spir- 
 itual favours towards men. — UnmuXovj-itvoig In uviov, like the 
 Hebrew tJ'JJi &OJ3 , means making supplication to him, performing 
 acts of devotion to him. LTuvzug here again shews, that the goodness 
 of God is not limited to the Jewish nation, but equally proffered to all. 
 (13) This is confirmed again by another quotation which exhibits 
 the same nug. Hug yag . . . Oto&7]G{Tui, for every one who calls on 
 the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Here we have the full Hebrew 
 form, viz. il]!"!? t?ti'2 JOj?* "|l?5j<~bSi, every true worshipper of God; 
 bvo^a being pleonastic, as in " the name of the God of Jacob defend 
 thee," "the name of the Lord is a strong tower," etc. 
 
 In regard to the quotations in vs. 11 and 13, from Is. 28: 16 and 
 Joel 3: 5 (2: 32), it has been frequently remarked, that the original 
 
ROMANS 10 : 13, 14. 427 
 
 Hebrew, in either place, does not exhibit Christ as the object of sup- 
 plication and the author of salvation. In a certain sense this is 
 true ; i. e. it is true, that the sacred writers of the Old Testament, in 
 these passages, seem to have had principally in view, confidence 
 placed in God in a season of danger and distress, and the promise 
 that such confidence should not be in vain. But here again, as in a 
 multitude of other cases of the like nature, it is the principle of action 
 which is the main question, not the special relation of it in ancient 
 times. Is the principle the same under the Christian dispensation, 
 as it was under the Jewish one, viz. that those who are exposed to 
 danger and distress, and who put their trust in God, shall obtain 
 deliverance ? Is this true in a spiritual, as well as in a temporal 
 respect? Or rather, is there not a TihrjpwotQ to this promise, under 
 the gospel ? This will not be denied. Paul did not expect his read- 
 ers to deny it; and consequently he has made appeals in vs. 11, 13, 
 which apply specially to Christ; although the passages, in their origi' 
 7ial connection, do not seem to have had such a special reference. 
 But in doing this, (vs. 13 — 15 shew clearly that he has done it), he 
 has authorized us to apply to Christ the same divine worship and 
 honour, which the saints of ancient days applied to Jehovah. Other- 
 wise how could he make such an application of the words before us ? 
 He must have known that his readers would of course see, that he 
 applied the very same things to Christ, which the writers of the Old 
 Testament referred to Jehovah ; and consequently, that he considered 
 him as entitled to the same honours and confidence. I see not any 
 way, in which we can make less out of the passage than this, viz. 
 that all who believe in Christ shall be saved ; all who pray to him, 
 shall be saved. Of course, sincere belief and supplication are here 
 intended. 
 
 (14) The apostle here anticipates an objection which he expect- 
 ed the Jew would make to his argument, which urges the necessity 
 of calling on Christ in order to be saved : ' How shall one call on 
 him, unless he is first a believer in him, i. e. first persuaded that he 
 is the proper object of religious invocation? And how shall he be- 
 lieve this, provided no declaration of it has been made to him ? And 
 how can such a declaration be made, unless by a messenger or 
 preacher duly commissioned ? For the Scripture itself bestows its 
 encomiums on such messengers, and thus impliedly recognizes the 
 importance of them.' To all this, the apostle answers in the se- 
 quel, vs. 16, seq. 
 
428 ROMANS 10 : 14. 
 
 It seems to me almost a matter of indifference, whether (withGro- 
 tius) we suppose the apostle to introduce an objector as speaking 
 here, in the person of an unbelieving Jew; or whether (with Tho- 
 luck and most commentators) we suppose the apostle himself to utter 
 the words in question. If we attribute them to the apostle, we must 
 suppose him to be uttering what an objector would naturally say ; 
 and this is the substantial part of the whole matter. It can be of no 
 consequence, by whom it is uttered. 
 
 Nor is it necessary to suppose, that all which comes from an ob- 
 jector is false. The speciousness of the objection consists in the 
 claims of some part of it to be considered as true. We may con- 
 cede, therefore, that the reasoning of the objector here is correct, if 
 you allow him his premises ; i. e. it is true, that men must first be- 
 lieve on a Saviour, before they will call upon him ; and that he must 
 be preached to them, before they can believe on him ; and that in 
 order to this, there must be some one to preach. It is true that the 
 Scripture recognizes the importance of such messengers. But then, 
 the main question here after all is, whether the fact assumed as a ba- 
 sis of all this reasoning, viz. that the Jew had not heard the gospel, 
 is true. The apostle proceeds in the sequel to shew, that this is not 
 the case ; and therefore the whole objection falls to the ground. 
 
 Iliog ovv .... inlcsitvauv, how, now, shall they call [on him] in 
 whom they have not believed? i. e. how shall they pray to him, do re- 
 ligious homage to him, who is not the object of belief or confidence ? 
 Ovv marks here a relation to the foregoing assertions. "It is used," 
 says Passow, " in interrogative sentences, with reference to preceding 
 assertions, which are conceded." So here, the objector (or Paul in 
 his place) concedes, that " the same Lord of all abounds in goodness 
 to all that call upon him," (as had been asserted); but he has some 
 questions to ask, that are raised by this declaration, and by which 
 he aims to apologize for the unbelief of the Jews. Tlcog ovv, etc., is 
 as much then as to say : ' Conceding all this, still I ask/ etc. This 
 delicate shade of ovv is not noted in the lexicons of Wahl and Bret- 
 schneider. 
 
 JEi's ov here must mean the Lord Jesus Christ; for surely he is 
 the specific object of faith or belief, about which the apostle is here 
 discoursing. 
 
 Tlmg di maitvnoiiacv [fig aviov] ov ova ijrtovaap ; and how 
 shall they believe [on him] of whom they have not heard ? That is, 
 before one can believe on a Saviour, he must have some knowledge 
 
ROMANS 10: 15. 429 
 
 of him ; this Saviour must be proclaimed to him. Ov here is the 
 Genitive governed by rjy.ovaui/' "verba sensiis gaudent Genitivo." — 
 A'ijovaooi>Tog, a preacher, is one who proclaims in public any matter, 
 who publishes aloud ; in the Hebrew "liSaB . 
 
 (15) ri(og di . . . . ccnoGiu\«)GL ; And how shall the;/ preach, ex- 
 cept they be sent ? i. e. unless they are divinely commissioned ; comp. 
 Jer. 23: 21. 
 
 KuOtog yf'ygunrai, even so it is written. The connection of the 
 sentiment which follows with that which precedes, I have found ex- 
 hibited in no commentator so as to satisfy me. Most critics do not 
 appear to have felt any difficulty with the passage, and have said lit- 
 tle or nothing to the purpose upon it. But in my own mind there 
 has always been a serious difficulty, in seeing how the sequel here 
 either illustrates or confirms the declaration immediately preceding. 
 I am not able now to see that this is effected in any other way than 
 the following; viz. 'the importance of the heralds of salvation, in 
 order to bring men to believe on a Saviour, is implied in the high 
 commendation which the Scripture bestows upon them.' This is 
 truly implied by the words quoted ; for why should these heralds be 
 spoken of with high and joyful commendation, if they are not im- 
 portant instruments in the salvation of men 1 So the apostle in 
 making this quotation, (for I suppose him, and not the objector, to 
 cite the words of Isaiah), concedes, for substance, what had been 
 implied in the questions just asked. 
 
 'Sigojguloi . . . tcc dyadct, how beautiful are the feet of those who 
 publish salvation, who proclaim good tidings! The Septuagint trans- 
 lates thus : o>g 6)t>u tnl toji> oqhov, o)g nodeg evayyfkcCopt'fOv <xy.o- 
 t}v tiorivrig, a>§ tvayyehCopevog uyuOu! So the Codex Vaticanus ; 
 but what the sense of such a text can be, it is difficult indeed to 
 make out. The Hebrew runs thus : " How beautiful on the moun- 
 tains, are the feet of him who proclaims glad tidings, who publishes 
 peace, who makes proclamation of good!" Is. 52: 7. Paul has evi- 
 dently made a new translation, in his quotation ; but he has abridged 
 the original Hebrew. — 01 nodig, feet, i.e. a part of the person taken 
 for the whole ; as often in Hebrew, and so in other languages ; comp. 
 Acts 5: 9. The reason why ol nodtg is here chosen rather than any 
 other part of the body, to be the representative of person, would 
 seem to be, that the heralds who proclaim any thing, C'liB^n , tra- 
 vel from place to place in order to discharge their duty. 
 
 EiQ^ptjv, BlbttJ, good, salvation, good in its most extensive 
 
430 ROMANS 10: 1G. 
 
 sense. — Evayyili^oi means primarily, according to its etymology, to 
 publish good news. But secondarily, it conveys only the general 
 idea, to publish ; consequently it takes after it a noun indicating the 
 thing published, as here eipqvijv . . . . ra uyadu. 
 
 (16) ' A\t ov nai'Tig .... tvayytkiat, but all have not obeyed 
 the gospel ; i. e. all to whom it has been published, have not become 
 obedient to it. So I feel compelled to explain this passage ; on the 
 connection of which I have been able to find no commentator who 
 has given me satisfaction. The connection I take to be thus. The 
 objector, in vs. 14, 15, pleads by way of apology for his unbe- 
 lieving countrymen, that it could not be expected they would believe 
 without the gospel being preached to them ; thus intimating that 
 many of them had not heard it proclaimed. To this the apostle an- 
 swers, (1) That many who had heard it, viz. such as the objector 
 himself must concede had heard it, did not believe it ; and he quotes 
 Is. 53: 1, in order to shew that the great prophet had predicted this 
 same thing. 
 
 To this the Jew replies, that the very quotation which he makes, 
 contains an implication of the sentiment, that men must hear the 
 gospel before they can believe it ; meaning thereby to intimate, that 
 a part of his kinsmen after the flesh, at least, are not to be involved 
 in the charge of criminal unbelief. This last intimation the apostle 
 immediately takes up, and replies to it, (2) In vs. 18 — 21, by re- 
 peated quotations from the old Testament, shewing that they all 
 had heard the glad tidings of the gospel, or at least shewing that 
 what was said in ancient times of the Jews, in respect to the warn- 
 ings and promises of God, may now be said with equal truth and 
 propriety. It is the principle of the apostle's assertion or reasoning, 
 which he designs to support and justify, by these quotations. 
 
 In both ancient and gospel times, it could never have been strictly 
 and literally true, that to every individual Jew the message of life and 
 salvation had been actually proclaimed. Nor was this necessary to 
 the apostle's purpose. It was enough, if the proclamation had been 
 openly, and repeatedly, and perseveringly made among the Jews, so 
 that all icho would, had opportunities of hearing it. Their igno- 
 rance, in such a case, would of course be voluntary ; and therefore, 
 altogether without excuse. 
 
 It is so at the present hour. Thousands in this land have never 
 heard a gospel sermon, or read a book which disclosed the truths of 
 the gospel, in their whole lives. But why ? The sound of the gospel 
 
ROMANS 10: 1G— 18. 431 
 
 is gone out into all the land, its words even to the end thereof; and 
 ignorance is, certainly for the most part, voluntary and criminal ; 
 nor can it be justly alleged as making at all against the general as- 
 sertion, that the terms of salvation are published to all. 
 
 With this explanation of the course of thought, our future way 
 will be comparatively easy and plain. 
 
 'Hoatag .... i][i(xiv, for Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed 
 our report? Is. 53: 1. That is, the prophet complains, that the 
 declarations which he had made respecting the Messiah, were not 
 credited by those who heard them. Here then is an example of Jews 
 who hear and believe not ; and one to the apostle's purpose, who had 
 just said, that not all the Jews who did hear, believed the gospel. 
 The same thing is asserted by Isaiah, which the apostle now asserts ; 
 so that he could not be accused of producing a new or strange 
 charge. 
 
 (17) y/pa .... tftov, faith then does come by hearing, and 
 hearing by the word of God; i. e. the very quotation you make 
 concedes the principle, that the gospel must first be published be- 
 fore men can be taxed with criminality for unbelief; for Isaiah 
 complains of those to whom it had been published. — \H dt uxor/ did 
 {ji](AUTog tov &tov, i.e. the word of God, the gospel, must first be 
 proclaimed before it can be heard, understood, and believed. The 
 verse I take, without any doubt, to be the suggestion of the objector. 
 He means to insist by it, that many of the Jews are not culpable for 
 unbelief, inasmuch as they have not heard the gospel, and hearing it 
 is necessary to the believing of it. 
 
 (18) The apostle admits the correctness of the principle, viz. 
 that faith cometh by hearing ; but he denies the fact which was im- 
 plied in the statement of it, viz. that there was a part of the Jewish 
 nation who had not heard, i.e. who had not enjoyed the opportunity 
 to hear. So the sequel : 
 
 AXXu Xiyo) .... ijxovouv ; but 1 reply : Have they not heard? 
 Mevovvye, yes, verily ; compounded of [xtv, ovv, and ye. Mivoxiv 
 asserts, and ye increases the intensity of the assertion. 
 
 Eig tiuouv . . . . tcc Qt]f.iaTu avxwv, quoted from Ps. 19: 5, in the 
 words of the Septuagint, which here follows the Hebrew. 'O yOoy- 
 yog auiiov, in the original Psalm, means the voice or sound of the 
 works of nature, which shew or declare, in all the earth, that he who 
 made them is God, and the God of glory. The apostle uses the 
 words, in this place, simply as the vehicle of his own thoughts, as 
 
432 ROMANS 10: 19. 
 
 they were very convenient and appropriate. The expressions nuauv 
 Trjvytjv and r« nigaru ttjg oixovjiivtiQ, are common and figurative ex- 
 pressions, to designate what has gone far and wide, what is unlimited 
 in extent, etc. As originally employed by the Psalmist, they may be 
 taken in their greatest latitude. As used by the apostle, they may 
 be taken in the like latitude, so far as the Jews are concerned ; for it 
 is of them, and them only, that he is here speaking. 
 
 (19) AWu kt'yo), I say moreover, i. e. in addition to what I have 
 said of the opportunity of the Jews universally to hear the gospel ; / 
 say also. " 'AXka transitum facit, . . . cum res augenda sit." 
 
 3ft] Jogur t \ ova, lyvoi ; Doth not Israel know ? What — is not 
 said ; but it is to be gathered from the subsequent context ; and if so, 
 it is clear that the sentiment is : ' Doth not Israel know, (as I have 
 before said vs. 11, 12), that the Gentiles are to be received as well as 
 the Jews, and the Jews to be cast off for unbelief?' The apos- 
 tle now proceeds to quote passages of the Old Testament, which 
 shew that the ancient prophets have explicitly declared the same 
 thing. The answer to a question asked by [ai] ... . ovtt, is affirma- 
 tive, because ova takes the lead in the sense. 
 
 Tlgonog MwvaijQ Xtyei, first, 3foses saith. Ugonog I under- 
 stand here as meaning, first in point or order of time; like the He- 
 brew ■JTiJN'n ; comp. the Lex. under Tigwrog. 
 
 'Eyio .... Tiugoyyio) vfAug, 1 will move you to jealousy by that 
 which is no nation, I will excite your indignation by a foolish people; 
 i. e. I will make you jealous, by receiving to favour those whom you 
 regard as unworthy of the name of a people, {tdvog, "'Til), viz. the 
 Gentiles ; I will render you indignant, by receiving to favour a fool- 
 ish people, bs: "HS. The Hebrew rz: designates one that is spiritu- 
 ally foolish, i. e. a wicked, unbelieving person, who contemns God. 
 " The fool (r^:) hath said in his heart : There is no God." " Fools 
 (a" 1 ^:) make a mock at sin." Consequently, the epithet uovptrog 
 here designates a wicked or idolatrous people. The meaning of the 
 whole is : ' I will receive to my favour the heathen whom you regard 
 as despicable, and who are without God and without hope in the 
 world.' 
 
 In Deut. 32: 21 (from which these words are quoted), God com- 
 plains of the Jews, that they had apostatized from him and gone after 
 idols, and thus provoked his jealousy and indignation. Because they 
 had so done, he declares that he will, at some future period, provoke 
 them and excite their jealousy, by receiving a heathen, idolatrous 
 people in their stead. 
 
ROMANS 10:20,21. 433 
 
 Whether Moses, in Deut. 32: 21, had in view the salvation of the 
 Gentiles in gospel-times, cannot well be determined. There is noth- 
 ing in the context adapted to prove it; and, I may add, nothing which 
 forbids this supposition. Be this however as it may, it is enough for 
 the apostle's purpose, that the same principle is developed in the 
 words of Moses, which is developed by the reception of the Gentiles 
 into the Christian church in his time. Now as the Jews were jealous 
 and angry, because of this reception ; so the apostle might appeal to 
 the declarations of Moses, as an exhibition of the very same views 
 and sentiments which he had been teaching. 
 
 (20) ' Hocti'ag di . . . ?Jytt, but Isaiah comes out boldly and says. 
 In UTioTo).fia, the ano augments the signification ; and this is often, 
 though not always, the case, when prepositions are compounded with 
 verbs. 
 
 Evyi$i]v . . . inigooiojot, I was found by those who sought me not, 
 I manifested myself to those who did not inquire after me; i. e. the 
 Gentiles, who had been accustomed to serve dumb idols, and had no 
 knowledge of the true God, and did not seek after him, have, through 
 the gospel, been brought near to him, and he has, in Christ, disclosed 
 himself to those who before were in utter ignorance of him, and made 
 no inquiries for him. The passage is quoted from Is. 65: 1, " i n£"3T3 
 "^aipa Nrb TiNSE; lbN*J N?b , which the Seventy have translated 
 agreeably to the words of the apostle, but in citing these words Paul has 
 reversed the order of the clauses. The translation is ad sensum only ; 
 the more literal and exact shade of meaning in the Hebrew, is : J am 
 sought after [viz. as an object of religious inquiry and worship], by 
 those who have not [hitherto] asked after me ; I am found, by those 
 who did not seek for me. But as the purpose of the apostle is merely 
 to designate the general idea of the prophet, viz. that God would be 
 worshipped, at some future time, by those who had hitherto been 
 " strangers to the covenant of promise," and " without God in the 
 world," so the version of the Seventy is fully adequate to his purpose. 
 
 Thus far the apostle quotes in respect to the reception of the Gen- 
 tiles. There still remains an important part behind, viz. the rejection 
 of the Jews for their unbelief; or at least their unbelief itself, which 
 implies their consequent rejection. 
 
 (21) IJoog di .... ariiltyovia, but concerning Israelite saith : 
 All the day long, have I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and 
 gainsaying people. " 0\v\v ir t v ijfitQuv, tDVrj-'rS, continually, con- 
 stantly, without intermission; which implies long and persevering 
 55 
 
434 CONTENTS OF ROM. 11:1— 36. 
 
 efforts on the part of God's messengers to the Jews, and peculiar 
 hardness of heart and blindness of mind on their part. To stretch 
 out the hands, is to address by way of inviting, beckoning, beseeching, 
 warning; comp. Prov. 1:24. — ' Amt&ovvxa characterizes unbelief 
 in what is said by God's messengers; uvxdt'yovia, ?-esistance or 
 gainsaying. 
 
 Thus has the apostle shewn once more, and in a way different 
 from that which he took in chap, iv., that the Gentiles stand on an 
 equal footing with the Jews, as to gospel privileges ; that God may, in 
 perfect consistency with his ancient promises and declarations, cast 
 off the Jews when they persist in unbelief, and receive believing Gen- 
 tiles as his people, in their stead. The repulsive nature of this doc- 
 trine to the feelings of his proud and self-righteous countrymen, seems 
 to be the reason why the apostle recurs to it so often, and enforces it 
 by such repeated appeals to the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAP. XI. 1— 3G. 
 
 The apostle, having thus plainly asserted the rejection of the Jews, and the 
 reception of the Gentiles into their place as the people of God, and this 
 without having yet made particular explanations or limitations, now proceeds 
 to suggest various considerations which might serve to correct the wrong 
 views that his countrymen would probably entertain, in regard to the declara- 
 tions which he had just made. The Jew would very naturally ask, (as Paul 
 suotjests in v. 1) : 'Is it true, then, that God has actually cast his people away, 
 to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the 
 promises'' Can this be consistent with his veracity and his faithfulness — with 
 the numerous promises which he made to Abraham, and which he often con- 
 firmed and repeated to his posterity ?' 
 
 It was natural for a Jew to ask such questions ; and the apostle, anticipating 
 them, proceeds in chap. xi. to answer them. He shews, vs. 1 — 5, that now, as 
 formerly in times of the greatest declension, God has still a remnant among 
 his people, who are true believers, i.e. belong to the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
 But this remnant are, as he has already maintained in chaps, vin. ix., those 
 whom the election of God according to his purposes of grace has made the 
 subjects of his mercy, and who are not saved by their own merits; while the 
 rest are given up to their own hardness of heart and blindness of mind, even 
 as their own Scriptures have expressly foretold, vs. 6 — 10. Yet it will not 
 always remain thus. The whole of the nation will, at some future day, be 
 brought within the pale of the Christian church. Their present general unbe- 
 lief is now the occasion of the gospel being preached to the Gentiles, and of 
 the increase of the Christian church among them ; so that even their rejection 
 has been the occasion of blessings to others. How much more, then, is to be 
 hoped, from their general return to God ! vs. 11 — 15. 
 
 This return must take place. The nation, from its origin, were consecrated 
 to God, and they must yet return to him ; for although some of its branches 
 were broken off because of unbelief, and others were grafted in to supply their 
 place, yet in due time they will be again received. The Gentiles, therefore, 
 who have been grafted in, can have no reason to indulge in pride and boast- 
 ing on account of this. They are cautioned against such a spirit, and exhorted 
 
ROMANS 11:1,2. 435 
 
 to guard with the greatest watchfulness against unbelief, since this would 
 occasion them also to be rejected. Nor ought the}' to demean themselves 
 loftily toward the Jews, who were yet to be received back to the divine favour, 
 and fully restored as the people of God, vs. 16 — 27. Although they are now 
 enemies of the gospel, good comes to the Gentiles through this; and the 
 promises made to their fathers of old are not forgotten, and will yet be fully 
 carried into execution, vs. 23, 20. They, although now in a state of unbelief, 
 will obtain mercy in the like manner as the Gentiles have obtained it, who 
 were once in the same state, vs. 30, 31. For God had shewed both Gentiles 
 and Jews, that they were included it) unbelief, and justly subject to the condem- 
 ning sentence of the law ; and he has suffered them to come into such a state, 
 that he might display, in the more signal manner, his mercy toward them, v. 
 32. The ways and judgments of God, in his proceedings with Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, are beyond the reach of human wisdom ; the}' are deep, unfathomable 
 mysteries, which can be fully searched out and known, only by the Infinite 
 Mind. We can admire and adore, but never fathom the depths thereof, vs. 
 33— 3G. 
 
 At last, then, the apostle comes fully to the conclusion, that there arc mys- 
 teries in the divine proceedings relative to the reception of some and the 
 rejection of others, which are entirely beyond the reach of human comprehen- 
 sion. God has reserved the reasons of such proceedings to himself, and not 
 disclosed them to his creatures. If this be truly the case, then is there not 
 something more in these awful mysteries, than what those admit or believe, 
 who strenuously reject the doctrine of election ? On the ground which they 
 maintain, I do not see why the mind of Paul should be so deeply affected with 
 the mysterious and unsearchable nature of the whole transaction. This is, 
 indeed, a very obvious remark ; but I must leave it to the reader, whether it 
 has not an important bearing on the exegesis of chaps, vm. is. xi., and some 
 other parts of this epistle. I can not help thinking that Paul had something 
 more in his mind, than they have who read him in the manner stated — some- 
 thing different, also, from that which they admit. 
 
 (1) Af'yco ovv the words of an objector; as much as to say : 
 ' If this be true which you affirm, then must it not follow, that God 
 has rejected his chosen people?' Ovv is very common in ques- 
 tions, which have a reference to what had been before said. 
 
 Tov l.aov uvtov, his oini people, i.e. his own peculiar people, the 
 Jews. And here the objector means by luov uvtov, the whole of 
 the nation, as the sequel, which exhibits the answer, evidently shews. 
 In reply to the question thus put, Paul answers, that a universal 
 rejection of the Jews was not meant to be affirmed by what he had 
 said. He adduces himself as an exception to such a rejection, and a 
 proof that it was not meant to be asserted by him. — / am an Israel, 
 ite, i. e. a descendant of Israel ; e« ont'g^iuTog'A^guup, is only a sy- 
 nonyme with the preceding expression, for the purpose of amplifica- 
 tion, or with particular reference to the same phrase which is often 
 repeated in the Old Testament. — (living Bivtupiv, so he describes 
 himself in Phil. 3: 5. It is merely a circumstance of particularity in 
 description, which serves to make it more impressive. 
 
 (2) Ovx .... Tigoiyvo), God hath not cast away his people whom 
 he foreknew, i.e. whom he before determined or decided should be 
 
436 ROMANS 11:2—4. 
 
 his people. In other words, he has not utterly rejected the Jewish 
 people, whom he from the first ordained to be his people. See on the 
 word ngot'yvo), in Chap. 8: 29 ; and compare v. 29 below. To ren- 
 der nQOtyvb), formerly acknowledged, does not accord with the design 
 of the passage. 
 
 *H qvy. .... r] ygaqq, know ye not what the Scripture says in 
 Elijah? i.e. in that part or portion of it which is cited by the name 
 of Elijah, because it contains his history. The division of the Scrip- 
 ture into chapters and verses, is a modern thing ; nothing of this 
 kind occurs in the writings of the ancient Fathers. Such a division 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures was made by Hugo de Cardinalis in the 
 twelfth century ; and of the New Testament, by the famous printer 
 and editor, Robert Stephens. Of course, reference to the Scriptures 
 in ancient times was in a very different way from that now practised ; 
 and was, for the most part, such as we see in the verse before us. 
 So the Rabbies cite, in the Mishna ; and so the Greek authors were 
 accustomed to cite Homer; e. g. iv io> icou vtojv xarukoyoi, in the 
 catalogue of the ships, i. e. the passage which contains such a cata- 
 logue, etc.; comp. Mark 12: 26, em zov (jutov, i. e. in the passage 
 which gives an account of the burning bush. 
 
 'S2g, tohen ; so it often signifies. ' Evxvy/uvii . . . . xutu, means 
 to plead against, to make intercession against; as ti>Tvy%uviiv .... 
 vntQ means, to intercede for. 
 
 (3) Kv<ju .... fxov, cited from 1 K. 19: 10, ad sensum and with 
 contractions ; also not exactly in the order of the Hebrew text which 
 runs thus : " And he [Elijah] said, I am very jealous for Jehovah, 
 the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy cove- 
 nant, they have destroyed thine altars, and killed thy prophets ; and I 
 only am left, and they seek my life to take it away." The prophet 
 complains, in these words, of what he supposed to be the universal 
 apostasy of Israel. Kuitoxaipuv, lit. digged down ; for altars were 
 usually made with stones and earth or turf, so that digging down char- 
 acterises the kind of effort necessary to destroy them. — Ti]v xfjv^ijp, 
 natural or animal life ; so, often, in the Hebrew ; comp. Matt. 2: 20. 
 
 (4) XQ7}}iUTt,Gn6$, divine response, from "/gtjuuTt£oj, to do public 
 business, to give public responses, etc. In the New Testament, it is 
 applied only to the response or warning of the true God. Epuviw, Da- 
 tivus commodi, as grammarians say, viz. the person or thing to which 
 any thing is, or is done, is put in the Dative; for myself means, for 
 my service. — ' -EmattiG%tkloug avdoug- the number seven is probably 
 
ROMANS 11: 4, 5. 437 
 
 employed here in the way of a round number, i. e. a definite instead of 
 an indefinite number. So the Romans were wont to use sexcenti ; 
 and in like manner 70 and 40 are frequently used in the Scripture. 
 So much, however, is to be understood by it here, viz. a very consid- 
 erable number. 
 
 " jExuf-iipav yofVj, bowed the knee, a part of the religious service 
 rendered to idols. Bowing the knee is the attitude of reverence and 
 supplication. Tt\ Baal, with the fern, article rrj ' and so also in the 
 Sept., in Hos. 2: 8. Jer. 2: 8. 19: 5. Zeph. 1: 4,' also Tobit 1: 5. To 
 solve this singular appearance, (for Baal generally has the masc. ar- 
 ticle), Erasmus, Beza, and Grotius suppose that i] (ixojv is understood, 
 so that the full expression would be tij eixofi BduX. Others (e.g. 
 Brais, Beyer, C. Schmid) suppose that there was a female deity by 
 the name of Baal, i. e. the moon ; like *|^5b and rp.b.72 (Jer. 32: 35. 
 44: 17, 18, 19, 25), which were symbols of the sun and moon. But 
 the objection to this is, that in Jer. 32: 35, r\ Baal (fern.) is the same 
 as 6 Mo\6% (masc). Others suppose that Baal was uvdgoyvvtjg, a 
 hermaphrodite divinity, and so might take either 6 or r\ ; like the La- 
 tin Deus Lunus and Dea Luna ; and this seems most probable. 
 Others solve it by supposing the f cm. article to be applied in the way of 
 contempt; just as Mohammed (Koran. Sur. LIII.) speaks with con- 
 tempt of the heathen Arabians, who had gods with fern, names ; and 
 so in Arabic, the name of an idol is &&.aM, God (in the fern.); and 
 so the Rabbins call idol gods, rririVN , gods (fem.) 
 
 (5) Ovtwg y.ccl . . .. yt'yovev, in like manner note, even at the pre- 
 sent time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace ; i. e. as 
 in ancient times, when it appeared to the prophet Elijah as if aposta- 
 sy was universal among his countrymen, and yet there were not a kw 
 sincere worshippers of the true God, although unknown to him: so 
 at the present time, although the unbelief of the Jews appears to be 
 nearly universal, yet God has a people among them, viz. all such as 
 he has of his mercy chosen to eternal life ; comp. 8: 28, seq. 9: 15, 16, 
 23, 27. — slelppu, a remnant, i. e. a small number, a part, which 
 though considerable in itself, is small compared with another part. 
 So here, the number of Jewish believers, although then considerable 
 and important, was small compared with the whole number of unbe- 
 lievers. Consequently leJfAua may be used to designate it ; comp. 9: 
 27. — Acer ixXoyi/v %uoitoq, according to an election which is not 
 made on the ground of merit, but of mercy. God has not chosen Jew- 
 ish believers unto salvation, because their obedience first made them 
 
438 ROMANS 11 :G, 7, 
 
 the objects of his choice ; but he chose them because he had mercy 
 on them ; comp. the texts cited above from Rom. ix., and the com- 
 mentary on them. 
 
 That the apostle means fully to convey such a sentiment, is plain 
 from the verse that follows ; viz. 
 
 (6) El di .... I'gycov, but if it be of grace, then it is not at all 
 of ivories ; i. e. if God's ixXoy/j, his choosing this Xtlf.i(ia to salvation, 
 be gratuitous on his part, and wholly unmerited on the part of man, 
 it follows that it is not i£ tQyxov, i. e. that it is not meritorious, it is 
 not on account of any desert on the part of men either seen or fore- 
 seen, that he makes them the objects of his mercy. — 'jEtih y . . . . 
 %aplg, otherwise grace would no longer be grace ; i. e. if this were 
 not so, then it would be improper to speak of grace in our salvation ; 
 for if men are chosen on account of any merit or desert, then grace 
 is not the ground of their being chosen, but merit ; which would 
 contradict the very idea of grace. 
 
 This must be true ; for men are saved either because they have 
 wholly obeyed the divine law, or on the ground of grace merely ; i. e. 
 they are saved either because they are able to advance claims which 
 meet the demands of the law, or else it must be on the ground of 
 pure gratuity. Now as all men have sinned, it is not the first ; of 
 course it must be the second. If you ask : ' May it not be partly 
 by grace, and partly by merit V Then our text lies directly in the 
 way of an affirmative answer, (as do many others also) ; and it is, 
 moreover, a conclusive answer in the negative to this, that "every one 
 is cursed, who continueth not in all things written in the book of the 
 law to do them ;" " the soul that sinneth shall die." 
 
 El dt . . . . tgyoiv, but if of works, then it is not at all of grace, 
 otherwise work is no more work ; the mere converse of the preceding 
 sentiment, and most probably a gloss from the margin. It is omitted 
 in Codices A. B. C. D. E. F. G. 47, and in the Coptic, Armenian, 
 Aethiopic, Vulgate, and Italic versions ; also in Chrysostom, Theo- 
 doret, Damascenus, Jerome, and generally in the Latin Fathers. 
 Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Tholuck, Flatt, and others, 
 regard it as spurious. At all events, it adds nothing to the sentiment 
 of the passage ; but is merely an echo, in another form, of the pre- 
 ceding sentiment. 
 
 (7) Tlovv; what then, i.e. what is the sum and substance of 
 that which I have been saying ? — O Int^rjiH .... ZntTV%i, that 
 tvhich Israel sought after, he hath not obtained; i. e. the justification 
 
ROMANS 11:7. 439 
 
 which he sought to obtain by his own merit (comp. 10: 3), he has not 
 obtained. — Tovio is, in many manuscripts and copies, toviov for 
 tntTvyyavo) almost always governs the Genitive in Greek, poetry 
 only being excepted, where it sometimes takes the Accusative. Still, 
 the weight of authority, in the present case, is in favour of ioviu ' 
 and accordingly Dr. Knapp receives it into the text. 
 
 '71 di ixloyt], but the election, i. e. the elect, the abstract (as gram- 
 marians say) being put for the concrete, as is often the case ; e. g. 
 Rom. 2: 26, 27 etc. The meaning is : ' Although the Jews, who 
 have sought justification by their own merit, have altogether failed as 
 to obtaining this end ; yet those who are called, according to the gra- 
 cious purpose of God (8: 28), are justified by his mercy through Christ 
 Jesus ; they have obtained justification in a way which others reject- 
 ed, and therefore have not failed in the accomplishment of their 
 object.' 
 
 01 di Xomoi, i. e. the unbelieving part of the Jews, those who did 
 not belong to the exXoyij. — Etxo}qco&7](5(xv, were blinded. The word 
 ncoQog is equivalent to TV(pXog' and the verb jicopo'o), in the active 
 voice, means to make blind, in the passive, to be blind, to become blind, 
 etc. It is applied, in a secondary sense, to the mind; and so the 
 apostle here employs it. It indicates state or condition; but not 
 necessarily the cause or agent by which that state or condition is 
 produced. Thus ol loinol inooQwdijoav may mean merely, that the 
 remainder (the unbelieving part of the Jews) were in a state of blind- 
 ness. In itself, also, it is capable of designating the idea, that they 
 were made blind, by the agency of another ; and in this case, if this 
 be the idea, the implication would be, that the agency was God's. If 
 there be difficulty in admitting this sentiment, there is no more than 
 is contained in chap. 9: 17, 18 ; and I must refer the reader to what 
 is said on those verses, in order to avoid repetition here. — To all 
 those who contend vehemently against such an exegesis, and regard 
 it as dishonourable and reproachful to God, and as utterly unfounded, 
 I can only say : Tell us ingenuously, whether the gloss you put on 
 9: 17, IS is not an explaining away of the text, rather than an ex- 
 planation of it? Can the conclusion be avoided, by any candid 
 philologist, that the text does there assert, that in some sense or other 
 the agency of God is concerned with the hardening of sinners ? In 
 what sense ? is a very serious and very important question, and one 
 which I have endeavoured there to answer in a Scriptural manner. 
 And in the case now before us, if inwQm&Jioav merely designates state 
 
440 ROMANS 11:7,8. 
 
 or condition, (as Bretschneider, Wahl, Tholuck, Flatt, and many 
 others maintain), then to what purpose, I would ask, is the quotation 
 in the next three following verses? Do these also designate no 
 agent ? If you say : ' These are only examples for illustration, but not 
 predictions ;' I grant it. But then, how will these examples illustrate 
 the case before the writer, unless they exhibit a principle which is the 
 same as that avowed by the writer? And can v. 8 be construed 
 without the supposition that an agent is designated, who is, in some 
 way or other, concerned with the ocpOuXfiOvg iov pr} fikf'netv, i. e. 
 with the Tio'lQtooig of Israel? This is impossible, unless we do away 
 by violence the most obvious sense of the apostle's words. The 
 question whether some agency on the part of God is asserted to be 
 concerned with all this, seems to be one which cannot receive a 
 negative answer, salvo textii et salvd fide bond. But the question 
 whether such an agency is concerned, as makes God the proper au- 
 thor of men's moral blindness and sins, or whether men are free 
 agents and altogether accountable for their own actions, is a very 
 different one, and about which the Bible leaves us no room to doubt; 
 see James 1: 13, 14. 
 
 (8) Kaftwq ytyQanxav does not of necessity mean, that what fol- 
 lows is & prediction, in the appropriate sense of the word. It is a clear 
 case, that nothing can be decided from the mere formula of quotation ; 
 for very different formulas precede one and the same text, quoted for 
 one and the same purpose. Here I take the force of xadwg to fall 
 upon sameness of principle, in the two cases which are brought into 
 the comparison ; i. e. as in ancient times God declares respecting 
 Israel (Is. 29: 10. Deut. 29: 4), that he gives them the spirit of slum- 
 ber, blind eyes, and deaf ears ; so now, the same thing is true respect- 
 ing unbelievers among the Jews ; for they are blinded, tjicDfjajOrjoav. 
 
 Edwxev .... xarvv'ttajg, God hath given to them a slumbering 
 spirit, or the spirit of deep sleep, !~;£!~nn . The original Hebrew 
 runs thus, Sia'jnFi nvn "irp t^bs "Jp: 72 ; which the Seventy have 
 rendered thus : Oto Tifnoimfv u/nag Avyiog nfivfiart xuTui'vtfcog' 
 but the apostle, in rendering 'TjC: by tdojxt, has translated ad sensum, 
 not ad vcrbum. The Hebrew designates the idea of pouring out, 
 on the hardened Jews, the spirit of profound sleep ; while Paul retains 
 only the generic idea of communicating such a spirit to them, drop- 
 ping the particular image which the Hebrew presents. It is plain, 
 that in this case, as in many others, the apostle makes his own 
 translation de novo from the Hebrew. 
 
ROMANS 11:8,9. 441 
 
 OqftaXfiovg .... tjfiigag, eyes that see not, and ears that hear 
 not, unto this day. The original Hebrew in Deut 29: 4 runs thus : 
 " For Jehovah hath not given you a heart to understand, nor eyes to 
 see, nor ears to hear, unto this day." If this be the passage which 
 Paul had in his mind, he quotes merely ad sensum. The Hebrew 
 declares, that ' God has not given Israel seeing eyes and hearing 
 ears ;' the apostle says, that ' he has given them eyes that see not, 
 and ears that hear not ;' the first being in the negative form as to 
 the verb, and affirmative in respect to the rest of the sentence ; 
 while the second is in the affirmative form as to the verb, and ne- 
 gative as to the rest of the sentence. It remains, then, in order 
 to make out a quotation ad sensum, merely to inquire, whether 
 it is in substance the same thing, to say that ' God has not given 
 seeing eyes and hearing ears,' as it is to say, that ' God has given 
 eyes that see not and ears that hear not.' The latter sounds to our 
 ear, as if it indicated more active interposition on the part of God ; 
 but not so to the Biblical writers, who, beyond all reasonable doubt, 
 regarded these expressions as equivalent. It would be easy to prove 
 this, from a multitude of passages which assert agency on the part of 
 God, when at the very same time the wicked, (to whom this agency 
 has respect), are represented as the cause of their own ruin, by 
 their own voluntary sins. Comp. what is said on chap. 9: 17, 18 above. 
 
 Dr. Knapp (in his New Testament), and some other critics, sup- 
 pose that Paul has quoted oqOuX/novg v.. r. X., from Is. G: 10, and that 
 iojg trjg o?]/.tfgov ^(.ugag belongs not to the quotation, but are the 
 apostle's own words ; and so Dr. Knapp has marked it in his Testa- 
 ment, placing the closing member of the parenthesis which includes 
 the quotation, after pij axovtiv, thus joining tag ztjg oypfpovrjiutgag 
 with ol Xomol tnioooj&rjoai'. But this attributes an idiom to Paul, 
 which he seems to have made a very unfrequent use of. ' Ewg zijg 
 ot'tfifgov i]f.tigug belongs to the Old Testament, to writers who chron- 
 icled earlier events and spoke of earlier times, which they occasion- 
 ally compared with present events and times. Moses could well 
 make use of this expression, in Deut. 29: 4 ; Paul could use it, for 
 he has once employed it (2 Cor. 3: 15 tcog arj^ifgov), where it is ex- 
 actly the expression which he there needed. But it is difficult to 
 make it probable that these words are his, in Rom. 11: 8. 
 
 (9) A'ul Aav'td Xt'yii, David also says; i.e. nor are these the 
 only passages of Scripture which speak the same sentiment, or de- 
 velope the same principle. David, your most renowned king, and the 
 56 
 
442 ROMANS 11 : 9, 10. 
 
 most favourite of all your sacred poets, also utters sentiments still 
 more severe. 
 
 levrjirtjio) .... uvrolg, let their table be a snare to take them, 
 and an occasion of falling, and a recompense to them ; i. e. let their 
 season of enjoyment and refreshment, when they expect quietude 
 and pleasure, and feel themselves to be safe, prove to be a season of 
 chastisement and danger, and of righteous retribution. The quota- 
 tion is from Ps. 69: 23 (22), but not ad verbum from either the He- 
 brew or the Septuagint. The Hebrew, according to its present vow- 
 els, runs thus : " Let their table before them be a snare ; yea, a gin 
 to those who feel themselves to be secure." The Septuagint (Ps. 68: 
 22) has i] TQaTit^a uvuov Ivmhiov uvtojv fig naylda, xal fig uina- 
 ■nod'oniv, xal tig vxavdaXov so that the apostle has changed the or- 
 der, and also some of the words (putting ccvTcxnodoj-ia for avTanodo- 
 oiv), and left out ivwmov uvtojv. In short, he has plainly made a 
 version of his own, in which he has inserted fig {tynav, an addition 
 of his own, designed to give the sense of elg nayidw for tig &})quv 
 means, that they may be taken, or that they may be destroyed, as this 
 would follow their being taken. As to elg afTun6d'of.ia (Sept. fig 
 uviunodootv), it is clear that the apostle and the Seventy read the 
 present Hebrew CTair "pb , with different vowels from those now em- 
 ployed, i. e. they read it tPtoi Z'tib or Q'WViZJb , for a recompense. 
 To this rendering and pointing no good objection can be made, as 
 the Hebrew is clearly capable of it. The present Hebrew conveys 
 a different sense. 
 
 Elg oxdvdulov, iEinnab , for a net or gin. But the Seventy have 
 frequently rendered this word by oxavdakov, which means any thing 
 whereby another stumbles and falls to his harm. The generic idea 
 of ■dp/iJO is retained in axavd'ukov. 
 
 (10) 2xoviad"iqx(OGfxv .... ovyxccf.iWov, let their eyes be darkened 
 so that they cannot see, and their back always be bowed down ; i. e. 
 let them be in a defenceless and helpless state, bowed down with 
 troubles and infirmities, and groping in the darkness of affliction. 
 Instead of top voitqv avriuv diujiavrog ovyxaf.i\\)ov (Paul and the 
 Septuagint), the Hebrew has "Ji'ft~ T^n ErpDnft , make thou their 
 loins continually to shake. Here again, the apostle has taken the 
 passage ad sensum. This expression, in Hebrew, designates the tos- 
 sing of the body hither and thither on account of distress. In the 
 like sense is bowing down the back always to be taken. It presents 
 the image of one bowed down with anguish of spirit, or of bodily pain. 
 
 These repeated instances show, that the apostle was more solicit- 
 
ROMANS 11: 10. 443 
 
 ous about the general sense and object of the Old Testament passages, 
 than he was about the costume or diction of them ; a principle which 
 he, guided as he was, was not in danger of abusing ; one also which 
 may be used to good purpose by us, in sacred criticism, but which 
 needs to be very closely watched in order to guard it against abuse. 
 
 As to the general sentiment of this passage, from Ps. 69: 23, 24, 
 it is undoubtedly to be classed with the somewhat numerous passages 
 in the Psalms, which contain the like imprecations. Great difficulty 
 is found by many minds, in such passages, inasmuch as they seem to 
 be so opposed to the tenor of those passages in the New Testament 
 which require us " to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, 
 to pray for those who despitefully use and persecute us." If indeed 
 these passages in the Psalms are to be viewed as the mere utterance 
 of private and personal wishes and feelings, it would be utterly im- 
 possible to reconcile them with the spirit of the gospel. But is this 
 so ? Ts David, for example, when he utters such things, to be viewed 
 as doing it merely in the way of giving utterance to his own private 
 personal wishes? It seems to me not ; but David, as king and magis- 
 trate, might wish the punishment of the seditious and rebellious; nay, 
 it would be an imperious duty on him to punish them. Now was it 
 lawful for him to pray that the same thing might be done, which it 
 was his duty to do? Could he not express desires of this nature, 
 without the spirit of revenge 1 Cannot we wish the robber and the 
 assassin to be apprehended and punished, yea with capital punish- 
 ment, and this without being actuated by a spirit of vengeance and a 
 thirst for blood ? I trust such wishes are not only consistent with 
 benevolence, but prompted by it. If so, then it may be true, that 
 David and other Psalmists had the like views and feelings. And if 
 this may be so, is it not probable that it was so ? Is not the general 
 character and spirit of their writings a pledge for this? 
 
 But I cannot here pursue this subject ; which needs more illustra- 
 tion than has yet been given to it. It is enough to say, at present, 
 that the apostle, in making this quotation, need not be supposed to 
 design any thing more, than to produce an instance from the Psalms, 
 where the same principle is developed as is contained in the asser- 
 tions which he had made ; i. e. the ancient Scriptures speak of a part 
 of Israel as blind, and deaf, as in deep distress and under heavy 
 punishment because of their unbelief and disobedience. What hap- 
 pened in ancient times, may take place again ; it has in fact happened 
 at the present time. 
 
444 ROMANS 11 : 11, 12. 
 
 (11) sieyto ovv . . . Tit'aojoi; I say thai, have they stumbled, so 
 as to fall doam ? Language of the objector, who inquires with solici- 
 tude, whether such passages as Paul has quoted, can be meant to 
 designate the final casting off of the Jews. The occasion for the 
 form of the question (.(?] tnxutouv a. r. X., is given by the use of 
 the word axuvdaXov in the quotation above. The design of the ob- 
 jector plainly is, to inquire whether the apostle means to hold forth 
 the doctrine, that Israel is now to be finally and always cast off, on 
 account of their unbelief. — ' Iva tiz'oogi, so that they might fall doicn, 
 i. e. have the Jews stumbled so that there is no recovery for them, so 
 that they must fall entirely down ? The question being asked by [xrj, 
 implies that he who puts it expects an answer in the negative. 
 
 3/rj ytvotro, not at all; i. e. you must not understand me as at 
 all maintaining their fnal and utter rejection and ruin. Fearful as 
 their doom is, there are many circumstances respecting it, which are 
 worthy of the highest consideration. For, in fact, this very lapse of 
 theirs, i. e. their unbelief and rejection of the gospel, has been the 
 direct occasion of its being preached to the Gentiles ; comp. Matt. 
 21: 43. 8: 11, 12. 22: 1 — 14. — TTuoutttoj^uti, lapse, offence, stian- 
 bling in a moral sense. — Zwiriyiu., the blessings of the gospel, the 
 salvation which it proffers. 
 
 JEig to uu.Q(x&j\(oaca aviovg, to provoke them to jecdousy, i. e. to 
 excite the Jews to be jealous, on account of the privileges and favours 
 bestowed on the Gentiles through their belief, and to seek after the 
 same blessings for themselves. 
 
 (12) Ei di . . . . tifvtov, now if their lapse has been the riches of 
 the world, and their degradation the riches of the Gentiles. At "ora- 
 tioni continuandae inservit." — ID.ovtoq v.oO[iov, if their lapse has 
 been the occasion of spiritual riches to the world, i. e. of spiritual 
 blessings in abundance. — ■ Hxxrma amiov, their diminution, i. e. their 
 degradation, rejection, punishment, has occasioned abundance of 
 spiritual blessings to the Gentiles. 
 
 TIooo) (xuXXov . . . ttirifav, hoic much more their fulness ! Tlh r 
 Qio/xu is here the antithesis of iJTti h ua' and of course it signifies 
 restoration to favour, a copiousness of blessings and good things, such 
 as would follow a restoration. 
 
 The sentiment of the whole is : 'If now the degradation and 
 punishment of the Jews for their unbelief, has been the occasion of 
 rich and numerous blessings to the Gentiles ; then surely their resto- 
 ration to favour, their full reception, will redound still more to the 
 spiritual riches of the world.' 
 
ROMANS 11: 12— 15. 445 
 
 Tholuck understands ijitijfta and nh'jQcofta in a moral sense, i.e. 
 their depraved and criminal state, and their restored and justified 
 state. I prefer the more simple and obvious construction given 
 above; comp. v. 15, from which it is plain, that riTTt](.iu here is 
 equivalent to ano(3oh), casting of, and Ttkijptofta (the antithesis of 
 i]iii1 t i(u) is the same as ngoaXtjxpig, the reception to favour. 
 
 (13) T/iup yap . . . tVviai, I say this, however, to you Gentiles. 
 Eap explicantis, i. e. here before a clause, which is introduced in order 
 to prevent any misunderstanding or misapplication of what he had 
 just said. The connection seems to be thus : ' When I speak of the 
 nXovrog hftvoiv, and in so doing magnify my own office, inasmuch as 
 I am dnoozolog t&vwv, still I do not so speak altogether for your 
 sakes ; in doing this I have a design to excite the attention of the 
 Jews to the things of the gospel.' The apostle is very careful, while 
 he fully represents the unbelief and an op oh] of the Jews, not to give 
 occasion to boasting or exultation on the part of the Gentiles. 
 
 Eq' baov fisv . . . do'£a£u), inasmuch as Iain indeed an apostle of 
 the Gentiles, I do honour to my office. Mtv simplex, as the lexicons 
 say, i. e. standing alone, and without 8i or some equivalent particle 
 following it, as usual. In such a case it answers to the Latin quidem, 
 equidem, videlicet; but oftentimes cannot be rendered at all into 
 English, nor conveniently into Latin. It generally stands, in this 
 way, in a clause of explanation, and may be called /.itv explicantis ; 
 but it also appears plainly to have an affirmative force, augct vim 
 orationis ; which is the case here, and so I have endeavoured to ex- 
 hibit it in my version of the passage. — J.iav.ovlav is the office of the 
 ministry, i.e. the apostolic office of Paul. — _Jo'£a£co, magni aestumo, 
 honor o, honor e afficio. 
 
 (14) Einag .... i'S, avtatv, so that, if possible, I may excite to 
 jealousy some of my kinsmen after the flesh, and save some of them. 
 
 Eincog, si fitri potest, si qua rationc. — Tr)v aapv.a, my flesh, i. e. my 
 relatives, oi avyysve7g v.axa aao-Aa, comp. Rom. 9: 3. So the Hebrew 
 *-\V2 often means; e. g. Gen. 29: 14. Judg. 9: 2. 2 Sam. 5: 1. Gen. 
 37: 27. Is. 58: 7. The meaning of the apostle, in the whole passage, 
 is : 'I extol the blessings of you Gentiles, not to lift you up with 
 pride, but in order to excite the attention of the Jews to the distin- 
 guished favours which you enjoy, and which they have lost by their 
 unbelief.' 
 
 (15) Ei yap . . . . ix vt y.owv ; if now the casting away of them 
 be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the reception of them be, 
 
44G ROMANS 11 : 15, 16. 
 
 but life from, the dead? i. e. if the rejection of the Jews on account of 
 their unbelief, has been the occasion of reconciling many of the Gen- 
 tile world to God, what shall the reception of them back to the divine 
 favour be, but as it were a general [spiritual] resurrection? Tap 
 marks the resuming of what was dropped at v. 12. — KuraXXayri is 
 applied to the conciliation of the heathen to God, who by their wicked 
 works had before been enemies to him, and strangers to the covenant 
 of his promise. — Aoo/uov here, as often, stands for the heathen Gen- 
 tile world. — ngoohiyug isrcceplion to favour, i. e. admission to the 
 family or church of Christ. 
 
 Zojt] ix vmqwv, some (most of the ancient commentators) have 
 understood literally, i. e. the resurrection of the body ; meaning 
 thereby, that when the Jews should be brought into the Christian 
 church as a body, the end of time would soon follow. But the time of 
 the reign of Christ on earth, as described in the Apocalypse, and the 
 interval of wickedness that will succeed, seem to forbid this exegesis; 
 it has no usus loquendi in its favour, for the proper phrase would be, 
 avccGTuaig en twv vev.gov. It is true, that we have ^wvxeg ex vfy.cuov 
 in Rom. 6: 13; but then it is plainly figurative, i. e. it signifies a moral 
 resurrection. I must regard £ojt'j in vfy.gwv, then, as a tropical ex- 
 pression, used in a kind of proverbial way, or as a figure of speech 
 designating something great, wonderful, surprising, like to what a 
 general resurrection of the dead would be. So Turretin : Quid erit 
 admissio eorum, misi quoddam genus resurrectionis ; altogether to the 
 purpose. So the Arabians speak proverbially of great agitations and 
 changes, as of a resurrection. Tholuck has produced several exam- 
 ples, in his commentary on this passage. But what is more to the 
 point still, is, that in Ezek. 37: 1 — 14, we have the moral reno- 
 vation of the Jews designated at full length, by the similitude of a 
 resurrection. It seems altogether probable, that the apostle had this 
 passage in his mind ; so that £o)i) ex vexgiav here is equivalent to 
 saying: ' What shall such a ng6nk7jxi'ig o? the Jews be, but a general 
 resurrection of them, such as Ezekiel has described, i. e. a great, 
 general, and wonderful conversion of them to Christianity!' 
 
 (16) El d'i . . . . qvga/ua, if, moreover, the first fruits be holy, 
 so shall the mass be. — ' AnagyJ], like the Hebrew rTOJO , means the 
 firstling, or first fruits of any kind, which were offered to God. The 
 Hebrews called the firstlings of fruit and grain, in their natural 
 state, C^TSa n'VZJit'^ ; the firstlings of grain, etc., in a prepared 
 state, nift^HP) rPipJO . But the particular name given to the firstling 
 
ROMANS 11: 16, 17. 447 
 
 of dough or kneaded meal, was DID"'"}? rPdN - } , Num. 15: 20, 
 where the Septuagint renders, anagyt] qvgaf.iuTog m which is the 
 same expression as occurs in the passage before us, qvga^aiog being 
 implied after avcugyj). The comparison here lies between the small 
 part of the mass of dough, which was taken as the niti'nft rf&JO 
 and offered up to God, and the greater part or mass of it which was 
 left for the use of him who made the offering. After the rPtliiO was 
 offered, the whole mass became sanctified to lawful use, i. e. was set 
 apart for this purpose, and consecrated to it. In like manner, the 
 apostle would here say, is the whole mass of the Jewish nation yet to 
 be set apart for God and consecrated to him. The « n a g y i\ of this 
 nation, i. e. the ancient patriarchs and fathers of it (comp. v. 28), 
 were set apart for God in a peculiar manner ; and consequently the 
 ?nass of their descendants are yet to be consecrated to him. The 
 whole is illustration, however, rather than argument. 
 
 Kul si .... ol v.Xudoi, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 
 
 The same idea is here expressed, as in the former clause. A root 
 
 bears some such proportion to the branches of a tree, as the first 
 
 fruits did to the whole 7iiass of bread. So here, the root represents 
 
 the fathers (v. 28), and the uludoi, their descendants. 
 
 The word ayiog in both cases means, consecrated to God, devoted 
 to God, set apart for God, or set apart, consecrated, viz. for the ser- 
 vice of God. 
 
 But it should be noted, that the apostle does not design to say, 
 that the qvgaitu and the xkddoi are holy, i. e. that they were so when 
 he was writing. He predicts only that they toill be so, at some fu- 
 ture period. 
 
 (17) Ei 8s .... ltsy.\a.oQr i nuv, if now some of the branches 
 were broken off ; i. e. if now some of the natural descendants of the 
 ancient fathers have been cast off, because of unbelief (v. 20). As 
 continuative, jam, German nun. 
 
 2v 8s ... . iysvov, and thou being a ivild olive, inert grafted in, 
 in their stead, and made partaker of the root and fatness of the olive. 
 The dnyis'kucog was often grafted into the fruitful one, when it be- 
 gan to decay, and thus not only brought forth fruit, but caused the 
 decaying olive to revive and flourish. The image which the apostle 
 here employs, is therefore a very vivid one. The Gentiles had been 
 grafted in upon the Jewish Church, and had caused this decayed 
 tree to revive and flourish. But still the apostle means to hold in 
 check any exultation of the Gentiles on account of this. He reminds 
 
448 ROMANS 11: 17—20. 
 
 them, that after all they are not the stock, but only grafts ; that the 
 root and fatness of the good olive has been transferred to them, only 
 because they have been grafted into it. 
 
 All this shows, moreover, that in the apostle's view, there has in 
 reality been but one church ; the ancient Jewish one being only the 
 foundation, the Christian one the superstructure and completion of 
 the building ; a sentiment which accords throughout with the repre- 
 sentations in the epistle to the Hebrews, where only a change in rites 
 and forms is argued, not a change of the spiritual, essential nature of 
 the church. 
 
 (18) Jltj xuTay.av/o) tchv xkudoiv, exult not over the branches ; 
 i. e. exult not that the Jewish branches have been broken off, and 
 that thou hast been engrafted in their stead. Ko.juxaiyuof.iui means 
 to exult in one's own advantages or pre-eminence, in such a manner 
 as to look down with contempt on others who do not possess them. 
 
 El de v.uxu7.avyuoui .... at, but if thou dost exult, thou dost 
 not support the root, but the root thee ; i. e. if thou art so inconsid- 
 erate and wanting in humility as to exult, there is no ground for such 
 exultation ; for after all, the Jewish church is the stock on which the 
 Christian has been engrafted ; it is the root from which the tree with 
 its branches have sprung ; and as thou art only a branch, thou canst 
 not boast as if thou wert the root. 
 
 (19) 'EyeTg ovv .... iyy.evTQio&oj, thou wilt say, then: The 
 branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in ; i. e. perhaps 
 thou wilt reply : ' There is at least some ground for exultation, be- 
 cause the branches were broken off in order to make room for me to 
 be grafted in ; which proves that I was considered as of more impor- 
 tance than the branches.' — KXad'oi has the article ol in many copies ; 
 but A. C. E. 3. 7. 37. 46. 47. 54, Chrysostom, and Damascenus omit 
 it ; and so Dr. Knapp. 
 
 (29) KaXwg .... torrfxug, be it so; they were broken off by rea- 
 son of unbelief, and thou retaincst thy standing by faith ; i. e. be it 
 as thou hast said, viz. that the branches were broken off so that thou 
 mightest be grafted in, yet the original ground or moving cause of 
 their being broken off, was the unbelief of the Jews ; and thou re- 
 tainest thy present condition, only on the ground of faith or belief in 
 Christ. Shouldest thou deny him, as the Jews have done, thou 
 wouldest also be broken off in like manner. — A'ukcog, bene, approves 
 of the sentiment which had been just uttered, in some respect or 
 other, but it does not necessarily approve of it in the full extent in 
 
ROMANS 11 : 20— 22. 449 
 
 which the speaker himself might have done. Here xakojg concedes 
 that the branches were broken off, so that the wild olive might be 
 grafted in, i. e. that one object in breaking them off, was to graft in 
 new ones; but it does not concede that the real ground or reason of 
 their being broken off, was for the sake merely of grafting in new 
 ones ; for the sequel shews that dniaria was the ground of this. 
 While the apostle concedes thus much, however, to the Gentile, he 
 at the same time reminds him, that he retains his present place and 
 standing, on the very same condition as that on which the Jews held 
 theirs, viz. on condition of faith or belief, av de ty niant tGTijxctQ. 
 In regard to toti]xag, the Perfect of i'oTijpt, it is the only tense which 
 has a neuter sense, viz. to stand, the other tenses being used actively, 
 viz. to establish, constitute, set up, etc. ; and consequently the Perfect 
 is used in the sense of all the tenses that are needed to convey the 
 neuter sense of the active voice. 
 
 Mrj .... (fofiov, be not high-minded , but fear; i.e. carry your- 
 self not haughtily as it respects the Jews who have been broken off; 
 or rather, do not think too highly of your elevation to favour, indulge 
 in no airs of superiority on account of this, but demean yourself as 
 a humble believer, and one who has need to be continually on his 
 guard, and to fear lest he may fall through unbelief, and be broken off. 
 
 (21) El yuQ .... qelotTui, for if God did not spare the natural 
 branches, then surely he will not spare thee ; i. e. if God did not refrain 
 from rejecting the Jews, when they became unbelievers, then surely 
 he will not refrain from rejecting thee, in the like circumstances ; or 
 in other words, if the natural branches were not spared, how shall 
 those which are not the natural ones, find favour ? — Kara qvotv 
 means, the branches which naturally belonged to the original stock, 
 i. e. the Jews, the natural descendants of the patriarchs to whom the 
 promises of God were made. 
 
 (22) Jdt ovv .... ftiov, behold, then, the kindness and the sever- 
 ity of God ; i. e. consider, on the one hand, the distinguished kind- 
 ness which God has manifested toward thee who believest ; and on 
 the other, the strict regard to justice and truth which he exhibits, in 
 the punishment of the unbelieving Jews. So the sequel of the 
 verse; inl ph .... ixnon^ar], severity toward those who have fallen 
 away ; but kindness toward thee, provided thou dost maintain a state 
 of integrity; otherwise thou shalt be cut off. ' Eav imptlvrig xr\ 
 XQrivxoiriTV may be rendered, if thou dost continue in a state of 
 
 favour; so Tholuck and others; and so in the translation. But we 
 57 
 
450 ROMANS 11:22— 25. 
 
 may attach an intransitive sense to /p^ffror?;rt ■ for the phrase may 
 be taken as an antithesis of ijiif-Hivwat r?~ aniaxia in the following 
 verse; so that '/[Q^axozrjTt, may here designate the state or qualifica- 
 tion of the individual concerned, and not the goodness of God toward 
 him. That %gr}aiOTr]g may be used to designate probity, upright- 
 ness, tfj^S , is plain from the Septuagint Ps. 13: 1,3 (14: 1, 3). 36: 
 3. 118:66(119:00). 
 
 (23) The present rejection of the unbelieving Jews is by no 
 means final and exclusive. Kal txflvot d'i .... avrovg, but they 
 also, unless they persevere in unbelief, shall be grafted in ; for God is 
 able again to graft them in. That is : ' Inasmuch as unbelief was 
 the ground of their rejection, so when they shall abandon this, and 
 become believers, they will be again received to favour ; for God is 
 able to bring them back to his favour.' The apostle means to say, 
 that God has not so cast away the Jews, as to shut them out of all 
 access to the kingdom of heaven, or utterly to reject them ; but that 
 he has left a way open, in which they may return to his favour, and 
 he may receive them again. He speaks here only of what can be 
 done; but in v. 24, seq., he speaks of what will be done. 
 
 (24) That the Jews ivill be again received to favour, the apostle 
 now proceeds to shew. El yap .... %u)M?'kaiov, for if thou wert 
 cut off from the wild olive which was thy natural state, and icert 
 grafted into the good olive which was contrary to thy nature ; i. e. if 
 thou wert introduced into a state of favour with God, from a state of 
 enmity which was in all respects foreign to a state of favour. — IToao) 
 /.laM.ov .... ikttia, how much more shall the natural [branches] be 
 grafted into their own olive ? Argumentum a minori ad majus ; viz. 
 if God had mercy on Gentiles, who were out-casts from his favour and 
 strangers to the covenant of his promise, shall he not have mercy on 
 the people whom he has always distinguished as being peculiarly his 
 own, by the bestowment of many important privileges and advan- 
 tages upon them? Comp. Rom. 9: 1 — 5. 
 
 (25) The apostle now proceeds more directly to assert the future 
 reception of the Jews. Ov yao .... tovto, now I would not have 
 you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery. Edg confirmantis, i. e. pre- 
 fixed to a clause which is added for the sake of illustration and con- 
 firmation. The form of expression, 1 would not have you ignorant, 
 is a (Aeia)Oig, i. e. a negative form of expression designed to convey a 
 positive idea, viz. / am desirous that you should know. Mvaxqgiov 
 denotes any thing which is hidden, concealed, unknown. 
 
ROMANS 11:25, 20. 451 
 
 Iva [U] .... (f:Qovi[toi, lest ye should be wise in your own conceit ; 
 i. e. lest you should be puffed up with a view of your own importance, I 
 am going to tell you more plainly still, that you are not the exclusive 
 objects of God's favour. Ott nwgoiaig .... itotkOtj, that blindness 
 has come upon Israel in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles shall 
 come in. As to ncogcootg, comp. vs. S, 10 above ; coinp. also 1 Thess. 
 2: 15, 16. — 'Ana ptgovg is a qualifying expression, which saves the 
 proposition from being a universal one ; comp. vs. 1 — 5 above. Paul 
 means to say, that ' Israel is indeed in part blinded, and will continue 
 so, until,' etc., without designating what proportion of them contin- 
 ues in unbelief. It is a softened mode of expression, or as rhetori- 
 cians say, per charicntismum, i.e. xuiu yuyiv. 
 
 Aygig ou x. t. A. The Tiktjyojpu to~>v e&voiv I understand as 
 meaning great multitudes or a great multitude, an abundance ; comp. 
 John 1: 16. Rom. 15: 29. Col. 2: 9. It cannot be denied that 7rArJ- 
 QWfia sometimes means fulfilling, completion, completing, i. q. ttAjj- 
 Qoiaig- e.g. Rom. 13: 10, applied to the law ; Gal. 4: 4. Eph. 1: 10, 
 applied to time. But such a meaning would hardly be a congruous 
 one, in the present instance. The fulfilling of a law, or of a limit- 
 ed time, is an easy and obvious expression, because there is an obvi- 
 ous limit to which the filling up or fulfilling is to extend ; but what 
 is this limit in 7ili~tQMfia zoov tftvfavl As it would be difficult to an- 
 swer this question, so it seems altogether more facile and congruous, 
 to take nXrjQtofia in the sense of copia, an abundance, great numbers, 
 multitudes. How great this number or abundance must be, the apos- 
 tle does not say; much less does he say, (as some have argued), that 
 all the Gentiles must first be converted to Christianity, before the 
 Jews can be brought into the pale of the church. The subject 
 must therefore remain, as he has left it, indefinite as to the extent of 
 Gentile conversions before the time when the Jews will return. Of 
 course, Christians are not debarred from hope in labouring and pray- 
 ing for the Jews at the present period; although as yet but compara- 
 tively a small part of the Gentiles have been converted to the Chris- 
 tian faith. It is true, even now, that there is a great multitude of 
 Gentile converts. May we not hope that the time is near at hand, 
 when there will be a TiXqrjcopu of them ? 
 
 (26) Ami o'utco .... oaj&i]0£Tat, and then all Israel shall be 
 saved; when the nlriQwpa of the Gentiles shall have been joined to 
 the Lord, then his ancient covenant people shall also be reclaimed. 
 Kal o'vio) means, literally, and so, i. e. when it shall be so that the 
 7iA^ooj|M« of the Gentiles shall be brought in, then, etc. That km 
 
452 ROMANS 11:26,27. 
 
 ovTio is used in the same way as teal tore, see Acts 7: 8. 17: 33. 20: 
 11. 28: 14. — Tlug here means all, in opposition to the crno (itgovg of 
 the preceding verse. Whether this means strictly every individual, 
 it would be difficult indeed to determine. 
 
 "jl'Sft £y. . . . ' ]uy.(o[3, a deliverer shall come from Zion, and tarn 
 away ungodliness from Jacob. This is apparently a citation from Is. 
 59: 20, where the Hebrew runs thus: " A deliverer for Zion shall 
 come, and for those who forsake ungodliness in Jacob." The Sep- 
 tuagint reads tvi/.tv 2mov } instead of f'x 2imv but in other respects 
 conforms to the quotation of the apostle. We can only say of the 
 apostle's quotation, that it gives the general sense of the passage, viz. 
 it conveys the idea, that deliverance for Zion is to be accomplished, 
 and that penitents of the house of Jacob are to be saved. It is a very 
 striking instance of free quotation, as to the genercd sense of a pas- 
 sage, while the particular costume of it is disregarded. Whether 
 Isaiah, in 59: 20, had respect to the salvation of gospel times, has 
 been called in question. But the context seems to me very clearly 
 to indicate this. And even if he had respect to temporal deliverance, 
 there can be no difficulty in the apostle's using his words as the 
 vehicle of conveying his own thoughts, with regard to spiritual de- 
 liverance. 
 
 (27) Kal avxri . . . diux)tjy.ij, and this is my covenant with them. 
 This is generally supposed to come from the next succeeding verse in 
 Isaiah, viz. 59: 21, as it agrees verbatim with the Septuagint there. 
 But here the quotation stops, according to this supposition, and the 
 next succeeding clause, otuv uqlkoi^iat rag uttugriug uvkuv, is 
 taken from Is. 27: 9, where the words stand in the midst of a verse, 
 which has relation to the punishment of the Jews, and their conse- 
 quent moral reformation. I should, therefore, prefer the supposition, 
 that the apostle here quotes and abridges Jer. 31: 33, 34, (the same 
 passage which is quoted at length in Heb. 8: 8 — 12). There the 
 words uvi7] rj dcuOtjy.?] (iov occur in v. 33 ; and in v. 34, Jehovah is 
 represented as saying : iktcag taof^ui rulg adwiucg uvimv, xul rwc 
 apuQTKav uviwv ov /<i'/;oi/co tif so that nothing is easier than to 
 suppose that the apostle quotes ad sensum these last passages, when 
 he says aqiko)i.iut xug ufAuoriug aviojv. There is this advantage 
 also in this last supposition, viz. that the whole passage in Jeremiah 
 most evidently refers to a new dispensation, to gospel-times ; which 
 would be altogether appropriate to the apostle's purpose, for the very 
 point he is labouring to establish, is, that there will be a general 
 conversion of the Jews to the Christian religion. 
 
ROMANS 11:28. 453 
 
 (28) While the apostle admits that the Jews, the once beloved 
 people of God, have now become alienated and his enemies, he still 
 maintains that this evil, exceedingly great in itself, has been overruled 
 for the accomplishment of very important purposes, in respect to the 
 salvation of the Gentiles. Aura flip .... iipug, in respect to the 
 gospel, they have become enemies on your account ; i. e. they have be- 
 come £%9qqI tou dfov, have apostatized from him, or have been 
 rejected by him, and are no longer treated as his friends. That 
 ■Ofou is implied after i%&Qoi, (and not ivuyytl'iov, nor /.tov as Theo- 
 doret, Luther, Grotius, Cameron, Baumgarten, and others, have sup- 
 posed), is clear by comparing with ly&pol its antithesis uyunqrol' for 
 in respect to this latter word, it is clear that dtov is implied after it. 
 It follows, therefore, that the ellipsis to iy&Qoi must be supplied in 
 the same way. 
 
 At, vpag, on your account, i. e. to your advantage. In other 
 words, the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, has been the occasion 
 of its being more widely diffused among the Gentiles ; so that, in this 
 respect, the loss of the Jews has been the gain of the Gentiles. 
 
 Auiu 3i . . . . Tiaxi(jag, but in respect to the election, they are be- 
 loved for their fathers' sake ; i. e. in so far as God chooses men to 
 salvation nurd xr\v nyo&eoiv uuiou (8: 28), and without being moved 
 thereto by any merit on their part (11: 5, 6), he will have special re- 
 gard to the Jews, because of the many and precious promises which 
 he made to their fathers. How Tholuck can find here only an elec- 
 tion to external privileges, I am unable to see. Is the question, then, 
 which the apostle is here discussing, one which concerns the external 
 privileges of Christianity merely; or does it go deep to the very 
 foundation of the whole, viz. to the spiritual blessings of the gospel ? 
 It does seem to me impossible to doubt here what the answer must 
 be, unless one is led to do so, by other considerations than those of 
 simple exegesis. 
 
 The apostle appears plainly to aver, that although God has mercy 
 on whom he will have mercy (9: 18) ; and although men do not be- 
 come the heirs of eternal life by any merits of their own, but merely 
 by the good pleasure of his grace (11: 5, 6); yet in bestowing that 
 grace, he may have regard to his promises made in ancient days to 
 the distinguished patriarchs of the Jewish nation ; he may have re- 
 gard to his original design that the seed of Abraham by faith, and the 
 seed which also were lineally descended from him, should be " as the 
 stars of heaven for multitude." That salvation is entirely of free 
 
454 ROMANS 11:28—31. 
 
 grace, and not of merit, of course leaves it open for the sovereign 
 Lord of all to choose the objects of his mercy where and when he 
 pleases. That he always does this with good and adequate reason, 
 yea the best of reasons, his own infinite wisdom and goodness are a 
 sure and perfect pledge. But that men are always acquainted with 
 these reasons, or that he has revealed them, is not asserted, and is not 
 capable of being proved. 
 
 (29) God will not disappoint the hopes which he has excited, nor 
 violate the promises which he has made. The blessings which he 
 promised to bestow, and the calling of Abraham's posterity to be his 
 spiritual seed, will surely not fail. ^^uia^tX^xa , . . ■Oeov, for the 
 gifts and calling of God, he will not repent of; lit. are not the sub- 
 jects of repentance. The meaning is, that God will never repent of 
 
 the promises which he made to the fathers, and therefore never 
 change his purpose in regard to the bestowment of spiritual blessings 
 upon their offspring. 
 
 Here again Tholuck construes x)S]Obg of the external calling of 
 the Jews ; the fear of gratia irresistibilis urging him to the adoption 
 of this sentiment. But the reader is desired merely to turn back and 
 compare 8: 28 — 30 with this whole passage, and also vs. 5 — 7 above. 
 No other answer need be given to the objection against the sense 
 here maintained. Above all, when one compares the sequel, vs. 30 — 
 36, with vs. 28, 29, can he constrain himself to believe, that external 
 privileges only are here the subject of the apostle's discussion ? Could 
 these excite in him such wonder, admiration, and gratitude, as he 
 evidently expresses in vs. 33 — 36? And is this the obtaining of 
 mercy, of which v. 30 speaks? Let every unprejudiced reader ex- 
 amine and judge ! 
 
 (30) "Siontg yuQ .... untidtia, but as you were formerly disobe- 
 dient to God, but have now obtained mercy through their unbelief. 
 This refers to the former heathenish and unbelieving state of the 
 Gentiles, and to the fact that the gospel was preached to them and 
 they became believers, in consequence of the Jews having rejected it, 
 in the sense before explained. Fuq introduces a clause added for 
 the sake of confirmation. 
 
 (31) Ovico xui . . . iXt/jirojai, so also they have now become diso- 
 bedient, [yet] so that they also may become the subjects of mercy, 
 through the mercy shewn to you. Here are two cases presented, par- 
 allel in some respects, but differing in others. (1) The Jews reject 
 the gospel, and occasion its being preached to the Gentiles, who thus 
 
ROMANS 11:31,33, 455 
 
 become believers. (2) The Gentiles, by the blessings bestowed on 
 them in consequence of their faith, provoke the Jews to jealousy, 
 and occasion their seeking to be restored to their former place as the 
 people of God; comp. vs. 13, 14. The parallelism consists in this, 
 viz. that each party occasions the blessings of salvation to come to 
 the other, i. e. each is (drfoof.iaTiy.oig) the cause of salvation to the 
 other. The difference is, that the Jews give occasion to this, by their 
 unbelief; but the Gentiles by their belief, which provokes the Jews to 
 jealousy and leads them to seek after the privileges of the gospel. 
 May the time speedily come, when the example of Christians will 
 have a better tendency to excite such a jealousy among the Jews, 
 than it has ever yet done ! 
 
 The position of I'va here is somewhat peculiar. We should na- 
 turally expect to find it before to) vfieitQKi' but there are examples 
 of its standing after the first words that begin a sentence; comp. 1 
 Cor. 9: 15. 2 Cor. 2: 4. Gal. 2: 10. Eph. 3: 18. 
 
 (32) JZvvi'tcteiot . . . iXei']a)j, for God hath given up all to unbe- 
 lief, so that he might have mercy on all ; i. e. God hath left both Jew 
 and Gentile to fall into unbelief or disobedience, in order that the true 
 nature of sin might fully appear, and that he might thus magnify the 
 riches of his grace, in pardoning multiplied and aggravated trans- 
 gressions; comp. Rom. 5: 20, 21, where the very same sentiment is 
 developed. 
 
 The fathers, in speaking of this subject, compare sin to a fever, 
 which, before it reaches a certain height, does not so develope itself 
 that the physician applies its appropriate remedy. They also compare 
 it to a tree, which is permitted to grow up to full height and to spread 
 forth all its branches and leaves, before it is felled. So when sin had 
 reached its acme, the Redeemer appeared and struck the mortal 
 blow. 
 
 In regard to cmv£Y.lzioz, it seems to be the best illustrated by a 
 reference to the Hebrew n^3 l^tirj, itf VaDn, b ^W], all of 
 which (from *"W&) mean, to deliver over to, to give up to the power of . 
 — J do cxplicantis, i. e. added to a clause which is designed to illus- 
 trate the subject under consideration. — The whole verse, and also 
 chap. 5: 20, 21, seems plainly to teach, that God had a special pur- 
 pose to answer, in giving man over to the power or dominion of sin 
 and unbelief, viz. to expose the "exceeding sinfulness of sin," and to 
 magnify the riches of his pardoning mercy. 
 
 But if any are not satisfied with the sense here given to the word 
 
456 ROMANS 11:32,33. 
 
 owtxhtiot, and insist that it is to be taken in a more active sense, 
 they may compare it with Rom. 5: 20, and also with 9: 18. It may 
 be understood here, in the same sense as oxhiQwa in 9: 18. I see 
 no more objection to the one than to the other. But such a sense of 
 av vi'xXfcoi does not seem to be necessary here. 
 
 (33) Here then, to say the least, is some deep and mysterious 
 proceeding on the part of God, which the human mind cannot fathom, 
 and which it should only wonder at and adore. 'Si Bddog . . . &tov, 
 O the boundless goodness and wisdom and knoicledge of God ! Ilkov- 
 tov means riches, when literally understood. But a reference to v. 12 
 shews, that the apostle had in his mind the abundant blessings of the 
 gospel bestowed on the Gentiles, when he chose this term ; comp. 
 Eph. 3: 8. 2 Cor. 8: 2. — Zoqlug, the wisdom of God, viz. the wisdom 
 displayed in thus making the unbelief of the Jews subservient to the 
 purpose of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, in thus educing good out 
 of evil ; and also in finally bringing the Jews back to their filial rela- 
 tion, through the mercy granted to the Gentiles ; important ends, which 
 no human foresight or wisdom could have accomplished. — 7Viwfffo>ff, 
 boundless knowledge ; for what less than omniscience could foresee 
 the effects to be thus produced, the good effects that would flow from 
 present and apparent evil 1 What human or angelic foresight could 
 divine, that such consequences would follow from such means 1 
 
 Tholuck refers the whole simply to divine compassion, and says 
 that the words are contra decretum absolution of Augustine. This 
 may be true, if Augustine meant what Tholuck supposes he did — 
 fatality. But did he mean this ? This excellent critic seems to find 
 frequent matter of difficulty in the assertions of Paul here ; so strong- 
 ly is he exercised with the fear of the decretum absolutum of Augus- 
 tine and Calvin. 
 
 *S2g .... odoi avzov, how iinsearchable are his proceedings, and 
 his ways past finding out ! Understanding all this as of course hav- 
 ing a reference to the preceding declarations of the apostle, we must 
 interpret it as meaning : ' How entirely above our comprehension, 
 that God should accomplish such ends by such means,' viz. the salva- 
 tion of the Gentiles in such a way, and then that of the Jews ! — 
 KqIhutu seems plainly to mean, like the Hebrew fi^BSaJB , ordi- 
 nance, arrangement, proceeding ; or rather decision, counsel, determin- 
 ation. Here it is for substance a synonyme with odoi, which evidently 
 has the like sense. The word odol, which literally means icay or 
 track that one makes in going, gives occasion to the adjective avti- 
 
ROMANS 11:33—36. 457 
 
 typt'aoioi, ichosc footsteps cannot be traced, i. e. unsearchable, non 
 vestigandae. 
 
 What can be plainer, now, than that the declaration in v. 32 
 gives the immediate occasion to the exclamation in v. 33? But if this 
 be so, then ovvixXtios serves to excite the apostle's feelings, as well 
 as ikt>']<Jij. Tholuck admits only the latter. 
 
 (31) Tig yap .... tyt'vero, for who hath known the mind of the 
 Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? flag explicantis, i.e. placed 
 before a clause added in order to confirm his assertion, that the ways 
 of God are unsearchable. The verse is a quotation from Is. 40: 13, 
 ad sensum, and nearly in the words of the Seventy. The object is, 
 to challenge the wisdom of created beings, calling on them to shew, 
 if there be any such case, wherein any of them has contributed any 
 thing to enlighten or to guide the divine counsels. The question im- 
 plies strong negation. 
 
 (35) J frig .... ctvtqi, or who hath first given him any thing, 
 so that he must receive retribution ? The sentiment of this verse may 
 be found in the Hebrew of Job 41: 3 (11), DbsJfin ^XprpSl ^S , who 
 hath done me any service, that I may recompense him. This the 
 apostle has changed to the third person, instead of the first, so as to 
 make it congruous with the preceding quotation. The Septuagint 
 " abit in omnia alia" here; so that the apostle (if indeed he here 
 quotes at all, which seems somewhat doubtful), has given a new ver- 
 sion to the Hebrew. 
 
 This latter quotation (if it be one), is designed by the apostle to 
 have a bearing on all claims to the divine favour, which can be pre- 
 ferred on the score of desert or of services rendered to God. How 
 prone the Jews were to betake themselves to their own merits, and 
 to rely on self-righteousness, every reader of the New Testament 
 must know. The sentence before us is designed to repress this spirit; 
 for it is as much as strongly to affirm, that no one can make any just 
 claims upon God for his favour, as no one by his services has laid 
 him under any obligation. The Nominative to ai>Tanodo&>iotTai is 
 uvio understood, which would refer to xi implied after the preceding 
 7TOOi'dojy.f. 
 
 (36) On the contrary, instead of creatures laying God under any 
 obligation to them, God is all and in all, i. e. he is the source of all 
 being and blessing, by him all things come into existence and are sus- 
 tained and governed, and for him, for his glory and honour, they 
 " are and were created." — On t| . . . . ixavxu, for of him, and by 
 
 58 
 
458 ROMANS 11 : 36. 
 
 Mm, and for him are all things. — Ei ctvtov, of him, i. e. he is the 
 original source, the eternal fountajn whence all the streams of exist- 
 ence take their rise. — Ai ccvtov, he is not only the original source, 
 but the intermediate cause of all things. It is the exertion of his 
 power, that brings them into being, and preserves, directs, and con- 
 trols them. — Eig avrov, for him, for his honour, praise, glory ; he is 
 the sovereign Lord and possessor of all, and all exist because he 
 wills it, and exist for the accomplishment of purposes which the 
 Maker of all has in view. The sentence seems equivalent to saying : 
 " God is the beginning, continuance, and end of all things." 
 
 Such is the conclusion of the doctrinal part of our epistle ; a pow- 
 erful expression of profound wonder, reverence, and adoration, in regard 
 to the unsearchable ways of God in his dealings with men ; and an 
 assertion of the highest intensity, respectiug his sovereign right to con- 
 trol all things so as to accomplish his own designs, inasmuch as all 
 spring from him, " live and move and have their being in him," and are 
 for his glory. A doctrine truly bumbling to the proud and towering 
 hopes and claims of self-justifying men ; a stumbling-block to haughty 
 Jews, and foolishness to unhumbled Greeks. I scarcely know of any 
 thing in the whole Bible, which strikes deeper at the root of human 
 pride than vs. 33 — 3(3. But what emphasis there can be in these, if the 
 apostle is discoursing merely on the external privileges of men, and 
 maintaining that these only were bestowed by pure grace, I am unable 
 to see. Every man on earth has merely to open his ej r es on things 
 around him, in order to see that distinctions of a temporal nature are 
 coextensive with the human race. Does he need the long argument of 
 the apostle, and the strenuous efforts he has made, in order to be satis- 
 fied of this ? But when we come to the great question : Are distinc- 
 tions of a spiritual nature made, ivhich are eternal in their consequences ; 
 and made too according to the good pleasure of God, without any merit 
 on the part of men ? it is then we find ourselves to need all the argu- 
 ment and reasoning and authority of the apostle, to bring us submissively 
 to bow, and to contemplate the whole subject (as he does) with wonder 
 and adoration. It is then, that God's claims to be considered the 
 GREAT ALL IN ALL, must be advanced in such a way, that "the 
 loftiness of man may be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man laid 
 low, and Jehovah alone be exalted." 
 
 I appeal now to all readers and critics, who, like Tholuck, refer all 
 that is said in vs. 33 — 36 to the mere goodness and compassion of God, 
 as manifested in the gospel, whether there is any congruity in the pas- 
 sage thus considered. Nothing can be more certain, than that vs. 34 — 
 36 do assert, in the most high and unequivocal manner, the indepen- 
 dence of God on his creatures, and his sovereign power and right over 
 
ROMANS 11: 3G. 459 
 
 them. This will not be questioned. But why such an assertion here, 
 at the close of the argumentative part of the epistle, the veiy climax of 
 the whole ? Is it necessary to make the deepest possible impression of 
 divine independence and sovereign right, in order to convince us that 
 God can exercise his goodness and compassion ? I repeat it — I cannot 
 see the congruity of such reasoning or rhetoric. Let those who adopt 
 such exegesis look to this ; mine is not the task to defend it. 
 
 On the other baud ; if God has, for reasons not disclosed to us, and 
 therefore in the way of what we call the exercise of divine sovereignty, 
 rejected for a time the Jewish nation, and brought in the Gentiles; and 
 if God in his own due time, shall also again bring the Jewish nation 
 into his church ; and all this in such a way as entirely exceeds our 
 comprehension, and which of course we are altogether unable to ex- 
 plain ; then we may exclaim, with the wondering apostle, O the depth ! 
 Then we may find overwhelming reason to believe, that God is all in 
 all, that he is the beginning, middle, and end of all things, and that "for 
 his glory they are and were created." We can sympathize, therefore, 
 while cherishing such views, with all which the apostle has here said, 
 and rind abundant reason to cherish sentiments such as he has avowed. 
 
 But to prevent all mistake here, I repeat, before I close this subject, 
 what I have once and again expressed in the preceding pages, viz. that 
 sovereignty in God, does not imply what is arbitrary, nor that he does any 
 thing without the best of reasons. It only implies, that those reasons are 
 unknown to us. While clouds and darkness are truly about him, in 
 respect to our vision, justice and judgment are the habitation of his 
 throne for ever. It is impossible, even for a moment, to doubt that this 
 must be so. Infinite wisdom and goodness can never act at all without 
 reason, nor without the very best reason. God has no possible tempta- 
 tion to act arbitrarily or wrongly ; it cannot profit him. His creatures 
 cannot abridge his happiness. Of course, it would be the extreme of 
 folly to suppose, that because God acts in a way which is mysterious, 
 he acts in an arbitrary or oppressive manner. Is he under obligation 
 to disclose all the grounds of his proceedings to us ? Enough he has 
 disclosed, to satisfy us that he is wise and good. May there not be 
 something left, to exercise our filial confidence, and to give us (what 
 does indeed well become us) a deep sense of our humble and im- 
 perfect condition ? Shall we prescribe to God the terms of our 
 moral discipline ? If not, then let us be content, when his mysterious 
 ways press upon our minds and we feel straitened and in darkness, to 
 say with the apostle : 'SI {3u&og tzIovtov xal aocpiag xal yvwamg \r?ov! 
 And if our hearts are ever tempted to rise up against the distinctions 
 which God has made, either in a temporal or spiritual respect, in the 
 bestowment of his favours, let us bow them down to the dust, as well as 
 silence and satisfy them, with the humbling, consoling, animating, glo- 
 rious truth, that 'of God, and through him, and for him, are all things!' 
 To him, then, be the glory for ever and ever ! Amen. 
 
400 ROMANS 12 : 1. 
 
 CHAP. XII. 1—21. 
 
 The apostle having thus concluded what maybe called the doctrinal part of 
 his epistle, now proceeds to the hortatory and practical part ; which contains 
 precepts both general and particular, that were specially adapted to those 
 whom he was addressing, and the spirit of which is applicable to all times and 
 nations. The very solemn and earnest manner in which he inculcates the 
 practical maxims that follow, shews how deeply he felt the importance of 
 uniting Christian doctrine and duty ; yea, how necessarily the true reception 
 of the former must lead to the latter. He begins with urging Christians to 
 make an entire consecration of themselves to God, vs. 1, 2; he urges upon his 
 readers humility, although the}' possess the special gifts of the Spirit ; inas- 
 much as all the diversities of such gifts are possessed by those who are only 
 parts of the spiritual body to which all Christians belong, vs. 3 — 5 ; he enjoins 
 upon each to make a wise and diligent improvement of the special gift or office 
 bestowed on him, vs. 6 — 8; and then gives, in the remainder of the chapter, a 
 most striking and admirable series of Christian precepts", of which no equal, 
 and no tolerable parallel, can be found in all the writings of the heathen world. 
 
 (I) Tlaguxahii ovv . . . &fov, I intrcat you, then, by the tender 
 mercies of God, i. e. such being the case as I have now stated, such 
 being the love and compassion exhibited toward sinners, and such 
 the provision made for them, I entreat you on account of the tender 
 mercies, etc. Ovv has reference to all that precedes, and intimates 
 that the writer is making a general deduction from it. — Oixrigpwv, 
 in the plural, is an imitation of the Hebrew tPttftn which has no 
 singular. It means kindness, benignity, compassion, etc. Aiu, by, 
 on account of; comp. Rom. 15: 30. 1 Cor. 1: 10. 2 Cor. 10: 1. 
 
 UugaGTi](i{u .... vfAOiv, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, 
 holy, acceptable, to God, which is your rational service. rfagaoiij- 
 aui is common in classic Greek, and is employed to designate the ac- 
 tion of bringing and presenting to the divinity, a sacrifice of any 
 kind. — Zotpaxa vpwv, your bodies, i.e. yourselves. The word ow- 
 puxa, appears to be used, because it makes the nature of the repre- 
 sentation or comparison more appropriate ; for the bodies of animals 
 are offered in sacrifice. — Svoiuv £ojoui>,a living sacrifice, in distinc- 
 tion from that of beasts which were slain. The meaning is, that the 
 living active powers of their bodies were to be continually offered or 
 devoted to God ; or, in other words, they were to offer a living, en- 
 during, lasting sacrifice, not a sacrifice once for all by self-immolation. 
 But possibly the reference may be to the custom of the Levitical law, 
 which forbade the offering to God what was accidentally killed. The 
 animal must be brought alive to the altar, and slain there. But I 
 prefer the former exegesis. 
 
 Ayiav, holy, i.e. tWafl, integer, without blemish, or defect; for 
 
ROMANS 12:1,2. 401 
 
 no other kind of sacrifice could be ayia, i. e. consecrated to God. — 
 Euctgfozov rw Ofot is an epexegesis of the preceding uyia. — Tqv 
 Xoyixijv luTtjfiav vfifiov, your rational service, viz. your spiritual of- 
 fering or service, or that which is mental or belongs to reason (koyog), 
 in distinction from an external service or XuTQtia oaoxtxij, such as 
 the Jews offered and relied on for salvation. I have rendered it ra- 
 tional, i. e. pertaining to the reason or understanding, because the 
 word reasonable (as we now use it) does not necessarily convey the 
 same idea. 
 
 (*2) Kai /.u] .... VOOS Vfiatv, and be not conformed to this world, 
 but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. The Codices 
 A. D. E. F. G. and many Codd. MSS-, read ovayji^uTtCeoOui and 
 [ifTa l uoocf.ovoVai, in the Infinitive; which would imply nuyuxaXa) 
 before them. The sense would be the same, in such a case, as the 
 Imperative of the text before us makes. — To> aicovi tovto), the pre- 
 sent world, i. e. rttTl Cbi"rr , according to the latter usage of the 
 word nb 1 ." among the Jews. The classic sense of «/W never coin- 
 cides with this. See Exegetieal Essays on aimv, alcovtoQ, etc., § 5. 
 By not conforming to the world, the apostle means, not adopting its 
 sinful customs and practices, whether of an external or internal 
 nature. 
 
 'yJklu {i6Tcxi.ioyqovo!}f, i.e. put on another form, person; ex- 
 change the i-iogqi] of the world for that of Christianity. Do this 
 avaxaipmast too roog Vfiatv, by the renewing of your mind, i. e. by 
 renovating the vovg naXaiog, by exchanging it for a vovg y.uivog, 
 such as the gospel inspires. In other words : ' Cherish no more a 
 spirit devoted to the world, and sinfully conforming to it ; cultivate a 
 new and different spirit, one devoted to God, one which will love and 
 practice what is good and pleasing to God.' 
 
 Eig to doy.i/.iu£siv .... itkeiov, that ye may learn what the will 
 of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Aoy.if.ia- 
 £oi means (among other things), to explore, to investigate, to search 
 out, "Jtl-j an d this for the purpose of learning or knowing. The 
 apostle means to say, that a renewed mind is essential to a successful 
 inquiry after practical and experimental Christian truth, in its whole 
 extent. " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, 
 whether. it be of God." 
 
 Tu viycr&ov •/.. r. )., I regard not as adjectives agreeing with {ii).r r 
 
 /<«, but as nouns, formed in the usual way, viz. by prefixing the ar- 
 
 - tide to the neuter gender of the adjective ; for to is of course imph- 
 
462 ROMANS 12:2—4. 
 
 ed before tvaoiazov and xtXtiov. So Flatt and Tholuck. — Euayeo- 
 rov means, acceptable to God, toj &sm being implied. Tiltiov, 
 that which is wanting in nothing, which has no defect, integrum. 
 
 The whole verse, therefore, is an exhortation to spiritual-minded- 
 ness, in order that Christians may attain to a full knowledge of what 
 their holy religion demands. 
 
 (3) TaQ here makes a transition to additional matter, designed 
 further to explain and confirm the general precepts just given ; " nar- 
 rationi uberiori inservit." Aiu rrjg yuoitog, by virtue of the [apos- 
 tolic] office bestowed on me; comp. Rom. 1: 5. 15:15. Eph. 3: 2, 8. — 
 ' Ev vf-iiv, among you; so Iv frequently means, in such a connection. 
 
 Mr\ .... (fpoveTv, lit. not to over-estimate himself beyond what he 
 ought to estimate. TIaoot is often used in such a sense, in compara- 
 tive declarations; e. g. Luke 13: 2. 3: 13. Rom. 14: 5. Heb. 1: 9. 1: 
 4. 3: 3. — ' AXXa . . . GonjQOiiiv, lit. but to estimate so as to act sober- 
 ly, i. e. to think modestly, prudently, in a rational way, of himself, 
 not being puffed up with his own attainments and gifts ; the same as 
 aocpQOvoyq cpgovilv. The paronomasia in qgoveiv and Goxfgoviiv 
 can hardly escape the reader's notice. 
 
 Exuorix) tag . . . niGTtojg, according to the measure of faith which 
 God hath imparted to him ; i. e. according to the measure of Christian 
 belief and knowledge, which God has imparted. In other words : 
 ' Let each one estimate his gifts, by the principles which the gospel 
 has revealed.' But Flatt and Tholuck understand nloxig here as 
 equivalent to %ugiapa, i.e. Tiiazig — to Tisjiiazev^e'i'Ov, quod credi- 
 tum est, donum ; for which I can find no adequate and satisfactory 
 proof or example. Nor can I perceive that the meaning which this 
 exegesis would give to the passage, is a probable one. The apostle 
 is not exhorting men to prize their gifts according to the diverse na- 
 ture of them, (which must be his meaning, if Flatt and Tholuck have 
 rightly explained him) ; but he is exhorting all, whatever may be their 
 gifts, to demean themselves modestly and humbly. All belong to one 
 body, and no invidious distinctions are to be made. Consequently it 
 is more congruous to explain fitzgov tiIgtscoQ, as indicating the meas- 
 ure of Christian belief, faith, i. e. of Christian knowledge which is the 
 object of faith. 
 
 (4) To shew that no one has any reason to set up himself as su- 
 perior to others, the apostle now introduces the admirable comparison 
 of the body of Christ, i. e. the church, with the human body. There 
 are various members of the latter; and they are designed for different 
 
ROMANS 12:5,6. 4(>3 
 
 uses. But all belong to one and the same body ; and each performs 
 its own proper functions for the good of the whole. So ought it to be 
 in the Christian church. — Ilgu'iiv, use, opus, negolium, office. 
 
 (5) Obrojg . . . (tt'viji so we, being many, are one body in Christ, 
 and are each members of others ; i. e. there is but one church, one 
 spiritual body, of which Christ is the head. To this we all belong. 
 In this respect there is no preeminence. — Aa0t7g for v.u& tva, prop- 
 erly a solecism ; see also John 8: 9. Mark 14: 19. 3 Mace. 5: 34, and 
 dvu fig Rev. 21: 21. 
 
 (6) " Eyovieg . . . d'eaqoga, and possessing gifts which are diverse, 
 according to the grace bestowed upon us ; i. e. we, who are many in 
 number, and yet one body in Christ, possess gifts which are diverse, 
 according to the diversity of the operations of the Spirit, who bestows 
 different gifts on different persons. * Eyovxeg agrees with ijfiilg un- 
 derstood, and is a continuation of the preceding sentence. 
 
 Ei'ti ngoqiirti'av, whether prophecy , i. e. ilia [h'youev or tyovrag] 
 ngoqirjrficcv, the ellipsis of tyoptv or tyovrtg being quite plain. 
 Ilgoq^reiuv here evidently means, yagiv Tigoq^rdag, i. e. the office 
 or gift of prophecy, the prophetic office; which explanation, moreo- 
 ver, is rendered certain by the sequel. But why is 7igoqt]Teta a 
 public or a private office ? And in either case, what were its appropri- 
 ate duties 1 
 
 To answer this question philologically, as well as by the analogy 
 of the Scriptures, it is necessary to resort, in the first place, to the 
 classic use of the word. ITgoqijrtjg, among the Greeks, generally 
 signified an interpreter of the will of the gods, an interpreter of those 
 who were priests of the gods, etc. The essence of the definition is the 
 idea of being an interpreter, one who cxplcdns or declares, viz. what 
 was before dark, or not understood, or not known. So the Greeks 
 could say, TtgoqijTqg fttov — hgov — fiavxiog — Jfovocov, v.. r. A. 
 Sometimes (but more rarely) jrgoqr']T?jg means, one icho himself fore- 
 tells, one who predicts, etc. ; and it is then equivalent to the Greek 
 {AavTig. But in general, it differs from (.lavitg, inasmuch as the latter 
 means a person who is himself under the divine afflatus, in such a 
 manner as to be bereaved of his own consciousness and reason, and 
 merely to utter (as an instrument) what the inspiring divinity causes 
 him to utter. This, which the {.uxi'Tig himself is not supposed to un- 
 derstand, and can not explain, it was the office of the TigoqrjTtjg to 
 interpret. Plato derives pavug from (ialvofiat, to rave, to be out of 
 one's senses ; and this shews the peculiar meaning of (.luvrig, in dis- 
 
464 ROMANS 12:6. 
 
 tinction from TjQoyrjzijg, which usually designates only such persons 
 as are in possession of their reason. 
 
 nooq>']ii]g, in the New Testament, corresponds well with the He- 
 brew N" 1 ^: , which means an interpreter of the divine will generally, 
 and specially one who by divine inspiration foretells future events. 
 Of this latter sense, which all admit, it is unnecessary to give any ex- 
 amples ; but as to the former, the reader may consult for N 1 ^; , Judg. 
 6: 8. 2 Sam. 7: 2. Ex. 7: 1, where Aaron is said to be a N"^: to 
 Moses, i. e. the interpreter to the people of the plans and designs of 
 Moses, (comp. Exod. 4: 16. Jer. 15: 19). Deut. 18: 18. For the like 
 sense of nQoq>-qit]g in the New Testament, comp. Matt. 5: 12. 10: 
 41. 11: 9. 13: 17. John 7: 52. Acts 7: 48, 52. Rev. 10: 7. 11: 10, 
 18. 18: 24, 20. Comp. also the verb 7rgoq.rjT£V(D in Rev. 10: 11. 11: 3. 
 Luke 1: 67. Acts 2: 17, 18. 19: 6. 21: 9. 1 Cor. 11: 4, 5. 13: 9. 14: 
 1, 3, 4, 5, 24, 31, 39 ; and with these texts compare Joel 2: 28. Num. 
 11: 25, 27. 1 Sam. 10: 5, 6, 10—13. 19: 20—24. 
 
 From all these passages it is put beyond a doubt, that to prophesy 
 means, not merely to predict, (which is rather the predominant signi- 
 fication of the word), but also to preach (as we say), to warn, to 
 threaten, to utter devotional sentiment, to utter predse ; in short, to 
 speak any thing by divine inspiration or afflatus. TI'joqi]Tilo.v in 
 our text, therefore, does not of course refer to those who predicted ; it 
 may have another meaning. More probable is it, indeed it is almost 
 certain, that here it has a more general sense, referring to those who 
 publicly uttered any thing by special divine aid or inspiration, which 
 had respect to the subject of religion. 
 
 Such, then, were ngoq.rjai in the Christian church, i. e. men 
 endowed with a supernatural gift in regard to addressing the people, 
 either for the purposes of instruction or of devotion. The apostle 
 directs them to perform the duties of their office, -auxu xr\v avuXoyiav 
 trjc; nioxewg, according to the proportion of faith, or according to the 
 analogy of faith. According to the first method of translating it, the 
 sense would be : ' Let the prophets speak only as they have faith to 
 do it ;' i. e. let them not go beyond the faith imparted to them. Faith 
 here must mean, that which is the object of their belief i. e. what is 
 given to them in an extraordinary manner as the object of their belief. 
 The apostle means then to say : ' Let not the prophets exceed what 
 is entrusted to them. Let them keep within the bounds of their rea- 
 son and consciousness, and not, like the heathen puvrfig, rave, or 
 speak they know not what.' Compare 1 Cor. 14: 32, where the fact 
 
ROMANS 12: 6, 7. 405 
 
 is made clear, that Paul considered the prophets" as conscious, ra- 
 tional, voluntary, accountahle agents, while in the exercise of their 
 gifts. And as to the solemn and conscientious discharge of the duty 
 of a prophet, comp. Jer. 23: 25—40. Ezek. 2: 0—8. 3: 17—21. 
 
 In this manner Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Pelagius, 
 Calvin, Flatt, Tholuck, and many others, have understood the phrase 
 under examination. 
 
 At the same time, as avaloylav may signify analogy, agreement, 
 (for so it means in the classics), the sense here may be : 'Prophesy 
 in such a manner, that what you say will accord with the doctrine 
 of faith, viz. with that which the Scripture contains.' The former 
 sense is the most congruous here, and therefore the most probable. 
 
 It is obvious, that the elliptical construction reigns through this 
 whole paragraph. Here we must understand 7igoqt]ziu(o t uev before 
 xara ttjv uvaXoyiav. 
 
 (7) Eht diuxoviav, i. e. lire [t^oifisv] diuy.ovt'av. AtaKOvoq, 
 in a general sense, means a servant, a waiter of any one. But as the 
 office of a servant is elevated by the station of his master and the du- 
 ties which the servant has to perform, so the word is far from being 
 always employed in a degrading sense ; nay, it is sometimes (like the 
 Hebrew IS?) used in a most honourable sense, as servant of God, 
 servant of Christ, servant (minister) of the gospel, etc. In the pas- 
 sage before us, diaxovia probably refers to the official duty of the 
 diaxovoi in the Christian church, to whom was committed the care 
 of alms for the poor, of providing for the sick, of preparing conve- 
 niences for public worship, etc., and generally, of watching over and 
 taking care of the external matters of the church. In the primitive 
 age of the church this office was very simple, having reference only 
 to the alms of the church. So the verb diuxovtco very often means, 
 to supply one with food, to make ready or provide food for any one, 
 e.g. Matt. 4: 11. Mark 1: 13. Luke 10: 40. 12: 37. 17: 8. John 12: 
 2 ; comp. Acts vi. But in subsequent ages, the office was extended 
 to all the external and merely temporal relations of the church. So 
 in the Jewish synagogue, the y&[ , inspector, overseer, corresponded to 
 dictxovog. 
 
 'Ev trj diaxoi'la, i. e. o r jf.ifvot Jiuror like iv zovzoig 'ia&t, 1 Tim. 
 4: 15, i. e. sit totus in Mis, let him be wholly devoted to his ministra- 
 tion or service, let him be deeply engaged to perform its duties with 
 fidelity and zeal. 
 
 Ehi 6 diddexwv. Here the construction is varied, although 
 59 
 
466 ROMANS 12: 7,8. 
 
 there appears no special reason for it in the nature of the sentence. 
 We should expect fi« didaoxukiav here, i. e. the Accusative case of 
 the abstract noun ; but in its stead, we have a participial noun in the 
 Nominative. Of course, »j (sit) is understood here after 6 didaoxtop. 
 — ' ' Ev t*i didaaxaXla, i. e. taim as before. 
 
 That the office of teacher is here distinguished from 7i(tog:/;rr/?on 
 the one hand, and from ita(juxu?.oiv on the other, is plain. But in 
 what this distinction consisted, it would be a difficult matter to tell. 
 In regard to the first distinction, it would seem that nooqi]n;c indi- 
 cated one who taught by inspiration, and only so far as inspiration 
 prompted and enabled him to teach. It was an office created and 
 sustained by a miraculous gift. But StdaoxaXog appears to have 
 been an ordinary stated teacher, one who was so by official station, 
 and who taught according to the degree of religious knowledge which 
 he possessed. 
 
 (8) Eire o thxqcmuXojv, i.e. u nuQUY.uloiv ?/. — Ev r>; naoaxXr}- 
 oti, i. e. tOTio as before. But what is TrugaxaXcov ? The verb nu- 
 Quv.ult'oj means, to warn, to console. UaoaY.aXwv, then, would seem 
 to indicate an exhorter, i. e. one who urged to practical duties, who 
 dwelt upon the threatenings and promises of the gospel, and so aided 
 and completed the work which the d'idaoxaXog had begun. 
 
 How long the distinction was kept up in the church, which is 
 here intimated, I know not. But in the original settlement of the 
 churches in New England, many of them had two ministers, a di- 
 duaxaXog and a nagoumxkmv, as here explained. It was believed, at 
 that time, that these distinct offices were intended to be perpetual in 
 the church. But why consistency would not of course lead to the 
 maintenance of all the other offices here named, it would be difficult 
 to say. 
 
 'O fttraSidovg, sc. ?;, he who is a distributer, i. e. he who distri- 
 butes the charities of the church, or of individuals in it. — Ev v.n'ko- 
 xrixi, i. e. with a simple or single regard to the good of those for 
 whom the charity was bestowed, without any selfish or sinister pur- 
 poses of his own. 
 
 But in what respect 6 (ittadidovg differed from the diuxovog, 
 above mentioned, we are now unable to ascertain with precision. 
 That there was a difference, is plain from the manner in which the 
 whole of this paragraph is constructed. May it not have been, that 
 the diuxovog was the general overseer, the collector and provider of 
 alms ; while the 6 iitTadid'oiig, was the actual distributer of them 
 
ROMANS 12: 8. 4G7 
 
 among the needy ? This seems quite probable, from the nature ol 
 the case, and from the fact that here are two distinct offices, both 
 having a relation to the same class of duties. 
 
 O nooiniunzvog, it> a:iovdij, let him who presides, do it with dili- 
 gent attention. A question may indeed be raised here, whether o 
 7TooiuTUf.{fi'og means an office in the church, or only a person to whom 
 the care of some duty or business is committed. The verb npoi'oTTj- 
 (il sometimes means, to attend with care end diligence to any thing, 
 q. d. to stand over it, as we say in English. So in Tit. 3: 8, ■Auh»i> 
 toyo)v i\ (jo'i 'in aoO ixt means, to be diligent in 'performing good works. 
 But as J 7i ooi (7t a^fi'og stands connected with a series of other words 
 which express some official duty, most interpreters have been inclined 
 to construe it here as having respect to office. It seems plainly to be 
 used in 1 Thess. 5: 12, to designate one who holds the office of a 
 teacher; and in I Tim. 5: 19, it also seems to designate one who 
 holds the office of ruling or governing in the church, as well as 
 teaching. The context of this latter passage has been regarded, 
 indeed, by most commentators, as shewing that there were some tiqo- 
 TaTttfJievot, who held the double office of teacher and governor or ruler 
 in the church ; although, as some of them suppose, these offices would 
 seem more usually to have been separate. In like manner, Justin 
 Martyr speaks of a TiQutoraig icn> udtlqwv, who (it appears) is the 
 presbyter of the church, Apolog. I. c. 67. 
 
 In 1 Cor. 12: 28, is another account of Paul concerning the 
 offices in the church existing at Corinth; from which it appears that 
 there were reckoned in that church the following orders of offices 
 and gifts : dnitarolot, 77007 >~ r <"- Siddaxakoi, dwufAHQ, yaoto^uxa 
 iu^iuiwv, di'Tt/.ijipiig, xrjSfort'infig, ytvt] yXo)Gooji>, dugprivtviai' 
 quite a different reckoning from that in our text, and yet the object of 
 it is the very same as in Rom. 12: 8, viz. to shew Christians that the 
 same Spirit has bestowed gifts and offices of different and various 
 kinds, but that inasmuch as he is the author of all, and they who 
 possess them all belong to one and the same body, so there should be 
 no boasting or pride indulged on account of them, but every one who 
 possesses them should exercise his own gift in the best manner he 
 can, for the edification of the whole. 
 
 It must be obvious, that the xvpe@vrjoeig here mentioned, seems to 
 accord with the noo'iuTUfAfvog in the text; but whether it accords with 
 the same word in 1 Thess. 5: 12. 1 Tim. 5: 17, seems more doubtful. 
 From a comparison of the whole together, it appears equally clear that 
 
468 ROMANS 12: 8. 
 
 the office itself of a TiQoiGxufxivog, as designated here (and in 1 Cor. 
 12 : 28 by y.v(3igvi']Gtig), was one of the lowest in the church. It is 
 ranked the seventh, in 1 Cor. 12: 28; and the sixth, in Rom. 12: 8. In 
 1 Tim. 5: 17 and 1 Thess. 5: 12, it is represented as entitled to special 
 honour, when it is united with the person of a teacher or preacher. 
 
 'O iXeojv tv 1)mo6t7]ti, he who shews compassion, [let him do it] 
 with cheerfulness ; comp. 2 Cor. 9: 7. 
 
 I have, in the above paragraphs, given the reader the usual exegesis 
 of the passage in question, viz. 6 [itjudidovg, iv omlorr/Ti ' o nQo'ixrtu^t- 
 voq, iv aTTovdjj • o iXeav, iv IXagoxifit. But an attentive and repeated 
 examination of it has raised doubts in my own mind, whether there is 
 not a radical mistake at the foundation of this whole interpretation. I 
 refer not now to the verbal criticisms merely ; which, it is obvious, are 
 in general well founded and correct. But I refer to the assumption, in 
 this case, that 6 fiuadidovg, 6 TiooioTuuevoQ, and 6 ihav, designate officers 
 or offices in the church ; I mean officers in the usual and proper sense of 
 the word, viz. men set apart by the special designation and appointment 
 of the church for the performance of some peculiar and appropriate 
 duties. I have a predominant persuasion, that these words here desig- 
 nate duties which individuals merely as such were to perform, and to 
 whom the church looked for such performance, because they had abil- 
 ity or opportunity to perform them, or (if it shall be thought more 
 probable) who were specially desired by the church to perform them. 
 In this last case it might be true, for example, that to an individual in 
 the church who was wealthy, the church looked in a peculiar manner 
 with expectation that he would aid the poor ; or (to adduce another 
 example) it might happen that some individual had leisure, and also 
 particular qualifications, for visiting the sick, consoling mourners, coun- 
 selling the perplexed, relieving the distressed by various personal atten- 
 tions, etc., and the church looked to him as a 6 ihwv, or they made a 
 special request of him that he would attend to such duties. All this 
 might be, nay, it is all very natural and probable : while, at the same 
 time, this would not prove that there were regularly instituted offices in 
 the church, designated by 6 [iiiudiSovg, o nQoiaiu^rog, and 6 tfowv. 
 
 These hints give the general views which I feel compelled to enter- 
 tain of the words under examination. But as the whole subject has an 
 important bearing on the polity of the Christian church, I feel obliged 
 to assign reasons for such an opinion. 
 
 (1) It is obvious that the apostle does not here confine himself to 
 extraordinary and miraculous gifts only, although he includes them. 
 The TTgocfijT?^ was one who spoke under the influence of inspiration ; 
 but 6 dcddoy.ov and 6 -naqay.cOMv might or might not be inspired ; 
 for the office itself w 7 as of a permanent or general nature, and not limited 
 to special circumstances. So the 8iuv.ovoq might or might not be an 
 inspired man ; for Stephen (Acts VI. VII.) was " full of the Holy 
 Ghost," while we have no particular reason to believe that all of his 
 brethren in office were endowed with the same gift. The same is true 
 
ROMANS 12 : 8. 4G9 
 
 of o {iiTudidovg, 6 nQoicnduivog, and o ttiitiv ' for the respective indi- 
 viduals who performed the duties designated hy these words, might, 
 at times, enjoy special divine assistance and direction. But this helongs 
 not essentially to the nature of the duties themselves, which may in gen- 
 eral be performed without miraculous interposition. 
 
 (2) It is equally obvious, that the apostle, in the whole extent of his 
 exhortation here, includes both public and private, official and unofficial 
 duties. A bare inspection of vs. 6 — 21 sets this question at rest. He 
 means to say, that inasmuch as all Christians are members of one and 
 the same body, all their gifts and talents, of whatever kind or nature, 
 whether adapted to the performance of public or private duties, wheth- 
 er they are aided by the special influence of the Spirit or otherwise — 
 all were to be employed in the most efficient and profitable manner. 
 Such is the evident tenor of his whole discourse. Who, for example, 
 would seek in vs. 9, 10, seq., for directions only to men in official sta- 
 tions ? There is no reasonable question, therefore, respecting the gen- 
 eral principle which I have here laid down, in regard to the whole par- 
 agraph which contains the apostle's exhortation. But ivhere does he 
 dismiss the address to the officers of the church as such, and begin with 
 individuals or laymen ? This is the very gist of the question ; and in 
 order to throw some light on this, I observe, 
 
 (3) That the very construction and natural order of vs. 6 — 8, favour 
 the supposition, that the last three classes of men named are private, not 
 official persons. 
 
 In respect to the natural order of the passage, it would seem to be 
 an obvious dictate of propriety, that the apostle should begin first with 
 the officers of the church: and this he has plainly done ; for we have 
 7r£oqp?jr>;£, Sidxovog, SiSdaxaXog, o jrtxQaxodoJv, before he proceeds to the 
 rest. Now if, after nugay.afoav, he proceeds to unofficial men (as I sup- 
 pose), then it would be perfectly natural to select from among these, 
 those who were particularly distinguished in the church for their use- 
 fulness ; and so he seems to have done. 
 
 (4) It is difficult, if not impossible, to make out official distinctions 
 through the whole of vs. 6 — 8. How does o ^inudidovg, as an of- 
 ficer of the church, differ from 6 dtdxopog ? And again ; how does o ils- 
 
 wv differ from both, or from either ? A question which none of the 
 commentators have answered with any good degree of satisfaction. 
 Indeed, most of them pass the difficulty over with entire silence ; which 
 is at least the most easy, if not the most instructive, method of commen- 
 tary. Here then, according to them, are two supplementary offices to 
 that of diuxovog, the main, and originally the only, duty of which was, 
 to take care of the poor. 
 
 But further ; who is 6 nooio-rdutvog ? He who presides over the 
 church ? If so, how can he be placed the sixth in rank here, and the 
 seventh in 1 Cor. 12: 28 ? (See xvfltQvi'io-eig there). Then again, why 
 should o TiQo'iaTdusvog not have a place among the teachers, instead of 
 being placed where it has, on the right and left hand, an office of mere 
 charity ? Does the presiding officer of a whole church ever rank in 
 this way, in times either ancient or modern ? I know of no such ex- 
 
470 ROMANS 12 : 8. 
 
 ample. Is not o Tcgo'Lo-iapsvog a teacher, in 1 Thess. 5: 12, and in 1 Tim. 
 5: 17? 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that the apostle has not strictly followed the or- 
 der of office here, as to dignity or rank, inasmuch as he has mentioned 
 the deacon before the teacher or exhorter. But there is an apparent rea- 
 son for this. In speaking to the official classes of the Romish church, 
 the highest and lowest office, viz. that of prophet and deacon, i. e. the 
 two extremes of office occurred first ; which is a very natural method of 
 thought. These the apostle wrote down as they occurred. He then 
 supplied the intermediate offices, viz. that of teacher and exhorter, i. e. 
 the proper doctrinal instructer, whether in public or private, and exhorter 
 or practical and persuasive preacher. This will account very naturally 
 for the order of officers here. But in 1 Cor. 12: 28, the apostle ex pro- 
 fesso recounts the natural order seriatim ; which he makes to be, 1. A- 
 postles. 2. Prophets. 3. Teachers. 4. Such as possessed miraculous 
 powers in general (Svvciuttg). 5. Such as possessed the gift of healing 
 the sick. 6. ""Avxilr^ig. 7. Kvptovrjosig. 8. Those who spoke vari- 
 ous languages. 9. Interpreters (comp. v. 30). 
 
 Here then, the 6 (nxudidovg, 6 Jigoiaxdutvog, and 6 iliwv of our 
 text, are omitted, (unless indeed the 6 ngo'icrTupsvog is found in the 
 xvfieovi'jo-sig, of which more hereafter), and dvxih'jipiig comes in for 
 6 Siuxovog. So Bretschneider on avxlhupig ; "hand dubie ad munus 
 diaconorum et diaconissarum respicitur, ut etiam patres eccles. puta- 
 runt." That this last declaration is correct, one may see by consulting 
 Suicer's Thesaurus, sub. voc. uvxih]i{jig. Vitringa thinks that uvxlh]- 
 yig means, the interpreters of foreign languages (comp. 1 Cor. 12:30, 
 disQptvevovai,), De Vet. Synag. II. 31. p. 509. But the other exegesis is 
 most natural ; for avxlltjipig means, help, assistance, care ; and here the 
 abstract (as grammarians say) being used for the concrete, the sense is 
 curatores, i. e. diuxovoi. 
 
 It is obvious, now, that in this noted passage in 1 Cor. 12 : 28, 
 6 pixudidovg and 6 tltwv are omitted ; and this gives very strong rea- 
 son to suspect, that these were not properly offices in the church. 
 
 But how is it with 6 ngo'iaxuutvog ? Is he not found in the xvfoo- 
 rrjotig of 1 Cor. 12: 28 ? This looks probable at first view ; but let us 
 examine a little more thoroughly. 
 
 First, I remark, that the word 7XQo'iaxi]pi> and its derivates are by no 
 means confined to designate the idea of presiding over persons. It 
 sometimes conveys the idea of being placed over any thing, or any 
 kind of business, in order to take care of it, see that it is done, etc. ; i. e. 
 the undertaker in any thing, the protector or curator of any person or 
 thing, the Greeks call 6 Trgo'iaxdpevog, 6 ngoiaxtag, o Tcgo'iffxuxrjg, i. q. 
 patron, helper. Accordingly the word occurs in the sense of aiding, 
 assisting, etc. in Rom. 16: 2, where the brethren of the Roman church 
 are charged by the apostle to aid, in any manner she may need, Phebe, 
 who had been a ngocrxdxig of many Christians, i. e. a helper, a curator, 
 one who had aided them by her personal attention and by her charity. 
 The grammarian Varinus explains ngoaxaaia by fio>i&£ia. In the let- 
 ter of Athanasius ad Solitarios, when speaking of the disposition of Ze- 
 
ROMANS 12: 8. 471 
 
 nobia to aid Paul of Samosata, he says : ttqomx>] xov — auoaaxEws, she 
 aided him of Samosata. So Theophylact, commenting on Rom. 12: 8, 
 says : IlQoi\TTuo~&ai taxi xo (lorftuv, xul Stu qi]fiarav xal 8ia xoii awuuxog 
 uvxoii tw (tom&tittq Stofiiixa, i. e. iiQo'ioTour&at means, to aid, both by 
 words and by personal services, him ivho is needy. 
 
 That such a meaning then may be given to 6 iroo'taiaptvog in Rom. 
 12: 8, seems clear. The usus loquendi allows it. What then does the 
 context demand ? Let us see what precedes, and what follows. 
 
 What precedes is, o [texadbdovg, iv kttIoxi]xl' which I now render, 
 let him who imparts [charity], do it with liberality. So beyond all doubt, 
 the words may be rendered. That anXoxng may mean liberality, one 
 may see in 2 Cor. 8: 2. 9: 11, 13. James 1: 5. So Zenophon : utxIov- 
 cxdxov 8k ftoi doxu sivai v.. x. X., it seems to me to be the part of a most lib- 
 eral man, etc., Cyrop. VIII. p. 155. So Josephus, speaking of Araimah's 
 liberal offer to David (2 Sam. 24: 19 — 24), says : David highly esteemed 
 his ujrKoxrjxa, liberality, etc., Antiq. VII. 10. So in Test. XII. Patriach, 
 p. 624 : o Osctg avrtQ/u xi] ujrl6xr t xi pov, God helped my liberal disposition. 
 See other examples in Kypke in loc. As to 6 [uxuStdovg, which is com- 
 monly applied to one who distributes charity, and so made for substance 
 synonymous with dtuxorog, it is very doubtful, to say the least, whether 
 the word will bear this construction. Brctschneider has indeed given 
 it such a meaning, (as others before him have often done); but, as Vi- 
 tringa long ago observed (De Vet. Synag. II. 3. p. 501), "the proper 
 Greek word for distribute is ^tc/.^l^(»ul• ,, as one may see in John 6: 11. 
 Luke 18: 22, (also in 11: 22 it has the like sense). Acts 4: 35. The like 
 sense this verb has in the classics. But {itxadidoipi properly means, 
 to impart anions; others what belongs to one's self, to give of one's own to 
 others ; which is, or at any rate may be, a very different thing from dis- 
 tributing the alms of the church. 
 
 If these words be rightly explained, we have in them a command 
 of the apostle, that those who are able (isradidovca, to give in charity, 
 should do this in a liberal manner. That all this is congruous and ap- 
 propriate, I presume no one will venture to deny. 
 
 We have seen what precedes 6 nooiaxdutrog. Let us now see what 
 follows it. This is 6 (Ittav, iv Huqoxijxl, let him who performs deeds of 
 mercy, do it cheerfully, i. e. let him go about this task with a willing 
 mind, voluntarily, not grudgingly and with a forbidding demeanour. 
 The duty of o iXaw> may differ from that of 0° [itxudidovg, in this res- 
 pect, viz., that the former consisted in personal cares and services be- 
 stowed upon the sick, and unfortunate ; while the latter consisted in do- 
 nations of money, food, etc. These latter duties devolved especially on 
 the rich; the former could be performed by all classes of Christians. 
 
 Between these two classes of benefactors, then, the apostle places 
 o nooiaxixpsvog. If these classes, now, are not officers of the church, it 
 would seem probable that 6 Trgo'iaxapsvog does not here stand for one. 
 That 6 fXiiSjv cannot be made to mean an officer of the church, the si- 
 lence of most commentators concerning it would seem pretty strongly 
 to indicate. Accordingly, Vitringa does not hesitate to say : Qnicquid 
 enirn adversae opinionis auctores statuaut, ^eri non potest, ut per xov ile- 
 ovvxa describantur aliqui ecclesiae officiarii [officers]. 
 
472 ROMANS 12: 8. 
 
 It does seem most probable, therefore, that 6 ngoioTuusvog, is of the 
 like tenor with ij ngoaruTig in Rom. 16 : 2, which there means, one who 
 receives and entertains strangers, i. e. a helper of Christian brethren 
 coming from abroad; for such a helper (ngoo~cuxiq) was Phebe. And 
 this seems the more probable, inasmuch as the duty of hospitality, so 
 often and so urgently insisted on by the apostles, has no specific men- 
 tion among the special charities here, unless it be included in this 
 word ; although it is touched on, as it respects the church in general, 
 in V. 13. But a comparison with Rom. 16: 2, as I must think, ren- 
 ders the sense now given to 6 JigoiaTautvog, quite probable. 
 
 But Tholuck and others appeal to y.vfogvi]<jzig in 1 Cor. 12: 28, and 
 say, that as xv^gvr^tig means there a special gift or office bestowed by 
 the influence of the Spirit, so 6 figo'io-rufxivog must be considered as cor- 
 responding with it. But what is v.vfiigrrpig ? A question difficult to 
 be answered, inasmuch as this word in 1 Cor. 12: 28 is a unu$ ksyopE- 
 vov. In classic Greek it means guidance, direction, steering ; and is es- 
 pecially (as also the verb xvfogvua) applied to designate the steering or 
 guiding of a ship by the pilot. Hence many critics understand it here 
 (1 Cor. 12: 28), as designating the office of a ruler in the church. But 
 how can such an office be placed the seventh in rank, (for the apostle 
 here seems to make an enumeration according to the order of prece- 
 dence), and have but one or two offices reckoned beloAV it ? This seems 
 to be exceedingly incongruous. The governor and guide of a Christian 
 church would seem, in the order of nature, to stand at its head. 
 
 I ask, in the next place, how it should happen, that xvftfgvrjaeis 
 stands here in such a position, having in order before it uvrili^sig, 
 opitulatores, curatores, (i. q. dtdxovoi), and after it yivn ylwaawv ? Why 
 does it not stand next before or after noocpi'iTctg or diducrxukovg, where 
 we should almost of necessity expect to find it, if it mean presidents or 
 governors of the church ? 
 
 Moved by such difficulties, I feel constrained to seek another than 
 a classical meaning for v.vfagvi']o-tig. But as, in the New Test., the word 
 is not elsewhere to be found, we must resort to the Septuagint ; and 
 here the word is uniformly employed, as the rendering of the Hebrew 
 fnbl 2i"in, skilful dexterity, ivise foresight, power of prudent or skilful 
 management. In this very sense xv^igvrjaig is plainly employed in Prov. 
 1: 5. 11: 14. 24: 6, una y.vfcgvrpung yLvtramoXipog' and these are all the 
 instances in which the word occurs in the Septuagint. In accordance 
 with this meaning is the Lex. Cyrilli : xvfiigvrjo-ig, yoovrpiq. So the 
 Glossae ineditae in Prov. Salom. : xV/Ssgvrjaig, ijTio-Tfjpt] rwv Tigurrouivav. 
 So also Hesychius : xVj3sgvi'io-eig, ngovotTixal inio-j^pai, xul cpgovrjatig, 
 considerate knowledge and understanding. 
 
 In view of all this, we may now venture to translate xvfttgvrjasig, 
 skilful discernment or insight. But in what respect ? To answer this, 
 we must let the apostle explain himself. Let us go back, then, to 1 Cor. 
 12: 8 — 10, and there we shall find nearly if not quite the same reckoning 
 of spiritual gifts as in vs. 28 — 30. But there, before yarn ykomaiov, stands 
 Staxglatig tmv Ttvivparav which does not at all appear in vs. 28 — 30, 
 unless it be designated by xv(iiQv>]otiQ. That it should not in fact be in- 
 
ROMANS 12: 8. 473 
 
 eluded in this latter passage, distinguished as such a gift must he, and 
 important as it was in The then state of the church, would be singular. 
 Now as in 1 Cor. 12: 28, yivi] yXwo-awv comes immediately after xv§sqvJ}- 
 xrug, and in v. 10 immediately after Siaxgfotig nvfvfidrwv, so it is natural 
 to conclude, that the apostle means to designate the same thing by 
 xvfisQvi'jcrus as he does by SiaxQiaiig nvtvpuTuv. For as peculiar skill 
 and insight would be appropriate and necessary to the discerning of spi- 
 rits, so the qualifications for such a duty may be used to designate the 
 persons who are to perform it. Philology allows this ; but above all, 
 the order, coneinnity, and consistency of the apostle's discourse here, 
 seem to render it necessary, or at least quite probable. This being con- 
 ceded, it would follow that no argument from xvftegv/jGEig can he ad- 
 duced, in order to show that 6 nQoiampevog in Rom. 12: 8 means a ruler 
 in the Christian church. 
 
 I am the more satisfied with this view of the subject, as I find it was 
 fully embraced by Lightfoot and Vitringa, " quos [in re critica] facile 
 principes nominarem." See Vitringa, De Vet. Synag. II. 3. p. 507, seq. 
 It remains only that I notice one objection more, to the meaning 
 which I have assigned to o nQoio-Taptvog. This is, that in 1 Thess. 5: 
 12 and 1 Tim. 3: 4, 12, it means governors, overseers of the church ; and 
 consequently that this is the most probable meaning in Rom. 12: 8. 
 
 On this allegation I must be very brief, as I have already put the 
 patience of the reader to a trial. In 1 Thess. 5: 12, the apostle says to 
 the church: 'Affectionately regard xohq xoniaviag iv vplv, xal nqoio-xa- 
 fiivovq vfjwv iv xvolto, xal vov&szovvtcic vfiag. The question is, whether 
 he means here different classes of officers ; or one and the same class, 
 in the exercise of divers gifts. I know of no way in which this ques- 
 tion can be definitely and certainly decided. The insertion of the ar- 
 ticle before xonim'xag (the first participial noun in the series), and the 
 omission of it before the other like nouns irgoiaiapivovg and vov&txovv- 
 rag, will not prove, as has sometimes been assumed, that all belong to 
 one class; nor will it prove the contrary ; for(l) The article is usually 
 omitted, even where the meaning of the nouns employed is plainly di- 
 verse, provided they are of the same gender and case ; e. g. Mark 15: 1, 
 fiiTu twv ngtafivTEowv xal yQa^pujiMv (the latter without xoiv); and so 
 Col. 2: 8, 19. 2 Thess. 3: 2. Rom. 1: 20. Phil. 2: 17, et saepe alibi ; see 
 Winer's N. Test. Gramm. § 18: 3 — 5. (2) The article is often inserted, 
 where each noun indicates a separate subject; e. g. Mark 2: 16, ol 
 YQappaiug xal ol (paguraloL' so Luke 8: 24. 11: 39. 1 Thess. 3: 11. Phil. 
 3: 10, et alibi saepe ; comp. Winer ut. sup. Of course, as usage is both 
 ways, the omission of the article here can prove nothing. Nor, 
 
 (2) Will the context enable us to decide the point under considera- 
 tion ; as there seems to be nothing in it which has a direct bearing on 
 this point. We are left, therefore, to the simple nature of the case. 
 What can be gathered from this ? I answer, (a) That xovg xomwxag is 
 evidently a generic (not a specific) term, and may indicate any kind of 
 labour performed in behalf of the church, (b) The words nQo'icnaps- 
 vovg and vovdsxovvxag appear to be specific here, i.e. to designate par- 
 ticular (and probably different) classes of persons. The most probable 
 60 
 
474 ROMANS 12: 8. 
 
 interpretation then is, that Trgo'larapiivovg and vov&tiovvtuq designate the 
 specific classes, comprehended under the genus xoiriMViag. This being 
 admitted, (and certainly no one will say this is an improbable exegesis), 
 it would seem altogether probable, that TTgoiara^ivovg here has the like 
 sense as in Rom. 12: 8, viz. those who applied themselves to the exter- 
 nal temporal business or concerns of the church, while vov&STovvTag 
 designates all the various kinds of teachers. The exhortation of the 
 apostle then is, to regard with kindly feelings, those who laboured in 
 any respect, whether temporal or spiritual, for the good of the church. 
 This determines nothing, therefore, against our interpretation of 6 ngo- 
 taxafisvoQ in Rom. 12: 8. 
 
 From what has now been said, it is easy to explain 1 Tim. 5: 17, 
 " Let the elders yalug ngoio-Twrtg, managing well [the concerns of the 
 church], be accounted worthy of double honour [i. e. of ample mainte- 
 nance], specially those who labour in word and doctrine." There were 
 then two kinds of elders, or (to speak more accurately) there were two 
 departments in which the ttqhtPvt?qoi might labour; they might be ngo- 
 forojTfc, i. e. standing over, taking care of, serving the temporal con- 
 cerns and business, etc., of the church ; or they might be specially de- 
 voted to preaching and teaching, loyoi y.al didaaxcriia' or perhaps this 
 latter means, that they might perform the duties of a ngoearuig, and 
 also teach and preach in addition to this. That the government of 
 the church, in the ordinary sense of presiding over and making i-ules for 
 the church, is not here meant, at least that it is not necessarily meant, 
 seems to me quite plain, from comparing ngd'taTyui and its derivates in 
 other places. E. g. in this same epistle, 3: 13, deacons are spoken of who 
 rim'wv y.uXmq Trgo'ioTuutvoi xul twv id lav ouciav, manage their own children 
 and households well, i. e. take good care of them ; for so v. 13 explains, it, 
 oi yug y.nXwg 8iaxovi}aavTtg = y.alwg irgo'iarautvoi. I cannot refrain 
 from adding, that this last passage throws great light on what has been 
 before said about 6 ngoiatdfiwog, and serves very much to confirm it. 
 
 So then, ngo'icnaufroi and ngotaThntg may mean, the performers of 
 any service or services which pertain to the external welfare and man- 
 agement of the church. That the ngmfivitgob sometimes did such ser- 
 vices, is clear from 1 Tim. 5: 17. Rut that others might perform them, 
 is equally clear from Rom. 12: 8. 1 Cor. 12: 28. Rom. 16: 2, etc. 
 
 We can now account for it, that the apostle says, in Rom 12: 8, 
 'Let u irgo'laiauivog do his duty iv a7Tov5> h with diligence, i.e. with 
 active, watchful attention and effort.' But how iv anond)/ can be appli- 
 ed to riding, in the common sense of this word, has been a difficulty 
 which has perplexed not a few, who have undertaken to expound this 
 passage. We might exhort a rider to perform the duties of his office 
 with impartiality, with a due regard to justice and equity, etc.; but to ex- 
 hort him to govern iv a7rou<5iJ , seems hardly congruous. 
 
 On the whole, I am brought by a kind of philological necessity to 
 the conclusion, that church offices, in the appropriate sense of this word, 
 are not designated by o unadidovg, 6 Trgo'iaraunrog, and 6 ilmv in Rom. 
 12: 8, but that the apostle refers to individuals in the church, conspicu- 
 ous for their attention to the duties respectively indicated by these words : 
 
ROMANS 12:9—11. 475 
 
 which duties were, the giving of money or sustenance, the management 
 of the external temporal affairs and business and interests of the church, 
 and the succouring of the sick and unfortunate by personal attention' 
 and effort. 
 
 (9) ' H aya.ni] , dwnoxoiroq, let benevolence be sincere. I render 
 aya.ni] benevolence here, because it seems to indicate kind feeling 
 toward men in general. The love of the brethren is specified in v. 10. 
 The apostle here enjoins on Christians, to cherish a sincere and real, 
 and not merely a pretended and apparent, feeling of kindness toward 
 all men. 
 
 Anoaxvyovvxtq, i. e. tan, which would make the Imper. ; and 
 this the nature of the case evidently demands. So xoXkatpepoi, sc. 
 i'oie. In the connection in which to novi]Qov and iw uyuOio here 
 stand, the meaning is limited to malice and kindness. So novriQov 
 means, even in the classics, malicious, mischievous ; and dyaOog is 
 the converse of this, kind, benevolent. These two phrases, therefore, 
 are merely an epexegesis of dyuni] in the preceding clause. 
 
 (10) Ti] qiXadtlcfia, fig akkykovg (ptiooTorjyot, in respect to 
 brotherly love, kindly affectionate one toward another. Trj cftludtl- 
 qiq is the Dative of relation ; i. e. in connection with adjectives or 
 verbs, the Dative is used where the question arises, wherein, or in 
 respect to what ? which for convenience' sake may be called the 
 Dative of relation. So often in the New Testament ; e. g. vco&qoi 
 zu7g tlxoulg, Heb. 5: 11; dyvoovpevog rw jigooojnoi, Gal. 1:22; so 
 Matt. 11: 29. Heb. 12: 3. Eph. 4: 18, et saepe alibi. (Ddooiogyot, 
 means affectionate, in such a manner as one is toward his own near 
 relatives ; (siogyi) meaning natural affection. 
 
 Tt] Tifir], aXXtjkovg ngoi]yovptvoi, in respect to honour, antici- 
 pating each other ; i. e. let each one, in paying the proper tribute of 
 respect to others, strive to anticipate his Christian brother. D.qoi]- 
 ylopai means, to take the lead, to go before, to set the example. The 
 meaning is, that so far from being averse to pay that respect which 
 is due to others, each should strive to excel the other in the perform- 
 ance of this duty. Christianity, therefore, is so far from banishing 
 all civility and good manners from society, that it enjoins the greatest 
 attention to this subject. 
 
 (11) Ti] onovdij, pi) 6v.vi]Qoi, as to diligence, not remiss. Ti] 
 onovdr] is evidently the same Dative of relation as before. £novdi] 
 here seems to be taken in the general sense ; and so the passage ac- 
 cords with Ecc. 9: 10 : " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it 
 
476 ROMANS 12: 11—13. 
 
 with thy might." So the next phrase explains the whole expression, 
 by presenting the antithesis of it, viz. rw nvivfxatt, &ovTtg,ferventes 
 animo, warmly engaged (as we say), fervid, active in serious earnest ; 
 comp. Acts 18: 25, where the same expression is used to designate 
 the fervid spirit of Apollos. — Some apply tw nviVfiaTt here to the 
 Divine Spirit ; but I think without any good reason. 
 
 To) xvQiq} dovUvovTig, (which Griesbach reads iw xaiyol dov- 
 livovitg), is supported by the more important testimony of external 
 witnesses. Griesbach has rejected it on the ground, that ' the less 
 usual reading is to be preferred ;' a ground which, to say the least, 
 has many slippery places. Knapp, Morus, Bengel, and Beza, pre- 
 serve y,vqIix\, and I think with good reason. I take the whole 
 expression to mean, that all our diligence is to be consecrated to 
 God to be made subservient to the cause of Christ. That 'avq'ho 
 here means the Lord Christ, the usus loquendi of Paul leaves no good 
 room to doubt. Inasmuch as dovkevio governs the Dative, we need 
 not insist here on the Dative of relation. But in fact, all of the Da- 
 tives in this whole paragraph are of this nature ; so that exactly ren- 
 dered it would be, as to the Lord, obedient, engaged in his service. 
 
 (12) Tr\ tlnidi, yixloovitq, as to hope, joyful; i.e. rejoicing in 
 the blessed hope of glory which the gospel inspires ; and this, amid 
 all the troubles and sorrows of life. — Ty dUipet, vnoittpovxeg, as to 
 affliction, patiently enduring ; i.e. since you are animated with a joy- 
 fid hope, you may well be called upon to endure the troubles and 
 sorrows of life with patience. Bretschneider, not adverting to the 
 fact that all the Datives here are those of relation, has noticed that 
 vnof-iivoi here governs the Dative, "quod prorsus insolens est," Lex. 
 sub vnof-iifco. It is indeed prorsus insolens ; or rather, it is not at 
 all ; for tU/i/'« is not governed by vno^tvovrtg, and should be sepa- 
 rated from it by a comma, like the example above, irj qiXudtlqlct, . . . 
 qdoozogyoi. This example of rr t dUipn vnoittt'Ovng, I may add, 
 sufficiently confirms what is said above, respecting the Dative of 
 relation in this whole paragraph. 
 
 Ttj iiQQGev%r] 7iQ0O'/.UQzt(J0vvT{g, as to prayer, be persevering ; 
 i. e. the way to maintain a joyful hope, and to be patient under afflic- 
 tions, is to cherish the spirit of prayer and to live near to God. 
 
 (13) Tuig . . . xoivwvovvTfg, in respect to the wants of the saints, 
 be communicative ; i. e. be ready to impart, be liberal, be free to give. 
 With all these participles, eon is implied. While Christians were to 
 be kind towards all others, they were to be specially so towards their 
 
ROMANS 12 : 13—16. 477 
 
 brethren of the church. — Ti]v qiXoiivlav ditoxovrfg, readily prac- 
 tising hospitality. Here the construction is changed, and the Accu- 
 sative after ditoxovrtg is employed. Comp. 1 Tim. 5: 10. Heb. 
 13: 2. 1 Pet. 4: 9. 3 John vs. 5 — 8. In a particular manner was this 
 virtue necessary, in the primitive times, when Christian teachers had 
 no regular support, and when the missionaries of the cross were 
 labouring to diffuse the knowledge of salvation. 
 
 (14) EvXoy&tTS .... y.uiv.gaotff, bless those who persecute you, 
 bless and curse not. Comp. Matt. 5: 44. Luke 6: 28. 
 
 (15) Xaigtiv .... xXaioi'TOJi', rejoice with those who rejoice, and 
 weep with those who weep ; i. e. sympathize with your fellow Chris- 
 tians, both in joy and grief; shew that you enter with feeling into the 
 consideration of their joys and sorrows, so as to be glad when they 
 are glad, and sorrowful when they are in heaviness. The Infinitive 
 yalgtiv, v.Xuhiv, stands (as frequently in the Greek classics) for the 
 Imperative. Strictly speaking, del is understood in such cases, q. d. 
 you must rejoice — rceep, etc. 
 
 (16) To avro fig dXXijXovg qgovovrrtg, sc. taif, mutually think 
 the same thing, i. e. be agreed in your opinions and views. Whe- 
 ther this relates to matters that concerned spiritual or temporal af- 
 fairs, the words themselves do not shew ; but the nature of the case 
 would seem to indicate, that the expression is designed to have a 
 general bearing on all their concerns and articles of belief. Oricren 
 Theodoret, Chrysostom, and Ambrose, have interpreted the passage 
 as meaning : ' Enter into each other's circumstances, in order to see 
 how you would yourself feel ;' and so it parallelizes with the preced- 
 ing expression. But the usus loqucndi of Paul does not seem to ad- 
 mit of this exposition ; comp. 2 Cor. 13: 11. Phil. 2: 2; comp. Rom. 
 15: 14. Elq uXXqXovg is not, indeed, the usual mode of expression in 
 the New Testament, but tv aXXrjXoig; comp. Mark 9: 50. John 13: 
 35. Rom. 15: 5. But the exchange of eig with the Accusative and 
 tv with the Dative, in the New Testament (and indeed elsewhere), 
 is very frequent. 
 
 Mtj tu .... Gvvanctyo^evoi, mind not high things, but be led 
 away by humble ones. So, literally, must I translate the words. The 
 sentiment is : ' Shun pride, and cultivate humility.' That uXXa 
 ro7g rantlvoig, v.. t. A., is the antithesis of xa v\\)r\Xu, •/,. r. X., seems to 
 me very obvious. Of course I must construe tuntlvoig as being in 
 the neuter gender, as vxfnjXu evidently is. But Koppe, Schleusner, 
 and Stolz, construe rauehoig as being of the masculine gender, and 
 
478 ROMANS 12: 16—10. 
 
 represent the sentiment of the phrase to be : ' Suffer yourselves to be 
 led away, viz., to the judgment seat of magistrates, with the despised 
 Christians.' Others, viz., Grotius, Limborch, C. Schmidt, etc., con- 
 strue it thus : ' Suffer yourselves to be led away by the humble, i. e. 
 conform to them.' This agrees in sentiment with the above exposi- 
 tion ; but it has the disadvantage of sacrificing the direct antithesis 
 of the words v\^r\Xa and Tccnehoig. — Hvva-nuyopai is commonly used 
 in a bad sense, viz. to suffer one's self to be led away by temptation, 
 etc. ; see Gal. 2: 13. 2 Pet. 3: 17. But here it seems to have the 
 generic sense only, to be led away. Such a sense does Passow as- 
 sign to the word, viz. mitfuhren. We may translate ad scnsum: Be 
 influenced by humble things. 
 
 Mt] .... iui'Tolg, be not wise in your own conceit; i.e. do not, 
 trusting in your own superior skill and understanding, refuse to con- 
 fer with others, or to hearken to their suggestions ; a subject inti- 
 mately connected with the preceding one. 
 
 (17) Mrjdivl .... unodidovreg, not rendering evil for evil; 
 comp. 1 Pet. 3: 9. Matt. 5: 43—48. This is, no doubt, one of the 
 most difficult of all the precepts which the gospel enjoins ; I mean, 
 one which most thwarts our natural inclinations and desires. " The 
 natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit." — Hgovoovpivot, 
 .... av i^ocijttcoi', seek after that which is good in the sight of all 
 men ; i. e. be studiously attentive to those duties, which are com- 
 mended by all, and which all therefore admit to be of the highest ob- 
 ligation. The expression seems to be taken, with some abridgement, 
 from Prov. 3: 4, '/mi tiqovqou y.uIci ivomtov xvgiov xal av&QfoTietv. 
 
 (18) El dvvazov .... eig^vivovteg, if it be possible, so far as 
 you arc able, be at peace icith all men. The limitations ii Svvaiov 
 and to ei, vpew, shew that the apostle did not deem this possible in 
 all cases ; and beyond all question it is not. The world hate the 
 truths of the gospel, and will be at enmity with those who boldly and 
 faithfully urge them on their consciences. Apostles and martyrs did 
 thus urge them ; and their sufferings prove the truth of what has now- 
 been alleged. — To f| vuojv, i. e. ymtu to t£ vpuv. 'E\ is used here 
 in the sense of belonging to. The whole phrase means, in propor- 
 tion to that which belongs to you, i. e. according to your ability; like 
 the French votre possible. 
 
 (19) Mr t iavzovg .... 6gyr t , avenge not yourselves, beloved, but 
 give place to [divine] indignation. Aidovui tonov means to allow, 
 to give place to (as we say in English). So Eph. 4: 27, pi] didoce 
 
ROMANS 12: 19,20. 479 
 
 ronov 7o> diafioh'i, give no place to the devil; and Luke 14: 9, 
 Ao<S roi'Tot ronov, resign your place to this person, or 7nakc room for 
 him. Josephus (Antiq. xvi. it. §6) says: iw tvdoiuotuo ronov 8i- 
 dovai, to give place to doubt; Plutarch says: de7 dt ptjie nai^ovtas 
 avry [ooyij] didovut ronov, we must, without jesting, give place to it 
 [anger], De Ira cohibenda, chap. 14; and Marcus Antoninus says: 
 yoigav didovai odvopoi'g, to give place to weeping, Lib. in. (5. The 
 meaning above given to Son ronov rrj opyrj, thus plainly according 
 with the usual sense of the phrase dowai ronov, is rendered nearly 
 certain by the quotation which immediately follows: Epol v.. z. A. 
 This quotation would be wholly inapposite, if we suppose that ooyfj 
 here means the wrath of our enemy, and don ronov to mean, go out 
 of the way of, get out of the way of, etc., as Pelagius, Ambrose, 
 Basil, Schoettgen, Amnion and others have done. In Rabbinic He- 
 brew, it is true indeed, that nip'? ]n3 (give place) means to go out 
 of the way of; but we need not resort to Hebrew idiom here. 
 
 Another method of interpreting ooyt], is, to assign to it the mean- 
 ing, one's own indignation, and then to construe don ronov as mean- 
 ing spatium date, i. e. put ojf, defer. The sense of this would be 
 good ; and Wisd. 12: 20 would help to justify the usus loquendi ; but 
 the want of congruity with what follows, would be a decisive objec- 
 tion against this exegesis here. 
 
 We come to the full conclusion, then, that the sentiment of Son 
 ronov ri t OQyy here is : 'Give up the retribution of yourself for evil 
 done to you ; leave your enemy to the righteous displeasure of God ; 
 seek not to avenge yourselves, for this belongs not to you, but to God.' 
 So the sequel : 
 
 Epol .... xvoioq, retribution is mine, I will make it, saith the 
 Jjord ; or, vengeance is mine, I will render it, saith the Lord. The 
 passage is taken from Deut. 32: 35, tV'iPN rp3 "•!: . At'ytt xvpiog 
 are the apostle's own words, for they are not in the Hebrew. The 
 meaning is : ' God will render righteous judgment or retribution for 
 acts of wickedness; Christians are not to claim for themselves the 
 doing of that which it is his sovereign prerogative to do.' 
 
 (20) f'v.v oiiv .... avrov, if thine enemy hunger, feed, him; if 
 he thirst, give him drink. Food and drink here stand as a part for 
 the whole, and signify our obligation to meet an enemy with benefi- 
 cence or kindness. The meaning is: ' Do good to thine enemy, in- 
 stead of evil ; shew him kindness, instead of taking revenge.' 
 
 Tovto ydo .... avrov, for in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of 
 
480 CONTENTS OF ROM. 13: 1—14. 
 
 fire on his head. This is quoted from Prov. 25: 21, 22. In Ps. 18: 
 8, 12, 13, D^ha , coals of fire are emblematical of consuming or 
 destruction. The Arabians say, he roasted my heart, or he kindled a 
 fire in my heart, to designate the idea of giving or inflicting pain. 
 So in 4 Ezra, 16: 54, " Coals of fire shall burn on the head of him, 
 who denies that he has sinned against God." There can be no doubt, 
 then, that pain is meant to be designated by this expression. But is 
 it the pain of shame or contrition for misconduct, or that of punish- 
 ment ? More probably the former here ; for so v. 21 would almost ne- 
 cessarily lead us to conclude. It is a noble sentiment when thus un- 
 derstood. ' Take not revenge,' says the apostle : ' overcome your ad- 
 versary with kindness and beneficence. These will bring him to 
 shame and sorrow for his misconduct.' 
 
 (21) Mrj viy.o) . ... to y.ccxov, be not overcome by evil, but over- 
 come evil with good; i. e. be not led to the indulgence of a spirit of 
 revenge on account of injuries ; but subdue the evil temper which 
 leads to the infliction of injury, by beneficence and kindness. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 1—14. 
 
 At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, the civil power was every where 
 in the hands of heathen men, who were idolaters and polytheists. In Pales- 
 tine, there was indeed, a partial commitment of power to the hands of Jews; 
 but this was principally of an ecclesiastical nature, and the Romans uniformly 
 reserved to themselves the right of confirming- or reversing any sentence, 
 which should affect the life or liberty of their subjects. In general, the heathen 
 magistracy were hostile to Christianity ; although the Roman civil power, as 
 such, had not begun to persecute Christians when the epistle to the Romans 
 was written, or even to tolerate persecution in others. But the civil magis- 
 trates of the Romans, who were polytheists and idolaters, could not but look 
 with indignation or scorn on those who denied the religio licita of the empire, 
 and who without hesitation condemned all religion but their own as false and 
 injurious. There were some superstitious men, moreover, among these magis- 
 trates ; and there were multitudes of superstitious priests, who were peculiarly 
 hostile to Christianity, and who urged the common people, and magistrates 
 also, to testify their displeasure against it. Gradually this feeling ripened 
 towards development; until at last, under Nero, it burst forth like a volcano, 
 and swept before its fiery streams all the disciples of Jesus who were within its 
 reach. 
 
 On the other hand, the Jews, before they were converted to Christianity, 
 looked on their masters, the Romans, with such feelings as a sense of oppres- 
 sion and injured dignity and rights trampled on always inspire. As the chosen 
 people of God, they considered themselves entitled to preeminence above the 
 nations of the earth. They looked down, with scorn and hatred, upon the 
 worshippers of stocks and stones, the C^J whom they had been uniformly 
 instructed to abhor. The idea that the Romans claimed the right to dispose of 
 their persons and property, was insufferable. They fortified themselves in this 
 opinion, by an appeal to Deut. 17: 15 : "Thou shalt in any wise set him king 
 
CONTENTS OF ROM. 13: 1—14. 481 
 
 over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose ; one from among thy breth- 
 ren shalt thou set king over thee ; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, 
 who is not thy brother." Willing subjection to the Romans, then, was in 
 their view disobedience to this injunction of Moses. Hence nothing but the 
 fear of immediate and summary punishment restrained them, for many years, 
 from rising up against the Roman power in Palestine ; and even in other 
 countries, where they were numerous, they made no small tumult, whenever 
 occasion offered. 
 
 When individuals passed over from the Jewish community to that of the 
 Christians, they could not, or did not, divest themselves at once of all these 
 feelings and views. Christianity introduced them to a new citizenship, new 
 rights, new privileges, new spiritual rulers, new fellow-citizens. Could they 
 then have any regard for heathen citizenship? It was natural to ask this 
 question ; and above all, it was easy to do so, since the heathen magistracy 
 were well known to be hostile in their feelings toward Christians, and since, 
 as to some things, Christians were required to yield up life rather than to obey 
 the civil magistrate. 
 
 It is easy to see that while things stood thus, there was great danger that 
 private Christians, instigated by their own private views of heathen supersti- 
 tion, and by a sense of duty in some cases where they were called upon to re- 
 nounce obedience to the magistrate, would be exposed to judge wrongly, and to 
 go too far in justifying a principle of insubordination to the civil power. Paul 
 felt a deep solicitude in regard to this subject, which was evidently encom- 
 passed with many difficulties. For on the one hand, it was clear that in some 
 cases life itself was to be sacrificed, rather than to obey the civil power ; and 
 the apostle himself was a most eminent pattern of high and holy independence, 
 in cases of this nature. On the other, private invividuals, with all their 
 prejudices and scorn of heathenism, might greatly abuse the proper liberty of 
 a Christian, and extend it to things to which Christianity did not allow them 
 to extend it. 
 
 That there was a disposition to do so among the Christians at Rome, seems 
 evident from the tenor of chap. xm. The cautions here are salutary for the 
 church in all ages ; but they were peculiarly needed in the age of the apostles. 
 I would add only, that the extension of the principles enjoined by chap, 
 xm., so as to make them imply implicit subjection to the magistrate in cases of 
 a moral, nature, where he enjoins what God has plainly forbidden, would be a 
 gross violation of the true principles of Christianity, which demands of us in 
 all such cases, " to obey God rather than man." The apostle himself was a 
 most eminent example of exception to such a sweeping general principle of 
 civil obedience. It is only when magistrates keep within the bounds of moral 
 prescription, that obedience is a duty. So long as they do so, it is better for 
 Christians, who live under despotic governments such as the Roman was, to 
 submit even when they suffer oppression, than to revolt and be seditious. 
 Under an elective government like our own, it is their duty to assist in dis- 
 placing wicked rulers, and to do this quietly and orderly, in the way which 
 the law has pointed out. But under such a government as the Roman, where 
 the citizen has no elective franchise, there is no remedy, (after appeal to the 
 reason of the magistrate, such as Justin, Tertullian, and others made), but to 
 suffer, in case of oppression, committing our cause to God, and appealing to 
 him to vindicate the oppressed. 
 
 Nothing can be plainer, than that the subjection urged in chap, xm., cannot 
 be extended to cases where the commission of a moral evil is demanded. But 
 with the exception of this, the principles here enjoined are altogether of such 
 a nature as our holy religion demands. Certainly these do not demand, that 
 we should neglect any remedy for evils of a civil nature, which is proper. By 
 no means ; we are bound to make use of the proper remedy, if in our power, 
 by a regard to the public good. But where the government is despotic, and 
 there is no remedy but rebellion, and this may be a hazardous and bloody 
 measure, it is better to suffer, than to excite tumult. So thought Paul, comp. 
 Tit. 3: 1 ; and so did Peter teach, 1 Pet. 2: 13, 17. But let not the advocates 
 
 61 
 
482 ROMANS 13: 1. 
 
 of despotic power urge subjection in cases where the gospel will not allow it, 
 under cover of the general expressions here used. Every precept of this na- 
 ture is to bo interpreted, with a proper regard to the time and circumstances in 
 which it was uttered. What these were in the case before us, we have seen. 
 What the example of the apostle and the Saviour himself was, we know. We 
 know too, that Christianity in its very nature, is love to God and man ; that it 
 makes all men a brotherhood ; it places them on the same ground as to rights 
 and privileges ; it pays real deference to moral worth, and to this only. It 
 acknowledges no right in one to oppress another ; admits of no " Jew or Greek, 
 Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free ;" for it teaches that " all are one in Christ 
 Jesus." It teaches true equality of rights, true spiritual and civil freedom. It 
 does not, indeed, abolish all distinctions among men ; nor does it abolish civil 
 governments. Far from this; but then it decides, in its very nature, that all 
 governments, and all civil orders and distinctions, should be only for the pub- 
 lic good. It admits no divine right of one man to be lord over another ; it is at 
 open and eternal war with all the mere claims of birth, and pride, and oppres- 
 sion. The universal good, the equal rights, the peaceful state of man, is the 
 object, at which it aims; and whatever is incompatible with these, is incompat- 
 ible with the fundamental principles of the great " law of liberty and love." 
 
 But all this may be allowed, (and contradicted it cannot be with reason), 
 and yet it may be true at the same time, that Christians, situated as the Ro- 
 mans were in Paul's time, are required to yield peaceful submission to magis- 
 trates, whether Christian or heathen, in all things where the command of God 
 does not directly forbid it. What the world ought to be, what it would be if 
 all men were Christians indeed, is one thing; what the world is, and what is 
 the present duty of Christians in such circumstances, is another and different 
 thing. 
 
 In a word, the spirit of the precepts in Rom. xni. is to be regarded as a rule 
 for all ages and nations, so long as circumstances shall be like those which 
 then existed. And even when these circumstances alter, and magistrates be- 
 come really Christian, it must then be true in a still more eminent degree, that 
 quiet arid peaceful obedience in all lawful things, will be a duty. 
 
 (1 ) Tlana .... vnoraaota&oi, let every soul be subject to the su- 
 preme magistracies. ITaou \pvx*] is Hebraism, like tt)B5~b3 , every 
 one, each one : — Triffjtyovaca? means, pre-eminent, supreme ; i. e. in 
 this case, the Roman magistracy or imperial sway. 
 
 Ov yd() .... tiolv, for there is no magistracy, unless by divine per- 
 mission; and the existing [magistracies] are of God 's appointment. 
 The apostle intends, by this, to reconcile Christians to the idea of 
 civil obedience, on the ground that obeying the magistrate is in ac- 
 cordance with the command of God. All magistrates are by his per- 
 mission ; and even when they are oppressive, the Christian is bound 
 to regard them, (so he should regard other evils), as existing by di- 
 vine permission, and to bow submissive in all cases where disobedi- 
 ence to God is not demanded by them. Such a view of the subject 
 is greatly adapted to satisfy the mind of a Christian, when he feels 
 galled with the yoke of oppression. " The powers that be are or- 
 dained of God," i. e. they exist by the wise and holy arrangements of 
 his providence, even when they are oppressive ; and like other evils 
 in the world, they should be submitted to on the same ground as that 
 
ROMANS 13:2—4. 483 
 
 which we take, when we urge acquiescence in the afflictive dispensa- 
 tions of an overruling Power. 
 
 (2) Sl(Jxe .... aif&ianjHSV, so that he who resists the magistra- 
 cy, resists the commandment of God. The reason of this is, that as 
 God has required obedience to the magistrate (in the sense before 
 stated), so he who refuses to yield this, is disobedient to the divine 
 command. 
 
 Ol dt .... kijijjovrai, and they tcho resist, shall receive punish- 
 ment for themselves. Kgifia is often used in the sense of punish- 
 ment ; e. g. Rom. 3: 8. 1 Cor. 11: 29. Gal. 5: 10. 1 Tim. 5: 12, et 
 alibi. — 'Eavro7g is here the Dativus incommodi, as the grammarians 
 say : see Winer's Grammar, § 31. 2. edit. 3. The meaning is, that 
 those who are seditious, i. e. make resistance against the civil gov- 
 ernment, will be brought to punishment, and that deservedly. 
 
 (3) Ol yag .... y.uxo)i/, for rulers arc not a terror to good works, 
 but to evil. This clause shows what sort of rulers Paul expected 
 Christians to obey, and how far obedience was a duty, viz. such 
 rulers as protect the good, and repress the evil ; and while they do 
 this, there can be no question as to the duty of obeying them. But 
 suppose the reverse, i. e. suppose that they protect evil doings, and 
 forbid good works ; then Paul's own conduct shews what other Chris- 
 tians ought to do. — Qujjog here is abstract for concrete, i.e. qopog 
 for cfo(jfool. 
 
 Ot'keig di .... iiovolav; and unit thou not fear the magistracy ? 
 That is, since the ruler is terrible to evil doers, wilt thou not be 
 afraid to do evil? — To uya&ov .... avr?jg, do good, and thou shalt 
 have praise for it ; i. e. yield obedience to the civil power, and you 
 shall obtain from it the commendation of being a peaceful and obedi- 
 ent citizen. 
 
 (4) Otov yag .... uyaOov, for it is an instrument in the hands 
 of God, to promote thy good. That is, civil government is of divine 
 appointment, and it is designed to be an instrument of good to those 
 who do well. £ol eig to dyu&uv, for thy good, where aol is the 
 Dativus commodi. 
 
 ' jEavdi .... qofiou, but if thou doest evil, fear; i.e. if thou 
 art refractory and disobedient to the civil magistracy, thou hast rea- 
 son to fear the consequences. — Ov yug .... TigdoGOvzi, for he bear- 
 eth the sword not in vain ; but he is God's minister, punishing the 
 evil-doer. The sword is here the emblem of punishment. St ov 8ia- 
 v.ovog, a minister or instrument of God's appointment, or one whom 
 
484 ROMANS 13:5— 8. 
 
 his providence has raised up or permitted to exist. "-Exdixog iig 6g- 
 yi\v, exercens judicium ad poenam, judging, condemning to punish- 
 ment. — Tw tiquogovti, the Dative of " the person to ox for whom any 
 thing is, or is done." 
 
 (5) Aio .... GvviidrjGtv, therefore we ought to yield subjection, 
 not only because of punishment , but also for conscience' sake ; i. e. 
 we should do our duty not merely in order to shun the evils of a dif- 
 ferent course, but we ought to do it from a conscientious regard to 
 the obligation under which we are. 
 
 (6) Aio. zovio .... Tfk(7rs, on this account, we should also pay 
 tribute. Aid tovio, i. e. for the sake of conscience, as well as to 
 avoid civil penalties. Tag illustrantis, standing in a clause added 
 for the sake of further illustrating and confirming the subject under 
 consideration. AW, also, denoting not only an additional circum- 
 stance, but also being affirmative, xocl qogovg reXeJif, ye should even 
 pay tribute, or ye should pay tribute as well as yield obedience in 
 other things. 
 
 yhuovgyol .... Trgooy-agregovi/ieg, for they are ministers of 
 God, who attend to this matter ; i. e. they are God's ministers or in- 
 struments, in the same sense as the magistracy above mentioned. 
 God who has ordained that there should be a civil magistracy, has 
 also ordained, as a means of supporting it, that there should be tri- 
 bute, custom, taxes. Let the Christian pay these cheerfully ; and even 
 when they are oppressive, let him submit on the same ground as he 
 does to other evils, i. e. until a proper and lawful remedy for them 
 can be found. 
 
 (7) 'A-nodoit v.. r. I., render to all men what is due on the ground 
 of these precepts. — (1*6 gov means properly, a tax, either on persons, 
 or on land ; or rather, in the present case, both of these together. 
 Tilog answers to our present term custom, i. e. a tax on goods, wares, 
 merchandize, etc. In respect to qofioi', comp. v. 4 above, The 
 meaning of the apostle is, that we should stand in awe of those who 
 wear the sword of civil justice, viz. that we should fear them in such 
 a sense as to deter us from sedition and civil disobedience. Tip-i] 
 commonly means, the respect which one pays to his equals in rank. 
 But here it means the respect to be paid to the magistracy; compare 
 1 Pet. 2: 17, %ov flaoiXta ti[accti. 
 
 (8) From these precepts with respect to magistrates, and the ren- 
 dering to them of what is due on the ground of our civil obligations, 
 the apostle makes an easy transition to our duty in general with respect 
 
ROMANS 13 : 8, 9. 48£ 
 
 to the subject of debts. 3fijdevl . . . ayanav, owe no man any thing, ex- 
 cept to love one another ; i. e. scrupulously pay off all debts, of whatever 
 nature, and to whomsoever they may be due; except, as I may say, 
 the debt of love, which is such that it can never be paid off, for it will 
 always remain due, however much may be paid in the discharge of it. 
 An animated and very expressive description of the extent to which 
 the obligation of benevolence reaches! A debt of this nature is not 
 like a pecuniary one, which by the payment of a certain sum is fully 
 and finally extinguished. The debt of love is only renewed by pay- 
 ments ever so ample. In its own nature it is inextinguishable ; for, 
 as Augustine says : Nee cum redditur amittitur, sed potius reddendo 
 multiplicatur ; Ep. 62, ad Coelest. 
 
 O yuQ uyemoiv .... 7Ten?.t']ocoxt, for he who loves another , fulfils 
 the law. r<xo illustrantis, i. e. it stands here in a clause designed to 
 shew that the debt of love is one which is always due. But how does 
 the apostle intend to illustrate this ? The answer is, by shewing that 
 the law of God demands love to our neighbour ; and this is admitted 
 to be of perpetual obligation ; consequently the duty which it de- 
 mands, must also be perpetual. 
 
 (9) He proceeds to shew, that the sum of the moral law is con- 
 tained in the precept to love our neighbour. 
 
 To yap introduces the proof, from the law, of the position which he 
 had just laid down. Jap therefore is prefixed here to a clause illus- 
 trative of the one which immediately precedes ; as it stands in the 
 preceding clause, because it is illustrative of another which goes be- 
 fore it. The to here is the article prefixed before a quotation or cita- 
 tion, introduced as such ; comp. Luke 9: 46, to, Tig av hi] ptl£o)v 
 avTuif Luke 22: 2, ro, naig ui> tkcaotv avrov. See also Acts 4: 21. 
 22: 30. 27: 4, 9. Luke 1: 62. 1 Cor. 4: 6. Rom. 8: 26. 1 Thess. 4: 
 1. Mark 9: 23. Gal. 4: 25, to ydg"^fyug Ziva ogog toil, for the or 
 this Hagar means mount Sinai. See Winer's Gramm. § 20. 3. edit. 3. 
 
 Ov fiotyfvaecg x. t. A. All these commands proceed from the law 
 of love. By committing any one of the crimes here named, a man 
 sins against the good of his neighbour, and therefore against the pre- 
 cept which requires him to love his neighbour as himself. — Ov \piv- 
 dofiUQivgrjGftg is of doubtful authority, or rather, it is probably 
 adjectitious. It is not important to the general meaning of the pas- 
 sage, whether it be inserted or omitted. — Kal si rig is not meant to 
 express a doubt whether there be any other commandment, but only 
 to say : ' Whatever other commandment there may be,' viz. whatever 
 command respecting our relative duties. 
 
486 * ROMANS 13: 9—11. 
 
 ' Ev xovtb) Tto Xoyot, in this saying or declaration. — ' Ev tco, viz. 
 tv rfo Xoyw, i. e. in the declaration which follows. — s/yaniiotig 
 x. r. A. seems to be quoted from Lev. 19: 18, ^i^S *PH.~ PtoH&'l > 
 thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In this one sentence, the 
 apostle affirms the whole essence of the moral law to be contained ; 
 and it is indeed so. Suppose now that every man on earth, really 
 and truly and as highly, regarded his neighbour's happiness as his 
 own ; all injustice, fraud, oppression, and injury of every kind, would 
 at once cease, and a universal fulfilment of our obligation to others 
 would be the consequence. — TJXrjOtov is itself an adverb; but it is 
 here employed as an indeclinable noun in the Ace. case, and having 
 the masc. article before it. So the Greeks frequently employ adverbs. 
 
 (10) // uyant] . . . . i] uyanrj , love worketh no ill to its neigh- 
 bour ; love then is the fulfilling of the law. That is, he who loves 
 his neighbour as himself, will designedly do him no harm or injury. 
 Ilh]QO)^.u seems here to be of the same meaning as TiXqgcooig' and 
 so in Gal. 4: 4. Eph. 1: 10. So Philo de Abr. p. 387, nh'iycofAcc xov 
 yyovov so nXrjgtaaig twv ri^itQO)v, Ezek. 5: 2. Dan. 10: 3. The 
 fulfilling of the law is the completing what the law demands, the 
 
 filling up the measure of its requisitions. The meaning plainly is, 
 the fulfilling of the law which has respect to our relative duties ; 
 comp. Gal. 5: 14. James 2: 8. Matt. 22: 39, 40. 1 Tim. 1: 5. What 
 the apostle designs to teach, is : ' Love, such as the law demands, 
 will lead us always to seek our neighbour's good, and so to be always 
 paying the debt of benevolence, yet never paying it off.' 
 
 (11) Kal xovzo, i. e. -/.ccl rovto noifTvf, do this, viz. all which 
 he had been exhorting them to do. Kal tovto is explained by The- 
 odoret as meaning, nod puXcOTu' which gives the sense very well. 
 
 EldoitQ tov xaiQOv, considering the time, or taking cognizance of 
 the time; comp. -tjdeiv in Acts 23: 5. Kaioov I understand to mean, 
 the gospel-time which had already come. The apostle considers the 
 commencement of this, which had already taken place, as the begin- 
 ning of a glorious day, the dawning of the Sun of righteousness with 
 healing in his beams. A state of sin and ignorance, is a state of 
 darkness ; and out of such a state Christians are brought, that they 
 may see the light; comp. Eph. 5: 8, 11. John 3: 19—21. 1 Pet. 2: 9. 
 
 On oiQu .... tmaiivaafiev, that it is now time to awake out of 
 sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. That 
 is, the commencement of the Christian dispensation, and the begin- 
 ning of light in your own souls, call for corresponding efforts and 
 
ROMANS 13: 11. 487 
 
 activity. The image of awaking out of sleep is often used, in order to 
 designate the rousing up from a state of comparative inaction, to one 
 of strenuous effort; comp. Eph. 5: 14. 1 Cor. 15: 34. 1 Thess. 5: 6. 
 
 But what is the aan^giu, which is nearer than when Christians at 
 Rome first believed ? Tholuck, and most of the late commentators 
 in Germany, suppose that the apostle expected the speedy advent of 
 Christ upon earth a second time, when the day of glory to the church 
 would commence. Accordingly, they represent him, here and else- 
 where, as exhorting Christians to be on the alert, constantly expect- 
 ing the approach of such a day. In support of this view, Tholuck 
 appeals to Phil. 4: 5. 1 Thess. 5: 2, 6. Rev. 22: 12. Such views, 
 and such a mode of representation, seem at present to be widely dif- 
 fused in Germany, and to be held even by those who are strenuous 
 defenders of the inspiration of the apostles. But how the words of 
 the apostles, when thus construed, can be made consistent with them- 
 selves, (not to speak of other difficulties arising from the consideration 
 that they were inspired), is more than I am able to see. The very 
 passage referred to, in the first epistle to the church at Thessalonica, 
 was understood by the Thessalonians in the same manner as Tholuck 
 and others understand it ; but this interpretation was formally and 
 strenuously corrected in 2 Thess. n. Is it not enough that Paul has 
 explained his own words ? Who can safely venture to give them a 
 meaning different from what he gives? — Then as to Rev. 22: 12; 
 . how is it possible, that the writer, who had just made an end of pre- 
 dicting a long series of events, that should happen before the day of 
 glory, one of which is to occupy a thousand years, can be supposed 
 to have believed that all this was to take place during that very gene- 
 ration in which he lived 1 
 
 I only add here, (for this is not the place to enter into a long dis- 
 cussion), that it is incredible that the apostles, if enlightened by su- 
 pernatural influence, should not have been taught better than to lead 
 the whole Christian church to a vain and false hope about the ap- 
 pearance of Christ; which, when frustrated by time and experience, 
 would lead of course to general distrust in all their declarations and 
 hopes. As the usus loquendi does not demand such an exegesis, 
 (see in Flattii Opusada, Diss, de nagovalcc y.vqiov) ; as the nature 
 of the apostle's knowledge and mission does not allow it ; and as 
 Paul has expressly contradicted it in 2 Thes. n. ; so I cannot admit 
 it here, without obtaining different views from those which I am now 
 constrained to entertain. 
 
488 ROMANS 13: 11—14. 
 
 I must, therefore, refer aairrjctiu to the spiritual salvation which 
 believers were to experience, when transferred to the world of ever- 
 lasting light and glory. And so construed, the exhortation of Paul 
 amounts to this: ' Christian Brethren, we have been brought out of 
 darkness into marvellous light ; let us act in a manner that corres- 
 ponds with our condition. We are hastening to our retribution ; 
 every day brings us nearer to it; and in prospect of the reward which 
 now almost appears in sight, as we approach the goal of human life, 
 let us act with renewed effort as duty requires.' So Chrysostom. 
 
 (12) 'S vvi .... i'lyyixi, the night is advanced, the day is at 
 hand; a repetition of a part of the idea contained in the preceding 
 verse. JVi/| is the time of ignorance and darkness in which they 
 had once been. The apostle says : ' This is nearly gone,' i. e. they 
 had now come as it were to the confines of eternal day, or of a more 
 perfect knowledge of divine things. It behoved them, therefore, to 
 rouse up all their energies, and to act in a manner congruous with 
 their condition and obligations. 
 
 '^fnodoifiida .... qeoiog, let us put away then the works of 
 darkness, and put on the armour of light ; i. e. let us reject such things 
 as we were accustomed to do while in a state of darkness ; and let 
 us arise to combat all our spiritual foes, by girding on the armour of 
 light, that is, by living and acting in such a manner as becomes those 
 who are the sons of light. 
 
 (13) 'Qg .... 7ii:QtTiatJ}O0)f.i(v, let us icalk in a becoming man- 
 ner, as by day ; i. e. let us live as it becomes those who enjoy the light, 
 to whom the path of duty is made plain, and on whom the eyes of 
 men are fixed in order to watch their demeanor. Let us carefully 
 guard against their being able to discern in us any matter of reproach. 
 
 Mt] y.o')^oig .... £>?Aq>, not in revelling and drunkenness, not in 
 chambering andicantonness, not in strife and bitter envy. The apos- 
 tle here mentions some of those sins, which were most usually com- 
 mitted during the night season. 
 
 (14) slk)J .... Xqcotov, but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ; i. e. 
 imitate him, which is the usual sense of the Greek tvditauadai xivcf 
 or perhaps it here means, like the Hebrew \2:ab , to be filled with , and 
 so the idea is : Be filled with a Christian spirit, abound in it ; " let 
 Christ dwell in you richly." — Kul t>iq ouq-aoq .... InixTv^iiag, and 
 make no provision for the flesh, in respect to its lusts. Tr,g ouQuog 
 TiQOvoiuv means, provision for the sake of the flesh, i. e. in order to 
 gratify its lusts, as us tnntv/.tiag explains it. Such a latitude in re- 
 
CONTENTS OF ROM. 14: 1—23. 489 
 
 gard to the use of the Genitive is illustrated by many examples in 
 Winer's Gramm. §30. 2. So Rom. 8: 32, iig6l3uiu aquyijg, sheep 
 destined for the slaughter; comp. Phil. 1: 22. John. 5: 29. 7; 35. 
 Matt. 4: 15. 10: 5, etc. 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 1—23. 
 
 The apostle having given so many precepts for the sake of caution and 
 restraint upon the Jewish part of the church at Rome, (on whom he doubtless 
 had his eye when he was writing chap, xm.), he now turns to the Gentile 
 part, and gives them some salutary cautions with respect to their demea- 
 nor towards their Jewish brethren. The Jews, at this time, cherished a deep 
 abhorrence of idolatry ; and every thing which pertained to idol-worship they 
 avoided with great solicitude. It is no wonder, therefore, that we find among 
 them, even when transplanted into the Christian church, men who abstained 
 from all flesh, lest they should eat that which had been offered to idols. It is 
 to be remembered, that (holocausts excepted) only a part of the flesh of slain 
 beasts was consumed by fire ; the rest was reserved for the priest, or the offerer 
 and frequently came to the market for sale. Now a man who ate meats with- 
 out distinction, that had been obtained at the market, might eat that which had 
 been offered to idols. The Jew shuddered at this, lest he should be defiled ; 
 and the Christian Jew could not, at once, divest himself of such a feeling. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, however, interpret the chapter be- 
 fore us as having reference only to scrupulousness about meat that had actually 
 been offered to idols, and not meat in general. But v. 2 seems to make against 
 this opinion. Accordingly, Chrysostom, Origen, Theodoret, Jerome, and 
 most modern commentators suppose, that the scrupulousness in question ex- 
 tended to all kinds of meat, or at least to all which was sold in the public mar- 
 kets. A comparison of the present chapter with 1 Cor. vm., would seem to 
 afford confirmation of this opinion. It would also seem to establish the idea 
 that the scruples in question (about the eating of meat) arose from the circum- 
 stance, that meats which had been presented at the temples of idols, often 
 came into the markets for sale (1 Cor. 10: 25 — 28), and in consequence of this, 
 it was so difficult to distinguish lawful meats from unlawful ones, that it was a 
 duty rather to forego the use of meats, than to incur the danger of eating those 
 which were polluted. 
 
 In regard to this last point, however, no less critics than Koppe and Eich- 
 horn have maintained, that the Christians whom Paul has in view here, were 
 a species of Essenes, such as the Greeks called aaxj/Tai, ascetics, i.e. those 
 who practised peculiar self-denial as to food and drink, and subjected them- 
 selves to various penances and mortifications of the flesh, in order that they 
 might attain to a more pure and elevated state of devotion and piety. That a 
 sect of this nature, viz. the Essenes, existed among the Jews at this time, is 
 well known from the testimonies of Philo and Josephus. But besides the 
 Essenes, there were others among the Jews who practised abstinence from 
 meat. Josephus speaks of one Banus who lived in solitude on fruits and 
 plants, and with whom he spent three years, living in the like manner. So 
 also he mentions priests, who were accused of some slight fault in regard to 
 the Roman government in Judea and were sent to Rome for trial, who lived on 
 figsand nuts, VitaJosephi, §§2.3. There were also, among the Greeks, many 
 Pythagoreans of the newly reviving school of this philosopher, who pursued a 
 like course of life with regard to food. Similar to these classes of men, in 
 respect to their mode of sustenance, are some Christians mentioned by Origen 
 (cont. Celsum, V. 48), who lived in his time. So in Canones Jlpostoi. (L.), tho 
 like class of men is mentioned. 
 
 62 
 
490 ROMANS 14: 1. 
 
 But although it is plain that there were classes of men, at the time whesi 
 the apostle wrote, who practised the ascetic mode of life which Rom. xiv. con- 
 templates; yet it does not seem probable that such ascetics as have just been 
 mentioned, were the ones whom the apostle here intends to describe. Every 
 one who reads the history of ascetics of this class, knows, that in every country 
 where they have made their appearance, they have usually obtained for them- 
 selves great credit and influence, on the ground of their supposed extraordinary 
 sanctity. As was very natural, they took to themselves great credit on this 
 account, and looked down with pity or contempt on those, who declined to 
 pursue the course of self-denial which they had adopted. Of course, we should 
 expect the apostle, if he were here addressing men of this class, to attack their 
 pride and vain glory, as he does very strenuously in Col. 2: 21 — 23. But in- 
 stead of this, we find the ascetic party here to be the one which needs defending. 
 It is the others who look down with contempt or disrespect on them, and who 
 are prone to treat them with some degree of scorn or neglect on account of 
 their weakness or superstition ; and therefore the apostle chides the others, and 
 exhorts them to a different demeanor. It is more probable, then, that the whole 
 difficulty in question was one which arose from Jeicish scruples about meats 
 and drinks offered to idols, in which the Jewish Christians believed that they 
 could not partake, except at the expense of associating themselves with the 
 worshippers of idols and becoming polluted. 
 
 This is satisfactorily confirmed by v. 5, which speaks of the distinction that 
 these same persons made between days, out of respect to the laws of Moses 
 and the customs of the Jews; comp. Col. 2: 16. We cannot reasonably doubt, 
 therefore, that the apostle is here speaking of such Jewish Christians, as still 
 cherished the feelings and views which they had entertained before their con- 
 version, in regard to the distinction of meats and drinks, and the observance 
 of fast and feast days. The Gentile part of the church would naturally feel 
 no scruple in respect to such matters ; and it would not be unnatural for them 
 to look at first with wonder, and afterwards with disdain, on the scrupulous- 
 ness of their Jewish brethren respecting such external ordinances. It is easy 
 to see, that the peace of the church would thus become endangered. And in 
 order to prevent this, the apostle throws his shield over his brethren in a 
 weaker state of belief, and insists upon it that others shall deal very tenderly 
 and affectionately with scruples of such a nature, and not condemn or despise 
 those who entertained them. This he could insist on with the more urgency, 
 because their scruples were of a conscientious and sober nature, and not mere 
 whims of superstition. Accordingly, the present chapter gives precepts and 
 principles in regard to things of this nature, which must be of great value to 
 the church of Christ, down to the end of time ; and on this account, we can 
 aver, in one sense, that we rejoice in the occasion which called forth the ex- 
 pression of such views and feelings on the part of Paul. The whole constitutes 
 a rule of life in regard to weaker Christian brethren, and with regard to food, 
 drink, manner of living, and observance of fasts and feasts of an extraordinary 
 nature, which is a very important guide to scrupulous and tender consciences. 
 
 (1) Tov .... TTi'arti, him that is weak in his belief; i. e. him who 
 is not yet fully convinced or enlightened in regard to the true extent 
 of Christian liberty, which pays little regard to ordinances of a mere 
 external and physical nature. The article ry here is equivalent to 
 the pronoun his; which is often the case elsewhere; or ry may be 
 construed as referring to Christian belief or persuasion. Hlorig 
 does not here mean saving faith, faith in God, in an appropriate and 
 peculiar sense ; but belief or persuasion in the more general sense of 
 (hat term ; comp. 1 Cor. 8: 11, 12. — II(ioc>lu/.s(3ai>to 0e, receive with 
 
ROMANS 14: 1,2. 491 
 
 kindness, admit to your society or friendship ; so the verb 7X()0O?.ai.(- 
 (iavof.iai is used in the New Testament. It means literally to take 
 to one's self; and so it is applied to taking a companion, Acts 17: 5; 
 to receiving into one's house as a guest or a friend, Acts 18: 2G. 28: 
 2. Philem. vs. 12, 17. Hence, in a sense somewhat more general, 
 to receive kindly ; comp. Rom. 14: 3. 15: 7. Calov objects here 
 against his Lutheran brethren, for employing this text to prove that 
 Calvinists should be treated with lenity. He says that 2 John v. 10 
 is the proper rule to be applied to them ! 
 
 Mr} tig diay.oiattg dicdoyiOfAcw, not so as to increase his scru- 
 ples of conscience, or Ms doubting thoughts ; i. e. do not take such a 
 course with him, as will offend and wound his tender conscience, and 
 be a stumbling block to him ; do not make him so revolt from your 
 belief, by shewing contempt of his, as will involve him in still more 
 doubt and difficulty. So I understand this difficult phrase. Aia- 
 y.giatig, scruples, doubts; diuloyio^oiv, of the thoughts, i.e. of the 
 mind. Eig indicates the object or end or tendency of a thing. ' Do 
 not act in such a manner as will have a tendency to promote, rather 
 than allay, scruples about meats, days,' etc. 
 
 (2) Og fiiv .... tiuvtu, one believes that he may eat every thing. 
 Miv here is a part of the peculiar Greek construction, by which one 
 clause in a sentence is represented as corresponding to another of 
 similar construction, which has 8i before it. So here og ptv .... 
 6 St. It does not always admit of translation : and this is the case 
 here. We have no particles in English, which make out just such a 
 construction as [iii> .... di. We may translate, one indeed .... 
 but another; yet there seems to be nothing added to the sense of the 
 English sentence here by indeed, unless we consider it as a concessive 
 particle, thrown in to designate what might be expressed by saying : 
 It will be granted, it is true that, etc. — Tlavra agrees with ^QM^iaxa 
 understood, comp. v. 15, but (joo')f.ia is not confined merely to the 
 sense of meat ; it means any thing eatable, any food. Qiuytiv is 
 the second Aorist here, from the obsolete quyi», but usually ranged, 
 in the lexicons, under the root ia&la). The circumflex accent shews 
 it to be the 2nd Aorist. 
 
 'O dt . . . ia&Ui., but he who is weak, eateth herbs ; i. e. o aa&i- 
 voiv if TitGTti, comp. v. 1, he who is scrupulous about distinction of 
 meats, etc., refrains from meat sold in the markets lest he should eat 
 that which is offered to idols. He prefers to live on vegetables (A«- 
 yavu), rather than subject himself to this danger. 
 
492 ROMANS 14: 3, 4. 
 
 (3) ia&laiv .... Y.givtTO), let not him who eateth, despise him 
 who eateth not ; nor him who eateth not, condemn him who eateth. 
 Kui nor, like the Hebrew ") before a second member of the sentence 
 in which the first member has a negative particle. The English 
 construction demands not .... nor, in order to render the sense of 
 the Greek. Kglvetv, in the sense of condemn, is frequent in the New 
 Testament ; as any of the lexicons will shew. The sentiment is : 
 ' He who is freed from any scruples about distinction of meats, should 
 not exercise an uncharitable and condemning spirit, towards him 
 who still entertains such scruples.' The reason is subjoined : 
 
 'O {teog .... rrQooeXaSfTO, for God has accepted him, i.e. re- 
 ceived him into his redeemed family, and admitted him to its privi- 
 leges ; comp. looGlaujjdci'fGOf in v. 1. 
 
 (4) 2u i!> .... oiy.iir}v; Who art thou, that condemnest the ser- 
 vant of another? That is, such an uatfevo)v tv nioTti, being favour- 
 ably accepted of God, and being his servant and not yours, how can 
 you claim the right of exercising severity towards him, in respect to 
 his scruples of conscience ? 2v is here properly the Nominative ab- 
 solute. It may be constructed as Nominative after ti, but the other 
 construction is the true one. It is like the Hebrew is - )" ^fcn ^N~ , 
 [as to] God, his way is perfect. 
 
 7'nj (Wet) .... nhirii, by his own master he standcth or falhth. 
 The word Qxry/.a here, has afforded no small room for discussion 
 among critics. But those who give it the sense of acting uprightly, 
 and Ttlmtiv the sense of being delinquent, do not seem to me to con- 
 sult the context. The apostle says to those who were freed from 
 scruples about food : ' Brethren, do not be severe in condemning 
 those who differ from you in opinion with respect to this point. 
 Yours is not the prerogative to judge in this case ; it is God who will 
 acquit or condemn ; they are accountable to him only, in such a matter.' 
 2fiy/.bi is not a classical word, but is formed, by the later Greek, 
 from the Perfect tany/.u, the i being dropped. Its meaning here is, 
 to stand fast or firm in a secondary sense, i. e. to hold good one's 
 place at a time of trial, to remain firm and secure. So Ps. 1: 5, 
 " The ungodly shall not stand in judgment;" i.e. shall not be able to 
 remain firm and safe. So the opposite term (ninrfi) would also lead 
 us to judge. To fall means, in this case, to be condemned, to be 
 insecure, to be subjected to condemnation or punishment ; exactly as 
 we say in English, of a man on trial for a crime, and condemned, he 
 was cast at the trial, he failed, i'n.'Of. The Dative toj idia) y.iQtct), 
 
ROMANS 14:4, 5. 493 
 
 is here the Dative of relation; comp. 10: 10, seq. on this Dative, and 
 Winer's Gramm. § 31. 3. edit. 3. The strict rendering would be : 
 In relation to his own master, he is subject to sentence of condemna- 
 tion or acquittal; i. e. before the tribunal of another he cannot be 
 arraigned in respect to his scrupulous conscience, his own master 
 only can call him to an account as to this matter. 
 
 £ruftt'}OtT(xi .... avrov, and he shall be established, for God is 
 able to establish him ; i. e. he shall stand in the judgment of his con- 
 duct in reference to this matter, for God is able to acquit him, or God 
 has the power and right of acquitting him, although you should con- 
 demn him. 
 
 (5) Og {*ii> .... 7]^£()ui', one esteemelh one day more than an- 
 other; i.e. he makes a distinction between days, regarding one as 
 more sacred than another. KqIvh here has a very different sense 
 from that which it conveys in the preceding verse ; it means, esti- 
 mates, regards, deems; comp. Acts 13: 46. 16: 15. 26: 8. Rom. 3: 
 7. 1 Cor. 2: 2. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. IV. 8. 2, xgidflrfTf iudut^ovta- 
 raiov, ye shall be deemed most fortunate. In respect to nagu, more 
 than, above, see lexicon. 
 
 "Og Si ... . rifxtgav, but an other estccmeth every day, i. e. makes 
 no distinction between days, regards all days alike. — ' Exaorog .... 
 7Tkt]poqo<j?t'(j0oi, let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind; 
 i. e. let each one act conscientiously in respect to this matter, accord- 
 ing to the real persuasion or belief of his own mind, so as not to vio- 
 late his conscience in observing, or neglecting to observe, particular 
 days in a special manner. 
 
 Whether the apostle means to include the Sabbath, or rather the 
 Lord's day, under what he says here of the special observance of 
 particular days, has been called in question by not a few distinguished 
 commentators and divines. It is well known, that in the early ages 
 of the church a distinction was made between Sabbath, and Lord's 
 day. The former was the Jewish weekly Sabbath, i. e. the seventh 
 day of the week. It embraced also the occasional fasts and feasts 
 prescribed by the Mosaic law ; comp. Col. 2: 16. Gal. 4: 10. Such 
 was the Jewish use of the word n2p , aa[3t3uTov. But the early 
 Christians, in order to distinguish this from the first day of the week, 
 on which they held their religious assemblies of worship (l Cor. 16: 
 2. Acts 20: 7), called the first day i']ut(ja y.I'qIov {Lord's day), Rev. 
 1: 10. Of this distinction there is clear evidence in the writings of 
 the ecclesiastical fathers. That it was very early made, even in apos- 
 
494 ROMANS 14 : 5—7. 
 
 tolic times, is sufficiently evident from comparing Col. 2: 16 and 
 Rev. 1: 10. 
 
 The question whether Rom. 14: 5 has respect to the rjut'oa ttvgiov 
 as well as the oufi(5aTa of the Jews, is more difficult of decision 
 than some may at first suppose ; because there is nothing in the con- 
 text, which furnishes any certain clue to the meaning of tj/ntga here. 
 But if we may venture to compare Col. 2: 16 and Gal. 4: 10 with 
 the passage here, (and it does seem to me that the two passages mani- 
 festly have relation to the same usages and prejudices in the church), 
 then we may draw the conclusion pretty clearly, that I'j^e'rja here re- 
 lates to days which the scruples of Jewish Christians deemed sacred, 
 and has no relation to the iqfitQct zvq'iov which all agreed to keep 
 holy. 
 
 (6) O qcjovolv . . . . ov qctovtl, he who regards the clay, regards 
 it to [the honouring of] the Lord ; and he ivho regards not the day, 
 for [the honouring of] the Lord he doth not regard it. That is, he 
 who makes the distinction in question between days, does so because 
 he believes that God has required it, and he keeps such days sacred 
 in order to honour him ; but he who does not make these distinctions, 
 refrains from doing it because he thinks that duty to God requires 
 him to refrain, inasmuch as God does not require these days to be 
 kept holy. Kvqio) is the Dativus commodi. 
 
 Kctl 6 io&iwv .... t>£co, likeioise he who eats, eats [to the hon- 
 ouring of] the. Lord, for he gives God thanks ; i. e. he who eats food 
 without any scrupulous distinctions, does this with a regard to the 
 commands of God, and is thankful to God for the blessings bestowed 
 upon him, viz. the privilege of enjoying his food without the trouble- 
 some distinction of clean and unclean. 
 
 Kul 6 (.it] io&iwv .... ftiu), and he who eats not, for [the honour- 
 ing of] the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks. That is, he re- 
 frains from certain kinds of food, from a design to obey the com- 
 mands of God ; and for the light which is imparted to him (as he sup- 
 poses) with respect to making such a distinction in food, he is grate- 
 ful. Flatt thinks this should be turned thus : ' For the little which 
 he does enjoy, he is thankful to God.' But then, this little would be 
 what he eats ; whereas he who does not eat, is here represented as 
 thankful — for what 1 The not eating, must be the answer ; and this, 
 in the sense above given. 
 
 (7) Ovdelq yug .... CjJ, for none of us lives to himself; i. e. 
 none of us, who behaves as a Christian, can live only for his own 
 
ROMANS 14:7—9. 495 
 
 pleasure, or to obey his own inclinations. I take it for granted, then, 
 that those who make distinctions between food, and those who do 
 not, aim to honour God by this, because they stand pledged to be en- 
 tirely devoted to his service and glory. Zr t v nvc, to live devoted to any 
 person or thing-, to accommodate all our actions and desires to his 
 wishes; comp. Luke 20: 38. Rom. 6: 10, 11. Gal. 2: 19. 
 
 Kul ovdiig tuvxM unodi'ijaxfi, and none of us dieth to himself ; 
 i. e. in life and death we are the Lord's, we are bound to glorify him 
 m all that we do. That the phrase ovd'elg iavroi anoxrinjaxti means, 
 we are the Lord's, whether in life or in death, i. e. in the state of the 
 dead, viz. in the present and future world, seems clear from compar- 
 ing vs. 8, 9. 
 
 (8) Fmv Ti . . . . unoOi'}](rxo)[itv, for whether we live, we live to 
 the Lord, and whether we die, we die to the Lord; i. e. whether in a 
 state of life or death (comp. v. 9), we belong to the Lord, we are 
 bound to glorify him. The phrases iav xe . . . . lav re, shew the 
 mutual connection of both, and their relation in common to some- 
 thing else ; which here is ro u xrgiov iofit'v. In English we should 
 say : " Both living and dying, we are the Lord's." The nicer shades 
 of rt . . . xal and rt . . . rt, it is impossible to imitate in our language. 
 
 Euv rt . . . . iijfiev, whether we are living, then, or dead, we are 
 the Lord's ; i. e. whether we exist in the present world, or in another, 
 viz. the world of the dead, we belong to the Lord, i. e. to Christ. 
 That Lord does mean Christ here, v. 9 makes certain. That the 
 apostle means, moreover, by £coptv and ano-di/Tjfsxcanev, to describe 
 not the aet of living and dying, but the stede of the living and the 
 dead, there can be no reasonable doubt, after consulting v. 9. In 
 other words : ' We, in the state of the living and in the state of the 
 dead, i. e. we of the present or of the future world, are Christ's ; he 
 is our Lord, both here and hereafter.' 
 
 (9) ESq rovvo yu(j .... xvpievor], for Christ both died and re- 
 vived, for the very purpose that he might be Lord of the dead and the 
 living. The word avian], rose, which is in the textus receptus, is 
 rejected on good grounds by Dr. Knapp and all recent critics. It 
 seems to have come from the margin, where it was written as a gloss 
 or explanation of ££i]Ge. In regard to i^iqGe, which here has the 
 sense of reviving, coming to life, and not simply of living, (which has 
 seemed to perplex some commentators), one needs for his satisfaction, 
 only to compare Matt, 9: L8. John 5: 25. 11: 25. Acts 1: 3. 25: 19, 
 et alibi. In relation to the sentiment here expressed, viz. that Christ 
 
49G ROMANS 14 : 9—11. 
 
 suffered and rose, or in other words, that he "took on him our nature 
 and became obedient unto death," in order that lie might be Lord of 
 all, the reader may compare Phil. 2: 5 — 11. John 17: 4, 5. Heb. 2: 
 9, 10. 12: 2. The apostle means to say, not that universal dominion 
 was the principal object of Christ's death, but that this was a fruit or 
 consequence of it, and indeed one of the ends which the Saviour had 
 in view, because it is necessary for the accomplishment of his benev- 
 olent purposes. 
 
 To be Lord of the dead and of the, living, is that he should be 
 supreme ruler over the present world and the world of spirits ; for the 
 living and the dead make up all the human race. 
 
 The supremacy of Christ, and his absolute property in all Chris- 
 tians, living or dead, is fully asserted and implied in vs. 6 — 9. 
 
 (10) 2v di . . . . gov ; and thou, why dost thou condemn thy bro- 
 ther ? 2v is the Norn, absolute, as in v. 4 above. At, and, too, also, 
 " addit vim interrogationi ;" Bretschneider in Lex. Ti xyivtig, why 
 dost thou censure thy brother for his weak and scrupulous con- 
 science 1 
 
 *JIxul gv . . . gov, or thou, why dost thou loo despise thy brother? 
 Kai gv is much the same as gv dt, gv being again in the Nom. abso- 
 lute. To despise here means, to regard with feelings of contempt 
 brethren who have scrupulous consciences, to look upon them as 
 inferior. 
 
 JJuvTtg ydg Xcjigtov, for we must all stand before the judgment- 
 scat of Christ; i. e. such a brother is not. amenable to you in a matter 
 of this nature; Christ is his judge, who is the supreme judge of all. 
 We must leave such matters to him ; but should feel, at the same 
 time, that we are accountable for all that we do or say, in respect to 
 our Christian brethren. — Tug is prefixed to a reason given, why we 
 ought not to despise a Christian brother for his weak conscience, viz. 
 the fact that he is accountable to Christ himself and not to us; as we 
 also are accountable, for our demeanour toward him. 
 
 (11) Ftyvunxui yug, where ydg is prefixed to a clause introduced 
 in order to confirm what immediately precedes. — Zio tym .... tiidi, 
 as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue 
 shall confess to God ; i. e. all shall acknowledge subjection to me, 
 and give to me an account of their actions; or, all are accountable to 
 God as their supreme and final judge. The passage is quoted from 
 Is. 45:23 (45:23, 24 Sept.), where the Hebrew for Zm iyo'i is 
 ifljJSittJa ""S , Sept. star ifiuviov 6(.ivvw, by myself do 1 swear. The 
 
ROMANS 14 : 12—14. 49? 
 
 ZeU iym of the apostle is equivalent to the "^Nt l| n of the Hebrew, 
 which is altogether equivalent to " l Fiya'iS3 "'2. So the apostle has 
 translated ad sensum, not ad vcrbum. The on which follows, stands 
 in the Septuagint after xar' tpavxou Ofivvm naturally ; in the text of 
 Paul, £w lyio . . . on, is a constructio ad sensum. 
 
 (12) That the doctrine of accountability to God is contained or 
 implied, in this passage from the Old Testament, Paul now proceeds 
 to assert. "Aga ovv .... &((a, every one of us, therefore, must give 
 an account respecting himself to God. For loyog, in the sense here 
 given, comp. Matt. 12 : 36. Acts 19 : 40. 1 Pet. 4 : 5. Heb. 13 : 17. 
 4 : 13. 
 
 The apostle here reckons the appearing before the judgment-seat 
 of Christ, as giving an account to God. So God is represented as 
 judging the world by Christ, Acts 17: 31. Rom. 2: 16. " Deus et 
 Christus arctissime conjuncti sunt, ita ut quod de hoc dicitur, dicitur 
 etiam de illo." 
 
 (13) Maxell .... 'AQivwiuv, let us then no longer condemn one 
 another ; i. e. let us no longer do as we have done, in judging and 
 condemning those who make a distinction of meats, days, etc. Since 
 we are all accountable to God for every thing that we do, let us no 
 more expose ourselves to his displeasure, by thus wronging a Chris- 
 tian brother. 
 
 ' AKkd tovto .... axavdulov, but rather come to this determina- 
 tion, not to put a stumbling-block, or an occasion of falling, in the 
 way of a brother. KQivart is here taken in a sense quite different 
 from that which KQivw^av conveys, in the preceding clause. KQivctTt 
 means, determine, decide ; xq'ivuti tovto means, make or come to this 
 determination ; comp. Acts 16: 15. 20: 16. 1 Cor. 7: 37, et alibi. 
 This is what the rhetoricians call antanaclasis (dvxuvdn\aoig), which 
 means, the repetition of the same word in the same sentence, or in 
 one closely connected, in a sense different from that which the word 
 when first mentioned conveyed. It is a species of paronomasia, or 
 very nearly allied to some forms of paronomasia. 
 
 T(o ddtlcpw is Dativus incommodi, as the grammarians say. 
 JIqookoh^u and oxavdaho v are not materially different ; both mean 
 an occasion or cause of stumbling. Here they are to be understood, 
 of course, in a moral sense ; and the use of both words seems de- 
 signed merely to indicate every kind of occasion for stumbling. 
 
 (14) Oida. .... frjcov, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord 
 Jesus ; i. e. I know, and know for certainty because the Lord Jesus 
 
 63 
 
ROMANS 14 : 14—16. 
 
 himself has taught me. 'Ev kvq'io), by the Lord, for so h is very 
 often construed before the Dative of cause, manner, instrument, etc. 
 
 "On . . . at'TOv, that nothing is unclean of itself ; i. e. no food or 
 drink in its own nature, or as it is in itself, is unclean to the Christian. 
 At avrov, by itself, through itself, on its own account. — El [xr t .... 
 •AObvov, but to him %oho deeincth any thing to be unclean, it is unclean ; 
 i. e. if a man believes any species of food or drink to be unlawful, 
 and then partakes of it, he defiles himself, because he does that 
 which he believes to be sinful. 
 
 (15) El di . . . Xvireizcxt, now if thy brother is grieved because of 
 meat. At continuative, noiv, further. — Aid §qui^u, because thou 
 eatest meat which he regards as unclean. — OvxtTt .... TTtgircartlg, 
 thou walkcst no longer according to what benevolence requires ; i. e. 
 thou dost violate the law of love, which would require thee to do unto 
 others that which thou wouldest that others should do unto thee. But 
 this thou dost not, when thou demeanest thyself in this manner. 
 
 Mi] .... unt'Ouvf, destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ 
 died. That unolXvt means destroy, seems plain from comparing 
 1 Cor. S: 11 and v. 20 below. The word a7i6?J.uftt was sometimes 
 employed by the Greeks in the sense of cruciari, to torment, vex ; a 
 sense which is possible here, but not probable. The meaning seems 
 to be : ' Do not furnish an occasion of stumbling to thy brother, lest 
 he fall, and come into condemnation.' — ' T-ntQ ov Xgiozog unt&ocvt 
 seems to be added in order to shew how very differently Christ him- 
 self acted and felt, with respect to Christians who are weak in faith ; 
 and thus to paint, in glowing colours, the criminality of those who 
 refused to imitate his spirit. 
 
 (16) Mi] .... uyuxfov, let not your good, then, be evil spoken of. 
 Ovi>, therefore, then, i. e. since such is the case, viz. that Christ died for 
 sinners, and that you are under obligation to shew the spirit of sim- 
 ilar benevolence toward your fellow Christians, you ought to demean 
 yourselves in such a way, as that you will give no occasion for the 
 religious liberty which you enjoy to be evil spoken of. That o.yudov 
 here means, freedom from the yoke of bondage which the ceremonial 
 law imposed, I cannot well doubt; and so Origen, Theodoret, Bengel, 
 Clarius, and others understood it. But Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Erasmus, and others, understand by dyudov, the Christian religion 
 in general. The sense would be good, if construed in this way ; but 
 less appropriate, however, than the meaning above given. 
 
ROMANS 14: 17—20. 499 
 
 (17) Ov yuQ .... ayio),for the kingdom of God is not meat and 
 drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. II 
 (juatXfia too Dtov here means, the spiritual kingdom of God or 
 Christ ; his reign within ; his moral dominion over the hearts of men ; 
 in a word, true Christianity. This does not consist in refraining or 
 not refraining from this or that food or drink ; but spiritual life con- 
 sists in holy conformity to God, peaceful and gentle demeanor, and 
 joy such as is imparted by the influences of the Holy Spirit. A truly 
 admirable description of the nature of real Christianity ! Eigrjvt] 
 here means peace, in opposition to discord and contention among 
 brethren. — Ev nvivfiazi o\yU\\ may be applied, as a qualification, to 
 dty.atoovi'}] and eio/jvi] as well as to %agd' but I prefer the construc- 
 tion which I have given. 
 
 (18) 'O ydg . . . uv{tgojnoig,for he who serveth Christ in respect 
 to these things, is acceptable to God, and approved by men. Ev rov- 
 toiq means the things before mentioned, viz. dixaioovvij , sigijvrj, 
 and x a 9 a * v nvevpaTi dyloj. Aoxipog, acceptus, gratus ; the apos- 
 tle means, that men will speak well of such a demeanor as he had 
 commended. 
 
 (19) "slgu ovv .... uXXt'jXovg, therefore let us strive after peace 
 and mutual edification. Td zijg sigf]vrjg . . . ra xfjg oixodofiijg, are, 
 according to a very common usage of the Greek, a periphrasis for za 
 ligijvixct, etc., or for the simple tigi]vii, oixoSofit]. — Ti]g tig ulhj- 
 lovg, i. e. rtjg oixodofiijg sig dlX^lovg. — The article is commonly 
 supplied in this way, before adjectives that folloiv a noun in order to 
 qualify it, or (which is the same thing) before nouns with preposi- 
 tions, added merely to qualify the preceding and principal noun ; Wi- 
 ner's Gramm. fy 19. 1. b. 
 
 The object of this verse is, to charge the church at Rome to de- 
 mean themselves in such a way, with regard to the matters in dispute 
 which he had touched upon, as would promote the peace of the 
 church and the edification of both parties. 
 
 (20) Mr] . . . &fov, destroy not the work of God, on account of food. 
 To h'gyov tov dtov, the same as oixodof.ii] dsov, 1 Cor. 3: 9, and 
 oixod'ofirj . . . tv xvgim in Eph. 2: 21, and oixodofti}v iavzov in Eph. 
 4: 16; i. e. Christians, or a Christian. Possibly the writer may refer 
 here to the internal work of faith, which is called tgyov -Oeov in John 
 6: 29. I prefer the former sense. Xazdlvi is a verb accommodated 
 to the figurative expression i'gyov ftiov, and means to pull doivn, to 
 destroy. The meaning is : ' Do not so demean thyself, in respect to 
 
500 ROMANS 14 : 20—23. 
 
 this dispute about meats clean and unclean, as to cause thy weak 
 brother to sin, and to fall into condemnation. 
 
 ITdi'Tu [tiv xa&aQu, all [meats] are clean; i. e. no distinction of 
 food is to be made under the Christian dispensation. All the distinc- 
 tions of the Levitical law are abolished. — AWa .... ia&lovrt, still 
 they are hurtful to the man, who eats so as to stumble thereby. Aiu, 
 before a noun, often designates the manner in which a thing hap- 
 pens or is done; so, for example, in Luke 8 : 4, did naga(3ok?iQ, 
 i. q. TiuQufloXixoJq- Acts 15: 27, did Xoyov, orally ; 2 Cor. 10: 11, 
 di hxiozoliov, in the way of writing; Heb. 13:22, did fiQuytcov, 
 briefly, etc. See Bretschn. in did, c. a. 
 
 (21) KaXov .... uo&fvii, it is good not to eat flesh, nor drink 
 wine, nor [to do any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or has 
 ground of offence, or is made -weak. Mt]di iv m is elliptical ; the full 
 expression would be, /.irjdi qayi7v »} tcisIv ti iv o> %. x. A. The 
 words i] (jy.otvdakt'&rc(i ij dciftavel, are omitted in Codd. A. C. 67, and 
 in Syr. Arab. Copt, versions; also in Origen. They seem to be a gloss 
 or repetition of nfjooy.ojiTfi. The sense of anxrsptl is, to render in- 
 competent, viz. incompetent to walk safely or securely. 
 
 (22) -2i) .... -Ofov, hast thou faith? keep it to thyself before 
 God ; i. e. hast thou a belief that there is no difference in meats, 
 (which is truly the case), yet deem it sufficient, in respect to this 
 point, to regulate by it thy conduct in private, as seen only by the eye 
 of God. Do not act this out in public, by which you may give need- 
 less and injurious offence. 
 
 Jluy.doiog .... dov.ipd£ei, happy [is he], who does not condemn 
 himself in respect to the thing which he alloios ; i. e. we may congrat- 
 ulate that man, who does not so use his Christian liberty in respect 
 to food, as to bring on himself condemnation or blame by an abuse of 
 it, or by making use of it in an imprudent and inconsiderate manner. 
 
 (23) 'O di . . . Tttoifwg, but he loho doubts, is condemned if he eat, 
 because it is not of faith ; i. e. he who doubts whether it is lawful for 
 him to eat a particular kind of food, and yet eats it, is worthy of con- 
 demnation ; because he does this against his conscience or belief, or 
 at least without an approving conscience. 
 
 Tlav di .... iail, and every thing that is not of faith, is sinful; 
 i. e. not only eating against one's conscience, or without an approving 
 conscience, is deserving of condemnation, but any thing else done in 
 like manner is sinful. No man should indulge in any demeanor or 
 conduct, when the lawfulness of it is to him a matter of doubt. A 
 
CONTENTS OF ROM. 15: 1—33. 501 
 
 truly excellent maxim in Christian morals, and one which, if duly 
 heeded by Christians, would prevent many a bitter hour of darkness 
 and contrition. 
 
 CHAP. XV. 1—33. 
 
 Between the preceding verse and verse 1 of this chapter, the Cod. Alex, 
 and 106 Codd. minusc, most of the Greek fathers, together with the Syriac 
 and Arabic versions, insert vs. 25 — 27 of chap, xvi., i.e. the close of this 
 epistle. Hence has arisen the controversy, whether the epistle properly closes 
 with chap. xiv. On the side of the tcxtus reccptus, which places these verses 
 at the end of the epistle, are the Cod. Vaticanus, 3 uncial Codd., several 
 Codd. minusc, and the Latin fathers. For this arrangement, also, the internal 
 evidence arising from the connection may be appealed to ; for it seems to be 
 quite plain, that chap. xv. is intimately connected with Chap xiv., in respect 
 to the subject of which it treats. If Paul be the author of the whole epistle, 
 (and the evidence appears to be very satisfactory that he is), then it would be 
 somewhat singular that the passage in 1G: 25 — 27 should be inserted here, 
 where there seems to be no special call for a doxology, and where the connec- 
 tion is so close with the sequel as it stands in the tcxtus receptus. Flatt appeals 
 to Eph. 3: 20, in order to shew that Paul is accustomed to introduce doxologies 
 into the body of his epistles. He might have appealed to several other instan- 
 ces of the like nature ; e. g. Rom. 1: 25. 11: 36. 2 Cor. 11: 31. Gal. 1: 5. Phil. 
 4: 20. 1 Tim. 1: 17; but all these examples are in quite a different situation 
 from that of the present one, for with one exception (1 Tim. 1: 17), God is 
 the immediately preceding subject of the writer ; and in 1 Tim. 1: 17, this isim- 
 plied. But such is not the case in the instance under examination. The in- 
 ternal congruity of the passage, then, seems to be strongly against the inser- 
 tion of 16: 25 — 27 in this place. And although Griesbach has inserted it, and 
 Morus, Wetstein, Flatt, Tholuck and many other critics approve of this ; yet 
 I agree most cordially with Dr. Knapp, who has decided more conformably, as 
 I apprehend, to the principles of true criticism, that the order of the tcxtus re- 
 ceptus is the true one. 
 
 In the present chapter, Paul continues to exhort the church at Rome, to 
 strive after unity and peace. He sets before them the self denial of Christ, vs. 
 3, 4. He beseeches God to give them the spirit of Christian unity and love, 
 vs. 5, 6. He exhorts them to a mutual kind reception of each other, v. 7. He 
 shews that the reception of the Gentiles into the Christian church, had been 
 clearly and often predicted, vs. 8 — 12 ; and prays God to fill them all with joy 
 and peace, v. 13. He apologizes, as it were, for writing to the church at Rome, 
 by describing the nature of his office as an apostle to the Gentiles, the labours 
 which he had performed while holding this office, and the affectionate desire 
 which he had cherished of paying the church at Rome a visit, vs. 14 — 24. He 
 describes to them the plan of his future journeys and labours, expresses his hope 
 of yet visiting them, and begs an affectionate interest in their prayers to God 
 for him, vs. 25 — 32. He then concludes with a benediction, v. 33. 
 
 (1) 'OcifD.Of.itv de . . . . ftuGTCc£etv, we, moreover, who are strong, 
 ought to bear with the infirmities of the iceak. Avvaroi, the strong 
 in faith, i. e. those who had no scruples about meats and drinks, etc. 
 — \4ftwttT0iv, those who were not dvvaroi, i. e. who had scruples, 
 etc. — BaGTU&iv, to bear with, to endure patiently , to tolerate; comp. 
 Gal. 6: 2. Rev. 2: 2. 
 
502 ROMANS 15:2—4. 
 
 Kul fxt] tavToJg dgt'oy.tiv, and not to please ourselves ; i. e. not to 
 act merely in such a way as would gratify our own views and incli- 
 nations. See the example of Paul, in 1 Cor. 9: 22. 
 
 (2) ' -ExuGTog .... oiy.odo^r}v, let each one of tis please his neigh- 
 bour, in respect to that which is good, unto [his] edification ; i. e. let 
 us act in such a manner as to please our neighbour, so far as we may 
 do so and do what is good ; let us act so as to edify him. 
 
 (3) Kul yuo .... TjQtasv, for Christ did not please himself; i. e. 
 Christ did not have respect merely to his own pleasure or pain, con- 
 venience or inconvenience ; but did that which was grateful and use- 
 ful to others, although he exposed himself to great suffering in con- 
 sequence of acting thus. Tug stands prefixed here to the reason 
 why we ought to seek the good of others. 
 
 AWu .... In t/Aii but, as it is written, the reproaches of those 
 who reproached thee, have fallen upon me. The passage is quoted 
 from Ps. C9 : 10 (69 : 9). The general sentiment is here accommo- 
 dated to a particular case ; i. e. the same thing which this sentiment 
 declares, was in fact exemplified in the treatment which Christ re- 
 ceived. In other words, Christ suffered reproaches, rather than desist 
 from his beneficence toward others ; which is the sentiment of the 
 passage quoted. 
 
 (4) Oou yug . . . ngotyguqt], whatsoever things, now, were writ- 
 ten in ancient times, were written for our instruction. The connec- 
 tion of this verse with the preceding is somewhat difficult. On the 
 whole it must be regarded as a parenthesis. Fug confirmantis seems 
 to be a proper description of the yuo here ; for it is prefixed to a cir- 
 cumstance designed to enforce what the apostle is saying, i. e. it is a 
 kind of yuo urgentis, as one might say. TTgofyguqt], lit. were writ- 
 ten before, i. e. in former days, in ancient times, as I have rendered 
 it above. 
 
 ' Jvu .... ixcofitv, that through patience, and by the exhortation 
 of the Scriptures, we might obtain hope. ' Tnofitvrjg refers to a pa- 
 tient endurance of the troubles and sorrows, to which the doing of 
 good may expose us. — FfuguxXijOtog seems here to mean admonition 
 or exhortation ; for it refers back to diduaxukiav, and if rendered 
 consolation does not seem to be directly congruous with that word. 
 The writer here refers to the exhortation of the Scriptures, to perse- 
 vere meekly and patiently in doing good. 
 
 Patience of this nature will produce hope ; comp. Rom. 5: 3 — 5. 
 He who perseveres in thus doing good, amid the evils which may 
 
ROMANS 15:5,6. 503 
 
 come upon him, will be rewarded with " a hope that maketh not 
 ashamed." 
 
 (5) 'O di &£OQ .... 'h]Govv, now may the God of patience and 
 admonition give mutual unity of sentiment to you, according to Christ 
 Jesus. 'O &(6g x?jg vnofiovrig means, God who bestows patience, or 
 God who is the author of patience ; just as the God of grace, is the 
 God who bestows grace. So o -&eog rijg TtctgaxX^aeoig means, either 
 God who is the author of exhortation or encouragement [viz. to per- 
 severe], or God who is the author of consolation. I understand jt«- 
 Quy.h'jG(h)g here, in the sense of exciting, exhorting to acts of self- 
 denial, i. e. to do those things which make for peace and for mutual 
 Christian edification, although they may cost self-denial and mortifi- 
 cation ; which accords with the context above. 
 
 Kara Xqigtov ' Jtjgovv means, in accordance with the Spirit of 
 Christ or agreeably to what Christ or the Christian religion requires. 
 The earnest supplication of the apostle, that the Romans may be led 
 to uvtu cfQOvtlv iv ulh]loig, shows how mistaken those are, who 
 think that unity of sentiment among Christians is not desirable, even 
 as to matters not essential to salvation; for surely the sentiment about 
 distinction of meats was not essential in this sense. If now such 
 unity in smaller matters was urged by the apostle, then of course he 
 would urge it far more, in things essential to salvation. 
 
 The precepts of the apostle shew, also, that Christians may differ 
 about externals, and things of minor importance, without hazarding 
 their salvation ; although not without endangering the peace and 
 welfare of the Church. Such is the imperfection of human nature, 
 that difference of opinion is apt to produce dispute ; and dispute of 
 course is apt to lead, more or less, to alienation of feeling. 
 
 (C) Jva .... Xqigtov, that with one accord and with one voice 
 you may glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Chist. — 
 'Of-iofivfiud'oif comes from 6/.iog, conjunctus, and ■Qvfxog, animus. 
 This characterizes the union of mind or sentiment, which the apos- 
 tle desires should pervade the Christian church. 'Ei> ivl gto^uxl 
 characterizes the harmony of voices, in the song of praise which 
 was to be sung by the church ; i. e. they should not sing discordant 
 notes, but harmonious ones. The meaning is not literal here, but 
 figurative, viz., that with union in their praise to God they might offer 
 him thanksgiving, that they might all accord in the same feeling and 
 same worship. 
 
 In xcd nuti'occ, xul is explicative, i. e. " et copulat et explicat ;" 
 
504 ROMANS 15: 6—9. 
 
 see Bretschn. Lex. xca, 2. b. Such is a very common idiom in the 
 New Testament with respect to v.ai as explicative ; comp. 1 Pet. 1: 3. 
 2 Pet. 1: 11. 2: 20. Phil. 4: 20. Ephes. 1: 3. Col. 3: 17. In these 
 cases, viz. such as have xal explicative followed by a noun in apposi- 
 tion with the preceding noun and limiting or defining it, the article is 
 usually omitted before the second noun, as here before nuxtQW com- 
 pare also, in this respect, the examples cited above. 
 
 (7) Aio .... &eov, therefore shew kindness to each other, as 
 Christ also hath shewed kindness to you, ttnto the glory of God ; i. e. 
 in view of all that has been said, I beseech you to treat each other 
 with brotherly kindness and affection ; yea, with kindness like to that 
 which Christ has shewn to you, in order that God may be glorified. 
 
 Ato refers to all which had been before said of Christian kindness 
 and forbearance. As to nQoakapftdvfa&t, comp. 14:3. ' Tpag in 
 the textus reccptus is »?,««?. This latter is removed, because the Mss. 
 A. B. C. D. E. F. G., read vfiag. — Elg doiav deov, Tholuck interprets 
 of eternal happiness, i. e. the glory which God bestows. The phrase 
 is capable of this meaning, comp. Heb. 2: 10. Rom. 5: 2. 1 Pet. 5: 4 ; 
 but vs. 8, 9 require a different sense here, viz. since Christ hath 
 kindly received you, in order that God may be glorified. 
 
 (8) At'yw di •/.. x. A. At " accuratius definit," i. e. it is added to a 
 phrase or sentence, inserted for the sake of more full and entire 
 explanation. The writer, having asserted that Christ has kindly re- 
 ceived us in order that God may be glorified, goes on now to add 
 some things which serve to shew, that Christ entered upon the duties 
 of his mediatorial office, in order to propagate the truth and to bring 
 Jew and Gentile nations to glorify God. 
 
 'irjaovv Xgioxov .... tffov, Jesus Christ teas a minister of the 
 circumcision, on account of the truth of God ; i. e. that Jesus Christ 
 was a minister of the Jews, that he served the cause of divine truth 
 among the Jews, in order to promote its true interests. ' Ttizq, on 
 account of, for the sake of. 
 
 Elg to ... . tiutiqo)v, in order to confirm the promises made to the 
 fathers ; i. e. in order to carry into execution the promises made to 
 the ancient fathers, of spiritual blessings to be bestowed on their 
 children. 
 
 (9) Ta d'e . . . . -dtov, [I say also] that the Gentiles are to glorify 
 God for his mercy [in Christ] ; i. e. the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, 
 are to be brought into the church, that God may be all and in all, and 
 thus be glorified by all men. Aoiaacu is constructed with Xtyw im- 
 
ROMANS 15: 9—13. 505 
 
 plied, as the version shews. The present phrase discloses the mean- 
 ing of eig do'iuv dtov in v. 7. 
 
 Aiu tovxo .... xjiufao, therefore will I praise thee among the 
 Gentiles, yea, to thy name will I sing praise. The quotation is from 
 Ps. 18: 49. The design of it is to shew, that the Gentiles, as well as 
 the people of Israel, would have the blessings of the gospel proffered 
 to them, and be brought to glorify God. — ' E'iofAoXoy rjGOfiui, I will 
 praise thee, like the Hebrew iTlitf . — Tm oVo/mrt gov, to thy name, 
 i. e. to thee, like the Hebrew *!B'ttfi . 
 
 (10) Kui nuliv kt'ya, viz. in Deut. 32: 43. — Evqpgav&rjTt . . . ui- 
 TOv, rejoice ye Gentiles with his people ; Hebrew 172^ D^ia fl2" l :"ir; . 
 The design of the quotation is, to shew that the Gentiles are spoken 
 of in the Old Testament Scriptures, as destined to be brought into 
 the church of God, or as being made to praise him. 
 
 (11) Kui ndktv, viz. in Ps. 117: 1 (Sept. 116: 1). The senti- 
 ment is the same as before. The object in accumulating quotations, 
 is additional confirmation of what the writer had advanced. 
 
 (12) Kui Xtyu, viz. in Is. 11: 10. In the quotation, the apostle 
 omits NTnrr tn-3, in that day. Also instead of the Hebrew "T^N 
 fi' , 73i' Djb 1235> , who shall stand as a banner of the nations or Gentiles, 
 the apostle has, with the Septuagint, xui 6 uvtGzupevog uyyiiv t&- 
 vo)f, one shall arise to be a leader of the Gentiles ; ad sensum, but not 
 ad literam. For ikitovai, the Hebrew has Ittn-p . The whole quo- 
 tation, therefore, is ad sensum only ; but is truly so much. It is added 
 to the others for the same purpose as before, viz. with the design of 
 shewing that the Gentiles should belong to the Christian church, so 
 that God might be glorified by them. 
 
 Thus far in confirmation of the latter clause of v. 7. The apostle 
 now quits this subject, and resumes his supplications in behalf of the 
 church at Rome, which were interrupted by v. 7, seq. 
 
 (13) 'O d'e titog .... -niGiivuv, now may the God of hope fill you 
 with all joy and peace in believing ; i. e. may that God who is the 
 author of all Christian hope, (comp. tlmovGiv in v. 12), make your 
 joy and peace, which result from faith in Christ, greatly to abound. — 
 Eig zo . . . uyiov, so that ye may abound in hope, through the power 
 of the Holy Spirit ; i. e. so that, having much joy and peace in be- 
 lieving, you may also have a lively Christian hope of future glory, 
 through the influence of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you, and who 
 gives the earnest of future glory; comp. Eph. 1: 13, 14. Rom. 8: 23 
 with the notes upon it. 
 
 64 
 
506 ROMANS 15:14—17. 
 
 (14) TltniiafAui dt, where dt " oration i continuandae inservit ;" 
 as also in v. 13 above. — k'ul uvzdg iyca, even I myself. Km added 
 to pronouns in this way, serves to make the expression more distinct 
 and intense. — lit pi vfiav, in respect to you.— Or v . . . uya&ojovvtjg, 
 that you yourselves (x«t uvxoi) are filled with kindness. Kul avtol 
 indicates what I have expressed in the translation, as nearly as our 
 language can express the value of the Greek phrase. 'Jyu&mavv^g 
 I take here to refer to the kind feelings, which the apostle hoped and 
 believed the Roman Christians would cherish towards each other. 
 
 IIfnhipo}f.itvot .... vov&tTtiv, abounding in all knowledge, and 
 able to give mutual admonition. The meaning is : ' I am persuaded 
 that ye possess in abundance such Christian knowledge, i. e. such a 
 knowledge of Christian truths and principles, that ye will be able to 
 give such advice and warning as you may mutually need.' 
 
 (15) TolfitipOTtpov .... v/Aug, I have written the more boldly to 
 you, brethren, when reminding you with respect to some things ; i. e. I 
 have written with more freedom than might have been expected from 
 a stranger, when reminding you of the various things which I have 
 urged upon you. 'yJno fit'povg means, in some parts of his epistle, 
 i. e. as to some things. 
 
 Aia rt)v %upiv .... dtov, on account of the favour tvhich was 
 bestowed upon me by God ; namely, the honour of the apostolic office 
 (comp. Rom. 1: 5), which the sequel shews to be the meaning of 
 yapiv here. 
 
 (lG) Elg to tivai .... t&vr}, that I should be a minister of Jesus 
 Christ to the Gentiles. Because his office led him to preach the gos- 
 pel to the Gentiles, and to exercise a spiritual watch over them, he 
 had ventured to address the church at Rome with freedom. 
 
 'jfpovpyovi'Tu .... -Qtov, performing the office of a priest [in 
 respect to] the gospel of God; i.e. acting apart in respect to the 
 concerns of Christians, not unlike that of a priest among the Jews. — 
 " Jvu ytvr t Tut .... ay ho, that the offering of the Gentiles might be ac- 
 ceptable, being purified by the Holy Spirit ; i. e. that the Gentiles may 
 be offered to God, whom as their ktiTovpyog I present, inasmuch as 
 they have been rendered clean, pure, by the sanctifying influence of 
 the Holy Spirit on their hearts. 
 
 (17) ' E'^ia ouv . . . {ttov, I have, then, cause for glorying , through 
 Jesus Christ, as to those things which pertain to God; i. e. being a 
 minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, I have cause for rejoicing, 
 that he has strengthened me and given me success among them, in 
 
ROMANS 15:17—19. 507 
 
 things pertaining to religion. — Ouv " facit transitnm orationis," 
 (Bretschn. Lex.); accordingly it may be rendered, in such cases, 
 then, moreover, further, etc. Here it stands before a paragraph, 
 which the apostle subjoins to the preceding declaration in order to 
 exhibit the happy fruits of his ministry. — Ev Xpioxw ' hjoou I under- 
 stand to mean, through the aid of Christ. Paul had just averred, that 
 he was teixovpyog 'h^nov Xgiaxov' and as such, he here intimates 
 that Christ had afforded him aid, so as to ensure him success in his 
 employment. That iv often has the meaning of by or through, in 
 the sense of ope, auxilio alicujus, there can be no doubt; e. g. " He 
 casts out demons iv xot <xq%ovti, by the aid of the prince of demons," 
 Matt. 9: 34. In like manner iv is used in John 17: 10. Acts 4: 9. 
 15: 7. 17: 28, 31, et saepe alibi. 
 
 (18) Ov ydg . . . i(AOv,for I do not presume to mention any thing 
 which Christ hath not wrought by me; i. e. I do not, in saying this, 
 intend to claim any praise by exaggerating my success, or taking to 
 myself the credit of what others have done tig vnaxorjv t&vatv, in 
 order to bring the Gentiles to obey the gospel. — Aoym xect tyya* 
 means, by preaching and by other personal effort. Euq explicantis, 
 i. e. preceding what serves to limit the declaration which goes before. 
 
 (19) Ev dvvufiti ztyaicuv, by the influence of signs and 
 
 wonders, or wonderful signs. In Hebrew, D^nDlfaT nintf , (usually 
 conjoined), means wonders, signs, or miracles adapted to persuade or 
 enforce belief in the power, providence, veracity, etc., of God. The 
 union of or^uicc nal xtgaxu in the New Testament, is an imitation 
 of this idiom. It may be rendered as a Hendiadys, and the latter 
 noun made an adjective to qualify the former, agreeably to an idiom 
 common both in the Old and New Testament. If rendered signs 
 and wonders, then signs means miraculous proofs. 
 
 'Ev SvvocfAit .... ayiov, by the influence of the Holy Sptirit, may 
 mean, signs and wonders performed by virtue of this influence ; and 
 so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, have understood it. 
 But it may also mean, the internal influences of the Spirit, bestowing 
 the gift of prophecy, the power of speaking in foreign languages, etc.; 
 and so Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, and others, have explained it. In 
 this case, it is coordinate with dvvccftei Gqpiiojv nal xtQuxwv, not 
 subordinate to it, i. e. not used merely to qualify it. 
 
 ' Qnxs (is . . . . Xqioxov, so that from Jerusalem and its suburbs, 
 even to JMyricum, I have spread abroad the gospel of Christ. "SZoxt 
 fit ... . ntnkrjQwxtvai is the usual construction of the Infinitive with 
 
508 ROMANS 15: 19—22. 
 
 wore. TlinXrjQOjuivixt, has here the sense of diffusing, spreading 
 abroad ; and comes from the sense of filling up, because, in order to 
 do this, a diffusion into all parts is necessary. In the like sense the 
 word is employed in Acts 5: 28. Col. 1: 25, comp. Sirach 24: 26. — 
 Illyricum was a province bounded south by Macedonia, west by the 
 Adriatic, east by a part of the river Danube, and north by a part of 
 Italy and Germany. It corresponds with the modern Croatia and 
 Dalmatia; and was the extreme boundary of what might be called 
 the Grecian population. The circle of Paul's preaching, then, as 
 here described, reaches from the extreme north-west of the land of 
 the Greeks, to Jerusalem, i. e. it comprehends all Greece, in the 
 widest sense of this term, Asia Minor, the Grecian islands, and the 
 country between Asia Minor and Jerusalem. More might have been 
 added; for the apostle had preached at Damascus, and probably in 
 Arabia, before he came to Jerusalem, Acts 9: 20. Gal. 1: 1G, 17. 
 
 (20) O'viw .... oi'Aod'opbi, so, also, that I was strongly desirous 
 to preach the gospel, not ivhcre Christ teas named, lest I shoidd build 
 on another's foundedion. (biXortpoupevov is to be constructed with 
 pe, taken from the preceding verse. The word literally signifies, to 
 covet or desire as an honour, to regard as honourable ; hence the sec- 
 ondary sense, to desire strongly, earnestly to wish for or to covet. 
 
 (21) ' AXXa . . . ovvi'jGovoi,, but, as it is written: They shall see, to 
 whom no declaration was made respecting him ; and they ivlio have not 
 heard, shall understand. The quotation is from Is. 52: 15 ; a passage 
 which has respect to the Messiah's being made known to the heathen. 
 The apostle quotes it here, in order to illustrate and to justify the 
 principle which he had avowed, viz. that of preaching the gospel 
 where it was entirely unknown before. The quotation says as 
 much as to declare, that the gospel shall be thus proclaimed. "Oipov- 
 rut, and ovviqcjovot are to be understood as designating mental vision 
 and perception, for this is what the writer intends to designate. 
 
 (22) Aio xal .... vpag, wherefore 1 ivas greatly hindered from 
 coming to you. Aio\ wherefore, means, on account of his many and 
 urgent calls to preach elsewhere. Kai is here joined with ivc/.onro- 
 prjv rd noXXd as an intensive, i. e. " sensum intendit, augment at." 
 The apostle does not say simply, that he was often hindered or nmch 
 hindered, lv.OTixopt]v ra TioXXa, but %cd enomoprji/ ra noXXa, I was 
 very much hindered, i.e. I had such frequent and urgent calls else- 
 where, that it was impossible for me to visit Rome, as I desired to do. 
 Passow is, so far as I know, the first lexicographer who has done any 
 tolerable justice to the Proteus ttctl of the Greeks. 
 
ROMANS 15:23—28. 509 
 
 (23) Nvvl d't . . . . txiov, but now, having no longer any place in 
 these regions, and being desirous for many years to pay you a visit. 
 Tonov i'xbiv, i. e. having no longer any considerable place, where I 
 have not proclaimed the gospel. 
 
 (21) '£2g tav .... Vfiug,, whenever I may go into Spain, I hope, 
 as I pass on, to see you ; i. e. intending to visit Spain, he meant to 
 take Rome in his way. In the textus rcceplus, tXi-.vaof.iai ttqoq vftag 
 follows Znaviuv which Griesbach and Knapp have rejected, as they 
 are not found in Codd. A. C. D. E. F. G., nor in the Syriac, Arabic, 
 or Coptic versions, etc. Whether the apostle did in fact ever make a 
 journey to Spain, is somewhat uncertain. The tradition of the 
 church affirms this; but not on sure grounds. In case we allow that 
 he was imprisoned a second time at Rome, such a journey is not im- 
 probable. 
 
 Kal .... tail, and to be sent on my way thither by you. The 
 apostle here refers to the usual custom of the churches, when the 
 messengers of the gospel departed from them, of sending their eld- 
 ers, etc., to accompany them for some distance on their journey ; 
 
 comp. Acts 15: 3. 17: 14, 15. 20: 38. 21: 5.—'Eav tfinXtjadw, 
 
 when I am in part first satisfied ivith your company. Observe the 
 delicacy of the expression. The apostle does not say ifinXtja&w, 
 satisfied, but and ftt'govg tfinX^airoy, partly satisfied, as though he 
 never could enjoy their society sufficiently to gratify all his desires. 
 
 (25) Nvvl de . . . . dyloig, but now 1 go to Jerusalem to supply 
 the wants of the saints. Ataxovtm is often used, in the New Testa- 
 ment, to designate the supplying with food and other comforts of life. 
 At present, says the apostle, I cannot visit you, as duty calls me in 
 another direction. 
 
 (26) Evdoxrjaav ydg .... 'JtgovoaXrjp, for it has seemed good 
 to Macedonia and Achaia, to make some contribution for indigent 
 Christians at Jerusalem. Xoivwvi'av, contribution, collatio beneficia- 
 rum. Comp. 1 Cor. 16: 1 — 4. 2 Cor. vni. ix. Acts 24: 17. 
 
 (27) Evdoxrjouv yap .... flat, [I say] it has seemed good, for 
 they are truly their debtors. Fag xul oqsiXtiai avrojv tlat, assigns 
 a reason why it seemed good. Kai is here an intensive, truly, really. 
 
 El yag assigns a reason why they are debtors. If the Gentiles 
 have shared in their spiritual things, they ought surely to aid them in 
 temporal things. Kai intensive, in xcu iv xolg aagnmo7g. 
 
 (28) Tovxo .... Snaviuv, now when this duty shall be discharg- 
 ed, and this fruit made sure to them, I shall pass through the midst of 
 
510 ROMANS 15: 28—39. 
 
 you into Spain. Kagnov here means the fruit of the contribution 
 in Macedonia and Achaia, the fruit which their benevolence had pro- 
 duced. JZqipayioufxtvog, applied to an instrument in writing, means 
 to authenticate it, to make it valid, i. e. sure to answer the purpose 
 for which it was intended. So here,. the apostle would not stop short, 
 in the performance of the duty with which he is entrusted as the al- 
 moner of the churches, until he had seen the actual distribution of 
 their charity among the indigent saints at Jerusalem, a fidelity and 
 an activity well worthy of all imitation. 
 
 (29) Oida da ... . tXtvoouai, and I know that when I come to 
 you, I shall come with the full blessings of the gospel of Christ. ' Ev 
 nhipatfiuTt ivloylag, with an abundant blessing ; where the first of 
 the two nouns constitutes the adjective ; comp. Heb. Gramm. § 440. b. 
 
 (30) Hupa'/Mlu) da ... . Xqigiov, now 1 beseech you, brethren, 
 by the Lord Jesus Christ. At continuative. — Aia ' Itjaov Xqigtov, 
 
 for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, i. e. out of love and regard 
 for him. — Kal did .... Tivtv/narog, and by the love of the Spirit; 
 i. e. by the affectionate Christian sympathy for the friends of Christ, 
 which the Spirit has given you. — 2vvuyo)vloaG&ai .... #iov, that 
 ye strive together for me, in your prayers to God in my behalf; i. e. 
 that you unite with me in my Christian warfare, helping me by your 
 earnest supplications to God in my behalf. 
 
 (31) "Iva .... lovdala, that I may be delivered from unbelievers 
 in Judea ; i. e. pray that I may be delivered from the enemies of the 
 gospel in Judea, whither I am going ; for I have reason to expect 
 persecution and injury from them. 
 
 Kal 'iva .... dyloig, and that my service which is for Jerusalem, 
 may be acceptable to the saints. Aiaxovla means, his service in car- 
 rying and distributing the contributions of the Greek churches. It 
 seems rather singular, at first, that he should doubt whether such a 
 charity would be agreeable to indigent churches at Jerusalem. But 
 when we call to mind the violent prejudices of the Jewish Christians, 
 who were zealots for the law of Moses, we may well suppose that 
 some of them would hesitate to come under obligations to Paul, the 
 great champion of opposite opinions, and also to the charity of Gen- 
 tile Christians, who disregarded the laws of Moses with respect to 
 ceremonial observances. 
 
 (32) "Iva ev . . . . Vfitv, [pray] that I may come to you with joy, 
 if God will, and may be refreshed among you. "Iva here falls back 
 upon TxyooiviatQ x. r. I., in v. 30. — Aid diXruxaxog &iov, Deo vo- 
 lente. 
 
ROMANS 1G: 1,2. 511 
 
 (33) 'O di {ttog .... vpmy, now the God of peace be with you 
 all; i. e. may God, the author of peace, who bestows happiness, true 
 prosperity, tiSbV , be with you, i. e. aid you, bless you. \A\ir\v, in the 
 tcxtus receptus, is of suspicious authority, and is so noted by Dr. Knapp. 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 The apostle concludes his epistle, by various affectionate greetings and 
 commendations, 1 — 16. After which he warns the church against those who 
 make divisions and give offence among them, i.e. such as practise the con- 
 trary of that which he had been enjoining, in the preceding part of his epistle, 
 vs. 17, 18. He expresses his affectionate desire that they might be kind and 
 simple-hearted, and his wish that the God of peace would give them the vic- 
 tory over the adversary of souls, the fomenter of discord among brethren, vs. 
 19, 20. He then expresses the salutations of several Christian friends and 
 companions, who were with him, vs. 21 — 24 ; and concludes with a devout dox- 
 ology, vs. 25 — 27. 
 
 (1) 2uv'iGTt]fxi di . . . . KtyxQeulg, now I commend to you Phc- 
 bc our sister, who is a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. At con- 
 tinuative. — Aiuxovov, i. e. xr\v diuxovov, for the Greeks used both o 
 et r\ diuxovog. It should be remembered, that in the East, women 
 were not permitted to mix in the society of men, as in the western 
 world they are at present. They were kept secluded, for the most 
 part, in a retired room or ywdy.a,ov, to which no stranger could have 
 access. Consequently, it became highly important for the church to 
 have al diuxovoo as well as ol d'ldxovoi, in order that the former 
 might look to females who were indigent or sick. Accordingly we 
 find the female deacons more than once adverted to, in the epistles of 
 Paul ; comp. 1 Tim. 5: 10. Tit. 2: 4. 
 
 KiyxQicug, Cenchrea, was the eastern port of Corinth ; for Co- 
 rinth itself lay not upon the sea, but had two harbours at some dis- 
 tance from the city, viz. Cenchrea on the east, and Lechea on the 
 west. It would seem that Phebe was about to sail from Cenchrea to 
 Rome, when Paul wrote this epistle ; and it is quite probable, that it 
 was sent by her to the church at Rome. The word KtyyQtai is used 
 only in the plural, like 'Adrjvut. 
 
 (2) ha .... dylojv, that ye may receive her as being in the 
 Lord, in a manner worthy of the saints. That the phrase tv kvqI(# 
 means, being in the Lord, i. e. being a member of his spiritual body, 
 (comp. 1 Cor. 12: 27. Rom. 12: 5. 1 Cor. 10: 17. Eph. I: 22, 23. 
 4: 12. 5: 30. Col. 1: 24), the various passages in which it occurs 
 leave no good room for doubt. So the sentiment here is : ' Receive 
 
512 ROMANS 16: 2—7. 
 
 Phebe who is a Christian, in such a manner as becomes Christians, 
 i. e. with distinguished kindness and benevolence. 
 
 Kal naguOTTJri .... i/.iov, and render her assistance in any thing, 
 ichere she may need it of you ; for she herself has been a helper of 
 many, and especially of me. For the words nugccOT?]t6 and ttoogtu- 
 rig, see on Trgoiorupfvog in chap. 12: 8. This hint shews what the 
 office of a deaconess was, i. e. what duties it led her to perform. A 
 comparison of ngoGTung here will serve to cast light on 6 ngoioza- 
 fxevog in Rom 12: 8. 
 
 (3) Ilginxav, Prisca, the same as IJgiGxtXXu in Acts 18: 2, 26. 
 1 Cor. 16: 19. The latter is merely a diminutive, which was com- 
 monly applied to women in the way of courtesy or affection; as John 
 says to Christians : " My little children." Both Priscilla and her 
 husband Aquila are here called avptgyovg of the apostle. — Ev XgiG- 
 ri<t 'j7](jov, i. e. in the Christian cause. 
 
 (4) Oi'zivfg .... V7ii&iy/.ai', lit. who exposed their men neck for 
 my life; i. e. who exposed their own neck to the sword, their own 
 head to be cut off, in order to defend me from harm. — Kul tijv . . . . 
 ixxXijaiap, and the church which is in their house, i. e. which habitu- 
 ally convenes there. Aquila and Priscilla are spoken of, also, as hav- 
 ing a church in their house while at Ephesus, 1 Cor. 16: 19 ; from 
 which some have drawn the conclusion, that only their family, which 
 consisted of Christians, are meant by lxx\r\Giav ' a criticism which 
 is destitute of support from the usus loquendi of the New Testament. 
 On the contrary, nothing is more natural than the supposition, that 
 these zealous advocates of the Christian cause, wherever they sojourn- 
 ed, were accustomed to hold assemblies at their own house, for the 
 purposes of Christian worship and instruction. All the meetings of 
 the primitive Christians must have been in this way, inasmuch as 
 they had, at first, no churches or temples where they could convene. 
 
 (5) Epainetus ; this and other names which follow down to v. 15, 
 designate persons otherwise unknown to us, but who, personally or 
 otherwise, must have been known to the apostle. — ^4:iagyri zrjg sJol- 
 ag, one of the first who embraced Christianity under my preaching 
 in proconsular Asia, i. e. Asia Minor, probably in the Roman sense 
 of thai word. — Eig XgtGzov, in respect to Christ. 
 
 (6, 7) It appears probable, that the persons here named had for- 
 merly been residents in Asia or Greece, where the apostle was ac- 
 quainted with them, but had now removed to Rome. — EntGijitot, of 
 note,well-lcnown, highly esteemed; iv zo7g anoozoloig, among the apos- 
 
ROMANS 10:0—18. 5U5 
 
 ties. — 01 .... Xqioim, who became Christians even earlier than my- 
 self ; where iv Xqioto) can hardly be mistaken. 
 
 (9) s/yunyrov fiov iv Kvq'ho, my beloved fellow Christian. 
 
 (10) Tov doxipov iv XgiCTM, a tried and approved Christian. — 
 Tovg ix rtov sJqcoto(3ov\ov, i.e. rovg ovxag iv A'vgio) ix tmv oixfl- 
 cov ' ' slgiOToPovkov comp. the close of v. 11. 
 
 (13) Mririga avrov xal if.iov, his mother and mine; i.e. his 
 mother in a literal sense, and mine in a figurative one. 
 
 (16) Aandaua&s .... dy'tM, salute each other with a holy kiss; 
 i. e. greet each other after the affectionate manner of Christians ; live 
 together in the kind exchange of Christian salutations and tokens of 
 friendship. This custom is extensively maintained, at present, on 
 the continent of Europe, among Christian friends, and others also. 
 In itself, it is like any external thing, not essential, but only a res 
 loci et temporis, depending on the manners and customs of the 
 time and place, like the wearing or not wearing of long hair at 
 Corinth, etc. 
 
 Al ixxXyoiai nccaat, i. e. all the churches in the vicinity of the 
 apostle, or those which he had recently visited. This shews the cus- 
 tom of the early Christian churches, as to sending expressions of 
 brotherly affection for each other, although they were mutual stran- 
 gers in respect to personal acquaintance. 
 
 (17) 2xoiiilv, to consider attentively , to bcicare of — AixoGraolag, 
 divisions, viz. in the church, among brethren. — Zxdvdula, offences, 
 i. e. those who are the occasion of others stumbling and falling, by their 
 uncharitableness or their superstition. — TTagd, contrary to, against ; 
 comp. Rom. 1: 26. 11: 24. Gal. 1: 8, 9. Heb. 11: U.— Exxllvars 
 an' uuioiv, stand off from them, avoid them; i. e. give them no coun- 
 tenance or approbation. 
 
 (18) Tot xvpla) iquuiv Xqiotw, i. e. the Christian cause, or him 
 who is the author of Christianity. — Kodla, their own appetite; i. e. 
 they do not labour for the good of the Christian cause, but merely for 
 their own private interests, merely to obtain a maintenance. 
 
 The apostle seems, therefore, to refer here to certain teachers at 
 Rome, at this time, who were the authors of division and offence 
 there, and whose views extended no farther than the acquisition of a 
 maintenance for themselves. 
 
 Kul Sid .... dxdxwi>, and by flattery and fair speeches beguile 
 the minds of the simple. Theophylact : XQn^oloyiu, xoluxfiu, i.e. 
 65 
 
iI4 ROMANS 16: 19—23. 
 
 flattery. — Evloyiag is eulogy, praise. — Kagdlag, minds, like the 
 Hebrew ib . — \4xcmwv means, those who are destitute of suspicion, 
 without guile, simple-hearted. 
 
 (19) 'if yug .... uqly.iio, for your obedient temper of mind is 
 known among all [the churches] ; i. e. the fame of your Christian 
 temper, your readiness to obey the gospel, has been spread among 
 all the churches. Tag seems here to be used in connection with 
 something implied, and which the mind of the reader is to furnish; 
 e. g. [I exhort you to do all this], yug, because I know that you will 
 lend a listening ear. See Bretschn. Lex. on yug. 
 
 Xulgo) ovv .... viiiv, I rejoice, therefore, in respect to you; i. e. 
 since your obedient disposition has procured you such a good name 
 in the churches, I rejoice. To tq> v[.ia)v, i. e. y.aia to iq>' vf.i(ov. — 
 CltKw dt . . . . y.uy.ov, and 1 icish you to be wise in respect to that 
 which is good, but simple in regard to that which is evil. He means 
 to say, that he desires the Roman Christians not to use their dexterity 
 in order to accomplish selfish ends, like the false teachers among 
 them ; but to be willingly accounted simple or simpletons, in regard to 
 doing evil. 
 
 (20) GfSg zi]g eipijvrig, may God who is the author of peace, or 
 who loves and approves it ! — JZwrglipM, Fut. for Optative, like the 
 Heb. Future. — Zutuvuv, Satan, viz. the malignant accuser of the 
 brethren, and who delights in exciting the evil-minded to discord and 
 division. May God disappoint all his malignant purposes, and pre- 
 serve your harmony and kindly affection ! The language of this wish 
 {(WPTglipti) refers to the prediction in Gen. 3: 15. 
 
 (21) Xugig here means favour of every kind, like the tpb Qlb'^J 
 of the Hebrews. — \Afir\v seems to be spurious. 
 
 (21) Luke and Jason and Sosipater are classed together here, as 
 relatives of Paul. If this be Luke the Evangelist, which seems alto- 
 gether probable, then it would appear that he must have been of 
 Hebrew descent, at least in part; for Paul was "a Hebrew of the 
 Hebrews," i. e. of pure Hebrew descent. Nevertheless, as avyyiveig 
 does not mark the degree of relation, we can not argue from this 
 expression with much confidence. 
 
 (22) TtQTiog 6 yguijiug, i. e. who was the amanuensis of Paul, on 
 the occasion of writing this epistle. 
 
 (23) 'O £ti>og (.wv, my host; i. e. who has received me into his 
 house, and shewed me hospitality ; and who shews an extensive hos- 
 
ROMANS 16 : 25—27. 515 
 
 pitality to all Christians. — Oixovofiog Ttjg nolio>g, the treasurer of the 
 city. — Kovuejzoq shews the manner in which the Greeks represented 
 the Latin qu, Quartus. 
 
 25. The whole now concludes with a general ascription of praise. 
 '/'<;/ dvi'uiu'ioi, sc. t) i] doiu, as appears from the close of v. 27. The 
 sentence is suspended, after the usual manner of Paul, until he 
 resumes it in poi'O) aocpu) {feqi. — 2/ctjgi^atj to establish ; viz. in the 
 Christian faith and practice. — Kura to luuyyt'kiov (tQV, in accord- 
 ance with the gospel which I preach, agreeably to the principles of 
 this. — A'ai to xrjQvyfXtt, even the gospel of Jesus Christ, i. e. even the 
 gospel of which Jesus is the author, or which has respect to him. 
 KtiQvyittt is in apposition with fvuyytliov and the object of Paul, 
 by the whole declaration, is to shew that the gospel which he 
 preached was the true one. 
 
 Kuiu ajioxcdviptp .... asacyijfitvov, [may God establish you] 
 in accordance with the revelation of the mystery which was kept in 
 silence during ancient ages; i. e. agreeably to the gospel, which was 
 not fully revealed in ancient times, but is now brought to light ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. 2: 7. Eph. 3: 5, 9. Col. 1: 26. 
 
 (26) &ai'6po)&£vrog dt . . . . {ifov, but is now revealed by the 
 Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eter- 
 nal God. The apostle refers to the most ancient times, before any 
 revelation was given as the yjjovoi ulwvtov next to the Messianic 
 prophecies, contained in the Old Testament ; and then speaks of God 
 as aieaviog, who caused these revelations to be made, i. e. as being the 
 same in times past and present. — Elg imuv.ot]v nioricog, in order that 
 obedience to the faith might be promoted; i. e. the gospel was 
 disclosed for this purpose; and this too, elg tivcvtu to. e&vtj, to all 
 yiations, to Gentiles as well as Jews. 
 
 (27) The apostle now resumes his doxology, begun in v. 25 by 
 to) dvvaptvo), with fiovia v.. r. A. The pronoun o> here might relate 
 grammatically to Jesus Christ, and would most naturally do so. But 
 •&t(>>, in order to complete the construction, requires to be joined 
 either with ?; do'ia tig Tovg uicavag, or else dotu (or some equivalent) 
 must be understood immediately after it. Following the first con- 
 struction, we must refer ui to dtoj, and construe it as equivalent to 
 avioy which wants precedent to confirm it. The second mode of 
 construction seems rather hard ; but I know not how we can philo- 
 logically avoid it. 
 
516 ROMANS 16:27. 
 
 The subscription, like most of the others in the Pauline epistles, 
 is adscititious. Chap. 16: 1 doubtless gave occasion to it; and the 
 matter of it is in all probability correct. But we cannot regard it as 
 coming from the hand of Paul ; for surely he did not need to inform 
 the church at Rome, by a subscription, who it was that conveyed the 
 epistle to them, when he had once commended the same individual 
 to their hospitality. Moreover, competent external evidence of genu- 
 ineness is wanting. 
 
EXCURSUS I 
 
 Oil the appellation 6 vlbg tov -d-iov in Rom. 1: 4. (p. 67.) 
 
 If a different principle of exegesis be assumed here, and we affirm 
 that Christ, as being divine, is called Son, and is so called in order to 
 designate his originating from the Father in his divine nature ; then the 
 objections which may be made, are of a very serious cast, and are too 
 numerous to be all recounted, even in an Excursus. I can only glance 
 at a few. 
 
 (1) If Son of God necessarily implies, ex vi termini, that Christ as 
 to his divine nature is derived ; how shall we construe such texts as the 
 following; viz., " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up 
 where he loas before ?" John 6: 62. " No man hath ascended to heaven, 
 but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Mail who is in heav- 
 en," John 3: 13. Does Son of Man (ex vi termini) indicate the divine 
 nature of Christ ? This, I suppose, will not be affirmed ; for plainly 
 it indicates the xrfdv&oomog, the &f6g iv aetoxl qxtvtQOi&elg, i. e. it has of 
 itself a necessary reference to the incarnate condition of the Saviour. 
 Yet when employed as a proper name, we see by the texts above, that 
 it can be used to indicate the original and divine nature of the Messiah. 
 If not, then these texts would prove, that the incarnate nature of Christ 
 had existed in heaven, before he came down from that place ; a fiction 
 which we may well rank with the supposed rapture of Christ into 
 heaven, and his subsequent descent from heaven, as maintained by So- 
 cinus. 
 
 Now as these texts, thus employed, will not prove that the human 
 nature of Christ had a prior existence in heaven ; so neither will the 
 other texts above cited prove that the appellation, Son of God, means, 
 the divine nature of Christ as begotten of God, merely because the Father 
 is said to have loved him and to have sent him into the world. But, 
 
 (2) If the Son , as God, be derived or begotten, then it must follow, 
 that, as God, he is neither self-existent nor independent. It is of no 
 avail to say here, that his generation is eternal, and that the method of it 
 is mysterious, super-human, and unlike to that of any created sub- 
 stance ; for one may very readily allow all this, and still ask, whether 
 the word generation (let the manner of the thing be what it may) does 
 not of necessity, and by the usage of every language, imply derivation ? 
 And whether derivation does not of necessity imply dependence, and 
 therefore negative the idea of self -existence ? This the ancient Fathers 
 acknowledged, almost with one voice, asserting that Christ is not uvxo- 
 &soe, but derived from the Father, and begotten of his substance. The 
 
518 EXCURSUS I. ON ROM. 1:4. 
 
 Father only they regarded as self-existent ; not deeming it compatible 
 at all with the idea of generation, that the Son could vindicate to him- 
 self this attribute of divinity. So the Nicene Fathers in their Symbol : 
 &sog in &sov, epag ex cpazog. They did truly and really regard the Lo- 
 gos as an emanation from the Father ; many of them (most of the ear- 
 lier ones), as an emanation from him which took place in time, or rather 
 perhaps, as an emanation just before time began. Hence the familiar 
 phrase among them, Xoyog ivdiotd-trog, i. e. the Logos which was in God 
 as his reason, ivisdom, or understanding, from eternity ; and Xoyog tvqo- 
 (pooixog, i. e. Logos prophoric, uttered, developed, viz. by words. This 
 development many of them suppose was made, when God said : " Let 
 there be light ;" others suppose it to have been still earlier, viz. at the 
 period when God formed the plan of the world, and thus gave develop- 
 ment to his internal Xoyog, by the operations of his wisdom and under- 
 standing. 
 
 Prof. Tholuck, in his recent commentary on the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, appears fully to maintain (with the ancient Fathers) the depen- 
 dence, and to deny the self-existence, of the Logos ; while, with them, 
 he strenuously maintains that Christ is Ssog. But one who is so ear- 
 nestly desirous of seeking after truth as he is, will not take it amiss, I 
 trust, if the inquiry be here made : Whether the human mind can now 
 conceive a being to be truly God, who is neither self-existent nor inde- 
 pendent ? If the Son have neither of these attributes, then is he in- 
 deed, what some of the Fathers have called him, a &thg divTtqog, and 
 nothing more. I will not aver that those are Arians and deny the di- 
 vinity of Christ, who believe this ; but I must say, that for myself, if I 
 admitted this, I could make no serious objection to the system of Arius. 
 The whole dispute between him and those who maintain this creed, 
 must turn on the difference between being begotten and being made ; 
 both parties virtually acknowledge derivation and dependence ; they dif- 
 fer only as to the time and manner of these. Can such topics as these, 
 which of course must be mere mysteries, be properly made a serious 
 occasion of division or alienation among those who bear the Christian 
 name ? 
 
 The philosophy of the Fathers permitted them to believe in a di- 
 vine nature derived. Of course they could maintain the generation of 
 the Son as Logos, without any difficulty. But that we can now admit 
 a being to be truly God, and worship him as such, who as to his divine 
 nature is derived and dependent, does seem to me quite impossible. The 
 very elements of my own views (to say the least) respecting the divine 
 nature must be changed, before I can admit such a proposition. 
 
 To say that the Son is eternally begotten, and yet is self-existent 
 and independent, is merely to say, that the word begotten does not imply 
 derivation ; it is to deny that the word has any such meaning, as all 
 antiquity and common usage have always ascribed to it. It is, moreo- 
 ver, to give up the very doctrine which the ancient church strenuously 
 maintained. Tholuck, who appears to maintain the views of the Nicene 
 Creed, says (on Rom. 9: 5): "The Father is the original source of all 
 being, 1 Cor. 8: 6. John 5: 36; the Son is only the ilxoh' of his being, 
 
EXCURSUS I. ON ROM. 1 : 4. 51<> 
 
 Col. 1: 15. 2 Cor. 4: 4. Heb. 1: 3. But as the image of the divine Be- 
 ing, the Son is in no respect different from the Father, but fully ex- 
 presses the Being of God. As the church is wont to say: The attribute 
 of ayevvriaia is possessed only by the Father." Much as I respect this 
 excellent man and critic, how can I receive and accredit these declara- 
 tions? "The Son is in no respect (in nichts) different from the Father, 
 but fully (vollkommen, perfectly) resembles or expresses (ausdriickt) the 
 being of God ;" and yet to the Son belongs not ayswrjala, self-existence, 
 independence, but " uytwyala belongs exclusively to the Father !" What 
 is this more or less than to say : The Son is perfectly like the Father in 
 all respects ; and yet, in regard to that very attribute, which beyond all 
 others united makes God to be what he is, viz. true and very God, i. e. 
 in respect to self-existence (and of course, independence), the Son has no 
 participation at. all in this, but it belongs exclusively to the Father. In 
 other words : ' The Son is in all respects like the Father, with the simple 
 exception that he is, in regard to the most essential of all his attributes, 
 infinitely unlike him.' If this does not he on the very face of Prof. 
 Tholuck's statement, and on that of all who hold that the Logos is a 
 derived Being, then I acknowledge myself incapable of understanding 
 either their words or their arguments. 
 
 A mode of reasoning which involves such difficulties as these, should 
 not be adopted without very imperious reasons. I know of no such 
 ones, unless they be drawn from the expression 6 vlbg xou dsov under- 
 stood in a literal sense, i. e. so far literal as can be possible in respect to 
 spiritual beings. Now that one spiritual being can produce another, in 
 some way or other, (of course not more humano), will not be denied. 
 And if Son necessarily imports derivation, in the divine nature of the 
 Logos, it necessarily imports, along with this, dependence ; in other 
 words, it necessarily denies self-existence and independence. If any one 
 refuses to acknowledge this, then of course he must abandon the mean- 
 ing of generation ; no matter what the modus of generation may be, 
 however mysterious or super-human ; this makes no difference as to 
 dependence, in case the generation is real and matter of fact. In such a 
 case, the diction merely of the ancient Fathers is preserved, while the 
 doctrine which they maintained, is clearly abandoned. 
 
 All such as cannot admit the emanation philosophy into their system 
 of theology, (the ancient fathers did this), will not regard Christ as Ssbg 
 dsvxfQog, but as o wv inl tcuvtwv ■dsog, evXoyyrog sig Tovg aibvag, aur\v. 
 The Logos, " who created all things," " by whom all things were cre- 
 ated in heaven and earth," bears at least the highest stamp of Divinity 
 underived. Who is self-existent, if not the Creator ? And who is 
 God supreme, if not o wv (nl nuvxwv S-eogf If there be any higher 
 assertions of Godhead respecting the Father, than these, let those who 
 ascribe self-existence only to him, point them out. 
 
520 EXCURSUS II. ON ROM. 3:28. 
 
 EXCURSUS II. 
 
 On Rom. 3 : 28, loyi£6(is&a yag dixaiovtT'&ai niaxn av&gcoTiov, xwglg 
 tgycav vofiov. (p. 172.) 
 
 It will be conceded, at once, that before we pronounce sentence res- 
 pecting the agreement or disagreement of Paul and James, with respect 
 to the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that we should understand 
 the meaning of the words which they respectively employ, and the na- 
 ture of the object which they respectively have in view. 
 
 First, then, what does Paul assert ? He says, that "a man is justifi- 
 ed by faith, /caglg tgycov v6fiov." The inquiry is fundamental, therefore, 
 What does he mean by igyoiv vofiov ? 
 
 I answer : He means works which the law requires, ivorks which the 
 law makes it duty to perform. That the Gen. case after toyov is some- 
 times employed to express such a relation, there can be no room for 
 doubt ; e. g. John 6: 28, 29, I'gya xreov, works which God requires ; 
 John 9: 4, t« egyu xov nipipavxog fis, the works required by him who 
 sent me ; Acts 26: 20, fisxavolag soya, works such as repentance de- 
 mands ; 1 Thess. 1: 3, xov igyov xi]g nioxtcog, the works which faith re- 
 quires ; and 2 Thess. 1: 11, tgyov nloxtMg, in the same sense. 
 
 In like manner, tgyov vofiov and tgya vofiov mean, ivork or works 
 which the law demands. So the phrase is plainly used in Rom. 2: 15. 3: 
 20, 28. 9: 32. Gal. 2: 16 (thrice). 3: 2, 5, 10. Sometimes vofiov is omit- 
 ted, and igyov is used alone in the same sense, breviloquentiae causa ; 
 e. g. Rom. 4: 6. 9: 12. 11: 6 (thrice). Ephes. 2: 9. 
 
 What works, then, does the law of God require ? The answer is : 
 It demands perfect obedience. " The soul that s'mneth shall die." " Curs- 
 ed is he, who continueth not in all things written in the book of the laiv, 
 to do them." 
 
 It is manifestly on this ground, that Paid argues the impossibility of 
 justification by works of law. In Rom. 3: 19, when summing up his 
 argument contained in the preceding part of his epistle, he says : "The 
 whole world is guilty before God," i. e. all men are chargeable with the 
 guilt of sin. What follows? The apostle tells us in v. 20: Jioxi 
 x. t. X., therefore, by works of law no flesh can be justified before God. 
 
 Must not this be true ? If the law of God demands perfect obedi- 
 ence, and its penalty is attached to every sin, then one sin ruins the 
 hopes of man, and effectually debars him from justification before God, 
 on the ground of merit or obedience. 
 
 The apostle Paul disputes with those who denied this, and who 
 expected justification on the ground of their own meritorious obedi- 
 ence ; comp. Rom. 9: 30, 31. 10: 3 ; also Gal. 2: 16. 3: 8—13. Rom. 4: 
 4, 5. To say, then, that a man is not justified by ivorks of laiv, is (with 
 him) the same as saying, that he cannot be justified meritoriously, i. e. on 
 the ground of merit or obedience, Rom. 4: 5. But as faith in Jesus 
 Christ, who died to procure mercy for sinners, so that they might 
 be pardoned and accepted, does from its very nature involve the 
 
EXCURSUS II. ON ROM. 3: 28. 521 
 
 renunciation of claims to merit, and the casting of ourselves on him for 
 gratuitous justification ; so the apostle opposes the being justified by 
 faith to the being justified by works of law, the former meaning (with him) 
 gratuitous justification, the latter meritorious. Let the reader, now, 
 carefully and diligently compare Rom. 4: 4, 5, 14 — 16". !>:(>. Gal. 5: 4. 3: 
 11, 12, and he can entertain no douht of the correctness of this repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 We have then before us the object of Paul, in declaring that a man 
 is not justified by works of law. It is the same thing as to say: 'No 
 one is accepted with God on the ground of merit or perfect obedience 
 to the law, for no one has ever done all which the law requires.' 
 
 But does this involve the idea, that Paul maintains good works {toyu 
 aya&u) to be unnecessary for a Christian ? Nothing could be farther 
 from his intention. Are not his epistles filled with the most urgent 
 exhortations to Christians, that they should be fruitful in good works? 
 Compare now, for a moment, Rom. 2: 7. 2 Cor. 9: 8. Eph. 2: 10. Col. 
 1: 10. 3: 17. 1 Thess. 5: 13. 2 Thess. 2: 17. 1 Tim. 2: 10. 5: 10 (twice). 
 5: 25. 6: 18. 2 Tim. 2: 21. 3: 17. Tit. 1: 16. 2: 7, 14. 3: 1, 8, 14, etc. 
 Compare the strain of Paul's reasoning in Rom. vi — vm.; and then 
 say, Is it possible to doubt, for a moment, that Paul urged good works 
 as strenuously as James, or as any other apostle ? 
 
 Let the reader mark well, that soya vofiov, and toyu ayrt&u or toyov 
 ■iiiaT((xi;{\ Thess. 1: 3. 2 Thess. 1: 11), are two very different things ; dif- 
 ferent not so much in their own nature, strictly considered, as in the use 
 which Paul makes of them in his writings. With him, toyu vouov 
 always designates the idea of perfect obedience, viz. doing all which the 
 law requires. But I'oyu uyu&u or tqya tt/cttsw? are the fruits of sanc- 
 tification by the Spirit of God : the good works which Christians per- 
 form, and which are sincere, are therefore acceptable to God under a 
 dispensation of grace, although they do not fulfil all the demands of the 
 law. On the ground of the first, Paul earnestly contends, at length, in 
 his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that no one can be justified. 
 The latter he every where treats as indispensable to the Christian 
 character. 
 
 In a word, when Paul is contending with a legalist, i. e. one who 
 expected justification on the ground of his own merit, he avers that 
 justification by ivorks of law or perfect obedience, is impossible. But 
 when he is addressing Christians, lie tells them that good works are ab- 
 solutely essential to the Christian character. 
 
 2. Come Ave then, in the second place, to inquire what is the mean- 
 ing and object of the apostle James, in chap. 2: 14 — 26. 
 
 He commences by asking : " Of what avail is it, my brethren, if 
 a man sety he have faith, and have not works ?" It is, then, with those 
 who make pretensions to Christian faith, and mere pretensions, that the 
 apostle has to do. This is clear from the closing verse in the para- 
 graph : " For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without 
 works is also dead." 
 
 The characters, then, which the apostle James has in view, are 
 of a kind directly opposite to those with which Paid was concerned. 
 66 
 
522 EXCURSUS II. ON ROM. 3: 28. 
 
 James is disputing with Antinomians, viz. such persons as held that 
 mere speculative belief or faith, unaccompanied by works, was all 
 which the gospel demands. He tells them that this is not the case, 
 and cannot be. He appeals to the examples of Abraham and Rahab, 
 in order to confirm the sentiment which he avows ; and asks, whether 
 the faith which they possessed, did not cooperate with works, when 
 they were justified. 
 
 Observe now, that James does not once mention tgyot. vofiov. This 
 is not the subject which he has in view. It is sgya niaimq, and these 
 only, of which he treats; comp. vs. 17, 22, 26. 
 
 Mark again, that James does not at all maintain, that faith is not es- 
 sential to justification. He expressly admits, that 'Abraham's faith co- 
 operated with his works, and was perfected by them,' v. 22. Nay he 
 appeals to the very same passage of Scripture, in confirmation of this, 
 which Paul appeals to in Rom. 4 : 3, when establishing the doctrine of 
 gratuitous justification. The work of Abraham which James mentions, 
 is recorded in Gen. xxn. ; and it took place some 30 years after the 
 words were spoken to him, which are quoted in v. 22. By this work 
 (viz. of offering up his son), Abraham "perfected his faith," and "ful- 
 filled the Scripture which says: Abraham believed God, and it was 
 counted to him for righteousness," vs. 22, 23. In other words : ' The 
 faith of Abraham was inseparable from good works. It shone out in 
 the most conspicuous manner by them. And in like manner did the 
 faith of Rahab exhibit itself.' 
 
 James then maintains, that no man lias any good claim to the faith 
 of a Christian, who does not, at the same time, exhibit good works ; in 
 other words, he avers that a mere speculative faith, is not a real 
 Christian faith. 
 
 When thus understood and considered, how can he be regarded as 
 contradicting what Paul has said ? Paul maintains that men are justi- 
 fied gratuitously, in opposition to legal or meritorious justification. 
 James maintains, that a man cannot be justified by a speculative and 
 barren faith, but that he must have such a faith as will produce good 
 works. Paul is so far from denying that Christian faith must produce 
 good works, that he every where strenuously maintains the necessity of 
 them. James insists upon it, that a man, in order to be justified, must 
 exhibit good works as well as faith ; and that these are essential, in or- 
 der to complete and perfect his faith. Where then is the contradic- 
 tion ? 
 
 Luther, however, thought that he found it ; and he rejected the 
 epistle of James from the canon of the New Testament, on this ground, 
 calling it epistola straminca. So did the Magdeburg Centuriators ; and 
 not a few recent commentators have alleged, that James contradicts 
 what Paul teaches. But where has Paul taught, that a man is justi- 
 fied by faith alone ; and that evangelical good works are not an essen- 
 tial condition of his justification before God? I cannot find this doc- 
 trine in his epistles, or in his sermons. To say that he has maintained 
 the doctrine of justification without the deeds of the law, is saying no- 
 thing to the purpose ; for the meaning of this, as above explained, 
 contains nothing in opposition to what James has taught. 
 
EXCURSUS III. ON ROM. 5: 12. 523 
 
 In a word: Paul has taught us, that justification is not on the 
 ground of merit, but of grace ; James lias taught us, that a faith which 
 will entitle one to hope for justification, must be accompanied with 
 evangelical obedience. Both are true and faithful teachers ; the doc- 
 trines of both are equally doctrines of the gospel. Good works, in the 
 gospel sense of these words, are an essential condition of our accept- 
 ance with God ; but on the ground of perfect obedience to the divine 
 law, no one ever was or ever will be accepted. 
 
 EXCURSUS III. 
 
 On duvuTog in Rom. 5 : 12. (p. 309. 
 
 But here it may be said: 'If the miseries of the present life, and the 
 death of the body, be a part of the penalty threatened to Adam, then 
 the subject is implicated in difficulties like to those which have been 
 already suggested ; for if these be a part of the penalty of sin, how can 
 that penalty be contrasted with the deliverance which Christ has effect- 
 ed, inasmuch as he has not effected a deliverance from the evils just 
 named ? Must not the miseries of the present life, then, and physical 
 death, be wholly excluded from the penalty of sin as originally threat- 
 ened ?' 
 
 Soirie have been led to exclude them, by this train of reasoning; 
 and especially because, as our context abundantly asserts, the blessings 
 procured by Christ do greatly exceed the evils occasioned by Adam's 
 sin. Such being the case, they conclude that the death of Christ must 
 remove, of course, the vei-y same evils, in all respects, which were threat- 
 ened in the original penalty ; and as temporal evils and the death of 
 the body still remain, and are universal, they can not suppose them to 
 have been included in the death threatened to Adam. But it may be 
 said, in reply to this, that it does by no means follow, that even those 
 sinners who become the subjects of redemption, are to suffer none of 
 the. evils threatened against sin. The question, What would be the 
 best means of training up men, who should be always sinless on earth, 
 for the glory of the heavenly world ? is something quite different from 
 the question, How are sinners to be disciplined, in order that they may 
 become fitted, and best fitted, for the happiness of heaven ? A part of 
 the discipline of the latter, (infinite Wisdom has so decided it), must 
 now necessarily be suffering and trial ; and as included in this, we may 
 also count the death of the body. Paul himself has told us, in the very 
 chapter under consideration, that the children of God have reason to re- 
 joice in afflictions, inasmuch as they result in patience, approbation, and 
 hope, vs. 3, 4 ; and again he says, that "our momentary [temporal] af- 
 flictions work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of 
 glory," 2 Cor. 4: 17; and again, that "all things will work together for 
 good, to those who love God," Rom. 8: 28. So far as bodily suffering 
 is concerned, for the time being, Christians may suffer as severely as 
 
524 EXCURSUS III. ON ROM. 5: 12. 
 
 others ; and oftentimes they may be the subjects of severe mental, as 
 well as bodily sorrows ; but all this finally promotes their spiritual ben- 
 efit. Here then is the immense difference which Christ has occasion- 
 ed, between their sufferings and those of the wicked. So far as mise- 
 ry in the present life is concerned, Christians may indeed undergo, and 
 do suffer, some portion of that which the penalty of the law threatens ; 
 they are truly made to taste, how bitter a thing it is to have sinned 
 against (rod, and how dreadful the consequences of sin would be, if they 
 should be subjected to them all. But still, this lesson is, by divine mer- 
 cy, made highly salutary, both in weaning them from sin, and in pre- 
 paring them for glory. To repeat the words of the apostle : " All things 
 work together for their good." In a word, although a portion of the 
 penalty of sin (in the modified way just described), is the necessary re- 
 sult, in every case, of having sinned ; yet, as Christ redeems us from 
 immeasurably the greater part of its penalty, and from all that properly 
 pertains to the second death, no valid objection cau be made against the 
 declaration, that the blessings which the Redeemer procures, do not 
 only exceed the evils introduced by the offence of Adam and conse- 
 quent upon it, but also that the salvation which he has wrought, is an 
 effectual antidote against the curse of the law. Even the small part of 
 this, which the believer (as having once been a sinner) must necessarily 
 undergo, i. e. the evils which in the present life he must suffer, are con- 
 verted into a means of spiritual blessings to him. This is sufficient 
 then, to justify the assertion, that Chi-isf has redeemed us from the curse 
 of the law. It is not necessary, that all and every particular of this 
 curse should be included in such an assertion ; it is enough that the 
 very sufferings which Christians undergo, i. e. so much of the curse as 
 they do suffer, prove at last to be only "blessings in disguise." 
 
 But if temporal death merely constitutes the ivhole of the threatening 
 to Adam, or the main part of it, then has the death of Christ failed to 
 accomplish the end which Paul asserts it to have accomplished, inas- 
 much as all men without distinction are still subjected to it. Viewing 
 this death, however, as only a very subordinate and inferior part of the 
 evil threatened to our first parents ; and reflecting that even this is 
 made the occasion of discipline, which ends in good ; we may without 
 any serious embarrassment maintain, that the death of Christ has been 
 the cause of blessings which greatly superabound over the miseries oc- 
 casioned by the fall. 
 
 1 am well aware, that the passage in 1 Cor. 15: 2% " For as in 
 Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," has often been ad- 
 duced, in order to shew that ■d-uvaxoc, in the passage before us means 
 only the death of the bod}'. But with Toellner and Koppe I may 
 venture to say, that because, in discussing the subject of the resurrec- 
 tion (the resurrection of Christians only), the apostle represents Adam 
 as having introduced the death of the body, it does not follow, that in 
 another place, when treating of quite a different topic, and intending 
 to shew the full extent of the benefits procured by the death of Christ, 
 he could not employ S-uvutos in its most extensive latitude. Above all, 
 I would also add, this does not follow, when it is quite certain, that in 
 
EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 525 
 
 the context of this same epistle, and elsewhere, Paul does, beyond all 
 doubt, employ &avuxog in its most enlarged sense. It lies, moreover, 
 on the face of the whole antithesis which he makes in vs. 12 — J 9, that 
 his object is to exalt the dtxakifia of Christ, by shewing the greatness of 
 the xuinx^ipa from which he delivers us, and which was occasioned by 
 Adam. But how is this object effected in any important measure, in 
 case &uvuxog means no more than the dissolution of our mortal bodies; 
 a thing, by the way, from which none are at all delivered ? 
 
 Among recent, commentators, Schott (Opusc. p. 323, seq.), and Flatt 
 (Comment, fiber Rom. 5: 12), incline to the opinion that temporal death 
 is meant, in the passage before us ; but Tholuck (Comm. in loc.) is of 
 the same opinion as has been given above, and he has defended it with 
 great ability. Among other grounds of illustration, he has cited pas- 
 sages from the Rabbins to show that nTQ means, to die in a spirituid as 
 well as temporal sense. But this is well known among all who have at- 
 tended to their sentiments and idiom ; and the Scripture itself contains 
 such ample means of illustration, that no appeal to any other source is 
 at all necessary. 
 
 The deeply interesting nature of the subject, the difficulties attend- 
 ing it, and the efforts of numerous commentators, among whom are 
 so?ne highly respected ones, to establish that interpretation of duvuiog 
 which assigns to it the meaning of temporal death only, are my apology 
 for dwelling so long on the topics which this word suggests. 
 
 EXCURSUS IV. 
 
 On TVTiog rov pillovxog in Rom. 5: 14. (p. 226.) 
 
 In making additional remarks upon xvnog, I observe, (1) That the 
 comparison from its very nature and desigu, is, as has been stated (p. 
 224), antithetic. It may, with more propriety still, be called contrast. 
 Adam ivas the cause of sin and death ; Christ of righteousness and life ; 
 these are the simple elements of the contrast. The apostle himself 
 gives notice, immediately after he says that Adam was a xvnog xov (itl~ 
 loviog, that he does not mean a type of something the same in kind, but 
 an antithetic type, or one in the way of contrast ; for he immediately 
 subjoins : 'All oi>x w? to Txagdjixbtfia, x. x. I. He means, no doubt, 
 to suggest more than this by vs. 15—17. He designs not only to shew 
 that the xvnog was to be understood in the way of contrast, (which in- 
 deed lies on the very face of the whole matter, sin and death being the 
 objects of comparison on the one side, and righteousness and life on the 
 other ) ; but, 
 
 (2) The same measure or degree of influence in bringing evil upon 
 men, is not to be attributed to the first Adam, as is to be attributed to 
 the second in respect to bringing grace and salvation ; i] y.uoig . . . irxt- 
 Qio-crevas. — To y.nifiu f| ivog [rraQanxaiuaxog] tig xaxaxQipu, xo dt /ctoiafiK 
 ix 7i oil a v nuqanxMuciXi'n' tig Stxniotfia ' and this last sentiment is vir- 
 
526 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 
 
 tually repeated again in v. 17. Nothing can be clearer than this makes 
 it, that the blessings of redemption predominate over the mischiefs 
 occasioned by the fall, yea, greatly superabound. The measure or degree 
 then of mischief and of benefit, are not what constitutes the TVTiog in the 
 case under consideration. This is the more plain and certain, because 
 the apostle has so explicitly avowed it, in vs. 15 — 17. 
 
 (3) Is it the extent of the evil on the one side, and of good on the 
 other, which is a point of resemblance held up by the apostle ? That 
 is, does he insist that the mischiefs of the fall on the one side, and the 
 blessings of redemption on the other, pertain to our whole race without 
 exception ? A deeply interesting question, and one on which hang 
 some very important deductions. In answer to it, I would observe, 
 
 (a) That all of Adam's race do suffer more or less evil in consequence 
 of the fall ; all have at least lost the original state of righteousness of 
 their first parents, and are subjected more or less to evil of some kind or 
 other, even without their concurrence and before any voluntary trans- 
 gression. All come into the world in such a state, as makes it certain 
 that their appetites which lead to sin will prevail, and that they will 
 never have any holiness, until they are born again. Others would go 
 still further, and say, that all are born with a positively evil disposition, 
 which is itself sin, and the greatest of all sins, inasmuch as it is the 
 parent of all transgression ; that men have by the fall lost their freedom 
 to do good, but not to do evil ; and that all men, antecedent to any 
 choice or action of their own, are condemned to everlasting death, 
 on the ground that they inherit both Adam's guilt and punishment. 
 But without entering now into a discussion of these last points, (for 
 which the present is not the appropriate place), I would merely observe, 
 that in some way or other, and in a way which has respect to the character 
 and miseries of the human race, Adam's offence has affected them all. 
 
 (h) As the counter-part of this, it may with equal truth be said, that 
 the blessings procured by Christ, affect all the human race unthout excep- 
 tion, in some important respects. The suspension of the execution of 
 the original sentence upon Adam, saved our race from immediate de- 
 struction. All the good that comes to sinners, the blessings of provi- 
 dence and of grace, the light of truth, the forbearance of God to pun- 
 ish — in a word, all the means of grace and the offers of mercy, the new 
 dispensation under which "God can be just and yet the justifier of him 
 that believeth in Jesus" — are all the fruit of Christ's great and glorious 
 work. Most of these blessings are common to all ; and the whole of 
 them are proffered to all, without distinction. So far, then, we may 
 truly say, the mischiefs on the one side, and the blessings on the other, 
 are co-extensive with the human race ; and this antecedent to, or inde- 
 pendently of, any acts which are properly their own. 
 
 (e) But it is important also to note, that there are spiritual blessings 
 i. e. actual pardon and justification, which do not come upon all men 
 without distinction, but only on those who believe. These blessings are 
 indeed proffered to all ; they are open to all ; they are accessible to all. 
 But they are not actually conferred on all ; they are not actually pos- 
 sessed and enjoyed, except by believers : for he tvho believeth, shall be 
 
EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 527 
 
 saved ; and he who believeth not, shall be damned. It is necessary, then, 
 in order to become an actual participator in these blessings, to believe ; 
 i. e. the acts of penitence and faith, acts which are our own, are the con- 
 ditions of enjoying these highest blessings of the gospel ; conditions, 
 without which they cannot be enjoyed. 
 
 And now — the other part of the contrast; which will not be so easily 
 conceded, perhaps, by many of my readers. Does the ultimate and 
 highest part of the sentence of death, the second death, i. e. future misery, 
 which was threatened to Adam, come on all his posterity without any 
 act of their own, or real and personal concurrence with the sin of their 
 ancestor ? So the apostle does not say ; for he says that " death pas- 
 sed through upon all men, because that all have sinned" i. e. (as we 
 have seen above) in their own persons. But. you will say, that the 
 apostle affirms in v. 19, that " by the disobedience of Adam many, i. e. 
 all, were constituted sinners." I grant this ; I believe fully what this 
 passage affirms. But to say, that Adam's disobedience was an occa- 
 sion, or ground, or instrumental cause of all men's becoming sinners, 
 and was thus an evil to them all ; and to say that his disobedience was 
 personally theirs ; is saying two veiy different things. I see no way in 
 which this last assertion can ever be made out by philology. But more 
 of this, in the remarks on the text itself of v. 19. 
 
 Besides ; how utterly unlike in this last case, would be the points 
 of comparison. It is plain that none can enjoy the higher blessings pro- 
 cured by Christ, without the personal and voluntary acts of repentance 
 and faith ; does it not seem equally true, now, that none will suffer the 
 higher penalties of the curse threatened to Adam, without their own 
 voluntary transgression ? If this be not the true state of the case, how 
 can the superabounding of grace, asserted so repeatedly in vs. 15 — 17, 
 be in any way defended ? If we say, that sentence of eternal perdi- 
 tion in its highest sense, comes upon all men by the offence of Adam ; 
 and this without any act on their part, or even any voluntary concur- 
 rence in their present state and condition of existence, then, in order to 
 make grace superabound over all this, how can we avoid the conclusion, 
 that justification in its highest sense comes upon all men without their 
 concurrence ? 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that some commentators have made Adam 
 here the representative of all the human race, and Christ the represen- 
 tative of only the elect. But this seems to me plainly to be forbidden by 
 the nature and design of the contrast, as well as by the nuvxaq av&gw- 
 novg in v. 19. Nor is there any need of resorting to this forced and 
 unnatural construction, (for so I cannot help feeling it to be), if we take 
 into view the suggestions above; viz., that on the one hand, blessings 
 are proffered to all, blessings much greater than the evils occasioned by 
 the fall ; which blessings still can be actually enjoyed, only through 
 repentance and faith : while, on the other hand, eternal death is before 
 all, i. e. all are exposed to it from their condition and circumstances, but 
 a personal act, i. e. actual sin, must necessarily precede it. I see not 
 how to escape from this conclusion, unless I give up a part of the su- 
 perabounding of the grace of the gospel, or else take the position that 
 
528 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 
 
 Christ is here presented as merely the head of the elect. The first can- 
 not be given up, because the apostle so often asserts it ; the last cannot 
 be received, without doing violence to the laws of interpretation, and to 
 the nature of the contrast presented. 
 
 In regard to the superabounding of the grace of the gospel, it must 
 be noted, in order to avoid mistake, that I do not construe it as apper- 
 taining to the number of its subjects, but to the number of offences for- 
 given by it, the greatness of evil removed by it. It is a point perfectly 
 clear, that the superabounding cannot consist in the number of subjects 
 to whom grace is extended ; for the evils of Adam's fall extend to all 
 his race without exception, and how can the grace of Christ extend to 
 more than all ? This makes it clear, that the superabounding has refer- 
 ence to the forgiveness of the many offences which men commit, and 
 which expose them to far greater evils than the one offence of Adam 
 does ; as it is asserted by the apostle in v. 16. 
 
 There is one other point, also, which should not be omitted in this 
 reference to the superabounding of the grace of the gospel. This is, 
 that the gospel places all men under a dispensation of grace, where peni- 
 tent sinners can be pardoned aud accepted ; while a dispensation of law, 
 (such was that under which Adam was first placed), subjects them to its 
 penalty without reprieve, for the first offence which they commit. It 
 cannot escape notice, then, that we are now, notwithstanding the nu- 
 merous and dreadful evils occasioned by the fall, under a far more 
 favourable dispensation in respect to an opportunity for making sia-e our 
 final happiness, than we should have been by being placed in the origi- 
 nal condition of Adam. Pres. Edwards has taken great pains, in his 
 book on Original Sin (p. 324, seq.), to justify God's dealings with Adam's 
 posterity, in charging Adam's sin upon them, by endeavouring to shew, 
 that mankind had a most favourable trial in Adam, and one which was 
 much more likely, in the nature of things, to result in their good, than 
 if each had stood upon his own trial. Now if there be any foundation 
 for this, and indeed if we simply admit that each in a state of innocence 
 must have been tried as Adam was, then the fact that he fell, and the 
 conclusion thence to be deduced by analogy that they would fall, seems 
 to render it pretty certain, that the whole of our race would have been 
 involved in final and irretrievable ruin by being placed under a law dis- 
 pensation, as Adam first was. Grace superabounds, then, above the evils 
 of the fall, in that Adam lost for men only an innocent legal state — one 
 in which men were on trial, and from which they might fall ; while 
 Christ has procured for them a dispensation of grace, under which many 
 and aggravated offences are no bar to the salvation of the penitent. 
 
 I speak of a legal state in which men were to be on trial, because I 
 am not able to find one text of Scripture, nor any good reason, to sup- 
 port the idea, that if Adam had obeyed, all his posterity would have 
 been born in a state not only of perfect, but of confirmed holiness. 
 Where is one sentence in the book of God of such an import ? And 
 where is any argument to be obtained from analogy ? The angels have 
 had their trial, and some of them " kept not their first estate." The 
 first human pair had their trial, when directly from the hands of their 
 
EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 529 
 
 Maker ; and they fell. But supposing they had not fallen ; surely there 
 is no ground to expect, that their posterity would have been born into a 
 condition better titan that in which the first pair were created. As far 
 as we know any thing of the history of rational beings, so far it is 
 clear, that it is the indispensable rule of divine moral government, that 
 all should be subject to a state of trial. If then the views of Pres. Ed- 
 wards and others on this subject, appear to be unsupported either by 
 the Scriptures or by analogy, how can we admit them ? And is not 
 this truly the case ? 
 
 I return from this partial digression, however, and observe, that in 
 regard to the extent of mischief on the one hand, and of blessings on the 
 other, in the case under examination, so much is clear : viz., that a loss 
 of an original state of holiness ; an imperfect state or condition of our 
 nature, in which it is certain that, the sensual passions will get the vic- 
 tory and lead us to sin, and certain that we shall never have any holi- 
 ness without being born again ; and also a subjection to many temporal 
 trials and distresses ; are evils brought upon all men by the fall — and 
 on all without any distinction, and without any act or concurrence of 
 their own. The antithesis to this is, that all men are placed by Christ 
 under a dispensation in which they can be redeemed from the power 
 and penalty of their sins, (with the exception that more or less of evil is, 
 and as things now are must be, temporarily experienced in the present 
 world); and that all men enjoy the bounties of Providence, the calls of 
 mercy, and the offers of eternal life ; and thus much, without any act 
 or concurrence of their own. This goes far towards satisfying all the 
 demands which the nature of the apostle's comparison requires. Indeed, 
 we might rest fully satisfied with this. All men have indeed experi- 
 enced evil, in consequence of Adam's fall ; but all men are placed, on 
 the whole, in a better situation at present, notwithstanding all the evils 
 which they suffer, to secure their final happiness, than Adam was in 
 his original state of trial, when the consequence of one offence was ir- 
 remediable death. 
 
 If then the rvnoq of the apostle is to be understood as having refer- 
 ence to evils and blessings that come on all Adam's posterity without their 
 concurrence or act, we find sufficient here to answer all the demands of a 
 Tvnog. But if any insist that it shall be extended still farther, and be re- 
 garded as having respect to the highest penalty on the one hand, and the 
 highest blessings on the other ; then neither is the one inflicted, nor the 
 other bestowed, without the concurrence of each individual, who sins and 
 suffers for himself, or repents and believes for himself in order to receive 
 the highest blessings which Christ bestows. I do not object to extending 
 the Tvnog in such a way; except that it must be understood, when thus 
 extended, not of penalty in the higher sense as actually inflicted, nor of 
 blessings in the higher sense as actually bestowed, but of exposedness to 
 the penalty on the one hand, and exposedness (sitvenia verbo comparati- 
 onis causa) to blessings on the other. Nothing more than this can indeed 
 ever be made out ; for that everlasting death will actually be inflicted on 
 all of Adam's race, of course can never be proved ; and as little, therefore, 
 can it be made out, that everlasting life will actually be bestowed on all. 
 67 
 
530 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 
 
 This subject, properly considered, will afford relief to the mind, 
 which is struggling with difficulty arising from the assertions of the 
 apostle, which represent the blessings procured by redemption as being 
 coextensive with the mischiefs introduced by the fall. The evils and 
 blessings in question are in many important respects coextensive ; and 
 in their highest sense, they are both supended on something which is to 
 be done on the part of man, in order either to suffer the one, or to enjoy 
 the other. What hinders, then, that Adam in respect to the evils which 
 he introduced, should be contrasted (as Paul has contrasted him) with 
 Christ, in respect to the blessings introduced by the lattter ? 
 
 Will it be said, that I am not consistent with myself in some of 
 these representations ; for in my remarks on -Ehdvccjog in v. 12, I have 
 laboured to shew that it means evil of every kind, both in this world and 
 that which is to come ; while in my remarks in the paragraphs imme- 
 diately preceding, I have represented men as exposed to temporal evils 
 only, on Adam's account? If this should be said, my reply is, that I 
 have only done what the apostle had before done, viz. represented all 
 men as subject to death in the sense above maintained, "because that 
 all have sinned." Just so far as personal sin goes, so far death follows 
 in its train, death spiritual and eternal. But it does not follow that 
 the highest and immeasurably the greatest part of the penalty must of 
 course he connected, in every instance, with the suffering of some tem- 
 porary and inferior part of it in the present world ; for the redeemed 
 themselves all suffer this latter part ; so that all the blessings which 
 Christ has procured, do not remove the whole of temporal evil. And in 
 regard to those who die in extreme infancy, or in the womb, they may 
 in like manner undergo similar evils, without our being able to conclude 
 from this, that they are subject to everlasting death independently of 
 any act or choice of their own with respect to sin. There is, beyond 
 all doubt, a sense in which all men without, exception do suffer in con- 
 sequence of Adam's sin ; and this, as has been stated above : and so 
 there is a sense in which all in like manner enjoy benefits procured by 
 Christ, as has also been seated. These depend neither in the one case 
 nor the other, on any act of ours. But there is a higher sense in which 
 -frnvarog is suffered and 8iy.uloip,a enjoyed, and this as connected only 
 with our own individual and voluntary actions. Are not the blessings, 
 that come to us undeserved and without any concurrence or act of ours, 
 equivalent to the evils to which the fall of Adam has subjected us? 
 They are ; nay, they are immeasurably greater. The single fact, that 
 we are noiv placed under a dispensation of grace, proves this beyond 
 all reasonable question. Why may not God, then, in consistency with his 
 benevolence and his design of subjecting us to trial, bring us into exist- 
 ence in such a condition, that we are exposed to various trials and evils, 
 especially when these are counterbalanced in the manner that has been 
 intimated ? And if we are now exposed to everlasting death, and bring 
 sentence of this upon ourselves, so soon as we begin to act as moral 
 agents, (which no doubt is our case) ; it is equally true, that even in this 
 condition, everlasting life is accessible to us — yea, much more within 
 our certain reach, than it was within that of Adam in his first estate. Is 
 it not true, then, that " where sin abounds, grace superabounds ?" 
 
EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 531 
 
 It is no contradiction, therefore, to say that duvarog means every 
 kind of evil, and that all have sinned and are subject to it, (for the 
 meaning of course is, all ivho were capable of sinning) ; and yet to say, 
 that such as are incapable of sinning for themselves, and such as are 
 redeemed from the curse of the law, do still undergo a small portion, 
 and no more, of the evils included under the curse. It is not the less 
 true, that " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law," because 
 trial and sorrow and temporary suffering must be endured by all Chris- 
 tians, as the world now is. Mark well that Paul does not aver, that 
 the blessings procured by Christ do in all respects stand directly op- 
 posed to the evils introduced by Adam, so as to prevent their occurrence 
 at all, in any degree. He only avers that blessings superabound, and 
 that they are of the like extent with the evils. We have seen that this 
 is true ; and we have abundant assurance, also, that all the sufferings 
 and sorrows of this life will turn to good account in respect to those who 
 love God. This does not shew that they are not evils in themselves ; 
 nor that they are not a part of the curse ; but only that the curse itself 
 may be converted into a blessing, by that infinite power and wisdom 
 and benevolence which have redeemed man. It sets the redemption 
 of Christ in a new and glorious light, that such are the effects of it; 
 and in such a light it was the design of Paul to place it, in the paragraph 
 before us. As I have before said, suffering and sorrow in some degree 
 may be necessary (so infinite Wisdom has adjudged) to our discipline 
 in our sinful and fallen state; but they can never detract from the 
 superabounding of the blessings which the gospel has introduced. I 
 observe, 
 
 (4) That the xvnoq is not between the person of Adam as such, and 
 that of Christ. The apostle does not undertake to compare the personal 
 qualities of the one with those of the other ; it is the act of one and its 
 consequences, which is compared with the act of the other and its conse- 
 quences. It is nuQum<a^a and naruy.qipa on one side, and vnuxoi) and 
 8iy.uib)pa on the other. Nor, 
 
 (5) Does the apostle any where declare Adam to be the federal head 
 and representative of all his posterity ; nor Christ to be the federal 
 head of his spiritual children. It is indispensable, indeed, to the admis- 
 sion of this idea, that Christ be regarded as the federal head of the elect 
 only. But we have seen, that the representations of the whole passage 
 do not accord with such an exegesis. Indeed, the whole doctrine about 
 federal head appears to have had its rise in the time of Augustine ; it 
 
 was variously modified and represented by the Schoolmen ; but never 
 fully developed in its present form, until the time of Cocceius, who 
 gave occasion to it by his manner of considering the covenants of law 
 and grace. Whatever may be correct or incorrect in the usual repre- 
 sentations about federal head, it appears to be superadded to the Scrip- 
 tures ; there being nothing in the Old Testament or the New, that I can 
 find, which contains any such declarations. At the most, the point in 
 question can never prefer any higher claims to our reception, than that 
 of being a deduction from what is said. It is a deduction which seems, 
 in some respects, to present nothing inconsistent with biblical doctrine ; 
 
532 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 14. 
 
 but I may safely add, that this particular form of theology does not seem 
 to be essential, either to the Christian doctrine of depravity or of re- 
 demption. 
 
 But 1 must not dismiss the subject of tvnoq, or comparison between 
 Adam and Christ, without noting, 
 
 (6) That Calvin points out two other exceptions to resemblance, v. e. 
 two points of dissimilitude, between Adam and Christ, which he says the 
 apostle did not think unworthy of notice, but which he omitted to no- 
 tice, merely because the turn of his discourse did not allow him to do it. 
 These are, (a) " Quod peccato Adae non per solam imputationem dam- 
 namur, acsi alieni peccati exigeretur a nobis poena ; sed ideo ejus poe- 
 nam sustinemus, quia et culpae sumus rei, quatenus scilicet natura nostra 
 in ipso vitiata, iniquitatis rtatu obstringitur apud Deum. 
 
 "At per Christi justitiam alio modo in salutem restituimur; neque 
 enim id nobis accepta fertur, quia intra 7ios sit, sed quod Christum ip- 
 sum cum bonis suis omnibus, Patris largitate nobis donatum posside- 
 mus." Calvin then adds, (which let those note well, who hold that 
 Christ's righteousness does in a proper sense become our own) : " Itaque 
 donum justitiae non qualitatem qua nos Deus imbuat, sed gratuitam jus- 
 titiae imputationem significat." 
 
 {b) " Altera [differentia] est, quod non ad omnes homines pervenit 
 Christi beneficium, quemadmodum universum suum genus damuatione 
 Adam involvit." He then goes on to state that the ground of this is, 
 that 'our corruption comes in the course of nature, (he means that it is 
 transmitted by natural generation), and so pervades the ivhole inass ; but 
 we must possess faith in order to participate in the blessings proffered 
 by Christ. To be depraved it is necessary only to be a man ; to par- 
 ticipate in the righteousness of Christ, one must be a believer. The 
 infants of believers have by covenant a right of adoption, by which they 
 come into communion with Christ ; other infants are not at all exempt 
 from the common lot.' Comm. on Rom. 5: 17. 
 
 But here one is led spontaneously to ask : How can it be shewn, 
 that such as have never voluntarily done good or evil, do, merely by the 
 possession of a human nature, become obnoxious to death in the higher 
 and more dreadful sense of this word ; and especially, after consulting 
 Rom. 9: 11, and meditating deliberately upon the sentiment which it in- 
 volves, how can one affirm this of infants ? In regard to the extent of 
 evils and of blessings through Adam and Christ respectively, I have 
 said all which I deem requisite in the paragraphs above. In the sens;' 
 in which one is suffered or liable to be suffered, so the other is enjoyed 
 or is accessible. I feel no need of exempting extent from the xvnoq or 
 comparison. 
 
 With regard to another point, namely, how or why Adam's poster- 
 ity become liable, like himself, to sentence of death, Calvin, like most of 
 the leading and distinguished divines of the Reformation, held that Ad- 
 am's sin or guilt is transferred from him to us, by natural descent; and 
 that it is because we are one with him in respect to crime, that we be- 
 come one with him in respect to punishment. The same sentiment he 
 inculcates in his Comm. on Rom. 5: 12, 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 533 
 
 It is time to bring these remarks to a close. Before I do this, how- 
 ever, I shall take the liberty once more to present very briefly the sum 
 of then). 
 
 I. Points of dissimilitude. (1) The whole is contrast ; the nature 
 of the things presented on each part, is dissimilar and opposite ; sin 
 and misery are on the one side, righteousness and happiness on the 
 other. (2) The degree or measure of evil occasioned by Adam, is greatly 
 exceeded by the blessings which Christ procures. (3) It is not the 
 person of Adam as such, nor of Christ as such, which is the object 
 of the ti'tto?' it is tio:qutit6)[iu and xcmxy.gt[iu as connected with the 
 one, and vnaxorj and dixalw/ia as connected with the other. (4) There 
 is nothing in our text, or in the meaning of ximog, which asserts, or 
 obliges us to receive, the usual doctrine of federal head in Adam and in 
 Christ ; although there are certain things taught, which would not seem 
 to disagree, in a certain sense, with such a construction. 
 
 II. Points of actual similitude. (1) Sin and misery were intro- 
 duced by the one ; pardon and happiness by the other. The similitude 
 here respects the one individual, as being the cause or occasion of so 
 many important consequences; in other words, Adam and Christ were 
 each authors of what affected the whole human race. (2) All men are, 
 without exception, affected by Adam's fall, so as to subject them to 
 many evils here, and to expose them to death in the highest sense ; 
 while all men, on the other hand, do receive blessings in this world 
 which are more than a counter-balance of the evils that Adam occa- 
 sioned, and they enjoy access to eternal life in a surer and more certain 
 way than that which was first enjoyed by Adam. 
 
 Let the reader now fix his thoughts on the real similitudes designed, 
 and he will then find the remainder of the text immediately before us 
 comparatively easy. 
 
 EXCURSUS V. 
 
 On Rom. 5: 19, Sia Ttjg nciQuxoijg tov ivog uv&qmtiov ufiuQxoiXol xais- 
 (riuxrrjO'av oi itolXol. (p. 243.) 
 
 Having said so much in my Commentary, in order to make some ex- 
 planations with regard to this subject, I now feel compelled to say still 
 more, in order to prevent any misunderstanding of what I have said. 
 I design also to propose some additional considerations to reflecting 
 minds, relative to the interesting, embarrassing, and much disputed top- 
 ic of original sin. All the questions which may easily be asked relative 
 to it, never have been answered, and probably never will be, in the 
 present world ; but free and full discussiou may contribute to cast 
 some light on the most important and interesting of them. I cannot 
 expect, indeed, as matters now are in respect to theological sentiment, 
 that every reader will approve of all my views ; but I may ask, and 1 
 do hope that each one will cheerfully grant me permission, aXn&tvtiv 
 iv ay any. 
 
534 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 In what I have to say, (which of course must here he only in the 
 way of mere hints), I shall hegin hy a brief review of the various theo- 
 ries which have been proposed and defended, in regard to the influence 
 of Adam's sin upon his posterity. 
 
 I. The common theory of the Symbols or Creeds of the Reformed 
 Churches, and of the leading divines in them of earlier times, is as fol- 
 lows : viz. Original sin consists, (1) In the want of original righteous- 
 ness, (2) In the positive and entire corruption of our nature, i. e. in the 
 existence of forbidden lusts and desires connate with us, which are pos- 
 itive evil in themselves, and deserving of damnation ; and are also the 
 root and ground of all other evil in us. (3) Not only have men lost 
 original righteousness, and become by natural generation the subjects of 
 desires and affections positively bad, but they have lost their freedom to 
 do good, and are now free only to do evil, and in rebus civilibus. 
 (4) All these evils, i. e. the whole of this state and condition, is propa- 
 gated from one man to another by natural generation. (5) Hereditary 
 depravity, still, is not a part of our concreated substance ; it is not one 
 of the pura naturalia ;* but it is an invariable accident of the same. 
 (6) The prevailing sentiment has been, that the sin of Adam is charged 
 to us ; and that on account of this, as well as of hereditary depravity, 
 independently of all actual sin, we are justly subjected to the penalty 
 of the second death. Melancthon called this impia opinio, at first ; but 
 he seems gradually to have given way to it ; Bretschn. Dogmatik, II. p. 
 36. 2d edit. (7) The prevailing sentiment has been, that original sin, 
 as thus defined, is fixed, constant, invariable, unaffected by time or 
 circumstances, and uniform in all ages, in all nations, and among all 
 individuals. Pres. Edwards labours abundantly to establish this idea, 
 for substance, in Part 1. Chap. I. § 2, of his Treatise on Original Sin. 
 
 The detail of evidence which would establish the correctness of this 
 statement, is of course excluded from such a work as the present. I 
 must content myself with referring to the Protestant Symbols, and to 
 the leading divines, especialy the older ones, among Protestants. Some 
 discrepancies have indeed existed, in respect to more or less of the par- 
 ticulars stated ; but of the more rigid school, nearly all, among the old- 
 er writers, have concurred in the substantial part of the statement as 
 given above. 
 
 The difficulties that are suggested to the mind, by an attentive ex- 
 amination of this theory of doctrine, are somewhat appalling. I pro- 
 ceed summarily to state a few of them. 
 
 (1) It is common for almost all the writers who advocate the natu- 
 ral propagation of Adam's sin and condemnation, to compare it with 
 the propagation of certain tastes, defects, peculiarities of temperament, 
 inclinations to certain vices, etc., which are often and every where de- 
 veloping themselves among our race. But it is unfortunate for this 
 
 So the old school divines call those qualities which are essential to human 
 nature, as such. What makes a good man or a bad one, is one of the acciden- 
 tia, and not essence ; what is necessary to make a man or human being, be- 
 longs to the pura naturalia. 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 535 
 
 reference, that the propagation in question has nothing of the uniformity 
 or extent which they assign to original sin. The son of a man who 
 has one eye or one leg, is not born defective. The children of mules 
 have perfect senses. The offspring of almost brutalized parents, are 
 sometimes remarkable for opposite qualities. Nothing can be more va- 
 riable, inconstant, and diversified, than every thing of this nature is. 
 
 (2) If the descent of original sin is to be explained on such grounds, 
 viz. the common law of parents propagating their own qualities ; then 
 why are not the children of pious parents also pious? At least, why is 
 not original sin greatly modified and diminished in the children of such 
 parents? Pelagius urged this question on Augustine ; to which the 
 latter replied: 'The children of Jews are born uncircumcised.' Pela- 
 gius might have rejoined: 'The children of parents with one eye, are 
 born with two ;' and then the balance would have been again poised. 
 In reply* however, to the suggestion just made, we are told, 
 
 (3) ' That the law of propagation depends not on our immediate an- 
 cestor, but on our connection with Adam.' On this it may be remark- 
 ed, first, that if the propagation is in the manner contended for as above, 
 i. e. agreeably to the common laws of our nature, then why must it not 
 depend on our immediate ancestor ? Take now the favourite represen- 
 tation of Pres. Edwards, viz. the root and branches of a tree: I ask 
 then, does the topmost branch derive its sap from the one next to it, or 
 immediately from the root ? But secondly ; if the law of propagation 
 depends solely on our connection with Adam, then is the difficulty still 
 not diminished. Adam became penitent after his fall ; at least so the 
 promises made to him, and the mercy shown him, would seem to im- 
 ply ; and so most divines have admitted. Then, as this happened be- 
 fore the procreation of his children, why did he not propagate to them 
 his penitence, as w r ell as his sin, his reward as well as his punishment ? 
 These considerations serve to shew, that if it be true that Adam's sin is 
 propagated, it will not do to appeal to any of the common and usual laws 
 of our nature in propagation, in order to support this idea. But, 
 
 (4) There are other difficulties. ' Original sin,' it is said, 'is uniform '" 
 and invariable, in all circumstances, ages, and individuals.' It is, then, 
 not capable either of increase, diminution, or modification. The most 
 ardent piety diminishes it not; the highest profligacy does not add to it. 
 The children of the most eminent saint, and of the veriest fiend, are on 
 the footing of entire equality in this respect. /f 
 
 How can one help asking, now, whether there is indeed any sin 
 among men, in their present state, (if perhaps what is called the unpar- 
 donable sin be excepted), which is incapable of all diminution, increase, 
 or modification, by any actions whatever on the part of the individual 
 who is the subject of it ? Does the Bible reveal to us a sin, which is 
 incapable of diminution by the sanctifying grace of God, by penitence, 
 self-denial, and a holy life ? Or which is incapable of increase by aban- 
 doned wickedness ? What would any man say to this, who had sim- 
 ply read the Scriptures, and never been trained to system in theology ? 
 
 And here the pressure is so great, that inconsistency usually comes 
 in to the relief of such palpable difficulties. The divines of the Refor- 
 
536 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 mation hold, beyond all question, that regenerating and sanctifying 
 grace do diminish the power of sin — of all sin. Admitting this now, as 
 we surely must, then we may be permitted to ask : Why should origin- 
 al sin be still propagated in its full strength ? Is it Adam that begets 
 us, or our immediate ancestor ? 
 
 (5) ' Original sin,' they say, 'is not concrealed ; it is not one of the 
 pura naturalia ; it is accidence, not substance ;' and yet it is ' invariable, 
 uniform, always and every where.' Now logicians tells us, that only 
 substantial and essential qualities have such predicates as these last. Is 
 it not a contradiction, then, to assign to original sin a nature uniform 
 and invariable, and yet to deny that it is an essential part of the human 
 constitution ? 
 
 (6) We are told, that ' original sin is the cause and ground of all ac- 
 tual sin.' Yet we are also told, that ' original sin is equal, uniform, and 
 invariable in all.' Of course, then, all must originally be equally de- 
 praved ; and under the like temptations, all must exhibit the very same 
 degrees of wickedness. The same cause, in the same degree, must 
 produce the same effect, whenever there are no special counteracting 
 causes. But this is contrary to fact. Not only do men in a natural 
 state, who belong to the same neighborhood, but those of the same 
 family, differ widely from each other as to the degree of their wicked- 
 ness. How then can a cause exist, uniform in degree as well as nature, 
 which does not produce uniform effects in the same circumstances ? 
 
 (7) If Adam's sin be propagated in the way of natural generation, 
 then why were not his other sins (as well as his first one) committed 
 before the procreation of his children, propagated to his descendants? 
 And why, as before asked, are not his penitence and pardon propagated, 
 as well as his sin and punishment ? 
 
 (8) If propagation be the ground of transmitting sin, then why are 
 not all the sins of all our ancestors, from Adam down to ourselves, 
 brought down upon us, and propagated to us ? In this way, why must 
 not the sins of Adam's posterity forever go on, in the way of an arith- 
 metical progression ? 
 
 The idea of propagating sin, then, is liable to some appalling objec- 
 tions ; at all events it is so, if we include the manner in which it has 
 usually been stated and defended. Other remarks, which might be 
 made on the theory of original sin as above stated, will find a place in 
 the sequel. 
 
 II. Another theory is, that Adam's sin becomes ours merely as to 
 the punishment due to it ; i. e. his sin is ours simply and purely by im- 
 putation or putatively, while the consequences of his offence are really 
 and truly ours. 
 
 This theory of course abandons the ground that Adam's personal 
 sin is propagated to us ; I mean that it must do so, if consistent with 
 itself. In respect to the sentiment which constitutes the basis of it, I 
 have already said enough in my commentary on Rom. 5: 12 — 19. I 
 merely remark here, that this ground is clearly not the ground of the 
 Creeds of the Reformation, and of the leading reformed divines. That 
 it is encompassed with more formidable difficulties, in respect to moral 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 537 
 
 justice, and even moral possibility, than the first theory above examined, 
 must be apparent, one would think, to every man who will well and 
 thoroughly examine it. 
 
 Those who hold this theory usually maintain, that our depravity is 
 not only connate and innate, but that, being such, it is also the punishment 
 of Adam's sin which is imputed to us. There are, however, some very 
 formidable difficulties in the way of this. For, (1) The sin, in this case, 
 of Adam's posterity, i.e. their original son, is, by the very ground of the 
 theory, merely putative, not real and actual. But what is the punish- 
 ment? Actual, to be sure, according to the statement of those who 
 advocate this theory ; and actual, indeed, in a tremendous degree. The 
 punishment begins with our being; it is connate and innate, and con- 
 tains within itself not only the commencement of a misery which is 
 naturally without end, but is, at the same time, the root and ground of 
 all other sins which we commit, and which serve unspeakably to aug- 
 ment our condemnation and misery. Now can the human mind well 
 conceive, that perfect justice would punish with actual and everlasting 
 and inevitable corruption and misery, beings who are sinners only 
 putatively, i. e. in mere supposition and not in fact ? For myself, I can 
 only say, that all the elements of my moral nature set themselves spon- 
 taneously in array against such a representation as this. It is one of 
 those cases, which make it necessary for me to be made over again, and 
 have new and different faculties, before I can admit its truth. Nor, 
 
 (2) Can it be brought, in any tolerable measure, to accord with the 
 views which the Bible gives of divine justice. How can we make it 
 harmonize with the declarations in Ezek. xviii. ? Or with many other 
 parts of the Bible of the same tenor? But this is not all; for, 
 
 (3) The supposition contains a vcttsqov irgojegov within itself. Ac- 
 cording to the tenor of it, punishment begins before the crime. It is co- 
 etaneous with the original elements of our being. It begins before 
 distinct perception, and understanding, and reason, and moral sense, 
 are developed. It begins antecedent to all sense of duty, and antecedent 
 to all knowledge of moral rule. Such punishment, therefore, precedes 
 transgression, for " where there is no law, there is no transgression ;" 
 and surely there is no law, where there is no moral sense, nor reason, 
 nor understanding, nor perception. But how can justice make punish- 
 ment precede transgression ? " The soul that sinneth shall die," is the 
 order in which Heaven has placed the matter. Sin comes first ; pun- 
 ishment is the fruit or consequence. By the theory before us, the 
 reverse is the case. Punishment precedes all personal demerit ; and 
 sin follows on as the result of our punishment ! 
 
 Nor is this at all relieved, by saying that ' sin does precede punish- 
 ment, in this case, inasmuch as it is Adam's sin for which we are pun- 
 ished ;' for this is only affirming, that putative or supposititious guilt, is 
 followed by real and actual punishment. How does this diminish the 
 difficulty of the case? 
 
 'But after all,' it will doubtless be said, 'you have repeatedly admit- 
 ted the idea, that all of Adam's posterity are affected by his offence, and 
 have sustained great losses thereby, and are subjected to many evils. 
 68 
 
538 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 Why should you now decry the very sentiment which you have so often 
 admitted ?' 
 
 That I have admitted thus much, in regard to the present world, 
 and sufferings in our present state, and also the moral degradation of 
 our nature, in consequence of Adam's fall, I readily concede. I do 
 fully believe all this. But this is, after all, something very different from 
 ■proper punishment. The fall of Adam brought our race into a new 
 state of probation, one exceedingly different in several respects, from 
 that in which he himself first was. The whole race are now heirs by 
 nature of a frail and dying state ; they are no longer in that state or 
 condition, in which they are inclined to holiness. And this comes on 
 all, without any concurrence of their own. But all this too, may still 
 be regarded in another light than that of simple punishment. It is trial ; 
 it is discipline ; it is probation, sui generis. Adam has brought us into 
 this state, I freely concede. But Christ has more than made good all 
 its apparent or real disadvantages. " Grace superabounds." If evils come 
 on our race because of Adam's sin, more, far more, than an equivalent 
 is rendered for them, by the grace of the gospel. On the whole, then, 
 our present condition is not to be viewed in the simple light of punish- 
 ment for Adam's sin ; but in that of trial or probation sui generis, 
 adapted to our fallen nature, and adapted to restore us to the original 
 image of God in which man was created. Not that in itself alone, our 
 condition would be such as I have now described ; but viewed in rela- 
 tion to what Christ has done for us, it has become such. What would 
 be proper to preserve beings perpetually holy, in their pure and happy 
 state, may be quite different, in some respects, from that which is neces- 
 sary to restore beings to holiness, who now possess a fallen nature. All 
 evil, or suffering and trial in the present world, is not punishment ; and 
 all which we have not brought on ourselves by our own sin and folly, 
 may be well regarded in the light of discipline, which is adapted to our 
 present condition. 
 
 There is, also, an inexpressible difference between our temporary 
 evils here, and the endless miseries of a future world. The theory 
 which I am opposing, makes all our race the heirs of the latter, antece- 
 dent to any voluntary exercise of their own, and merely on the ground 
 of Adam's offence. If this were true, then would it follow, that Rom. 
 V. 12—19 establishes a redemption from future misery as wide as the 
 mischief of Adam's sin has spread ; and this without any act on the 
 part of the sinner. But as such a redemption would be a contradiction 
 of the first principles of the New Testament; so its corresponding anti- 
 thesis, i. e. the mischiefs occasioned by Adam, cannot, in themselves, 
 be the direct, efficient, and universal cause or ground of the eternal dam- 
 nation of all men. If so, the whole comparison must be destroyed, i. e. 
 the actual resemblance of the two cases be virtually denied ; for men 
 by their own repentance and faith, and only on this condition, become 
 partakers of the highest blessings of the gospel ; their own acts, then, 
 must make them the final heirs of eternal damnation. 
 
 For these reasons, while I admit that many things, which in and by 
 themselves are evils, were brought on all our race by our original pro- 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 539 
 
 genitor, yet I hold, at tho same time, that there is more than a balance 
 for them, conferred on all, or proffered to all, by Christ. But in regard 
 to the second death, my belief is, that it must be an act strictly our own, 
 which subjects us to this ; as really and truly as it must be an act of 
 our own, viz. that of repenting and believing, in order to secure an in- 
 terest in the salvation proffered to us. 
 
 I cannot admit, therefore, the theory above exhibited ; nor can I 
 persuade n^self, that the same objections may be justly made against 
 the views which I have admitted above, as may be made against the 
 theory under consideration. This theory seems, in fact, to he much 
 more exceptionable than the opinion of the Reformers in general, which 
 has been examined under No. I., and which professes to make our own 
 actual guilt precede our punishment. 
 
 III. Anoriier explanation of the meaning of Rom. 5: 12 — 19 has 
 been, that Adam first set the example of sinning, and his posterity have 
 only followed his bad example. 
 
 This explanation denies the degenerate condition of Adam's poster- 
 ity, and places them, in effect, on the same ground with him in his orig- 
 inal state of holiuess. But this is not only contrary to the numerous 
 declarations of the Scriptures, but irrelevant to the subject which the 
 apostle is labouring to illustrate. For if only the force of Adam's exam- 
 ple has led his posterity to sin, how can we account for the sins of such 
 of his posterity, as never knew any thing of his example ? Or if ex- 
 ample be the principal or leading cause of all sin, then whose example 
 did Adam follow, when he committed the first sin ? And why charge 
 the occasion of our sins upon Adam, if example be the principal ground 
 of them, when they should with much more propriety be charged 
 upon those of Adam's posterity, who are immediately connected with 
 each individual that sins ? On the whole, this theory is palpably unsat- 
 isfactory, and insufficient to remove the difficulties in question. Espe- 
 cially must it be so considered, when we take into view the expiatory 
 death of Christ as the ground of justification. For if, as the theory in 
 question represents, the example of Adam was the occasion of the sin 
 and death of all men ; then must it follow, that the example of Christ is 
 the cause of obedience and life to all men. This is, indeed, a doctrine 
 which has been taught by some ; but clearly not by the Apostle Paul, 
 nor by any of his colleagues in office. 
 
 We come, then, 
 
 IV. To the simple facts and declarations of Paul, and of the Scrip- 
 tures, relative to the subject before us. These are, 
 
 1. That Adam's first sin was connected with the sin and consequent 
 condemnation of all his posterity. It was, in some sense or other, a 
 preparatory or occasional cause. Setting aside the implied affirmation 
 of this in v. 12 (eiarik&E .... diijl-ds), it is expressly asserted in v. 15, 
 that tw xov evbg TtaQanxwfiaxL oi nokkol anE&avov in v. 16, we have xo 
 l-iiv yao xolfia i| ivbg tig y.uxuy.Qi/.icr in v. 17, iw xov evbg 7taguTix(afmxi o 
 ■fruvaxog ifiaalktvos 8ia xov hog' in v. 18, df evbg naqanxmpaxog, eig nav- 
 r«g avd-qmnovg ug naxay.gi(ia- and in v. 19, dux xrjg nagaxoijg xov hog 
 av&gwJiov ctfAugxwlol xaxeaxa&rjaav ol noXlol. It seems to me to be im- 
 
540 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 possible, without doing violence to the Scriptures, to deny that Adam's 
 first offence is here asserted to have a connection with, or an influence 
 upon, the sin and consequent condemnation of all his posterity. But 
 how, is not said. Let the reader mark this well. Paul neither asserts 
 that Adam's sin is propagated ; nor that it is imputed to us without any 
 act of our own ; nor that it is ours merely by the force of example. 
 Nor does he say, that hereditary depravity is the ground and cause of 
 all sin, (how could he say this, when Adam sinned without it ?) nor 
 that we are condemned without being actual sinners. All this has 
 been often said for him, and in his name ; but he does not once say 
 this for himself. Why now should we attribute to him our own theo- 
 ries, and then insist on their being a part of Scripture ? At all events, 
 if we can make out any theory, as to the modus of original sin, it must 
 be merely by deductions from what the apostle has here said, or from 
 other declarations of the Scriptures, which we can find elsewhere. 
 How much can be made out in this latter way, we shall have further 
 occasion to inquire in the sequel. 
 
 2. We may justly gather from Rom. V. 12 — 19, that the evil con- 
 sequences of Adam's act, may be placed in antithesis to the good which 
 Christ has procured for the human race. The apostle goes no farther, 
 in this passage, than to declare that on the one hand sin and death were 
 occasioned by Adam ; on the other, righteousness and life are introdu- 
 ced by Christ. But from other parts of his writings we learn, that men 
 in a state of nature, i. e. before regeneration, are all destitute of any ho- 
 liness ; and that all who can sin. have sinned. Of course we necessari- 
 ly draw the inference, that men are born destitute of such a disposition 
 to holiness as Adam had in his primitive state ; and this from the fact 
 that they never, before regeneration, do any thing which is truly good 
 and holy, but always sin in all their actions of a moral nature. This 
 makes a wide difference between their present natural state, and the 
 original condition of Adam. And into this natural state they are born, 
 as we have reason to conclude, in consequence of Adam's fall. Al- 
 though the apostle does not specificate the particular point in which the 
 fall injured all men, yet as he so often asserts the /ad itself that it did in- 
 jure them, it must of course be allowed, that in some way or other the 
 truth of this fact is developed. In what way, then, is this developed, 
 if not in the manner just stated, viz. by our being born into a state des- 
 titute of all disposition to holiness, and with passions and appetites, 
 which, situated as we are, will certainly lead us to sin, and always lead 
 us to sin, in all our actions of a moral nature ? The fact that we now 
 have such a nature, and that such is the result in respect to our passions 
 and appetites, the Scripture testifies, and the experience of all ages and 
 nations testifies. How this came about, Paul seems to me to declare, in 
 the passage under consideration. 
 
 I must add here, however, in order to guard against all misunder- 
 standing, that our sinning is not to be regarded as necessary, in the 
 sense of being compulsive. The faculties to sin do not make men sin- 
 ners ; otherwise Adam and the fallen angels were sinners, before their 
 first transgression. Temptation to sin does not make men sinners, even 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 541 
 
 when they feel its power; for our Saviour was tempted "in all points 
 as we are," yet without sin. The possession of desires and appetites 
 which are pura naturalia does not make men sinners ; for they are es- 
 sential to men as human beings, and our Saviour possessed them : as 
 did Adam before his fall. It may also be said with truth, that moral 
 sense, conscience, reason, judgment, are all attributes of the natural man ; ; 
 that they are pura naturalia : and all these are designed to contend 
 against passions and desires that would lead us to evil, to restrain them, 
 to control them, and keep them within their proper bounds. God has 
 not left men, therefore, even in their fallen and degraded state, in a con- 
 dition in which they have any excuse for their sin ; as any one may 
 see and must feel, who will attentively read Rom. 1: 19 — 32. 2: 14, 15. 
 3: 9 — 23. It is impossible to overlook the fact here, that the apostle 
 considers the abuse of reason and conscience by the heathen, in virtue 
 of which they ought to have resisted their sinful inclinations, as render- 
 ing them altogether inexcusable before God. 
 
 Whatever then may be the degradation in which we are now born, 
 (degradation compared with the original state of Adam), we are still born 
 moral agents ; free agents; with jaculties to do good, yea, all the facul- 
 ties that are needed. If we are born with passions and affections at- 
 tached to our natures which may lead us to sin, we are also born hav- 
 ing a moral man within us to remonstrate against the abuse of our pas- 
 sions. 
 
 The fact that the degradation of our whole race is connected with 
 the first sin of Adam, is, 1 acknowledge, a matter of divine sovereignty, 
 altogether beyond our power to fathom. We can speculate and reason 
 about it, and wonder ; but it becomes us to bow in humble submission. 
 More than we have lost, the gospel assures us has been given to us by 
 Christ. We see enough to know, that even in our fallen state our sins 
 cannot be charged upon the Author of our nature. They are strictly 
 our own. That Adam was in some sense the cause or occasion of our 
 degradation, is clearly taught ; but that his sin was our sin — where is 
 this taught ? I cannot find it. I can find only, (what appears to be the 
 sum of all that Paul has taught relative to this subject), that such was 
 our connection with Adam, that his fall has occasioned more or less of 
 evil to all his race without exception; that all are despoiled of that ho- 
 liness which belonged to him in his original state ; and that all are in a 
 condition in which ruin will ensue, unless there be some deliverer. On 
 the other hand ; it is made equally apparent, that such a deliverer has 
 appeared ; that he has by his wonderful grace and mercy, made such 
 an arrangement as that the evils, which come on all without exception 
 through the act of Adam, may be made the means of spiritual good ; he 
 has placed all men, destitute of righteousness such as Adam had in his 
 original state, under a dispensation of mercy and pardon, where salvation 
 is more accessible and certain to the penitent, than it was in paradise 
 to Adam, while under a mere law dispensation ; and to all those who 
 bring on themselves the higher penalty of the divine law by their own 
 personal ill-desert, he has procured eternal redemption, if they will ac- 
 cept it. Is it not true, then, that " grace superabounds ?" Are we 
 
542 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 obliged to reject the doctrine of our fall in Adam, as either improbable, 
 or as dishonourable to God ? 
 
 But 1 must leave a multitude of interesting questions, because of my 
 limits ; remembering that my main design is commentary, not didactic 
 theology. A few miscellaneous remarks, however, all of which pertain 
 to topics of importance, (but which, from the nature of the present case, 
 cannot be arranged in the order of a regular dissertation), I cannot, out 
 of justice to myself and my subject, refrain from making. 
 
 I. There are serious difficulties in the way of those, who maintain 
 that original sin consists in a disposition or inclination that is connate 
 with us, is antecedent to all sinful choice and volition, and is in itself not 
 only sinful, but tlie basis and ground of all subsequent sin. For, (a) Ad- 
 am sinned without this, (b) The apostle appears to contradict this in 
 Rom. 9: 11, "The children being not yet born, neither having done any 
 good or evil." If it be said, that done good or evil here means only the 
 external actions ; Pres. Edwards and others who maintain the above the- 
 ory, have precluded themselves from such a reply, by averring that 
 " nothing is good or bad, except as it proceeds from a good or bad prin- 
 ciple or dispositio7i of the mind;" which principle, with them, is antece- 
 dent to all choice and action. Consequently, when the apostle denies 
 that the children had done either good or evil, he must deny that there 
 Avas any principle of good or evil in them, if this theory be true. Nor 
 is this all. Bad deeds and good ones, evil done or good done, every one 
 should know, means, in the language of the Bible, every kind of evil and 
 good, whether internal or external. When it is said that " God will 
 reward every man according to his ivorks," the meaning surely is not 
 ' according to merely his external actions.' The account of infants in 
 Is. 7: 15, 16; in Jonah 4: 11 ; and in Deut. 1: 39; compared with Rom. 
 4: 15. 1 John 3: 4. James 4: 17. Luke 12: 47, 48. John 9: 41. 15: 22— 
 24. Rom. 1: 20, 2], 32, casts strong light on the explicit declaration of 
 v/ Paul in Rom. 9: 11. For the substance of these declarations of the 
 Scriptures, is, that "to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, 
 it is sin ;" that where there is no such knowledge, i. e. " where there 
 is no law, there is no transgression," for " sin is avopla, " i. e. want of 
 conformity to law ; of course a voluntary non-conformity must be meant, 
 the voluntary non-conformity of an intelligent, rational, moral, free agent ; 
 for no other is capable of sin, unless we would maintain that inanimate 
 substances, and brutes, and ideots, and madmen, are sinners. Thus one 
 class of texts above cited, teaches. Another class as clearly shews, that 
 our sins bear an exact proportion, in respect to their heinousness, to the 
 degree of light which we have, and the motives to holy obedience by 
 which we are urged ; all which of course implies, that if we were in a 
 state in which we had no light, and were incapable of perceiving or 
 feeling the force of any motives, then we should not be sinners. Anoth- 
 er class, moreover, developes to us very clearly, that infants are incapa- 
 ble of the knowledge in question. Even of the child Immanuel is this 
 explicitly asserted ; and the assertion is made, moreover, concerning 
 him after his birth, Is. 7: 15: 16. The very same thing is explicitly af- 
 firmed also by Moses, concerning all the very young children of the 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 543 
 
 Israelites: u Your children, which in that day had no knowledge be- 
 tween good and evil," Dent. 1: 39. To the same purpose is the text in 
 Jonah 4: 11. It is the like view of little children, which the Saviour 
 presents, when lie says to his disciples : " Except ye be converted and 
 become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," 
 Matt. 18: 3. Again : " Suffer little children to come unto me, for of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven," Matt. 19: 14. Mark 10: 13. Luke 18: 15, 
 16. So likewise the apostle Paul: "Howbeit, in malice be ye chil- 
 dren," 1 Cor. 14: 20. These comparisons do not imply, that little chil- 
 dren are positively holy. I know of no declaration iu the Bible of such 
 import. But they do seem to imply, that they are innocent, (innocuous), 
 i. e. that they are not the subjects of positively sinful passions and 
 affections, such as malice, ambition, etc. ; for on any other ground, how 
 could they be made the objects of such a comparison as they here are ? 
 And now what says conscience, to such declarations of the divine 
 word as these ? Can these declarations accord with the view of connate 
 depravity held up by Pres. Edwards and the Symbols of the Reforma- 
 tion ? According to them, sin exists antecedent to all volition, choice, 
 or action ; it is connate and innate ; it is invariable and invincible ; for 
 it is propagated uniformly by natural generation ; the children of the 
 highest saint have just as much of it as the children of the vilest profli- 
 gate ; and what is more than all, it is this very sin, as Edwards most 
 explicitly maintains, which is not only the ground and root of all actual 
 sin, but it does itself include all the guilt which a man can have, in as 
 much as all virtuous or vicious choice is no further virtuous or vicious, 
 except as it proceeds from a virtuous temper or disposition of mind 
 which preceded it ; Edwards on Orig. Sin, p. 149 seq. How Adam » 
 could have sinned, on this ground, remains, I must think, a problem 
 incapable of solution ; for he surely had, according to the same writer, 
 a holy disposition, antecedently to the first act of sin. But dismissing 
 this, I remark, that the theory of Pres. Edwards on this point, and that 
 of most of the older Reformers along with him, (not to speak of Augus- 
 tine and many others), does seem to me to be plainly at variance with 
 the explicit declarations of the Scriptures, to which I have adverted 
 above, and equally at variance with the first dictates of our unbiassed 
 feelings and our reason. All men pronounce infants to be innocent, uu- ^-' 
 til theory bids them contradict this. The spontaneous conclusion of 
 every moral feeling and of conscience, is, that " where there is no law, 
 there is no transgression." Nay, I may say, that the distinction every 
 where admitted, among the very divines themselves who defend the 
 Symbols of the Reformation — the distinction made in respect to origi- 
 nal and actual sin, does of itself shew that their minds, after all, strug- 
 gled to get away from the repulsive parts of their theory. Pres. Ed- 
 wards, indeed, goes deeper into this matter ; and doing away actual sin, 
 resolves all sin into the antecedent disposition, i. e. into original sin or 
 connate depravity, p. 150. Thus, before children have any knowledge 
 at all, yea, while they are in the womb, they are not only sinners, but 
 all the sin which is ever to be committed by them, is in them in embryo. 
 Gerhard, the o ndvu of the older Lutheran divines, who has written a 
 
544 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 system of theology in twenty two quarto volumes, says, explicitly : 
 "Semen, ex quo formamur, est immimdum, et peccato infectum," Vol. IV. 
 p. 326 ; an assertion which, extravagant as it may seem, is as capable 
 of defence, as that an infant in the womb is an actual sinner; which 
 the apostle Paul explicitly denies, Rom. 9: 11. 
 
 Much then and sincerely as I reverence the immortal men who 
 fought the battles of the Reformation, and those who have followed in 
 their steps, and illustrated and defended what they wrote ; much as I 
 reverence that most eminent man of God, Pres. Edwards, one of the 
 deepest thinkers, clearest reasoners, and most pious ministers that has 
 lived in any age or country ; yet I feel bound to reverence what I must 
 regard as the decisions of the Bible still more. Those decisions relative 
 to the point in question, do seem to me, after long and painful examin- 
 ation, to be plainly and explicitly against them ; and my creed as a 
 Protestant is, that the Scriptures are the sufficient and only rule of 
 faith and practice. 
 
 Of course it cannot for a moment be supposed, that such men as 
 the Reformers and their followers would have defended the doctrine 
 that has been questioned above, unless they apprehended that the Scrip- 
 tures could be justly appealed to as defending it. Accordingly they 
 have appealed to many texts for this purpose. Such are John 3: 6. 1 
 Cor. 2: 14, 15. Rom. 3: 9—24. 5: 6—10. Eph.2: 1, 3, 5. Rom. 5: 12— 
 19. Gen. 6: 5. 8: 21. Job 15: 14—16. Prov. 22: 15, and others of a sim- 
 ilar tenor ; all of which prove that the natural unregenerate state of 
 man, is a state of alienation from God, and one which needs the regen- 
 erating and sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God ; and no more. 
 But ivhen this state of alienation begins, is not decided by these, or by 
 any such texts. Whether it be, as Gerhard maintains, in semine ; or 
 whether it belongs to the infant in the womb, as Edwards and the Re- 
 formers maintain ; the sacred WTiters do not declare, by any or all of 
 such texts. Gerhard, however, appeals to Ps. 51: 5, in support of his 
 assertion ; so also, the Reformers and their advocates in respect to this 
 point, appeal to the same text in support of the like assertiou. And gen- 
 erally this text is the object of direct and special appeal, on the part of 
 those who maintain the connate and innate depravity of infants. Ps. 51: 
 5, literally translated, runs thus : " Behold, I was born in iniquity ; and 
 in sin did my mother conceive me." To whom then does the iniqiuty 
 spoken of in this place belong ? To the mother or the child ? I ven- 
 ture to say, that exegetical considerations alone considered, must leave 
 this case doubtful. It may be, that David means to say here ; ' I am 
 sinful and descended from a transgressor!' i. e. I am the degenerate 
 plant of a strange vine. Rosenmiiller however, and after him Bretschnei- 
 der (Dogmatik II. p. 47), maintain, as most others had before done, 
 that the words must be applied to the child. And why ? Because, say 
 they, 'it is ratio miseiicoi'diae which David makes use of;' i.e. David 
 urges his native depravity as an appeal to compassion, and as an apolo- 
 gy for his sin. A singular reason enough, in a Psalm of such humbling 
 confession as this contains ! 
 
 But I will allow, for the sake of argument, that the passage applies 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 545 
 
 to David, and not to his mother. Then comes the question : Are the 
 words to be literally understood? If you maintain this, (and this is 
 maintained by those who defend the usual doctrine of original sin), 
 then I ask, how is Ps. 58: 3 to be explained : " The wicked are estranged 
 from the womb ; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." 
 Now when this latter affirmation, in its literal sense, can be made out, 
 then may we take the former part of the verse in its literal sense — and 
 then also we may take Ps. 51: 5 in its literal sense. But we cannot 
 with propriety do this, until the exegesis in question is made out. 
 
 Nor is it a singular thing that the expression here is to be taken in a 
 modified sense. God says of Jeremiah : "Before thou earnest forth out 
 of the womb, I sanctified thee," i. e. set thee apart as a prophet, Jer. 1: 
 5. So Gal. 1: 15, 16. Such an expression is a strong one, which is in- 
 tended to designate the earlier period of one's life. But what kind of 
 life is intended in Ps. 51: 5, moral or physical life? The nature of the 
 case is a sufficient answer. At all events, if the exegesis which is put 
 on this passage by the advocates for the usual views of original sin, be 
 correct, then does it appear to contradict the explicit declaration of Paul 
 in Rom. 9:11. Consequently this exegesis cannot be consistently 
 urged ; for the sense of the latter passage is clear, and is made so by the 
 exigency of the place and the nature of the apostle's reasoning. 
 
 To maintain that infants may have original sin, which is the cause 
 and ground of all other sins, and comprises the guilt of them all ; and 
 yet to maintain with Paul, that " the children who are not yet born 
 have done neither good nor evil ;" is impossible, unless we can shew 
 that the Bible sets forth two sorts of sin, the one connate, and the other 
 the result of choice and action. But where are these to be found ? 
 Nay — supposing such a distinction to be made — how could Paul affirm 
 of children not born, that they have done neither good nor evil, provided 
 they have the ground and cause of all evil in them, and that which ren- 
 ders all their subsequent actions criminal ? How could he do this, 
 when actions, doing, %'«, are in the Scriptures predicated of the internal 
 as well as the external man ? 
 
 Fully to vindicate all that I have said in the few paragraphs above, 
 would demand a book, instead of a few pages. I have only to add, 
 therefore, that so strongly does this view of Paul and of common moral 
 feeling impress itself on the mind, that Pres. Edwards, although his 
 book is mainly built on entirely an opposite theory, viz. the usual one 
 in respect to positive sinfulness antecedent to all choice and action, not 
 only intimates that a different view is reasonable, but occupies a whole 
 chapter in order to establish it. In p. 28 he says : " It is agreeable to 
 the sentiments of the best divines, that all sin originally comes from a 
 defective or privative cause." In Part IV. chap. 2, p. 307, seq. , he has 
 argued at length against the idea of "any evil quality being infused, im- 
 planted, or wrought into our nature by any positive cause or influence 
 whatever, either of God or the creature ; or of supposing that man is 
 conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any 
 thing properly positive." He goes on to aver, that "the absence of 
 positive good principles," and "the withholding of special divine influ- 
 69 
 
540 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 ence," and the "leaving of the common natural principles of self-love, 
 natural appetite, etc., which icere in man in innocence," is sufficient to 
 account for all the corruption that appears among men. A signal in- 
 stance, indeed, of the triumph of the spontaneous feelings of our moral 
 nature over the power of system! For in his whole book, he has gone 
 directly counter to this; assuming the common theory of the Protestant 
 creeds, viz. that there is a positive unholy principle, connate with man, 
 which is itself a sin worthy of eternal death, and is the basis of all other 
 sins. But here, supposing man "to have only the common natural 
 principles which were in him in a state of innocence," he finds no diffi- 
 culty in accounting for it, that he becomes altogether corrupt. What 
 is this, but to bear spontaneous testimony to the views of Paul, in Rom. 
 9: 11, and to the first and simple dictates of moral feeling? 
 
 II. It is more important that we should know our lost condition in 
 our natural state, than it is that we should know how it came about. 
 Accordingly, there is nothing in all the Old Testament, not even in 
 Gen. in. which gives a history of the fall of man, that turns our atten- 
 tion to the connection of Adam with his posterity, or represents him as 
 their federal head, or shews the influence which his sin has had upon 
 them. There is nothing in the New Testament which does this, ex- 
 cepting Rom. 5: 12 — 19. 1 Cor. 15: 22. I am aware that many other 
 texts have, by construction, been made to speak so ; but I cannot help 
 the conviction that it is not voluntary testimony. And now, when 
 Paul brings up the subject, in both instances it is solely for the sake of 
 contrasting the evils occasioned by Adam with the good occasioned by 
 Christ, in order to set off the latter to the best advantage. Why 
 should we make so much of this subject, as some do, while the Scrip- 
 tures have thus treated it ? That we are in a ruinous state ; that 
 we must perish without redemption ; that we deserve to perish ; are 
 plain, incontrovertible facts. That we must be born again in order 
 to see the kingdom of God, and that we are " by nature," i. e. in our 
 natural unregenerate state, " children of wrath," is clear. That the 
 sin of Adam was connected with all our evils in some way, is cer- 
 tain. More than this, i. e. the manner in which this connection is occa- 
 sioned, we may dispense with knowing, until we can find it taught in 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 Is it not a matter of surprise, in case the sacred writers did really es- 
 timate the comparative importance of the subject of our connection with 
 Adam as some modern divines have done, that such a deep silence 
 should pervade the Old Testament concerning it, and that in the New 
 Testament only Paul should break this silence in two instances merely, 
 and in each of these, merely for the sake of presenting a contrast, which 
 is designed to magnify the work of Christ ? 
 
 III. Which now of the two principal views taken of the natural state 
 of man, presents the most cogent reasons for penitence and humility ? 
 Which inculcates the deepest sense of our need of a Saviour ? 
 
 Can there be any doubt as to the answer ? If man, fallen as he is, 
 has still in his fallen state all the faculties necessary to do good, and has 
 a moral sense, conscience, judgment, reason ; if, " not being yet born, 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 547 
 
 he has not done any good or evil" (Rom. 9: 11), and he sins altogether 
 of his own free will and choice whenever he does sin ; then it is indeed 
 true, that he "is guilty of death;" then is punishment not oidy threat- 
 ened, but altogether deserved ; then is he justly exposed to the condem- 
 nation of "those, who have known their master's will and done it not;" 
 then has he incurred the awful penalty of those, who " know to do good 
 hut do it not." Can any but an almighty Saviour deliver sinners of 
 such a character as this ? 
 
 But supposing now, on the other hand, that men are born with a 
 positively evil disposition, which is itself sin, and incurs eternal death 
 antecedent to all choice and action ; supposing them to have, (as Pres. 
 Edwards asserts, p. 27) " a propensity [to sin] that is invincible, or a 
 tendency which really amounts to fixed, constant, unfailing necessity ;" 
 and supposing this propensity, thus implanted in their natures and an- 
 tecedent to all choice and action, is the basis or ground of all subse- 
 quent sins : then indeed men may need redemption ; they are truly in 
 a ruinous state; they are indeed objects of our pity and of overwhelm- 
 ing misfortune ; but where is the aggravated measure of their voluntary 
 guilt, which the Bible charges upon them as agents altogether free ? 
 Where is the deep sense of accountability for faculties and moral sense 
 and reason abused ? Can there for a moment be any hesitation here, as 
 to the question : Which system presents the greater guilt of men, the 
 more urgent need of redemption, the more awful exposure of sinners, 
 and the unspeakable greatness of their salvation ? How little then of 
 justice in averring, as has often been done, that such views (as I have 
 been giving above) of our natural state, tend to diminish a sense of our 
 need of a Saviour ! Nothing can be further from correctness than this. 
 The sinner's guilt is rendered beyond description more aggravated, by 
 this method of viewing his condition. 
 
 IV. What system agrees best with proper views of Cod's justice 
 and our own accountability ? 
 
 What is our own act, we feel accountable for ; not for that which 
 was done by another, without any concurrence on our part. This is 
 an immutable law of our moral sense. Justice keeps pace with desert; 
 retributive and perfect justice punishes only for personal desert. These 
 are, I had almost said, self evident principles; and can it be that such 
 principles leave any doubt how to answer the above question ? But, 
 
 V. I still readily concede, that no theory in regard to the original 
 condition of our nature, can entirely clear up all the difficulties of the 
 case. The permission of sin lies at the bottom of all the real difficulty ; 
 and this, as it is a matter of fact, can never be removed, in our present 
 imperfect state. Now whether I say that men are born sinners, and 
 are thus chargeable with Adam's sin ; or whether I say that they are 
 born destitute of original holiness, and with passions which they will 
 abuse, and certainly abuse ; the main difficulty is not fully explained. 
 The latter is, in some sense surely, an arrangement of an overruling 
 providence ; for who placed men in their present condition ? There can 
 be but one answer. If then we go, as in this case, a little further round 
 before we come to the main difficulty, we are still unable to shun it al- 
 
548 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 together. Even if we say merely, that all men imitate Adam's exam- 
 ple, and so are mined in this way ; one might ask : Who then arrang- 
 ed the condition of men, so that this example would come before them? 
 There is no end to such questions, and in the same way Ave may ob- 
 ject, if we feel disposed so to do, to all other theories that have ever 
 been proposed. The difficulty at the bottom, is an arrangement which 
 admits of sin. The main thing which can be said in explanation of this, 
 as it seems to me, is, that probation implies power and opportunity to 
 sin. Without these probation is a mere name, and not a thing. The 
 question being decided, whether an intelligent being shall be put on 
 probation, it is of course decided that he can sin. 
 
 So far now as this difficulty is concerned, there is no system of ex- 
 plaining our present condition as sinners, which can wholly avoid it ; 
 although it does not press equally hard on all systems ; at least, the 
 mode of presenting it in some, is less obnoxious than in others. After 
 all, however, on account of other difficulties pertaining to other points, 
 such as have been already adverted to above, I feel myself compelled 
 to reject the predominant theory of Pres. Edwards, in respect to origi- 
 nal sin, and to regard his subordinate one, (if I may so call it), as being 
 the most consonant with the Scriptures, and with our moral sense and 
 judgment. It is certain, that many appalling difficulties which lie in 
 the way of the former theory, do not stand in the way of the latter. 
 This is enough, as it seems to me, to determine our choice. But in 
 making this choice, we need not keep out of sight the idea, that some 
 difficulties, and, if you please to insist on it, some great ones too, are 
 common to all the theories. But these may be summed up in one sin- 
 gle thing, viz. the admission of sin into the moral world ; which is a pro- 
 blem of no easy solution by any system ; and which, after all the circu- 
 itous routes that are or have been taken to avoid it, comes in some 
 measure into our path at last, and presents an obstacle in whatever part 
 of the way it meets us. 
 
 VI. The view which has been given above of Rom. 5: 12 — 19, if 
 correct, serves to shew that this passage cannot be justly regarded as as- 
 serting the doctrine of universal salvation. We have seen, that as there 
 are some evils which come upon all men without any concurrence of 
 their own, so there are blessings and privileges, (i. e. the common bless- 
 ings of providence, the means of grace, and above all a dispensation of 
 grace), which are bestowed on all without their concurrence. But al- 
 though, on the one hand, evils do indeed come on all without distinc- 
 tion ; yet on the other, so far as it respects these evils, they are all capa- 
 ble of being made blessings to the penitent ; and they do indeed be- 
 come so. So much is true, in regard to the present world. In respect 
 to a future world, the higher penalty of sin, or the second death, comes 
 only on those who do themselves sin ; their own personal act must con- 
 summate their destruction : and so in the opposite case, eternal redemp- 
 tion, though freely proffered to all, and although all are under a dispen- 
 sation of grace, is actually bestowed only on such as repent and believe. 
 The comparison of Paul between evils on the one hand, and blessings 
 on the other, does not permit us to go farther than this. The "super- 
 
EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. 5: 19. Ml) 
 
 abounding" of grace has no respect to the number of persons, (how can 
 this be the case since the evils of Adam's transgression extend to all 
 ■without exception ?) but to the number of offences; see Rom.."): li;. The 
 use which has often been made of the passage in question for the pur- 
 pose of establishing the doctrine of universal salvation, seems therefore 
 to have no good foundation. 
 
 VII. But, on the ground of the above explanation, how shall the 
 question he answered : Whether infants need a Saviour, and whether 
 they are saved by Christ ? 
 
 These questions have often been produced, as an overwhelming 
 objection against such an explanation as I have given. I cannot so 
 consider them. At least, if there be any embarrassment in the case, it 
 is one which strikes other important parts of Christian doctrine with 
 equal force. For example : " He that believeth, shall be saved ; he that 
 believeth not, shall be damned." I ask now: Do infants believe ? I 
 suppose this will not be asserted. Can they be saved ? This will not 
 be denied. Calvin himself allowed this of the children of saints. Is 
 the ahove declaration of-the Saviour, then, contradicted by the salvation 
 of infants? No, not at all. Why? Because, when Christ says : "He 
 that helieveth shall be saved," etc., he obviously means to speak only of 
 such as are capable of believing. 
 
 Just so in another respect. " Except we repeut we shall all per- 
 ish." But are infants capable of repentance ? No more so than they 
 are of belief. When it is said, that Christ " came not to call the right- 
 eous, but sinners to repentance," this is said, of course, of all who in the 
 nature of things are capable of repentance. 
 
 It may be true, then, that Christ is the Saviour of infants, who nei- 
 ther actually believe, nor actually repent. 'But how can this be?' 
 says the objector. 'You say that none fall under the sentence of the 
 second death, without actual sin ? What need theu of a Saviour for 
 infants, who have not committed this ? Or how can Christ save them, 
 if they are not really sinners ?' 
 
 Just as well as he can save them, I answer, without faith and re- 
 pentance. Let it be remembered, that the views given above uniformly 
 recognize the fact, that we are born destitute of that original disposition 
 to holiness, which Adam before his fall possessed. Now "without ho- 
 liness none shall see the Lord." To enter heaven, and to enjoy the 
 sacred pleasures of that blessed place, there must be a positive taste for 
 them, and a special preparation for satisfaction in them. If now infants 
 are saved, (which I do hope and trust is the case), then they must have 
 such a relish implanted in their souls for the holy joys of heaven, as will 
 Jit them to be the happy subjects of such joys. Is there nothing, then, 
 which Christ by his Spirit can do for them, in imparting such a taste? 
 Is there no imperfection of nature to be removed ? Is there no positive 
 blessing to be bestowed ? It surely is not difficult to see, that much is 
 to be done for infants, in order to fit them for heaven ; and if so, and if 
 Christ does all for them which the nature of their case admits or de- 
 mands, is not he their Saviour? Is he not, in such a case, a real and 
 true Saviour? Does it follow, because his "blood' cleanseth from all 
 
550 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 iniquity," that he may not be a Saviour to those who die before they 
 can contract actual guilt in their own persons, but who still need a new 
 heart and a right spirit? 
 
 After all ; if any one is still disposed to urge the objection, made 
 above, I would ask him to account for the apostle's declaration, that the 
 " children who are not born, have done neither good nor evil," Rom. 
 9: 11. On the objector's ground, how can Christ save those who have 
 done no evil ? We see therefore, that the objection lies not only 
 against the views which I have defended, but against the assertion of 
 Paul himself. 
 
 VIII. I cannot help the feeling, that there is an extravagance in the 
 assertion so often made, and so strenuously defended in relation to suf- 
 ferings in the present world. It has often been asserted, that the fact 
 that all the human race are sufferers, proves that all without exception 
 are sinners in such a sense as to have incurred the full penalty of the 
 divine law. That all who actually become moral agents do sin, and 
 thus incur the penalty, I fully believe, and have every where maintain- 
 ed. But that we can conclude, that infants are accounted sinners in 
 such a sense as to be worthy of the second death, from the mere fact 
 of their present sufferings, seems to me more doubtful. Multitudes of 
 infants perish before birth. What then are we to do with the assertion 
 of Paul, Rom. 9: 11, relative to the innocence of infants before they are 
 born ? I see no way in which this can be contravened. I feel con- 
 strained to believe him, on the credit of his word ; and a fortiori we 
 may credit him, when this word accords with the spontaneous and 
 simple dictates of our moral nature. 
 
 Then again ; the sufferings of the present life are, as has already 
 been often said, capable of becoming blessings ; they are in fact made 
 so to the children of God. Who can conclude now from disciplinary 
 suffering, that the subject of it lies of course under final condemnation ? 
 AVill the suffering of the apostles, after they were devoted to the cause 
 of Christ, prove that they still lay under the curse of the law? If you 
 say, ' They had once incurred this curse ;' I grant it : but it was re- 
 moved ; it had beeu annulled as to them. Why then did their suffer- 
 ings still continue ? The answer is : They continued as part of the 
 necessary discipline of men, in their present imperfect state. If there 
 were uo trial, there would be no brightening of the Christian graces, 
 and comparatively but little reward. Cornp. James 1 : 2 — 1. Rom. 5: 
 3—5. 8: 28. 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12. 
 
 Now when any one will show me, that the sufferings of Christians 
 prove them still to be under the curse, then may I admit that the suffer- 
 ings of infants will furnish decisive proof that they are under the same. 
 Until then, I may be allowed to hesitate ; for suffering and punishment 
 are not always the same thing. If it could be shown that the sufferings 
 of infants are other than disciplinary, and if it were fact that no good 
 could result from them, the argument might then, perhaps, be more 
 cogent. 
 
 On the whole, nothing can be plainer than that suffering and sin, 
 in the present world, are not coextensive. What can we say of the 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 551 
 
 multiplied and aggravated sufferings of the brute creation ? Are they 
 sinners ') I do not compare their case with that of infants, except for 
 one purpose, viz. to show that the connection between suffering simply 
 considered and sin, is not always so imperious as it is represented to be, 
 nor, in our present state, so conclusive in reasoning as some deem it to 
 be. There is plainly much suffering in the universe, which does not 
 arise from sin. But in respect to human beings, I acknowledge very 
 fully and freely, that all their sufferings are connected with sin, either 
 in themselves or in others. By reason of Adam's sin, our original ho- 
 liness is lost ; and now suffering has become a necessary part of disci- 
 pline, in order to effect our restoration. In this sense it is a part of the 
 penalty of death originally threatened, viz. that it is suffering or evil ; 
 but it is a subordinate part of this threatening; a very small part of it; 
 and one which (such is the wonderful grace of the gospel) is capable, 
 by God's mercy, of being converted into a blessing as to its consequen- 
 ces, although to be deemed an evil when considered merely in itself. 
 How then can such confident reliance be placed on an argument, drawn 
 merely from the evils of the present life ? 
 
 IX. I remark at the close, (for to a close I must now come unless 
 I would write a book on the subject), that Christians can have very 
 little apology for bitter disputes with each other, about the details of 
 speculation in regard to original sin, and for becoming divided in affec- 
 tion on this account. We have seen that Paul enters into no particu- 
 lars ; he indulges in no speculations. He only asserts the fact, that Ad- 
 am's first sin had a connection with, and influence upon, the sin and 
 death of all men. There he leaves it. We gather his views about the 
 particular nature of the facts to which he alludes, only from other parts 
 of his writings ; and even here we meet with mere matters of fact, and 
 with nothing of speculation. This is all so clear, that I need not stop 
 to fortify it. Why then should Christians dispute and divide, by rea- 
 son of their own speculations, which are superadded to what Paul has 
 taught ? I may view with apprehension the consequences of some 
 speculations on the subject under consideraiion, because I may think 
 they intrench on other very important principles. But if my brother, 
 who indulges in these speculations, does not in fact intrench on those 
 principles, but fully admits them, is it not criminal in me to charge him 
 with purposely endeavoring to overturn them? The ruined and 
 hopeless state of man by nature, i. e. of unsanctified man, whether 
 adult or infant, I do most fully and amply believe, although the ground 
 and reason and extent of this in adults and infants is very diverse ; the 
 absolute necessity of renewing grace, of special sanctification by the 
 Spirit, and of mercy bought by the redeeming blood of Christ, I do 
 most fully and amply admit. I regard the views developed above, as 
 representing the case of sinners to be far more aggravated and awful, 
 than the usual sentiments of the Reformers represent it. In consequence 
 of this, the need of a Saviour becomes more conspicuous, and his help 
 a matter of higher gratitude ; for who will be most grateful, he who 
 was so unfortunate as to fall under sentence of everlasting death, ante- 
 cedently to all choice and action of his own, and is delivered from it: 
 
552 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 5: 19. 
 
 or he, who having of his own choice and free will incurred the penal- 
 ty, and this hy awful aggravations of his guilt, is still delivered from its 
 just sentence by the mercy of a Saviour ? All that is practically impor- 
 tant as to the lost condition of man, the sentiments which I have advo- 
 cated surely maintain. All that is essential in the doctrines of the Re- 
 formation relative to original sin, is received and defended ; while, in 
 my view, deeper guilt and danger are attached to the state of the nat- 
 ural man, than the Reformers themselves attached ; and of course, high- 
 er need of Jesus and his salvation is exhibited. Is this to deny the doc- 
 trines of the Reformation ? Or is it endeavouring to dissipate mists 
 which have in some respects hovered around some of them, in order 
 that they may shine forth in all their true glory ? Speak, conscience — 
 Christian kindness — God's holy word — and I ask for no more. 
 
 X. I did intend to give a brief sketch of the histoi-y of the doctrine 
 under consideration ; but I must suppress it for want of room. I shall 
 conclude this protracted Excursus, by referring the reader to some se- 
 lect sources of reading, on the various topics that have been discussed. 
 
 For a view of the doctrines of the Reformed Symbols, he may con- 
 sult Augusti, Corpus Lib. Symbol. Reformatorum, 1 Vol. 8vo, 1827 ; con- 
 taining a very full and ample exhibition of the originals, with literary 
 notices, etc. Also Winer, Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegrijfs der 
 verschied. Christl. Kirchenparteien, 4to, 1824 ; an exceedingly conven- 
 ient book, which deserves to be reprinted in this country, as it might be 
 at a moderate expense. The author has given short critical notes, 
 which display great acuteness. 
 
 On the interpretation of Rom. 5: 12 — 19, besides the commentaries, 
 the reader should peruse J. G. Toellner, Theolog. Untersuchungen, I. 
 No. 2. Flatt's Magazin, St. 13. p. 68, seq. Schottii Opuscula, I. p. 213, 
 seq. Keilii Opuscula, p. 16, seq. Beitrcige zur Beford. des vemunf. 
 Denkens, Th. 12. p. 45, seq. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, § 124. II. p. 47, 
 seq. Edwards on Original Sin, Part II. chap. IV. § 2. J. Taylor's 
 Scripture doctrine of Orig. Sin, and his Key to the Apostolic Writings. 
 All the systems of divinity, Calvin, Turretin, Pictet, Gerhard, Quenstedt, 
 Hollaz, Storr, Bretschneider, Knapp, Hahn, Reinhard, Doederlein, Epis- 
 copius, Limborch, Markius, Van Maestricht, Ridgeley, Doddridge, 
 Hopkins, and all others, of course discuss this passage of Scripture more 
 or less. 
 
 The history of the doctrine of Original Sin, may be found in a very 
 compressed, but very instructive form, in Bretschneider's Dogmatik, 
 § 128 ; also in Halm's Lehrbuch des Christl. Glaubens, § 80. See also, 
 Walchii Historia doctrinae de Peccato Originis, 1738. 4to. Id. de Pela- 
 gianismo ante Pelagium, 1736. 4to. Augusti, Lehrbuch der Dogmenge- 
 schichte, p. 301 — 310. Horn de Peccato Originali, Goett. 1801. Muen- 
 scher, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte II. p. 89, seq. IV. p. 143, seq. 
 Wiggers, Pragm. Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, Berl. 
 1821. Vossii Historia Pelagianismi. J . Geffhen, Historia Semipelagianis- 
 mi, Goett. 1826. The result of extensive and candid reading, in regard 
 to the history of the doctrine in question, will be, as I must think, a full 
 persuasion, that in the form and shape in which this doctrine was main- 
 
EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. 7: 7—25. 553 
 
 tained by most of the Reformers, it was first introduced by Augustine, 
 in bis dispute with Pelagius; from whose works, and those of his 
 friends and followers, it came into the creeds of the Reformation ; and 
 thence it has come down to us. The whole subject needs, in this 
 country, an investigation and review de novo, such as it lias not yet re- 
 ceived. 
 
 EXCURSUS VI. 
 On Romans 7: 5—25. (p. 310.) 
 
 It is not my design here, to repeat at large what has been already 
 sufficiently explained in the body of the commentary. But in order to 
 make out a view in some good measure complete, as to its essential 
 parts, I shall simply recapitulate in order the leading considerations al- 
 ready suggested in favour of the exegesis above given, without dilating 
 at all upon them ; while other considerations not yet suggested, will be 
 more fully stated ; after which the leading objections to the exegesis 
 adopted will be discussed. 
 
 Before proceeding to execute the task here undertaken, I must beg 
 the liberty of making a few remarks on the nature of the case ; and 
 also on the nature of the proof which is requisite, in order to establish 
 any particular interpretation of the whole passage. 
 
 First, it is a just principle of interpretation, that we should under- 
 stand every writer, when this can be done in consonance with the laws 
 of language, as speaking to the purpose which he has immediately be- 
 fore him. There are very many truths of the gospel, and many plain and 
 important truths, which are not taught in this or that passage of Scrip- 
 ture. The question concerning chap. 7: 5 — 25, is not whether it be true 
 that there is a contest in the breast of Christians, which might (at least 
 for the most part) be well described by the words there found ; but whe- 
 ther such a view of the subject is congruous with the present design 
 and argument of the apostle. 
 
 Secondly, no theory of interpretation can, in the present case, be 
 duly and satisfactorily supported, by appealing merely to the form ami 
 intensity of particular expressions. If this can be allowed here, then 
 are we certain that two opposite theories may be established, viz. that 
 the individual whose experience is represented, is a saint, and is not one. 
 That he is one, may be made out by such expressions as the following: 
 viz. av^ivprjfii tw v6[U$, v. 16 ; to ydg &sksiv [sc. to v.av.ov\ Tragaxsnul pot, 
 v. 18 ; tw S'kkovTO ifioi ttoluv to y.axov, v. 21 ; ovifOo^iai y«g to! vo/ica tov 
 &sov Y.UTU tov i'act) av&gioTiov, v. 22; and tw fikv vol' Sovltva vofxo) S^eov, 
 v. 25 ; — while with equal certainty and by the same reasoning, we may 
 prove that he is not a saint, from t'yw de aagxixoq iifii, TTETTgaftivog vno 
 ti]v afiugTiav, v. 14 ; 6 fxicrw tovto ngaoaoi, v. 15; ovx oixsl iv ffiol, tout 
 tail, iv rfi aagxl fiov, ayu&ov, v. 18; to Se y.aTsgyd&a&cu to xulov, ov% 
 fvgiay.o], v. 18 ; o ov xr&a xuxov, tovto figdaob}, v. 19 ; sfiol to xuy.op na- 
 70 
 
554 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 
 
 Qtixtniu, v. 21 ; (Hiiih) I'tiqov vofiov iv tdlg fii\s<n .... alynalwzL'QovTU fis 
 to) vofioj rrjg vtfxuQjlug, v. 23 ; Ty 8s aaoxl [SovXtvai] vofioj u/xagTlug, v. 25. 
 Stronger language than this, viz. " I am aagxixog, and sold under sin," 
 i. e. a bond slave to sin, and wholly devoted to its service and obedient 
 to its orders, cannot well be found in the New Testament. 
 
 Whoever insists, then, that the passage before us must be applied to 
 the Christian, because of some strong expressions in it which seem to 
 indicate true moral good, should also take notice, that by the very same 
 principles of interpretation, he will of course be obliged to concede, that 
 a carnal state and entire devotedness to the passions and appetites is 
 described. To avoid this conclusion, he considers these last expressions 
 as used in a qualified or moderated sense, and accounts for them by the 
 fervour of the writer's feelings, and the nature of the contrast. But who 
 does not see, that the very same l-ule, when applied to the passages 
 which seem to indicate moral good or holiness, will so modify them, as 
 to make the application of them to true Christians altogether unneces- 
 sary ? The reason and conscience of the unsanctified, especially when 
 they are awakened by the terrors of the divine law, present sufficient 
 ground to justify the use of the language here employed, in such a 
 modified sense as that now supposed. 
 
 In fact, it appears a very plain case, that neither class of commenta- 
 tors, that is, neither those who apply chap. 7: 7 — 25 to Christians, nor 
 those who apply it to the unregenerate, can find satisfactory ground for 
 so doing, merely in the phraseology or modes of expression employed. 
 Either party who adopts this ground, must deny his opponent the same 
 liberties which he himself takes ; or else involve himself in inextricable 
 difficulties, by admitting that the same grounds of explanation may be 
 taken by others, which he takes for himself. But he can do neither of 
 these : not the first, because the common sense of all men would cry out 
 against him : not the last, because this would prove the very contrary 
 of what he holds, or else prove that the apostle has really contradicted 
 himself. 
 
 In truth, it is only when men come to the study of the Scriptures, 
 without bringing along with them a priori doctrines and conclusions, 
 that they are willing to admit the force of philological considerations, 
 such as have now been suggested. These once admitted, it follows as 
 a matter of course, that a modified sense is to be given to such particular 
 forms of expression, as seem to stand in the way of the argument and 
 the object of the writer. This we always give, in fairly construing the 
 language of men, on all occasions, whether it be written or spoken. 
 The literal interpretation of all expressions, in an animated contrast, 
 drawn by a man of such powerful feeling as Paul, would hardly be 
 contended for, in any case in which polemic theology was not con- 
 cerned. Is it proper then to insist on such a sense, in passages which 
 involve sentiments that are controverted by critics and theologians ? 
 
 Suppose, now, that one should rigorously insist upon it, that all the 
 words of our Saviour must be interpreted, without any modification, 
 as meaning what they seem obviously to mean on the first view of them. 
 Take for example the declarations, that " it is easier for a camel to go 
 
EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 555 
 
 through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the king- 
 dom of God;" also that "if he had not come and spoken to the Jews, 
 they wonld not have had sin ;" will any one insist that those declara- 
 tions are to be literally interpreted, ad amussim and not ad ralionem ? 
 If so, then it is of no use to argue with him in respect to the laws of in- 
 terpretation ; and one had better abandon, at once, the hope of gaining 
 from him a listening ear. But if any considerate inquirer is disposed 
 to admit, that hyperbole occasionally exists in the language of the Bible, 
 (as also in that of all other books which in any way express the feelings 
 of men), then may it be easy for him to see and feel, that the language 
 in Rom. VII. is capable of modification. Nay, most men, however vio- 
 lent their party feelings, do, after all, in fact admit this principle ; for 
 they actually modify that which stands opposed to their own views of 
 this passage. This is a practical confession, therefore, of the necessity 
 of modification. And this being agreed upon, either impliedly or ex- 
 pressly, the inquiry which then presents itself, is: In what way is any 
 part of the passage in question to be modified ? Must it be so modified 
 as to agree with the context, and the scope of reasoning which the wri- 
 ter is aiming at ? Or shall it be so modified, as to agree with our a pri- 
 ori views of what the writer ought to have said ? As an interpreter 
 and philologist, I can see but. one answer to these questions ; and this is 
 so plain, that it needs not to be repeated. 
 
 If the reader will now look back, he will see that I have not, in any 
 case, laid any particular stress on the form or intensity of expression, 
 in my remarks on 7: 5 — 25 ; and the reason of this is evident enough 
 from what has already been said above. At the same time, I have sup- 
 posed that the expressions crvpcpiifib to» vopoj, avv^dofxcu tw vofim , dov- 
 Xtvoi tw vofim, etc., are those which the writer intended should be spe- 
 cially modified by the reader ; and this, because the object of his dis- 
 course requires them to be modified. This is the ground on which I 
 rest my interpretation ; and not on the form or strength of single words 
 or phrases, on either side of the contrast. 
 
 With these remarks in view, I proceed to offer, in a summary way, 
 my reasons for adopting the exegesis which the commentary presents. 
 
 1. The object of the apostle in 7: 7 — 8: 17, is to illustrate and con- 
 firm what he had said in 7: 5, 6 ; and which he had before intimated 
 in 6: 14. Chap. 7: 7 — 25 is as plainly a comment on 7: 5, as chap. 8: 
 1 — 17 is on 7: 6 ; and antithesis between 7: 7 — 25 and 8: 1 — 25, seems 
 to be plain and certain. As this is a fundamental point in the interpre- 
 tation of the whole, the reader will allow me to be full and explicit in 
 the discussion of it. 
 
 At the beginning of chap. VIII., we find a distinction made, and a 
 transition of the discourse marked by aoa vvv , now then, i. e. in our 
 present state, in the present condition of Christians, viz. as contradistin- 
 guished from their former state. What was this former state ? It was 
 a carnal state, iv o-aoxl, v. 5 ; aaoxixos, v. 14 ; one in which they were 
 subjected to the law of sin, v. 23. What makes this transition the more 
 striking is, that in v. 6, the antithesis between the two conditions des- 
 cribed, is pointed out by the very same word as here, viz. by vvvL 
 
556 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 
 
 If now we examine particulars in these two discourses (7: 7 — 25 and 
 8: 1 — 17), we shall find them in direct antithesis to each other. E-g. 
 the complaint in 7: 24 of miserable subjection to the influence of earnal 
 desires, stands opposed to the thanks in 7: 25, uttered in reference to 
 the deliverance which the writer is about to describe. In 7: 23, the 
 person described is a captive to sin, i. e. altogether subject to the influ- 
 ence of sinful passions and desires ; in 8: 2, he is represented as deliver- 
 ed from the law of sin and death. In 7: 14, an incessant and irreconcile- 
 able opposition is represented as existing between the law of God and 
 the person there described ; in 8: 4, he is represented as possessing the 
 ability and the disposition to keep, at least in some good measure, the 
 precepts of the law. In 7: 18, the person described is represented as 
 having no good thing iv tjj crug-A [uvtov], and as finding no power to 
 effect what is good, even when his mind or conscience approves it, or 
 would prefer it ; in 8: 3, 4, this disability is represented as removed. 
 In 7: 5, 14, 18, the person described is represented as being iv o~aoA y 
 uaoy.iy.6g~ in 8: 9, he is declared to be o v y. iv aagxi. In 7: 14 he is 
 represented as the bond-slave of sin, {tizttquuivov vjto ti]v upuorLar,) i. e. 
 as altogether under the power of sin ; in 8: 11, 14, he is represented 
 as having the Spirit of God to dwell in him, and as being led, i. e. influ- 
 enced or guided by that. Spirit. 
 
 In a word, the whole tenor of the two discourses is such, as is 
 adapted to make the impression that they are in antithesis to each oth- 
 er, and that they are designed by the writer to be so. This lies on the 
 face of them. It is only the difficulties which can be raised, in regard 
 to subordinate parts, that can occasion or sustain any doubts in respect 
 to this subject. 
 
 Indeed, I may well express my convictions derived from a general 
 view of the antithetic nature of the two passages in question, the con- 
 nection in which they stand, and the design of the writer, in the words 
 of Tholuck : "Truly if one has respect only to the connection of the lat- 
 ter part of Rom. vn. , with what goes before and what follows after, it 
 is impossible to explain this [the latter part of Rom. vn.] of any one, 
 except of him who is still under the law." 
 
 2. The object of the writer (which is to shew that the law is insuf- 
 ficient for the sanctification of sinners), would not be effectually promo- 
 ted, by supposing that he represents the experience of Christians in chap, 
 vn. For if Christians, who are of course under grace and are dead to 
 the law (6: 14. 7: 6), are actually in the state here represented, then 
 would it follow, that neither grace nor law hinders them from being the 
 servants of sin. But to aver that grace does not effect this, is to con- 
 tradict 8: 1 — 17. 
 
 3. The tout ensemble of the representation in chap. vn. seems to 
 render it certain, that a true Christian cannot be here described. What 
 is the result of the whole ? It is, that notwithstanding all the opposition 
 which the law of God and the law of the mind make to sin, yet the 
 person in question practises it, and habitually practises it, on all occa- 
 sions and under all circumstances. In every contest here, the sinful 
 carnal mind comes off victorious. Is " this overcoming the world ?" 
 
EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 557 
 
 Is this to be 'born of God so as not to sin ?' Is this ' loving Christ so as 
 to keep his commandments?' Is this 'doing no iniquity?' Is this 
 " walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit ?" In a word, is it 
 possible to make this accord with chap. vm. 1 — 17 ? 
 
 4. If chap. vii. represents the Christian struggle with sin, then what 
 is the state into which the Christian goes, as represented in chap. vm. ? 
 The answer must be : One in which there is no more struggle. Rut 
 when — where — was ever such a state on earth ? It has often been 
 imagined and asserted ; but not proved. Rut if now the transition is 
 from a state in which sin was altogether predominant, into one in which 
 grace on the whole reigns and triumphs, then all is easy and intelligi- 
 ble. On any other ground it is inexplicable ; at least, it is so to me. 
 
 It were easy to add more reasons ; but if these are well-grounded, 
 they are sufficient. It is proper, now, briefly to pass in review some of 
 the exegesis and the allegations of those, who maintain that a regener- 
 ate person is described in 7: 7 — 25. 
 
 (1) Their interpretation (viz. that which most of them give) of 
 7: 9 leads, (as may be seen in the commentary on 7: 9), to inextricable 
 difficulty, and contradiction of the context. It is equally opposed to 
 the usns loquendi, and to those parts of the discourse which precede 
 and which follow. 
 
 (2) It is alleged, that the contest described in Rom. 7: 14 — 25, is one 
 which accords with the feelings and experience of every Christian ; 
 and that he is thus conscious that the interpretation given to it by those 
 who apply it to Christians, must be correct. 
 
 This consideration is, in fact, the main dependence of those who 
 support the exegesis just named ; I mean, that by such an appeal to 
 feeling, they produce more conviction on the mind of Christians, than 
 is produced by all their other arguments. After all, however, this is 
 far from determining the case. Let us look at the subject in all its 
 bearings. 
 
 I concede, in the first place, that Christians have a contest with sin ; 
 and that this is as plain and certain, as it is that they are not wholly 
 sanctified in the present life. It is developed by almost every page of 
 Scripture, and every day's experience. That this contest is often a ve- 
 hement one ; that the passions rage, yea, that they do sometimes even 
 gain the victory ; is equally plain and certain. It follows now, of course, 
 that as the language of Rom. 7: 14 — 25 is intended to describe a contest 
 between the good principle and the bad one in men, and also a contest 
 in which the evil principle comes oft' victorious ; so this language can 
 hardly fail of being appropriate to describe all those cases in a Chris- 
 tian's experience, in which sin triumphs. Every Christian at once re- 
 cognizes and feels, that such cases may be described in language like 
 that which the apostle employs. 
 
 Here is the advantage which the patrons of this opinion enjoy, and 
 which they have not failed to push even to its utmost extent. After all, 
 however, the ground is unfairly taken, and unfairly maintained. For, 
 first, it is only a part of the case. While Christians have many a con- 
 test in which they are overcome by sin, yet they must be victors in far 
 
558 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 
 
 the greater number of cases, if the whole be collectively taken. If this 
 be not true, then it cannot be true that ' he who loveth Christ, keepeth 
 his commandments ;' it cannot be true that ' they who love the law of 
 God, do no iniquity ;' nor true, that " he who is bom of God sinneth 
 not ;" nor that faith enables him who cherishes it, to " overcome the 
 world." As, however, there is no denying the truth of these and the 
 like declarations, and no receding from them, nor explaining them away 
 as meaning less than habitual victory over sin ; so it follows, that when 
 verses 14 — 25 are applied to Christian experience, they are wrongly ap- 
 plied. The person represented in these verses, succumbs to sm in ev- 
 ert instance of contest. The Christian must not — cannot — does not, so 
 fight against sin. To assert this would be to contradict the whole tenor 
 of the Scriptures ; it would be abrogating, at once, all which is declared 
 in so pointed a manner, in chap. VIII. 1 — 17. 
 
 Secondly, as I have already noted, there stands in the way of this 
 interpretation the fact, that a great transition is marked by the com- 
 mencement of chap. VIII. , one of which no satisfactory account can be 
 be given, if 7: 14 — 25 is to be interpreted as belonging to those who are 
 under grace. 
 
 Thirdly, I repeat the remark, that the question is not, whether what 
 is here said might be applied to Christians ; but whether, from the tenor 
 of the context, it appears to be the intention of the writer that it should 
 be so applied. This principle cannot fail to settle the question concern- 
 ing such an application. 
 
 In a word ; how can it be just reasoning to say, that because vs. 
 14 — 25 may be applied to describe those contests of the Christian with 
 sin in which the latter is victorious, therefore it does describe Christian 
 experience considered as a ichole, and is intended by the writer so to do ? 
 What can be more certain, than that Christiayi experience is not here 
 to the writer's purpose, when his object is, to represent the truly desperate 
 condition of him ivho is merely under the laiv ? 
 
 (3) So far as reasoning or argument is concerned, the main allega- 
 tion of those who apply vs. 14 — 25 to Christian experience, remains yet 
 to be considered. It is this, viz. that ' the declarations made in these 
 verses respecting the internal man, are such as comport only with 
 the state or condition of a regenerate man ; and if this be not ad- 
 mitted, then we must concede that the unregenerate are subjects of mor- 
 al good.' But, 
 
 First, this allegation takes for granted, that the phrases ovp<pr\ni tm 
 vofua, awi'ido/icu iw vofioi, etc., are to be taken in their full strength, 
 without any modification. I must ask the reader, now, instead of re- 
 peating here what I have before said, to look back upon the commen- 
 tary on v. 22, and also what is said near the beginning of the present 
 Excursus, on the subject of deducing arguments in this case merely 
 from the forms of expression, without a special reference to the con- 
 text and the object which the writer has in view. When the whole of 
 this is weighed, I would inquire, whether he who interprets chap. 7 : 
 5 — 25, as having respect to one who is under law, has not just as good 
 a claim to insist that oagxixog, nmoufiivoq vti6 xr\v a/xagzluv, alxfiuXmxi- 
 
EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 559 
 
 'C,qvtu |W£tw vofxo) r^g auaoxiuq, etc., shall be taken without abatement or 
 modification? And now, what is to be the result? Plainly this, viz. 
 that the writer has described an impossible state, one in winch a man 
 is under law and under grace at one and the same time ; one in which 
 sin has a power predominant in all cases, and grace a power on the 
 whole predominant, at one and the same time. As this cannot be ad- 
 mitted, which set of terms in the description must be modified ? for 
 one of them certainly must be. The answer to this question may be 
 found, in the considerations which have been suggested above. 
 
 But secondly, the whole of the allegation which I am discussing, 
 appears to me to rest on ground entirely unsafe and unsatisfactory. It 
 will be admitted by those who are conversant with the dispute about 
 the meaning of the passage before us, and are well read in the history 
 of Christian doctrine, that Augustine was the first who suggested the 
 idea, that it must be applied to Christian experience. This he did, how- 
 ever, in the heat of dispute with Pelagius. At an earlier period of his 
 life, he held to the common exegesis of the church ; as is certain from 
 Prop. XLV. in Epist. ad Rom. : Intelligitur hinc ille homo describi, 
 qui nondum sub gratia. So in Confess. VII. 21. VIII. 5. Ad Simplic. 
 I. But Pelagius, who denied the fallen state of man, urged upon him 
 the declarations above referred to, viz., delighting in the law of God af- 
 ter the inner man, serving the law of God with the mind, etc. Augustine 
 felt himself pressed by them, and made his escape, by protesting against 
 the exegesis of his antagonist. He recanted his former opinion respect- 
 ing vs. 14 — 25, and became a strenuous advocate for an interpretation, 
 which through him has gained extensive ground among Christians, and 
 maintains its footing among many down to the present hour. 
 
 It is difficult to say how far men, and even good men, will some- 
 times go in matters of interpretation and criticism, in order to relieve 
 themselves from the straits occasioned by warm dispute, in which their 
 antagonists make galling attacks upon them. It was, in all probability, 
 the dispute of the church at Rome with the Montanists, which first oc- 
 casioned it to doubt, and then to deny, the Pauline origin of the epistle 
 to the Hebrews. Luther's dispute with the Roman Catholics, on the 
 subject of justification by faith alone, led him to discard the epistle of 
 James, and to call it, by way of contempt, epistola straminea. And the 
 like have many others done, for similar reasons. Such seems to have 
 been the ground of Augustine's new exegesis. 
 
 But when we come, now, seriously and calmly to inquire whether 
 there is any cause of alarm in respect to the doctrine of the natural 
 man's depravity, because Rom. 7: 7 — 25 is interpreted as having respect 
 to him ; we can see that this is so far from being the case, that the very 
 opposite is true ; I mean, that his depravity is rendered much more 
 conspicuous and aggravated by this exegesis. Let us see if this be not 
 palpable and certain. 
 
 That men are moral beings, does not make them sinners or saints. 
 That they have faculties which can distinguish between good and evil, 
 only shews that they are capable of doing good or evil, of being right- 
 eous or wicked. Conscience and reason belong to the pura naturalia 
 
560 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 
 
 of the human race. Man, in the full and proper sense of this word, 
 cannot exist without them. It is no more an evidence, then, that a 
 man is holy or good in the Scripture sense of the word, because his 
 reason and conscience distinguish good from evil, and testify in behalf 
 of the good, than it is that he is holy because he has a moral nature. 
 Such a distinction and such an approbation are inseparable from the es- 
 sential nature of reason and conscience. 
 
 Consider, moreover, that the guilt of a sinner, who continues to yield 
 to the solicitations of his carnal desires, is proportioned entirely to the 
 measure of light which he has, and to the inducements set before him 
 to act in a different manner. "Where there is no law, there is no 
 transgression." "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to 
 him it is sin." Then, of course, the sinner, with reason and conscience 
 and the law of God all remonstrating against his course, is involved in 
 guilt of the deepest dye ; while an offender (if I may so call him) with- 
 out any of these checks, would be no offender at all. " He that know- 
 eth his master's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many 
 stripes." And so it ought to be. What then can render the person's 
 case more aggravated, who is described in vs. 14 — 25, than the fact that 
 he resists so much light and such powerful motives to pursue a different 
 course ? 
 
 Is it, then, denying the depi - avity of the unregenerate, when we as- 
 sign to them faculties to do good, and light as to their duty, and strong 
 excitement to perform it, and represent them as after all refusing to do 
 good, and uniformly hearkening to the voice of sin ? I appeal to 
 the reason and conscience of all men, whether such an accusation 
 against the exegesis in question, is not in a high degree unjust and un- 
 founded. Nay, I might go farther ; I might say, it is the contrary exe- 
 gesis which is pressed with the very difficulty it urges against the other. 
 For if the sinner is born without reason and conscience, and is without 
 light ; or if he is born with reason and conscience that are incapable of 
 distinguishing good from evil, or of giving the preference to the former ; 
 then his depravity and desperate guilt can in no way be made out, con- 
 sistently with the first principles of a moral sense. Of all the charges, 
 then, brought against the exegesis which I have defended, that of its 
 diminishing the guilt of unregenerate men, is the most unfounded and 
 unjust. 
 
 I have discussed the principal arguments, so far as I am acquainted 
 with them, of those who interpret vs. 14 — 25 as having relation to Chris- 
 tian experience. In regard to the allegation, that Paul here speaks in 
 the first person singular, and must therefore be relating his own experi- 
 ence, I have already remarked upon it, p. 296, seq. There is no objec- 
 tion to allowing it to be Paul's experience ; but when had he such 
 experience? And why does he speak of himself? These are the 
 questions to be answered ; and these I have endeavoured to answer in 
 my remarks at the close of 7: 12. 
 
 I cannot conclude this already protracted Excurcus, without advert- 
 ing, for a moment, to the history of the exegesis introduced by Au- 
 gustine. 
 
EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. 7: 5—25. 5<>1 
 
 As has already been stated, the most ancient Fathers of the church, 
 without a dissenting voice, so far as we have any means of ascertaining 
 their views, were united in the belief, that an unregeneraie, unsanciified 
 person is described in 7: 5 — 25. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, 
 and Theodoret. In this state did the views of the church remain down 
 to the time of Augustine, whose first opinion, and whose change of it, 
 have already been described. How unnecessary such an evasion was, 
 on his part, of the argument of Pelagius, we have already seen. For 
 surely the more light the mind of a natural man has, the more his con- 
 science approves the divine law, and sides with it ; the deeper and more 
 dreadful is his guilt, when he sins against all these. And as the person 
 described by the apostle is one over whom sin, in every case of contest 
 presented, does actually obtain the victory ; he must of course be a per- 
 son of much deeper and more desperate depravity than any one can be, 
 whose natural faculties are all degraded and depraved in their very 
 origin; as Augustine held the faculties of men to be, after his dispute 
 with Pelagius. 
 
 The exegesis of Augustine, however, found favour in the churches 
 where his sentiments respecting original sin were received ; and pre- 
 vailed very extensively and for a long time. In like manner with him, 
 have Auselm, Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Luther, Melanc- 
 thon, Calvin, Beza, Spener, Buddaeus, Koppe, and many others, ex- 
 plained the passage in question ; and most commentators among evan- 
 gelical Christians, in Great Britain and in this country, have followed 
 the same opinion. 
 
 On the other hand, besides all the ancient Greek, and some of the 
 Latin Fathers, there are many distinguished men who have defended 
 the sentiment which has been above exhibited. Such are Erasmus, 
 Raphel, Episcopius, Limborch, Turretin, Le Clerc, Heumann, Bucer, 
 Schomer, Franke, G. Arnold, Bengel, Reinhard, Storr, Flatt, Knapp, 
 Tholuck, and (so far as I know) all the evangelical commentators of the 
 present time, on the continent of Europe. Most of the English episco- 
 . pal church, also, for many years, and not a few of the Scotch, Dutch, 
 and English Presbyterian and Congregational divines, have adopted the 
 same interpretation. I cannot but believe, that the time is not far dis- 
 tant, when there will be but one opinion among intelligent Christians, 
 about the passage in question ; as there was but one, before the dispute 
 of Augustine with Pelagius. In this respect there is ground of trust, 
 that the ancient and modern churches will yet fully harmonize. 
 
 From the above brief historical sketch, it would seem, that in gen- 
 eral those who have admitted Augustine's view of the doctrine of orig- 
 inal sin, have also admitted his exegesis of Rom. 7: 5 — 25. To this, 
 however, there are exceptions ; and of late, not a few exceptions. More 
 thorough, impartial, and unbiassed examination, will probably make an 
 entire change in the views of Christians in general, even of those who 
 have been educated in the belief of the Augustinian exegesis. This was 
 my own lot ; and for some time after I began the critical study of the 
 Scriptures, I continued to advocate this method of interpretation. But 
 an often repeated and more attentive study of the epistle to the Romans. 
 71 
 
562 EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. 8: 28. 
 
 has brougb 1 me to believe, that "such an exegesis is forbiden by the na- 
 ture of the case, the usus loquendi, and the object of the writer ; and 
 that it is impossible to maintain it, on any impartial and critical grounds. 
 I am fully aware of the strength of feeling which exists relative to 
 this subject, in the minds of many. I am sorry to add, that the man- 
 ner in which it is defended, can never contribute to advance the inte- 
 rests of simple truth. When will it be believed, that scorn is not crit- 
 ical acumen, and that calling men heretics, is not an argument that will 
 convince such as take the liberty to think and examine for themselves? 
 When will such appeals cease ? And when shall we have reasons in- 
 stead of assertions, criticism in the place of denunciation, and a full 
 practical exhibition of the truth, that the simple testimony of the divine 
 word stands immeasurably higher than all human authority? 
 
 EXCURSUS VII. 
 
 On Rom. 8: 28, rote xaru nqoO-taiv y.h]Tolq ovoi. (p. 353.) 
 
 The difficulty arising from this passage, and the temptation to deny 
 or obscure what I must believe to be its plain and inevitable meaning, 
 are both suggested by the following question : ' How can God have had 
 an eternal purpose as to those who are to be saved, and yet men be free 
 agents, free even in the matter of their own repentance and conversion ?' 
 It will not be expected, of course, that 1 should here discuss at length a 
 metaphysical question, which the disputes and contentions of more than 
 4000 years have not settled ; for in every age and nation, where reli- 
 gious inquiries have been pursued, the difficulty before us has for sub- 
 stance presented itself to the minds of thinking men. One may say that 
 three parties exist, and perhaps have in every age existed, in respect to 
 it ; viz. (1) Those who embrace the doctrine of fatality, and therefore 
 deny the proper free agency of man. (2) Those who deny the divine 
 decrees or eternal purposes of God, and make in effect a kind of inde- 
 pendent agency of man. (3) Those who believe both in the divine fore- 
 knowledge, purpose, or decree, (for the difference between these is in 
 name only, not in reality), and also in the entire free agency of man. 
 Among this latter class, I would choose my lot. The Scriptures seem 
 to me plainly to hold forth both of these doctrines. Yea, so far are the 
 sacred writers from apprehending any inconsistency in them, that they 
 bring them both forward, (i. e. divine agency and purpose, and human 
 agency and purpose), at one and the same time, not seeming even to 
 apprehend that any one will speculate on them so as to make out any 
 contradiction. For example ; Acts 2: 23, " Him, being delivered by the. 
 determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wick- 
 ed hands have crucified and slain;" i.e. the determinate counsel (woicr- 
 fiivi] fiovb'j) and foreknowledge of God, did not render the hands of the 
 Jews less wicked, who crucified the Saviour. Of course, they must 
 have acted in a voluntary manner, as agents altogether free ; for a sin 
 
EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. 8: 28. 563 
 
 involuntary, i. e. without consent of the will, is a contradiction in terms, 
 so far as moral turpitude is concerned. 
 
 Again ; Phil. 2: 12, 13, " Work out your own salvation with fear and 
 trembling; for it is God who workelh in you both to will and to do, of his 
 good pleasure ;" i. e. the very ground on which 1 urge diligence in the 
 matter of your Christian duties, is, that God helps you both to will and 
 to do. 
 
 These are a specimen of the philosophy (if I may so speak) of the 
 sacred writers. And of such philosophy, the Bible is full. The attri- 
 butes of an omniscient God, his designs, his very nature, prove that he 
 must have purposes ; and such as will not be frustrated. Prediction or 
 prophecy proves this, and puts it beyond all rational contradiction. Is 
 it uncertain, whether what the prophets of God have foretold, will come 
 to pass? Yet are not the men, by whom the things foretold are 
 brought to pass, free agents in all cases of this nature, just as they were 
 in the crucifixion of the Lord of glory ? 
 
 But you will ask: 'How is this?' To which I answer at once: I 
 do not know. The manner in which God's purposes are consistent with 
 free agency, I do not pretend to know. The fact that they are consis- 
 tent, I do know ; because I am conscious of being a free agent ; 1 am 
 as certain of it as I am of my own existence. I am equally certain that 
 God is omniscient, and has always been so ; and therefore he must 
 have always perfectly known every thing that will take place. If he 
 knew it with certainly, (and if he did not, then he did not know it at 
 all) ; then is it uncertain, whether it will take place ? And if it is cer- 
 tain, then how does this differ from what is said to be decreed ? The 
 name decree, indeed, seems to have carried along with it a kind of terror 
 to many minds ; hut, so far as I can see, it implies neither more nor 
 less than divine purpose or divine will. And can it be, that sober-minded 
 Christians will, on reflection, maintain that there is no divine purpose 
 or will ? 
 
 To all the arguments adduced from such a statement of facts, which 
 can be alleged in order to prove the doctrine of fatalism, I have only to 
 reply, that fact itself disproves this; for we are conscious of being free 
 agents. The Scriptures disprove this ; for they every where treat men 
 as//-ee agents. And this is enough ; for these are the two highest pos- 
 sible sources of proof, and with these we ought to rest satisfied. To 
 what can we make a convincing appeal, if not to these? 
 
 As to the question : How is our free agency made to consist with 
 God's eternal purposes ? I have said, nothing ; for I know nothing. 
 And as to the question, how ten thousand thousand other things, which 
 I believe, and which all men believe, can be true or take place, no one 
 in the present world knows, or ever will know, any thing ; e. g. how do 
 heat, moisture, and earth make one plant green and another red, one 
 nutritive and another poisonous, in the very same bed of earth ? yet we 
 all believe the fact that they do. 
 
 Who can shew it to be absurd, now, that God should have had an 
 eternal purpose, and yet man be a. free agents 
 
 Does the certain knowledge we now have of a past event, destroy 
 
5fii EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. 8: 28—30. 
 
 the free agency of those who were concerned in bringing about that 
 event ? Did any previous knowledge of the same, necessarily interfere 
 with their free-agency ? And as to free-agency itself; cannot God 
 make a creature in his own image, free like himself, rational like him- 
 self, the originator of thoughts and volitions like himself? Can this be 
 disproved ? The fact that we are dependent beings, will not prove that 
 we may not be free agents as to the exercise of the powers with which 
 we are endowed, — free in a sense like to that in which God himself, as a 
 rational being, is free. Nor will this establish any contingency or uncer- 
 tainly of events, in the universe. Could not God as well foresee what 
 would be the free and voluntary thoughts of men, in consequence of 
 the powers which he should give them, as he could foresee thoughts 
 and volitions which would proceed from the operation of external cau- 
 ses upon them ? Until this can be denied on the ground of reason and 
 argument, the sentiment in question is not justly liable to the charge of 
 introducing the doctrine of contingency or uncertainty into the plans of 
 the divine Mind. 
 
 I only add, that when we say : ' God has had an eternal purpose in 
 respect to those who are called,' (and the apostle does say this, Eph. 3: 
 11. 2 Tim. 1:9), we speak av&gamond&wg. With God there is no 
 time. " A thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand 
 years." With him it is an eternal now ; as it has often and forcibly 
 been expressed. So the expressions, PRV-dcslination, YORE-ordi nation, 
 etc., strictly speaking, are anthropopathic. " Non PRAE-videntia, sed pro- 
 videntia potius dicitur," says Boethius, De consol. Philos. 1. 5. prop. (i. 
 
 If God has any purposes, they are eternal. We must, then, either 
 deny that he has any purposes, or else admit their eternal existence ; 
 and this being admitted, the xA>/TOt xutu noodfo-iv, are truly such as the 
 apostle describes them to be, in the sequel of chap. vnj. 
 
 EXCURSUS VIII. 
 
 On Rom. 8: 28—30. (p. 359.) 
 
 On the disputes which have arisen from the paragraph in vs. 28 — 
 30, I shall not comment at large in this place ; but I cannot pass by the 
 subject, without making a few remarks. 
 
 That man should be entirely dependent on God, and yet be a free 
 agent at the same time, presents, it has been often asserted, an impossi- 
 bility, an absurdity, a contradiction of terms, a scheme of fatalism, etc. 
 After all, however, the mere disciple of Naturalism, who sets Revelation 
 entirely aside, but allows the natural perfections of the Godhead (among 
 which are omniscience and omnipotence), falls into the very same dif- 
 ficulties inevitably, which he puts solely to the account of Revelation. 
 If there be a God, a creator, almighty and omniscient, then we are per- 
 fectly and entirely dependent on him ; from everlasting, moreover, he 
 has known all that we are and shall be ; he has known this with abso- 
 
EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. 8: 28—30. SGi 
 
 lute certainty ; and if so, then what we are and shall he, is not fortuitous. 
 This the disciple of nature can no more deny, than the disciple of reve- 
 lation. And this involves at once all the real difficulties which an; 
 charged to the account of those, who believe in the plain and simple al- 
 legations of the passage hefore ns. 
 
 Once admit the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator, and 
 the difficulty of reconciling dependence and free-agency comes up of 
 course ; and it hears equally, moreover, on every system which admits 
 this truth. It is wonderful that this should not he more extensively 
 seen and felt, hy writers who are in the habit of charging all difficulties 
 of this nature, to the opinions of those who favour the sentiments ot 
 Calvin. ^ 
 
 After all, if there be any force in the objections made against the 
 doctrine in question, it arises only from reasoning analogically in respect 
 to Ike laws and qualities ofmatter,and those of mind. In a piece of phy- 
 sical machinery; every motion will be in accordance with the laws of 
 motion and mechanical power, and all necessarily according to the con- 
 trivance of the mechanist; i.e. the laws of matter and motion remaining 
 the same, the result which is calculated upon is necessary ; and it is al- 
 ways the same, for there is no volition in the machine, nothing to resist, 
 alter, or modify the influence to which it is subjected. 
 
 Not so in the world of immaterial and spiritual being. Man is made 
 in the image of God ; therefore he has a free-agency like to that of his 
 Maker. From its very nature, this free-agency is incapable ol' mechani- 
 cal control. Motives, arguments, inducements may move, convince, 
 persuade ; but they cannot control by a necessity like that in the world 
 of matter. That they cannot, is owing to the very nature itself of a 
 free agent ; who is no longer free, if he have no ultimate choice and 
 power of his own. The Bible every where ascribes such a power to 
 man. He resists light, knowledge, persuasion ; he remains unmoved 
 (at least undetermined), by all the motives drawn from heaven and earth 
 and hell ; he resists and grieves the Spirit of God himself: such an; the 
 representations of the Scripture. Is this representation truth, or fiction? 
 Which is the same as to ask : Are men in fact free agents, or only so in q/ 
 name and appearance ? 
 
 That they are in fact free, is what I believe. Nor can I be persuad- 
 ed, that illustrations of free agency drawn from the material world, are 
 in any tolerable measure apposite to our subject. Our souls are spirit, 
 not matter. They are like the God who made them ; not like the dust 
 on which we tread. All arguments, then, drawn from cause or causa- 
 tion and effect in the material world, and applied to the subject of spir- 
 itual agency and influence, are wrongly applied, and cannot serve to cast 
 any thing but darkness on this deeply interesting subject. 
 
 All the deductions in respect to fatalism, moreover, which are made 
 out" and charged upon those who hold the doctrine of God's foreknowl- 
 edge and eternal purposes, are made out by a process of reasoning 
 which has its basis in material analogies. A regular, necessitous, me- 
 chanical concatenation of cause and effect, altogether like that in the 
 world of nature, is predicated of the doctrine of the divine purposes or 
 
566 EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. 8: 28—30. 
 
 decrees ; and then the charge of fatalism and absurdity of course fol- 
 lows. Let those who would avoid this, take good care, then, not to 
 reason about spirit in the same way as they do about matter. 
 
 Who now can prove, that the Spirit of God may not influence the 
 human mind, in a manner perfectly consistent with its entire free-agen- 
 cy — influence it to accept the offers of salvation and become o-v/juoocpog 
 zov vlov iov -&IOV? No one. He can no more do this, than he can 
 prove that one man cannot influence another, without impairing his 
 freedom of action ; an event which takes place every hour, and in all 
 parts of this lower world. Above all, who can shew that truth may in- 
 fluence men, aud yet men may remain free ; but that the Spirit, who is 
 the author of all truth, can not operate as effectually, and with as little 
 interference with free agency, as the truth which he has revealed ? So 
 little foundation is there, for the charge of fatalism, against the doc- 
 trine of divine influence upon the souls of men ! 
 
 Those who are saved, freely repent, freely believe, freely accept the 
 terms of salvation. Why can they not be as free under the influence 
 of the Spirit, as they are under the influence of the truth which he has 
 revealed ? And none but penitents will be saved. There is no room 
 then to say, that a belief in the divine eternal purposes, makes it a mat- 
 ter of indifference whether a man lives a virtuous and holy life or not, 
 and that if he is to be saved, he will be saved let him do what he may. 
 The plain and certain truth is, that he 'is not to be saved,' unless he be- 
 come conformed to the image of Christ, and that ivithout holiness no man 
 shall see the Lord. This is God's everlasting purpose, his eternal de- 
 cree ; aud sooner than this can be violated, heaven and earth shall pass 
 away. All accusations of such a nature, then, against the doctrine in 
 question properly understood, are ungrounded and unjust. 
 
 In regard to the dispute, whether God npowoias rovq xXrjToig, from 
 his mere good pleasure, or from a foresight of their faith and good works ; 
 it is easy to see, that the paragraph of the epistle, which is under con- 
 sideration, does not decide on this. So far the question seems to be 
 fully settled, by r other texts of Scripture, viz. that the merit or obedience 
 of the y.\r)Tot, was not the ground or reason of their regeneration and 
 sanctification. This would be assuming, that holiness existed before it 
 did exist ; that it was the ground of that, which it followed only as a 
 consequence. 
 
 On the other hand ; as to the decrehim absolulum, as it has been 
 called, viz., the determination that the y.h]iol should be saved, irrespec- 
 tively of their character and actions, one cannot well see how this is to 
 be made out. So much must be true, viz., that they are not regenerated, 
 sanctified, or saved, on account of merit ; all is of grace, pure grace. If 
 this be all that any one means by the decretum ahsolutum, there can be no 
 reasonable objection made to it. But on the other hand; as God is 
 omniscient, and therefore must know every part of every man's charac- 
 ter, through all stages of his being; as all things, in their fullest extent, 
 must have always been naked and open to his view ; so we cannot once 
 imagine, that any decree or purpose in respect to the xXijxoi can have 
 been made irrespectively of their wlwle character. Such an irrespection 
 
EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. 8: 28-30. 567 
 
 (if 1 may use the word) is impossible. God has never determined, and 
 from his holy nature never can determine, to save any except such as 
 are conformed to the image of his Son. All stands or falls together. 
 A decretum absolution, i. e. a decree which should separate these, or have 
 no regard to these, would be a different one from that which the apos- 
 tle has stated ; and I may add, different from what we can even ima- 
 gine to be possible. 
 
 To what purpose, then, can disputes on such a question be raised or 
 fostered ? Happy would it be for the church, had there been no occa- 
 sion in times past to mourn over them! It is truly important to dis- 
 tinguish that which is revealed, from that which is not; and to content 
 ourselves with the one, and dismiss the other. " Secret things belong to 
 the Lord our God ; but things revealed to us and our children." 
 
 1 will only add, that the phrase, God out of his mere good pleasure, 
 is very liable to be misunderstood, and perverted ; as it often has been. 
 My own apprehension is, that most of those who employ it, use it mere- 
 ly to signify, without regard to merit, without being induced by considera- 
 tions of meritorious obedience. In this sense, as applied to God in res- 
 pect to his purposes of renewing and sanctifying sinners, it is strictly 
 true. Merit they have not ; obedience they exhibit not, while in their 
 unrenewed and unsanctified state. But then the phrase is often under- 
 stood, as conveying the idea, that God, in a way merely arbitrary, i. e. 
 without any good reasons whatever, did choose some to everlasting 
 life. This can never be true at all ; no, not in any sense whatever. All 
 that can ever be true is, that God has done this, while the reasons are 
 entirely unknown to us. He surely never did, and never will, determine 
 or do any thing, without the highest and best reasons ; although he may 
 not unfold them to us. 
 
 On the whole, it is to be regretted that a phrase so easily misunder- 
 stood and perverted, as that in question, should have been introduced 
 into the technology of religion. It would have been much better to 
 have avoided the disputes it has occasioned, by phraseology more ex- 
 plicit and unambiguous. 
 
 One remark more, and I dismiss the whole subject. If I do not 
 greatly err, the principal objections which serious and candid minds 
 feel to the doctrine of predestination (as it is called), i. e. of foreknow- 
 ledge and eternal purpose on the part of God, arises from what I must 
 think to be a mistaken application of the principles of analogical rea- 
 soning. ' How,' it is asked, ' can God have determined from eternity 
 who are to be saved, i. e. whom he will effectually call, and justify, 
 and sanctify, and bring to glory, and yet men be free to choose or re- 
 fuse salvation ?' And the difficulty in all this is, that they suppose a 
 regular concatenation of causes and influence must be arranged in the 
 spiritual world, which will just as mechanically and certainly bring 
 about the end, as that gravitation will make a stone fall to the earth. 
 They join, with all this transfer of physical causation and effect over to 
 spiritual things, the idea, that regard to the character or efforts of those 
 who are saved, is to be left out of the question ; and then they make 
 out, in their own minds, the idea of fatalism, an undistinguishing fatal- 
 
568 EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. 8: 28—30. 
 
 ism, which acts thus and so, merely because it chooses to do this or 
 that, without any good and sufficient reason whatever. And taking 
 such a view of the doctrine of predestination, of course they think it 
 very reasonable to reject it. 
 
 In answer to all this, it may be said, (1) That it is impossible even 
 to imagine a case, in which God can be supposed not to have before 
 him the ivhoh of every individual character of those who belong to 
 the xItjtoL (2) All that the Scripture teaches in regard to the ground 
 or reason of his purpose of mercy towards these, is, that it is not on ac- 
 count of merit or desert in them ; they are regenerated and sanctified and 
 saved through grace, grace only; "not of works, lest any man should 
 boast." Farther than this negative assertion, the Scripture does not go ; 
 and who knows any thing more than what is revealed concerning it ? 
 (3) The Bible and experience and reason all unite, in giving testimony 
 of the highest kind which the human mind can receive, that whatever 
 may be the purposes of God, men in fact are free agents ; free in all 
 their spiritual exercises, as well as any others : and what is thus in fact 
 conciliated or harmonized, cannot in its own nature be contradictory or 
 absurd. (4) The eternal purpose of God is no more in the way of free 
 agency, than his present purpose ; for his present purpose is neither 
 more nor less than his eternal one, and his eternal one neither more 
 nor less than his present one. With him there is one eternal now ; 
 and all ideas of causation and concatenation of causes and influence, 
 drawn from sensible objects that are temporary and successive, only serve 
 to mislead the mind in regard to God, when they are applied to him. 
 (5) All the difficulties which ever have been, or ever can be raised in 
 regard to the fore-ordination or decree of God, concenter at last in one 
 single point, viz. , How can a creature be perfectly dependent, entirely 
 under the control and within the power of another, and yet be free ? 
 And all the difficulty here, comes at last upon the hoiv ; it lies not in 
 the fact ; for the fact that such is the case, is put beyond all doubt by 
 the testimony of Scripture and experience. 
 
 Now as this how lies equally in the way of all who admit the exist- 
 ence of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator — I say equally in the way 
 of all such, for this is plainly the case unless they are fatalists — and 
 since, moreover, this question is plainly beyond the boundaries of hu- 
 man knowledge ; it does not seem to me reasonable to declaim against 
 those who admit that the doctrine of divine foreknowledge implies of 
 course divine purpose ; and that divine purpose must have been always 
 the same, inasmuch as God is immutable, " the same yesterday, to day, 
 and forever." At any rate, no arguments of an a prion nature can 
 serve to set aside the plain, direct, inevitable meaning of the passage in 
 Rom. 8: 28, seq. Nor, if it presents a difficulty, can we free ourselves 
 from this, even if we reject revelation. A God almighty and omnis- 
 cient, and a creature frail and entirely dependent and yet free, always 
 and every where present the same paradox to the human understand- 
 ing. The Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Theist, are obliged to en- 
 counter it, in common with the Christian of strict creed and principles. 
 
EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. 9: 17. 569 
 
 EXCURSUS IX. 
 
 On Rom. 9: 17, ng uvxo tovto f'^ijynuu as. (p. 394.) 
 
 But what is the meaning of the entire assertion, the words of which 
 we have thus considered? Does it mean, that God did actively, and 
 bj his immediate influence on the heart or mind of Pharaoh, excite him or 
 rouse him up to do evil, i. e. to continue ohstinate and rebellious against 
 himself? Or, that God had excited or roused him up, hy the various 
 plagues sent on him and his people, so that his opposition to letting the 
 people of Israel go, had hecome more active and bitter ? The first of 
 these meanings is the one which some writers have ventured to give; or, 
 at least, they say what seems to imply it. E. g. Augustine, (De Gratia et 
 lib. Arbit. c. 21): His et talibus testimoniis Scripturarum satis manifesta- 
 tur operari Deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluptates 
 quocumque voluerit, sive ad bona pro sua misericordia, sive ad mala pro 
 mentis eorum, etc. So Gomar: "Not unjustly does God condemn 
 the sinner; for he has ordained the means of condemnation [i. e. sin] ; 
 so that he condemns no one, without having first plunged him into sin," 
 Halesii Opp., ed. Mosheim, p. 753. Augustine says, more expressly and 
 fully than above, on the verse before us : Excitavi te ut contumacius 
 resisteres, non tantum permittendo, sed multa etiam tarn intus quam 
 /oris operando. So Anselm : Cum mains esses, prodigiis quasi sopitum 
 excitavi, ut in malitia persisteres atque delerior fieres. After quoting this 
 passage, Tholuck exclaims : " Is it God or the devil, who speaks thus ?" 
 And on the other passages just quoted he says : " Can God say thus to 
 men ? [viz. what these comments represent him as saying] ; then wo to 
 us! for we are mere dwarfs in the hands of an irresistible Cyclops, cre- 
 ated aud dashed in pieces at his pleasure." And again : " Then have 
 Satan and God exchanged offices. God goeth about as a roaring lion, 
 seeking whom he may devour ; and Satan exults that the Almighty, 
 from whose hand none can escape, places at his disposal the victims of 
 his vengeance." He then goes on to say, that this is just what panthe- 
 ism would exult in, viz. that pantheism which abolishes all distinction 
 between good and evil. 
 
 These expressions, it must be admitted, bear very hardly on such 
 men as Augustine, Anselm, Calvin. Beza, P. Martyr, Paraeus, Gomar, 
 and many others. Yet so much we must concede, viz., that the Scrip- 
 tures not only teach us God's entire abhorrence of sin, and the freedom 
 of man in sinning, but they do also, in so many words, assert that "God 
 cannot be tempted with evil, neither ternpteth he any man ; but every 
 man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed," 
 James 1 : 13, 14. With this direct and unequivocal assertion of an 
 apostle before our eyes, an assertion bearing on the specific point of in- 
 ternal excitement to do evil, how can we take the position of the writers 
 above named, and maintain that God operated directly on the heart and 
 mind of Pharaoh, in order to harden him and make him more desperate ? 
 
 God does not permit wicked men to sav truly that such is the case, 
 T9 
 
570 EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. 9: 17. 
 
 in respect to his dealings with them. Thus he says to the Jews : " Will 
 ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn 
 incense to Baal, and walk alter other gods whom ye know not ; and 
 come and stand before me in this house .... and say : We are delivered 
 [;|3b3E3j ice are reserved] to do all these abominations?" Jer. 7: 9, 10. 
 Nay, the Scripture directly decides, that there may be a " determinate 
 counsel and foreknowledge of God" respecting a thing which is exceed- 
 ingly sinful, and yet that those who are agents in bringing it about may 
 be altogether voluntary and guilty, Acts 2: 23. Guilty or wicked they 
 could not be, unless they were voluntary agents. 
 
 But having advanced thus far, we must go still farther in order to 
 obtain satisfaction as to the point in question. This can be obtained, 
 only by a considerate and extensive survey of the usus loquendi in the 
 Scriptures, with reference to God as the author of all things. There is 
 a sense, in which he is the author of all things, yea of all actions. He 
 has created all things. Under his control and by his direction and 
 power, they come into existence. None but atheists will deny this. He 
 continues to hold them all under his control, i. e. he governs the uni- 
 verse ; and in him "we live and move and have our being." He "directs 
 all things after the counsel of his own will;" i. e. he so guide's and controls 
 all things, all events, all creatures and their actions, as finally to accom- 
 plish his own blessed and glorious purposes, both of mercy and of justice. 
 
 The moment we admit him to be an omniscient and omnipotent God, 
 that moment we admit that he must have foreseen from eternity all the 
 actions of his creatures, all their thoughts and affections and wishes and 
 desires. We cannot deny, that, foreseeing all these with all their con- 
 sequences, he brought them into being, and placed them (tor surely it 
 was he who ordered their lot) in circumstances, where he kneiv they 
 would act as he had foreseen they would. It is impossible to deny 
 this, without denying the omniscience of God, and his immutability. 
 
 Now the Scripture most evidently admits and inculcates all these 
 truths. Such being the fact, there is plainly a sense in which all things 
 and events may be ascribed to God. He forekneiv them ; and his cre- 
 ating and governing and controlling power renders it certain that they 
 will come to pass ; for how could he foreknow what is uncertain 1 ? Ac- 
 cordingly, the Bible declares that "we live and move and have our 
 being in God." Nay it goes farther than this ; however we may stum- 
 ble at the expressions, or revolt at the sentiment. It ascribes evil, yea 
 moral evil, to God in some sense or other ; an assertion which must not 
 be hazarded without, proof, and which shall be supported by an over- 
 whelming mass of examples. Let the reader now turn to the following 
 passages and attentively consider them; viz. 2 Sam. 12: 11. 16: 10. 1 K. 
 22: 22. Josh. 11: 20. Ps. 105: 25. 1 K. 11: 23. 2 Sam. 24: 1. Let him 
 next examine the texts, which declare that God hardened the heart 
 of one and another ; e. g. of Pharaoh, Ex. 7: 13. 9: 12. 10: 1, 20, 27. 11: 
 10. 14: 8. Rom. 9: 18; of Sihon king of the Amorites, Deut. 2: 30; of 
 the Israelites, Is. 63: 17. John 12: 40. Who can read such texts as 
 these, and so many, and yet aver that the Scripture teaches us, that there 
 is no sense in which it is true, that God hardens the hearts of men ? 
 
EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. 9: 17. 571 
 
 But the great question yet remains. Does God do this in such a 
 way, i. e. is he so concerned in it, and only so concerned, that man's free 
 agency is still left entire, and so that all the moral hlame of his sins is 
 to be attributed solely to him ? This question we may answer in the 
 affirmative. The Bible does indeed speak of God as hardening the 
 hearts of men, in some sense or other. In what sense, is not specifi- 
 cally said, although it is very plainly implied. That he does this in the 
 way of direct influence on the heart or mind, seems to be unequivocally 
 denied in James 1: 13, 14. That what we arc allowed to attribute to 
 him, in respect to the hardening of the heart, can not be any thing 
 which takes away the criminality and guilt of men, nor any thing which 
 in any measure abridges the entire freedom of their own actions, is clear 
 from the fact, that the sacred writers often and every ivhere ascribe the 
 hardening of the heart to the wicked themselves. So, expressly, in res- 
 pect to Pharaoh, Ex. 8: 15, 32. 9 : 34. 1 Sam. 6: 6 ; in respect to oth- 
 ers, 2 Chron. 3(5: 13. Ps. 95: 8. Prov. 28: 14. Job 9: 4; and so of hard- 
 ening the neck, which for substance has the same meaning, 2 K. 17: 14. 
 Jer. 7: 26. 19: 15. Prov. 29: 1. Neh. 9: 1(3, 17, 29. In other expres- 
 sions, the passive voice only is made use of, without designating any 
 agent ; e. g. Ex. 7: 22. 8: 19." 9: 7, 35, et alibi. 
 
 With these texts may be compared Is. 6: 10, where the prophet is 
 bid to go and make the heart of the people, stupid, their ears heavy, and to 
 close up their eyes. Read now the comments on this, in Matt. 13: 15. 
 Mark 4: 12. John 12: 40. Acts 28: 26, 27. A comparison of these is 
 replete with instruction ; for in Is. 6: 10 the prophet is represented as 
 hardening the Jews, because he declares to them the divine word, and 
 they, hearing and rejecting it, become more hardened. In John 12: 40, 
 God is represented as hardening their heart, (which seems also to be im- 
 plied in Mark 4: 12) : while in Matt. 13: 15 and Acts 28: 26, 27, the 
 plain and necessary implication is, that the Jews hardened their own 
 hearts. Here then is one and the same case, which is represented in 
 three different ways. (1) The prophet hardens the Jews. (2) God does 
 the same thing. (3) The Jewish people do it themselves. Is all this 
 true ; or is one part contradictory to another? We may safely answer: 
 It is all true. The prophet is said to harden the hearts of the Jews, 
 merely because he is the instrument of delivering messages to them ; 
 while they, in consequence of abusing these, become more hardened 
 and guilty. God hardens their hearts, in that by his providence he 
 sustains them in life, upholds the use of all their powers, causes the 
 prophets to warn and reprove them, and places them in circumstances 
 where they must receive these warnings and reproofs. Under this ar- 
 rangement of his providence, they become more hardened and wicked. 
 In this sense, and in this only, do the Scriptures seem to affirm that he 
 is concerned with the hardening of men's hearts. 
 
 The Jews hardened their own hearts, inasmuch as they freely and 
 voluntarily abused all the blessings and privileges which the providence 
 and mercy of God had bestowed upon them, and thus became more 
 stupid and corrupt. 
 
 Surely no one will say, that the prophet (Is. 6 : 10) hardens the 
 
572 EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. 9: 17. 
 
 hearts of the Jews, by direct and positive influence upon them. It is 
 not necessary, then, when it is declared that God hardened the heart of 
 Pharaoh, to draw the conclusion that this was done by direct and positive 
 influence. That it is not necessary, can be made clear from the follow- 
 ing illustration of Scripture usage. In 2 Sam. 24: 1 it is said : The Lord 
 moved r (np^"i) David to go and number Israel, etc.; which, under the 
 circumstances then existing and with the views that David had, was a 
 great sin in the sight of heaven, and was punished by a signal judgment 
 of God. Here observe, that np'1 is .applied directly to Jehovah, with- 
 out any intimation of a secondary agent or instrument; and so one might 
 argue, (as some do in regard to other expressions of the like nature in 
 the Scriptures), that God is here asserted to be the direct exciting cause, 
 which occasioned David to number Israel, etc. Yet in 1 Chron. 21: 1, 
 the very same thing is ascribed to Satan : And Satan moved (np'i) Da- 
 vid to go and number Israel, etc. Observe that the very same verb is 
 employed in the second case, as in the first. Now as Satan is the 
 tempter of men to sin, and as " God tempteth no man," we must say : 
 Here is a clear case, in which that is ascribed to God, which he permits 
 or suffers to be brought about under his superintendence or government 
 of the universe, by agents of an inferior character. This seems, at least, 
 to be a clear case ; and it is one which has a very important bearing on 
 the subject before us. 
 
 It is true, that God roused up Pharaoh, so that he was the occasion 
 of the divine power and glory being displayed in all the land of Egypt. 
 But was this done by direct and immediate operation in hardening his 
 heart ; or was it through the signs and wonders, which the power and 
 providence of God performed before the eyes and in the country of this 
 contumacious monarch ? In the latter way, we may safely answer ; 
 inasmuch as Pharaoh and others are said, in the Scriptures, to harden 
 their own hearts. There was another agency here, then, besides that of 
 Jehovah ; just as in the case stated above. God in his providence did 
 send Moses and Aaron with a commission to make demands on the 
 king of Egypt in behalf of the oppressed Hebrews ; he sent plagues 
 upon Egypt by his miraculous power ; and all these things under 
 the arrangements of his providence, being brought to act upon Pha- 
 raoh, he became worse and worse. The Lord hardened his heart, 
 because the Lord was the author of commands and messages and mira- 
 cles, which were the occasion of Pharaoh's hardening his own heart. In 
 just such a way, Paul says that our si?iful passions are by the law, tm nu- 
 &)'}paTu twc uuuqtiojv t« 8iu roil vofiov, Rom. 7: 5 ; which he afterwards 
 explains by saying, i\ yuo auaqxlu ua>0Qp,r t v laftoio-u x.t.L, Rom. 7:11. 
 
 That God was the author of the commands and messages delivered 
 by Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, is clear ; that he was the author of 
 the judgments inflicted on the land of Egypt, is clear; that he knew 
 what effect these would produce on the heart of Pharaoh, is equally 
 certain ; and that he designed to turn all this into ultimate good, and 
 to glorify himself, the Bihle often asserts or implies. There is no dif- 
 ficulty then in saying, with reference to all this, and in the sense stated 
 above, that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, or that he roused him up, viz. 
 
EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. 9: 17. 573 
 
 by his messages ami the miracles which he wrought. It is a clear case, 
 that the active and bitter indignation and contumacy of Pharaoh was 
 greatly increased or excited by these doings of divine providence ; and 
 therefore the sentiment of our text remains true ; while, at the same 
 time, God is not the author of Pharaoh's sin, (in the common sense of 
 iliis expression), any more than he is the author of our sin, because he 
 lias given us powers and faculties by which we may sin, and with full 
 knowledge that we should sin, has placed us in a world where we are of 
 course surrounded by temptations and enticements to sin. After all 
 this, we are free agents, we sin voluntarily, and we are therefore accoun- 
 table for it; all which was equally true of Pharaoh. 
 
 To all that has now been said to illustrate and vindicate the true 
 6ense of i$tjytiou, it may be added, that the conclusion drawn by the 
 apostle in v. 18, clearly implies that he gave such a sense to vs. 16, 
 17 as has been given above : " Therefore he hath mercy on whom he 
 will, and ivhom he will he hardcneth." Now if i^ysiga does not imply 
 some kind of agency, something done on the part of God which has a 
 connection with the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, how cau the apostle 
 deduce the conclusion in v. 18 from the assertion in v. 17? This con- 
 sideration alone seems fully and finally to decide the point, in regard to 
 the exegesis put upon i^tjystga by Tholuck, who follows the disri]Qij&i]g 
 of the Seventy, and construes it of preserving; Pharaoh, i. e. upholding 
 him in life, during the continuance of the plagues in Egypt. Six of 
 these had already been inflicted, when the words in verse 17 were spok- 
 en. Tholuck says, that Pharaoh might have easily been taken off by 
 these, and therefore igqysiga relates, as he maintains, to Pharaoh's having 
 been preserved in life. And in the same way many others have con- 
 strued the word i^rjyeiou. But this will hardly satisfy the demands of 
 critical exegesis. The six plagues already inflicted, were, the turning 
 of the waters of the Nile into blood, Ex.7: 14, seq. ; the sending of the 
 frogs, Ex. 8: 1, seq.; of the lice, Ex. 8: 1G, seq. ; of the flies, Ex. 8: 20, 
 seq. ; the murrain of beasts, Ex. 9: 1, seq. ; and the plague of boils and 
 blains, Ex. 9: 8, seq. Now as all these plagues were temporary ; and as 
 we have no intimation in the sacred records, that they occasioned the 
 loss of human life among the Egyptians ; so there seems to be no spe- 
 cial reason, for putting this sense on n^Ptt&Srtj viz., I have preserved thee or 
 kept thee alive. 
 
 And then, if this be adopted, how does the conclusion of the apostle 
 in v. 18 follow, viz. ov 8s &£Xfi, o-y.hjQivsi? Does preserving in life, or 
 making one to keep his standing, necessarily import a to axlrjQvvHV or 
 o-xb'joufut ? I am altogether unable to see, how Paul could deduce such 
 a conclusion from such premises. 
 
 I must therefore accede to what seems to be the plain and evident 
 meaning of £%r\ysiqa, viz. that God in his providence did so direct things, 
 viz. the warnings to Pharaoh, the commands addressed to him, and the 
 signs and wonders in his land, that he was excited to more vehement 
 resistance and contumely, which ended in his signal overthrow and de- 
 struction. In all this, Pharaoh was entirely voluntary and free. The 
 case differs not, in principle, from what happens every day. As has 
 been before remarked, God creates men ; he endows them with powers 
 
574 EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. 9: 17. 
 
 and faculties which enable them to sin ; and places them in a world 
 surrounded by temptation ; aud all this, knowing certainly that they will 
 sin. Every one must agree to this. But are not men free agents still ? 
 Do they not sin voluntarily ? Does not the blame of this attach entire- 
 ly to themselves ? Can any part of it be justly charged upon God ? 
 Surely not ; and if not, then there is a sense in which he may say, that 
 he roused up Pharaoh, in order that he might shew forth his power and glory 
 in all the earth ; and this, without making himself the proper author of 
 sin. In one sense, God does all that takes place under his providence 
 and government of the world ; for he preserves all creatures, and all worlds, 
 and gives them all their powers, faculties, and opportunities of action. 
 In another sense, God is not the author of sin : " God tempteth no man." 
 Man is the proper author of his own sin ; "every man is tempted, when 
 " he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed to sin." In one sense, 
 God hath made all things for himslf, yea, the wicked for the day of evil" 
 Prov. 16: 4 ; and in the like sense he roused up Pharaoh. So far as he 
 is concerned with all this, it is in a way that is perfectly consistent with 
 the freedom of men in action ; and all his designs are, to bring good 
 out of evil, and thus to promote the glory of his own name ; as is inti- 
 mated in the verse before us. 
 
 All the difficulty, which is involved in these declarations in their full 
 extent, is involved in the principle (which even Theism admits) that 
 God is omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable. The Deist has, in reality, 
 the very same difficulties to cope with here, so far as the free agency 
 and the sinfulness of men are concerned, as the evangelical Christian. 
 The nodus of the whole, is our ignorance of the manner in which free 
 agency and entire dependence, foreknowledge and voluntary action, con- 
 sist together and are harmonized. But as fact only is known to us, viz. 
 the fact that they do coexist ; and as the manner of their coexistence or 
 consistency is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge ; so I do not 
 see how those, who are stumbled at the subject under consideration, can 
 ever satisfy themselves so long as they insist on first knowing the man- 
 ner of the consistency, before they admit the fact. 
 
 In the apostle's time, the very same objection was made to his doc- 
 trine, which has been made ever since, and is still every day repeated. 
 So the verses in the sequel plainly shew us. They show, moreover, 
 that the apostle was understood in the same way, as his words seem 
 obviously to mean. If not, what ground was there for the objection 
 which is raised. 
 
 The difficulty of this subject, the manner in which it has so often 
 been misunderstood and abused, and a wish to contribute, if possible, 
 something to remove some of its perplexities from the minds of readers 
 who may peruse these pages, are my apology for dwelling so long upon 
 it. That there are difficulties still, which remain unexplained, and 
 which ever must remain so, while " we know in part," i. e. while we 
 continue in the present world, I do not feel disposed at all to deny. 
 But this is confessedly the case, in regard to a multitude of other things, 
 which all admit without hesitation ; and this too, even when the modus 
 of them remains utterly inexplicable. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 [The object of this Appendix is, to present a brief view of the most distinguished, commentator!), 
 ancient and modem, upon the epistle to the Romans.] 
 
 Origen (f253*), Comm. in Ep. ad Rom., in Vol. IV. ed. de la 
 Rue ; extant only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, by whom it 
 was abridged in some places, and enlarged in others. Like all of 
 Origen's expositions, it contains not a little that is fanciful or arbitra- 
 ry ; but it also contains some good hints. 
 
 Chrysostom (1407), Homil. XXXII. in Ep. ad Rom., Vol/ IX. 
 ed. Montf. ; distinguished by much sound interpretation, simplicity 
 of representation, elegance of language, and a glowing ardor of piety. 
 The master-piece of ancient commentary. 
 
 Augustine (t430), Inchoata Expos. Ep. ad Rom., also Expos, 
 quarundam Proposit. ex Ep. ad Rom., in Vol. II. Opp., ed. Benedict. ; 
 dogmatic rather than philological, yet not without acuteness. 
 
 Theodoret (f circa 450) ; whose commentary is contained in Vol. 
 III., ed. Halle. His interpretations are, for the most part, brief, plain, 
 grammatical, and direct. But they are not always well studied, nor very 
 weighty. He is inferior to Chrysostom, in his remarks on this epistle. 
 
 Oecumenius (cent. 10), Comm. in Ep. Pauli, Paris. 1631 ; 
 contains excerpts from Chrysostom, Photius, Basil, etc., with remarks 
 of his own. They are highly valued by critics. 
 
 Theophylact (cent. 1 1 ), Comm. in Ep. Pauli, Lond. 1630; con- 
 tains an abridgement of Chrysostom, which is very acceptable to the 
 beginner in the reading of Greek commentary ; even more so than 
 the original, as it is exceedingly easy and plain. 
 
 Besides these, there is a Comm. of Pelagius, printed in Hieron. 
 Opp., Tom. V. ed. Mart., abridged and augmented by Cassiodorus, 
 so that what is genuine can no longer be certainly ascertained. Also 
 Hilary (commonly named Ambrosiaster) published a Comm. on the 13 
 Epist. of Paul. It is of little value. Whothis Hilary was, is unknown. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas (14274), Comm. in Ep. Pauli, Ant. 1591 ; con- 
 tains some very acute theological commentary ; philological, is not 
 to be expected from him. 
 
 Erasmus (tl536), Paraphrasis in Ep. ad Rom., in Crit. Sac. Tom. 
 VII. ; fine Latin, and many good remarks. The main object of the 
 epistle he does not seem to have rightly apprehended. 
 
 Calvin, Comm. etc., in Opp., Tom. VII. ; fundamental investiga- 
 tion of the logic and course of thought contained in the epistle ; very 
 little verbal criticism. Many a difficulty is solved, without any ap- 
 pearance of effort, or any show of learning. Calvin is by far the most 
 distinguished of all the commentators of his times. 
 
 Melancthon and Zuingle wrote Scholia merely, on the Ep. to the 
 
 * The obelisk (t) means, obiit. 
 
576 APPENDIX. 
 
 Romans. Both exhibit good hints, but not much philology. Their 
 Notes are contained in their respective Works. 
 
 Beza (tl605), Nov. Test., 1598. His Notes on Rom. are valua- 
 ble in a grammatical and philological point of view. He was an excel- 
 lent Greek scholar ; and his notes are almost always worth consulting. 
 
 Bucer (t 1551), Metaphrases et Enarrationes Ep. Pauli, 1536; dis- 
 tinguished for natural and artless interpretation, and a good talent 
 for this department of labour. 
 
 Grotius (tl645), Comm. in Opp.; also separately. Par. 1644, 2 Vol. 
 Remarks philological, grammatical, historical, antiquarian, etc., distin- 
 guish all the exegetical works of Grotius, beyond those of any writer be- 
 fore him, or in his day. " The shell he takes off with wonderful dex- 
 terity ; but the nut he seldom tastes, and still more seldom relishes." 
 
 Hunnius, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, Baldwin, Cocceius, Seb. 
 Schmidt, Limborch, S. J. Baumgarten, J. B. Carpzov, Wolf, Heu- 
 mann, C. Schmid, have all written commentaries, more or less, on the 
 Ep. to the Romans. Some good things may be found in most of them ; 
 but hardly enough to repay the trouble of reading, at the present day. 
 
 In the Critici Sacri (Amstelod.), are contained the Comm. of Val- 
 la, Revius, Erasmus, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Zegerus, Drusius, 
 Casaubonus, Gaultrerius, Cameronius, Jac. and Ludov. Capellus, and 
 Grotius. Of these, Drusius, Erasmus, Clarius, Grotius, Cameronius, 
 and J. Capellus, are especially worth consulting. 
 
 J. A. Turretin (tl?37), Praelectiones in Ep. ad Romanos, (in Opp.) ; 
 of distinguished exegetical talent; for the most part, his interpreta- 
 tion is simple and natural, and adorned with some admirable referen- 
 ces to the classics. A truly multum in. parvo book. 
 
 Koppe (f 1791), in Novo Test. Koppiano. The manner of the in- 
 terpretation is good, being simple and philological. But Koppe had 
 not deeply studied the epistle; nor does he seem to have imbibed the 
 true spirit of it. 
 
 Besides the commentators in form, already named, there are sev- 
 eral important subsidiary works ; e. g. Schottgen, Horae Talmudicae, 
 Tom. II. Eisner, Observatt. Sacrae, Tom. II. Kypke, Observatt. Sac. 
 Tom. II. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paulina. Raphe], Annott. Philol. in 
 N. Test, ex Xenophonte, etc., Vol. II. Palairet, Observ. Philol. Crit. 
 in N. Test. Krebs, Observat. e Josepho. Lbsner, Observat. e Philone. 
 Miinthe, Observ. e Diodoro. Rambach, Introduct. histor. theol. in Ep. 
 Pauli ad Romanos. 
 
 The most recent works on the epistle to the Romans, from the 
 continent of Europe, are those of Flatt and Tholuck ; both of them 
 excellent ; but especially the latter. Tholuck has much the advantage 
 as a philologist. The latest work, by W. Benecke, has not yet come 
 to hand. 
 
 The English works on the epistle to the Romans, are too well 
 known to need recommending here. Henry, Whitby, Doddridge, 
 Guise, John Taylor, Macknight, Scott, A. Clark, and many oth- 
 ers, have written more or less upon this epistle. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 2^5 
 
HOME USE 
 
 i-ye» ;-, n , ,, ■ ; "- by cailing 642-34fw 
 nene#a?s an ■•/ bringing th« bonkc *« .^ 
 
 — ".•cp.iur 10 due date 
 
 F ° RM Na DD *' «-■ ^KS^ 
 
 @s 
 
0-C BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 C0OS34?bS7