'SfA , *

i

/give thfe BoaSs
far Vie foaniiijig cf a. College mii^JSalbti^t''

^ » Y^LE«¥]MH¥EI^SIIir¥«'

Gift of
Yale Divinity School
l9aB

COMMENTARY

Paul's Letter to Romans:

WITH A REVISED GREEK TEXT,

COMPILED FROM THE BEST RECENT AUTHORS,

New Translation.

BY
MOSES E. LARD.

St. Louis:
CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1897.

Entered according to Aft of Congress, in the year 1875,
By MOSES E. LARD,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

MT SA VI OR,
IN PROFOUND HUMILITY AND REVERENCH,
THIS VOLUME
IS GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, BY
THB AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

In December, 1863, I announced my intention of writing, at some future
day, Providence fevoring, a commentary on Paul's Letter to the disciples in
Rome. Since that announcement, many untoward events have conspired to
defeat my purpose. Among the chief of these has been the want of adequate
leisure. But, at last, I am thankful to say, I have been enabled to bring the
work, such as it is, to a close. I here present it to the public, with a single
regret, which is, that it is not more worthy of the great theme upon which
it has been written.
In studying the Letter in question, I had been constantly impressed with
the conviction that no commentary on it, with which I was acquainted, was
sufficiently free from the influence of particular scholastic tenets to meet the
wants of those who desjre to know the simple truth, as it is in Christ, without
having it formulated in the schools, or modified by special theories of relig
ion. I greatly felt the need of a work, the sole aim of which should be, to
determine precisely what Paul means, regardless of what that meaning favors
or disfavors. Such a work I could not command. I soon discovered that
those who have written on the Letter are, for the greater part, either intense
ly Calvinistic, on the one hand, or intensely anti-Calvinistic, on the other.
Paul wrote to favor neither of these parties ; hence, neither of these parties,
as such, can interpret hira.
Again : The extreme doctrine of justification by faith only, has so com
pletely engrossed the mind of commentators, since the sixteenth century,
that it seems never to have occurred to them, as even a possible fact, that
Paul may not have been writing in their exclusive interest. They have
regarded him as certainly of their order, and, as a consequence, have writ
ten him up into a partisan, only more partisan than themselves. The result
has been that in many places their works are a complete perversion of the
truth, and not an exhibition of it. From these writers I could derive no
benefit, except where their cherished doctrine was out of sight.
The present work is an effort to supply, so far as the ability is possessed,
the deficiency here complained of. I only wish I were able to feel that it is
successful. I fear, however, the reader may find himself compelled to see
in me the same fault which I have, with constant reluctance, seen in others.
Still I am not without hope that this may not prove so.
The sole aim, then, of the present Commentary is to ascertain the exact
sense of Paul, and to express it in terse, clear English. How far this has

PREFACE.

been accortiplished, I dare not venture to say. Of what I have aimed to
do, I am a perfectly competent judge ; of what I have actually done, I may
be a very poor one.
My Commentary proper, then, consists, in brief, in an effort so to amplify
the Apostle's meaning that the English reader can not fail to catch it. This
meaning, besides, where it has been thought necessary, I have attempted to
defend both by offering in its support such affirmative arguments as oc
curred to me, and by endeavoring to show the futility of such as have been
used to subvert it. In the latter work, it is true, I have not attempted much.
One charge I have felt solicitous not to be exposed to ; namely, the charge
of passing shyly over the difficult passages, and of dwelling with plethoric
fulness on the easy ones. The very opposite has been my aim. Accord
ingly, I have studied the forraer passages till I have not been able to realize
additional light from farther study. I have then, but not sooner, set
down my conclusions. Of their merits I do not speak. Of the latter
passages I have said, I hope, enough, but I have certainly not intended to
dwell on them at length.
The reader will notice that I have never seemed to think whether my ex
positions were favoring Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other ism. And
this is strictly true. Indeed, I have been concerned solely with the sense of
Paul, and with neither the sense nor non-sense of others.
I have felt most anxious, and, I trust, not unsuctessfuUy, to avoid the
appearance of learned display, so common in works of this kind. My ambi
tion has been, so far as practicable, to make a book for the common reader.
I have, therefore, refrained from unintelligible allusions, the use of foreign
words, and citations of unfamiliar authors ; in fine, from everything which
coiild wear the appearance of mere display, without being, at the same time,
positively necessary. In this respect, I trust, I have not been studious in
vain. It remains to add only a few more items, before putting an end to this
preface. And, first, in regard to Lexicons to the New Testament, I feel it
a duty to say, that I have not always found them as trustworthy as I could
have wished. They, like commentaries, are usually very perceptibly tinct
ured with the peculiar sentiraents of their authors. The same remark
applies to grammars. Such works I have been compelled to use with
caution. In the next place, I have not been enabled, it may be hazardous to say,.
to derive from the so called usus loquendi of the New Testament, and the
inductive method, the aid which others claim to have derived. Certainly I
have constantly kept both in view ; but I have usually found that each pas
sage has a meaning so peculiarly its own as not always to be very obviously
susceptible of elucidation by light derived from other passages. Conse
quently, I have endeavored to ascertain the sense of each separate passage,
by whatever means seemed fullest of the promise of success, without slaving
it specially to any one method. I could not feel safe in any other course.
Nor have I stopped to offer learned criticisms upon the Text, on all oc-

PREFACE. VII
casions, whether they were demanded or not. I have felt content, in many
places, to give the sense in a plain way and pass on.
Neither have I cumbered every clause and verse with references to nu
merous parallel passages. My reasons for this are two : i. Strict parallel
ism in the New Testament, outside of the Four Gospels, is very rare. 2.
Such references are never consulted. I have hence felt unwilling to be at
pains to cite them.
In the matter of English moods and tenses, I have not endeavored to
conform them to Greek models. Only when the mood or tense was the fact,
or part of the fact, to be communicated, have I felt it necessary to be ex
tremely careful. In all other instances I have used the liberty of writing
English, not Greek.
MOSES E. LARD.
Lexington, Kv., February 2, 1875.

INTRODUCTION.

Of Paul's ancestors we know nothing, except that he was of
the Tribe of Benjamin, the youngest son of Jacob. On the road
between Bethel and Bethlehem, and not far from the latter place,
that tribal ancestor was born. His mother, the beloved Rachel,
died in giving him birth, but not till she had named him Benoni,
son of my sorrow, which Jacob subsequently changed to Benja
min. The Tribe, though the least, save one, among those of Israel,
was not without distinction. Saul, the first king of Israel, was a
Benjaminite, as was also Mordecai, certainly one of the most hon
ored and distinguished deliverers the nation ever had. As war
riors, the Benjaminites were renowned, being most unerring bow
men, who usually, it seems, drew the string with the left hand.
And this fact may serve to account for their dexterity; for
the acquired skill which comes from laborious training is always
more accurate than that which is more natural, because less culti
vated. But of all the sons of Benjamin, to Saul of Tarsus must be
awarded the foremost place. If we except the royal heir of Ju
dah, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, it is not extravagant to
say that the world is to-day more indebted to him than to any
other man that ever lived in it. To say that this is due to him as
inspired, would be true, but it does not impair the truth of the
remark. HIS PARENTS.
Respecting Paul's parents we have not, in the New Testament,
even one satisfactory remark. He alludes to his father once; and
mention is made, Acts xxiii: i6, of his sister and her son, both of
whom appear to have been living at the time in Jerusalem. How
deeply we regret the want of even one full historic line touching
his mother. That must have been a noble woman to Avhom God
gave so noble a son. If all nations delight to call Mary "blessed,"
how also would thousands have deep pleasure in cherishing the
name of the favored Hannah or Lois, that gave birth to one whose
name is to stand inseparably linked, through all time, with that
of the Savior of the world. Did she ever live to hear him preach
"Christ and him crucified"? Or did he ever have the exquisite
pleasure of "burying in baptism" the form that had hushed him
with lullabies through many a long tardy night, at a time when
the vast Gentile world, whom he was subsequently to wake to the
sublime activities of ransomed life, were slumbering on through

INTRODUCTION. i*
their still darker night of idolatry? Did she live to see him stand
in the forefront and hottest of the fight with "spiritual wicked
ness," when no one could vie with him in "labors"? Was it ever
her happiness to "let him down by the wall in a basket," and so
foil the malice of demoniac foes? Did that maternal hand ever
wash the blood from his heroic back, after he had received "forty
stripes save one"? Did she ever inspire him with brave words,
saying, "Count all things but loss, my son, for the excellency
of the knowledge of Christ Jesus," while the "care of all the
churches" was upon him? These are questions over which we
have a melancholy pleasure in thinking, but which we have no
means of answering. PLACE OF HIS BIRTH.
Fortunately for us, the Apostle himself gives us the place of his
birth. It was Tarsus in CiUcia, "no mean city," a remark which
history abundantly justifies. For Strabo tells us that in refinement
and love of learning, it equalled or even surpassed Alexandria
and Athens. Tarsus stood on the banks of the river Cydnus, in
a broad and fertile plain, skirting the northeastern shore of the
Mediterranean. It lay almost due north of Jerusalem, and just
soutli of latitude 37. Its location -was an admirable one; and we
are consequently not surprised to learn that it was little less famous
for its commerce than its letters. To the east of it, on the other
side of the mount Amanus range, lay Mesopotamia, the early
cradle of the human family; to the west of it, and east of the
y£gean sea, lay that vast and densely populated inland country,
which subsequently was the scene of so many of Paul's labors.
The city had formerl}' been under the sw^ay of the Greeks, and its
population was stiU largely Greek; but at the time of Paul's birth
it was a "free" Roman cit}-, so made by Augustus Caesar. Here,
in "free" Tarsus, Paul was born, although it was not from the cir
cumstance of the city's being free that he derived his ''free birth.''
DATE OF HIS BIRTH UNKNOWN.
The year in which Paul was born has shared the fate of most
of the dates of those early days, and been lost There is a
passage in a sermon ascribed, but with questionable authority, to
Chrysostom, from which it has been inferred that he was born
the second year of our era, A. D. 14 has also been named as the
probable year of his birth. But these dates, though not wholly
beyond the range of truth, are conjectural. Indeed, we possess
no data from which the time of his birth can confidently be deter
mined. He was a "young man" at the time of Stephens death.
This much is certain; and it fixes his birth with tolerable certainty
towards the close of Herod's life, or in the early part of that of
Archelaus. This was the period of Rome's greatest splendor.
Augustus was at the hight of his power; and the world was
resting a little from the long martial struggles of the past. The
provinces were enjoying uncommon advantages; and even the
Jews were exempt, for the time, from imperial tyrannv, and from

X INTRODUCTION.
slaughter at the hands of idolaters. Roman couriers shot rapidly
along every highway; and Roman eagles were the emblems of
power in almost every land. John the baptist was still in the
"hill country" of Judea, and the Savior at carpentry with Joseph
in Nazareth. About this time Paul must have made his first
appearance as a little boy in the streets of Tarsus.
NOT KNOWN HOW HE CAME TO BE FREE BORN.
How Paul came to be free born is unknown. His father may-
have purchased a Roman citizenship, which was not uncommon^
or it may have been conferred on him, or on some of his ancestors,
as a reward for distinguished services rendered in some of those
wars in which Tarsus sided with Rome. The latter is the more
probable hypothesis. For if Paul reflected, in any marked degree,
the characteristics of his father, whicli is certainly not improbable,
then that father was sure to attain distinction in whatever Csesar's
cause h& might espouse. He would be no man to play an obscure
second part. In the thickest of the fight his shield would always
be borne; while no one would excel him in unfaltering devotion
to his chief. For this devotion he would be honored with the
first distinction of a Roman. More likely thus, I think, than
otherwise, Paul became "free born."
HIS STAY IN TARSUS.
How long Paul lived in Tarsus, or to what degree he had been
educated before leaving for "the feet of Gamaliel," can only ba
conjectured. It is not very probable that the parents of one w^ho
was always ready to boast of being a "Hebrew of the Hebrews,"
and of belonging to the "strictest sect" among the Jews, would
value very highly a Gentile education. The very reverse is the
more likely. And then the purpose of his parents to educate him
in the metropolis of their own country, would render them the
less concerned about his being educated in Tarsus. Besides, the
immature age at which Paul must have gone to Jerusalem, to
justify his own remark that he was "brought up" there, is incon
sistent with the supposition of a liberal education at home. The
probability is that about all that can be said of him in this particu
lar is, that he was respectably educated, for a youth, before he left
for Jerusalem. Furthermore, his use of the Greek language is
that of a highly endowed man by nature, who had learned tc^
speak it as a vernacular with great fluency and wonderful force,
rather than that of one who had been long and nicely trained in
the schools of the masters. All these circumstances point to a no
very elaborate Gentile education.
PECUNIARY CONDITION OF HIS PARENTS.
The pecuniary condition of Paul's parents can hardly have been
very low. They had long lived in Tarsus, and latterly in most
prosperous times. Tarsus was a thrifty place, with a large eastern,
western and maratime trade; and the Jews are proverbially a
thrifty people. Besides, the ambition to educate their son in the

INTRODUCTION. XI
best school in Jerusalem, points to a proud family, conscious of
the means to accomplish their wish. The abject have no such
aspirations as this family had.
TriEIR SOCIAL POSITION.
Moreover, the social position of Paul's parents must have been
high. The faultless honor, proud bearing, independence, delicacy,
and gentle tact which always distinguished their son, are the sure
indexes to a cultivated family of fine standing. Paul boasted of
being a citizen of "no mean city," and no doubt could have added,
with equal truth, and a member of no mean family.
IN THE SCHOOL OF GAMALIEL.
How long Paul remained in the school of Gamaliel, or how long
he had been out of it, if out at all, when he is introduced to us, on
the occasion of Stephen's death, as the "young man at whose feet
the witnesses laid down their clothes," we are without the means
of saying. He tells us that he was "taught according to the per
fect manner of the law of the fathers", which could hardly have
required less than from four to six years. But he may have lived
in the city a much longer time than that. The expression, "a
young man," applied to him at the stoning of Stephen, is most
likely to be taken with some latitude. A mere stripling could
hardly have gained the notoriety which he gained about that time;
nor would one have been confided in by those in authority as we
know he was. Neither is it likely that the Savior would call a
mere youth to act the conspicuous and responsible part which
Paul acted from the very day of his baptism on. I should think,
then, that we may safely assume Paul to have been Uttle less, if
any, than thirty years old at the time of his call. Certainly his
call at an earlier date is not probable. But be these conjectures
as they may, from his call on, we know much of his history;
whereas, from that event back, we know very little.
HIS PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
Even tradition, no matter how unsatisfactory, is not devoid of
interest for us, when it relates to one concerning whom we are so
eager to catch every hint that can lead us to a still better acquaint
ance with him. We are, therefore, ready to hear, though the
legend be a v\rholly untrustworthy one, how, according to ancient
rumor, Paul personally looked. One thing is certain, he must
have looked some way, and as probably this as any other, and as
probably a hundred others as this. Tradition, then, believed it
would seem in the ages immediately succeeding him, pictures Paul
for us as slender in body and low (it is worthy of note, that we
never think of him as a man of powerful build); and it farther
draws him as so distorted or lame as at times to provoke the sneer
of his enemies. His head, though bald, is represented as a noble
one; his features were bold and strikingly Jewish; his complexion
was so fair as quickly to reveal every change in his highly sensi
tive feelings; his eyes were bright and gray, his eyebrows heavy;

Xll INTRODUCTION.
his countenance was indicative of high intelligence and deep
thought; his expression was hopeful, pure and sweet; while his
amiable face charmed every body and repulsed none. Such is the
beautiful picture which fond tradition has handed down to us of
this great man. It is pleasant to linger on its features and indulge
the hope that they are not wholly ideal.
HIS POWERS OF ENDURANCE.
Although Paul was most probably a man of slender bodily
mold, still he must have been wonderfully endowed with powers
of endurance. He had one of those tough, delicate organisms
which appear always failing, and yet never fail. With a body of
anything else than steel, he could never have endured the hard
ships which we know he endured; and w^e know not a tithe of
those through which he must have passed. True, much of this is
attributable, no doubt, to the succoring hand of his Master, who
was his never-failing help in need; but it is not sufficient to
account for every thing. Paul, as Paul simply, and not as super
naturally sustained, is the only solution of much of the problem ot
his life. No one, I venture, ever rose higher above that low type
of men called "sensual," than he. On the one hand, he was the
very embodiment of thought and sensibility; and on the other, the
very negation of the Epicurean. In a word, he seems to have
been a sinewy woman in form, but a Roman of the Romans in
intellect, continuity of purpose, will-power, and never-flagging
energy. HIS NATURAL AUTHORITY.
Paul was the Napoleon of the apostles in authority. Not that
as an apostle he was more highly endow^ed than they, for he was
not; but in this particular nature had been lavish with him. He
was a "born king" among men, whether "making tents," or pro
claiming the "unsearchable riches of Christ." Nor is the trait one
which the biographer can venture to overlook. Some men were
never made to command any thing, not even a cart. The women
henpeck them, and even their own children never obey them.
Nature has never commissioned eye or mouth or any thing else in
their case. But not so Paul. His very look was a mandate which
only needed articulation to be complied with. But, although thus
endowed, he was usually, among his brethren, "gentle as a nurse
cherishing her children." Only when occasion called for it was
he "such, when present, as he was by letter, when absent." No
where was this characteristic of the Apostle ever more conspicu
ously displayed than in the presence of great crowds, composed
largely of his enemies. Usually he at once awed them into silence,
and seldom failed to leave them with a "division." In the church,
Paul's enemies could not stand before him for a moment; nor as a
rule could they do so out of it, except when maddened to frenzy.
And when we reflect on the countless forms in which insubordi
nation made its appearance among the early disciples, we can
readily discover the wisdom of the Savior in selecting a man of

IN-rRODUCTION. XIU
Paul's faculty to quell it One unclothed with his natural authori
ty could never have achieved what he did. Perfection in a public
functionary requires that the authoritative word shall be seconded
by the authoritative look. HIS INTELLECT.
In intellect, I think it probable that Paul's admirers have usually
overrated him. Great he certainly was, but that he was tran
scendently so, is not in evidence. He was a man of commanding
intellect — no more. Nor was it necessary that he should be more.
There were other traits of mind far more essential to his success
than mere greatness. He needed a mind of faultless balance, a
mind of perfect symmetry, one of consummate normal action and
great exactitude, rather than otherwise. To such a mind divine
truth reveals itself more naturally than to any other; and then
such a mind can more readily comprehend divine truth, and be
juster to it, than any other. Whatever of greatness such a mind
would lack, would be more than compensated for in the fact of
inspiration. Now, the whole known history and labors of Paul
come in to confirm the justness of the estimate here placed upon
him. He was always equal to the crisis, be that what it might —
no mean proof of greatness. He always did just the thing he
should have done, and said just the thing he should have said.
This indicates eminent mental harmony, and exquisite mental
action. We never feel, when studying Paul, that he should have
done this or that, or should have acted thus or so. We never
have an improvement to suggest, either upon matter or manner.
This points to a mind of astonishing perfections; and such a mind
was Paul's. INSPIRATION.
As it is impossible to study Paul for a moment, or indeed any
other apostle; or to attempt any proper estimate of him, either as
speaker or writer, without the subject of inspiration constantly
obtruding itself upon our notice, this seems a suitable place to
pause a little on that curious topic. Besides, other reasons suggest
to me the necessity for a slight notice of the subject in this con
nection. Of course it must be briefly treated here.
What, then, is inspiration? I answer, that in its fulness, it com
prehends five things: i. The personal presence in the inspired
of the Holy Spirit; 2. The communication to his mind of ideas;
3. Selecting the words in which these ideas shall be spoken or
written; 4. Endowing him with powers of speech; 5. Conferring
upon him power to work miracles, in order to confirm whatever
message he delivers. On each of these items I think it well to
add a few reflections:
I . The personal presence in ihe inspired of ihe Holy Spirit.
If I am asked how the Holy Spirit can personally dwell in a
human being, I reply, I do not know. Neither do I know or
understand how the human spirit can dwell in a human body, but
I profoundly believe the fact. And so in regard to the personal

XIV INTRODUCTION.
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe the fact, though^ I am
without an explanation of the mode of it. If the Holy Spirit be
a person, and infinite in power, which I believe i& generally con
ceded, then to affirm that it can dwell in a human being, is
certainly not an assertion necessarily felo-de-se. It is the affirma
tion of a simple matter of fact, for the confirmation of which a
single passage of holy writ is sufiicient; and that we have such
passage, no one acquainted with the Bible will deny. The Savior,
in speaking to the apostles of the Spirit, said: "He dwells with
you, and is in you" John xiv: 17, revised Greek text. This
settles the question of the Spirit's indwelling.
But the mere indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not inspiration,
although it is the antecedent to it, and necessary condition of it.
For, conceivably the Spirit might dwell in a person, and yet com
municate to him no ideas, in which event we should not hold him
to be inspired. Something more, then, than mere indwelling is
essential to inspiration.
2. TTie communication to his Tnind of ideas. .No matter whethei
these ideas be original or revived, whether they be ideas of things
in heaven or things in earth, the communication of them to the
mind is essential to inspiration, and without them there is no
inspiration. But the mere communication of ideas is not enough;
for were the process of revelation to stop here, it would evidently
stop at an incomplete stage. ' Another step, therefore, is neces
sary. 3. Selecting ihe -words in -which ihe ideas com-municated shall
be spoken or -written. Were the ideas"simply communicated, and
the endowed then left to select the v^rords in which to impart
them, we can readily see how great blunders might be committed,
and disastrous results follow. The Holy Spirit alone that commu
nicates the ideas, is fully capable of selecting the words which
will precisely convey them; and this it does. See i Cor. ii: 13.
4. Endowing -with the povoer of speech. The language which
would have to be used in conveying the ideas might l>e unknown
to the endowed. In that case it would certainly be necessary to
invest him with the power to use it. Whether this would be
requisite, where the language to be used was known, can no*
confidently be said, though-I should think not. Apparently were
a known word, containing a given idea, to be suggested to the
mind, no necessity can be discovered for supernatural aid to utter
it; and where such aid is not required, it is not given,
5. Conferring povjer to 'work miracles in order to confirm vjhat-
ever message is delivered. The Holy Spirit may dwell in a man;
may communicate to his mind ideas; may select the words in
which to convey them; may endow with utterance; and still, un
less it confer the power to confirm, all is manifestly lost; for
belief, without proof, is impossible.
Now, these are the elements that enter into the conception of
inspiration; and how completely they secure the human family
against error in the matter of revelation, can readily be seen.

INTRODUCTION. XV
When now I speak of Paul as inspired, no one can misunder
stand me; nor, which is far more important, provided what has
just been said be correct, can any one misunderstand what inspi
ration itself is.
It is proper to add, that only when acting as an apostle, or
when preaching the gospel, or writing for Christ, can Paul or any
¦one else properly be said to be under the influence of inspira-
-tion. When not acting as an apostle, or acting merely for himself,
¦there is no evidence that Paul was any more effectually protected
against error, or blunders, or sin, than any other discreet and pru-
deat christian. He may have been, to be sure; but if so, the fact
is not known. But whenever his acts concerned Christ, or
involved the welfare of human beings; whenever, in other words,
he acted officially, then even a fault was not allowable. Confess-
-edly, this places the matter of revelation on high ground, but not
•on ground too high to be perfectly safe.
TO WHOM DID PAUL WRITE?
We are at last enabled to abandon the region of tradition and
•conjecture, and to enter that of certainty, or at least probability.
The Letter in hand was vvrritten to "all who are in Rome, beloved
of God, called holy"; in other words, and briefly, it was written
to all christians living in Rome at the time. But it was written to
them as individuals, and not as a body or church. This is a
^remarkable difference between the present Letter and some others
-written by Paul. Those are addressed to churches as such; this
is addressed to individuals as such. Indeed, church unity or
•organization is not even once alluded to or recognized in the
Letter, unless it be implied in ch. xvi: 17. ' How now shall we
account for the circumstance? The Apostle writes a letter to the
metropolis of the world, which, as a point of divergence for
christian light and influence, was certainly without a superior, if
it had any equal. Here large numbers of disciples had either
-congregated from other countries, or been converted on the spot —
•disciples who had never enjoyed a visit from any apostle; and yet
Paul says nothing to them upon the subject of church order or
government, upon the duties of overseers and deacons. Why the
omission? Simply, I conclude, because 'nothing of the sort was
necessary; for had it been so, it is inconceivable that the Apostle
would have failed to mention it. This, as an indefinite general
reply, must, I presume, be accepted as correct. But why was the
instruction in question not necessary? That the disciples in
Rome had among them men endowed with gifts of the Spirit is
certain. Among these gifts the Apostle himself mentions proph
ecy, teaching, exhortation, and ruling. Now, I conclude that these
spiritual men had so admirably ordered and regulated the church
or churches, if there were several, as to render any thing from
Paul on church organization and government unnecessary. This
I deem a fair answer to the question, as well as a fair solution of
the difficulty.

KVl INTRODUCTION.
As to the supposition of some, that, at the time when Paul
wrote, there was no church in Rome, in the strictly local sense of
the term, and that this is the reason why none is taken notice of,
I think it so improbable as to need no lengthy reply. It is cer
tainly vicious logic to infer from the silence of the Apostle the
non-existence of a church. That there was no one single church.
or consolidated body, I think most likely. The better supposition
is, that there were several churches. We have one mentioned,
and it is hardly possible that this was all. The order of the day
was, especially when regulated by inspired teachers, to form the
disciples, in a given locality, into a church, and api-)oint over them
the prescribed officers. The proper inference is, that Rome was
no exception to this rule.
COMPOSITION OF THE CHURCH.
What was the composition ofthe church or churches in Rome?
I put the question alternatively, because, as just said, I think it
probable, so numerous were the disciples, that there were several
churches. But one thing is certain, on the hypothesis of several
churches, that no two of them were ever ruled or presided over
by the same set of officers. Each church in that day, according
to the New Testament, had to have its own overseers and dea
cons, w^ho ruled at home only, and had no authority or control
elsewhere; and what the custom of that day was, is the law to
this. Popery had its rise in the claim of the same overseer to rulr
two or more churches at the same time; and it may have it again.
But to the question.
The church in Rome (I speak of it as a unit, merely for the
sake of brevity) was composed of two classes of christians, Jew
ish and Gentile, in what relative proportions vte have no means of
knowing. Of these, the Jews, in many individual instances,
would still evince strong leanings towards Moses and the ancient
worship; while the Gentiles would evince similar, but feebler
leanings towards their former customs. On both sides these lean
ings would be sincere. Consequently, colhsions and alienations,
growing out of them, would be frequent and sometimes bitter.
Debates, owing to the partially clouded minds of each of the par
ties, would be unpeacefuUy common. These would be sure not
to engender the most amiable feehngs. The consequence would
be a steady tendency to division between the parties, and disinte
gration of churches. Such was certainly the composition and
such the probable condition of the church in Rome. '
SOCIAL POSITION.
Of the social position of the disciples in Rome little is known-
and yet it can no doubt be approximated somewhat closely by aid'
of a few well known facts. It may then be assumed with much
confidence, that the church was not composed of the aristocratic
or noble-born, and the very rich. This remark would be true aa
a general rule, though an occasional exception to it might occui
The classes here named are never the first to embrace the gospel,

INTRODUCTION. XVil
Even when they do embrace it at all, they do so only after
awhile, when to be a christian becomes the vogue. It was long
before this was the case in Rome; though, at length, about the
time, or a little before, the "man of sin" made his appearance, it
became the case. Then, even royal blood was often not ashamed
of Christ and his church — a disastrous day that for the purity of
Christianity, When pomp, and power, and ignorance enthrone
themselves in the kingdom of God, humility and piety are at an
end; and the kingdom rapidly degenerates. Such was the case
then; and such will always be the case.
Neither, from the very nature of Christianity, could the church
in Rome have been composed of that rout or canaille, so inany of
whom are usually found grouped together in large cities. The
very purity of the gospel would, after awhile, slough them off.
At first they would be sure to enter the church in large numbers,
being attracted to it by its benevolent spirit, as a means of sup
port. But a Httle sharp discipline would soon ehminate them.
The vicious and low never stick long by any thing where their
evil habits are rigorously held in check.
The church in Rome, then, at the time of Paul's writing, must
have been composed of tliat powerful and virtuous middle class,
who are always the first to embrace the gospel; and who, after all,
constitute the true element of strength in the kingdom of Christ.
So long as a church is composed of this class, it is above con
tempt, on the one hand, and insured against corruption, on the
other. But, alas for it, when it becomes filled with a so-called
superior element. BY WHOM WAS THE CHURCH PLANTED?
The question. By whom was the church in Rome founded?
has been elaborately and sharply discussed; and still it remains
unsettled. Into the merits of the discussion I can not attempt to
enter. Such an undertaking would be fruitless of final results,
and, therefore, measurably unprofitable. The question can be set
tled within certain safe, though not very definite limits. ISIore
than this is not attainable.
It may, then, be accepted as indisputable that the church in
Rome was not founded by an apostle. There is not one vestige
of disinterested and trustworthy evidence that, up to the time of
Paul's second imprisonment, if there was a second, anv other
apostle, besides himself, had ever been in Rome, The Romish
hierarchy, it is true, confidently assert the contrary; but then the
Romish hierarchy have a deep interest in sustaining their legends
about the apostle Peter. But even granting what is possible, nay,
probable, that Peter may have visited the imperial city towards
the close of his life, and the very concession negatives the
idea Uiat he had any hand in founding the church there. The
claim, therefore, of nn apostolic origin for the chsrch in Rome
must be abandoned as utterly groundless.
By whom, then, was it founded? still recurs unanswered. The
a

XVlU INTRODUCTION.
most reliable theory of its origin is, that it was planted by some of
those "strangers of Rome," who, doubtless, became christians at
the first Pentecost after the ascension. By earlier converts, it could
not have been established; by these it may have been; and what
in this instance may have been, is most probably what was.
These "strangers" witnessed the splendid miracles of that Pente--
cost, and, most likely, many others of those which so rapidly
followed. With these miracles they would be profoundly im
pressed, and of them long retain the most vivid recollections.
Being thus thoroughly christianized and full of zeal; enjoying,
besides, for a season, daily instruction from the apostles; their
hearts aglow with love for all mankind, and consequently
anxious that others should share in their new joy — what more
natural than that, on returning home, they should fill thousands of
ears with the marvelous things they had seen and heard in Jerusa
lem? At once they would begin to make converts and immerse
them. Thus, more naturally, it seems to me, than in any other
way, would the nucleus of the church be formed.
Besides, we can in no other way so satisfactorily account for the
possession of those gifts of the Spirit, which we know many of
the Roman christians had, as by assuming that they received tiiem
at the Pentecost just named. Would not the aposties be most
anxious to qualify these "strangers" to preach the gospel, at least
to Jews, in so great a city as Rome; and would they not be sure
to do it? They would, I should think, confer upon them the very
"best gifts," and so send them home thoroughly fitted for the
work of proclaiming Christ.
Moreover, the church in Rome must have enjoyed some extra
ordinary advantages to attain the distinction it so soon attained.
For, when Paul wrote, we learn that even then its "belief was
spoken of in the whole world." Its numbers, besides, at that
early day, were very great All this would be sufficientiy
accounted for by the special qualifications which the "strangers"
carried back with them, but in no other way.
Furthermore, unless we assume a very early establishment of
the church in Rome, it is impossible to account satisfactorily for
the magnitude of its power and influence at that time. Perhaps
no church of the age surpassed it in the elements of a brilliant
name and of a far-reaching influence. It is questionable whether
even the church of Jerusalem stood ahead of it in these respects,
however it may have stood in others.
Now, all these facts seem to me to harmonize with no theory ol
the church's origin so well as with the one here maintained.
Indeed I believe it to be the only theory which meets all the
requirements of the case, and against which no really valid objec
tions can be urged.
WHERE WAS THE LETTER WRITTEN FROM?
According to those who have given the subject the most minute
attention, the Letter was written from Greece during Paul's third

INTRODUCTION. xiX
general missionary tour. After his two-years stay, or more, in
Ephesus, he went into Macedonia. Here, and in the sur
rounding countiy, he spent some time in giving the disciples
"much exhortation." After this "he came into Greece, and there
abode three months." This was his second visit into Greece; and
while there, it is believed, he wrote the Letter.
But from what point in Greece did he write? The most reliable
answer is, Corinth. Indeed, that Corinth was the place of writing,
is rendered almost certain by the foUovnng considerations: i. Paul
commends to the disciples in Rome, Phebe, who must herself
either have borne the Letter, or have gone with those that did; for
Paul expected her to arrive in Rome with the Letter, and receive
the benefit of its commendation. Phebe was a deaconess of the
church in Cenchrea; and Cenchrea was the sea-port of Corinth,
lying only a short distance from it, to the south-east This fact
would place Paul either in Cenchrea or close to it 2. Erastus,
the treasurer of "-the cit}',"' sent his greeting in the letter to the
brethren in Rome. Now, "the city" here meant, n}s raXeus^ can
hardly have been any other than Corinth. In the whole cir
cumjacent country, the phrase "the city" would denote Corinth,
and it only. And if so, then Corinth is determined to be the place
of writing. Were I, in writing to a friend at a distance, to say,
the treasurer of the city sends you his greeting, that friend would
instantiy understand "the city" to be the one from which I wrote.
And so in the case in hand. "The city" means tiie city from
which Paul wrote. 3. "Gaius. my host, greets you." At the time
of writing, then, Paul was staying with some one named Gaius.
Was not this the ver\- Gaius whom Paul, himself, had formerly
baptized? With no one else would he be so likely to be staying.
If so, it setties the question in hand; for this Gaius lived in
Corinth. I conclude, then, with the general voice of the learned,
that the Letter was written from Corinth.
WHEN WRITTEN?
To discuss this question fiilly would require more space
than can here be devoted to it I must therefore, content myself
¦with a brief summary of the evidence in the case. According to
our best chronology, Paul left Ephesus not long after Pentecost
in the year, A. D^ 57. This woidd correspond with the year of
Rome, Sio, and be tne 3d of Nero. Three months of tliat year
Paul spent in Greece, most likel\- in Corinth- Here he wrote the
Letter, and left in time to be in Jerusalem at the Pentecost of 5S.
He must, then, have ¦written it either in the latter part of 57, or
the early part of 5S, most probably the latter. This was the 4th
of Nero, the year m which our best chronologies place the writing.
For the present then, 58 must stand as the most reliable date.
But I must here caution the common reader (the learned do not
need it) against reposing too much confidence in these ancient
dates. Certainly, tiiey may be true; but then just as certainly
many of them m.iv not be. The veri- most that can be claimed

xx INTRODUCTION.
for them is, that in most instances they are an approximation to
the truth. But even this gives them so high a value that we can
not dispense with them. FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
This question is best answered by the contents of the Letter.
Whatever effect these contents were designed to produce, is the
purpose for which the Letter was written. What is that effect?
It is concisely as follows: i. To show to both Jews and Gentiles
that, being guilty of the same sins, they are all alike involved in
the same condemnation; 2. That for these sins they are without
excuse, since both have had light, and therefore know better; 3.
That from their sins they can never be justified by law, and that,
consequently, without Christ, they are hopelessly lost; 4. To point
out how Jews under the law, and how Gentiles without it, are
justified in Christ; 5. To show, generally, what effect Adam's sin
has had on the whole human race, and ¦what counter-effect Christ's
death has had; 6. To vindicate God's conduct in at first adopting
the Jews as his peculiar people, and in now rejecting them, and
receiving the Gentiles; 7. To show why he rejects the one and
accepts the other; 8. To foretell the future of both peoples. In
short, the purpose is to show that no one can be saved by law,
whether written or unwritten; and that, consequently, all must be
saved by the gospel, and by it alone, if saved at all. 9. And finally,
to indicate how both, as saved, are to conduct themselves so as
to attain to eternal life. This is certainly a meager outline of the
effect the Letter was intended to produce, but a fuller one is not
deemed necessary.
The Apostle had long and ardently desired to see Rome, but
had hitherto been hindered. That he intended his Letter to sup
ply, in some measure, the place of a personal visit, I think not
unlikely. Had he been in Rome at the time, the topics of the
Letter are the topics upon which he would have dwelt. He would
have sought alike the complete emancipation of the Jews from
the law, and of the Gentiles from their errors, and the thorough
enlightenment of both in the gospel, as the divinely-appointed and
all-sufficient plan and means of salvation. The end would have
been the harmony of both in the love and peace and fellowship
of Christ To this end the Letter constantly looks. Hence the
warning in the latter part of it against division.
Again, the Apostie, no doubt, expected his Letter to be
widely read, and to' be handed down to coming ages. Natu
rally, then, he would wish to make it a great doctrinal chart
for the future, and so itis. It is the whole gospel compressed
into the short space of a single letter — a generalization of Chris
tianity up to the hight of the marvelous, and a detail down tb
exhaustion. All this the Apostle was unquestionably looking
to; and the wide-spread influence of his Letter to-day, together
with its conceded high importance, only attests how far-seeing
he was.

INTRODUCTION, XXI
LANGUAGE AND STYLE.
Paul's language is bold, vigorous, and fresh. A feeble or plod
ding intellect could never have used such language as he uses.
Indeed, unflagging power seems to be one of the most striking
characteristics of his mind; and this characteristic everywhere
crops out in his language. His words march along like giants,
and never glide in tranquil currents. His thoughts rush on as if
wild; and his words rush on like his thoughts. The conception of
euphony seems never to have been before his mind when select
ing his words. On the contrary, power and vitality seem always
to have determined his choice. His words are like bowlders
betw^een the mountain-top from which they have been disengaged,
and the sea towards which they have bounded. Their source
you can never mistake, nor their tendency fail to trace. No one
can doubt that a powerful brain poured forth this verbal torrent,
nor that its aim is to make the mind teem with light. It is replete
with the force and buoyancy of the new divine life.
In style, Paul is characteristic and peculiar. Usually, he is
luminously clear; always strong and dignified; in the main con
secutive; abounding in sudden transitions; very compact; and
occasionally elliptical even to obscurity. One of the most
remarkable and difficult features of his style is its long and
intricate digressions. This circumstance, at times, renders the
interpretation of him uncertain. His style, though it can not be
pronounced a faultless one, when compared with the great mas
ters, is, nevertheless, a noble one. It indicates a mind of rare
versatility and wealthy in speech. It may be wanting in the
polish of Thucydides, but it carries a volume of thought no where
eke surpassed. Paul's style is flo^wing, never betraying the slightest
hesitancy. Smoother, at times, it might advantageously be; but
even in its ruggedness we come at last to delight We would,
hence, never transpose those angular clauses, nor dele those edged
words. In them we feel that we possess a chain which, like the
submarine wire, ties our minds across the past to that of the great
servant of Christ, who is author to them; and we refuse to lay
bands on its sacred links. We are content with our treasure
as it is.

COMMENTARY.

CHAPTER I.
navXof dov\os 'irjtTOv XpiOToC, KX17-
Tos a-iroaroKos, dfjiaipia-fifvos els evay-
yeXiov Ofoi, ' 6 jrpofTnjyyeiXoTo 8ta twv
-irpocj>r]Ta}V avTov iv ypa<f>aLS Ayiais, ^ ncpl
TOV viov avTov, TOV -yivofievov iK cntip^
fiaros Aavld KaTa irapua, * tov optcrdev-
Tos vlov Scov iv 8vvdfi€i Kara 7rv€vp.a dyL-
aaTJVTjs, e| dvaarda-eais veKpa)V—'lr]a-ov
XpiOTOU TOV Kvpiov fifitov, ' Sl OV iKd^o-
[JL€V xdpiv Kai aTTOOToX^v eis VTrOKOrjV TTtV-
Tfios iv mat toIj t6ve<Tiv inrep tov ovo/ia-
Tos aiiTov, ' iv oh iart Kai v/ie'is kXijtoi
'Irjcrov XpioTou, ' Trda-i, roiy ouo-U' iv
'P<o/ig dyoTnjroiy GeoO, kXtjtois dyiois.
Hdpis vpXv Kol elpfjvr] djro Qeov -rraT-
fos Tjiiaiv KOI Kvplov 'lT]a-ov Xpiarou.

SECTION I.
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ a
called apostle, set apart to the gospel
of God, ' which he formerly prom
ised through his prophets, in the holy
Scriptures, ' concerning his Son,
who, as to his flesh, was born of the
seed of David, '' but, as to his pure
spirit, was determined, by power, to
be the Son of God, by tiie resurrec
tion of the dead — Jesus Christ our
Lord, ' through whom we have re
ceived favor and apostleship, in order
to the obedience of belief, in all na
tions, for his name's sake, ^araong
whom you also are called of Jesus
Christ, ' to all the beloved of God,
who are in Rome, cajled holy, favor
to you and peace from God our Fa
ther, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
SUMMARY.
Paul, a called apostle, is set apart to preach God's gospel, which he had be
fore promised, through the prophets, in the holy Scriptures. The gospel
respects his Son, who was born of the seed of David, as to his flesh, but
determined, by power, to be God's Son, as to his spirit, by the resurrection
of the dead. This Son is Jesus Christ our Lord. From him Paul received
favor in becoming a Christian, and the office of an apostle, both these
oeing received to induce men in all nations to believe and obey Christ. He
writes this Letter to all the holy who are in Rome.
The Apostle commences his Letter with a few brief remarks
relative to himself. From these, however, he quickly passes to the
g'ospel. He tells us whose this is, and whom it respects. Hav
ing thus introduced Christ, he states his origin as to the outer
man, and how he became determined for us to be the Son of God
as to the inner man. His remarks here are of the deepest signifi
cance. He next tells us to whom he writes; expresses his thank
fulness that the belief of the disciples in Rome was so widely
known; states how he prays for them; how he longs to see them,
and why. His expressions here are full of genuine solicitude and
good feeling. (23)

24 COMMENTARY, [Chap, i. v. i.
After this he comes to the great theme of the Letter. The gos
pel is God's power for salvation to all that believe. For this bold
announcement a single reason is assigned, which, at the same
time, is also an explanation. In the gospel is revealed God's jus
tification by belief To amplify, explain, defend, and apply this
comprehensive statement is the all-engrossing aim of the present
Letter. The remaining contents of the chapter can be best no
ticed as we advance. It is now in place to proceed to details,
Paul, This is the name by which the Apostle was known
throughout by far the most active and eventful part of his life.
It was his proper name as an Apostle. His former name, the one
his parents gave him, was Saul, a strictly Hebrew name. Why
he exchanged the one name for the other, we have no satisfactory
means of knowing. We have the fact, and all beyond the fact is
conjecture. Perhaps were It even not conjecture, it would be of
little value to us.
a servant of Jesus Christ, The word doulos is most proba
bly from deo, (Sew), to bind. It is a general term applicable to
every thing bound, tied, or fettered. Anciently it ¦was applied
to persons to denote that they were slaves, that is, were not free,
or had not the control of their own acts, but were bound by or
subject to the will of others, Paul was a doulos, not of men, but
of Jesus Christ. He was a bond-man, and hence not free; he
owned not himself, nor controlled his own acts. He was bound
by the will of another. But this bondage did not degrade; it
ennobled. It fettered, it is true, to the will of Christ; but this is
the best form of freedom, freedom to do right, freedom from sin,
and freedom from the fear of death. Such bondage is not vassal
age, but the very perfection of freedom.
But there is possibly another fact implied in the word doulos.
All christians have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. It is
the price paid for them. They are consequently his, or belong to
him, and therefore are bound by his will. His will is the measure
of their liberty, and the rule of their acts. But in this sense every
christian is a doulos as truly as was Paul, Hence the term
denotes no circumstance in the Apostle which it denotes not in
other christians. As douloi, servants, they are all equal. The
term, therefore, in the present case, is neither a title of office, nor
a mark of special distinction. It denotes a simple fact common
to all christians.
a called apostle, Paul was not merely called to be an anostle.

Chap, i, v. i.] ROMANS. 25
as our common version has it; he was actually one. He might
have been called io be one; and yet not have become one for a
long time afterwards. This is not the meaning of kletos. Paul
was an apostle. This was the fact But he was more; he was
a called or chosen apostle. The word apostle tells what he was;
the word called, how he became so. The word called, moreover,
must be limited to Christ. Paul was not called by men, as was
Matthias. He was called immediately by Christ. The call came
from Christ directly to him, and not through another,
apostle. The word apostle, from apostello, literally means one
sent from, sent out, sent away. This is its general meaning. In
the present case, however, it signifies specifically one sent out
from Christ and by him. But while this is the meaning of the
word, it performs here still another function. It is a high official
title. Indeed, it is the title of the highest order of men in the
kingdom of Christ Any one sent out for any purpose, good
or bad, is an apostle in the common sense of the term. But none
could be apostles in its high scriptural sense except those whom
Christ in person called and sent out. These were apostles in an
extraordinary sense. They were apostles in a sense which left
them without predecessors, without equals, and without successors.
set apart The word aphorizo, primarily means to separate
one thing from another by drawing a boundary-line between
them. Separation by means of dividing lines is its radical im
port In the present case it describes, in itself, a single circum
stance in Paul's call to the apostleship. He was called. This was
the first fact. This call he obeyed, and in the act separated him
self from the world and its pursuits. This separation is the real
thought couched in the word. How, then, it will be asked, does
it come to mean set apart to ihe gospel? I answer, by itself it
does not mean it Set apart to a thing is not inherent in the word.
All it means is simply separated. It is the words, therefore,
which follow it that tell to what
to the gospel of God, Paul was called by Christ, and by
him set apart or devoted to the gospel. Not simply to preach it,
though this chiefly, but to do every thing else essential to its com
plete estabUshment, The gospel, it will be noticed, is here called
the gospel of God. It is so called, doubtless, because God is
Father to and sends Him who is its mofe immediate author. But
in a sublime sense the two are one. Hence what is the one's is
the other's. The gospel, be \t added, is not called the gospel of

26 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. 2, 3.
God because it respects him or has him for its object; but because
he is its origin or author. The Genitive Theou here denotes source.
Many eflTorts have been made to supplant the word gospel by
the use of other terms and phrases, such as good news, glad
tidings, etc. Up to this time these efforts have not been success
ful; nor is their success to be desired. The word euaggelion
literally means a good message, good report or good news. But
this is the precise meaning of our current term gospel, which is
probably from the Saxon 'gode or god, and spell, the two together
meaning good news. The word gospel, therefore, is the exact
equivalent of the Greek word, and since it is both very current
and perfectly understood, it should be retained.
2. which he formerly promised through his prophets,
in the holy Scriptures, The gospel to which Paul was set
apart is characterized by four facts which deserve special men
tion. It is God's gospel; he formerly promised it; promised it
through his prophets; promised it in the holy Scriptures. For
Jews these facts contain a fine argument. They had the prophe
cies which they acknowledged to be the product of inspired men.
They were then compelled, first either to repudiate these proph
ecies, or deny that they promised a gospel; or, second, to deny
that the gospel which Paul preached was the gospel they prom
ised, or to accept his gospel. The first and second they could not
do. They, therefore, decided to deny that the prophecies prom
ised the gospel which Paul preached, and consequently to reject
it; and this they did, notwithstanding the fact that his gospel was
confirmed by miracles performed before their eyes. Their denial
consequently was not only willful, but without the semblance of
just excuse.
3. concerning his Son, These vvords should be immediately
joined with the expression "the gospel," and not, as some insist,
with the word "promised." It was not the promise that con
cerned God's Son, but the gospel. The promise immediately
concerned the gospel, the gospel Immediately the Son.
who, as to his flesh, was born of the seed of David, Or,
to render with very severe closeness, Who came into being, as to
his fiesh, out of David' s seed. The v&xh ginotnai denotes, not un-
originated being, as does eimi, but originated being. It denotes
the act of becoming, or coming into existence. Ginomai is the
word here used. Hence the being or existence which it de
notes is originated being. But this being is predicated of Christ's

Chap, i, v, 4.] ROMANS. 27
flesh only. It is not affirmed of him in his totality, or as to
both his natures. As to his flesh only had he an origin.
Moreover, this flesh, or rather Christ himself, in so far as he was
flesh, came into being out of one of David's descendants. He
was of the family of David in a direct line, as God had prom
ised he should be.
4. but, as to his pure spirit, was determined by power
to be the Son of God, Or, to render ad verbum, but as to
spirit of holiness. That kata pneuma is here the intentional an
tithesis of kata sarka, is so clear to my mind, and is so generally
accepted by the best commentators, that I shall not attempt its
defence. Sarx denotes all that was human in Christ; pneuma all
that is divine. Hence the two terms completely comprehend him
in his wholeness, and as to natures exhaust him. Sarx denotes
the outer man; pneuma denotes the inner, and although a different
designation, it is the exact equivalent of the o Aoyos of John, ren
dered the Word.
But on ¦what ground. It may be asked, do I render pneuma
hagiosunes, pure spirit? I answer, on the ground of necessity.
That the Genitive of hagiosune is the Genitive of quality, hardly
admits of a doubt. The quality or attribute which it denotes is
that of inherent, underived, and inseparable hoHness, The term
is then equivalent to an adjective. Now perspicuity requires that
this adjective shall be the one which is truest to the sense and
freest from uncertainty. I grant that pure Is not truer to the
sense of the original than holy, and certainly it is far from being
so general a rendering; but then it is less likely to mislead. The
phrase holy spirit, as all know, is appropriated, having, both in
holy writ and in common speech, a uniform, single meaning. It
signifies the Holy Spirit. Hence to render the preceding words
holy spirit is almost sure to suggest the wrong idea. It suggests
the Holy Spirit, and not the spirit, or inner, divine man of Christ,
which, I maintain, it denotes. I may add that both the view and
the rendering here presented are no novelties among learned wri
ters on the Letter. The view has the sanction strictly, and the
rendering, substantially, of such names as Stuart, Alford, Bloom
field, etc.
Not a few have sought to relieve the phrase of its difficulty by
rendering it hxtly spiritual nature. But this, although true in fact,
is not tenable as a translation. It Is simply a commentary or par
aphrase. Nature is not in the original, and therefore Is not educi-

28 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v, 4.
ble from it. Neither is spiritual. The original has spirit strictiy;
and by no law of exegesis known to me can it be transmuted
into spiritual. Of the phrase pneuma hagiosunes there are but four
admissible renderings, namely: spirit of holiness, spirit of purity,
holy spirit, and pure spirit. Of these I prefer the last, because,
while it is clear and true, it can not mislead. It is unfamiliar, I
grant, but use will remedy this.
But as to his pure spirit Christ was horisthentos -whiou Theou
en dunamai. What is the meaning of this language? Certainly,
according to commentators. It is not free from difficulty. Indeed,
according to some it would seem to be hopelessly perplexed.
Whether in this these authors are wholly right or wholly wrong,
or only partly the one and partly the other, I shall not here stop
to inquire. I shall present what I conceive to be the truth in the
case, and leave the reader to seek for difficulties.
The word horizo primarily means to draw a horos or line, and
thus to fix a limit, mark out, or determine. It also means to ap
point or constitute, which is a more remote or much freer sense
than the former. Now which of these senses Is the true one in
the present instance? Between them our choice lies. Here let
us note that Christ was horisthentos as to his pure spirit; and
further, he was horisthentos the Son of God. With these two
facts before us, let us try the two senses of the word.
First. I shall assume, as already said, that the expression pure
spirit denotes the inner, uncreated man of Christ; in other vvrords,
that it denotes the Logos who became flesh and dwelt among us.
Now construing horisthentos in the second sense just named, and
can it possibly be affirmed of Christ that, as to his inner man, he
was ever, in any way or by any means, constituted or appointed
the Son of God? I think not He was not the Son of God by
constitution or appointment. He was the Son of God in and of
himself, by reason of his nature and relations to the Father, inde
pendently of and antecedently to all constituting and appointing
acts. I hence conclude that the second sense of the word is
inadmissible. Second. Let us now try the first sense. According to this,
horisthentos does not express the act of constituting or appointing
Christ to be, as to his pneum.a or spirit, the Son of God, but the
act of determining or marking him out to us as, in respect to his
spirit, the Son of God. The word denotes not how he became the
Son of God; but that he was shown to us as such. And this is

Chap, i, v. 4.J ROMANS. 29
precisely the fact in the case. As to his inner man, Christ was
never constituted or appointed the Son of God. At least we have
no evidence to this effect. But as to his inner man he was marked
out or demonstrated to us to be the Son of God; for otherwise
we could never have known the fact I hence conclude that to
mark out or determine is the true sense of the word; and of these
I prefer determine.
With the majority of both ancient and modern commentators I
construe en dunamai with horisthentos. This construction seems
to possess the double advantage of being both more simple and
more natural than any yet proposed; and besides, it leaves us to
give to en dunamai its apparently most obvious meaning here.
The phrase I would render determined by po-wer. That is, we
could not know by intuition, nor perhaps in any other way, save
the one employed, that Christ is, as to his spirit, the Son of God.
This had to be determined for us; and it was determined by
power. In what specific way it was determined will appear un
der the next clause.
by the resurrection of the dead — Jesus Christ our Lord,
el dvaorao-ccos veKpusv. Here again we have a much disputed clause,
which has been very variously rendered. Some construe ex to
mean after, and accordingly render the clause after ihe'resurr ec
tion. But this is evidently forced. It appears to come out reluc
tantly from beneath the critic's hammer, rather than present itself
freely and at once. I believe the weight of authority to be against
it, and hence reject it.
Again: the expression anastaseos nekron is by many translated
the resurrection fro-m the dead, making it denote specifically
Christ's own resurrection. But this does great violence to the
language. Resurrection of the dead, not from the dead, is the
simple, obvious, and natural rendering of the expression; and
since nothing is known to require a different rendering, I regard
it as dangerous to resort to any other. The expression refers to
Christ's raising others from the dead, not to his own resurrection.
But how, it may be asked, does raising the dead determine
Christ to be, as to his spirit or inner man, the Son of God? I
answer, Christ raised the dead only as the Son of God, or in that
character. He never raised the dead merely as a man. He
claimed to raise them only as the Christ; and the act of raising
established the claim. Peter also raised the dead; but he raised
them as an apostle only, and not as the Son of God; and the act

30 COMMENTARY [Chap. i. v. 4, 5.
of raising proved the reality of the character in which he acted..
Moreover, when we reflect on all the facts in the life of Christ,
not one strikes the mind as so overwhelming a proof of the pres
ence in him of divine power, underived or undelegated, as his
raising the dead. In soul we feel it to be the most stupendous
fact of the Bible; and as a proof of the claims of him who per
formed it, even when those claims are to the avowed effect of his
being the Son of God, it is plenary and final. True this feeling
may arise, in part, from the deep interest we have in the resurrec
tion of the dead; but, if so, it only shows the wisdom of him
who selects It as a proof Its force is enhanced, not weakened,
by the circumstance.
Here it may be well to sum up the facts asserted or implied in
so much of the present wonderfully comprehensive and con
densed paragraph as we have now gone over, Paul was an
apostle; a called apostle; devoted to the gospel. This much
relates to Paul himself This gospel was God's gospel; he had
formerly promised it; promised it through his prophets; promised
it in the holy Scriptures. This gospel respected his Son; this
Son, as to his flesh, was born of one of David's descendants; but
as to his inner man, was determined to be the Son of God; de
termined by power, the power being exerted in raising the dead;
and this Son is Jesus Christ our Lord. After this the Apostle
briefly returns to himself again.
5. through whom we have received favor and apostle
ship, The word favor denotes all that Paul had received in
becoming a christian. But it denotes nothing more, and hence
nothing peculiar to him, since all christians receive the same. It
is the term apostle which denotes wherein he was distinguished.
The one term simply ranks him among christians, giving him no
superiority over them; the other ranks him among apostles, an J
makes him their equal.
in order to the obedience of belief in all nations, The
particle eis is often used, as here, to express the end or object of
an act or acts. Accordingly the clause states the end for which
Paul had received favor and the apostleship. But both when he
became a christian and when he was made an apostie this end was
looked to. He was not made a christian for himself alone, and
only an apostle for the benefit of others. He was made both for
the sake of others. Could each disciple, in the present day, realize
that he, too, is made a christian for the obedience of belief, it

Chap, i, v. 5.] ROMANS. 31
Might greatly add to the activity of many; and that both the many
and the world would be gainers by the addition is simply certain.
The end for which Paul received favor and apostleship was the
obedience of belief . This expression is susceptible of two diflerent
meanings. First: The words obedience oJ belief may be taken
together as expressing a single thing — belief as an act of obedi
ence. In this view the phrase would resemble the expression,
gift of a pen, meaning a pen as a gift. Accordingly the end of
Paul's call would be simply to induce the act of believing. This
view is clearly incorrect, and is therefore rejected. Second: The
words may be separated and made to stand for two entirely differ
ent things: I. obedience, or conformity to the divine will; 2. be
lief, or the mental conviction from which the obedience springs.
According to this view, Paul received favor and apostleship in
order to induce men to obey Christ, but to obey him from belief
ds the principle leading to it. This is the view here held as the
true one. The Genitive pisteos is Genitive of source or cause.
The obedience springs out of the belief as its source or moving
cause. Of course the apostle's call was not to induce the obedi
ence without the belief, nor the belief without the obedience. It
was to induce both, but the one as arising out of the other. Belief
first, then obedience as growing out of it — this was then, as it still
is, the divine, immutable order. No act of obedience is acceptable
to God which is not prompted by belief in him who perfoims it
For this reason, among others, infant baptism is to be rejected.
It is not the obedience of belief, and thus wanting the very
essence of acceptableness, it is no obedience at all.
It will be noticed that I here use the word belief instead of
the word faith; and as this usage will continue throughout the
present work, it is proper to assign a reason for it
We have in the original two words, wtVris and -irurrevu), both
having the same root and same meaning, with the single distinc
tion, that the one is a verb, the other a noun. The verb strictly
means to believe, and is uniformly so translated in the Scriptures.
Indeed we have no other word but believe by which to render it.
This word not only translates it, but exhausts it Now the noun
has exactly the same meaning as the verb. Consequently since
we must translate the verb believe, we surely ought to translate
the noun belief. Again, the original noun and verb are cognate.
rhis cognation is wholly left out of view when the verb is ren
dered believe, and the noun faith, but completely preserved when

32 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. 5-7.
the one is rendered believe, and the other belief. That is, believe
is seen to be related to belief just as pisteuo is to pistis.
But if it be alleged that the words belief and faith differ in
sense; and that the latter only, and not the former, correctly trans
lates the original, I deny the allegation. It has no foundation in
fact The one word has not a shade of meaning which the other
has not Faith in Christ and belief in Christ are not diflerent
expressions for different things, but different expressions for the
same thing. No distinction whatever exists between them. To
say, as is sometimes done, that faith embraces the affections of the
heart, while belief does not, is to draw on metaphysics for our
tenets, and not on the New Testament.
Besides, a world of error and superstition has collected about
the word faith, which does not attach to the word belief. With
the disuse of the word faith will go in part, at least, this error and
superstition. It is therefore best to give up the word. In belief
we have all that Is in faith; hence in parting from faith we lose
no truth. Nor is what is here said true merely of a single book
in the New Testament. The word faith should wholly disappear
from Its pages. This is not, I grant, likely to happen soon; but it
is not therefore the less necessary. It is a -weakness of our na
ture that our attachment to what we happen to be familiar with
often leads us to prefer the objectionable to the faultless. This
weakness will show itself in the present case.
for his name's sake. The word "name" here stands for
Christ himself The meaning then is for Christ's sake. The ob
ject of Paul's mission was the obedience of belief among all
nations for the sake of Christ, which means in his interest or for
his honor. In construction the clause should be joined with the
expression "obedience of belief."
6. among w^hom you also are called of Jesus Christ,
All are called of Christ who hear the gospel, but they alone are
Chosen who obey it. Those here spoken of are said to have been
called of Christ, because the call proceeded from him as its source.
Such is the force of the Genitive. But "called " does not denote
persons merely called, or who when called refused to accept. It
denotes such as being called had obeyed; it denotes the saved.
7. to all the beloved of God who are in Rome, This
shows to whom the present Letter was written. It was to those
only in Rome who were beloved of God. Hence to entitle the
Letter, as in our common version, the Letter to the Romans is

Chap, i, v. 8,]

ROMANS.

33

erroneous. The Letter was not written to Romans as such, in
any sense, but to those only in Rome who were christians,
whether Romans, Jews, or Greeks.
called holy. Common version, called "to be saints." But
this is incorrect They were not called to be holy, though this
they were certainly to be; they were styled or named holy. They
were holy, and therefore so called. The word "saint" should be
wholly dropped from the sacred page. It is too vague, and has
been too much abused to be tolerated longer.

chapter I. SECTION 2,

' First, I thank ray God through
Jesus Christ respecting you all, that
your belief is spoken of in the whole
world, ' For God is my witness
whora I serve in ray spirit, in the
gospel of his Son, that I constantly
make raention of you, '" always en
treating in my prayers that, some
how, I may, at last, be favored by
the will of God to corae to you. "
For I long to see you that I may im
part to you some spiritual gift that
you raay become steadfast; "and
this is, that I raay be comforted in
you through the belief which is in
us both, in you and in me.

^ IIpwToi' pev evxaptoTw r^ Seto pov,
Sid 'Itjo-oC XpioToC, -irepl -irdvrav vpav,
OTt ri TTLfTTis vpav KaTa-yyeXkeTat iv oXft)
Ta Koa-pa. ^ Map-rvs yap /lou iarlv
6 Qeos, «o 'KaTpevai iv ™ nvevpaTi pov,
iv T& evayyeXiat Tov vlov avTov, (MS aSi-
d\et7rT(09 pveiav vp&v -iroiovpai, -nav-
roTf iiTi Tav 7rpoa-ev)(a>v pov Seopevos
fl ITO)!, rjSr] TTOTE, evoSadrjo-opai iv Tw
deXfjpaTi TOV 6eoC iKBeiv npos vpas'
" i-m-iroBa yap ISelv vpas, lva ti per-
aSiS x^piirpa vpiv nvevpaTiKov els to
(mipi\6rivai vpas, '^ toCto Se cort,
mp-KapaKKridTjvai iv vpiv, Sta TJjs iv
aXXijXots iriarems, vpav re Kai ipov
SUMMARY.
Paul is thankful that the belief of the disciples in Rome is spoken of every
where. He always mentions thera in his prayers, and desires at some time a
prosperous journey to them. He longs to see them, and to impart to them
sorae spiritual gift to strengthen them. From their mutual belief he hopes to
derive much comfort.
8, First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ respetft-
ing you all, that your belief is spoken of in the whole
world. The meaning is not that Paul thanked God In their be
half, as helping them. His thankfulness respected them, as they
were the occasion of it Their belief was spoken of in the whole
worid. It was this fact especially that caused him to be thankful.
With the mention of their belief would circulate the name of
Christ in whom they believed. This always gave the Apostie
joy. The phrase "the world" means the world as known to the
people of that day, and not the whole globe.

34 COMMENTARY. Chap. i. v. 9, xo.
<Q. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit, in
the gospel of his Son, To serve God in spirit is a fine phrase
with a deep meaning. It does not signify, as some suppose, mere
sincerity in worship. It signifies that the true service of God has
its seat in the spirit and springs out of it. This service consists
in the belief, love, and other acts of homage, which go up to God
out of the soul. These spiritual states and emotions find vent
through the gospel. They originate in the spirit, but find expres
sion through the appointments of the gospel, which thus become
a sort of dialect through which the spirit proclaims its fealty to
God. Only when men serve God thus can their service be true.
All other service has its breaks and interruptions; this alone must
have none. The christian's conduct may become loose; still so
long as, in spirit, he remains true, there is hope. But whenever
he fails here, all is lost. A man's soul never wholly drops God
till his belief is extinct; but the moment this dies within him, he
is a withered branch ready for the burning. His apostasy is then
complete, never to be remedied.
Of the true worshipers the Savior says, "they shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth.'' We exactly complement this when
we serve God "In spirit, in the gospel," in spirit meaning in the
inner man or with it, in the gospel meaning according to it as a
rule or law. Thus Paul served God; thus must -we.
that I constantly make mention of you. It was the cus
tom of the primitive christians, when praying, to mention by
name those brethren and churches in whom they felt a deep
special interest. It is matter of regret that so affectionate a cus
tom should ever have been allowed to fall into disuse. It is surely
the duty of christians to revive it It would have the effect tc
kindle fraternal affection in other breasts and to foster it In oui
own; and no want of any age exceeds the want of such affection
among the children of God.
10. always entreating in my prayers that, some how,
I may, at last, be favored by the will of God, to come to
you. But In coming, Paul desired his journey to be a prosper
ous one. Hardships already suffered In his Master's cause made
him now shrink from a recurrence of them. He hence prayed
that his journey might be a happy, or good one; for such is the
idea involved in euodo. He no more than other men courted
those great trials which at times visit the children of God. Their
effect, beyond a certain point, Is to break the spirit aot to

Chap, i, v. ii.] ROMANS. 35
strengthen it It is hence dangerous to venture too far. We
should meet them bravely when they happen, but we should
never seek them, nor attempt to provoke them.
II. For I long to see you that I may impart to you
some spiritual gift — charisma pneumatikon. What this spirit
ual gift, or charisma pneumatikon was, It is not easy to say.
Commentators are not agreed in regard to it Indeed it is a
point which we have no decisive means of settling. Certainly
it was either a miraculous gift, or some spiritual favor falling
below it, as instruction or the like. Our choice lies between
these; and the most that can be done is to show which side is
the more probable. The word charisma ordinarily means any
favor bestowed. But In the New Testament it also means a
miraculous gift. Paul himself certainly employs it in this sense,
I Cor. xii: 9; but this we learn from the other words used with
it The notion ofthe miraculous Is not inherent In the word Itself.
Still in the case In hand I decidedly incline to the side of a
miraculous gift. Nothing would so confirm the disciples in
Rome as bestowing on them such a gift; and since confirmation
was the end for which the Apostle wished to bestow It, the greater
probability seems to be that the gift was a miraculous one. Had
the Apostle wished to see the disciples merely to instruct them in
the ordinary way, or to comfort them by exhortation, and so con
firm them, he w^ould most likely have used the customary form
of speech to convey that Idea, and not the form here found.
Pneumatikon, I take it, does not signify pertaining to the human
spirit, but proceeding from the Holy Spirit Hence, in the phrase
"spiritual gift,'' the word "spiritual" denotes not nature but source,
not to what relating, but In what or whom originating.
that you may become steadfast. The object of Imparting
the spiritual gift to the disciples was to strengthen and establish
them. It was to render them immovable. Not that they were
dangerously weak, but the gift would render them savingly firm.
12. And this is, that I may be comforted in you through
the belief which is in us both, in you and in me. Paul de
sired this steadfastness that, as a consequence, he might derive
comfort from them — comfort from their settled belief This much
is clear. But it is not so clear how he expected to derive comfort
from his own belief Yet such was the case. I explain thus :
When the holy in Rome should see his belief, the ground of it,
.and how unwavering it was, they would themselves become

36

COMMENTARY.

[Chap, i, v. 13.

greatly encouraged. This would give him pleasure. Thus his
own belief, by its effect on them, would react on himself, and so
comfort him.

chapter I. SECTION 3.

" Now I wish you not to be igno
rant, brethren, that I often proposed
to come to you, (and that I have
been hindered to the present,) that I
might have sorae fruit araong you
also, even as among the other na
tions. " Both to Greeks and barba
rians, both to wise and foolish, am
I debtor. " So, as to myself, I am
ready to preach the gospel even to
you who are in Rome. '^ For I am
not ashamed of the gospel ; for it is
God's power for salvation to every
one who believes, to Jew first, and
to Greek. "For in it is revealed
God's justification by belief in order
to belief; as it is written, he who is
just by belief shall live.

" Ov $e\a Se vpas d-yvoetv, dScX^oi,
OTI TToXXdicn irpoeBepjjv iKOelv nphs vpas,
Kai iKoKvSrjV axpi Tov Sevpo, tva rtva
Kap-irov <rx<5 Kai iv vpiv Kadas Kai iv
Tots XoiTTols edveaiv. " " EXXtjo-i re xai
^ap^dpoLS, iTcxpoXs re xai avo^Tow o0et-
Xe-rrjs elpl. " OvTa to KaT^ ipi irpddv-
pov Kol vpiv Tols iv 'Papi] evayyeXio-aa-
dai. '^ Oil yap i-iraurxvvopai to eva-yye-
Xiov, Svvapis yap Oeov iarlv els a-aTrj-
p'lav TravTt Ta TrtarevovTi, ^lovSala Te
TtpaTov Kol ' EXXi/w. " AlKaioavvT] yap
Geou ev avrcf dTroKaXujrrerat ex iriareas
els TTiaTiv, KaBas yeypa-irraf *o Se SiKa
los e/c nltrreas f^o-erat.

SUMMARY.
Paul had often purposed to come to them, and had been hindered. He
desired some fruit among them, such as he had in the other nations. He is
debtor to preach the gospel to all men, and therefore to those at Rome. He
is not ashamed of the gospel; for it is God's power for salvation to all who
believe. In it is revealed God's justification by belief in order to induce
belief. The present section will be found one of the most important
into which this great Letter is to be divided. Its importance
appears from two considerations: i. It comprehensively
enounces the themes on which the apostle chiefly dwells. 2.
Without a correct understanding of its leading terms the Letter
itself can never be understod. On it, then, we cannot bestow too
much thought.
13. Now I wish you not to be ignorant, brethren, that I
often proposed to come to you, (and that I have been hin
dered to the present,) It appears that previous to writing the
Letter, Paul had often purposed visiting the disciples in Rome,
but in every instance had been hindered. His purposes, there
fore, must have been of his own forming. The Spirit had not
caused them; for if so, they would not have been defeated. To
them Paul was sole author. He had formed them simply as a
good man, and not under guidance of the Spirit As a man he

Chap, i, v. 14, 15.] ROMANS. 37
often desired to do things which the Spirit would not permit.
The purposes here alluded to are instances in point Moreover,
whenever he was hindered, as in the present case, it was the
Spirit, most probably, that did it, to whose will he was subject
To the will of Christ he was bound as a servant; to the will of
the Spirit as an apostle. For him the Spirit determined two
things: Where he should go; what he should say; to which is to
be added, that it always empowered him to prove his mission
divine. At all other times, it left him to himself, to act his part
as he wished. It was at such times that he formed these pur
poses. As they were his o-wn, unprompted by the Spirit, and
all things considered, not the best, the Spirit would not allow
him to execute them. Besides, to the unwillingness ofthe Spirit
is to be added still another check on the Apostle. Satan, too,
sometimes hindered him. Not where the Spirit had purposed,
but when Paul himself had, as in the case in hand. When the
Spirit purposed, nothing could successfully interpose; but when
it was the Apostle alone, the Spirit might not permit, and Satan
might hinder. In both these ways, as a mere man, he was liable
to be interfered with.
that I might have some fruit among you also, even as
among the other nations. The fruit which Paul had among
the other nations consisted in the children of God whom he had
begotten by the gospel. Christians were the fruit of his labor.
The phrase en humin here, I take it, is not to be construed strict
ly, as referring exclusively to the disciples, but freely, as to the
Romans as a nation. The meaning Is, I desire to have some fruit
among you Romans as a nation, as I have among the other
nations. 14. Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and
foolish am I debtor, Paul means that he was under obhgation
to preach the gospel to all men in all nations. Accordingly, as he
had preached it in other nations, and obtained fruit, so he was now
ready to preach it among the Romans where he desired fruit. To
the church he wished to impart a spiritual gift to confirm them;
to the Romans he desired to preach the gospel to convert them.
That would give him comfort; this would be his fruit.
15, So, as to myself, I am ready to preach the gospel
even to you who are in Rome. This translation, though a
little free, will, I trust, be found close and true to the sense. So,
ns to myself. The meaning is, so, or accordingly, as to myself, or

38 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. i6-
so far as I am concerned, I am ready. I may never be permitted
to preach to you in Rome; for I may still be hindered, as I have
heretofore been; but so far as respects myself, I am ready, when
ever the Spirit may so please.
Instead of "So, as to myself," the clause is sometimes rendered
So, according io my ability. But this is surely incorrect. It is
trite to make the Apostle say he was ready to preach the gospel
according to his ability. Evidently he was in no danger of at
tempting to preach it below his ability or not according to it.
i6. For I am not ashamed of the gospel; Therefore I am
ready to preach it even in Rome. I am ashamed of it nowhere,
before no people. Still, as in Corinth, so in Rome, Paul would
have preached It in "weakness and in fear and in much trem
bling." As to the gospel he was without shame; but as to him
self, full of distrust and trembling. Thus should it be with every
preacher. As to himself he should be diffident and concealed,
but as to his theme, bold, manly, and demonstrative.
for it is God's power for salvation The gospel is called
God's power for salvation, because it contains the provisions
which he has ordained for this end; and which, if accepted by
us, will certainly effect it. Salvation is viewed by the Apostle
as an end and difficult; so much so as to require God's power to
accomplish it. The gospel is that power. Not only so; it Is
God's only power for salvation. Therefore, he who is not saved
by the gospel will never be saved at all. For him who rejects
the gospel there is no hope. He is lost.
Three great powers antagonize salvation — the world, the flesh,
and Satan. These powers must be overcome. Nothing short of
God's power can do this. The gospel does it; hence the propri
ety of calling it God's power for salvation. It is his power,
because it proceeds from him: it is for salvation, because it is
ordained to effect it.
to every one who believes. The great fundamental truth
of the gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This Is the
thing to be believed, in order to salvation. It is the matter, the
whole matter, of our belief The facts which underlie it as proof,
and on which it rests, are the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ Couched in these few items is the saving creed of the
world. No man can reject it and be saved.
But the gospel is not unconditionally the power of God for
salvation. It saves him only who believes it. To all others it is

Chap, i, v. 17.J ROMANS. 39
condemnation, not salvation. "He that believes not shall be
damned." But he who would be saved by the gospel must not
stop short at belief To belief he must add obedience. The
"obedience of belief" is the divine order. That is, belief first,
and obedience next as something prompted by it and springing
out of it — this is Heaven's own arrangement, with which there
must be no Interference, and from which there must be no de
parture. Paul received favor and apostleship not for belief alone,
but for the obedience of belief. This is final as to the order of
these items and their value. One of the great errors into which
so many professors have fallen consists in sundering the expres
sion obedience of belief, and in making so much to depend on the
belief solely, and so little on the obedience. But as the two are
bound up indissolubly together in the divine verbiage, so they
forever stand the inseparable conditions of salvation. To main
tain their unity is to stand for the truth; to dissolve them Is to
annul it.
17. For in it is revealed God's justification by belief
As to the exact meaning of dikaiosune, commentators are not
agreed. Not that they differ so widely in regard to it, as on some
other points. But certainly their agreement is not uniform and
close. Into their conflicting views, where they conflict at all, I
believe it would not be profitable to enter. These the reader can
consult for himself, and on their merits pass his opinion. My
object is to endeavor to determine the precise sense in which
Paul uses the word in the clause in hand. This will require pa
tience and skill. But a few preliminaries demand attention first.
I. The justification, assuming this for -the present to be the
correct rendering of the word, is called God's justification. But
whether we render by justification or righteousness, and we have
certainly to render by one or the other, one thing is to be distinctly
noted, the word does not express an attribute of God. It denotes
a justification of which he Is author; and it is called his to contra
distinguish It from the justification of the law. The latter is
described by Moses thus: "He who has done these things shall
live by them." That is, he who has obeyed every requirement of
the law, without one omission, shall live by his deeds. Of course
such a life would be an absolutely sinless one, and acquittal from
every charge would be a right which could not be withheld.
Such an acquittal would be a dikaiosune ex ergon nomou — a jus
tification by -works of la-w. But in this sense no human being

40 COMMENTARY. [Chap. i. v. 17.
can be justified. Gal. ii: 16. Now, there stands over against this,
and differing from it, another justification which is ek pisteos, by
belief. This is God's justification; that is the law's. The one is
conceivable, but impossible; the other alone is practicable. The
law's would be the justification of a person wholly sinless; God's
is the justification of the sinner. In the case of the law, justifi
cation would be a debt due from God to the accused. In the
case of belief the justification is a matter of favor and not of
debt In other words, to the man who should "do these things,"
God -would owe justification; but to him who believes simply,
he does not owe it. True, he bestows it, but as a favor and not
as something owed.
2. Paul introduces dikaiosune into the clause in hand without
qualification. It was a term current in his day with a well de
fined signification. Neither the subject-matter about which he
uses It, nor the context serves to modify it. He must then have
introduced It in Its current and well known meaning. Conse
quently an unusual or far-fetched Import is not to be admitted.
3. The gospel is God's power for salvation. As a power it is
a cause; and viewing it as a cause, salvation is its effect Now
between the gospel as a cause and salvation as an effect, stands
dikaiosune. Put the gospel in motion, and dikaiosune falls In
with It, and as a factor acting with it, in the direction of its end,
helps it to reach it Consequently, in determining the significa
tion of the word, we must seek a meaning which both tends to
salvation and is a part of it, as well in Its incipiency as in its
ultlmation. 4. Dikaiosune is something done of God or of Christ; and it
is done for the sinner, and not for the sinless. Moreover, it is
something done for the believer, and not for the unbehever. It
is conditioned on behef, and Is not done without it Further, It
looks to salvation, and Is essential to it Previous to it none will
claim that salvation has occurred; subsequent to it none will deny
that It has. Hence in discovering the meaning of the word we
must find a sense which denotes something done for the believ
ing sinner, prior to which he is not saved, subsequent to which
he is.
With these preHminaries I proceed to an effort to determine
the meaning of the word. This I shall commence by examlnlno'
its most important cognate,
Dikaio, (SiKaiZ). When God is the author of the act or state

Chap, i, v. 17.J ROMANS, 41
and man the subject, this word and dikaiosune must be regarded
as having almost identical meanings. Indeed the only distinction
between them is that the one denotes in action what the other
expresses as state. True, they sometimes differ, but this is owing
to a difference in the sources of the act or state, or in the subjects
to which they are applied. At root and in essence they have the
same meaning.
Generally dikaio means to hold as right or just, to do right, to
do justice to, to treat as just or declare innocent, to acquit or re
mit guilt, and then to hold and treat as just. Now of the i-nean-
ings here enumerated, I shall maintain that the last, or the one
in italics, is the one in which Paul uses the word in the clause in
hand. But first I propose to show that this is certainly a mean
ing of the word in other books of the Bible as well as in the
Letter under consideration. This I shall do by a few citations:
I. "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and
righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Or
according to the Septuagint: Stand you aloof from every unjust
charge: the innocent and just slay not; and you shall not justify
the -wicked for the sake of gifts. Exod. xxiii: 7.
This verse is held to have been addressed to those In authority
as judges. It admonished them to beware of untrue counts,
especially not to slay the Innocent on false testimony. A doubt
ful case was to be referred to God himself, for the reason that he
"will not justify the wicked." Earthly judges they might escape;
him they could not. The word acquit is here the exact render
ing of the Septuagint dikaio. Moreover, it Is the very word
which both the subject and connection require, and is the only
word that expresses the sense truly and clearly.
2. "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto
judgment that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify
the righteous and condemn the wicked." Deut. -xxv: i.
Here, as In the preceding instance, the proceedings are judicial.
In the case of the wicked, the order is to condemn; in the case
of the just, to acquit. The word used by the Seventy is dikaio;
and no term so closely renders it as acquit. The subject and the
occasion determine both sense and translation.
3. "And by him all that beUeve are justified from all things,
from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."
Acts xiii: 39.
That the things from which the people could not be justified

42 COMMENTARY. [Ch^! ". i. v. 17.

by the law were their sins will not be questioned. Or, '^till more
correctly, the reference is both to sin and its penaltj- From
these justification by the law was impossible. From bf Ji Christ
justifies the believer. The phrase justified from (dTro'i has the
force of released from or acquitted. Released from is the exact
sense. This may be held as indisputable. But this when applied
to sin is the precise meaning of the phrase remission of sin.
Here now in a passage in the New Testament, a passage from
Paul's own lips, dikaio clearly means to be released from sin, to
be acquitted, or pardoned. The passage is perhaps final as to the
meaning of the word. The scene is judicial, the party arraigned
Is the believer, the charge is of his sins, and the result is release
from them. This release is expressed by dikaio. In all similar
cases, then, release from sin or acquittal must be held to be its
true meaning.
No-w that belief in the passage from Acts, and the belief In the
clause In hand from Romans, are Identical, I presume no one will
deny. Equally certain Is it that the justification in each is the
same. The only difference Is that in Romans the justification is
conceived of as just revealed in the gospel, whereas in Acts it is
viewed as realized. But the justification in Acts is release from
sin. Therefore the justification in Romans is release from sin. I
do not see how the meaning of a word can be more conclusively
determined than this determines the meaning of dikaio.
4. "So even David speaks of the blessedness of the man to
whom God counts justification without works: Blest are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, blest
is the man to whom the Lord will not count sin." Rom. iv: 6, 7.
If we still lack any conditions to enable us to determine the
meaning of dikaiosune, the present passage supplies them. God
Is before us as judge, and man as the accused. In the transac
tion God counts, to him justification without works. It is then ot
belief Hence the man is a believer. To him God counts dikaio
sune. To what is this the exact equivalent? The answer is, to
having his iniquities forgiven, his sins covered, or not counted to
him. It is the exact equivalent of release from sin and Its pen
alty, the equivalent of pardon. Therefore to count dikaiosune to
a believer is the same as to release him from sin or to forgive
him. Now in the clause under consideration the dikaiosune is God's,
and is of belief. That Is, to speak concretely, it Is the dikaiosune

Chap, i, v. 17.] ROMANS. 43
of a believer. Moreover, as In the case spoken of by David, the
dikaiosune is counted to the believer, so is it, we conclude, in the
clause in hand. Farther, since in the two cases the parties are
the same, and the transactions the same, the cases themselves
must be the same. Consequently dikaiosune in the clause in
hand must mean to be released from sin or to be forgiven. It is
then to be translated by justification, and not by righteousness;
and by justification in the sense of acquittal from guilt, or remis
sion of sins.
Now to show that the view here maintained Is neither novel
nor deficient in authority, I cite the following passages from emi
nent writers on the Letter. In each passage its author Is com
menting on the clause in question:
"But the word dikaiosune is the usual one employed by Paul
to designate gospel-justification, I. e., the pardoning of sin, and
accepting and treating as righteous  With these facts
before us, we now return to our text. Dikaiosune Theou seems
very plainly to have the same meaning here that it has in Rom.
HI: 31, and in the other passages just referred to in this epistle,
viz: the justification or pardoning tnercy bestowed on sinners
¦who are under the curse of the divine law; or the state or condi
tion of being pardoned, I. e., justified or treated as just." — Stuart.
"One thing is certain, that dikaiosune Theou must here mean
(as in the rest of the Epistle, and others of St Paul) Gospel jus
tification, or the mode of obtaining pardon bestowed by God on
man." — Bloomfield.
"Now if man is to become righteous from being unrighteous- -
this can only happen by God's grace — because God declares him
righteous, assumes him to be righteous:  Dikaioun is not only
negative to acquit  but also positive io declare righteous, but
never to make righteous by transformation, or imparting of moral
strength by which moral perfection may be attained." — Alford.
"Dikaio, dikaiosune. Many cognate significations have been
assigned to the verb dikaio, but in the New Testament it invaria
bly denotes to acquit, i. e., to justify, to account just. Hence the
derivative noun dikaiosune signifies acquittal. The words in
deed are strictly forensic; and, as employed in the Epistles, Imply
a judicial sentence of the Almighty upon all mankind, as ob
noxious to divine punishment." — Trollope.
Now I would by no means be understood as denying that
dikaiosune often means righteousness, as well as justification. It

44 COMMENTARY, Chap, i, v. 17.
means both, and the one as certainly as the other. But it means
neither exclusively. Hence to render it uniformly by the same
word is a grave error. It should in some instances be rendered
justification, in others righteousness; and it is the business of the
commentator to distinguish the passages in which it has these
different meanings from one another.
As an instance, among many, of the use of the word in the
sense of righteousness, take the following: "For I tell you that
unless your righteousness excel the righteousness of the
Scribes and Pharisees, you shall never enter into the kingdom of
heaven." Matt v: 20. It would be absurd to represent the justi
fication of one man, using the word in the sense of acquittal,
as excelHng that of another. Clearly the word here means
righteousness. Take also the following from the Letter under consideration:
"Neither present your members as instruments of unrighteous
ness, to sin; but present yourselves to God, as alive from the dead,
and your members as instruments of righteousness, to God."
Rom. vi: 13. Unquestionably the word here means righteous
ness, that is, a course of life In conformity with the requirements
of right or of christian morality.
Finally then, whenever, in the course of these comments, I
meet with dikaiosune in the sense of righteousness I shall so
render it; in all other instances I shall render it justification.
in order to belief— e/j pistin. Here again we encounter a
much Htlgated phrase. Indeed, according to some commentators
it seems to mean almost anything or nothing; while according to
othersj it means one thing about as well as another. One thinks
that ek pisteos signifies belief in the Old Testament, while eis
pistin means belief in the New. Another thinks the two expres
sions are to be taken together as a climax, their meaning being,
from behef to belief, I. e., from a lower to a higher degree of
behef Some again would read the verse thus: For in the gos
pel, God's righteousness is revealed from behef to belief, closely
connecting the two expressions with the verb revealed. Others
still thus: For in the gospel God's righteousness by belief is
revealed to belief All these views I regard as radically errone
ous, some of them as fanciful, and therefore reject them. Of the
authors I am consulting, Macknight, Stuart, and Bloomfield
alone seem to have the true conception of the clause. Accord
ingly they render it almost precisely as I have done. Substan-

45

Chap, i, v. 17.J ROMANS.
tially they render thus: In the gospel is revealed God's justifica
tion by behef for belief, i. e., to induce behef Or still more fully:
In the gospel is revealed the fact that God will justify the beUever,
and this is done in order to induce men to beUeve. This last I
hold to give the truth in the case.
Nothing is more common In the New Testament than the use of
eis to denote the end or object for which anything is done. Take
an example from the verse immediately before the one containing
the clause in hand: The gospel is God's power, eis soterian, for
salvation; or as a power it is for an end — salvation. So the
clause before us. In the gospel is revealed God's justification by
belief, eis pistin, for belief; it is revealed for, or to induce a cer
tain end, to induce belief. Surely there is nothing difficult here.
As a motive to induce men to believe, God reveals to them that
if they will believe he will justify them. This is simple and
clear. I can not see why the clause has been thought so per
plexed. As farther evidence of what is here said, I cite the following
from Galatians, which contains, differently expressed, the same
idea: "Knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, but
through faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed on Christ Jesus,
that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works
of law." Gal. U: 16.
Knowing that a man is justified by belief in Christ, even we
have believed in him. We have believed in him — why? Be
cause we know that he who believes will be justified. This we
know, because it has been revealed to us; and our knowledge so
obtained becomes the motive to believe. Thus this verse seems
to settle the import of the clause in question.
as it is written, he who is just by belief shall live. The
common version has, "the just shall Uve by faith." This is cer
tainly intelligible; but if correct, it is difficult to see why the
Apostle cites it The question before him is not by what means
do the just Uve, but how is the believer justified? To the former
question, the citation, as found in our version, would be relevant;
to the latter it is not. The Apostle had just asserted that in the
gospel God's justification by belief is revealed. To those who
insisted on justification by the law only, this would be novel and
false. To prevent such a judgment against him, and at the same
time to secure a verdict in his favor, he cites from Habakkuk.
As much as to say: God's justification is by belief, and not by

46

COMMENTARY.

[Chap, i, v. i8.

law. Be not startled at this. The prophet himself asserts as much.
He says, the just by belief shall live. I assert only the sami..
It is very true that the just lives by his belief; and it is equally
true that he becomes just by it It is this point and not that,
which the Apostle has in mind, and which he is laboring to
establish. Hence the necessity of rendering the citation as I
have rendered it

chapter 1. SECTION 4.

' 'ATTOKaXujrreTae yap opyrj Qeov ott'
ovpavov i-irl iraaav da-e^eiav Kai dStKiav
dvdpamav Tav ttjv dXr/deiav iv dSiKia
KiTe^ovTav '^dtoTt TO yvacrrov tov Qeov
^mvepov icrriv iv avrols- 6 9eof yap av-
T lis i<f>avepacre. ^" Ta yap aopaTa avTov
a ITO KTtaeas Koa-pov toIs Troirjpaa-i voov-
p eva KaOopaTai, rj re dtSios avTov Bvva-
p :s Kai BeioTTjs, els to elvai avTovs ava-w-
oXo-yrjTovs' Slotl yvovTes tov Qeov ov^
aiy 6e6i' iSo^acrav rj Tjiixapta-Trja-av, dXX'
epaTataOrj<rav iv Tots StaXoyia-pols avrav
Koi ia-KOTia-dTJ tj davveTos avrav KapSta.
0da-KOVTes eivai tro0oi ipapdvdtjarav,
Kai ^XKa^av ttjv So^av tov dcjiddpTov
Qeov iv opoiapaTi elKovos tpdaprov dv-
Bpa-Kov Kcu -rrereivav Kai TeTpaTvoSav Kai
epTrerav. ^^ Ato napeSaKev avTo-u s 6
Qeos iv Ta7s i-iridvplais Tav KapStav av
rav els dKaBapa-lav Tov dnpd^eaOai. to.
o-apaTa avrav iv avTols, ^* oiTii'es pe-
TTjXXa^av TTJV dXrjBetav tov Qeoii iv Ta
^evSei, Ka\ ia-e^do-Brja-av Kai iXaTpevaav
T^ Krla-et Ttapa tov Krla-avra, os ioriv
evXoyrjTos els tovs alavas- — dprjv.

" Now God's wrath is revealed
frora heaven against all impiety and
injustice of men, who keep down the
truth by injustice. '^ Because that
which is known of God is manifest
among them, for God has made it
clear to them. ^° For his unseen
traits are perceived since the creation
of the world, being known by the
things that are made — both his ever
lasting power and divinity, so that
they are without excuse. ^' Because
they, knowing God, did not glorify
him as God, nor did they thank him ;
but became foolish in their reason
ings, and their stupid heart was
darkened. ^^ Professing to be wise,
they acted as fools, ^^ and exchanged
the glory of the incorruptible God
for an image like corruptible man,
and fowls, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things. ^^ Therefore God
gave thera up, in the lusts of their
hearts, tp uncleanness, to dishonor
their bodies among themselves, " who
exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served the crea
ture instead of him that made it,
who is blessed forever — amen.

SUMMARY.
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the impiety and injus
tice of all men who keep down the truth. The Gentiles had the truth; for
God had made it known to them. But when they knew God they did not
glorify him as God. By their reasonings they became foolish, and dull in
heart; and exchanged the honor due to God for the worship of idols. For
this God gave them up to base passions, and as the result they dishonors
their bodies among themselves.
18, Now God's wrath is revealed from heaven The con
nection of thought here is not obvious. The Apostie introduces
the paragraph with gar, for, but why? Usually gar introduces
a reason for, an illustration or confirmation of something preced

i^KAF. v .8.] ROMANS. 47

ing. Bat if such be the case here it is not perceivable. Indeed
the paragraph which follows gar seems quite independent i>f
what precedes it. There Is no apparent connection between
them. Thiti, with the presence of a particle ordinarily implying
dependence, is what creates the difficulty. Stuart thinks gar
refers to an inplied thought in Paul's mind. His language is:
"As to the gitr with which this verse Is introduced, I am now
persuaded that it refers to an implied thought in the mind of the
writer, which Intervened between vs. 17 and 18, viz: This dikaio
sune Theou is nJw the only dikaiosune possible for men. That
this is so, the set^uel shows; which is designed to prove that all
men are in a state of sin and condemnation, and can be saved
only by graiuitoui, pardon."
Bloomfield, on ihe other hand, while doubting a connection,
still admits a probable one. He says: "It Is, however, by no
means clear to me that any connection was intended; for the
gar may here have, ai often, the inchoative sense: and It is admit
ted by almost all commentators that this verse commences what
Schoettgen calls the Iractatio cum Gentilibus. Yet it is proba
ble that it was meant to serve as a connecting link between the
general position, on the efficacy and universality of the gospel,
and the proof at large, of the necessity of this justification by
faith only — from the inefficiency of the law, whether of Moses or
of Nature to save men.'
Upon the whole I can discover, at least, no verbal or logical
connection in the use oi gar. Still I am persuaded that the matter
of the one paragraph must stand related to the matter of the other.
It can not be that in Paul's mind the two were wholly disjoined.
He had just asserted that the gospel is God's power for salvation.
By implication, then, there is no other power or means of salva-
vation. This would destroy all hope of salvation in the Gentile
on his ground. But in assigning a reason for this assertion the
Apostle adds: "For in it is revealed God's justification by belief"
There is, then, no other justification. This would extinguish all
hope of justification in the Jew, as based on the law. Now, in
proof of all this, he proceeds to show that the condition of both
Jew and Gentile was such as to warrant both his assertions and
their implication. This showing he introduces by gar. Assum
ing this to be correct, then gar is used much in the sense of de,
and should be rendered no-w. All things considered, I am dis
posed to accept this view as correct, or as more nearly correr*

48 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v, i8.
than any yet proposed. On the nearly equivalent significations
of gar and de in certain cases, see Winer.
Moreover, the learned are not altogether agreed as to the order
in which the Apostle intended his thoughts to succeed one another,
and consequently as to the translation of the clause. Some would
render it thus: For the wrath of God from heaven is revealed.
Others thus: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.
This latter I hold to be correct. The collocation is not God from
heaven, but wrath is revealed from heaven.
against all impiety and injustice Impiety, asebeian, means
a failure in our duties to God; injustice, adikian, a failure in our
duties to men. Both terms are general, and denote as well a total
failure, as every lower degree of it. The two terms together ex
press the whole volume of human sins. In the clause before us,
if they do not indicate total failures, they certainly indicate de
grees fearfully near total. But the Apostle is not speaking of the
impiety and injustice of men generally, but of a particular class of
men, whom he mentions in the next clause.
of men, who keep down the truth by injustice. The
first Inquiry here respects the word truth, aletheian. What
truth Is referred to? Certainly not the truth contained in the
gospel. This much all concede. The reference Is to an age an
terior to the gospel, and therefore to a people who had never
heard it. We subtract then the truth in the gospel from the
truth mentioned in the clause. This done, I take the word
truth as standing for all other truth relating to, and designed to
regulate piety, or duty to God, and justice, or duty to men. The
impiety and injustice named were the impiety and injustice cer
tainly of men who had ten aletheian, the truth, and not of men
who had it not. This truth related, first, to their duty to God,
and, second, to their duty to men; and the impiety and injustice
consisted in a failure to keep it In both these respects.
But whence had this truth been derived? Originally from
God himself From him it had come either immediately, as in
the case of Adam, or mediately through angels, or inspired men,
as in subsequent ages. Some, therefore, had it in the form of an
original revelation; others in the form of tradition. But whether
in that form or this, it was the truth, and the only truth the world
had prior to the gospel. On it, and on traditions from it, and
corruptions of it, the world's conscience was formed. But it was
not derived from conscience. Conscience originates no truth

Chap, i, v. i8, 19.J ROMANS, 49
It merely approves conformity to truth, or to what is held as
truth, and condemns violations of it This much it does, no
more. The truth in question had a divine, not a human origin;
and it existed, in most cases, no doubt in a greatly perverted
form. The more remote the tradition from its original source,
the dimmer it becomes, till finally every vestige of truth evanishes
from it, and it becomes a lie. Such is the history of truth after
it passes Into the form of tradition.
To keep down the truth is a strong phrase. Of course it ex
presses the act of those who had the truth. By their injustice
they overpowered It, kept it down, and thus hindered its circula
tion. They restrained it as by fetters. In all ages iniquity in
those who have the truth has had this effect. Those who have
not the truth will not receive it from the corrupt He who has
truth and would propagate it, must himself remain pure. His
life must be consistent with the truth he has; otherwise he be
comes an impediment to It In the hands of the unjust, truth is
powerless for good. Thus to keep It down is a great sin. When
God gives us truth it is that it may control us, and through us
others. If we cause it to fail he -will not acquit.
of men. The word "men" would here include all men in all
ages, who, prior to that time, had, by their injustice, kept down
the truth; but it seems from what follows in the chapter that the
Apostle designed it to embrace the Gentiles only. The Jews are
taken up and separately considered farther on. The context and
mode of treatment thus serve to limit the word.
19, Because that which is known of God That is, among
the Gentiles. Not that which may be known. It would have
been going too far to say that all that may be known of God actu
ally was manifest among the Gentiles alluded to. For this reason
I reject the common rendering. So also Alford. But it would
be quite proper, as such was the fact, to say that what is known
of God was manifest among them. This knowledge would con
stitute the ground of their responsibility and render them
inexcusable. So at least Paul thought.
The connection of thought between this verse and the one
preceding it, may be thus indicated: "The wrath of God is re
vealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of men who
keep down the truth by injustice." The Gentiles to whom I am
now alluding have the truth. The proof of this I here subjoin:
"Because that which is known of God is manifest among them:

50 ¦ COMMENTARY [Chap, i, v. 19, 20.
for God has made it clear to them. In other words: God has
made clear a certain thing to the Gentiles. It was thus that it
became manifest among them. The thing thus manifest is to
gnoston — what is known of God, and the thing so known is the
truth." Some ofthe learned thus connect the two verses: "The wrath
of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice
of men who keep down the truth by injustice." This wrath the
Gentiles have suffered. Because that which may be known of
God in regard to impiety and injustice is manifest among them in
the form of wrath ; for God has made it clear to them — has clearly
manifested his wrath.
This I admit to be true; but it is not the truth here. The thing
which is known of God, which was manifest among the Gen
tiles, manifest because God had made it clear to them, was the
truth, and not his wrath.
Verses 18 and 19 assert or imply three facts which it was nec
essary to prove: i. That the Gentiles had the truth; 2. That
they kept it down by their injustice; 3. That the wrath of God
is revealed against their impiety and Injustice. Ho^w the first fact
is proved has just been shown. The second is proved by point
ing out how they abused the truth; and the third by enumer
ating the consequences of their sins which God visited on them.
The proof and amplification of these facts occupy the remainder
of the chapter.
20. For his unseen traits are perceived since the crea
tion of the world. The word "perceived" means discovered
by ihe senses or by the mind. It Is hence the very word required
here. Since the creation — apo. I render apo sincejW'iXh Tholuck
and others. The meaning is not perceived by the creation of the
world; for this would be virtual tautology, since it is the exact
import of the expression, known by the things that are made.
This verse is designed to confirm what is said in the preceding
one; and the two verses together form an argument from the
greater to the less. In verse 19 the Apostle says that what is
known of God in regard to piety and justice, the truth from him
respecting them, is manifest among the Gentiles, because He has
made it known to them. To justify and confirm this statement
the Apostle now declares that even God's unseen traits, the
higher and more difficult things to know, have been taken notice
of ever since the creation ©f the world, being cognizable by the

Chap, i, v. 20.] ROMAiS'S. 51

things that are made. And if these have always been known,
how much more the truth relating to practical matters of so much
importance as piety and justice. If the greater is known, the less
must be. The unseen traits mentioned by the Apostle are imme
diately explained to be God's everlasting power and divinity.
It does not strike me that the Apostle intended to enounce the
facts contained'in verse 20, as something new which he desired
his readers to know. He rather assumed them to be known and
admitted, and simply used them to prove what he had said in
verse 19.
Ever since the creation of the world and men have existed,
they have been enabled, by means of the works of creation, to
arrive at the apprehension of certain traits of the Almighty, other
wise undiscoverable by them. These traits are called unseen,
because it Is impossible for the outward eye to take notice of
them. They are apprehensible or knowable by the mind only
— not immediately; for the act of cognition Is by means of the
things that are made. From the works of creation the mind, by
a process, passes to the perception of the traits. This process I
take to be one of reasoning. Given the conception of God, and
from the works of creation the mind infers, as matter of knowl
edge, certain of his traits, as power, and so on. Only thus can ;t
discover these traits by means of created things
And here we must be cautious. The Apostle does not affirm
that by means of created things we come to know God. With
Paul the conception of God is assumed. It is only certain traits
of God that we thus discover. God is not knowable by means
of creation. From creation we infer traits, not God. God him
self, not nature, communicated to man, as an original datum,
whatever conception man at the first had of him. Creation can
not give the conception of God. This embraces, not to mention
more, the notion of spirit and of infinite power; and the notion
of these is not in a physical and finite creation, and, therefore, can
not be inferred from It. If nature alone furnished these notions
it would furnish them continually; that is, it would furnish them
and preserve them. All nations would then have them. But we
know that this, as a historical fact, is not so. But the conception
of God once given by himself, and much that is difficult is gone.
In countless ways the works of nature may then suggest his
traits. Moreover, assuming this to be the origin of the conception,

52 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. 20.
and we can readily account for its prevalence in the world. It,
and much that Is bound up with it, would be propagated in two
ways: orally at first in the form of tradition, and next in written
records. In that way it spread among the Gentiles, and became
the to gnoston, the thing known among them; in this way it was
preserved among the Jews.
both his everlasting power and divinity, It Is easy to
understand how the notion of God's power is obtained from the
works of creation. These works are an effect; and as such they
must have had an adequate cause. As an effect they are immeas
urably vast, and therefore must have resulted from a cause
immeasurably powerful. But God is their cause, and hence the
notion of his power. This much is clear.
But how do we obtain from the works of creation the notion
that God's power Is everlasting? The answer is not very appa
rent. The notion of everlasting duration is not inherent in that
of power. Hence, from the one alone we can not infer the other.
But two solutions, as it seems to me, lie open to us. i. From
creation as an effect we infer the power of God who produced it.
But we infer power only, and not the notion of everlasting. In
itself and as a fact, however, the power is everlasting; and this
being known to Paul, he so named it In other words, from cre
ation we infer the power only, while Paul characterizes it accord
ing to its nature. 2. God is the author of creation; and from
creation as an effect we infer his power. But this power does
not pertain to him as an accident. It inheres in him as an insep
arable attribute; and since he is everlasting, so is his power. It
is thus, I conclude, that we get the notion of everlasting in
God's power, and not from the works of creation.
and divinity. The word Theiotes I here translate divinity,
because I have not a better term, but whether correctly or not, I
can not venture with confidence to say. I take the word as de
noting, like power, a single characteristic of God. Consequently
I can not agree with those who make it designate the "sum of
divine qualities," Surely this is incorrect; for that "sum" must
include power, and yet from Theiotes, .as here used, power is
excluded, being expressed by dunamis. Moreover, the word
must denote some trait which stands in close relation to the works
of creation, since it is perceived by them. But to say precisely
which trait it expresses is the difficulty. So incomprehensible is
God, and so multiform his characteristics, that we become bewil-

Chap, i, v, 20, 21,] ROMANS. 53
dered in their presence. From the divine complexity which
shines out in the works of creation, how hard is it to select a sin
gle trait, and say of it with confidence, this is the theiotes. Yet
this trait was known among the Gentiles of whom Paul is speak
ing. Much more then must we know it. But this is not the
difficulty. The difficulty is in saying which trait, out of many, it
is. Were I called upon to name it, I should coin a word for the
purpose, and call it the deityship of God, By this I would ex
press specifically his divine lordship and preservation. God's
power creates — this all nature proclaims; and he upholds what
he has made. No two facts in the manifestations of nature are
more apparent than these. In upholding and preserving nature
God displays his deityship. This then I take to be the trait which
theiotes expresses.
It is proper to add that the usus loquendi, usually held to be
the great arbiter in questions of criticism, can lend us no aid here.
The word in hand is hapax legomenoti, that is, it occurs but once
in the New Testament This greatly increases the difficulty in
understanding it. It may, I think, be safely assumed, as already
said, that it denotes a single divine trait, a trait closely related to
creation, and perceivable by it. Thus far -we are safe. But when
¦we come to designate specifically the trait, we seem to me to be
guided by conjecture alone.
so that they are without excuse. In v. 19 the Apostle
declares that what is known of God, his truth, respecting piety
and justice, was manifest among the Gentiles, God having shown
it to them. This he confirms in v. 20. He curtly adds: "So that
they are without excuse," i. e., for their sins. Paul here assumes
the great and constantly recurring fact in the divine government,
that knowledge of duty is the measure of responsibility. Had
the Gentiles not known, they would have been free, but having
light, they were without excuse.
With v. 20 Paul ends his proof of the fact that the Gentiles had
the truth. This done, and his conclusion drawn, he commences,
in V. 21, the proof of his second fact, namely, that they had kept
down the truth by iniquity. He shows that they had abused It,
perverted and abandoned it, and thus had kept it down and ren
dered it inoperative.
21. Because they, knowing God, did not glorify him as
God, This verse assigns a reason for the conclusion of v. 20.
That conclusion is, that the Gentiles were without excuse. In

54 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. 21.
proof of this the Apostle now shows how, and under what cir
cumstances, they had acted.
To glorify God is to adore and honor him because of his divine
nature and excellencies. It is of the very essence of piety. In
the fact stated by the Apostle we have additional evidence that
the Gentiles had the truth. They knew enough to enable them
to glorify God as God. Yet they failed. In what the failure
consisted we are not told. Paul merely says, they did not glorify
God as such. They either ceased to use the truth as a guide, or
perverted it. It thus failed of its object In them; and in this way
it was either hindered or wholly suppressed.
nor did they thank him; We thank God for benefits re
ceived; and the feeling which prompts the act is gratitude. As
the debt we owe to him, on this score, is great, the feeling should
be active and profound. A failure here is indicative of the deep
est debasement The people in whom this feeling has become
extinct have reached the lowest degree of spiritual degeneracy.
No sin Is more inexcusable. Such was the depth to which the
Gentiles had gone down.
but became foolish in their reasonings. The word emat-
aiothesan primarily signifies to become vain or fooUsh; and I see
no reason for seeking a more remote meaning here. I hence can
not think with some, that the word means to become "devoted to
vanities," meaning by the expression, devoted to idolatry. There
is the less reason for this, since, in v. 23, both the fact of idolatry
and the mode in which it arose are distinctly stated.
The Gentiles were at fault in their reasonings either because
they set out from wrong premises, or because they conducted
the process amiss, and reached unwarrantable conclusions; or
they may have been at fault in both these respects and most
Hkely were. Correct reasoning can injure no people. It was by
means of their reasonings that the Gentiles became foolish.
This could not have happened had their reasonings been sound.
FooUsh reasoning alone makes those foolish who do it
What subjects the Gentiles reasoned on we are not told.
Doubtless they were the theiotes and dunamis of God, togethei
with the truth they had. Reasoning amiss on these made them
fools in regard to God and their duty to him. RationaUsm is a
dangerous thing whenever it undertakes to solve the mysteries of
God, or to lay down any other basis of human duty than the
divine will. Better accept some thing.s on the authority of God

Chap, i, v. 22, 23.] ROMANS. 55
which we can not solve, than to act the fool by rejecting every
thing. and their stupid heart was darkened. The word heart
here stands for the power within us which takes cognizance of
divine truth. So, Tholuck in substance. Asunetos signifies
wanting in discernment or perception. Stupid, in the sense of
bluntness of spiritual perception, is the aptest word known to
me by which to render it. As the foolish reasonings of the Gen
tiles gradually usurped possession of their minds, the truth faded
from them. At last the Ught which was in them went out
Thus their heart became darkened.
22. Professing to be wise they acted as fools, When
men are reasoning God and truth out of their souls, they usually
make large pretensions to wisdom. It was so with the Gentiles
in olden time; it Is so with rationaUsm still. But the pretense is
a poor compensation for the loss. He acts the fool, not the wise
man, who thus reasons. Better is the "foolishness" which stands
with God, than the reasoning which rejects him.
23. and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God
for an image Common version: "Changed the glory of the
uncorruptible God into an Image." But this can not be correct
How can the glory of God be changed into an image? The
one can not be transmuted into the other. But it is easy to un
derstand how, in the case in hand, the one could be' exchanged
for the other. The Gentiles, when they knew God, glorified him
not as God, but became foolish in their reasonings; their stupid
heart became darkened; and though they professed to be wise,
they acted as fools. The result was that they lost the true con
ception of God, and for him, as the object of their worship,
substituted idols. Thus the exchange was made.
It Is better, perhaps, with some of the learned, to regard the
phrase, "glory of the Incorruptible God," as a designation of
God, equivalent to glorious incorruptible God. The meaning
will then be, in short: they exchanged God for idols. Or we
may take "glory" as standing for the whole of the worship then
due to God. The meaning wiU then be: they exchanged the
worship of God for the worship of idols. That is, they aban
doned the one, and betook themselves to the other.
like corruptible man, and fowls, and four-footed beasts,
and creeping things. Idolatry at the first had a deep criminal
significance. Originally God did not intend man to worship

56 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. 23.
a being whom he could not see. In the act, it can not be denied,
there is something difficult and unnatural. When God made
Adam he visited him and talked to him famiUarly as a gracious
father with his child. Man looked upon his great Creator face to
face. The homage he then paid him was the glad, spontaneous
outburst of his heart It was not an effort, but a deep exquisite
pleasure. But man sinned; and that glorious Presence forever
withdrew. Still the soul, though wrecked, longed to look again
upon the object of its adoration. In the course of time Satan,
who, at the first, had suggested sin, now suggested that God could
be worshiped just as well under some visible form. The sugges
tion seemed to meet the profound, instinctive longings of the
spirit; and idolatry arose. The idol was, at this time, no doubt, a
mere aid to devotion. It helped the mind to mount from the
mere material form before it up to the invisible One whom it
represented. But men, with whom playing the fool had become
habitual, and whose heart had become darkened, would not long
remember these refined distinctions. Consequently, from view
ing the idol as a mere aid, they soon came to view it as God.
"These be thy gods, O Israel." Exod. xxxii: 4. Such probably
was the origin of idolatry. On man's part the Intention was to
aid devotion; on Satan's, to eject God from the soul. Satan suc
ceeded, not man.
God appoints the worship of himself, and prescribes its mode
and laws. Whenever man undertakes to invent aids, the result is
that the divine appointment Is supplanted, and the human inven
tion takes its place,
like corruptible man. Ad verbutn — likeness of an image oJ
corruptible tnan. The idea is exactly expressed to our minds and
in our language by an image like corruptible man. In their tra
ditions men would still retain the fact, obscured and distorted,
that they had been created In the image of God. In making an
idol to represent God, their first thought would be to make one
as nearly Uke him as possible. They would, therefore, make it
Uke man, feeling that thereby they were making it Uke God.
But as they sunk in grossness, they would make their idols to
resemble those beasts and fowls from which they derived most
benefit, or those animals and creeping things they most feared.
Those they would worship; these seek to propitiate. Such
would be the origin of the Images representing the lower order
of creatures, and of the homage paid them.

Chap, i, v. 24.J ROMANS. 57
24, Therefore God gave them up, in the lusts of their
hearts, to uncleanness, God gives people up when he ceases
to restrain them from evil or protect them against it. When, in
other words, he lets them alone to do as they please without hin
drance from him in the matter of sin. This clearly implies that
till God gives a people up, they are always under his protecting
care. Language could not more clearly imply the constant over
sight of God in the affairs of men. How, with such an impli
cation before him, any man can deny an immediate divine
providence in human affairs, I can not see. Indeed the blindness
which can do it would itself seem to be an instance of the "giv-.
ing up" spoken of.
in the lusts of their hearts, With Lange and others I
think the en of this clause should not be rendered by or through.
God did not give them up to uncleanness by or through their
lusts. Their lusts were not a means by which he effected this
end. The en denotes their state or condition when God gave
them up. He gave them up because they had abandoned him
and resorted to the worship of Idols; but at the time when he did
this they were living in lust. This was their condition.
to uncleanness. That is, to practice it But God did not
design or appoint the uncleanness, and then abandon the people
to it. The uncleanness was the result of their lusts. God aban
doned them; and immediately their lusts hurried them into the
uncleanness. to dishonor their bodies among themselves. Critics are
not agreed as to whether atimazesthai is middle or passive. It
may be either, and either gives a good sense. I prefer to think
it middle, and accordingly so render it. But the point is of Uttie
importance, and is therefore dismissed.
But how shall we render the clause? Certainly in one or the
other of the following ways: God gave them up so that they dis
honored their bodies; or he gave them up to dishonor them. The
latter, as is obvious, makes God intend the dishonor; the former
says nothing of intention, but merely states the result of the
giving up. The weight of modern authority is in favor of the
former rendering. But why? Certainly not on philological
grounds; for on these, the latter rendering has the advantage.
The former rendering, then, as it seems to me, rests on no ground
except that commentators do not like to make God intend the
dishonor. But this is insufficient It is distinctly stated that God

58 COMMENTARY. Chap. i. v. 25.
gave them up. Now for what did he do this? Not merely that
they might dishonor their bodies — this and no more. But he
gave them up to let them learn what their lusts would plunge
them into; and this end he intended, not for its own sake, btit as
a punishment for abandoning him, for idolatry and for their lusts.
This I beUeve to be the true intent of the clause. I therefore
prefer the lattei rendering.
Precisely how the Gentiles dishonored their bodies appears in
vs. 26, 27. These verses also exemplify the import of the clause
among themselves.
. 25. who exchanged the truth of God for a lie. This
clause closely resembles the one In v. 23, already noticed, namely:
"Who exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an im
age," &c.; and the two clauses should be rendered aUke. In the
one case the glory of God is exchanged for an image; In the
other, the truth of God is exchanged for a Ue. Or more closely
still, the truth of God is exchanged for the false — that which
is false in itself, false in the sense of being a lie, and false in
the sense of being a sham. The reference is to idols and idol
worship. I see no reason for seeking, as some do, an unusual meaning
for the expression the truth of God. Both its import and con
struction seem very simple. The Genitive of God Is genitive of
source, the meaning being the truth which is from God. The
truth is evidently the same as that of v. 18, which was kept down
by unrighteousness. This truth primarily respected the worship
due to God ; and it is as primary that it is here before the Apos
tle's mind. The truth which respected God and his worship the
Gentiles exchanged for the Ue which prescribed idol worship.
Or the sense may be the fuller one, that both the one true God
and his worship were exchanged for the false in the shape of
idols and the worship paid them.
The clause seems designed to explain more clearly whom God
delivered up to uncleanness to dishonor their bodies. If, instead
of the simple who, we render hoiiines whoever, we shall come
still nearer the sense. The meaning of the two verses may be
accurately and fully expressed thus: Therefore God gave them up
in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness to dishonor their bodies
among themselves — gave up whoever exchanged the truth of
God for a Ue.
and worshiped and served the creature instead of him

Chap, i, v. 25.]

ROMANS.

59

that made it. The word here rendered worshiped is generally
assumed to denote so much of our duty to God as is internal,
while the one rendered served denotes the outward part. The
distinction may possibly have been intended here, but I can
not see it. The two words together simply denote the whole of
the worship due to God. This was all transferred to the crea
ture. The term creature is general, and Includes every created
thing that was worshiped. The expression ton ktisanta Is almost
uniformly rendered the Creator. But for this there is no neces
sity. It is the participle, not a noun, and with the article means
hitn that made. This phrase closely and neatly renders it, and
any thing different Is gratuitous. Trueness is better than brevity.

CHAPTER I. SECTION 5.

" Ala tovto TtapeSaKtv avrovs 6 Qeos
els -irdBr) dTiplas' di Te yap Bf\Xeiai av-
tUv peTT]XXa^av tt/v 0uo-«iji' p^p^o'ti' els
Trjv -irapa <^v<riv. ^' *Opoio>s Te Kai ol ap-
a-eves d(f)evres -rrjv <pva-tKTjV xp^^'-^ ^T^
BrjXelas i^eKavBia-av iv Trj dpe^ei avTav
els aKXr)Xovi, apcreves iv apa-ecri tt/v aa-
XTJpoavvqv KaTepya^opevot, Kai ttjv avTi-
ptQ-Biav riv eSet, T^ff irXdvrjs avrav ev
eavToXs d-ivoXap^dvovTes. ^' Kai KaBas
OVK iSoKlpaaav tov ©eoi' exeiv iv eViy-
vaa-ei, -jrapeSaKev avTovs 6 Qeos eis
dSoKipov vovv, -iTOielv to, pfj KaBrjKOVra,
^ netrXrjpapevovs rrda-ri dSiKiq, Trovrjpla,
nXeove§ia, xaKia, pearovs (fiBovov, <j)6-
vov, eptSos, SoXov, KaKOTjBeias' ^iBvpta--
Tds, '" KaToXdXotij, BeoarvyeXs, v^pia--
rds, vireprj^dvovs, dXa^ovas, iipevpeTas
KaKav, yoveva-iv d-treiBels, " da-vveTovs,
davvBeTovs, daT6pyovs, dveXerjpovas,
'' oiTivey Th SiKaiapa tov Qeov imyvov-
res, OTI oi Ta Toiavra -irpdcriTovTes d^ioi
Bavdrov ela-iv, oi pdvov aiiTa notova-tv,
dKkd Kai a-vvevSoKova-i roXs trpdaa-ova-t.

^° For this reason God gave them
up to vile passions. For even their
females changed the natural use into
one contrary to nature. ^' Likewise
also the males, quitting the natural
use of the female, burnt in their lust
for one another, raales practicing
with raales indecency, and receiving
in themselves the reward of their
error, which was fit. ^'And inasmuch
as they did not judge fit to keep God
in their knowledge, God gave thera
up to a rejected mind to do unbe
coming things : '' being filled with
all injustice, malice, greediness, evil ;
full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
malignity ; whisperers, '" slanderers,
Godhaters ; insolent, proud, boastful,
inventors of evil, disobedient to pa
rents, " stupid, faithless, without
natural affection, pitiless — '^ who
knowing the decree of God, that they
who practice such things are worthy
of death, not only do them, but are
even well pleased with those that
practice them.

SUMMARY.
Being abandoned of God, both their men and women degraded themselves
by their vile practices. They received in their own bodies the due reward ot
their error. They rejected God from their knowledge, and he rejected them.
After this they became filled with every vice and crime. These they not
only practiced themselves, but even had delight in others for practicing them.
All this they did, knowing the decree of God, both against their sins and
against themselves. They therefore sinned wilfully and recklessly.

6o COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v. 26.
26. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.
This verse is a repetition, In part, of v. 24. But it is more. It
states the particular uncleanness to which God abandoned the
Gentiles, and details how they dishonored their bodies among
themselves. The reason for the abandonment is the same in
both verses. It was idolatry.
The graded descent of the Gentiles is here worthy of note.
They knew God — this is the plane from which they took their
downward course. But they did not honor him as God; became
foolish in their reasonings; their heart, failing in the perception
of spiritual things, became darkened; they played the fool; lost
the true notion of God; ended in worshiping and serving the
creature. At this point God abandoned them; and again they
began to descend — this time into moral and physical corruption,
Down they went, and still down, tiU they touched the bottom of
human degradation. How sublime the hight from which they
fell; how low the depth they reached!
to vile passions. The passions to which God abandoned
the Gentiles were those mentioned in this and the next verse.
They were the unnatural lusts which females cherished for
females, and males cherished for males. It is impossible to con
ceive of anything in the form of vice more disgusting than the
practices to which they led. As the simple translation of the
two verses presents their contents in a light sufficiently strong, I
shall not comment on them in detail.
That the vices here specified by Paul were actually practiced
among the Gentiles admits of no doubt The testimony to the
fact, independent of the Apostie's, is conclusive. Seneca Mar
tial, and Petronius, the last contemporary with Paul, all confirm
the Apostie's statement. The Tribades, a notorious class of
women, addicted to one of the vices, practiced their crime under
the name of sapphic love; and every one at aU read in history,
has heard of the Lesbian vice. The same vice is said to be
indulged in in Paris, France, In the present day; and there is
Uttle doubt of its existence In other modern cities. The vice
c^&d pederasty is known to have been disgracefully common in
Greece and Rome about the time Paul wrote. Xenophon men
tions the fact of Its being forbidden by Lycurgus. Nor were
these vices confined to the low, unthinking herd. Some of the
most distinguished are accused of them. By Plutarch for ex
ample, we are told that even Solon, the great Athenian law-

Chap, i, v, 26, 27.] ROMANS. 61

giver, was impUcated in them; and Stuart says that Zeno, the
founder of the Stoics, was accused of the same. To the preceding
may be added the fact, mentioned by Bloomfield, and confirmed
by others, that discoveries made in Herculaneum and PompeU
confirm all that Paul has said. Nor were these vices rare, and
viewed as we view them. Indeed one of the writers just named,
as quoted by Hodge, goes so far as to say that they were so com
mon, and the countenance given to them so great, that no one
feared being detected in the act of committing them. More
over, they are known to prevail in more countries than one even
in our own day.
and receiving in themselves the reward of their error,
which was fit. The error here, I must think. Is the error into
which their males and females fell in the vices just named. The
word plane means wandering, going astray, deception; and in
the vices named the Gentiles confessedly went astray. Besides,
the reward which they received was one due their error; and
that it was also the one deserved by their vices can hardly be
questioned. It was a reward received in their persons — most
likely a penalty in the form of disease which they suffered. I
hence deem that plane refers strictly to erring in the matter of
their vices.
Some commentators refer plane to their going astray from
God to idolatry; but the reference seems far too remote. Cer
tainly that was a plane, and their vices were a distant conse
quence of it; but then there are too many intermediate errors to
permit us to refer plane over them all to the first." It would be
safer to make it include all these errors than to refer it exclusively
to the first. If any one will attentively read the passage in the
original, I think it will never occur to him that plane can have
any other reference than to the vices.
What the reward of their error was, which they received In
themselves, we are not told. But from the nature of the crimes
committed, we can hardly fail to conjecture it. The vices con
sisted in the grossest bodily abuse long continued. The result
would be the worst form of those diseases which are known to
follow such abuse. It would be, besides great pain, premature
decay of the body, which again would lead to decay of the
mind. A life, therefore, imbittered by disease and pain, with
enfeebled powers of. intellect, and early death would be the
reward of their error.

62 COMMENTARY, [Chap, i, v. 28.
28. And inasmuch as they did not judge fit to keep God
in their knowledge. The sense is clear, but it is difficult, ow
ing to the want of closely corresponding words, to make the
translation entirely satisfactory, Dokimazo primarily means to
prove a thing by trial, to put it to the test, "I have bought five
yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them," But this sense is clearly
madmissible here. The word also means to approve or think fit.
It occurs in this sense, i Cor. xvi: 3: "And when I reach you, I
will send, with letters, him whom you may approve, to carry your
gift to Jerusalem." Also, i Thess. ii: 4: "But as we have been
thought worthy by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we
speak, not as pleasing men." It is certainly in this sense that the
word occurs In the clause in hand. The Gentiles, after long trial.
especially after their perception of spiritual things had grown
blunt, after their heart had become asunetos, and they had fallen
into idolatry and its attendant vices, did not approve or judge fit
to retain God in their knowledge. They preferred rather to let
the knowledge they had of him perish from their minds, which
was the same as not choosing to keep him in their knowledge.
They wished no farther acquaintance with him.
to keep God in knowledge, The phrase "to keep God in
knowledge'' is thought by some to be a stronger expression than
to know God. But the fact is not apparent. Its exact equivalent
is to know God — to have him in mind as an object of constant
and distinct thought The two phrases differ in form, not in
sense. God gave them up to a rejected mind As the Gentiles, on
their part, did not think proper to do one thing; so God, on his,
did not think proper to do another. They did not choose to
keep him in their knowledge; and so he did not choose to keep
them In his care. He had now fully tested their minds, tested
whether they would keep him in thought. He had had them on
trial, as the assayer his metal in the crucible. Their minds failed,
and he rejected them. The word "rejected," in this sense, though
not exactly to my taste, is the truest word to the Apostle's sense
I can find. God repudiated the Gentile mind, or threw it away.
It would not retain him, and he refused to have it.
to do unbecoming things; Unbecoming things are all
things inconsistent with our duty to ourselves and to others. The
phrase is comprehensive, and, unqualified, would include every
species and form of vice and wickedness. I apprehend, how-

Chap, i, v. 29,] ROMANS. 63
ever, that it is designed to refer more particularly to the vices just
named by the Apostle, and to those immediately to be enumer
ated. Less than these it hardly includes; more it scarcely can,
29. being filled with all injustice, malice, greediness,
evil; Pepleromenous belongs to the they which is the subject
understood of poiein. The persons who were filled with all
injustice, etc., were those who did not choose to keep God in
their knowledge, and whom he abandoned to do unbecoming
things. Being once forsaken by him, because they had forsaken
him, they went from bad to worse, and from worse to worst, till
they complemented the following fearful list of crimes.
Efforts have been made, particularly by German commentators,
to show that the Apostle enumerates these crimes in order, or at
least sets them down in kindred groups. But these efforts are
founded rather in the fancies of their authors than in the work of
Paul He is innocent of the order and grouping ascribed to him.
He was intent on describing the true condition of tbe Gentile
world, but with no wish to display his skill in the art of rhetoric.
His object was to tell the whole truth, but as to the order In
which his items should succeed one another, he has evinced no
discoverable concern,
being filled with It need not be supposed that each indi
vidual Gentile embodied in himself the whole of these crimes.
The list is affirmed of a community as such, and not of its several
members. ' What was true of the whole was true, no doubt, in
large measure, of its individual parts. Still a general corruption
of individuals is all that need be assumed. For example, one man
may have been filled with greediness, but not have been boastful;
another may have been boastful, but not filled with greediness;
and so on to the end.
all injustice. This expression is generic, and comprehends
the whole volume of human crimes. The specifications herein
following are its included particulars. The men in whom the
"all injustice" had its seat were the men who kept down the
truth — and no wonder. No heart can be at the same time the
abode of these crimes and of the truth. The sense of truth is
extinct in the heart in which they dwell. Malice: Deep-seated
hatred accompanied by the wish and will to do others personal
injury. When intensified it is apt to seek the opportunity to
vent itself in bloodshed. Greediness: The inordinate love of
money. It is dangerous because almost sure to lead to the use

64 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i, v, 29, 30.
of unjust means to accompUsh its ends, Covetousness and ava
rice are both good meanings of the word, Evil, kakia: Moral
baseness — the depraved disposition which Is ready for every
type of crime. Villanous disposition is very close to the sense.
full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. Envy:
The disposition which grudges another his excellence or place. It
leads its possessor to underrate its object, and thereby to be unjust
to him. When it speaks, it is usually in the form of pity for the
slandered. The truly noble are ever free from it. Murder: The
wilful and malicious taking of human life. This crime, accord
ing to the Bible, should always be punished with death. But in
our day, especially in our country, it generally brings with it only
a good deal of notoriety, and not death. But we may rest assured
of this, that God will one day visit on the people of this country
a fearful retribution for the indulgence which they show to the
crime. Take the life of him who wilfully and with malice takes
the life of his fellow man — do this surely, do it in all cases, and
murder will cease. Fail to do this, and you breed mobs; for the
world is apt to feel that a murderer hung by a mob is a less evil
than a murderer turned loose by a corrupt court of law, to mur
der again at will. That is a morbid and most pernicious sentiment
which forgets what is due to God, to society, and to the murdered,
through sickly sympathy for the murderer. It is devoid of jus
tice; nor is it any proper expression of mercy. Strife: The
disposition to be contentious and quarrelsome. It is the standing
violation of the law of peace. It is not strife for the sake of
truth and right. Such strife is lawful. But it is strife simply for
its own sake — a morbid feeling, which seeks to irritate every
body and thereby disquiet them. Deceit: The Greek word
dolos primarily signifies a bait, i. e., for a fish. From this it readily
comes to mean an artful trick, stratagem, device. As a dispo
sition of mind it is the inclination and will to practice every
species of fraud to effect an end. Where it prevails justice in
dealing is unknown. It is the very opposite of an honest
purpose. Malignity: Extreme evilness of nature. As a disposi
tion it has its seat low in the depraved heart, is treacherous, and
crops out in bad habits and customs. It is of the essence of
activity in the corrupt soul.
whisperers, 30. slanderers, Godhaters, Whisperers : Se
cret slanderers, persons who slip slyly about and blacken names
and characters by whispering their vile tale in willing ears.

Chap, i, v. 30, 31.J ROMANS, 65
They always affect great innocence themselves, and tell their
hurtful story regretfully. When done, they are sure to enjoin on
you not to mention the matter to others lest it might do harm.
The world contains few things more despicable. Slanderers:
These are the pubUc blabs of communities, the open tattlers who
know every thing they should not know, and tell every thing
they should not tell, the newsmongers of Inns and low places.
They have one pecuUarity — they never tell secrets, but such
things only as are notoriously true! They hence always appeal
to some one in the crowd to verify their lie. Godhaters:
These are the impious wretches who, having cast God out of
their souls, have sunk down into the very night of sin. Nature
has become so prostituted in them, and their hearts so saturated
with evil that for even their daily bread they requite God only
with hate. Of the turpitude of such an insult it Is impossible for
the pure mind to form a true conception. To hate God is the
most abhorrent thought to the soul that language can express.
In enormity it is without a parallel.
insolent, proud, boastful, inventors of evils, disobedient
lo parents, Insolent: Persons are insolent when In their
haughtiness they look down upon others with contempt, and so
treat them and speak to them as to mortify them and wound
their feelings. It is an ignoble trait, found only in base minds.
Proud: To be proud is to place too high an estimate upon our
selves. It leads us to be vain, and to look upon others as
inferiors. The truly noble are never proud. Boastful: The
boastful are such as speak of themselves, their acts and property
in an ostentatious and over-colored style. The vice is closely
akin to lying, and is the very opposite of modesty. Inventors of
evils: These were persons who invented base methods to accu
mulate property, to gratify ambition, and to satisfy lust. The
word evils must be taken in a wide sense, as including every
species of villany which can Injure either ourselves or others.
Disobedient to parents: Perhaps no sin mentioned by the Apos
tie so clearly indicates, as does this, how completely humanity
was wrecked in the Gentiles. To be disobedient to parents in
the sense of being cruel to them, or indifferent to their wants, is
the lowest degree of human debasement It often occurred
among the ancients.
31. stupid, faithless, without natural affection, pitiless—
Stupid: On this word I have already had occasion to comment.
5

66 COMMENTARY, [Chap. i. v. 31, 32.
It here means duUness in the perception of spiritual things. But
how, the reader will ask, can- its import be set down as a sin,
and a person be held responsible for it? Were it natural, it could
not be. But it Is induced by unwillingness to retain in mind
those divine truths which keep it bright and sharp. God's truth
is the soul's food, which renders It active and keen in its percep
tions. Without this food it becomes gross and dull, and at last
loses its perspicacity. The import, therefore, is criminal, because
the consequence of a criminal rejection of the truth. Faithless:
The word faithless here does not refer to a general, but specific
faithlessness. It denotes want of faith in keeping covenants and
contracts. It includes alike the acts of nations and of individuals.
Where it prevails all confidence in human pledges is at an end.
Without natural affection: The word signifies more particularly
a want of affection for kin, especially, it may be, for children. It
is thought by some to refer to the unfeeling custom among Gen
tile parents of exposing their infants to die, when, from any
cause, they were disinclined to raise them. The word possibly
has this reference, but it is not certain. It means to be heartless
towards those who should be dear to us from the ties of blood.
Pitiless: The word signifies to be merciless or unforgiving to
those who err. The pitiless man shows no leniency to those
who are out of the way, but cruelly exacts the last farthing.
When we remember how prone all are to do wrong, we must
regard the trait as a most diabolical one.- Nothing can be more
opposite to God than it is, or be looked upon by him with deeper
displeasure. Here ends the hideous list of crimes and vices and sinful
mental states enumerated by the Apostle. To define each word
exactly, as it stood defined to his mind, is more than any one can
now claim the ability to do. A safe approximation to his mean
ing is all that, in some instances, can be expected. Different
words so often seem to blend their import, and to lap the one
over the other, that to keep their several significations distinct,
and make them stand apart each on its own plat, Is by no means
easy. I shall feel glad if, in the end, it turns out that my efforts
in this direction are in respectable part successful.
32. who, knowing the decree of God, To whom does the
word -who here refer? Clearly to those who did not choose to
keep God in their knowledge, whom, therefore, he abandoned to
a rejected mind to do unbecoming things, and who as a conse-

Chap, i, v. 32.] ROMANS. 67
quence practiced the crimes and vices just specified. It does not
then add a new class of characters to the preceding list. It
merely adds a fuller description of those there named. The per
sons there named committed the crimes mentioned, knowing the
decree of God as to the penalty they deserved. And more, they
even countenanced and indorsed others in doing them. Such I
take to be the Beference of who, and the connection of thought.
knowing the decree of God, The Gentiles, then, in perpe
trating their enormities were not acting in ignorance. They
knew the decree of God respecting the very vices they were
practicing. But they did not regard it. They had light, but
despised it It was this that made their guilt so deep. They
knew the decree. That was all. Not that they recognized it as
just. The probability is they regarded it as the very reverse.
Their heart had become asunetos; dull of perception; and the
justness of the decree against their sins would be among the first
things to which they would grow blind. They sinned, then, not
in ignorance, but more probably in unbelief
But whence did they derive the knowledge of God's decree?
The question is not settled by the Scriptures. We are conse
quently left to conjecture. I cite an author or two in reply.
Alford: "To dikaioma — the sentence of God, unmistakably
pronounced In the conscience." Stuart thinks they derived
it "from the disclosures made respecting God in the works of
nature," and from "their own conscience and moral sense." And
so others.
But with these authors I can not agree. I see not how either
the works of nature or the human conscience could ever disclose
the decree in question. "The things of God no one knows, but
the Spirit of God." God himself, I take it, revealed his decree
respecting the penalty of sin, revealed It by his Spirit to the
men with whom originally he communicated on such matters, as
Noah. Thus only, I deem, could this decree ever become
known. But being once known, we can easily account for its
prevalence. It would spread in the form of a tradition. All
would thus come to know It, and would have their consciences
molded in accordance with it Thus it would not be a deliver
ance of conscience, but become a criterion of its formation.
that they who practice such things are worthy of death,
The word death here seems to have perplexed commentators
very much. Bloomfield thinks it means "the severest punish-

68 COMMENTARY. [Chap. i. v. 32.

ment both in this world and in the next." Hodge: "Death here
means the penalty of the law, aU those evils by which sin is pun
ished." Stuart thinks the word is used "figTiratively," and that
it means "punishment, misery, suffering^ Alford: "Probably a
general term for the fatal consequences of sin; that such courses
lead to death." Tholuck says the word "may be taken in a more
extensive sense for misery, punishment, or in a more confined,
for «/eaM, the greatest of all bodily punishments." Lange: "The
general idea of death in the Gentile consciousness of guilt, as the
punishment of the most varied forms of sin."
These citations present some diversity of opinion; and besides
they would seem to imply that the interpretation of the word is
not easy. But I can not feel the difficulty of these writers. There
is no apparent necessity for understanding the word death in any
unusual sense. I therefore take it in its ordinary meaning, as
denoting simply natural death.
We must remember that the decree in question was not the
decree of men; nor that the Gentiles were worthy of death
according to a human decision. It was God, not men, who
decreed them to be worthy of death. And where is the difficulty
here? If God could decree Adam worthy of death, as we know
he did, for a single sin, should we think it strange that he would
decree the Gentiles worthy of death for their countless sins? It
was not only right that Adam himself should die for his sin;
but it is also right that all his posterity should die for it God
adjudged the whole human family worthy of deatii for this one
sin. How much more then could he adjudge the Gentiles worthy
of death for their sins? True, though Adam was adjudged
worthy of death, he did not die for some time after he sinned;
and so with the Gentiles. Though they were worthy of death,
the penalty was not at once inflicted. The fact, however, that
they did not die at once did not prove them not worthy. It proved
a respite, nothing more.
not only do them, but are well pleased with those that
practice them. They not only practice such vices and crimes
as the Apostle has just named; but they do this knowing that
God has decreed them worthy of death for practicing them.
They thus contemn his decree and defy him. Nay more, they
delight to know that others do the same things. They are not
content to sin themselves; they go farther, and show their pleas
ure in others that sin, and thus try to render it universal.

Chap, i, v. 32.J ROMANS. 69
Nothing so encourages men to sin as to show them that we think
all the better of them for it. Especially is this true of infidelity.
The countenance which grown men, who are infidels, give to
young men, does more to foster infidelity in the latter than all
the arguments infidels ever constructed. We must not only not
sin ourselves, but we must frown on it in others.
The Apostie having now shown the moral condition of the
Gentiles, and the utter hopelessness of their case, proceeds to
consider the state of the Jews. In doing this, he will demon
strate that both are equally guilty, and equaUy without the hope
of even a possible justification. This done, and the conclusion
is obvious. Both are alike in absolute need of "God's justifica
tion." This is the conclusion which the Apostle desires to fix at
last deeply and distinctiy in the minds of both.

7°

COMMENTARY.

Chap. 2.

CHAPTER II,

SECTION I.

Therefore you are without excuse,
O, man, whoever you are that judge ;
for in that in which you judge an
other, you condemn yourself; for
you that judge practice the same
things. ^ But we know that God's
judgraent is according to truth against
those that practice such t]jmgs. 'Do
you then count on this, O, man, who
judge those that practice such things,
and do them yourself, that you will
escape the judgment of God? ''Or
do you despise the abundance of his
goodness and forbearance and pa
tience, not knowing that God's good
ness leads you into repentance?
'And according to your impenitent
heart and hardness do you heap up
for yourself wrath in a day of wrath
and of disclosure of the just
judgment of God? 'who will render
to each according to his deeds —
'everlasting life to those who, by
continuance in good works, seek for
glory and honor and incorruption —
"anger and wrath to those who are
contentious, and obey not the truth,
but obey injustice. 'Affliction and
distress will come upon every soul of
man who works evil, of Jew first, and
of Greek. '° But glory and honor
and peace will be given to every one
who works good, to Jew first and to
Greek. " For there is no respecting
the person with God.

Aid dvaTroXoyTjTos fl, & SvOpanre, ttoi
o Kpivav iv a yap Kpiveis rov erepov,
a-eavTov KaraKpiveis- ra yap oSra irpdcr-
aeis 6 Kpivav. ^ 0(Sa/iev Se on ro KpLpa
Tov eeoi! eWi Kara dXrjdeiav e'jri roiis rd
Toiavra wpda-aovTas. ' Aoyl^rj Se touto,
S) avBpane, 6 Kpivav roils to rotavra
-ispaa-aovras xai rroiav aird, ori av ia-
<t>e^^ TO Kpipa TOV Qeov; ^'H rov ttXou-
Tou rrjs xp^oTonjroy airrov Kai r^s dvox^is
Kai rTjS paxpoBvpias Kora^poveXs, dyvoav
OTI TO xp'JoToi' TOV Qeov els perdvoidv ae
ayei ; ' Kara Se rrjv aKXrjporrjrd aov Kai
dperavorjTov KapSiav Brjaavpi^ets aeavrra
opyrjv iv r]pepa dpyrjs Kai d-iroKoXv-^eas
SiKaioKptaias toO 0eo€; ^os diroSaaei
eKaara Kara ra epya avrov—' roXs piv
KaB^ VTTopovrjV epyov dyaBov So^av Koi
TipfjV Kai dipBapalav ^rjTovai, (afjv aiav
iov—' TOIS Se i^ ipiBeias Kai d-ireidovat
-rji dXrjdeia, iretdopevois Se rg aSiKio,
op-yr) Kai Bvpos. ' QXX^is Kai arevoxa-
pla eVi Trdaav yjevx-O^ dvBpairov rov
Karepya^opevov t6 KaKOV, 'louSai'ou re
irpoTov Kai "EXXtji/oj- '" S6§a Se Kai riprf
Kai eiprjvr] -jravri ra ipya^opeva to dyar,
66v, ^lovSala re Trparrov Kai "EXXijw
' ou ydp ioTi npoaa7roXri-\jria napct
TIB Qea.

SUMMARY.
The Jew constantly condemned the Gentile for doing certain things; but
in doing so he condemned himself, for he did the same things. God's
just judgment is against all who do such things as the Jew did. Therefore
he can not escape condemnation. The goodness and patience of God are
designed to lead men to repentance; but the Jew misconstrues these and does
not repent. By this course he heaps up for himself wrath in the last day,
when God will render to every one according to his deeds. To the good he
will give eternal life; on the disobedient he will inflict wrath. There is no
partiality with God.
The connection between this chapter and the first is not obvi
ous; and it has cost critics no little trouble. Dio, with which
the chapter begins, is certainly illative. This is conceded with

Chap. 2, v. i.] ROMANS. 71
hardly an exception. But the fact in the preceding chapter from
which the inference is drawn, which dio introduces, seems not
easily discovered. I prefer to think the inference drawn from no
single fact, but from the whole current of the Apostle's teaching
respecting the Gentiles. The connection I take to be this: The
Gentiles had the truth from God respecting their duties both to
him and to one another. Notwithstanding this, they forsook God
and resorted to the worship of idols. They did more. They
sunk down into the grossest sins and vices, knowing at tiie same
time the decree of God against both. Now, whoever thus acts
is without excuse. You Jews yourselves so decide. Therefore
you are without excuse, inasmuch as you do the same things
under the same circumstances. This seems to present the precise
turn of thought with which the second chapter opens. It clearly
sets out with an address to the Jews who judged, judged the Gen
tiles; and its design is to show that they, equally with the Gen
tiles, are without excuse, because of their practising the same
things. From this the inference would be easy. If they were
guilty of the same crimes with the Gentiles, they -were under the
same condemnation, and therefore equally with them stood in
need of "God's justification." The object of the Apostle is now
to convince them of this fact.
Therefore you are w^ithout excuse — anapologetos. The
Jews, for it Is they who are addressed, were not only without
justification, but without even an apology. They had nothing
to plead In their defence. They were without excuse, because,
like the Gentiles, they had the truth and violated it. The argu
ment assumes the common principle of justice that those who
know their duty and wilfully neglect it, are inexcusable. This is
not only the decision of God, but the common sentiment of
mankind. O, rftan, whoever you are that judge; The phrase, "O,
man, whoever you are," if unqualified, would include every indi
vidual of the human race. But the Apostle narrows it by the
epithet that judge. It includes then only those that judge, but
it includes all these. It is hence so formed as to Include Gentiles
as well as Jews; but it is designed to refer particularly to the
latter. There were enlightened Gentiles, as Cornelius, who
would be quite as ready as Jews to condemn the Gentile vices
named by Paul. The phrase therefore is made to include them
also. The word judge here means more than the bare act of

72 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. i, 2.
judging. It means to pass sentence on, or condemn — a decision,
a felt decision, that certain persons and acts were wrong, deeply
and fatally wrong.
for in that in which you judge another, you condemn
yourself; The Jews condemned the Gentiles for doing the
things named by Paul. This they knew within themselves to be
the fact This fact the Apostle assumes. But the Jews, in con
demning the Gentiles, condemned themselves also; not expressly,
for this they were shy of doing. They condemned themselves by
implication only, and this an implication -which they did not dis
cover till it was pointed out to them. The Jew condemned the
Gentile. This Is all. But this done, and the Apostle tells him
that in the act he has, on the principle of common justice, con
demned himself The confirmation of this follows in the next
clause. for you that judge practise the same things. That is, you
practise the same thing which the Gentiles practise. This also the
Jew knew within himself to be true; and this also the Apostle
assumes. The argument then stands thus: You Jew condemn
the Gentile for doing certain things. But you do the same things
yourself. If now your judgment is good against the Gentile, it
is also good against yourself. It is thus that you condemn
yourself. Of course the principle which underlies the Apostle's argu
ment, and which Re assumes, is that like sins deserve like
condemnation. To this may also be added the other principle
assumed by him, namely, that in judging, the person is not to be
respected. To this the Jew would be likely to demur; for he
seems to have thought that the mere circumstance of being a Jew
protected him against condemnation'. But the Apostle's argu
ment, as we shall presently see, is proceeding on a very different
principle. 2. But we know that God's judgment The de of this
clause is difficult As to how it should be translated, the learned
are not agreed. Stuart renders it for; Macknight, besides; and
Alford, nov}. The majority, however, render it but. With these
I agree, though but does not make the connection clear. The
drift of thought appears to be as follows:
In condemning the Gentile, the Jew certainly condemned him
self. This he could not deny. Still he could reply that his
judgment, at best, might be wrong; that he could not know aU

Chap. 2, v. 2.] ROMANS. 73
the facts in the case; and that, therefore, though he did virtually
condemn himself, it amounted to but little. The force of this,
the Apostle would feel bound to admit, and to it would reply :
Be it so. Tour judgment is not infallible. Sut we know that
the judgment of God Is according to truth against those that
practise such things. You practise them; and he condemns you.
You are then justly condemned.
is according to truth against those that practise such
things. God's judgment is his high judicial decision in the case.
This judgment \s kata aletheian, according to truth; that is, it is
according to the real merits of the case. It is not according to
appearances, but to reality. It goes to the very bottom, and
takes in all the facts, the opportunities, the motives, the law — in
a word, every thing essential to an absolutely perfect judgment.
Such a judgment is according to truth; it Is true to every fact
and circumstance in the case, and is therefore of the very essence
of justice. This judgment God has pronounced upon all those
who practise such things as have now been named. You Jews
practise them. Your case, then, is hopeless; you are certainly
condemned. The Apostle adroitly couches his argument in general terms so
as surely to embrace the Jew without as yet naming him. He Is
thus craftily preparing his mind for the tremendous conclusion
in -which It is his purpose, at last, to involve him, a conclusion
which will cut him loose from Abraham, from circumcision,
from the law, and send him in despair to Christ. He is guilty
of every sin the Gentile is guilty of. He condemns himself
God condemns him. What then remains for him? Nothing
could be more skilful than the mode of the Apostle's advance
on the Jew.
practise such things. Our word practise has in it more of
the idea of habit than the word do. The latter may denote
habitual doing, but it also applies to single acts. Practise, on the
contrary, is never applied to a single act, but to such only as we
repeat many times. It hence more accurately renders prassontas
here than do; for the evil deeds of which the Apostle speaks
were constantly recurring deeds.
such things. Not exactly the same, but like them. They
may have been even worse, and probably were; since they were
the deeds of Jews. For the more intelligent a people are, the
more refined and debasing are their sins, when once they sink

74 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 3, 4-
down low into vice. Hence, although their sins were not identi
cal with those of the Gentiles, still they were so nearly so, as to
fall under the same condemnation.
3. Do you then count on this, O, man, who judge those
that practise such things, and do them yourself, that you
will escape the judgment of God ? This verse contains a
deep hint at a new and dangerous error of the Jew, which it was
highly important to correct, but not jDroper as yet to name. That
he trusted to his relation to Abraham, to his circumcision, and to
the fact of having the law, for salvation Is indisputable. On
these grounds he clearly counted on God's partiality. Conse
quently, although he knew himself to be guilty of the same sins
which he condemned in the Gentile, and although he expected
God to condemn these sins in the Gentile, he yet evidently did
not expect God to condemn him. He expected God to overlook
in him, because a Jew, what he knew he would not overlook in
the Gentile, and what even he him.self did not overlook. This,
in him, was an inveterate error. The way to cure it -was not to
attack It openly, but under cover of general terms; to get his
assent to some obvious principle of justice which would work it
out of him. This was the only way to oust it.
Paul had just comprehensively said: "We know that God's
judgment is according to truth against those ¦who practise such
things." You Jews practise them. That judgment, then, is
against you. Do you then count on escaping it? How can you
so count, when it is according to truth, according to the realities
of the case, and in no sense based on mere personal considera
tions? God's judgment is according io truth. It therefore
knows nothing of your relation to Abraham, or your circum
cision. 4, Or do you despise The or here introduces an alternative;
and the train of thought may be thus indicated: Do you then
count on this, that though equally guilty with the Gentiles, you
will escape the judgment of God because you are a Jew? Is
this your conclusion? Or do you despise the abundance of God's
goodness, and forbearance, and patience? You are surely doing
one or the other. Were you not expecting to escape, you would
repent of your sins; for God is bearing with you for this pur
pose; and the design of his goodness Is to lead you into it But
you are not repenting. You are, then, despising his goodness,
and forbearance, and patience. One or the other of these alter-

Chap. 2, v. 4.J ROMANS. 75
natives the Jew was bound to accept; and either exhibited him
in a dangerous position.
Despise — Kataphroneis : This word means to look mentally
down upon; that is, to look upon with a feeUng of contempt.
Despise, etymologically taken, is its exact synonyme.
the abundance of his goodness, and forbearance, and
patience. The word ploutos means wealth, riches; and from
this It readily comes to signify abundance. Goodness: This word
denotes God's kindness as shown in his deaUngs with men.
Anoches means holding up or holding back. It is closely ren
dered by our word forbearance. Makrothumias refers to God's
disposition, and signifies that it Is long suffering. The difference
between this and the preceding word is, that the one denotes the
disposition to bear long, while the other expresses the outward
manifestation of the disposition in patience. Both words refer
back to the judgment of God as mentioned in v. 2. That judg
ment is against all who sin as do the Gentiles. But God is not
now executing it. He is disposed to hold back, and is actuaUy
doing so. This he does to afford men opportunity to repent, and
so prepare to see him in peace.
not knowing that God's goodness leads you into repent
ance? Agnoon: This word means simply not knowing, being
ignorant; and I see no reason for supposing that it is here used
in a different sense. True, many learned men understand it to
signify not considering, not acknowledging. But the necessity for
this is not apparent. I here take the word, as said, to mean not
knowing, being ignorant. It denotes, however, not an unavoida
ble ignorance, since the ignorance was that of the Jew. On the
contrary, it denotes an ignorance resulting either from ¦wilful dis
inclination to know, or wilful neglect of the means of knowing.
In either case the ignorance was culpable. The force of the
word will be brought out more clearly by reading the verse thus:
Or do you, Jew, now ignorant of the fact that God's goodness is
designed to lead you into repentance — do you despise his good
ness, and forbearance, and patience? To despise these is bad
enough, but to despise them in culpable ignorance is stiU worse.
I do not understand the Apostle to mean that the Jew despised
the goodness of God because he was ignorant. The Ignorance
was not cause to the despising. The ignorance was a fact; the
despising was a fact; and the two facts merely co-existed; not
were antecedent and result

76 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 4, 5.
that God's goodness leads you into repentance? Not
that it absolutely and in fact so leads you; -for it does not But
it constantly acts on you for this purpose. The design of God's
goodness is to lead you into repentance. Accordingly it is
always acting on you in this direction. But you are ignorant of
this design, and are therefore uninfluenced by it. God's intention
is defeated in you through your degeneracy.
From the Greek ago, through the Latin, comes act; and using
act, instead of lead, gives us, though in a form strange to us, the
exact sense. Not knowing that the goodness of God acts you
into repentance; that is, acts on you to lead you into it. The
word expresses a fact, and implies its intention.
into repentance — tis. I prefer here the usual meaning of
this particle after verbs of action or motion. Repentance de
notes our mental determination to forsake sin, resulting in the
actual abandonment of it. The purpose of God's goodness is to
lead us through this mental change into this abandonment The
conception of the Apostle is clear and fine, and should be strictly
preserved. 5, And according to your impenitent heart and hard
ness Lachman, Alford, and T. S. Green all regard this verse as
a continuation of the question started in the preceding verse.
They would end the question with v. 5. The view is correct,
although it is opposed by some. Indeed, I see not how any one
can attentively read the two verses together and come to a dif
ferent conclusion.
Still there is another view of considerable weight, which is to
end the question with v, 4, and assume a suppressed sentence.
The view may be thus indicated: Or do you despise the abun
dance of his goodness, and forbearance, and patience, not
knowing that God's goodness leads you into repentance? Tou
despise ihe abundance of his goodness, dc. This is what you do.
And according to your impenitent heart, &c. According to this
view, v. 5 is not a part of the question, but the simple statement
of matters of fact. Between the two views, so nearly equal in
merit, it is hardly important to make a choice. Still I prefer
the former, as appearing the more obvious and natural. But
whichever view is adopted, the sense remains the same. Indeed,
they do not differ as to the sense, but merely as to how it is to be
expressed. The reader will notice that instead of hardness and impenitent

Chap. 2, v. 5.J ROMANS, 77
heart, I transpose and read, impenitent heart and hardness. The
object is to avoid uncertainty. The common reader is apt to
think that hardness must in some way qualify heart, and that
therefore it should be hard. Such, however, is not the case; and
accordingly I so arrange as to prevent the mistake. Hardness is
a noun standing for Its own peculiar fact, and in no respect a
qualificative of heart
according to This phrase means in conformity with, not In
proportion to. As is your moral state, so will be the award.
You are hard and your heart is impenitent Conformably with
this you will be punished.
impenitent heart The impenitent heart of Paul is not a
heart simply impenitent as a fact; but a heart either so dark and
corrupt that it could not repent, or so perverse that It would not
It is not a heart not penitent by nature, but a heart actively im
penitent from depravity and vice.
hardness This word denotes the moral or spiritual insensi
bility of the Jew. Through a life of deep degradation his whole
inner man had become petrified. God's goodness, and forbear
ance, and patience spent their force on him with no more effect
than on the pebbles in his way. He lived wholly untouched by
the divine beneficence, and consequently never returned one
responsive emotion to his Maker and Benefactor. When such
hardness can be predicated of a man, humanity is about extinct
in him. If he has not placed himself beyond the possibility ot
redemption, it is difficult to state in what his failure consists.
you heap up for yourself wrath in a day of wrath This
language is metaphorical, being borrowed from the well known
custom of collecting wealth or goods, and of laying them up for
future use in some particular place provided for the purpose.
The Apostle conceives of the day of judgment as a storehouse in
which the heaping up takes place. Wrath is the thing so heaped
up. This is effected by means of sin. Plainly, by persisting in
their wickedness, the Jews were augmenting the punishment to
be inflicted on them in the last day. The word "wrath'' signifies
the deep displeasure which God will finally evince in punish
ing sin.
and of disclosure of the just judgment of God? The
day which is to display God's wrath is also to disclose his just
judgment It will be the day in which he will judge the whole
human family. Some he will acquit and crown with immor-

78 COMMENTARY. [Chap, 2, v. 6.
tality; others he will condemn and punish. But the punishment
of these will be shown to be as just as the acquittal of those;
and both will be shown to be absolutely just.
6. who will render to each To each simply as a man,
and wholly without regard to the accident of being Jew or Gen
tile, This sweeps from the Jew all hope of partiality. In the
great day of retribution, God will not know him as a Jew. His
descent from Abraham will be nothing; his circumcision will be
nothing. He will be recognized as a human being only. In
this character alone will he stand before God. This laid the ax
at the very root of his hope. It cut the Jew down to the com
mon level of other men. True, the Apostle does not as yet name
him. But his sagacity could not fail to see that the word each
included him as surely as it did the Gentile. He was left without
escape. according to his deeds — To render to a man according to
his deeds is to render to him according to his life as good or
bad. The language does not imply that God keeps an account
current with a man, charging him with all his bad deeds, and
crediting him with all his good ones; and that at the end of life,
he will strike a balance, and punish or reward him merely for
the difference. The word deeds covers the life as upright or
the reverse; and the meaning is, that accordingly as it is this or
that, will be the requital.
The Apostle had just mentioned a day which is to disclose
God's just judgment — SiKaxoKptaia. If just, then must it be
according to our deeds. In his soul the Jew could not but feel
this to be right. It was not the Gentile's condemnation that he
was a Gentile; nor the Jew's justification that he was a Jew.
The life as good or as bad must strike all minds as the only
ground of a just judgment. It was this conception of a just
judgment that suggested to the Apostle's mind the supplement
according to his deeds. Into that conception the thought con
tained in these words would enter as an essential, integral part.
The two would stand inseparably united in his mind. The aim
of the Apostle is to extirpate from the mind of the Jew all
thought of security based on the naked ground of being a Jew.
This he does by placing him on general grounds of common jus
tice. To enable him to recognize these grounds clearly was to
cure his narrow Jewish conceits. These cured, and he was
ready for the gospel.

Chap. 2, v. 7, S.] R0:MAXS

7. everlasting life to those ^Krho, by continaance in good
^orls, seek for glory and honor and incormption — The
Apostle here states more particularly what he means bv render
ing to each according to his deeds. He first distributes the
h-aman fainily into two classes. To the first class, God will render
everiasting life. To the second, anger and wrath, or the eflTects
of his dLspleasTire -svith sin. The first class habitoally practise
good -works. This is the tenor of their Uves. In doing tbig they
are intent: or.slly seeking for glory, and honor, and incormption.
TTiese constinite the motives -which actuate them. The second
class are contentioiis. This is their first characteristic Next
they obey not the truth. This describes them negatively. They
wilfully reftise to do every thing God requires of them.
Finally, they obey irijustice. They do every thing God forbids
them to do. The description is exhanstive.
8. anger and -wrath to those ^ho are contentions, and
obey not the tmth, but obey injustice — literally, those who
are ex eritheias. The w^ord eriiheia is involved in some uncer
tainty. In the fii^t place, its derivation seems to be not clearly
settled. This leaves its sense in doubt In the second, its use in
the New Testament affords ns almost no aid in detennirdng its
meaning. These facts render its translation difficult
TTie ancient expositors, without exception, as far as know^n
to me, derived the ¦word from ipSSjo, ¦which ¦would give it the
signification of stirring up excitement or strife. This is also the
deri-ration of some of the more recent critics, as Stuart and
Bloomfield. The -weight of modern authority-, how^ever, is no^v
dec'dedlv against this vie^w. The best late critics derive the word
from IpSeaa. This gives it the meaning of canvassing (L e., for
votes), intriguing party spirit, faction, contention. Robiitson and
Alford th-us derive it, the former giving it the sense of faction,
contention, and the latter rendering it '¦'self-seeking." The Sep
tuagint uses it in the sense of rebellious and disobedient ¦which I
take to be very close to its import in the clause in hand. Of the
two or three ¦words, then, b}' one of which I believe vre must
render it, I prefer contentious. According to this, the clause
before us Uterally means, to those -who are of contention, or as the
sense of a well known usage, to those who are contentious. Con
tentious refere to the disposition, as well as to the practice grow
ing ont of it It means contentious against the truth, on the one
band, and contentions for injustice, on the other. The result of

8o COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 8, 9.
this would be disobedience to the former, and obedience to the
latter. This corresponds closely with the words which follow
contention. To those who are contentious and obey not the
truth, but obey injustice. Such I believe to be the meaning of
the clause.
glory and honor and incorruption — These are the accom
paniments of everlasting Ufe. Glory denotes the distinction
which the blessed ¦will attain; honor, the esteem in which they
will be held; and incorruption their absolute exemption from sin
and Impurity.
For the transpositions which appear in verses 7, 8, no apology
need be offered. The sense is not thereby in the sUghtest altered;
while the gain is great in the way of clearness. A glance at the
verses will evince this.
9. Affliction and distress will come upon every soul of
man -who ¦works evil. Here we have an ellipsis of the verb,
which I supply by will cotne. The verse, so far, is a mere
reiteration of the contents of v. 8. The two verses differ in
language only, not in matter. In this, as in that, the broad prin
ciple is assumed that every man, no matter who he may be,
who is guilty of wrong-doing, will be punished. Of course It Is
taken for granted that the wrong-doing continues through life, or
is never repented of and forgiven. The Apostle having now
fully stated, amplified, and reiterated his broad principle, makes
a direct personal application of it to the Jew. This he could now
do without justly giving offence, or seeming to be indeUcate.
What his comprehensive generaUtles certainly included, could,
without impropriety, be specifically named. Henceforward the
volume of argument Is with the Jew. He is boldly met and
grappled with without stint.
of Jew first, and of Greek. The word "first" does not de
note order, but distinction. The meaning is, the Jew especially,
or above all others, because favored above all others. The word
Greek, though usually denoting the Greeks strictly, has here a
wider signification. It includes the Gentiles also. The two
words, Jew and Greek, embrace the whole of mankind.
will come The time when the affliction and distress will
come is the last day, or day of wrath. The affliction and distress
of this verse are the outward expression of the anger and wrath
of the preceding one.
upon every soul of man Does the Apostle mean by this

CitAi-. a, v. lo, II. I ROMANS. 8i

Ittngungo that it is tiic soul pmliculiirly, or by itself, that will be
the subject of future puiiishineiit? Some commentators have
been of this opinion; but in it 1 cnu not concur. The phrase,
"every soul of muu," is a popular expression for every man. It
is the whole man, and not exclusively his soul, that will be pun
ished. 10. But glory, honor, and peace will be given to every
one who works good, to Jew first, and to Greek, The
glory, hunuf, ami peace are the rewards to be conferred in the
last (lay. In smull measure, and as a foretaste, they are rculixed
in this life; Init Ihey will not be realized in theu' fulness till in the
next As in the matter of pmiishment, the Jew outranks the
Gioelv, because of the abuse of better opportunities, so in the
miittei of Messing, the sume even justice gives him the pre-emi-
iieuce, because ot the lielter life, lIow profoundly must he have
fell tho fairness of the Apostle's teaching. Well was it calcu
lated to piepaie him lor the following "generalization which
underlies that teuching as « principle, und vindicates it as a
reason. II, For there Is no respecting the person with God,
This is the confirniulioii ami proof ot" ull the Apostle has said
about punishing' men aeconling to their deeds. To lespect the
person is to be pailial. It is to be coiitrolleil liy person, not
deeds, in lendeiing a decision; to make judgnient u sham by
making it the oiubodiincut of mere personal preterenees, instead
of, as it always should be, the expression of rij^-oroiis impartiality
and perfect justice.
There is no respecting tho person with God. If not, then the
Jew stnnds before him on the same level with the tireek. His
being a Jew is nothing; his circumcision is nothing. The line
jnil the plummet are laid to him; so that without some new
reuiedy, heretofore not thought of by him, he is lost. Tluis the
Apostle cuts hiui up from his last ground of hope as a Jew.
When this is elVectually ilotie, and his soul is penetrated with the
fact, he will be prepared for God's "justitieation by beliet"." To
this extremity the .'\ postle is steadily pushing him.
In order to the salvation of the Jew, two things were abso
lutely essential, namely: ist. To convince him profoundly that
the grounds on which ho hoped for salvation could never secure
it Those grounds were four; i. descent tVom Abniham; 3.
circumcision; 3. his legal reUgion; 4. the partiality of God. His
S

82

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 2, v. li

expectation of this last rested mainly on the other three. Sap
those, and this went; sap this, and his hope went; this, v. 11 saps.
Here the Jew stood then, and here he stands now. 2d, To bring
him to believe with his whole heart that Jesus is the Christ
But in order to this, all his grounds of hope must be destroyed.
To effect this, therefore, is now the Apostle's aim.

chapter II. SECTION 2.

" For as many as have sinned
without law shall also be lost without
law; and as many as have sinned
under law shall be condemned by
law, '*in the day when God shaU
judge the secrets of men, by Jesus
Christ, according to my gospel. " For
not the hearers of law are just with
God ; but the doers of law shall be
justified. " For when nations who
have not law do hy'nature the deeds
of the law, these not having law are
law to themselves; '^ who show the
law's work written in their hearts
when their conscience testifies in
agreement, and their reasonings
among one another accuse or even
defend.

''Oaoi ydp dvo/ias rjiiaprov, uvonut
Kai aTToXovvrai' Kai oaoi iv vopea rjpap-
rov, Sid vopov KpiBfjaovrai. " Oi ydp ol
OKpoarai vopov SiKcaoi irapa Qei», aXX'
ol TTOirfrcu. vdpov SiKauoB^aovrai. "'OraK
ydp eBvr) ra pij vopov exovra ij>uaei ra
rov vopov wouoaLV, oiiroi vopov fit) IVov-
7-es eavroXs elai vopos, " oinves ivSeix-
wvTai TO epyov rov vopov ypavrdv iv
rats KapSiais avrav, avppaprvpovarjs
avrav rrjs avveiSijaeas Kai pera^ dXX^-
Xav rav Xoyiapav Karrfyopovvrav tj Kai
d-iroXoyovpevav, '* iv fipepa are KpiveX 6
Qeos ra Kpvrrrd rav dvBpanav Kara rit
evayyeXtov pov Sia 'lijcroC XpwrroO.

SUMMARY.
The Gentiles who have sinned without a written law will be judged with
out one; while the Jews will be judged by the law under which they live.
Nations who have no written law are law to themselves in so far as they
know right from wrong. What they know in this respect is attested by
their conscience, and shown by their mui»'al accusations and acquittals.
12. For as many as have sinncu without law Law Is
will, whether it respects accountable beings or mere inanimate
things. But In the case of the former, to be bindin- it must be
made known to them in some intelUgible form; In the case of the
latter, it is impressed on them. Accordingly, God's law respect
ing man is his wiU revealed to him. In this sense the word law
is used in the passage before us. It means any direct revelation
of God's will, and not exclusively the law of Moses. Hence to
sin without law is to sin without an immediate revelation. It
is not to sin without the law of Moses merely, but to sin without
any direct expression of the divine will.
"For as mapy as have sinned." To whom does the language
refer, and how many does it include? It refers to and includes

Chap. 2, v. 12.] ROMANS. 83
all npon whom the law of Moses was not binding. In compre
hension it is coextenave with the word Gentile, and in sense b
identical ¦with it
But hdW could the Gentiles sin without la-,v? Without law in
some form they could not But the Gentiles had the truth, at
least a measure of it TTiis Paul has already told us. and in the
truth they had Izw. It w^as in disobeying this tmth ti-iat they
sinned. They had no direct revelation from God, as had the
Jews. It was not therefore, by violating s-ach rerelatioa that
they sinned. TTie law they had was in the form of tradition.
But in breaking it they as eSectnally sinned as if it had been an
immediate revelation. It ¦was not the less binding because of its
form. They had only the less of it, and were the more liable to
forget it
shall also be lost without la«r; They shall be lost witbo-jt
being condemned by the terms of a direct revelation, such as the
Je-ws had. TTie measure of light they have, be it rriucii or little,
is their rule of life. By this they w^Ul stand or felL
Bnt here w^e need to guard a point or two. In every condi
tion of life in ¦which men are lost, they can also be saved. Indeed,
the primary provision is alw^ays for salvation, the aitemati'.e
bang to be lost What the special conditions of salvation are in
a given case, as in that of the Gentiles, it may be impossible to
say. Still they are certainly to be assumed. Perfect conformity
to the rule of life ¦would indisputably secure salvation. But if
perfect conformity be practically impossible, and salvation is still
attained, then must it be by the intervention of mercy on some
condition, as repentance. ^Moreover, the reason or ground of
th-'^ intervention ^vould, in all cases, be the same, to-wit: the
redemption which is in C'nrist
"For as many as have sinned without law shall also be lost
¦without law." This would seem to teach that all, without excep
tion, who have so sinned, w^iU be lost Bat sac'n is not the case.
Hie meaning is, that aU who have so sinned, and are lost, wlU be
lost -without law. To be lost is a thought whicli has two sides to
tt It implies, on the one hand, to be lost to eternal hfe; and on
die other, to be positively condemned and punished. The pro-
-bnnd folly of annihilation was never in Paul's mind.
and as many as have sinned under law^ This language
does not imply that there are any under law who have not sinned.
It amply denotes so many of the human family as have a law

84 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 12.
directly revealed from God. All such sin without exception.
As the preceding expression certainly refers to and includes
Gentiles only,^so this certainly refers to and includes Jews only.
But it includes all Jews, and all whom it includes have sinned.
shall be condemned by law, God will condemn them;
but the rule according to which he will try them is the law under
which they live. In the present clause kriihesontai should be
rendered condemned, not judged. To judge simply does not
necessarily imply condemnation. It may imply acquittal. But
of those who live under law not one can be acquitted. . They
have all, without exception, sinned, and must all, -without excep
tion, be condemned. By the law, God can acquit no one who has
broken it. He must condemn him. Hence condemned is better
than judged.
If those who live under the law are saved, it is not because
they are acquitted by the law. It is because favor intervenes in
virtue of the blood of Christ, and they are gratuitously released
from the condemnation of the law. Salvation Is a gift, not the
payment of a debt — not an unconditional, but a conditional gift.
Because of the atonement made by Christ, God can in justice
prescribe these conditions, though he may not be bound to do so.
He prescribes them from favor, and in mercy to the guilty. When
they are complied with, he forgives, not because forgiveness is
merited, on the one hand, or owed, on the other. He forgives
gratuitously. Forgiveness then is a gift; and so are its results.
Here, in my judgment, at the end of v. 12, is the place for v.
16. It should be immediately joined, as in the translation, to
kriihesontai. This, as Bloomfield remarks, is the "opinion of
most eminent expositors from Grotius downward," Stuart and
Alford, however, would make vs, 11-15 parenthetical, and so
unite V. 16 to 10. If the view here held, with Bloomfield and
other "eminent expositors," be not correct, then that of Stuart
and Alford is. Still I think these two writers wrong, and the
other view the true one. My reasons for connecting vs. 16 and
12 are compactiy these: The language, For as many as have
sinned without law, includes the whole Gentile world down to
the time of Christ; while the expression, shall also be lost with
out law, refers to the fate which awaits the wicked among them
at the last day. They shall be lost, and not saved. This is their
final doom. In like manner, the clause, as many as have sinned
under law, certainly includes all Jews prior to the gospel; while

Chap. 2, v. 16, 13.] ROMANS. 85
the phrase, shall be condemned by law, refers to the condemna
tion of the last day. Thus the words Gentile and Jew include
the whole human family previous to the gospel; and lost and con
demned denote the final disposition of the wicked among them.
But the day of condemnation for the wicked is the day of
acquittal for the just. In other words, it Is the last great day,
the very day of v. 16. The kriihesontai of v. 12 is merely the
condemnatory side of the krinei of v. 16. Both words refer to
the same event. For these reasons I think it best to insert v. 16,
and comments here. The numbering looks a^wkward, but the
advantage arising from a properly connected sense more than
counterbalances this. The Greek I make no attempt to re
arrange, but leave it as in the text.
i6. in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men,
That is, the secrets of all men. This is clearly the day of final
judgment. In that day God will judge every man on the basis
of his whole life. Every unknown act and hidden thought -will
be taken into the account. And as sure as that judgment is to
occur on this ground, so sure is it that every responsible human
being will be condemned. It will be first a judgment according
to the law of life of each individual. But by this law no man
can be justified. This must be fully shown. Then, for the first
time, will be disclosed to all the absolute and universal necessity
for justification by belief. When this is seen, both saved and
lost will begin to understand and realize the work of Christ.
by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. God wiU judge
the world by Christ because Christ himself will be the judge.
This is on the principle that what God does by another he does
himself. According to my gospel, not as the rule according to
which the judging will take place. For those who lived and
died under the law of Moses will be judged by it; the Gentiles,
according to the law written in their hearts; and those who live
under the gospel, by it. The meaning Is, that inasmuch as the
fact of a general judgment is taught In my gospel, so one will
take place.
13. For not the hearers of law are just with God; That
is, not those who merely hear it, but do not keep it. Equally,
then, at least, they who simply have it. Here the Jew is dis
tinctly given to understand that the mere circumstance of having
the law amounts to nothing. Therefore, on this ground he can
have no hope. He must seek his safety in something else.

86 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 13, 14.
but the doers of law shall be justified. The word law
here signifies any expression of God's will. It comprehends all
divine law, as well law in the form in which the Jew had it, as
law in the form in which the Gentile had it. For it is as true of
the Gentile as of the Jew, that not he who merely hears law, but
he only who does it will be justified. By doers of law we must
not understand persons who keep its requirements in part, and in
part fail. We must understand perfect obedience, or obedience
to every precept -without even one failure. But since there is no
such obedience, there is of course no justification based on it.
The justification of the clause, therefore, is merely potential, not
actual. If God delivers a law it is that it may be obeyed. This
would strike the mind even of a Jew as certain. But since no
Jew, not even the best, could claim that he perfectly kept the
la^w, it w^ould follow in his own mind that there was no justifi
cation by law for him. This was precisely the conclusion which
the Apostle desired to fix deep in his mind. For this done, and
the road into his heart lay open to the gospel.
But It is important to notice the sense in which the word justi
fied is here used. The persons justified are those who have
p'erfectly kept the law. They are then not sinners, nor have
they ever been. Hence they are not justified in the sense of
being released from sin or pardoned. They are justified in the
sense of being acquitted when accused, on the score of absolute
innocence. They are simply declared to be just or sinless. Jus
tification in such a case would be merited and could not be
withheld. But in this sense no soul of man can be justified.
Such justification is impossible; and such only is the justification
of law. The position of the Apostle, though applicable alike to
Gentile and Jew, is designed especially for the Jew.
14. For when nations who have not law Not nations
who have not the law of Moses, but who have no written law
from God of any kind. "Not law" does not mean absolutely no
law, as the immediate sequel shows, but no written law. The
reference here is to v. 12. There the Apostle says, For as many
as have sinned without; law, &c. On this the question would
arise. How can nations sin without law? The question is here
answered. do by nature "By nature" means nature without a written
law, and not necessarily nature wholly unenlightened by divine
truth. It means Gentile nature, such as it was at the time which

Chap, 2, v. 14, 15.J ROMANS. 87
the Apostle had in his mind, and in the circumstances by which
it was then surrounded. This nature may have been highly cul
tivated in some instances, as we know it was in many of the
ancient nations. Still they were without a written code from
God; and even the knowledge they had from him in the form of
tradition had become so blended in their minds with other knowl
edge that it could no longer be distinguished as divine. With
them all the light they had was virtually natural. In all their
acts they were controlled simply by their own convictions and
feelings, and to no extent by recognized divine authority. Na
ture was their guide, not revelation.
the deeds of the law — ta tou nomou. The word poiein
means strictly io do. When it Is said of a man poiei he does (I. e.,
anything), the result is a deed. Now, since the ia tou nomou
here are things actually done, and not merely to be done, it Is
best to render by the famiUar word "deeds." True, the deeds
done were such as the law of Moses did require, provided the
reference be to it; or such as the unre vealed law would have
required, provided the reference be to it. The reference, how
ever, in tou nomou is to the law of Moses, while the ta refers to
the moral duties which it enjoined. With these duties, many of
the Gentiles were well acquainted, and practised them to a com
mendable degree." For example, they loved truth and spoke it;
they hated theft, adultery, and the like, and avoided them. The
reference in ia is to such things as these.
these not having law are law to themselves ; They are
law to themselves in so far only as they have a correct knowledge
of duty. When, in other words, their knowledge of duty cor
responds with the requirements of the law, they are then, and to
that extent, a law to themselves. In this case, when they do what
they know to be right, they are guiltless; when they do other
wise, they are held as sinners. But they cease to be a law to
themselves the moment their knowledge becomes vicious and
leads them to do wrong. In this case they would rather be held
as doubly guilty, guilty for their vicious knowledge, and guilty
for the acts to which it led. Knowledge which leads men to do
wrong is no law in the estimation of God. Law with him is a
rule of right, not of wrong.
15. who show the law's work written in their hearts
This clause is explanatory of the preceding one. It states who
are law to themselves, namely, not every nation, but those only

88 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 15.
who show the law's work written in their hearts. They alone
are law to themselves who know what is right. The expression
law's work, or work of the law, is general, and means such duties
as the law required. Written in their hearts is metaphorical,
and signifies not only that they knew certain things to be right,
but felt impelled by conscience to do them.
when their conscience testifies in agreement, It was
thus that they showed the law's work written in their hearts.
The showing was effected by means of conscience thus testify
ing, or when it did it. Summartureo signifies to testify with
another, or in agreement with another. Accordingly, the clause
means that their conscience testified in regard to certain things
being duties, in agreement with the law. It is the participle of
the verb that is here used; and it is clearly to be resolved by a
particle of time, as in the translation. On this usage see Winer,
p. 344, and Stuart, Grk. Gram., p. 264.
and their reasonings among one another accuse or even
defend. Here again we have the same usage as in the preceding
clause, and requiring the same mode of treatment: that is, the
participles contain the notion of time which is to be indicated if
necessary. In the present clause it is not necessary, because
expressed in the preceding one. The Gentiles reasoned among
themselves on questions of right and wrong, as well as on acts
as right or wrong. In these reasonings they criminated or de
fended one another according to the facts in the case. They thus
showed their knowledge of duty, or of the things which the law
required. In other words, they showed the work of the law
written in their hearts. The expression or even defend would
seem to imply that the accusing was the rule and the defending
the exception. As if the Idea was. For the most part they accuse,
but sometimes even defend.
The two preceding clauses are not to be regarded in the light
of separate proofs. On the contrary, they are to be taken together
as a single proof, settling a single fact, namely, that the Gentiles
had the work of the law written in their hearts.
How came the "law's work" to be written in the Gentile heart?
The answer Is conjectural. Some have supposed the reference
to be to a natural sense of right inherent in all men, a sense either
innate in the soul or springing up spontaneously in it as the inner
life unfolds. The reference certainly is to a sense or knowledge
of right relative to certain duties. But how came the Gentile by

Chap. 2.]

ROMANS.

89

that sense? I should rather think it formed on unperished tradi
tions of the divine will, communicated to the early fathers of
mankind. That the sense might be thus formed can hardly be
denied; and what might thus have been, it is perhaps safest to
assume as having actually been. A natural or inborn sense of
right equivalent to the "law's work," or what it requires, I deem
a very hazardous assumption.

CHAPTER II. SECTION

" El Se av ^lovSaXos i-irovopd^-ri, Kcd
itrctva-iravri vopa, Kai Kavxaaai iv Qea,
"acoI yiviiaKeis to BeXrjpa, Kai SoKipd^eis
TO Sia<f>epovra Karrjxovpevos ek tov v6-
pov, " nenoiBds re aeavrov oSrfyov elvat
rvipXav, (fias rav iv aKorei, ^^ iraiSev-
rrjv df^povav, StSdaKaXov vrjiriav, exovra
rfjv p6p<j}aaiv rrjs -yvaaeas Kai r^s dXr}-
Seias iv ra v6pa~—^^ 6 oZv SlSdaKav ere
pov aeavrov ov SiSdaKeis; 'O KTjpvaaav
pfj KkeTrreiv KXeTrreis; 'O Xeytoi' p-rj poi-
Xeveiv poixeveis; 'O ^SeXvaaopevos ra
eiSaXa iepoavXeXs; ^'Os iv v6p<f Kavxd-
aai, Sid r^s TCapa^daeas rcai vopov rov
Qeov dnpd^eis. ''To ydp ovopa rov
Qeov Sl vpas ^Xaa^rjpeXrat iv roXs e6-
veai, KaBas yeyparrrat.

" But since you call yourself Jew,
and rely on the law, and boast in
God, '*and know his will, and ap
prove the better things, being in
structed by the law, " and are confi
dent that yourself are a leader of the
blind, a light of those in darkness,
'°an instructor of the ignorant, a
teacher of babes, having in the law
the form of knowledge and of the
truth — ^' you then who teach another,
do you not teach yourself? You
who preach, steal not, do you steal?
22 You who say, commit not adultery,
do you commit adultery? You wlio
abhor idols, do you rob temples [of
them f\ 23 You who boast in the
law, dishonor God by breaking the
law. 24 For as it is written, God's
name is, because of you, spoken evil
of among the nations.

SUMMARY.
The Jew made great pretensions to superior knowledge; yet he acted as
though he himself needed to be taught. He was inconsistent in his conduct.
He preached not to do this, and did it. He taught not to do that, and did it.
He boasted in the law, yet broke it. He abhorred idols; yet robbed temples
of them to serve them. He affected g^reat reverence for God; yet dishonored
him by breaking his law. Nay, he even brought his name into disrepute
among surrounding nations.
Paul has now shown the Jew, in the preceding part of the
chapter, that in condemning the Gentile, which he constantly did,
he .condemned himself This he shows on the principle that
what he condemned in others he himself was guilty of He has
told him, moreover, that God's just judgment is against all such
vices as he practises, and has warned him not to expect to escape
that judgment so long as he continues to do evil. He has also

90 COMMENTARY. Chap, 2. v. 17
told him that God wiU reward every man according to his deeds;
that he will crown the pure, who seek it, with eternal life, and
visit the wicked and impenitent with anger and wrath. He has
informed him that, notwithstanding his vain conceit to the con
trary, there is no respecting the person with God; that the Gen
tiles will be tried by the law written in their hearts, and not by
the law of Moses; and that he, on the contrary, though Uving
under that law, wiU be condemned by it He has reminded him
that not the hearers of the law are just with God, which is about
all he is; but that the doers of the law alone will be justified,
which he is not Thus the Jew is shown ho-w" he stands and
where, first, on the principles of common justice, and, second,
according to his own life, and the spirit of his law. This being
done, the Apostle now proceeds to arraign him specifically on his
own assumptions, and on facts in his life which he could not
deny — to show him, in a word, how he stands on special counts.
17, But since you call yourself Jew, With Bengel I take
eponomaze to be middle and not passive. The- meaning is not,
since you are called, but since you call yourself, give yourself this
name. The word Jew must here be taken, according to Je-ivish
estimation, as a mark of high and peculiar distinction. Paul
being himself a Jew, knew well the sense in which the Jew rsed
it, and could therefore speak advisedly. It was the national
name in which the greatest pride was felt, the verbal badge
which marked them as better than others. A Jew as a Jew
looked on a Gentile as a dog; yet the latter might be a good Sa
maritan and the former a heartless Levlte. A mere name, not
significant of superior excellence of life, is a poor thing to be
proud of; and this is the very point made in the clause.
and rely on the law. The word law here indisputably refers
to the law of Moses, yet it is used without the article. Numer
ous efforts have been made to account for the fact, not one of
which is satisfactory. As nothing depends on settling the f-oint,
I shall not trouble the reader ¦with discussions of it. The fret at
which the Apostle aims can not be mistaken. The Jew r'tsted
upon (exact force, of epanapauo) the mere fact of having the law,
as a ground of safety. In his estimation its bare bestowmeut on
him proved him to be favored of God above all others. Confi
dent of this favor, he had no fear. But the law .was not a thing
to be simply had; it was a thing to be obeyed. In this lay the
safety, not in that; yet the Je^vy concluded the reverse. You,

Chap. 2, v. iS.] ROMANS. 91
Jew, rest upon the law, but how do you use it? The sequel will
show. and boast in God, To boast In God is not necessarily wrong.
It may be right, and is, where It springs from a feeling of real
reverence, and is accompanied by a scrupulous effort, to please
him. But where the boast Is only a boast, where It is that and
no more, it is a sham. Such was the boasting of the Jew alluded
to. On all such hollowness God frowns, not smiles.
18. and know his will, It is not only right, in fact, to know
God's will, but highly commendable. Nay, it is culpable not to
know it where we have opportunity. The wrong then lies not
in knowing God's wiU, but in regarding this knowledge, by
itself, as a mark of superiority, and ground of acceptance with
God. It is not knowing that makes us better than others, but
doing. The point made against the Jew is that, although he
knew God's will, he obeyed it not. He did worse; he sunk to
the level of the Gentile in positive vice.
and approve the better things, being instructed by
the la-w — dokimazeis ta diapheronta. Commentators waver
here between two significations, and with reason. Dokitnazo Is
clear, but not easy to render. It means to tr}', put to the test
and as a result of the trial, to approve, accept. The word has
both meanings; and the difficulty Is In saying which is the true
one here. Upon the whole I prefer approve. This meaning
seems the more natural, and the better to fit the connection.
Again, ta diapheronta has two distinct meanings. Its first, in
classic Greek, is points of difference or simply differences. Its
second is dlflfefence in the sense of one thing being better than
another. I take the phrase in the latter sense. The Jews were
instructed by the law. Their sense of right, therefore, was nicer
or more delicate than tiiat of people without their advantages;
and their powers of discrimination sharper. Their education, In
a word, the more highly qualified them to distinguish between
the worse and the better, and to approve correctly. This I take
to be the fact expressed In the clause.
The other rendering of the clause, and the more popular one
just now, is — distinguish things thai differ. The original has
both senses, and the one not less certainly than tiie other. Nor
do I see any way of showing conclusively which is the one
intended. A single fact more than any thing else, decides my
preference. The same clause occurs in PhiUp. i: 10., where it

92 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 2. v. 19, 20
obviously means to approve the better things; and confessedly
whatever it means In one passage it means in the other. I hence
prefer, as now said — approve the better things. This the Jew
did by the aid of better light. But he practised the worse. This
he did from a perverted nature and a corrupt heart. This is the
case charged against him.
ig. and are confident that yourself are a leader of the
blind, The language is metaphorical, and signifies, not the liter
ally blind, but the spiritually blind. It signifies the ignorant-^-the
ignorant, most likely, of all nations. To these the Jew claimed
pre-eminent fitness to be leader. He was to them, in his own
esteem, instead of God, to lead them out of darkness into light,
and from vice into virtue. We should expect him, then, to be at
least what he proposed to make others. But he was not. This
is the thrust. He affected to take splinters out of others'
eyes, while his own were full of beams.
a light of those in darkness, The expression is beautiful,
the only regret being that it should signify a pretense, and not a
reaUty. Christ is the to phos (to i^Ss) of every man. This high
distinction the Jew, in his self-assumed superiority, arrogated to
himself. But the Ught which he claimed to be to others was
darkness in himself He was himself the heathen whom, in his
vanity, he was affecting to iUumlne in the person of another.
20. an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of babes.
The Jew looked on aU men as Ignorant but himself He accord
ingly assumed to be capable of instructing aU. This, from his
circumstances, he should have been; but this he was not It
was because he said, "I know," and knew not; b«cause he should
have done, and did not, that his sins clung to him. His whole
life was'a hypocrisy.
having in the law the form of knowledge and of the
truth. Not the knowledge itself then, nor the truth itself, but
the mere form or outline of them. The word morphosis signifies
form, or more strictiy perhaps, forming, shaping out outiining.
The meaning is, that the law merely outUned the truth to those
who had it It was a schoolmaster to train for Christ; and in
this capacity it shadowed forth in forms only, the reality. It was
to the truth and knowledge, which are in Christ, as the artificial
globe is to the world. The one is the resemblance of the other,
or its likeness in mere form. But with only this form of knowl
edge and of truth the Tew should have been, both In intelUgence

Chap. 2, V, 21, 22,] ROMAN'S, 93
and practice, what we know he was not It was precisely this
that rendered his condemnation so sure,
ai. You then who teach another, do you not teach your
self? The question is a sarcastic reproach. You, Jew, who
affect so much superiority, and claim to be the light and teacher
of the world, teach first yourself You, more than any, need the
very lesson which you seek to give to others. Be pedagogue to
self first, if you would be consistent. Especially before you go
out to enlighten others, try the experiment at home in the follow
ing particulars :
You -who preach, steal not, do you steal ? The reader
who is acquainted with the original will notice that I render
these infinitives as imperatives. On the infinitive in this sense
see Trol. N. T, Gram. p. 156; and Win. p. 322. The whole force
of the passage lies in this, that the very Jews who proclaimed,
steal not, ¦were themselves thieves. They were gross hypocrites.
While preaching against a sin they were themselves, at the very
time, committing it. We must not, however, suppose that every
Jew was a thief. It Is only necessary to assume that the sin was
very general, A Judas in every twelve is quite enough.
22, You who say, commit not adultery, do you commit
adultery? Here recurs the same species of hypocrisy. Men
practise the very sin against which they inveigh. The Jew con
descends to the rest of the world merely to reform them, yet he
is guilty of the very vice he proposes to correct. Adultery Is
said to have been exceedingly common among the Jews, This
we can readily beUeve. They were a rich people, deeply sunk
in both physical and spiritual degradation. In such case the vice
always abounds. Ignorance, idleness, and luxury are three steps
that land low in the pit of corruption.
You who abhor idols, do you rob temples [of them ?]
This passage has cost critics no little trouble. It is usually ren
dered thus: You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? No one
can here mistake the sense. But what connection is there
between abhoring idols and robbing temples? The obvious
answer is none. Most commentators, sensible of this, have aban
doned the literal import and resorted to a figurative one, which I
can but regard as strained and unnatural. I shall not trouble the
reader with it, nor attempt to refute it
The analogy of thought in the cluster of passages, of which
Ihii is one, seems to me to point out the true solution. You who

94 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 2i.
preach, steal not, do you steal? You do. That is, you do just
the thing you teach others not to do. You who say, commit upt
adultery, do you commit adultery? You do. The very deed you
forbid in others you do yourself. You who abhor idols — now
what, by analogy, is the proper answer? Clearly this: You who
abhor idols, do you serve them? This, I suspect, falls near the
truth. But hierosuleo does not mean to serve idols; it means to
despoil temples. Whence then the notion of serve? Not from
the word itself, but from the inconsistent life of the Jew, and the
implications in the case. Do they yield it? You who abhor
idols, do you despoil their temples? You do. But to despoil a
temple means to carry off at least some of its contents. In the
case before us, however, the thing carried off is not expressed.
It Is to be conjectured. StiU something is actually carried away;
and in supplying it we must supply something between which
and abhorring Idols there is the same inconsistency as between
a Jew's preaching to others not to steal,'and himself stealing.
This thing is certainly an idol. You who abhor idols, do you
carry them off from their temples? You do; and that io serve
ihetn. This seems almost conclusive.
Let us next try the philology of the case. The verb hierosuleo
is from hieros and sulao. From hieros comes hieron a temple.
Sulao signifies to strip off, carry off, take away. Putting the two
words together, and they mean, in common usage, to carry off
or take away the contents of a temple. So far all is clear.
Now to determine what the Jew carried off, we must suppose
something which wiU both render him grossly inconsistent, and
make him a violator of the law. Let this be an idol, and the
work is done. You, Jew, affect to abhor idols; and yet you take
them from temples and serve them.
Perhaps the best way to translate hierosuleis is to render it
very Uterally: do you rob temples? To this add in brackets the
words of them, to indicate what is taken, and leave the purpose
for which, to be understood. Every difficulty seems now re
moved; and the passage Is shown to be both significant and
pertinent. When to this we add the notorious idolatry of the Jews, and
the fact that they imported their idols or the patterns of them
from foreign temples and nations, and we have, in my opinion,
the explanation of a passage which has heretofore been though*
to be hopelessly obscure.

Chap. 2, v. 23, 34.] ROMANS. 95
23. You who boast in the law, dishonor God by break
ing the law. I see no necessity for giving to this passage the
interrogative form, and therefore render it as a simple categorical
sentence. The Jew boasted much in the law, boasted of its being
from God, of its being a mark of his peculiar favor, of its being
given through angels, of its being from Moses, of its perfection —
in all this he boasted. Yet he broke this law, constantiy broke
it, broke it in stealing, broke it in committing adultery, broke it
in serving idols. With aU these violations the Apostie impeaches
him. He does more. He tells him that in breaking the law he
¦ dishonored God. The Jew affected great jealousy for the honor
of God, and appeared profoundly shocked when he saw others
dishonor him. Yet he himself could break his law even by wor
shiping an idol, and thus do him the greatest of all dishonor.
The Jew -was not only most inconsistent, but covered ¦with sin.
"5t" 24. For as it is written, God's name is, because of you,
spoken evil of among the nations. The Jew not only him
self personally dishonored God by breaking the law; but he
caused surrounding nations to dishonor him. He claimed God
exclusively as his God; and the heathen reasoned: like people, like
god. Consequentiy, since the Jew was dissolute and corrupt in
his life, they thought meanly of his God and held him in con
tempt We of to-day judge a man's reUgion by his life; and the
heathen, who had the conception of many gods, judged a man's
god by his conduct Good man, good god; bad man, bad god,
was their theory.
And much as the name of God suffered in that day, does
Christianity sufier in this. It is judged, harshly judged, by the
conduct of its professed friends. Hostile sects abound, each
claiming for itself that it is right and denying right to others.
Alienation, want of fraternity, and bitterness exist Often strife
flames high and even persecution rages. The world looks on
and says: "This religion is not divine; for if it were, it would
jiiitize its votaries, make them more rational, and fiU their hearts
with love." Christianity is human, is the consequent, and not
wholly unnatural conclusion of the world. But of course the
reasoning of the world is unsound. Christianity must be judged
on its merits, and not by the abuses which it sufiers at the hands
of those who have embraced it. Sects and parties are not divine,
but it does not therefore follow that what they abuse is not

96

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 2. v. 25.

chapter II. SECTION 4.

"For circumcision is of service,
provided you practise the law ; but if
you are a breaker of the law, your
circumcision becomes uncircumcis
ion, 26 If then the uncircumcised
keep the precepts of the law shall not
his uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision? 2? And the uncircum
cision, which is natural, will, by ful
filling the law, condemn you who,
with the letter and circumcision, are
a breaker of the law. 28 pp^ jje is
not the Jew who is one simply with
out ; nor is that circumcision which
is merely without in the flesh. 29 g^j
he is the Jew who is one within,
whose praise is not of men, but of
God; and circumcision is of the
heart, in spirit, and not in letter.

" nepiroprj pev ydp ixjjeXeX idv vopoe
-irpdaarjs- idv Se Trapa^drrjs vopov jjs, ^
Trepirop^ aov aKpo^varia yeyovev. "
'Eav ovv ij dxpo^varia ra SiKaiapara
TOV vopov (jivXdaarj, ovx V dxpo^varia
avrov els Trepiropfjv XoyiaBrjaerai; ^' Kai
KpiveX Tj iK cjjvaeas dxpo^varia r(>v vopov
reXovaa ae rov Sid ypdpparos Kai irepi-
ropTJs irapapdrrjv vopov. '' Oi yap 6
iv ra <f)avepa 'lovSaXos iariv, oiSe ij iv
™ <f)avepa iv aapKi irepiropr]. '' 'AXAa
o iv ra Kpmrr^ 'lovSaXos, (cat irepiropff
KapSias iv TTvevpari, oil ypdppari, ov 6
eiraaios ovk ii dvBpanav aXX' ix rov
eeoi!.

SUMMARY.
Circumcision is of no value unless the law is kept. The Gentile who
keeps the law, though not circumcised, will be accepted. The Jew who
breaks the law, though circumcised, will be condemned. The Judaism and
circumcision which save men are in the heart and spirit, and not outward in
literal fleshly marks.
25. For circumcision is of service, provided you practise
the law ; The general sentiment of the preceding part of the
chapter is that, in the case of the Jew, nothing will avail with
God but keeping the law. The Apostle now proceeds to con
firm this sentiment. Gar introduces the confirmation. In order
to do this, he ingeniously selects circumcision. On this the Jew
staked probably more than on any other fact in his history. The
selection is happy and pertinent.
The value of circumcision is contingent. To the Jew this was
certainly something new. Circumcision is of service, provided
you practise the law. Clearly this is previous teaching reiterated
in a slightly varied form — the doers of the law alone shall be
justified. But the implication Is the disastrous feature to the
Jew. If the law is not kept, circumcision Is worthless. Not
descent from Abranam, nor having the law, nor circumcisichi
avails any thing. Every thing depends on keeping the law.
The same general principle holds good under the gospel. One
thing is void without another. Belief is of no validity without
repentance; baptism is of no account without beUef ; being in
the church is useless without a holy life, and so on.

Chap. 2, v. 26, 27.J ROMANS. 97
but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision
becomes uncircumcision. The language, breaker of the law,
must not be taken as signifying a-single transgression only; for a
single transgression, unless it were expressly so provided, could
not have the effect here stated. It must be taken as denoting
habitual transgression, a life of sin. The parabates notnou was a
wicked man, one abandoned to sin. The circumcision of such a
man became void. He was to God no more than a heathen.
His life abrogated his circumcision,
26. If then the uncircumcised keep the precepts of the
law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circum
cision ? The ean oun here signifies in that case or in that view.
That Is, If, when a Jew breaks the law, his circumcision becomes
uncircumcision, then when the Gentile keeps the law, In that
case, his uncircumcision ought to become circumcision. The
rule which requires the Jew to keep the law In order to make
good his circumcision, should certainly make the uncircumcision of
the Gentile, who keeps the law, good to him for circumcision.
And this is just what it does. The whole of which amounts to
this: That circumcisioii is of no value to him who breaks the
law; and not being circumcised is no disadvantage to him who
keeps it.
But we must not here overlook a difference. For a Jew not
to be circumcised was not the same as for a Gentile not to be
circumcised. In that case, the Jew broke God's covenant, but
not so the Gentile. But after the Jew became circumcised, then
unless he kept the law, his circumcision amounted to nothing.
27, and the uncircumcision, which is natural, will, by
fulfilling the law. The uncircumcision, which is natural, is'
simply no circumcision at all; it is not being circumcised. The
meaning is, The Gentile who is not circumcised will, by fulfill
ing the law, &c. But we must not suppose that the Gentile, any
more than the Jew, ever actually fulfilled the law. This no one
did. The case is a hypothetical one; and the participle ielousa
might legitimately be so rendered as to indicate the fact It
might be rendered thus: And the uncircumcised Gentile will, if
he fulfil the law. See Stuart N. T. Gram. p. 164. The Apostie
conceives of it as possible that the Gentile might fulfil the law;
and from this conceived case, draws his conclusion.
But I think it probable that Paul had In mind not only a pos
sible but an actual case. He intended that in so far as the Gen-
6

^S COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2, v. 27, 29.
tile did fulfil the law, though the fulfilment was not complete,
hnd the Jew failed, even to that extent the Gentile had the pref
erence. In other words, a good man among Gentiles, though not
a perfect one, was better than a bad man among Jews.
condemn you who with the letter and circumcision are
a breaker of the law. When the Gentiles did what the Jew
should have done, but did not, he showed the duty to be practi
cable. He thus rendered it clear that the failure of the Jew was
wilful, and wilful disobedience is always held to be a just ground
of condemnation. The Gentile condemned the Jew by showing
that his disobedience was inexcusable.
The expression, dia grammatos kai peritomes, here rendered'
with the letter and circumcision, means having the law and being
circumcised. That is, the Gentile who fulfils the law will con
demn you who, though you have the law and are circumcised,
yet break the law. You break it, notwithstanding your advan
tages. Dia, with the genitive, sometimes occurs in this sense,
though not often. It denotes the circumstances under which a
thing Is done.
28. For he is not the Jew who is one simply without;
nor is that circumcision which is merely without in the
flesh. Rendered ad sensutn. This is an inference from the pre
ceding premises; and it both confirms what has just been said,
and carries it out to Its ultimate end. When the Apostle says, he
is not the Jew who is one simply without, he does not mean that
he is a Jew in no sense. He means that he is not the sort of Jew
who will stand in the last day with God. He is a Jew, to be
"sure, but not such a one as will be saved. To be a Jew simply
without, is to be a Jew only by having the law and being circum
cised; it is to be a Jew in name only, or without keeping the law.
It is best, therefore, to render, he is not the Jew, not he Is not a
Jew. A Jew he still was, but not the Jew who should be saved.
In like manner we must hold in regard to the clause, "nor is
that circumcision which is merely without in the flesh." Circum
cision it certainly was, but not the circumcision which aids in
saving. Circumcision is of service only when the law is kept;
but since the law is never kept, circumcision is of no value.
Tt avails nothing with God in saving.
29. But he is the Jew who is one within. That is, he
who is the Jew within is the Jew who will be saved. In him
only God delights. But what is the within referred to? I

Chap. 2. v. 29.] ROMANS. 99
answer, it is the spirit and the heart To be the Jew in these is
to be poor in the former and pure in the latter — it is to be poor
in spirit and pure in heart. They alone who are such will see
God; and they will see him, whether they formerly lived under
the law, or now live under the gospel. The hidden man of the
heart, and not the outward Jew, with his fleshly circumcision and
mere letter, will abide with God.
But farther: In the word "within^' the Apostie lays his first
corner stone of the christian edifice. He here breaks ground for
the gospel. In this soil it is to take root and grow. Belief is
within — "with the heart man believes"; and justification is by
belief. We here have the first note of preparation for the redemp
tion which is in Christ Turn men's thoughts from the without
tc the within — usually a difficult task, and the great primary
¦work of salvation is fully set in.
whose praise is not of men, but of God ; This clause is
placed here merely to have it in juxtaposition with the part of
the sentence to which it belongs. The Jew who is to be saved
is. pure within. This within is hid from men. From them, there-
f jre, it can have no praise. Men praise the without; they praise
circumcision and the like. But God looks Into the within; and
where it is holy, he delights in it, and praises it.
and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, and not in
letter. The circumcision which saves, respects the heart or
inner man; and it consists In the excision of whatever is impure
or unholy. It has its seat in the spirit, and consists, first, in puri
fying it, Col. U: 11; and, secondly, in keeping it pure. The true
worshipers are those that worship in spirit and in truth. Circum
cision "in letter" can be nothing but the ordinary circumcision of
the Jew— the outward mark in the flesh. Letter is the outward
or visible part of the law, as opposed to its sense. Accordingly,
circumcision in letter would be outward and visible, like the letter
of the law.

IOO

COMMENTARY.

Chap. 3

CHAPTER III.

SECTION I.

What then is the advantage of the
Jew? or what the profit of circumcis
ion? 2 Much in many a way. For,
first, they were entrusted with the
revelations of God. 'What then? —
inasmuch as some were not faithful.
Will their unfaithfulness render God's
fidelity of no effect? "Not at all.
On the contrary, let God be true, but
every man false ; that, as it is written,
you may be justified in your words
and overcome when judged. ' But
if our injustice display the justice of
God, what shall we say? Is not God
unjust who inflicts wrath? I speak
as a man. Not at all. "For how
then shall God judge the world?
' For if God' s truthfulness abounds
the more to his honor by my being
false, why am also I still condemned
as a sinner? 'And should we not
do evil that good may come ? as we
are falsely said [to do] , and as some
declare we say, whose condemnation
is just.

Tt olv ri irepiaaiiv rov ^lovSaiov; tj
ris fl a(j>fXeia rrjs trepiToprjs; ' -iroXi
Kard irdvra rparrov. Uparov pev ydp
on i-iriaTevdrja-av rd Xdyia rov 0€oC.
' Tl ydp; el rjiriarrfadv rives. Hlfj f) d-iria-
ria avrav Trjv iriarcv rov OfoO Karap-
•yfjaet; * pr) yevoiro' TiveaBa Se 6 Qf Ar
dXriBris, TrSs Se avdpairos i\revarr]s, KaBias
yeypaTrrai, 'Orras &v SiKcuaBj/s iv roXs
Xdyois aov Kai viKfjajjs iv rif xpiveaBai
ae. ^ El Se fl dSixia fipav Qeov dtxuio-
avvrjv avviarqai, ri ipovpev; M^ dSiKos
6 06or o i-mrjiepav -rfiv opy^f;— koto
avBpa-irov Xeya' ° pfj yevoiro- iirei iras
KpiveX S Qeis rbv xdapov; ' El ydp fj
dXfjBeia rov Qeoii iv rcf ip^ -^evapari
i-ireplaaevaev els rfjV Sd^av avrov, ri en
KayO) laf ApapraX6s Kpivopai; ' Kai pfi,
KaBas ^XaacfyripovpeBa Kai Kadas (j>acri
¦nvef fipds Xeyeiv, Sri Troifjaapev rd
KaKa "iva eXBji rd dyaBd; 'Ok rd Kpipa
evSiKdv ian.

SUMMARY.
The Jews, in being such, possessed many peculiar advantages, among the
most important of which was being entrusted with the revelations of God.
Still, though thus highly favored, many of them were very unfaithful. But
this will have no effect upon God's faithfulness. He will remain true, though
all men should prove false. Moreover, even when the Jew's injustice had
the effect to display the justice of God, still God must punish the injustice;
and he does right in doing so. We must not do evil that good may come, and
we win certainly be punished if we do.'
The Jew has now been shown that, in point of guilt, he stands
on a level with the Gentile; and that God will judge both with
impartiality. He has been farther shown that having the law, or
merely hearing it, amounts to nothing; and that he alone who
keeps the law will be saved. He has been still farther shown
that if the Gentile keep the law he will be accepted, though not
circumcised; while he himself, who breaks the law, will be con
demned, notwithstanding his circumcision. He has been finally
shown that the Judaism and circumcision, which avail with God,
are in the heart and spirit, and not external. After this, nothing
could be more natural than the question with which the present

Chap. 3, -^ i, 2.] ROMANS. loi
chapter opens. The Apostle propounds it for the Jew, in order
to get the chance himself to answer it He thus anticipates objec
tions to what he has now said, and proceeds to meet them.
Some of these objections contain real difficulties, which the
Apostle deemed it necessary to dispose of here.
What then is the advantage of the Jew? or what the
profit of circumcision ? The question is a conditional infer
ence. Since being a Jew, without, is of no avail; and since
circumcision is useless, unless the law be kept, then, Zw, what Is
the advantage of being a Jew? or what the profit of circumcis
ion? The reply anticipated by the Jew is none. But since this
would not be true, it is not given. There may be no advantage
in being a Jew merely without, and' yet great advantage in hav
ing his opportunities; no profit in the mere outward mark of
circumcision, and still much profit in the covenant to which it
relates. The question therefore is defeated. Though designed
to elicit the reply, no advantage, no profit, it does not do it.
Consequently, the reply is not such as the Jew expected.
2. Much in many a ¦way. The reply Is polu, i. e., polu
perisson — much advantage. That panta tropon can not be ren
dered every way, as it usually is, I think evident. In the first
place, panta, In many places, as every scholar knows, does not
signify all, but very many, or a large nutnber. In the second,
. the Apostle himself has just excluded two important ways. He
nas said, in effect, that there is no advantage in being a Jew
merely without. This Is one way. Also, that circumcision is of
no service, unless the law be kept This is a second. Now to
render much every way, Including all ways, when here are the
very two things excluded, on which the Jew chiefly relied, is
clearly inadmissible. We are therefore tied down to the render
ing, much in many a liay. Thus also Stuart.
The Jew, in being a Jew, possessed many advantages. But
whether each advantage should prove a blessing or the reverse,
was contingent. If he used his advantages properly, they were
blessings; if not, they proved curses. But the Apostle, after
replying much in many a way, proceeds to specify.
For, first, they were entrusted with the revelations of
God. The word revelations includes every form of divine com
munication which God had caused to be committed to writing.
All these were conflded to the keeping of the Jews; anu next to
Christ himself and the gospel, I must regard these revelatibns as

102 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 3, 4.
the greatest boon ever bestowed on any portion of the human
family. The respects in which they have blessed the world are
countless. They are to-day our only authentic record of the
origin and early history of man; and besides, they have in large
measure taught the world its equity, determined its legislation,
and molded its humanity. But of course I can not attempt ao
enumeration. 3, 'What then? — inasmuch as some were not faithful.
The gar here concedes the preceding statement, while ti suggests^
a difficulty Implied In it. The thought maybe thus expanded:
True, God confided his revelations to the Jews. But they were
not faithful to the trust. They did not obey those revelations as
they should. Here then emerges a difficulty. How about God's
promises to Israel? Will he still prove true to them? Hence
the following question:
Will their unfaithfulness render God's fidelity of no
effect ? God's fidelity, pistin, is his never-failing faithfulness in
keeping his word. He confided to Israel his oracles. He did
more. He promised to bless them above all other people. But
Israel were false to the trust committed to them. What effect,
now, will this have on God? Will he not feel himself absolved
from all obligation to keep faith with Israel? Katargeo means
to leave idle or une-mployed; and the idea Is, Will not the unfaith
fulness of the Jews cause God to 'ignore his promises, or to leave
them idle or unredeemed?
4, Not at all, A simple unconditional denial. In no case
will God's fidelity fail. Men may prove false, but he never. True,
a threat or promise is sometimes not kept; but In all such cases It
is conditional, whether the condition be expressed or not Men
fail to perform conditions, and God is released; but his fidelity
is not hereby in the least affected.
On the contrary, let God be true, but every man falser
De Is here strongly adversative; and the fact should be made to
stand boldly out, as in the expression, on the contrary. The verb
used in the clause, "let God be true," is ginestho, which primarily
means to become. The sense is. Let it, at all times and under all
circumstances, become evident that God is true, and every man
false. Not, let him be true, whether he is so or not; but let it
become obvious that he is true, because he is so. Likewise, not,
let every man be false, whether he Is so or not; but let it become
apparent that he is false, since he is so. Let all men be proved

Chap. 3, v. 4, 5.] ROMANS. 103
false to trusts; God never can be. He must stand absolutely and
forever true. Consequently, although aU Jews were unfaithful,
this can have no effect on God's fideUty. All his covenants and
promises will be kepi inviolate,
that, as it is written, you may be justified in your words
It must remain forever evident that God is true; that when he is
arraigned on his words he may be justified; that is, may be shown
to have strictly kept them. To justify God Is to show that he is
just — that he Is true to all he has said, and therefore guiltless.
and overcome when judged. The conception and language
are forensic. God is judged when he is arraigned in human
thought, on his deaUngs with men. When thus arraigned, he
must always come off victor. It is not enough that he simply
gain his cause; he must gain it triumphantly. This is the force
of nikeses. He must be shown to be absolutely innocent of
every charge. Nor let it be imagined that God is seldom
arraigned. He is arraigned in the very charge just considered;
and In countless ways we, as it -were, arraign him every day
We arraign him for creating us capable of sin ; for exposing us to
temptation; for subjecting us to death for another's sin; for
appointing us to a life of hardship; for requiring us to be holy in
the midst of great trials; for not revealing to us more of the
future — on all these counts, and many more, we arraign him.
Not that we formally arraign him, and accuse him of wrong.
But we arraign him in our perplexities. In our discontents — in a
word, in the very modes in which we think of him. Not to be
wholly reconciled to God is to arraign him. Now how profound
is the necessity that he shall be shown to be, in all the items
named, as well as In all others in which he is In any way ques
tioned, not only just, perfectly so, but even perfectly good.
5. But if our injustice display the justice of God, what
shall we say ? "Our Injustice" Is the exclusive Injustice of the
Jews; and it consisted in their unfaithfulness to the revelations
of -God. The Jews did not obey these revelations,- and herein
were unjust. But, strictly speaking, their injustice did not dis
play God's justice. It was rather the occasion of God himself
displaying it. But nad such been the case, still the Jew could
not have claimed even extenuation of guilt, much less exemption
from punishment. His sin would have remained none the less a
sin for displaying the justice of God. Sin is sin, no matter what
it displays; and it must be dealt with as such. God's justice is

I04 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v, 6, 7.
his just dealing with the Jews according to his word. Conse
quently to make dikaiosunen here mean "his plan of justification"
by belief betrays an extraordinary misapprehension of the word.
Is not God unjust who inflicts wrath? — I speak as a
man. Not at all. If our disobedience — the disobedience of
the Jews — to God's will, displays his fidelity to his word, is he
not unjust in punishing us? He is, is the answer expected. On
this the argument would be. But God will never show himself
unjust Therefore he will not punish us for our unfaithfulness.
Such is the exact position of the Jew. But it is a delusion.
God will punish sin no matter what it displays. This is Paul's
position. Sin may be so overruled that good emerges out of it;
but this is not because of any good in the nature of sin. The
good emerges In virtue of the divine overruling, and in spite of
sin. By the overruling sin Is defeated, but not canceled. Hence
its punishment is not averted.
The Jew should have remembered that God is author to two
classes of promises. In the one he proposes to bless Israel, pro
vided they keep his statutes. In the other, he threatens to pun
ish, if they do not Now fidelity to his word required that he
should remember the threats no less than the promises. Indeed,
it required that he should remember the threats the more; since
the rule -was that the statutes were broken, and not kept. But
of all this the Jew lo'it sight,
I speak as a man. That is, in what I now say, I am using
the language of others, 1. ot my own. I am talking as an objector.
Not at all: An emphatic negative to the preceding question.
6. For how then shall God judge the world ? This con
tains the reason for the preceding negative answer; and it, at the
same time, reduces the position of the Jew to an absurdity. God
can not justly punish the Jew; because, as they say, their unfaith
fulness displays his fideUty. Then, for the same reason, he can
not judge, and justly punish the world. The sins of the world as
much display his fidelity as do the sins of the Jews. T'aerefore
he can not justly punish the world. But this prove', too much
even for the Jew, and is consequently false.
7, For if God's truthfulness abounds the more to his
honor by my being false. In some resjDects this verse and the
Sth are difficult. The sense is determinable; but the construction
of the Sth is anomalous. Both the 6th and 7th verses are intended
to refute the position of v. 5. How the 6th refutes it has now

Chap. 3, v. 7.J ROMANS. loi;
been shown. The 7th refutes it much in the same way, but by a
special, personal argument, drawn, in my judgment, from Paul's
own case The two expressions, "my being false" and "also /,"
I regard as decisive of this. On no other hypothesis, apparent to
me, can these two expressions be satisfactorily explained. Tho
luck and Bloomfield appear to be of the same opinion, but Stuart
dissents. The position of v. 5, and the special argument of v. 7,
may be thus expanded:
When you Jews attempt to show that you should not be pun
ished, your mode of reasoning is vicious. You can not deny that
you have been unjust. But this injustice, you say, has displayed
the justice of God. You therefore can not see how he can be
just, and punish you. Now I will prove that your reasoning is
false. In order to do this, I take my own case, and show how
you view me. I am held by you to be false (e/«3 '^eva-pjin) to the
religion of my fathers. I am (Kayi)) consequently condemned by
you as a sinner. But in all this I am wronged, according to your
own reasoning. For if the truthfulness of God has abounded the
more to his honor by my being false, why do you still condemn
me as a sinner? If, according to your reasoning, you should not
be punished, neither should I.
God's truthfulness consists in his being true to his word, true
to all the demands of justice, true to all the facts in each case in
which he judges.
¦why am. also I still condemned as a sinner? If you Jews
should not be condemned because your sins display the truthful
ness of God, for the same reason, neither should I be. Impunity
for you, on a given ground, should surely be impunity for me, on
the same.
But the special argument of v. 7 contains, in my opinion, a
probable peculiarity worthy of notice. That argument is true,
taking aletheia not only in the Jewish sense; but it is true,
taking it in the christian sense. Thus: If the truthfulness of God
(Jewish sense) has abounded the more to his honor by my being
false (your view) to your religion, as you say is the case, then,
according to your reasoning in your own behalf, I should not be
deemed a sinner by you, and be treated as I am. Argumentum
ad hominem. But, argutnentutn ad rem, if the truth respecting
Christ, the gospel, has abounded the more to the honor of God
by my being false to your religion (your view), then I am In fact
no sinner, which is just the truth, and should not be adjudged

io6 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 8.
one. I suspect that the Apostle intended to construct an argu
ment which is true, taking aletheia in either or both of these
acceptations. One thing is certain, he has done it
8, And should we not do evil that good may come ? A
discussion of the verbal peculiarities of this verse could hardly
interest the reader; and I am sure it could not profit him. It is
therefore pretermitted. The sense, as I understand It, I have
expressed exactly in the translation. In this understanding both
Stuart and Bloomfield concur substantially, differing only imma
terially as to the mode of expressing It. With both sense and
mode of expressing it, Tholuck closely agrees. From this the
reader will see that my understanding of the passage is not pecu
liar. The clauses I arrange unusually. But by this the sense (the
chief thing) is not affected in the slightest; and much is obviously
gained in the way of perspicuity. Rendered as literally as I can
render it, the verse reads thus: And should we not, as we are
hurtfully reported, and as some allege we say, do evil that good
may come, whose condemnation is just? From this the reader will
discover that the only peculiarity of the rendering which I adopt,
consists in a particular arrangement of the clauses. This is
resorted to solely for the sake of clearness.
The verse is a still farther refutation of the position of v. 5. By
It, that position is reduced to a palpable absurdity. Thus: Your
mode of reasoning (the mode of the Jews) justifies another false
conclusion. You say that your injustice displays the justice of
God. Then the greater your injustice, the greater the display.
Be it so. To display God's justice is a good thing. Your injus
tice is indisputably evil. Shall we, then, do evil that good may
come? The reduction is complete.
as we are falsely said [to do, J and as some declare we
say, whose condemnation is just. The only freedom I here
use consists in bracketing to do. We are compelled to supply
something, and the circumstances of the case seem to point to
this. Certain parties alleged that Paul said, we should do evil
that good may come. Now, those who would represent him as
so saying, would have no scruple in representing him as so acting.
To do, then, seems to be more naturally required than any thing
else. But those who so represented the Apostle slandered him
ahd injured him. He lets them know that for this deed they are
condemned, and that the sentence is just.

Chap. 3, v. 9.J

ROMANS.

107

chapter III. SECTION 2.

'Tl ovv; irpoexdpeBa; ov wdvras-
JlponnaadpeBa ydp ^lovSaiovs re Kai
"EXXrjvas ndvras ii<|)' dpapriav elvai, '°
KaBas yeypa-mai, on oift ean SiVaior
I ovSe eiff, **ouK eanv 6 (ruwtoj/, oiiK eanv
0 iK^ifravTov ©eow ^^irdvres i^eKXivav,
Spa TiXpeiaBriaav ovk ean irotav XP^f'
TorriTa, ovk eanv emj cxos' "Ta0os
dveaypevos 6 Xdpvyi aiirav, raXs yXoxr-
aais avrav iSoXiovaav, los da-irlSav
ind TO x^'^l aiirav " &v to aropa
dpds Ka\ niKpias yepei- " o^eiy oi
noSes avrav iKxeai alpa, '° avvrpip-
pa Kcu rdXamapla iv raXs oSoIy av
rav, "xai oSoK elpfjvrjs ovk eyvaaav
'^ovK ean (fto^os Qeov dnevavn rav
0<pBa\pav avrav. '^ OiSapev be on oaa
6 vopos Xeyet, rots iv riS vopa XdXeX,
lva nav aropa <l>payfi Kai urroSucos yevrj-
rai nas 6 Koapos ra Qea- 2" Aioti e|
epyav vopov ov SiKaLaBfjaerat ndaa adp^
ivimiQV airrov- 8ia yap vopov inlyvaais
dpaprias.

'What then? Do we excel? By
no means. For we have alreidy
charged that both Jews and Greeks
are all under sin, '" as it is written :
there are none just, not one ; " there
are none who understand ; there are
none who seek God; '^all have
turned aside ; together they have
become useless ; there are none who
do good ; there is not even one. ''
Their throat is an open grave ; with
their tongues they deceive ; the poi
son of asps is under their lips ; "•
their mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness ; " their feet are swift to
shed blood ; '* ruin and misery are in
their paths; "and the way of peace
they have not known; "there is no
fear of God before their eyes. " Now
we know that whatever the law says,
it says to those under the law, that
every mouth may be shut, and the
whole world become guilty before
God. 20 For by works of law no
flesh shall be justified in his sight;
for by law is the knowledge of sin .

SUMMARY.
In point of guilt, then, are the Jews any better than the Gentiles.' None
at all. All are alike under the dominion of sin, and therefore are alike
guilty. This is proved by the very scriptures which the Jews have. The
law condemns all, and justifies none. Therefore, by law, no one may expect
to be acquitted in the presence of God . Instead of being justified by law,
men only learn from it that they are sinners.
g. What then ? Do we excel? By no means. The
words ti oun should be taken by themselves, as in the translation.
They imply a thoughtful question on what has gone before.
Proechomeiha is Middle, and here means io excel, be superior, be
better. Of these I prefer excel, as being simple and close to the
sense. The passage is an inference from previous teaching, put '
in the form of a question, and having strict reference to the
moral condition of the Jews, or their condition under sin. Do
we excel? that is, do we excel the Gentiles? Certainly the Jews
o-reatly excelled the Gentiles In many respects. But these were
the respects In which God had peculiarly favored them. Their
opportunities for spiritual and moral culture were unparalleled.
They had an infallible guide in regard to their duties both to God
and to one another. In these respects they stood high above the

io8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 5-1 1
Gentiles, But in two most material respects they did not excel;
and the reference is to these: i. in guilt they stood on a level with
the Gentiles; 1. as to justification or acquittal from sin, they had
no advantage. On these two points, Jew and Gentile were equal
before God. It is with strict reference to these points that the
question is asked. This is evident from what follows.
For we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks
are all under sin ; I have no Lexicon that gives prove, show, or
convict, as a meaning of aitiaomai. True, Bengel renders proetia
sametha, "we have proved before," which, though authorized,
seems unusual. The verb is deponent Middle, and signifies to
accuse, charge, blame. I render proetiasametha by our familiar
phrase we have already charged. This is clear and true. , "Under
sin" means to be subject to it, be a slave to it It also means to
be under the condemnation of it. The latter is particularly
referred to. The word Greeks means the same as Gentiles,
Jews and Greeks comisrehending the whole human family.
10. as it is written: there are none just, not one; The
sense of Ps. xiv, 3. The object of these citations is to prove the
undoubted guilt of the Jews. That of the Gentiles was con
ceded. It would then follow that, In regard to sin, the Jews
¦were no better than the Gentiles, or did not excel them. This is
the point to be settled. The word "just" here means to be wholly
free from sin — free from It In the sense of never having commit
ted it. In this acceptation, the ad sensutn citation is strictly
true. There are none absolutely just. Therefore all are under
sin. This is what the Apostle had charged, and what is now, by
the passage, shown to be true. Paul's declarations the Jews
might deny, but not their own scriptures. They were, then,
compelled to acknowledge themselves under sin. No more could
be said of the Gentiles. Consequently, as to sin, Jews and Gen
tiles were equal. The Jews, then, did not excel the Gentiles;
and this is the proposition to be established.
But the word "just" has, besides, a popular, current sense in
which we must be careful not to understand It here. Joseph,
the husband of Mary, was a "just" man, current sense, but not
wholly so; he was not sinless. Simeon was "just," but not per
fectly free from sin; and so of others. Paul does not here use
the word just in this sense, but in the one stated in the preced
ing paragraph.
II. there are none who understand; None who under-

Chap. 3, v. 11-13.] ROMANS. 109
stand perfectly, or have a strictly true knowledge of God's law
and a just appreciation of his goodness. The Jews ' greatly
abused themselves, and as a result, their understanding of divine
things grew blunt. They abused the revelations of God, and
consequently the light of truth went out in them. The sun of
their inner man became eclipsed.
there are none who seek God; None who seek him per
fectiy, or without a failure — a partial result of the fact just stated.
So soon as the soul becomes dark, It ceases to long for God.
Whenever his glorious image vanishes from the mirror within,
the original is no longer desired. In its blindness, the spirit sinks
down into the inaction of the night of death.
12, all have turned aside; together they have become
useless; Their understandings have become dark, and conse
quently they have turned aside from the way that leads to God.
The result of their ignorance and error is that they have become
useless. God can no longer turn them to any good account It
only remains to spew them out of his mouth.
there are none who do good; there is not even one.
And if there be not even one who does good, then there is not
even one who is just Consequently all are guilty before God.
Are the Jews, then, better than the Gentiles? Do they excel
them? Not at all. When the Apostle says, "there are none
who do good," we must understand him In like manner as when
he says, "there are none just." There are none who do good
wholly, or without exception, none who never sin.
13. Their throat is an open grave ; An open grave is an
unnatural sight It is expected to be closed. So of the throats
alluded to. By long abuse they had become unnatural. They
should have been shut on their corrupt contents, but were not
They stood open; and every thing that issued from them, in the
form of speech, was offensive. It was like the odor which
exhales from an open grave with its body rotting in it.
with their tongues they deceive ; Back of a deceptions
tongue lies a deceptious heart; and this is to that as cause to
effect There is the studied purpose to deceive, and the word
suited to it. Such tongues, like parasites, live only on the wreck
of good faith.
the poison of asps is under their lips ; What such Ups
say is to reputations as the poison of the asp in the blood. It is
death. To the honorable and sensitive mind earth has no keener

IIO COMMENTARY. Chap, 3, v. 14-19.
anguish than a stain on the name. Slander usually, like a burn,
leaves a life-long scar behind. Death would often give less pain.
14. their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness ; They
are full of blasphemy and oaths. These are aimed against God.
Thus the mouth which he created to bless him is used to grieve
him. By bitterness is meant those wounding, stinging words
which the wicked utter. None suffer from them as do the inno
cent 15. their feet are swift to shed blood; They are eager tc
commit murder, and rush fiercely on their victim. They lie in
wait for him; and when they see him they grow impatient. They
start up quickly, and slay him greedily.
16. ruin and misery are in their paths ; Wherever they
go they destroy reputation, or life, or something else held dear,
and thus sow misery in their way. But worst of all, they ruin
souls, and so plant in them endless misery.
17, and the way of peace they have not kno^vn ; Be
cause they have not wanted to know it Discord and strife are
the unnatural elements in which they deUght. Restless souls
themselves because of guilt, they seek to destroy the peace of
every one else. What they will not have, they resolve others
shall not.
18. there is no fear of God before their eyes. No won
der then that we have the preceding catalogue. Where God is
not feared, nothing else is; and when this last barrier to vice is
broken down, sin comes in like a flood.
On these specifications the following items may be noted: i.
The things here enumerated are charged against the Jews.
Their own scriptures allege them; and, therefore, by them the
charges are not deniable. 2. They are not to be assumed as true
of every individual Jew. It is enough that they are true of a
great many. 3. They fully justify the Apostie's charge that both
Jews and Greeks are equally under sin; and that the former in
no sense excel the latter. Indeed the catalogue here drawn of
the Jew falls scarcely below that drawn of the Gentile in ch. i.
4. The citations, though mostly from the Psalms, are not exclusive
ly so. Nor ^re they in every instance verbally close either to the
Hebrew or the Septuagint. They are true to the sense; no more.
19. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says
to those under the law. We know, you Jews know, I know,
we all know, and therefore can not deny, that whatever the law

Chap. 3, v, 19 ,2o.] ROMANS, iii
says, it says to those undei It, The law here is the law of Moses,
and those under it are the: Jews, The word whatever includes
every thing which, when done, is a sin. Now the law declares
the spiritual states and deeds just enumerated to be sins. It
declares this to the Jews as being under it and bound by it
Their own scriptures, therefore, as now quoted, show them to
be covered with sins. This they can not deny. They are then
condemned, every one of them, by the very law under which
they Uve. There is not even one exception.
that every mouth may be shut. That before the just sen
tence of the law, evei-y Jew may be silenced, not .having even
one plea to urge in his defence. Stuart thinks the hina here not
telic. Nothing strikes me as more certain than that it is. The
very design of the scriptures, in pronouncing certain things to be
sins, and in declaring the Jews to be guilty thereof, is to silence
them on the question of justification by law, to destroy every
vestige of hope therein, and thus to shut them up to the justi
fication which is in Christ. "Every mouth" is limited by the
context to every moutii under the law. It Is equivalent to every
Jew. and the whole world become guilty before God, Not
strictly that, in the way named, the world becomes guilty from
being previously not guilty; but it thus becomes manifest that it
is guilty. The world becomes guilty by its own actual trans
gressions; but when the scriptures establish these transgressions
against it, and the law pronounces sentence, Its guilt then
becomes manifest. The phrase become guilty hardly gives the
full sense of the original. The meaning is to become hupodikos,
that is, one under sentence of condemnation.
But how is it that the whole world, including both Jews and
Gentiles (for this Is the comprehension of world), becomes guilty
by proofs and acts which convict the Jews only? In but one
way that I can see. Jews and Gentiles were guilty of the same
deeds. These deeds were in themselves sins; and, in the case of
the Jews, were so declared. But the law in declaring them to
be sins in the Jews, virtually declarisd them to be sins in the Gen
tiles; and so in condemning the Jews, in effect condemned the
Gentiles. The law of Moses was not obligatory upon the Gen
tiles. In no other way, then, as it seems to me, except in the
way named, could it condemn those not bound by it.
20. For by works of law Dioti should not here be ren-

112 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 2C
dered therefore, as many render It. It does not deduce a conclu
sion from preceding premises, but assigns a reason for what has
just been said. What the law says, it says to those who are
under it, and have broken it, in order to its becoming evident
that the whole world is guilty before God. This lesson, it is pro
foundly necessary the world should learn. The reason is, that by
works' of law no flesh shall be justified. When once the -world
has fully learned this lesson, it wiU be ready to abandon law as a
means of justification, and resort to Christ
The phrase, "works of law," has given rise to almost endless
controversy, and that without much reason. The word law is
anarthrous, and therefore must be taken, not specifically, as
denoting the law of Moses only, but generically, as including
every form of law which men have from God as a rule of con
duct. Accordingly, while it includes the law of Moses, it does
more. It also includes the law of the Gentiles, be that law what
it may, provided God requires them to keep it God's law, as
made known to men, assumes two forms: it commands what is
right and prohibits what is wrong. That, we must do; this, not
do. Now the word law, as here used, comprehends both these
forms. It includes every thing which, when done, whether by
Jew or Gentile, or both, is a sin ; and every thing which, when
not done, by either or neither, is a sin. The word works, on the
other hand, comprehends every act which law. In this sense,
commands or forbids. It includes both things done, and things
not done which should have been. Now, taking both law and
works, as here defined, what Paul means is, that by works of
law no human being can be justified in the sight of God.
From the i8th verse of the first chapter, down to the present,
this Is the grand conclusion for which the Apostle has been pre
paring the mind of his readers. He first prepares the Gentile for
it, and then the Jew. Many a turn in his current of thought has
implied it; but not until he had shut every Jewish mouth by
taking away its last defence; not until he had placed the whole
world before God as guilty and condemned, did he see fit to
enounce it. How it is that by works of law no flesh can be jus
tified, will appear under the next clause.
for by law is the knowledge of sin. Had God never given
a law touching sin, or revealed to us what It is, the conception
of sin had never been in our minds. Our very primary knowl
edge of sin is from law. From law then we learn, theoretically,

^HAP. 3, V. 2 I. J

ROMANS.

what sin is, or what acts are sins. By actual personal experience
we all know that we have committed these acts, and, therefore,
that we are sinners. Again, we have law defining sin. With this
law we compare the acts of others, and so learn that they are sin
ners. Thus, from law we learn what sin is; and by comjiarison,
that both we and all others are sinners. Now law can justify
him only who perfectly keeps it, and never breaks it. If law be
oroken it must condemn. But we have all broken It, broken it
without exception, certainly broken it Truly, therefore, by
works of law no one can be justified.

CHAPTER HI. SECTION 3.

" Nuwi Se xiopis vopov SiKoioaivri Qeov
nefpaveparat, paprvpovpevri vno rov vd-
uov Kai rav npo(f}TjTav, ^^ SiKaioavvr] Se
OfoO Sia niareas 'irjaov XpioroC, eis
ndvras roiis niarevovras' ov ydp ia-ri.
SiaaroXfj- ^^ ndvres ydp ^paprov Kai
varepovvrai rrjs So^ris rov Qeov, ^^ ScKat-
ov/iEfoc Sapedv rJ airoC ^^P'" S'a Trjs
dnoXvrpaaeas rrjs iv XpioTo> 'Iriaov,
'' ov npoeBero 6 Qeos IXacrrfipiov 8ia
niareas iv ra avrov aipan, els evSei^iv
rrjS SiKaioavvrjs airrov, Sid r^v napeaiv
Tav npoyeyovorav dpap-rripdrav ^^ iv rrj
dvoxii rov efoii, npds -rfjV evSei§iv rrfs
SiKaioavvris avrov iv ra vvv Kaipa, els
TO ejvai airrov Sixaiov xai SiKawvvra riv
ix niareas Iijcroi).

^' But now God's justification with
out law is revealed, being attested by
the law and the prophets, ^'even
God's justification by belief in Jesus
Christ, for all who believe — (For
there is no diff'erence ; ^' for all have
sinned and come short of the glory
of God) — ^'' they being justified free
ly by his favor, through the ransom
which is in Christ Jesus, " whom
God has set fofth as an atoning
sacrifice through belief in his blood,
for a proof of God's justice, on
account of remitting the sins for
merly committed '-^^ during his for
bearance, also for a proof of his jus
tice at this time, that he may be just
while justifying him that believes in
Jesus.

SUMMARY.
But although justification by law is impossible; still God has revealed
another way of justifying men, a way, too, that is attested both by the law
and the prophets. He has revealed a plan of justifying people by means of
their belief in Jesus Christ, revealed it to all, both Jews and Gentiles. This
justification takes its rise in God's favor; it is procured by a ransom which
has been accomplished by Christ; Christ effected this ransom by his blood;
and we attain the benefit of it by believing in him and obeying him. This
ransom enables God to be just while forgiving the sinner, provided he is a
believer in his Son.

21. But now God's justification without law is revealed.
The Apostle had just said that, by works of law, no one can be
justified. It remained, then, for God to propound another plan.
Justification by law is practically Impossible. Intuitively, then,
7

114 COMMENTARY. [Chap, 3, v. 21, 22.
if it be attained, it must be without law. The following verses
propose the plan and, in part, unfold it
Now, nuni, under Christ, or as things at present stand. God's
justification. Justification, as was shown in chap, i, means, first,
to be released from sin, to be forgiven; and, secondly, to be held
and treated as just Justification without law; that is, justifica
tion which is realized apart from law, or independent of it.
Indeed, if there be any actual justification, it must be without
law, since justification by law is purely ideal or theoretic, no
instance of it ever having occurred. Is revealed — is now, for the
first time, revealed or clearly made known, not as something
possible, but as something which all can actually realize, if they
will. All the Apostle here states is, the naked fact that God's
justification is revealed. This once distinctly enounced and he
can proceed to details.
being attested by the law and the prophets. The expres
sion "law and prophets" is here equivalent to the writings of the
Old Testament. These writings attest a justification without
law. They both teach the doctrine and exemplify it — this being
the way in which they attest it. Abraham, for example, is a case
in point, whosebellef was counted to him for justification; that
is, he was justified without law. Much that the prophets say is
also to the same effect. Indeed, one of them asserts the doctrine
in so many words, namely, "the just by belief shall live." The
law, too, pointed to Christ as the true Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world; and remitting sin is the radical fact
in justification. In a word, both the law and the prophets bare
testimony to Christ, and to the salvation which is in him. This
salvation, which, at bottom, is justification, is without law. Thus,
ths law and the prophets attest justification without law, by
attesting the salvation of Christ, which is without it
22. even God's justifiication by belief in Jesus Christ,
The de of this verse has cost critics much trouble. With hardly
an exception, they assume it to be adversative; and then find
their difficulty in translating it But is it adversative? The
statement to which, indisputably, it looks back Is, "but now God's
justification without law is revealed." Now, between this state
ment and the one introduced by de, there is not even the sem
blance of adverseness. On the contray, the one introduced by
de is the mere explanation of the other. De then is not adver
sative. It simply adds an explanation. I render it by even as

Chap. 3, v. 23, 24.] ROMANS. 115
denoting that the clause explained and the one explaining are
the same in sense, the only difference being that the one is gen
eral and the other special. On the use of de in this sense see
both Robinson and Winer.
God's justification It is caUed God's because he is author
to it, performs the act, or does the justifying. By belief in
Jesus Christ: Our belief in Christ is the condition, not the sole
one except as implying others,, nor a condition of merit, but of
mercy; that is, a condition on the actual presence of which in
us, God will, of pure mercy, extend to us justification. But, of
belief, and its value in redemption, more fully, as I proceed.
instead of belief in Jesus Christ, we might render belief of
Jcsus Christ, which would mean belief respecting him, Jesus
Christ evidently being genitive of object. But this rendering,
though more literal than the other, is not so clear. It is better,
therefore, to say belief in.
for all ¦who believe — eis pantas pisteuontas. These words
are clostly connected in sense with pephanerotai, is revealed.
The meaning is. But now God's justification without law is
revealed for all who believe, that is, for their benefit. His justifi
cation without law Is also revealed to aU; but it will not profit all,
because aU wiU not accept It It wiU profit those only who be-
believe. It is hence revealed eis for them, for their benefit
Nor should the word "all" be taken as distributing the human
family into individuals. It denotes them nationally, rather than
individually. Justification without works is revealed to Jews and
Gentiles. These are the all.
(For there is no difference; 23, for all have sinned and
come short of the glory of God,) This sentence is clearly
parenthetic, and should be so marked, as here. The meaning is,
there is no difference, on the score of guilt, between Jews and
Gentiles; for aU alike have sinned and come short of the glory of
God. The word "glory" here means honor, the honor due io
God. The genitive is genitive of object All have sinned, and
thereby failed to honor God as they should. They owed it to
him to honor him by keeping his law perfectly, but they have
not done so.
24, they being justified freely by his favor. The con
nection may be thus shown: God's justification is revealed for
all who believe, they being justified freely by his favor. That is,
those who beUeve are they who are freely justified. They, the

ii6 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 24.
subject of "being justified" is supplied from the clause "all that
believe." Being justified freely, dorean. Our justification is
bestowed on us as a gift; it is not earned by us, or we make no
requital for it.
by his favor — by God's favor. Justification is gratuitous on
the part of God. He does not owe it to us, nor can we claim it
as a right We accept it as a sheer gratuity. Were it by law,
or perfect obedience, the very reverse would be the case.
through the ransom which is in Christ Jesus, In this
compressed and comprehensive sentence we have the ground of
the whole remedial system. On this ground depends every
thing. To expand It, In all its amplitude, would be to write the
history of human redemption, from its conception in the mind
of God up to its consummation in the glorification of the saved.
We must, however, pause on It a few moments.
What is implied or assumed in the sentence? I. That the
whole human family had sinned. This is the bottom impUcation,
the one which underlies all others. 2. That all were condemned
for sin, and in bondage to it. 3. That, as the penalty of sin, all
were doomed to death and future punishment These are the
facts implied or assumed in the ransom of Christ.
through the ransom Sto. t^s aTroXifrpolo-eios. Apolutrosis is
from apolutro. Apolutro means to release on the payment of a
ransom. The ransom (lutron), money or any thing else, being
paid, apolutro, I release the person or thing held. The only
distinction between lutro and apolutro Is in apo, which either
simply intensifies the force, or, it may be, still retains its signifi
cation oi frotn, denoting separation. According to this, the one
means I release, i. e., for a ransom; the other, I release from.
Apolutrosis, then, signifies releasing for a ransom, or a releasing
ransom; that is, a ransom which has the efficacy or effect to
release. This last is nearest the sense.
With these facts and definitions before us, we are prepared to
look more closely into the ransom, releasing ransom, which is in
Christ The thing which man forfeited by sinning is life — "in
the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die"; and the pen
alty which he incurred is future punishment Now Christ takes
his own life, as it were, and with it, as a ransom, buys us off
from sin and its penalty. In other words, he pays his life for us,
and so releases us from sin and its consequences. "You have
been bought with a price." i Cor. vi: 20. The ransom from

Chap, 3, v, 24, 25.] ROMANS. 117
death, however, i. e., natural death, operates only as a respite,
of which more in the proper place. But, at the first, this ran
som is merely potential, or exists simply as a provision of the
divine favor. Not only so, but we are bought off" by it condi
tionally. We believe in Christ and obey him — obedience of belief.
Thereupon the ransom takes effect; and we are not only released
from sin, but the sin is forgiven. Being thus freed from sin, we
are, from this on, viewed and treated as just This is justifica
tion through the ransom which is in Christ, justification in virtue
of its efficacy. The ransom is the meritorious means of the justi
fication, or the valuable consideration which procures it. The
expression, ransom which is in Christ, means the ransom which
he has effected, and which still has its efficacy in him. But the
subject — and no more important one will soon present itself to the
reader's thought, is still farther developed under the next clause,
25. whom God has set forth as an atoning sacrifice
through belief in his blood. Set forth — placed out before
the world as an object to be looked on or taken notice of. As an
atoning sacrifice — hilasterion. This word is used by the Septua
gint to denote the mercy-seat, which was the lid that covered the
ark. It was of pure gold; and out of it the cherubim were
made, that stood on its ends. On this mercy-seat the high-priest
sprinkled, once every year, the blood of the sin-offering, and so
made an atonement for the sins of the people. . Is hilasterion to
to be applied to Christ in the sense of mercy-seat? I think not;
though I see no violent reason against it. I simply prefer a dif
ferent sense, as both more congruous and more accurate, and
therefore reject this.
Hilasterion is the neuter of hilasterios, used as a noun; and,
as such, it has the signification of both an adjective and a noun.
It is equivalent to hilasterion thuma. Hilasterion, when applied
to a heathen sacrifice or offering, meant expiatory, I. e., de
signed to expiate, conciliate, or incline to benignity. When
applied to Christ, it means atoning; that is, having. this efficacy
or effect. Hilasterion, then, is an atoning sacrifice. Now God
has set forth Christ as the hilasterion of the world. "Viewed first
as a person, he is the victim to be offered. "He offered himself
without spot to God." Heb. ix: 14. When slain, he is the sacri
fice — the thuma. In being slain, he sheds his blood; and this
blood contains his life. "The life of the flesh is in the bteod,"
Lev. xvii: II. This blood, with his life in It, Is the atoning mat-

iiS COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3. v. 25.
ter which is to be given as a ransom for the sinner. "It is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." See Lev. as
above. And just here seems to emerge the true idea of the atoneii)ent,
katallage, which has cost the world so much thought. I con
cisely state my conception of it. Katallage is from katallasso,
which primarily means to cJiange or exchange, that is, one thing
for another. The radical fact, then, in the atonement is exchange
— exchange of life for life. Christ exchanges or gives his life
as a ransom for the sinner's life; he buys the sinner off from sin
and procures the remission of it. "In whom, [Christ], we have
redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins." Eph.
i: 7. As a ransom, the blood of Christ must be distinguished by
two characteristics: It must possess great value and great honor
— great value, because the whole human family are to be
redeemed by it; and great honor, because, by sin, both God and
his law have been dishonored, and this must be repaired. Ac
cordingly, Peter says: "Knowing that you were ransomed, not
with perishable things as silver and gold, from your foolish mode
of life, handed down from your fathers, but with the pre
cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
pure." I Pet. i : 18, 19. . The original of precious blood is timio
haimati. Now, timio, from timios, here means having both great
value and great honor. Of the absolute value and honor of the
blood of Christ, we can have no adequate idea. They may be
infinite, for aught we know, but must, at least, be equal to the
end to be accomphshed by them. That end Is nothing less than
the contingent redemption of the whole human race. Not that
all will be redeemed, but all might be. The blood has efficacy
to redeem all. Now when this blood is offered and accepted,
when it takes effect as a ransom, which it does when we believe
in, and obey Christ, then we are released from sin; and the sin
is forgiven. This exchange of Christ's blood for the sinner is the
katallage — the atonement.
through belief in his blood, Some of the best commen
tators connect the phrase in his blood immediately with hilas
terion, thus: whom God has set forth as an atoning sacrifice in
his blood. This is unquestionably true; but whether it be the
coUocjition intended by the Apostle may well be doubted. Christ
is an atoning sacrifice in his blood, or by means of it; but he is
BO contingently. He is so on the condition of belief. Now the

Chap. 3, v, 25.] ROMANS. • 119
conditional efficacy of his blood seems to me to be the very point
the Apostle Is guarding, by placing through belief where it
stands. Christ is an atoning sacrifice through belief. Without
beUef he is not one, at least not an available one. We must be
Ueve in his blood in order to be ransomed by it This is the fact
which the Apostie is seeking to protect
for a proof of God's justice, Endeixis signifies pointing
out, exhibition, proof. It must here be taken in the sense of full
exhibition or proof Christ, as an atoning sacrifice, demonstrates
God's justice in remitting sin. His justice therefore is not
merely pointed out, but a full proof of it is given. The fact of
remission proves his favor and mercy, but not his justice. This
is proved by Christ as a hilasterion.
Instead of saying, for a proof of his justice, and during God's
forbearance, I transpose God and his, and read as In the transla
tion. By this, the sense remains the same; and an ambiguity is
removed from his which might be taken as referring to Christ.
God's justice not justification. I find myself wholly unable
to translate dikaiosunes here justification. The sense of the
passage clearly requires a different word. Indeed, if we trans
late it justification, then dia ten paresin can not, without great
violence, be so rendered as to suit it, or make a consistent sense.
Stuart tries hard to do this, and yet, to my mind, completely
fails. God does not set forth Christ as an atoning sacrifice for a
proof or an exhibition of his justification. But, inasmuch as he
remitted sins before Christ died, he sets forth Christ as an aton
ing sacrifice, to prove that in doing so he was just. Had he
remitted them without such a sacrifice, the fact might have argued
him unjust The point is, not to show what God did, but that he
was just in doing what he did.
Again: whatever dikaiosune means in v. 26, it means in v. 25.
Verse 26 reads thus: for a proof of his dikaiosune at this time,
that he may be just, while justifying him that believes in Jesus.
A proof of God's justification is a proof of nothing beyond the
fact . It has no power to show him as just while justifying the
believer in Jesus. But a proof that he is just, is conclusive that
he will continue to be so. God's justice in forgiving sin is the
thing to be proved. To establish this Is the Apostle's object
Justice, then, and not justification. Is the meaning of the word.
on account of remitting the sins formerly committed
The sins here referred to were sins committed prior to the time

I20 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 25.
of Christ. But in what acceptation shall we take paresin?
Some think, in the sense of passing by. Those who thus think,
insist that no sins committed prior to Christ were really remitted
till his death. They contend that the sins of that period, even in
the case of the saved, were merely passed by or overlooked, as it
were, till Christ died; and that then, but not before, they were
actually forgiven. They rest their theory on the meaning of
paresin, and on the assumed fact, that sins could not be really
forgiven till Christ had shed his blood.
But as to paresis the theory fails. True, paresis means pass
ing by, or letting pass. But nothing decisive can be inferred
from this. Aphesis, in like manner, means sending away, send
ing from; yet it Is the usual word for remission. Both words are
derived from hiemi, the one by prefixing para, the other, apo.
Now, as aphesis means sending away, or sending from, in the
sense of remitting or forgiving; so paresis me^s passing by, or
letting pass, in the same sense. When used of sin, as here, it
means remitting it. When God passes by sin, or lets it pass,
he is done with it; just as when he sends sin away, he is done
with it.
Nor is the theory tenable on the basis of the assumed fact
Certainly men were saved before the death of Christ, as Enoch,
and others. But to say that these men were saved without
their sins being really remitted, is too absurd to be entertained,
God never ignored a man's sin, for the time being, and saved
him, leaving the fact of actual remission to take place at some
future period. He may, during our lifetime, pass by our sins
and not punish them, as we know he does; but when, after
death, he saves us, no sins remain to be forgiven. Nor is it
necessary to assume that Christ's blood had no efficacy till after
it -was shed. All men lived prior to his death in virtue of the
ransom which is in him. Just as conceivably could sins be remit
ted through his blood before it was shed. If his blood acts
through all time since it was shed, as it does; so may it have
acted through all time before it was shed. The ransom of Christ
touches all human life, as well as all human sin, and that with
out regard to time. It was redemption to all who were saved
before he died; it is redemption to all who shall be saved sub
sequently. In the case of all the saved prior to Christ's death, God remitted
their sins through, or by reason of, the retrospective efficacy of

Chap. 3, v. 26.J ROMANS. 121
his blood. They believed God and obeyed him, and by obedi
ence perfected their belief This done, the ransom of Christ took
effect in their behalf, just as in our case. Their belief was
counted to them for justification; and they were saved. Now,
as proof that in all this, God was strictly just, he has set forth
Christ as an atoning sacrifice. On account of what he did, or as
a reason for it, this proof became necessary. So great is the
value, and so great the honor, inherent in the ransom of Christ,
that God can do all he does in the way of saving sinners, and
still remain perfectly just. Neither his honor nor his justice is
thereby tarnished or compromised.
26. during his forbearance, Even before Christ's death,
God was bearing with the human family for his sake. By his
ransom they had been bought off from immediate death, though
for no definite period. That period God lengthened out, not
withstanding they were constantly sinning, to give all an oppor
tunity to be saved. He bore then, as he bears now, that none
might be lost except those who wilfully refused to be saved.
also for a proof of his justice at this time, I supply the
word also merely because it makes a fuller and better sentence.
It is not necessary, but still is of service. The pros ten endeixin
of this verse is identical in sense with the eis endeixin of the
preceding one. No successful effort has been made to show a
distinction between them, I can see none, and hence do not
affect to draw any. The phrase ai this time signifies the time
since Christ God has set forth Christ as an atoning sacrifice,
for a proof to all men now that, in remitting sin, he Is just, and
neither arbitrary nor unjust.
that he may be just while justifying him that believes
in Jesus. Not merely that God may be shown to be just,
though this is necessary, but that he may be absolutely just in
forgiving the believer. He sets forth Christ as a sacrifice to
prove that he is just, and that he will continue to be so. Only
on the condition of such an offering could he be just while justi
fying the unjust. The reader will notice that I render kai while.
On its use in the place of a particle of time, see McK. Prelim.
Ess. 210, or any good grammar.
Ton ek pisteos literally means him who is of belief. But this,
though perfectly clear, is awkward to English ears. It is best,
therefore, to use some more familiar form of speech, as in the
translation. Between the two expressions, him who is of belief

122

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 3, v. 27.

and him that believes, no difference in sense exists. Thev are
merely different modes in different languages of saying the Same
thing. CHAPTER III. SECTION 4.

"Where then is boasting? It is
shut out. By what law — of works ?
No indeed ; but by the law of belief.
^' For we conclude that man is justi
fied by belief, without deeds of law.
''Is he the God of Jews only, and not
of Gentiles ? Yes, of Gentiles also ;
^° since there is one God who wUl
justify the circumcision by belief, and
the uncircumcision by belief. ^' Do
we then render law of no effect by
belief? Not at all ; but we establish
law.

" Uot! oiv fl xavxiais; iiexXeiaBif.
Ala noiov vopov; roiv epyav; ov^i, dXXi
Sid vopov niareas- '' Anyi^opeBa ydp Si-
KoiovaBai niarei dvBpanov xiopis epyav
vopov. "*H 'louSaimi' 6 Qeos povov;
oiixi Kai iBvav; vai xai iBvav- " einep
eis o Qeos, os Sixataaei nepvropfiv ix
niareas xai dxpo^variav Sid Trjs iria-
Teas. " Ndfiov ovv xarapyovpev Sid rijt
niareas; Mij yevoiro, diXXd vopov lora-
vopev.

SUMMARY.
The justification of God is by belief, and not by deeds of law. It is a
matter of favor, then, and not of merit. Consequently, no man can boast
that he has deserved it or merited it. This justification is for Gentiles as
well as for Jews, God is the God of both, and is ready to bless both, to
bless them in the same way, and on the same conditions,
27. "Where then is boasting? It is shut out. This ques
tion is in fact a conclusion from preceding premises, expressed
interrogatively. This is clear from o»«. The meaning Is: There
fore, none can boast; neither the Jew can boast, nor the Gentile
can boast; because there Is no ground for it. On the contrary,
all have sinned, and all are condemned. No man merits justifi
cation; the Jew does not merit it by his law, nor the Gentile, by
his. Consequently there is no place for boasting. It is utterly
excluded. By what law — of works ? No indeed ; but by the law
of belief. Boasting is shut out by force of law; but by what
law? Is it by the law ofthe Jew, which justifies only on condi
tion of perfect obedience? Certainly not. Nor is boasting ex
cluded by the law of the Gentile, for the same reason. By what
law, then, is boasting shut out? By the law of belief; that is, by
the gospel. God's justification, which Is the only practicable
justification, is revealed in the gospel. The fact of it, the ground
of it, and the mode of It, are therein revealed. This justification
is by belief in Christ, perfected by obedience to him; it is by
ihe 'obedience of belief. The ground of it in God Is favor and

Chap. 3, v. 27, 28.] ROMANS. 123
mercy; the reason for it, the ransom of Christ It is bestowed
on us as a gratuity, and accepted by us without requital. Boast
ing then that we merit justification Is wholly excluded by opera
tion of the law of belief — the gospel.
by the law of belief. That this expression is but a compen
dious designation for the gospel, I think too evident to need
defending. Boasting is shut out by that only, through which
justification is received as a matter of favor. This is indisputa
ble; and that justification is thus received only through the
gospel is equally certain. The expression "by the law of belief,"
then, and the gospel, are but two different names for the same
thing. In the scheme of human redemption, favor, God's favor, stands
out and apart by itself, stands alone in its absoluteness, as the
principle in the Father's bosom in which salvation had its incep
tion; Christ stands over against law; and beUef, over against
deeds. Therefore, in discussing justification beUef becomes, of
necessity, the constant antithesis of deeds. Hence its prominence,
and the frequency of its recurrence. Not that we are justified
by belief alone, that is, by belief apart from the acts of obedience
which it implies; but our justification is ascribed to belief, be
cause it stands out more conspicuously than any thing else, as
being the condition of gratuitous justification, in opposition to
deeds of law, as the ground of merited justification.
In the expression "law of beUef," the word law, taken tech
nically, can mean only the law according to which belief is
produced, or the law according to which it acts after being pro
duced, or beUef itself viewed as a law, or aU these together. But
such meanings are out of the question in the present case. Law
of beUef is a representative expression, denoting the gospel as a
scheme of gratuitous justification, in which belief is the primary
and most prominent condition.
28, For we conclude that man is justified by belief,
without deeds of law. This passage is not an inference from
what precedes. It is confirmative of the position that boasting is
shut out by the law of belief The gar here is affirmative in
office. It was over this passage that Luther made his famous translation,
"we are justified by faith only^ which daring act gave rise to that
doctrine. But Luther's act was prompted solely by his aversion
to the Papal tenet of justification by works. It Is without defence

124 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 28.
either from scripture or philology. I much admire Luther's bold
opposition to the error of Rome, but deeply regret the ex
treme to which it led him. Not that the doctrine of justification
by faith only is as dangerous as the Romish position to which it
stood opposed. This I do not hold. On belief in Christ, abso
lutely taken, it would be difficult, in my judgment, to lay too
great stress. To its importance and necessity as a condition of
justification, I give my cordial assent Nor even against its value
as a means have I any thing to say. In all these I believe, and
for them contend. It is only when belief is affirmed to be the
sole condition of justification that I put in my demurrer. To
illustrate what I mean, I shall assume what I believe will not be
denied; namely, that the doctrine of justification and the doctrine
of remission of sins are identical doctrines. A man can not be
justified, and his sins remain unforgiven; nor be forgiven, and
remain unjustified. Now it is held by all who have a proper
regard for the Bible, that no one can be forgiven without repent
ance.- Farther: it Is conceded by all, that repentance is one act
of obedience to Christ's authority, and belief a different act.
These two acts can never be confounded; nor has the one any
po-wer either to usurp the place of the other, or supplant it.
Each performs a special function which the other can not per
form; nor can either become a substitute for the other. How
now, in the light of this, can belief be the sole condition of justi
fication? The truth is, it is impossible. And with this, I am
done, for the present, with Luther's error.
Under the gospel we have one, and only one, great and all-
meritorious ground of justification. That ground is ihe atoning
blood of Christ. Once for all, let this be fully conceded, with no
reserved understanding that it shall hereafter be receded from.
Now, obviously, before this ground, and by force of it, all acts of
obedience stand alike devoid of merit to procure justification.
No matter how great their value in other respects, they have none
in this. BeUef then has no merit to procure justification, nor
has repentance, nor any other act. Wherein then lies the value
of these acts? In this, that Christ has appointed them as the
specific conditions, on compliance with which, he invests us with
the benefit of his blood. His blood is for redemption; these acts
are for his blood. What these specific acts are, and how many, I
pause not here to inquire. I merely reiterate that belief is not
the only one.

Chap. 3, v. 28, 30.J ROMANS. 125
¦without deeds of la^w. This important expression needs
some slight elucidation. Because we are justified without deeds
of law, many seem to conclude that therefore law is nothing, and
deeds of law nothing. But this Is quite a mistake. Paul says,
in the very Letter in hand: The law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just and good. Our not being justified by law does
not result from the worthlessness of deeds of law. It results
from our not doing these deeds. If we did them, we would be
justified by them; but we do them not, and therefore are not
justified. We must not, then, conclude that there is nothing in
acts of obedience to law. There is nothing in them when not
done, but life in them when done. But the value of one deed of
law is conditioned on the whole. Unless we do all, we realize
nothing. A less number does not entitle to justification. This
is true of law strictly, but Is not true of the gospel.
29. Is he the God of Jews only, and not of Gentiles?
The connection may be thus indicated: "We count that man Is
justified by belief, without deeds of law." If so, then surely
there is a chance for the Gentiles. Or is he the God of Jews
only, and not of Gentiles?
Yes, of Gentiles also ; That is, he is the God of the Gen
tiles as truly as of the Jews. All are alike his offspring, and
stand before him with equal chances for the future. However
their lots may differ in this life, in the light of the judgment they
are equal. We have here a fine argument in behalf of the Gen
tile, drawn, not from his relation to law, but from his relation to
God as his Maker. God is alike Father to all; all have alike
sinned against him, and he will justify all In the same way.
30. since there is one God who will justify the circum
cision by belief, and the uncircumcision by belief, God is
the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews; since there is but
one Maker of aU; and he will justify both alike — -Jews by beUef,
Gentiles by belief The Future here is used to express a general
truth, or constantly recurring fact, and therefore has nearly the
same import as the present See Winer, p, 280.
The reader will notice that I render ek pisteos and dia tes
pisteos exactly alike, namely, by belief. Between the two expres
sions I can discover no difference. If there be any, it amounts to
about this, that in ek pisteos the justification is conceived as
arising out of the belief as source; whereas, in dia tes pisteos it
is conceived as realized through the belief as means. But even

126 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 3, v. 31.
this difference is ideal rather than actual. The article before the
latter pisteos merely Identifies It with the former. The two ex
pressions, therefore, should be translated in the same words. In
speaking of them Winer says: "Paul certainly does not have in
view a difference of meaning between them." When we trans
late, God will justify the' Jews by belief and the Gentiles through
beUef, we bewilder, not enlighten.
31, Do we then render law of no effect by belief? Not
at all ; If justification by law be impossible; and if it is attaina
ble only through belief, then by operation of belief is not law
rendered useless? The Apostle conceived that the question
might occur to some, and he therefore raises it himself, for the pur
pose of answering it. But the question is really a nonsequitur.
Law may be wholly useless for one purpose, and yet indispensa
ble for others. This is the error in the question. Law is of no
service as a means of justification; yet it answers countless other
important ends. Hence the proper answer is the strong nega
tive we have.
but we establish law. Not, we establish law by belief; for
this is not the meaning. We do not render law useless by
belief— this Is all. We establish law — Who? I Paul. How?
By my teaching and practice. I teach all men to do what is
right and not to do what is wrong. This is the purpose of law.
I thus act myself. I therefore indorse and confirm law; I show
it to be both necessary and right. Only in the matter of justifi
cation do I teach that law avails nothing, not because of any
defect in law, but simply because it is never kept

Chap. 4, v, i.]

ROMANS.

127

CHAPTER IV,
SECTION I,

What now shall we say that Abra
ham oiu- father obtained according to
the flesh? 'For had Abraham been
justified by deeds, he has ground for
boasting, ' But he has none before
God. For what sajrs the scripture?
Abraham believed God, and it ¦was
counted to him for justification. ¦•
Now to him who works, the wages is
not counted as a favor, but as a debt.
' But to him who works not, but
believes on him who justifies the
wicked — his belief is counted for jus
tification. ' Even as David also
speaks of the man's blessedness to
whom God counts justification with
out deeds : ' Blest are they whose
iniquities are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered ; ° blest is the man
to whom the Lord will not count sin.

Tl OVK ipovpev evprfxevai ^A^paan rd"
narepa fjpSiv Kard aapxa; 'Et ydp
'A/3paaju ii epyav iSixataBrj, ixei xau-
XV/ta. AXX' oi Trpoy ©fOK. ' Tt ydp fj
ypa(f>fi Xe'yei; ' Ejriorevo-* Se ' A^padp
r(p Qe^, xai iXoryiaBi] airra els Sixai-
ooiivriv. * T<o Sc ipya^opevcf 6 piaBds
oil Xoyl^erai xard x^P'" dXXd xard oipei-
Xripa' * Tia Se pfj ipya^opeva, niartv-
ovn Se ini rdv Sixaiovvra rov dae^fj,
Xoyi^erat fj nla-ris airrov els Sixaioavvrjv.
' KaBdnep xai Aavid Xe'y« rov paxapia-
pdv TOV dvOpanov a 6 Qeos Xoyi^erai
Sixaioavvr]v X'^pl^ epyav Maxdpioi hv
dipeBriaav al dvopiat xai i>v inexdXv^-
Brjaav ai dpapriai* ^ paxdpios dvfip ^
oil p^ Xoyiarirai Kvpios dpapriav.

SUMMARY.
Abraham was not justified by deeds. If so, he had ground to boast that
he merited justification. On the contrary, his belief was counted to him for
justification. Justification by deeds is like a debt; but justification by belief
is matter of favor. David describes justification to be the same as foraying
sins. The Apostie had just said, "We conclude that man is justified
by belief, without deeds of law"; and by this he means, We
hold it to be true in aU ages, both before the law and since; we
hold it to be true in all cases, in that of the Jew, and that of the
Gentile; In a word, we hold it to be universally true. Are we
right in this? Let us proceed to put the question to the test In
order to do this, we will take the case of Abraham. How was
he justified? If by works, then you Jews are right, and I am
wrong; but if by belief, then I am right and you are wrong.
Thus the issue is formed.
What now shall we say that Abraham our father ob
tained It Is better to render heurekenai, obtained than found.
True, the latter is more literal, but the former gives the better
sense, Abraham was justified. This is conceded. How did he
obtain it? — ^by works, or by belief? Not, how did he find it?

128 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 4, v. i, 3.
However, either sense is correct, only I think that given by
obtained, preferable. Justification is something sought and
obtained, rather than something sought and found. Again: it is
sufficient to render the Perfect as a simple Aorist. Nothing is
gained by saying has obtained.
according to the flesh? The phrase kata sarka places
Abraham before us simply as a man; and it is almost synonymous
with deeds, in the sense of perfect obedience. What shall we
say that Abraham obtained kata sarka? Did he obtain justifica
tion in that way? If so, then he obtained It by deeds; but If by
belief, then it was not kata sarka. This is farther evinced by
the implied answer, thus: Question — What shall we say that
Abraham obtained kata sarka? Answer — He did not obtain
ustification. The reason Is now assigned.
2, For had Abraham been justified by deeds, he has
ground for boasting. Had Abraham's obedience to God been
perfect, he ¦would have been justified by it. In that event, he
could have boasted that justification, in his case, was no matter
of favor; that it wa^s due to him as a debt, and therefore his right.
This the Apostle concedes. But no Jew even claimed for
Abraham perfect obedience; hence he could not claim for him
justification by deeds.
Edikaiothe is Indie. Aorist, introduced by the conditional ei.
But as the condition is known to be contrary to the fact, the verb
should be rendered as above.
3. But he has none before God, The usual rendering and
pointing of this clause. In connection with the preceding one, are
utterly faulty. They are with slight variations, as follows: For
had Abraham been justified by deeds he has ground for boasting,
but not before God. This is the very opposite of what the
Apostle meant to say. His meaning is. Had Abraham been
justified by deeds he has ground of boasting before God; but,
as the case is, he has none. But by the common rendering he
is made to say: Had Abraham been justified by deeds, he has
ground of* boasting, but no ground before God, ¦which is suicidal.
But supply he has from the preceding clause, this being clearly
required by alia which so often implies something suppressed,
and the sense becomes clear and fine, as Is seen in the transla
tion. Indeed, we then have a conditional syllogism, with
conclusion suppressed; in which, from the denial of the conse
quent, the denial of the antecedent follows, thus: If Abraham

Chap, 4, v. 3. J ROMANS. 129
had been justified by deeds, he has ground for boasting: But he
has no ground before God; therefore he was not justified by
deeds. For what says the scripture ? The question has immediate
reference to the preceding clause, and is adduced to confirm it
Abraham has no ground for boasting. As proof, what says the
scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for
justification. The reference is to Gen. xv: 6. Abraham be
lieved God, believed not only in him, but all he said; beUeved in
him iu the ordinary, but full import ofthe word; believed all the
difficult things he spoke. It is not necessary to assume that
Abraham's belief extended to the details of what God said, and
comprehended them all. There was uotiiing miraculous in his
belief. It was belief in the sense in which we believe, the only
dift'erence being in the things believed.
But what, precisely, was the thing counted to Abraham? It
was not the righteousness of God, nor the righteousness of
Christ. This much is certain. Indeed, the position that Christ's
righteousness, whether the attribute or the righteousness of
perfect obedience, is ever imputed to human beings, is without
even the semblance of countenance from the Bible. It is mat
ter of astonishment that it should ever have been held; and
matter of still greater astonishment that any one should now
hold it. Nor was it the naked act of believing that was counted
to A^bi-aham. To suppose this is altogether too contracted. It
was the substantive thing belief that was counted, but tiiie
in so far only, as it contained the whole future obedience of
the man. As a mere abstract or psychological state, Abra
ham's belief was useless and not counted. The seed we are
(bout to plant is valuable, so far only as it contains in itself the
germ of a future crop. So with Abraham's belief. It contained
in it, in germinal form, the future life of the man. As thus con
taining, it was counted to him, not otherwise.
To count a tiling to a person is to set it down to his advantage;
to so value and use it, in reckoning, as to cause it to inure to his
future benefit.
Abraham's belief was counted to him eis dikaiosunen. What
does this mean? First: It does not mean to count dikaiosunen
instead of something else. The expression will not admit of tiiis
interpretation. Second: Nor does it signifv to count dikaiosM-
8

130 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. 3.
nen as equivalent to, or as having equal value with, something
else. But it means to count dikaiosunen as one thing — the con
sideration of value or equivalence being excluded — in order to
obtain another. This is its meaning. The use of eis, in this
sense, or as performing this function, is so well known, and so
common In the New Testament, that I shall not stop to adduce
examples of it. Moreover, be it noticed, that the thing counted
to Abraham was his own, not another's. Dikaiosune. means
acquittal from sin, with subsequent recognition and treatment as
just. Now Abraham's belief was counted to him eis — in order to,
dikaiosunen — in order to his acquittal from sin, or that, by means
of his belief, he might obtain justification. It was, in a word,
the condition of his release or pardon, just as it is the condition
of ours. Such is the meaning of the expression.
But farther: As the ground, on which alone our belief can
become a condition of pardon, is the now actually atoning sacri
fice bf Christ; as, in other words, this is the ground which
enables God to recognize our belief as a condition, and to be just
while forgiving us; so also was it in the case of Abraham. That
sacrifice, long before ordained of God, and then, though not
offered, considered by him as offered, was the ground on which
Abraham's belief became erected into a condition of remission.
By its operation alone then, as now, was God enabled to be just
while acquitting Abraham. Should any urge this distinction:
That we believe in Christ, while Abraham believed in God only,
I ask. Where was the Logos then? John says: "In the begin
ning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos
was God." Was the belief of Abraham, then, in the one, in fact,
and by necessary implication, belief also in the other? It is ex
citing to think so.
But here it Is proper to notice, briefly, the apparent discrepancy
between Paul and James on justification; and I use the word
apparent, significantly. Do the apostles contradict each other?
Emphatically not. How then can they be shown to teach the
same thing? I examine first the fuller statement of James,
which, closely rendered, is as follows:
" But are you willing to know, O vain man, that belief without
deeds is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by deeds
when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? You see that be
lief worked with his deeds, and by deeds his belief was perfect
ed ; and the scripture was fulfilled which says : But Ab'aham

Chap, 4, v. 3.] ROMANS.

131

aelieved God and It was counted to him for justification ; and he
was called the friend of God. You see that by deeds man is
ustified, and not by belief only." Jas. 11:20-24.
A few things may here be taken for granted, while a few dis
tinctions should be kept in view: i. The deeds of James are
deeds of a believer, and are acts of obedience to the divine will.
a. They do not amount to perfect obedience or embrace the
whole of human duty, but only a part of it 3. James concedes
that man is justified by beUef, and denies merely that he is justi
fied by beUef only; that is, by beUef to the exclusion of the acts
of obedience included in it, as joint conditions with it, of justifi
cation. 4. James, no more than Paul, teaches that man is justi
fied by deeds in the sense of perfect obedience. 5. The deeds of
James are not acts of merit, but simply conditions of justification.
AU these points may be safely conceded, indeed I believe they
must be.
Now from the statement of James, In connection with the pre
ceding, the following corollaries result : i. That justification by
belief only, as excluding other joint conditions with it of justifi
cation, contradicts the word of God. 2. That James, by inspi
ration, has bound up together belief and certain acts not sepa
rately named by him, as joint conditions of justification. These
acts, therefore, can never be sundered from belief, nor be denied
to be conditions of justification.
From all of which it follows, that when Paul says, we are jus
tified by beUef, inasmuch as he does not say by belief onlj', there
by excluding other conditions, he must be construed as meaning,
w^e are justified by belief as including these conditions. Thus
there is not even the remotest contrariety between the two
apostles. The one expressly binds together belief and certain
unnamed acts as conditions with it, of justification ; and as the
other does not, in any way, exclude these acts, he must be
understood as implying them.
Should it be alleged that James speaks of the justification of a
person already accepted of God, as is a christian, while Paul
speaks of that primary justification which occurs at the instant
when we become christians, I reply, that the allegation is gratu
itous and unwarranted by the scripture. I reply farther, that the
principle of justification Is the same, whether the justification be
that of the saint or the sinner. In both cases, it is by belief with
other acts ; and in neither case by belief without those acts.

132 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 4, v. 4, 5.
4. Now to him who works, the wages is not counted as
a favor, but as a debt. An illustration taken from common
life, and couching in few words the whole theory of justification
by works. When a man hires out to labor, and has done his
work, his wages Is not looked at in the light of a favor, and
handed to him as such ; but in the light of a debt owed him, and
to be paid him as his due. To ergazomeno — to him who works;
i. e^ who performs erga nomou, every duty required by the law.
Ergazomeno is of the same import as ho poion ta erga, he who does
all the deeds ihe law commands. But what is the application of
the illustration? It is both special and general. First, it is spe
cial to Abraham. Abraham's justification was not counted to
him as a debt ; for his obedience was not perfect. On the con
trary, it was counted to him as a favor, which is decisive against"
its being of works. Second, the application is general. Who
ever keeps the whole law deserves or merits his justification, just
as the laborer merits his wages, when he has ended his work.
But since there is no one who keeps the whole law, there is,
therefore, no such justification. Justification is in all instances
matter of favor, which is proof that it Is never of works.
5. But to him who works not, Or to him who keeps not
the whole law, or does not his whole duty. And since this is
true of all, the inference presently to be dra^wn is applicable to
all, applicable to Abraham, applicable to us.
but believes on him who justifies the wicked — The
wicked here is a believer ; for God never justifies the unbeliever.
Moreover, although a believer, he is still unjustified ; for if justi
fied, he could not be called ¦wicked. Now these facts almost,
perhaps quite, imply a definition of justification. The man is a
beUever, but still wicked or unforgiven ; and God proceeds to
justify him. What does he do ? Clearly he forgives the man,
and thereafter holds him and treats him as just This precisely
is justification. In its inception.it is remission; subsequentiy it
is recognition and treatment as just
But farther: It will be conceded that the wicked is not justified
in his impenitence ; nay, it will be denied that he can be justified
in it. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." "God
commandeth all men every where to repent." In disobedience
to these scriptures, justification Is impossible. Now since belief
is one thing, and repentance a different thing, each expressed
in its own word, and both commanded separately as distinct, but

Chap. 4, v. 5, 6.] ROMANS. 133
closely related acts, it follows that in repentance w^e have another
condition of justification besides belief. We have one of those
conditions which, under Christ, accompany belief, which work
together with it, and so enable it to reach Its end — the salvation
of the souL On this, the question would very naturally arise, are
even belief and repentance all the conditions of justification ?
They may be, they may not be. The question can be answered
only by determining the whole number of distinct acts which
Christ has ordained as conditions precedent to salvation, in the
sense of remission or justification. But for this determination
we are not yet ready.
his belief is counted for justification. His belief is count-
e I in order to his justification or that he may be justified. Stuart
tl inks that dikaiosune is not to be understood here in the sense
o'' justification. Amongst other remarks, he has this: "To say
t] at faiih was counted for justification, would make a tolerable
st nse ; but to say, it was counted as complete obedience would be
saying just what the Apostle means to say, viz.: that the believer
is gratuitously justified." Still Stuart admits that justification "is
the more common meaning of the word in this epistle."
First. I submit that to say, belief is counted for justification, is
quite as tolerable as to say, "faiih was counted as complete obe
dience", and far more so. Indeed, to say that "faith was counted
as complete obedience", is to say what simply never transpired,
and what never will. It is to say what is wholly groundless, and
therefore what is not tolerable in any sense.
Second. What is the subject which the Apostle has in hand?
Indisputably, it is justification. Accordingly, in v. 2, we have,
"had Abraham been justified by works"; and in v. 5, "who
justifies the wicked." Now I hold that in accordance with the
subject in hand, and these renderings, v. 3 should read, it was
counted to him for justification, and v. 6, his belief is counted for
justification. The translation of the verb determines what the
translation of its cognate noun should be. We translate the verb
justifies. Indisputably then we should translate the noun justifi
cation. How belief is counted, as well as on what condition, and
for what purpose, has already been explained, and consequently
need not be farther dwelt on here.
6. Even as David also speaks of the man's blessed
ness to whom God counts justification without deeds :
David, too. Is quoted to prove the proposition in hand, to-wit

134 COMMENTARY. Chap. 4, v. 7, 8.

that the sinner is justified by belief without deeds. The word
"deeds" here includes the sum of human duty; hence, "without
deeds" means without doing our whole duty. To count justifica
tion ¦without deeds to any one, is simply to justify him without
perfect obedience. As the person justified is confessedly a be
liever, there is, no doubt, in the phrase "count justification," an
ellipsis of the word belief, the full form being, to coiint belief for
justification. This is the usual and normal form. Belief is the
thing counted, justification is the end for which.
7. Blest are they whose iniquities are forgiven, This
passage is especially valuable as thro^wing ffdditlonal Ught on the
import of justification. The person to ¦whom God counts justi
fication without deeds is the person whose iniquities he forgives.
Of this a doubt can hardly exist Hence to count justification
without deeds is to forgive without perfect obedience. It is, in
other words, to release from sin on condition of belief, and then
to treat as just.
and whose sins are covered; The fact of the preceding
statement expressed in slightly different language. To "cover
sin" is the same as to "forgive iniquity."
8. blest is the man to whom the Lord will not count
sin. To count justification to one is the same as not to count
sin to him; and not to count sin is to release from it, or forgive it.
Here again the import of justification comes out It is equivalent
to not counting sin, or remitting it, with the implied consequence
of esteeming and treating as just. A formal definition of justi
fication could hardly be more satisfactory.
"We conclude that man is justified by belief without deeds of
law." This is the proposition. In proof, Abraham is first
brought forward who lived before the law. Was he justified by
deeds? He was not. On the contrary, his belief was counted to
him for justification. Justification to him, therefore, was matter
of favor and not of debt; It was a gratuity,and not the payment
of a due. David's testimony is next adduced, who lived under
the law, and spoke while It was still In force. How does he de
pose? Blessed is the man to whom God counts justification
without deeds. But who is this man? The man whose iniquities
are forgiven; he to whom the Lord does not count sin — he is the
man to whom justification Is counted. Therefore, both from the
caf.e of Abraham and from' the testimony of David, justification
is SAOwn to be by belief, as the condition of it, and not by a per
fect, lifp Defore the law, nor by perfect obedience under it

Chap. 4, v. 9.]

ROMANS.

'35

CHAPTER IV. SECTION 2.

'O paxapiapds ovv oJtos fTTi Trfjv
nepiropfjv, ^ /cal in\ njK aKpo^vtrreav;
\eyopev ydp Sri eXoyiaBl. '''^ 'Afipadp
1 mans eis Sixaioavvriv. *** Has ovv
ikcyiaBri; iv nepiropg ovn, ^ ev dxpo/Su-
ariif! ovx iv nepiropg, aXX' iv aKpo^va-
rif. ' Kat arjpeiov eXafie nepiTopfjs,
a(f>payXSa r^s Sixaioavvris rfjs niareas
r^s ev rg dxpo^vari^, els to eivai airrov
narepa ndvrav rdv niarevovrav Si aK-
po^varias, els ro Xoyio-d^vai Kai auToit
njK SiKaioirili/iji', "icai narepa nepiroprjs,
roXs oiix ix nepiroprjs povov, dXKd xai
ToXs aroixoiiai rois ixveat T^ff iv dxpo-
jSuoTi'a niareas rov narpos fjpav 'A^-
padp.

'Now is this blessedness for the
circumcision [only] ? or for the un
circumcision also ? For we say thai
to Abraham belief was counted for
justification. '" How then was it
counted to him? — while he was in
circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? —
not in circumcision, but in uncircum
cision. " And he received the mark
of circumcision, as a seal of the jus
tification of the belief which [he
had], in uncircumcision, that he
might be the father of ail who be
lieve, in uncircumcision, that to them
also justification may be counted ;
'^ and the father of circumcision, not
to those who are merely circumcised,
but to those who also walk in the
steps of the belief which our father
Abraham had, in uncircumcision.

SUMMARY.
The blessedness of justification by belief, alike for Jews and Gentiles.
Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. His circumcision a seal
of that fact. Hence justification does not depend on circumcision. Abra
ham is father to all who believe in an uncircumcised state; also to all the
circumcised who walk in his steps.

9. Now is this blessedness for the circumcision [only]?
or for the uncircumcision also? Here the Apostle gives an
other turn to his argument, and brings the Gentile fully into view.
He has been reasoning from the case of Abraham, the father of the
Jews, and from the testimony of David, one of them. The con
clusion is that belief without complete obedience is counted to a
man for justification; that to be justified is not to have sin counted
to us, which Is the same as being released from it; and that his
state, who is thus favored, is a peculiarly blessed one. But will
not this blessedness be limited to the descendants of Abraham
and kin of David? It wIU not This negative is the proposition
now to be made good.
The verb of the preceding clause has to be supplied, as none
is expressed. Several are allowable, as legeiai, piptai and so on;
but I do not see that any one of them is necessary. I think it
quite sufficient to supply the simple esti. This gives a consistent
and perfect sense. I also deem it better to render epi for in the

136 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. 9, 11,
sense oi for the sake of, a meaning which it has before the accu
sative. For we say that to Abraham belief was counted for
justification. The latter of the two preceding questions antici
pates, and takes for granted an affirmative reply. The present
clause is the confirmation of that reply. The whole may be thus
presented: Now is this blessedness for the circumcision only? or
for the uncircumcision also? For the uncircumcision also. For
we say that to Abraham, belief was counted for justification.
10. How then was it counted to him ? — while he was in
circumcision, or in uncircumcision? — That is, at what
period in his life was it counted to him, or what was then his
state? Was It after his circumcision, or before it?
not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. His beUef
was counted to him for justification before he was circumcised.
Consequently, the blessedness of justification is not Umited to
circumcision, but it extends to, and includes, the uncircumcision
also. It is for Gentiles no less than for Jews. Thus the reply is
established. II, And he received the mark of circumcision, The
genitive of periiotne Is merely definitive of semeion — he received
circumcision as a mark, or he received a mark which consisted
in his circumcision.
as a seal of the justification of the belief which [he had],
in uncircumcision. The preceding clause states a simple mat
ter of fact, to-wit, that Abraham received the mark of circum
cision. The present clause states one of the purposes w^hich that
mark answered. It sealed Abraham's justification. God placed
circumcision, as it were, upon his justification, as an authoritative
seal, thereby endorsing it to all future ages as his mode of
salvation. But I said one of the purposes which the mark
answered. The other purpose was, as a ratifying token of the
covenant which God made with Abraham at the time when he
appointed circumcision, "the justification of the belief" The
genitive pisteos is genitive of source, the meaning being, the
justification which is of belief or by it. Belief was counted to
Abrahain /or, or in order ^, justification; or justification was the
end looked to in the counting. The justification resulted from
the belief when counted, or came of it. It was hence the justifi
cation of beUef " Which he hacT^ — which refers to the belief that
Abraham had before his circumcision, and not to his justification.

Chap. 4, V. n.j ROMANS. 137

The clause [he had,] which I supply, is necessary to complete
the sense, as the reader can see at a glance.
How long Abraham had been justified, when he received the
mark of circumcision, can not confidently be said. It was cer
tainly more than thirteen years. He was circumcised in his
ninety-ninth year, at which time Ishmael was thirteen years old;
and he was justified before Ishmael's birth. This is quite suffi
cient for Paul's purpose. His object is to show that Abraham
was certainly justified before he was circumcised; and this, in
order to settle that the blessedness of justification Is not confined
to circumcision..
The critical reader will notice that I here, as previously, use
the word justification, and not righteousness. On this he may
dissent, and possibly deem me arbitrary. The former I should
regret, the latter I disavow. My strong conviction is, that I am
right; and this is my defence. But I can not here re-open again,
at length, the investigation of the word. I must refer the reader
to what is said on it in the comments on the first chapter, and
content myself with a few supplementary remarks.
Dikaiosune indisputably means either justification or righteous
ness. This is conceded. Which meaning has it here? To test,
I again cite as follows: Abraham believed God and It was counted
to him eis dikaiosunen. Shall we translate by justification or by
righteousness? If by righteousness, what is the meaning? This:
Belief was counted eis, instead of, or as the equivalent of, right
eousness, that is, instead of perfect obedience. This meaning of
eis is very rare; though it occurs in ch. ii, 26. But farther: Belief
is, on all hands, conceded to be a condition of justiifieation.
Whether it be the only condition, or merely one with others, is
not here in question. It is, at least, a condition. Justification is
dia pisteos — this is decisive as to belief being a condition. Now
let us repeat: BeUef, as a condition, was counted eis, instead of,
or as equivalent to, *a life of perfect obedience. This is wholly
inadmissible. For, if true, then belief ceases to be a condition of
justification. Indeed, in that case, belief ceases to be a condition
of any thing. It has lost its character as a condition. When one
thing takes the place of another, as its equivalent, the former is
..ot a condition of the latter. It is a substitute,, not a condition.
This is decisive against rendering dikaiosunen righteousness,
unless we are ready to abandon the conditional character of
belief

138 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. n.
But suppose we translate by justification. How stands the
matter then — better or worse? The reader can easily decide.
Belief is, by consent of all, a condition of justification. As such,
it may, within itself, have great value, or it may have none. • The
question is not before us. As to equivalence, nihil. Belief may
be equal, with God, to a whole life of perfect obedience, or it
may fall immeasurably short of it. It may have no value, save
as a naked continuous act or mental state. On this, we know
nothing, nor can we know any thing. But belief is a condition
precedent to justification, and necessary to it With this condi
tion Abraham complied, that is, he believed; and God, on the
basis of the ransom which is in Christ, counted his belief to him,.
not instead of, nor as equivalent to, a life of perfect obedience;
but that, by means of it, as a condition, he might attain to justifi
cation, or release from sin. In other words, he counted his
belief to him; and thereon, of his mercy, justified him. This
view alone strikes me as the true one. It is more simple than
any other known to me, is closer to the meaning of eis, and is in
stricter accordance with the true theory of conditions. As ap
pointments, conditions are not usually instead of, or equivalent to,
something else, but simply for, or in order to some end. I hence
still adhere to justification.
that he might be the father of all who believe, in un
circumcision. That is, the father of all believing Gentiles. Dia
here is dia conditionis; that is, it denotes the state in which a
person is when he acts, the state being viewed, at the same time,
as that through or by means of which the act takes place. Abra
ham believed and was justified previously to his circumcision. The
Gentiles also beUeved while in uncircumcision. Now Abraham
received circumcision, first, as a seal of that justification ; and,
secondly, that he might become the father of all believing Gentiles.
As much as to say, God proposed to Abraham, as a special
honor, to constitute him the head of all the saved by Christ, on
condition of his being circumcised; and he, in order to attain that
honor, consented, and received circumcision. By his circumcis
ion he became promoted to this special distinction, but in virtue
of his previous belief and justification.
that to them also justification may be counted; The
meaning is, That all who believe while in uncircumcision, do so,
in order that to them also justification may be counted; or still
more simply, they believe, in order that they may be justified.

Chap. 4, v. 12.J ROMANS. 139
The object or end for which they beUeve is justification — the
actual realization of it
12. and the father of circumcision, not to those who
are merely circumcised, Here the reference is to the Jews;
and the meaning is: Abraham received the mark of circumcis
ion, that he might be the father of circumcision, "not to those
who are merely circumcised," that is, circumcised and no more;
or who have nothing else to recommend them but their naked
circumcision. Abraham did not receive circumcision in order to
become the father of circumcision to such. To these he is father
kata sarka, according to the flesh, and not as a special honor.
To such he is no father in the sense In which he is father to
believers. but to those who also walk in the steps of the belief
which our father Abraham had, in uncircumcision. The
sense of this much disputed verse I take to be concisely this:
"And the father of circumcision", not to those of the Jews who
are merely circumcised, and no more; but to those of them who,
besides being circumcised, also walk in the steps of the belief
which Abraham had, in uncircumcision. This I strongly incline
to think the meaning.
But according to another view, the foUowing is the import:
"And the father of 'circumcision", not to those only who are cir
cumcised, but to those also who walk in the steps, &c. Here the
reference is both to Jews and Gentiles. But to this exegesis
there are two objections: i. It places only where it clearly should
not stand. 2. The Gentiles have just been mentioned; and the
very thing said of them which Is here said. Such a repetition
can not be admitted. These objections, therefore, strike me as
decisive against the present view.
On the other hand. It is objected to the rendering which I
adopt, that it converts tois in the phrase, alia kai tois, into a
solecism. But this I deny. On the contrary, I hold tois to be
normal and necessary. The first part of the verse is literally as
follows: and the father of circumcision to those not of circum
cision only, or not of it merely. The meaning here can not be
mistaken. Now recast, varying only very slightly, thus: and
the father of circumcision not to those merely circumcised. So
far, well.
But now comes the adversative clause, commencing with alia
kai tois. Alia here, as often, impUes a suppressed clause, and

I40 COMMENTARY. [Chap, 4, v.- 12.
this is the very circumstance which requires tois. All of which
may be exhibited thus: But to those, tois, who, besides being cir
cumcised (suppressed clause), also walk in the steps of Abra
ham's belief Now when the whole is drawn out, including this
clause, we have: "and the father of circumcision", not to those
who are merely circumcised, but to those, tois, who, besides being
circumcised, also walk in the steps of Abraham's belief Not
only does this give a perfect sense, but tois is shown to be no
solecism. Besides we have no repetition of any part of the sen
timent contained in the preceding verse.
Finally, the reader will notice that in translating the foregoing
clause I am a little freer than usual. The sense, however, I have
aimed to follow closely.
walk in the steps of the belief This language is metaphor
ical, and, if my conception of its import be correct, beautiful
First. It may signify to beUeve simply, as Abraham believed;
that is, to take him as an example, in the matter of belief, in all
particulars which enter into and constitute both the fact of belief '
and its circumstances. This we should certainly do, whether it
be the import of the language or not; and I deem it not its im
port Or, secondly, the Apostle may have conceived of belief as
personified, and as pursuing with never erring foot the leadings
of the divine will, whether that will pertain to the complex, and,
at times, almost crushing duties of this life, or to the subUme and
difficult visions of the future, which occasionally burst upon us
through the medium of revelation, as when Abraham "saw
Christ's day and rejoiced." This, I take it, suggests the meaning
of the language. Thus viewed, belief appears as a person march
ing grandly on, surely to an imperishable crown, because in
steady obedience to the voice of God, and we are "walking in its
steps." Many have, in time gone, thus "walked"; and it is grat
ifying to know that many are thus "walking" now. To all such
Abraham is "father." And who so worthy of this distinction as
that great man who never "staggered" at the promise of God,
but always "gave him glory," even when, at his command, the
blade of a fatal knife gleamed in an uplifted hand over the form
of his typical boy? Surely the age has never been when the
necessity rose higher than at this time, for children of God who
have the nerve to "walk in the steps of Abraham's belief" — a
time which, unless I misread its ominous signs, is destined to wit
ness the wrecking of the belief of many who for a time "ran well."

Chap. 4.]

ROMANS.

141

CHAPTER IV. SECTION 3,

" Now the promise, that he should
be the hen of the world, was not
made to Abraham, nor his offspring,
through law, but through justifica
tion by belief. " For if they of law
be heirs, belief is rendered of no
effect ; and the promise is a failure.
" For the law works wrath ; but where
no law is there is no transgression.
'^ Therefore, it is by beliet that it
may be by favor, that the promise
may be sure for all the offspring, —
not to him only, who is of the law,
but to him also who is of Abraham's
belief, who is the father of us all;
'' (as it is written : I have made you
a father of many nations), before
God in whom lie believed, (who
makes alive the dead, and calls things
not existing as existing), '*who,
against hope, believed in hope ; so
that he became the father of many
nations; according to the saying:
So shall your offspring be. '^ And
being not weak in belief, he did not
mind his own body, now dead, being
nearly a hundred years old, and the
deadness of Sarah's womb ; ^"and he
did not decide against God's prom
ise through unbelief. But he grew
strong by belief, (giving glory to
God), ''being also fully convinced
that what he had promised, he is able
also to do. " Therefore it was
counted to him for justification.

" Ou yap Sid vApov fj ina-yyeXia r^
^Afipadp Ij riS aneppan airrov, rd kXi;-
povdpov aiirdv elvai xdapov, dXXd Sid
SiKaioavvrjs niareas- '^ £( ydp 01 ix
vopov xXrjpovopoi, xexivarat fj niaris,
KCU Ka-r^pyrjTai fj ina-yyeXia. "'0 ydp
vopos opyfjv Karepyd^erai- oi Se ovx
ean vopos, ovSe napd^aats. " Aia
toCto ix niareas, lva Kard x^pi") ^'^ 1'°
elvai /3f/3atav -rfjv ina-yyeXiav navri r^
aneppan, oil ra ix tou vopov povov, aXXd
Kai Ta iK niareas ^A^padp, Ss ian
na-rfip ndvrav fjpav " xaBas yeypan-
rai, on narepa ttoXXSi' iBvav reBeixd
ae, KarevavTi oS iniarevae Qeov, toO
fmoTTOioOi/Toj TOUS vexpovs Kai xaXoivros
TO pfj ovra i>s ovra- " 6s nap' iXniSa
in'' el^niSi iniarevaev els to yeveaBai
avrdv narepa no70\.av iBvav, xard rd
elprjpevov, Oijras earai t5 aneppa aov
" Kai prj daBevfjaas rfj niarei, ov Kare-
vorjae rd eavroij aapa ^Srj vevexpapevov,
exarovTae-rrjs nov imdpxav, xai -rfjV ve-
xpaaiv rrjs pfjrpas Sdppas- ^'' els Se rfjv
ina-yyeXiav tov Qeoi} ov SieKpiBrj T3
dniaria. AXX' iveSwapaBrj rj niarei.
Soils SS^av ra Qea, ^^Kai nXrjpo^oprjBeis
Sti d inrj-yyeXrcu, Swards ian xcit noirj-
aai. '^ Aid iXoyiaBrj airr^ els Sixcu-
oavvrjv

SUMMARY.
God promised to Abraham and his ofl'spring that they should inherit the
world. But the promise was in virtue of justification by belief, and not in
virtue of law. If the inheritance depended on law, none could attain it.
Therefore it is by belief that all may attain it. The power and influence of
Abraham's belief shown.
Mentioning Abraham's circumcision, together with the object
for which he received it, namely, that he might be the father of
all beUevers, in all time, would very naturally suggest the curious
promise made to the patriarch on that occasion. Accordingly,
the Apostle proceeds to speak both of the promise and of that in
virtue of which it was made. In the preceding section it was
shown, in the case of Abraham too, that justification is inde-

142 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. 13, 14.
pendent of circumcision. In the present section, it will be farther
shown that the promise involving his highest distinction was
independent of law. Thus it will be shown to the Jew that, evei .
in Abraham's case, who was his model and his boast, neither cir
cumcision nor law availed any thing. The inference is easy —
neither can avail any thing now. To bring a Jew to this conclu
sion was the only effectual way to prepare him for Christ.
13. Now the promise that he should be the heir of the
world, "The promise" here alluded to is, no doubt, the one
recorded in Gen, xvll: 5; namely, "A father of many nations
have I made you." This becomes evident, provided the word
"nations" be taken, as it certainly must be, to signify the whole
number of Abraham's children by belief, his spiritual children,
who shall, at last, be gathered together out of the various nations
of the earth. The promise having reference to these nations is
the one which constituted him "heir of the world," — how, we
shall presently see.
The world. The word "world", kosmos, I construe as denot
ing simply the material earth, or globe,; nor do I see how it can
be made to bear any other meaning. But the word can not here
signify the world in its present form; for Abraham and his spir
itual seed have never inherited it in this form, neither will they.
It must, then, refer to the world in its future, renovated or glori
fied form — in its final form, when it becomes a "new earth".
In that form, indisputably, Abraham and his spiritual seed will
inherit the, world, but never in any other. The reference, there
fore, I conclude, is to the future earth. But on this, more
presently. was not made to Abraham, nor his offspring. The word
"offspring" need not, as some commentators think, be Umited to
Christ It certainly includes him, but it just as certainly does
not exclude others. It here clearly denotes the whole of Abra
ham's children by beUef This is made evident by v. 16.
through law, but through justification by belief. The
promise was not made through law; that is, it was not made
because of, or in consideration of law, but in consideration of
justification by belief Or, the promise was made through justi
fication by belief as the means of procuring it, and not through
law as that means.
14. For if they of law be heirs, belief is rendered of no
effect; and the promise is a failure. They of law are those

Cn.v.'. 4, V. 15, 16.J ROMANS, 143
who have law, and upon whom it is obligatory. If these only be
heirs of the world, and that, too, by operation of law, belief has
turned i>ut a fruitless thing. It has resulted in nothing, though
the grou.id on which the fulfilment of the promise was to be
realized. Besides, the promise itself is a failure, a failure because
belief has failed, in consideration of which it was made. If those
of law only, be heirs, of course it is law that invests with heir
ship, and not belief. But this was not the case with Abraham,
and therefore is not now the case.
15. Foi the law works wrath ; Or it inflicts punishment.
"The law" ineans any law, or all law. Law does not invest those
who are of it with the heirship of the world. This it would do
if it were perfectly kept, but this is never done. On the con
trary, it inflicts punishment on all, because all have broken it;
and when once it is broken, none can inherit by it
for where no law is there is no transgression. I under
stand the Apostle thus: But should any one insist that the law
does not punish him, because he has not broken it; and that
therefore he ib entitled to inherit by it, I reply, that he is mis
taken. For only where there is no law, is there no transgression.
But with those of law this, of course, can not be the case. They
not only have law, but have broken it, and therefore can not be
justified by it; and since they can not be justified by it, they can
not inherit by it
16. Therefore, it is by belief, that it may be by favor,
That is, the inheritance of the world is by beUef The promise,
in the first instance, was made through justification by beUef;
and now, in the second, the Inheritance is to be reaUzed by beUef
Neither is through law. For if the inheritance depended on law,
obviously no one could ever attain it, since all fail in obedience.
To depend on law is the same as depending on perfect obedi
ence. To be attainable, then, the inheritance must be a matter
of favor. In other words, it must be bestowed, like pardon, as a
gratuity, and not as a debt Accordingly, it is made dependent
on belief, as the condition of it Through law, it would be mat
ter of right, not of favor; through beUef, it is matter of favor,
not of right.
that the promise may be sure for all the offspring, —
May be sure to be fulfilled for the benefit of all, or be sure to be
kept for all. If the inheritance depended on law, it would be
sure to fail all; but as it is matter of favor, and dependent on

144 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. 16,
the condition of belief, all maj' attain it who will. It is sure for
all who desire it. In the expression, it is by belief, we must not
take belief by itself. The meaning is, it is by justification by
belief. not to him only, who is of the law, By this, clearly, the
Jew is meant; but whether he exclusively is referred to in the
preceding clauses, where nomas is without the article, may be
doubted. The inheritance is for the Jew, for him as a favor, and
by belief; but it is not for him only. It is for others as well.
but to him also who is of Abraham's belief, This means
the Gentile. To be of Abraham's belief Is to have the belief
which he had, and like him to be justified by it
God promised to Abraham and his spiritual children that they
should one day inherit the world. The condition, upon which
the inheritance Is to vest. Is justification by belief. Whatever is
thus inherited is matter of favor, not of debt. But by law the
inheritance is impossible. Herein, therefore, is shown the advan
tage of belief over law, which seems to be a special design of
the present section. Justification is by belief, not by law; the
inheritance of the justified is by belief, not by law. Surely, then,
in view of all this, the excellence of belief must be conceded.
But up to the present, as previously said, the justified have not
inherited the world. Nothing Is more certain than this. Nor is
there the slightest probability that, so long as they are in the flesh,
they ever will inherit it. At least, if any such probability exist,
it is not, at present, apparent. I must therefore conclude, as
already intimated, that the inheritance will consist of the glorious
future earth, the "new earth," which the saints are to inherit in
their spiritual bodies. I can feel satisfied with no other view of
the subject. True, Stuart thinks that such a view "impUes a
method of interpreting the Messianic prophecies that can not be
defended on the ground of rational exegesis." But then those
who have read Stuart touching the future home of man, and
the future condition of the earth, can well afford to distrust the
accuracy of any thing he says on the subject. His views appear
strangely unscriptural to me.
who is the father of us all ; The father of aU beUevers.
To all such he is father by special appointment; and they are
children to him by belief Or he is pisteuatic father to them,
and they are pisteuatic children to him. Were this word tolera
ble, it would convey the thought precisely. It is from pistejto, I

Chap. 4, v. 17.] ROMANS. 145
beUeve, and would be an acquisition. It is here used, however,
not for the purpose of suggesting its adoption, but simply to
convey the sense.
17. (as it is written: I have made you a father of
many nations). Or, I have constituted you, tetheika, a father
of a multitude of nations. Ab-ram, the patriarch's original name,
signifies great or exalted father; Ab-raham, his new name, father
of multitudes, ab meaning father, and raham, in Arabic, a vast
number or great multitude.
Abraham was father to two sets of children: to the Jews he
was father according to the flesh, and to them was given the
Uteral or earthly Canaan; to believers he is father by appoint
ment, and to them is to be given the world to come, or heavenly
Canaan. Paul is here referring particularly to believers.
before God, in whom he believed. By common consent,
a complicated and difficult passage. One cause of trouble is, that
while episteuse requires the dative; it here has the genitive. But
the circumstance is thus explained: Katenanti governs the
genitive, and is here followed by it. Theos is then put in the
genitive by attraction to correspond with it. True, the attrac
tion of the noun instead of the pronoun is rare, but even in the
N. T. we have several Instances of it. Again: the arrangement
of the words is peculiar, the noun and pronoun appearing to
exchange places. But this was most likely intentional, in order
to connect Theos the more closely with the following clauses.
The difficulty, however, is easily remedied, as is seen in the
translation. Both In arranging and rendering the words of the passage, I
foUo^w, as I deem, the safest expositors. The sense, as here
given, is clear, and probably true. I construe the passage as
expressive of a high honor, thus: Abraham is the father of us all,
is so before even God. He has this distinction by divine favor
and in divine estimation.
Winer proposes to explain the passage thus: katenanti Theou,
katenanti hou episteuse — father of us all before God, before whom
he believed. The sense is good, but there is no necessity for the
repetition of katenatiti. I prefer the arrangement of Bengel
and others, which I follow.
(who makes alive the dead. This and the following clause
are clearly of the nature of a»digression from the main course of
thought The present clause asserts a simple matter of fact, in
10

t46 COMMENTARY. Chap. 4, v. 17, 18,
language to be taken literally. It had, as I conjecture, this ori
gin: At the moment, Paul had in mind the decayed condition of
Abraham's body shortly before Isaac's birth, and remembered
how God had restored it to former vigor. It was virtually a case
of making the dead alive. From the body of Abraham the
Apostle at once passed to all the dead, as indicated in the clause.
The passage is hence, as I deem, to be construed as asserting one
fact while referring to another, or as asserting the resurrection of
the dead in the light of revitalizing the body of Abraham,
and calls things not existing as existing,) It is matter of
regret that it is not allowable to express, in a translation, the
abstract form of this pithy remark. It would be faultless to say:
calls the non-existing as existing. Ta me onia denotes realities,
but realities not yet in existence, not yet called out into being by
the creating, or reproducing power of God, Where such things,
whether races of men, or mere things, are to be brought into
being at some future time, God, in referring to them, speaks of
them hos onta, as though now actually existing. The reference
here, as in the former case, I imagine to be two fold: The dead
to us are me onta, not existing, not standing out, not visible. But
when God speaks of them, it is hos onta, as In being, because, to
him, not only are all actually in being, but he Intends to restore
them to Ufe. In like manner, when God said to Abraham, I have
made you a father of many nations, the nations were me onta,
not in being. But God spoke of them hos onta, as in being,
because he intended to bring them into being,
18, who, against hope, believed in hope; "Against hope"
might be thought to mean against, or in opposition to all reason-
He ground of hope. But this is not the sense. In Abraham's
case, at the time there was absolutely no natural ground of hope,
every vestige of such ground being absent. Instead, therefore,
of believing against, or contrary to all ground of hope, the very
thing he beUeved against was the utter want of it. There was
no ground of hope. This was the fact. Against this fact, or in
spite of it, Abraham believed. Believed in hope. To believe in
hope is to believe in'connection with it, or to have hope to accom
pany the belief. Abraham beUeved all God said, and hoped for
all he promised. Belief is the basis of hope; hence where there
is no belief, there is no hope.
so that he became the fathrt* of many nations ; Eis to
genesthai I take to be ecbatic, not telic. Abraham did not be-

Chap. 4, v. 18, 19.] ROMANS. ' 147
lieve with a view to, or for the purpose of, becoming the father
of many nations. At least, I think this improbable. On the
contrary, he believed simply; but he did it so grandly that, in
consideration of it, he was appointed to become the father of
many nations. Of course, when he was told that he should
thus become a great father, he believed it; but this was not
the motive for the belief, or the intention he had in the act He
believed, because it was due to God, and because he had the
heart, and with no eye to results. Not that there would have
been any thing wrong in Abraham's believing in order to such
an end; but I do not think this the meaning of the language.
Suppose no such end had been proposed, would Abraham not
still have believed? Or was it merely the promised result that
induced him to beUeve? I can not think so, and hence deem the
ecbatic sense the better,
according to the saying: So shall your offspring be.
He became the father of many nations agreeably to, or in con
formity with, the promise: So shall your descendants be. "So";
that Is, as the stars are for number, so shall your posterity be for
multitude. 19. And being not weak in belief, he did not mind
his own body now dead, being nearly a hundred years
old. He was not weak in the item of belief. Pisiei is the da
tive of sphere. His belief being strong, kept him strong; hence,
without it, he might have been weak. He did not mind his own
body now dead; or he did not regard it, or suffer it to infiuence
him. Dead, as applied to a living body, is a strong term; but it
precisely expresses the fact in the case. As to the power of re
production, and the word is used strictly of this, Abraham's body
was literally dead. This power was wholly extinct in it. What
ever his body was in other respects, in this, it was nenekrome-
non — Perfect participle, and meaning, it had before died, and still
remained dead.
In the expression, "did not mind", the weight of authority
seems to be against ou. Green omits it, and Alford brackets it;
although he thinks it essential to the sense. If the original of the
Letter in hand contained it, I can imagine no motive for omitting
it; but I can see one for interpolating It — the sense is not good
without jt If omitted at all, it must have been by accident As
its claim to genuineness is still in question, I shall retain it for
the sake of the better sense. This may turn out one of those

148 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. 19, 20.
cases in which inferior authority, with a good sense, should pre
vail over superior authority, with a bad or defective sense.
and the deadness of Sarah's womb; The case of Sarah
was that of a simple nekrosis; that of Abraham was one of nene-
kromenon. He had had the power of reproduction, and lost it;
she had never had it These were the adverse facts which,
through the power of belief, he refused to mind or be affected
by. God had said to him: So shall your posterity be; and
before this declaration, with Abraham, all obstacles of nature
gave way. Would it were so still.
20, and he did not decide against God's promise
through unbelief. Literally, he was not deciding against. I feel
satisfied that the usual renderings of this passage are incorrect.
The difficulty is with diekrithe which commentators render quite
differently. With ou Stuart, taking It in a Middle sense, trans
lates it did not doubt. But "did not doubt through unbelief," is
virtual tautology. It is nearly the same as, did not doubt through
doubting. Doubt and unbelief differ in degree, not in kind.
Green renders it "wavered not" ; Lange, Tholuck, Alford and
Hodge, "staggered nof; McKnight, "did not dispute"; Bengel,
"did not \stagger or\ doubt" ; Bloomfield, "did not hesitate or
doubf ; and so on.
Diakrino signifies to separate, discern, distinguish, decide,
criticise, judge, estimate — the dia serving merely to strengthen
the compound. It also means to contend, waver, stagger, doubt,
these latter being regarded as tropical rather than literal. Now I
see no reason for not taking the word In a primitive sense as
decide. Eis is then to be rendered against as indicating the
adverse direction of the mental act. When to this we add the
known circumstances of the case, decide seems to become a ne
cessity. God promised to Abraham a countless posterity. Bui
at the time, both his own body and that of Sarah were dead for
purposes of procreation. In the midst of these violently con
flicting facts, he had to make up his mind. He had to decide
whether to beUeve God against nature, or believe nature against
God, A decision was the very act called for. Again, whatever
act diekrithe denotes was the act which Abraham did not per
form through unbelief. To determine this, le* us suppose him
under the influence of unbeUef What act would his unbelief
certainly have induced? Clearly it would have Induced him to
decide against God's promise, and to reject it But he was ac-

Chap. 4, v. 20, 22.] ROMANS. 149
tuated by behef, and not by unbeUef What was the eflfect? He
decided for the promise. For these reasons I render diekrithe,
as in the translation.
But he grew strong by belief, (giving glory to God),
21, being also fully convinced that what he had promised,
he is able also to do. Alia is a bold adversative, almost always
signifying emphatically but. As, however, it is the neuter plural
of alios, it also sometimes means otherwise, other way, on the con
trary. In this sense It might be very appropriately taken here.
Still, as I see nothing to be gained by this, I shall retain its usual
rendering. Being fully convinced is the explanation of grew
strong by belief. If epeggeltai be construed as Middle, the read
ing is smoother, and the sense the same.
There was no unbeUef In Abraham; and consequently no
decision against the promise of God. On the contrary, he grew
strong through the power of his belief. At so great a hight
did it sustain him, that he honored God in all he did, especiaUy,
in being fully convinced that all he had promised, however im
probable, he would certainly do. To give glory to God is to
ascribe to him just what is due him, and to obey him in all he
says. 22. Therefore it was counted to him for justifica
tion. A conclusion deduced no less from the character of
Abraham's belief, than from the belief itself. So great was the
power of his belief over his mind, in shaping his conduct, that
it was counted. Had it been a naked act or mere mental state,
unaccompanied by any results glorifying God, it would not have
been counted. In that event, it would have been ignored. Be
lief, to be counted, must, as in the case of Abraham, be peculiarly
attended — it must have proper internal effects, and lead to proper
outward results. In itself, it must amount to a full conviction
that all God says is true, and that all he promises will be done.
It must then, first, strengthen the inner man of him who has it,
and lead him to disregard obstacles; and, secondly, it must
induce him to do whatever God commands. Belief is per
fected by its accompaniments; and when this is done, it is
counted, not before.

'5°

COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4, v. 23, 24.

CHAPTER IV. SECTION 4.

'¦" Now it was not written, that it
was counted to him, for his sake
alone, ''' but for our sake also, to
whom it is to be counted — to us who
believe on him who raised Jesus our
Lord from the dead, ^' who was
given up because of our sins, and
was raised for our justification.

" Oiie iypdcfiri Se St' auroi' pdvov Sri
iXoyiaBrj airra, ^* aXXd xcii St' fjpds, ots
peXXei Xoryi^eadair—roXs niarevovaiv ini
rov iyeipavra ^Irjirovv rov Kvpiov fipav
ix veKpav, '* 6s napeSoBrj Sia to napan'
rapara ^pav, xai rjyepBrj Sid -r^v Sixaia-
atv fjpav.

SUMMARY.
The fact that Abraham's belief was counted to him for justification, writ
ten for our sake as well as his. Whom we raust believe on, and what in.
Why Christ was given up to death, and the object for which he rose.
23. Now it was not written, that it was counted to
him, for his sake alone, On this concise statement commen
tators are accustomed to bestow hardly a thought Possibly it is
worthy of something more. It carries us back to the time when
it was indited, and to the vision and purpose of its author. It
was written for Abraham's sake, it is true, but not for his alone.
It was written for our benefit also. We who are of Abraham's
belief were before its author's mind at the instant when he
penned it. He looked through the centuries to come, and the
vision of the redeemed rose before him. Of purpose he wrote
for their sake. He had them in thought as his hand moved over
the parchment; and as he told how -belief was counted to Abra
ham, he saw how, in like manner, it would be counted even to
us. Truly is justification by belief attested by the prophets.
24, but for our sake also, to whom it is to be counted —
The Present tense is here used to express a general and constant
ly recurring fact But while a Present in form, it has in fact the
force of the Future; or rather the force of a Present continued
into the future. Our belief is not to be counted to us at some
period now distant, thereby implying that it is not at present
counted. It is both now counted and will continue to be so.
to us who believe on him who raised Jesus our Lord
from the dead, "Us who beUeve" are not us Jews as such,
nor yet us Gentiles as such, but every individual of the whole
human race in so far as they believe. It excludes not one
who is a beUever, nor Includes one who is not "Who believe on
him'" — But it Is not enough to believe on God simply. We must
believe on him as the Raiser of Jcsus from the dead. If not,

Chap. 4, v. 24, 25.] ROMANS. 151
our belief is void; it will not be counted. For this reason the
belief of the deist is a nullity. Of course to believe on God as
raising Christ from the dead is to believe on Christ as raised
from the dead. No belief will ever be counted which does not
embrace this fact. The reason for this is obvious. To reject Christ's
resurrection is to reject him; and to reject him is to reject the
sole basis of redemption. God could not be just In justifying him
who rejects Christ; for this would be the same as justifying
without Christ, which, in justice, can not be done.
25. who was given up because of our sins, Was
given up to be put to death. But who gave up Christ? Surely
the Father, with his consent True, men were the voluntary
agents; but far back of the sinful betrayal and crucifixion was the
original will of God moving to and permitting all. God sent his
Son into the world to die for it; and the Son came into the world
to die for it. After this, men did the rest.
There are two acceptations in which Christ was given up be
cause of our sins. i. Had our sins not existed he would not
have been given up. In this view, they caused him to be given
up or led to it 2. Our sins could not be remitted without the
ransom of his blood. Consequently remission of sins was the
motive which induced the giving up. It was the end effected
by it, and therefore the reason for It.
and was raised for our justification. No doubt many
reasons existed for Christ's resurrection, and many objects were
accomplished by it; but Paul is here viewing it with exclusive
reference to its great object. Christ was raised for our justifica
tion; that is, in order to complete provision for it, and effect it.
His blood had been shed. But that blood as yet remained unof-
fered. Christ rose from the dead to consummate this offering.
While on earth he was not a priest; indeed he could not be.
Therefore he left the earth, and went up on high. When he
appeared In heaven, the true holy place, it was as Highpriest for
the household of belief What he had to offer was his own in
effable life or precious blood. This offering he presented, and it
was accepted. The ransom for man was now paid; and the
atonement completed. It only remained for men to believe, and
have their belief counted to them. This done, and they were
ready to be invested with all the benefits of that ransom — remis
sion of sins, together with its attendant blessings.

152

COMMENTARY,

[Chap. 5.

CHAPTER V.
SECTION I.

Therefore being justified by belief,
we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ ; ^ through whom
also we have access into this favor
in which we stand; and [through
whom] we rejoice in hope of the glo
ry of God. ^ Not only so, but we
even glory in afflictions; knowing
that affliction produces patience ; ''
and patience, approval ; and appro
val, hope. 'And this hope makes
not ashamed ; because God's love is
poured out in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit that is given to us. " For
while we were still without strength,
Christ died, at the set time, for the
wicked. « ' (Now hardly for the just
will any one die ; yet for the good,
may be, some one might venture even
to die. * But God shows his love for
us in this, that while we were still
sinners, Christ died for us.) ' Much
more then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through him. '" For if, while we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God
by the death of his Son ; much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved
by his hfe. " And not only so, but
we also rejoice in God, through our
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
we have now received the reconcilia
tion.

AixauoBevres oSv ix niareas tlp^vi]v
exopev npds tok Qeov Sta roC xvpiov
fjpdv 'irjaov Xpiarov- '8t* o5 Kai r^K
npoaayayyfjv ia-xrjxapev els rfjV X^P^"
ravrrjv iv iJ earfjxapev xai xavxapeBa
in iXnlSi rrjs Sd^s ToC QeoO. ' Ou
povov Se, diX\d xai xavxapeBa iv reus
dXi-\freaiv, elSores oti ij SXX^|ns imopovfjv
xarepyd^erai, *^ Se vnopovrj Soxiprjv, fj
Se SoKiprj eXniSa. ''H Se iXnts oil
xaraiaxvvei, on fj dyd-mj rov Qeov €K-
xexvrai iv raXs xapSiais fjpdv Sia
nvevparos dyiov rov SoBevros ripXv.
°*ETt ydp XpiorAs Svrav fjpav daBevav
xard xaipdv vnep dae^av dneBave,
'(MdXts ydp vnep Sixaiov tis dnoBav
eXrar vnep ydp tou dyaBov rdxa ns
Kai roXp^ dnoBaveXv. ' Swionjo'i Se
-rfjV eavrov dydnrjv d Qeos els fjpds, oti
en dpapraXav ovrav fjpdv, 'Kpiarhs
vnep Tjpav dneBave.) 'lloXXm oZv pak-
Xov SixaiaBevres vvv iv ra axpari avrov
aaBijaopeBa St avrov and rrjs dpyrjs.
'° El ydp ixBpoi ovres KarrjXXd-yrjpev Ta
Qea Sia Toi3 Bavdrov rov viov airrov,
TToXXcS pdXXov KaraXXayevres aaBrjad-
peBa iv rrj ^aij avroH. " Ou povov Se,
dXXd Kai KavxdpevoL iv riG Qea Sia tov
Kvpiov fjpav 'lijaov Xpiorou, 8i' ot viv
rfiv KaraXXa-yfiv iXd^opev.

SUMMARY.
Being justified by belief, we have peace with God, Through Christ we
have access into our present state of favor; and through him, are filled with
hope. God's love poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us.
While we were helpless and wicked, Christ died for us. Be a man ever so
good no one will die for him; yet Christ died for us when we were sinners.
Hereby God showed his love for us. Since Christ died for us when sinners,
we may feel sure of being saved now that we are justified by his blood.
Reconciled to God by the death of Christ by whom we are to be saved.
Justification by belief has now been not only estabUshed, but
illustrated and amplified at length. This fact, the commencement
of the present chapter takes for granted. It is now, therefore, in
order to speak of some of the fruits of justification in the chris-

Chap. 5, v. i.] ROMANS. 153
tian life. But these fruits the Apostle desires to exhibit in imme
diate connection with the great fact from which they result
Accordingly, he here reiterates that fact in the form of the fol
lowing conclusion:
Therefore being justified by belief, The sense is the
bolder if oun is here allowed its proper illative force. True, the
conclusion it introduces is a repetition, but this does not affect
the sense of the particle.
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
On this clause arises a rather difficult question of textual criti
cism. Shall we read Ij^o/aci' in the Indicative, or ej(wpxv in the
Subjunctive? If the latter, the sense, is hortatory, thus: There
fore being justified by belief, let us have peace with God. This
reading has two points in its favor: i. The preponderance of
Manuscript authority; 2, It is the more difficult reading, In
which case the rule applies: Lectio difficilior principatum tenet —
the more difficult reading has the preference. Accordingly a
majority of the more recent critics adopt Ixw/xev, Alford adopts it
in his text and translates accordingly, but defends the Indicative
sense in his note. Green also adopts it, although in commenting
on it, in his Developed Criticism, he speaks with reserve. Indeed
he admits it to be a case in which "the testimony of Manuscripts
must be received with caution, If not with abatement." Riddle,
in Lange, in a critical note on the text, rejects it, though recog
nizing the force of the authority in its favor. Upon the whole,
although I acknowledge the claims, upon purely textual grounds,
of the Subjunctive reading, I still can not accept it My reasons
for this decision are two: i. the Subjunctive reading may have
resulted from transcription, as some of the best critics contend;
2. the Subjunctive sense appears to be incapable of defence.
This I conceive to be almost decisive. While in all cases due
regard must be had for high textual authority, still, that authority
is not competent to make an apostle speak either no sense, or a
bad sense. To say, "Therefore being justified by belief, let us
have peace with God", Is without consistent or natural signifi
cance. Peace is a fact which results from justification, not
something which the justified are merely exhorted to have, but
may not have. Again, had the reading been: "Therefore being
justified by belief, let us have peace with God, the sense would
have been tolerable at least, on the ground that let us have peace
meant let us be at peace with God; that Is, let us commit sin

154 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 1, 2.
no more, and thereby be at peace with him. But the reading is,
let us have peace through our Lord Jesus Christ. What can
this mean? To exhort the sinner to seek peace through Christ is
intelligible and altogether proper; but to exhort the justified, who
already have peace, to have it through Christ, is not admissible.
The justified have peace, as a fact, through Christ, not are simply
exhorted to have it
As to the deliberative sense, "shall we have peace", and the
concessive, "may we have peace!', propounded by some, I do not
think it necessary to do more than barely state them. Both
may be, with safety, set aside as untenable.
Finally, I feel compeUed, for the present, and till we get
something more decisive than we have now, to abide by the
Indicative reading. This is inferior to the Subjunctive on tex
tual grounds only, but immeasurably superior to it in sense.
Perhaps I should rather say, I prefer the text which yields a
good and suitable sense, to one which yields no sense, or a bad
one. we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
A state of sin is, on our part, a state of enmity towards God; the
enmity existing in us, not in him. Consequently its direction is
from us towards him, not from him towards us. But sin being
cancelled, the enmity ceases, and peace ensues. The peace, like
the enmity, is pros ton Theon, towards God; it is peace on our part
with him. This peace we have or enjoy through Christ; because
through him we obtain justification which induces it But it is
not peace in the sense of exemption from troubles of the world.
It is peace of conscience, peace of soul.
2. through whom also we have access into this favor in
which we stand; Charin here denotes a state, a state of favor,
the state of being justified, and accepted of God. Through Christ
we have justification, through him peace, and through him access
into a state of favor — what is it we have not through him?
Prosagoge, when used of persons, signifies approach to their
presence; when used of a state, as here, introduction into it
That this state of favor is identical with the church or kingdom
of God, hardly admits of doubt Assuming this, and the impor
tant inquiry arises, by what means have we access into this state?
Certainly it is through Christ, through whom primarily, as an
atoning sacrifice, the way of access has become possible, and by
whose appointment it is rendered practicable. But it is through

O'ftAi „ V. 2, 3.] ROMANS. 155
him in another sense. He is the prosagogeus who conducts the
introduction, or by whose authority and direction It takes place.
StiU the inquiry recurs, since the introduction is not uncondition
al, by what specific means or steps is it effected? This state of
favor and the state of justification are the same. Consequently
the conditions of the one are the conditions of the other. But we
are justified by beUef After what has now been said, this needs
no proof Belief then is at least one of the conditions of the
access. In agreement with this, we are said to believe eis into
Christ; and to be in Christ Is to be in this state of favor, or in the
kingdom. But we are also baptized eis Christon, into Christ.
Here then is another means by which we gain access Into "this
favor." Hence, probably, the remark of Alford: "This access
would normally take place in baptism." This remark he doubt
less made in view of the following: "Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of
God." To be in the kingdom is certainly to be In "this favor."
Hence the means of access Into that,is the means of access into
this. In view of these facts, Alford's remark would seem to fall
little, if any, short of the truth.
and [through v^hom] we rejoice in the hope of the glory
of God. The sense here can be fully expressed only by repeating
through whom from the foregoing clause. It is clearly under
stood; but it improves the perspicuity If expressed. Kauchometha
is precisely rendered by rejoice. This is chaste, and seems to me
better suited to the emotions of the Christian in prospect of the
future, than exult or glory. But in the following clause, I feel
sure the word should be differently rendered. "The glory of
God" signifies the honor and felicity of the future state, the dis
tinction and happiness with which he will Invest the redeemed
when they stand In his presence.
3. Not only so, but we even glory in afilictions; Here
Kauchometha is better rendered glory than rejoice. The feeling
to be expressed is one of exultation or triumph. The christian
rejoices In hope of future good; but he exults over present
afflictions. Thlipsesin has the article, and denotes the affiictlons
of life, all the afflictions that befall us. Under these the christian
must not sink, nor by them be broken; but over them all he must
triumph as victor — aU however through Christ.
knowing that affliction produces patience; Patience is
that iron trait of character which enables us to bear with calm

156 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 4, 5.
constancy all the ills of life. Afflictions, if wisely used, and this
is here assumed, have the effect to form this trait. They fortify
the temper and will against a day of need, and so .secure us
against a diminution of peace and joy. When we remember
how constantly these afflictions recur, the necessity for patience
becomes apparent. They are the crucible of fortitude; this, the
pledge of victory.
4, and patience, approval; Approval from God, and from
ourselves. Dokime, as applied to the christian life, denotes that it
has been put to the test by affliction, has successfully endured the
ordeal, and now stands purified and approved.
and approval, hope. When we have patiently and triumph
antly endured affliction, have emerged from the trial approved,
well may we indulge the hope of final acceptance. Our achieve
ments now virtually guarantee the end.
5. And this hope makes not ashamed; This serves here
the same purpose that the article does in the Greek; and it is
used, not as a translation, but because It gives a better sentence.
In Kataischunei we have clearly a Present used for a Future, or
rather the future spoken of in a Present. The meaning is, that
this hope will not, In the end, cause us shame by disappointing
us. We will surely realize what we hope for, and therefore will
never have reason to feel ashamed that we hoped. Makes not
ashamed. Makes whom not ashamed? Clearly us who have it
But to say that this hope makes not ashamed is the same as to
say we are not ashamed of it. We are not now ashamed of our
hope, nor shall we ever be,
because God's love is poured out in our hearts by the
Holy Spirit God's love is not particularly the love we have for
him, nor particularly the love he has for us. Agape denotes sim
ply love. But the special measure of it here spoken of is from
him as source, and is therefore called his. This love is not diffus
ed through our hearts, as some have held, but is poured out in
them — not into them, but in them. It is from God as fountain,
and Is poured out in us by the Holy Spirit as agent.
that is given to us. To us Jews, to us Gentiles, to aU who
are justified. The Holy Spirit is given to us by being sent into
our hearts to dwell there. This is the fact asserted by the Apos
tle; and no false exegesis must be allowed to negative it. Inex
plicable it Is, I grant; but it must not therefore be rejecreu. The
argument on hope, then, stands thus: The Holy Spirit is given

Chap, 5, v. 6, 7.] ROMANS. 157
to us as an earnest of our future inheritance. Eph. i: 14, 15. By
this Spirit our hearts are filled with love. In these facts we have
both proof and pledge that God will invest us with what we hope
for. This hope then will not disappoint us. Therefore it neither
now makes us ashamed, nor will it hereafter.
6. For while we were still without strength, Christ
died, at the set time, for the wicked. " Without strength" —
asthenon, helpless and powerless to save ourselves. "At, the set
time''' — kata kairon, at the exact time fixed by the Father, and
therefore precisely when it would do the world the largest meas
ure of good. Whatever happens to an age by appointment of
God, is best not only for it, but also for all other ages. It was
best for us, of to-day, that Christ should have died when he did.
"Died for the wicked" — huper, died for their benefit, not in their
stead. The latter idea, it is ti'ue, is involved in the conception of
the atonement; but it Is not expressed here. In the phrase, for
while we were still without strength, we comprehends the whole
human race as unjustified. Likewise, in the expression, died for
the wicked, the wicked comprehends the whole race as sinners.
Hence the w'e and the wicked are identical. The meaning there
fore is: For while we were without strength, Christ died, at the
set time, for us, the wicked. We, the destitute of strength, were
the wicked for whom he died.
But what is the force oi gar? It is confirmati^ve; the clause
it introduces being designed to confirm the remark, "this hope
makes not ashamed." The following is the connection: If while
we were still sinners Christ died for us, died to procure for us,
among other things, a glorious future inheritance, how much
more wifl he, now that we are redeemed by his blood, and justi
fied by belief in him, invest us with that inheritance? Though,
for the present, it is but an object of hope, we shall certainly
reaUze it at last. He who has done for us the great thing, will
surely do for us the less. Therefore our hope will never put us
to shame.
7. (Now hardly for the just will any one die; yet for
the good, may be, some one might venture even to die.
An illustration drawn from the known conduct of men, and
intended to set forth, in a bold Ught, God's love for the world, in
contrast with our love for one another. Among the whole
human race not one man can be found who is ready to die for
the wicked; hardly one is ready to die for the just. Yet Christ

IS8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 7, 8.
died for the unjust. Not only so. It is barely possible to find a
man who is bold enough to die for the good. But Christ died
for the bad. For this very purpose God sent him into the world.
Truly then does his death prove the Father's love.
It is here assumed that some one might be found to die for the
good when he would not for the just. The good, in other words,
is held to have the stronger claim on human gratitude. From
this It has been Inferred that the good man, besides being just, is
also beneficent; and that it is this fact which gives him the
stronger claim. Possibly the view is correct.
On the passage Green has the following admirable note, which
I transcribe: The several steps of the advancing argument, when restored to tbeir for
mal order, would stand as follows : — In behalf of the good man, at his
highest standard, may be (rdxa), one will be found that has the heart to
die ;- hardly then in behalf of a barely upright man will one die ; hard
therefore must be the sacrifice in dying for those that had not reached even
the lower of the before mentioned conditions, but were still sinners.
The critical reader will notice that we have here three gars
close together. Most likely they all have the same meaning; but
to represent them all by the same word in English is not allowa
ble, thus: For while we were still without strength Christ died,
at the set time, for the wicked. For hardly for the just will any
one die; for for the good, may be, some one might venture even
to die. This clearly is inadmissible. Or shguld we attempt a
remedy by varying the rendering of huper, since it, too, occurs
three times, we encounter the same difficulty. As to the sense
of the passage there is no trouble. That is clear. Accordingly I
deem it best to express this simply, in close English, without
attempting to render ad verbum as to gar. A different course
seems impracticable.
8. But God shows Ms love for us in this, that while we
were still sinners Christ died for us.) The emphasis is here
on his. If the hoti in this verse be construed as causal, as it
usually is, the reasoning becomes Inconsequential, thus: But God
shows his love for us, because while we were still sinners Christ
died for us. Because is here devoid of meaning,, and the two
clauses between which It stands are without connection or de
pendence. Christ's dying for us is neither cause nor reason why
God shows his love. On the contrary, it is the fact by which he
shows it. Hence the hoti, with the following words, is the
"sign", as Trollope calls it, and "not the cause" of God's showing

Chap. 5, v. 9, 10.] ROMANS. 159
his love. It subjoins the how, or fact in which, and must be ren
dered accordingly.
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him. An argument
from the fact of Christ's death to the certainty of its results. If
he died to redeem us while we were still sinners, much more will
he save us from punishment for sin, now that we have been for
given. "Justified by his blood" — ^by it both as cause and means.
The blood of Christ is the great antecedent reason which enables
God to be just while justifying the unjust. In other words, it
procures justification. Belief is a mere condition, not a cause or
reason. But "justified by his blood" subserves here another val
uable end. It determines the import of the word justified; for
being justified by his blood is the same as being forgiven by it.
Moreover, the import of the verb settles the meaning of the
noun. For if being justified by his blood means being forgiven,
then clearly justification means forgiveness. Remission is the
radical fact in justification, the consequent to, it being recognition
and treatment as just.
10. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled
to God by the death of his Son; Enemies, that is, to God, the
fact being evinced, negatively, by our disinclination to do his will,
and, positively, by our evil inclinations and sins. "We were
reconciled to God": The whole doctrine of reconciliation, as in
operation, is here stated In one brief sentence. We are reconciled
to God, not God to us. Reconciliation implies a change, a change
from enmity to love, and from disobedience to obedience. But
this change takes place wholly in us, and in no part in God.
God is unchangeable; with him there is not even the semblance of
turning. Even his wrath is not a fitful emotion, often subsiding,
as with us; but a profound, steady sense of right, which has no
alternative but to punish sin. On the contrary, though God was
bound not to acquit the guilty; he, at the same time, so loved the
world as to give his Son to die for it In that death, we have the
most astounding proof of God's love for us. On our part, we
accept this proof as satisfactory, and in return love God. "We
love him because he first loved us".
Every effort to make it appear that in reconciliation there is a
mutual change, a change in God from enmity to love, as well as
in us, but dishonors him, as it seems to me, and perverts his
truth. The view is not required either by the character of God

i6o COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. lo, ii.
or any known fact in the life or deatii of Christ. It is gratuitous,
and injurious, and therefore should be abandoned.
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his
life. Or we shaU be saved by him alive. In his Ufe-state, or
living state, subsequently to his death, Christ consummates all the
provisions of salvation, and in person superintends the work. In
this way he brings it to a successful end, and so saves us by his
life, or by being alive. There is no other way apparent in which
Christ's life can have the effect to save us.
II. And not only so, but we also rejoice in God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ, We not only glory in afflictions, v. 3;
but we also rejoice in God. Such I take to be the reference and
connection. Some construe thus: Not only are we reconciled to
God, but we also rejoice in him. The sense is good; but it fails
to indicate the connection. The preceding is the more natural.
To rejoice in God is to rejoice in him as our Father, as having
forgiven our sins, and filled us with hope of eternal life. It is to
rejoice in the subllmest of beings, for the sublimest of reasons,
and in view of the sublimest of ends.
through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Here, for the first time, In the New Testament, we have the
word Katallage, translated In our common version atonement.
The verb occurs in the preceding verse, but not the noun tUl
now. As I have already expressed my views on the import of
the word, as well as on the value and significance of the great
fact for which it stands, I shall not reiterate. Still, a few addi
tional remarks may not be out of place.
To receive the reconciliation is to receive that which effects it
We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Hence to
receive the reconciliation is to receive Christ's death; and to re
ceive his death Is to beUeve in it and accept it as an atoning
sacrifice for our sins. It is not enough to believe that Christ died;
we must believe that he died as a sin-offering for us, as the Lamb
of God that takes away our sin. To accept in soul this great
fact is to receive the reconciliation; the practical effect of which
is to become reconciled. So soon as we accept the fact in the
cordial belief of it, and obey Christ, our sins are remitted — re
mitted by God, of favor, through Christ's blood as the meritorious
reason, arid on condition of belief and obedience. The Holy
Spirit is then given to us, or takes up his abode in us, as the earn
est of our future inheritance. Nothing now remains but to

Chap. 5, v. II.] ROMANS. i6i
perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord, or to work out our
salvation with fear and trembling.
On some accounts, it is to be regretted that the word atonement
ever found a place in our common version. With its cognates
it is thus defined by Richardson: "To be, oi cause to be, at one.
To be in unity or concord, in friendship or amity: to return or
restore to favor; to reconcile, to satisfy, to propitiate". As a
definition, this is exhaustive. But religious speculators were not
long in losing sight of the true meaning of the word, which was
good and pertinent; and so, in the course of time, it became the
mere canonized designation of a certain theory of the value and
effects of Christ's death. It is now known almost exclusively in
this sense, and not In its original and proper meaning. At first
it meant, if not precisely what reconciliation means, onl}' a little
more, namely, return to amity or good feeling. But on hearing
it pronounced in this day we never receive such an idea from it.
The word has, I believe, one advantage over reconciliation. It
involves the notion of repairing the injury done to God by sin,
not wholly. It may be, but still of repairing it. This notion re
conciliation may, at bottom, imply, but it does not express it It is
matter of regret that atonement can not be restored to its strictly
original meaning; but till this is done, which is not probable, it
should be displaced by reconciliation.
And here I wish to remark, in a general way, on the subject
of the atonement or reconciliation, that efforts, no matter from
whom coming or how well meant, to lower the value of Christ's
blood or depreciate its efficacy in redemption, are most injurious
in their effects on the popular faith, and are, therefore, to be
deeply deprecated. It Is impossible, in my opinion, to exalt
Christ too highly, so long as we do not place him above the
Father, or to set too high an estimate on the exceUence of
that glorious life which was appointed to be the ransom of the
human family, and which was actually paid for this end. That
we may err while speculating on a subject confessedly so difficult
is readily granted; but if we must err at aU, for the sake of the
Master, I plead that it be done in efforts to place him high in
the world's esteem, and to do justice to that "precious blood" by
which we have been redeemed. Let the scale over which Christ
passes into our affections be an ascending, not a descending one.
There is no danger that we shafl ever do him or his achieve
ments justice "over much."
II

l62

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 5, v. 12.

chapter v. section 2.

" Therefore, as by one man sin en
tered into the world, and death by
sin ; and thus it spread to all men,
because all sinned. " For until the
law sin was in the world ; but sin is
not counted when there is no law.
'* Yet death reigned from Adam to
Moses, even over those that had not
sinned in the Ukeness of Adam's
transgression, who is the type of him
that was to come. " But not as was
the sin, so also is the gift. For if by
the sin of the one, the many died ;
much more have the favor of God
and the gift by favor of the one man,
Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.
" And not as was the sentence which
was by the one that sinned, so is the
gift. For the sentence was because
of one sin to condemnation ; but the
gift is to justification from many sins.
" For if by one sin death has reigned
through the one man; much more
are they, who receive the abundant
favor, and the gift of justification, to
reign in life through the one, Jesus
Christ. "Therefore, then, as by one
sin sentence came upon all men to
condemnation ; so also by one right
eous act the gift came upon all men
to justification of life. " For as by
the disobedience of the one man, the
many were constituted sinners ; so
also by the obedience of the one, the
many are to be constituted just.

"Ati TOUTO &anep 8i' evbs avBp&ntmi
fj Apapria els rdv xdapov eiaijXBe, ml bia
rrjs dpaprias d Bdvaros, xai ovras els
ndvras dvOpanovs SirjXBev, iif)' cf ndvres
fjpaprov. "'Axpt ydp vdpov dpapria
^v iv xoapa, dpapria Se ouK iXXoyeXrat
pfj Svros vdpov '*dXXd ifiaaiXevaev 6
Bdvaros and *ASa^ P-^XP'- Hiavaeas xai
ini roils pfj dpaprfjaavras inl t» opoidf
pan rrjs napa^daeas 'ASdp, Ss ian
riSnos rov peXXovros. "'AXX ovx "^
TO napdnrapa, ovra xai to x^pi<rpa- ei
ydp ra rov evds napanrapan ol n'oXXot
dneBavov, ttoXX^ ^oXXoi' fj X°P'^ '""''
Qeov xaj. fj Saped iv ^optTt rrj rov evds
dvBpanov 'Irjaov Xpisrou ets rous ttoX-
Xous ineplaaevae. "Kai ou;^ as 8i*
evos dpaprrjaavros rd Saprjpa- rd pev
ydp Kpipa ii evds els KaraKpipa, to Se
xdpiapa ix noXXav napanrapdrav els
Stxaiapa- " Ei ydp iv evi napanrapari
d Bdvaros ifiaaiXevae Sta tou evds, ndX-
Xa paXXov 01 rfjv neptaaeiav rrjS xdpiros
xai rrjs Sapeas -rfjs SiKatoavvrjS Xap^d-
vovres iv ^arj ^aaiXevaovai Std tov evds
'hjaov Xpiarov. " 'Apa ouy ms Si' evos
napa-irraparos els ndvras dvBpanovs els
xardxptpa, oirra Kai St' eris SiKauu/xaTos
eis ndvras dvBpanovs els Sixaiaaiv ^arjs-
""QoTrep yap Sia t^s napaKofjs Toi) evds
dvBpanov, dpapraXoi KareardBrjaav oi
ndXKoi, oijra xai Sid -rrjs vnaxofjs roO
evds Sixatot xaraaraBfjaovrai ol noXXoi,

SUMMARY.
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by that sin. Sin in the
world before the law, but not counted. From Adam to Moses men died,
though guilty of no sin like Adam's. Adam a type of Christ, but not in all
respects. The sin not Ijke the gift. By the sin of one all died: the favor of
God and gift of Christ abound to all. Nor was the sentence Hke the gift.
The sentence because of one sin: the gift consists in being justified from
many sins. Through one sin death reigns over all; yet all who are justified
will reign in life through Christ. As by one sin all have been condemned;
so by Christ's death all are to be so far justified as to live. By the sin of
Adam all constituted sinners; by the death of Christ all constituted just.
12. This verse is generally thought, and not without reason, to
introduce one of the most difficult passages of the Letter. Its
difficulties must certainly be acknowledged; still I can not but

Chap. 5, v. 12.] ROMANS. 163
feel that they have been exaggerated. The passage is profound
and comprehensive. Herein perhaps lie its difficulties. Its main
object, as is usually conceded, is obvious. It is to contrast the
effects of Christ's death with the effects of Adam's sin; and to
show how the death is even more than a remedy for the sin.
This much lies on the very surface of the passage. But although
this is granted, its connection is justly held to be obscure, and its
details intricate and hard to trace. From v. 12 to the end of the
chapter is one mass of thought closely tied together, yet strik
ingly rugged in its digressions and transitions. One thought
suggests another, and this a third, and so on to the end. All
these are dependent one on another, or stand in contrast one over
against another. Such are some of the peculiarities of the
passage. But it has others. Its first words are clearly illative;
yet the conclusion which they introduce is not met with till we
reach v. 18. Thus closely dependent parts are found standing
widely apart. This embarrasses interpretation. Again, between
the illative words and their conclusion Is found a series of deep
doctrinal comparisons and contrasts. To adjust these properly
and bring their meaning fully and clearly out is confessedly not
easy. From these hints the reader can readily Infer the necessity
for patience and care in an effort to explain the passage.
12. Therefore, dia touto. These words I feel compelled,
after careful thought, to take, as already intimated, in their simple
illative import N6 other sense seems to me admissible or tena
ble. Accordingly, I reject the transitional meaning, insisted on
by some, together with all others. True, by this course the
connection is not made quite clear, nor the passage freed from
difficulties; but then the words are retained in their usual force,
and difficulties are at least not increased. This is a gain. It is
always safe, in the absence of opposing evidence to assume
that words are used in their common acceptation.
But assuming the words to be iUative, and two questions pre
sent themselves: i. Where is the conclusion they introduce?
2. From what premise does it result? Both questions are impor
tant, and neither is thought easily answered.
To the first question I reply, that the conclusion is brought out
in V. 18. Nor can this be regarded as unlikely or strange when
the character of the paragraph is considered. Verse 12 begins
thus: "Therefore as by one man sin entered into the world".
This clearly required the Apostle to state the case of the "one

164 COMMENTARY. Chap, 5, v. 12.
man" first, before drawing his conclusion. But In doing this, he
was led into a field of truth so new and so important as to
demand a pause and some enlargement This consumed his
space between vs. 12 and 18, and so kept his conclusion in abey
ance. But ending his task here, he at once proceeded to draw
his conclusion. This he did, not by reiterating dia touto, but by
the use of ara oun, because his conclusion has now become, as
it were, a sort of double conclusion, a conclusion both from his
main premise and from matter intervening between vs. 12 and 18.
Or i-ather, the conclusion seems to be a conclusion from the main
premise, and a summing up of the intervening matter.
The connection and relation of parts may be exhibited thus:
Therefore as by one tnan sin entered into the world [here the
case of the one man stated] therefore then [thread of thought
resumed and conclusion dra^wn] as by one sin sentence came upon
all men io condemnation. Of all the solutions which have been
suggested, this (which Is that of Bloomfield and Stuart) seems
to me to be least open to objection, to be the most natural, and
best to stand the test of criticism. I therefore accept it.
To the second question I reply, that the main premise is found
in V. 10, and is the death of Christ. No other premise warrants
the conclusion, or meets the necessities of the case. By that
death we have been redeemed, have been reconciled, have been
justified; in a word, by it every thing has been done for us
essential to a complete rescue from the effects both of Adam's sin
and of our own. Therefore as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; so by one righteous act of Christ, which
is his death, acquittal frotn the sentence of death (which is but
an included part of what his death has achieved) has been pro
cured for all, so far as to allow us to live the life we are now
living. Such I believe to be the course of thought and of argu
ment. Nor do I see how its correctness can be questioned;
provided it be conceded, as I believe it must be, that v. 18
resumes the connection of thought, which was broken at v. 12,
after dia touto, and draws the conclusion. That the one righteous
act of V, iS is the same as the obedience of the one of v. 19 is
conceded by all. And that the obedience of the one is the right
eous act of Christ in submitting to death, is equally certain. But
from the one righteous act of v. 18, which is Christ's death, the
conclusion is drawn. Therefore it was from this death, as men
tioned in V. 10, that the Apostle was about to draw his conclusion

Chap. 5, v. 12.] ROMANS. 165
when he used dia touto in v. 12. If asked why refer particularly
to the death of Christ as mentioned in v. 10, rather than as named
in some other verse, I reply, that the conclusion would more
naturally be drawn from the last mention of his death preceding
dia touto than from any more remote mention.
Having now settled, as far as seems practicable, the difficulty
respecting the connection of thought; or rather, having pointed
out both the conclusion to which dia touto relates, and the pre
mise from which it results, we are ready for the comparison
begun in v. 12, together with its details.
as by one man sin entered into the world. This one man
was Adam. He was the first to violate God's law; and this vio
lation was the first sin. The first sin then was an act. It was
not a nature, nor a principle, nor a weakness, but an act, the act
simply of doing what God told Adam not to do. God said to
him, "Thou shalt not eat of the fruit." This was God's will or
law in the case. But Adam ate; and in the act transgressed
this la^w. The transgression was the act In which sin had Its
origin In the world. Whatever may have been the origin of evil,
or however sin may have prevailed elsewhere In the universe,
this was its origin in our world. To it three parties stood, each
peculiarly related. God was author of the law; Adam broke it;
Satan tempted to the act; and in the act sin began. Here in a
few short sentences we have the story of the origin of sin.
Would that its subsequent history could be as briefly told.
It is proper to add, that although the first sin was an act, the
word sin does not always denote an act in scripture. It often
denotes sin as a substantive or noun. As a substantive, sin is
frequently spoken of as a principle, some times, as a power, and
again, as simple evil. But of these and other meanings and
shades of meaning, I need not here speak.
and death by sin ; That is, death entered into the world by
sin. Not only so, it entered into the world by one sin. It was
not from sin as an aggregation or widely prevalent power that
death resulted. It resulted from sin as a unit, a single thing, one
act For if, after his first sin, Adam had never committed another,
still the death of the whole human race would have followed.
It followed not from his second sin, nor third, nor from all. It
followed from his first only.
Nor must the word death be here taken in any unusual sense.
By it simple ordinary death is meant, no more. To s.iy that it

i66 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 12.
signifies mortality, or spiritual death, is to speak without warrant.
It impUes mortality, and no doubt much besides; but here it' ex
presses only death. When it is said of Adam, Gen. v: 5, "and he
died", we have the exact meaning of the word death in the
preceding clause.
But death did not result from sin in the sense in which an
effect results from its cause. At least this is not known. God
appointed that if Adam sinned he should, as the penalty of his
act, die; and death resulted from this appointment. The relation
therefore between the two, was that of crime and penalty. It
was judicial, and had its foundation in the nature of absolute
right. Sin must have a penalty. This is the most inexorable of
necessities, the sternest of God's laws.
If we are asked why death, rather than something else, was af
fixed as the penalty of the first sin, no answer can be given. We
know the penalty, but the reason for it remains in the counsels
of God. It is gratifying to hope that the far hence may enlight
en us on the question.
But it would be inadmissible to assume that death, common
death, was the whole penalty of Adam's first sin. He suffered,
besides, expulsion from the presence of God, and from the garden,
and became an outcast on the earth, now cursed on his account.
But it is not to these things that I refer. As to the present Ufe,
death was certainly the great penalty of Adam's sin; still it was
not the whole. His death did not cancel his sin. On the con
trary, his sin survived Its temporal penalty; and he lived after his
death. For that subsequent state, too, his sin had Its penalty.
Now It is just here that the redemption effected by Christ
emerges into view. By that redemption Adam's sin, while he
yet lived, was cancelled (a fact assumed), and with the sin its
future penalty. This now restored him to the favor of God, and
gave him title to all other blessings secured for him in Christ
Thus we must look even beyond death for the whole penalty of
sin. and thus it spread to all men. The word it here has death,
not sin, for its antecedent. The meaning is, thus death spread to
all. But how, or in what way, did death spread to all ? The an
swer is easy. God decreed beforehand that if Adam sinned, both
he and all his posterity should die. All were thus bound up alike
in the same decree to the same doom. Accordingly, when Adam
sinned, the decree took effect, and all died. Such is the brief

Chap. 5, v. 12.] ROMANS. 167
reply. Now assuming death to be, as to our present state, no
more than an adequate penalty of a single sin, and this we are
compelled to do; and the nature of sin becomes as incomprehen
sible as the infinite. No human being can conceive of its
enormity. What would be, at this rate, an adequate penalty for
the sins of a single life lasting through a period of fifty years ?
The question is perfectly bewildering.
because all sinned. With Winer and others, I render c<^' c^
because, as being both true to the sense and very perspicuous. A
few critics have construed ho as masculine, and made it refer to
anthropou (inan) as Its antecedent According to them the
meaning is, in whom, that is, in Adam all sinned. But against
this construction there are two strong objections, i. Anthropou
is too far back to be the antecedent 2. Were this the meaning,
iv <S would have been used, not e.<^ <a. I therefore reject the
construction. All sinned. Not all have sinned, nor all sin. Hamarton is
the aorist or simple historical tense, expressing sudden, non
recurring action in past time; and I regard the Apostle as here
speaking strictly. The verb should therefore be rendered sinned.
But sinned In what sense ? Did all sin personally and actually?
Certainly not. For we know that many die, as infants, who have
never thus sinned. Besides, assuming what I believe to be
strictly true, that the sin which all committed was the sin which
induced the death of all, and we are restricted to a single answer.
The sin which induced the death of all was indisputably Adam's
sin. This then must have been the sin that all committed. But
thei'e is only one admissible sense in which all could have com
mitted that sin, to-wit, representatively. Therefore, when it is
said that "all sinned", I take the meaning to be, that all sinned in
Adam as being in him. By divine appointment, Adam, in com
mitting his first sin, and as to its penalty, death, stood for and
represented the whole of his posterity. If this be not the sense
in which all sinned, then that sense, it seems to me, is not dis
coverable. Nor should this solution be objected to on the ground
of being strange, since we accept other things equally as strange.
We all admit that death is the result of one sin of Adam. Now
I have no more difficulty in understanding how we could all
commit that sin, than in seeing how we can aU be justly required
to die for it. Indeed, it is much easier to understand how, by
representation, we all could and did commit it, than to see how,

i68 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. is.
without representation or participation in some sense, we all can
be justly subject to death for it.
Farther, when it is said, i Cor. xv: 22, "In Adam all die," the
language admits of but one interpretation; namely, all die in con
sequence of the sin which he committed, or all die by him, that
is, by his act. Now if death resulted from sin on the sole ground
of Implication in it, then implication by representation must be
admitted. We are certainly not Implicated on the ground of
actual personal sin. Representation then is the only alternative.
But in Heb. vii: 9, 10, we have a parallel case to the preceding,
which may serve to shed some light upon it. It is there said of
Levi that, before he was born and while he was still "in the
loins" of his ancestor Abraham, he "paid tithes" to Melchisedec.
Now if Levi, while still in the loins of Abraham, could and did
pay tithes; with equal certainty could the whole posterity of
Adam, while still in him, sin. And what they could thus do,
they did; and from the deed came death.
Again: in v. 14 following, the Apostie speaks of "death reign
ing from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned in
the.likeness of Adam's transgression." Here now were persons
who had sinned, yet not as Adam sinned. Not that their sin
differed from his, but the mode of committing it differed. In
both cases I take the sin itself to have been the same, since it was
that in virtue of which death reigned. The difference lay in the
manner. Adam sinned actually and in his own person; these
sinned, not actually and In person, but in Adam as being in hira
and represented by him. Such I take to be the import of the
passage; and if correct, it settles the meaning of the clause in
hand. In farther confirmation of what is here insisted on, I call atten
tion to the verb dielthen. It is aorist; and as such, signifies mo
mentary action in the past The dia denotes the thoroughness
of the action, "Death spread" — the whole thing was done in
the past. Moreover, It was done at once. "To all" — the spreading
was thorough, not one escaped. But how could all this occur,
unless, as already said, in and by Adam? When he sinned all
sinned in him. With that sin death entered, entered at once and
for aU time, and entered for the whole human race. All this
seems to be couched in the verb.
But here it is proper to take a distinction. Sin by representa
tion does not imply guilt, as actual personal sin does. It may

Chap. 5, v, 12.J ROMANS. 169
both justify and demand the appointment of a penalty, as In the
case in hand, but no more. Hence no one of his posterity will
ever, after death, be held responsible for Adam's sin. As to them,
his sin will never, after death, be brought into account. No notice
will be taken of it. In their case, therefore, death is not the
consequence of personal guilt, but of connection with a guilty
parent Accordingly, though we all die for Adam's sin, no one
of us will ever be judged for it. For our own sins only, will we
be judged. These alone involve the notion of personal respon
sibility, and hence imply guilt. For them alone, therefore, we
shall have to account.
In regard to the sin of Adam, which induced death, a false
mode of reasoning is sometimes employed. It is argued that
suffering implies guilt; and that since we all suffer even death
for Adam's sin, therefore we must be guiltily connected with it
But this is not correct. Suffering may always Imply the guilt of
some one; but it does not necessarily imply the guilt of the suf
ferer. If a ship founder, through the criminal intent of the
pilot to wreck her; and all the passengers perish, their suffering
certainly does not imply guilt on their part. And so in countless
other cases. Death implies connection with a guilty ancestor,
but not the guilt of his dying offspring.
True, it is a great hardship to have to suffer death for the sin
of another. It would seem hard enough to have to die for our
own. sin; but to die for the sin of another seems peculiarly hard.
This is the universal sentiment of mankind. Still so to suffer is
right, however difficult it may be for us to see it. God can right
fully appoint for his children what is hard; he can not appoint
what is wrong. Hard it certainly is to die for Adam's sin ; wrong
it certainly can not be. It was hard for Christ to die for the sins
of the world, yet it was right
Of the various theories which have been based on the clause
ill hand; or more strictly, perhaps, of the various methods which
have been adopted to explain it, I mention only the following:
I. That in the phrase "all sinned" the reference is to actual per
sonal sin. This is the view of Stuart, which he labors hard to
defend, but clearly without success. 2. That "sinned" does not
signify actually and personally sinned, but merely treated or
viewed as sinners. Such seems to be the view of Bloomfield,
which he briefly states, but does not argue. 3. That the expres
sion "all sinned" means all actually sinned In Adam; and that

170 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 13.
the sin was as really the sin of each of his posterity as of Adam
himself. This is the theory of Augustine, Robert Haldane and
other Calvinists. 4. That the meaning is, all sinned in Adam, as
being in him, so far as to be justly subjected to death, but not so
far as to incur guilt The first part of this view is held by Mac-
Knight and Hodge; and the whole is maintained in the present
work. With the mere statement of these theories I dismiss them, as I
do not see that an extended discussion of them could be made to
result in good. Should the reader, however, feel curious to see
them examined even to weariness, he can easily be gratified by ref
erence to any one of several popular critics, as Hodge, Stuart, &c.
13, For until the law sin was in the world ; To me this
verse Is difficult. Its general object is, as I feel sure, to confirm
the contents of v. 12; hence the gar at its commencement But
it is not in the general object that I encounter my difficulties. I
find them in the details. In v. 12 it Is said death spread to all,
because all sinned. This is the specific fact to be now Illustrated
and confirmed.
"Until the law." The word law here denotes the law of
Moses; and the word until covers the whole period between
Adam and Moses. This Is evident from the following verse,
"Sin was in the world" Sin was in the world both potential
ly and actually. It was in humanity as a power, and in the daily
conduct of men as a fact. But it was not from sin in this form
that death resulted. Death, as the pre-determined doom of all,
on the condition of sin, was provisionally in the world the instant
in which Adam committed the first sin, and so before the second
sin was committed. To the sin mentioned in the clause, no
penalty of death was. attached. Therefore, from it the death of
no one resulted. The death of all had already been effected in
the first sin of Adam. To this sin only that, penalty had been
affixed; hence from it alone death came.
but sin is not counted when there is no law. To count
sin [ellogeitai) is to set it down against a person, and hold him
responsible for it It is here, in the present clause, that I en
counter my chief difficulty. From Adam to Moses there was no
law. This is the implication. But surely it Is not to be taken
strictly. For had there been absolutely no law, there could have
been no sin. Yet we are told that sin was in the world. I then
conclude the meaning to be, either that there was no revealed

Chap. 5, v. 13.] ROMANS. 171

law in the sense of the law of Moses, or no law the violation of
which was to induce death. Both alternatives are true; but had
there been a revealed law, sin would certainly have been
counted. This alternative then may be dismissed at once. Ac
cordingly, I conclude that the word law is here used to denote
law, the breaking of which was to entail death. This view,
moreover, is required by the current of the Apostle's argument.
Taking now the word law in this sense, and the first part of the
clause in hand becomes explicable. The meaning then is: But
sin is not counted for death, when there is no law making death
the penalty for breaking it. In this view of the case, the Apos
tie's argument becomes overwhelming. It stands concisely thus:
From Adam to Moses there was no law, the penalty of breaking
which was death. Then of course during that period there was
no sin committed which could entail death. Yet, during all this
time, the human family were dying. They must then have died
for Adam's sin alone.
To this solution there are two objections: i. That It requires
the term law to be taken in a peculiar sense, I grant It, but see
no escape. It will not do to say that from Adam to Moses there
was no la^w in any sense. The people certainly had the law of
sacrifice, together with the general laws of right and wrong.
These laws they violated, and in the act committed sin; and these
sins were counted against them as in the case of Cain, and of those
destroyed In the flood. The conclusion then seems unavoidable,
that though the people had law in some sense, they had no la^w
of death. 2. That after the word counted, we have to supply
for death; and after the word law, the phrase, making death the
penalty of breaking It This again I grant, but plead necessity
for it as in the former case. We know that sin was in the world
from Adam to Moses; for so the Apostle declares. And to say
that sin was in the world, but was not counted, is to say that
though men committed sin, God took no notice of it This is not
aUowable. Consequently, the only remaining alternative is, to
conclude that though sin was in the world it was not counted
for death, as in the case of Adam; and that therefore the death
of all resulted from Adam's sin.
To my own mind the preceding solution is not entirely satis
factory. But as I have none better of my own, and can find none
better elsewhere, I submit it on Its merits. On a thorough exam
ination, I believe the reader will find it cumbered with fewer
difficulties than any other.

172 COMMENTARY. [Chap. %, v. 14.
If asked, why select the period from Adam to Moses to prove
that death resulted from Adam's sin alone? I answer, because it
was the period which would most clearly establish the fact.
14. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, Death is
here drawn as a tyrant dominating over all, even to the extent of
death. The conception is highly wrought, the fact being, when
unrhetorically expressed, that all died, not one escaping. The
clause is a bold contrast to the preceding verse, and goes to con
firm the view just taken of it. It implies that a condition of
things has there been stated from which death could not be
expected. That condition has already been noticed, being as
follows: There was no law from Adam to Moses, the breaking
of which, induced death; hence, during that time there was no sin
committed which could entail death. In such a condition of
things death was not to be expected. Yet death reigned. The
conclusion then is, that it must have reigned in consequence of
Adam's sin, and not in consequence of sins subsequently com
mitted. even over those who had not sinned I understand the
clause, "those who had not sinned," as including the whole hu
man family from Adam to Moses. Accordingly, I reject the
notion, as untenable, that it includes only infants and other Irres
ponsible persons. These It certainly includes, but that it excludes
all others is without support The clause is thought not to refer
to adults, pr the responsible; because it is assumed that the ex
pression "had not sinned" denotes those only who had not sinned
personally. But this is incorrect, as we shall presently see.
in the likeness of Adam's transgression. To sin in the
likeness of Adam's transgression means to sin as he sinned when
be transgressed. Or still more explicitly, it means to break a law
like the law he broke, to break it in the manner in which he
broke it, and with like results. The word likeness means like
ness In all particulars essential to Adam's sin. It must be noticed
that the preceding expression, had not sinned, does not even
imply, much less say, that those to whom it refers had not sinned
at all. Indeed the implication is that they had sinned; and if so,
they had sinned, no doubt, in every way in which men could and
did sin in that day. Only in one way they had not sinned; they had
not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression. By this
epithet the phrase had not sinned is Umited, but by no other.
Therefore the phrase may be taken as including all the sins of
the time, save the one excluded by the epithet.

Chap. 5, v. 14,] ROMANS, 153

How then did those persons, over whom death reignfd, sin,
who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression?
Certainly they had committed no personal sin, the penalty of
which was death; because there was no law extant which they
could break to this effect. But this merely tells how they did not
sin, not how they did. The answer then is, they sinned in Adam;
and the specific unlikeness between his sin and theirs, was the
unlikeness between sinning in person, and sinning in and by a
representative. Adam did not sin in and by another; his pos
terity did. 71iis makes the difference.
Whether we are to regard death as the immediate result of
Adam's sin, or the corruption and enfeeblement of his body as
the immediate result, and death as the result of tliece, are ques
tions which have received some attention. It is not here proposed
to dwell on them at length. Still a few thoughts may not be out
of place. The better view seems to be, to regard the corruption
and degeneration of the body as the more Immediate effect of
Adam's sin, and death as resulting from these. But certainly
death was the great ultimate and all-comprehending penalty of
his sin; and whether it resulted immediately from the sin, or
mediately through a corrupted body, is not material. In consid
ering the matter, however, an item must be taken into account,
which possibly may be essential to a correct conclusion. We
must remember that, besides being condemned to die, Adam was
driven out of the garden, and so cut off from the tree of life.
This no doubt operated very injuriously upon his body. Much
of its future condition may be attributable to the fact. Still,
though other causes may have had their effect, and no doubt did,
to his sin his death was due. But for that sin he had never died.
Moreover, whatever effect Adam's sin had on his body, in the
way of corruption and otherwise. It has also had on ours. We
inherit our bodies from him, and inherit them since his fall; hence
what his body was, ours are. No doubt the change which sin
effected was great Our own frail bodies afford ample and pain
ful proof of this. They are not what Adam's was before he fell.
But how has the sin of Adam affected our spirits ? The view
of many is, that it has corrupted each of his descendants, both in
body and in spirit. But of the truth of this, there is no evidence.
That Adam's sin has corrupted our bodies is granted; but it
has never touched our spirits. It takes our own personal sins to
corrupt these. Another's sin can not do it. The sin which

174 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 14.
we wilfully commit is the only sin to which guilt attaches; and
the sin to which guilt attaches is the only sin that can corrupt the
spirit. I hence conclude that Adam's sin has no effect upon his
posterity after death. It spends its force wholly in this life; in
the next it has none.
who is a type of him that was to come. Type Is from the
Greek tupos, and this from tupto, to strike.; and it means an im
pression or print made on something by a blow designed to
produce it. It has also several other kindred significations, and
denotes besides, as with printers, the metallic form that produces
the impression. Religiously, tyf>e applies to any thing that, by
previous design, resembles another, and so shadows it forth; and
the type may be a person, a thing, or an event. The thing resem
bling is the type, the thing resembled the antitype. The pascal
lamb, for example, was a type; Christ is the antitype; Moses
delivering the Israelites from Egypt was a type of Christ deliv
ering people from sin; the uplifted brazen serpent, with its
efficacy, was a type of the crucifixion of Christ and its efficacy;
and so on. A type may answer to its antitype in various and
numerous ways, as by resemblance or contrast, and in single
points or many. In the case in hand, Adam may be conceived
as resembling Christ in many particulars. The former, for in
stance, is the natural head of the human family; the latter is the
spiritual head of the redeemed; and so in other respects. But
the specific resemblance before Paul's mind,between Adam and
Christ, was not so strictly a resemblance between them personally
viewed, as between their acts and the consequences of their acts.
Adam performed a single act — a sin; Christ performed a single
act — obedience to death. That peculiarly affected the whole
human race, this did likewise; that in one way, this in a different
way. That brought death on all; this procured a respite in virtue
of which all live the life we now Uve. That took all into the
grave; this brings all out alive. In a word, whatever evils
Adam's sin brought upon the world, without our agency, are all
countervailed and remedied by the single act of Christ without
our agency. Thus Adam is a type of Christ.
of him that was to come — Tov /acAAovtos, Uterally the coming
one. Upon which Alford remarks: "Not 'qui futurus eraf, as
Beza, Reiche; but spoken from the Apostle's present standing,
•who is to cotne" But here I think Beza right, and Alford wrong.
Paul was not looking at Christ as still to come, but at Christ as

Chap. 5, v. 15.] ROMANS. 175
already come. Previous to his advent into the world to die for
it, he was the coming one. This is the "coming" to which Paul
alludes, the coming which preceded, and was in order to, the otie
act of obedience, which is contrasted with the one sin of Adam.
It is therefore strictiy correct to say qui futurus erat — who was
io be or come.
15. But not as was the sin, In order to complete the
sense, the English requires that both in this and in the next clause
the verbs shall be expressed; accordingly I insert them. Indeed,
it is one of the marked peculiarities of the Section in hand, that
from verses 15 to 19, inclusive, it is exceedingly elllpticaL Its
difficulties are due, in no small degree, to this circumstance.
Important nouns, and equally important verbs, are omitted. This
certainly insures brevity; and just as certainly it promotes ob
scurity. Our only remedy is, where the sense is obvious, to
express it in close transparent English, no matter how many
words this may take. A word-for-word translation of the verses
aUuded to would not be intelligible to an ordinary reader, if
indeed to any. I shall therefore supply, without hesitation, all
ellipses which the nature of our language requires to be filled.
Nor do I deem it necessary, as some have done, to place the sup
plied words in brackets. The sense demands them, and justifies
them. This is enough.
The reader will notice that I here render paratoma sin. Ety
mologically the word means falling beside, falling away, fall,
error, sin. That it here denotes the first sin of Adam, the sin
that brought in death, is admitted by all. It is best therefore to
render it simply sin. This is the fact it stands for; and so to
render it as to make it constantly indicate this fact preserves
uniformity, and keeps up a close reference to the first mention of
the sin in v, 12, MacKnight renders the word "fall"; Alford,
"act of transgression"; but these renderings, though coiTect,
have no advantage over sin.
The Apostle had just said that Adam is a type of Christ But
the resemblance does not hold in all respects. They differ both
in their acts and in the effects of their acts. We have here the
first difference stated. Not as was the sin, so also is the gift.
The things first contrasted, then, are the sin and the gift. The
sin was, in its effects, the diametrical opposite of the gift; while
the effects of the latter reach far beyond those of the former.
The difference is both in kind and quantity. The difference in

176 COMMENTARY, Chap. 5, v. 15.
kind is appreciable; that in quantity is indeterminate. The Apos
tie merely says of it polio mallon — much more; but how much
more he has not Intimated.
SO also is the gift. Charisma is a hard word to translate,
hard because of the difficulty of determining the idea, the whole
idea or fact expressed by it. Accordingly, it has been variously
rendered, as "gift of grace," "gracious gift," "free gift," "the
boon," "favor bestowed," &c. The word, I take it, embraces two
ideas — favor as a source, and gift as the thing proceeding from it.
In this view I feel confirmed by the fact that in the latter part of
the verse, where the word occurs, charis and dorean stand as its
equivalent If this be true, as I am persuaded it is, the word
means more than either gift or favor, taking these even in a wide
sense. It means a voluminous gift, a gift proceeding from the
joint favor of God and of Christ, Indeed the word comprehends
the whole of what has accrued to the human family from the
death of Christ, or it covers all the ground included in the much
more of the Apostle, Hence the difficulty of finding any one or
two words that will adequately render it. Upon the whole, I
think It best to translate it simply by gift, u'feing this term in a
very comprehensive sense, and as expressing a product of favor.
This, though not all I could wish, seems the best the case ad
mits of.
For if by the sin of the one, This clause is designed to
confirm the preceding clause, and, at the same time, to point out,
in part, how the "sin" differs from the "gift." "The one" stands
for the one man, who was Adam; and the "sin" was his first sin.
"The many" is idiomatic for all (so decides Bloomfield), and
gives place to It in v. 18.
"By the sin" : This sin was the reason, with God, for inflicting
death; and within itself it was the instrument which effected it
By It all die; but for it, none had. And here we must distin
guish. Men did not merely become mortal by this sin, and
afterwards die for their own sins. By it they both became mor
tal and died. To this sin alone universal death is due. And this
seems to involve us in a difficulty. Men are constantly spoken
of in the Bible as having died for their own sins, as Achan, the
prophet of Judea, the Amalekltes, and many others. But sup
pose they had never sinned at all. What then? They would
still as surely have died as they did. In that event, they might
have lived much longer than they did, and no doubt would;

Chap. 5, v. 15.] ROMANS. 177
still in the end they would all certainly have died. What rela
tion then did their own sin sustain to their death? It was merely
the occasion of executing, for purposes of punishment, the sen
tence pronounced on all, on account of Adam's sin, sooner than
it would otherwise have taken effect Adam's sin rendered them
liable to death at any moment; and their own sin simply hurried
on the end, an end, however, which awaited them sooner or later,
whether they themselves sinned or not.
"Of the one": This expression forever settles the question.
For whose sin do ¦we die? It is for the sin of "the one", not for
the sin of any one else, not even for our own sin. Language
could not more definitely determine the answer to a question than
does this. How, In the light of the expression, any one could
ever conclude that we die for our own personal sins, is something
I can not understand. A finality must be assumed for some
questions in the Bible; otherwise I am unable either to determine
its value or perceive the use it was intended to be put to.
the many died; In what sense? According to some, spir
itually at the instant physically in the end. Does the word
"died" justify the conclusion? I think not That all died phys
ically when Adam sinned is conceded, not died actually and
physically at the moment, for then would the race have been
extinct; but sentence was then pronounced, provision was then
completed, and only a brief respite stayed the end. So sure
were aU to die, that the event is spoken of as if it had already
taken place.
But did they not also die spiritually? That Adam, both in
body and spirit, was, so soon as he sinned, cut off from vital
union with God, seems certain, and that, but for the redemption
which is in Christ, he would then have died and been forever
lost, is equally true. But what of his posterity? For it is
admitted that in his first sin he was standing for them. His
posterity died in the current and ordinary sense of the word,
died physically, or what we caU a natural death. This much
must be conceded, more than this cannot be. I hence deny that
Adam's sin ever touched or in any way affected the spirit of one
of his posterity. Of course, I am not here denying absolutely
but technically; I am denying for want of proof The sin of
Adam cleaves to his posterity up to the point where body and
spirit separate; beyond this point, in my opinion, the spirit is as
free from its influence as though the sin had never been commit-
12

178 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 15-
ted. Therefore, in their case, and as to Adam's sin strictly, not
their own, aU that appears necessary is, that the redemption of
Christ should bring them out of the grave and restore them to
life again. This, accordingly, it does, and in the case of the
saved, far more. It brings the saved out of the grave to a spir
itual body, and restores them to a far better life than even Adam's
ever was, and under imrneasurably better circumstances. The
redemption of Christ "more" than countervails the sin of Adam.
But the instant one of Adam's posterity commits a personal
sin, his spirit becomes involved; and he now stands where Adam
stood when he first sinned. This sin, and this only, corrupts his
soul; and for it he will certainly be lost unless, in this life, it be
forgiven. Adam's sin has corrupted our bodies; our own sin
corrupts our spirits: for that, we die; for this alone, we can be
lost And here comes into view the broad provision for personal
sin, which has been made in the death of Christ By that death,
God can be just while forgiving the sinner. We believe in Christ
and obey him. Thereupon all our sins are cancelled, and we await
in hope the proud day of the resurrection. But even here we
must not forget the "much more" of the Apostle, Whether the
sin be the single sin of Adam, or the countless sins which we
ourselves have committed, the death of Christ is provision for
them all, and "much more." This "much more" includes a better
body than Adam ever had, a better life than he ever Uved, a bet
ter world than he ever lived in, a world where Satan, and sin,
and death can never come.
In a general way, I wish to remark here. In passing, that we
have been so long in bondage to the conceptions and language
of scholastic teaching, that we seem afraid to take the semblance
of liberty even with our own thoughts. We must accept the
.doctrine of original spiritual death and total depravity as a conse
quence of Adam's sin, just as though they were intuitions, or
were taught on every page of the Bible. For one, however, I
demur, and insist that we shall reverently accept all that the Bible
actually asserts, or necessarily implies; and that we may safely
deny all else. This limitation has my creed, no other. I do not
believe in the spiritual death and total depravity of Adam's pos
terity as the effect of his sin. Physically they all die for his sin,
and physically they have all been corrupted by it Spiritually
they die for their own sins, and by these only are they spiritually
depraved. This much is certain, more is conjectural.

Chap. 5, v. 15.] ROMANS. 179
much more have the favor of God, and the gift by favor
of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.
"The many" to whom the favor and gift have abounded are ex
actly CO- extensive with "the many" who died; and as the many
who died include the whole race, so to the whole race the favor
and gift have abounded. But in what special respects have the
favor and gift abounded? The question is answered by deter
mining in what respects Adam's sin has affected all. By that
sin all die and go into the grave — this much certainly. To this
extent then, at least, must the favor and gift abound. They must
bring all out of the grave and restore them to life, so that all that
was lost in Adam may be regained in Christ; but this, not as
matter of debt, but as matter of favor. God and Christ were not
bound, that we know of, to restore the human family. They
restore them of favor. But having once determined to restore
them, they wiU do so completely, and "more."
But here an important question arises. The favor and gift
abound "much more" than the effects of the sin. In what sense?
Do they actually invest all with any thing more than restoration
to life? I presume not All that they do beyond this consists in
provisions made, not in actual benefits bestowed. They provide
for the salvation of the whole human race from personal sin, but
they invest none with this salvation except those that obey Christ.
As to the wicked, it is not known that a single benefit wifl be
conferred beyond simply restoring them to life; and that too, it
may be, in the very bodies, unchanged for the better, in which
they died. Thus far only, then, in their case, do the favor and
gift abound. But with the saved it is widely different. With
them the favor and gift abound even up to immortality and
eternal Ufe. Hence it is to the saved exclusively, that the "much
more" of the Apostie has reference.
And here, perhaps, it is proper to add a word respecting in
fants. They too die in Adam, and so in Christ will be made
aUve. All they lost in the former, they will regain in the latter.
Thus far then all — the saved, the wicked, infants, occupy the
same ground and wiU be treated alike. But far "more" than this,
I judge, will be done for infants. As they have no personal sins
to answer for, I see no reason why they should not be placed on
an equality with those whose personal sins are forgiven. At any
rate, I shaU assume that this wiU be done. They will then be
brought out of the grave to a spiritual body, and, besides, to all

i8o COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 16.
the other honors of the saved. Thus far the favor and gift
abound in their case.
The word "favor" occurs here in its ordinary acceptation; but
the word "gift" seems to be used in a special sense, as we shall
see when we reach v. 17. Its being qualified by justification is
unusual, and gives to it a peculiar turn.
16. And not as was the sentence, which was by the
one that sinned, so is the gift. I know not a critic or trans
lator who does not admit this clause to be very elliptical. As aD
concur in this admission, I shall accept it as true. Indeed, its
justness can be made apparent even to the unlearned reader by a
word-for-word rendering, thus: And not as by one that sinned,
the gift. It can not be said that this conveys to the mind no
sense; the sense is merely very incomplete. But what words
shall we supply? Clearly such as the clause Itself and the con
text demand; and such as, when supplied, give us a full,pertinent
sense. Hodge renders the clause thus: And not as it was by one
that sinned, so is the gift" As a general. Indefinite rendering,
this is excellent; and it covers, I doubt not, the ground before the
Apostle's mind. But it merely comprehends or implies his mean
ing, not expresses it. "And not as it was". What does it refer
to? Let this be determined and expressed, and not merely refer
red to. I supply krima from the next clause, which is sanctioned
by Stuart, Hodge, Tholuck, and others. The next clause gives,
as Alford remarks, "the reason for" the present clause, a fact
indicated by gar. The present clause, then, must imply, as he
continues, all that the "next expands".; and since the next ex
pands krima, sentence, I therefore decide to supply sentence.
That this gives the exact meaning of the Apostie, I have not a
doubt The two things then to be here contrasted are the sen
tence and the gift. How they are contrasted appears In the next
clause. For the sentence was because of one sin to condemna
tion ; A sentence to condemnation is a sentence in which some
person or thing is condemned, a condemning sentence. In this
instance, the person condemned was Adam; the reason for it, his
one sin; the end to which, death — his own and that of his pos
terity. but the gift is to justification from many sins. A "gift
to justification" is justification bestowed as a gift; it is justifica
tion, not as a debt due to those that receive it, nor as something
merited, but as a pure gratuity.

Jhap. 5, V. 17.] ROMANS. i8i
But the gift differs from the sentence. The sentence was
because of one sin, and ended in death. The gift respects many
sins, pollon paraptomaton, all that will ever be forgiven, and
consists in a plenary justification from them all. Such are the
respects in which the gift and sentence differ.
The reader wiU notice that I do not render the ex before henos
and the ek before pollon paraptomaton alike. This he may
hastily decide to be wrong. But all attempts to render them
alike not only fail to give the sense, but give a false sense. That
the Apostle conceived of the sentence and the gift as emerging
respectively out of the "one sin" and out of the "many sins",
seems almost certain. Hence his use of ek. But the one sin was
the reason for the sentence. The ek before it therefore is correct
ly rendered because. The "many sins", however, are not the
reason for the gift. In any view or sense. Consequently the ek
before "many sins" can not be rendered because, nor by any
equivalent expression. In the clause, we have three closely re
lated terms — gift, justification, many sins. The gift respects
immediately the justification, the justification immediately the
sins. Now justification can stand related to sins in but one way,
namely, as a release from them. From, then, I consider the
proper rendering of ek before "many sins". This leads, I grant,
to some immaterial transposing; but I see no way to avoid it,
and bring out the sense. Stuart also adopts it in his translation,
17. For if by one sin death has reigned through the
one man ; The Aorist here seems to require an English Perfect
The Apostie had in view the whole period over which death had
reigned from its commencement to the moment of writing.
Hence, though the time of the verb is past, it is properly a Per
fect past, since it Is always touching the present It is therefore
truer to the sense to say has reigned than simply reigned.
Death reigned through the one man then, and It reigns through
him now; because he committed the sin which induced It Death
reigns through none of Adam's posterity; it reigns over them,
but through him. Moreover, it reigns by one sin, not two nor
many.' One man, one sin, death— and the tragic tale is told.
The Greek Text here is involved in some doubt. Upon the
whole I decide, with Tischendorf and Green, to adopt the read
ing of A. F. and G. On grounds of reason, this reading has the
advantage; on purely manuscript grounds, the weight of authori
ty is against it. I may add, that the sense remains the same
whichever of the two best sustained readings we accept

i82 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 17, 18.
much more This phrase seems here to denote, not so much
quantity or excess, as degree in certainty. If by one sin death
has reigned through the one man; much more certain is it that
"they who receive", &c. But how can one thing that is to be in
the future, be more certain than one which has been in the past?
Strictly, of course, this is impossible. The language is rhetorical,
and must be construed as expressing only the highest degree of
certainty. are they, who receive the abundant favor. Literally, the
abundance of the favor which is very accurately condensed into
the preceding. The Future here I render as a sort of Present-
future. To receive the abundant favor, is to receive the favor in
its all-abundant provisions. But the reception is voluntary and
active, not passive. It is the act of him who believes in Christ
and obeys him, and of no other.
and the gift of justification, This clause determines, as
previously intimated, the import of the word gift; but as the word
has already been noticed, little more need be added. The primary-
idea in justification is remission of sins. Now when we receive
remission of sins, not as a due, which is impossible, but as a gift,
we receive the gift of justification. Looked at from God, justi
fication is an act, a gratuitous act; looked at from us, it Is a thing
we receive, for which we make no return — a gift Such is the
meaning of the phrase "gift of justification".
to reign in life Those who are thus to reign are they who
receive the abundant favor and the gift of justification. They
are the saved. Accordingly, I conclude that "the life" is not the
present poor life with its accompaniments of hardship, and sor
row, and pain, but the ineffable future life. Much more shall
the redeemed reign there, than has death reigned here. It is a
fine antithesis to place the reign of life over against, and high
above, the reign of death.
through the one, Jesus Christ, Christ, with his own
blood, has purchased for us the life in which we are to reign; and
he, in person, will invest us with it. Through him it has been
provided; through him we hope for It; and through him we
are to realize it.
18. Therefore, then, as by one sin sentence came upon
all men to condemnation ; The ara here is strictly iflative,
the oun concessive; and the two are correctly represented, the
former by therefore, the latter by then. Henos paraptotnatos

. i kp, 5, v. i8,] ROMANS. 183
sho.ild be rendered one sin, not sin of one, meaning sin of Adam.
Ha'r the Apostle designed to say sin of one, he would have
reitirated the form of v. 15, to tou henos paraptomati, that is, sin
would have been in the Dative, and one in the Genitive. As
however he failed to do this, I conclude he did not mean to say
sin of one.
In both the first and second members of the verse, we have a
noun and a verb to supply. The nouns we take from v. 16, to
which, both in language and sentiment, v. 18 bears a very close
resemblance In v. i5 we have eis katakrima, the correspond
ing word to vvhich is krima, the two meaning sentence to death.
In V. 18 also we have eis katakritna, but no corresponding noun
expressed. Now since the two expressions obviously have the
same meaning, ai?d the one has kritna; it follows that krima Is
understood In the other also. I therefore supply it. Again, in
V. 16 we have charisma eis dikaioma, gift to justification. In v. 18
we have eis dikaiosi-ii with no corresponding noun before It.
Now clearly what is expressed in the one verse is understood in
the other. I hence supply charisma.
In both members I supply the verb came, which is simple and
sufficiently clear. Perhaps it would be more in accordance with
usage to say, in the first member, sentence was passed upon all
men; and in the second, the gift was bestowed upon all. But as
this requires more words, and Is only a slight gain,. I decline it.
I may add that in supplying these eUipses, both nouns and verbs,
I am sustained by the best critics.
With the hosper of v. 12, the Apostle introduces the protasis
of a sentence, to which we have no corresponding apodosis till
we reach the present verse. All efforts to support a different
theory, I regard as failures. But here, in v. 18, in my judgment,
we have that apodosis. After saying. In v. 12, "Therefore as by
one man sin entered into the world", &c., the Apostle proceeds to
state the case ofthe one man at some length; also that of his sin;
and how this induced universal death. The subject is profound;
and, besides, it involves principles of justice and right to which
it is hard to reconcile the human mind. This the Apostle both
saw and appreciated. Accordingly, he felt caUed upon to intro
duce, at once, the counterpart to the difficult views he had ju&t
been presenting; the counterpart to Adam; to his sin; and to
death; in a word, to introduce the remedy, the ample remedy,
which God has provided in Christ, not only for afl the evils that

i84 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 18,
have befallen the human family in Adam, but also for our own
personal sins. These topics fill the space between vs. 12 and 18,
not in the form of a parenthesis or digression, but in that of a
closely connected chain of thought, every link of which is impor
tant, and stands precisely in its proper place. These matters
crowded the Apostle's apodosis back in his mind till they were
disposed of. Then, however, reiterating in the first part of v. 18
what he had said in different language in v. 12, he introduces his
long suspended houto, and states his apodosis. This view of the
paragraph before us, and of Its dependent parts may not be sat
isfactory to other minds; to mine it is, if not perfectly so in every
feature, so at least in the main.
sentence came upon all men That this is the sentence
which was pronounced upon Adam for his first sin can not be
questioned. It is the sentence that was provoked by "one sin";
and that the "one sin" which induced death. But this was the
first sin. Hence the sentence is that which was then pronounced.
Now in the same words in which God pronounced this sentence
upon Adam, and for the same sin, he also pronounced sentence
upon his posterity. In other words, there were but one sin and
one sentence; and from these came the death of all. Here again
it is determined for whose sin we die. After this, surely nothing
more need be said on that point .
But Adam's posterity do not die because his sin was imputed
to them; but because, being in him. In so far as they are human,
they were acted for in his act. And this remark requires expan
sion. The doctrine of imputed sin, like the doctrine of imputed
righteousness, has no sanction either in reason or in revelation.
I can not have imputed to me another's sin, and be dealt with for
it as though it were mine; not, at least, by any law of justice,
of which the human mind is cognizant. Such is the verdict of
mankind. But it is according <o the constitution of nature, and
a thing which occurs a thousand times every day, that we may
be, and actually are, represented in, and by others both for good
and for evil. Why not in Adam as well? And over against this
there stands a widely different view, though a somewhat similar
one; a view which, I grant, has struck me with some force, and
which I here suggest From Adam we are all descended in the
way of common generation. On this line, he stands to us as
head. From Christ we are all descended in the wa^' of creation;
for "by him all things came into being, and without him not even

Chap. 5, v. 18.J ROMANS. 185
one thing came into being that is in being." Jno. i. On this Une,
Christ stands to us as head. To the one, we trace our origin
through creation; to the other, our pedigree through generation.
Now may it not be possible, no more is claimed, that since, in
virtue of the one relation, we aU die in Adam; so, in virtue of
the other, we all Uve in Christ? In other words, that our dying
in Adam is attributable to his sin, not because actually committed
by us, or Imputed to us; but because he acted for us in com
mitting it And so in regard to Christ. We did not actually
obey in his act of dying, nor is the act imputed to us; but he
acted for us in the deed, and in virtue thereof we live. If from
the sin of the one we draw death, because of our relation to him;
why not from the righteous act of the other draw Ufe, because of
our relation to him? I seem to understand one side of this par
allel about as well as I do the other; and I think I perceive
evidence of the same principle of government underlying both.
I add only, that I am here merely propounding a problem, not
expressing a belief.
to condemnation ; Condemnation to what? Simply to
death. For one sin God, in condemning Adam, condemned in
him the whole of his posterity to death. The sentence, as to
them, had this extent, no more. It had no reference whatever to
eternal death, nor to any other effect beyond the grave.
so also by one righteous act According to Robinson the
primary meaning of dikaiomatos is "a right or just act, righteous
deed". With this agree the Lexicons generally. I translate it
righteous act; and by this understand the act of Christ in dying
as a ransom for the world. The act referred to is certainly that
which antagonizes and countervails the sin of Adam, which
is Christ's death. This, then, I doubt not, Is the specific act
denoted by the word. Again, that dikaiomatos in the present
verse, and hupakoes in the next, signify one and the same thing,
hardly admits of question; and as the latter refers to the obedi
ence of Christ in dying, so also must the former. I hence
conclude that the word is strictly rendered, when rendered right
eous act, understanding this as just explained.
the gift came upon all men to justification of life. The
word "gift" in connection with justification has already been ex
plained, and need not be dwelt on here. But in what acceptation
are we to take justification — in its ordinary and current sense? I
feel sure, not We are to take It as qualified by the context and

i86 COMMENTARY. [Chap, 5, v. 18.
by the epithet Ufe. The phrase gift to justification is the exact
counterpart of the phrase sentence to condemnation; and the
meaning of the latter determines the meaning of the former.
The phrase, sentence to condemnation, means, as just shown, a
sentence in which Adam and his posterity were, for his sin, con
demned to simple temporal death. Now "justification" here
means acquittal or release from that sentence, no more. It does
not include the notion of the remission of personal sins, whether
they be the sins of Adam's posterity, or his own. Remission of
sins is not In the word; it signifies release from a sentence, no
more. Nor is the release an unqualified release, but a special or
peculiar one. It is first release from Immediate death, and as
such amounts to a respite. In virtue of it, Adam lived on after
the sentence; and in virtue of it, we all live the life we are now
living. But it signifies stiU more. It signifies the restoration to
Ufe, after death, of the whole human family, or the universal
resurrection of the dead. The phrase is justification to life,
justification so far as to be permitted to live, and so far as to be
restored to Ufe after death. The word zoes Is in the Genitive,
being the Genitive of object; life is the end or object of the justi
fication. Now release from the sentence of death in the sense just
stated, is precisely what is necessary to an apodosis in the latter
part of V. 12. "Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the
world and death by sin, and thus it spread to all, because all
sinned; so also by one righteous act of Christ the gift came upon
all men to justification of life." "Verse 12 is the appropriate place
for the latter part of v. 18; and where, no doubt, it would have
appeared but for reasons already assigned.
It is strange that two as fine critics as Stuart and Hodge, with
several others that might be named, should have failed wholly to
perceive the meaning of this important verse. Yet such is the
fact. They all construe the word life to signify eternal life, and
justification to have reference to personal sins. Such concep
tions, however, are not In the verse. And very naturally their
interpretation involves them in no small trouble. Especially, doei
Hodge seem to be perplexed. If, he reasons in effect, the phrase
all men, In the latter part of the verse, denotes really the whole
human race, then since justification signifies release from persona)
sins, and Ufe means eternal life; how can we escape the conclusion
of universal salvation? Indeed, according to his interpretation

Chap. 5, v. 19.J ROMANS. 187
there is no escape from it But his remedy lay in correcting
his premises, not in seeking to escape from a correct conclusion
from false premises. The phrase all men certainly denotes the
whole human race; but beyond this, the writers named appear to
be right in nothing. Hodge seeks escape by limiting the phrase
"all men" to a part only, but fails.
Of the authors before me, MacKnight alone appears to have
had the correct view of the verse; and on it he is refreshingly
clear and fine.
19. For as by the disobedience of the one man. Of
course, "the one man" was Adam, and "the disobedience," his
first sin. God said to him, "you shall not eat of it"; but he ate,
and in the act disobeyed. This is the disobedience referred to.
The present verse I regard as furnishing a reason for what is
said in v. 18. It is there merely asserted that by one sin, on the
one hand, sentence came upon all men to condemnation; and
that by one righteous act, on the other, the gift came upon all
men to justification of life, but no reason is assigned for these
assertions. The present verse gives the reason.
the many ¦were constituted sinners; The verb katesta-
thesan is here a very significant word; indeed, It is the key that
unlocks the meaning of the verse. It signifies to set down, place,
make, appoint, ordain, constitute. These are its most common
meanings; and from them I select constitute, as exactly express
ing the sense in which the word is here used.
The verb is passive, and means were constituted. Who now
were constituted? The hoi polloi, the many. But the many did
not constitute themselves, not by any thing they ever either
thought or did. The act of constitution was another's, not theirs.
They were constituted — by whom? The passage would seem to
teach that it was by the disobedience of the one man. It reads,
"For as by the disobedience of the one man the many were con
stituted." But this is incorrect The disobedience of the one did
not constitute the many, either as subject or agent. It was the
means through which or reason why they were constituted by
another. Did Adam constitute them? Certainly not; for who
ever constituted them sinners is also to constitute them just.
This excludes Adam. God then must have constituted the many,
since there remains no one else.
What now did he constitute them? Hamartoloi, sinners.
Now let the reader carefully note that the many were not sinners

i8S COMMENTARY, [Chap. 5, v. 19.
within and of themselves, or by any acts of theirs; they were con
stituted sinners. We can not constitute him a sinner who is one
by his own act. If he be a sinner by his own act, he is so inde
pendently of all acts of constitution. Nor did God constitute the
many sinners through, or because of, any acts of their own. He
constituted them sinners through the disobedience of Adam. Be
fore that disobedience, they were not constituted; after it, they
were. God must then have constituted them sinners through, or
by means of Adam's sin, and because of it. This I believe to
have been the fact; and, if so, it is the precise reason for saying
they were constituted sinners. It is not said of Adam that he
was constituted a sinner. Of course not He was actually and
in fact a sinner; and therefore could not be constituted one. But
at the instant of constitution, his posterity were not sinners as he
was. They had committed no sin, except as through him sinning
for them. Therefore they were merely constituted sinners.
But God constituted them sinners. Now in what sense must
we take hamartoloi? As denoting actual sinners, say Stuart,
Alford, and others. Were the word sinners wholly unqualified
this would be correct; but as the case stands, It is not. The many
were constituted sinners. The verb katestathesan itself qualifies
the word. When I say the pen with which I write was made,
has the phrase was made no qualifying effect? It not only im
plies that the pen did not make itself; but It also excludes the
idea of its being unmade or eternal. So when Paul says, "the
many were constituted sinners," his language implies that they
did not become sinners by their own acts. In so becoming, they
took no part. On the contrary, they were merely constituted
sinners. The truth is, the very object of choosing the verb used
was to negative the idea of their being actual sinners; and it
effectually does it. The many were constituted sinners through
Adam's sin, and because of it. But this was not done because
of personal guilt, or with a view to it The sole reason was Ad
am's sin; and the sole end, death.
That the view here taken of the sense, in which "the many
were sinners," Is correct will appear still farther when we come
to notice the next clause.
so also by the obedience of the one, That "the one" refer
red to is Christ, is universally conceded. Indeed, there is no one
else to be referred to. But in regard to the "obedience," the
agreement is not so general. Some would make it refer to the

Chap. 5, v. 19.J ROMANS.

incarnation. But this, though a most important fact, is too re
mote to be meant here. Others would make the reference to be
to the whole of Christ's life. This is too general; and, besides,
it does not pointedly enough antagonize the single "disobedi
ence" of Adam to which it is opposed. The true reference in
the "obedience" is, I am confident, to the death of Christ in
offering himself as a ransom for the world. "He humbled him
self, becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross."
Phil, ii: 8. This is the obedience referred to.
the many That "the many" includes the whole human family,
unless Adam be excluded, is admitted by all, except some advo
cates of peculiar features of Calvinism. As with these features
I here have nothing to do, I pause not to notice them. But is
Adam excluded? The doctrine of the first member of the verse,
I think, evidently excludes him from "the many" In it; and if so,
then he must be held as excluded from "the many" here. But
although he may be thus excluded from this particular expres
sion, the exclusion is not absolute, as he is certainly included
elsewhere. When Paul says, "as in Adam all die; so, also, in
Christ shall all be made alive," the latter "all" clearly includes
Adam, though the former may not. The whole of mankind,
including Adam, will be raised from the dead. This Is all I am
here seeking to save. "The many," therf, I shall assume, includes
the whole of mankind. Hence the whole of mankind are to be
constituted just.
are to be constituted just. In regard to kathistemi I have
but a word to add. It never signifies to make or cause a person
to be what he Is not. It means to set him down at precisely
what he is, or precisely as he is.
What, next, is the import of the word "just"? Does it mean
just in the sense of being sinless or pardoned? I think not.
Like hamartoloi it is used in a peculiar sense. It means just for
a certain purpose only, and not absolutely just. Indeed, the no
tion of being sinless is not in it. The word means to be just for
the sole purpose of being raised from the dead.
Now in the light of these premises what is the import of the
expression, the many are to be constituted just? The following,
as I deem: Through the death of Christ as a means, and because
of it as a reason, the whole human race are to be constituted just
to the extent, and for the sole purpose of being raised from the
dead. They are set down as just to this end. This I have hardly

190 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 5, v. 20.
a doubt is the import of the expression. By the disobedience of
Adam, the many were constituted sinners so far as to be subjected
to death. By the obedience of Christ, the many are to be consti
tuted just so far as to be raised from the dead. The object of the
Apostle seems to be, to show that just so far as the whole of
mankind have been adjudged sinners for Adam's sin; so far are
they all to be adjudged just for the death of Christ; and that
since that induced death, so this is to induce the resurrection —
and all this without the slightest reference to the personal merits
or demerits of the parties affected.
If the preceding be the true exposition of the verse, as I beUeve
it is; then, confessedly, most of the popular expositions of it are
greatiy at fault. Indeed, I know not one that is at all tenable.
Even the best supported involves a false conclusion. For if we
make "the many" to include all, and the word "just" to mean sin
less or pardoned, I see no escape from the conclusion of universal
salvation. Clearly this is unsound; and yet I know of nothing
better among current solutions.
CHAPTER V. SECTION 3.

'° Now the law entered in besides,
that sin might increase. But where
sin increased, favor abounded exceed
ingly more ; ^' that, as sin reigned
in death, so also might favor reign
through justification to everlasting
Ufe through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Nd/ios Se napeiafjXBev lva nXeovd-
arj TO napdnrapa. Ov Se inXedvaaev
IJ dpapria, inrepenepiaaevaev fj x^P'-^'
" lva aanep i^aaiXevaev fj dpapria iv
T^ Bavdra, ovra xai ^ X^P'-^ /Sao-tXeuoj
Sta Stxaioavvrjs eis ^arjv aiaviov Sta
'l?)(roi) Xpiarov tou xvpiov fjpav.

SUMMARY.
The law entered that sin might increase. But the law did not increase sin
by creating it. It increased it merely by discovering to men certain acts as
sins, which before they had not known to be sins. But the more sin thus
increased, the more favor to those committing it abounded. Sin, like a mon
ster, reigned formerly and still reigns unnaturally in death. Favor, on the
contrary, now reigns chiefly through or by means of justification. Hereafter
it will reign in and through eternal life,
20. Now the law entered in besides, that sin might in
crease. The obvious meaning of the words, though at first
sight hard to receive. The connection is not clear, nor is the
reason for the remark very evident. In v. 12 the Apostie says,
by one man sin entered into the world, and by that sin, death.
The space between verses J2 and 20 he occupies in treating of
this sin and its effects; and in pointing out the remedy in Christ

Chap. 5, v. 20.J ROMANS.

and his death. This done, he adds: "Now the law entered in
besides"; that is, besides sin and death, the law also entered in.
Three things entered into the world; sin entered in, death entered
in, the law entered in. By law I understand, not law in general
as a rule of conduct, nor the law of nature, but strictly the law of
Moses. I see no relevancy in the word in any other sense.
The de is simply a continuative; and although slightly adver
sative, it is correctly rendered by wow. It is too closely followed
by the next de to be rendered but. "Entered in besides" — parei-
selthen. Eiserchomai signifies simply io come inio, go into, or
enter into. Par eiserchomai means to enter into besides, or in
addition to. It also sometimes signifies to enter into stealthily
or s .'cretly, a meaning wholly inadmissible here. In what sense
the law enteied in besides has just been stated.
that sin might increase. I see no necessity for rendering
paraptoma by transgression or by any other more specific word
than sin. Hamartia is clearly used as its synonym in the next
clause. Since then it means simply sin, it Is best so to render it.
But the law entered in besides that sin might increase. How
are we to explain this? Possibly, at least, we are not bound to
explain it at all. Is it a correct translation? This question set
tled, and, may be, our obligation is at an end. But let us note
carefully what is affirmed, and what not. The law did not enter,
to bring in sin; for sin was already in the world. Nor did it
enter, that sin might prevail; since It already prevailed to some
extent But the law entered that sin might, some how, or In
some way, increase as it had not Increased previously; and the
law had just this effect. Was this increase, then, attributable to
any fault in the law? Not at all; for within itself the law was
perfect. Or was the Increase wrong? The very reverse; it was
right. How then did the law increase sin? In volume I presume
it did not increase it, numerically it did. Human nature was just
as sinful before the law entered as after; and men committed
fully as much wrong. But thousands of acts, which before the
law, were simply unknown wrongs within themselves, were, by
the law, determined to be sins. In this way more than in all
others, did the law increase sin. This moreover was right. If a
thing be wrong within itself, determine it to be so; prohibit it, and
then punish it as sin when it is committed. The greater increase
of sin, then, was due mainly to the altered circumstances induced
by the law. Moreover, it was one purpose of the law to increase

192 COMMENTARY. Chap. 5, v. 20,21.]
sin, but in a lawful way, in order to show what human nature is
capable of under a system of perfect law; and thus to highten
the necessity for the gospel. Consequently,the law increased sin
not merely for the sake of the increase, but for the sake of
ulterior ends.
But where sin increased, favor abounded exceedingly
more. However much the circle of sin widened, the circle of
favor stifl stretched far beyond it; and ho^wever great the hight
that sin attained, favor stifl mounted above it But favor abound
ed more particularly in the respite from immediate death, which
all enjoyed; in the longsuffering shown to the human race, not
withstanding their countless personal sins; in the preparation for
the gospel, through which it was conducting the world; in the
types and shadows it was daily casting of the future church; and
in the tongue of prophecy which was constantly pointing to, and
exciting hopes, of the Messiah — In all these ways favor abounded.
21. that as sin reigned in death, Ebasileusen is thelndefi-
nite past, which, probably, it is best to follow strictly here. Sin
had reigned in death previously to the Apostle's time; it was
reigning then; it is reigning now; and it will continue to reign
till death is swallowed up in life. Of course, death is here con
ceived of as a ubiquitous and inexorable tyrant, whose sway
embraces all, and reaches from the birth of sin to the sounding of
the last trump. To reign in death is a bold metaphor which,
being reduced, means simply that all at last die, not one escaping.
The Apostle Is clearly not here considering all the consequences
of sin. He is looking at its workings in this life, and not at its
effects, when unforgiven, beyond the present. It would be quite
as correct, I presume, to speak of sin reigning in the punishment
after death of the finally impenitent, as of its reigning in death
now. Sin leigns in all the evil it has entailed upon man, whether
time or eternity be in view.
so also might favor reign through justification to ever
lasting life On the contrary, favor is here personified as a
benignant king, whose reign is only partial now; but whose vic
tory is sure in the end. Sin reigns in death; favor reigns through
justification. Release from sin is the means or sceptre through
which favor is to achieve its final victory. This blessed reign is
to go on, and prevail, and never cease, till its consummation
in eternal life.
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Favor reigns, primarily.

Chap. 5, v, 21,] ROMANS. 193
through justification as the means of everlasting life; and, second
arily, through Jesus Christ as the sublime personal source of the
favor, who will fully carry out and execute all it has prompted
and devised.
Thus ends, in the latter part of this chapter, one of the most
profound and compactiy- thought pieces of composition, it has
ever been my fortune to meet with. If, when the reader has
studied it as I have, he shall have the satisfaction of feeling that
he is master of it, he will be the possessor of a sensation to which
I am afraid to lay claim. I devoutiy wish hiih the pleasure.
13

194

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 6.

CHAPTER VI.
SECTION I.

What then shall we say? Must
we continue in sin that favor may
abound? ^NotataU. We who died
to sin, how can we still live in it?
' Or do you not know that all we who
were immersed into Christ Jesus were
immersed into his death? '' We were
then buried with him by the immer
sion into death, that as Christ was
raised from. the dead by the glory of
the Father, thus we also shomd walk
in newness of life. 'For if we have
become united with him by the like
ness of his death, surely we are also
to be by that of his resurrection,
^kno^wing this, that our old man was
crucified with him, that the sinful
body might be rendered inactive, that
we should no longer serve sin. ' For
he that is dead is released &om sin.
' Now if we died with Christ, we be
lieve that we should also live like
him; * knowing that Christ, being
raised from the dead, dies no more,
death lords it over him no more.
'"The death, then, which he died,
he died to sin once; but the life
which he lives, he lives to God.
"Thus do you also account your
selves dead to sin, but alive to God
in Christ Jesus.

Tl odv ipovpev; impevaptu r$ ipaff
ria, lva fj xdpis vXeovdajj; 'pfj yevoiro.
OtTives dneBdvopev rjj dpapria, jrSs e«
^fjaopev iv airrg; '*H d-yvoeXre on oaoi
ifiaTTriaBjjpev els Xpiardv 'irjaovv, els
rdv Bdvarov ax/rov i^a-nriaOrjpev; *'Svve-
rdcprjpev oiv avr^ Sta rov ^airriaparos
ets Tdif Bdvarov, lva aanep rjyepBr)
Xpiards ix vexpav Sta t^s So^s roC
narpos, ovra xcu fjpeXs iv xaivdrrjn ^a^s
nepina-rfjaapev. ^El ydp avpi^vroi ye-
yovapev Tw dpoiapari tov Bavdrov avrov,
dXXd xai T^s dvaardaeas iadpeBa
^rovro yivaaxovres Sn d ndXaids fjpav
avBpanos avvearavpaBrj, lva xarapyrjBg
to aapa rrjS dpaprias, rov prjxen Sov-
Xevetv fjpds rrj dpapria. ''O ydp dnoB-
avav SeSiKalarai and -r^s dpaprias. * Ei
Se dneBdvopev ovv Xpiara, niarevopev
on Kai av^fjaopev avra, elSores Sn
Xpiards iyepBeis ix vexpav oiixen dnoB-
vfjaxei- Bdvaros uirov ovxen xvpieveu
'""O ydp dneBave, rjj dpapria d-neBavev
iipdnai- b Se fjj, fj Tia Oea. " Oi^a>
Kai ipeXs Xayi^eaBe eavrovs vexpovs pev
rfi dpapria, ^avras Se ra Qea ev
Xpiara 'lij<roC.

SUMMARY.
We are not to continue in sin that favor may abound. On the contrary,
as we died to sin before our immersion, it would be inconsistent to still live
in it now. By being immersed into Christ we were immersed into his death,
and so were buried with him; and as he rose to live a new life, so we also,
being risen like him, are to live in newness of life. We became united with
Christ by being buried with him ; and we are to remain united with him by
doing as he does, not living our former, but a new life. We were crucified
with Christ in order to render inactive our sinful bodies, and this to the end
that we might not serve sin. As we died with Christ and rose with him; so
we must now live Uke him — we must live a new life free from sin. Christ
being raised from the dead, is to die no more; and so with us. We have
died to sin once, and this must be the end of our dying. In order to this we
must sin no more. In dying, Christ died to sin once for all, but now ever
lives to God; so our death to sin must be a finality; we must now constantly
live to God, and consequently commit no more sin.

Chap. 6, v. i, 2.] ROMANS. 195
The present chapter stands in very close connection with the
preceding one. Accordingly, it opens with the discussion of
questions growing somewhat naturally, I do not say legitimately,
out of what was there last said. These questions, some of which
involve, not imaginary, but real difficulties, the Apostie now pro
ceeds to dispose of in his usual thorough way. Indeed, as he
proceeds, he seems to grow still more exhaustive. Difficulties he
literally grinds to dust. Not a vestige of them is left
I. What then shall we say ? What inference is now de
ducible from the preceding remarks respecting sin and favor?
Especially, what advantage can be taken of them by opponents?
If perverted, what form will the perversion assume?
Must we continue in sin that favor may abound ? The
Future ofthe Subjunctive here implies duty or obligation; and it
is correctiy represented In the preceding. To continue in sin is to
continue to commit it, as we committed it before our conversion.
If when sin abounds, God's favor abounds still more; and if by
this abounding favor his love is displayed and he peculiarly hon
ored, what then? Should we not all continue in sin, that favor
may the more abound? Is this a legitimate conclusion from the
foregoing premises? The Apostle foresaw that this use would be
made of his doctrine, and that It would be injurious to it. He
therefore anticipates the objection and refutes it.
2. Not at all. An emphatic negative, meaning that we are
poslthely not to continue in sin. The reply is made necessary
by the following fact, which is inconsistent with a different
answer. We who died to sin, Not we who have died to sin. The
Aorist should be closely followed here. The meaning is, we
who died to sin before our baptism. Of course it is taken for
granted that, since we died then, we are still dead; but this is
impUed, not expressed.
To die to sin is to be wholly disinclined in mind to commit it,
and consequently not to do so. The expression is a bold one,
and not to be construed too strictly; for no one in the flesh can
be said to be absolutely dead to sin, since no one lives and sins
not. To be dead to sin is to be so as a rule, but not to be so
without exception. The comprehensive, prevalent fact of the
Christian's life is, that he is dead to sin; and so general must this
fact be, that it shall remain barely not universal.
We die to sin when we beUeve in Christ and repent of our

196 COMMENTARY. Chap. 6, v. 2, 3.
sins. For the true conception of repentance is a determination
to forsake sin, accompanied by the act The best and only evi
dence we can give that we are truly dead to sin is our aversion to
it, and cessation from it. None should be baptized till he has
within himself a keen sense of this evidence. Baptism to one
who is still alive to sin is as inconsistent as the literal burial of a
man before he is dead. It is much to be feared that error is
sometimes committed here.
how can we still live in it? The Future here denotes
possibility, not simple futurity. See Winer, p. 279. The question
asked involves an obvious absurdity. If we died to sin before
our baptism, and continue dead to it, it is grossly inconsistent to
think that we may still live in it One chief object of our dying
to sin was that we might remain dead to it. Shall we now defeat
this object by continuing in sin? Consequently, we are not to
continue in sin that favor may abound. On the contrary, if we
commit sin with this object in view, instead of realizing God's
favor, we shall experience only his wrath.
3. Or do you not kno^w That is, should you not assent to
what has just been said, you at least can not dissent from what
follows. The interrogative r\ often introduces a question which
has immediate reference to something just said. It performs this
office here; and where such is the case, it should be translated.
The connection of thought is then indicated, and the relation of
parts shown.
that all we who were immersed into Christ Jesus That
all whom the Apostle addressed had been immersed was a fact
of which each was distinctly and perfectiy conscious. A doubt
respecting the fact was therefore impossible. They had been
immersed — this they knew; they were immersed into Christ —
this they had been taught. Of all this the question reminds
them. To be immersed into Christ — what is it? The radical concep
tion in the form jSairrt^eiv as riVa or cis rt is that of transition
into some one or into some thing. Deprived of this conception,
the words are absolutely devoid of meaning. Nor does it matter
whether the transition is into material things or moral relations,
into physical or spiritual states. Motion from, by impUcation,
and into, expressly, is in the words always and everywhere.
Accordingly, to be immersed into one body, i Cor. xii: 13, is to
pass from without it (point of departure not here material) into

Chap. 6, v. 3.J ROMANS. 197
it; and becoming thereby inserted into it, to form a constituent
member with its members. To be immersed into Moses, i Cor.
x: 2, is to pass from without the circle of his authority into it, and
so become bound to obey him. To be immersed into repentance,
Matt ui: 11, is to pass, by means of immersion, from the Ufe of
the impenitent into the state of him that has ceased from sin. In
Uke manner, to be immersed into Christ is to pass from the
world, where he is not believed in and obeyed, into a state of
freedom from sin and of complete subjection to his wifl. It is
equivalent to being born of water and of the Spirit, by means of
which we cross over from the world into the present kingdom of
God, or church. Farther, to be immersed into Christ and to be
immersed into his name mean the same thing, since the name
stands for the person.
But, It is proper here to add, that immersion into Christ is not
the only means of transition into him. We believe into Christ, as
well as are immersed into him, und the former just as certainly
as the latter, "He that believes eis rov vlov into ihe Son, has ever
lasting Ufe." Jno. iii: 36. To be immersed ets xP'-°'tov, and to
believe eis vlov are similar verbal forms, with Identical significa
tions. Neither excludes the other, and both are alike essential to
the end. We do not pass into Christ by immersion alone, nor
by belief alone. We pass into him by the two jointly, and by
neither separately. Should it be said in reply to this, that bap-
tizo Is a verb of motion and that pisteuo is not, I answer that
the assertion is a mere arbitrary assumption. There is no found
ation whatever for it. With reference to the state into which we
pass, the one word can as readily be transitional as the other, and
with CIS both certainly are.
were immersed into his death ? The course of argument
is this: You know that you were immersed into Christ, and in
the act you were immersed into his death. If now you were
immersed into his death, you are dead, dead to the world, dead to
sin. How then can you continue still to live in sin? With these
premises before you, you can not do it Of course the inability
here implied is moral, not physical.
But what, more particularly, is it to be immersed into Christ's
death? The Apostle conceives that by being immersed into
Christ, we have become, as it were, one with him, so that what
ever he did, we do. Consequently,when he died we died in him.
We are then, as he is, dead to our former state. Accordingly, we

19S COMMENTARY. [Chap. 6, v, 4
can not continue in sin. We are restrained from it by the cir
cumstance of being dead to it in Christ.
4. We were, then, buried with him by the immersion
The reader has noticed, no doubt, that where any tense of the
verb Pa-nritfa occurs in the present chapter, I have rendered it
immerse. It is proper that I should here state my reasons for
this rendering. In doing so, I shall be as brief as practicable.
The word baptize generically denotes action. This much, at
least, will go unchallenged. When the Savior says: "Go, teach
all nations, baptizing them," indisputably the word baptizing sig
nifies action. Not only so, it signifies nothing but action. All
that is in it, in the form of meaning, is action. This point then I
shall hold as settled.
Now what specific action, if any, does the word baptize de
note? That its primary and current meaning, in the Greek
language, is immerse, no scholar can deny. Indeed, I venture
that the whole history of philology does not furnish a less doubt
ful fact than this. In not one instance where the word occurs,
in all Greek literature, does it necessarily mean to sprinkle or
pour. At least, if such instance exist, the opponents of immer
sion have never adduced it. On the contrary, the word occurs
in thousands of cases and combinations where it must of neces
sity be translated immerse, and can not be rendered otherwise.
These are significant facts.
To cite Lexical authority, at length, in proof of what has just
been said, would consume more space than can here be spared.
Nor is this necessary; since every scholar knows that the testi
mony of one good authority is the testimony of all, up even to
hundreds. However, I deem it prudent to cite at least a name
or two, which I select from popular recent authors. Pickering
defines the word to mean, ordinarily, "to dip, immerse, submerge,
plunge, sink, overwhelm^'' — all clearly modifications of one radical
meaning. LIddell and Scott give, as its primary meaning, to dip
repeatedly, dip under. To these they add other remote mean
ings with which I have nothing to do. I am seeking the every
day meaning of the word. Prof. E. A. Sophocles, himself a
Greek, to whom the language is vernacular, and recognized as one
of the best Greek scholars of the day, gives, in his recent Lexi
con, as the meaning of the word, "to dip, to immerse, to sink."
To this lie adds the following special note: "There is no evidence
that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament

Chap. 6, v. 4.] ROMANS. 199
put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks."
But these citations must suffice.
To the preceding, I now add Paul's own testimony; and in
doing so, I shall omit all adjuncts not material to the investigation,
so that attention may be directed singly to the words expressing
the act we are seeking to settle. He says: "We were buried by
the bapiismaios." Now this bapttsma was a fact in the life of
each disciple in Rome, which he is appealed to as personally
knowing. It was not a trope, nor metaphor, but an actual ma
terial fact, about which a doubt could not exist. Paul who, at
the time, had not seen these disciples, tells them that through, or
by means of, this baptisma tiiey had been buried. This settles the
question. In the baptisma of Paul we are buried; and since that
baptism always takes place in water; it therefore follows that in
baptism we are buried in water.
Again, in Colossians he says; "Buried in the baptismo — ha, in
-which, also you were raised." In the baptismo, then, two things
occur: i. We are buried; 2. We are raised. That is, we are
buried in water and raised out of it. And this being raised out
of the water is being born of it. But this Is precisely what takes
place in immersion. Therefore, immersion is the specific act
denoted by baptism.
In response to the foregoing, the only thing that can be said is,
that, in the passage noticed, the Apostle is speaking figuratively.
In reply, I have only to say, that I here have no room to join
issue with efforts, not at exegesis, but to pervert the word of God.
The Apostie has defined himself too clearly to admit of excusa
ble doubt. If the world is ready to assume the responsibility of
rejecting him, while I regret the fact, I am without a remedy.
In conformity with the foregoing facts, John the baptist, and
the disciples of Christ baptized in rivers, and in streams, and in
places where there was much water. This is a conceded fact.
How is it to be accounted for? On the hypothesis alone that
they immersed. To visit a river or other body of water for the
purpose of sprinkling is puerile and offensive to sober thought.
Again, John and the primitive disciples performed their bap
tisms hv uSari in Water, and hi ra iroTapuS in the river. They did
not baptize wiih the river, nor with the water, but in them. Nor
did they baptize, being in the river, but they performed the act
baptism in it The explanation is simple. They baptized the
people in the river, and in the act buried them. Buried, then, 111
water, or immersion, is the meaning of the word.

200 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 6, v. 4.
Finally, when the first Christians baptized, they went into the
water; and, when done, they came out of the water. Hence an
act of baptism requires both performer and subject to go into
the water and come out of it. But for purposes of sprinkling
and pouring this is not necessary; and the first Christians did no
childish things. They went, then, into the water because they
had to bury in it. Consequently, in the rite of baptism, the
specific act performed is burying in water and raising out of it.
For these reasons I render the word baptize, immerse, and in so
doing have a deep sense of right
I add that both Stuart and Hodge, confessedly eminent men,
deny that we have here any allusion to immersion. Their efforts
in defence of their views are singularly weak. But in this, they
only Illustrate the divine decree, that they who oppose the truth
shall never appear strong when at their work.
To indicate that my own views, as just expressed, are not
peculiar, I close with the testimony of a few distinguished ex
positors whom I cite for the benefit of those who may not happen
to own their writings.
Chrysostom: "When we sink our heads in the water, as if in
a tomb, the old man is buried, and, going down, is wholly hid
once for all."
Tholuck: "In the early days of the church, persons, when bap
tized, were first plunged below, and then raised above the
water." MacKnight: "For are you ignorant, that so many of us as
have, by baptism, become Christ's disciples, have been baptized
into the likeness of his death, have been buried under the water,
as persons who, like Christ, have been killed by sin."
Conybeare and Howson: "This passage can not be understood
unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by
immersion." Barnes: "It is altogether probable that the Apostle has allusion
to the custom of baptizing by immersion."
Bloomfield: "There is a plain allusion to the ancient mode of
baptism by immersion."
into death. And if so, then we remain dead, dead to sin;
and consequently can not continue in it. The Apostle is still
refuting the position that we must continue in sin that favor may
abound. that as Christ was raised from the dead. There is here

Chap. 6, v. 4, 5.] ROMANS. 201
an evident ellipsis of a clause. The full sentence is: That as
Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, to
live a new life. Without this clause the analogy intended by the
Apostle is incomplete.
by the glory of the Father, By the power of the Father
is what, at first sight, we would expect. How then shall we
account for the use of glory? Certainly the glory of God was
most conspicuously displayed in the resurrection of Christ; but
then we are accustomed to regard Christ as being raised by
power, and not by glory. The solution I deem to be, that the
glory of God necessitated the resurrection, and so the use of the
power that effected it. Power then was the immediate instru
ment, glory the circumstance that led to the use of it Hence
the resurrection was effected by both. We may then ascribe it
to either, according to the object we have in view.
thus we also should walk in newness of life. Here, too,
occurs an ellipsis which it is necessary to fill, in order to complete
the sense. This done, and the clause reads: Thus we also, being
raised up as Christ was, should walk in newness of life. From
this, the inference to be drawn is, that since we are to walk in
newness of life, we can not continue In sin.
"To walk" is a famfliar metaphor, denoting to live. "Newness
of life" does not mean so much a new Ufe as a new manner of
life. The life is supposed to remain, but the whole mode of it
becomes changed. The gold In the coiner's hand does not be
come new gold; but it assumes new and different shapes. So
with the life: it does not itself become absolutely new, but all its
manifestations become new and pure. The distinction is accu
rate and beautiful.
5. For if we have become united with him by the like
ness of his death. This verse Is usually passed over lightly by
commentators, as if giving them no trouble; yet a more difficult
one is rare. Indeed, but for the Ught thrown on it by the con
text, I see not how its meaning could be made out Before
examining It in detail, two short preliminaries need to be dis
posed of:
I. I feel satisfied that the common rendering, "If we have been
planted together''' is wrong. Sumphutos does not signify planted
together. Were it from sumphuteuo it might; but it is from
sumphuo, which means to grow together, or to be brought forth
together, not to be planted together. Besides, planted together
makes no consistent sense.

ao2 COMMENTARY. Chap. 6, v. 5.
2. The Apostle has still in view the refutation of the position,
that we must continue in sin that favor may abound. With this
object the present verse must be made to harmonize, and In some
way to contribute to it This is not easy.
For if we have become So far all is clear. But what is it
to become sumphutoi? Sumphutos, as just said, is from sumphuo
which is composed of sun and phuo. Phuo, from which comes
phusis, physics or nature, and the old Latin fuo, fui, to be, sig
nifies to generate, produce, bring forth, that is, by force of nature.
Sumphuo, then, must mean to generate, produce, bring forth
together or in connection with. Accordingly, Robinson defines
its N. T. meaning to be grown together into one, connate, united,
one with.
Now in the light of these premises, what Is it to become sum
phutoi? It is to become kindred, united, or one with another in
some respects. "For if we have become" sumphutoi — kindred
with Christ, united, or one with him. This I beUeve gives the
exact idea.
by the likeness of his death — hotnoiomati, the Dative of
means or that by which. Not, "if we have become united" with
the likeness, as Alford, but united with him by ihe likeness. Ho-
moioma signifies that which is made Uke, one thing made Uke
another, or resembling it; and hence, abstractly, Ukeness, resem
blance. It here clearly refers to immersion. The sunetaphemen
dia tou baptismatos of the preceding verse is the homoiomati of
this Hence this verse is confirmatory of that, and therefore Its
gar. But the phrase "likeness of his death" is hardly clear.
Its meaning is, like Christ in death. When dead, Christ was
buried; hence likeness of his death is like him in that state.
With these facts, the meaning of the clause begins to come out
"For if we have become united with Christ" by a rite like his
burial, when dead — then, as In the next clause.
Surely we are also to be by that of his resurrection.
That is, surely we are to be sumphutoi, united or one with Christ,
oy a homoiomati of his resurrection, by a hotnoiomati of him
when raised from the dead. In other words, we are to be one
with him by a Ufe Uke his life after his resurrection. After
he was raised, he no longer lived the Ufe he lived before death.
So with us. When raised in immersion, we are not to live the
Ufe we lived before. We are to live a new life; and hence we
can not continue In sin.

Chap. 6, v. 6.] ROMANS. 203
To make the word resurrection here refer to the future resur
rection of the just, as is usually done, is to misapprehend com
pletely the Apostle's meaning. He has no such reference in
mind. On the contrary, he refers exclusively to Christ's own
resurrection, not to that of the future.
Alia kai, in the preceding, is a difficult combination to render
into English. The former, after the hypothesis, seems designed
to sharpen the inference; while the latter merely subjoins matter.
The Future esometha implies obligation, as it often does, and not
simple futurity.
6. Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with
him, The old man is our former self, the self that sinned before
we died to sin. It is neither the inner man alone, nor the outer
man alone, but the two in one that formerly sinned. By being
immersed into Christ we became, somehow, one with him; our
Ufe and his forming, as it were, one life, so that whatever befell
him is held as befalUng us. Accordingly, when he was crucified,
¦we also were crucified with him.
that the sinful body might be rendered inactive. Liter
ally, the body of sin; but as hatnariias is Genitive of quality, it
is best rendered by an adjective. The word soma I take here as
denoting simply the human body with Its passions, propensities,
susceptibilities, and weaknesses. It may mean less than the "old
man" of the preceding clause; but if so, it means that part of
man which is especially concerned in sinning. The body stands
next to the world; and being closely connected with it, It is
immediately acted upon by all those influences which tempt to,
and induce sin. Being easily excited, easily fired up, it is the
chief instrument of sin. Hence the necessity of so enervating it
as to render it inactive.
Katargeo, however, does not mean to extinguish wholly the
power of sin in the body. The vis peccati still remains. But it
means to weaken it to such a degree that sin virtually ceases.
This weakening is due, first, to the renewed wifl keeping the
body under, and stubbornly resisting temptation ; secondly, to the
Spirit within us helping our infirmities, and so contributing to
the same end ; and, thirdly, to God without, who is a present help
in evei^y time of need. In all these ways, the body is rendered
inactive. that we should no longer serve sin. The object of our
oeing crucified with Christ is to render inactive the sinful body;

204 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 6, v. 7, 8
and the object of this inactivity is that we may no longer serve
sin. Not to serve sin is not to commit it From all of whic
the conclusion again results that we can not continue in sin.
7. For he that is dead is released from sin. The Apos
tle here states a well known fact which he uses to illustrate what
he has just said. When a man is dead, literal death being meant,
sin has lost its power over him. He now no longer commits it.
Indeed he can not sin, because he has not the power. So with
him (conclusion implied) who has been crucified with Christ
He is dead, dead to his former life, and therefore to sin. Conse
quently, sin has no power over him; and he no longer commits
it, because being dead he can not
But when it is said of him who is dead, that he is released
from sin, the release is confined strictly to this life. It has no
reference to the future, and, consequently, is not a release from
future punishment for sin.
The verse is sometimes construed thus: For he that has died,
that is, died to sin by being crucified with Christ, is freed from
sin. He is no longer bound to it or by it, and therefore should
not continue in it. The construction is good, and yields the same
conclusion as the preceding; yet obviously it is but a reiteration
of what is said in v. 6. It is therefore inadmissible. It is best to
regard the verse as the expression of a general fact used to illus
trate v. 6.
8. Now if we died with Christ, The hypothetical form
of speech is very common with Paul. He uses it however mere
ly to introduce a favorite form of argument, not to express doubt.
We certainly died with Christ in being crucified with him. The
fact is not doubtful. Not only so, we died by his crucifixion.
Our death took place in his, and therefore, of course, in the same
way and by the same means.
we believe that we should also live like him ; Pisteuo-
men is plural, but that it is the conventional plural, used for the
singular, hardly admits of a doubt, Paul gives expression to his
own belief, not to that of others. The we, it is true, serves to
conceal him, nevertheless he alone is in it.
The Future suzesotnen is the Future of duty or obligation. It
is used because the obUgation, viewed in relation to the death in
the crucifixion, where it took its rise, was strictly future. We
may at pleasure render, should live wiih, or should live like.
Either is true to the sun. I prefer the latter as better according

Chap. 6, v, 8, 9.J ROMANS. 205
with the fact. So Robinson. If we should or ought to Uve like
Christ, the question arises. How does Christ Uve. The reply is,
he does not Uve the life he lived before his death; he lives a new
life. So with us. We should no longer Uve the old life we lived
before our death in Christ. We should live a new life, a life free
from sin. Hence, again, the conclusion, we must not continue in
sin that favor may abound.
I here take occasion to remark, that rendering the present Fu
ture, and that in v. 5, as common Futures, expressing simple
futurity, has completely obscured the import of the two verses.
As a consequence, neither yields the sense intended. Nor, ex
cepting Stuart, is there a commentator before me that is free
from the error. Indeed, the true exposition seems never to have
occurred to them.
To this it may be replied, that by rendering and construing as
I do, the Apostle is made to repeat himself more than once. But
such is not the case. The Apostle does not repeat, but he won
derfully varies his thought and elaborates his refutation. He
views the objection he is considering from different points, and
pierces it on different sides. Reaching the same conclusion in
different ways is not repetition,
9. knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead,
dies no more. Knowing, etSores, an expression used to intro
duce matters either actually known or concluded to be true.
Raised from the dead. The word dead, vexpav, is here plural, as
also in v. 4, and denotes the whole of the human dead, and not
simply the state of death. Hence, "raised from the dead," means
brought out from among the dead, leaving them still in the grave.
It does not mean simply restored to Ufe from being dead. True,
it means this, but then it means more, as just explained. Dies
no more. Christ died once, never to die again. The results
achieved by that event, and its value to mankind, can never be
told. The infinite Mind alone takes it afl in.
death lords it over him no more. Equivalent to "dies no
more," except that the thought is here more fufly and boldly ex
pressed. The larger clause Is the mere amplification of the less.
But there Is this fact to be taken notice of: Death lords it over
Christ with his consent. Of his own accord he laid down his
life, otherwise he had never died.
10. The death, then, which he died, he died to sin
once ; The gar Is here epexegetical, that is, it introduces an

3o6 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 6, v. ii.
explanation of what immediately precedes, i. Christ died to sin.
What are we to understand by this? That when he died, he
passed beyond the reach of sin. From this on, it could not tempt
him, annoy him, nor cause his death. In a word, he was now
wholly free from its influence which, previously to his death, he
had never been. 2. In dying to sin he died, once for all, or once
never to repeat it
but the life which he lives, he lives to God. The 5 in
this and the preceding clause is accusative of object; and in both,
there is an ellipsis of tovto, which presents Christ's death and life
as strictly abstract conceptions. Literally rendered, the present
clause reads: that which he lives, which is exactly equal to, the
life which he lives; and as the latter Is definite and clear, I decide
to use it Christ now lives; and the life he lives Is supremely
devoted to God. It is a life in absolute harmony with his will,
and consequently sublime and pure.
II. Thus do you also account yourselves dead to sin.
We here have the conclusion from vs. 9 and 10, in the form of a
parallel to the death and life of Christ. Thus do you, disciples in
Rome, also account yourselves dead to sin, as you do Christ; and
consequently feel that you can no more continue in it than he-
can re-live his former life. Nay more, consider that as his dying
to sin once was, with him, an end of dying; so your dying to sin
is never to be repeated. You are not to return again to sin, and
re-die to it often. You have died once; be that enough; and in
order to this you must continually desist from it. Not a day nor
an hour can you longer continue in it
but alive to God in Christ Jesus, Instead of continuing
in sin, consider that you are now to be wholly devoted to God.
His will is henceforward to be the rule of your conduct. Your
selves, and Ufe, and time, are all due to him. , Nothing remains
for sin. You must utterly abstain from it. Alive in Christ.
By being immersed into Christ, we so became one with him, as
to die in him when he died. In like manner, we also became
alive in him when he became alive, and so arose with him, to live
a new life. We died in Christ, i. e., to sin, were dead in him,
and with him returned again to life. It deeply behooves us then
to live like him as nearly as possible. We should consequently
be, in conduct, holy, harmless, and pure.

Chap. 6, v. 12, 13.]

ROMANS.

207

CHAPTER VI. SECTION 2.

' Mq oiv ^aatXevera ^ dpapria iv r^
fivtjT^ v/tmi> aapan els r& vnaxoveiv raXs
iviBvpims avrov, " MijSe napiardvere
ra peXrj vpav onXa dSixias rjj dpapria,
afiXd napaatfiaare eavrovs ru Qea as
ix vexpav (Hvras xai ra peXrj u^o))' oirXa
StKaiooiivijs r^ Qe^- " 'Apapria ydp
vpav oil Kvpievaei, ov ydp iare imo
vdpov SKXd fmh \dptv.

"Therefore let not sin reign in
your mortal body, to obey its desnes.
'' Nor present your members to sin,
as instruments of wrong ; but present
yourselves to God, as alive from the
dead, and your members to God, as
instruments of righteousness. '^ For
sin shall not lord it over you; for
you are not under law, but under
favor.

SUMMARY.
We are not to allow sin to reign in our bodies by obeying bodily desires.
Nor must we use our members in the service of sin; but, as persons alive
from the dead, we must be devoted to God, and use our members as instru
ments in exclusively working righteousness. Sin is not to lord it over us in
the end, by having us condemned, for we are now under favor, and will be
forgiven, and not under law which knows no forgiveness.
12. Therefore let not sin reign in your mortal body, to
obey its desires, A summary conclusion from all that has
been said in the foregoing part of the chapter. Sin is personi
fied as a tyrant whose sphere of infiuence is the human body.
This tyrant reigns in or rules over the body, but only as the de
sires of the body have control of it and lead it into sin. Objects
of temptation act upon the desires and excite them; these now
seek to be gratified; the will yields, and the result is sin. Such
is the process. But we are not to allow these desires to become
BO excited as to impel us to obey them. It is thus only that the
Apostle's injunction can be obeyed. In the expression "obey
its desires, its refers to the body, not to sin.
13, Nor present your members to sin, as instruments
of wrong; The word "members" Includes every faculty and
power of the human body with which we either commit sin or
work righteousness. Indeed the body is the mere sum of these
members, the only difference between it and them being the dif
ference between a whole and its parts.
To present our members to sin is' to tender them to sin to be
used in its service. Viewing sin as a tyrant, the phrase is a mili
tary one, signifying to offer our services to our chief. In plain
style, the phrase means to use our members in the service of sin.
This we are not to do.

2o8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 6, v. 13.
The word adikias is undoubtedly used here generically, to in
clude every form of sin. It should therefore be translated as
comprehensively as possible; and as I know of no word that so
fully does this as wrong, I decide to use it As instruments of
sin. We are not to offer our members to sin, to be used by it, as
tools or instruments in doing wrong. They are designed for a far
nobler purpose, as we shall presently see.
but present yourselves to God, as alive from the dead.
The antithesis of what has just been said. Present yourselves,
inner man and outer, all the powers with which you have here
tofore served sin, present them to God. Nothing is to be reserved
for sin. As alive from the dead. The word vexpOiv here, as in
V. 9, is plural, and includes all the dead of the human family.
The disciples In Rome had been among these dead, and had
come out from them. How was this? They had been immersed
into Christ, and in the act had been buried with him. This took
them down among the dead. In being raised in immersion, they
had been raised with Christ This brought them out, ix, from
the dead. Hence having come out from the dead, though still
dead to sin, they were alive; and now, as being alive, they were
to present themselves to God. According to this, we are not to
present ourselves to God, till risen with Christ, till alive from the
dead. At this point the service of God begins; here the life de
voted to him sets in. It would be hard to reconcile this with
much that is taught in the world in this day.
and your members to God, as instruments of righteous
ness. Present your members to God, with which, if you do
not serve him, you will certainly serve sin. These members can
never be idle. They are always active for evil, or active for
good. Present them, then, to God; present them now; present
them once, never to repeat it; and present them to be used, and
to use them yourselves, as instruments in working righteousness.
The word righteousness is here used very comprehensively; it is
used to include every thing that is right, whether it be something
due to God, due to men, or due to self. It comprises the whole
volume of human duty.
The learned reader will notice that the original of present, in
the former part of this verse, is Present tense; while the original
of the same verb, in the latter part, is Aorist The reason for the
difference appears to be, that the Present inhibits a life, or a life
long course of conduct; while the Aorist commands a single act.

Chap. 6, v. 14.] ROMANS. 209
which is to be performed once, and never to be repeated. The
difference, though insisted on chiefly by German commentators,
does not seem to me to be important.
14. For sin shall not lord it over you ; That is, sin shafl
not lord it over you, in the end, by procuring your final condem
nation. This, I feel sure, is the meaning; and not, sin shall not
lord it over you by inciting you to practise it Assuming this,
and gar becomes easy; it introduces a reason for what is said in
the preceding verse.
for you are not under law, but under favor. You are
under favor. Let this be conceded. How now does the fact
keep sin from lording it overus? If the reference were to our
daily conduct, it could not; but the reference is to our future con
demnation. Favor keeps sin from lording it over us In that, by
securing our pardon, and so preventing the condemnation.
But, on the other hand, suppose we were under law. How
would that enable sin to lord it over us? Were we under law
strictiy, that is, law alone, or law unmixed with favor, we could
never be forgiven. For our sins, in that case, we should surely be
condemned. In this condemnation sin would lord it over us; at
last It would be victor.
Perhaps the Apostle's meaning can be rendered the more ap
parent by repeating; and at the same time inserting, parentheti
cally, a few facts not here stated, but confessedly true. Nor pre
sent your members to sin, as instruments of wrong; though you
will never become entirely sinless. Throughout Ufe, with all
your efforts to the contrary, you will still occasionally sin. Bui
present yourselves to God, as alive from the dead, and your mem
bers to God, as instruments of righteousness. And although you
do this, you will never become perfect in your conduct. So long
as you are in the flesh, you will stfll sin more or less. However,
let not this trouble you. For sin shall not lord it over you in
the end, by procuring your condemnation. For you are not un
der law. Ifso, you could never be forgiven; and thus sin would,
at last, lord it over you in your condemnation. But under favor.
Vour sins, therefore, if you are faithful to Christ, will be for
given. Consequently, you can not be condemned for them; and
so sin wiU be prevented from lording it over you.
14

3IO

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 6,

chapter VI. SECTION

"What then ? May we sin because
we are not under law, but imder &.-
vor? Not at all. '*Do you not
know that to whatever you present
yourselves as servants for obedience.
Its servants you are which you obey,
whether of sin to death, or of obedi
ence to justification? "But thanks
to God that though you were slaves
of sin, you yet obeyed from the heart
the model of teaching to which you
were delivered; '*and having been
freed frora sin you became servants
to righteousness — " I speak humanly
on account of the weakness of your
flesh. For as you presented your
members as slaves to impurity and
to lawlessness, in order to lawless
ness ; so now present your members
as servants to righteousness, in order
to holiness. ^° For when you were
slaves of sin, you were free as to
righteousness. ^' Well, what benefit
had you then from those things of
which you are now ashamed? For
the end of those things is death.
^^But now having been freed from
sin, and become servants lo God,
you have your fruit in holiness, and
the end, everlasting life. ''For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of
God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus
our Lord.

'* Tl oJk; dpaprfjaapev ort oiix tapir
ind vdpov aXXa ind x^P^"! P-^ yevoiro.
"OuK otSare on a napiardvere eavrovs
Sou'Xous eis vnaxafjv, SovXoi iare ^ vna-
KoiSere, rjroi dpaprias els Bdvarov, rj ina-
Kefjs els SiKatoavvrjv; " Xapis Se t^ Qe^
Sn ^re SouXoi rrjs dpuprias, imrjKovaare
Se ix xapSias els dv napeSoBrjre rvnov
StSaxfjs, " iXevBepaBevres Se and rfjs
dpaprias iSovXaBrjre rrj Sixaioavvrj —
'^dvBpanlvov Xeya Sta rfjV daBeveiav rfjS
aapxds ipav. "Qanep ydp napearrjaare
TO peXr] vpav SovXa rrj dxaBapaia Kai
rrj dvopia ets rrjv dvopiav, ovra vvv
napaarrjaare ra peXrj vpav SouXa rrj Si-
Kaioavvji els dyiaapdv ^"'Ore ydp
SouXot ^re Trjs dpaprias, iXeilBepoi rjre
rrj SiKoioiruvji. ^' TiVa ovv xapndv eixere
Tore 60' OlS vvv inaiaxvveaBe; rd ydp
reXos eKeivav Bdvaros. ^ Nuvi Se eXeu-
BepaBevres and rrjs dpaprias, SouXiu-
Bevres Se ra Qea, exere rov Kapndv
iipav els dyiaapov, •rd Se reXos (afjv
aiaviov "^^Ta yap oi^o>i/ia t^s dpaprias
Bdvaros- to Se ;^aptO"/>ta rov Qeov ^afj
alavtos iv Xpiara 'irjaov ra Kvpia
fjpav.

SUMMARY.
It is not true that we may sin because under favor, and not under law.
We are to sin in no case and for no end. If we attempt to serve sin we be
come slaves to it, and in the end will be condemned to eternal death; but, on
the other hand, if we are obedient to Christ, the effect will be release from
all our sins. Though formerly sinners, we have now sincerely obeyed the
gospel; and the consequence is freedom from all sins. Being thus freed, we
are now living in holiness. When slaves to sin we were, in a sense, free
from righteousness; and so now, being servants to righteousness, we are free
from sin. We owe it nothing, and can not serve it. Indeed as we derived
no benefit from our former sins, it would be manifest folly to return to them
again. The end would be death, and by this we must be restrained. But we
can no longer serve sin; for we are now servants of God, and are living holy
lives. We can not serve both. The result of serving God will be everlast
ing life, which we can not afford to forfeit. The end of serving sin is eternal
death which deters us from it.

Chap. 6, v. 15, 16.] ROMANS. 211
15. What then ? That is, what conclusion are we to draw
from what has just been said? May we sin because we are not
under law, but under favor? The Apostle foresaw that his
teaching would be abused; and that the present inference would
be drawn from it. He therefore anticipates the abuse, in order,
beforehand, to have the chance of replying to it. But before
passing on, the question itself needs some slight inspection.
The first reflection that suggests itself is. How can we sin if
not under law? Sin is the transgression of law; and not to be
under law would seem to be the same as to be without it How,
in that case, could we sin? From this it is evident that not to be
under law does not mean to be wholly without It, and conse
quently at liberty to do as we please. Yet such seems to be the
view of many. Because they are not under law, they take for
granted that they are without restraint, and therefore law to
themselves. Nothing could be more erroneous. For, although
we may not be under law, we can sin nevertheless, which im
plies that we are still under law in some sense. The truth is, that
we are under law while under favor; for to be under favor is
simply to be under the gospel; and no one can say that to be
under the gospel Is to be ¦without law. Hence to be under favor
does not exclude law. It Is to be without It In one sense, but to
be under it In another. The full force of the question therefore
is, May we sin because we are not under law which condemns
sin and makes no provision for pardoning it; but under favor
which, though we sin, provides for remitting it?
Not at all. We are not to sin because thus circumstanced.
To do so is a wilful abuse of God's goodness, and a defeat of
favor. He favors us only when making a determined effort not
to sin. Consequently, if we sin wUfuUy', his favor is withheld.
16. Do you not know that to whatever you present
yourselves as servants for obedience, its servants you are
which you obey. The a here may be construed either as mas
cuUne or neuter; but as there is no necessity for supposing it to
be the former, I take it as neuter, and so render it. It would
perhaps be closer to translate it what than whatever; but as the
latter gives the bolder sense, I prefer It,
The verse assigns the reason for the strong negative Not at all.
This It does by introducing a universally conceded fact. You
know that you are bondmen to whatever you constantly serve.
This is true in all the walks of common Ufe; and it is equally true

213 ' COMMENTARY. [Chap. 6, v. i6.
of sin. If you habitually commit sin, you become slaves to it, the
result of which is death, not mere temporal death, but eternal.
You are then, though not Uving under law, restrained from sin
by its fearful consequences. Within itself it is wrong to sin; but
in the Ught of its results, it is appalling. You can not afford to
serve it.
as servants for obedience. You are slaves to whatever
you offer constant obedience. Or more fully, eis hupakoen de
notes the end for which. When you present yourselves to sin,
the end for which you do so, is obedience to it, or the constant
practice of it.
its servants you are which you obey, whether of sin
to death, or of obedience to justification? The usual
rendering of the latter of these two clauses is obedience io
righteousness. But, with Stuart and Bloomfield, I deem it
wholly untenable. That eis dikaiosunen denotes the end attain
ed, is indisputable. Now to say that righteousness is the end
attained by obedience is palpably erroneous. Righteousness
is obedience itself, not the end reached by it; it is a life, not an
effect; a course of conduct, not what results from it. On the
other hand, justification, being not unconditional, is strictly an
end. It is attained by compliance with the conditions which are
precedent to it, and on which it depends. Now, unquestionably,
obedience is, in general terms, the condition on which justifica
tion depends. God justifies or acquits the obedient, not the
disobedient. Hence to represent obedience as being for, or in
order to, justification is strictly correct
Again: in the expression, servants of sin to death, the death
being, not natural death, but eternal, Is the ultimate end of sin.
It is sin in its final result. Of course this implies a sentence of
judgment condemning to the result; but the result only, is here
expressed, and not the sentence. This is understood. Likewise,
and as standing over against this, in the expression obedience io
justification, justification denotes the final sentence of acquittal
which immediately precedes eternal life. In the one expression,
the end of the obedience is expressed, the end of the justification
being understood; in the other, the end of the sentence is ex
pressed, the sentence being understood.
Under this clause. Riddle, in Lange, has this note: "Prof.
Stuart here also confounds dikaiosune with dikaiosis, and unfor
tunately paraphrases: 'obedience which is unto justification.^
This is open to lexical, as well as theological objections. DikaU

Chap. 6, V. 17.J ROMANS, 213
osune is subjective — Hodge." But it is a mistake to say that
Stuart confounded the terms. On the contrary, he knew what
every scholar knows, that in certain connections they have pre
cisely the same meaning. It was this fact which led him to use
the one term in the sense which the other sometimes has. As
to the phrase "obedience which is unto justification" being open
to both "lexical and theological objections," I insist that it is open
to neither; provided the lexicons be reliable, and the theology be
true. The phrase is not very elegant, I grant; but beyond this,
it is open to no objection. Had Mr. R. stated the objections to
which he refers, and not left them to mere conjecture, his note
would have been more satisfactory.
17. But thanks to God that though you were slaves
of sin, In this verse we are compelled either to assume an
ellipsis of xah-ep, or make the Apostle say what is inconsistent
with the whole spirit of Christianity, with his own life, and with
every feeling of the pious heart. I choose the former alterna
tive. That Paul ever intended to say, Thanks to God that you
-were slaves of sin, is something I can not believe. At least,
I am unwilling to believe it, so long as I have the liberty of a
much more agreeable choice. When to this we add, that there
is not a section in the Letter, in which we do not have to supply
one or more words, in order to complete the sense, the objection
to supplying one here is without force. Besides, MacKnight lays
it down as a principle that "de, in the latter clause of a sentence,
sometimes implies that ei kai or kaiper is omitted, and must be
suppUed." In confirmation, he cites the verse In hand, and also
I Pet. Iv: 6. Bengel renders the passage as I do; but he neither
discusses its structure, nor assigns a reason for his rendering.
Bloomfield says: "It is better to suppose, with Grotius and Koppe,
that as the participle is often put for the verb, so here by a He
braism, or rather popular idiom, the verb Is put for the participle,
•which would be equivalent to a verb with kaiper, although."
He then translates as I do. On these authorities, I believe the'
reader may accept the preceding rendering as sufficiently close.
The verse however presents an obstinate difficulty.
you yet obeyed from the heart You obeyed sincerely and
earnestly, or your heart and will were in the act. All obedience
to Christ should be thus characterized. The de of this clause I
render yet, which is not, I grant, quite adversative enough; but I
am without a stricter word. The structure of the foregoing part

214 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 6, v 17, iS.
of the verse forbids but, and on ihe contrary is heavy. We hence
seem tied down to yet.
the model of teaching The word tupon here signifies a
model to which something is to be conformed, Didaches is
Genitive of definition; and the two words together mean doc
trinal model. This is but another name for the gospel. You
were taught the gospel, and required to conform to it as to a
model; in other words, to be obedient to it, obedient to its rites
and precepts, to its spirit and practice. All this you did from
the heart
The expression tupon didaches is sometimes rendered type of
doctrine, and held to denote baptism. But this is too special.
The expression includes baptism, but does not stand for it exclu
sively. The Scriptures should never be forced to teach what is
not clearly in them.
to which you were delivered ; At first sight, this expres
sion seems awkward and not w^ell suited to the connection. But
this arises from losing sight of the Insagery which the Apostle is
using. Sin is before his mind as a master to whom the disciples
had been slaves; and he conceives of them as now delivered
from this master to the model of teaching, to become hencefor
ward obedient to It. The imagery is borrowed from the custom
of delivering slaves from one master to another. In this view of
the case, the expression is both intelligible and appropriate.
18, and having been freed from sin. Freed from sin as a
slave is freed from his master by emancipation or by being trans
ferred . to another. Imagery aside, to be freed from sin is to be
pardoned. In order to this, two things are necessary: i. Obe
dience to the model of teaching; 2. That this obedience be from
the heart. That tells what is to be done; this, the spiritual state
In which it is to be done.
Here the disciples are said to have been freed from sin when
they obeyed the model of teaching. In v. 16, they are said to
have become servants to obedience to, or in order to, justification.
These two expressions evidently mean the same thing. To be
freed from sin is to be justified. That resulted from obedience to
the model of teaching; this from obedience simply, but obedience
to what? Clearly to the model of teaching; since there was
nothing else to obey. This verse then confirms the interpretation
already given of obedience eis dikaiosunen. It means, as said,
obedience in order to justification.

Chap. 6, v. i8, 19.] ROMANS, ' 215
You became servants to righteousness. You became
voluntarily bound to do every thing that is right, and so to ab
stain from every thing that Is wrong — bound to be pure in
thought and holy in act,
19. I speak humanly on account of the weakness of
your flesh. That is, in speaking of sin as a tyrant from whom
you became freed, and of righteousness as a master to whom you
became bound, I use language which men employ when deliver
ing and receiving slaves — language with which you are familiar;
and I do so because of your inability to understand a different
style. You are uneducated in the matters of which I am speak
ing, and will therefore understand them the more readily If I
convey them to you in figures and speech derived from your
every-day life. " Weakness qf your fiesh" is weakness of nature,
which had resulted from the darkness of heathenism, and the life
of sin they had led.
for as you presented your members as slaves to impur
ity and to la'wlessness. That Is, as you fortnerly presented
your members before being freed from sin. It Is not easy to
account for gar here, unless we assume a reference to a suppress
ed sentence, which has often to be done. In thisvlew, the
following would give the connection: When freed from sin you
became servants to righteousness. In doing this, you did only
what you were bound to do, and the more so, because of your
former life. For as ^..ai presented your members, &c. As you
did the one, so now do the other. Tou presented your members
as slaves. Not only so, but the tender was accepted, and you did
the service. You actually slaved It to sin. "As slaves" is not
quite correct. Doula is neuter plural of the adjective doulos.
Strictly rendered, the clause would read, presented your members
as servile instruments; but as slaves is briefer, and safely close,
it may be retained.
to impurity and la^wlessness. These two words distribute
the former life of the disciples. Impurity denotes personal sins,
the sins we commit against ourselves, which consist In impure
thoughts and unchaste conduct. The word embraces all that en
ters into an unholy personal life. Lawlessness, anomian, on the
other hand, comprehends every form and species of sin which
we commit against others, whether consisting in omissions of
duty or positive transgression. Of course, the sins of both classes
are, at the same time, sins against God,

2i6 * COMMENTARY. [Chap. 6, v. 19, 20.
in order to lawlessness; Lawlessness is general here,
comprehending both the impurity and lawlessness of the preced
ing clause. The word states the object for which the disciples,
in their former state, presented their members to evil. It was to
commit sin, sin against themselves, and sin against others. Such
was the use they made of powers designed to honor God and
bless men.
so now present your members as servants to righteous
ness, in order to holiness. In plain, unfigurative style, as
you formerly used all your powers of mind and body in commit
ting sin; so now use them in doing right, that you may be holy —
pijre withjn and sinless without.
20. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free as
to righteousness. Here again, gar seems to refer to a sup
pressed sentence. As if the Apostle had said: In requiring you
to present your members as servants to righteousness, I am doing
only what you yourselves recognize as right When servants are
released from one master, and become bound to another, you
insist on their obligations to the latter. So in your case. When
you were slaves of sin, on the principles of servitude, you were
free as to j'ighteousness. But now being bound as servants to
righteousness, you confessedly owe it your service. To be fref
as to righteousness Is to be free, not absolutely, but in the sens*^
only in which a servant, while bound to one master, is free fron
another. The expression free as to righteousness strikes the reader, nc
doubt, as needlessly unusuaL He would prefer the common form
free frotn righteousness. But this would require the Genitive
with apo, whereas we here have the Dative, Free as to, or in
respect to, is therefore the true rendering. The Dative is used foi
the sake of the more perfect contrast, and, at the same time, to
limit the action expressed by the verb. When you were slaves
of sin you were free, but this freedom was limited to righteous
ness. To be bound to the one was to be free as to the other.
The reader will notice that I translate slave of sin, but servant
of righteousness; and since both words have the same original,
he may ask why the difference. My reason is simply a regard for
propriety. To say slave of righteousness would strike every one
as incongruous and harsh; and servant of sin is too honorable.
It is without the notion of degradation implied in slaving it to
sin. Slave of sin Is the only term which does justice to the idea.

Chap. 6, v. 21, 22.J ROMANS. 217

21. Well, what profit had you then from those things
of which you are now ashamed ? The oun is here chiefly
concessive; that is, it concedes the state mentioned in the pre
ceding verse; and I know of no word that better translates it
than well. Its force, as well as the scope of the passage, may be
thus shown: When you were slaves of sin, you were free as
to righteousness — granted: What benefit did you derive from the
sins you then committed? The answer is none. It will be
noticed that I adopt the pointing which ends the question with
the word ashamed. To me, this alone gives a natural sense.
Ekeiviuv is understood before i^ ois — what profit had you from
those sins of which you are now ashamed? 'Pr\ma.r\\y,karpon
signifies fruit, as fruit of trees; and so it easily comes to denote
the fruit of a certain course of life, or the product of certain acts.
It retains here the meaning of fruit, but fruit In the sense of ben
efit or profit: What profit had you from the sins of your former
life? "Of which you are now ashamed." The fact that when
the disciples in Rome looked back over their past lives, they felt
ashamed of the sins in which they had formerly delighted, shows
the deep change that had taken place In their minds, and implies
how sincere and thorough their sepentance had been. Moreover,
if they had derived no benefit from their past sins, but, on the
contrary, felt ashamed of them, they could certainly have no rea
son for returning to them; and this is what the Apostle is seeking
to guard them against. The issue he is making with them is,
thit they are not to sin, because under favor.
For the end, of those things is death. Not temporal
death, but banishment from the presence of God forever. The
clause is designed to confirm the previous remark. You derived
no benefit from your former sins, nor will you ever do so; for the
end of them is death. It is not their nature to yield you good;
therefore you must not commit them.
22, But now having been freed from sin, Having been
fteed from sin as from a former master, the figurative style being
still kept up. To be freed from sin is to be forgiven. There is
no bondage like that to sin, nor any freedom Uke release from it.
The end of that is eternal death; the end of this, eternal life.
and become servants to God, you have your fruit in
holiness, and the end, everlasting life. Owing to a change
of subject, the word karpon has not here exactly the same mean
ing as in the preceding verse. It means fruit yielded, rather than

ai8 COMMENTARY. Chap. 6, v. 23.]
benefit received. You have your fruit in holiness, or it consists
in holy deeds; you are now servants of God, and the product
is a holy life. Of course a holy life Is a benefit; but this being
assumed, it Is not necessary to express it Eis karpon does not
mean as to, or in respect to, fruit, Eis is used in the sense of en.
In having been freed from sin and in becoming servants to
God, the disciples had passed into (previous transition) a state
which required them to be holy. Here they had their fruit eis in
holiness. In such cases, eis has the force of en. You have your
fruit in the holy lives you live.
and the end, everlasting life. To ielos is Accusative of ob
ject, and governed by echete. You have your fruit in holiness;
and you have, as the end, everlasting life. In opposition to your
former life, you are now living in hoUness; and the end to which
you look, and for which you hope, is everlasting life. You can
not then, because you are under favor, afford to abandon this,
and return again to the service of sin. The act would be with
out reason; it would wreck your hope, and, besides, entail on
you eternal death.
23, For the wages of sin is death. Sin is still conceived
of as a master whom the human family are serving; and It never
receives service for nothing. It always pays. Whether the sin
ner stipulate for his wages or not, he Is sure to receive it What
the wages of sin is, the Apostle here tells us: it Is eternal death.
How astounding the fact that so many should serve for such a
reward! Opsonia originally signified rations Issued to soldiers;
but as these rations constituted part of their pay, the word
came, in the course of time, to mean simply the wages for which
one serves. Such Is its meaning when used to denote the
reward of sin.
but the gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our
Lord, Everlasting life is a gift, and not wages paid for service,
as is the death which is the reward of sin. This gift is bestowed
on us in Christ; it is through him and by him. Through the
efficacy of his blood, he has enabled the Father to bestow It;
while he in person will finally invest us with it In him pro
vision was made for it; and In him we shall reaUze it.

Chap, 7.]

ROMANS.

219

CHAPTER VII.

SECTION I.

*H dyvoeXre, dSeXipoi, yivaaxovai ydp
vdpov XdXa, Sn 6 vopos xvpieijei tou
avBpanov iij)' oaov xpovov (g; ''H yap
UTravSpos yuv^ ra ^avn dvSpi ScSerat
vdpa- idv Se anoBdvjj 6 ai^p, Karfjp-
yijrot and rov vdpov rou dvSpos. '"Apa
oZv ^avTos roi dvSpds potxdXis xPVP-'i'
riaet, idv yevrjrai dvSpi erepa- 'Eav fie
dnoBdvrj d dvfjp, eXevBepa iariv and tov
vdpov, rov pfj eivai airrov potxdXlSa
yevopevrjv dvSpi erepa. ^'Qare, dSeXipoi
pov, xai ipeXs iOavaraBrjTe rra vopa Sta
rov aaparos rou Xpiarov, els ro yevea
Bai ipds erepo), ria eK vexpav iyepBevn,
iva Kajyno(l>opfjaapev rei Qea. ^"Ore
ydp rjpev iv -rj] aapxi, rd naBfjpara rav
dpapriav ra Sta rov vdpov ivrjpyeXro iv
rots peXeaiv fjpav els rd xapnolpopfjaat
ra Bavdra- 'Nun Se xarrjpyfjBrjpev and
TOV vdpov dnoBavdvres iv a KoreixdpeBa,
&are SovXe^eiv rjpds iv Koivdrrjn nvev
paros xai ov ndXaidrrjn ypdpparos.

Do you not know, brethren, for I
speak to men knowing law, that the
law rules over a man so long as he
lives. 'For the married woman is
bound by law to her living husband ;
but if her husband dies, she is re
leased from the law of the husband.
'Therefore, if while her husband
lives, she becomes wife to another
man, she will act the adulteress. But
if her husband dies, she is free from
the law ; so that she is not an adul
teress in becoming wife to another
man. '' And so, my brethren, you
also died to the law by the body of
Christ, that you might become bound
to another, tp him who was raised
from the dead, that we might bear
fruit to God. ' For when we were in
the flesh, the sinful desires which
were by the law worked in our mem
bers, to produce fruit to death. * But
now we are released from the law,
having died to that in which we were
held, so that we serve in newness of
spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

SUMMARY.
The law rules over a man so long as he lives. As an example, take the
married woman. She is bound by law to her husband while he lives. As
proof that she is thus bound, if while her husband is alive, she marries
another man she will act the adulteress. But when her husband dies she is
released from the law which bound her to him. If she then marries she is
no adulteress. And so you, my brethren, died to the law by the body of
Christ when he died. You thus became released from the law, and conse
quently are at liberty to obey the risen Savior. " When we were under the
flesh, which we were before we obeyed the gospel, those sinful desires which
are discovered to be such by the law, worked in us to produce fruit to death.
But we are now released from the law, by dying to it, so that at present we
serve God in a renewed spirit, through the gospel, and not in the old fashion
prescribed in the law.
In V, 14 of the preceding chapter, the Apostle tells the disci
ples in Rome that they were not under law but under favor. Of
this statement, so hard for Jews to receive, he there submits no
explanation. He merely notices an unwarrantable conclusion,

220 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. i, 2.
which he foresaw would be drawn from it. But this done, he
now returns to the statement and proceeds to show how the dis
ciples became released from the law. This is the special object
before him at present; and if the reader will only keep it distinct
ly in view, the opening of the present chapter will cost him but
little trouble. How release from the law occurred, therefore, is
now the point to be explained. Hence the peculiar form of the
address: "brethren, I speak to men knowing law." A question of
law, then, is to be settled, a question, however, falling within
their knowledge; and one therefore which they could under
stand. Do you not know, brethren, for I speak to men know
ing la^w. In the expression, "I speak to men knowing law,"
I can not see an exclusive reference to the law of Moses. To
restrict the expression thus, as some have done, is certainly
arbitrary. The reference is to no particular law, but to law in
general, Roman as well as Jewish, I speak to men knowing
something of law generally. The point which the Apostle is
about to make is true, to the extent intended, of all law, and of
one as much as of another. It is therefore unnecessary to assume
limitations. that the law rules over a man so long as he lives.
Something necessarily true of all human law. But if the man
dies, the hold of the law ceases, and he is thenceforward released
from it. Of course law, if it be divine, is here viewed in its rela
tions to the present life only, and not in its relations to the future.
But let the fact be distinctly noted, for It Involves the special,
objective point of the Apostle, that when the man dies he is
released from the law. This being first boldly put, he next pro
ceeds to confirm it.
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her liv
ing husband ; . This verse has cost commentators a vast amount
of trouble; and all, as it seems to me, without much reason.
Their whole difficulty has risen, first, from ¦ construing the verse
as a sort of parable or allegory; and, secondly, from attempting to
trace a minute correspondence between all its parts, and certain
facts in the life of the christian. These efforts I must regard as
mere fancy work. The Apostle states, in v. i, the general prop
osition, that the law rules over a man so long as he lives. In v.
2, he confirms this by a special illustration taken from married
life. If the husband dies, the wife Is released; if the wife dies,

Chap. 7, v. 2, 3.] ROMANS. 221
the husband is released. Not only does the death of either release
the other; but it releases both. From this it foUows, which Is
the point the Apostle is making, that since we are dead to the
law, we are therefore released from it.
But how is this? The husband dies, and the wife is released,
whereas we die, and we are released. Is not this incongruous,
some will ask; and should we not rather have, the wife dies and
the husband is released? But this would not Improve the case;
for we should still have, we die and we are released. The seem
ing incongruity arises from not remembering that by the death of
either party, both are released, the husband from the wife, as
fully as the wife from him. We die to the law — this is the fact;
and this releases us from it, not the law dies to us. The law Is
never said to die; for the reason, I presume, that it can not die.
Its principles of truth and right are alike immutable and immortal.
As a ponderous ritual, prescribing a peculiar form of worship,
Christ, by his death, took it out of the way; but in Its fundamen
tal features it never died. It is we who die, not the law; but
hereby we are as effectually released from it, as if the law itself
died. but if her husband dies, she is released from the law
of the husband. The law of the husband is the law which
gives the husband control over his wife, and binds her to him.
Now, as by his death, she is released from this law, so also is he;
and if he still lived here after death, as does the christian who
dies tp the law, he would be as free to marry again, as is his wife.
It is this fact that enables the christian, who is dead to the law,
to become united to Christ In the fact, moreover, we begin to
discover the Apostle's design, whicfi is, to establish first a release
from the law by death. In order to justify a union with Christ
To this end his thoughts and arguments are tending.
3. Therefore, if while her husband lives, she becomes
wife to another man. This verse is designed to confirm the
preceding one. It is there said that the woman is bound to her
living husband, bound so long as he Uves. In proof of this she
can not, during his life-time, consort with another man. To do
so is a crime which, by the law of Moses, subjects her to death.
Only when her husband dies, is she released,
she will act the adulteress. The Greek word chrema
means any thing usable, as goods, property, resources, advantages.
Accordingly, the verb chrematizo means to handle usable things.

222 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 3.

or to deal in them. It means to transact business generally.
Hence, before it can be correctly rendered in a given case, the
special business about which it is employed must be known. If
giving names be the business, it means to give a name or be
named, accordingly as it is active or passive. If giving or re
ceiving oracular responses be the business, it means to give or
receive an oracular response. If warning or instructing by
dreams be the business, it means to warn or be warned by a
dream, and so on through an indefinite range of things. Here
the business It is employed about is the unlawful intercourse of a
wife, whose husband is stifl Uving, with another man. It there
fore signifies acting the adulteress. This is its exact meaning.
To render it, as in the E. V., "she shafl be cafled an adulteress" is
without warrant. The Apostle does not mean to tell what the
woman shall be called, but what business she will be engaged in.
She will act the adulteress.
But if her husband dies, she is free from the law; She
may then marry at will. And so with us. Being released from
the law (most probably the law of Moses here), we are at liberty
to become bound to Christ. The only difference is this: the wife
is released by the death of her husband, we by our own death to
the law — an immaterial difference.
so that she is not an adulteress in becoming wife to
another man. The Jews held the law to be of perpetual obliga
tion. With them, consequently, no more aggravated sin could
be committed than to abandon it. Indeed, so deeply rooted was
this conviction in their minds that the early disciples from among
them, including even the apostles, found it exceedingly difficult
to give up the law. Hence the necessity of showing them that
it could honorably be done. Once satisfy the Jew that in be
coming a christian he dies to the law, and thereby becomes as
effectually released from it, as is a wife from her husband by his
deathj and you remove his greatest obstacle in accepting the
gospel. You do more. Pious Jewish christians, long after they
became such, were troubled with scruples about forsaking the
law. These you remove by establishing their release from it.
This is the Apostle's work here. In order to effect it, two things
are necessary: i. To show that the law rules over a man so long
only as he lives. This has now been done. 2. To convince the
Jew that in obeying Christ he died to the law. This is now to
be done. Hence the next verse.

Chap. 7, v. 4.] ROMANS. 223
4. And so, my brethren, you also died to the law by
the body of Christ, In the preceding chapter,the Apostle has
spoken of being dead to sin, and of not being under law. But
dead to the law is a new expression, conveying a new and most
important idea. For if the disciples had died to the law, intui
tively they were released from it; and if released from it, then
they had committed no sin in abandoning It for Christ. This Is
the conclusion to which the Apostle wishes to bring them.
But they died to the law by the body of Christ. How are we
to understand this? That to die by the body of Christ is the
same as to be crucified with him (ch. vi, v. 6) can hardly admit
of a doubt; and if so, then the body of Christ is here used for
Christ himself In so far only, of course, as Christ died to the
law,could the disciples die to It, since they died by him. But he
died to it completely and finally. So then did they. But how
could they die by Christ? In no way that we can conceive of,
except representatively. In believing and being immersed, (ets)
into Christ, the whole disciplehood became, in life, somehow
identified with his life. Hence whatever he died to, they died to.
Thus both died to the law.
Or a still different interpretation has been suggested, which I
here present Christ was a descendant of David as to his fiesh
only [kata' sarka); and so far only as he was a descendant of
David, was he man and Jew^ Thus far only, then, was he sub
ject to the law. As the Logos, conceivably he was not subject
to the law. All that was in him or pertained to him, over which
the law had authority, was his body. Hence he could die to the
law only In body. Accordingly, it was not by him in his whole
ness, or as the entire Son of God, that the disciples died to the
law, but by his body strictly. Such briefly is the interpretation.
But it is objectionable on the ground that it requires us to con
ceive of Christ as separated in his death, as to the law, into his
two respective natures, which is inadmissible. It is far better
to regard him as dying, as the whole or undivided Christ, In
every sense, to every thing, and for all purposes affected or effect
ed by his death. A different view, I deem untenable. Christ
was subject to the law as an individual, and not merely in this
nature or that. As an individual, moreover, he died to it; and by
him as such the disciples also died to it In this view only, I see
the truth.
that you might become bound to another, to him who

224 " COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 4, 5.
was raised from the dead, That is, to Christ While this
language is conformed to that used in the preceding verses rela
tive to the marriage relation; it is not necessary to conclude that
the Apostle intended to use that relation as a figure, and extend
it. The case of the wife and the husband is adduced, not as a
figure, but merely as an illustration. The translation therefore
should express the fact simply, and not conform to a supposed
figure. Accordingly, the common rendering, "that you might
become married to another," is gratuitous and inept. Release
from the law and obedience to Christ is the fact before the Apos
tle's mind, and not release from one husband and marriage to
another. The disciples are not here viewed as a wife, and Christ
as a husband. The effort so to view them has been a chief cir
cumstance in rendering the interpretation of the passage difficult
It was necessary, it seems, that the Jews should be first absolv
ed from their obUgation to the law, before becoming bound to
Christ. Whether there was only one special mode in which this
could be effected, we are not informed. It was accomplished as
we have seen, by their death to the law in the manner just ex
plained. To feel thus released was most important to them;
since, without It, there was virtually no inducing them to accept
the gospel.
that we might bear fruit to God. Not the fr.uit of mar
riage, as some, misconstruing the foregoing clause, have supposed,
but fruit in the sense of acts of obedience to Christ. This is the
fruit God requires of all. The acts are performed as in obedience
to him; and consequently, when viewed as fruit, they are repre
sented as being borne to him.
5. For when we were in the flesh. To be in the flesh
is to be under the flesh; and to be under it is to be controlled
by its propensities, evil inclinations, and desires. Hence the
clause, "when we were in the flesh," means when we were gov
erned by It; which was in our former unregenerate state, or
before we became christians. The meaning is not, when we
were under the law; but, strictly, before we obeyed the gospel.
The clause has no reference to the law. It denotes the state of
all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, before obeying Christ
the sinful desires which were by the law Sinful desires,
pathemaia ton hamariion, are desires which, being indulged,
lead to sin or cause it They are called sinful because they tend
to sin, and when gratified, end in it. " Which were by ihe law^

Chap. 7, v. 5 ] ROMANS. 225
How, or in what sense, by the law? Were the desires excited
or set in motion by the law? Such is the usual reply; and the
explanation given is, that the law, by inhibiting certain sins, ex
cites or arouses the desires which lead to them. But this, to my
mind, has always appeared exceedingly unsatisfactory. Indeed,
I regard it as wholly false. Here are certain desires which can
not be gratified without sin, and in countless instances are known
to lead to it. Now can it be possible that the law of God, which
is holy, excites these or stirs them up? If so, then complicity of
the law, in the sins so caused, Is Inevitable. This conclusion I
am compelled to reject; and rejecting it, I reject the explanation
which leads to it. Satan may arouse desire; or it may be ex
cited by its unlawful object, but never by the law.
What then is the meaning of the clause, "which were by the
law"? I answer, desires which are discovered by tneans of the
law to be sinful. In v. 7, seq., the Apostle says: "I had not
known sin but by the law;" that is, I had never known or expe
rienced what that thing is, which is called sin, had not the law
pointed it out to me, and declared it to be sin. Now, if the
Apostle had to learn, by the lavsr, what sin itself is, much more
surely had he to learn what desires are sinful. In farther proof
of this, take the Apostle's own special confirmation of his remark.
He says: "I had not known desire to be sin had not the law said,
You shall not desire". Of course, the desire here was the desire
if unlawful objects. Now, had this desire never been in motion
previously to the law? Had it remained latent in all human breasts
orior to that time? No one can so think. It existed before the
law as certainly as after it; nor was it less active then than sub
sequently. The law then neither created It nor excited it The
law merely declared it to be sin, or made it known as such. This
was the relation of the law to, and its effect upon desire,
worked in our members, to produce fruit to death. Our
sinful desires worked in our members when we were in the flesh.
Indeed, the proof of being under the flesh is the degree of activ
ity of these desires. Many of them, it is true, are Innocent, except
when in excess; and all are harmfess when kept dormant or un
der proper restraint. But whenever they are allowed to riot
beyond bounds and over right, then they become deeply sinful
and dangferous. Not only did these desires work in our members
when we were under the flesh; but to a certain extent they work
in them still; for, otherwise, we should be without sin. The

226 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 5, 6,
difference between our former state and present, is this: Then
these desires ruled us; now we rule them. True, we are not now
under the flesh, that is, we do not suffer it to control us; but still
we are in it, and so long as this is the case, we shall be more or
less influenced by it Much as we may regret this, we are with
out a remedy for it But the great, general fact of our christian
life must be that, with masterly will, we control the flesh. The
exceptions are to be accidental and unwilled. Worked in our
members. Mostly in our fleshly members, as we were then in
the flesh, but in all. Then it was that we made it our business to
present, as the Apostle styles it, our members as slaves to sin, in
order to work lawlessness. Nor did these desires work aimlessly;
for they worked by direction of a master. Though blind them
selves, they were not blindly led. Satan plied them and stimu
lated them; and they worked as slaves, to produce fruit to death.
Their object was to induce sin, and this, in order to insure sen
tence of condemnation to eternal night. Of course it was being
in the flesh, and under the law, that rendered the former unre
generate state of the disciples so fatal. Being in the flesh, they
were sure to sin; and being under the law, they were sure to be
condemned. Nor does law here signify the law of Moses only.
The same was true of the disciples, no matter what law they
lived under. If they sinned, which was certain, they were sure
to be condemned. From that moment on, they were hopeless.
How great, therefore, the necessity for releasing them from law
and placing them under favor. How this was done has -now
been shown.
6, But now we are released from the law, having died
to that in which we were held. We were held in the law,
as in the power of a master; and we were so held till we died,
which took place in Christ when he died. By that death, we
were released from the la.w, and so passed under favor, where we
now stand. Nor did we die to the law only; we died also to sin.
so that sin no raore dominates over us now than does the law;
Nay, more, when Christ was csucified, our old man, our body or
flesh, was also crucified with him. Accordingly, we are no
longer under the dominion of the flesh. Dead to the law, dead
to sin, and though in the flesh, not controlled by it — this is our
present state.
so that we serve in newness of spirit. After "serve,"
suppily God — so that we serve God. The word spirit here de-

Chap. 7, v. 7.]

ROMANS.

227

notes, not the Holy Spirit, but the human, the spirit of the disciple.
"Newness" expresses the quaUty or condition of that spirit as
renewed by the gospel, and purified from sin in the blood of
Christ. Such a spirit is not itself new, but in a renewed state.
and not in oldness of letter. "Letter" here means law, the
law of Moses, I presume, while "oldness" signifies an attribute of
it, as old or of long standing. To serve God In oldness of letter
means, to serve him in the old mode prescribed in the law. But
we no longer serve him thus. We are dead to the law, and con
sequently released from it, are dead to sin, are not under the
flesh, are under favor, and renewed in spirit. How natural, then,
that we should not serve in the old style of the law.
CHAPTER Vll. SECTION 2,

'Tl dSv ipovpev; d vdpos dpapria; prj
yevoiro. 'AXXa r^v dpapriav ovx eyvav, el
pfj, Sta vdpov -rfjV re ydp iniBvpiav oiix
jjSetv, el pfj 6 vdpos eXeyev, Oiix iniB-
vpfjaets. ' 'A<j)oppfjv Se Xa^ovaa fj
dpapria Sta t^s e'l^oX^s xareipydaaro iv
ipoi ndaav iniBvpiav X'^P'^ 'Y^P ""H-"^
dpapria vexpd. ''Eya) Se e^av x"*?'^
vdpov nore, eXBoriarjs Se rfjs ivroXfjs, fj
dpapria dve^rjaev, ^^ iya Se dneBavov-
Kui evpeBrj poi fj ivroXfj fj els ^afjv, avrrj
«s Bdvarov. "'H yap dpapria, dipoppfjv
Xa^avaa Sta r^s e'woX^s, iirjndrrjae pe,
*ai St* aur^s dnexreivev. "'Qirre o pev
vdpos ayios, Kai fj ivroXfj dyia xai Stxala
xai dyaBri.

'What then shall we say? Is the
law sin? Not at all. On the con
trary, I had not known sin but by the
law. For I had not known desire to
be sin, had not the law said. You
shall not desire. 'But sin, taking
advantage through the precept, work
ed up in me every desire ; for without
law sin is dead. 'And I was once
alive without law, but when the pre
cept came, sin revived, and I died ;
'"and the precept which was given
for life was found by me to end in
death. "For sin, taking advantage
through the precept, deceived me,
and by it killed me. "So then the
law is holy, and the precept holy,
and just, and good.

SUMMARY.
The law is neither sinful nor the cause of sin. On the contrary, sin be
comes known by the law. As proof, I had never known desire to be sin, but
for the precept of the law forbidding it. But so soon as the precept was
given, sin took advantage of the circumstance to work up desire in me, the
very thing the law forbade; and thus I fell under the condemnation of the
law. Without law sin is dead or powerless to kill. Accordingly, before the
law I was alive or uncondemned, but when the precept came I broke it.
Thus sin arose, and for it I was condemned to die. It was in this way that a
precept which was designed for life turned out to end in death. The law
then is not sin; but is holy in all its parts,
7, What then shall we say? What judgment shafl we
pronounce on what has just been said, what comment make, or
objection urge? Is any thing open to criticism? If so, what?

228 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 7.
Is the law7 sin? — The law of Moses. Is the law sin, not is
it evil, or an evil thing? Or more precisely, is the law the cause
of sin? This gives the exact sense. The reference is clearly to
V. 5, where it is said: "When we were in the flesh, the sinful de
sires which were by the law worked in our members," &c. If
these sinful desires were really by the law; that is, either genera
ted or excited by it, then is not the law, indirectly at least, author
to the sins thus caused? Such, it seems to me, must be the
decision of mankind. But, "Not at all," is the bold denial of the
Apostle. Then these sinful desires were not generated or excited
by the law. No other conclusion meets the demands of the case.
On the contrary, these sinful desires existed, not only anterior to
the law, but anterior to all law. They have existed, not to say
more, from the fall of man to the present; and they ¦will continue
to exist, so long as we are In the flesh. They exist alike in Jew
and Gentile, alike where law is, and where it is not. They are
universal. They are not then caused or excited by the law; ihey
are merely shown by the law to be sinful. This defines the rela
tion of the law to them. And for the precise reason that they
are sinful per se, sinful within themselves, does the law declare
them to be so, and interdict them.
Now of all the crudities that permeate the writings of com
mentators, surely one of the most glaring is, that the law, any
law, excites or arouses these sinful desires by prohibiting them.
The notion Is not only untaught In the Bible, but is contradicted
by the universal consciousness of mankind. That, when the
Bible says, "You shall not steal," the precept arouses in human
breasts the desire to steal, Is what every man knows within him
self to be false. The notion, which cumbers the pages of so
many commentators, and of none more than those of Stuart and
Hodge, should be universally repudiated. I venture the assertion
that no man ever yet thoughtfully attempted its defense, who did
not find himself In the following disagreeable dilemma: The
Bible, I believe, asserts the notion, and therefore I must defend
it; yet in my soul I feel it to be false. Of course. In all such
cases, the verdict of the soul is held to be mendacious; while the
imposed dogma of the Bible is held to be true. The notion, how
ever, has not its origin in the Bible, but in certain false theories
respecting the agency of the law in conversion. But into the
merits of these theories, no investigation is here proposed.
On the contrary, I had not known sin but by the law.

Chap. 7, v. 7.] ROMANS. 229
Not, I had not experienced sin; for although this might have
been true, it is not what the Apostle means to say. What he
means to say is, I should never have known what sin is, or I
should have had no knowledge respecting it, but for the law.
And this is precisely the fact in the case. Had God kept sflent
in regard to sin, and never communicated with man upon it, in
the form of law defining what things are sins, the conception of
sin would never have been in the human mind. We should have
Uved and died, with no more knowledge of it, than though there
was no such thing.
For I had not known desire to be sin, had not the law
said, you shall not desire, A particular example designed to
confirm and illustrate the preceding statement So far is the law
from being sin, that it both points out what is sin, and forbids it.
It neither produces sin, nor abets it; on the contrary, it con
demns it, and prescribes its punishment This is the office of the
law.
Epithumia is a difficult word to translate into EngUsh, not
because of its uncertain import, but for want of an exactly corres
ponding word. Covetousness and lust are too narrow; and desire
lacks the notion of evil, which the original implies. Evil desire
would express the idea closely, and would serve well for the
noun; but it is Impracticable in rendering the verb. Upon the
whole, I see no remedy but to translate simply by desire; and
then to explain, that the desire is either sinful within itself, or
respects sinful objects, or both. We can soon learn to associate
with desire the full force of epithumia. We shall then be secure
against error.
The exact ¦word-for-word form of the original is. For I had
not known desire, had not the law said, you shall not desire. But
surely the Apostle did not mean to say that, but for this precept
of the law, he would never have known what desire is. This
would be to put in his mouth what was not true of himself or of
any one else. His meaning then must be, I had not known
desire to be sin had not the law said, &c. He not only knew of
desire, but knew it, as well before the law as after; but he did
not know it to be sin. This is what he learned by the law.
But when the Apostle says, "/ had not known desire," &c., in
whose behalf is he speaking? Is he speaking of and for him
self, or is he representing others? I answer he is speaking of and
for himself simply as a man; but he is saying what is true of

230 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 8, g,
all men. The notion, still popular with some, that Paul, in cer
tain parts of the present chapter, is personating a Jew under the
law; and in other parts, a christian under the gospel, is purely
fanciful. It is difficult to discover how it was ever invented; and
equally difficult to understand how it ever found an advocate.
8. But sin, taking advantage through the precept, work
ed up in me every desire ; The law, then, is not sin; nor does
it cause those evil desires which induce it; but sin itself causes
them. Such is the connection. Sin is here personified, and, as
such, is represented as doing two things. 1. It takes advantage,
i. e. of me, and so of all. This it is enabled to do by means of
the precept of the law. In other words, the precept furnishes it
the opportunity to take the advantage. 2. It "works up in me
every desire,'' and so in all. The law says, "You shall not de
sire." Sin takes advantage of this, to work up in me the very
thing which the law forbids. It is thus seen to be sin that causes
these desires, and not the law.
But there is no real, personal entity, cafled sin, acting upon the
human family, and causing violations of the law. Nor is there
any abstract, evil thing so acting. Who then Is It that performs
the office here ascribed to sin? It is not our nature, however de
generate; for our nature is what is acted upon. Who then is it^
Satan. In all cases of sin, and of the excitement of desire causing
sin, he is a factor never to be lost sight of. It is he who leads us
out into the wilderness, to tempt us to sin; he that takes advan
tage; he that works up evil desire. In computing the forces,
then, that induce sin, he must always be taken largely into the
account Otherwise, we shall never conclude correctly.
for without law sin is dead. And, be it added, Satan
powerless. Without law sin is not merely dead, it is non-existent.
It not only does not exist, but can not. Law and sin are t^wo
terms of a correlation, the former of which not being, the latter
is impossible. Not only so, it Is inconceivable; for we can no
more think of sin without law, than of body ¦without space.
Hence when It is said that without law sin Is dead, we must re
member that the conception is highly figurative. Without law,
there is, in fact, nothing to be dead, nor any thing to be as if
dead, save Satan; and possibly, at least, the aUusion may be re
motely to him.
g. And I was once alive without law. The Apostle is
here obviously stating a universal fact, or fact true of all man-

Chap. 7, v. 9.] ROMANS. 231
kind; and the case he is putting is ideal; for there has never been
a time, since Adam, when the human family were wholly with
out law. In other words, he is stating rather what would have
been than what was. "I was alive once without law" — why?
Because there being then no law, there was no sin; and there
being no sin, there was nothing to be condemned for, and conse
quently nothing to die for — nothing to die for in any sense,
literally or otherwise. I was therefore then alive, and alive of
necessity, alive in the sense of being free from sin, and free from
death. This is what all would have been without law, but what
not one is under it:
but when the precept came, sin revived, and I died ;
The precept, "You shall not desire," Is the one referred to; and
although specific, it is used to set forth a universal truth; for the
same result would have followed any precept. In other words,
the Apostle is showing what followed the introduction of law,
and not of a single precept. When the precept came,sin revived.
But prior to the precept there was no sin, and consequently none
to revive. The view then is of an ideal case. Plaiijly, when law
came, sin also came; that is, came into being as a fact; in other
words, so soon as I was placed under law I sinned. This is
clearly the meaning. But having once sinned, I was condemned,
and so died in the sense of being doomed to death for sin. This
I take to be the death meant. It could not have been natural
death, for this was not suffered; nor future death, for neither was
this. It must then have been death in the sense just explained.
It Is almost certain to my mind that, while the Apostle Is stat
ing, in this and the next verse, facts which, although said only of
himself, are true of all men, he is at the same time closely paral
leling the case of Adam. Indeed, that case and the one here
presented resemble eaph other so strikingly that they might
readily be taken as the same. Let the reader only inspect closely
the verses named, with the case of Adam and his first sin before
his mind, and he can not fail to be struck with the resemblance.
Nor must we here lose sight of Satan. The view would not be
complete without him. "When the precept came, sin revived."
This is very much like, when the precept came, Satan appeared;
and the one is not more true than the other. When the precept
came, Satan had his opportunity. He now stirred desire in the
human breast, whether fallen or unfallen, and the result was sin.
The sequel is known. Human nature is fearfully wrecked, I

232 COMMENTARY. Chap. 7, v. 10, 11.

grant; but in awarding to all their due, measure largely to this
great foe.
10. and the precept which was given for life was found
by me to end in death. The reader will notice that, unavoid
ably, I am a Uttle free here; but I am unable to give the sense
without it Very literally rendered, the clause would read thus:
and the precept which was for life, this was found by me for
death. This clearly needs expansion.
The whole purpose of the law is here told in one brief clause.
It was given for life, 'given to preserve it, and that in innocence.
This was the design, both of the law given to Adam, and of that
administered by Moses. Now if the law was given for life, it
can not be sin; for sin destroys life. The charge, therefore, in
V. 7, is false. "Was found by me to end in death"; not because
it was intended for death, but because it was abused. It was
given for life; but being transgressed, it condemned the trans
gressor, and so ended in death.
II, For sin, taking advantage through the precept, de
ceived me, • The proof of ¦what is said In the preceding verse.
Hodge and some others would point thus: For sin taking advan
tage, by the precept deceived me; that is, deceived me by the
precept. But this is erroneous. The precept was not the instru
ment of the deception, but the circumstance that furnished sin
the advantage. The presence of the precept was a fact Of this
fact sin took advantage to deceive. This gives the idea. Now
by dropjiing sin as personified, and substituting Satan for it; and
by adverting again to the parallel of Adam, the meaning becomes
clear, God said to Adam, "You shall not eat of it," Satan now
had his advantage. Accordingly, he said to the woman, "you
shall not die." This deceived her. It was the precept, then, that
afforded the advantage; but the lie that did the deceiving. And
so in the case in hand. It was through the presence of the pre
cept that the advantage was taken, but by some other means
that the deception was effected.
and by it killed me. The analogy to the case of Adam is
still close; while the reference to it seems little less than certain.
Sin Is still personified ; and, as such, is represented as killing.
Satan, for whom sin most probably here stands, and whom
the Savior calls "a man -killer from the first," induced men to
sin; and for this they die — naturally, if the sin be that of Adam —
eternally, if it be that of his posterity, and unforgiven. The kill

Chap. 7, v. 12.] ROMANS. 233
ing here is of the latter kind. It is therefore not actual, but
prospective; it is killing in the sense of being condemned to the
second death. The kUling is not what is often called spiritual
death — a phrase unknown to the Bible, and expressing, almost
certainly, a false idea.
12. So then the law is holy, and the precept holy, and
just, and good. Verse 7 propounds the question. Is the law
sin? To this the four next verses reply, not very fully, to be sure,
but closely and conclusively. Indeed, the question needed no
extended reply; for but few persons would be found to urge it.
Verse 12 is the summary conclusion from the facts constituting
the reply. The law referred to is the law of Moses; and the
precept, the tenth of the decalogue — You shall not desire.
On the epithets holy, just, and good, it is not necessary to
dweU. The reader will recognize them as substantially synon
ymous, though not strictly so. "Holy" means that the law Is pure
within itself, is without the taint of sin; "just," that it is right in
its requirements of men, or free from wrong; "good," that it is
positively beneficial, working the welfare of those to whom it
relates.

334

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 7, v., 13.

CHAPTFR VII. aECTION 3.

"Did then that good thing become
death to me? Not at all. But sin
did, that sin might be seen working
death to me by what is good, that sin
might, by the precept, become exces
sively sinful. "For we know that
the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly,
sold under sin. " For what I do, I
approve not ; for I practise not what
I wish, but what I hate, that I do.
'^If then I do what I do not wish, I
agree with the law that it is right.
" But now it is no longer I that do
this, but the sin which dwells in me.
''For I know that no good dwells in
me, that is, in my flesh ; for the wish
is present with me, but doing right is
not. '"For I do not the good which
I wish, but the evil which I do not
wish, that I do. ^o if then I do what
I do not wish, it is no longer I that
do it, but the sin which dwells ia me.
"I find it, then, the rule with me
that, when wishing to do right, evil
is present with me. ''^ For I delight
in the law of God in the inner man ;
" but I see another law in my mem
bers, at war against the law of my
mind, and making me captive to the
sinful law which is in my members.
'''* Toil-worn man I ! Who shall de
liver me from this body of death?
'* Thanks to God, he will, through
Jesus Christ our Lord, So then with
the mind I myself serve the law of
God, but with the flesh the law of
sin.

" To oiv dyaBov ipoi yeyove Bdvaros;
pfj ye'votro. 'AXXo ^ djiapria, lva <j>avg
dpppria, Sid rov dyaBov pot xarepya^o-
pevrj Bdvarov, lva yevrjrai xaff vnep^oXrjv
dpapraX&s q dpapria Sid rfjs ivroXfjs.
'* OiSapev ydp Sn d vdpos nvevpariKos
iariv- iya Se adpxivos elpt, nenpapevos
ind rfjv dpapriav. "* O yap xarepyd^opai,
oil ytvaaKa- ov ydp 6 deXa, npdaaa,
dXX' 6 piaa, TOVTO nota. ' Ei Se o ou
BeXa TOVTO nota, avpiprj/u ra vdpa Sn
KoXds. "Nuvi Se ovKtri iya Karepyd-
fo/tai aura M\.d fj olKovaa iv ipoi
dpapria. "OiSa yap ort ouk oiKei iv
ipoi, TOUT* eanv iv rrj aapxi pov, dya
Bov- TO ydp BeXeiv napdxeirai pot, to Se
xarepyd^eaBai rd xaXov oH. "Ouyapo
BeXa, nota dyaBov, aXX* 6 ov BeXa
xaKov, TOVTO npdaaa. '"El Se d oi
BeXa, TOVTO noia, ovxen iya xarepyd^o-
pat avrd oXX' fj olxovaa iv ipoi dpapria-
^'EupiffKO) apa tov vdpov ra deXovn
ipoi noteXv to KaXov, on ipoi rd xaxdv
napdxeirai. '^SvvfjSopai ydp rm vofuf
rov Oeoi) Kara rdv eaa avBpanov, ^ /3Xe-
TTO) Se erepov vdpov iv rots peXeai pov
dvrtarparevdpevov ra vdpa rov voos pov,
xai alxp-dXari^ovrd pe riu vdpa rfjs
dpaprias ra ovn iv rots peXeai pov.
'* TdXainapos e'yu avBpanos. Tis pe
pvaerai ex rov aaparos rov Bavdrov
roi/Tou; ^'Xdpts tib ©em Sia 'Irjaov
Xpiarov Toij xvpiov fjpav. "Apa ovv
avrds e'yo) roi pev vol SouXeiioj vdp<^
6eou, rrj Se aapxi vdpa dpaprias.

SUMMARY,
Did then a holy law become death to me? No. But sin did, in order that
by effecting my death by a just law, its true nature might become known.
The law is no source of death, because it is spiritual; but I am fleshly, and
therefore at tiraes under the dominion of sin. As evidence that I am fleshly,
and consequently under evil influences, I often do what I do not approve,
that is, I do wrong, and practise what I do not wish to practise. If now I
do what I do not approve, I agree with the law that it is right; for the law
requires just what I wish to do, and condemns only what I do not wish to
do. Now when, under these circumstances, I sin, it is not I alone that of my
own accord do it, but it is the sinful influences which I am under that impel

Chap. 7, v. 13.J ROMANS. 235
me to it. There is no good dwelling in my flesh; for while I can wish to do
right, I am unable, because of the flesh, to do it. Indeed, I find it the rule
with me, that whenever I wish to do right, evil is present, because the flesh is
ever ready to prompt me to do wrong. In the inner man I delight in the
law of God, but then there is another law in my members — this strong ten
dency to sin; and under its power I often sin. I am toil-worn in this strife
between wishing to do right and not doing it, and hating to sin and yet sin
ning. Who shall deliver me from it? Thanks to God, he will. So then
with the mind at least, I serve the law of God which is the great matter; but
with the flesh I at times serve the law of sin.
13, Did then that good thing become death to me?
Not at all. Literally, "Did the good become death to me?" But
in English the abstract is wanting in fullness; and, besides, the
reference Is not sufficientiy marked. It is therefore better to
render more strikingly. By thai good thing is meant the precept.
In v. 10, the Apostle says, "The precept which was given for
life was found by me to end In death''; and, in v. 11, "Sin taking
advantage through the precept, deceived me, and by it killed
me." The present question is evidently based on these two re
marks; and although they very naturally suggest it, they do not
warrant it The precept was found to end In death, solely be
cause men Incurred its penalty by breaking It; and It was sin,
not the law, that deceived and killed. The design of the law was
to prevent sin. Accordingly, it not only did not incite to it, but
warned against it Consequently, it was in no sense responsible
for it The question therefore is correctly answered. The death
I take to be the second death; and as this Is still future, the
meaning must be condemnation to it. The precept ended in
death by condemning to It Often, In the scripture, things which
are future and certain are represented as already realized.
But sin did. That Is, sin did become death to me. So the
best critics now point and interpret But sin became death by
the precept^ — Why? That thereby its true nature might become
known. Of course this assumes that men would recognize the
penalty of sin as just, and from the penalty Infer the character
of sin.
that sin might be seen working death to me by what is
good. Already the precept has been shown to be holy, and
just, and good. In addition to this, let it now be shown that,
notwithstanding this, sin works death by the precept; and the
deep malignity of sin will be at once seen. Its working death
by any means might exhibit It as very virulent; but its working
death by what is essentially good, shows it to be enormously so.

236 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 13, 14.
that sin might, by the precept, become excessively
sinful. Heinous as is sin within itself, It appears still more so
from the means through which it operates. It appears to grow
worse by the very mode in which it acts. In working evil by
evil, it would remain simply itself; but in working evil by good,
it surpasses itself. Its power for mischief increases as the means
grow better through which it works. Difficult indeed is the
problem of sin.
14. For we know that the law is spiritual. Here we
have the formal reply to the question in v. 13, or rather, the rea
son for the negative answer. The following is the connection:
Did then the precept (or the law, for the precept stands for the
law) become death to me? Not at all. For we know that the
law is spiritual.
What precisely does spiritual signify? Certainly it signifies
some characteristic of the law, or some fact pertaining to it, but
what? Is It used to denote that the law Is from the Holy Spirit,
that the Spirit communicated or indited it? I think not For,
although this is true, the fact is not here in view. Or does spir
itual denote pure and holy? Hardly, since this has just been
affirmed of the law. Spiritual, as applied to the law, means that
the law is addressed to the spirit in man. In other words, the
law is pneumatikos because it speaks to the pneuma in man,
commanding what is right, and forbidding what is wrong — mat
ters which the spirit alone can see and feel to be right The law
is adjusted to the pneutna, as light to the eye, and awakens
therein the sense of its right and justice. Hence the remark, v.
22, Infra, "I delight in the law of God in the inner man."
but I am fleshly, sold under sin. A most important
statement, being Indeed the clew to the interpretation of the re
mainder of the chapter. "But I am fleshly," I — who? I Paul,
not I Paul the Apostie, but I Paul the christian, and therefore as
furnishing in myself the experience of all other christians. I
Paul am fleshly; though redeemed, and pardoned, and accepted,
I am still fleshly; not wholly so, but fleshly, fleshly because still
in a body of flesh, from the influence of which, so long as I am
in it, I can never become entirely freed. Not only so; I am
fleshly, and therefore sold under sin, not completely so, as before
my conversion, but stifl under it, and under it to a certain extent
as abjectly as is the slave under his master. For struggle against
sin as I may, I stifl commit it I seem powerless to abstain from

Chap. ;, v. 15.] ROMANS, 237
it entirely. Such I believe to be the meaning of a passage which
has certainly been very differently construed, but, as I consider,
without good reason. The Apostle is merely putting a fact
boldly, which is true of every christian, the best as surely as the
worst Only let his language not be taken too strongly, and it
presents no difficulty,
15. For what I do, I approve not ; The proof that I am
fleshly, and therefore sold under sin. As much as to say, I am a
compound of contrarieties and conflicts. I have a nature without
and a nature within that antagonize each other. I sometimes
obey this, and sometimes that, which renders my life abnormal
and peculiar. Hence the chronicle of my life is an enigma to all
except my fellows in Christ They alone lead this Ufe; and they
alone that Uve it understand it. What I do, I approve not. The
/ of both these clauses denotes one and the same responsible
self, and not the fancied outer man and inner man of some com
mentators. Neither here, nor elsewhere, in the chapter, is there
the slightest foundation for the conception of a dual self-hood in
the christian. The section in hand is not explained by such
conceits. What I do, which is sometimes to obey the flesh and
commit sin, I do not approve. But If you do not approve it, why
do you do it? Simply because, being In the flesh, and therefore
unavoidably under its influence, I am weakened by it, and so at
times do wrong. This, however, I not only do not approve, but
mourn. A number of commentators render the passage thus: Foi
what I do, I know not So Alford, Lange, and others. That
ginosko primarily and generally means to know,\s certain; and
equally certain is It that it sometimes also means to approve. The
latter meaning, I grant, is rare; and in a given case, the pre
sumption would be against it. Still, since it is a meaning, it
must not be rejected, provided the sense demands it Now I
hold that to render the word knoaa. In the present clause, is to
make the Apostie, not only contradict himself, but speak Uke a
simpleton. "For what I do, I know not" If a man know not
what he Is doing, he is demented. This wifl not do for Paul.
Nor is the meaning, I am sold under sin, am a bondman, and
therefore know not what I do. This is a nonsequitur. The bond
man has no choice as to what he does, but he may know it, as
wefl as his master. Again: "For what I do, I know not; for I
practise not what I wish, but what I hate, that I do. Here we,

338 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 7, v. 15, 16,
first make the Apostle say, "What I do, I know not;" and then
in the very same verse, proceed to make him tell most discrimi
natingly what he does, thereby showing that he does know.
Clearly this is inadmissible. I therefore reject knvw, and take
approve. For I practice, not what I wish, but what I hate, that I
do. Confirmatory of the preceding statement What I wish to
practice is right, the very thing the law requires. But although I
practice this in the main, I do not practice it uninterruptedly;
for, being in the flesh, I am sometimes led by it to sin. Not that
I am led absolutely against my wfll, but according to my inclina
tions, which are either of the flesh or determined by it (Here
let me remark, in parenthesis, that there is no such thing as sin
ning against a distinct and sustained act of the will. But we
often will feebly, or .half will, or will, as it were, with a sort of
undefined reservation; in which case, the quasi will is easily
overborne by the determined inclinations of the flesh. In such
.;ases, we may seem to sin against will; but, the truth is, there is
no will. There is merely a feeble, spiritual disinclination, over
matched by a powerful fleshly tendency,) I, in soul, alwaj's wish
to do right, and if free from the flesh, would do it But I am in
the flesh, and can not annul its power. Therefore, being impelled
by It, I at times do wrong. With the christian this is both the fact
and the philosophy of sinning. What I hate, thai I do. I, as a
christian, literally hate sin, not merely dislike it, or disapprove it,
but hate it; and still I sometimes commit it. Not that I commit
afl the sins I hate; but aU I commit I hate, be they many or few.
I therefore do not sin from love of sin. On the contrary, I hate
sin; and yet so powerfully am I inclined to it by the flesh, that I
commit it. Such is the effect on me of my two hostile natures,
not originally hostile, but made so by the fall and by sin.
Of the truth of what the Apostle says, the christian needs no
proof He has the proof in his own daily experience. Paul's re
marks are as closely true of all others as of himself. Indeed, the
picture here drawn Is the mere diary of every christian while in
the flesh. The man who does not recognize it as his own has not
yet learned himself He has but a poor conception of his heart
and of the struggle in which he is engaged. His consciousness
lies a sealed book to him.
16. If then I do what I do not wish, I agree with the
law that it is right. But every time I commit a sin, I do what,

Chap. 7, v. 17, 18.] ROMANS. 239
as a christian, I do not wish to do. How now do I herein agree
with the law? The law requires me not to do just what I do not
wish to do. Thus we agree; and by my wish, I indorse the law
as right.
17. But now it is no longer I that do this, but the sin
which dwells in me. That is, it is no longer I alone, I the re
solving self, uninfluenced by the flesh, that do what I do not wish.
It is the sin which dwells In my flesh that does it; or rather, it is
that sin which excites the flesh in order to cause me myself to do
it; for if left to myself, unmoved by the flesh, I would do only
what I wish to do, which is what the law requires, and therefore
not sin. I commit sin, only as the flesh, on which sinful influences
primarily act, causes me to commit it. Therefore, my sin is not to
be ascribed to the responsible me alone, but to the flesh as a chief
cause of it. Not that I am hereby rendered irresponsible, or left
innocent when I sin; but hereby can be seen the part I act, and
the part the flesh acts. Thus, to each, its due can be given.
18. For I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in
my flesh. This shows that I have correctly interpreted the "me"
of the preceding verse to mean the flesh. The clause is designed
to confirm the statement, that it Is the sin which dwells in me
that causes me to do what I do not wish — a statement which
seems to require a farther word of explanation. In It sin is ob
viously personified, and viewed as having its abode in the flesh,
and as operating through it as an agent or Instrument. This,
more simply put, signifies that those influences, whether personal
or otherwise, which Induce sin, act, at first, and mainly, on the
flesh, and through it cause the me that wills to sin. It is thus
that sin dwells in the flesh and works evil.
When the Apostle says, "No good dwells in me," he means,
that there is no power in the flesh working good or tending to it
Sin dominates over the flesh, when not otherwise ruled, only for
evil. From it, consequently, we may look for no aid in doing
what we wish. On the contrary, it antagonizes all our efforts at
,<loing good. What remains, then. Is, that by a powerful effort of
will, we keep the flesh under, and compel it, as a reluctant in
strument, to serve in the cause of right. More than this, we shafl
never achieve.
For the wish is present with me, but doing right is
not. The proof of the foregoing remark. The meaning is, I
have absolute power to wish to do right. Here my desire and

240 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 19-20.
purpose are uninterfered with. So far, well. But doing right
is not. My difficulty lies, not in wishing, but in executing. Here
alone I encounter inability, inability, moreover, clearly due to the
flesh. For I who wish could do, if left to rnyself Of this I am
conscious. But I find myself unable to do; and the flesh only,
remains to hinde'T. Therefore the flesh must be the let.
ig. For I do not the good which I wish, but the evil
which I do not wish, that I do. The confirmation of the last
preceding remark. "For I do not the good which I wish." Here
I wish to do, but fail, the failure resulting from the interposition
of the flesh. "But the evil which I do not wish, that I do."
Here I wish not to do, but do, the doing being caused by the
flesh. It is clear then, that the power to wish Is with me, and
that only the ability to do Is not.
But farther: In the expression, "I do not the good which I
wish," the word "good" comprehends all good, or at least all that
is essential to a perfect human life; for, as a christian, I certainly
want to do all this. But we cannot thus comprehensively take
the expression, "the evil which I do not wish, that I do." For
indisputably the evil which I do not wish to do is all evil; and it
is not true that I do all evfl. Even as a sinner, I did not do aU
evil; much less do I do all, as a christian. The meaning, then,
must be: there are many sins which I do not wish to commit,
and yet I commit them, being impelled to It by the flesh. In
brief, known facts compel us to take the one expression univer
sally and the other limitedly.
20, If then I do what I do not wish, it is no longer I
that do it, but the sin which dwells in me, A substantial
repetition, for the sake of fullness, of vs. i6, 17. If I do what I
do not wish, it is clear that I act against my wish. But this I
would not do, unless urged to it by some power overmastering
me at the instant. That power is the sin which dwells in my
flesh. Or plainly, the power of the flesh is so great, when its
evil desires are excited, that it forces me to gratify them; and in
the act I sin. It is sin, then, (personified) that usurping, for
the moment, control of my flesh, causes me to do what I do not
wish. How accurately does the christian find his own daily experi
ence delineated all along in these verses. It is difficult to say
which is the more admirable, the truthfulness of the picture, or
the skill with which it is executed. Both are matchless.

Chai. j, v. 21-23,] ROMANS. 241
21, I find it, then, the rule with me that, when wishing
to do right, evil is present with me. Or, very literally, /
find it, then, the rule to me wishing to do right, but evil is pre
sent with me. The word nomos, from nemo — to allot, assign,
apportion, signifies a custom, usage, law, ordinance. In the N. T.
it almost uniformly signifies simply law; but in the present
instance it seems best to take it in the sense of rule or custom. In
deed, the sense would be weU given by custom, thus: I find it
then the custom with me, &c. Most critics render the word law,
but rule appears the more appropriate. We call that which reg
ulates conduct a rule of Ufe, rather than a law.
When I wish to do good, which, as a christian, I do always, I
find it the rule with me that evil is present. Why? Because I
am in the flesh, through which evil Influences excite me to sin.
The presence of the flesh is the presence of evfl, and as I can not
throw off that, even when wishing to do right, so I am never
free from this.
Some commentators have troubled themselves no little over
what they deem the difficulties of this verse. But from some
cause, these difficulties are not apparent to me. I shall therefore
not detain the reader on them.
22. For I delight in the law of God in the inner man ;
The reason for the second clause of the foregoing verse. I am,
as a christian, constantly wishing to do right. The wish is the
most absorbing of my nature; and It is prompted by my delight
in the requirements of the law. These requirements strike me,
in the inner man, as lovely and good. Hence my desire to do
them. By the "inner man," is meant our spiritual nature, our
pure intelligence, or the part in us that perceives and appreciates,
There is no christian, I presume, of any considerable experi
ence, who has fafled to notice how, in spirit, he delights in the
word of God when reading it Every requirement is most agree
able to him; so much so, indeed, that by its very agreeableness it
commends itself to him as divine. Nor has he failed to notice
how distinct and profound the wish is to keep these require
ments; nor yet how keenly he feels the conscious inability to
keep them. The philosophy of this peculiar condition is here
explained. 23, but I see another law in my members, at war
against the law of my mind, By "another law" Is meant a
different law from the law of God in which I delight; while "mv
16

242 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 7, v. 23
members" signifies my fleshly members, and my fleshly members,
'simply my flesh. As if the Apostle had said: I see another law
in my flesh; only "my flesh" is distributed as a body into its
members. The law which I see in "my members" is the constant
tendency which I notice in them to sin, whenever excited by sin
ful objects. This tendency is called a law, and with as much
propriety as the tendency of material bodies to a common centre
is called the law of gravitation. Whether the tendency Is owing
to Innate corruption of the flesh, or to powerful sinful influences
acting upon it, or to the two combined, is hardly worth inquiring
into. We are concerned about the fact of the tendency, rather
than the causes of it.
So on the other hand, by the "law of my mind" Is meant my
constant inclination to do right. In all men, I presume, who are
enlightened from on high, this inclination exists. Of its presence,
each is distinctly conscious. But in the christian, more particu
larly, is it individualized and educated ; and to such an extent may
this be done as to render it the guarantee to him of his success.
Now of course, the fleshly tendency to evil, and the mental incli
nation to right, are in constant collision. This constitutes the
"war" of which the Apostle speaks.
and making me captive to the sinful law which is in
my members. This sinful law, or more literally, law of sin,
has already been explained. Not that the sinful law makes me
captive, and keeps tne so; for this would be to unchrlstianize me
and carry me back into the world again. The import, therefore,
is limited by the nature of the case. The sinful law makes me
captive sometimes; plainly, I now and then sin. This is the fact
But now, on the contrary, and as standing over against this, the
law of my mind prevails against the sinful law of my flesh, and
holds it in check; so that the great, prevalent fact is, that I do
right, the exception being, that I sin.
The sinful law is so called, not because it is prescribed by sin
(personified) or emanates from it, but because, when obeyed, it
leads to sin. Farther: the reader wifl notice that I translate sin
ful law, and not, law of sin. This I do to prevent a probable
error. If we read, the law of sin, which is in my members, the
common reader is almost sure to infer that it is sin which is in
the members, whereas it is the law. Besides, that hamartias is
Genitive of definition, hardly admits of a doubt. It is best there
fore to render it as an adjective, and so prevent the error just
named.

Chap. 7, v. 24, 25.] ROMANS. 243
24. Toil-worn man I! The conception in the Apostle's
mind is that of a battle scene, and of his being captive first to the
law of sin, then to the law of his mind, and of his alternate ser
vice of the two, though of the latter mostly. Hence the proper
epithet is not "wretched," as in the E. V., and in most commen
tators, but toil-worn or laborious. Besides, this is the primary
meaning of talaiporos, wretched being a more remote one grow
ing out of it.
^Vho shall deliver me from this body of death ? Some
commentators construe "body of death" to mean " the same as
soma thneton, mortal body. The sense Is good and not improba
ble; still I am disinclined to accept it Soma here I take to be
identical with tois melesi mou, in which the law of sin dwells, or
the te sarki, with which I serve the law of sin. If so, then "body
of death" signifies the flesh, which so often Impels me to commit
sin; while death means, as often, the future deatii to which we
are liable, because of sin, to be condemned. Upon the whole, I
accept this view, though it is not free from difficulty. For, it
may be asked. Can it be possible that the Apostle wished to be
delivered from his body, because he feared condemnation for the
sins he committed in it? He does not say, he wished to be de
livered from his body, but merely asks. Who will deliver him;
which, I presume, implies a willingness on his part, to say no
more, if not a desire, to be free from the battle of sin. And as
to his being afraid of condemnation, the fear is not unreasonable,
nor wholly improbable. No man, not even Paul, so long as he is
in the flesh. Is absolutely safe. The danger may be safely small,
still no one can say that there is really none. But then it was not
fear of death that caused the Apostle to cry out for a deliverer.
He shrunk from farther toil and strife. It ¦was this that caused
his cry.
25, Thanks to God, he will, through Jesus Christ our
Lord, The reply to the foregoing question. To complete the
sense I supply he will, as the reader sees. There Is obviously an
ellipsis of something; and as the preceding question leaves hardly
a doubt as to what it is, it is best to supply it at once.
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God,
A summary conclusion from all that is said between v. 14 and
the present That Paul is here speaking of himself proper, or of
himself simply as a christian, and not representatively, or in the
character of another, is so clear that any attempt to prove it

244 COMMENTARY. Chap, 7, v, 25.J
would be superfluous. With me the fact rises above doubt And
since Paul is speaking of himself simply as a christian, it follows
that what he says is true of every other christian, not surely in
the high degree in which it was true of Paul, but stiU comfort
ingly true. "I serve the law of God," that is, I obey it; but
which law? Certainly not the law of Moses, but the gospel
chiefly, though possibly not this exclusively. "The law of God"
comprehends the full volume of his expressed will, in so far as it
is applicable to christians, whether found in the law or in the
gospel. All this I obey, not so perfectiy, to be sure, as never to
break it at all; but the broad characteristic fact of my life is, that
I obey it. So then with the mind I serve the law. To serve the
law of God with the mind is the same as to worship God in
spirit and in truth. The service takes its rise in the mind, and
consists in obedience to the divine will. Under the gospel strict
ly, it consists in belief in, and obedience to, Christ. Its chief traits
are strictness and continuity.
but with the flesh the law of sin. To serve the law of
sin with the flesh means simply to commit sin under the influence
of the flesh. Now of course I can not serve both the law of
God, with the mind, and the law of sin, with the flesh, at one
and the same time. To serve the one is to slight the other. And
since I can not serve the law of sin continually and be a chris
tian; it follows that the service of sin is only occasional and
exceptional. Hence, the meaning must be that ¦« .th the flejh,
and not with the mind, I serve the law of sin wh# uever I sii. at
all. I sin but seldom, suppose, but whenever I do 'in, it is ¦v- itb
the flesh as an instrument, or through its influence.

Chap. 8.]

ROMANS.

245

CHAPTER VIII.

SECTION
/ il- i ti-^-^tX-- .' t ) \ e t f '
OvScv ipa vvv xardxpipa rots ev
Xpiar^ 'irjaov '4 ydp vdpos rov nveii-
paros rfjS (fofjs iv Xpiara 'irjaov ^Xeu-
depaae pe and rot; vdpov rfjs dpaprias
xai rov Bavdrov. 'To yap dSi^varov rou
vdpov, iv a rjaBevei Sia r^s o^apKos, (
Qeos rdv eavrov vlov nep-^as iv dpoia
pan aapxds dpaprias xai nepi dpaprias
xareKpive rfjv dpapriav iv -rrj aapxi,
ro SiKaiapa roi; vopov nXrjpaBrj iv fjpXv
rots pfj xard adpxa nepinarovaiv dXXd
xard nvevpa. ' Oi yap Kara adpxa ovres
ra r^s aapxds ^povovaiv, ot Se Kara
TTveupa ra rou -nvedparos- *T6 yap <^p6-
vrjpa TTjs aapxds Bdvaros, ro Se ippdvrjpa
TOV nvedparos (afj xai elpfjvrj- ' Stort ro
<f)pdvrjpa rrjs aapxds exBpa els Qeov ra
ydp vdpi^ rod Qeov ovx inordaaerai-
ovSe ydp Svvarai, ' Ot Se iv aapxi ovres
Qei^ dpeaai ov Svvavrat.
tare iv aapxi aXX' ev nvedpart.
nvevpa eeoi) otKei e'v vpXv. '"El Se ns
nvevpa Xpiarov ovk ej^et, euros ouk
eoTtv auroi). Et Se Xpioros e'v ipXv, ri
/lev aapa veKpov Sta dpapriav, ro Se
nvevpa ^a^ Sid StKaioarjvrjv- " Ei Se ro
nvevpa rov iyeipavros 'irjaovv ix vexpav
olxeX ev vpXv, d iyeipas Xptardv ix veK-
Oav ^aonoifjaei xai ra Bvrjrd aapara
vpav Std TO ivoiKovv avrov nvevpa iv
ipXv.

'fU

''YpeXs Se ovx
einep

f - // ^ .
inhere is tnerefore now no CQiidem-
nation to those in Christ Jesus ; ' for
the law of the Spirit of life freed me
in Christ Jesus from the law of sin
and death. 'For what was impossi
ble for the law, because it was weak
through the flesh, God by sending
his Son in the likeness of sinfiil flesh,
and for sin, did ; and he condemned
sin in the flesh, ^ that the justification
of the law might be accomplished in
us who walk not according to the
flesh, but according to the spirit.
' For they that live according to the
flesh attend to the things of the
flesh ; but they that live according to
the spirit, the things of the spirit.
* Now attending to the flesh is death ;
but attending to the spirit, life and
peace ; ' because attending to the
flesh is enmity against God ; for he
that does it is not obedient to the
law of God : indeed he can not be.
*So then they that are in the flesh
can not please God. 'But you are
not in the flesh, but in the spirit, pro
vided God's Spirit dwells in you ;
and if any one has not Christ's Spirit
he is not his. '"But, though Christ
dwells in you, the body is dead be
cause of sin; yet the spirit is life
because of justification. "Moreover
if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus
from the dead dwells in you, he that
raised Christ from the dead will also
make alive your mortal bodies by
his Spirit that dwells in you.

SUMMARY.
No condemnation to those that are in Christ. For through him the gospel
freed me, when I first became obedient to it, from the law of sin and death.
This the law could not possibly do, owing to its weakness through the flesh.
But what was impossible for the law, God did, by sending his Son into the
world in a body of human flesh, and as a sin-oifering. Moreover in this
body he condemned all sin committed under influence of the flesh, by show
ing that such influence can be resisted. He came as a sin-oflering that the

246 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. i.
justification of the law, remission of sins, might be accomplished in us who
live not in obedience to the flesh, but to the spirit. To live according to the
flesh is to be led by it into sin; to live according to the spirit is to be led by
it to do right. They that do the former will die; they that do the latter shall
Hve. Attending to the flesh is continued hostility to God; and he that does
it is never obedient to his will; nor can he be so long as he thus acts. We
are in the spirit, under its control, provided the Holy Spirit dwells in us;
and if it dwells not in us we are not Christ's. If the Holy Spirit dwells in
us, God will one day make our bodies alive by it.
The opening of the present chapter is a conclusion, not from
any single premise, but from the general provisions and effects of
the gospel as now set forth in the Letter. Under Christ, we are
justified from sin; not only so, we are dead to the law, and con
sequently released from it; we are dead to sin, and therefore can
not continue in it; we are under favor, and so are in no danger of
being triumphed over by sin in the end. From the ,» broad prem
ises the conclusion with which the chapter begins, appears to be
drawn. Indeed It seems not so much a conclusion from particu
lar premises as a conclusion from conclusions. It is the summary
conclusion from all that has now been established. The connec
tion therefore is not, as Luther and some others insist, with the
close of ch. 7, but with the great outstanding features of the
Apostle's whole argument
There is therefore now no condemnation Most proba
bly the meaning is, there is now no ground for condemnation.
So complete are the provisions of the gospel for those w^ho are
in Christ Jesus that there remains no reason why they should be
condemned. They are provisionally, at least, secure equally
against danger from past sins and from future. But the expres
sion must be taken with discrimination. The Apostle does not
mean to say that should those in Christ sin, they will not be held
responsible for it For this they will certainly be. But where
they sin and repent, they will be forgiven ; so that it still remains
true that there is no ground for condemnation. Thus the expres
sion needs to be guarded.
to those in Christ Jesus ; If we construe strictly, those
are meant who have been immersed into Christ, and therefore
are in him; or if more freely, those who ale under Christ, or sim
ply obedient to him. According to either construction, those in
Christ are the justified, the saved. To such there is no^w no con
demnation, none for past sins, none for future; unless the future
remain unrepented of at death. In that event, of course there is

Chap. 8, v. 2.] ROMANS. 247
condemnation, the reason for which is wilful neglect to seek
remission. For this, he alone is to blame who sins.
2. for the law of the Spirit of life "The Spirit of Ufe,"
I certainly think, denotes the Holy Spirit. My reasons for so
thinking will be found in what herein follows. But why is the
Holy Spirit called the Spirit of life? The answer is not certain;
but it is possibly so called because it endows with Ufe. From the
Spirit Immediately, it may be, we derive the life of our first
quickening. In the Logos, we are told. Is life, universal life.
This Ufe the Spirit may be agent In imparting; and if so, the fact
would justify the title here given it. Or, which is more proba
ble, the answer may be, that the Spirit is so called because it is
to quicken our bodies into life at the resurrection. This harmon
izes better with the subject in hand, and hence its greater
probability. Or farther, the Spirit may be so styled, because the
law which emanates from It induces the new divine life of the
christian in those that obey it. Or, finally, the reason for so
designating the Spirit may be the sum of all the reasons here
suggested. "The law of the Spirit of life" I take to be a complex name
for the gospel. It is so called, first, because it is a law in the
truest sense of the word, being an expression of the divine will;
and, secondly, because it is a rule of conduct. This law the Holy
Spirit communicated or expressed in human speech, i Cor. ii: 13.
It is hence called "the law of the Spirit." Moreover, this law
"freed me" (the act Is past and non-recurring) from the law of
sin and death. This "the law" did when I obeyed it; for then
my sins were remitted, and remission releases from the death
which sin entails. Not only so, but being freed, my allegiance
became transferred to the gospel; and I was placed under the
strongest obligation to obey the law of sin no more. Now these
things can be predicated of no spirit but the Holy Spirit, nor of
any law save the gospel. I hence beUeve the Holy Spirit to be
the spirit meant, and the gospel to be the law.
freed me in Christ Jesus The collocation "life in Christ
Jesus" is very apt to suggest, as I conceive, a wrong idea, name
ly, that the life is in Christ; whereas the meaning is that the law
freed me in Christ Whether we translate in Christ or by him
is perhaps Immaterial. Either is correct; and it is not easy to say
which is preferable.
from the law of sin and death The law of sin and

248 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 3,
death" can not be the law of sin, which is in our members, the
heteron nomon of chap, vii: 23; for, from that law, we have never
been freed, at least, not wholly; nor shall we be till dead. Con
sequentiy, I take "the law of sin" to mean whatever law we may
happen to be living under. It may be Jewish law, or Ro
man law, or both; and it becomes the law of sin so soon as
broken, and by that act. It is also called "the law of death," for
the reason that every law of actual sin is, in fact, a law of death,
unless the sin be cancelled. Sin once committed must end in
death unless remitted. Hence a law of sin is of necessity a law
of death.
3, For what was impossible for the law. Thenar here
is clearly epexegetic, that is, it Introduces a verse showing how
the gospel freed us in Christ. This much Is evident. But the
verse itself is elliptic and anormal. Literally rendered, it reads
thus: For what was an impossibility of the law, because it was
weak through the fiesh, God having sent his Son in the likeness
of the fiesh of sin, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, thai
&c. The sense here is obviously incomplete.
Green renders the verse thus: "For where lay the inability of
the law, the matter wherein It was weak through the flesh, God,
by sending his own Son under a resemblance of sinful flesh and
about sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that" &c.
Alford renders thus: "For that which was not In the p'ower
of the law, In that it was weak through the flesh, God sending
his own Son in the Ukeness of the flesh of sin, and bn account of
sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that" &c.
MacKnight thus: "For God sending his own Son in the Uke
ness of sinful flesh, and of a sin-offering, hath condemned sin in
the flesh (the thing impossible to the law), because it was weak
through the flesh, that" &c. The transposition here adopted by
MacKnight was probably suggested by Clericus. It gives the
sense strikingly, but is not necessary.
The preceding renderings are cited here to show that while
commentators are substantially agreed as to the sense of the
verse, they find it not easy to translate it. The rendering adopted
in the present work, though assuming and supplying an ellipsis,
will, I have hope, be found true to the original and to give the
sense fully. It is not submitted as perfect, but for lack of a
better. The thing impossible for the law vvas to free us from the law

OHAP. 8, V. 3.] ROMANS. 249
,of sin and death. The highest of human necessities demanded
this liberation. Yet the law could not effect it — neither that of
Moses, nor any other could. By law it was impossible.
because it was weak through the flesh. The law could
not effect the needed liberation, because it was weak. But how
weak — weak within itself? Certainly not; for, assuming the law'
of Moses to be meant, it was perfect, perfect in strength, perfect j
every way. The law was weak relatively; it was weak through
the flesh of those under it. In other words, through weakness of
the flesh, the law was not kept, not kept by any, and when once^
broken, it was powerless to deliver. The law could deliver only
on condition of being perfectly kept; but as this never happened, ,
its failure was complete. Had either Jew or Gentile ever perfect
ly kept the law under which he lived, he would of course have
been sinless and so uncondemned. This would have been his
deliverance. But each alike broke his law; and therefore each
was alike condemned. From this, the law provided no escape.
Hence the necessity for another way.
God by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
God could not deliver from sin and death except through the(
deatii of his Son. So I beUeve we are compelled to assume.
And in order to die, his Son must become mortal; and in order
to his being mortal he must become flesh, that is, he must take
upon him, and live in, a body of human flesh. This he did; and
hence the phrase "sending him In the likeness of sinful flesh."'
The meaning of this is, that God gave his Son a body composed
of simple human flesh, and having the form of other bodies of
flesh. The flesh of this body was identical with that of all other
human bodies. It was therefore sinful in the same sense in
which the flesh of Joseph and Mary was at first sinful; and had
his flesh formed the body of a mere man it would have led to sin'
just as does human flesh generally. In Christ, however, the flesh
did not lead to sin, not because It was better than, or different
from common human flesh; but because it was kept in perfect
subjection. He controUed it absolutely, and thus kept it from
leading to sin. The flesh of Christ was sinful, solely because it
possessed the same tendency to sin as other flesh and in the same
degree. and for sin, did. Not only did God send his Son in the like
ness of sinful flesh, but he sent him for sin; that is, to make ex
piation for It, and so put it away. In this sense the context

250 COMMENTARY. [Chap. S, v. 3
requires the clause "for sin" to be understood; for it is through
Christ as a sin-offering that the law of the Spirit of life frees us
from the law of sin and death. "In the likeness of sinful flesh"
states how God sent his Son; "for sin," the end for which.
and he condemned sin in the flesh, A clause the meaning
of which I find it difficult to discover; nor do commentators gen
erally seem to have studied it to much advantage. The words
are very common, to be sure, and their arrangement simple; but
the exact import of each is not clear. What, first, are ¦we to un
derstand by the word sin, in the expression, "sin In the flesh"?
Certainly it does not signify an act, as when we say, sin is the
transgression of law; for sin in the flesh in this sense is incon
ceivable. Nor can the word denote any substantive thing in the
flesh, such as we mean when we say, sin is a moral evil. It must,
then, it seems to me, denote either the sinful tendency of the
flesh, or those actual sins committed in the flesh under its influ
ence. It can hardly denote the former; for to condemn a mere
tendency of the flesh would be to condemn not only what is not
sin, but what existed as certainly in the flesh of the Savior as In
that of his mother. This then we can not admit; because Christ
was in no part or sense, or way, the subject of condemnation. I
hence conclude that the word denotes those actual sins commit
ted by the human family in the flesh under its influence.
Now how did God, by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, condemn sin in this sense? Did he judicially pionounce
upon It and assess its penalty? Hardly, I presume; for between
sending his Son in the flesh, and such a procedure, there is no
connection; yet a connection clearly exists between the sending
and condemning. I am of opinion, then, that the sense in
which God condemned sin in the fiesh is the sense in which the
word condemned is used in the following passage: "Men of
Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and
shall condemn it; because they repented at the preaching of
Jonah, and behold a greater than Jonah is here." Matt xii: 41.
Now the Ninevites will condemn the generation contemporary
with the Savior by showing that what that generation did was
wholly inexcusable, and therefore deserving of condemnation.
This the Ninevites will do by showing that, in a given case, they
themselves did right under circumstances far less favorable than
those under which the generation named did wrong. This is
condemnation on the principle that he who resists sin in a cer-

Chap. 8, v. 4.J ROMANS. 251
tain case shows him to be wrong who commits it in the same
case. God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. We are in
no more. Yet Christ never yielded to the flesh, though tempted
in aU respects as we are. He thus proved that the flesh can be
successfully resisted, and a sinless Ufe maintained. Hereby also
he showed that we can resist the flesh, if we wUl; and con
sequently that we are inexcusable where we fail, and so are
justly condcmnable. It was thus In my judgment that God con
demned sin in the flesh. He showed that it is not of necessity,
but wflful, and therefore worthy of condemnation.
But in reply to this it may be said that the cases are not paral
lel; that Christ was all-mighty, and therefore could resist what we
can not I grant that Christ was almighty, but deny that he
either found it necessary to resist as an almighty being, or that he,
in fact, did it He resisted simply as the "son of man," and thus
showed what man as man is capable of It was this very cir
cumstance that constituted his resistance a just basis on which to
condemn us. Nor is it true that wc can not resist the flesh. We
will not, not we can not. For if in any case we can not resist,
then in that case we can not sin. Whatever must be is no sin.
4, that the justification of the law might be accom
plished in us, "The justification ofthe law" is the justification
which the law proposed and sought; but which it never realized,
namely, complete acquittal from every sin. This is the justifica
tion which is now. In Christ, accomplished in us. The proper
connection of the present clause is with the expression "for sin."
God sent his Son "for sin," sent him to make expiation for it,
sthat the justification of the law might be accomplished in us.
Most expositors connect and translate thus: God condemned
sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled
in us. But surely this is erroneous. For first, there is no depend
ence, in respect to sense, of the latter clause upon the former;
nor is the former perceivably conducive to the latter. Second,
the requirement of the law, which is perfect obedience, is no
more fulfiUed in us of this day than it was in those of the day of
Moses. No christian ever yet achieved it I hence reject both
this connection and translation.
By far the most important word in the clause now in hand is
dikaioma. The reader will notice that I render \t justification. Is
this rendering both demanded and tenable? I believe it is. First,
it is demanded by tho context. God provided his Son a body

252 COMMENTARY. Chap. 8, v. 4.
and sent him Into the world — for what great primary end? Con
fessedly, that he might offer himself as a sacrifice for sin. But
why offer himself as a sacrifice for sin? Indisputably, that sin
might be forgiven, or that men might be justified. Justification
was the very object for which he made expiation. Now, as in
the clause, "for sin," expiation is the fact signified; and as dikai
oma expresses the object of this fact, it therefore foUows that
justification is the very word demanded by the context.
Second. Is justification tenable; in other words, is it an au
thorized translation? Of seven Lexicons sitting by me, all give
justification as a prominent meaning of dikaioma, while most of
them, and they the best, give it as the second meaning. Unques
tionably then it is an authorized translation. I hence feel safe in
adopting it
"That justification might be accomplished in us" "In us"
here does not signify within us, but in our case. The meaning
is, in order that each one of us might be justified.
^vho walk not according to the flesh, but according to
the spirit. The word spirit here denotes the human spirit,
and not the Holy Spirit. Commentators, however, have gener
ally construed it to signify the latter; but the construction Is
gratuitous. It is attributable to an erroneous theory of Spiritual
influence in the work of salvation. To be thrusting the Holy
Spirit forward upon all occasions and into every thing is as un
authorized as to Ignore its agency altogether. We best subserve
the interest of truth and of humanity when we interpret the word
of God according to its meaning, and not according to ours.
Flesh and spirit here are clearly the outer and inner man of the
christian, and stand opposed to each other as the two great prin
ciples of action, which decide life to be good or bad, acceptable
or not with God. To walk according to the flesh Is to be subject
to it and carried away by its tendency to sin; to walk according
to the spirit Is to be obedient to Its constant wish to do right.
If the expression "that justification might be accomplished in
us," be taken to mean accomplished in us in the end or final
judgment, then the clause in hand not only describes how
christians are to live; but it also states a condition of that final
justification. We are to walk according to the spirit, otherwise
we shall not then be justified. Or if the meaning be "that justi
fication might be accomplished in us" at our conversion, then the
clause merely tells how christians are to live, without stating a

Chap. 8, v. 5, 6.] ROMANS. 253
condition of the justification. But even in this case, though the
mode of life described be no condition of the past justification,
it is still a condition of the future. Of these two views, the for
mer is preferred.
5. For they that live according to the flesh Literally,
they that are according to the fiesh. But eimi means not only to
he, to exist, but, as included in these, to live. Now as to Uve is
certainly its meaning here, it is best so to render it We then
have an expression true to the sense and perfectly clear.
attend to the things of the flesh ; Phroneo signifies mind
ing in the sense of giving attention to, pursuing, being devoted to.
Attend to very aptly and closely renders it here. "The things of
the flesh" can not include all the wants ofthe flesh; for many of
these are lawful, and it is therefore right to gratify them. The
phrase then must signify only those evil desires and tendencies
which lead to sin. Hence to attend to things of the flesh means
to indulge these, and so commit sin.
The gar of the present verse seems to have reference to a sup
pressed sentence; and if so, the connection and sense may be
thus indicated: "That the justification of the law might be accom
plished in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according
to the spirit.'' And unless we thus walk we shall not be justified.
For they that Uve according to the flesh attend to its evil incUna-
tions, and so lead Uves of sin, which will prevent their justifica
tion. but they that live according to the spirit, the things
of the spirit. "The things of the spirit" are all those holy
interests which Involve our welfare both for the present and the
future, those right acts and pure spiritual states in which the
inner man delights. To be and do these is the strongest wish of
the enUghtened and sanctified soul. Now to live according to
the spirit is to give undivided heed to these things, to exert our
whole strength to do and be these even to the minutest item. It
is, in short, to live in strict accordance with the conscious bent
of the soul to do right. Where we make the proper effort to
Uve thus, and fail, God in mercy will forgive the failure, so that
the justification of the law will stifl be accomphshed in us at last
6. Now attending to the flesh is death; Explanatory
of the first part of the preceding verse. Attending to the flesh
is a Ufe of perpetual sin; and every such Ufe, if persisted in,
must end in death. There is no other alternative. The death
an is eternal death.

254 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 6, 7,
but attending to the spirit, life and peace ; Of course
the prior duty is to become a christian. The spirit is then en
lightened by the word of God; is pure, being free from sin; and
strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Its perception of right, from this
on, is clear, and its desire to practice it ardent. Henceforth the
life must pass in attending to the spirit But even now the spirit
must be attended to, only as it attends to the truth. Attention
to the truth on its part, alone renders it the safe criterion it is.
The result, even in the present state, will be great peace, and
hereafter, everlasting life.
7. because attending to the flesh is enmity against God.
Or if any prefer it, the minding of the flesh. But since the
minding of the flesh is simply attending to it, minding has no ad
vantage over attending. Indeed, attending is preferable, because
more familiar and clearer. The clause has reference to the first
part of V. 6, and states the reason for what is there said. Attend
ing to the flesh is contrary to the will of God, and therefore
wrong. It can hence bring only death. That alone can bring
Ufe which strictly accords with the divine will. "Enmity against
God" is not expressive of a feeling towards him. It merely char
acterizes a course of conduct Attending to the flesh is a life,
and as such is contrary to his wishes. It is therefore called en
mity. for he that does it is not obedient to the law of God:
indeed he can not be, I claim the privilege of but a sUght
liberty with the text here, the reason for which will be presentiy
given. The whole verse is thus rendered in our common Bible:
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The margin
substitutes "the minding of the flesh," which Is better.
Now in every case of attending to the flesh, of course there is
some person who does the attending. The person is tbe respon
sible party to the transaction; and I propose so to render as to
make him the subject of the verb, instead of the noun minding
True, the sense remains the same, whether we make the person
who attends the subject, or his act of attending. But although
we thereby certainly give a different turn to the thought, we, at
the same time, secure a better expression of the sense. I grant
that the new rendering creates a short elUpsis, but as this is fifled
in a way which merely gives boldness to the sense without alter
ing it, no objection can Ue against it I add, as proper, that a
hint found in Bengel suggests to me the rendering.

Chap. S, v. 7.] ROMANS. 255
Attending to the flesh is enmity against God. As both proof
and illustration, he that does it is not obedient to the law of God.
That is, he is not obedient to the law so long as he attends to the
flesh, for the plain reason that he can not be obedient to both at
the same time. He must cease to attend to the flesh, before he
can be obedient to the law. This he is required to do from his
conversion on. The law of God is the same as the law of the
Spirit of life — it is the gospel.
But what causes a man to cease to attend to the flesh? The
gospel; or to amplify a little, the law of God as addressed to the
human heart In the death of Christ for sin, and In the provisions
made in the gospel for remission of sin, and the final glorification
of the faithful. These things presented to the understanding and
affections cause men to turn from attending to the flesh to the
obedience of belief.
But the popular exposition of the passage, as based on the com
mon rendering- of the verse just cited, deserves an incidental
remark. The mind of the flesh is set down as an innate corrup
tion of human nature, resulting from the fall, and removable only
by a direct and powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Previously
to this operation, man is held to be totally depraved, and as inca
pable of any act of acceptable obedience. Without it he is lost;
with it he is regenerate and fitted for the Master's use. Being
now spiritually minded, he loves Christ with his whole heart, and
obeys him in a renewed will.
The only comment I have to make on this exposition is that it
is without support from holy Writ. It is, I grant, a cherished
and wide-spread theory, but nevertheless a mere human opinion.
It wholl}' lacks the stamp of God, and is therefore fa"-e,
indeed he can not be. I render the gar oi this clause
indeed for no reason except to avoid so many fors. By the
intensive form nothing is lost to the sense, and we have more
pleasant English. The full sense of the clause is, he who
attends to the flesh is not only not obedient to the law of God,
but he can not be. That is, he can not be while attending to the
flesh. The law of God and the evil tendency of the flesh are two
antagonistic things. Hence, in order to obey that, we must turn
from this. But the meaning is not, that it is impossible for him
who is now attending to the flesh ever, In any event, to become
a christian ; for this would cut off all from salvation, since all at
the first, attend to the flesh. The meaning is that obedience to

356 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v, S, 9.
tire sinful inclinations of the flesh must cease before obedience to
God can set in.
8. So then they that are in the flesh can not please
God. Those in the flesh here must be those that are controUed
by it; for the mere circumstance of being in the flesh locally can
not be offensive to God; and although it is an obstacle to pleasing
him, it is not an insuperable one, as appears from the next verse.
I hence conclude that to be in the flesh is the same as to be sub
servient to it. The reason why those in the flesh can not please
God is tiiat they are all the while sinning against him. They can
not serve the flesh and God at tiie same time.
The de of the clause has given commentators great trouble.
In speaking of it Tholuck says : "We must either suppose tiiat,
in an anomalous way, the de stands for gar. In which case the
sentence would be of the nature of a corroUary to the preceding
verse; or we must, on the other hand, consider de as substituted
for oun, and as deducing an inference from the whole preceding
context'' MacKnight considers It illative, and cites several pas
sages to confirm his view; Green and Sawyer render it and;
Alford renders it but, and thinks the so then of the E,V. erroneous.
Riddle regards It as metabatic; and Stuart holds that it resumes
the matter of the first clause of v. 7, and repe.its it in another
form. Hodge and Bloomfield both render it so then, while Winer
says it never means therefore, then. Now In the midst of opin
ions so discordant as these a decision can hardly be regarded as
easy. But and and are certainly the common meaning of de, so
then being rare; and yet, with Hodge and Bloomfield, I prefer'jo
then. My reasons are two: i. I can find no other rendering that
seems closer. 2. So then gives the best connection, if not the best
sense. 9. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. Not to
be in the flesh is not to live according to it; and not to live ac
cording to it is not to allow It to control us; it is, in a word, not
to sin under pressure of its influence. But in the spirit. The
word spirit here denotes the human spirit; nor can I see how
any one ever came to think otherwise. It is a sheer assumption
to say that it denotes the Holy Spirit. To be in the flesh is to
live the life of the sinner; to be in the spirit, to live the Ufe of
the christian. Flesh governs the one, spirit governs the other;
and as the flesh is his flesh who is governed by it, so the spirit is
his spirit who is governed by it. It is virtual tautology to say that

Chap. 8, v. 9, 10.] ROMANS. 257
we are governed by the Holy Spirit provided the Holy Spirit
dwells in us; for one very purpose for which the Holy Spirit
dwells lu us is control. Consequently I can not think the Holy
spirit here referred to.
provided God's Spirit dwells in you ; The phrase God's
Spirit here means the Holy Spirit. No other interpretation, I
feel sure, is tenable. To make it mean a holy disposition or tem
per of mind is out of the question. To say you are in the spirit
provided a holy disposition dwells in you is trivial. I can not
attribute such a sentiment to Paul. And as there Is no other
Spirit of God that dwells in the christian but the Holy Spirit, we
are compelled to take tiie phrase as signifying the Holy Spirit
If asked why it is called the Spirit of God, I answer, we are
without the means of knowing. It may be so called because it
is indeed God's Spirit, the very Spirit that inhabits him, or be
cause it proceeds from him or is sent by him. On these points
we have no knowledge, and speculation is idle.
But what means the remark: "You are in the spirit pro
vided GotVs Spirit dwells in you." I^Iy reply will be found in
what here follows: i. The Holy Spirit dwells in the regenerate
heart This I set down as a fact too clearly taught in holy Writ
to be questioned. 2. That one chief mode in which the Holy
Spirit helps the christian is by strengthening his spirit Eph. iii:
16. 3. The christian's being successfully under control of his
own spirit is conditional, the condition being that the Holy Spirit
shall dwell in him and help him. Hence the remark amounts to
this: You are in the spirit, are under control of your own spirit,
provided the Holy Spirit dwells in you to aid you, otherwise you
are not To be under the control of the spirit Is to live according
to it, instead of according to the flesh.
and if any one has not Christ's Spirit he is not his. He
is not his for the reason that he can not be, which goes to con
firm the view just taken of the preceding clause. The term
Christ's Spirit denotes the Holy Spirit, and in sense is identical
with the Spirit of God. To have Christ's Spirit means to have it
dwelling within us; and not to have it within us is not to be
under conb'ol of our own spirit, and not to be so controlled is not
to be a christian. Thus having the Spirit depends on being a
christian, and successfully Uving the christian life depends on
having the Spirit.
10. But though Christ dwells in you. The whole of this
'7

258 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v, 10.
verse is thought to be unusuaUy difficult the difficulty consisting,
not so much in the words used, as in the sentiment expressed.
The «¦ of the clause I render though, because the sense demands
it Indeed, without this rendering, the verse seems to be inex
plicable, whereas with it no serious difficulty remains. True,c« is
seldom to be thus translated, though in pecuUar connections it
may be. In speaking of it TroUope says: "Both in the classics
and in the New Testament it may frequentiy be rendered al
though." Grk. Gram, to N. T. p. 191. The present I hold to be
one of the instances in which it must be thus rendered. But I
shaU advert to this point again presentiy.
From V. 9 I supply dwells instead of is, which gives a bolder
sense. But how does Christ dwell in christians; for the though
of the clause concedes the fact The inquiry, be it noticed, re
spects the mode only, of the dweUing. Accordingly I reply, he
dwells not in person, but representatively. He dwells in chris
tians by his Spirit Paul teUs the disciples In Ephesus that they
were buflt together for a dwelling-place of God In or by the
Spirit Now as God dwelt in them, so Christ dweUs in us. The
Spirit dwells UteraUy In us, Christ by the Spirit The mode of
this dweUing we do not affect to understand. It is inexpUcable.
The fact of it we accept but venture on no explanations.
the body is dead The body is dead in the sense of being
doomed to die; and for this reason it Is said to be no^w ivhat it is
sure to be hereafter. This is a very common mode of speech in
the Bible. By "dead" is meant simply natural death. LiteraUy of
course the body is not dead in any sense. Of necessity then we
must take "dead" in some qualified sense; and no other seems ad
missible except the one just named. Besides, no other view ap
pears to suit the expression "made aUve'' found in the next verse.
But expositors are by no means uniform in their explanation of
the clause. By some;the word body is made to stand for the
whole person, and "dead" for spirituaUy dead. According to
them the meaning is: But if Christ d^wells in you, you are spirit
uaUy dead, because of sin. But the objections to this view are
decisive. I. How can any one be styled spirituaUy dead in whom
Christ dweUs by his Spirit? The thing is incredible. 2. The
persons here spoken of are the regenerate. Hpw then can they
be said to be spirituaUy dead? They are the very opposite.
By others, "dead" is taken in the sense of inactive or dead to
sin. Within itself the Import is good, and elsewhere is true; but

Chap. 8, v. lo.J ROMANS. 259
here it does not connect with the following clause. To say. If
Christ dwells in you the body is inactive or dead to sin, because
of sin, is not intelligible. The parts are without natural coher
ence and amount to a jumble.
I hence conclude that the solution just proposed is the true
one. It certainly strikes me as less cumbered with difficulties
than any other.
because of sin ; Dia hamartian admits of no other render
ing than this, or an equivalent one. Sin then is the cause of the
death here predicated of the body. But sin causes but one death
to the body, which is natural death. From this I again conclude
that the preceding view of "dead" is the correct one. "Because
of sin" — what sin? There is but one sin that causes death to
the body, namely, Adam's. "Because of sin" then must signify
because of Adam's sin. Assuming this to be correct, and the
meaning is: But though Christ dwells in you, which he does by
his Spirit, the body is stfll to die because of Adam's sin.
But here I again revert to the particle ei. Rendering as usual
thus: If Christ dwells in you the body is dead, and the body
being dead is clearly a result of the indwelling of Christ, the im
pUcation being that if Christ dwells not in you the body is not
dead. According to this view, "dead" means inactive, as 5/ dead,
or dead to sin. So far all goes well. The sense is clear, and
within itself, I believe, strictly true, though not true here. But
let us now add the third clause. If Christ dwells In you the body
is dead because of sin. Now is sin the cause of the body being
inactive or dead to sin? Not at all. Here then we encounter an
insuperable difficulty. From it I see no escape. Clearly then we
must seek some other solution of "dead." Let us then render
again, taking "dead" In the sense of being doomed to die, which
I beUeve to be its true sense: If Christ dwefls in you the body
is dead, is doomed to die. But how from Christ's dwelling in us
is the future death of the body to result? Obviously it in no way
either depends on or results from it .Consequently we must
have recourse to still a different expedient. I render by using
though: Though Chilst dwells in you, the body Is dead; is doomed
to die, 'oecause of sin, Adam's sin. Here every thing is faultiess —
the senses, dependence of clause, and coherence of thought. I
add that Hodge renders much as I do, the only difference being
that he places though in the second clause instead of in the first,
which however changes not the sense.

26o COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. lo, ii,
yet the spirit is life because of justification. The de of
this clause is best rendered by yet or still, either of which gives
a good sentence, and avoids the two frequent use of but. The
abstract life is here put for the concrete alive, the sense being,
the spirit is alive because of justification. Nor does even this
bring the meaning fully out. The word dead in the preceding
clause signifies to be hereafter dead. So the word alive here
means to be alive not only now but hereafter and forever. Sin
occasions death aUke to both body and spirit. Adam's sin causes
that, our own, causes this. But justification releases us from both
our own sins and their consequent sentence of death. Now in
virtue of this double release, the spirit is alive now and will
continue to be. It is not even exposed to death, except in cases
of apostasy, and therefore will never die. Die is used here to
denote the second death which is predicable alike of body and
spirit Strictly,therefore is the spirit alive because of justification.
Commentators generally render the dikaiosunen of this clause
righteousness. For this however it is not hard to account. It is
due to theories of imputed and implanted righteousness. But
both the scope and sense require justification. The body is con
demned to die because of sin, while the spirit lives because of
release from it, not because of righteousness. "The just by belief
shall live.''
II. Moreover if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus
from the dead dwells in you. He who raised Jesus from
the dead is the Father, and his spirit is the Holy Spirit. If the
Spirit dwells in you. This is the antecedent of a simple condi
tional syllogism. The Apostle assumes its truth; and since he
assumes it we must concede it. Indeed without this, his conclu
sion could be denied. The Holy Spirit then actually dwells in
every child of God. This granted, and we are ready for the
consequent he that raised Christ from the dead will also make
alive your mortal bodies He wfll make them alive in the
general resurrection of the just at the last day. The identical
body 'n which we now Uve is to be literally restored to Ufe. No
hope touches the christian to the quick like this. Not only so,
but on being restored, the body will be peculiarly endowed. It
will be a spiritual body. What this means we do not know; but
we have confidence that it augurs some strange good. Into this
renewed body the spirit is to return — the spirit that is a living,

Chap. 8, V, II.] ROMANS. 261
conscious entity, leaming all the while from the moment in which
in leaves the body at death, until that in which it returns. For
that is a profound stupidity which holds man to have no spirit;
and that a profounder stiU which consigns his spirit to sleep at
death. by his Spirit that dwells in you. Shall we here read dia
pneumatos, or dia pneuma — by\i\s Spirit, or because ofViis Spirit?
The question Is not easily settled. The authorities on each side
are about equal, the better manuscripts favoring the former
rendering; the greater number, the latter; while doctrinal consid
erations, not less perhaps than critical, have played their part In
the controversy. Most modern critics favor the Accusative, not
it seems from any preponderance of authority In its favor, but
because, of the two readings, it is the more likely to have been
altered. The Genitive gives the clearer and sharper sense; and
therefore it is thought that the motives to alter it would be fewer
than those to alter the other. But in the present case, this is not
certain. Upon the whole, I decide, after careful thought, to retain
the Genitive till I have more decisive grounds than at present for
rejecting It In this decision I am influenced mainly by the bet
ter sense which the Genitive gives.
If the Holy Spirit dwells in you, God will also make alive your
mortal bodies by it in the last day. This he will do by the Spirit
as the immediate agent of the event. Christ himself was put to
death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. There is nothing
novel then in ascribing the resurrection of the body to the same
agent Indeed the very reason for denominating the Spirit, v. 2,
the Spirit of life is, probably, the fact that it is to make alive at
last the bodies of the elect. At least I feel favorable to this
opinion.

262

AU^"

tK

u-v\-

COMMENTARY.
—r^.  f—

[Chap, S, v. 12,

-cyr-

CHAPTER VIII.

SECTION 2.

"So then, brethren, we are bound,
not to the flesh, to live according to
the flesh, " For if you live accord
ing to the flesh, you shall die ; but if
by the Spirit, you put an end to the
deeds of the body, you shall live,
'¦' For so raany as are led by the Spirit
of God, these are sons of God, " For
you did not receive the spirit of slav
ery ending again in fear; but you
received tiie spirit of sonship in which
we cry. Father,

"*Apa oiv, dSeXcjioi, d<j>ei\eTai iapev
ov rrj aapxi roiJ xard adpxa fpv, " Et
ydp xard adpxa f^re, peXKere dwoBvfj-
axeiv- et Se nveipan ras jrpd^eis rnu
aaparos Bavarovre, ^fjaeaBe. '^"Oo-oi
yap TTveujuart ©eoi) dyovrai, ovroi vloi
eiai 8eou, "Ou yap e'XajSere nvevpa
SovXeias ndXiv els (jid^Ov, diXXd eXdfiere
nvevpa vloBeaias, iv ^ xpd^opev, afi^d
d na-rfjp.

SUMMARY.
We owe the flesh nothing, that we should live according to its evil inclina
tions. Besides, to live thus will end in death. But if by aid of the Holy
Spirit we put an end to the deeds of the body, we shall live. So many, and
no more, as are led by God's Spirit are his sons; and we have this Spirit, for
we received it at our baptism; and in it we now cry to him, calling him
Father.

12. So then, brethren, we are bound, not to the flesh,
to live according to the flesh. Ara oun here are conclusive,
and are neatly rendered by so then. But from what do they draw
the conclusion which they Introduce? Not, as Alford thinks,
from the "assurance In the last verse;" but from all that has now
been said upon the nature and effects both of living according to
the. flesh and according to the spirit. To live according to the
flesh is wrong, because it invariably ends in sin. So to live,
therefore, is enmity against God; and consequently, if persisted
in, must end In everlasting death. We therefore owe it to God
and to ourselves not to live according to the flesh.
But though not debtors to the flesh, to what are we debtors?
The answer is implied, but no doubt can exist as to what it is.
We are debtors to the spirit to live according to it. To live ac
cording to the spirit is, first, everlasting life, and then, everlasting
peace. High then as these great interests are, so high are our
obligations to live according to the spirit.
13. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die ;
The matter of v. 6 reiterated and enlarged. There we have
attending to the flesh, phroneina tes sarkos; here kata sarka
zete. Now that to live according to the flesh is the same a»

Chap. 8, v. 13.J ROMANS. - 263
attending to it, no one can doubt The latter expression, there
fore,' which is perfectly clear, forms a happy comment on the
former, and shows that I have rendered it correctly. Attending
to the flesh is being devoted to its sinful inclinations; while living
according to it is embodying these inclinations in actual sins.
The phrase mellete apothneskein means going to die or destined
to die. But as our simple shall die is familiar and quite true,
there Is no necessity for departing from it.
but if by the Spirit, you put an end to the deeds of the
body. Does the word spirit here denote the Holy Spirit or the
human? The question Is not easily decided. The clause itself is
without any verbal marks determining which is meant; and the
context will admit either. In such cases we have Uttle more to
guide us than conjecture, which at best settles nothing. Never
theless I decide In favor of the Holy Spirit My reasons for so
deciding are two: 1. The human spirit yields a difficult, if even
a tolerable sense. 2. The next verse seems to require the Holy
Spirit to be understood. According to this view the sense is:
But if by aid of the Holy Spirit, which dwells in you, you put an
end to the deeds of the body, you shall live. This sentiment is
strictly correct, and is therefore an additional reason for thinking
that the Holy Spirit is meant
"Bui if by the Spirit you pui an end to'' Still the will is to be
your will, the effort your effoit, and the result your deed. To
you the whole is to seem to be your own unaided act. You wiU
hence approve or blame whenever you succeed or fail, just as
though wholly unassisted. Nevertheless the Holy Spirit will aid
you. But this aid will all be tendered back out of sight It will
not be pushed out so as to come under the eye of consciousness.
You will hence never be able to take any sensible notice of it.
You will be conscious of the effort, and you can know the result.
But you are told merely, that you are aided. Hence the fact that
you are so is matter of belief, not of knowledge.
Instead of the common rendering "put to death the deeds of
the body," I prefer put an end to. It is not very congruous to
say put to death deeds. Besides, the obvious meaning of thana-
toute here is put an end to. Of course the deeds meant are those
sinful deeds of the body, which we commit under its influence.
These we are to put an end to. Not that we may ever expect to
succeed completely, but we are to make the effort to do so. If we
then fail, which we are sure to do, the failure will be forgiven.

264 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 14, 15.
14. For so many as are lead by the Spirit of God, The
scope of thought seems to be this: If by the Spirit you put an
end to the deeds of the body, you are led by the Spirit; and if
you are led by the Spirit, you are sons of God. "For so many as
are led," &c.
But what kind of "leading" is here meant — an occult, internal,
inexplicable leading, or an external, explicable one by the truth?
Before replying, let us ask, who are led? Certainly not the un
converted, but christians. In those led, then, the Holy Spirit
already dwells. What kind of leading then is it? I answer, both
internal and external. To whatever extent the Holy Spirit by its
indwelling strenghtens the human spirit, to enable it to' control
the flesh, to that extent the leading is internal. To whatever ex
tent the motives of the gospel, when brought to bear on the mind
in the written word, enlighten and strenghten it, and so enable i(
to keep the body In subjection, to that extent the leading is ex
ternal. The leading, then, consists of the whole of the influences
of every kind, spent by the Holy Spirit on the human spirit. In
enabling It to keep the body under. More definitively than this.
it would not be wise to attempt to speak.
these arfe sons of God, That is, these remain sons of God
For the Apostle is not speaking of originally becoming sons, but
of continuing such. We became sons, at first, by being born of
water and of Spirit; but we continue such by being led bj
the Spirit.
15. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery ending
again in fear ; "Slavery" refers to their state of bondage to sir
before their conversion. "Ending again in fear" means ending
in or producing the fear of death and of the future to which thej
were subject in their former state. You did not receive at youi
baptism, for the reference is to that time, a spirit producing this
fear. On the contrary, you received tiie Holy Spirit In accord
ance with the promise: "Repent and be baptized each of you, in
the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit!' Acts ii: 38. This Spirit
produces no fear such as you formerly suffered from.
but you received the spirit of sonship in which you cry.
Father, The spirit of sonship is the Holy Spirit, which belongs
to a state of sonship, or which Is given to those that are sons.
Being sons, and besides being filled with the spirit ¦which belongs
to them, you are no longer subject to your former fears, but in

Chap. 8, v. 15.]

ROMANS.

265

your gladness of heart and love of God, you cry out to him.
Father. The usual expression, Abba, Father, is gratuitous. Abba, is
the Chaldee word for father, whfle pater is its Greek synonym.
The latter is the mere translation of the former. Nor can a rea
son be given for retaining abba, which does not require us to
ret&m pater. Father. If we transfer either untranslated we should
transfer both; and to translate the one and not the other is arbi
trary. As pater in Greek is abba in Chaldee, so father in
EngUsh is both. I hence use only one word.
CHAPTER VIII. .SECTION 3. /^  / , ft
'^ Th^pint itself testifies with our'
spirit that we are children of God;
"and if children, also heirs, God's
heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, provid
ed we suffer with him, that we may
also be glorified with him. '^Now I
count that the sufferings of the pres-
sent time are not worthy to be named
with the glory that shall be revealed
for us. '"For the earnest expecta
tion of the creation is waiting for the
revelation of the sons of God. ™ Now
the creation was made subject to
frailty, not willingly, but for his sake
who subjected it in hope.

t.

"AutA ro nvevpa avppap-fvpeX rm
nvevptrri fjpav Sn iapev re'Kva eeou'
" et Se rexva, xai xXrjpovdpoi, xXrjpovopot
pev 6eou, avyicXrjpovdpoi Se Xptorou,
ewrep avpndaxopev, tva xai avvSoiaa-
Bapev. '^Aoyi'^opat yap ort ovx aita ra
naBfjpara rou vuv xatpov npds rrjv peX-
Xovaav Soiav dnoxdXvifiBrjvat ets fjpds.
"'H yap dnoKapaSoKia rrjs xrlaeas rfjv
dnoxdXv^jrtv Tav vtav rov Qeov dnexSe-
Xerat. '" Tj yap paratdrrjn ^ Kriais
inerd-yrj, ovx exovaa aXkd Std rdv vno-
rdiavra in iXnlSt. ^''Ori xai aii-rfj fj
Kriats iXevBepaBfjaerat and rfjs SovXetas
rrjs ijiBopds els -rfjv eXevBepiav rfjs So^t/s
riv reKvajv rou eeoiJ. ^'OiSapev ydp
Sn ndaa fj xriats avarevd^ei Kai avva-
Sivei axpt rov vvv. '^ Ov pdvov Se, dKXd
xai ai/roi rfjv dnapx^" rov nveriparos
exovres xai auroi e'v e'aurois arevd^opev,
vioBeaiav dnexSexdpevoi, rfjV dnoXvrpa-
-aiv roi aaparos fjpav. ^Tfj ydp iXniSt
iaaBrjpev- eXnis Se ffXenopevrj ovx eanv
iXnis- 6 yap /SXeVet rts, ri Kat eXni^ei;
"El Se d ov jSXeVopev, eXnlCopev, St*
inopovijs dnexSexdpeBa.

Because
the creation itself is to be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into
the glorious freedom of the children
of God. ^^For we know that the
whole creation groans together and
is in pain until now. ^' And not only
it, but even we ourselves, though
having the first fruit of the Spirit,
even we groan within ourselves while
waiting for the sonship, the deliver
ance of our bodies. "For in this
hope were we saved. But hope seen
is not hope ; for what one sees why
still does he hope for ? ^' But if we
hope for what we see not, with pa
tience we wait for it.

SUMMARY.
The Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and
if children, then joint-heirs with Christ, provided we sufl'er with him. But

266 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. i6.
the sufierings we are to undergo are not worthy to be named with the future
glory which awaits us. So great is that glory that even creation, or so much
of it as was afl'ected by the fall, is waiting for and anxiously expecting the
day when the children of God shall realize it. Creation was, by the curse,
subjected to frailty much in the same way as man, and like him in hope of a
deliverance from it. Under this curse creation groans together and is in
pain till now; and not only creation, but we too who have the earnest of the
Spirit groan with it, while waiting for the deliverance of our bodies from the
grave. In hope of this deliverance we were saved, and we are cherishing it
still. True we have not yet attained what we thus hope for, but we are
waiting in confidence that we shall.
i6. The Spirit itself testifies with our spirit that we
are children of God ; If we are led by the Spirit of God
(v. 14) then are we children of God; that is, we remain his chil
dren, for the question of originally becoming children is not here
in view. We are living either according to the flesh, or according
to the spirit, as led by the Holy Spirit If the latter, then are we
children of God. Are we so led? This is the decisive question.
Now_ the_Hol^_Spirit dwells within us to strengthen us and lead
us. Xhisisindispn^able. It tftefefore knows wiiether we are so
led or not, and can so say. This then is its testimony — that we
are led by it.
And so with our own spirits. We know within ourselves what
is our spiritual state, what our wish, intent, and effort. Are these
in strict accordance with the Father's will as read in his word?
Are we living closely up to this will, and holding the evil inclina
tions of the flesh in check? Are we keeping the body under?
Over all Its perverse tendencies is a spirit, enlightened and pure,
dominant? All this we know within ourselves, and to it can
testify. Finally, we know that we are living according to our
own spirit; and the Holy Spirit knows that we are led by it
Now if led by this, and living according to that, then are we
children of God. To that the Holy Spirit testifies; to this, the
human. Thus the two testify together that we are children of
God. But the passage is sometimes interpreted very differently. It
is maintained that the Holy Spirit lays down the conditions of
the new birth, and declares that upon compliance with them, we
are children. This, it is alleged, Is the Spirit's testimony. And,
on the other hand, it Is held that we know within ourselves
whether we have or have not complied with these conditions.
This, it is said, is the testimony of our spirits.
Most of what is here said is certainly true, but It Involves a
misapplication of the passage. How we became children is not

Chap. S, v. 17.J ROMANS. 267 -
the subject in hand, but how we remain such. Continuing, not
becoming, is the fact in question.
17, and if children, also heirs, God's heirs, joint-heirs
with Christ, If you are God's chfldren, it follows that you are
his heirs; and farther, since Christ is his Son, it also follows that
you are joint-heirs with him. Whatever inheritance, therefore,
awaits him as Son, also awaits you as children. There is perhaps
this distinction to be taken notice of, that as Christ is Son by
reason of his nature, be inherits in virtue of absolute right, while
we, being children merely by adoption, Inherit by courtesy. Of
the nature and extent of the Inheritance to which we are heirs,
we shall never know much till we go hence and enter upon it.
Were an effort made to explain It to us, most likely, while we
are in our present condition, we should be incapable of under
standing it.
provided we suffer with him, that we may also be glo
rified with him. We are now joint-heirs with Christ, but in
order to realize the sublime inheritance with him, we must lead
the Ufe he led. We must suffer as he suffered, if we would be
as he is. Not that we are required to suffer to the same extent;
for in mercy we are spared this. But if fidelity to him happens
to lead us into sufferings, be they great or small, we must endure
them, and endure them as he did, without a murmur. But we
must not court sufferings; we are merely not to decline them; for
if excessive they may break us. No one can know beforehand
how an untried ill will affect him. Better succeed without it if
we can.
The following has been suggested as the proper clausal con
nection: Joint-heirs with Christ, that we may also be glorified
with him. But this Is clearly wrong. The true connection is:
Suffer with Christ, that we may also be glorified with him.
The phrase, "provided we suffer with him," would seem to Im
ply some doubt in regard to our suffering, or that we may escape
it. But this I presume is not meant. The import I take to be:
provided we suffer as becomes joint-heirs with Christ. From
suffering in this life none are free, the children of God not more
than others. Whatever may be the Inequalities of Ufe in other
respects, suffering at least is common to aU. Nor perhaps is it
desirable that it should be otherwise. It is our anguish of spirit
here more than all things else tl at causes us to sigh for the peace
to come. We are all doomed to suffering in this life; but we

26S COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. i8, 19.
bear not our sufferings becomingly. We pine under them and
mourn over them. But this is not Christ-Uke. It Is divine to
suffer with a brave mute heart.
18, Now I count that the sufferings of the present time
There are then sufferings of the present time, mighty sufferings.
Bufferings in body and mind; indeed not a day, nay an hour,
passes without them. The weight of years Ues burdensomely on
pious Simeon, while the pure and lovely Mary has her heart
pierced through with many sorrows. The noble and the mean
alike meet suffering in the way. Nor tfll the grave shuts over
the good is their suffering at an end.
are not worthy to be named with the glory that shall
be revealed for us. The idea seems to be, that great as our
sufferings are and much as we make of them, still they are utterly
insignificant, indeed not even worthy of mention in the light of
the glory which is to be revealed for us. The word glory here
denotes the fullness of the honor and happiness which awaits the
children of God at the resurrection. "Revealed" impUes that this
"glory" is yet covered from human sight. No full account of it
has yet been given. A vague but exciting hint is all we have.
"Revealed for us," not in us, but strictiy for us, for our benefit
19. For the earnest expectation of the creation is wait
ing for The course of thought appears to be this: The sufferings
of the present time, however great in our estimation, are too insig
nificant to be mentioned with the glory that is to be revealed for
us. That glory then must be very great. Indeed so surpassingly
great is it that even creation is looking forward to it with intense
eagerness. Instead of the expression, "the earnest expectation
of the creation is waiting," we would say, the creation is earnest
ly expecting and waiting for. But the Greek will not admit of
being thus rendered. In apokaradokia the apo is merely inten
sive, the word meaning earnest expectation. "It is," as Hodge
happily expresses It, "an expectation that waits the time out, that
never fails till the object is attained."
But what is the meaning of Krttris here rendered creation? On
all hands the question Is allowed to be difficult Opinions on the
import of the word are about as numerous as the pens used in
setting them down; and they clash in hopeless confusion, Hodge
enumerates no less than six distinct acceptations in which the
word has been taken; while Stuart mentions eleven. The for
mer covers seven pages in discussing it; the latter, five. From

Chap. 8, v. 19.J ROMANS. 269
these facts and other similar ones that might be mentioned, the
reader wiU draw at least two conclusions: i. That the word is
regarded as highly important 2. That its interpretation is very
difficult The word means, i. The whole creation, rational and irra
tional — every made thing. 2. Any and every creating act. 3.
Any result of such act, as Uving creature or mere thing. From
this it wiU be seen that the word is of very comprehensive im
port, and appUed to an endless variety of objects. In the N, T,,
as verb or noun, it denotes for the most part the act of creating
all things; the human race; and the new creation in Christ; to
wiuch perhaps is to be added, as special. Its meaning here. It
appears, therefore, tiiat its use in the N. T. throws no decisive
Ught on its import in the present case; and consequentiy that
in settiing its meaning we are left mainly to the passage itself.
In what acceptation, then, or rather how comprehensively does
the passage require us to take the word? Before replying, a few
preUminaries demand attention. Were the word wholly unat
tended by any limiting or qualifying circumstance, we should
certainly be required to render it creation. This no one can ques
tion. Now to what extent is the word here thus limited or
qualified? In other words, what things are we required to ex
clude from it? I. We have certainly to exclude the redeemed;
for these stand over against what the word denotes and are con
trasted with it. 2. We have also to exclude the faUen angels; for
these were never subjected to their present condition "in hope."
3. We can not include the unfaUen angels; for these have never
been "subjected to frailty." 4. Nor can we include the lost of the
-human family; for these are not to be "delivered from the bond
age of corruption into the glorious freedom of the chUdren
of God." 5. Besides, we are to exclude all things in no way
connected with our mundane system, as not being before the
Apostle's mind. AU these things, I take it, we are to exclude
from the word. l-\"l\. (>-( C\
But now, on the other hand, how much of aU that remains does «
the word include? I think it may be safely assumed, in general 1
terms, that it includes so much of all creation as fell under the
original curse on account of Adam's sin. Under that curse the
earth certainly fell; for God cursed it directly and in so many i
words. The earth, then, I conclude, is among the things to be ;
"delivered." From every disability under which it now lies in|

270 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 19.
consequence of sin it will be freed. Not only so, but it will be
"translated" into a state of more than pristine newness and glory.
It will undergo a change analogous to that which the bodies of
the redeemed are to undergo. It will not become absolutely new;
but it wiU be the old earth renewed; and as the change which
the body is to undergo will render it a better body than Adam's
was before Ihe fall, so, I conclude, the earth will be incomparably
better than it ever was. As far as it now is inferior to what it
was previous to sin, so far, when renewed, will it excel what
it then was. Whenever God has to recreate, it is ever of his
purpose to make his second work immeasurably better than the
first. The following from Peter confirms the truth of what has
just been said: "We, according to his promise, look for new
heavens and a new earth, in which dwells righteousness." 2 Pet
iii: 13, I hence feel safe in Including the earth in that portion of
creation which is to be "delivered."
But is the earth all that is to be included? Only a probable
answer can be given. When the earth was cursed all the infe
rior creatures on it seem to have been involved with it; and, if
so, these too may be restored. Nor can I see any thing unrea
sonable or inconsistent In this. If the brute of the field browsed
on the pastures of Eden, and birds of the air sang In its bowers,
why not in the new earth? God made them all to be companions
of man at the first, and they were "very good;" why not do so
again. Not that he will, but only that he may; and surely there
are none to wish that he may not.
I conclude then that the subjects, besides the redeemed, of the
"glorious freedom" will be all that fell under the original curse,
including the earth certainly, and the inferior creatures probably.
But in reply to this it may be said that the Apostie predicates
of "the creation" of which he speaks, things which are inapplica
ble to the earth and the lower animals, such as, "earnest expecta
tion," "not willingly," "groans together and is in pain." This
however is a mistake. The earth and all inferior creatures fell
under the curse with man. Together they all bowed to a com
mon doom. Accordingly they are all represented as alike sensible
of the curse, as affected alike by it, and acting alike under it.
Hence If man is made subject to frailty "not willingly," so is
creation; if "he desires and expects," so does creation; if he
"groans," so does creation. This is both a common mode of
speech in the Bible, and proper within itself. It consequentiy
forms no objection to the views just expressed.

Chap. 8, v. 19, 20.] ROMANS.

271

The expression "glorious freedom of the chUdren of God"
comprehends not only complete release from the "sufferings of
this present time," but also that fuUness of honor and bliss with
which the redeemed are to be invested. It exhausts the blessed
ness of the "spiritual body," of the "everlasting kingdom," and
of the "new earth." There is nothing which awaits the ran
somed at the "coming" of Christ which it does not include.
In conclusion I add that Hodge, Bloomfield, Alford, and others,
agree with the view here held; while Stuart MacKnight, and
others, limit the meaning of Krtdis to the human family. The
former I think right, and the latter wrong.
the revelation of the sons of God, To reveal, apoka-
lupiein, means to uncover that which is covered, to bring to light
what is hid, or to make known the unknown. Of course the
sons of God are not absolutely covered or hid; they are so merely
as to us. Their bodies either now are, or they will be covered in
the grave; and their spirits have passed or will pass into the Un
seen. Now their revelation ¦will consist in uncovering them and
bringing them out to the light again, replete with the new ever
lasting life. And this uncovering will occur here on the surface
of the earth, from which they went out the dark way. Here
where they went down must they come up; here where they
died must they be shown alive; here where they were victims of
sin must they appear as victors over it. That will be a proud
day when the sons of God shall be revealed.
20. Now the creation was made subject to frailty, not
•willingly, Frailty seems here a more appropriate rendering of
mataioteti than vanity, for the reason that the latter is too vague.
Assuming creation to include here both animate and inanimate
nature, man excepted, and the import of frailty appears not hard
to collect When applied to the earth and vegetable products, it
seems to denote weakness or inability to produce as formerly,
also a tendency to premature decay or shortness of life. When
applied to animal nature it has much the same meaning. It sig
nifies feebleness of constitution and rapid tendency to death.
These were the effects of sin upon man, and likewise of the curse
upon nature. The whole of creation seems to have suffered aUke.
Man and tree and brute faded as by a blight Life became a mere
decimal of what it had been. Gray hairs and the sear leaf took
the place of perpetual youth; while tree and plant either grew
sterile, or aborted their diminutive and imperfect fruit But to

272 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 20, 21
all this, creation was subjected not willingly or of its own accord.
It bowed to Its fate not of choice, but because It was without the
power to resist. "Not willingly" is predicable strictly only of
things having a will, as man and the lower animals; but as the
rest of creation fell under the curse in common with them, it too
is represented as doing what they as chief part alone did. As to
man and the brute therefore the language is Uteral, as to all else,
figurative, but for his sake who subjected ii in hope. This ren-
deringjthough strictly correct,fails to bring out the full import of
dia ton hupotaxania. Indeed the clause evidently contains a dual
sense, it being an instance of constructio prcegnans. i. Creation
was made subject to frailty not willingly; but God willed it wh i
subjected it 2, He subjected it for his own sake, or for his
honor and glory. All his acts are to exalt him in the end, and
this one as surely as the others. Both these thoughts are couched
in the clause. "For his sake" most likely means that his honor
both required the subjection, and that It would be promoted by
it, "Subjected it in hope'' My conception of this clause is con
cisely this: Not that it denotes a state of hope, known to be such
only to God, but that when he subjected creation to frailty, man
being here especially included, he planted in his breast at the
time the hope of a future deliverance. Hence from that moment
down to the present, he, with the rest of creation and for it, has
always been "earnestly expecting" it and "waiting" for it. How
God planted this hope is very probably not known. He may
have done so, and many think he did, by the historico-prophetic
declaration respecting the "seed" of the woman. But this I re
gard as very questionable,
21, Because the creation itself is to be delivered from
the bondage of corruption The creation is, as a fact, to be
delivered. This is one of the events which has always been in
the counsels of the Father; and because it Is certain to take place,
he, when subjecting creation to frailty, did it In hope of this
deliverance. Accordingly it has ever since been man's hope, as
also the hope of so much of creation as is to be delivered with
him. This I take to be the course of thought. "Bondage of cor
ruption" Corruption denotes that state of decay, and ruin, and
death, which came upon all in consequence of sin and the curse;
while bondage expresses subjection to this state. From this
bondage creation is to be delivered; from every effect of sin it is
to emerge. Not a stain of sin is to remain on it in the end.

Chap. 8, V. 2 1, 22.] ROMANS. 273

into the glorious freedom of the children of God. This
glorious freedom is the freedom which awaits the children of
God at the resurrection; and it is so called because they shafl
then be freed from the grave, from bodily infirmity — in brief,
from every consequence of sin, whether Adam's or their own.
The original rendered ad verbum gives: freedom of tlic glory of
the children of God. Alford renders thus, and adds: "beware of
the fatal hendiadys." But I see nothing fatal in the hetidiadys
here, unless to express the same thought more compactly be fatal.
I hence feel not the force of the caveat Between glorious free
dom 'A\,d freedom of glory, the distinction Is not quite clear.
Into this freedom creation is to be translated. The burden of
the curse will be lifted from it, especially from the earth, and
possibly from more; and it will be advanced to a degree of beauty
and glory, of which perhaps the mpst fertile imagination can at
present form but a poor conception. God originally intended
this earth for man; and he will never be defeated in his purpose.
It is still to be his Inheritance forever; but it will be remolded
and adapted to him, and made worthy of him in his highest ex
altation. 22, For we know that the whole creation groans to
gether, and is in pain until no'w, "The whole creation"
denotes so much of all creation as has been cursed because of sin,
with the exceptions previously specified; that Is, It denotes the
earth, and probably its inferior inhabitants. When man sinned,
all that he was heir to and lord over was at once deteriorated. It
degenerated with him, and much in the same way. Especially
does this apply to the lower animals. They live by much labor
as does man; they inherit like him feeble and diseased bodies;
they sicken with his diseases; groan as he groans; and die pre
maturely. Such is man to-day, and such the animate ranks
below him.
If asked how the Apostle could say "we know,'' I reply, from
observation. We have only to look around us to learn two les
sons: I. That all nature seems fearfully degraded. Take as an
iUustration the serpent At first it was "more subtle" than any
other mere creature of the field; and it is almost certain that its
position was erect, and that it could talk. But how mean now!
2. That in the lower animals the degradation closely resembles
that in man. To these facts none can be blind. Hence the "we
know'' of the clause'.
18

374 COMMENTARY, Chap. 8, v. 23, 24.
The language "the whole creation" here means, not creation
including man, but creation without him. This is evident from
the next clause.
23. And not only it, but even we ourselves, though
having the first fruits of the Spirit ; That is, not only does
creation groan together and suffer pain, but even we ourselves
do the same. As if the Apostie had said: We have, it is true, the
first fruit of the Spirit. But what of that? It has no effect on our
common lot with the rest of creation. We still groan and suffer
pain. The verse seems designed to supplement the preceding
one, and therefore adds a particular or two for the sake of a com
pleter sense. The clause, "having the first fruit," requires though,
and I therefore insert it "First fruit of the Spirit" means tiie
Spirit itself as first fruit. We have the Holy Spirit as the first
fruit of the future great har^'est, or as a pledge that we shall
attain to It
even we groan within ourselves while waiting for the
sonship, the deliverance of our bodies. Our groaning and
suffering in common with creation are proof of two things: First,
that both creation and we are oppressed with common burdens.
Second, that no distinction in Christ frees us from these burdens
during the present life. Hence tiiough imbued ¦witii the Holy
Spirit we are stiU suffering. The words sonship and deliverance
are in apposition, and signify the same thing. The sonship wfll
consist in the deliverance of our bodies from the grave. From
this it wUl be seen that the word sonship is appUed to two very
diflTerent events in the life of the redeemed. It is appUed, first, to
our entrance into the family of God at our conversion. This fam
ily and the kingdom of God are the same. We therefore enter it
by being bom of water and of the Spirit Sonship is appUed,
secondly, to our entrance into the glorified family of God. This
family and the everlasting kingdom will be the same.. Into that
family we shall enter by being born from the grave. From a
grave in the water we emerge into the first kingdom; from a
grave in the earth, into the second. Hence, though the two
events denoted by "sonship" stand wide apart, and are entirely
distinct, they yet resemble each other very closely, so much so,
indeed, that the same word is xery properly used to express
them both.
24. For in this hope were we saved. Literally, For in
the hope, instead of "this hope." But the aiiicle in Greek, though

Chap. 8, v. 24, 25.] ROMANS. 275
never identical with the demonstrative, sometimes performs the
same office, as it evidently does here. The meaning is: we
were saved in the hope of deliverance from the grave. " We
•were saved." The reference is to our salvation at conversion.
"He that beUeves and is baptized shafl be saved." When we
did these things we were saved. The reference is to that sal
vation. But hope seen is not hope ; Hope, the objeet of which is
seen or reached, is not hope; nor in the nature of things can it be.
For if the object of hope be already attained, hope itself ceases,
and fruition sets in. We were saved in hope of the deliverance
of our bodies; but that deliverance we have not yet realized.
We are therefore still hoping for it.
for what one sees, why still does he hope for? In
tended to confirm the preceding remark. When the object of
hope is seen, hope ceases. Therefore what one sees he can not
hope for. Hope ends in sight or realization.
25. But if we hope for what we see not, with patience
we wait for it. This is precisely what we are now doing. Our
bodies are not yet delivered from the grave. The event there
fore is a proper object of hope. Accordingly, we are patiently
waiting for it. And not only we, but creation also is anxiously
looking forward to the same period. For at the time when we
shall be delivered, creation too is to be delivered. Hence in pa
tience we are both waiting together, and for very similar events —
creation, for deliverance from the bondage ofthe curse; we, from
the penalty of sin. Both shall then emerge from the burdens
beneath which we now groan into the glorious freedom of the
chfldren of God. What wonder if by prayer we seek to hasten
the day.

276

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 8, v. 26.

CI

/^''1-V-A^ I

CHAPTER VIII. SECTION 4. i;

V

^ And likewise the Spirit also helps
our weakness ; for we know not what
we should pray for as we ought ; but
the Spirit itself intercedes in groan
ings not utterable. ^'And he who
searches the hearts knows what the
Spirit's mind is, that it pleads as God
desires for the holy.

^^'Q,aavras Se xdi rd nvevpa avvavri-
Xap^dverat Trj daBeveia fjpav ri yap rt
npoaeviapeBa, xaBd Set, ouk olSapev,
dXX.d airrd ro nvevpa vnepevrvyxdvei
arevaypoXs oKdKfjroXs. ^''O Se ipewav
ras xapSias oiSe ri ro <f>pdvrjpa rov nvev
paros, on Kara ©eov ivrvyxdvei inep
dyiav.

SUMMARY.
While in the flesh we are weak, and know not what we should pray for as
we ought. But the Holy Spirit, which dwells in us, helps this weakness by
interceding for us in inarticulate groanings. God who searches our hearts
knows their true state; he also knows what the Spirit's mind is in these
groanings; he knows that it always pleads for his children as he wishes.
26. And likewise the Spirit also helps our weakness;
But this implies that something else already mentioned also helps.
What is it? Not, I believe, our patience, as Alford thinks, but
our hope. Few things strengthen us more for life's trials, or
more effectually enable us to bear its ills than hope. The refer
ence then I feel sure is to hope.
The fact of our weakness is here assumed, and very properly
bo; for it would be idle to attempt to prove what every one
knows within himself to be true. This weakness Is part of the
frailty to which creation was subjected at the fall. It is a broad,
keenly felt fact of life. The degree of it however is here wisely
not stated; for with this we are not specially concerned. What
we want Is some remedy, complete or partial, for the fact Itself.
Accordingly, we are distinctly told that the Spirit helps this
weakness; that is, it helps us in it, and so helps us that, notwith
standing It, we can be saved.
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought ;
The gar here doubtless has reference to an unexpressed sentence,
the full course of thought being: Likewise the Spirit also helps
our weakness; and our weakness needs help; for we know not
what we should pray for as we ought According to this view,
the clause is intended to be confirmatory, by adding a special
proof. The weakness specified consists in imperfect knowledge.
But the particular fact in which it displays itself is, I presume.

Chap. 8, v. 26, 27.] ROMANS. 277
to be taken in a qualified sense. For surely the Apostle does not
mean to say that we can pray for nothing as we ought. When
we pray for bread and other things conformably to the Savior's
model, it must be held that we are praying for something as we
ought. I hence conclude the following to be the Apostle's mean
ing: Our weakness and ignorance in this Ufe are so great that In
many respects, possibly as a rule, we know not what we should
pray for as we ought We want many things, and it may be
pray for them which, were they granted, would prove our great
est misfortune; while we do not want, and never ask for many
tilings which would be our greatest blessings. Here then is igno
rance as to what we should pray for; and as to how we should
pray, I imagine we are equally at a loss. Confessedly then we
are weak and need aid,
but the Spirit itself intercedes in groanings not utter-
able. We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but
the Holy Spirit knows. It knows perfectly both what we need
and how to pray for it It therefore becomes, in some measure.
a remedy for our weakness. The mode in which the Spirit
intercedes is by prayer; and the mode in which it prays is In
groanings which can not be framed into human speech, for the
reason, it may be, that they embody wants for which human
speech has no names. They are the deep real wants of human
nature, our wants not for time merely, but for eternity. The
groanings which give Inarticulate expression to these wants are
not the Spirit's groanings. They are our groanings. But the
Spirit, if it does hot cause them, which it may, so forms and
directs them as to make them express our true wants and in strict
harmony with the Father's will. For otherwise, I can see no
advantage they would have over our common prayers. In order
to excel these as prayers, our groanings must clearly possess the
two following characteristics: They must pertain directly to the
real want, and give exact expression to the same. Even perfec
tion can not rise above this.
27. And he who searches the hearts "The hearts" de
notes the inner man of the redeemed, and he who searches them
is God. This inner man is the abode of the Holy Spirit, the tem
ple not made with hands In ¦vvhich it dwells.
knows what the Spirit's mind is, Phronema primarily
means what one has in mind, as thought, intelligence, sense,
will. God knows what the Spirit's phronema is, what it has in

278 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 27.
mind, what it knows, and therefore what it means In these groan
ings. The Spirit dwells in the heart and so knows it perfectly.
God searches the heart and also knows it perfectly. Both there
fore perfectly know the heart or inner man, know its states and
wants. Now what the Spirit thus knows of these states and
wants is its phronema, its mind, and what it expresses in the
groanings. This mind God knows or understands; and not only
so, he knows that it embodies the exact wants of his children.
Hence, though these groanings can not be formed into articulate
words or speech, they yet have a deep vital meaning. This
meaning God understands, and to it ever responds.
In the clause "he who searches the hearts knows what the
Spirit's mind Is," the words heart and spirit would, at first sight,
seem to be synonymous. According to this view, which has
actually been held by some, the meaning is: he who searches the
heart knows what is in it, its states and desires. But this I think
certainly erroneous. The following I take to be the meaning:
he who searches the heart knows both what is in it, and also
what Is in the Spirit's mind that dwells in it.
that it pleads as God desires for the holy. In these
groanings, then, the Holy Spirit actually pleads, pleads with God,
pleads for his children, pleads for them according to their real
wants. Now when the Spirit thus pleads, it pleads as God de
sires. This the Spirit both can do and does; because it knows
what these wants are, has them in mind, and in the groanings
gives expression to them.
The literal word-for-word rendering of kata Theou is accord
ing to God, that is, according to his will or desire. The sense I
believe is happily given in the simple phrase as God desires.
The foregoing is submitted as the best solution at command of
a passage which, by general consent of commentators, is difficult
I wish I felt sure that the solution in every part is correct, but I
do not It is however the best discoverable by me. When the
reader has given the passage the thought which I have; then,
but not before, he will be in a condition to be distrustful as t am.

Chap. 8, v. 28.] . ROMANS. _ . 279

/U^ji-lij^ V LX./ /-yUo^*-^ ^^

,^<^t^?Xt-o

chapter viii. section 5. .^V— 3 0

" 0(8a/tev Se on rois (lyan-wo'i rAi»
6eAv Trtivra avvepyeX els dyaBov, rois
Kara npoBeaiv xXrjroXs oiaiv. "'On
ois npoe-yva, xai. npoapiae avppdpifiovs
r^s etKovos rou utou auroi), ets ro etvai
aurov npardroxov iv iroXXois iiSeXi^ots.
'" 06s Se npo&piae roiSrovs xai iKoXeae-
xai ots ixdiXeae, rofSrovs xai iSixaiaaev
06s Se iSixaiaae, roifrovs Kat iSdiaae.

^'Besides, we know that aU things
work together for good to those that
love God, to those that are called ac
cording to his purpose. '"For whom
he foreknew, he also predetermined
to be of a form like the form of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn
among many brethren. '" And whom
he predetermined, them he also call
ed ; and whom he called, them he
also justified ; and whom he justified,
them he also glorified.

SUMMMAR.Y.
All things work together for good to those that are called according to
God's ancient purpose; and they are thus called by the gospel. Those who
he foresaw in purpose would obey him, he predetermined to be, when raised
from the dead, of Uke form with that of his Son. Those whom he thus in
purpose predetermined, he also in purpose caUed; and those whom he called
in purpose, he justified in purpose; and those whom he justified in purpose,
he glorified in purpose.
Perhaps no passage in the New Testament has given rise to
more extended controversy than the brief section embraced in
the three verses now to be examined. It has been the theme of
the most voluminous and confiicting criticism. It forms the creed
of the Calvinist and the puzzle of the Armlnian; and hot and
long has been the battle they have waged over it. It would not
be true to say that no good has come of this strife; but I must
think that the good has been fearfully disproportionate to the evil.
Into this profitless word-war it Is not my purpose to enter. My
aim is to present, in so far as I can discover it, precisely what
was before the Apostle's mind when he penned the passage.
This I shall do without even pausing to think whom it is favor
ing or disfavoring.
28. Besides, we know that all things work together for
good to those that love God, Besides the aid afforded, bx
the Holy Spirit, and the stimulus of hope, all other things ¦work
together for_good to the redeemed. "All tnings""rtake to be a
"popular expression, which we are not to construe too strictly; for
surely sin- works no good to any one. The reference, I doubt
not, is especiaUy to the adverse events of life, to its calamities,
nardships, and trials. All these,by God's overruling, work his

28o COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 28.

children good. "We knov" — how? Partly, no doubt, frora
experience and observation; but partly also, I apprehend, from
revelation. For I do not see how the Apostle could make the
broad assertion he here makes unless he knew the upshot of our
ills. The final effect of life's troubles must have been before him
as well as their past effect. I therefore think it safe to hold that
he is here speaking as the Spirit gave him vision. "Work
together for good," not the seeming, but the real good, good in
the longest run, good in view of eternity. "Those that love God"
are the regenerate, those that are led by the Spirit, God's chil
dren. No others have any guarantee that the adverse events
of life shall work them good. Such events may tend to bring
the unrenewed to Christ, as no doubt In many instances they do;
but only as they do this, do tiiey work them good.
to those that are called according to his purpose. By
far the most important clause in the section, because furnishing
the clew, as we shall soon see, to its entire meaning. "Those
that are called" is simply another mode of designating the saved.
It and the expression "those that love God" are descriptive, not
of different persons, but of the same. While denoting christians,
the two clauses also express important facts In their lives.
k. Called according to his purpose — What do these words
mean? The question is most important. Proihesis here render
ed purpose is from proiiihemi, which means to place out or set
before, A.ccoxd\n^y prothesis means a placing or setting before.
Purpose, from the Latin propono, to place before, literally and ex
actly translates it. But proihesis is not predicated of men, but of
God; and it denotes not his physical act of placing things locally
before or in front of him, but his act of placing them before his
mind so as distinctly to see them. The placing is before his
mind, and the seeing Is mental seeing.
But at what time did this proihesis or placing before occur?
No definite answer can be given. But it may be safely assumed
that it occurred far back In eternity, and therefore long anteriorly
to time and man. It occurred, so to speak, when the vision of
man first arose before the divine mind, or when man first took
shape as man in the divine idea.
What next did the proihesis embrace, what entered into it and
composed it; or what things w^ere set or placed before? Man,
including this world with aU that in any waj' pertains to it, from
his conception on, to say the least, until his glorification. Beyond

Chap. 8, v. 28.] ROMANS. 281
this period, for the present, we need not attempt to look. God
as it were set before him the whole human race with their entire
destiny. All that man is or shall be stood before him — sin, re
demption, glorification — all were naked and open to his eye. It
was there that the Logos was foreordained before the foundation
of the world, i Pet i: 20, to be the lamb of God that takes away
the sin of the world; and from that point forward he was ever
viewed as slain. There the whole gospel was ideally perfected;
in a word, the whole of time, with all that shall transpire in it,
was in vision as completely before God as It will ever be In fact
when it is past. To us this is utterly incomprehensible; and yet
we can not conceive how it could possibly haye been otherwise.
Ill that proihesis, accordingly, each man was as distinctly before
God, as saved or lost, as he will be when the judgment is past;
not because God decreed that this man should be saved and that
one not, but because, leaving each absolutely free to choose his
own destiny, he could and did as clearly foresee what that
destiny would be, as though he himself had fixed it by unchange
able decree. To assume that God must foreordain what a man's
destiny shall be, in order to foresee It, is a profound absurdity.
He can as unerringly forecast the end of a perfectly free agent
as he can that of a being to whom his decree has left no more
of volition than belongs to the merest machine. Can any one
be found so daring as to deny that he can do this?
Now it was the complete view of the future presented in this
proihesis, that enabled the Apostle to say so confidently, "all
things work together for good to those that love God." In that
view it was determined that such should be the case; and from
there it passed into time by revelation. Observation serves mere
ly to demonstrare the truth of the determination.
We have now but little difficulty in explaining the clause
"called according to his purpose." In the proihesis all things
pertaining to man's redemption were set before God, and among
them his predetermination that man should be called by the gos
pel. "To which (salvation) he caUed you by our gospel," Hence
to be called according to God's purpose, proihesis, is to be caUed
by the gospel. It Is therefore not to be called by some secret
impulse of the Holy Spirit; neither is it to be called "effectually"
or "ineffectually," as the schoolmen phrase it It is simply to be
called by hearing the gospel preached. This call we are abso
lutely free to accept or reject; and accordingly as we do that or
this, we will be saved or lost.

28? COMMENTARY. [Chap., 8, v. 29.
29. For •whom he foreknew, To foreknow is to know re
latively; that is, it is to know previously to some assumed or real
date or period. Now let this period be located far back before
time, before creation. The act of foreknowing took place before
that period; ijt took place. In other words, simultaneously with
the proihesis, and formed a part of it. When God set before
him the human race, long before their actual existence, it was
then that he foreknew. He foresaw in the proihesis that certain
persons would, of their own choice, obey him or his Son; that
they would comply with the conditions of justification, and so be
saved. These were the persons "whom he foreknew." They
were therefore ideal not actual persons. They existed \n proihe
sis, not in fact; still all that God did of them was as "real as
though they had been actual persons,
"Foreknow" is here to be taken with a single qualification. It
must denote more than the naked act of being cognizant of. For
ill this sense, of course, God foreknew every body; yet he did not
predetermine every body. It must denote both kno^wIng and
accepting. God foresaw that certain persons in the proihesis
would obey his will. These were the persons he foreknew. But
besides foreknowing them, he also approved and accepted them.
The Savior thus uses the word in the following passage: "Then
will I profess to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you
that work iniquity." Mat. vii: 23. Besides mere knowing, the
word here also means approving and accepting.
he also predetermined He predetermined at the period
when he foreknew, and predetermined the persons whom he
foreknew. All this occurred In proihesis. The persons whom
he foreknew were the persons who he foresaw would do his will,
whether before Christ or under him, the redeemed. But he did
not foreknow these and accept them because of his predetermi
nation that they should obey him. In the matter of their obedi
ence, he left them wholly uninfiuenced by any predetermining
act of his; that is, he left them free. Yet he foresaw that they
would do his will; and it was because of this, their own voluntarv
act, that he predetermined them. In other words, their obedi
ence was not determined by his act of predetermination; but his
act of predetermination was determined by their voluntary act
of obedience. Had he not foreseen their act, his act would never
have taken place,
to be of a form like the form of his Son, The reference

Chap. 8, v 29,30.] ROMANS. 283
is to the resurrection. When the proihesis was before God, he
foresaw that certain persons would, when the opportunity was
presented, become his children. These in purpose he accepted.
Moreover, he then determined, which of course was an act of
predetermination relatively to the thing determined, that in the
resurrection their bodies should be of the same form as the glo
rious body of his Son, As he was predetermined to be like
them before he went into the grave, so they were predetermined
to be like him after they come out of It, Thus it will be seen
that in the proihesis the Father placed before him, not only the
resurrection of Christ, but also the very form he should wear
after it. Nor ¦was this all. He there also determined that this
form should be the bodily form of all his children.
The reader will notice that I am a little free in rendering the
clause in hand. My object is, while trying to be true to the orig
inal, to present the thought in a form which shall be intelUgible
to the ordinary reader, which is what he does not find in- many
translations of the passage. It is quite comm on to be so slavishly
Uteral as to be hopelessly dark. This extreme I am willing to
avoid. that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
The eis here is certainly telic; and the word firstborn is
designed to express, not so much the mere fact of being the first
born, as the honor and distinction of the fact. In all things
pertaining to the family of God, Christ is to have the pre-emi
nence. He is the firstborn from the grave; and to him therefore
belong the honors of the firstborn son. Among these honors is
that of giving the form of his glorified body to all the redeemed.
His body Is the type; and all their bodies will take shape after i:.
° 30. And whom he predetermined, them he also called ;
Let the reader keep in mind that nothing here said is said of
actuals. Every thing is yet in the prothetic form. The purpos
ing is real; but both the things purposed and the beings to be
affected by them, are all yet far in the future. " Thetn he also
called^' : that is, he called them in purpose. Not that he called
them in any special sense or special way, or that he called them
and not others; for this is neither asserted nor implied. But he
caUed them, if before Christ, by the preaching of prophets and
other righteous men; or if under Christ, by the gospel; and just
as he called them, so he called all, the difference being that they
voluntarily accepted, while the others wilfully rejected.

284 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 8, v, 30
But why, it may be asked, call those who God foresaw would
reject? That it might appear in the judgment that he had made
no difference; that he had made the same provision for all, the
same tender to all, had left all alike free, and that each of his own
accord, and with, no discriminating influence from him, had
chosen his own destiny. Otherwise, God could not be vindicated
against the charge of arbitrary partiality. Again: all must be
called to enable him to foresee who would accept and who not
But it has been said, that it would have been better not to
create man than that any should be lost; and accordingly the
question has been Sharply put. Why did God create, if he fore
saw that some would reject the caU and be lost? But the objector
does not know that it would have been better not to create; and
he is estopped from making his ignorance the test of the fact
As to why God created the human race, I do not know, and not
knowing, shall not affect to say.
and, whom he called, them he also justified; StiU
spoken, not of actual, but of prothetic persons. "Whom he
called," andcaUed just as he caUed those whom he did not justi
fy." "He called" — this was God's act, what he did In carrying
out his predetermination; but this done, he paused. And now
those cafled accepted, not because they were called differently
from others; but because they willed differently. That Is, they
willed to accept; while the others, in precisely the same circum
stances, wiUed to reject. Upon this acceptance, which consisted '-
in the obedience of belief, God justified them, remitted their sins,
and henceforward held them as just. Now what here took
place protheiically far back in eternity, is precisely what is now
actually taking place every day under Christ
and whom he justified, them he also glorified. He glo
rified in purpose, not actually; but the justification is just as
certain as though it had occurred of actually existing persons.
All things stood protheiically before God — the Redeemer, the
gospel, the human family, the saved, the lost As to the saved,
the first act was the act of foreknowing, the act of pre-cogni-
tion and acceptance; and the last act, that of glorification. To
exhaust these extremes, together with aU the intermediate steps,
would be to exhaust the gospel. Of course nothing of this sort
can be attempted here.
The two great errors into which many expositors have faUen,
who have undertaken the interpretation of the present section.

Chap. 8, v. 30,]

ROMANS.

285

consist, first, in assuming that an act of foreknowledge necessa
rily implies an act of unalterable pre-fixture by decree of even-
fact of human Ufe; and, secondly, that the predicates of the sec
tion, as "called," "justified," glorified," are said of actual human
beings. If the reader will only consent to free his mind from
these two errors, he will find no serious trouble in discovering the
meaning of, perhaps, the sublimest passage In the Letter; but
unless he does this, he will fiiid it a hopeless enigma. The ordi
nary modes of explaining the passage neither extract a ray of
light from it, nor shed a ray of Ught upon it. The word proihe
sis, as already said. Is the clew which leads us into the whole
secret of the passage. The moment we lose sight of this ¦word,
the passage ceases to be explicable; while with It, its meaning
opens brightly out. But with these hints and outlines the section
is submitted. ^
(_»^ -^^x iiA, <-t. i-<^-y\ — „

chapter viii. section 6. 3/ "",5 ^

"Tl oiv ipovpev npds ravra; el 6
Qeds inep fjpav, ris Kaff fjpav; ''"Os
ye rot! iSiou uiou ouk iljjeiaaro, aXXa
uTrep fjpav ndvrav napeSaxev airrov, nas
ovxi Kai ovv airra rd ndvra fjpXv ;tapi'
aerai; ^^Ti's iyxaXeaei xard eKXexrav
Qeov; Qeds d Sixaiav; " Tis d KaraKpi-
vav; Xpiards d dnoBavav, paKKov Se
iyfpBeis, Ss iartv iv Se^tj rou eeou, os
Kat ivrvyxdvei imep fjpav; ''Tis ^pas
Xapiaei and rrjs dyaTrrjs rov Xptaro-v;
QXX-^jns fj arevoxapia ^ Staypds ^ Xipos
^ -yvpvdrrjs fj k/vSuvos fj pdxatpa; Ka
Bas yeypaTrrai, Sn eveKev aov Bavarov-
peBa oXrjv rfjv fjpepav, eXoyiaBrjpev o)s
npd^ara aipayrjs- " 'AXX' ev rorlrots
ndaiv inepvtxapev Std rov dyanfjaavros
fjpds- ^^ Heneiapat ydp Sn oure Bdvaros
oOre ^afj, oOre ayyeXoi oifre dpxai, oilre
ivearara oiAre peXXoirra, ovre Svvdpets
"o{fre i-^apa oure ^dBos oOre rts xfiais
erepa Svvfjaerat fjpds ;:(<apiVai and rfjs
dydnrjs rov eeou rrjs iv Xpiara 'li/o-oil
rif Kvpia fjpav.

" What then shall we say to these
things? If God is for us who is
against us? '^He who spared not
his own Son, but gave him up for us
all, how will he not also with him
give us all things? ^^Who can
bring a charge against God's chosen ?
It is God that justifies. " 'Who is he
that condemns? It is Christ that
died, rather that is risen, who also is
at the right hand of God, and who
pleads for us. ^'Who can separate
us from the love of Christ? Can af
fliction, or distress, or persecution,
or hunger, or nakedness, or danger,
or sword? "* Accordingly it is writ
ten, for your sake we are killed all
the day ; we are counted as sheep for
the slaughter. "But in all these
things we more than conquer by him
that loved us. ''For I am persuaded
that neither death nor life, nor angels
nor rulers, nor things present nor
things to come, nor powers, ^^nor
hight, nor depth, nor any other crea
ture will be able to separate us from
God's love which is in Christ Jesus
our Lord.

SUMMARY.
¦What now shall we say to these things.? God is for us; no one then can
successfully be against us. After giving his Son for us, he will withhold

286 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 31-33.
from us no other good. 'With him he will give us every thing. No one can
bring a charge against us; no one condemn us; for we have Christ to plead
for us, and God to acquit us. Not only so, but nothing can separate us from
God's love, neither persecution nor any thing else. And although we may
pass through sufl'erings, as we certainly shall, still over them all we shall be
more than victors through Christ who gave himself for us.
31. What then shall we say to these things ? The things
referred to are those said of believers in the preceding section.
What conclusion now do these things warrant, or what infer
ence is deducible from them? They certainly warrant the
conclusion that God is for us, or on our side. This much at least
they warrant, and more we could not- ask.
If God is for us who is against us ? If God is for us, as
he certainly is, who is against us so as to defeat our glorification?
No being or thing, fallen or unfallen, is, and none can be. God
iij for us, therefore we are safe. All things shall certainly work
together for our good.
32, He who spared not his own Son, "His own Son" —
his Son in a peculiar sense, a sense in which he has no other
son, his onlybegotten Son. Some have supposed that by idiou
whiou the Apostle intends to designate, a real son, or son by
nature, in contradistinction from adopted sons; but this is not
apparent. His allusion is absolute, not relative.
but gave him up for us all. Gave him up to suffer death,
and thereby make expiation for our sins; not gave him up in our
stead. True, In so far as we now live, Christ died In our stead;
but in so far as we are to live hereafter, he died for us as a sin-
offering; and the latter is the fact here meant "Us all" signifies,
not the whole human race, but the whole of the redeemed, as the
next clause clearly shows. But God gave not up his Son for "us
all" only. He gave him up for the whole race, and for one indi
vidual as much as for another. But this fact is not here before
the Apostle's mind. He is speaking specially of the chosen.
how will he not also with him give us all things ? An
argument from the greater to the less put interrogatively. God
has given up his Son to die for us. But his Son is his greatest
and best gift He will certainly then withhold nothing else.
Consequently we may feel sure of the inheritance. "All- things''
signifies not absolutely all things, but all things that God intends
for his children.
33. Who can bring a charge against God's chosen?
God is for us as a Father for his children; he has chosen us in his

Chap. 8, v. 33-35.] ROMANS. 287
Son; has forgiven our sins; and given to us his Holy Spirit
Who, under these circumstances, can bring and sustain a charge
against us? The reply is. No one.
" Chosen" here does not refer to those whom God chose in pur- /'
pose (frothesis) before the foundation of the world, but to the /
actually chosen. They are those whom he has accepted as hiy /
children, because they have obeyed his Son.
Chosen, elect, from ixXiym, means to select or pick out from;
that is, to select some and reject the rest But it means to select
or pick out for a reason, and not arbitrarily. In all cases of the
saved, it means to select or accept because of obedience. They
who obey are chosen; they who obey not are rejected. This ex
hausts the subject. The old theory that obedience is consequent
on election, and not election on obedience, is without foundation
in the Bible. Even in the original purpose of God, in his proih
esis, he chose those only who he foresaw would obey Christ.
With him, in the matter of salvation, there is neither prothetic
nor actual arbitrariness of choice. He chooses always for a rea
son, and In all cases the reason is the same. He chooses us
because we first choose his Son,
It is God that justifies. A charge then against his chosen
would amount to nothing; for if made, he "is sure to acquit.
Should the charge be falie, it will not be entertained; should it
be true, his chosen wifl repent, and he will forgive. There is,
therefore, no chance to 'lecure their condemnation. Of their own
accord they may fall away, and thus effect their ruin, but another
can not do it.
34. Who is he tliAt condemns ? That is, who is he that
condemns God's chosen. The reply is, No one. All that Christ
has ever done for the human family has been done to avert this
result; and In the ca.'.o of the chosen, it will certainly be averted?
It is Christ that died, rather that is risen, who also is
at the right hand of God, and who pleads for us. Christ
died to procure rerrr'ission of our sins, these being the ground of
our condemnation; and he now sits at the right hand of God, as
mediator, to plejd for us, and so prevent our being condemned.
We shall cei't'imly then not be condemned. The course of
thought seems to be this: Who Is he that condemns? Christ
alone could do it, and he certainly will not; for It is he who died
and now pleads with God to prevent it.
35. Who can separate us from the love of Christ ? A

288 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8, v. 35-37,
triumphant question, the answer to which is. No one can, the
thing is impossible. No one can successfuUy bring a charge
against us; no one condemn us; no one separate us from the love
of Christ. Our gloriflcatlon then is certain. "The love of Christ"
is his love for us, not our love for him. The Future here is best
translated, not as a simple Future, but as implying possibflity or
power. Can affliction, or distress, or persecution, or hunger, or
nakedness, or danger, or sword ? When God's children are
overtaken by great and terrible suffering, it seems to be almost
universal, that some how they come to have a vague feeling that
he has forsaken them. The stoutest with difficulty frees himself
from the impression. But the Apostle here lets us know that
such is not the case. These sufferings are the proof rather of
God's presence than of his absence. They are his hand of chas
tening, separating the dross from the gold, and so fitting the
latter for the heavenly use. Neither In this Ufe nor In the next,
can sufferings separate us from the love of Christ. They only ren
der its realization the more sure. To the particulars here named
by the Apostle, he no doubt alludes in v. 17, when speaking of
our suffering with Christ. They are the mode In which the dis
ciples of that day usually suffered.
36. Accordingly it is written, for your sake we are
killed all the day; we are counted as sheep for the slaugh
ter. A quotation from Psalm xliv: 22, as rendered in the Sep
tuagint. The Psalm is supposed to have been written during the
Babylonish captivity, when God's people had great suffering on
account of their religion. Hence its application to the early
christians in their sufferings. The course of thought seems to
be this: In the sufferings to which you are now subjected, there
Is nothing peculiar. They have been the lot of the righteous in
all ages. "Accordingly it Is written," &c. "For your sake we
are killed all the day." The appeal is to God. From morning
till night we are being killed for your sake, because for the re
ligion you enjoined upon us. So common Is It thus to kill us
that we are counted by those that do it, merely as so many sheep
ready for the slaughter. We are slain as a matter of course, and
without pity.
37. But in all these things we more than conquer by
him that loved us. "In all these things" — in all these suffer
ings. "We more than conquer." These sufferings are a mighty

Chap. 8, v. 38.J ROMANS, 289
battle, but we come through them more than victors. We glori
ously triumph. Our sufferings are short-lived; they quickly end.
We not only live through them; but we shafl live forever beyond
them. Nay, we are even crowned over them, with immortality
and eternal life. But all this we achieve by aid of Christ who
loved us and gave himself for us.
38. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor hight, nor depth, nor any other creature,
will be able to separate us from God's love which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord. Confirmatory of the preceding verse.
The particulars here enumerated by the Apostle were no doubt
all regarded by him as either actually or conceivably hostile to
the redeemed; for it is not supposable that he would speak of
things really friendly to, and aiding them, as having the eflfect to
separate them from the love of God. Accordingly, when he
mentions life, we must understand him to mean the hard Ufe we
live in the flesh, Ufe with its burdens, and toils, and griefs; and
so with the other items named. If the word "angels" is to be held
as denoting good angels, as I presume it must, then the meaning
is, not that they will ever attempt to separate us from the love of
God, but should they do so, they can not succeed. The case is
merely a conceptional one. The design is to show that nothing
can effect the separation. "God's love which is in Christ Jesus'' Is
his love as displayed in the gift of Christ to redeem the human
family. On the several items mentioned by the Apostle, I do not think
it necessary to dweU separately and at length. For the most part
they need no comment In only a few of them is the reference
uncertain; nor is criticism Ukely to render it otherwise.
19

290

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 9, v. i.

CHAPTER IX.

SECTION I.

I speak the truth in Christ, I lie
not, my consdeace testifying for me
in the Holy Spirit, 'that I have great
grief and continual sorrow in my
heart. 'For I could wish that I my
self were accursed fi-om Christ for
my brethren, my kin according to
the flesh; ^ who are IsraeUtes, whose
is the sonship, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the law-gi^ving,
and the worship-service, and the
promises ; ' whose are tie fethers,
and_ of whom, as to his flesh,
Christ came, who is over all things.
God be blessed forever — amen.
'But I do not mean that God's
word has &iled; for aU that are
of Israel are not Israel. 'Nor
are they all children because Abra
ham's of&pring; but in Isaac your
children shall be called : * That is,
the children of the flesh are not chil
dren of God, but the children of the
promise are counted for chUdren.
' For there was this word of promise :
At this time I will come, and Sarah
shaU have a son. '°And not only
«o_, but Rebecca also, having con
ceived by one, Isaac ourfather, "it
was said to her (the children being
not yet bom, nor having done any
thing good or bad, that God's pur
pose as to choosing might stand
[and the choice be] not from works
But fi'om him that calls) , '^ the elder
shall serve the yotmger: '^As it is
written, I loved Jacob, but hated
Esau.

'AX^Beiav Xe-ya iv Xpiar^, oi yjfeJio-
pat, avppafrrvpoiarjs poi rfjS avveiifja-
eas pov iv -irvefipan dyi<f, 'ort Xinrj poi
ian peydXrj koi aStoXetnTos oSifvi; t^
xapSia pov. 'Hixdprjv ydp dvdBepa
etvot avros eyoi ano rov Xpiarov vnep
rav dSeX^iav pov T«v avyyevav pov
xard adpxa- * oinves elaiv 'laparjkXrai,
S>v ^ vioBeaia xcu fj Sdia xai ai StaBfjxai
xai ^ vopoBeaia xat fj Xtrrpeia xat al
inayyeXiai- ' Sv ot narepes, xat ii S)v d
Xpiards ro xard adpxa, 6 &)v irri ndvrav
Qeds evXoyrjfrds els rous otSvas" dpfjv.
^ Ovx """' ®^ ^' exnenraxev d Xdyos roi
Qeov ov ydp ndvres oi ii 'lapaqX, o5rot
'itrpaijX. ' OuS" ort etct aneppa 'AjSpa-
dp, ndvres rexva, dXX', *Ev 'lo-aoK kXjjB^-
fferai o"ot aneppa- ^rovr eanv, ov ra
Texva rrjs aapxds ravra rexva rov Geou,
oXXa rd Texva rfjS inayyeXias Xoyiferot
ets aneppa. ' 'ETrayyeXt'os yap o Xoyos
ovros, Kara rov xaipdv tovtov iXerSaopat,
xai earai rrj Sdppa vids. '" Ou pdvov Se,
dXXd xai *Pe^eKKa e^ evds xoirrjv exovaa,
laadx rov narpos fjpii>v—^^ p^a ydp
yewrjBevrav prjSe npaidvrav n dyaBov
fj (j)avXov, lva ij xar ixXoyfjv npoBeais
-ov Qeov pevrj, "ouK e^ epyav ijXX' ix
ov KoXouvros, ippfjBrj airrfj, on d pei^av
SovXedaet ri5 eXdaaovt- " xaBas ye-
ypa-irrat, Tov laxa^ rjydtrrjaa, rdv Si
Ha"aG ipiarjaa.

SUMMARY.
The Apostle solemnly declares that he speaks the truth in -H'hat he is going
to say of his countrymen, his conscience being his witness. He has great
grief and sorrow on their account. Could wish that he himself was cut off
from Christ and lost instead of his kin according to the flesh. Enumerates
the things that distinguished them. Among them the chief is that from them
Christ came as to his flesh. But although the great bodj' of Israel is cut off,
God's word of promise respecting them has not failed. Some of them will

Chap, 9. J ROMANS. 291
be saved. His word of promise related to the true Israel only, and all are
not true that are descended from Jacob, God counts only the children of
promise as his. Accordingly Isaac and his offspring were chosen, while
Ishmael and his were rejected. And so with Jacoo and Esau. In these
choices God was governed by reasons within himself, and not by the acts 01
the parties chosen.
The Apostle now proceeds to consider the case of the Jews
more at length than he has yet done. He first, however, very
strongly asserts the interest he feels in their welfare, generously
mentioning, at the same time, the things that honored and dis
tinguished them. He vindicates* God's dealings with them,
especially his acts of choice, which had so much affected them.
He shows that in rejecting so many of them, God had acted just
ly, and in accordance with prophecy; and that In receiving the
Gentiles, he had done the same. He tells them that their great
and fatal error had consisted in stumbling at Christ. These are
the prominent features of the chapter.
But the chapter has other features which should not be over
looked. It is emphatically the artistic chapter of the Letter. In
it the Apostle brings boldly out the fact that God had, at last,
rejected Israel, and accepted the Gentiles. Nothing could be
• more offensive to the Jew than this. It was therefore necessary
to conduct the painful disclosure with the skill of a master; and
this the Apostle has done. He is especially happy In the mode
in which he handles the fact of God's choices. He shows that
no Jew at least could object to these; since he himself, not only
approved them, but was proud of them in facts in his own his
tory. It will be necessary for the reader to watch closely the
Apostle in his procedure, in order to detect, at every turn, his
art, and to discover how steadily he pursues his aim. Without
this, the plot of the chapter will escape him.
I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not. That is, I speak
the truth in what I am about to say respecting my nation. The
expression, "I speak the truth in Christ,'' has been thought by
some a virtual oath. If not one in fact. But this is a mistake.
The expression is no oath, but merely a strong form of asseverat
ing truth. The meaning is, I speak the truth as in Christ and
accountable to him. As much as to say, those who are In Christ
are under the most solemn obUgations, whenever they speak at
aU, to speak the truth; and I now speak under a full sense of this
obligation. "I lie not" merely reduplicates the idea in a negative
form.

392 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v, 2, 3.
my conscience testifying for me in the Holy Spirit, My
conscience testifying for me that what I say is true, "In the Holy
Spirit" does not mean under its guidance or as moved by it At
least it is not necessary so to interpret. Rather the meaning is,
my conscience testifying for me as in the presence of ihe Holy
Spirit, or as open to its inspection. Thus circumstanced, my
conscience dare not testify falsely.
2. that I have great grief and continual sorrow in
my heart. From the incompleteness of the sense here, it Is
evident that there is a clause suppressed. The full meaning is, I
have great grief and continual sorrow In heart on account of my
countrymen. This is the matter about which he spoke truth and
his conscience bore witness. His countrymen had repudiated
Christ This, was the fact which caused his grief and sorrow.
That any one should do this is painful enough; that one's own
kin should do it is exquisitely so. True the Apostle does not as
yet name the fact that gave him pain. He conceals it till he can
bring it out with better effect.
3. For I could wish The verb fjvxpit,-qv is the Imperfect
Indicative used. If not for the Optative with Si/, as nearly equiva
lent to it Such is the judgment of all the most reliable critics. •
Indeed, I am not acquainted with an author who attempts the
defense of a different view, with even a respectable show of
strength. The Apostle is evidently aiming to give his uncon
verted countrymen a proof of his aflfectlon for them. But he
completely fails If we render the verb as a simple Imperfect,
thus: I was wishing, that is, before my conversion, that I myself
were accursed from Christ for my brethren. But suppose you
did so wish then, what evidence is this that you now love them?
You then regarded Christ as an impostor, and consequently
would have deemed being accursed from him an honor, not a
calamity. Therefore what you now say is no proof of present
affection. This clearly wfll not do. Besides, the statement of a
past non-recurring act required the Aorist, not the Imperfect
The meaning of the expression Is clear: I could wish, not that
I do wish, for I do not; nor, I could wish provided the thing
were practicable and I could have my wish. But, I could wish
provided, first, it were allowable; and, second, it were possible to
obtain my wish. But as it is neither, I in fact do not wish. I do,
however, all that is in my power in the case; I show to what
lengths I would be willing to go for my countrymen, if no obsta-

Chap. 9, v. 3,] ROMANS. 393
cle intervened. I thus give proof of the deep interest I feel in
them. But in reply it may be said: If the Apostie really does not
wish, why does he say any thing about it? Why was he not
rather silent? I answer, I suppose the Apostie used the word
because he could not say what he desired to say without it; and
that, in his case, as in all similar ones, his language is not to be
judged too severeh". The language of profound and Intense feel
ing and that of accurate philosophic thought are hardly amena
ble to the same critical tests.
that I myself were accursed from Christ It is better
to render anathema einai as a simple verb than as both a verb
aud a noun. That I myself were a curse frotn Christ is not so
good as, I myself were accursed from Christ, Indeed, the form
er, as an English expression, is hardlv intelligible.
But what Is the Import of the clause anathema einai apo tou
Christou? The answer turns on anathema. What tiieii does the
word signify? The LXX use it to render the Hebrew cJicrcm
(pronounce ch as k) which priniarih- signifies zoJiat is cut off,
torn ofi^, shut up. According to this, anathema should signify
what is cut oft", shut up; and such, in substance, we find is tlie
case. It denotes what is cut oft' from a common use and shut up
or set apart to a religious use. It is from anatithcmi, which
means to place up upon, as a load upon an animal; to lay up, as
an oflering in a temple. In use, therefore, the two words have
nearly the same signification.
But of things cut off from a comraon use and devoted to a
religious use, there were two kinds: i. Those that could not be
destroj^ed or were not permitted to be, which it was not lawfiU
eitiier to sell or redeem, and which tiierefore remained perma
nentiy devoted. .:. Those that were to be destroyed. And of
tiiese latter again, there were two classes: things ha\-ing life; and
things without life. Where tiie devoted tiling belonged to the
latter class it was to be utterly destroyed; for tiius the verb form
of chercm is usually rendered; but where It belonged to the for
mer, it was to be put to death. Such briefly is both the meaning
and usage of cherem as well as of anathtitta; and with them be
fore us, it is not difficult to answer the question in hand.
Paul clearly regarded the unbelieving portion of his country
men, at the time of writing, as an anathcrtu, as devoted to
destruction, not in the sense of being put to death, though this.

294. COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 3, 4.
it may be, in part, but in the sense of being finaUy condemned
and banished from the presence of God forever. True, for rea
sons of policy, he does not here say this; but it was unavoidably
in his mind. Now when he says: "I could wish that I myself
were an anathema from Christ," he uses the word in the sense
here named. He means, I could wish that I myself were cut off
from Christ and banished from his presence forever — all this he
could have wished huper, for, in behalf of, or instead of, lus
brethren. That is, could he have accompUshed the end by the
wish, he could have wished to exchange places with them, he
taking their place, and they taking his. A noble sentiment; but
the world wiU be apt to say, rashly conceived and rashly ex
pressed. But I dissent from the world, and stand with Paul. I
have nothing but admiration for his great heart and faultiess un
selfishness. The Apostle, after first expressing the deep personal interest
he felt in the welfare of his countrymen, then proceeds to name
some of the things which especiaUy distinguished them. Though
they had, in large part, rejected Christ, he still felt a generous
pride in awarding to them their due. By this means, no doubt,
he hoped to conciUate some of them, and so, if possible, gain a
hearing for the things he was about to say.
4. who are Israelites, As Jacob was returning from his
sojourn with Laban, after his long exile, an angel of God ap
peared to him the night before he met his brother Esau, and-
wrestled with him. During the mysterious interview, the angel
changed his name from Jacob to Israel, which seems to mean a
prince contending or prevailing with God. From that time on,
Jacob ¦was called Israel; and from him, the name passed to his
descendants, by ¦whom it has ever since been regarded as their
most sacred and honored name. To be a descendant of Israel,
and to wear his name, has always been esteemed by Jews one of
their chief distinctions. Paul enumerates it as their first.
¦whose is the sonship, Sonship denotes the state or fact
of being a son, together with its rights or privileges. Previously
to Christianity, this was an exclusive honor of the IsraeUtes. But
the sonship of an IsraeUte was quite a different thing from the
sonship of a christian. That, impUed no renewal of the inner
man, but merely the distinction of being one of God's chosen
people; this, is predicated on regeneration. Sonship with an
IsraeUte was purely national, not Individual, and therefore was

Chap. 9, v. -f, 5.J ROMANS. 295
no guarantee of salvation. Ils murk was in the flesh, not in tho
spirit; and though n pecuUar distinction within itself, niid imply
ing much, it entitled to no honor under Christ. To his hereditary
sonship, an Israelite hail still to add sonship in Christ, as really
as the humblest Gentile; otherwise he wa.s lost.
and the glory, and the covenants, and the law-giving,
and the worship-service, and the promises: Hy the "glory,"
some commentators utulerstaiul the iieculiar honor of being
God's chosen people. But I prefer to think 11 special, not a gen
eral fact denoted. 1 hence agree wilh those critics, as Stuart,
MacKnight, and others, who think the reference is to the sche-
chinah or glorious symbol of the divine presence. The word
"glory" describes no other fact so aptly as this. The covenants —
those which God made with Abraham, Isaac, Jaciib, and Moses,
especially those relating to the Messiah. The laxo-giviug — the
word includes both the fact of giving the law at Sinai nnd of
still having it The worship-service — the whole of the Levitical
ritual is meant, us connected first with the Tabernacle and after
wards with the Temple. The promt.fts —those relating to Christ
and the gospel,
5. Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as to his flesh,
Christ came. That is, whose ancestors wore those distin
guished men, as Abraham* and David, wIkuii CmhI delighted to
honor, and whose names he has picsei ved for all ages. And of
whom, as to his flesh, Christ ca/ne. "Of whom" — the Israelites,
not the fathers, though of couise both in fact. -Vs to his inner
man, Christ was -Theos, as to his outer, flesh. lie was of Israel
ns to the lattei, was born of tlieiii and belonged to them. They
were his own, and he was their own.
who is over all things. God be blessed forever — amen.
The chief ditliculty of this jiassage is to deteimine how it should
be punctuated. The meaning, lo he sure, is perfectly clear, no
matter how we [nmctuate, but then varying the punctuation
completely changes the sense. Ou the difficulty, critical opinion
is not agreed, and the ditlerences are traceable, as it seems to me,
more to theology than any thing else. The popular pointing and
collocation are as follows: }l7io is Goii over all things, blessed
forever — amen. "This pointing aud collocation, as is obvious,
identify God and Christ, place the hitter as supreme over all
things, and ascribe to him the doxology usually ascribed to God
only. Is there a necessity for this? In my opinion there is not

296 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 9, v. 5
I hence feel it to be in a measure gratuitous, and as due mainly to
the influence of Trinitarian sentiments.
Before noticing the grounds on which this punctuation and
collocation are defended, I have first a few words to say on the
question of identity. With a view to this, I cite the following:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,
and the Logos was God." Jno. i: i. The Logos In the flesh con
stituted the Christ. Here now it is distinctly asserted that the
Logos was God. Let these words be accepted in their fullest
intended sense, and therefore as final on the question of identity,
personal equality, sameness of nature, and the like. In a word,
let us concede, on other, and as I believe, safer grounds, all that
the clause in hand is supposed to teach. All doubt now, as
to high doctrinal soundness on the point involved, being thus
removed, we may, unembarrassed, proceed to the task before us.
On what grounds, then, are the punctuation and collocation in
hand defended? First, on the ground that to represent Christ
who, as to the flesh, was of Israel, as being at the same time God
over all things, would be to ascribe to Israel their very greatest
honor, and so have the effect to concfliate them. But was this effect
really Ukely to follow? Very far from it. No Jew denied that
the Son of Mary was of Israel, but the very fact that gave them
deepest offense was a claim on his part that made him equal with
God. To represent Christ then as being God over all things
would, instead of conciliating the Jew, have the very opposite
effect. It would far more likely shock and disgust him. Hardly
therefore would the Apostle needlessly obtrude It on his atten
tion. Second: That if the sentence ended with "things," and God
were the subject of the doxology, the eulogeios would precede
God and not follow it. The rule certainly is that where eulogeios
is the simple predicate, and is unattended by other words influ
encing its position. It stands before its subject But is the ride
universal? It is not It is only very general, but not universal,
as the following instances wifl show: i. "Blessed be the Lord
thy God Who delighted in thee." i Kings x: 9. Here genoito
precedes, and culogcmenos, not different in sense or office from
eulogeios, follows its subject. 2. "Blessed be the name of the
Lord." Job i: 21. Here ihj precedes and eulogemenon again fol
lows its subject 3. "Who worshiped and served the creature
rather than him who made it, who is blessed forever — atnen."

Chap. 9, v. 5.] ROMANS. 297
Rom. i: 25. Here the relative is subject, esti is expressed, and
eulogeios still follows. Besides, which is to be especially noticed,
eulogeios is here followed by eis tous aionas, amen, the very words
which follow it in the passage in hand, and which seem in each
instance to determine its position. The design is not merely to
say of the subject he is blessed, but he is blessed eis tous aionas,
forever, which requires eulogeios to stand immediately before the
eis. 4. "God the Father of our Lord Jesus, who is blessed for
ever, knows that I lie not." 2 Cor. ii: 31. Here we have 6 for
subject, followed by av evXoyi/ros, and this again by eis tous aionas,
as in the preceding passage.
From these premises it appears that eulogeios does not always
precede its subject. Therefore it can not be assumed that it cer
tainly does so in the passage in hand,
But, In reply to this, it may be said, that although eulogeios does
not always precede Its subject in simple affirmative assertions, it
always does In ascriptions of praise. But this is begging the
question, and is therefore entitled to no farther notice. The rule
may be, and Is, I again grant, that eulogeios precedes its subject;
yet If in a single instance only, it is clearly shown that it follows,
and this has now been done, it is then determined that it may
foUo^w In every instance. Whether then, in a given case, like the
present, it does or does not precede, is a question of fact to be
settled as best it can.
But my most serious objection to the passage, as usually pointed,
is the sense. To say. Who is God over all things, blessed for
ever, is to my mind un-Paul-lIke, and wears a forced appearance.
It looks artificial, and has the air of an ill-conceived accident.
The context would not lead us to expect any thing like it; and it
evidently subserves no purpose in harmony with the current of
thought Indeed, the very most it has in its favor, as appears to
me, is the theological notion to which it lends countenance.
On the contrary, when we read. Of whom, as to his flesh,
Christ came, who is over all things, we have a weighty Paul-like
expression, which harmonizes perfectly with the scope of
thought, and is just afl we would expect the Apostle to say at
present on the subject. Assuming this to be correct, how
naturally foUows the doxologic clause : Christ is over aU things —
God be blessed forever.
But again it is replied, by way of objection, that if this were
correct, Theos would have the article. Certainly it might have

298 COMMENTARY, [Chap, 9, v. 6, 7.
it; but at this date we are too far removed from Middleton to
stake so much on the mere presence or absence of an article. I
can not therefore feel the force of the objection.
I add only, that I am wholly free from any convictions touch
ing the divinity of Christ, which lead me to adopt the view here
insisted on. What alone controls me is the belief that the popu
lar mode of pointing the passage is erroneous. I know that the
view I reject is strenuously defended; and it may be true. Stfll,
I am not so impressed at present The weight of authority is, I
grant, against me; but in the present instance even authority
may not be weighty. Our weakness Is to see our tenets where
Inspiration nevei* placed them,
6, But I do not mean that God's word has failed. In
saying, "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ
for my brethren," the Apostle has Indicated his view of their
condition. He regarded ihem as accursed frotn Christ. Nor
was this his view of a few only of them; for the vast body of
them had repudiated Christ. This is the fact which underUes
what he here says, and gives rise to his remark. But I do not
mean in what I imply that God's word respecting Israel has
failed. For such is not the case. "God's word" must here be
taken comprehensively for all his promises relative to the sal
vation of Israel, That word has not failed; because it never
contemplated the whole of Israel, and the whole are not accursed.
It contemplated a "remnant" only; and a remnant are already
saved. Therefore God's word has not failed.
for all that are of Israel are not Israel, Confirmatory
of the preceding remark. That is, the clause is designed to show
that God's word of promise has not failed. All the offspring of
Jacob are not Israel in the sense in which the word Is used in
the promise. The word is there used of those only who are so
sincere and true as to receive the Messiah. As to these, God's
word has not failed. The true Israel, Israel w^itliin the meaning
of the promise, have accepted Christ; and as the promise em
braced no others, It has therefore been strictly kept. It never
comprehended the whole unassorted mass of Israel, but those
only who should prove themselves true to the gospel. The ulti
mate rejection of the rest, It has always contemplated.
7, Nor are they all children because Abraham's off
spring. Of the same tenor with the foregoing clause, and like
that designed to confirm the remark that God's word has not

Chap. 9, v. 7, 8.] ROMANS, 299
failed. The Israelites, because Abraham's offspring, are not all
children within the scope of the promise. Therefore, though
God should reject a part of them, and even the greater part, it
does not follow that his word has failed. His word of promise
now no more includes the whole of Abraham's offspring than it
did in time gone. Then it included Isaac and his posterity only,
and rejected Ishmael and his. And so now. His word of prom
ise to bless, includes those only who believe in Christ. Many of
these he has already blessed, and many more he will. Conse
quently, his word has not failed. As for those who repudiate
Christ, rejecting all of them implies no failure of his word, be
cause he never promised to bless them.
but in Isaac your children shall be called. "CaUed" here
is equivalent to chosen, a sense which the passive of kalleo
sometimes has. The children of Ishmael and of Isaac were alike
offspring of Abraham. But of these God chose only the children
of Isaac to be his peculiar people, and rejected the others. What
then if he should do likewise now? Would this imply a failure
of his promise? No more than it did then. Therefore he may
accept those who beUeve in Christ, as he chose the children of
Isaac; and he may reject those who reject Christ, as he rejected
the children of Ishmael; and It will all work no failure of his
word. 8. That is, the children of the flesh are not children of
God, An explanation relative to the preceding clauses, and a
deduction as to the case in hand. The chfldren merely of the
flesh were not in the past accepted of God as his chfldren. On
the contrary, they were cast out as was the case with Ishmael.
But the chfldren of promise, as in the case of Isaac, were alone
chosen as his children — not children in the sense of being regen
erate, but in that of being his peculiar people. Thus is it now.
The children of the flesh only, which includes all that are at
present called Israel, are not children of God; that is, they are
not chfldren in Christ merely because children ofthe flesh; for If
they have no other claim than this, God disowns them. They
are none of his. To be born of the flesh, no matter whose flesh
it is, is now no ground of acceptance with God. A wholly dif
ferent birth is necessary.
But the children of promise are counted for children.
That is, are counted for God's children. As it was in the past,
so is it now. The chfldren of Isaac, alone were children of

300 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 9-11.
promise; and they alone were chosen. In like manner, those
only who now beUeve in Christ are children of prqmise. For
"they who are of belief, the same are the children of Abraham;"
and his children alone are children of promise. Therefore those
only who now beUeve in Christ will be accepted. AU the others,
no matter from whom descended, will be rejected.
9. For there was this word of promise : At this time I
will come, and Sarah shall have a son. The promise is
found Gen. viii: 10. "At this time" — at this period next year, as
some think, but this is uncertain. The time referred to was a
time evidently fixed in the angel's mind, and understood by
Abraham. It seems therefore to have been called "this time"
with reference to this fact. But the time is now immaterial, the
promise being the important thing. In the preceding clause the
Apostle says: "the children of promise are counted for children";
and the present verse Is designed to confirm the remark. Isaac
was born conformably to God's promise; Ishmael was not. God
counted the former as his child, and not the latter. Thus the
statement of the foregoing clause Is shown to be correct.
10. And not only so, but Rebecca also having con
ceived by one, Isaac our father, 11, it was said to her
Intended to confirm still farther that "the children of promise
are counted as children." The Introductory clause, not only so,
is obviously elliptical, requiring something to be supplied. I
complete the sense thus: Not only in the case of Abrahara were
'the children of promise counted for children; but the same thing
was also done in ihe case of Isaac; for Rebecca having con
ceived by one, Isaac our father, "It was said to her," &c. The
expression, "the elder shall serve the younger," is clearly regarded
by the Apostle as. a promise respecting Jacob, which constituted
him a "child of promise" withgn the meaning of the phrase. This
seems the more evident. If the whole of Gen. xxv: 23 be read.
Accordingly, Jacob and his offspring were counted for children,
instead of Esau and his. The reader wiU notice that I transpose
the clause "it was said to her," placing it before the parenthesis.
This both improves the sentence and gives the parenthesis a bet
ter position.
(the children being not yet born, nor having done any
thing good or bad, Before the children were yet born, and
therefore before they had done any thing either good or bad
which could in any way influence God's choice, he caused it to

Chap. 9, V. II.] ROMANS, 301
be said to Rebecca, "the elder shall serve the younger." This
saying both indicated his choice of Jacob, and at the same time
constituted a promise respecting him.
that God's purpose as to choosing might stand In the
case of Jacob and Esau, God made choice of the former before
the children were born, and therefore before they had done any
thing that could have the slightest influence on his choice. This
he did that his purpose in regard to making choices, such as he
then made, might stand; that is, that in every case, without ex
ception, it might remain determined by reasons within himself,
and in no sense by the acts of the parties chosen or rejected. In
other words, he chose Jacob in preference to Esau conformably
with an absolute right and purpose of choice which Is never con
ditioned on human acts.
The phrase he kaf eklogen proihesis tou Theou means the pur
pose of God in the matter of making choices. He has a certain
purpose which is never to be changed. That purpose relates to
making choices among men. It is this: That the reason for the
choice is never to be any thing that men do, but God's own wish
and will in the case.
Many interpret the phrase thus: That the jDurpose of God
"according io election" raight st&nd; that Is, his purpose accord
ing to, or as based on a previous election, an election made away
back In eternity. But this is clearly erroneous. The meaning is
not, God's purpose according to or as based on a previous elec
tion, but his purpose in regard io elections, his purpose touching
that matter. The position of' kaf eklogen gives to it the force of
an adjective — God's electing purpose, his purpose which relates
to choosing and is exhausted in It.
[and the choice be] not from works, but from him that
calls), I place here in brackets a clause which fills an evident
ellipsis, and so completes the sense. Not from works — ouk ex er
gon, not coming or springing out from works. The meaning Is,
that the choice is not to spring out from works as the reason for
it; it is not to be conditioned on them, or even influenced by them.
It is to be wholly independent of them. But from him thai
calls. "CaUs" here is equivalent to chooses. The choice is to
arise wholly out of him who makes it, or is to be determined
solely by reasons within himself.
But in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, God both chose and
rejected with exclusive reference to time, and with no reference

302 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 9, v. 12, 13.
 1  I  ^ 
to eternity. As to the final destiny of the chfldren, the choice
and rejection had no known effect upon it. It left each as free
to pursue those things which would save him, and to shun
those that would condemn him, as though it had never been
made. Had each changed place with the other, it would
not, in the sUghtest degree, have altered his prospects for heaven.
What men wilfully do, not the divine choice, determines their
final doi,m. God's choice, it is true, rendered the outward, tem
poral circumstances of Jacob and his posterity far superior to
those of Esau and his; but, at the same time, it so increased re
sponsibflity as to leave the balances of justice level, and the
chances of salvation equal.
The passage in hand has had assigned to it a very notorious con-
spicuity in theories of election, and, in my judgment, has been
greatly abused. It was not penned in the interest of dogmatic
Calvinism, and therefore does not countenance its offensive tenets.
Interpreted as it should be, it teaches nothing contradictory of
other portions of holy Writ, and shocking to our human sense
of justice. In it God stands out still in a lovely light, and not as
the arbitrary, inexorable Judge, who appoints one man to heaven
and another to hell, not only without reason, but in defiance of it,
so far as man can see. As I do not feel called upon to hunt up
and notice all the various abuses to which the passage has been
subjected, I shall leave that task with those who imagine that
they can derive any profit from it
12. The elder shall serve the younger. We have no
account of Esau ever having personally served Jacob. The ref
erence then must be to their respective posterities; and with
this agree the facts of history. For in 2 Sam. vui: 14 it is dis
tinctly said that "all they of Edom [Esau's posterity] became
David's servants." Indeed, the Edomites were long subject to
the kings of Israel, the latter often slaying them in great num
bers. But the Edomites frequently asserted their independence;
and at such times they became most barbarous and cruel. They
seem to have taken especial pains to cultivate Esau's Ancient
hatred of Jacob; and they never let pass an opportunity to dis
play it. About the time Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus, they
seem to have disappeared as a separate people. After this we
hear no more of them.
, 13. As it is written: I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.
This quotation is from Mai. i: 2, 3. The extent to which God

Chap. 9.]

ROMANS.

303

loved Jacob was shown in preferring him to his brother; and the
extent to which he hated Esau, in rejecting him from being one
of the heads of his chosen people. More than this, the words
need not be supposed to mean. Hatred, especially, we may
assume to be used in the bold exaggerating sense so common
with the prophets. It denotes not so much positive hatred, as
not love.

chapter IX. SECTION 2.

"Tl ovv ipovpev; p^ aStxia napd ra
Qe^; pfj yevoiro. "Ta MavaeX ydp
Xe'yet, 'tXe^aa tv &v eXea, xai olxretpfj-
aa hv hv otxreipa. ""Apa ouv ov rov
BeXovros ovSe rov rpcj^ovros, aXXa rov
eXeovvros Qeov. " Aeyet yap fj ypacpfj
TO ^apaa- Sn els airrd rovro iifjyeipd
ae, Snas ivSeiiapai iv aoi -rfjv Srivapiv
pov, Kai onas Sia-yyeX^ rd Svopd pov iv
Ifdaji rrj -yg. "'Apa oJv iv BeXei, iXeeX,
iv Se BeXei, axXrjpvvei. "'Epets ^ot
oiv, Tt oiv en pepifierai; r<5 yap jSou-
X^part avroi ris avBearrjKe; '" Mevouvye,
!> avBpane, ai ris et d avranoxptvopevos
Ta Qe^; pfj ipei rd nXdapa ra nXdaav-
n, Ti pe inolrjaas ourtos; "*H ouk exet
iiovaiav d xepape-us roi) ttt^Xou ix roi
airrov cjjvpdparos Trotijtrai A pev ets rtp^v
axevos, o Se els dripiav;

'¦¦What then shall we say? Is
there not injustice with God? Not
at all. "For he says to Moses, I
will have mercy on whom I have
mercy ; and I will pity whom I pity.
'^Son then [being chosen] is not of
him that wills, nor of him that runs,
but of God that shows mercy. " For
the scripture says to Pharaoh : For
this very purpose I raised you up,
that I might display in you my pow
er, and that my name might be
published in all the land. " So then
he has mercy on whom he will, and
whom he will, he hardens. "You
will say to me then. Why then does
he still find fault? For who resists
his will? ^°Nay but, man, who are
you that reply to God? Shall the
thing formed say to him that formed
it, Why did you make me thus?
''Or has not the potter power over
the clay to make from the same
mass one vessel for honor and an
other for dishonor?

SUMMARY.
Is it not unjust in God to choose one and reject another, as in the case of
Jacob and Esau? Not at all; for in doing so, he acts according to his own
avowed principles of conduct, which must be assumed to be right. Accord
ingly he says to Moses, I will make my own sense of right my rule in
showing mercy. It was on this principle that he set up Pharaoh to be king.
But all these choices create mere worldly distinctions. They are not choices
to eternal life. But if God makes men what he pleases, why does he still
find fault with them? He does not do so. He finds no fault with them for
being what he makes them, but only for their own voluntary wrong. Again,
in these choices, God's creatures should not presume to question him. They
must take for granted that he acts justly. He has the absolute right to do
what he does, and as he can do none wrong, he must not be questioned.

304 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 9, v. 14-16.
14, What then shall we say? What shaU we say in
reply to the foregoing? Is all that has been said true? Or is any
thing open to objection? If so, what is it?
Is there not injustice with God? Not at all. This is not
a question put by the Apostle into the mouth of an objector, but
his own question. It involves a difficulty which he saw would
arise in the mind of his reader, and which therefore he felt it
prudent to meet
God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael, not because of any good
the former did, or evil the latter did. He did the same In the
case of Jacob and Esau. Nor did his choice in its effects end at
these men themselves. It extended even to their posterity, and
determined, in one sense, their temporal condition and relative
distinction for an indefinite period of time. In thus dealing with
Ishmael and Esau did not God act unjustly? Not at aU, is the
prompt reply. But can this reply be sustained? It can, provid
ed it can be shown that God acted according to his own avowed
principles of conduct For these principles, as divine and ulti
mate, must be held to be right Did he thus act? The following
is the reply:
15. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom
I have mercy, and I will pity whom I pity. Gen. xxxiii: 19
That Is, God will have mercy on whom he sees fit, and will pity
whom he sees fit Why? Because he sees fit to have mercy on
none unless it is within itself absolutely right He acted upon
this principle in the case of Isaac and of Jacob Indeed whenever
he makes a choice, he acts upon it He chose Isaac because it
was in itself right; but in choosing Isaac he worked no 111 what
ever to Ishmaeh His choice of Isaac had no more effect upon
Ishmael than if it had never been made. He simply did noth
ing to Ishmael but let him alone. He neither cursed him nor
became his enemy. He only chose Isaac — no more. And so
with Jacob and Esau. In choosing the former God did the lattei
no Injustice. Surely a kindness to the one was no unkindness to
the other. In raising one end of a beam, we necessarily depress
the other. But not so in making a choice. God in raising Jacob
did not depress Esau, but left him as wholly unaffected by his act
as though Jacob had never existed. Truly, then, there is no In
justice with God.
16. So then [being chosen] is not of him that wills nor
of him that runs. The clause I here place in brackets is so
obviously implied as to need no defence. The eUIpsis is usually

Chap. 9, v. 16, 17.] ROMANS. 305
suppUed, as in the E. V. by ii, which does not even suggest the
omitted thought, and is therefore unsatisfactory. In all cases like
the present, it is best to supply the fact or thing itself that is
omitted. The ara here is strictly illative, drawing its inference from the
declaration to Moses. Therefore it follows that being chosen, as
Jacob was, is not determined by him whose will or wish it is to
be chosen, nor by his exertion who runs, as in a race, as if to
merit it by excelling others. Such choice depends neither on
human volition nor human action. On the contrary, It Is wholly
independent of both.
but of God that sho^ws mercy. The choice proceeds from
God, and is determined by reasons wholly within himself. In
making it, man's agency and merit are unknown. But as already
said, such choices look to mere temporal ends and create mere
temporal distinctions. They do not consist In electing one man
to salvation, and in rejecting another to perdition. The salvation
of the soul is never in them, nor decided by them. That is settled
by what the parties to the choice themselves do. Not as God's
choice is, but as each acts, so will his destiny be.
No denial is here intended of the fact that God influences, in
his providences and otherwise, the whole human family for their
good. On the contrary, this fact is firmly believed. All that is
denied is, that the salvation of any one is, independently of his
own acts, fixed by mere divine choice. This sentiment Is utterly
unbelieved and repudiated. Of God thai shows mercy: Hardly
of God that shows mercy generally, but specially. In other
words, the mercy is that shown in the special choice made. If
this be correct, then all such choices are mercies, not merely to
those chosen, but upon the largest scale — mercies alike to the
chosen and the rejected. And this I assume to be true. When
God is author to the choice, a mercy to one Is a mercy to all, and
to all, only the more surely because of the mercy to the one. It
will appear in the last day, I doubt not, that the choice of Jacob
was best alike for the posterity of Esau and for his own. The
seemingly adverse hand of God is often his kindest hand.
17. For the scripture says to Pharaoh: For this very
purpose I raised you up, A still farther confirmation of the
negative answer of v. 14. Is there not injustice with God? is
there asked. Not at all, is the reply. "For the scripture says to
Pharaoh," &c. The scripture says — popular for God says, since
20

3o6 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 17.
he speaks in the scripture. For this very purpose, the purpose
which he is just about to state. / raised you up — A clause no*
free from difficulty, and which has been most variously intei
preted. The Septuagint employs one word to render the He
brew, whfle Paul uses a different word; and these three words
do not agree very closely together. It is this fact that gives rise
to the difficulty. The word employed by the Septuagint I be
lieve we may at once dismiss; for had it given the true sense,
Paul would have used it and not a different word. The Hebrew
word has several meanings, all of which, however, are but mod
ifications of its one radical meaning, to stand. Now that the
word, in some one of these meanings, or shades of meaning, ex
presses the exact idea which God intended, is indisputable; and
equaUy certain is it that this meaning is signified by exegeiro,
the word used by Paul. Which one of these meanings then does
exegeiro denote? The Hebrew word in Hiphil, the form here
used, signifies to cause io stand, set up or erect, set, place. Egeiro,
from which comes exegeiro with the same import, except where
ex modifies it, which is often not the case, also means, among
other things, to raise up, cause to arise. Now these are the
meanings in which the Hebrew word and exegeiro most closely
agree. But although egeiro means to raise up, as children. Matt.
iii: 9, neither the Hebrew word nor exegeiro does. I see no rea
son why exegeiro might not mean it, but the Hebrew never does.
This meaning then must be rejected. Exegeiro can not denote
it, because It Is not in the Hebrew. But the Hebrew word, be
sides signifying to cause to stand, set up, also means to set up in
the sense of appointing to office. See i Chron. vi: 31, Neh. vi: 7.
Now this, in my judgment, is the meaning of exegeiro in the
clause in hand. It is used In the sense of egeiro, and means /
raised you up, that is, to be king; or according to the Hebrew,
/ set you up to be king. To this sense, which exactly suits the
context, I can see no objection. I therefore adopt it
But how does setting up Pharaoh to be king (tautology per
haps, but necessary here) prove that there Is no injustice with
God? The question should rather be. What power has the fact
to prove injustice? The reply is, none. For, ist, there was obvi
ously no injustice in the mere act of setting up the man to be
king. At least none is discoverable by us. This point then may
be at once dismissed. 2d. Nor was there any injustice in God
causing him to become king that he might display his power in

Chap. 9, v. 17.] ROMANS. 307
him, and so procure the publication of his name in all the land.
This point also then may be set aside. Where then was the
injustice? In setting him up, it will be replied, and in making
him wicked that God might be compelled to punish him as he
did. But God did not make him wicked. This is gratuitous.
God set him up to be king, but as to his being wicked, God had
no more hand in that than in the fall of Adam. The man made
himself wicked; not only so, but he did so against both God's
will and pleasure. But it may still be insisted, that God set him
up to be just what he was; and as he was wicked, God there
fore set him up to be wicked. But God did not set him up to be
just what he was morally. He set him up to be simply king;
and as to what he ¦was moraUy, he made himself that. God used
him as he was, not made him so. But how, the objector will still
urge, about hardening Pharaoh's heart? God did that, and was
it not equivalent to making him wicked? Not at all. God did
not harden his heart by any direct exertion of power upon it.
On the contrary, so long as God operated on him through the
plagues, his heart was either Inclined to relent or did relent. But
so soon as God ceased thus to operate on him, he at once relapsed
into his old hardness. God then hardened him, not by any direct
act to that effect, but by withholding the influences which
softened him. This God could do with perfect propriety, that
all men might see precisely what Pharaoh, when left to himself,
was, and how justly he deserved the punishment inflicted upon
him. There is a wide difference between hardening a man's
heart by a direct act, and not softening it when the man himself
is determined to keep it hard. The former God never does; the
latter he may do or not as he chooses.
Again, God's right to use wicked men to accomplish his pur
poses is as unquestionable as his right to use good men. A man,
by making himself wicked, does not annul the divine right to use
him. God used Pharaoh, and Christ used Judas, because each was
worthless for any and all ends save the one for which he was
used. But the use made of them did not determine their final
doom. That they themselves had previously fixed by their own
acts. AU they were fit for was what they were used for. As
God could do nothing better with them than what he did, none
can question his right to do that. From all of which it results
that there is no injustice with God.
that I might display in you my power, and that my

3o8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 17, 18.
name might be published in all the land. A statement ot
the purpose for which God set Pharaoh up to be king. This pur
pose he intended to accomplish whether the man were good or
bad, obedient or disobedient. If obedient, that would have been
God's preference; but if disobedient, stfll he will effect his ends.
He is not to be defeated by the wilful perversity of a man whom
he is trying to get to do right, but who is nevertheless bent on
doing wrong. He will always work by good men if he can; but
he will work by bad ones if he must.
18. So then he has mercy on whom he will, and whom
he will he hardens. But he wills to have mercy on none,
when the act is unjust to others, or ¦when It makes It more easy
for those upon whom he has the mercy, to be saved than for
others. The mercy he shows does not determine salvation. It
still leaves all alike free to settle that by their own will and acts.
He showed the mercy spoken of to Jacob; but after he had done
so, it was no easier for Jacob to be saved than for Esau; and after
he had rejected Esau, it was no harder for him to be saved than
for Jacob. Faultless justice remains with God. And whom he
will he hardens. But when a man has so corrupted and hardened
himself, as was the case with Pharaoh, that it requires the exer
tion of miraculous power to subdue him; and where God has
exerted that power on him once and again without its producing
the desired effect; and when after this, he ¦withholds the power,
and the man still remains hard, let no one charge injustice on
God. Rather let it be said, that if he was unjust at all, it con
sisted in his excessive kindness to the obdurate and stupid heart
that never responded to it. Where, In all the annals of time, did
God ever do so much to soften the heart of any man as he did to
soften that of Pharaoh; and yet the world clamors — "unjust."
Had God, after the first miracle, opened the earth and engulfed
the stubborn wretch, should we not rather have cried, right.
How much less then, as matters stand, can we cry, injustice.
But the Ught in which Calvinism sets the case deserves a note.
It represents God as rearing up Pharaoh from his cradle to be the
monster he was, and then as punishing him for being and doing
precisely what he was impelled to be and do. No wonder the
world is shocked with the blasphemy. The circumstance that
so many have been deluded into the persuasion that the Bible
teaches it, is exactly what has led so many to eschew the Bible,
But the Bible knows it not

Chap. 9, v. 19, 20.J ROMANS. 309
19. You will say to me then. Why then does he still
find fault? The Apostle propounds the question, but clearly
does not reply to it The reason for this, I apprehend, is that It
involves a construction of God's dealings with the human family
so glaringly unjust as to deserve no answer. The Apostle seems
to have felt that those who could so treat the ways of a just God
ought to be left to the darkness of their error. But let us see
what reply the question admits of.
If God has mercy on whom he will, and hardens whom he
pleases; if, in other words, he makes the human family just what
they are, regardless of their will and agency; and If they neither
can nor do resist his will. Why then does he still find fault with
them? If God did all this, and still found fault, the faultfinding'
would certainly appear to us as unjust. But God does not do
M'hat is here ascribed to him. He does not make the human
family just what they are, and then find fault with them for
being what he makes them. Morally, men make themselves what
they are, which at the first is always what they should not be.
For this only, God faults them. True, God sometimes makes
choices, as in the case of Jacob and Esau; but he finds fault with
no one for being what his choice makes him. He found none
with Jacob, none with Esau. He found fault with each only
when he did wrong where he could have done right. Farther,
God sometimes hardens men, as he hardened Pharaoh; but he
finds no fault with them for being hard when he hardens them,
or for doing what he impels them to do. He found fault with
Pharaoh for hardening himself and impiously resisting his will.
This much he did, no more. The question then is far from being
unanswerable. But it does not merit a reply.
20, Nay but, man, who are you that reply to God ? The
Apostle, as already said, takes no notice of the man's question;
but he turns on him to show him his presumption and folly in
raising it He thus cuts discussion short by declining it Who
are you that reply to the Infinite One? A mere creature, know
ing comparatively nothing. Yet you question his justice and
pronounce on his ways. Your folly is simply enormous, and
needs no farther reply.
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it. Why
did you make me thus? Certainly not, but what of that?
What conclusion foflows, or what is th^ application to the case
in hand? The passage is cited substantially from Isaiah, either

3IO COMMENTARY. ' [Chap. 9, v. 20, 21
xxix:- 16, or xiv: 9, for in both places the sense is nearly the same;
and the application I take to be this: Shall Ishmael, who was
rejected, say to God, Why did you reject me? as if having the
right to question him. Shall Esau say. Why did you reject me?
as though God had done him wrong. The reply is. Not at aU.
What then? Shall rejected Israel reply to God, Why have you
treated us thus? Certainly not. For God chose Isaac and re
jected Ishmael; and you say, right. He also chose Jacob and
rejected Esau; and you say, right. Moreover, he at the first
chose you and rejected the Gentiles, and you still say, right. If
now he choose the Gentiles and reject you, dare you say, wrong.
.You are estopped from so replying by the very acts you indorse.
The Apostle here employs the argumentum ad hominem with
fine skill. Whatever his position may be within itself, Israel, at
least, is compelled to admit its correctness.
21. Or has not the potter power over the clay to make
from the same mass one vessel for honor, and another for
dishonor? This verse is of the same tenor, and to the same
effect, as the preceding one. The potter certainly has the power
claimed; not only so, he has the right What now Is the appli
cation? The human race is the clay; and God is the potter.
Accordingly, God has both the power and the right over this
clay to make from it one vessel for honor, and another for dis
honor. He has the power to make Isaac honorable, and Ishmael
not; to make Jacob honorable, and Esau not; to make Israel hon
orable, and the Gentiles not; or to make the Gentiles honorable, and
Israel not. All this he has the power and right to do; and if he
do it, who can complain? Can Israel? When Israel was hon
orable, and the Gentiles not, Israel said, right; but now when the
Gentiles are honorable, and Israel not, Israel says, Is there not
injustice with God? The Apostle's skill is here consummate.
In the phrase, "one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor,"
the "dishonor" consists solely .in not being honored. It is purely
negative, not positive. Esau was a vessel of dishonor; yet he
was left untouched. Jacob was chosen and he was let alone.
The letting alone was the dishonor.
But the Calvinistic mode of construing the passage should not
be passed in silence. Calvinism agrees with the preceding view
as far as it goes, but insists that it stops too soon. Accordingly,
Calvinism goes the foUo'^Ing length: The human family is the
clay and God the potter. From this clay God makes one indi

Chap. 9, v. 21,]

ROMANS.

3"

vidual for honor, and another for dishonor. The individual made
for honor is he whom God, of his own sovereign power, ap
points to heaven; while the one made for dishonor is he whom
God, in like manner, appoints to hell. It is as astounding as it
is painful to see men who are both scholarly and pious, strain
the word of God in order to make it subserve such monstrous
tenets.

CHAPTER IX. SECTION 3,

" Ei Se BeXav d Qeos ivSeiiaaBai rfjv
opyfjv xai yvapiaai ro Suvarov avrov,
qveyxev iv ttoXXjJ paxpoBvpia axevrj
opyfjs xarrjpriapeva els dnaXeiav. ^ Kat
tva yvapiarj rov nXovrov rfjs Sdirjs avrov
ini aKevrj iXeovs, d nporjroipaaer eis
Sdiav — ^* ous Kat iKoXeaev fjpds, oil
pdvov ii 'lovSaiav dXXd Kai ii iBvav,
'* 'Qs xai iv ra 'Qarje Xcyet, KaXeo-co rov
ou Xtzdv pou Xadv pou,. Kat r^v ouk fjyanrj-
pevrjv fiya-irrjpevrjv, '^ xai 'earai iv ra
rdrri^ ov ippfjBij airroXs, Oi Xaos pov
ipeXs, ixeX xXrjBfjaovrat vloi Qeov fmv-
ros. ^''Ho-aias Se xpd^ei inep rov
'lapa^X, 'Eav rj 6 dpiBpds rwv vlav
'lapafjX ms ij appos rfjs BdXdaarjs, to
indXetppa aaBfjaerai. ^ Aoyov ydp avv-
reXav xai avvrepvav notfjaet Kvptos ini
r^s y^s. "Kat xaBas npoeiprjxev ''Ra-
atas. El pfj Kvpios Sa^aaiB eyxareXtnev
fjpXv aneppa, as SdSopa &v iyevfjBrjpev
xaX as Tdpoppa dv apotaBrjpev.

^ But God, though determining to
display his wrath and to make known
his power, endured with much for
bearance vessels of wrath ripe for
destruction. ^^And that he might
make known his wealth of glory on
vessels of mercy, which he prepared
for glory, ^'' [he showed mercy on]
us whom he also called, not only
from the Jews, but also from the
Gentiles. ^¦'' As he says also by Ho
sea : I will call those my people that
are not my people, and her beloved
that is not beloved ; ^'' and in the
place where it was said to them, You
are not my people, there they shall
be called sons of the living God.
^' Besides Isaiah cries over Israel :
Though the number of the sons of
Israel be as the sand of the sea, a
remnant shall be saved. ^'Now the
Lord will execute this saying upon
the land, fulfilling it and ending it
quickly," ^' And as Isaiah had before
said : Had not the Lord of hosts left
us offspring, we should have become
as Sodom, and been made like Go
morrah,

SUMMARY,
But God, though determined to punish evil-doers in the end, has always
borne long with thera. Surely none can say this is unjust. He may do as
he pleases. And that he might show the abundance of glory he has to be
stow on those who prove themselves worthy of it, he called us disciples both
from among the Jews and the Gentiles. He has thus shown himself perfect
ly impartial.
God did no injustice in choosing the Jews at first and in rejecting the Gen
tiles. Neither now does he do any injustice in choosing the Gentiles and in
rejecting the Jews. He has always intended to accept those who should
obey his Son, whether Jews or Gentiles, and to reject all the rest. This he
long since foretold both by Hosea and Isaiah.

312 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 22, 23.
22, But God, though determining to display his wrath,
and to make known his power, endured with much for
bearance vessels of wrath, ripe for destruction. Taking
this verse in connection vvith the 23d and 24th, and we kave con
fessedly a difficult passage. The construction is anormal, and, as
usually interpreted, elliptical, leaving the sense incomplete. Part
of this difficulty, I feel sure, arises from a faulty punctuation.
First, let v. 22 be made a complete sentence. This of itself
brings no little relief. Second, make the sentence simply affirma
tive, and not conditional. Third, give de its common signification,
and render ei though. Then arrange as I have done, and most
of the embarrassment is gone. If it be replied that a part of this
at least is unusual, I grant it But the passage itself is unusual,
and therefore necessitates an unusual exegesis.
though determining to display his wrath Thelon here is
more correctly rendered by determining than by willing, since
the latter is ambiguous. God's ¦wrath is his sense of justice man
ifested in punishing the wicked. This wrath he has ever
determined to display on condition of final impenitence. And to
make known his power — Not so strictly power as ability, what
he Is able to do. Now although from the origin of sin to the
present, God has always Intended to punish it unless forgiven,
still, during all this time, he has been bearing with the wricked,
and not punishing them, though strictly deserving it. Here then
at least, none will ask. Is there not injustice with God? Truly
mercy and forbearance are with him, but not Injustice.
But who are the "vessels of wrath"? Most commentators
think them to be the wicked Jews, with whom God had been
bearing so long, and whom he had now cast off. The language
certainly Includes the wicked Jews, and may have special refer
ence to them; but I doubt the correctness of making it denote
them exclusively. It appears safer to make it include all the
wicked, both Jews and Gentiles, whom God had been enduring
so long. The expression "vessels of wrath," is a metaphor taken
frora the preceding verse. It means simply the wicked. "Ripe"
or fitted for destruction, as applied to the wicked, does not sig
nify ripened or fitte^l by God, but by their own evil deeds. They
were authors to their condition, not lie.
23. And that he might make known his wealth of glory
upon vessels of mercy, "Wealth of glory" means abundant
glory. "Vessels of mercy" does not signify vessels of mercy by

Chap. 9, v. 24, 25.] ROMANS. 313
divine decree, and previously to the obedience of belief It signi
fies those who accept Christ — the pardoned. Which he prepared
for glory. He prepared them for glory when, in consequence of
their obedience to Christ, he forgave their sins, and by that act.
24. [he showed mercy on] us whom he also called.
God cafled us by the gospel, and it was in that act partly that he
showed the mercy; but he showed it chiefly in remitting our
sins. "Us" signifies the whole body of the saved. I here bracket
a clause, because it has nothing corresponding to It in the text
Still as it, or something equivalent, is obviously implied, I deem
no defense of it necessary.
not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. That
is, God called us not only from among the one people, but also
from among the other. In the matter of the call, then, he has been
perfectly impartial. He has called both Jews and Gentiles alike.
Not only so, but he proposes to make all vessels for honor, and
none for dishonor. In this therefore none can say he is unjust.
But he not only called us; he also had mercy on us. And the
precise reason for having mercy on us, and not on the rest, is
that we accepted the call, while they rejected it. In calling to
salvation, God is equaUy merciful to all. He sends to all the
same Christ, the same gospel; on them he spends the same influ
ences, and to them presents the same Incentives to duty. But
beyond this, he strictly discriminates in bestowing mercy. He
bestows it on those only that obey his Son. On all the rest he
will one day pour out his wrath.
In the former of these two verses, the Apostle shows how God
deals with vessels of wrath; in the latter, how he deals with ves
sels of mercy. Those, he endures with much forbearance, though
resolved to punish them at last; these, he calls to the honors of
the gospel, that he may finally crown them with his wealth of
glory. 25. As he says also by Hosea: I will call those my
people that are not my people, and her beloved, that is
not beloved. The passage is compiled from Hosea i: 10 and Ii:
23; and it seems originally designed to apply to reinstated Israel
alone; but that it includes also the Gentiles is settled by the use
here made of it. I can not see that it is used by way of accom
modation as some writers insist
The Apostle now proposes to establish from prophecy two
points: i. That the Gentiles are to become the people of God.

314 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 25-27.
2. That only a remnant of Israel is to be saved. It is thus to be
made apparent to the Jews that their own prophets confirm
all Paul says. / will call those my people: I wfll so call or
name them, because they will then be my people. The time wifl
come when the Gentfles will obey the gospel, and be saved.
They wiU then be my people, and I will so style them. That are
not my people: That are not my pecuUar people in the sense in
which Israel are. Not that I now repudiate afl Gentfles; only
that as a body they are not mine in a special sense. And her be
loved, that is not beloved: An allusion no doubt to the church.
As much as to say, the Gentiles are at present not a chosen peo
ple, which is the force of "not beloved." But the time is coming
when they will compose the church, the Lamb's wife. As such,
they will then be beloved. Israel is now the beloved, and the
Gentiles the not-beloved. But time will reverse this; and the
Gentiles will be the beloved, and Israel the not-beloved. No
fact could be mentioned more offensive to Israel than this. Yet
the time had come when it must be stated.
26. And in the place where it was said to them. You
are not my people, there they shall be called sons of the
living God. To the same effect as the preceding. That the
prophecy has a double meaning can hardly be doubted. When
first spoken it applied to restored Israel; but God meant it to in
clude the Gentiles also. This Hosea may not have understood;
for the prophets often uttered things the full purport of which
they did not comprehend. Paul's use of the passage is the best
evidence of what God Intended by It Nor does the Apostle cite
it in an accommodated sense, as some commentators think; that
is, merely because It happened to express his own ideas. He
cited It rather because it proves that God long since purposed
and said that the Gentiles should become his people. This point
the Apostle is anxious to establish; and he completely does so by
Hosea, And in ihe place — Not in any one particular place, but
among the Gentiles generally. It was the common twit of the
Jews that the Gentiles were not God's people. There they shall
be called — ^There they shall actually be sons of God, and there
fore shall be so called. The reception of the Gentiles being now
established by Hosea, the Apostle proceeds to prove from Isaiah
that only a remnant of Israel is to be saved.
27. Besides, Isaiah cries over Israel : Though the num
ber of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a

Chap, 9, v, 27-29,] ROMANS. 315
remnant shall be saved. That Is, only a remnant shall be
saved. This remnant, from and after Christ, consisted of those
who accepted him. The vast remainder were all rejected. It was
the rejection of Christ by this remainder, and their consequent
anathematization that gave the Apostle the "great grief and con
tinual sorrow" of which he speaks in the first of the chapter; and
when we contemplate the spectacle we can not wonder at his
emotions. The disproportion between the remnant and the re
mainder was fearful. A mere handful saved: millions lost. But
the lost had themselves alone to blame, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
how often would I have gathered your children together, but
they would not" is the solution of the case, God placed before
them the alternatives — Christ and life, or not Christ and death.
They deliberately chose the latter. They were free to have made
a different choice; and the pressure which it is right to use, God
brought to bear upon them to induce them to make It. Yet they
would not; and as they chose, so they fare.
28. Now the Lord will execute this saying upon the
land, fulfilling it and ending it quickly. That logon refers to
the saying of Isaiah in the preceding verse, I assume as certain.
Accordingly, I render it saying, and prefix "this" to It, so as to
render the reference definite. "The Lord will execute 'this say
ing' "—he will fulfill It to the letter. This he will do by actually
saving the remnant, and rejecting the remainder. Thus he will
verify all I teach in regard to Israel. "Upon the land" — the land
of Israel. "Fulfilling it and ending it quickly" — fulfiUIng the
saying and bringing the fulfillment at once to an end. The cita
tion in this and the preceding verse is from Isaiah x: 22, 23. The
Apostle foUows the sense of the passage rather than the verbiage.
2g. And as Isaiah had before said : Had not the Lord
of hosts left us offspring, we should have been as Sodom,
and been made like Gomorrah, Here Is. I: 9; hence the
rendering, "had before said;" that is, he had said what is here
cited before he said what is cited in vs. 27, 28. The passage is
designed as a still farther proof that a mere remnant of Israel is
to be saved. The Lord of hosts— The Lord that rears them up
and preserves them. The phrase is used with admirable pro
priety here. Left us — left to us Israelites. Offspring— some
offspring, a remnant We should have become as Sodom — we
should have become wholly extinct, not even one left And been
made like Gomorrah — we should have been utterly cut off from

3x6

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 9, v. 29

the earth, made a complete desolation. The Apostle clearly
regards these two cities as instances of entire extinction, not con
sidering Lot as belonging to them, but as a mere temporary
dweller in one of them.
But the Lord of hosts has preserved us offspring, a mere rem
nant, it is true, in comparison with those that are lost, still enough
to preserve our name from oblivion. This remnant is small in
numbers, but mighty nevertheless. It has been purified in the
blood of Christ, and is now the Ught of the world. Its name is
to endure forever; and its victories are to extend to the remotest
bounds of earth. All nations shall bless God for it In the
loss of Israel there is cause for "continual sorrow;" but in the
salvation of the remnant, still greater cause for joy; and in the
end, God's name will be more honored through this remnant, and
the world more blessed, than through all the countless hosts of
Israel besides. After all, then, God has not been nursing Israel
to no purpose.

CHAPTER IX. SECTION 4.

'°What then shall we say? That
the Gentiles, who were not seeking
justification, attained to justification,
but justification that is by belief.
^' But Israel, though seeking a law of
justification, attained not to a law.
''Why? Because [seeking justifica
tion] not by belief, but as by works,
they stumbled at the stumbling-stone.
^'As it is written: Behold, I place in
Sion a stumbling-stone, and a rock
of offense ; and he that believes upon
it shall not be ashamed.

'"Tl ouv ipovpev; Sn eBvrj roi pfj
StaKovra StKatoadvrjv, KareXa^e Sixaio
avvrjv, Sixaioavvrjv Se rijv ix niareas.
^^'lapafjX Se Siaxav vopov SixatoinSvrjs,
els vdpov Sixatoavvrjs ovx eipBaae.
^^ Aid ri; Sn ovx ix niareas oXX' as ii
epyav, npoaexoifrav rra XiBa rou rpoa-
Kdpparos. ^' KaBas yeypaTrrai, 'iSov
riBrjpi iv Slav XiBov npoaxdpparos, Kai
nerpav axavSdXov- xai 6 7rt<7Teua)v in
avT^ oi KarataxvvBrjaerai.

SUMMARY.
The Gentiles from some cause were not seeking justification. Yet they
found it. Why? Because with glad hearts they sought it in Christ in whom
alone it is found. But Israel were seeking justification; and yet they did not
find it. Why? Because they sought it not by belief in Christ, but by work*
of law in which way it can never be found.
The Apostle has now shown that God, in rejecting the j'ews
and receiving the Gentiles, had not been unjust; that in doing so
he had acted on principles which the Jews themselves approved;

Chap. 9, v. 30.] ROMANS. 317
that all he had done was foretold in their prophets, and therefore
should not have been unlooked for by them. He is consequently
ready to pass to a new topic; and accordingly proceeds to state
the reasons why Israel was rejected and the Gentiles received.
In other words, he is now going to account for these facts.
30. What then shall we say? Not in the way of infer
ence, but in the way of accounting for what has now been said.
Israel is rejected; and the Gentiles are in their place. Why is
it so? That the Gentiles, who were not seeking justification.
Who were not in pursuit of it, and therefore were not expecting
it But why not seeking it? Either, I presume, because they
knew in effect nothing about it, and consequently knew not how
to seek it; or because they had sunk down in Indifference, and
cared nothing for it. Or, which Is most probable, both these
causes combined were at work to produce the result. The point
is unalluded to by the Apostle; hence our inabfllty to decide it
Several commentators are of the opinion that the words dio-
konta, katelabe, and ephihase are here used agonistically, that is,
in the sense in which they were employed in the ancient public
games; and they so render them. I regard the opinion as unlike
ly, if not fanciful.
With Stuart and Bloomfield, I here render dikaiosunen justifi
cation, instead of righteousness. True, Riddle, in a note on
Lange, thinks this rendering "altogether untenable." But asser
tion is a cheap form of criticism. To assert with R. is far easier
than to defend the other side. Precisely what the Gentiles did
not seek was release from sin and consequent acceptance with
God; and release from sin is the radical fact in justification.
attained to justification, but justification that is by be
lief. That is, they realized it, or were justified. But they were
not justified by belief alone, or as the sole condition of it For as
Bloomfield in loe. justly says: "Faith in Christ impUes a full ac
ceptance of his gospel, and an obedience to all its requisitions,
whether of belief or practice." When the Gentiles believed in
Christ and obeyed him, their sins were remitted. Being now free
from sin, they were held as just or righteous, which was their
justification. This justification they sought by belief in Christ,
and not by works of law; but the belief by which they sought it
was not a mere conviction of the heart, excluding the acts that
spring out of belief and go with it. It was the belief which led

3i8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 9, v. 31.
them to obey Christ, and so complement the expression "obedi
ence of belief."
Here the reason for the reception of the Gentfles is broadly
and clearly set forth. Priorly to the offer of Christ to them, they
were, as compared with Israel, a rejected people, and were not
seeking justification. But so soon as the gospel was presented to
them, they obeyed it; and thus obtained the favor of God, Their
reception of Christ, therefore, and consequent justification, were
the reason why they became God's people.
31. But Israel, though seeking a law of justification. If
the Apostle be assumed here as intending to speak with strict
precision, to speak. In other words according to the real fact in
the case, then his unusual collocation nomon dikaiosunes instead
oi dikaiosunen nomou is significant Israel had a law which, theo
retically, was a law of justification, but which, in fact, was not
one. Not one of them had ever been justified by it; nor was one
of them ever to be. To them therefore it was no law of justifica
tion. Now as they had no intention of being justified save by
law, what they were In reaUty seeking was a law which should
justify them. Primarily they were seeking a law as a condition
precedent to justification. Not that they were doing this
knowingly and formally; but stifl they were doing it They were
seeking the law rather than the justification.
Or, which I deem the more probable, nomon dikaiosunes is
simply equivalent to dikaiosunen nomou. In form the two ex
pressions certainly differ, but in sense, most likely not Hence to
seek a law of justification is to seek the justification of law. This
is clear; and it was obviously the fact in the case. I therefore
consider it safer to conclude that, although the Apostle has
varied the usual form of expression, he did not mean to vary the
usual sense. In this view I feel confirmed by the clause "as by
works," in the next verse. To seek justification by law is the
same as to seek it by works.
In translating participles, as here, we often find it best to use,
as a sort of auxUiary, some such word as when, while, or though.
We thus obtain' a bolder and clearer meaning. The reader wifl
notice that I here use though, which indeed the sense seems to
imply, attained not to a law, That is, they did not find the law
they sought; and as a consequence, they remained unjustified.
When they sought justification they did not find it, because they

Chap, 9, v, 33, 33.] ROMANS. 319
sought it by law; and when they sought a law of justification,
they did not find it, because such a law is practically impossible.
Their failure therefore was complete.
32. Why? Because [seeking justification] not by
belief. The full connection is as follows: But Israel, though
seeking a law of justification, attained not to it Therefore they
remain unjustified. Why? Because they sought it not by belief.
Justification by belief is the only justification possible to man.
Hence he who does not seek it thus will never attain to it
but as by works. Clearly as by works of law. Indeed so
many MMS, contain the word nomou that it seems questionable
whether It should be omitted. The evidence for it and against it
is about equal. Alford brackets it, while Tregelles and Green both
omit it As it is really not necessary, I shall not retain it. As by
works — ^as being persuaded that by works of law they could
attain to it — a fatal persuasion. Justification by belief is practi
cable; justification by works of law, practically impossible. The
Gentiles chose that method; Israel this, which accounts for the
fact that the former are accepted, and the latter not.
they stumbled at the stumbling-stone. They stumbled
at Christ. They maintained that justification could not be ob
tained except by their law. Accordingly, they repudiated Christ
Their disastrous argument ran thus: The law alone is for justifi
cation, and we are sure of justification by it. Therefore we will
have nothing to do with Christ. We will never abandon the law
for him. This decided their fate.
The language of the clause is metaphorical. Israel is viewed
as pursuing justification so erroneously and eagerly as to stumble
at Christ, the very object in whom they should have sought it.
They followed the illusion of the law, and so missed the reality
in Christ.
33. As it is written : Behold, I place in Sion a stum
bling-stone, and a rock of offence ; That Is, I place Christ in
Sion; but I do not place him there io be a stumbUng-stone. This
is not what I design. I place him there to be a Savior; but should
Israel reject him, to them he will prove a stumbling-stone. He
IS set for salvation to all; but should any become oflfended at him,
to them he will become a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence.
They will stumble over him, and he will fall on them; and as a
consequence, they wifl never be justified. Christ is salvation to
him who accepts him; he Is ruin to him who does not.

32° COMMENTARY, [Chap. 9, v. 33
The passage is cited from Is, xxviii: x6, viii: 14; and the use
Paul makes of it shows that, no matter to what else it may origi
nally have applied, it clearly alludes to the Messiah. The Apostie
seems to interpret what at bottom the prophet meant.
and he that believes upon it shall not be ashamed. He
that believes upon Christ shall be justified; and therefore, in the
judgment, at the last day, he shall not be condemned. Conse
quently he shall have no cause for shame. It is reserved exclu
sively for those that repudiate Christ, as Israel is doing, to be
covered with shame. He gains all who accepts Christ; he loses
aU who does not

Chap, io.]

ROMANS,

321

CHAPTER X.
SECTION I.

ASeXijioi, fj pev eiSoxia rrjs ipfjs xap
Sias, xai fj Serjats npds rdv Geov inep
avrav els aarrjpiav. ^t/lap-rvpa ydp
aurots ort f^Xov 6eou exovaiv, dXX' ou
xar eniyvaaiv. Ayvoovvres yap rrjv
rou 6eou SiKatoavvrjv, xai njv tSi'av fij-
rovvres arrjaat, rfj Stxaloavvju rov ©eoiJ
ovx inerdyrjaav. ^TeXos yap vopou
Xpiards els SiKatoavvrjv navri ra nia-
reiiovTi. ^avarjs ydp ypdt^et -rfjv
Sixaioavvrjv rfjv ix rov vdpov, ort d ttoi-
^a"as aura avBpanos ^fjaerai iv airoXs.
'H Se ix niareas Sixaioavvrj ovra
Xe'yet, M^ etTTT/s e'v Trj xapSia aov, Tis
dva^rjaerai els rov ovpavov; rour' eoTt,
Xptardv xarayayeXv '^, Tis xara^fjae-
rai els rrjv a^vaaov; rour* eo^ri, Xpiardv
ix vexpav dvayayeXv. ' 'AXXa ri Xe'yet;
'Eyyus aov rd pfjpd eanv, iv rd ardpa-
ri aov xai iv rfj xapSia aov- rour* eort
ro pfjjw. rrjs niareas d Krjpvaaopev,
'Sn, idv dpdXoyfjajjs iv rd ardpari aov
xvpiov 'Irjaovv, xai niarevajis iv rfj xap-
Siti aov Sn d Qeds avrdv fjyeipev ix
vexpav, aaBfjaji. '"KapStp yap n^io'-
reuerai eis Sixaioavvriv, aropan Se
dpoXoyeXrai els aarrjpiav. Aeyet yap
fj ypai^fj, 'n.ds d niarevav in aira oi
xaraiaxvvBfiaerai. " Ou yap eort Stao'-
ToXij *IouSaiov re Kat "EXXrjVos- d ydp
avrds xvpios ndvrav, nXovrav els ndvras
rois entxdXovpevovs airrov, "Has ydp
6s flv entxdXearjrai ri Svojia Kvpiov,
aaBfjaerai.

Brethren, the desire of my heart
and prayer to -God for them, is for
their salvation. ^For I testify for
them that they have zeal for God,
but not according to knowledge.
' For being ignorant of God's justifi
cation, and seeking to establish their
own, they have not been obedient to
God's justification. ''For Christ is
the end of the law for justification to
every one that believes. ' For Moses
describes the justification'which is ot
the law : that the man who has done
its requirements shall live by them.
*But justification by belief speaks
thus : Say not in your heart. Who
shall go up into heaven ; that is, to
bring down Christ ; ' nor Who shall
fo down into the deep ; that is, to
ring up Christ from the dead?
*But what does it say? The thing
said is near you, in your mouth and
in your heart, that is, the doctrine
of belief, which we preach. ° — that
if you will confess the Lord Jesus
with your mouth, and will believe in
your heart that God raised him from
the dead, you shall be saved. '"For
with the heart we believe in order to
justification, and with the mouth we
confess in order to salvation. " For
the scripture says : Every one that
believes on him shall not be ashamed.
'^For between Jew and Greek there
is no difference ; for the same Lord
of all is rich towards all that call
upon him. "For every one who
calls upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved.

SUMMARY.
Paul desires in heart, and prays for the salvation of Israel. He testifias to
their zeal, but declares it to be not according to knowledge. Their zeal dis-
21

322 COMMENTARY. [Chap, lo, v. ».
played itself in seeking to establish their own theory of justification, which
caused them to reject that of God, No justification except to the believer in
Christ. The justification of the law defined, and sho.wn to be impracticable.
No insuperable difficulties to be surmounted in order to justification by belief.
On the contrary, its requirements are easy, and lie within reach of all. Be
lief and confession will secure it. No longer any difference between Jew and
Greek in receiving God's favor. AU to enjoy it on the same conditions.
In the present chapter, the Apostle considers still farther the
case of the Jews. He enlarges upon their great error respecting
justification, shows how it had happened, and states the remedy.
He points out the relation of Christ to their law, and then enters
upon some important details in the plan of salvation. The chap
ter contains far less of plot than the ixth, and is less complex
than any one that has preceded it It is however wonderfully
compact and sentensic, resembling in these respects the viith. It
opens, like the ixth, In a very conciliatory maimer; and yet its
tone throughout Is firm, sharp, and sustained.
Brethren, the desire of my heart, and prayer to God
Bengel appears strangely to misconceive the appUcation of the
word brethren here. He seems to think that it refers to the
Jews, of whom the Apostle Is speaking, whereas it clearly means
the disciples in Rome, to whom he Is writing.
Two things, mentioned by the Apostle, indicate the deep inter
est he felt in his countrymen who had rejected Christ — the
desire of his heart, and his prayer; and the latter especiaUy merits
a thought. Both desire and prayer looked to their salvation; but
from the scope of prophecy and the obstinacy of the Jews, the.
Apostle must have felt sure that they would be lost. Yet he
prayed for their salvation. Did he pray for what he felt certain
would not be? He might very consistently have done so. The
loss of the Jews was not fixed by irrevocable decree. It was
determined by their own wilful rejection of Christ, and although
morally certain, it was not unalterably so. Hence, the Apostle
could very properly ask God to avert it. No one knows, not
even Paul, the resources of the infinite Father. Therefore his
interposition may be invoked in whatever events are not known
to be absolutely impossible. It was certain that the Jews would
be lost unless they abandoned their unbelief; but it was not hope
lessly sure that they would not abandon it. That they might do
so was consequently legitimate matter for prayer. How the
Apostle expected the result to be brought to pass he has not even
hinted. That he left with God.

Chap, io, v. i, 2.J ROMANS. 323

for them is for their salvation. The common text has
"Israel," which is evidently erroneous. Yet Bloomfield says of
the revised text here adopted, that it "merits Uttie attention."
Such a remark from so judicious a critic is unexpected. The
reference in "them" to Israel is so direct as utterly to preclude
doubt. No effort therefore is necessary to remove any supposed
uncertainty. In v, 3i,t:h. ix, Israel are named; and in v. 32 they
are referred to by appropriate pronouns, so that only one short
verse intervenes between the last reference to them and the pres
ent reference, not enough to interrupt the connection. Eis
soterian: Eis, with an accusative often, as here, denotes the
design intended, or the event produced by an act. The desire
and prayer of the Apostle looked to a certain end — the salvation
of Israel, and were intended, if it were practicable, to effect it.
They tended to the result, and were an effort to accompUsh it
2. For I testify for them that they have zeal for God,
One good trait then, at least, remained to them, and constituted
a basis, though a feeble one, for hope. Zeal when bigoted and
blind is a fearful enemy of change. Still it is not in all cases an
insuperable obstacle in the way of truth. The Apostle seems to
have felt that it justified some hope; and it certainly warmed his
prayer. He at least deemed It worthy of a faint eulogy.
but not according to knowledge. Knowledge here does
not mean knowledge in general, but specific, real knowledge. It
means knowing truly what God had taught on the subject of
justification, or more closely still, a correct interpretation of his
teaching on it. This knowledge, the great body of the Jews did
not possess. Not because it was not avaflable; but because, by
their false glosses, they had eclipsed the true Ught touching it,
and, as the result, were left in darkness. Had they read Moses
and the prophets correctly, they would at once have recognized in
Christ their long-expected Messiah, and have hailed him with
joy. In that event, their zeal, instead nf spending itself 'in an
effort to propagate error, would have become a mighty auxiliary
In spreading the truth.
3. For being ignorant of God's justification. With Stuart,
Bloomfield, and Trollope, I here render dikaiosunen justification,
and not righteousness. My reasons for the rendering are the fol
lowing: Whatever the word denotes was to be obtained by beUef
In Christ This is evident from v. 4. But righteousness is never
thus obtained except as a result of justification, BeUef in Christ

324 COMMENTARY. [Chap, io, v. 3.

is never substituted for righteousness as being its equivalent, nor
is it ever counted for it or in its stead. Righteousness Is simply
keeping the whole law; and there is absolutely neither an equiv
alent to it, nor a substitute for it. By beUef in Christ, and through
the efficacy of his blood, we are justified; and being sinless, wfe
are in fact righteous. In this sense only, is righteousness obtained
by belief We are hence justified into righteousness (an unusual
expression, but severely correct), not invested with it by, or in
virtue of substitutes. But this is precisely what the Jews were
ignorant of Justification, therefore, is the meaning of dikaio
sunen. and seeking to establish their own, That is, their own
theory of justification. What it was, need not be reiterated here.
That theory they not only sought to make good; but they shut
their eyes and ears against every fact having in any measure the
effect to prove them wrong. They assumed their theory to be
infallible, and, as a consequence, grew impenetrable to argument
against it This blind and unreasoning obstinacy was the reef
which wrecked them; and great is the regret that their error had
not died with them. But it has Uved in all ages since; and what
half the religious world is doing to-day, is repeating it. Existing
religious parties are seeking, each to establish its own peculiar
theory of justification, the consequence of which is the repudia
tion of the divine justification. From the days of Luther down,
not to say more, nothing has been more persistently, dogmatical
ly, and proscriptlvely rung in protestant ears than justification
by "faith alone;" and yet it is neither asserted nor implied in one
sentence in the New Testament. This is an astounding fact; and
it should restrain us from decrying the Jews. We have too
closely imitated them to be allowed to fault them. Verily they
have been examples to us; and with daintiest feet we have step
ped in their steps. In zeal only have we been their inferiors,
they have not been obedient to God's justification. Hu-
petagesan here is Aorist passive, and should be so rendered. It
is from hupotasso which, in the passive, means to be ranged un
der, be subject to, or very simply, be obedient to. Its simplest
sense seems here the best.
Not to be obedient to God's justification is not to be obedient
to Christ; and not to be obedient to Christ is not to comply with
the conditions of justification, which he has prescribed. These
conditions stated, one by one, in general terms, are two: i. Be-

Chap, io, v. 3, 4.] ROMANS. 325
Uef; and, 2. obedience springing out of it. No man who beUeves
only, without obeying, can be justified; for belief without obedi
ence is dead; and no man who obeys only, without beUeving,
can be saved; for he that beUeves not, shaU be condemned. By
divine decree, these two things are so locked together as to be
inseparable. But obedience is a very comprehensive term, em
bracing many specific acts; and these acts have to be performed
by two widely different classes of persons. They have to be
performed, some of them, by those without the kingdom of God,
and, the rest of them, by those within It. In the case of those
without, they are joint conditions with belief, of justification; in
the case of those within, they are those acts of duty in which, as
christians, we work out our final salvation. What, in the case of
those without, these special conditions of justification are, will
be considered farther on.
4. For Christ is the end of the law Intended to confirm
the foregoing remark. Israel were not obedient to God's justifi
cation, for they were not obedient to Christ, in whom alone his
justification is realized. The end of ihe law: Not its extinction
or death, but its ultimate object. The great final purpose of the
law, the remote end to which it looked, was justification, and so
preparation for heaven. Christ is that end, because in him alone
it is reaUzed. He steps in, and achieves this ultimate object of
the law for it, and so becomes its end.
for justification Justification was the end or final object of
the law. Hence Christ is the law's end for its end, its end to
achieve its end. Fruit is the end of a fruit-bearing tree. But
whatever takes Its place, and bears its fruit for it, is its end. And
so with the law. Its end is justification. But Christ takes its
place and accompHshes its end for it. He is therefore its end for
justification. to every one that believes, God's justification, that which
he has ordained, is reaUzed by him only, that beUeves in Christ
No one else ever attains to it It is therefore never realized by
him who seeks it in partial obedience to law, and none seek it in
perfect obedience. Herein consisted the great error of the Jews.
They never yielded perfect obedience to the law; and yet they
sought justification by it. To them, therefore, in their way of
seeking it. It was impossible.
But beUef In Christ, unless the contrary be stated or ImpUed,
is never to be understood as insulated or alone. It is always to

326 COMMENTARY. [Chap, lo, v. 4, 5
be assumed that he who believes in Christ will obey him. A
disobedient belief is not contemplated in the Bible, If the belief
be that of the unpardoned, it must lead him to obey the condi
tions of pardon; otherwise, his belief is an abortion, and he
remains in sin. If it be that of the pardoned, it must be contin
uous, leading him to do all those things which are necessary to
eternal life; and as sure as the pardoned will be lost, if his belief
fails, so sure will the unpardoned never be pardoned, if his belief
remains alone. It must add to itself obedience or it is null.
5. For Moses describes the justification which is of
the law: The gar here, I take it, refers to a suppressed sen
tence which It is necessary to supply in order to complete the
connection. This sentence and the connection may be thus in
dicated: Christ is the end of the law for justification to every
one that believes; and justification by belief is entirely different
from justification by the law; "for Moses describes the justifica
tion which is of the law," &c. The phrase, justification which is
of the law, means justification emerging, as it were, out of the
law as its source; and were the law ever perfectly obeyed, this
would be the exact fact in the case. Of course such justification
is purely potential, there never having been an instance of it,
that the man who has done its requirements shall live
by them. That aula here denotes the requirements of the law
is conceded by all. It is, therefore, best so to translate it as to
indicate this fact. To render it "them," as Alford does, translates
merely the word, not its sense. This is to sacrifice meaning to
mere verbiage.
Whether we shall read en aute or en autois — by ii or by them,
seems difficult to decide. The manuscript authority for each is
about equal; but to my mind, the internal probabilities favor the
former. Still, I retain, not without doubt, en autois, because it
yields a clearer sense. To read, That the man who has done its
requirements shall live by it, is certain to mislead. By the com
mon reader it is sure to be understood as referring to the law
whereas it refers to justification. To avoid the danger of this
misapprehension, I think it best to retain en autois. Green
adopts this reading, and the Textual Notes in Lange give it a
hesitating preference; but Tregelles and Alford reject It and
retain en aute. For the learned, en aute will be found the prefer
able text; for the unlearned, the other.
that the man who has done its requirements That is.

Chap, io, v. 5, 6.J ROMANS, 327
done them all without an exception. This is the justification of
the law, which is justification on the ground of merit. It ex
cludes both favor and mercy, being his due who is entitled to it.
It is a debt, not a .gratuity; a right which can not be withheld.
How any human being should ever have expected to realize it is
inconceivable. The ignorance of the Jews concerning it must
have been profound. They certainly sought it and expected it; yet
a moment's thought should have taught them that It was impossi
ble. They seem to have committed the strange blunder of
supposing that they could merit, without merit, what can be
bestowed only as a debt; or that they could earn by a faulty
Ufe what is due only to a faultless one.
shall live by them — by the requirements he has clone. But
since not one has ever done them, not one will ever live hy them.
The law, instead of exciting in human bosoms the hope of life,
absolutely extinguishes it It engenders and confirms despair,
not hope. The word live here denotes both to Uve the life the
justified now live, and to live forever hereafter. Of course the
Apostle is not contemplating apostasy, which, although it may
occur, and often does, is not at present before his mind.
6. Bu* justification by belief speaks thus : Justification
by-beUef is here personified, a mode of speech quite common
with Pau', and in that character is represented as doing what the
actual In. mg teacher of justification by belief does; that is, as
setting forth itself or what it is. Let us now, for the sake of be
ing plain, drop the Apostle's rhetorical method, and substitute
the actual, for the personified teacher. Moses describes the justi-
cation which is of the law, and in so doing shows it to be
impossible. But the teacher of justification by belief thus speaks:
Say not in your heart. Who shall go up into heaven;
that is, to bring down Christ ; Say not in your heart, as if '
what you say were an earnest, weighty matter, that Christ must •
De brought back into your presence before you wiU believe on
him. You must not demand impossible conditions for your be-/
Uef. What you require is essential to knowledge, not to beUef.
Be bgtjust tp the evidence and factg^in the case,^and you not
only can "beUeve. on Christ without his return from heaven, but
you^U find it easy to do so; and what, in this cas~e, you can
easily do, you owejt^ to God and yourselfjx) do. Chnst has
alreadylleeii here; and Inliis life and deeds, he has suppUed aU
the conditions essential to belief Not only so, he has suppUed

328 COMMENTARY. [Chap, io, v. 6, 7.
them in such measure as to render unbelief highly criminal. His
return, therefore, is not necessary to belief. With the real neces
sities of beUef, Christ will always comply; with the exactions of
an unreasonable skepticism, he never will.
What justification by belief is here represented as saying, is
most probably what the infidel Jews of the time were accus
tomed to say, on the christian assumption of the ascension. "Go
up into heaven, if Christ be there, and bring him down, and we
will believe on him." But the thing demanded was not necessary,
in the first place; nor was it possible, in the second. Still, for these
very reasons, the demand would only the more certainly be made,
as a failure to comply with it would afford a shallow pretext for
the skepticism out of which it grew. When Christ was on the
cross, the chief priests and elders derided him and said: "Let
him come down from the cross and we will believe on him."
The sentiment of the two sayings is so much alike, as to give
color to the probabiUty that they originated with the same per
sons and in the same feeling.
7. nor Who shall go down into the deep ; that is, to
bring up Christ from the dead ? This verse is to the same
effect as the preceding. Say not in your heart what is here recit
ed, for it Is not necessary. Justification by belief requires nothing
either impossible or improbable. It is both practicable and easy;
and its demands lie within reach of all.
The present passage embodies, I doubt not, what the Infidel
Jews were accustomed to say on their own hypothesis. They did
not believe Christ to be risen from the dead. To the christian,
therefore, their reply would be: "Go down into the deep, where
Christ is, and bring him up, and we will believe on him." But
this amounted to a virtual declaration, on their part, of perpetual
unbelief; for they knew that the disciples had no power to go
down into the deep and bring up any one. It was as much as to
say. We will not believe unless you do what we know you can
not do. Great as was such folly, it was yet the folly of the Jews.
But justification by belief requires no such difficulties to be sur
mounted as are here named. What it requires, all can do by the
proper effort of will.
The phrase, "the deep," denotes not the grave, but the abode
of the spirits of the dead. It is synonymous with hades — the un
seen dweUing place of departed spirits. The Jews seem to have
conceived it to be either in the earth or beneath it. They hence
called it the abyss or deep.

Chap, jo, v. 7, 8.] ROMANS, 329
The language of verses 6 and 7 bears a very close resemblance
to the following from Deut. xxx: 11-14: "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, that thou shouldst say.
Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we
may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou
shouldst say. Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to
us, that we may hear it and do it. But the word is very nigh to
thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do itj^
Indeed so close is the resemblance between Paul and Moses, that
many commentators have supposed that the latter really had in
mind the doctrine of justification by belief, and alluded to it in
what he said. But this supposition is violently improbable. The
correct view I take to be this: What Moses said of the "com
mandment" is, with slight alterations, precisely what Paul wished
to say of justification by belief. He therefore merely borrowed
it and used it as his own. In other words, substituting justifica
tion by belief for "commandment," and what is said of the latter
is so true of the former that the Apostle applied it to it. Noth
ing is more common with preachers and religious ¦writers than
the same custom.
8. But what does it say ? That is, what does justification
by belief say? It does not say. Who shall go up into heaven to
bring down Christ; nor. Who shall go down into the deep to
bring up Christ — It says neither that nor this. But if it says
neither, what does it say? The clause I here italicise, is Implied
in the use of alia, and must be mentally supplied in order to
complete the sense.
The thing said is near you, in your mouth, and in your
heart. It Is best here to translate to rema, the thing said. This
is its exact meaning; and it gives us a closer connection than we
can otherwise obtain. The thing said is near you. This means
that what justification by beUef requires is easy. For in scrip
ture, things hard to be done are often said to be far off; while
those easy to be done are said to be near. What justification by
beUef says, and In what it says, it merely defines itself, is not
something difficult to be done. Indeed, the thing said Is so easy
as to cost you only an act of beUef, an act of confession.
that is, the doctrine of belief, which we preach ? This
clause is formally epexegetic of the phrase, the thing said. Ac
cordingly, we should so render the original as to indicate this fact

330 COMMENTARY. [Chap io, v. 8, 9.

I, therefore, instead of rendering to rema as in the preceding
clause, render it the doctrine, which, with the word belief, is what
the phrase the thing said means. The thing said, then, that is so
near you as to be in your mouth and in your heart, is the doctrine
of belief. The expression, doctrine of belief, does not signify a
doctrine respecting belief, but a doctrine in which belief is the
chief component element. Which we preach — the doctrine of
belief, which we preach, "Which" here, by the gender of the
original words, has doctrine, not belief for Its antecedent.
What now justification by belief declares to be near you, in
your mouth and in your heart — what it declares to be easy and
not hard, Is the doctrine of belief Therefore , what we now
want is the doctrine of belief stated in a practicable form, a form
in which we can easily do it. This done, and what justification
by belief says will be verified; and this is done in the following
verse: 9, — that if you will confess the Lord Jesus with your
mouth, More fully stated, the thing to be confessed is. That
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This Is the form
in which Peter made the confession, and in which Christ in
person approved it It may therefore safely be assumed to be
perfect. To confess a thing with the mouth is to acknowledge
in words that it is true.
But here an important practical question arises, namely: Does
the word confess denote a single act, or an oft-recurring one?
The answer depends on the acceptation in which we take the
word "saved" in the last clause of the verse. If "saved" be con
strued to mean that primary salvation which consists in remission
of sins at conversion, then "confess" denotes a single act; and
this most probably is the acceptation in which "saved" is to be
taken, since it is here equivalent to justification. That primary
salvation it must include, more It may not I conclude, then, that
"confess" denotes a single act, the act of publicly and formally
acknowledging Christ in words. Moreover, this confession is
here made a condition of the salvation specified. If you will
confess the Lord Jesus wiih your mouth,  you shall be saved.
"The two requisites for salvation," says Hodge, "mentioned in
this verse, are confession and faith." But the reader may ask.
Do you regard this condition as indispensable? I will answer the
reader by asking. Are you ready to assume the responsibility of
dispensing with it? I at least am not.

Chap, io, v. 9.] ROMANS. 331
and will believe in your heart that God raised him from
the dead, Christ claimed to be the Son of God, died in that
character, and in it was buried. But God raised him from the
dead. By this act then, God confirmed his claim, and so demon
strated hlin to be his Son. To believe with the heart is to beUeve
with simple, unaffected sincerity. Moreover, thus to beUeve is
here also made a condition of salvation. The former clause
makes confession a condition; the present one, belief
you shall be saved. This is the last clause in what justifi
cation by belief says; rather, it is the last item in justification
itself. To be justified by belief is to be saved; and to be saved,
is to be forgiven. Remission of sin, then, and justification are
equivalents. To remit sin is to make just; and to make just, is
to justify.
Justification being now before us as remission of sin, or salva
tion in its primary sense, this seems the proper place to raise the
(juestlon. What is the whole number of the conditions of justifi
cation? As the remission or salvation is primary, of course the
justification is primary; and by this I mean the justification or
remission which occurs when a man becomes a christian, and
which makes him such. According to these premises, whatever
is shown to be a condition of remission or salvation, is thereby
shown to be a condition of justification. What now is the whole
number of these conditions?
/ ISt That belief Is a condition, is conceded by all. On this
) item, then, neither comment nor argument is necessary. 2d.
Equally certain is it tha| renpntfinre^^is a condition^ for the im- .
penitent is never justified or saved. "God now commands all
men to repent;" and he who disobeys him remains in sin. These
conditions I here enumerate in their natural order. No man
repents, and then believes; but all believe, and then repent Re
pentance is an act of obedience to Christ, which is impossible
without belief. Farther, he who believes in heart and is penitent,
is begotten of the Spirit, and is therefore ready to be born again.
Hence, to be begotten of the Spirit is not a distinct condition of
justification, but is included in belief and repentance. 3d. (^^yi-c
fession is a condition, determined to be so by the verse just
"commentecf on, 4tti, Immersion is a condition^ so made by Christ j
himself in the following language: "He that believes and is ,
immersed shall be saved." Two acts are here appointed for sal- '
vation — belief and immersion; and this appointment constitutes

332 COMMENTARY. [Chap, io, v. 9, 10
them conditions to the end, and the one as surely as the other.
Again: "Repent and be immersed each of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ, for remission of sins." Here repentance and
immersion are made joint conditions of remission, belief being
assumed as already existing. Now he that is immersed, is born
of water; consequently, being born of water is not a separate
condition of salvation or of entrance into the kingdom, being
identical with immersion.
Taking now the verse just commented on, together with the
two passages here cited; and assuming salvation, remission, and
justification, when taken primarily, to be in essence the same,
and we have four conditions of justification, namely: beUef,
repentance, confession, immersion. Not only are these condi
tions, but they are all the conditions. Not one more can be
named; and no one can scripturally name less. That he of whom
all four of these acts can be predicated, is justified or saved, is as
certain as is the divinity of Christ. Should any one be so daring
as to deny that these are conditions, or so full of temerity as to
assume to set one of them aside as being not essential, for
him I am not at present writing, I am writing for him only
who, when he knows his Master's will, is ready to do It, without
rebating even one item. He that has complied with these con
ditions Is pardoned, is saved, is in the kingdom, is justified. But
although he is all this, he is still a babe In Christ, just beginning
the new life, and he may fail. In order, therefore, to succeed in
the race now set before him, he must continually add to the naked
fact of being a christian, a Ufe of holiness, and peace, and self-
denial. These things done, and life ended, and the crown of
immortality awaits him.
10. For with the heart we believe in order to justifica
tion. Or more literally, with heart it is believed for justification.
The verb is Passive and Impersonal; but it is best to use a little
freedom, and so translate It as to make the sense plain to the
common reader. The eis Is telic, as often, denoting the end for
which a thing is done. We believe — this is the fact, the end for
which, is justification. To believe with the heart or in heart, is
to beUeve sincerely. But to believe in heart, though most impor
tant, is by itself not enough. For if belief remain alone, as in
too many Instances it does, it is eike, in vain or to no purpose
(i Cor. XV : 2); and to beUeve in vain is to believe and there stop,
and so fall short of the purposed end. It Is to believe and then

Chap, io, v. io.J ROMANS. 333
allow the belief to abort; to stretch out the hand to touch the
hem of the Savior's garment, but to draw it back without touch
ing. The stretching out is to no purpose. Bet'ween belief and
its object, justification, there lies the obedience of belief, which
can not be dispensed with, and for which there is no substitute.
Belief is for justification, and obedience is for justification; but
that without this, is as surely for no purpose as is this without
that What God has twinned together, men must not sever. To
beUeve in Christ with the whole heart, and then, in obedience, to
surrender to him the whole will, is to perfect human duty. It
leaves nothing to be done, and comes short of no end. It is all
and accomplishes all.
and with the mouth we confess in order to salvation.
With this clause I take the same liberty as with the preceding,
and for the same purpose. After what has already, in this chap
ter, been said on the confession, it need- not be enlarged on here.
But why does the Apostle connect beUef and justification
together, and confession and salvation together? He can not
intend to imply that belief without confession will secure justifi
cation, nor that confession without belief will secure salvation.
Neither is justification one thing to be secured b}-^ belief, and sal
vation a different thing to be secured by confession. No man
can be justified and be unsaved, or be saved and be unjustified.
I therefore can not think that the Apostle meant any thing spe
cial by the connection. It is, I doubt not, a mere peculiarity of
style; not of doctrine — a probable imitation of Hebrew paral
lelism. But although we beUeve in order io justification, and confess
in order to salvation, it must not be inferred that we still remain
unsaved and unjustified after we believe and confess. No such
inference is warranted by the language. We believe and confess
in order to salvation; but when we have believed and confessed,
the other conditions in the case being complied with, we are
saved. No appreciable time intervenes between compliance and
the result; but this instantly follows that True, the condition
may be such as can not be complied with in a single act, and
•then of course the result is deferred, as in the case of final justifi
cation. Here the condition is a life of holiness. Accordingly
the result is not reaUzed till after death. But in the case of pri
mary justification, the instant we comply with the conditions, the
result follows.

334 COMMENTARY. [Chap. lo, v. ii, 12.

II. For the scripture says: Every one that believes on
him shall not be ashamed. Proof that he who beUeves and
confesses will realize what he believes and confesses for. He
will be justified or saved. Consequently, being uncondemned,
he will have no cause for shame. This is true, whether the
justification be primary or final. The phrase every one is not de
signed to distribute the human family individually, but nationally —
every one, whether Jew or Gentile. The citation is from Isa.
xxviii: 16.
12. For between Jew and Greek there is no difference ;
The Apostle can not mean no difference in any respect; for in
choosing the Jews to be his peculiar people, God had certainly
created great religious and political "differences between them and
other nations; and these again had led to great social and moral
differences. He must then mean no difference now under Christ.
Former differences, which were of limited duration, have passed
away. God Is now no longer the especial Friend of the Jew.
He is God of Greek and Jew alike. The same gospel is tendered
to all; the same obedience is exacted from all; the same mercies
are proffered to all; the same providence rules over all. The
only differences that now exist are differences created by the
voluntary conduct of the parties themselves. If the Greek obeys
Christ, and the Jew does not, the Greek is accepted, and the Jew
rejected; or if the Jew obeys, and the Greek does not, the rule is
reversed. Christ constitutes the sole ground of discrimination.
God is for him that Is for Christ, and against him that is not* It
is then in the light of the gospel, and in the Ught of that only,
that there is no difference.
for the same Lord of all is rich towards all that call
upon him. Proof that between Jew and Greek there is no dif
ference. The same Lord Is over all, whether Jev/s or Greeks; and
he Is alike rich towards all, whether Jews or Greeks. "Rich" here
means rich in mercy, rich in the provisions of salvation. With
many it is matter of doubt whether the word Lord, here denotes
God or Christ The question is not important; but I believe
Christ to be meant. He is now certainly Lord over all things, is
invested with all authority in heaven and on earth, and is entitled '
to receive the same homage, in measure and kind, that is due to
the Father. That call upon him. In order to call upon Christ
acceptably, we must recognize him as the Son of God, as divine,
and so address him. Not that he requires of us all perfect

Chap, io, v. 13.] ROMANS. 335
knowledge; but he requires of all perfect respect. He will
therefore decline the service of lips that intentionally withhold
from him due honor.
X3. For every one who calls upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved. Every one, whether Jew or Greek. To call
upon the name of the Lord is to call upon the Lord himself, the
name standing for the person; or more correctly perhaps, it is to
call upon the Lord by name.
But the person here, who calls upon the name of the Lord, i»
not he who merely says to him, Lord, Lord, and does no more.
If the salvation be final, which I regard as not probable, he is
the person who has beUeved on Christ with the heart, who has
obeyed him, and been justified or saved; and who, therefore, as
saved, now addresses him. In a word, he is a christian, Or If
the salvation be primary, which I think most likely, then the
caUing is ofthe kind enjoined upon Saul by Ananias (Acts xxii:
16) when he said to him: "Arise, and be baptized and wash
away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." That is, after
belief, every act of obedience, as repentance, confession, baptism,
is to be performed caUing on the name of the Lord. From the
moment we beUeve on him, we are thenceforward never to
ignore his name. He is to be recognized in every act, and his
guidance and blessing constantly invoked,

336

COMMENTARY. [Chap, xo,, v. 14.

CHAPTER X. SECTION 2.

'^ How now can they call upon him
in whom they have not believed;
and how can they believe in him of
whom they have not heard ; and how
can they hear without a preacher;
" and how can they preach unless they
be sent? As it is written: How
timely are the feet of tiiose that
preach good news? '*But still all
have not obeyed the gospel; for
Isaiah says : Lord, who has believed
our report ? ' ' Therefore belief comes
from report, and report by means of
Christ's word. '*But I say, have
they not heard? Yes indeed, their
voice went into aH the land, and
their words into the ends of the
world. "But I say, did Israel not
understand ? First Moses says : I
will make you jealous by what is not
a nation, and will provoke you by a
foolish nation. ^°And Isaiah is bold
and says : I was found by them who
sought me not ; I became known to
them who asked not for me, ^'But
respecting Israel he says : the whole
day I stretched out my hands to
a disobedient and contradicting peo
ple.

'^Ilffis oi!>< intxdKeaavrai els hv oi»
iniarevaav; nas Se niareiSaaatv oi oix
fJKovaav; nas Se dxoilaaai xe^pis xrjp^a-
aovros; "srSr Se xrjprSiaaiv idv pfj ano-
araXaat; KaBas yeypaTrrai, 'Qs apaXoi
oi nodes rZv eva-yyeXi^opevav dyaBd.
'^ 'AXX' ov ndvres i/nfjxovaav rtf eia-yye-
Xia- 'Haaias ydp Xeyfi, Kiipte, ris inia
revae rrj dxojj fjpav; ""Apa fj nians ii
dxofjs, fj Se dxofj 8ta pfjparos Xpiarov
^ 'AXXa Xeya, pfj ovx fjxovaav; Vlevovv-
ye. Els ndaav -rfjv -yfjv iifjXBev d ^Bdyyos
avrav, Kai els ra nepara r^s olKovpevrjs
rd pfj para aiirav. AXXa Xeya, p^
lapafjX OVK e-yva; Uparos Maiafjs
Xe'yfi, 'Eya napa^rjXaaa ipds in oix
eBvet, int eBvet davvera napopyta vpas.
'"'Haatas Se dnoroXpa ical Xeyei, Eipe-
Brjv rots ipe pfj ^rjrovatv, iptfiavfjs iyev
dprjv ToXs ipe prj ineparaat. ^'Upos
Se rov 'itrpa^X Xe'yet, "OXtjv r^v fjpepav
iieneraaa rds x^'ip^^ H-°^ npds Xadv
dneiBovvra xai dvrtXeyovrd.

SUMMARY.
In order to call on the Lord, men must believe in him; and in order to be
lieve in him, they must hear of him; and in order to hear of him, he must be
preached. But although all have not obeyed Christ who have heard of him;
still the hearing was necessary, since by it belief comes. All Jews in Judea,
and many Gentiles, at the time, had either heard of Christ or had the oppor
tunity to do so; for the preachers of the gospel had offered it to them.
Israel were ignorant of the fact of their rejection, notwithstanding both
Moses and Isaiah had plainly foretold it.
14. How now can they call upon him in whom they
have not believed ; Not propounded by an objecting Jew, as
some have imagined; nor yet put by the Apostle, as others have
thought, in order to afford him an opportunity of vindicating the
preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. For neither of these
suppositions is there any necessity. The course of thought seems
rather to be this: The Apostle had just connected salvation with
caUIng on the name of the Lord; yet vast numbers of both Jews

Chap, io, v. 14.J ROMANS. 337
and Gentiles did not beUeve on him. How naturally then would
the question asked, occur to the thoughtful mind. The Apostle
foresaw this; and he hence determined to meet the difficulty at
once. The-answer to the question is. They can not; that is, they
can not call on him in whom they do not believe; and if they
can not be saved without calling, then the necessity for belief
becomes overwhelming. To us who have the New Testament,
there is nothing novel or striking in this conclusion, but with
many in the Apostle's day it was not so. To a Jew especially,
such a conclusion would be unwelcome and strange.
and how can they believe in him of whom they have
not heard ; The reply is, they can not No more can men
believe without hearing, than they can call without believing.
The Impossibility is the same in both cases. Or if there be a dif
ference it Is this, that they can not believe without hearing, and
they will not call without believing. But If belief be, as many
contend, a direct gift from God, and therefore Independent of
hearing, then the Apostle's question is without force, and easily
answered. How can they believe in him of whom they have not
heard? They can do so without an effort; for God directly gives
them belief. Thus this popular theory of the origin of belief ren
ders the Apostle's question null, and defeats the object he had in
view in putting it. He clearly intended to propound a question
which should admit of none but a negative answer; but he has
fafled, if this theory be true. But as the Apostle Is certainly cor
rect, It follows that the theory is certainly false.
and how can they hear without a preacher; They can
not. Men can not hear without a preacher, nor believe without
hearing, nor call without beUeving, nor provide themselves with
preachers. Who then is to do It? The reply Is — God. But has
he done it? Has he provided all nations, and kindreds, and
tongues, with preachers; and if not, has not his failure cancelled
the obligation to believe? To provide the world with preachers
is c»-rtainly the part of God; and faithfully will he perform it But
to provide the world with preachers, is one thing; and to induce
the world to hear, is quite another. Thousands will not hear, and
the-efore are not provided for. The vast body of the Jews
would not hear, though preachers were sent to them; and what
they would not do, others will not God sends preachers to all
nations who will hear; he sends to none who certainly will not.
He never works in vain.
22

338 COMMENTARY. [Chap, io, v. 15.
15. And how can they preach unless they be sent?
The reply is still the same, they can not. How now are preach
ers sent? The answer, as to the Apostles and other inspired
preachers of their day, is famiUar. But how are preachers of this
day sent? The popular theory has been, and stifl is to some
extent, that a secret, divine call is necessary; and that without
such call no man is entitled to preach. I reply then that no man is
entitled to preach; for no man receives the call. Three things
only, constitute a call to the ministry, namely: i. That the
preacher shall be a genuine christian, pious in heart and pure in
life. 2. That he have the truth; for God never calls men to preach
error. 3. That he possess the abiUty; for Christ never calls the
incompetent. He who has these three qualifications owes it to
Christ and the human race to preach; he that lacks them should
never attempt it. The theory of a secret divine call is usually
popular with people in the inverse ratio of their intelligence.
The less they know, the more they insist on the call. But the
wise among even those who believe in it, look upon it as a pious
superstition which, being comparatively harmless, may be let
alone. From this benevolent conclusion I see no reason to dis
sent. As it is written : How timely are the feet of those that
preach good news ? The connection between this clause and
the preceding one seems somewhat obscure. Still, I believe the
following may be accepted as giving it with tolerable accuracy:
How can they preach unless they be sent? They can not do it;
nor has God ever contemplated any thing of the kind. On the
contrary, he has always intended that they who preach his
gospel should be sent; and he has caused it to be so foretold: As
it is written: how timely are the feet, &c. Timely is a much more
appropriate rendering of horaioi than beautiful, which Is a
secondary sense. The word signifies seasonable, happening at
the proper time. The meaning is, how seasonable, or how at the
right time, are the feet of those that preach good news. When
God sends forth his heralds, it is always at the right time, never
at the wrong — hence the epithet. How timely are the feet. The
reason for mentioning the feet is doubtless the fact that the
primitive preachers traveled mostly on foot. They were not
wealthy men, but were usually sandaled for the way, as waa
their Master. Philip went thus to the meeting of the eunuch,
and so went countless others. After the word good, which in

Chap, io, v, i6,J ROMANS. 339
the Greek is neuter-plural, it is best to supply the word nerws.
We thus obtain a phrase of the same import as the word gospel;
and the gospel is the thing to be preached.
16. But still all have not obeyed the gospel ; for Isaiah
says : Lord, who has believed our report ? Here, too, the
connection Is uncertain; so much so that Stuart complains of not
having found a single commentator who gives him satisfaction
respecting it Where so many have failed. It is certainly dis
couraging to repeat the attempt Still I shall present my best
conception of the case, leaving the reader to pronounce on its
merits. As is well known alia often has reference to some im
plied or suppressed sentence, which it is necessary to supply in
order to exhibit the connection. Let this be conceded here, and
I make out the connection thus: Hovi timely are ihe feet of those
that preach good news. But this is no longer an unfulfilled pre
diction as to the gospel. For the Apostles and others, the very
preachers alluded to by Isaiah, have actually gone over the land
of the Jews, as well as over many countries of the Gentiles,
preaching the gospel. ' Consequently, all Jews In their own land,
and many in other lands, have either heard it or had an oppor
tunity to do so; and the same is true of many Gentiles. But still
all have not obeyed ihe gospel. That these were the facts in the
case can not be denied ; and I think it probable at least that they
give the true connection.
But the clause itself merits some notice. Still all have not
obeyed the gospel. Granted: But It is certainly their own fault.
God has afforded them the opportunity of obtaining his mercy;
and they have refused. They consequently have none to blame
for the result but themselves. Besides, although God desired
their obedience, and tried in every way consistent with the prin
ciples of his government to secure it, still he foresaw that they
would not yield It Hence the saying of Isaiah: Lord, who has
believed our report? This is as much as to say: Some have
beUeved our report, and the rest have remained disobedient. The
word "report" is used by Paul as synonymous with the gospel.
It means primarily the report of the prophet respecting Christ,
and secondarily, this same report reiterated by the preachers,
which of course is the gospel.
But farther, in the clause, "aU have not obeyed the gospel," to
whom does the word "all" refer? Not to the Jews exclusively,
as some have thought, but to both Jews and Gentiles. If the

340 COMMENTARY. [Chap, io, v. 17, 18.
reader will turn back to v, 12, he will find it said: "For between
Jew and Greek there is no difference." Let him now read on,
keeping Jew and Greek in mind, and he will notice a clear, close
reference to them, down even to the clause containing "all." I
hence conclude that "all" denotes all Jews and Greeks to whom
the gospel had been preached. Of these, large numbers had
accepted Christ, while among the Jews especially, many had re
jected him. Hence the saying, "all have not obeyed,"
17. Therefore belief comes from report, and report by
means of Christ's word. The connection seems to be as fol
lows: Isaiah says. Lord, who has believed our report? The
reply is. Some have believed it, but many have not. Stfll the
report was absolutely necessary; since without it none could have
believed. Therefore belief comes from report.
The word akoe is correctly enough rendered report, but very
strictly it means what is taken notice of by the ear, the thing
heard. Hence the meaning is: Therefore belief comes from the
thing heard. Akoes here is in the Genitive, preceded by ex; and
the two taken together signify out of the thing heard; that is,
arising or emerging out of it as an effect out- of a cause. More
fully then the meaning is: Therefore belief comes or arises out
of the thing heard, the thing heard being the cause, and belief
the effect. This settles the question as to how belief is produced.
Moreover, the belief thus produced is the belief that leads to all
acceptable obedience, and consequently to remission of sins, to
justification, and finally to glorification. The whole concatena
tion may be thus traced: The thing heard originates in the mind
of God and respects his Son; It is reported by the preachers of
the gospel; it Is heard; out of it when heard, comes belief; out
of belief comes obedience; out of obedience comes remission of
sins, salvation, justification; and out of afl these, eternal life.
And report by means of Christ's word. That is, the report
from which belief springs, comes by preaching Christ's word.
Or still more explicitly, the gospel preached is the report which
being heard, induces belief. The word is called Christ's, because
he is its author, and causes it to be preached.
18, But I say, have they not heard ? Who? Both Jews
and Gentiles, but especially the former; for according to Christ
the gospel was to be preached first in Jerusalem, next in aU
Judea, then in Samaria, and finally in the uttermost parts of the
earth. All Jews then had either actually heard the gospel^

Chap, io, v. i8, 19.] ROMANS. 341
or had an opportunity to hear it; and so, at the time, many of the
Gentiles. They might then have believed, had they been so
inclined. But they either refused to hear, or hearing, refused to
beUeve, and so proved themselves unworthy of the farther favor
of God.
Yes indeed, their voice went into all the land, and their
words into the ends of the world. Intended to confirm the
preceding remark. "Their voice" and "their words" mean the
voice and words of the preachers of the gospel "The land" sig
nifies the land of the Jews, and "the ends of the world" the
countries more or less remote from it, and inhabited chiefly by
Gentiles. At the time Paul wrote, the passage was literally true.
The gospel had not only spread over the whole country of the
Jews; but it had penetrated even to the remotest parts of the
civilized world. Wherever the Roman eagle had gone, and that
was almost everywhere, the gospel too had gone. There is not
the slightest exaggeration in the statement. The Apostle takes
the passage almost verbatim from Psalm xix: 4; but he neither
cites It as a prophecy, nor appropriates its meaning. He uses its
language only, not its matter, to express his own ideas. Nothing
is more common than thus to use the language of the Bible.
Writers and speakers, both profane and sacred, constantly do it
ig. But I say, did Israel not understand? "Understand"
is here a more_ appropriate word than know, the term com
monly used. But understand what? How God intended to deal
both with the Jews and with the Gentiles. If the Jews did not
understand, the fault was clearly their own; for God had fully
forewarned them both by Moses and by Isaiah. But these fore-
warnings they either grossly misunderstood or perverted, as they
did almost every thing else relating to the Messiah and his work.
The proper answer to the question is, Israel did not understand
But this proves nothing save their marvelous blindness. With
the words of their most Illustrious prophets before their eyes,
bright as the sun at noon, they still saw nothing.
First, Moses says : I will make you jealous by what is
not a nation. That is, by what is no nation In your estimation.
I will make you jealous by the Gentfles, a people upon whom
you look with contempt whom you regard as no body, as noth
ing. "I wifl make" — I, God; not I, Moses. But God did not
directly Intend the jealousy of Israel. He directly intended to
accept the Gentiles on condition of obedience to Christ, and

343 COMMENTARY. [Chap, io, v. 19, 20.
directly Intended to reject the Jews on condition of disobedience.
But these acts he knew would have the effect to excite Israel's
jealousy. He therefore represents himself as causing that which
Is not the necessary, but only the incidental result of his acts.
But Israel's jealousy was utterly wrong. On the contrary, they
should have rejoiced exceedingly at the change for the better in
the fortunes of the long neglected Gentiles, as did their noble
brethren who accepted Christ, That is a mean disposition which
grudges another the good it declines. Nor can there be doubt
that the effect of receiving the Gentiles has rankled in the bosoms
of Israel from the time of Christ till now. To-day they hate the
christianized Gentile world for their prosperity, and strangely
lack the logical acumen to ascribe it to its proper cause.
and will provoke you by a foolish nation. By what you
call a foolish nation. Asunetos here denotes not what the Gen
tiles were in fact, but the Jewish estimation of them. But in this
instance, as in thousands of others, it was the wise nation that
played the fool, and the fooUsh one that played the wise. He is
the true wise man who accepts Christ; he the true foolish, that
does not Sarah was provoked when she saw Hagar in her place;
and Israel were provoked when they saw the Gentiles in theirs.
Yet Sarah counseled the act of Hagar, and Israel caused their
own rejection. For their downfall they can blame neither God
nor the Gentiles. They themselves worked It -
20. And Isaiah is bold and says: I was found by them
who sought me not; I became known to those who asked
not for me. The reference here is exclusively to the Gentiles,
who had been so long and so deeply sunk in ignorance and idola
try that the true conception of God had, in many instances,
perished from their minds. Therefore they sought not after God,
they sought not after the knowledge of him, nor after the worship
due him; they sought not to please him, nor for his mercy. They
were content with the mockery and sin of an idol's house. When
once the soul has exiled God, how few and mean its desires be
come. Yet when the true God and Christ were presented to
the Gentiles in the gospel, how promptly and gladly their hun
gry spirits responded. They broke their idols, burned their books,
confessed Christ, and began to walk in newness of Ufe. This
was regeneration.
But although Isaiah had thus spoken, Israel refused to see.
The vail somehow hung over their eyes. They saw not in Christ

Chap. IO, V. 21.] ROMANS, 343
their long-looked-for Messiah; they read neither in law nor
prophet their impending doom, nor ever once dreamed that the
Gentfles were about to become the Lord's beloved. Nothing ia
more inexpUcable than their bUndness, unless it be their persist
ence in it
21, But respecting Israel he says: The whole day I
stretched out my hands to a disobedient and contradict
ing people. The pros here does not mean to, but respecting.
Isaiah says respecting Israel, not to them. But In what he says
he merely speaks for God or reiterates his words. On the one
hand, God is drawn in the attitude of an orator as stretching out
his hands to his people in an earnest effort to dissuade them from
their madness, and induce them to do right. On the other,
Israel is drawn, not only as disobedient, but even as speaking
against God. As applied to the times of the Savior, the picture
is perfect
In- what Isaiah here says, we have brought before us again the
ground of Israel's downfaU. In disobeying Christ, they diso
beyed God, and in speaking against the Son, they spoke against
the Father. Rejecting Christ ruined Israel; yet they remain
blind to the fact. Their inability to learn that it would certainly
do so, from plain declarations of their prophets, is one of the mys
teries of tbi« mysterious people.

344

COMMENTARY.

Chap. ii.

CHAPTER XI.

SECTION I.

I say, then, Has God rejected his
people ? Not at aU. For even I am an
Israelite, ofthe oflFspring of Abraham,
of the tribe of Benjamin. ^God has
not rejected his people whom he fore
knew. Do you not know what the
scripture says in [the case of] Elijah,
when he complains to God against
Israel? ^ Lord, they have killed your
prophets, digged down your altars,
and I am left alone, and they seek
my life. '' But what says the answer
to him? I have left for myself seven
thousand men who have not bent
knee to Baal, 'Likewise then, even
at this time, there is a remnant by
choice of favor ; * and if by favor, not
from works, for then favor is no
longer favor. ''What then? That
which Israel seek, they found not;
but the chosen found it, and the rest
were hardened, ^As it is written,
God has given them the spirit of
sleep until this day, eyes but not
to see, and ears but not to hear.
^ David also says: Let their table
become a snare, and a trap, and a
stumbling-block, and a requital to
them. '° Let their eyes be darkened
that they may not see, and do you
bend down their back always.

A«y<B oiv, p^ dnaaaro d Oedc rdv
Xadv airov; Mfj yevoiro- xai ydp iya
'laparjXirrjs eipi, ix anepparos 'A^padp,
cjivXfjs Sevtapiv. ^ Oix dnaaaro d Qeds
rdv Xadv airrov ov npoe-yva. *H ovk
oiSare iv 'HXi'a rt Xe'yet fj ypacjifj, as
ivrvyxdvei r© Qea Kard rov laparjX;
^Kdpie, rois npolfifjras aov dnexreivav,
rd Bvataarfjptd aov KareaKayfrav, xdyd)
ineXel<j>Brjv pdvos xai ^rjrovat -rfjv ifrvxfjv
pov. ^ 'AXXa rt Xeyet airrd 6 -xpfjpana-
pds; KareXinov ipavrd eTrraxtaxiXiovs
avSpas, olrives oiiK eKap-^^rav ydw -rrj
BdaX. ' Oijras oiv xdi iv rm vvv xaipa
XeXppa xar ixXoryfjv ;(dptroi yeyovev
^ el Se xiipm, oiiKe'rt i^ epyav, inei ij
X^pts oixeri yiverat x^P'-^- '^'' ™''>' °
ent^rjreX 'lapa^X, roiro oiiK inervxev, rj
Se iicXoyfj inervxev, ol Se XntTTOi e'n-a)-
pmBrjaav. ^KaBas yeypanrai, ESaKev
avToXs 0 Qeds nvevpa Karavvieas, dlf)-
BdXpois rov pfj fiXenetv, xai Sra roC pfj
dxovetv, eas r^s afjpepov fjpepas. Kat
AauiS Xeyet, TevrjBf^a fj rpdne^a airrav
els nayiSa, xai els Bfjpav, xai els axdvSa-
Xov, Kai els dvranoSofia avroXs. 2ko-
naBfjraaav oi dipBaXpoi airrav rov pfj
^Xenetv, xai rov vdrov airrav Sid n-aiTor
avyKapyjrov.

SUMMARY.
God has not wholly rejected Israel, as the case of Paul itself would prove,
if we had no other. To suppose them wholly rejected is to repeat the error
of Elijah. That prophet imagined that all God's prophets, except himself,
had been killed. But God let him know that seven thousand still remained
true to him. In like manner, there is now a large remnant of Israel who
have not been rejected. This remnant is a chosen remnant, the choice pro
ceeding from a principle of favor, and not from works or perfect obedience.
Had the choice proceeded from perfect obedience, it could not have been
from tavor; for favor and perfect obedience mutually exclude each other.
Israel sought to be retained as God's people; but failed through unbelief.

Chap. :i, V. '.] ROMANS, 345

The chosen however have been retained; because they sought the honor by
belief in Christ. The rejected Jews have grown hard in heart and feeling, as
well as dull in perception — all of which has happened in accordance with
predictions of their prophets.
In the present chapter, the Apostle concludes the difficult and
delicate case of the Jews. He formally raises the question,
Whether God has wholly and finally rejected them. This he
ans-wers in the negative. As a nation, God has cast them off; but
at the same time he has retained many individuals in his -love,
because of their obedience to Christ The Jews are plainly told
that their unbelief is the cause of their rejection. The Gentiles
are reminded that by belief they stand. Thus it is shown to both,
that the ground of acceptance with God is belief in Christ; while
the ground of rejection is the ¦want of it. Jews and Gentiles are
thus placed on the same footing. The former, if they remain not
unbelieving, will be accepted; the latter, if they become unbe
lieving, wfll be rejected. The dealing with both is the same.
I say, then, has God rejected his people ? That is, has
he rejected them all? for such is the force of the question. The
reply is, he has not. He has rejected only the unbeUeving; but
these compose the nation. The believing he has not rejected; but
these embrace only individuals. Hence as a nation, God has re
jected Israel. To a Jew, this thought was shocking; and with it
therefore, he refused to grow familiar. By an indefeasable title
he felt himself to be God's favorite. That he held his position
on conditions, was a fact he seemed incapable of realizing. To it,
the light of the gospel alone could open his eyes; and from this
light he turned away. Nor up to the present, has even the lapse
of long hostile ages had the effect to Improve him in this respect
He still rejects Christ; and for the act God still rejects him. Will
he never learn this fact?
Yet God's rejection of Israel as a nation, in no sense interfered
with their individual salvation. It was what they did, not what
he did, that fixed their fate. For disobedience to Christ, he thrust
them out, but at the same time left an open door standing behind '
them. Into this, it has always been their liberty and duty to
return, but they wilfully refuse. They alone are to blame for
their do^wnfall.
Not at all. For even I am an Israelite, Kai here has
either to be left untranslated or be rendered even. The latter
seems the preferable course. It thus becomes intensive, an office
which most likely it was designed to perform.

346 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v. i, a.
God has not rejected all his people; for he has not rejected me.
Such is the argument. True, Alford prefers a different construc
tion, but, as it seems to me, on untenable ground. The view here
held is simple; it is the one which first strikes the mind, and is
generally adopted. I hence regard it as correct. Open to an
objection or two, it may be; but as these are not decisive, it re
mains unaffected by them.
If it be asked, why Paul In his reply adduces but a single
exarhple, and that himself, the answer is, that more is not neces- '
sary. The force of the question he is replying to Is, Has God
wholly rejected his people? A single exception proves that he
has not Therefore, others being unnecessary, are not cited
However, in v, 5, the reader will notice that a large number -are
adduced under the word remnant. While therefore verse I men
tions but a single exception, v. 5 alludes to many.
The expressions "offspring of Abraham" and "tribe of Benja
min," appear to be added to prevent depreciation. With these
antecedents before him, no Jew could say to Paul, and who are
you? Whatever they might think of him as a christian, as a man
they had to concede his dignity and importance.
2. God has not rejected his people. The matter of v. i
is here again denied for the sake of emphasis and greater full
ness. God has not wholly rejected his people. That we are
compelled by the nature of the case thus to qualify by the use of
•'wholly" or some equivalent epithet is evident. For, that God
has rejected Israel as a nation is indisputable; and equally certain
is it, that he has not rejected them all. What is true then, and all
that is true is, that he has not wholly rejected his people.
But from many expositors, the clause receives quite a different
turn. The question which presents their idea is, Has God forever
rejected his people? By them it is conceded that, as a nation,
Israel Is rejected for the present; but, at the same time, it is
strenuously maintained that, as a nation, Israel is yet to be re
stored to the divine favor. With those entertaining this view I
can not agree. As a nation, Israel, in my opinion, will never be
restored. The only restoration which awaits them is individual.
They are now rejected because of unbelief in Christ; and so
long as the cause continues the effect will remain. On con
dition alone of belief in Christ, can they ever regain the divine
favor. God will never restore them so long as they repudiate
his Son. But when they cease to do this, and become Christians,

Chap. II, V. 2.J ROMANS. 347
it will be as individuals, and not as a nation. They will then exist
as constituent parts of the church, and not dwell apart by them
selves as a nation. The individual christianization of the Jews
is one tiling; their re-nationalization, quite another. In that, I
believe up to a large number; in this, not at all.
5ut if I am told that there are prophecies insusceptible of ex
planation except on the hypothesis of a national restoration, my
reply is, that I am unconfident and shy In regard to prophetic
explanations, especially so, in regard to explanations of prophe
cies relating to the future. I have little faith in them. That a
national restoration is possible, I shall not deny; but will it ever
occur? I can not think it, till better informed.
whom he foreknew. The word "foreknew" is here used, as
often in scripture, in the sense of recognize, approve, or accept
God has not wholly rejected his people whom he formerly recog
nized, or accepted as his. He has rejected only a portion of them.
Those who beUeve, he still retains. Previously to Christ, Israel
were God's people In virtue of descent from Abraham. No mat
ter where they were, or what they did, they still remained his.
But so soon as Christ came, the ground of acceptance was
changed. Descent from Abraham went for nothing now. Be
lief in Christ alone secured favor. Without this, the most devout
Jew ¦was rejected; with it, not one was. Nor will this plan ever
be changed till Christ shall reappear on earth.
By Stuart and others, proegno is thought to be used here in the
same sense as In ch. viii: 29. But this is erroneous. The word
there denotes an act of knowledge co-extensive with the divine
existence, and relating to those who, God foresaw from eternity,
would obey his Son and be saved. But surely the Apostle can
not here mean to say that God has not rejected those whom he
knew, before time, he would not reject This would be irrelevant
and tautological. Clearly the sentiment is this: Formerly God
recognized the whole Jewish nation as his. Has he now rejected
them? The answer Is, Not wholly, but only in part.
Do you not know what the scripture says in [the case
of] Elijah, The object of this passage is to correct a false
inference touching the present rejection of the Jews, by citing a
paraUel case from the past As much as to say: You who con
clude that God has novv wholly rejected his people are wrong.
Thl'^ he has never done. Elijah once committed the same error
vou commit He thought that the whole of God's people,

348 COMMENTARY, [Chap, ii, v. 2-5
except himself, had forsaken him. But God's reply showed him
he was wrong. And so are you. God has not wholly rejected
Israel. He still has a remnant that remain true to him.
The passage in hand requires a clause to be supplied to com
plete the sense. The original reads: Do you not know what the
scripture says in Elijah? But Elijah wrote no book himself;
nor is there any extant bearing his name. Hence the reference
must be simply to his case. It is therefore best to supply some
such clause as I have bracketed, to complete the sense.
when he complains to God against Israel? Hos in this
clause should be rendered when, not how, as in E. V. It is here
a particle of time, not of manner. The complaint is found in
I Kings, xix chapter.
3. Lord, they have killed your prophets, digged down
your altars, &c. According to the law of Moses, all altars
had to be made either of earth or undressed stones. Hence the
propriety of representing them as being "digged down." During
the time of the tabernacle, whenever it was removed to a new
location, there a new altar was either thrown up or buflt. The
reference is to these lawful altars, and not to the unlawful ones
which had been erected in various parts of the country.
4. But what says the answer to him? I have left for
myself, &c. That is, you, Elijah, are mistaken. In casting off
Israel, I have left for myself — for my worship and honor, seven
thousand men whom I have not rejected, because they remain
true to me. You know nothing of them; but they have never
bent knee to Baal. From this we see that even inspired men,
when giving expression to their mere feelings, and not speaking
for God, may be wrong. How much more then, the uninspired
when they now ask. Has God wholly rejected his people?
5. Likewise, then, even at this time, there is a remnant
by choice of favor ; The word leitnma means a remainder, a
remnant, what Is left. In rejecting Israel as a nation, God left
certain individuals whom he did not reject These were those
who believed in Christ; and they formed the leitnma or remnant.
But these believers were a remnant of a peculiar kind. The
mere act of leaving them, when the nation was rejected, consti
tuted them a remnant But why were they left, or in what were
they peculiar? They were a remnant kat' eklogen, according to a
choice or by it; that is, in conformity with it, or in virtue of it —
they were a chosen remnant This made them peculiar. Before

Chap. II, v. 5, 6.] ROMANS., 349
God rejected the nation, he selected, chose or picked out of it
certain individuals whom he left and did not reject. The leaving
conformed to the choosing or picking out; it embraced the
chosen, and no others. Hence the choosing preceded the leav
ing; and the extent of that, determined the extent of this.
But the choosing also was peculiar. It was an ekloge charitos,
a choice of favor, a choice proceeding from, or arising out of
favor. The favor resided in God, and the act of choosing was
his act; but the favor prompted the act. But although the favor
prompted the choosing, the favor was not the reason for it. The
reason existed in those chosen, not in him who chose; and it lay
in their obedience to Christ. The nation, God rejected because
of disobedience to Christ; the individuals, he retained because
of obedience to him. Obedience, then, was the reason for the
choosing and retaining.
And here I wish to call attention to an important distinction,
and thereby aid in correcting a deep-grown error. Election or
choosing, in the case of the redeemed, does not precede obedi
ence, and therefore Is neither the cause of it nor reason for it.
On the contrary, obedience precedes election, and is both the
condition of it and reason for it. Obedience is man's own free
act, to which he is never moved by any prior election of God.
Choosing, on the other hand, is God's free act, prompted by
favor,and- conditioned on obedience. This obediesce, it is true,
he seeks to elicit by the proper motives; but to this he is led
solely by love of man, and never by previous choice. True
scriptural election, therefore, is a simple intelligible thing, when
suffered to remain unperplexed by the subtleties of schoolmen,
6. and if by favor, not from works. But the choice is of
favor or proceeds from it. This Is actually asserted. Then intu
itively it can not be from works. For had It been of works, that
jS, had God chosen the remnant in virtue of perfect obedience
on their part, the choice would have been something due them, a
thing of merit, and consequently not of favor. But perfect obe
dience, the remnant never rendered; and yet they were chosen.
Of necessity, then, the choice proceeded from favor.
for then favor is no longer favor. If the remnant be
chosen because of works or perfect obedience, then favor ceases
to be the principle from which the choice proceeds. Indeed, in
that case, there can be n o favor. It is at an end ; or at least there
can be no manifestation of It, Merit excludes favor, as favor

35° COMMENTARY. [Chap. 1 1, v. 6, 7.
implies the absence of merit Consequently, if an act proceed
from merit, favor is necessarfly absent; or if it be present, it has
ceased to be itself and become something else.
And here another prevalent error calls for correction. Remis
sion of sins, under Christ, depends on certain named conditions.
These conditions are acts. From this, many have concluded that,
ander Christ, favor is excluded, and remission made a matter of
merit. But this is not true. Two or three acts do not constitute
the "works of the law," complement its import, or amount to
perfect obedience. Such acts amount only to very partial obedi
ence; and partial obedience admits favor. A few acts no more
exclude favor, than does favor, a few acts. The only acts that
exclude favor are acts amounting to perfect obedience; and the
only acts that favor excludes are perfect obedience. Partial obe
dience, therefore, and favor are perfectly consistent; nay, partial
obedience requires favor. Indeed, partial obedience by itself is
wholly devoid of efficacy to save ; it saves only by favor. Con
ditions combined with favor perfect the divine plan of remission.
But let me here be understood. By partial obedience, I do not
mean partial obedience to the conditions of remission. Perfect
obedience is here required. "By partial obedience, I mean obedi
ence to a few specified conditions in contradistinction from the
full and perfect obedience of the law. Partial obedience to the
law is the only.obedlence possible to man; perfect obeiilience to
conditions is the only obedience acceptable to God.
7. What then? That which Israel seek, they found
not ; The conclusion from the foregoing premises. What then?
That is, what shall we now say, or what inference draw? We
draw the following: That what Israel is seeking, they did not
find. But what are they seeking? The usual reply is, justifica
tion. But this I think not correct Justification is not now the
subject before the Apostle's mind. Rejection and acceptance are
what he is speaking of I hence deem it safest to limit the reply
to these two items, Israel were seeking to be retained as God's
people, but fafled. To this honor the remnant alone attained.
This gives the true reply.
but the chosen found it, Literally the choice or election
found it; but the abstract here is best dropped or laid aside for
the concrete. The chosen, of course, were those who became
obedient to Christ; and these alone were retained in the divine
favor. But they were not first chosen, and then pursuantly

Chap, II, v. 7-9-] ROMANS. 351
obeyed. On the contrary, they obeyed and pursuantly were
chosen. In all cases, acceptance with God depends on accept
ance of Christ.
and the rest were hardened. The rest, loipoi, were those
who were rejected because of their unbelief in Christ Not
blinded as in E. V., but hardened. Poroo means to harden,
petrify, as the feeUngs, but not to blind. But by whom were the
disobedient Jews hardened? Alford says: "It, eporothesan, is
Passive, and implies God as the agent." So, Calvinists generally.
Eporothesan is certainly passive, but that it "implies God as the
agent," is without support It, with far greater probability, im
plies Satan as agent, who is so often lost sight of in cases like
the present. God never yet hardened any man in order to keep
him from doing right, or in order to lead him to do wrong. He
is not the author of sin. He may permit other agencies, as Satan
and the wickedness of men, to harden them, but he himself never
does it. Alford is wrong.
8. As it is written: God has given them the spirit of
sleep until this day, eyes but not to see, and ears but not
to hear. The former part of this quotation seems to be taken
from Isa, xxix: 10, and the latter from Ezek, xii: 2. "The rest
were hardened; as It is written"; that is, in accordance with
the scriptures, as well as in fulfillment of them. "God has given
them the spirit of sleep." This he has done as a punishment for
rejecting Christ, When Elymas sought to turn away Sergius
Paulus from the faith, Paul, as a punishment for his sin, smote
him with blindness. Thus, as a punishment for their sin, God
now deals with the Jews, He has given them a spirit of sleep.
The eyes of their souls are shut; they see nothing rightly. With
them life is passed as in a sleep. "Eyes but not to see," because
they do not want to see. God has given them eyes to see with,
it is true, but not against their wifl; and as they are determined
nc t to see, he leaves them to the bUndness they prefer. Eyes .he
provides for all, but as to the right use of them, they, them
selves, must see to that.
9, David also says : Let their table become a snare,
and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a requital to them.
The citation is substantially from Ps. Ixix: 22, 23; ^^nd at first it
was spoken of David's enemies, but at the same time was in
tended as a prophecy against those who should reject Christ. It
has the double meaning so common in prophecy. The word

352 COMMENTARY. [Chap. ii,v, la
table is thought by some to refer to the table at which the Jews
annually ate the paschal lamb; but this is not probable. The
reference is doubtless to the table at which they took their daily
food. The meaning is: Let the very table from which they daily
eat become, instead ot a comfort and joy to them, a snare and a
trap in which they aie caught in trouble; let it become a stumb
ling-block in their path of life, over which they are constantly
falling — and all thia as a recompense for rejecting Christ. Now
if we, of to-day, will only Imagine our own table, at which we
daily eat, becoming all this to us, we shall realize, to some extent,
how deep the distress is which the picture Implies.
IO. Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see.
Let the spiritual eyes of those of Israel who reject Christ become
darkened; let their perception become blunt, and their under
standing dull, that they may remain ignorant They wilfully
refuse to see In Christ their own promised Messiah. Let them
alone in this blindness. Where men refuse to do right, God's
policy is to leave them to the effect of their folly. He will not
have them right against their will.
and do you bend down their back always. The rendering
here is not so terse as I could wish; but clearness demands it.
Lay on those who reject Christ heavy burdens of trouble, burdens
which shall bend down their backs; and this do forever, unless
they accept Christ. By some, the clause is supposed to allude to
the heavy burdens sometimes borne by slaves. The supposition
may be true, but it is not necessary. It is best, I think, not to
construe, with much strictness, the separate clauses of vs. 9, 10.
They are clearly to be taken as a group designed to set forth the
consequences of rejecting Christ They have their sense as a
whole, rather than as parts.

Chap, ii.]

ROMANS,

1- n ^^"-^.ar:.

-4-

353

V

CHAPTER XI.

SECTION 2.

*' Acyo) oiv, mfj enraiaav lva neaaai;
p^ yeVoiTO- 'AXXa rai avr£i> napanra
pan fj aarrjpla roXs eBveaiv, els rd
napa^rjXdaai airrovs. "Ei Se to Trap-
dirrapa avrdv nXovros xdapov xai rd
fjmjpa airriiiv nXovros iBvav, ndaa paX-
Xov To nXfjpapa airrav. "'Y/tiv Se
Xeyo) roiff eBveaiv, i<^' Saov pev elpt
iyd iBvav dndaroXos, rfjv Siaxoviav pov
Soid^a, '^ et nas napa^rjXdaa pov -rfjv
adpxa xai adaa rtvaf ii airrav. " Ei
yap rj dno^oXfj airav xaraXXa-yfj KOapov,
ris fj npdaXrj-^lrts, el pfj (afj iK vexpav;
"El Se fj dnapxfj dryla, xai ro (pvpapa-
xai el fj pi^a dyia, xai ot xXaSoi. " Ei
Se rives rmv xXdSav iiexXdaBrjaav, av
Se dypieXatos dv ivexevrp'iaBrjs ev airoXs
xai o-vyKotftovos r^s piCrjs xai -rfjs Trtorij-
Tos r^i eXaias iyevov, ^^ pfj xaraxavxa
rav xXdSav. El Se xaraxavxaaai, oi av
rrjv pi^av /Satrrafetr, dXX' fj pl^a ae.
EpeXs oiv, 'EiexXdaBrjaav xXdSoi lva
iyd iyxevrptaBa. '" KdXds- rfj dniaria
iiexXdaBrjaav, av Se rrj niarei ea-
rrjxas. M^ iyj^jXaifypdvei, dXXd (jyo^ov.
Et ydp d Qeds rtoz' Kara ipvatv xXd
Sav oix i^eiaaro, oiSe aov (fieiaerai.
^'iSe oiv xPW'^'Fi *""' dnoropiav
Qeov- ini pev rois neadvras, dnoropia,
ini Se ae xprjarcrrrjs ©eoC, idv entpeivjjs
T^ Xprjardrrjn- inei xai av ixxonfjarj.
^VdxeXvoi Se, idv pfj intpeivaat rrj
dn'-aria, iyxevrpiaBfjaovrat- Swards
ydp iariv d Qeds naXiv iyxevrpiaat
airrovs. '' Et yap ai ix rfjs xard ifiriatv
iiexdnrjs dypteXaiov xai napd (pvaiv
ivexevTpiaBrjs els xdXXieXaiov, ndaa
paXXov oSrot ot Kara (pdaiv iyxevrpia
Bfjaovrat rjj ISia eXaia.

"I say then. Did they stumble that
they might fall? Not at all. But
by their fall, salvation is come to the
Gentiles, in order to excite them to
emulation. ''Now if their fall is the
riches of the world, and their loss
the riches ot the Gentiles, how much
more will their fullness be. '^ And I
speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I
am apostie to the Gentiles ; [and] I
honor my office, ''' if possibly I may
excite my flesh to emulation, and
save some of them. ''For if their
rejection is the reconciliation of the
world, what will their reception be
but Ufe from the dead ? '^ And if the
first portion be holy, the mass is
also ; and if the root be holy, the
branches are too. "But if some of
the branches were broken off, and
you, being a wild olive, have been
grafted in among them, and become
a partaker of the root and fatness of
the olive, "boast not against the
branches. But if you boast, you
bear not the root, but the root, you.
''You will say then, branches were
broken off that I might be grafted in.
"¦ Well ; because of unbelief they
were broken off, and by belief you
stand. Be not high-minded, but
fear. ^' For if God spared not the
natural branches, he will also not
spare you. ''See then God's kind
ness and cutting off — upon them that
fell, cutting off; but upon you, God's
kindness, provided you continue in
his kindness ; otherwise you too
shall be cut off. '* And they also, if
they continue not in unbelief, shall
be grafted in ; for God is able to
fraft them in again. '''For if you
ave been cut from an olive, wild by
nature, and grafted, contrary to na
ture, into a good olive, how much
more shall these, the natural branch
es, be grafted into their own olive?

SUMMARY.
The Jews stumbled at Christ. Did they stumble merely that they might
fall? Certainly not. Rather they stumbled that thereby they might con-
23

354 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v. ii.

tribute to the salvation of the Gentiles. If now their fall proves advantageous
to the Gentiles, their reception back into the divine favor will prove still
more so. This implies that they may be again received. And why not?
The first converts from them were accepted. Surely then the whole will be
when they become converted. The Jews were rejected because of unbelief.
Let them then but believe, and they will be accepted. And you. Gentiles,
stand by belief Do not grow proud and over-confident. For if God spared
not the Jews when they did wrong, neither will he spare you. Towards the
Jews, God has been severe in cutting them oiT; towards you he has been kind.
Be careful now to deserve a continuance of his kindness. If not, you too
will be rejected as the Jews have been.
II. I say then did they stumble that they might fall?
Not at all. The oun here Is concessive; that is it concedes the
leading fact of the preceding section, namely, that the Jews are
rejected. The word stumbled, epiaisan, is not suggested by
skandalon in v. 9, as some have supposed. On the contrary, it
refers back to the "stumbUng-stone" mentioned in ix: 33. The
meaning is, Did Israel stumble at Christ that they might faU?
The answer is: "Not at all." But what is the precise point
denied? Not certainly Israel's stumbling; for this, the question
concedes. It must then be the fall; and yet unqualifiedly a fall
can not be denied, for the next clause concedes one. In what
sense then is a fall denied? A final fall, or fall without remedy
is denied. Israel have stumbled and fallen; but their fall is not
without hope. A remedy still remains in the gospel; and this
remedy Is as open to them as to Gentiles. The extent and du
ration, therefore, of their fall, will depend wholly on how long
they continue to reject the gospel. They will remain fallen so
long as they remain disobedient to Christ — no longer.
But was it God's intention that Israel should stumble and fall?
By some, the verse is supposed to Involve the question. I reply,
first, that it was certainly not God's intention that Israel should
stumble; for he can not intend any one's sin. Their stumbling
was their own wilful act, to which he was in no sense a party.
But I reply, secondly, that conditionally, God certainly intended
Israel's fall. If they rejected Christ, then he Intended their fall.
In the matter of rejection, they were left perfectly free. God did
every thing he consistently could to prevent It, but still left them
to their choice. But in case they rejected, he then decreed their
fall. Not only so, but he intends them to remain fallen so long
as they continue to reject. He will do, to induce them to accept
Christ, all he does in the case of Gentiles, and no more. But if
they still continue to reject, he will cause -them to remain fallen.
Israel can rise on one condition only — acceptance of Christ.

Chap. II, V. II.] ROMANS. 355
By some, as MacKnight, and others, "va here is thought to be
ekbatic, not telic. According to them the verse should read, I say _
then did they stumble so as to fall. But this is surely wrong.
The sense obviously is — Did they stumble that, or in order
that, they might fall? Again, the word fall has the force of lost
Did they stumble that they might be lost. Both in scripture and
in common speech, the word has often this sense.
But by their fall, salvation is come to the Gentiles Alia
here introduces not a negative on the preceding question, nor j'et
something merely contrary to it, but a correction of it. The Jews
have stumbled at Christ, not so much that they may fall, as that
by their stumbling, they may contribute to the salvation of the
Gentiles. Conditionally, God intended the Jews to fall; but in
case of their fall he intended the event to effect something
beyond itself. Out of it, notwithstanding its disastrous character
to the Jew, he still designed good to come.
But in what way did the fall of the Jews contribute to the
salvation of the Gentiles? Certainly we are not to conclude that
the one event was absolutely essential to the other. That the
Gentiles could have been saved without the fall, none wfll
deny. It must then have contributed to their salvation only i
incidentally, and- by the divine overruling, God turned it to
this account, not that within itself it had this tendency, i, Tlie '
Jews as a nation rejected Christ. This left the whole force of the,}
gospel to be spent on the Gentiles. The result has been their
conversion on a greatly extended scale, 2. The destruction of
the Jewish nation and state has crushed out their offensive sense/;
of* superiority. But for this, they would have continued to look
on the Gentiles as inferiors and as owing their whole distinction
to them. This would have repelled the Gentiles, and proved an
impediment to their conversion. 3, Had the Jewish^ nation not
rejected Christ, they would have been continually corrupting and i
enfeebling the gospel W mixing with it their own peculiar cus-|
toms and tenets. This would have impeded Its spread. In all
these ways, and possibly others, did the fall of the Jews incidently
contribute to the salvation of the Gentiles.
in order to excite them to emulation. Better, I think, to
render thus than, to excite them to jealousy. A spirit of emulation
might prove advantageous to the Jews; but I can not see how a
spirit ©f jealousy could. The one term implies an honorable
rivalry, the other not. To emulate the excellence of my christian

356 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v. 12
brother is right; but to be jealous of him, is right in no sense.
•But has the conversion of the Gentiles as yet excited the Jews to
emulation? Certainly it has not; nor is it clear that it ever will.
It ought to have this effect, I grant, but what ought to be is not
always what will be. Still, even here we should not be without
hope. The Jewish mind is yet, in the future, to undergo great
changes for the better. They are, in large numbers, to be brought
to sight, brought to belief, brought to feeling. A noble emulation
may possess them then. For such an event all the good should
devoutly pray.
12. Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and
their loss the riches of the Gentiles, These two classes ex
press substantially the same thing. The term "world" denotes
the Gentfles, the Jews being excluded, and the word "Gentiles'''
exhausts the world; whlley«//and loss merely vary the same idea.
The Jews rejected Christ. This led to both their fall and loss,
the fall being sudden, and the loss continuous.
Paraptoma here is rendered trespass by Alford, lapse by Stuart,
and slip by Green. Literally the word means a fall beside, a
false step. Here, however, it signifies simply a fall. Its import
is exactly determined by pesosin in v. 11 — did they stumble that
they rrn^t fall? Heitema, too, has been variously rendered. By
some it is thought to mean here fewness or small number. But
the notion of number I cannot discover in the ¦word. It signifies
a being inferior, worse estate, failure, defeat, loss. The Apostle
seems to use it here comprehensively, to express the whole of
Israel's loss in being rejected. Accordingly, I so render it as to
convey this idea.
But how did Israel's fall and loss prove the riches of the world?
How, in other words, did they prove the world's benefit? for this
is the meaning of riches. The Bible is silent on the question;
consequently, the answer is conjectural. First, the fall Qf tly Tews 1
was^feUowed b^their disg^slon among all nations. In this dis-/
persion, they carried with them ana3issenilnated the notion off;
the one living and true God. By this fact alone, the world wasj
immeasurably benefited. Second, though 1;^e^Jews repudiated
Christ, they still sjiowed all nations that their prophets foretold a
Redeemer, and accordingly taught theni to look figr^one. This)
familiarized the wormT 'iriiind ¦with the notion of a Savior, and
caused them to expect one. Third, wherever the^Jews went, they
Itriick a^%tal blow at idolatry. This purified the popular mind /

Chap, ii, v. 12, 13.] ROMANS. 357
and prepared it for better views of God. Fourth, the Jews
taught all, nations their true origin in Adam, and thus corrected ,'
their false history. With this disappeared a world of myths and//
fables. Fifth, they gaveJ:he_world true knowledge touching the^
origin of sin aiid^the_faU of man. Sixth, thejr.c^Tied ¦with them,
in the laws of_Moses, the finest system of civil pdhty and equity /
in the -world, and thus aided in forming the civilization of all en-^
lightened nations. Seventh, thgir prophets had foVetold their
downfall iji^case they rejected Christ. Thus, wherever they went, j
they became the living proofs that these prophecies were true. '
In all these ways, the world was benefited by Israel's fall.
Wherever Israel go (and where is it they do not go?), Moses and
the prophets go; and wherever Moses and the prophets go, the
way lies open for Christ Thus it was that the scattering__pf
Israel enriched the nations.
how much more will their fullness be ? Pleroma here
means the full measure of the blessings of redemption as enjoyed
in time. It Is exactly equivalent to conversion. The sense Is:
If the fall and loss of the Jews are a benefit to the world, how
much more wfll their conversion be. It is proper to add that
will be is not in the original, but is suppUed. I see not, however,
how we could supply a different tense. A Present or a Past one
is out of the question ; and to render, how much more would their
fullness be, is far-fetched. Upon the whole, I beUeve we are
bound to adopt will be. True, in supplying will be we make the
Apostle assume the future conversion of the Je^ws, not necessa
rily their universal conversion, but still their conversion on a
large scale. Nor, with v. 25 before us, do .1 see how we could
do otherwise. Certainly a general future conversion of the Jews
does not now seem more improbable than did a general conver
sion of the Gentiles at the time of Christ. Marvelous may be the
changes which a hundred years shall work out,
13. And I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am
Apostle to the Gentiles; That is, I speak thus to you — I say
what I have just said. As I am your Apostle, I make bold to
tell you that both the fall and the loss of Israel have proved bless
ings to you. Whatever they are to Israel, to you they are a gain.
How the clauses of this verse stand related to each other, is not
perfectly clear. It is hence not easy to punctuate them satisfac
torily. Upon the whole, I give the preference to the pointing
here adopted. Others point thus: I speak to you Gentiles: Inas-

358 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v. 13-15
much as I am Apostle to the Gentiles, I honor my office. But
the colon here makes an awkward sentence. The more probable
relation and dependence seem to me to be this: I speak to you
Gentiles, inasmuch as I am Apostle to the Gentiles; and not. In
asmuch as I am Apostle to the Gentiles, I honor my office.
[and] I honor my ofifice, 14. if possibly I may excite
my flesh tp emulation and save some of them, I bracket
and here, to make a smoother connection, though it is not really
necessary, as can be seen by omitting it Paul honored his office
by being active In it, fully up to his ability. His aim was to con
vert just as many Gentiles as possible, in hope that the more of
them he brought into the church, the more he would stir the
Jews to emulation. In small measure only, he realized his hope.
The vast body of Israel still stood out. The phrase "my flesh"
means simply my kin according to the fiesh, my countrymen.
The mode in which Paul proposed to save his "flesh," was by
inducing them to obey Christ.
By some, vs, 13, 14 have been regarded as parenthetic, and so
treated. They certainly seem interposed between the properly
connected parts of the matter in hand, though I can see no ad
vantage in considering them as parenthetic. They are a short
episode, personal to Paul, yet closely enough connected with the
main current of thought. I think it best to treat them as I have
done. 15.' For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the
world, The connection of thought seems to be this: I honor
my office, if possibly I may excite my kin to emulation, and save
some of them. The salvation of the Jews is an event to be ex
ceedingly desired. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of
the world, &c. I hence regard this verse, not as connected with
V. 12, but with the latter clause of v. 14. How the rejection of the
Jews has proved beneficial to the Gentiles, has already been con
sidered under v. 12. The expression "reconcfliation of the world,"
is not to be taken too comprehensively, but as qualified by the
facts in the case. The rejection of the Jews has not had the
effect to reconcile the whole Gentile world. It has had this effect
on only many of them. The expression, therefore, is to be taken
restrictedly. What will their reception be hnX. life from the dead?
Here again we supply will be, and so make the Apostle assert
the future conversion of the Jews. This course seems necessi-

Chap. II, V. 15.J ROMANS. 359
tated by the nature of the case. But the future reception of the
Jews will not consist in restoring them, as Jews, to their former
national prosperity, but in receiving them into the divine favor in
virtue of their obedience to Christ Their condition and state
will then be precisely the same as the present condition and state
of christian Gentiles. Between the two peoples, no distinction
can exist.
The expression "life from the dead," has been very variously
interpreted. By some it has been thought to signify the Uteral
resurrection of the dead. Such was the view generally held by
the more ancient commentators. According to them, the mean
ing is: What will the reception of Israel be but the resurrection
of the dead. But this is purely conjectural. The dead will cer
tainly be raised; and It Is not Impossible that the event may occur
immediately after the conversion of the Jews; but that it will
then occur, is not taught in the expression in hand.
The event referred to In the expression "Ufe from the dead,"
will not, I take It, be participated in by the whole world, but by
the Gentiles alone. The following I regard as giving the true
view: For if the rejection of the Jews is the reconciliation of the
Gentiles, what will the reception of the Jews be to the Gen
tiles but life from the dead? The Gentiles alone are to receive
the blessings alluded to in the expression.
But when the Jews are received back Into the divine favor,
what event will then occur among the Gentiles that can, with
propriety, be characterized as life from the dead? I answer, their
general conversion. The Gentiles are now In countless numbers
dead in sin, dead to righteousness, dead to Christ. Their more
general regeneration will certainly be life from the dead. Be
sides, when the Jews accept Christ and devote themselves
wholly to preaching the gospel, I look for the scenes of the prim
itive Pentecost to be re-enacted. Such an ingathering into the
church, I expect then to occur as has never yet taken place. Chris
tian Israel and the christian Gentiles will then be one. Their
united energies will be turned against sin; and the result will be
that their victories for Christ will have no parallel. The residue
of mankind will flock into the church. This wifl be the "life
fiom the dead," of the passage. But at the end of this great spir
itual harvest, more naturally, it seems to me, than anywhere else,
iS'the literal resurrection of the just to take place. Of course this
is conjectural. But when all Jews and all Gentiles have entered

360 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 11, v. 16.
the church that ¦will do so, I can see no reason for postpon
ing the end. The world will then be ripe for the coming of
Chr-st; and at his coming the holy dead will be raised, the right
eous living will be changed, and the millennium wifl have set in.
16, And if the first portion be holy, the mass is also ;
Aparche here should not be rendered first-fruit, as it usually is,
but first part or portion. Its meaning is determined by phurama.
The reference is not certain, but assuming it to be to Numb, xv:
20, the facts were these: When the harvest was gathered
before it could be used, it had to be consecrated or rendered cer
emonially holy. This was done in the following manner: Flour
was taken from the first wheat that was ground, and made into
a mass of dough. This mass was the phurania. The first piece
of dough taken from this mass was baked into a cake and offered
to the Lord. This was the aparche, or first portion; and so soon
as It was offered, the remainder, both of the dough and of the
harvest, was ready for common or family use.
The "first portion" stands for the first converts from the Jews
to Christ; while the "mass" signifies the remainder of the nation.
The meaning is: If the first Jewish christians were accepted of
God, the whole nation is capable of being accepted. They are
not irrevocably rejected, but will be accepted when they obey
The word holy does not here signify pure or sinless, but merely
appropriable or acceptable; that is, of such character or quality as
to be appropriated or accepted. The Jews are capable of being
accepted, and wfll be, when they obey Christ, This is a com
mon use of the word holy In the Bible. The first-born, the
vessels of the temple service, and many other things were holy
in this sense. The argument Is: If the first part were accepted
on certain conditions, the whole will be on the same.
and if the root be holy, the branches are too. The
same sentiment reiterated, with the imagery changed. The root
corresiionds to the first Jewish converts; the branches to the
rejected nation. Assuming the root of a tree to be holy, and we
naturally infer the holiness of Its branches. Such is the argu
ment. The word holy has here the same meaning as in the
pieceding clause. If God has accepted the root, or first converts
from the Jews, he will accept the whole nation when converted.
Such is the import of the passage. It is a short, striking simile,
with a perfectly clear meaning. •
Yet few passages have been loaded down with more fanciful

Chap, ii, v. 17,] ROMANS. 361
interpretations than it has, or made to subserve more foreign
ends. Who is the root? is asked; and curious and forced are
many of the replies. According to some, the root Is Abraham,
and the branches his posterity. Then, because Abraham and
his posterity by Isaac were accepted of God, the infants of
believing parents should be received into the church of Christ
No perversion could be grosser. In all of which we are shown
the danger of detaching a clause from its connection, and then
interpreting its several words according to some fondly cherished,
but false idea. Abraham is not the root of the passage; but that
word is used metaphorically, and represents the first Jewish
christians. On any other hypothesis than this, the passage is
inexplicable. 17. But if spme of the branches were broken off, An
other brief simile which has been much abused. In the pre
ceding verse, the Apostle had employed the correllates root and
branches. These words he now continues to employ, thus re
lieving his train of thought by pleasant, familiar imagery. Some
of the branches were broken off — unfiguratively, some of the Jews
were rejected, namely, those who refused to believe. This Is the
exact meaning of the clause, and all th.it Is in It.
But- with many, this is not enough. According to them, the
olive-tree is a parable, with closely adhering parts, having oppo
site to each, some mystic feature in redemption. "Some of the
branches were broken off" — of course, theuf broken off some
tree. Who or what was that tree? The answer would seem
difficult. One says it was God; another. It was ''Abraham; an
other. It was Christ; another, It was the old Jewish church, and
so on — all of which can have no effect but to bewilder. The
Apostle has before his mind but a single fact which he is setting
forth. That fact is the rejection of the unbeUeving Jews. This
he sets forth in the language of an olive-dresser, who breaks off
and throws away such branches as he has no farther use for.
Similarly,- God. He breaks off, or plainly rejects those Jews who
refuse to believe in Christ, This is the whole import of the
clause. and you, being a wild olive, have been grafted in among
them. And you, being Gentiles, have been received In among
the Jews who were not rejected, that Is, among those who ac
cepted Christ The Gentiles are called a "wild olive," because in
comparison with the Jew they had been left in a state of nature.

362 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 11, v. 17.
They were without prophets, without written revelation, and as a
consequence measurably unenlightened in their duty to God. But
when the gospel was presented to them, they obej'ed it, and so
were received into the church. In the phrase "grafted in among
them," the word "them" denotes those Jews who, having obe3'ed
Christ, constituted the church at first "Grafted in" is a metaphor
used to denote being converted pr becoming christians. The
Jews by being born anew entered into the kingdom of God, and
at first composed it Subsequently, the Gentiles entered it in the
same way; and the two, becoming thus blended, constituted the
"one body" of Christ.
But this "one body" was not the old Jewish family reorganized
or reconstructed. It .was wholly a "new man," a new thing.
True, the materials for It were collected, in part, from the Jews,
but they entered it only by being born into it. But as a body or
church, It had had no previous existence. It was composed ot
new creatures," of "living stones," and so was a "spiritual house,"
and therefore a new one. It was no outgrowth from a pre-existing
church, but an original, without genealogy, antecedent, or type.
In foundation, structure, head, and spirit, it was new. Those
writers, therefore, are wholly wrong who conceive of the church
of Christ as a continuation of some supposed previous J.ewish
church. No such church existed.
Again, instead of "grafted in among them," some writers, as
Stuart and others, ¦would render "grafted in in their stead" But
this is erroneous. For, in the first place, the original is incapable,
without great violence, of this rendering. And in the second, it
is not fact that the Gentiles were grafted in in any body's stead.
They came into the church just as did the Jews, and not into a
place made vacant by the rejection of others. The rejected Jews
had never been in the church. Hence the Gentiles could not be
received into it in their stead. This erroneous exegesis grows out
of the effort to make it appear that the church of Christ is a
mere modified continuation of the "old Jewish church." But the
effort is abortive, and the reason for it bad. Let it once be con
ceded that there .was such a thing as an "old Jewish church"
with infants in it. Then show that Christ's church is a mere
continuation of the Jewish, and the inference Is remarkably easy,
that Christ's church should contain infants. To some, this point
is the sole reason for the rendering of Stuart and others.
and become a partaker of the root and fatness of the

Chap. II, V. 17, iS.] ROMANS. 363
olive. To become a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive
was to become a partaker of the blessings of the gospel. These
blessings were first tendered to the Jews, and accepted by some
of them. Accordingly, for a while they were confined exclu
sively to Jews. They were their blessings; and afterwards, when
they were tendered to the Gentiles, it was by Jews. Hence to
become a partaker of them, was to become a partaker of blessings
pre-occupied by others, and emanating from them. It was to
share in their distinction and happiness.
But the clause has been very differently interpreted; and as a
metaphor, it has been forced into violent forms, and made subser
vient to fanciful notions. Who is the olive? has been often
asked, but never satisfactorily or consistently answered. And
farther, what are the root and fatness of the olive? Does root
denote a person or a thing? — if a person, whom? — if a thing,
what? But all these are idle questions. When the Jews became
christians there was but one thing for them to become partakers
of — the blessings of the gospel. And so with the Gentiles. They
partook of nothing else, since there was nothing else to partake
of. Hence the root and fatness of the olive are mere metaphors
used to represent these blessings. They do not denote persons,
nor yet each some separate good. They denote simply what the
Gentiles realized on becoming christians, which was remission
of sins, together with the other accompaniments of conversion.
18. boast not against the branches. The original recep
tion of the Jews as God's peculiar people and the neglect of the
Gentiles, had had the effect to render the former proud, and to
fill them with a feeling of superiority. But a reverse was about
to take place.^ The Gentiles were about to become the favored
people of God, and the Jews to be neglected. The Apostle
wished to prevent the Gentiles becoming affected towards the
Jews, as the Jews had been towards them. Hence he admonishes
the Gentfles not to boast. This the Jews had been accustomed
to do. He desired the Gentiles to avoid it. "Against the
branches" — the branches here were the rejected Jews, not the
christians. There was no danger of the Gentfles boasting against
the christian Jews, and consequently no necessity to protect them
against it The danger respected the rejected Jews, They alone,
therefore, needed protection.
but if you boast, you. bear not the root, but the root,
you. But If you boast, which you may be inconsiderate enough

364 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v. 18-20.
to do, remember this, which may serve to check you, that you
bear not the root, but the root, you. The Jews owe nothing to
you, but you owe much to them. From them came Christ as to
his flesh; the first church w^as composed of Jews; the Apos
tles were Jews; and by Jews the gospel was first preached to
you. You can not be said to bear the christian Jews, as a root
its trunk, but rather as a root they bear you. This shows your
relation to them and dependence on them. You must not then
boast against them.
It can not, I think, be denied that to-day, much of the same
ungracious feeling exists among christian Gentiles towards the
rejected Jews, that formerly existed among the Jews towards the
Gentiles. We have hardly heeded the Apostle's admonition as
strictly as we should,
19. You will say then, branches were broken off that
I might be grafted in. That is, you will still continue to boast
A little, but in a lowered tone; you will have a sort of last exultant
word. You will still grudge the Jews their due, and ill conceal
your sense of pride and superiority. This much I can not pre
vent. The meaning is: You will say, then, that some of the Jews
were rejected that I might be received. But this is merely the
Gentfle's view of the case, and not necessarily correct The Jews
were not rejected thai the Gentiles might be received. They
were rejected solely because of their unbelief. The rejection was
not essential to the reception; and, therefore, the reception was
not the object of it. The object in rejecting the Jews was to
punish them for their sin. Hence the Gentile view, though cor
rectly stated, is Itself not correct. It is erroneous in making
one event dependent on another, because the two are merely
incidentally related. The reception of thp Gentiles was closely
consequent on the rejection of the Jews, but not dependent
on It.
20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off,
On the use of the Dative, as here, to denote the cause, see Winer,
p. 216, Kalos is here partially concessive, but not wholly so. It
is nicely discriminative. It concedes the rejection of the Jews,
but no more. That they were rejected that the Gentiles might
be received, is not implied in it The two main facts It concedes,
but not their dependence.
The Jews were broken off because of unbelief. This was the
great decisive ground for the act Moreover, it settles all ques-

Chap. II, V. 20-22.] ROMANS. 365

tions as to why they were rejected. God did not pre-ordain their
unbelief. This was in whole and in part their own act. Hence
God did not unconditionally pre-ordain their rejection. He left
them free to choose between belief and unbelief. They chose
unbelief; and for the act, he rejected them.
and by belief you stand. But not in their stead. You stand
absolutely and with no reference to others. You stand In the
body of Christ, just as you would have stood, had they all gone
in, or never existed. The place you hold Is your own, not an
other's. The Jews were never rejected to make room for the
Gentiles. Be not high-minded, but fear. As much as to say, though
in Christ, you do not hold your place by an unalterable decree.
You too may be rejected; and you will be, unless you do right
Should you become high-minded and over-confident — the faults
of the Jews, you may thereby be led Into error, and in the end
be lost Be humble-minded and afraid to take the slightest risk.
6e so far filled with fear as to be scrupulous and exact in belief
md life. Then only are you safe.
21, For if God spared not the natural branches, he will
also not spare you. Natural branches are a tree's own
branches i 1 contradistinction to grafted branches. The rejected
Jews are called natural branches because they were a part
of God's o vn people, the kin of his Son, a part of the vineyard
his own hands had planted. Even these he would not spare
when they refused to believe in his Son. Surely, then, you
Gentiles must not expect him to spare you, If you become unbe
Ueving. Not that God is more inclined to spare the one people
than the other. He is positively determined to spare neither In
unbelief. Hence when he has shown that he wifl not spare the
one, it may confidently be inferred that he will not spare the
other. He accepts and spares only on condition of belief in
Christ, and unconditionally rejects in its absence.
22. See then God's kindness and cutting off— Apotomia
literally means cutting off or cutting from. Metaphorically It
means steepness, severity, decisiveness. Here, however, I see no
necessity for departing from its literal meaning. This may not
give so smooth a sentence, or be so antithetic; but it is true, and
in close harmony with the figurative style in hand.
upon them that fell, cutting off; The Jews stumbled at
Christ and feU; In other words, they refused to believe in him,

366 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v. 22, 23.

and therefore God cut them off or rejected them. But as is here
seen, the cutting off was not arbitrary or unconditional. It was
necessitated by the unbelief of those cut off, or the unbeUef deter
mined the cutting off.
but upon you God's kindness, provided you continue in
his kindness ; otherwise you too shall be cut off. There is
here an evident ellipsis of some sentence which it is necessary to
supply iu order to complete the sense. I supply it thus: See
then God's kindness bestowed upon you; and he will continue it
to you, provided you continue to use it properly, that is, continue
firm in belief and obedience. But should you Gentiles prove
yourselves unworthy of God's kindness, as the rejected Jews
have done; should you become unbelieving and disobedient, you
will be cut off as they have been. Should you become what they
are, their fate will at once become yours. God's kindness is his
love and mercy bestowed in Christ; and it is realized in remis
sion of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the hope of immortality,
ct cetera.Stuart is strangely wrong when he renders ean epimenes te
chrestoteti "provided you maintain a state of Integrity." Chres-
toteti does not signify a state to be maintained, but kindness
bestowed. Of this kindness the Gentiles were to show them
selves worthy by continued fidelity to Christ.
23. And they also, if they continue not in unbelief,
shall be grafted in ; Accordingly, the probabflity that the
Jews will, at any time future, be received back into God's favor
is exactly equal to the probabflity that they will then be believers
in Christ. At present, this probabflity, certainly seems low. God
will never work any special miracle on the Jews to induce them
to believe; nor will he ever increase the power of the gospel for
their sake. He will do for them no more than he is doing for the
Gentiles. The fact, therefore, of their believing rests with them
selves. If, of their own accord, they become beUevers, well; but
if they still refuse, they will remain rejected. But when time and
degradation have utterly extinguished in them all hope of a com
ing Messiah, I still expect them to come to themselves, and in
large numbers to accept Christ. To this effect, at least, I think I
understand Paul.
for God is able to graft them in again. There is then no
insuperable obstacle on his part. He is not only able, but wiUing
and anxious. But since he can not compel, he must await the

Chap, ii, v. 24.] ROMANS. 367

pleasure of the Jews. On their act of belief, depends his act of
reception. 24. For if you have been cut from an olive, wild by
nature, and grafted, coiitrary to nature, into a good olive,
The Gentile world is here called "an olive wfld by nature," be
cause they had been left to grow up in a state of nature, without
the superintending care which God had bestowed upon the Jews.
Converting them from idolatry and ignorance is termed cutting
them from this olive; while receiving them into the church is
called grafting them into a good olive. In grafting, the tame or
improved tree is always grafted into the wild or unimproved.
According to this, the Jews should have been added to the Gen
tiles, not the Gentiles to the Jews. Yet the latter was the order.
It is therefore called grafting "contrary to nature." Nature here
is equivalent to custom.
how much more shall these, the natural branches, be
grafted into their own olive? The Jews had been accustomed
to God's deaUngs. They had his laws, heard his prophets, knew
his wifl, were familiar with the promises of a Messiah, and lived
in daily expectation of one. But not so the Gentiles. Certainly
then it was more natural and far easier for the Jews to accept
Christ than for the Gentiles. Yet the former rejected him, while
the latter accepted. This ysras not to have been expected. ' Far
more naturally would ¦we look for Jews to become christians than
for Gentiles. Moreover, when their unbelief is broken, and they
begin to turn to Christ, they will turn in numbers and with an
ease that wfll be astounding. It has always been difficult to
christianize Gentiles; hence the slowness of the process. But
when the Jews shall break away from their darkness and obsti
nacy, they wfll rush into the kingdom like a flood. That day will
have no paraUel in the past.

368

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. ii.

1^ '^~ 32~c "^umXa---^

CHAPTER XI. SECTION 3.

" For I do not wish you to be ig
norant, brethren, of this mystery,
lest you be wise within yourselves,
that hardness in part has happened
to Israel, until the full sum of the
Gentiles come in. '^And so all
Israel shall be saved ; as it is writ
ten : The deliverer shall come out of
Sion, and shall turn away impiety
from Jacob. ^'And my covenant
with them is this — when I shall take
away their sins. "With respect to
the gospel they are hated for your
sake ; but with respect to the choice,
beloved on the fathers' account.
'^For God's favors and calling are
not regretted. ^"For as you were
formerly disobedient to God, but
now have obtained mercy through
their disobedience; ^'so also they
are now disobedient that they may
obtain mercy through the mercy
shown to you. ^'For God has shut
up aU in disobedience that he may
have niercy on all.

" Oi ydp 6eXa ipas ayvoeXv, dSeXijyoi,
ro pvarfjpiov rovro, lva pfj rjfre iv eavroXs
(fipnvtpoi, Sn ndpaais and pepovs rd
'lapafjX yEyofeK axpts oi ro nXfjpapa
rav iBvav elaeXBrj. ^'Kai ovra nas
lapafjX aaBfjaerai, xaBas yeypaTrrai,
Hiet iK Sto)!' o pvopevos, dnoarpe^es
dae^eias and 'loKta/S. ''Kat avrrj avroXs
rj nap ipov StaBfjKrj, Srrav d(f)eXapat rdt
dpaprias airrav. '*Kara pev ro evaryye-
Xiov ixBpoi St' ipds, Kara Se rfjv ixXoy^v
dyanrjToi Sta rouy narepas. " 'Apera-
peXrjra ydp rd xnpicrpara xai fj xK^ais
TOV Qeov. ""Qanep ydp ipeXs nore
rjneiBrjaare ra 0cia, vfjv Se fjXefjBrfre rfj
Todrav dneiBeia- " oi5ii<B xai ovrot vvv
rjneiBrjaav ra vperepa eXeei, lva xai
avroi eXerjBdai. ^^^vvexXeiae ydp d
Qeds TOVS ndvras eis dneiBeiav lva rois
ndvras. eXe^arj.

SUMMARY.
Hardness in part nas happened to Israel until the full sum of the Gentiles
come into the church. By that time the hardness of Israel will give way;
they will then become believers; and so a great many of them will be saved!
You Gentiles should know this mystery to keep you from becoming puiled
up with self-importance. The rejected Jews are still beloved on their fathers
account; and you Gentiles have now to preach the gospel to them, and so
convert thera to Christ. They are thus at last to realize the divine mercy
through you. Their fall has proved a blessing to you; and your conversion
is to prove a blessing to them.
In this section, the Apostle explains still more fully the present
condition of the Jews, and points out more clearly than he has
yet done what their future wifl be. Indeed, the section is fufl of
the future. It throws much Ught on the hereafter of both Gen
tile and Jew, and hence possesses uncommon interest In it we
see, as in a mirror, the probable destiny of these two great divis
ions of mankind. It may carry us forward even to the first
resurrection. At least, we can think of no other event that is so
likely to happen as that. Immediately beyond the time it covers.

Chap, ii, v. ^^5.] ROMANS. 369
25. For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of
this mystery, lest you be wise within yourselves, that
hardness, in part, has happened to Israel, until the full
sum of the Gentiles come in, / do not wish you to be igno
rant; that is, I wish you to know or understand. "Mystery"
here does not signify what is unintelUgible, but what is undiscov
erable by human reason or observation. It signifies what is
knowable by revelation only. The Apostle wished the Gentile
christians to know the mystery aUuded to, in order to keep them
from being puffed up with self-conceit on account of being ac
cepted of God. With this knowledge, they would be enabled to
take a correct view both of their own condition and of that of
the Jews; without it, they were in danger of over-estimating their
own importance, and of cultivating a feeling of contempt for the
rejected Jews. This feeling is inconsistent with the christian
spirit, and therefore needed to be guarded against.
The following is the mystery: That hardness — not blindness,
as in E. V. Porosis does not mean bUndness, but hardness or
hardening. The Jews had grown hard in heart and feeling.
They had become petrified in the inner man; and as a result,
they were insensible, cruel, and dull of perception. In part —
hardness had not happened to the whole of Israel, but to a part
only. Some of them accepted Christ, but the great body rejected
him. Those rejecting were the hardened. Has happened — gego-
tien signifies to come into being, come to pass, happen. Hardness
has come into being in Israel, or has sprung up in them. But
how ? Did God appoint it or bring it to pass, as some assert ?
Certainly not. He did aU he rightly could to prevent it. It con
sequently came into being in spite of him. It grew out of
Israel's wilful abuse of themselves, or was an effect to which
they alone were cause. They only, therefore, were to blame for
It. But, when at its hight, God took advantage of it, to send
Christ into the world, and call the Gentiles. He thus, in a meas
ure, defeated it by bringing good out of it. From this it would
seem that the rejection of the Jews was favorable to the bringing
In of the Gentiles. Indeed, there can hardly be a doubt of the
fact. Had the Jews In a body come into the church with the
Gentfles, they would stifl have looked on the Gentiles as inferiors,
would have cumbered them with rites of the law, and have cor
rupted the gospel by incorporating Into it elements of Judaism.
The only way to keep the gospel pure was to confine it in large
24

370 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i i, v. 25, 26.
measure to the Gentfles, untfl the Jews should become thoroughly
weaned from their own religion. Until the full sum of the
Gentiles come in. That is, come into the church. Pleroma I
here render full sum, which is apt and clear. The word denotes
that portion or large number of Gentiles that are to enter the
church before the conversion of the Jews takes place. The
hardness, then, of the Jews is not to "last forever, but is to wear
itself out after awhile. It will continue, however, until the fufl
sum of the Gentiles come in. Not that of necessity it must last
this long; but the time required to bring in the Gentiles is the
time required to exhaust the hardness. When the full sum has
come in, the hardness wifl be at an end. Then wifl be the time
of Israel's conversion to Christ.
26. And so all Israel shall be saved; Houtos signifies
thus, in this way, in this manner. And so, or in this way, all
Israel shall be saved. In what way? Hardness has happened
to Israel until (but no longer) the full sum of the Gentfles come
in. But by the time the full sum is in, the hardness will have
ceased. So soon as this occurs, Israel's unbelief will give place
to belief; belief will be followed by obedience, and in obedience
they wil . be saved. Such is the way. All Israel shall be saved.
But the phrase "all Israel" need not be so construed as to include
every individual even to the last "AU" often signifies, in scrip
ture, the greater part, very many, a large number. This is its
import here. The meaning is, that the great body of Israel shall
be saved. Nor does the word "saved" here signify "to put in
the way of salvation," or "to have the means of salvation be
stowed upon them," as some maintain. It means saved in the
sense of being pardoned, or being a christian. The great body
of Israel shall become christian.
Here then the future salvation of the great body of the Jews,
who shall then be alive, is distinctly asserted. This is the clearest
scripture we have yet had on this point; and it Is quite clear.
Israel is yet to be born of water and of the Spirit, and so to enter
the kingdom of God. Their unbelief and hardness are to die out.
Their heart of flesh is to return, the vail is to drop from their
eyes; and they are yet to see in him whom they pierced, their
true and only Messiah.
But it is not necessary to suppose that the Jews will be con
verted all at once or suddenly. Their conversion may be going
on through ages. The full sum of the Gentiles has been a long

Chap, ii, v. 26,] ROMANS, 371
time coming in, nor are they all in yet So it may be with the
Jews. Still, I can not but think that their conversion wiU take
place rapidly. At least, I can see no reason why it should not
The circumstances which shall revolutionize one mind wfll revo-
utionize many. I hence look for a short work in their conver-
s.on. But in endeavoring to forecast the probable future of the Jews,
two things are to be steadily kept in mind, i. That no miracle
vill be worked in order to effect their conversion. The gospel
is God's power for salvation. Consequently, he who is not saved
oy It will never be saved at all. All will be done to save the
Jews that is now being done to save Gentiles, but no more.
2, That the future salvation of Israel does not Imply their resto-
-atlon to their ancient home in Palestine, The former is a great
necessity, the latter is none. When converted, the Jews can be
just as happy, dispersed as they now are, as though they were
all crowded back into Judea; and certainly they can be far more
useful. The gospel is not designed to prepare men for an earthly
Canaan, but for a heavenly.
as it is written : The deliverer shall come out of Sion,
and shall turn away impiety from Jacob. For substance,
the citation is from Isa. lix: 20, 21; but taking It In connection
¦with the next verse, and the whole quotation seems to consist of
two or more passages so blended as to express the Apostle's idea,
not in his own words, but in those of prophecy. The down-fall
and rejection of Israel, ch. ix, he had spoken of mostly in lan
guage of the prophets. In the same language, he now seeks to
set forth their reception.
The object of the whole quotation evidently Is to sustain the
assertion that "all Israel shall be saved." This salvation will coru
sist of two parts; i. Turning Israel from impiety, which here
includes the whole volume of their sins, especially unbelief.
2. The. remission of their sins. The first part of this salvation is
foretold in the present passage; the second, in the next verse.
But who is the "deliverer"; and how are we to understand the
phrase "shafl come out of Sion"? The deUverer is certainly
Christ; for he alone is appointed for salvation to all. But Christ
has already come; how then is he yet to come? He Is not yet to
come in the sense here meant; but this part of the prophecy must
be regarded as already fulfiUed, and the whole as being quoted for
the sake of the other part. This is a common method of citing

372 COMMENTARY, [Chap, ii, v. 27, 28.
scripture. We ourselves often quote a whole verse for the sake
of a single clause. Christ is here said to "turn away impiety
from Jacob," because this Is to be effected by his gospel; and
whatever is effected by it is properly ascribed to him. "Jacob"
here stands for his descendants, or rather the rejected part of
them. 27. And my covenant with them is this : In the Hebrew
we have simply "my covenant." Par' emou, then, is evidently
a circumlocution for mou. In rendering it, therefore, it is best to
be a little free, as I have been. It would certainly be awkward
to read: This is from me the covenant with them. In the ex
pression, "this is my covenant," this refers to what follows, not
to any thing preceding.
when I shall take away their sins. Hotan in this clause
is not easily accounted for, when hoti seems so clearly required.
With the latter, the verse would read thus: And my covenant
with them is this, that I will take away their sins. But since no
suspicion rests on hotan, we must have recourse to some other
method of explanation. The best that suggests itself is to assume
an elUpsis of some brief clause, and supply it, as in the following:
And my covenant with them is this, which will be accomplished,
when I shall take away their sins. This solution, though not en
tirely satisfactory, is still sufficient for Paul, whose object Is to
establish the future salvation of Israel, This salvation, as already
said, will consist of two parts: turning Israel from impiety, and
remitting their sins. The former verse establishes the turning;
the present one, the remitting. Thus the two confirm the asser
tion that "all Israel shall be saved."
28, With respect .to the gospel they are hated for your
sake ; The word echihroi here is not the noun, but the adjective,
and consequently means hated or being hated, and not enemies.
Viewed from the gospel stand-point alone, the Jews are hated,
hated by God, actually hated, but hated only to the extent -of be
ing rejected, and that for their unbelief. But the hatred of the
Jews is not an absolute hatred, having no end in view but their
rejection. It looks at the same time to the welfare of the Gen
tiles. It is double in its purpose — on the one hand, acting on the
Jews to their rejection, and, on the other, studying the salvation
of the Gentiles. It is an economic hatred, turning the disastrous
event to one party, to the good account of another. Accordingly
the Jews are hated for the sake of the Gentiles, that is, for their
benefit

Chap, i i, v. 28, 29.] ROMANS. 373
but with respect to the choice, beloved on the fathers'
account. With respect to the choice of whom? Not the
rejected Jews, as so many erroneously suppose, but their fathers.
That is, the choice was of those on whose account the rejected
Jews are stifl loved; and not of the rejected themselves. In
other words, .viewed from the stand-point alone of the choice
God formerly made of their fathers, the rejected Jews are still
loved in virtue of that choice. Their fathers were chosen and
loved; and on their account their rejected descendants are stfll
loved. The reader will notice that I render di' humas, in the former
clause of this verse, for your sake, but dia tous pateras, in the
latter clause, on the fathers' account. The rejected Jews are not
still loved for the sake of their fathers, that is, for their benefit,
but because of them or on their account This distinction should
be made to appear in the translation.
29. For God's favors and calling are not regretted. That
is, are not regretted by him. This verse is confirmatory of the
last clause of v. 28. God chose Abraham and the other Jewish
fathers, and bestowed upon them many great and special favors.
Among these favors, he promised Abraham to be to him a God
and to his posterity after him. The calling of these fathers and
the favors bestowed upon them are still not regretted. Accord
ingly, God's mind is unaltered in regard to covenants and promises
then made and entered into. He wifl yet, therefore, be a God
to the rejected Jews whom he stifl loves, not because of them
selves, but because of their fathers. When these Jews shall
become obedient to his Son, he will bless them with the fullness
of salvation. This he has always been ready to do, and still is
ready. He awaits only their abandonment of their unbelief
The Calvinistic mode of interpreting this verse Is as follows:
When God purposes to call and favor a people, his purpose is un
alterable. He long since purposed to call and favor Israel; and
therefore he wfll yet certainly do it. This is partly true and
partly not When God purposes unconditionally to call a people,
he will certainly cafl them; but he purposes unconditionally noth
ing more than the cafl. He never unconditionally purposes
salvation. This he confers only on condition of obedience to
Christ. But he has already cafled the Jews by the gospel, and Is
stfll cafling them. Thus far, then, his purpose has been executed.
But whether he will ever favor them with salvation depends, not

374 COMMENTARY. [Chap, ii, v,30, 31.
on any unconditional purpose of his, but on their own voluntary
acceptance of Christ, This done, he will bless; this not done, he
will not
30. For as you were formerly disobedient to God, The
period referred to is that preceding their conversion to Christ,
But no-w have received mercy — Received it in having the gospel
preached tp you, and in being accepted as God's children.
Through their disobedience. The Dative, apeithcia, is here used
to denote the occasion, or that in consequence of which. The
disobedience of the Jews led to their rejection. This left the
apostles and other primitive preachers to bestow their whole
time upon the Gentiles; and the more the Gentiles heard the
gospel, the more they obeyed it; while the smaller the number
of the Jews that came into the church, the less the Gentiles
were distracted and corrupted by them. Thus the disobedience
of the Jews became the means and occasion of benefit to the
Gentiles. 31, SO also they are now disobedient Disobedient to God
in not believing on his Son. Formerly the Jews were obedient;
and you were disobedient; but now the case is reversed. You
are obedient, and they are disobedient. That they too may obtain
mercy — the same mercy which you have obtained; that is, re
ceive remission of sins, enter the church, be fifled with the hope
of eternal life — in a word, be invested with all the blessings of
the gospel. The clause expresses, not what the Jews intended,
in being disobedient, but what God intended should come out of
it It expresses the end as purposed by him, not by them.
The position of hina In this verse Is unusual; and it has pre
vented uniformity among writers both I'n translation and exposi
tion. Properly, It should stand before io humeiero, though we
have instances of Its being placed precisely as here. See i Cor.
ix: 15; 2 Cor. ii: 4; Gal. ii: 10. I arrange and translate in agree
ment with the best critics.
that they may obtain mercy through the mercy shown
to you. Your mercy would be more literal, but it Is ambiguous.
It may mean either the mercy which you show, or the mercy
shown to you. The latter alone is correct, and I therefore adopt
it As the rejection of the Jews proved a blessing to the Gentfles;
so In turn, the reception of the Gentiles Is to prove a blessing to
the Jews. But how? The Gentiles have now to preach the
gospel to the Jews, and induce theni to obey it At first the

Chap, ii, v. 32,33.]

ROMANS.

375

gospel came from the Jews to the Gentiles; now, however, it
must go from the Gentiles to the Jews. Thus the Jews are to
obtain mercy through the mercy shown to the Gentfles.
32, For God has shut up all in disobedience By "afl" is
here meant all Jews, and all Gentiles. At first God shut up the
Gentiles, but now he has also shut up the Jews. Sun ekleisen
here signifies to shut up, or embrace, in one common sentence.
God has embraced both Jews and Gentiles in one sweeping
sentence of condemnation; and this, because of their common
disobedience. Not, he has shut them up, as some assert. In order
to disobedience, or that they may become disobedient; for this
would implicate God in their sin. But he has shut them up be
cause of disobedience. Their disobedience was their own act.
that he may have mercy on all. Both Jews and Gentiles
are alike disobedient, and consequently, alike without mci-it. Both
therefore are equally objects of mercy. Hence God can bestow
it upon both, and neither can feel that It Is not needed. The
special mode in which he proposes to show mercy. Is in remitting
sin through the blood of Christ. Consequently, whether the
mercy wfll ever be actually reaUzed or not, depends on belief in
Christ With this, all can realize It; without It, none can.

% %^ JU V-4 V^ (AJ~WtK^>V-

CHAPTER XI. SECTION 4.

" O the depth of God's riches, and
wisdom, and knowledge. How un
searchable are his decisions, and
untraceable his paths! '"For who
has known the Lord's mind, or who
has been his counsellor? "Or who
has first given to him, and it shall be
repaid to him? '*For all things are
of him, and through him, and for
him. To him be glory forever —

"*Q ^dBos nXoirov xai aoipias xat
yvaaeas efOtJ. 'Qs dveiepevvrjra tA
xptpara airov xdi dveitxviaarot at dSo\
avToi. ^"Tiff yap e-yva vovv Kvpiov; ^
ris avp^ovXos airrov iyevero; "*H ri'r
npoeSaxev airra, xat dvranoSoBfjaerai
aira; '°'0rt ii airov xai St' avroi;
xai els airov ra ndvra. Air^ q 6d|a
els rovs alavas- aprjv.

SUMMARY.
Great is the depth of God's resources, and wisdom, and knowledge, in
working out the redemption of the world. We can not know before hand
what his decisions are, nor how he moves in effecting his_ ends. No onehas
ever been privy to his counsels, nor any imparted to him aid. All things
originate in him; and all things are for his honor and glory.
33, O the depth of God's riches, and wisdom, and
knowledge! The word depth belongs as much to wisdom and

376 COMMENTARY. [Chap. ii. v. 33, 34.
knowledge as to riches. The full form would be: O the depth
of God's riches, and of his wisdom, and of his knowledge. But
this fullness Is unnecessary as the briefer rendering is perfectly
clear. The phrase depth of riches, bathos ploutou, denotes the infinite
resources which God has at command to effect the salvation of
the world; wisdom directs or adapts these resources to the accom
plishment ofthe end; whfle knowledge comprehends the whole
of the resources and the end, and suppUes material to the wis
dom. Accordingly, If the Jews reject Christ, such are the divine
resources, that the rejection is made to contribute to the salvation
of the Gentiles; while if the Gentfles obey, this again is made
subservient to the saving of the Jews. Thus all things, whether
good or bad, are made conducive to the one great end.
How unsearchable are his decisions, The word krimaia
here does not seem so much to denote God's judgments in the
sense of sentences pronounced, as his decisions how he will con
trol the affairs of men, so as to make them aid in the work of
salvation, I hence prefer to render it decisions rather than judg
ments. These decisions are unsearchable; that is, they can not
be discovered or found out tfll they are developed or executed.
They lie beyond the reach of human insight
and untraceable his paths ? Ichnos means a track, step,
foot-print. From this comes exichniazo to track up, trace out,
foflow up foot-prints. To the adjective formed from this, prefix
a privative, and we have anexichniastos signifying untrackable
or incapable of being traced out or foflowed up. The word hodoi
means road-ways, paths — the paths along which God moves in
executing his plans and purposes. These paths are undiscovera
ble by us; we can not trace them out We can not track God or
follow his foot-prints. When his work is done, we may know
something about It, but not before.
34. For who has known the Lord's mind, Designed to
confirm the two preceding remarks. The answer Is, No one.
No one has ever known the Lord's mind; for no one can know
it Therefore his decisions remain undiscovered; they can not be
searched out.
or who has been his counsellor ? Not who has given the
Lord counsel; but whom has he taken Into his confidence, and to
him imparted his secrets. Again the answer is, No one. There
fore no one can follow his steps or trace out the paths in which

Chap. II, V. 35> 36] ROMANS. 377
he moves. He keeps his counsels to himself, and conceals his
ways from observation.
35. Or who has first given to him, Who has given to
the Lord before the Lord gave to him? No one has ever yet
had any thing to give to him, which he did not receive from him.
Consequently no one can make him an original present This
question, I think it Ukely, contains a reference to the expression,
O the depth of God's riches. So vast is his wealth that he gives
to all, but receives from none.
and it shall be repaid to him? But no one can be found
who has first given to the Lord. There is then no one to whom
repayment Is to be made. God is no debtor. On the contrary,
all receive from him; he, from none.
36. For all things are from him, Proof that no one has
first given to him. All things are from him as their first cause.
And through him. Through his power all things have been
brought into being, and by It they are sustained. And for hitn.
All things are for his honor and pleasure. This is their ultimate
end, and nothing can prevent them subserving it.
To him be glory forever — amen. That Is, since aU things
are of him, and through him, and for him — since this is so, to
him, as his absolute due, be glory and honor forever; and be
this from all minds, and hearts, and tongues.

\[lj^^O^~^

378

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 12.

CHAPTER XII,

SECTION I,

I therefore beseech you, brethren,
by the mercies of God, to present
your bodies a living, holy, well-
pleasing sacrifice to God, which is
your reasonable service ; 'and not to
be fashioned after this world, but to
be changed by the renewing of your
mind, that you may judge of what
God's will is — of what is good, and
well-pleasing, aud perfect. ' For by
the favor bestowed upon me, I charge
every one who is among you not to
be high-minded beyond what he
ought to be in mind, but to take care
to be right-minded, as God has di
vided to each a measure of belief.
' For as we have many members in
one body, and all members have not
the same use ; ' so we, the many, are
one body in Christ, and are each
members of one another. * Having
then gifts differing according to the
favor bestowed — whether prophecy,
let us exercise it according to the
measure of belief; 'or ministry, let
us serve in ministering ; or let him
who teaches, attend to teaching; 'or
let him that exhorts, continue in ex
hortation; let him that imparts, do
so with liberality ; let him that rules,
rule with diligence ; let him that
shows pity, do it with cheerfulness.

UapaxaXd oiv ipas, aScX^oi, Sid rdv
dixrippdv tou Qeov, napaarrjaai ra aa-
para vpav Bvaiav ^aav, dyiav, eidpea-
rov r» Qea, rfjv XoyiK^v Xarpeiav ipav
' Kat pfj avaxrjpari^eaBai ra aiavt roil-
ra, dXXd perapoplfioSaBai -rfj dvaxaiv-
daet rov vods, els ro Soxipd^eiv ipas ri
TO BeXrjpa roi) Qeoi, rd dyaBov xai eid-
pearov xai reXeiov. ' Aeyo) yap Sta rfjs
xdpiros T^s SoBeiarjs pot navri ro) ovn
iv ipXv, pfj inep(f)poveXv nap' o SeX (j)po-
veXv, dXXd <f>poveXv els rd aalfipoveXv,
exdara as d Qeds ipeptae perpov nia
reas. * KaBdnep ydp iv evi adpari
TToXXa peXrj exopev, ra Se peXrj ndvra
ov rfjv airrfjv exet npdiiv, ' oilrtor ot noX
Xoi ev aapa iapev iv Xpiara, ro Se
Kaff eis aiiXfjXav peXrj. ^"Exovres Si
Xapiapara xard rfjv X^P'" i^v SoBeXaav
fjpXv Sidlfiopa, eire npoljirjTeiav, xard riji'
dvaXoyiav r^r niareas, ' ftre Siaxoviav,
iv rrj Staxoviq, elre d SiSdaxav, iv rfj
StSaaKoXia, elre d napaxaXdv, iv rfj
napa/cXfjaet. 'O peraSiSovs, iv d-n-Xdrrjrt,
6 npoXardpevos, iv anovSrj, 6 eXedv, ev
iXapdrrjn.

SUMMARY.
We are continually to present our bodies a living, holy sacrifice to God.
This is made our reasonable service by all the facts and teachings in the
foregoing part of the Letter. As to our minds, they are to be changed by
being renewed. This change is necessary in order to a correct judgment in
regard to God's will. We may not be high-minded because we are gifted,
but we must be right-minded, that we may place a proper estimate upon
every thing, especially upon gifts, as well our own as those of others. If we
have a gift, we must exercise it, neither being proud of it, nor looking down
upon others as inferiors, because they have a less shining gift. Whatever we
are best qualified to do, that we must do, and nothing else. This alone gives
success.

Chap, 12, v, i,] ROMANS, 379
With the eleventh chapter, the Apostle closes the more weighty
and more argumentative portion of his great Letter, With doc
trine and mystery he is now done. He Is consequently prepared
for those practical lessons which grow out of the broad basis he
has been laying down. With these the present chapter is replete;
and although it is lighter than any of the preceding chapters,
and lacks their consecutiveness, it is still Paul throughout. It Is
sentensic, pertinent, elliptical, and strong. It opens with an ex
hortation to consecrate our persons to the service of God. After
redemption, this is the next step.
I therefore beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of
God, The oun here is both inferential and continuative. It
infers the several duties specified from the preceding premises,
and continues the discourse, I "beseech" you, not I command'
you, which he certainly might have done; but authority Is never
more lovely than when concealing Itself In affectionate entreaty,
"By the mercies of God'' The word mercies denotes the sum
of the provisions which God has made In the gospel for our sal
vation. Each of these provisions Is the expression of mercy.
Hence the whole are called mercies. They originate in mercy
and embody It, These mercies constitute the high consideration
by which the Apostle beseeches his brethren.
to present your bodies Not present them once and no
more, but present them continually; present them once for all, or
present them and let them remain presented. These bodies are
to be "Uving," not dead and inactive, but alive to and active in
the service of God. In doing his will, they are to be constant .as
the pulse of life. I do not see that "living" here stands opposed,
as many seem to think, to "dead" as appUed to the bodies of ani
mals offered under the law. It denotes a positive, not a relative
characteristic. Moreover, these bodies are to be "holy." They
are to be pure or free from immorality; not merely without defect
or blemish, as had the legal victims to be, but without defilement
or sin. They are also to be "well-pleasing," This they can be
only by being constantly employed In doing those things that are
well-pleasing to God; in a word, by doing his will. When our
bodies are full of life as a fact; when they are kept free from sin;
and are actively employed In doing God's will, then, as offerings,.
they are well-pleasing to him.
Some writers hold that "bodies" here stands for the whole per
son, the meaning being: Present yourselves a living sacrifice

380 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 12, v, i, 2.
But this Is hardly correct. The Apostle, I doubt not, had some
special reason for using the word "bodies." With them, more
particularly than with any other part, we serve the law of sin. I
hence imagine the intention to be, that we should present those
very bodies, which are the seat of sin, a holy sacrifice to God.
Certainly nothing could be more proper.
which is your reasonable service ; This clause is in appo
sition with the expression "present your bodies a living sacrifice,"
and to a certain extent is explanatory of it. Presenting our bo
dies to God in the manner prescribed, is laireia, service, or
worship paid to him. This much Is clear. But it is more than
this; it is logiken service. What kind of service is this? The
usual reply is: It Is service according with reason, or our spiritual
nature, and sanctioned by it. The service certainly accords with
reason; but is this the fact denoted by logiken? I doubt it
Rather logiken here seems to have the force of logical or conse
quential, and to denote a service which results logically from what
precedes. Presenting our bodies a living, holy sacrifice to God,
is a service growing logically out of the premises furnished in
the foregoing part of the Letter. In other words, it is a
consequence from those premises, or it follows from them in
accordance with the laws of reason. This I take to be the fact
signified by logiken. Nor do I see how Its correctness can well
be doubted. The former clause of the verse, with which this
one is In apposition, is undoubtedly a logical deduction — "I there
fore beseech you, brethren." This is certainly an inference; and
if so, then clearly must the clause be an inference which is in
apposition with It. Accordingly, I translate logiken reasonable, as
denoting that which results from foregoing premises, according
to the laws of reason. As much as to say: In view of all the
facts and teachings of the former part of the Letter, presenting
our bodies to God, in the manner named, is a reasonable service.
2, and not to be fashioned after this world. That is, I
beseech you by the mercies of God not to be fashioned after this
¦world. But clearly the exhortation is not to be taken without
qualification. The world contains many things in themselves
right and proper. These we must regard as excluded. But
things which are evil In themselves, or of an evil tendency; in a
word, every thing inconsistent with, or hostile to the christian
life — after these we are not to be fashioned. On the contrary,
we are to avoid them, oppose them, and try to correct them.

Chap. 12, v. 2.] ROMANS. 381
In this and the following clause, Wordsworth, Tregelles, and
Green retain the Imperative of the received text, while Tischen
dorf, Alford, and others accept the Infinitive, The weight of
authority seems to me to be clearly against the former and in
favor of the latter. Accordingly I decide in favor of the Infinitive.
but to be changed by the renewing of your mind Meta-
morphousthai signifies to change the morphe, the material or
visible form of a thing. But where the thing Is without visiole
form, as the mind. It is best to dispense with the word "form,"
and render simply by changed. The "transformed" of the E. V.
is altogether too material, and should therefore be dropped. In
the present case, the mind is the subject of the change, or under
goes it; whfle the change itself consists in renewing or renovating
the mind. In other words, the mind, instead of being fashioned
after this world, is to be so changed in belief, desire, and purpose
as to lead to a life unlike the world In the particulars meant. The
old, unrenewed mind fashions the _ life after the world; the re
newed mind refuses, because of the antagonism between it and^
the world. The renewed mind induces a new life. '?»~'
that you may judge of what God's will is — of what is
good, and well-pleasing, and perfect. You are to be changed
in your mind by Its being renewed. This is the fact But you
are to be changed, not alone for the sake of the change itself, but
for the sake of something beyond it. The change looks to an
end. You are to be changed that you may judge of God's wfll,
that you may be enabled to place a correct estimate upon it, or
decide as to its excellence. Dokimazo is often a hard word to
translate. It is an assayer's term, and primarily means to try or
test metals in order to ascertain how pure they are. Here, how
ever, it means to judge of or decide respecting. In order, there
fore, to judge correctly of God's will, the mind must be renewed.
But the will to be judged of is not his will at large, but his wifl
in regard to the things that enter into, and make up the christian
life. It is his will respecting what. In christian conduct, is in
itself good, what is well-pleasing, because right; what is perfect,
or without flaw or defect. In regard to these things, God has an
expressed will, and to judge of It correctly, the mind must be
renewed. The terms good, well-pleasing, and perfcct^are, I imagine, to be
taken very comprehensively. They^^marace the ¦ghi)le of^chiis-
tian life. Not only so, but they define the character of that Ufe. It

382 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 12, v, j.
is to consist of conduct good within Itself, or absolutely good; of
conduct so closely conformed to God's wfll, as to be well-pleasing
to him; and of conduct, perfect Truly these three terms erect a
high standard of christian duty,
3. For by the favor bestowed upon me, I charge every
e^ae who is among you Stuart says, "gar here stands before
specific reasons given for a general principle urged in the pre
ceding context," I prefer to regard it as epexegetic, and used
to introduce an example showing the need of things good, and
well-pleasing, and perfect By ihe favor bestowed upon me —
by my apostolic office. "I charge" — lego, I say, but here evi
dently used to express authority, and therefore requiring to be
more strongly rendered. Every one who is among you, whether
high or low, whether endowed or not, whether wise or unwise —
I charge all, not one excepted. The charge is thus made univer
sal, and yet, no doubt, it was intended to have -s. specific bearing,
a bearing upon those having spiritual gifts,
not to be high-minded above what he ought to be in
mind, Huperphronein means to have high thoughts, to be high-
minded, be proud, which of course leads to looking on others,
especially the humble in station and life, as inferiors and beneath
notice. Such pride is wholly inconsistent with the example and
spirit of Christ, and needs to be completely subdued. Even
where great mental endowments are possessed, the endowed
must demean himself as though unconscious of his gifts, and
without evincing the slightest air of superiority.
but take care to be right-minded. Study or be_ careful
to bg- fair-minded, to ^ just \n_ your, judgment of things, and to
pla5,e a true estimate ypoji them. Make It matter of thought not
to overestimate your own gifts, nor to underestimate those of
others. The one talent has its value, and is entitled to it, no less
than the ten,
as God has divided to each a measure of belief. The be
lief here spoken of was not the ordinary belief which comes by
hearing, and saves the soul. It was clearly a miraculous belief;
because It was imparted to persons already In possession of the
ordinary belief; it was imparted immediately to the soul, and en
dowed it with one or more supernatural powers. This belief
with its accompanying power constituted the charisma of which
the Apostle speaks in v. 6. In what the belief consisted or what
its precise nature was, we have no means of knowing. Whether

Chap, 12, v, 4-6.] ROMANS. 383
it differed in any material respect from the common belief, or
was merely a higher degree of it, we are not told. It seems not
to have been usually given as a whole, but only in measures or
parts. The Apostles alone most probably possessed it as a
whole, and them it endowed with all spiritual powers. Others, it
endowed with one, two, or more gifts, according to their ability
to use them wisely, and the necessities of the case.
4. For as we have many members in one body, and all
members have not the same use ; A famfliar IUustration, not
of what goes before, but of what follows. The human body is
composed of many members, and each member performs a func
tion peculiar to itself. Yet no one can claim superiority over the
others, and all are essential. So with the church. It is composed
of many members; and every one is necessary to Its growth and
perfection. Not one can be dispensed with, nor can any claim
superiority. 5. so we, the many, are one body in Christ, and are
each members of one another. So we, the disciples, are
many individuals; yet, in Christ, we compose but one body.
To this body Christ is head; and of It, each individual of us is
a member. Moreover, inasmuch as we compose the body, we
are, in virtue of that fact, necessarily members one of another.
Our relation, then, to one another is so,intimate, and our depen
dence so _close, that no one of us can afford to^feel proud over
another, or think him mean.
e.'Tlaving then gifts differing according to the favor
bestowed — That Is, we having gifts. Not that all the disciples
had gifts; for this was not the case, it not being necessary. The
word we includes only those who had gifts. The meaning is: all
we who have gifts, have each a different gift The favor be
stowed was the metron pisteos, the measure of belief. To each
of the endowed a measure of belief was given, and with the
measure, a gift. To one was given one measure, and with it
some special gift or power; to another, a different measure, and
with it a different gift; and so on to the last,
Tt was the possession of these gifts that led to the high-mind-
edness against which the Apostle delivers his charge. Certain
of these gifts were regarded as more honorable than others.
Those having these grew proud of them, and, as a consequence,
bore themselves with an air of superiority towards others hav
ing, as they deemed, either inferior gifts or none. To correct this

3^^ COMMENTARY. [Chap. 12, v. 0, 7.
pride and false view was the object of the Apostle's charge. He
farther charges those thus endowed, to be right-minded, and esti
mate their gifts as God himself estimated them. They were all
alike necessary, and within themselves alike honorable. The
possession of them, therefore, was no ground of pride.
I In the primitive churches, these gifts took the place, and an
swered the purpose of the present written word. By them the
churches were built up and kept in order. In a word, every
thing was done by them — the gospel was preached, the disciples
instructed, and the churches ruled. They were then indispensa
ble; but now they are not, the New Testament supplying theii
place. whether prophecy, let us exercise it according to the
measure of belief; The present chapter is here very elliptical.
Indeed, In some instances, half the words we use 01 more have to
be supplied. Still, as there is no doubt in regard to the sense of
the original, there can be none in regard to what words we are
to supply. The name of each particular gift readily suggests the
other words to be used in speaking of it. For example, the
present clause, rendered word for word, stands thus: whether
prophecy, according io the measure of belief. This completely
filled out, evidently is: whether we have the gift of prophecy, lei
us exercise ii according io the measure of belief bestowed.
Upon each of the persons here enumerated, a measure of bt
lief was bestowed. With this measure, some particular gift was
imparted. The Apostle now directs that each of these persons
shall confine himself to his special gift. In other words, he is to
do exactly what he is empowered to do, and no more. If he is
empowered to prophesy, he is to do that and nothing else. He is
not to attempt to rule or exhort He must do the one thing only.
But prophet in Paul's day hardly meant just what it means ii:
our day. With us. It means one who simply foreteUs future
events. ' With Paul, it meant any one who gave expression to the
divine mind or will, whether that will respected the past, the
present, or the future. It meant any one who, being furnished
Immediately from God with divine ideas, communicated them to
the people. The prophet might teach history, might instruct in
present duty, or foreteU the future. ("The word, therefore, meant
in that day far more than^ it^ means now. It^ was STOonymous
with in^girecT teacher, foretelling being added.^
7. or ministry, let us serve in ministering ; If our gift

Chap. 12, V. 7- j ROMANS. 385
be that of ministering, let us serve in It Moreover, we must be
content with it, and not attempt any thing else. Nor is this all,
we must not grow high-minded over It, but serve in it with a just
appreciation of it We must be right-minded, estimate our gift
at its true value, and deport ourselves accordingly.
But what particular work does "ministry" here denote? The
question can not be very definitely answered. Diakonia signifies
any kind of attendance, ministration, or service. Of course it
here signifies religious service, or service done the church or its
members in some special way. It may, I think, be assumed as
almost certain that the word refers to service done by the dia-
konoi or deacons. These served the church In many waysy
especially In ministering to the poor. But whether this is the
particular service here meant, can not be confidently said. Ob
viously the term can not signify teaching, exhorting, &c., since
these are separately mentioned. The§ei-vice was _ce£tainly an
^portant ope, since thpse ¦who performed it^had to be specially
endowed for the gurpose. But beyond the fact that It existed,
tKat it was most probably performed by the deacons, and that
they had to be divinely qualified for it, we know nothing.
or let him who teaches attend to teaching; Here the
construction of the original changes. Instead of an Accusative
of the gift, we have the participial nominative of him who exer
cises it. The change, though anomalous, involves nothing
difficult or doubtful. It merely leads to a slight change in the
rendering. The meaning is: Let him upon whom a measure of
belief has been bestowed, endowing him as a teacher , attend
strictly to his gift Let him teach, and do nothing else, and let
him not becorae high-minded towards any one having a less
showy gift; nor let any one look on him with envy. Afl gifts
are essential to the upbuilding of the church. Hence none are
to be despised.
The teaching here mentioned, I doubt not, consisted strictly in
instructing the church. It_did not include preaching the_gosgel
to those without This was the workmore particularly of the (
prophet. The didaskalia was for members of the church, and
had for its object their complete enlightenment In duty. It bore
the same relation to those within the church, that preaching did
to those without. The design of paeaching ¦was to bring ingn in; ,
_tbe de^gn of teaching, to perfect them vvhenin. Teaching wass
the work chiefly of the overseers of the congregation. ^

386 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 12, v. 8
8. or let him that exhorts, continue in exhortation;
Farakaleo means, among other things, io call to duty; and this is
the essential idea in exhortation. It consists in a stirring appeal
to men to do their duty. It is confined to no one class of per
sons, but embraces the sinner and the saved. Wherever there is
remissness or hesitancy, exhortation is in place. The sinner needs
to be exhorted to obey Christ; the christian, to do his duty.
Nor will the church of Christ ever be enabled to discharge hei
whole duty to the world, tfll she adopts the division-of-labor sys
tem here laid down by the Apostle. We.must have the prophet
to preach the ^^pel and expound it to those ¦without; the teachei
**> instruct, those within, and the exhorter to assist both. The
largest possible measure of success will never be realized from
preaching until the preacher is attended in all places by his ex
horter; nor wifl the church ever be fully edified till the teacher is
constantly aided in the same way. No one man combines in
himself the qualifications for all these different kinds of labor.
A man for each, is the way for each man to become a master;
and when each man is a master, his work will be a success. This
is the divine plan; and no degree of departure from it can evei
result well.
let him that imparts, do so with liberality; The eite Is
I take it, not accidentally, but designedly dropped before this
clause. It has stood before, and tied together the four preceding
clauses; and each of them denoted the presence of some special
gift. But beyond these four clauses, special gifts do not extend.
With the fifth clause, the Apostle begins to name other duties
which required no special endowment; and he therefore drops
eite. In the present and two following clauses, he speaks of
duties which might be performed either by the endowed or un
endowed; but w^hlch were not general, or were not performed
by all the members of the body. They were performed by a
select class; still they were of so much importance as to require
separate mention.
let him that imparts, Metadidomi means to impart, or give
a share of what one has. . But I see no reason to conclude that
the metadidous was an officer of the church. He may have been
certainly; but then any one else could be a metadidous just as
well as an officer. He was any member of the church who had
to give, and gave of it Let him give haploteti. How was that?
The usual reply is. Let him give with simplicity. But this is

Chap. 12, v. 8,] ROMANS. 387
almost, if not quite without meaning. I therefore agree with
those writers who render the word liberality. Robinson so ren
ders it; and Hodge, and Alford, and some others, evidently agree
with him, though the meaning is rare. The metadidous was most
probably every wealthy member of the church, who was in the
habit of giving regularly to it for any purpose. The direction to
him is to impart with liberality. The admonition is certainly
needed In the present day; and doubtless It was needed quite
as much then.
let him that rules, rule with diligence; This clause may
include every person who exercised authority in the church; but
the probability Is that it refers more particularly to the overseers
or elders. The ruling signified was permanent or continuous,
and not accidental or occasional. It is therefore directed to be
done with diligence, that is, with unremitting attention and zeal.
It allowed of no indifference or delay.
let him that shows pity, do it with cheerfulness. The
duty here prescribed was general, and not necessarily confined
to a class. Usually, however, it was the especial work of the
deacons; but any one might perform It, It consisted in acts of
kindness done to the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate. It was
strictiy the manifestation, not of mercy, but of pity, Mercy con
sists in showing kindness to the erring; pity, in showing it to the
unfortunate. The present duty respected the latter. Do ii with
cheerfulness. This clause prescribes what the external manner
shall be of those showing the pity. They must show it with a
cheerful, happy countenance and air, an air that inspires hope
and brightness. A depressed and melancholy manner serves
merely to deepen the pain it would alleviate, and therefore should
never accompany the manifestation of pity; while a sunny face
and genial manner often afford the greatest relief the case ad
mits of.

388

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 12, v. 9.

(|.- fr 'it-,^'--.-..'^ '.'-./-'.--

CHAPTER XII, SECTION 2.

'Let love be unfeigned; abhor
what is evU ; cling to what is good.
'"As to brotherly love, be very affec
tionate to one another ; in esteem,
be examples to one another. "Be
not slow in zeal ; fervent in spirit ;
serving the Lord, '^Be joyful in
hope ; patient in affliction ; constant
in prayer. '' Be sharers in the wants
of the holy ; keeping on in love for
strangers, '* Bless those who perse
cute you; bless, and curse not, "Re
joice with the rejoicing ; weep with
the weeping. '* Be of like mind one
towards anoUier; mind not high
things, but be led along by lowly
things. Be not wise in your own
eyes. "Repay not e-vil for evil;
take forethought for things right in
the sight of all men. " On your part,
be at peace, if possible, with all men.

''H dydmj dwndxpirov dnoarv-
yovvres ro novrjpdv, KoXXta/tevot r^
dyaBd. ^"Trj <j)iXaSeX(j)if els dXXfjXovs
(ptXoaropyoi- rrj ripfj dXXrjXovs nporjyoij-
pevot. "T3 anovSfj pfj OKvrjpoi, rd
nve-dpan ^eovres, rd Kvpitf SovXevovres.
'^T^ iXniSi ;fat'pow€s, rfj BXiyjrei inope-
vovres, -rrj npoaevxjj npoaxaprepmivres.
"Tats -xpelais rSv dyiav xoivavovvres,
rrjv (piXoieviav StaKOvres. '^EiXoyeirf
rour StaKovras ipds, eiXoyeXre xai pfj
xarapdaBe. "Xatpetv perd xoipovrav,
xXaietv perd icXaiovrav. *^T6 airrd eis
dXXfjXovs <l>povovvres, pfj ro {r^rrjXd
ippovovvres, dXXd rots raneivoXs avvana-
yopevoL. M^ yiveaBe ^pdvtpoi nap'
eavroXs. " M?;Sf vt KaKov dvri xaxov dno-
SiSovres- npovoovpevoi xdXd ivdniov
ndvrav dvBpdnav. " Et Swardi', ro ii
ipav p€ra ndvrav dvBpdnav elprjvei-
ovres.

SUMMARY.
Our love must be unfeigned; for otherwise it is hypocrisy. It is no
enoug-h that we simply oppose evil; we must abhor it. We must cling tc
what is good at every cost. Our love for the brotherhood must be very ten
der; while in the matter of showing esteem, we must be examples to one
another. In serving the Lord, we must be fiill of zeal, and fervent in spirit.
In affliction, we must be patient, constant in prayer, and full of hope. We
are to share each others' wants; and take to our homes in love, and enter
tain strangers. We must bless even our persecutors, and never curse them.
We are not to pattern after proud ways and high life, but evince a preference
for lowly ways and meek life. Injuries, we must not retaliate; and we are
to be thoughtfiil to do what, in every one's estimation, is right. As christians
we must strive for peace.
The preceding section treated chiefly of special duties, or the du
ties of particular classes and particular individuals. The present
section treats exclusively of general duties. Whether a disciple
was a prophet, or an overseer, or a deacon; whether he was rich
or poor, gifted or not; whether he was fortunate or the reverse.
the following duties were incumbent upon him.
9, Let love be unfeigned ; No duty Is more prominently
inculcated in the New Testament than the duty of christians to
love one another with a tender, constant love. But this love to

Chap. 12, v. 9, 10.] ROMANS. 3S9
be acceptable to God, and to insure a crown to him who culti
vates it, must be unfeigned. It must be sincere, A dissembled
love is detestable to God, and detested by good men. It is much
to be feared that the love of the primitive disciples is without a
parallel in the present day. Our love does not lead us to do for
one another what theirs led them to do. Then no man called
any thing he had his own, if his brother had need. It is not so
with us,
abhor what is evil ; A, most important precept, and much
needed In the present day. There are many christians, and among
them many preachers, who oppose evil, it is true, but they do It
so faintly as virtually to countenance it. They will not publicly
endorse evil; but they will either go quietly home, or get out of
iff! way, and leave it to riot unrebuked. They do not abhor It,
Not that they sanction It; for they do not; they merely do not
stind in its way. They convert It into a jest, and turn It over to
rcugher hands to deal with It These men are not obeying Paul.
cling to -what is good. In opposition to what is evil. Cling
to what Is good, no matter In what it consists or where it leads.
The precept has reference to those things that make up the
morals of the pious, that compose christian life. To these we are
to cling, not feebly, but with a hold which no earthly power or
temi^tation can break. Not to cling to what is good, and not to
abhor what is evil, are two converging lines which do not have
to be produced very far before they meet in open sin. Our safety
Ues in keeping them separate.
10. As to brotherly love, be very affectionate to one
another ; Or in the matter of loving the family of God, be very
affectionate. Philostorgeo signifies to love a£ parents their chil
dren. It hence denotes love of tlie tenderest kind. Such is the
love that the disciples are 'commanded to cultivate one for
another. Nor Is this love to be confined to members of the par
ticular congregation to which we happen to belong. It^ mjist
embrace the universal brotherhood of the redeemed. No matter
to what kinilied or tongue a christian belongs, or where he is
met, this love is his birth-right. It can not, therefore, be with
held from him.
in esteem, be examples to one another. Time signifies
valuing, estitnation, honor, reverence, respect. Here it denotes
the esteem In which one christian should hold another. That
esteem should be high, unselfish, and free from every taint of

390 COMMENTARY, [Chap, 12, v. 11, 12.
envy. Proegeomai signifies to go before, take the lead; and from
' this It comes very readily to mean leading by example, or simply
being or setting an example. In the matter of showing esteem
'or respect, be examples to one another. This clause and the pre
ceding one are closely related — the one denoting the love, and
the other, the esteem we are to show one another.
II, Be not slow in zeal; Be not slow to evince zeal or to
come forward with it; be always ready to show it whenever it is
demanded. The common version, "be not slothful in business,"
is without authority; while to translate as Anderson does, "In
what requires diligence, be not slothful," is not to translate, but
ito make a commentary instead of It The present clause and the
two following ones compose a group by themselves, and define
the manner in which we are to discharge our religious duties.
No disciple can be true to Christ, and fail to copy it
fervent in spirit; Spirit here denotes the human spirit, not
the Holy, as some have imagined. It is equivalent to mind.
The meaning is: be ardent in mind or in deep earnest in your
reUgious duties. Do nothing coldly or with indifference.
serving the Lord. Douleuo means to be a slave or serve as
one; it means to be wholly subject to the will of another. Dou-
leuontes, the word here used, is the participle of the Present, and
signifies that the act of serving is now going on, and that it is
continuous, or is never to cease. The meaning is: be constant in
serving the Lord, never intermit it for an instant The reference,
I doubt not, is more particularly to the state of the mind or spirit,
though it includes the whole service of life. "With the mind I
serve the Lord."
12. Be joyful in hope ; Be joyful by reason of hope; in
other words, the hope is the ground of the joy, or gives rise to it.
Here again we have a cluster of injunctions, all, I venture to
think, related, and having a common point of union in affliction.
Assigning to each a wholly independent position, obscures their
meaning and weakens their force. Not that I would tie them
together and interpret them with exclusive reference to affliction.
I would rather assign to each first a general signification, and
then merge their joint import in a common centre. This is cer
tainly better than to understand no relation.
patient in affliction ; In an age when persecution was com-
Tmon, this precept was peculiarly necessary. It closely copies
the life of Christ. Heroic endurance amidst sharp distresses is

39*

Chap. 12, v. 12, 13.] ROMANS.
of the essence of his religion. Thlipsis means pressure, strait
ness, narrowness of life, caused by surrounding trials. It denotes,
as we famiUarly say, Ufe's close rubs. In all these, the child of
God is to be patient Not a murmur Is to escape his Ups. Not
one escaped his Master's.
constant in prayer. Whether in affliction, or in the Uberty
of a glorious Ufe, this injunction is in place. No where is the ^
chfld of God safe without prayer; no where is he in much dan- ~
ger with it It is the divine talisman which secures against
every evil.
13. Be sharers in the wants of the holy; When the
children of God fall into want, take a part of their wants upon
yourselves. Make their wants your wants to the full extent of
your ability to relieve them. It is much to be feared that this
precept will never again be revived; for I am assuming that
where it is not wholly forgotten, it has at least fallen into desue
tude. 1 have never seen it practiced except upon a scale so
parsimonious as to render It a virtual nullity. The scanty manner
in which the rich disciples of the present day share the wants of
the poor is a sham. From their thousands, they dole out dimes;
and from storehouses full, mete out handfulls. This is no com
pliance with the precept; and it were better for a christian that
he were without a coat to his name than to have two, and not
give to his brother who has none. Such precepts as the present
will, in the day of eternity, prove the fatal reef on which many a
saintly bark has stranded.
keeping on in love for strangers, Webster defines the
phrase io keep on, thus: "To go forward, to proceed, to continue
to advance." This Is very just to dioko, which I here render
keeping on. The common version, "given to hospitality," is lack-
ng in closeness to the original, and is therefore objectionable.
Philoxenia is literally love for strangers, from which comes very
.laturally the idea of entertaining them. The Apostle enjoins/
love for them, well knowing that from this all else would folio wJ
In an age when persecution was continually raging somewhere,
as in the early history of the church, the children of God would
be all the while either wandering from one country to another,
or wandering about in the same country. Usually they would be
destitute, because of being hurriedly driven from home, before
they could dispose of their effects, and so provide for their wants.
This would be the time io keep on in love for strangers, and as a

392 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 12, v. 14-16.
consequerce, afford them food and shelter. The precept, there
fore, was more applicable to the past than it Is to the present,
though it is never to be lost sight of even now. The strangers
referred to were no doubt especially strange christians, but the
injunction must not be limited to them. It includes also others.
14. Bless those who persecute you, bless, and curse
not, From time immemorial, blessing and cursing, by divine au
thority, had been customary, good following the former; evil, the
latter. From this custom the practice spread even to the com
mon people; and It has prevailed ever since. Even christians at
the present day are very much addicted to blessing, and as a rule,
very idly. Now in cases of cruel persecution, where the disciples
¦would feel themselves outraged, they would naturally become
very much exasperated. The consequent temptation to impre
cate evil on their enemies would be very great. But the Apostle
allows nothing of the kind. The reasons for disallowing the
practice were, no doubt, first, that the curse being unauthorized
was followed by no evil; and, secondly, it fostered a vengeful
spirit. On the contrary, christians are to bless their persecutors;
that is, they must invoke blessings upon them. This, though in
practice hard, is according to the high standard of Christ It is,
therefore, to christians their rule of conduct,
15. Rejoice with the rejoicing; -weep with the weeping.
When great good fortune descends upon a brother, and fills his
soul with joy, do not envy him, but rejoice with him; and when,
on the other hand, sorrows overwhelm him like a flood, do not
be glad, but weep with him. Be nobly unselfish, and show a true,
heart-felt interest In your brother's state, be it prosperous or
adverse. 16, Be of like mind one towards another; That is, be
of the same disposition one towards another; or have the same
sentiments and feelings. Do not love one brother and hate an
other; do not honor one and slight another; do not wish one well
and another Ul. In mind be to auto, the same to all. And if It be
said that this is impossible, seeing that all are unlike among
themselves, I reply, that the Apostle assumes all to be to auto in
Christ, and therefore as entitled to to auto from us,
mind not high things, but be led along by lowly things.
The general sentiment seems to be: Be not proud in your views
and conduct, but be content with an humble, unostentatious life.
Set not your heart on high places, high life, high company; for

393

Chap. 12, v. 16-18.] ROMANS.
much of these are hollow and insincere; but be led along in Ufe
by lowly thoughts, lowly ways, and tilings that comport with a
spirit of humiUty, Christ was meek and gentie to all men: be
like him.
Be not wise in your own eyes. Literally, be not wise
before yourselves. That is, when sitting in judgment upon your
selves, be not wise merely before yourselves. Such conduct is
the manifestation of mere vanity and self-esteem. Rather, labor
to be wise in the sight of God, by doing his wifl, and In the sight
of wise and good men, by always doing right
17. Repay not evil for evil; An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth, is one o'f the most natural sentiments of the
human heart. It Is the true lex ialionis; and although the very
embodiment of naked justice, it is unchristian, because wholly
unmixed with mercy. To do good for evil, though hard, Is a far
nobler sentiment. It is hence the law to us. Besides, injuries
receiyed have the effect to arouse our feelings, and cloud our
judgments. In this condition, we are not qualified to determine
either the kind or degree of punishment due our injurers. Re
taliation, therefore, is wholly taken from us,
take forethought for things right in the sight of all men.
Pronoeo means to foreknow, foresee, take care beforehand, pro
vide. I render it take forethought, which is very close. We are
not merely to do those things which are right in the sight of all
men; but we are to make them the subject of previous thought
We are to study beforehand what things they are, or make an
effort to find them out. For when we have found them out, the
presumption is that we will admire them; and when we admire
them, we will practice them; and constant practice is habit; and
confirmed habit is second nature. After this, we will practice the
things meant, because they have become a necessity in our daily
Ufe. This Injunction of the Apostle very much resembles some of
the wise maxims of the Grecian sages, though I call to mind no
one of which it can be said to be a copy. As a practical admo
nition It certainly is one of the wisest of the Bible. Indeed, it
stands but Uttle below the "golden rule,"
18. On your part, be at peace, if possible, with all men.
The Apostle clearly foresaw the impossibility of christians being
at peace always; and the whole history ofthe church proves him
to have been right Others will force difficulties on them. For

/

394

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 12, v. 1^.

this they are not responsible; but in all such cases they must be
careful that no part of the blame attaches to them. By no im
proper conduct of theirs must difficulty be provoked. It must
come gratuitously and wantonly from others. Not only so, but
christians must make every proper effort to avert difficulty. If it
be possible, they must be at peace.

f<f~tj ^ iaAv-^^-"^- y-x-^-zj.

J^A/^'^

CHAPTER XII. SECTION

" Beloved, avenge not yourselves,
but give place to the [Lord's] anger ;
for it is written : punishment is mine,
I will repay it, says the Lord. '"But
if your enemy be hungry, feed him ;
if thirsty, give him drink ; for in doi-
ing this you will heap coals of fire
upon his head. '' Be not conquered
by evil, but conquer evil by good.

"M^ eavrois ixSixovvres, dyanifroi,
dXXd Sdre rdnov rrj opy^- yeypaTrrai yap,
'Epoi exSiKrjais, iyd dvranoSdaa, Xtyfi
Kvptos. '" 'AXX' idv netva d ixBpds
aov, ^|rdpl^e airrov- idv St-^jr^, northe
avrdv rovro ydp ntodv dvBpaxas nvpds
aapedaets ini rfjv xeipdXrjv avrov. " M^
vtKO) ind roC xaxov, dXXd vixa 'iv r<p
dyaBd to xaxdv.

SUMMARY.
We must never attempt to avenge ourselves, but leave that wholly to the
Lord. On the contrary, if our enemy be hungry, we must feed him; if
thirsty, we must give him drink. We must be God-like in dealing with him.
We must not allow his evil to conquer us; rather we must conquer his evil
by our good.
19, Beloved, avenge not yourselves. This precept cer
tainly bears a very close resemblance to the first one of v. 17 — re
pay not evil for evil. The distinction between them I thus draw:
Repaying evil for evil Is simply retaliation for its own sake;
whereas in avenging ourselves, the procedure is judicial. Here
we sit In judgment on our injurer, decide on the kind and degree
of punishment due him, and mete It out. For this, In the circum
stances, we are not qualified; it Is, therefore, disallowed to us.
When injured, we are meekly to submit to it, declining either to
retaliate or be avenged. So acted Christ; and so must we act.
but give place to the [Lord's] anger. Let the Lord's
anger take the place of yours, and let him avenge you. His mind
is unclouded by passion, yours never is when you are Injured; he
can justly judge your injurer, you can not; he can temper pun
ishment with mercy; there is much danger that you will not.
When you are injured, therefore, stand back, and let the Lord
punish the wrong. Never attempt it yourselves.

Chap. 12, v. 20, 21.] ROMANS. 395
for it is written: punishment is mine, I will repay it,
says the Lord. The right of punishment belongs absolutely
to me, and in no sense or degree to you. You must therefore
never attempt it. True, it is you who are injured; but it is I
alone who must redress the wrong; and I wifl surely do It. You
must therefore be patient, and wait for me to avenge you.
20. But if your enemy be hungry, feed him ; if thirsty,
give him drink ; Make no attempt to avenge yourselves on
your enemy. On the contrary, if he be hungry, feed him. This
is a noble sentiment, and designed to construct life upon a high
plane; but it can not be denied that the instincts of fallen human
ity mutiny against it terribly. It stands stiffly against the whole
current of natural feeling. Indeed, it annuls both our human
instincts and human feelings, and takes their place as the divine
rule of life; and although we feel it to be difficult in practice,
stifl we can not but admire the magnanimity that is equal to it in
act It is God-like to feed our enemy when hungry. He does it
daily, and he is our law. Not to ffeed him is a retort in the np
ture of vengeance, which is never allowed us.
for in doing this you will heap coals of fire upon his
head. A bold expression, which has been variously interpreted,
but seemingly without good reason. The meaning evidently is:
If your enemy be hungry and thirsty, feed him and give him
drink. Your good deeds will restore him to his right mind and
right feelings. They will bring him to himself, and enable him
to see how undeserved the evil is he has done you. In this re
stored state,- his conscience will give him keen pain. His evil
acts will torture and distress his soul. They will burn in him like
fire. The end may be his repentance. Your generous conduct
towards him will give you control of his ear; and when once you
get control of this, you may soon come to control his heart He
is now in your power, and with skill, you may save him.
21. Be not conquered by evil, but conquer evil by good.
Be not conquered by the evil conduct of your enemy towards
you, which you will be, whenever you allow it to lead you to
attempt either to avenge yourself on him, or to repay him with
evil. In that event, you are conquered by evil. But conquer evil
by good. Conquer your enemy who has done you wrong by feed
ing him when hungry, and giving him drink when thirsty. By
this course you will certainly conquer the evil which is in your
self, and you may conquer that which is in him.

396

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. 13.

CHAPTER XIII.

SECTION I.

Let every soul be obedient to ruling
authorities ; for there is no authority
but from God ; and those in being
have been set in order by God. ' So
that he who resists the authority re
sists the appointment of God ; and
tiey who resist will receive sentence
against themselves. ' For rulers are
not a fear to good work, but to bad.
I'o you wish then not to be afraid of
tlie authority? Do what is good,
and you shall have praise from it.
¦* For [the ruler] is God's servant for
good to you ; but if you do bad,' be
afraid, for he wears not the sword to
no purpose. For God's servant is
an avenger for anger upon him who
does bad, ^ Therefore it is necessary
to be obedient, not only because of
anger, but also because of conscience.
'Now for this reason also you pay
tax ; for they are God's ministers at
tending to this very duty. 'Give to
all their dues, tax to whom tax is
due, custom to whom custom, fear
to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

nSo-a -^x^ iiovalats imepexodaais
vnoraaaeaBa- oh ydp iariv iiovaia el
pfj dnd 6eoi), at Se ovaai fnrd 6eai7
reraypevat elaiv. ^"Qare 6 dvriraaad-
pevos rji iiovaia rj rov Qeoij Siara-yg
dvBearrjKev- ol Se dvBearrjK&res ea-vroXs
xpipa Xff^ovrai. 'Oi ydp apxovres oix
elai (pd^os rd dyada epya, dXXd rd
Kaxa. QeXeis Se pfj (pofieXaBat rfjv
iiovaiav; To dyaBov noiei, Kat eiets
'inaivov ii airfjs. Qeov ydp Stdxovds
ean aoi els to dyaBov idv Se ro xaxdv
notrjs, (jio^ov- oi ydp elxfj rfjv pdxaipav
(fiopeX. SfoO yap SioKoi'ds iartv exSlxos
els djyyfjv rd rd xaxdv npdaaovn. *Ato
dvdyKTj vnardaaeaBai, oi pdvov Sta rfjV
opyfjv, ciXXa xat Sta rfjv avveiSrjaiv.
^ Ata TOVTO ydp Kai (j>dpovs reXeXre- Xet-
rovpyoi ydp Qeov elaiv els avrd roi/ro
npoaKaprepovvres. ' 'ATroSoTf Trao-t rat
o^eiXds, Ta roi' (j>dpov, rov (jidpov rd
TO reXos, rd reXos- ry rof ^d^av, rov
(^ojSov- rto -rfjv npfjv, r^vripffV

SUMMARY.
All civil governments derive their origin and authority from God, and
when doing right, have his sanction. He therefore requires his children to be
obedient to them; and where they fail, they resist not merely the govern
ment but him. Civil officers, too, are designed to be for good to God's
children, and not a source of fear. Neither therefore must they be resisted.
Consequently there are two reasons why we should obey the constituted au
thorities ofthe State. First, that we may avoid being punished; and, second,
that we may not violate our conscience. Moreover, for these same reasons
we pay tax, customs, &c.; and besides, whenever it may be necessary, we
must go farther and even honor those in authority. By'all these acts we
shall please God and promote our own happiness.
The present chapter is mostly occupied with our duties to the
civil authorities. These, as being from God, are to be obeyed so
long as they exact nothing inconsistent with our christian duties.
Beyond this, the obligation to obey them ceases. But of these

Chap. 13, v. i.] ROMANS. 397
duties I shall treat more in detail under the several clauses which
speak of them. The chapter also re-announces the ancient law
of our neighbor, on which so much stress is uniformly laid in the
Bible. The propriety of obej'ing it is briefly argued, and then
the subject is dropped. The chapter closes with a few words of
weighty advice respecting several things which, as christians, we
may not do. H hardly contains a more important section than
this last.
Let every soul be obedient to ruling authorities ; The
Apostle is speaking of christians only; and the phrase every soul
is the same in sense as every individual. His meaning, there
fore, is: Let every disciple of Christ be obedient to ruling
authorities. Exousiais Is, In the common version, and by many
commentators, translated powers, but it signifies simply civil au
thorities, and should be so rendered. The word implies nothing
in regard to the character of the authorities. They may be mon
archic, oligarchal, or republican. Their nature is not here taken
into consideration. They are the constituted or governing author
ities of the country. Moreover, they are the huperechousais
authorities; that is, the authorities which are over the people and
govern them. To these every christian Is to be obedient.
The object of all civil governments is to protect their subjects
in their great natural rights of person, property, and Uberty, and
suitably to punish evil-doers. In regard to religion, civil author
ities must leave their subjects to do precisely what God requires
of them, without the slightest interference. So long as they con
fine themselves within these limits, and to these necessary duties,
they are to be scrupulously obeyed. But when they fail in any
of these respects, the obligation of christians ceases, and the duty
of disobedience arises. No earthly power can require the chil
dren of God to do wrong. But even where the requirements of
the government are oppressive, if not inconsistent with christian
duty, it is still to be obeyed. Neither must the circumstances and
reasons which lead to disobedience be doubtful or trivial; they
must be weighty and clear. In a doubtful or indifferent case, I
should hold obedience to be the rule,
for there is no authority but from God; This clause
must be understood as qualified by the nature of the case. There
is no legitimate or rightful authority but from God. Authority
of a different kind is ne-fer from him. He no more appoints gov
ernments to do wron^ , or sanctions wrong in them, than he

398 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 13, v. i, 2.
sanctions sin in men; and whenever one assumes to do wrong, it
abuses itself, and is, so far, no more from God than Is man for
purposes of evil. God may and does tolerate governments in
doing wrong, just as he does men in sinning, but he sanctions
neither the wrong nor the sin. Hence, from mere tolerance a
government can not be inferred to have the divine sanction. This
it has in so far only as it does right. •
and those in being have been set in order by God. This
clause is almost identical in sense with the preceding one. That
asserts that existing authorities are from God; this, that he sets
them in order. The one relates to origin, the other, to disposi
tion. God disposes the governments of the earth according to
his will; that is, he gives to one nation one form of government,
to another, a different form. Not that he always gives the best
form, for he does not; because the people will not haVe it. The
best form of government for ancient Israel was a pure theocracy;
yet they desired a kingdom, and God gave them one. But in
giving them a kingdom, he gave them that form of one which
was, in all the circumstances, the best for them. And so in other
cases. If God gives a people a republic, he gives them the best
form of a republic that they can or will use wisely. But in giv-
'^^S governments, God seems never wholly to disregard the will
of the people. His policy appears to be to allow them to choose,
and then comply with their choice. If the choice be a wise one,
well; if not, he still complies in the best way left him. But these
questions can not be discussed at length here.
2. So that he who resists the authority, resists the
appointment of God ; To any one, no matter who, forced from
home against his will, and into a foreign country with a strange
government, strange la^ws, and strange customs, obedience is nol
a perfectly easy and pleasant task. To a christian Jew it was
especially hard. The rulers of countries into which persecution
drove him were usually idolaters. This was peculiarly offensive
to him. Besides, the laws of the land he would regard as wholly
human, whfle he knew those of Moses to be wholly divine. He
would accordingly look upon the latter as immeasurably superior
to the former. This would render his obedience reluctant and
tardy. Moreover, holding himself to be a citizen of the kingdom
of God, he would naturally feel himself absolved from alle
giance to earthly authorities. This would incline him to refuse
obedience to them, especially where the obedience in any way

C \p. 13, V. 2, 3.] ROMANS. 399
inconvenienced him. Under these circumstances, opposition and
disobedience to ruling authorities would be almost certain to
OCCUI. and that frequentiy. It was to correct this state of things,
and t*; insure obedience in all proper cases, that the Apostle
wrote. He plainly tells his brethren that resistance to the ruling
authority was resistance to God. This of course would check it
Thus not only would peace and immunity ensue, but in many
instances even protection.
and they who resist will receive sentence against
themselves. Not only from rulers but also from God. As the
authority is from God, it foflows that to resist it is to resist him.
But the authority is, at the same time, invested in the hands of
rulers. Hence, to resist it, is Ukewise to resist them. Conse
quently, he who resists the authority, resists both God and the
rulers. By both, then, wifl he be condemned, and by both he
may be punished. On every account, therefore, it is best to obey
the authority,
3. For rulers are not a fear to good work, but to bad.
Rulers are no cause of fear to them who do good, but to those
only who do bad. This, as a rule, has been true of rulers in all
time; but to it there have been many exceptions. Rulers have
often been a source of fear, not to the bad, but to the good.
Where such is the case, they are not to be obeyed, neither should
they be feared. Matt x: 28.
Do you, wish, then, not to be afraid of the authority?
Certainly it is most reasonable for the chfldren of God to wish to
be free from fear of the ruling authority of the State; and in the
case of upright conduct, it is unquestionably their natural right
to be so. Where they do right, and still have ground to fear,
the authority itself is wrong, and God will hold it to a strict ac
count Do what is good, and you shall have praise from it.
That is, the authority. Do what is right, and you wifl have no
cause to fear the authority of the State. On the contrary, you
wifl obtain from it praise for being a good and dutiful citizen. It
will, in case you do right, not only protect you, but honor you.
But crises often occur in which the seeming interests of the
State and the duty of christians clash. What is then to be done?
For example, where a State is engaged in war, and commands
its christian' subject to bear arms and fight, what Is his duty? My
opinion is that he must refuse obedience to the command of the

400 COMMENTARY. [Chap, 13, v, 4, 5.
State, even at the expense of his Ufe. For no christian man can,
according to the New Testament, bear arms and take human Ufe.
Such are my judgment and conscience, after much thought upon
the subject
4. For [the ruler | is God's servant for good to you;
The ruler is not appointed to be a source of fear to you, but of
good; and whenever he fails to subserve this end, your allegiance
to him ceases. You owe him nothing when he assumes to con
trol you for evil. Your welfare is the very object of his official
being. He exists not to play tyrant over you, nor to serve him
self, but you. How much to be regretted it Is that rulers do
not more generally recognize the fact here stated by the Apostle.
Instead of this, however, they appear seldom even to dream that
they are placed In office merely as God's servants. Rather they
seem to think that they are placed there solely for their own
benefit. The fear of God is often not before their eyes, nor yet
the good of the people a tithe as much as their own. Too fre
quently they serve merely self, with no regard for God, and but
little for any one else. Such rulers serve not God, but Satan.
but if you do bad, be afraid, for he wears not the sword
to no purpose. Wearing a sword was anciently an emblem or
badge of the authority with which the civil officer was invested.
If instead of living a Ufe of uprightness and peace, you are found
arraying yourself against the constituted authorities of the coun
try, and resisting the officers ¦when engaged about their appointed
duties, then be afraid. In that event, God is not pledged to your
protection; you will consequently fall into the hands of the law
and be punished. For it Is for this very purpose that the officer
wears the sword. You will certainly suffer the due reward of
your disobedience.
For God's servant is an avenger for anger upon him
who does bad. The expression an avenger for anger signifies
an avenger to inflict anger. God's servant is the civil officer, who
is the appointed avenger of the State, to punish all wrongs per
petrated against it; and it is his duty to do this by inflicting both
the divine anger and that of the State upon the evil-doer. To
inflict anger is to inflict punishment
5. Therefore it is necessary to be obedient, not only
because of anger, but also because of conscience. A sum
mary conclusion from the preceding premises, with the reasons
for it stated. It is necessary to be obedient to ruling authorities

Chap, 13, v. 5-7.] ROMANS. 401
for two reasons — punishment and conscience. If we are not
obedient, anger or punishment wifl be inflicted upon us. Pun
ishment, therefore, becomes a reason to induce the obedience.
We must obey in order to escape It In the next place, we must
be obedient that our conscience may be left at ease. Our
conscience is our sense of right, formed by the word of God.
Ruling authorities are appointed by God, and civil officers are his
servants. God having now told us this, we know it within our
selves. This knowledge form^ our sense of right and this sense
is our conscience. If now we do not obey the civil authorities, this
sense or conscience Is violated. This will not only cause us pain,
but it Is wrong in itself. God forms within us our conscience as
a rule of conduct. It must therefore not be broken; and in order
that it may not be, in the case in hand, we must obey the civil
authorities. 6. Now for this reason also you pay tax ; As nothing is
gained by treating teleiie as Imperative, I take It as Indicative.
The gar is epexegetic, introducing a detail, in part, of what has
already been said. It is therefore best to render It now. Besides
to render it for, and dia touto, for the reason, gives us an awk
ward reading. This it is desirable to avoid. For this reason:
That is, because of anger and of conscience. In other words,
you pay tax for the reason that if you do not, anger will be in
flicted upon you, and your conscience will be violated.
for they are God's ministers attending to this very duty.
That is, those officers whose business it Is to collect taxes are
God's ministers attending to this duty. Civil governments are
ordained of God; and if so, taxes are too; for governments can
not be carried on without them. Besides if taxes be necessary,
so also are tax-collectors. Consequently, we dare not resist
them by refusing to pay them taxes; for, in so doing, we disobey
God. The taxes here spoken of were the common taxes of the
country, which every citizen had to pay. They were levied on
lands and personal property, as in this country, and collected
annually. 7. Give to all their dues. Of course this could be enjoined
on the principle of common justice; but it is here said with
special reference to those legal dues, such as taxes and customs,
of which the Apostle is speaking. The verse sums up the whole
of what has just been said in a few short clauses. It is not an
inference, but a generalization.
26

403

COMMENTARY. [Chap. 13, v. 7.

tax to whom tax is due, This clause I think it best to
supplement with is due, which serves to complete its sense, and
so render it clear. But on the injunction itself, nothing farther
need be added here, as its subject-matter has already been no
ticed under the last clause in v. 6.
custom to whom custom, The customs were duties im
posed by law upon merchandise, whether imported or exported.
They formed an important part of the revenue of the State; and
it was therefore necessary to have them collected punctually.
fear to whom fear. You must cultivate for those in authori
ty, that just fear of punishment which will restrain you from
disobeying them. This fear you must at all times exhibit by the
strictness with which you discharge your civfl obligations.
honor to whom honor. You must not only fear and obey
civil officers, but where they are high in authority, as the king,
or where from any cause they are entitled to it, you must even
honor them. You must pay them a high and sincere respect.
The wisdom of these Injunctions must be apparent to all who
will reflect. From compliance with them would result the fol
lowing several advantages to christians: i. Respect and praise
from civil officers; 2. peace to pursue their duties; 3, exemption
from legal prosecutions and fines. Obligations supported by
such considerations as these can never be contemned by the
pious and orderly.

CHAPTER XIII, SECTION 2.

' Owe no one any thing, except the
love of one another; for he who
loves another has fulfilled the law.
•For the [law is] : You shaU not
commit adultery ; you shall not mur
der ; you shall not steal ; you shall
not desire ; and if there is any other
commandment it is summed up in
this saying, namely, you shall love
your neighbor as yourself. '" Love
works no evil to a neighbor ; there
fore love is the fulfiUment of the
law.

'MrjSevi prjSiv dcpetXere tl f./ ' > dX
X^Xovs dyajrav 6 yap dyi-r f ro»
erepov vdpov nenXfjpaxe. 'V" Ci< ot
poixevaets, oi <j)ovevaeis oi rA cYtie
oix iniBvpfjaeis, xdj. ei t.j- er-'fa ivro-
Xrj, iv TO) X&ya ro-irig dvar ,<j)rAa»>VTm
iv TO) 'Ayanfjaets roi' jrXrj-t'oy aov di
aea-vrov. ' 'H dydnrj rd r Arjaiov xaxdi
ovx ipyd^erai- nXfjpapit oiv vdpMV tj
dydnrj.

SUMMARY,
Christians must pay to all whatever is due them, whether tax, customs, or
honor. The only exception is that we must be always owing one another a

Chap. 13, v. 8,] ROMANS. 403
debt of love, which we are to be constantly paying, without ever paying it
In otlier words, we are never to feel that we have finally discharged the debt
The reason is, that he who loves another is sure to keep the whole law to
wards him. 'We will not only never injure him whom we love, but will do
him whatever good we can.
8. Owe no man any thing, Owe no tax, no custom, no
fear, no honor; pay to all their dues. By some this clause has
been regarded as wholly prohibiting going in debt. Green, who
is usually very Uteral, renders it thus: "owe no one any debt" In
this view I have myself usually concurred, but upon farther re
flection, I question it What the Apostle appears to prohibit is
not, contracting debt but owing a thing after it is due. Pay to
all what you owe, not you must not owe at all, seems to give the
true sense. Besides, the context will hardly justify our insisting
on more. Upon the whole, I am ready to rest in this view as
correct Upon the general subject of going in debt, considered in a
prudential Ught, it is, of course, not my business to speak. The
subject belongs, not to the critic, but to the department of morals
and political economy. Often, going in debt is certainly wrong;
whfle in many instances it seems almost unavoidable. It appears
dangerous only when abused, and beneficial when not The
question is a discretionary one, which each is left to decide for
himself. except the love of one another ; Owe no debt except the
debt of loving one another. This debt you must always owe,
and be always paying. You must never fail to contract It in the
case of every disciple, nor must payment ever cease. Love ever
and pay ever is the law here.
for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. Nomon
nere, though anarthrous, is nevertheless definite in sense from
the very nature of the case. It'does not signify law in general,
nor necessarily the law of Moses, but specifically the law, what
ever it is, and the whole of it, relating to me and "another," and
governing us. It denotes this law„ and this much law, no more.
The word "another" signifies every one between whom and myself
there exists any legal relation, or to whom I owe any obligation
growing out of law. It is therefore very comprehensive, includ
ing not only my neighbor, but also aU others to whom I am in
any way legally bound. Has fulfilled the law. Not the whole
law, but so much of it as relates to me and "another." This
Umitation is imposed by the nature of the case. Has fulfilled:

404 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 13, v. 9.
Not actuaUy, it may be, but in effect; for so certain is he who
loves another to fulfill the law towards him, that he is here re
garded as having already done it. The thing is treated as done,
because sure to be done.
9. For the [law is]: you shall not commit adultery;
The gar here introduces the confirmation of the last preceding
clause. The connection is as follows: He who loves another has
fulfiUed the law towards him; for the [law is], you shaU not
commit adultery; and this no man will do against one whom he
loves. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. And so on
to the end of the law relating to "another."
The TO at the commencement of the present clause has given
rise to some diversity of opinion. Stuart thinks it the article
prefixed to a quotation introduced as such; while Bloomfield re
gards it as used for ort. It is certainly the article; and it is
placed before a clause to give it, as I consider, a Substantive
character. The clause is evidentiy efllptical requiring gegrammenon, or
something of the sort, to be supplied. The best supplement
seems to be the one I place in brackets. This is very simple,
and, as I conceive, gives the exact sense.
you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall
not desire ; The argument on these clauses is the same as on
the last one. He who loves another will not commit against him
any of the offences here named. Consequently, he who loves
another has fulfilled the law as to him.
you shall not murder; The frequency with which this
crime is committed in this country Is positively alarming. More
over, if the person committing it stands high, and has plenty of
money, there is, as every one knows, literally no punishment foi
him. He is merely annoyed with the form of a trial — that is all
The shocking extent to which the crime prevails, loudly calls foi
a remedy; and for murder there is but one remedy. Whenevei
every murderer atones for his deed by the certain loss of his own
life, murders will well-nigh cease, not before. The pulpit and the
press should ring with efforts to create a public sentiment that
¦will be satisfied with nothing short of the adequate punishment
of the crime. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his
blood be shed." Gen. ix: 6. This is God's own decree against
the murderer, a decree enacted for the whole human race, and
which has never been repealed, revoked, or set aside. The State

Chap. 13, v. 9.J ROMANS, 405
or court, therefore, that is daring enough to presume to disregard
it, is false alike to God and to society. No degenerate senti
ment should be allowed to supplant the law. On the contrary,
nothing but the sturdy execution of it is just to the murderer or
to society.
you shall not desire ; We are so accustomed to the word
"covet," that desire is not apt to strike us as sufficiently strong;
but since we are without another more appropriate single word,
we must remain content with this. Of course the desire either
has reference to an object which we can not lawfully desire, or
it is indulged to an unlawful degree. In either case It is wrong,
but not otherwise. The temperate desire of a lawful good is cer
tainly right Such desire therefore is not the kind prohibited here.
Two Illustrations will set the subject in a proper light, i. To de
sire another's wife is wrong in itself, and therefore prohibited,
2, To desire excessively another's lamb is wrong, because of the
certainty attending It, that it will lead to the use of unlawful
means to obtain it. It is hence forbid. But to desire a woman,
not married, to make her a lawful wife is right; as it also is to
desire moderately another's lamb for which I am ready to pay an
equivalent. In neither case, therefore, is the desire inhibited.
However, in the case of the lamb, if the owner did not wish to
part from it, I should then deem it wrong to desire it in any
degree. The case, I should say, is to be taken with this qualifi
cation. and if there is any other commandment That is, if there
be any other commandment respecting another; for this is the
subject in hand. Not, if there be any other commandment on
any subject, for the Apostle knew perfectly that thei'e is.
it is summed up in this saying, namely, you shall love
your neighbor as yourself. Not, you shall love your neigh
bor as much as yourself; for this is neither possible nor necessary;
but you shall love him in like manner as you love yourself. You
love yourself so truly that you would never have your neighbor
injure you. In Uke manner, you must love him so truly as never
to injure him. Thus loving him, you will do him no harm; and
so far you fulfill the law towards him. But if we love our neigh
bor as ourselves, we shall not stop merely at not injuring him.
We will go farther; and whatever good our self-love prompts us
to wish him to do us, that good our love for him will prompt us
to do him. This much the case of the Samaritan, as put by the
Savior, clearly demands.

4o6 COMMENTARY. Chap. 13, 9, 10.
But who is my neighbor? Long since the question was put^
but not always since has it been correctly answered. My neigh
bor, then, is not my enemy; for my enemy is appropriately
named, and special directions are given as to how I shall treat
him. Neither is my christian brother alone my neighbor; for
neighbor comprehends more than christian. Plesion means near,
near by, close ai hand; and from this comes ho plesion neighbor.
My neighbor, therefore, is any human being or fellow creature
who chances to be near me, whether for the moment or perma
nently. This human being I am so to love that I would no more
harm him, than I would have him to harm me; and more than
this, I am to do him whatever good, if in my power, I would
wish him to do me. Such is my neighbor, and such the law
which regulates my conduct towards him.
The reader will notice that I render ev t<j) in the present clause
namely, which I do merely to avoid repetition. Fully rendered
the clause would read thus: it is summed up in this saying, in
the [saying], You shafl love, &c. But this is inadmissible, and
hence should be avoided.
10. Love works no evil to a neighbor; therefore love
is the fulfilment of the law. The law requires me not to
murder my neighbor, not to steal from him, not to commit adul
tery against him, not to desire his goods; in a word, not to do
him harm of any kind; and if I love him, I will not do him any.
Hence, the love of my neighbor is the fulfilment of the law to
wards him.

Chap. 13, v. ii.J

ROMANS.

407

CHAPTER XIII, SECTION 3,

¦' Kai TOUTO elSdres tAi/ xatpdv, on
&pa ^Sij fjpds ii un-KOU iyepBfjvai. vvv
ydp i-yyvrepov fjpdv fj aarrrjpia rj Sre
iniarevaapev. "'H vii npoexo-^ev, fj
Se fjpepa fjyyiKev. ' AnoBdpeBa oiv ra
?pya ToC axdrovs, ivSvadpeBa Se ra
mrXa rov <l)ards. "'Qy iv fjpepa eia-
Xiipdvas nepmarfjaapev, pfj xdpois xat
peBais, pfj Koirats Kat daeXyeiais, pfj
eptSi xai £fjXa. '* 'AXX' ivSvaaaBe roy
Kvpiov 'lijo-ovi' Xpitrroi', xdi rfjs aapxds
npdvotav pfj noteXaBe els iniBvulas.

"And this [let us do] knowing
the season, that it is already time for
us to awake from sleep ; for now our
salvation is nearer than when we be
lieved. '^The night is far spent, the
day is at hand. Let us then lay off
the works of darkness, and put on
the arms of light. " Let us walk be
comingly as in the day, not in revels
and drunkenness, not in beds and
lewdness, not in strife and envy.
'"' But put on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and make no provision for the de
sires of the flesh.

SUMMARY,
It is now time for us to awake from the sleep of the old unregenerate night
through which we have been passing, and to do our whole duty in every thing.
The reason is, that the day of salvation will soon be upon us, and for it we
must be ready. All our former evil deeds must be utterly abandoned; and
the new life in Christ fully assumed. Henceforth we must live for the
Savior, not for the flesh.
II. And this [let us do] knowing the season. This refers
to all the Apostie has just been enjoining. The meaning is: Let
us be obedient to ruling authorities; let us pay tax; let us love our
neighbor; let us do all this, knowing the season; or let us do this
because we know the season. After the word this, some clause
IS evidently necessary to complete the sense; and as I know of
none more appropriate than let us do, I adopt it, placing it in
brackets. Knowing ihe season, that is, the season of life; or more
correctly still, perhaps, the season of night — the long night of
life, through which we have been sleeping, or doing virtually
nothing In the service of God.
that it is already time for us to awake from sleep; If
we purpose doing any thing in the way of preparation for our
departure hence, it is time we were about it Heretofore we
have done but little; we have been asleep. We should now
awake and go to work. But Jittle time remains; consequently
not another idle sand must drop from our glass.
for now our salvation is nearer than when we believed.
The salvation here spoken of is our final salvation, the salvation

4o8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 13, v. 12, 13.
which awaits us in the future state, on which we enter at death,
when we pass into the light and rest of the Unseen. This salva
tion is now nearer than when we first began to struggle for it,
nearer than when we first beUeved; and it draws still nearer
every day. At most it is not far off. How profound then the
necessity to be at all seasons ready for it
With the discordant views of commentators on the word sa!
vation, as here used, I think it not necessary to acquaint the
reader. In few of them could he feel any interest; in some, none
at all. The view here adopted is the one sanctioned by the best
authors. 12. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Night
here signifies the period of this Ufe, the dark period in which at
best we see but dimly. It Is far spent, and therefore, as to us. Is
ready to pass away. Let not the children of God mourn ; rather
let them be glad. The day is at hand. The day of translation
into the joys of the righteous dead, and not the day when Christ
shall return to this earth, as some have thought. This day,
though distant to many, more than half a life time, is still at hand.
Hardly can we, by every possible effort, get ready for it soon
enough. So near is it, that even the most active have none too
much time to prepare for it It Is at hand; let all be warned.
Let us then lay off the works of darkness, Lay them
off as we lay off clothes. The night is far spent; let us then
cease from its dark conduct, and prepare for a better season and
for better work. In a word, let us lay aside the deeds of the old
unregenerate life, and enter thoroughly on the duties of the new
life in Christ.
and put on the arms of light. The day is on us In which,
as soldiers of Christ, we must battle for the life to come. This
battle we wage, not in darkness, but in light. Let us then be
appropriately clad for the conflict Let us put on the arms of
light, the arms of those who fight in the Ught, because in thf
right, 13, Let us walk becomingly, as in the day, Let us live
in a decorous or becoming manner, that Is, soberly, chastely, and
circumspectly. Let us, In other v^ords, live as in the broad Ught
of day where every eye is uj^on us, or evince extreme care in our
daily conduct Let not a fault be discoverable In us.
not in revels and strong drink. The komos was a sort of
carousal in which a number of persons participated, and which

Chap, 13, v. 13, 14.] ROMANS 409
commonly ended by the whole party parading the streets with
music, songs, and dancing. It was simply a noisy drunken frolic.
The komoi were very common among the idolatrous Gentiles,
particularly among the devotees of Bacchus. The komos, espe
cially in its grosser forms, was invariably attended with drunk
enness. Accordingly the two are here mentioned together.
Pagans accustomed to these frolics from infancy would hardly,
on becoming christians, abandon them afl at once. By degrees
only would they give them up, and that after much instruction.
Hence the necessity for the Apostle's admonition.
not in beds and lewdness. The beds here alluded to were
those in which impure males and females committed their un
chaste acts, those in which the lewdness named was practiced.
The inveterate evil habits of a former life were not always
wholly laid down on entering the church. Sometimes unhappily
they reappeared in it. On these the Apostle now wishes to im
pose a final check. Therefore his present remark.
not in strife and envy, Eris means strife, contention,
wrangling. Among the chfldren of God nothing can be more
unlovely or profitless. It Is the very opposite of that peace which
is so dear to the truly pious, and shows that the spirit is not yet
subdued. Not a dreg of it should be allowed to remain in the
sanctified heart. Zelos in a bad sense, in which it Is used here,
means secret enmity, jealousy, envy. The last word seems best
to render it here. Certainly nothing can be more unlike Christ
than to be always chafing in spirit and fretting at another's
excellence or good fortune. So contrary is it to that noble mag
nanimity which is ever ready to rejoice with another in his
prosperity, and cordially and brightly to wish him distinction and
success still, that the christian who Is afflicted with It should
mourn, and pray for its exorcism as for that of an unclean de
mon. If. should find no place in the heart that has been purified
by the generous blood of Christ
14. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, Lay off the works
of darkness, and put on Christ In their stead. To put on Christ
is a famiUar metaphor, borrowed from the practice of putting on
clothes. Its meaning is. Let your whole exterior life, as seen by
the world, be but a reproduction of the temper and conduct of
Christ. Be Christ over again, both in the inner man and the
outer life. Plainly and without figure, be all that Christ requires
you to be, and do all that he requires you to do. Beyond this,
you can not go; short of it, you must not stop.

4IO COMMENTARY. [Chap, 13, v. 14.
and make no provision for the desires of the flesh. That
IS, make no provision to gratify them. The desires of the flesh
here meant are clearly those unlawful desires or desires of -un
lawful objects which are everywhere prohibited in the Bible.
They are, in other words, those desires which find their gratifi
cation in revels and drunkenness, in beds and lewdness, in strife
and envy. Such desires we must make no provision to gratify.
On the contrary, we must wholly refuse them indulgence, and so,
day by day, put them to death.
It is impossible not to feel how sublime christian life would be,
were it closely modeled after the precepts herein laid down.
Were such the case, I have a deep belief that the conversion of
the world would not go tardily on as at present, and the millenial
dawn still flit before us In the far off as now. The glorious
future would rush rapidly upon us, and we should soon be re
joicing in the fruition of the end.

Chap. 14,]

ROMANS.

411

CHAPTER XIV.

SECTION I.

tdv ii da-Bevovvra rg nlaret npoa-
XapfidveaBe, p^ els Siaxpiaets SidXoyta-
pSv. ' * Os piv iridTf t!« (jiayeXv ndvra,
6 Se daBevav Xdxava iaBlei. ''O ia-
6iav tAk pfj iaBiovra pfj iiovBeveira- 6
de pfj iaBiav roi' iaBiovra pfj xptvera-
6 Qeds ydp airrov npoaeXdfioro. * Sv
ris et d xpivav diiXdrptov oixerrjv; ra
iSitf Kvpiif arfjxet § nijrrei- araBfjaerat
Se, Svvarei ydp d xijptos ar^aai airrov.
'*0i pev xpivet fjpepav nap' fjpepav, os
Se xpivei ndaav fjpepav exaaros iv ra
ISia vot nXrjpotjiopeiaBa. °'0 ifipovdv
rfjv fjpbipav Kvpia (ftpoveX, xai d iaBiav
Kvpia iaBlet, eixaptareX ydp rd Qea-
xai d pfj iaBiav Kvpia oix iaBiei, xai
eixaptareX ra Qea. ' OiSf ts yap fjpav
iavrd Q, xai oiSeis eavrif dnoBvfjaxet-
' idv re ydp ^u/tcv, rif Kvpicf ^dpev, idv
re dnoBvfjaxapev, ru Kvpia dnoBvfjaxo-
pev. 'Eav re ovv ^pev, idv re dnoBvfja-
xapev, rov Kvpiov iapev. 'Ets rovro
ydp Xpiards dneBave xai e^rjaev, tva Kai
vexpav xai fmiToji' xvpieiSaji. '°2u Se
rt xpivets rov dSeX(\>6v aov; fj xdi av ri
iiovBeveXs rdv dSeX^dv aov; ndvres ydp
napaarrjadpeSa ra pfjpan roO Qeov.
"rrypa;rrai yap, Za iyd, Xryfi Kt^piof,
Sn ipoi xdpijrei n-av ydw xai ndaa yXaa-
aa iiopoXayfiaerai r^ Ocu. "'Apa
oiv exoaros fjpav nepi eavrov Xdyov
Sdaei rm Qed.

And accept him who is weak in
belief, but not to decisions of
thoughts. ^One believes that he
may eat all things ; while he who is
weak eats vegetables. ' Let not him
that eats, despise him that eats not ;
and let not him that eats not, judge
him that eats ; for God has accepted
hira. ""Who are you that judge an
other's servant? To his own master
he stands or falls ; and stand he
shall, for the Lord is able to make
him stand. 'One esteems one day
above another; another esteems all
days alike. Let each be fully satis
fied in his own mind. ^He who
keeps the day, keeps it to the Lord ;
and he who eats, eats to the Lord,
for he gives God thanks; and he
who eats not, to the Lord eats not,
and gives God thanks. ' For no one
of us lives to himself, and no one
dies to himself; 'for whether we
live, we live to the Lord, or die, we
die to the Lord. Whether therefore
we live or die, we are the Lord's.
' Because for this purpose Christ died
and lived, that he might be lord of
both dead and living. '" But why do
you judge your brother? or why de
spise your brother? For we shall
ail stand before the judgment-seat of
God. "For it is written : As I Uve,
says the Lord, every knee shall bend
to me, and every tongue confess to
God. '^So then, each of us shall
give account to God respecting him
self.

SUMMARY.
A brother who is weak in belief, and consequently narrow in his views, we
are nevertheless cordially to accept; but in receiving hira, we must let alone
those thoughts of his which arise out of his weakness. Their correctness or
incorrectness is not a question for our decision. And where one brother re-

412 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. i.
gards certain days as sacred, while another holds all days to be alike, the
rule is to let each be fully satisfied in his own mind, and act accordingly. In
this case, the strong who esteems every day alike, is not to despise the weak;
nor is the weak, who thinks one day better than another, to judge the strong.
The same rule applies also in the case of meats thought to be clean or un
clean. In matters of indifference, each man is a law to himself. According
ly, in such cases we must leave each to act out his own sense of right. And
as to judging one another in such matters, we must wholly abstain from it.
We are accountable to God only, and he will judge us.
The preceding chapter is mostly taken up with our duties to
civil authorities. The present one is devoted almost exclusively
to the reciprocal duties of brethren who happen to be respect
ively strong or weak in belief relative to the use to be made of
certain meats and days. It is pre-eminently the chapter of duties
in regard to things indifferent in themselves; and it is of great
importance because ofthe principles it lays down forthe govern
ment of a large section of christian life. It shows what liberty we
have in the absence of divine command, and yet how, even here,
we may be bound; how free we may be when alone, and how
under law in the presence of a weak brother. In a word, it
shows how the strong must act towards the weak, and the weak,
towards the strong. From the former, it takes away the right of
contempt; from the latter, the right of ignorant crimination.
And accept him -who is weak in belief, Proslambanesihe
means more than simply to receive. It means to receive to one's
self, to receive into close communion, or to accept and hold in
christian fellowship. The disciple who is weak in his belief is
not to be spurned or treated with contempt. On the contrary,
he is to be received into our very bosoms, as it were, and cher
ished in love. Weak in belief: The weakness spoken of does
not belong so much to the man as to his belief. He is weak in
the matter of his belief, or it is his belief itself that is weak. But
this weak belief reacts upon him and renders him weak, so that
both are weak together, both he and it.
But It is not in belief as to Christ that the person alluded to is
weak. As to Christ he must be strong in belief. No half meas
ure will suffice here. But he is weak in regard to other things
besides Christ, such as eating meat and keeping days. It is
touching these only, and others like them, that he is weak. I
need hardly add, that the person alluded to is not some one out of
the kingdom, with weak belief, who is about to be received into
it, but a disciple in It He is the christian with weak belief in
regard to certain days and meats; and he may be either a Jew or

Chap, 14, v. 1, 2.] ROMANS.

413

a Gentile. The question, however, of his nationality Is indeter
minate and immaterial.
but not to decisions of thoughts. Eis diakriseis dialogis-
mon is a clause not easy of a perfectly satisfactory rendering.
Indeed, no two of the critics appear to agree perfectly in regard
to it, although the more reliable of them seem not to differ very
widely. The Vulgate renders It in disceptaiionibus cogiiationum,
in discussions of thoughts, or as to thoughts. Beza gives it, ad
certamtna disceptationum, io contests of discussions. But neither
of these strikes me as bringing out the true sense. Diakrisis
signifies separating, distinguishing, deciding, interpreting. Of
these I take deciding. Eis before this in the plural literally
means into decidings or decisions. Dialogismos means thought,
reasoning, balancing, conversing, discussion. Taking now the
whole phrase together, we get, as its most probable and ap
propriate meaning, inio decisions of thoughts. But what can this
signify? The decisions, be it observed, belong to him who ac
cepts; the thoughts, to him who is accepted; while the decisions
relate to the thoughts. Accordingly, I take the meaning of the
clause to be this: Accept him who is weak in belief, but not io
decide on his thoughts or for that purpose. Eis denotes the end.
Accept him, but not to the end of deciding relative to his thoughts
in regard to certain things. These thoughts are his own private
opinions respecting things about which there is no command.
He, therefore, has the right to hold them without Interference
from others. The things which his thoughts respect are in them
selves indifferent; and therefore the thoughts which relate to
them are indifferent. Consequently, so long as the thoughts do
not lead him who holds them into wrong, he is not to be dis
turbed in them. Upon the whole, I feel ready to accept this
interpretation as the true one. It certainly seems to fit the nature
of the case more closely than any other.
2. One believes that he may eat all things; Literally,
one believes to eat all; that is, so strong is his belief that it ena
bles him to eat every thing set before him. He has no scruples
of conscience about the meat he eats. Of course this is the strong
man, and not the weak. The phrase "aU things" must be re
stricted to meats and vegetables; and meats again, to meats offered
to idols, since there was no controversy about any other. The
christian who was strong in belief knew that the character of
meat is not changed by its being offered to an idol. He could,

414 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. 2, 3.
therefore, eat it without compunction. Whatever the act of eat
ing might be to others, to him it was the mere act of eating meat
with no reference to an idol. For him the meat had no special
character, neither had the eating. Whether offered or not, the
meat was all the same to him. He ate It, thanked God for it, and
had no farther thought about it.
while he who is weak eats vegetables. That is, he eats
vegetables only. He holds it to be wrong to eat meat offered in
sacrifice to an idol, and consequently eats it not With him, such
eating is an act of homage to the idol. It is, therefore, abhorrent
to his conscience. Now, this is the weak brother in belief, whom
the Apostle commands us to accept He is weak in belief, his
¦weakness showing itself in his thoughts on meats offered to idols.
This brother, we are to accept without deciding on his thoughts.
They are no matter of concern to us; and with them, therefore,
we must not meddle. We must accept him, regardless of them.
Here now we have the case of the strong man in belief and of
the weak one fully made out How is each to act towards the
other? This Is the question which the Apostle now proceeds to
answer. 3. Let not him that eats, despise him that eats not;
The strong man in belief, eating his meat with a clear head and
without a qualm of conscience, would be very apt to look down
with something of contempt upon his weak and finikin brother
who should refuse the meat as being sinful, and consequently con
fine himself to vegetables. The weakness the Apostle concedes;
but at the same time he forbids the strong looking with contempt
on the subject of it Thus he protects the weak by restraining
the strong. How lovely is the act!
But the rule of conduct here laid down for the strong is not to
be confined exclusively to the case In hand. In all simflar
instances of life it must prevail. But here caution is necessary.
The case in which the scruple and act of the weak are to be re
garded, must be one of pure indifference. In a necessary case,
the scruple Is to go unheeded. If, for example, the scruples of
the weak led him to refuse obedience to baptism, on the ground
that the baptism of the Holy Spirit supercedes it, then his scruple
must be disregarded, and he himself be rejected. And so in all
similar cases. Where Christ speaks, conscience ceases to be a
criterion of conduct; and although we may not be at liberty to
contemn Its scruples, we are neither to allow them to control our-

Chap, 14, v. 3, 4.] ROMANS. 415
selves nor others. In a case of pure indifference, scruples are to
restrain us; in a necessary case, we are to constrain them,
and let not him that eats not, judge him that eats. On
the other hand, the weak brother who eats vegetables only, and
who looks on eating meat offered to an idol as idolatry, is sure to
adjudge the strong a sinner whom he sees eating it. He will
consequentiy feel deeply hurt with him, and be ready to refuse
him feUowship. For it is a notable fact that the weak are always
more exacting and sensitive than the strong, as well as more
ready than they to press their grievances to extremes. But the
Apostle interferes, and wholly denies to the weak the right to
judge. He is in no sense to pronounce on his strong brother
whom he sees eating. The strong is not doing wrong, and is
therefore entitled to protection against censure, and the Apostle
protects him.
But where the weak sees the strong eating meat, and feels hurt,
has he no remedy? For the present I reply, but not in full, that
he certainly has the right to inquire with what Intent the strong
eats; and if the strong disavows eating In honor of the idol, the
weak must accept the disavowal, and here the matter should end.
But should the weak still feel hurt, especially if he be unable to
feel otherwise, the remedy is for the strong to abstain, as we shall
see hereafter.
for God has accepted him. God has accepted the strong
man who eats. His case then has already been decided. It is
consequently to no purpose for the weak to be judging him.
4. Who are you that judge another's servant? The
strong man in beUef who eats meat Is God's servant How dare
you then think of judging him? He is not amenable to you.
You exhibit only presumption then in assuming to decide on his
case. You have no right to judge the servant of even another
man. How much less then the servant of God!
To his own master he stands or falls; The strong man
is s ccountable to God alone, and not to you. Accordingly, God
will judge him; and by that judgment he wfll stand or fall.
Your judgment, consequently, can not reach him. Be wise then
and repress it
and stand he shall, for the Lord is able to make him
stand. He can fafl by the Lord's judgment only, not by yours.
But the Lord's judgment wifl not be against him, but in his favor.
He will therefore stand. But the Apostle does not mean to say

4x6 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. 5.
that even the strong man shall unconditionally stand. He will
stand without regard to the judgment of the weak, but not other
wise unconditionally. By his own conduct he may fall; and by
it he will fall, unless it be right; but he can fall by nothing else.
When the Apostle says "and stand he shall," I presume he
means he shall stand in the judgment at the last day. He has no
reference to standing in this Ufe; for standing in this life is guar
anteed to no one except on condition of his own determination
not to faU. Whenever the strong decides not to stand, God de
cides to let him fall.
Again, when the Apostle says "for the Lord is able to make
him stand," I apprehend that moral and not physical ability is
referred to. The meaning I take to be this: You, the weak, can
not see how the strong who eats meat can be saved. But God
sees how. He can both acquit him in Christ, and cause him to
stand in the last day. This you may not be able to see; but your
weakness is no measure of divine abiUty.
5. One esteems one day above another, The person
here alluded to has been assumed by many to be the christian
Jew, and the days to be Jewish sabbaths and other sacred days.
The christian Jew is certainly referred to, but it will not do to
say that he exclusively is referred to. Nor will it do to say that
the word "day" includes only Jewish sacred days. Such limita
tions are without warrant either from the nature of the case or
any thing else. The term "one" includes every christian, whether
Jew or Gentfle, who esteemed one day better than another;
while "day" includes every day so esteemed, whether It be a
Jewish or a Gentile day. At the time when Paul wrote, it was
customary for certain christians to esteem one day above another.
This they had, and they still have an absolute right to do,
whether the day were a Jewish sacred day or a Gentile sacred
day, a sabbath or a first day of the week, a Wednesday or a
Thursday; and no one was at Uberty to pronounce them wrong,
or in any way to interfere with them. And what was then the
liberty of christians is their liberty still. Had we Jewish chris
tians among us now, and did they choose to esteem and treat the
ancient sabbath as better than any other day, no one among us
would have the right to move a Up against them. Only in keep
ing their days, they could not be aUowed to do any thing violative
of the law of Christ
another esteems all days alike. The person here aUuded

Chap, 14, v. 5,] ROMANS. 417
to, and placed over against the other, was either a Gentile or a
very enlightened Jew who knew and conceded that the whole
Jewish ritual, worship, and service had been set aside for the
gospel. But no matter who he was or what his nationality, he
esteemed, and with the sanction of both God and Christ all days
alike. With him the Jewish sabbath was no better than the day
before it or the day after it; the first day of the week was no
better than the last day or the second day; and he was just as
certainly right as the person who esteemed one day above
another. Both were right, and neither wrong. And so is it, so
far as the New Testament is concerned, even now. As for
myself, I esteem all days exactly alike, Sunday with me is no
better than Monday; and Monday is no better than Tuesday.
There is not a vestige of sanctity attaching to one day which
does not attach to all. Moreover, in this view and right, I am
as completely protected by divine authority against all criticism
and intermeddling, as is my brother who esteems the first day
of the week better than the last day, I am not the weak man
merely to be tolerated by him; nor is he the weak man merely to
be tolerated by me. As to the character which days have, we
are both alike weak and alike strong; or If not, the contrary can
not be known.
But althjugh all days are in character exactly alike, all days
are not to be indiscriminately used for the same purpose. The
primitive disciples met on the first day of the week to break
bread and for other acts of worship. On this same day then, are
we to meet for the same purposes; for, in the premises, the con
duct of the primitive disciples is precedent to us. If the purposes
and acts for which we meet, consume the whole day, then no
part of ic can be otherwise used.
Besides, the laws of the land make It obligatory upon us to
observe the first day of the week as a rest-day, or day of exemp
tion from ordinary or secular labor. These laws are consistent
with the gospel. In other words, they contravene no law of
Christ They are, then, to be scrupulously obeyed by all chris
tians. Hence, although our reUgious duties may not consume the
whole of the first day of the week, still we are not at liberty, in
virtue of these laws, to devote any part of it to purely secular
work. Consequently, we are to keep the day, not because it is
better than any other day, but in compliance with divine prece
dent, and the laws of the land.
27

4i8 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. 5-7.
Of the prudential or philosophic reasons for setting apart one
clay in every seven as a day of rest from common toil, it is no
part of my present business to speak. These reasons, I may add,
have always seemed to me to be valid and conclusive. Such a
re*st-day, the well-being of both man and brute makes necessary
I here speak only to the position that one day is more sacred
than another. With any other question touching days, I have
nothing to do.
Let each be fully satisfied in his own mind. Let each be
fnlly satisfied in his own mind, and so let him act If one chris
tian esteems one day above another, be it so. He has the right,
and no one can interfere. If another esteems all days alike, be
it so. He is judge for himself, and no one may question him.
Both are right, when both are satisfied,
6. He who keeps the day, keeps it to the Lord; He
who esteems the Lord's day above any other day, and so keeps it
as a holy day, does right. He keeps the day as in obedience to
the Lord, though the Lord has no law on the subject, and so
satisfies his sense of right He is free to do as he pleases in the
case. and he who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God
thanks ; When the christian who is strong In belief eats meat
offered to an idol, he does not eat it in recognition of the idol,
but as in obedience to Christ. He hence gives God thanks, and
not the idol. God accepts his thanks and Christ approves his
act. He is consequently right, and neither to be judged nor
blamed. and he who eats not, to the Lord eats not, and gives
God thanks. In like manner, when the christian, who is weak
in belief, abstains from meat, he does so as in compliance with
the Savior's wish. He too gives God thanks for his vegetables,
satisfies his sense of right, and is happy. God accepts his grati
tude, and suffers not the strong to contemn him. But now, for
a few verses, the question of meats will be dropped out of sight
7. For no one of us lives to himself. To live to one's
self is to live solely to serve self, or to make self the supreme end
of life. It is to live with no reference to any one else, not even
the Lord. But of course no christian lives thus to himself, pro
vided he is Uving right On the contrary, he lives to the Lord,
if not exclusively, in dutiful part, as weU as to self. In an act of
taking food, for example, he eats to himself in so far only as food

v..,HAP. 14, V. 7-9.] ROMANS.

419

is necessary to his weU-being; but as showing his gratitude, and
in recognition of the hand that supplies him, he at the same time
eats also to the Lord. In eating, therefore, he has the Lord in
view as weU as self. And so in aU he does. He hence Uves
not alone to self, but also to the Lord; and therefore in eating he
gives God thanks,
and no one dies to himself; That is, no christian dies to
himself, for the Apostle is not speaking of others. Not in living
only, but also in dying, we are to have the honor and good
pleasure of the Lord in view. Our very death is to be an act
which shaU enhance his glory. This It can not be unless we so
Uve that when we come to die we can die, giving him thanks for
the honor and happiness into which death Is but the sure intro
duction. On this condition, our death no less than our lives
wfll glorify the Lord.
8, for whether we live, we live to the Lord, or die, we
die to the Lord. In the preceding verse, the Apostle declares
that no christian lives to himself or dies to himself; but he leaves
the question unanswered, To whom does he Uve and die? In
the present verse he answers that question. We live and die to
the Lord, that is, to promote his honor.
Whether therefore we live or die, we are the Lord's.
While this, logically, is an inference from the three preceding
clauses, it is nevertheless the ground of them all, or the premise
from which they emerge. We are the Lord's whether living or
dead, no matter for the present how we become so. This is the
fact. If now we are absolutely his, his property, then a fortiori
"whether we Uve or die, we must constantly have his honor and
pleasure in view. Every act of life, and even death must tend
to promote these as an ultimate end. And farther, if while living,
we are to live to the Lord, or dying, we. are to die to him, then a
a fortiori again, whether we eat we are to eat to the Lord, or
abstain, we are to abstain to him. In even an indifferent act, he
is to be kept in view. In both the 7th and Sth vs., the word
Lord denotes Christ This is made evident from what follows in
the 9th.
9. Because for this purpose Christ died and lived, that
he might be lord of both dead and living. This clause
assigns a reason for the preceding one. It Is there said that
whether we live or die we are the Lord's, Here we are told how
we become his. Christ died that he might redeem us with his

420 COMMENTARY [Chap. 14, v. lo, 1 1
blood, and so be lord of us or own us; and he rose from the
dead that he might rule over, and so finaUy save those whom he
thus came to own. To be lord of, here means to own completely,
or to be lord of in the sense of both owning and controlling. The
"living" denotes the whole sum of the disciples living at any one
time since the death of Christ; while the "dead" comprehends
the whole of the dead who have been redeemed by his blood,
and who will consequently be subjects of the resurrection of the
just All these living and these dead Christ is now lord of, or
owns and controls.
In the phrase "died and lived," lived denotes lived again, or
came to life. For this purpose Christ died and came to life, i. e.-,
at his resurrection. Kurieuse, which is Subjunctive, I translate
that he might be lord of; and the word lord, I print with a small
1, to signify, not the person of Christ, but the mere fact of own
ership, 10. But -why do you judge your brother? The person
here judging is he who is "weak in belief;" while the judged is
he who is strong, and "believes that he may eat all things." The
Apostle appears to return to the subject for the purpose of as
signing an additional reason to prevent judging.
or why despise your brother ? The person despising is of
course the strong, whfle the one despised is the weak; and both
questions are put, not with the expectation that an answer wiU
be framed to either, but in order to afford the Apostie the chance
of answering.
For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.
Upon this seat Christ will sit, to whom the Father has committed
all judgment. To him, therefore, are we responsible for our con
duct and thoughts In the premises, and not to one another; and
by him we shall be judged. Let us then refrain from both judg
ing and despising. In assuming to do the former, -we usurp the
prerogative of Christ; and In venturing on the latter, we do what
even he himself does not. Let us then attempt neither,
II, For it is written : As I live, says the Lord, every
knee shall bend to me, and every tongue confess to God.
Adduced to confirm the foregoing clause, and cited ad sensutn
from Isa, xiv: 23. By bending the knee to the Lord, we shall
recognize his authority over us as supreme judge; and in confess
ing to God, we shall acknowledge that all his dealings with us
have been just And although the passage is cited to prove only

'JyiJ.i 1, V. IJ.] ROMANS. 421

that ah christians, whether strong or weak, wfll stand before the
judgm .'iit-Eoat of God, it proves as wefl that all the wicked wifl
likewise st'tnd there. The former, however, wfll stand there to
be crowned with etemal honor, the latter to be condemned.
Instead of "to confess to God," it has been suggested that we
should render, give praise to God, on the ground of an intended
conformity of the Greek to the Hebrew. But I do not believe
that the Greek word ever means to give praise, and, therefore,
can not accept the suggestion.
12. So then each of us shall give account to God res
pecting himself. A general conclusion from what has just
been said about appearing at the judgment-seat of God. As each
of us will have to account to God for his conduct, and be judged
accordingly, it is idle to be judging and despising one another
here. Our judgments are not final, nor wfll any one either stand
or fall by them. As they can affect no one but ourselves, we had
better repress them.

422

COMMENTARY,

[Chap. 14.

CHAPTER XIV. SECTION 2.

" Therefore, let us no longer judge
one another. But rather do you de
cide on this, not to place a stum
bling-block or means of faUing before
a brother. '¦'I know and am per
suaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing
is unclean in itself; but to him who
thinks a thing unclean, it is unclean.
'If now your brother is grieved by
food, you no longer walk according
to love. Destroy not him with your
food for whora Chist died. '"Let
not your good then be evil spoken
of. "For the kingdom of God is
not food and drink, but righteous
ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy
Spirit. '"For he who in this [way]
serves Christ, is acceptable to God
and approved by men. " JMow there
fore let us follow the ways of peace,
even the ways that build up one an
other. '" For the sake of food, pull
not down the work of God. AU
[food] is clean, but [food] is an evil
to the man who, in eating it, occa
sions stumbling. ^' It is good not to
eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor [eat or
drink] any thing by which your
brother stumbles, or falls, or is made
weak. 2^ You have belief: keep it to
yourself before God. Happy is he
who condemns not himself in that
which he judges proper. ^'But if
one eats while doubting, he is con
demned, because [his act is] not
from belief; and every act which is
not from belief, is a sin.

'' MijKcrt oiv dXXqXovf xpivapev, dXXii
rovro xpivare patXov, to pfj riBevai
npdaxoppa ra aSeXif)^ fj axdvSdXov.
" OiSa Kai nenetapat iv Kvpia 'irjaov
Sn oiSev xoivdv fit' aurov, el pfj t»
Xoyi^opevcf rt Kotfov elvai, ixeiva xoivdv.
*^ Et yap dt^ ^pdfia d dSeXijids aov
XvneXrai, oixen xard dyaTrrjV neptnareXs.
Mfj rif ^pdpari aau ixeXvov dndXXve
inep ov Xpiards dneBave. "M^ ^Xaa-
(jirjjie'laBa oiv ipav rd dyaBov. Oi ydp
iariv ^ ^aaiXeta rov Oeov ^pdais xai
ndats, dXXd Stxatooi^i^ xai elpfjvrj xdi
Xitpd iv nvevpan dyia. *0 yap iv roiJ-
To) SovXevav r^ Xpiara evdpearos ra
Gem Kai Sdxtpos rots dvBpdnois. "*Apa
ouj" TO T^s elpfjvrjs 8i(»K(»/X€i/ xai ra r^I
oiKodo^^r T^j els oXXijXotir. '" M^ eve-
xev ^pdparos xardXve ro epyov rod
Qeov. ndvra pev xaBapd, diXXd xaxdv
rm dvBpdnif rd dta npoaxdpparos iaBi-
ovri. " KaX6» ro pfj cfiayeXv xpea, prjSi
irteiv oivov, prjSe iv a d dSeXcjids aov
npoaxotrrei rj axavSdXi^erai § daBeveX.
2u niartv e;^etff* xard aea-vrdv exe
ivdntov rov Qeov. Maxdpios d p^ xpivav
eavrdv iv a Soxtfid^ei- ^d Se SiaKptvd-
pevos, idv ^d-yrj, xaTaxexpirai, on oix
ix niareas- nav Si o ouk ix niareas,
dpapria iariv.

SUMMARY.
Instead of judging one another in questions respecting days and meats, let
each decide, rather that he will be very careful not to place a stumbling-block
or occasion of falling, in the way of his brother. This is the proper kind of
judging for christians. But in the matter of meats, and in all similar cases,
if eating it grieves a brother, an effect which he may be unable to prevent
we are to abstain from it in deference to his feelings. Should we not do so,
we may either drive him from the church, or induce him to follow an exam
ple which he is in danger of following too far, and so ruin him. In order to
avoid these results, we must abstain from eating meat, where any one is hurt
by it. 'We must not do any thing that will imperil the salvation of a brother.

Chap, 14, v. 13, 14.] ROMANS. 423
The strong belief which enables us to do many things that the weak can not
do, we must keep to ourselves. We are not at liberty to use it, when by so
doing we injure others.
In the present section, the Apostle points out the limit beyond
which we are not to push our Uberty in Christ. The strong man
may eat his meat, and his weak brother is not permitted to judge
him; but in one event, even the strong must not eat That event
is herein named.
13. Therefore, let us no longer judge one another. The
reference here is to the weak in belief. We shall afl have to ap
pear before the judgment-seat of God, and there render our
account and be judged. Judging one another here, then, is of
no avail. It is not aflowed to us, and, therefore, should not be
attempted by us.
But rather do you decide on this, not to place a stum
bling block or means of falling, before a brother. Here the
reference is to the strong; and although the transition from the
weak to the strong is abrupt, it nevertheless is made. Do you,
the strong, instead of despising your weak brother, rather decide
on this, not to place a stumbling-block in his way.- The stum
bling-block consisted in eating meat But how could eating meat
become a stumbling-block in the way of the weak, or how was
the weak in danger of falling over it? There are but two ways
conceivable by me: i. He might either be driven off from the
church, and so become an apostate; or, 2, be emboldened to eat
meat himself, and so become an idolater. Either way would
prove his ruin; and that he was In danger of one or the other is
evident from the Apostle's admonition. I render proskomma a
stumbling-block, and skandalon a means of falling, merely for
the sake of variation. The two words have nearly the same
meaning, though possibly the latter was meant to be rather exe-
getic of the former.
14. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that
nothing is unclean in itself; From being in Christ and the
general knowledge I have of his mind, I know that no food is
unclean dV autou, by itself , or within itself The old Mosaic
distinctions, then, are abolished under Christ Consequently,
christians are at liberty to eat whatever they please. They should
deem nothing unclean, and so abstain from nothing. "Unclean"
here signifies unclean in the old legal or ceremonial sense. It
denotes a distinction created by law, and not existing in nature.

424 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. 14, 15.
but to him who thinks a thing unclean, it is unclean.
If a christian regards meat as unclean, and yet eats it, the eating
has the same effect on him as though the meat were really unclean.
By the act he violates his conscience and wounds his feelings,
and so weakens those restraints that are essential to his safety.
The effect on him of the eating, is the same as though it were an
actual sin.
But what of the eating upon its merits? Is It a sin before God?
Clearly not; for that which is not wrong In itself can never be
made so by a merely human view of it Our conceptions no
more convert right into wrong than wrong into right. The
Apostle does not decide what the eating is in itself, but simply
says what it is to the eater. If the eater deems the eating wrong,
he should abstain from it; for we are not af liberty to violate con
science even In a right act in itself. How much less then in one
wrong in itself.
15. If now your brother is grieved by food, you no
longer walk according to love. That is, if your brother is
grieved by your eating certain food, you no longer walk accord
ing to love if you persist in eating it. But you are bound to walk
always according to love. The conclusion is inevitable. You
must refrain from eating, at least when your brother can be cog
nizant of the act. Your brother is not to judge you for eating;
nor are you to despise him for not eating; but if through weak
ness, he Is unable to keep from feeling hurt when you eat You
must, then, in deference to his feelings, refrain.
A church, suppose, is composed of one hundred members, and
I among them. Ninety-nine of these members decide to put an
organ into our house of worship. The use of an organ in wor
ship grieves my conscience, and is offensive to my feelings.
Do the ninety-nine walk according to love when they put the
organ in?
Fifty members of the same church frequent theatres. Five
members, good and pious, but weak, are grieved by the practice.
Do the fifty walk according to love when they walk into the the
atre? Five members of the same church traffic in whisky. Twenty
members, and they among the best, but weak, are grieved by the
trafficking. Do the five walk according to lOve when they per
sist in their trade ? These are practical questions of some sig
nificance.

Chap. 14, v. 15-17.] ROMANS. 425
But in reply to this, it may be said: Suppose the weak should
continue, and still continue, to be grieved with our conduct, item
by item? Where would the matter end? Would not aU our
liberties in Christ at last be taken from us? Have the weak eve"-
heretofore been thus unreasonable? Never. And what they
have not heretofore done, they are not likely hereafter to do. An
imaginary case is no basis for argument.
Destroy not him with your food for whom Christ died.
How can the strong by eating meat destroy the weak? Already
in this section the question has been answered. It is only then
necessary to epitomize here that answer. Should the weak be
come so grieved with the strong as to feel unable to Uve in
the church with him, and so abandon it; or should he himself
become emboldened by example to eat, which with him would
be an act of idolatry, in either case the result would be fatal to
him. But unless the act of the strong should lead to one ov other
of these results, it would evidently be harmless.
16, Let not your good, then, be evil spoken of. To
agathon here, is held to signify one of two things: Either out
Christianity, which Is our highest general good, or the liberty we
have in Christ to eat meat, and do other similar things, which is
a special good. Some commentators have held the former view,
others, the latter. The context clearly. It seems to me, points to
the latter as the true view. The connection is this: You have
the liberty, to agathon, to eat meat or not,^ as you see fit; but you
must not so use this liberty as to destroy your brother; for In that
event, your agathon becomes an evfl. So use your liberty, then,
that it shaU prove to all a good, and to jione an evil. It will then
be well, and not evil spoken of.
The principle of conduct here brought out is of so much im
portance as to justify an additional remark. As strong christians
in beUef, we may have the Uberty to do many things which the
weak may think wrong. But If by doing those things, we sub
ject our liberty to unfriendly criticism, we must refrain. It is
better to seem not free than that our freedom should lead to mis
chief. 17, For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. The
kingdom of God here spoken of is the present kingdom or
church. Food and drink, as such, do not belong to this kingdom,
or they are not a characteristic of it They are mere accidents,

426 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. 18, 19.
and hence our rights in regard to them, as well as our prejudices
against them, must not be pressed too far. On the contrary, the
kingdom of God consists, i, in righteousness, or the general
righteous conduct of those who are in it; 2, in peace, or such a
considerate course of action on the part of all as shall insure
peace; and, 3, in joy, or that delicate regard for the feelings of
one another which, under the strengthening presence in aU of the
Holy Spirit, shall give joy and not grief. These are the weighty
matters of the kingdom, and, therefore, the matters of chief con
cern to us, and not the indifferent and trivial questions of eating
or not eating meat. But as it was in the kingdom in those days,
so is It still. There is a large class of professors who are never
through with homilies and scruples of conscience on meat and
drink, but who either never can know any thing, or never will
care any thing about righteousness, peace, and joy. They, of
course, are always righteous themselves, and their peace and joy
must ever be consulted, but as for others, nil.
18, For he who in this [way] serves Christ, is accepta
ble to God and approved by men. He who serves Christ by
being righteous and by doing those things which induce peace
and joy, is acceptable to God and approved by men. En touto
means in this matter or way, that is, in the way of righteousness,
peace, and joy.
The connection between vs. 18, 19, Indicated by gar, is not
very obvious. I make It out by assuming a suppressed sentence,
thus: The kingdom of God consists in righteousness, peace, and
joy. For, (i. e. in confirmation ofthe assertion) he who in these
three things serves Christ, Is accepted and approved as said. But
no one can be thus accepted and approved unless he does the things
in which the kingdom consists. Therefore, it consists in these
three things.
In the expression "approved by men," it is not necessary to
restrict the word "men" to christians. The meaning appears to be
this: It Is the general sentiment of mankind that he is worthy of
approval who is righteous In conduct and who at the same time
so acts as to occasion others peace and joy, and not grief. Such
a man Is approved by the ¦world.
ig. Now therefore let us follow the ways of peace, even
the ways that build up one another. Since the kingdom
of God consists in righteousness, peace, and joy, let us follow the
ways of peace. Such is the connection, Ta tes eirenes literally

Chap. 14, v. 20,3i.J ROMANS. 427

signifies the things of peace; that is, those things which produce
it The phrase however is closely rendered by ways of peace. That
the ways of peace are those ways that build up, I assume as cer
tain. It is therefore better to render the Intervening kai, even,
noting sameness. The meaning is: If eating meat, or doing any
other similar thing, grieves a brother, and thereby causes trouble,
it is better not to eat Rather let us do what will lead to peace;
for peace secured in this delicate way is of far higher importance
than the mere circumstance of eating meat In the phrase "bufld
up one another," the Apostle evidently has before his mind the
church under the conception of a house. Accordingly, the
phrase to bufld up "one another" is the same as to build up the
church. 20. For the sake of food pull not down the work of
God. That is, for the sake of eating food. The "work of God"
is clearly the church viewed as a building or house. "You are
God's building." i Cor. ill: 9. Now merely for the sake of eat
ing meat, and by Implication doing other things like it, pull not
down this house, which you do whenever, by eating, you grieve
your weak brother, and so drive him from the church. Where
eating meat produces this result, it must not be eaten.
All [food] is clean ; but [food] is an evil to the man who,
in eating it, occasions stumbling. This clause Is so constructed
as to render a little freedom unavoidable in translating it The
following is as literal as a rendering, to be intelligible, can be
made: All [food] is clean, but it Is evil to the man who eats
through occasioning offence; and even here, the last two words are
quite free. But although a very close translation seems not easy,
the sentiment Is clear. It is this: All food within itself is clean;
but even clean food becomes an evfl to the man who, by eating it,
causes his weak brother to stumble or fall. In other words, we do
wrong whenever we use our liberty at the expense of another's
injury. We may eat meat or not, just as we please, provided no
one is hurt by it; but whenever eating harms an other, we must
abstain. That which is right in itself injures us when we so use
it as to injure others.
21. It is good not to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor [eat
or drink] any thing by which your brother stumbles, or
falls, or is made weak. The whole subject summed up in one
sentence. We are to do nothing in the way of eating and drink
ing, in other words, nothing In things strictly indifferent, where

428 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14, v. 22, 23.
the act injures another. The question is not. What is the nature
of the act in itself, but does it injure another. If so, we must ab
stain from it.
22. You have belief: keep it to yourself before God.
You have belief, or you are rendered strong by it in regard to
meats, so that you can eat them or not, as you please. This is aU
well. But it is better to keep your belief, or the knowledge and
freedom it gives you, to yourself, as something known only to you
and to God. Say nothing about your liberty, or what you can
eat; especially be careful not to eat any thing when the eating
causes grief. You can eat when alone; but be silent in regard to
your superior privileges, lest by speaking of them or using them,
you wound the weak, and so drive them off. He is a good man
who, though free, can seem to be otherwise rather than give
pain. Happy is he who condemns not himself in that which
he judges proper. The aflusion is clearly to the strong. You
judge all meat to be clean, and judge correctly. Accordingly,
you can eat it or not as you see fit. Be careful now, not so to use
your liberty as to bring condemnation on yourself, which you
will do in case you eat, and thereby injure the weak. To con
demn one's self, here means so to act as to provoke condemnation
or bring it upon one's self.
23. But if one eats while doubting, he is condemned.
The Apostle now changes to the weak. Should the weak be
induced to follow the example of the strong, and so eat while
doubting the propriety of his act, he is condemned, not so much
for his act, as for eating before feeling sure that he is right. We
must not do a thing till we know it is right In this case, it is
the doer that is condemned, not the deed.
because [his act] is not from belief, It does not spring
out of belief as moving it, but is a weak foUowing of anothei
in a case, the rightness of which we question. The danger of
such a principle of action lies here, that if we allow ourselves to
act till convinced that we are right, we shall be found wrong
about as often as right No such precarious principle of conduct
is admissible.
and every act which is not from belief is a sin,, That is,
every act of eating, or act In a case similar to that of eating (for
I presume we must limit to the subject-matter in hand), which is
unaccompanied by belief that it is right, is a sin. But how is it

Chap. 14, v. 23.J ROMANS. 429
that such an act can be a sin? It is a sin because it is reckless
and presumptuous — reckless, in being rash and careless — pre
sumptuous, in being performed as to God without conviction that
it is right Admit that we may do things as to God in this man
ner, £nd what may we not do? The principle is clearly vicious.

430

COMMENTARY.

[Chap, 15.

CHAPTER XV

SECTION I,

Now we, the strong, ought to bear
with the weaknesses of the weak, and
not to please ourselves, ^Let each
of us please his neighbor in what is
good, for the purpose of building up.
' For even Christ pleased not himself,
but as it is written : The reproaches
of those reproaching you, fell on me.
" For whatever was formerly written,
was written for our instruction, that
through patience and through com
fort from the scriptures, we might
retain hope, 'Now may the Godiof
patience and comfort grant to you to
be of this same mind in regard to one
another, according to Christ Jesus,
'that with one soul, you may, with
one mouth, glorify God, even the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
'Therefore accept one another, even
ai Christ accepted you to the glory
of God. 'For I say that Christ be
came a minister of the circumcision,
for the sake of God's truthfulness, in
order to make good the promises to
the fathers, "and that the Gentiles
might glorify God for his mercy.
As it is written: for this reason I
will confess to you among the Gen
tiles, and will sing to your name.
'"And again he says. Be glad you
Gentiles with his people. "And
once more, All you Gentiles praise
the Lord, yes, all you peoples praise
him. '^And farther, Isaiah says.
There shall be a root of Jesse ; and
he shall rise up to rule the Gentiles,
yes, in him the Gentiles shall trust.

'OifietXopev Si fjpeis ol Swarol rd da-
Bevfjpdra rdv dSvvdrav /Sacrra^eu', ml
pfj eauToij dpeaxeiv. ^'Exaaros ^pS>v
rd nXrjaiov dpeaxera els ro dyaBov npds
olxoSopfjv. 'Kai ydp d Xpiards oix
iavrd fjpeaev, aXXd, xaBas yeypanrai,
Oi dvetSiaiuii tSi' dvetSi^dvrav ae ineir-
eaav in ipe. *'Oaa ydp npoeypd^rj,
els rfjV fjperepav SiSaaxaXiav iypd^rj,
lva Std -TTjS inopovfjs xai dta rfjs napa-
xXfjaeas roii' ypa(j>dv rfjV iXniSa e^oi/in
''O Se Stir rfjs uTro/tov^r Kat rfjs napa-
xXfjaeas Sifrj ipXv ro auro (ppoveXv iv
dXXfjXois xard, Xpiardv 'irjaovv, ^Iva
dpoBvpaSdv iv evi ardpari Soid^rjre rof
Qeov xai narepa rov Kvpiov fjpdv 'irjaoS
Xpiarov. ' Ati npoaXap^dveaBe dXX-q-
Xovs, xaBas xai d Xpiards npoaeXd^ero
ipds els Sdiav rod Qeov. 'Acym ydp
Xpiardv Sidvovov yeveaBai nepiroprjs
inep akrjBeios Ofou, els rd ^e^atdaai
ray inayyeX'.as tmv narepav, 'rd Se
eBvrj inep eXfovs Soidaat rov Sfov. Ka
Bas yeypaTrrai- Std rovro iiopoXoyfjao-
pai aot iv fBveai Kat rd dvopari aov
^dXd- '" Ka\ TroXii' Xeyei, EifjipdvBrjret
eBvrj, perd tou Xaxiv airrov. ' ' Kat TroXtv,
Aimrc navra ^a eBvrj rov Kvpiov, xai
inaiveadraaa> airrov, ndvres ot Xtzot.
"Kat ndXiv 'Vaatas Xeytt, 'Ecrrat fj
pi^a rov leaai * Kat 6 dviardpevos dp-
Xetv iBvav, in airra eBvrj iXntovaiv,

SUMMARY.
The strong are under obligation to bear with the we«k. sven although it
subjects them to inconvenience. This was the course pursue** by Christ
and he is our example. As the Savior has accepted us, notwithstanding our
imperfections, so must we accept one another regardless of diflcreuccs on im-

Chap. 15, v. i.J ROMANS. 431
material questions, such as eating meat and the like. The whole section ie
devoted to unity of feeling, forbearance, and harmony in action. Every
form of alienation among the children of God is wrong, and therefore to be
studiously guarded against.
The subject of the preceding chapter is still continued in this.
Accordingly, we are farther told how the strong are to conduct
themselves towards the weak. This being done, the example of
Christ is adduced as showing the conduct to be right How we
are to receive one another, whether Jews or Gentiles, strong or
weak, IS reiterated, and the reason for It assigned. Without re
gard to national distinctions or educational weaknesses, Christ has
received all who have obeyed him; and as he has done, so must
we. The chapter indicates still farther the deep interest the
Apostle felt in the welfare of the Roman disciples, and closes
with some intimations of his future purposes. Upon the whole,
the chapter, as compared with some others, Is a light one, having
much more of the easy air of a friendly letter than any thing we
have yet met with.
Now we, the strong, ought to bear with the weaknesses
of the weak. The connection between this verse and the con
clusion of the last chapter is so close as to render their separation
violent and improper. They should clearly stand together in the
same section. "We, the strong," are we who are strong in belief,
and who consequently recognize no distinctions of clean and
unclean in meats. We are therefore hampered by no scruples in
indifferent matters. "Ought to bear with the weaknesses of those
not strong." This is simply asserted, no reason for it being as
signed. But is there really no reason, or must we bear without
one? I presume the reason to be this: One or other of the parties
must yield, the strong to the weak or the weak to the strong.
The weak can not yield without a violation of conscience;" the
strong can; and God has ordained that in an indifferent case, con
scientious scruples shall prevafl over the want of them. If a
reason be sought stifl back of this, none can be given; for the
wifl of God is ultimate. The "weak" are those who esteem one
day above another, and regard some meats as clean, others as not
They are the immature or unschooled of the church.
and not to please ourselves. The christian man Uves not
for himself alone, but also for others. His brother's good therefore
should Ue near his heart as well as his own. Accordingly he is
not at liberty to wound his brother's feeUngs In a case where

432 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 15, v. 2, 3.
nothing is at stake but mere self-indulgence. As God is tenderly
considerate of his infirmities, so must he be of those of others.
Besides, the pleasure which comes from pleasing others is often
greater than that which comes from pleasing self. Magnanimity
marks the one, often only a questionable selfishness the other.
2. Let each of us please his neighbor in what is good,
Eis here signifies in regard io, respecting, but it is curtly and
neatly rendered simply by in. Each of us Is to seek to please his
neighbor in that only which is right. In what is w^rong we have
no discretion. Here we must stand against him, and even wound
him rather than yield. I am to be without countenance for the
weakness that demands of me to do wrong.
for the purpose of building up. Pros here means with a
view to, for ihe purpose of. That is, it denotes the end for which
we are to please our neighbor. We are to please him with a
view to building up. But buUding up what — our neighbor, or
the church considered as a house? In v. 20, last ch,, the Apostle
says, "For the sake of food pull not down the work of God;" and
by the work of God, I understand the church. Now I think it
most likely that "building up" here has reference to the same
subject Let each of us please his neighbor in what is good, for
the purpose of building up, not pulling down, the work of God.
If we wound or displease our neighbor, we drive him off, and so
pull down the work of God, But if, on the other hand, we please
him by showing proper respect for his feelings, he remains in the
church. Ultimately he grows strong, and so the work of God is
built up. This view I regard as the more probable one; although
to make "build up" refer to "neighbor" gives a good and strictly
appropriate sense. Indeed, the difference between the two views
is not wide, since to build up our christian neighbor is clearly
muph the same as to build up the church,
3. For even Christ pleased not himself. Gar here intro
duces a reason for pleasing our neighbor. Even Christ, whfle in
the flesh, pleased not himself alone. The good of others was the
great characteristic of his life. It should, whenever necessary,
be so with us. What Christ did is our law,
but as it is written : Alia here, as often, implies an omitted
clause. The following is the course of thought fully expressed:
For even Christ pleased not himself, but he pleased others, as it
is written.
the reproaches of those reproaching you, fell on me.

Chap, 15, v, 4, 5.] ROMANS, 433,
The word "you" refers to God, The proof that Christ did not
always please himself is found in the fact of his receiving and
enduring the reproaches aimed at his Father. The citation is
from the 69th Ps.; and it strikingly illustrates that constantly re
curring peculiarity of prophecy, which renders Its interpretation
so difficult — a double or even a three-fold meaning. In the ex
pression "fell on me," "me" primarily denoted David; here It
denotes Christ.
4, For whatever was formerly written, was written for
our instruction. The connection between this verse and the
pieceding one Is obscure. I can make it out only by conceding
an elUpsis, thus: The reproaches of those reproaching you, fell
on me;" and this scripture is applicable also io us, in our rela
tions to the weak; "For whatever was formerly written," &c.
This is also Stuart's view, who is ordinarily accurate in the mat
ter of connections.
that through patience and through comfort from the
scriptures, we might retain hope. The word "scriptures" in
the original is Genitive of source. Hence the patience and com
fort are produced by the scriptures, or they result from reading
and studying them. This I indicate by the use oi frotn, instead
of of. The patience consists in bearing kindly the "weak
nesses ofthe weak;" the comfort, in the consolation arising from
a sense of doing right. Thai we might retain hope — not merely
have It, that Is, possess it, but having it already, retain it, or hold
it fast.5, Now may the God of patience and comfort grant to
you to be of this same mind in regard to one another, De
hers- is not adversative, but simply continuative. It is weU ren
dered by now. To be of this same mind— to be of the mind of
Christ just spoken of, or the mind which is ready to please
> others for their good,
according to Christ Jesus, Kata Christon lesoun may
mean either after ihe example of Christ, or according to Ms will;
or it may include both meanings, as it most likely does. The ex-
ample of Christ has just been adduced; and it is certainly his wiU
that we should be "of this same mind." It would, therefore
seem safer to include both meanings than to reject either, espe
cially since no satisfactory reason could be given for the rejection.
Hodge explains the clause to mean "agreeably to the example and
command of Christ." This I regard as the import of the clause,
and therefore accept it 28

434 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 15, v. 6-S.
6. that with one soul you may, with one mouth, glori
fy God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
phrase "one soul" signifies unanimity of sentiment and feeling;
that of "one mouth," unanimity in praise or public worship.
The two together, therefore, denote perfect union; and this was
the union which Paul prayed might characterize the disciples in
Rome. How profound the regret that such union is purely ideal
with us, having no counterpart in the present day! Instead of
God and Father, I prefer to think kai epexegetic, and, therefore,
to render God even the Father. The difference is not material;
but in regard to the latter rendering. Riddle in Lange says:
"Those exegetes who are most delicate in their perceptions of
grammatical questions adopt it"
7. Therefore accept one another, even as Christ ac
cepted you to the glory of God. "You" comprehends both
Jews and Gentiles. "Therefore," or in consideration of the fact
that the glory of God will be promoted thereby, accept one an
other. As much as to say, Be not divided among yourselves in
sentiment and feeling, but be one. Your union augments the
glory of God; your alienations can only detract from It The fufl
import of the clause, I doubt not, is this: Therefore accept one
another to the glory of God, even as Christ accepted you to that
glory. In both Instances the glory of God is the end looked to
in the acceptance.
8. For I say that Christ became a minister of the cir
cumcision. Gar here introduces the explanation of how Christ
came to accept both Jews and Gentiles. "Circumcision" stands
for the Jews. Christ became a minister of the Jews or belonged
to them, in order to save them.
for the sake of God's truthfulness, Or that his truthful
ness might be absolutely maintained. The truthfulness referred
to is that of the promises mentioned in the next clause. Two con
siderations demanded its maintenance: i. The character of God;
2. The salvation of the human family. These were the high ends
that induced Christ to become a minister under circumcision.
in order to make good the promises to the fathers. This
clause depends on both the preceding ones, and on neither exclu
sively. Christ became a minister of the circumcision for the sake
of God's truthfulness — all this he did In order to make good the
promises, not merely to confirm them, but to place their realiza
tion beyond even a contingency. Now these promises to the

Chap. 15, V. 9-II.] ROMANS. 435
fathers being thus made good, secured salvation to so many of
the Jews as obeyed Christ Thus Christ accepted them; and he
did it from the heart, or without reservation. So must we Gen
tiles accept the Jews.
g. and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mer
cy : That Is, Christ became a minister of the circumcision for
the sake of God's truthfulness, not that the Jews alone might be
saved, but also that the Gentiles might; for the promises respect
both; in other words, that the Gentiles, being saved, might have
reason to glorify God for his mercy. Thus Christ accepted the
Gentiles also; and he did it as cordially as he accepted the Jews.
In like manner, consequentiy, must the Jews accept the Gentiles;
for the injunction is, "accept one another, even as Christ accepted
you." The expression "his mercy," denotes the mercy of God,
not of Christ; and "minister" comprehends Christ in the fulness
of his official character.
as it is written: for this reason For what reason? Be
cause both Jews and Gentiles were to be accepted by Christ, and
to compose one united and happy people. David looks forward
to that time, and represents himself as among the Gentiles and
rejoicing with them.
I will confess to you among the Gentiles, and will sing
to your name. Ps, xvUI: 49, When David represents himself
as among the Gentiles, as confessing to God, and singing with
them, he foreshows that the time was coming when Jews and
Gentiles would mutually accept each other; nay more, that they
would be so completely one as to recognize the same God and
sing the same songs; and mutual cordial acceptance is the point
before the Apostle's mind. His admonition is, "accept one an
other, even as Christ accepted you."
10. And again he says. Be glad you Gentiles with his
people. The words of Moses taken from his great song, Deut
xxxii: 43. In the former citation, David represents himself as
singing tp God among the Gentfles; here the Gentiles are repre
sented as being glad among the Jews. The design of both
passages Is the same, to establish mutual acceptance.
II. And once more: All you Gentiles praise the Lord,
yes, all you peoples praise him. Ps. cxvil: i. The inter
vening kai here Is better rendered yes, as I have done, making it
simply intensive. All you Gentiles praise the Lord because he
nas accepted you, and fifled you with the spirit of joy. The

436 COMMENTARY [Chap, 15, v. 12,
passage is conclusive proof that not the Jews alone, but also aU
nations were to share in the redemption of the Messiah. The
application is obvious: Christ has accepted all; do you then ac
cept one another.
12. And farther, Isaiah says : There shall be a root of
Jesse ; and he shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, yes, in
him the Gentiles shall trust. Proof still to the same effect,
but this time from Isaiah. "There shall be a root of Jesse" —
of course this is Christ. This root was to rise up, or be exalted
to the throne of God, and invested with dominion over all nations,
Gentiles as well as Jews. "In him the Gentiles shall trusf —
trust for salvation equally with the Jews, and as successfully.
Christ was to be Lord over and Savior to the one people as fully
as to the other. The passage is from Is, xi: 10, and corresponds
verbatim with the Septuagint, except that it omits the clause "in
that day," because not material to Paul's purpose.
Thus, five verses have now been devoted to the confirmation
of V. 7. Here however the Apostie drops the subject, and returns
to his supplications in behalf of the disciples in Rome. From
his amplification of proof we must conclude that he regards the
point before him as of great importance. That point is, that we
must accept one another. Judging and despising on account of
meats are to be at an end. The more lovely course of accepting
and holding one another in fraternal affection must take theii
place.

Chap. 15.]

ROMANS.

437

CHAPTER XV. SECTION 2.

"'O Si Beds rfjs e'Xirrtor nXrjpdaai
ip£s trdmjs x°P"r koi elpfjvrjs iv ra
irt<7T€iJ«w, els TO nepiaaeveiv ipas ev rrj
eXTTi'St iv Sitvdpei nveriparos dyiov.
'* nineiapai Se, dSeX<j>oi pov, xai airrds
iyd nepi ipav, ort Kat auroi pearoi
iare dyaBaavvrjs, jreTrXijpttt/ici'ot ndarjs
-yvaaeas, Svvdpevoi Kat dXXijXous vou-
6ereXv. ^^TdXpripdrepov Se eypaijra vpXv
and pepovs, is inavapipvfjaKav ipds,
Std rfjV x^P"* '^^ SoBeXadv pot ind rov
Qeov, ''els tA etvai pe Xetroupyoi'
Xpiarov 'irjaofj els rd eBvrj, iepovpyovin-a
ri cuayycXtov rou Qeov, lva yevrjrai fj
npoa^opd rav iBvav eimpdaSexros, rjyt-
aapevrj iv TTVevpan dyii^. ^"Exa ovv
rfjv KarixV"''-'' ''" Xpiard 'irjaov rd npds
TOI' Qeov- '* Ou yap roXpfjaa n XaXcif
S>v OU Karetpydaaro Xpiards Si ipov els
vnaxofjv iBvav, Xdya xai epya, " iv
Svvdpei arj/jteiav Kat repdrav, iv Svvdpei
nvevparos. "Qare pe dnd 'lepovadXfjp
xai KvxXa pexpi rov 'tXXvpiKov nenXrj-
paxevai ro tuayyeXtov rou Xptorou,
^ ovra Se IjyiXortpovpevov evaryyeXi^ea-
Bai, oix onav dvopdaBrj Xpiards, tva
pfj in aXXorptov BepeXiov olxoSopa.
" 'AXXa, xaBas yeyparrrat, Ois ovx dvrjy-
yeXrj nepi airov, S-^ovrat, xai ot oiK
dxrjxdaai, avvfjaovai.

"Now may, the God of hope fill
you with aU joy and peace in believ
ing, that you may abound in hope
by power of the Holy Spirit. '" But I
am persuaded, my brethren, even I
myself, respecting you, that you also
yourselves are full of goodness, being
filled with all knowledge, able even
to admonish one another. "Yet I
have written to you the more boldly
in places, as one recalling things to
your memory, because of the favor
bestowed upon me by God, "in or
der to my being a minister of Christ
Jesus for the Gentiles, administering
the gospel of God, that the offering
up of the Gentiles might be accepta
ble, being purified by the Holy
Spirit. "I am therefore enabled to
boast in Christ in matters relating to
God. "Yet I shall not venture to
speak of any thing which Christ has
not effected through me, by power of
the Spirit, '' by word and deed, by
the power of signs and wonders, in
order to the obedience of the Gen
tiles. So that from Jerusalem, and
around, as far as Illyricum, I have
fully preached the gospel of Christ ;
^° thus being moved by love of honor
to preach the gospel where Christ
had not been named, that I might
not build upon another's foundation.
" But as it is written : They to whom
nothing was told respecting me,
shall see ; and they who have not
heard, shall understand.

SUMMARY.
The Apostle prays that the God of hope may fill the disciples in Rome
with all peace and joy in believing what he has written; and although he has
spoken plainly to them, and signified his disapprobation of certain things
among them, still he is far from.thinking meanly of them. On the contrary,
he is persuaded that they are full of knowledge, and altogether able to teach
and admonish one another. His bold manner in places is assumed in virtue
of his apostolic oflSce. The great object of his labors is that he may be en
abled at last to present the Gentiles as a glorious and acceptable offering to
God. He mentions the vast extent of his labors, and assigns the reason for
wishing to preach where Christ had never been named.

43S COMMENTARY. [Chap. 15, v. 13, 14.
13. Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and
peace in believing, God is here called the God of hope, be
cause he is author to it, somewhat. remotely, it Is true, but still
author. Hope has exclusive reference to the future. This con
ceded, and the intermediate links between hope and its author
may be thus arrartged: God makes a promise; this promise is
believed; and on this belief rests hope, it being necessary, at the
same time, to keep in mind that belief has strict reference to
the promise, hope, to the thing promised. "Fill you with all joy
and peace in believing" — not in beUeving on Christ, but in be
lieving what the Apostle had just been saying. By believing
that, the disciples would be brought to desist from judging and
despising one another, and instead, would be led to accept and
love one another in Christ It was by their acting thus that the
Apostle expected them to realize the "joy and peace" of which
he speaks.
in order that you may abound in hope by power of the
Holy Spirit. By beUeving what the Apostle had said, the dis
ciples were to be filled with all joy and peace; while on both
believing and being filled, depended their abounding in hope by
power of the Holy Spirit. These disciples, be it recollected, were
christians, and consequently the Spirit dwelt in them. By power
of this Spirit they were to abound In hope. How was this? On
condition of believing and being filled, the Spirit, which was In
them, so energized their spirits as to augment their hope, or cause
it to abound. This I presume to be the answer to the question.
What the object of their hope was, we are not told, but doubt
less it was the same as with us, namely, the resurrection from
. the dead, and eternal life. In all time since Christ, and under all
circumstances, these have been the absorbing objects of christian
hope. 14. But I am persuaded, my brethren, even I myself,
respecting you, that you also yourselves are full of good
ness. The de at the commencement of this verse has its strictly
adversative meaning, and must, therefore, be rendered but, not
and. The course of thought I take to be this: But although I have
written to you, brethren, as I have, pointing out to you your
whole duty, yet I, even I the very person thus writing, have no
mean opinion of you. On the contrary, I am persuaded respect
ing you, that you also yourselves, equally with myself, are full of
goodness; and that you are consequently ready, of your own

Chap. 15, v. 14, 15.] ROMANS, 439

accord, to accept one another, as I have exhorted you, and to do
every thing else that is right The whole passage was, I
presume, intended as a compliment, designed to conciliate the
feelings of the disciples in the proud metropoUs. It has much
the air of a delicate piece of diplomacy.
being filled with all knowledge, able even to admonish
one another. It must not be supposed that this language was
applicable to every individual in the church in Rome; but only
that it was true of them as a whole. Their knowledge is con
ceived of as aggregated, not as distributed. Nor again, is the
phrase "all knowledge" to be construed absolutely, but as limited
by the subject in hand. It means aU knowledge essential to the
highest form of christian life and to salvation. As if to say, I have
not written to you as I have, because of your ignorance; for, on
the contrary, I know the state of your knowledge, and It is high.
Neither have I admonished you because I supposed you incapa
ble of admonishing one another. But In what I have said, I have
been influenced by other reasons, as you will Immediately see.
15. Yet I have written to. you the more boldly in
places, Apo meros, when denoting manner, as here, signifies in
part, partly. The sense is, I have written to you the more
boldly, not everywhere In my Letter, but only in part, that is,
here and there, or in certain places. Assuming this to be the
meaning of the phrase, it is best to render it as I have. Thereby
we obtain a clear definite sense.
as one recalling things to your memory. This, though
full and free. Is correct, and demanded by perspicuity. The
meaning is not, I have written to you the more boldly as one
recalling, &c. The clause "as one recalling" does not contain the
reason for using "more boldly," as we shall presently see. But
the meaning is, I have written to you simply and without
qualification, as one recalling, &c. You are "filled with all
knowledge." It is not, therefore, necessary that I should write
to you as one instructing you at first hand. It is only necessary
that I should write to you as one recalling to your memory those
things which you have already learned; and this is what I have
done. because of the favor bestowed upon me by God, This
is the clause which contains the reason for "more boldly." I
have written to you the more boldly because of the favor be
stowed upon me. This "favor" was unquestionably his apostolic

440 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 15, v. 16, 17.
office. Hence the fuU import is: I have written to you the more
boldly because of my apostieship, as I had the right to do.
16, in order to my being a minister of Christ Jesus
for the Gentiles, "Minister" here is exactly equivalent to
apostle. The sense is: The "favor" was bestowed upon me In
order to my being an Apostle of Christ Jesus. A minister for
the Gentiles is a minister appointed for their benefit, or devoted
to their service. The distinguishing difference between Paul and
the rest of the apostles was, that he was the Apostle "for the
Gentiles." To convert them was his vast peculiar work. No
wonder, then, that he labored "more abundantly" than aU the
other apostles.
administering the gospel of God, That Is, the "favor" was
bestowed upon me in order to my being a minister, administer
ing the gospel of God, which is the same as to say, in order to
my being an apostle, executing the duties of my ofiice. Hier-
ourgeo, I minister, is a sacerdotal term, borrowed from the
Temple service, and denoting to officiate as priest, or perform
priestly duties. But that it .Is here used In any pecuUar sense
growing out of that circumstance is not apparent It means sim
ply to minister, or execute the functions of an apostle.
that the offering up of the Gentiles might be accept
able. The "offering up" of the Gentiles does not signify their
offering up any thing, but their being offered up.- They them
selves constitute the offering to be made.
being purified by the Holy Spirit. The Gentfles here
spoken of, who are to be offered up, are of course christians. In
them, therefore, the Holy Spirit dwells; and by it, while in them,
they are purified in mind and thought, and so rendered an ac
ceptable offering to God. In what way, or by what means, the
Spirit effects this purification, we are not informed. The fact Is
asserted, but without being explained. The Spiiit may effect it
by so strengthening those in whom it dwells as to enable them
to live obedient lives to the divine will. So living, God will,
through favor and the blood of Christ, forgive them, and when
they die, accept them. But it must be acknowledged dangerous
to speculate on these abstruse spiritual facts. It is no doubt
wisest to rest contented with them as asserted, without attempt
ing their solution. In the latter work, we shall satisfy neither
ourselves nor others. Indeed, we shall simply fail.
17, I am therefore enabled to boast in Christ in matters

Chap. 15, v. 17-19.] ROMANS, 441
relating to God, To translate echo kauchesin here simply /
have boasting is tame, and in my opinion inadequate. Nor will it
do to render it I have ground of boasting. Echo kauchema might
be thus rendered, but not the present clause. Echo, among many
other things, signifies io have power or to be able. See Liddell &
Scott, Still more frequently its meaning is merged wholly In that
of the word It stands connected with. Thus, ihauma echo is
not to be rendered / have wonder, but / wonder at. Also echo
dromon does not mean / have running, but / run or can run.
Farther, echei ten diken hardly signifies he has punishment, but
he is punished. Accordingly, echo kauchesin should not be ren
dered / have boasting or ground of boasting, as is usually done,
but I can boast or l am enabled to boast. This rendering is both
elegant and, as I beUeve, true to the sense, which is more than
can be said for the usual one. To "boast in Christ" means to
to boast, both as being under him, and in virtue of what he had
enabled the Apostle to accompUsh,
But what, more fully, were the things which enabled Paul to
boast in Christ The reply doubtiess is, both what he was as an
apostie, and what he had done, A special "favor" had been be
stowed upon him by God; he was a minister of Christ Jesus; the
Gentiles were to become an acceptable offering through his in
strumentahty; and then he had labored as no other apostle had
labored, and effected what no other apostie had effected, AU
these things taken together formed no mean ground of boasting.
That this is correct, in part, at least, is evident from what foUows.
18. Yet I shall not venture to speak of any thing which
Christ has not effected through me, The connection seems
to be this: I am therefore, or in consequence of what I am and
have done, enabled to boast in Christ in matters relating to God;
but in doing so, I shafl not mendon one thing which Christ has
not actually effected through me, and me alone, I shaU confine
myself strictly to my own work. For giving to gar, in the
present clause, an adversative sense, I have the authority of both
Pickering and MacKnight, the latter of whom has studied the
particles with unusual care. In the foUowing passage it is clearly
thus used: The chief priests and scribes sought how they might
kiU \(\m,gar, but they feared the people, Luke xxii: 2,
19 by power of the Spirit, by word and dee4, by the
power of signs and wonders, I arrange these clauses thus
for no purpose except to exhibit them in the order of their de-

442 COMMENTARY, [Chap. 15, v, 19, 20.
pendence on one another. What Christ- effected through Paul
was effected first by power, not the power, of or from the Spirit
as the immediate agent; next by word and deed; and finally by
the power, the whole power, of signs and wonders, authenticating
both him and his teaching. The three clauses, therefore, cover
the whole of Paul's ability and work as an apostle.
in order to the obedience of the Gentiles, This was the
proximate earthly end for which the Apostle tolled, the end for
which the Spirit exerted its power, the end of word and deed,
of sign and wonder — the ultimate end, of course, being the salva
tion of those obeying, and the glory of God,
So that from Jerusalem, and around, as far as Illyri
cum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ; The
Apostle does not mean that he preached around Jerusalem
in Judea, but in the other countries lying around that city. In
Judea, his labors seem never to have resulted in any thing but
tumult. But from Jerusalem, not as centre of labor, but as a centre
of reckoning, he preached in all the circumjacent countries, chiefly
however in those north of Jerusalem, in Asia Minor, and to the
west of it The expression "fully preached the gospel," justifies
the conclusion that the Apostle did his work very thoroughly as
he went When he left a country, there remained in it but little
primary work for others to do; nor has time since, ever suggested
an improvement on the plan,
20, thus being moved by love of honor, to preach
the gospel where Christ had not been named. The love
of honor, then, for such Is the meaning of philotimoumenon,
is seen to be a legitimate motive of christian action, wheg, at
the same time, the glory of God and the good of humanity are
kept in view. When I am working primarily for the fair name
of my Maker and the good of my neighbor, I may be moved to
action, up to the hight of my capacity, by love of personal honor;
and it is right Nor is any christian preacher fit to act the pan
of an evangeUst who is unactuated by it Ambition of honor and
love of a spotiess name should never be absent from the breast
of the public servant of Christ.
But why should Paul have been thus moved to preach the gos
pel where Christ had not been named? Several considerations
may have influenced him. i. Ability to accomplish more good
than where Christ had already been preached; 2. The conviction
that he could do better work than was usuaUy done; 3. That the

Chap. 15, V. 20, 2 1, J ROMANS. 443
influence he acquired over his own converts enabled him to con
trol them more successfully than he could the converts of others
That these were the considerations which Influenced the Apos
tie can not be confidently said, but certainly they are plausible.
that I might not build upon another's foundation.
This was the main point to which the Apostle's love of honoi
moved him. He wanted his work to be an original work, and
not a mere gleaning after other men. The sentiment I should
not think a suggestion from the Spirit, but merely the Apostle's
own feeUngs as a man. "To build upon another's foundation"
is metaphorical, signifying to preach and found churches where
others have been doing that work.
21. But as it is written: They to whom nothing was
told respecting me, shall see ; and they who have not
heard, shall understand. The connection seems to be as fol
lows: "That I might not build upon another's foundation," still
in all this I have been doing right, for I have been working both
in accordance with prophecy and so as to fulfill it, "as it is writ
ten," &c. The quotation is from Isa. lii: 15, and has reference
to the conversion of the heathen, the very work to which the
Apostie himself is referring.

444

COMMENTARY.

Chap. 15,

CHAPTER XV. SECTION 3,

^''For this reason also, I have often
been hindered from coming to you ;
"^ but now having no longer a place
[to preach] in these regions, and
having had a desire for many years
to come to you [I purpose doing so],
''' whenever I go into Spain. For I
hope while passing through to see
you, and to be by you helped for
ward thither, provided I am first
partly filled with you. '* But now I
am going to Jerusalem, ministering
to the holy. ^° For Macedonia and
Achaia thought good to make a con
tribution for the poor of the holy who
are in Jerusalem, ^'yes, thought
good, and they are debtors to them.
For if the Gentiles shared in their
spiritual things, they ought to min
ister to them in fleshly things.
^° When now I have finished this ser
vice, and secured to them this fruit,
I shall depart by you into Spain.
^"And I know that in coming to you,
I shall come with the fullness of
Christ's blessing. '"But I beseech
you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by the love of the Spirit,
to strive with me in prayers to God
for me, ^'that I may be delivered
from the unbelievers in Judea, and
that my service, which is for Jerusa
lem, may be acceptable to the holy,
''that with joy I may come to you
by God's will, and be refreshed
among you, ''The God of peace be
with you all — amen.

" Ato KOI ivexoirrdprjv ra iroXXa roi;
iXBetv npds ipas, ^' vvvi Se prjxeri
ronov exav iv roXs xKipaai rorjrois, €?ri-
noBiav Si exav rov iXBeXv npds ipds
dnd ixavdv irdv, "* ar dv nopevapai els
rfjv STravlav. 'EXni^a ydp Stanopevdpe-
Kof BedaaaBai ipds xai iij)' ipav
nponepipB^vat ixei, idv ipav nparov
dnd pepovs ipnXrjaBa. " Nuvt Se jro-
perjopai els 'lepovadX^p Siaxovav roXs
dyiois. '° EiSdxrjaav ydp MaxeSovia xai
'Axata xoivaviav nvd noifjaaaBai els
rovs nraxois rav dyiav rav iv 'lepov
adXfjp, ^' evSoKrjaav ydp, xai o<^etXerat
eto'ti' avrav. Et yap roXs nvevpanxoXs-
avrav ixotvdvrjaav rd eBvrj, dtpeiXovat
xai iv roXs aapKiKoXs Xetrovp-^aat ai
roXs. ^Tovro oiv inireXeaas xat a<j>pa-
yiadpevos avroXs rof Kapndv rovrov, dne-
Xeiaopat fit' ipav els paviav. ^' Oifia Se
on ipxopevos npds ipds iv nXrjpdpari
evXoyias Xpiarov eXedaopat. '"llapa-
KoXa Se ipds, aSeX<j)oi, Sta rou Kupiou
Tjpav Irjaov Xptarofj xai Std r^s dydTrrjs
TOU nvevparos, avvayaviaaaBai pot ev
rdis npoaevxaXs inep ipov npds roi'
ecoy, " tfa pvaBa dnd rav dneiBovvrav
iv rfj 'lovSaia, xai fj Staxovia joiou fj els
'lepovaaX^p einpdaSexTos yevrjrai roXs
dyiots, lva iv x^P9- eXBa npds ipds
Std BeXrjparos Qeov, xai avvavana^aapat
ipXv. "'O fie Qeds rfjs elpfjvrjs perd
ndvrav ipdv — dp^v.

SUMMARY,
The Apostle's multipled labors in different countries had often hindered
him from executing a purpose long since formed of one day visiting Rome.
But now being without a place in those regions, -to preach the gospel where
it had not before been preached, he decides to make the visit soon. But first,
he must go into Judea to carry a contribution from Greece and Macedonia to
the poor brethren in Jerusalem. This service performed however, he
proposes next a journey to Spain, and decides to see Rome on his way. He
very ardently desires to be delivered, while in Judea, from the unbelieving
Jews there, and that his alms may be acceptable to the poor disciples for
whom they were intended.

Chap. 15, v, 22-24.] ROMANS. 445
22. For this reason also, I have often been hindered
from coming to you ; "For this reason," namely, because I
have found so many places to preach the gospel where Christ
had not been named. And so long as he could find such a place
he preached in it It was the- number of these places that hin
dered him ta polla much, or often.
23. but now having no longer a place [to preach]
in these regions, For the reason that he had so thoroughly
preached the gospel over them as to render a longer stay in
them comparatively unprofitable. As Paul Is now writing
from Corinth, he must allude chiefly to those countries lying
north, north-east, and east of Greece; for they formed the scene
of much the greater part of his labors; and how wisely that
scene was chosen is apparent at a glance. For east of the Adri
atic and along the northern shore of the "great sea," lay, at the
time, one of the most densely populated, as well as one of the
most highly cultivated countries in the world. All over these, the
Apostle traveled "fully preaching the gospel."
and having had a strong desire for many years to
come to you, [I purpose doing so], 24. whenever I
go into Spain. Alford thinks that the participles here used
"stand as direct verbs." But for this assumption there is no
authority. Neither perspicuity nor elegance Is promoted by
abandoning the participial form. To complete the sense, it is
necessary to bracket a short clause, as I have done. But this is
the only departure from literalism, necessary.
As to a visit to Rome, Paul obtained his wish, but under cir
cumstances very different, no doubt, from what he anticipated
when penning the sentence in hand. But that he ever visited
Spain, there is no satisfactory evidence. That he proposed such
a visit, we know; but he was most Ukely defeated in regard to it,
as he often was. At least, if the visit was made, the evidence of
it has perished.
For I hope while passing through to see you, and to
be by you helped forward thither, provided I am first
partly filled with you. I think it probable that Paul's
intention was, after visiting Jerusalem, to return immediately
by way of Rome on his way into Spain. Hence the phrase,
"while passing through." To be "helped forward" means to be
fitted out for going forward, in whatever way he might need
their aid, especially to be supplied with money and other neces-

446 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 15, v. 25-27.
saries for a journey. "Partly filled with you" — by this, Paul
means to see you, talk with you, preach to you, and enjoy your
society generally, till he is satisfied. Not that he expected to
remain with them till he was fully satisfied; for he uses the word
"partly." I will stay with you only tfll I am partly filled: I can
not stay longer. Perhaps even in regard to Rome, he was also
ambitious not to build upon another's foundation, and, therefore,
may have determined not to remain long. This would account
for his use of "partly."
25. But now I am going to Jerusalem, ministering to
the holy. To contend, as some writers do, that the going itself
was part of the ministering, is puerile. The meaning clearly is:
I am now going to Jerusalem io minister to the holy. The minis
tering consisted. In no part, in the going, but In supplying the
poor brethren with food and clothing, or the means to buy them
26. For Macedonia and Achaia thought good to make
a contribution for the poor of the holy who are in Jeru
salem. That is, the churches in those countries have thought
good. This contribution was taken up at the instance of Pau'
himself. See i Cor. xvi: 1-3; and it was intended to have the
double effect of relieving the wants of the poor among the disci
ples in Jerusalem, and of causing the Jewish brethren, generally,
to think more kindly of the Gentile christians than they were ac
customed to think; and we know that it had this effect. 2 Cor.
ix: 12-15. ^^^ Greece and Macedonia were not the only coun
tries that took part in this contribution. On the contrary, it
seems to have been gathered from the whole region stretching
from Corinth around through Macedonia, and along the northern
shore of the Mediterranean as far as into Galatia, and probably
even beyond. The fact that it was collected from so extensive
a tract of country, and that it was more than a year in being
taken up, would justify the conclusion that, in the aggregate, it
must have been very great; indeed, of this there can hardly be a
doubt Besides, the character of the preparations made for car
rying it up to Jerusalem greatly strengthens this conclusion.
27. Yes, thought good, and they are debtors to them.
The meaning is, that those christians, who were mostly Gentiles,
living In the regions from which the contribution was taken,
were debtors to the Jewish christians in Jerusalem. The reason
why they were debtors, and the particulars in which, are stated
in the next clause.

Chap. 15, v. 27, 28.] ROMANS. 447
For if the Gentiles shared in their spiritual things, By
the "spiritual things" of the Jewish christians is meant the gos
pel, together with its attendant blessings. This gospel derived its
redeeming efficacy from Christ, a Jew; and It had, at first, been
preached to the Gentiles by Jewish christians. In a word, it had
its origin among the Jews; it was in the beginning wholly in
their hands; and from them, and by them, it had been sent abroad
into the world. With much propriety, therefore. It and its bless
ings are called "their spiritual things."
they ought to minister to them in fleshly things. By
fleshly things are meant things pertaining to the flesh, or bene
ficial to it, as food and clothing. If the Gentiles had received the
gospel from the Jews, it was a small matter for the Jews in re
turn to receive from the Gentiles something to eat and wear.
28. When now I have finished this service, and secured
to them this fruit, I shall depart by you into Spain, The
two expressions "finished this service," and "secured to them
this fruit" have substantially the same import. They mean to
deUver the contribution in question safely into the hands of the
poor brethren in Jerusalem, Whenever the Apostle had finished
this work, he proposed to set out from Jerusalem for Spain, and
in passing, to cafl at Rome. "This fruit" signifies the contribution,
which is here cafled "fruit" because it was the fruit of the benev
olence of the churches sending it. Sphragizo literally means to
seal, and when followed by a Dative of object, as here, to seal io,
that is, to deliver to any one as securely as if under seal. It is
more perspicuous to translate as I have done, not by the primary,
but by the more remote meaning of the word. The expression
"sealed to them this fruit" is hardly Intelligible to the common
reader, if indeed it is quite so to any.
By what route Paul expected to return from Jerusalem to
Rome is not known, but most probably by sea, as that would
be the most expeditious way; and he was evidently anxious to
make the trip as soon as practicable. It is not at all likely that
he proposed returning through Syria, Asia Minor, and Macedo
nia. He had already preached over those countries about as
much as he feU at present incUned to do. But in no event could
he have expected to reach Rome very soon. Whatever route he
might decide to take, he intended to stop, as was his custom, at
friendly points, and preach. This of necessity would occasion
much delay. It is questionable, then, whether he expected to see
Rome, at nearest, short of a year, if even that soon.

448 COMMENTARY [Chap. 15, v. 29-31
29, And I know that in coming to you, I shall come
with the fullness of Christ's blessing. Because he ex
pected to come with the whole volume of the blessings of the
gospel. Beyond these blessings, he had nothing to bestow, nor
they any thing to ask. That charisma pneumatikon, ch. i: 11, he
was anxious to impart; but it is by no means probable that this
constituted more than a part of that "fullness" he speaks of. He
was coming to the Romans, as he had gone to others, by "po^wer
of the Spirit, by word and deed, and by the power of signs and
wonders," That all this expectation was realized during the two
subsequent years which he spent at Rome, may be safely taken
for granted. True, he was a prisoner during that time, but in
preaching the gospel he was free, and therein lay his success.
30. But I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, Stuart thinks the de
here continuative, and this it doubtless is, in part, but it evidently
is at the same time adversative, I beseech you by our Lord
Jesus Christ, not for the sake tf. Christ and the love of the
Spirit were the motives by which the brethren were to be moved
to prayer. The love of the Spirit is that love for one another
which the Spirit pours out in the hearts of those in whom it
dwells. to strive with me in prayer to God for me, Sunagonizo-
mai means to carry on a combat or conflict in company with
another; and from this it readily comes to denote any forin of
striving in which two or more take part. To strive with one in
prayer means to join him in a deeply earnest effort at prayer.
The solemnity with which the Apostle requests this prayer, and
the high motives by which he urges it, show how profoundly
he desired it to prevail.
• 31. that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in
Judea, These were those Jews who still persisted in rejecting
Christ Clearly the Apostle had now ceased to expect their con
version. He looked upon them as hopelessly lost, and conse
quently had nothing to ask for, In regard to them, but deliverance
from their merciless hands. And yet, notwithstanding his own
prayer, and that of the disciples in Rome, it was into the hands
of these very unbelievers that he fell. Even the prayers of an
apostle were not always answered, because at times not accord
ing to the will of God. When Paul's arrest and imprisonment
redounded, In the end, more to the glory of God and the good of

Chap, 15, v, 31-33.] ROMANS. 449
men than his freedom, then his arrest and imprisonment are
what God wills, notwithstanding the adverse prayers. It was.
after all, the wicked instrumentality of these same unbeUevers
that enabled the Apostle to see Rome, Under the ifls from
which we pray to be delivered, God often hides a rich vein of
real good.
and that my service, which is for Jerusalem, my be ac
ceptable to the holy. Obviously the Apostle had fears that
even the poor christians in Jerusalem might, through their Jewish
prejudices, decline relief from Gentile hands. He greatly desired
its acceptance, knowing the good effect it would have in soften
ing animosities and inducing love for those that sent it In this
particular, at least, he was not disappointed.
32. that with joy I may come to you by God's will.
The Apostle felt that if he could only be delivered from the un
believers in Judea, and his service prove acceptable, he could with
joy return to Rome. His service was accepted with gratitude
and thanks; he was not delivered; and he returned to Rome, but
presumably, not the joyous man he expected to be. Even the
wisest of men should not too confidently plan the future; for the
mysterious hand of God is always In it. The absolute In wfll,
alone can certainly say what he will do.
and be refreshed among you. How deUghtful the dream,
that after his long and laborious trip to Jerusalem and return, he •
should be honorably and gladly welcomed by the disciples In
Rome; and that there, among them, enthroned in their esteem,
and ministered to in every way which culture and affection could
suggest, he should rest, and refresh his wearied spirit In their
generous society. But alas, for afl the golden dreams of the true
servant of Christ, so long as he is in the flesh. There remains a
rest for the people of God.
33. The God of peace be with you all— amen. The
sum of afl prayers and the embodiment of all good wishes.
Even the fertfle brain of Paul could not ask for more, and the
church in Rome had no capacity for any thing else. The "God
of peace" is the God who wills peace among his people, and
who sets his face against aU who disturb It. The song of angels
over the birth of Christ was "peace on earth;" and the benedic
tion for the church in Rome is "the God of peace be with you "
29

45°

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. i6.

CHAPTER XVI.

SECTION I.

Now I commend to you, Phebe,
our sister, who is deaconess of the
church in Cenchrea, 'that you re
ceive her in the Lord, as becomes
the holy, and help her in whatever
business she may need you ; for she
herself also has been a helper of
many, and of me myself.
' Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-
laborers in Christ Jesus, ^who, for
the sake of my life, laid down their
own neck ; to whom not only I give
thanks, but also all the churches of
the Gentiles ; and [greet] the church
in their house. 'Greet my beloved
Epenetus, who is a first fruit of Asia
to Christ. * Greet Mary who labored
much for you. 'Greet Audronicus
and Junias, my kinsmen and my
fellow-prisoners, who are of note
among the apostles, and who were
in Christ before me, 'Greet Am-
plias, my beloved in the Lord.
"Greet Urbanus, our co-laborer in
Christ, and my beloved Stachys.
'" Greet Apelles, the tried in Christ.
Greet those of the family of Aristo-
bulus. "Greet Herodion, my kins
man. Greet those of the family of
Narcissus, who are in the Lord.
"Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa,
who labor in the Lord. Greet the
beloved Persis, who labored much in
Ihe Lord. " Greet Rufus, the chosen
in the Lord, and his mother and
mine. ''' Greet Asyncri tus, Phlegon,
Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the
brethren ¦with them. " Greet Philo-
logus and Julia, Nereus and his sis
ter, and Olympas, and all the holy
with them. '* Greet one another
with a holy kiss. All the churches
of Christ greet you.

2iwiarrjpi Se ipXv toifirfv rfjv dieX-
<f)fjv fjpav, oiaav Sidxovov r^y ixxkrjaias
rfjs iv KeyxpeaXs, 'lva npoaSiirjaBe
airrfjV iv Kvpiif diias rav ayiav, xai
napaarfjre avr^ iv a dv ipdv XPvCv
npdypart- xai ydp airfj npoardns noX-
Xdv iyevfjBrj xai ipoi airrov.
''AandaaaBe Tlplaxav xai 'AxiSXav,
rovs avvtpyovs pov iv Xpiara 'lijo-oS,
* oirti'e J imep rfjs i/fvpf ijr jiov rdv eavrdv
rpdxrjXov ineBrjKav- ots oix iyd pdvos
evxaptard, aXXd koi ndaai at ixxXrjaiai
rav iBvav 'xai rfjv xar oixov airrav
eKteXrjaiav. AandaaaBe 'Enaiverov rAv
dyanrjrdv pov, os iartv dnapxfj rfjs
'Aaias els Xptardv. ''AandaaaBe Ma-
pidp, fjrts TToXXa iKoniaaev els ipds.
^'AandaaaBe 'AvSpdviKov Kai 'lovviav,
rovs avyyeveXs pov Kai avvaixpdXdrovs
pov, o'rtves elatv iniarjpot iv rois djr-
oardXois, ot Koi npo ipov yeydvav iv
Xpiara. ''AandaaaBe 'ApnXiav rdv
dyanrjrdv pov iv Kvpia. ° 'AandaaaBe
Oip^avdv rol' avvepydv fjpav iv Xptard,
Kai ^rdxvv row dyanrjrdv pov. " 'Ao-Tra-
aaaBe AneXXfjv rdv Soxtpov iv Xptard.
'AardaaaBe rois ex tmi' 'AptaroPodXov.
''' AandaaaBe 'HpaSiava tAv avyyernjv
pov. 'AandaaaBe rois ix rSiv NapKt'o-
aov rous ovras iv Kvpia. ''' Aand
aaaBe Tpi!cj>aivav xai Tpv(f>daav rat
xontdaas iv Kvpia. 'AandaaaBe Tlep-
aiSa -rfjv dyamjrfjv, fjrts noKXd ixonia-
aev iv Kvpto). ^''AandaaaBe 'Poitfiov
rdv ixXexrdv iv Kvpia, (cai rfjv prjrepa
aiiTov xai ipov. '^'AandaaaBe 'Asrvy-
xpiTov, 0XeyovTa, 'Eppfjv, llarpd^av,
'Eppdv, xai rovs aw avroXs dSeX<l)o^s.
"'AandaaaBe HXSXoyov xdi 'lovXiav,
"Nrjpea xai rfjv dSeXijtfjv airrov, xai 'OXvpi-
Trav, KUI rovs ovv airoXs ndvras dyions.
^^' AandaaaBe aXX^Xouf iv i^tX^/tari
dyia. 'Aand^ovrai ipds at ixxXrjaiai
ndaai rot} Xpiarov.

Chap, i6, v. i.] ROMANS. 45,

SUMMARY,
^ili^^^""' ^f^^.?°"e^s of the church in Cenchrea, is commended to the dis-
ciples, while they on their part are requested to receive her as the holy
should receive the holy; and to aid her in whatever business she might need
them. After this, various brethren, several of them Paul's kinsmen, and also
various sisters are most honorably mentioned; and the brotherhood requested
to greet them. Usually, as each person is named, some distinguishing trait
or circumstance IS named with him, showing how closelv the Apostle stadied
characters, and how generously he awarded praise. The section sheds much
light upon the religious life and social habits of those primitive days.
The present chapter is taken up mostiy with friendly greetings
to individuals, to groups of individuals, and to churches. These
greetings are usually interspersed with epithets descriptive of
some personal exceUence, or distinguishing trait of the individual
named. The chapter is valuable as throwing no little light upon
the condition and customs of the disciples in those early times.
Besides, it contains a most important paragraph upon the manner
in which those persons are to be dealt with, who cause divisions
and stumbUngs in churches. Indeed, this is one of the most valu
able discipUnary paragraphs in the New Testament, The chapter
closes with a doxology of remarkable comprehension and power,
I commend to you Phebe our sister. As no one else but
Phebe is commended to the brethren in Rome, the presumption
is that she was going alone; and consequently that by her the
Letter was sent. Had other brethren been going with her, it is
lot likely that Paul would wholly have ignored them.
who is a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, Dea
coness literally means a female servant, but without determining
the nature of the service rendered. Phebe was a servant of the
church in Cenchrea. This much is actually asserted. Was she
appointed to the service by the church, or did she assume it of
herself ? The question is not material. For whether she assumed
the service of her own accord, or was appointed to it, she per
formed It with the Apostle's sanction. This stamps it as right
If the church appointed her to the service, then other churches
may do likewise; for the action of that church, being sanctioned
by the Apostle, becomes a precedent. Or if she merely assumed
the service, then for the same reason, other good women may
also assume it.
But did Phebe belong to an order of official women in the
church? She certainly belonged to an order of women called
servants of the church, who performed their service by apostolic
sanction; and the duties of this order were the same as those

452 COMMENTARY. [ChAp. i6, v. 2.
usually ascribed to deaconesses. I am, therefore, of the opinion
that Phebe was a deaconess in the official sense of that word.
What the special duties were of this order of women, it would
seem not difficult to conjecture. Their work consisted in serving
the sisterhood. This much may be accepted as certain. In all
churches there would be among the females, the poor, the sick,
the untaught, the erring, and unfortunate. These, would need
attentions which no order of persons could so delicately and suc
cessfully give as the deaconesses; and to this class of duties
they seem to have been devoted. Indeed, even in the present
day, wherever the necessities of the churches are such as to de
mand it, the order of the deaconesses should be re-established.
They are often of as much importance to a church as the dea
cons, if not even more. Certainly the need for the one order is
seldom less than that for the other.
Cenchrea was the eastern harbor of Corinth, situated about
nine miles from it on the Saronic Gulf. East of it, and across
the .i^gean sea, lay Asia Minor. Between this country and
Corinth, an immense trade was carried on, all of which passed
through Cenchrea. It was from this port that Paul sailed into
Syria on his return from his second missionary tour. Between
that time and the writing of the Letter, a church had been
formed there, of which, as already noticed, Phebe was a deaco
ness. By whom the church was planted, we are not informed.
Even Paul himself may have sown the seeds of It, before sailing
for Syria, as just stated. If he and Priscilla and Aquila remained
there but for a day, they were not idle. A single discourse would
leave the leaven of truth in the place to do its work.
2. That you receive her in the Lord as becomes the
holy, That you receive her as a christian which she is. "As
becomes the holy" — as it becomes the holy to receive such,
and therefore as it becomes you. Instead of rendering axios ton
hagion, in a manner worthy of the holy, I prefer to be a little
freer for the sake of brevity. "As becomes the holy" gives the
sense more clearly, and is sufficiently close.
and help her in whatever business she may need you ;
That some special business, pragmati, is here alluded to, which
was taking Phebe to Rome, seems most probable; but what it
was we can never know. Some have conjectured It to be the
collection of a debt; others, the prosecution of a lawsuit; and
still others, that it was to obtain redress for some grievance

Chap. i6, v. 2, 3.] ROMANS. 453
suffered in the province. Some one of these conjectures may
certainly be the true one; but then, again, they may afl be idle.
Hence they amount to nothing.
for she herself also has been a helper of many, and of
me myself. This clause, no doubt, sheds much light upon the
especial work performed by the deaconesses. Among other
things, they were "helpers of many." Wherever any chfldren
of God needed "help," these the deaconesses served. Their no
ble and unselfish devotion is entitled to high praise. The fact
that Phebe had been a "helper of many," constituted the ground
of her claim for help on the brethren in Rome; for as we do to
others, so others are under obligation to do to us. The proba
bility seems to be that Phebe was wealthy; hence her ability to
be a "helper of many;'' while the fact that no mention is made
of her husband, justifies, in a low degree, the conclusion that she
had none. She was probably a widow. She was doubtless a
woman of age; for a young woman could hardly have attained
the distinction she enjoyed at the time.
3. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-laborers in Christ
Jesus. Immediately after Paul left Athens, on his second
missionary tour, he came to Corinth. Here, for the first time,
he met with Aquila and Priscilla (a diminutive of Prisca); but
whether the two latter were then christians is not certain. Paul
sojourned with them for a year and a half, and worked with them
at their common trade of tent-making. But when the Apostle
left Corinth, they left it with him, and accompanied him across
the ^gean to Ephesus. Here Paul left them and went to Jeru
salem. How long they remained at Ephesus is uncertain; but at
the time of writing the Letter in hand, they were back in Rome
and living there.
As to Prisca being here named before Aquila, I presume there
is nothing In it Twice out of five mentions in the New Testa
ment, Aquila stands first — Acts xvin: 2; i Cor. xvi: 19. Certainly
it '.s not wholly improbable that Prisca may have been the more
distinguished of the two; and that this is the reason for her being
npmed first, but the supposition is a weak one.
But whatever may have been the relative superiority of these
two exceUent disciples, one thing is certain, they were both Paul's
"co-laborers in Christ" In what this labor consisted we are not
told. But as they were so thoroughly acquainted with the gos
pel as to be qualified to Instruct even ApoUos, the inference is a

454 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i6, v. 4.
fair one that they were capable of teaching almost any one —
Aquila publicly, Prisca privately, I should think it thus that
they labored chiefly. Their long and intimate acquaintance with
Paul goes far to strengthen this conclusion,
4. who, for the sake of my life, laid down their own
neck. What the particular event was to which reference is here
made, or where it occurred, we are not told. Some have con
jectured that It occurred at Ephesus, and so it may; but then it
could just as well have taken place at Corinth. Of its where
abouts we know absolutely nothing; and as to its nature, all we
know is what the clause itself asserts. The event clearly con
sisted in Aquila and his wife offering their own lives to save that
of the Apostle. The heroism which the act displays Is simply
sublime. Could Paul possibly have had It in mind at Rom. v: 7?
to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the church
es of the Gentiles; We all give thanks to Aqufla and Prisca
for what they did in my behalf. And in case they actually saved
the Apostle's life, which seems most probable, the debt of grati
tude was boundless then, and It is boundless still. The churches
of the Gentiles, here spoken of, were no doubt chiefly planted
through Paul's own labors. They especially, therefore, would
feel grateful for his deliverance, and in every available way would
be ready to manifest the feeUng. This the Apostle had learned,
and hence felt free to mention it
and [greet] the church in their house. The word "greet,"'
which I here bracket, is not absolutely necessary; but its
presence greatly improves the perspicuity. It is inserted for this
purpose alone. As yet, in that early day, the disciples were
without meeting-houses, and hence had to meet for worship
wherever they best could. The private houses of brethren were
often the only places open to them. In these houses, therefore,
they would meet, principally upon the Lord's day, and hold their
simple service. The house of Aquila and Prisca was one of
these meeting places; and the congregation assembUng in it, is
called "the church in their house." Thirty years ago, the same
custom prevailed extensively, with many denominations. In north
western Missouri, Indeed, in countries where the gospel has
been but recently introduced, it is the only remedy. And from
no hearts on this earth, I venture to think, has purer or more ac
ceptable worship ever ascended to God than from these unwordly
little groups. More of art and splendor can certainly be found

Chap. i6, v, 5-7.J ROMANS, 455
in great fanes erected at much cost to God; but from these great
houses, with their gorgeously appareled crowds, he often deUghts
to turn away, I doubt not, as from a sham, and find a delightful
seat amidst the "poor in spirit," who make the "church in their
house." The lowly Master, with his solitary seamless coat, and
without a place to "lay his head," presents a humfliating contrast
to many of the "churches" of the present day, piled up in grati
fication of folly, and, with no notice from him, "dedicated" to
his name,
5. Greet my beloved Epenetus, who is a first fruit of
Asia to Christ. Of Epenetus we know nothing, beyond what
is here said. He was the first, or among the first, most likely the
latter, to embrace the gospel In Asia; and he was held in high
esteem by Paul. There is a tradition to the effect that he was
the first bishop of Carthage; but Uke many similar traditions, it
is entitled to no credit How sincere the regret Is, that we have
not a fuller account than we have, of some of the excellent men
named in this chapter. But thus It is on earth. Single, short sen
tences tell the story of those who have prepared its Inhabitants
for eternal life; while huge tomes are insufficient to record ths
exploits of those who have often turned it into a slaughter house.
6. Greet Mary, who labored much for you. You the
disciples in Rome. Nothing beyond what Is here said is known
of this laborious woman. In what particular capacity, or un
der what circumstances she had bestowed the "much labor," is
wholly unknown. Is there no work to be done by christian wo
men of the present day, which would rank them among the noble
women named in this chapter? I confess to think the question
worthy of something more than a sarcastic smile. We have
Marys capable of work, and more than wiUing, Whose tyran
nous hand, then, is It that lets? Dreams are not the only things in
which crooked Unes and errors blend. Granltized church Ufe
might reveal some of them, if closely inspected,
7. Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fel
low-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, and
who were in Christ before me. Of Andronicus and Junias,
the sum of our knowledge consists in what is here said. As to
the myths of Hyppolytus and Dorotheus, they are just possibly
true, no more, I do not think it worth while to name them.
Junias I take to be mascuUne, not feminine. The joint descrip
tions of the two persons named, seem to demand this. They were

456 COMMENTARY. [Chap. i6, v. 7-9.
Paul's real kin, according to the flesh, and not kin merely in the
loose sense of being of the same tribe or of the same nation.
Where they and Paul had been imprisoned together, is not
known. We have not even a hint from any source upon the
subject. Who are of note among the apostles: That is, among the
other eleven.. They were both distinguished men among the
apostles, distinguished no doubt as preachers of the gospel. Who
were in Christ before me: That Is, they became christians
befoi'e Paul. The phrase "in Christ," therefore, was, in that
day, equivalent to being a christian. It frequently occurs in the
New Testament in this sense; and it is much to be regretted that
it has, in faulty measure, fallen into comparative disuse among us
of the present day. It should be revived in the lips of the holy,
and become one of their standing titles. Most important ques
tions of fact are implied in the expression "in Christ" A whole
tract of most luminous matter can readily be evolved from it
Let it be restored to its primitive office, with its primitive mean
ing. But farther: these very two men, Andronicus and Junias, were
not improbably among those "strangers of Rome," mentioned
Acts ii: 10. At that same Pentecost, they may have become
christians, and there have formed the acquaintance of the apos
tles. This would account both for their being "of note" among
them, and for their being "in Christ" before Paul. Besides, their
case may throw no little light on the question. By whom was the
gospel first preached in Rome? In them, we may have a clew
to the answer.
8. Greet Amplius, my beloved in the Lord. That is,
either my beloved brother, or my beloved child in the Lord,
That, more Ukely than this. AmpUus must have been a mo.st
lovely man to be spoken of as he here is. And, by the way,
nothing gives us a fuller insight into Paul's real nature and heart,
than these epithets. He was great in intellect, ardent in feeling,
and tender in affection as a woman.
9, Greet Urbanus, our co-laborer in Christ, and my
beloved Stachys,. Where Urbanus, or Urban, had met the
Apostle, and labored with him, is unknown. They must have
been together for some length of time; for "co-laborer" would
not have been appUed to a comparative stranger, or to a mere
casual acquaintance. From his name, it appears that Stachys
was a Greek; but whether he was merely a good man, or a

Chap. i6, v. 10-12.] ROMANS.' 457
"beloved" teacher, is uncertain. He must have been a man "of
note;" for an obscure, unworking disciple would never have re
ceived the mention he has. According to tradition, he once held
the office of bishop of Byzantium, for fifteen years, and was then
succeeded by Onesimus. This Is most Ukely fabulous.
10, Greet Apelles, the tried in Christ. Of this "tried"
and honored christian man, we have no account except the pres
ent He had evidently passed through some fierce ordeal, or
possibly through many ; and out of them all he had come firm
and true. Hence the epithet "tried." He is a noble character.
Greet those of the family of Aristobulus. From the fact
that Arlstobulus himself is not greeted. It has been inferred that
he was either dead, or not a beUever. But this is an inconse
quence. He may have been in Corinth at the very moment of
sending the greeting. This only shows that nothing conclusive
can be inferred from his not being greeted. He was, most likely,
simply absent from home at the time; and this being known to
Paul, he greets his family only, not him. Had he been dead, it is
not probable that his name would have been mentioned at all.
That Aristobulus may have been dead, I certainly do not deny.
I deny only, that the fact of his death is a legitimate inference
from his not being greeted.
II. Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the
family of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. Of Herodion,
Paul's kinsman here named, nothing whatever is known. He
was most probably a man of no special distinction, or the fact
would have been indicated by the use of some appropriate epi
thet, as in other cases. Who the Narcissus was, who is here
alluded to, is unknown. The conjecture of some, that he was
a powerful freedman of Claudius, who bore that name, is incor
rect; for that Narcissus had, at the time of writing, been dead
about three years. True, the family mentioned may have been
his family; but in these conjectures, no confidence can be placed.
Only a part of his family were "in the Lord;" and these only
were to be greeted,
12. Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labor in the
Lord. Kopiosas is the participle of the Present; and it Implies
that these two christian women were engaged in their special
labor, at the time of writing. They were most probably deacon
esses. Public teachers they could not be; for this Paul himself
disallows; but then there Is always a vast and good work to be

458 COMMENTARY, [Chap, i6, v, 12-14.
done for Christ outside of the pulpit. Prisca taught ApoUos in a
tent; and the world is full of tents, and every tent has in it either
an Apollos, or some one else needing instruction still more than
he. Private instruction is peculiarly adapted to meet and remove
difficulties. Indeed, in no other way can they be so effectually
removed. Privately, then, at least, and most profitably, could
Tryphena and Tryphosa have "labored in the Lord." In the mat
ter of laboring for the Lord, however, the difficulty usually lies,
not in finding the work to do, but in finding the will to do it;
and this difficulty lies quite as much in the way of men as in that
of women. Many a Tryphena has her talent hid in the ground.
Greet the beloved Persis, who labored much in the
Lord. The labor here referred to, appears to have been per
formed at some time previous to the writing of the Letter; but
whether in Rome or elsewhere, we can not tell. By it Persis had
greatly endeared herself to the Apostle; and for it, he has immor
talized her name. With the evidences which we now have
before us, of Paul's high appreciation of female excellence and
work in the church, how any one can hold him capable of un
derrating them, as has been done, or of thinking meanly of them,
it is difficult to see. Nothing could be more unjust than such an
Imputation, 13. Greet Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother
and mine. Dr. Hackett (Bible Dictionary) seems to favor the
idea that the Rufus mentioned here is the same as the Rufus
spoken of by Mark, In ch. xv: 21. Possibly this Is correct; but
if so, the fact is incapable of verification. Rufus was not an un
common name in those days; and therefore the chances were
many that the two should not be the same. "Chosen in the
Lord" does not mean elected in the technical sense of the term.
It means exc'ellent or highly valued. He was a choice man, as
we famiUarly say. His mother and mine — his mother literally,
mine by courtesy. Paul calls her mother in the same fond sense in
which the word is often applied to aged females. "Give my love
to mother A. or mother B." is very common in friendly letters.
Paul speaks in the same style. No doubt he had somewhere
either met or sojourned with this good woman, when she had
actuaUy proved herself a mother to him. This gave rise to the
epithet, 14. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Her
mas, and the brethren with them. Of Asyncrltus nothing

Chap, i6, v, 15, 16.] ROMANS. 459
whatever is known beyond the present mention. Phlegon, by the
merest tradition, is handed down to us as one of the seventy, and
also as being at one time bishop of Marathon. He is said to have
suffered martyrdom, Hermes, too, has been represented as one
of the seventy, as has also Patrobas, To each of these, as a matter
o*" course, has been assigned some imaginary bishopric, of which,
most likely, neither ever heard the name. Hermas Is supposed,
upon what seems to be more reliable authority, to have been
the author of a mystical work, caUed "the Shepherd," now
found entire only in a Latin translation. By others, this work is
thought to have had a later origin; but Irenaeus, Origen, and Ter
tullian ascribe it to Hermas. And the brethren with them — most
probably members of their respective famiUes, consisting of
wives, children, and domestics. It seems not likely that these
"brethren" had been formed into churches, or the fact would
have been mentioned, as in the case of Aquila,
15, Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and
Olympas, and all the holy brethren with them. Who Phi
lologus and JuUa were, or what the relation was, which subsisted
between them, if any, we know not It has been conjectured that
they were either husband and wife, or brother and sister; but
of the truth of the conjecture, no evidence exists. The former has
also been assumed to have been one of the seventy, and by some
critics, it has been held that Julia should be JuUas, the name of a
man. The question can not be settled. Of Nereus and his sister,
we know nothing reliable beyond what is here said. Some
legends exist In regard to the former, of a nature so unsatisfac
tory that they need not be repeated. As to Olympas, he too has
been set down as one of the seventy; and it is related of him
that he suffered martyrdom at Rome in 69. I place no confi
dence In these accounts. And the holy brethren with them:
Who these "holy brethren" were is utteriy unknown. Possibly
they, with the others named in the verse, formed a sort of neigh
borhood in some particular district of the city, where they met
together and worshiped. This fact would account for their being
grouped together as here. The same remark applies to v. 14.
16. Greet one another with a holy kiss. Among inti
mate friends, and as an expression of sincere affection, the kiss
was common among the Jews. .Indeed, the custom appears to
have been general among oriental nations. Thus when Joab slew
Amasa, he took hold of his beard, as if too kiss him. 2 Sam. xx: 9.

46o COMMENTARY. [Chap. i6, v. i6.
And the Savior said to Simon: "Thou hast given me no kiss; but
this woman, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my
feet." Luke vii: 45. Judas also kissed the Savior in the act of
betraying him. And in speaking of the meetings of the early
christians, Jiistin Martyr says: "Prayers being ended, we salute
one another with a kiss; and then the bread and wine are
brought to the president." The custom seems to have prevailed
in the church, if not from its very founding, certainly from a
very early day, where It assumed peculiar sanctity; and it seems
to have been completely promiscuous. Is it binding on us of the
present day? The question has been much discussed; and it
appears not easily settled. If it be assumed that the Apostle
enjoined it upon the christians in Rome, as something to be done
by them in virtue, solely, of their relation to one another in
Christ, then I should hold that his injunction has the force of law
for us. And that the case in hand has much of this look, I am
candid to say, I can not deny. On the contrary. It seems to me
a most improbable thing, that the Apostle would enjoin upon the
holy in Christ, a custom which It appears to me impossible to
indulge promiscuously, without certain and widespread abuse.
I am therefore averse to think he has done it. Upon the whole,
the view I prefer to take of the case is this: The Apostle, by his
injunction, did not create the custom; for it was prevalent at the
time. He meant merely to purify it. He hence says, "Greet one
another with a holy kiss." Only therefore where the custom
exists, is his injunction applicable. Where the custom does not
exist, his injunction is not designed to create it. It hence does
not bind It upon us. If we do kiss, it must be a holy kiss; but
we are not compelled to kiss. This is my best answer to the
question. Were promiscuous kissing the vogue in churches
of the present day, the results would be disastrous in the extreme.
In the case of the young especially, It would soon degenerate
into the grossest abuse. It would become, in the shortest time,
as carnal as" the flesh pots of Egypt, and the sure precursor of
infinite scandal. In no land or case, in my opinion, is promiscu
ous kissing among the children of God, a tolerable thing. It
must be utterly eschewed.
All the churches of Christ greet you. That is, all those
in this region of country. The presumption is, that the churches
of Achaia had been informed of Paul's purpose to write to
Rome; and that they had avafled themselves of the opportunity

Chap. i6.]

ROMANS.

461

to send their greeting. At least, I should not think it likely that
he would venture to speak for them without their sanction.

CHAPTER XVI. SECTION 2,

" UapaxaXd Se ipas, dSeXipoi, axo-
neXv rovs ras Sixoaraaias xai ra axdv-
SdXa napd rfjv SiSaxfjV fjv ipeXs ipdBere,
noiovvras, Kai ixxXivare an' airrav "01
yap Totoirroi Tt5 Kvpta> rjpav Xptard ov
SovXevovatv, dXXd rfj eavrav KOtXia, Kai
Std rg? ;^pi70-roXoyiaff Kai eiXoyias iia-
nardai rar KapSias rdv dxdxav. "'H
yap ipdv inaxo^ els ndirras dcjilxero-
iif>' ipXv oiv X'^ip"'- ^eXa Si ipds
ao^ovs eivai els ro dyaBov, dxepaiovs Se
els rd xaxdv. '" 'O Se Qeds rfjv elpfjvrjs
avvrpi^frei roi' aaravdv ind rovs ndSas
ipdv iv rdxet. 'H x^P" ''"'' Kvpiou
fjpav 'irj-rov Xpiarov peff ipdv.
" 'AoT-tfferat ipds TipdBeos d avvep-
yds pov, xai Aorjxios Kai Idaav Kai
Taainarfos oi avyyeveXs pov, "'Ao-jrtx-
(opai ipds iyd Tepnos d ypdyj/as rfjv
intardXfjv iv Kvpia. '' 'Aand^erat
ipds TdXos d ievos pov xai oXrjs rfjs
ixxXrjaias. 'Aand^erai ipds Epaaros
d olxovdpos rfjs ndXeas xai Kovapros o
dSeX(j>ds. " 'H X"P'* '''''" Kupi'ov fjpav
'lijo-oiJ XpioToiJ perd ndvrav ipav—
dpfjv. "T» Se Svvapeva ipas arrjpiiai xard
tA eiayyeXidv pov xdi ro xfjpvypa Irjaov
Xpiarov, xard dnoxdXvjnv pvarrjptov
Xpdvois alaviois aeatyrjpevov, "(jiave-
paBevTos Se vvv Std re ypalfidv npo(j>rjrt-
xdv xar' intra-yfjv rot! aiaviov Qeov ets
vnaxofjv niareas els ndvra ra eBvrj -yva-
piaBevros, " pdva ao<j>d Qea, Std
'iTjaov Xpiarov, 4 V ^^i" ^is 'rois
aldvar— -dpfjv.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, to
look after those that cause divisions
and stumblings, contrary to the
teaching you have learned, and turn
away from them ; " for such as they,
serve not our Lord Christ, but their
own stomach, and by good talk and
fair speech deceive the hearts of the
innocent. "Yet your obedience has
come abroad to all men. I therefore
rejoice over you ; but I wish you to
be wise as to what is good ; and
harmless as to what is bad. ^° And
the God of peace shall soon crush
Satan under your feet. The favor
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you. " Timothy, my co-laborer, and
Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater,
my kinsmen, greet you. '^'1 Tertius,
who wrote this Letter, greet you in
the Lord. "Gaius, the entertainer
of me, and of the whole church,
greets you. Erastus, the treasurer
of the city, and Quartus, the brother,
greet you. '^^ The favor of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you all — amen.
"Now to him who is able to estab
lish you according to my gospel,
even the preaching respecting Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of
the mystery, ^° kept secret in times
gone, but now manifested through
the prophetic writings — made known
by command of the everlasting God,
to aU nations, in order to the obedi
ence of belief— "to God the only
wise — to him be glory through Jesus
Christ, for ever — amen.

SUMMARY.
In this section, the subject of divisions or factions is strangely insulated,
and made to receive special notice. The brotherhood are commanded to
watch such as cause divisions and occasion stumblings, and to turn away

462 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 16, v. 17.
from them. Such persons are severely characterized as not serving Christ
but their own stomachs. After this digression, the Apostle returns to the
subject of personal greetings. These ended, he closes his great Letter with
a most wonderful outburst of praise — wonderful, because of its comprehen
sion, complexity, and strength.

17. Now I beseech you, brethren, to look after those
that cause divisions and stumblings. That divisions, of the
kind here named, either actuaUy existed in Rome; or that there
was danger of their existing, may be safely inferred from their
being here mentioned. Had none existed and none been in pros
pect, the Apostle would have said nothing about them. But why
he should have introduced the subject of divisions just in this
particular connection, is not easfly seen. It has no perceptible
connection with any thing either immediately going before, or
immediately following. The question of days and meats would
very naturally produce divisions, and no doubt had done it; but
then why were not divisions disposed of in connection -with that
question? Most likely the Apostle wished to give them quite an
independent notice, in order to stamp them, on their merits, with
his condemnation. At all events, he has done this.
"Divisions" — dichosiasias — These were neither schisms nor
apostasies. They rather consisted of little factions or parties in
the congregation. They are contrary to the teachings of Christ,
are destructive of peace, and imply a ¦want of brotherly love.
They are to the single congregation, in effect, what sects are to
the whole body of the believers — disastrous in their results, and
deeply sinful in their nature. Yet all over the land, divisions
exist. But is there no remedy for the popular divisions or partyisms
of the day? There is an infallible one. Let every man take his
belief and practice strictly from the Bible, in its own terms; let
him abandon all creeds, and drop all party names; then let all
unite on the Bible and on that alone, regardless of differences in
mere matters of opinion — let all do these things, and the work
of union is an accompUshed fact But is this remedy practicable?
Not till believers are brought to see the sinfulness of sects, and to
cherish a profounder regard for the word of God than at present.
Will they ever be brought to do this? My candid opinion is they
never will. Satan has too deep an interest to prevent union; and
God will not interpose by miracle to effect it. I therefore never
expect to see it.

Chap. i6,v. 17-19] ROMANS. 463
"And stumblings" — skandala. A skandalon is any false doc
trine, circumstance, fact, or thing placed in the way of a christian
brother, over which he stumbles or faUs, or which causes him to
err either in belief or practice,
contrary to the teachings, you have learned. The teach
ing they had learned consisted in the gospel they had heard.
Where the gospel, correctly presented, produces divisions, as it
always wfll, the divisions are right. We are not responsible for
the legitimate effects of the truth. But where we, by our own
errors of teaching or conduct, produce divisions among the chil
dren of God, we sin against Christ, Nor Is it a less offence to
countenance and defend divisions, than It Is to cause them. They
must be utterly disfavored by the christian. He is not at liberty
even to feel indifferent towards them. He must actively oppose
them, where they exist, and actively endeavor to prevent them,
where they do not exist,
and turn away from them ; This turning away amounted
to a withdrawal of fellowship: and the withdrawal was to con
tinue, so long as those withdrawn from, continued to produce
divisions. It was a separation of true brethren from false; and,
¦without a reformation, it was final.
18. for such as they serve not our Lord Christ, but
their own stomach, This shows that those who caused the
divisions and stumblings were bad men. They were usually
teachers, no doubt, who, upon some false or trivial pretense, got
up divisions in order, In the end, to draw off disciples after them,
and so derive a living from them. "They serve their own stom
ach" — ^They serve it in producing divisions, because they expect
the divisions they produce, to feed it. This shows the end they
had in view. Koilia, the word here used, denotes, says Sopho
cles, "the stomach, strictly so caUed."
and by good talk and fair speech, deceive the hearts of
the innocent. Whenever a man wishes to produce a divis
ion among the chfldren of God, he is certain to put on the air of
excessive sanctity, and to use the most honeyed words and gra
cious speech, the sure signs of a hypocrite, but, at the same time,
.he sure means of deceiving the innocent and unsuspecting. The
arts practised In Rome, in the Apostie's day, have been the arts
practised in afl time since, for the same end.
ig. Yet your obedience has come abroad to all men.
The gar here is clearly adversative; and I therefore so render it

464 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 16, v. 19, 20,
If we translate it otherwise, we have then to supply an adversa
tive clause, and render the particle for, as assigning the reason
for the clause. I prefer the former course as being the more
direct, though it is not so well sustained. It appears to have oc
curred to the Apostle, that what he had just said was a Uttie too
strongly put, for the case of the brethren in Rome, Accordingly,
he threw in the present verse apologetically, as it were, or as a
sort of saving clause. As much as to say, Although I thus
speak, my remarks are not meant exclusively for you; for your
obedience, in the matter of being united, has come abroad to all
men. This would seem to imply, not so much the existence of
actual divisions, as the existence of danger of them; and that the
Apostle's remarks were designed to be rather anticipative than
corrective, I therefore rejoice over you ; I rejoice over you, because
you are obedient to that teaching which requires you to be a
united, not a divided people; and because your good name, in
this particular, has come abroad to all the brethren as an example
for them.
but I wish you to be wise as to what is good, and
harmless as to what is bad. This delicate hint, occurring
here, clearly implies that they had neither been wholly wise, as
to what is good, nor wholly harmless, as to what is bad. Plainly,
they were not entirely free from those divisions of which the
Apostle is speaking. To be intentionally united, and resolutely
to resist faction — this, on the one hand, was to be wise as to what
is good; to foment faction, or in any way to be a party to it — this,
on the other, was not to be harmless as to what is bad. On the
contrary, to be or do the latter was to be criminally ImpUcated in
it Could the whole professing world be induced to follow the
Apostle's wish, the act would pi'ove the end of sects and parties;
and the end of sects and parties would soon prove the conver
sion of the world. For I set it down as fearfully true, that the
most hostile obstacle, now in existence, to that great end, is the
partyism of the day. Down with this; and down will go Infi
delity and paganism, in so far as they are ever to go down before
the truth,
20. And the God of peace shall soon crush Satan un
der your feet. After speaking of divisions and stumblings, it
was in fine taste on the Apostle's part, to subjoin God as the
God of peace. He is not the God of sects, and of parties, and
of divisions; nor is there any peace where they have footing. We

Chap, i6, v. 20-22,] ROMANS, 465
must banish respect for God, before we can foster faction. It
flourishes only in repudiation of the divine will. The sect-maker,
whether he intends it or not 's at enmity with Christ, and the
subverter of the peace of the church. He is no friend of the best
interests of humanity. ShaU soon crush Satan under your feet.
An allusion to what God said to Eve in the garden. Satan was
the prime instigator of those "divisions and stumblings;" and
what he was prime author to then, he has been prime author to
ever since. But for him, divisions would never exist; and he
who becomes a divider of God's children, is a tool in Satan's hand
for mischief. This of itself should shock every one who is
engaged in the work, and cause him to desist from it. The ex
pression "crush Satan under your feet," means to put an end to
his evil work of inciting divisions, and so give you the victory
over him. This implies that many brethren were opposing the
divisions, and striving to prevent them. The AjDostle promises
them a victory; but when It came, we know not.
the favor of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. The
last and best of prayers, which Is repeated In v, 24. If the favor
of Christ prevail, Satan will be crushed and division will cease,
21. Timothy, my co-laborer, and Lucius, and Jason,
and Sosipater, my kinsmen, greet you. These brethren
formed part of Paul's suite at the time of writing the Letter. In
deed, he appears seldom to have been alone. So vast were his
labors that they always afforded employment for several assist
ants. Besides, attending Paul was the very best possible school
In which to fit these brethren for successful, independent work.
Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater were kinsmen of Paul, of possibly
not a closer relationship than that of tribesmen. Lucius has been
supposed to be the same as Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts
xiii: I, which is not improbable. Jason is also supposed to have
been the Jason of Thessalonica, who entertained Paul and Silas.
These suppositions, though probable, must be received with
aflowance. Who Sosipater was, is wholly unknown, although it
has been conjectured that he was the same as Sopater of Berea,
which seems to me very Improbable,
22. I Tertius, who wrote this Letter, greet you in the
Lord. Tertius was Paul's amanuensis, who wrote the present
Letter; and from the fact that he sends his own independent
greeting-'to the disciples in Rome, It has been inferred that he
was personally known to them. The inference Is an exceed
30

466 COMMENTARY. [Chap, i6, v, 23-25.
ingly slender one, though it may be true. Beyond the present
brief line, nothing whatever is known of Tertius. The supposi
tion that he and Silas were the same, merely from the resemblance
between a Latin and a Hebrew word, is an idle conjecture.
23. Gaius, the entertainer of me and of the whole
church, greets you. It is almost certain that this was the Gaius
whom Paul himself had baptized, i Cor. i: 14. His home was
in Corinth; and he appears to have been a man of wealth and
great liberality. He entertained, not only Paul and his compan
ions, but on stated occasions, the whole church. He must have
been a noble and lovely man.
Erastus, the treasurer of the city, and Quartus, the
brother, greet you. Of Erastus nothing is confidently known,
beyond what is here said. He can hardly have been the Erastus
who was with Paul at Ephesus, Acts xix: 22; but he may be the
one named in 2 Tim. iv: 20. Of Quartus we have no account
whatever, except the usual legend that he was somewhere a
bishop, a legend in which no confidence can be placed.
24. The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you
all — amen. The Apostie's fervent love for his brethren, to
gether with his deep solicitude for their peace and prosperity in
the divine Ufe, prompts him to bestow on them, a second time,
his benediction. It is proper to add, that this verse Is omitted by
Tregelles and Tischendorf, and bracketed by Alford. Green re
tains it; and although the weight of authority is against it, it is not
clear to my mind that it should be rejected. In the present state
of the text, I shall retain it, conclusion.
25. Now to him who is able to establish you accord
ing to my gospel. The genuineness and proper location of
this concluding doxology have been much discussed. Upon the
former, I believe it is now generally conceded, that a well founded
doubt can not be entertained; and as to the latter, it is not mate
rial. Certainly the natural position of the doxology is at the end
of the Letter; and here, accordingly, the most reliable critics
place it.
The doxology itself is a lofty ascription of praise, difficult in
its construction, and very complex. Still, it strikes me as Paul
like in every lineament. It is elaborate, and exceedingly compre
hensive. Now to him: Who, of course, is God, as the end of the

Chap. i6, v. 25, 26.] ROMANS. 467

passage shows. Who is able io establish you — render you immov
able from Christ, and from the truth as it is in him. This is the
end for which Paul wished to impart that charisma, mentioned
in the first chapter. According to my gospel — not by my gospel,
but conformably to it, or in agreement with it
even the preaching respecting Jesus Christ, That is,
even my preaching respecting him, or the preaching which I do
respecting him. With Stuart, I regard the clause as merely ep
exegetic of the preceding one. lesou Christou are both Genitive
of object, and not of source. The meaning is not the preaching
which Christ does, or causes to be done, but the preaching
which respects him, or has him for its object It Is best to indi
cate this office of the Genitive by the use of respecting, as I have
done. Here, as often, it is better for literalism to yield to perspi
cuity, than the reverse.
according to the revelation of the mystery. The revela
tion of the mystery Is simply the mystery revealed, which is but
another title for the gospel. The full sense Is, Who Is able to
establish you according to the mystery revealed.
26. kept secret in times gone, This circumstance seems
to be added merely for the sake of description or greater fulness.
Kept secret, or not revealed in all the ages preceding the prophets.
This Umitation is made necessary by the next clause.
but now manifested through the prophetic writings, The
te of this clause is obviously redundant, as It often Is. To render
it and, as is usually done, serves no purpose but to enervate the
sense. It appears to me best to leave it untranslated. This pro
cedure may not be very normal, and I grant it is not; but no
critic with whom I am acquainted has suggested any thing bet
ter. Manifested through the prophetic writings: Not fully, but
sufficiently so to justify the remark. The mystery began to be
revealed by the prophets; but this is the most that can be said.
It was fully disclosed only by Christ and the Aposties. The nun,
now, of the clause covers the whole period from the beginning
of prophecy down to the time of Christ
made known by command of the everlasting God, That
is, the mystery or secret is now fully made known. Through
the prophets, it began to be manifested; by Christ and the
Apostles, it is fully brought to light And the distinction is a nice
one. The prophets merely intimated; the apostles made known.
The mystery fully made known is the gospel respecting Christ

468 COMMENTARY. [Chap. i6, v. 26, 27.
By command: When the time had fully come for the wondrous
secret of redemption to become known, God commanded'it to be
made known; and it was done.
to all nations, in order to the obedience of belief— The
mystery or gospel is now made known to all nations for the two
following ends: i.. To enable and to induce all men to believe.
2. To induce an obedience springing out of this belief, an
obedience never preceding it, but in all cases following it, and
rendered available only by it On this belief and the obedience
growing out of it, depends remission of sins — they are, in other
words, the two terms of salvation.
27. to God the only wise, to him be glory through
Jesus Christ, for ever — amen. The gospel, with all its sublime
achievements, the songs and thanksgivings of the saved — all
these must culminate in glory to God, through Jesus Christ. As
this outburst of lofty praise seems the most fitting of conclusions
to the present great Letter, I simply repeat — atnen.

PAUL'S LETTER TO ROMANS.

CHAPTER I.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, set apart to the gospel
of God, ' which he formerly promised through his prophets, in the holy
Scriptures, • concerning his Son, who, as to his flesh, was born of the
seed of David, • but, as to his pure spirit, was determined, by power, to
be the Son of God, by the resurrection of the dead — Jesus Christ our
Lord, * through whom we have received favor and apostleship, in order
to the obedience of belief, in all nations, for his name's sake, 'among
whom you -also are called of Jesus Christ, 'to all the beloved of God,
who are in Rome, called holy, favor to you and peace from God our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
' First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ respecting you all, that
your belief is spoken of in the whole world. ' For God is my witness
whom I serve in my spirit, in the gospel of his Son, that I constantly
make mention of you, '"always entreating in my prayers that, some
how, I may, at last, be favored by the will of God to come to you.
" For I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift that
you may become steadfast ; " and this is, that I may be comforted in
you through the belief which is in us both, in you and in me.
" Now I wish you not to be ignorant, brethren, that I often proposed
to come to you, (and that I have been hindered to the present,) that I
might have some fruit among you also, even as among the other na
tions. " Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and foolish, I
am debtor, " So, as to myself, I am ready to preach the gospel even to
you who are in Rome. " For I am not ashamed of the gospel ; for it is
God's power for salvation to every one who believes, to Jew first, and
to Greek. " For in it is revealed God's justification by belief in order
to belief; as it is written, he who is just by belief shall live.
"Now God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all impiety and
injustice of men, who keep down the truth by injustice. " Because that
which is known of God is manifest among them, for God has made it
clear to them. '" For his unseen traits are perceived since the creation
of the world, being known by the things that are made— both his ever
lasting power and divinity, so that they are without excuse. " Because
they, knowing God, did not glorify him as God, nor did they thank him ;
but 'became foolish in their reasonings, and their stupid heart was
darkened. ^ Professing to be wise, they acted as fools, ^ and exchanged
the glory of the incorruptible God for an image like corruptible man,
and fowls, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. ^ Therefore God
gave them up, in the lusts of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonor
469

47° COMMENTARY. [Chap. 2
their bodies among themselves, ^ who exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served the creature instead of him that made it,
who is blessed forever — amen.
*• For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their
females changed the natural use into one contrary to nature. " Likewise
also the males, quitting the natural use of the female, bumt in their lust
one for another, males practicing with males indecency, and receiving
in themselves the reward of their error, which was fit. ''And inasmuch
as they did not judge fit to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them
up to a rejected mind to do unbecoming things : " being filled with all
injustice, malice, greediness, evil ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit
malignity ; whisperers, *• slanderers, Godhaters ; insolent, proud, boastful,
inventors of evil, 'disobedient to parents, "stupid, faithless, without
natural affection, pitiless — " who knowing the decree of God, that they
who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but are
even well pleased with those that practice them.
chapter II.
Therefore you are without excuse, O, man, whoever you are that judge ;
for in that in which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you
that judge practice the same things. ' But we know that God's judgment
is according to truth against those that practice such things. ' Do you
then count on this, 0, man, who judge those that practice such things,
and do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God ? * Or
do you despise the abundance of his goodness, and forbearance, and pa
tience, not knowing that God's goodness leads you into repentance ?
'And according to your impenitent heart and hardness do you heap up
for yourself wrath in a day of wrath and of disclosure of the just judg
ment of God ? ' who will render to each according to his deeds — ^ everlast
ing life to those who, by continuance in good works, seek for glory and
honor and incorruption — ' anger and wrath to those who are contentious,
and obey not the truth, but obey injustice. "Affliction and distress will
come upon every soul of man who works evil, of Jew first, and of Greek.
" But glory, and honor, and peace will be given to every one who works
good, to Jew first and to Greek. " For there is no respecting the person
with God.
" For as many as have sinned without law shall also be lost without
law ; and as many as have sinned under law shall be condemned by law,
"in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ,
according to my gospel. " For not the bearers of law are just with God ;
but the doers of law shall be justified. " For when nations who have not
law do by nature the deeds of the law, these not having law are law to
themselves ; " who show the law's work written in their hearts when their
conscience testifies in agreement, and their reasonings among one another
accuse or even defend.

CHAP. 3.J ROMANS.

" But since you call yourself Jew, and rely on the law, and boast in
God, "and know his wiU, and approve tiie better things, being instructed
by tiie law, "and are confident that yourself are a leader of the blind, a
hght of those m darkness, »an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of
babes, having in tiie law the form of knowledge and of the truth—" you
then who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach,
steal not, do you steal? »You who say, commit not adultery, do you
commit adultery ? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples \pf them .?j
"You who boast in the law, dishonor God by breaking the law. '^ For as
it is written, God's name is, because of you, spoken evU of among the
nations. ^ For circumcision is of service, provided you practice the law ; but if
you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
" If then the uncircumcised keep the precepts of the law, shaU not his
uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? " And the uncircumcision,
which is natural, wUl, by fulfUling the law, condemn you who, with the
letter and circumcision, are a breaker of the law. '"For he is not the
Jew who is one simply without ; nor is that circumcision which is merely
without in the flesh. *" But he is the Jew who is one within, whose praise
is not of men, but of God ; and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, and
not in letter. CHAPTER III.
What then is the advantage of the Jew ? or what the profit of circumcis
ion ? ' Much in many a way. For, first, they were entrusted with the
revelations of God. • What then ? — inasmuch as some were not faithful.
WiU their unfaithfulness render God's fidelity of no effect? *Not at aU.
On the contrary, let God be true, but every man false ; that, as itis written,
you may be justified in your words and overcome when judged. 'But
if our injustice display the justice of God, what shall we say ? Is not God
unjust who inflicts wrath? I speak as a man. Not at aU. 'For how
then shall God judge the world ? ' For if God's truthfulness abounds
the more to his honor by my being false, why am also I stUl condemned
as a sinner? 'And should we not do evil that good may come? as we
are falsely said [to do], and as some declare we say, whose condemnation
is just
» What then ? Do we excel ? By no means. For we have already
charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, " as it is written :
there are none just, not one ; "there are none who understand ; there are
none who seek God ; " aU have ttmied aside; together they have become
useless ; there are none who do good ; there is not even one. " Their
throat is an open grave ; with their tongues they deceive ; the poison of
asps is under their lips ; "their mouth' is fuU of cursing and bitterness;
¦* their feet are swift to shed blood ; " ruin and misery are in their paths ;
" and the way of peace they have not known ; " there is no fear of God

472 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 4.
before their eyes. " Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to
those. under the law, that every mouth may be shut and the whole world
become guilty before God. ^ For by works of law no flesh shall be just
ified in his sight ; for by law is the knowledge of sin.
^But now God's justification without law is revealed, being attested by
the law and the prophets, ^even God's justification by belief in Jesus
Christ for all who believe — ^(For there is no difference; ^for all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God) — '"¦ they being justified freely
by his favor, through the ransom which is in Christ Jesus; ^whom God
has set forth as an atoning sacrifice through belief in his blood, for a
proof of God's justice, on account of remitting the sins formerly committed
* during his forbearance ; also for a proof of his justice at this time, that
he may be just while justifying him that believes in Jesus.
^ Where then is boasting ? It is shut out. By what law — of works ?
No indeed ; but by the law of belief. ^ For we conclude that man is justi
fied by belief, without deeds of law. '^ Is he the God of Jews only, and
not of Gentiles ? Yes, of Gentiles also ; '" since there is one God who will
justify the circumcision by belief, and the uncircumcision by belief. "Do
we then render law of no effect by belief? Not at all ; but we establish
law. chapter IV.
What now shall we say that Abraham our father obtained according to
the flesh ? • For had Abraham been justified by deeds, he has ground for
boasting. 'But he has none before God. For what says the scripture?
Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for justification.
* Now to him who works, the wages is not counted as a favor, but as a
debt. ' But to him who works not, but believes on him who justifies the
wicked — ^his belief is counted for justification. 'Even as David also
jSpeaks of the man's .blessedness to whom God counts justification with
out deeds : ' Blest are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered ; ' blest is the man to whom the Lord wUl not count sin.
" Now is this blessedness for the circumcision [only] ? or for the uncir
cumcision also ? For we say that to Abraham belief was counted for
justification. '"How then was it counted to him? — while he was in cir
cumcision, or in uncircumcision ? — not in circumcision, but in uncircum
cision. " And he received the mark of circumcision, as a seal of the
justification of the belief which [he had], in uncircumcision, that he
might be the father of all who believe, in uncircumcision, that to them
also justification may be counted ; " and the father of circumcision, not
to those who are merely circumcised, but to those who also walk in the
steps of the belief which our father Abraham had, in uncircumcision.
"Now the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not
made to Abraham, nor his offspring, through law, but through justifica
tion by belief. "For if they of law be heirs, belief is tendered of no

Chap, j.] ROMANS. 473
effect ; and the promise is a failure. " For the law works wrath ; but where
no law is there is no transgression. " Therefore, it is by belief, that it
may be by favor, that the promise may be sure for all the offspring, — not
to him only, who is of the law, but to him also who is of Abraham's
belief, who is the father of us all ; " (as it is written : I have made you a
father of many nations), before God in whom he believed, (who, makes
alive the dead, and calls things not existing as existing), "who, against
hope, believed in hope ; so that he became the father of many nations ;
according to the saying : So shall your offspring be. "And teing not weak in
belief, he did not mind his own body, now dead, being nearly a hundred
years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb ; '" and he did not decide
against God's promise through unbelief. But he grew strong by belief,
{giving glory to God), "being also fully convinced that what he had
promised, he is able also to do. '' Therefore it was counted to him
for justification.
¦^ Now it was not written, that it was counted to him, for his sake alone,
" but for our sake also, to whom it is to be counted — ^to us who believe on
him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, '* who was given up because
of our sins, and was raised for our justification.
chapter v.
Therefore being justified by belief, we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ ; ' through whom also we have access into this favor in
which we stand ; and [through whom] we rejoice in hope of the glory of
God. ' Not only so, but we even glory in afflictions ; knowing that afflic
tion produces patience ; * and patience, approval ; and approval, hope.
' And this hope makes not ashamed ; because God's love is poured out in
our hearts by the Holy Spirit that is given to us. ' For while we were still
without strength, Christ died, at the set time, for the wicked. ' (Now hardly
for the just will any one die ; yet for the good, may be, some one might
venture even to die. ' But God shows his love for us in this, that while we
were stiU sinners, Christ died for us.) » Much more then, being now justi
fied by his blood, we shaU be saved from wrath through him. '" For if,
while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son ;
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. " And not
only so, but we also rejoice in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have now received the reconcihation.
"Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the worl^, and death by
sin ; and thus it spread to all men, because all sinned. " For until the
law sin was in the world ; but sin is not counted when there is no law.
" Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not
sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is the type of him
that was to come. " But not as was the sin, so also is the gift. For if by
the sin of the one, the many died ; much more have the favor of God and
the gift by favor of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.

474 COMMENTARY. [Ckap. 6.
"And not as was the sentence which was by the one that sinned, so is the
gift. For the sentence was because of one sin to condemnation ; but the
gift is to justification from many sins. "For if by one sin death has reigned
through the one man ; much more are they, who receive the abundant
favor, and the gift of justification, to reign in life through the one, Jesus
Christ. " Therefore, then, as by one sin sentence came upon aU men to
condemnation ; so also by one righteous act the gift came upon all men
to justification of life. " For as by the disobedience of the one man, the
many were constituted sinners ; so also by the obedience of the one, the
many are to be constituted just.
" Now the law entered in besides, that sin might increase. But where
sin increased, favor abounded exceedingly more ; " that as sin reigned
in death, so also might favor reign through justification to everlasting life
through Jesus Christ our Lord. chapter VI.
What then shall we say ? Must we continue in sin that favor may
abound ? ' Not at all. We who died to sin, how can we still live in it ?
' Or do you not know that all we who were immersed into Christ Jesus were
immersed into his death ? * We were then buried with him by the immer
sion into death, that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of
the Father, thus we also should walk in newness of life. ' For if we have
become united with him by the likeness of his death, surely we are also
to be by that of his resurrection, 'knowing this, that our old man was
crucified with him, that the sinful body might be rendered inactive, that
we should no longer serve sin. ' For he that is dead is released from sin.
' Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we should also live like
him ; • knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more,
death lords it over him no more. •' The death, then, which he died, he
died to sin once ; but the hfe which he lives, he lives to God. " Thus do
you also account yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
" Therefore let not sin reign in your mortal body, to obey its desires.
" Nor present your members to sin, as instruments of wrong ; but present
yourselves to God, as alive from the dead, and your members to God, as
instruments of righteousness. " For sin shall not lord it over you ; for you
are not under law, but under favor.
" What then ? May we sin because we are not under law, but under
favor ? Not at all. " Do you not know that to whatever you present
yourselves as servants for obedience, its servants you are which you obey,
whether of sin to death, or of obedience to justification ? " But thanks to
God that though you were slaves of sin, you yet obeyed from the heart the
model of teaching to which you were delivered ; " and having been freed
from sin you became servants to righteousness — ^ I speak humanly on ac
count of the weakness of your flesh. For as you presented your members
as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, in order to lawlessnes.-! ; so now

Chap. 7.] ROMANS.

475

present your members as servants to righteousness, in order to holiness.
"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free as to righteousness.
"WeU, what benefit had you then from those things of which you are now
ashamed ? For tiie end of those things is death. ^ But now having been
freed from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit in holi
ness, and the end, everlasting life. " For the wages of sin is deaOi, but
the gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
chapter VII.
Do you not know, brethren, for I speak to men knowing law, that the
law rules over a man so long as he lives. ' For the married woman is
bound by law to her living husband ; but if her husband dies, she is re
leased from the law of the husband. • Therefore, if while her husband
Uves, she becomes wife to another man, she will act the adulteress. But
if her husband dies, she is free from the law ; so that she is not an adul
teress in becoming wife to another man. • And so, my brethren, you also
died to the law by the body of Christ, that you might become bound to
another, to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to
God. ' For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires which were by
the law worked in our members, to produce fruit to death. ' But now we
are released from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so
that we serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.
' What then shall we say ? Is the law sin ? Not at all. On the contrary,
I had not known sin but by the law. For I had not known desire to be
sin, had not the law said, You shall not desire. ' But sin, taking advan
tage through the precept, worked up in me every desire ; for without law
sin is dead. ' And I was once alive without law, but when the precept
came, sin revived, and I died ; " and the precept which was given for life
was found by me to end in death. " For sin, taking advantage through
the precept, deceived me, and by it killed me. " So then the law is holy,
and the precept holy, and just, and good.
" Did then that good thing become death to me ? Not at aU. But sin
did, that sin might be seen working death to me by what is good, that sin
might, by the precept, become excessively sinful. " For we know that the
law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. " For what I do, I ap
prove not ; for I practice not what I wish, but what I hate, that I do. " If
then I do what I do not wish, I agree with the law that it is right. " But
now it is no longer I that do this, but the sin which dweUs in me. " For
I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh ; for the wish is
present with me, but doing right is not. " For I do not the good which
I wish, but the evil which I do not wish, that I do. *> If then I do what
I do not wish, it is no longer I that do it but the sin which dwells in me.
n 1 find it, then, the rule with me that, when wishing to do right evU is
present with me. '^ For I delight in the law of God in the inner man ;
a but I see another law in my members, at war against the law of my

476 COMMENTARY. [Chap. 8.
mind, and making me captive to the sinful law which is in my members.
" Toil-worn man I ! Who shaU deliver me from this body of death ?
" Thanks to God, he will, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with
the mind I myself serve the law of God, bul with the flesh the law of sin.
chapter VIII.
There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus ; *for
the law of the Spirit of Ufe freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin
and death. ' For what was impossible for the law, because it was weak
through the flesh, God by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, did ; and he condemned sin in the flesh, 'thatthe justification
of the law might be accomplished in us who walk not according to the
flesh, but according to the spirit. ' For they that live according to the
flesh attend to the things of the flesh ; but they that live according to the
spirit, the things of the spirit. ' Now attending to the flesh is death ; but
al tending to the spirit life and peace ; 'because attending to the flesh is
enmity against God ; for he that does it is not obedient to the law of God :
indeed he can not be. 'So then they that are in the flesh can not please
God. ' But you who are not in the flesh, butin the spirit, provided God's
Spirit dwells in you ; and if any one has not Christ's Spirit he is not his.
"* But, though Christ dwells in you, the body is dead because of sin ; yet
the spirit is life because of justification. " Moreover if the Spirit Of him
that raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he that raised Christ from
the dead will also make alive your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells
in you.
'^ So then, brethren, we are bound, not to the flesh, to live according to
the flesh. " For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die ; but if
by the spirit, you put an end to the deeds of the body, you shall live.
" For so many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
" For you did not receive the spirit of slavery ending again in fear ; but
you received the spirit of sonship in which we cry. Father.
" The Spirit itself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God ;
" and if children, also heirs, God's heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, provid
ed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him. " Now I
count that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be named
with the glory that shall be revealed for us. " For the earnest expecta
tion of the creation is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God. ™Now
the creation was made subject to frailty, not willingly, but for his sake
who subjected it in hope. " Because the creation itself is to be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children
of God. ** For we know that the whole creation groans together and is in
pain until now. '^ And not only it, but even we ourselves, though having
the first fruit of the Spirit, even we groan within ourselves while waiting
for the sonship, the deliverance of our bodies. " For in this hope were
we saved. But hope seen is not hope ; for what one sees why still does

Chap. 9.J ROMANS.

477

he hope for ? * But if we hope for what we see not, with patience we
wait for it.
"And likewise the Spirit also helps our weakness ; for we know not what
we should pray for as we ought ; but the Spirit itself intercedes in groan
ings not utterable. " And he who searches the hearts knows what the
Spnit's mind is, that it pleads as God desires for the holy.
" Besides, we know that all things work together for good to those that
love God, to those that are caUed according to his purpose. " For whom
he foreknew, he also predetermined to be of a form like the form of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. '" And whom
he predetermined, them he also caUed ; and whom he caUed, them he
also justified ; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
" What then shall we say to these things ? If God is for us who is
against us ? "^ He who spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us
all, how will he not also with him give us^ all things ? " Who can bring
a charge against God's chosen ? It is God that justifies. "Who is he
that condemns ? It is Christ that died, rather that is risen, who also is
at the right hand of God, and who pleads for us. •* Who can separate
us from the love of Christ ? Can affliction, or distress, or persecution,
or hunger, or nakedness, or danger, or sword ? " Accordingly it is writ
ten, for your sake we are killed all the day ; we are counted as sheep for
the slaughter. " But in all these things we more than conquer by him
that loved us. " For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels
nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, "nor
hight, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from
God's love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
chapter IX.
I speak the truth in Christ I lie not, my conscience testifying for me
in the Holy Spirit, ' that I have great grief and continual sorrow in my
heart. » For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for
my brethren, my kin according to the flesh ; * who are Israelites, whose
is the sonship, and the glory, and the covenants, and the law-giving, and
the worship-service, and the promises ; ' whose are the fathers, and of
whom, as to his flesh, Christ came, who is over all things. God be blessed
forever— amen. " But I do not mean that God's word has failed ; for all
tiiat are of Israel are not Israel. ' Nor are they aU children because
Abraham's offspring ; but in Isaac your children shall be caUed : ' That
is, the children of the flesh are not children of God, but the children of
tiie promise are counted for children. » For there was this word of prom
ise : At this time I will come, and Sarah shaU have a son. "And not
only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived by one, Isaac our father,
» it was said to her (the children being not yet born, nor having done any
thing good or bad, that God's purpose as to choosing might stand [and
the choice be] not from works but from him that caUs), " the elder shaU
serve the younger : "As it is written : I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.

478 COMMENTARY. [Chap, la
" What then shall we say ? Is there not injustice with God ? Not at all.
" For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy ; and
I will pity whom I pity. " So then [being chosen] is not of him that
wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. " For the
scripture says to Pharaoh : For this very purpose I raised you up, that I
might display in you my power, and that my name might be published
in all the land. " So then he has mercy on whom he will, and whom he
will, he hardens. " You will say to me then, Why then does he still find
fault ? For who resists his will ? '" Nay but, man, who are you , that
reply to God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
did you make me thus ? "Or has not the potter power over the clay to
make from the same mass one vessel for honor and another for dis
honor ?
** But God, though determining to display his wrath and to make known
his power, endured with much forbearance vessels of wrath ripe for
destruction. ^ And that he might make known his wealth of glory on
vessels of mercy, which he prepared for glory, " [he showed mercy on]
us whom he also called, not only from the Jews, but also from the
Gentiles. '^ As he says also by Hosea : I will call those my people that
are not my people, and her beloved that is not beloved ; ^ and in the
place where it was said to them. You are not my people, there they shall
be called sons of the living God. " Besides Isaiah cries over Israel :
Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a
remnant shall be saved. ^ Now the Lord will execute this saying upon
the land, fulfiUing it and ending it quickly. " And as Isaiah had before
said : Had not the Lord of hosts left us offspring, we should have become
as Sodom, and been made like Gomorrah.
'" What then shall we say ? That the Gentiles who were not seeking
justification, attained to justification, but justification that is by beUef.
"But Israel, though seeking a law of justification, attained not to a law.
" Why ? Because [seeking justification] not by belief, but as by works,
they stumbled at the stumbUng-stone. " As it is written : Behold, I place
in Sion a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence ; and he that believes
upon it shall not be ashamed. chapter X.
Brethren, the desire of my heart and prayer to God for them, is for
their salvation. ' For I testify for them that they have zeal for God, but
not according to knowledge. ' For being ignorant of God's justification,
and seeking to establish their own, they have not been obedient to God's
justification. * For Christ is the end of the law for justification to every
one that beUeves. ' For Moses describes the justification which is of the
law : that the man who has done its requirements shall live by them.
» But justification by belief speaks thus : Say not in your heart, Who
shaU go up into heaven ; that is, to bring down Christ ; ' nor Who shaU

Chap, ii.] ROMANS. 479

go down into the deep ; that is, to bring up Christ from the dead ? « But
what does it say ? The thing said is near you, in your mouth and in your
heart, that is, the doctrine of belief, which we preach : ' — that if you will
confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and wiU believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you shaU be saved. " For with the
heart we believe in order to justification, and with the mouth we confess
in order to salvation. " For the scripture says : Every one that believes
on him shaU not be ashamed. " For between Jew and Greek there is no
differepce ; for the same Lord of aU is rich towards aU that caU upon
him. " For every one who calls upon the name of the Lord shaU be
saved. " How now can they call upon him in whom they have not believed ;
and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard ; and how
can they hear without a preacher ; " and how can they preach unless they
be sent ? As it is written : How timely are the feet of those that preach
good news ? " But still aU have not obeyed the gospel ; for Isaiah says :
Lord, who has believed our report ? " Therefore belief comes from report,
and report by means of Christ's word. " But I say, have they not heard ?
Yes, indeed, their voice went into all the land, and their words into the
ends of the world. " But I say, did Israel not understand ? First Moses
says : I will make you jealous by what is not a nation, and will provoke
you by a foolish nation. " And Isaiah is bold and says : I was found by
them who sought me not ; I became known to them who asked not for
me. " But respecting Israel he says : the whole day I stretched out my
hands to a disobedient and contradicting people.
chapter XI
I say, then, Has God rejected his people ? Not at aU. For even I am
an Israelite, of the offspring of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
' God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know
what the scripture says in [the case of] Elijah when he complains to God
against Israel ? ' Lord, they have kiUed your prophets, digged down your
altars, and I am left alone, and they seek my life. ¦* But what says the
answer to him ? I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not
bent knee to Baal. 'Likewise then, even at this time, there is a remnant
by choice of favor; 'and if by favor, not from works, for then favor is no
longer favor. ' What then ? That which Israel seek, they found not ; but
the chosen found it, and the rest were hardened. 'As it is written, God
has given them die spirit of sleep until this day, eyes but not to see, and
ears but not to hear. 'David also says : Let their table become a snare,
and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a requital to them. "Let their
eyes be darkened that they may not see, and do you bend down their back
always. " I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall ? Not at all. But
by their fall, salvation is come to the Gentiles, in order to excite them to

48o COMMENTARY. [Chap. 12.
emulation. " Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the
riches of the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness be. "And I
speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am apostle to the Gentiles ; [and] I
honor my office, " if possibly I may excite my flesh to emulation, and save
some of them. " For if their rejection is the reconciUatlon of the world,
what will their reception be but life from the dead ? "And if the first por
tion be holy, the mass is also ; and if the root be holy, the branches are
too. " But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild
olive, have been grafted in among them, and become a partaker of the
root and fatness ofthe olive, "boast not against the branches. But if you
boast, you bear not the root, but the root, you. "You will say then,
branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. ^ Well ; because of
unbelief they were broken off, and by belief you stand. Be not high-
minded, but fear. " For if God spared not the natural branches, he will
also not spare you. '^ See then God's kindness and cutting off — upon them
that fell, cutting off; but upon you, God's kindness, provided you continue
in hi^ kindness ; otherwise you too shall be cut off. ^ And they also, if
they continue not in unbelief, shall be grafted in ; for God is able to graft*
them in again. ^ For if you have been cut from an olive, wild by nature,
and grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive, how much more shall
these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive ?
^ For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, lest
you be wise within yourselves, that hardness in part has happened to Is
rael, until the full sum of the Gentiles come in. ^ And so all Israel shall
be saved ; as it is written : The deliverer shall come out of Sion, and shall
turn away impiety from Jacob. " And my covenant with them is this —
when I shall take away their sins. ^ With respect to the gospel, they are
hated for your sake ; but with respect to the choice, beloved on the fathers'
account. ^ For God's favors and caUing are not regretted. " For as you
were formerly disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy through
their disobedience ; " so also they are now disobedient that they may ob
tain mercy through the mercy shown to you. "For God has shut up all
in disobedience that he may have mercy on all.
" O the depth of God's riches, and wisdom, and knowledge. How un-.
searchable are his decisions, and untraceable his paths! '*For who has
known the Lord's mind, or who has been his counsellor ? "Or who has
first given to him, and it shall be repaid to him ? "For all things are of
him, and through him, and for him. To him be glory forever — ^amen.
chapter xii.
I therefore beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present
your bodies a living, holy, well-pleasing sacrifice to God, which is your
reasonable service ; ' and not to be fashioned after this world, but to be
changed by the renewing of your mind, that you may judge of what
God's will is — of what is good, and weU-pleasing, and perfect • Fbr by

Chap. 13.1 ROMANS. 481
the favor bestowed upon me, I charge every one who is among you not to
be high-minded beyond what he ought to be in mind, but to take care to
be right-minded, as God has divided to each a measure of belief. ? For
as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the
same use ; ' so we, the many, are one body in Christ, and are each mem
bers of one another. « Having then gifts differing according to the favor
bestowed — whether prophecy, let us exercise it according to the measure
of beUef ; 'or ministry, let us serve in ministering; or let him who
teaches, attend to teaching ; ° or let him that exhorts, continue in exhorta
tion ; let him that imparts, do so with liberality ; let him that rules, rule
with diligence ; let him that shows pity, do it with cheerfulness.
• Let love be unfeigned ; abhor what is evil ; cling to what is good
"As to brotherly love, be very affectionate to one another ; in esteem, be
examples to one another. " Be not slow in zeal ; fervent in spirit ; serv
ing the Lord. " Be joyful in hope ; patient in affliction ; constant in
prayer. " Be sharers in the wants of the holy ; keeping on in love for
strangers. " Bless those who persecute you ; bless, and curse not " Re
joice with the rejoicing ; weep with the weeping. " Be of like mind one
towards another ; mind not high things, but be led along by lowly things.
Be not wise in your own eyes. " Repay not evil for evil ; take fore
thought for things right in the sight of all men. " On your part, be at
peace, if possible, with all men.
"Beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place to the [Lord's] anger;
for it is written : punishment is mine, I will repay it says the Lord. " But
if your enemy be hungry, feed him ; if thirsty, give him drink ; for in do
ing this you wiU heap coals of fire upon his head. " Be not conquered
by evU, but conquer evil by good. chapter XIII.
Let every soul be obedient to ruling authorities ; for there is no author
ity but from God ; and those in being have been set in order by God.
• So that he who resists the authority resists the appointment of God ; and
they who resist wiU receive sentence against themselves. " For rulers are
not a fear to good work, but to bad. Do you wish then not to be afraid
of the authority ? Do what is good, and you shaU have praise from it
• For [the ruler] is God's servant for good to you ; but if you do bad, be
afraid, for he wears not the sword to no purpose. For God's servant is
an avenger for anger upon him who does bad. ' Therefore it is necessary
to be obedient not only because of anger, but also because of conscience.
• Now for this reason also you pay tax ; for they are God's ministers at
tending to this very duty. ' Give to all their dues, tax to whom tax is due,
custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
• Owe no one any thing, except the love of one another ; for he who
loves another has fulfilled the law. • For the [law is] : You shall not com
mit adultery ; you shall not murder ; you shall not steal ; you shall not de-

COMMENTARY. [Chap. 14-

sire ; and if there is any other commandment it is summed up in this say
ing, namely, you shall love your neighbor a.<; yourself. '" Love works no
evil to a neighbor ; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
" And this [let us do] knowing the season, that it is already time for us
to awake from sleep ; for now our salvation is nearer than when we be
Ueved. " The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Let us then lay off
the works of darkness, and put on the arms of light. ' Let us walk be
comingly as in the day, not in revels and drunkenness, not in beds and
lewdness, not in strife and envy. ^ But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
make no provision for the desires of the flesh.
chapter XIV.
And accept him who is weak in belief, but not to decisions of thoughts.
' One believes that he may eat all things ; while he who is weak eats veg
etables. ' Let not him that eats, despise him that eats not ; and let not
him that eats not, judge him that eats ; for God has accepted him. * Who
are you that judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or
&Us ; and stand he shall, for the Lord is able to make him stand. ' One
esteems one day above another ; another esteems all days alike. Let each
be fiilly satisfied in his own mind. ' He who keeps the day, keeps it to
the Lord ; and he who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks ;
and he who eats not, to the Lord eats not, and gives God thanks. ' P'or
no one of us Uves to himself, and no one dies to himself; 'for whether
we live, we live tq the Lord, or die, we die to the Lord. Whether there
fore we live or die, we are the Lord's. ' Because for this purpose Christ
died and lived, that he might be lord of both dead and Uving. '° But why
do you judge your brother? or why despise your brother? For we shall
all stand before the judgment-seat of God. " For it is writtten : As I live,
says the Lord, every knee shall bend to me, and every tongue confess to
God. " So then, each of us shall give account to God respecting himself.
" Therefore, let us no longer judge one another. But rather do you
decide on this, not to place a stumbling-block or means of feUing before
a brother. " I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is
unclean in itself; but to him who thinks a thing unclean, it is unclean.
" If now your brother is grieved by food, you no longer walk according
to love. Destroy not him with your food for whom Christ died. '° Let
not your good then be evil spoken of. " For the kingdom of God is not
food and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
'" For he who in this [way] serves Christ, is acceptable to God and ap
proved by men. " Now therefore let us follow the ways of peace, even
the ways that buUd up one another. ^° For the sake of food, pull not
down the work of God. All [food] is clean, but [food] is an evU to the
man who, in eating it, occasions stumbling. ^' It is good not to eat flesh,
nor drink wine, nor [eat or drink] any thing by which your brother

chap. 15.] ROMANS. 483
stumbles, or falls, or is made weak. '' You have belief: keep it to your
self before God. Happy is he who condemns not himself in that which he
judges proper. ^' But if one eats while doubting, he is condemned, be
cause [his act is] not from belief; and every act which is not from belief,
is a sin. chapter XV.
Now we, the strong, ought to bear with the weaknesses of the weak, and
not to please ourselves. ^ Let each of us please his neighbor in what is
good, for the purpose of building up. ' For even Christ pleased not him
self, but as it is written : The reproaches of those reproaching you, fell on
me. ^ For whatever was formerly written, was written for our instruction,
that through patience and through comfort from the scriptures, we might
retain hope. ' Now may the God of patience and comfort grant to you to
he of this same mind in regard to one another, according to Christ Jesus,
' that with one soul, you may, with one mouth, glorify God, even the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ. ' Therefore accept one another, even as Christ
accepted you to the glory of God. ' For I say that Christ became a minis
ter of the circumcision, for the sake of God's truthfulness, in order to make
good the promises to the fathers, 'and that the Gentiles might glorify God
for his mercy. As it is written : for this reason I will confess to you among
the Gentiles, and will sing to your name. '° And again he says. Be glad
you Gentiles with his people. " And once more. All you Gentiles praise
the Lord, yes, all you people praise him. '^And farther, Isaiah says.
There shall be a root of Jesse ; and he shall rise up to rule the Gentiles,
yes, in him the Gentiles shall trust.
" Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,
that you may abound in hope by power of the Holy Spirit. " But I am
persuaded, my brethren, even I myself, respecting you, that you also your
selves are fiill of goodness, being filled with all knowledge, able even to
admonish one another. '•' Yet I have written to you the more boldly in
places, as one recalling things to your memory, because of the favor be
stowed upon me by God, '^ in order to my being a minister of Christ Jesus
for the Gentiles, administering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the
Gentiles might be acceptable, being purified by the Holy Spirit. " I am
therefore enabled to boast in Christ in matters relating to God. " Yet I
shall not venture to speak of any thing which Christ has not effected through
me by power of the Spirit, " by word and deed, by the power of signs and
wonders, in order to the obedience of the Gentiles. So that from Jerusa
lem, and around, as far as Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of
Christ ; ^ thus being moved by love of honor to preach the gospel where
Christ had not been named, that I might not build upon another's founda-
rion. '' But as it is written : They to whom nothing was told respecting
me, shall see ; and they who have not heard, shall understand.
^ For this reason also, I have often been hindered from coming to you ;

484 COMMENTARY. [Chai 16.
"but now having no longer a place [to preach] in these regions, and
naving had a desire for many years to come to you [I purpose daing so],
"whenever I go into Spain. For I hope while passing through to see
you, and to be by you helped forward thither, provided I am first partly
filled with you. *But now I am going to Jerusalem, ministering to the
holy. " For Macedonia and Achaia thought good to make a contribution
for the poor of the holy who are in Jerusalem, "yes, thought good, and
they are debtors to them. For if the Gentiles shared in their spiritual
things, they ought to minister to them in fleshly things. ™ When now I
have finished this service, and secured to them this fruit, I shall depart
by you into Spain. "And I know that in coming to you, I shall come
with the fuUness of Christ's blessing. " But I beseech you, brethren, by
our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in
prayers to God for me, " that I may be delivered from the unbeUevers in
Judea, and that my service, which is for Jerusalem, may be acceptable to
the holy, ** that with joy I may come to you by God's will, and be refreshed
among you. "The God of peace be with you all — amen.
chapter XVI.
Now I commend to you, Phebe, our sister, who is deaconess of the
church in Cenchrea, ' that you receive her in the Lord, as becomes the
holy, and help her in whatever business she may need you ; for she her
self also has been a helper of many, and of me myself.
• Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-laborers in Christ Jesus, * who, for the
sake of my life, laid down their own neck ; to whom not only I give thanks,
but also all the churches of the Gentiles ; and [greet] the church in their
house. ' Greet my beloved Epenetus, who is a first fruit of Asia to Christ.
' Greet Mary who labored much for you. ' Greet Audronicus and Junias,
my kinsman and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apos
ties, and who were in Christ before me. ' Greet Amplias, my beloved in
the Lord. 'Greet Urbanus, our co-laborer in Christ, and my beloved
Stachys. "Greet Apelles, the tried in Christ. Greet those of the family
of Aristobulus. " Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the fam
ily of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. " Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa,
who labor in the Lord. Greet the beloved Persis, who labored much in
the Lord. " Greet Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and
mine. " Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the
brethren with them. " Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister,
and Olympas, and all the holy with them. " Greet one another with a
holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
" Now I beseech you, brethren, to look after those that cause divisions
and stumblings, contrary to the teaching you have learned, and turn
away from them ; " for such as they, serve not our Lord Christ, but their
own stomach, and by good talk and fair speech deceive the hearts of the
innocent "Yet your obedience has come abroad to all men. I therefore

Chap. i6.] ROMANS. 485
rejoice over you ; but I wish you to be wise as to what is good ; and harm
less as to what is bad. " And the God of peace shall soon crush Satan
under your feet The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
" Timothy, my co-laborer, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my
kinsmen, greet you. " I Tertius, who wrote this Letter, g^eet you in the
Lord. " Gaius, die entertainer of me, and of the whole chmch, greets you,
Erastus. the treasurer of the city, and Quartus, the brother, greet you.
** The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ be witii you aU — amen,
" Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, even
the preaching respecting Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of tbe
mystery, " kept secret in times gone, but now manifested through the
prophetic writings — made known by command of the everlasting God,
to all nations, in order to the obedience of belief— "to God the only wise-
to him be glory through Jesns Christ for ever — amen.

3 9002 08837 5747