SEP 16 1918 I ' *ts(oa < Srctioa A COM MENTARY THE EPISTLE THE ROMANS: TRANSLATION AND VARIOUS EXCURSUS. BY MOSES STUART, PBOFESSOR OF SACRED MTFPATunE IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT ANDOVER. THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED AND CONSIDERABLY ENLARGED. LONDON: PRINTED FOR THOMAS TEGG AND SON, 12., CHEAPSIDE ; GRIFFIN AND CO., GLASGOW ; AND TEGG, WISE, AND CO., DUBLIN. MDCCCXXXVT. LONDON : PRINTF.D BY J. HADDON, rASTI.E STnEF,T, FINSBURY. > PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. I PUBLISH to tlie world the result of my labours upon the Ej^istle to the Ro- inans with unfeigned diffidence, and with a trembling sense of the responsi- bility which I incur by so doing. This epistle has been the grand arena, if I may so express myself, on which theological combatants have been contending ever since the tliird centmy, and perhaps still earlier. The turn which the apostle James has given to his discussion respecting justification, makes it probable that even in his time there were some who abused the words of Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, concerning the doctrine of 'justification bj- faith without the deeds of law.' If so, then it would seem that there has been no period since this epistle was written, in which its meaning has not been more or less a subject of contest. How could this be otherwise, since it discusses the highest and most difficult of all the doctrines which pertain to the Christian sj^stem ? Men must be more alike in their early education, their illumination, their habits of reasoning, and their theological convictions, than they have hitherto been, and they must love God and each other better than they have ever yet done, not to differ in their interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans. It strikes at the root of all human pride and vain glory ; it aims even a deadly blow. And where a passionate attachment to these is rankling in the breast, how is it possible that this epistle should meet with a welcome reception, and the authority of its simple and obvious meaning be admitted ? Even where the remains of such an attachment are still lurking within, and only now and then developing them- selves, because the heart is in some measure unsanctified, there we cannot expect to find an unprejudiced interpretation of the writing in question. An epistle which is, as it were, the very Confession of Faith that a true Christian is to make, must needs receive an interpretation more or less forced, on the part of all who are influenced by pride, by passion, by prejudice, by ill-directed early instruction, or by ignorance. ^ For these reasons, an interpreter of this epistle must expect opposition at the present day, let his views be what they may. Be he Calvinist, Arminian, Pelagian, Antinoniian, Socinian, or of any other sect, it is in vain for him to think of escape. Paul is a writer too formidable to be acknowledged as an opponent. Hence, when he is interpreted so that the views of one party in any particular point seem to be favoured, other parties are very apt to unite in condemning the interpretation. Nothing will satisfy them but to have such a writer explained as siding with them. Alas, then, for the interpreter ! While he meets, perhaps, with the approbation of a few, he must of course expect the vehement dissent of many. He must make up his mind, therefore, before he publishes, to bear with all this, and to bear with it patiently and firmly; or else he had better abstain from publishing. It may appear to him as a very unde- sirable remuneration for painful and long-protracted labours ; but it is one which others have been obliged to receive, and which he also must expect. The only oflset for all the pain which this may occasion him, must be the hope, that his labours after all may do some good ; and that, if they do not themselves on the whole directly advance the cause of truth, they may at least be the means of exciting others to make inquiries, which will result in the accomplish- ment of such an end. For myself, I do not profess to be free from all prejudices of education and I^' PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. all attachment to system, in such a degree as to make it certain that mj- views may not sometimes be aflceted by them. Nor do I profess to be so illuminated in respect to divine thing's, and so skilled in the original language and criticism of the New Testament, as to be certain that all my conclusions respecting the meaning of the epistle before us are correct. Homo sum, et nihil humani a me alienum pttto. When, therefore, I speak in the indicative mood, and say that this means thus and so, the reader will not understand that any thing more is intended, than that this is true in my opinion. To be always dealing in the conditional mood, and filling one's pages with if, perhaps, probably, possibly, may it not, can it not. Sec, &c., would be intolerable in such a writing as a commentary. Besides, it would represent the author himself as in a perpetual slate of doubt or uncertainty. This I cannot truly say of mjself. My convic- tions, for the most part, have become definite and full in respect to far the greater portion of the Epistle to the Romans. To represent them otherwise, would be to misreiDrcscnt them. But this does not imply that I am insensible to the weakness of human nature, or to my exposedness to err. If I have any knowledge of m}- own heart, it is ver3- far from such insensibility. After all, however, a man who is lial)le to err, may form opinions, and niiiy be satisfied that they are correct. Tliis all men do, and must do ; and all which can be properly demanded of them is, that they should hold themselves open to conviction, whenever ade- quate reasons are offered to convince them of their errors. In this position, 1 trust and believe, do I hold myself, as to the opinions advanced in the interpretations that follow. I can say truly, that there are no opinions advanced here, which have been hastily taken up. I have been long engaged in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, and have studied it inueli more than any other part of the Bible. I have taken an extensive range in consulting commentators ancient and modern, as well as exegesis contained in theological essays and systems. This, however, I mention for one purpose, and one only, viz., to show that I have not come lightly to the responsible task of writing and publishing a commentary on the epistle under consideration ; and that the opinions, therefore, which are advanced in it, are not the offspring of mere education or hasty conjecture. Dissent, and probabl}' contradiction, are almost of course to be expected. I may be permitted, however, respectfully to solicit those who may see fit to publish any thing of this nature, that they would investigate thoroughl}-, before the}' condemn, what I have said. When" they have so done, I shall value their opinion, however it ma}- differ from my own. Aiming, as I trust I do, at the developmem of truth, I shall rejoice to find anj- of my errors corrected (for errors, no doubt, there are in my work) ; and if the correction be made in tiie spirit of love and Cliristian friendship, so much the more acceptable will it be. if it be made in a difierent spirit, and is still a real correction, I would fain hope for magnanimity enough to say : Fas est ub hoste doceri. From some of those who have never deeply studied the Epistle to the Romans, and who have a traditional and systematic exegesis which answers their purposes in an a priori way, I ma}' probably expect, in regard to some tilings, velicment and unqualified dissent. Such, however, can hardly assert tlie right of demanding that my views should be acconnnodated to theirs; since we proceed, in our respective interpretations, on grounds so exceedingly diverse. I hope, therefore, that such will excuse me from any obligation to contenil witii their exegesis. To those who may differ from me, after thorough research, I can only say : * Tlic field is open ; as open for you as for me. You have the same right to publish your thoughts to the world, as I have to publish mine ; and as good a right to defend 3'our views, as I have to proffer mine. The result of doing tins, if done with deep, attentive, protracted consideration, and in the spirit of kindness, cannot be otherwise than favourable to the interests of truth. 1 may not live to vindicate my own views where just, or to abandon the errors of ■which you might convince me; but others will live, who will do the one or the PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Other for mc, sliould it become necessary. The truth, at last, must and will prevail.' I confess, frankly, that I do not expect for this book the favour of such as are truly sectarians. 1 have written it, so far as in my power, without any regard to sect or name. Doubtless ray tfibrts have been, imperfect ; but so far as in me lay, the one only and simple inquiry witli me has been : What did Paul mean to teach.? What Calvin, or Augustine, or Edwards, or Arminius, or Grotius, or any other theologian or commentator lias taught or said, has been with me only secondary and subordinate. No one is farther from disrespect to the great and good than myself; but when explaining the Bible, to call no man master, and to bow to no system as such, arc sacred principles with me. If I have not always adhered to them, it results from my imperfection ; not from any conscious and allowed design. Of course, all partij men in theology will probably find some things in the following pages with which they will not agree. How can it be otherwise ? I have, to the utmost of my power, left their systems out of sight, and made it my constant and only effort, to follow simply the way in which the apostle seems to lead me. Such a course will be estimated differently from what it now is, when less attachment to system and party in theology, and more of simple-hearted love of the truth, just as it stands in the Scripture, shall prevail in the churches. My views of Rom. v. 12—19, of vii. 5—2.5, and of viil. 28^ seq., will no doubt be controverted. I have anticipated this ; for who can help knowing, that these passages have for time immemorial been the great irpodKomia kuI (TKavSakov of theology ? To hazard an interpretation here, and not to accom- pany it with reasons, would be justly deemed presumptuous. To give reasons, demands at least the appearance of theologizing. Whatever of this exists in the Commentary or the Excursus, is, I may say, involuntary on my part. It is inserted only to guard against being misunderstood, or else to support the interpretation which I have given. In order to do this, it is now and then necessary to show that a different interpretation is replete with difficulties, some of which are insurmountable. Those who are disposed to find fault with what they may call my theological discussions,— brief and seldom as they are, — would probably not make any objections to such discussions, had the result of them been accordant with their own views, or with those of the authors whom they highly esteem. But how can I be under obligation, to make wishes of this nature a rule to guide my interpretations, or my explanation and defence of them ? I know of no precept in theory, nor any obligation from usage, which hinders an interpreter from reasoning upon the doctrines which the Scriptures appear to teach, or which they have been represented as teaching. How can it be one's duty not_ to guard against the misrepresentation of his own views in respect to the meaning of Scripture, and not to defend those views by producing the arguments which appear to justify them ? Whatever the following pages contain, either of truth or error, they have been written under no ordinary sense of responsibility. The epistle itself must needs create such a feeling in the breast of every reflecting man, who under- takes to comment upon it; and in addition to this, I have been repeatedly interrupted in my labours by my state of health ; and this under circumstances which rendered it not improbable, that I should not live to see the completion of my work. The day of my account cannot be far distant ; and in view of it, can I publish to the world what I do not seriously regard as being true .? Can party purposes have any strong attractions for a man in such a condition ? I hope and trust I can say, that the tribunal before which this and all other works are to be finally judged, appears to me a matter of immeasurably higher interest, than all the praise or blame which men can bestow. May that omniscient and merciful Being, the God of love and truth, forgive whatever of error may be in this book ; and accept and bless to the good of his church, whatever of truth is explained or defended ! I should be ungrateful if I should omit to mention my special obligations to PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. some of the interpreters, ■wlio have laboured to explain the Epistle to the Romans. Calvin, Grotius, J. A. Turrctin, Flatt, and Tholiick have been my favourite authors ; althoutyh I have by no means confined mj' reading to these. Most of all am I indebted to the excellent book of Tholuck on this epistle. In particular, I have often relied on him in my statements with respect to the opinions of other commentators, whom I had not at hand, or whom I did not think it important to consult myself, because I confided in his account of their views. But in all cases, where any considerable importance was attached to the opinion of this or that individual, and where it was in my power to consult, I have consulted for myself. Prof, Tholuck will easily perceive, also, if the followinfT sheets should pass under his eye, that I am indebted to him for various classical quotations and allusions, and also for not a few valuable philological remarks, as well as views of the reasoning and argumentation of the apostle. He has my most unfeigned thanks for all the aid which his excellent work has affi)rded me. He will also perceive that in some places I differ from him ; I do this, as I trust, in the spirit of kindness and brotherly love. When I do differ, I always give m}' reasons for it. As I fully believe that his only aim is to come to the knowledge and development of truth, so I trust he will put a candid estimate on the full and frank expression of my own views, where thej- differ from his. May our respective labours and inquiries help to promote the great object which we both have in view ! Throughout, I have adopted and expressed no views or opinions without study ; and none upon the authority of others. Those who read the following pages will perceive, I apprehend, that while I have not neglected the study of other writers, I have not omitted to study and think for mjself. In this way only can any advance be hoped for, in the all-important work of interpreting the' Bible. 1 have only to add, that the present work is designed, in a special manner, for beginners in the study of interpretation ; and this fact will account for the occasional repetitions and particularity of illustration, which the reader will not unfrequently meet with, in his perusal of this volume. If all the young men in our country, who repair to theological Seminaries, or Avho devote themselves in any way to the study of sacred criticism, had been trained in early life to the study of the classics, on such grounds as are adopted in the Gymnasia of Europe, manj^ a minute remark might be spared which is now made. The reader who finds some things which are superfluous for himself, when he calls this to mind, will grant me pardon for being minute and parti- cular. Commentary written in a general way, leaves onlj^ a general and indis- tinct impression. It is not my aim to accomplish merely such an end. The more practised interpreter will not, for the most part, be displeased with being frequentlj' reminded of principles in grammar and criticism, which are in themselves important, and which need, in our biblical studies, to be kept con- stantly before the mind.* M. STUART. Theological Seminary, Andover, } Sept. 1832. S * I have omitted a slioit paragrapli here, wliicli is not apposite to (lie preseuteditiou. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Since the publication of the first edition of this Commentary, several works have appeared, some of which are adapted to afford aid of no inconsiderable importance. New editions of Usteri's Creed of Paul (Lehrbegriff Pauli), with the commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans by Beneke, Glbckler, Ruckert, and Reiche, have been published in Germany ; and in our own country, the Rev. A. Barnes of Philadelphia has also published a brief but very compre- hensive and valuable work on the same epistle. All of these, with the excep- tion of Ruckert, which has not come to hand, have been consulted bj' me in preparing the present edition. The work of Reiche (in two octavos) is ex- ceedingly copious. I have been aided in some respects" by his philology ; for his theology is anything but consistent and evangelical. His book in various respects is an" able one ; but his method is confused, and his manner often tedious. Yet no commentator on this epistle should now choose to dispense with the use of him. I thank him sincerely for the valuable hints that he has given me, of which I have omitted no opportunity to avail myself. The works of Beneke and Gloekler are short. The first holds to the pre- existence of human souls, and accounts for the present degradation of men, on the ground of sin in a previous state ; the second appears to be a moderate Pantheist of the recent school, and not unfrequently exhibits a portion of their mysticism. Yet both of these writers are in the main sensible men, and appear to possess serious and evangelical feelings. I have obtained some hints from each, which I consider as of value. From Usteri's new edition I have also taken some hints. From Mr. Barnes' work I have also derived aid ; and especially have I been often cheered on my way, by finding the result of his investigations to tally so well with my own. I have altered, and I hope amended, so many passages in this edition, that to specify them all is out of question. I have bestowed on it scarcely less labour than the first writing cost me. On many places, indeed I may say on all, which I have not materially altered, I have bestowed much study in order to satisfy myself that they should remain unchanged. Many additions have been made to the work. If the reader wishes to know the nature of them, he may compare notes on chap. IV., V., and the Excursus appended, with those of the first edition. I have spared no effort that I could bestow, to make my work more deserving than before of public approbation ; and in particular I have laboured to do this, as it respects the grammatical part of the commentary, and the explanation of the particles. I hesitated for a time whether I should not abridge the Excursus on Rom. v, 12 — 19, instead of enlarging them as I have now done. My reason for this hesitation was, that I had written in part an examination of the subject of Original Sin, and hoped to be able to illustrate and fortify some of the views which I had before advanced, to more advantage in a separate Essay, than could be done in Excursus where one is hedged in on every side through want of room. But as the plan of my Essay requires, in order to complete it, so wide an extent of reading as to both ancient and modern writings, I cannot well predict when I may be able to complete it, under such numerous and pressing duties as lie upon me. I have, therefore, retained so much of my PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. former Excursus on cliap. v. as my plan of corrections would permit, and made many additions to them ; some of which will at least serve to make the views I really entertain more explicit, and, as I would hope, better understood. That there is some want of unity of plan, and some repetition in the Excursus, is certainly apparent ; but this is owing to causes that were beyond my control, and which it would be useless for me to particularize in this place. I offer no apolof^y for the changes and corrections that I have made in this edition of my commentary ; being fully satisfied, that in a work of such an ex- tent as the present, and embracing such a great variety of topics, if its .luthor does not find reason in a republication to change and correct some of his first views, it is merely because he has not continued to study and investigate. For myself, I am so far from being satisfied with my first efforts, that they only serve to stiumlate me to new labours of investigation, in order more fully to ascertain whether they will abide a thorough scrutiny. Experience has taught me, that first views on subjects so difficult as some of those which the Epistle to the Romans discusses, are not always the safest. If there be any whose first impressions are always and only right, and who find no reason to alter and amend, they will not sympathise with these remarks ; but others, who, like myself, are obliged to investigate a second time, and review and amend, will enter fully into the meaning of what I say. I have scarcely referred in any part of my book, even in my own mind, to any of the criticisms that have been made upon it in periodicals. I do not wish to appear as a polemic, in such a work as this. Those who have kindly given their approbation to the first edition of the work will not complain of my course ; and those who have attacked it with earnestness ought not to com- plain. By this latter class I have been theologically and not philologically re- viewed ; and that, at times, evidently without the writers' having read any thing more than some of the Excursus with which they disagreed. In a few instances the style and manner of attack has been such as manifestly to pre- clude all attempt at repl}- ; in some others, the matter contained in the criticisms has not seemed to me to present any thing but the most common suggestions of every day's polemic theology ; and to repeat and confute this, would be agere actum. But even if matter and manner miglit seem to demand or admit a re])ly, it would be unwise to make a commentary the scene of battle-ground between contending parties. I have spoken without restraint my own senti- ments; but I have not intended to speak them as a polemic. The first edition of this work was disposed of within so short a time, that my other engagements did not permit me sooner to accomplish my prepara- tions for a second edition. I could not prepare, moreover, in a way consistent with the plan which I had adopted, until I had obtained the recent commen- taries on (he Epistle to the Romans, which have appeared since my first edition was published. Even now, several writers on this epistle are lingering in the press, whose works I should be glad to possess, but for which I could not think it my duty any longer to wait. Should I live to hear a call for another edition, I shall have my eye upon them, and shall not fail to draw from them all that I can which is a]ipropriate to my object. In the mean time, I would hope that tlie present edition may be useful to such as are desirous of critically studying the Epistle to the Romans. M. STUART. Andofer ; Thcul. Seminary, Sept. 1, 1885. INTRODUCTION EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. § 1. Of the first i^lanting of the church at Rome. History affords no certain evidence respecting the individual who first preached the gospel at Rome. The Romish church indeed maintain, that Peter was the founder of the first Christian community in that city^&v Irenaeus (adv. Hsereses III. 1), and Eusebius (Chron, ad ann. 2'Claudii), are the witnesses to whom the appeal is particu- larly made, in order to confirm this opinion. But although these Fathers had undoubtedly heard such a tradition, and (as it appears by the passages above cited) gave credit to it^ yet there is substantial reason for doubting the correctness of it. The statement of Euse- bius implies, that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius' reign, i. e., A. D. 43.* Jerome states, that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius' reign, in order to counteract the in- fluence of Simon Magus there ; and that he resided in that city, and held the office of a bishop in it, for twenty-five years, i. e., until the last year of Nero's reign, in which he suffered martyrdom ; De Viris illustr. c. I. But neither Eusebius, nor any of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers, make mention of such a period. Whence Jerome obtained information respecting it, he does not tell us ; and some leading critics among the Roman Catholics, e. g., Valesius, Pagi, Baluzius, and others, give no credit to this part of his nar- ration. That Peter visited Rome at some period of his life, before the close of Nero's reign, cannot well be doubted. Origen (in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. III. 1), and Dionysius of Corinth (flor. c. ann. 117), as related by Eusebius (II. 25), testify to this in such a manner that it cannot well be rejected, without giving up the credibility of all an- cient historical testimony of the like nature. Caius, a presbyter, at the commencement of the third century, mentions that he saw at * '£«•( rn; ajr^f K>.au8iou BatriKtiot;, sc. anno secundo ; Euseb. Ecc. Hist. II. 14. 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE Rome the graves of Paul and Peter; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. II. 25. The doubts of many Protestants rehitive to the fact that Peter visited Rome, and the assertions of Sahnasius, Spanheim, and others, that this could not have been the case, appear to be without any solid foundation. But that Peter did not go to Rome as bishop in the second year of Claudius' reign, nor indeed before the Epistle of Paul to the Romans was written, seems to be nearly or quite certain. (1) In Acts xii. 3, 4, we find an account of Peter's being imprisoned by Herod Agrippa, in the last year of this king's reign (comp. v. 23) ; and this yeai synchronizes with the fourth year of Claudius. Of course Peter was at Jerusalem, not at Rome, afier the period when Jerome and Euse- bius affirm that he went to Rome and resided there. (2) We find Peter at Jerusalem in the 7iinth (some say eleventh) year of Claudius ; he being present at the council there. Acts xv. 6, seq. (3) Nothing is said in the book of Acts, or in the New Testament, respecting Peter's visiting Rome ; and if he had done so, before the time at which the history in the book of Acts terminates, we can hardly sup- pose so important an occurrence would have escaped the notice of Luke. (4) Paul came as a prisoner to Rome, in the 7th year of Nero's reign, i. e., A. D. 60 (but some say in 62 or 63) ; on which occasion there is no mention, and there seems to have been among the Jews of that city no knowledge, of Peter, Acts xxviii, 17, seq. (5) Could Paul have addressed the Romans as he did in his epistle, if he had recognized them as disciples of Peter? Could he have written his whole epistle without once adverting to this fact? (6) If Peter was at Rome when Paul wrote this epistle, how could the latter fail to send a salutation to him as well as to others ? So late, then, as A. D. 57 or 58, when the Epistle to the Romans was probably written, it seems to be nearly certain that Peter had not been at Rome. The flourishing and apparently numerous church there, must therefore have been gathered by some other person than Peter. But who was this person ? A question that cannot be answered with any certainty ; although we may arrive at some probabilities I'especting it. In the salutations which Paul sends to the church at Rome, he mentions (xvi. 7) Andronicus and Junias, as having been his felloiv-prisoners, and as l-Tria'niJ^oi kv roTg d'xoaro'koii, they having become Christians earlier than himself. What hinders the supposi- tion, that one or both of these men, perhaps converts on the notable day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10), and of high repute among the apostles themselves, may have first spread the knowledge of the gospel in the metropolis of the Roman empire, of which they were inhabitants, or in which they were at least residents ? Rufus, also, a distinguished Christian, whose mother had shown much kindness to Paul (Rom. xvi. 13), may have been one of the founders, or at least fosterers, of the Roman church ; possibly the same Rufus, whose father (a native EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 11 of Cyrene) was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus, when on his way to Calvary, Mark xv. 21. Others, moreover, who are men- tioned in Rom. xvi., may have been, and probably were, contributors to the work of establishing or building up the church at Rome. At all events, there was opportunity for a very early establishment of it; inasmuch as we find persons from this city present at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 10. We know, also, that Christians were scattered abroad, when the persecution of Stephen occurred; at first in Judea and Samaria, Acts viii. 1 ; afterwards to more distant regions. Acts xi. 19 ; and what hinders us from supposing that some of them may have come to Rome itself, preaching the gospel ? That the church at Rome was early planted, seems probable from the fame which it had acquired throughout the Christian world (Rom. i. 8 ; xvi. 19), when Paul wrote his epistle. That the persons con- cerned in the establishment of it were Paul's particular friends and acquaintances, with whom he had met and conferred, while preach- ing in Asia or in Greece, appears very plain from the manner of the salutations in chap. xvi. 3 — 16. In respect to Aquila and Priscilla, we have a definite knowledge, from Acts xviii. 1 — 3, 18, 26, and from what is said in Rom. xvi. 3, 4. Others are called the Mnsmen {exjyyiviTi) of Paul, viz. Andronicus and Junias, ver. 7 ; Herodion, ver. 11. Others again are called dyuTriTol, awi^yoi, ixXmToi, Kom- uvTsg h roj xu^/w, &c. Moreover, the manner in which Paul ad- dresses the church at Rome, i. e., the plain, familiar, authoritative tone of the letter, shows that he considered himself as addressing those who were in effect his own disciples, or, in other words, such as had probably been converted to Christianity under the preaching of his own particular friends and spiritual children. Hence, too, the frequent expressions of strong affection for the church at Rome, and of strong sympathy with them. On the whole, although we have no definite history of the planting of the church at Rome (excepting the one given by Jerome, which is not entitled to credit), yet we may consider it as quite probable, that some of the persons named in the salutation (xvi. 3 — 16) were entitled to the honour of having founded a church in the metropolis of the Roman empire. § 2. Of the constituent parts of the church at Home. Nothing can be clearer, than that a considerable portion of the church at Rome consisted of Jewish converts; ii. 17 — iii. 19; iv. 1, 12, vii. 1 — 4, and chapters ix. — xi. Nov is there any serious diffi- culty of a historical nature, in making out the probability of this. When Pompey overran Judea with a conquering army, about 63 years before the Christian era, he caused many captive Jews to be sent to Rome. There they were sold into slavery, as was usual in respect to captives taken in war. But their persevering and unconquerable 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE determination to observe the Sabbath, and to practise many of the Levitical rites and customs, gave their Roman masters so much trouble, that tliey chose to Hberate them rather than to keep them. As there was a large body of persons so liberated, the government assigned them a place opposite Rome, across the Tiber, where they built a town which was principally inhabited by Jews. Here Philo found them, just before Paul's time; Legat. ad Caium. p. 1014, ed. Frankf. The reader who wishes for historical vouchers in respect to the number of Jews at Rome, during the apostolic age, may con- sult Joseph. Antiq. XVII. 14, XVIII. 5, ed. Cologn. Dio Cassius, XXXVI. p. 37. Suetonii vita Tiberii, cap. 36. When the first impressions arising from the degradation of cap- tivity and slavery began to wear away, the Roman citizens seem to have looked at tJie Jewish community with some degree of respect, or at least with not a little of curiosity. Whether it arose from the disgust which delicate females among the Romans felt for the ob- scene rites of heathenism which they were called to practise or to witness, or whether it sprung from a curiosity which is characteristic of the female sex, the fact was, that in Ovid's time (ob. A. D. 17) some of the most elegant and polished females thronged the Jewish assemblies. The poet, therefore, advises the young men of the city, if they wished to see a splendid collection of its beauty, to go to the sabbath-clay solemnities of the Syrian Jew, " Cultaque Judaeo septima sacra Syro." It is not strange, moreover, that some of these should become eel36/j,svai or proselytes ; as Josephus relates of Fulvia, /x/a ruv h a^iu)fiari yvvai/j.uv, i. e., a noble woman. By degrees the men also, as was natural, began to frequent the assemblies of those once despised foreigners. Juvenal, at the close of the first century, pours out his contempt and indignation at this in the following bitter words : " Quidam soititi metuentem Sabbata patrem, Nil praLter mibes, et coeli Numen adorant ; Nee distare piitant humana caine suillain. Qua pater abstinuit; mox et praeputia ponunt; Rotnanas autetn soliti coiitemuere leges^ Judaicua) ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus, Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses." I suppose the poet must here refer, however, to those who had a Roman mother and a Jewish father. In regard to 'Nil praeter nubes, et coeli Numen adorant,' I take it to refer to the fact, that the Jews had no temple at Rome, and that they addressed and worshipped God as dwelling in heaven, i. e., above the clouds ; in both which respects they differed from the heathen. Seneca also (fl. A. D. 04), about the time when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, says, in a fragment preserved by Augustine (De Civit. Dei, VII. 11), that " so many Romans had received the Jewish [he means by this the Christian] religion, that per omnes jam terras recepta sit, victi victoribus lecjes dederunt." Tacitus, EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 13 in his Annals, likewise represents the "exitiabilis superstitio" (Chris- tian religion) as breaking out again after being repressed, and spread- ing non niodo per Judeam, sed per urbem [Romam] etiam. When to these testimonies respecting the Jews at Rome, we add that of the epistle before us respecting Gentile converts, no doubt can be left that the church at Rome was made up of Gentiles as well as Jews. Let the reader compare Rom. i. 16 — 32, ii. 6 — 11; iii. 9—19, 29, ix. 24, 30; xi. 13—25, xiv. 1— xv. 13 and no doubt can possibly remain in his mind relative to this point. The general strain of the whole epistle is such, as that it can be best accounted for by the supposition that the church at Rome consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and that each party were endeavouring to propa- gate or to defend the peculiar views respecting certain points, which they respectively entertained. But of this, more in the sequel. § 3. Of the time and place, luhen and where the epistle was written. We have a kind of stand-point here, with which the epistle itself furnishes us. It could not have been written before the decree of the emperor Claudius was published, by which the Jews were banished from the city of Rome. In Acts xviii. 2, we have an ac- count of Paul's ^r^^ acquaintance with Aquila and Priscilla, who had recently quitted Rome and come to Corinth, because of the decree of Claudius banishing the Jews from the imperial city. Now as Paul salutes these same persons, in Rom. xvi. 3, 4, and speaks of them as having risked great dangers in his behalf, it follows, of course, that his epistle must have been written subsequently to the decree of Clau- dius ; which was probably in A. D. 52, or as some say (improbably however) in A. D. 54. It would seem also to have been written after the time when the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written, which was during the last visit which Paul made to Ephesus, and near the close of that visit i. e., about A. D. 5Q. In Acts xviii. 19 we are told that Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. After this he made another circuit through the churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor (Acts xviii. 20—23), and returned again to Ephesus, xix. 1, There he spent two years or more (xix. 8 — 10); and near the close of this period, in writing to the Corinthians, he sends the salutation of Aquila and Priscilla who were still at Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Now as Paul sends a salutation, in his Epistle to the Romans, to Aquila and Pris- cilla at Rome, it would seem probable that it must have been written after he left Ephesus, and after they had removed from this city to the metropolis of the Roman empire. Other circumstances concur, to render the matter still more defi- nite. When Paul wrote his epistle, he was on the eve of departure to Jerusalem, whitlftr he was going to carry the contributions of the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, Rom. xv. 25, 26. When he 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE slioiild have accomplished this, he intended to make them a visit at Rome, Rom. xv. 28, 29. Tn what part of his hfe, now, do we find the occurrence of these cu'cumstances ? Acts xix. 21, compared with XX. 1 — 4, gives us a naj'ration of exactly the same thing. Paul, at the close of his last abode at Ephesus, purposing to make a chari- table collection in Macedonia and Achaia, first sent on Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia in order to forward it there (Acts xix. 22) ; afterwards he himself went into Achaia, passing through Macedonia, Acts XX. 1, 2. That he came, on this occasion, to the capital of Achaia, i. e., Corinth, there can be no reasonable doubt. Here most probably he abode three months (Acts xx. 3) ; and then set out on his contemplated journey to Jerusalem, where he was made prisoner, and sent (A. D. 59 or 60) to Rome, in order to prosecute his appeal to Caesar. From a comparison of this account in the Acts, with Rom. XV. 25 — 29, it follows of course that the Epistle to the Romans must have been written about A. D. 57 ; although some chronolo- gists put it later. Counting the time which Paul's journey to Jeru- salem must have occupied, and adding the two years of his detention as a prisoner at Cesarea (Acts xxiv. 27), and the time necessarily taken up in going to Rome, we must assign to the Epistle to the Romans the date above given, on the supposition that Paul came to Rome (as is most probable) about the beginning of the year 60. Js to the PLACE where it ivas tvritten, there can be no doubt. In xvi. 1, Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, is commended to the Romish church, who probably either had charge of the epistle, or accompanied those who did carry it ; and Cenchrea was the port of the city of Corinth, some seven or eight miles from that place. In xvi. 23, Gains is spoken of as the host of Paul ; and this Gaius was baptized by Paul at Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 14. Paul speaks also of Eras- tus, the chamberlain of the city, Rom. xvi. 23. The city, then, was a well known one, i. e., the capital of Achaia ; and moreover, we find this Erastus spoken of in 2 Tim. iv. 20, as abiding at Corinth. From all these circumstances, we must conclude that the place of writing the Epistle to the Romans was Corinth ; and that the time was that in which Paul made his last visit there, and near the close of it, i. e,, about the latter part of A. D. 57. § 4. CJ/" the genuineness of the epistle. This has been so generally acknowledged at all times and in all ages since it was written (excepting the two last chapters, which have recently been disputed), that it seems to be unnecessary to make any quotations here from the early writers for the sake of proving it. It is true, indeed, that some early sects, viz., the Ebionites, Encratites, and Cerinthians, rejected it ; as appears from Irenaeus ad Haeres, 1.26; Epiphan. Haeres. XXX. Hiero«ym. in Matt. xii. 2, But as this seems to have been purely on doclrinal grounds, i. e. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 16 because they could not make the sentiments of Paul in this epistle to harmonize with their own views, it follows of course that no weight can be attached to their opinions. The question whether Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, is of an historical, not of a doctrinal nature. The reader who is curious to see an exhibition of early testimony respecting this epistle, may find it amply detailed in Lardner's Credi- bility, and in Schmidii Historia et Vindiciae Canonis Sac, &c. The circumstantial evidence which evinces its genuineness, he will find admirably exhibited in Paley's Horae Paulinas. Those who do not possess the first two of these works, may con- sult Polycarp Epist. and Philipp. cap. 6 ; Clemens Rom. Ep. and Cor. cap. 35; both in Cotelerii Patres Apostolici. See also Theoph. ad. Autolyc. I. 20; III. 14. Epist. Ecc. Vienn. et Lugd, in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. V. 1. Irenaeus cont. Haeres. III. 16. § 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. III., p. 457, and I., p. 117, edit. Sylburg. Tertull. adv. Praxeam, cap. 13: de Corona, cap. 6. Cypr. Ep. LXIX. It is needless to cite later testimonies. § Of the genuineness of chaps, xv., xvi. The genuineness of these chapters, at least as a part of the proper Epistle to the Romans, has been called in question, and is still doubted by some. Heumann has advanced a peculiar hypothesis respecting chap. xvi. He thinks that the proper original epistle of Paul ends with chap, xi., and excludes from it all the hortatory part, i. e., chaps, xii. — xv. Chapter xvi., he supposes, was originally attached to the end of chap. xi. ; and that the sequel of the epistle is a kind of postscript or second letter, added by Paul after some delay in transmitting the first letter. This hypothesis, indeed, does not really deny the genuineness of any part of the epistle ; but it advances what seems to be very improbable. What could be more natural than for Paul, after he had completed his doctinnal dis- cussions, to caution the church at Rome against various evils to which he knew them to be particularly exposed ? Is not this his manner elsewhere? And does not the oZv (chap. xii. 1) necessarily import a connection between the sequel and the preceding context? In a word, the whole theory is so gratuitous, that it does not seem to be entitled to any serious contradiction. Semler, however, has advanced much farther than Heumann. In his Dissert, de dupl. Appendice Ep. Pauli ad Rom., he advances the supposition, ' that chap. xv. was not addressed to the Romans, but to those who had charge of Paul's epistle to them, which consisted of chaps, i. — XV., with the doxology in xvi. 25 — 27.' But let any one, now, without any reference to such a hypothesis, sit down and carefully read chap, xv., and I will venture to predict, that he will never once even think of its being addressed to any other m INTRODUCTION TO THE persons, than those to whom the preceding part of the epistle is addressed. In particular; how can he help feeling that verses 1 — 13 do [very closely cohere with chap, xiv., as the ofe/Xo^£v ds at the heginning indicates ? And in the remaining part of the chapter, what is there which is incongruous with the condition and relation of Paul in respect to his readers? Compare verses 15, ^3 with i. 13, and also xv. 28 with Acts xix. 21, the latter of which passages shows the actual condition of Paul, when he wrote the epistle. I am entirely unable to see why Paul should have given personally to the bearers of his letter to the Romans, such hints as chap. xv. contains ; nor can I imagine what inducement Semler had to suppose this. But, Chap. xvi. is more exposed to attack ; because it consists of matter in general which is easily dissociated from the rest of this epistle. If the whole of it be omitted, the epistle is still, in all important re- spects, the same ; if it be retained, the matter added consists chiefly in the expression of personal civilities. Moreover, the concluding part of chap. xv. would make a very probable and analogical close of the epistle ; in particular if the dfLr;v at the close of ver. 33 be retained. Probably grounds such as these first occasioned doubts concerning the genuineness of this chapter in particular. Semler advances a supposition respecting it, which (I had almost said) none but a man of such visionary phantasies could have advanced. He sup- poses that all the persons to whom greetings are sent, in verses 1 — 16, are those whom the bearers of the epistle expected to visit on their way to Rome ; and of course, that none of these were to be found in Rome itself. Consequently, according to him, this part of the epistle was a mere letter of commendation or introduction, de- signed for the bearers of the epistle, and not for the church at Rome. According to this, then, the first stage of the journey of the letter- carriers was only to Cenchrea, some seven or eight miles fi-om Corinth, to the house of Phebe. But the singularity of Paul's re- commendation is, that instead of commending them to her hospitality, he commends her to the hospitality of those whom he addresses : avviarri/j,! 5s v/iTv ^oifiriv i'va avrriv rr^offds^rie^s, x.. r. X. Semler felt the incongruity of this, and referred T^osds^i^i^e to re- ceiving into communion. Did Phebe, then, living within a couple of hours' walk from Corinth, and famous as she was for being a w^off- rdric 'i^^ci manu; in F., G. (in the latter a space is left for them) ; also in Codd. Vindob.. 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, as stated by Koppe ; in an unknown MS. mentioned by Erasmus ; and in Vers. Armen., of some editions. Eichhorn, as usual, has built a singular castle in the air upon this fact. He accounts for all the varieties in the manuscripts in this way : (1) The original piece of parchment, on which Paul's epistle was written, was filled when the scribe came to xiv. 23. He then took a small and separate piece of parchment, on one side of which he wrote the salutations in verses 21 — 24; and on the other the doxology in verses 25 — 27. But the letter not being immediately sent, the apostle made additions to it ; first of chap, xv., and then of xvi. 1 — 20. So then the epistle was sent to the church at Rome, on four separate pieces of manuscript. In copying this, some ended the epistle with xiv. 23 ; others added to this the doxology in xvi. 25 — 27; a third class copied as far as xiv. 23, and then added the postscripts of the apostle (xv. 1— xvi. 20), and finally the small leaf of parch- ment written with the body of the epistle (which is the usual form of the epistle) ; while a fourth class, copying from these different copies, inserted the doxology both after xiv. 23 and at the end of the whole epistle. Sorry copyists, indeed, they must have been at Rome, to make such mistakes as these ! One is ready to wonder, why the additional parchments were not joined on to the original one, in proper order, and not left in the form of Sibylline leaves ; a thing which required nothing more than a little paste or glue, and a moment's attention. Then, supposing them to have been left separately, were there no marks added by the writer, to direct the reader's attention and perusal ? Are important documents wont to be made out in such a negligent manner ? But (which is directly to our present purpose) how came any copyist to imagine, that the letter ended with chap, xiv. 23 ? Or why, as so many mistakes were made about the order of the small piece of parchment first added, were none made about the order of the two different postscripts, viz., xv. 1 — SS and xvi. 1—20? I am grieved to add, that Griesbach, in attempting to account for the variations of manuscripts in regard to xvi. 25 — 27, has advanced suppositions not less visionary and gratuitous than those of Eich- horn. This is the more to be wondered at, since Griesbach is not much prone to phantasies of this nature. The reader of Eichhorn is not surprised to find such a conceit in him ; for a critic, who could add on the last twenty-six chapters of the book of Isaiah (which he names Pseudo-Isaiah), to the genuine works of that prophet, because the copyist happened to have room to spare in his parchment and wanted to fill it out (Einleit. in das. A. Test. iii. p. 91. ed. 3d), may EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 23 well be imagined not to be incapable of making suppositions like those above related. But what if we, at the pi'esent day, are unable to account for the confusion of manuscripts, with regard to xvi. 25 — 27 ? Will this oblige us to resort to suppositions altogether incredible in themselves ? To say the least, it should not induce us thus to do. We cannot, then, — at least until we come to the persuasion that parchment was as scarce and dear in ancient times as Eichhorn (so often as it suits his critical convenience) makes it, we cannot — admit a supposition which involves such an entire ugn^ov Tgoregoi/, in a most solemn and important epistle of Paul. And even if we admit that parchment was so scarce and so dear, we are, after all, at our wits' end to know why the concluding piece was not joined on to the same roll which contained the rest of the epistle. (3) With the Textus Receptus, which places these verses at the end, agree Codd. B., C, D., E., 16, QQ; Codd. minusc. 80; also Syr., Erp., Copt., Aeth., Vulg., and the Latin Fathers in general. With Erasmus, Stephens, Bengel, Koppe, Boehme, Hug, Knapp, Bertholdt, De Wette, Rlickert, and others, I am Jpersuaded that this is their genuine place. What shall we say of syoj Ts^nog, 6 y^d-^ag rriv sirigroX^v, in xvi. 22? Does it not of course imply, that it is near the close of the epistle, and that the epistle is one ? And if so, then are chapters xv., xvi. a genuine and original part of it, as Bertholdt has well remarked, Einleit. vi. § 715. * But how can so many doxologies be accounted for V To which I answer, that no serious difficulty lies in the way of this. It is not natural to suppose, indeed it cannot well be supposed, that the apostle wrote the whole epistle in a single day, or at a single sitting. If, in the midst of his multiplied engagements and his short stay at Corinth, he was several days, or even weeks, in writing it (which we may easily and probably suppose) ; then we can account for the various doxologies and apparent closes of the epistle, in chapters xv., xvi. It is easy to believe, that xv. 33 was the first pause which was made, with the probable design, originally, of ending the epistle there. Afterwards, renewed and additional intelligence coming from Rome, with kind greeting of friends there, he was induced to add, in return, the greetings in xvi. 1 — 16; to which he subjoined the warnings, and the apparent conclusion in verses 17 — 20. The definiteness with which he here speaks of the divisions and erroneous sentiments in the church at Rome, in all probability had its origin in the very recent information which he had obtained from that city. Finally, before sending away his epistle, other Christians at Corinth, deeply inter- ested in the affairs of the church at Rome, visited the apostle and desired him to express their salutations. This done, he adds, as usual, another kind wish and prayer for the church which he addresses, xvi. 24. And then, in reading over and correcting the copy which Tertius had made of the whole, Paul, at the close of all, subjoined the general doxology which is contained in verses 25 — 27. 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE If you say : ' Here are almost as many suppositions as those of Eichhorn and Griesbach ;' my reply is, that there are almost as many in respect to number, but still of a totally different character. Here the appeal is made to the internal state of the epistle itself, and to the probable and natural circumstances which accompany the writing of such a letter. Nothing stands in the way of believing the things just suggested to be altogether probable. But when all these phe- nomena are made to depend on odd pieces of parchment, and Sibyl- line leaves, strangely forwarded without juncture or 'order, and as strangely mistaken in the copying, how can we satisfy ourselves with such suggestions ? That the manuscripts differ so much, as to xvi. 25 — 27, is indeed a striking circumstance in the critical history of the epistle to the Romans, But if any one will attentively reflect on the [several ap- parent conclusions in the epistle (xv. 13, 23, and xvi. 20, 24), he may easily be induced to believe, that the confusion in the manu- scripts has arisen from this circumstance. Copyists supposed there must be some mistake in having a conclusion in xvi. 24, and then another superadded in verses 25 — 27. It was natural for them to find a difficulty in this. Therefore, with the conviction that here was some mistake, they sought an earlier place for these verses ; and they could find none which was not already occupied by something of the like nature, without going back to xiv. 23. Here then some of them placed xvi. 25 — 27, and others followed these copies. In the mean time, other copies continued to be taken after the original order of the epistle, and thus a discrepancy arose. Some copyists, perceiving this discrepancy, and also the fact that chapters xv., xvi. contain so many formulas of conclusion, omitted xvi. 25 — 27 ; while others, find- ing these verses in some copies of xiv. 23, and in others at the end of the epistle, copied them both. In this way we can easily account for all the discrepancies that exist, without resorting to any forced or unnatural suppositions. We may add to all this moreover, the probability that the public lections of the epistle extended only to the end of chap, xiv. ; to which it was altogether natural to add xvi. 05 — f)7 as a proper close ; and that the practice of reading the epistle in this manner, gradually introduced the writing of manuscripts in the same way. (4) A few critics reject the verses in question as spurious. So Schmidt, and lleiche in his recent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The latter has argued at length against their genuineness. His arguments are derived from the alleged style and manner of the doxology. He accuses it of being deficient in simplicity, of bom- bastic and overstrained expression, of a dogmatic manner ; of being doubtfal and dark and unusual, yea, unintelligible ; of a drawling repetition for three times of xara ; of a doubtful construction of w near the close ; of expressions not Pauline, not proper, e. g., iuayye- Xiov iMM -/.Oil -/.niAjyiia I. Xg/rrroD ; and finally he says, it is all made up of shreds collected here and there from the writings of Paul, e. g., EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 25 from Rom. ii. 16 ; Gal. i. 6 ; Eph. iii. 3 ; Col. 126; 2 Tim. i. 8 ; Tit. i. 1 ; Rom. i. 5; 1 Tim. vi. 16; Rom. ii. 16, i. 9; Heb. xiii. 20 — 23; in which places, if the reader pleases to turn to them, he will find in succession expi'essions hke those in our text. That most of these accusations are not well founded, the reader may satisfy himself by thoroughly studying the verses under examination. That the expressions here resemble other expressions of Paul, can surely be no proof of their spuriousness, nor of their being dark and unintelligible. I will not say, that internal evidence can in no case be proof of spuriousness ; for this would be an extravagant asser- tion. But we may well say, that when all critics except two have failed to discover the ifiternal evidences just alleged, there cannot be much probability in favour of their existence. The doxology, although it is somewhat difficult of interpretation on account of its complex nature, seems to me evidently to be in the spirit and manner of Paul. § 7. State of feeling and opinion m the church at Home, when the epistle was ivritten. That this church consisted of Jews and Gentiles, we have already seen ; § 2 above. That many of the erroneous views which Paul combats in it, were such as the Hebrews were prone to cherish, there can be no doubt on the part of any one well acquainted with the history of Jewish opinions. That grounds of dissension among its members existed in the church at Rome, we can hardly refuse to believe, when we consider the general tenor of the epistle. The national pride of the Jew ; his attachment to the Mosaic institutes, and especially to the Levitical rites and distinctions of clean and imclean ; his impatience of subordination in any respect to Gentiles ; his unwillingness to believe that they could be admitted to equal pri- vileges with the Jew, in the kingdom of the Messiah, and particu- larly without becoming proselytes to the Mosaic religion ; his prone- ness to feel indignant at the government of heathen magistrates over him ; all this lies on the face of the epistle, and cannot well be overlooked by any considerate and attentive reader. On the other hand; the Gentiles disregarded the prejudices of the Jews, especially about circumcision, and meats and drinks, and holi- days ; they were wounded at the claim of superiority which the Jews seemed to make ; and knowing that the great apostle to the Gentiles was an advocate for their equal rights and privileges, they no doubt engaged in contest with the Jews with an unyielding spirit. Such a state of things very naturally gave rise to discussions in [the Epistle to the Romans, and to all the cautions and precepts contained in the hortatory part of the epistle. With this general view of the condition of the church before us, we need not be solicitous to determine whether the apostle had special 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMANS. and local objects in view, when he wrote it, or more general ones. My answer to this question would be, that he had both in view ; i. e., he meant to establish some great and general principles of Christianity, and also to apply them to the state of the church at Rome. Nothing can be more natural than this supposition ; and so Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, Michaelis, Tholuck, and others, have for sub- stance judged. That Paul intermingles with general truths many things which are local, is almost a matter of course in an epistle to a particular church. The contents of the epistle itself, or a brief analysis and synopsis of the whole, I reserve for a separate state- ment. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Were I to select a motto, which would in a sino-le brief sentence designate the substance of what this epistle contains, it should be taken from the apostle Paul himself : XPISTOS 'HMIN AIKAIOSYNH TE KAI 'AFIASMOS, CHlirST OUR JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. The first five chapters exhibit Christ as the author and efficient cause of our justification. After an appropriate and affectionate introduction (1. 1 — 16), the apostle pro- ceeds to show, that the Gentiles had universally transgressed the law of God which was written on their hearts, because they had indulged in a great variety of sins which they knew to be wrong (i. 17 — 32). He next proceeds to show, that the Jews were even more guilty still, inasmuch as they had sinned against more light and more distinguished privileges (ii. 1 — 8, 19). He now draws the conclusion from these premises, that justification by deeds of law, i. e., on the score of merit or on the ' ground of perfect obedience, is impossible ; for, inas- much as all men have sinned against the law of God, all are under its con- demnation, and therefore grace or mercy only can save them from perishing. This grace is vouchsafed only through Christ, and has been procured by his sufferings and death in behalf of sinners (iii. 20 — 21). The Old Testament also teaches the same doctrine of gratuitous justification ; and that this should be extended to Gentiles as well as Jews (iv. 1 — 25). The happy fruits of such a state of justification — ^peace with God, support and consolation in the midst of trials and sufferings, a hope which maketh not ashamed and never can be disappointed — are next described by the writer (v. 1 — 11). And that it is perfectly proper and becoming on the part of God, to extend those blessings to all, both Jews and Gentiles, is strikingly taught by an exhibition of the fact, that all have been made to share in the evils which flowed from the apostasy of our original progenitors (v. 12 — 19). Even in those cases where sin has exhibited its greatest power, the grace of the jgospel is made to triumph over it (v. 20, 21). Thus is CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION set forth by the apostle. He comes next to exhibit CHRIST OUR SANCTIFICATION. This important topic he introduces, by discussing the objection raised against the doctrine of gratuitous justification, yvi.,\that it tends to encourage sin. He shows in the first place, from various considerations, the incongruity and impossibility of this (vi. 1, 23). He then proceeds to contrast a state of grace, and the means and motives to holiness which it furnishes, with a legal state ; and to show that in the latter, the sinner has no hope of maintaining a holy character, while in the former he "is abundantly furnished with the means of doing it ; consequently that a state of grace, so far from encouraging men to sin, affords them the only hope of their being able to subdue and mortify sin (vii. 1 — 8, 17). 28 ANALYSIS. The apostle then, as he had before done at the close of his discussion respect- ing' justification (v, 1 — 11), goes on to show the consolation wliich the gospel affords, under the various troubles of the present life (viii. 18 — 27); and in the sequel^he concludes, as in the former case, with exultation in the certainty of future and eternal glory to all who triUy love God (viii. 28 — 39). Tlic part of the epistle properly doctrinal, concludes with the 8th chapter. Chapter ix. discusses the objection raised against the dealings of God with his creatures, when he makes some of them the distinguished subjects of his mercy, and passes bj' others. Chap. x. confirms still farther, bj' various considerations, and particularly by texts cited from the Old Testament, the idea that the Jews who remain in unbelief are and must be cast off; and therefore that this is not a new or strange doctrine. Chap. xi. continues to urge the same subject ; but at the close deduces from it the cheering consolation, that even the rejection of the Jews will be made a great blessing to the world, as it will be the occasion of salvation being sent to the Gentiles. And if their rejection be attended with consequences so important, then surely their reception again will fill the world with its happy fruits. The rest of the epistle is hortatory, and is adapted specially to warn the church at Rome against several errors, to which, in their circumstances, they were pecu- liarly exposed. First, they are exhorted to lay aside all pride, and envious distinctions, and claims to preference on the ground of office, gifts, &c. ; and to conduct themselves in a kind, affectionate, gentle, peaceable manner (xii. 1 — 21). Next, they are exhorted to a quiet and orderly demeanour in regard jto the civil power, wliich the Jews were especially prone to contemn (xiii. 1 — 7). The great law of love is to be regarded and obeyed toward all men, without or within the church (xiii. 8 — 14). Thirdly, the Gentile Christians are admonished to respect the scruples of their Jewish brethren on the subject of eating meats offered to idols, and admon- ished that they have no right to interfere either in this matter or in other things of the like tenor (xiv. 1, xv. 7). On the other hand, the Jews are admon- ished that their Gentile brethren have equal rights and privileges with them- selves, under the gospel dispensation (xv. 8 — 13). The writer then expresses his good hopes concerning them all, his kind and tender regard for them, and his purposes in respect to visiting them. Lastl}', he subjoins the salutation of various Christians who were vrith him ; cautions them against those who seek to make divisions among them ; and con- cludes with a doxology. Such is the brief sketch of the contents of the epistle before us. It is one, however, wliich the reader may perhaps not fully understand and appreciate, until he shall have attentively studied the whole ; but still, one to Avhieh he may recur, in order to satisfy himself in some measure respecting the relation which a particular part has to the whole. To make this satisfaction complete, it is important that he should become well acquainted with the general scope and object of the whole epistle. The details of the respective parts arc given in the introductions to each, which are embodied with the commentary, although distinguished from it by the smaller type in which they are printed. COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS. CHAP. I. 1—16. The introductory part of the Epistle to the Romans, i. 1 — 16, contains, (1) A salutation, vers. 1 — 7. (2) A brief declaration of some personal wishes and concerns, >ers. 8 — 16. The apostle, being a stranger in person to the church at Rome, begins his epistle with exhibiting the nature of his office and of his relation to the church of God, ver. I. Having mentioned that he had been set apart for the service of God in the gospel, he hints, in passing, that this same gospel had been before aanounced by the ancient prophets, ver. 2, and that it has respect to him who was of the seed of David {Recording to the flesh, or in his humbler condition, but the decreed Son of God who dispensed the Holy Spirit with power after his resurrection, vers. 3, 4. From him who was thus the constituted Lord of all, Paul avers that he had received such grace as made him one of Christ's devoted fol- lowers, and also the office of an apostle to the Gentiles, in order to promste the knowledge of a Saviour among them, ver 5 ; and inasmuch as the Romans were among these Gen- tiles, and were called to be heirs of the grace of life, ver. 6, he addresses them, wishing them every needed spiritual and temporal blessing. He next passes on to circumstances of a personal nature, which seem to prepare the way for the subsequent address that he is to make to them. He thanks God that their Christian faith is so distinguished as to become a matter of universal notice, ver. 8 ; declares the strong desire which he had long cherished of paying them a visit, and that they had been the continual subject of his remembrance when coming before the throne of grace, vers. 9, 10 ; and alleges his wish not only to impart spiritual consolation and joy to them, but to receive the same from them, vers. 11, 12. He then repeats his declara- tion respecting the desire he had all along cherished of paying them a visit, and states the reasons why he had not fulfilled it, ver. 13. He expresses a wish to preach among them, as well as among other Gentiles, inasmuch as he considers himself under obligation to preach the gospel to all classes of men among the heathen, vers. 14, 15. Of this gospel he is not ashamed, knowing that by it the mighty power of God is manifested in the salvation of both Jews and Greeks, ver. 16. Here the introduction properly ends ; inasmuch as the next verse exhibits one great theme of the epistle, and is the subject which gives occasion to all the remarks that follow, to the end of chap. v. The reader of Paul's writings cannot fail to remark, how different was the mode of writing epistles in ancient times, from that which we now practise, in regard to some things pertaining to address, subscription, &c. Paul prefixes his name, instead of subscribing it at the end of his letters, as we now do. In the like way, and after his example, the letters missive, &c., of churches to each other, are still drawn up among us. 30 ROMANS I. 1. (1) UavXog, probably a Roman and not a Hebrew name, i. e. Pau- lus ; compare the name of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulas, Acts xiii. 7, who became a convert to Christianity through the in- strumentality of Paul. The Hebrew name of the apostle was bi«^, ^avXoq ; and he is first called IlauXoc in Acts xiii. 9, immediately after the mention of Sergius Paulus. Hence many have thought, that IlawXoc is a name which the apostle took in honour of the procon- sul. The more natural explanation is, that nauXoe was a second name of Roman origin, given him in accordance with the custom of the times. While the Jews were subject to the power of the Seleucidae on the throne of Syria, it was very common among them to adopt a second name of Greek origin; e. g. Jesus, Jason; Jehoiakim, Alki- mos, &c. So under the Roman power : Dostai, Dositheus ; Tarphin, Trypho. A comparison of these will show, that in general the second name bore some resemblance in sound to the first. So ^avXoc;, WavXoQ. AouXoc means, in itself, one devoted to the service of another, one who is subject to the will or control of another. Of course it may im- port a station or condition which is in itself high or low, honourable or dishonourable, according to the state or rank of the master. A servant of a man, i. e. of any common man, is a slave ; at least the word in its strict sense would import this. But the servants of a king may be courtiers of the highest rank, who count this title a matter of honour. ( 1 ) Servants of God is an appellation given to the prophets, Moses, Joshua, &c., Rev. x. 7. xi. 18. xv. 3. Deut. xxxiv. 5. Josh. i. 1. Jer. XXV. 4. Amos iii. 7 ; and in like manner the apostles and primitive preachers of the gospel are called the servants of Christ, Gal. i. 10. Phil. i. 1. Tit. i. 1. James i. 1. 2 Pet. i. I. Col. iv. 12. (2) AouXoc is also employed as meaning simply or principally a worshipper of Christ or of God, one devoted to his service ; for in such a sense we find the word employed in 1 Pet. ii. 16. Eph. vi. 6. Rev. vii. 3. Luke ii. 29. Acts iv. 29. Ps. cxiii. 1, al. Does the word SouXoc here, as employed by Paul in respect to him- self, indicate official station, like that of the ancient prophets and messengers of God mentioned under No. 1 ; or is it employed in the second sense, in order to denote the apostle as one devoted to the ser- vice of Christ, one^eady to obey him in all things, and to regard the pro- motion of his interests as the great object of his life ? Interpreted in this way, SovXoc does not anticipate the meaning of airoaToXog. There is also a gradation in the sense. First, Paul is represented as being ROMANS I. 1. 31 devoted to the service of Christ, and then as commissioned with a special office in that service ; which could not be said of every SovXog. So Reiche and Glockler, in their recent Commentaries. 'h)(Tov XpicTTov, in the Gen. here, shows the relation in which Paul stood to the Saviour, and that the apostle's business or object (as ^owAoc) was to promote the cause of Christ or to forward his work. 'lr](Tovg is the Greek form of the Hebrew name siSin:, or of its later abridgment and substitute pw:,, i. e. Saviour, or he ivho will save. XQiaroq is properly a participial adjective, formed from xptw, to anoint, and means the anointed one. It is, like Kvpiog, which is properly an adjective, usually employed by prefixing the article as an appellative, when applied to the Saviour, and commonly it designates him as king or possessed of royal dignity. Kings were anointed to their office, among the Jews; and also high priests. The name Christ, o'ffla, XpicTTog, the Messiah, may refer then to either of these high offices or dignities ; for he is both king and priest for ever. The use of xpi'^Tog alone in the Gospels, is hardly to be regarded in the light of a proper cognomen, but rather as a mere attributive appella- tion. In the epistles, it is not unfrequently used in the way of a proper cognomen. KArjroc, lit. called, but the meaning here is chosen, invited, viz. chosen to the office of an apostle ; see Acts ix. 15, aKi^vog l/cAoyfjc fioi lartv ovrog, also Acts xxvi. 17, where the jcXijroc here is expressed by l^aipovjiuvog ere, I have taken thee out of, I have selected thee from. In Gal. i. 15, it is more fully expressed by 6 a^oplaag ue £K KOiXiag fir)Tp6g juou, Kat KoXiarag Sia Trig -s^apirog avrov, i. e. who set me apart or designated me from my earliest years for the apostolic office, and in due time called me to it by his grace ; Jer. i. 5. The word kXijtoc sometimes has the sense merely of invited, bidden; e. g. Matt. xx. 16. xxii. 14. Yet in the writings of Paul it is not so used, but always in the sense of efficient calling, as we say, i. e. it means not only that the person designated has been invited or selected, but that he has accepted the invitation ; 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 24. Rom. i. 6, 7. viii. 28; with which collate Gal. i. 15. Jude v. 1. Heb. iii. 1. Rom. xi. 29. Eph. iv. 1. 'ATToaroXoc may mean a legate of any kind, one sent by another on any kind of business or message. The word is used in this way, in John xiii. 16. Phil. ii. 25. A divine messenger or prophet it designates in Luke xi. 49. Eph. iii. 5. Rev. xviii. 20. ii. 2 ; and in like manner it also signifies the messengers of Christ, which is 32 ROMANS I. 1. the usual meaning of the word throughout the N. Testament. To invest them with tliis office, an immediate choice by the Saviour in person seems to have been necessary. This is implied in our text ; and more plainly still in Gal. i. 1. — Occasionally the companions of the apostles, or the delegates sent by them, are called apostles ; so in 2 Cor. viii. 23. Acts xiv. 4, 14. Rom. xvi. 7. ' A^wpto-jLtlfoc . . • . ^iov, lit. separated or set apart for the gos- pel of God, i. e. chosen or selected in order to preach the gospel of God, viz. that gospel of which God is the author, S-cou being Geni- tivus auctoris. The word cKJxjipKrpivog seems to be intended as epex- egetical of KXrjroc, i. e. it expresses the same idea in different lan- guage. Hesychius explains a^wpiafiivog by £K\t\ey fxivog, chosen, cuiKeKpifiivog, selected. In the same sense atpopicraTe occurs in Acts xiii. 2. See the same sentiment in Gal. i. 15. Jer. i. 5. The meaning is, that God, who foreknows all things, did set him apart, choose, select him for the work of the gospel, even from the earliest period of his life, Gal. i. 15. So it is said of Jeremiah, that he was set apart, selected, for the prophetic office even before he was formed in his mother's womb ; by all which expressions is meant, that God wlio knows all persons and events before they exist or take place, has a definite object in view which he intends to accomplish by them. In classic Greek, the verb cKpopit^eiv is more usually employed in a bad sense fin malam partem), meaning to exterminate, excommunicate, repudiate, &c. But in Hellenistic Greek it is more commonly em- ployed m honam partem, as here. Etc ei»a77EX(ov has the same sense as dq to ivayyi\iaa77£tXaro .... ayiuig, which he formerly, ov in for- ROMANS I. 3. 33 mer times, declared or published by his prophets, in the holy Scriptures. In like manner, Paul in his defence before Agrippa says, that he had proclaimed nothing as a preacher of the gospel, which the pro- phets and Moses had not declared should take place. Acts xxvi. 22. That Christ and all his apostles believed and taught, that the Old Testament abounds in prophecies respecting him, there can be no doubt on the part of any one who attentively reads the New Testa- ment; see Acts x. 43. xviii. 28. I Pet. i. 10. 2 Pet. i. 19. Even the heathen of the apostle's time had become acquainted with the expectations of the Jews, in regard to the appearance of the Messiah ; which expectations were excited and cherished in the He- brews, by the perusal of their own ancient Scriptures. Thus Tacitus speaks of this subject ; " Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdo- tum Uteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, pro- fectique Judaea rerum potirentur," Hist. V. 13. In the same man- ner Suetonius his contemporary expresses himself : " Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judsea profecti rerum potirentur," in Vespas. c. 4. The first pro- mises respecting the Messiah were merely of a general nature, un- accompanied by peculiar and characteristic declarations ; e. g. Gen. iii. 15. xii. 3. xvii. 4, 5. xlix. 10. In later times, it was foretold that the expected King and Deliverer would be of the progeny of David, 2 Sam. vii. 16. Ps. Ixxxix. 35 — 37. In several Psalms, same traits of the life, office, character, and sufferings of this illustrious personage were given ; viz. Ps. ii. xvi. xxii. xlv. ex. etc. ; still more graphi- cally is the Messiah described in Is. liii. ; and individual occurrences in his history are given in later prophets, e. g. Zech. ix. 9. xi. 13. Mah iii. 1, seq. iv. 2, seq. It has been observed, that Malachi's de- claration in the last chapter of his prophecy, is homogeneous with the very first annunciation of the gospel in Mark i. 2. Our English version of TrpoETTTjyyEtXaro, promised afore, does not give the proper meaning of the word. 'Ev ypa(paiQ ayiaig, in the Holy Scriptures. The Jews employed either ypacpi) the singular, or ypa(pai the plural, indifferently. The first means the corpus librorum sacrorum ; the second refers to the same collection, as made up of several particular writings. The epi- thet ayiat is given to ypa^ai, because the Scriptures were regarded as worthy of all reverence, or because they were looked upon as being inspired by to ttvev/xu to uyiov. (3) IlEpi Tov vlov avTov, respecting his Son. This clause should c 34 ROMANS I. 3. be joined, in the reader's mind, to svayyiXiov ^eov at the close of ver. 1. Verse 2 is a circumstantial declaration thrown in to enhance the value of the gospel, or its credibility and dignity. There is no ne- cessity here of actually inserting a parenthesis, as some do, any more than in many other cases where explanatory circumstances are added in the like w^ay. Tholuck joins Trepl tov viov nvrov with 7rpoeiri]yyEiXaTo ; but as the verb itself relates to ivayytXiov ^eov, it seems to me more congruous to refer Trepi k. t. X. to the same words. Tou yevonivov .... aapKa, who was born of the seed of David, in respect to the flesh. The verse itself is replete with difficulties ; and especially so to one who is not familiarly conversant with the cha- racter of Paul's style. Tholuck compares the latter to the urgent force of waves, which swell one above another in continual succes- sion. It is an obvious peculiarity of this apostle's style, that he abounds in what are commonly called parentheses. His mind was so glowing and so full of ideas, that the expression of a single word of- ten calls forth as it were a burst of thought respecting the import of that word, which hinders him from advancing in the sentence that he had begun, until he has given vent to the feelings thus incidental- ly occasioned. The expression of these feelings makes here what may be nvimeA parentheses ; although it may not always be designated as such in our printed books. To illustrate what I mean, let us take the examples in the first paragraph of the epistle before us. When Paul (ver. 1) had named the evayytXiov ^eov which would re- cal to the minds of his readers the gospel that was then preached by himself and others, he immediately adds, in order to enforce on their minds a becoming idea of the dignity and excellence of this gospel, o 7rpo£Tn}yyeiXaTO oia rwv tt/oo^tjtwv avrov Iv y/oa^mc ayiaig' after which he resumes his subject. But no sooner has he uttered the words TOV vlov avTov, than another burst of thought respecting the exalted personage thus named escapes from him. Fii'st, this So7i is ytvofXivov .... (To/OKa, a descendant of David, the most exalted king who ever occupied the Jewish throne, according to the promises respecting the Messiah, e. g. in 2 Sam. vii. IG. Ps. Ixxxix. 35 — 37. Secondly, he is tov opio^ivTog .... vikqCjv, i. e. he is the Son of God clothed, according to decree, with supreme dominion, especially in regard to the bestowment of the Holy Spirit, after his resurrection from the dead. Having thus designated some striking character- istics of the Son of God, he resumes his theme by the words '\naov ROMANS I. 3. 35 .... rfjiMv, M^liicli are in apposition with rov vlov avrov in vev. 3. The words Tov Kvpiov -i^jLiMv again suggest another train of thought, which the writer stops to utter, viz. di' ov . . . . Xpicrrs, after which he resumes his theme and finishes the sentence by iram roXf; .... Xpi(TTov, ver. 7. The greater part of this apparently involved sen- tence, might evidently be included in parentheses; and then the simple sentence would run thus: JJavXog .... cKpajpiafxivog dg avayyiXiov ^eov Trcpi th vis qvtS .... 'Irjo-S Xpiars rS Kvpiov rifXMV .... TTacTL Toig ovaiv k. t. X. Every reader should take especial notice of this characteristic in the writings of Paul, as it will help him to unravel many a sentence which would otherwise seem perplexed and perhaps even irrelevant. To understand the writings of this apostle, something more than a knowledge of grammar or of mere words is necessary. We must be able to enter into the feelings and sympathies of the writer, and thus to trace his modes of thought and expression in cases that seem obscure, as well as in those which are plain. Tevofxivov, descended, born ; for so the word is not unfrequently employed. — 'Etc aTrlpjuaroc, of the posterity, of the lineage. — Kara (TapKa, in respect to his human nature or his fleshly existence. "Sidp^ denotes literally ^65 A, i. e, the flesh of a living or animated being, in distinction from that of a dead one, which is Kpiag. It denotes body also ; not in the sense of (jMina which has reference to the compact- ing of the whole of the parts into one mass, but body as distinguished from mind, the visible part as distinguished from the invisible one. Hence it is very often used, both in the Old Testament and the New, for our animal nature, the animal man (so to speak). Frail, perish- able man, also, and man with carnal appetites and passions, are often designated by it ; as every lexicon will show. As kindred with this, it often means 7nan as living in his present fleshly and dying or transitory state, in distinction from another and diff"erent condition in a future world: so Gal. ii. 20. Phil. i. 22, 24. Heb. v. 7, applied to Christ. 1 Pet. iv. 2. 2 Cor. x. 3. In the passage before us, the human nature or condition of Christ, as descended from the royal progeny of David, is designated. But why so ? Because the promise was made to David, that the Messiah should descend from him. Hence the genealogy in Matthew : " The Son of David, the Son of Abraham." So the common feeling and views of the Jews decided : " How do they [the Scribes] say, that the Christ is David's Son ?" So the blind man (Luke xviii. 39) says: "Jesus, thou Son of David, c2 36 ROMANS I. 4. have mercy on me." Comp. also Luke i. 27, 32, Matt. xv. 22. xii. 23. xxi. 9, 15. xxii. 41 — 46. John vii. 42. 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; which most abundantly illustrate the views of the Jews and of the apostles. It is not, therefore, merely a son of David which is designated by the phrase before us, but the long expected and hoped for Son of David, i. e. the promised Messiah. We must regard r5 yevofiivov Ik a-rripfxaTog Aavid Kara aapKa, chen, as a clause in apposition to vl5 aurs, added for the sake of pointing out the fulfilment of the promises of God and the expecta- tions of pious Jews, in regard to the Messiah or Sou of God ; a thought naturally suggested by what the writer had said before in re- lation to the declarations in the Scriptures. But lest the reader might argue that Soti of David, considered as meaning Messiah, im- plied nothing more than one of David's natural descendants in the ordinary way, Paul adds Kara (rapKa, in respect to his human na- ture ; where aajos is plainly employed in the same sense as in John i. 14, 6 X070C oap^ eyivero, i. e. the Logos became man, or took on him a human nature. But if the Son of God was a mere man, in the view of Paul, how strange it would be for him to say : yivofxivov . . . Kara aapKu ; an expression never used respecting any other indivi- dual. The application plainly is, that he had some other nature than the human. The same distinction is implied in Rom. ix. 5, i^ wv 6 Xpiarog to Kara aapKa. In his other nature, he is there said to be 6 £7ri TravTO)v S'toc* Thus we have one special characteristic of the Son of God or of the promised Messiah, viz., that he was, as to his human nature, of the royal progeny of David. Now follows a second, of a more exalted and peculiar kind : (4) 'OpiaQivTog .... vEicpwi'. The word bpia^ivToq has often been rendered d'ecreec?, decided, ordained ; so Clavius, Erasmus, Faber, and many others. In like manner the oldest Latin interpreters exhibit qui prcedMstinatus est; as appears from the Latin interpretation of Irenseus, III. 18, 32; from Rufin's version of Origen, and Hilary De Trinitate, VII. In the like way, also, some recent interpreters have rendered bpia^ivTog. Of the former mode of translating we may truly say, that it accords with the meaning of the word opl^uj in Heb. iv. 7. Acts xi. 29. ii. 23. x. 42. xvii. 26, 31. Luke xxii. 22; and these are all the instances in which it is used in the New Testament, excepting the case before us. But this sense of the word is alleged, by many critics, not to ROMANS I. 4. 37 accord with the design of the writer. In order to prove this, they suppose the passage (by way of illustration) to be construed thus : ' Ordained to be the Son of God with power, Kara Trvewjua dynj)a{)vr\q, i. e. by the miraculous gifts which the Spirit conferred upon him, or by the miracles which the Spirit enabled him to perform ;' and then ask, ' How did the miraculous gifts or deeds of Jesus ordain him to be the Son of God, or constitute him such ? He possessed these gifts, or performed these miracles, because he was the Son of God ; he was not made so by the possession of his gifts or the performance of his deeds.' And admitting their grounds of interpreting the rest of the verse, their objection seems to be decisive against the exegesis which they oppose. Grotius, in order to relieve this difficidty with respect to bpicr^ivTog, construes the passage thus : ' The regal dignity of Jesus, as Son of God, was predestinated or prefigured^ when he wrought signs and wonders in his incarnate state.' But how predestinating can be made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware. Others construe thus ; ' Ordained to be the powerful Son of God, in his pneumatic condition [or state of exaltation], by his resurrec- tion from the dead.' But in this case we are compelled to ask: How could his resurrection decree or ordain his exalted state ? It might be the consequence of a decree that he should be exalted ; it was so; but in what manner the resurrection could ordain or decree his exaltation, it would be difficult to explain. There is yet another sense, in which the passage before us has been taken, viz., ' Constituted the Sonof God with power, in his pneu- matic condition, after his resurrection from the dead.' For al- though he was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was not the Son of God Iv dwajnH, in the sense here meant, until after his ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high. One might hesitate, perhaps, between this sense and the onegivea by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius. the Syriac version, and the great majority of modern critics; viz. opicr- ^ivTog = ^H\^ivTOQ, aTro airocpav^ivTog. It is a safe rule, not to adopt the meaning of a word which is fiot supported by the usus loquendi, when another meaning which is sup- ported by it can be given, that will make good sense. And in the case before us it is as good sense to say, that ' Christ was constituted the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from the dead,' as to say, that « Christ was shown to be the Son of God with power, af- ter his resurrection from the dead.' For after the resurrection, he was advanced to an elevation which, as Messiah, he did not before possess; comp. Phil. ii. 9 — 11. Heb. i. 3. ii. V. xii. 2. Rev. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 28. Nay one might say, that the more energetic meaning of the word is to be found in constituted. As an instance of the like sense, appeal has been made to Acts x. 42, where Christ is said to be 6 wpiQfxivog vTTo Toi) ^eou KpiTrjQ ^wvrwv kuI veKoCov, the constituted or apjiointed judge of the living and the dead. For the like sense of 6piZ,(i), appeal is also made to Acts xvii. 31, wpicre, sc. Kpirijv, i. e. he [God] hath constituted or appointed him [Christ] the judge, &c., comp. xvii, 26, bplcrag .... Kcupovg. But of this meaning of opt^w as applicable to Rom. i. 4, I now doubt, (as will be seen in the sequel) ; although I formerly was disposed to adopt it. If we should construe the phrase, as some do : ' Declared to be the Son of God with power, by the Holy Spirit, on account of (by) his resurrection from the dead;' one might then ask : How could the resurrection declare, in any special manner, that Christ was the Son of God ? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead ? Were not others raised from the dead, by Christ, by the apostles, by Elijah, and by the bones of Elisha ? And yet was their resurrection proof that they were the sons of God ? God did indeed prepare the way for imiversal dominion to be given to Christ, by raising him from the dead. To the like purpose is the apostle's assertion in Acts xvii. 31. ROMANS I. 4. 39 But how an event common to him, to Lazarus, and to many others, could of itself demonstrate him to be the Son of God tv dwufxHi re- mains to be shown. Nor have the reasons produced by Reiche in his recent commen- tary, and also by my friend, the Rev. A. Barnes, in his excellent little volume on the Romans, in favour of this interpretation, served to satisfy my mind of its validity. They both, with many others, un- derstand iv Svvafisi, here as adverbially employed, and make it to qualify bpicrOivTogi so that the meaning is, powerfully demo/isfrated or shoivn. Nothing, indeed, is more certain in grammar, than that the Dative case of nouns, either with or without a preposition before it, may be and often is employed in an adverbial way ; so that Iv Svvafxei might easily be rendered in the same way as Swarwc- My difficulties do not arise from this source, therefore, but from the unsuitableness of the application in this case. Had the apostle meant that Iv dvvafxu should qualify opiaBiVTog, all the usual prin- ciples of Greek construction and syntax would demand that he should have written, rod Iv dwcifxu 6pi(r^ivTog vlov, the place be- tween the article and the participle being the appropriate one, in order to avoid ambiguity of sense or construction, when a noim is thus employed. Then again, no example has been produced, and I must doubt, luitil I see it, whether any can be produced, of the Greeks applying dvvaiuiig to designate the force or st?'etigth of a logical demonstration made only to the mind. It always, certainly in the New Testament, has reference to the active force or energy of an agent, either corporeal or spiritual, when employed in such a way. The Greeks would characterize the demonstrative force of evidence or logic, in a very different way from this. The objections, therefore, in point of grammatical construction and propriety of idiom, seem to me to be conclusive against such an exegesis. And the references by the commentators in question to Col. i. 29, rrtv kvipyeiav avrov Ti)v lv£pyovfxivr]v Iv t/xoX iv Swcijuei, and to Mark ix. 1, atog av 'idwm rrjv jSacrtXciav tov ^wv l\r]i\v^i)iav Iv dwa/xsi, do not give any satisfaction as to their application of Iv ^vvafxei in the case above, because here the dvvafxig is that of agents, and not that of logic or evidence. The kingdom of God, of course means the per- sons who compose it, and Iv ^wafxu the efficiency with which they act, or (at least) with which God himself acts, in building it up. Nor am I convinced, that the resurrection powerfully demonstrated Christ to be the Son of God, by the allegation (in order to remove 40 ROMANS I. 4. an apparently formidable difficulty as stated above), that ' in the cir- cumstances of the case, after all the special claims that Jesus had made to be considered as the Messiah, his resurrection was a signal proof that he was the Son of God.' I'his it would do, however, only in an indirect way, and such an inference could be drawn from it only by virtue of reasoning from consequences. It proved only, that the claims of Jesus were allowed to be just and true. How could the power of God the Father, exerted to raise Christ from the dead, prove the divine or exalted nature of the latter ? It proved only that God is almighty, and that he regarded with approbation the claims of Jesus. One of these claims was, that he was the Son of God ; but this was only one among many others. How then could the whole force of the evidence to be drawn from the resurrection, concentre in this sole point? And when Reiche asserts (p. 119), that "Paul always appeals to the resurrection of Christ as the principal evidence of his divinity," and refers us to Col. xv. 3, 17. Rom. iv. 24. Acts xvii. 23, as proofs of this, one is tempted to ask, what is meant by evidence ? These passages merely show that dirist was raised from the dead, in order to complete the work of mediation and redemption, and also to be the future judge of the world; nothing more. Nor is it in the nature of things, that resurrection from the dead can prove Godhead ? Was it the Godhead that died, and was raised again ; or was it the ma7i Christ Jesus ? How could the raising of the man by the Father, then, prove the Godhead of Christ? In whatever light 1 look at this interpretation, I feel constrained to reject it. Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer makes the evi- dences of Christ's divine nature, (or higher nature, if you choose so to name it), to depend on the resurrection ; at least this is done no where, unless it be in the passage before us. Would it not be strange that this should stand entirely alone, in respect to such an important point as the interpretation in question makes it ? Let us now see whether a more defensible meaning than those above produced, can be given. I understand bpicrOivTog in its usual (and only defensible) mean- ing, viz. decreed, appointed, established by decree, determined by de- cision, viz. of a superior. I find in this sense of the word a most ex- pressive meaning in reference to Ps. ii. 7, which, I doubt not, the apostle had in his mind : " I will declare the decree ( pn-b« necM ) ; The Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son ; this day have I be- gotten thee." Here then is the decreed, destinated, ox appointed Son, ROMANS I. 4. 41 to whom Paul refers, the very Messiah promised in one of the most explicit and striking predictions in all the Old Testament ; comp. ver. 2, ev ypa^aig ayiaic. And what is the decree of which the Psalmist speaks ? It is, that the Son shall be made universal king, and that his enemies shall be dashed in pieces before him, Ps, ii. 8 — 12 ; and all this not in a temporal but spiritual sense. What is this now but to be the Son of God Iv dwafxei ? And when Mr. B. suggests, that he knows of ' no passage where dvvafjiig means authority, office, etc.'; he need only to consult Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark xiv. 62. Luke xxii. 69. Luke iv. 36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 4. Rev. xiii. 2, iv. 11. v. 12. vii. 12. xii. 10, in order to correct this impression. It is even employed (by metonymy) for those in office and clothed with power, e. g. 1 Cor. XV. 24. Eph. i. 21 ; so for angels good or bad, who are high in station, Rom. viii. 38. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Matt, xxviii. 18, has iracra e^ovcTia, not EvvafxiQ as he supposes ; a mistake into which the first edition of my work (p. 68) probably led him. It would be clear enough, then, that we might construe tov bpicr- BivTOQ viov ^£ow Iv ^vvcifxu, as meaning 'the Son of God who by de- cree is possessed of universal authority or dominion.' My only doubt whether iv ^wafXH should be so construed here, arises from its junc- tion with the next words ; Kara Trvtvfia aji(i)avvriQ> which, like every other expression in this verse, is contested, some translate, bt/ the Holy Spirit ; and some, hy a holy spirit, i. e. a divine and miraculous power, which some represent as the miraculous power with which Christ was endowed, and others as that which was shown in raising him from the dead. A third party construe irvivfxa here, as designating the higher nature or condition of Christ, i. e. his pneumatic nature or condition, if I may so express it. Schleusner, Flatt, Bengel, and others, find in aytwauvrj a meaning designedly different from that of 'ayi6ry\q or ayiaa\i6q. Thus Bengel, " aYtorrj? sanctitas, ayiaa/jiog sanctificatio, aynoavvr] sanctimonia." But this seems to be imaginary; for even in Latin, sanctimonia and sanctitas differ only in form, not in sense. In Greek, as there is no difference between aya^oavvi] and aya^ornQ, so there appears to be none between ayiwavvri and ayi6Tr]Q. The Seventy use ayitoavvr) for "w, strength, in Ps. xcvi. 6 (xcv. 6) ; for "dip in Ps. xcvii. 12 (xcvi. 12) ; and for lin in Ps. cxlv. 5 (cxliv. 5). But as Trvtvf.ia is here joined with ayiwavvr^g, I cannot well doubt tliat the word oytwo-iOvj/f is employed in the place of the adjective ayiov, (like 42 ROMANS I. 4. •drp in 'tv, "^i?) i- t(r^£i/roc5 in the old way, and construes the icara Trvsiifxa dyiwavvr^g as proving the Godhead of Christ. Consequentially, 1 should readily admit this ; for who that is not divine, can dispense the Holy Spirit ? But the object of the apostle here is not directly to prove the divine nature of Christ, but to show that he is the decreed and predicted Son of God, whom the Holy Scriptures had taught the Jews to expect. The phrase vlov ^zov, which stands connected with all the pre- dicates that have now been explained, is one of high and holy import. If I rightly understand the meaning of it, it designates the Messiah, the King of Israel, the Lord of all, in the passage before us. Such was Christ constituted, after his resurrection from the dead, when he ascended to take his place at the right hand of the Majesty on high, was made K\r]pov6fxoQ ttuvtcov, and copiously poured out the Spirit of holiness. But as this phrase is of such great importance, and re- quires to be copiously discussed, I must refer the reader to Excursus I. where he will find the discussion. The apostle having thus given his views respecting the dignity of Christ, he now resumes the theme mentioned at the beginning of ver. 3, viz. Tov vlov avTov, by adding the other usual appellatives of hon- our and office given to the Son ; which are, 'Itjo-qu Xpiarrov rot)- kv piov tjjuwv. Kvpiog is a word of deep interest to Christians. Applied ' to Christ, it properly denotes him as supreme Rider or Lord, specially of his church. Matthew and Mark do not apply this title absolutely to Christ, except after his resurrection. Matt, xxviii. 6. Mark xvi. 19, 20. But Luke, John, and Paul, apply it to him everywhere and often. With Paul the application seems to be in a manner exclusive. ROMANS I. 5. 47 God the Father, or God absohitely considered, is named Kvpiog about thirfp times, in the Old Testament passages which Paul cites ; but else- where, with the exception of some four or five instances, Paul gives to Christ exclusively the title of kvqioq or 6 kvqioq in more than two hundred and fifteen instances ; see Bibl. Repos. I. 783, seq. The ar- ticle makes no difference in the meaning, inasmuch as the word is a kind of proper name by usage, is employed in like manner as one, and may therefore take or omit the article at the pleasure of the wri- ter. See the Essay on the meaning of the word Kvpiog, in the Bibl. - Repos. as above, where the subject is examined at length. (5) At' o5 . . . . cnroaToXijVi by whom we have received grace and the office of an apostle. Chrysostom, Grotius, and others interpret this as though it meant xapiv rf)c airoaToXriq, the favour or privilege of the apostolic office ; i. e. they construe the last words as a hendiadys. Augustine says : " Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus accepit — aposto- latum, non cum omnibus." I prefer to separate the meaning- of the words. As to x^P'C? I consider it as having reference to the pecu- liar grace bestowed on Paul who had been a persecutor ; comp. 1 Cor. XV. 9, 10. Gal. i. 13 — 16. 1 Tim. i. 12 — 16, which seem to make this clear. As to ottootoXtj, comp. Acts ix. 15. xiii. 2. xxii. 21; also the passages just cited above. Etc vTraKorjv irioTBhyg, on account of the obedience of faith. Etc followed by an Ace, in almost innumerable instances designates the object or erid for which any thing is, or is done. 1 he idea here is, that the office of an apostle had been given to Paul, ' in order that (etc) he should further or promote obedience to the faith,' i. e. to the gospel; or (as we should here construe Triarewc) the obedience of faith, viz. that which springs from subjective or internal ^?d\.h. I pre- fer this latter sense, as being on the whole the most energetic. It seems to me probable, that the apostle meant to designate the obe- dience of faith as contra-distinguished from legal obedience. 'El/ TTCKTi ToTc e^veai, among all nations ; Iv among, a common sense of the word, see Bretchn. Lex. Iv. "ES-veo-t may be rendered Gentiles here, inasmuch as Paul was " the apostle of the Gentiles;" but the expression seems to be more general. He means to say, that he received the office of an apostle, in order that the gospel might be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as to Jews. 'Ytte^) tov bvofxaTOQ avTov,for his name's sake, which means on his account. But with what is this to be joined? Does the apostle mean to say, that he had received x«P'^ "^"^ airocrToXyv on his 48 ROMANS I. 6, 7. [Christ's] account ; or does he join the latter expression with tig vTraKorjv TrtoTEtoo and thus designate the following sentiment, viz. that 'obedience springing from Christian faith may be promoted among all nations, so that Christ may be glorified?' In this latter way I should prefer to interpret it ; and so Tholuck has done in his Commentary, as also Castalio and others. (6) 'Ev oTc l(TT£ (cai v^etc, amojig which [nations] are ye [Ro- mans]. The writer means to say ; ' Among those nations are ye, who have been won over to obey the Christian faith.' So the sequel : KXrjToi 'Irjo-ou Xptorov, the called of Jesus Christ, i. e. the called who belong to Christ. KXijroc (see on the word under ver. 1) means, by the usage of Paul, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have also been internally called ; in other words, it designates effectual calling. My reason for supposing I. XjOtcrrou here to be a genitive which designates belong- ing to, rather than a Genitivus agentis (in which case it would sig- nify o/* or by Christ), is, that the usual idiom ascribes the calling of sinners to Christ as eifected by the agency of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit. KX»/roi I. Xptcrrov, according to the interpretation now given, would mean ' Christians effectually called.' So Tholuck, Rei- che, and others. (7) YlcKJi .... ^eov, to all ivho are at Rome, beloved of God ; i. e. to all these Xlyw, ypa(}>(v, T say what follows in the sequel, viz. Xdpig vfxiv, &c. I am inclined to think, that in saying tv 'Pw/uy, the apostle meant to include not only the Christians who habitually dwelt there, but also Christians from abroad, more or less of whom must have frequented that great city. Such was the concourse of Greeks there in Juvenal's time, that he calls it Groecam iirbem. Christian foreigners Mdio were in the city, no doubt would attend worship with the church which belonged there ; so that the apostle might well address the whole body of those who joined in Christian worship. Still the language, Trao-i . . . \v 'Pw/urj, does not make this supposition certain. 'AyaTTjjTotc S'Eow beloved of God ; an appellation often bestowed on the ancient people of God, or at least implied by what is said con- cerning them, and Mdiich Paul here applies to Christians, the true Israel of God. They are the objects of God's love, because they are his children by a new and spiritual birth, because they bear his image, and also because they possess a filial and obedient spirit. KXrjroTc ayioig, chosen saints, or saints effectually called. So ROMANS I. 7. 49 most editions and commentaries unite tliese words, making kXjjToTi,- an adjective qualifying ayloi^' and so I have translated them. This may be correct, inasmuch as the apostle had just before called them KArjrot I. Xpiorou. If this union of the two words was intend- ed by him, they mean as much as to say, called or chosen to be holy-, or to be consecrated to God, to be devoted to him. In the mean time, it is evident that the words may be pointed thus, KXTjroTc, ayioig, to those who are called, who are devoted to Christ. The sense is sub- stantially the same, whichever way we choose to interpret the words. As to the appellations ayaTrrjroTc S'toD, kAjjtoTc ajioig, the reader may compare the terms of honour and affection given to God's ancient people, in Ex. xix. 6. Deut. xxxiii. 3. xxxii. 19; with these compare also 1 Pet. ii. 9. 1 Tim.iii. 15. Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. 1, 2, 10. v. 1, given to Christians in the New Testament. Xapig vfuv, sc. torrw, ma7/ grace be imparted to you ! Xapig I understand as meaning every Christian grace and virtue, which the Spirit of God imparts to the followers of Christ ; divine favour in the most extensive sense, but specially in the sense of spiritual blessings. — Eipijvr], like the Heb. Dibii? means happiness of every kind, peace with God and man, and so a state of quiet and happiness. The same word (Db«) is used, down to the present hour, among the oriental nations who speak the Shemitish languages, as an appropriate ex- pression in their formulas of greeting or in expressing their good wishes. TlaTpog npiov, i. e. the Father of all Christians, of you and me. So Christ has taught his disciples when they approach God in prayer, to say TTUTtp rii^Cov. — Kvpiov, see under ver. 4. One would naturally expect the article here, before the monadic nouns S-eS and KvpiS. But nothing is more common than to omit it before such nouns, when frequently employed, and where there is no danger of mistake. See N. Test. Gramm. § 89, 2. a. b. More common is it to employ the article before an epexegetical appellative in apposition, like irarpbg ■hfxihv in the present case. But even here the practice is not uni- form ; and moreover the article before irarpog in the present case might be dispensed with also, on the ground that ij/twv sufficiently marks its definitive nature ; N. Test. Gramm. § 89. 6, comp. 3. It should be remarked here, that In this prayer or wish Paul seems to take it for granted, that the blessings for which he asks, come as really and truly (not to say as much) from the Lord Jesus Christ as D 50 ROMANS I. 8. from Gud our Father. To the one then he addresses his prayer, as well as to the other. The reader, in looking back on what he has now read, will find the whole paragraph exceedingly characteristic of the manner in which Paul often writes. With regard to the parenthetic explana- tions or remarks in ver. 3, 4, (see the remarks on the course of thought in these verses, under ver. 3), we have seen that they were occasioned by the association of ideas in the writer's mind, which were connected with the mention of r? vis avrs. So in respect to ver. 5 and 6 again ; they were evidently suggested to the mind by t5 Kvpiov r]fxu)v in ver. 4. Having expressed the thoughts which Kvpiov thus spontaneously suggested, the writer again resumes the direct address or salutation which he was making : iraai toTc ovaiv K. T. X. The words necessarily connected in the paragraph stand thus: TTBpX TH vis avrs .... Ij](t5 XjOtorS ts Kvpis i^fxCjv .... ttckti rote ovGLv Iv 'Fd)py K. T. X. ; so that the whole seven verses make but one sentence, which is grammatically connected together. In this are three parentheses, if we count o TrpoiiniyydXaTO dia tCov ttjoo^jjtwv avTs Iv ypa^aig ajiaig as one; which we may do. This is an unusual number, even for Paul, in one sentence. Yet the charac- teristic of style developed by it is often to be seen, more or less, in the works of this distinguished apostle. (8) The apostle now proceeds to the expression of his kind feel- ings and wishes toward the church at Rome, in order to prepare the way, as it was natural for him to do, to be the more kindly listened to by them, flpwrov, in the first place^ first of all, viz. before I speak of other things. It does not here xneixn first in point of import- ance, hwi first in order of time. — Mlv Bretschneider (Lex.) considers as here placed ahsolntely, i. e. without its usual corresponding St ; for he says : " No divnpov follows," i. e. no additional clause connected with di. But in this I think he is mistaken. For tlie apostle, after two paragraphs in his usual manner, which begin with yap (illustra- ting and confirming first what he had said in ver. 8, and then what he had said in ver. 10), proceeds to the ^evrtpov of his declarations in ver. 13, viz. oi> S-fXto Sc vpug k. t. X. That is, first the apostle thanks God for their faith, &c.; and secondly/, he is desirous to tell them how much he has longed to pay them a visit, &c. Ileiche denies that piv in ver. 8 and St in ver. 13 can stand in relation to each other. But in this he is not supported by the principles of philology. Mtv and St ROMANS 1. 9. 51 stand not only at the head of antithetic and discrepant clauses, but also before those which express a difference of one thought from another, and so in the room of our Jirst, secondly, &c. See Passow's Lex. jUEV. T(^ 3-£(^ fxov, my God; the Christian religion which teaches us to say irdrep rifiwv, allows us to say 3-£oc juou. — Ata 'Irja-5 XyotcrrS, per Christum, auxilio Christ t, inferventu Christi, i. e. through, by, or in consequence of, what Christ has done or effected; in other words, Christo adjuvante, Deo gratias ago respectu vestrum omnium, ut fides vestra, &c. The meaning seems to be, that as a Christian as one on whom Christ has had mercy, and who has now a Christian sympathy for others beloved of Christ, he thanks God for the pros- perous state of the church at Rome. Am I. XptorS may also be joined with 3-ta) \xov, and the sense be thus given: 'I thank God, who is my God through wdiat Jesus Christ has done for me ; to him I belong as one of his, through the intervention of Christ.' So Glockler. Barnes construes Sm I. XpiorS as pointing out the medium through which the thanks of the apostle were offered. This is alto- gether consonant with the Christian economy ; but it does not seem to me to be the most natural sense of the passage. 'Ytt^p Travrwv v/iwv, on account of you all ; not for you in this sense, viz. in your room or stead. — lit arte vfiiov, your Christian be- lief, your faith in the gospel. — -"OXtj) rt^ Koafxt^, i. e. through the Ro- man empire. Kocr/ioc and olKovfxivrf are frequently used in a limited sense, like the yn« and ^n of the Hebrews. Nothing is more natural than to suppose, that the faith of the church at Rome might have been widely known or reported, in consequence of that great city being frequented by strangers from all parts of the empire. (9) MapTvg yap .... ^e6g,for God is my witness. Pap expli- cantis et confirmantis ; i. e. the apostle unfolds and confirms, in the following sentence, the evidence of his strong sympathies with them, and of his gratitude to God on their account. The reason why he here makes the appeal to God seems to be, that, as he was a stranger in person to the church at Rome, they might otherwise think his expressions to be merely those of common civility. ^i2< Xctrpeuw .... avTH, whom I serve in my soul (sincerely) in the gospel of his Son. 'Ev rt^ Trvtv fxari /nov I understand as de- signating sincerity, i. e. real, interned, spiritual devotedness, in dis- tinction from what is merely external or apparent. The apostle means to say, that he was sincerely and really devoted to the cause D 2 52 ROMANS I. 10. which he professed to love and to promote : comp. Phil. iii. 3. 2 Tim. i. 3. Eph. vi. 6. Rom. ii. 28, 29. 'Ev T(i^ svayytXth) t5 viov uvth may mean, hif the preaching of the gospel ivhich has respect to his Son ; more probably it means, in the gospel which has respect to his Son, comp. ver. 2 ; or it may mean the gospel of which his Son is the author, and which he taught me. See, on the various meanings of the Gen. case. New Testament Grammar § 99. That Iv t(^ evayyiXito does not here refer to the preaching of the gospel, but to living si)iritually according to its pre- cepts, seems rather more probable because of the Iv ti{> Trveviiari /uow which precedes, and which seems to define the kind of service ren- dered by the apostle. However, the other sense is allowable, although Reiche is strenuous against it. — 'Q,g adiaXuTrTwg .... -Koisfxai, how unceasingly I make rememhrance of you. This shows the intense zeal which the apostle cherished for the welfare of the Christian churches; for if he thus constantly interceded with God for the church at Rome, which he had never visited, we cannot suppose that he forgot other churches which he had been the instrument of estab- lishing. How different a phase would the Christian church speedily assume, if all its ministers were now actuated with the same degree of zeal which Paul exhibited ! Jlois^fat, / make to myself Midd. voice. (10) riavrore .... ^iojitvoq, always making supplication in my prayers ; which is confirming what he had said before, aStaXftVrwc fivdav ujuwv TTOLSjxai, and at the same time pointing out the manner in which he made this fxvdav, viz. in his supplications before God. 'Etti rwv Trpo(TEvxrjv, I have often purposed; comp. Acts xix. 21, Rom. XV. 23, 24. How often the apostle had purposed this, we have no means of ascertaining. But one thing is clear from this and many other like passages, viz., that the apostles were not uniformly and always guided in all their thoughts, desires, and purposes, by an infallible Spirit of inspiration. Had this been the case, how could . Paul have often purposed that which never came to pass ? Those who plead for such a uniform inspiration, may seem to be zealous for the honour of the apostles and founders of Christianity ; but they do in fact cherish a mistaken zeal. For if we once admit, that the apostles were uniformly inspired in all which they purposed, said, or did ; then we are constrained of course to admit, that men acting under the influence of inspiration, may purpose that which will never come to pass or be done ; may say that which is hasty or in- correct. Acts xxiii. 3 ; or do that which the gospel disapproves, Gal. ii. 13, 14. But if this be once fully admitted, then it would make nothing for the credit due to any man, to affirm that he is i^ispired ; for what is that inspiration to be accounted of, which, even during its continuance, does not guard the subject of it from mistake or error? Consequently those who maintain the uniform inspiration of the apos- tles, and yet admit (as they are compelled to do) their errors in pur- pose, word, and action, do in effect obscure the glory of inspiration, by reducing inspired and uninspired men to the same level. To my own mind nothing appears more certain than that inspira- tion in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform with the apostles or any of the primitive Christians. To God's only and well beloved Son, and to him only, was it given to have the Spirit afisTpiog or oi» £K intTpov, John iii. 34. All others on whom was bestowed the precious gift of inspiration, enjoyed it only Ik filrpov. The conse- quence of this was, that Jesus " knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ;" but all his followers, whenever they were left without the special and miraculous guidance of the Spirit, committed more or less of sin and error. This view of the subject frees it from many and most formidable difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the pre-eminence which is justly due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his apostles. At 56 ROMANS I. 14. tlie same time, it does not detract in the least deg^ree from the cer- tainty and validity of the sayings and doings of the apostles, when they were under the special influence of the Spirit of God. Kot lK(i)\v^r]v . . . Stvpo, hut have been hindered until now. — Kat, although or hiit ; Bretschn. Lex. koj, III. "ex Hebraismo, Kai est particula adversativa, sed, vero, at ;" of which he gives many ex- amples. The well known power of i to stand before a disjunctive clause, throws light on this^usage ; which is very unfrequent in clas- sic Greek. It cannot be truly said, in cases of this nature, that kcu (or i) properly signifies bitt ; yet it may be truly said, that aai {]) connects sentences, or clauses of sentences, whose meaning is adver- sative or disj'mictive. The conjunctive office consists in connecting the sentences, or parts of them ; the disjunctive sense lies in the nature of the propositions. We may lawfully translate ad sensu7n, in such cases, and so render kcu' {•}) but, although. "Iva Tiva .... WvecTiv, that I may have some fruit even among you, as also among other Gentiles ; i. e. that I might see ray labours to promote the gospel crowned with success even at Rome, the capital of the world, as well as in all other places where 1 have preached. Comp. John xv. 16, iv. 36—38. Phil. i. 11. Coh i. 6. (14) "EAA?jo-t re ... . HjuLi, lam indebted both to Greeks and Bar- barians, to the learned and the ignorant ; i. e. b^ttXiTrig eifxi ivayya- X'lZ^a^aif I am under obligation to preach the gosgel; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16. 2 Cor. ii. 6. iv. 5. In classic usage, /3np/3apoi means «// ivho spoke a language foreign to the Greek ; 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Acts xxviii. 2, 4. Of course, the Romans themselves, by this usage, would be named /3op/3«por and so Philo constantly names them ; and Plautus himself calls the Latin language barbara lingua, and Italy barbaria. lUit here the question with the apostle seems not to be in respect to language, but only in regard to circumstances and state of knowledge. "EAArjo-t, therefore, appears to be equivalent to (Too7g, and ftapftu- (^K)ig to avoi]Toig. Considered in this Avay, "EAAijo-t kcu [iapjiapoig mean the polished and unpolished, or the learned and ignoi'anf, or (to use the idiom of the present day) ' the civilized and the savage.' So^oTc T£ KOI avoiiToig should be regarded here as characterizing tlie state of knowledge, rather than the state or measure of the facul- ties of men thus designated. Learned and 2inlearned is a version (td sensum. Still if any one choose to consider the two couplets here as designa- ting, the first those who spoke Greek and those irho did not, the second ROMANS I. 15. 57 the learned and the ignorant^ be they of whatever nation they might be; and so the whole to be designed simply as expressing with force and by specific language the general idea of obligation to preach to all nations and classes of men without distinction, he will not wander far from the mark. This is the most simple and natural view of the subject. Glockler joins''EAX}7crt rt Kai Bap/Bapotc with the preceding \'^vi(ji ; invita Minerva. (15) Tholuck finds much difficulty in the ourw of the clause which follows ; and after discussing it at some length, comes to the conclu- sion, that the apostle has here "fallen out of his construction," inas- much as the nature of his sentence requires that ko^mq should be placed before "EAXr/o-t, in order to make out the comparison. But I do not feel this difficulty. Surely ovrai or ovTmq often stands alone, without a preceding Ka^wg or ayairep' as any one may see by opening a lexicon or concordance. Ovtio is often employed in this way, in the sense of similiter, simili modo, eodem modo, in the like way, in such a way, in a similar manner, in the same manner. Thus in Matt. v. 16. vii. 17. xviii. 14. Mark xiii. 29. xiv. 59. Luke xiv. 33, et ssepe alibi. What hinders now that we should understand it, in the verse before us, in the same way? ' I am under obligation,' says the apostle, ' to preach the gospel [for i.va'^'^iXiaaa'^ai is implied in the first clause] to all classes of men.' What then ? ' So, i. e. circumstances being thus, I am ready {to kut efxl Trpo^vfiov) to preach the gospel even to you who are at Rome.' If the reader does not think that the above references go so far as to give to ovtw the sense here assigned to it, viz., matters being thus, or circurnstances being thus, or 1 being in this condition, he may turn to John iv. 6, where it is said: "Jesus being M'eary on account of his journeying, iKa^i^iTo ovTiog iw\ ry Trrjyy," he sat doivn in this condition upon the tcell, viz., in a state of weariness. All the attempts that I have seen to give ovTMQ any other sense, seem to be in vain. Compare also Rev. iii. 16, "I would thou wert either cold or hot ! Ovr^q, so," i. e. the matter being thus, " since thou art neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Tn like manner in the text before us; o'vTio, ' the matter being thus, viz., it being true that I am under obli- gation to preach to all classes of men, I am ready to preach at Rome;' or, ' since I am bound in my duty to preach to all, in accordance with this (ovTw) I am ready to preach the gospel at Rome.' If kci^wq were placed before"EXXri(Tt, as Tholuck and others judge it should be, the sentiment would be thus: ' In proportion to my obligation to preach 58 ROMANS I. 15, 16. to all men, is my readiness to preach at Rome;' a sentiment which although doubtless true, does not seem to me to be the one which the apostle means here to convey. It is more simple to understand him as saying : ' Since I am bound to preach to all, in accordance with this obligation I am ready to preach even at Rome {koL vimv), formidable and difficult as the task may seem to be.' Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16. In this view of ovtw I find Reiche, in his recent work, fully to agree. To (car tfil Trpo^vjiiov, lit. [there is] a readiness in respect to my- self, q. d. I am ready. Or it may be interpreted in this way : ' There is a readiness so far as it respects me,' namely, to the extent of my ability, so far as it depends on me ; meaning to intimate, that the actual disposal of the matter is to be wholly committed to God. As to TO irpo^vfiov (an adjective of the neuter gender) being used for a noun, nothing is more common than for the Greeks to employ adjec- tives in this way. Kai vfiiv has an emphasis in it, i. e. even to you, at Rome, the metropolis of the world. In other words : ' I shun not to preach the gospel any where ; to the most learned and critical, as well as to the most unlearned and unskilled in judging.' ' Ev, at ; and so often times before nouns oi place. (16) Ou yap .... Xpto-rS, for I ain not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; a reason or ground of his readiness to preach it, which he had just before asserted ; and therefore it is introduced by yap. The apostle Paul gloried in the gospel ; in fact he gloried in nothing else. Although Christ crucified was " to the Jews a stumbling- block, and to the Greeks foolishness," he shunned not to preach it on this account, but was willing, even in presence of the learned and the sophists at Rome, to proclaim the truth as it is in Jesus. The reading rS X/otorS is marked by Knapp as wanting an adequate support, and is rejected by Mill, Bengel, Koppe, Griesbach, and Lachmann. In respect to the sense of the passage, its insertion or rejection will make no important difference. If retained ts XpicTTs must be construed as Genitivus objecti, i. e. the gospel respecting Christ, or of which Cln-ist is the object. Here ends the first or salutatory part of this epistle. The remainder ofver. 16 (with vers. 17, 18) constitutes the leading subject or theme of the epistle ; which the writer here as it were formally proposes, and which he in the sequel proceeds to confirm, illustrate, and fortify. ROMANS I. 16, 17. 59 CHAP. I. 16—18. These four verses contain four propositions, which lie at the basis of all that may be appropriately called thegospet of Christ. ( 1 ) To gospel truth is imparted a divine energy, in saving the souls of men. (2) Those only can be saved by it, who believe it and put their confidence in it. (3) The pardon of sin, or the justification which God will bestow only on sinners who believe in Christ, is revealed from heaven, and proposed to all men for their reception. (4) From the same source a revelation is made, that the unbelieving and ungodly will be the subject of divine indignation and punishment. The apostle does not proceed, formally and in order, to illustrate and establish these propositions separately and successively ; but now one part of these respective truths, and then another, comes into view as he proceeds, and the whole is fully developed by hira in the course of the epistle. Awvojutc yap .... TTKTTtvovTijfor it is the power of God, unto the salvation of every one who believes ; i. e. it is the efficacious instru- ment, by which God promotes or accomplishes the salvation of all believers. Awvojutc ^^ov means, that in and by it God exerts his power, that it is powerful through the energy which he imparts ; and so it is called the power of God. The yap serves to introduce the reason why the apostle is not ashamed of the gospel. It is mighty through God hc (XMrnpiav, to salvation, i. e. to the accomplishment or attainment of salvation. Etc with the Accusative is, in a multi- tude of cases, used in the like manner. — Ilavri tCo TrKxrevovTi, Dativus co7mnodi : the gospel brings salvation to every believer, or it is the means of imparting it to him. 'lougaici) .... "EXXi]vi, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. In proclaiming the gospel, the primitive preachers of it, themselves hemg Jews, were directed first to proclaim the ofi"ers of mercy through a Saviour to the Jews, wherever they went, and then to the Gentiles; which was the order usually followed, and to which the clause before us seems to advert. That the Trpwrov here merely relates to the order in which the gospel was proposed, and not to any substantial preference of the Jew over the Greek, the sequel of this epistle most abundantly shows. So Chrysostom : ra^twc tort ttqujtov, i. e. irpioTov relates merely to order. (17) AtKatoo-uvjj yap 3-£ow. Tap illustrantis, as lexicographers say. In the preceding verse the apostle has said, that the gospel is, through divine power accompanying it, an efficacious instrument of salvation iravrX rof TTiaTtvovTi, to every believer. On this last ex- pression an emphasis is to be laid; inasmuch as the great -object of 60 ROMANS I. 17. Pun], jji the epistle before us, is to show that salvation is gratuitously bestowed on the heUever in Christ, but never conferred in any case on the ground of merit. The design of ver. 17 is to suggest, that faith or belief h the appointed means or conditio sine qua f ion of jnsti- fication, i. e. of obtaining pardoning mercy with God ; that the Old 'J'cstament Scriptures confirm this idea; and consequently, that salvation is granted to believers, and to them only : all which goes to illustrate and establish the affirmation in ver. 16. It is in this way that 7«|0 connects the fine and delicate shades of thought and processes of reasoning, in the Greek language ; a circumstance which has, un- happily for the criticism of the New Testament, been quite too much overlooked by the great body of interpreters. AiKaio(Tvvri ^eov is a phrase among the most important which the New Testament contains, and fundamental in the right interpre- ti(m of the epistle before us. To obtain a definite and precise view of its meaning, we must betake ourselves, in the first place, to the verb SiKaioio' for from the meanings which this verb conveys, come nearly all the shades of meaning that belong to dmaiocrvvri and St- Kai(i)aig, SO often employed (especially the former) in the writings of Taul. The Greek sense of the verb EiKcaooj diifers, in one respect, from the corresponding Hebrew verb pis; for this (in Kal) means to be Just, to be innocent, to be upright, and also to justify one's self, to be justified, thus having the sense of either a neuter, rejlexive, or passive verb. In the active voice, ^iKaiow in Greek has only an ac- tive sense, and it is used in pretty exact correspondence with the forms l?73 and p'Tsn (Piel and Hiphil) of the Hebrews, i. e. it means to declare just, to pronounce just, to justify, i. e. to treat as just ; con- sequently, as intimately connected with this, to pardon, to acquit from accusation, to free from the consequences of sin or transgression, to set free Jroni a deserved penalty. I'his last class of meanings is the one in which Paul usually employs this word. As a locus classi- cus to vindicate this meaning, we may iijipeal to Rom. viii. 33, 'Who shall accuse the elect of God.'' It is God 6 Stjcfuwi', loho acquits them,' viz. of all accusation, or ' who liberates them from the penal con- sequences of transgression.' Exactly in the same way is it said, in Prov. xvii. 15, ' He who justifieth (p'Tfo) the wicked, and he that coiidemncth the just, even they both are an abomhiation to the Lord.' ►So in Ex. xxiii. 7, *1 will not justify (pn^NNb) the wicked.' In the same manner Is. v. 23 speaks: ' JVho justify the wicked ('pn^ ROMANS I. 17. 61 tp-\r\) for a reward.' In these and all such cases, the meaning of the word justify is altogether plain, viz. it signifies to acquit^ to free from the penal consequences of guilt, to pronounce just, i. e. to absolve from punishment, it being directly the opposite of condemning or subjecting to the consequences of a penalty. In this sense Paul very often employs the verb ; e. g. Rom. v. 1 , diKuiM^ivTsg, being freed from punishment, being acquitted, being pardoned .... d^iivriv ixofizv irpbg tov S-fov. Rom. v. 9, ^ikuho- ^evTEQ, being acquitted, pardoiied .... o-wS-rjo-o/itES'a 3t' avrs ana rf/c opyrig, which salvation is the opposite of being subjected to pun- ishment, or of not being justified. In Gal. ii. 16, 17, ^ikcuom is four times employed in the sense of absolved, acquitted, or treated as just, i. e. freed from penalty and admitted to a state of reward. So Gal. iii. 8, 11, 24. V. 4. Tit. iii. 7. In Rom. iv. 5, tov SucmovvTa tov a(T£j3fj is plainly susceptible of no other than the above interpretation; for those who are ungodly, can never be made innocent in the strict and literal sense of this word ; they can only be treated as innocent, i. e. absolved from the condemnation of the law, pardoned, delivered, from the penalty threatened against sin. That the idea of pardon, or 7'emission of the penalty threatened by the divine law, is the one substantially conveyed by ^ikuiom and ^iKcuoavvr], as generally em- ployed in the writings of Paul, is most evident from Rom. iv. 6, 7 ; where the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes ^lkcilo- jU£v (or 7rjoo|3wjuev) ek wicrTEwQ elg tt'kttiv' or at least that some mode of expression like this would have been employed. But if the sense be not, that justification is so revealed by the gospel as that men are required to advance from a lower to a higher degree of faith, then, after all, Ik ttio-tcwc must be joined in effect with ^ikqi- oavi't], and we must say, 'The justification which is Ik maTHog dr TTiariv, is revealed,' &c. But to such a junction Tholuck objects, on account of the separation of Ik iriaTeMg from SiKatoo-uvrj. A word on this point, in the sequel. I have said that this sentiment does not fit the exigency of the pas- sage ; and my reason for saying this is, that it represents the apostle, not as proposing the grand theme of gratuitous justification (which is evidently the main subject of his epistle), but as proposing the climactic nature of the faith connected with justification, as his great topic. How can this well be imagined, by a considerate reader of his epistle ? {h) It is against the usus loquendi of homogeneous passages ; e. g-. Rom.iii.22, ^iKaioavvr] ^tov ^la TricrTewg (altogether of the same tenor as ^iKaiocTvvY] 3'fou .... tie 7ri(TTau)g in our verse) ; Rom. iii. 30, og diKauocTH . ... Ik TTiaTiLog, kcCl .... Stct Triar^Mg' Rom. iv. 11, (7(ppay'i^a ri^g ^tKaioavvrig Trig iriaTewg' Romans iv. 13, Sta S.Kaiocrv- v>jc TTtorrfwc* Romans v. 1, diKaiw^ivreg Ik iriaTewg' Rom. ix. 30, ra i^vY} . . . (carlXajSf . . . StKaiocruvjjv tvjv Ik Triamog' Romans ix. 32, OTL ouK [^'lo-^ajjX i]v diwKiov ciKaiO(TVi>riv^ Ik TTiarswg' Romans x. 6, 7) Se £ic TTiGTeujg diKctiocrvviy and so in the other epistles of Paul, e. g. Gal. ii. 16, [^BiKaiovrai av^ptoTrogl ^ta iri(TTeu)g' Gal. iii. 8, Ik iria- Tstjog BiKaiol TO, e^vr} 6 ^tog' Galatians iii. 11, 6 ^iKaiog eK iriaTUog Z,i](TtTai (a quotation) ; Gal. iii. 24, 'Iva Ik Trlareiog BiKcuw^w/jiiv' Gal. V. 5, €(c 7ri(TT£wg iXiTiSa BiKcuocrvvrig' aTrsKdi\6f.ii^a' Plnl. iii. 9, BiKtu- ocrvvriv .... rriv Siii niaT£0)g' Heb. xi. 7, T)']g Kara tticttiv diKaio- (Tvviig' et alibi ssepe. These are enough to show what Paid (I had almost said every where and alw.ays) presents to our view, in respect to tlie subject of justification. Can there be any good reason to ap- prehend, that in proposing the theme of his whole epistle, he should ROMANS I. 17. 67 not propose the same justification by faith of which he afterwards so amply treats? ' But,' it is replied, ' how could Paul separate Ik Tricrrewc so far from StKaioffwvr?, if he means that the former should qualify the lat- ter?' I answer, it was because ^iKatoavvr], as here employed, has already a noun in the Genitive, (3-£ou) connected with it. The writer could not say, ?] Ik Triarewg BiKuioavvr) S'foO (which would, I believe, be without a parallel) ; nor was it apposite to say, ^iKaioavvij ^£ov Ik TTtoTEwcj because the writer was hastening to say, that God's appointed method of justification zvas revealed in the gospel. When this idea, which was uppermost in his mind (because he had just said that he was not ashamed of the gospel), was fully announced, the writer proceeds immediately to specify more particularly the Sikcho- (Tvvn in question. It is a ^iKaioavvy] Ik Triarewg' in accordance with which he has, in almost numberless examples, elsewhere made declarations. The easiest and most direct solution is, to suppose ^iKaioavvri to be repeated here immediately before Ik TricrrEwc The sentence would then run thus : AiKOLoa-vvr) jcip ^eov kv avT(^ aTroKaXvTTTe- rai, [dLKaio? ug ayiacrfiov, unto righ- teousness in order that ye may practise holiness ;' 2 Cor. ii. 16, ' [The gospel is] to some oaiiri ^avarov alg ^avarov, and to others, 6(Tfxrt Ki^rjg ilg Zwi)v, a savour of death to the causing of death, and a savour of life to the causing of life. In these and all such cases, the Accu- sative with dg before it, denotes the end or object to which the thing that had just been named tends. So must it be, then, in the text ; the [^iKmoavvii] Ik Triarewg is revealed or declared to the world tig iriarTiv, i. e. in order that it may be received or believed. (18) 'AiroKokviTTiTaL yap .... av^piLirivv, for the wrath of God from heaven^ is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. As to the -yap with which this verse is introduced, I am now per- suaded that it refers to an implied thought in the mind of the writer, which intervened between vers. 17 and 18, viz. ' This ZiKmoavvi] ^lox) is now the only ^iKaioavvr] possible for men.' That this is so the sequel shows ; which is designed to prove that all men are in a state of sin and condemnation, and can be saved only by gratuitous pardon. To the same purpose is Reiche's remark on yap as here employed. See Bretsch. Lex. on yap where this principle is illus- trated copiously. 'Op7?7 ^tov literally, the wrath of God, divine indignation, or (to use a softer phraseology) God's displeasure. That the phrase is an- thropopathic (i. e. is used av^goiro-Ka^Mg) will be doubted by no one who has just views of the divine Being. It is impossible to unite with the idea of complete perfection, the idea of anger in the sense in which we usually cherish that passion ; for with us it is a source of misery as well as sin. To neither of these effects of anger can we properly suppose the divine Being to be exposed. His anger, then, can only be that feeling or affection in him, which moves him to look on sin with disapprobation, and to punish it when connected with impenitence. We must not, even in imagination, connect this ROMANS I. 18. 71 in the remotest manner with revenge ; which is only and always a ma- lignant passion. But vengeance, even among men, is seldom sought for against those whom we know to be perfectly impotent, in respect to thwarting any of our designs and purposes. Now as all men, and all creation, can never endanger any one interest (if I may so speak) of the divine Being, or defeat a single purpose ; so we cannot even imagine a motive for revenge, on ordinary grounds. Still less can we suppose the case to be of this nature, when we reflect that God is infinite in wisdom, power, and goodness. This constrains us to un- derstand such phrases as 6^777 Srtou, k. t. X. as anthropopatliic, i. e. as speaking of God after the manner of men. It would be quite as well (nay, much better), to say that when the Bible attributes hands, eyes, arms, &c. to God, the words which it employs should be liter- ally understood, as to say, that when it attributes anger and vengeance to him, it is to be literally understood. If we so construe the Scrip- tures, we represent God as a malignant being, and class him among the demons ; whereas by attributing to him hands, eyes, &c. we only commit the sin of anthropomorphism. The lexicons make opY?) to signify punishment. By way of con- sequence, indeed, punishment is implied. But op^r\ S'fou is a more fearful phrase, understood in the sense of divine displeasure or indig- nation, and more pregnant with awful meaning if so rendered, than it is if we give to it simply the sense of KoXacsiq, as so many critics and lexicographers have done, 'Att' ovpavov, another locus vexatus. Is it to be joined with S-cou; or should we refer back to a-KOKakv-mirai, and construe it as implying the method in which the divine displeasure is made known ? The latter way is the one which almost all commentators have cho- sen, although there is almost an endless diversity among them as to the meaning of ott' ov^avov. E. g. (1) The heavens declare the glory of God, and so point men naturally to his worship, and by con- sequence warn them to forsake sin. (2) Storm, tempest, hail, thun- der, lightning, &c. from heaven, declare the wrath of God against sin. (3) Christ will be revealed from heaven, at the last judgments to punish sin ; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Limborch, &c. (4) Judgments which come from God, who is in heaven, testi- fy against sin; so Origen, Cyril, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, &c. (5) In consequence of an appointment of heaven, the divine displeasure against sin is testified by conscience in every breast. (6) The dis- 72 ROMANS 1. 18. pleasure of God against sin is revealed, through divine appointment, or by the arrangement of the supreme Being. This last interpretation I think to be nearly right. But the vsus loquendi (which seems unaccountably to have been overlooked here), enables us to be more explicit. In Heb. xii. 25 the apostle says : "If they escaped not who rejected tov hrX yfjc .... xQr\ixaTit,ovTa, him who on earth [at mount Sinai] warned them, much more shall we not escape, if we reject tov air' ovpavwv [;!^()rjjuaTt^ovra], him [who warneth us]y)w« heaven;" comp. Mark i. 11, where a voice Ik twv ovpavCov says : " This is my beloved Son," &c. Now if such phrase- ology be compared with Matt. v. 45, tov Trarpog vfxC)v tov Iv ov- pavolg' vi. 1, Trarpt . . . . tv toIq ovpavoig' vi. 9, Trarep 7]fxC)v 6 iv Tolq ovpavoig, et al. ssepe, it would seem sufficiently plain, that God coming from heaven where he dwells, or God belonging to heaven, is intended to be designated by the phrase ^lov air' ovpavov. So Reiche. That awo, in a multitude of cases, is put before a noun of place, in order to designate that one belongs to it, scarcely needs to be suggested; e. g. Matt. ii. 1. iv. 25. 2 Thess. i. 7. John i. 45. xxviii. 21, etal. ssepe. The sentiment I take to be this: 'The God of heaven, or the God who dwells in heaven, i. e. God supreme, omnipo- tent, has revealed his displeasure against sin"; 'and, therefore, escape from punishment can be only by the diKoiocrvvr] 3 eg v. How the revelation of God's displeasure is made, is disclosed by the sequel. To the heathen it is made by God's works and their own consciences, Rom. i. 20, 32. ii. 14, 15. 'Ao-fjSftav, impiety towards God, (from a privative and ai^ofiai, to worship) ; adiKiav, injustice, unrighteousness toward men. Twv Trjv . . . KaTExovrwv, who keep back or hinder the truth by iniquity. So the verb KaTixLo most naturally means; comp. Luke iv. 42. Philem. ver. 13. 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7. It also means to hold firmly, to grasp hold of, to take possession of and retain, &c., as may be seen in the lexicons ; but these meanings do not fit well here. The- ophylact explains KaTt\6vTU)v by koXvitthv, aKOTiZ,uv. The mean- ing seems to be : ' Who hinder the progress or obstruct the power of truth, in themselves or others.' But of what truth ? 'AAj'jS'eta cannot here mean the gospel ; be- cause the writer goes on immediately to say, that the light of nature sufficed to teach the heathen better, than to restrain the aX^^na in question. 'A\i]^Ha is here, then, that truth which the light of nature taught respecting the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. ROMANS I. 19. 73 When the apostle says in ver. 18, tmv tijv aXij^nav Iv adiKtq KarexpvTiov, in his own mind he singles out of the av^pwirojv fall menj whom he has just mentioned, the heathen or Gentiles, whose vicious state he immediately proceeds to declare. This is the theme for the remainder of the first chapter. 'Ev ddiKia may mean by iniquity, Iv standing before the means or instrumetiti as usual; or else it is used adverbially =a'StK:wc. Rei- clie prefers the latter sense ; which is agreeable to idiom. To fill out ver. 18 completely, the reader must supply, in his own mind, [tTTi iracrav acre/Be/av /cat tiStKtav] twv r/jv dkyf^tiav k. t. X. CHAP. I. 19—32. The aposlle, having intended in his own mind to designate the heathen or Gentiles, by mentioning those ' who hinder the truth through unrighteousness,' now proceeds to illus- trate and confirm his charge against them. God, says he, has disclosed in the works of creation his eternal power and Godhead ; and this so clearly, that they are without excuse for failing to recognize it, vers. 19, 20. And since they might have known him, but were ungrateful, and refused to glorify him, and darkened their minds by vain and foolish disputations ; since they represented the eternal God to be like mortal man, and even like the brutes which perish ; God gave those up to their own base and degrading lusts, who thus rendered to the creature the honour that was due to the Creator, vers. 21 — 25. Yea, he gave them up to the vile and unnatural passions which they cherished, vers. 29, 30 ; and these they not only commit themselves, although they know them to be worthy of death, i. e. of condemnation on the part of the divine lawgiver, but by their approbation they encourage others to commit the like offences. Such being the state of facts in regard to the heathen world, it follows of course that they justly lie under the condemning sentence of the divine law. It is not the object of the apostle, to prove that every individual heathen is guilty of each and all the sins which he enumerates ; much less does he intend even to intimate that there are not other sins, besides those which he enumerates, of which the Gentiles are guilty. It is quite plain, that those which he does mention, are to be regarded merely in the light of a specimen. Nor will the charges which he here makes, prove that every individual of the Gentile world was, at the moment when he was writing, guilty of all the things preferred against the heathen. If we suppose that there might then have been some virtuous heathen, (a supposition apparently favoured by Rom. ii. 14), such persons must have abstained from the habitual practices of the vices named, and from others like them. But it suffices for the apostle's purpose, to show that they once had been guilty of them ; which of course was to show their absolute need of salvation by a Redeemer, i. e. of gratuitous pardon procured through him. The case may be the same here, as that which is presented in chap. ii. iii., where a charge of universal guilt is brought against the Jews. Certainly this was not designed to prove that there then existed no pious Jews, who were not liable to such charge in its full extent, at the moment when the apostle was writing. Nay, it was of course true to some extent, even of the pious, at the time when Paul was writing, that they daily committed sin in some form or other ; and the same was true of pious Gentiles, if, indeed, there were any such, All men, then, were guilty before God, 74 ROMANS I. 19. although all men might not practise the particular vices which the apostle named, when he was writing. It matters not, for his purpose to prove this. All who could sin, had sinned, and did then sin, in some way or other ; all this is now, and always has been true. Of course all have fallen under the condemnation of the divine law, and salvation by the grace proffered in the gospel, is the only salvation which is possible for them. The question when men begin to sin, it is not the object of the apostle here to discuss. Nor is it even the degree of their depravity, which it his main design to illustrate and prove. The tmiversality of it is the main point ; and it is all which is essential to his argument. To this universality Paul admits of no exception ; but then we are of course to understand this, of those who are capable of sinning. It is thus that we interpret in other cases. For example, when it is said : " He that believeth not, shall be damned," we interpret this of those who are capable of believing, and do not extend it beyond them. With the question, when individuals are capable of believing or of sinning, I repeat it, Paul does not here concern himself. Neither mere infancy, nor entire idiocy, is the object of his present consideration. He is plainly speaking of such, and only of such, as are capable of sinning ; and these, one and all, he avers to be sinners, in a greater or less degree. Such being the fact, it follows, that as " the soul which sinneth must die," so, if there be any reprieve from this sentence, it must be obtained only by pardoning mercy through a Redeemer. I add merely, that the clause tuiv ttjv dXr]l^eiav iv aSiKia Karixovruiv, properly belongs to that division of the discourse which we are now to examine ; but the connec- tion of it with the general proposition in the preceding part of ver. 18, is made so intimate by the present grammatical structure, that I deemed it best not to disjoin them in the commentary. (19) But how is it to be made out, that the heathen keep back the truth respecting the only living and true God, by their unrigh- teousness ? I answer, by showing that to all men is made, in the works of nature, a revelation so plain of the eternal power and God- head of Jehovah, that nothing but a wilful and sinful perversion of the light which they enjoy, can lead them to deny this great truth. So the apostle : /^iotl .... avToTg, because that which might be know7i concerning God was manifest to them. Ai6Ti=^ta tovto oTt and equivalent in logical force here to yap, stands before a clause which assigns a reason why the apostle asserts that the heathen hinder the truth by iniquity. The amount of the proof which follows is, (1) That the truth was knowable. (2) That nothing but base and evil passions keep men from acknowledging and obey- ing it. To yvwarbv tov ^iov, literally the knowledge of God, or that con- cerning God which is knowable or known. That the neuter adjec- tive is used for a noun, is in accordance with a well-known and com- mon Greek idiom. The meaning that which is knowable, seems on the whole to be best ; and that to yvcjarov may be thus rendered we can have no doid3t, when wc compare to voj/tov intelligible, ROMANS I. 19. 75 TO aKT^nrov quod perceptum sit, to aopuTov quod non visum sit, i. e. invisible, &c.. Ernesti denies that yvuiarov can be rendered, that which is to be known, or that which is knowahle, (N. Theol. Biblioth. X. 630) ; and this has been greatly contested among critics. Butt- mann (Gramm. § Q2. Anm. 3, comp. my N. Test. Gramm. § 82 Note 1.) seems to have decided this point, however, beyond any rea- sonable doubt. He says, indeed, that verbals in -Tog frequently cor- respond to the Latin participles in -tus ; so ttXektoc stricken, aTp^ir- Tog perverted, -koi^toq made, factus, &c. But "more commonly," he adds, " they have the sense of possibility, like the Latin adjec- tives in -His, or the German ones in -bar ; as (TTpeirTog versatilis, opaTog visibilis, ciKOvaTog audibilis" This appears more fully when IcrTi is joined with these adjectives or verbals ; e. g. (3iwt6v laTL, one can live, {quasi 'it is live-able'); ToTg.ovK I^itov Iotl, they cannot go out, {quasi ' to them it is not go-able'). It is strange, in- deed, that this should so long and so often have been called in ques- tion; especially as Plato frequently uses the very word under examination, in connection with Sosoorov, e. g. to jvojcttov koX to doE,a(TT6v, that which is knowahle and that which is supposeable, de Repub. Lib. v. ToO ^iov, concerning God, ^tov being Genitivus objecti, as grammarians say. For an extended statement of the latitude of the Genitive, in regard to the many various relations which it expresses, see N. Test. Gramm. § 99. Examples in point are Matt. xiii. 18, TTapajSoXrj tov (nreipovTog, the parable concerning the sower; 1 Cor. i. 18, 6 \6yog 6 tov GTcwpov, the declaration concerning the cross. So Xoyoc Tivog, a report concerning any one, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 10. viii. 5. 28. Comp. Luke vi. 12. Rom. xiii. 3. John xvii. 2. Heb. ix. 8, et alibi. 'Ev avTotg may be construed among them. So Iv often means ; e. g. Matt. ii. 6, Iv Tolg 7]y efioaiv, among the leaders ; Luke i. 1, Iv Vfxiv, among us ; Rom. i. 6, kv olg among whom; Rom. xi. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 18, &c. The sense would then be : ' What may be known [by the light of nature] concerning God, was manifest among them,' i. e. in the midst of them or before their eyes. The more probable sense, however, seems to be in them, i. e. in their minds or con- sciences; comp. Rom. ii. 15. Acts xiii. 15. Some prefer to render tv avTolg as they would the simple Dative avTolg, viz. to them, and appeal to such examples as 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Matt. xvii. 22. Luke xxiii. 81. xii. 8, and even to Acts iv. 12. 1 Cor. ii. 6. 2 Cor. iv. 3. But the 76 ROMANS I. 20. preceding method of construction is plainly the more certain and simple one. Tholuck and Reiche, accordingly prefer to render Iv avTolg in them ; and they interpret it as referring to their moral sense, by which they may come to discern and judge of the evidences of divine power and Godhead. That ev before the Dative, can never be properly considered the same thing as the simple Dative, seems to be conclusively shown by Winer, N. Test. Gramm. p. 177, ed. 3. The yop in 6 ^eoc yap avrolq lipaviptjae is yap conjirmantis. (20) Ta yap . . . . koi ^Hor-qq may be regarded as a parenthetic explanation. The yap here is also yap conjirmantis vel illustrantis, and has special relation to the clause or declaration immediately pre- ceding, i. e. it stands before an assertion designed to illustrate and confirm the preceding declaration. Ta yap aopara avTov,for the invisible things of him, i. e. of God. 'Aopara means the attributes or qualities of the divine Being ; which are aopara, because they are not objects of physical notice, i. e. are not disclosed to any of our corporeal senses. Of course the expres- sion refers to the attributes belonging to God considered as a spirit; 1 Tim. i. 17. 'Atto KTia Ka^oparai means, are distinctly seen, are intelligibly perceived, i. e. they are so, or may be so, by the aid of the things which have been made. In other words ; God's invisible attributes, at least some^^of them, are made as it were visible, i. e. are made the object of clear and distinct apprehension, by reason of the natural creation. So the Psalmist : " The heavens declare the glory of God ; the firma- ment showeth forth the work of his hands. Day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night showeth knowledge," Ps. xix. 1, 2. But what are the attributes of God which are thus plainly dis- cernible by his works ? The answer is, ?] re aidioc avrov dvpa/nit; Kot ^eioTTig, both or even his eternal power and Godhead. This clause is epexegetical of to. ao^ara avrov. Avvafnig must^ here have special reference to the creative power of God ; and this seems to be called aidiog, because it must have been possessed antecedent- ly to the creation of the world, or before time began. Still, although ^rjiniovpyia (creative power), as Theodoret says, is here spe- cially meant, I apprehend that the sense of Svva/ii\o(Toeiv ^ao-Kovree, those who profess to phi- losophize. To the same purpose Cicero says : " Qui se sapientes esse profitentur," Qusest. Tusc. I. 9. (23) Kai n^Xa^av .... IpirerMv, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God, for an image like to mortal man, atid fowls, and quadrupeds, and reptiles. Trjv ^o^av tov acp^aprov ^eov means, the majesty and excellence of the eternal God, or the glorious and eternal God. In rjAAa^av . . . . ev ofioihJixaTL, the Dative with Iv before it foUows the verb. In such cases the usual construction is to put the simple Dative after the verb, i. e. the Dative of the noun de- signating the thing^or which another is exchanged ; e. g. Lev. xxvii : 10, ovK aWa^H .... KoXov TrovTjpttJ. Ibid. aAXa^y .... Ktrivog KTrjvei. Lev. xxvii. 33. Ex. xiii. 13. The classic writers usually say, a\\a(T- opa, things indifferent. Aristotle and Cicero justify revenge. Aris- totle (Polit. I. 8) represents war upon barbarous nations to be nothing more than a species of hunting^ and as altogether justifiable. The same writer justifies forcible abortion, Polit. VII. 16. Other philo- sophers represent virtue and vice as the mere creatures of statute and arbitrary custom; or (to use the words of Justin) they maintain, /UJjSfV iivai aperriv jUJjSt KaKiav, c6c,y St fiovov rovg av^pwirovg ^ aya^a i] kukci Tiwra rjjda^ai, that there is nothing either virtuous ROMANS r. 32. 93 or vicious, but that things are made good or evil merely by the force of opinion. This is sufficient to justify the declaration of the apostle ; for if philosophers thought and reasoned thus, what must the common people have done, who were more exclusively led by their appetites and passions ? The picture is, indeed, a dreadful one ; it is truly revolting in every sense of the word. But that it is just, nay, that it actually comes short of the real state of things, particularly on the score of impurity and cruelty, there cannot be the least doubt on the part of any man, who is acquainted with the ancient state of the heathen world, and of Rome in particular. Poets, philosophers, and historians, have confirmed the words of Paul: and the relics of ancient cities in Italy, (in pictures, carvings, statues, &c.) — cities destroyed near the time when the apostle lived — bear most ample testimony to what he has said of their lasciviousness and shameless profligacy. One has only to add, with the deepest distress, that in many of the great cities of countries called Christian, there is fearful reason to believe that there are abominations practised in various respects, which even exceed any inventions of heathen depravity. How often is one obliged to exclaim, with the apostle, TraplStDKcv avrovg 6 ^eog. The evidence of this lies in more than beastly degradation. It has frequently been asked, whether the apostle intended here to draw a picture of the philosophers and sophists, or only of the common people ; whether he meant to say that all the heathen were guiltj^ of the vices which he names, or only a part of them, &c. The answer to these questions has in part been given above ; and as to the rest, it seems not to be difficult. It is sufficiently plain, I trust, from the nature of the case, as has been already stated, that Paul does not mean to assert of every individual among the heathen, that he stood chargeable with each and every crime here specified. This is impossible. He means only to say, that these and the like vices (for surely they were guilty of many others), were notorious and com- mon among the heathen ; and that every individual capable of sin- ning, philosophers and common people, stood chargeable, in a greater or less degree, with some of them. In this way he makes out a part of his main proposition, viz. that all men are under sin ; conse- quently that all are in a lost condition or in a state of condemnation. These declarations being established, it follows of course that all men need a Saviour, and can be delivered from the curse of the 94 ROMANS I. 32. divine law, only by means of atoning blood ivhich procures gratuitous pardon for them. That the apostle has been here describing the heathen, is clear from vers. 20 — 23, where all that is said applies in its proper force only to them. That the heathen had a moral sense, is clear from Rom. ii. 14, 15. One may even suppose it to be probable that some of them did, to a certain extent, obey this internal law ; at least, we may well suppose that they could obey it. This seems to be implied in Rom. ii. 26, and, perhaps, in Acts x. 35. It is on this basis, that the apostle grounds his charges of guilt against them. They knew, at least they might have known, that what they did was against the law of nature, against their consciences, against their internal persuasion with respect to right and wrong. Consequently they were verily guilty in the sight of God ; not for transgressing the precepts of a revelation never made known to them, but for violating a law that was within them, and shutting their eyes against the testimony of the natural world. Most clearly and fully does the apostle recognize and teach all this, Rom. ii. 12 — 16, 26, 27. Consequently no one can accuse God of injustice, because he blames and condemns the heathen ; for he makes the law which was known to them the measure of their blame and condemnation (Rom. ii. 12, seq.), and not a revelation with which they were not acquainted. When this subject, therefore, is contemplated in its full and proper light, it becomes clear, that neither the accusations of the apostle, nor the deductions which he makes from them, are sub- ject to any just exception. Thus far his argmnent is good, and conclusive. It is clear that the Gentiles need a Saviour ; it is equally clear that they need gratuitous justification, and that they must perish without such a provision for them. It remains then to be seen, whether the same things can be established with respect to the Jews. On the method of establishing the declaration which the apostle makes concerning the depravity of the Gentiles, it may be proper here to add a single remark. He goes into no formal argument. In the passage which we have been considering, he does not even appeal, (as he sometimes does, Tit. i. 12), to the testimony of their own writers. The ground of this must be, that the facts were plain, palpable, well known, and acknowledged by all. To mention them merely, was to establish his allegation ; the appeal being made to the ROMANS I. 32. 95 certain knowledge of every reader. In particular, he was well as- sured that the Jewish part of his readers would call in question none of the allegations, which he made in relation to the vices of the Gentiles. There was no need, therefore, of any more formal proof, on the present occasion. A plain statement of the case was suf- ficient. We shall see that the writer occupies more time, and makes greater effort, to confirm his declarations respecting the Jews. Reiche, in his recent Commentary (p. 173 seq.), labours to show, that the giving over of the heathen to their lusts, &c., must mean an active hardening of them, or demoralization of them on the part of God. This, however, he does not consider as the apostle's real opinion, but only his argument kot' av^pwirov, i. e. in conformity with the Jewish prejudices and modes of argument in respect to the heathen. In like manner he considers the criminality which the apostle attaches to idol- worship, in vers. 21 — 25, to be an allegation Kar av^pwTTov. One is pained to meet with not a few remarks of this nature, in a work as valuable in many respects as the Commen- tary of this writer is. What means the secdnd commandment ? And what, all the zeal testified through the Old Test, against the sin of idol-worship ? And how was the apostle to convict the Gentiles at Rome, by employing a mere kut civ^pwirov Jewish opinion or prejudice as an argument against them ? Neither the frankness, the sincerity, nor the good sense of the apostle will permit me to accede to the sentiments of Reiche. CHAP. ir. 1—29. The apostle, having thus concluded his short but very significant view of the heathen world, now turns to address his own nation, the Jews, in order to show them that they stood in need of the mercy proffered by the gospel, as really and as much as the Gentiles. But this he does not proceed to do at once, and by direct address. He first prepares the way by illustrating and enforcing the general proposition, that all who have a knowledge of what is right, and approve of it, but yet sin against it, are guilty ; and as really so (for at first he goes no farther than this) as those who are so blinded as not to see the loveli- ness and excellence of virtue, and who at the same time transgress its precepts. This he does in vers. 1 — 10 ; in which, although he had the Jews constantly in mind, he still advances only general propositions, applicable in common to them and to others ; thus preparing the way, with great skill and judgment, for a more effectual charge to be made specifically against the Jews, in the sequel of his discourse. Such a view of his discourse will render easy the solution of the agitated question : Whom does Paul address in vers. 1 — 8 ? Le Cierc supposes that he addresses the heathen philosophers ; but Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Grotius, and others, that he addresses heathen magistrates. It seems quite plain, al least to my mind, that he directly addresses neither the one nor the other of 96 ROMANS II, 1. these here, nor any other particular class of men ; but that he employs general proposi- tions only, in the verses before us ; and this, merely for the sake of preparing the way to convince the Jews, and to show that they too, as well as the Gentiles, are in a state of condemnation. In ver. 11 he first commences the direct attack (if so it may be called) upon the Jews, and continues it more or less directly, to chap. iii. 19. The words of Turretin (Expos. Epist. Pauli ad Rom. in cap. II.) are so much to my purpose, that I cannot forbear quoting them. " Postquam ostendisset apostolus epistolas sua; capite primo, Gentes ex propriis operibus justificari non potuisse, eo quod deplora- tissimus eovum status esset ; idem jam Judaeis capite II. demonstrare aggreditur. A'erum id facit dextre nee mediocri solertia, statim ne nominatis quidem Judaeis, positisque gene- ralibus principiis, quorum veritatem et equitatem negare non poterant ; quo facto, sensim eorum mentionem injicit ; tandemque direcle eoscompellat, vividaque et pathetica oratione eorum conscientiam pungit, facitque utde propriis peccatis volentes nolentes convincantur. Et in his quidem omnibus, deprimit supercilium J udaeorum, qui caeteras gentes summo contemptu habebant, iisque se longe meliores et Deo acceptiores gloriabantur. At vero non negatis Judaeorum ad cognitionem quod adtinet praerogativis, ostendit eos, ad mores quod spectat, quas pars est religionis longe praecipua, Gentibus baud quaquam meliores fuisse, proindeque Dei judicio et damnation! baud minus obnoxios fore." So far as the contents of the present chapter then are concerned, we have, in vers. 1 — 8, the general considerations already named ; in vers. 9 — 16, the apostle shows that the Jews must be accountable to God as really and truly, for the manner in which they treat the precepts contained in the Scriptures, as the heathen for the manner in which they demean themselves with respect to the law of nature ; and that each must be judged, at last, according to the means of grace and improvement which he has enjoyed. In vers. 17 — 29 he advances still farther, and makes a direct reference to the Jew alone. He shows here, that those who sin against higher degrees of knowledge imparted by revelation, must be more guilty than those who have offended merely against the laws of nature ; i. e. he plainly teaches the doctrine, that guilt is proportioned to the light and love that have been manifested, and yet been abused. The very precedence in knowledge, of which the Jews were so proud and so prone to boast, the apostle declares to be a ground of greater condennation, in case those who possessed it sinned against it ; a doctrine conso- nant as truly with reason and conscience, as it is with the declarations of the Scriptures ; compare John iii. 19. xv. 22 — 24. ix. 41. ( 1 ) Alb .... Kplv(ov, therefore thou art without excuse, O man, every one that condemneth, or whosoever thou art that condemneth. — Ato here has been made the subject of much discussion. The point of difficulty respecting it is, to show how it stands connected as an illative particle, with the preceding discourse. As it is made up of §ta and o, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the word is, in its own proper nature, illative. To my own mind, the connection appears to be thus : ' bince it will be conceded, that those who know the ordinances of God against such vices as have been named, and still practise them and applaud others for doing so, are worthy of punishment; it follows {^i6, therefore) that all who are so enlightened as to disapprove of such crimes, and who still commit them, are even yet more worthy of punishment.' The apostle here takes the ROMANS II. 1. 97 ground, that those who were so enlightened and instructed by reve- lation as to condemn the vices in question, would of course sin against motives of a higher kind than those which influenced the heathen who were possessed of less light. It must be conceded, indeed, that (TwevBoKovcn in i. 32 is designed to aggravate the description of the guilt which the heathen incurred, (and in fact it does so) ; yet it will not follow, that the sin of these heathen would not have been still greater, had they enjoyed such light from revelation, as would have led them fully to condemn those very sins in their own consciences, while they yet practised them. The main point, in the present chapter, seems to stand connected principally with the greater or less light as to duty. The heathen with less light went so far in vice as even to approve and applaud it, as well as to practise it ; the Jew with more light was led irresistibly, as it were, to condemn such sins, but with all this light and against all the remonstrances of his conscience, he violated the same precepts which the heathen viola- ted. Now what the apostle would say, is, that he who sins while he possesses light enough to condemn the vice which he practises, is really and truly guilty, as well as he who sins while approving it. He takes it for granted that his readers will concede the point which he has asserted respecting the guilt of the heathen ; hence he draws the inference (Sto), that on the like grounds they must condemn every one, who, like the Jew, sins against the voice of his con- science and against his better knowledge. In like manner Flatt (Comm. liber d. Romer) makes out the con- nection of dio here : " Aio, because thou knowest to diKa'KOfia tov Sfcov' because thou knowest, that according to the divine decision they are worthy of punishment who practise such vices ; because thou thyself dost acknowledge this 8tKato>/ia ^eov' so thou canst not excuse thyself for committing the like sins." As to Trag 6 icpivwv, the proposition made by it is indeed genet'al ; but this is plainly a matter of intention on the part of the writer. He means to include the Jews in it ; but at the same time he commences his remarks on them in this general way, for the very purpose of approaching gradually and in an inoffensive manner the ultimate point which he has in view. 'Ev 10 yap .... KUTaKpivHg, for in respect to the same thing [which] thou condemnest in another^ thou passeth sentence of condem- nation upon thyself; or, in condemning another, thou passeth sentence on thyself. — 'Ev (j3, in respect to, with reference to ; it may be trans- 98 ROMANS II. 1. lated, because that, inasmuch'jis, like the Hebrew tcws. The latter method would represent the apostle as saying : * For the very act of condemning another, is passing sentence upon thyself.' I prefer the former method, which represents him as saying: 'Thou who con- demnest, dost pass sentence on thyself in respect to the very point which is the subject of condemnation ;' i. e. thou who condemnest the practice of the vices just named, inasmuch as thou practisest the very same vices, thou dost come under thine own condemnation. That Kpivio has oftentimes the same sense substantially as KarciKpivu), every good lexicon will show. Such may be the case here ; com- pare Matt. vii. 1. Luke vi. 37. Rom. xiv. 3, 4, 10, 13, 22. 1 Cor.iv. 5. Col. ii. 16 ; or we may render the passage thus : ' With that [sen- tence] which thou dost pass,' or ' tvhile thou passeth sentence' {Iv (^ while, Mark ii. 19. Luke v. 3. John v. 7), viz. on the heathen, * thou dost condemn thyself.' The yap in this clause is yap ilhistrantis vel conjirmantis : for the sentiments which follow are designed to show, that iraq 6 Kpivwv is inexcusable, inasmuch as he stands chargeable himself with the very crimes which he censures in others. Ta yap .... 6 Kpivwv, since thou who condemnest, doest the same things. The apostle asserts this, and leaves it to the conscience of his readers to bear witness to the truth of it, and to make the applica- tion. He has not yet named the Jews ; and therefore the charge is only implied, not expressed. As in the case where the woman taken in adultery was brought before the Saviour, and he said to her accusers: " He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone," and all withdrew because of conscious guilt ; so here, the apostle says : * Every one who condemns the heathen for the crimes specified, [he was well aware that the Jews did this with a loud voice], condemns himself, because he is guilty of the like vices.' How is this shown? Not by any arguments or testimonies; for Paul knew that these were unnecessary. He knew that the consciences of his readers would at once bear witness to the truth of his allegations. Therefore he leaves it to their consciences. But still, external testimony to the facts alleged is not wanting. That the Jews of tliis period were grossly corrupt, is certain from the accusations which Jesus so often brought against them, as recorded in the Gospels. We may make the appeal to Josephus also, and in particular to the description which he gives of Herod and his courtiers. The yap in the present clause is also inserted, because this clause ROMANS II. 2. 99 is designed to confirm the preceding one, and to show how he who judged did condemn himself. (2) OiSajUEv St ... . TrpacKTOvTag, for we know that the judg7nent of God is according to truth, against those who do such things. The Si here is rather difficult of interpretation. A proper and simple continuative of discourse it may occasionally be ; but such a sense without some indication of diversity or antithesis, is not usually to be attached to it. Not unfrequently it assumes the place of a causal particle, and is equivalent to yap ; not because Se of itself has the same signification as yap, but because it connects sentences, or parts of sentences, which have a causal relation. ' In such cases,' says Passow, 'it may be translated denn," i. e.for, since, &c. Here I take the connection of thought to be simply this : ' Thou art without excuse, who, &c.' . . . i. e. thou shalt not escape condemnation, ^for we know that the judgment of God, &c.' Reiche gives Se an adversative sense ; and to do so, he makes the sentiment opposed to be the supposition that 'God would not judge men.' But the pre- ceding context does not supply this ; and the above method of inter- pretation, which is grounded on the context, is more simple and obvious, and is equally conformed to idiom. — Kpip.a ^nov means sentence of condemnation on the part of God, 3-£ow being Genitivus auctoris. — Kartt a\r]^Hav may be construed in various ways ; viz. ( 1 ) It may be taken (as usual in the classics) for truly, verily ; i. e. just in the same sense as ovrwc? aXrjS'wc. This would make a good meaning in our verse; but not the best. (2) It may mean the same as Kara BiKaLoavvr}v, agreeably to justice, inasmuch as aX{]^eia often means vera religionis doctrina, vera atque salutaris doctrina, &c. So Beza, Tholuck, and others. (3) A better sense still seems to be, agreeably to the real state of things, in accordance with truth as it respects the real character sustained by each individual. The senti- ment then is : ' Think not to escape the judgment of God, thou who condemnest the vices of the heathen, and yet dost thyself practise them ; whatever thy claims to the divine favour on account of thy birth or thy spiritual advantages may be, remember that the judg- ment of God will be according to the true state of the case, according to the real character which thou dost sustain.' I prefer this method of interpretation, as it renders the verse more significant, while the usus loquendi is fully retained. Ta Toiavra, such things, viz. such as he had just been mentioning. Observe that the apostle does not accuse the Trac 6 Kpivoov here of the very same things in all respects, (as avra in the preceding G 2 100 ROMANS II. 3, 4. verse might at first view appear to intimate) ; but he speaks of him who condemns, as doing ra roiavra. Nor is it to be under- stood by this, that every ^individual among the Jews, or even that any one, was chargeable with each and every vice which he had named. Enough that any one or more of these vices might be justly charged on all. And even if it could be said, that there might be individuals who gave no extertial proofs to men that they were guilty of any of these vices; there certainly were none who were not more or less guilty, in the sense in which our Saviour declares in his Sermon on the Mount that men may be guilty of murder and adultery, i. e. spiritually, internally, mentally. (3) Ao-yt^rj St ... . ^iov, dost thou think this, then, O man, who condemnest those that do such things, and doest the very same things, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Al, says Flatt, appears to stand for ovv but why, he has not shown. Bretschneider has better explained it in his lexicon : Al . . . . addit vim inter- rogationi.'^ Ai being in its proper nature adversative, it is very naturally employed in replies, answers, or questions which are designed to be in opposition to something which another may have said, or may be supposed to cherish in his thoughts. It gives energy to the reply in Greek ; but it cannot always be translated into our own idiom, whose particles are often so insignificant comjiared with the Greek ones. In the present case, I know not what can be done with Se better than to render it then, which makes the sentence in English approach very near to the energetic form of the Greek. The sense of the verse appears to be as follows : ' Thou who condemnest others for vicious indulgences and still dost thyself prac- tise the same, dost thou suppose, that while they cannot escape thy condemning sentence, thou canst escape the sentence of him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity ?' Well has Chrysostom para- phrased it : TO aov owk £^£(^i»7£c Kpif.ia, koX to tov ^tov §m<^£u^r} > fkou hast not escaped thine oivn condemnation ; and shalt thou escape that of God? (4) ^'H TOV .... Kora^povfTc, or dost thou despise his abounding goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering ? The word TrXoiiroc is often employed by Paul in order to designate abundance, copious- ness ; e. g. Eph. i. 7. ii. 7. i. 18. iii. 16. Rom. ix. 23. xi. 33, et alibi. The Seventy frequently employ it to translate ^ton and Vn. Here ttXovtov supplies the place of an adjective, and means abundant or abounding ; comp. Heb. Gramm. § 4.40. b. X())jarorjjroc, kindness, benignity. 'Ai'd^vc, literally holding in. ROMANS II. 4, 5. 101 i. e. checking or restraining indignation, forbearing to manifest dis- pleasure against sin. MaKpo^vfjiiag, longanimitas, tiw If))} slowness to anger, Jbrbearance to punish. Both words (avo^^Jjc and fiUKpo^v- fiiag) are of nearly the same import, and serve, as synonymes thus placed usually do, to give intensity to the expression. The meaning is as if the apostle had said : ' Despisest thou his abounding kindness and distinguished forbearance to punish ?' Karaippoviii) means to treat with contempt, either by word or by deed, llie apostle means to say here, that all the distinguished goodness which the 6 kqiviov enjoyed, in consequence of his superior light, was practically neglected and contemned by him, inasmuch as he plunged into the same vices which the ignorant heathen prac- tised. 'Ayvowv .... a-yu, not acknowledging that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance. 'Ayvowv in the sense of not recognizing or acknowledging. Fivuxtko) and the Hebrew sn; often mean to recognize, to acknowledge ; as may be seen in the lexicons. — To XQr]ioriv alwviov ? ZrjTHv, means to labour for, earnestly to desire, to strive for with effort ; and all this the Christian certainly may and must do, in respect to glory, and honour, and immortality. The suggestion, that ' to seek after immortality would have no sense, because we are and must be immortal,' does not apply in this case ; for it is not after immortality simply considered that we are to seek, but after an immortality of glory and honour. Besides, there is such an unnatural chasm between rolq and Z,r\rovai, in case we adopt the interpretation of Ileiche, as should be admitted only from necessity ; which does not here exist. The fiiv at the beginning of the verse is the filv Trporaaewg, i. e. liiv designating \he protasis in a sentence ; the airo^hiaiq here is ver. 8, which commences with Se apodotic, i. e. marking the apodosis, and standing as the counter-part of fxiv in ver. 7. (8) ToTc St £^ Igi^iiag, but to those who are contentious. 'Ek (f^) before the Genitive of a noun, is often employed as an adjective in designating some particular description of persons or things. Thus 6 e^ ovgavov=ov^a.viog' i] Ik ^vaiwg, natural i tov Ik iritr- rewg, credens ; b i^vjxuyv, yours ; ol Ik Trcptro/u^c? the circumcised; so the classical ol Ik aroag, &c. The objections of Glockler against such a sense of t^, have no good foundation. The apostle means here to designate those who contend against God, or rebel against him. The Seventy use tp£S-(%w in order to translate rro, Deut. xxi. 20. xxxi. 27. What it means, moreover, is explained in the next clause by a-mi'^oxxn. The derivation of Ipi^uaq from Ipi^^vw, to wo7'k in iL'ool, to 7nake parties, &c., is quite unnatural. It doubtless comes from igiq, Ipt^i^w, as the sense of the word in the N. Test. clearly shows. Kcti cmei^ovcTi .... a^iKla, and are disobedient to the truth, but obedient to unrighteousness. Here (in a subordinate member of the apodosis of the sentence begun in verse 7), is a second p.iv which is protatic, and another Si apodotic. The contrast of the two respec- tive clauses in which they stand, is made very plain by ciitu^ovctl and TTH^opivotg, The exact expression of this piv and St, cannot ROMANS II. 8, 9. 105 be made out by any translation which the English language will per- mit. We have no words capable of designating such nice shades of relation as fxiv and di signify here, and in like cases ; shades very plain and palpable indeed to the practised critic in Greek, who, how- ever, is still left without the power of expressing them in his own vernacular language. I have not in this ease attempted an exact translation, for the reason just mentioned. The nearest to the original that I am able to come, is by the following version: eve7i those who disobey indeed the truth, but obey unrighteousness. How imperfect an exhibition this is of the nicer colouring of the Greek expression, every one must feel who has " Sm rrjv 'i^iv to. alcr^riTripia •yzyvfxvaafiiva irgog StaKpttrtv." 'AAr)3-£ta here means true doctrine. As the proposition of the apostle is general here, i. e. as it respects all, whether Jews or Gen- tiles, who disobey the precepts of religion and morality, so aXri^da must be taken in a latitude that embraces the truths of both natural and revealed religion. On the other hand aStKto means that which is unrighteous, that which the truth forbids, it being here (as in i. 18) the antithesis of a\r]^ua. 'Opyi] Kai ^vfxog, indignation and wrath. Ammonius says, ^vfJLOQ juiv kari 7rp6(TKaipoQ, opyrj oe TToXvxpoviog pvrjmKaKia, i. e. ^vpoQ is of short duration, but 6pyi] is a long-continued remembrance of evil. There seems, however, to be no important difference be- tween the two words, both meaning excitement, the feeling of str(mg excitement, indignation, &c. In the case before us, the expression appears to be merely, intensive ; which (as usual) is effected by the accumulation of synonymous terms. In respect to the construction of of these nouns in the Nominative case, it is an evident departure from the structure in the preceding verse, where ^wj)v alwviov is in the Accusative governed by aTroSwo-tt understood. Here opyrj koX ^vpog are the Nominative to 'iaovrat implied. Such departures in the latter portion of a sentence, from a construction employed in the former part of it, grammarians call avaKoXv^ov which means, that a construction begun, is not followed up or completed in the like manner. (9) OXiipig KuX aTevox(i>pio^ are words which correspond to opyrj Kul ^vpog, and designate the effect of the latter. The meaning is, intense anguish, great suffering. The literal sense of the words, ac- cording to their etymology, would be pressure and narrowness or want of 7'oom ; but the literal sense is abandoned, and the tropical lOG ROMANS II. 9—11. one here employed. It is evident, at first sight, that the ninth verse is a repetition of the general sentiment contained in ver. 8 ; wliile the 10th verse repeats the sentiment of ver. 7. This repetition, how- ever, is evidently introduced with the design of making a specific application of the threatening, and of showing definitely whom the ajiostle means to include in what he had said. The construction in ver. 8 is followed in ver. 9; inasmuch as iaovTai is plainly implied after ^X'l^Pig kcu arevoxiopia. These two words, used in the way of expressing intense suffering, are often joined by classic writers : and so in Hebrew we have njT^si rn^ Is. XXX. 6. 'Etti TTiiaav "(pv^yv av^ptowov, [great distress shall be] upon every soul of man, i. e. upon every man. In Hebrew, the soul of the righ- teous, of the wicked, of the poor, of the rich, of the hungry, of the thirsty, &c., means the righteous, the wicked, &c. So here, the soul of man means man ; i. e. by metonymy, a leading or conspicuous part of man, is put for the whole person. — 'louSatou . . . ."^\\r]voQ, first of the Jew, and then of the Greek ; i. e. the Jew, to whom a revela- tion has been imparted, shall be judged and punished first in order, because he sustains a peculiar relation to revealed truth which calls for this; compare i. 16. Here the apostle comes out and openly shows, that what he had been thus for saying only in general terms, is applicable to Jews as well as to Greeks. (10) Ao^a Z\ . . . . "EXXrjv/, hut glory, and honour, and peace, to every one who doeth good, first to the Jew and then to the Greek. That is, both threatenings and rewards are held out to the Jews and Greeks, in the same manner, and on the same condition. With God there is no Trpo(T(x)7roXr]\pia. This verse is a repetition of ver. 7, with the addition of ^lovdmov re Trpwrov kcu "EXXrjvoC' But here dpiivrj is substituted for o^^-aptrtav there. The meaning of tipT/vtj can be best made out by considering it as the opposite of that enmity and disquietude in which unsanctified men are involved, as it respects God. We might translate, but happiness glorious and honourable, &c. The meaning of the whole is plain. Intensity of affirmation is intended. (11) Ov -yop .... 3'€({J, for with God there is no partiality, or no respect of persons. The Hebrew q'?d i«j: means to deal partially, to look not at things, but at persons, and pass sentence accordingly. The phrases TrpnaMTrov Xajx^avuv or )3Xf ttc/v., and also TrpoawTroXn^pia, are entirely Hebraistic in their origin; the classic writers never ROMANS II. 12, 13. 107 employ them. The apostle here explicitly declares, that there is no difference in regard to the application of the general principle which lie had laid down, the Jew as well as the Greek being the proper subject of it. The yap at the beginning of the verse is jag confir- mantis ; i. e. ' it will be that the one shall be punished and the other rewarded according to divine declaration, for (yap) there is no par- tiality, &c.' (12) A confirmation or explanation of what he had just said in the preceding verse ; for if God judges every man according to the advantages which he has enjoyed, then there is no partiality in his proceedings ; and that he does, the present verse explicitly declares. "Ocrot yap .... airoXovvTaL since as many as have sifined without a revelation, shall perish without a revelatioti. Nojuoc, like the He- brew rnin, often means the Scriptures^ the revealed law; e. g. Matt. xii. 5. xxii. 36. Luke x. 26. John viii. 5, 17. 1 Cor. xiv. 21. Gal. iii. 10. Matt. v. 18. Luke xvi. 17. John vii. 49, et alibi. Here most plainly it means the revealed law, revelation, or the Scriptures ; for ver. 15 asserts directly that the heathen were not destitute of «// law, but oidy of an express revelation. The classical sense of av6fX(Dg would be unlaiDfidly, = Trapavojuwc. But plainly this meaning is here out of question. 'Avo^wc ciTTokovvTai means, that, when adjudged to be punished, they shall not be tried by the precepts of a revealed law with which they have never been acquainted, but by the precepts of the law of nature which were written on their own hearts; see ver. 15. Kat oaoi . . . Kpi^rjtTovTai, and SO many as have sinned under re- velation, will be condemned by revelation. Here vo^og is employed in the sense pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. 'Ev vofxi^ in a state of law, i. e. of revealed law or revelation, with Iv condi- tionis, as we may call it: for iv is often put before nouns designating the state, condition, or relation of persons or things ; see Bretschn. Lex. Iv, No. 5. It is equivalent to twofxoi 1 Cor. ix. 21, vofiov ixovra Rom. ii. 14. The sentiment is, that those who enjoyed the light of revelation (as the Jews had done), would be condemned by the same revelation, in case they had been transgressors. The oaot employed in this verse is of the most general signification = qui- cunque ; oiTivtQ would have a relative and limited sense. (13) This declaration is followed by another which is designed to illustrate and confirm it, and which is therefore introduced with another yap, (yap illustrantis et confirmantis). Oh yap .... Sikui- ]08 ROMANS II. 14. w^{i(Tovrai, fur not those who hear the law are just with God, but those who obey the law shall be justified ; i. e. not those to whom a revelation has been imparted and who hear it read, are counted as righteous by their Maker and Judge, but those who obey the law shall be counted righteous. The apostle here speaks of ol ciKpoarai Tov vo/xov, because the Jews were accustomed to hear the Scrip- tures read in public, but many of them did not individually possess copies of the sacred volume which they could read. The sentiment is : ' Not those who merely enjoy the external privilege of a revela- tion, have any just claim to divine approbation ; it is only those who obei/ the precepts of such a revelation, that have any ground to expect this.' (14) To this sentiment the apostle seems to have anticipated that objections would be made. He goes on to solve them, or rather to prevent them by anticipation. He had said that Jew and Gentile, without distinction, would come under condemnation for disobedi- ence to the divine law, and also be rewarded for obedience (vs. 9, 10) ; he had declared that there is no partiality with God, and that all would be judged by the precepts of law (vs. 11, 12) ; he had intimated that those who were the hearers of the law (the Jews), would not on that account be accepted, but only those who obey it- It was natural now for some objector to say: ' The Gentiles have no revelation or law ; and therefore this statement cannot be applied to them, or this supposition cannot be made in reJation to them.' The answer to this is, that the Gentiles have a law as really and truly as the Jews, although it is not written on parchment, but on the tablets of their hearts. That ver. 14 is designed to illustrate the fact, that the Gentiles are under a law, in the same manner as ver. 13 {ol ctKpoarai TOV vo/jLov) is designed to shew that the Jews are under a law, there seems to be no good reason to doubt. The yap then in ver. 14. is -yap iUustrantis et confirmantis. An objection to this has often been made, viz. that in this way we may represent the apostle as affirming, that there were some of the heathen who did so obey the law as to be just before God. But this a mistake. The apostle no more represents the heathen as actually attaining to this justification here, than he represents the Jew as actually attaining to it in ver. 13. Surely he does not mean to say, in ver. 13, that there are any Jews who are actually TrotijTai tov vofxov in the sense which he attaches to this phrase : compare chap, jii. 19, 20, 23, 27, 30, 31. He is merely illustrating a principle, in ROMANS II. 14. 109 both cases. The Jew expected justification on account of his external advantages. 'No,' says the apostle, 'this is impossible; nothing but entire obedience to the divine law will procure justifica- tion for you, so long as you stand merely on your own ground. And here the heathen may make the like claims. If you say that a heathen man has no law, because he has no revelation ; still I must insist that he is in as good a condition with respect to actual justification, as you Jews are ; for although he has no Scripture (and in this respect, no law), yet he has an internal revelation inscribed on his heart, which is a rule of life to him, and which, if perfectly obeyed, would confer justification on him, as well and as truly as entire obedience to the written law could confer it upon you. The principle is the same in both cases. You can claim no pre-eminence in this respect.' It is plain, then, that the apostle is only laying down^ or illustrat- ing a principle here, not relating a historical fact ; and this being duly apprehended, all difficulty about the sentiment of the passage is removed. Certainly there is no more difficulty in ver. 14, than must arise in regard to the Trofrjrat tov vofxov of ver. 13. The writer means to say neither more nor less, than that the Gentiles may have the same kind of claims to be actually justified before God as the Jews, (which of course has an important bearing on ver. 11) ; but, as the sequel shews most fully, neither Jew nor Gentile has any claim at all to justification, since both have violated the law under which they have lived. <^vipovTa, and art acquainted with [his] icill, H 2 110 ROMANS II. 18,20. and canst distinguish things that differ. rtpaxTkftc? knowest, art acquainted with, designates what the Jews were accustomed to say of themselves ; or if viewed simply as a declaration of the apostle, the meaning is : ' Thou hast the means of knowing, thou art instructed in.' To ^i\r\fia, his will ; where almost all the commentators say that avTov or Tox) S-eov is to be supplied after ^f\r]fxa. But this is unnecessary ; for, as is well known, the article frequently has the sense of a pronoun ; see Middleton on the Greek article, chap. I. § 3. e. g. Acts xvii. 28, tov yap yivog lwc Twv tv (TKOTH, tlic sauic idea by the use of another figure. Compare Is. xlix. 6. Luke ii. 32. John i. 8, 9, 4, 5, respecting the signification of the word light. — ^kotoq here, as often elsewhere, designates a state of ignorance. (20) IlatSeurjjv .... vtitt'kjjv, an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of little children. "A^piov means owe who has not mental skill or consideration! secondixrWy, an ignorant persoti. — Ni/Trtwv of course here means, children of such an age as that they may receive instruction. 1 have therefore rendered it little children, in pre- ROMANS II. 20, 21. 117 ference to babes, which naturally designates those not sufficiently- mature for instruction. "^■)(ovTa ... . Iv T(^ vofxio, having the delineation of true know- ledge in the Scriptures. Mop^wo-tv may be used in a bad or good sense. In a bad sense it occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 5, where the form (fiopipwcnv) of godliness is opposed to the power of it, i. e. hypocri- tical pretences to piety are opposed to the real exercise of it. But the verb fxopipoM is used in a good sense in Gal. iv. 19, ' until Christ fiop^fo^y be formed in you.' The synonyme of ^tO|0(^ waff, viz. vTroTVTTwmQ, is used in a good sense 2 Tim. i. 13, ' hold fast utto- TVTTwcnv of sound doctrine,' &c. Mop^wcrtf means form, external appearance ; also delineation, sketch, i. e. imitated form. I under- stand it in the good sense, i. e. as meaning delineation in our verse, because the apostle is enumerating the supposed, or rather the acknowledged, advantages of the Jews. One of these was, that true hiowledge (in distinction from the philosophy falsely so called of the Greeks) was in their possession, or at least in their power. T^C yvwcTEwc Ktti Trig aXn^dag, of true knowledge ; a Hendiadys in which the latter noun qualifies the former. The meaning of the whole is : * Est tibi vera sapientia in lege adumbrata.' (21) 'O ovv .... StSao-KEtc ; dost thou, then, who teachest others, not instruct thyself? This constitutes in reality, although not for- mally, the apodosis to the protasis which commences with d Si in ver. 17. Argumentum ad hominem ; for it is as much as to say : * Thou pridest thyself in thy superior knowledge, and requirest all others to sit at thy feet in the humble capacity of learners; making these lofty professions, now, art thou thyself at the same time ignorant of what thou professest to know ?' The apostle implies by this, that many of the Jews were criminally ignorant. Reiche finds the apodosis in ver. 25 ; Glockler, in ver. 23 ; alii aliter. The ovv in ver. 21, as well as the nature of its contents, seems to me to point plainly to the apodosis. Dr. Knapp has omitted the sign of interrogation after SiSaaKHQ, KXiiTTeig, &c. ; plainly to the disadvantage of the sense. The interrogation is, indeed, not one of doubt or simple inquiry, but is designed for reproof and conviction. It is, moreover, better ac- cordant with the apostle's mode of reproof in this epistle, to suppose him here to be making interrogations (in the manner above stated), than to suppose him directly to make the charges, at first ; as Dr. Knapp 's pointing would indicate. 'O Kr]pv(T(T(vv .... KXiiTTeig; thou tvho proclaimest that [men] 118 ROMANS H. 22, 23. niust not steal, dost thou steal ? Dost thou practise the very vice, ;i^ainst which thou dost so loudly protest? Krjpu(r(T£tv, publicly to proclaim ; in respect to a teacher of religion or morality it means to preach. (22) ' O \iyMv .... fxoixevfig ; thou who forbiddest to commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery ? A crime very common among the Jews ; for even the Talmud accuses some of the most celebrated Rabbles of this vice. ' O Xiywv fin, forbiddest, lit. who sayest: Not. ' O jSSeXuo-o-ojuevoc .... hpocrvXtig ', dost thou who abhorrest idols, commit robbery in sacred things ? Since the Babylonish cap- tivity, the Jews have always expressed the greatest abhorrence of idolatry. But still, the real criminality of idolatry consists in taking from the only living and true God that which belongs to him, and bestowing it upon something which is worthless and vain. Now the Jews, who were prone to keep back tithes and offerings (Mai. i. 8, 12, 13, 14. iii. 10. Mark vii. 11), by so doing robbed God of that which was due to him, notwithstanding they professed a great abhor- rence of idolatry which committed the like sin. I apprehend, how- ever, that the word UoocrvkHQ is here used in a somewhat wider extent than this interpretation simply considered would imply, i. e. that it designates every kind of act which denies to God his sovereign honours and claims. The exegesis of this word which assigns to it a literal sense, viz. that of committing sacrilege, i. e. of robbing the temples of idols and converting their riches to individual use, (contrary to the precept in Deut. vii. 25, 2Q), wants an /«'stor?ca/ basis for its support. When and where were the Jews accustomed to act in this manner ? Yet Chrysostom, Theophylact, Le Clerc, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Fritsche, and others, have defended this interpretation. (23) "Oc Iv . . . aTifiaZ^Q ; thou who gloriest in the law, by the transgression of the law dost thou dishonour God ? For the con- struction of Kav^(uaai kv vofuo, see on ver. 17. As God was the author of the law, or supreme legislator, so the transgression of it was a dishonouring of him, a contemning or setting light by his authority. For the form of Kavxacrai (second pers. sing. pres. Middle voice), see N. Test. Gramm. § Ixxi. 5, and note on ver. 17 above; also comp. in Matt. v. 36. viii. 2. Mark i. 40. ix. 22. Luke xvi. 25. 1 Cor. iv. 7. Rom. xi. 18, the like forms. The ending -eaai for the 2nd. pers. singular, is the ancient one, out of which the usual ending is made ROMANS II. 24, 25. 119 by dropping the a, and then contracting the diphthong that re- mains. (24) To yap .... yiypaTrTai,for the name of God is blasphemed by you, or on your account, among the Gentiles ; as it is written. Tap confirmantis. — At' vp.a.q may possibly mean by you, i. e. by you as authors or agents ; like ^w Sm tov TraHpa, vivo Patre vitcB mem auctore, John vi. 57 ; or like ^j'jafrat ^C Ifxi, ibid., et sic alibi ; see Bretschn, Lex. Sta, ii. 1. But the usual and natural meaning of St' vixaq is on your account, i. e. you being the cause or ground of the blasphemy in question. This seems to be the most probable meaning here. Ihe passage quoted seems to be Is. lii. 5; where, however, the Sept. has St' u^uac ^lairavrog to ovojuia. /lov jSXaa^rjjuarai Iv TOig e^vem, varying as to manner and some of the matter from the text quoted by the apostle. However, such variations are common in the New Test. text. The Hebrew runs thus : 'dtd Di»ri-b3 tdhj yNso, the sense of which is that the heathen blasphemed the name of Jehovah, because his people (by reason of their sins) were subjected to captivity. In the like manner Paul accuses the Jews of causing the name of Jehovah to be reproached among the Gentiles, because of the transgression against his laws which they committed. The original passage is not a proper prediction, but a simple declaration of a fact then existing. Paul quotes it here, for the sake of declaring that the same thing was true in his day; i. e. he expresses his own views and asserts facts, in the language of an ancient prophet. The yap at the beginning of the verse shews that the design of the verse is, to illustrate and enforce the declaration contained in ariima^eig. 'Ev Tolg k'Srvfo-t, is a circumstance added in the Sept. and by the apostle. It is not expressed in the Hebrew, but it is evidently im- plied. The meaning of the whole is, that the heathen themselves are led to blaspheme the name of God by the flagrant vices of the Jews ; which was a heavy charge, and allowing its truth, it served abundantly to illustrate and confirm the declaration, that the Jews brought dishonour upon God by their offences— dishonour even from others. Of course their sins must have been great and con- spicuous. (25) UepiTOfxii . . . Trpaavep(i^ ['louSatoc], ovk ^lovSalog lariv. OuSt T) tv . . . . TrepLTOfxri, nor is that which is external, [merely] in the flesh, circumcision ; i. e. that is not circumcision in its high and true sense, which is merely external, which pertains merely to the flesh. The sentence filled out would read thus : ov^t i] Iv t(^ ^avtpi{) [TTEpiTOjUJj], ev (TapKi [TTEjOtroju?)], mpiTOfXT} [£(Trt]j i- e* true TrepiToixi). (29) 'AXX' b Iv . . . . 'lovdaiog, but he ivho is a Jew in the hidden ROMANS II. 29. 123 part; i. e. who is spiritually or internally a Jew, such an one only deserves the appellation 'louSaToc. The clause filled out would stand thus : aXX 6 ev rt^ KpvirTw 'lovdaiog, ['louSaToc i(JTiv^ ; which latter clause the mind of the writer supplied from the first part of ver. 28. Kat TnpiTOfjLri .... ypaju/xaTi, and the circumcision of the heart, a spiritual not a literal one, [is the true circumcision.] There is the same ellipsis here, as in the preceding clause, Treptro^T) lanv being understood after ov ypafifxari. The words irvevfiaTi ov ypafx- fiari, CEcumenius, Grotius, and most interpreters construe as refer- ring to the Holy Spirit and to the precepts of the law ; i. e. circum- cision of the heart wrought by the operation of the Holy Spirit, not by following merely the literal precepts of the law. The sense is good, and the doctrine true ; but I apprehend that the writer here uses TTVbvfiaTL and ypajnnaTi merely as adjectives or adverbs to charac- terize more graphically the irepiTOfirj Kapdiag which he had just men- tioned. OS 6 eiraivoQ .... ^eov, whose praise is not of men, but of God ; that is, the praise of the Jew, who is truly a Jew after the hidden or internal man, is not of men but of God, " Man looketh on the out- Avard appearance, but God looketh on the he^rt." The Jews con- sidered it as a great privilege and a ground of high pre-eminence over others, that they were descended from Abraham, were circum- cised and were entrusted with the Scriptures. * All this,' says the apostle, 'does not entitle them in the least degree to the praise of God The state of the heart in the internal man, is what he considers ; and this alone is of any real moral value in his sight.' « You,' says he ' who are nothing: more than external Jews, are not Jews in the hierh and noble sense which will make you to be heirs of the grace of life or of the promises of God. You have, because of your external privi- leges, no pre-eminence over the heathen on the score of moral accountability. All men, in regard to such an accountability, stand on a level, for each will be judged according to the law under which he acted; the Gentiles by the law of nature, the Jews by revelation.' 124 ROMANS III. 1. CHAP. III. 1—20. Nothing was more natural than for the Jew, who had entertained the most elevated notions of the advantages to which he was entitled from liis eitermd privileges, to feel strong objections to such a representation of the apostle as reduced Jews and Gentiles to a level in a moral respect. It was to be expected that the Jew would indignantly ask, (and so the apostle represents him as asking) : ' Of what advantage then can Judaism be? That is, provided the case is as you represent it to be.' ver. 1. To this tlie apostle replies in ver. 2, that the benefit of more light was conferred by such a privilege. But the Jew, not satisfied with a claim to pre-eminence of this kind, further inquires, how the apostle's views could be reconciled with God's fidelity to the promises which he had made to the Jews, ver. 3. The apostle replies, that this fidelity must not for a moment be called in question, but that we must adopt the sentiment of David (Ps. li. 4) in regard to this, ver. 4. The Jew still dissatisfied urges further questions, by which he intends to hedge up the apostle's way : ' If the sins of the Jewish nation serve to render more conspicuous the justice of God, is it not unjust that he should punish us?' ver. 5. Not at all, replies the apostle ; for on the same ground you might object to the truth, that God will judge the world, and of course punish the wicked ; for his justice will in this be displayed in such a way as to redound to his glorj, ver. 6. The Jew not yet satisfied asks : ' If God's faith- iulness becomes more conspicuous by my unfaithfulness, why should I be condemned?' ver. 7. To which the apostle replies, that he might just as well say : ' Let us do evil that good may come ;' which in fact some did charge him with saying, although they deserved condemnation for so doing, inasmuch as the charge was false. The Jew again asks, with evident disappointment : ' How then have we Jews any pre- eminence over the Gentiles?' To which the apostle replies -. You have none, in respect to the matter that I am discussing. All are sinners. Your own Scriptures do abundantly bear testimony that your nation are transgressors, as well as the heathen. Prophets of different ages have borne testimony which conveys charges of the most aggravated nature, vers. 10 — 18. Now as what is thus said in the Scrij)tures was plainly said concerning the .lews, it follows, that your own sacred books bear testimony to the same doctrine which I affirm to be true. Consequently the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God, ver. 19 ; for by wor/cs of law none can be justified, inasmuch as the law condemns all transgressors, and sets forth their criminality instead of declaring their justification. (1) Ti ovv .... 'lovBaXov ; what advantage then hath the Jew ? or, what pre-eminence hath the Jew ? — Ovv then, is very often joined with Ti in interrogatives. Both words united signify as much as to say : 'Allowing what you affirm, then how can this or that take place, or how can it be so or so?' — nspiaaov signifies that ivhich exceeds or abounds, precedence, prcestantia. Sentiment : ' If M^iat you say Is true, then how is the Jew in any better condition than the Gentile^ or what pre-eminence has he over him ?' "H T(^' .... TTtptro^fjc, or what is the advantage or profit of cir- cumcision ? That is, if the Jew is subject to the same condemning ROMANS III. 2. 125 sentence as the Gentile, of what use is the rite of circumcision, and the relation in which it places him to the people of God ? (2) UoXv .... TpoTTov, much [advantage] in many respects^ or in every respect. Rendered in this latter way, Travra would refer of course to something in the preceding context, and every respect would mean, every one already touched upon, e. g. in ii. 17 — 23. Literally interpreted, iravra must mean in all respects. But the real sense of the phrase here is better given by the translation, in various or many respects, in a variety of ways. Ilpwrov fxlv yap .... ^-foD the principal one however is, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. Beza renders Trpwrov, primarium illud est quod. But Tholuck takes the /xlv which follows iTQMTov, to be the ^Iv of a protasis, to which indeed no apodosis succeeds. He says, that ' it agrees well with the fire of Paul's mind, to regard him as having forgotten what was to follow, or to have considered the first thing here suggested as adequate to his purpose, without suggesting any more.' But I must at least feel greater necessity than I see here, before I can adopt such a solution, Iljowrov clearly means, in some cases, imprimis, maxime omnium, particularly, specially, most of all; e. g. Matt. vi. 33. Luke xii. \. 2 Pet. i. 20. iii. 3. 1 Tim. ii. 1. In these cases, it does not signify first in such a sense as implies a second in order, but first as the most eminent or most importan., thing in the writer's mind or inten- tion; like the Hebrew n^aw, e. g. D;ia iripxi, the most distinguished of nations, Num. xxiv. 20. Amos vi. 6. — Tholuck further suggests, that jiiv renders it probable that a protasis is here intended although he does not think this decisive. And truly it is not decisive ; for fiiv is not unfrequently used without any Sa following, both in the classical writers and in the books of the New Testa- ment; e. g. 2 Cor. xii. 12. 1 Thess. ii. 18. Rom. vii. 12. xi. 13. x. 1, where " explicationi inservit;" and so fxtv yap in Acts xxviii. 22. 2 Cor. ix. 1. xi. 4. Heb. vi. 16. vii. 18; fxiv ovv. Acts xxvi. 9. 1 Cor. vi. 4, 7, et alibi. Mev yap, in cases such as those just cited, seems evidently designed to answer the place of the Latin equidem, quidem, i. e. to give intensity to a declaration ; and p.iv may in such cases be called julv intensivum, or juiv concessivum, viz. implying that what is asserted, is supposed to be conceded ; or at least that the speaker thinks it plainly ought to be conceded. It is indeed true, that jufv may be said always to imply that another and different or opposite sentence or declaration must follow, although scarcely any 12ff ROMANS III. 2. usage is more frequent than the omission of this declaration in cases where it can be easily and naturally supplied by the reader. In the case before us the implication is, that to Jews were committed the divine oracles, and not to other nations : i. e. [ot 'louSaTot] fxtv yap tTri(TTev^if]aav to. \6yia tov ^tov, [ra aXXa e^vt] ^f owk eiriaTiv- S'ljo-av K. T. X.] See examples of the like nature, confirming and illustrating this principle, in Passow's excellent lexicon, s. v. ^cr, 2. g. In this way, since the implied opposition gives emphasis to what is expressed, we come to the conclusion that fiiv is to be taken in an emphatic sense, where it stands thus alone. As to the yaQ, it has indeed of itself no necessary connection with or influence upon the fxiv ; and if the reader pleases, he may con- sider it as yag illustrantis, i. e. yap standing before a clause designed to illustrate or confirm what precedes ; which is the case with the clause in which yap here stands. In the case before us p\v yap implies, that the advantage [Trpwrov] of the Jew, it must be conceded, lay specially in his having the gift of a revelation filled with precious promises bestowed upon him. We may translate (ad sensum) thus : ' A peculiar advantage, as you must concede, is, that &c.' ; or, ' The most important advantage is, &c.' ; both having substantially the same sense. "On .... ^iov is not to be construed by taking \6yia as a Nomi- native, for it is the Accusative after tTrto-rtvS'Tjo-av. It is a principle of the Greek language, that where a verb in its active voice governs the Accusative of a thing and the Dative of a peison, the Accusative is retained after a verb of the passive voice. Such is the case with TTtffTEuw* see Luke xvi. 11. John ii. 24; compare for the passive voice, 1 Cor. ix. 17. Gal. ii. 7. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 11. Tit. i. 3. So frequently in the classics ; see Wahl's Lex. in verb., also N. Test. Gramm. ^ 108. 6. Koyia, oracles, like the ii^ of the Hebrews, means any kind of divine response or communication, effatum divinum. Here, as ver. 3 shows, the \6yia has special reference to those oracles which contain promises respecting the Messiah, the Jewish nation, &c. In regard to the general sentiment of the verse, it is as much as to say, that more light, and better spiritual advantages were bestowed upon the Jews than upon the Gentiles. Access to the Scriptures would give more light; the promises oflfered encouragement to a life of piety ; and in consequence of the state in which revelation placed the Jews, to them were made the first offers of the gospel. ROMANS III. 3, 4. ]27 It should be remarked here, that the apostle contents himself for the present with naming merely one ground of advantage which the Jew had. The pressure of objections seems to have occasioned his omission of other grounds of precedence. The reader will find others in chap. ix. 1 seq. (3) Tt yap; what then? The usual mode of asking questions, ■yap being very often joined with an interrogation : see Passow on -yap. It seems to be yap intensivum, in most of such cases ; as Acts xvi. 37, oi» yap, tiot at all, 2 Tim. ii. 7. Job vi. 8. Phil. i. 18. In the present case, yap seems to have a reference to what had been said in the preceding verse. The course of thought appears to be thus : * What then shall we say to this, viz. to that which I am now about to suggest ?' That is ; ' Allowing what you have said to be true, then if some of the Jews were unfaithful, as you intimate, would not this detract from the veracity of the divine promises ?' El 7]TTi(TTTi]aav .... KaTapyr](Tti ; if some ivere unfaithful.^ ivill their unfaithfulness ?'ender void the faithfulness of God ? That is if some of the Jews have been unfaithful to the covenant, and are in no better condition than the heathen, how will this consist with the fidelity of God in respect to his promise made to the Jewish nation ? — 'HTTtcrrrjo-av is from aTrtorlw, which comes from airiarog, unfaith- ful, {TTicTTog often means faithful) . 'ATrtorlw therefore means, not to be TT I (TT 6 g, i. q. to be unfaithful, treacherous, &c. viz. in respect to their covenant with God. The meaning is : 'If the Jews practically disregard, i. e. would not dutifully receive and obey, divine revelation, &c.' — Xltcrrtv, fidelity, faithfulness in keeping promises ; compare Matt, xxiii. 23. 2 Tim. ii. 13, and perhaps Gal. v. 22. 1 Tim. i. 4, 19. Rev. ii. 19. xiii. 10. The fxi] before airKTzia avrCJv is interrogative, and employed here (as usual) in a question to which a negative answer is of course expected; see New Test. Gramm. § 153, 4. Mr} yivoiTo, hoc minime eveniat ! Let not this supposed; or not at all, by no means ! Optative of yivofxaL joined with a negative. This should be included in ver. 4. The Hebrew rhhn corresponds to this. (4) Vivia^M vSt .... ipevarrfQ, but let God be {accounted'] true, and every man false. 'AXt}.^/jc means veracious, faithf id to his word ox promise. — ^ewo-Trjc is the opposite of aXy0i}g. The meaning is : Let God be regarded as faithful although all men should thereby be deemed guilty of unfaithfulness ; i. e. much more becoming and 128 ROMANS III. 4. proper is it, that men should impute unfaithfuhiess to themselves than to God. The second St I have rendered and here, although it appears to be adversative. The sentiment is not injured by this version, and the repetition of but is avoided. To confirm the pious sentiment which he had just uttered, tlie apostle appeals to an expression of David (Ps. li. 7), where, in signi- fying his penitence in view of his past transgressions, he says (Sept. Ps. 1. 4) : " Against thee only have 1 sinned, and done this evil in thy sight, oTTwc av . . . . Kpivea^ai ere, so that thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, (or in thy words ^73), and be clear when thou art judged." The Psalmist means to say, that as he had sinned in a grievous manner against God, so God is to be justified and acquitted altogether, when he reproves him for his sin and pronoinices against it the sentence of condemnation. The like use would Paul make of the sentiment contained in these words. ' Let us not,' says he 'attempt to justify ourselves when we are accused of being un- faithful; but let us justify God in all respects, when he condemns our conduct and vindicates his own.' 'Ev roTc \6yoiq aov means, when thou utterest reproof or condem- nation ; i. e. the connection in which it stands gives it of necessity such a turn. — NtK^cryc? mightest overcome, Heb. njin, mightest be pure, i. e. mightest be adjudged to be pure, held to be guiltless or faultless. So in Kabb. Hebrew, and in the Gemara nai means vincere in causa. He who in a judicial contest was adjudged to be pure or guiltless, of course was the victor ; and on this account the Septuagint viKijay^ig (adopted by the apostle) is a translation of the Hebrew ad sensum, although not ad verbum. 'Ev rt^ Kpivea^a'i as, Flatt, Reiche, and others construe as being in the passive voice. The Hebrew runs thus; ^dc3 .... ^rri, when thou speakest .... when thou judgest, or in the judgment of thee, i. e. when thou art judged. Tlie sense here seems plaiidy to require us to understand the meaning as passive ; for the apostle designs to say, that when the doings of God are judged of by his crea- tures, he must be acquitted. So in the present case, he must be acquitted of all nnjaithfulness. The Psalmist (Ps. li. 7) employs the verb npw in its active sense, meaning to say, that when God condemns he will act justly. The use which the apostle makes of the sentiment, is of the same nature ; for he means to say : ' In pro- nouncing sentence or condemnation upon men, thou art to be justified. ROMANS III. 5. 129 and if thou art called in question for this, tliou wilt prove to be vic- tor, or come off clear, in the contest.' (5) Et §6 . . . . (Tvvi(TTr](Ti, but if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God. Al "addit vim interrogation!, et usurpatur prsesertim interrogatione repetita," Bretschn, Lex. St 3. h. The sense of ^i is plainly adversative here. — 'ASticta is here the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific name {ainaTia) was employed in ver. 3, and ^svafxa is used in ver. 7. In like manner, the BiKmoavvrj in ver. 5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one {TTicfTiv) in ver. 3, and by aXij^eia in ver. 7. The idea is substan- tially the same, which is designated by these respectively corres- ponding appellations. Fidelity/, uprightness, integrity, are designated by TTiGTLv, diKaiO(Tvvr]v, and a\{]^eia' while airidria, aSticta and \f/ev(T/j.aTi, designate unfaithfulness, tvant of uprightness, and false dealing. All of these terms have more or less reference to the nna, covenant, or comjoact (so to speak), which existed between God and his ancient people. But in the present verse, they are to be taken in a sense somewhat more enlarged. AiLiev. The ROMANS III. 8, 9. 133 answer of the apostle is by a question which strongly implies disap- probation of the sentiment in the preceding clause : ' Shall we then speak out and say : Let us do evil that good may come ? as some do actually, although slanderously, accuse us of saying.' "On, when the verse is thus explained, may be regarded as a particle marking cited words, (for so it is often used, in all parts of the New Testa- ment), viz. the words Trot/jo-w^tv k. t. X. Or the whole may be con- strued thus : Shall we say, then, that we may do evil, &c. Kai is here a continuative of the apostle's reply to the objector. BXa(T(j)r}iuioviuL£^a, literally we are slanderously reported, viz. it is slanderously reported that we say, etc. In the paragraph above, I have rendered ad sensum rather than ad literam. The occasion given for the enemies of the gospel thus to slander Paul and others, was, that he preached the doctrine, that God would be glorified by the display of his justice in the condemnation of sinners, and that where sin abounded grace did much more abound ; doctrines easily abused by a carnal mind, but which contain truths awful and delightful. Would God that abuse of them might have never extended beyond the apostolic age ! ~Q>v TO Kpifxa IvdiKov i (in the New Testament ffcxfwj as an Attic Fut. from the regular £(c;)^£o-w, N. Test. Gramm. § 65. 3), 1 Aor. £^£X€a"after the manner of verbs in X, fi, v, p. A few verbs in Greek follow this method of forming the first Aorist. See Gramm. § 65. 10. Sentiment : ' They are ready and swift to engage in crimes of the highest degree ; destruction and misery attend their steps, i. e. wherever they go, they spread destruction and misery around them. The way of happiness they take no knowledge of, or they give no heed to what concerns their own true welfare or that of others.' (18) OvK E(TTi .... uvtCjv, is cxactly quoted from the Septuagint, and corresponds to the Hebrew, excepting the final uvtojv, which in the Hebrew and Septuagint is in the singular number. But then it is the singular generic, and so corresponds exactly in sense to the plural avTCJv of the apostle. The Hebrew original is in Psalm xxxvi. ], and it runs thus: iw nab D^ribM tpb j'«, there is no fear of God before his eyes; i. e. he has no reverence for God, no fear of offending him which puts any effectual restraint upon his wicked- ness. (19) OiSajUEv Se . . . . XaXei' now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it addresses to those ivho are under the law ; i. e. we know that whatever the Old Test. Scriptures say, when they speak in the manner now exhibited, they address it to those who are in possession of these Scriptures, viz. to the Jews. — Ae continuativum, nunc, German nun, English now in the sense of a continuative. — Tote Iv Ti^ vofx^), those who have a revelation or are under the law ; Iv conditionis, compare what is said on Iv under chap. i. 24. The object of the apostle is to show, that the Jews can in no way avoid the force of what is here said. It was originally addressed to the Jews, in a direct manner. What he has quoted was indeed spoken at diff"erent times, to different classes of persons, and uttered by various individuals. But still the principle is the same. Jews 140 ROiMANS HI. It). are addressed ; and the Jews are accused in the very same manner, i. e. with equal force, by their own prophets whose authority is acknowledged, as they were accused by Paul. The principle then by which such an accusation is to be supported, is thus established. As to the actual application of this, and the facts respecting the conduct and character of the Jews in the apostle's time ; all the writings of the New Testament, of Josephus, and others, and the direct assertions of Paul in this epistle, go to show that no injustice at all was done to them in the present case. It is this principle, viz., that in consistence with the fidelity of God to his promises, and consistently with the ancient Scriptures, the Jews might be charged with wickedness even of a gross character, and such as brought them as truly under the curse of the divine law as the polluted heathen were under it, — it is this, which the apostle has in view to establish by all his quotations; and this he does entirely establish. When thus understood, there remains no important difficulty respecting the quotations. He did not need these proofs from Scripture, in order to settle the question about the depravity of the Gentiles. The Jews would reluctate only against the truth of the charges made against themselves. The character of the heathen was too palpable to be denied. That of the Jews, indeed, was scarcely less so in the eyes of others : but still, they themselves expected to escape divine justice, on the ground of being God's chosen jyeople. All expectation of this nature is overturned by the declarations and arguments of the apostle, in chap. ii. iii. of this epistle. Such as undertake to prove universal depravity directly from the texts here quoted, appear to mistake the nature of the apostle's argu- ment, and to overlook the design of his quotations. It is impossible to make the passages in the Old Testament, as they there stand, to be universal in their meaning, without doing violence to the funda- mental laws of interpretation. And surely there is no need of doing thus. The whole strain of the apostle's argument at large, goes to establish universal depravity ; I mean the universal depravity of all who are out of Christ, and are capiible of sinning. The doctrine is safe, without doing violence to any obvious principle of exegesis ; which we never can do \\\i\\ safety. I need scarcely add, that Flatt, Tholuck, and nearly all distinguished commentators of the present day, so far as I know, agree in substance ^nth the interpretation which I have now giv^en. Yet Reiche objects to the view here given, on the ground that it would represent Paul as arguing from his ROMANS III. 19. 141 own authority and not from the Old Test. But what hinders such a snpposition ? Does not Paul teach, exhort, reprove, make declara- tions and assertions, throughout the epistle, on his own authority ? And had he not the same authority as the writers of the O. Test ? He appeals, indeed, to the O. Test, and often does so, for the satis- faction, or the confounding of the Jews. But we are not to suppose that Paul wrote this epistle without any reference to his own au- thority as an apostle, after what he had set forth at the beginning of it. See some remarks on this subject on the next page. "Iva irav .... ^ei^, so that every mouth must be stopped, atid the whole world become guilty before God. "iva has here the echatic sense, not the telic ; for to assert that the Old Test, was written principally to stop the mouths of the guilty, would be a singular position indeed. See the excellent essay of Tittmann on iva, in the Bibl. Repository, No. I. of 1835. — Uxiv crro/ua (ppayif, i. e. every man, all men whether Jews or Gentiles, must be convicted of sin, and be unable to produce any thing to justify their conduct ; compare Job v. 16. Ps. cvii. 42. The phraseology is borrowed from the cus- tom of gagging criminals, i. e. stopping their mouths in order to pre- vent apology or outcry from them, when they were led out to execu- tion.— 'Xtto^ikoq, reus, sons, i. e. guilty, deserving of condemnation. But how extensive is the conclusion here? I answer, (1) It ex- tends to all who are out of Christ. I draw this conclusion, not so much from the mere forms of expression, such as irav arofia and Trac 6 KoafxoQ, as I do from the nature and object of the apostle's argument. What is this ? Plainly his design is, to show that there is but one method of acceptance with God now possible ; and this is in the way of gratuitous pardon or justification. But why is this necessary in all cases ? The answer is : Because all have sinned. Certainly, if those who do not believe in Christ cannot obtain pardon without him, this is because they are sinners, and have no claim on the score of justice or law. But (2) All who are in Christ, i. e. are justified, have once been sinners, and do still commit more or less sin, for which pardoning mercy becomes necessary. Once they were among the impenitent and unregenerate. What the apostle asserts then, in our text, oiall men, need not be limited, and should not indeed be limited, merely to those who are out of Christ at any particular time, but may be extended to all who were ever out of him. That this is a bond fide application of the principle which he here 142 ROMANS III. 19, 2a. contends for, is clear from his own commentary on this doctrine in chap. iv. For what does he say there ? He shows that even Abra- ham and David, as well as the grossest sinners, were justified only in a gratuitous way, being utterly unable to obtain the divine approba- tion on the ground of perfect obedience. What is the inference from all this ? Plainly that all men are sinners, and that none therefore can be saved by their own merits. So does ver. 20 virtually declare ; and ver. 23 says it explicitly. In form, the argument of Paul extends only to those who are out of Christ ; but as this has once been the condition of all men without exception, so in substance it embraces all men without exception, who "by nature are children of wrath, being children of disobe- dience;" for "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh." I cannot forbear to add, that it seems to me a wrong view of the apostle's meaning in vers. 10 — 19, which regards him as labouring to prove directly the universality of men's depravity, merely by the argu- ment which these texts aiford. Paul has other sources of proof, besides that of argument; for if he himself was an inspired apostle, then surely his own declarations respecting the state of the heathen or Jews, were to be credited on just the same grounds as those of the ancient Psalmist and of the Prophets. Why not ? And then, why should we be solicitous to show that every thing in Paul's epistle is established by argumentation ? Had the apostle no other way of establishing truth, except by argumentation ? Are not his own de- clarations, I repeat it, as weighty and credible as those of the ancient prophets ? If so, then we need not be anxious to retain the argu- ment as a direct one, in vers. 10 — 19. Enough that it illustrates and confirms the principle which the apostle asserts, and for which he contends. The argument from this principle is irresistible, when we once concede that Christ is the only Saviour of all men without ex- ception ; for this cannot be true, unless all men without exception are sinners. Of course I mean, all who are capable of sinning. (20) Atort .... avTov, because that by ivorks of law shall nx) flesh be justified before him. Aiorii on account of because that, for. In this sense it differs little or nothing from yap. It is not employed to designate a logical conclusion from premises, but stands before a clause which assigns a reason or ground of something already affirmed. Turretin, Morus, Rosenm., Bretsch. (lex.), have here mistaken it for therefore ; and I was misled by their authority, in the first edition of this work. The appeal of Bretsch. (lex.) to Actsxvii. 31. ROMANS III. 20. 143 Rom. i. 21. viii. 7. 1 Pet. ii. 6, does not at all support his conclu- sion, ^lOTt being employed in all these cases as above stated. "Yy]T^v, which is testified, i. e. plainly and openly declared, by the law and the prophets, i. e. by the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures; compare Matt. v. 17. vii. 12. xi. 13, xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 16. ^ohn i. 45. 4 Mace, xviii. 10. The apostle means by this to aver, that he teaches no new thing ; he only repeats what in .substance has been declared respecting ^rafM^Yo^^s justifica- tion, by the Old Testament Scriptures. And when he says vuvt . . Tr£(j>avipMTai, is NOW revealed, in the preceding part of the verse, he means that this shall be emphatically (not absolutely) understood ; otherwise the same verse would contain a contradiction of itself. He designs to say, that gratuitous justification is more fully and amply revealed by the gospel. What is merely hinted in the declaration before us, Paul goes on fully to develop in chap. iv. (22) What that diKUioavvr] ^eov is, which is \oj(>(c vojiinv, the K 2 148 ROMANS III. 22. apostle next proceeds explicitly to develop. AiKaioavvt] St . . . . 'Irjo-Qu XpicTTov, the justification then which is of God by faith in Jesus Christ. This explanation makes it clear as the noon-day sun, that diK(iio(Tvvii ^tov, in this connection, does not mean unrighteousness or the love of justice as an attribute of God. For in what possible sense can it be said, that God's righteousness or justice (as an essen- tial attribute) is by faith in Christ? Does he possess or exercise this attribute, or reveal it, by faith in Christ ? The answer is so plain, that it cannot be mistaken. The Sf here is placed in a clause added in the way of explanation, but containing something diverse still from the preceding clause. It may be regarded as equivalent to the Latin videlicit, the German ndmlich, and our English to wit, namely. So Bretsch. (lex.) Beneke. Reiche thinks it stands as adversative to x^plc vofxov. To me it seems plainly to stand in a clause which is a I'esumption of the preceding SiKaioavvt} ^£ov for the sake of further explanation. The Attics often employed Si as a sign of resumption ; see Passow on St. In such a case it is equivalent to our, and so, therefore, then. The shade of thought appears to be this : 'As it is a justification x*»^/o'C vo^ov, then or therefore (Ss) it is a justification by faith ;' or the sense will be good if we construe thus; 'a justification x<*^P'C vofiov, namely (Si) a justification by faith.* But this latter usage of Si without any adversative sense in any res- pect, seems hardly admissible. Bretsch. (lex. ^i, 3. d) has failed to prove it by his citations. The Attic usage in resumption seemg to be the most facile mode of explanation ; because a resumption for the sake of further explanation implies some diversity of declaration, and SI is designed to note any thing of this nature. The translation of it is indeed difficult, because of the poverty of our language ; and it must be different according to the different nature of the sentiment and the connection. In the present case, then (German also) seems to give the sense of the original, as nearly as we can give it by a version. Am TTtffrEwc 'Ir?(Tou Xptarou, by Christian faith, i. e. by that faith of which Jesus Christ is the object, 'Ii/ctoi) Xpto-row being Geni- tivus objecti ; for most clearly it is not faith which belongs to Christ himself, but the faith of sinners towards him. The meaning of the apostle is, that the gratuitous justification which the gospel reveals, is that which is to be had by believing and trusting in Christ as our Redeemer and Deliverer ; compare vers. 23 — 26. Faith, indeed, is not to be regarded as the meritorious cause or ground of justification, ROMANS III. 22. 149 (which is wholly gratuitous^ ver. 24), but only as the means or instru- ment by which we come into such a state or relation, that justification can, consistently with the nature and character of God, be gratuitously bestowed upon us. Etc TTavTUQ Ktti £7rt TTavraQ, to all and upon all. Luther under- stands IpyonivT] before ug iravrag, i. e. [Sticafoo-wvi] S-£ou Ip-^^ofxivr]'] £tc TTcivTag. The sense is ^ood ; but may not the same end be attained in another way ? May we not construe ug Travrac as con- nected with ire^avipojTai ? I am aware that (pavepoo) usually governs the simple Dative after it in such cases; but then it is equally certain, that the New Testament writers often use the Accusative with dg instead of the simple Dative, or the Dative with iv' see Bretschn. Lex. dg, 5. b. Very naturally may we suppose, that after Trt^avlpw- rai the persons would be named to whom the revelation is made. May we not suppose them to be designated by elg iravrag ? 'Etti TTcivTag appears to mark the subjects, who receive the BiKaio- avvr\ in question; which is clear from the rovg inaTivovTag that follows and qualifies it. I am aware, indeed, that many commenta- tors suppose that inaTtvovTag belongs equally to both cases oiiravTag. But may we not suppose, that dg vavTag denotes to whom the pro- clamation of diKaio(Tvvr], gratuitous pardon, is made, i. e. that it is made to all men ? Kai IttI Travrag roiig iriaTSvovTag I should then consider as a kind of parenthesis, thrown in to guard against the idea that the actual bestowment of justification is as universal as the offers of it. The offer is made to all men without exception ; believers only, however, are entitled to the actual reception of it. My reason for supposing such a parenthesis here, is, that the writer immediately resumes the generic or universal idea, ov yap Ictti k. t. A, which shows that his mind is intent on the illustration of dg Travrag, as his principal proposition. Besides this, the clause £7ri Travrag rovg TTKTrevovrag is omitted in A., B., C, Copt., Aeth., Arm., Clem., Origen ; which shows at least that it was not deemed essential to the principal sentiment. The main object is to show, that there is no exception at all as to the need of that justification which the gospel proposes. As this is plainly his main point, Paul only suggests, here and there by the way, the extent in which the justification proposed is actually bestowed — lirl Travrag rovg Trianvovrag .... /cai §(- Kaiovvra rov Ik Tricrrewg 'Iriaov (ver. 26.) It is by overlooking these nicer shades and connections of thought in this paragraph, that many critics have come to the conclusion, ii"iO ROMANS III. 23. that no ditt'ereiice exists here between tic ttovtoc Jnul lirl Travrat: So Reichc ; vvlio thinks them to be merely intensive. But this is a position which seems to be contradicted by the course of thouglit before and after these expressions. Before etti Travrag either icrri or rather 17 ^iKaioavvr} lari seems to be implied ; and then tin. is used in the sense of ad comrnodwn^for ; comp. Heb. viii. 8. Heb. xii. 10; see also Bretschn. Lex. iirU HI. 5. Oi» yap lt(JJ meaning defcio, destituo, and vartpiopai destitnor, I am wanting in, I am deficient in. The idea in om- text is that oi failing, wanting, being deprived or destitide of The verb, when used in this way, of course governs the Genitive by the usual principles of syntax. Ao^Tjc Tov S-Eou is rendered by many as I have rendered it, viz. the divine approbation. So indeed most commentators translate it : and with good philological support, inasmuch as ^6^a often and even commonly means praise, approbcdion, in the classics, and has a like sense in the N. Test., e. g. John v. 41, 44. vii. 18. viii. 50,54. xii. 43. Nevertheless, as ^6^a very often means, by N. Test, usage, a glori- fied state, a splendid glorious condition, supreme happiness, it may be so taken here, and ^tov may be construed as Genitivus aiictoris, so ROMANS III. 24. 151 that Solirig Tov ^eov woiild mean, the glory ivhich God bestoivs, or of wliicli God is the author. So Semler, Morus, Bohme, Chrysostom, Beza, Hammond, Bengel, Glockler, and others. But still, as the subject is here that of justification, viz. acquittal, So^tjc "lay be em- ployed in the classic sense of opinion (here good opinion, approba- tion), i. e. the approbation of the final judge of men, when they stand before his tribunal. The idea would then be, that inasmuch as all men have broken the law of God, so they cannot expect his approba- tion in the day of trial, provided they stand upon the ground of their own merits. Hence the necessity of some other method of justifica- tion, different from that which is by works of law. This opinion on the whole, seems to be the most apposite. (24) ^iKaiovixivoi .... Ttjctou, [all] being justified freely by his grace through the redemption ivhich is by Christ Jesus. On the one hand the apostle declares that all have sinned, and thus they have rendered a sentence of acquittal and reward impossible on the ground of law. He now asserts the counterpart of this, viz., that all who obtain justification must obtain it gratuitously and only by virtue of the redemption that Christ has accomplished ; a proposition which contains the very essence of all that is peculiar to the gospel of Christ, or that can make a solid foundation on which the hopes of perishing sinners may rest. The ellipsis before and after SiKmovfisvoi may be filled out thus : [Travrcc] SiKaiovfievoi [ctfrt] ; for 8*'''5 % ^^^ grace, epexegetical of ^(opedv, and added to give intensity to the whole sentence or affirmation; comp. Eph. ii. 8, 9. 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. iii. 4, 5. ' ATro\vTpoJ(Tt(DQ, redemption. The force of this word may be best seen by recurring to its root Aurpov, which means, 'the price of ransom paid for a slave or a captive in consequence of which he is set free.' ilurpow and airoXvTpou) both mean, to pay the price of ransom; otto- Xvrpou) is somewhat intensive, a.nd=pay offl Accordingly Xurpwo-tt,' and cnroXvTptoaig mean, (1) The act of paying this price ; and (2) The consequences of this act, viz. the redemjytion which follows it. 152 ROMANS III. 25. In this way the idea of airoXitrpwrnt; comes at times to be merely a generic one, i. e. liberation, deliverance. — Tiig tv Xpiari^ 'Itjctou designates the author of our redemption or liberation, viz., liim who paid the ransom and procured our freedom, when we were the slaves and captives of sin and Satan, and exposed to the wrath of God, i. 18. Tlie sequel defines more exactly what the writer understands by airoXvTpuxjtwg in this place. (25) The most important word in the translation of the first clause of this verse, is (Taj3/3ar(i>, during the Sabbath ; Matt. xiii. 4, Iv rtil (nrtipuv, inter Jo8 ROMANS HI. 26. serendum, during the action of sowing ; John ii. 23, iv ry koQT\h during the feast ; John vii. 11. Acts viii. 33. xvii. 31. Rev. i. 10. But the former sense is preferable, and gives the idea of remission as introduced by, or connected with, forbearance to punish. Both together make the idea oi justification an intensive one. As to the general sentiment of the clause, it has in some respects a parallel, in Acts xvii. 30. " As to the times of this ignorance, vTTipiSwv 6 ^eog," i. e. God forbore punishment. But in our text the apostle speaks of the actual remission of sin which is connected with justification, i. e. the pardon of sin. Ylpbg ivdsi^iv rrig diKuiocrvvriQ avrov, is the same in all essential respects as dg ivSeiKiv riig diKaiO(Tvvr}g avTov in ver. 25, for it is a mere resumption of the latter. 'Ev tm vvv Kcupol, at the present time, i. e. under the new dispensation. Thus has the apostle shewn, that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ extends, with respect to its efficacy, to all ages of the world, to all generations and nations ; i. e. that it is capable of such an extent, where such a faith as God re- quires is exhibited. The parallel of this remarkable and most cheer- ing and animating sentiment, is to be found in Heb. ix. 15. It is implied in other passages of the New Testament, not unfrequently ; but it is no where else so explicitly asserted. The sentiment shews, moreover, in what light the apostle viewed the death of Christ. If this were to be regarded only as the death of a martyr to the truth, or as an example of constancy, &c., then how could its efficacy take hold on TTiOoytyovoTwv a/zopr»/jitarwT, whatever it miglit do as to those who lived after his death took place ? This question seems to suggest the necessity of ascribing a vicarious influence to the death of Jesus; for how else can it avail for the forgiveness of sins com- mitted in early ages ? Reiche, indeed, and some otliers, think the Tr(Kiytyov which is to be mentally supplied before the clause in which the yap stands. It introduces the reason why he has no ground of glorying in his own works. That Abraham was not Justified by any works or merits of his own, certainly not in the sight of God, the apostle now goes on to assert and to prove. When he says, el, if, &c. he makes a supposi- tion which he regards as untenable ; for this is indicated by the Ind< Prseter (e^iKaiw^i^) joined with d ; see New Test. Grammar, § 129. 166 ROMANS IV. 2. 3. d. We should naturally have expected after this, that the Imperf. ilx^ ^^ (instead of t^Et) would have been used in the apodosis of this conditional sentence. The use of the present instead of this, shows a design on the part of the writer to say, not only that Abra- ham would have had ground of glorying, in case of perfect obedience, but that the same would have continued down to the then present time. *AXX' .... 3'£ov, hut not [i. e. he had no ground of boasting] before God. Whatever advantage then the Jew might attribute to Abraham, he could not justly attribute that of obtaining justification by his own privileges or merits. So the writer goes on to prove from the Jewish Scriptures. Oi» Trpoc Tov ^£ov may be considered either as referring to txti, KavxriiuLa or to e^ epyiov iBiKaiw^r}. The sense will be substantially the same. The immediate antecedent, in such a case, has the preference ; and therefore I consider it as referring to tx^t Kcivxm^f^' It is singular, that such critics as Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Tholuck, and Riickert, should understand the reasoning of the apostle in this verse thus ; ' If Abraham were justified by works, then he would have cause of glorying ; he had glory indeed among men on this account, but 7iot before God.' 'AXXa in this case, is understood as concessive (in part) and at the same time adversative. But the sequel in vers. 4, 5, introduced by y 6. p conjirmantis, shows, that the apostle's object is to prove simply, that Abraham had no ground of acceptance be/ore God on account of his works or merit, but that he was justified altogether in a ^ra^««Yoz<5 manner. Inasmuch then as the apostle is not discussing the question, whether Abraham had any ground of praise or justification from men, but merely on what ground he was justified before God, the mode of reasoning stated above would be altogether inapposite to the writer's design. Besides if it were true that Abraham were justified by works, according to the supposition made, then it would be true also that he would have the praise of God as well as of men ; so that the denial here of such a praise would contradict the nature of the case and other Scriptures ; comp. ii. 6, 29. Ileiche has examined at length and wholly refuted the above exegesis. The reasoning of the apostle may be simply stated thus : ' If Abraham had been justified by his own merit, then he would have ground of glorying ; but he has no ground of glorying before God ; [therefore he was not justified by his merit.'] The conclusion is ROMANS IV. 3. 167 omitted by the apostle, apparently on the ground that every intelligent reader's mind will supply it. But that he supposes such a conclu- sion is clear from vers. 3, 4, inasmuch as these are expressly intro- duced, for the sake of confirmation, as the yap at the commencement of them shows. (3) For what saith the Scripture ? And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness ; see Gen. xv. 6, whicli runs thus : " And he [God] counted it to him [Abraham] as righ- teousness." Instead of the active form, the apostle (with the Seventy) employs the passive one, which for substance communicates the same sense. But what is Xo7i%e<73"at dq SiKaioavvnv ? The word Xoyi^ea^m usually means, to reckon to one what he actually possesses, or to impute that to him which actually belongs to him, i. e. to treat him as actually possessing the thing or quality reckoned to him; e. g. Ps. cvi. 31 (cv. 31), which states the case of Phinehas' good deed in slaying the polluted Israelite and Midianitish woman, and says « it was counted to him for righteousness,' (Num- XXV. 6 seq.) ; 2 Sam. xix. 19, where Shimei prays David: ^7) Xoyiaaa- 3-w 6 KvpioQ fjiov avojuiav, i. e. the iniquity which Shimei himself had done. The same in Ps. xxxii. 2 (xxxi. 2), where David pronounces the man blessed, to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, {ov fir) Xoyi^erai avojuiav). In Lev. vii, 8 (vii. 18) the Sept. has ov XoyKr^ir frerai avT(;^, viz. the informal and untimely offering which any one makes, shall not be reckoned to him as an offering. So in Lev. xvu. 4, if a man kill a victim for sacrifice without bringing it to the door of the tabernacle, " blood," i. e. h\oo^gm\ime%s, '' shcdl be imputed to him, iKHvi^ \oyi(j^riofiai, which is now be- fore us, and is never employed in respect to the matter of justifica- tion. In all the cases of Aoyi^o/^mt as applied to Abraham's faith, or to that of others who follow his example, it is only his or their own faith, which is counted for righteousness ; not the faith of others put to their account. But another point of no small philological interest to be investiga- ted, is the peculiar form of the expression \oyit,ofiai eic Indeed the sense of the passage before us seems, at first view, as if it must turn upon this. But here nothing except resort to the Hebrew idiom can solve the difficulty ; for the form of expression is purely Hebraistic. The Hebrews had two modes of expression when they said that one thing was counted ov reckoned as another. (1) The thing counted or reckoned was put in the Accus. after ai5n ; and the thing for which or as which it was counted, was put in the Dat with \ (^£{^) before it; e. g. Job xiii. 24, riw'? '?i«nni, and thou dost count me for an enemy. In like manner, Job xli. 19, 24. xix. 15. xxxiii. 10. 1 Kings X. 21. Lam. iv. 2, where the Pass, retains the Dat. after it. (2) The thing counted was put in the Ace as in No. 1, while the thing for which it was counted took the particle a ROMANS ir. 3. 169 before it; c. g. Job xix. 11. vrsz 'iyprri^ and he counts me as his enemy. So Isa. xl. 15. Num. xviii. 27. Once (Ps. Ixxxviii. 5) we have □» (with) instead of p (as,) In accordance with the first mode (the Ace. of the thing and the Dative of the person with b ) are most of the cases where any thing is said to be reckoned or imputed to individuals ; e. g. Ps. xxxii. 2 (xxxi. 2). Gen. xv. 6. 2 Sam. xix. 26; and with the Pass, voice retaining the Dat. after it, Lev. vii. 18 (vii. 8). xvii. 4. Num. xviii. 27. Prov. xxvii. 14. In Ps. cvi. 31, we find ) both before the thing reckoned and person to whom it is reckoned. I do not apprehend that any important difi'erence as to the sense can be pointed out between the two modes of expression in the He- brew as designated above, viz., ) icn and s airn. The form XojiZofxai dg, or XoyiZofiat mq or loajnp, is employed by the Sept. for h i^n, e. g. Hg for b in Job xli. 24 (23). Lam. iv. 2 ; Mcrirtp for b in Job. xli. 19 (18). xxxiii. 10. In like manner, wg is put for 3, in Num. xviii. 27. Is. xl. 15. Job. xix. 11 (waTrep). Nor do I apprehend that Xoyi^Ojuat sig and Xoyi^ojuLai wg or loaTrep have any perceptible difference of meaning. And in our text, whether we say with the apostle : kcu iXoyia^r} avTto dg ^LKaioavvr]\h and it \\. e. Abraham's act of believing] was counted to him for righteousness ; or say, in more exact conformity with the shape of the Hebrew ; koI avro iXoyiaaro avT(o ojg diKaio(7vvt}v, i. e. he [God] imputed it [the act of believing] to him as righteousness ; the sense is one and the same. The bare expression, in and by itself, and simply considered, can mean no more than that God imputed the act of believing to Abraham as righteousness. The gratuity then of Abraham's justification cannot be made out, as it would seem, merely from the mode of expression here employed. This of itself would not decide the point. It decides no more than that God reckoned Abraham's faith as a righteousness or righteous act. And so the same thing is said of the act of Phinehas, Ps. cvi. 31. And in general, where one's own act is said to be imputed to him, whether it be a good or bad one, the meaning is not of course that it is gratuitously imputed to him, but that it is imputed to him because it belongs to him, and therefore the imputation or reckoning to him accords with the reality. On this account some commentators have considered Paul here as putting a forced sense upon the words of Gen. xv. 6, which, they say, decides nothing more than that God counted to Abraham an 170 ROMANS IV. 3. act of faith as righteousness, which was indeed such an act, and therefore deserved to be so counted. And further, to confirm this view they suggest, that faith is a duty, and therefore to be placed on the same ground with all other duties ; and that Christ himself calls it the work of Gody viz., the work which God requires, John vi. 29. How then, they ask, can this prove the gratuitous justification of Abraham ? The difficulty at first view seems to be considerable. Neverthe- less a due consideration of the nature of the case will help, I trust, to remove it. There are but two methods of acceptance with God, or of justifi- cation before him, which are possible; the one by complete obedi- ence to the law of God, and therefore on the ground of merit ; the other, by gratuitous pardon and acceptance vouchsafed to him who has broken the law. The simple point which Paul is here labouring to establish, is, that the first method of justification is impossible, under the present circumstances of men and with their present cha- racter; and consequently that gratuitous justification is the only way of acceptance that is now open. Now Abraham either kept all the law, or he did not. It is taken for granted, (as well it might be, after what the apostle had said), that he did not. Justification on the ground oi merit, then, is out of all question. There remains therefore only gratuitous '^VistA^caiion. But how much must gratuitous be supposed to mean ? Does it imply that there is no condition on which the gratuity is to be be- stowed, no regard to character, state of mind, penitence, confidence in proff'ered mercy, or any thing else ? Certainly not. The gospel, with all its freeness and largeness of beneficence, promises salvation only to those who believe. " He that believeth, shall be saved." Here then is the general principle, or conditio sine qua non^ of free and unmerited pardon and acceptance. Does the example of Abraham confirm and ratify this principle? It does. It is an in- stance in point. He believed, and righteousness was counted to him. But this could have been done in no other way, than that by belief he was brought within the pale of offered mercy. If a man commits one sin, and thus comes under the curse of the law, all hopes of acceptance or salvation on law-ground are utterly at an end. But here Abraham, a sinner, once probably an idolater (Josh. xxiv. 14), was accepted and treated as righteous, when he exercised an act of faith, which is the necessary condition of gratuitous pardon. ROMANS IV. 3. 171 Now this could not have taken place, if Abraham had not been gra- tuitously accepted. The gospel-condition of gratuitous justification was complied with by him, i. e. he exhibited faith ; and so accept- ance, such as the gospel promises, was the consequence of this faith, or was connected with it. We are not to understand the apostle, as it seems plain to me, to assert that Abraham's faith, as such, was in the particular instance related in Gen. xv. 1 — 5, the principal ground or meritorious cause of his final and complete justification. This would defeat the express declarations of vers. 4, 5. In these he takes it for granted, that Abraham could plead no merit, and make no claim on the score of simple justice. He takes it for granted too, that justification by faith does of necessity imply, (as truly it does and must imply), that the acceptance in such cases is a matter of mere gratuity^ and not of merit or desert. Faith then may be a duty and a work, and may be one necessary to gratuitous justification, and may be required because it is reason- able in itself and necessary in order to prepare the sinner for justifi- cation ; and yet the man who is already a sinner can put in no claim for acceptance on the ground of merit, because he exercises faith. Acceptance in this way must of course be gratuitous. Why then does not the apostle establish his point, when he shows that Abraham was accepted in consequence of believing, and not be- cause he had obeyed the whole law? No act of Abraham, after he had once fallen under the curse of the law, could of itself redeem him from that curse. Nothing that he did, or could do, would atone for past sins. And no act that lie did would be perfect. Acceptance therefore on the ground of merit, was impossible in these circumstances ; and any act of his, either faith or any other, if counted at all for righteousness, must be so counted gratuitously. But if so, then the very point which Paul is labouring to establish, is confirmed. It is the nature of the case then, and not the diction merely which is employed, that shews what it is which is here proved by the apos- tle. We might indeed make some appeal to the nature of the lan- guage. We might say, thixt faith is not properly obedience to the law, as such ; certainly, it is not entire obedience. Nor was the faith that was exercised by Abraham full and perfect. At least we may argue this from the imperfect condition of any and every sinful man. That it should be counted for righteousness, then, would seem to imply, 172 ROMANS IV. 3. that it was counted for somethino^ which in and of itself it was not, i. e. it was not a perj'ect righteousness such as the law demands. To count it then for a righteousness would imply an act of grace on the part of God. Not that the apostle means to say, that God actually, in his own real estimation, judged Abraham's faith to be a different thing from what it was, and a perfect virtue which of itself could claim acceptance with him. It is impossible for a moment to suppose this ; because it would be supposing that God puts a wrong estimate upon things. We come therefore of necessity to the conclusion, that counting for righteousness means, to accept and treat as righteous. More than this we cannot suppose, without at the same time sup- posing, that God makes in his own mind an estimate of things differ- ent from what they really are. It is highly important that the reader should here call to mind, also, that Paul is not now labouring to shew in what relation Christ stands to all that find acceptance, as the meritorious cause or ground of their pardon. He had already shewn this, in the preceding chap- ter. The simple point now before him is, whether justification through this Saviour is meritorious or gratuitous. Hence he does not say here, that the righteousness of Christ became the righteous- ness of Abraham by imputation or transfer. It was inapposite to his present purpose to discuss this point. He simply avers, that the con- ditio sine qua non of gratuitous justification was complied with by Abraham, who therefore was justified in a gratuitous vamxwex. What- ever other parts of Scripture may teach in relation to the imputed righteousness of Christ, no declaration on that point is to be found here. Abraham's 0W7i faith, and an individual act of it, viz. his giving credit to the divine promises, is the subject of the apostle's assertions. In a word ; the shape of Paul's argument appears to me as being substantially this, viz., 'justification is gratuitous ; for righteousness was not counted to Abraham on the ground of perfect obedience, but in consequence of his compliance with the necessary condition of gratuitous justification, i. e. in consequence of his exercising faith. Now if he was accepted and treated as just on such ground, it fol- lows of necessity that he could not have been accepted on the ground of merit, and consequently that his justification was gratuitous.' In other words; Paul introduces an individual occurrence and ex- ample in the life of Abraham, in which case fiiith was counted and treated as obedience, in order to prove that justification, even in respect ROMANS IV. 4, 5. 173 to the most eminent of all the Hebrew saints, was a mere matter of gratuity. Now if this was true in his case, it must be in all others. And thus his object is gained by an illustration and confirmation of the principle which he is endeavouring to inculcate. (4) Tcu IpyaZofxivo) (Midd. voice), fo him who ivorketh, i. e. to him who performs all the tpya vo/nov, to him who yields entire obe- dience to the precepts of law; compare the remarks on '^pya vojuov under iii. 20 above. 'Epya^o^ucvw here is equivalent to 6 iroiwv to. %pya' comp. iii. 20, 27, 28. ii. 15 ; also ver. 6. below. Luther trans- lates : Der mit Werken umgehet ; Beza : Is qui ex opere est aliquid promeritus. Tholuck defends Luther's version. To me it seems to convey truth, but not the whole truth. Better has Turretin said : Per eum qui operatur non intelligimus .... eos qui bona opera fa- ciunt, sed eos qui perfecte implerunt legem Dei absque ullo defectu. Reiche thinks that this is giving an emphasis or intensity to the word ipya^ofxtvto which does not belong to it. The ground of his objec- tion is, that in this way all rewards would be excluded, inasmuch' as no man is perfect. But is it not true that all rewards of merit on law- ground, i. e. that of entire perfection, are excluded ? It seems to be a very clear doctrine of the N. Testament that the good works which are rewarded, are gratuitously rewarded in proportion to their desert of reward. Imperfect good works can now be accepted and rewarded, through grace by Christ, which under, a law-system could put in no claim for reward or acceptance ; a principle that does not seem to be generally understood. 'O fxia^oQ .... x^P^^ reward is not regarded or counted as a matter of grace ; i. e. it is his just due, as the sequel (aAXa Kara 6(j)eiXr]iuia) shows ; a due in consequence of the promise or engage- ment of reward which the law contains, and not because the obedi- ence of men can really profit the Divine Being, so as to lay him un- der obligations on this account. (5) T(u §£ ju?) Ipyat^ofxivio, but to him who does not yield perfect obedience ; plainly the opposite of the first part of the fourth verse. The meaning is : ' To the sinner who has not exhibited perfect obe- dience, but TTKjTtvovTi K. T. X., who bcUeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly,' i. e. on Christ who died for sinners, and on account of whose death they are justified ; comp. v. 8 — 10. iv. 25. 1 Pet. iii. 18. Heb. ix. 28, et al. AoyiZ^rai .... ^iKaioavvrig, his faith is counted as righteous- ness ; i. e. through belief in Christ who died for sinners, he comes 174 ROMANS IV. 6. to be treated or accepted as if he were himself righteous ; in other words, through the favour of God he is freed from the penalty of the law, and accepted and treated as he would be, had he been perfect- ly obedient. The meaning of the phrase, counted for righteousness^ is of course the same here as in ver. 3 ; and in both cases it is very plain, that it signifies gratuitous or unmerited justification on the grounds already explained. We may add here, that by the apostle's own explanation in the context, this justification is one which is Kara xuqiv (24), and xuj^Xq zQyixyv (ver. 6). While faith or belief then is absolutely necessary in order to prepare a man to become the proper subject of the gratuitous justification which the gospel prof- fers; while without faith he cannot be justified; yet faith is not in any legal sense the meritorious ground of justification, nor does the promise attached to it imply a reward of merits but only of grace. The whole matter lies in a short compass. ' On the ground of works, i. e. of perfect obedience and therefore of merit, none can be justified, because all are sinners. If any then are justified at all, it must be of grace; but this grace, although freely bestowed and without any just claims on the part of the sinner, is still not uncondi- tionally bestowed. Faith in him who died to save sinners, is requi- site to prepare one for the reception of pardon ; and he who is justi- fied in this way, as a consequence of his faith, is still justified in a manner altogether gratuitous.' Some commentators suppose that Paul means to characterize Abraham, by the jxr) lQyaZ,ofiivu^ and tov aptc epytov, without entire obedience to the law, without having done all the works which the law enjoins ; comp. ver. 5 above, with the references there. To impute righteousness without works, desig- nates the same thing for substance as to count faith for righteousness ; both being designed to designate gratuitous justification. From the use made of ^iKaioavvr] in vers. 3 — 6 here (and else- where in this chapter where the same phraseology occurs), it is evi- dent that the word is not to be understood in th,e sense oi justification (which is the more common meaning of it in our epistle), but in the usual sense of nim. To say that faith was counted for justifica- tion, would make no tolerable sense ; 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, in the manner that has been explained above. (7) Maicaptot, happy, greatly privileged. — ^ k^i^riaav, are remitted, from a(})ir)fxL to remit, forgive. — ' Whose sins lireKaXixp^riaav are covered;' a figurative expression, not unfrequently applied to the remission of sins. To cover or conceal, is to remove from sio-ht or notice ; and sins which are left out of sight and out of notice, of course are sins which are not punished. Comp. in Is. xxxviii. 17. Mic. vii. 19. Job xiv. 17. (8) Happy the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity ! i. e. the sin which he has committed. The meaning is : ' Happy the man who obtains forgiveness of his sins, and is accepted and treated as if he were righteous.' To impute one's own iniquity to him, is to hold him accountable for it in respect to the demands of punitive justice. To cover sins and impute not iniquity, means to pardon sin and to treat with favour ; and this is substantially the same thing which is designated by counting faith for righteousness ; i. e. both forms of expression denote gratuitous acceptance with God. They diff'er not as to substance of meaning, but as to modus of diction or costume. The apostle has now prepared the way to refute the special allega- tion designed to be made by the question in ver. 1, ri ovv Ipovfiev 'A/3paajU Tov iraripa rffxCJv ivpr\Kivai Kara arapKa', He has shewn that acceptance on the ground of merit or perfect obedience is out of the question ; for even Abraham and David were justified through ]76 ROMANS IV. 8— 10. faith gratuitously, and not 1% tpyuyv. No ground of boasting, then, could be claimed by either of these conspicuous individuals. It was grace only that saved them. But if it is true in the general sense here stated, that salvation is in all cases entirely a matter oi gratuity, a question still remains, viz. Is this gratuity bestowed only on those who are circumcised, i. e. on the Jews only, or is it also granted to the Gentiles? The prejudiced Jew of course would hold to the first. The apostle therefore, having discussed the general ques- tion, whether in respect to offences against the divine law, and in regard to the matter of justification, the Jew had any pre-eminence over the Gentile, now comes to the special consideration of the question about circumcision, which was first asked in chap. iii. 1, and again virtually repeated by the Evpr^Ktvai Kara aaoKa in chap, iv. 1. (9) The discussion on this particular point he now introduces by the inquiry: 'O /xaKupKrinbg .... aKpofiuariav ; [Is] this congratula- tion then respecting the circumcised [only], or also the uncircumcised ; That is, granting there is cause for pronouncing blessed the man whose sins are forgiven and whose iniquities are covered, still it may be asked: 'Does gratuitous pardon belong only to the Jews? Or are we to suppose that David may here mean to include the Gentiles also ? Do God's promised mercies belong to his own peculiar people only, who are of the circumcision ; or are they also bestowed on the idolatrous heathen ?' Xi-yofxiv yap supposes an implied answer in the affirmative to the preceding questions, viz., ' The privilege belongs also to the lui- eircumcised.' That such must be the case, the apostle now proceeds to shew, by the allegation that Abraham was justified in an uncir- cumcised state. The inference is, that David could not mean to ex- clude such cases as that of Abraham himself In this way the yap is easily accounted for here ; and the like is often true respecting its reference to some implied sentiment; see Passow and Brettschn. on yap. For a like aposiopesis of the answer to a question, see iv. 2. (10) riwc ovv .... aKpoftv(TTici- How then was it counted? While he was in a state of circumcision or of uncircumcision ? Not in a state of circumcision, but of uncircumcision ? \r\ Iv irepiTOfvj K. T. X, the ev stands (as often) before the Dative of condition, i. e. the Dative of a noun designating state or condition. The design of the writer is plain. Abraham's faith teas imputed to him for righteousness, i. e. he was gratuitously justified, before ROMANS IV. 11. 177 the covenant of circumcision was made with him, and of course before he was a partaker in this rite. Consequently the privilege in question is not limited to those who are circumcised, and therefore does not depend on circumcision. (11) Kai o-rjjuftov . . . . ev aKpojivaTtq, and he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness by faith, which [he ob- tained] while in a state of uncircumcision. That is, circumcision was not the cause or ground of his faith being counted for righteous- ness, or of his being gratuitously justified ; it was merely a seal, i. e. a token of confirmation (for such is a^^ayig, 1 Cor. ix. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 19) in respect to the blessing which he had before obtained. The allusion in the language is to the practice of confirming written instruments, by seals placed on them in token of ratification. Tfjc ^iKmo(Tvvr]q rrig tticttsivq might here be rendered of the Justification which is bg faith ; but the idiom of this chapter rather points us to a different version. There is, however, no ground for mistake here inasmuch as the qualifying words tjjc iriaTeMg, in connection with what had before been said, suflBciently guard against it. We might naturally expect the article here, viz., to a^fxdov Tr\g TTEpiTOjiirig, inasmuch as the thing is specific and monadic ; but for this very reason also, the article may be omitted, because there is no danger of mistake ; see N. Test. Gramm. § 89. 2. a. b. Srj/itToi; means a symbol, a token, an external visible mark. In Tr\g h> aKpo(5v(TTiq, the Ttjg is referred by many to Trio-rtwc; but the nature of the case seems plainly to demand, that it should be referred to the compound idea designated by Trig ^tKaioavvng Trig "niaTZMc. The circumstance here related is fatal to the claims of the bigoted Jew, in respect to circumcision. But the apostle is not satisfied with simply repelling the enemy. He advances into his camp, and takes entire possession. 'Abraham was not only justified before he was circumcised, but this was done for the very purpose of confirm- ing the truth which I am proclaiming. He was justified before the covenant of circumcision, dg to elvai diKaioavvriv, in otrler that he might be the father of all those who believe in a state of un- circumcision, so that 1-ighteousness might also be imputed to them.' That is ; God, in justifying Abraham before he was circumcised, did intend to make him a father, i. e. an eminent leader, pattern, or example, to Gentile as well as Jewish believers, and to show that righteousness might be imputed to the uncircumcised as well as to the circumcised. At' ttKpo^vaTiag is an example of Sta conditionis, M 178 ROMANS IV. 12. i. e. of dia before a noun in the Genitive which designates state or condition. It is of the same import, when thus employed, as the Dative with ev as used above, and is here evidently commuted for it. The meaning of the whole verse is, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a confirmation of his justification by faith in an uncircumcised state; and this was thus solemnly confirmed, in order that he might be a spiritual father, i. e. an eminent pattern or example, to Gentiles who would also be gratuitously justified in an uncircumcised state. Elg TO Xoyia^rivai k. t. X., designates the consequence, or the ob- ject in respect to "which paternity and sonship existed, viz., that of being gratuitously justified, i. e. of having righteousness imputed to them, which means the same thing. The koi in this clause is omit- ted in A., B., several MSS. minusc, and some versions. It is un- necessary ; but still it does not mar the sense, as may be seen in the version. (12) In all this, moreover, the apostle admits that there was another object in view, viz., that Abraham should be the spiritual father of the circumcised^ as well as of the uncircumcised, i. e. that he should be an eminent example to all, both Jews and Gentiles, of that gratuitous justification which God bestows on men, and which is universally proffered under the gospel dispensation. So the sequel : Kat rraTtpa .... AjSpaoju, and the father of those who are ci7X7imcised, ivho are not only of the circumcision, but wcUk in the steps of that faith which our father Abraham had while in a state of uncircumcision. The ellipsis in the construction of this part of the sentence must be filled up thus : \_uq to etvai] avTov iraTipa k. t. X.. which the mind spontaneously carries forward from the preceding- clause ; this second clause being co-ordinate with the preceding one which begins with Etc rb iivai. The connection requires us to un- derstand the apostle as asserting, that the sign of circumcision which Abraham received, as a seal of the righteousness of faith or a token of confirmation in respect to his gratuitous justification, was received by him in order that he might be tiie spiritual father of such Jews as imitated his example, as well as of Gentiles. The writer clearly makes the same distinction here, that he does in chap. ii. 28, 29. Not the literal posterity only of Abraham, or only his descendants by natural generation who received the external sign of circumcision in their flesh, M^ere the children of this patriarch in the sense here intended. To walk in the steps of Abraham's faith means, to follow the example ROMANS IV. 12. 179 of Abraham, to possess and exercise a faith like his. It is to such, and only to such, that Abraham is a spiritual father. This last clause of the verse renders very plain what is meant, when Abraham is called the father of both Gentile and Jewish be- lievers. The word i«, TrarTjp, employed in this way, designates (as before remarked) an exemplar, a pattern, a leading and eminent ex- ample after which others copy ; comp. for such a sense. Gen. iv. 20, 21. John viii. 38, 41, 44, where the devil is called the father of the wicked Jews ; comp, also 1 Mace. ii. 54. So in the verse before us, the children of Abraham are those who walk in the steps of his faith. i. e. imitate his example. One difficulty remains in respect to rolg (ttoixovcti. The repeti- tion of the article before it here seems as if the writer intended to distinguish those whom it designates, from the rolg oi»(c l/c TrepiTOfirig l^iovov, which (by placing the ovk before roXg) would mean, not only to those of the circumcision; and then aXXa koL roXg k. t. X. would mean, but also to those who walk, &c., i. e. but also to Gentiles who imitate Abraham's faith. To this purpose the Syriac version, the Vulgate, Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio, Grotius, Koppe, and others. But the objection to this is, that heathen believers have already been mentioned in the preceding verse ; and that the writer seems plainly here intending to characterize such Jews, and only such, as were the spiritual children of Abraham, i. e. to whom he was a spiritual father. The repetition of the article before arot^^oufrt in this case is indeed peculiar ; Tholuck calls it a solecism, and Ruckert says it is not to be tolerated. I regard it, however, as a resumption of the sentence begun with the preceding rotg, and interrupted by the ovk £K rrepiTOixrig fxovov aWa kui, the former part of which has the sense of an adjective qualifying the roXg; but inasmuch as the resumption gives a new characteristic, it was necessary that the part. (TToixoTxTi should have the article ; as in other like cases. In this view Reiche fully concurs. M 2 180 ROMANS IV. 13—18. CHAP. IV. 13—18. The apostle now proceeds to another illustration and confirmation of his assertions respecting gratuitous justification. The Jew gloried in belonging to a nation to whom God had given a revealed law, and looked upon the pre-eminence which this gave him, as a proof that God would treat him with special favour in a spiritual respect. The reader has only to look back, and re-peruse chap. ii. 17 — 24, in order to see what dependence the Jews were prone to place upon the knowledge which they possessed of the Holy Scriptures, and their superiority in this respect over the Gentiles. In order to take away all ground of glorying in this manner, the apostle here proceeds distinctly to remind them, that Abraham was not justified by any such privilege, the law having been given more than four hundred years after the time in which he lived. Such, tlien, are as his spiritual children, i. e. such as are justified on grounds like those on which he was justified, cannot regard the law as the ground of their justification. The proof of the writer's position is very striking, and could not fail to make a deep impression on the mind of a serious Jew. The manner in which it is exhibited, is well adapted to make such an impression. * Abraham,' says the apostle, ' did not receive promises for himself and his seed, on account of the law or by means of the law, but gratuitously, i. e. by the righteousness of faith, ver. 13. Now if the possession of the law, or obedience to it, were necessary to constitute Abraham and his seed heirs of the promises, then heirship by faith, and the promises connected with this, would be annulled, because these were granted to Abraham before the giving of the law, ver. 14. The law moreover, is so far from being the ground of such promises, that it is a means of indigna- tion on the part of God towards sinners, i. e. means of their punishment : for it is the prohibitions of the law which constitute and define transgressions, and if there were no law, there could be no transgression, ver. 15. Such being the case, the promises are not made on the ground of law, but through the instrumentality of faith, i. e. gratuitously, in order that all the seed might be assured respecting them, both Gentiles who have not the law and Jews who have it, provided they have like faith with Abraham, the spiritual father of all, ver. 16. The Scripture points out such a relation of Abraham to all true believers, and he is regarded as sustaining such an one, by him who raises the dead to life, and calls things out of nothing into existence, ver. 17. Such was the faith of the father of believers, that he put entire confidence in the divine declarations, when, to all human appearance, there was no ground to hope that they could be carried into execution ; so that he became the spiiitual father of many nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, accord- ing to the tenor of the Scripture promise : So shall thy seed he, ver. 18. (13) Ov yap .... airiQixaTL avrov, for not by the law was the promise made to Abraham, or to his seed. Tap is prefixed to a sen- tence, the object of wliich is to confirm the preceding dechiration, that Abraham was the spiritual father of both Jews and Gentiles, not by any external rite or privilege but through faith. — Am vojxov, through law, by means of the law. The writer designs by it either to desig- nate the possession of the law, the privilege of living under it, and being the depositary of it, or else he means obedience to it. I am inclined to give it the former sense here, on account of the ol Ik vofjLov in ver. 14, which rather designates such as live under the law than those who fulfil it. ROMANS IV. 13. 181 What the promise made to Abraham and his seed was, the writer proceeds to tell us, viz. to icXr/povo/iov KoajULOv, that he should be heir or possessor of the world. This expression is found literally in none of the passages which contain the promises made to Abra- ham, Gen. xii. 1—3. xv. 1 — 6. xvii. 1 — 8. But in Gen. xv. 5 is a promise, that the seed of Abraham should be like the stars of heaven for multitude ; and in Gen. xvii. 5 it is said : " A father of many nations have I made thee." That the apostle had his mind intent upon this text, is plain from ver. 17 in the sequel. When he says, then, that the promise was that Abraham should be heir of the world, his meaning evidently is, that the seed of Abraham (in the sense here meant, viz. his spiritual seed), should be co-extensive with the world, or (to use the phraseology employed in another of the promises made to Abraham), " in him should all the families of the earth be blessed." Taken in the sense now adverted to, the phrase before us would imply, that the spiritual seed of Abraham should be co-ex- tensive with the world, i. e. should be of all nations. But there is a somewhat more figurative way of understanding the phrase to be heir of the world, viz. to take it as an expression that designates the re- ceiving of great and important blessings. In such a way most clearly are y-i^n vy, KXr^povo/xHv rijv y/jv to be taken, Ps. xxv. 13. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29. Prov. ii. 21. Matt. v. 5. The former method of exegesis, however, is here to be preferred, on the ground, that ver. 17 developes the fact, that Paul here had a special meaning in reference to the extent of Abraham's spiritual seed. In regard to that seed of Abraham to whom the promise was spe- cially made ; who can this be but the Messiah ? Who else of Abra- ham's seed was to be possessor of all the earth, particularly in a spiritual sense ? That Paul himself had such a view of this subject, is made quite certain by Gal. iii. 16. It is true, indeed, that in respect to the promises of a temporal nature made to Abraham, his literal descendants were the partakers and heirs of them ; see Gen. xvii. 8. XV. 18. So also were they, that is, some of them, heirs of spiritual promises. But the specific promise to which the apostle alludes in our text, seems to have been made with reference to Christ, at least it seems to have been entirely fulfilled only in him, Gal. iii. 16. Reiche construes the promise here as having respect to a new world, like that which the Millenarians expect, after the end of the present order of things; which implies a method of 182 ROMANS IV. 14, 15. interpreting the Messianic prophecies that cannot be defended on the ground of rational exegesis. The promise in question was not 'But vo/nov, i. e. on account of any privileges connected with the giving of the law, for the law was not yet given ; but it was dia StKatocrwvrjc tticttewc, through the righ- teousness oj" faith, i. e. it was gratuitously given in consequence of his faith ; see on iii. 22. (14) El yap .... KXT)pov(Jjuot, ij" now they who are of the law, are heirs ; i. e. if they who live under the law and enjoy its privileges, are heirs of the promise made to Abraham and his seed. Tap here is prefixed to an additional clause designed to confirm the preceding one — yop confrmantis. Ol Ik vofiov may mean, either those who rest upon the law, i. e. make their boast of having fulfilled it and so expect justification from it, (in which way Tholuck and many others have understood it) ; or it may mean, those who enjoy the privileges and the distinction which a revelation confers. I prefer the latter sense as being more consonant with the special object of the apostle ; which here is, to prove that no external rites or privileges can be the ground of justification before God. KcKEvwrai .... tTrayysXia, faith is rendered of no effect, and the promise is made void. The reason of this is, that the promise was made to Abraham and his seed in consequence of faith, and therefore gratuitously; but if those only who enjoy the privilege of living under the law are heirs of the promise, and are so without walking in the steps of Abraham as to faith, then the ground of the promises to Abraham is done away. Neither his faith, nor the promise connected with it, is of any avail ; because neither of them stands on law-ground, and neither depends on the privilege of pos- sessing the law or on the merit of obeying it. In a word, the ground of justification taken by those who plead for it Ik vofxov, is entirely diverse from and opposed to that by which Abraham was justified, and on which the promises were made to him ; and if they are in the right, the promises made to Abraham are of course null, because a new condition unknown to him and different from that under which he obtained blessings, would thus be introduced. (15) 'O yap vopog . . . iraQa^aaiq, for the law is the occasion of wrath ;for where there is no law, there is no transgression. In ver. 15 a reason is assigned why the promise would be made void, on the ground suggested; and this is, that the law was actually the occasion of bringing upon the Jews divine displeasure, by reason ROMANS IV. 15. 183 of their offences against its precepts. It is on this account that the verse is introduced by 'ya.Q causal. If there were no law, then there would be no transgression or sin. All sin is avoixla, i. e. want of conformity to the law of God, either as to omission or com- mission. Now as all men do sin, the law against which they of- fend (inasmuch as it prohibits and condemns sin) is the instrument of their condemnation, not of their justification. This is indeed no fault of the law, which is of itself " holy and just and good " (Rom. vii. 12) ; the fault lies with the transgressor. But when such trans- gressor appeals to the law as the ground of his justification, he must be told (as he is here told) that the law, instead of delivering him from death or justifying him, condemns him to death ; nay, that its precepts, although holy and just and good in themselves and worthy of all respect and obedience, are nevertheless the occasion (the inno- cent occasion indeed) of the sinner's guilt and ruin. The fault lies in him ; but still, if there had been no precepts to transgress and no penalty connected with transgression, then he would not have been a transgressor. It is on such ground that the apostle (chap. vii. 7 — • 13) declares most explicitly, that " he had not known sin, except by the law;" that "sin, taking occasion by the law, wrought in him all manner of concupiscence ;" that " without the law sin was dead," i. e. the power of sin was inefficacious ; but still, that " the law is holy and just and good," and all the fault lies in the transgressor. Chap vii. 7, seq., is indeed an ample commentary on the sentiment expressed in the verse before us. Admitting the truth of the apostle's representation, it follows, that those who have no knowledge of law, i. e. no moral sense of any moral precept, cannot be transgressors. This is plainly and palpably the doctrine which he teaches; a doctrine which is sanctioned by the fundamental principles of our moral nature, and essential to the idea of right and wrong. In common cases, we never pronounce any man to be an offender against a moral law, unless he is an intel- ligent, rational, moral, free agent. Any one of these qualifications being found wanting, we absolve him from guilt. And does not Paul the same ? But this does not settle the question when men be- gin to be such agents ; for plainly they may be moral and free agents before they can read the Scriptures. The question as to the time when sinning begins, in each individual case, can be settled only by Omniscience. Why should we not be content to leave it with ' the Judge of all the earth, who will do right?' 181 ROMANS IV. 16, 17. The second yop in ver. 15 is placed at the head of a reason or j>roiind of the assertion immediately preceding ; which is, that the law is the occasion or instrument of condemnation. How does this appear ? In this way, viz. because that where there is no law, there is no transgression. The yap here introduces, then, that which serves to confirm the expression immediately antecedent. (16) Because then the law does in fact never justify, but only condemn, it follows that if justification be at all bestowed on sinners, it must come in some other way than by law. Am tovto . . . xa- piv, on this account it was of faith, so that it must he of grace ; i. e. the promise is through the medium of faith, so that it must be gratui- tous ; there being no way left in which it could be bestowed on the ground of merit. See the notes on vers. 4. 5 above. We must of course suppose 7j iTrayyeXia yivarai to be implied before Ik TriareioQ ; in which case the mind reverts to the idea at the close of ver. 14. The 'iva before Kara x^P''^ ^^ doubtless to be taken in the ecbatic sense, ita ut, so that, indicating event not purpose. The reasoning then stands thus: ' The promise was of faith as the condition, so that it must of course be gratuitous.* Eig- to etvat .... G-niofutri, in order that the promise might be sure to all the seed. On any other ground than that of grace or gratuity, the promise could not be sure either to Abraham or to his seed ; for if it were to be fulfilled only on con^ dition of entire obedience to the law, then would it never have a ful- filment, inasmuch as no mere man ever did or will exhibit perfect obedience. A Kar£vor}(T£, he did not regard. — ^'HSjj vtviKgwfxivov, already dead, i. e. inefficient with regard to procreation; comp. Heb. xi. 12. Gen xvii. 17. Ilou, about (adv.) which sense it has when it is enclitic, as here ; tKarovralrr/c ttow, about 100 years of age, — Kat, nor, inasmuch as it follows ov in the preceding clause. So in He- brew, "I following Nb means nor, Heb. Gramm. § 358. Note. — Tiiv veKpwaiv TTjg fiijrpag = rrjv juijTpav ttjv veveKp(i)fxivr}v. Comp. the age of Sarah (90) at this time. Gen. xvii. 17. (20) Oi» SteicjoiS'rj, he did not doubt, did not hesitate; comp. Rom. xiv. 23. James i. 6. ii. 4. Matt. xxi. 21. Mark xi. 23. — Etc dt Tjjv lirayyeXiav .... cnriaTia, still he did not doubt respecting the promise of God, through, or by reason of an U7ibelieving spirit. The ^£ here is adversative in respect to the preceding circumstances, and may be translated, still, but, or however. The Dat. of cnrKrriq is construed agreeably to idiom; see New Test. Gramm. § 106. 5. 'AXX' Ividvvafxw^n rri iriaTH, the opposite of the preceding ex- pression, but he firmly and confidently believed, or he was confident ROMANS IV. 21—25. 189 through faith ; ry rriaru being the Dative of manner or means ; see New Test. Gramm. ut supra. ^ovQ ^o^av r(o 3-ew, giving glory to God. The Hebrew dto nirp^ ■h33 means, to shew by our actions that we acknowledge any attribute of God; which is ascribing to him what belongs or is due to him. So here, Abraham, by the strength of his confidence, did in the highest manner ascribe to God omnipotence and veracity. Comp. John ix. 24. Josh. vii. 19. The meaning of the phrase as here em- ployed by the writer, is given in the next verse. (21) Kai 7rXr)po0opT)3'£ic ori k. r. X., a repetition or epexegesis of what the preceding clause asserts. " Being strong in faith" there, is equivalent to TrXrjpo^oprjS-ft'c here, which means, being fully per- suaded; comp. Heb. x. 22. — ^"O tTrZ/yyeXrat, that which had been promised, or rather, what he had promised. This last renderino- can be retained, because the Perf. pass, not unfrequently has an active sense, inasmuch as it serves for the Perf. Middle as well as Passive, (New Test. Gramm. §61. 2.) So in Acts xiii. 2, Tr/joo-Kt/cXrj- l^iaii I have invited. Acts xvi. 10. 1 Pet. iv. 1. John ix. 22. — Kai iroLTiaai also to perform, Kai in the sense of etiam, quoque, as it often is, i. e. Kot, intensive. (22) Ato .... Etc ^iKaioavvriv, wherefore [his belief] was counted to him as righteousness; in other words, through his faith he was counted or treated as righteous, he was admitted to the divine favour. See on ver. 5 above. The Kai before iXoyio-.^rj I have interpreted as intensive. If otherwise taken, it may be solved thus : Wherefore, also, it was imputed, &c. (23, 24) Nor was this method of justification and acceptance limited to Abraham. The history of it is recorded as an example, for the encouragement and imitation of all others down to the latest period of time. Those who believe in him who raised up Jesus from the dead (comp. ver. 17 above), i. e. those who believe in what God has done and said with respect to the Messiah, the only foundation of the sinner's hope, will be justified through their faith, in like manner as Abraham was by his. (25) IlapeSoSrrj, was given up, was delivered up, viz. to death. Matt. xxvi. 2. — Ata ra TrapairTwiuLaTa rifxiov, comp. Is. liii. 12, 5, 6, 8. Gal. i. 4. ii. 20. Tit. ii. 14. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Ala Tr)v SiKaitomv -nfjtiov, on account of our justification, i. e. our acceptance with God. Christ rose from the dead, in order that this great and glorious work might be completed. The primary object 190 ROMANS IV. 25. of his death is here stated as being expiatory, i. e. as having a special influence on that part of justification which has respect to remitting the penalty of the divine law. But as justification, in its, full sense, comprehends not only forgiveness, but the accepting and treating of any one as righteous, it implies of course the advancement of the pardoned sinner to a state of glory. The resurrection of Christ was connected with this ; for, " if Christ be not risen, then our faith is vain." His resurrection was preparatory to his receiving the king- dom given him of the Father, and thus was necessary in order to complete the redemption of those who believe in him. Reiche maintains, that the whole work of Christ, viz. his active and passive obedience, is to be considered as one; and this in such a sense, that we are at liberty to ascribe no more efficacy to his death than to any of the actions of his life. Of course he disallows the idea of a vicarious sacrifice, in any proper sense of these words; and he maintains that God, for Christ's sake and for some reason not stated by the sacred writers, forgives and accepts the sinner. But, although I fully concede that the incarnation and obedience of Christ con- stitute a part of his mediatorial work, and by no means exclude them from an important place in the great scheme of redemption, still I must regard it as a perfectly clear case, that the New Test, ascribes peculiar efficacy to the suiferings and death of Christ ; and to my mind, the doctrine of the atonement or the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ, is fundamental to the very essence of Christianity as distinguished from other systems of religion. CHAP. V. 1—21. The apostle having thus shewn, (a) That all inen, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners ; (6) That they are therefore under the condemning sentence of the divine law, (c) That the only method of escape from the execution of this sentence, is by gratuitous pardon, i. e. by justification obtained through the death of Clirist ; and {d) That all this is no new doctrine, but one inculcated in the Old Testament both by declaration and example ; he next proceeds, in chap, v., to exhibit the blessed fruits of this pardon or justification. (1) We have peace with God (with whom we were before in a state of enmity, being alienated from him, comp, vers. 6 — 10), and we enjoy, through Christ, free access to a state of favour with God, and thus are led to rejoice in the hope of future glory, vers. 1, 2. (2) We are supported and comforted in all our afflictions during the present life; nay, we may even rejoice in them as the instruments of spiritual good to us, vers. 3 — 5. (3) All this good is rendered certain, and the hope of it sure, by the fact that Christ, having died for us while in a state of enmity and alienation, and having thus reconciled us to God, will not fail to carry on and complete the work which he has thus begun, vers. 6—10. (4) We may now therefore rejoice in God ( who is as truly our covenant God as he ROMANS V. 1. 191 lias been that of the Jews), on account of the reconciliation which Christ has effected, ver. 11. (5) This state of reconciliation or filial relation to God, is extended to all men, i. e. in some respects actually bestowed on all, and in others proffered to all, laid open for all, rendered accessible to all, ia like manner as the evils occasioned by the sin of our first ancestor have in some respects extended to all, and in others are liable to be incurred or suffered by ail ; yea, such is the greatness of Christ's redemption, that the blessings pro- cured by his death far exceed the evils occasioned by the sin of Adam (vers. 12 — 19), they even exceed all the evils consequent upon the sins of men, who live under the light of revelation (vers. 20, 21). The certainty of salvation, then, under such a dispensation as this, would seem to be made quite evident. Such appears to me the sum of what is taught in chap. v. The difficulties attending the interpretation of this passage, I readily acknowledge, and have long and deeply felt. To the study of them I have devoted much more time, than to any other equal portion of the Holy Scriptures. I do not persuade myself, however, that I have succeeded in all respects with regard to the solution of them ; much less do I expect, that what I shall propose will be satisfactory to the minds of all others. What I could do, I have done ; if others succeed better, it will be matter of sincere joy to me. One thing I cannot help remarking here ; which is, that any exegesis of vers. 12 — 21, which represents the con- tents as irrelevant to the tenor of the context both before and after these verses, must wear the air, of course, of being an improbable one. Never have I found more difficulty, how- ever, than in satisfying myself of the relation which vers. 12 — 23 do in fact hold toward the context; and in particular how they bear upon the theme discussed in vers. 1 — 11. The result of all my investigations is given, as to substance, under No. 5 above. Tholuck states his result a little differently : " To render more conspicuous the fruits obtained by redemption, the apostle contrasts the state of mankind as a whole, and as being in the misery of their unredeemed condition, with the state of mankind as a whole, in their happiness as partakers of the benefits of redemption. By a striking parallel, he exhibits mankind in Adam the head and source of our race as sinful ; and in Christ the head and source of it, as redeemed; and he so represents this, that redemption appears to be the greatest and most important occurrence which has taken place with regard to man- kind— the central point of all spiritual life and all happiness." (Comm. iiber Rom. p. 158. edit. 2). Whether this summary comes nearer than my own to the true exhibition of the contents of vers. 12 — 21 ; in particular, whether it harmonizes better with the context ; I submit to the reader to decide, when he shall have carefully studied the whole. In the mean time, 1 acknowledge with gratitude the important aid that I have received from the Commentary of the above named excellent writer. The reader will find a more detailed statement of the contents of vers, 12 — 19, at the commencement of the commentary on this passage, and before its several parts. (1) Oily, then, concessive and continuative. It does not here express the force simply of syllogistic conclusion, but resumes and alludes to the preceding arguments and illustrations, and takes for granted the fact stated by ZiKano^ivng. This last word has here peculiar reference to pardon of sin, and does not mean mundati a peccato, or beatijicati, as some have construed it ; for these things are further asserted in the sequel. 192 ROMANS V. 2, 3. 'Ek ir'KTTeMQi i. e. gratuitously^ through belief instead of perfect obedience ; see on chap. iv. 5 above. Eipj'/vrjv c'xojucv, we have peace ; here in opposition to a state of enmity to God, or a state of alienation from him ; see ver. 10. Several important MSS., A., C, D., 71, al., and some versions and fathers, read ix'^W^ (Subj.) ; but Paul does not mean to say merely that we may have peace, but that we are in actual possession of it. Ata row K. 1. XpLGTov, viz. by the reconciliation which he has effected, see ver. 11. (2) At' ov Kaii by whom also. — T?)v irpoaaywyriVi access, as well as reconciliation; comp. Eph. ii. 18. iii. 12. We have obtained access ng t?jv x"P'^ ravrrjv, i. e. either to this state of favour or grace, in which we now stand or are ; or, as Tholuck, Reiche, and some others : ' We have obtained access [to God] by belief {rfi TTiffTei) in that grace in which we continue.' The former seems to be the most facile sense; the latter, most conformed to idiom. UpoaajMyi} seems to imply that God is the object of access ; so it is expressed in Eph. ii. 18. 1 Pet. iii. 18, and imjjlied {as here) in Epii. iii. 12. Besides, the object of belief is generally indicated by tig ; which would favour the view of Tholuck. — 'Eo-x^'/fcojUfv, tve have be- come possessed of, we have obtained. As the Perf is here employed (and not Pres. as above), it would seem that the access here spoken of must refer to the pardoned sinner's frst access to God, after his forgiveness. — 'Eo-rivKctjUfv, we stand, the Perf. being used in this verb, because the Present has not a neuter sense. See N. Test. Gramm. § 50. 3, Note 2. Kai icauxwiUE^a, and we rejoice; i. e. in addition to a state of peace with God and access to him, we are filled with joy, in the hope of that glory which God will bestow. Qeov is here Genitivus auctoris. (3) Ou fxovov dii aXXa Kawx^i^E^a k. t. X., atid not only so, but we also rejoice, &c. This is a formula of transition, or of enumerating particulars, answering to our numerical divisions in a discourse ; comp. ver. 11. Al continuative and discretive. The ellipsis after ov fiovov Si is plain ; i. e. ' not only [do we rejoice in hope of future glory], but &c. Glockler contends earnestly, that there is another ellipsis after Kavxwfxt^a which he supplies by Itt' eXiri^t k. t. X. from ver. 2. Yet this is not only needless, but contrary to what idiom admits; for Iv after Kavxaojxm not unfrequently stands before the object of the verb ; e. g. in Rom. ii. 17. Gal. vi. 13, &c. The apos- ROMANS V. 4, 5. 193 tie does not mean to say, that the Christian exults in pain and sor- row as such ; but that as a means of spiritual good he exults in them ^ and is enabled by divine grace to triumph over them. Ei8orfc> knowing, having assurance; viz. from our relation to God, and from his gracious purposes toward us. Confidence in him gives assurance. "Ort .... Karepyati^Tm, produces patience or perseverance. Nei- ther of these virtues can be exercised without sufferings and trials. Patience is steadfast and submissive endurance of evils. Afflictions are essential to the cultivation of this virtue. They are not, indeed, the direct and efficient cause of patience ; but they are at least an occasion or instrumental cause. {4) AoKifxriv, trial or approbation. Either rendering is correct ; for perseverance or patience in the enduring of afflictions makes thorough trial ; and the same virtue secures approbation. I prefer the second meaning, viz. approbation; because it more naturally connects itself with the eXttic that follows. Comp. SoKt^ua^w, which means to try, and also to approve. 'EXTTfSa, hope, which springs of course from the approbation be- stowed on patient endurance of suifering for virtue's sake. (5) Ow KaTaKjyyv^i, will not disappoint; as the sequel shows. So the Hebrew, icii.: n"?. The Se before this clause and two others in ver. 4, is continuative and discretive. "Orf i] oYaTTjj Tov 3-£ou k. t. X. The first reason given why the Christian's hope will not disappoint him, is that the love of God is diffused {kKKi^Tai) in his heart or mind ; and this, by that Holy Spirit which is imparted to him, i. e. by the gracious influence of that Spirit who dwells in the hearts of believers ; I Cor. vi. 19. iii. 16. 2 Cor. vi. 16. 2 Cor. i. 22, where the spirit which is in the hearts of believers is called their appa(3ojv, the pledge of their future happiness, the pledge that their salvation is secure. Compare also Eph. i. 13, 14, where the same sentiment is fully expressed. The love of God here evidently means his love toward us ; as ver. 8 plainly shows. His love shed abroad in the hearts of Christians means, that a full and satisfactory conviction respecting his love is bestowed ; and the manner of bestowing or giving such a sense of his love is here designated, viz., by the influence of the Holy Spirit imparted to Christians, N 104 ROMANS V. 6. CHAP. V. 6—10. Verses 6 — 10 constitute a kind of episode (if I may so speak), and contain an illustra- tion and confirmation of the sentiment expressed in ver. 5, viz., that the Chrhtian's hope will not disappoint him. To show that this is truly the case, the writer goes on to produce an illustration, which exhibits an argument of the kind called a majori ad minus ; i. e. ' if Christ has already done the greater thing for you, viz. reconciled you to God, when you were in your sinful state, how much more will he complete the work, the greatest and most difficult part of which has already been accomplished V In tliis view the passage before us seems to be more direct, in respect to tlie perseverance of the saints, than almost any other passage in the Scriptures which I can find. The sentiment here is not dependent on the form of a particular expression, (as it appears to be in some other passages) ; but it is fundamentally connected with the very nature of the argument. (6) "Ert yap Xpiarog ' ovTwv -nfiMv, a singular metathesis or transposition of the particle in, winch belongs to ovtmv and plainly qualifies it. On account of this unusual location of eVt, suspicions of its genuineness would seem to have arisen, and the variety of readings is here considerable ; e. g. Etyt, B., Syr., Erp., Copt. ; u yap, Isid., Pelus., August.; d rt, F., G.; hq tI, (ut quid), Ital., Vulg., Iren., Ambros., Pelag. All these varieties probably originated either from the unusual location of trt, as before mentioned, or else from an apprehension that in in ver. 8 rendered it unnecessary or improbable here. In like manner many MSS. and Versions have an in after acr^evivv here ; which Griesbach and Koppe admit into the text, but Knapp and Vater reject. It probably arose from some of the Lections, which begun with this verse, and transposed the in, for convenience' sake in reading, as it would not appear seemly at the beginning of a Lection. The transposition seems to be de- signed for the sake of giving emphasis to in ; comp Matt. xii. 46. xvii. 5. Mark v. 35. xii. 6, and specially Heb. ix. 6, in rfjc Trpwrtig (TKrjvric £)^ou(Tt)c oTitaiv, where in belongs to h\ovcs^]q. — Vnp con- firmantis here, i. e. it stands before a paragraph which assigns a cause or ground of the assertion in the preceding sentence, viz. that the hope of the Christian would not disappoint him. "ETt ovTwv i]fXiov, while we were yet, or ive yet being. — 'Ao-^ei^wv, literally destitute of strength ; here, as generally expounded, in a moral sense, i. e. destitute of moral vigour, without holy energy, in a state of moral indisposition or infirmity. So Pro v. xxiv. 16, ot ao-EjSac ua^tin]aov(yiv iv KaicoTcj the ungodly are iceak in their evil ways, i. e. they are morally weak, for physic.nl strength and resolu- tion they lack not. Various modifications of the word iKj^ivna ROMANS V. 6. 195 may be found in Gal. iv. 9. Heb. iv. 15. v. 2. vii. 18. In Heb. iv. 15, the nature of the appeal seems to show, that the writer supposes Jesus himself to have possessed cKT^iveia like our own; but he takes care to add, x^P'^ aixapriag ; so that while he had the sus- ceptibility of being tempted and tried {TrtTreipaiJLivov Kara Travra KaS-' 6/xo£orr)ra) in all respects as we are, which seems to be tlie aa^iveia here characterized, he still remained "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." It is not susceptibility of being tempted, then, which makes any one a sinner. However, in our text, aa^£vu)v seems to be used in a more emphatic sense than in Heb. iv. 15. v. 2 ; for it is immediately exchanged for ao-ejSwv, and in ver. 8 for ajuaprwXwv. This shows that actual development of character by some kind of voluntary action is meant, and not merely vitiositas or peccabilitas ; for a(7£j3j/(,' and afiaQraAoQ are not applied to mark these qualities, but to mark character that is developed. After all, however, the doubt forces itself on my mind in recon- sidering this passage, whether aa^ivdv does not here characterize iveahiess or inability of the sinner as to saving himself, having once come under the condemning sentence of the law. In Heb. vii. 18 the law is asserted to be aa^ev^g, because it can afford no help to the sinner who is condemned by it. What now if we suppose the apostle to mean here, that ' when we were under the curse, and unable to save ourselves, Christ then interposed?' The sense is surely good, and the apparent tautology made by cio-f j3wv, when it is contrued in the usual way, is avoided. Kara Kmpov, in due time, at an appointed or set time, viz. that fixed upon in the counsels of God. Comp. Sept. in Job v. 26. Isa. Ix. 22; comp. also Luke xxi. 24, 8. Heb. xi. 11. Comp. ro ttAjj- pwjua Tov \p6vov in Gal. iv. 4. 'Yirlp a(Te(5Cov, i. e. vwep ao-tjSwv [i/juwv], /or [us] ivho were un- godly. It is plain that ao-tjSwv here characterizes the same class of persons who were called ao-Srevwv in the preceding clause. It means impious, those who do not reverence or fear God. — 'Ywip, for, on account of, instead of, i. e. in our room or stead. So the com- parison in the next verse, where dying vwlp aja^ov and imep ^Kaiov is mentioned, obliges us to interpret this. Even Ruckert concedes that the meaning here must be, loco nostro, vice nostra. Reiche admits that this is the symbolical costume of the language ; but that the idea of vicarious sacrifice is to be objectively admitted, N 2 H^« ROMANS V. 7. he deems to be entirely out of question. But what is tliis, except to make a new gospel, according to our conception of what it ought to be? (7) rdp illustrantis ; for the sequel is designed to illustrate the great benevolence which the death of Christ displayed, and which is proposed to our view in vers. 5, 6. AiKciiov is here used in distinc- tion from aya^ov. Often these words are synonymous ; yet they are capable of distinct use, and in classic usage they are not unfre- quently distinguished from each other. E. g. Cicero: "Rectej^Ms^wm virum, honum non facile reperiemus;" de Offic. III. 15. Again: Ju- piter Optimus dictus est, id est, benejicentissimus." So in the Talmud (Pirqe Abhoth, 5. 10) it is said: " There are four kinds of men; ( 1 ) Those who say : What is mine is mine, and what is tliine is thine ; these are the middling men. (2) Those who siiy : What is mine is thine, and what is thine is mine : these are the common people. (3) Those who say : What is mine is thine, and what is thine is thine ; these are the Vi''yrvi, i. c. liya^oi. (4) Those who say : What is mine is mine, and what is thine is mine ; these are the D';i\rn." So (by the Seventy) Tpn is usually distinguished from pns; inasmuch as the former is usually rendered ocrtoc, while the latter is translated by ^Uaiog. AiKaiog may be used (and not unfrequently is used) to designate a person who is innocent merely ; so in the Septuagint, Plx. xxiii. T. Gen. xviii. 23, seq. So in the New Tes- tament, Matt, xxvii. 19, 24. It corresponds also to the Hebrew 'i?j, Prov. i. 11. vi. 17. Joel iii. 19. In using ^iKaiog, therefore, as de- signating a character somewhat different from aya^og and inferior to it, the apostle has not varied from sacred and classic usage. AiKuiog clearly means here, one who is Just in the common sense of the word, one who is free from crimes cognizable by law, one who does not defraud, &c. For such an one, the apostle says, it would be rare to find any person willing to volunteer the sacrifice of his life. Although for the liyahog, i. e. the benevolent or rather the benefi- cent man (the Tpn), some one perhaps might venture even to lay down his life. This has in fact not unfrequently been done. The difference between the readiness of men to hazard their lives for a man of peculiar and overflowing benevolence of heart, and for a man who merely pays a nice regard to meum and tuum, is very plain to every observer who has a feeling heart. Reiche and Tholuck sup- pose aya^og here to designate a hind benefactor, in distinction ROMANS V. 8, 9. 197 from a simple SiKoiog. To this I sec no objection ; for it makes the contrast between Sikuio^ and aja^ug the more striking ; and is well founded in the nature of the idiom. I may add, that the sequel is rendered the more striking by it. Besides ; the use of the article here before aya^ov shows, that a specific benefactor is thought of by the writer. The article is here=to the pronominal adjective his. The yop in this second clause is a matter of some difficulty, which critics have generally passed over. It does not appear what the corresponding sentiment is, for which it here would seem to assign a ground or reason. It may there (as usual in such cases) be taken as affirmative (ja, allerdings, Passow), and we might translate thus : Perhaps, indeed, for the benefactor, ^c. I have rendered it although in the version ; not because yap of itself means although, but be- cause the relation of the sentiment demands such a rendering, in order to make the sense explicit to us. The kcu before ToXfxa Tholuck explains as giving this verb an intensive meaning. It undoubtedly is Kot intensivmn ; but standing before such a connec- tion as ToXfxq uTTo^aviXv, it may be joined with either verb, as the sense requires. Here, the better sense seems to be given by join- ing Kai with airo^avHv — would venture even to die. What he had just said was : ' Scarely will^'any'one die for a just man ;' now he says : ' Still it may be, tlsat some one will venture even to die for a benefactor.' Will even venture does not put the emphasis in the right place. (8) Yet the grace of the gospel has far surpassed any exhibition of human benevolence. Suvt'orr}//*, commends, sets forth, displays, — 'AyaTrrjv, benevolence, hind, feeling, o^pm compassionate kind- ness.— 'YTTtp rjfxiov, in our stead, or oti our account. In either way of rendering the sense here must be, that the death of Christ saved us from that which we as ajuapThyXoi deserved. 'A/uaprwAot means those who err in heart and life. (9) rioXX^J ovv .... airo ttiq opyiig, much more, then, being justified, i. e. acquitted, pardoned as to our past offences, by his blood, i. e. the sufferings and death of Christ, shall we be saved by him from [future] indignation. In other words : ' If Christ by his death has accomplished our reconciliation, while we were in a state of enmity ; a fortiori we may expect that the great work, thus begun and accomplished as to the most difficult part, will be completed.' That (u/uiTi avTov means the same thing as the death of Christ, i. e. 198 ROMANS V. 10, 11. that it here directly refers to the preceding airi^ave, does not admit of any reasonable doubt. (10) A repetition of the same general ideas, in which the senti- ment of the whole is compressed and rendered prominent. Tup eonfirmantis, in relation to the preceding assertion. Qavdrov k. t. X. here corresponds to rt^ alfxan avrov in the preceding verse. — 'Ev ry t^wy avrov, the antithesis of ^avarov avroii. Meaning: 'If we were reconciled to God, when enemies, by a dying Saviour ; a fortiori shall we, when thus reconciled, attain salvation through a living one ;' i. e. if Christ in his humble and suffering state reconciled us to God, much more in his exalted and glorified state {Iv rij ^wy avTov) will he complete the work thus begun ; comp, Rom. iv. 21 where is the same sentiment. 'Ev before ^wy is evidently used in a different sense from ^la before ^avarov. The scriptural view of reconciliation is, that the offending party becomes reconciled to the other. The verb KaraXaaau) properly means to change, exchange; and it is here employed to designate the change of the sinner's mind, who was "at enmity with God," to that state in which he comes to love and reverence him. (11) Ov fxovov §£, aXXa koL k. t. X, and not only [do we rejoice in afflictions, ver. 3, as tending to produce a hope of glory which the death of Christ has rendered sure and certain'], but we rejoice, kuv \wix£voi [4o-/x£v] in God, viz. as our God, our covenant God, our supreme and eternal joy ; comp. Rev. xxi. 3. Heb. viii. 10. Zcch. viii. 8. Jer. iv. 2; also John viii. 41, 54. Rom. ii. 17, which last passage shows the claims of the Jews in respect to their covenant relation with God. The apostle means to intimate in our text, that all which the Jews boasted of, is in reality secured to Christians. The use of Kavx^fi^voi here, instead of a proper verb as in ver. 3, is substantially Hebraistic ; for in Hebrew the changing of the construction from a verb to a participle, and vice versa, is very common. The verse before us is a summary or consummation of all the grounds of rejoicing ; for to rejoice in God as our God, expresses the consummation of all the Christian's happiness. In respect to form or mode of expression, it constitutes a diverse head ; and it is one which in fact is really diverse in this respect, viz., that it is more generic than the preceding declarations. The phrases in vers. 1, 3, and 11, viz. Kavywjxi'^a — ov fxovov Se aWa Koi — oi) fiovov St aXXa Kai — present the natural division of the apostle's discourse, and correspond to our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, in English. Some critics, however. ROMANS V. 12—19. 199 think that ver. 1 1 refers merely to the KaraXXayivTe^ trw^rjaojuES'a of the preceding verse, and construe tlius : ' But we are not only reconciled and saved, but also rejoice, &c.' So Reiche. The sense is good ; but the method above stated seems to me, on the whole, to be preferable. Tjjv KaTaXXayriv tXajdofxev receives its form from the expression in ver. 10, (carrjAXayrjjUtv k. t. X. The word means reconciliation ; and such is the sense in which our English translators here used the word atonement (quasi at-one-ment). CHAP. V. 12—19. That this is one of the most difficult passages in all the New Testament, will be con- ceded, I believe, by all sober and reflecting critics. I have bestowed repeated and long- continiied eflforts upon the study of it ; but not with results as satisfactory to my own mind as in some other cases. I do not speak of my efforts as affording even a presumptive proof that I have at last attained to a right understanding of the passage ; but only to show that I have felt, and in some measure, as I trust, rightly estimated, the difficulties attendant upon the nature of an undertaking to explain it, and have not neglected any efforts within my power to overcome them. The main design of the passage seems, indeed, to be plain. It lies, one may say, upon the very face of it. It is this, viz., to impress on our minds the certainty of salvation tlirough redeeming blood, and to exalt our views respecting the greatness of the blessings which Christ has procured for us, by a comparison of them with the evil consequences which ensued upon the fall of our first ancestor, and by showing that the blessings in ques- tion not only extend to the removal of those evils, but even far beyond this ; so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded but super abounded. These objects appear also to be united with the intention, to exhibit the extent to which the blessings in question cire actually diffused or proffered. The intelligent and discerning reader can hardly fail to perceive the general object, as thus stated. But the detail is attended with difficulties ; and these have been greatly augmented on account of the numerous theories formed by speculative minds, relative to the various topics on which the paragraph before us has been supposed to touch. A synopsis of what is particularly taught in vers. 12 — 19, may be comprised in the fol- lowing particulars ; viz. (a) Sin entered the world [commenced] by the offence of Adam ; and death, i. e. misery or loss of happiness, came in as the necessary result of it. In like manner death came upon all men, because that all have sinned, ver. 12. (6) It is indeed true, that all men have been subjected to death ; for that even those who did not live under the light of revelation, nor were made acquainted with any express com- mands of God, have been so, is proved from the fact, that all those who lived between Adam and Moses were sinners, and therefore lay under sentence of death, vers. 13, 14. (c) Adam, who was the occasion of introducing sin into the world, and of bringing sin and death upon all men, may be considered as a tvito^ of Christ, in respect to the influence which he has had on others ; (but not as to the kind of influence, or as to the degree of it, for here is a wide diversity); ver. 14, last clause. (d) That the kind and degree of influence which Adam had on all men is not like that which Christ has on them, or that Adam when regarded as a tvttoq of Christ is not to be 200 ROMANS V. 12. so regarded in these respects, is plain, (1) As to the kind ofbijiuence ; from the fact that Adam occasioned the condemnation of all men, but Christ delivers mankind from condem- nation, and bestows eternal happiness on them, ver. 15. (2) As to the degree of influ- ence ; because the condemnation of which Adam was the occasion has respect only to one offence, while the pardon which Christ procured extends to many offences, ver. 16. Hence (3) If death reigned over men because of we offence, much more shall they reign in life who through Christ receive pardon for many offences and a title to future blessedness, ver. 17. In other words ; if evils through o«e offence spread so wide, then 6/essijigs through the pardon of many offences more than counterbalance them. Having thus guarded his readers against extending the idea of tvttoq to points of which it cannot properly be predicated ; and having shown that the influence of Christ on the human race is exactly the ?ei!erse of that of Adam, in respect to its kind or vature, and also that it far surpasses it in degree ; the apostle now comes to the consideration of the real points of similitude between Adam and Christ, viz., the universality or extent of influence as exerted through the act of one, i. e. by what one individual has done. This lie states as follows. (e) As the consequences of Adam's sin were extended to all men, so the consequences of Christ's obedience [viz. unto death] are extended to all ; i. e. Jews and Gentiles may all come on an equal footing into the kingdom of Christ, or the blessings which the gospel proffers are in some respects actually bestowed on all men without exception, and in others made equally accessible to all men, and to all on tlie same terms or conditions ; vers. 18, 19. All this was accomplished respectively by the act of one individual. Such appear to be the principal contents of this contested and celebrated passage. The sequel 'will present many specific and particular illustrations, which cannot properly find a place in a general synopsis such as I have now endeavoured to give. It may be a matter of interest to the reader, to be made acquainted with son^ otiier summaries of the doctrine contained in the passage before us, by writers of distinction who differ in theological sentiment. Koppe : " That Jesus Christ alone is the author of that divine grace by which we return to God, and of that eternal happiness which is connected with it. — This sentiment the apostle does not so much establish in the way of acute argu- ment, as illustrate in a kind of popular way ; making use for this purpose of the example and similitude of Adam, who, in a certain sense, may be called and regarded as the sole author of sin, and of the punishments to be feared on account of sin : nor is any thing more to be sought for, in the whole passage, than a kind of slight similitude between Adam and Christ.'' This is making light work of tlie whole matter. IMe}er: "The apostle intends to show in a very lucid manner, that the beneficent consequences of redemption are much more widely extended than the mischief occasioned by Adam's offence;" Paul, Lehrbeg. p. 376. This seems to be correct, so far as goes. But thus much is only one of the objects designed. To show the certainty of salvation and exceed- ingly to magnify the riches of gospel-grace, is also designed. Barnes : *' Wide as the evil is which was brought upon the human race by Adam, equally wide is the blessing of sins forgiven through Christ ;" p. 376. This again is a part only of what the apostle has accomplished. Flatt : " [The object of the apostle is], to explain the manner of redemp- tion, and in particular so far to explain it as it has been accomplisiied by one, i. e. Jesus Christ." Altogether too limited a view. Rlickert in his recent commentary : [The apostle designs] " to comprise the whole doctrine of sin and redemption in one grand summary." Too general and indefinite. Tholuck's view the reader will find above, at the head of chap. v. It seems to be plain, that the particular object of the writer is developed in vers. 15 — 17 and 20, 21 ; and from these this object would appear mainly to be (as before stated), 'to impress our minds with the certainty of salvation which is by grace, and to magnify the riches of that grace which is bestowed through Jesus Christ.' This the writer ROMANS V. 12. 201 undertakes to accomplish by a comparison of the evils removed by Christ and the blessings bestowed, with the mischiefs occasioned by the fall of our first parents. I have no doubt, moreover, that inasmuch as all men have been injured by the fall, so it is a merciful and proper and benevolent aiTangement on the part of God, that the blessings procured by Christ should be bestowed on all, or at least proffered to all ; and in this way, the fact that he is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that salvation is and ought to be accessible to the former as well as to the latter — a truth for which Paul so often and earnestly contends (see iii. 29 — 31. iv. 1 — 25) — is more fully illustrated and more satis- factorily and triumphantly evinced. We have then, according to this view of the matter, three objects to be accomplished by vers. 12 — 21 ; viz., to display mid more fully evince the CERTAiNiY, the greatness, and the extensive nature of that salvation which Christ wrought. In this general statement Riickert agrees, in his recent Commentary. (12) AiciTovTo, wherefore, therefore. So it is usually translated, viz. as illative, and as sliowing- that what follows is a consequence or deduction from what has gone before. But in wliat sense can this be here asserted ? How are the sentiments in the sequel here deduced from that which precedes them ? This is a question that has greatly perplexed critics and commen- tators. Some have converted the words §.a tovto, into a mere formula of transition ; e. g. Schleusner makes them so here; and Wahl represents Sm rowro as having such a sense in Matt. xiii. 52. If this were admissible, these words might then be rendered, more- over, further. But such a meaning cannot be supported by reason- ing which is strictly philological. Schott understands Zia tovto, in his able Essay on Rom. v. 12 — 14 [Opusc. vol. i. p. 318. seq.) as indicating an occasion, in refer- ence to what had already been said, of making the remarks which follow. But Tholuck, Reiche, Glockler, and many others, represent ^la TOVTO here as illative; although none of them seem to me to have satisfactorily shewn hoiv the sequel is a deduction from what precedes. At least no writer with whom I am acquainted, seems to have done this, so as to render clear the point how these words are illative here in a logical sense. That ^m TOVTO is not always employed in an illative sense, as Reiche and others assert, will appear from a particular examination of Matt. xiii. 52. Mark xii. 24. Rom. xiii. 6 ; to which other doubt- ful passages might be added. On the whole, however, a minute and extensive review of this subject has brought me to the conviction, that Sta TOVTO here is employed in a kind of illative sense, although not in one which is strictly of logical illation. I do not now view it as hav- ing relation in particular to ver. 11, but to what precedes this, and par- ticularly to the great points brought to view and established from ciiap. 202 ROMANS V. 1'2. iii. 28 to ver. 1 1, viz., the extent, the greatness, and the certainty of salvation by Christ. These being shewn, the apostle now says, that he may conclude from them that what he is going to state is true and worthy of reception. What he does state we have seen to be these very points, with an illustration of them by a new and striking com- parison which he introduces. The comparison^ beyond all doubt, is not the maiti object of the writer; it merely subserves his main de- sign, viz., the confirmation and illustration of the great points already stated. The course of thought and the connection of it seem to me to be this : ' The extent, the greatness, the certainty of salvation, I have now exhibited to you; therefore (Sta rouro) it is worthy of all recep- tion, or therefore it is true, that, as by one man sin, &c.' Instead of repeating a simple deduction, the apostle makes out one accompanied by illustrations and remarks which serve very much to strengthen the impression that he intends to make. He who fully recognizes this last circumstance, will probably be relieved in his mind from the main part of the difficulty occasioned by the use of Sta rouro, in this connection. On any other ground than this, or what is substantially like to this, I do not see how the appropriateness of dia tovto can be made out. If we suppose that the i7iai?i point in vers. 12 — 21, is to exhibit the relation of Adam to us, or the influence of his offence upon us, then it is quite impossible to make out in reality and propriety an illative sense of dia tovto here. In what part of the epistle which precedes, has the apostle discussed the subject of Adam's offence or influence ? Surely in no part. It is men's ow7i personal sins which he has thus far represented as the cause of their guilt and danger before God. How then must his reasoning stand, on the ground which I am op- posing? Simply thus; 'All men have brought themselves under the curse of the law by their sins. God is the common father of Jews and Gentiles, and has the same designs of pardoning mercy towards both, and has promised to bestow it; the death of Christ has assured the promised salvation ; the riches of his grace are exceed- ingly great and wonderful ; therefore (S«a tovto) as Adam by one offence ruined all men, so Christ by his obedience has procured salvation for alV That this is a fair statement of the course of thought will not be denied by any ; and the last particular must be admitted by those whom I am now opposing. But how the lorjical illatioti is to be made out by them, if we subjoin the last particular ROMANS V. 12. 203 in its present shape is (after all that has often, and recently with great confidence been uttered in relation to this subject, as though it did not present the least difficulty), a problem that my powers of reasoning are not adequate to solve. We must change the shape, then, of the last member of this series of propositions, and say : ' therefore, i. e. because of the arguments produced and reasons already given to shew the extent, the great- ness, and the certainty of salvation by Christ — therefore it is true, that, &c. ; or therefore we must admit, that as Adam introduced sin and misery into the world in such a way that they became universal and certain and abounding, so Christ has become the author of sal- vation universal, certain, and- abounding, or great.' The main object of course is the latter one, and it is for the very purpose of heigh- tening the intensity of the picture given of this, that the antithesis and similitude of Adam's case is introduced. "Qiairep, as, of course introduces a comparison; locnrep standing before the protasis, which seems to extend through the verse. But where is the apodosis ? The form of the sentence completed would be : "ll(77rfp k. r. X. — ovrwc Kat k. t. A. But the latter appears to be here wanting. This is supplied however in diiferent ways, or is differently constructed, by diflferent critics. (a) Ala TOVTO [rrjv KaraWayriv iAaj3o^£v], loaTTsp St' Bvog k. r. X.; making lijainp k. t. X. itself an apodosis instead of a protasis. So Cocceius, Eisner, Koppe, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, and some others. {b) By inverting jcat ovtwq, and writing it ovtwq koI k. t. X. ; and so making the rest of the verse which follows, to be the apodosis of the sentence. So Le Clerc, Wolf, Romberg, and others. (c) Kat 8ta Tr\Q afxapriag k. r. X. is made the beginning of the apodosis by Erasmus and Beza ; which of course they must trans- late thus : so also by sin, &c. (d) Calvin, Gomer, Tholuck, Schmid, and some others, find the apodosis in ver. 14, viz. 6g earL tuttocVou filXXovrog. (e) Others find it concealed in ver. 15 ; and some make it out from the whole of the sequel after ver. 12. But all these methods come short of fully and definitely exhibiting the contrast here, which the apostle designs to make between the one man (Adam) who sinned, and,^Christ; which contrast appears fully and plainly in vers. 18, 19. With themajority of interpreters, therefore, I hesitate not to regard vers. 13 — 17 as substantially a 204 ROMANS V. 12. parenthesis (thrown in to illustrate a sentiment brought to view in the protasis, ver. 12) ; and I find a full apodosis only in vers. 18, 19, where the sentiment of ver. 12 is virtually resumed and repeated, and where the apodosis regularly follows, after an ovr oj kcii. (I admit, however, that og lari tvttoq tov fiiWovroc in ver. 14 conveys a general sentiment, which may make a kind of apodosis in the way of hint). In this manner, and only in this, can I find the real antithesis or comparison as fully made out, which the apostle designs to make. This method of writing, too, where the protasis is suspended for the sake of explanations thrown in, is altogether consonant with the usual method of the apostle Paul; comp. Rom. i. 3 — 7. ii. 6 — 16. Eph. ii. ] — 5. iii. 1 — 13. 1 Tim. i. 3, 4. Rom. Lx. 10, seq. Rom. ix. 22, seq. Rom. viii. 3. Heb. iv. G— 9. v. 6—10. v. 10. vii. 1. ix. 7—12. All that is necessary to be noted is, that the apodosis in vers. 18, 19, is given in language that takes its hue from the intermediate parenthesis of vers. 13 — 17. The simple apodosis independently of this would be ; ovT(x) Koi cia ivbg StKatocruvrj dg kogixov HGyjX^e, koL alg wavTag av^fiwTTovg StfjXS'f. At' ivog av^pMTTov, by one man, i. e. by Adam, as appears from ver. 14; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45. The apostle cannot design that this should be strictly construed ; for he himself has told us, that " Adam was not deceived ; but the woman, being deceived, wius in the transgression '' (1 Tim. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3), i. e. Eve first trans- gressed ; which moreover Paul assigns as a reason why she should not usurp authority and have precedence in the church. In the like way, the son of Sirach represents Eve as the first transgressor, XXV. 24. If now it was a principal object with the apostle here, to point out specifically and with exactness the Jirst author of trans- gression, how could he omit mentioning Eve? Or if his main design was, to point out a corrupt nature propagated by ordinary genera- tion, then why should he neglect to mention Eve along with Adam j for both parents surely were concerned in this ? In respect to these questions it may be remarked further, that either the apostle, in making mention of Adam, trusted that his readers would spontane- ously call to mind the primitive pair, the woman being compre- hended along with the man ; or that he designed merely to compar c the origin itself and extent of sin and misery (without particularizing the manner), with the origin and extent of the deliverance from them as wrought by Christ. In respect to the first of these sup - jiositions, the rule a potiori nomen fit seems to be applicable to the ROMANS V. 12. ■ 205 sentiment of it. Adam, as the constituted superior, who was first formed and made lord of the inferior creation : Adam, who by con- senting to the sin of his wife and participating in it made himself a full partaker of it ; is named here from the fact of his precedence. It seems probable, also, that he only is named, because it is the par- ticular design of the writer to make a comparison between the second Adam (Christ) and the first. The congruity of the representation and comparison would be marred, by naming more than one author of sin and misery. Nor can any importance be here attached to the fact itself, that two were concerned in the primitive transgression : for " they twain were one flesh;" they were one also in guilt, i. e. they were both partakers of the same criminality. The question is not concerning the exact manner in which the first transgression came to be committed, (for this is not here any object of investiga- tion with Paul) ; but the question is: What influence had the pri- mitive sin, in which Adam was the most conspicuous, responsible, and important actor, on the race of men, as to introducing and occa- sioning sin and misery? It may also be remarked, that had Adam refused to unite with his wife in her transgression, the consequences must inevitably have been altogether different from what they have now been. His act, then, completed the mischief which was begun by Eve ; and so the apostle names him here as the cause of all the evils which followed. This, however, does not prove that he considered Eve as less blame- worthy than Adam, or more inexcusable; for 1 Tim. ii. 14 is directly opposed to such a notion : but it results, I apprehend, merely from a desire of congruity in respect to the comparison which he is to make, i. e. the congruity of comparing one person with owe, one man (i. e. the first Adam) with one man (i. e. the second Adam). How would it strike readers, if Eve had been here substituted for Adam ? And this suggestion leads, at once, to a perception of what congruity demands in the case before us. As to §m in this phrase, it designates here, as often elsewhere, the causa principalis, not the mere secondary, instrumental, or occasional cause. In the Sept and N. Test., such a usage is beyond all doubt a frequent one, as any good lexicon will show. 'H afiaoTia, sin. The sin would mean, in English, something different from what the Greek here means, although the article is prefixed to the word. Whenever any thing is named which is generic in its nature hutunique or single in its kind, the Greeks usually 206 ROMANS V. 12. prefix the article to it; e. g. 6 (/xXoo-o^oc, /) aptrii, ii aXn^eia, to aya^ov, ?} SiKuioavvt], &c. In such cases 7) diKaioavvT} (for ex- ample) as an entire genus, is unique, i. e. it differs from all other qualities of moral beings; and so it has the article prefixed in order to denote this. But still, BiKaioavvt) may at another time be regard- ed by the mind as a genus comprehending several subordinate species, such as commutative justice, penal justice, integrity, &c. ; in which case the article would naturally be omitted. Agreeably to these principles, -q a/napTia here appears with the article, because it ap- pears in its simple generic nature, i. e. as single or monadic. That it is generic here, i. e. that it comprehends both sinful actions and affections, seems to be clear from the nature of the case, and from what follows. If Adam was created so as to be upright, and was purely holy until his fall, then sin commenced with his fall : sin of any kind; sin either in affection or action. That such a generic meaning must here be given to 17 afxapTia, is evident, from the simple fact, that Adam's desire of the forbidden fruit inordinately indulged, was a sin of the affections, and his actually eating it was a sin of external action. Bretschneider remarks (Dogmatik. II. 48, edit. 3), that the article IS used before cifxapTia in the verse before us, because it designates vitiositas, but not peccata actualia. But surely the sequel here will not justify his remark ; for the 17 cifxapria of Adam is called (ver. 14) his 7rapo/3a i. e. [in the one man] all liave sinned ?' Other translations of t^' (o have also been defended ; e. g. per eum (Grotius); propter quern (Eisner): secundum quern (Photius, CEcumenius, Bretsch.) ; cum quo (Cocceius); but it is enough to say of these, that if Paul had meant to express such a sense, we can hardly suppose that he would not hare employed gta, or avv, or fU" TO., or Kara^ instead of using l-n-i. Even post quern has been proposed as a version of e^' ^t i. e. after whom. But what would be the sense of Paul's saying, that Adam's posterity sinned after he did ? Did his readers need to be told this ? One other explanation deserves notice, inasmuch as it is patron- ized by Homberg, Venema, Schmid, Glockler, and some others, and has more the appearance of probability and of usus loqne?ifIi in its fa- vour. This is, f^' 10 UNTO ivhich, viz. unto which death or punish- ment; thus making i-rri to mark the end or consequence to which sin- ning came. In the classics we find vocruv l-jri ^avari^^ to he sick UNTO death (Aelian), and ^r](nu Ittl ^avaru)^ to hind unto death (Herod.), and other like phrases. But after all, a conclusive objec- tion against this interpretation is, that the dpostle has just said the very thing that this interpretation makes him to say over again, and said it more strongly. Besides, to understand the apostle here as saying that all have sinned unto death, would seem to imjily, that they might have sinned to a certain extent without incurring such a penalty. Different from this is the case where another apostle says, " there is a sin unto death ;" for he is there discussing the subject of an unpardonahle sin. Finally : to render £(^' ^i, on. account of which, for the sake of which, woidd be little short of nonsense : for how could the apostle say, that all men sinned for the sake of bringing death upon them- selves ? When Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and some other fathers, adopt the sense of in quo, this appears to be the result of their theology rather than of their philology. Augustine has given us the explanation of his views . " Fuerunt enim onmes ratione seminis in ROMANS V. 12. 213 lumbis Adam quando damnatus est : et ideo sine illis damnatus non est : quemadmodum fuerunt Israelitse in lumbis Abrahse, quando decimatus est," [Heb. VII. 9, 10]; contra Jul. Pelag. V. 12. And again : " In Adam omnes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura, ilia insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhuc omnes ille imus fuerunt" De pecc. Merit, et Rem. III. 7. The same unity with Adam has Pres. Edwards laboured to establish in Part IV. chap 3 of his work on Original Sin ; where he has argued, that the identity of one and the same individual is merely an eifect of " an arbitrary divine con- stitution ;" and that the unity of each individual of the human race with Adam their common ancestor may as well be asserted, as the unity of any individual with himself at different points of time ; unity in both cases being merely a matter of " sovereign and arbitrary appointment." The Schoolmen have speculated ad nauseam on this subject. YiavTzq ^/xapTov, all have sinned. But how ? In their own pro- per persons ? Or in Adam ? Or is it merely the meaning of rilif^^Q- Tov here, that all men are treated as sinners ? This last opinion Storr maintains; and he appeals to Gen. xliv. 32, 'n^^rn then I will hear the blame, i. e. I will be treated as a sinner, as he construes it. But the meaning is, ' I will consent to be regarded as a sinner by my father.' He also refers to Job ix. 29, sfy^ □«; which however does not support the appeal. Grotius al- so appeals to Gen. xxxi. 27 and Job vi. 21. (?) for the like purpose ; but without ground. And although, if an exigency of the passage demanded it, ijjuapTov might be rendered, are treated as sinners (comp. 1 K. i. 21, where, however, the meaning is, 'I and my son shall be sinners in the view of the reigning prince') ; yet no such exigency occurs here, as vers. 13, 14 show; for in these (which are plainly built upon the latter part of ver. 12), the writer labours to show that men are themselves actual sinners; as we shall see in the sequel. Besides, it is a good rule of interpretation, never to depart from the usual sense of words unless there is an imperious reason for it ; and usually afxapTavii) does not mean, to be treated as a sinner. It is surely a douhtfid case, whether it ever has this meaning. There remain, then, only the other two methods of construing ijjuaprov, which are adverted to in the first and second questions above. But the second method, viz. that all men have sinned in Adam, cannot be adopted here, because it is founded merely in the mode of expression, i. e. in the phrase e^' (,j. The reasons for rejecting 214 • ROMANS V. 12. this opinion have already been stated above. It can be admitted only in case of philological necessity, which does not occur here. There remains, therefore, only the first plain and simple method of in- terpretation, viz., all men have sinned in their own persons ; all men have themselves incurred the guilt of sin, and so subjected themselves to its penalty ; or at least, all men are themselves sinners, and so are liable to death. The word i\jxapTov which the apostle here employs, is not fairly susceptible of a different interpretation. It contains in itself an active sense throughout ; and must therefore imply sin in an active sense. Accordingly, the word ojuapravw has neither passive nor middle voice ; which is a striking evidence that the word is, from its very nature, susceptible of only an active sense. Besides, in the case before iis the Aorist is employed ; which, as Rlickert and Reiche have well observed, designates what was matter oifact^ not mere state or condition. The connection strongly impresses the same idea. The sin of Adam, mentioned in the first clause of the verse, was one of fact, deed, action, not of state or condition ; and the implication is, that the Travrsc have sinned as he did, although not against the same law or precept, ver. 14. Moreover, the assertion of imiversal sinful- ness has an evident reference to the apostle's previous declaration and conclusion, in iii. 19 — 23. All his proof in chaps, i. — iii. of uni- versal sin, consists in appeal to facts, i. e. to sins actually committed. I am aware that a different sense has been given to Travrec r)fiap- Tov here, by some of the most respectable commentators. They regard it as meaning that all have sinned in Adam, or at least, that through him they have become sinners; and they appeal to vers. 17 — 19 in support of this sentiment. And it must be confessed, that there is no more ground for objection to the sentiment which the expression thus construed would convey, than there is to the sentiment in vers. 17 — 19. It is not on this ground, that I hesitate to receive this interpretation. It is because there are philological difficulties involved in such an exegesis, which I see no way of satisfactorily re- moving. Vers. 13 and 14 seem plainly to recognize such sin as that of which men are personally and actually guilty ; yea, a sin different in some important respects from that of Adam's first transgression, .... IttX Tovg fii) ctfiaprijaavTag eirl ti^ ofiOLwfxciTi rfjc Trapa/Sti- (Tiwr 'A^afi. This is a sin moreover, on account of which " death reigned over them." But if this sin were the very sin of Adam im- puted to them, and not their own actual sin ; if it were merely his sin ROMANS V. 12. 215 propagated to them (as the usual sentiment respecting original sin is) ; then how could it be that death came upon them, although they had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression ? So far from this must it be, that Adam's sin is their very sin, and the very ground here alleged by the apostle why death reigns over them. This consideration, united with the principle that the ordinary meaning of ri/xapTov should be received, unless there is a solid rea- son for departing from it; and all this added to the consideration that vers. 13, 14 are clearly epexegetical of the latter part of ver. 12 ; seem to make it unavoidable that rravTeg rj/xaprov should be here construed, all have sinned in their own persons or actually/. I know, indeed, that such distinguished men as Calvin, Edwards, Flatt, Tholuck, and others, explain the phrase in question by refer- ring to ver. 19 ; and some of them allege as a ground of this, that the design of the apostle requires us so to understand iravTtg 7]fxapTov here, because he is evidently intent upon representing the evils which Adam occasioned. But because ver. 19 asserts an influence of Adam upon the sinfulness of men, it does not follow that the same sentiment must therefore be of course affirmed in ver. 12 ; certainly not that it should be directly asserted in the same manner. It appears quite probable, I readily concede, that Paul, in making the declarations contained in ver. 12, had in his own mind a view of the connection between the first offence of Adam and the sinfulness of his posterity. It seems to me quite probable, indeed, that koX ovrojg implies this; which (with Erasmus, Tholuck, and others) we might construe, et ita fac- tum est, i. e. and so it happened, or and thus it was brought about, viz., brought about that all men became sinners, and thus fell under sentence of death ; in other words, Adam's offence was the occasion of, or brought, sin and condemnation upon all men. I readily con- cede that there is no good reason to deny that Paul did entertain the idea, when he made the declarations in ver. 12, that the fact of ail men's becoming sinners and being subjected to the dominion of death, was connected with the first transgression of Adam (comp. vers. 17 — 19); yet that the apostle has asserted this sentiment explicitly and directly in ver. 12, cannot, I think, be made out from the language by any just rules of interpretation. Nay, for reasons already given, and yet to be stated, I cannot but regard the case as quite clear, that no more is here explicitly and directly asserted, than that all men are themselves actual sinners, and therefore come under condemnation. But in the preceding ufiafiTia dg tov Koafiov fto-fjXS'e, and in the kol ovTwg 216 ROMANS V. 12. .... gtJjXSrf, I think we may, without any forced construction, nay that we must, discover an indirect intimation of what is directly asserted in vers. 17—19, viz., that the first offence of Adam was con- nected with the sin and misery of his posterity, and in some sense or other causal of it. At the outset, then, Paul may have had this senti- ment in his mind; yet in ver. 12 he seems to intimate it only in the expressions just cited. Construed in this way, the sense of the verse would be as follows : ' By means of Adam's first offence sin and death invaded the world of mankind ; and having thus invaded it, they have been marching through it (St^X^c) and carrying on their conquests ever since ; all men have become sinners, all have come under con- demnation.' While the clause before us, then, asserts the fact that all have be- come sinners and have therefore come under condemnation, it may be regarded as intimating, by implication, that the whole of what has come upon men stands connected with the introduction by Adam of sin and death into the world. I cannot, therefore, agree with those commentators, who find in our verse no intimation of such a connec- tion of all men with Adam ; less still can I assent to those, who find in it no charge at all upon Adam's posterity of actual sin in propria persona. The objection made by Flatt against construing the clause before us as having respect to actual sin, seems to be destitute of any good ground of support. ' In this way,' says he, ' infants must be inclu- ded among actual sinners ; which is not true.' But how can any more difficulty arise from saying that all are sinners here, than from the apostle's saying the very same thing so often in the previous part of his epistle, e. g. iii. 9 — 18, 19, 23 ? Of course the writer of such declarations must be understood, (if he means to designate actual sin- ners in the passage just adverted to, as it is agreed that he does), to designate such as are capable of being so; just as when it is said: " He that believeth not shall be damned," we understand the Saviour to speak oi such as are capable of belief or unbelief. There is surely no more difficulty in the one case than in the other. That the apostle had his eye on the case of itfants, in particular, any where in this whole paragraph, may be justly regarded as doubtful ; particularly must we doubt this, when we bring Rom. ix. 11 into the account, which surely implies a state of infants quite different from that which the charge in Rom. v. 17 — 19 would imply, in case we suppose them to be purposely included in this charge. ROMANS V. 12. 217 In truth, I do not see on what ground the reasoning here can be supposed to embrace mfants and idiots, without assuming a principle that almost every one disclaims with a kind of horror in other cases of a like nature. Take the case above presented with several others ; viz., " He that believeth not, shall be damned ; Except ye repent, ye shall all perish ; Without faith it is impossible to please God ; He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him ; Make to yourselves a new heart, for why will you die." To these might be added almost an unlimited number of like cases. Now in what sense do infants and idiots ever understand and obey these and tlie like commands and principles ? This question, one might properly insist, should be answered by those who strongly assert that infants were designedly included by the apostle here. Are we not, on every rational ground of interpretation, just as much entitled to say, that the Saviour pur- posely consigns over to damnation all infants because they do not and cannot believe ? To believe what we do not understand, is out of the question ; and that infants and idiots should understand the gospel method of salvation, is equally so. By general consent, then, we omit to include infants and idiots in the threatening, " He that believeth not shall be damned." We suppose this is applicable to those only, who are physiologically and pyschologically capable of understanding and believing. Let us be consistent. When the apostle speaks of those who have sinned and come under the penalty of death, he must mean those who were capable of sin in the actual sense; i. e. he must mean so, if the word r\fxapTov characterizes such. And that it does, has, as it seems to me, been already shown above. But to suppose all this, does not involve the idea, that the apostle means to disclaim any participation by infants and idiots in any of the evils brought on Adam's posterity by his fall. By no means. It no more involves this, than the assertion, that " without faith it is impossible to please God," involves the idea that no infants or idiots can ever find favour in his sight. It is facts, it is the real state of things, it is these compared with the explicit declarations respecting infants that are made in the Scriptures, which are to be our guide in the formation of opinions relative to their condition. How can we with propriety elicit from the text of the apostle then, a decision respecting a case that he evidently had not in view ? Again ; should it be objected, that the parallel between the effects 218 ROMANS V. 12. of Adam's sin and the grace of Christ would lose its meaning, in case we suppose that men's own actual sins are designated in the passage before us ; my answer would be, that this is by no means the case, if Adam be regarded as the original cause of introducing sin into the world, and his offence as in some way the cause or occasion of all the offences that followed. Indeed this is the only ground on which a true parallelism can be maintained. Does the grace of Christ save any sinner who does not repent and believe ? Surely not. Then of course the grace of Christ is not the only thing requisite to the salva- tion of sinners. There must be some act of their owrii as well as the provisions which grace has made, in order that they should be saved. Turn now the tables and look at the counterpart. Must there not be something on the part of the sinner himself, as well as on the part of Adam, to complete his full and final destruction ? Must there not be a true and real TravTzg rifiaprov ? This argument, then, although so often and so strenuously urged, would seem to be a kind of Jelo de se. The very nature of the parallelism before us would seem to demand a different conclusion, and in some respects one opposite to that which is often drawn. Once more ; the evils occasioned by Adam surely are not, as many suppose, limited by the apostle, and by the nature of the case are not to be limited, to that part only of suffering which comes upon our race by reason of original sin (as it is called), whatever this sin may be. Verse 14 speaks of ' death as reigning over those tvho had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression ; and of course it speaks of a sin committed by Adam's posterity, different from that of Adam ; and ver. 16 speaks of the many offences which the free gift of Christ takes away or causes to be pardoned, in distinction from the one offence only of Adam's that is concerned with our sin and condemnation. It follows of course, and we are thus assured, that the apostle does not limit himself to the one offence of Adam and its consequences in the alleged way of imputation^ when he ex- hibits the contrast between Adam and Christ. Why should he do so ? If actual sin in any way proceeds from, is connected with, or is occasioned by, the sin of Adam ; then does it follow, that actual sin should enter into the contrast presented by the apostle, between the sin and misery occasioned by the first Adam, and the justifica- tion and happiness introduced by the second. On the whole, then, there seems to be no xvWA reason M'hy we may not construe ttuvtkj i]f.iapTov as I have done above. ROMANS V. 12. 219 Let us now return to the koI ovTMg, the interpretation of which was left unfinished. Does it mean: ^And in like manner with Adam did his posterity sin, and like him come under sentence of death ?' Or is this the meaning : ' As death followed sin in the case of Adam, so it did in the case of his posterity ?' Or does the apostle intend to say, ' Since Adam introduced sin and misery into the world, his sin has been imputed to all his posterity, and all of them have been sub- jected to death thereby?' Not the first; because ver. 14 tells us that death came on many of Adam's posterity, who had not sinned in the manner that he did, i. e. against a revealed and express law. Not the third; for the reasons already given above, reasons why we must accede to the idea, that iravrEg Tj^aprov here means actual sin in propria persona. Shall we conclude thenj that the meaning of Koi ovT(i)g must be substantially what is implied in the second of the above questions, viz., 'As sin entered the world, and death was inseparably connected with it, so death has passed through the world, and come upon all men, because it was inseparably connected with the sin which all men have committed ?' Even this statement does not appear to me to convey the whole truth. The whole verse seems to contain an intimation, as has already been stated above, that both the sins of men and their condemnation stand connected, in some way or other, with the first offence by Adam. Kat ovrw^ then must mean: 'And the matter being thus,' or 'circumstances being such,' viz., Adam having thus introduced sin and death, 'it passed on through all his race,' i. e. all have sinned, and all have come under condemnation in these circumstances. If we look at verses 18, 19, we shall surely find that the introduction of sin and death was con- sidered by Paul as having some important connection with the diffu- sion of them in after ages. Kai ourwc then may mean here, et hac conditioner et ita factum est, et rebus sic constitutis. CHAP. V. 13, 14. The apostle having thus declared that sin and death were introduced into the world by one man, and had become universal, in order to complete the comparison which he designs, and which is intimated by wcTTrep at the beginning of ver. 12, he would have naturally filled out the sentence by adding, at the end of this verse, ovtwq km Si ivbg dvSfpoiTrov V Zwfi tig Tov Koff/iov [tig navTag avSrpbJTvovg] tl(T7]\S/e, comp. vers. 17, 18. But he suspends his apcdosis here, for the sake of elucidating and confirming what he had already said. This confirmation is made by the verses now under consideration ; as the yap con- Jirmantis with which they are introduced, very clearly shews. What has he said? That 220 ROMANS V. 13. all have sinned, and tliat all are under sentence of dcatli. Mow is this elucidated and confirmed? Dy faking a case in respect to which one might be disposed to think that it would be difficult to prove that men are sinners, since the apostle himself had already explicitly declared it to be the law which occasions punishment : for where there is no law, there is no transgression, iv. 15. To meet this difficulty, which might easily arise, heavers that men were sinners (^aiiapria ijv iv Kofffitf)) before the giving of the Alosaic law ; although they are not themselves prone to acknowledge their guilt in such circumstances, or they make but little account of it. Yet it is a fact that they were sinners, and that death therefore prevailed over them all, even all who had not sinned against revealed law as Adam did. Such I take to be the covfirmation of what was asserted at the close of ver. 12. To explain and establish this exegesis, is of course the next object of attention. "AvjOt vo/uou, until the law; i. e. the law of Moses, as ver. 14< plainly leads us to construe it. Some commentators ((^rigen, Chry- sostom, Erasmus, Koppe, and others), construe axpi vo/xov not as designating the commencement of the Mosaic economy, but as extend' ino- through the whole period of it. In defence of such an interpre- tation, we are referred to a^pi i" Acts iii. 21, and its synonyme twg av in Acts. ii. 35. Gen. xxviii. 15, &c. That these words are some- times employed in such a manner as not to indicate a cessation of any thing that is, or is done, at the time which is mentioned in connection with a vpi or lEtjg, is true. In other words, the terminus ad quern does not limit the thing affirmed universally ; it only expresses a limit for a certain purpose. For example ; in Acts iii. 21 it is said, that " the heavens must receive Jesus a-)(pi ^povwv (nroKUTucTTuatojg TravTMv, until the restoration of all things ; by which is not meant, that he is no longer to dwell in heaven, but that he will certainly dwell tlierc until the time specified. In like manner (ixph it is said, may here admit the whole time of the Mosaic law to be included. But whatever may be true in regard to the possible meaning of a\gi in some cases, ver. 14 clearly shews that here it means only until the commencement of the laws of Moses, i. e. the time when these laws were given. ' But how can this be? Was sin in the world no longer than until that period ? Did it cease when the law was introduced ? This would be a direct contradiction of ver. 20, and of many other passages.' The answer is brief. It is no part of the apostle's object, to aver that sin did not exist after this period ; but to declare that it existed before it. What he had already said, once and again, necessarily involved the idea, that where law was there sin was. But he had also said, that " where there is no law, there is no transgression," iv. 15. Now some of his readers might suggest, and this not uiniaturally : ' Since you ROMANS V. 13. 221 say that where there is no la\A^, there is no transgression, how then were men sinners before the law was given ?' I allow that no intelli- o-ent and candid man could have good ground to put such a question, after all which the apostle had already said on this subject. But surely we are not to suppose, that Paul had to do only with men of this character. The objections answered throughout the epistle shew a state of things quite different from this. To the question as above suggested, then, I suppose the apostle to answer in our verse. ' Sin, ' says he, ' was in the world until the law of Moses, i. e. men were sinners between the time of Adam and Moses, for death reigned during all this period,' ver. 13. In other words ; it is not necessary that there should be a law expressly re- vealed, in order that men should be sinners ; for " the heathen who have no law, are a law unto themselves," ii. 14. That afxapTia here means something different from original sin, or imputed sin, seems to be clear from the reference which the apostle tacitly makes to a law of nature that had been transgressed. A re- vealed law there was not for men in general, antecedently to the time of Moses ; yet men were sinners. How ? By sinning against the law "written on their hearts," (ii. 15); and sinning in despite of the penalty of death, i. 32. But if such was their sin, it was actual sin, not merely imputed guilt. Very different views of afiaprta here, however, are entertained by some, who state the whole of the apostle's reasoning in the following manner ; viz. ' Men's own sins were not imputed to them on the ground of their transgressing any law, until the law of Moses was given ; yet they were counted sinners (ojuaprm nv Iv Koafxo?) ; conse- quently, it must have been by reason of Adam's sin being imputed to them, inasmuch as their own offences were not imputed.' Although this mode of exegesis is supported by names of high respectability, I cannot accede to it for the following reasons : 1. To aver that men's oimi sins were not imputed to them by God, (so they construe a/xapTia Se ouk kWoysiTai firj ovtoq vo/xov), is directly to contradict the whole tenor of the Old Testament history and declarations ; and also what Paul has, in the most explicit man- ner, asserted in the preceding part of his epistle. As evidence in favour of the first assertion I appeal to the case of Cain; of the ante- diluvians who perished in the flood ; of Sodom and Gomorrha ; and to all the declarations of divine displeasure made against the actual thoughts and deeds of the wicked, not against their original or imputed 222 • ROMANS V. 13. sin. In respect to the second, I appeal to the wliole of what Paul has said in Rom. i. 19—32. ii. 12, 14, 15. iii. 9, 19, 23, 25. All these charges are made against actual sins ; and it is impossible to suppose that the apostle means here to say, that those who are avofxoi (without revelation), are, or ever have been, counted by God as being without sin, actual sin; for both avofioi and tvvofxoi, according to Paul, are all under sin, under actual sin. To admit the contrary, would be to overturn the very foundation the apostle had taken so much pains to lay, in chapters i — iii, in order to make the conclusion entirely evident and unavoidable, that all men need gratuitous justification. 2. To aver that men's sins are not imputed to them, when they do not live under a revealed law, would be to contradict what the im- mediate context itself must be considered as asserting. Who are those that have not sinned after the manner of Adam ? The answer of those whom I am now opposing, is : ' They are those, who have only 07-iginal sin or imputed sin charged to their account.' But then I find great difficulty in this answer. By the supposition of many who make it, Adam's first sin does become really and truly that of all his posterity, inasmuch as it is propagated to them in the way of natural generation. Yea, Augustine, Pres. Edwards, and many others, maintain a real physical unity of Adam with all his posterity; and hence they derive to all his posterity a participation in his sin. But if his sin be theirs in any proper sense, i. e. be really theirs by such a unity as is asserted ; or even if it be theirs by mere imputation without this ; then how is it that the sin of the avo/jioi is (as Paul asserts) not like that of Adam? How can it be unlike it, when it is the very same ; either the very same in reality (as Augustine and his followers hold), or the very same putatively, as others sup- pose ? But, 3. There is another difficulty. How can the sins of Adam be here asserted to be imputed to all his posterity, and yet their own personal sins be not at all reckoned ? By the exegesis of those whose opinion I am now endeavouring to controvert, Paul is made to say, that God did not count to men their own personal and actual sins, i. e. to those who lived before the Mosaic law. By a parity of reason, then, the Gentiles at all times and every where, who are avofxoi, are freed from the imputation of their own transgressions; which would directly contradict the declarations of Paul. From this conclusion, however, Schott and Tholuck, who defend ROMANS V. 13. 223 for substance the exegesis wliicli I am calling in question, do in some measure revolt, and say to ouk tXXoytiro must be assigned only a comparative sense; tliat altliougli the guilt of men who sinned against the law of nature, was not taken away absolutely, yet their accountability for it was in a good measure superseded. To illustrate this, Tholuck refers us to avox^ in Rom. iii. 26, and to uTTEptSwv 6 ^eoQ in Acts xvii. 30. Both of these instances, however, relate to deferring punishment, not to a remission of accountability ; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9. Such a remission of punishment would directly con- tradict what Paul has fully and strongly asserted, in Rom. ii. 6 — 16. And to what purpose is it to say, that men who were avofioi^ were in a comparative sense not accountable to God for their own personal sins ? This can mean neither more nor less, than that they were accountable in some degree, although not as highly so as those who were iwofxoi. But accountability being admitted (how can it be denied after reading Rom ii. 6 — 16?), then the argument is marred which those whom I am opposing deduce from the verses in question. They make these verses to say, that ' the avofxoi are not accountable for their own sins ; but inasmuch as they are still treated as sinners, it must be because of imputed sin only.' But while we admit account- ability in some degree for the sins of the avofioc, it forecloses such an argument from the passage ; for it leaves it fully liable to the fol- lowing construction, viz., ' Although men were held less accountable and criminal, who lived before the Mosaic law, than those who lived under this law, yet that they were still sinners, and were regarded as such, is true; for all were subjected to death.' That they were sinners in their own person, or actual offenders in a way different from that of Adam, is clear from what is said in ver. 14 respecting them. How then can Adam's sin be here asserted to be theirs, and, by implica- tion, to be the only sin for which death came upon them ? In such an interpretation, moreover, as that which I am now con- sidering, a very different sense is given to eXXoyelTO from that which it will here consistently bear ; as we shall see in the sequel. Reiche states the argument thus : ' Positive punishment (like death) can be injflicted only for breach of positive law. Now no positive law threatening death, except in the case of Adam, was given before the Mosaic law. Therefore all men who died during this interval, must have died by reason of punishment threatened to Adam being extended to them.' And in consonance with this view he construes vers. 13, 14, in general ; although he seems to me far 224 ROMANS V. 13. from maintaining consistency. To this statement we may easily reply, and say (1) That the major proposition directly contradicts what the apostle has said in Rom. i. 32. ii. 14, 15. iii. 19. The apostle plainly makes no other difference between Jew and Gentile, than what is made by the respective degree of light which each enjoyed. The Jew is the more guilty, because he enjoyed better advantages and abused them. But all, both Jew and Gentile, he pronounces to be a^ioi ^avarov and vtto'^lkoi t(j) v£(^. How then can we assume that death is not threatened to any, except in consequence of a positive, i. e. a revealed law ? It is the very opposite of the apostle's argument and of his explicit and i-epeated declarations. In Rom. V. 14, moreover, Paul directly asserts that the penalty of death was incurred by those who had not sinned in the manner of Adam, i. e. against express and positive precept. But Reiche makes the apostle here to mean, that they suffered on account of Adam's trans- gression and not their own; although he had just before strongly contended that iravTzq rifxaprov must have an active sense, and mean that all had voluntarily and in fact sinned. (2) The minor propo- sition is equally untrue, in respect to its real and essential meaning; for of what importance is it, whether the law was positive or natural, so long as the declarations in Rom. i. 32. ii. 14, 15. iii. 19 and the like, remain ? How shall we admit positions which the apostle him- self expressly contradicts? (3) It follows, of course, that the con- clusion from such premises must be erroneous, viz., ' That all men from Adam to Moses, died merely because of the penalty threatened to Adam, and not by reason of their own sins.' The reader will ob- serve, that I do not here deny that in some sense the doctrine of this conclusion may be true; but only that in the sense alleged it cannot possibly be made out satisfactorily from such premises. Of course the exegesis of vers. 13, 14 by Reiche, which is made in general to conform to such views, must be very questionable. Reiche himself earnestly remonstrates against the sentiment of Tholuck here, viz., that ' death came upon men living between Adam and Moses, because of the vitiositas of which they partook, and which they derived from Adam.' He asks in the way of remonstrance : ' Where is there one word here which says that death was the con- sequence of a sin inherited from Adam, and how is this here shown?' But how much does he relieve the difficulty, by making death come upon all men without any other reason than that it docs come ? Ac- cording to him, Adam set it in motion, and it kept on, from the mo- ROMANS V. 13. 22'} mentum which he gave it, down to the time of Moses, irrespective of sin either original or actual ? After all, this very limitation of the period, vh.from Adam to Moses, lies hard against the usual modes of exegesis here, which re- present the apostle as labouring to show, not that men s'mned and therefore perished (as he had just asserted in ver. 12), but that they perished merely because of their relation to Adam, either in conse- quence of propagated vitiosity, or else without any specific assign- able reason, as Reiche avers. Why should the apostle stop within these narrow limits ? When the Mosaic Law was given, was it given to all men, or only to about three millions out of six or seven hun- dred millions of our race ? Even from that time down to the present moment, has not immeasurably the greater portion of the human race been destitute of any revelation ? How does their case differ, then, from that of those between Adam and Moses ? Not at all, so far as we can see. Why then should the apostle confine his asser- tion merely to those between Adam and Moses ? If his object be the general one supposed by the commentators in question, no good reason can be given for such a procedure. Indeed, such a method of illustration makes vers. 13, 14, inapposite, in case we allow that Travrfc vfrnprov means, that all men did of themselves sin. The yap at the beginning of ver. 14 shows, that what follows is designed to illustrate and confirm what had just been as- serted ; and this is not that all men die because of inherited vitiosity, but because all have sinned. How Reiche then could strenuously defend this latter sentiment, and yet interpret vers. 13, 14 as he has done, I am unable to see. It appears plainly to be in opposition to the laws of philology and the nature of the case. I must regard the apostle then as designing, in vers. 14, 15, to illus- trate and confirm the proposition that 'all men have sinned and per- ished,' by the introduction of a case that might be deemed doubtful by some of his readers, or be called in question. If he could show that no valid objection could be made to this, he of course might take it for granted that no objection would be made to the plainer parts of his position. And I regard him as referring to the period between Adam and Moses, because it presented an obvious and striking case adapted to his purpose. But if his object was to establish the propo- sition, that all men without revelation have died because of inherited corruption, or died merely because Adam introduced a fatal disease (as Reiche maintains), why sliould he make such a limitation ? Or p 226 ROMANS V, 13. rather, wc may well ask, why sliould he make any limitation at all ? We may well ask also: Whether, on the ground of the common theory, those who have a revelation do not partake of orifjinal sin as well as others ? Whether they do not stand in the same relation to Adam as others ? And if so, we may again inquire : What can be the object of Paul in limiting his remarks to those who lived between Adam and Moses ? It cannot be, then, that his design here is, to prove the connection between imputed sin and death, (as so many have as- sumed) ; for that connection is the same, if it exist at all, in all ages, nations, and circumstances ; and one portion of time would be just as apposite as another to establish it, inasmuch as the development is represented to be uniform and constant. There was no more reason, surely, for Paul's readers to doubt of imputed sin between Adam and Moses, than there was to doubt of it between Moses and Paul ; nay, in some respects there was less, inasmuch as tlie evils suffered during the former period were very great, and yet the actual sins were less, because there was less light. One might more naturally be inclined, then, in such a case to admit imputed sin, than in the case of men under the law. Yet, if the more usual exegesis be true, the apostle has selected the former period as the very one about which he ex- pected there would be the most doubt. Can this be so? The nature of the case would seem to decide in the negative. But suppose now the question to be, as I have stated, whether men can sin and perish without law, (a question very naturally raised after Paul's declaration in iv. 15) ; then the period which Paul has selected for his purpose, is altogether apposite and striking. For this very reason we may well suppose he chose it. On every side difficulties start up against the other view— ^difficulties philological and theologi- cal— difficulties arising from incongruity, ineptness, and contradic- tion of previously avowed sentiment and the nature of accoimtability. That the sinning of men had a connection with the offence of Adam, and that this was in some way the cause or occasion of their sinning, is what (as I have before stated) I do not doubt the apostle here admits. But as he has asserted in ver. 12 that death passed on alU BECAUSE ALi- SINNED, SO here he confirms what he has said; as the '^li^ plainly shows. If one asks, as Reiche does, why we should suppose the apostle liere to assert again what he had so often asserted before, viz., that all men are sinners, the answer is easy. The subject here comes up in a new light, viz., the connection between death and sin. It is ROMANS V. 13. 227 therefore a new and forcible addition to the arguments already em- ployed. That death is universal, cannot be denied ; at least this is certain in regard to the death of the body ; and that the apostle has this part of the penalty against sin here particularly in his eye, will hardly be doubted, because it is of so plain and palpable a nature that none can deny the truth of his allegation. Yet this does not oblige us to suppose, that other parts of the penalty are designedly excluded, because this plain and palpable part of it is here specifi- cally made prominent. By no means. If then death is universal, does it ijot follow that the cause of it, i. e. sin, is universal too ? Of course the argument relates to all who can and do sin, and thus come under the penalty in question. Thus both the guilt and misery of our race are here brought into the account, and placed in opposition to the grace and salvation of the gospel ; and thus the contrast designed to be made by the whole representation is greatly heightened. But put the case, that no proper sin of Adam's posterity is here in question, as Reiche maintains ; or that only imputed sin is in question ; then what follows ? Surely that Christ delivers us from no sin, or from only imputed sin and the death which that brings; but nothing further; at least nothing further can be here made out from the words of the apostle, on their ground of interpretation. Yet in ver. 16 Paul asserts, that our deliverance is from 7r o X X w v TrapaTTTWfiarujv ; which dis- proves entirely that mode of exegesis, which confines ufiapTia here to imputed sin or to mere vitiositas. I have only to add, that the supposition of men's own personal sins not being reckoned to them, while they are considered as perishing for ever by the mere imputation of another's sin, is a position so revolt- ing with respect to the justice, and goodness, and impartiality of the sovereign Judge, " who will render to every man according to his works" that it should not be made out from constructive evidence: it requires most ample and satisfactory evidence and argument to support it. The phrase a.\^i v6\xov afxapTia riv Iv KO(rjuf;>, appears on the whole, then, to be only an affirmation respecting a particular class of men (whom some might think it difficult to prove to be sinners), of something which in the preceding clause had been affirmed of all men, navTeg rifxapTov. I must consider it as illustrating and confirming this latter expression, by showing that even that class of men are sin- ners, whom one might be prone to exempt from such a charge ; and especially so, after what the apostle has just said in iv. 15. Any other p 2 228 ROMANS V. 13. mode of expounrUng this makes the 'yap irrelative and out of place, when it is once admitted that irumq I'niapTov affirms the proper sin of Adam's posterity. And to construe vers. 13, 1 !• as having relation only to imputed sin, comes virtually to the representation of Christ's death as a salvation only from imputed sin ; which would amount to a virtual contradiction of ver. 16. 'Afxapria St ... . vo/.tou> although sin is not made account of where there is no law ; an expression which has given occasion to great per- plexity and difficulty. This has arisen, however, in a great measure, from construing iXAoyarat as though it were connected with 3-£oc,as the agent by whom the counting or imputing is to be done. The dif- ficulties of such an interpretation have already been stated, in the con- siderations presented above. Bretschneider (Dogmatik. II. 49. edit. 3) seems to have suggested the true solution of the phraseology; " EXXoyetrat is not imputatur a Deo, but refertur ah hominibns ad peccata, i. e. hahetur, agnoscitur peccatum." The like views did Cal- vin and Luther entertain, relative to the expression. The former says, that [homines] sibi nihil imputarent in peccatum, nisi [lege] coacti . . . sine legis stimulis in socordiam se demergunt ; i. e. ' men do not count themselves as sinners, and are not alarmed for their guilt, unless the law first excites and quickens their consciences.' So Luther renders eXXoyurai by achten, to regard, to have respect to. To the like purpose Heumann, Camerarius, Photius (in CEcumenius), Schoettgen, Koppe. The words of Photius deserve to be recited. '• When [the apostle] says, £(^' t^ iruvTig rjjuaprov, lest some one should reply and ask : ' How then could men sin where there was no law ? For thou thyself hast said above, that where there is no law there is no transgression ; and if no transgression, then surely no sin. How then could death pass upon all men, because all have sinned?" Lest therefore some one might make such an objection, Paul antici- pates and solves the doubt, and says otl r^v koi irpo tov vofiov ; for sin was committed, and what is committed must have an existence." To which remarks of Photius, CEcumenius after citing them adds: " See the exactness of the apostle. That we might not think our- selves to be wronged because we die on account of another, he says, afxapTia rjv Iv KOffjuq^, although it was disregarded {d koI fxi) iXoyi- ^tro) ; therefore -we die not only because of Adam, but also because of sin." Tholuck says, that ' to construe iWoyeiTai in such a way, is doing violence to the word ;' but he acknowledges very frankly on a preceding page, that ' nothing can be objected to such an inter- ROMANS V. 13. 229 pretation as that of Pliotius on the score of language ; and that tlie thought itself is not foreign to the circle of Pauline ideas.' Surely when iXXojHTai is rendered (as by Bretschneider) habetur, imputa- tur [ut peccatum] ab hominibus, this is no more a departure from the meaning of eXXoydrai, than to render it imputatur a Deo. Whether S-foc or av3'4)W7rot is to be understood here, must be decided of course by the nature of the sentiment. And as to iWoyuTai, wliy should attributing to it the sense of regarding, accounting, esteeming, &c., be called strange? inasmuch as this word accords as to both sense and origin altogether with Xoyi^ofiai, which often occurs with such a meaning; e. g. Acts xix. 27. Rom. ii. 26. vi. 11. viii. 36. ix. 8. xiv. 14. 1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cor. x. 2. xi. 5, et ssepe. So atin, Gen. xxxi. 15. 1 Sam. i. 13. Job xli. 27 (19). The ellipses after iXAoyeTrat maybe supplied by elg afxapTiav or mq afxapria, both methods of construc- tion being common after \oyiZ,ofxai, as any one may see by consulting the above instances. That sXAoytw occurs (Philem. ver. 18) in the sense of impute, is no more a reason why it should have that particu- lar meaning in the verse before us, than it is that Aoyt^ojuat should always have the sense of impute, because, as we readily concede, it often means to impute ; but we know also, that oftener still it means to compute, to regard, to make account of. And even in Phil. ver. 18. the sense is altogether good when Me translate tovto fxoi iXXoYet, reckon that to me, or put that to my account ; which conveys exactly the idea intended, viz., that the writer would be responsible for the wrong done by Onesimus. " What views," exclaims Glockler in his recent Commentary, " must men have of God, in order to say that sin is not reckoned by him ? Can God regard it as a trifle, and unworthy of notice ? It is erroneous interpretation, which has led men to explain iWoyuraL in a way so contrary to its meaning here and to the nature of Christianity. It is men only who hold or can hold sin as not worthy to be made acount of." Indeed it must be conceded, that the explana- tion which he rejects contains something very opposite to the tenor of Paul's reasoning in Rom. i. — iii. That the sentiment derived from such an exegesis as that whicli 1 have adopted, is not foreign to the writings of Paul, is quite clear from comparing Rom. vii. 7 — 11 and iii. 20. In the former of these passages, the law is represented as greatly exciting and aggravating the unholy desires of the carnal heart by its restraints and disclo- sures ; so that "without the law sin is dead," i. e. it is little estjma- 230 ROMANS V. 13. ted and felt. In the latter, Paul declares that " by the law is the knowledge of sin." How well this accords with ufiapTia St oi»k tX- Xoytirai jui) ovrog vofiov, needs hardly to be suggested. I admit that a modified sense of the expression is to be regarded as the true one, viz., that it is not to be considered so absolute as to convey the idea that no sense of sin existed among the heathen in any measure ; for this would contradict fact, and contradict what Paul says in chap. ii. 14, 15. But then the modification is of just the same nature as is to be received in respect to Kom. vii. 7—11, iii. 30, and also of John xv. 22 — 24, where the Saviour says, that if he had not come and spoken to the Jews, " they would not have had sin." But the sense of iWoyuTo, as maintained by Tholuck and others, i. e. a modified sense in respect to the account which God makes of sin, does not answer the purpose at all for which it is intended by them. If God made any account of men's own sins before the law, then im- puted sin is not the only thing for which men die. Of course the argument that they labour to establish, is given up. The assertion considered as absolute, viz., that God made no account at all of men's own sins, who were not under the law, is contradicted by all the preceding part of the epistle. Pres. Edwards has given the verse before us a peculiar turn: " For before the law of Moses was given, mankind were all looked upon by the great Judge as sinners, by corruption, and guilt derived from Adam's violation of the original law of works ; Mdiich shows that the original universal rule of righteousness is not the law of Moses; for if so, there would have been no sin imputed before that was given, because sin is not imputed where there is no law," { 07'ig. Sin, p. 275, Worces. edit.). He supposes that the main design of the apostle is here to show, that the Jews could not claim their law as the only criterion of right and wrong; and in order to do this, Paul shows that men were condemned on account of imputed sin, before the giving of the law. But besides the forced construction which this introduces, it also obliges us to bring in here a subject of consi- deration that the apostle seems for the present to have dismissed from his mind, viz., the confident reliance of the Jews on their law and their boasting of it. In order to make out the interpretation of Ed- wards, it must be shown that the apostle here asserts the existence of another law antecedent to that of Moses, to which men were account- able. This he had done in chap. ii. 11, 15; but here it is not to his purpose to repeat it. He says merely, that men were sinners ROMANS V. 14. 231 antecedently to the law of Moses, although in a state of nature they made but little account of sin ; they were sinners, notwithstanding they made light of it ; and they incurred the sentence of death, although they had not, like Adam, sinned against a revealed and express law. Now this goes to confirm the assertion in ver. 12, viz. iravTEg rjuxapTov ; inasmuch as it serves to show that a part of mankind were actually under sentence of death, about whom doubts might most easily arise. And as it seems to be spoken for this very purpose, so we may acquiesce in such an interpretation of the language as shows that it is directly subservient to the purposes of the writer. ( 14) 'A AX' ej3a(riA£u• e. this point of dissimilitude ? A point surely of not less magnitude, interest, or importance, than any one which he has mentioned. So far is he, however, from pointing out such a prominent feature of dissimilitude, that he has taken a course directly the reverse of this, as it would seem ; such an one, at any rate, as could scarcely fail to mislead more or less of his readers, provided his design be in reality that which is alleged. Does he name the mass of men who are injuriously affected by the sin of Adam, ol ttoWoi in ver. 15? In the very same verse he calls those on whom Christ bestows favours, Tovg TroWovg. Does he again call the first class (in ver. 18) iruvrtc dv^pojTroi? In the same verse he names the second class ttcwteq o)'3-jj(07roi. Does he again call the first class ol ttoWoi, in ver. 19 ? The very same designation he there again applies to the second. No common prin- ciple of philology, then, can of itself justify us in making an immeasurable distinction here as to 7iumbers, while the apostle, (whose specific object here is to point out the i- ©• fl ^vog [TrapaTTTWjuaTOc] ; for the antithesis, y^apKTfxa Ik tt o A X w v TrapaTrrwjUoTwv, shows very clearly that TrapaTTTw/xaroc is to be supplied after tvog. Flatt observes that the mention of owe offence, viz. the Jirst one of Adam, does not exclude the idea that his other and subsequent offences might have contributed to the evils of his posterity, as well as, this ; " much less," he adds, " can we conclude that this one sin was the d7ily cause of corruption." But I cannot accede to this sentiment in the shape in which it is here presented. It is clear throughout this passage (vers. 12 — 19), that TO TrapoTTTWjua, 17 Trapa(5a(Tig, i) TrapoKo?';, all have a specific relation to Adam's^rs^ sin. Equally clear is it, that 1 Tim. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, favour this opinion. And in the verse before us, l^ iv4g [^irapawTMfxaTog'] is plainly and directly opposed to TT o X X w V 7rapa7iTU)fxaT(i)v. But how could this be, un- less Paul considered the^Vs^ offence of Adam, and (I may say) this only, as having occasioned the evils which he here contrasts with the blessings bestowed by Christ ? It must be granted, indeed, that this was a peculiar dispensation of the Most High, one which displayed his sovereignty in a special manner. But so was the dispensation of grace. It was the one act of obedience utiio death, by which Christ procured justification {^iKaiw/na) for us. All the obedience of his life did, no doubt, contribute to the perfection of his character, and thus fitted him to become an acceptable propitiatory sacrifice ; but his obedience unto the death of the cross, was the grand act by which ROJMANS V. 16. 245 our salvation was ensured ; eomp. Phil. ii. 8. Matt. xxvi. 39, 42. John X. 18. Heb. X. 7 — 10. In this respect, therefore, the obedietice of the second Adam may be compared with the disobedience of the first ; and so, indeed, does the apostle make the comparison in ver. 19. To fiev yap Kpifia k. t. A. The word Kpi/xa, as here employed, probably has reference to the formal threatening recorded in Gen. ii. IT, in accordance with which sentence was passed upon Adam. This sentence was llyivsTo] slg Karaicpijua of ' his posterity, all of whom were subjected to evil, i. e. to death, on his account. Kpijua then has reference to /mn, and KaTaKpifxa to his posterity, as they are here employed. The words are often synonymous ; and are substan- tially so here ; but the two forms are used for the sake of variety and making distinction. XapKTjua is here the opposite of Kpi/xa or KaraKpifia, i. e. forgive^ ness or the bestowment of favours on the one side, and condemnation or infliction of evil on the other. The preposition In is not strictly accommodated to the connection with ■y;apL? to 7rap(nrT0)fjia ovtwq to yit^iaiui of ver. 15, or with the equivalent expression at the commencement of ver. 16. The latter is preferable for its facility. The general idea that runs through the three verses is, the abounding of grace over sin. Verse 15 declares that we may naturally expect this, viz., from the well known character of God (for such seems to be the writer's view) ; ver. 16 shows that it must be so, because many sins are forgiven by grace, while one sin comes into the account as the cause of the evils in question. Ver. 17 then repeats the main idea in language more strong and specific than had before been used. The yop seems there- fore to be referrible to an ovtmq lari, or something of the like nature here in the apostle's mind, in reference to the greatness and the cer- tainty of the salvation bestowed through Christ, which he has so strongly insisted on in vers. 1 — 11 of the present chapter. As if he would say, ' Salvation is sure and certain ; our hope will not make us ashamed or disappoint us (ver. 5) ; we may rejoice confidently in God as our covenant God (ver. 11) ; for, because, (yap), it is certain that if sin has done great mischief in bringing all into a state of condem- nation, grace will do much more good as dispensed through Jesus Christ.' Or if the reader is not satisfied with the causal relation as thus indicated, because he may deem it too remote, we may state it thus ; ' The dissimilarities between the nature and operations of the sin of Adam and the beneficence of Christ} are not only great in some important respects, but they are such as lead us- to believe with the greater certainty that salvation is secure. This is so; for if by the offence of one, &c.' The attentive reader will not fail to observe, that the conclusion drawn in this verse, (for such it is when considered in a logical point of view), is apparently drawn in part from premises indirectly as- serted or implied, and in part from the nature of the case, which the writer might presume would be understood and assented to by all his readers. What is indirectly asserted, is, that there is tt £ p t o- a- 1 1 a Tr]g -^^apiTog koX ttiq Swpfac Trjg diKaioavvr]g. The consequence of this is, the bestowment of life in Christ. Then, moreover, the idea that is brought to view in ver. 15, viz., that we may well expect from tlie nature of the case and the character of God, that the effects of the beneficence of Christ will predominate over the effects of Adam's sin, seems to be here conjoined with the sentiment assumed respect- ing the abundance of grace. The 17th verse, then, is properly an enthymeme, i. e. a syllogism whose form is not fully made out. ROMANS V. 17. 249 Am Tov ivoQ may be regarded as emphatic. The apostle had already said, rt{J tov kvog Trapa-rrrwiJLaTi ; and when he says again, ej3o(TtX£W(7£ ^la TOV kvog, he renders emphatic two things, viz., the predominance of death, and the fact that this predominance was occasioned by one individual, viz. Adam. DoXXf^ . . . Xpi(TTov. It seems evident to me, that ttoXXw juaXXov here should be referred to the greater credibility that the happiness of the pardoned will be secure, and not that it should be taken (as Suskind, Flatt, and Tholuck maintain) as qualifying (iacnXivaovcfi. In ver. 15 the same words may qualify lirepiacrtvaei and so they are construed by some ; and here they may be construed with (iamXev- aovat ; but in both cases, the most simple and obvious method is to construe them as referring to the gi'eater credibility of super- abounding grace. They stand too far from the respective verbs, to be naturcdly joined with them. In respect to the phrases r/jv Tngiaadav r^q yJiQiToq and Ty]q Sco- guiq Trjc diKaioavvr^Q, see remarks on ver. 15. I would merely add here, that if we construe the first as pertaining to those blessings of the gospel which are bestowed on all men without exception and without distinction, and the second as designating the peculiar bless- ings bestowed on the penitent and believing, then both conjoined would here indicate, that they who reign in life must be partakers of both ; in which case their salvation must be altogether certain. Of those who think that there is no ground for any distinction of mean- ing between the two phrases, some adopt the exegesis here which represents Christ as the author of blessings only to the elect, and some that which makes actual redemption co-extensive with the human race. But how can the first method of exegesis be correct, when the laws of philology and interpretation here will not warrant it, and when indeed fact itself contradicts it ? And how can the second be true, which contradicts the context and innumerable declarations in various parts of the Scriptures ? Yet, on another ground, viz. that a simple and essential principle merely of the gospel dispensation is here stated, both of the expressions here employed may be regarded as equivalent, without any serious difficulty ; for then the declaration is, that ' the gospel, taken as a system of grace in opposition to the evils of sin, froffers blessings far more abundant than the evils which the sin of Adam has introduced. It pioffers abundant pardon and eterncd glory.' And in this case, the reigning in life woidd seem to indicate a higher measure of happiness than men would have attained. 250 ROMANS V. 17. held tliey continued obedient under a system of mere law. Respect- ing this we can only say : ' O the depth of the riches of gospel-grace .' With men this may be unexpected and even improbable ; but — ' God will be greatly glorified in his Son.' While I am fully persuaded, however, that the principal design of the apostle in the whole passage, is to state the nature and tendencies of the two different dispensations under Adam and Christ, yet this last method of interpreting his language does not oblige us to maintain, that the two expressions above quoted, and employed in vers. 15, 17, were designed to be mere parallelisms or synonymes. Still I would concede, that we may regard them so, and construe them in accord- ance with such a view, without doing any violence to the laws of interpretation. Tholuck refers ^LKaioavvr] here to internal sanctification, or to the life of God in the soul of man, i. e. subjective holiness. But it seems to me quite clear, that diKaiocrvvri conveys the same meaning here as EiKaiw^ivreg in vers. 1, 9. Certainly this makes the antithesis to the state of condemnation, designated by 6 ^avarog ilia(Ti\EV(T£ in the preceding clause. As to ^aaiXivaovcTL Iv t^uyy, it is well known that Zwri is the com- mon word to indicate happiness, and therefore it needs not to be here proved. That to reign means to be exalted to an elevated and glori- ous condition, the reader may see by comparing Rev. ii. 26, 27. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. 1 Cor. vi. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. Rev. XX. 4. Dan. vii. 22. Ps. xlix. 14. Ex. xix. 6, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9. CHAP. V. 18, 19. We have already seen, that ver. 12 contains a protasis without a corresponding a/zorfofw. We have also seen, that og ttrn rviroq tov n'tWovroQ (ver. 14) may be regarded as com- prising in the way of hint, but not formally, a kind of apodosis. No sooner was Tinrog TOV fuWovTog uttered by the apostle, than his mind was turned to the comparison thus proposed to the mind by the use of these words, and he proceeds to guard his readers against misconstruing tvttoq, by carrying too far the resemblance which it indicates. Accordingly he does this, as we have seen, in vers. 15 — 17, which exhibits the epanorthosis (^iTravopSrcoaig) in question ; for so grammarians call that form of speech which is designed to guard against mistakes. This being completed, he now proceeds fully to exhibit his apadosis or main conclusion, in vers. 18, 19. But the reader should not consider these verses as a simple resumption of the subject as left unfinished in ver. 12 ; for it is evident that the manner of expression in them is built upon what is said or declared in the inter- mediate verses. This will be made evident in the explanation of the phraseology. ROMANS V. 18. 25] (18) "Apa ovv .... KaTaKpifxa, wherefore, as by the offence of one [sentence came] upon all men unto condemnation. "Apa and apa ovv are commonly illative, according to New Testament usage ; e. g. Matt. vii. 20. Gal. iv. 31. Rom. vii. 3, 25. viii. 12. ix. 16, 18. xiv. 12, 19, et alibi. Nor does this make any serious difficulty here. The apos- tle had already averred, that Adam was rvirog tov jmeXXovroQ. He had already shown, that the mischiefs resulting to our race from the fall of Adam, were more than repaired by the grace of Christ. "Apa ovv, then, would by no means be inapposite. It is as much as to say : ' Matters being as I have already declared, it follows or results from them, that the comparison begun in ver. 12 will hold, viz., that as all have been introduced to sin and death by Adam, so righteousness and life are provided for all by Christ.' While apa ovv may be ad- mitted then (as Tholuck urges), to be illative, this does not hinder these words from standing at the head of a sentence which is in sub- stance a resumption of what had been said in ver. 12, although the form of it is illative in respect to what had been said in the intermediate verses. That Sl' tvog TrapaTTTMnaTog means by the offence of one [man'], has been strenuously argued by some, from the antithesis Si hog St- KaiwfxaTOQ', which naturally (as they aver) cannot mean any thing but the righteousness of one (not one righteousness). This seems, at first view, to be conclusive; yet the idiom of the whole passage makes strongly against it. When Paul wishes to make such a distinction, he says rw tov kvog TrapaTrraJjuart, using the Dative of TrapairrMfia and the Genitive of tig with the article tov before it; see ver. 15, and the same again in ver. 17. In ver. 16, where he employs ivog without the article, he uses a participle (a/xapr7j(7«vroe) with it, in order to prevent mistake ; while in the antithetic part, he employs av^pwirov (ver. 15), and I. X|Ot<7rou (ver. 17), so as effectually to guard against any misconception of his meaning by the reader. But in ver. 18 neither of these methods of designation is employed. I see not, therefore, how we can well avoid the conclusion, that Si tvog ira- pawTMfxaTog means bp one offence ; and so, that Si kvog SiKaiujfxaTog must mean by one righteousness. If the latter expression appears somewhat imusual or strange, the reader should call to mind, that Paul's frequent antithesis occasions, in not a few instances, unusual expressions to be employed, which carry out a kind of paronomasia, and render the diction on the whole the more striking. All difficulty about SiKaiwfxa here, however, is removed by ver. 19, where vTra- 252 ROMANS V. 18. Ko// is employed in its stead. Both the Stjcatw/ua and the vwaKoi) refer, no doubt, more specifically to his j^reat act of " obedience unto death," on account of which God highly exalted the Saviour and gave him the fruits of his obedience, viz., sinners justified and accepted. AiKciiwfxa, here taken as the antithesis of 7ra(>H7rrwjua, must mean the obedient fulfilling of what was required of Christ as our substitute. That Kpt/xa is implied after TraQaTTTwfxaToq^ is suggested by Cal- vin, and is clear from the manifestly elliptical condition of the sen- tence as it now stands, as well as from a comparison of it with the middle clause in ver. 16. Etc TTavrac av^QMTTovg is twice employed in this verse, instead of the oi TToXXoi used in the preceding verse and in ver. 1 9. The reason of this seems to be, that the kvog here employed does not designate one man, but one offence, one righteoimiess or act of obedience. If ivog here meant one man, then ol iroWoi must have been employed as the natural antithesis of it ; for iravrag would include that one, and TToXXot would not. It should be noted also, that if the apostle had designed here to designate only the elect by iruvTag av^ptoirovg in the second case, he could hardly have avoided subjoining to irav- rag some other word than av^puy-rrovg, which is the very word he had already employed in the antithetic member of the sentence, and which the reader would naturally and indeed spontaneously under- stand in the same way in both cases. Where else in all the Bible is iravTzg av^pwiroi employed as the designation of the elect only? How can we feel ourselves at liberty here, then, to construe it in a manner contrary to the plain and obvious sense of the words as usually employed, and contrary to the very nature and object of the antithesis in this case ? So Calvin, strenuous as he was in his views respecting original sin, did not construe this passage. Let us hear him : " Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa, : nam etsi passus est Christus PRO PECCATIS TOTIUS MUNDI, atqUC OMNIBUS INDIFF ERENTER Del henignitate offeratur ; non tamen omnes apprehendunt." So do such men speak, when they look away from system and have thoroughly studied the Scriptures, as Calvin had done when he wrote this. In his early work entitled Institidiones, he has sometimes exhibited sen- timents which appear to differ from these. I only add, that no words can more exactly express what I suppose the apostle to mean, than those of Calvin ; for it is manifest, that he here considers the object ROMANS V. 19. 253 of Paul to be a statement of what the gospel-plan of salvation is, con- sidered as it is in its own proper nature, and not as giving the simple history of what has actually taken place in all respects. On the one hand is a state of imminent exposure to everlasting death, together with many other actual evils ; on the other hand is free access for all • to everlasting life, with the bestowment of many actual blessings. Could Calvin, if he were consistent with himself, view the subject in any other light than this? Does matter of/ac^ justify us in extending it beyond this, if the parallel of the two cases is to be made out? OvTw Ktti . . . . Kmg, so [the free gift came] upon all me7i unto jus- tification of life. That yuQiajxa is here to be supplied, is manifest from the nature of the case, from the elliptical state of the phrase, and from a comparison with the latter clause of ver. 16. Ourw Kai is the sign of the apodosis, which stands in antithesis both to ver. 12, and to the first clause in the present verse, which is in substance a resumption or repetition of that verse. AiKai(jt)(Tiv Z,h)r\q, justification of life, means that justification which is connected with eternal life or happiness. So Calvin ; and so the nature of the case requires. It is plain that SiKaiMjua in ver. J 6, SiKai- ocTvvr) in ver. 17, and diKaiojcng here, are all used substantially in the same sense ; as indeed they all may be, consistently with the prac- tice of the New Testament writers. These different words seem to be chosen by the writer, for the sake of avoiding uniformity of diction. On the other hand, the one StKaiwjita ascribed to Christ in the pre- ceding phrase, must mean either his " obedience unto death," or his incarnation as preparatory and essential to this ; comp. Heb. x. 5 10. ( 19) Most interpreters have considered this verse to be little, if any thing, more than a repetition of ver. 18. So Theophylact, CEcu- menius, Semler, and even Tholuck and Rlickert. Rosenmliller, in a manner characteristic of the superficial views which he frequently exhibits respecting the logical connection of discourse and the special structure of it, says : Hie eadem fere quanta vice [Paulus] dicit. Still, the yap at the beginning of the verse shows, that the writer meant to assign some reason or ground for what he had just asserted in the preceding verse, either in the way of explanation or confirmation. Verse 18 asserts fully, having both a protasis and an apodosis, what ver. 12 begins to assert but leaves unfinished, viz., that as by the offence of Adam all men were brought into a state of con- demnation, so by the ^iKaiwfia of Christ all were brought into a state 254 ROiMANS V. 19. of justification. In ver. 18, then, the simple fact that men are brought into such a state is declared, but nothing is directly said in this verse which accounts or assigns a specific reason for such consequences. In ver. 19 therefore, the apostle adds the ground or reason why all men have come into a state of condemnation and of justification, viz., it is because they have become sinners through the disobedience of Adam on the one hand, and righteous through the obedience of Christ on the other ; i. e. the disobedience of Adam was a cause or ground why all men became sinners and therefore came into a state of condemnation, and the obedience of Christ is in like manner a cause or ground why all are come into a state of justification. It seems to have been generally overlooked here, that the course of thought in vers. 18, 19 is substantially the same as that in ver, 12, with the exception that what is there merely hinted, is here fully and ex- plicitly declared. There the sentiment is, that by the offence of one man sin entered the world and death followed, and followed so as to extend itself over all the human family, inasmuch as all became sin- ners, £0' (5 TTavTiQ i\fiapTov. There too, as we have seen above, the Kol ovTojQ intimates, that the entrance of sin and death into the world being brought about by the offence of Adam, the spread also of these was in some way connected with or occasioned by this offence. But in vers. 18, 19, these thoughts are fully and explicitly un- folded ; for ver. 18 declares explicitly that condemnation and justifica- tion are connected with or occasioned by the offence of Adam and the righteousness of Christ, and ver. 19 shows that the ground or rea- son of this is, that on the one hand men are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, and on the other are made righteous through the obedience of Christ. The second part or apodosis in each of these verses is merely implied in ver. 12, and not at all expressed ; but afxapTwXol KaTsara^riarav oi iroXXoi of ver. 19, is evidently intended by the apostle to correspond with the £0' lo TravTeg i\ixapTov in ver. 12. What is added in ver. 19 to the former statement is, that "% the disobedience of one man, the many became sinners ;" a thing not explicitly declared but merely hinted in the kol ovtwq of ver. 12. It is allowed by nearly all commentators, that vers. 18, 19 resume and complete the statement begun at ver. 12. If then, as seems to be quite clear, i(f (^ Travre^ Tjjuaprov in ver. 12 and afxaprioXoi jcarfcrra- ^naav OL TToXXoi in ver. 19 correspond, it is plain that in the latter case actual sinners are denoted as well as actual sin in the former case. The fact, that Adam's sin was a cause or sfround of men's becoming ROMANS V. 19. 255 sinners in reality (not putatively so), and that Christ's obedience was a ground of men's becoming righteous, i. e. of their being justified in reality (not merely in a putative or fictitious manner), constitutes the substance of the declaration in ver. 19 ; and all this is a fuller and more explicit declaration of the sentiment implied in ver. 12, while at the same time it stands related to ver. 18 as assigning a ground or reason of the condemnation and justification there asserted. That TrapaKorj here is the same as 7rapa)3aj used in 2 Cor. iv. 15. In this way the sense will be : ' The law came in order that sin might be abundantly exhibited, or that a full display of sin might be made; according with Rom. vii. 13, comp. vii. 5 — 12. iii. 12. In this way it is construed by Tholuck, Flatt, and others ; and it scarcely needs to be said, that the end or design of the law itself was not the inci'ease of sin, but the restraint of it. My objection, however, to the explanation of these interpreters is, that ver. 21 evidently demands a sense of irXtovaar] different from that which they give. If we say : ' The law entered in order that the odious nature of sin miafht be more fully and plainly exposed and known ;' then what shall we make of ver. 21 ? It must be this : ' Where sin was more fully dis- played, grace superabounded,' viz., above the display. But clearly the apostle does not mean to say this, (for what can be the meaning of such a declaration ?) but that where sin actually abounded, there grace actually super cd)Ounded. We must return then to the ecbatic use of "va here, which Chry- sostom has proposed. The meaning of the verse may be thus given ; ' The Mosaic law which was introduced, instead of diminishing the guilt and sins of men, served only to increase them ; for although in itself holy, and just, and good, yet being abused and resisted by the evil passions of men, it was made the occasion of increasing their guilt, because the light which it shed on them, both aggravated their offences and rendered them more conspicuous.' Chap. vii. 5 — 13, as before suggested, is a full and satisfactory comment on these senti- ments. Thus understood, it is easy to see that the apostle has a deep design in saying what he does, viz., it was his purpose not only to convince the Jew that the Mosaic law afforded him no prospect of deliverance from the power and penalty of sin, but that it had be- come the occasion of his contracting deeper stains of guilt than he otherwise would have had, and therefore of plunging him into a more hopeless condition. The necessity of deliverance through the par- doning mercy of the gospel, does, in this way, become truly conspic- uous ; and the need of its super abounding grace is thus placed in a strong light by the apostle. I observe that Turretin, perceiving the difficulties of other explanations, has for substance adopted the same which I have now given ; as do Reiche, Glockler, Barnes, and others. ROMANS V. 21. 265 (21) But where sin abounded^ grace did super abound ; i. e. the pardoning mercy of the gospel has triumphed even over the sins of the Jews, which were greatly aggravated by reason of the light they enjoyed. "\va w(T7rsp K. T. X., so that as sin reigned by death, i. e. brought sentence of death or condemnation upon all men, in like manner also grace might reign by justification unto eternal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord, i. e. grace might reign or have an influence widely extended, in the bestowment of justification or pardoning mercy, which confers eternal life or happiness on all men who will accept it, through Jesus Christ our Lord. — After ^iKaioavvrjg here, one must supply rijc ovgtjq (which is J il<; Z,wi)v alwviov. In this verse, iv tio ^avano is the Dative of means or manner; and it stands in antithesis with Sm ^iKcuoavvrjg dg ^wrjv ala)viov. Of course ^tKatotruvrjc does not here mean righteousness in the sense of holiness or conformity to the divine law, but in the sense of Justifi- catio7i, i. e. God's righteousness, viz. that which he gives or bestows ; in the like sense as diKaiw/uia, SiKaio(Tvvr]g, and SiKuiwaiv, in vers. 16 — 18 above. The meaning is, that as sin exercised its sway over men in occasioning their condemnation {^avarov), so grace, which superabounds, has exercised its sway in procuring a remission of the sentence of condemnation, and bestowing that justification which is connected with eternal life. Turretin makes StKatoo-uvrjc here mean both justification and sanctification ; which is unnecessary, and in- deed incapable of being defended. The antithesis of ^iKaioavvi], viz. ^avarog, does not mean both sin and condemnation at the same time"; of course, then, diKmoavvr] should be interpreted in such a manner as to have a single and not a double sense. The reader will not fail to remark, also, that as ^avarog is the direct antithesis of ^wtj alwviog here, so it must mean more than tem- poral death merely ; nay, more than any limited term of misery in a future world ; unless, indeed, it can be shown that the happiness of the righteous is limited. But this none will attempt to show. How then can the misery of the wicked be shown to be temporary ? That ^avoTog is here employed in the same sense as in vers. 12 — 19, im- presses itself, as it seems to me, spontaneously on the mind of every reader not misled by a priori reasonings. It should also be noted, that uTrepETreptcrfrevo-fi' 17 \upLg of course cannot be applied to the number of its subjects here ; for how could grace superabound in this respect, when all men were sinners ? It 200 ROMANS VI.— VIll. plainly has reference, therefore, to abounding sin which existed after the law was introduced. What the apostle means to affirm, is, that however much sin was aggravated under this new order of things, yet such was the greatness of gospel grace that it triumphed even over this aggravated guilt. In other words, the salvation of the gos- l)el is so ample, that it may be extended to all men however depraved and deserving of punishment they may be ; and those who are under the law and have transgressed it, do of all men most need the salva- tion of the gospel. CHAP. VI.~\ III. When the apostle (chap. i. — ii.) had shown the guilt of all men, both Jews and Gen- tiles, and that none could escape the wrath to come except by the mercy of God through Christ, he represents the Jew as objecting to such a sentiment, on the ground that the lidelity of God, in respect to the promise made to Abraham and his seed would be called in question by it. To^this the apostle replies, that no such objection could'be made ; for God is to be regarded as faithful to his promises, even if all men are thereby convicted of being unfaithful to their engagements. The faithfulness of God is in fact the more con- spicuous, when he treats those who have sinned, and who continue impenitent, according to their real desert. The Jew, however, not satisfied with this, objects that there would in this way be en- couragement for men to sin ; inasmuch as the divine glory would be the more conspicuous, in consequence of the display of pardoning mercy. Eut this objection the apostle repels, with strong language of disapprobation, iii. 5 — 8. He does not, however, proceed to can- vass it, because he has other things which be is desirous to say, before he enters particu- larly into the consideration of such an objection. These he exhibits in chap. iii. 9, to v. 21. After all which he here says, and especially after such an exhibition of superabounding grace as\s made in chap. v. 12 — 21, it is natural to expect that the Jew would renew, at least in his own mind, the same objection as be- fore ; and this, with more appearance of reason than he then had. Accordingly, we find the apostle representing him as immediately objecting to the views of gospel grace which he had expressed, in the following words : " Shall we continue, then, in sin, that grace may abound 1" Chaps, vi. vii. viii. are designed to canvass the great subject which this objection brings forward, and fully to illustrate it. The course of thought appears to be as follows : 1. The very profession and nature of the Christian religion are directly opposed to con- tinuance in sin ; for he who is " baptized into the death of Christ," if sincere in his pro- fessions, must renounce sin and mortify his carnal appetites, vi. 2 — 11. 2. The remainder of chap. vi. forms a peculiar argument, if I may so call it, with res- pect to the subject under the apostle's consideration, viz. whether a dispensation of grace allows its subjects to sin. Vers. 12, 13, are an eihortalion to guard against sin ; which is occasioned by the preceding considerations that the writer has proffered. But in ver. 14 I'aul places his subject in a new attitude. He had before shown that Christianity, from its very nature, stands opposed to sin, and implies the subduing and mortifying of all evil passions and desires. He now ventures to suggest, not only that there is no good ground for the allegation of the objector, viz. that the doctrine of grace would encourage men to continue in sin, but that this very doctrine furnishes powerful motives, yea, more powerful ROMANS VI.— VIII. 267 ones than those which a dispensation of law furnishes, to excite men to the practice of holiness. lie begins by saying, that 'sin will not have dominion over Christians, for they are not under law, but under grace.' This is as much as to say, that if they were still under the law (in the sense here meant) sin would have dominion over them ; but inas- much as they are under grace, this will not be the case, ver. 14. By being under the law, he means being subjected to it and devoted to it in the sense in which the Jews (as legaiistsj were, viz., confidently expecting sanctification from it. Being under grace me^ns, being servants of grace, i. e. subject to its influence and obedient to its requisitions. Vers. 16 — 19 necessarily lead us to such an explanation. The subject thus introduced is one of vast magnitude and importance. If it be true, that a system of grace is the only one xohich now proffers adequate meawso/" sanctification as well as pardon, then is the importance of the gospel rendered doubly conspicuous. This is what the apostle intimates in ver. 14, and what he goes on through the remainder of chap, vi., and also through chaps, vii. viii. to confirm and illustrate. That this essential circum- f-tance has been so often overlooked by commentators, has been the occasion of much that is irrelevant and unsatisfactory in their remarks upon this passage. The first illustration of the power of gospel grace to subdue sin, is drawn from the relation which the Christian sustains toward the gospel or x"!''?- He has become the ser- vant of grace ; consequently, he must yield it his obedience ; and by becoming the servant of grace, he has renounced his subjection to sin ; consequently he must act in a manner that accords with the relation which he sustains, i. e. he should live in a holy manner, vers. 16 — 20. And thus the Christian must be led to act, also, on the ground that the conse- quences of obeying sin and of obeying grace are so unspeakably different and important, vers. 21—23. Thus far the apostle has employed comparison, in order to illustrate and enforce his sentiment. I mean, that under the figure of Christians being the serva7its of grace, he has signified their obligation to yield obedience. This is laying a good foundation ; for obliga- tion to be holy surely lies at the basis of the Christian's duty. In the next place, he brings into view the coiisequences of obedience to sin and holiness. ' Thus much then, (he would seem to say by all this), belongs to a system of grace; and in respect to obligation and penalty it is in no wise behind a system of law. It holds forth both the obligation to duty, and the encouragement to it ; while the awful penalty of the divine law for neglect of it, i. e. for sin, remains in full force under the gospel.' 1 his, however, is negative argument; if I may so speak. I mean, that it does not directly prove what is intimated in ver. 14, viz., the superiority of grace to law in influencing us to lead a holy life. But it proves, that even in those respects in which the law might seem to claim a high pre-eminence, it has none. The gospel confers as high obligation and threatens as high penalties. In both respects it is opposed to sin ; its obligations are directly contrary to sin ; its consequences are just the reverse of those which follow sin. In all these respects, then, we may truly affirm of the gospel as much as could be affirmed of the law. 3. Thus much in order to show that a system of grace is not behind a system of law, either in regard to obligations or penalties. All this prepares the way to accomplish the subsequent part of the apostle's design ; which is to show that the law (in the sense to which Jewish legalists adhered to it) is virtually and substantially renounced, by giving our- selves to Christ in the way of the gospel, vii. 1—4. This is an important point, and a great advance toward the attainment of the apostle's design. But he does not stop even here. He goes on (vii. 5, 6) to assert that the law, instead of being an eflTectual means of sanctifying men and making them truly holy, is in reality the occasion of their plunging into deeper guilt ; while grace produces just the contrary tffect. This is the ultimate and highest point at which Paul aims, in order to wean 2G8 ROMANS VI.— Vlll. legalists from their unwarrantable attachment to the law. 'I'hat lie may fully accomplish his object, he shows, first, how the law, instead of delivering us from sin, is the occasion of our being plunged deeper into it, vii. 7 — 12. Secondly, he removes the objections which one might naturally raise against the law on such a ground, vii. 13 — 25. 4. He next goes on to show that grace operates upon men in a manner entirely different from that of law, viii. 1 — 11. 5. In the remainder of chap, viii., he insists on the duties and privileges that result from such a state of grace. If the reader will now look back, for a moment, he will see a regular series of thought, all pertaining to the same great subject, from the commencement of chap. vi. to the end of chap. viii. To the apostle's plan of justification by grace alone, the natural and most for- midable objection at first view would be, that such a doctrine would lay no restraint upon sin, but rather encourage it. Already had he adverted to this objection, in chap. iii. 5 — 8. But with chap. vi. the formal discussion of the subject which is introduced by it com. mences. The simple outlines of the argument and illustration are, (1) The very profession and nature of Christianity imply a renunciation of sin, vi. 1 — 11. (2) The gospel lays more effectual constraint upon us to abstain from sin than the law can do, vi. 14 ; for, (a) By becoming servants of it, we must yield our obedience to it, vi. 16 — 20. (6) It sets before us the highest possible rewards, and renders them attainable, vi. 21 — 23. (3) We renounce our legality, i. e. our dependence on the law as the effectual means of sanc- tification, when we become affianced to Christ. We sustain a new relation in consequence of this, and are laid under new obligations which are of a more forcible nature, vii. 1 — 4. (4) The law, instead of restraining and subduing our sins, is even the occasion of their being aggravated, of plunging us into deeper condemnation, vii. 5 — 11 ; yet this is not chargeable upon the nature of the law, which in itself is holy and just and good, but on cur evil passions which abuse it, while our consciences testify to the excellence and purity of the law itself, vii. 12 — 25. Consequently so.nciijication, as well as justification, can be expected not from the law, but only from a dispensation of grace. (5) Such is the actual eflPect of grace ; it subdues and mortifies the principles of sin within us, and affords us the effectual guidance and aid of the Spirit of God in the discharge of our duty, viii. 1 — 11. Consequently, (6) The obligation to live in a holy manner may now be urged on Christians with the hope of success, for they have aid which is adequate for every time of need ; yea, which will make them to triumph over all the troubles, and sorrows, and trials of life, and to persevere even unto the end in the way of holiness and truth, viii. 12 —39. I hope the reader will pardon this partial repetition of this course of thought in chap. vi. — viii. ; which I have indulged in merely for the sake of being explicitly understood. The attainment of correct views in regard to this course, is a sine qua non to a right e.^ege- sis of the whole. How can we correctly explain a writer, unless we rightly apprehend his aim and the scope of his discourse? It is impossible ; and therefore it is of funda- mental importance that we should obtain correct views of the apostle's design in the chap- ters above-named, before we can safely advance to the particular explanation of their several parts. All form one harmonious whole ; all resolve themselves, at last, into the simple design of showing, not only that the grace of the gospel is not justly liable to the charge of encouraging sin, but that it does in fact proffer lo sinners the only hopeful and effectual means o/ sanciification, as well as justification ; yea, that it assures them of these means being effectual even to the end, so that their hopes can never be disappointed. If it be asked why sanctification is here so much insisted on, rather than justification ; the answer is, that the apostle had before most fully shown, in chap. i. — iv., that justifi- cation by the law is impossible. The question now with him is, whether this plan of sal- vation, viz. gratuitous juslificalion, encourages the sinner lo continue in sin. This ques- ROMANS VI. 1. 269 tion he treats in the manner staled above ; and thus shows, that the grace of the gospel is as necessary to us in respect to our sanctification, as it is in respect to our justification. A noble triumph indeed of true Christian principles over all opposition and objections! One too which shows, that a system of law strictly adhered to, can only end in the aggra- vated ruin of sinners ; and that therefore our only hope of salvation is in him, " who hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." If the reader has still any doubt, whether I have correctly stated the general outlines of the apostle's design and argument, let him look back on chaps, i. — iv., and see that the great discussion concerning gratuitous justification is there terminated ; as is evident from chap, v., which is designed to point out the sequel or consequences of such justification. Let him look at the nature of the subject proposed by the question in vi. 1, and the arguments and illustrations which follow. Let him duly consider the assertion in vi. 14, with the sequel in vers. 15 — 20. Let him then see, in vers. 21 — 23, that Kapnog elg dyiacrnov is still before the writer's mind. In passing to vii. 1—3, 4, let him note, that ver. 4 sums up the object of all by "iva Ka()TTO(popl]ffii>fiEv rfjJ ^s(^. In reading vers. 5, 6, he must ob- serve, that the law is set forth as being even the occasion of aggravating our carnal desires, instead of mortifying and subduing them ; all of which shows the insufficiency of it as a means of sanctification. Vers. 7 — II only expand and enforce this idea ; while vers. 12 — 23 defend it from abuse. Chap. viii. opens as if the subject of justification were a promi- nent object of the writer's attention ; but vers 2 — 4 show that this is only in consequence of justification being connected with sanctification. The special object of God's sending his Son, as considered in vers. 3, 4, is KaraKpivtiv rtjv afiapTiav iv ry o-apKi, and 'iva TO diKa'nafia tov vofiov irXijput^y Iv yfilv. And so the sequel shows that sanctifying grace subdues sin, and secures filial obedience. Hence, in vers. 12 — 17, the exhortation subjoined to the preceding context is, that Christians "should not live Kara crop/ca." And finally, it is the sanctified, filial, obedient spirit, inspired by the gospel and given by the Spirit of God in connection with it, which supports us under all sorrows and trials, and will end in complete and everlasting triumph. On the face of all this course of thought then there lies what has already been attributed to it. There is another circumstance still, which affords no small ground for confirming what has been stated above. Let the reader look back once more to chap., and see that the apostle, after having finished his discussion with regard to the subject of justification by grace, goes on to declare the happy fruits of this, viz. cheering support under all the sor- rows of life, and assurance of final happiness in the kingdom of glory, through the redemp- tion of Christ. Just so in chap. viii. 14 — 39. When Paul has completed the discussion of his second grand theme, viz. the sanctifying nature of gospel grace, he goes on to show first, how it triumphs over sufferings and sorrows, inspiring a joyful hope; and, secondly, thai it will assuredly bring the believer, at last, safe to glory. '1 he parallelism, as to the general course of thought, is so exact between chap. v. and viii. 14 — 39, that no one can help perceiving it. There is then good ground to believe, from this circumstance, in addi- tion to the other evidence produced above, that the apostle had, in his own view, here com- pleted a second prominent topic of discussion; just as, at the end of chap, iv., he had completed his first one. The rest of his epistle is employed in canvassing various objec- tions raised by Judaizing opponents ; and in delivering various precepts and exhortations suited to the condition of the church at Rome. If the general course of thought is now before us in an intelligible manner, we are pre- pared to advance once more to the consideration of particulars. (1) Tt ovv epovfxev; words of the objector; viz. 'What shall be said, now, as to such a sentiment as that just uttered, viz. that where mi abomided, grace did superabound ? Does it not follow that one 270 ROMANS VI. 2. may well say: Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound ?' The meaning of the question is: Since God is glorified in the abounding of his grace ; and since this abounds in proportion to the sin which is committed : then why should we not go on to sin, as the glory of God will in this way be made to abound ? 'E7r ^jitd, he is baptized into the name of a freeman ; or ia» d\i3^ ^3tq, he is baptized into the name of a servant. So Matt, xxviii. 19, baptized etc '''o ovofxa tov iruTpbg, koL tov vlovy KOI TOV TTvtvixaTOQ ajiov, which is the same as baptized slg tov iraT^pa, fcat tov vibv, kol to irvevfia to ayiov. Accordingly we find ovofxa omitted in our text, as also in 1 Cor. x. 2. Gal. iii. 27 ; it is used, however, in Acts viii. 16. xix. 5. 1 Cor. i. 13, 15. (&) The sense of the whole formula is more difficult to be ascer- tained. Most commentators, after Vitringa (Obs. Sac. III. 22), ex- plain iig as meaning into the acknowledgement of; with an implica- tion of affiance, subjection, discipleship, &c. But the formula in 1 Cor. xii. 13, iravTig tig tv aCofia l^aTrTiG^-nfXiv, seems not to accord with such an explanation. Here z\g plainly ^esignoXe^ participation^ and the meaning of the phrase is, that by baptism we come to belong to one body, to participate in one body, to be members of one body. In like manner we may say : By baptism we come to belong, (in a special and peculiar sense), to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So the apostle speaks of being baptized into (and so of belonging to) Moses, 1 Cor. x. 2 ; to Paul, 1 Cor. i. 13. In this way all the passages of this nature may be construed alike, and the sense in all will be good. The idea is, for substance, that 'by baptism we become consecrated to any person or thing, appropriated (as it were) to any person or thing, so as to belong to him or to it, in a manner peculiar and involving a special relation, and consequent special duties and obligations.' This sense is such an one as fits the passage under examination. Thus interpreted it would mean : ' As many of us as have become devoted to Christ by baptism ; or as many of us as have been conse- crated to Christ by baptism, or have been laid under peculiar obliga- tions, or have taken upon us a peculiar relation to him, by being 272 ROMANS VI. 3, 4. baptized.' The word ocroi is employed by the Greeks to designate the meaning whoever^ &c., i. e. all without any exception. E?c Tov ^avarov avrov l[iaTrTi(T^i)iuitv, we have been baptized into his death, i. e. we have, as it were, been made partakers of his death by baptism ; we have come under a special relation to his death ; we have engaged to die unto sin, as he died^;* it; we have a certain communion or participation in death to sin ; comp. Rom. vi. 6. Gal. ii. 19. The being baptized into his death, therefore, is an internal, moral, spiritual thing ; of which the external rite of baptism is only a symbol ; for the relation symbolized by baptism is in its own nature spiritual and moral. The participation in the death of Christ, of which Paul here speaks, is surely something more than what is ex- ternal ; it is therefore of a moral or spiritual nature, of which the external rite can be regarded only as a symbol. Glockler finds in the whole verse, indeed, an assertion of a real transcendental union to Christ ; by being ' plunged as it were into him.' And being bap- tized into his death, is " versenken ganz und gar in den Tod," i. e. to plunge entirely into his death ! What the meaning can be of such semi-literal expressions, remains for those who ' traverse regions trans- cendental ' to explain. (4) Suv£ra^r)/x£v ovv k. t. X., we have been buried with him, then, by baptism into his death, i. e. we are (by being baptized into his death) buried as he was, o-uvEra^ij/xfp ; where avv means like, in like manner with; comp. ver. 6 ; also Rom. viii. 17. Col. iii. 1, where any other sense of o-ov is out of question ; 2 Tim. vii. 11, to which the same remark will apply. Most commentators have maintained, that avvtrac^i^fxiv has here a necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism, which, they say, was hy immersion; and this, they think, affords ground for the em- ployment of the image used by the apostle, because immersion under water may be compared to burial under the earth. It is difficult, perhaps, to procure a patient re-hearing for this subject, so long regarded by some as being out of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my own conviction is not, .after protracted and repeated examinations, accordant here with that of commentators in general, I feel con- strained briefly to state my reasons for it. The first is, that in the verse before us there is a plain antithesis ; one so plain that it is impossible to overlook it. If now (Tvv£Ta(f)t}iiiiv is to be iiiterpreted in a physical way, i. e. as meaning burial in the water in a physical sense, where is the corresponding physical burial, ROMANS VI. 4. 273 in the opposite part of the antithesis or comparison ? Plainly there is no such physical idea or reference in this other part. The resur- rection here spoken of is entirely moral and spiritual, for it is one which Christians have already experienced during their present life ; as may be fully seen by comparing vers. 5 — 11, below. I take it for granted, that after rifiuQ in ver. 4, lyep^tvTeg is implied : since the nature of the comparison, the preceding wg lyip^r] Xjoto-roc, and also ver. 5, make this entirely plain. If we turn now to the passage in Col. ii. 12, (which is altogether parallel with the verse under examination, and has very often been agitated by polemic writers on the subject of baptism), we shall there find more conclusive reason still, to argue as above respecting the nature of the a?itithesis presented. " Vv^e have been buried with him [Christ] by baptism." What now is the opposite of this ? What is the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have been buried ? The apostle tells us ; " We have risen with him [Christ], by faith wrought by the power of God [jng Ivepydag Tov S-Eou], who raised him [Christ] from the dead." Here, then, there is a resurrection by faith, i. e. a spiritual and moral one. Why then should we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis ? If one part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral or spiritual, why should we not construe the other in like manner, provided it is susceptible of such an interpretation ? To understand o-uvEra^jjjUfv as designating a literal burial under water, is to under- stand it in a manner which the laws of interpretation appear to for- bid. (6) Nothing can be plainer, than that the word (jweTCKpr^f^uv, in Rom. vi. 4, is equivalent in sense to the word cnre^dvo/^ev in ver. 8. It seems to be adopted merely for the sake of rendering more striking the image of a resurrection, which the apostle employs in the other part of the antithesis. ' A resurrection from the grave,' is a natural phrase when one is speaking with respect to the subject of a resur- rection ; see John v. 28, 29 ; comp. Dan. xii. 2. In accordance with this statement the context does most plainly speak, both in respect to Rom. vi. 4 and Col. ii. 12. For in respect to Rom. vi. 4, the apostle goes on in the very next verse, (as is usual with him), to pre- sent the same idea which is contained in ver. 4, in a different costume. Ver. 5 (which is a mere epexegesis of ver. 4) says, If we have been homogeneous {2VTOi yeyovafxev, if we have become homogeneous, if we have become cognate. So avfj.({>vTOL must be explained, if phi- lology is to be our guide. ^viKpuTog and avn Kvp'ib) 17JUWV is considered by Knapp, Griesbach, and Koppe, as being spurious. It matters nothing to the sense of the passage in general, whether it be received or rejected. (12) Ouv, therefore, i. e. all this being true which I have said, it follows that sin ought not to reign, &c. — BaaiXfufrw, reign, predom- inate, have rule ; see on v. 17. — Tq) S-vrjrt^) v/xwv aCjfxari, in your mortal body. The word ^vnro^ has given occasion here to a variety of exegesis. The reason why the apostle calls the body ^vv\t6v, mortal, exposed to death, seems to be, that he may present in an im- pressive manner the sin and folly of permitting the lusts and passions of idi frail, perishable body, to have dominion over the soul. The ground why he speaks of the body as the seat of reigning sin, is that its passions and lusts have great influence in leading men to sin. It is evident that crw/za S'vrjrov here is equivalent to kavrohq in ver. 13, jj and to vnMv in vers. 14, 16 ; excepting that the representation is, as has been suggested, rendered more impressive by this designation. \ ROMANS VI. 12, 13. 287 Swjua is often employed in Greek as a designation of the whole per- son I e. g. yuvatKwv KiCi Traiciov abjjxaTa, Jos. Antiq. XI. 3. 10 ; so Kara aoJfjLa, man by man; and so the Latin corpus. But in the pas- sage before us I cannot doubt that the apostle means to designate the body as the seat of carnal passions and lusts. Comp. with the senti- ment here, Rom. vii. 5, 23, 24, viii. 3, 6, 7. See also the remarks on TO GUi}ia rrjc afxapTiag, ver. 6 above. Etc TO viraKOveiv .... avrov, i. e. let not sin have such predomi- nance as to yield obedience to its dictates. There seems to be a tacit acknowledgement in the form of this expression, that sinful appetites are not extinguished in the believer ; he must keep them in subjection, but he does not wholly extinguish them. Fact accords with this. The enemy is taken captive, but not absolutely slain. The text varies in the latter part of this verse ; the Receptus read- ing avTio £v Toig eTri^viiiiaig avrov ; which is wholly omitted in Clar., Germ., Ambros., Faustin.; rejected by Griesbach, Koppe, and Tho- luck : and suspected by Vater and Flatt. Taig lin^vfiiaiQ avrov is supported by many MSS., versions, and fathers, and received by Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, and others. Awry simply, in the place of this, is supported by several MSS., D., E., F., G., Clar., and some of the fathers, and admitted by Mill. There are some other varieties of reading ; e. g. ahnS, avrov, avrrjv, ev avrij, and avrrig. Reiche thinks the whole clause was originally omitted, and that the varieties have arisen from eiforts to supply a seeming deficiency by conjecture. It is a mere question of lower criticism. The sense is not materially A'aried by any of the readings. (13) XlaptCTravETE, proffer, give us, devote, afford. MArj means literally, the members of the body ; wliich, however, here designate the whole man. This verse, then, is only a virtual repetition of the preceding one, in different language and for the sake of intensity. — "OTrAa here, as Reiche thinks, should be rendered (as usual) armour ; because sin is represented as a king, and compelling us to his service. But idea of contest is not the predominating one here ; and therefore oTrXct may more appropriately be rendered instruments. The article is omitted before it, although in apposition with ra fxiXr] ; see N. T. Gramm. § 89. 6. Or it may be construed as following elvai under- stood.— Tp u/napriu connects with ^17 Trapicrravare, give not up to sin, i. e. to sinful lust or desire, or to the service of sin, your members as instruments of iniquity, i. e. as instruments of doing that which is sinful. 288 ROMANS VI. 14. T(i7 S-fw, being- arranged immediately after irapaaT I'lffare here, shoM^s that r»7 (tfiapTia in the clause above is to be construed in like manner. — 'Qg Ik veKpojv ^(uvracj cis alive from the dead, i. e. as raised from the dead ; comp. Eph. ii. 1, 5. The ground of this figurative language is easily discovered in vers. 3 — 11. That moi'ol life and death are here meant, the reader scarcely needs to be reminded. Kai TO. fxiXt) [TraQa(JTi}aaTf\ . . . . 7-(j> 3"f(j;, \_give up] to God your members as instruments of righteousness ; viz. as instruments of doing that which is lawful and right. To; ^n^ is construed here by some as a Dativus commodi, in the following manner, \YL.,for God, i. e. for the glory and honour of God. Tholuck prefers this construction. But analogy with the preceding clause seems plainly to require a different one, viz., such as I have given in the translation above. (14) ' Afxapria yap .... Kvpitvaa, for sin shall not have dominion over us. The yap here makes no little difficulty ; yet commenta- tors in general have passed it by, without even noticing it. The most simple method of accounting for it is, that the apostle assigns that which is said in ver. 14, as a reasonable and proper ground of the commands given in ver. 12, 13. If it be true that Christians are under grace, and that therefore they will be enabled to subdue sin, then is this a good reason why they are exhorted and commanded to do so. That the sense of the verse is prediction, promise, (and not simply command or obligation), I must believe, with the great body of com- mentators, e. g. Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Melanc- thon, Erasmus, Calvin, Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, &c. It was as true under the law as it is under grace, that men were obligated not to sin ; and therefore an expression of mere obligation here seems to be fairly out of question. So far as the Fut. tense is itself concerned it is susceptible of such an interpretation ; for the Fut. may predict, or express obligation ; but it never can express mere physical possi- bility. Prediction is here the only consistent sense for it. Ov 'yap i(TT^ .... \apiv,for ye are not under law, but under grace; an expression must contested, and not unfrequently misunderstood. The simple meaning seems to me plainly to be : ' Ye are not under a legal dispensation, but a gracious one.' This is a general proposition and one which the reader will hardly be able to understand, without reading the remainder of this chapter and also chapters vii. viii. By so doing he will see, that the apostle means to assert the incom- petency of the law to furnish the requisite means for the sanctifica- tion of the sinner in his present condition. See in particular vii. I — 5, ROMANS VI. 14. 289 9 — 11. viii. 3, 4, The confidence of Paul that sin would not have dominion over Christians, was wholly reposed in the grace proffered by the g-ospel. He well knew that no strictness of precept, no au- thority of law, no sanctions of it however awful, would effectually deter men from sin. He has shown in chap, vii., that the law, in- stead of doing this, is even the occasion of the sinner's being plunged into deeper guilt and condemnation than he would otherwise be. How then can it deliver either from the power and penalty of sin ? It can do neither. The latter of these he has abundantly shown, in chap. i. — iv. The former is what he now designs to assert, and what he goes on to illustrate and confirm. To say, with some commentators, that utto vofxov refers only to the ceremonial law, would be to give the passage a sense frigid and inept. Where, in all the sequel down to the end of chap, viii., is there any thing which reminds us that the discussion here has relation merely to the ceremonial law? Does not chap. vii. 5 — 25 most fully con- tradict such a view of the subject? The law there discussed is not only " holy and just and good," but it is the internal moral law, the vofiog Toi) voog (ver. 23), it is a vofioq TrvevjuLariKog (ver. 14). ' But how can it be true, that Christians are not mider the law ? The Saviour did not come to abolish the moral law ; nay, he came that it might be fulfilled (Matt. v. 17, 18) ; how then can it be said that we are not under the moral law ?' My answer is, that this is not designed to be said. Every expres- sion of such a nature as the one under examination, is of course to be understood according to the circumstances and intention of the writer. Paul had to do with Jewish legalists. And M'hat was their doctrine ? It was, that salvation was attainable by legal obedience, not in theory only, but in an actual and practical way, i. e. as a matter of fact. It was, moreover, that the law, by its precepts, its restraints, and its penalties, was an adequate and effectual means of sanctifica- tion. The first part of this scheme the apostle has overthrown in chap. i. — iv. ; the last part he is now employed in overthrowing. How he does this the reader may see, by reperusing the illustration of the general course of thought prefixed to the present chapter. Now that Christians are not under the law, either as an actual, effectual, adequate means of justification or sanctification, is true. If they are so, their case is utterly hopeless ; for ruin must inevitably ensue. That they are not so, the apostle asserts in the verse inider consideration. And from the sequel of his remarks (vi. 15 — viii. 39), T 290 ROMANS VI. 14, 15. it is plain tliat this is all which he means. What can be plainer, than that the moral law as pi-eccpt, is altogether approved and recog- nized by him? See chap vii. 12 — 14. Nay, so far is the apostle from pleading for abolition or repeal of moral precept, that he asserts directly (viii. 3, 4), that the gospel is designed to secure obedience to these precepts ; which the law itself was unable to do. It is then from the law viewed in this light, and this only, viz. as inadequate to effect the sanctification and secure the obedience of sinners, that the apostle here declares us to be free. Who can object to this ? Or if any one should object, how is he to answer the argu- ments which the apostle has adduced in the sequel, in order to con- firm his declaration. Let no one then, abuse this declaration, by imagining that it in any measure aifords ground to believe, that Christians are freed from ob- ligation to obey the precepts of the moral law. What is the divine law but a transcript of the divine will? And are not Christians to be conformed to this ? Is not all the law summed up in these two declarations : " Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine heart ; and thy neighbour as thyself!" And are Christians absolved from loving- God and their neighbour? If not, then this part of the subject stand unembarrassed by any thing which the apostle has said in our text or context. Indeed, when rightly viewed, there is no ground at all for embarrassment. I will only suggest in addition, that vtto X"P'»^ implies that Chris- tians are placed in a condition or under a dispensation of which grace is the prominent feature ; grace to sanctify as well as renew the heart ; grace to purify the evil affections ; grace to forgive offences though often repeated, and thus to save from despair, and to excite to new efforts of obedience. Viewed in this light, there is abundant reason for asserting, that Christians, under a system of grace, will much more effectually throw off the dominion of sin, than they would do if under a mere law dispensation. (15) Tt ouv . . . . xapiv.) What then? Shall we siriy because we are not under the law but tinder grace ? i. e. What shall we say to this ? viz. to what he had been declaring. Shall we conclude that one may sin, &c. ? The first imj)ression made by the declaration of the apostle, we might easily suppose, would lead the legalist to such a conclusion. ' Is not the law,' he would ask, 'holy? Does it not forbid all sin ? And does not grace Jb?-give sin ? How then can grace restrain sin?' That is, why may we not sin, if we are under grace ROMANS VI. 16. 291 merely and not under the law ? But this question the apostle follows with a fii) yivoiTo ; and he then goes on to illustrate and confirm the important truth which he had uttered in ver. 14. Comp. ver. 1. (16) Oi/K oiSare; Know ye not? i. e. I take it for granted that ye know and believe. The reader will not fail to mark how often the apostle introduces this and the like expressions, as a preface to matter which he knows is well understood, and to which he expects assent will be given by those whom he addresses ; see tovto yivwa- Kovreg ver. 6, and ddoreg ver. 9. "Ort (^ . . . . vTraKovere, that to whomsoever ye give up yourselves as servants bound to obey, ye are the servants of him whom ye obey. AovXovg elg viraKoi]v means servants unto obedience, i. e. servants bound to obey, devoted to obedience ; dg before the Accusative de- notes purpose, object, intention, obligation. AoCAot eote, i. e. when you have once given up yourselves to any one as ^ovKovg ug viraKoriv, you are no longer your own masters or at your own disposal ; you have put yourselves within the power and at the disposal of another master. If the reader will call to mind the extent of a master's power over his slave or servant, in the days of Paul, he will perceive the unusual strength of the expressions here. "Hrot cifxapTiag .... SiKaioavvtjv, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justification; i. e. ye are servants when once ye have given yourselves up, either to sin or to righteousness. If ye give up yourselves as servants of sin, then you must expect the con- sequence to be death ; for " the wages of sin is death," ver. 23. Once devoted to sin, and continuing to be so, you cannot avoid the end of it, which is death. But if you are the servants of that obedience which is unto justification, i. e. which is connected with justification, which ends in it, then you may expect eternal life (^wj7v alcoviov, ver. 22). The argument intended to be urged by these representations is, that when the Christian has once given himself up as the servant of grace, he will of course, if sincere, yield obedience to its dictates ; and these are such as will lead elg diKaio(Tvvnv, to justifcatioti. That such is the meaning of the last phrase here, seems to me quite clear from its being the antithesis of dg ^avarov, Why the con- struction of these passages should have been a matter of so much dissension and doubt among commentators as it has been, I do not see. When I compare the very explicit epexegesis of the whole in vers. 21, 22, where ^wjjv oIwvlov is substituted for hiKuioavvt^v in ver. 16, all seems to be plain and easy. Yet if the reader will consult even T 2 292 ROMANS VI. 16, 17. the commentaries of Tholuck and Flatt, he will find himself unable, (at least I have been so), to make out an explicit opinion from either. There is, indeed, a little doubt about the genuineness of the reading £tc ^avarov, inasmuch as Codd. D., E., the Syriac version, and two or three Codd. minusc. omit it. Yet, on the whole, no substantial doubt remains that we should admit it. Then what is there so strange and difficult in the contrast here? Paul says we must be the servants of him to whom we devote ourselves, we must go where and when he bids ; and this holds true, he adds, whether we apply it to our being the servants of sin, which will lead us to death, i. e. condemnation, or to our being the servants of that obedience which is connected with or leads to justification, i. e. pardon, acquittal from the penalty of the law. How can '^iKaio(yvvr]v here mean holiness, uprightness, when viraKori itself necessarily implies this very idea. What is an obedience which leads to righteousness? Or how does it differ from righteousness itself, inasmuch as it is the very act of obedience which constitutes righteousness in the sense now contemplated? Then, moreover, the contrast here with ^avarov does not seem to leave any room for doubt, what the meaning must be. The senti- ment is, ' Fearful as the consequences of sin are, when you are its servants you must follow its dictates. But on the other hand, the obedience which you yield to grace, is a joyful, glorious service, end- ing in eternal life.' How Reiclie can maintain that nothing more than physical death with its terrors is meant, when it is placed in opposition to Sticatoo-iivrjv here, and to ^wj)v aiMviov in ver. 22, 1 am unable to see. But having once taken this ground in regard to v. t2, he seems to feel the inconsistency of retreating here. Quvarov means condemnation or sentence of death ; and StKotoo-uvt}, acquittal, justification, sentence of acquittal. How Reiche could render the latter, holiness, when he compared ver. 22, I do not perceive. (17) XapiQ Se . . . . SiSa^rjCj but thanks be unto God that ye were the servants of sin, but have become obedient from the heart to that model of doctrine in which ye have been instructed. Such is the literal translation. But the nature of the case is sufficient to show, that the apostle's thanks to God are not designed to have a special bearing on 7;r£ SouXot rfjc ajdupTiag. In view of the whole case, viz. that they once were the servants of sin, but now are devoted to Christian obedience, Paul thanks God, as well he might, for ' there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth,' But to say that he thanks God with special reference to the fact that they were sinners. ROMANS VI. 17. 293 and because they were so, would be saying what contradicts not only the whole strain of Paul's epistles, but all the Bible. Besides, the meaning of fJTe here plainly is, that ' ye once were but no longer are,' i. e. that having once been so they have ceased to be so. Thus in Latin : Fuit Ilium ; fuimus Troes. It has been proposed here to render otl although ; but, first, there is no adequate authority for such a translation ; secondly, the present construction of the sentence requires on as rationeni reddens in respect to x«ptc tv ^^'^ 5 ^"^ the Se (but) after vTrr^Kovaare, indicates that oTi in the preceding clause retains its usual sense. The true solution of the difficulty consists in taking the whole phrase together ; for then a meaning is conveyed, which might well excite the mind of the apostle to gratitude. 'YTrrjKouo-are Si Ik Kup^iag, but ye have heartily or sincerely become obedient. The apostle means to express his cheering confidence in the reality of their devotedness to the cause of Christ, which they professed to love ; and this seems to me to be all that he here means to express. Tholuck says, however, that uTrjjKouaare joined with Ik Kap^iag, ' is designed to render conspicuous the idea of the free will with which the sinner first came to Jesus and received pardon.' Was it true, then, that Jesus first sought the sinner, or the sinner him ? Do we " love him because he first loved us ;" or is it the reverse ? That the sinner was " willing," I doubt not; but that he was " made willing in the day of God's power," seems to be equally plain. Does not " God work in us both to will and to do?" Elg ov .... di^axnQ- The construction here has given much trouble to critics. It need not have done so; for vTruKovio may govern the Accusative as well as the Dative ; see examples of the Accusative in Prov. xxix. 12. Deut. xxi. 18. It may also govern the Genitive ; e. g. Deut. xxi. 20. xxvi. 14, 17, et al, ssepe. The Dative after it, however, is most common. We may then construe thus : uTrrjKOuo-arE tvttov ^idayjig .... dg ov irapaSoSfrjTa. Elg with the Accusative very frequently follows TrapaStSwjut, although the simple Dative is the most usual. But here the Dative would not give the sense — into which ye have been initiated, or in respect to which ye have been instructed. A second way of solving the grammatical construction, is by at- traction. The noun, as all grammarians of course know, is almost as often attracted to the case of the pronoun, as the pronoun is to that of the noun. The former we may suppose to be the case here, 294 ROMANS VI, 17, 18. so that TVTTov is vrntten for Tv-mo, which latter would be the more usual construction after viraKovM. Why Tholuck, Flatt, and others, should prefer the forced construction here, virriKovcTaTt tig rvirov og irapeSo^T] vjulv, I do not see. They do not seem to have adverted to the fact, that viraKoixo may take the simple Accusative after it, as shown above. Even Reiche has overlooked this. That v7rr}Kov(TaT£i in the second clause here, corresponds to rfTs covXot in the first, is plain. The apostle might have used i^ovXto- ^y]Te in the room of it; but uTrrjicouo-aTe corresponds better to the phraseology of the preceding verse. TvTTov ^iSaxnCf model of doctrine ; twttocj model, form, example, &c. Comp. Rom. ii. 20, fx6p c. /3. 'EiraKTxvvonai usually governs the Accusative, but is here constructed with Itti after it. To yap riXog SKdvwv ^avarog, for the end of those things is death ; viz. of such things as they formerly practised, but are now ashamed of. TtXoc retains here a sense which is very common, viz. the consequence, final event, fata ultima, exitus rei. Tap confirman- tis ; as if the writer had said : ' What solid good could result from your former course of life, since the end of this course must be death ?' For the sense of ^avarog, see chap. v. 12. (22) Nuvt Sc . . . ayiaafiov, but now, being freed from sin and having become servants to God, ye have your fruit in respect to holi- ness. The preceding context explains iXtv^spw^ivreg ^'Etjl "E;!^£r£ Tov Kopirov must mean the same as in ver. 21, viz. you have your benefit or reivard. — Etc .... ayiaafiov, in respect to holiness or sanctification (Bretschn. Lex. tig, 4) ; not (with Flatt and others) unto holiness, i. e. the consequences are, that ye are holy. It is not the writer's object here to represent the consequence of serving God as being the attainment of holiness ; for serving God implies that holiness already exists. It is the fruits, i. e. the consequences of serving God, which Paul here brings into view ; for nothing else would make out the antithesis to the preceding verse ; a circum- stance overlooked by many commentators. I understand the apostle as saying : ' You already enjoy important benefits, in respect to a holy course of life ; and you hope for more important benefits still, viz. ^a)j7V aiwvtov. To Se . . . atwvtov, and the end [is to possess] eternal life. The reader will observe, that the Ace. (^wryv alojviov) renders it necessary here to supply some verb in order to complete the construction ; and some verb which is different from that in ver. 21 (tori)? where ^ava~ Tog is in the Nom. The sentence may be filled out in two ways ; viz. (1) To Se Ttkog [txn-v or 'i^uv'] Z,wriv anoviov. (2) To St ri- \og [isfO ?w)jv aliovLov. The sense is the same in both cases. In ROMANS VII. 1—4. 299 the latter case, ^wj)v alwviov is put in apposition with to riXoQ, and is explanatory of it. In the former case, the construction is thus : ' The end or event will be, that you shall obtain everlasting happi- ness.' One or the other of these constructions, the context and the form of the words compel us to adopt. The reader cannot help remarking here the antithesis between Z(oi]v alwviov and S^avarog. How can the latter be temporal only ? What comparison would this make, between the two members of the antithesis ? (23) Such consequences must follow from the established rules of the divine government, respecting the fruits of sin and of holiness. Ta yap .... ^avaTog, for the reward (wages) of sin is death ; comp. on Rom. v. 12. — Pap confirmantis ; for what is said in the sequel confirms vers. 21, 22. — 'Oxpiovia, TproTpeAy the rations of soldie?'Sy i. e. their wages, which at first were paid in grain, meat, fruit, &c., but afterwards in money. Observe that the apostle employs this term, in order to designate something which was really the proper due of sin, viz. for the service of it ; as the wages which a soldier earns by his hard military service, are properly his due. But on the other hand, the reward of Christians is all of grace^ not of deht ; and so it is designated in the sequel by ■yJiQic!\xa. 'El/ y^pioTii^ 'Irjo-ou r<^ Kvpii^ 77/iwv, i. e. through the redemption or atonement of Christ, iii. 23—26. v. 1, 8, 11, 17—19, 21. CHAP. VH. 1—4. The variety of opinion respecting the first four verses in this chapter, is so great, and so iTiany difficulties present themselves in the way of almost every exegesis which has hitherto been proposed, that one is strongly tempted to abandon the hope, that any thing can be offered which will be satisfactory to an enlightened and irjquiiing mind. After long and often-repeated study of these verses, however, I have come to the persuasion, that the dif- ficulty with most commentators, lies principally in their insisting upon too minute com- parison between the conjugal connection here mentioned, and the connection of Christians with the law. A minute and exact comparison cannot be made ; for, (1) The apostle re- presents the husband as dying, and the ivife as becoming^ree in consequence of his death, 'i'hen, (2) Christians are said to die to the law (not the law to them), and they are thus prepared to be affianced to Christ ; i. e. the party who dies is, in this last case, represented as married to another ; while, in respect to the literal conjugal union, it is of course only the party who lives that can be joined to another. This apparent d/ssJmz'iifwJe between the two cases, has given great trouble to commentators ; and in fact it appears inexplicable, unless we acquiesce in a mere general point of similitude as to the things compared without insisting on minute and circumstantial resemblances. Let us inquire first of all : What is the object of the writer in presenting the comparison before us ? I'he answer is, to illustrate aiid defend the sentiment avowed in chap. vi. 14 - 300 ROMANS Vll. 1—4. viz. '« For we are not under the law, but under grace." Those Christians who were in- clined to be legalists, and to look for justification or sanctificalion (the latter is here the subject of the writer) by the law, and therefore to hold fast to the law as an adequate means of accomplishing this end, would easily take offence at such a declaration. ' What!' tliey would naturally say, ' does the gospel then absolve us from our relation to the law? Shall we throw by the ancient Scriptures as of no more use to us, because we now come under a new dispensation of grace?' The apostle has prepared the way in chap. vi. 16 — 21, for the declaration which he is now about to make relative to this subject. He has there shown, as we have already seen, that a state of grace diminishes nothing of our obligation to refrain from sin ; for by this very state are we made servants to righteousness ; and the practice of holiness is at the same time urged upon us, by the prospect of a glorious reward, while the neglect of it is followed by endless misery. He now advances another step, and declares that we are " dead to the law," i. e. that the law as an efficient means of sanctificalion (which the legalist holds it to be), has been renounced by true Christians ; for the death of Christ, "who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believes," in whom, more- over, we profess to trust as the ground of our sanctification as well as justification, has placed us in a new relation as to j adequate means of being sanctified, and freed us from the vain and deceptive hopes of legalists, who were leaning upon the law as the ground of sanctification and justification. I have already stated reasons for supposing that the apostle is here speaking in particu- lar of the law as an adequate means o{ sanctification ; see the introduction to chap. vi. I merely remark here, that the close of ver. 4 shows very explicitly, that the special object which the apostle now considers as attainable by becoming dead to the law and affianced to Christ, is 'iva icap7ro(popr](TiofiEv Ttp Beqi. Sanctijication then, not justification (as many commentators suppose), is here the particular subject of the writer's attention. Vers. 1 — 4 may rather be called an illustration of what the apostle had avowed in vi. J 4, than an argument to establish the declaration there made. The simple basis of the whole comparison I understand thus : ' Brethren, you are aware that death, in all cases, dissolves the relation which exists between an individual and a law by which he was per- sonally bound. For example ; the conjugal law ceases to be in force, by the death of one of the parties. So it is in the case of Christians. They not only die to sin, i. e. renounce jt, when they are baptized into the death of Christ, vi. 2—11 ; but they also die to the law at the same time, i. e. they renounce all their hopes and expectations of being sancti- fied by the law, so that sin will no more have dominion over them. They do, by the very fact of becoming real Christians, profess to receive Christ as their " wisdom, and justifi- cation, and sanctification (ayiaarfioQ), and redemption, 1 Cor. i. 30. Let the reader consider, for a moment, the true nature of the declaration just quoted. Christ is our wisdom ; i. e. our teacher, he who communicates the spiritual knowledge and light which we need, " the light of the world." Christ is omjustification (SiKaioavvt)); i. e. the meritorious cause, ground, or author of it; comp. Rom. iii. 21 — 28. Christ is our sanctijication ; i. e. the author, cause, or ground of our sanctification, by what he has done in our behalf in order to ensure it. Christ is our redemption (aTroXvrpwo-if) ; i. e. he is (to sum up all in one word) the cause of our deliverance from the penalty and power of sin, and of our being brought to enjoy the glorious liberty of the children of God. The last word makes the climax of the whole sentence. Christ then is as really and truly our sanctification, as he is oar justification. If now, in despair of being justified by the law (for so we must be if we rightly view the subject), we go to Christ for justification, and receive him as our only Saviour, renouncing all merit of our own, and all hope of being saved by the law — if, I say, we feel and do all this, then we do renounce the law for ever as the ground of justification, and accept the gra- ROMANS VII. 1—4. 301 tuitous salvation which is proffered by Christ. In the same manner, when the sinner comes to an adequate and proper view of the strictness and purity of the divine law, and also to right views of the state of his own heart while in a natural condition, he will utterly abandon all hope of being sanctified by the law ; for he will see, what Paul has so fully asserted in chap. vii. 5—11, ' that the law brings him (through his own fault indeed, but not the less surely because of this), into a state of deeper guilt and condemnation.' How then can the law be an adequate means of his sanctijication 1 It is impossible ; and the truly convicted sinner renounces all hope of this, and betakes himself to Christ and his salvation as the only ground of hope in this respect. Here is the great difficulty, and here the solution of the whole passage must come in^ Consider, for a moment, the true nature of the apostle's assertion, and no alarm need be felt as to the tendency of his sentiments. For what is it which he affirms in chap. vi. 14 ? It is, that " sin shall not have dominion over Christians, because they are not under the law but under grace." The dominion or -power which sin is to have over Christians, is then the subject of his inquiry and of his assertions. So indeed the preceding context teaches ; and so the subsequent context also. That we are not under the law, then, must of course mean, in this connection, that We are not under it as an efficacious or successful means of deliverance from the power of sin ; for this it ha:s -never been, and cannot be, as chap. vii. 5—25 most fully shows. Christians are dead to the law, then, in this respect, viz., they renounce all hope of deliverance from the power of sin, through the law. It convinces, and condemns, and keeps up a continual struggle in the sinner's breast by awakening his conscience; but does not deliver, vii. 14 — 25, comp. viii. 3, 4. Consequently the true penitent, coming to feel its impotence as the means of delivering from the power of sin, renounces all hope of deliverance in this way, and gives himself up toChrist, as his sane- tijication, as well as his wisdom, justification, and redemption. Now what is there in all this, which infringes on the obligation of moral precept con- tained in the law ? Surely nothing. "The law is holy, and just, and good;" it is all summed up in the requisition, ' to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as our- selves.' Will any one assert that Paul contends against this, after all that he has said in chaps, vi. — viii., relative to the Christian's obligation to renounce sin and live a holy life '>. Nothing can be farther from his intention. The only question that needs to be solved, in order to remove all difficulty, is : In what sense does Paul say that we are dead to the taw ? This I have endeavoured to answer, by making the apostle his own expositor. The sum of the answer is, that as Christians renounce the law as an effectual means o( juslijication (chaps, i. — iii.), so they must renounce it as an effectual means of sanctijication. Christ is our only hope in this respect, as well as in the other. The grace of the gospel is the only effectual means by which we can hope successfully to resist sin, and persevere in holiness. And is not this true 1 Just as true as that Christ is the ground of our justification ? I appeal to chap. viii. 3, 4 for an exhibition of the sum of this sentiment ; and to the whole of chaps, vi.— viii., and also to the experience and feelings of every truly enlightened and humble Christian on earth, — in confirmation of the same sentiment. I acknowledge it is a truth often overlooked. Many a time have I read the epistle to the Romans, without obtaining scarcely a glimpse of it. When I ask the reason of this, I find it in neglect to look after the general object and course of thought in the writer. Special interpretation stood in the way of general views ; the explanation of words hindered the discerning of the course of thought. And so I suppose it may be with many others. But now the whole matter appears to me so plain, that I can only wonder that I have ever been in the dark respecting it. Luther and other Reformers saw vehat was so long hidden from me; and of late, Knapp, Tholuck, and many other commentators, have explained 302 ROMANS VII. 1. the chapters in question in like manner as I now do. ReicUe indeed has recently dis- claimed and opposed this view; but I cannot think him to be la the right. Having already given what I consider as the only defensible exposition of the similitude which the apostle employs in vers. 1 — 4, I merely advert to different expositions, ancient and modern. Augustine (Prop. 36) : Tria sint ; anima tanquam mulier, jiassiones pecca- torum tanquam i;ir, et Ux tanquam i^a; viri. Beza : "The old men is the wife, sinful desire the husband, sins the children." Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and others : " Men are the wife, the law the former husband, Ciirist the new one." This last explanation seems to accord substantially with ver. 4, in which Christians are represented as having become dead to their former husband, and affianced to a new one. In order to carry the figure regularly through, it would seem as if the law (the former husband) must be repre- sented as dead, by which Christians would be at liberty to be joined to a new husband. But this the apostle does not say ; probably because he thought the expression would give offence to the Jews. Yet he says what is tantamount to it ; for if either of the parties in a conjugal union die, then each is dead to the law, and the law to them, i, e. the conjugal Jaw has no more application or relation to them, it is annulled as to them. It matters not which party dies, so far as the law is concerned ; for the law no longer controls him who dies. So in the care before us ; one of the parties being dead, ihe conjugal relation ceases. A new connection, therefore, may be formed. But this last conclusion can be made out only on the ground, that " dying to the law " is a figurative expression ; which, indeed, no one will deny. If it is to be expounded by analogy with chap. vi. 1 — II, we must con- strue it as meaning, ' the renunciation of all trust in the law as the efficientmeans of sanc- tifying the sinner.' When the awakened sinner comes to feel this sincerely and thoroughly, he is then prepared to be affianced to Christ, i. e. to receive him as his sanctijicution as well as his justification. (1) "H ayvoeXre, in sense the same as ovk oVSarE in vi. 16; which see. "H, num, an, merely a sign of interrogation here. Here, as in vi. 16, the writer means to say, that they well know, or that they will readily acknowledge, viz. that which he is about to state. — Fivmct- Kovai .... \a\Cj,for I address those ivho are acquainted with the law, viz. the Mosaic law. The apostle may mean here, that he addresses the Jewish part of the church at Rome, in a particular manner, in relation to what he is about to say ; or what he says may imply, that the whole church had some acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. In regard to this latter fact it may be said, that as the Old Testament was every where and continually appealed to by the primitive teachers of Christianity, and was moreover extant in the Greek language which was very generally understood at Rome, so it is altogether probable that the Roman Christians in general had an acquaintance with at least the leading features of the Mosaic system. However, I should consider it to be most probable, that he is here particularly addressing the Hebrew Christians. The reader will notice that the article is here omitted before yLvujaKovcn, where we should naturally expect it, and where it is usual to insert it. But it ROMANS VII. I, 2. 303 is not unfrequently omitted in these eases; N. Test. Gramm. § 144. 2. Tap, " rationem ?-eddens ;" for if they were acquainted with the law they could not be ignorant of what the apostle supposes them to know. "Ort 6 vofiog .... ^1^5 that the Imv exercises controul over a man as long as he lives. The apostle means the Mosaic law here ; but wliat he says is equally true of other la^s of a permanent nature. — Kv- pievei, performs the office of Kvpiog, i. e. controuls, is valid in respect to. Not improbably the choice of this word was dictated by the no KUjOifj) of the preceding verse. It is as much as to say, that so long as we are affianced to the law, the law is our Kvpiog, and not Christ. — Tov av^pioTTov, THE 7nan, i. e. the man who lives under it, not any man in general, but only one who holds such a relation. Some interpreters here take av^piovov in the same sense as avdpog, i. e, husband. But besides the want of iisus loquendi in its favour, it may be said, that the proposition is evidently of a general nature, in re- spect to such individuals as lived under the Mosaic law. — Zy is ren- dered by Flatt and others, it lives, viz. the law. But first, how could this be ? If the man dies, the law still lives as to others ; it becomes inefficacious as to him, only by means of his death. It cannot die in any other way. Then secondly, what a tautology ; The law is in force (icwpjEuet), as long as it is in force (^y). Is this the manner of Paul ? Thirdly, the avrip Z,Cov and cnro^avh)v of vers. 2, 3, clearly shows, that in ver. 1 ixv^pMirog is the Nominative to Z,y. (2) 'H -yap . . . v6fi(o,for the 7narried wofnan is bound to her hus- band by the law, so long as he liveth. — "Y-rrav^pog, a very expressive word, classical as well as Hellenistic, and like the Hebrew nnn nw, Num. V. 29. In the East, virav^pog denotes a higher degree of disparity between husband and wife, than is admitted in the west- ern world. — AeSfrat vo/xw has a force also here, which commenta- tors have generally overlooked. Under the Mosaic economy, the husband could divorce the wife almost at pleasure ; but where is the precept giving the like liberty to the wife ? This would have been contrary to the genius of eastern manners and customs. This seems to be the reason why the apostle has chosen the woman, in this case, in order to exhibit an example of obligation while the life of the par- ties continues. — Tap illustrantis ; and it might, as to sense, be well translated^r example. The instance in vers. 2, 3, seems to me very plainly to be a mere illustration of the general principle in ver. 1. Reiche has argued against this, but not in a satisfactory manner. 304 ROMANS VII. 3, 4. 'Eav Se . . . avSpog, but if her husband die, she ceases to be under the conjugal laiv. — Kar/j^yrjrai when followed by Atto (as in the present case), means to cease to belong to any erne, to cease to be sub- ject to his controid ; comp. ver. 6 below, and Gal. v. 4. In the next verse we find iX^v^tpa lariv awb tov vo^oi;, in the same sense as KaTiipynrai airo tov vo/uov in this. CEcumenius : KarijpyrjTOt' avri TOV aTToXiXvTai, iXev^tpwTai. So the Hebrew ]p bni is used. — Tov avSpoQ, Gen. oj' relation, viz. the law which related to her hus- band, i. e. the conjugal law which gave him power and right as a hus- band. (3) "Apa ovv . . . trepcf), therefore if she marry another, during her husband's life, she shall be called an adulteress ; i. e. it follows from the nature of her obligation, that she can not be united with another man while her husband is living. "Apa ovv, so then ; an intensive form of particles designating conclusion. — 'Kg^jxaTiau, she shall bear the name of, she shall receive the appellation of. This usage of the word belongs to later classics; in which the verb puts the name called into the Nominative after it ; I^P^Ji"""^^ ^aaikzvg, Diod. Sic. XX. 54. Tov fxi) sivat avTi]v, SO that she shall not be. The classic Greek M^ould usually express this by wctte jurj elvai avrijv. But Infinitives with TOV are very frequent in the Septuagint and in the New Testa- ment ; even in cases where, like the present, the e7id or evetd is de- signated by the article. In this respect tov before the Infinitive resembles the Hebrew ■? , which expresses either putpose, design, or else end, event. N. Test. Gramm. § 138. 8. (4) "Qo-rf (compounded of toq and ts) standing at the beginning of a sentence, must, according to Bretschneider, be rendered igitur, quare, i. e. therefore, wherefore. The true sense here indicated by it, however, seems to be thus, or so that ; i. e. these things being so, you also have become dead to the law. in order that you might be affianced to Christ, &c. In other words ; allowing that a new con- nection may be lawfully formed, after the death of one of the parties in the conjugal union, it follows that you, who have become dead to the law, i. e. wholly renounced it as an adequate means of sanctifi- cation, may be affianced solely to Christ, &c. — Kai u/usTc, you also, i. e. you having become dead to the law may be affianced to another. T(^ vofio^}, the Dative of specif cation, i. e. designating the parti- cular thing in respect to Mdiich Christians have become dead ; N. Test. Gramm. § 106. 1. Tlic declaration i\mt they had become dead to the ROMANS VII. 4. 305 law, is new in respect io form. Dead to sin the apostle has asserted them to be, in chap. vi. ; he has also asserted that they are not viro v6/mov, vi. 14. But that they were dead to the law, is a new expres- sion and one which of course would need some explanation. The writer immediately subjoins one : Sta rov awfiarog tov Xptorow. He must of course mean the body of Christ as crucified, as having suffered in order to redeem us from the curse of the law ; comp. Heb. X. 5—10. Col. i. 22. ii. 14. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Eph. ii. 15, which do not seem to leave any doubt with respect to the meaning of aioina Xpia- Tov here. As Christ, by his death, is made unto us " righteousness and sanctif cation, and redemption ;" so it is his death which has opened such new prospects for perishing sinners, that they are ena- bled to look away from the law, and to renounce it as an effectual means of sanctification. Hence the apostle says : " Ye have become dead to the law, by the body of Christ." Etc ro yive(T^ai . . . kyep^ivri, in order that ye should be [affian- ced] to another, who has risen from the dead ; i. e. Christ has called you away from your vain hopes and expectations respecting what the law could accomplish as to purifying and saving you, and admitted you to participate in the blessed fruits of his death, viz. the gift of a sanctifying Spirit. But although by his death you are freed from the relation in which you once stood to the law as a means of sanctifica- tion, yet you are not affianced to him as being dead, but as being risen from the dead, as a conqueror who has burst the bars of death, and ascended to glory at the right hand of God the Father. "iva S'fo^, so that we may bring forth fruit to God; i. e. such fruit as God will accept. 9fw, Dat. commodi. The reader will observe, that the last circumstance noted here is the climax of the figurative language used by the apostle. First, there is an annul- ling of a former marriage contract by the death of one of the parties ; next, there is a new union ; and lastly the fruits of this, and also the object of it, are designated. To bring forth fruit for God or unto God, is to live a holy life, to yield obedience unto his precepts, to act in such a manner as to do honour to him. Reiche says, that the whole of vers. 1 — 4 affords nothing more than a subjective argument, not an objective one ; i. e. that the representations made are merely in the way of accommodation to Jewish views, and not as founded in the nature of things. But he seems to have mistaken the nature of the apostle's design. Argument in a strict sense, the passage does not contain, but merely illustration. The similarity between the 306 ROMANS VII. 5. two cases presented, rest partly on the nature of them, and partly on his own declarations. The case in regard to husband and wife, he takes it for granted his readers will admit; thesimilarity of the Chris- tian's case to this, rests in part on his own declaration or authority. Does this never supply the place of /orma/ argument ? Or are we to concede no authority to the apostle as to the determination of mat- ters in religion ? It is too true, alas, that Reiche does not appear to make any concessions of this nature. » CHAP. VII. 5, 6. ' But what if we are dead to the law ?' the objector might here reply ; ' what if, in our new relation, we are affianced in a peculiar manner to Christ ; does it follow from this that the law was so inefficacious in itself for our sanctification, as you represent it to be ? Nay, what you say implies even more ; it implies that it is only in our new state of affiance to Clirist, that we can hriug forth fruit to God ; and that, while under the law, no fruit but such as is of a contrary nature can be produced.' At this crisis of the discussion, the apostle comes out with his last, highest, and boldest assertion concerning the law, as to its efficacy with respect to the point under consideration, viz. its efficacy to sanctify the hearts of sinners. His course of thought seems to be in substance as follows : ' I have said that you must be freed from the law and united to Christ, in order that you may bring forth fruit to God. This is true ; for the law is so far from accomplishing the great end of subduing and sanctifying the hearts of sinners, that it occasions just the opposite effect, i. e. it is the occasion of their becoming more deeply involved in guilt, and of bringing them into more aggravated condemnation. It is the occ&s'wQ of ihe'iT bringing forth fruit unto death, diod not unto God. But when we are freed from all reliance upon it as a means of subduing and sanctifying us, and with a becoming sense of our guilt and helplessness have betaken ourselves to Christ, and relied ou him only as our " sanctification and redemption," then we are enabled to serve God with a new spirit, and not in the old way of only a literal and external obedience.' These were propositions of a bold and startling nature to the Jewish legalist. Some formidable objections would at once rise up in his niind against them. The apostle fully anticipates this ; and as we shall see in the sequel, occupies the remainder of chap. vii. in canvassing and answering them. In the mean time let it be noted, that ver. 5 here is the theme of discussion through vers. 7 — 25 in the sequel ; while ver. 6 (the antithesis of ver. 5) constitutes the iheme of chap, viii. 1 — 11, which is in ail important respects the antithesis of vii. 7 — 25. Knapp, Tho- luck, Flalt, and other distinguished commentators, have seen and noted this ; and in fact it lies on the face of the whole discussion, if the reader will only lay aside for a moment his attention to particular words and phrases, and look simply after the course of thought and reasoning which the apostle pursues. (5) "Ot£ yap . . . crapKhfor ivhen we were in the flesh ; i. e. wJien we were in our natural or carnal state. That such is the meaning of this expression, and that it is not to be literally taken here, is clear from the tisus loquemli, and from the nature of the case. From the ROMANS VII. 5, 6. 307 first ; because they who are in thefiesh^ are contrasted with toIq \v XpKTTo^ 'h](Tov, in chap. viii. 1 — 11, where vers. 7 — 9 put it beyond all question what ev aapKi uvai means. From the second ; because the contrast in vers. 5, 6, is between the character which those whom the apostle addresses sustained before they became affianced to Christ, and that which they sustained after they were affianced to him. Of course iv aapKi eivat must mean to be in a natural or unregenerate state, i. e. to be in that state in which men not yet united to Christ are. Ta ira^{)jxaTa .... vofxov, our sinful passions which were by the law ; i. e. our sinful passions which were occasioned by the law, ver. 11. — Twv afxapTiu)v, Gen. of attribute, our passions which lead us to sin, our sinful passions. — Ta Sia tov vofxov [sc. ovra or yeyovo- ra], which were by the law ; not, as Chrysostom and Carpzov, ra Sia TOV vo/nov [ VOfXCO. The sense of the whole may be made more facile by a different arrangement : but now being dead [to the law], we are freed from the law by which we were held in bondage. "Q,(TTe .... ypanfjLUTog, so that we may now serve [God] in a new and spiritual manner, and not in the old and literal one. That ^t(^ is to be understood after '^ovX^vuv, seems certain from the nature of the antithesis, and from comparing vers. 4, 5. — UvivjxaToq I take to be the Gen. of attribute or explanation. 'Ev kulvottiti vviLvi.iaTOQ, in a newness of a spiritual kind, i. e. in a new and spiritual manner. So Tra\ai6Tt]TL ypafx/xarog designates the former method of literal external obedience, which the Jews endeavoured to render to the law while Iv aapKi. There was no heart in it. God is a Spirit ; and he must be worshipped h> TrvevfxciTi. But this command is obeyed, only when there is a " new heart and a right spirit" in men ; and this is not until they become affianced to Christ. " The law," says Calvin, " puts a check upon our external actions ; but it does not in the least restrain the fury of our concupiscence." ROMANS VII. 7. 309 CHAP. VII. 7—12. We must expect the legalist to rise up with' not a little excitement against the declara- tion of the apostle, viz. rd TraS'Jj/iara tUv djxapTiiov to. Sia tov vofiov. ' What! then,' he would at once say, * are we to believe that the holy and perfect law of God is not only incompetent to sanctify us, but that it is even the occasion of our being greater sinners than we should otherwise be ? Can it be lawful or proper to make such an insinuation as this ? Is the law sin ? To this objection the apostle now replies ; and replies in such a way as to show, that while he fully maintains his ground, viz. that the law is the occasion of greatly aggravating our guilt and condemnation, still the fault lies in us, and not in the law ; for this is alto- gether worthy of approbation and obedience, because it is " holy, just, and good." This is at once a delicate and difficult part of the apostle's discourse, and it is managed with great skill and effect. How often it has been misunderstood, and construed so as to be irrelevant to the object which the writer has in view, will be better seen in the sequel. In the mean time, I must beg the reader to dismiss every thing from his mind but the simple desire to know what the verses before us mean, when explained by the object of the writer > the nature of the connection in which they stand, and the language which is employed. (7) Tt ovv .... afiapTia ; What shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? Language of tlie objector, in opposition to what the apostle has said in ver. 5. — 'Afxapria, from the necessity of the case must here mean, the cause of sin. So Mic. i. 5, "What is the transgression of Jacob? Is it not Samaria?" i. e. what is the cause of Jacob's trans- gression, &c. ? Eph. ii. 16, " having slain the enmity thereby," i. e. the cause of enmity. To give afiapria a diiferent sense here, would be inept. M17 yivoLTo is the answer of the apostle. He means by it wholly to deny the charge involved in the previous question, in the sense in which the legalist supposed the charge might be made, viz. that the law was the efficient cause or the sinful cause of our sin, and that our guilt might be justly put to the account of the law. So much is plain from the sequel. But he does not mean to deny, that there is a sense in which the law is connected with our sins, and that it is the occasion of their being aggravated, rather than the efficient means of our being sanctified. 'AXXa intimates, that the apostle allows of some exceptions to the universal sense of jurj ■ytvotro. It is frequently employed, as here, after negative assertions, in order to indicate that there is some limitation or qualification of them to be made. The course of thought runs thus : ' The law is not the sinful or ef- ficient cause of sin, in the sense that you suppose ; but still there is a sense in which the law is the occasion of sin.' What this is, the writer goes on to describe. 310 ROMANS VII. 7. T))i; ctfjiapTiav . . . i'o/i([>, / had not known si7i except by the law. By what law? As a general proposition, it would be true as to the law of nature or of revelation. " Where there is no law, there is no transgression," Rom. iv. 15. When the apostle (Rom. i. — ii.) speaks of the Gentiles as sinners, he makes them offenders against the law of nature written upon their hearts, Rom. ii. 14, 15; and when he convicts the Jews of guilt, he represents them as offending against revelation. What is said in the verse before us, if understood in a general way, might be explained and defended, then, on general principles. But plainly this is not the object of the writer here. He is controverting the legalists. And who are they ? Jeu\% not Gen- tiles; at least, they usually were not Gentiles. It is the Jewish law, then, to which he here adverts. But in what sense would he not have known sin, except by the law ? Surely the Gentiles were sinners, who had no revelation ; as he has abundantly shown in chaps, i. ii. This consideration leads us of course to say, that the meaning of known (eyvwv) is a qualified and comparative one, in the present passage. The meaning must be, that he would not have known sin in any such manner and measure as he then actually did, had it not been for the law. In this idea is included, not a mere theoretical and as it were scientifical knowledge of it, but that knowledge which is derived from experience, and ex- perience in a high degree. The explanation subjoined in ver. 8, appears to leave no room to doubt this exegesis. The simple expla- nation of the whole seems to be this : ' Unless the law had put restraint upon sinning, I should never have known how great my wickedness is, or how much propensity to evil I have. The restraints of the law galled my evil passions, and they broke out with redoubled violence ; and in this way I have come, from bitter experience, to know much more of the nature and extent of my sinfulness. I should never have known to what extent I was capable of going, had not the restraints of the law brought me to a full development of myself. I was ex- cited by the check which they put upon me ; and I acted out myself in such a manner as I never should have otherwise done ; and in this way I have come to know my sinfulness, through the law. In this way TTCKja tTTi^vfiia (ver. 8) was wrought in me, so that I have a knowledge of sin such as I never should have acquired in any other way.' In this compound sense of fuller development and (through this) of more complete means of knowledge, does the apostle appear to ROMANS VII. 7. 311 affirm that he has acquired a knowledge of sin by the law. Vers. 7 and 8 taken together (and so they should be), can leave no room to doubt, that it is not merely the instruction M^iich the law gives con- cerning the nature of sin, which the apostle aims here to describe ; but a knowledge which is acquired (as described in ver. 8) by an ex- perimental acquaintance with sin ; which had been heightened to so great a degree by the restraints of law, as to place the subject of it in such a condition as to practical knowledge with regard to his own sinfulness, as nothing else could have brought about. On any other ground of exegesis, the connection between vers. 7 and 8 must be virtually broken up. The connection is thus : ' I had not known sin, as I now do, except by the law ; but now I do so know it, because the law has brought out all my sinful nature in opposition to it, which would otherwise have never so developed itself.' But if we understand ver. 7 as a mere eulogy of the law, on account of the light which it gives (as not a few commentators have deemed it to be) ; then in what respect is ver. 8 the antitliesis of ver. 7 ? That antithesis or distinction is intended, the de in ver. 8 here clearly shows. The true nature of the antithesis seems to be this : ' I had not well known sin, except by the law ; but now I do so know it, on account of the law.' Verse 8 shows how and why the sinner comes thus to know it, and that it is in an experimental M^ay. Triv T£ yap .... lTn^vfii](jHQ, for I had not known even lust, unless the law had said : Thou shalt not lust. Tuq conjirmantis here ; i. e. it is placed at the head of a clause designed to confirm and strengthen the preceding assertion. The second clause is an asser- tion of the same general nature with the first, excepting merely that it is in emphasis more intense. 'ETri^v/ziav is a word for which we have no equivalent in our language, when it means, as it here does, unlawful or sinful desire in general, i. e. desire of what would be in any way injurious to our neighbour. The reference in the mind of the writer, appears plainly to have been to Ex. xxix. 14, ionn «■> &c. ; which is well rendered : Thou shalt not covet, i. e. shalt not inordinately desire ; but which is rendered in Greek by ouk Ittl^v- fx{)atig, thou shalt not desire inordinately, thou shalt not lust after or covet. The misfortune is, that we have no English noun that cor- responds well to the generic sense of the verb covet ; for covetousness means a greedy appetite for wealth ; and lust means (at least as now employed) impure desire. We must then paraphrase liri^vfxiavi and render it inordinate desire, forbidden desire. The word, it is ai2 ROxMANS VII. 7, 8. true, sometimes means unlawful aensiial desire ; but plainly it is not here limited to a meaning so circumscribed. The reference to Ex XX. 14, forbids this supposition, as well as the nature of the case. Te has given trouble to the critics here. How it diifers from koj may be seen in Bretschn. Lex. tL When employed alone (as here), it is used to join those things which in their own nature are united and naturally follow each other ; or those which, for some other rea- sons, must be associated together. It is also employed in clauses an- nexed (as here) for the sake of illustration or confirmation. Here the last of these reasons seem to apply. 'ETrtS^wjuta, in the sense \vhich it here has, is a species under the genus ujiapTia. The gene- ral principle is illustrated, then, by this particular sin which the law inhibits. The genius of our language does not permit us to translate ri here, M'ithout doing injury to the mode of expression, if not to the sense. In Greek it affords a sign to the reader, that he is to connect the clause in which it stands with the preceding one. That the whole is here to be understood in a comparative sense, is a clear case. If no revelation had ever been given to the Jews, then, like the Gentiles, they would have had the law of nature to guide and check them, Rom. ii. 14, 15. In the absolute sense, then, the apostle cannot be supposed to speak. The writer means : ' I had not so known sin as I now know it, except by the law.' A complete and full illustration and vindication of such a comparative sense, may be found in John xv. 22 — 24 ; which the reader is desired attentively to consult. (8) This verse explains how the law has been the occasion of promoting the knowledge of sin, in the sense which the writer here means to convey. 'A^op/mriv Se . . . . iiri^vn'iav, hut sin, taking oc- casion by the commandment^ wrought out in me all manner of inordi- nate desire. — KarEfpyaaaro, wrought out; it is more than t/pyao-oTo, and meajis more fully to complete, develope, or accomplish, — ' Af^iaQTia is here personified. It cannot mean simply sinful desires or affections ; for these are affirmed to be the effect of its influence or operation. Nor can it be what is called actual sin ; for this again is the effect of its operations. It would seem, therefore, that the pjersonif cation of sin in this case must answer to the IjCo aapKiKog and ireirpafxivog vTTo Trjv afxaQTiav of ver. 14 seq. ; in other words, that it stands for the carnal man, as such, who is opposed to the divine law, and who is roused by its prohibitions and threatenings to more active engagement in the commission of sin. Accordingly, while apaQTia is employed ROMANS VII. S. 313 in the M^ay of personification in vers. 8 — 13, in the sequel ijM aap- KiKog, for the most part takes its place. If the reader feels that there is any incongruity in such a use of a/napTia here, and that it will be difficult to adjust all which is affirmed of it to the supposition that it stands for lyu) (rapKiKog, he must call to mind, that something must of course be allowed to the liberty and congruity of prosopopeia. It is in fact the carnal I which rouses up the passions, and which is the cause of all the evil that follows. And if the whole passao-e relates to the experience of Christians^ (as some suppose), even then it is the remains of the carnal I in them, which occasions all the evil. But how or why did sin take occasion by the commandment to pro- duce all manner of inordinate desires ? The apostle does not defi- nitely answer this question, but leaves it to be supplied, as a matter of course, by his readers. What then is the principle in human nature, which he seems to consider so obvious as to need no mention ? It is the one, 1 answer, to which I have already more than once ad- verted ; viz. that opposition to the desires and passions of unsanctified men, inflames them and renders them more intense and unyielding. So most of the commentators. Calvin : Neque inficior quum acrius a lege exstimuletur caro ad concupiscendum. — Per leo-em in- stigatur cupiditas nostra, ut in majorem ebulliat insaniam. — Vitiosa hominum natura, cujus perversitas ac libido, quo magis justitije repa- gulis coerceretur, eo furiosius erumpit (in ver. 5). Chrysostom : "Orav yap Tivog liri^ov/xovpsv, sira KwXvMjuii^a, alperai juaXXov Trig Itti- ^vp.iag r) (j)\6^, when we covet any thitig, and are hindered from ob- taining it, the flame of our inordinate desire is the more augmented. Erasmus: Universa cupiditatum cohors irritata, prohibitione ccepit acrius ad peccandum solicitare. A most striking and melancholy ex- ample in point is, that prohibition and penalty were not sufficient, even in paradise, to prevent our first parents from ruining themselves and all their posterity. The very heathen fully acknowledged the principle in question ; so plainly is it a part of our nature. Thus Cato (Li v. xxxiv. 4) says of luxury, Non mota, tolerabilior esset quam erit nunc ; ipsis vincu- lis, sicut fera bestia, irritata deinde emissa. Seneca : Parricidse cum lege coeperunt, de Clem. I. 23. Horace : Audax omnia perpeti, gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas, Carm. I. 3. Ovid: Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata, Amor. III. 4. To the like pur- pose is Prov. ix. 17 : Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasure. Now as this is an obvious principle of a corrupt 314 ROMANS VII. 8. natural state, and will account for the fact which the apostle has as- serted in the text, we may adopt the conclusion that it lies at the ground of his assertion. 'Afiaprla, therefore, as here employed in the way of j)ersonification, designates the cyw aapKiKog. Observe the strength of the expression, Sm rjjc tvroXijc .... tTrt- ^vfxiav ; as much as to say, ' Sin, i. e. my disposition to sin, did not simply produce tTri^vfiiav, i. e. some inordinate desire that would lead to the commission of evil — but iraaav iiri^vfiiavi every kind of inordinate desire, a great variety of evil passions.' To account for this, we must resort to the principle already stated. It should be noted here, also, that in this way it was, that the law became the oc- casion of his obtaining a knowledge of sin, which he would otherwise never have acquired. So the sequel intimates : X(i)p\g yap vofiov afxapria vficpa, for without the law sin is dead; i. e. comparatively sluggish and inoperative; comp. James ii. 17, 26, TTiarig vtKpa. Xwplg vofxov is equivalent to pi) ovrog vopovf i. e. there being no law. That such must be the sense, the preceding declaration shows ; the amount of which is, that ' sin did by the com- mandment produce all kinds of inordinate desire in him.' Now if this be correct, then sin, without such commandment, i. e. without such an occasion of producing Traaav liri^vpiav, would be compara- tively inoperative. For the comparative sense of the whole passage the reader is again referred to John xv, 22 — 24. That the apostle could not mean to be understood in the absolute sense, is plain from chap, i. ii., where the Gentiles are charged with sin, who nevertheless are without the particular law here spoken of, i. e. without a revela- tion. In the absolute sense, the time never has been, and never can be, when men are without the law. " The heathen, who have no [written] law, are a law unto themselves." No individual, at any period of his life when he is capable of moral action, can be said to be without law in the absolute sense ; for the law always exists, inde- pendently of this or that individual. The meaning of Paul, then, according to the views which he himself inculcates, must be this, viz. that before an individual has any particular and definite views of the nature and extent of the divine law as to its prohibitions and penalties. When these first come home to his mind with power, then it is that he, through enmity and opposition to them, plunges deeper than ever into sin, and becomes at the same time more consciously guilty. lleiche places the law here, i. e. the Mosaic law, in opposition to the pat?-iarchal state before the law was given ; and through- ROMANS VII. 8. 315 out this whole comparison, he makes the l-yai crapKiKOQ to be the wicked portion of the Jewish community, and the 6 eaio av^pwrrog to mean the good part of it; a supposition that must be involved in many serious difficulties, and one which seems to me liable to over- whelming objections. One only of these appears to be sufficient; which is, that in this way, the argument of the apostle is rendered nerveless and inapposite. For what is his object? Plainly to show, that the law is utterly inadequate of itself to the sanctification 'and salvation of men, inasmuch as it in fact (such is the perverted use they make and will make of it) only serves to plunge them into deeper guilt, and to aggravate their offences. Now how can this be illustrated and enforced by saying, that sinners in ancient times made a bad use of the law, and saints approved of it and consented to it? It can be shown only by an exhibition of the fact, that no man, sim- jAy under the law^ has escaped or will be delivered from the power and penalty of sin. Why ? Because the disposition he has to sin is roused up into greater activity by the restrictions of the law, to the holy nature of which he is opposed ; and, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of reason and conscience against this course of con- duct, and in spite of the testimony which they bear in favour of the holiness and justice and goodness of the law, he who is under the law merely, goes on in sin, and will do so, until grace arrests his course and " frees him from the law of sin and death," viii. 2. How all this can be shown, by averring merely that sinners of old were ren- dered more sinful by the Mosaic law, while saints approved it and consented to it, I do not see. It is plainly a contest in the breast of the same individual which the apostle designs to represent; and he shows that, with all which reason and conscience aided by the law can do for him, there is no hope of salvation except through the grace of the gospel. How can a matter so plain and apposite to the apostle's purpose be overlooked ? It is singular, also, that not only Reiche, but Glockler likewise, represents ajiapTia in this verse as meaning actual sin, and not a dis- position to sin or vitiositas. Actual sin, they say, produces sinful desires ; and these again produce sinful actions in their full develop- ment ; and thus comes the train of evils which the apostle here ad- verts to. But whence the mother sin ? we may well ask ; and this of course is a question which renders the whole of this theory quite improbable. It is true, beyond all doubt, that sins of action do beget various lusts, and nearly always do this ; and these in their turn de- 316 ROMANS Vil. 8, 9. velope themselves in action. But the apostle is speaking here of something in us which is roused up by the law to produce inordmate desires, which then bring forth death. Now what is that originally, if it be not the native disposition that we have to be excited by sinful o])jects and to oppose holy ones; and which we, since the fall of Adam, possess in a measure that is sure to triumph over all the restraints of the divine law, and of reason and conscience, which tes- tify in its favour, and remonstrate against our evil passions ? I must believe, with the great mass of commentators, that ufxapria here is a personification of the disposition. The theory of lleiche and Glock- ler, in this case, seems to me to involve a real vcrTtpov TTporepov. (9) 'Eyw Se t^'^v . . • vrort for I was alive once, without the law. A difficult and much controverted phrase. The Se presents obstacles in the first place. Is it St orationi continuandce inserviens, or Si dis- cretiva vel disjunctiva ? The first, I answer ; but it belongs to that species of usage which inserts 81 before an additional explanation ; " accuratius definit," Bretsch. Lex. In such a case Si may be ren- dered moreover, besides. Al might be rendered yb?-, inasmuch as the connection in which it stands often entitles us so to render it (see Passow's Lex. ;) yet here I have the impression that ver. 9 is not subordinate to the last clause in ver. 8, but co-ordinate. The last clause in ver. 8 asserts, that sin is dead without the law, while ver. 9 declares that when the law came, sin developed itself with power ; with which declaration it also connects other additional circumstances. The Ijio here must of course mean another self different from the one which afiapria designates in the verse above. I hesitate, how- ever, whether we should here construe it as designating merely self, i. e. I myself as a person or individual, taken in the usual sense and without reference to another and different self; or whether the 6 ectw liv^owTTog (ver. 22) should be here regarded as constituting the tyw. On the whole I incline to the former, for two reasons; (1) Because the antithetic lyu) seems not to be introduced until ver. 14- sen. (2) What is said in the sequel of the verse would seem rather to belong to the whole person, to the man as man, than merely to the o Etrw av^pioTTog in the limited sense in which Paul uses this phrase in the sequeL "E^wv is plainly used here in a comparative sense ; and moreover w?,qA figuratively not literally. It seems clear that the occasion of employing it is the preceding vtKpu, to which t^iov of course is the direct antithesis. To find out the full meaning of this antithesis, then, ROMANS VII. 9. 317 we must revert to ufxapTia vsKpa. This, we have seen, must be taken in the comparative sense, viz. as indicating the comparatively inactive power and influence of sin, before an individual has a defi- nite apprehension of the prohibitions and penalties of the divine law. "E^wv, then, characterizes the state of such a man, by affirming that of him which is opposite to that which is affirmed of ctjuiapTia. Now as sin is declared in the condition supposed, to be comparatively in- operative or dead, so the man himself is comparatively without sin, or (in other words) alive ; just as when our Saviour says of the Jews, ' If I had not come and spoken to them, thei/ had not had sin.' To say that sin is dead, and to say that the man is alive, evidently means for substance one and the same thing. So the sequel leads us plainly to interpret this passage ; for the apostle immediately asserts, that as soon as sin gathered new life (avi^-ncrev) the man died (t-yw airi^a- vov). Now what was this death, except to come under the active and predominating power and penalty of sin ? What then must be the life, (t^wv) in this case, but to be free from such a state? But then — the whole is beyond all doubt to be taken in a comparative sense. . For what is the apostle labouring to prove ? Not that a man must be under the Jewish or revealed law (for that is the law here designated), in order that he should be a sinner ; for how could this agree with chap. i. ii., where he labours to convict the Gentiles of sin ? He is labouring here to show, that the law, instead of sancti- fying and saving men, is, through their abuse of it, the means of plunging them deeper in guilt. In other words ; the Jewish law, to which so many are prone to look as the means of safety and sanctifi- cation, does actually serve (under the present circumstances and con- dition of men) to render them more guilty than they would otherwise have been. Of course then the t^wv here must have a sense which is comparative, and is fitted for the object and aim of the writer; and this can be nothing more nor less than to say, that before an indivi- dual has a distinct and vivid perception of the nature and spirituality and extent of the divine law, he is less active and desperate in his sin and guilt than after he comes to such a knowledge. And thus ex- plained, all is easy, natural, and coherent. The reader cannot fail to observe, also, how exactly this sentiment parallelizes with that in chap. iii. 20, where Paul declares, that " the law entered so that sin would or should abound." It is the unahounding state of it, then, which is described in our text by lyoj tZ,wv. The various solutions given by commentators may now be briefly 318 ROMANS VII. 9. subjected to the reader's view. Calvin, Augustine, and others, have advanced the opinion, that t^wv here means : ' I deemed myself alive once,'i. e. before I understood the spirituality and extent of the law. But in such a case, if we will go through with the exegesis, we shall see at once the insuperable difficulty which attends it. For example : ' I once deemed myself spiritually alive ; but when I came under conviction by the law, a sense of sin revived and I was brought to deem myself spiritually dead,' (so far all seems well); *and the commandment which was designed to give life, proved to be deadly {elg ^dvuTov) to me ;' it was deadly to me, because it brought me under real and true conviction as to my desperate spiritual con- dition ! Is this then the way in which tlie law of God proves Jafal to the sinner, viz. by convincing him of the true and deadly nature of sin ?* Bretschneider and others understand t^wv here in the simple sense of degere vitam, to exist or be for any length of time. But the nature of the antithetic language here does not seem to permit this ; . for in the sequel a-rri^avov is plainly opposed to t^wr here; but awi^avov cannot be the antithesis of e^wv taken in the sense of vitam degebam, for then airi^avov must mean physical death ; which surely is not the sense of it here. As to the question, IVhen was the period of being x'^'pic vo/iov ? Augustine, Origen, Ernesti, Morus, and others, suppose that the * Mr. Barnes, in his recent Commentary, agrees with Calvin in construing tyci i^uv as meaning, ' I deemed myself alive ;' yet in giving the exegesis of tyw dirt^avov which immediately follows, he says : " I was by it involved in additional guilt and misery." At the same time he remarks in the very next sentence, that tytj d-Tri^c^vov " stands opposed to syuj l^ixtv." In this last particular he is beyond all doubt correct ; but then, if tyti tZav}j . . . ^avuTov, SO that sin miyht exhibit itself as causing death to me by that tvhich is good. — ^a\n} is 2 Aor. pass. Subj., but is employed (as the Aorists pass, often are) in the sense of the Mid- dle voice. The meaning is ; ' Sin became the cause of death to me, by leading me to abuse the law which was altogether good ; and so it exhibited, in a true light, its own deadly and odious nature.' The fioi here and the Ifxoi above are the Dative incommodi. Iva yivy]Tai .... tvroAfjc? ^o that sin, thj-ough the commandment, might be exceedingly sinful ; i. e. so that sin, by abuse of the com- mandment which was good, and by making it the occasion of death to the sinner, and by its opposition to a commandment in its own nature holy and just and good, might thus appear to be exceedingly aggravated and detestable. Reiche refers the clause to the actual increase of sin, after the giving of the law; but yiviyrai a/napTwXog must characterize the heinousness of sin, not the increase as to quan- tity. For Ka^' vTTio^oXiiv, used adverbially instead of wttep/BoAXov- T(x)Q, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 31.2 Cor. i. 8. iv. 17. I take the two phrases in these verses beginning with \va, to be co-ordinate ; and both of them I regard as suspended on aAAa ?j afxapria l^avarog yiyove^. One of the phrases declares that sin developed itself according to its true nature, by perverting the holy law of God ; the other, that the exceedingly odious nature of it was thus made the more manifest. (11) OlBafuv yap some critics divide thus: olSa fitv yap. But ROMANS VII. 14. " 327 the general usage of Paul is against this; for in appeals of this nature he generally uses the jjfural numher and not the singular. — Tap illustrantis et cotijirmanfis ; for the sequel is designed to illustrate and confirm what he has said in respect to the law and sin, in ver. 13. 'O vojuoc TTveu^artKoc tor/, the law is spiritual, i. e. the law en- joins those things which are agreeable to the nature and mind of the Spirit. Flesh and spirit are often opposed to each other in a variety of senses; viz. (1) Ks flesh is weak and perishable (Gen. vi. 3. Ps. Ixxviii. 39. Ivi. 4. Jer. xvii. 5. Is. xL 6), so spirit (mi, Trvtvfxa), the animating and invigorating principle, is sometimes placed in opposi- tion to it with the meaning of strength and permanence ; e. g. Is. xxxi. 3. But, (2) The most common usage in the New Testament is the tropical one ; where aap^ is viewed as the seat of carnal desires and aifections, and is often employed to designate them, sometimes simply, and sometimes with ^povr/jua added to it ; while irvtvfxa, when em- ployed in the way of antithesis to it, means a new and holy disposition, which is tI TrvEUjuartKov, i. e. something produced by the influence of the Spirit of God and guided by this influence. Hence Chris- tians are Trvsu^artKot, and unsanctified men are crapKiKoi, because the former are under the influence of the Spirit, and the latter are guided by their carnal appetites and desires. All this is quite plain, when one reads Rom. viii. 1 — 17, where the antithesis is fully and explicitly stated. To say then that the law is Trveu/xartKoc) is to aflirm that its na- ture is pneumatic, i. e. agreeable to the mind or will of the Spirit. The antithesis therefore is plain, viz. Ijm St o-apictKoc £«ftf) but I am carnal, i. e. I am under the influence of carnal desires and afi'ections. Even such desires as do not spring directly from the flesh, are some- times named carnal ; and this, it would seem, because most of our sinful propensities are in some way connected with the flesh, and those which are not, are similar in regard to their moral character. For example ; in Gal. v. 19 — 22, the apostle names hatred, envt/, an- ger, &c., as spya aapKog ; and so in Rom. viii. 5 — 9, koto crapKa u- vai or Trepnraruv, includes evei-y kind of vicious conduct. And in the passage before us, (rapKiKog elpi is explained by a clause which the writer immediately adds ; viz. UeTrpaixevog vtto rr)v apapriav, sold under sin, i. e. the bond- slave of sin, SouXoc Trig afxapriag : for so the sequel shews him to be, inasmuch as he obeys sin in every case, whatever opposition is made to it on the part of conscience or the divine \?cw. The language is 328 ROMANS Vll, 14, 15. borrowed from the practice of selling captives, who have been taken in war, as slaves. They were viewed as liaving- forfeited their lives ; and so they were sold into a state of the most absolute despotism. In allusion to this, the apostle represents the person who is still under the law, and therefore unredeemed, as bein^^ the bond-slave of sin. Stronger language than this he could not employ ; and it will be im- portant, in the sequel, to look back on this expression in order to solve some of the doubts which may arise from o fiiaM, o ov ^i\(o tyiv, TO S'eAftv TrapaKtirai juoi, (Tvv{]^0fxai r(jj vo/kjj tov S'eow, &c. Let the reader who wishes to consult the writer's own exposition of crapKtKoC} carefully compare chap. viii. 5 — 9. The law then is good, for it is TrvtvjuartKoc, i. e. agreeable to the dictates of the Spirit. It is not this, therefore, which is the efficient cause of men's sins ; it is that they are (raoKiKoi, devoted to the desires of the flesh, following the dictates of its desires. (15) That the law does sustain such a character, must be well known to the sinner himself. His own reason and conscience take sides with the law and approve of its precepts. Yet still so carnally inclined is he, that he listens not to these, but acts directly against them. In other words, he is actually the slave of sin. Tap in this verse would seem to have direct relation to the declaration just repeated. Observe the tenor of it: 'He does that which he dislikes, he is as it were forced by his slavish condition to do that which is hateful to his better self.' In this way, the idea that he is TTiTTiiafxivog viro Tt]v afxaprlav, becomes very prominent. In order to express [the sentiment which he intends to convey in the most striking manner, the apostle divides the person thus in bond- age into two selves (if I may thus speak), viz., the vovq or 6 ectoj av^puiiTOQ (vers. 22, 23), and the awfia, mip^, or carnal part of his nature. In the latter dwell the passions and affections which sway the avS-pwTToc aapKiKog ; in the former is still a portion of the image of God (James iii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xi. 7), which discerns and cannot but approve the holy and perfect law of God that is merely a transcript of his own nature. If the reader has any question, whether this last statement is in accordance with the apostle's views of unsanctified human nature, he needs but to'turn back and read Rom. ii. 14, 15, in order to dissipate his doubts. That the unregenerate have reason and conscience, which approve and must approve the divine law, shows nothing more than that they are rational and moral beings with faculties adapted to a state of moral probation, and that they arc ROMANS Vir. 15. 329 made in the image of God so far as a rational and moral nature is concerned. This is merely saying that they are men, and not brutes. The faculty to discern what is good', the power to approve of it, is in itself no more holy or sinful, than the faculty of ratiocination is, or of seeing or hearing. Nothing can be more unfounded, than the supposition that moral good is put to the account of the sinner, merely because one assigns to him reason to discern its nature and con- science to approve it. Without these he could not be a rational and moral being. They are mere pura naturalia, to speak in the lan- guage of the old theology. The reader need not be in any degree alarmed, then, for the doc- trine of human depravity, when he finds the sinner here represented as seeing something of the nature of the divine law and testifying in its favour. It is on such ground as this, that the ways of God toward men may be vindicated ; for allowing it to be true, that our physical nature is the peculiarly exciting cause of most of our sinsj we may still ask : ' Is there not an eo-w av^ptjirog which opposes all inordi- nate desires, and warns us to avoid sin and cleave to duty !' And on this ground it is, that God regards the heathen as being without ex- cuse ; as is clear from Rom. i. ii., especially ii. 14, 15. '^O yap .... yivu)(TKM,for that which Ida, I disapprove. Kartp- jat^ofxai means more than the simple IpyaZofiai ; it designates the habitual doing or practising of any thing. — Ou yivwaKU) is rendered by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tholuck, and others, I know not, i. e. my mind is so darkened by sin that I do not perceive the true nature of what I am doing; but the explanation which Paul immediately sub- joins seems to forbid this exegesis, viz. ov yago ^iXio k. t. A. Be- sides, the vejy height of the criminality here depicted is, that the sin is against light, and knowledge, and conscience. On the other hand, that yivwdKb) in Greek, as well as the Hebrew 5>t, not unfrequently means to know in the sense of acknowledging or appromng, may be seen in the lexicons ; see Matt. vii. 23. xxv. 12. Luke xiii. 27. Ps. i. 6. Hos. viii. 4. That knowledge speculatively considered is not here meant, i. e. that ov yivuxTKM does not mean / ajn ignorant, insciens sum, is clear from the sequel, where the apostle speaks of his neglecting to do that which he wills. Now what he wills, must be an object of perception with him; so that oh yivuxTKw cannot be under- stood of mere intellectual ignorance. Ov yap o ^iXio, tovto Trpaa(T(x),for not that ivhich I approve, do I pei'form. Tap confirmantis, i. e. the clause of the sentence that 330 ROiMANS VII. 15, follows, confirms the preceding statement. First, we have a general declaration. Jl'/iat I do, I disapprove. Next follows a specific one which illustrates and confirms it : Not that tvhic/i I approve do I perform, hut I do that which I hate. If there be any thing paradox- ical here (and the first view of the case may seem to present a para- dox), it is occasioned entirely by the plan of the writer to represent the two contrary selves in one and the same person. Kar spy at^oimai belongs to the carnal self, and yivwaKU) to the vovg or eaoj avSrpwTroc ; and thus in succession, it is the conscience and reason, i. e. the in- ternal moral man, which disapproves {ov ^i\w) and hates (juto-w), while the carnal man practises (Trpatro-w, Trotw) the thing which is disapproved and hated. All speculative metaphysical questions would here be entirely out of place. One might ask : ' Is it true, then, that a man does what he is unwilling to do, and hates to do ? This would be not only to re- present him as acting against predominant motives, but as a machine who could not follow his own inclination.' And on the ground of some systems of metaphysical philosophy the whole would indeed be an unaccountable affair, as it is here represented by the apostle ; although such philosophy is not unfrequently insisted on, and urged as being all-important in theology. But still the apostle might make the appeal, for his own triumphant vindication, to the breast of every man on earth, where the moral warfare has been carried on as he describes it, between conscience and passion. And a most exact and striking picture it is too. The demonstration of its correctness is internal, in the very consciousness of the soul; it depends not on metaphysics or ratiocination. It is not true, indeed, that a man does that which on the whole he is unwilling to do; nor is this what the apostle means to affirm. But it is true, that men often do what reason and conscience disapprove ; and which he here expresses in the strong language of ov ^iXuj and fxiau), i. e. it is the eo-w av^pwirog of whom this is predicated. And even this, in a contrast like the present, is not to be urged to its highest point of possible meaning. Thus, for example, juktuj does not always mean positive hatred, but a 7iot lovitig or merely a compara- tively not loving, i. e. a less loving ; for so the examples in Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. xiv. 26, teach us. The last example here is per- fectly in point, to show that fxiou) may mean (as it certainly does here) merely a less loving of some than others ; comp. as exegetical of it, Matt. X. 37. That ^iXto and fuaw, then, can both be affirmed ROMANS VII. 15. 331 of the conscience enlightened by the divine law (comp. ver. 9), when they are understood in this qualified sense (and on any ground of exegesis a qualified sense is absolutely necessary), is sufficiently man- ifest. Any one who undertakes to urge the sense of words employed in such a contrast as is here presented, to the highest meaning of which they are capable, must involve himself at least in difficulties that are absolutely inextricable. There is a striking passage in Xenophon (Cyrop. VI. 1), in which Araspes the Persian says, by way of excusing his treasonable designs: " Certainly I must have two souls .... for plainly it is not one and the same which is both evil and good, nor which loves honourable and base conduct, and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not to do it. Plainly then there are two souls ; and when the good one pre- vails, then it does good ; and when the evil one predominates, then it does evil." Similar to this is the sentiment in Euripides, Medea, 1077, Mav^avoi) iJLiv, oia ^pav jueXXw kukci, Qvfiog §£ Kpii(r^]fxL ROMANS VII. 22. 337 in ver. 16; and to-o) av^pojirov here, corresponds to tywin ver. IT. If any one is disposed to urge here the strength of the expression awi]- Sofiai Tw vojuLco, as being inconsistent with an unregenerate state, he will do well to look back on ver. 14, and ask, whether the expression there, on the other side, is not still stronger. The truth is, in a con- trast like this, where the mind of the writer is wrought up to a high pitch of feeling, the mere forms of expression cannot in themselves go very far toward establishing any principle of doctrine. It is to the object at which the writer is aiming^ that we must look ; and this object has been already brought to view. But if any one insists on urging the form of expression, I must ask him first to construe ver. 14 by the rule which he himself here adopts; and then to compare Mark vi. 20 riSiojg avrov i]kov£, i. e. Herod heard John rjSiwg ; John V. 35. Matt. xiii. 20. John ii. 23—25. Acts viii. 13, comp. vers. 20— 23. Isa. Iviii. 2, where it is said of the wicked, that "they delight to know my ways," and " they take delight in approaching to God." Comp. also 1 K. xxi. 27 — 29. 1 John iii. 9. Ps. cxix. 3. Many other passages of the like tenor could be adduced, in order to show that a qualified sense is to be put on such expressions. Above all, John xv. 22 — 24. Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13 and xiv. 26, show that very strong expressions of this kind are to be modified according to the nature of the case which is under consideration. With such examples before us, and with the whole context (at least so it plainly appears to me) to remind us of the necessity of taking oruvjjSo/xat in a qualified sense, I cannot hesitate to say, that ver. 22 only expresses in a more intense form and with more feeling, what is simply expressed in ver. 16, cru/x^Tj/zt t(^ vojulou The approbation, complacency (so to speak), which reason and conscience yield to the divine law as holy and good, is the truth intended to be expressed. It is strongly expressed, indeed; but not more so than in the cases to which the reader is referred above, and about the exegesis of which there can be no disagreement. In fact the very next verse shows, that the apostle cannot here be understood to mean the pleasure which a regenerate and filial spirit takes in the divine law ; for this, as chap. viii. 1 — 17 most clearly shows, would lead the person who might possess it to "walk after the Spirit'' and not ''after the flesh;" while here, the very individual who " delights in the law of God after the inner man," is at the same time represented as being under the actual dominion of the law of sin and death, and led to destruction by it. Is this the real state of a child of God? Comp. viii. 9 — 14. Y 338 ROMANS VII. 23, 24. (23) BXeVw Se . . . . fiov, but I perceive another law in my mem- bers, icarring against the law of my mind. Al adversative or dis- junctive ; i. e. notwithstanding my reason and conscience strongly approve of the divine law, yet I do not obey it ; for there is another law directly opposed to it, viz. the law dictated by my carnal passions and desires. — No/xoc must of course mean something here which is diiferent from law in the sense of precepts. It must have a kind of figurative or secondary sense, kindred to the meaning which we of- ten give it, in speaking of the laws of nature, the laws ofjiuids, the laws of organized or animal bodies, &c. 'A predominating tenden- cy,' seems to be clearly the meaning of vofwghere; and as to fieXeair it is only another designation of aCjfia, p6vrifia (rapKog is the predominant principle within him, so long he will continually disobey the law of God. Such a disposition is in itself utterly incompatible with obedience. (8) Ot Se . . . ^vvavTaii those then who are in the flesh, cannot please God. The particle ^i creates some difficulty here. One use of it is, to introduce clauses continuative of the narrative or reason- ing, which clauses may add some new circumstance, or may resume a declaration before made but now stated in somewhat different terms, &c. ; comp. Si in Rom. viii. 28. Mark xvi. 8. Acts xxiii. 13. Rom. iii. 22. 1 Cor. X. 11. XV. 56. James ii. 15. So here, ol Se Iv aapKi k. T. X. resumes the sentiment contained in to ^povnfia rfjc (rapKog i-X^pa K. T. X, and repeats it in another form. Moreover, this latter form has special reference to vii. 5, 18. But who are those that are iv o-apKt? They are those, "who are not led by the Spirit of God," comp. vers. 9, 13, 14; who follow fleshly desires and appetites. In other words, all men who are not regenerated or sanctified, who are in a natural state, are Iv aapKi, carnal, and therefore are influenced and guided by their carnal desires and affections; comp. John iii. 6. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Eph. ii. 1 — 3. Col. ii. 13. Consequently, as may well be supposed, Stt^ apiaai ow 352 ROMANS VIII. 8, 9. SvvavTai they cannot please God; i. e. while they live in such a state, and are led on by such carnal desires, they can do nothing which is pleasing to God. The ov ^vvavrai here is to be under- stood in the same way as the ov ^vvavrai in the preceding verse. (9) The opposite character is now brought into view, in order to render the sentiment more striking. 'Yfxelg Se . . . vfxTv, you, how- ever, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, provided the Spirit of God dwells in you. The SI here is distinctive. If the Spirit of God dwells in any one, he cannot be in a carnal state ; for the Spirit dwells in and guides only those who are the so7is of God (ver. 14), and therefore his friends, ver. 17. Such cannot be at enmity with God. The irvevjua ^sov which is here mentioned, is the same as that to which the writer has all along referred. In the next verse it is called vvevfxa XpicrTov. As to the dwelling of the Spirit in Chris- tians, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 16, IT. vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 16; and with these texts comp. John xvii. 23. xiv. 23 — 26. Hvtvfia XptCTTou is the Spirit which Christ imparts, or the Spirit which makes us like to Christ. Either sense is good here. The first is perhaps the more probable meaning; at least a comparison with John xiv. 15 — 18, 26. xv. 26, would seem to render it so. It is remarkable that in this short paragraph (vers. 9 — 11), irvivfxa Xgia- Tov, XpicTTog, and to Trvev/na tov tytipavTog 'Iijcrowv (i. e. irvivfia ^iov Trarpog), should be exchanged for each other, and plainly stand for one and the same thing. Is not this evidence, that the apostle saw and felt no inconsistency in speaking of Christ, and of the Spirit of God or of Christ, as in some respects distinct, and yet in others as constituting a unity of nature ? There seems to me to be an entire simplicity in the mode in which Paul has treated this subject; a sub- ject wliich has unhappily been made so complex and intricate, by the subtilties of the schools. The simple facts, that Christ and the Spirit are divine, are one in nature with God, and yet in some respect distinct from the Father, seem to be the basis of the apostle's lan- guage here and elsewhere ; while all speculation on the subject, all attempts to make out nice distinctions or metaphysical definitions, are entirely neglected. Whenever the time shall come, that Chris- tians are content with simple facts relative to this great subject, much that has proved to be injurious to the prosperity of religion, will be done away. OvK t'x^'' possesseth not; i. e. if the Spirit of Christ does not habitually dwell in and influence any one. — Oi/ic itjriv uvtov, he is ROMANS VIII. 10. 353 not his, i. e. he is no Christian, he is not a true disciple or follower of Christ. The di at the beginning of the clause seems to be co7i- iinuative, and therefore may be translated ?iow. If any choose, they may render it as adversative, but. (10) El Se XpKTTog Iv vfj.1v, but if Christ be in you, i. e. if he dwell in you by his Spirit, if ye have the Spirit of Christ, if ye are habitually influenced by him in your lives and conversation. The Si here is plainly adversative. To ixlv (Twjia .... ^iKaiocTvvr], the body indeed is mortijied on account of sin, but the spirit lives on account of righteousness ; a pas- sage about which (including ver. 11) critics have been greatly divided. There are three methods in which it has been interpreted; each of which must be briefly noticed. («) Nficpov means spiritually dead, (as often elsewhere) ; and the general sentiment will then be : 'If the Spirit of Christ dwell in you, then, although your bodies (i. e. you) are spiritually dead, that is, are still the seat of divers carnal affections and lusts (ver. 10), yet you shall spiritually live ; for the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead will subdue these forbidden affections and desires, and gradually make you entirely conformed to his will, ver. 11.' To this effect, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Piscator, Locke, C. Schmid, and others. The objection made to this exegesis is, that in ver. 11 the apostle speaks of the quickening of those bodies which are S'vrjra, mortal, frail, dying ; an epithet that seems to be given to our frail, physical body as such, and not given to it merely as the corrupt seat of lusts. As it does not appear that ^vrjToc of itself ever has the same figura- tive sense which veKpog often has, i. e. morally dead or corrupt ; so one might be prone to conclude, that ^woTroo'jaret in this case does not indicate the spiritual vWi^caiion. which the exegesis already men- tioned assigns to it, but rather the restoration of the body to life at the period of the resurrection. I shall take further notice of this exegesis in the sequel. {b) Another class of interpreters explain thus : ' The body is dead in respect to sin, i. e. sin has no more power to excite its evil appetites and desires. The soul has, moreover, the principle of spiritual life ; and he who raised up Jesus will also give to your bodies [viz. at the resurrection], a new principle of spiritual life or animation.' So for substance, Origen, Theodoret, Clarius, Grotius, Raphel, Taylor, Melancthon, Bucer, and others. The objection to this is, that it renders it necessary to construe z 354 ROMANS VIII, 10. Sia before the Accusative as meaning in respect to, in reference to ; which can hardly be admitted. Moreover it destroys tlie antithesis in ver. 10. It renders quite insipid, also, the antithesis between aw^a vBKpov in ver. 10, and ^tuoTrotrjo-Et to. ^vrfTo. orwjuara in ver. 11. (c) Another method of interpreting the phrase in question is this : * The body must die [physically] because of sin ; but the spiritual part lives; and even the body itself will be made to live at the period of the resurrection, i. e. it will be raised up and become like Christ's own glorious body.' So Tholuck, Flatt, Calvin, Augustine, Beza, and others. Understood in this way, the passage may be regarded as designed to foreclose an objection which would arise in the mind of some reader, who might ask : ' Are all the consequences of sin, then, removed by the death of Christ ? ' To this the apostle may be viewed as replying, in the verse before us: 'No, not absolutely and entirely all. Natural death still remains. But a glorious resurrection will follow this; so that in the end all its consequences will be done away.' But there are weighty objections against this mode of interpreta- tion. If v£Kp6v is to be understood in its literal sense, then of course the following ^wj} must be understood literally also ; and what sense would it make to say, that ' the soul has natural life because of right- eousness,' when all know that the wicked are as immortal as the righteous? But if vcKpov means dead in the sense of liaving our carnal passions mortified, then ^w/j would of course designate the peace and happiness of the soul or spirit. The view which I entertain of the passage, agrees substantially with the first of the above interpretations. I understand aCofxa vik- pov in ver. 1 0, as not indicating [physical] death ; nor yet as meaning death in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins, i. e. destitute of spiritual life, or in a state of death or condemnation. I take it to be used in the same sense as ^livaTog in vi. 4, 5; as expressing an idea exactly kindred with awtaTavpuy^r] and KarapYtj^*^ to awpa rrig ttfiapTiaQ, in vi. 6; the same with awo^avwv in vi. 7; airt'^avopzv in vi. 8; and vtKpovQ in vi. 11. That the writer did connect viii. 10, 11, in his own mind, with vi. 4 — 13, appears quite plain from his diction and general course of thought. In vi. 12 he calls the body ^i-jjrov, just as in viii. 11; and in the former passage he evidently means to designate by it a corporeal, material, perishable body ; which is also the sense, for substance, in viii. 11. But all the words above mentioned, in chap, vi., serve merely to ROMANS VIII. 10. 355 characterize what we call the mortification [the putting to death] of the body, i. e. the subduing and mortifying our carnal desires and affections, which are cherished by or originate from the- body. I understand vzkqov in viii. 10 (as I do veicpoiic in vi. 11), to designate this state or condition, viz. a state in which the old man is crucified^ in which the carnal desires of the body are mortified and subdued. This exegesis has, at least, plain analogy on its side. Interpreted in this way the sentiment of the whole passage would run thus : ' If the Spirit of Christ dwells in any one, his body is indeed dead on account of sin, i. e. the old man is crucified, or he undergoes mortification as to his bodily and sinful appetites ; but his spirit is rendered happy on account of righteousness, i. e. because of conformity to the requisitions of the gospel. Yea, if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in any man, that same Spirit will quicken, i. e. impart life to, his mortal body ; ' in other words, he will not suffer it to remain a mere a^p-a vetcpov, but make it an instrument of righteousness (vi. 12, 13, 19), and give it a power of being subservient to the glory of God. Bj'^ degrees the Christian "brings under his body," and keeps it in subjection. At first it is, as it were, crucifying the old man ; but in the sequel, the grace of God makes conquest easy and even de- lightful. It is such a quickening of our bodies, a converting of them into " instruments of righteousness," to which the apostle seems to me here to refer. One circumstance appears to be conclusive in regard to this exegesis ; this is, that the apostle here describes the Spirit which "quickens the bodies" of Christians, as being the Spirit which dwells in them, Ivoikovv iv vfxiv. Where is the resurrection of our physical bodies, at the last day, attributed to the sanctifying Spirit in believers ? Very diff"erent is the statement in Col. ii. 12, 13. Eph. i. 19, 20. ii. 5, 6. Rom. vi. 4. It is, then, the Spirit who dwells in believers that is to quicken them in the sense which is here meant ; and what can this be, except the one designated in vi. 12, 13, 19 ? The body is often the occasion of sin and sorrow, it is a aiopia ^avuTov. It requires to be mortified, and crucified. But the Spirit of God in believei'S, by degrees brings them to yield their members as instruments of righteousness. Then is the old man, the body of sin, dead ; and the body itself, like the spirit, is quickened in the ser- vice of God. Verse 13 seems clearly to indicate that the present passage is to be thus understood ; for there, rag irpaKeig rov aiofia- Tog ^avarovTc appears plainly to convey the some meaning as awfia z 2 S^6 ROMANS V'lII. II. t>£K{)ov. The object of the writer, as I apprehend it, is to show Christians, that althougli mortification and self-denial must be prac- tised in order to subjugate carnal desires, yet even here they may expect relief in due time. Victory repeated becomes easier. The enemy often vanquished, becomes weaker. The Spirit of Christ, in fine, brings the believer at last fully and freely to dedicate all that he has and is to the service of his Lord and Master ; so that no discour- agement should be felt, because the way is at first rough and difficult. It is a path which conducts to life. (11) El Se TO . . . . vjuiv. The Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, is the Spirit of God the Father, or the Spirit of God ; comp. ver. 9, also Col. ii. 12, 13. Eph. i. 19, 20. ii. 5, 6. Rom. vi. 4. Al here is a continuative ; ei Si if also, if moreover. ZwoTronjcrei, will give life to, will animate, i. e. will make them active instruments. Ala TO ivoiKovv .... v/xiv, i. e. the same Spirit who dwells in you, will enable you to quicken the S'vrjrov (rCo/uia or (rtJiia ^avarov, which now occasions so much pain and mortification, and to make it a willing instrument of righteousness. But if vers. 10, 11, be con- strued of literal death and life, then all the promise that is made to Christians here would be, that their bodies shall be raised up at the last day ; and the inference would seem to be, that the wicked will not be raised up ; which we know to be contrary to the doctrine of Paul and other N. Test, writers. Such an exegesis then, although it is the most common, seems to reduce the whole passage to com- parative insignificance, or else makes it speak that which is contra- dictory to Christian doctrine. It is worthy of particular remark, that the last clause of ver. 1 1 , ' VIZ. Sia TO tvoiKovv .... vn7v has been the subject of much critical conjecture and variation in its reading. The MSS. A., B., C. (which has avT(^ for avTov), 12 Codd. miniisc, and many of the fathers, exhibit the common reading, viz. ha tov Ivoikovvtoc avTov irvev- fittTOQ-, while Sm to Ivoikovv ovtm irvevfjia is the reading of D., E., F., G., the majority of MSS. minusc, Syr., Erp., Sahid., Vul., Ital., Origen, Ephiph., Phot, Chrys. (usually). Method., Theod., Maxim., Theoph., Qi^cum., Iren., Tertul., Hilar., Ruf., Sedulius. This seems to be best supported, and is preferred by Erasmus, Stephens, Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, Koppe, and many recent critics. The internal probability is strong against the first reading in the Genitive ; for dia with the Gen. would denote the agent by whom the change in the bodies of Christians is to be made : whereas that agent has ROMANS VIII. 11. 357 been already named, viz., 6 tydpag rbv Xpiarov. 1'he reading Sia TO . . . . TTvavixa, in the Aec, of course obliges us to translate, BECAUSE OF the Spirit which dwelleth in you. In this way the last clause assigns a reason or ground why he who raised up Jesus from the dead, will quicken his true followers ; it is because he has given them his Spirit ; and having done thus much for them, he will com- plete the work which he has begun. On the whole, amid the almost endless diversities of explanation which have been exhibited here, it seems to me that very little regard has been paid to the analogy of the course of thought and diction in chap, vi., which corresponds so nearly as to remove all serious diffi- culty. There Christians are represented as dead to sin ; their old man as crucified ; and there, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, so are they quickened in like man- ner, in order that they may live unto God. If therefore it should be said (as it has been), that ' inasmuch as the raising of Christ from the dead was an act of physical power (so to speak), in like manner the raising up of believers here must be regarded in the same light;' the obvious answer is, that Paul goes through an extended comparison of the like nature in chap, vi., where the death of Christ and his resurrection are all along taken in the natural and physiological sense, while the death of believers and their resurrection are taken through- out in a moral sense. What hinders us then from regarding the present passage in the same light. Indeed, after all which the apostle has said in chap. vi. in relation to this subject, I think there should be strong and plain reasons given for a jjhysiological sense of his words here, before we can adopt it. It is contrary to his own analogy, and inapposite to his present purpose. Nor are the objections of Reiche to the adoption of the moral sense, of any considerable weight. He says, ( 1 ) That ' o-w/,{aTa (plural) cannot be employed in the same figurative sense as aag^.^ But why not ? Sap^ is not used in the plural, merely because it has no plural. Sw/za in the singular is clearly exchanged with auQ^ (see ver. 13) ; and (TMfxara in the plural as applied not to one but to all believers, is altogether appropriate. (2) ' Qvnrog has only a physiological sense.' But although this is usually true, it is mani- festly employed here as the mere substitute for v^kqov in ver. 10; and this latter word confessedly has very often a figurative or moral sense. (3) ^ Z(jjoTroi{](Tti must have a future meaning; but believers are already quickened in a moral sense.' The answer to this is, they are 358 ROMANS Vlll. 12, 13. indeed alive as to the spirit and temper of the mind; but the process of sanctification, until all the bodily appetites are thoroughly subdued and mortified, is usually a long one, and the apostle might well employ ^woTronicrei. (4) ' As God raised Christ physically, so the resurrection of believers must be here taken as physical.' But this 1ms already been answered above. CHAP. VIII. 12—17. In the preceding verses, the apostle has consummated his argument to prove that Christians, who are under grace, are the only persons who possess means adequate an3 ample of living devoted to the service of God, and of renouncing sin and mortifying all their sinful desires. What those under the law could not do, God, sending his Son on account of sin, and pouring out his Spirit, and giving a filial and obedient temper of mind, has accomplished. The mind is thus filled with desires of conformity to Christ, and even the body, the seat of carnal appetites and sinful desires, will be so quickened as to become an instrument of righteousness. And what now follows ? Just tiiat which we should expect from an apostle so zealous of good works as Paul, and so grateful for the blessings of redemption, viz., an animated exhortation to live in a manner accordant with Christian obligation, and a view of t!ie consequences which will ensue from the believer's being united to Christ. (12) "Apa ovv .... Kyv, thei'efore, brethren, we are not under obligation to the flesh, to live in a carnal maimer ; i. e. since the Spirit is given to us, and we have such privileges, we must not obey the lusts of the flesh. The manner of expression is what rhetoricians call Xtrorijc, !• e. where less is said than is meant. The writer means that w^e are bound not to obey the dictates of carnal appetites and desires. — ToD . • . t^v shows the object of obligation : ' We are under no obligation — to live &c.' lov with the Inf. has a various and widely extended usage ; see N. Test. Gramm. § 138. 8. (13) El yap .... a7ro3'v7j(TKf'v, for if ye live in a carnal manner, ye shall die ; i. e. if ye live carnally, ye shall come under the penalty of the divine law, which threatens death to the soul that sins. See on ^oi'ttToc, in chap. v. 12. Reiche, who all along understands ^avaTOQ as designating temporcd death, concedes that here it must have a more extended sense. How could he have avoided such a con- cession? For if the death of the body only is threatened, then there is no distinction between those who live in a carnal manner, and those who do not, which would deprive the apostle's words of all meaning. ROMANS VIII. 13, 14. 359 El Si KvTatr^e, but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live ; i. e. if, yielding to the influence of the Spirit which dwelleth in you, ye crucify the old man with his lusts, if you suppress those deeds to which your carnal affections would lead, then ye shall live, i. e. enjoy the spiritual blessedness which the gospel promises to the obedient. The exchange of aCjfxa for aap^, in the phrase tuq TrpaK^ig rov (Twfiarog is plain. D., E., F., G., and many of the fathers read craicpoc for (Tw/iarog ; \vhich only shows that they understood both in the same sense here. The efforts of Reiche to show that aw/xa means * body as a composite organization,' and (rupE,, ' body as an animated, active, and excitable substance,' are here to no purpose : nor indeed is this in conformity with Pauline usage. (14) The yap at the beginning of this verse, shows that what follows is illustration or confirmation of the declaration just made. The apostle has just said, that those who mortify their sinful appetites and desires, shall live, i. e. shall enjoy the happiness which the gos- pel proffers. What is the proof of this ? One convincing evidence is, that such persons are led by the Spirit of God ; consequently they must be the children of God ; and if so, he will give them the por- tion which belongs to children, viz. the heavenly inheritance. Such is the course of thought that follows in the sequel of yap, and such the confirmation of the promise implied in ^T/ato-S'e. "OaoL yap .... ^zov, for so many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. That a special divine influence is here implied in ayovrai, would seem to be plain ; for if nothing but the simple means of moral suasion by objective truth is employed in guiding the children of God, how do they differ from others who enjoy the same means ? If you say : ' The difference is that the for- mer obey the suasion, while the latter resist it;' I answer : The fact is true ; but then it does not reach the point of difficulty. How comes the one to obey the suasion, and the other to resist it ! What is i\\e first occasion of this ? If you say : ' A corrupt nature leads the impenitent to resist;' then I ask: Had not the regenerate the like corrupt nature before their change ? What then is the efficient cause why one obeys and the other disobeys ? The passage before us ascribes it to the influence of the Spirit of God. That this in- fluence is special, follows from the fact, that if we suppose it to be common in the same degree to all men, it would be difficult to ac- count for it why all men under the influence of truth are not con- 360 ROMANS Vlll. 15, 16. verted. Since, however, the fact is that they are not, it would seem to follow that where they do become converted, the influence of the Spirit is special. Ytol ^iov, sons of God, a term of endearment ; comp. Matt. v. 9, 45. Luke vi. 35. xx. 36. Rom. viil. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 18. Gal. iii. 26. iv. 6, 7, et alib. comp. liosea xi. 1. Ex. iv. 22, 23. See also the remarks on vlov avrov in Rom. i. 3, with the Excursus. (15) Oi> yap tig (p6[5ov, for ye have not received a servile spirit, that ye should again be afraid ; i. e. ye have not the spirit of slaves, who, being in bondage, are fearing and trembling before the dreaded severity of a master ; in other words, ye are not, through fear of condemnation or death, all 'your life-time ivoxoi SouXtiac, Heb. ii. 15. Tap illustrantis et conftrmantis ; for the object of the writer is, to show that they are sons and not slaves. Hvtufia SovXdagi and TrvEUfia vlo^eaiag is such a spirit as slavery is wont to produce, i. e. such a temper or disposition of mind as is appropriate to it, and such a spirit or^temper of mind as belongs to affectionate children. 'AXXa ... 6 TrarZ/p .' but ye have received a filial spirit, by which ye cry : Abba, Father ! That is, instead of the timid and cowering spirit of slaves, who tremble before their masters, we are endowed with the spirit of children, so that we may approach God with affec- tion and confidence. The word 'A|3/3a is the Chaldee n2«, sc. TTiiTi'ip ] Augustine and Calvin think that the design of using both 'A/3/3a and 6 iruTrip here, is to show that both Jews and Greeks, each in their own respective language, would call on God as a Fa- ther. But the objection to this is, that the same idiom is exhibited in Mark xiv. 36 and Gal. iv. 6, where such a distinction is out of question ; at any rate, in the first of these two cases it is out of ques- tion. If 6 TraHip here be designed for any thing more than a trans- lation of 'Aj3/3a, we may suppose the repetition to be designed for expressing intensity of child-like feeling, for this naturally prompts to a repetition of the name of a parent. So Theodoret. 'O Trar/yp is the Nom. used instead of the Vocative; N. Test. Gramm. § 21. Note 3. (16) AvTo TO Trvtv/ua .... ^eov, this same Spirit testifies to our minds, that we are the children of God ; i. e. (as many interpret the passage) this filial, confiding, affectionate spirit, imparted by the Spirit of God who dwells in us, affords satisfactory evidence to our minds that we are the children of God. '^vfxnapTvpii here may mean no ROMANS VIII. 16, 17. 361 more than the simple verb /uapTvpiM ; for so avuixapTvpitt) is em- ployed in Rom ii. 15. ix. 1, al. The sentiment of the passage thus construed would be, that the affectionate spirit which the children of God possess, is an evidence to their minds of their standing in a filial relation to him. Tt^ irvevfJiaTi rifiiov means to our minds, animis nostris. On any ground of exegesis, this sense (for substance) is here to be attributed to this expression. There is, however, another method of interpreting this verse, which makes avrh to irvsofxa to mean the Spirit of God, the Spirit mentioned in vers. 9, 14. This is certainly not an improbable exegesis ; and many distinguished interpreters have followed it. Very recently, Flatt and Tholuck have both defended it. On the whole I am persuaded, that avrb to Trvevjua is the same as TTvivfia S-fou in ver. 14. And if the question be urged, as it is natural that it should be : ' How then does the Spirit bear witness to our minds or souls, that we are the children of God ?' The answer is, by imparting the spirit of adoption or a filial spirit to us. It is this, then, which affords the evidence to our minds of being in a state of filiation, i. e. of bearing the relation to God of spiritual children. And as this spirit comes from the Spirit of God, so he may be said in this case to bear ivitness, because he is the author of that spirit which affords the evidence of our filiation. Those who adopt the first method of interpretation, refer avTo to irvivfjLa to the irvEvfxa vlo^ecTiag of the preceding clause ; and compare this with vers. 26, 27, which they construe in the like way. That the world deny any such testimony in the hearts of believ- ers, and that they look on it with scorn or treat it with derision, proves only that they are unacquainted with it ; not that it is an illu- sion. It was a sensible and true remark of the French philosopher, Hemsterhuys, in regard to certain sensations which he was discussing; " Those who are so unhappy as never to have had such sensations, either through weakness of the natural organ, or because they have never cultivated them, will not comprehend me." Q^uvres, I. p. 208. Paul has, on another occasion, expressed himself relative to the point in question with still more power : " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him," 1 Cor. ii. 14. (17) Et Sf TSKva Koi KArjpovojLiot, i. e. if we sustain the relation of sons, then shall we be treated as such, i. e. we shall be heirs. Af- ter TtKva the verb lafxev is of course implied, and before KXr}pov6fxoi 362 ROMANS VIII. 18. the reader must supply hofn^a. KXrj/oovo/uot ^eov, heirs of God, means, possessors of that inheritance which God bestows. Ac con- tinuative. — ^vyK\r]pov6fioL Xpia'Tov, Joint heirs tvifh Christ ; i. e. as Christ endured sufferings and was advanced to glory, in like man- ner shall we also be advanced to glory. We shall be made like him, be united to him, be with him, in possession of the heavenly inheri- tance. For the manner in which Christ obtained this heritage, see and comp. Phil. ii. 8, 9. Heb. ii. 9, 10. v. 7 — 9 ; and for the com- parison of believers to Christ, see 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. Heb. xii. 2, Rev. iii. 21. John xvii. 22 — 24. These texts sufficiently explain the sequel of the verse, eiTrsp jc. t. X, which may be rendered : 'In case we suffer as he did [in the cause of truth], in order that we may be glorified with him.' CHAP. VHI. 18—25. These verses constitute one of those passages which the critics call loci vexuiissimi. The general object of the passage, however, cannot fail to be evident to eveiy considerate reader. In ver. 18, the apostle asserts, that the suffei-ings of the present life are not to be regarded in comparison tuith the glory which is to be revealed, i. e. future glory is great beyond all com- parison or expression. Such is the proposition to be illustrated or confirmed. But how is this effected ? I answer, that the theme being thus introduced by the apostle he pro- ceeds in the following manner : ' Now that suth a glory is yet to be revealed (in other words that there is a world of surpassing glory beyond the grave), the whole condition of things or rather of mankind, in the present world, abundantly proves. Here a frail and perish- able nature serves to show, that no stable source of happiness can be found on earth. From the commencement of the world down 1o the present time, it has always been thus. In the midst of the sufferings and sorrows to which their earthly existence exposes them, man- kind naturally look forward to another and better world, where happiness without alloy and without end may be enjoyed. Even Christians themselves, joyful as their hopes should make them, find themselves still compelled by sufferings and sorrows to sigh and groan, and to expect a slate of real and permanent enjoyment only in heaven ; so that they can only say, for the present, that they are saved because they hope or expect salvation in ano- ther and better world. The very fact that here they, like all others around them, are in a state of trial, and that they only hope for glory, shows that i\\e present fruition of it is not to be expected. The practical conclusion from all this the apostle now proceeds to draw, viz. ' that Christians, in the midst of sufferings and trials, ought not to faint or to be discouraged, inasmuch as a glory to be revealed is in prospect, which should make them regard their present temporary sufferings as altogether unworthy to be accounted of.' (18) AoyiZofxai here means / count, reckon, regard, estiinafe. The classical Greek writers employed this word rather in the sense of computing or reckoning, e. g. a sum of numbers, or of estimating a conclusion drawn from premises by the act of reasoning. ROMANS VIII. 18. 363 It is difficult at first sight to account for the ^dp here, which, in nearly every instance where it is employed (if not always and neces- sarily), has reference to a preceding sentiment, fact, &c. I construe here in this simple manner, viz., 'We shall be glorified with Christ, i. e. obtain great and eternal glory, /or (yap) all the sufferings and sorrows of the present state are only temporary. Every thing shows that they are so, and that they only prepare us for a happiness that is to come which is great and glorious. All things do, and must, M'ork together for good to those who love God.' DaS'/jjuara rov vvv Kaipov means suffering such as Christians were then called to endure, or sufferings such as all men are exposed to endure in the present life. The latter seems to be the preferable sense ; because the reasoning of the apostle, in the context, has respect not to time then present only, but to the whole period of our present life down to its close, when a glorious reward succeeds a life of sorrow. The latitude in which the Genitive case is employed should be noted from the phrase before us. The sufferings of the present time surely does not mean the sufferings which time endures as the subject of them, but those which Christians endure while they continue in the present world. The Genitive here, as often else- where, is the Genitivus temporise i. e. it marks the time belonging to the noun which precedes it, the designation of which is intended to qualify that noun. See N. Test. Gramm. § 99. 1. h. OvK a^ia, nan cBquiparanda sunt, are not to he put on a level, or are not to be reputed, not to be counted or regarded. If the first sense be adopted, then Trpoc which follows in the construction, may be ren- dered in its usual sense, with. But if the second sense be preferred (and it seems to be preferable), viz. reputed, regarded, then irpoq must be rendered compared with, in comparison of. So this preposi- tion is sometimes used ; e. g. Ecclus. xxv. 19, Every evil is small Trpot: kukIuv yvvaiKog, compared ivith the malignity of a woman. Joseph, cont. Apion. II. 22, All matter is worthless irpbg sIkovu rrjv tovtov, comp>ared with the image of this [god]. To construe a^ia in such a way as to make the apostle affirm, that the present sufferings of Chris- tians are not to be deemed equally desirable with the glory which is to be revealed, would be making him to say what no man of common sense would think it necessary to affirm. But to say, that when we look at future glory we should make but little account of these suf- ferings, is supposing him to utter a sentiment worthy of the noblest of all Christian philosophers. 364 ROMANS VIII. 18, 19. The phrase t))v fiiWovaav ^6'^av cnrnKaXvcjt^rivai, is equivalent to aTroKaXv(p^r](Toiuiivt)v. The Greek coukl use his regular future without a helping verb ; or he could, as here, use the verb /xtXXw and the Infinitive instead of a regular future. The employment of fxtX- Xovaav here indicates the confident expectation not only of future glory, but of its speedy revelation. MtXXw is employed by the Greeks to designate a proximate future. The word ^6^a, which here signi- fies future happiness, is used by the New Testament writers in a sense quite different from the classic one ; for this is opinion, fame , reputation, &c. But the New Testiiment meaning of So^a is bor- rowed from the Hebrew Tias or i-n, splendour, magnificence, excel- lence. The idea of ^6^a in the presence of God, seems to be founded upon being there in the light or splendour of his presence. Ilence light is used so often in the Bible as the image of happiness. Hence too we may see something of the plenary meaning which ^6^a has, when used to describe a state of future happiness. In the present world, " eye hath not seen ;" but when another world bursts upon the vision of Christians, after death shall have rent away the veil of mor- tality, there 'in God's light they will see light;' there too they shall enjoy " everlasting light, for God will be their glory." (19) Here we have another yap which sustains a relation to the preceding verse, like that which yap in ver. 18 sustains to ver. 17. The apostle in ver. 18 has introduced, as an object of attention the glory which is to be revealed. That there is such a glory he now pro- ceeds to show, or at least to adduce reasons why Christians should confidently expect it. Tap, therefore, is in ver. 19 prefixed to a clause added byway of confirming the sentiment of the preceding assertion. ' kiroKupa^oKLa, earnest expectation, the German Ahndung. The etymology favours this meaning ; for the word comes from otto (prep.), (capa head, and Sokeuoj to observe, look after. The Etymo- Ibgicum Magnum explains it by ry Ke(f)a\y Trpo^XiTTuv, to thrust for- ward the head and see, i. e. to look with anxiety or eagerness ; like the Hebrew Wnnn. The same sense the word has in Phil. i. 20. Ernesti observes, that the word is not intensive in the New Testa- ment (Inst. Interpr. 1. § 2) ; but in this he seems to be plainly mis- taken, if we may judge either from the composition of the word itself, or from the nature of the passages in which it stands. We come now to the principal word, viz. KTicng, on which very much of the difficulty of the passage before us turns. In order to proceed in a satisfactory maimer with the investigation of it, let us ROMANS VIII. 19. 365 first consider its meaning in the other passages of the New Testament where it occurs, and this as compared with the corresponding He- brew words ; and secondly examine in order the various meanings M'hich have been assigned to the word in this place, and endeavour to vindicate that sense to which the preference seems to belong. I. In regard to the meaning of kt'ktic, in all the other passages of the New Testament where it is found excepting the one before us, they may be distributed into two classes ; viz. 1. It means the act of creation, creating. In such a sense it is generally conceded that it is employed in Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. Rom. i. 20. 2 Pet.°iii. 4. Yet all of these significations might be referred to No. 2, which follows, as the sense would be equally good. But this first sense is the proper and primary/ meaning of the word, ac- cording to the usual principles of the Greek language, in which words of this class commonly denote the act of doing any thing, they being what grammarians call nomina actionis. So in the Greek classics, the sense of making, constructing, building, creating, &c., is the one attached to this form of the word. But in the examples of KTiaig in the New Testament, the meaning is for the most part different from this. 2. It means creature, created thing, any product of creating power, creation as an existing thing. Such a deflexion from the pri- mary meaning of a word is very common, not only in the Greek but in all other languages; the abstract (nomen actionis) passing, as grammarians say, into the concrete sense ; i. e, the word which de- noted action, being also used to denote the consequences or efi'ects of that action. So here, KTimq (the act of creating), is more commonly employed in the New Testament to signify the efi'ects of this action, viz. a thing created, res creata. But this second signification being in its own nature generic, it may either be v&^^generically, or it may be employed to designate any of the several species of meanings that constitute a part of the generic one. (a) It is used in its generic sense, i. e. as meaning created things, creation, any created thing, in Rom. i. 25. viii. 39. Col. i. 15. Heb. iv. 13. Rev. iii. 14, perhaps also in Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. Rom. i. 20. and 2 Pet. iii. 4. In a sense very nearly allied to this, it is used in Heb. ix. 11 to designate the waferm/ creation as such, in distinction from the spiritual one. This distinction, however, results rather from the exigency of the passage, and it seems to be made here rather by the word raurjjc than from the force of KTiaig. {b) KtIctic is also used in a specific sense, and means the rational 3(56 ROMANS VIII. 19. creation, man, men, the world of mankind. Thus in Mark xvi. 15, ' Go preach the gospel Trao-y ry KTimi, to all men, to every man.' Col. i. 23, ' which [gospel] has been preached tv iruai^ ry KTiaei, among all nations.' 1 Pet. ii. 13, ' Be subject, then, Tracry av^pw- TTtvy KTiGH, to every man, to every human being, for the Lord's sake, i. e. out of regard to the Lord Christ. What the meaning of this is, the explanation immediately subjoined informs us, viz., art (daaiXtX, wg v7npi)(ovTi' eire T]ytfi6aiv, u>q di avTov k. r. X ; i. e. ' be subject to every man placed in authority, whether he be a king who has pre- eminence, or a governor appointed,' &c. These examples make it clear, that Kriaiq is employed to designate a specific class of created beings, as well as created things in general. (c) The word is sometimes employed in a more specific and limited sense still, viz. to designate the 7ieiv rational creation, those who are created anew in Christ Jesus, Christians. Such is the meaning in 2 Cor. v. 17, ' If any one be in Christ, he is Kaivr) ktIcfic;, a new creature.' Gal. vi. 15, ' Li Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor un- circumcision avails any thing, but Kaivi) KTiaic.' This, however, may mean a new act of creating, i. e. the power of the Spirit in reno- vating the soul. But in both of these cases, the special meaning, it must be confessed, depends rather on Kaivi] than upon KTiaig. These are all the cases in which KTiaig occurs in the New Testa- ment, excepting those in the passage under examination. From these we gather the conclusion, that the usus loquendi allows us to assign to KTiaig either of the three meanings ranked under No. 2, i. e. it may be interpreted as meaning things o'eated or the natural creation, men or mankind, or Christians who are a new spiritual creation ; yet this last meaning is plainlj^ uncertain, unless some qualifying word (e. g. Kaiv{]) is joined with KTimg. 1 have only to add here, as a confirmation of the above meanings assigned to Krhig (which however are not altogether peculiar to the New Testament, see Judith ix. 12. xi. 14. Wisd. ii. 6. xvi. 24. xix. 6), that the Chaldee and the Rabbinic Hebrew coincide with the usage just exhibited. The M^ords in these languages which corres- pond to KTiaiQ, are wna, Nnna, n«na, nna, which all mean creatio, creatura, res creata, i. e. the act of creating, and the thing created, just in the same way as kt'ktiq does. Moreover, in Rabbinic Hebrew the plural form nina sometimes means homines, men, specially the heathen. All this, we see, corresponds with the New Testament use of KTiaig, and explains it when a reference to the ROMANS VIII. 19. 367 Greek classics would not. In regard to the. last particular of all, viz. that nins sometimes means the heathen, by way of degradation or contempt; it is singular that we have adopted, into vulgar English, the very same meaning of the word creature^ and applied it in a de- rogatory sense to human beings; e. g. 'the creature refused to obey.' II. We have seen what meanings are assigned to Kxiaiq by the writers of the New Testament, and what belonged to the correspond- ing Chaldee and Hebrew words. Which of all these, now, shall be applied to KTicng in the passage before us ? That the reader may see how variously this question has been answered, I will lay before him the different interpretations given to it. These are, 1. The Angels. 2. The souls (the animating prin- ciple) of the planetary worlds. 3. Adam and Eve, because they were the immediate work of creative power. 4. The souls of believers, in distinction from their bodies. 5. The bodies of believers, i. e. their dead bodies, in distinction from their souls. 6. Christians in gen- eral. 7. Christians in particular, i. e. either Jewish Christians, or Gentile Christians. 8. Unconverted men in general. 9. Uncon- verted men in particular, i. e. either unconverted Jews or uncon- verted heathen. 10. The material creation, inanimate and animate, exclusive of rational beings. 11. The rational creation or men in general, mankind. All these supposed meanings I have canvassed in an exegesis of vers. 18 — 25, printed in the Biblical Repository, Vol. I. pp. 363, seq. I deem the first five too improbable to need discussion here ; and therefore proceed with the others. The sixth and seventh opinions may be both ranked under one head, viz. that of Christians. Can KTicng, then, here mean Chris- tians, either in general or in particular ? (a) The tisus loquendi is wanting, to render this probable. The word KTLcng in 2 Cor. v. 17 and Gal. vi. 15, does not, as I have already remarked, of itself mean Christians. In both these cases it is connected with Kotvf}. (Z>) In vers. 19, 21, the word KTiaig seems to designate those who are distinguished from the children of God, and who belong not to such as are noiv entitled to their privileges. But I do not consider this argument to be decisive ; for the expressions in vers. 19, 21, are not much unlike that in ver. 23, where Christians are represented as groan- ing within themselves and waiting for their filiation {vlo^eaiav), i- e. 368 ROMANS VIII. 19. for the consequences of it, viz. the redemption of tlieir bodies from their present frail, painful, and dying state. (c) A more conclusive argument is deducible from the form of ver. 23, where avroi rriv tnrap^i)v tov irvtvfiaTor t\ovTiQ seems plainly to mean Christians, as I shall in the sequel endeavour to show. Con- ceding this, then, it is quite plain that icrhig in the preceding verses cannot mean Chi'istians, because the class of men designated in ver, 23 is very clearly distinguished from the preceding class in vers. 19 — 21, who are there designated by kt'ktiq. On the same ground, viz. that KriaLg cannot be regarded as mean- ing Christians in general, it must be excluded from meaning Chris- tians in particular, i. e. either Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians. How are these to be distinguished from " those who had the first- fruits of the Spirit?'' Even supposing that ciTrapx^'/ means here spe- cial miraculous gifts (as some believe), we may ask : Were there no Jewish Christians who possessed these ? Surely they above all others possessed them. But still, were there no Gentile Christians who pos - sessed them. This will not be denied. If we look into the first epistle to the Corinthians, we find there a graphic account of the special gifts of the Spirit, which leaves no room to doubt that they were distributed to Gentile as well as to Jewish Christians. Still stronger is the argument, if we suppose (as I shall endeavour here- after to show that we must suppose) aTraQ\{]v here to mean thepreU- bafion, the foretaste, the earnest of future glory, which is common to all Christians. For as those who have this oTrap^/jr, are here plainly and explicitly distinguished from those denominated kt'ktiq above ; so, if these are Christians in general (as they clearly seem to be), it fol- lows that KTiGiQ above is not used to designate either Christians in general, or Jewish or Gentile Christians in particular. Neither of these classes were distinguished from other Christians, by the exclu- sive possession of miraculous gifts, or the exclusive possession of the earnest of the heavenly inheritance ; and there seems, therefore, to bo no ground for making a distinction of such a nature. It must necessarily follow, that if Krlaig means either Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians as such, then this class of Christians did not par- take of the airapx*!^ ^'^" TrvevfiaTog ; for those who did partake of it, are clearly distinguished from those indicated by kt'ktiq. But in- asmuch ^s both these classes of Christians did partake of the gift in question, so neither of them can be specifically designated here by ROMANS VIII. 19. 369 KTi(Ttg. Le Clerc, Nosselt, Schleusner, and others have defended the exegesis in question ; but it will not bear examination. The eighth and nmth opinions may also be classed under one head. These are, that Kriaig means either unconverted men in gen- eral as such, or unconverted men in particular, viz. Jews or Gen- tiles. In regard to the specific meaning here assigned to ktiuic^ I cannot see any tolerable ground of support for it. Why should un- converted Jews be represented as peculiarly exposed to a frail and dying state ? Or why should unconverted Gentiles be so repre- sented ? Surely there is no good reason for any distinction here, as all are equally exposed to the miseries of life. We cannot therefore admit the exegesis which here gives a specific meaning to kt'ktiq-, limiting it either to unconverted Jews or to unconverted Gentiles. More probable is the interpretation, which assigns to ktIctiq the meaning of unconverted men in general. In this case it is easy to make a plain and evident distinction between KTlaiq in vers. 19 — 22, and oi T))v cnrcip\Tjv tov TrvevfmTog e)(ovTeQ in ver. 23. I think this to be substantially the right meaning. But I would not assign to it the signification simply of unconverted men. I appprehend the mean- ing to be the same as in Mark xvi. 15. Col. i. 23. 1 Pet. ii. 13, i. e. man, men, mankind in general. But of this, and of the objections urged against it, I shall say more in the sequel. On the whole, then, we have reduced our multiplex interpreta- tions down to two, viz. the matericd creation in general animate and inanimate, and the rational creation or mankind in general. These remain to be carefully examined. Critics of high rank and great abilities are divided between these two interpretations. We may commence with the first of these two meanings, that of the material creation, the world in general, or the universe exclusive of rational beings. This has had many defenders both in ancient and modern times. Chrysostom, Theodore t, Theophylact, CEcume- nius, Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Koppe, Doddridge, Flatt, Tholuck, Ileiche, and a multitude of others have been its advocates. Flatt, Tholuck, and Reiche, in their recent commentaries, have collected all which has been said in its favour, besides advancing some things peculiar to themselves. What they have brought forward deserves a serious examination. That KTiGiq might he employed to indicate the natural creation around us, consisting of things animate and inanimate, may be seen by examining the usus loquendi of the word under No. 2. a^ above 2 A 370 ROMANS VIII. 19, 20. On this part of the subject, there can be no just ground of controver- sy among philologists. But is it so employed in the passage before us ? This is tlie only question that affords any room for dispute. I have satisfied my own mind, that KTicng means here, as in Mark xvi. 15. Col. i. 23 (and for substance in 1 Pet. ii. 13), mankind in general, gens humana, in distinction from, but not in opposition to, Christians as such. The reasons of this as detailed at length, and the examination of different views, I have thought it most proper to exhibit in an Excursus on Rom. viii. 19, inasmuch as they would occupy too much room in the body of the Commentary. T17V aTTOKoXvxpiv tCjv v'lMv Tov ^Eov oTTEicSl^^^Erat, expects or waits fo?- the revelation of the sons of God ; i. e. the period when the sons of God, in their ultimate state and endowed with all their honours and privileges, shall be fully disclosed. This will be at the general judgment; when the Father who seeth in secret M-ill reward them openly. Here they are in obscurity ; the world knoweth them not. They are like to the seven thousand of old who had not bowed the knee to Baal, but who were unknown even to the prophet Elijah. However, it will not always be so. The day is coming when they M'ill shine forth as the sun in his strength and as the stars for ever and ever, in the kingdom of their God and Father. In what sense the ktiglq airsK^ixeTai, expects or waits for such a revelation, is stated in the Excursus on this verse, and therefore it need not to be repeated. I take the generic idea of happiness in a future and better state, to be the main design of the writer in this case. (20) Ty '^o.Q ixaraioTTiTi r] ktigiq v7rETayr),for the creature, i. e. mankind, tvas subjected to a frail and dying state. That fiaraioTrfg here has the sense thus assigned to it, is clear from the epexegesis of it in ver. 21, viz. ^ovXda rf/c ^S'opaC} which is there used instead of repeating naTaiornQ' Such as wish for further confirmation as to this sense of the word, may consult in the Sept. Ps. Ixi. 9. xxxviii. 5. Ecc. i. 2, 14. As the Heb. Van vanity, to which jUorai.iaTO(; v/.uov, the ledemptionofourhodyy i. e. its redemption from a state of frailty, disease, and death. It is, at the resurrection, to be like to Christ's glorious body, Phil.iii. 21 ; it is to be a au)fxa TrvevjuLariKov, 1 Cor. xv. 44 ; this mortal is to put on immortality, this aoJiJia ({>^apr6v is to become a (TU)fj.a cKp^aprov, 1 Cor. XV. 53, 54. Such is the cnroXvrpuxrig of this frail and dying body, which believers now inhabit. Comp. airoXvrQtoaig in Luke xxu 28. Eph. i. 14. iv. 30. Heb. xi. 35. The reader will note, as I have had occasion already to intimate, that the expression cnroXvT^ywcnv tov ai^fxaTog here is equivalent to the cnroKoXvipiv tCjv viCjv tov ^tov in ver. 12, and to the iXtv^ipiav tCov TtKvwv tov ^iov iu ver. 21. It therefore serves to show what those expressions mean, in the connection in which they stand. Christians, then, in their present state, must long and wait for their second and final adoption or filiation. They must wait with confidence ; yea, with assurance ; " for he who cometh will come, and will not tarry.'' But let them not regard the present world as their home. It is not the Canaan in which they are to rest. They must "seek a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Then the agitated breast, the heaving sigh, the groaning within, will no more annoy or distress them. Let not the child of God complain, then, that his final reward is not anticipated and dis- tributed to him here in the present world, while he is in a state of trial. He must wait until he comes to the goal, before he can wear the crown of him who has been victor in the race. He must defer his expected laurels until his combat is over. Then he shall receive a crown of glory which fadeth not away. (24) That the Christian cannot expect a full reward here, the apostle goes on most explicitly to declare. Ty -yap IXtti^l law^^fxtv, for ice are saved in hope, i. e. we have obtained salvation, but a part of it is only in hope ; we have attained to a condition in which we in- dulge the liope of a glory that is yet future. This is all which can be rationally expected or accomplished in the present life. He had said in the preceding verse, that Christians are in the attitude of icaiting for their filiation. A'ersc 24 is designed to confirm this ; ROMANS VIII. 24, 25. 377 hence the -yap at the beginning of it. The reader should observe, that the Aor. tcrtu^ij/xtv is qualified in its sense by ry eXiri^i. We are saved or have attained to a state of salvation, says the apostle, yet it is not fully and completely so, but is so ry iXw'idi, i. e. it is a salvation of which hope is at present a leading constituent. 'EAttic Se . . . . eXirig, now hope which is seen, is no longer hope ; i. e. the object of hope {iX-rriq in the first instance here means this) is no longer such, when one attains the actual possession of it. Al orationi continuandce inservit, i. e. it stands before a clause which is designed to continue and illustrate the subject already introduced. '^O yag . . . iXTriZ,H ', for what one sees, how does he still hope for it ? That is, what a man has actually attained or come to the enjoy- ment of, how can he be said to look forward to it with hope or antici- patiou ? Tap rationein rei dicta reddit, i. e. it stands in a clause designed to explain or confirm the preceding assertion ; for such is the nature of the present clause. (25) El §£ . . . . aiTEKSexoiUEB-a but if we hope for that which we do ?iot enjoy, then we patiently wait for it. That is, if it be true, as all will concede, that in the present life we attain not to our final reward, but can be called the heirs of salvation only because we have obtained a well-grounded hope of it; if it be so that we cannot rationally expect an exemption from trials and troubles here, but must take our part in them with all around us ; if it be true, also, that a great and glorious reward is reserved in heaven for all who endure patiently until the end of their probation ; (and that this is true, the very nature that God has given to men, which is here so imperfectly developed and which therefore points to a state of greater perfection, satisfactorily shows) ; then it becomes Christians to endure with all patience and meekness the trials and sufferings of the present life. Time is short ; eternity is long. Our sufferings are slight and momentary, when viewed in a comparative light. Who can place them beside that glory, " which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive," and which is to endure as long as the God who bestows it, and yet make any serious account of them ? Christian brethren, says the apostle, let lis patiently wait the appointed time of our deliverance. The Sm before v7ro/i£vf)c is Sm conditionis, i. e. it stands before a noun marking the state or condition of those of whom it is said, 378 ROMANS VIII. 2(3. CHAP. VIII. 26, 27. In this our weak and suffering condition, we are greatly aided by tlie Spirit who dwells in us ; so that even when we are so much perplexed and distressed that we know not what to ask for or what to say in our prayers, our internal sighs which are not uttered by words, and which arise from his influence on our souls, are noticed and understood by the Searcher of hearts, whose ears will be open to them. Such is the course of thought in these verses ; the natural inference from it is : ' Christians, be not discouraged, even in your deepest distresses. He who sees in secret, counts every groan, hears every sigh, and will be a very present help in time of need.' (26) Such is the general sentiment of the passage. Particular words, however, present some difficulties. 'Q^aavTWQ, in like maimer, in the very same way. But in what way? Like to what? A diffi- cult question. Some critics (Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, and others) ren- der wo-aurwc by prceterea, iiberdiess, i. e. moreover, besides. This would do well, if philology would allow it. It seems, however, to be rather making a new meaning for the word, than explaining the usual one. The true answer to the question, 'Like to what?' seems to be this ; ' In like manner as hope supports, strengthens, cheers us, and renders us patient, so do the influences of the Spirit aid us, in all our distresses ; ' i. e. as hope aids us amidst all our sufferings and sorrows, so does the Spirit likewise. 'Ho-aurwc §£ Kat, and in like manner also, or and in like manner moreover. To wvivfia, the Spirit. But what spirit ? Our own mind ? A filial spirit ? Or the Spirit of God ? Each of these methods of exege- sis has been defended. I was formerly inclined to regard the second meaning as the most probable ; principally on account of the 27th verse. It is natural to ask: Does not the phrase 6 Ipevvwv rag Kap- ^lag, designate him who knows the secrets of the human breast.'' And as this same Searcher of hearts is said to know <^g6vr]fxa tov wevfxaTog, i. e. the mind or ivill of the spirit, does not this mean the same thing as raq Kap^iag, and therefore designate the human mind.'' One may also ask: Where in all the Scriptures is the Spirit of God represented as making intercession {lvTv/')(avH) for the saints? These difficulties have led many to construe irvtvfxa throughout the passage as meaning irvtvjxa vlo^eaiag, comp. ver. 15. But at present I doubt of this exegesis ; the reasons for this doubt will be specified in the sequel. Let the reader now, in the first place, compare Trvtv/^a in vers. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 23, where it clearly and certainly means the ROMANS VIII. 2G. 379 Spirit of God or of Christ : he will then feel the probability, that the writer here uses irvtvfxa in the like sense. That Spirit which sancti- fies Christians, which subdues their fleshly appetites, which gives them a filial temper, which bestows a foretaste of future glory, — this same Spirit, aids Christians in all their sufferings and sorrows ; and consequently they ought to endure them with patience. It cannot be denied, that intensity/ of meaning is given to the whole passage by this exegesis. livvavTiXafi^daveTai, helps ; but in the Greek, avv augments the signification, so that one might translate, greatly assists, affords muck help. The avv in composition not only denotes con, with, together with, &c., but also marks the completeness or entirety of an action ; e. g. GVfXTrXrigoh)-, to Jill entirely full ; avvayvvfxi, to dash in pieces ; (TVjxTraTiw, to crush by treading upon ; avvTifivw, to cut in pieces, &c. — 'Aa^zvdaiq lyiiov, our infirmities, seems to mean our frail, infirm, afflicted, troubled state; and this accords entirely with the context. A., B., C, D., many Codd. minusc, with many versions and fathers, read ry aa^tvda, in the Dat. singular. Indeed the weight of authority seems to be in favour of this reading. To yop K. T. X. yaf) illustrantis again ; for the sequel shows what our condition is, and how the Spirit aids us. To yap .... ovk ol^a- Hi.v,for we knoiv not that which we should pray for as we ought; i. e. in our perplexities, weaknesses, ignorance, and distresses, we are often at a loss what would be best for us, or most agreeable to the will of God respecting us. KaS^o Stt the apostle means, that the object for which we should pray Ka^o Sa, i. e. in accordance with duty, KaTCL TO ^iX-qfxa tov ^eov (comp. 1 John v. 14), or in a becoming manner, is frequently unknown to us. Ka^b Bh belongs to or qualifies irpomv^w/xe^a. In this state, the same Spirit, avro to Trvevjua, the same who sanc- tifies us, dwells in us, and helps our infirmities — this same Spirit earnestly intercedes for us, wTrEpevruyx"^'^ ' ^"^^9 Vf^^ov ; where vwip in composition with the verb augments the force of it, which I have endeavoured to express. Prayer or supplication, however, made by the Spirit, i. e. by the Spirit of God as such and by himself, is not here intended. So the sequel clearly shows ; viz., the Spirit makes intercession for us arra- vajjuLolg a\a\{]Toig, in sighs or groans which are unutterable, i. e. the full meaning of which cannot be spoken in words. Or aXaX{]Toic: may mean, that ivhich is not uttered, that which is internal, i. e. sup- 380 ROMANS VIII. 26, 27. pressed sighs ; for verbals in -roq may have either a passive mean- ing, as in this ease, or they may designate what may or cati be done^ as in the other meaning ; N. Test. Gramm. § 82. Note 1. Either sense is good; and either gives an intense meaning. In this way then the Spirit intercedes for the saints, viz., by exciting within them such longing and high desires for conformity to God, for deliverance from evil, and for the enjoyment of future blessedness, that these desires become unutterable, i. e. no language can adequately express them. What is thus done in the souls of believers through the in- fluence of the Spirit, is here attributed to him ; i. e. he is said to do what they do under his special influence. In accordance with the idiom of the sacred writers, that is often attributed to God, which human agents perform under his oversight, government, or aid. In accordance with such a sentiment, Fenelon, in his Essay en- titled. Que I' Esprit de Dieu enseigne en dedans, [That the Spirit of God teaches internally], says in a very striking manner : " The Spirit of God is the soul of our soul." So Augustine, with equal cor- rectness and concinnity : " Non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud semetipsum in ilia Trinitate gemit ; sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit, (Tract. VI. in Johan. § 2) ; that is, the Divine Spirit does not groan or intercede in and by himself, as God and belonging to the Trinity; but he intercedes by his influence upon us, and by lead- ing us to aspirations which language cannot express ; ' a sentiment equally true and striking. (27) 'O St l^ivvMv Tag Kapdiag, a common appellation of God who is omniscient; comp. Ps. vii. 9 (10). Jer. xi. 20. Acts i. 14. — OT^E TO , his uivn, his genuine, in opposition to or in distinction from vloii ^sTOVf an adopted son, for such believers are ; e. g. Abraham prepared to offer up his own son as a sacrifice, instead of selecting a supposititious or adopted heir. Yet by own we are not here to under- stand a son more humano, but a Son juovoyfvjjc in a sense stated by Luke, i. 35 ; Son being evidently used here not for the divine Logos as such, but for the Messiah clothed with our nature ; as the sequel plainly shows. Oi/K tcpdaaro, he spared 7iot, i. e. he did not withhold ; a Xtrorjjc* i. e. a negative form of expression which has an affirmative meaning equivalent to l)(api(TaTo, he gave. So the sequel ; aXX' .... ai»rov, bui gave him up for us all, i. e. gave him up to suffering and death, devoted him to be a sacrifice for our sins; comp. John iii. 16. Luke xxii. 19. Gal. i. 4. The word TrapeStuKtv is stronger than cSwke, which is used in these cited passages. It means delivered over viz. to death. IlavTOJv is plainly the same here as y\\i€iq, i. e. all Chris- tians. Ilwf oh\i . . . yjxQiaixai, how [can it be] that with him he will not also bestow all things upon us ? I'hat is : ' How can we possibly suppose, that, after having bestowed the greatest of all gifts upon us, viz. his own Son, he will refuse to bestow those gifts which arc smaller and less costly ?' 'Iholuck says here, that " the apostle has assured Christians [in the paragraph before us], that nothing shall hurt them unless they injure themselves." And again : " If the Calvinistic idea [of per- severance] had been intended to be conveyed [by the apostle], he must also have said, that neither apostasy nor sin would, under any circumstances, have rendered their calling uncertain or disappointed it." That this may be rendered uncertain, he thinks is shown by 2 Pet. i. 10. But if exhortations, commands, and threatenings of a most awful nature, addressed to Christians, are to be considered as implying an uncertainty whether the work which God has begun in Christians will be completed ; then the Bible is indeed full of proof that they may fall away and finally perish ; for it is filled with passages of such a nature. Above all does the epistle to the Hebrews abound in them. But while it is impossible to deny this, or even to deny that if Chris- tians were left to themselves they would fall away every day and hour of their lives, one may still, without any just cause of reproach, be ROMANS VIII. 32. 391 permitted to believe with tlie apostle, that ^'•whom God calls, he justi- ces and glorifies ;'' he may believe, vt^ith the same apostle, that " if Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, while we were acrS'tvac Koi arrelSeig, MUCH MORE, being justified [i. e. obtaining pardon through his blood], shall we be saved from wrath," Rom. v. 6 — 10. How can we then put a construction so frigid, on this most animated and energetic passage which is now before us ? ' The purposes ot God,' says the apostle, ' will not be disappointed in bringing his elect to glory. ' Why ? ' Because, since God hath given his own Son — the greatest possible gift — to redeem them from sin, therefore their re- demption remaineth not uncertain, but will be accomplished.' This reasoning we can see and feel. But how is it with the exegesis of Tholuck ? ' God will save you from the power of external causes of disappointment, if you only take care yourselves of the internal ones.' Indeed ? But I have great difficulty in finding the consolation or assurance which I need, in such a declaration as this. It is off'ering me only a single drop of water, when I am ready to faint with thirst and need a copious draught. Ten thousand thousand enemies with- out are not half so strong as the one within ; and if God's gift of his own Son has not secured sanctifying and restraining grace for his children, which shall enable them to ' crucify the old man with his lusts and to put on the new man,' then is the work not only incom- plete, but it will most certainly fail of being finally accomplished. The world and the devil would have little influence over us, indeed, were our hearts altogether fight toward God; and certain it is, that all other combats are mere skirmishes, compared with the warfare that is going on within us by reason of our internal enemy, i. e. a cor- rupt heart. But did not Christ die to redeem us from the dangers of this most powerful of all enemies, as well as from other dangers ? If not, then we may abandon all hopes which the gospel inspires, and give ourselves up, after all, for lost. But no, no ! This exegesis does not meet the object which the apostle has in view. It is and must be true, that " if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life," Rom. v. 10. But all this purpose (which belongs only to the counsels and mercy of God) does not hinder Paul, nor any other sacred writer, from reproving, warning, and threatening Christians, just as if they were liable, every day and hour of their lives, to fall away and to lose the glorious reward of the saints. In themselves considered they are 302 ROMANS VIll. 33, 34. liable to this ; and God employs the very means in question in order to jireserve them against apostasy. Thus, while we admit that the promises of Christ will not fail, nor the efficacy of atoin'ng- blood be frustrated ; while we believe that " where God has begun a good work, he will carry it into execution {lirireXtaei) until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. i. 6); we admit in the fullest manner the impor- tance and duty of warning, reproving, exhorting, and threatening Christians, just as we should do were there no direct assurances that "whom God calls he justifies, and whom he justifies he glorifies." We admit all this, because the sacred writers evidently admit it, and write constantly in a manner that accords with this admission. (33) Tig .... ^eov ; Who shall bring an accusation against the elect of God ? That is : ' Who shall prefer an accusation against them, of crimes that would occasion their condemnation, when they come before the tribunal of God?' 'EkXektwi-, Heb. Tm, nnaa ina, chosen, dear, beloved, precious ; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9. Luke xxiii. 35. 1 Pet. i. 1. Matt. xxiv. 22,31. Mark xiii. 20. Luke xviii. 7. Col. iii. 12. Tit. i. 1. Rev. xvii. 14: also Matt. xx. 16. xxii. 14 (where iicXeKToi is used in distinction from k\i)toi). That cKXtKrwv, however, here means something more than merely ayairr^Tol, may be seen from comparing ver. 28 above — Kara Trpo^saiv . . . icXrirot and 1 1 et. 1. 1, 2, £/vA£KToTc . . . Kara 7rp6yvio(xiv 3'fou Trarpog. Qebg 6 SiKai(~i>v, it is God who justijieth. So I prefer to render and to point it, viz. by making this phrase answer to the preceding question. So Luther, Tholuck, our English version, and most commentators. On the other hand, Augustine, Erasmus, Locke, Schottgen, Griesbach, Knapp, lleiche, and others, put an interroga- tion point after ^ikcuCov, and likewise after all the succeeding clauses; with diminished emphasis, as it seems to me, and certainly with no great probability ; for how can we well suppose that seventeen succes- sive questions are here put, without any answer or intervening matter? as Dr. Knapp's and Griesbach's pointing represents them to be. 0£(>c- o StKotwi; means, it is God who acquits, pardons, forgives the sins tCjv IkX^ktCjv. Now as God is the supreme and final judge, how can any accusation against them occasion their condemnation ? (34) T/c o KaTaKpivwv ', Who shall condemn or be the condemner ? 1. e. who shall pass sentence of condemnation ? God acquits ; can any besides him condemn? No; Christ has prevented all con- demnation by his death : XfnaTog 6 awo^aviov, i. e. his death having made expiation for the sins of. believers, no sentence of condom- ROMANS VIII. 34—36. 393 nation can now be passed. I construe Xptoroc o (nro^avwv as an answer to the preceding question ; so Tlioluck and Flatt. MaAXov St . . . y]ixCov, yea rather ^ who is also risen, who moreover is at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for us ; i. e. Christ not only died to make atonement for our sins, but he is risen from the dead, and is exalted to the throne of Majesty in the heavens, in order that he may complete the glorious work which he began by his death. In regard to the phrase Iv Se^m tov S-eov, see my Comm. on Heb. i. 3. — 'Evrvyxavu conveys the general sense of aiding, assisting, managing one's concerns for his advantage, &c ; comp. Heb. vii. 25. ix. 24. 1 John ii. 1. In construing the passage in this way, one must remove the interrogation points after the respective clauses, and substitute a comma after the first and second, and a period after the third. (35) T Kf^i- l^ovaiag, kcu Suvapewg' Col. i. 16, eirt ^povoi, the ROMANS Vlil. 38. 395 KuptoTjjrecj £tVf ap^ai, eite l^ovaiai, 1 Pet. iii. 22, ocyytAwv, icat i^ovmwv, Koi Svvafiicjjv. The Seventy often render ws, [exercitus) by ^vvafiiQ. And this seems to give us a key to the meaning of the word, when it is applied to the angels. However, in the passages just cited, different ranks ox orders of angels would seem to be designated. Is this in accordance with the Jewish usus loquendi ? So far as we can gather, from the Old Testament and from the Rabbins, what this usage was, we may answer in the affirmative. Thus in Dan. xii. 1, Michael is called the great prince. In Isaiah vi. 1. seq., the Seraphim are represented as presence-angels (so to speak) of .Jehovah. In Matt, xviii. 10, the guardian angels of little children are also represented, by our Saviour, as the presence-angels of .Jehovah. And with regard to the Rabbins, it is well known that they made a great many different orders of angels; e. g. d'?™, D'3Ei<, D'p-jto, □'?;"«, D'rfto '33, D'jjQttJn, D'C'iTTPi, D'3«3ii) ; and also Dnto, DOVa, and D'«E)3, i. e. Kupiorrjrfc? opX"'' ^^^ Opovoi- From all this it appears, that angels, a?id principalities, and powers correspond somewhat exactly to the Jewish orders of angels as occa- sionally reckoned ; and that, so far as the possibility of meaning is here concerned, there lies no difficulty in the way of applying these three words to angels. Nay, we may advance still farther, and say that in respect to ap^at at least, it is quite improbable that it should have been intended to designate magistrates of any kind. "AyyiKoi and ugx'"^'^ ^"^'^Y ^^^7 naturally be taken as designating angels and archangels ; comp. Jude ver. 9. 1 Thess. iv. 16. Dan. x. 13. xii. 1. If we understand here these two great divisions of angels, it will be in accordance with the usus loquendi of the Old Testament. The fact that ajy^oL and ap;^ai are joined together by juxta-position. renders it probable that they belong to the same category of mean- ing ; for so words of this class are commonly employed. But, allowing this, are good or evil angels here meant? That evil angels were also distributed by the Jews into classes, is as clear as that good angels were classified; e. g. Eph. vi. 12. 1 Cor. xv. 24. Col. ii. 15, where they are called opX"^ '*^"' lt,ovaiai, and in 2 Pet, ii. 4 they are also called ay^^Xoi. Moreover Satan is styled 6 agx^v. Matt. ix. 34. xii. 24. John xii. 31. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. Eph. ii. 2, which implies pj'ecedence, i. e, rank among evil angels. The passage in Eph. vi. 12 seems to be most direct to our purpose, where the apostle represents Christians as in violent contest irpoq tuc upx'^^' '<^"^ Trpoc So in the verse before us, I understand the apostle as 390 ROMANS VIII. 58, 39. averring, that neither angels nor archangels with whom we are con- testing, i. e. neither tlie inferior evil spirits, nor Satan himself (or it may be, Satan and others of similar rank), shall be able, by all their assaults and machinations, to separate true Christians from the love of their Saviour. Tholuck supposes the good angels to be meant here ; but how can those, " who are sent forth to minister to such as are the heirs of salvation " (Heb. i. 14), be well supposed to be the opposers and enemies of Christians ? Accordingly, with Flatt, I un- derstand ayyfXot and ap^ai of evil spil'its. Avva/uieig appears not to be associated in meaning with ciyyeXoi and apxai, because it is not associated with them by juxta-position; for it has juxta-position in all other instances, where it means angels. 1 must interpret it, therefore, as designating magistrates^ civilpowers, viz. persecuting kings and princes. That dvvajung means auctoritas, imperiicm, is beyond all doubt ; see Luke iv. 36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 4. Rev. xiii. 2; also Rev. iv. 11. v. 12. vii. 12. xii. 10. And that the abstract sense may become concrete, i. e. that dvvafiig may designate those persons who are clothed with civil power, is clear from 1 Cor. XV. 24. Eph. i. 21, as also from comparing its synonyme l^ovaia, in Rom. xiii. 1 — 4. Oure tvEOTwra ovti fiiWovra, neither the present nor the future ; i. e. neither any objects of the present time nor of the future. The apostle, after having mentioned particular things in the preceding context, here comes to the generic ideas of time, including of course all occurrences that take place in it ; and in the next clause he seems to predicate that of space or jjlace, which he here asserts of time. (39) OvTi. vi\niy\x.(x cure jSaS'oc, lit. neither height nor depth. But a great variety of explanations have been given to these words; e. g. Origen : ' Evil spirits in the air and in hades.' Ambrose : ' Neither high and haughty speculation [in doctrine], nor deep sins.' Augus- tine : ' Idle curiosity about things above us and below us.' Melanc- thon : ' Heretical speculation of the learned, and gross superstition of the vulgar, &c.' So likewise : ' Honour and dishonour,' 'high place and low place,' ' happiness and misery,' ' the elevation of Christians on the cross, and the submersion of them in the sea,' have all had their advocates. The meaning happiness or misery, honour or dis- honour, is a possible one ; but the animated and glowing spirit of the whole passage naturally leads the mind to expect something more elevated than this. "Yxpog may mean heaven ; so urn, and so v-, my conscience bearing me witness, in the Holy Spirit. I must connect these words together, in the metliod of exegesis which is here preferred, and not join ov ipev^o/iai with tv irvtvfxaTL ayiM, as Dr. Kuapp and most other critics have done, making the latter phrase a part of the formula of an oath. The re- petition of an oath here, would seem rather unlooked for and exces- sive ; besides that no example elsewhere of Christians swearing by the Holy Ghost can be produced. Conscience is the voice of God in man ; or at least, the faculty on which the influence of the Spirit of God seems to be specially exerted. It was a conscience moved and enlightened by this Spirit, which, the apostle here solemnly declares, testified his affectionate regard for the Jewish nation; Iv irvtvfiaTi ayi(o meaning, I who am moved by the Holy Spirity or am in the Spirit ; comp. Rev. i. 10, lyEvo/ir/v £v irveviuari. (2) "On .... pov, that I have great sorroiv and continual angnish in my heart. For the like expressions of sympathy and affection towards others, comp. 1 Cor. i. 4. Phil. i. 3, 4. Eph. i. 16. 1 Tlies. i. 2. Rom. i. 9, 10. Philem. ver. 4. 2 Tim. i. 3, 4. 2 Cor. xi. 29. xii. 15. (3) A much controverted verse, and which therefore needs par- ticular illustration. Nearly every word has been the subject of dif- ferent and contested exegesis. Y{vxofXTi]v yap nvToq, for I myself coiiM wish. Compare Acts xxv ROMANS IX. 3. 401 22, £j3ouXo/i>jv, / could ivish ; Gal. iv. 29, ?j3-f Xov, / could desire' But why not translate, / did wish, i. e. when I was an unconverted Jew I did wish? Because, (1) The apostle designs to show his present love to the Jews. Who questioned his strong attachment to them, when he persecuted Stephen and others before his conversion ? Or to what purpose could it be now to exhibit this, when his love to them since he became a Christian is the only thing that is called in question ? Then, (2) Neither the present auxojuat, nor the Optative iv\oifxr]Vi would accurately express what the apostle means here. ^v^ofiai (Ind. present) would mean, / wish by way of direct and positive affirmation, and with the implication that the thing wished might take place ; ci/^otjurjv (Opt.) I am wishing with desire^ impl)'^- ing the possibility that the thing wished for M^ould take place. On the other hand, r\vx6[xriv as here employed {I could wish) implies, that whatever his desires may be, after all the thing wished for is impos- sible or it cannot take place ; which is doubtless the very shade of thought that the writer would design to express. See N. Test. Gramm. § 126. Note 1. If the apostle had designed here merely to describe what he once felt or desired, i. e. before his conversion, he would of course have employed the Aorist of narration, and not the Imperfect. 'AvaS^e/xa elvai, to be an anathema, to be devoted to destruction, or to be excommunicated. This difficult and controverted word needs a full and satisfactory illustration. In classical Greek ava^ejma and ava^Tifxa were originally altogether equivalent or synonymous; just as ivgtfxa and ^vptifia were, and also lirl^efxa and eiri^rtiuia, &c. ( 1 ) The proper and original meaning of ava^efia or ava^mia was a setting out or setting up of any thing consecrated to the gods, in their temples; such as tripods, images, statues, inscriptions, &c. The exposure of such things in the temples, in any way, whether they hung up, stood up, or lay down, was ava^i\xa ; the action of exposing them, or the exposure itself, was called ava^t}ia. Hence, (2) The thing itself exposed, the thing consecrated or devoted to the gods, was called ava^Ejua, by a very common principle of language applicable to a great multitude of words. Then, (3) As any thing devoted or consecrated to the gods was irrevocably given up to them, and was no more subject to common use ; so when any living thing, beast or man, became an avaS-c/io, it was of course to be slain in sacrifice, and offered to the gods mostly as a piacular victim. In like manner, under the Levitical law, every onn or ava^^na devoted to God, was 2 c 402 ROMANS IX. 3. incapable of redemption; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, vav uva^ti.ia . . . airb av^pdjwov ttjjg KTijvovg . . . ov Xvrpw^TfffiTaij aWa ^avari^ ^ava- rw^tltreTca ; comp. Judg. xi. 30, 31 and 39; which liowever, is the only instance on record in the Scriptures of a human avaS-fjua, and which at all events is not encouraged by the laws of Moses. And in consequence of such a custom or law, cities, edifices, and their inhabitants, which were devoted to excision or entire destruction, were called onn, i. e. ava^efia as the Seventy have rendered it. So Jericho was mn. Josh. vi. 17, comp. ver. 21 ; and so the cities of the Canaanites that were 2itterly destroyed by Israel, M^ere named nta-in, destruction. Any thing in fact, whether man, beast, or any species of property or ornament, which was to be utterly destroyed, was called nnn (ava^f/xa) by the Hebrews ; see Lev. xxvii. 28, 29. Deut. xiii. 15 — 17, and comp. 1 K. xx. 42. Is. xxxiv. 5. Zech. xiv. 11. The Greek words avaB-fjuar/'^w and avaTL^y]fii correspond, in like manner, to the Heb. Dnm (Hiph. of n^n), and mean to pronounce to he an ava^Efia, to give up as an ava^efia, i. e. to set apart or deliver over to destruction. But to what destruction ? To natural death or spiritual, i. e. to sufferings in the present world, or those of everlasting death ? Those who construe the M'ord in the first way, say, that aTro tov Xpiarov means by Christ ; in which case the whole sentiment would seem to be : * I could wish to suffer temporal death inflicted by Christ, pro- vided this would exempt my countrymen from it.' But there are some M^eighty objections to this; for the apostle is not here discuss- ing the subject of the Jews' temporal punishment or excision, but of their excision from the blessings of a future world by reason of their unbelief; comp. ix. 25 — 33. It is the fearful doom then which un- belief is to bring on the Jews, that the apostle wishes could be averted; and it is his deep concern for them in respect to this, which he desires to testify. It is a uj\ of this kind, therefore, that he would consent to take upon himself, could they be saved by it. That ava^tfjut may be used to signify the second death, is clear from 1 Cor. xvi, 22. The whole tenor of the passage makes clearly against the supposition, that temporal excision merely is meant. In respect to otto tov Xpiarov, (if tlie whole be construed as I have here supposed it must be in order to follow the strict principles of exegesis), it may mean by Christ, i. e. it is equivalent to viro tov XpicTTov. So clearly otto may be used, and is often employed; e. g. Markviii. 31. Luke ix. 22. xvii. 25. Matt. xi. 19. Luke xii. 58. Acts ROMANS IX. 3. 403 ii. 22. X. 17, et ssepe : see Bretsehn. in verbum. Still, as the idea of being an anathema involves the idea of separation or banishment from Christ, a-no may be rendered fiom, without any important variation of the sense. In reg-ard to uTrtp tCov . . . o-apKo, on account of or in the room of my brethren^ my hinsmen after the flesh, it plainly means, for the sake of my natural brethren; my kinsmen by natural descent or genera- tion, i. e. the Jews. Tholuck gives a little different turn to the passage, but the same sense in substance. He compares avaSc/^o to n-in in the later Hebrew; which was used to denote excommunication, separation from the Jewish community or hrp^. The Rabbins make three gradations of excommunication, which they call, [a) 'w? seclusion, which lasted a month, and obliged a man to keep four ells distant from all his household, {h) The dipt, which forbade all intercourse, action, eating, drinking, &c., with any one, and all approach on the part of the excommunicated person to the synagogue, (c) The wna^ (from rustf, excludere), which designated utter exclusion on the part of God and man, and the being given up to destruction. A tre- mendous example of the Rabbinic ur\ is produced by Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. p. 828. I subjoin it below, for the information of the curious reader.* * "By the authority of the Lord of lords, let A. B, be an anathema (d"30) in both houses of judgment, in that above and that beneath ; Jet him be anathema by the holy beings on high, by the Seraphim and Ophannim [D'3Qi«, wheels, see Ezek. i. 16, seq., a superior order of angels] ; let him be anathema by the whole church, great and small. Let plagues great and real be upon him ; diseases great and horrible. Let his habitation be that of dragons ; let his star be darkened with clouds. Let him be an object of wrath, indignation, and anger ; let his corpse be given to wild beasts and serpents. Let his enemies and adversaries exult over him ; let his silver and gold be given to others ; let his children be exposed at the door of his enemies ; and let posterity be astonished at his fate. Let him be cursed by the mouth of Addiriron and Achtariel, by the mouth of Sandalphon and Hadraniel, by the mouth of Hansasiel and Patchiel, by the mouth of Seraphiel and Sagansiel, by the mouth of Michael and Gabriel, by the mouth of Raphael and Mesharetiel. [These are the names of angels.] Let him be cursed by the mouth of Zabzabib, and by the mouth of Habhabib, who is the great God, [these names are Cab- balistic ones of the Divinity] ; and by the mouth of the seventy names of the great King [Jehovah] ; and on the part of Tsortak the great chancellor, [another mysterious name]. Let him be swallowed up, like Korah and bis company ; with terror and trembling let his breath depart. May the rebuke of Jehovah slay him ; may he be strangled, like 2 c 2 404 ROMANS IX. 3. In this way, ava^efia airb tov Xptarov would mean, one ban- ished, cut off, separated from Christ ; which would involve, however, all the consequences that are involved in the preceding exegesis. But on the whole, as the preceding sense is most consonant with Scriptural and classical usage, I should give it the preference. The sentiment then is : ' Such is my love for my kinsmen after the flesh, that were it possible, I would devote myself to the destruction which threatens them, could they but escape by such means.' In respect to the objections urged against this sentiment, they do not seem to be weighty. It is asked : ' How could the apostle be willing to be for ever cast off and separated from Christ? How could he be willing to become a sinner and to be miserable for ever ? ' I answer, (1) The possibility that such could or would be the case, is not at all implied in what he says ; no more than the possibility that " an angel from heaven should preach another gospel," is implied by what is said in Gal. i. 8. It is merely a case supposed or stated, for the sake of illustrating or expressing a feeling or sentiment. (2) Even supposing the actual possibility of the exchange in question was be- lieved by the apostle, it would not imply that in itself he was willing to be a sinner, or to be for ever miserable. When the apostle says that Christ was made a curse for us, does he mean to say, that Christ took on him the temper of mind which they have who are accursed ? " Quid mirum, " says Origen, " si, cum Dominus pro servis maledictum sit factum, servus pro fratribus anathema fiat ? '' It would imply merely, then, that Paul would be willing, in case he could save the whole nation, to take on himself the miseries to whicK they were hastening. And a sentiment like this, is surely capable of a rational and sober defence. If benevolence would lead Paul to undergo any assignable degree of suffering, in the present life, in order to promote the everlasting welfare of the Jewish nation; would not the like benevolence lead him to undergo any assignable degree of misery in a future world for the same purpose, provided such a purpose could be answered by it? Who can draw the line where benevolence would stop short; except it be, where the evil suffered was Ahithophel, by his own counsel ! May his leprosy be like that of Gehazi ; and may there be no resurrection of his remains ! Let not his sepulchre be with that of Israel. Let his wife be given to others; let them embrace her, while he is giving up the ghost. — In this anathema let A. B. remain ; and let this be his inheritance. But on me, and on all Israel, may God bestow peace with his blessing ! " ROMANS IX. 3. 405 to be equal to the good accomplished, or even greater ? Could Paul have the genuine spirit of his Lord and Master, unless he could truly say what he has said in the passage before us? But, (3) The infer- ence that Paul "was willing to be damned," or that Christians must come to such a state of willingness, is made without any ^ground from the verse in question. If Paul's being cast oif by the Saviour could occasion the reception and salvation of the whole Jewish people, this apostle expresses his readiness to submit to it. ' But as such a thing was impossible ; and as he really knew it to be so ; all that we can well suppose the passage teaches, is, that the apostle possessed such a feeling of benevolence toward the Jewish nation, that he was ready to do or suffer any thing whatever, provided their salvation might be secured by it. In other words, this is a high and glowing expression, springing from an excited state of feeling, which the use of common language could not at all satisfy. And in making use of such an expression, Paul did not depart from a mode of speaking which is still very common in the East. The Arabians, for example, very commonly, in order to testify strong aifection, say, ^^ \jji^\ ^--woiu, '^^ soul be a ransom fo?' thee. So Maimonides (Sanhed. fol. 18. I), in explaining the Talmudic expression ^rr&'s «?nrf, see, I am thy ransom states, that this was a common expression of strong affection. So in the verse before us, the whole is evidently and necessarily designed to express strong affection. But what expression of this would be uttered, if we suppose the apostle merely to say, (as not a few critics maintain), that he once was desirous of being cut off from Christ, viz. before his conversion and when he persecuted the church? But how could he be cut off from Christ, who never had been joined to him ? And what evidence was this of Paul's present affection ? Or if it be construed as meaning, * cut off, destroyed, i. e. put to death, by Christ ; ' did the apostle actually wish this before he was converted ? And if he did, what had this to do with the salvation of his brethren and kinsmen ? It is possible, indeed, to construe ava^efia as implying temporal death or destruction ; and to suppose the apostle to say : ' I could wish that I might suffer the punishment which Christ is about to in- flict on the Jews, in their stead.' The emphasis would not be wholly destroyed by this interpretation. But it would be greatly diminished. And then, the context no where leads us to consider the subject of temporal destruction, as being here agitated in the mind of the 406 ROMANS IX. 4. apostle. It is only the * wrath of God which is revealed from heaven, against the impenitent and unbelieving-, to which he considers them in this place as exposed. He is writing to Jews at liunic, not in Palestine. I must adopt then the exegesis above given of the verse before us, viz. ' Such is my affection for my Jewish brethren after the flesh, that could I put myself in their stead, and take on me the consequences of unbelief to which they are exposed, I would willingly do it in order that they might be saved.' Truly "a love stronger than death, which many waters could not quench nor floods drown ! " (4) ^laparikiTai, Israelites^ i. e. who bear the honourable or far- famed name of Israelites ; comp. Gen. xxxii. 28. 2 Cor. xi. 22. Phil, iii. 5. This however is only an external privilege ; for they are not all Israelites in truth, who are of Israelitish descent, Rom. ix. 6; comp. iii. 28, 29. ^i2v 17 vlo^taia, whose is the sonship, i. e. the relation of sons or children; comp. Ex. iv. 22, 23. Deut. xxxii. 5, 6. xiv. 1. Hos. xi. 1. The meaning is, that God bore a special relation to Israel ; or rather, that Israel stood in a special relation to him, and M^as treated with distinguished and peculiar affection. This last circumstance forms the special ground of the vlo^sata. But this vlo^eaia was external, and consisted with the Jewish nation's being in a very imperfect state ; comp. Gal. iv. 1 — 3. 2 Cor. iii. 6 — 18. For a sonship of a much higher nature than this, comp. Gal. iv. 4 — 7. Rom. viii. 14 — 17. Ao^o may have the sense here of fflory, and be joined ^nth vlo- ^ema in the way of Hendiadys or as explicative, so that the meaning would be for substance glorious adoption or sonship, i. e. one which is worthy of praise, which deserves to be mentioned with honour. And this method Tholuck prefers. But the«objection to this is, that the epithet So^a appears to be too strong for a mere external vlo^^eaia ; and besides all this, all the other nouns which precede and follow stand single. On this account I must prefer giving to So^a the sense of i\y3, and regard it here as designating the visible splendour which was the symbol of Jehovah's presence, and which was peculiarly manifested in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple ; comp. Ex. xxv. 22. xl. 34, 35. Lev. ix. 6. Ezek. i. 28. iii. 23. viii. 4. It is true, in- deed, that in all these passages we have nirr ito {do'^a ^tov), and not simply ite. But the Targum, which employs nirr htosii) for nin; ii33, also employs am'^vi (Shechinah) alo7ie in the same sense. Paul then may have here used So^o elliptically, in a corres- ROMANS IX. 5. 407 ponding manner; and so (widi Beza, Tuiretin, Vitringa, Heumann, Rlickert, Reiche, and others) I suppose that he has employed it. The sentiment then is : ' To the Israelites belonged the visible splendour or glory, which was indicative of the immediate presence of Jehovah.' Am^'jJKai seems here to indicate the covenants made at different times with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, &c. — No/,io^£(Tia, legislation or system of laws, viz. the Mosaic legislation or laws ; as to the distin- guished privilege of these, comp. Deut. iv. 5 — 8. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. Rom. ii. 18, 19. — Aarpfta, service, rrn35>, rites of the temple, priest- hood, &c. — 'ETrayyeXtat, the promises, viz. those which had respect to the Messiah : comp. Gal. iii. 16. Rom. xv. 8. Heb. xi. 17. (5) "Qtv ol Traripeg, ivhose are the fathers, i. e. whose progenitors were the fathers, Abraham, &c., to whom so many promises (l-rrayyt- Xiat) were made, and who are so distinguished in sacred history. 'E^ (jjv . . . aapKci, from whom [descended] Christ, in respect to the flesh, i. e, in respect to his human or inferior nature, or so far as he was man ; comp. Rom. i. 3 and ojuoiwjita aapKoq in viii. 3. But if he had no other nature, why should such a distinction as is implied by Kara (xapKa, be here designated ? Would a sacred v\Titer say of David, for example, that he was descended from Abraham Kara aag- Ku ? If this should be said, it would imply that Kara irvtvfxa he was not descended from Abraham, but from some one else. But here, the other nature of Christ appears to be designated by the succeed- ing phrase 6 wv Itt\ ttuvtujv ^wg. 'O hjv . . . afi{]v, who is God over all, blessed for ever, Amen. 'O wv is equivalent to or the same as og Icttl, ivho is ; for so the article followed by a participle is often employed in the Greek language ; see John i. 18. iii. 13. xii. IT. 2 Cor. xi. 31, 6 ^ihg . . . 6 lov evAo- yrjroc k. r. X. — 'E7rt Travroiv, being placed here between the article 6 and the noun ^iog to wliich this article belongs, is of course an adjective as to meaning, and designates the idea of supreme. Some indeed have understood etti -jravTiov as meaning lirl iravTwv Trarlpwv; but this is plainly a forced and frigid exegesis. In Hebrew, 'n"^« ni«52 and n© are epithets of Jehovah, the supreme God ; and to these TravTQKpaTWQ in the Septuagint corresponds ; e. g. 2 Sam. v. 10. 1 Chron. xi. 9. Jer. v. 14. Amos iii. 13. Zech. i. 3, seq., et alibi. So in the Apocalypse, TravroKparwp often appears as an epithet of Jehovah, e. g. Rev. i. 8. iv. 8. xi. 17. xv. 3, &c. Now 7ravroK/oa- rwp is for substance the equivalent of IttX TravTwv as to meaning; so 408 ROMANS IX. 5. that 6 £7ri wdvTcjv ^eog must be altogether equivalent to 6 S-toc o iravTOKpuTMp. EvXoyriTog is equivalent to the Hebrew rpna. The Jewish Rab- bins from time immemorial have been accustomed, whenever the name of God is mentioned, to add vm rpia, blessed is he. So Paul here, after calling Christ 6 wv twl iravTwv ^t6g, adds evXoytiTog ug Tovg aiu)vag, i. e. lyj dpv) •Tj'na. Compare now the same appella- tion given to God in Mark xiv. 61. Whether an ascription of divine honour to Christ is intended by applying to him here the word ivXoyriT6g, the reader may satisfy himself by comparing the use of this word in 2 Cor. i. 3. xi. 31. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. Luke i. 68. That divine honour is ascribed to Christ by the heavenly hosts, (and the same too which is rendered to the Father), appears from Rev. v. 13, 14. Nor can it be objected that it is contrary to the usage o f Paul, to name Christ ^iog ; for so he is called in Tit. i. 3, and the great God in Tit. ii. 13 ; moreover he is represented as laa 3-£(^ in Phil. ii. 6; and as ^i6g in John i. 1; not to mention the controverted but seemingly well authenticated reading (S-toc) in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Nor is it any objection to this, that in 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, the apostle represents the Son as renouncing or laying aside his supremacy or dominion, at the final consummation of all things; for the office of the Messiah, and the dominion of the Messiah as such, must of course cease, when all the objects of that office and that dominion shall have been fully accomplished. In reference to this kind of dominion, Christ is called KVQiog in 1 Cor. viii. 6; and it is such a dominion which is represented as bestowed on him in Phil. ii. 9 — 11. Col. i. 17, 18. Heb. i. 3. ii. 5—9. viii. 1. Neither the grammatical arrangement of the text, then, nor the sentiments of the apostle elsewhere, require us, or (may I not say?) permit us, to give a different interpretation to the words of the verse in question. Nor do any various readings of the verse occur, which are of any authority at all. It has been conjectured, indeed, that we should read wv 6 k. r. X, i. e. whose is the God ovei' all, &c. ; so Whitby, Crellius, Taylor, and others. But not to say, that tiiking such liberties with the text is fairly out of question, (which surely must be granted), it will be enough to compare the sentiment which the passage thus modified would give, with Rom. iii. 29, 30. This then is one of the cases, in which Paul has directly asserted Christ to be supreme God, and has accordingly rendered to him the sacred doxology. ROMANS IX. 5. 409 The efforts to evade this conclusion have been many and strenuous. The interpretations whicli have resulted from them, may be divided into two classes ; viz. I. Those which put a full period after o-ajOKo, and make the re- mainder of the verse a doxology to God the Father. So Erasmus, in the enlarged edition of his Notes ; so Enjeddin, Whiston, Semler, and others. Even Glockler, who is a Nicenian, does the same ; which of course, moreover, we might expect from Reiche, who is apparently a high Arian. But, (a) It was long ago noted by Bengel (with whom Faustus Socinus also agrees), that in all classes of doxology, f\-i in Hebrew and sv\o'yi]T6g in Greek precede the name of God who is blessed. So the laws of grammar beyond all doubt demand ; for ^ia nin; would mean, the blessed Jehovah^ i. e. the blessed Jehovah does this or that; for both words (thus arranged) make out merely the subject of a sentence. On the contrary, rnnj ^vti means blessed is or blessed be Jehovah ; Jehovah being the subject of the sentence, and ^iia the predicate. So, more than thirty times, the words ^115 in Hebrew and euXoYrjrcJc in Greek are placed in the Old Testamejit; as any one may see by consulting Tromm's Con- cordance under cvXoyrjroc, The same is the case with all the exam- ples in the New Testament. Only one can I find in all the Bible, that differs from this; and this is Ps. Ixvii. 19 (Sept.), wherehowever the repetition of euXoyrjroc is plainly an error of the scribes, as it has no corresponding repetition in the Hebrew, and is against all analogy ; I mean in respect to the^rs^ instance in which it here occurs. Even Eichhorn (Einlet. ins. A. T. § 320) concedes that the reading in the Sept. is a doubtful one. (6) Construed in this way, a»v is entirely useless and destitute of meaning, and the addition of it is altogether unaccountable. The natural and simple order of the text would be ; EvXoyrjroc 6 etti ttovtwi; S-eoc k. r. X. (c) In this mode of inter- pretation there is no antithesis to Kara orapica, which plainly requires one ; as the natural inquiry is : If Christ be descended from David only KOTO (lapKa, what is he as to his higher nature ? Comp. Rom. j. 1, 3. II. Another class of critics, viz. Locke, Clark, Justi, Ammon, and others, put a full period after Travrwv, and then make a doxology of the sequel. In this way the difficulty last suggested with regard to the interpretation No. I, is in a measure removed, as a kind of an- tithesis is made out by 6 wv hn iravrwv^ sc. ttAvtidv Traripwv, i. e. Christ in his human nature was a descendant of David, but still was 410 ROMANS IX. 5. a personage of exalted dignity, being elevated above all the Jewish fathers, who are objects of so much encomium in sacred history and of so much veneration among the Jewish people. But still there are weighty objections against this mode of pointing and explaining the text ; for («) The difficulty in regard to the position of evXoyr}T6g, is the same here as has been already described above, imder No. I. a. If it were doxology, it must be written euAoyr/roc' 6 S-eoc k. t. X. But as there are no authorities, either of manuscripts or versions, for such an arrangement, so we are not at liberty to make it; and if we do so, we must do it arbitrarily, {b) In such a case the noun 2-toc must have the article, as being the suhject of the sentence, and in its own nature customarily requiring it. So uniformly in the Sept. and in the New Testament, where ^toq is the subject of a doxology made by tvXoyrjroc it takes the article ; e. g. Gen. ix. 26.xiv. 20. xxiv. 27, 1 Sam. XXV. 32. 2 Sam. xviii. 28. 1 K. i. 48. v. 7. viii. 15. 2 Chron. ii. 12. vi. 4. Ez. vii. 46. Ps. xvii. 50. xl. 14. Ixv. 19. Ixvii. 20, 38. Ixxi. 19. cv. 47. cxliii. 1. Dan. iii. 29. Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 3. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. In regard to Kvptocj the usage of the Sept. varies ; e. g. 1 Sam. XXV. 39, evXoyTjroe 6 Kvpiog, according with the usage of Stoc; but in other passages the article is omitted, e. g. Ex. xviii. 10. Ruth iv. 14. Ps. cxxiii. 5. cxxxiv. 21. But no instance of the like variation can I find, in respect to ^toq. The example in our text must stand alone, if it be one, of S'toc iw 3- doxology with ivXoyt]T6cf and yet without the article, (c) To break off a sentence with 6 wv lirX iravrujVi seems 'at least to make it very abrupt and incomplete. To what can TTavTwv refer, in such a connection, except to t\\e fathers? And to say that the Messiah was exalted above the Jewish patriarchs, although it might be saying something, would not seem to be saying very much considering the efficacy which Paul had been ascribing to his love and sufferings, and death, and the greatness which he had ascribed to his power, {d) There is something incongruous in a doxology here to God the Father; which even Crellius himself suggests (Artemon. Init. Evang. Johan.). The apostle is here expressing the deepestand most unfeigned regret of his soul, that notwithstanding the exalted and peculiar privileges of the Jewish nation, they had by their unbe- lief forfeited them all, and made themselves obnoxious to a most ter- rible condemnation. To break out into a doxology here, would be (as Flatt suggests) like saying : ' These special privileges have, by being abused, contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and punish- ment of the Jewish nation; God be thanked that he has given them ROMANS IX. 5. 411 such privileges !" It is a duty, indeed, to be grateful for blessings which are bestowed ; but — all in its proper place. Doxologies are not appropriate to paragraphs, which give an account of mercies abused and deep guilt contracted, (e) Besides all this, the abrupt- ness of a doxology here, which could contain no reference to God as mentioned in the preceding context (for he is not there mentioned), is plain and striking ; and also, as Nosselt, Flatt, Koppe, and Ewald have observed, it would be without example. Comp. Rom. i. 25. xi. 36. The remark of Eckermann and Justi, that tuAoyrjrot,- is required to stand before ^tog in a doxology, only when this doxology stands at the heginning of a sentence, is not true in point of fact ; e. g. Gen. xiv. 20, where koi shows that evAoyrjrdc is not at the beginning of a sentence ; 2 Sam. xxii. 47. Ps. xvii. 46. Ixvii. 35. In the last case, one might contend and say, that cuXoyjjroc begins a new sentence ; but then where does it not, on the same ground ? The burden of proof lies on those, who assert that euXoyTjroc need not be prefixed except it stand at the beginning of a sentence ; yet where are the instances in which it is not prefixed ? The only one (except an instance of a manifestly corrupt text, Ps. Ixvii. 19), is the very verse before us. To assume the principle in question, then, is to take for granted the very point in dispute. The remark of Doderlein, that aju//i/ necessarily implies an Op- tative doxology (sc. EuXoyrjroc £tr? ^^6q), is disproved by Rom. i. 25, where oc iariv evXoyr]Tbg .... ajuvv, are the words of Paul, i. e. the apostle speaks in the Indicative mode, and not in the Opta- tive. The same is the case in 1 Pet. iv. 11, w [sc. 3-£w vel ^piart^'] £ VJ^v^? |oi^ 412 ROMANS IX. 5. Deus super omnia. Stolz, in his celebrated German version, has left out ^£oc ; whether on the authority of Grotius as above, or because he thought it a disagreeable appendage to the text, does not appear. After all these proposed changes, however, of punctuation, of the order of the text, and of the substance of it, tli*text, as it now stands, remains in reality untouched by any criticism which can have any considerable weight with men of ingenuous and candid minds. That those who deny the divinity of Christ should be solicitous to avoid the force of this text, is not unnatural ; for while itremains in the re- cords of the New Testament, it stands an irrefragable evidence of what Paul believed, asserted, and taught, relative to this subject. The only way in which any avoiding of its force is practicable, seems to be, to assert that 6 wv hn rravrwv ^toq is meant to designate merely the supremacy of Christ as Mediator, in which capacity he is quasi Deus, and in the like capacity is styled d'h^n in Ps. xlv. In pursuing this course, more probability than is now exhibited in the various evasions that I have above noticed, and also more ingenuous- ness, might be shown. But still, the general and spontaneous feeling of an unprejudiced reader must always be (at least so it seems to me), that God over all means supreme God, and that tuXoyTjToe etc roi/c aiwvac) ctjUT/v, can be applied only to him who is truly divine. A ^hoq SEurcpoe, in a real and veritable sense, seems to oppose the fun- damental principle of the Scriptures. R'lickert and Usteri, the first in his Commentary and the second in his Lehrbegriff Paidi, both acknowledge that there is no avoiding the usual exegesis of this text on the common principles of philo- logy. Both of them doubt or impugn the divinity of Christ; yet they yield to the laws of grammar and philology here. But both assert that this is a aira^ Xtyofuvov on the part of Paul (which I would by no means admit), and Usteri says, that ' he cannot divest himself of the suspicion, that there must be some error in the text or in the interpretation.' But Reiche is made of sterner stuff. He yields nothing to the laws of grammar, or to the position of evXoyrjTog, &c. ; he makes a period at (rap/co, and constructs the rest as a doxology. Both proceed upon the ground, so far as iheir feeling of objection is concerned, that Christ is only a derived God, and therefore cannot have supreme divinity ascribed to him. This is indeed a legitimate inference from the Nicene creed ; but still it is not what the Nicene fathers meant to teach in a direct way. Real divinity, although iiot supreme divinity, they undoubtedly meant to ascribe to Christ. ROMANS IX. 6. 413 CHAP. IX. 6—13. The apostle, having expressed his strong affection toward his own nation, and described the claims to pre-eminence which they had hitherto enjoyed, now proceeds to show that all these do not make out any good grounds of preference in a spiritual respect. He teaches them clearly, that it is not the simple fact of natural descent from Abraham, which makes them his children in the higher and scriptural sense of this word. ' They are not all Israel, who are of Israel ;' and even among the natural descendants of Abraham, God did in ancient times make a wide distinction. Consequently, the mere fact of natural descent can prove nothing as to the point of spiritual rights or claims, vers. 6 — 13, (6) Ovx oiov St, a controverted expression ; which however may- be rendered plain in two ways; either, (1) OTov may be taken ad- verbially, as wg or loairep to which it is very often equivalent (see Passow on olog, No. 6) ; and then we may translate ; It is not so that, &c. ; just as we translate juj) wg on, 2 Thess. ii. 2. (2) OTov in classic Greek often implies a preceding roTov. The whole phrase would be : ov tolov Ian, diov on k. t. X. ; i. e. ' it is no such thing as that, &c. ;' in which case we may render : There is no such thing as that cKTrtTrrwicEv k. t. X. The former method is most simple, perhaps, but not the most probable ; for oTov used adverbially is generally employed in a merely comparative way. The meaning is ; * But what I have said in respect to the defection of Israel, does not at all imply that the promises of God are not sure and certain.' Al, but, continuatiye and adversative. Tholuck is mistaken, when, in objecting to oTov Se being here used as equivalent to oTov n, he says the latter must always have the Infinitive after it. Olog re with an Infinitive has indeed the mean- ing possibile est, &c. ; but dlog n. is often employed without an In- finitive, and in the sense of so as, such as, like ; and even without an Infinitive it sometimes means possible ; see Passow on olog No. 2. e. No. 3. c. However, I do not find oXov Si employed in the sense of oTov rf, possible. Consequently I must prefer the rendering given above. \6yog, promise, woi'd, in the sense of something promised ; often so in English, e. g. he lias given his word. — 'EKTrtTrrwicev, failed, been frustrated, irritum factum est. So the Hebrew to, which cor- responds in sense with EKTreVrwice ; e. g. in Josh. xxi. 45. 1 K. viii. 56. 2 K. X. 10. Ou 7ap . . . 'l(Tpai)X,for not all who are of Israel, are Israel ; i. e. 414 ROMANS IX. 7, 8. not all the natural descendants of Abraham, are Israelites in the true, spiritual, scriptural sense of the word. The Talmud (Tract. Sanhed. cap. 11,) expresses the feelings and views of the Jews rela- tive to their claims of pre-eminence : Njn uhsv) p)n ■&, hviia'-b^, i. e. all Israel have their portion in the ivorld to come. But such claims are rejected by our text and the sequel ; as well as by Rom. iii. John viii. 39. Matt. iii. 9. Gal. iii. 9, 28, 29. Tap here shows, that what fol- lows is designed for illustration and confirmation. The apostle pro- ceeds to give a reason why the promise has not been broken ; and that is, that all the natural descendants of Abraham are not, as such, the heirs of the promise. (7) Stt^pjuo, natural descendant. — TtKva, children, here in the higher spiritual sense, like that of 'IcrpaT/X above in the second in- stance.— 'AXX' Iv 'laaaK .... (nripfia, but, ^^ In Isaac shall thy seed he called ;'^ i. e. (as most explain it) in the person of Isaac, thy seed, viz. thj'^ descendants who are to stand in a covenant relation to me, shall be chosen or selected. But a more probable and efficient sense is given to the passage, by taking kXt]^ noovrai here in the sense which it has in iv. 17 ; and then the meaning will be : 'In Isaac or through Isaac shall thy seed (the seed here promised), be called into being.' KaXtw, used like the Heb. Nn;?, means to call out of nothing into being ; as Rom. iv. 17 shows. After aXXa and before Ivk.t. X, either ovnog ippv^n or ipp{]^r) is implied. — As to tskvo, these are, in the next verse, called to. rUva rijc tirayyeXla^. In ver. 5 above, iTrayyeXim (nna) are reckoned among the external privileges which the Israelites enjoyed. But even these, only apart of Abra- - ham's natural descendants enjoyed. Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, was excluded from the covenant relation ; and so were Abraham's six sons by Keturah, Gen. xxv. 1 — 5. 'FiTrayysXiag in ver. 8, however, refers to the promises in Gen. xv. 4, 5. xvii. 15, 16, 19, 21 (see ver. 9). Isaac was in a special sense the son of promise ; and his natural descendants, therefore, may be styled TEKva ttiq eTrayyeXiac- (8) TovT icrriv, that is, i. e. which signifies, which means. But does Paul intend to say, that tlie explanation which follows exhibits the sense of the original promise ? Or does he mean to intimate merely, that he gives to the subject under consideration a meaning analogous to that ancient promise ? That it is capable of a satisfac- tory explanation on the former ground, may be shown from the con- siderations suggested in the sequel. — Ou r« . . . ^eov, the natural ROMANS IX. 8. 415 descendants [of Abraham] ai'e not the children of God. Ta r^Kvarijc aapKOQ plainly meeins physical ovnatural descendmits, children in the first and literal sense. But the sense of reKva row ^iov is not so ob- vious. Is it here used to designate the children of God in the highest spiritual sense of this term ? 1 think not ; for it is Isaac and his descendants as such, \vho are here contradistinguished from Ishmael and the other six sons of Abraham and their descendants. The point here insisted on is, that natural descent from Abraham did not of it- self entitle any one to the high spiritual privileges of the gospel ; that the Jew had no more right than the Gentile, to expect any peculiar favour to himself merely on such a ground. But how does the apos- tle illustrate and confirm this principle ? By showing that in ancient times, the promise of a numerous seed who should stand in a cove- nant relation to God, and enjoy peculiar external privileges on this account, was not made to the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but only to those natural descendants who would spring from Isaac the son of peculiar promise. In other words ; Ishmael and the sons of Abraham by Keturah, had no share in the covenant-engage- ments made with the promised seed. The deduction from all this is, that God does not dispense his blessings or favours according to claims grounded on mere natural descent or external privileges, but according to his own infinite wis- dom and pleasure. In other words, the claims of men on the ground of birth, or external privilege, or merit of their own, are not the ground of decision on the part of God, with respect to the blessings which he may bestow upon them. The first two of these constitute no ground at all of claim ; and the last also has no foundation, inas- much as all men are sinners and are deserving of the divine displea- sure. Of course, the reasons why God gives to these "and vidthholds from those, are with himself; they are not grounded on our claims or merits. Reasons he doubtless has, and these of the best kind ; for who will venture to tax infinite wisdom and goodness with doing any thing without good and sufficient reason ? But then these reasons God has kept to himself; he has not revealed them to us. When this is the case, the apostle speaks of him as acting Kara t^v vpo^e- aiv avTOv — Kara Trjv wpta/xlvr/v povXrjv kol rrpoyvwcnv avTOv, &c. But nothing can be farther from truth, than to suppose that a Being of infinite wisdom and goodness ever acts arbitrarily^ or without the best of reasons ; although they may be, and often are, unknown to us. That TiKva Tov ^zov may mean, "the children of promise in 416 ROMANS IX. 8. respect to the external privileges and blessings of the ancient covenant or dispensation,' is clear from the manner in which riicva (o'ja) is applied to the whole body of Israelites, in Deut. xxxii. 5, 6. xiv. 1. Hos. xi. 1. Ex. iv. 22, 23. Of the same nature is to. rUva rijc £7ra77f Xfoc- It designates those on whom the promised blessings were bestowed, which are mentioned above in vers. 4, 5 ; or else those who were the descendants of Isaac, himself a reKvov tJjc iirayyeXiag. In the same manner (rwipiJia, at the close of the verse, is to be under- stood, i. e. as equivalent to TtKva ^tov in the sense just explained, or as »^j in Gen. xvii. 8. It should be noted here, also, as a matter of some interest, that ^sov is omitted in F. G. 37. 67 ex emend. 70. Matt. c. k. Chrysostom. Probably the copyists were stumbled with the appellation rcKva ^-foi; as applied to the posterity of Isaac in gen- erah But the texts cited above show that they need not have been; for the meaning of rlicva ^tov is, such children as God according to the special promise to Abraham would raise up for his posterity, who should enjoy covenant-privileges. The argument and illustration of the apostle, according to this explanation, stand thus : ' All claims of the Jews to the spiritual pri- vileges and blessings of Christ's kingdom, on the ground of natural descent from Abraham, are futile. Even in ancient times, God did not confer the blessings and privileges of his ancient dispensation on such a ground. Only one of Abraham's sons was selected as the object of God's peculiar covenant. Consequently it is no strange thing that God should deal in like manner with Abraham's natural descendants, at the present time.' The question is not, whether the distinction made in ancient times among the natural descendants of Abraham, and to which the apostle here refers, was one which had direct respect to their condi- tion in a future world, i. e. to the highest spiritual blessings ; for most clearly this is not the case. Surely all the natural descendants of Isaac were not called in this sense. The distinction adverted to here, must be that which had respect to the external covenant -rela- tion of the Israelites as a nation, to God. But the essential ques- tion in respect to the meaning of the whole passage, is : Why does the apostle adduce such an example here of God's bestowing bless- ings Kara Trpo^Emv avrov ? The answer to this must be, that he ad- duces it in order to justify the principle which is concerned with the fore-ordaitmig^ calling, justifying, and glorifying the icX»jTot as described in chap. viii. But surely this does not pertain to external privileges only, as enjoyed in the present world. ROMANS IX. 8, 0. 417 Anotlier view of this whole subject may be taken. We may sup- pose Paul by TOUT e(ttiv to mean, that the promise concerning Isaac was typiciil of a future and spiritual seed, to be chosen on like princi- ples. In other words ; as not all the literal posterity of Abraham were selected to be heirs of the special covenant-promise made to the patriarch, but only Isaac was selected, so it is in respect to the new covenant. God does not select merely the literal seed of Abraham, but he chooses a spiritual seed of the father of the faithful to be the heirs of gospel blessings. In a word, selection, choice, was a principle of action in respect to the patriarch's posterity; choice or selection i« still equally visible in dispensing the blessings of the new covenant. In this way Paul would be understood as saying, by tovt ianv, that the ancient promise was as much as to .say or equivalent to saying what follows, which contains an exhibition of the same principle. The amount of the whole in either way of explanation, is, that Paul, in order to illustrate and defend God's proceedings in respect to bestowing spiritual blessings of the highest kind, adduces exam- ples from the Old Test. Scriptures, where the principle concerned is exactly the same as that which is concerned with the calling and glorifying of the kXi^toi, viz., where the blessings bestowed are not conferred on the ground of being a natural descendant of Abraham, nor on the ground of merit or desert, but kutu irpo^eaiv ^eov. Now certainly God can no more be unjust in great things than in small ones ; and if he M^as not unjust in selecting the objects of his tem- poral favours Kara Trp6^£(nv aiirov, why should we regard him as un- just in selecting the objects of his highest spiritual favours in the same way; that is, not according to claim or merit on the part of men, (for these belong not to them), but according to reasons, good and suffi- cient ones, known only to himself? Such as are inclined to feel that this would be wrong on the part of God, and that it is in any measure proper for us to complain of this, will do well to read the sequel of this chapter with a candid, humble, inquiring mind. (9) ^ETrayjeXiag yap . . . viog, for this was the word qf the pro- mise : "^According to this time wiU I come, and Sarah shall have a son," Gen. xviii. 10, 14. This shows who the children of the pro- mise were, tliat are described in the preceding verse, viz. the descendants of Isaac the son thus promised. Hence the yap at the beginning of the verse. Kora Tov Kaipov tovtov, according to this time. In Hebrew the whole phrase runs thus : n;n n»3 t|\)n itom ninj, / will surely return 2 D 418 ROMANS IX. 9, 10. or come back to thecy tvhe?i the time shall be renewed. Gen. xvii'i. 10. The word rm seems to be simply an adjective, as the text now stands, and to mean livijig again, in the sense of being reneived. So Saadias, Tremellius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Winer, and Tholuck ; comp. Gen. xvii. 21 and xviii, 14, -wia. The Sept. reads in this last case, tiQ Tov Kcupov tovtov avatTTpitpuj irpbc ae tig iopag. What is meant by tic wpac, unless it be exactly, at the very hour, I am un- able to conjecture. In regard to tovtov (which seems to be put for rrn), one almost spontaneously falls upon the conjecture, that the Sept. and Paul must have read njn in Gen. xviii. 10, 14, instead of rm ; which is by no means improbable, considering that the ancient manuscripts were destitute of vowel points, and that the two words n>n and rm are so nearly alike. Fritsche and others compare [rrn nn with the ^wv xpovog of Sophocles (Trach. 3. 1159) where Koi TTopwv vvv is added (as they aver) in the way of explanation. Thus construed the sense would be present time, i. e. when this time shall be again present. Reiche accepts this explanation as satisfac- tory; but Tholuck (Beitrage &c. p. G8 seq.), in answer to Fritsche, has shown good reason to doubt the correctness of it. Zwv xqovoq appears to mean flourishing age. — I would suggest another interpreta- tion still, viz., as at life-giving tiine ; in which case the meaning would be, that God would again address her as a mother who gives life to, i. e. bears children. Comp. the sense of rm and ^aw, in the lexicons. (10) The apostle having thus shown that the promised seed was not all the natural descendants of Abraham, but only a select part of them, he now advances a step farther, and goes on to show that not only did God make a distinction Kara irpo^iaiv avrov among the natural descendants of Abraham, but that even among the descend- ants of him who M'as " the son of promise," he made a like distinc- tion ; and this too, in a case where the respective merit or desert of the parties could not possibly be the ground of the distinction. Thus in respect to the descendants of Isaac, Jacob his younger son was chosen as the object of favour, and Esau the elder son, who according to the custom of the patriarchs had higher rights, was rejected. Yea, this reception of the one to special favour and the rejection of the other were determined on before theaiildren were born, i. e. before they could have done either good or evil, or (in other words) before they could have possessed any merit or demerit. Consequently the TrpocTEo-tc of God was according to his iKXoyi'i, and not t^ tnyMv or on the ground of merit. ROMANS IX. 10. 419 The reason why the apostle adds this example of God's selecting the objects of his favour, to the one whicli he had already produced, seems to be this, viz. in order to prevent the objections which might be made in respect to the force of that example. The Jews might say : ' As to Ishmael, he was only the son of a bond-woman, and therefore had no good title to be an heir of promise ; and as to the sons of Keturah, they were much younger than Isaac, who of course was entitled to the rights of primogeniture. On these grounds we may suppose the preference was given to Isaac' But in order to foreclose every thing of this nature, the apostle now produces an example of 17 kot' iKkoyriv irpo^icng. This effectually accomplishes his object. Esau was not only the son of Rebecca, the lawful, proper, and only wife of Isaac, but he was the elder son, and therefore entitled by usage to the rights of primogeniture. Yet notwithstanding- all this, Jacob was preferred to him and was chosen as the riKvov rjjc fTrttyyfXj'oc- The bearing which all this has on the main subject of the apostle, is plain. ' If God did, kut kKXoj{]v, make such distinctions among the legitimate and proper children of Isaac, the son of promise, then the same God may choose, call, justify, and glorify those who are kX^toi in respect to the heavenly inheritance. If it is not un- just or improper, in one case, to distribute favours Kara vgo^zaiv avTOv, then it is not in another.' Oh fiovov Sf, and not only ; an elliptical expression in itself, which has been filled out in different ways by different critics. The most natural supplement seems to be tovto. Then the sentiment is: * Not only was such the case with Abraham, but also in respect to Rebecca, &c.' The use of oh fxovov Si denotes advance to more cogent reasons still. Oh fxovov Si, koX aXXa means, but not only is that true which I have already said, but also, &c. Reiche and some other critics, with some versions, make the supplement after fiovov Si to be thus : ' Not only did Sarah obtain a special promise respect- ing her son, but Rebecca also.' This is allowable; but the other mode seems to me more facile and more fraught with meaning. 'Pc/SiKKa forms here a kind of anacoliithon, i. e. the beginning of a sentence, the construction of which is afterwards changed, or (in other words) the sentence is not finished in the same manner in which it was begun. Here the natural grammatical construction would be, oh fiovov 8e [rouro,] aXXa koi 'Pf/StKKrt, i^ ivog koIttiv l)(ov(Ty .... lpp{]^r] ... oTi K. T. X. Instead however of 'Pc/BtKico (Dat.), we 2d2 ■ ' 420 ROMANS IX. 10, 11. have in the text 'Pf/3£KKa (Nom.) with which b'^^owo-a agrees. But the construction tlius begun in the Nominative, is not carried through. Instead of associating the Nom. 'Pe/Btk-ica with some following verb of which it might be the subject, the verb lppl]^r] is afterwards em- ployed, and the Dative required by it is made by a pronoun referring to 'Pf/3lKKo, viz. by avrrj. This mode of construction is frequent in Hebrew, where what is called the Nom. absolute is employed, to which a pronoun in the sequel refers ; which pronoun is put in the case in which the verb or the nature of the sentence requires it to stand. Comp. Acts vii. 40, 6 Mwiicrr/c ovtoq . . . ri yiyovev avT<^. 'E^ hog Koirrjv exovaa, accipiens semen unius viri. Literally KoiTr}v means cubile, bed; figuratively however it is employed to desig- nate concuhitiis ; comp. the Hebrew Ti} njpti, concuhitus seminis, (Gesen. effusio seminis), Lev. xv. 16, 32. xviii. 20, 23. xxii. 4. In Lev. xviii. 23 ni3«? alone is employed to designate the same idea. A clear case of such a usage, is in Num. v. 20 (Sept.). Kotnjv t^^ouca there appears to mean literally, concuhitum habens ;. but the idea is, conceiving. — 'E^ kvog designates appropriately by Mdiom, i. e. by (me, viz. Isaac ; which last word immediately follows in the context. (11) Tap, illustrantis. — FewrjS'lvrwv, sc. TraiSwv, which the mind spontaneously supplies, by recurring back to l^ kvog KotT»)i iyovaa. The whole phrase in the verse is a construction with the Genitive absolute ; which is a species of anacoluthon ; see N. Test. Gramm. § 102. MrjSe . . . (coKov, neither having done any thing good or evil ; a very important declaration in respect to its bearing on some of the controverted questions about hereditary depravity or original sin. It appears that when the words related in the next verse were spoken to Rebecca, the children in her womb had arrived to such a state of growth as that life and motion in them were perceived by the mother, Gen. XXV. 22, 23, i. e. to the age of some five months, comp. Luke i. 24. At this period, then, the apostle declares that they had done neither good nor evil, i. e. they had as yet no positive moral character, or (in other words) that there was as yet no developement of their moral powers. The assertion is so clear and direct here, that I see not how the force of it can be fairly evaded. And with the principle here developed, the tenor of other texts agrees; e. g. Is. vii. 15, 16, comp. viii. 4. Dent. i. 39. Jonah iv. 11. That some knowledge of law and its obligations should exist in order that positive sin can be com- mitted, seems to be clearly decided by Rom. iv. 15, and to be plainly ROMANS IX. 11. 421 implied by James iv. 17. John ix. 41.1 John ill. 4. Every man's con- sciousness of the nature of moral guilt, moreover, seems spontaneously to decide in accordance with these texts. But whe7i children do arrive at such a growth of moral nature that they begin positively to sin, the Scripture does not seem to have decided ; I mean, that I have yet discovered no text where this point is fixed. The poetic and intensive expressions in Ps. li. 5, when compared with Ps. Iviii. 3, will hardly establish the doctrine which many have supposed it to estab- lish. Gen. viii. 21 decides no more, than that men begin very early to commit sin; and John iii. 6. Eph. ii. 3, and other texts of the like nature, decide only that men in a natural state, i. e. in an unregen- erate or unsanctified state, are children of wrath and carnal ; which must be true, since they actually need regeneration. But no texts of this class can be properly interpreted as definitely fixing the time when children begin to sin. The apostle, however, has here told us when sinning had not begun, in respect to Jacob and Esau. That they possessed j!?o?^7er« or faculties, even in the womb, which were afterwards employed in com- mitting sin when they were more fully developed, is undoubtedly true. But the poiuer ov faculty of sinning is one thing ; the commission ot sin another. Adam in paradise, before his fall, certainly possessed the power or faculty of sinning (else how could he sin as he did ?) yet he was not guilty of sin because he possessed such a power, but for the abuse of it. It is not therefore the power which the Creator has given us, which makes us sinners ; it is the abuse of it. God may be, and is, the author of our power to sin ; but he is not there- fore the author of our sins. So young children may have all the powers adapted to sinning, without having yet sinned; for it will not be denied, that Jacob and Esau had the embryo of such powers, in their early state, at the period when the apostle says that they had not committed any sin. And in the like way I should readily grant, that Jacob and Esau, even in their uterine state, had as a constituent part of their human nature an embryo susceptibility of feeling the power of sinful enticements ; which in due time, and in the natural course of things, would be so developed as certainly to lead them to sin. But susceptibility of excitement to sin, is not real and actual sin. Adam in Paradise, before his fall, had this susceptibility in some degree ; otherwise he never could have been tempted. But his fallen posterity possess this in a much higher degree, so that before regeneration, all their moral acts are sinful. Yet the apostle has \ 422 ROMANS IX. 11. decided in our text, th?it such acts do not take place before birth. Excitc'ibility in respect to forbidden objects must be yielded to before it becomes actual sin ; or rather, the sin itself is in the yieldinj^, and not in the original disposition which God himself has given us. Dis- position to sin, so far as it is created by our indulgence in it, may fairly be put to our account and reckoned as sin. But to count that as sin, which the Maker of heaven and earth himself gave us, before all voluntary moral action, involves consequences that are of fearful aspect. If a constituent part of our original nature be sin, then who is the author of our nature ? Is sin predicable of the body, or of the soul ? And who is the " Father of our spirits ?" But I must refer the reader to what is said relative to these topics, in my Excursus on Rom. V. 12—19. The object of the apostle, in here saying that the children had done neither good nor evil, is very plain, viz. to cast light on or to confirm the truths which he had disclosed in viii. 28 — 39. There, all things are represented as contributing to the good of the Kara tt^o- ^etriv KXr)Toi, ver. 28, seq. Now if the Jew should object to this as being unaccountable, or as evincing partiality on the part of God, the apostle could of course foreclose this objection, by showing him that instances of the like nature (so far as the princijile of them was concerned) are recorded in the Old Testament. In the case before us, the decision of God in respect to the future lot and privileges of Jacob and Esau, was not made by reason of any claims of merit or any grounds of demerit ; for it was made before the children were born, and before they had done either good or evil. It should be noted that t} here is less in accordance with the usual idiom than /trj^t (New Test. Gramm. § 151. 2); which the Text. Recept. has. It is, however, well supported by authority. "\va .... 7} KoXovvToq, that the purpose of God according to elec- tion might stand, tiot of u'orks, hut of him that calleth. 'H Kar' tK- \oyy]v 7rpo3'£o-tc means, a purpose ivhich proceeds from one's own free choice, one to which he is moved by internal, and not merely by ex- ternal, causes or motives. It means here, a purpose which God did not entertain because he was moved to it by any thing which Jacob or Esau had done, or would do [ovk l^ tpytijv), but for reasons which he has not disclosed, and which pertain merely to himself. But let the reader beware, how he represents or even imagines these reasons to be arbitrary or ungrounded. This would be to represent the ROMANS IX. 12, 13. 423 divine conduct as utterly inconsistent with infinite wisdom and good- ness. Oi»K £^ epjMv, not of works, i. e. not because of merit, not be- cause of obedience yielded to the law of works, i. e. the law requir- ing good works. — 'A\X' l/c koXovvtoq, but of him that calleth ; i. e. the admission of the one to privileges, and the rejection of the other from them, proceed not from their personal desert, but from him who calls, i. e. chooses or selects men to be the objects of his special favour for reasons within himself. That such is the sentiment here, seems very plain; for the apostle has just asserted, that the decision of God in respect to the future condition and privileges of Jacob and Esau, was made before they were born, and before they had done either good or evil ; and that it was so made, in order that God's Kar* eKXoyriv Trp6^E(TiQ might be stable, fiivy, Heb. tfeg. (12) But what is the thing decided in this case ? 'O ju£t^wv . . • l\a(T(Tovh the elder shall serve the younger ; or rather, the first-born shall serve the younger, i. e. he who by right of primogeniture would take the precedence, he shall in fact be inferior or take the lower place. The precedence then of Jacob is established by this declara- tion ; but in what respect ? ( 13) In a temporal one, it would seem, so far as this instance is concerned. Toy ... . Ifxiancja, Jacob have I loved, and Esau liave I hated; i. e. on Jacob have I bestowed privileges and blessings, such as are the proofs of affection ; I have treated him, as one treats a friend whom he loves ; but from Esau have I withheld these privi- leges and blessings, and therefore treated him as one is wont to treat those whom he dislikes ; comp. Mai. i. 2, 3, from which the quotation here is made, and where the prophet adds to the last clause ('Ho-au £jutEt vl^i/, the wind raiscth vp clouds. The Hebrew verb is Wn, hegetteth or bringeth forth. IJut the sense of f^fYt/^w here in the Septuagiut, is plainly the usual one. So also in Ezek. xxi. 16. (Heb. xxi. 21), fX,t'^upt.Tai corresponds to niiro (from tp) ; but still it has the sense of excite^ and this meaning corresponds sub- stantially with the Hebrew although not literally. In the New Testament we have only one example besides that before us, where t^eyt/pw is used, viz. 1 Cor. vi. 14, where it is clearly used to designate the action of rousing from the sleep of death, raising or exciting from a state of inaction or death. On the whole, then, the sense of the Greek word is altogether clear, and subject to no well grounded doubt. It means to rouse np, to excite, to stir up, in any manner or for any purpose. But does the Hebrew word in Ex. ix. 16, which corresponds to l^iiyupa, admit of such a sense. The Hebrew word is wovn, Hiphil of -ray; which usually means (in Kal) to stand, to stand fast, to continue, to stand up, &c. In Hiphil (TDvn), it means to make to stand, to jilace, also to keep stand- ing, to persevere or continue in standing. Tholuck and others have laboured to show that \?7P.yn has the usucd Hiph. sense in Ex. ix. 16. That the Hebrew word might have such a sense, is sufficiently plain from 1 K. xv. 4. 2 Chr. ix. 8. Prov. xxix. 4. 2 Chr. xxxv. 2. And so the Kal conjugation not unfrequently means to continue, to remain in standing .- e. g. Ex. ix. 28. Lev. xiii. 5. Dan. x. 17. But althouii:h the Hebrew word ^mnsn miaht have the sense which Tholuck and others assign to it, yet the Greek word l^i)yeipci, which Paul uses, can hardly have such a sense put upon it. I have been able to find no example of a usus lorjucndi that would justify this exegesis. The principal question still remains : Has Tosn ever the sense of exciting, arousing, like tlie l^ifyuQa of the apostle ? If so, then we may presume the apostle chose this Greek word, in deliberate preference to the ^arijpij^i^g of the Septuagiut. Instances of this nature are clear. So in Neh. vi. 1, n-rorn, thou hast roused iip or excited the prophets, &c. So Dan. xi. 11, 13, Tipyrn and he shcdl excite or rouse up a great multitude, &c. We can have little reason, then, to doubt that the apostle had such a meaning of "nPTiin in view, when he rendered it t^/yyttpa ; for this Greek word is fairly susceptible of no other meaning. In accord- ance therefore with this result respecting the meaning of e^eyelpw, I have translated thus : For this very purpose have I roused thee up. ROMANS IX. 18, 19. 433 "Ottwc • • • • ryj yy, that I might show forth my power and de- dare my name in all the earth, or in all the land, viz. of Egypt. The consequence of Pharaoh's conduct was, that the Hebrews were brought out of Egypt by signal divine interposition, exhibited in the various plagues inflicted on Egypt after the declaration recorded here, i. e. the hail, the locust, the extraordinary darkness, the smiting of the first born among the Egyptians, the drowning of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, &c., Ex. ix. 16, seq. Such interpositions caused the power and glory of Jehovah to be known through all the land of Egypt. Or if all the earth be construed as having a still more ex- tensive sense, one might justify this by observing, that the Scriptures themselves now diifused so widely through the world, the Koran read and revered by many millions, the Greek author Artapanus (Euseb. Prsep. Evang. IX. 29),alsoDiodorus Siculus (Bibl. III. 39),andthe Latin Trogus (Justin. Hist. XXXVI. 2), all speak of the wonders which were done in Egypt, and the overthrow of Pharaoh there. (18)"Apa ovv .... (TK\r)pvvEi, therefore hath he mercy on who?n he ivill have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. A conclusion of the apostle's, and not the words of the objector, as some have inti- mated. This is clear from what is immediately subjoined by Paul : 'Epac ovv fxoi, K. r. A ; which of course implies, that what precedes had been spoken by the apostle, and not by the objector. On the nature and force of the conclusion here drawn, I have al- ready remarked in commenting on ver. 16. As to o-KXrjpvvtt, Ram- bach, Carpzov, and Ernesti have endeavoured to show that it means here to deal hardly with. They appeal to 2 Chron. x. 4. and Job xxxix. 16 in order to confirm this ; but in the first instance the sense is to make hard, to render grievous ; in the second, the Heb. is rv€-^T\ and the Sept. aTroaKX^pvvw, and the sense harmonizes substantially with the obvious one in the verse before us. I see, therefore, no pro- per philological method of construing o-KXrjpui/et, .but in the way already intimated above. (19) 'Eptig ovv .... avSrloTjjicE ; Thou wilt say to me, then: Why doth he still find fault, for who hath resisted his will ? The apostle expected, as a matter of course, that the principles which he had just asserted would be met with objections such as he now pro- duces. On what ground did he expect this ? It was doubtless be- cause he had said something which seemed to imply what the objector here intimates. " Whom he will, he hardeneth," says Paul. ' Then why blame men for being hardened ? How is this inconsistent witk 2e 434 ROMANS IX, 19, 20. what God wills ?' is the reply of the objector ; and this contains a sentiment, which has been repeated from the time when Paul wrote his epistle, down to the present hour. The objection seems to be for- midable at first view ; yet all its seeming importance is derived from carrying along to the consideration of the divine dealings towards us, analogies borrowed from cause and effect in respect to material things. It does not follow, because God by his infinite goodness and almighty power will convert the wicked deeds of the sinner into means of pro- moting his own glory, that the sinner may not be called to an account and punished for the evil which he intended. It does not follow, because a wise and benevolent government may convert the crime of some individuals into a means of furthering the public good, that the criminals in question do not deserve punishment. Supposing then that there is a sense, in which sin is made even the instrument of ac- complishing the wise and holy purposes of God and the greatest good of his creatures, it does not follow, that the sinner who had malignant purposes in view is not deserving of punishment, nor that there is not an important sense in which he has resisted the will of God. (20) Mzvovvyt, at vero, verum enimvero, hut still, hoivever. This compound particle is found elsewhere in the N. Test, only in Luke xi. 28. and Rom. x. 18. Suidas explains it, by to aXri^ig or i^uiXXov /uiv ovv, i. e. verily or the rather then. Here the sense seems to be then rather ; and the construction or sense of the passage is thus • ' Then, i. e. in case you do thus say, I may rather say, i. e. I have a still better right to say. Who art thou, &c. ?' — Su rig u . . . ^eif ; 7vho art thou that repliest against God, i. e. who sayest sometliing that charges him with acting wrongly or improperly ? It will be observed here, that the apostle, in answer to the objector, does not endeavour at all to explain how it is that God should harden sinners, and yet sinners be guilty of their own ruin ; in other words, he does not attempt any metaphysical conciliation of divine sovereignty and controid with human freedom and moral responsibility. He evidently takes for granted that the facts which he had been stating were true, and could not be contradicted. Hence he finds fault with the objector, because he charges God rashly and irreverently with having dealt hardly or unjustly by his creatures. He continues thisremon_ strance in the sequel, by quoting from the Old Testament and apply- ing to the object before him passages, which serve strongly to con- firm the right of the Creator on the one hand to dispose of his crea- tures, and the dutv of his creatures on the other to boM' in submission ROMANS IX. 20. 435 before liim. Would it not be well for those who are to teach the doc- trines of Paid, at the present time, to walk in his steps, and to deal with objectors in the same manner as he has, by showing them their presumption from the Scripture, rather than by appealing to metaphy- sical explanations in order to remove the difficulties suggested ? Mj7 Ejoa . . . ovTMQ ; shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, why hast thou made me thus ? A quotation ad sensum from the passage in Is. xlv. 9, or xxix. 16 ; for it does not literally follow the words of either. The design of this quotation is, to stop the mouth of the objector who inquires : " Why doth he find fault then, for who hath resisted his will ?" The implication in this of wiong on the part of God, in bestowing blessings on some which he withholds from others, and in advancing some to glory while he leaves others to hardness of heart and to the punishment consequent upon it, — this implication the apostle meets by appealing to the language of the Scriptures, in regard to the sovereignty of God over the works of his hands : ' Has the creature a right to call in question the Creator, by whose power he was formed, and by whose goodness he is pre- served and nurtured ? Should he reproach his Creator, because he has endowed him with the nature which he possesses?' It is as much as to say: 'Even supposing there was some ground for the ob- jection which you make, I might reply in the language of Scripture and ask, whether it is proper and becoming for a creature to summon the Creator before his tribunal, and to pass sentence of condemna- tion upon him.' Viewed in this light, it is a kind of argumentum ad hominem ; applicable indeed to all who make the like objection in the like spirit, but specially adapted to stop the mouth of the haughty and presumptuous Jew, who, in Paul's time, was indignant that God should be represented as making the Gentiles the objects of his spe- cial favour. In appealing, however, to the sovereignty of God the Creator, Paul cannot with any propriety be considered as asserting or intimating, that God \i arbitrary in any of his dealings wdth his crea- tures, or that he ever makes any arrangement in respect to them with- out wise, and good, and sufficient reasons. It would be altogether in- congruous to suppose, that the apostle did ever think or assert, that a Being infinitely holy, and wise, and just, and good, would act without the best of reasons for acting ; although, indeed, these reasons might not be given to us. It should be remarked here, also, that it is only when a proud and contumacious spirit lifts up itself, like that of the Jew in the context, that an appeal to a direct and sovereign right of 2 E 2 43G nOMANS IX. 21, 22. God, is made by the sacred writers, in order to abash and repress such arrogant assumption. (21) But one quotation does not satisfy the apostle's ardour to re- press tlie objector. He makes a second one {ad sensiini again, not ad literam) from Jer. xviii. 6, comp. ver. 4, which by another image, inculcates the same sentiment as before. ""H ouk . . . arifxlav ; Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel to honour and another dishonour? i. e. one vessel for a use which is deemed honourable, and another for one deemed dishonour- able; comp. Jer. xviii. 4. 'Even so (the apostle would say) are all men in the hands of God, and at his disposal ;' comp. Jer. xviii. 6. In other words : 'Who can call in question his right to dispose of us as it seems good in his sight ? The indecorum and contumacy of so doing must be apparent to all.' The Jew, however, regarded his nation as the (j)vpafia from which none but aiceur) tijultiq could be formed. But the apostle lets him know, that God could make, and had made, the Gentiles also a (pvpa- fxa from which the like vessels were formed. The same God also makes unbelievers among the Jews to be o-keutj oQyTi]c, as well as un- believers among the Gentiles. He chooses the objects of his mercy or of his justice where he judges best; not arbitrarily, but still for reasons which are not revealed to us. — It is singular that Reiche should say here : " The occasion to make use of this comparison, the comparison itself, and the particular expressions made use of, permit us to think of nothing but the absolute, independent, and ir- resistible moral preparation of men [for destruction] ; and render it impossible to explain the words as referring to any other kind of di- vine action, or to interpret them in the sense of co-operation." In other words, he leaves Paul here, on the spur of the occasion, to teach fully and directly the doctrine oi fatalism, and to make but one real agent in the universe. Did Paul thus contradict himself? (22) El St ^i\(i)v K. T. A. It is evident to any one who will attentively read vers. 22 — 24, that the sense remains incomplete, i. e. the sentence (or sentences) is unfinished ; which form of writing the Greeks called livaKoXv^ov. But what must be supplied in order to complete the sense of these verses, is not sufficiently plain to command the unanimous consent of interpreters. Without delaying to recite different opinions, I would merely say, that at the end of vers. 22 — 24, it seems to me plain the question in ver. 20 is to be repeated, viz. OX) Tig f7, o avraTTOKptvo/uti/oc t(o ^(u) ; Whether you repeat ROMANS IX. 22. 437 this question at the end of ver. 22, or here and also at the end of ver. 24, seems to be of little importance ; for the sense in each case would be substantially the same. The sum of the sentiment thus explained is: 'If God, in order that he might exhibit his punitive justice and sovereign power, endures with much long-suffering the wickedness of the impenitent and rebellious who are worthy of divine indigna- tion ; and if he has determined to exhibit his rich grace toward the sub- jects of his mercy ivhom he has prepared for glory, even toward us ([tTTt] rifxag) whom he has called (viii. 30), Gentiles as well as Jews ; [who art thou, that repliest against the divine proceedings in respect to all this ?'] The whole passage is elliptical ; and besides this, there is an enallage of construction at the beginning of ver. 23 (in Kol'lva yvw- pi(T\i) which will require further notice. I proceed from this general view, to examine the words. Et Si, if then, or if now ; i. e. since God is the supreme Lord of all things, and all his creatures are at his disposal by a sovereign and entire right (vers. 20, 21) ; if now, determining to display his puni- tive justice and power, he has endured, &c. A^, ^orationi continu- andce inservit.' Reiche construes Si as adversative here to ver. 14. But this makes the connection _^much more obscure, and it seems to be quite unnecessary; I regard St'as the sign of an additional illustra- tion or confirmation of the sentiments just advanced. The connec- tion of thought seems to be this : ' If the sovereign Lord of all crea- tures, who may dispose of them as he pleases, does still endure with much long-suffering the wickedness of some of them, and by all this determines to display his punitive justice, who can justly find fault with his proceedings ?' QiXwv, willing, determining, designing, purposing. It intimates, of course, that in ' enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,' God had a purpose or design of display- ing his indignation against sin, i. e. his punitive justice and his power. Can it be a reasonable subject of complaint, that he is determined, or that he purposes {'^iXwv), to bring good out of evil ? 'EvSti^aaS'fu rj)v 6pyr}v, to manifest or exhibit his indignation or displeasure; in other words to display his punitive justice with respect to the wicked. 'Opyi) is often employed to designate the idea of punishment, i. e. the consequences of indignation or anger ; e. g. Rom. i. 18. iv. 15. xiii. 4, 5, al. So Demosthenes : ovk '/(TJ71' rrjv opyijv 6 vopov tra^i, k. r. X, the lata has not sanctioned equal punish^ 438 ROMANS IX. 22. ment, &c. Reiske Demosth. p. 528. — Kai yvwpicrat to ^vvarov ah- Tov, and to make known, publish^ declare, his power; comp. ^vvafiig in ver. 17, where the power of God has special reference to his miracu- lous interpositions in order to punish Pharaoh with the Egyptians, and to deliver the oppressed Hebrews. Avvarov, therefore, in the connection in which it here stands, must be viewed as having a spe- cial relation to the power of making retribution to sinners, the power of punitive justice. But to understand and interpret this as done for purposes of revenge or vengeance more humano, or for the sake of display such as men make through pride and vain glory, would be to make God altogether like ourselves, and to represent him in a man- ner altogether reproachful and unworthy of his perfections. A being who is self-existent, immutable, and independent ; who cannot even be imagined as depending in any manner or measure, for his own essential happiness or glory, on tlie creatures whom his power has formed and his bounty supports — such a being cannot have any pur- pose of revenge or vain glory to accomplish. Of what possible con- sequence could they be to him ? Men are prone to revenge, from malignity and because of wounded pride; they are prone to display, because of vanity and vain glory. But the ever blessed God, who is love, and whose essential glory cannot be affected by the giving or refusing of homage by any of his creatures, and whose happiness cannot in any measure be affected by their opposition to him — such a God we cannot at all imagine as exhibiting his punitive justice and power for the purposes of revenge or display. He exhibits them only for the purposes of benevolence, i. e. for the sake of doing good to the subjects of his moral government; who, while they are allured to vir- tue, on the one hand, by all the glories of the upper world, are deter- red from sin, on the otlier, by the judgments that are inflicted on the disobedient and rebellious. "EvcyicE, endured, bore with. The verb ^tpw has generally the sense of bearing or carrying away, i. e. of bearing accompanied by motion in some way or other. But it is also employed in the sense of fe7'o, patior, to endure, to suffer, Heb. xiii. 13; or oitolero, sustineo, to tolerate, to bear with, as Ilcb. xii. 20 ; in the Sept. Gen. xxxvi. 7. Num. xi. 14. Dcut. i. 12. In this last sense it is clearly used here, as the adjunct Iv 7roAXi[ii fiaKpo^vn'it} shows. — MaKpo^vfxiq, long-suffer- ing, longanimitas, i. e. forbearance to punish, delay to enforce the strict claims of justice. The apostle seems to have his eye here on the case of Pharaoh in particular, who, after he had nine times resisted the ROMANS IX. 22. 439 mandate of heaven to let the Hebrews go, was still spared and pre- served in life, although he had long before forfeited all claim to for- bearance. Still the design of Paul plainly is not to limit the case to Pharaoh only. He means to intimate, that God, in like manner, now (i. e. at the time when he was writing) displays his long-suffering, by forbearing to punish those who deserve it. And what was true then, in respect to this matter, has been so ever since, and is so at the pre- sent moment. Skeutj opyfjC) vessels of wrath, means vessels in respect to which wrath should be displayed, i. e. wicked men who deserve punishment. The reason why the writer here makes use of o-kevt}, may be found in the verses immediately preceding, where he has spoken of vessels fitted for honourable and dishonourable use. The language literally employed there, h figuratively used here, i. e. wicked men are called o-KEuf} opyf/c. So in Is. xiii. 5, the Persian army is called rm ^ba njn', (7K£urj 6p7^c Kvpiov ; comp. Jer. 1. 25. But in these examples of the Hebrew Scriptures, by aKevrj opjriQ is meant instrwnents of executing the divine displeasure ; while in our text the meaning is passive, viz. persons on whom it ought to be or will be executed. Karr}/ort(7/xeva elg aTrdAiiav, fitted for destruction ; another ofi'oi- diculum criticorum. KaTrjpTLa/xiva fitted ; how ? By whom ? The text does not say. It simply designates the actual condition of the (TKevT] opyiig. Now whether they came to be fitted merely by their own act, or whether there was some agency on the part of God which brought him to be fitted, the text of itself does not here de- clare. The passive participle in such a case may be applied to designate what one has done for himself; e. g. 2 Tim. ii. '21, lav ovv Tig iKKa^apy eoutov citto tovtwv, iarat GK^vog dg Tifxrjv .... elg nav tpyov aya^ov 7]roLfxa(jfiivov, where the being prepared for every good work is the consequence of the EKKaS-aprj kavrov. So in 2 Tim. iii. 17, l%,r\gria\ikvog denotes the being prepared ox fitted for every good work, by the beneficial influence of the inspired Scrip- tures. But in our text, how can we avoid comparing KaTr]pTi(xiJ.eva in ver. 22, with a irporiToifxaae in ver. 23 ? The two verses are coun- terparts and antithetic ; and accordingly we have o-Kfurj opyrig, to which (TKevrj iXiovg corresponds, and so elg fnrwXeiav and tig Bo^av. How can we help concluding, then, that Karrjpno-jucva and a Trportroifxaae correspond in the way of antithesis. The objections which can be made to such a sense of Korjjprto-- fiiva here, viz. a sense which makes it to designate some agency or 440 ROMANS IX. '22. arrangement on the part of God, by or in consequence of which, or under which, the vessels of wrath become fitted for destruction, are in all respects just the same as can be brought against the l^i)yeipa K. r. X. of ver. 17, which has been so fully discussed above. The ques- tion is not, whether God is, in any sense, the author of sin in such a way as throws the guilt, or any portion of it, upon him, and removes or diminishes the criminality of the sinner. The answer to this ques- tion is settled and certain from the tenor of the whole Bible, as well as from passages direct and express ; e. g. James i. 12. But the question is : Whether God, as the sovereign of the universe, has a right to dispose of, and does so dispose of, his creatures who are moral and free agents, as to place them in circumstances in which he knows they will sin ; and, supposing it to be certain that in such a case what he foreknows will come to pass, whether it is proper for him to exhibit his punitive justice and power ? This is precisely the attitude of the question in ver. 17 ; and it seems plain that the apostle has not let go the subject there discussed, but that he here presents it again in a somewhat different form, and in the way of direct antithesis. If any one is still stumbled at this, I must refer him to such texts as 1 Pet. ii. 8. 1 Thess. V. 9,Jbr God hath not appointed us to wrath, ovk 'i^ero r)fxag k. t. X., i. e. the implication is, that he has appointed some others, but not us, to punishment, &c. Jude ver. 4. Prov. xvi. 4. Add to these, such as designate the antithesis to this meaning, viz. the appointment of some to life eternal; as in Acts xiii. 48. ii. 47. Eph. i. 4, 5, 11. 2 Tim. i. 9. Rom. viii. 29, 30. Eph. iii. 11, al. If now to all these he adds such texts as 2 Sam. xii. 11. xvi. 10. 1 K.xxii. 22. Josh, xi. 20. Ps. cv. 25. 1 K. xi. 23. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. Ex. vii. 13. ix. 12.x. 1, 20, 27. xi. 10. xiv. 8. Rom. ix. 17, 18. Deut. ii. 30. Is. Ixiii. 17. John xii. 40, he can no longer doubt that there is sojne sense, in which the sacred writers do declare that God is concerned witli evil. In what sense, I have endeavoured to show above, on ver. 17. In the same sense, and in no other, can we suppose God to be here con- cerned with^^^^m^ the vessels of wrath for destruction. At all events there can be nothing more difficult in this, than there is in all the texts just referred to; and especially in Prov. xvi. 4. Jude ver. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 8. 1 Thess. v. 9. It is of no use to explain away the force of one text, while so many others meet us which are pf the very same tenor ; and some of which, at least, admit of no explaining away. And even if we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge a God, \vho is omnipotent and omniscient, wc can not abate, in the lc, \_lir\'] i]fxuc. ROMANS IX. 23—25. . 443 Reiclie proposes a very different construction ; viz., to connect Kol ii/a K. T. X. with tlie preceding ^veyKc ; and then he connects the whole thus : * Endured with great longanimity, &c., and this in order that {koI tva) he might make known the abundance of his glory in respect to the righteous, the chosen objects of his mercy, &c.' In defence of this he avers that all other constructions are forced ones, and against the grammar ; and also that the sense here of long suffer- ing on the part of God toward the wicked, in order to promote the salvation of the righteous, is analogous to other Scriptures, e. g. Rom. ii. 4. Acts xvii. 27 seq. But here the long-suffering is for the good of the individuals toward whom it is exercised, not for the sake of others ; so that the cases are not analogous. Nor am I aware of any direct analogy in the Scriptures. As to the grammar, anacoluthon in Paul is surely no unusual phenomenon. Besides ; when Reichc proposes to render koI "iva as =Kai tovto, and thus to make the clause that follows exegetical or supplementary, is not this as far from grammar as the anacoluthon proposed? After all, the main difficulty with his exegesis is, that it does not correspond to the sentiment of the preceding verse, where two classes are described, who are widely diverse in their character and destiny ; and each of these is at God's disposal. The prominency of this sentiment is destroyed by the in- terpretation which he proposes. npojjrotftoo-e here seems to designate the determination in the divine mind to prepare the elect; for the calling, as a matter oifact, must of course precede the fact of preparation. What God intends to do, is here spoken of as done ; a very common idiom of the Scrip- tures. (24) Ouc Ktti tKoKi^ai. vf^ag, even us also whom he called, i, e. Gentiles as well as Jews. Comp. iii. 29, 30. i. 16. ii. 9, 10. iv. 9, 12. (25) 'Qig Koi . . . Atyet, even so, or to the same purpose he saith b]f Hosea. 'Ev'iiarjE may mean in Hosea, i. e. in the book of Hosea; just as Iv i^al^ld (Heb. iv. 7) may mean in the book of David. But in both cases, it is perhaps more probable that the meaning is btf Hosea, by David ; like the Hebrew s-cina -nia. KaXeo-w . . . riyairnfxivriv, I will call him who was not my people, my people ; and her who was not beloved, beloved ; i. e. the Gentiles, who were deemed outcasts from God and were strangers to the cove- nant of his promise, will I bring into a covenant relation with me, and number among my beloved family; I will make them "sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty." The object of the quotation is to 444 ROMANS IX. 25—27 support the assertion just made, that the vessels ofmcrcif were chosen from the Gentiles as well as the Jews, without any respect of persons. In regard to the manner of the quotation, the Hebrew runs thus; "I Avill love her, who was not beloved ; and I will say to her who was not my people. My people art thou," Hos. ii. 23 (25). The Sept. have literally rendered this in the same order : ajairijaru) ti)v ovk a-yaiTr]}iiv^]v k. t. \. The apostle has changed the order, and put KaXi(Tw before both phrases instead of saying (with the Heb. and Sept.) ayawycrijt) . . . Koi t-yw k. t. X. Of course he has quoted ad setisimi, not ad literam. (26) Kai tarai . . . ^d>vroc» and it shall come to pass, in the place ivhere it was said to them : Ye are not my people, there shall they be called the sons of the living God ; another quotation from Hos. i. 10 (ii. 1), to the same purpose as the preceding one. In both cases the original Hebrew has reference to the reception and restora- tion to favour of Israel, who had been rejected on account of their transgressions. What was originally said of them, who were thus cast away and rejected, on occasion of their being again restored to favour, the apostle now applies to the receiving of the Gentiles, who had been " strangers to the covenant of promise, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." It is an accommodation of the words of the prophet, so as to express his own views on the present occasion. But at the same time it is still more; for the pri7iciple of God's dealing, which is disclosed in the original passages and applied to Israel who was rejected and cast off but eventually restored, is the same which is involved in the reception to favour of the Gentiles who had been out-casts. In respect to the quotation, it accords exactly with the original Hebrew. The Sept., instead of the ket KXijS'/jo-ovTat of the apostle, has KAr]^{](TOVTai jcai avroi. (27) Thus much for the reception of the Gentiles. Next, as to the casting off of the great body of the Jews ; a point the most diffi- cult of all, to be maintained in a satisfactory manner. In order however to settle the question on this point, the apostle appeals to the declarations of the Hebrew prophets themselves. 'Hamag St . . lapaiiX, Isaiah moreover says, in respect to Israel. Ai continua- tive, i. e. it stands before an additional clause designed to illustrate and confirm the preceding declaration. — KoaZ^n, exclaims, speaks aloud or openly. 'Ear, although or if; Heb. here, c.^ '?, although. — 'Qc ^ afx/xog ROMANS IX. 28, 29. 445 Trig ^a\aiog, the Sept. has Kvpiog Tronjaa ; and for lirl r^c yvg, the Sept. has Iv rp olKovfiivij 6\y. The original Hebrew runs somewhat dif- ferently ; destruction is decreed, it shall overjloiv in justice ; yea, destruction is verily determined on ; the Lord Jehovah will execute it in the midst of all the land. The Sept. and the apostle both represent the general sense of the Hebrew, but do not follow the words. Ao- 70V o-uvTfXwv means accomplishing his word, i. e. his promise or threat of excision. Kat awTifxvojv, deciding, bringing to an end, executing, viz. his X070V, as before. — 'Ev ^iKaioavvri, carrying all this into execution so as to satisfy the demands oj" Justice. "Otl \6yov avvTiT^r)f^iivov irodiaH, for [Jehovah] ivill execute his word decreed, i. e. his threatening determined on, or decisively made, decisively pronounced. — 'Etti rfjc yr\g, on the land of Israel. The object of the whole is only to show, that God of old threaten- ed to destroy great multitudes of the Jews for contumacy ; and that it is no strange thing now to say, tliat great numbers of them will perish. (29) Kai . . . 'Ho-a/ac, yea, [it happens] as Isaiah had before said. Kai affirmantis, imo, immo ; for here it is equivalent to kuX yiverat. The object of this quotation is the same as that of the pre- ceding one, viz. to show that it is no new or strange thing, that a part, yea a large portion, of Israel should be rejected or cut off on account of their apostasy or unbelief. Consequently koI was followed, in the 446 ROMANS IX. 29. mind of the writer, and of course it should be in the mind of the reader), by yiverm or lylvtro, it happens or has happened. — Upoei- priKe here does not mean predicted, (as it does in some cases), but had before said. The apostle had just cited one passage from Isaiah, viz. X. 22, 23, and here lie adds : * To the same purpose had Isaiah spoken in a preceding part of his prophecy,' viz. in i. 9, icai Ka^iog irpo£ipriK£v 'Hcraiag. Kvpiog Sa/3aw3', the Lord of Hosts. The Hebrew name rn«3s is often added to the title nirr or urih^ {-rjb^), and designates the Supreme Being as Lord of the hosts of heaven, i. e. of the angels, &c., in heaven. There does not appear to be any good reason for the opinion of Von Colin, which Tholuck adopts, that this title was first given to Jehovah because he was the mighty defender (liaa) of Israel ; and afterwards, because he was considered as the Lord of the stars ; which are called the host of heaven. The Lord of the heavenly hosts, i. e. the angels, ni«a!j rnrr, is more simple : and so Gesenius explains it in his lexicon ; comp. Ps. Ixviii. 17, where the " chariots of God are said to be twenty thousand, even thousands of angels," and "the Lord to be among them;" also Dent, xxxiii. 2, where he is said to come with myriads of his holy ones (ittj? niaann) ; comp, 2 K. vi. 16, 17. Dan. vii. 10, "thousand of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him." I add only, that the appellation rfiwj:? does not occur in the Pentateuch, nor in the book of Judges, and that it is most frequent in Isaiah, Jere- miah, Zechariah, and Malachi. The apostle appears to have retained the Hebrew word untranslated, because it is so retained in the Septuagint version of Is. i. 9, which he here quotes. STTfjO/ia here corresponds to the Hebrew t-itt, the literal meaning of which is not seed, but remnant, i. e. that which is left or saved after a general overthrow or destruction. In Deut iii. 3 and Is. i. 9, the Septuagint has (nripfia for in©. "Siwipfxa often means posteri, posterity, those who come after one. But I apprehend the ground of the usage in this case by the Seventy, is, that airipfxa {what is sown, seed) denotes what remains of grain, after the consumption for the year, until seed-time comes, which is then sown ; so that, considered in this light, (nripfxa is equivalent to residuum, which is the sense of it here. 'lie Vofxoppa av wfiotdo^t^/xev, instead of VojuLoppa av wfioiw^Tj- uBv, i. e. Fofioppa in the Dative after wjuotwS-jjjuev. The Greeks could employ either construction ; at least the Seventy have done so ; ROMANS IX. 29. 447 see in Hos. iv. 6. Ezek. xxxii. 2, in which latter case both construc- tions are employed in the same sentence; Xiovri l^vtov wfxoia)^r}g av, Kot c ^pcLKwv 6 Iv T\] ^aXafray. The Hebrew is a rrn. To be like Gomorrha, is to be utterly destroyed as this city was. The sentiment therefore is : ' Isaiah said concerning the Jews, that only a small remnant should be rescued from utter destruction.' It is true, that in Is. i. 9 the passage does not respect the spiri- tual but the temporal punishment of the Jews. But the ground of the apostle's reasoning here is analogy. His object is, as it all along through the chapter has been, to illustrate a principle of action. What God did at one time and in one respect, he may do at another time and in a different respect, provided the principle concerned shall be the same. And surely it is no more against his benevolence or his justice, to punish spiritually for transgressions of a spiritual nature, i. e. for continued impenitence and unbelief, than it is to punish temporally for sins against himself. His promises to Abraham and his seed, i. e. his literal descendants, are only and always conditional, either as to temporal or spiritual blessings. Of course the same prin- ciple of action applies to both, when God punishes. It is on this ground, then, that the apostle adduces instances of threatening tem- poral evil, in order to illustrate and confirm spiritual threats. — Overlooking this obvious principle of analogical reasoning, many commentators on Rom. ix. have very strenuously maintained, that all which is there said pertains only to the present world and to things of a merely temporal nature, or at most, only to the external privileges of religion ; and all this, because the instances here produced are mostly of such a kind. But let any one look back first on chap. viii. 28—39, which most plainly gives rise to the whole discussion in chap. ix. ; then contemplate the resumption of this theme in chap. ix. 6 ; and above all, let him view the summing up of the main object in chap. ix. 18 — 23, and then glance forward to vers. 30 — 33; and it does seem to me, unless he has made up his mind in an a priori way be- fore he comes to the study of the text, that he cannot entertain any doubt what the object of the writer is. That extravagant positions have been advanced, on the ground of Rom. ix., which are revolting to piety and to right views of God and of human liberty, I should be among the last to deny. How easy it is for ardent polemics, when engaged in controversy and hardly pushed by subtle and able anta- gonists, to venture on extravagant positions — positions which depend on an exegesis ad literam and not upon one ad setisum—need not be 448 ROMANS IX. 29. shown, when the melancholy examples of such facts stand out so boldly in relief. But why all this should be charged to Paul, and why those who diifer in sentiment from speculative critics of this class, should go so far over in the opposite direction as to lose all sight of the apostle's object and aim, and make him discuss things of a merely temporal nature, when he begins, continues, and ends with a spiritual theme ; — why all this is so frequently done, should be well looked to by those who are engaged in doing it. They may be very sincere in their opinions ; and this I would by no means call in ques- tion. But a man may be sincerely tvrong, as well as sincerely right; and when he is so through prejudice, through the heat of dispute, through reliance on mere human authority, through want of diligence and candour in studying the word of God, and judging with respect to its meaning; then it is but just, that his divine Lord and Master should consider him as accountable for his wrong judgment, and for the mischief which he does to others by it. If I am myself in the very predicament which I am here describing, may God in mercy open my eyes to see the truth as it in reality is, that I may not wan- der and perish myself, nor be the occasion that others should do the same ! Reiche, in answering the question, whether the apostle has taught in this chapter what we are to receive as a rule of faith ? comes to the conclusion that Paul has contradicted what he has elsewhere maintained, in regard to human liberty and accountability; and, consequently that we are to consider him as here employing a kind of argwnentum ad hominem merely, or as assailing his opposers yvfi- vaariKujQ, i. e. intending to hit them where he can, if he can but hit and disable them. What kind of reverence we can cherish for Paul, when we have come to a conclusion like this, it is not difficult to imagine. CHAP. IX. 30—33. Having thus completed the illustration and confirmation of his views respecting the sovereign dispensations of God, as to his mercy and his justice, the apostle now repeats in substance a leading sentiment of his epistle, viz., that justification being wholly gra- tuitous, and by faith in Christ, it is extended to all who will receive it as such, and so brings the Gentiles within its reach : while the Jews, rejecting this method of salvation, fcave failed to obtain justification ; for they have stumbled at the doctrine of the cross, and been unable to find acceptance with God on the ground of merit or by deeds of law. ROMANS IX. 30—32. 449 As no doctrine of the gospel was more repulsive to the Jews, than the truth that pre- ference would be given to believing Gentiles over them, or at least a full admission to the same privileges in all respects ; so Paul takes occasion frequently and solemnly to impress this important principle upon them. (30) Ti ovv epovfuv; a preface or transition to a summary of what he had been inculcating in the preceding context. It is as much as to say : ' How then may all that has been said on the point under consideration, be summed up ? What in brief is the whole matter ?' The answer follows : "Oti ... Ik TTicTTEOjg that the Gentiles^ who did not seek after jus- tification^ have obtained justifi,cation, and that justification which is by faith. That is, one principal thing which I have maintained, (when I have averred that the Gentiles have become the children of Abraham by faith and are received in the place of the unbelieving Jews), is that those who did not seek after justification^ i. e. who were once estranged from God and his law, were enemies to all which is good, and utterly regardless of spiritual blessings — these have now obtained justification by faith, i. e. they are admitted by the mercy of God, without any merit on their part, to participate in the bless- ings of the gospel, even in the justification which Christ has pro- cured. AtwKw is frequently used, even in the classic authors, in a sense like Z,nTHv ; and so in Hebrew r^ for •tt^i??. Reiche supposes that oTL is here designated to continue the question ; i. e. [Shall we say'] that &c.? But the ^lari of ver. 32 argues against this interpretation. (31) ^laQar]\ . . . ouic f^S^aere, but Israel, who sought for a law of justification, have not attained to a law of justification. That is, Israel, who, confiding in their own merit and good works, betook themselves for justification to their supposed complete obedience to the divine law, or betook themselves to the law as a means of justifi' cation, have not found or attained to such a law as would justify them. In other words : ' The Jews, who trusted in their obedience and merit as the ground of their acceptance with God, have failed in obtaining acceptance or justification in this way.' The reason or ground of this is fully stated in Rom. i.— iii. The law demands per- fect obedience to all its precepts, which no one ever did or ever will exhibit; and, consequently, no one can obtain acceptance on the ground of legal obedience, or by works of law. The apostle pro- ceeds briefly to state the ground of what he had just asserted. (32) Amrt'; ort . . . voiiov Why? because [they sought] not by faith, but by works of law ; i. e. Israel did not seek for justification 2 F 450 ROMANS IX. 32, 33. in a gratuitous way, but by legal, i. e. meritorious obedience. That Ik TTio-Tf wcj % faith, necessarily involved, in the mind of the writer, the idea of <7;y/^//?7o?^a(Ti. Here he resumes the theme, and explains himself more at large. He states the reason why they did not attain justification, vers. 2, 3, and goes on to show, that Moses himself confirms the same ideas which he had disclosed to them relative to faith and works, verr. 4 — 8. The sentiment that belief in Ch'ist is necessary for till, both Jew and Greek, is still further confirmed by vers. 9 — 12. The apostle next presents the Jew as objecting thus : ' If we allow what you say as to the necessity of faith or belief in Christ, yet how are we to be blamed for rejecting him, in case be has never been preached or declared to us '!' vers. 13 — 15. To this the apostle answers, (1) That not all who have heard the gospel, believe it ; a* Isaiah himself declares, vers. 16, 17. (2) But further ; the objection cannot be truly made, that the Jews have not heard the gospel, at least enjoyed the opportunity of hearing it ; for one may apply to them, in this respect, the words of Ps. xix. 4 ; or the words of Moses, in Dent, xxxii. 21 ; or of Isaiah, in Ixv. 1, 2; so that they are left without any just apology for their unbelief, vers. 18 — 21. (1) 'H filv ev^oKia tJjc if^vQ Kap^iag, the benevolent or kind desire of my heart ; i. e. his sincere and hearty wish (as we say) is, &c. — Etc (TOJTYipLav, for salvation^ i. e. for their salvation. Literally my prayer to God for them [is] unto or in respect to salvation. But etc is frequently used in the New Testament in the same sense as "> in Hebrew; e. g. Rom. xvi. 6, uq r\ixuQ^for us; 1 Cor. viii. 6, dgav- Tov, for him, i. e. for his honour and glory; 2 Cor. viii. 6, dg vfxaq,for your advantage ; and so often. The phrase vwlp avrCov [Igtiv] tic (Twrrjptav is altogether equivalent, then, to iva (xoj^ioai or v-rrip rf/c awTTiptag avTwv. The reading virlp avriov which is sanctioned by A., B., D., F., G., is now generally admitted in critical editions, in- stead of the Receptus virep tov 'lapariX. The sense is the same. The same MSS. omit 17 before Trpoc* (2) MapTvpu) yap avTo7g, for I bear them witness. Tap illustran- tis, i. e. standing before a clause that suggests some consideration which has a bearing on the preceding declaration. The apostle means to say, that he retains a strong affection for the Jews, and prays sin- cerely and ardently for their salvation ; and specially so, as they have much feeling and zeal in respect to the subject of religion. AvToig is the Dative after paprvpCj ; for this verb commonly takes the Dative of the person or tiling for whom or which testimony is given. 454 ROMANS X. 2, 3. "On ^jjXov ^tov ix'^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^y ^^^^ " zeal for God; ^zov be- ing the Genitive of the object to which ^^Xov stands related. So in John ii. 17, 6 Z,r\kog tov oIkov o-ou, zeal for the honour of thine house ; comp. Ps. Lxix. 10 (9), ^jrin dn:,-?, also Acts xxii. 3, and John xvi. 2 ; comp. Gal. i. 14. Acts xxi. 20. The apostle means to say, that the Jews had much zeal for objects of a religious nature, for such objects as had a relation to God ; or in other words, that they possessed strong feelings and sympathies of a religious nature. And with this representation all accounts of them agree. Philo, Josephus, and the various writers of the New Testament, by the facts which they dis- close, most abundantly confirm the correctness of this declaration. 'AAA' ov Kar ETrtyvwdtv, but not according to knowledge; i. e. not an intelligent, discerning, enlightened zeal ; not a zeal regulated by a proper understanding of what was really religious truth. They persecuted Christians, for example, unto death, and yet thought them- selves to be doing service for God, Xarpdav ^ew, John xvi. 2. There may be zeal without knowledge^ which is superstitious, persecuting, hostile to the peace and happiness of the community ; and there may be knowledge without zeal, which is cold, sceptical, unfeeling, and which devils may possess as well as men. An actual union of both is accomplished only by sincere piety ; and a high degree of this union, only by ardent piety. (3) 'AyvoowvTEc 7ap • • • ^i.KaioavvY\v, for being ignorant of that justification which is of God. Qeov here is Gen. auctoris, i. e. a Gen- itive designating the author of that which the preceding noun signi- fies. Triv TOV S-foO diKuioavvriv is that method of justification, viz. gratuitous or by faith, which God has established, appointed, or re- vealed in the gospel. It stands opposed, here, to rrjv iSiav ^iKaioav' vt}v, i. e. justification on the ground of merit or by the works of law. Fap causal, i. e. standing before a clause which gives the reason or ground of the assertion contained in oAA' ov Kar liriyvwcnv, and consequently yap may be rendered for. The apostle does not mean by ayvoovvreg, to imply that the Jews had enjoyed no opportunity to become acquainted with the SiKaiotrv- vrjv 3'£ow ; for this would contradict what he says in the sequel, ver. 18, seq. He means only to say, that whatever their opportunities of knowledge had been, they were in fact still ignorant, and criminally ignorant, of the gospel method of justification. Kot Trjv iBiav . . . arriaai, and seeking to establish their own jus- tificcdion. STr/aot means here to render valid, to make good one's ROMANS X. 3, ] . 455 claims. The Jews sought for and expected justification by their own merit, i. e. by obedience to their laws, specially the ceremonial ones. How defective their views were, on the subject of what is required by the law of God, particularly in a spiritual respect, is manifest from the whole of the New Testament, but specially so from the declara- tions of the Saviour in his Sermon on the Mounts Matt. v. seq. That justification in the way of merit is impossible, the apostle had before shown in chaps, ii. iii. OuK vTTfrayjjo-av, theij have not submitted themselves ; in which rendering we give to the second Aor. of the Pass, voice, the reflexive sense of the Middle voice. So the Aorists of the Passive are fre- quently used ; see Buttm. Gr. Gramm. § 123. 2. N. Test. Gramm. § 61. 4. But if we render ouk vTrerayrjaav passively, they have not been subjected, the sense will be substantially the same. Sentiment of the verse : ' Having no correct views of justification by grace, and being earnestly desirous of justification on the ground of their own merit, they reject the justification which God has prof- fered to them in the gospel.' (4) Tc'Aoc 7ap vojuou Xpiaroc for Christ is the end of the law ; i. e. believing in Christ, receiving him by faith and thus attaining to diKaioavvT} ^eov, accomplishes the end or object of what the law would accomplish, viz. which perfect obedience to the law would accom- plish. In this simple M^ay, and consonant with the context, I would interpret this long agitated and much controverted text. That riXog has often the same meaning or substantially the same which is here given to it, may be abundantly shown. It is frequently used to denote exitus ret, the event, end, ultimate object or design of a thing ; e. g. Matt. xxvi. 58, iSav to riXog, to see the event, final end, Rom. vi. 21, TO riXoQ, the end or fnal event of those things, is death ; 2 Cor. xi. 15, u)v TO teAocj whose end, final state or condition, i. e. reward, shall be according to their works; Phil. iii. 19, d»v to TtXog, whose end or final state, shall be destruction ; 1 Tim. i. 5, to Se TeXog Trig wapay- yeXiag, now the ultimate end, object, design, of the commandment, &c. ; Heb. vi. 8, i]g to TiXog ug kwuctlv, whose end or final reward is burn- ing. See also James v. 11. 1 Pet. i. 5, to Ttkog, the end or event of your faith, is the salvation of your souls ; iv. 17. So in other Greek writings; e. g. to TtXog tov TrpuyfxaTog tig KUKiav ayei, Test. XII. Patriarch, p. 689 ; to tovtov TtXog ev 3-ft^ ^v, the end or eve7it of this matter was with the Divinity, Demosth. 292. 22. So in the phrases, TiXog XafxjdavHv, nainp^ea^cu alg TeXog, Ik tov TtXovg yvio^ia-^tvTa, K. T. X. 450 ROMANS X. 4. From all this there remains no good reason to doubt, that riXog may mean here exitus, the end, final object, the result ; i. e. the end which the law was intended to accomplish or bring about, has been brought about or accomplished by Christ. Now the end of the law, was the justification of men, i. e. their advancement to happiness and glory in a future world. So the apostle himself states in the sequel : " The man that doeth these things shall live by them." But inas- much as "all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God," so " no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law ; " in other words, legal justification on the ground of merit is now impossible. But what the law cannot accomplish, Christ does accomplish ; for through him the justification of sinners is brought about, which would other- wise be impossible. Christ then is the end of the law, i. e. he accom- plishes or brings about that which the law was designed to accom- plish— the acceptance of men with God, and their admission to the happiness of the future world. That ver. 4 is only epexegetical of the last clause of the preceding verse, seems to me quite plain ; and the -ya/o intimates this. Christ then is asserted, in ver. 4, to be the end of the law, i. c. to answer the same end which the law perfectly obeyed would answer, as to justifi- cation. But Tf'Xoc has been very differently construed ; viz. {a) As mean- ing end in the sense of ending or comjiletion. In this case vofiog is interpreted as meaning the ceremonial law ; so that the sentiment is: 'Christ has, by his coming, made an end of the ceremonial law.' But it is a sufficient objection to this interpretation, that it is wholly irrelevant to the subject now under discussion ; which is, whether justification is by merit, as the Jews believed, or by grace. This interpretation, however, has been defended by Augustine, Gregory Thaumat., Schlichting, Le Clerc, Limborch, and some others. {h) Christ is the rfXetwatc or TrXiipw/xa of the Jewish law, i. e. Christ perfectly fulfilled or obeyed it. But this explanation, although defended by Origen, Pelagius, Ambrose, Melancthon, Vatablus, Cal- vin, &c., fails in being able to make out a usus loquendi in favour of such a sense of the word riXog. And moreover ; what is it to the purpose of the apostle ? To say that Christ obeyed the whole law, ritual, or moral, or both, is saying what indeed is true ; but then it has no direct or visible bearing upon the subject immediately before the mind of the writer. There are tico supposable ways of justifi- cation, one icrong way and one right one; this it is his object to ROMANS X. 4, 5. -157 show. Now the Jews, having chosen the wrong one, viz. their own works of law, i. e. their own merits, have of course missed the right one, viz. that by faith in Christ. (c) Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Bueer, S. Schmidt, Bengel, Turretin, Heumann, Tholuck, &c., understand riXog in the sense of end, design, final object. Tholuck explains it thus : viz. that the law teaches us our sinfulness and our need of a Saviour, and this was what it was designed to accomplish ; and thus it leads us in the end to Christ, or to Christ as lis final end. He finds an exact parallel in Gal. iii. 24: "The law is our TratSaywyoc to bring us to Christ." But why we should give the passage this turn here, I cannot see ; for the writer has expressly told us in what respect he means that Christ was the end of the law, viz. dg StKaioa-uvrjv. And in accordance with this, Flatt has expounded the passage thus : Christ is the riXoq vofiov in respect to SiKaiocrvvr} ; i. e. he has brought it about, that we should not be judged after^the strictness of the law. He has re- moved the sentence of condemnation from all those who receive the gospel.' — Well and truly. Etc .... TTicFTtvovTi, in Tespect to the justification of every believe?'. This designates, as I have before observed, the very respect in which Christ was riXog vofxov. He is so to every believer ; but not so to others, i. e. not so while they remain unbelievers, although he is proffered to them as mighty and willing to save all who will come unto God through him. liavrl k. t. X. in the^Dative, as the person for whom. (5) M(i)v(Tr}g yap k. t. X. Here is yap illustrantis again ; for the whole of the quotations which follow, are plainly designed to illustrate the two different methods of justification which the apostle had just brought into view. — Fpa^Et, describeth, delineateth; often used in such a sense. — T17V ZiKaioavvviv rr\v ek row vojuov, legal jus- tification, i. e. meritorious justification, one which a man may claim as the proper reward of his own good deeds or obedience. The apostle makes this appeal to Moses, both to confirm and illustrate his own declarations and to show also that he is inculcating no new doctrine. "On . . . . ev avToXg, that the man who doeth these things, shall live by them. "On is prefixed here to a quotation, as usual, and has the sense of our viz., namely, or asfolloivs. The Greek word itself seems in reality to be the neuter of oang, 6Tt=6 t(, i. e. this thing, videucit. 458 ROMANS X. .5, G. Tloiriaag avra, viz. the thing spoken of in tlic preceding con- text. The quotation is from Lev. xviii. 5, which has a reference to preceding ordinances and statutes recorded in Leviticus, lloiiw is very frequently employed in the sense of performing, obeying a statute, ordinance, &c., or obeying the will of another. — ^ncnrai Iv avToig, he shall be rendered happy by them, i. e. by obedience to such statutes, &c. Obedience, i. e. entire obedience, shall render him happy, shall entitle him to the rewards that arc proffered to the obe- dient. That the Jews understood something more than happiness in the present life, by the 'ni {^y^a^Tai) in Lev. xviii. 5, seems probable from the version of Onkelos : "He shall live in eternal life by them." So the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan : " He shall live in eternal life, and have a part with the righteous." (6) 'H 8e . . . . Xgyet, but justification by faith speaketh thus. At but, here in distinction from or in opposition to the preceding decla- ration. AtKa(0(Tuvr)v is here personified. The sense is the same as to say : ' One who preaches justification by faith, might say, &c.' Mr) . . . aov, say not in thine heart, i. e. within thyself. To say within one's self, is to think, imagine, suppose. So the Greek <^»)jui is sometimes used for internal saying, i. e. thinking. 'Ev rr) KopSui (Tov, ?|^'?3, where ib {heart) is used like ■ttjpj (soul) for self ; and so very often, in the Hebrew language. Tig .... ovpavov ; who shall ascend to heaven ? &c. The whole appeal and method of reasoning is in an analogical way. Moses, near the close of his life, in a general exhortation to obedience which he addressed to the Hebrew nation, assigns as one reason why they should obey, that the statutes of the Lord which he had given them were plain and intelligible; they "were not hidden from them, neither were they afar off," Deut. xxx. IL Li order to enforce this last thought the more effectually, he dwells upon it and illustrates it in several ways. " The commandment," says he, ''it not in heaven, that thou shouldest 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 shouldest say : Who shall go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear and do it ?" That is : ' The law which you are required to obey, is plain and intelligible ; it is accessible to all men, it is not difficult to be procured or understood. It needs no messenger to ascend the skies and bring it down from heaven ; for it is already revealed. We need not send abroad for it, nor search af- ter it in distant and inaccessible lands that lie beyond the ocean.' In ROMANS X. 6, 7. 459 other words : ' It is plain and easy of access.' Nay one may say : " The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." Deut. xxx. 14. That is : 'The commandment is in language which thou dost speak, and is such as thou canst com- prehend with thine understanding ;' which last circumstance is only repeating or amplifying, in another form, the idea that had preceded. The whole may be summed up in one word, omitting all figurative expression ; viz. the commandment is plain and accessible. You can have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting it. So in the case before us. Justification by faith in Christ is a plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious language, nor concealed from the eyes of all but the initiated, like the heathen mysteries. It is like what Moses says of the statutes which he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible, accessible. It is not in the books of countries which lie beyond the impassable ocean ; not in the mys- terious book of God in heaven, and yet undisclosed ; not in the world beneath, which no one can penetrate and return to disclose its secrets. It is brought before the mind and heart of every man; and thus he is without excuse for unbelief. Such is the general nature and object of these quotations, and such the method of reasoning in respect to them. It is apparent, therefore, that ne quid nimis is very applicable here, in regard to commentary on the words which are employed. It is the general nature of the imagery, in the main, which is significant to the pur- pose of the writer. Paul means simply to affirm, that if Moses could truly say that his law was intelligible and accessible, the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ is even stiU more so. Tovt' tan .... KarayayHv, that is, to bring down Christ. The TovT tart here designates the reference which the apostle designs to make of the sentiment just quoted, viz. that he means to apply it to Christ, and not to the law of Moses. — Xpiarov here means Christ in the sense of ver. 4, where he is called riXog vofiov . . elg diKuioav- vrjv. (7) Tig . . . . aj3wv,for Isaiah saitli, Lord-, 'ivho hath believed our report ? Is. liii. 1. That is, the prophet complains that the declana- tions made respecting the Messiah are not credited by those who hear them. Here then is an example of Jews who hear and believe not; and one to the apostle's purpose, who had just said, that not all the Jews who did hear believed the gospel. The same thing is as- serted by Isaiah, which the apostle now asserts; so that he could not be accused of producing a new or strange charge. (17) "Apa . . . ^tov, faith then comes by hearing^ and hearing by the word of God ; i. e. the very quotation you make concedes the prin- ciple, that the gospel must first be published before men can be taxed with criminality for unbelief; for Isaiah complains of those to whom it had been published. — 'H St ukoxi Sm piifiarog tov S"£oy, i. e. the word of God, the gospel, must first be proclaimed before it can be heard, understood, and believed. The verse I take to be the suo-o-estion of the objector. He means to insist by it, that many of the Jews are not culpable for unbelief, inasmuch as they have not heard the gospel, and hearing it is necessary to the believing of it. (18) The apostle admits the correctness of the principle,' viz. that faith Cometh by hearing ; but he denies the fact which was implied in the statement of it, viz. that there was a part of the Jewish nation who had not heard, i. e. who had not enjoyed the opportunity to hear. So the sequel : 'AXXa Xiju) . . . I'lKovaav ; but I reply .- Have they not heard ? Mf voui^ye, yes, verily ; compounded of jue'v, o5r, and -yl. Mtvouv asserts, and -yl increases the intensity of the assertion. In the ju?7 ovK before i]Kovaav, the /u/j is the sign of interrogation, and OVK simply qualifies the verb ; see N. Test. Gramm. § 153. 5. Eic TTacrav . . . to. prif.utTa aitrcjv, quoted from Ps. xix. 6, in the words of the Septuagint, which here follows the Hebrew. , 'O (p^o-y- yoQ avTi^v, in the original Psalm, means the voice or sound of the works of nature, which show or declare in all the earth that he who made them is God, and the God of glory. The apostle seems to use the words in this place simply as the vehicle of his own thoughts, as they were very convenient and appropriate. The expressions iraaav ry]V 'ynv and to. Tripara TTi]q olKOvjuiviig, are common and figurative expressions to designate the idea of far and wide, what is unlimited in extent, &c. As originally employed by the Psalmist, they may be taken in their greatest latitude. As used by the apostle, they may ROMANS X. 19. 469 be taken in the like latitude so far as the Jews are concerned ; for it is of them, and them only, that he is here particularly speaking. (19) 'AAAct Alyw, but I say, i. e. I reply again in reference to the opportunity of the Jews to gain some knowledge of the gospel. M?7 'lo-pttTjX ovK ijvio; Doth not Israel know? TVhat — is not said, and has been matter of much controversy. To me, however, it seems plain that it is to be gathered from the subsequent context ; if so, it is clear that the sentiment is ; ' Doth not Israel know (as I have before said, vers. 11, 12), that the Gentiles are to be received as well as the Jews, and the Jews to be cast off for unbelief? ' The apos- tle now proceeds to quote passages of the Old Testament, which show that the ancient prophets have explicitly declared the same thing. Reiche construes the phrase thus: 'Has not [God] loved or acknow- ledged Israel?' Comp. Amos iii. 2. Hos. viii. 5. Rom. xi. 2. But I cannot regard this as congruous with the context. HqCjtoq M.(i)vK . . . ■7ri.)0i'Yvw, God hath not cast an ay his people whom he ROMANS XL 2, 3. 473 foreknew, i. e. whom he before determined or decided should be his people. In other words, he has not utterly rejected the Jewish peo- ple, whom he from the first ordained to be his people. See on the word TTQoiyvd) in chap. viii. 29, and compare ver. 29 below. To ren- der irpoi'yvoi) formerly acknowledged, does not accord with the design of the passage. The sentiment plainly is such as is developed in chap, viii. 28, by the ovq Trpotyvo) k. r. X. ; and the writer in his choice of language here, seems plainly to refer to the words there employed. The sentiment is, that the oi Kara TrpoSrecxtv KXrjroi among the Jews are by no means cast off. '^H ovic . ... 11 7joa^//, know ye not what the Scripture says in Elijah ? i. e. in that part or portion of it which is cited by the name oi" Elijah, because it contains his history. The division of the Scrip- ture into chapters and verses, is a modern thing; nothing of this kind occurs in the writings of the ancient fathers. Such a division of the Hebrew Scriptures was made by Hugo de Cardinalis in the twelfth century ; and of the New Testament, by the ftunous printer and editor, Robert Stephens. Of course, reference to the Scriptures in ancient times was in a very different way from that now practised ; and was, for the most part, such as we see in the verse before us. So the Rabbins cite, in the Mishna; and so the Greek authors were accustomed to cite Homer; e. g. Iv ti^ rwv vewv KaraXoYtj), in the catalogue of the ships, i. e. the passage which contains such a cata- logue, &c. ; comp. Mark xii. 26, tTri tov (darov, i. e. in the passage which gives an account of the burning bush. The ?/ is the mere sign of interrogation. 'Qig, when ; so it often signifies. 'Evru7X«v£i .... Kara, means to plead against, to make intercession against ; as evrwyx"^^'^ .... wTTEp means to intercede for. (3) Kvpu fxov, cited from 1 K. xix. 10, ad sensum and with contractions ; also not exactly in the order of the Hebrew text which runs thus: "And he [Elijah] said, I am very jealous for Jehovah, the God of hosts ; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy cove- nant, they have destroyed thine altars, and killed thy prophets ; and I only am left, and they seek my life to take it away." The prophet complains, in these words, of what he supposed to be the universal apostacy of Israel. Karto-K-a^av, lit. digged down; for altars were usually made with stones and earth or turf, so that digging down characterizes the kind of effort necessary to destroy them. — T?)v t/'u^j'/v, natural ox animated life I often so in the Hebrew; comp. Matt. 474 ROMANS XL 4, 5. ii. 20. To seek one's life, i. e. to seek to take away one's life, is a Hebraism. (I) XQr]fiaTi(Tfi6q, divine response, from ■xfir]fxaTiZ,u), to do public business, to give piddic responses, &c. In the New Testament, it is applied only to the response or warning of the true God. — 'EjuauTtil, Dativus commodi, as grammarians say, viz. the person or thing for which any thing is or is done, is put in the Dative \for mi/self means for my service. — 'i^irTaKitrxiXiovg avBpag, the number seven is proba- bly employed here in the way of a round number, i. e. a definite in- stead of an indefinite number. So the Romans were wont to use sexcenti ; and in like manner 70 and 40 are frequently used in the Scripture.^So much, however, is to be understood by it here, viz. a very considerable number. "EKaju^av 70VI', bowed the knee, a part of the religious service rendered to idols. Bowing the knee is an attitude of reverence and supplication. Baal (Vyi) was the name of the principal god among the Canaanites, Carthaginians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. The Phe- nicians called him '?iiif {Adoni), and the Greeks 'ASovt'c- Ty BaaX, with the fern, article ry ; and so also in the Sept., in Hos. ii. 8. Jer. ii. 8. xi. 13. xix. 5. Zeph. i. 4, also Tobit i. 5. To solve this sin- gular appearance (for Baal generally has the masc. article), Eras- mus, Beza, and Grotius suppose that rj c'tKwv is understood, so that the full expression would be t(i hkovi B«oX. Others (e. g. Brais, Beyer, C. Schmid) suppose that there was a female deity by the name of Baal, i. e. the moon ; like tj^td and nDbo (Jer. xxxii. 35. xliv. 17, 18, 19, 25), which were symbols of the sun and moon. But the objection to this is, that in Jer. xxxii. 35, /; BaaX (fern.) is the same as 6 MoXox (masc). Others suppose that Baal was avBpoyvvr]g, a hermaphro- dite divinity, and so might take either 6 or 7j ; like the Latin Deus Lunus and Dea Luna ; and this seems most probable, at least the Seventy seem to have been of this opinion. Others solve it by sup- posing the fein. article to be applied in the way of contempt ; just as Mohammed (Koran. Sur. LIII.) speaks with contempt of the heathen Arabians, who had gods with fem. names ; and so in Arabic, the name of an idol is ii^'S^, God (in the fern.); and so the Rabbins call idol gods, niribw, gods (fem.). (5) OvTwg KOI .... jijovev, in like manner, then, even at the pre- sent time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace ; i. e. as in ancient times, when it appeared to the prophet Elijah as if apos- tacy was luiiversal among his countrymen, and yet there was not a ROMANS XI. 5, G. 475 few sincere worshippers of the true God, although unknown to him ; so at tlie present time, although the unbelief of the Jews appears to be nearly universal, yet God has a people among them, viz. all such as he has of his mercy chosen to eternal life ; comp. viii. 28, seq. ix. 15, 16, 23, 27. The ovv here has reference to what precedes. Ovtwq ovv means as much as to say : ' Such then being the case,' or « cir- cumstances being as I have now related.' — Kai qualifies ev t(^ vvv Kttipto, according to the version. — Ati/ufxa, a I'emnant, i. e. a small number, a part which though considerable in itself is small compared with another part. So here, the number of Jewish believers, al- though then considerable and important, was small compared with the whole number of unbelievers. Consequently Xufijua may be used to designate it ; comp. ix. 27. — Kar iKXoyrjv xoptroc? according to an election which is not made on the ground of merit, but of mercy. G\)d has not chosen Jewish believers unto salvation, because their obedience first made them the objects of his choice ; but he chose them because he had mercy on them ; comp. the texts cited above from Rom. ix., and the commentary on them. That the apostle means fully to convey such a sentiment, is plain from the verse that follows ; viz. (6) Et Se . . . Epywy, hut if it be of grace, then it is not at all of ivorks ; i. e. if God's IkXoj)!, his choosing this XeTjujaa to salvation, be gratuitous on his part, and wholly unmerited on the part of man, it follows that it is not eK, tpywv, i. e. that it is not meritorious, it is not on account of any desert on the part of men either seen or fore- seen, that he makes them the objects of his mercy. — 'Ettei 7j . . . ;Yop('c5 otherwise grace would be no longer grace ; i. e. if this were not so, then it would be improper to speak oi grace in our salvation ; for if men are chosen on account of any merit or desert, then grace is not the ground of their being chosen, but merit ; which would contradict the very idea of grace. This must be true ; for men are saved either because they have wholly obeyed the divine law, or on the ground of grace merely ; i. e. they are saved either because they are able to advance claims which meet the demands of the law, or else it must be on the ground of pure gratuity. Now as all men have sinned, it is not i\ie first ; of course it must be the second. If you ask : ' May it not be partly by grace, and partly by merit ?' Then our text lies directly in the way of an affirmative answer (as do many others also) ; and it is, moreover, a conclusive answer in the negative to this, that " every one is cursed. 470 ROMANS XI. 6, 7. who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them;" "the soul that sinneth shall die." El Se . . . ipywvi but if of works, then it is not at all of grace, otherivise work is no more work ; the mere converse of the preceding sentiment, and most probably a gloss from the margin. It is omitted in Codices A., B., C, D., E., F., G., 47, and in the Coptic, Arme- nian, iEthiopic, Vulgate, and Italic versions ; also in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, Jerome, and generally in the Latin Fathers. Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Tholuck, Flatt, and others, regard it as spurious. At all events, it adds nothing to the sentiment of the passage ; but is merely an echo, in another form, of the prece- ding sentiment. (7) Ti ovv; ivhatthen, i. e. what is the sum and substance of that which I have been saying? — -'^O kTnZ,r]Tu . . .. tTrerux^' ^'*^^ which Israel sought after, he hath not ohtained ; i. e. the justification which he sought to obtain by his own merit (comp. x. 3), he has not obtained. — Tovto is in many MSS. and copies, instead of tovtov ; for tTTiTvyyJivM almost always governs the Genitive in Greek, poetry only being excepted where it sometimes takes the Accusative. Still, the weight of authority in the present case is in favoiu* of tovtov ; and accordingly Dr. Knapp receives it into the text. 'H St kXoy?'/, but the election, i. e. the elect, the abstract (as grammarians say) being put for the concrete, as is often the case ; e. g. Rom. ii. 26, 27, &c. The meaning is: 'Although the Jews, who have sought justification by their own merit, have altogether failed as to obtaining this end in this way ; yet those who are called according to the gracious purpose of God (viii. 28), who are justified by his mercy through Christ Jesus, have obtained justification in a way which others rejected ; and therefore they have not failed in the accomplishment of their object.' 01 ^l XoLiroi, i. e. the unbelieving part of the Jews, those who did not belong to the IkXojii — 'Kiruypw^tidav, were blinded. The word TTwpog is equivalent to Tv(j)X6g; and the verb Tru)p6- "ESwicev . . . Karavv^iwQ, God hath given them a slumbering spi- rit or the spirit of deep sleep, rra^nn. The original Hebrew runs thus, rroiTri ni"i rnrr nr^^ TP^ 'p ; which the Seventy have rendered thus : 'Ort TrfTrdrejcfv v}iaq Kw^toc TrvQVfxaTi KOTovusfw^. But the apostle in rendering ^?3 by tSwjct, has translated ad sensum not ad verhum. The Hebrew designates the specific idea oi pouring out on the hardened Jews the spirit of profound sleep ; while Paul dropping the particular image which the Plebrew presents, retains only the generic idea of communicating such a spirit to them. It is plain then, that in this case, as in many others, the apostle makes his own translation de novo from the Hebrew. '0 is connected in sense with tiirwg in ver. 14, and the inter- vening matter is considered as in a parenthesis. This is not the usual mode of exegesis ; but it seems to me the more easy and natural one. The apostle is very careful, as is evident from this, while he fully represents the unbelief and cnroftoXt) of the Jews, not to give occa- sion to boasting or exultation on the part of the Gentiles. ROMANS XI. 13—15. 483 'E<^' oaov fxtv .... So^aZio, inasmuch as lam indeed an apostle of t/ie Gentiles I do honour to my office. Mlv simplex., as the lexicons say, i. e. standing alone, and without Ik or some equivalent particle following it as usual. But it is omitted in D. E. F. G. 80. al. 5. Clar. Boern., Ambrosiaster ; probably because no Si follows. Where [liv is simplex, as here, it answers to the Latin quidem, equidem, videlicet; but oftentimes cannot be rendered at all into English, nor conve- niently into Latin. It generally stands, in this way, in a clause of ex- planation, and may be called fiiv explicantis ; but it also appears plainly to have an affirmative and concessive force. The supposition of the writer who thus employs it is, that what he says will of course be conceded. AmKOviav is the office of the ministry, i. e. the apos- tolic office of Paul. — Ao^a^w, magni cestumo, honoro, honore afficio. (14) E'tVwc . . . £^ avTiov, if by any means I may excite to jea- lousy some of my kinsmen after the flesh, and save some of them. Ei- ttwcj si fieri potest, si qua ratione. — T?)v ad^Ka, my flesh, i. e. my relatives, o\ (rvyyeviig Kara aapKa, comp. Rom. ix. 3. So the He- brew -ittj? often means ; e. g. Gen. xxix. 14. Judg. ix. 2. 2 Sam. v. 1. Gen. xxxvii. 27. Is. Iviii. 7. The meaning of the apostle in the whole passage is : ' I extol the blessings of you Gentiles, not to lift you up with pride, but in order to excite the attention of the Jews to the dis- tinguished favours which you enjoy, and which they have lost by their unbelief.' (15) El yap . . . £/c v^Kpuyv; for if the casting away of them he the reconciliation of the world, what shall the reception of them he but life from the deadl i. e. if the rejection of the Jews on account of their unbelief, has been the occasionof reconciling many of the Gen- tile world to God, what shall the reception of them back to the di- vine favour be, but as it were a general [spiritual] resurrection .'' Tap marks the resuming of what was dropped at ver. 12 for the sake of further explanation. So Reiche. — KaraXXay// is applied to the conciliation of the heathen to God, who by their wicked works had before been enemies to him and strangers to the covenant of his promise. — Kdn and offered up to God, and the greater part or mass of it which was left for the use of him who made the ofl'ering. After the n'tt.w was offered, the whole mass became sanctified to lawful use, i. e. was set apart for this purpose and consecrated to it. In like manner, the apostle would here say, is the whole mass of the Jewish nation yet to be set apart for God and consecrated to him. The atrapx^'i ^^ ^^^ nation, i. e. the ancient patriarchs and fathers of it (comp. ver. 28), were set apart for God in a peculiar manner ; and consequently the ROMANS XI. 16, 17. 485 mass of their descendants are yet to be consecrated to him. The whole is illustration, however, rather than argument. Kai fi .... of icXaSot, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. The same idea is here expressed as in the former clause. A root bear, some such proportion to the branches of a tree, as the first- fruits did to to whole mass of bread. So here, the root represents the fathers {ver. 28), and the kXci^ol their descendants. — The word ayiog in both cases means consecrated to God, devoted to God, set apart for God, or set apart, consecrated, viz. for the service of God. But it should be noted, that the apostle does not design so say, that the (jivpafxa and the kXciSol are holy, i. e. that they were so when he was writing. He predicts only that they will be so at some future period. (17) El §£ . . . . V^eK\a(T^ri(Tav, but if some of the branches were broken off; i. e. if now some of the natural descendants of the an- cientfathers have been cast off, because of unbelief (ver. 20). At may be construed here as continuative, jam, German nun; but the distinc- tive sense seems to be the more facile one. Su Se . . . . lyivov, and thou, being a wild olive, wert grafted in in their stead, and made partaker of the root and fatness of the olive. The aQyiiXaiog, it is said, was often grafted into the fruitful one when it began to decay, and thus not only brought forth fruit but caused the decaying olive to revive and flourish. This fact is denied by Glockler and Reiche, but it is substantiated by Columella (de Re Rust. V. 9) and Palladius (de Insit. XIV. 53), and also by several modern travellers. According to the usual course of nature among us, the fruit will be according to the original nature of the graft, and not according to the stock. How far this is actually the case in respect to olive-trees, seems not to be yet satisfactorily made out. Be the fact however as it may, it will not change the meaning of the apostle's supposition. The image which he here employs is a very vivid one. The Gentiles had been grafted in upon the Jewish Church, and had caused this decayed tree to revive and flourish. But still the apostle means to hold in check any exultation of the Gentiles on account of this. He reminds them, that after all they are not the stock but only grafts ; that the root and fatness of the good olive had been transferred to them, only because they have been • grafted into it. 'Ev avrdig seems to be used in a local way, viz. in the place of them. AH this shows moreover, that in the apostle's view, there has in 486 ROMANS XI. 19,20. reality been but one church ; the ancient Jewish one being only the foundation, the Christian one the superstructure and completion of the building ; a sentiment which accords throughout with the repre- sentations in the epistle to the Hebrews, where only a change in rites and forms is argued, not a change of the spiritual and essential nature of the church. (18) M?7 KaraKavx^To rwv KAaSwv, exult not over the branches; i. e. exult not that the Jewish branches have been broken off, and that thou hast been engrafted in their stead. \LaTaKav\aojxai means to exult in one's own advantages or pre-eminence, in such a manner as to look down with contempt on others who do not possess them. Et Sf KaraKav^aai . . . ai, but if thou dost exult, thou dost not support the root but the root thee ; i. e. if thou art so inconsiderate and wanting in humility as to exult, there is no ground for such exultation ; for after all, the Jewish church is the stock on which the Christian has been engrafted : it is the root from which the tree with its branches have sprung ; and as thou art only a branch, thou canst not boast as if thou wert the root. (If)) 'Epttc ovv . . . lyKBVTpKT^w, thou wilt say, then : The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted i7i ; i. e. perhaps thou wilt reply : * There is at least some ground for exultation, because the branches were broken off in order to make room for me to be grafted in ; which proves that I was considered as of more importance than the branches,' — KXaSot has the article ot in many copies ; but A., C, E., 3., 7., 37., 46., 47., 54., Clirysostom, and Damascenus omit it; and so Dr. Knapp. If inserted, it would designate the specific branches before mentioned ; if omitted, then Kka^oi will designate branches, some branches, in an indefinite way. (20) KaXwc • • • fCTTTjKac? be it so ; they were broken off by reason of unbelief, and thou retainest thy standing by faith ; i. e. be it as thou hast said, viz. that the branches were broken off so that thou mightest be grafted in, yet the original ground or moving cause of their being broken off was the unbelief of the Jews ; and thou re- tainest thy present condition only on the ground of faith or belief in Christ. Shouldest thou deny him, as the Jews have done, thou wouldest also be broken off in like mariner. — KaXwcj bene, approves of the sentiment which had just been uttered in some respect or other, but it does not necessarily approve of it in the full extent in which the speaker himself might have done. Here koXCoq concedes that the branches were broken off so that the wild olive might be ROMANS XI. 20—22. 487 grafted in, i. e. one object in breaking them off" was to graft in new ones ; but it does not concede that the real ground or reason of their being broken off", was for the sake merely of grafting in new ones; for the sequel shows that cnrKJTia was the ground of this. While the apostle concedes thus much, however, to the Gentile, he at the same time reminds him, that he retains his present place and standing on the very same condition as that on which the Jews held theirs, viz. on condition of faith or belief, av Se ry tt'kttu iar-qKag. In regard to I' crrrjKacj the Perfect of 'iaT-qfxii it is the only tense which has a neuter sense, viz. to stand, the other tenses being used actively, viz. to establish, constitute, set up, &c. ; and consequently the Perfect is used in the sense of all the tenses that are needed to convey the neuter sense of the active voice. Mt) . . . (j)o(iov, be not high-minded, but fear ; i. e. carry your- self not haughtily as it respects the Jews who have been broken off"; or rather, do not think too highly of your elevation to favour, indulge in no airs of superiority on account of this, but demean yourself as a humble believer, and one who has need to be continually on his guard, and to fear lest he may fall through unbelief and be broken off". (21) Et yap ... . ^siaerai, for if God did not spare the natural branches, then [fear] lest he will not spare thee; i. e. if God did not refrain from rejecting the Jews, when they became unbelievers, then surely he will not refrain from rejecting thee, in the like circum- stances ; or in other words, if the natural branches were not spared, how shall those which are not the natural ones find favour? The yap in this case introduces a cause or reason why the Gentile should fear. — Kara (^tvaLv means the branches which naturally belonged to the original stock, i. e. the Jews, the natural descendants of the patriarchs to whom the promises of God were made. Before jui^Trwg the verb ^ofdov is of course to be understood. — Instead of ^daerai some copies read (l>dar]Tat (Subj.); and after verbs oi fearing (for 0o/3oOis here implied) the Subj. is the usual mood. It is also the usual mood after the particle ju//. But in cases where it is supposed a thing actually exists or will exist,- the Indie, mood is employed to indicate this. Here evidently the apostle believes that God would not spare Gentile unbelievers ; and so the Indie, is the preferable mood ; see N. Test. Gramm. § 152. 4. Note 1. (22) TSt ovv . . . ^£ou, behold, then, the kindness and the severity of God ; i. e. consider, on the one hand, the distinguished kind- ness which God has manifested toward thee who believest; and on 488 ROMANS XI. 22—24. the otlier, the strict regard to justice and truth which he exhibits, in the punishment of the unbelieving Jews. So the sequel of the verse ; eTTi juiiv . . . tKk07r//a-y, severity toward those who have fallen away; but Jiindness toward thee, provided thou dost maintain a state of in- tegrity ; otherwise even thou shall be cut off. 'Eav lirifidvrjg ry xpn* « -vapri, \ Taon, all of which (from tyq) mean to deliver over to, to give up to the power of. — The whole vers* and also chap. v. 20, 21, seems plainly to teach, that God had a spe- cial purpose to answer in giving man over to the power or dominion of sin and unbelief, viz. to expose the " exceeding sinfulness of sin," and to magnify the riches of his pardoning mercy. But if any are not satisfied with the sense here given to the word o, who hath done me any service, that I may recompense him. This the apostle has changed to the third person, instead of the first, so as to make it congruous with the preceding quotation. The Septuagint, "abit in omnia alia" here ; so that the apostle (if indeed he here quotes at all, which seems somewhat doubtful), has given a new version to the Hebrew. 496 ROMANS XT. 36. This latter quotation (if it be one) is designed by the apostle to have a bearing on all claims to the divine favour, which can be pre- ferred on the score of desert or of services rendered to God. How prone the Jews were to betake themselves to their own merits, and to rely on self-righteousness, every reader of the New Testament must know. The sentence before us is designed to repress this spirit ; for it is as much as strongly to affirm, that no one can make any just claims upon God for his favour, as no one by his services has laid him under any obligation. The Nominative to avro7roSo^»/(T£rat is avTo understood, which would refer to ri implied after the preceding TrpotSwKE. (36) On the contrary, instead of creatures laying God under any obligation to them, God is all and in all, i. e. he is the source of all being and blessing, by him all things come into existence and are sustained and governed, and for him, for his glory and honour, they "are and were created." — "On l^ . . . iravTa, for of him, and by him, and for him, are all things. — 'E^ avrov, of him, i. e he is the original source, the eternal fountain whence all the streams of exist- ence take their rise. — At' avrov, he is not only the original source, but the intermediate cause of all things. It is the exertion of his power that brings them into being, and preserves, directs, and con- trols them. — Eic avrov, for him, for his honour, praise, glory; he is the sovereign Lord and possessor of all, and all exist because he wills it, and exist for the accomplishment of purposes which the Maker of all has in view. The sentence seems equivalent to saying : " God is the beginning, continuance, and end of all things." Such is the conclusion of the doctrinal part of our epistle ; a powerful expression of profound wonder, reverence, and adoration, in regard to the unsearchable ways of God in his dealings with men ; and an assertion of the highest intensity, respecting his sovereign right to control all things so as to accomplish his own designs, inas- much as all spring from him, "live and move and have their being in him," and are for his glory. A doctrine truly humbling to the proud and towering hopes and claims of self-justifying men ; a stumbling- block to haughty Jews, and foolishness to unhumbled Greeks. I scarcely know of any thing in the whole Bible which strikes deeper at the root of human pride than vers. 33—36, But what emphasis ROMANS XI. 36. 497 there can be in these, if the apostle is discoursing merely on the external privileges of men, and maintaining that these only were be- stowed by pure grace, I am unable to see. Every man on earth has merely to open his eyes on things around him, in order to see that distinctions of a temporal nature are co-extensive with the human race. Does he need the long argument of the apostle, and the stren- uous efforts he has made, in order to be satisfied of this ? But when we come to the great question : Are distinctions oi di spiritual nature made, which are eternal in their consequences ; and made too accord- ing to the good pleasure of God, without any merit on the part of men ? it is then we find ourselves to need all the argument and rea- soning of the apostle, to bring us submissively to bow, and to con- template the whole subject (as he does) with Avonder and adoration. It is then, that God's claims to be considered the GREAT ALL IN ALL, must be advanced in such a way, that "the loftiness of man may be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man laid low, and Jehovah alone be exalted." I appeal now to all readers and critics, who, like Tholuck, refer all that is said in vers. 33 — 36 to the mere goodness and compassion of God as manifested in the gospel, whether there is any congruity in the passage thus considered. Nothing can be more certain, than that vers. 34 — 36 do assert, in the most high and unequivocal manner, the in- dependence of God on his creatures, and his sovereign power and right over them. This will not be questioned. But why such an assertion here, at the close of the argumentative part of the epistle, the very climax of the whole ? Is it necessary to make the deepest possible impression of divine independence and sovereign right, in order to convince us that God can exercise his goodness and compas- sion 1 I repeat it — I cannot see the congruity of such reasoning or rhetoric. Let those who adopt such exegesis look to this ; mine is not the task to defend it. On the other hand ; if God has, for reasons not disclosed to us, and therefore in the way of what we call the exercise of divine sove- reignty, rejected for a time the Jewish nation, and brought in the Gentiles ; and if God, in his own due time, shall also again bring the Jewish nation into his church ; and all this in such a way as entirely exceeds our comprehension, and which of course we are altogether unable to explain; then we may exclaim with the wondering apostle, O the depth! Then we may find overwhelming reason to believe, that God is cdl in cdl, that he is the beginning, middle, and end of all 2 I 498 ROMANS XII. 1—21. things, and that " for his glory they are and were created." We can sympathize, therefore, while cherisliing such views, with all which the apostle has here said, and find abundant reason to cherish, senti- riients such as he has avowed. But to prevent all mistake here, I repeat, before I close this sub- ject, what I have once and again expressed in the preceding pages, viz. that sovereignty in God, does not imply what is arbitrary, nor that he does any thing without the he%t of reasons. It only implies, that those reasons are unknown to us. While clouds and darkness are truly about him, in respect to our vision, justice and judgment are the habitation of his throne for ever. It is impossible, even for a moment, to doubt that this must be so. Infinite wisdom and goodness can never act at all without reason, nor without the very best reason. God has no possible temptation to act arbitrarily or wrongly ; it can- not profit him. His creatures cannot abridge his happiness. Of course, it would be the extreme of folly to suppose, that because God acts in a way which is mysterious, he acts in an arbitrary or oppres- sive manner. Is he under obligation to disclose all the grounds of his proceedings to us ? Enough he has disclosed to satisfy us that he is wise and good. May there not be something' left to exercise our "filial confidence, and to give us (what does indeed well become us) a deep sense of our humble and imperfect condition ? Shall we pre- scribe to God the terms of our moral discipline ? If not, then let us be content, when his nlysterious"ways press upon our minds and we feel straitened and in darkness, to say with the apostle : "^£2 /3a3y)c TrAovrdw k-ai (TO(j)iag Koi yvwaetog ^iov ! And if our hearts are ever tempted to rise up against the distinctions which God has made, either in a temporal or spiritual respect, in the bestowment of his favours, let us bow them down to the dust, as well as silence and satisfy them, with the humbling, consoling, animating, glorious truth, that 'of God, and through him, and for him, are all things!' To him, then, be the glory for ever and ever ! Amen. CHAP. XII. 1—21. The apostle having thus concluded what may be called the doctrinal part of his epistle, now proceeds to the hirtutoiy and pruclicul fz.\i ; which contains precepts both general and particular that were specially adapted to those whom he was addressing, and the spirit of which is applicable to all times and nations. The very solemn and earnest manner in which he inculcates the practical maxims that follow, shows how deeply he ftlt the importance of uniting Christian doctrine and duly ; yea, how necessarily the ROMANS XII. 1. 499 reception of the former must lead to the latter. He begins with urging Christians to make an entire consecration of themselves to God, vers. 1,2; he urges upon his readers humility, although they possess the special gifts of the Spirit: inasmuch as all the diver- sities of such gifts are possessed by those who are only parts of the spiritual body to which all Christians belong, vers. 3 — 5 ; he enjoins upon each to make a wise and diligent im- provement of the special gift or office bestowed on him, vers. 6 — 8 ; and then gives, in the remainder of the chapter, a most striking and admirable series of Christian precepts ; of which no equal, and no tolerable parallel, can be found in all the writings of the heathen world. (1) IlapaKaXu) ovv . . . ^eov, I intreat you, tlien^ hy the tender mercies of God, i. e. such being the case as I have now stated, such being the love and compassion exhibited toward sinners, and such the provision made for them, I entreat you on account of the tender mercies, &c. Ovv has reference to all that precedes, and intimates that the writer is making- a general deduction from it. — Ot/crtp/iwv, in the plural, is an imitation of the Hebrew vanp which has no singular. It means kindness, benignity, comjmssion, &c. Ata, by, on account of ; comp. Rom. xv. 30. 1 Cor. i. 10. 2 Cor. x. 1. 'i\apa(TTr)(Tdi . . . vfiiov, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, ivhich is your rational service. IlapaoTJ}- aaL is common in classic Greek, aud is employed to designate the action of bringing and presenting to the divinity a sacrifice of any kind. — ^wfiaTa vfjLOJv, your bodies, i. e. yourselves. The word aw- fxara appears to be used because it makes the nature of the repre- sentation or comparison more appropriate ; for the bodies of animals are offered in sacrifice. — Qvaiav t^Cocrav, a living sacrifice, in distinc- tion from that of beasts which were slain. It is put in apposition with the preceding ^vaiav. The meaning appears to be, that the living active powers of their bodies were to be continually offered or devoted to God ; or in other words, they were to offer a living, en- during, lasting sacrifice, not a sacrifice once for all by self-immolation. But possibly the reference may be to the custom of the Levitical law, which forbade the offering to God of what was accidentally killed. The animal must be brought alive to the altar, and slain there. But / I prefer the former exegesis. ' Ay tav, holy, i. e. D'on, integer, without blemish, or defect ; for no other kind of sacrifice could be ayia, i. e. consecrated to God. — EvapEOToy T(^ S'Ef^ is an epexegesis of the preceding oyia. — T7}v \oyiKriv Xarpdav vjuojv, your rational service, viz. your spiritual offer- ing or service, or that which is mental or belongs to reason (\6yog), in distinction from an external service or Xar^nia crapKiKii, such as 2 I 2 500 ROMANS XTI. 1, 2. the Jews oflfered and relied on for salvation. I have rendered it rational, i. e. pertaining to the reason or understanding, because the word reasonable (as we now use it) does not necessarily convey the same idea. (2) Kat fjLvi . . . vooQ v/xwv, and be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the reneiving of your mind. The Codices A.. D., E., r., G., and many Codd. minusc. read ava\r]fxmi^ta^aL^v\A fitTafxop(f>ov(T^ai, in the Infinitive ; which would imply 7ra/oaicaXa> before them. The sense would be the same, in such a case, as the Imperative of the text before us makes. — T(j> alwvi tovti^, the pre- sent world, i. e. nirr nbisrj, according to the later usage of the M^ord Dbiy among the Jews. The classic sense of attuv never coin- cides with this. See my Exegetical Essay on alwv, alwviog, &c., § 5. By not coiforming to the world the apostle means, the not adopt- ing of its sinful customs and practices, whether of an external or in- ternal nature. 'AXXa fxeTafiopcpoixT^e, i. e. put on another form, person ; ex- change the fjLopcpyj of the world for that of Christianity. Do this avaKaivMaet tov vobg v/ntov, by the renewing of your mind, i. e. by renovating the vovg vaXmog, by exchanging it for a vovg Kuivog such as the gospel inspires. In other words : ' Cherish no more a spirit devoted to the world and sinfully conforming to it; cultivate a new and different spirit, one devoted to God, one which will love and practise what is good and pleasing to God.' Etc TO ^OKifiat^siv . . . teXhov, that ye may learn what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. ^oKiixaZ,M means (among other things) to explore, to investigate, to search out, .na ; and this for the purpose of learning and knowing. The apostle means to say, that a renewed mind is essential to a successful inquiry after practical and experimental Christian truth, in its Avhole extent. " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." To aya^ov k. t. X., I regard not as adjectives agreeing with ^i- \r\fia, but as nouns, formed in the usual way, viz. by prefixing the article to the neuter gender of the adjective ; for to is of course im- plied before euapeo-Tov and riXnov. So Flatt and Glockler. — Eva- pECTTov means acceptable to God, n^ ^n^) being implied. — TiXuov, that which is wanting in nothing, which has no defect, integrum. Reiche construes these adjectives as qualifying SAjj^o. The whole verse, therefore, is an exhortation to spiritual-mindedness, in order ROMANS XII. 3—5. 501 that Christians may attain to a full knowledge of what their holy religion demands. (3) Tap here stands before specific reasons given for a general principle urged in the preceding context. Am rijc xapirog by vir- tue of the [apostolic] office of grace bestowed on me ; comp. Rom. i. 5. XV. 15. Eph. iii. 2, 8. — 'Ev vfxiv^ among you; so Iv frequently means, in such a connection. Mj7 . . . (j)povHVi lit. not to over-estimate himself beyond what he ought to estimate. Ilapa is often used in such a sense, in compara- tive declarations ; e. g. Luke xiii. 2. iii. 13. Rom. xiv. 5. Heb. i. 9. i. 4. iii. 3. — 'AXXa . . . itTr\g to interpret. Plato derives fxavTig from i(aivo/.iui, to rave, to be ov( ofone^s senses; ROMANS XII. 6. 503 and this shows the peculiar meaning of fxavng in distinction from irpofitv before Kara riji; avaXoyiav, or we may fill out the construction thus: irfta^iv *X9 TfQO^r\Ti'ia, Reiche, however, insists on Kara . . . iriaTewg being co-ordinate with Kara x^'P'^ *^' ''• ^' ^"^^ ^^^'^^ t\ovTig is implied before it. But the comparison of the clause ttVc vpofpi^Ttiav k. t. A. with the succeeding clauses, f'/rt ^uiKOviav, iv ry diuKovuf k. r. X, makes against this construction. Grammatically it is' possible ; exe- getically, it is quite improbable. (T) Etr£ ^laKOviav, i. e. eerc {iy(OHi.v~\ ZiuKoviav. AtaKOvof, in a general sense, means a servant, a icaiter of any one. But as the office of a servant is elevated by the station of his master and the duties which the servant has to perform, so the word is far from being always employed in a degrading sense; nay, it is sometimes (like the Hebrew int) used in a most honourable sense, as servant of God, servant of Christ, servant (minister) of the gospel, etc. In the pas- sage before us, StoKovia probably refers to the official duty of the ^laKovoi in the Christian church, to whom was committed the care of alms for the poor, of providing for the sick, of preparing conve- niences for public worship, etc., and generally, of watching over and taking care of the external matters of the church. In the primitive age of the church, this office was very simple, having reference only to the alms of the church. So the verb diuKOviu} very often means, to supply one with food, to make ready or provide food for any oi>e ROMANS XII. 7, 8. "~ 505 e. g. Matt. iv. 11. Mark i. 13. Luke x. 40. xii.37. xvii. 8. John xii. 2; comp. Acts vi. But in subsequent ages, the office was extended to all the external and merely temporal relations of the church. So in the Jewish synagogue, the ]jn, inspector, overseer, corresponded to ^laKOvoq. 'Ev Trj Staicovtg, i. e. wjuev or e'orrw; like tv TovToig'iar^i, 1 Tim. iv. 15, i. e. sit totus in illis, let him be wholly devoted to his ministra- tion or service, let him be deeply engaged to perform its duties with fidelity and zeal. EiVe 6 StSao-Kwi/. Here the construction is varied, although there appears to be no special reason for it in the nature of the sentence. We should expect are didaaKoXiav here, i. e. the Accusative case of the abstract noun ; but in its stead, we have a participial noun in the Nominative. Of course the verb y or larl is understood here after 6 SiddtTKwv. — 'Ev Tij StSacTfcaXio, i. e. eotw as before. That the office of teacher is here distinguished from Trpo^Z/rrje on the one hand, and from TrapaicaXwv on the other, is plain. But in what this distinction consisted, it would be a difficult matter for us at the present time to say. In regard to the first distinction, it would seem that 7rpo0/jr»?c indicated one who taught by inspiration, and only so far as inspiration prompted and enabled him to teach. In the strict sense of the word, it was an office created and sustained by miraculous gift. But ^i^aaKoXog appears to have been an ordi- nary stated teacher, one who was so by official station, and who taught according to the degree of religious knowledge which he possessed. (8) E'/rt 6 TrapoKaXwi;, i. e. 6 TrapaKoXCyv rj. — 'Ev ry TTaQaK\i](rti, i. e. Ecrrw as before. But what is TrapaicaXwv ? The verb -rraga- KoXsa) means to warn, to console. IlapaKaXwv, then, would seem to indicate an exhorter, i. e. one who urged to practical duties, who dwelt upon the threatenings and promises of the gospel, and so aided and completed the work which the SiSduKaXog had begun. How long the distinction which is here intimated, was kept up in the church, I know not. But in the original settlement of the churches in New England, many of them had two ministers, a St- Sacr/caXoc and a Trapak-aXwv, as here explained. It was believed, at that time, that these distinct offices M^ere intended to be perpetual in the church. But why consistency would not of course lead to the maintenance of all the other offices here named, it m ould be difficult to say. 506 ROMANS XII. 8. ' 'O fi^radidovg, sc. y he who is a distributer, i. e. he who distri- butes the charities of the church, or of individuals in it — 'Ev airXo- Tr\Ti, i. e. with a simple or single regard to the good of those for whom the charity was bestowed, without any selfish or sinister purposes of his own. But in what respect 6 /xeradiSovg differed from the SiaKovog above mentioned, we are now unable to ascertain with precision. That there was a difference, is plain from the manner in which the Mdiole of this paragraph is constructed. May it not have been, that the diuKovog was the general overseer, the collector and provider of alms; while the 6 jueraStSouc was the actual distributer of them among the needy ? This seems quite probable, from the nature of the case, and from the fact that here are two distinct offices, both of which have a relation to the same class of duties. The reader should remark, that with 6 jutraStSoue the construction is again changed, inasmuch as the utb is omitted ; so that the strain of the sentiment becomes purely hortatory. 'O TTjOoto-rajLttvog Iv a-nov^ij, let him who presides do it with dili- gent attention. A question may indeed be raised here, whether 6 TTpoto-rajUEvoc means an office in the church, or only a person to whom the care of some duty or business is committed. The verb Trpoiarrifii sometimes means to attend with care and diligence to any thing, q. d. to stand over it, as we say in English. So in Tit. iii. 8, koXwv tpywv irpo'Caraa^aL means to be diligent in performing good ivorks. But as 6 TTpot'ffrajucvoc stands connected with a series of other words which express some official duty, most interpreters have been inclined to construe it here as having respect to office. It seems plainly to be used in 1 Tliess. v. 12, to designate one who holds the office of a teacher ; and in 1 Tim. v. 17, it also seems to designate one who holds the office of ruling or governing in the church, as well as teaching. The context of this latter passage has indeed been re- garded by most commentators, as showing that there were some vpo- iaTajuLtvoi who held the double office of teacher and governor or ruler in the church, although, as some of them suppose, these offices would seem more usually to have been separate. In like manner, Justin Martyr speaks of a TrpoeaTwg tCjv ttStX^wi', who (it appears) is the presbyter of the church, Apolog. I. c. 67. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, is another account of Paul concerning the offices in the church existing at Corinth ; from which it appears that there were reckoned in that church the following orders of officers and gifts : oTroaroXot, 7rpo(^f?rat, StSao-KaXot, Swafitig, xapiafxaTit ROMANS XII. 8, 9. 507 lafiuTdyv, avTi\{]XpHQ, Kvfiepvi^creig, yivr] j\w(7(T(t)v, ciepfxr]VEVTai ', quite a different reckoning from that in our text, and yet the object of it is the very same as in Rom. xii. 8, viz., to show Christians that the same Spirit has bestowed gifts and offices of different and various kinds, but that inasmuch as he is the author of all, and they who possess them all belong to one and the same body, so there should be no boasting or pride indulged on account of them, but every one who possesses them should exercise his own gift in the best manner he can, for the edification of the whole. It must be obvious that the KvftepvijrrHg mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, would seem to accord with the irpoiGTajx^vog in our text ; but whether it accords with the same word in 1 Thess. v. 12. 1 Tim. v. 17, seems more doubtful. From a comparison of the whole together, it appears equally clear that the office itself of a Trpoto-rajuevoe, as designated here (and in 1 Cor. xii. 28 by Kv^zpvi^atig), was one of the lowest in the church. It is ranked the seventh in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and the sixth in Rom. xii. 8. But in 1 Tim. v. 17 and 1 Thess. v. 12, it is represented as entitled to special honour; yet in both these passages it is spoken of as united with the person of a teacher or preacher. 'O IAewv Iv lXap6Tr)Ti, he who shows compassion, [let him do it] with cheerfulness ; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 7. For a more extended examination of the passage 6 fUTa^i^ovQ . . £v tAojOOTTjTt, the reader is referred to the Excursus, where an inter- pretation different from that above exhibited is proposed and de- fended. (9) 'H ayairr], avviroKpiTog, let benevolence be sincere. I render ayaTTi] benevolence here, because it seems to indicate kind feeling toward men in general. The love of the brethren is specified in ver. 10. The apostle here enjoins on Christians to cherish a sincere and real, not merely a pretended and apparent, feeling of kindness toward all men. ^ AiroarvyovvTiQ, i. e. eirrc, which would make the Imper. ; and this the nature of the case evidently demands. So KoWwfxevoi, sc. iarre. In the connection in which to wovnpov and r(j> aya^i^ here stand, the meaning is limited to malice and kindness. So irovr^pog means, even in the classics, malicious, mischievous ; and aya^og is the converse of this, kind, benevolent. These two phrases, therefore, are merely an epexegesis of ayairr^ in the preceding clause. 508 ROMANS XII. 10, II. (10) Ty fj,tXa^t\oi rate OKoatCj Heb. v. 11; ayvoovfxtvog toj irpoaonTh), Gal. i. 22; so Matt, xi. 29. Heb. xii. 3. Eph. iv. 18, et ssepe alibi. <^ik6(nof>yoL means affectionate, in such a manner as one is toward his own near rela- tive ; (TTopyT/ means natural affection. Ty rtjuy, a\\<)\ovq Trporiyovfxevoi, in respect to honour, anticipa- ting each other ; i. e. let each one, in paying the proper tribute of respect to others, strive to anticipate his Christian brother. Ylpor]- -yioixai means to take the lead, to go before, to set the example. The meaning is, that so far from being averse to pay that respect which is due to others, each should strive to excel the other in the perform- ance of this duty. Christianity, therefore, is so far from banishing all civility and good manners from society, that it enjoins the great- est attention to this subject. (11) T?? (TTTouSy, JUJ7 oKvrjpot, as to diligence, not remiss. Tij (TTTov^y is evidently the same Dative of relation as before. 27roi»Sy here seems to be taken in the general sense ; and so the passage ac- cords with Ecc. ix. 10 : " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." So the next phrase explains the whole expression, by presenting the antithesis of it, viz. r<^ Trvtu^art Zyiovng, ferventes animo, warinly engaged (as we Sdcy) , fervid, active in serious earnest ; com. Acts xviii. 25, where the same expression is used to designate the fervid spirit of Apollos. — Some apply ti^ Trvevfiari here to the divine Spirit; but I think without any good reason. T(^ Kupftjj ^ovXevovTEQ (which Griesbach reads ti^) Kmpi^ ^ov- XevovTEg), is supported by the more important testimony of external witnesses. Griesbach has rejected it on the ground, that ' the less usual reading is to be preferred ;' a ground which, to say the least, has many slippery places. Knapp, Morus, Bengel, and Beza, pre- serve KvpiM, and I think with good reason. I take the whole ex- pression to mean, that all our diligence is to be consecrated to God, to be made subservient to the cause of Christ. That kvoIm heie means the Lord Christ, the usus loquendi of Paul leaves no good room to doubt. Inasmuch as SouXeuw governs the Dative, we need ROMANS XII. 12—14. 509 not insist here on the Dative of relation. But in fact, all of the Da- tives in this whole paragraph are of this nature ; so that exactly ren- dered it would be, as to the Lord, obedient or engaged in his service. (12) Ty IXwidi, xaipovreg, as to hope, Joyful ; i. e. rejoicing in tlie blessed hope of glory which the gospel inspires ; and this, amid all the troubles and sorrows of life. — Trj ^Xlxpai, vTrofxivovrtg, as to affliction, patiently enduring ; i. e. since you are animated with a joy- fulhope, you may well be called upon to endure the troubles and sorrows of life with patience. Bretschneider, not adverting to the fact that all the Datives here are those of relation, has noticed that vTTOfxtvo) here governs the Dative, " quod prorsus insolens est." Lex. sub viTOf.dv(i). It is indeed prorsus insolens ; or rather, it is not at all ; for ^\i\pH is not governed by virofxivovT^q, and should be sepa- rated from it by a comma, like the example above, ry i\a^{X^ia, . . . ^tXooTopyot. This example of thj ^\i\pei, virofiivovT^g, I may add, sufficiently confirms what is said above respecting the Dative of relation in this whole paragraph. T»j 7rpoo-£vxP TTpocTKapT^govvT^q, as to jirayer, he persevering ; i. e. the way to maintain a joyful hope, and to be patient under afflic- tions, is to cherish the spirit of prayer and to live near to God. (13) TaTc . . . KoiviovovvTzg, in respect to the wants of the saints, he sympathetic ; i. e. feel these wants as if they were your own ; che- rish that sympathy which will lead you to sympathize with the suffer- ings of others. With all these particles, tore is implied. While Christians were to be kind towards all others, they were to be spe- cially so towards their brethren of the church. Koivwvito in classic Greek has always an intransitive sense ; and the instances in Gal. vi. 6 and Phil. iv. 5 hardly prove that a transitive sense should be given to it in the N. Test., viz. communicate, distrihute. To be a parta- ker, to share in, is the genuine meaning of the word; and from that we need not here depart. — Triv (piXo^tviav ^iwKovTtg, readily prac- tising hospitality. Here the construction is changed, and the Accu- sative after Stwicovrfe is employed. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 10. Heb. xiii. 2, 1 Pet. iv. 9. 3 John vers. 5 — 8. In a particular manner was this virtue necessary in the primitive times, when Christian teachers had no regular support, and when the missionaries of the cross "were labouring to diffuse the knowledge of salvation. (14) EvXoYfTre .... Kara^aa^i, hless those ivho persecute you, bless and curse not ; comp. Matt. v. 44. Luke vi. 28. That is while your persecutors imprecate divine indignation upon you, do you pray that blessings may descend upon them. 510 ROMANS XII. 15, 16. (15) Xalotiv . . . KXaiovTMv, rejoice ivith those who rejoice^ and weep with those who weep; i. e. sympathize with your fellow Christians both in joy and grief; show that you enter with feeling into the con- sideration of their joys and sorrows, so as to be glad when they are glad, and sorrowful when they are in heaviness. The Infinitive \ui()uv-, KXakiv, stands (as frequently in the Greek classics) instead of the Imperative. Strictly speaking, Sa is understood in such cases, q. d. you must rejoice — weep, &c. (16) To avTo dg aWvXovg ^povovvreg, sc. k'trrf, mutually think the same thing, i. e. be agreed in your opinions and views. Whe- ther this relates to matters that concerned spiritual or temporal affairs, the words themselves do not show; but the nature of the case would seem to indicate, that the expression is designed to have a general bearing on all their concerns and articles of belief. Origen, Theodoret, Chrysostom, and Ambrose, have interpreted the passage as meaning: ' Enter into each other's circumstances, in order to see how you would yourself feel ;' and so it parallelizes with the preced- ing expression. But the usus loquendi of Paid does not seem to admit of this exposition; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2; comp. Rom. XV. 14. ^\g aWijXovg is not, indeed, the usual mode of expression in the New Testament, but Iv aXXijXoig ; comp. Mark ix. 50. John xiii. 35. Rom. XV. 5. But the exchange of elg with the Accusative for Iv with the Dative, in the New Testament (and indeed elsewhere), is very frequent. Ml) TO, ... . (TvvaTray6fj.£voi, mind not high things, hut he led away hy humble ones. Such is the literal translation of the words. The sentiment is : ' Shun pride, and cultivate humility.' That aXXa rote ra-rrdvoig, k. t. X, is the antithesis of ro v\pi]Xa, k. t. X, seems to me very obvious. Of course I must construe ra7rea;otc as being in the neuter gender ; for such is evidently the case in regard to viPrjXa. But Koppe, Schleusner, and Stolz, construe rairuvoig as being of the masculine gender, and represents the sentiment of the phrase to be: ' Suffer yourselves to be led away, viz. to the judgment-seat of magistrates, with the despised Christian.' Others, viz. Grotius, Limborch, C. Schmidt, &c., construe it thus : ' Suffer yourselves to be led away by the humble, i. e. conform to them.' This agrees in sentiment with the above exposition ; but it has the disadvantage of sacrificing the direct antithesis of the words vxpriXd and TaTreivoig. — '^vvaTTctyofxai is commonly used in a bad sense, viz. to suffer one's self to be led away by temptation, &c. ; see Gal. ii. 13. 2 Pet. iii. 17. ROMANS XII. 16—19. 511 If we translate and explain in conformity with tins, we must then render the phrase : ' Be ye led away by low things ; a meaning which the apostle surely did not intend to convey. We must then resolve (jvvaTray6fj.evoL into a f/eneric sense, and translate thus : ' Suf- fer yourselves to be influenced or led away by things that are des- pised,' viz. by the proud world ; in other words, ' Readily undertake offices or duties that are humble and mean, in the estimation of the proud. Passow assigns to the word the sense of mitfuhren, which agrees with the above exposition. Mi] .... eavToTi', be not wise in your own conceit; i. e. do not, trusting in your own superior skill and understanding, refuse to con- fer with others or to hearken to their suggestions ; a caution inti- mately connected with the preceding one. (17) MjjSevi .... aiTodiSovTSQ, not rendering evil for evil; comp. I Pet. iii. 9. Matt. v. 43 — 48. This is, no doubt, one of the most difficult of all the precepts which the gospel enjoins ; I mean, one which most thwarts our natural inclinations and desires. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit." — Il/oovoou^Evot .... av^pMTTov, seek after that which is good in the sight of all men ; i. e. be studiously attentive to those duties, which are com- mended by all, and which all therefore admit to be of the highest obligation. The expression seems to be taken, with some abridgement, from Prov. iii. 4, kux ttqovoov koKo. Ivwiriov Kvpiov koI av^pwTrojv. (18) Et dvvaTov .... ilpr]vevovTeg, if it be possible, so far as you are able, be at peace with all men. The limitations ti ^vvarov and TO 1% vfiiDv, show that the apostle did not deem this possible in all cases ; and beyond all question it is not. The world hate the truths of the gospel, and will be at enmity with those who boldly and faithfully urge them on their consciences. Apostles and martyrs did thus urge them ; and their sufferings prove the truth of what has now been alleged. — To t^ vimov, i. e. Kara to l^ vfxwv. 'E^ is used here in the sense of belonging to. The whole phrase means, ' in pro- portion to that which belongs to you,' i. e. according to your ability ; like the French voire possible. (19) M?) tavTovg . . . o/oyy, avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place to [divine] indignation. Such is one method of interpret- ing this clause. AtSovat tottov means to allow, to give place to (as we say in English). So Eph. iv. 22, fxi) SidoTe tottov ti^ StajSoXw, give no place to the devil ; and Luke xiv. 9, Aoc tovtuj tottov, resign your place to this person, or make room for him. Josephus (Antiq. 512 ROMANS XIT. 19, 20. xvi. li. ^ 6) says : no tvSota(r/i tottov Si^uvai, to giue place to doubt ; Plutarch says : ^et St juj/rc vaiKovTag avr^ [opy*?] ^idovat roTToi', we must, without jesting, give place to it [an<^er], De Ira cohi- benda, chap. 14 ; and Marcus Antoninus says ; x^pav ^i^ovai oSup- /uoTcj to give place to weeping, Lib. iii. 6. The meaning above given to Sort TOTTOV Ttj op-ytj, thus according with tlie frequent sense of the phrase Sovvai tottov, seems to be favoured by the quotation which immediately follows : 'Ejuoi k. r. X. This quotation would be wholly inapposite, if we suppose that opyy here means the wrath of our enemy, and Sore tottov to mean go out of the way of, get out of the way of, &c., as Pelagius, Ambrose, Basil, Schoettgen, Ammon, and others have done. In Rabbinic Hebrew, it is true indeed, that Dipo ]ro (give place) means to go out of the way of; but we need not resort to Hebrew idiom here. Another method of interpreting opy?} is, to assign to it the mean- ing of ones own indignation, and then to construe ^6tz tottov as meaning spatium date, i. e. put off, defer. The sense of this would be good; and Wisd. xii. 20 would help to justify the usus loquendi. So also Livy (viii. 32) says : Irae suae spatium .... daret. 8o Se- neca : Ira surda est et amens, dabimus illi spatium (de Ira, iii. 39) ; also Lactantius : Dedisset irse su£e spatium (de Ira, 18). Construed in this way the passage would mean : ' Put off the execution of that to which your indignation would prompt, or defer the execution of your anger ; for God will repay evil to your enemy in case he has done wrong. Retribution belongs rather to him than to you.' This sense, on the whole, seems to be better supported than the other above given. Nor is there any want of congruity with what follows, such as would be an objection against this exegesis here. 'E^iot . . . Kv^Loq, retribution is mine, I will make it, saith the Lord ; or vengeance is mine, I will render it, saith the Lord. The passage is taken from Deut. xxxii. 35, cVir« cirj^ \ Atyet Kvpiog arc the apostle's own words, for they are not in the Hebrew. The mean- ing is: 'God will render righteous judgment or retribution for acts of wickedness ; Christians are not to claim for themselves the doing of that which it is his sovereign prerogative to do.' (20) 'Eav ovv . . . avTov, ifthi7ie enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink. Food and drink here stand as a part for the whole, and signify our obligation to treat an enemy with beneficence or kindness. The meaning is : ' Do good to thine enemy, instead of evil ; show him kindness, instead of taking revenge.' ROMANS XII. -20, 21. 513 TovTo yap . . . avToVffor in SO doing, thou shall heap coeds of fire on his head. This is quoted from Prov. xxv. 21, 22. In Ps. xviii. 8, 12, 13, D'>n3, coals of fire are emblematical of consuming or de- struction. The Arabians say, he roasted my heart, or he kindled a fire in my heart, to designate the idea of giving or infiicting -pain. So in 4 Ezra xvi. 54, " Coals of fire shall burn on the head of him who denies that he has sinned against God." There can be no well- grounded doubt, then, that pain is meant to be designated by this expression. But is it the pain of shame or contrition for misconduct, or that oi punishment? More probably the former here ; for so ver. 21 would almost necessarily lead us to conclude. It is a noble senti- ment when thus understood. ' Take not revenge,' says the apostle : ' overcome your adversary with kindness and beneficence. These will bring him to shame and sorrow for his misconduct.' (21) Ml) vtKh) . . . TO KOKov, he not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good ; i. e. be not led to the indulgence of a spirit of re- venge on account of injuries; but subdue the evil temper which leads to the infliction of injury, by beneficence and kindness. CHAP. XIII. 1—14. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, the civil power was every where in the hands of heathen men, who were idolaters and polytheists. In Palestine there was, indeed, a partial commitment of power to the hands of Jews ; but this was principally of an ecclesi- astical nature, and the Romans uniformly reserved to themselves the right of confirming or reversing any sentence, which shouhJ affect the life or liberty of their subjects. In gene- ral the heal hen magistracy were hostile to Christianity ; although the Roman civil power, as such, had not begun to persecute Christians when the epistle to the Romans was written, or even to tolerate persecution in others. But the civil magistrates of the Romans, who were polytheists and idolaters, could not but look, with indignation or scorn on those who denied the religio licita of the empire, and who without hesitation condemned all reli- gion but their own as false and injurious. There were some superstitious men, moreover, among these magistrates ; and there were multitudes of superstitious priests, who were peculiarly hostile to Christianity, and who urged the common people, and magistrate^ also, to testify their displeasure against it. Gradually this feeling ripened towards deve- lopment ; until at last, under Nero, it burst forth like a volcano, and swept before its fiery streams all the disciples of Jesus who weie within its reach. On the other hand, the Jews, before they were converted to Christianity, looked on their masters, the Romans, with such feelings as a sense of oppression and injured dignity and rights trampled on always Inspire. As the chosen people of God, they considered themselves entitled to pre-eminence above the nations of the earth. They looked down with scorn and hatred upon the worshippers of stocks and stones, the D'^3 whom they had been uniformly instructed to abhor. The idea that the Romans claimed the right to dis- pose of their persons and property, was insufferable. They fortified themselves in this opinion, by an appeal to Deut. xvii. 15 : " Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee 2 K 514 ROMANS XIII. I— 14. whom the Lord thy God shall choose ; one from among tliy brethren shalt thou set king over thee ; thou majest 7Wt set a stranger over thee, who is not thy brother." Willing subjection fo the Romans, then, was in their view disobedience to this injunction of Moses. Hence nothing but the fear of immediate arid summary punishment restrained them, for many years, from rising up against the Roman power in Palestine ; and even in other countries, where they were numerous, they made no small tumult whenever occasion offered. When individuals passed over from the Jewish community to that of the Christians, they could not, or did not, divest themselves .at once of all these feelings and views. Christianity introduced them to a new citizenship, new rights, new privileges, new spiri- tual rulers, new fellow-citizens. Could they then have any regard for heathen citizenship'? It was natural to ask this question; and above all, it was easy to do so, since the heathen magistracy were well known to be hostile in their feelings toward Christians, and since Christians were required to yield up life rather than to obey the civil magistrate as to some things which God had forbidden. It is easy to see, that while matters stood thus, there was great danger that private Christians, instigated by their own particular views of healheii superstitions and by a sense of duty in some cases where they were called upon to renounce obedience to the magistrate, would be exposed to judge wrongly, and to go too far in justifying a principle of insubordination to the civil power. Paul felt a deep solicitude in regard to this sub- ject, which was evidently encompassed with many difficulties. For on the one hand, it was clear that in some cases life itself was to be sacrificed rather than to obey the civil power ; and the apostle himself was a most eminent pattern of high and holy indepen- dence, in cases of this uature. On the other, private individuals, with all their prejudices and scorn of heathenism, might greatly abuse the proper liberty of a Christian, and extend it to things to which Christianity did not allow them to extend it. That there was a disposition to do so among the Christians at Rome, seems evident from the tenor of chap. xiii. The cautions here are salutary for the church in all ages ; but they were peculiarly peeded in the age of the apostles. I would add only, that the extension of the principles enjoined by chap. xiii. so as to make them imply implicit subjection to the magistrates in cases of a moral nature, where he enjoins what God has plainly forbidden, would be a gross violation of the true princi- ples of Christianity, which demands of us in all such cases, " to obey God rather than man." The apostle himself was a most eminent example of exception to such a sweeping general principle of civil obedience. It is only when magistrates keep within the bounds of moral prescription, that obedience is a duty. So long as they do so, it is better for Christians, who live under despotic governments such as the Roman was, to submit even when they suffer oppression, than to revolt and be seditious. Under an elective govern- ment like our own, it is their duty to assist in displacing wicked rulers, and to do this quietly and orderly, in the way which the law has pointed out. But under such a govern- ment as t]>e Roman, where the citizen has no elective franchise, there is no remedy, (after appeal to the reason of the magistrate, such as Justin, Tertullian and others made), but to suffer, in case of oppression, committing our cause to God, and appealing to him to vindicate the oppressed. Nothing can be plainer, than that the subjection urged in chap. xiii. cannot be extended to cases where the commission of a moral evil is demanded. But with the exception of this, the principles here enjoined are altogether of such a nature as our holy religion demands. Certainly these do not demand, that we should neglect any remedy for evils of a civil nature, which is proper. By no means ; we are bound to make use of the proper remedy, if in our power, by a regard to the public good. But where the government is despotic and there is no remedy but rebellion, and this may be a hazardous and bloody measure, it is better to suffer than to excite tumult. So thought Paul, comp. Tit. iii. 1 ; and so ROMANS XIII. 1—14. 515 did Peter teach, 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17. But let not the advocates of despotic power urge subjection in cases where the gospel will not allow it, under cover of the general expres- sions here used. Every precept of this nature is to be interpreted, with a proper regard to the time and circumstances iu which it was uttered. What these were in the case before us, we have seen. What the example of the apostle and the Saviour himself was, we know. We know, too, that Christianity In its very nature is love to God and man ; that it makes all men a brotherhood; it places them on the same ground as to rights and privileges ; it pays real deference to moral worth, and to this only. It acknowledges no right in one to oppress another ; admits of no " Jew or Greek, Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free ;" for it teaches that " all are or.e in Christ Jesus." It teaches true equality of rights, true spiritual and civil freedom. It does not, indeed, abolish all distinctions among men ; nor does it abolish civil governments. Far from this ; but then it decides, in its very nature, that all governments, and all civil orders and distinctions, should be only for the public good. It admits no divine right of one man to be lord over another ; it is at open and eternal war with all the mere claims of birth, and pride, and oppression. The universal good, the equal rights, the peaceful state of man, is the object at which it aims ; and whatever is incompatible with these, is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the great " law of liberty and love." But all this may be allowed (and contradicted it cannot be with reason), and yet it may be true at the same time, that Christians, situated as the Romans were in Paul's time, are required to yield peaceful submission to magistrates, whether Christian or hea. then, in all things where the command of God does not directly forbid it. What the world ought to be, what it would be if all men were Christians indeed, is one thing ; what the world is, and what is the present duly of Christians in such circumstances, is another and different thing In a word, the spirit of the precepts in Rom. xiii. is to be regarded as a rule for all ages and nations, so long as circumstances shall be like those which then existed. And even when these circumstances alter, and magistrates become really Christian, it must then be true in a still more eminent degree, that quiet and peaceful obedience in all law- ful things will be a duty. (1) Ilao-a . . . vtroTaaaicr^oj, let every soul be subject to the supreme magistracies. Ilaaa ^ux'' ^^ Hebraism, like uJp:-73, every one, each one : — 'YirspexovaaiiQ means pre-eminent, supreme ; i. e. in this case, the civil magistracy or power of civil rulers. Ou 7ap . . . dalvi for there is no magistracy unless by divine per- mission ; and the existing [magistracies] are of God's appointment. . Tag stands before a reason why they should be subject to the civil magistracy. The apostle intends to reconcile Christians to the idea of civil obedience, on the ground that obeying the magistrate is in accordance with the command of God. All magistrates are by his permission ; and even when they are oppressive, the Christian is bound to regard them, (so he should regard other evils), as existing by divine permission, and to bow suJbmissive in all cases where direct disobedience to God is not demanded by them. Such a view of the subject is greatly adapted to satisfy the mind of a Christian, when he feels galled with the yoke of oppression. "^The^powers that be are 2 K 2 516 ROMANS XI 11. 2—4. ordained of God ;" and they should be submitted to, therefore, on the same ground that wc take, when we ur<^e acquiescence in other afflic- tive dispensations of an overruling Power. The only exception is that above-mentioned. (2) "QoT£ . . . afS'torrjicEv, SO that he who resists the magistracy, resists the commandment of God. The reason of this is, that as God has required obedience to the magistrate (in the sense before stated), so he who refuses to yield this, is disobedient to the divine com- mand. 0< Se . . . Xnxpovrai, and they who resist, shall receive punishment for themselves. Kpifia is often used in the sense of punishment ; e. g. Rom. iii. 8. 1 Cor. xi. 29. Gal. v. 10. 1 Tim. v. 12, et alibi.— 'EavToiQ is here the Dativus incommodi, as the grammarians say: see N. Test. Grammar, § 104. 2. Note 1. The meaning is, that those who are seditious, i. e. make resistance against the civil government, will be brought to punishment, and that deservedly. (3) 01 yap . . . KUKiov, for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. This clause shows what sort of rulers Paul expected Christians to obey, and how far obedience was a duty, viz. such rulers as protect the good, and repress the evil ; and while they do this, there can be no question as to the duty of obeying them. But suppose the reverse, i. e. suppose that they protect evil-doing and forbid good works, then Paul's own conduct shews what other Chris- tians ought to do. — ^6[iog here is abstract for concrete, i. e. 0o/3oc for ^o(5epoi. QaXeig Si. . . . i^ovaiav ; and wilt thou not fear the magistracy ? That is, since the ruler is terrible to evil doers, wilt thou not be afraid to do evil ? — To aya^ov . . . avrrjg, do good, and thou shalt have praise for it ; i. e. yield obedience to the civil power, and you shall obtain from it the commendation of being a peaceful and obe- dient citizen. (4) Qtov yap . . . ayoS-ov, for it is an instrument in the hands of God, to promote thy good. That is, civil government is of divine ap- pointment, and it is designed to be an instrument of good to those who do well. Soi etc to aya^ov, for thy good, where aoi is the Dativus commodi. The yap stands before a reason or ground why they might expect 'iiTaivoq for doing W'ell. 'Eav Si . . . 0o/3oi), but if thou doest evil, fear ; i. e. if thou art refractory and disobedient to the civil magistracy, thou hast reason to fear the consequences. — Ov yap . . . irpiKxaovri, for he beareth the ROMANS XIII. 4—7. 517 sword not in vain ; but he is God's minister, punishing the evil-doer. The sword is here tlie emblem of punishment. Geou ^mkovoq, a minister or instrument of God's appointment, or one whom his provi- dence has raised up or permitted to exist. "EK^tKoc fic opy{]v, exer- cens judicium ad poenam, judging, condemning to punishment. — lut TTpao-orovrt, the Dative of " the person to or for whom any tiling is, or is done." (5) Am .... (Tuv£i8r)(nv, therefore we ought to yield subjection., not because of indignation only, but also for conscience' sake ; i. e. we should do our duty not merely in order to shun the evils of a different course, but we ought to do it from a conscientious regard to the obligation imder which we are. (6) Am TovTo .... TEXart, on this very account also pay tribute. Am TOVTO, i. e. for the sake of conscience, as well as to avoid civil penalties. Pap illust7'antis, standing in a clause added for the sake of further illustrating and confirming the subject under consideration. It is difficult to make out a proper causal meaning for yap in this case ; because Sm tovto itself designates such a meaning. Why may we not consider Sm tovto yap as an intensive causal formula, not unlike lTru^i]irip &c. ? I have so rendered it, viz., on this very account. Kai, cdso, denoting not only an additional circumstance, but also being aginative, kuX (popovg TeXdrs, ye shoidd also pay tribute, or ye should pay tribute as well as yield obedience in other things. TeXeiTe I take as in the Imperative. AeiTovpyol . . . 7rpoaKapT£povvTeg,for they are ministers of God, who attend to this matter ; i. e. they are God's ministers or instru- ments, in the same sense as the magistracy above mentioned. God who has ordained that there should be a civil magistracy, has also ordained, as a means of supporting it, that there should be tribute, custom, taxes. Let the Christian pay these cheerfully; and even when they are oppressive, let him submit on the same ground as he does to other evils, i. e. until a proper and lawful remedy for the oppression can be found. YlpoGKapT^povvT^Q indicates habitual and persevering attention to any thing ; as much as to say. Whose pro- per official business it is to attend to this matter. (7) 'AttoSote k. t. X, render to all men what is due, on the ground and spirit of such precepts. — <^dpov means properly a tax, either on persons or on land ; or rather, in the present case, both of these together. TiXog answers to our present term custom, i. e. a tax on goods, wares, merchandize, &c. In respect to (j)6(dov, comp. ver. 4< 518 ROMANS XIII. 8, 9. above. The meaning of the apostle is, that we should stand in awe of those who wear the sword of civil justice, viz. that we should fear them in such a sense as to deter us from sedition and civil disobe- dience. TifXT) commonly means the respect which one pays to his equals in rank. But here it means the respect to be paid to the magistracy ; compare 1 Pet. ii. 17. rbv (iaaiXta tihute. The construc- tion T(jf) Tov (j)6pov is elliptical. If we may su])piy it from the sense of the context it would seem to be : rtjj tov (jxjpov [StT aTratrttv], or some equivalent expression ; and so of n^ to tbXoc. (8) From these precepts with respect to magistrates, and the ren- dering to them of what is due on the ground of our civil obligations, the apostle makes an easy transition to our duty in general with res- pect to the subjects of debts. Mf Sfvi . . ayairovi owe no man any thing, except to love one another ; i. e. scrupulously pay oflF all debts of whatever nature, and to whomsoever they may be due ; except, as I may say, the debt of love, which is such that it can never be paid in the discharge of it. An animated and very expressive description of the extent to which the obligation of benevolence reaches ! A debt of this nature is not like a pecuniary one, which, by the payment of a certain sum, is fully and finally extinguished. The debt of love is only renewed by payments ever so ample. In its own nature it is in- extinguishable ; for, as Augustine says : Nee cum redditur amittitur sed potius reddendo multiplicatur ; Ep. 62, ad Coelest. But some commentators take otpdXtTs in the Indie, and construe the phrase, thus : ' Ye have no debt but that of love, etc. ;' i. e. true benevolence will lead you to a proper discharge of all your relative duties. I do not think this sense to be so striking as the other. 'O yap ayairCiv . . . 7mr\fipu)KS,for he ivho loves another, fulfils the laiv. Tap illustrantis, i. e. it stands here in a clause designed to show that the debt of love is one which is always due. But how does the apostle intend to illustrate this ? The answer is, by showing that the law of God demands love to our neighbour, and this is admitted to be of perpetual obligation ; consequently the duty which it de- mands, must also be perpetual. (9) He proceeds to show, that the sum of the moral law is con- tained in the precept to love our neighbour. To yap introduces the proof, from the law, of the position which he had just laid down. Tap therefore is prefixed here to a clause illustrative of the one which immediately precedes; as it stands in the preceding clause, because it is illustrative of another which goes ROMANS XIII. 9, 10. 519 before it. The to here is the article prefixed before a quotation or citation, introduced as such ; comp. Luke ix. 46, to, T(g av tt jj iu.dZ(ov avTwv ; Luke xxii. 2, rb, irwg av eXiocnv avTov. See also Acts iv. 2L xxii. 30. xxvii. 4, 9, Luke i. 62. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Thess. iv. L Mark ix. 23. Gal. iv. 25, to yap "Ayap Stva opog t(TTi,for the or this Hagar means mount Sinai. See N. Test. Gramm. § 93. 9. Oh fxoi\ev(T£Lg k. r. A. All these commands proceed from the law of love. By committing any one of the crimes here named, a man sins against the good of his neighbour, and therefore against the precept which requires him to love his neigljjbour as himself. — Ov xpEv^o/xupTvpi)(T6tg, in thc common text, is of doubtful authority, or rather it is probably adjectitious. It is not important to the general meaning of the passage, whether it be inserted or omitted. — Kai tt Tig is not meant to express a doubt whether there be any other com- mandment, but only to say : ' Whatever other commandment there may be,' viz. whatever command respecting our relative duties. 'Ev rowrfjj rw Xoytj), in this saying or declaration. — 'Ev t(^, viz. iv T(i) Xoyoj, i. e. in the declaration which follows. — ' Ayairritrug K. T. X, seems to be quoted from Lev. xix. 18, tjios ?jin^^nnn!j>, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In this one sentence the apostle affirms the whole essence of the relative moral law to be con- tained ; and it is indeed so. Suppose now that every man on earth should really and truly and as highly regard his neighbour's happiness as his own; then all injustice, fraud, oppression, and injury of every kind, would at once cease, and a universal fulfilment of our obliga- tion to others would be the consequence. — nX/jo-tov is itself an adverb ; but it is here employed as an indeclinable noun in the Acc.i* case, and having the masc. article before it. So the Greeks frequently employ adverbs. The pronoun eavTov is here referred to the second person singular. It may designate either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd per- son, by the usage of both classic and N. Test, writers. See Lex. on eavTov. (10) 'H ay air r} . . . i) ay air % love worketh no ill to its neighbour ; love then is the fulfilling of the law. That is, he who loves his neigh- bour as himself, will designedly do him no harm or injury. DXtj- pwfxa seems here to be of the same meaning as TrXr^pcocrig ; and so in Gal. iv. 4. P2ph. i. 10. So Philo de Abr. p. 387, TrXripojfxa tov ■)(^p6vov; so ir\{]pit)aig tCov i]iJ.iptov, Ezek. v. 2. Dan. x. 3. The fulfiling of the law is the completing what the law demands, the fill- ing up the measure of its requisitions. The meaning plainly is, the 520 ROMANS XIII. 11. fulfilling of the law which has respect to our relative duties ; comp. Gal. v. 14. James ii. 8. Matt. xxii. 39, 40. 1 Tim. i. 5. What the aj)ostIe designs to teach is : ' Love, such as the law demands, will lead us always to seek our neighbour's good, and so to be always paying the debt of benevolence, yet never paying it oft? (11) Kcu TovTo, i. e. Koi tovto Trotttre, do this, viz. all of which he had been exhorting them to do. Kat tovto is explained byTheodoret as meaning, Koi ^oAiara ; which gives the sense very well. EtSortc Tov Kaif)6v, considering the time, or taking cognizance of the time, or (taking the participles as causal, which is often the case, New Test. Gramm. § 140. 7) since, or because ye know, &c. comp. j/Sejv in Acts xxiii. 5. Katpov I understand to mean the gospel-tune which had already come. The apostle considers the commencement of this, which had already taken place, as the begiiming of a glorious day, the dawning of the Sun of righteousness with healing in his beams. A state of sin and ignorance is a state of darkness ; and out of such a state Christians are brought, that they may see the light ; comp. Eph. V. 8, 11. John iii. 19—21. 1 Pet. ii. 9. Ort u)ga . . . iTTKTTtvaajiuv, that it is now time to awake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. That is, the commencement of the Christian dispensation, and the begin- nmg of light in your own souls, call for corresponding eiforts and activity. The image of awaking out of sleep is often used, in order to designate the rousing up from a state of comparative inaction, to one of strenuous effort; comp. Eph. v. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 34. 1 Thess. v. G. » But what is the crwr^jprn, which is nearer than when Christians at Rome first believed? Tholuck, and most of the late commenta- tors in Germany, suppose that the apostle expected the speedy advent of Christ upon earth a second time, when the day of glory to the church would commence. Accordingly, they represent him as here and elsewhere exhorting Christians to be on the alert, constantly ex- pecting the approach of such a day. In support of this view, Tho- luck appeals to Phil. iv. 5. 1 Thess. v. 2, 6. Rev. xxii. 12. Such views and such a mode of representation seem at present to be widely dif- fused in Germany, and to be held even by those who are for the most part strenuous defenders of the inspiration of the apostles. But how the words of the apostles, when thus coiistrued, can be made consis- tent with themselves (not to speak of other diflSculties arising from the consideration that they were inspired), is more than I am able to ROMANS XITI. 11, 12. 521 see. The very passage referred to, in the first epistle to the church at Thessalonica, was understood by the Thessalonians in the same manner as Tholuck and others understand it ; but this interpretation was formally and strenuously corrected in 2 Thess. ii. Is it not enough that Paid has explained his own words ? Who can safely venture to give them a meaning different from what he gives ? — Then as to Rev. xxii. 12, how is it possible that the writer who had just made an end of predicting a long series of events that should happen before the day of glory, one of which is to occupy a thousand years, can be supposed to have believed that all this was to take place dur- ing that very generation in which he lived ? I only add here, (for this is not the place to enter into a long dis- cussion), that it is incredible that the apostles, if eidightened by supernatural influence, should not have been taught better than to lead the whole Christian church to a vain and false hope about the ap- pearance of Christ ; which, when frustrated by time and experience, would lead of course to general distrust in all their declarations and hopes. As the usus loquendi does not demand such an exegesis, (see in Flattii Opuscula, Diss, de irapovau}. Kvpiov); as the nature of the apostle's knowledge and mission does not allow it; and as Paul has expressly contradicted it in 2 Thess. ii. ; so I cannot admit it here, without obtaining different views from those which I am now constrained to entertain. I must, therefore, refer crwrrjpt'a to the spiritual salvation which believers were to experience, when transferred to the world of ever- lasting light and glory. And so construed, the exhortation of Paul amounts to this : ' Christian Brethren, we have been brought out of darkness into marvellous light ; let us act in a manner that corres- ponds with our condition. We are hastening to our retribution; every day brings us nearer to it ; and in prospect of the reward which now almost appears in sight, as we approach the goal of human life, let us act with renewed effort as duty requires.' So Chrysostom. (12) 'H vv^ . . . Tj77tK£, the night is advanced, the day is at hand ; a repetition of a part of the idea contained in the preceding verse. Nus is the time of ignorance and darkness in which they had once been. The apostle says : ' This is nearly gone,' i. e. they had now come as it were to the confines of eternal day, or of a more perfect knowledge of divine things. It behoved them, therefore, to rouse up all their energies, and to act in a manner congruous with their condition and oblisfations. 522 ROMANS XIII. 12—14. ' Awo^djfie^a . . . (jxotoc, let w* put away then the works of dark- ness, and put on the armour of light ; i. e. let us reject such things as we were accustomed to do while in a state of darkness ; and let us arise to combat all our spiritual foes, by girding on the armour of light, that is, by living and acting in such a manner as becomes those who are the sons of light. (13) 'Qig . . . TnpLTTaTi](TO)ixi:v, let us walk in a becoming manner, as by day ; i. e. let us live as it becomes those who enjoy the light, to whom the path of duty is made plain, and on whom the eyes of men are fixed in order to watch their demeanor. Let us carefully guard against their being able to discern in us any matter of re- proach. 'Ev vnipq, I take here to be the Dat.conditionis, i. e. to designate the circumstance that they have now to act as those who have day" light to guide their actions. Mj) KwfioiQ .... Z,i]\i)j, not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chambering and wanton7iess, not in strife and bitter envy. The apos- tle here mentions some of those sins which were most usually com- mitted during the night season. (14) 'AXX' . . . XpiGTov, but jmt ye on the Lord Jesus Christ ; i. e. imitate him, which is the usual sense of the Greek iv^vaaa^ai Tiva ; or perhaps it here means, like the Hebrew ©i^, to be filled with, and so the idea is : Be filled with a Christian spirit, abound in it; "let Christ dwell in you richly." — Kai rjjc (rapKog . . . tiri^v- juLiag, and make no provision for the flesh, in respect to its lusts. Trig aciQKog TTQovoiav medin^ provision for the sake of the flesh, i. e. in or- der to gratify its lusts, as ng iTrt^vjiiag explains it. Such a latitude in regard to the use of the Genitive is common ; see N. Test. Gram. § 99. So Rom. viii. 32, TrjoojSara 3iib '3, Sept. kut' Ifxavrov ojuvvb), by myself do I swear. The Z,Co eyu) of the apostle is equivalent to the '?« ^n of the Hebrew, which is altogether equivalent to wi^tSj 'a. So the apostle has translated ad sensum, not ad verbum. The ort which follows, stands in the Septuagint after kut' IfxavTov ofxviio) naturally ; in the text of Paul, Zoj eyio . . . oTi, is a constructio ad sensum. (12) That the doctrine of accountability to God is contained or implied in this passage from the Old Testament, Paul now proceeds to assert. "Apa ovv . . . 3"£(^, every one of us, therefore, must give an account respecting himself to God. For \6yoQ, in the sense here given, comp. Matt. xii. 36. Actsxix. 40, 1 Pet. iv. 5. Heb. xiii. 17. iv. 13. The apostle here reckons the appearing before the judgment-seat of Christ, as giving an account to God. So God is represented as judging the world by Christ, Acts xvii. 31. Rom. ii. 16. " Deus et Christus arctissime conjuncti sunt, ita ut quod de hoc dicitur, dicitur etiam de illo." (13) MrjKETt . . . Kpiv'jjuev, let us then no longer Judge one another; i. e. let us no longer do as we have done, in judging and con- demning those who make a distinction of meats, days, &c. Since we are all accountable to God for every thing that we do, let us no more expose ourselves to his displeasure by thus wronging a Chris- tian brother. 'AXXa TovTo . . . (TKavdaXov, but rather come to this determina- tion, not to put a stumbling-block, or an occasion of falling in the way of a brother. Kptvarf is here taken in a sense quite different 2 L 2 532 ROMANS XIV. 13—15. from that which KQiviafitv conveys in the preceding clause. Kptvare here means determine^ decide ; Kpivare tovto means, inake or come to this determination ; comp. Acts xvi. 15. xx. 16. 1 Cor.vii. 37, et alibi. The employment of the word again in this case, is occasioned by a kind of irapovofxacria which is so frequent in the writings of Paul. It is appropriately what the rhetoricians call antanaclasis {avrava- KXaaig), which means the repetition of the same word in the same sentence, or in one closely connected, in a sense different from that which the word when first mentioned conveyed. T(j> aScA^fj) is Dativns incoinmodi, as the grammarians say : TrpoaKOfifxa and (tkuv^oXov are not materially different ; both mean an occasion or cause of stumbling. Here they are to be understood, of course, in a moral sense; and the use of both words seems designed merely to indicate every kind of occasion for stumbling. (14) OTSa . . . '\r\(jov, I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus ; i. e. I know, and know for certainty because the Lord Jesus himself has taught me. 'Ev Kvpitf), by the Lord, for so ev may be construed before the Dative of cause or agent. Or it may be con- strued as designating Paul's relation to the Lord, i. e. I, being in the Lord, am persuaded, &c. The last is the more analogical meaning. "Ort . . . avTov, that nothing is unclean of itself; i. e. no food or drink in its own nature, or as it is in itself, is unclean to the Chris- tian. At' avTov, by itself, through itself, on its own account. For avTov, Lachmarm reads avrov. The exchange of these words for each other in the N. Test , is very frequent; and the confusion is in- creased much by the negligence of collators as to making the requi- site distinction. — Ei firi . . . koivov, but to him who deemeth any thing to be unclean, it is unclean ; i. e. if a man believes any species of food or drink to be unlawful, and then partakes of it, he defiles him- self, because he does that which he believes to be sinful. (15) El §£ ... \vjrHTai, now if thy brother is grieved because of meat. Ai continuative, now ; but the sense seems to require yap, and there is no doubt that Se in some cases is employed so that it is equivalent to yap ; see Passow's Lex. Si. — Ato [5pCofxa, because thou eatest meat which he regards as unclean. — OvKiri . . . irtpiiraTiig, thou walkest no longer according to what benevolence requires ; i.e. thou dost violate the law of love, which would require thee to do unto others that which thou wouldest that others should do unto thee. But this thou dost not, when thou demeanest thyself in this manner. JVI?) . . . uiri^avi, destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ ROMANS XIV. 16—18. 533 died. That ctTroAXue means destroy, seems plain from comparing 1 Cor. viii. 1 1 and ver. 20 below. The word a-rroXXv/xi was sometimes employed by the Greeks in the sense of cruciari, to torment, vex ; a sense which is possible here, but not probable. The meaning seems to be : ' Do not furnish an occasion of stumbling to thy brother, lest he fall and come into condemnation.' — "Xirlg ov Xpiarbg arri^ave seems to be added in order to show how very differently Christ him- self acted and felt, with respect to Christians who are weak in faith; and thus to paint, in glowing colours, the criminality of those who refused to imitate his spirit. (16) Mr) . . . aya^ov, let not pour good then be evil spoken of. OvVi therefore, then, i, e. since such is the case, viz. that Christ died for sinners, and that you are under obligation to show the spirit of similar benevolence toward your fellow Christians, you ought to de- mean yourselves in such a way, as that you will give no occasion for the religious liberty which you enjoy to be evil spoken of. That aya- ^6v here means freedom from the yoke of bondage which the cere- monial law imposed, I cannot well doubt ; and so Origen, Theodoret, Bengel, Clarius, and others understood it. But Chrysostom, Theo- phylact, Erasmus, and others, understand by aya^ov the Christian religion in general. The sense would be good, if construed in this way ; but less appropriate, however, than the meaning above given. (17) Ov yap . . . ayi(^, for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, hut righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The ■yap here introduces a reason why Christians should not suffer their good to be evil spoken of. 'H (iacriXda tov ^eov here means, the spiritual kingdom of God or Christ ; his reign within ; his moral dominion over the hearts of men : in a word, true Christianity. This does not consist in refraining or not refraining from this or that food or drink; but spiritual life consists in holy conformity to God, peace- ful and gentle demeanor, and joy such as is imparted by the influences of the Holy Spirit. A truly admirable description of the nature of real Christianity .' Eipr'/vrj here means peace, in opposition to discord and contention among brethren. — 'Ev TrvevjjLaTi ayio) may be applied, as a qualification, to BiKaioavvr] and elpijvrj as well as to x^P^ i but I prefer the construction which I have given. (18) 'O yap . . . av^pMTToig, for he who serveth Christ in respect to these things, is acceptable to God, and approved by men. The yap here introduces a reason why peace and joy follow the practice of pure Christian principles. 'Ep rovroig means the things before 534 ROMANS XIV. 19, 20. mentioned, in regard to meats and drinks and feast days, &c. Aoki- fiOQi accepttcs, gratus ; the apostle means, that men will speak well of such a demeanor as he had commended. (19) "Apa ovv . , . aXXriXovg, therefore let ns strive after peace and mutual eclijication. Ta r^c ftpZ/vrjc . . . to. ti\i; okoSo/xfjc, are, according to a A-^ery common usage of the Greek, a periphrasis for ra dpr\viKa, &c., or for the simple i\pr]vr\i otKoSofi//. — Tijc ug aXX/j- Xoucj i. e. rjjc olKoSo|Uf/c etc u\\i{kovg. — The article is commonly supplied in this way, before adjectives i\\dit follow a noun in order to qualify it, or (which is the same thing) before nouns with preposi- tions, added merely to qualify the preceding and principal noun ; N. Test. Gramm. § 92. 1. The object of this verse is, to charge the church at Rome to de- mean themselves in such a way, with regard to the matters in dis- pute which he had touched upon, as would promote the peace of the church and the edification of both parties. (20) M17 . . . 3-£ou, destroy not the work of God on account of food. To fp-yov Tov v£ou may be construed as being in substance the same as oiKo^ofxi) ^iov in 1 Cor. iii. 9, and oiKodofxri . . . Iv Kvpii^ in Eph. ii. 21, and oIkoSojutjv lavrov in Eph. iv. 16; i. e. as meaning Christians, or a Christian. But possibly the writer may refer here to the internal work of faith, which is called tpyov ^eov in John vi. 29. So Reiche, who, after Theodoret and others, construes it of faith and its consequences in renewing and sanctifying the soul ; and appeals to 1 Cor. iii. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 5. John vi. 29. That the renewal and sanctification of the heart is the special reason why Christians are called God's building, &c., is plain ; but I see no reason why the sense here of epyov ^eov may not be concrete, i. e. no reason why it may not be taken as including the persons in whom such a work is carried on. — KaraXut is a verb accommodated to the figurative ex- pression jp-yov ^tov, and means to pidl down, to destroy. The mean- ing is : ' Do not so demean thyself, in respect to this dispute about meats clean and unclean, as to cause thy weak brother to sin and to fall into condemnation.' IlavTa fxtv Ka^apa, all [meats] are clean ; i. e. no distinction of food is to be made under the Christian dispensation. All distinctions of this nature made by the Levitical law are abolished. ThatTravra agrees with (ipwpaTci implied, is clear from 'iveKev /Spwjuaroc of the preceding verse. Mlv in the protasis here has iiXXa in the apodosis for its corresponding particle, which is often the case; see Passow's ROMANS XIV. 20—22. 535 Lex. juiv, 2. f. — 'AXXa . . . l(T^iovTi, they are hurtful to the man who eats so as to occasion stumbling thereby. 'AXXa here concedes what is said in the preceding clause, but stands (as it often does) before a clause which limits or makes exception to this general principle. — Am, before a noun in the Genitive, often designates the manner in which a thing happens or is done ; so (for example) in Luke viii. 4, Sm 7rapa^oXf;c, i. q. rrapafdoXiKwg ; Acts xv. 27, ^la Xoyov, orally; 2 Cor. X. 11, Si' fTTtoToXwv, m the tuay of writing ; Heb. xiii. 22, Sia ^pa)(i(Dv, briefly, he. ; see Bretschn. in Sta, c. a. But here it may seem uncertain at first view, whether Sm irgoaKOfxiiaTOQ designates the giving of offence, or the tahing of offence. The context shows, however, that the former is the more probable ; inasmuch as the apostle is here plainly addressing those who were not weak in the faith, but believed that all meats were clean. What he says, then, may well be supposed to have reference to their actions and the effects of them. KttKov here makes some difficulty. Is it subject or predicate ? The most facile construction seems to be, to repeat jSpw^a mentally from the preceding part of the verse, and to arrange the sentence thus : aXKa kqkov 'ieari j3piofj.a] r{o av^pcvirio k. t. X. Or irav may be understood as the subject of the sentence ; or kukov may be ren- dered as a no\in=bad or evil thing, for so kuXov appears to be con- structed in the next verse. The meaning of kukov in this case is spiritual, not physical. The apostle means to say, that it is a sin when any one eats so as to give offence in such cases. The participle TM la^iovTi seems to be equivalent to the Inf. mode kcr^ieiv ; and it maybe rendered here as expressing conditionality, i. e. if or provided that he eat, &c. See N. Test. Gram. § 140. 8. (21) KaXov .... acrS'Eva, it is good not to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor [to do any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or has ground of offence, or is made weak. MjjSt tv (^ is elliptical ; the full expression would be, jurjSt ^ajuv rj ttlhv ti Iv ^ k. t. X. The words ri (TKavBaXiZ,£Tai rj aa^evt^, are omitted in Codd. A. C. 67, and in Syr. Arab. Copt, versions ; also in Grig., Ruf., and Augustine. Mill and Koppe hold them to be a gloss or repetition of TrpoaKoirrei ; but Reiche contends against this. The sense of aa^svu is to render in- competent, viz. incompetent to walk safely or securely. (22) Si) ... . S-fou, hast thou faith ? keep it to thyself before God ; i. e. hast thou a belief that there is no difference in meats, (which is truly the case), yet deem it sufficient, in respect to this o36 ROMANS XV 1—33. point, to regulate by it thy conduct in private as seen only by the eye of God. Do not act this out in public, when you may give needless and injurious offence, nianv has a limited sense here, as in ver. 1 of the present chapter. MoKapiog .... ^oicri, for whatsoever things were ivritten in ancient times, were written for our instruction. The connection of this verse with the preceding is somewhat difficult. The yap here seems to follow something implied, viz., ' This Scripture is appro- priate, for &c.' I\poty^aj is a later form of Opt. 2 A or. for Sotij; which the older grammarians do not ac- knowledge. ROMANS XV. 5—7. 539 Kara Xpiarhv 'Irjffowv means, in accordance With the Spirit of Christ, or agreeably to what Christ or the Christian religion requires. The earnest supplication of the apostle, that the Romans may be led TO avTo (ppovsiv Iv aXXr)\oig, shows how mistaken those are who think that practical unity of sentiment among Christians is not desi- rable, even as to matters not essential to salvation ; for surely the sentiment about distinction of meats was not essential in this sense. If now such unity in smaller matters was urged by the apostle, then of course he would urge it far more in things essential to salvation. The precepts of the apostle show, also, that Christians may differ about externals, and things of minor importance, without hazarding their salvation ; although not without endangering in some degree the peace and welfare of the Church. Such is the imperfection of human nature, that difference of opinion is apt to produce dispute ; and dispute of course is apt to lead, more or less, to alienation of feeling. (6) "Iva . . . XpKTTov, that with one accord and with one voice you may glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. — 'OjjLo^vixa^ov comes from bpog conjunctus, and ^v/iog animus. This characterizes the union of mind or sentiment, which the apostle de- sires should pervade the Christian church. 'Ev kv\ aTouan charac- terizes the harmony of the voices, in the song of praise which was to be sung by the church ; i. e. they should not sing discordant notes, but harmonious ones. The meaning is not literal here, but figurative, viz., that with union in their praise to God they might offer him thanksgiving, that they might all accord in the same feeling and same worship. In Koi Traripa, Kai is explicative, i. e. "et copulat et explicat;" see Bretschn. Lex. Kai, 2. b. Such is a very common idiom in the New Testament with respect to Kai as explicative ; comp. 1 Pet, i. 3. 2 Pet. i. 11. ii. 20. Phil. iv. 20. Ephes. i. 3. Col. iii. 17. In these eases, viz. such as have Kai explicative followed by a noun in apposi- tion with the preceding noun and limiting or defining it, the article is usually omitted before the second noun, as here before Traripa; compare also, in this respect, the examples cited above. (7) Ato . . • S-eov, therefore show kindness to each other, as Christ also hath showed kindness to you, unto the glory of God ; i, e. in view of all that has been said, I beseech you to treat each other with bro- therly kindness and affection ; yea, with kindness like to that which Christ has shown to you, in order that God may be glorified. 540 ROMANS XV. 7—9. Ato refers to all which had been before said of Christian kindness and forbearance. As to TrpoaXajujSovfcrS'f, comp. xiv. 3. 'Yjuoc in the textus receptus is r]fiaq. This latter is removed, because the MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G., many Codd. mi n use, and several versions and fathers, read vfxuQ. — Etc ^o^av ^tov Tholuck interprets of eternal happiness^ i. e. the glory which God bestows. The phrase is capa- ble of this meaning, comp. Heb. ii. 10. Rom. v. 2. 1 Pet. v. 4 ; but vers. 8, 9, require a different sense here, viz. since Christ hath kindly received you, in order that God may be glorified. (8) Aiyto Se k. r. A. At " accuratius definit," i. e. it is added to a phrase or sentence, inserted for the sake of more full and entire explanation. The design, however, is not directly indicated by St, but by the nature of the case. The writer having asserted that Christ has kindly received us in order that God may be glorified, goes on now to add some things which serve to show, that Christ entered upon the duties of his mediatorial office in order to propagate the truth, and to bring Jew and Gentile nations to glorify God. 'Ii}(Touv ^QiGTov . . . S'Eou, Jcsus ChHst wtts « miiiister of the cir- cumcision^ on account of the truth of God ; i. e. that Jesus Christ was a minister of the Jews, that he served the cause of divine truth among the Jews, in order to promote its true interests. 'YTrIp, on account of for the sake of. Etc TO . . . Traripiov, in order to confirm the promises made to the fathers; i. e. in order to carry into execution the promises made to the ancient fathers, viz. of spiritual blessings to be bestowed on their children. (9) Ta Se . . . S-Eou, [I say] also^ that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy [in Christ] : i. e. the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, are to be brought into the church, that God may be all and in all, and thus be glorified by all men. At, i. e. Xe-yw St as obove, I add fur- ther.— Ao^ctcrat is constructed with \iyii) implied, as the version shows. The present phrase discloses the meaning of uq ^o^av ^eov in ver. 7. Am TovTo .... xpaXiv, OH this account will I praise thee among the Gentiles, yea, to thy name will I sing praise. The quota- tion is from Ps. xviii. 49. The design of it is to show, that the Gen- tiles, as well as the people of Israel, would have the blessings of the gpspel proffered to them, and be brought to glorify God. — 'E^o/xoX- oy {/(TOfiai, I will praise thee, like the Hebrew rjiSa. — T({) ovofiart aov, to thy name, i. e. to thee, like the Hebrew ^v). ROMANS XV. 10—14. 541 (10) Kai iraXiv \iyei, viz. in Deut. xxxii. 43. — Ev^pavS-jjre . . . avTov, rejoice ye Gentiles with his people ; Hebrew fey n^ij ^y: -irr. The design of the quotation is, to show that the Gentiles are spoken of in the Old Testament Scriptures, as destined to be brought into the church of God, or as being made to praise him. (11) KaliraXiv, viz. in Ps. cxvii. 1 (Sept. 116. 1). The sentiment is the same as before. The object in accumulating quotations, is additional confirmation of what the writer had advanced. (12) Kai \iyei, viz. in Is. xi. 10. In the quotation, the apostle omits «irrt uS% in that day. Also instead of the Hebrew niiJM rms D,?b -iQ^, who shall stand as a banner of the nations or Gentiles the apostle has (with the Septuagint) Kai 6 aviaTajxBvog apxeiv e^- vojv, one shall arise to be a leader of the Gentiles ; adsensiim, but not ad literam, as the Heb. vowels now are. But probably the apostle read ipy, and then his version is literal. For tATrtoCat, the Hebrew has i«nT. The whole quotation, therefore, is ad sensum only ; and it is truly so much. It is added to the others for the same purpose as before, viz. with the design of showing that the Gentiles should be- long to the Christian church, so that God might be glorified by them. Thus far in confirmation of the latter clause of ver. 7. The apos' tie now quits this subject, and resumes his supplications in behalf of the church at Rome, which were interrupted by ver. 7, seq. (13) 'O St 3-Eoc • . • TTiaTivuv, now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing ; i. e. may that God who is the author of all Christian hope (comp. l\TrLov(nv in ver. 12), make your joy and peace, which result from faith in Christ, greatly to abound. Etc TO . . . ayiov, so that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Spirit; i. e. so that, having much joy and peace in believing, you may also have a lively Christian hope of future glory, through the influence of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you, and who gives the earnest of future glory; comp. Eph.i. 13, 14. Rom. viii. 23. with the notes upon it. (14) UiirsKT^aL Si, where St *' orationi continuandse inservit," as also in ver. 13 above.— Kai avrog lyw, even I myself Kai, added to pronouns in this way, serves to make the expression more distinct and intense. Here it is as much as to say ' Even I who have thus warned and cautioned you, am persuaded &c.' — Uep\ vjawv, in res- pect to you. — -"On . . . aya^wavvriQ, that you yourselves (icai avToi) are filed with kindness. Koi avroi indicates what I have expressed in the translation, as nearly as our language can express the value of 542 ROMANS XV. 14—17. the Greek phrase. ' Ay a^ioavvrif: I take here to refer to the kind feelings, which the apostle hoped and believed the Roman Christians would cherish towards each other. IlsTrX-qpwfxavoi . . . vov^erelv, abounding in all knowledge, and able to give mutual admonition. The meaning is : ' I am persuaded that ye possess in abundance such Christian knowledge, i. e. such a knowledge of Christian truths and principles, that ye will be able to give such advice and warning as you may mutually need.' (15) ToX/irjporspov . . . vfiaQ, I have written in part the more boldly to you, brethren, as one repeating admonition, i. e. I have written with more freedom than might have been expected from a stranger, when reminding you of the various things which I have urged upon you. 'Atto fiepovg means in some parts of his epistle, i. e. as to some things It seems to qualify eypaxpa — ^Y^TravafxifxviiaKwv, adding to or repeating admonition, or something in the way of reminiscence. Ala Trfv x«ptv . . . ^eov, on account of the favour which was be- stowed upon me by God ; namely, the honour of the apostolic office (comp. Rom. i. 5), which the sequel shows to be the meaning of Xapiv here. (16) Etc TO favai . . . l^vr], that I should be a 7ninister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. Because his office led him to preach the gos- pel to the Gentiles, and to exercise a spiritual watch over them, he had ventured to address the church at Rome with freedom. 'Ispovpyovvra , . . ^tov, performing the office of a priest [in respect to] the gospel of God; i. e. acting a part in respect to the concerns of Christians, not unlike that of a priest among the Jews. — "Iva jivrjTaL . . . ayioj, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being purifed by the Holy Spirit; i. e. that the Gentiles may be oiFered to God, whom as their Xeirovpyog I present, inasmuch as they have been rendered clean, pure, by the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit on their hearts. (17) "E^w ovv . . . ^sov, I hate then cause for glorying, through Jesus Christ as to those things which pertain to God ; i. e. being a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, I have cause for rejoicing, that he has strengthened me and given me success among them, in things pertaining to religion. — Ovv, then, i. e. since God has bestowed such an office upon me. — 'Ev 'yigiari^ 'Irjo-ou may mean through the aid of Christ. Paul had just averred that he was \tiTovpyoQ 'Iij^oi) XpiaTov ; and as such, he may be understood as here intimating that ROMANS XIV. 17—19. 543 Christ had afforded him aid, so as to ensure him success in his em- ployment. That £v often has the meaning of by ot* through, in the sense of ope, auxilio alicujus, there can be no doubt ; e. g. " He casts out demons Iv rtu aQ')^ovTi, by the aid of the prince of demons," Matt. ix. 34. In like manner Iv is used in John xvii. 10. Acts iv. 9. XV. 7. xvii. 28, 31, et ssepe alibi. But Iv X. 'Irjo-ou may also mean, ' I, being in Christ Jesus, viz. as before described, have cause for glorying, etc' (18) Ou yap . . . Ifxov for I will not presume to mention any thing which Christ hath not wrought by me ; i. e. I do not, in saying this, intend to claim any praise by exaggerating my success, or taking to myself credit for what I have not done or for what Christ has not done by me hq viraKorjv ll^vojv, in order to bring the Gentiles to obey the gospel. — Aoytjt Kol ipjM means, by preaching and by other personal effort. VaQ explicantis, i. e. preceding what serves to limit the decla- ration which goes before. The connection seems to be thus : I speak of the glorying in Christ which I may truly have ; for I will not presume to appropriate to myself any praise for what I have not done, or rather, for what Christ has not done by me.' (19) 'Ev ^vvafxu. . .TEparwv, by the influence of signs and wonders, or wonderful signs. In Hebrew, DTOini nini< (usually conjoined) means wonders, signs, or miracles adapted to persuade or enforce belief in the power, providence, veracity, etc., of God. The union o-rjjLtfta KOI ri^ara in the New Testament, is an imitation of this idiom. It may be rendered as a Hendiadys, and the latter noun made an adjective to qualify the former, agreeably to an idiom com- mon both in the Old and New Testament. If rendered signs and wonders, then o-rj/ueiwv means miraculous proofs adapted to impress the mind with conviction, and ri^gara means wonderfid events or oc- currences, adapted to fill the mind with awe. Both together consti- tute a very strong designation of supernatural interposition and im- pressive evidence arising from it. 'Ev ^vvafiu . . . ayiov, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, may refer to the signs and wonders performed by virtue of this influence; and so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, have understood it. But it may also mean the internal influences of the Spirit, e. g. the gift of prophecy, the power of speaking in foreign languages, etc., and so Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, and others have explained it. In this case it is co-ordinate with ^wanu anfxdMv koX repaTwv, not subordinate to it, i. e. not used merely to qualify it. Reiche under- 544 ROMANS XIV. 19, 20. stands it as epexegetical of o-tj/ie^wv koi Teparoyv, which he refers to the internal influences of the Spirit; but general usage is against such an interpretation. On the whole I regard ev dwaixei ttv. ay. as co-ordi7iate with the preceding phrase, and designed to mark the internal spiritual gifts of Christians. "QiOTt fx£ . . . XpifTTovf so that from Jerusalem and around^ even to Illyricum, I have fully declared the gospel of Christ. "QLart fie . . . ir£Tr\r]pu)Kevai is the usual construction of the Infinitive with ware. neTrXtjpwKEvat many interpret as having here the sense of diffusing, spreading abroad ; and this they derive from the sense of JiUing up, which the word commonly has, because, in order to fill up, a diffusion into all parts is necessary. In the like sense the word is said to be employed in Acts v. 28 ; but this is a mistake as the verb is there followed by a noun which designates place, and therefore the verb retains the usual meaning. A real parallel is in Col. i. 25, ttXtjpouv tov Xo-yoi/ ; where the meaning seems to he fully to declare, i. e. to accomplish or complete the declaration of the divine doctrine. The passages quoted by Reiche, from 3 K. i. 14 (Sept.) and I Mace, iv. 19, are inapposite; the first having another sense, and the latter depending on a contested reading. The phrase, in the sense which Paul gives it, appears to be peculiar to him alone, elsewhere it means to fulfil, in the sense of fulfilling a prophetic declaration, &c. Illy- ricum was a province bounded south by Macedonia, west by the Adri- atic, east by a part of the river Danube, and north by a part of Italy and Germany. It corresponds with the modern Croatia and Dal- matia ; and was the extreme boundarj'' of what might be called the Grecian population. The circle of Paul's preaching, then, as here described, reaches from the extreme north-west of the land of the Greeks, to Jerusalem and round about, i. e. it comprehends all Greece in the widest sense of this term, Asia Minor, the Grecian islands, the country between Asia Minor and Jerusalem, and the region around Jerusalem, i. e. Phenicia, Syria, and part of Arabia. Comp. Acts ix. 20. Gal. i. 16, 17. (20) OvTbi . . . olKocofjuo, and was strongly desirous to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named lest I should build on another's foundation. ^iXoTifxovfxtvov is to be constructed with fxi, taken from the preceding verse. The word literally signifies to covet or de- sire as an honour, to regard as honourable, hence the secondary sense, to desire strongly, earnestly to ivish for or to covet. Ovtio must be re- garded as qualifying tvayjiXiKea^ai. Its present position seems to ROMANS XV. 21—24. 545 be for the sake of emphasis. Its correspondent is Ku^iot; in the next verse. I have endeavoured to represent all this in the version and its punctuation ; but it is difficult to do it in a satisfactory manner. As ovTOj is designed to refer to the nuinner of preaching, so the apostle describes this first negatively, by owk ottov k. r. X, then affirmatively by aXXa ku^wq k. r. X. (21) 'AXXa . . . o-uv/jo-oucTf, but, as it is written: They shall see to whom no declaration was made respecting him, and they who have not heard shall understand. The quotation is from Is. lii. 15 ; a passage which seems to have respect to the Messiah's being made known to the heathen. The apostle quotes it here in order to illus- trate and to justify the principle which he had avowed, viz. that of preaching the gospel where it was entirely unknown before. The quotation says as much as to declare, that the gospel shall be thus proclaimed. "0\povTai and (rwijaovai are to be understood as de- signating mental vision and perception ; for this is what the writer intends to designate. (22) Aio KOL . . • vfxag, where/ore I was greatly hindered from coming to you. Atd means, on account of his many and urgent calls to preach elsewhere. Kat is here joined with tvsKOTTTOfirjv to. TToXXa as an intensive, i. e. "sensum^intendit, augmentat." The apostle does not simply say, that he was often hindered or 7nuch hin- dered, eKOTTTOfiriv TO, TToXXa, but Koi iKOTTTOfirjv Ta TToXXfi, / was altogether hindered, i. e. I had such frequent and urgent calls else- where, that it M^as impossible for me to visit Rome as I desired to do. Passow is, so far as I know, the first lexicographer who has done any tolerable justice to the Proteus kuI of the Greeks. (23) Nvvi Se . . . Itmv, but now, having no longer any place i?i these regions, and being desirous for many years to pay you a visit. To- TTov ix^^") ^' ^' li^ving no longer any considerable place, where I have not proclaimed the gospel. (24) 'i2c loiv . . . vixaq, whenever I may go into Spain, I hope, as I pass on, to see you ; i. e. intending to A'isit Spain, he meant to take Rome in his way. 'Eav appears here (as often in the New Test., Sept. and Apocr.), to stand for av. Its use in such a way seems to belong to the later Greek. See Winer, N. T. Gramm. p. 257. ed. 3. Here it qualifies the particle of time, wc- The Subj. mood which follows, is designed to designate a possible or probable action. Had the Indie, been used (as D. E. F. G. exhibit it), then the meaning would be, that the apostle certainly expected, or was resolved to go. 2 M 546 ROMANS XV. 24—28. In the textus receptus, tXtvaofiat irpbg vfxag follows "SiTraviav ; wliicli Griesbacli and Knapp have rejected, as they are not found in Codd. A. C. D. E. F, G., nor in the Syriae, Arabic, or Coptic versions, &c. Whether the apostle did in fact ever make a journey to Spain, is somewhat uncertain. The tradition of the church affirms this ; but not on sure grounds. In case we allow that he was imprisoned a second time at Rome, such a journey is not improbable. Kat . . . iKti, and to he sent on my way thither by you. The apostle here refers to the usual custom of the churches, when the messengers of the gospel departed from them, of sending their elders, &c., to accompany them for some distance on their journey ; comp. Acts XV. 3. xvii. 14, 15. xx. 38. xxi. 5. 'Eov . . . IfiirX^a^w, when I am in part first satisfied with your company. Observe the delicacy of the expression. The apostle does not say IjUTrXrjcr^w, satisfied, but OTTO fxipovg ifxirX-ncT^w, partly satisfied, as though he never could en- joy their society sufficiently to gratify all his desires. (25) Nuvi St ... . ayioig, but noiv I go to Jerusalem to supply the wants of the saints. AiaKOviiv is often used, in the New Testament, to designate the supplying with food and other comforts of life. ' At present,' says the apostle, ' I cannot visit you, as duty calls me in another direction.' (26) Ei/8oKr)(rav ycip . . . 'lepovaaXijin, for it has seemed good to Macedonia and Achaia, to make some contribution for indigent Chris- tians at Jerusalem. Koivioviav, contribution, collatio beneficiorum. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 — 4. 2 Cor. viii. ix. Acts xxi v. 17. (27) EvSoKijaav yap . . . tim, [I say] it has seemed good, for they are truly their debtors. Top Koi ocpuXtTai uvtmv dm, assigns a reason why it seemed good. Kai is here an intensive, truly, really. Dr. Knapp has pointed this verse so as to disturb the sense. The comma should not be after jap, but after ev^oKncrav. El yap assigns a reason why they are debtors. If the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they ought surely to aid them in temporcd things. Kai intensive, in koI iv rote (rapKiKoic. (28) Towro . . . STravmv, now when this duty shall have been dis- charged, and this fruit made sure to them, I shall pass through the midst of you into Spain. Kapirov here means the fniit of the contribution in Macedonia and Achaia, the fruit which their benevolence had pro- duced, ^(ppayiaafxivog, applied to an instrument in writing, means to authenticate it, to make it valid, i. e. sure to answer the purpose for which it was intended. So here, the apostle would not stop short ROMANS XV. 29—33. 547 in the performance of the duty with which he is entrusted as the almoner of the churches, until he had seen the actual distribution of their charity among the indigent saints at Jerusalem ; a fidelity and an activity well worthy of all imitation. (29) OlSa Se . . . eXeixTOfiai, I know, also, that when I come to you, I shall come with the full blessing of the gospel of Christ. 'Yiv KXrjpiofjiaTi evXoyiag, with an abundant blessing ; where the first of the two nouns constitutes the adjective ; comp Heb. Gramm. § 440. b. (30) YlapaKokC} St ... . Xqkjtov, moreover I beseech you, breth- ren, by the Lord Jesus Christ. Ae continuative. — Am 'I»j(row Xptvta-ao-3'at . . . ^z6v, that ye strive together for me, in your prayers to God in my behalf; i. e. that you unite with me in my Christian warfare, helping me by your earnest supplications to God in my behalf. (31)"lva. . . 'lowSaia, that I may be delivered from unbelievers in Judea ; i. e. pray that I may be delivered from the enemies of the gospel in Judea, whither I am going ; for I have reason to expect persecution and injury from them. Kai "iva . . . ayioig, and that my service which is for Jerusalem^ may be acceptable to the saints. AiaKovia means his service in car- rying and distributing the contributions of the Greek churches. It seems rather singular, at first, that he should doubt whether such a charity would be agreeable to indigent churches at Jerusalem. But when we call to mind the violent prejudices of the Jewish Christians, who were zealots for the law of Moses, we may well suppose that some of them would hesitate to come under obligations to Paul, the great champion of opposite opinions, and also to the charity of Gentile Christians, who disregarded the laws of Moses with respect to cere- monial observances. (32) "Iva Iv . . . . vfiiv, so that I may come to you with joy, if God will, and may be refreshed among you. "Iva is here connected in sense with the "iva pva^io k. t. X. of the preceding verse. I'he sense is, « that being delivered, &c., he may come with joy to them, &c.' — Am ^eXrj/uaroc S"£ou, Deo volente. (33) 'O St 3-t6c . . • vpCov, now the God of peace be with you all ; i. e. may God, the author of peace, who bestows happiness, true pros- 2 M 2 MS ROMANS XVI. 1, 2. perity, Dibtf, be with you, i. o. aid you, and bless you. 'A^//i', in the textus 7'ecepfus, is of suspicious authority, and is so noted by Dr. Knapp. CHAP. XVI. The apostle concludes his epistle by various aflfectionate greetings and commendations, 1 — 19. After which he warns the cliurch against those who make divisions and give ■offence among them, i. e. such as practise the contrary of that which he had been enjoin- ing, in the preceding pait of his epistle, vers. 17, 18. He expresses his affectionate desire that they might be kind and simple-hearted, and his wish that the God of peace would give them the victory over the adversary of souls, tlie fomenter of discord among brethren, vers. 19, 20. He then expresses the salutations of several Christian friends and com- panions, who were with him, vers. 21 — 24 ; and concludes with a devout doxology, vers. 25—27. (1) Swv^ffTTjjut St . . . Key-^^pmXg, Now I commend to you Phebe our sister, who is a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. As eon- tinuative. — AtoKovov, i. e. njv ^iukovov, for the Greeks used both «> et 7] ^utKovog. It should be remembered, that in the East women were not permitted to mix in the society of men, as in the western world they are at present. They were kept secluded, for the most part, in a retired room or jwcikhov, to which no stranger could have access. Consequently it became highly important for the church to have al ^iciKovoi as well as o< duiKovoi, in order that the former might look to females who were indigent or sick. Accordingl)'^ M'e find the female deacons more than once adverted to, in the epistle of Paul; comp. 1 Tim. iii. 11. v. 10. Tit. ii. 3. Pliny in his letter to Trajan (x. 97), no doubt refers to the al ^laKovoi in the follow- ing passage : Necessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis quae ministrce dicebantur, &c. Ke-yxpf"'?' Cenchrea, was the eastern port of Corinth ; for Co- rinth itself lay not upon the sea, but had two harbours some four or five miles distant from the city, A'iz. Cenchrea on the east and Lechea •on the west. It would seem that Phebe M'as about to sail from Cen- chrea to Rome, when Paul wrote this epistle ; and it is quite probable that it was sent by her to the church at Rome. The word ^Lhyyjnud is used only in the plural, like 'k^rivai. (2) "Iva . . . ajiwv, that ye may receive her in the Lord, in a manner icorthy of the saints. That the phrase Iv Kv^no) may mean ROMANS XVI. 2—4. 549 heing in the Lord, i. e. being a member of his spiritual body, {comp. 1 Cor. xii. 27. Rom. xii. 5. 1 Cor. x. 17. Eph. i. 22, 23. iv. 12. V. 30. Col. i. 24), the various passages in which it occurs leave no good room for doubt. So the sentiment here may be : ' Receive Phebe who is a Christian, in such a manner as becomes Christians,' i. e. with distinguished kindness and benevolence. But some refer Iv Kvpuo to the church at Rome, and interpret thus : ' Do ye, as united to Christ, receive her worthily of the saints.' I see no way of deter- mining which of these senses is the true one. Both accord with phi- lology, and the nature of the case. I rather incline to the latter, because the sense is facile when we suppose the apostle to say : ' Do ye, who are professed Christians, act worthily of your profession in this matter.' Kat TrapaaTriTE . . . t/iov, and render her assistance in any thing, where she may need it of you ; for she herself has been a helper of many, and especially of me. For the words TrapaorJiTe and 7rpo' vfiiov. — GeXw dl . . . . KOKov, and I wish you to be wise in respect to that which is good, but simple in regard to that which is evil. He means to say, that he desires the Roman Christians not to use their dexterity in order to accomplish selfish ends, like the false teachers among them : but to be willingly accounted simple or simpletons, in regard to doing evil. (20) Geoc Trig eipr)vrig, may God who is the author of peace, or who loves and approves it ! — 'S^wrpiipH, Fut. for Optative, like the Heb. Future. — 'Siaravav, Satan, viz. the malignant accuser of the brethren, and who delights in exciting the evil-minded to discord and division. May God disappoint all his malignant purposes, and pre- serve your harmony and kindly affection ! The language of this wish {(Twrpi-^pti) refers to the prediction in Gen. iii. 15. Xapig here means favour of every kind, like the ci^ oi^tt) of the Hebrews. — 'Ajur;v seems to be spurious. (21) Luke, and Jason, and Sosipater are classed together here as relatives of Paul. If this be Luke the Evangelist, which seems alto- 552 ROMANS XVI. '22—26. gether probable, then it would appear that he must have been of He- brew descent, at least in part ; for Paul was " a Hebrew of the He- brews," i. e. of pure Hebrew descent. Nevertheless, as avyjtvtiq does not mark the degree of relation, we cannot argue from this expression with much confidence. (22) ligrioq 6 ypa\pac, i. e. who was the amanuensis of Paul on the occasion of writing this epistle. (23) 'O ^ivoc juov, my host; i. e. who has received me into his house, and showed me hospitality ; and who shows an extensive hos- pitality to all Christians. — 0. — STrjpt^at, to establish ; viz. in the Christian faith and practice. — Kara to evayyiXiov fiov, in accordance tcith the gospel which I preach, agreeably to the principles of this. — Kai TO Kiipvyiia, even the gospel of Jesus Christ, i. e. even the gos- pel of which Jesus is the author, or which has respect to him. K//- pvyfxa is in apposition with tvuyytXiov ; and the object of Paul is to show by the whole declaration, that the gospel which he preached was the true one. Kara aTroKoXvxpiv .... o-fcrtyrj/xlvou, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept in silence during ancient ages ; i. e. agreeably to the gospel which was not fully revealed in ancient times, but is now brought to light ; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7. Eph. iii. 5, 9. Col. i. 23. Ihis phrase is co-ordinate with Kara to tvayyiXiov above, and is designed for more ample description. (26) Oavtpw^fvroe St . . . Trpo