"/give thefe Books
f for Vie fail ¦ Cfdrkjjll

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

New and Cheaper Edition.

An Introduction to the Study of
The Acts of the Apostles.
BY THE
REV. J. M. STIFLER, D.D.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Crozer Theotcgical
Seminary.
Teachers' Edition, J2mo, doth, net, 75c
(Also Crown 8vot $1.25.)

" The style is unusually clear, concise, and convincing;
the author combines reverence of spirit with originality
of apprehension and of statement; and one can hardly
read his two-page introduction without wishing to follow
him farther. So doing, the reader will discover that the
volume is a distinct addition to the list of American
works on New Testament exegesis."-^Tfte Sunday School
Times. "We consider this a most valuable addition to the
Biblical literature of the day, and hope that thousands
of our Sunday-school teachers will own the volume."—
The Golden Rule.
" For general readers we cannot speak too highly of
this book. It marks the great events of this first period
subsequent to the death and resurrection of Christ with
masterly simplicity and good sense, and performs the
work of such an introduction by leaving the outlines
and great features of the history strongly impressed on
the student's mind."— 17*6 Independent.
" There are room and use for such a hook as Professor
Stifler's. It is phrased in simple, untechnical terms,
and will be a genuine aid to Biblical students."— The
Congregationalist. " So free is he from a controversial spirit, that one
might read the book through without discovering the
ecclesiastical status of the author." — The Church
Standard. "Dr. Stifler reviews the hook with wary diligence and
wakeful judgment, and tells what he finds m it, and
what, in his view, the author proposed to do." — The
Watchman. 
Postpaid on receipt of price.
Fleming H. Revell Company
.New York: 112 Fifth Ave. Chicago: 63 Washington St.
TOKOSTO: 1*0 and U2 Yonge St.

THE

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

H Commentary
LOGICAL AND HISTORICAL

BY

JAMES M. STIFLER, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN CROZER THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, CHESTER, PA.

New York Chicago Toronto
Fleming H. Revell Company
Publishers of Evangelical Literature

Copyright, 1897, by
Fleming H. Revell Company

THE NEW YORK TYPE-SETTING COMPANY
THE CAXTON PRESS

CONTENTS

Preface
Introduction

i. Origin of the Roman Church.
2. Time and Place oi Writing.
3. Authenticity and Genuineness.
4. Occasion and Object.
5. Peculiarities of the Epistle.
CHAPTER I
The Outlook  15
CHAPTER II
The Jews Equally Guilty with the Gentiles . . -30
CHAPTER III
The Argument on Sin Concluded (Verses 1-20), and the
Second Main Division of the Epistle — Righteousness
— Begun (Verses 21-31)  45
CHAPTER IV
Righteousness by Faith in Harmony with the Old Testa
ment Scriptures . .  69

vi CONTENTS

PAGE
CHAPTER V
Justification by Faith Secures the Final Salvation of
Believers  87

CHAPTER VI
Justification by Faith does not Favor a Sinful Course
of Life  106

CHAPTER VII
The Law Cannot Sanctify  122
CHAPTER VIII
In Christ Jesus a Godly Life is Insured by the Holy
Spirit  140
CHAPTERS IX-XI
The Theodicy— God's Present Dealing with the Jews . 161
CHAPTER IX
Israel's Rejection Considered  165
CHAPTER X
Israel's Failure their own Fault  182
CHAPTER XI
Israel's Failure not Complete  193
CHAPTER XII
Religious Duties  217
CHAPTER XIII
Civil Duties of Believers ....... 229

CONTENTS vii
PAGE
CHAPTER XIV
Fraternal Duties in Matters of Conscience . . . 238
CHAPTER XV
Discussion of Fraternal Duties Concluded, and Personal
Matters  249
CHAPTER XVI
Love Within the Church  261

PREFACE

THIS book has no other aim than to make the somewhat difficult Epis
tle to the Romans better understood — to report to the reader what the
apostle has written. It is not put forth in the interest of any theological
system ; it has no theory of any kind to advocate and no point to make,
except by dispassionate study to ascertain the meaning of Paul's language.
The commentator, even more than the preacher of the gospel, is under
solemn obligation not to bear false witness against the sacred penman, not
to misinterpret him, not to overlay his thought with personal views ; the
commentator's work is to follow down the stream of the inspired text, to
measure its width and if possible its depth, but not to dig new channels
for it and not to divert its flow to water his own garden.
This book is not a hasty product, but the result of many years of labor.
The author has had the privilege and pleasure of guiding more than
twenty classes of theological students through the Epistle to the Romans,
fourteen of these using the original text. The instruction has not been
given by means of lectures read or dictated by the teacher. Each word
and each idea in the epistle have been discussed with the class, every
member of which had the utmost liberty to suggest his difficulty, to ask
questions, to oppose, to deny, or to call up the contrary view of any com
mentator. This book is the outcome of these years of study and discus
sion. While the very words written by the apostle have been considered and
weighed one by one, the result is not presented in that form, nor with any
but the very least reference to the Greek. There is a large class of men,
educated men, who, after all, can read a commentary with most satisfaction
and profit in English. This book is especially designed for them. The
voluminous works of Meyer and of Godet, even when translated, of Alford,
of Sanday and Headlam, and of others, are serviceable only to those
having a fair knowledge of Greek. Of the commentaries that have ap
peared since the Reformation, Sanday and Headlam enumerate thirty-
five, very few of which can be used by any but scholars. They have their
place, and are invaluable in the cloisters of the erudite. But accurate and
even expert knowledge can be conveyed in vernacular speech, as is made
very apparent in the excellent commentaries of J. A. Beet, of H. G. C
Moule, of M. B. Riddle,— the latter not included in Sanday and Headlam's
list,— and of E. H. Gifford in the " Speaker's Commentary." There is
room for more such, in which dry and arbitrary technicalities are not ex-

X PREFACE
hibited, in which only the house appears and not the tools, the noise, the
dust, and the process of erection. To the commentators above mentioned
and to others the author is indebted, and in the body of this work at the
appropriate place due credit has been given, Sanday and Headlam being
referred to by the first of the two names only. The King James version
is used as the basis of this commentary, because it is the one still more
commonly read, and also because it is less presumptuous to criticize it than
the other. But the Revised Version is constantly cited, and its better
renderings are always given.
In preparing this book two things have been kept steadily in view.
First, Paul's point of view. A commentary cannot be called strictly his
torical unless its exposition is vitally connected with the thought of the
times in which the text was written. It is the theologie current and the
religious questions of Paul's day, and not those of the present or of any
other day, that must furnish the key to the epistle. He wrote in the face
of that imposing system of biblical interpretation that claimed Moses for
its foundation, that found defenders in every synagogue from Jerusalem
to Rome, and that was sure that it knew the way of fellowship with God.
The only orthodox people were the sons of Israel, who must not be judged
alone by their narrow Pharisaism ; they were sure that by their law they
were the sole custodians of the truth of God. The rabbi was not merely
zealous, he was often able. In every line that Paul wrote he had Judaism
in mind. The historic attitude of the epistle has been one of the guiding
lines in preparing this commentary.
The other' and second point constantly aimed at is to give the course of
thought without a break. Commenting in the strict sense of the term has
not been thought of, except in so far as it was required to show the logical
connection. As the language of the epistle is so compact, not a little
verbal exposition was found necessary ; but it has been sought to make it
strictly subsidiary to that which is of prime importance — the apostle's ar
gument. He used words not for their sake, but for the sake of what he
had to say, and in the latter sense they have been studied.
To Dr. Henry G. Weston, who has made the New Testament a daily
study for more than half a century, and whose knowledge of it is as pro
found as it is comprehensive, I am greatly indebted ; for while he is not
responsible for the views of this commentary, he has kindly read the proof-
sheets while the book was going through the press, made suggestions, and
permitted the use of his name on this page. James M. Stifler.
Crozer Seminary, Chester, Pa.,
January, 1897.

INTRODUCTION

i. The origin of the Roman church is historically obscure.
There is no record, and little from which a record can be constructed, either
of the date of its beginning or of the agent or agents of its founding.
When the Epistle to the Romans was written the church had already a
world-wide reputation (i. 8). But little can be inferred from this as to
the length of time which the church had already existed. In five years it
might have become known ' ' throughout the whole world. " The Thessa-
lonian church in less than a year after Paul's first visit was widely known ;
for Paul writes them from Corinth (a.d. 52 or 53) : " In every place your
faith to Godward is spread abroad ; so that we need not to speak anything "
(1 Thess. i. 8). That the Roman church was not much if any older than
the earlier Gentile churches is probable. It was a Gentile church. It is
not easy to conceive how such a one could have come into existence before
the church in Antioch in Syria (Acts xi. 19-21), many years after Pente
cost. And this first Gentile church did not get its authority to be strictly
such until after the council in Jerusalem (a.d. 50). The matter and the
spirit of the Epistle to the Romans show that the latter were thoroughly
settled on the question of their right to be just what they were— a Gentile
church, grounded on faith in Christ. Now who made them such? Who
was qualified to teach them that in Christ there was no distinction between
Jew and Gentile, a doctrine that was not promulgated before Peter's visit
to the household of Cornelius (Acts x.), and that did not gain authoritative
recognition until a " good while " (Acts xv.) afterward? It seems almost
necessary to believe that the Roman church was founded by teachers from
some of the Gentile centers, and that, too, after such teachers had come
to clear vision of the intent of the gospel for Gentiles as such, and that
they could be saved as Gentiles. The Gentile character of the church is
now pretty generally admitted, and this admission makes necessary the
other, that its founders must have been men of Paul's way of presenting
the gospel.
This disposes of two theories in reference to the establishment of the
gospel in the imperial city. First, it could not have been carried thither
by the " strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes " (Acts ii. 10), who
were present at Pentecost. How could these men have founded a Gentile
church? The door to the heathen was not opened until years after the
descent of the Spirit. It would be a much better guess to say that some
from the household of Cornelius (Acts x.) carried to Rome the news of a
Saviour for the Gentiles.

xii INTRODUCTION
Again, there is no reason for saying that Peter evangelized the Romans.
He was not the apostle to the uncircumcision (Gal. ii. 7> 8). The senti
ment that guided Paul in choosing his fields of labor (xv. 20) precludes the
belief that Peter had been at Rome before him. " It is equally clear,"
says Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, " that no other apostle was the founder." How
the seed came to be dropped that sprang up in this Roman church, or
from whose hands, remains in obscurity ; but it is safe to say that it was
the gospel as Paul preached it that gave the Romans their first knowledge
of Christ. It is equally safe to say that that gospel could not have been
preached until some years after Pentecost — not until it was formulated.
The " many years " mentioned by Paul in xv. 23 need not mean more than
eight or ten (see Acts xxiv. 17) ; and it is difficult on account of his his
tory, as given in the Book of Acts, to see how they can embrace any more.
2. The time and place of the writing of the epistle are well known.
The data are furnished in the Book of Acts and in the epistle itself and in
others written near the same time. Paley (" Horse Paulinee ") says the
time and place are found, " not from the epistle nor from anything de
clared concerning the time and place in any part of the epistle, but from a
comparison of circumstances referred to in the epistle, with the order of
events recorded in the Acts, and with references to the same circumstances,
though for quite different purposes, in the two epistles to the Corinthians."
This "comparison of circumstances" Paley draws out in an argument
that is unanswerable, not, indeed, for the actual, but for the relative time.
He states his conclusion thus : " We have these circumstances — each by
some hint in the passage in which it is mentioned, or by the date of the
writing in which the passage occurs — fixed to a particular time; and we
have that time turning out upon examination to be in all the same, namely,
toward the close of St. Paul's second visit to the peninsula of Greece."
According to the system of chronology generally admitted now to be
correct, this " time" was the early spring of a.d. 58, and the place was
Corinth. In this second visit to Greece, Paul's third missionary tour, he
stayed three months at Corinth (Acts xx. 3). This must have been in the
spring, for when he was about to leave navigation was possible, and
though he was compelled to take the land route to Jerusalem, " through
Macedonia," he reached the latter country before the Passover (Acts xx.
6), and hoped " to be at' Jerusalem the day of Pentecost " (Acts xx. 16).
This gives us the season of the year to which the writing of the epistle
belongs, for it was penned just as he was leaving Corinth,—" But now I
go unto Jerusalem " (xv. 25), — in the month of January or February.
It is not the intention to attempt to demonstrate either the problem of
time and place or several others belonging to this Introduction. This
would be simply to repeat what may be found in every Bible diction
ary and in the numerous recent introductions to the Pauline epistles.
Furthermore, there is little need of proving what is nowhere seriously
disputed. What Lightfoot wrote about Romans more than a quarter of a
century ago is undisputed to-day: " The date of this epistle is fixed with
more absolute certainty and within narrower limits than that of any other
of St. Paul's epistles" (Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," article
" Romans "). He might have spoken with equal confidence about the
place. 3. The authenticity and genuineness of the epistle are both be-

INTRODUCTION xiii
yond doubt. No book in the New Testament is better attested. The ex
ternal testimony begins with Clement of Rome (a.d. 96), who is followed
by Ignatius (A.D. 115), Polycarp (a.d. 116), Marcion (a.d. 130),, the
Muratori canon (a.d. 170), and others, both friends and foes, to the num
ber of nineteen, before the end of the second century. Of the beginning
of the same century Sanday, in the Introduction to his commentary, page
lxxx., section 8, says: "Assuming, then, as we are entitled to do, that
the apostolic fathers represent the first quarter of the second century, we
find the Epistle to the Romans at that time widely read, treated as a stan
dard authority on apostolic teaching, and taking its place in a collection of
Pauline letters." Neither the heretic Marcion in that ancient time nor
the rationalist Baur in our day has been able to deny that Paul wrote this
epistle, and that we possess in its present form what the apostle wrote.
Such a denial has not been attempted until within the last ten or fifteen
years, when certain Dutch and German critics — Steck, Michelsen, Voelter,
and others — have made it. They ignore the undisputed testimony of the
apostolic fathers, and put nothing in its place but impossible theories
based on their own subjective views. Their criticism has hardly created
a ripple in the smooth current of clear testimony to the canonicity of the
epistle. Sanday, who examines some of these views and acknowledges
his indebtedness to Knowling's ' ' The Witness of the Epistles, " concludes :
" It has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which
will seem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating, so sub
jective and arbitrary is the whole criticism."
But Marcion, unequivocal in his witness to the genuineness of Romans,
assailed its integrity. He did not deny that Paul wrote the last two
chapters, but denied for some reason that they belonged to this epistle.
It was not until Baur's day and that of his followers that they were declared
spurious. From some cause they are not found in many cursive manu
scripts, the doxology (xvi. 25-27) being appended at the end of chapter
xiv. Baur's objections, somewhat plausible as to chapter xvi., are not formi
dable. The question is noticed in the body of this commentary at the head
of chapter x v. , and briefly in the notes on the last chapter. It remains to
say against the cursive manuscripts that all the great uncials, together with
the Syriac and Vulgate versions and all the Latin fathers, place the dox
ology just where it is found in our King James version. The tex'ual
critics, from Lachmann to Westcott and Hort, do the same ; so, too, Wey
mouth and the Canterbury revision. One of the objections to chapter
xvi., that Paul could not have known so many persons in Rome, is scarce
worth noticing. And lastly, Paley, in the same section quoted above, in
making eight points in favor of the genuineness of the epistle, finds most
of them in these two chapters. In proving the epistle he proves the
genuineness of these two chapters, and he does it with a lucidity and a
weight of logic that no subjective criticism can possibly overthrow, unless
a subjective objection is made to outweigh a solid argument.
4. The occasion AND object of the epistle are not clearly apparent
on its pages. These are not hard to find in some of the other Pauline let
ters. No one had come to Paul to report disorders and divisions at Rome
such as moved him to write to the Corinthians (1 Cor. i. 11), and he had
not received a letter of inquiry from Rome (1 Cor. vii. 1). The Romans

xiv INTRODUCTION
were neither divided nor disorderly. Their faith was world-wide in its
reputation (i. 8), and they were full of goodness (xv. 14). The Romans
were in no danger from Judaizing teachers as were the Galatians, so that
Paul, in sore apprehension, must write them not to abandon the liberty
in Christ (Gal. v. 1) for the bondage of the law. There is scarce a hint,
or but one hint, that the Romans were in any danger from false teachers
(xvi. 17-19). Again, as to the Romans, Paul need not send to know
their faith, as in the case of the Thessalonians (1 Thess. iii. 5), and to
exhort them to remain steadfast in the persecutions that had come upon
them, for the Romans were not persecuted when the epistle to them was
written. (a) The date (a.d. 58) and the place of writing (Corinth) being settled,
the occasion becomes apparent. Paul had long desired to see Rome, as
he declares twice in the epistle (i. 13 ; xv. 23) and once in Acts (xix. 21).
He was now at their very doors, but still could not make the intended
visit ; other work must be done first (xv. 25), and only " after that " could
he see Rome (Acts xix. 21). An explanation is also due the Romans for
his long-continued delay in coming to them (i. 9, 10 ; xv. 22). The next
best thing can be done. Phebe is about to make a journey to Rome, and
Paul will take this opportunity to write to the Roman church.
(6) In seeking the object of the epistle, the topics discussed, the con
tents, and the argument must be kept in view. The topics are sin, grace,
law, and brotherly love. There is but a word about the person of Christ ;
resurrection (see notes on i. 5, p. 18) is assumed; eschatology, as it ap
pears in other epistles, is wanting; the church as such is mentioned but
once in the epistle, and that almost at its close and incidentally (xvi. 23).
In its topics the epistle is far from comprehensive.
As to its contents, there are four grand divisions. After the salutation
(i. 1-7) and the introduction (i. 8-15), leading up to the theme of the
epistle (i. 16, 17), these follow: I. Sin (i. 18— iii. 20); 2. Righteousness
(iii. 21-viii.); 3. The Theodicy (ix.-xi.); 4. Christian Walk (xii.-xvi.).
The argument is readily discovered in the epistle. On the main points
there can be little difference of opinion among exegetes, and no serious
conflict in the details. The " Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle
to the Romans " (1893), by Canon H. P. Liddon, is minute and exhaus
tive. Sanday's analysis is, however, more practical, being, as it is, com
pact and clear. But in studying the object of the epistle minuteness is
not as necessary as clear and broad outline. We may follow, with some
changes, that of Professor M. W. Jacobus in his article (" Presbyterian
Quarterly," January, 1893), " Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans," a
discussion both comprehensive and satisfactory :
I. The first general division, viz., the dogmatic presentation of the gos
pel righteousness as opposed to the alleged law righteousness (i. 18— viii.
39), which division is subdivided into two parts :
(A) The necessity of the gospel righteousness (i. 18-iii. 20), which
necessity is evidenced by the impossibility of a law righteousness.
(a) On the part of the heathen (i. 18-32).
(t>) On the part of the Jew (ii. i-iii. 20).
Having reached this conclusion, the apostle is ready to give :
(B) The positive presentation of this gospel righteousness (iii. 21-viii.
39), arranged in the following order :

INTRODUCTION xv
(a) The historical fact of the provision of this gospel righteousness (iii.
21-26), that excludes all boasting (iii. 27-30).
(f) Its agreement with the Old Testament Scriptures (iii. 31-iv. 25).
(f) Its surety for the present and all the future (v. 1-21).
(d) Its result in the sanctification of the individual believer (vi. i-viii.
39)- (1) He is dead to sin (vi. 1-23).
(2) He is freed from the law as a means of sanctification (vii. 1-25).
(3) He has the power of the Spirit (viii. 1-39).
Then follows :
II. The second general division, viz., the presentation of the facts in
the case regarding Israel's present rejection (ix. I— xi. 36).
(a) God is righteous in rejecting, free in electing (ix. 1-33).
(b) Israel's responsibility in the rejection (x. 1-21).
(<r) God's gracious plan in his present dealing with Israel (xi. 1-36).
III. The epistle concludes with a presentation of the Christian conduct
flowing from gospel righteousness (xii. i-xv. 13), which presentation
subdivides as follows :
(a) Conduct as a member of the Christian body (xii. 1-21).
(1) In exercising special spiritual gifts (xii. 1-8).
(2) In the requirement of love (xii. 9-21).
(t>) Conduct as a subject of the state (xiii. 1-7).
(c) Conduct toward the other subjects of the state (xiii. 8-14).
(d) Conduct in questions of conscience (xiv. i-xv. 13).
That which remains (xv. 14-xvi. 27) is epistolary, like i. 1-17, and does
not belong directly to the argument.
Now to recall what Paul has not said in this epistle, and to observe the
trend and climax of his argument, must lead to the discovery of his main
design in writing. The theodicy is the striking peculiarity of the epistle.
The climax of the argument is the close of the eleventh chapter (verses
28-36), God's interaction between the two permanent divisions of man
kind, with a view to the future salvation of both. The theodicy is not an
episode; it is that toward which the argument moves from the start.
Paul begins (i. 2) with the assertion that the gospel accords with " the
Holy Scriptures." Beginning the third chapter, he declares (iii. 2) that
these "oracles" pertain peculiarly to the Jews. This assertion alone
made the theodicy necessary, and it was already sighted from this point.
The fourth chapter, which shows the agreement between lhe Old and
New Testament justification, seems at first sight to be strikingly like Gala
tians iii. But there is one marked difference. Galatians makes very clear
that Abraham is the father of the Gentiles ; the fourth chapter of Romans
insists on the other point, that he is also father of the Jews, which is not
found in Galatians except by implication. In Romans Paul from first to
last preserves an even balance between Jew and Gentile ; they are sinners
alike (i. 18-iii. 20) ; the heads of the race, Adam and Christ (chap, v.),
embrace Jew and Gentile alike ; the law can sanctify neither Jew nor Gen
tile (chap. vii.). When the argument reaches the eighth chapter we find
a striking peculiarity, a detailed prediction of the glorification of creation
(viii. 19-23). Only an argument that leads to the demonstration of the
salvation of the Jew nationally can make necessary this section about
glorified creation, for the Jew's oracles did not promise him heaven, a

Xvi INTRODUCTION
word which occurs but twice in the epistle— once to tell of the " wrath
from heaven " (i. 18), and again to forbid ascent thither for justifying
help(x. 6). The Gentile salvation (Phil. iii. 20, 21) maybe unlike that of the
ancient oracles ; but the latter are still living, to be made good to the Jew.
Paul's evangelistic work was well-nigh done. It needed but the capstone
of his visit to Rome, from which city, in less than four years after this
epistle was written, — and two of those years were consumed in getting
there, — he sends out the triumphant message that the gospel "was preached
to every creature which is under heaven " (Col. i. 23). Indeed, before this
it had " prevailed " (Acts xix. 20) with the close of the apostle's work at
Ephesus. The time has come to survey the field. Paul is standing in
thought on the platform of Judaism. His outlook is from Jerusalem,
where every one of his missionary journeys terminated. He sees the
danger — a danger, alas! long ago realized — that a gospel of grace that
reduces the Jew for salvation to the level of the Gentile, in blotting
out Judaism as a means of approach to God may blot out the Jew.
What does it mean that at the very beginning he reminds these Romans
that this salvation in Christ is " first " to the Jew? Outside the present
grace Jew and Gentile are kept wholly separate from beginning to end of
the epistle. Let the Gentile not boast. This is his day ; that of the Jew
is coming. Paul must insist that no man, Jew or Gentile, can now or
ever hereafter be saved, except by faith. This was good for all, but hard
for the Jew to accept. God's plan is to bring him to an acceptance of it,
that he may have mercy on him as he has had on the Gentile ; and mean
while let the Gentile remember not only that this is coming, but that his
own ultimate triumph cannot come until mercy to the Jew appears.
To this view of the object of the epistle modern thought is coming.
Jacobus says in the article cited above: " Paul's purpose was to correct
the attitude of the Gentile element in the church at Rome. They were
exalting his gospel at the expense of the Jew. His plan in writing the
epistle, therefore, was to take up this gospel of his . . . and show that,
after all, it did not ignore the Jew either as an essential element in the
Christian church or as the still unbelieving people outside of it ; in other
words, that his Gentile gospel was not to be overpressed and placed in
opposition to all the revelation and work of God so far."
Sanday comes to substantially the same conclusion : " Clearly this ques
tion belongs to the later reflective stage of the controversy relating to Jew
and Gentile. The active contending for Gentile liberties would come first,
the philosophic or theologie assignment of the due place of Jew and Gen
tile in the divine scheme would come afterward. This more advanced
stage has now been reached." Salvation by grace is final. There never
will be any other means of saving men. But the results so far seen are
far from final, and let not the Gentile confound these two. Grace for the
present has saved him and left outside the nation from which it first went
abroad. The theodicy, the culmination of the epistle, tells why the Jew
is thus left for the present, but it sees his glory in the future. Let the
Gentile not shut his eyes to it.
5. The peculiarities of the epistle demand attention. The first that
strikes one is its world-wide view— its uniyejsalisilL. In all time and in
all nations men are sinners. God's wrath"" is not a flash of lightning; it
gleams from" the whoieTTeaven. Sin and grace are traced to their ultimate

INTRODUCTION xvii
sources in Adam and in Christ. The law as a means of salvation is swept
away at one stroke, lhe salvation is considered not in its relation to a
single soul or even a single church, but in its relation to the creation itself
and to every nation in it. When it comes to duties, they are also com
prehensively treated. Love is the universal principle, and the believer is
looked at in his relation to the state, to the church, to his neighbor, to his
brother, and to himself.  —
The eloquence of the epistle cannot be overlooked. Other epistles have
eloquent passages, like I Corinthians xiii. and xv. or Ephesians iii. 8-21 ;
but in this epistle there are such passages in almost every chapter (i. 16-
23; ii. 4-1 1 ; iii. 21-26, etc.), but notably the conclusions of both chapter
viii. and chapter xi. The whole epistle is marked by a sustained elevation
of thought and sentiment. This universalism and eloquence befit an
epistle to the world's capital— an epistle that deals with the world's destiny
through its two divisions of men. Tew and Gentile.
In its style the epistle is marked by great energy, but not with vehe
mence. It is the resistless flow of a broad, deep river, noiseless, but ever
onward. But this is true of the argument rather than of the words that
convey it, which move rapidly and are often warm with the writer's earnest
feeling. His feeling throughout is more uniform than in some of his other
epistles ; not as calm as in Ephesians, but more so than in Galatians ; but
sometimes, as in ix. 1-5, xi. 33-36, it rises to great intensity. The
epistle is the masterpiece of the apostle, in which the gospel in its strictest
sense is methodically unfolded and shown in its widest connection. ^11.
men, Jew and Gentile, are lost, " beingjustified freely by his [God's]
grace througlTThe redemption that is in Christ Jesus " (iii. iff.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER I*
THE OUTLOOK

As Paul was the preacher of a world-wide gospel, a gospel
suited to every moral and national condition, he comes be
fore the Romans in this character. The first chapter gives a
wide survey. It glances at the Scriptures as a whole, recalls
their ancient promise of a Saviour, outlines Paul's extended
labors, and presents the religious history of the Gentile world
from thejtejinniiig. _ It has three topics: (i) the salutation
(verses 1-7); (2) Paul's fraternal introduction (verses 8-17);
(3) the guilt of the Gentile world in all time (verses 19-32).
In discussing this last topic, the course of thought is that (a)
God's wrath is revealed against the sins of all men (verse 18),
because (b) all men know his will (verse 19a) ; (c) they know
it, for he himself has revealed it in nature (verses 19b, 20) ; (d)
men rejected the light given, and in devising their own came
into darkness (verses 21,22); (<f) in this darkness they fell into
idolatry (verses 23-25), sensuality (verses 26, 27), and every
other kind of immorality (verses 28-32).
I. In the salutation (verses 1-7) the writer first identi
fies himself. At the time he wrote he was already so well
* The divisions in this book are, both as to the chapters and verses,
those of the epistle itself. 15

16 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 2, 3)
known at Rome that he need give only his name, Paul. As
to his relation to Jesus Christ, he was a bond-servant. As to
his office, he was one sent forth, an apostle. As to his right
to this office, his authority, he was specifically called. As to
the limits of his work, he was separated from everything else
and confined to the gospel, the message from God. His duty
was narrow, excluding even the administration of the initiatory
ordinance (1 Cor. i. 17).
2. With the second verse he begins the exaltation of his sub
ject — the message from God. First, it is not novel. God prom
ised it long before by means of " his prophets." Thejatter get
their dignity and authority in the little word '(his." ) They
were God's own. How much would have been lost4f, instead
of '/ his, \Paul had used the word " the " ! The prophets were
not an evolutionary product of their times, — there were many
such (2 Chron. xviii. ; Matt. vii. 22, 23^— but men endowed
with God's Spirit to foresee the gospel message. It was re
corded in Scriptures which are " holy." The emphasis is on
the word " holy." It calls attention to the character of these
writings. By means of these two words, "his" and "holy,"
Paul shows the lofty and unique origin of the gospel message.
If any should accuse him of promulgating a new gospel his
answer is that his message was foretold for hundreds of years.
It is in harmony with the Bible of that day. And this is not
a mere ad hominem argument against the Jews. He virtually
declares that their Bible was itself a supernatural product. The
Old Testament is the documentary defense of the gospel.
3. To show still further the glory of the gospel he mentions,
secondly, its exalted theme. It is concerning God's Son, Jesus
Christ. The first word in this verse joins it either with the end
of the first verse, "gospel of God," or with the word "prom
ised " in the second verse. The sense is about the same with
either connection.
Jesus Christ, the theme of the gospel story, is declared to be

(I. 4) THE OUTLOOK 17
preeminent both on his human and on his divine side. The
antithesis in the phrases " according to the flesh " and " ac
cording to the spirit " does not lie in the sphere of his person,
but in his relations. He was one person, but he belonged to
two realms. According to the flesh, looked at in his connec
tion with the race, his origin was the very highest. He was
princely, being descended from the royal family of David.
According to the spirit of holiness, — that is, looked at in his
connection with the realm above, — he was higher than all
angels (Heb. i. 4) : he was the Son of God. The relation of
the two natures in Christ's person is not thought of. That
question was not raised in Paul's day. Neither would it suit
the context. Paul is magnifying the theme of the gospel. It
is about a being the most exalted, whether viewed in his human
or in his divine relations. The twofold antithetic statement
shows its significance when applied, as it well can be, to an
other. It could be said of David, as to his flesh, as to his
origin as a man, he was the son of Jesse, or even the son of
Judah ; as to his relation to God, he was the declared and ac
knowledged king of Israel. It would be absurd to ask now,
about the person of David, what part was merely natural or
human and what was royal or kingly. He was a man and a
king both at the same time. And so of Jesus : he was the son
of David and the Son of God. Of course the latter relation
involved an appropriate nature, but that nature is not the
question here.
4. Because the terms "flesh" and "spirit" designate not
what was in Christ as constituent of his person, but two exter
nal and converging agencies, at whose point of contact he ap
peared historically, it is not Paul's purpose to show what Christ
is, but how he was declared to be what he is. His resurrection
powerfully asserted his Sonship. The rising from the dead did
not create him a Son. This very passage says he was born so.
The gospel according to the text is about "his [God's] Son, who

18 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 5)
was born." The word " made " of the King James version is
abandoned by recent translations. The three phrases begin
ning at " with," " according," and " by " give respectively the
manner, the measure, and the means or cause of the declara
tion of Christ's Sonship.
5. But Paul mentions the resurrection for an additional pur
pose — to give the source and character of his own apostolic
grace. Immediately upon this mention he adds " through
whom" — through this raised Christ — "we received grace and
apostleship." This is all-important. It gives at one stroke the
point of view from which Paul will discuss the gospel ; not from
the side of the incarnation, but from the side of the resurrec
tion (2 Cor. v. 16). It is not always noted that this is the
epistle of the resurrection, resurrection not of the body, — alluded
to only twice in the epistle (iv. 17 ; viii. 10), and both times
by an unusual word, — but resurrection as the central potency
of salvation. Both justification and sanctification are secured
by it. " He was raised again for our justification." We are
"married to another, even to him who was raised from the
dead," that we might bring forth fruit unto God. The subject
is mentioned in i. 4 ; iv. 17, 24, 25 ; v. 10 ; vi. 4, 5, 9 ; vii. 4 ;
viii. n, 34; x. 9 ; and possibly xi. 15. But this occurrence of
the word is but the outcropping here and there of the granite
ledge that lies everywhere underneath the epistle and on which
it is based.
In this fifth verse Paul has come around to that with which
he started in the first. There he was an apostle. Here now,
by means of what intervenes, he shows the dignity and char
acter of his apostleship. It is from a raised Christ, who was
promised in the Scriptures. Hence the Scriptures predict the
resurrection, and hence, too, the gospel according to Paul is
universal. It is not Jewish, but world-wide, a gospel for the
Gentiles, for by resurrection Jesus transcended all Jewish con
nection and became the world's Saviour, a Saviour not by obe-

(I. 6, 7) THE OUTLOOK 19
dience to law which was Mosaic, but by the power of an endless
life. Life is universal. Thus Paul, by linking his apostolate
with the raised Christ, gives first the character of this epistle,
and secondly its scope. It is the epistle of divine life in Christ
Jesus for all nations, on the condition of faith.
6, 7. After his profound prelude, Paul, in the sixth verse,
reassures his readers, declaring that they are embraced in the
intent of the gospel; then comes the salutation proper. It
connects with the first verse, that which lies between verses 2
and 6 being, so to speak, parenthetical.
Two things may be observed in this salutation. First, like
most of them (see especially Gal. i. 1-5), it involves the germ
of all that follows. It has four items : the writer has a mes
sage in accord with the Scriptures ; it is from the risen Christ ;
it is universal ; and it is for obedience to the faith. These are
the leading thoughts of the epistle.
Secondly, this salutation is striking in that it implicitly as
serts the cardinal points of the gospel history, " the fundamental
facts of Christianity." The epistle was written within thirty
years after Tgsus Christ trod the earth. This cannot be denied.
It is generally admitted. And this salutation asserts now that
the main facts of the gospel were in accord with Old Testament
prediction ; it asserts the incarnationj.nd the resurrection, and
that these Romans, qualified to weigh the facts, had responded
with implicit faith in them. What they trusted then men may
safely trust now.
Having addressed the Romans formally and officially, Paul
now writes personally. One cannot fail to see between the
lines that the Romans had expected him to visit them before
this time, and that Paul is justifying himself for his failure to
meet that expectation. Rome was the capital of the Gentile
world, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles ; why did he
not come to them? Why spend years in the provinces? Once
before he had been at their very doors (Acts xviii. 1-18) and

20 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 8-16)
had turned away from them, and now he was about to do so
again (cf. Acts xix. 21 with xx. 3 ; Rom. xv. 25). This intro
duction has this state of things in full view.
8-13. He is not indifferent about the spiritual welfare of the
Roman church. He thanks God by means of Jesus Christ for
their faith, already known throughout the Roman empire. This
wide reputation implies that at this date there was a general
diffusion of the gospel. And since there is no other to testify,
he calls God to witness that he makes unceasing prayer for
them. He prays also that God would prosper him in a jour
ney to them. He longs to see them, that he may help them
and may be helped by them. He declares to them the fact
that he has again and again tried to come to them, but was
hindered. He covets the same fruit among them that he has
found among other Gentiles. All this is neither the spirit nor
the conduct of one not their friend.
J 4. It is not without some vehemence — there is no connect
ing word introducing this verse — that he professes his obliga-"
tion to men of every tongue, " Greeks and Barbarians," and to
men of every degree of culture, " wise and foolish." In these
categories his readers would be classed with the Greeks and the
wise, for the word "Greek" in the New Testament is not
Strictly an ethnic term (Acts vii. 26).
J5. In accordance with this acknowledged obligation Paul
declares his readiness to preach at Rome. He is master of his
purpose, but not of his circumstances.
16, " For I am not ashamed of the gospel of [concerning]
Christ." If any one in Rome either said or thought that Paul
did not come to the capital because he distrusted the gospel for
that field, this is his answer. And the reason he is not ashamed
of it is because it is God's power effecting salvation in every
believer. Power of any kind is in honor among men, and divine
power can put no man to the blush. In this brief sentence Paul
has packed three rich facts : first, the effect of the gospel— sal-

(I. 17) THE OUTLOOK 21
vation , secondly, the extent— it is world-wide, to "every one " ;
and thirdly, its condition — faith in Jesus Christ. Paul con
templates men of every land and of every degree of culture.
If they have discovered or if they can discover any other means
of salvation than the gospel, it has nothing to boast of ; it no
longer stands alone. But he is not ashamed to present it to
the civilized and the learned, for culture has not brought them
salvation, nor even the means of it.
17. This verse gives the very point of the effectiveness of
the gospel. Certainly he is righteous before God who follows
God's means of righteousness. And the gospel alone reveals
this righteousness. In what it unveils lies its power. Right
eousness means conformity to the divine claims on man. This
conformity is reached by means of faith. On man's part faith
is the righteousness (iv. 5). The phrase " from faith to faith "
is to be joined not with the verb " revealed," but with the
Tord "righteousness." The apostle is not concerned here
with the mode of the revelation, but with the character of that
which is revealed. It is a by-faith righteousness. So far as
the message of the gospel is concerned, the revelation is purely
objective. To connect the phrase in question, as many able
commentators do, with the verb " revealed " makes the power
of the gospel to lie in the manner in which it discloses salva
tion, rather than in what it discloses, and the gospel itself to
be unknown but by an experience of it. Paul is first of all and
most of all describing the righteousness objectively, and only
incidentally showing how it is to be attained. The latter he
does further on.
The phrase " from faith to faith " is, literally, " out of faith
into faith." The righteousness provided by God is seen to be
one that springs out of faith ; it is one adapted only to (into)
faith. The phrase might be rendered "by faith for faith," in
which its simple meaning is seen that it is a righteousness
wholly by faith ; just as it might be said of a healing ointment,

22 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 18)
it is a remedy by rubbing, a remedy for rubbing, and not a
remedy for or by any other use.
As this means of salvation involves the chief element in the
gospel, and the point at which it departs from the Pharisees'
teaching of Paul's day, he quotes their own Scriptures to show
that he is not inventing something new. As in Habakkuk's
day, so now men live by faith. It is not a proof-text, but it
indicates decisively that there is harmony between the gospel
and the law.
With the eighteenth verse of this first chapter the discussion
begins. Under the first topic, the universality of sin, Paul be
gins with the Gentile world. There is not much argument on
this point. A mere statement of the facts was sufficient to gain
the consent of all his readers. When he comes to speak of the
sinfulness of the Jew (chap, ii.) he resorts to proofs.
18. The " for " is not specific, but comprehensive. It looks
at all that Paul has just been saying. He is not ashamed of
the gospel. The gospel would be nothing if men were not
guilty and in need of the rescue which the gospel alone can
afford. The gospel alone reveals the means of salvation, for
everywhere else there is no revelation except of wrath. The
eighteenth verse, about wrath, gives significance to the preced
ing two, about grace. Sin is the measure of salvation. Only
they know what it is to be saved who know what it is to be
lost. All heresy has its source in wrong or feeble conceptions
of sin. " As with churches, so with individuals, the estimate of
sin determines everything" ("Hulsean Lectures," 1874, p. 14).
The power of the gospel need not shame one, for everywhere
else God's wrath, from which it can save, is revealed.
This wrath or holy anger is universally revealed, " from
heaven." Men in all ages have been aware that the Power
above frowned upon them for their deeds. These deeds fall
under two heads : " ungodliness," a denial of the character or
essence of God, and " unrighteousness," a denial of his rule.

(I. 19-21) THE OUTLOOK 23
The blackness of their sin is that they " hold " or withhold the
truth in unrighteousness.
19. The assertion that they so withhold the truth and are
amenable to God's wrath is justified on the ground (" because ")
that what may be known of God — that is, " the truth " — is
manifest in them. They know the truth. They know it be
cause God has showed it to them. They have had a teacher
who could not fail in his work. The steps so far are three :
God's wrath is righteously revealed against men ; it is so re
vealed because men know and will not do ; they know because
God himself was their instructor. Their sin, then, is wilful
opposition to the revealed truth about God and from God.
20. This verse tells first how the revelation was given^ilhy.
the things that were made." Creation is revelation. Secondly,
if tells"rIow"Tong"the revelation has been in existence—" from
the creation of the world." God created man, and from the
beginning the Creator could be known by that which he cre
ated (Acts xvii. 29). Thirdly, the verse tells what has been re
vealed^- ""the invisible things of him," that is, "his eternal power
and Godhead," or divinity. There never was a time when the
divine personality did not reveal himself to men. God's
works constitute his earliest and his universal Bible. It was
open and legible. " The dim light of nature " is a phrase of
fiction, not of fact. His invisible things are "clearly" seen.
That first Bible in the sky above (Ps^jsjxji the earth beneath,
and in the heart of man was not written, but it was read, read
to men by God himself , — " God hath showed it unto them,"
— so that they are without excuse. It wasjoot. from Jack of^
knowledge that men sinned, but in spite of it. Sin was not
an infirmity, not an inability from lack of development in
primitive men, but a wilful refusal to conform to the teaching
given by God.
21. The last verse closed with the statement that men in
all ages, the Gentiles, were without excuse under the wrath

24 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 22)
of God. This verse restates and expands the reason : " Be
cause that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful." This is the "ungodliness and
unrighteousness " of the eighteenth verse. They knew him ;
this is plainly asserted ; but they did not respect his person by
giving him worship, neither did they acknowledge his benefits
by giving thanks. They withheld the truth, the knowledge
of God, in their unrighteousness ; and a negative or neutral
position before God is impossible. As they refused to follow
the light, they were brought to folly in their thoughts — "be
came vain in their [corrupt] reasonings, and their foolish [sense
less] heart was darkened." The intellectual revolt against
what they knew to be right was attended by a darkening of
the whole understanding. The refusal to accept the truth
destroys the power to discriminate between truth and error.
This is Paul's general survey of the religious history of the
race from the beginning. In his earlier days man was mono
theistic. His development has not been upward, but down
ward, not toward God, but from him. The prime error lay
in seeking to know God while denying the evidence which he
himself has given of his character and personality. God
manifested himself unmistakably ; but instead of worship and
praise, the two eyes without which God cannot be seen, men
betook themselves to vain reasoning. "The world by wis
dom knew not God" (1 Cor. i. 21). God knows how to re
veal himself in nature, and to-day in his Word. He is quali
fied to give evidence of himself. In man's estimation it may
be insufficient and even absurd ; he may see no evidence of
God in nature, and nothing but patchwork in the Bible ; but
one word from either source is worth more than all human
speculation. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men"
(1 Cor. i. 25).
22. "They became fools." This is the writer's, not to
say God's, estimate of the philosophers and religious leaders

(I. 23) THE OUTLOOK 25
of the race. He knew the boasted wisdom of the Euphrates
and of the Nile, the learning of Hellas and of Rome. We
know it to-day. But there is this difference : there are those
in our time who see no generic difference between these ethnic
sages and the prophets of God, while Paul declares the former
to be but " fools."
23. This verse gives the evidence of their folly. The glory
of God, that admirable and effulgent representation of himself
which glowed in all that he had made, this they changed in the
likeness of an image — "the uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man." The odiousness of idolatry is
not alone in the immorality to which it leads, but that it is a
caricature of God and a slander. It belongs to his glory that he
is imperishable. He was likened in that which is corruptible.
The very material of the image was a dishonor, as if one
should erect a statue to a distinguished man to-day not in
marble or bronze, but in chalk or putty. To liken God to
man is idolatry. Men were to make no image of him. Had
they preserved their original conception of him they would not
have attempted it. In due time he gave an image of himself
in a sinless being who was animated with eternal life, "the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person "
(Heb. i. 3). If Jesus was not more than a mortal, he was an
idol. These professed sages did not stop with likening God to
man ; they figured him as a bird, then as a quadruped, and
finally as a reptile. There was the Apollo of the Greeks, the
eagle of the Romans, the bull of the Egyptians, and the ser
pent of the Assyrians. Paul may be giving in this verse the
historical development of idolatry, from its highest phase to
its worst ; or he may be setting it forth in climactic form ; but
certain it is that all these phases of the sin existed.
In this review of the world's religion from the beginning,
Paul teaches that man at the first was not an idolater. The

26 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 24-27)
origin of this sin is not contemporaneous with the appearance
of man on the globe. Man did not work his way from fetish
ism through polytheism up to monotheism and the worship of
the true God. His course was the reverse. From the begin
ning he did not grow better religiously, but worse. The Bible
gives no evidence of idolatry among the antediluvians. Men
in that age called on the name of the Lord (Gen, iv. 26). The
earliest mention of idolatry belongs to the days of Abraham
(Josh. xxiv^2J. Paul here gives the history and origin of idol
atry. M en knew God and refused to worship him. Idolatry fol
lowed as a psychological necessity. If there is a force of de
velopment inherent in man, a force tending upward, the gos
pel of the grace of God is ah impertinence, and Paul might
well be ashamed of it. And why has not this force manifested
itself somewhat in the last two thousand years in Africa, in
India, and in China? The idolatry of to-day is no better
than that which grieved Paul.
24-27. This is the next long step downward. From idola
try sprang sensuality. Originally man was chaste, but when
he cast God off, his animal passions were unchained. It was
God's infliction of punishment for the sin of idolatry. He
punished one sin by the imposition of another. Twice in
these verses we are told that " God gave them up," not pas
sively, but actively. The reason is again given: "Who
changed the truth of God into the lie " of idolatry. They did
not change a lie into truth. Man's course was not in that
direction. They took " the truth of God " which he gave
them and perverted it to the falsehood of idol-worship. This
was the cause of that vileness whose hideous description we
have here. " For even their women." There is point in that
word " even." Woman is the purer, the more modest, of the
sexes, has propensities less ardent; but even she became
worse than beastly and equaled vile man in his depravity.
The corruption that got into the blood of the race by the fall

(I. 28-32) THE OUTLOOK 27
did not show itself at once. The earlier families and tribes of
the world were pure ; God kept them so. Whatever morality
there is in the world is due not to human nature, but to the
restraining power of God. When God " gave them up," the
original corruption in the blood showed itself in foul moral
ulcers, and human virtue proved to be less than that of the
beasts of the field, among which the barriers of sex are not
crossed. 28-31. Again we are told that " God gave them over," and
again for the same reason. As they did not like to retain
God in their knowledge, he smote their mind to work abnor
mally and wickedly. They failed not only in their passions,
but also in their thought. They practised not only sensuality,
but every other kind of immorality. Paul gives an appalling
catalogue of their crimes.
32. The last verse in the chapter sums up everything written
from the eighteenth, and restates it with unmistakable plain
ness. Men in all time and in all ages knew the " judgment "
of God against sin, that it was death; but, in defiance of his
wrath, they not only continued to practise these foul deeds,
but to applaud those who did them. The lowest stage in de
pravity is to take pleasure in those who exhibit it. It is with
this thought that Paul brings the discussion of the Gentiles'
sin to a close and a climax.
Many salutary lessons are taught in this sad recital :
First, God gives in the works which he has made sufficient
knowledge of himself for adoration and gratitude. This
knowledge is accessible to the heathen of to-day. The first
verse in Genesis, repeated in almost every other book of the
Bible, is vital. God is before all things, and created them.
It is vital, for he is " under£tood_by_the Jhin^sjhatjje made."
Second, man's religious evolution is not upward, but down
ward. Men had sufficient light, and refused it. In their
darkness the descending steps were three : the growth of elabo-

28 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 32)
rate systems of idolatry, the loss of all restraint upon the
animal passions, and the complete violation of all the com
mands of the second table. The list of sins in verses 29-31
looks to this second table ; for the words " haters of God,"
the only exception in the list, ought to be " hateful to God."
Third, God punishes sin with sin. This is his "wrath."
If men will not honor him, he takes away from them the
power of chastity and morality. Indeed, the section teaches
that these sins come as a punitive infliction from God. This
wrath against the race can never cease while men as a whole
refuse to glorify him " as God." The attempt to rid the un
believing world of the moral ills that afflict it is to attempt
to change God's judgment of wrath. The world has deliber
ately and finally cast God off. It is well-nigh two thousand
years since this sad list of sins was set down by the pen of
Paul. Let candor say which one of them has ceased to have
an existence among men. They came in God's wrath then
because men refused the light of nature. The light to-day in
Jesus Christ is many times more intense, and men still refuse.
Fourth, we now have Paul's point of view, and can see what
he means in calling the gospel a " power " and in declaring
that he is not " ashamed " of it. It can rescue the believer
from this judgment of God upon his sin. Paul did not ex
pect the flow of God's wrath against the world to change any
more than we may expect a change in gravity ; he knew that
that burning torrent would continue to the end (2 Thess. i.
6-9) ; but he was also assured that through Jesus Christ men
could be snatched from this flood and reconciled to the God
whose wrath was once upon them. God himself so loved the
world against which his anger burns— the contradiction is too
great for human understanding— that he sent a life-boat into
the judgment-tide that he himself created. The tide will not
leave the world, but men may leave the tide ; he will save
them that believe. When Israel rebelled against God in the

(I .23) THE OUTLOOK 29
wilderness (Num. xxi. 4-9), he sent fiery serpents among them,
that bit the people, " and much people of Israel died." When
in repentance they prayed that God would "take away the
serpents," he did not answer them in this form. The serpents
were not taken away. God's punishment of their sin could
not be so lightly removed. But a remedy was provided in
the brazen serpent upon the pole, so that "he who looked
upon it " lived. Who would esteem the remedy if the judg
ment of the presence of the serpents could be removed ? The
cross and the resurrection are as great an outrage to human
wisdom as is the serpent upon the pole ; but when men learn
that there is no other escape from the wrath of God, they will
not be " ashamed " of the gospel. No reform can perma
nently succeed, for God never ceases to punish the world's sin
with sin. Therefore the gospel is glorious, for it, and it alone
(Acts iv. 12), is God's power for salvation.

CHAPTER II
THE JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH THE GENTILES
In depicting the sin of the Gentile in the first chapter, Paul
did not name him. It was not necessary. The picture was
so true to life that no one could fail to see who sat for it.
The author has been assured more than once by returned mis
sionaries from China and India that when this first chapter
was read to intelligent natives of these heathen lands they
have hesitated to believe that it was from the missionary's
sacred Book, suspecting that the missionary had written it
himself as a description of what he had seen since he came
among them.
In this second chapter Paul has no one but the Jew in view.
He does not mention his name until the discussion has ad
vanced some distance. It was easy to prove the Gentile a
sinner. He claimed nothing for himself, and his immorality
was patent to every eye ; Paul had only to point to the facts.
But in the case of the Jew all was different. He had a di
vinely given system of religion. In the letter it was never
better observed than when Paul wrote. The Jew as a son of
Abraham considered himself righteous by the law. To con
vince him of sin was no easier than it is to-day to convince a
hollow Christianity of its fatal error. Paul has still his state
ment in view, that the gospel is the only power of God for
salvation, and nothing to be ashamed of. If Judaism can
save men, the gospel is an impertinence; hence the radical
failure of the Jew must be shown. 30

(II. 1-2) JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH GENTILES 31
Before he directly assails the Jew Paul lays down in verses
1-16 of this chapter the principles of the judgment. These
are four, found in verses 2, 6, 11, 16. The judgment will be
according to "truth" (verse 2), according to "deeds" (verse
6), without "respect of persons" (verse 11), and "according
to my gospel" (verse 16). This section (verses 1-16) consti
tutes what is virtually an indisputable major premise. Hence
but one of the points (verse 11) is argued.
1. " Inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest."
This verse comes as a deduction from the preceding section
about the Gentile. At the first blush it seems to be illogical,
for the inference is wider than the premise. Paul has proved
the Gentile a sinner amenable to God's wrath, and now he
seems to infer that every other man is so if he judges. But
the failure in logic is only momentary, for he at once adds
that he who judges does the " same things " that he condemns
in the wicked heathen. This is the proposition to be proved
in this chapter. A part of the Jew's righteousness consisted
in condemning the Gentile (Gal. ii. 15), and Paul, well aware
of this, wrote the sentence in this form to suggest what reader
was aimed at. The verse, then, contains both an inference
and a proposition. The inference is true ; the proposition
will be proved so when the four principles of the judgment in
which all must stand are unfolded.
2. A better rendering of the phrase " we are sure " is " we
know" — know that the judgment of God is according to
truth. The connection is in contrast with man's partial
judgment mentioned just before. Truth here has a shade of
meaning different from that in i. 18, 25. There it means
the revealed fact, that which is known about God; here it
means the actual condition of the man judged— just what he
is. When gold is assayed, the test considers only the metal
which is under it ; it does not ask whence it came, whose it is,
but what it is. God's judgment proceeds on just what the man

32 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 3-5)
or the deed before him is in itself, apart from birth or race or
religious connection.
3. The second verse begins with "we know." What is
known requires no proof. The statement of verse 2 is self-
evident. Hence the connection is not in the way of argu
ment ; it is rather an appeal against a false and perilous
reckoning. You do the very things you condemn in others,
but irrationally think that you will escape their punishment.
This delusive self-estimation is always found in the false re
ligionist. 4. The case may be worse than a vain, false estimate ; the
man may despise God's means to win him to a better life.
Against this contempt the apostle makes another appeal, that
ends in a solemn warning. God has not only shown some
" goodness " to the Jew ; he has been rich therein. He chose
the Jew in the past ; his providence watched over him ; he sent
him great kings and prophets, and finally the Messiah, and
made him the leading nation of the world. Toward the Jew's
waywardness and unthankfulness God was patient ("forbear
ance "). This patience extended not only over all the former
times of Jewish history, but especially in the latter years when
the Messiah was rejected and his messengers slain. It is this
continued patience which is called "long-suffering." All this
goodness the Jew despised, looking upon it as his desert, and
ignoring the fact that it ought to lead him to repentance.
The case is going hard against the Jew, though he is not yet
named. The Gentile had none of this mercy to move him,
and yet was a condemned sinner ; the Jew had it, and treated
it with contempt. What is he?
5. This verse answers. In accordance with (" after ") his
hardness and impenitence of heart, though judgment did not
at once come, he was heaping up for himself daily a treasure
of wrath in that treasury of wrath, the day of the righteous
judgment of God. The blackest of sins is not rights violated,

(II. 6-10) JEWS EQUALL Y GUILTY WITH GENTILES 33
but mercies despised, and such sins were accumulating against
the Jew on that record which can neither be evaded nor dis
puted. God's is called "righteous" judgment to contrast it
with the Jew's.
6. After this solemn appeal under the first principle of the
judgment, Paul brings in the second, " to every man accord
ing to his deeds." This really constitutes the closing sentence
in the appeal, and thus shows that a judgment according to
truth and a judgment according to works or " deeds " are
practically the same thing. The former is abstract; the
measure applied in the judgment will be reality. This (verse
6) is concrete. That which is measured will be what is done,
" deeds." The judgment will embrace " every one." That
there is to be a judgment was not denied by the Jew ; it can
not be denied by any sober man ; and therefore Paul brings
no proof in evidence. In that judgment, sure to come, God
will render to every man according to his deeds.
7-10. The first principle was followed by an appeal. This
second one is followed by an appositional sentence in exposi
tion of what " deeds " appear in the judgment, and their
awards. It is quietly implied that there are but two classes
of men, and consequently but two kinds of deeds. These are
set forth in a striking antithetical parallel, as is shown by the
Rev. John Forbes, LL.D. (" Analyt. Com.," pp. 7, 146), from
whom we adapt :
" Who will render to every man according to his deeds :
1. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing
[character]
2. Seek for glory and honor and immortality [pursuit],
^3. Eternal life [award] :
r4. But unto them that are contentious [character],
5. And do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness
[pursuit],
6. Indignation [shall be] and wrath [award],

34 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (11. 7-10)
fj. Tribulation and anguish [award],
« < 8. Upon every soul of man that doeth evil [pursuit J ;
V9. Of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile [character] ;
_ r 10. But glory, honor, and peace [award],
§ < 11. To every man that worketh good [pursuit] ;
^ V12. To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile [character]."
There is a wealth of parallelism here which nothing but
careful inspection can discover. The thought is given in four
triplets, balanced against one another. The first two are, " in
troversively," paralleled with the second two, and the lines in
each pair of triplets show the same feature. This gives us
first the statements about the " good " and the " bad," followed
by similar statements about each party in the reverse order,
the reversal being not only in the triplets, but in the lines com
posing them. The three lines in each stanza, for such they
may be called, give first the character, then the pursuits, and
finally the appropriate awards, both of the good and of the
bad. This is the order in the first couplet. In the second
couplet we have it reversed : first the award, secondly the pur
suit, and thirdly the character. In the very first line of the
first couplet we have character in the patient continuance of
well-doing ; the pursuit is glory, the award is eternal life. This
is followed in the second stanza by the opposite kind of char
acter: contentious, exhibiting itself in an opposite kind of
pursuit, obedience to unrighteousness, with its opposite award,
indignation and wrath. In the third stanza Paul takes these up
in the reverse order and goes over them again : the sad award
of tribulation and wrath for him who in his pursuit " doeth evil,"
whether in character Jew or Gentile, and the glorious award of
honor and peace for him who in his pursuit " worketh good,"
whether in character Jew or Gentile.
By this parallelism richness of exposition is gained, both by
the repetition and the contrast of the lines. The exposition
of the " deeds " is given in two opposite directions : first from

(II. ii) JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH GENTILES 35
the character of the doer, through his work up to his award,
and, conversely, beginning with the award, we ~o back through
the work and reach the character.
In this appositional unfolding of the deeds we see they are
more than mere acts. They embrace both the character and
the aim of the doer. Every deed has three elements : the
source from which it comes, the aim, and the concrete act.
The deeds, then, are, first of all, deeds of the heart, patience,
and a right aim on one side, and contentiousness and disobe
dience of the truth on the other. And thus it is seen that the
second principle of the judgment, an award according to
"deeds," is pretty much the same as the first, an award ac
cording to " truth," or what a man is.
Some difficulty has been found as to the harmony between
this principle of the judgment and the doctrine of salvation by
faith. This difficulty arises from a misconception of Paul's
view of faith. He is not speaking here of faith's beginning,
but of its completion ; not of justification, but of judgment.
The deeds that gain a reward clearly imply faith in him who
does them. For in the opposite side of the parallel indigna
tion and wrath are said to come to those who do not obey
the truth, but obey unrighteousness ; that is, this sad award
comes to them as a result of their unbelief. Moreover, Paul
saw no contradiction here, for he closes the discussion (verse
1 6) with the declaration that the judgment will be according
to his ("my") gospel.
11. This is the third principle which will hold in the judg
ment — "no respect of persons." Paul had said that men would
be rewarded according to their deeds, whether they were Jews
having the law or Gentiles excluded from the law. This verse
comes in as a reason for that statement. God will not in
quire in the judgment about a man's outward religious con
nection. If his deeds are right, his being a Gentile will be no
detriment; if they are wrong, his being a Jew will be no

36 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 12-14)
excuse. This phrase about respect of persons is used in the
Bible only in connection with judgment, and so here it is
limited to this single point. It will not serve a man in that
awful day to claim that he was an adherent of a true system
of doctrine.
12. The " for " at the head of this verse introduces it not
as a proof, — that comes later, — but as an explanation of what
Paul means by the words "no respect of persons." Those
who sinned without law —men can sin where there is no written
law— shall also perish without law. Men can sin and perish,
too, where God's Word was never heard ; but they will per
ish "without law," that is, without such penalties as must
meet those who knew the law and did not do it. And as many
as have sinned in the law (of Moses) shall not be saved, but
judged by that law.
13. The " for " brings in a proof of the last statement. A
man may hear the law read every Sabbath day in the syna
gogue, but if he does not do the things enjoined by it he fails.
For the only virtue in hearing the law lies in hearing to do.
This is exceedingly simple. A child might hear his parent's
command, might admire the clearness of his voice and the
perspicuity of his words, but what of this approval if he did
not obey and do as told? The child could not be held just.
In these two verses, 1 2 and 13, substitute " gospel " for " law "
in reading them, and they present the truth and the admoni
tion suited to modern times.
14. " For when Gentiles [omit " the "], which have not the
[written] law." This verse clearly shows that hearing or hav
ing a holy law cannot recommend a people to God. It is a
proof of the statement in verse 13. The argument lies in this,
that Gentiles have what is tantamount to the moral law. If
having a law will save the Jews, why should the Gentiles not
also be saved? This is an ad hominem thrust. It struck at a
vital part in the Jew's prejudices. If he claims immunity be-

(II. 15,16) JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH GENTILES 37
cause of his law, the Gentile is equally safe ; but that a Gen
tile as such could be saved the Jew would not for one moment
admit. It must have been generally known that there were among
the Gentiles at least some who " by nature " did the things of
the law, pure men who knew the right and loved it, who looked
upon God as one and a person. Noah and Melchizedek,
Abraham and Job, are examples.
15. This verse merely continues the thought of the last —
that Gentiles are not devoid of that in which the Jew boasts
and trusts. The Gentiles' conscience bears testimony to this
fact along with their works. Their inward thoughts are in
constant debate one with another, one thought accusing or
else excusing another. How could this be unless some stan
dard of right and wrong existed by nature among the heathen?
It must be noted that Paul does not say that the heathen
have the law written on their heart, for this is the character
istic blessing under the new covenant (Heb. viii. io). God
in regenerating grace certainly gives something more than that
which the heathen already have. Paul says they show not the
law, but its " work," written on their heart. A machine may
show the work of intelligence, but it has none.
Again, while Paul asserts that Gentiles may have what is
equivalent to the law, he does not say that they are saved by
that possession or that they can be ; rather the reverse, that if
the Jew can be saved by his law, why not the Gentile by that
which belongs to him? The discussion comes to just this:
that the Jew in his claim for his law is claiming too much.
If the law will save him, is not the Gentile saved too? For
he has virtually the same. Paul would drive the Jew from
his false mooring and leave him at sea. There is nothing else
even by implication in the argument.
16. This verse lays down the fourth principle. Paul says,
" God shall judge the secrets of men . . . according to my gos-

38 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 16)
pel." The connection is not with the twelfth, as some editions
of the King James version would indicate by their parentheses,
but with the thirteenth verse. Verses 14 and 15, containing
the argument for the third principle, are parenthetic. Without
the interruption of this proof matter, the thought runs : " The
doers of the law shall be justified in the day when God shall
judge the secrets of men."
Here we learn the meaning of the word "justify" on its
first occurrence in the epistle, for surely God will not at the
judgment-hour make these- good who have already shown
themselves good by being doers of the law. The word can
not mean " to make," but " to declare good."
We have seen above, under verse 6, that the " deeds " are
largely deeds of the heart. Hence Paul speaks here about
judging the " secrets " of men. Only the doers of the law
will pass the judgment, but the law is not done in God's sight
except by the incarnation of it in the heart. Paul is in strict
harmony with the Sermon on the Mount. The deeds to be
judged are not alone those which are seen in the life, but
those which God sees in the hidden chambers of the inner
man. "According to my gospel." There is no antithesis between -
law and gospel when both are rightly understood. When Paul
says "my" gospel he indicates the broad and universal turn
which he has given to.it, unfolding it in a way suited to men
of every age and nation. It had its origin in one nation, but
it is not a national gospel ; it is world-wide. Paul's keenest
weapon against the narrow Jewish error lies in this word
" gospel." The judgment will not be according to law, which
by the Jewish interpretation left relation to Christ out, but ac
cording to the gospel, which makes relation to him the chief
factor in the judgment. The gospel is the standard of judg
ment ; the Judge, the day, the deed, the standard. The Judge
is just, the day is certain, the deed is known, the standard is

(II. 1 7-2 la) JE WS EQ UALLY G UIL TY WITH GENTILES 39
the gospel. God judges, but Jesus Christ holds the court.
" He hath committed all judgment unto the Son " (John v.
2 2 ; Acts xvii. 31).
Having now unfolded these four principles of the judgment,
Paul speaks directly to the Jew in what may be called the
minor premise in the argument (verses 17-24). The major
premise comes to this : that the judgment is of such a charac
ter that sinners, no matter who they are, Jew or Gentile, can
not stand in it. This minor premise shows the Jew that he is
a sinner, but the proposition which embraces both premises is
that the Jew who judges the Gentile does the same things.
In proof of this, Paul proceeds in the method used in the first
chapter against the Gentile : first, that he knew the truth, but,
secondly, refused it, and so, finally, fell into the sin of idolatry,
sensuality, and general immorality. We have the same method
and the same three sins.
17-20. These verses show what light the Jew had, the light
not of nature only, but the clearer revelation of the law. In
five particulars he claimed personal privileges above other men :
"restest in the law," "makest thy boast of God," "knowest
his will," " approvest the things that are more excellent," and
" instructed out of the law." In five other particulars the Jew
was " confident " that his knowledge was superior to that of
the Gentile. He claimed to be "a guide of the blind," "a
light of them which are in darkness," " an instructor of the
foolish," " a teacher of babes," having " the form of knowledge
and of the truth in the law." In these ten items of the Jew's
superiority the law is mentioned three times.. On this point
of knowledge Paul merely declares of the Gentile that he had
it (i. 18-21), but when it comes here to the Jew he convinces
him out of his own mouth. It was the Jew's claim and boast
that he knew.
21a. In the beginning of verse 17 it should read, not "Be
hold," but " If thou art called," etc. It begins the first mem-

40 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 21^,22)
ber of a conditional sentence, the second member of which is
found in the first question of the verse before us. Paul does
not assert ; he only asks a question, a question that can have
but one answer : If you are a Jew, claiming full qualification
to teach blind Gentiles, do you not thereby teach yourself?
Do you not know? This is the first point in proving that the
Jew " does the same things " as the Gentile. He knows God,
yea, by his own confession he knows vastly more than the de
spised Gentile.
21b, 22. The Jew had all the means extant in his time of
knowing God's will. The verses now in hand show his sad
failure in doing that will. Paul does not assert that the Jew
was guilty of these three sins of idolatry, sensuality, and im
morality ; he puts it significantly in the interrogative form.
This means that his questions could have but one answer. In
the first chapter, in dealing with the Gentile, he proceeds from
idolatry to immorality. This order is reversed in the case be
fore us. He proceeds from immorality, "Dost thou steal?"
to idolatry, "Dost thou commit sacrilege? " or, to follow the
Revised Version, "Dost thou rob [heathen] temples?" This
change in the order is easily accounted for. In the first chap
ter Paul is giving the origin and development of sin among
men ; he follows the natural order. But when it comes to the
Jew he writes climactically. Idolatry was forbidden by the
very first commandment. The Jew claimed to be free from
it and professed to abhor it ; and yet Paul more than intimates
that he is guilty of this foolish, debasing crime, the worst of
all sins. He mentions it last because it is blackest.
There is not sufficient information to-day to show what is
meant by Paul's allusion to the robbing of temples. In his
day the Jews did not actually worship idols, and he does not
charge them with the sin in this form. But it seems that they
did not hesitate, in the various heathen lands in which they
lived, to purloin the treasures deposited in these temples (Acts

(II.23-25) JEWS EQUALLY GUILTY WITH GENTILES 41
xix. 37) and to take the accursed stuff (Deut. vii. 25, 26) into
their own houses.
23. Twice now Paul mentions the light-giving law, which,
with the question asked, " Dishonorest thou God? " condenses
into one compact, condemning whole all that has been said be
ginning with verse 17. The verse does not advance the argu
ment ; it sharpens it and brings it to a focus in the word " dis
honorest." This is the odiousness of all sin ; it tarnishes the
glory of God's name.
24. Five questions have just been asked, the first expanded
in the next three, and the last condensing them again to an
arrow-point ; but Paul does not directly answer them. But
this twenty-fourth verse, beginning with " for," gives a reason
for asking them, and that reason is the answer. It must be
that they are guilty under these three counts, for, just as Isaiah
wrote long ago (Iii. 5), God's name is blasphemed among the
Gentiles because of the Jews. The latter claimed to be a holy
people knowing the true God, and the heathen among whom
they dwelt did not stop with contempt of them for their hy
pocrisy; they exhibited that contempt toward God himself.
Says Beet ("Commentary," in loc): "Men around think less
of God because this man lives among them and calls himself
a disciple of God. It were more for the glory of God, and
therefore for the good of those who know this man, if he were
a professed heathen."
Thus far Paul has shown that the Jew is a sinner like the
Gentile. The next step will be to drive him from his refuge
in the rite of circumcision. This was the outward mark which
distinguished the Jew from his heathen neighbor and showed
him to be a descendant of Abraham.
25. " For . . . thy circumcision is made uncircumcision."
This first mention of the rite in the epistle comes in abruptly
and therefore startlingly. The " for " introduces the discussion
as a confirmation of what was said in the two previous verses.

42 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 26, 27)
You dishonor God and lead the Gentiles to despise him, for
your circumcision is no advantage to you.
Circumcision profits if one keeps the law, for it was not in
tended to be an atonement for wrong living, but a spur to
ward right living. It is a seal, and what is the value of a seal
when torn from that which it was intended to certify? To be
content with the rite while neglecting that for which it stood
is to behave like him who should take a money sign ($, £)
for the money itself. By wrong living circumcision failed of
its object and became uncircumcision, or exclusion from son-
ship with Abraham.
26. "Therefore." Here is a fair deduction. If the aim
of circumcision was uprightness, and if a heathen exhibited the
latter — if he has the substance, what odds if he lack the sign?
Bullion is gold, though it has no government stamp upon it.
In the scales of the judgment whose principles have been so
clearly laid down, will he who has the rite without the right
eousness outweigh him who has righteousness without the rite?
This question needs no answer.
27. This verse also comes in under the " therefore " above.
" By the letter," etc., ought to read " with the letter," invested
with the letter of the law and with" circumcision. Would that
be a judgment "according to truth " in which he who had the
law and the rite should stand after having transgressed both,
while the upright man who never had either must fall? Will
the sinner who has the law pass where the righteous man will
fail because he has not what never was given to him? Yes,
if God were seeking legal rather than real obedience. But
since the latter is his delight, the man who has it under the
disadvantage of no law will be a burning condemnation to
him who, despite the law to teach him, has failed to hear
its voice. Cornelius far outweighs Caiaphas ; for Caiaphas
with his circumcision was at heart one with heathen Pilate
against Jesus, while Cornelius without circumcision was at one
with Peter in following truth.

(II. 28, 29) JE WS EQUALL Y GUIL TY WITH GENTILES 43
The principle involved in these three verses is that a reli
gious rite is worthless unless it is attended with goodness—
" Patient continuance in well-doing." (See also John viii. 31.)
And this principle is solemnly applicable to-day in the matter
of baptism. Read the passage above, substituting "baptism ''
and " no baptism " for " circumcision " and " uncircumcision "
respectively, and the verses become modern.
28, 29. In describing, as Paul does here, the real Jew, that
he must be such at heart in that which is within, Paul is in
harmony with his fourth principle of the judgment. God will
not look on that which is outward, but will judge the " secrets "
of men. That circumcision must be of the heart was not
Paul's invention; it was as old as the law (Deut. x. 16) and
the prophets (Ezek. xliv. 9). This statement of what consti
tutes the veritable Jew is made in justification ("for") of the
sentiments in verses 25-27. If verse 25 degraded the more
formal Jew to the Gentile level, verse 28 tells why; and if
verses 26 and 27 elevated the good heathen above the profes
sional Jew, verse 29 presents the substantial reason. He who
is right at heart is in God's sight a Jew even though he can
not trace his fleshly descent from Abraham. He is not a Jew
who is only one outwardly, in dress, in profession, and in sub
jection to ceremonials, and circumcision is not accomplished
with a sharp knife ; but he is a Jew who is right within, where
only God sees ; for circumcision pertains first of all to the
heart, a cutting off of man from all evil. The phrase " in the
spirit " serves to define the word "heart." The man must not
only intend right in his heart, but he must be right in his
spirit. Circumcision is not effected by the " letter " of the law.
Some think, however, that by the word " spirit " Paul means
the Holy Spirit. In this case the word would give the means
rather than the definition of a genuine circumcision, and it
would stand in antithesis with the word "letter."
This second chapter, then, in showing that the judgment
}s concerned wholly with character and not at all with the

44 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (II. 28, 29)
outward ceremonials of religion, puts the immoral Jew among
the sinners of the first chapter, because he does the same
things, and his Judaism goes for nothing ; circumcision will
not shield him. But Judaism is God-given, and it is God who
has made the broad distinction between circumcision and
uncircumcision, a distinction which Paul seems to obliterate.
This starts a serious objection to the line of argument, and
this objection is noticed in the beginning of the next chapter.

CHAPTER III
THE ARGUMENT ON SIN CONCLUDED (VERSES I-2o), AND THE
SECOND MAIN DIVISION OF THE EPISTLE — RIGHTEOUS
NESS — BEGUN (VERSES 21-31)
(1) Paul answers an objection (verses 1-8) and (2) con
cludes with a scriptural argument for the universality of sin
(verses 9-20). Beginning the second grand division of the
epistle, (3) the righteousness that saves is described (verses 21-
26), (4) a righteousness that excludes the Jew's boasting (verses
27-3i)- 1. "What advantage then hath the Jew?" etc. This is
one of the profound questions of the epistle. If circumcision
in itself does not give righteousness, if uncircumcision does
not preclude it, what profit was there ever in it? A distinc
tion that God made among men seems, after all, not to be
one. Paul must answer this objection to his argument for the
sinfulness of the Jew. He does this fully in chapters ix.-xi.
Here he considers it only briefly and only so far as it blocks
his argument about sin. His readers, especially Jewish ones,
could not follow him another step until this hindrance in the
line of thought is removed.
In asking the question, "What advantage then hath the
Jew? " of course he does not mean the true Jew ethically, de
scribed in the closing verses of the last chapter, but the Jew
45

46 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 2)
nationally. What is the profit of Judaism if in itself it does
not save from sin and presents no advantages over heathen
ism? There are not two questions in this verse; the repeti
tion is a Hebrew parallel, used for the sake of perspicuity.
2. " Much every way." This is the answer, brief and un
mistakable. It was written at a time when Christianity was
practically established all over the Roman empire. There
were Christian churches everywhere, and yet Paul says there
is much " advantage '' in Judaism. For centuries the religious
world has overlooked this verse and has thought and wrote as
if Judaism were a mere relic of a dead past. Paul was every
where planting believing communities composed of Jews and
Gentiles— communities in which these and all other distinc
tions disappeared (Gal. iii. 28) ; and yet he declares the Jew
as such has " much " left in his favor. Has Paul's view of
the matter become obsolete? When in the course of the cen
turies after Paul's day did the Jew lose his advantage over
Gentile Christianity?
He tells in what the advantage lies. It is not that Judaism
prepared the way for something better, for we have seen that
that supposed better thing, the church, was already in exis
tence when Paul affirmed the superiority of the Jew. His ad
vantage was not that God sowed Judaism and the world
reaped Christianity. That blots out Judaism. It was first of
all "that unto them were committed the oracles of God," not
that they were made a mere Bible depositary, but that God
gave them, as Jews, promises, not yet fulfilled, and peculiarly
their own. The Old Testament, the record of these oracles,
contains not one promise either of or to the church as an or
ganization. It does not predict a church ; it foreshadows a
kingdom in which the Jew shall be head and not lose his
national distinction as he does in the church. Dr. Adolph
Saphir, himself a converted Jew, a man who deserves to be
better known both for his profound scriptural knowledge and

(III. 3, 4) SIN CONCLUDED 47
his Christ-like piety, says : " The view that is so prevalent, that
Israel is a shadow of the church, and now that the type is
fulfilled vanishes from our horizon, is altogether unscriptural.
Israel is not the shadow fulfilled and absorbed in the church,
but the basis on which the church rests (Rom. xi.). And al
though, during the times of the Gentiles, Israel, as a nation, is
set aside, Israel is not cast away, because Israel is not a tran
sitory and temporary, but an integral part of God's counsel.
The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Israel
was chosen to be God's people, the center of his influence
and reign on earth in the ages to come. The church in the
present parenthetic period does not supplant them. The
book of the kingdom awaits its fulfilment, and the church,
instructed by Jesus and the apostles, is not ignorant of this
mystery " (" Christ and the Scriptures," p. 64).
3. " For what if some [Jews] did not believe? " The " for "
bears on the assertion that the Jew, as such, has much advan
tage. In spite of his disbelief of the gracious promises made
exclusively to him in the Old Testament oracles, Paul asserts
his superiority, for the unbelief of " some " will not make God
untrue to his promises to the nation. As God's long-given
promise to send Israel a Redeemer was not defeated by the
nation's deep sin and hypocrisy, so his promise to give the
nation headship cannot be made void by their disbelief of the
promise. He who could give unbelieving Israel a Saviour can
also give the same people that for which the Saviour came, a
universal kingdom of righteousness.
4. To the question, " Shall their unbelief make the faith
[faithfulness] of God without effect? " Paul replies vehemently,
" Let God be true, but every man a liar." Between the terms
of this reply and those in the preceding verse there is an in
structive change. There he said, what if " some " disbelieved ;
here he answers, let " every man " do so. Again the unbe
liever there is in this verse defined as a " liar," and finally the

48 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 4)
" faith " of God is reproduced in the word " true." What if
some did not believe the oracles intrusted to them? Shall
their lying, yea, shall the lying unbelief of the whole nation,
so turn God that he also shall not be true to his own oracles?
Why does Paul teach that an unbeliever is a liar? It is easy
to see how his unbelief makes God a liar (1 John v. 10).
Unbelief is lying, because it virtually pronounces unworthy of
trust that which is the truth of God. And so when God
eventually makes good his promises to the nation, not only
will the unbelievers be seen to be liars, but God will be " jus
tified " in all his Old Testament sayings, and will " overcome "
when he is 'judged, for he was misjudged. In such an hour —
and it is coming — his faithfulness to his promises will shine
with added luster, because it was kept with those utterly un
worthy of it. If Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and if
through him the Jewish race is not ultimately redeemed, then
his rejectors are the world's wise men ; but if God's plain but
far-reaching promises are made good by him, then unbelievers
will be found liars, and God's glory will shine the brighter on
the dark background of their unworthiness and sin.
Paul has now answered the Jew's objection which arises
from placing the Jew and the Gentile on the same level in the
church. For the present there is no advantage in circumci
sion except the possession of certain national promises which
the Jew alone has. The answer comes to this, that the Jew
must not confine his view to the question of salvation from sin,
where indeed he is on the same plane with the heathen, — trust
in Jesus ; nothing else, not even circumcision, will avail, — but
he must remember that in addition to this salvation God has
promised him a high place of honor in the world. Peter and
Cornelius were both sinners, the one circumcised, the other
uncircumcised, and both were saved from sin by the same
means, the forgiving grace of God. So far they are alike, but
now when saved Peter is made an apostle and Cornelius is

(III. 5, 6) SIN CONCLUDED 49
not. Here is a difference. And neither the Old Testament
nor the New can be thoroughly understood until one perceives
the analogous likeness and difference between Jew and Gen
tile. They are saved alike, but their future standing in the
earth is not alike.
We might start an objection here not noticed by Paul, and
most likely because it is not a real one. To what Jews will
God make his oracles good if all are found liars? The Scrip
ture quoted here from the experience of David (Ps. li.) may
answer. It was not until he was given penitence for his sin
that he could say of that very sin that it justified God in his
sayings and gave him victory when judged. Repentant Is
rael will find the " advantage," and they are promised repen
tance (Acts v. 31 ; Rom. xi. 26).
5. But while Paul does not notice such an objection, if in
deed it is one, he does see a real hindrance in the way of his
argument. It does not come in abstractly. The context
clearly shows that Paul had actually met it in his experience
in dealing with the subtle, wily Jew. You have shown, says
the opponent, that God's promises, when they come to pass
on Israel, will appear all the more gracious on account of the
nation's previous unbelief. Our obstinacy has turned out to
his glory : why should he punish us for that which has been a
favor to him? " If our unrighteousness commend the right
eousness of God," is not God unjust to punish us for that
unrighteousness? Paul shrinks in placing these two words
" God " and " unrighteous " together, and declares he is not
speaking as a believer, but as a " man."
6. His reply to the question comes at one blow — "Then
how shall God judge the world? " For the world is unright
eous too, and its sin makes conspicuous God's love toward it.
If God may not punish the Jew for the reason here mentioned,
neither may he punish the Gentile, for the same reason can be
urged in the latter's case. And so all judgment is at an end.

BO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 7-9)
This is the ad hominem argument again. The Jew could
not admit that the wicked Gentile world could go unpunished.
It must not be overlooked that Paul does not let this dis
cussion of sin drift away from the light in which he began it
— the light of the judgment. And he still keeps both Jew and
Gentile in view. Where the latter can find no cover, neither
can the former.
7. This verse does not advance the thought. It individu
alizes the previous statement about the " world." The world's
sin has made God's mercy toward it all the brighter, and so
each man in the world might come before God with the claim
that his glory had been advanced by the man's lie, and on
this ground claim exemption. But while this does not ad
vance the argument, it quietly intimates that not a single sin
ner will escape the judgment.
8. Paul now with one stroke brings the whole objection to
its logically absurd conclusion. If sin enhances the glory of
God, and therefore is no longer guilt, why, the more we sin
the brighter his grace. Let us do all the evil we can, for the
more evil the more praise to his name! Some had affirmed
that this is the apostle's own doctrine. In their righteous
condemnation of it they condemn themselves in the claim
that God cannot punish sin, because it promotes his glory, for
this claim is the very essence of the hateful sentiment. And
thus he has come around in most skilful fashion to the asser
tion with which he began against the Jew: "Thou art inex
cusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest : for wherein
thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself" (ii. 1). He
joins with them in repudiating the godless maxim, but he
does not go with them in holding it. They " slanderously re
port " him who say he does.
9. Here the argument (see (2) above) from Scripture for uni
versal sinfulness begins. In the words, "What then?" the
whole course of thought from the beginning (i. 18) is looked

(III. io, n) SIN CONCLUDED 51
at, as much as to say, How does the question about sin stand
now? Whether the next little sentence should be rendered
as in the King James version, " Are we better ? " or as some
others, " Have we an excuse ? " is not easily decided. The
translation of the Revised Version is wide of the mark. The
answer to the question, whatever that question is, shows that
Paul now has both parties in view, both Jew and Gentile.
This would decide against the King James rendering, which
can embrace only the Jewish party. In looking back over the
argument, as the little interrogation, " What then? " directs, we
see that Paul has argued the guilt oi-both parties. One refuge
after another was beaten down. Does any_«main? Have
we an excuse? Is there no refuge for men? Then comes the
sweeping negative, " No, in no wise," and in justification of this
negative he refers to what he previously said about both Jew
and Gentile, that they are all under sin. Note that he does not
say with the King James version that he before "proved " it ;
for while he has made it very evident, the clinching proof
comes only now, and it comes from Scripture. The selections
are from various psalms, from the prophets, and one (verse
15) from the Book of Proverbs (i. 16). They are arranged
to give, first, the character of men, secondly, their conduct,
and finally, the cause of their sin. They can be presented to
the eye thus : 1. Character (verses 10-12).
2.Co"nduct|Speech;verSeSI3'I4x)'  (action (verses 15-17).
3. Cause (verse 18).
10. " None righteous, no, not one." The striking little
repetition "no, not one," makes the preceding assertion all-
comprehensive. In the divine estimation of the non-right
eousness of the race there is not a single exception.
11. "None that understandeth." The apostle taught be
fore (i. 21, 22) that men became "fools." They did "not

52 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 12-16)
seek after God," though they sought everything else. The
word " seek " implies not that God is concealed, but that man
is lost. As these passages are proof-texts of sin, the failure to
understand and to seek God is sin. A negative attitude toward
the truth is positive transgression.
12. "All gone out of the way." They knew the right way,
the Gentile by the light of nature (i. 20, 21) and the Jew
by the law (ii. 17-20); but they deliberately forsook the
path where God's light shone for their own way of darkness.
They are "together [without exception, again] become un
profitable." The last is a picturesque word, signifying some
thing that once was good and useful, like meat or milk, but
has grown corrupt beyond recovery. As Paul began this
section on character with the sweeping statement that there
is none good, so he closes it with the equally inclusive state
ment that no one " doeth good." All their religious works —
and they are many — are conceived in sin and are therefore un
righteous. 13, 14. Speech was given to man for his honor and bless
ing. He turned it to his own shame. See the whispering, back
biting, boasting, in i. 29, 30. "Throat," "tongues," "lips,"
" mouth," an anatomical order from that which is inward to the
outward. The throat over a corrupt heart is like an unfilled
grave, with the putrescent corpse lying at the bottom — a terri
ble picture for a Jew, or for anybody, for that matter ; the
tongue, a means to praise God, become an instrument of
craft ; the lips— think of those of Judas— deadly with the old
serpent's poison ; and the mouth, made to be full of innocent
laughter (Ps. cxxvi. 2; Luke vi. 21) and joyous praise, be
fouled with cursing and bitterness.
15. Their action is no better than their speech. " Their feet
are swift "—they run eagerly to commit murder and make war.
16. "Destruction and misery are in their ways." What
have the old nations that have run their course left in the path

(III. 17-20) SIN CONCLUDED 63
behind them? Each empire has built itself up on the ruin of
all others. It is an adage, " Blessed is the nation that has no
history," for all history is but the annals of strife and human woe.
17. "The way of peace . . . not known." This is the
other side of the last verse. Peace is a stranger to the world.
18. " No fear of God before their eyes," for they turned
their backs on him. This lack of reverence for him and his
revelation is the fruitful source of this " mosaic of sin." It is
to be noted that what is a subjective condition of heart is here
spoken of as if it might be outward, " before their eyes."
19. This plain Scripture proof of man's sinfulness having
been adduced, the next step is to show to whom it applies.
The Jew might say it is inspiration's estimate of the heathen
world, but cannot refer to him. No, says Paul ; " we know
that what things soever the law saith," — he calls the Psalms,
etc., from which these quotations are selected, the law, — "it
saith to them who are under the law," that is, to the Jews.
These sentiments about the character and conduct of men and
the cause of their sin do describe the Gentiles, but are intended
first of all as a condemnation of the men to whom they are
spoken and in whose Bible they are recorded. Might it be
possible for us to delude ourselves to-day in a way that Paul
would not allow the Jew to do — that these pictures of sin are
photographs of that distant age, but not of ours? But have
we not the same "law" then possessed by the Jew? And
has the principle — it is a principle — failed, that what the law
says it speaks first of all to them that have it?
Paul goes on to give the object of his quotations : they are
intended to stop "every mouth," that of the Jew especially,
and to show a whole world guilty before God. It is a con
demned world, condemned by the Judge himself. To save it
or any man in it, there can be no means but his mercy.
20. The word " therefore " is a mistranslation. Paul is not
drawing a conclusion, as this word would indicate, but is about

54 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 20)
to demolish the last stronghold of the Jew. For " therefore "
read "because." All the world is guilty before God, "because"
by deeds of law shall no flesh be justified, accounted righteous,
before him. Many Jews were rigorous observers of the law.
Paul's own righteousness in it had been perfect (Phil. iii. 6).
In proving all men sinners, he was well aware of the Jews'
scrupulous attention to the behests of Moses, but he demol
ishes their last refuge in declaring that law- works cannot
save. After all of them are done, they leave a man in sin
(Gal. ii. 15, 16). The reason law cannot save is because it
has neither the office nor the power of salvation. In one
word Paul gives its office ; "by the law is " — not justification
— " by the law is the knowledge of sin." It has an office and
"is good, if a man use it lawfully" (1 Tim. i. 8). But one
might as well attempt to cross the river on a millstone as to
get into heaven by works of law. If he would sink without
the stone he must sink deeper with it. If the Gentile perishes
"without law" (ii. 12), much more will the Jew, who has it,
for it only makes his sin apparent.
It is to be observed that he does not say that only the law
has this office, nor that this is the only office of the law. Men
have " the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law "
(ii. 20). It is a permanent revelation of divine righteousness.
Again, it is said to be " a schoolmaster unto Christ " (Gal. iii.
24) and to have been made for the lawless (1 Tim. i. 9). The
offices of the law are various. On the other hand, sin is re
vealed not on'y by the law, but by conscience, as the apostle
has already taught (ii. 15), by the gospel, and especially
by the Holy Spirit (John xvi. 8, 9). When Paul says here
that by the law is the knowledge of sin, he is just asserting in
the most emphatic manner that the Jew cannot hope for sal
vation by its observance. It cannot lift him out of the wide
morass of his sin ; it only shows him how deep and how hope
lessly he is in.

(III. 20) SIN CONCLUDED 55
This brief but radical statement about the office of the law
would startle the first readers of the epistle, especially the
Jewish ones, and lead them to expect something more on the
topic. And Paul presents it, but not here. Indeed, the law
is a chief topic to be considered. The most serious Jew would
ask, Has God given Israel a code that, after all, cannot save?
The question confronts the gospel at the start; Jesus met it
(Matt. v. 17-20), and Paul will in due time.
And here it may be as well to notice that this is a charac
teristic of the epistle, to touch a subject and then drop it for
a full treatment farther on. We have had three such instances
already. The righteousness by faith was mentioned and at
once left at i. 17 for the discussion about sin. It is taken up
again as the next topic, and forms the main line of thought
to the end of chapter viii. The advantage of the Jew was
broached in iii. 1-4, but will not be noticed again until chap
ters ix.-xi., where it is fully considered. The third case is
this one about the law, glanced at again in v. 20 and vi. 14,
but the full exposition is withheld until chapter vii. Romans
iii. 21 is the text of chapter iv. Finally there ends with vi. 13
a very short exhortation, taken up again in the first verse of
the twelfth chapter as the theme for the rest of the epistle.
Rigid attention to the course of thought shows the necessity
for this first mention and later development, and accounts
logically for the place where each comes in.
The first main division of the epistle forms a powerful nega
tive argument for the second, and was evidently so intended.
Since man is a sinner with no help in himself and none in the
law, what is left to him but to look to the mercy of God?
Every son of Adam is not only lost, but condemned. His
penalty is continuance in sin not only while he sins, but be
cause he has sinned. This is the wrath of God, the proposi
tion which begins the first main division (i. 18) and is proved
in it. All the world is " guilty before God." In a court of

56 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 21)
justice it is only after every defense has failed and the law
itself has been shown to be broken, it is only at this point
that the appeal is made to the judge for his clemency. The
epistle has brought us to such a point.
This division extends to the close of chapter viii., and con
tains two leading thoughts : first, justification, in iii. 21-v., and
secondly, sanctification, in chapters vi.-viii. These theologi
cal terms are used instead of the more biblical ones, "right
eousness " and " holiness," because Paul embraces under the
former both justification and sanctification, both the removal
of guilt (iii. 21-v.) and the power of right living (vi.-viii.).
For clearness of thought, theology separates these two and
discusses them apart. Paul includes the two in the word
"righteousness" and even in the word "justify."
21. With this verse Paul begins the description of that
righteousness which avails before God. (See (3) above.) It
might read, " An apart-from-law righteousness of God has
been revealed." This gives Paul's order of the words. The
definite article before the word " righteousness " is omitted in
modern translations. He told us in a former verse (i. 17)
that it is in the gospel that this righteousness is unveiled, or,
as here, stands in clear light. The word "now," meaning as
the case, the argument, now stands, shows how gladly Paul
turns from the painful matter of sin to its sure remedy. A
sigh of relief can be heard in the particle.
Just one point is made so far about the righteousness: it
stands apart from the law, has no vital connection with it ; its
source is elsewhere. Paul says just this in Philippians iii. 9.
He does not define the word. Something of its contents is
given in 1 Corinthians xv. 3, 4. Of course it is not God's at
tribute, so called, for that is not the special revelation of the
gospel ; neither could it be said of that attribute that it is a
righteousness by faith. The gospel tells where this saving
righteousness is found— in Christ ; on what condition it is

(III. 22) RIGHTEOUSNESS 57
gained by a sinner — faith; what are its present fruits— love,
joy, and peace ; and what is the outcome — eternal life. Paul's
readers knew all this, and therefore he limits himself to other
points, equally important, found in the paragraph before us.
" Being witnessed by the law and the prophets." While
denying one relation between the law and the gospel, Paul
never forgets to insist upon another. There is no breach be
tween the Old Testament and the New. The ceremonies and
the prophecies of the Jewish Bible could not give life; they
did not develop the Christ ; but in his springing " out of Judah,"
in his being " made under the law," and in his resurrection
" according to the Scriptures," they become a powerful and
ever-living witness to him. A shadow never gives birth to sub
stance, but substance to shadow. The shadow of the law an
swers exactly to the substantial righteousness of the gospel,
from which the shadow arose, and testifies that they belong
together. How the ceremonies of the law pointed to Christ
is elaborately unfolded in the Book of Hebrews. The taber
nacle, the lavings, the sacrifices, all pointed to Christ. The
prophets bore direct verbal testimony to righteousness to come
just as it did come. The gospel, when it was first preached
and as Paul preached it, must have seemed like a subversion
of the ancient documents, so new and radical was it. But
Paul found it harmonizing with these same parchments, when
read under the new light burning in Christ; and he stands
for and stands on the " living oracles " (Acts vii. 38).
In this verse, then, Paul has given the first item in describ
ing the new righteousness ; it is apart from the law, but not
contrary to it.
22. He tells us next the source of this righteousness— it is
" of [from] God " ; he gives its leading characteristic— it is not
a by-works, but a by-faith righteousness ; he points to him on
whom alone the faith must rest, Jesus Christ, for right faith is
faith on the right object ; he asserts the universality of its pro-

58 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 23)
vision— it is a righteousness for all ; he gives the condition of
its bestowment — it is for every one who believes. It is to be
observed that faith, first the noun and then the verb, is men
tioned twice in this verse. Commentators are either silent here
or confused. Even Meyer, correct in his exposition of the
first mention, but surely wrong at i. 17, says nothing about
the second. The lack of clearness arises in not observing that
when faith is first spoken of in the verse it belongs to the de
scription of the righteousness, and in the second instance it
teaches how the righteousness is attained. The first is ob
jective, the second subjective. As a righteousness by works is
secured by works, so a righteousness by faith is secured by faith.
" For there is no difference " between Jew and Gentile.
This little sentence gives the reason for saying that the right
eousness is for " all." All need it, and no class of men has
anything else to present before God for salvation.
23. " For all have sinned." This shows what Paul means
in saying there is no difference. He does not mean that they
have all sinned to the same degree, but if any man has sinned
at all he has failed, and cannot be saved by any other means
than faith in Christ. Paul shows next the consequence of
universal sinfulness ; all sinned and are coming short, in suc
cessive generations, of the glory of God. He changes the
tense from the past to the present. He does not say that all
men come equally short of measuring up to the standard ; but
the standard is perfection, — nothing else can pass before God,
— and the lack of an inch is as fatal as the lack of twelve. In
this world he who sins but little is much better than he who
sins much, but at God's bar neither will be accepted. There
is "no difference." To sin at all is to lose all and to come
short of the glory or praise of God. " Glory " in this place
means the same as in John xii. 43, where it is translated
"praise." For man can have no higher glory than the ap
probation of God.

(III. 24) RIGH7E0USNESS 59
What Paul has to say in this and the preceding verse about
sin is very brief, for the subject was fully discussed in the first
section of the epistle ; but this brief mention shows how this
section is made vital by that one.
24. " Being justified freely," etc. The subject of this par
ticipial clause is the " all who sinned " at the beginning of the
last verse. Of course Paul does not mean to say that all sin
ners are justified. He had just declared that the condition is
faith, and he need not say it again. To have inserted the word
" faith " would have turned the attention from what he has
to say, that sinners without exception are justified not by
works, not by any means except those mentioned below.
When they are justified, or if they are justified at all, it must
be as here described. The present tense of the participle does
not show a continuance of the act, — justification occurs once
for all, — but a continuance in its spreading among men and
generations that need it.
To justify does not mean to make (inherently) righteous,
but to declare or pronounce righteous. (See remarks on vi.
1.) Two cases in which the word has already stood in the
epistle show this, ii. 13 and iii. 4. In the first, men are said
to be justified in the judgment. Can that mean that they are
made right in that hour of award? In the next, God is said
to be justified at that same time. He that is holiness itself
can be declared so, and anything else is blasphemy. (See also
1 Tim. iii. 16, and Luke vii. 29.) In Matthew (xi. 19) wis
dom is said to be "justified of [by] her children." Her children
recognize her excellence, and pronounce it such, but do not
make her what she already is. To justify is in some sense a
forensic act equivalent to " not condemned " ; " he that be
lieveth is not condemned" (John iii. 18), that is, he is justified
on his faith. But the peculiarity of the divine court is that the
sinner has been proved to be guilty and is known to be guilty,
—all the world is guilty before God,— and after all is freely

60 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 25)
justified; while in the human court this is impossible. When
one is justified or acquitted among men it must be either that
his crime was not proved or that there were extenuating cir
cumstances. But before God man is guilty and yet is justified
on believing, but not for his believing. Man cannot justify a
sinner ; God can.
Paul proceeds to give three interesting facts — the very mar
row of the gospel — pertaining to the subject. First, as to the
manner. All are justified "freely." It costs the acquitted
person absolutely nothing, " without money and without price "
(Isa. Iv. 1). Secondly, the source of the justification. "By
his [God's] grace." This is his favor to the man not after he
is justified, but before. It is grace toward the ungodly (Eph.
ii. 4, 5): He "loved us, even when we were dead in sins."
Thirdly, we have the means of the justification of grace.
" Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Note the
relation of the two divine persons toward the justifying act.
It is God who justifies ; it is Christ who is the medium. God's
grace comes in and through Christ.
25. In this and the following verse there are just two points :
first, how Christ became redemption, and secondly, why. The
redemption is from the wrath of God. The Jew had little
trouble in understanding this point. As a sinner he knew he
was under the divine displeasure, and brought therefore a
bloody offering — an ox, a sheep, or a dove— by which to re
deem himself from God's displeasure and render satisfaction
for his sin. Paul now says God himself has set forth Jesus
Christ in his blood as the propitiatory offering through faith.
The phrase " in his blood " is to be joined not with the word
" faith " immediately preceding, but with the verb " set forth."
Philosophy and theology have busied themselves here, without
reaching unanimity, on a question which Paul does not hint
at — the relation of the sacrifice to its end. The apostle gives
only the facts. God freely justifies men by means of the ran-

(HI. 25) RIGHTEOUSNESS 61
som power in Christ Jesus. He is such because God has set
him forth in his blood as a sufficient propitiation. Whatever
reason may say about such a sacrifice, Paul is satisfied with it
because it is God's own. God is satisfied with the offering,
for he provided it. It becomes a propitiation " through faith,"
because faith says of it just what God does— I accept what
God has provided for my sin. That ends the difference be
tween God and the sinner, and they are at one in Christ Jesus.
This is justification by faith.
" To declare his righteousness." With this Paul begins to
answer the second question, why Christ Jesus was set forth as
a redemptive sacrifice in his blood. His answer will not sat
isfy unless his exposition of sin is accepted. Man's sin is not
misfortune; it is guilt. God's wrath burns against it; why
should that wrath ever cease? Again the Jew could answer.
His law bore witness (verse 2 1 ) to the gospel. The smoking
altar where he offered his lamb or his bullock not only testi
fied that God could remit the offerer's sin, but declared also
that God was holy. Justice demanded the life of the sinner,
and a life was given in that of the bloody offering. Justice
justified because justice was satisfied.
The word " righteousness " in this sentence does not mean
the same as in verse 2 1 . To insist that a word must in every
instance of its use have the same signification is subversive of
all understanding. Such a notion is contradicted by the facts.
The word " glory " has already been used in two widely differ
ent senses. Righteousness here looks at God's character as
Judge. The question now before us is, How can a righteous
Judge pronounce a guilty sinner guiltless ? Paul's answer is
that the redemptive sacrifice in Jesus Christ, a sacrifice fore
shadowed in the Jewish altar-offerings, declares the divine
righteousness in showing mercy. The chief question in saving
man is not how the man may be accounted just, but how God
may remain so in forgiving his sins.

62 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 25)
" For the remission of sins that are past, through the for
bearance of God." The Revised Version is preferable : " Be
cause of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the
forbearance of God." These are not the sins committed by
the believer before he came to Christ, but the sins done under
the old economy, before Christ came (Heb. ix. 15). It is not
said that God forgave these sins, not even, with the King James
version, that he remitted them. To all appearances, in all past
time he paid no attention to sins, he overlooked them (" winked
at," Acts xvii. 30), without meting out adequate punishment
(Ps. Ixxviii. 38). Sometimes in the history of the race he sent
judgments, now against the Jews and now against the Gen
tiles. The Jews were driven more than once into captivity,
and more than one heathen nation had been overthrown ; but
as judgment for man's sin, this was nothing. Inspiration's
just estimate, in spite of these severe visitations, cries that
there was on God's part a "passing over of the sins done
aforetime," as if the just Judge had not rightly weighed their
guilt. There was a thick veil over his righteousness, but the
cross removed it and demonstrated his judgment of sin. The
terrible tragedy of the cross, on which God set forth his Son in
his blood, is his measure of man's demerit. The punishment
that man so long escaped fell at last on the Son of man.
Now, while the death of Christ Jesus looked back thus at
the sins of the whole race, and while he died " because of the
passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of
God," it is by no means taught that the race was saved. What is
taught is very clear, not that Christ died to secure the righteous
ness of men, but to rescue the righteousness of God from a mis
understanding. Says Godet (" Commentary," in loc.) : " For
four thousand years the spectacle presented by mankind to
the whole moral universe (compare 1 Cor. iv. 9) was, so to
speak, a continual scandal. . . . Divine righteousness seemed
to sleep ; one might even have asked if it existed. Men sinned

(III. 26) RIGHTEOUSNESS 63
here below and yet they lived. They sinned on and yet
reached in safety a hoary old age. Where were the ' wages
of sin'? It was this relative impunity which rendered a
solemn manifestation of righteousness necessary." Jesus died
for men, but in a much more striking way he died for God.
What a fathomless depth of meaning he gave to the first peti
tion in the Lord's Prayer, " Hallowed be thy name "! How
God hates sin ! For even overlooking it his honor demanded
the blood of the cross ; how much more when he forgives it !
And it is not difficult to distinguish between the cross as a dem
onstration of God's righteousness on one hand, and a propiti
ation looking toward man's righteousness on the other. It is a
propitiation only through faith ; it is a demonstration in itself.
In all time, past, present, or future, only those men are saved
by the cross who believe ; but equally in all time the cross
honors God whether men believe or not. The cross, instead
of saving all men, does show, by its declaration of God's
righteousness, and show conclusively, that they are not saved
unless they believe.
26. The cross stands midway in the history of the race and
looks in both directions in declaring God's righteousness in
his dealings with men. For this reason the phrase " to declare
his righteousness," in verse 25, ig_rep£ated_here. The death
of Christ on the cross accomplished one great work and be
came the means to another. It showed that God was not
slack in his dealing with the sins of the race in the past ; it
also declares his righteousness in his mercy toward the be
liever now, " at this time," a phrase in contrast with the word
" past " in the preceding verse. But this phrase conveys also
the fitness and significance of the era of the cross. It was the
time foreseen and chosen by God for his marvelous display of
his own holy character. In after years men came in some
sense to recognize the meaning of this period by dating time
from the birth of Christ. What the antichrist will at the last

64 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 26)
attempt to do (Dan. vii. 25) Christ had the right to do— cre
ate a new era.
" That he might be just, and the justifier of him which [who]
believeth in Jesus." This is the grand purpose of God in set
ting forth Christ in his blood. On this setting forth the three
main ideas in these two verses depend: set forth to declare
God's righteousness in the past ; set forth to declare God's
righteousness " at this time '' ; and set forth that he might be
just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. But why
does Paul mention the retroactive influence of the cross? It
is his argument, first of all with the Jew and ultimately with
all men, to cut off the Jew from a false reliance on his past
history. It explains history. History cannot interpret the
gospel ; the gospel interprets history. The Jew's history was
not complete, his sacrifices never atoned, until Christ died on
the cross, which death showed that God had dealt with men
not as they deserved and not strictly in accord with his char
acter as a righteous Judge. The sacrifice on the cross dem
onstrates for the first time what God is, and shows that in
times past and present he is the same — " of purer eyes than to
behold evil" (Hab. i. 13).
If God set forth Christ in his blood as a redemptive and
propitiatory sacrifice in order that he might be just in justify
ing the believer, then we gain with certainty the meaning of
the words " redemption " and " propitiation." God could not
be just without the sacrifice of Christ; it was made in order
that God might be just ; therefore it must be said that Christ
died for men and that his blood was their redemption price
(Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19). The judge could not release
the bankrupt man until his creditor was satisfied. For Christ
did not die that God might seem to be just, but that in fact
he might be just in the very act of justifying the believer. It
is a righteous thing as well as a merciful thing for God to for
give a believer ; but the sinner cannot plead this right, since

(III. 26) RIGHTEOUSNESS 65
he did not provide the ransom, — God did in Christ,— but the
sinner's Saviour can plead it for him. Justification is an act
of righteousness toward Jesus Christ, an act of mercy toward
the sinner. If mercy is not made prominent in this descrip
tion of righteousness, it is because Paul is looking at the primal
difficulty in saving men. It is not how to get men to God,
but how to get God to men — how a just God is to pronounce
a sinner just. The wisdom of men never could have removed
this difficulty even if they had seen it. It is completely taken
away in Christ Jesus.
The paragraph (verses 21-26), then, has just two topics : the
righteousness that avails, and its bestowment, justification. It
may be outlined thus :
fi. Its source — "God."

_fi

„ . . , < (a) "Apart from "it;
Relation to law < ;,. „,..,. , „ , ...
( (b) Witnessed " by it.

C

1. How<

3. Chief characteristic — " Faith in Jesus."
4. Condition — Belief in him.
5. Its extent—" Unto all."
^6. Reason for this extent—" No difference."
' (a) Manner—" Freely."
(b) Cause— "His grace."
(c) Means— "Redemption that is in Christ
Jesus."
Why by blood— "That God might be just, and the
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
This brief but masterly exposition of righteousness, like the
sun, is its own evidence. But it found great opposition at the
start, not in heathenism, but in pharisaism. The Jew could
claim that his God was the true one, his religion a revealed
one, and its documents inspired. (See his boast in ii. 17-20.)
It is not the false, but the perverted religion that furnishes the
chief obstacle to the truth. And Paul begins here to answer

66 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 27, 28)
the perversion. Indeed, the direct exposition of the right
eousness by faith ends with the twenty-sixth verse. If the
epistle had ended there it would not have been incomplete.
All the rest is a consideration of objections, in which the fur
ther unfolding of the righteousness is only incidental.
27. " Where, then, is the boasting " on the part of the Jew?
How can he claim anything over the Gentile? Righteousness
does not arise from his law ; he is a sinner like the Gentile,
and the salvation in Christ is universal. " Where, then, is the
boasting? It is excluded. By what [kind of a] law? " What
sort of an institution? One whose chief characteristic is pre
scribed works? No; where a man does works of law to be
saved, he can boast of them and boast of the law that warrants
them. Boasting can only be shut out by a law, an institution,
whose chief characteristic is faith. For faith says first of all
(Luke xviii. 13) that man is so hopelessly, helplessly a sinner,
so guilty even with all his law-works, that God's grace alone
can save him in Christ. If a man believes, he cannot boast
of that ; for even if it is denied that faith is God's gift, it is
nothing to a man's credit to trust God. While it is the chief
of sins not to do so, trust is every man's bounden duty.
It will be noticed here that Paul claims the same distinction
for faith that the Jew does for works ; it is a law, a new and
wholly different law — not a law of bondage, but a "law of
liberty" (James i. 25). He also sets the two in sharp an
tithesis. Faith and works of law are mutually exclusive.
28. " Therefore we conclude," etc. The Revised Version
also reads " therefore," but it is not correct. It ought to be
" for." And thus the verse gives the substantial reason for
the exclusion of boasting. That reason is that " a man [any
man, Jew or Gentile] is justified by faith [the latter is the em
phatic word] without deeds of law." The last clause is more
forcible by omitting the articles.
But why does Paul thrust so sharply at the Jew's boasting?

(III. 29, 30) RIGHTEOUSNESS 67
Is it not because vain pride or prejudice is generally the last
and strongest support of a bad case? The Jew's loud boast
was his only argument, and it must be silenced.
29. " Is he the God of the Jews only? " The word " or "
should precede — "Or is God the God of the Jews only?"
This brings up the Jew's boast on another side. His claim
that law-works justify involves a position which he cannot
maintain — that there must be more than one God, one of the
Jews and one of the Gentiles. It is proved now that there
can be but one way of justifying men, the way of faith, a way
suited to the Gentile and in flat contradiction to the Jew's way
of works. Now if the Jew sticks to his course, there must be
two Gods, for the same God cannot save men by opposing
methods. It is easy to become confused here. Paul is not
contending for justification by faith. That doctrine is settled,
settled with the close of the twenty-sixth verse. He is argu
ing now for its exclusiveness, that it is the only true doctrine.
The Jew claims that the works of law will save ; Paul has
proved that faith saves. If both are true, God is not one.
But the Jew admitted that his God was the God of the Gen
tiles. The Old Testament gives abundant proof of this in the
Psalms and in the prophets. (See Jer. x. 7.) It was freely
admitted during the ministry of Jesus (Mark xii. 32), so that
no one would dispute the saying, " Yea, he is the God of the
Gentiles also." The Jew's boast in his works denied this, or
it was a groundless boast.
30. " Seeing it is one God." The Revised Version changes
both the reading and the rendering : " If so be that God is
one." The change in reading does not materially alter the
sense ; the change in translation is a gain in that it brings out
the idea of the unity of God. Because God is one there can
be but one way of justifying men. A righteous judge could
not render contradictory decisions where all are alike guilty,
and certainly he could not decide in such a way that his judg-

613 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 31)
ment to save some would necessarily exclude others. The
unity of God makes salvation by faith exclusive of every other
means. It is to be noted that Paul's argument on this whole subject
of justification by faith, beginning with the twentieth verse, is
so far theological. It is based on the character of God and
on his unity. The Jew admitted his holiness and his oneness,
but his deduction that justification came by works of law was
utterly inconsistent. He reached this false conclusion because
he was ignorant of his sinfulness. It cannot be said too often
that a false theology finds its source in inadequate views of
depravity. Paul excludes the works of the law from justification, and
yet the Jew's Bible prescribed them, and in a most solemn
manner: "The uncircumcised man . . . hath broken my
covenant" (Gen. xvii. 14). The apostle's argument so far is
unanswerable ; it is based on solid theological data ; but from
the very start he has claimed that it is also scriptural. It has
a documentary defense, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets. 31. This last verse of the third chapter serves to bring up
this question. Faith excludes works ; does it, then, evacuate
the Book of works, as the Jew supposed it to be? The nega
tive comes with a shudder— "God forbid." Paul will teach
nothing contradictory to what he has already called the Holy
Scriptures (i. 2). For the word "law" here does not mean
the ceremonial or even the moral law, but the whole Old
Testament. "We establish the law." The next chapter
shows how. He does not confirm it by abstract theological
reasoning, but by exegetical exposition of its utterance.

CHAPTER IV
RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH IN HARMONY WITH THE OLD TESTA
MENT SCRIPTURES
This chapter answers the question raised in the last verse
above, and shows the concord between Moses and Paul, be
tween the law and the gospel. The points are four: (i)
Abraham, with whom the Jewish nation began, was justified by
faith (verses 1-5), the method celebrated in song by their
greatest king, David (verses 6-8); (2) Abraham was justified
long before he was circumcised (verses 9-12) ; (3) the promise
that he should be the heir of the world was by means of faith
(verses 1 3-1 7a) ; (4) the faith demanded by the gospel is none
other in character than that which Abraham exercised (verses
17-5-25). 1. " What shall we say then that Abraham . . . hath
found? " The variations in the reading of this verse do not
seriously affect the sense. As Abraham was the father of the
faithful, Paul seeks in the record of his life how he was justi
fied. What did Abraham, our forefather, find or obtain " ac
cording to the flesh"? This phrase is to be joined with the
verb "hath found" and not with the word "father." It
means, what did he find by his own natural efforts in contrast
with that which is spiritual? The phrase is almost equivalent
to this: what did he gain by religious works? The word
"flesh" stands for the whole natural man, body, soul, and
69

70 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 2-4)
spirit, and not for the physical part only. Hence the Scrip
ture can speak of "the will of the flesh" (John i. 13).
2. "For if Abraham was justified by works." The "for"
does not give the answer to the question about Abraham, but
the reason for asking it. The Jew rightly assumed, with Paul,
that the head of the nation was justified, but the question is,
how? by what means? If by works, then he has something
of which to boast. He can point to these works ; he can
"glory." The conditional sentence ends with this" word
"glory," which is rightly followed, both in the King James
and the Revised Version, by a semicolon ; for that which fol
lows, " but not before God," is Paul's own solemn assertion.
Admitting that Abraham was justified in some way, Paul de
clares that it was in such a way that the nation's head had
nothing to boast of before God. Paul's declaration is the
proposition now to be proved.
3. " For what saith the Scripture? " This is Paul's sup
port of his point that Abraham found nothing of his own to
glory in before God. In the Scripture, in the law, it is written :
" Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for right
eousness" (Gen. xv. 6). It was not his natural works, but his
trust in God, that was set down to his account. The history,
a part of which is here quoted, leaves no room for works.
God made Abraham a supernatural promise, and the patriarch
believed it, and that belief was set down to his account for
justification. And since there is no merit in believing God,
because it is every man's bounden duty to do so, it was God's
mercy, God's grace, that "counted" Abraham's act ot faith
to his credit.
4. Paul might have dropped the question with the Scripture
quotation, which clearly proves that Abraham did not work,
but believed ; but he gives an exposition of the latter part
of his quotation almost in syllogistic form. It is a general
principle that a worker's "reward " or wages is a " debt " due

(IV. 5) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 71
him for his work. But Abraham's reward, justification, was
" counted " to him, was bestowed on him as a favor. It fol
lows, then, that he was not a worker. If he was, the word
" counted," implying grace, could not be used. It is no favor
to a man to pay him what he is earning. It is a " debt " due
him. Dr. Shedd (" Commentary," in loc) quotes " Coriola-
nus" (act ii., sc. 3) here:
" Better it is to die, better to starve,
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve."
5. "But to him [any one] that worketh not [the case of
Abraham], but [on the other hand] believeth on him [God]
that justifieth the ungodly [individual], his faith [his believing]
is counted [to him] for righteousness [justification]." Abra
ham was justified ; this is not disputed. He did not do works
to reach this happy position before God ; therefore nothing is
left to which to ascribe his salvation except his believing.
This verse has not the form, but all the force, of a deduction
from what precedes. It is the fundamental and guiding prin
ciple in obtaining the favor of God. Abraham stood before
God in his sins. They were not forgiven. God made him a
promise that was against human reason, and the patriarch put
his trust in it and relied upon it. And now, on the condition
of that trust in God's word, God pronounced him no longer
guilty of sin. He had not uttered a prayer, he had not done
a religious deed, he was not a good man, but " ungodly," and
yet was justified. The term " ungodly " does not necessarily
mean depraved, but simply without acceptable piety. But
after all it is an elastic term, and can include the utmost de
parture from moral rectitude. God's justification reaches be
lieving men in whatever sins it finds them.
It may be said that Abraham was a believer long years be
fore the incident in his life cited here by Paul ; and so he was.
'' By faith Abraham, when he was called, . . . went out, not

72 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 6-8)
knowing whither he went " (Heb. xi. 8). But it is nowhere re
corded that this act of faith justified him. It was not a faith
against reason, but a commendable following of the guidance
of God. If any kind of faith in God — faith in his existence,
faith in his goodness, faith in his almightiness — justified,
why, who would not be saved? The faith that saves is nar
row, specific, and resting on one single item, the gospel, as
Paul soon shows. Abraham had been a good man and even
a believing man, as was Cornelius (Acts x. i-6), and all this
was no hindrance to justification, but in the way of it. Justi
fication, however, did not occur, at least there is no record of
it, in the case of Abraham until he believed God's supernatural
promise. And Cornelius was not justified by his goodness ;
he had to hear the gospel to be "saved" (Acts xi. 14).
6-8. " Even as David," etc. Another most eminent man in
Jewish history is cited in favor of "righteousness without
works." David's testimony would be conclusive with a can
did Jew. The introductory words, " even as," show his exact
accord with Pa.ul's reasoning about Abraham's justification.
David uses the same language in describing the felicitation
(not felicity) of the man to whom " God imputeth righteous
ness without works." David is just citing his own case (Ps.
xxxii. 1, 2), when he had none but most evil works to show.
"This righteousness is not ours, otherwise God would not
gratuitously impute it, but bestow it as a matter of right ; nor
is it a habit or quality, for it is ' without works ' ; but it is a
gracious remission, a covering over, a non-imputation." It is
God's sentence of acquittal, pronounced on the sinner when
he believes God.
At first sight there seems to be a serious disagreement be
tween what Paul sets out to prove and the citations from
David in attestation. Paul's proposition is that God "im
puteth righteousness without works." The quotations men
tion neither righteousness nor works, but speak about sins

(IV. 9, io) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 73
being covered — the only instance in the New Testament where
this language is used — and about " the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin." But to " forgive " clearly implies " with
out works," and to " cover " implies the presence of the sins
at the moment when the mantle of grace falls on them to hide
them. They could not be covered if they had not been there
when the gracious concealment took place. This is the first
point in the proposition of "no works." The second, about
"righteousness," follows in the eighth verse, for the non-im
putation of sin is necessarily the imputation of righteousness.
There is no conceivable state of the heart between the idea of
no sin and that of righteousness. Where there is no darkness
there must be light.
9. " Upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision
also ? " With this verse begins the discussion of the second
(2) point in the concord between the Old Testament record
and grace. It is now proved by that record that a man is
justified by faith without works. Does this blessed way of
saving men belong to the Jews only? "For" it was proved
only in the case of him who is the father of the Jews, Abra
ham. This puts the question into narrow limits. The uni
versality of justification by faith must now be proved from
Abraham's case ; and this proof Paul proceeds to furnish.
10. "How was it then reckoned?" Paul is not now in
quiring after the condition on' which Abraham was justified ;
for it has already been established that that condition was faith.
But what was his own personal or religious standing when he
believed and was justified thereby? Was he a heathen or a
Jew? Was he circumcised or uncircumcised? Paul declares
he was in the latter condition, and submits this assertion with
out proof, for the history of Abraham was conclusive on the
point. In Genesis xv. he was declared just. After this Ish
mael was born, and when thirteen years old (Gen. xvii. 25) he
and Abraham were circumcised on the same day ; that is, Ish-

74 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. n)
mael was in his fourteenth year, a number very significant in
the estimation of Paul's Jewish readers.
This was a tremendous blow to any who claimed that there
could be no salvation (Acts xv. i) without this principal Jew
ish rite. Israel's own father was a justified man fourteen years
before it was imposed.
11. "The sign of circumcision." A new question now
confronts Paul. If the rite did not confer justification, if
Abraham was saved so long before it, what was its office?
what did it accomplish? Here is a reminder of the objector's
question at the beginning of the third chapter — "What is the
profit of circumcision?" In answering Paul deals another
heavy blow to the opponent. The rite, instead of conferring
righteousness, confirmed that which Abraham already had, in
that it was a " sign " and seal of it. Circumcision attested the
validity of Abraham's faith — righteousness in uncircumcision.
In no dispensation do rites bestow anything; they are the
shadow, not the substance ; they are a seal. But the seal is
worthless apart from the matter or from the document that it
attests. The Jew had torn off the seal from the covenant and
then vainly boasted of this meaningless imprint.
" That he might be the father." After using circumcision
and the relative time when it was given as a telling argument
for justification by faith and without works, Paul now shows
the divine intent of the rite. Without it Abraham would have
been father of the Gentiles only. With it he becomes father
of the Jews also. Thus quietly he puts the Jew in the second
place so far. Abraham is called father neither in a physical
nor in a spiritual sense. He is father in that he is head of the
faith clan and so the normal type. He is the head and father
in the fact that he was the first in whom God showed how
men are to be saved.
" Father of all them that believe, though they be not cir
cumcised ; that [in order that] righteousness might be imputed

(IV. 12) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 75
unto them also." In showing that Abraham is father of " all,"
father of both Jews and Gentiles, he mentions the latter first.
The patriarch was saved without circumcision, by simple faith ;
so may the Gentiles be saved. The subordinate sentence, " That
righteousness might be imputed," etc., depends on the word
" believe " in the preceding one. Gentiles in their uncircum
cision believe in order that righteousness may be reckoned to
them, just as Abraham believed to become, in God's purpose,
their father and type.
12. "And the father of circumcision." God's gracious
thought to save the world antedates, so to speak, his thought
of Israel. Israel was the means to the universal end. Hence
after Abraham was made the father of the believing Gentile
he was circumcised that he might become the first of a cir
cumcised people ; thus he was head or father of both classes.
But Paul, by adding qualifying statements, carefully excludes
the unbelieving Jew from salvation in the Abrahamic descent.
If he was justified in uncircumcision he was circumcised in a
condition of faith. And faith is the vital element in establish
ing saving descent from the patriarch. Without faith there is
no circumcision (Phil. iii. 2, 3) ; for Paul's qualifying sentences
show that Abraham is not father of those "of the circumci
sion only " ; they must also walk in the steps of the uncircum
cised faith of the patriarch — "that faith of our father Abraham,
which he had being yet uncircumcised."
Paul has turned the Jew's boast upside down. It is not the
Gentile who must come to the Jew's circumcision for salva
tion ; it is the Jew who must come to a Gentile faith, such a
faith as Abraham had long before he was circumcised. Paul's
reasoning here has been called a piece of " rabbinical scholas
ticism." Is it not rather a plain but solid exposition of the
historic facts in Abraham's history?
That Abraham circumcised his sons, from one of whom the
circumcised Jewish nation according to the flesh sprang, has

76 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 12)
nothing whatever to do with the point which Paul is here con
sidering. It is Abraham himself and in his belief that is the
father and model of all God's people. He was not circum
cised to be saved ; he was saved by faith and then circumcised
for a wholly different purpose, as Paul has shown, that he
might be father of a race of circumcised men. Faith saves ;
nothing else ever did or ever will. Circumcision is a pledge
of nationality, because Israel as a race is never to cease.
Faith is the condition of life for all men. Circumcision is a
token of the headship of Israel among the races of men — a
headship to be gained when Israel as a nation adopts also
Abraham's faith. Isaac's circumcision when eight days old
(Gen. xxi. 4) was not, as in Abraham's case, a seal of right
eousness, for the babe had none. And what did Ishmael's
circumcision " seal " ? Ishmael and his descent, though cir
cumcised, were never in the Jewish covenant, but " cast out "
(Gal. iv. 30). Men have never been able to rid themselves of
the delusion that circumcision has something to do in secur
ing salvation ; but Abraham was a saved man many years be
fore the rite was given. Circumcision secures not salvation,
but nationality. Abraham received it to become father of a
faithful circumcised nation, Isaac to perpetuate the national
promise, and Ishmael because God said, " Of the son of the
bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed "
(Gen. xxi. 13). When Isaac was saved he was not saved by
his circumcision any more than was his father before him.
God never promised salvation except to faith ; he never
promised a perpetual nationality except to circumcised men
who believe. Abraham is head and father of both kinds of
men. Isaac is not ; he is first in the national line. Here was
the Jew's fatal mistake. He practically took Isaac in his eight-
days-old circumcision for the model of a saved man, and not
Abraham in his faith.
Another error on this verse is to be avoided— that Paul is

(IV. 13) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 77
showing and explaining how both Jews and Gentiles in his day
came together in the church, how Abraham was the father of
the church composed of both kinds of people. But the church
knows no nationality, and Paul is not considering the church
in this epistle. It is not mentioned till the argument has
closed. The theme of the epistle and of this verse is world
wide, world-long salvation in Christ, in which all men shall
share, and ultimately the Jew as a Jew. It is a defense not of
the church, but of faith. The Jew thought circumcision saved ;
Paul shows that it only points to nationality when the Jew be
lieves. Can the question still be asked, " What is the profit of cir
cumcision? " Paul has already given one rich word in reply
(see on iii. 2) ; here he has conceded that Abraham is the
national head of the Jews, and incidentally that their promises,
of which the fleshly mark is the token, still stand (xi. 28). The
full answer to the question is postponed, for here his main
point is that salvation comes only and wholly by faith.
13. " For the promise, that he should be the heir of the
world." The course of thought still depends on the proposi
tion in iii. 31, that salvation by faith without works of law
establishes the law ; it conforms to the law. In proof of this
it has been shown from that same law, a part of which is the
history of Abraham, that he was saved by faith and he was
saved before that prime article in the law, circumcision (Gal.
v. 3), was given.
With this thirteenth verse the third (3) point is taken up.
Paul, in verses 11 and 12, had used three times the common
Jewish designation for Abraham, "father." Israel's boast
and trust was," We have Abraham to our father " (Matt. iii. 9).
As father he had obtained in promise an inheritance for him
self and his posterity, in accordance with which promise Isaac
was born. Now it is on his fatherhood in this light that the
"for" of this verse bears. Paul admits with the Jew that

78 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 14, 15)
Abraham is father and thereby heir ; but as he becomes father
by faith, the thing already proved, so he also becomes heir by
faith. This last must be argued, and the word " for " intro
duces the proof. The patriarch before Judaism existed had
obtained the grace of justification not as a Jew, but as a man ;
but in addition to this favor he also got the promise that he
and his seed in time to come should possess the world. The
Jews contended, even the best of them (Acts xv. 5), that the
latter favor was on the ground of law. Paul disputes it. His
argument is not drawn from Scripture, but from the faith now
proved and from the holiness of God. This thirteenth verse
does no more than to deny the false assumption that the prom
ise of heirship to Abraham and to his seed was to be realized
by means of the Mosaic law, and to assert that that promise
is to be made good by means of a faith righteousness.
14. If the assumption were true, that "they which are of
the law," the Jews as such, were heirs, then two impossible
things must be conceded to follow: first, faith is out of the
question, " is made void ; " and secondly, the promise itself is
nugatory or " of none effect." But that there is no righteous
ness but by faith, that Abraham obtained his righteousness by
faith, has already been proved. Paul, therefore, does not argue
this point, but proceeds to discuss the next one.
15. Why would the promise be nugatory if conditioned on
the keeping of the law ? " Because the law " cannot realize
any promise based on its observance. It cannot work out a
promise to him who is under it, for he does not keep it, and so
law only works out "wrath" to him. God is holy and cannot
suffer the least infraction of his commands ; and Paul has al
ready shown the whole nation under sin (iii. 9—20).
" For no law, ... no transgression." Instead of " for "
all modern versions read "but." Where there is no written
law man is still in sin. God expects nothing else of man, and
in his grace can provide for his rescue, and is not hindered by

(IV. 16) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 79
transgression in showing favor. But when man is under law he
adds to his sin the aggravation of transgression, and the divine
grace is estopped. It is shut out not only by the violation of
the law, but by the holiness of God, who must vindicate his law.
Therefore the promise of heirship was given to faith outside of
law that there might be no transgression to defeat the promise.
1 6. This verse concludes and so repeats the proposition under
debate, adding some amplifying details. It begins with very el
liptical language, as the italic words in the King James version
indicate. The case is now so plain that Paul rushes to the con
clusion in the fewest words : " Therefore of faith, in order that
according to grace." The ellipses can easily be supplied from
what precedes. " Therefore [since law cannot realize anything
but wrath] it [the promised heritage] is of faith [or " by faith "],
that [in order that] it might be by grace [or a gift to believing
sinners]." Even if the heritage could have been earned by
keeping the written law, none but the Jews had the law, and they
only would have been heirs. But as their law only brought
wrath and not the promise, the latter could have come to
neither party. So God conditioned it on faith, which is pos
sible to all men, " to the end [with the intent] that the promise
might be sure [surely given] to all the seed [both Jew and Gen
tile, as the rest of the verse declares]." In specifying that
part of the seed which belongs to the law he does not mention
faith again. It was not necessary, because this had just been
declared to be the condition on which "all" the seed could
inherit. Note that, while the twelfth verse refers to one class,
the Jews, with two characteristics, this verse refers to both
classes with but one characteristic, faith.
It is not without much hesitancy, even after prolonged study,
that at this point the great commentators cannot be followed.
Meyer, Forbes, Alford, even Bengel, make this third point to
be a further discussion of justification by faith, as though this
were synonymous with the words " heir of the world." Godet

80 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 16)
just once touches on what is the matter here considered, but
then immediately drops it : " Believing Jews and Gentiles, we
all participate by faith not only in justification, but also in the
future possession of the world." The words which we have
italicized in this quotation are the key to this third point in
the chapter. The subject is not justification ; that ended with
verse 1 2. The subject is clearly and unmistakably announced
at the head of the paragraph — that Abraham and his seed had
the promise of heirship ofthe world on the ground of faith. The
heirship of the world does not mean that Abraham was to have
an elect number of believers in all nations, that he was to be
" the father, federal head, and pattern of all them that believe "
(Forbes). Abraham was set forth as a father and pattern in
the second section (verses 9-12). Why should Paul be sup
posed to be repeating that, especially when he has pointedly
given the topic of this third section?
Furthermore, the topic is not that Abraham by his faith
should be a model to his spiritual progeny ; both he and they
are taken together, and it is declared of the father and the
children in common that the heirship of the world is theirs.
It is not that Abraham's seed is such only by faith, but that
Abraham's seed gets the possession of the world by faith.
It must in justice be said that Meyer (" Commentary," in
loc, pp. 205, 206, T. & T. Clark) admits this view, but further
along he seems to relapse to the other. The Epistle to the
Romans must be studied historically and not as a theological
thesis on faith. The Jews of Paul's day had a definite and
pronounced eschatology, easily ascertained (Luke ii. 30-32),
based on many clear promises (Jer. iii. 17, 18), and it gives
the key in more than one place ; it is the key here. By the
law they hoped not only for salvation, but for universal do
minion of the world. Paul no more denies their eschatologi
cal hope than he does their hope of salvation. His conten
tion so far is not only that both can be realized by nothing

(IV. i7«, ilh) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 81
but faith, but that this is the teaching of the law itself. The
law promises to Abraham's seed the possession of every na
tion, but that possession is to be gained by faith.
"Abraham, who is the father of us all." This repetition
of what we already had in verses ' 1 1 and 1 2 is brought in here
in order to return to that which was the main subject there,
faith, whose vital element must be considered now in what re
mains of this chapter.
17a. "As it is written." The quotation is cited hardly in
confirmation of what Paul has said, but to show the harmony
between him and the Scripture. The first step was that Abra
ham was justified by faith ; the second, that he was justified in
uncircumcision, and, though afterward circumcised, the object
was not salvation, but that he might be father of both divi
sions of men, Gentile and Jew. The third point is that he and
the men who make him father are heirs of the world. This
heirship is not by law, which could not realize it. And so as
a man of faith he is not only father of all, but father of all their
hopes for world supremacy. It was to him as a believer that
it was said that he should be a father of many nations. Hence
Paul's doctrine of faith conflicts with the Jews' Bible neither
in the matter of salvation nor in the matter of their world hope.
" Father, . . . before him [God] whom he believed." In
God's sight he was a father by faith before he had a son.
Why should the Jews labor to get into their hands by law
what they may have at once in God's purpose by the faith of
Abraham? 17b. " Even God, who quickeneth the dead." Here begins
the fourth (4) point above. These first words show in what
character of God Abraham believed in him. The present tense
shows what is always true of God. If a Jew says he believes
as sincerely as Paul, it cannot be denied ; but suppose he com
plains that Paul in presenting Jesus as an object of faith is de
manding a different faith from that in the Old Testament, this

82 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (TV. 18, 19)
can be shown to be false. Old Testament faith rests on resur
rection. Acceptable faith is not merely the conviction that
there is a God and that he is benevolent and a just rewarder
of the good and evil ; this is the world's faith. Abraham's
was more ; he became the father of many nations by believing
in God as one " who quickeneth the dead." He not only be
lieved in God's existence and that he could bless ; this is not
sufficient ; he believed that that blessing could only come from
God as now active in nature for spiritual ends — a spiritual
creator just as once he was a creator of nature. Faith gets its
character from that character in which it accepts God. Abra
ham looked on him as one who in spite of nature is making
alive the dead. This is the leading thought in this section.
God calls the things that are not, not in the possibilities of
nature, as if they already were ; he calls them into existence.
Natural nations come in the course of nature ; but when God
asked Abraham to look to the stars and said, '' So shall thy
seed be," did he mean a natural seed and natural nations?
Isaac was not a child of nature, but a child of faith, and
Abraham's seed are not children of nature.
18. " Who against [all rational] hope believed in hope," the
supernatural hope which God's promise awakened. Let the
Jew who thinks that he is Abraham's son reflect that Isaac,
from whom all sprang, was brought into being by the same
power that raised Christ from the dead.
19. " He considered not his own body." The " not " is in
dispute ; critics are divided on its genuineness. Whether we
read it or do not read it, the sense is much the same. In the
former view it would be said that Abraham's faith was so strong
that he never once looked at the tremendous difficulty in the
way of his becoming a father. Weak faith looks at difficulties
and scarce looks to God. Strong faith looks at God who has
promised, and does not see the difficulties. In the other view
Abraham did "consider" the difficulties, his own body now

(IV. 20, 21) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 83
dead and the deadness of Sarah's womb, but still believed.
He estimated the hindrances at their full weight, but did not
" stagger " under the load.
20, 21. Abraham's faith was threefold. Two elements are
already given : the character of his faith in that it accepted
what is tantamount to the resurrection, and the strength of his
faith in that it was superior to all hindrances in its way. The
third element is its worshipfulness. By it he gave " glory to
God " ; he did this by trusting God where reason could not
follow. When faith's only reason is God himself it honors
and worships him.
These three elements are now summed up in what might be
called Abraham's creed. It is simple, but comprehensive.
The character which he ascribed to God, his estimate of the
difficulties, and his worship come to this : a confident persua
sion that what God had promised he was able also to perform.
Any one can believe in God's power abstractly. Every one
that believes there is a personal God believes also that he is
omnipotent ; but saving faith stands alone in saying that God
can make his supernatural promises good. What is not as
cribed to God's word is not ascribed to him ; and the heart is
only cheating itself into self-deception on one side or supersti
tion on the other that believes something else than what he
has revealed. A man's measure of God's word is the measure
of that man's faith in God.
It might be thought that Abraham should have believed in
God's willingness rather than in his ability to carry out his
promise ; that the question is not what the Almighty can do,
but what he will do ; that the account should read, " that what
God has promised he will perform." But God's will is already
indicated in the promise to make Abraham a father of many
nations ; his word is his will. The only question is, Can he
bring that supernatural promise to a reality? Any heart can
say that God can do natural things; faith says he can do

84 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 22-25)
things beyond and above nature. And all God's saving prom
ises transcend nature ; they rest on the supernatural.
22. "And therefore it was imputed." The word "there
fore " is instructive and impressive. Because his faith stood
on the word of God, — a word that nothing in nature could
explain, — because his faith was of this character, it " was im
puted to him for righteousness." There is a natural faith that
can accept much, and it is beautiful and salutary, but its high
est exercise does not attain to justification. It falls far below
Abraham's in that he trusted in a personal promise which
nothing but the direct activity of the God who gave it could
make good. This is supernatural faith, and only such is im
puted for righteousness.
23, 24. Paul in citing Abraham's faith declares that its de
scription is not primarily in honor of the patriarch. The story
is not written for his sake alone, "but for us also." If the
patriarch found righteousness by believing in God as one who
quickeneth the dead, is the apostle's insistence upon faith in the
resurrection of Jesus an unscriptural demand? Paul asks no
more than Abraham exhibited in his life. He asks the same
— faith in God who raises the dead. The Jew believed in one
God ; he did well ; but this was not the whole of his great
ancestor's faith, who believed also in resurrection. On the
ground of such faith he was saved, and no one can be saved
on any other.
25. " Who was delivered for, . . . raised for." Why was
this twenty-fifth verse added? Why did the story not close
with the twenty-fourth? To show that the faith that saves is
not faith in the act of resurrection, but in its import. He who
is justified must believe not only that Jesus died and rose again,
but why. He died " for our offenses." This word " offenses "
brings to view again the whole somber picture of the first main
division of the epistle, the division about sin. Sin was such
that nothing but the blood of Jesus our Lord could atone for

(IV. 25) RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 85
it. But his death does atone, and therefore no works of law
find any place in justification. And so it comes to pass that
he who believes in the resurrection believes first of all that
his own personal sins sent Jesus to the cross and the tomb,
that he was the all-sufficient sacrifice for sins. It is only pain
ful conviction of sin that can believe in this way.
But if faith stopped at the tomb it would be only an agony.
It also sees that, while Jesus died for sins, that death was ac
cepted as the ransom price (iii. 24), and so Jesus was raised
again. He who became surety for the sinner's debt could not
have been released from the prison-house of the tomb unless
the debt was paid. His reappearance from the tomb is an
everlasting proof of the sufficiency of his atonement for our
sins ; and he who really believes in the resurrection believes
that the guilt of his sins is canceled. Faith is no longer an
agony, but a joy, and the believer's heart is set not merely on
the historic (2 Cor. v. 16), but on the raised Christ. That he
was delivered for our offenses is pain; that he was raised
again for our justification is pure spiritual delight.
To believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then, is to accept the
two prime articles in the Christian creed, sin and grace ; sin
that slew Jesus, and grace that accepts him for our justification.
In this sentence, " delivered for, . . . raised for," it is easy
to misunderstand the preposition. This comes because the
mind unconsciously gives a different meaning to the two in
stances of the same word. "For" means not only "with a
view to," but also "because of." It cannot have one of these
in one case, and the other meaning in the second ; the paral
lel between the two clauses will not allow this. The first
" for " cannot have the meaning " with a view to " ; it must
be "because of." Hence the second "for" has the same
signification ; he was raised not with a view to, but because
of, our justification, just as he was delivered because of our
offenses.

86 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 25)
The difficulty raised is in assigning the sinner's justification
to the time of the resurrection, and not to the time when he
believes ; but this is the manner and confidence of Paul. Else
where he refers the believer's regeneration, resurrection, and
even glorification all to the same moment, and that moment
the resurrection and exaltation of Christ (viii. 30 ; Eph. ii.
5, 6). The difficult language, when resolved, furnishes great
gain to faith. To be sure, no man has justification until he
exercises evangelical faith ; but the moment he does that his
faith may be assured of its foundation. It does not rest on
its own activity or in any experience, but at once finds its sure
basis at the empty tomb ; it rests on the gospel. The man was
justified in his believing, but not because of his believing.
The cause is the grace of God made sure by the resurrection
of Jesus.
But when it is said above that Jesus' reappearance from the
tomb is a proof of the atonement, and when it is said just
now that the resurrection makes grace sure, this by no means
exhausts its office and efficacy in the means of salvation. The .
penalty of sin is death, and man was under it ; he had lost
spiritual life. The resurrection restored it ; for when Paul says
Christ was raised for our justification, he uses the word not in
our modern theologie sense, but in an inclusive one that em
braces all that is contained in viii. 1, 2. (See remarks on Paul's
use of this term just above the comment on iii. 21.)
It is shown now that the law as recorded in Genesis proves
(1) justification by faith, (2) in uncircumcision ; (3) the promise
of heirship by faith ; (4) and that the required faith in Jesus is
the same in character as that which Abraham had.

CHAPTER V
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH SECURES THE FINAL SALVATION
OF BELIEVERS
The rigid harmony in four elementary points between the
law and faith having been now exhibited, a new question
arises, a question of hope : Will faith save at last, and will it
save all, both Jew and Gentile? The two classes of men are
not mentioned, but the discussion has a race-wide view that
embraces all. In favor of the affirmative Paul makes three
points as the sure ground of hope: (i) afflictions will not de
stroy, but strengthen it (verses 2-4); (2) it has a sure basis
in God's love toward the justified man (verses 5-1 1); (3) as
man's relation to Adam never fails to bring death on account
of his one sin, so the believer's similar relation to Christ cannot
fail to secure everlasting life on account of Christ's one right
eous act at the cross (verses 12-21).
Many commentators have entitled this chapter the " Fruits
of Justification." This fails in both logic and history. Paul's
first readers would be amazed to hear him speak here about
fruits. Their cry would be, Is this method safe? Doing no
works of law, what assurance does this faith in Christ's work
give one for the future? Furthermore, fruits are immediate
results in experience and do not need the rigid logical proofs
exhibited in this chapter. And what " fruit " is there in the
parallel between Adam and Christ? 87

88 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. i, 2)
1. "Therefore," etc. In view of the previous exposition
of the doctrine, it can be said of " being justified by faith "
that " we have peace with God." For " we have " many read
"let us have." In favor of the former stands the American
portion of the Revision Committee, as well as Meyer, Godet,
and others. Meyer says the imperative is " utterly unsuitable "
to the sense. The question turns on the length of a single vowel,
and the manuscripts are not trustworthy on this point ; they fre
quently confound long and short o. The logic must decide.
" Peace " does not mean primarily tranquillity of mind, but
that state of things ensuing from the cessation of hostilities,
freedom from strife (iii. 17; Acts xii. 20). This peaceful
state came " through our Lord Jesus Christ," who averted the
wrath of God. It is possible by not noting this meaning of
the word "peace" that the mode of the verb was changed.
For justification gives peace in this sense even when there may
be no settled tranquillity of the heart.
2, " By whom . . . access by faith." The " grace " to
which Christ gives access is the grace of justification. The first
and the second verses both revolve about Christ. Through
him we have the peace ; he procured it ; and through him by
faith we gained access to justification, wherein the peace
exists. The first verse looks at the standing of the believer, and
the second recalls the hour of attaining it. The first verse has
in view the redemption wrought at the cross ; but it is only the
justified man who gets it, and this justification is administered
by God through Christ in the hour of conversion. The senti
ment of these two verses up to this word "stand" is just a
repetition of iii. 24, a verse, with its context, that clearly im
plies the " peace " and the standing of justification by faith
unfolded in these two. When justified freely by God's grace
men have peace, and they have also a permanent standing as
acquitted persons before God. The idea of permanence is
doubly furnished by the tense of the two verbs "have" and

(V. 2) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 89
"stand." These two verses up to this point, in unfolding iii.
24, do in some sense show what may be called fruits— peace
and standing. But this beginning of chapter v. is, after all,
but a repetition, a restatement, of what was given before, that
we might start from the same point on a new line of discus
sion, the permanence of justification already hinted at in the
two verbs above, " have " and " stand." Until this latter
word is reached there is no advance ; it begins with the very
next sentence — "We . . . rejoice in hope of the glory of
God." This is the new theme: Is this hope well founded?
Is rejoicing in it defensible?
What was said above on the reading " let us have " is equally
true here on the wrong reading "let us rejoice." The King
James version is correct.
It is to be noted that the moment this new proposition is
reached, after the restatement in verses 1 and 2 of what went
before, the proposition that justification by faith is permanent,
the word " faith," both noun and verb, is dropped. We have
up to this moment had them constantly before our eyes — the
verb nine times, and the noun twenty-seven times. Neither
occurs again until ix. 30, unless for the verb the solitary in
stance in vi. 8 be counted an exception. But it is not, for in
this place the word has rather the idea of being persuaded.
(See John xx. 8, 25, 27.)
The reason for dropping this leading word is obvious. Since
it is the permanence of a faith justification which is to be
proved, that permanence must be established by other means
than faith. If the latter should even once enter into the
question we should have a petitio principii, a begging of the
question, and the inquiry, But what about my salvation if my
faith fails? would be legitimate. Faith is, after all, a personal
experience, and the argument cannot be drawn from it. It is
itself to be shown in its permanence, and the proofs are all
brought from other and higher sources.

90 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 3, 4)
3, 4. " Tribulations, . . . patience, . . . experience, . . .
hope." For " we glory " in the third verse read " we rejoice,"
as in the second. The believer not only exults in the glory
awaiting him on the ground of his justification, but he exults,
too, in the tribulations or afflictions which beset him in the
path leading to the glory. The latter rejoicing comes about
because he is "knowing" the influence of these. They do
not destroy his hope, but, on the other hand, by a regular pro
cess strengthen it. The storm-shaken tree roots the deeper.
Justification does not give patience, constancy, or endurance ;
this quality does not come at the hour of conversion, but the
trials and bufferings of the way thereafter serve to evoke it.
A man with some worthy thing in view, like the glory of God,
is prepared to withstand trials ; but he who has no hope in the
future frets under afflictions or seeks to avoid them.
When tribulations have taught the believer that he can stand,
or withstand, there ensues " experience " of the world, but
especially of himself. He has learned that he can endure. The
first storm may frighten the young sailor in guiding his craft ;
but after he has passed through a score unharmed and with
out seeing a timber start, he knows the worst the sea can do,
the strength of his vessel to carry him, and his own ability to
steer. The man of experience is the proved man. The word
" experience " has been translated " approval." Others know
him now, but, more than all, he knows himself. The "proba
tion " of the Revised Version is misleading and is not as good
as the King James's "experience." When one finds that for
the sake of his hope he can suffer pain, and that God is with
him all through it, he has gained confidence in himself
before God. He knows that this ark to which he has resorted
will carry him. And now the hope that he gained in the hour
of justification he has gained anew in the discovery that it sus
tains him in the conflict. And it does not make ashamed.
Thus Paul has made his first point. The hope of glory

(V. 5, 6) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 91
through justification by faith cannot be destroyed by tribula
tions, because instead of overthrowing they strengthen it. This
topic, so briefly treated here, is taken up at length in chapter
viii. (See p. 55.)
5. " The love of God." This is the second argument in
favor of the theme restated now in a new form — " hope maketh
not ashamed." The justified man does not blush to profess
this hope, because he has a proof that it will not disappoint
him at last. Without this proof his hope would be madness ;
for who is he? A justified man, to be sure, but far from per
fect, beset with sin, full of ignorance, and with no act of his
life for which he can claim perfection. And yet he hopes to
stand before God, to be admitted to his glory, and to be an
equal heir with his own Son. It is as if a barbarous and coarse
Central African prince should boast that he expects shortly to
be son-in-law to the good Queen of England. His claim
would be ridiculed by all knowing people as the raving of de
lusion. But if the vulgar prince could show on the finger of
his black hand that royal gem, the Koh-i-noor, presented to
him by the queen and brought to him by the third in rank in
the government, his boast would be justified. That he has it in
his possession is proof that it came to him as a gift ; he could
neither buy nor steal that costly precious stone. The hope of
glory does not make ashamed, because the priceless jewel of
God's love toward the sinner is in the latter's possession, poured
out in his heart by the third person in the Trinity, " the Holy
Spirit which is given unto us." This language makes it plain
that it is not the justified man's love toward God, but God's
love toward the man, that is the proof and pledge of the valid
ity of his hope.
6. " For . . . Christ died." The " for " does not intro
duce a proof of the possession of the love, but of its nature.
The possession need not be proved, being as it is a matter of
experience. But if the African prince knows neither the na-

92 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 7, 8)
ture nor the value of his gem, if he looks upon it as a common
stone, what evidence can it be to him? It is not merely the
fact of God's love toward the believer, but its unearthly char
acter, that fortifies hope. The Holy Spirit is the channel
through which God is pouring the love of his heart into the
sinner's. We are carried now to the fountainhead of the
blessed stream to study this love in its source. When " we
were yet without strength " to do right this love gave Christ
to die. How contemptible is he who lacks the moral ability
to do that which is right! Christ died for the pusillanimous.
But while sinners were imbeciles for good, they were mighty
for evil — "ungodly." In the former condition they excite
disgust, in the latter, wrath, and each righteous feeling against
them reacts against the other to heighten it. But for just such
Christ died " in due time." The timeliness of his death in its
averting the wrath due enhances the love manifested at the cross.
7, 8. " God commendeth his love." The sixth verse clearly
implies the unearthly character which these two verses now
prove. The " for " bears on this unearthliness ; the appeal is
to what is known in the history of men. For a "righteous
man," the man who conforms to the law, one would " scarcely "
die. The " yet " in the seventh verse should be rendered
" for," as it is in the Revision. It explains the word " scarce
ly." I say scarcely for a righteous man would one die. I
leave room for an exception, for when the righteous man is
that and something more, so that he could be called "good,"
it might be that "some [one] would even dare to die." In
New Testament terminology to be good is much more than to
be righteous (Mark x. 18). The former word is rarely used
of men, and to die in behalf of this loftiest form of righteous
ness is the very utmost of earthly love, and rare in its exam
ples at that. " But God "—what a sharp contrast, the differ
ence of earth and heaven! — gave his Son to die for sinners.
His love has no parallel among men ; it is divine. What men

(V. 9, io) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 93
can scarcely do for the good God has done abundantly for the
vile and the despicable.
9. Having shown what God's love to sinners is, he draws
the necessary and logical inferences. If he could do so much
for them, "much more " now can he save from the " wrath "
to come those who are " justified by his [Christ's] blood." In
the New Testament men are said to be "justified by grace"
(iii. 24); "justified by faith" (v. 1, and many other places) ;
"justified by works " (James ii. 21) ; but this is the solitary in
stance in which "justified by blood" occurs. Grace is the
source of justification, faith the condition, works the evidence ;
but what is it to be justified by blood, and why did Paul use
this term here rather than his favorite one, "justified by
faith " ? The blood is the means, not to say the ground, of the
justification, and the phrase is about equivalent to that other
in iii. 24, "justified . . . through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus." Paul could not use the phrase " justified by
faith " here for the reason given above under verse 2 (p. 89),
that it is this very kind of justification that is to be proved.
Will it give security in the hour of God's coming wrath? Yes ;
for it is made sure by the redeeming blood. Man's faith does
not appeal to God, but Christ's blood does. The argument,
then, comes to this : if man in his odious sin found the favor
of God, how much more shall that man have his favor whom
he accounts right on the ground of redeeming blood!
10. The conclusion in the ninth verse, deduced from the
character of God's love, becomes also a proposition to be sup
ported by the argument in the tenth. Hence the latter begins
with the causal word " for." The " if " following does not ex
press doubt, but, as in many other places, is equivalent to
" since " ; it introduces the admitted basis upon which the
proof follows. The argument here is in the form of a triple
antithesis, like that in Mark vii. 8. It can be exhibited to the
eye thus ;

94 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. io)

I.

2.

3-

Enemies . .

. reconciled to God . .

. . death,

Reconciled . .

saved . ,

, . life.

That is, (i) if God could do so much for his enemies, what
can he not do now for those who are in a reconciled state?
Again, (2) if God could become reconciled with men when
enemies, can he not remain reconciled (which insures their be
ing " saved ") now that they have become friends? And once
more, (3) if the death of Christ, a negative power, could do so
much (reconcile), what will not his life, his active energy on
high in their behalf, what will not his ever living, insure ? This
threefold antithesis in argument is not merely three times as
weighty as a single one, but nine times.
The word " reconciled " occurs twice in this verse : " were
reconciled to God," "being reconciled." The first does not
indicate any change in the feelings of man ; it is the equiva
lent and takes the place of "justified by his blood " in the pre
vious verse. It does not signify that man was active in the
reconciliation, but God was, "in that he desists from his claims"
(Cremer, "Theol. Lex," sub voce). He established a new re
lation with men, exchanging the relation in wrath for the
blessed relation in love. He became appeased toward us in
the death of his Son. The second occurrence of the word
gives the result of the first. The first is God's act, the second
the standing into which "we " are brought by means of the first.
The word " enemies " is also passive. It is not that men
were inimical to God, — a fact, to be sure, — but that he was
inimical to them. This anger is not inconsistent with his lov
ing them at the same time.
This matter is given in 2 Corinthians v. 19, 20: "God was
[not "is"] in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. . .
Be ye reconciled to God." He changed toward you ; do you
change toward him.

(V. II, 12) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 95
11. " And not only so," not only reconciled, but at the same
time rejoicing in God. The change did not stop with that
which was outward, in an altered standing ; it was and remains
accompanied with an inward exultation— the effect of the love
shed abroad in the heart. The argument has come around to
that with which it began : " we rejoice in hope of the glory of
God " (verse 2). This rejoicing is " through [by means of] our
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [" by means of whom " again]
we have now received the reconciliation [the changed attitude
of God toward us]." It is ours "now." The word "atone
ment " in its modern signification of propitiation or satisfac
tion by the death of Christ is not correct here. The original
word is the same one used twice in the tenth verse.
It has not been sufficiently noted by expositors that the
word " received " is not active, but passive, equivalent to
"made recipients of." The argument for the "assurance of
salvation secured for the present and the future " (Meyer) is
conducted wholly from the divine side ; man and his believing
do not come into view. If it is objected that, after all, faith is
a necessary condition of salvation, and if it fails all fails, why,
this very point is secured by the whole argument. If when
we were hateful to God he changed toward us, will he — now
that we have been made recipients in his grace of that saving
change — will he now not insure the condition of its perpetu
ity? Will God care for everything concerning the believer,
support him in trials, shield him in temptation, shed his love
abroad in his heart, but leave him to himself in the vital point,
his faith? The reconciled man's faith is the first and the chief
object of the divine care. The single aim of the argument is
the permanence oi justification by faith.
12. With this verse begins the third (see (3) above) argu
ment in favor of the proposition of the chapter, that justifica
tion by faith gives a sure hope of the glory of God. The
proof is found in the likeness of Adam and Christ in their re-

96 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 12)
lation to those who are in them respectively. As Adam's one
sin never fails to bring death, so Christ's one righteous act in
behalf of sinners never fails to bring the opposite award to
those who are in him. This is the simple course of thought
easily traced through this section, but the details present seri
ous difficulties.
"Wherefore," or, as the Revised Version, "Therefore."
Literally it reads, " On this account." This shows that the
chain of thought is not broken ; the topic is the same as in
the first eleven verses of the chapter. The connection is this :
because through Christ we received the reconciliation and the
assurance of eternal salvation, we can say this which follows.
Paul goes now to the germ of the disease on the one hand, and
of the remedy on the other. He shows anew that salvation
is the work of Christ, complete in him, and in no way to be
earned, but simply to be received in its objective perfection.
The validity of the argument depends on the immutable rela
tions connecting men with the two sources, Adam and Christ,
and this vital connection gives the argument its comprehensive
character. The world's history is laid bare at its root, and the
key to that history is placed in our hands.
" By one man sin entered into the world." Paul does not
even by implication say whether sin had an existence before
Adam's fall or not. He says "sin," not "sins." He is look
ing not at the concrete acts of sin, not at the habit. Adam
did not bring sin into the world by setting a bad example ; his
one act wrought a constitutional change of unholiness within
his heart. That act resulted in an innate corrupting principle
that transmitted itself just as his natural features did. Because
he had two feet rather than four, so all his descendants are
bipedal ; and as he became a sinner, so is each one of the
race sprung from him. Thus it entered into the " world " of
men. The material creation was affected on account of
Adam's sin (Gen. iii. 17), but not by direct connection, and

(V. 12) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 97
Paul does not contemplate it in the word " world." He means
the world of mankind.
"And death by sin." This is the direct outcome and un
failing fruit of that transmissive poison which entered Adam's
heart. It is primarily physical death, as is plain from verse 14
below, but physical death as an exponent and sign of that
other deeper death of the soul, spiritual death. The two stand
in together, and therefore Paul does not sharply distinguish
them. (See 2 Tim. i. 10.)
"For that all have sinned." A better translation is "be
cause all sinned." Death is consequent on sin, and so death
passed on all men because all men sin in Adam. "This is
proved by the succeeding explanatory context, verses 15—19,
in which it is reiterated five times in succession that one and
only one sin is the cause of the death that befalls all men "
(Shedd, " Commentary," in loc).
This verse, and especially this short concluding sentence,
has provoked a world of controversy. The debate arises not
so much from facts which must have been plain to Paul's
Roman readers, but from the multitude of questions which the
facts suggest. Was Adam not created mortal? What is the
nature of his relation to posterity? Do men participate in the
guilt of his sin? Is its punishment imputed to them? Is
natural depravity transmitted from him to the race, and is it
culpable? There is no explicit answer to these questions
either here or anywhere else in the Bible. The first question
is not practical ; as to the second we have already indicated our
view — the connection is natural, real. If Levi could pay tithes
when the tribe was yet unborn in the loins of Abraham (Heb.
vii. 9, 10), so the unborn race could sin in the loins of Adam.
To the remaining questions the answer must be in the af
firmative, both for the sake of the parallel with Christ and that
Paul's words may be left to stand in their naked plainness.
But now springs up the question of the divine justice.

98 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 13, 14)
Should millions suffer for the sin of one? Yes, if millions may
be saved by the righteousness of one. But, furthermore, if
the elemental facts are as above it is presumptuous to raise
the question of justice. What God does is the ultimate stan
dard of right.
13, 14. These two verses, the last clause excepted, are in
tended to show that men die not for their own personal sin,
but because of Adam's. It is a fact that sin was in the world
all along until the time of the giving of the law at Sinai. It
had an actual, practical existence ; but this personal, practical
sin is not "imputed," not set down to the account of these
sinners, and the reason for this non-imputation is, there was
"no law" — no written or spoken law which they by personal
act could break. They sinned without law, but they could
not be adjudged worthy of the penalty of that sin before the
law was promulgated. The general principle is, sin not im
puted where there is no law. It comes to this : no written
law, no sin, and no sin, no death. But now the fact is that
death reigned, had sovereign, undisputed sway, during all the
no-law period from Adam to Moses. In all this long period
death came to those who had " not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression " ; that is, they had not broken any
formal command. Many more irresponsible babes died in the
flood than men. If, then, death is the penalty of some law
broken, and these had none, it follows they broke that first
law : they sinned in Adam. And the statement " for that all
have sinned " means this. The unwritten law noticed in ii. 14
cannot be the cause of death, for babes have not even that.
All sinned when Adam violated the word of God.
" Who [Adam] is the figure [type] of him that was to come."
Adam is a figure of Christ in just this respect : that as his one
sin brought death to all, even when there was no personal sin,
so Christ's one act of obedience brings unfailing righteousness
to those who are in him, even when they have no personal

(V. 15) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 99
righteousness. Hence the argument of verses 13 and 14 to
show that death must be traced to Adam's sole act and not to
the sin of his posterity — one side of the parallel.
15. " But not as the offense [the fall of Adam], so also is
the free gift [in Christ]." This verse and the next two show
in what points the type falls short of the antitype. The type
is complete in the outline, but not in some details. This verse
gives the difference in intensity between the destructive and
the recovering power.
" For if through the offense of [the] one [the] many be
dead," or " the many died," as in the Revised Version. The
King James, in its failure to give the articles, does not bring
out the sharp contrast between Adam and the race. The " if "
does not express any doubt ; it is argumentative. The " for "
brings in what Paul has to say on the inequality between the
offense and the free gift. Note that in this sentence, " Through
the offense of the one the many " died, he asserts that Adam's
sin is the sole cause of death among men. This unsupported
statement shows how Paul must be understood in verses 12-
14. It needs no proof here, for that has preceded it.
Over against this poisonous fountain in Adam — this fall
which brought death to all — stands the healing " grace '' of
God and the " gift " of justification. These two, the grace
and the gift, are found " by grace, which is by [the] one man,
Jesus Christ." The Revised Version is preferable here : " Much
more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the
one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many." Over against
the fall of the one is the grace of the one, Jesus Christ. Over
against the effect of the fall, the death of the many, is the
effect of the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, viz., that the
grace of God and the gift have " abounded unto [the] many."
The complex language of the verse becomes plain when it is
observed that it sets forth two opposing sources in the two
men, followed by two opposite results. This may be seen in

100 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 16)
transposing the sentence : If the many died by the trespass of
the one, much more the grace of God and the gift abounded
to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ. The
" much more " is logical — much more certain is it — and not
quantitative, for the grace in its extent is here considered to
be just as wide and no wider than the death. The many were
embraced by both.
Meyer misses the whole point in saying that the grace in the
one man, Jesus Christ, is that in which "he found himself
moved " to accomplish the redemption ; for then there would
be in the verse two sources of grace, God and Christ, and the
parallel with Adam would be gone. Our guide here must
be iii. 24. Christ mediates the grace of God; the grace of
God that " abounded unto the many " is the very same
grace that was " by one man, Jesus Christ." Grace did not
abound by grace, but grace abounded in grace, the grace of
God in the grace of Christ. " God was in Christ, reconciling
the world unto himself" (2 Cor. v. 19). And now the argu
ment can be restated : If man, a creature, can do so much
against the race by his fall, what cannot God do for the race
by his grace in Jesus Christ? It is well-nigh a double antith
esis : God in Christ over against man, and divine grace over
against a fall.
The whole verse is objective; the first member, "by the
offense of the one the many died," surely is. The question
is not one about salvation, but about the power to effect it ;
and this power resides in Christ for all men, or "unto the
many." 16. "And not as it was by one that sinned [Adam], so is
the gift [in Christ]." Or, more exactly, " Not as through one
that sinned is the gift." The fifteenth verse shows the differ
ence in the intensity of the two opposing powers ; this shows
a difference in extension, but not in the extension among men,
for each force, the force for death and the force for life, reaches

(V. 17) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 101
to all men. In the last verse the inference was from the con
trasted sources. In this it is seen in a contrasted extension,
not to men, but to their needs.
" The judgment, . . . the free gift." God's judgment, his
judicial sentence to the condemnation of death, proceeded
from " one " sin. Now that one sin measures the judgment
in its breadth. There was one sin and its befitting judgment
to match it; but, on the other hand, the free gift for justifica
tion, the free gift that issues in justification and saves, pro
ceeded from " many offenses " ; for every man is not only in
volved with Adam in sin, but he has committed innumerable
offenses himself. To be saved there must be a free gift that
will cover all these. The extent of the destructive power does
not go beyond the one sin of Adam ; the extent of the re
covering power is as wide as the countless sins of any heart.
The two forces, then, are measured by the difference in the
number of sins to which each looks : the judgment to one sin,
the free gift to many. How vastly more extensive, then, is the
free gift! To take the two verses together, the contrasts are
a shallow, narrow stream, and a deep, broad stream — the shal
low stream from Adam no wider than his one sin, the deep
stream from Christ as broad as the sum of all sins of men.
And if the little stream sweeps the soul away to death, how
surely the great volume of the other will carry one to the
haven of life!
17. "For if by one man's offense death reigned by one."
It is declared again that Adam's sin is the source of death
among men, as was proved in verses 12-14. The verse be
fore us bears on just one word in the preceding one, the word
"justification," and is in the nature of a conclusion. That it
begins with " for " may seem to lie against the idea of a con
clusion ; the word to be expected was " therefore " or " then."
But "for" is appropriate too, for it can be used to reas
sert what has just been said, as in xv. 27, where it is

102 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 18)
translated in the Revised Version "yea" and in the King
James " verily." The seventeenth verse serves to expand the
word " justification " in the previous one, or to give the con
tents of that word. It brings in nothing new, only puts what
we had before in new form. The first, the conditional clause
of the verse, is given here for the third time ; and the con
cluding part has been implied twice before in verses 15 and
16. These two showed the superiority of the saving energy
in Christ. It remains now to say that those who "receive"
this energy, this " abundance of grace," will surely be saved,
or, what is the same thing, " reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."
" Received " does not mean accepted, but made recipients of,
as in i. 5 ; iv. 1 1 ; v. 1 1 ; viii. 1 5. The parallel between death
and life is not preserved. Paul says death reigned ; he does
not follow this with the words "life reigned"; instead,
" they . . . reigned in life." The latter is more expressive.
The justified are kings in life.
Paul's argument has now reached its point : If the relation
to Adam brought death, the relation to Christ formed in being
made a recipient of the superabundant grace in him will more
surely issue in life. If death in Adam is certain, life in Christ
is, if possible, more so.
18. The first word of this verse, "therefore," in the King
James version is too strong. The conclusion is already given in
verse 1 7, and now the writer steps back to take up anew and to
finish the broken parallel begun, but dropped at verse 12. To
have completed it there would have asserted an exactness which
is seen now to exist only in the vital point, but not in the details.
The statue in Christ has been shown to be much larger than
the model in Adam. The verse should begin with the words
" so then," which look back over everything that has been
said from the twelfth verse on ; and it should be rendered neither
as the King James version nor as the Revision presents it, but,
" So then, as through one trespass it [the trespass] came to all

(V. 19) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 103
men to condemnation, so also through one righteous act it [the
righteous act] came to all men to justification of life."
The first " all " is as broad as the race and includes every
one of mankind, even the babes. To deny for infants the
condemnation of Adam's sin, and to say that penalty is im
possible without personal transgression, is to deny too much.
It is to deny salvation to the millions who die in infancy ; for
if they have no sin, how can they ever join in the salvation
song, " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins
in his own blood"? (Rev. i. 5.)
The second " all," to whom Christ's one righteous act comes
just as if it had been theirs, is limited by the words in the preced
ing verse, "they which receive [the] abundance of [the] grace."
The first " all " indicates a natural and necessary relation with
Adam ; the second "all" indicates not a natural, but a spiritual
and mystical relation with Christ instituted by the will of God.
The first " all " refers to people of one character, the second to
people of a wholly different character, and it is not universal.
19. " Disobedience, . . . obedience." This verse repeats
in corroboration the statements of the last. The two verses
are not primarily argumentative, but assertive of conclusions
reached before. The paragraph as a whole is not argumentative,
unless we except verses 12-14. It must not be forgotten that
from the beginning of the chapter Paul's topic is that justifi
cation by faith secures the final salvation of him who has it.
This third point in proof does not rest on any fine-drawn
argument, but on an exposition of facts. It is a fact that
death comes through Adam. It is equally a fact that those
who are in the " last Adam " are saved. Paul has not one
word in attestation of the parallel ; he declares it.
The word " all " in the last verse is changed to " the many,"
as more suitable to the word " one." " For [just] as by the one
man's disobedience the many [the rest, all] were made [rather
" were set down in the class of "] sinners, so [also] by the obe-

104 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (V. 20, 21)
dience of the one [Christ] the many [who are in him] shall be
made [shall be set down in the class of the] righteous." The
word " made " is not causative, but declarative. Those in
Adam were justly declared sinners, because thereby they were
naturally such (Eph. ii. 3). Those in Christ are declared
righteous graciously, because they are so in him. The future,
" shall be made," looks back to the other future in the seven
teenth verse, " shall reign," that explains it. The " obedience "
does not refer to the whole sinless history of Christ, but to that
culminating act on the cross in which he " became obedient
unto death " (Phil. ii. 8). The logic of this section as well as
the uniform sentiment of the New Testament requires this
(Eph. ii. 13, 16; Heb. x. 12-14).
20, 21. These two verses have nothing to do with the argu
ment now completed for the permanency of justification, ex
cept as they remove an objection sure to occur to the Jew.
Paul has traced the origin of sin and of grace, or of death and
of life, to two primal and ultimate sources, Adam and Christ.
But the Mosaic law is a fact, and that law deals with death
and life too. This point cannot be overlooked, and Paul now
in few words shows the place which the law holds. Sin and
death do have their origin in Adam, but long after his day the
law was imposed to show sin's character. The law entered,
or came in alongside, in order that " the offense [the fall] might
abound." The law excited self-will and opposition, and the
Jews' transgressions of it or falls before it showed them to be
just what Adam was and worse. It did not solicit sin ; it elic
ited. It was not intended gradually to remove sin, but to
prepare the way for its removal in Christ.
Since the offense is a proof of sin, Paul at once drops back
to this word to say, " Where sin abounded [a fact proved by
the " offense " under law], grace [in Christ] did much more
abound." This abundance of grace is the thing shown above,
especially in verses 15-17.

(V. 2o, 21) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 106
The twenty-first verse draws the parallel once more, and
finally, between Adam and Christ. Grace superabounded,
"that [in order that] as sin hath reigned in [the sphere of] death
[and by death — universal death, showing sin's universal sway],
even so might grace [the grace that far exceeds sin in its power]
reign through [by means of] righteousness [the righteousness
in Christ] unto eternal life." This was the point to be shown :
that this righteousness would not fail him who had it, but
that it was forever. The matter concludes with the solemn
words that this blessed, everlasting reign of righteousness is
" by Jesus Christ our Lord."

CHAPTER VI
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH DOES NOT FAVOR A SINFUL COURSE
OF LIFE
The chapter has two main divisions : ( i ) continuance in sin
is impossible to the justified man (verses 1-14), because he
died to sin and is alive with the life of Christ; and (2) even
sinning is unwarranted in justification of life, because it leads
to enslavement to sin and to its appropriate wages, death
(verses 15-23).
1. "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"
The question comes logically from the last two verses in the
preceding chapter, where Paul virtually says, the more sin, the
more grace. But it looks back also necessarily over the whole
discussion of justification. That this question, involving such
an answer as that which follows, should emerge at all shows
clearly Paul's idea of justification. If the latter signifies " to
make good," the question would be impossible. If justification
means "to declare good," the question is pertinent. If the sin
ner is justified on the ground of any personal merit, for any
good that he is doing with a view to justification, the question
is inexplicable. But if God by his free grace in Christ Jesus
justifies " the ungodly " (iv. 5), this question must come to the
front and press earnestly for an answer.
And this answer is found wholly in the facts that go to make
the gospel story. It is not found in the obligation of the law
106

(VI. 2) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 107
that says " Thou shalt not " ; it is not found in the gratitude
which the justified man should feel toward him who died for
him; it is not found in good resolutions, in prayer, and in
watchfulness ; it is found in Christ.
2. " God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein? " To live in sin is to be under its sway (verses
1-14) and to practise it (verses 15-23). Paul with vigorous
language repels the thought that a justified man can remain in
this enslaving service. The reason is that the justified are also
dead to sin. This death belongs to their redemption, on the
ground of which they were justified. " Dead to sin " is far
from meaning the death of sin as a power or principle in the
heart. (See under viii. n.) In the history of the church
many who have embraced this view have been driven from it
by a sad experience, and those who have not been so driven
have lived a life of self-deception. " Dead to sin " does not
mean a resolution to imitate Christ ; it is more than an act of
will; it is death in and with Christ in the actual fact of his
death. Christ's death was the believer's death also (2 Cor. v.
14; 1 Pet. ii. 24). Paul has virtually said this in the verses
just above (v. 18, 19). What the one did all did. He died
not only for sins (1 Cor. xv. 3), but for sinners. He atoned
not only for the acts, but for the actor. It is the considera
tion of the latter fact only that occupies this chapter — "We,
that are dead," having died when he did. The blood shed at
the cross washes the sinner as well as his sins. " If I wash
thee not " (John xiii. 8).
To be saved is to be saved from sin first of all. After Paul
has labored through five chapters to show that this salvation
is a gratuitous gift to faith in Christ, how can he now refer it
to something else, a subjective death in the heart of the sin
ner? He is not so illogical, but some of his interpreters are.
When the apostle is asked whether his doctrine that grace
covers every sin, the more sin, the more grace, — "Let us do

108 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 3)
evil, that good may come" (iii. 8), — is not promotive of sin,
his answer is just simply a further explication of grace, an
opening up of a wider view of the work of the cross. The
power against continuance in sin is faith in the cross.
Sin's power, its mastery over the soul, comes from its pres
ence. The enlightened man soon sees that his guilt lies not
so much in what he has done as in what he is. It is not his
actSj_it is himself, that is an offense against God. Sin dwells
within him, tainting every fiber of_his_soul. He cannot es
cape it by anything within his own power any more than he
can change the color of his eyes. It is ever present and is
thereby master. But why seek to escape it? why not continue
in it if grace covers it? " How shall we, that are dead to
sin, live any longer therein? " How can one on whom the
sun has risen walk now in the dark? The believer died in
Christ's death. The believer is dead, and that death answers
for the guilt of what he is. Faith takes Christ for sinfulness
as well as for sins ; and indwelling sin has lost its power to
vex the conscience and to cut off the light from God's coun
tenance the moment that faith says, " He died for what I am
as well as for what I did." Sin loses its power, because sin is
gone from the heart by the death of Christ, in which the sin
ner dies.
Note three things: First, the question so far is not about
continuingto sin, but about continuance. in ...sin, in its power.
Secondly, the only change that Paul contemplates in the jus
tified man up to this point is a change in his attitude toward
Christ ; from being a non-believer he has become a believer.
Thirdly, this first verse makes but the first step in answering
the question, "Shall we continue in sin? "
3. The question could not be asked if the Romans bethought
themselves of what they assumed in their baptism. They were
dead, as the verse above declares, for they were baptized into
Christ's death. This third verse, then, is in the way of expli-

(VI. 3) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 109
cation that the Romans died to sin, the hour of that death
being the time when they entered the waters of baptism. The
meaning of their baptism was death.
But how did they die by means of baptism? Paul answers,
to quote the Revised Version : " Or are ye ignorant that all
we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his
death? " They knew, of course, that they were baptized into
Christ ; but Paul insists on the one point that that baptism in
volved among other things oneness with him in his death to
sin. By the ordinance or in the ordinance they declared their
acceptance of him as Saviour and so came "into " him. The
nature of the union is not disclosed, but it is real. It is not
effected by the baptism, but in it. In the baptism the believer
virtually says, " I make Christ's death to sin my death to sin."
It is the symbolic response of the heart to the teaching of the
gospel that Christ's death is also the believer's.
But must it not be said now that Paul has abandoned his
theme, salvation by faith, in substituting the word " baptism "?
Why did he not say, "All we who believed into Christ," a
common phrase in the New Testament (x. 14; Gal. ii. 16),
"believed into his death"? The difficulty arises from the
modern wrong conception of the New Testament meaning
of the word "baptism," that it is a mere rite, an act to be
done, at the best, because one believes in Christ. The New
Testament writers never separate it from the faith which it
embodies and expresses. It is the fixed sign for faith, just as
any appropriate order of letters in a word is the sign of an idea.
The sign stands for the thing and is constantly used for the
thing. Hence Paul can say that Christ was " put on " in
baptism (Gal. iii. 27), and Peter does not hesitate to declare
that "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Pet. iii. 21). It is
referred to as the " laver of regeneration " (Tit. iii. 5), and said
to "wash away sins " (Acts xxii. 16). To refuse to be baptized
is to reject God, and the opposite is to accept him (Luke vii.

110 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 4)
29, 30). Every one of these passages— and there are more
like them— would teach salvation by a rite, salvation by
water, but that the word for baptism is used as a symbol of
faith. Faith so far is not one thing and baptism another ; they
are the same thing. The faith that accepted Christ in Paul's
day was the faith that showed its acceptance in baptism. The
water without the preceding faith was nothing. The faith
without the water could not be allowed. Believers were bap
tized into Christ or they were not considered to be in him.
The word being so used, it is easy to see that Paul has not
departed from the gem doctrine of justification by faith ; and
by employing it he has gained definiteness of statement.
Faith is a wide term and shows itself in many ways, each ex
hibition being exactly appropriate to the way in which faith is
then exercised. The exhibition is an exponent of the faith.
In faith of a coming flood, Noah appropriately built an ark.
In faith that Israel would one day leave Egypt, Joseph gave
commandment concerning his bones, that they be not left be
hind. In faith that one dies with Jesus, he is buried with him
in baptism, the faith taking this fit form. The Romans had
a broad faith that ran out in many lines, and it was known far
and wide (i. 8). Just one of these lines led to salvation — the
one that found its appropriate exhibition in baptism. When
Paul said they were baptized into Christ, they knew instantly
to what hour (see on xvi. 7) and to what line of their multi
form faith he referred— the faith that saw the man and not
merely his sins on the cross and in the tomb, so that to show
itself appropriately the whole man must be buried with Christ
in baptism. The act of baptism is an exponent, first of all,
not of the remission of sins, but of the death of the believer in
Christ, so that his sinfulness is atoned for. He himself has
died to sin.
4. The second verse declares the fact of the believer's death
in Christ, a fact explained in the third. The two have just

(VI. 5) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? Ill
the one thought— death. This fourth verse draws the natural
conclusion : therefore we are buried with him by means of
the baptism into death. He does not say into " his " death
this time, because he is not now emphasizing the union with
Christ brought about in the ordinance, but the condition in
which it places the baptized man. He is dead. And this
favors the view that the phrase " into death " is to be joined
with "baptism." We are buried with him by means of an
into-death baptism. To connect it with the verb " buried "
gives an unnatural figure, buried into death, but one that is
supported by some. The mention of the burial prepares the
way for the next step, the second in the question of continu
ance in sin. It is only touched and then dropped to go on
with the idea of death until the end of the seventh verse.
We were buried with him in order that, just as the Father
raised up Christ from the dead by means of that " glory " which
is the sum of the gracious excellence of his character, so we
also should walk in the newness of the principle of life. The
" should " does not express obligation, but the Father's intent
in the raising of the Saviour on our behalf. The mention of
the glory in connection with Christ's resurrection suggests that
the same glory will be exhibited in the walk springing from the
new life-principle.
5. This verse tells why there may be a new walk in point
ing out the power of that walk. The reason is that, as we are
one with him in his death, so are we also in his resurrection,
being endowed in the latter with the same life which he re
ceived in rising from the tomb. The reference is not to our
future bodily resurrection. " For if " (or " as "), a graft in a
tree (John xv.), "we became [not "planted," but] grown to
gether [with him] in the likeness of his death [viz., our baptism],
so shall we be also still grown together [with him] in the like
ness of his resurrection [viz., our emergence from the watery
grave]." To state this idea of union Paul has not abandoned

112 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 6, 7)
his figure of baptism. Grafting, to be sure, is not done in
water, but the union in the baptism is as vital as that between
the graft and the tree. It must be noted that none can share
in Christ's resurrection life except by first dying. We are
buried in order to be raised (John xii. 24).
Now for the first time Paul has clearly asserted union with
Christ. For the thought is, if we went into the baptism in
union, why should we not come out in union? The oneness
in the immersion is proof of the oneness in the emersion.
6. He changes his figure, but holds in both the same point
of view — the death of Christ. The connection is causal ; we
may say that we are grown together in the likeness of his
resurrection because of our "knowing this," viz., the signifi
cance of the cross. It must not be said here, with Shedd, that
" St. Paul adduces the personal experience of the believer in
proof." Did any man ever experience that he died with Christ?
The word does mean an experimental knowledge, but in this
case, as in many others, it is the experience of faith (Gal. iii.
7 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1) and not of fact. It is by faith we know that
" our old man," our former self before our acceptance of Christ,
was (not " is ") crucified with him, in order that our body,
the possession and slave of sin, might be (not "destroyed,"
but) annulled by dying with Christ to sin. By "body" is
meant nearly the same as " old man." The latter is the man
in his relations to life and to his own history. The former is
the means of these. The intent of the annulling of this body
by the cross was that we might no more do bond-service to
sin, or, as the Revised Version, " that so we should no longer
be in bondage to sin."
7. That we are no longer debtors to sin, to render it any
kind of service, is proved by the accepted maxim in human
penalties that he who died (not "is dead") thereby stands
acquitted (not "is freed") from sin. Death cancels every
thing.

(VI. 8-10) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 113
So far, then, in the main Paul's answer to the question, " Shall
we continue in sin? " is this : that every believer, and not merely
a most devout man or two, is dead. It is not that he ought
to die, but his death is an accomplished fact in Christ Jesus.
Baptism means death and burial. In the crucifixion of Christ
the believer sees himself crucified too. Not only were his
sins there, but he himself was there, so that the " old man,"
the former self, was slain. How can he " continue " in sin
when he and his sins are no more? The words "old man"
suggest a new man, against whom there is nothing penal either
for what he was or is, or for what he has done. These are
objective facts of the gospel, and the faith that has laid hold
of them finds perfect liberty before a holy God, and is certain
of his love. This faith opens the heart for the incoming
of that love mentioned in v. 5. When Christ is taken for nn
more than the forgiveness of sins. then_ baptism has wholly
lost its significance, for it buries the man and not his sins,
and the cross has been robbed of half its efficacy, for it
crucifies the body of sin at the same time in which it puts
away its guilt. The power subjectively against continuance
iiTsin TiTbeJiei-ia-thjeje objective facts of the gospel.
8-10.CSanctificatios>DeRins with this chapter with the ques
tion, " Shall we continue in sin ? " Paul has securely laid the
foundation of it in justification. There is no break with sin
but by trust in the gospel facts, and no one can have the power
of the resurrection life in his heart until he dies with Christ in
order to be raised with him. To die is to be justified from sin,
by which death comes union with Christ in life before God.
Thus it is that God's righteousness is a righteousness by faith.
Spiritual power flows into the soul by union with Christ,
but that fact is not developed until the eighth chapter. Here
the eye is still turned upward, not inward.
At this point, therefore, Paul takes up the second means
against continuance in sin; or rather it is the other side of

114 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. n)
what has already been given, and touched on just once in
verse 5. " He was delivered for our offenses." This is verses
1-7. " He was raised again for our justification." (See on
iv. 25.) This is verses 8-14. The believer dead with Christ
will surely " live " with him, now in this present time, and then,
of course, ever hereafter. It is only the present time that is
here in view. Note that now for the first instance since iv.
24 (q.v.) we have the word "believe," signifying, however, not
faith in the gospel directly, but persuasion or conviction of its
efficacy. Since our present Christian life depends wholly on
Christ's life, since we live only in his life (see verse 5 above),
Paul need only prove that Christ, once raised, dies no more.
That he died at all was because of sin, and for this he died
" once " for all. Sin has no more dominion over him, and in
him it has no more dominion over the believer. And now
that he lives, he lives to God, or for God, for his pleasure and
glory. This is said in proof that Christ can never again die,
the suppressed premise being that he who lives for God must
live forever. It is also suggested that we who live by the power
of that life in him, and which has become ours, will also live
" to God," and so live both now and evermore.
11. With this verse an exhortation begins that is continued
through the next two. To "reckon " is to account (ii. 26), to
" conclude " (iii. 28), to think (ii. 3). They were asked to think
of themselves ("yourselves"), just as God's Word here describes
theminChrist/'dead unto sin " and "alive unto [or "for"] God."
To conclude about ourselves what God has declared about us in
the gospel is faith (iv. 17). If the gospel says we are dead to
sin in Christ, we must say so too ; if it says we are alive in him,
we must so reckon ourselves. This reckoning stands on the
gospel and not at all on experience. The very meaning and
use of this word prove that Paul depended on a right estima
tion of the gospel as the power against sin, and not on an
inward experience of something, except as this estimation is

(VI. 12) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SINt 115
itself an experience. It is not be alive or become alive, but
account yourself now alive in Christ. The happy rendering in
the King James version, " likewise," shows the correspondence
between this verse and the tenth. As he died to sin once for all,
reckon ye yourselves dead "likewise," and as he liveth unto
God, so "likewise" do ye ; for the last phrase, "in [" through "
is not correct] Jesus Christ our Lord," in verse 1 1 joins with
both "dead" and "alive."
12. And " therefore," now that you reckon yourselves alive
in Christ and dead to sin, — "therefore" looks back over the
whole section, — "let not sin reign in your mortal body." He
says " mortal " to remind them of what they are in themselves,
mortal because sinful (viii. io). They must "reckon" them
selves pure, and this reckoning is their chief power over sin,
because God graciously so reckons them ; but in themselves
they are not so. See how clearly he implies that there is " sin "
in this mortal body. But it is now " your " body ; before ac
cepting Christ it was "the body of sin." (For the meaning
of " body " see on verse 6 above.)
" Let not sin reign." This is much more than an appeal to
the exercise of will. It is an appeal to accept and make
one's own by faith all that state which is brought about by
union with Christ. The ideal Christian life is not a constant
battle with sin, but a victory over it. Not until a man sees him
self sinless in Christ by death and resurrection has he found the
right way of approach toward sinlessness in life. He can attend
to the present when he knows that he is absolved from all that
he was and did in the past, as well as from all that he now is.
" That ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." The better
reading is, "That ye should obey its [the body's] desires."
The words "it in" are an unsupported addition to the true
text. " Lusts " is obsolete English and should find no place
in a modern revision. The sentence explains the word " reign."
The persistent tendency of sin is to subject man to a gratify-

116 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 13, 14)
ing of his own desires. James i. 14, 15, describes the steps by
which sin dethroned in Christ regains its scepter. Note again
how clearly Paul implies that the believer is still possessed of
the desires of the body. As long as he has a body he has these
desires. It is not their presence nor the presence of sin with
its clamor to reign that is inconsistent with saving union with
Christ. The gospel is a means to save sinners (1 Tim. i. 15).
It can justify the "ungodly " (iv. 5). But what it cannot tol
erate is obedience to sin. It is not the will of the sinful man
that is to be done, but the will of God. Godet's rather vehe
ment insistence that Paul here means only physical desires is
wide of the mark. The body is the man. Psychology is as
incompetent to explain Paul as geology is to explain Genesis.
Moule is correct when he says they are " desires of every kind,
whether sensual or not." For see Colossians iii. 3, 5, 8, 9.
Even a desire after some particular service to God may be
contrary to his will (1 Thess. ii. 17, 18). It must not be for
gotten that when " our old man " was slain at the cross these
" lusts " were crucified with him (Gal. v. 24).
13. Paul descends from the general to the particular. The
" members " of the body, its various faculties and capabilities,
physical and mental, must not be yielded at any time " unto sin "
as weapons ("instruments") for unrighteousness, but (now he
turns from the negative to the positive) "yield," by one de
cisive act, " yourselves to God." To " yield " means to present
for service. This topic is taken up at length in chapter xii.
It is in vain for one to present himself to God for service
except in the gospel fashion— present himself not merely as a
forgiven sinner, but, by faith in the gospel, as one " alive from
the dead," "a living sacrifice" (xii. 1); and present once for
all to God the " members " of the body (same as above) as
weapons for righteousness, practical holiness.
14. And you can make this holy warfare, " for " you have
not only been set free from sin by dying to it, but it has also

(VI. 15, 16) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 117
lost another means of hindering you, the law : " ye are not
under law," a matter to be fully explained in the next chapter
(see under iii. 20) ; ye are "under grace." Grace and law are
antagonistic and mutually exclusive. Sin and law go together,
and yet, should the believer chance to go astray, he is still
under grace. This raises the serious question of the second
(2) section— whether sinning is not promoted by gratuitous
justification. 15. "Shall we sin, because we are not under law? " This
question was sure to arise, because human society and govern
ments know of no way to restrain sin but by law and its pen
alties. The state's ruler is " the minister of God, a revenger
to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil " (xiii. 4) in breaking
the law. The assertion " ye are not under law " was made to
turn the justified man's gaze from Moses to Christ, from law
to grace. That this can lead to an act of sin Paul denies with
vehemence — " God forbid " ; but he knew well that his simple,
radical declaration " not under law " could not be accepted
without defense. And even with his defense many are disposed
to think that the obvious meaning cannot be the true one.
16. With this verse the answer begins. That answer is found
in the nature of sin. Its immediate effect is slavery ; its out
come is eternal death. To repeal the law against taking poison
with suicidal intent would not affect the character of the drugs.
Paul's readers know this, — " Know ye not? " — so that he only
reminds them what the result must be if they sin. Faith in
God is, first of all, faith in the ruinous power of sin (i. 32).
The compactness possible in the Greek of this sentence makes
a literal translation somewhat difficult. It might be para
phrased slightly: Know ye not, to whom ye present your
selves as servants to the extent of obedience, his slaves ye are
whom ye obey, whether sin's servants, whose end is death, or
obedience's servants, whose end is practical righteousness?
This states the universal law that a man becomes the moral

118 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 17)
subject of what he does. If he yields to sin that sin gets
a grip upon him. If he lies once, not only is he likely to lie
again, but that lie has him in its power. It has soiled his con
science and dimmed the light in his heart. This is also the
teaching in Matthew vi. 24 ; John viii. 34 ; 2 Peter ii. 19. No
one knows this so well as the believer. To be sure, he may
repent of his sin, but only Christ, and not the law, can restore
him. It is also true that acts of obedience tend to a habit and
enslave their doer in the comfortable bonds of righteousness.
The two words " whether," " or," show that life has but two
ways open, one or the other of which every man must choose ;
there is no middle course.
17. After stating this law that holds in all moral action, he
speaks of the happy condition of the Romans, that, whereas
they had been sin's slaves, thanks be to God, they had escaped
bondage by obeying from the heart, sincerely and not in mere
act of the flesh, that " form " or mold of teaching into which
they were delivered. The King James translation is wrong
here. It does indeed seem natural to say a form of teaching
" which was delivered you," but this is not Paul's assertion. If
it were, one shining point would be lost, that both they and God
conjoined in the act of their salvation. They obeyed from the
heart the type of teaching — the gospel — into whose power his
grace delivered them. The commentators debate the implica
tion here, whether there were different types of doctrine among
the apostles. There was a difference in presentation (see on ii.
16), but none in form or mold. In this debate it is strangely
overlooked that the implied antithesis is with that other " form
of knowledge and of the truth in the law " (ii. 20). To be sure,
in the passage here quoted there stands another word for
" form," but practically synonymous with the one before us.
The context, whether we shall be under law to be restrained
from sin, or under the gospel, settles the question of the an
tithesis and also explains Paul's earnest words.

(VI. i8, 19) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 119
" God be thanked." Paul had had no little trouble on this
point (Gal. v. 1, 2).
It is impossible to think that in this phrase, " delivered into
a mold of teaching," Paul did not refer to what he said in
verse 4 above. Baptism is a symbolic mold or pattern of
doctrine into which the Romans could be said to be delivered,
and in accordance with which they are fashioned, for its idea
is dead to sin and alive with Christ. He who called the same
ordinance a "washing" or alaver "of regeneration" (Tit. iii. 5)
could consistently call it a mold of doctrine.
18. This verse continues the thought of the last, the happy
condition into which the Romans were brought by their heart
obedience to the gospel ; being set at liberty from sin by dying
to it, they are now servants to righteousness. This word " ser
vants," used all along, shows that now practical and not im
puted righteousness is meant. At the very beginning of their
Christian course they were delivered from the guilt and from
the power of sin in order to do acceptable works. They did
not serve to be saved ; they were saved to serve.
19. " I speak after the manner of men." For using the
words " servants of righteousness," Paul explains, almost apolo
gizes. This expression belongs not strictly to the believer's
relation to Christ, but is human, " after the manner of men."
The fact is, as stated in v. 17, that the saint is not a servant,
but a king. But in view of the " infirmity of the flesh," the
feebleness of spiritual comprehension (Eph. iii. 16) on the part
of the Romans, he uses a phrase which they could understand.
While it is far from expressing the whole truth, it is in the way
toward it and cannot lead astray. This language of servitude,
while it does not assert their lofty spiritual dignity, conveys
the full measure of their duty— slaves to righteousness.
In a further use of this human metaphor, he exhorts them
to a transfer of energy. Just as their powers and faculties had
once been slaves to the monsters " uncleanness and iniquity,"

120 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. 20-23)
so that the issue was iniquity, they were to present these " even
so " as slaves to righteousness, that the issue might be holiness.
In yielding themselves as servants to do right, there issued at
once a state of mind and heart called holiness. He does not
say yet that this holiness comes from the Holy Spirit.
20, 21. Paul urges them ("for") to this holy enslavement
by reminding them that the only freedom which they had in
their former condition was freedom relative to righteousness.
Such having been their condition, he asks, "What fruit had
ye accordingly [" then " is ambiguous] in those things [those
sinful deeds and habits] whereof ye are now ashamed? "
(1 Pet. iv. 3.) They were "now" ashamed, which is to their
credit and proves their enlightenment. They were not " then "
ashamed, for this was impossible, because sin never sees its own
hideous face until it looks into the gospel with believing eyes.
The question all the time before the reader is, " Shall we sin,
because we are not under law? " Men are not likely to repeat
that for which they are " now " ashamed. " What fruit had
ye?" I ask this painful question because ("for") ye know
" the end of those things is [spiritual] death." There was no
fruit. Note that Paul has quietly passed from the enslavement
produced by sin to its legitimate result — death.
22. This verse describes their present blessed condition in
contrast with their former one, pictured in verses 20 and 21.
He does not now use the semi-figurative words " obedience,"
"righteousness," "mold of teaching" (see Moule, in loc), but
that which comprehends them all — "servants to God." This
service has immediate fruit issuing in holiness, whose end is
eternal life. Here are two strange paradoxes : the end of sin
is death that never dies, and the end of holiness is " eternal "
life. The order and number of the terms must be noted —
service to God, holiness, eternal life. The middle link of the
three cannot be omitted (Heb. xii. 14).
23. " Wages of sin ; . . . gift of God." This verse gives

(VI. 23) DOES FAITH PROMOTE SIN? 121
the solemn proof for the last three. It lies in the fundamental
law of the moral universe. Things are so constituted that sin
ends only in death, and grace in eternal life. That which
comes to sin is wages. Wages are what is due. The word
means soldier's pay. Sin is warfare against God, and the
appropriate pay is death. But that which comes to the servants
of God is not wages ; service is due him and merits no reward
(Luke xvii. io). But that which comes to them is vastly more
than any wages which they could earn — it is a gift of God, it
is eternal life. The argument closes, as each one does, with
the solemnly accumulated titles of the Redeemer : " The gift
of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
In a word, then, the question, " Shall we continue in sin? " is
answered. The answer is in the gospel, the work of Christ.
How can one continue in a state from which he is already
delivered? Death was due as the wages of sin, and that death
was paid in Christ. If it is, then, no longer service to sin, but
service to God, life is needed, — a dead man cannot serve
God, — and Christ's life is reckoned to the believer. Belief of
the gospel is the power against sin, and belief is to reckon one's
self as God reckons. In Christ man is guiltless; this is his
standing, which enables him to shun sinning because he now
knows its destructive power. Believing acquaintance with
Christ in his gospel gives deliverance from sin and from
sinning.

CHAPTER VII

THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY

In iii. 20 it was said that " by the deeds of the law shall no
flesh be justified in God's sight."
In v. 20 there is a second radical utterance about the law
—it " entered, that the offense might abound."
In vi. 14 there comes a third amazing statement — "Ye are
not under law."
In this chapter these three points are taken up in the reverse
order, and elaborated subsidiary to the leading idea that the
law cannot save from indwelling sin. (1) How and why the
justified are delivered from the law (verses 1-6). (2) If the
law makes sin to abound, is the law sinful (verses 7-13)? (3)
No man is saved by the law, for no man is delivered from the
flesh by it (verses 14-25).
There was a profound historical necessity for the discussion
embraced in this chapter. Whether the composition of the
Roman church was in the main Jewish or Gentile, its Bible,
which it read and by which it knew God and Christ, was the
Old Testament, the book of the law. The law was divine,
given with most imposing sanctions on Sinai. For their own
stability, as well as for a means of defense against acute and
captious Jewish adversaries, Paul must make these Roman
believers see why that law was not binding on them in their
relation to God. The necessity was the more urgent from the
fact that he defends justification by faith by these same Old
Testament Scriptures. 122

(VII. 1-4) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 123
In writing to the Hebrews, who were in danger of returning
to the law, there was equal need of showing them not only its
impotency to save, but that they were no longer under it. The
latter came about by the radical change in the order of the
priesthood (Heb. vii. 12, 19).
In the well-nigh vehement Epistle to the Galatians Paul
discusses this same question, but more in its relation to justi
fication than to sanctification. Galatians is suggested in our
fourth chapter rather than in this seventh.
This question of the law was the meeting-point of the enemies
and friends of the gospel. More than once his attitude toward
it came well-nigh costing Paul his life (Acts xxi. 28, 31). It
is not strange, then, that we meet it here and in almost every
one of his epistles.
Paul's convincing teaching on the subject of law would bring
a comfort and a relief to the believing Jew, and to the believ
ing Gentile as well, that can hardly be appreciated. His in
struction was their answer for abandoning an old and divinely
established faith for a novel and untried one. The former
was the trust of the fathers and the prophets ; the latter, it
could be said, was advocated by no one but heretics and
renegades. But it has also intrinsic and permanent value. It
is in the very blood of men everywhere to seek to set themselves
right with God by doing good works. This chapter shows how
futile all such efforts are.
1-4. "Or know ye not, brethren? " The chapter is linked
by the word " or " — omitted in the King James version —
with the fourteenth verse of the preceding one. He writes
to them as "men who know the law." The Revised Ver
sion is preferable here. They knew the law, for it was con
stantly read and expounded in their hearing. They knew
its permanent character, that it held dominion over man for
life. In proof, he cites a single item from the code. A wife
was held by the marriage bond as long as her husband lived ;

124 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 1-4)
but if he died she was free, being no longer a wife, but the
same as a virgin. She could marry again. Here is where
this exceedingly simple illustration grows not only very pro
found, but at the first sight very perplexing. The point that
Paul is after is that the law holds the man till he dies. But
in the illustration it was the husband that died and the wife
became free. And not a few commentators are puzzled and
make dark what Paul intended to be plain. Moule says :
"The metaphorical language is not strictly consistent." It is
both consistent and scriptural. Sanday says : " In the working
out of this illustration there is a certain amount of intricacy,
due to an apparent shifting of the standpoint in the middle of
the paragraph." But how strange that Paul should attempt to
clarify a simple statement by an intricate illustration! He
adds: "It is strange to speak of the same persons at one
moment as ' killed ' and the next as ' married again.' " But
have we not had this "strange " thing several times in the previ
ous chapter? " Our old man was crucified with him, . . . that
we should not serve sin " (verse 6). " If we be dead with Christ,
we believe that we shall also [now] live with him " (verse 8).
(See Col. iii. 3.) Shedd makes the amazing statement that the
first husband stands for the law. Why, the woman was not
married to the marriage law, but to a man, and now the law
bound her. He adds : " If the figure had been regularly
carried out." Its regularity is beautiful, but how is one to see
it who makes the first husband the law ? Meyer's explanation
strikes the right note, but hardly goes far enough. When Paul
begins, " I speak to you as those who know the law," this is
not merely incidental or a compliment, but the key to the
passage. The moment he mentioned marriage their thought
would at once revert to Genesis ii. 24 : " And they shall be one
flesh." And, therefore, when the husband dies the wife dies
too ; and the law, that binds while life lasts, binds her no longer,
for she is dead, The wife is dead ; the woman remains, The

(VII. 1-4) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 125
context, especially before, but also after, makes it inevitable that
the first husband, though he is not mentioned, is none other
than the crucified Christ. " Our old man is crucified with
him." These Romans, from what Paul had already written,
could not avoid believing that they died in his death, because
in some way they were in union with him. He was made
under the law that he might redeem them that were under the
law (Gal. iv. 4, 5). He and they died together (2 Cor. v. 14).
Christ while under the law was the first husband.
The third verse serves to emphasize the rigor of the marriage
law in its demand that husband and wife remain one, for if,
" while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she
shall [by the divine law itself J be called [by the harsh name] an
adulteress : but if her husband be dead, she is free from that
law," because, being one flesh (Mark x. 8) with him, she died
too. She is no more a wife than if she had never married.
She is dead to the law of her husband, so that it has no longer
a claim upon her. She can be " married to another man " if
she chooses to marry.
The fourth verse brings in the conclusion. It significantly
begins with the word "wherefore." It might be rendered "so
that." It shows the exactness of the parallel between the
woman's case and that of the believer in Christ. It is God's
law that the woman should be considered dead in her husband's
death, "so that ye," under a similar law, may be reckoned
dead in Christ's death. Meyer denies this harmony, and makes
the " wherefore " purely inferential. The sense is not materially
affected ; for the point reached is this : as the woman died to
the marriage law in the death of her husband, so "ye also,"
like the woman, " my brethren," died by means of " the body
of Christ" on the cross to the whole Mosaic law; "that ye
should be married to another, even to him who is raised from
the dead." In the case of the woman the husbands are two
and distinct ; in the case of the Romans the husband is the

126 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 1-4)
same, but in two different states, one, under the law, born of
Mary, and the other the resurrection state. This duality in the
relation of Christ to his own was taught first of all by himself.
(See John xiv. 18, 19 ; xvi. 16.) In 2 Corinthians v. 14-16, Paul,
in speaking of living to the raised Christ, declares: "Yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now hence
forth know we him no more." But our text itself looks at
Christ in two conditions— "the body of Christ" and "him
who is raised from the dead." These are identical in sub
stance, but different in relation. The former was with men
under the law ; the latter belongs to the heavenly world. By
death and resurrection Jesus passed from one to the other, so
that when he met his disciples after rising from the tomb, he
virtually said he was no longer with them (Luke xxiv. 44).
The nature of that union which existed between Christ and
the race before the cross, so that his death was their death, is
nowhere revealed ; but to bring about such a union may be
the chief reason for the incarnation.
The union with Christ is twofold, one in the incarnation, by
which he stood for the race in such a way that when the One
died they all died—" Ye were made dead to the law by the
body of Christ." This is the union with the first husband.
But now, secondly, the raised Christ is preached, and men may
become united with him in the Holy Spirit through faith. This
is the second and the saving union, made possible by the first.
That men became dead to the law by the body of Christ
does not make their salvation actual, because the intent of that
death was not salvation, but that they might be married to
another, to him who is raised from the dead, in whom, and in
no other way, the salvation is found.
But how did this question of the Mosaic law affect the
Gentiles, who were not under it? In a very true sense they
were under it. It was "against" them (Col. ii. 14). When
Moses shut up the Jew under law he shut the Gentile out, so

(VII. 5, 6) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 127
that the Jew knew of no way of saving his uncircumcised
neighbor but by proselytism (Acts xv. 5). God's way was to
remove the barrier of the law by breaking down this " middle
wall of partition." Christ reconciled both (Jew and Gentile)
unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
by it, so that now " both have access by one Spirit unto the
Father" (Eph. ii. 13-18). In the matter of law the cross did
as much for the Gentile as for the Jew, in that it brought about
that primal relation of men to God when there was no law.
This fourth verse gives the heart of the epistle and of the
gospel. The Christian's life is not a memory, not an imitation
of one who long ago lived, the former husband, but a wedlock
union with him who now lives in them and for them.
The object of the marriage with the risen Christ is that " we
might bring forth fruit for God." The figure of the marriage
is continued in the idea of fruitfulness. The fruit is love and
joy and peace, a mind in harmony with God. The character
of this fruit may be known in its origination from a heart in
union with Christ to be its author. It is divine and spiritual,
and so fit "for God." The very best that even the best man
can produce outside of spiritual union with Christ is in God's
sight but bastard fruit.
5. This verse shows why no fruit could be produced for
God under the law. "When we were in the flesh," not in
Christ, but under law, " the passions " (a better word than
" motions "),— the excitabilities and evil capabilities in the heart
leading to their several "sins," — these passions, "which were
[stirred to operate] by [means of] the law, did work [were
active] in our members," mental and physical, to the extent of
bringing forth fruit for death. This stirring of the passions to
opposition Paul will elaborate in the next section.
6. This verse describes the present happy state of the
Romans freed from the law and in Christ. " But now we are
freed [the same word is translated " loosed " in verse 2 above]

128 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 7, 8)
from the law"— Moses' moral and ceremonial law. How?
Just as the wife was : by " having died to that in which we were
held." The King James version is quite faulty here. We were
freed so as to (not "should") do service "in newness of [the]
spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." The newness is the
new spiritual state or union with Christ ; the oldness of the letter
was their former state under the law. The letter means the
law. This new service produced holy fruit ; the service under
law brought forth fruit for death.
7, 8. But if we had to be absolved from the law, just as we
were absolved from the dominion of sin, in order to serve God,
"is the law sin? " With this inquiry the second point in the
chapter is introduced. (See remarks at the beginning of the
chapter and (2) in analysis.) Paul replies in the negative with
his usual vehemence—" God forbid." His sole and decisive
proof for this negative answer is that that which reveals sin
cannot itself be sin (Eph. v. 13). " I had not [experimentally]
known sin, but by [means of] the law." He cites the tenth
commandment to illustrate his meaning. For the words " lust,"
" covet," and " concupiscence " there is but one word, verb
and noun, in the original — "to desire": "I had not known
desire, except the law had said, Thou shalt not desire." But
the moment that command came the sin in my heart took the
command as an occasion to stir up within me every kind of
desire. I thought of a thousand things which I wanted, and
I longed for them now that they were forbidden. In quoting
only a part of the command, omitting as he does the specifi
cations under it in Deuteronomy, Paul shows that he under
stands it in its most sweeping extent. It forbids every strictly
human desire. Understood thus, it has the same awful effect
on men to-day that it had on Paul. It cannot be kept; it
grinds to powder. The heart is nothing but a nest of selfish
desires, to every one of which the command says no. The com
mentators take the sword out of the law's hand in saying it for-

(VII. 9) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 129
bids only " irregular desire," "illicit desire" (Sanday) : "desires
after what is forbidden" (Meyer). This quenches the fierce
blaze of the Sinaitic fire in the command and virtually reduces
the ten laws to nine ; for if the tenth forbids only what is
irregular and illicit, it merely reiterates those which are given
before it, and is a feeble summation instead of a burning
climax. Moreover, how could Saul of Tarsus, with his blame
less legal righteousness (Phil. iii. 6) and his good conscience
(Acts xxiii. i) — how could such a one as he "die" before a
law which inhibited only the "irregular," the "illicit," and the
" desires after what is forbidden "? In this sense he had kept
the tenth law as every pious Pharisee did, and as every moral
but unregenerate man does to-day. It was only when he came
to see that it was desire itself that was forbidden, that the sin
lay in the wish itself, not in the thing wished for, — it was when
he read the command just as he here gives it, " Thou shalt not
desire" — that he died under its power. If it is said that this
interpretation is impractical, that it dries up the springs of life,
the answer is, just this is its intent, so that men may seek to
escape "the corruption that is in the world by desire" (2 Pet.
i. 4). The will absolutely subject to God, admitted by all to
be the divine requirement, is practically impossible unless the
desires are likewise subject. What God has given men — and
he has given much — it is but gratitude to take ; but every
desire beyond is under the ban of the tenth law.
" For without the law sin was dead." It is not the law in
its letter that stirs up sin, but the law in its deep spiritual
meaning, as Jesus interpreted it in the Sermon on the Mount.
Until this real meaning dawns on the heart and conscience sin
lies inactive and is dead.
9. " When the law came." It is not just clear what Paul
means by these words. When did the law come to him? His
history shows that the time could not possibly have been when
at twelve years of age he, like other Jewish boys, was put under

ISO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. io, ii)
it and became a son of the law (Godet's view). Most likely
he refers to his history on the Damascus road, when the light
smote him. He learned then that instead of serving God he
was obnoxious to him, so that for three days he groped in
darkness without eating and drinking. At length he prayed,
and found life in professing faith in Christ (Acts ix. 17, 18;
xxii. 16). Up to the time of this experience he was, in the
Jewish sense, under the law, but really " without it." It had
not yet " come " to his heart and understanding. He was
" alive " ; that is, every unregenerate activity of his soul was in
full exercise without restraint. But when the heart-searching
law broke in upon his apprehension, he not only saw that he
had broken it at every point, but the sin which he had not felt
before arose in active rebellion against that law, and he died.
The penalty for rebellion was death (Num. xxvii. 13, 14). The
language " alive " and " died " is metaphorical, like 1 Thess.
iii. 8 and 1 Cor. xv. 31.
10. " And the commandment, which [was intended for] life,
I found [when it came to my sinful heart] to result in death
[for I could not keep it]." Paul is not excusing himself, nor
pitying himself ; and he is at the farthest from saying in the
words, "I had not known sin," "sin revived," that the law
created sin. This is the point : the pool of his heart had looked
like a spring of sweet water. The law was the staff that stirred
it up and showed it to be nothing but mud at the bottom and
full of all hideous reptiles. The question of guilt is not be
fore him, but the revealing power of the law.
11. "For sin . . . slew me." This verse supports the last
one in showing the process by which the law brought about
"death." Sin, like the tempter before Eve (Gen. iii. 1-13),
taking the commandment for a starting-point, an " occasion,"
deceived him. Sin led him, as Eve was led, to think that the
command was depriving him of some good ; but in taking that
which seemed good he gathered death with it. The law rose
up against him and pronounced his doom.

(VII. 12, 13) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 131
12. The conclusion about the law follows not exactly as an
inference from an argument, but as an exhibition of the law's
holiness given on the dark background of sin. The question
of verse 7 is answered. " Is the law sin? " No ; " the law is
holy, and the commandment [is] holy [for it discloses sin], and
just [or "righteous," because it condemns sin to death], and
good [or "beneficent," because its aim is "life"]." Bengel's
exposition of these adjectives, followed in some commentaries,
is lexical, but not logical.
13. This assertion about the goodness or beneficence of the
law starts an acute objection : " Was then that which is
good made death unto me ? " Can wholesome bread prove
poison to the hungry man who eats it? Does fresh, pure water
start a fever instead of allaying thirst? How can that which
is admitted to be "good," the law, prove to be "death to
me " ? This subtle objection is not only answered, but turned
into an argument. It was not the law that brought death,
" but sin." And sin wrought death, " that [in the purpose of
God in giving the law] it might appear sin [inasmuch as it
(sin)] worked death in me by that which is good." How
desperate the disease that only grows worse under the appro
priate remedy to heal it ! But God had an additional purpose
in giving the holy law to sinful man, viz., " that [in order that]
sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."
The coward is not known until he hears the command to
march against the foe.
Paul, having now shown that the law was added " that the
offense might abound" (v. 20), takes up with this fourteenth
verse the third point (3) above in the chapter, that salvation
is impossible under the law, because it cannot deliver from the
flesh (iii. 20). The law cannot give holiness, for the flesh is
the seat of sin.
Two questions always confront the student on this passage :
(a) Is this Paul's own experience? In the word "I," which
was introduced at verse 7, does he contemplate no one but

132 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 13)
himself? The section is certainly autobiographic. Such a
picture of the experience and despair of the heart in its contest
with sin could not possibly be drawn but by one who had had
the contest. It is because sin and law in their essence and
power are learned only by experience that he now reasons from
the latter. The law is not learned by hearing it ; it must "come."
But, while this must be a page from Paul's own history, it
is written in a way to be typical. He speaks not only for
himself, but voices the agony of every man situated similarly.
He has already more than once put his argument into dialogue
form and introduced the words "I" and "you" (see ii. 1,
17 ff; iii. 7) with general and all-inclusive reference.
(b) The other question is much more serious: Do verses
14-25 depict the experience of a regenerate or an unregen
erate man? Is this a normal Christian experience or a
sinner's experience? The great names are found on both
sides ; for the former, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc.,
and for the latter, Meyer, Godet, Stuart, Tholuck, etc.
The first party claims, and with no little weight, that none
but a regenerate man would make such a struggle against sin ;
that only such a one could say, " I delight in the law of God "
(but see ii. 17, 23); and that Gal. v. 17 gives in brief the
contest between the flesh and the Spirit in the Christian, a
contest like this detailed in the section before us. (But beware
of the King James translation of Gal. v. 17.)
On the other hand, it is said, how can this be Paul's ex
perience as a Christian, when he begins with the confession
that he is "sold under sin"; when, after denying that the
justified man "continues" in sin (vi. 1, 2), he admits that it
holds him in its unbroken power ; when, after proclaiming his
freedom from law, and so from the "passions" of sins (vii. 5,
6 ; vi. 1 8), he now sadly confesses himself their slave, incapable
of doing one single good act? He " delights " in the law, but
is in " captivity " to sin.

(VII. 14) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 133
This division of interpretation ought to have suggested long
ago that the understanding of this passage does not turn on
the question of regeneracy or unregeneracy. An undivided
decision in favor of one or the other would not shed a ray of
light on the interpretation ; it would estop interpretation by
turning the course of argument away from its connection.
For who is the man in this picture ? A man under law ; one
who has discovered its heart-searching spirituality, but who in
every attempt to keep it finds himself defeated by indwelling
sin ; one who says, " How beautiful to have no desires, to let
God desire for me ! " but finding at every turn that he wants
everything in sight. Now this will be the experience of any
man, regenerate or unregenerate, that attempts to keep the
law. It might have been the experience of the sincere ruler
(Mark x. 17-21), whom Jesus "loved." He came running
and kneeled in his eager inquiry to know what to do. It
might have been the experience of Paul during some part of
his stay in Arabia (Gal. i. 17, 18), until he had wrought out in
his heart and mind what the Christ in whom he had believed
was to his soul. For, while this section is as unlike a normal
Christian experience as early dawn is unlike broad daylight,
there is no doubt that many Christians have it and have had
it. The normal experience is given in vi. 17, 18 ; in vii. 4, 6 ;
and especially in viii. 1, 2, and 1 Peter i. 8, 9. The section
before us, with its Laocoon contest, is the painful portrait of
a man in deadly earnest to be just before God without Christ,
either not knowing him at all or knowing him without under
standing the gospel. (See Gal. iv. 9.) In Paul's day many
sincere Jews, with reverence for their holy law, may have seen
in this passage a picture of that agony with which their own
hearts had once ached.
14. " The law is spiritual : ... I am carnal." This verse
is a proof of the last statement, that not the law, but sin, proved
death to him. As a natural law pertains alone to nature, as

134 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 14)
a mental law has no field but the intellect, so a spiritual law
belongs only to the realm of spirit and can be kept only by
holy beings. Between the law and one who is carnal there is
a lack of moral adjustment. Peter, in his attempt to walk on
the water, began to sink, because he was out of the sphere
suited to mere doubting man. The priest could not carry the
sacrificial coals in his hand in going from the altar into the
holy place, and no more can a carnal man come before God
carrying the fiery law in his heart ; it would slay him.
If with this verse Paul drops the past tense for the present,
it is not at all because he is giving his own condition at the
time of writing. The change occurs in the verse before he re
sorts to the first person and while he is still speaking of the law.
In verses 7-13 he expanded verse 5 above, showing in detail
the operation of the law on the Romans, once under it, but
not when he wrote (verse 6) ; hence the past tense. In this
verse he speaks not of the operation, but of the permanent
character of the law, which requires the present tense ; and he
continues with this tense to show what is always true of the
" flesh " under law.
The " carnal " man is not only the man out of Christ (see
verse 5 above), but also one presumably in him, but ignorant
of grace (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 3 with 23). The condition of all such is
given in the words " sold under sin," language borrowed from
the slave market.
This little phrase, in which sin is personified, is the proposi
tion whose proof follows to the end of the chapter. The un
happy slave chants his misery with monotonous repetition of
the one idea— he would do good, but he cannot. The proof
falls into three dirges, the last of which ends in the high key
of a wail. The first dirge is verses 1 5-1 7 ; the second, verses
18-20 ; the third, verses 21-24. The last verse (25) sums all
up. These three all go to show one who is a slave sold under
sin.

(VII. 15-20) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 135
15-17. The "for" with which this complaint begins intro
duces it as a proof of the proposition, "sold under sin."
What the man does he knows (" allow " is incorrect) not. He
is driven blindly. He hates what he does and does what he
hates. This very conduct shows on both its sides that he
" consents to the law that it is good." His failure, then, to
lead a good life cannot be ascribed to his wrong attitude to
ward the law ; that failure must be ascribed to indwelling sin.
The " I " is just himself, body, soul, and spirit, that have been
seized upon by the alien master which he calls sin. Note that
he does not yet hate his master ; he does not know him ; he
only hates his service.
18-20. This dirge does not advance the argument one step.
It comes to the same conclusion as the last one and in the same
terms — "sin that dwelleth in me." But, while it does not ad
vance, it emphasizes by becoming more specific. There he
introduced the metaphor of a house : " sin dwells in me." He
now shows that sin occupies every room in the whole abode :
" there does not dwell in me a good thing." Sin lodges in
every chamber from the cellar to the roof. The law is doing
its work, " for by the law is the [full] knowledge of sin " (iii.
20). He thought there was some dust in the house, but now
as the white sunlight streams in at the windows he sees the
winged motes everywhere, saturating the air, settling on the
floor, defacing the furniture, and every motion he makes only
sets them flying. It is worse. For when he begins to beat
around to make things clean, it is as when Aaron smote the
dust in Egypt: it turned to lice (Exod. viii. 16), and his house
is possessed by them.
In a second point he is more specific than in the first dirge.
There he said in general terms, "what I would "and "what I
hate." Here he says " the good that I would " and " the evil
that I would not." The first did not show that it was good
that he could not do and evil that he could not shun.

1S6 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 21-24)
The section begins with " for," leaning on the statement that
had just been made— "sin that dwelleth in me." "For" is
" explanatory rather than demonstrative " (Godet). The phrase
" that is, in my flesh," following " in me," is not restrictive ; it
is appositional, serving to define the words " in me " and to
point out precisely what is meant by them. Every psycho
logical exposition of this passage is wrong. To parcel out the
soul of this man, and say some part consents to the law and
some other part commits sin, is to deny the principal proposi
tion (verse 14) and every verse that follows. And this the
psychological interpreters show by virtually saying that Paul
must not be understood at what he says : "/am carnal." It
is just one and the same " I " that is " carnal," that does " what
he allows not," that " hates what he does," that " consents unto
the law that it is good." It is precisely of his whole self that
he says " sin dwells in me" The carnal " I," thrilled by the
electric touch of the law, can consent to that law, can wish to
do the good, can hate the evil condemned by the law, can
" wish " and " hate " and " consent," yet never cease practising
sin. The very proof that he gives that sin dwells in him is,
" for to will [wish] is present with me, but how to perform
that which is good I find not." It is a carnal wish, for a
spiritual w'sh is a spiritual deed (2 Cor. viii. 10, R. V.). That
a carnal man, as the one in this section is declared to be,
could have a spiritual wish or a spiritual consent to the law is
a contradiction in terms. There can be no wish contrary to
character. 21-24. The metaphor of a house is now dropped, and in
plain terms he repeats what was said in the two preceding
dirges, but in the form of result— "then." "I find then [in
my experience] the law [the unvarying principle (in reference)],
to me who would do good, that evil is present with me [to de
feat the effort at good]." That " law " does not mean the
Mosaic law in this passage is the opinion of Alford, Godet,

(VII. 21-24) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 137
Sanday, and many others. (For the meaning assigned above
see viii. 2, "law of the Spirit.")
Verses 22 and 23, introduced by "for," unfold what Paul
means by verse 21. He delights in (with) the law — Moses' law
here, for he calls it the " law of God." He can " approve " it
as a Jew, being "instructed" by it (ii. 18). This delight is
not in that which is outward in doing it, but in the "inward
man," in his "wish," in his "consent," in his "hate " of what
the law condemns. A proof of his delight in the law is his
persistent effort to keep it in spite of constant failure. The
inner man is not the new man (Eph. ii. 10 ; iv. 24). But along
with this delight he has an opposite experience ; he sees " an
other," a different law, a force in his members, his various
capacities, a force that does not fight a battle merely, but car
ries on a successful campaign against the law of his mind.
The " law of the mind " means the delight of the inward man
in God's law. This campaign is successful against him, be
cause it leaves him in captivity to the " law [power] of sin in
his members," a phrase defining what he had just called " an
other law." The argument has now come around to the point
from which it started. What he deplores here is not his wrong
doing, but his slavery — " sold under sin " (verse 14). His pain
is not the path of wickedness which he pursues, but in the
chain that drags him along that destructive way — a chain that
he cannot break. His sin is not an act ; it is helpless subjec
tion to the law of sin in his members. How can this be called
a normal Christian experience ? It is a legal experience, writ
ten to show that, whatever else the law can do, it can deliver
no man, saint or sinner, from the flesh. Ye are " delivered
from the law" by "being dead" (in Christ) to that in which
ye " were held " (verse 6). It sometimes happens that a man
long addicted to intoxicants wakes up to some appreciation of
his degradation and of the ruin not far ahead of him in his
course. In sober moments he reflects on the purity and liberty

138 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 25)
of the days before he touched the bowl, and he resolves to drink
no more ; but under the fierce clamor of his appetite his wish
to do good breaks down. He resolves again, and again fails,
and again and again. In this state he could read this section
and make every word his own. To wish the good and at the
same time to do the evil is not a normal condition. The strug
gling drunkard's case is a mild one compared with that of the
awakened man under the law. The drunkard finds a master
in one member, his appetite for drink ; the man under God's
law finds a master in every member. The drunkard does some
times succeed in breaking his hateful bonds ; the man stand
ing under frowning Sinai never does. Christ must unshackle
him. This divided state, yearning to do good, but learning finally
that the good is beyond his reach, wrings out the cry for de
liverance from his wretchedness. This is the point to which
Paul has been leading the argument. Experience shows that
the law leaves a man, no matter how earnest to keep it, in a
state of miserable slavery.
" The body of this death." Moule's statement that " this is
that part of the regenerate man which yet has to die " shows
to what limits even an otherwise fair exegete can be driven by
a false assumption. His is that the man in this picture is re
generate. Why, the very next word declares that deliverance
from the " body of death " comes not with physical death, but
" through Jesus Christ." The " body of death " is just the man
himself, the same that was mentioned in vi. 6. By using the
word " body " Paul indicates what he has all along said, that
he was wholly sinful. His cry virtually is, " Who shall deliver
me from myself? " He calls it " the body of this death," be
cause it belongs to death and is under its power in being under
the power of sin. Sin and death always go together.
25. " I thank God [that deliverance comes] through Jesus
Christ our Lord." This sentence is brief and not complete in

(VII. 25) THE LAW CANNOT SANCTIFY 139
itself, because the method of the deliverance was fully described
by Paul in verses 1-6 at the beginning of the chapter.
"So then ... I myself," etc. These two antithetical
propositions sum up all that has been said above — "a terse,
compressed summary of the previous paragraph, verses 7-24,
describing in two strokes the state of things prior to the inter
vention of Christ." There is a similar condensation in i. 32.
" I myself," apart from Christ, " with the mind," that " wishes
to do good" and "delights in the law," thus "serve" it —
" serve in the oldness of the letter " (verse 6 above) ; " but [I
myself] with the flesh [the enslaved man] [serve] the law of
sin [" in my members "]." (See xv. 14, where the same words
mean " apart from other information.")

CHAPTER VIII
IN CHRIST JESUS A GODLY LIFE IS INSURED BY THE HOLY
SPIRIT
Godet, in his introduction to this chapter, that begins with
no condemnation and ends with no separation, quotes Spener
as saying, " If Holy Scripture was a ring, and the Epistle to
the Romans its precious stone, chapter viii. would be the
sparkling point of the jewel." It takes up the little phrase in
chapter vii., "serve in newness of [thej spirit," and develops it.
The opposite service mentioned there, " in the oldness of the
letter," the law, is the theme of chapter vii.
This chapter is the counterpart of the fifth. The fifth shows
that justification by faith in Christ is once and forever — it is
permanent; here we have the same thing — a godly life, the
fruit of justification, is insured. There the argument for per
manence of justification is based on its ground, the love of
God in Christ Jesus ; here it is based on the power of the
Spirit in Christ Jesus. There the justified man was looked at
only in his relation to God ; here he is also considered in the
midst of his conflict with the flesh and the world, over which
he triumphs by the aid of the Spirit. Hence some points just
touched on there are developed here. The Holy Spirit is only
once mentioned there (v. 5), said to be given, but nothing
more ; here his office is completely unfolded. Two short verses
there (3, 4) speak of "tribulations"; here they occupy atteu-
140

(VIII. i, 2) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 141
tion almost wholly from verse 1 7 to the end. There the con
clusion is briefly given — " Grace reigns through righteousness
unto eternal life ; " here it is presented at length in a most
powerful and poetic strain (verses 31-39).
There are four topics in the chapter : ( 1 ) deliverance from
the flesh by the power of the Spirit (verses 1-11) ; (2) realiza
tion of sonship by the same Spirit (verses 12-171?) ! (3) preser
vation in sufferings (verses 1 7^-30) ; (4) a paean of triumph
(verses 31-39). Furthermore, the chapter brings all the lines
of argument together and shows them in their happy issue in
salvation, the eternal sequence of grace.
1. "There is therefore now no condemnation." The con
nection by the word " therefore " is with the first clause of the
preceding verse, and through it with that to which the clause
refers. " Now " — as the argument at present stands. The
" no " is emphatic — no condemnation from the law, and none
on account of inherent sinfulness ; none from any source or
for any cause. Those who make the " now " temporal miss
the shining point that "no condemnation" means none possi
ble, none forever. This happy condition belongs only to those
"in Christ Jesus." The rest of the verse is not genuine and
is omitted by all modern editors of the text.
2. This verse tells not why, but how, the deliverance came
about. It gives not the ground, but the agent, of the freedom.
It is the seventh chapter condensed to one sentence. When
a man by faith comes into Christ Jesus he finds there the
Spirit's law or controlling force effecting life in the soul. This
law is neither the moral nor the Mosaic law ; it is not the " law
of the mind," not the " law of faith " (iii. 27), but the operative
force of the Holy Spirit, whose presence awakens spiritual life
and sustains it. He that has the Son has life (1 John v. 12),
because in the Son he finds the life-giving Spirit. By faith in
Christ a man finds not only acquittal from sins, but also the
power by which he no longer commits them ; for this law of

142 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 3, 4)
the Spirit sets him at liberty (" free ") from the " law of sin and
death," fully described in verse 23 above as an enslaving force
in his members. The spiritual law is set against the carnal and
overcomes it. The law of gravity ever keeps the serpent
crawling on the earth, and he cannot rise above it; but give
him wings and now he has a power superior to gravity by
which he can fly. A man cannot rise above the clouds ; his
own dead weight holds him down until he steps " in " the car
suspended beneath the balloon and cuts loose, when he finds
another force dominating the force of gravity and carrying
him aloft in spite of it. " In Christ Jesus " there is a power
that sets one at liberty from the sinful force in his members.
Gravity never ceases, but it may be overcome. The law of
sin in the members exists as long as they do, but " in Christ " it
cannot operate.
3, 4. These two verses tell, first, how it comes to pass that
the man in Christ Jesus is " free from the law of sin " in his
members, and, secondly, why. The "law [of Moses] could
not " condemn sin in the flesh, because it was weaker thansthe
flesh. It was weak through the flesh. The anchor of the law
was strong in itself, but it would not hold in the mud bottom
of the heart. It could and did condemn the acts of the flesh
and punished some of them even with death, but the sin in
the flesh it could not condemn ; it only excited it to rebellion.
" When the commandment came, sin revived " (vii. 5, 9). To
condemn is to pronounce sentence against and to inflict due
penalty. Christ died not only for acts of sin, but for sinners,
sin in the heart. (For the former see iii. 23-26 ; iv. 25 ; for
the latter, vi. 6-10.) If "he that is dead is justified from sin,"
it is because the sinfulness in him was condemned in Christ.
The verses before us are the counterpart of vi. 6-10.
" God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh."
Here is both the deity and the humanity of Christ (1 Tim. iii.
16). He is called his "own" Son to distinguish him from

(VIII. 3, 4) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 143
others (verse 16 below), and he was such before he was " sent."
He did not come in the likeness of flesh, or he would have
been no proper man, and he did not come in sinful flesh, or
he would have been a sinner ; but he came " in the likeness of
sinful flesh." He was neither a phantom nor a sinner, but a
perfect man. He must be such a man, that God might con
demn sin in the flesh.
God sent him (an offering) "for sin." Godet's "wholly
different explanation," denying that Paul had the " condem
nation on the cross " in view, is unscriptural. In leaving out
the cross Godet has left out the gospel. The phrase " for sin,"
equivalent to " concerning " or " about sin," is all-comprehen
sive. He was sent not merely about the guilt of sin, but about
its existence as well. He came not only to condemn its guilt,
but its presence in the heart even when passive. If the cross
is not mentioned, but, on the other hand, the sending and the
manner of it (" in the likeness of sinful flesh ") are made prom
inent, this is just to confine our attention to that on which the
condemnation fell. The cross is plainly implied in the word
" condemn." Christ stood for men in his person in the flesh,
and so the condemnation which fell on his flesh is equally
theirs who are in him. And therefore the text does not say
" his," because it is theirs also. Had he not been sinless, he
could have been condemned, to be sure, but he could not have
risen again so that men might come to be in him. And " there
is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ
Jesus," because their sinfulness was condemned in him to
gether with their sins.
God's purpose in thus sending his Son was that the " right
eousness " demanded by the law, viz., a holy heart, might be
" fulfilled in [not " by "] us, who walk not after [in accordance
with the promptings of] the flesh, but after [the promptings of]
the spirit." To " walk " means to live and act. The last two
phrases, beginning with "who walk," do not tell why or on

144 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 5-7)
what ground the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in believers,
but who are such. They give a description and not a reason.
Those who are in Christ find there the Spirit, that not only
begets a new life, but gives direction to its impulses. The third
verse gives the ground of regeneration ; the fourth, its real
ization. Why did not Paul, instead of the phrase, "who walk not
after the flesh, but after the spirit," say " who believe "? For
believing involves such a walk and is not genuine unless it ex
hibits such a walk. The answer is that he has the regulating
method of the Mosaic law to combat, and he wishes to show that
believing contains a real and effective energy for life which is
not in the law — a walk in the spirit.
5-8. This brief section shows the contrast between the man
described in vii. 14-25 and the man "in Christ." The fifth
verse in its first sentence shows why the righteousness of the
law is not produced in the man not in Christ, that is, in the
man who walks after the flesh and so under law : he " minds
[likes, cares for, aspires after] the things of the flesh." Even
his religious notions spring from his own unregenerate con
ceptions. On the other hand, " they that are after [according
to] the spirit [mind (care for, like)] the things of the spirit."
" They that are." The " are " asserts their character. They
that are after the flesh are natural, carnal men (John iii. 3, 6).
6. This -verse gives the nature of the carnal mind as the
reason why it cares only for the things of the flesh. " To be
carnally minded is death." Death is absence of life and of
all power to do the things belonging to life. On the other
hand, "to be spiritually minded [as he is who is in Christ] is
life and peace." Such a one is endowed with the life and
peace of the Holy Spirit and can attend to the Spirit's things.
7. The first sentence defines the " death " of the last verse.
It is " enmity against God." In the seventh chapter the inabil
ity to do God's will, the death, was merely bewailed ; here its

(VIII. 8, 9) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 145
moral character is given— it is guilt. As surely as God is love,
so surely the natural dislike to follow him is hostility and
hatred. The natural mind is enmity to God, because it does not
subject itself to his law ; it is in a state of rebellion. The brief
sentence, " neither indeed can be," is a diluted translation,
lacking the climactic force of the original, which contains
another "for." The carnal mind does not subject itself to
the law of God, for, indeed, it cannot. Here is vii. 14-25
in a nutshell. Paul says there, " I am carnal, sold under
sin," and I cannot do the things that I delight in, contained in
the law. But an additional fact must now be given that this
inability is an impotency of enmity and guilt. A man may not
be conscious of a feeling of enmity ; he may even claim to
love God ; but the very fiber of the man out of Christ is here
declared to be in opposition to him. (See on v. 6, " without
strength.") 8. " So then." Another fault in the King James version ;
it ought to be simply " and." This eighth verse is not a logical
conclusion, but a solemn assertion : " And they that are in the
flesh [not in Christ] cannot please God." What is said of the
carnal mind, that it is impotent for good, is now asserted of
all the unregenerate. Out of Christ, a man may be religious
and serve in " the oldness of the letter," but he neither pleases
God nor is he God's friend.
This section (verses 5-8), then, gives a very substantial rea
son, in the character of the unrenewed or carnal mind, why
only those who walk after the spirit (verse 4) found in Christ
(verse 2) can fulfil the righteousness of the law. It shows at
the same time that being in the flesh and being under law, the
two states occurring together as they do, is a union in helpless
guilt. 9. In happy contrast with those who " cannot please God,"
because they are in the flesh, that is, under its power, Paul ad-

146 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. io)
dresses the Romans directly to assure them of four great results
from the possession of the Spirit: "not in the flesh;" Christ's
own (i. 6) ; their own spirit alive ; certainty of the future life
of the body. " Ye [emphatic] are not in the flesh, but in [the
control of] the Spirit, if indeed [no doubt expressed ; it is on the
supposition that] the Spirit of God dwells in [makes his home
with] you." The supposition is that the Spirit is not a fitful
influence, but an abiding guest or, rather, host. Note how he
says, ye are in the Spirit if the Spirit is in you.
On the other hand, " if any one [how delicately he avoids
saying " ye " when it comes to this painful statement! ] has not
the Spirit of Christ," he does not belong to Christ. The Spirit
of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same Holy
Spirit. None but the reader who neglects the logic will take
the phrase " Spirit of Christ " for the temper or disposition of
Christ. The Spirit proceeds from both God and Christ.
10. "And if Christ be in you." Here are three different
phrases meaning one thing: "the Spirit of God," "the Spirit
of Christ," and " Christ." He comes from God the Father
(Acts i. 4) ; he is given in Christ the Son (viii. 2) ; and does
not speak of himself (John xvi. 13), but manifests "Christ"
(John xiv. 21). The threefold mention shows the work of the
Trinity in the sanctification of the believer.
When Christ dwells in a man " the body is dead because of
sin." Paul does not say "flesh," because he means the literal
body. The saints are subject to physical death and die, be
cause of Adam's sin (v. 12). But the spirit, the saint's own
personal spirit, is not alive, but " life." It has the life of Christ,
because of his righteousness imparted through faith. The
righteousness here mentioned is comprehensive, including justi
fication and sanctification. He says the spirit is "life," but
he does not say the body is death, for, while the spirit of the
man in Christ is already redeemed from death, his body in due
time, at Christ's coming, will be.

(VIII. n-13) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 147
11. "Raised up Jesus, . . . raised up Christ." The in
dwelling of " the Spirit of him [God] that raised up Jesus [the
historic person] from [among] the dead " is a pledge that he
who raised up Christ, the covenant head, will also make alive
" your mortal bodies." He was raised not only as Jesus the
man, but as Jesus the Christ, who stands for all who are in
him. This quickening of the mortal body takes place either
because of or through (the reading is in doubt) the Spirit that
dwells in you. And thus the Trinity is connected with the
resurrection. This closes the first section of the chapter — deliverance from
the flesh by the power of the Spirit. His help is threefold : he
delivers in Christ from the condemnation of the flesh (verses
1, 2); from the power of the flesh (verses 3-8); the whole
man, spirit and body, from the power of death (verses 9-1 1).
It is now plain to be seen that the elucidation of the sixth
chapter by the objective view has everything in its favor. To
make that chapter subjective is to anticipate this section. Paul
takes one step at a time. There he gives the things to be be
lieved, without which there is no sanctification ; here the things
to be experienced. Until faith takes Christ for the Saviour
from the flesh, it cannot find that he is also the inward sanc-
tifier. 12, 13. (See (2) in analysis above.) Some (Moule, Lipsius)
would join these two verses with the last section and begin the
new one with verse 14. But with his intention to speak of
sonship Paul wishes to show that, first of all, it is realized in a
right life ; and so Jesus taught (Matt. v. 44, 45). And in such
a life is found the best starting-point for the discussion— the
best, for without it there is no proof of the lofty relation (1
John ii. 4).
The section begins as a deduction (" therefore ") from verses
9-1 1. Because the Spirit has given life to our soul and will
give life to our mortal body, therefore " we are debtors not to

148 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 14)
the flesh," which could not bring us any deliverance, to live
after it. Mark how Paul implies not only that the flesh still
exists, but also that there is danger from it. He discriminates.
Our only obligation is not to live after it ; otherwise we may
owe it much. But it is to be the slave, not the master. In the
warfare of life it is to be the soldier, sent into any dangerous
situation, and not the captain, who directs the siege. If this
order is reversed, if a man yields to the desires of his heart
and follows his own likes and dislikes, "if ye live after [ac
cording to] the flesh," ye are going to die. The flesh belongs
to the world, and the man who is yielding to its promptings is
in the world, living like the world, and must perish with the
world. He is a child of "this world" (Luke xvi. 8), but not
a child of God ; he is not living like his only Son (1 John ii. 6).
On the other hand, "if ye by [not "through"] the Spirit
put to death the deeds of the body." The emphatic words
are "by the Spirit." His presence is instant death to the evil
deeds of the body. To subdue these by other means is de
ceptive asceticism. By the force of will they may be chained,
but, as the section above shows, only God's Spirit can destroy
them. Observe he does not say destroy the flesh, nor destroy
the body, but the deeds of the body— its aspirations, impulses,
desires, and works (Gal. v. 19-21). To destroy the body, the
seat of the flesh, would be to destroy one's self. Paul uses the
word " body " here as objective of the flesh. (See vi. 6 and
Col. iii. 5-9.) The flesh is one's constant and most intimate
associate. The man in Christ is not in the flesh, but it is in
him, and the problem of salvation is not how to transmute the
flesh into something good, but how to live with this devilish
thing every day without being overcome by it. The presence
of the Spirit solves the problem. " If ye by the Spirit put to
death [at one stroke] the deeds of the body, ye shall live " —
live the life of sons.
14. " For." The sequence appears as soon as it is noticed

(VIII. 15-173) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 149
that putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, the
theme of the last verse, is exactly equivalent to being " led by
the Spirit" in this verse, and that the little sentence "ye shall
live " means live as sons. To be led by the Spirit is to put to
death the deeds of the body, and to be a son in consequence
of such leading is to live. Life by the Spirit gives sonship.
15. After having argued their sonship on the ground of their
pious walk in the Spirit, he supports the argument now by the
testimony of their experience. They are sons, " for " they did
not, on becoming followers of Christ, receive a " spirit of bond
age again unto [into a state of] fear" (2 Tim. i. 7). "Spirit"
in this verse seems to mean disposition or temper (Num. v. 14),
such as men had under the law. The Romans were not con
scious of such a slavish spirit, for on becoming followers of
Christ they received a "spirit of adoption," which awakened
the feeling of sonship and by which they " cried " (out, confi
dently, Gal. iv. 6), " Abba, Father," an endearing repetition of
words used by Jesus himself (Mark xiv. 36).
16, 17a. The Holy Spirit testifies to the same fact. Note
how Paul distinguishes between the divine Spirit and the human
in which he dwells. " The Spirit himself bears witness along
with our spirit [and two witnesses establish the truth], that we
are children of God." The relation of the human and the
divine cannot be explained in the work of salvation, but they
are distinct, and the Holy Spirit destroys neither the volition
nor the personality of the human.
For the word " sons " in verse 14 Paul now uses the tenderer
term " children," begotten ones, which goes to show that the
word "adoption" is not to be pressed. They are not merely
legally adopted, but really born sons (1 John v. 1), spiritually
begotten. They have all the rights and prospects of children :
"if [since] children, then heirs;" and not heirs to a lesser, but
to an equal ("joint heirs " gives point to the assertion) portion
with Christ, the first-born. They do not inherit a secondary

150 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 17J, 18)
share, not a share through him, but with him. " Thou hast
loved them as thou hast loved me " (John xvii. 23). (See also
Matt. xix. 28; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; Col. iii. 4; Rev. iii. 21.)
This second section of the chapter teaches then, first, that
the Spirit, who puts to death the deeds of the body, gives life
to the man ; secondly, that this life is the life of sonship ; and,
thirdly, that this sonship involves the fullest meaning of the
word, assuring an equal inheritance with Christ.
17b. Paul turns abruptly to the subject of suffering. (See
(3) in analysis above.) And yet not so abruptly, for the suf
fering of real Christians at all times is, and especially at that
time was, a constant daily experience. We are joint heirs with
Christ " if [since, as the fact is] indeed we suffer with him " in
order to share his glory. This suffering is not penal and not
in the contest with our own flesh, but comes to his followers
because, like him, they live in opposition to the world that
hates them (1 John iii. 13), and, like him, reprove the world's
works (John vii. 7). To suffer like him is to suffer with him,
for he makes his followers' pains his own (Acts ix. 4, 5). It
is almost an axiom of the gospel that the path to glory is the
path of pain (Mark x. 38 ; Phil. ii. 9). Therefore the intelli
gent believer does not hesitate to undergo sorrow in his service
to Christ ; he rather covets it in order that he may be glorified
with him ; for the joint heirs are those who suffer that they
may be glorified. Suffering is the seed that ripens in fruit of
glory. The discussion of this topic is concerned with that which
gives sustaining power and comfort in suffering. The points
are three: (a) the vastness of the future glory, an expansion
of v. 3, 4 (verses 18-25) ; (b) the Holy Spirit's aid (verses 26,
27) ; and (c) God's general control of all things to bring about
his people's ultimate good (verses 28-30).
18. Paul had weighed the sufferings of the present time
against the future glory. This verse gives the estimate— they

(VIII. 19-21) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 151
are not worthy, are no account in the comparison. In them
selves the present tribulations for Christ are vast and painful
(2 Cor. xi. 23-28). If then before the glory they are nothing,
what must the glory be? (2 Cor. iv. 17.) It is not "in us,"
but toward us, " to usward," for Paul is contemplating much
more than that which affects the person directly.
19. So vast is this glory that the very (irrational) creation,
or " creature " (Isa. xi. ; 2 Pet. iii. 13), is awaiting it with eager
expectancy, longing for the "manifestation," the unveiling, of
the sons (verse 14 above) of God at his advent (Col. iii. 4).
20, 21. As God's sons look with longing to the future, first,
because their present condition is painful and is not the ideal
condition, and, secondly, because the future will bring them
redemption, just so the creation, personified all through this
passage, looks to the same future, first, because it is now under
the curse, and, secondly, in the future, in the glorification of
the faithful, it will find deliverance. The twentieth verse gives
a reason for the " earnest expectation " drawn from the present
condition of creation, and the next verse a reason (when we
read " because ") drawn from the future. " Was made subject
to vanity " is ambiguous. Creation was not made so, for origi
nally creation was " good," and it was subjected to vanity, that
is, to attain to no good end permanently. Any good that comes
from creation must be evoked by man's hard toil. This con
dition did not come about by its own will (" willingly "), but
because of him (God) who subjected it to vanity, not finally,
but upon a basis of some provision for the future, called "hope."
This verse clearly implies that creation (" all nature ") is neither
in its original condition nor in its final condition. It fell when
man fell (Gen. iii, 17-19) ; it shall be restored when he is, and
shall be no longer subject to vanity, but to him (Heb. ii. 5-9).
It is eagerly awaiting the revelation of God's sons, because
that is the time when it "also shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption [the subjection, verse 20] into the liberty

152 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 22-25)
of the glory [" glorious liberty " is wrong] of the children of
God." The creation is promised the liberty of the glory, not
the glory.
22. This verse explains the " liberty " of the last in showing
the need of it in creation. The language is highly poetic;
creation is personified. "We know," says Paul, from obser
vation of the patent fact, "that the whole creation groans"
together in all its parts, and travails in birth pangs to bring
forth that which is new and fair. Cold winds moan and
earthquakes shake. " All the voices of nature are in the minor
key." All things sigh before God, as Bonar sang :
' ' Come and make all things new ;
Build up this ruined earth ;
Restore our faded paradise,
Creation's second birth."
23. This verse puts the sons of God in a different category
from creation. " They " in italics in the King James version
should be "it," creation. Not only creation, "but ourselves
also," who, even though we have the first-fruits of salvation, the
Spirit, "ourselves groan within ourselves, [because or while]
waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
The right of sons believers have already (see verse 1 5 above), but
not the realization ; and the body is dead because of sin. The
"redemption of the body " is more than resurrection and more
than the change that will come to that generation which shall
not die (1 Cor. xv. 51). It is this and more: the instating of
redeemed man in his original position in creation and his re
lation to it — a redeemed man in a redeemed world. The
conception is Jewish (Ruth iv. ; Eph. i. 14; Rev. v. 9, 10).
Verses 22 and 23 are placed logically side by side. Creation
groans and God's sons groan, for both are looking for things
which will bring each in right relation to the other.
24, 25. " For we are saved by hope." A much better trans-

(VIII. 26, 27) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 153
lation is that of Moule, Liddon, and others : " We were saved
in hope." When by faith the salvation from sin occurred, the
believer found himself in a condition of hope. From this con
dition Paul argues in these two verses for the "redemption"
just mentioned. " The attitude of hope, so distinctive of the
Christian, implies that there is more in store for him than any
thing that is his already " (Sanday). Hope suggests something
unseen, unrealized ; for what a man sees, what he already has,
he does not hope for. " But if we hope [the Christian's con
dition] for that we see not, then [as he said in verse 23] do we
with patience wait for it." The hope of the exceeding glory
gives the holy patience that persists in good work (ii. 7) amid
suffering. 26, 27. The Spirit's aid. (See (b) under 17b above.) " Like
wise the Spirit also [just like hope] helpeth our infirmities."
" Weakness " is a better reading. Without the Spirit the saint
has no strength to attain to that for which he hopes. Paul
illustrates this in one single item belonging to Christian walk.
Prayer is the simplest and easiest of all activities, and yet " we
know not what we should pray for as we ought." Whether
this refers to the words (the manner) of the prayer or the sub
ject makes little difference. The two views come to the same
thing. The Spirit helps in every way. The weakness is not
only in prayer, but general. He helps by taking hold with the
saint against the opposition. The only other instance of the
word (Luke x. 40) is instructive. How he helps in general is
not told, but in the matter of prayer he does in the heart what
Christ does before God (see verse 34 below) : he intercedes in
our behalf. The earnest manner of his intercession is shown
in the words, "with groanings which cannot be uttered,"
yearnings whose depth is beyond the power of words to con
vey. But, while the utterances are not intelligible, "he [God]
that searcheth the hearts [of the saints] knoweth what is the
mind of the Spirit." God knows the meaning of the Spirit's

154 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 28)
groan and interprets the inarticulated aspiration of the heart,
" because he [the Spirit] maketh intercession for the saints [in
the groans proceeding from their hearts] according to God."
That wordless prayer is born of the Spirit in accordance with
God's purpose.
28. Here Paul abandons particulars to show generally that
the whole activity of God is directed toward the ultimate good
of those that love him. (See (c) under 17^ above.) While the
details of this verse and the next one present some difficulties,
the line of argument is clear. The present verse asserts the
fact that God is making all things work together for the good
of his people ; the next verse gives the reason for the fact in
his predestinating them from the beginning to be like his Son.
What he has determined at the beginning to accomplish nothing
along the way can thwart. His predetermination controls
everything affecting those who love him.
" We know " — from God's dealing with the Old Testament
saints and from personal experience. " That all things " — to
be taken in its most comprehensive sense ; some of the things
are named in verse 35 and verses 38 and 39 below. "Work
together" — in concert with us, because they are under God's
control. The means are various, the purpose one. How Jacob
was pained for long years by the loss of Joseph! And how
Joseph was "hurt with fetters" when "laid in iron" (Ps. cv.
1 7-22) ! But God took this means to make him ruler of Egypt
and savior of his sorrowing father and his household. " All
things work " — they are not accidents or blind chance ; God
is working through them. This is true only of " them that love
God," now further described as those " who are called accord
ing to his purpose," to show that their love to God was not a
mere natural love, but the fruit of his special love toward them.
" Called " does not mean invited, but effectually called (i. 6),
almost equivalent to chosen. This call was in harmony, in
accordance, with his "purpose " or free decree to bring them

(VIII. 29) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 155
to glory in Christ. Those who love him are those whom he
has called.
29. Now it is not allowed to any vicissitude in the life of
such to harm them. " For whom he did foreknow [that is, his
called ones who^ove him] he also did predestinate " for likeness
to Christ. To predestinate is to determine from the start what
shall be the outcome. It is this active, living, ever-present,
and controlling predestination that shields the lover of God
from harm and turns " all things " to his good. To " foreknow "
does not mean to approve on the ground of character ; it does
not mean that God foreknew who would believe and there
fore predestinated them. God's appointment to eternal life is
chronologically before faith (Acts xiii. 48). The natural man
does not "seek after God" (iii. 11); his mind is "enmity
against God " ; it is not subject to the law of God, " for indeed
it cannot be " (viii. 7). How can those " dead in trespasses and
sins " (Eph. ii. 1) believe in God? How could God foreknow
some men as believers, when belief was impossible to them?
What his prescience saw in all men was enmity and helpless
ness in sin because of a love of it. Even when they knew him
they deliberately chose to dishonor him (i. 21-23). Candor
must admit that these plain Scriptures teach the helplessness
of man in his sin. But it is said that by the preaching of the
gospel and the aid of the accompanying Spirit men are brought
into a condition where they can believe, and God foresaw who
in this condition would believe and predestinated them. This
is an invention outside of Scripture to meet a difficulty, an
invention that will not bear scrutiny. For this condition, to
be effective, must be one in which the death in sin is removed
and the enmity is overcome, which is nothing less than regener
ation. And thus we should have regeneration as a condition
of faith, and, worse yet, that in this condition God would only
see some who believed and whom he might predestinate. Other
regenerate ones who failed to believe would perish.

156 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 30)
Foreknowledge would better be left where Paul leaves it —
without any of these additions. It differs from prescience, by
which God knows all things. It does not in itself include the
idea of selection, but when Paul says, "whom he did fore
know," we see it is closely connected with this idea. He
foreknew certain persons (" whom "), knew them before they
had an existence, took note of them (Amos iii. 2 ; Matt. vii.
23), and these he destined to glory. His purpose included
their faith, of course, but this is just the word that Paul has
not used since v. 2 and does not use until we are well-nigh
through the next chapter. Where he does not use it we would
best not. And we would best leave the suggested difficulty of
responsibility and free will where he leaves it. He places the
salvation of God's people wholly in God's hand, and surely
there it is secure, secure only because it is there.
A sculptor would make a beautiful image in marble. He
knows among many the huge rough stone which he will use
for his purpose. He destines this block for the end which he
has in view. That determination on his part preserves it. He
will chisel and rasp and file on the block, but he will not do
anything to hurt it, and he will see to it that no one else mars
it. God's foreknowledge and predestination are the preserva
tion of his people, making all things work for good.
" Conformed " means made like, not outwardly, but inwardly,
in character. God predestinates men not for heaven, but for
holiness. He makes "all things work together" toward this
end. Trials and crosses under his control are sanctifying.
"Tribulation works out patience," etc. (v. 3). The ultimate
purpose of God's predestination is to surround his Son with a
multitude like him, that by this likeness they may be his breth
ren. The likeness will be completed at the resurrection. Since
no one as yet, save Jesus, has experienced this (1 Cor. xv. 23),
he is called the " first-born."
30» This verse gives the steps by which the likeness to Christ,

(•VIII. 31 ) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 167
the glory, is reached : " foreknew," " predestinated," " called,"
"justified," "glorified," five golden links connecting God's
gracious purpose in the eternity past with its consummation in
the eternity to come. The last word, " glorified," in the past
tense, indicates the certainty of his purpose. (See on iv. 25,
last paragraph.) But this verse does more than to analyze what
precedes ; it presents an argument by means of the recurring
words " whom " and " them." These are also links in the
chain, forged in with it. "Whom '' he did foreknow, " them,"
all of them, he did " predestinate." The next " whom " takes
up the same persons and carries them to the next stage, and
so on to the end. The argument, when condensed, comes to
this: that the very ones he foreknew, these, without the loss
of one, he glorified.
These verses give an intelligent view of heaven. God did
not predestinate and call his people to a place, but to a like
ness and a relation, to be conformed to the image of his Son
and to be his brethren, that is, to be God's sons. Heaven is
not where his people shall be, but what they shall be.
31. Here the hymn of triumph sounds its first exultant note.
(See (4) above.) "What shall we then say to these things,"
the things considered in the last few verses? Many timid and
unintelligent and even unbelieving things are said ; how one
may yield to temptation, may lose the Spirit, or his faith may
fail. The one overwhelming answer is, " If [since] God is for
us, who can be against us? " Why does Paul not say, " what
can be against us " rather than " who "? The hostile force is
mainly personal (see the immediate context below and Eph.
vi. 1 1-13), but not wholly so. In all conflicts and trials " God
is for us." In temptations he rescues (1 Cor. x. 13) ; the Spirit
may be grieved by our waywardness, but he will abide (John
xiv. 16) ; and as for faith, will God care for everything except
that which is vital? Is he "for us " in everything but faith?
He cares for this first of all (1 Tim. i. 14 ; Luke xxii. 32).

158 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 32-34)
32. How can anything be added to this verse? God, who
is " rich in mercy," in undertaking to save men spared nothing.
Heaven was emptied to enrich God's called ones. Everything
was given (Eph. i. 3) that his people might be saved. The
verse contemplates none but his own. The " all " is in contrast
with the One delivered up for them. Paul does not assert that
with Christ God will give all things. He rather asks, " How
shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" The
Father, after bestowing the Son, knows of no way to withhold
the rest. And to give the rest is small in comparison after he
has given the Son. He who could part with the costly jewel
could readily give the little case in which it is preserved. The
mother who could give away her babe would wish its raiment
to go with it.
33. " Who [personal again] shall lay anything to the charge
of God's elect ? " To " lay to charge " is a legal term, mean
ing to bring to account, bring a charge against. Paul returns
in this word to the forensic language of the earlier chapters
(and see Acts xxvi. 7). God's " elect " are his own chosen
people. The word recalls the " whom " and " them " above.
The answer might be put interrogatively : " Is it God that
justifieth" who will accuse? But it is more forceful to
read it as an assertion, almost an exclamation : It is God that
justifieth his own elect ; can wicked men or lost spirits or Satan
himself call again to account those whose case has been fa
vorably decided in the highest place of judicature? Even to
speak against God's people impeaches the Judge and is con
tempt of court— heaven's court. His decision of justification
in favor of him who believes is final and irreversible.
34. "Who is he that condemneth? " As no one can open
the case again and bring a charge before the court, so no one
can condemn, for Christ is a fourfold protection. Are there
offenses? He "died" for them. Is there need of life? He
is "risen again," and we are " saved by his life " (v. 10). Do

(VIII. 35-37) THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 159
we need representation and influence at the court? He is in
the chief place of authority— " even at the right hand of God."
Do we in hours of transgression and weakness need an Advo
cate? (i John ii. i.) He "ever liveth to make intercession
for us " (John xvii.).
35, 36. " Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? "
It is Christ's love toward us. Again we have " who," for the
impersonal conditions which Paul goes on to mention do not
come of themselves. Paul is no doubt writing here from his
own experience, and all his troubles came from wicked men.
Why does he ask whether troubles shall separate us from Christ's
love toward us? Because they seem to hang like a heavy cloud
over the head, shutting out the light of his countenance. If
he is loving his people, why do these miseries overtake them?
The proof of his unchanging love is his word, not our expe
rience. Experience would often disprove his love. But he
never loves his people more than when he allows them the
honor to suffer for him (Acts v. 41 and verse 17 above). God's
love for Jesus did not cease when he was hanging in agony on
the cross.
The word "sword" suggests the words of Psalm xliv. 22,
which teach that his people now suffer no more than those of
former days, and surely they were loved.
37. " More than conquerors." Who can be " more " than
a conqueror? He that cannot be conquered. A little waste
will soon exhaust a cistern, but a living fountain with sources
deep under the hills, though it may for a time be choked up,
cannot be dried up (John iv. 14). In all these adverse things
his true followers "are more than conquerors," not in their
own strength, but " through him that loved " them. Note, it
is not " loves " — not present tense. He does love them through
all trials, but their unconquerable strength lies in that one act
of love when he died for them and by rising gained for them
imperishableness (Gal. ii. 20).

160 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 38, 39)
38, 39. " For I am persuaded." It means " I have been
and am persuaded ; I stand persuaded." He has an unalter
able conviction in the matter. The verses support the last
one, " we are more than conquerors through him that loved
us." The apostle's eye looks through all time, through all
space, and through all worlds, and in the most sweeping lan
guage he asserts his persuasion that there is nothing " able '' to
break the golden chain that binds the heart of God to his
people. They may be put to death in his cause, or in the
course of nature die in it. He loves them in " death." Life is
more trying and has more dangers than death. He loves them
in their " life." There are bad angels and organized principali
ties for evil. He has already made a spoil of them (Col. ii. 15).
Against secret " powers " of satanic malignity we can stand in
the "power of his might" (Eph. vi. 10-12). The "things
present " are very pressing, but love unclasps their grip. The
" things to come," the future, may be ominous, but " the Lord
is my Shepherd ; I shall not want. . . . Surely goodness and
mercy shall follow me all the days of my life" (Ps. xxiii.).
And nothing in space above, nor depth beneath, nor " any other
created thing " — this language embraces every conceivable
adversary in the universe — shall be able to separate us from
God's love toward us in Christ Jesus. When he gave us Christ
Jesus he gave us in him all the love he felt toward the Son.
This is the climax. The preceding sections have been dry
and doctrinal ; but there is here demonstrated the vital con
nection between doctrine and love. It is out of these hard
sayings of predestination and election that there flows this
hymn of adoring confidence. The love of the Spirit is found
in the teaching of the Spirit.

CHAPTERS IX-XI
THE THEODICY— GOD'S PRESENT DEALING WITH THE JEWS
This is the third grand division of the epistle. It takes up
the little section in iii. 1-8, "What advantage then hath the
Jew? " and carries the answer to its utmost limit. This must
be borne in mind, for however far Paul may digress in the
discussion, this question is always before him and to it he
continually returns.
This matter about the Jew's relation to Christianity was a
vital one in Paul's day. The current interpretation of the
Old Testament was radically affected by it, and the Messiah-
ship of Jesus hung upon it.
The apostle found his chief defense of the doctrine of justi
fication by faith in the Old Testament ; it is witnessed by the
law and the prophets. His argument in the fourth chapter is
unanswerable ; but even such an argument does not carry
conviction if in itself it starts legitimate and serious objections
and creates more difficulties than it removes. Faith did just
this. It appeared to array the rest of the Bible against Paul.
For faith blotted out before God all distinctions among men,
religious and national (Gal. iii. 28), and reduced all to the
same level. God's people, whose mark had been circumcision,
were henceforth to be found only in the select band of the
faithful. Faith usurped the divine sign given to Abraham.
The Jew with his " oracles " must give way and give place to
161

162 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX.-XI.)
an elect church. And there were still other difficulties stirred
up by the doctrine of faith.
It has been tacitly assumed in Christian interpretation that
Judaism's day is over ; that an elect, leveling church built on
faith in Christ was the intent of the law and the prophets ; and
that it was the duty of all Jews to drop their peculiarities and
come into the church. Such an assumption the Jew ascribed
to Paul. It is strangely forgotten that the mother church in
Jerusalem and Judea never had a Gentile within its fold, that
none could have been admitted, and that every member of that
primitive body of tens of thousands was zealous of the law
(Acts xxi. 20). They accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but
abandoned none of their Old Testament customs and hopes.
Christianity has suffered not a little in the continuous attempt
to interpret it not from the Jewish, but from the Gentile point
of view. The church in Jerusalem, and not the church in
Antioch or Ephesus or Rome, furnishes the only sufficient
historic outlook.
When the devout but unbelieving Jew opened his Bible
almost anywhere he found promised to the seed of Abraham
a universal kingdom of righteousness. Now he might be will
ing to accept faith as a condition of righteousness, but the
church into which it would lead him was neither a kingdom
nor was it universal. Its doctrine of election precluded uni
versalism with one stroke. Augustine laid the foundation to
make the church so, and the result is sadly known. The honey
of the church was not only lost in the vinegar of the world,
but made the whole mass sevenfold more acid. The promise
of the kingdom was world-wide (Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14, 27 ; Zech.
xiv. 16-19 ! Ps- "• ^ ; Isa. ii. 1-5 ; xi. 1-9, etal.). The church
has no such promise. To make it the interpretation of these
and many similar Scriptures is to make an end both of the
Scriptures and of interpretation. Paul did not attempt this
method.

(IX.-XI.) THE THEODICY 163
Again, these and other passages promised that the Jew,
with his Messiah as King, should have universal supremacy in
the world, and all other nations were to be in subordination.
Faith knew no supremacy. It created a body of believers
following a rejected Saviour, with no promise that it was ever
to be treated in any other way than he was (Matt. x. 22-25 !
John xv. 20).
Again, if the Old Testament knew a suffering Messiah, it
also knew a triumphing one. The Second Psalm is Scripture
as well as Isaiah liii.
Again, universal reign, supremacy of the Jew, a world King,
were all promised to the people whose distinctive national
mark was circumcision, and this mark was forever (Gen. xvii.
13. i4)-
Now the Jew was grieved and angered that righteousness
by faith warred against these hopes. It went to all nations,
but sought none, sought only believing individuals. It
claimed God as its own, and in its onward progress left the
Jew behind. Unless Paul can answer these objections, Jesus
is not the Messiah and the church is not God's people.
And Paul does answer. As a national sign circumcision
stands with much advantage every way ; but to make it the
ground of righteousness is as unscriptural as it would be if
the Ethiopian, who has a promise of salvation (Ps. lxviii. 31),
should expect it on account of the color of his skin. The Jew
remains a Jew and has his inviolable promises, and the Ethi
opian has his, but neither realizes them by anything but faith.
Here was the Jew's failure.
Paul's course of thought is that for the present Judaism is
side-tracked ; but God's Word has not failed, nor is he unjust
in leaving Israel to fall. What he is doing meanwhile in
gathering an elect body of believers which has none of Israel's
promises, this, though not revealed in the Old Testament, can
be abundantly defended by it (ix. 24-29), just as righteous-

164 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX.-XI.)
ness by faith was buttressed by these same Scriptures. In
God's own time he will return to Israel (Isa. xi. 10-12 ; Acts
xv. 16, 17), when they shall "all" be saved and come into
their promises and privileges. Their present rejection, to be
received by and by, is God's purpose for the saving of the
world and to enhance his own glory.
The topic of this section must not be confounded with that
in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The two are quite different.
Hebrews is dealing with the question of approach to God, the
question of worship and acceptance. Once the Jew drew near
by means of divers sacrifices and ceremonies prescribed by
Moses. These were superseded in Christ, and while they re
main instructive, they are no longer mediatorial. Hebrews
teaches just what Romans teaches up to the point now reached
in the latter, that without faith it is impossible to please God.
Hebrews is absolutely silent on the theme of this theodicy, but
declares how God now and forevermore is to be served — in
faith. It says nothing about the Jew nationally, and nothing
about the church.
The question before us is not one concerning ceremonies.
It is deeper and broader. It embraces God's whole plan to
bring the world to Christ. That plan is outlined in the Old
Testament, that contemplates the salvation of all nations as
nations, with the Jew's individuality preserved and himself far
in the van.
The church does not usurp the special promises made to
Israel ; whose unbelief shall not " make the faith of God with
out effect " (iii. 3), and the world will not be converted till Is
rael is, for the church has no promise of this, and Israel has.

CHAPTER IX
Israel's rejection considered
(i) It is a great sorrow of heart to the apostle of the Gen
tiles (verses 1-5) ; (2) it is not inconsistent with God's Word
(verses 6-13) ; (3) it is not inconsistent with his justice (verses
14-29) ; (4) present state of the case (verses 30-33).
1-3. " I say the truth in Christ, I lie not." The transition
from the eighth chapter is abrupt. The sudden change may
be accounted for psychologically. The apostle had just been
contemplating the certainty of the glory of the sons of God ;
his heart goes now to the other extreme, the failure and mis
ery of his own countrymen.
This vehement language was necessary, because in giving
the gospel to the heathen Paul was looked upon by the Jew
as an enemy of his own nation. Some of the Roman church,
knowing as they did the exclusiveness of the Jews, might be
persuaded that Paul was an apostate rather than an apostle of
God. He must defend himself. He is about to outline Israel's
shame. Let it be seen that the picture is drawn not by an
enemy, but by a loving friend, whose heart is breaking as he
paints. "Accursed from Christ." This language is startling and
has troubled many ; but it is in the very spirit of Israel's great
leader, Moses (Exod. xxxii. 32), and may we not say, though
the word is different, in the spirit of Christ? (Gal. iii. 13.)
165

166 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 4, 5)
Besides, this is not the language of deliberation, but of heart
breaking passion, in which he says, " I could [were it per
mitted or were it possible] wish myself accursed [away] from
[not " by "] Christ." It is this grief at the loss of men, this in
tense yearning for their salvation, that made Paul the preacher
he was.
4, 5. " Who are Israelites," or being such as are Israelites,
a term of the highest honor, God's princes (Gen. xxxii. 28).
He enumerates seven particulars which belong especially to
them : (a) they were adopted as God's people ; (b) they alone
had the Shekinah " glory " ; (c) the " covenants," made with
the fathers (Gen. vi. 18; xv. 18; Exod. ii. 24) and renewed
from time to time (hence the plural), were theirs alone; (d)
the "law" amid imposing splendors was given to them; (<f)
the temple " service " was divinely prescribed for them ; no
other nation had an authorized worship ; (/) they were the
only people who had " promises " of the Messiah and of direct
blessings through him ; the other nations received them through
Israel ; (g) the " fathers " — Abraham, the head of many nations,
Isaac, and Jacob— were theirs ; other nations had great ances
tors, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have the honor of being
not merely natural, but divinely chosen chiefs.
Besides these seven all their own, the Israelites had one
other honor in which they shared, an honor that overtops all
the rest. The " whose " changes now to " of whom." The
fathers are theirs, but the Christ, though he came from them
in his human relation, belongs to the world. To show the
greatness of this honor Christ is declared to be God over all,
blessed forever. Sanday (" Commentary," in loc), after an ex
haustive examination of all the arguments bearing on the
punctuation of this passage, " with some slight, but only slight,
hesitation," admits that Paul here applies the name God to
Christ. No other view gives the passage its climactic point.
Paul mentions all these things not only to set forth the Is-

(IX. 6, 7) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 167
raelites' preeminence, but to show the painfulness and difficulty
of the problem now in hand. They had the promises and the
Christ sprang from them, and yet these covenant people were
reaping nothing from these advantages. Jesus belonged to
them, but they did not belong to Jesus. Could Paul's doc
trine of an elective justification for all nations be true? Israel
is rejected. 6. Paul abruptly lays hold of the question. The Jews have
failed, but God's Word has not. (See (2) above.) The em
phasis is on the phrase " the Word of God." The proof of no
failure is that the promises were made to Israel, but they were
not made to them on the ground of their natural descent from
Abraham. The real Israel is within the limits of the natural
Israel. For Paul is not now contemplating the church com
posed of men from Jews and Gentiles alike. These, though
called " Abraham's seed " (Gal. iii. 29) and " children of Abra
ham" (Gal. iii. 7), are never called Israel or Israelites. Gala
tians vi. 16 is not an exception to this statement, but a proof.
(See Ellicott, " Commentary," in loc.) Paul is defending
God's Word in view of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah
with a true people following him, and in view of the fact that
Israel is not saved. His answer is that " they are not all [true]
Israel, which are of [from] Israel." The latter may mean the
patriarch (Jacob) or it may mean the nation natural. What
Paul denies in either case is that the real Israel, contemplated
in the Old Testament promise, is not identical in number with
the nation of Israel.
7. That the real Israel should not be as wide numerically
as the natural Israel is supported by the further statement that
even Abraham's natural seed were not all of them children of
the covenant. The promise was limited to Isaac, and Ishmael
was left out, although he also is called Abraham's "seed"
(Gen. xxi. 13). Paul thus keeps the all-important point fore
most, that the promise to Israel was a vital promise, still hold-

168 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 8, 9)
ing, but not on the condition of mere natural descent. God
did not surrender his prerogatives in the case to nature. Note
that to reach clearness in this and similar Scripture the phrase
"seed of Abraham " must be properly referred. It has three
meanings, two of which occur in this verse, the natural seed
(John viii. 37) and the real seed. Its third, quite distinct from
these, is the church (Gal. iii. 29).
8. This verse shows the significance of the promise, " In
Isaac shall thy seed be called." If God limited the promise
to one of Abraham's children, excluding Ishmael and the sons
of Keturah, it follows that "they which are the children of the
flesh are not the children of God." God's children are not
the product of nature ; they are not begotten by man, but by
him. Who, then, are his own, to whom the promises were
spoken? Not even the natural descendants of Isaac ; for the
principle already given, that the children of the flesh as such
are excluded, excludes Isaac's fleshly descent, excludes Esau.
God's children are those of whom Isaac is a type. He was
born not by the energy of nature, but was a supernatural
creation in accordance with a divine promise. Hence " the
children of the promise are counted [are reckoned, equal to
" called " in verse 7] for the seed [or "as seed "]" (John i. 13).
" Children of promise " is not equivalent to promised children.
The word is almost personified. God's promise is a potent
energy, quickening those to whom his covenant pertains.
Thus the seed is found " in Isaac," in his line. They are all
his offspring, but not all the offspring are "counted for the
seed." 9. If the children of the promise are the only ones "counted,"
of whom Isaac is the apt type, it is necessary to show that he
was a child of promise, as this verse does. The original order
brings out the force better: " For of promise is this word," the
quotation which follows. The emphatic word is "promise."
Accordingly, as Meyer strikingly observes, " We see that not

(IX. io-i2) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 169
the bodily descent, but the divine promise, constitutes the re
lation of belonging to Abraham's fatherhood." But he fails
to observe a subtle point in the quotation. The child was to
be not only the gift of God's power, " will I come," but given
in his own time : " At this time will I come." The happy
season for the realization of the promise was not yet. He
selected the time as well as the child, and the time was when
he should come with quickening power. Paul intimates that
Israel's hour has not yet dawned.
10-12. "And not only this [or, fully expressed, "And
not only Sarah received a divine promise concerning her
son "] ; but when Rebecca," etc. In Rebecca's case the
divine action is still more pointed. In saying that she was
with child " by one," Paul is not calling attention to the unity
of the fatherhood, which would be absurd. It does not mean
by one man (Meyer), as though there might be two. The
" one " focuses the attention on him in whom the seed was
called, " even our father Isaac." He is significantly called
" our," that is, Israel's, "father." The promise was in Isaac's
line of descent, and yet even here there is a selection and a
limitation. The "for" (eleventh verse) bears on this clearly implied
limitation, and brings in the statements that illustrate it. The
children were not yet born ; they had done neither good nor
evil ; the selection, then, was not made either on the ground
of their character or on the ground of their works. To say
that God foresaw the good character and good works of Jacob
is to import an idea that is repugnant to the logic of the state
ment here made by Paul and contradicted by the subsequent
facts. Jacob's history does not show him to be a better man
morally than his brother ; his very name indicates his charac
ter. (See below on verse 14.) Human merit, present or fore
seen, does not enter into God's choice. Again, if God chose
Isaac and rejected Ishmael it might be said mistakenly that

170 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 10-12)
the selection was made because of the latter's irregular pa
rentage. That mistake is not possible in the case of Jacob
and Esau. Isaac and Ishmael had only one parent in com
mon ; Jacob and Esau had both and the children were
twins. We are next told the reason for dealing thus with the twins :
" that the purpose of God according to election might stand."
It is an according-to-election purpose. Paul finds the source
of salvation in God alone. He had a " purpose " to save.
This purpose cannot be of " none effect," but must " stand,"
because, first, it is not universal, but is limited to an " elec
tion," a selection, as in the case of Isaac against Ishmael.
The one elected was the one he promised. The idea of
promise, with which Paul began, is the same as that in the
word " election." And, secondly, God's elective purpose will
"stand" because it is determined "not by [or "of"] works,
but by [or " of "] him that calleth," that is, God himself. Now,
in order that God might show this purpose, a purpose that
was elective and based on his own will, he said before the
twins were born, "The elder shall serve the younger." By
his own will he reversed the order of nature and took but one
of the twin sons of Isaac, in whom the seed was promised.
If Paul began this chain of reasoning under the proposition
(verse 6) that the Word of God has not failed in the case of
the Jew, and now concludes it with the proposition that his
purpose has not failed, but must " stand," there is only an ap
parent shifting of terms. It is the Word of God that em
bodies the purpose, and in speaking of the latter Paul means
no other purpose but the one disclosed in the " Word." The
propositions are logically identical. The Jews erred, not
knowing the Scripture. They stuck to their baseless notion
that because they were the natural descent of Abraham they
were heirs of salvation, a notion against which Jesus solemnly
warned them. He admitted that they were Abraham's natu-

(IX. 13-16) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 171
ral " seed," but denied that they were his promised " children "
(John viii. 37, 39).
13. " As it is written, Jacob [have] I loved, but Esau [have]
I hated." Omit " have " in both cases. This Scripture, which
looks only logically at the original two, but directly at their
descendants (Mai. i. 1-4), is quoted to corroborate the original
choice. God's motive in it was neither love of the one nor
hate of the other, but simply " of him that calleth." But, the
choice once made, God's love followed Jacob's seed, showing
the reality of his election, and his hate followed Esau's, show
ing the reality of his rejection. The word " hated " need not
be softened.
Paul has now so far vindicated God's Word despite the
failure of Israel. Jesus is the Messiah, even if they as a na
tion have not participated in his blessings; for when Paul
closely scans the source of the nation he finds it has no prom
ise on the ground of lineal descent from Abraham. That
promise belongs only to chosen elect ones among the nation,
chosen for nothing whatever pertaining to them, but solely
after God's own will. This starts a serious objection about
the divine justice, which Paul proceeds to answer. (See (3)
above.) 14. " Is there unrighteousness with God? " This question
could not arise unless Paul wished himself to be understood
as teaching that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau for no
assignable reason outside his own will. If God chose Jacob
because he foresaw his faith or his virtue, and rejected Esau
for an opposite character, reason would approve and the ques
tion of this verse could not be asked. But when it is taught
that God chose Jacob for no good in him, and rejected
(" hated ") Esau for no bad in him, man's narrow heart feels
that an injustice has been done. This sentiment Paul repels :
" God forbid."
15, 16. Paul finds the argument for his vehement denial of

172 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 17)
injustice in God not by abstract reasoning about the idea of
justice, but in the Scriptures. The quotation is from Exodus
xxxiii. 19. The great Jewish captain is earnestly seeking
grace from God. It might be supposed that he could attain
it on the ground of his office and merit ; but even " to Moses,"
God saith, he gives mercy not because he is Moses, or because
he seeks it, but just because it is God's " will " to do so. It
is a bold, crisp assertion of the divine freedom in bestowing
grace. " In any case through human history wherein I shall
be seen to have mercy, the one account I give of the radical
cause is this — I have mercy " (Moule). Mercy is the outward
manifestation of the feeling of compassion.
The conclusion follows. God's mercy is not the response
to human desire nor to human effort. It is not of him that
" willeth " or wishes it, as Moses did, and not of him who
" runneth " in the path of right. Willing and running may in
dicate the possession of grace, but they are not the originating
cause. They may be the channel, but they are not the foun
tain. The source of grace is God's own will, that goes out to
whom he will. Mercy is " of God, that showeth mercy " in
dependent of any motive in man.
17. " For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh." Moses' his
tory bears on the election of Jacob ; Pharaoh's on the rejec
tion of Esau. The latter is cited for the same purpose as the
former — to show God's freedom and sovereignty in dealing
with men. As he grants mercy after his own will, so also he
withholds it, and hardens whom he will. Ten times in the
Scripture about Pharaoh it is said he hardened himself; but
Paul makes no account of this, for his clear intention is to ac
count for Pharaoh's overthrow by the free purpose of God.
And yet God did not harden him for the sake of the harden
ing, but that the divine power might have a field of display
and that the divine name might become known. If Pharaoh
had willingly and sweetly allowed the people to depart, there

(IX. 1 8, 19) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 173
could have been no miracles " in Egypt and in the Red Sea "
(Acts vii. 36), and the children of Israel would have had no
fame as God's own chosen, a fame that endured for centuries
(1 Sam. iv. 8). God's glory is promoted in the overthrow of
a sinner as much as in saving one. God wished men to know
him and his power, and for this purpose " raised up " Pharaoh,
which means neither that God created nor preserved him for
his purpose, but that God brought about everything that be
longs to the history of the king.
In selecting Pharaoh as an example of God's hardening
Paul shows his skill. Pharaoh was a detestable heathen op
pressor, and undue prejudice would not be excited against the
doctrine in illustrating it by his case.
18. This gives the solemn and awful conclusion of the sec
tion beginning at verse 14, or even as far back as verse 7.
The word " whom " is singular. The subject is not one about
nations, but about individuals, not one about ethnic supremacy
or leadership, but about personal salvation. " Therefore hath
he mercy on what man he will, and what man he will he
hardeneth." God is absolute sovereign, allowing nothing to
direct his activity but his own will. His Word is true, as true
as he is, but he has never uttered a word to abridge his free
dom, nor can his Word, like a promissory note, be pleaded
against his freedom. This hardening process is going on to
day ; it can be read as clearly in current history as in God's
Word. And yet man is also free in choosing God and free in
refusing him. The reconciliation of these two is a question
of philosophy, and philosophy fails in the effort. The Bible
does not attempt it, but stops with asserting that both are
realities. 19. "Why doth he yet find fault? " This puts the query
of verse 14 in a more aggravated form. There it is a ques
tion about the justice of God ; here it is virtually a charge of
injustice. He hardened Pharaoh ; he willed to harden him.

174 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 20)
Pharaoh did just what God willed ; he did not resist his will ;
no one does whom he hardens. " Why doth he yet find fault "
and visit dire punishment upon sinners?
20. " Nay but, O man." Paul has already answered this
question as far as possibly it ever can be answered. The an
swer is to the point and practical. It is that God is free to
do as he will ; he is a sovereign ; and what is the idea of abso
lute sovereignty but that he who has it is under no obligation
to give a reason for anything which he does? If he must give
a reason for his actions he is no longer sovereign, but the rea
son given enjoys that distinction, not to say the persons to
whom it must be given. This matter is not peculiar to the
gospel ; it belongs to every religion that owns a personal God.
A God is one whose will is free, whose will is law.
The question, then, "Why doth he yet find fault?" is not
only impious, but blasphemous. The man sets himself up to
condemn not only the decree of God, but to claim a higher
justice for himself ; he replies not merely against God's judg
ment, but against the only possible conception given in the
word " God." In complaining against God for hardening a
man to do a wicked thing and then finding fault with that
man for doing it, the complainant says, " There ought not to
be such a God; that is, there ought to be what is really no
God, one with such notions of justice toward men as I have! "
The man exalts himself above God in sitting in judgment upon
the divine acts. The fallacy is in his idea of what constitutes
a God. Godet weakens Paul's rejoinder, " Who art thou that
repliest? " by saying that he means " a reply to a reply." No ;
Paul's whole argument is drawn from the nature of God. His
opponent is more than a debater; he is well-nigh atheistic.
Shedd's exposition here is better than Godet's : " An irreverent
equalizing of man with God."
It must not be forgotten that whatever God does is neces
sarily just ; because, if there is anything outside his own will

(IX. 21) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 175
by which to measure the actions of that will, that thing is
higher than God. For human reason or human sense of
right to sit in judgment on God's acts is as foolish as it is
wicked. Again, he who replies against God must mean, if he means
anything, that it is God's hardening that deprives a soul of
salvation ; that if God did not interpose with an election, and
take some and leave others to be hardened, all men would at
least have an equal opportunity of salvation. This is false.
If God did not elect, none would be saved, for there is " none
that seeketh after God" (iii. n). And men are not lost be
cause they are hardened ; they are hardened because they are
lost; they are lost because they are sinners (i. 21).
God is not responsible for sin. He is under no obligation
to save any one. Obligation and sovereignty cannot both be
predicated of God. If he saves any one it is a sovereign act
of mercy, and for that very reason his justification is tanta
mount to salvation.
It must not be supposed (with Sanday, apparently) that Paul's
argument through this section is an ad hominem drawn from
the Jew's Old Testament conception of God. It is drawn
from the nature of sovereignty, the necessary conception of
God. Neither does Paul lay his hand on the mouth of the
objector and cry, " Stop ! " He confutes him with one single
logical shaft : God is God.
" Shall the thing formed say." Note that Paul does not
say, " Shall the thing created say to him that created it." It
is not a question of original creation, but of subsequent des
tination. What would the ability to fashion be worth if it
were under the dictation of that which is to be fashioned?
21. " Hath not the potter power over the clay," from the
same lump to make one part a vessel to honor and another to
dishonor? (Isa. xiv. 9 ; lxiv. 8 ; Jer. xviii. 1-10.) This illus
tration enforces the idea of God's sovereignty. To be sure,

176 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 22)
men are not senseless clay, but beings of feeling and will ; and
yet, with all feeling and will and intelligence, they are as help
less, being sinners, to fit themselves to please God as clay left
to itself is helpless to become an ornamental vase. The pot
ter does not make the clay. He takes it as he finds it and
fashions out of the same lump — the " clay " and the " lump "
are identical in character and quantity— one part a vessel to
ornament the house and another part a vessel for some base
use. Originally the two were the same thing— clay; the pot
ter determined their destination. Pharaoh and Moses origi
nally belonged to the same guilty lump of humanity. Moses
was inherently no better than the Egyptian king. God had
mercy on one and fashioned him into a glorious instrument of
deliverance for his people ; the other he hardened, and to deny
God's justice in so doing is as absurd as to deny that the pot
ter has a right to turn base clay into a slop-jar. Why it is
that men are sinners neither Paul nor the Bible anywhere
teaches ; but sinners under God's wrath they are, and he is
not responsible that they are sinners, and from the lump of
sinful humanity may choose for his service whom he will and
may harden at his pleasure. To confess this is the very high
est exercise of reason.
22. Now, after Paul has vindicated the idea of God in vin
dicating his sovereignty, — for a God who is not absolutely free
to do as he will is no God, — he shows next and in addition
how graciously he exercised his freedom. Though "willing
to show his wrath [to-day], and to make his power known," as
in Pharaoh's case, he, after all, endured in much long-suffer
ing the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Paul does not
now say that God fitted them. He bore with them. Jeru
salem, that crucified his Son and slew his followers, was still
standing after more than a quarter of a century. God tem
pered his sovereign wrath with long-suffering.
This sentence, embracing verses 22-24, & n°t complete.

(IX. 23, 24) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 177
It is almost a worshipful exclamation, but may be read as in
the King James version, " What if," " What shall we say
if," etc.
23. Closely connected with the last verse by means of the
word " endured." The " vessels of mercy " called also for en
durance. The writer of the epistle could not forget that, had
God's just wrath fallen upon the Jews at the time that they
earned it, he himself would have been lost. But God with
much long-suffering restrains his wrath against sinners, " and
[he does so] that he might make known [by calling and justi
fication] the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy [the
elect], which he had afore prepared unto [eternal] glory."
They are not vessels of favor, but of " mercy," in that he
showed them mercy. These, it is said, "he prepared afore."
Paul is doubtless referring to viii. 29 in the word " afore."
Men, being sinners, have no rights remaining before God ;
in his justice he might destroy them all. But he chooses to
save some sinners in the exercise of mercy, and for the time
restrains his wrath toward the rest. These two verses bear
on the idea of his sovereignty in showing how he exercises it ;
the next one with the quotations following shows toward whom
he exercises it.
24. " Even us [the " vessels of mercy "], whom he hath
called." This is his own sovereign call. The rest heard the gos
pel, but were not called by him. Unless the word has this spe
cial meaning here and in i. 6 ; viii. 28, 30, it has no meaning.
The " called " were found not among the Jews only, but also
among the Gentiles. This is by no means the ultimate, but
only the present, exhibition of his sovereignty. Paul keeps
the two classes separate here, for he still has God's dealing
with the Jew in mind, to whom the thought returns exclusively
at verse 31 below. The promise of salvation was not condi
tioned on nationality, but is " of him that calleth " (verse 1 1
above) and may extend to all nations: "Even us, . . . not

178 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 25-29)
of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." He supports this
statement chiastically from the Scriptures.
25, 26. These quotations from Hosea ii. 23 and i. 10 are
combined, and predict the call of Gentiles. The phrase " and
it shall come to pass" (verse 26) is not Paul's, but the pro
phet's. " Call " and " called " do not mean invited or named,
but called with the call (verse n above and viii. 30). The
" place " is indefinite, and means any place in the world. The
prophecy originally seems to refer to the ten tribes, but as
they had been excluded from the nation and were practically
heathen, Paul refers to them as a type of the call of the Gen
tiles. 27-29. These verses look at the case of Israel as predicted
in Isaiah to show that the mass would be reprobated and only
a "remnant" saved. The first quotation is from Isaiah x.
22, 23, on which Paul puts a gloss, representing the prophet
as " crying " in alarm and wonder, thus softening the stern
prediction that, while Israel may be countless in number, only
the elect few will be subjects of grace. " For," continues
Isaiah, the Lord "will finish the work, and cut it short in
righteousness." The righteousness is that of Jehovah's judg
ment or wrath upon Israel's waywardness. The Revised
Version makes some large changes in this verse: "For the
Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and
cutting it short." With either reading the meaning is clear.
Summary and severe judgments were to fall on Israel, and of
such a character that only a remnant would be left to know
God's grace. The original reference in Isaiah was to the re
turn from the captivity ; but Paul sees the applicability of the
prophecy to his own time ; it may come in force again in the
future. The apostle makes one more quotation (Isa. i. 9), that
brings his teaching about God's sovereign and electing grace
to a startling climax. But for the divine interference Israel

(IX. 30-33) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 179
would have become as Sodom and been made like unto Go
morrah. Depravity would have run its course to this tragic
end. But God "left unto us a very small remnant," which
" small remnant " Paul calls a " seed " in quoting from the
Septuagint. The cities of the plain were obliterated for their
sin, and none were left to revive them ; and so it would have
been in Israel's case had not God "left" (spared) some.
Israel has nothing of which to complain. God's election de
stroyed none ; it is the sole reason why any were spared. The
covenant name Jehovah is not used here, but " Lord of Saba
oth," or of hosts or armies, which suggests his sovereignty.
30-33. "What shall we say then?" (See (4) above.)
What are the facts so far as this discussion is concerned, the
facts as seen wherever the gospel has gone? Not that the
Word of God has failed, but that the prophecy has now be
come history, to be seen in history. First, some Gentiles, who
were making no effort (reminding the reader of verse 16 above,
" it is not of him that runneth ") after righteousness, reached it.
They did not will, but God did. Since these Gentiles had no
works, God bestowed righteousness upon them, that is, they
had a righteousness of faith. The article " the " before
" Gentiles " in the King James version is an error, strangely
repeated in the Revised Version. Paul, with the fact of elec
tion in his mind, could not and he did not write this illogical
" the." That some Gentiles, those who believed, were right
eous, was attested by their living. They had abandoned idola
try, worshiped God, and claimed no merit for themselves (Phil.
iii. 3).
A second fact in accord with the argument above was (and
is) that Israel as a whole, though following the (Mosaic) law
of righteousness, the law that is connected with righteousness,
did not attain to that law. Omit " of righteousness " in the
second instance. Israel attained to the letter of the law, but
not to the acquittal from sin. Gentiles, who willed not, at-

180 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 30-33)
tained ; Israel, who willed for themselves, failed, for salvation is
not of man's will. Some take " law " here in the sense of rule,
a rule of moral and religious life that would win righteousness.
That Israel had not become righteous was plain to every
one, and thus facts in both directions testify to the correctness
of Paul's logic and the aptness of his quotations from the
Scriptures. It was said that Gentiles would be saved, and
Gentiles are saved. It was said that the mass of Israel would
be rejected, and so it is, and God is just in it all and his Word
has not failed.
"Wherefore?" Why did Israel not reach righteousness?
Paul does not say they failed because they were non-elect.
Election accounts for the saved, but non-election does not ac
count for the lost. The comprehensive reason for the latter
is sin, and the essence of sin is self-will, self-will even in seek
ing God. These Jews took their own way of being reconciled
to God. They did not even seek him by the works of the law,
but " as it were " by works of the law. They decided for
themselves what the works should be and so had flesh works.
In their self-will they practically denied God.
It is at this point that Paul passes from the sovereignty of
God to the responsibility of man. The two cannot be har
monized in the human understanding, except as the Scriptures
harmonize them ; that is, by insisting on and holding to both.
The Scriptures and reason assert the absolute sovereignty of
God, and Scripture and the human conscience assert with
equal force the responsibility of man ; so that the practical
error arises when either one of these is denied or when one is
explained in a way to exclude the other. It must also be re
membered that, while man cannot save himself, moral inability
does not relieve from responsibility. Man's inability lies in
his sinful nature (viii. 7), and God cannot be made responsi
ble for sin. The sinner's inability to do right, to do God's
will, is the acme of his sin.

(IX. 30-33) ISRAEL'S REJECTION CONSIDERED 181
A world of sin is a world of confusion. Sin introduced
confusion between God and man, and confusion cannot be
explained. The real difficulty between God's absolute sover
eignty and man's responsibility is metaphysical and not bibli
cal. How can there be one sovereign free will and other free
wills? And when Fritzsche says that Paul's view is "abso
lutely contradictory," he is virtually demanding that Paul cease
preaching and turn philosopher to solve the insoluble. But
Paul leaves the question where he found it, and goes on now
in this and the next chapter to show that Israel's failure was
their own fault.
" They stumbled at that stumbling-stone." The " for " is
probably not genuine, but it shows the correct relation of the
sentences. They failed to believe because the Christ came
in a way which their works disqualified them to approve
(i Pet. ii. 7,8).
"As it is written." The quotation is a combination of
Isaiah viii. 14 and xxviii. 16. That which was applicable in
the prophet's time Paul sees to be applicable also in his time.
God's enemies stumbled then because of him ; they stumble
now at his gift of Christ. At the same time Christ is a secu
rity for him that believeth on him. The " whosoever " in the
King James version is not genuine and mars the sense. Paul
is quoting this Scripture not to show the universality of salva
tion, which the word " whosoever " would suggest, but in
proof that the Jews failed by lack of faith. The word " be
lieveth " carries the main idea. He that believeth shall not
make haste to some other refuge for salvation, or, what is the
same, he shall not be put to shame by trusting in this stone.
The substance of the chapter is that, in spite of Israel's re
jection, in spite of the present mixed following of Jews and
Gentiles as the Lord's people, God's Word has not failed, for
God never pledged away his sovereignty in it, but, on the
other hand, predicted that salvation turned on his will and call.

CHAPTER X
Israel's failure their own fault
Though God did not elect the mass of Israel for salvation
at this time, their present rejection is not to be explained by
his withholding grace, which was freely offered them, but
by their sinful lack of discernment (Luke xii. 56 ; xix. 44 ;
xxi. 24).
The chapter contains four topics : ( 1 ) Israel failed to see
that Christ was the end of the law (verses 1-4) ; (2) the free
character of salvation (verses 5-1 1); (3) its universal charac
ter (verses 12-18); and (4) they failed to see that all this, as
well as their own rejection, was the prediction of their own
Scriptures (verses 19-21).
1. "Brethren, my heart's desire," etc. "Good pleasure"
is preferable to the word " desire." It will be noticed that
each one of the three chapters in this theodicy begins with a
warm expression of the apostle's own feeling. He will not
let it be forgotten, in bringing these heavy charges against
those of his own blood, that he is writing in pity and not in
anger. He is not an enemy of Israel. Moreover, this prayer,
as well as the sentiment beginning the ninth chapter, could
not have been entertained by the apostle if he at the same
time considered Israel's case hopeless. As Bengel says on
this verse, " Paul would not have prayed had they been alto
gether reprobate." If he prayed " that they might be saved "
182

(X. 2-4) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 183
he must have believed the possibility of their salvation (2 Cor.
iii. 16). In the next chapter he confidently predicts it (xi. 26).
2. It was because Paul saw Israel's zeal for God that he
was so solicitous for them. And yet zeal does not imply a
right heart nor acceptance with God. Their zeal was not di
rected by " knowledge," not regulated by spiritual discernment.
They had the means of knowledge, but not the knowledge.
This little phrase, " not according to knowledge," is the key
to the chapter.
3. " For they, being ignorant." Here are given the contents
of their ignorance : " ignorant of God's righteousness [by faith
in Christ], and going about [seeking] to establish their own
righteousness [by works of law, in zeal for the latter, they]
have not submitted themselves " to the former. Here the two
kinds of righteousness are set in contrast. These two are the
sum of all on earth, and they are mutually exclusive in the
human heart. The Jews at this time were not unacquainted
with the righteousness of God, but they were "ignorant"
of it.
4. " For Christ is the end of the law." The Revised Ver
sion retains both articles. " End " means termination. It is
true that he is also the aim and the fulfilment of the law.
Tholuck combines the two ideas of termination and aim ; Al
ford stands for the latter. But the sharp contrast here, as well
as the (original) word, requires the meaning termination. The
law is no longer a means of righteousness.
Sanday surely errs in saying that this verse is a proof that
the Jews were " wrong " in not submitting themselves to the
righteousness of God. It is not a question of right or
wrong, but of fact. The Jews claimed that in following the
law they were submitting to God, for he gave the law. No,
says Paul ; in so doing you are not submitting to the right
eousness of God. " For Christ [whom God gave and you re
ject] is the end of the law for [with a view to] righteousness

184 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 5-7)
to every one that believeth." The Jew's system was one of
doing ; but God's was one of believing, one of grace. Law
and grace are mutually exclusive and antagonistic systems
(iv. 4, 5 ; xi. 6). Because the Jew held to law he was not in
subjection to God. The proof that he was not is this great
principle of grace recorded in this fourth verse.
5. That Christ ends the law in making nothing but faith
necessary to righteousness is confirmed in the further contrast
of the two systems. (See (2) above.) Moses describes the
righteousness of the law as one of doing — "the man that
doeth those things," etc. The point made here is not that no
man can do those things prescribed by Moses, but that, in case
he did do them, it would be his " own righteousness " and not
God's, which is next described at length.
6, 7. " But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on
this wise." Paul does not say that Moses describes this right
eousness ; he does not set Moses against Moses. He says the
righteousness itself speaks ; it is self-descriptive.
It must be carefully noted what Paul is after. The points
are just two : first, that the Jew's intense religious zeal in de
votion to the law, a zeal that touches the apostle's heart, is,
after all, not God's righteousness, but in flat contradiction to
it. This is seen in the nature or character of the two. A
faith-righteousness in Christ must end law-righteousness, for
Moses describes the latter as one of doing. But now arises
just at this point a second question. Admitting, as the Jew
would, that the two are antagonistic, he would not admit that
the righteousness in Christ was genuine ; he would make that
claim for his own. Hence, beginning at this sixth verse, Paul
not only completes his contrast between the righteousness by
law and the righteousness by faith, but to the end of the sec
tion at verse 11 adds the other argument, that nothing but
righteousness by faith is God's.
"Say not in thy heart." This is a quotation from Deu-

(X. 6, 7) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 135
teronomy xxx. 11-14, with Paul's interjected explanations by
means of the equating phrase "that is." The difficulty that
stands here is that Paul takes words that Moses seems to use
of the law, and makes them descriptive of the righteousness of
faith. Two considerations relieve the difficulty. First, the
contrast is not between the law and faith, but between the
righteousness proceeding from the two. The law bears testi
mony to both kinds. The righteousness of faith is witnessed
by the law and the prophets (iii. 21, 22). The second consid
eration is that Paul interprets this passage in the original
Mosaic intent of it. This intent after the gospel came was not
difficult to see. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy refers
to the ultimate gathering of all Israel. Moses promises that
in the future God will circumcise the "heart" of Israel. He
further says, " If thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all
thine heart, and with all thy soul" (Deut. xxx. 10). The very
next verse introduces our quotation : " For this commandment
which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee,
neither is it far off. It is not in heaven," etc. The chapter
itself speaks of both kinds of righteousness ; it mentions not
only the "commandments," but "this commandment." This
difference between singular and plural must not be overlooked.
It speaks both of keeping the commandments and also of
turning to the Lord with the heart. The gospel gave Paul the
key to the latter, and he quotes the passage as not applicable
to the righteousness of the law, but descriptive only of the
gospel. When, therefore, Sanday implies that "words used
by Moses of the law " are applied by Paul to the gospel " as
against the law" ("Com. on Rom.," p. 288), and denies to
Paul a " true interpretation " of this and similar passages
(p. 306, id.), the only question is, which is the safer expositor
of the Old Testament, the professor or the apostle?
The righteousness of the law is defined in terms that imply
doing. The passage quoted here by Paul defines the right-

186 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 8-10)
eousness of faith in terms which shut out all doing. No man
need attempt the impossible thing of ascending to heaven,
which means to bring Christ down; he has already come.
And no one need go over the sea or, what is the same thing,
descend to its depths, the abyss, to bring Christ again from
the dead; he is already raised. God's "command" (Deut.
xxx. 11), his work, is not "hidden from thee"; it is already
done (John vi. 29).
8. "But what saith it?" This little question belongs not
to the quotation, but is Paul's, and serves both to pass from
the negative to the positive side of the description of true
righteousness and to call attention a second time to it. It
declares that God's righteousness is not distant and difficult,
but "the word [Moses did not say "commandments"] is
nigh thee [like the air of heaven], in thy mouth, and in thy
heart : that is, the word of faith [referred to in Moses], which
we [apostles] preach." It is a word or command not for doing,
but for believing.
9, 10. These two verses give the contents of the "word of
faith." " That " is equivalent neither to " in order that " nor
to "because." The first is forbidden by the original word
(on), and the second in that there is no need to prove the
express assertion that " the word is nigh thee." Paul would
not attempt to prove Scripture by his own assertion ; but he
may tell what it means. This " word " by the preaching of it
is brought to the mouth and the heart of the sinner as the
atmosphere comes to the lungs. Man does not make it; he
breathes it and lives.
Since Christ has already come down from above, has died,
and has been raised from the dead, nothing remains for the
Jew or for any one else to do but to confess it with his mouth
and believe it in his heart. Paul specifies the vital element in
Christian faith, "that God hath raised him from the dead."
He was raised for our justification (iv. 25). The faith that

(X. n) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 187
leaves this out, although it may accept everything else in the
Christian's creed, is not Christian and is not saving. The
Jew's " doing " denied it. The " for " of the tenth verse does
not introduce a proof, but an analytic explanation, of the sal
vation just mentioned — " thou shalt be saved." If one believes
with the heart, that belief brings him into righteousness, right
standing before God, and if now he confesses openly in his
life his adherence to Jesus, that confession leads on to the
final salvation. Thus salvation is resolved into its two ele
ments, a heart trust that provokes a true confession of his
name. And yet the two are one ; for confession without be
lief is either self-deception or hypocrisy, while trust without
confession may be cowardice (John xix. 38).
It sounds a little odd, in view of Paul's words, "with the
mouth confession is made," to hear Sanday say the confession
"is made in baptism." Paul links baptism with faith (Col.
ii. 12).
If the order of the words "mouth" and "heart" in verse
9 is reversed to "heart " and " mouth " in verse 10, this occurs
because in the former Paul is following Moses' order, who
presents the " word " rather as a creed and climactically, not
only in thy mouth, but in thy very heart. The tenth verse
presents the words in the order of experience.
11. This quotation from Isaiah xxviii. 16, with the expan
sion of " he " into " whosoever," clearly implied in the original,
is in proof of the last verse that salvation is by faith. The two
words about believing and confessing in the last verse are here
reduced to one, " believeth." (For " ashamed " see on ix. 33.)
Perhaps none but an apostle's eyes could see salvation by faith
in the quotation above from Deuteronomy xxx. But we must
think the zealous Jews either obstinate or blind that could not
see it in this verse in Isaiah, were it not for the same lack of
perception attending men still. Salvation by works, even in
evangelical circles, is pursued to-day by all such as cannot

188 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 12-14)
unquestioningly, like a little child (Mark x. 15), accept this
same word in its sublime simplicity.
12. " For there is no difference." As Israel failed to per
ceive the character of the righteousness offered by God, but
excluded by their own righteousness of works, so they neces
sarily failed to see the universality of God's righteousness.
Works are not suited to sinful men (iv. 14, 15). It is with
this failure that Paul now deals. (See (3) at the head of the
chapter.) He moves off at the word " whosoever " in the last
verse, and explains it in this one. As there is " no difference "
among men, Jew or Gentile, in their sinfulness (iii. 22, 23), so
there is no difference in God's mercy toward all, Jew or Gen
tile. The " call " of faith from the heart of any man is not
merely answered, but richly answered.
13. "For, Whosoever," etc. This, from Joel ii. 32, is the
scriptural proof of the universality of God's mercy. The
quotation is very much like that in verse 1 1 above, but there
is a difference in use : there it confirms the believing, here the
universality. Hence here in the original it is not simply who
soever, but every one whosoever. The apostle seems fond of
repeating the noble gospel sentiment that believing prayer
from any heart of man receives an answer rich in righteous
ness. 14, "How then shall they call," etc. With these verses
begins an argument extending through several verses, to prove
from another point of view the universality of the gospel. If
this gospel is general and designed for all, if its language is
that " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved" (verse 13), it is then inevitable from the word "call"
that the gospel must be preached everywhere. If such gen
eral preaching is predicted (verse 15) and has been accom
plished, there is thereby evidence of the gospel's universal
character ; and if it is found that Israel has heard this world
wide gospel and has not believed it, the responsibility of their

(X. 15) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 189
rejection is upon themselves. Says Gifford, " From the nature
of the salvation just described (verse 13), it follows that the
gospel must be preached to all without distinction " (" Speaker's
Com.," in loc). If the universal condition of salvation is to
call on the Lord, only the general spread of the gospel can
make such a call possible.
By successive steps Paul argues from Joel's cardinal words,
" Whosoever shall call," to the sending out of the preachers.
Men cannot call on him in whom they have not believed,
and, to be sure, they cannot believe in him of whom they never
heard. And how can they ever hear without a preacher?
The spread of the gospel is dependent on the living messen
ger. The sending forth of Bibles is not sufficient ; Israel had
them, but did not profit by them. The Ethiopian eunuch,
earnest man though he was, did not understand even the
luminous fifty-third chapter of Isaiah until the preacher sent
to him opened the Scripture for him (Acts viii. 26-40).
15. "And how shall they preach, except they be sent,"
sent by God? The first heralds who formally and definitely
went out either to the Jews or to the Gentiles were commis
sioned by the Holy Spirit (Acts ii. ; x. ; xiii. 2-4). There is
no clearer passage for the call into the ministry than this:
"How shall they preach, except they be sent? " (Gal. i. 15,
16.) No matter how well a man may be qualified otherwise,
if he is not divinely " sent " he is a profane intruder. No
matter how humble and lacking in brilliance, if he has this
credential he need not be discouraged. The Father sends the
Son, and the Son sends the preachers (John xvii. 18).
Paul has now argued backward from the nature of the gos
pel, which demands that men call on the name of the Lord,
to that which this call implies, a general sending forth of minis
ters. That such would be sent forth is confirmed by a passage
from Isaiah Hi. 7 (see Nah. i. 15): "How beautiful are the
feet of them [how welcome is their coming] that preach . . .

190 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 16, 17)
peace, that [not "and"] bring glad tidings of good things!"
There was a partial fulfilment of Isaiah's words in the return
from the captivity which the prophet foresaw. Paul sees a
deeper meaning, which points to the mission of the gospel
messengers, and now his argument so far is complete. A gos
pel intended for all requires ministers sent to all, and this har
monizes with the prediction that they would be sent.
16. " But they have not all obeyed the gospel " — the " glad
tidings " mentioned above. Paul restrains himself, as in iii. 3.
He might have said, " How few believed! " This general dis
belief, however, does not disprove that the " sent " messengers
were God's. It actually confirms their authority. For Isaiah
foresaw this unbelief and predicted it in the sad words, " Lord,
who hath believed our report ? " or, " Who hath believed thy
message heard from us?" The prophet (Isa. liii. 1) is now
speaking of the Messianic times, as the connection shows
clearly. Paul says " they " have not obeyed. The word is
general, but he has Israel in mind, whom he soon mentions.
Israel's rejection of the gospel is a proof of its truthfulness.
Not only the few who in all time have believed revelation,
but the many who reject it, are a confirmation of its divinity.
A gospel universally believed would not be God's. Jesus
said, " I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me
not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will re
ceive " (John v. 43). And ever so God's messenger is known
by his general rejection.
17. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
Word of God." Paul is not referring to the act of listening
as the source of faith. Listening is itself faith, and all men
listen to something. Saving faith, of which he is speaking,
comes from heeding saving doctrine ; this is his vital point.
This verse can be paraphrased thus : Genuine faith comes by
a message heard (from us), and the message heard (is) by
means of the Word of God, the Word given the messenger,

(X. i8, 19) ISRAEL'S FAILURE THEIR OWN FAULT 191
the gospel. The " Word of God," or, as some read here, " of
Christ," does not mean his command to preach.
But why does Paul utter the words of this verse? It is the
logical conclusion of everything from verse 13 above. The
" call " that brings salvation demands faith, and this faith
comes from the Word of God sent through his messengers.
But, while this conclusion looks back to the beginning of this
little section, it is drawn directly from the quotation imme
diately preceding, which itself comprehends what has gone
before. 18. It being now shown that the gospel which is necessary
to faith has been universally given, could it be that they who
have not obeyed (verse 16) did not hear? " But I say, Have
they not heard? " The answer to this is a quotation from
Psalm xix. 4. The quotation refers to the silent but effective
message of the stars: "Their sound went into all the earth,
and their words unto the ends of the [inhabited] world." Paul
is not quoting these words in proof that men have heard. In
the verses immediately preceding there is already sufficient
proof of the opportunity to hear. By quoting the psalmist it
is beautifully suggested how vain would be the excuse that
men have not heard. The very stars declare God's glory the
world around (i. 20), and how much more must the preachers
mentioned in verse 15 above! Paul in using the psalmist's
words does not mention him, and uses no formula of quota
tion. If men have not believed it is not because they have
not heard. The opportunity of hearing was as wide as the
star-studded heavens. The believing was limited to a " few "
(Matt. vii. 14).
19. "But I say, Did not Israel know?" For emphasis Paul
repeats the words "but I say" of verse 18. "Israel" is not
in contrast with others intended in the preceding verse, for
Paul has had Israel in mind all along. The whole chapter,
as is shown at its beginning, refers primarily to nobody else.

192 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (X. 20, 21)
He names them now because the very word " Israel " ought
to answer the question in which it occurs. Know what? The
gospel or its universality? Both; for he who knows the gos
pel at all very soon comes to know that it is for all. In the
third verse he denied that Israel knew : " For they, being ig
norant of God's righteousness." If he here affirms that they
did know he merely pronounces the former a wilful, guilty ig
norance. (Cf. John vii. 28 with viii. 19.) The contradiction
is only in form.
He answers the question, " Did not Israel know? " by three
Scripture quotations. " First Moses," away back in his day,
predicted the faith of the Gentiles, who were " no people," and
the guilty ignorance of Israel ; because a " foolish " nation, one
void of understanding, would see the truth of the gospel to
which Israel was blind, and embrace it, and thus "anger"
Israel (Deut. xxxii. 21). If the Gentile perceived, it is the
Jew's own fault that he did not.
20. " But Isaiah is very bold " in what he utters against Is
rael (Isa. lxv. 1). Where Israel was groping and failing to
find the Messiah, those who sought him not clearly discerned
him. How can Israel be excused for ignorance of a world
wide gospel, when even the heathen discovered it?
21. The third quotation, immediately following the one
above from Isaiah, brings the matter of their guilt to a climax.
God never ceased to plead with them ; but they were " dis
obedient and gainsaying." But even in this rebellious state he
calls them "people," a hopeful word with which to begin the
next chapter.

CHAPTER XI
Israel's failure not complete
This chapter from the historical point of view is logically
necessary. The Old Testament clearly promises Israel head
ship or leadership in the world's worship. This primacy they
had held from the days of Moses until the days of Paul, when
the latter became the chief instrument in transferring it to
"another nation" (Matt. xxi. 43), composed of elect persons
called from all peoples (1 Pet. ii. 9, 10). This promise of
headship was made to Israel not on the ground of their na
tional descent, as the ninth chapter above shows, but, after all,
it was a national promise. It belonged to the natural descent,
and constituted their "advantage." It could not possibly be
realized in the church, because the latter knew no racial dis
tinctions. The essence of Judaism was separation from other
people. Two facts stood out prominently in Paul's day : first,
that the church for the present had displaced Israel in the
leadership of God's worship in the world ; secondly, that Is
rael had a promise in their " oracles " that was not realized in
the church and could not be ; for the aim of the latter was
not national separation, but diffusion, or, more exactly, elec
tion from all nations. The first question Paul has already
considered in the ninth and tenth chapters. Israel was justly
displaced, and by their own fault. With the second fact the
present chapter deals. Israel as a separate people is to be re
stored and to realize the promises made to them in the Old
193

194 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. i, 2)
Testament. God's far-reaching plans in the riches of his wis
dom for the salvation of the world are here disclosed, provok
ing the exultant hymn in verses 33-36. Israel's present fail
ure proves to be the world's wealth now and their own finally.
Paul's thought in this chapter moves around two points : (1)
that the present rejection of Israel is not total (verses 1-10),
and (2) it is not final (verses 11-36). Under (1) he shows
that as it was in the days of Elijah (verses 2-4), so now there
is an election of grace (verse 5), but not of works (verse 6),
and that the rest, as the Scripture declares, were hardened
(verses 7-10).
Under (2) there are four items: (i) the rejection of Israel
had a twofold aim, (a) to turn the stream of the gospel to the
Gentiles, and (b) by this means to provoke Israel to emulation
(verses 11-15); (ii) the likelihood of Israel's restoration
should move the Gentiles to humility and maintenance of faith
(verses 16-24) > (iii) the apostle's prediction of Israel's restora
tion (verses 25-32); and (iv) the worshipful doxology (verses
33-36). 1. "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? " The
preceding verse shows to whom Paul refers. It is " gainsay
ing" and rejected Israel that is God's "people." "For I
also am an Israelite [of the purest blood, being] of the seed
of Abraham, of [through] the tribe of Benjamin." Paul was
an Israelite not by proselytism but by blood. He asserts his
pure Jewish descent not as evidence that Israel is not wholly
rejected, for the proof of this proposition does not begin be
fore the next verse is reached. He has asked the question,
"Hath God cast away his people? " in a negative, deprecat
ing spirit, and his being an Israelite accounts for the manner
of the question. He is in full sympathy with his race and
may be expected to answer the inquiry about Israel fairly.
(See on x. 1.)
2. " God hath not cast off his people whom he foreknew."

(XI. 3-5) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 195
In the word " his " and the phrase " whom he foreknew " there
is a double proof that Israel, though for the present rejected,
is not cast off. Among the nations of the world the Jews
were the only one chosen by God for his own, with whom also
he entered into covenant relations. A king may be rejected
by his subjects, but he does not reject them. Moreover, God
" foreknew " Israel. For the meaning of this word see on
viii. 29. In this present Christian age God foreknows indi
viduals in every nation, but Israel is the only nation he ever
foreknew. He elected it as a whole to obtain the salvation
in Christ when the appointed time for the blessing shall come
(Matt, xxiii. 39). This constitutes Israel's "advantage" and
makes it to be " much every way," for no other nation has as
a nation the promise of salvation before theirs.
3, 4. And even for the present the case of Israel is not as
bad as human observation would declare it to be. By the
phrase "of Elias," or literally "in Elias" (1 Kings xix.
10-18), Paul resorts to the method of citation used before
the Bible was divided into chapters and verses. (See Mark
xii. 26 ; Luke xx. 37.) The prophet thought the nation ruined
in his day ; but the divine response assured him of thousands
whom God had "reserved," or left to himself, from the flood
of unbelief that had come upon the land. The prophet saw
the overwhelming, devouring tide, but he could not see the
secret influence of the divine Spirit, who was leaving to God,
and preserving from Baal, seven thousand faithful ones.
5. " Even so then at this present time." Paul was better
acquainted with his days than the prophet had been with the
period to which he belonged ; for the apostle had the prophet's
experience to guide him and better means of observation. He
knew that in every church from Jerusalem to Rome there
were more or less Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah,
" a remnant according to the election of grace." They had
not bowed the knee to the Baal of unbelief, because God's

196 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 6, 7)
Spirit now, as in the prophet's day, had rescued them from the
faithless sentiment of the nation against Jesus of Nazareth.
This remnant, this reserve from the unbelieving mass, has
come to be and exists in accord with God's electing grace,
the phrase being added to show in what manner the remnant
obtained salvation.
While the nation lies fallen and faithless, elect individuals
are being brought into the church, where, if they lose the
national "advantage," they get sweet access to God in the
forgiveness of sins.
6. " And if by grace, then it is no more of works." The
" no more " is not temporal, but logical. Grace and works are
mutually exclusive methods. If the remnant was selected on
the ground of grace, their legal works had no part whatever
in the selection, else (the) grace would have lost its character
as grace. In this second mention of grace there is no article
in the original.
This verse expands the phrase " election of grace." It serves
also to show that the election, fully vindicated in chapter ix.,
is by means of grace. This, which was implied before, is now
clearly stated. The Old Testament promised a remnant; it
is shown now that nothing but grace secures it. The latter
half of this verse, "but if of works," etc., is rejected by all
modern editors.
7. "What then? " How does the case now stand? " Is
rael [the nation] hath not obtained that which he seeketh for
[viz., righteousness (ix. 31, 32)]; but the election [the elect
remnant] hath obtained it." Paul uses the abstract "elec
tion " rather than the concrete " elect," to throw the emphasis
on the means and not on the result. " And the rest [the mass
of natural Israel] were [not "blinded," but] hardened." Since
the remnant was saved by grace, there was no injustice done
to the "rest." For who can complain if salvation came to
some where none deserved it? And if the undeserving rem-

(XI.S-ii) 1SRAEDS FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 197
nant was saved because God would and when he would, why
may not the " rest " be saved in his own time and by the same
free grace?
8-10. Scripture is quoted not only in confirmation of the
hardening of the "rest" of Israel, but also as descriptive of
their sad spiritual condition during the time of their rejection
(Isa. xxix. io; Deut. xxix. 4; Ps. lxix. 22, 23). The paren
theses in the King James version in verse 8 must be removed.
The words " unto this day " are not Paul's, but a part of the
quotation. What was true in their author's day remained so
in Paul's, and is yet sadly true. In the word " table " there
is a picture of men feasting, eating and drinking, unconscious
that their enemies are just upon them. The Jew's carnal
security while trusting in the law proved his spiritual ruin.
But the quotation is poetic, and need not be rigidly defined.
" And bow [thou] down their back alway " under the heavy
legal yoke (Acts xv. 10). The "alway" does not mean for
ever, or the whole discussion concerning Israel must end here.
" Alway," converted in a few cases by some editors into a
phrase, occurs about seven times, and means continuously or
without interruption (Luke xxiv. 53 ; Heb. xiii. 15). It is not
an indefinite, but a limited term, limited by the circumstances
of which it speaks.
11. From this verse to the end of the discussion Paul con
siders the case of the great fallen mass of Israel. (See under
(2) above.) He has already shown the cause of the fall (ix.
31-x.) in their own sin, the result of which was their harden
ing. It remains to speak of the divine purpose in their pres
ent moral condition and the outcome of the whole.
"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?"
The question is put negatively and deprecatingly, as in the
first verse above. They did not stumble that they might fall,
did they? Was this the whole and only purpose? They are
fallen, but is this the intended outcome of their history?

198 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 12)
"God forbid." There was a gracious, far-reaching aim in
their rejection. The early preachers of the gospel were so
full of the Spirit that they must preach ; the gospel was like a
fire in their bones ; and since the Jews would not receive it,
they turned elsewhere (Acts xi. 20; xiii. 46, 47). Through
the Jews' fall salvation went to the Gentiles, to provoke the
former to emulation. " Jealousy " is not the best word. In
time Israel will see that the world has gained what they lost
by their obstinacy, and the salvation of the Gentiles will teach
Israel what they did not learn before they saw that salvation.
Two happy results, then, flow from their fall : a world diffusion
of the stream of life, a stream in which the fallen Jew may in
time wash himself from the uncleanness of his own self-right
eousness (Isa. lxiv. 6).
12. " Now if the [sinful] fall of them is the riches of the
world [in that by the fall the world got the gospel], and [to
repeat the same question in another form, if] the diminishing
of them [is] the riches of the Gentiles ; how much more their
fullness? " Three words here demand attention. Twice Paul
calls the gospel sent to the Gentiles their "riches." It was
not their territory, not their armies, not their culture, not their
treasures, that constituted their wealth (Rev. ii. 9; iii. 17).
Again, the word "diminishing" has had various renderings,
"loss," "diminution," "defeat." It occurs in only one other
instance in the New Testament (1 Cor. vi. 7), where it is
translated " fault." Furthermore, has the word a moral or a
numerical sense? Sanday stands for the meaning "defeat,"
which Godet says is impossible. On the whole, the word
seems to be numerical, and signifies diminution. Israel was
reduced to the small number of the elect. And it must be
noted, though it is but a shade, that it is not the elect that
Paul has in mind, but the nation thus reduced. It was the
diminishing of the nation, and not the elect, that brought
riches to the Gentiles.

(XI. 13, H) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 199
Again, the meaning of this word determines that of the last
one, "fullness." The latter is also numerical. It denotes
that which fills out or fills full an empty space. Israel by
their fall created a great void in their ranks. The " fullness "
looks to the future reoccupation of this present vacancy.
Note how the salvation of the world turns on God's dealing
with Israel. Their fall sent the gospel to the Gentiles ; their
fullness is to issue in something vastly greater than the pres
ent riches ; ultimate redemption is relative to them. In a very
wide sense "salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22).
13, 14. " I am the apostle of the Gentiles," or, as the Re
vised Version, "I am an apostle of Gentiles." Paul has
shown such an ardent desire for the welfare of the Jews, and
has now, beginning at chapter ix., devoted so much of his
epistle to them, that an explanation is due to the Roman
church, which, as this passage implies, was Gentile. Whatever
Jews were in it had lost Jewish caste. " I speak to you "
(the whole Roman church), you, the " Gentiles," about Israel,
for their welfare mightily affects yours. (At this point in the
King James text insert a colon.) But while I speak to you
and am an apostle of Gentiles, this apostleship looks also to
ward Israel (Acts ix. 15 ; Rom. i. 5). "Inasmuch then as I
am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my [Gentile] ministry
[I endeavor to give it a resplendent success] : if by any means
I may provoke to emulation my flesh [the Jews], and might save
some of them."
The "for" introducing these two verses is not genuine;
the approved reading is " but." The verses are not a paren
thesis, but a logical part of Paul's argument, answering an ob
jection that might arise in the minds of his Gentile readers
because he says so much about the Jews. He is laboring for
the Gentiles, glorifying his office to them, but with the salva
tion of at least " some " Jews in view. For Gentile salvation
cannot be accomplished directly, cannot be reached, without

200 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 15)
the " fullness " of the Jews. Therefore he is interested in the
Jews for the Gentiles' sake, and the Romans ought to be in
terested in them for the same reason. If Paul can in laboring
for the Gentiles save "some" Jews, he has accomplished so
much toward the " fullness " necessary to the completion of
Gentile or world salvation.
15. " For if the casting away of them," etc. This verse
gives the grand reason ("for") for Paul's laboring to reach
the Jew through his Gentile ministry. It is a kind of minis
try little thought of to-day. The condition of Gentile Chris
tianity is not such now as to impress the Jew with its superi
ority. The verse repeats the idea of the twelfth and brings this
section of the argument to its climax. The " casting away "
is equivalent to "their fall" or "diminution"; the "reconcil
ing of the world " is equivalent to the " riches of the world "
or "of the Gentiles " ; the " receiving of them " is tantamount
to " their fullness " ; and the " life from the dead " to the " how
much more." For the significance of the phrase "reconciling
of the world " see 2 Corinthians v. 19. In the verse before us
it means that on the Jews' rejection God was pleased to send
the gospel to the Gentiles. This reconciliation on God's part
became the " riches of the Gentiles." The difficult point in the
verse is in the words " life from the dead." The question is
twofold: Who receives this hfe, and what is it?
On the surface the answer to the first question seems plain.
In the first member of the sentence the clause " reconciling of
the world " must mean the Gentiles. The parallel demands the
same meaning for this second clause. The casting away of
the Jews was the " reconciling of the world " ; the receiving of
the Jews into favor again will be " life from the dead " extend
ing over the world. Of course the phrase in question must mean
something vastly more than the action contained in the words
" reconciling of the world," or there is no climax. But what

(XI. 16) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 201
is that " how much more " ? Meyer contends that the words
must have their literal meaning and that they refer to actual
bodily resurrection. If Paul says " life from the dead " in
stead of "resurrection from the dead," it is because his eye is
fixed upon the permanent and blessed state beyond the act
which leads to it. This answers Alford's objection based on
this word "life." Meyer's view is favored by Sanday, and
" so many have understood it " (Boise). It has the advantage
of preserving the literalness of the words and of being in har
mony with that expectation of the Jews — an expectation of
resurrection warranted, as they thought, by their own Scrip
tures. If Paul, as above, makes his argument point toward
the resurrection of the Gentiles, it was because it was neces
sary to assure them also of this "hope " (Eph. ii. 12), without
which they had lived in all time past. But the resurrection
of the Jew must occur at the same time. He looked for it.
Paul says the Jew instantly served God day and night in hope
of attaining to this promise (Acts xxvi. 6-8). Jesus constantly
held out this hope (Matt. viii. 1 1 ; Luke xiii. 28-30 ; John
xi. 25). He showed himself again and again the master of
death. The Jew looked for resurrection at the coming of the
Messiah (Dan. xii. 1, 2), but he failed to see that Jesus was
the Messiah and so failed of the resurrection. When Israel
shall be received again, then comes their own resurrection as
well as that belonging to the world. And so Paul has adroitly
but powerfully turned the attention of his Gentile readers to
the Jews. Until the latter are received the Gentile cannot
hope for resurrection.
16. "For if the firstfruit be holy." The "for" is not in
the original. It ought to be " now " or " but." (See ii under
(2) above.) Paul has not yet asserted that Israel will be re
stored, but he has shown what blessed results would follow if
they were restored. It is their fall that is still before him,
and on this he bases an exhortation to his Gentile readers.

202 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 16)
"First-fruit." For the figure see Numbers xv. 21. The
handful of dough offered to the Lord was evidence of the
worthiness of the whole mass from which it was taken. The
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are the first-fruits, and
neither Christ nor the first Jewish Christians at Pentecost, for
branches could not be said to be broken off from these.
" Holy," not in the moral sense, but as consecrated to God
for his own purpose. For this technical sense see Deuteronomy
vii. 6 and 1 Corinthians vii. 14. The "lump" is the whole
lineal descent from the patriarchs. The "root." He changes
his figure from a lump of dough to that of a tree, because the
latter is easier of expansion in argument. The root, again, is
Abraham not merely as a man, but as one having the prom
ises ; and the branches are his descendants, the fleshly Israel,
called " holy " in the sense given above.
What Paul is after in this discussion under the figure of the
olive-tree must be clearly kept in mind, or his parable dazzles
without helping sight, (a) He is not considering Abraham as
the ground or root of salvation, for this is Christ. The failure
to understand Paul here has led some (Origen, Theodoret) to
call Christ the " root." (b) It is not a question of fruit-bearing,
but of dependence, or his figure would not be true to nature.
Fruit is in accord with the engrafted scion, and not with the na
ture of the root, (c) It is not a question of the continuity of the
church. Sanday's statement, " The olive-tree, the church of God
looked at as one continuous body," is confusing. The olive-
tree is the Jewish nation as a whole, which was anything but
a church. Moreover, the continuity of ancient Israel in the
church is both inconsistent with the character of Israel's restora
tion and contradictory of the declared relation of the two. The
church is not a branch sprung from the root, but a graft brought
to it. Israel is the basis of the church, but not the source.
Israel is a development, the church a creation (Eph. ii. 12;
iii. 9). (d) The only question considered is from what national

(XI. 17, 18) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 203
sources and in what chronological order and relation God
called men to be his own spiritual people. He did call some
Jews to be his, but they were not made his because they were
Jews. The olive-tree had the promise of salvation first, and
Paul here shows why that promise was not realized now, and
that, while there remains a possibility of its future realization,
meantime the branch from the wild olive, the Gentiles, came
into relations with the good olive.
17. "And if some of the branches [the "rest" in verse 7
above] be broken off [denied the covenant salvation of Abra
ham], and thou [the Gentile believer, addressed directly for
emphasis], being a wild olive [not " tree," but branch, a mem
ber of an alien race having no direct promise of salvation (cf.
Eph. ii. 12 with 19)], wert grafted in among them [made by
faith a child of the covenant and of God], and with them [the
believing Jews, the branches left standing] partakest [didst be
come a partaker] of the root and fatness of the olive-tree."
Some by rejecting the " and " read " partaker of the root of
the fatness." The root is Abraham, not as a mere physical pro
genitor of Israel, but as the covenant father (Gal. iii. 16, 29 ;
Rom. iv. n, 12), and the root of the fatness is the covenant
with him which supplies the fatness, the salvation. The Gen
tile was grafted in by means of his faith to which he was elected
(Acts xiii. 48).
18. The "if" (since) beginning the last verse extends over
the first part of this one. If some (a miosis) were broken off
and thou wast grafted in, " boast not against the branches "
that were broken off and are fallen. The boasting of the
Gentile in this case would be most painful to him who could
wish himself accursed for his brethren, his kinsmen according
to the flesh. " But if thou boast " thou art absurd, for " thou
bearest not the root, but the root thee." The covenant of sal
vation made with Abraham is not sustained by the Gentile ;
he is sustained and saved by the covenant, It was clearly

204 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 19-22)
promised that the nations should be blessed, but blessed in
Abraham (Gen. xxii. 18).
19, 20. From Paul's admonition the Gentile believer would
deduce (" then ") a reply : " Branches [omit " the "] were
broken off, that I [emphatic] might be grafted in." Paul ad
mits the fact (" well "), but warningly directs the proud Gen
tile's attention to another side of it : by want of faith they were
broken off, and only by faith do you stand as a wild branch
on the good stock. You stand not because they fell and not
because you are a Gentile, but solely by faith, having no direct
covenant. It might be well for Gentile Christianity to lay this
to heart to-day. When simple trust in God fails, what better
is a Gentile church-member than the wrongly despised Jew?
The admonition suits every age : " Be not high-minded, but
fear." 21. Why fear? Because " if God spared not the natural
branches," to whose ancestors the promises were made and
who were " his people " (verse 1 above),— if he spared not them
because of their unbelief, why should he spare you, a wild
branch, if you become faithless, as they are? Why should
God have any more regard for a faithless Gentile Christianity
than for faithless Judaism? The italic words in the King
James version add nothing to the sense, rather hinder. (See
the Revised Version.)
22. " Behold therefore." Because the Gentile stands solely
by his faith, let him " therefore " avoid boasting, and cease
from high-mindedness, and stop saying " I," to look rather at
the action of God. " Severity " and " goodness." On them
which fell came severity, and on " thee, goodness [the Gentile
merited nothing], if thou continue in his goodness." The
contingency must not be overlooked. This continuance de
pended largely on God's favor toward the Gentile believer,
but also upon his own conduct. The relation of the two here,
as elsewhere, is not given. The Gentile is responsible for his

(XI. 23, 24) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 205
conduct, and if he fails to honor God he will fall as did the Jew.
(See the letters addressed to the churches in Rev. ii., iii.)
" Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." For why should God
spare a hollow, faithless church that fails to appreciate its in
effable mercy (Eph. ii. 4, 5), when he spared not "his peo
ple"? 23, 24. " And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief."
When God's purpose in breaking them off is served their
blindness will be removed (2 Cor. iii. 14-16), and they will
come into the blessed " advantage " mentioned in iii. 2. Here
again there is a contingency. God does all, but he acts also
on the human conscience and will mediately. He would in
fluence the Gentile by fear lest he be broken off; he would
move Israel by hope, the hope of regaining his lost standing.
His rejection is not absolute and final. " God is able to graft
them [the fallen branches] in again." Paul's reference to
God's power is not to his abstract ability, which would be
commonplace, but he is able, stubborn as Israel seems, to re
move his unbelief, the real hindrance. The twenty-fourth verse
elucidates ("for") what Paul means in appealing to God's
concrete power as the means of Israel's restoration. He is
able to graft them in again, because in love he can shape their
circumstances, their religious education, and their history in a
form to lead them to Christ. The figure of the olive-tree in
this verse is not to be pressed, else his " how much more " be
comes " how much less." For certainly it would be easier to
graft in a living wild branch than a dead natural branch.
Israel lies sapless and withered. The inherent condition of
the branches, whether dead or alive, is just what does not
come into view. The point is the usual course taken in graft
ing. The gardener for some purpose might graft a wild shoot
on a good stock, but " how much more " likely is it that he
will graft in good branches! A man might leave by will a
large portion of his estate to the sou of a stranger, but how

206 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XL 25)
much more will he devise for his own children ! Divested of
the figurative language, Paul's thought is this: if God could
wean some Gentiles from their idol-worship and their gross
immorality and lead them to adopt the religion of another
nation, can he not " much more " lead Israel to adopt their
own ancestral worship when they are once brought to see
what it is, and that it is their own, and that their ignorant
works have been perverting it? God's ability is in his unfail
ing love toward Israel.
What is gained in the figure lies in its suggestion. " Nature "
seems to mean here the established course of things in the
kingdom. Its course lay through Israel. Gentile salvation
is contrary to " nature," and Jewish rejection is also contrary
to " nature." The course of things, that is, nature, will in due
time assert itself. Therefore let the Gentile fear ; let the Jew
hope. The wild branch may be broken off, the fallen one
grafted in again.
25. With this verse begins (see (2) iii above) the direct pre
diction of fallen Israel's restoration. Paul has been speaking
of the possibility of it. Here he justifies (" for ") his assertion
of the possibility by declaring that there is a temporal limit to
Israel's rejection. It only lasts " until the fullness of the
Gentiles be come in." This is revealed for moral purposes,
that the brethren of the Roman church, being Gentiles, may
not be " wise in their own conceits " and arrogate to themselves
a religious supremacy that can never end. How completely
this very Roman church does this very thing to-day, and how
fully Protestantism imitates her so far! To the religious world
this section of this chapter is a dead letter and is made " of
none effect" (Mark vii. 13) by the current tradition. This
Jewish blindness with its limit in time is called a "mystery,"
that is, a fact which could not be known except by revelation.
Religious history is not a natural development ; its source is in
the divine will and its explanation is in his Word. History

(XI. 25) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 2C7
may throw some light on the Bible, but the Bible sheds much
more on history. It is not because the Jew is morally worse
and the Gentile morally better that religious supremacy passed
from one to the other ; it came about because this was God's
plan to save both Jew and Gentile. And the transfer having
been made, human ken could not have dreamed that it is ever
to be reversed ; it is a " mystery " which the Gentile is slow to
believe. " That blindness [hardness] in part has happened to Israel."
It is not a total, but a partial hardness ; it exists not for all
time, but only " until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in."
This phrase, "fullness of the Gentiles," is obscure. It cer
tainly does not mean that all the Gentiles are first to be saved.
The Scriptures nowhere promise this for the present age, for
which Paul knows of nothing but an election, the idea of which
excludes that of general and complete salvation. Further
more, Paul (in verse 15 above) puts the conversion of the
world not before, but after, the "receiving" of Israel, their
restoration being the chief condition in the salvation of the
Gentiles. The phrase may mean (so Govett) that the void made in
Israel by the hardening and fall of a part is filled up from the
Gentiles. In this case the " of " would, as it might, mean
" from," and the words " come in " would get a fair meaning
— come into the vacancy. In the parable in Luke xiv. 16-24
the bidden guests refuse to come, after which the servant is sent
into the highways and hedges (among the Gentiles), "that,"
as the host said, "my house may be filled." He got the full
ness for his house from these strange places. In Matthew xxii.
1-14, after the king has destroyed the city in which his first
invitation was rejected, he finds a supply of guests by going
beyond and bringing together as many as he found, "both
bad and good," a part only of whom were accepted, " for
many are called, but few chosen." This view is not worthy

208 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 26, 27)
of the harsh condemnation of Godet, that it " tortures at will "
the words of the apostle. It is plausible, but lacks support
from anything in the context.
The explanation of the phrase is not to be found in any
numerical, but in the temporal view. " Until " suggests time.
The whole context brings up the notion of time. Jerusalem
is to be " trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be ful
filled " (Luke xxi. 24). This view has so much in its favor that
it overbalances the difficulty left by it in the words " be come
in." The phrase may be used metaphorically.
26. " And so all Israel shall be saved." " So " looks to the
removal of the circumstances just mentioned, the partial blind
ness and the limit. The illogical notion that " Israel " here
is the spiritual Israel is no longer held. It is the fallen, re
jected, natural Israel, the only nation in this age that has the
promise of salvation as a whole. It will not be merely Chris
tianized, but Christian. He gives a Scripture proof that Is
rael shall be saved : " It is written [in Isa. lix. 20 after the
Septuagint, and in other places substantially, Isa. xxvii. 9 ; Ps.
xiv. 7], There shall come out of Zion [Ps. ex. 2] [the place of
God's glory] the Deliverer [the Goel, a strong kinsman who
avenges his weaker friends], and shall turn away ungodliness
[Ps. xcix.] [impieties] from Jacob." The word "Jacob," the
fleshly name, found in the quotation, gives the meaning of the
word " Israel." Whether the reference is to the first or to the
second coming of the Messiah is not indicated. The promise
of deliverance for Jacob is connected with a coming of the
Christ. He has come ; he will surely make good that for
which he came.
27. A second Scripture proof of Israel's restoration. " And
[not " for "] this [which follows] is my covenant unto them,
when I shall take away their sins." The word "Jacob " looks
at them in the mass ; the word " their " looks at them indi
vidually. The sense of the verse is, " When I shall take away

(XI. 28,29) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 209
their sins, this taking away of sins is my side of the covenant
with them." God's covenant promises the taking away of
sins, and it cannot be broken. The verse seems to be a con
densation of Jeremiah xxxi. 31—34.
28, 29. Paul now reviews and sums up the previous discus
sion. Israel in their relation to the gospel are " enemies [re
garded as such by God] for your sakes." He withheld the
gospel from them that you might have it. But Israel in rela
tion to their own election by God as his people are " beloved
for the fathers' sakes," Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The
election here does not refer to the elect remnant now in the
church, but to God's choice of the Jewish nation as his own
(Deut. vii. 6). That Israel is beloved for the fathers' sakes
sounds strange in view of what John the Baptist said : " Think
not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father."
But John was only denying salvation on the ground of natu
ral descent, which Paul also denies. The covenant descent,
which requires the faith of him with whom the covenant is
made, is everywhere allowed (Luke xiii. 16; xix. 9; Acts iii.
25). " If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if
the root be holy, so are the branches." Israel is beloved not
as the natural, but as the covenant descent. God loved the
fathers not alone as men, but as those who believed his prom
ise about an innumerable progeny. That love is a guaranty
that God will make the descent like the fathers and worthy of
them. He will not mock the fathers' faith about their pro
geny. He will take away ungodliness from Jacob, and see to
it (verse 23) that they " abide not still in unbelief." For while
beloved for the fathers' sakes, they will be saved by faith.
They are an intensely religious race, strangely preserved.
Their zeal will in due time be according to knowledge.
That Israel is still beloved is proved by the general principle
of the kingdom, based on the divine character, that the " gifts
and calling of God are without repentance." The "gifts"

210 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 30-32)
are not the " moral and intellectual aptitudes " with which God
has endowed the Jews (Godet), but their own peculiar posses
sions, already enumerated in ix. 4, 5. The "calling" is that
act of God in which he chose them for his people. These gifts
and this calling are " without repentance " on God's part ; he
will never recall them. Having once given them to Israel, he
makes them theirs forever ; he does not change (iii. 3 ; Mai.
iii. 6).
30, 31. " For" introduces these two verses not as a proof,
but as indicating how the general principle just mentioned will
be realized by Israel. " For as ye in times past," etc. The
contrast between the " ye," the Romans, and the " their " shows
that the Roman church was in the main Gentile. These
Gentiles once disbelieved God and were dead in sins ; but
they obtained mercy by the unbelief of the Jews, as described
in verses 11 and 12 above. And just so "these" have not
believed, " that through your mercy [the same mercy shown to
you] they also may obtain mercy." As the Gentile's disobedi
ence brought him the mercy of God, so the Jew's disobedience
will bring him the same mercy, in which he will realize that
God's gifts and calling are changeless.
32. The " for " introducing this verse is hardly argumenta
tive ; it confirms nothing. Verses 30 and 31 practically restate
everything from verse 1 1 in a single sentence. The verse be
fore us puts these two verses, especially the thirty-first, in an
other form, almost that of a general principle of God's dealing
with men. His whole action with both Jew and Gentile comes
to this, that he " hath concluded [locked up as in a prison]
them all in unbelief [with this grand purpose], that he might
have mercy upon all." There is nothing richer than his mercy.
If the Jews, for instance, had obeyed him they could have ex
perienced only his fidelity. Mercy, which wholly excludes
privilege or merit, is the grand idea (Eph. ii. 4, 5). The Jew
will find his gifts and calling, but they come to him as a mat-

(XI. 32) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 211
ter of mercy — mercy that excludes "boasting" (iii. 27). Au
thorities are divided on the meaning of " all." It certainly
does not refer to the elect; the whole context forbids that.
But does it mean all men, all individuals (Meyer, Alford), or all
nations, the Jews and the Gentiles about whom Paul has been
speaking? The context is decisive for the latter. This gen
eral principle, as some have failed to notice, describes God's
attitude toward men, and not the outcome of that attitude.
It does not contradict other plain Scriptures by teaching uni
versal salvation, or salvation without faith. " The Scripture
hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe " (Gal. iii. 22).
The principle says nothing about the outcome of the divine
mercy toward all. It simply declares that God has actively and
directly locked up all in sin so that he may have mercy toward
all ; that if they are saved they are saved by mercy. This is
the final and complete explanation of the Jew's fall. He was
by nature a sinner ; God hedged that nature about with a rigid
law to show him what his real character was. He tried to find
liberty within its iron bars, but gets only slavery. Mercy
alone can deliver him. The Gentile in Paul's day had no
law, but sought liberty in wisdom, his own wisdom (i. 21, 22),
and in his quest became a fool and a slave to his lust. God
knows that man cannot save himself, that no form of civil
government and no system of ethics, even though it be that of
the Old or of the New Testament, can attain to liberty. But
man does not know it ; he is in the rough prison, shut up
under sin to learn it, to learn that salvation cannot be reached
by human effort, that it comes down from God, the absolute
gift of his mercy. This divine purpose of mercy is not only
the explanation of the Jew's fall, but of the continuance of the
world in sin. It is the key to those terrible first chapters of the
epistle. Universal condemnation leads to the universal prin
ciple of mercy. And what Paul saw in his world-wide view

212 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 33-36)
in his day is still sadly true. The nations are in sin ; Israel
still refuses the Christ. The lesson of sin's prison-house is
not yet learned ; but what the elect have found out all along—
that there is no hope in themselves — the nations will learn in
due time, and man's works will cease, and God's principle of
mercy toward all will bring salvation. God now elects men
from both Jew and Gentile ; Jew and Gentile will then elect
God. This thirty-second verse is the climax of the epistle.
33-36. Having completed his argument, Paul, in reviewing
God's plans and purposes as they were unfolded to him,
breaks forth in a lofty strain of adoration to him who is guid
ing the nations and the world to salvation. " We have learned
Paul's meaning only when we can join in this ascription of
praise " (M. B. Riddle). It is a hymn of faith not in man,
but in God. To be sure, there was a chain of churches reach
ing from Jerusalem to Rome, but the world around was sunk
in heathenish darkness; Satan was god of the world (2 Cor.
iv. 4), " the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobe
dience " (Eph. ii. 2) ; false professors were many (Phil. iii. 18)
and false teachers were arising (Acts xx. 29, 30), while bonds
and afflictions awaited the apostle himself (Acts xx. 23) ; but
he saw the meaning of it all in seeing that God had an ulti
mate merciful purpose for all, and hence this optimistic wor
ship. (See iv above under (2).)
"O the depth!" With most commentators, this should
probably be translated, " O the depth of the riches and of the
wisdom and of the knowledge of God ! " He unfolds these
chiastically, treating of the wisdom and knowledge to the end
of verse 34, and of the riches in the remaining two verses.
The word " depth," as Chrysostom suggests, is the language
of wondering admiration when one cannot see all. " Riches "
is to be taken absolutely. It is not the riches of his grace,
nor of any one thing, but of all. God is inexpressibly rich.
"Wisdom" adapts means to ends, and "knowledge" sees

(XI. 33-36) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 213
both in all their relations. Paul, from the mountain height
attained in his argument, beholds in one view the history of
man from the beginning in Adam to the triumphant end in
Christ as King of kings. This history is not man's, but God's
in his dealing with man, a history of God's own wisdom and
knowledge. Paul is the true historian of the race as well as
the true philosopher. No man can be either who leaves God
out. Hence man's history of himself is one of blood and fail
ure. The Bible teaches more real knowledge about mankind
than is to be found in all other books.
" How unsearchable his judgments, and his ways past find
ing out! " Mere human wisdom cannot understand them and
so pronounces them folly (i Cor. ii. 14). His "judgments"
are the product of his wisdom ; his " ways " the mode of his
procedure (Meyer) in making his decrees effective. Here is
the secret of profound reverence and devout worship. This
swelling doxology, this burst of praise, comes forth as Paul
scans the " ways " of God and sees something of his wide pur
poses for men. It comes not from a contemplation of God's
infinitely tender heart, but of his infinitely wise mind. Men
know God's acts; the masters know his ways (Ps. ciii. 7).
History and prophecy! Without these true reverence cannot
be reached. A mystery remains, for his judgments are un
searchable and his riches have a depth that is lost in darkness.
But it is the mystery of intelligence and not of superstition, a
mystery that swathes reverence with a celestial glory. Paul
could not have worshiped here had he been able to see all ;
but he saw enough to console him for the present rejection of
his kinsmen according to the flesh ; enough to satisfy him that
the Word of God had not failed, though Israel was not saved ;
enough to be sure that, while only a meager elect number from
both Jew and Gentile was as yet accepted, this was God's way
that ultimately he might have mercy on all. Therefore, standing
in the midst of a world full of idolatry and woe, Paul adored.

214 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 34-36)
34. " For who hath known the mind of the Lord? " A
proof ("for") from the Septuagint Scriptures (Isa. xl. 13) that
God's judgments and decrees are such as they are declared to
be in the last verse. It is well-nigh a challenge to produce
the man outside the circle of the inspired prophets and apos
tles — the wise man that understood God or that could give
him advice. The religious element in uninspired history and
philosophy is folly, and Paul has already (i. 22) in this epistle
called its authors fools (1 Cor. ii. 8; iii. 19, 20). This verse
again looks chiastically at what precedes, " the mind of the
Lord" corresponding to the mention of "knowledge" above,
and the word " counselor " to " wisdom." God's love explains
God's gifts, but his mind and wisdom alone explain his provi
dence or the manner in which he makes the gifts of love effec
tive. Modern thought of the advanced sort fails here. It
attempts to explain everything by love, with an inadequate
notion even of what that is, and so belittles the Book of di
vine history and prophecy by denying it any proper inspira
tion. Who has known the mind of the Lord, except as it was
divinely revealed to him? "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy mind " — study his ways.
35. With this verse Paul enlarges on the word "riches"
above. The reference is to Job xxxv. 7 or li. 11. No one ever
gave to God. Salvation and the whole plan of its administra
tion are of grace. No one ever receives God's favor as a rec
ompense for something done. The " Lord over all is rich unto
all that call upon him " (x. 12). They call not to give, but as
beggars (Matt. v. 3) to receive out of his store.
36. " For of, . . . through, ... to him, are all things."
This verse is the proof that no one gives to God and therefore
receives a recompense. For " of him " are all things ; he is
their source, the Creator. And " through him " are all things ;
he is the mediator of their existence ; he upholds, rules, and
directs. And " to him are all things " ; he is their final cause ;

(XI. 30) ISRAEL'S FAILURE NOT COMPLETE 215
they serve ultimately not man's, but God's, ends. To Paul
this was not a dry statement of theologie fact, as a matter of
course, but a reason for worship. All things, all events, are
full of God. To him be the befitting glory to the ages.
Amen. (i) It is to be noticed in this momentous discussion that
Paul regards God's covenant with Abraham as one embracing
his natural seed and perpetually valid ; that he uses the words
"Jacob" and "Israel" not in reference to the church, but to
designate this natural seed. In the Old Testament he must
have read these words in the same way, so that he did not
apply what concerns Jacob and Israel to the church. Much
of the Old Testament remains unfulfilled.
(2) Again, he keeps up the sharp distinction between Jew
and Gentile ; but the ultimate salvation of both is vitally
linked together, so that neither party can be saved without the
other. Paul, though an apostle to the Gentiles, labored also
to save the Jews on this very account. Missions to the Jews
are eminently scriptural. His own conception of the matter
was "to the J ew first." (See on i. 16.)
(3) Again, neither the unbelief of Israel nor of the nations
is estopping the current of God's rich grace. What the na
tions are losing the " election " from all nations is gaining.
The gospel disbelieved by races is saving individuals.
(4) While Paul does not predict the breaking off of the en
grafted wild-olive branch, the church, he warns it ominously.
It has no guaranty in a covenant, as has even fallen Israel.
It stands alone by faith. The individuals of the church, the
elect, have the most comforting assurance of eternal salvation,
but God has not promised to continue to elect. Indeed, it is
impossible to see how individual election, the source of the
church, is consistent with God's ultimate "mercy upon all."
Election is a means to an end in God's wide dealing with men.
When the end is reached, election will cease.

216 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XI. 36)
(5) And finally, Paul contents himself with predicting the
fact of Israel's restoration. He has not one word to say
about the details, whether the Jews will revive their ancient
liturgy, rebuild Jerusalem, and possess their land ; of these and
similar questions he is instructively silent.

CHAPTER XII

RELIGIOUS DUTIES

The chapter has two main divisions: (i) special duties
(verses 1-8), based on specific endowments of faith, and (2)
general duties (verses 9-21) ; or the first might be called offi
cial, because they were to be discharged toward the church
as a whole, and the second personal, because they regulated
the conduct of each member with the other.
1. Paul does not command like Moses ; he beseeches. His
entreaty gets its point and strength through the mercies or
compassions of God. These mercies, as the " therefore "
shows, are the ones mentioned above (xi. 30-36), a paragraph
that condenses the whole theodicy (ix.-xi.). These solemn
facts of election and hardening, of breaking off of some
branches and grafting in others, are called "mercies," because
the end of all is "mercy upon all" (xi. 32).
" That ye present your bodies." " Present " is a temple
term for the bringing thither of anything to God. So Jesus
was presented (Luke ii. 22), and so Paul would present each
believer (Col. i. 28). He entreats the Romans to make them
selves a sacrificial offering to God. This word " present " oc
curs first in the epistle at vi. 13, a verse which this chapter now
unfolds. It is there translated "yield." (See note there.)
" Bodies " is the comprehensive term for the whole man, body,
soul, and spirit (1 Thess. v. 23). It is equivalent to "your-
217

218 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 2)
selves," but better suited than the latter word to Paul's sacri
ficial idea.
"A living sacrifice, holy, acceptable." They had all this
in Christ. They were alive from the dead in him, they were
consecrated or holy in him, they were acceptable to God in
him. These were not qualities to be sought by them in addi
tion to justification ; they came with it and belong to it. These
three words analyze or give the contents of their righteousness
in Christ. They were to present themselves such as they al
ready were. " Your reasonable service." It was not to be a
literal presentation of their bodies, but a rational service. The
idea is that of spiritual worship in contrast with the tangible
carnal sort in Judaism. They presented themselves by heart
worship of God (John iv. 23, 24).
2. " Be not conformed to this world." The world, or age,
is looked at in its moral features. It is "this" world in con
trast with one which is coming. What makes this world is its
spirit, its pursuits, and its domination. Its spirit is selfishness
and not love ; its pursuits are the pleasing of self and not God ;
and its domination is from the evil one and not from Christ,
whose rule it rejects (Eph. ii. 2 ; Gal. i. 4 ; John xiv. 30). To
be conformed to it is to be world-like, or age-like, selfish, self-
seeking, and devoid of the Holy Spirit. It is to have the same
moral fashion.
" Be ye transformed [not by mere outward means in modes
of dress and of eating and drinking, but] by the renewing of
your mind." The two words " conform " and " transform "
are widely different. The former looks to the outward mold,
the latter to the inward substance. The Romans were not
simply to shun the fashion of the world, but its character, to
have not only a different way of living, but a different heart.
The word " renewing " occurs in but one other place in the New
Testament (Tit. iii. 5), and there in connection with "regen
eration." The latter is the divine act in which the religious

(XII. 2) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 219
life begins. The "renewing" is the "following up, the con
sequence, the consummation " (Trench, " Syn.") of regenera
tion. In regeneration the believer is passive ; in the renewing
he is in active cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the agent of
the renewing process. The renewing continues what the
single act of regeneration, done once for all, begins (2 Cor.
iv. 16).
The " mind " is the organ of moral thinking and knowing.
The word has been used thrice before in the epistle : i. 28,
where the organ was judicially perverted that men might not
think right in moral matters; vii. 23, 25, where its action was
normal, but, in attempting to realize its perceptions, always de
feated by enslavement to the flesh ; xi. 34, where it means
God's infinite ability to know. Since men are transformed by
the action of the mind, transformed by what they think, how
important to have the organ of thought renewed! (Eph. iv.
23-) " That [in order that] ye may prove [recognize by the right
action of the renewed mind as worthy] the will of God," the
thing willed by him, which is " good " in its aim, " acceptable "
or well-pleasing to him, and because of these two "perfect"
in itself. The margin of the Revised Version is the prefer
able translation here.
Beware of the chapter mark which cuts off these two verses
from what precedes, as if an entirely new thought were taken
up with chapter xii. These two verses are intimately connected
with the summing up at the close of chapter xi. That sum
mary led Paul to adoring worship as he viewed God's wide-
reaching plans. And the idea of these two verses is worship
evoked and provoked by the same view. The Romans are to
present themselves for a rational service, a worship in which
the spiritual reason leads. This worship is impossible except
by men dissevered from conformity to the world. He who is
ruled by the world's spirit and pursuits, to whom the world

220 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 3)
is the only great thing, cannot worship. The spring of the
worship, as well as its power, is just what it was in Paul, a
mind that discerns God's will in the dispensational ordering
of the world to bring about its ultimate salvation (see Eph.
iii. 14-21), a mind that sees that will as good and acceptable
and perfect. When the corner-stone of creation was laid all
the sons of God shouted for joy (Job xxxviii. 6, 7) ; and he,
too, will worship who sees the corner-stone laid by God in
Christ for the new creation. It takes mind (verse 2) to know
mind (xi. 34). These two mentions of the word look each
other in the face across the chapter bar, and man's mind in its
moral activity never acts normally except in adoring worship.
" Present your bodies " is the first step. " That ye may prove
the will " is then, first of all, his will in Christ for the redeeming
of the nations, Jew and Gentile. And only as this will is known
can any one see how he is himself to act. The renewed mind
dwelling on the sublime purposes of God gains an increasing
delicacy of discernment of its own moral action, and is pre
pared for personal guidance in all questions of duty and living,
and to occupy spiritual offices acceptably. It is at this point
that Paul branches off on duties. The qualification to dis
charge them is a knowledge of God's ways.
3. " For." What Paul has said in verse 2 is confirmed by
the demand upon the Romans for self-estimation. This re
quest comes from his own apostolic " grace." It is addressed
not to the body, but pointedly to each individual member in
it, for one proud, wrong-headed man in the Roman assembly
could disturb all. Piety promotes thinking, but let no man
judge that his thought is so superior that it can embrace all.
In view of the fact that the plan of salvation is the product of
the divine mind, let him think " soberly," and not go beyond
what God has given him to believe (" faith ") about these
things. The opinions of the head, the opinions demanded by
one's theological views, are mischievous unless they are also

(XII. 4-8) RELIGIOUS DU7TES 221
the opinions of that faith given by the Holy Ghost. Paul
shows his estimate of the importance of the sentiment of this
verse in that it is framed by a play on the word " think " to
fix attention and remembrance upon it, and in that it is intro
duced by a reference to his apostolic authority. The Revised
Version brings out the meaning a little better. Who saw
more of God's will than Paul, and where is there a humbler
man? The secret of it is that he knew.
4, 5. This likening of the Roman church to the human body
is a condensation of i Corinthians xii. 1 2-27, written less than
a year earlier, and both for the same purpose. Each mem
ber of the human frame has its own character and office, but
no one is sufficient of itself, no one can do anything apart from
the whole. And so let no one "think" of himself as if he
were not dependent on all the rest. There is a wisdom in
some far superior to that in the rest, and it shows that it is
wisdom in humbly serving those that do not have it (John xiii.
13, 14). When a man thinks too " highly " of himself to walk
in union with God's lowly people, his estimation of himself far
surpasses God's. The head cannot say to the feet, made only
for the earth, "I have no need of you" (1 Cor. xii. 21).
6-8. The King James version, along with the Revised
Version and some commentators, separates the section em
braced in these verses from the one immediately preceding ;
but a semicolon is better than a period. The connection is :
"Every one members one of another; and [or "but"] having
gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us." Of
these gifts seven are mentioned (Eph. iv. 8-12 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28) :
four semi-official, prophecy, ministry, teaching, and exhorta
tion, and three general, giving, ruling, showing mercy. These
gifts get their character and their measure in the divine grace
that bestowed them. Prophecy is the gift of utt-ring God's
will under the direct impulse of the Spirit, but in the church
it did not amount to authoritative inspiration (1 Cor. xiv. 29-

222 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 6-8)
2,2,', i Thess. v. 20, 21). Ministry is not so specific. It em
braced the preaching of the gospel (xi. 13, rendered " office "),
the service in money (2 Cor. ix. 1), and general help rendered
to the saints (Col. iv. 17 ; Heb. i. 14). The teacher set forth
principles of the kingdom, its fundamental truths, learned from
the Bible (2 Tim. iii. 10, 16 ; iv. 3), and built up the hearer to
distinguish between the true and the false (Eph. iv. 14). He
that exhorted encouraged and entreated. In 1 Timothy iv. 13
two of these words come together.
" He that giveth." This was some special function in giv
ing, private and personal, a gift of faith, and not general
giving which belonged to all. " He that ruleth." This is a
faulty rendering; the apostolic churches had no rulers. It
ought to be, " He that presides "or " superintends." Paul may
have referred in this term to their elders ( 1 Thess. v. 12; 1
Tim. v. 17). "He that showeth mercy." Such a man had
a gift to aid those overtaken by misfortune of any sort. (See
story of good Samaritan.) The word "mercy" here has no
reference to sin.
The italic words in the King James version fairly represent
the best interpretation of this passage. Paul says if we have
the gift of prophecy, let us prophesy in this manner: "ac
cording to the proportion [measure] of the [our] faith." Faith
does not mean here body of doctrine. It is the prophet's own
personal trust. There was dealt to him a measure of faith
(verse 3 above) for this work. God gave him an insight into
the gospel of Christ. Let his prophecy not go beyond that
and become vainglorious and arrogant. Men who have an
office are under strong temptation to go beyond what they
know in it. Thus they greatly injure themselves in coming to
believe the utterances of their own ignorance, and they mis
lead others, who believe them because they are accredited
teachers. Let the prophet rigidly limit his gift by the faith of
his gift.

(XII. 9, io) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 223
If one has a gift of " ministry," let him wait on his minister
ing, give himself to it, and be content with that, while not
attempting something for which he is not gifted. And so of
the " teacher," let him stick to his teaching, and the " exhorter "
to exhortation.
The man of means who has the blessed gift of giving, let
him exercise it not ostentatiously, not to create obhgation, but
in simplicity. The "ruler" must not be slothful, but diligent,
and the man who looks after the unfortunate must do it with
a bright and cheerful aspect.
This section on the gifts is plainly a reminiscence of what
Paul had written to the Corinthians (i Cor. xii.). He intro
duces it with the same figure about the body and lays special
stress on the matter of prophecy. He had learned by the
shameful misuse of these gifts at Corinth the temptation which
they afforded carnal men. There was no abuse at Rome, but
he would forestall it. The notice of seven gifts lends the dis
cussion the idea of comprehensiveness of all others.
9. " Let love be without dissimulation," without hypocrisy.
Feigned love is nothing but disguised hate. This little sen
tence implies more than it says. Love was so prevalent, and
so strongly characterized the church, that he who had it not
was tempted to simulate it. This caution about love is vir
tually the theme of the rest of the chapter, the second section
(see (2) above) beginning here. To the close of verse 13 the
original contains no verb, but is made up of participles show
ing continuous action, or of adjectives of the same character.
" Be [continue] abhorring the evil [especially in conduct] ; be
cleaving to the good." This is intended to regulate moral
sentiment. 10. "In [not "with"] [the matter of "brotherly love" or]
love to the brethren be kindly [kind-like] affectioned one to
another." Let it not be a mere church love, but such a love
as parents have for children, or husbands for wives.

224 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. n-13)
In the matter of " honor," without which sentiment a church
could not exist, do not claim it, but fail not to show it. The
church is the " noblest school of courtesy."
11. " Not slothful in business." A much misunderstood and
oft misquoted text. It has no reference to secular business
as such. The word means zeal. " In zeal [the outward] not
slothful ; in spirit [the inward, the human spirit] fervent ; serv
ing [doing bond-service to] the Lord." The church life was
to be characterized by energy, by warmth, and as being a ser
vice to the Lord. For " serving the Lord " some read " serv
ing the time " ; but this has little support.
12. " Hope, . . . tribulation, . . . prayer." These three
make up the bulk of many a Christian life. The hope of the
better things at the end (viii. 17-25) is not to be calmly held
as a mere article of belief, but as the inspiration of continual
joy (1 Pet. i. 3-13).
As to tribulation, — a better word is "affliction," — it is sure
to attend the life of faith. The shield against it is not fretful-
ness or complaint, but quiet endurance. When the " hope "
dawns the affliction will be forever over, gone like a painful
dream. " Prayer," both church and individual, is not to cease be
cause no answer seems to come, but is to be a continual and
persistent ("instant") habit. If Paul does not commend faith
in prayer, it is because persistence is one of the largest elements
of faith.
13. As to one's possessions or incoming wages (Eph. iv. 28),
they are to be divided with those who have neither. " Saints "
is the New Testament term for believers in Christ, and does not
suggest eminence in piety. (Compare 1 Cor. i. 2 with iii. 3
in the same epistle.) And every house is also to be a Chris
tian inn, where believers, apostles, teachers, and others may
find gladly given entertainment without cost. Note that this
verse enjoins a giving different from that in verse 8 above.

(XII. 14-16) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 225
14. The repetition of the word " bless " enforces the duty.
The Roman church, for more than two hundred years under
a succession of heathen emperors, had abundant occasion to
recall this injunction (Luke xxiii. 34).
15. " Rejoice, . . . weep." The mother enters into the
innocent joys of her children and is grieved in their sorrows,
for she is one with them and loves them. And believers are
"members one of another." Jesus did not mourn at Cana,
nor did he exult at the tomb of Lazarus. He wept with Mary
and Martha, even though he knew that in another moment all
cause for tears would be gone. And may we not say that to
day, enthroned with the Father, he is glad in what gladdens
his and grieved in what grieves them? As it is much easier
to bewail another's woe, in that it does not excite envy or
covetousness, than to congratulate him in his joy, the apostle
mentions the rejoicing first.
16. "The same mind one toward another." A family vir
tue again in which there is a common regard and a common
understanding. Each thinks affectionately well of the other.
" Mind not high things." Diotrephes missed this (3 John 9).
So did Absalom in his yearning, " Oh that I were made judge ! "
(2 Sam. xv. 4.) So does every one who seeks for place above
his fellows (Mark x. 44, 45). The rose by the dusty wayside
is as sweet as the rose in the king's garden. The human re
gard worth having is given for what one is rather than for
where he is.
" But condescend to men of low estate." The original is
not decisive as between lowly things and men that are lowly.
On the whole, the latter is preferable. " Condescend " is an
unfortunate word and must be rejected ; condescension has no
place in the church. Some render, " be carried away with "
the lowly — give yourself to them. The world neglects and de
spises them ; Christ loves them and died for them. There is
often more genuine worth and manhood in the alleys than in

226 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 17, 18)
the avenues; and Christian love goes where love is most
needed. It is " carried away " in the service of need. Christ
in help to one lowly woman was so " carried away " that he
had no desire to eat (John iv. 31, 32).
" Be not wise in your own conceits." The word " wise " is
the same which we have had twice before in the verse —
"mind"; but it cannot be shown readily in a translation.
Think the same things toward one another ; think not on high
things ; think not highly of yourself. Self-conceit, too high an
estimate of one's self, is the chief hindrance to the three duties
enjoined just before. The man who complacently reflects on
his own abilities or exaltation is feeding on his own vitals.
He will grow lean. He who in self-forgetfulness is carried
away with the lowly grows large of heart. The man who is
above doing what Christ did for men is far beneath his ap
proval. 17. " Recompense to no man evil for evil." Verse 14 for
bade the feeling, this the act; it is only love that can obey
either. " Provide things honest in the sight of all men." Have a
care, see to it, that all your life is such that you do not awaken
the prejudice or contempt of men ; let your conduct commend
itself to them. This verse looks at the behavior of the church
with reference to those outside. This is not subservience to
public opinion. Jesus would not " offend " others (Matt. xvii.
27). It is a part of Christianity to commend itself to the
world by a well-ordered life. The word "provide" in its
modern narrow sense of furnishing or supplying is misleading.
The injunction refers not to acts, but to the prudence which
regulates them.
18. " As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
Seek peace. The other party may not yield, but let it be no
fault of yours if he does not. You are not guiltless until you

(XII. 19-21) RELIGIOUS DUTIES 227
have exhausted every means to bring about reconciliation.
How could church quarrels flourish if men heeded this?
19. " Dearly beloved [by God], avenge not yourselves."
You need not, since you are his dear children (Luke xviii. 7 ;
Rev. xix. 2). The sentiment of verses 14 and 17 is brought
up a third time. Bless him that wrongs you (verse 14) ; do
him no evil (verse 17) ; do not seek his punishment before the
court or otherwise (verse 19). The desire for revenge is not
Christian. " But rather give place unto [the] wrath " of God in the day
of judgment. That the taking of vengeance does not belong
to man as man, but that it will surely be meted out to the
wrong-doer, is enforced by a crisp couplet from Scripture en
forcing these two points. Vengeance is God's prerogative;
he will not fail to inflict it (Deut. xxxii. 35).
20. " Therefore if thine enemy hunger." The " therefore "
in all modern revisions gives place to "but." The verse is
not a deduction from what precedes, but states a course of
conduct for the wronged man the opposite of that which the
flesh would prompt. Instead of taking vengeance on his
enemy, he is to feed him and give him drink if the opportunity
presents itself. The verse is a quotation from the Scriptures
again (Prov. xxv. 21, 22).
" Heap coals of fire on his head." This is the only venge
ance you are to inflict, the coals of red-hot love. God's
vengeance is of another sort. This is the only kind allowed
you. The explanation that kindness shown the wrong-doer
will awaken burning shame in him seems overdrawn.
21. "Be not overcome of evil," as you would be if you
cried for vengeance ; you would be conquered then ; " but
overcome evil with good," the only weapon in your hand, and
a most effective one. For he who cannot be moved from the
basis of love is a victor even though he cannot win his enemy.

228 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 21)
To win himself is a much greater triumph. This verse looks
not alone at the one just before it, but also back over the whole
section. The section looks like a cluster of rules or precepts ;
but it is not such. Its one key-note, its theme through all the
variations of the different verses, is love. It is 1 Corinthians
xiii. 4-7 put in another form for the less ideal, but more
practical, Romans.

CHAPTER XIII

CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS

There are obligations flowing from the endowments of
certain gifts, and other obligations flowing from fraternal re
lations, obligations of love. The former were discussed in
xii. 1-8 and the latter in xii. 9-21. These are all purely spir
itual obligations having their source in the relation to Christ.
But the Christian has another relation, a natural relation, hav
ing its origin not in Christ, but in God. The former chapter
is spiritual or Christian ; the one before us is divine. These
are clearly distinct. Confusion here makes church and state
one, and reduces Christianity to sociology. It is easy to dis
tinguish between what is spiritual and what is divine. The
Holy Spirit has brought about institutions and relations un
known to nature. The church with its various functions is
the sum of these, and they had no existence before Christ came.
But there were men and relations long before. God instituted
the latter not for the church, for there was none, but for men.
They are divine, but not spiritual. One of them is marriage.
God gave it. Unregenerate men without the Spirit enter this
relation and are under solemn obligations to preserve it in
violate. The Sabbath is another. It was given to man, and
as such he is bound to keep it. The state may enforce its
obligations, as it does that of marriage, and it would but for
the hopeless confusion into which the church long ago fell on
229

230 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. i)
this point. The state is the sum of divine institutions as the
church is of the spiritual. A Christian is a citizen of the
world as clearly as he is a member of the church. Union
with the body of Christ absolves him from no duty that be
longs to men as men. On the other hand, Paul enforces these
duties on the believer by his relation to Christ. When the
natural man violates a divine institution he sins against God ;
but the same violation in a believer would in addition be a sin
against Christ.
The consideration of these matters falls under three heads :
(i) duties to the state (verses 1-7) ; (2) to the citizens of the
state (verses 8-1 o) ; (3) the Christian enforcement of these
civil duties (verses 11-14).
1. " Let every soul [none is exempt, not even the pope] be
subject [submit himself] unto the higher powers," the civil
authorities that are over him. This is the broad general prin
ciple; its essence is submission (1 Pet. ii. 13-17). Within this
limit it does not forbid teaching and agitation for better govern
ment if these do not lead to resistance, but under this princi
ple it is hard to see how a Christian can lead in a rebellion.
Paul's words are unmistakable, and yet there stand Cromwell
and Washington!
" For there is no power [no civil authority] but of [from]
God : the powers that be are ordained of God." Or, " And
those that are have been ordained by God." This is said to
enforce ("for") the injunction of submission. Civil govern
ment has its source in God, and all constituted power is ap
pointed and ordained by him. The cruel abuses in govern
ments are no necessary part of them and do not invalidate
their divine charter any more than the abuses of marriage rob
it of its sacredness. Any government is preferable to anarchy,
just as poorly enforced marriage laws are better than none.
Man abuses all God's gifts.
Paul in writing this was writing to a point. Only a few

(XIII. 2) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 231
years before the Jews in Rome had rebelled and were expelled
the city (Acts xviii. 2), Priscilla and Aquila among them. In
their daily toil in Corinth in making tents, Paul and Aquila
must have often discussed this expulsion. The apostle knew
those of his own flesh to be very restive under the Roman yoke.
Statesman that he was, he may have forecast the destruction
of the Jewish nation, which occurred within little more than
a decade from the time that this chapter was penned. He
knew that Jews everywhere disputed the authority of Rome,
and that they held the fanatical doctrine, sometimes appear
ing sporadically in more modern church history, that God's
child is directly responsible to God alone and that the king's
authority is a usurpation. That a Gentile prince could have
divine authority was a doctrine hard for a Jew to accept, es
pecially when that authority was exercised over him. If Paul
was hated for this teaching, as he must have been, by the
Jewish nation, Titus gave him a thorough vindication twelve
years later. The disregard of this verse was the Jews' national
ruin. 2. " Whosoever therefore resisteth the power [it ought to
read, " So that he that sets himself against the power "], resist
eth the ordinance of God." This is the logical and necessary
result in rebellion, for government is not man's, but God's.
" And they that resist." Paul changes from the singular to
the plural in passing from the statement of the principle to
the consequence on those who violate it. This consequence
is not " damnation," but condemnation. Damnation suggests
future eternal punishment, which is not meant here. The con
demnation is from God through human instrumentality. Godet
remarks that Paul reproduces Jesus here (Matt. xxvi. 52).
It is not intended to be taught here that the subject must
do at the command of the governor that which is morally
wrong. God has sometimes honored his people by allowing
circumstances to arise in which they could suffer for his name's

232 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 3, 4)
sake and for conscience' sake. One can refuse to do wrong
and undergo the penalty without resisting the power.
3. This verse looks back to the first and gives an additional
reason "for" subjection to the "higher powers." Rulers,
with few exceptions, have punished only evil-doers. The
Roman persecution of the church was not malicious, but arose
from the mistaken notion that the peace and safety of the
state were imperiled by the Christians' refusal to honor the
gods. More than once Paul found protection in Roman law
(Acts xviii. 12-17; xix- 35—41 ; xxii. 25). The so-called
church itself has been the worst persecutor.
" Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? " Do you
wish to live without fear of the state's authority? Do right
and you will have no cause for alarm. Rulers have troubles
and anxieties enough, and the church ought so to live that the
governors could say they have none from it.
4. This verse bears logically on the last. There is no fear
of the ruler when you do good ; " for " he is God's minister
to thee for " good." God gives rulers in his people's behalf.
Therefore, to caricature them in public prints is grossly irrev
erent and promotive of lawlessness, and to fail to pray for them
" first of all," a failure all too general, is an express violation
of God's Word (1 Tim. ii. 1-3).
" But if thou do that which is evil," then fear ; for God did
not put the sword in the ruler's hand "in vain," as a meaning
less symbol of power. That sword has a solemn purpose.
The governor's office has two sides: on one, it defends the
good ; on the other, he is " a revenger to execute [God's] wrath
upon him that doeth evil." Punishment is usually meted out
in the name of the state. A higher position might be taken.
It might be inflicted in the name of God. Civil penalties,
including capital punishment, are an expression of his will.
Twice in this verse the ruler gets a very solemn title, " minister
of God "—twice because of his twofold office. The state and

(XIII. 5-7) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 233
the church have each a place in the world. If God's ap
pointed and established order is preserved neither will invade
the function of the other.
5. " Wherefore [as civil government is God's appointment]
ye must [necessity] be subject [be in submission to it], not
only for wrath [not only in fear of the sword], but also for
conscience' sake." Resistance is not merely inexpedient; it
is morally wrong.
6. " For for this cause." Better, " For on this account."
By the first " for " it is shown that this verse confirms the last
one. On this account, that there is a moral necessity for
submission to authority, " tribute," or tax, is regularly paid.
Instead of " pay ye " it ought to be " ye pay." Taxes are not
merely an imposition of the government, but are made neces
sary by its divine character.
"For they [magistrates] are God's ministers." Paul uses
now a very different word for minister. In verse 4 the word
means servant. Here it means one of a priestly character.
Government is God's, and the magistrate is his sacred official
through whom he administers it, "a divinely consecrated sac
rificial service " (Meyer). " Attending continually upon this
very thing" — of administering this sacred governmental office
for God. As it is not an occasional, but a continuous duty,
God has appointed by taxes that rulers should be paid. It is
the divine decree that to every office, the Jewish priesthood,
the magistracy, and the gospel ministry, there is attached a
remuneration. " The laborer is worthy of his hire " (Luke
x. 7).
7. " Render therefore to all [in authority] their dues."
Omit " therefore." Four specifications are given : render
" tribute," personal or property tax, to him to whom it is due ;
" custom," import or export dues, to him to whom it is due ;
" fear," reverence (Meyer says " veneration "), to him who bears
the sword for God; "honor" to all his subordinates.

234 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 8-10)
In this discussion Paul has so framed his language (1) that
it is applicable to every form of government without recom
mending or condemning any. (2) He does not subordinate
the church to the state nor the state to the church. They are
different in their character, the one natural, the other spiritual,
and their aims are different. The state promotes moral living,
the church spiritual living. (3) Paul must have been aware
that many rulers, too many, were immoral and selfish men,
and that many of their enactments were arbitrary and oppres-
sive ; but in such cases neither he nor the Bible has one word
of advice for the believer, or but one— submission. David
when cruelly persecuted by Saul refused again and again to
use the advantage that fell to him against the king. He con
stantly yielded, and trusted to God for his rights (1 Sam. xxvi.
9, 10). God appoints governors for a good purpose, and
when they fail to serve it he removes them by his own means
(Acts xii. 23). (4) Paul seems to say nothing for the senti
ment of patriotism ; and yet he does. The law-abiding citizen
is the loftiest patriot.
8-10. Having shown the believer's duties toward magis
trates, Paul naturally comes to civil duties toward all men.
(See (2) above.) The very first injunction, " Owe no man,"
shows that we are outside the church. This section is not a
resumption of the last chapter, where we had the spiritual re
lation of brother to brother in the church. The believer oc
cupies also another sphere in his relations with his fellow-
believers and with all men in the world. While the Spirit rules
in the church, the world is a world under moral law. Hence
law is not mentioned in the last chapter, but here it is again
and again exalted as a matter to be fulfilled, and the second
table is quoted. Neither is the word "brother" used here,
but the civic term "neighbor." Paul in reminding his readers
here of their duty to fulfil moral law does not contradict what
he said in vi. 14 and x. 4. The Christian's relation to God

(XIII. u) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 235
is not legal ; his relation to the world is nothing else. " Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness " in the spiritual sphere,
but in the world law holds; and it holds all who are in the
world, else why does Paul here enjoin it?
But God demands much more of the believer than the state
asks. The latter says, " Thou shalt not injure thy neighbor."
God says, " Thou shalt love him as thyself ;" and short of this
love the civil law is not fulfilled. Love is not the " fulfilling,"
but the fulfilment, of the law. This is impossible to men in
their natural state, but not to him whose heart is made like
God's. It is by this simple but powerful principle of love
that the Christian not only fulfils the law, but finds his free
dom in it. Love takes the place of the letter and makes all
moral duties not only light, but a delight. He that loves will
not continue to be owing any man anything but " to love one
another," a debt which cannot be discharged. Paul says
" one another " because at first he has no one in view but be
lievers. Love will restrain a man from making debts which
he cannot pay, and thus save the church from much scandal.
Love will restrain a man from adultery, murder, theft, false
witness, covetousness. These are not all, but only instances,
for Paul adds the sweeping words, " If there be any other
commandment," love will fulfil it. And love alone can keep
law. The state must use the sword, because, though it can
make good laws, it cannot inspire the love that heeds them.
11. "And that, knowing the time." Here begins an en
forcement of what was just said, followed by some exhorta
tion against fleshly indulgence. (See (3) above.) The prin
cipal argument is in the imminence of the consummation of
their hope.
"And that" should be "And this." "And this do [viz.,
" owe no man anything, but to love one another," which love is
a fulfilment of the law]— this do, knowing [as you do] the sea
son ["time " (1 Thess. v. 1)], that now it is high time to awake

236 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 12, 13)
out of sleep [to cast off inactivity in worship, and work]." Be
active. " For now is our salvation nearer than when we be
lieved." This is the reason for awakening from sleep, a rea
son so often given in the New Testament (Heb. x. 37 ; Phil.
iii. 20, 21 ; Gal. vi. 9). The salvation is not that from sin,
which the Romans already had (1 Pet. i. 9), but the comple
tion of it in the glorification awaiting them at the coming of
Christ (1 Pet. i. 5, 6). When Paul says that this salvation is
" nearer " he is not speaking chronologically, nor is he imply
ing an expectation of it in his day. He did not know the date
of the appearance of Christ. Just as one might say death is
always near and live in the power of such a sentiment, though
the death is long postponed. Paul's language here, as else
where on this topic, is adapted to every generation of believers,
who, not knowing the time, can at least say salvation is
" nearer." 12. " The night [of the Lord's absence] is far spent, the day
[to be ushered in by his appearance] is at hand." It was
Christ who imposed this attitude of alert expectation on his
followers, and the apostolic church seems to have had no other
(1 Thess. i. 9, 10). He also warned against a seeming delay
(Matt. xxiv. 48). It belongs to the servant to watch at all
times, for the Master comes in his own time. "Therefore"
the works befitting only darkness are to be " cast off " as an
unclean garment, and the "armor" (Eph. vi. 13) suitable to
the light when it dawns is to be put on.
13. " Let us walk honestly, as in the day." They are not
in the day, but they are to live as if they were in it. This is
the emphatic phrase in this sentence. The lightning flash that
ushers in the day will not change a man's walk ; it will merely
show what it is. Therefore let us walk becomingly ("honest
ly ") now. Boise translates the remainder of the verse thus :
" Not in carousals and intoxications, not in licentious acts and
debaucheries, not in strife and jealousy." It is to be noticed

(XIII. 14) CIVIL DUTIES OF BELIEVERS 237
that strife and jealousy are classed with these coarse indul
gences of the animal nature and made their climax. The con
tentious, envious man ranks with the drunkard and the
debauchee. 14. " But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." He is first
put on in baptism (vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27), and then put on daily
in living in the obedience, disposition, and hopes suggested
by his threefold name, Lord Jesus Christ. As Lord he rules ;
as Jesus he lived ; as Christ he is the surety of all hopes (Phil.
iii. 20; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 12). To put him on is to walk
in the power of his life (viii. 2).
"And make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts
thereof." "Provision" here is misleading. (See on xii. 17.)
Literally translated, the sentence reads, " Take no forethought
for the flesh, for [its] desires." The flesh here, as usual, is the
whole man viewed apart from his relation to Christ. It is the
seat of all the sins mentioned in the last verse, and is a bundle
of desires ("lusts "). No forethought is to be taken for these.
(See on vi. 12.) The heathen went astray by them (i. 24).
They drown men in destruction and perdition (1 Tim. vi. 9).
And they that are Christ's do not take forethought for their
gratification ; Christ's followers " have crucified the flesh with
the affections and lusts " (Gal. v. 24). They that are his have
daily needs for which the heavenly Father has made bountiful
provision (Phil. iv. 19; Matt. vi. 8, 33; Luke xii. 30), but
none for their own desires, for these are all sinful.
This is the Christian citizen's chapter. He is to be loyal to
the government, just toward his neighbor, and clean in his
personal life. The means for all this is Christ, and the root
of failure is self— forethought for desires.

CHAPTER XIV
FRATERNAL DUTIES IN MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE
From speaking of those who were too lax in the indulgence
of natural appetites, the subject passes mainly to those who are
too scrupulous. The object is not to remove these scruples,
but to show those who have them and those who have them
not how to live in Christian peace. The discussion runs to the
thirteenth verse of the next chapter, and comes under three
heads: (i) conscience in the matter of eating and drinking
(xiv. 1-12), an exhortation for the most part to the weak; (2)
the right use of liberty by the stronger brethren (xiv. 13-23) ;
(3) Christian forbearance is the will of the Lord in accordance
with his work for common worship (xv. 1-13).
Conscience in matters of eating and drinking did not origi
nate with Moses. It is deeply ingrained in human nature,
and existed long before his time. By codifying and making
authoritative dietary laws he probably relieved more than he
burdened the conscience of his day. Paul was given a deep
insight into the religious heart to write this chapter. The
experience of the centuries, the present as much as any, has
shown that the church can be disturbed by dietary questions
quite as much as by those that are purely spiritual. Paul lays
down no rule for the Romans in this matter. He insists mainly
for the guidance of the stronger brother that he direct his
238

(XIV. 1-3) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 239
conduct at the table by love, the principle that guides also in
the matters considered in the last two chapters.
The question was not as serious in Rome as at other places.
It was not one of eating that which had been offered to idols
(i Cor. viii.); it did not touch the doctrine of justification
(Gal. ii. 12-21), nor was it raised by the Judaizers (Col. ii. 16).
It does not seem to have been a question wholly between the
Jewish and the Gentile element in the church. The weak
Gentile was as likely to have scruples as his Jewish brother.
They arose then, as they do now, from a natural infirmity of
the understanding. Grace sanctifies the heart much more eas
ily than the head.
1. " Him that is weak in the faith." Omit "the." Faith
is weak by lack of moral discernment and understanding. It
has no breadth. It knows that Christ saves from sin, but it
does not perceive the relations of this salvation to living, and
so is full of small scruples, whose observance it invests with
the highest importance. At the same time it is blind to real
piety. It would not eat meat, but it would condemn harshly
the man who does, exalting its own abstinence far above
Christian love.
But this weak believer, weak in his faith, but correspond
ingly strong in his scruples, is to be received into Christian
fellowship, but not to be disputed with about his thoughts.
This seems to be the meaning of the phrase " not to doubtful
disputations." He cannot be argued out of his views ; argu
ment would only confirm him in them. He must grow out of
them, and meanwhile he is not to be criticized and judged,
but loved. This verse is addressed to the stronger brethren,
and may imply both that they are right and are in the ma
jority. 2. Omit the " for." This verse, however, shows to what
the first one points.
3, The man who sees that there is no piety in the kind of

240 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 4, 5)
food he eats may look with contempt on his poor narrow
brother over his dish of vegetable food ; for there is nothing
on which a man prides himself more than on his superior
knowledge of truth. On the other hand, the weak brother,
seeing the other with his meat and wine, may condemn him
as no saint, for the table is the narrow bound of his field of
morals. The weak man is not to judge the strong in the ex
ercise of his liberty, because God has " received " the latter.
The reference is to the time of his conversion.
4. This verse is a sharp thrust at the vegetarian. It utterly
denies his right to judge. The man who has confidence to
eat meat is the Lord's servant, not the weak brother's. And
he stands or falls to his " own " Lord, who is Christ. There
is point in the word " own." But he will not fall in the exer
cise of Christian liberty. " Yea, he shall be holden up : for the
Lord [not " God "] is able to make him stand." The reference
is not to the final judgment, but to his daily walk, from which
the weak brother is sure that he will decline because of his
meat. Here is an assurance to liberty which the abstinence
of a weak brother lacks. He has no promise to be holden up ;
rather a stern rebuke that he has forgotten Matthew vii. 1-5.
It is also plainly implied that the strong brother is not respon
sible to the church in the use of his liberty, but only to the
Lord. The church has not a shred of authority in this mat
ter ; it may not say what diet a member shall or shall not eat.
Christ cleansed all foods (Mark vii. 18, 19).
5. " One man esteemeth one day above another." Closely
connected with this question of food is that about holy days.
It is impossible to say that this general language does not
include the Sabbath. There is a Sabbath and it is divinely
instituted (Mark ii. 27, 28), but there is not a line nor a word
in the New Testament about how it is to be observed. In
Judaism the law of observance was plain enough (Exod. xxxv.
2). May the church or any man in it prescribe how a holy

(XIV. 6-8) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 241
day shall be kept? Paul's rule is, "Let every [each] man be
fully persuaded in his own mind." He leaves it to that which
Rome condemns, private judgment. He uses the word " mind "
because it is a question for an enlightened understanding.
6. " He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord."
And since he is honoring God in his observance he is neither
to be despised nor hindered. Paul has said nothing here
about the nature of the day ; it is purely a question of regard
for it. One believer is devout on every day ; another believer
is more devout on special set days than on others.
The second sentence in this verse is omitted on strong evi
dence by most modern editors.
The discrimination in days is of the same character as the
discrimination in food. The root of it in either party is regard
for the Lord. It is " unto the Lord," in deference to the re
lation held with him. Therefore there should be no despising
and no judging. Each party is serving the same Lord, but
in different ways. The proof that it is service to him is that
" he that eateth " meat gives God thanks for the meat ; and
" he that eateth not " meat, but dines on vegetables, does so
out of regard for the Lord, for he too gives thanks to God for
the vegetables. This consideration goes to show that there is
little merit in mere breadth of view, and little demerit in nar
rowness. The merit lies in the thankfulness with which each
man partakes of his own particular kind of food, and in the
matter of thanks they stand on the same level before the
Lord. A man's views about these minor morals have little to
do with that standing.
It must be noted on this verse that the Roman Christians
were in the habit of giving thanks for food at the time of eat
ing; they had Christ's example (Mark viii. 6, 7).
7, 8. These two verses bear ("for") on the assertion that
eating is not a private and personal act, but one regulated by
regard to the Lord. No Christian lives out of regard for him-

242 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 9-1 1)
self alone. He has the Lord's honor and will always in view.
He glorifies him even in death (John xxi. 19). Living or
dying, then, we are the Lord's and not our own to make our
own notions stand, be they broad or narrow.
9. This verse ought to read as in some recent versions:
" For to this end Christ died, and lived [again], that he might
be Lord of both dead and living." It preserves the corre
spondence of the words and ideas. It shows ("for") how
Christ became Lord. He died to redeem his people (1 Cor.
vi. 19, 20) ; he rose that he might reign. By death and resur
rection he acquired Lordship of both the dead and the living.
Hence the brother weak or the brother strong who would
insist on his own method of living as the rule for all strikes at
the very Lordship of Christ. Scruples may be observed and
liberty enjoyed, but let every man beware how he thrusts them
in the place given to Christ by the cross and the opened tomb.
The resurrection not only gives life, but regulates living.
10. " But why dost thou judge thy brother? " The King
James version obscures the emphasis. " But thou [the ab
stemious man], why dost thou judge thy [liberal] brother?
or thou again [the liberal meat-eating man], why dost thou set
at naught [treat with contempt] thy [abstemious] brother? "
These questions are solemnly pertinent, because (" for ") we
shall all, strong and weak alike, stand before the judgment-
seat of Christ, or God, as some read (2 Cor. v. 10). The right
and the wrong in a brother's conduct are to be determined at
that bar and not by individual opinion. In that solemn tri
bunal no man will judge his own case, much less his brother's.
The "judgment-seat" is that of the great and appointed day
(Acts xvii. 31). As to the matter of acceptance, it only con
firms ; but as to conduct, it exhibits and awards.
11. A solemn scriptural (Isa. xiv. 23) confirmation of the
" all " in the preceding verse. All shall stand in judgment,
for God has sworn not only that there shall be universal sub-

(XIV. 12-14) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 243
mission to him, but confession of his right to judge. This
admission must be made even by those to whom the judgment
brings nothing but condemnation.
12. " So then every [each] one of us." This is the conclu
sion drawn from the two preceding verses. The emphasis is
not on " himself " and not on " God," but on the words " each
one of us." Godet gives the sense of these three verses thus :
"The preceding context [verse 10] signifies, 'Judge not thy
brother, for God will judge him; judge thyself [verse 1 2], for
God will judge thee.' "
So far, then, Paul has neither approved nor condemned any
kind of food ; he has neither given nor withheld his sanction
of sacred days. What a man may do in reference to both
food or days is in itself nothing, but what he may think about
his own or his brother's doing in these cases is all-important.
This is the first point in the chapter.
But what one does, though indifferent in itself, is sure to
provoke thought and feeling. Hence Paul's second point (see
(2) above) about the right use of liberty. This is addressed
first of all to the strong brother.
13. "Let us not therefore [in view of the fact of God's
judgment] judge one another any more." Such judgment is
doubly wicked because it anticipates God's, and assumes his
place (ii. 1). "But judge this rather." Note the emphatic
turn in the meaning of the word " judge."
" That no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall
in his [a] brother's way." For Paul's own comment see 1
Corinthians viii. 8-13. In eating and in drinking a man
must be directed not by what he thinks, but by the thought
his act will provoke in the mind of another.
14. All food is clean ; but it is only clean to him who has
the enlightening grace to see it so. Many have not this grace.
With Moses' law about clean and unclean meats ever before
them, and unable to comprehend the liberty in Christ Jesus

244 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. it,, t6)
(Gal. v. i), many saints could not say that there is "nothing
unclean in itself." Their inability was not a moral defect, and
must not be despised.
15. " Grieved with thy meat." To-day the question cen
ters about drink. Even yet there are Christian men who
practically insist on their right to use wine. The cause of
temperance, as it is called, has suffered irreparably at the
hands of its advocates because they have been wiser than Paul
and based it on other grounds than his. He would surely
write to-day about wine what he wrote about meat: that,
while it is not morally unclean in itself, except to him who so
esteems it, yet he who uses it is not walking according to love
(" charitably "), inasmuch as his use of it is a grief to many and
leads others to fall. Paul's plea, which is the Holy Spirit's,
is unanswerable and irresistible. To deny the liberty is to take
all the virtue and force from the abstinence. To refuse to do
for the good of others what one has a right to do is love of the
highest character— it is Christ-like. But if meat and drink
are in themselves morally evil there is no virtue in abstinence.
There is no credit in refraining from that which is sinful ; it
is bounden duty, not love.
" Destroy not him with thy meat [or drink], for whom Christ
died." The exercise of that liberty at the table which may
cost the soul of one of Christ's own is characterized by him
self in Matthew xviii. 6.
16. " Let not then your good be evil spoken of." Broad
views, clear perception of the liberty and freedom in Christ,
are a " good." But he is an enemy of freedom and of liberty
in the matter of food who brings them into disrepute by his
manner of living. Paul is an advocate of liberty, but only love
knows how to indulge it. The address is to the strong brethren.
Meyer takes a different view. The address is to the whole
church. The " good " is the gospel, which may be despised by
the heathen if believers wrangle in such a way over meat that
the faith in Christ must seem to be concerned about nothing

(XIV. 17, 18) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 245
else. The reason for this view is that the discussion passes
from the singular in verse 15 to the plural here—" your " good.
17. " For the kingdom of God." This verse gives a sub
stantial reason against conduct which would lead to a wrong
view of the kingdom of God. The Romans were subjects of
this kingdom. If they spend their time and energy on sump
tuary questions, are they not perverting the kingdom?
The phrase " kingdom of God " occurs only here in the
epistle. God rules everywhere, but there is a realm where he
governs by spiritual forces or laws alone. All who submit to
these are in the kingdom and are themselves spiritual in char
acter (Matt. v. 3-16). This kingdom, then, cannot in its es
sence be eating and drinking, which pertain to nature. The
kingdom is the product of the Holy Spirit (John iii. 3 ; xviii.
36). It is founded on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and in
its essence is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Ghost." " Righteousness " is not merely moral rectitude, but, as
Paul has used it in the epistle, embraces justification and sanc
tification, deliverance from the guilt, the power, and the pres
ence of sin. " Peace " is peace with God (v. 1) ; and the joy
is not that which flows naturally from the heart, but is awakened
by the Holy Spirit. He that is manifesting these is manifest
ing the kingdom and showing men what that kingdom is. And
this will bring together the two views of the " good " given
above. Men will neither blaspheme the liberty of the king
dom nor the kingdom itself when it is seen in the life of those
really in it, a life not concerned with eating and drinking, but
with righteousness and peace and holy joy.
18. " For he that in these things." The Revised Version
wrongly rejects the words " these things." The verse confirms
that character of the kingdom which Paul has ascribed to it. It
must be " righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,"
for he who serves Christ in these three not only finds himself
" acceptable to God," but also cuts off occasion for evil speak
ing on the part of men and is " approved " by them.

246 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 19-21)
19. An exhortation. " The things which make for peace "
and which are to be followed are the three mentioned in verse
17. There is enough in these to engage all hearts for all time,
and he who gives himself to them is in the way to " edify "
another. Attention given to minor morals has in times past
distracted the church and pulled down instead of building
up. To be right in anything, one must first be exactly right
with God through Christ.
20. " For meat destroy not the work of God." The word
" destroy," or pull down, is the opposite of " edify," or build
up. This verse is an advance on the fifteenth. There it was
a question of grieving the brother and destroying him ; here it
is a malign work of fighting against God in pulling down the
gracious work which he has done in the weak brother.
" All things [in the way of food] indeed are pure." But
there is more than this principle involved in the question, and
this one alone cannot settle it ; for even the pure food is evil
to him who eats it with offense of conscience. If, in imitation
of the strong brother, one partakes of food which his con
science does not allow, he has stumbled ; his fellowship with
God is broken, and the strong brother who led him to this is
responsible ; he has destroyed God's work.
21. "It is good neither to eat flesh," etc. This maxim,
addressed to the strong, covers the whole matter in question.
It is made the more pointed in that it follows the last verse
without the intervention of a connecting word. It is a flash
of light. The italic words in the King James version do not
bring out the whole thought. It is good, morally excellent
and wholesome, to eat no flesh, and to drink no wine, and to
do nothing whereby thy brother stumbles, or is made to halt,
or is weak. The phrase " and to do nothing " is sweeping and
embraces all matters of conscience. The King James render
ing, by omitting the necessary word " do," narrows the senti
ment to the single item of drink.

(XIV. 22, 23) MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE 247
22. " Hast thou faith? " Have you such confidence in the
justifying work of Christ that you see your freedom in mat
ters of food and drink? " Have it to thyself before God."
Keep it to yourself ; do not parade it in the exercise of it in
eating and drinking and in your treatment of the Sabbath.
Paul here clearly sanctions the broad and liberal view of the
strong brother. He has tacitly done the same thing all through
the chapter. But it is the very man who is sure of his free
dom in these things in Christ, just as it is the man who has
real wealth or real learning, that makes no offensive display.
And this leads to the next assertion, " Happy is he that con
demneth not himself," etc. There is a danger in this liberty
too. A man may not be as well grounded as he supposed
himself to be. He may "allow" himself an indulgence for
which his own conscience will afterward condemn him. In the
eagerness to exhibit or indulge his liberty in matters which he
approves or allows, he may subsequently have to sit in judgment
upon himself and pronounce a verdict of self-condemnation.
23. "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat." The
word "damned" is misleading. The man is condemned by
his own conscience. Mere hesitation or uncertainty leads to
this. Conscience must have the benefit of every doubt, for
in all matters in which the Bible is silent it has God's authority.
It may not usurp the function of his revealed will, but there
are many things arising in daily life on which God's mind has
not been made known except in a general way. Here con
science must be heeded, or it utters its condemnation and the
man passes under the dark cloud of God's displeasure.
"Because he eateth not of faith." Better, "It is not of
faith." His act did not flow from his trust in Christ ; he was
not sure that his justification by God permitted this, and
therefore he felt condemned in eating.
Paul closes this second point with the principle underlying
all Christian conduct : " And [the " for " of the King James

248 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIV. 23)
version is wrong] all that is not of faith is sin." "All" is
better than "whatsoever." Christ has certainly redeemed the
believer from every sumptuary and ceremonial observance.
But distrust of Christ in these matters binds the conscience
just so far as the distrust extends. To violate this bond is sin.
It must be carefully noted that Paul is not speaking here of
absence of saving faith, but of defect in it. Hence this is not
a general but a Christian principle. Paul is prescribing for
what is before him in the church and not for mankind.
This principle thus limited is the major premise of a syllo
gism : all that is not of faith is sin ; eating in doubt is not of
faith ; therefore it is sin and brings condemnation. In these
matters a man's conduct must be limited by his faith.
Jesus taught with sunlight clearness, "There is nothing
from without a man, that entering into him can defile him "
(Mark vii. 15). The word "nothing" is decidedly emphatic
and embraces what is drunk as well as what is eaten ; and the
weak in faith must remember this before they condemn the
saints who take the liberty here given them.
On the other hand, Paul teaches that this liberty will limit
itself by love. There has not been a time since he wrote
when it was more necessary to heed this than to-day. For
now there is abundant teaching in zeal without knowledge that
contradicts and nullifies the principle laid down by Christ.
This false teaching binds without enlightening the conscience.
The result is the weakness of a mere sense of duty in this
matter in the church instead of the strength of the liberty in
Christ that may exhibit itself in love like his. Therefore all
the more must the strong be abstinent, patient, and loving.
Paul does not in the least, as we have seen, set at naught
Christ's words recorded in Mark, but he shows how they were
intended to be used— in love. So used, they, like all others
in the Book, are seen to be uttered " not to destroy men's lives,
but to save them '' (Luke ix. 56).

CHAPTER XV
DISCUSSION OF FRATERNAL DUTIES CONCLUDED, AND
PERSONAL MATTERS
The argument of the epistle concludes at the thirteenth verse
of this chapter. (See under (3) in introduction to last chapter.)
Paul gives what he has to say about eating and drinking and
like matters under three heads. The third one is the first ( 1 )
section of this chapter (verses 1-13), in which Paul shows (a)
that the strong must act in the spirit of Christ, that there may
be union in worship (verses 1-6) ; (b) that they must receive one
another in the spirit of Christ (verses 7-1 2) ; and (c) pronounces
a benediction (verse 13). Christ's attitude toward God and
toward them indicates his will, which the strong should follow.
In the second (2) section of the chapter (verses 14-33), a
section entirely epistolary, like that in i. 8-15, Paul (a) justi
fies his writing to the Romans (verses 14-16); (b) gives his
rule in choosing his field of labor (verses 17-21) ; (c) speaks
of the delays in visiting them (verses 22-29) '< K) Dut hopes
to come, and asks for their prayers that the way may be kept
clear (verses 30-33).
Because a few authorities, though from these all the great
manuscripts and the Latin fathers must be excluded, place the
benediction (xvi. 25-27) at the close of chapter xiv., the higher
criticism, beginning with Semler, has called these last two
chapters in question. Paul was supposed to be the author of
the whole, but originally these two chapters, the benediction
excepted, were not intended for Rome. Baur was the first
249

250 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 1-3)
to assail their Pauline authorship. The difficulties are only
slight and have been much magnified. Meyer, who gives a
brief history of the discussion, concludes: "This entire hy
pothesis turns upon presuppositions and combinations, which
are partly arbitrary in themselves and partly without any solid
ground or support in the detailed exegesis." So that it may
be safely said with Kerr (" Introduction to New Testament
Study "), " Despite these objections, the integrity of the epistle
as it now stands is certain."
1, 2. " We that are strong." Paul places himself among
the strong. " The infirmities of the weak " were a burden to
be borne, a heavy weight, except where love gave strength
to carry it. He does not say that the weak should reflect on
the load which they are imposing on others ; for if they had
the power to reflect they would not be weak. To eat meat
and to drink wine may please the palate, but the justified man
does not live to please himself, but to please his neighbor. The
neighbor may be pleased to his hurt, so Paul adds that he must
be pleased "for his good to edification." To afford him religious
pleasure which does not build him up is not for "his good."
3. " For even Christ pleased not himself." He is not pre
sented as an example, but his manner of living affords an
argument. If it . should seem burdensome and grievous to
some strong Roman to live narrowly for the sake of the weak,
the consolation and the dignity of such a life are that Christ
also lived it. The phrase " for even Christ " would better be
rendered, "for Christ also." The Scriptures are not in the
habit of holding up Christ as an example, for men are neither
saved nor sanctified by an example.
That his life was one of not pleasing himself is in accord
with that which was predicted of him in Psalm lxix. 9. Re
proaches fell on Christ because he pleased not himself, but
lived to please God in the work of saving men. If self-pleas
ing had been the guide of his life he would have escaped the

(XV. 4-6) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 251
reproach and shame cast upon him by the Jews ; but living as
he did to please God, to serve his will for the salvation of men,
these reproaches came, and thus were God's. This was Christ's
honor, and should any one complain who has the opportunity
to gain like honor in denying himself for the good of others ?
It is startling to read that " Christ pleased not himself." His
life was one of pain and suffering ; and yet he spoke about his
"joy" (John xv. n). And we feel that it ought to have been
only a delight to a perfect man, as he was, to serve God. It
was. And the solution of the apparent contradiction is that
in the service of God pain is only pleasure, while self-pleas
ing is only pain. The Christian lives only when he dies, and
this is the joy and consolation in dying daily (i Cor. xv. 31).
It is only sorrow that can be turned into joy.
4. " Written for our learning." This one verse, culled from
the Old Testament, moves Paul to say that every part of that
same Testament was written for this purpose, our teaching or
"learning" (2 Tim. iii. 16). Paul gives here one chief object
of the existence of the Old Testament. It abounds in in
stances of a self-denying life redounding to the glory of God,
and thus stimulates the " patience " and gives the enheartening
or " comfort " which such a life needs. The record of these
instances is authoritative and so becomes a proof that as God
dealt with his servants then so will he deal now ; he does not
change. It is by means of this " patience and comfort " de
rived from the Scriptures that settled hope arises. Paul has
already (v. 3, 4) shown the relation of patience and hope.
5, 6. The apostle virtually prays that all parties in their use
of the Scriptures may have granted to them by God their
patience and comfort. These graces are, after all, the gift
of God, but given by him through his Word. It is by these
two Christian qualities, also, that God will make them "like-
minded " toward one another, a mind according to Christ's,
described above. This does not mean, then, that they will

252 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 7, 8)
come to a common view on meats and wine, but to unanimity
in loving intercourse, so that " with one mind and one mouth "
they may glorify God. They may be divided in their dietary
views ; this in itself is a small matter ; but they must not be
divided in their worship and praise of God. For the patient
and comforted mind can join in praise with those from whom
there is dissent of opinion. This is true Christian union.
" Even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Translators are
divided, some rendering " and " instead of " even," making the
sentence read, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
In either case Paul's point is the same. God is to be glorified
not only as God, but also in his relation to him through whom
all are saved, Jew and Gentile, the liberal and the narrow man
alike. 7. " Wherefore receive ye one another." A deduction from
the desirability of union in praise. It is not now an exhorta
tion to the strong to bear with the weak (verse 1), but strong
and weak alike are addressed. They are to receive one another
into fellowship and favor, just as Christ had taken them into
his. Some read " us," others " you." Christ accepts men,
whether broad or narrow, whether Jew or Gentile, whether
bond or free. Beyond a genuine belief of the gospel he makes
no other demand. If he accepts men in all their weaknesses
and without any regard to their views about secondary matters,
well may we. " To the glory of God " might be joined with
"receive ye," but may possibly go with what just precedes.
Christ received us that God might gain glory. If we do not
receive one another his gracious purpose is marred.
8. " Now I say." The true reading is, " For I say," the
"for" introducing the long passage following to show how
Christ received both parties. The word " meat " and the words
" strong " and " weak " are not again used ; but instead the
two nationalities in the church appear, the Jew and the Gentile,
showing that the division in dietary matters ran in the main be-

(XV. 9) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 253
tween these two. The Jew would be the weak man, the Gentile
the strong ; but there were doubtless exceptions on both sides.
This conclusion of the whole argument is based anew (a)
on the work of Christ in behalf of both parties, in which,
however, the Jew holds a priority, and (b) on the Scriptures.
The privileges of the Jew are seen in the fact that Jesus Christ
was himself circumcised, and this to fulfil the promise made to
the Jewish fathers. The Gentile had no direct promise. The
Jew's salvation came " for the truth of God," the Gentile's " for
his mercy." Here again, as in xi. 17-20, the Gentile is plainly
reminded that so far as his nationality goes he has not the same
foundation as the Jew.
"Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision." Omit
" the." " Circumcision " is not " abstract for concrete " (Boise)
and does not signify Israel. Paul does not mean that Jesus
Christ was a minister, an attending servant, to the Jews, or
that he belonged exclusively to them. The word has its simple
meaning in which it stands for a religious system. Christ was
a minister of circumcision in that he fulfilled the whole Mosaic
requirement in his person and in his work. It would be little
to the point to say here that Jesus served the Jews. It is
everything to say that he was the minister of a covenant that
brought salvation to the Jews and through them to all men.
Galatians iv. 4, 5, is a good comment on this phrase.
" For the truth [in behalf of the veracity] of God." Christ
was such a minister of circumcision " to [or " that he might "]
confirm the promises made unto the fathers," Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. The promises all lay within the limits of the cove
nant of circumcision (Gen. xvii. 7, 14, 21), and Christ came,
Paul does not say to fulfil, but to " confirm," them. " Confirm "
means to make firm, to establish, to make sure ; and therefore
Israel may praise and glorify God for his faithfulness.
9. " And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [in behalf
of] his mercy." Christ's coming was to the Jew in the way

254 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 10-12)
of God's truth, to the Gentile in the way of his mercy. The
former can praise for fidelity, the latter for grace.
There is a question about the grammatical dependence of
these two verses. Godet makes verse 9 depend on " I say "
in the previous one. Sanday connects the ninth verse with
Christ's becoming a minister of circumcision, so that this ninth
verse gives a second and subordinate object of that ministry.
The latter seems to be more logical, but whichever connection
is taken, the main thought is clear that the call of the Gentiles,
as well as the fulfilment of the promises to the Jews, both de
pended on Christ in his ministry of circumcision. It was by
this ministry that he received us to the glory of God, that he
might be praised by the Jew for his truth and by the Gentile
for his mercy. Jacob worshiped for both (Gen. xxxii. 10).
"As it is written." Four quotations follow, one from the
law, two from the Psalms, and one from the prophets, in con
firmation of God's purpose that Gentiles are to glorify God.
This first one (Ps. xviii. 49) shows Christ among the heathen
praising God. Of course he gives the praise through them.
Therefore the quotation implicitly declares the conversion of
those who praise.
10. " And again he saith," quoting Deuteronomy xxxii. 43,
that Gentiles are to join in praise with " his people," the Jews.
11. "And again, Praise the Lord " (Ps. cxvii. 1). This little
psalm of but two verses shows that God would bring Gentiles
generally to his worship. " All " occurs twice. " People " is
plural, meaning Gentiles.
12. "And again, Esaias saith" (Isa. xi. 10). The Septuagint
version is quoted. The prophet declares that he who comes
in the Davidic line, the root from Jesse, shall also be King
over Gentiles. "In him shall the Gentiles trust;" or better,
" In him will Gentiles hope." It is significant that not only
here, but in all these four quotations, the article is omitted
before the word " Gentiles." The Gentiles, all of them, ac-

(XV.13-16) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 255
cording to chapter xi., will one day be brought to Christ. But
in Paul's day and to this day only some have come. If he
had said " the " Gentiles the facts around him would have dis
proved his assertion ; but Gentiles had come to Christ in his day,
first-fruits of the coming harvest, and he quotes in a way to em
brace just these first-fruits and for the present no more. The
Revised Version in its translation of these citations is not critical.
This last quotation shows the union of Jew and Gentile
under Christ in a common hope, by which word Paul has come
around again to the idea of verse 4 : " That we through pa
tience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope."
13. " Now the God of hope [the God who has laid in Christ
the foundation for it] fill you with all joy and peace in believ
ing" — the opposite of painful contention and disputing. In
the discussion Paul has had much to say about bearing and for
bearing, about love and service. He now uses the word which
embraces because it gives the source of all these. All joy and
peace come "in believing." Paul longs for their joy and
peace, that they " may abound in hope [of eternal life], in the
power of the Holy Ghost." His fruits come in clusters (Gal.
v. 22, 23), only one of which Paul names— hope. Strife drives
away the Holy Spirit ; joy and peace detain him, and he makes
hope to abound.
Paul closes the argument with two practical ideas, praise
and hope. The two are really but one — praise. Every line
and thought from the beginning of the epistle has led up to
worship. "The harmonious glorification of the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ by the whole body of the
redeemed, as it is the most exalted fruit of the scheme of re
demption, so it is the last end of God in it."
14-16. In this epilogue Paul, first of all, in these three
verses apologizes for writing to the Romans. It is not because
they are not " full of goodness," but because they are. The
case is not as in Jude 3, but more like that in 1 John ii. 21, 27.

256 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 17-21;
He writes not so much to instruct, as to "put them in mind "
of what they already know. For Christian argument and ad
monition are of no value except where Christianity already
holds sway. He thus writes because of the apostolic "grace"
(i. 5 ; Eph. iii. 8) given him by God that he should be a min
ister, a spiritual priest, to the Gentiles, not to offer a sacrifice
for them, which was already done, but to minister to them the
gospel, that they themselves might be an acceptable " offering "
to God (Eph. v. 26, 27; 2 Cor. xi. 2). The offering is ac
ceptable because it is sanctified, made holy, by the presence
of the Holy Spirit. Paul gave men the gospel, and God gave
such of them as believed the Holy Spirit, and by these two
means they became a fit offering to God. The Christian priest
is just a preacher of the gospel; for Paul's language on this
point is highly figurative.
17. This verse forms the transition to what the apostle has
to say about his field of labor. " I have therefore [as one
ministering the gospel of God] whereof I may glory in [not
" through "] Jesus Christ " as to things pertaining to God. This
glorying was worthy. It had its basis in Christ, and it was
about God's affairs, the spread of the gospel.
18, 19. This glorying was Paul's own, as is shown by the
somewhat emphatic "I have." In attestation ("for") that it
is his, he " dare " not speak of what God did not do by him
to win Gentiles to obedience ; but passing to the positive, he
mentions the great works done through him from Jerusalem,
the starting-point of his ministry, " round about unto Illyricum,"
northwest of Macedonia. This country is not mentioned in
Paul's history as given in Acts, but many other events belong
ing to his history find no record there (2 Cor. xi. 23-25).
Through this wide extent, he says, " I have fully preached the
gospel of Christ;" literally, "I have fulfilled the gospel of
Christ." Just how much this means cannot easily be told.
20, 21. " Yea, so have I strived," or, " Yea, making it my

(XV. 22-24) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 25?
ambition so to preach," making it a point of honor not to go
where any one had gone before me. He considered that his
work was to lay foundations (i Cor. iii. io) and to let others
do the building. He seems to have had as a motto to guide
him the Scripture found in Isaiah lii. 1 5, after the Septuagint.
But why, then, does he wish to visit the Roman church already
founded? It is hard to say. It may be that the gospel was
never officially preached there (Acts xix. 21 ; xxviii. 22) ; or it
may be that, having fulfilled the gospel of Christ, he did not
consider his rule any longer binding. It was not a hard and
fast rule. He preached a year at Antioch in Syria after the
church was unofficially gathered (Acts xi. 25, 26). And finally,
he was only going to call on the Romans on his way to Spain
(verse 24), a far-distant new field. Paul interpreted the com
mission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach " (Mark xvi.
15), to mean, for him at least, not that he should go after some
one else had opened the way to the heathen, but that he should
go first. He was a pioneer.
22-24. " Much hindered," or often hindered by abundance
of work. Blessed hindrance! But Paul had removed the
obstacle by doing all that was to be done " in these parts," or
regions over which he had been traveling about fifteen years.
He had a " great desire " to see the Romans. " Many years "
is indefinite. The city lay on the highway to Spain, to which
distant land he was going. He hoped to see the Romans on
this journey, and " to be brought on the way thitherward." This
phrase " brought on the way," or sent forward, refers to a semi
official custom of the apostolic churches in furnishing an escort
to go some or all of the way with a departing minister or mis
sionary. Paul is here most likely asking that one or more of
the Roman brethren be sent with him to Spain. (See Acts xv.
3 ; xx. 38 ; xxi. 5 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 1 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 16 ; Tit. iii. 13 ;
3 John 6.) The original word is technical and is used only in
reference to this custom.

258 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 25-28)
"If first I be somewhat filled with your company." He
anticipated much spiritual enjoyment in his visit to Rome ; but
in the word "somewhat," or "in a measure," he intimates
that he may not be able to stay long enough to be fully satis
fied with such blessed " company." We know from the Book
of Acts how he got to Rome, how eager the brethren were to
meet him (Acts xxviii. 15) ; but there is no other mention of the
church there, and it is not known whether he ever reached Spain.
25-27. But Paul cannot come directly to the Roman breth
ren ; he has yet one duty to perform : " to minister to . . . the
poor saints which are at Jerusalem." The epistles to the Co
rinthians show how Paul's heart was set on this contribution.
Macedonia did its part (2 Cor. viii. 1-5) ; Corinth had been
urged to attend to the matter; Galatia, not mentioned here
for some reason, contributed (1 Cor. xvi. 1). It may be that
the Galatian funds had already been forwarded to Jerusalem.
" It hath pleased them." This clause is repeated from the
twenty-sixth verse, that Paul may show that there is another
side to this act than mere benevolent pleasure. A man is not
simply " pleased " to pay what he owes ; it is his " duty." This
contribution was a debt due from the Gentiles to the Jews
for the reason here given. And that debt is still due these
same Jews. But for their unparalleled sufferings in all time,
the world would have had no Bible and no gospel. The word
" minister " is an official word. It was the Gentiles' duty not
merely to give their " carnal things," but to minister as priests.
This gave the contribution a spiritual character. The word
" minister " occurs in only two other places, which shed light
on this act here (Acts xiii. 2 ; Heb. x. n).
28. " When therefore I have . . . sealed to them this fruit."
The money contribution was the fruit of the gospel among the
heathen; it showed the effectiveness of that gospel (Col. i.
5, 6). To seal is to authenticate, to make one's own. Paul
would turn the money over to the Jewish church and thus

(XV. 29-31) DUTIES AND PERSONAL MATTERS 259
seal it theirs. This verse by means of the word " therefore "
resumes the topic of verse 26 after the digression in the verse
intervening. He says, " When I have performed this." The
emphasis is on " this," as if the carrying up of the contribution
were the only thing left, the final hindrance to his visit. The
word " performed " is a religious word akin to the word " min
ister " just above (Phil. i. 6 ; Heb. ix. 6). " By you " is pos
sibly " by means of you."
29. " And I am sure," or, " I know." The phrase " of the
gospel " is not genuine ; possibly added by some one to make
Paul's statement harmonize better with the painful history of
his coming in chains to Rome. Paul did not know when he
would come ; he did not know the suffering that would over
take him ; but he was sure of the condition of his heart. So
far every true saint may know his own future — that to the end
he will be attended with the very " fullness of the blessing [or
"benediction"] of Christ." "The Lord is my shepherd; I
shall not want " (Ps. xxiii.).
30, 31. " Now I beseech you," or, " I exhort you." Paul
knew what Jerusalem was, and he was aware of the prejudice
against himself. He asks the Romans that, through the Lord
Jesus Christ, and through that love which the Spirit gives the
saints one for another, they would strive — a word from the gym
nastic contests — along with him (i. 9, 10) in their prayers to God
for him. They were many, many miles from him, and they could
not know any day just where he was or under what circumstances ;
but God knew, and their prayers would be effective. And so
prayers for missionaries in foreign lands are offered to-day,
while their trials and needs are known only in a general way.
Two things are to be prayed for. Paul is God's great apostle
and is doing his will, but is not exempt on that account, any
more than Christ was, from the hatred of men. His fear is
twofold : the unbelievers in Judea may seek to destroy him,
and the saints may refuse his gifts from the heathen. To look

260 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 32, 33)
at the history of Paul's visit to Jerusalem in its rough outward
aspect, one might say the prayers were not answered. But
the rough handling which the apostle received shows most
strikingly how he was delivered, and affords a useful lesson on
the way that God answers prayer. How shrewdly Paul helped
himself! (Acts xxii. 25 ; xxiii. 6; xxv. 11.) And how came
it that his nephew discovered the secret plot to slay his uncle?
(Acts xxiii. 16.) The dangers he encountered were many, his
life was in constant peril, and yet he was spared and saw
Rome. While the record about the gift for the saints is al
most silent, the fair presumption is (Acts xxi. 17-20) that it
was acceptable. In answer to the prayers, God did not keep
Paul out of the dangers, but he preserved him in them. He
had to enter the lions' den, but God closed their mouths.
32. " Come unto you with joy." This must not be hastily
misread as if Paul wrote, " And that I may come." There is
no "and"; otherwise his prayer would be threefold. His
prayer was for two things as above : to be delivered at Jeru
salem, and to have his gift accepted, " that I may come unto
you with joy." His joy in coming was in what was behind as
well as in what was before him. He came to Rome a prisoner ;
but who shall say that, having escaped Jerusalem with his life,
and having now Rome and Spain before him, the latter for
evangelization, he did not come with joy ?
" By the will of God." This was the main source of Paul's
hope— the will of God. " May with you be refreshed " by a
common interchange of faith and its fruits (i. 12).
33. "The God of peace be with you." In verse 13 he was
called the God of hope, here the God of peace, not as an
empty pious wish. Paul had fears, but his reliance on God
was such that these did not disturb the deep current of his
peace. The Romans would have fears for him. May the
God of peace save them from pain in their fear.

CHAPTER XVI

LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH

The love of the saints shows itself (i) in a commendation
(verses i, 2) ; (2) in sundry hearty greetings (verses 3-16) ; (3)
in a solicitous caution about false teachers (verses 17-20);
(4) in further greetings (verses 2 1-24) ; (5) the doxology (verses
25-27). There is no formal arrangement, for Paul closes in
the free and unstudied manner of an epistle. Hence in the
midst of his salutations he inserts the caution against the false
teachers, and then resumes the salutations. There is no marked
logical connection unifying the chapter.
Thirty-five persons are named in this conclusion. These
names may be classified as follows :

With Paul:

At Rome :

Men.

Women.
Timothy,
Aquila,
Rufus,
Priscilla,
Lucius,
Epaenetus,
Asyncritus,
Mary,
Jason,
Andronicus,
Phlegon,
Junia,
Sosipater,
Amplias,
Hermas,
Tryphena,
Tertius,
Urbane,
Patrobas,
Tryphosa,
Gaius,
Stachys,
Hermes,
Persis,
Erastus,
Apelles,
Philologus,
Julia.
Quartus,
Herodion,
Nereus,
Phebe.
Olympas.
261
262 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. i, 2)
Thus it is seen that there were nine persons with Paul when
he wrote — eight men and one woman, Phebe ; that there were
twenty-four persons at Rome who were greeted — seventeen
men and seven women. Besides these, there are two house
holds in Rome that are mentioned, that of Aristobulus and
that of Narcissus. The names of those in the households are
not given. There are also some unnamed " brethren " referred
to in verse 14. And finally there are two unnamed women,
the "mother" of Rufus (verse 13) and the "sister" of Nereus
(verse 15). Riddle says of this list of names that it shows
" (1) Paul's personal regard; (2) the high place he accords to
women ; (3) the great influence he exerted, since so many
friends were present in a place he had never visited ; (4) the
undying name received from his friendly mention is a type of
the eternal blessing which belongs to those whose names are
written in the Lamb's book of life."
The objection that Paul, after having traveled and made
converts all over the eastern section of the empire, could not
have known so many persons in Rome, a city that he had not
visited, is not worthy of an answer. Did Paul write this epistle,
with all its freedom and fraternal spirit, to these Roman breth
ren while unacquainted with them?
1. "Phebe our sister." That she was the bearer of the
epistle is " a supposition which there is nothing to contradict "
(Meyer). The commendation rests on two grounds: she is
" our sister," and she is a " servant," or deaconess, of the neigh
boring church of Cenchrea, nine miles from Corinth, and its
seaport. The word " our " is indefinite, giving but little hint
of how much it includes. (But see below on verses 8 and 9.)
She was a servant not in, but of, the church of Cenchrea, hold
ing an official capacity.
2, The aim of the commendation was twofold: first, that
the Romans might " receive " her in a manner worthy of them
selves as saints. What lies back of these earnest words, " that

(XVI. 3, 4) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 263
ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints"? Was it be
cause of her relation to the church at Cenchrea as deaconess
that Paul thus spoke? Was it because she was a woman
traveling alone? Again, she was commended that the Romans
might "assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of
you." From the technical language here employed many
have supposed that her business at Rome was legal. Paul
tells why (" for ") she is to be assisted : because she has assisted
many, even the great apostle himself. The language is general.
How she helped Paul or any one else is not told; but because
she aided others she is worthy of aid. What a charitable free
masonry existed in the church! Her "business" was her
own, but Paul does not hesitate to call on the whole Roman
brotherhood to stand by her in it.
3. " Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus." These
two were not apostles, not prophets, not even called teachers ;
just helpers, fellow-workers. Their tent-making belonged to
their work " in Christ " just as Paul's also did (Acts xviii. 3),
for their hands were busy only that the gospel might be spread.
They appear in the history first at Corinth about the year
52 a.d. (Acts xviii. 2) ; they move to Ephesus two years later
(Acts xviii. 18, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 19); they are now in Rome,
and at a later date are again in Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 19). The
latter remark, however, depends on the date assigned to
2 Timothy. It is worth noting that in four of the six men
tions of the names of this couple Priscilla's stands first. The
order in the King James version (Acts xviii. 26) is not cor
rect. 4. "Who for my life laid down their own necks" on the
executioner's block. Whether this means literally, the stroke
having been in some way suspended, or whether they only
incurred imminent peril in Paul's behalf, is not certain. In
some way at the hazard of their lives they saved Paul's, and
so won not only his thanks, but those also of all the Gentile

264 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 5-7)
churches, whose apostle was thus spared. Christ died for them ;
they were ready to die that his great servant might live.
5. " The church that is in their house." They had had a
church in their house at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19); Nymphas,
whoever he was, maintained a church in his house at Colosse
(Col. iv. 15). (See also Phiiem. 2.) Paul had never been at
Colosse, but he knew of Nymphas's church just as he knew of
this one with Priscilla and Aquila. Paul was not ignorant of
details, but carried " daily the care of all the churches " (2 Cor.
xi. 28). The apostolic churches in the various cities do not
seem to have had a permanent meeting-place where they could
come together regularly, but the brethren met in groups in the
houses of the brethren as here. Such a group regularly meet
ing was called a " church." But all believers in any one city
must have also come together often (1 Cor. v. 4 ; xi. 20 ; Acts
xx. 7, 8).
" Epaenetus, who is the first-fruits of Achaia." Read " Asia "
for " Achaia," not the Asia of to-day, but the Roman province
of that time so called, with Ephesus as the chief city. This
man by his promptness in yielding to the gospel, so that he
was the first to believe when Paul came to Asia, earned a
deathless honor in Christ and is remembered by Paul. The
apostle had not forgotten the heart-thrill of joy he himself felt
when this first convert accepted Christ.
6. " Mary." There are six of this name in the New Testa
ment. " Much labor on us " ought to be " much labor on
you." What this woman's labor on the Romans was we do
not know, except that it was abundant.
7. "Andronicus and Junia." Brother and sister or husband
and wife. But some read "Junias," a man's name, instead
of " Junia." They were relatives of Paul and so Israelites of
the tribe of Benjamin. When or where they had been fellow-
prisoners (2 Cor. xi. 23) is unknown. Paul was often in prison.
These two were well known by the Twelve in Judea, who held

(XVI. 8-10) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 265
them in high esteem. But some think that the word " apostles "
here is to be taken in the wider sense of 2 Corinthians viii. 23
and Philippians ii. 25, where it is rendered "messengers" of
the churches. In the latter case we must read "Junias," and
understand that these two were distinguished among the mes
sengers of the churches. Paul adds a fourth note about the
two : " Who also were in Christ before me." They were Paul's
seniors in the divine life. No doubt their prayers had been
again and again offered for his conversion. This note, together
w'ith that about Epaenetus in verse 5, shows that regeneration,
or the state in which one can be said to be " in Christ," is a
matter of definite date. Between the condition of condemna
tion and that of "not condemned" (John iii. 18) an appreci
able interval of time is inconceivable. It is God that justifies,
and he does not justify by a process, but by a judicial sentence.
If he justifies at all he justifies " from all " (Acts xiii. 39). But
Paul in saying that these were " in Christ " before him must
be speaking objectively. He recalls the time when he, a per
secutor of the saints, learned with bitterness of spirit that his
relatives, Andronicus and Junia, were " baptized into Christ "
and thus publicly proclaimed their renunciation of good works
as a ground of salvation and their acceptance of Christ.
8, 9. Nothing is known of these three persons, Amplias,
Urbane, and Stachys, except the record here given. The
phrase " in the Lord " shows that Paul's love for Amplias was
distinctively Christian. He calls Urbane "our helper in
Christ." As he had just used the singular, this plural " our "
must include Paul's fellow-laborers. Urbane, though not an
apostle, did apostolic work. Hence note the nice shade of
difference in changing from " beloved in the Lord " to " helper
in Christ." The latter is more specific. Stachys is simply " my
beloved." 10. Apelles had stood, no doubt, one or more severe tests
of his faith, and so can be greeted as "approved in Christ."

266 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 11-13)
(See on v. 4.) He was a tried believer. Of Aristobulus,
whether he was dead or alive, a saint or a sinner, these words
give no hint. It is those belonging to his household, possibly
slaves, who are greeted. If the master was alive he was not
in Christ or he would have been greeted also. If dead he may
have been a believer.
11. Herodion was a "kinsman" of the apostle. As noth
ing more is said about him, he may as a believer have been
distinguished for nothing else.
" Them that be of the household of Narcissus." The same
remark must be made of this man as of Aristobulus. But a
note is added about his household, that they " are in the Lord."
Meyer despatches the phrase with one word, that it is written
"redundantly." How many difficulties might be gotten rid of
with this word! But this is not exegesis. Paul does not pen
superfluous words. Every person named in this chapter was
"in the Lord." Many of them were something more. Those
in Narcissus' household were no more. The phrase gives the
ground, the only but ample ground, on which they were greeted.
12. "Tryphena and Tryphosa." These two women, with
" the beloved Persis," are hailed for their labor " in the Lord."
The first two were still engaged in it ; Persis for some reason
— she may have been disabled in some way — had ceased, for
note the tenses. Persis " labored much," which may indicate
length of service. Observe that, while Paul in speaking of
men says " my beloved," he now delicately omits the pronoun
before this woman's name. How much did all these women
contribute to the world-wide reputation of this church? (i. 8.)
13. " Rufus, ... his mother and mine." This may be the
Rufus of Mark xv. 21. That the evangelist wrote his gospel
at Rome (Col. iv. 10) is generally admitted. He refers to
Rufus as one well known. Paul calls him "chosen in the
Lord." But all are chosen, and so the word must have here
a special sense— distinguished, excellent. For some tender ser-

(XVI. 14-16) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 267
vice Paul beautifully calls Ruf us's mother his also. This service,
Godet thinks, was rendered while' Paul was a youth studying
in Jerusalem, and that he made his home in this family. This
is mere conjecture.
14. The five names mentioned here, together with "the
brethren which are with them," indicate some kind of an as
sociation, possibly one of the house churches again.
15. Here are five persons more, two of them women, " and
all the saints which are with them." He says " saints " now
instead of " brethren," because this term can include both sexes.
Is this another house church, differing from the last one only
in embracing both men and women ? The word " with " in
both verses implies an association. Paul knew of these. He
knew the leaders of them by name and salutes the rest in each
group by the terms " brethren " and " saints," so that, with verse
5 above, he seems to greet every one in the church at Rome.
16. "Salute one another with a holy kiss." The kiss in
that day, like hand-shaking now, was a common token of re
spect among friends on meeting. Jesus rebuked the Pharisee,
Simon, for neglecting to kiss him (Luke vii. 45). Paul here
means that when they receive the letter from Phebe, and come
together to learn its contents, and have now read these salu
tations, they shall greet one another as brethren in Christ by
this token. To employ the kiss as such a recognition makes
it " holy." This act marked the reception of a letter from an
apostle. (See 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26;
1 Pet. v. 14.) That Paul intended to establish a permanent
custom or ordinance of the " holy kiss " is in violation of the
context. The reception of his letter and of his greetings was
to be marked by their greeting one another, just that and no
more. "The churches of Christ salute you." It ought to read,
"All the churches." Paul had just been visiting many of
them, making kuown his intention to go to Rome, and how

268 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 17-19)
natural that these churches should ask to be remembered to
the Roman brethren ! Paul conveys their greeting in the letter.
The " all " was possibly dropped by some later copyist in the
supposed interest of truth.
17. "Mark them which cause divisions and offenses," or
occasions of stumbling. Paul "beseeches" the Romans to
" mark " these false teachers, that is, to keep an eye on them.
They would divide the church and put stumbling-blocks in its
way by their nonconformity to the " doctrine " or teaching
which the Romans had formerly learned, and which Paul has
now confirmed in his letter. The Romans must have had the
Pauline type of doctrine from the very first. The tense shows
that these disturbers of the peace were at work when Paul
wrote; and what is the remedy prescribed? Excommunica
tion? Imprisonment? Torture of the heretics? No; simply
" avoid them," turn away from them, freeze them out by not
listening to them.
18. The reason for steadily refusing these men a hearing is
that they are not serving the Lord, "but their own belly."
They are making a living by false teaching. False doctrine
and sensuality often accompany each other, as the first chapter
shows. These men are bright speakers, full of pleasing eloquence,
and their " good words and fair speeches [2 Sam. xv. 1-6 ;
Matt. vii. 15] deceive the hearts of the simple." For how
could they talk so seraphically if not saints ! The " simple "
have no shield against the eloquent tongue of the deceiver
(Gen. iii. 1, 4, 5 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3), that speaks not from his heart,
but, as Paul suggests, is a ventriloquist. Therefore the church
must not listen to these men, but turn away from them.
19. " For your obedience is come abroad." The "for "is
difficult. It introduces an antithesis between the "simple"
and the Romans, who, Paul wishes to say, were not so, " for "
they were obedient. The word " simple " has not a bad sense

(XVI. 20) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 269
except as it indicates a negative quality of character. The
emphasis of the sentence is on the word " your." I say simple,
and so do not mean you, " for your obedience is come abroad
unto all men," and their faith likewise (i. 8) ; for faith and
obedience cannot be disjoined. This last chapter links in with
the first. " Over you," therefore, I am glad, because of your
obedience. The emphasis is on "you," showing anew the
antithesis against the simple. But while "glad," Paul urges
to wisdom as to "that which is good." The seducers seem
to be wise. The shield against them is the true wisdom, un
moved faith in the gospel. "And simple concerning evil."
The word for " simple " here is not the same as in the last
verse, but means harmless (the word in Matt. x. 16) or free
from evil. " Be deep in the wisdom of humble faith ; be con
tented to be unacquainted with a wisdom which at its root is
evil" (Moule). For a man need not be evil, and needs no
personal experience in the practice of it, to be wise about it.
The pure life begotten of a pure faith knows best what sin is.
Darkness cannot reveal darkness.
20. "And the God of peace." He is so called to show
how contrary to him are those who cause divisions and deceive
the hearts of the simple. It is the " God of peace " that shall
" bruise Satan " under their feet " shortly." This last word
does not mean "soon," as is clearly shown in Luke xviii. 8,
where it is translated "speedily." God will "bear long" with
his elect that cry day and night unto him, but avenge them
"speedily." The long-continued patience is contrasted with
the rapid course of vengeance when the latter once begins.
In no instance of the seven in the New Testament does this
word mean " soon." In this whole exhortation, beginning at
verse 17, Paul has Genesis iii. clearly in mind. He quotes
now the very word, "bruise," found there. Just such false
teachers as these now troubling the Romans Paul calls else
where "ministers" of Satan (2 Cor. xi. 15). They are the em-

270 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 21-23)
bodiment of his spirit. If the Romans will be "wise unto
that which is good" and avoid these men, God will bruise
Satan in destroying the influence of these emissaries of Satan.
A church at peace and in unity has Satan under its feet. By
means of the word "bruise" from Genesis iii. 15, and the
word " Satan," Paul flashes a double ray of light on the char
acter and inspiration of these seducers in Rome in a manner
as adroit as it is vivid.
An end to the epistle is now reached, and so Paul pronounces
a benediction. 21-23. But would this epistle be despatched to Rome with
out first being read to the church in Corinth, where it was
written? And when so read the Corinthian hearers must have
their greetings subjoined, first among whom comes Timothy,
Paul's "work-fellow," and, besides several others, another
kinsman, the fourth one in the chapter.
The amanuensis, Tertius, who in some quiet chamber had
been writing down what Paul dictated, and would not disturb
the apostle or add a word of his own there, now that an end
is reached and others are present and giving their salutations,
adds his own. Paul certainly did not dictate " I Tertius."
" Gaius," in whose house the letter was written, as must be
supposed, is doubtless the man alluded to in 1 Corinthians
i. 14. He was now Paul's "host," as Priscilla and Aquila had
been some years before (Acts xviii. 3), and the host "of the
whole church." There is no reason for diluting this statement
as some commentators do. The entire Christian assembly met
within this man's gates and may have been present when this
was penned. But why do we not read, " The church of Cor
inth salutes you " ? Because their salutation is to be found in
verse 1 6 above. A city officer, Erastus, the chamberlain, salutes.
His faith in Christ did not debar him from a civic function.
The view that a Christian cannot hold an office of the state
wrecks on this passage. " And Quartus the [not " a "] brother."

(XVI. 24-27) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 271
The Romans would especially appreciate this last salutation,
for they knew Quartus and all about him, as the word " the "
indicates. We are in entire ignorance of him.
24. The epistle having officially ended with verse 20, this
fraternal postscript was appended, not being suitable earlier,
and now again a benediction is pronounced. The doubt of
its genuineness (the Revised and many other modern versions
reject it) arose from a failure to see the structure of this closing
portion. As the benediction of verse 20 closed the epistle
officially, so this one closes it fraternally. Meyer skilfully
defends it.
25. We may now conceive of Paul as taking the pen from
the amanuensis Tertius, and adding the doxology in his own
peculiar (Gal. vi. 1 1, R. V.) hand, not only to authenticate the
epistle (2 Thess. iii. 17) to the Romans, but also to bring the
whole to a worthy and exalted close.
25-27. " Now to him that is of power to [establish you."
Paul began the epistle with this thought (i. 11). He wrote
about his desire to visit them and to impart to them some
spiritual gift, to the end that they might be established. And
now he refers them to God, who " is able " to do this.
"According to my gospel." "According" does not mean
either " in " or " by " or " in respect to." The word expresses
a correspondence. When in building a house it is set and es
tablished according to a fixed street line, there is an agreement
between the house and the line, such a harmony that each
measures the other. When the Romans became finally fixed
and settled in their faith Paul hoped to see that faith in exact
parallel with his gospel. He has already called the latter a
"form" or mold (vi. 17). God is able to put its stamp upon
their thinking, feeling, and living, so that in all these there will
never be any divergence from the gospel. A church is " es
tablished " when it reverently believes and says of everything
—sin and Satan, Christ, death and life, the past and the future

272 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 25-27)
— just what the gospel reveals about these things. The heart
is so unstable, there is so much inadequate and even false
teaching, and Satan is so constantly seeking to undermine,
that God alone is " of power to establish " so that there be no
swerving. The Romans are joyfully firm now, Paul knows,
but divine power alone can preserve them in that firmness.
" My gospel " — the gospel as I preach it. (See remarks on
ii. 16, and compare 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 8; Gal. ii. 2.)
There was no conflict between Paul's gospel and Peter's, but
Paul's shows a much wider development.
"And the preaching of Jesus Christ." Subjoined to show
without fail what Paul's gospel is in its substance and contents.
It is a proclamation about Jesus Christ.
" According to the revelation of the mystery." The word
" according " has the same meaning as in the first instance in
this verse. The question here is about the connection of the
phrase introduced by it, whether to join it with the verb
" stablish," thus making the two " according " phrases parallel,
or to affix it to the words "preaching of Jesus Christ." Prac
tically the two connections come to the same thing. The
preaching of Jesus Christ accorded with the revelation by God
to Paul of a " mystery." A mystery is a spiritual truth which
could not be known to exist except by direct revelation. But
after it is revealed it is still called a mystery. Some part of
the one alluded to here was given in xi. 25— a part, for the
Romans surely knew the whole as it is given in Ephesians iii.
3, 6. The sum of the mystery was the union of Jew and
Gentile on the same level in Christ " until the fullness of the
Gentiles be come in," when the Jew should again come to the
front and receive his headship. The relation of Jew and
Gentile was the burning question in the church in Paul's day.
Nothing could be settled till it was settled. This question was
the foe of stability and well-nigh wrecked the churches of
Galatia, And Paul knew the might of the disturbing currents

(XVI. 25-27) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 273
sweeping around the churches, and that nothing but God's
power could establish the Romans conformably with a preach
ing that accorded with this mystery, so hateful to the zealous
but unbelieving Jew, who knew Moses, but had nothing but
hate for what Peter calls "the present truth" (2 Pet. i. 12).
"Which was kept secret since the world began." About
this mystery there was a hush during eternal ages. The end
of these silent times came in Paul's day. God knew from all
eternity that Jew and Gentile were to be saved alike by a
common faith in Christ, but he did not reveal it till he raised
up the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. i. n, 12, 15). Judaism
neither revealed nor embodied this mystery. Judaism was
quite subordinate, and served its own divinely given purpose
until God's plan for the world should be made known.
" But now is made manifest." The " now " is in pointed
contrast with the time in which the mystery was kept secret,
" which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit" (Eph. iii. 5). The contrast here, as Colossians i. 26
shows, is between the other ages and " now." It may be further
remarked on this Ephesian passage that the "as" does not
give a comparison between degrees of revelation in the former
time and "now." It denies that there was any revelation at
all of the mystery in that former time; just as if one should
tell a man born blind that the sun does not shine in the night
as it does in daytime. It does not shine at all by night.
Certainly there is no comparison by " as " in Acts ii. 15; xx. 24.
" As " with a negative in the preceding clause has not received
the attention which it deserves. It is sometimes almost equiva
lent to "but" (1 Cor. vii. 31).
It may be remarked also on the Ephesian passage that it
is generally admitted that in the phrase "holy apostles and
prophets " Paul is referring exclusively to the New Testament
prophets. Paul was both an apostle and a prophet,

274 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 25-27)
"And by the Scriptures of the prophets." This very faulty
rendering of the King James version is, strangely enough,
followed in the Revised Version, but not in some other equally
good modern translations, that read "prophetic writings"
instead of " Scriptures of the prophets." In the original there
is no article with either word, as there would be if it referred
to the Old Testament ; nor is the word rendered " prophets "
a noun, but an adjective. The commentators generally (Godet
is an exception) make this mistranslated phrase refer to the
Old Testament. But how strange that Paul should say that
this mystery was kept secret until his day, as the commentators
admit that he does, and that then he should contradict himself
by saying that it was " made known " " by the Scriptures of the
prophets " ! These prophetic writings were chiefly Paul's own.
He claims that this mystery was made known to him by reve
lation and that he " wrote " about it in " few words " (Eph. iii.
3). The apostles needed to have their understandings opened
to understand the Scriptures, but this cannot be called a reve
lation. This mystery of the union of Jew and Gentile on the
common level of the church is utterly wanting in the Old Tes
tament. The angels did not know it (Eph. iii. 9, 10). Re
peated visions were necessary to lead Peter into an acceptance
of it (Acts x., xi.). The Old Testament bears witness to the
life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as to
the doctrine of justification by faith, as Paul has been careful
all through this epistle to show abundantly. It testifies clearly,
too, that the Gentiles are to be saved ; but beyond this, instead
of predicting that Judaism should for a time be set aside, it
declares its exaltation in Christ in innumerable places, and
instead of foretelling the equality of Jew and Gentile, it in
variably predicts the latter's subordination in the time to come.
The expositors miss the meaning of this phrase, "Scriptures
of the prophets," first, from faulty presuppositions ; secondly,
from a hasty following of the ancient commentators, whom

(XVI. 25-27) LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH 275
they quote with one consent, especially Theodoret (see Alford
and Ellicott) ; thirdly, from an inadequate conception of the
historical situation ; and, fourthly, from not seeing the climactic
relation of this doxology to the peculiarity of the epistle. As
no other this epistle breaks down the barrier between Jew and
Gentile, while admitting the " advantage " of the former (iii.).
Chapters ix.-xi. are peculiar to it. And Paul looks now to
God to establish them, not in accord with the Old Testament,
but according to this new revelation, " according to my gospel,"
" according to the revelation of the mystery."
" According to the commandment of the everlasting God,
made known." The mystery of the oneness of Jew and Gen
tile in Christ was not only manifested to the apostle, but made
known authoritatively. There are four qualifying clauses
about the mystery : it was made known (a) by means of the
prophetic writings ; (b) because of the command of the ever
lasting God (it was Christ who commanded the gospel to be
preached ; God commanded the mystery to be made known,
significantly called the " everlasting " God) ; (c) the aim in
making it known is "the obedience of faith" (see on i. 5);
(d) and the extent of this knowledge was "to all nations."
"To God only wise." The translation of the Revised
Version is preferable : " To the only wise God, through Jesus
Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen." Paul, with
no strict grammatical connection with what precedes, closes
with an adoring look upward in an attitude of worship. The
phrase " through Jesus Christ " seems to go with the word
" God," who, through Jesus Christ, is manifested as the alone,
as the absolutely, wise. " To whom [God] be the glory "—
the praise, worship, and honor for all that is done for men in
Christ. " To whom be the glory forever. Amen." Bengel
adds : " And let every believing reader say, ' Amen.' " The
subscription of the King James version, while not genuine, is
undoubtedly correct.

3 9002 05118 8200